Owing to the Rye disaster, and the Board of Trade Inquiry which was held on it, the issue of THE LIFEBOAT which should have been published in February has been delayed, as it was felt to be most important that it should contain the full judgment of the Court of Inquiry, and a full treatment of a number of questions to which the disaster gave rise.} IN the last issue of The Lifeboat wag published an account of the terrible tragedy which occurred at Rye Harbour on 15th November last, when the Lifeboat capsized on service with the loss of her whole crew of seventeen men, practically the whole adult male fishing population of the village.

At 6.45 in the morning of that day the Rye Life-boat, which is a Pulling and Sailing Life-boat of the Liverpool Type, was launched with a Crew of seventeen in response to a message that a steamer (a Latvian vessel, Alice) was leaking and in danger, drifting eight miles from Dungeness. A whole gale was blowing from the south-west, with very heavy rain squalls, and a heavy sea. The tide was at low water.

Five minutes after the Life-boat was launched another message came that the crew of the Alice had been rescued by another steamer. The recall signal was fired three times, but no answer came from the Life-boat.

Apparently the Crew had not seen it.

At 10.30 the Life-boat was seen returning under sail. The wind had increased, and there were heavy squalls. As she appeared to be coming in to the harbourmouth with a following sea she was seen to capsize. As quickly as possible helpers gathered on the beach, and every effort was made to help the Crew as they were washed in, but without avail. Six of them were recovered when the Lifeboat was driven ashore, but all were dead. The whole crew had perished.

At the inquest a member of the Committee of the Rye Branch, who had also been out on service in the Life-boat on a number of occasions, made serious criticisms of the life-belts provided by the Institution.

These criticisms were to the effect that the belts were perished, with the result that they quickly became waterlogged, and lost their buoyancy, would weigh down instead of supporting a man in the water, and were likely to choke him.

The Institution at once asked the Board of Trade to hold an inquiry into the whole circumstances of the disaster, and before the inquiry took place the Board of Trade and the Institution independently tested the belts worn by the Rye Life-boatmen.

The Institution's Life-belts.

These belts were of the type known as No. 3. This type was adopted in 1917 because, in the opinion of the Board of Trade, the first belts of kapok (the No. 2 belt), which had superseded the old cork belts in 1906, could not be depended upon, under all conditions, to support an unconscious man with his face clear of the water. Exhaustive experiments were carried out, a new kapok belt was designed -which met the Board of Trade's requirements, and this new belt (No. 3) was issued to all stations. This substitution cost the Institution £9,000.

"Unfortunately, the Crews themselvestook the strongest objection to it. They found it more cumbersome than the old, and some Crews refused to wear it at all.

After repeated but unavailing efforts had been made to induce the Crews to accept the new belt, the Institution felt compelled to place the matter before the Board of Trade, which realised the Institution's difficulty, and eventually approved of a return to the first and more comfortable belt (No. 2) on the clear understanding that it be worn by the men on their own responsibility.

Those men, therefore, who preferred the old belt were allowed to use it. The immediate difficulty was thus removed, but naturally the Institution could not be content to let matters rest at this, and again very careful experiments were carried out. As a result, a third kapok belt was designed in 1920.

It was the first kapok belt (No. 2) with slight modifications, and gave the maximum of security which it was possible to obtain, consistent with that freedom of movement for neck, arms, and diaphragm on which the Crews themselves insisted.

The Crews which had preferred No. 2 were then supplied with this new belt (No. 5). The few Crews, however, which had preferred No. 3 continued to use it. The Rye Harbour Crew were among them. They had been using this belt for three years, and were satisfied with it. This was the belt which the Crew were wearing on the 15th November last, when the boat capsized—the belt specially designed to meet the requirements of the Board of Trade that a belt must be able to support an unconscious man with his face clear of the water under all conditions.

The Court's Judgment.

