RESOLUTION.

HC Deb 28 March 1893 vol 10 cc1359-76

MR. E. H. BAYLEY (Camberwell, N.)

said, that in moving his Resolution calling on the Government to provide an effective lifeboat service at the public expense on the British coasts, he felt that as a new Member he ought not to occupy the time of the House at any great length. But the subject was one of national importance and interest; it was a matter of life and death to thousands in all classes of the population. The great central fact was that 700 persons were annually drowned round the coasts of Great Britain, the greater number of whom might be saved if the Government would adopt the practical and commonsense system of life-saving which was in use by the Government of the United States. The Government recognised and acted upon the principle that it was part of their duty to prevent shipwrecks as far as possible and to assist in the rescue of shipwrecked persons. They provided rocket stations all round the coast and coastguard men to work them. They provided lighthouses, lightships, and buoys. They instructed the Navy to assist ships in distress, and they distributed, through the Board of Trade, medals and other rewards to seamen for effective service in the rescue of life; but they stopped short at the all-important point of providing lifeboats, the reason being that a private Society, well-known as the National Lifeboat Institution, undertook this duty by means of voluntary contributions. There was one obvious objection to this, and that was that it introduced a dual control in the management of the life-saving service, which ought to be under one control and one management. The lifeboat men were under the National Lifeboat Institution, the rocket-men were under the Admiralty, thus introducing confusion, divided responsibility, and mismanagement. There were not sufficient lifeboats provided to do the work efficiently, and the lifeboat men were insufficiently paid. The brave men who did the real work on the stormy seas, rescuing lives at the risk of their own, were the more dissatisfied when they contrasted the miserable pittance which they received with the princely salaries paid to the officers of the Society, who discharged their duties in arm-chairs in London, and it might be—though he did not say it was—that the breakdowns and disasters which occurred in connection with the lifeboat service were not unconnected with this natural feeling of dissatisfaction on the part of the men. He need not refer to the lifeboat scandals which occurred not long ago at Sandgate, Shoreham, Southport and elsewhere, but he would remind the House of what he witnessed himself near Ilfracombe a few years ago. There a vessel was wrecked; there was a lifeboat within a stone's throw, but the crew were stationed at a place seven miles away, and by the time they could be fetched all the people on the vessel were drowned, or had been rescued by people on shore by other means. What was wanted was a unification of the management; the Government had promised they unification of London, but surely a unification which affected the lives of hundreds of people was fully as important as the amalgamation of Metropolitan Governing Bodies. Let them contrast this muddling method with the splendid system which prevailed in the United States. That system saved 80 per cent. more lives than were saved by the voluntary system which preceded it, and which was similar to the present system in this country. All round the coast of America there were lifeboat stations and observatories, and at each station were two lifeboats. The stations wore fitted with all kinds of appliances: beds were provided for the use of the rescued, and there were means for restoring to life the apparently drowned. The captain of the lifeboat was permanently stationed on the spot, and during what was called the "active" season the crew were also kept there, ready to be sent out at a moment's notice. They were constantly drilled, and a high state of efficiency was maintained.

Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,

MR. BAYLEY

continuing, said, he would read a paragraph from a Report by Mr. Sumner I. Kimball, the General Superintendent of the United States' Service, which showed the value of the system. It ran as follows:— How well this purpose is fulfilled has been repeatedly illustrated on occasions of rescue, but never better than in the memorable storm of February 3, 1880, which wrought general ruin and devastation upon the coast of New Jersey, and strewed her shores with wrecks. In the very height of that terrible tempest at the dead of night the crews of three separate stations rescued without mishap the people on four different vessels by means of the apparatus set up and worked in almost utter darkness, the lanterns of the surfmen being so thickly coated with sleet that they emitted only glimmers of light, so feeble that the lines and implements could not be seen. These and the other rescues achieved in the storm excited such public admiration that the State Legislature unanimously passed resolutions commending the skill and bravery of the station crews. Later on the Report proceeded— Next to the success of the service in saving life, that of its efforts in saving property is conspicuous. This is accomplished in getting vessels afloat when stranded, a work in which the surfmen are experts; in extricating them from dangerous situations; in pumping them out when leaking; in running lines between wrecked vessels and tugs when it cannot be done with ordinary boats; in rendering assistance in various ways, and in warning off vessels standing into danger. In the majority of casualties the surfmen succeed in saving the vessels and cargoes without any other aid than that of the ship's crew. The statistics proved that with the type of life oat used in America there were few [...]capsizes and a higher percentage of li[...] saved. It was shown that the service saved in one year 3,068 lives and property worth £1,000,000. Taking the analogy of the Fire Brigade, a Brigade which, in addition to saving a large number of lives saved annually property worth five times its own working expenses, had, he thought, justified its existence. There was only one other extract with which he would trouble the House, and it was the concluding paragraph of the Report on the American system, which read— It must be remembered that, putting; aside entirely the consideration of the value of human life, the system saves many times its cost in property alone, and that it fulfils the functions usually allotted to several different agencies, it rescues the shipwrecked by both the principal methods which human ingenuity has devised for that purpose, and which in some countries are practised separately by two distinct organizations; it furnishes them with the subsequent succour which elsewhere would be afforded by Shipwrecked Mariners' Societies; it nightly patrols the dangerous coasts for the early discovery of wrecks and the hastening of relief, thus increasing the chances of rescue; it places over peculiarly dangerous points upon the rivers and lakes a sentry prepared to send instant relief to those who incautiously or recklessly incur the hazard of capsizing in boats; it annually saves, unaided, hundreds of vessels with their cargoes from total or partial destruction, and assists in saving scores of others; it protects wrecked property after landing from the ravage of the elements and the rapine of plunderers; it, extricates vessels unwarily caught in perilous positions; and it averts numerous disasters by its flashing signals of warning to vessels standing into danger. It had also rendered valuable aid to scientific research, and contributed rare specimens of marine zoology to the National Museum. This was the American system. It was always said that the first duty of a Government was the protection of life. The American system possessed three main features—the protection of life, the protection of property, and the prevention of disasters. It was no part of his case to disparage the National Lifeboat Institution. Otherwise much might be said, especially as to the cost of management and the disparity between the amount paid to the men who did the work and the salaries of the officials. He read extracts from the Society's Reports showing that the life-boatmen, upwards of 3,000 in number, received altogether an average of £5,000 per annum, whereas the Secretary and officials received an average of £5,700 per annum. He was bound to say, in view of the relative value of the services rendered, that that was scarcely a fair apportionment of the rewards. The reports showed that the payment to the London officials of the Society were altogether out of proportion to the sums handed over to the crews of the lifeboats. His contention was that all the work now done voluntarily should be performed by the State. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, who represented 80,000 sailors, had authorised him to state that he would have seconded the Resolution but for the fact that he had been called away from town. He was sorry to find that the President of the Board of Trade seemed to be opposed to the Resolution, for only a few days ago he had stated that he would oppose it, on the ground that the work could not be managed by the State so well as by a private Society. But if this were really his opinion, why did he not hand over the rocket apparatus to a private Society? The right hon. Gentleman had been promptly answered by no less an authority than the Prince of Wales, who said that the Lifeboat Institution was short of funds and required some £20,000 a year more than it was now receiving to do its work efficiently. He was afraid that some Liberal statesmen were not so Progressive on these social questions as some of the Conservatives. The right Hon. Gentleman might thwart this proposal for a time, but he predicted that sooner or later, and perhaps sooner rather than later, this plan would be adopted, and the country would have, for the salvage of life and property, a national system worthy of the greatest maritime Power in the world.

MR. CROSFIELD (Liverpool)

said, the Mover of the Resolution had shown in an admirable manner how his scheme could be carried out. As a citizen of the first seaport in the country he was painfully familiar with the many dangers to which a very large proportion of the seafaring population of his native town were subject, and as a member of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board he knew something of the difficulties in carrying on a lifeboat establishment. That Board, which was entrusted with the serious responsibility of life-saving from the dangers of the sea, had hitherto pursued that work with even a lavish liberality, feeling that all that money and organisation could do should be done. But he was bound to say that the efforts of even so powerful a Body had on more than one occasion met with disastrous failure. This need not, he thought, be the case, but it unfortunately happened that they had to rely upon a portion of the population who sometimes failed in the hour of need. He would not for a moment disparage the heroic spirit which many of our lifeboat men showed, but they were only mortals and the very nature of their every-day avocation rendered them liable to temptations before which they sometimes fell, so that when the moment of great stress came it had been more than once found that the men were not ready for their work. There was in that portion of the population the necessary disqualification that the severe drill under which such men ought to live was not at all times possible. If this Resolution were adopted, he believed a Department of the Government might maintain a staff of men who would not be liable to these disqualifications. There were many men, such as they saw in the Coastguard Service, who might be available for lifeboat service, but he did not think that any Society or individual could possibly maintain the service, which was absolutely necessary. He had no mandate from the Mersey Docks Board, but he had on many occasions been present when discussions on this subject had taken place, and he ventured to give it as his own individual opinion that the Board would readily hand over to a Department of the Government the appliances which they at present maintained in as good a state of efficiency as any similar establishment within the four seas. They had no temptation to surrender their responsibility to any private Society; but any such Organisation which would deserve the name of national would meet with their very hearty sympathy and very ready concurrence. He hoped that the result of the Debate would show that the Board of Trade would freely, in the interests of a very large portion of the population, undertake the serious but necessary duty which was foreshadowed in the Resolution.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That, in the opinion of this House, it is incumbent upon the Government to provide at the public expense an effective lifeboat service on the coasts of the United Kingdom."—(Mr. Edward H. Bayley.")