The Inquiry was held at Rye, and lasted five days. His Honour Judge Cann presided, as Wreck Commissioner, with a Vice-Admiral, a Captain of the Mercantile Marine and a Naval Architect as Assessors. The Court gave its judgment in the form of answers to a series of fourteen questions. This judgment was followed by an additional report in the form of recommendations to the Board of Trade. The fourteen questions and their answers are given in full below. It will be seen from them that the Court found that the Rye Life-boat had been chosen by the Crew after visiting three stations with different types of Life-boat, that she had proved herself a good sea boat on all occasions, and that she had had the full confidence of the Crew.

It found that the life-belts had fulfilled their purpose, and that they were a type approved by the Board of Trade, and chosen by the Rye Crew themselves.

It concluded its report by expressing appreciation of the constant efforts of the Institution to supply Life-boats and equipment of the highest efficiency in consultation with the Coxswains and Crews.

Inquiry into Kapok.

In the additional report to the Board of Trade, the Court suggested that kapok, the material which more than twenty years ago supplanted cork for life-belts—for those in general use in the Mercantile Marine as well as for those specially designed for the Life-boat Service—might not be the most suitable material, and that experiments should be made to see if a better material could be found. As a result of this suggestion the Board of Trade has appointed a Committee further to examine the question, and although the Institution is satisfied that the 1920 pattern belts (No. 5) are thoroughly suitable for the requirements of the Life-boat Service, it will gladly cooperate in any further investigation into the qualities of kapok as a material for providing buoyancy. It will be represented on the Committee by Captain Howard F. J. Rowley, C.B.E., R.N., Chief Inspector of Life-boats.

The Message Recalling the Life-boat.

The Court also made an important recommendation with regard to telegraphic and telephonic messages which are concerned with the work of the Life-boats.

The message to say that the crew of the Alice had been rescued by another vessel reached the Rye Life-boat Station only five minutes after the Life-boat had been launched, but the efforts to recall the Boat failed. The Court of Inquiry found that this message was received by the Ramsgate Coastguard Station from the North Foreland Radio Station at 6.12, and by the Rye Coastguard Station from Ramsgate at 6.50, and that it was then sent immediately to the Life-boat House.

Under the existing regulations—by which priority is given over other telegraphic and telephonic messages to one calling for the services of a Lifeboat, but not to one saying that her services are no longer required—there was, in the opinion of the Court, no undue delay. In its additional report, however, the Court recommended that priority should be given also to messages affecting the Life-boat after she had been launched. As a result of the recommendation the Board of Trade with the concurrence of the General Post Office, has now issued instructions by which priority will be given to messages which may prevent the launching of a Life-boat already called out, or may enable a Life-boat already launched to be recalled. The Committee of Management heartily welcome this decision, which will undoubtedly prove of great value to the Life-boat service, as it will not merely prevent the delay which in this case was a secondary cause of the disaster, but will enable the Life-boats to be at, or return to, their respective stations, mobilised and ready for action, instead of being launched or remaining out when they are not required and when it is possible to recall them.

The Fourteen Questions and Answers.

In the Wreck Commissioner's Court.

TOWN HALL, RYE, Friday, ith January, 1929.

Before His Honour JUDGE CANN (Wreck Commissioner), with Vice-Admiral E. L. BOOTY, C.B., M.V.O., Captain J. GAREIOCK, and E. F.

SPANNER, Esquire, M.I.N.A., Assessors.

In the matter of a Formal Investigation ordered by the Board of Trade into the circumstances attending the capsizing of the Sailing Vessel Mary Stanford (Rye Harbour Life-boat) off Rye Harbour on the 15th day of November, 1928, and the subsequent loss of life.

JUDGMENT.

THE COMMISSIONER : At the conclusion of the evidence, Mr. Wilfred Lewis, on behalf of the Board of Trade, submitted certain Questions for the consideration of the Court. These Questions and the Answers of the Court thereto are as follows :— Question 1: When and by whom was the Sailing Vessel Mary Stanford (Rye Harbour Life-boat) built ? What type of Lifeboat was she ? Answer: She was built in 1916 by S. E.

Saunders, Limited, at East Cowes. She ,was Liverpool type—non-self-righting.

Question 2 : When and in what circumstances was the Sailing Vessel Mary Stanford placed at the Rye Harbour Station ? Was she chosen by the Coxswain and Crew as the type of boat most suitable for the class of work she and they would be called upon to perform ? Was she, in fact, so suitable ? Answer: In May, 1914, the Royal National Life-boat Institution offered a new Lifeboat to the Rye Harbour Life-boat Station, to replace the then existing boat, which was self-righting. At the invitation of the Institution, the then Coxswain and two members of the Crew visited three Life-boat Stations and inspected different types of boat worked under conditions similar to those at Rye Harbour. As the result of this visit, the Crew selected a Liverpool type as most suitable for the class of work she and they would be called upon to perform.

In fact, she was quite suitable.

Question 3 : Did the Sailing Vessel Mary Stanford undergo trials before being put into active service ? If so, what were they and what was the result of such trials ? Answer : The Sailing Vessel Mary Stanford was tested for draught and stability by the builders at East Cowes on 13th April, 1916. These tests were perfectly satisfactory.

She was sailed from East Cowes to Rye by the Crew and was placed on service at Rye on the 19th October, 1916.

On the 25th November, 1916, a test exercise was carried out at Rye under weather conditions that fairly tested the boat.

The result of these trials gave every satisfaction to the Coxswain and Crew of the Boat and the Officials of the Institution.

Question 4 : On how many occasions since she was placed at the Rye Harbour Life-boat Station has the Sailing Vessel Mary Stanford been put to use— (a) On practice ? (6) On active service ? Had she proved herself to be a good sea boat in rough weather upon those occasions or any of them ? Did the Crew at any time express dissatisfaction with the Sailing Vessel Mary Stanford ? Answer : Since the Sailing Vessel Mary Stanford was placed at the Rye Harbour Lifeboat Station she has been put to use :— (a) On practice, 47 times.

(6) On active service, 15 times, exclusive of the occasion of the disaster.

She proved herself to be a good sea boat upon all occasions, several of the services having been rendered under weather conditions similar to those prevailing at the time of the disaster.

The Crew at no time expressed dissatisfaction with the boat; on the contrary, all recorded remarks were highly favourable.

Question 5 : With what type and pattern of life jackets were the members of the Crew of the Sailing Vessel Mary Stanford supplied ? When, and by whom, and for what particular purpose or purposes was this type and pattern of life jacket designed ? Before adopting this type and pattern of life jacket for use by the Crews of Life-boats at the various Stations around the coast, what measures were taken by the Royal National Life-boat Institution, with or without the cooperation of the Board of Trade and their officers, to ensure that they fulfilled the purposes for which they were designed ? Did they fulfil the purpose or purposes for which they were designed ? Answer : The type and pattern of life jackets supplied to the Crew were Kapok Type Pattern No. 3 of the Royal National Life-boat Institution.

This type and pattern was designed by the Royal National Life-boat Institution in consultation with the Board of Trade in the early part of 1917, for the purpose of keeping the head of an unconscious person from falling forward in the water, in addition to the purposes for which the earlier patterns were designed.

Exhaustive experiments were made up to September, 1917, by the Royal National Life-boat Institution, with the co-operation of the Board of Trade and their officers, to ensure that jackets of No. 3 pattern fulfilled the purposes for which they were designed.

Under the conditions of these experiments the belts fulfilled those purposes.

Question 6 : When was this type and pattern of life jacket adopted by the Royal National Life-boat Institution and served out to Life-boat Stations ? Had the Crew of the Rye Harbour Life-boat used this type and pattern of life jacket and expressed their approval of, or satisfaction with it ? Is this type and pattern of life jacket now in general use by members of the Life-boat Crews round the coast ? If not, why were any alterations in the type and pattern of life jacket made ? Were the Board of Trade consulted about the matter, and why were such altered jackets not issued to the Crew of the Rye Harbour Life-boat ? Answer: This type and pattern was adopted by the Royal National Life-boat Institution and served out by them to the Lifeboat Stations in 1917. They were despatched to the Rye Life-boat Station on the 25th September, 1917.

The Crew used and expressed their approval of Pattern No. 3 life jacket after trying it in a heavy gale on the 30th October, 1917, at a service launch ; and on 10th December, 1920, the Crew, in response to an invitation by the Royal National Life-boat Institution, voted by a majority of 11 to 6 to retain Pattern No. 3 life jacket in preference to Pattern No. 2 (Waistcoat Pattern).

This type and pattern of life jacket is not now in general use by members of Life-boat Crews round the coast.

Alterations in the pattern of the life jacket were made owing to numerous complaints from the Crews, on the ground of discomfort and inconvenience, but no complaint was made as to buoyancy.

The Board of Trade were consulted about the matter. The altered jackets were not issued to the Rye Crew because they had expressed their satisfaction with Pattern No. 3.

Question 7 : What was the occasion for the launching of the Sailing Vessel Mary Stanford on the 15th day of November, 1928? Answer : The occasion for the launching of the Sailing Vessel Mary Stanford on the 15th day of November, 1928, was in.

response to a message received from the North Foreland Radio Station at 4.27 A.M. by the Liaison Officer at Ramsgate Coastguard Station, and was received by the Rye Harbour Coastguard Station at 4.50 A.M.

The message was as follows :— " Steamer Alice Riga leaking— danger—drifting S.W. to W. 8 miles from Dungeness 0430." Question 8 : At what time was the Sailing Vessel Mary Stanford launched and what was the state of the tide, force and direction of wind and state of the sea at that time? Answer : The Sailing Vessel Mary Stanford was launched at 6.45 A.M., approximately at low water. The direction of the wind was S.S.W., Force 8 to 10, with a very high, rough, broken sea.

Question 9 : At what time did the information that the Crew of the S.S. Alice had been saved and that the services of the Rye Harbour Life-boat were not required reach the Rye Harbour Life-boat Station ? Was there undue delay in the circumstances in transmitting such information to the Rye Harbour Life-boat Station ? If so, what were the reasons for the delay ? Answer : The information that the Crew of the S.S. Alice had been saved and that the services of the Rye Life-boat were not required was received from the North Foreland Radio Station by the Liaison Officer at the Ramsgate Coastguard Station at 6.12 A.M., and was received by the Rye Coastguard Station at 6.50 A.M., and was immediately transmitted to the Life-boat House.

Under the existing regulations governing the transmission of telephone messages, there was no undue delay in transmitting such information to the Rye Harbour Life-boat Station.

Question 10: When the message was received at the Rye Harbour Life-boat Station, were prompt and proper measures taken to recall the Life-boat ? If so, how was it that she did not at once return to the Harbour ? Answer: Prompt and proper measures were taken to recall the Life-boat, but the recall flag should have been hoisted at daybreak. It is, however, highly improbable that the recall flag would have been seen, if hoisted.

The recall signal was not answered by the Life-boat.

Whether the signal was observed by the Crew and, if so, why they did not answer it, are matters of conjecture.

From the existing atmospheric condi- tions it is probable that the recall signal was not seen.

Question 11 : When and where was the Sailing Vessel Mary Stanford seen by the Mate of the S.S. Halton ? How was she heading at the time ? What sail was she under ? What was the state of the weather and sea and force and direction of the wind at that time ? Answer: The Mary Stanford was first seen by the mate of the S.S. Halton about 9 A.M., and was last seen by him about 9.10 A.M., when the S.S. Halton was approximately W.S.W. 3 miles from Dungeness, and the Life-boat passed under her stern at a distance of about half a mile, heading about West Northerly on the port tack. She had two small lug sails set.

It was then blowing a whole gale from the S.S.W. with a very high sea from the same direction. The sky was overcast with rain squalls.

Question 12 : When and in what position at sea did the Sailing Vessel Mary Stanford capsize ? What was the cause of the Life-boat capsizing and the loss of her Crew of 17 hands ? Answer : The Mary Stanford capsized about 10.30 A.M., when she was about 1| miles S.S.E. from the Rye Coastguard Look- I out Hut.

| As there were no survivors of the | Crew, the cause of the Life-boat capsizing is a matter of conjecture, but from the evidence available we are of opinion that whilst attempting to make the Harbour on a strong flood tide and in a high and dangerous breaking sea, with a gale of wind on her quarter, she suddenly capsized, and the Crew were thrown into the water, two men being entangled under the boat. The broken water and heavy surf caused the loss of the crew.

Question 13 : Was the Life-boat seen to capsize by persons on shore ? If so, was every effort promptly made by those on shore to render all assistance possible and to save the lives of the Crew ? Answer: The Life-boat was seen to capsize by persons on shore.

Every possible effort was promptly made by those on shore and all possible assistance was rendered by every one to save the lives of the Crew.

Question 14: Did the life jackets worn by the members of the Crew fail to fulfil the objects for which they were designed ? Did they cause or contribute to the loss of life ? Answer : Owing to the sea and weather which prevailed, it is impossible to say what happened to the life jackets worn by the members of the Crew from the time when the boat capsized until they reached the shore, or to say how the life jackets functioned. Neither is it possible to say that the life jackets caused or contributed to the loss of life.

The Court having carefully inquired into the circumstances attending the above-mentioned shipping casualty, in the absence of direct evidence, finds, for the reasons stated in the Annex to the Report, that the capsizing of the said vessel and the subsequent loss of life was probably due to the fact that in attempting to make Rye Harbour on a strong flood tide and in a high and dangerous and breaking sea, with a gale of wind on her quarter, she capsized, and the Crew were thrown into the water and drowned.

The Court desires to express its deep sympathy with the relatives and friends of those lost in this very sad disaster.

The Court also desires to express its appreciation of the efforts of the Royal National Life-boat Institution to supply to the Life-boat Stations boats and equipment of the highest efficiency, in consultation with the Coxswains and Crews of the Life-boats and with the co-operation of the Board of Trade.

Messages of Sympathy.

In the last issue were published the messages of sympathy received from the King, as the Institution's supreme Patron, the Prince of Wales, its President, and the Princess Louise, Duchess of Argyll, Patron of the Ladies' Lifeboat Guild. Among the many other messages of sympathy were telegrams or letters from the North and South Holland Life-saving Society, the South Holland Society for Saving the Shipwrecked, the Belgian Minister of Marine, who is the head of the Belgian Life-boat Service, the Commandant of the United States Coastguard, of which the Lifeboat Service in the States forms part, the German Society for Saving the Shipwrecked, the Danish Ministry of Marine, which administers the Danish Service, the Norwegian Society for Saving the Shipwrecked, the Swedish Society for Saving the Shipwrecked, the French Central Society for Saving the Shipwrecked, the Breton Lifesaving Society, the Latvian Life-saving Society, the Naval Attache to the Italian Embassy, the Chief Inspector of H.M. Coastguard, the Shipwrecked Fishermen and Mariners' Royal Benevolent Society, the Imperial Merchant Service Guild, the Co-operative Wholesale Society, the Manchester Branch of the National Union of Seamen, the Norddeutscher Lloyd, owners of the Smyrna, which rescued the crew of the Alice, the Battersea Labour League, the Baden-Powell Sea Scouts of Ghent, and the workpeople of the Earlsheaton Brush Works, at Dewsbury.

To these messages of sympathy from foreign governments and societies at home and abroad have to be added many individual messages, and messages from many of the Institution's own branches.

Memorial Services.

The grief and the sympathy of the Institution's Stations and Financial Branches were shown also in other ways. At Walton - on - the - Naze a memorial service was held on the 25th November, at the Town Hall, conducted by the Ministers of the different churches. Members of the Walton Life-boat Crew were present, and a collection was made on behalf of the Rye Fund.

At Bournemouth, on the day of the funeral, a last tribute to the men of Rye was paid by the Mayor, who is President of the Branch, at a special memorial meeting at the entrance to the pier.

At Eastbourne £100 was raised by a dance in aid of the Rye Fund. At Heckmondwike the Ladies' Life-boat Guild organized a matinee in aid of the Fund, and at Thame a special collection was made for it by the Honorary Secretary of the Branch.

Many other Branches, we know, made special appeals on behalf of the Fund, sending their contributions direct to the Mayor of Rye, and it is only because the particulars have not been sent to the Institution that they are not mentioned here.

At the church at Frant, Tunbridge Wells, a special Service of Intercession was held, at the height of the gale on the night after the Rye disaster, and a collection made for the Institution, while the following Sunday over £21 was collected in the same church for the Rye Fund. At the Red Lantern Cinema, Herne Bay, a Sunday performance, including one of the Institution's films, was given, and £31 was sent to the Institution's funds.

The special contributions received by the Institution towards the pensions for the dependents included £100 from the Cuaard Steamship Company, £2 from a Dutchman, and another £2 which came with the message " Rye ! the men who put ' Safety Last! ' and the wives who seconded them." The Institution also received a copy of a boy's story book, "The Golden Budget for Boys," which came anonymously, but had written on the fly-leaf, in a child's hand, "For one of the little boys of Rye." It was sent to the Mayor of Rye, who gave it to one of the sons of the Coxswain.

Among the letters received was one from " an old Life-boat volunteer who had served nearly fifty years ago in the Rosslare Boat." He wrote how " passionately proud " he always was when he read of the deeds of the men in the Service to which he had once belonged. He had already paid a fine tribute, in an article in the local paper, to the men " who are not servants of the State, but servants of humanity." Another was from an old Rye fisherman in the Brighton workhouse who wrote to the Honorary Secretary, begging that the Brighton Station would send a wreath to the funeral (as, in fact, had already been done).

In these, and in many other ways, Life-boat Branches, Life-boat workers and the general public showed their grief at the disaster, their pride in the men who had given their lives, and their sympathy with the Life-boat Service.

The Seventeen Rye Life-boatmen.

The seventeen men who lost their lives were :— Herbert Head, the Coxswain, and his two sons, James Head and John Head.

Joseph Stonham, the Second Coxswain.

Henry Cutting, the Bowman, and his two brothers, Robert Redvers Cutting and Albert Ernest Cutting.

Charles Frederick David Pope, Robert Henry Pope and Alexander Pope, three brothers.

William Clark and Leslie Clark, brothers.

Maurice James Downey and Arthur Downey, cousins.

Herbert Smith, Walter Igglesden and Charles Southerden.

The Burial.

Fifteen of the seventeen men were buried in the churchyard at Rye Harbour on 20th November. The bodies of the other two, Henry Cutting and John Head, had not then been found.

It was not until nearly three months later that Henry Cutting was washed ashore at Eastbourne, and taken to Rye for burial. John Head has not yet been given up by the sea.

" Rye Harbour seems remote from the homely old town on a hill two miles away, and the hamlet, thinly spread where the marshes meet the lonely shore, was a desolate place in the stormswept days of sorrow last week.* To-day the one street which ends abruptly by * This account is taken from The Times of 21st November.

the coastguard station was thronged with a quiet and slowly-moving gathering of people who had come to pay tribute to the brave who met death when seeking to save others. Most of the men who attended the funeral had the stamp of the sea on their faces. A few were of the village, but the majority had travelled from the ports and towns of the Kent and Sussex coast. Many of the women in the crowd wore black, and carried wreaths or bunches of chrysanthemums. Hundreds of wreaths had been sent to be placed on the grave.

" The fifteen coffins rested this morning in the Sailors' Institute, within sound of a. still restless sea. Each one had for a pall the flag of the Royal National Life-boat Institution, and on the flags white flowers had been laid by the nearest kin of the dead. The words on the cards tied to the wreaths and posies were almost too intimate to be read, though in them there was often a note of pride. At the head of the room other wreaths covered two wooden forms. Union Jacks flew at half-mast outside the Institute.

" The wind which has raged during the gales was still fitful as the mourners assembled for the funeral procession, and flags strained at their halyards, but there was blue in the partly-clouded sky, and cold, wan sunshine on the flat wastes beyond the cottages. At half-past one the coffins were brought out into the street and placed temporarily on a long row of iron trestles.

" The Rye Borough Band, in uniform, with members of the Salvation Army, took up places to lead the procession ; 120 pall bearers, some drawn from the Hastings and other Life-boat Crews, and the others members of the British Legion, stood by the draped coffins ; the sad line of family mourners—a long, extended company, for the dead men were related to nearly every soul in Rye Harbour, and relatives had also come from near and distant towns and villages—was marshalled ; the Hon.

George Colville, Viscount Curzon, M.P., and other representatives of the Lifeboat Organisation, the Latvian Consul- General, the Mayors of Rye and neighbouring towns, General Lloyd, V.C., and representatives of various public bodies, fell in behind, and in the rear came many of those who man the Life-boats of Eastbourne, Newhaven, Deal, Ramsgate, Margate and Worthing, and a strong muster of the British Legion, with eight crepe-topped banners.

" Shortly before 2 o'clock the band played ' Lead, kindly light,' the coffins were raised to the shoulders of the bearers, and the short progress to the I church began. Several thousands of people lined the road or were gathered outside the walls of the burial-ground, and they stood motionless, the men with bared heads, as the dead were carried by. When the church was approached the band played ' Abide with me.' Only the relatives, clergy and official mourners passed into the churchyard.

There was not space for more.

Before the Burial Service was recited, the bodies, one by one, were lowered into the deep, open grave. When the flags were removed, it was seen that each coffin had a brass tablet, on which were inscribed the name, age, and date of death, and the expressive words, ' Died gallantly.' The grave was lined with leaves of laurel and yew.

" The service was conducted by the Rev. Henry Newton, Vicar of Rye Harbour, and the Rev. J. Fowler, vicar of Rye. Among the clergy who assisted were three former Vicars of Rye Harbour.

Following the comforting opening sentences, the 23rd Psalm was read, and the whole gathering sang ' Jesu, Lover of my soul.' Then came the words of committal of the bodies, ' earth to earth, ashes to ashes, dust to dust,' prayers for help for those who mourned, the Collect of the Burial Service, and the Blessing. The banners of the British Legion, which had been dipped, were raised again. For a few minutes there was silence around the grave, while mothers and wives dropped flowers on the coffins. One cry of distress rose above the hush, but the mourners as a company were dry-eyed. Softened pride denied grief demonstrative expression while so many of the Life-boat Service stood around." At this last ceremony the Institution was represented by the Hon. George Colville, Deputy-Chairman of the Committee of Management, Captain the Viscount Curzon, C.B.E., V.D., A.D.C., R.N.V.R., M.P., Mr. George F. Shee, M.A., Secretary of the Institution, Captain Howard F. J. Rowley, C.B.E., R.N., Chief Inspector of Life-boats, Commander Edward D. Drury, O.B.E., R.D., R.N.R., Deputy-Chief Inspector of Life-boats, Captain G. H. Bevan, O.B.E., R.N., Deputy Chief Inspector for Stores, and Commander R. L. Hamer, R.N., Inspector of Life-boats for the Southern District. H.M. Coastguard were represented by Captain A. L.

Strange, Inspector of Coastguard at Hove.

Pensions for the Dependents.

The wives, children and parents wholly dependent on these seventeen men numbered eighteen. They have all been pensioned by the Institution, as if the men were sailors, soldiers or airmen killed in action. The Coxswain ranks as a Chief Petty Officer or Colour Sergeant, the Second Coxswain as a First Class Petty Officer or Sergeant, the Bowman as a Second Class Petty Officer or Corporal, and the Life-boatmen as Seamen or Privates.

These pensions, capitalised, amount to about £6,000, and will be paid out of the general funds of the Institution.

The Mayor of Rye's Fund.

Immediately after the disaster the j Mayor of Rye, who is also the Honorary i Secretary of the Rye Branch of the I Institution, opened a fund for the i dependents. j So generous was the response to the appeal that over £35,000 was very quickly : subscribed, money continuing to come in even after the fund had been closed.

To arrange for the disposal of such a sum to the satisfaction of everyone concerned was not easy, and unfortunately some draft suggestions prepared by the local Trustees (the Mayor, the Town Clerk, the Vicar of Rye, the Vicar of Rye Harbour and Captain E. H. Brookfield, R.N., Honorary Treasurer of the Rye Branch of the Institution) met with some adverse criticism at a public meeting at Rye to which they were submitted.

An Advisory Committee of six was elected at a later meeting, and then, as it was found impossible to come to any agreement, the Trustees and Advisory Committee decided to put the matter before the Charity Commissioners. As a result of the Mayor's interview with the Commissioners, the Trustees and Advisory Committee took Counsel's opinion in order to discover the powers of the Trustees. A scheme put forward on behalf of the dependents for the immediate and final distribution of the money was also submitted to Counsel.

He advised that the Trustees were responsible for the administration of the fund, and that the dependents' scheme was not one which could be adopted. A sub-committee was then appointed to prepare a deed of trust, on the lines suggested by Counsel.

Following this meeting, the Mayor was invited by the Attorney-General to meet him in London, and as a result of this interview the Attorney-General made a statement in the House of Commons on the 20th February. He said that he had formed the opinion that the money subscribed must be treated as a charitable fund, and it was only for that reason that he had taken the responsibility of making suggestions.

His purpose was to see that the whole of the fund was applied as promptly as possible for the sole benefit of the persons concerned. Suggestions had been made for a draft deed or scheme to be prepared.

The scheme was to provide for a wide discretion on the part of those administering the fund to advance capital sums for the benefit and advancement in life of the dependents, besides securing to the parents and the widows a regular income. He had proposed that the scheme should provide for a small committee of men and women resident in the neighbourhood of Rye to advise the Trustee who would be appointed to administer the Fund.

The Institution feels sure that, as a result of the Attorney-General's advice, a scheme will very soon be prepared which will have the approval of all concerned. There are, however, two things which it is important should be clearly understood.

The first is that the Institution is not responsible in any way for the administration of the Fund. The Fund is under the control of the Mayor of Rye and the I other local Trustees, and although the Institution is paying the pensions as already described, it does not regard this fact as giving it any claim to influence the disposal of the Fund.

The second fact which requires to be emphasised is that there is not, and never has been, any possibility of the dependents being in want while a scheme was being prepared for the administration of the Fund. The Institution is now paying the pensions, as described, to the eighteen persons who had been wholly dependent on the Lifeboat Crew, and provision has been made out of the Fund for all those partly as well as wholly dependent, numbering altogether forty-three. From the day of the disaster the Trustees took steps to provide for their immediate needs. The figures of the payments so far made out of the Fund were given by the Attorney-General in the House of Commons. During the thirteen weeks that had passed, the sum of £1,168 had been paid to the families by the Trustees, in addition to £229 for the expenses of the funeral. This is, of course, exclusive of the pensions and allowances paid by the Institution.