MR. PENROSE FITZGERALD (Cambridge)

said that, although the Mover of the Resolution stated he did not desire to rebuke in any way, or find fault with, the management of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, he maintained that the whole tenour of the speech of the hon. Member, and also the whole tenour of the speech of the hon. Member who seconded the Resolution, implied a grave dereliction of duty on the part of the Institution of which be was the humble representative in the House. It was not in accordance with prudence that they should have the lifeboat service placed under a Government Department. He maintained the work could not be done under a Government Department as economically as it was done by the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, and he doubted whether it could be performed so effectively. The Institution was of a very considerable age; it was one that deserved well of the people of the country for the good work it had done in the past, and he did not think that by a side-wind—by the adoption of such a Resolution as that before the House—it would be wise or prudent—he would go further, and say just—for the House to condemn the work voluntarily done without pay by the men who managed the Royal National Lifeboat Institution. He would read a list of the Englishmen who were the principal managers of that Institution. The committee of management was large and comprehensive, and of course it contained many distinguished persons, who, except on great occasions, did not take an immediate part in the work of the Institution, but the working portion of the committee consisted of Admirals and Post Captains who had retired from the Service of their country by reason of the Age Rule in the Navy; and, in addition to these, Board of Trade representatives and Trinity House representatives. The Chairman of the committee was unfortunately not in the House now, to the regret, he thought, of probably every hon. Member—politics aside—who admired Sir Edward Birkbeck for the good work he had done in the Royal National Lifeboat Institution. The names of working members of the committee were—Sir Edward Birkbeck, Colonel Fitzroy Clayton, Robert Birkbeck, L. T. Cane, Admiral Sir John Corbett, General the Right Hon. Lord de Ros, R. U. Penrose Fitzgerald, M.P., Admiral Sir Richard Vesey Hamilton, William Hearle Lyall, Admiral Sir F. Leopold McClintock, Admiral Sir Augustus Phillimore, Earl Waldegrave, Captain Sir J. Sydney Webb, Sir Richard Henry Williams-Bulkeley, and Sir Allen Young. The main committee was divided into several sub-committees, which looked after finance, boat-building, and rewards. The Institution was founded in 1824, now 69 years ago; up to the 31st December, 1892, it had saved 37,265 lives—not a bad record; and the amount of money it had received during the same period was £1,855,109. The only nation in the world which had its lifeboat service controlled by a Government Department was the United States. All the nations of Europe had more or less followed the example set by the Royal National Lifeboat Institution of England. If time allowed him to enter on a comparison between the work done by that Institution and the work performed by the State-aided service of America, it would be found that the advantage lay with the voluntary efforts of England; and he hoped the House would never deprive England of the honour and the right to spend her money and to risk the lives of her people in saving lives from shipwrecks, because, while the rich spent their money to aid the Institution, the fishermen of our coasts voluntarily risked their lives in the good work. He should like to point out to the House the expense involved by the proposal to man the lifeboat service with the men of the Royal Navy, or even by the Coastguards or Reserves. There were 304 lifeboats along our coasts, and the boats contained, each, eight or 12 oars, so that they should have at each of the stations from eight to 12 men continuously employed, whereas under the system adopted by the Institution they got the fishermen, coastguards, trawlers, and the men who attended the ships in the roadsteads to man the lifeboats, and only paid for services rendered, a larger award being given in cases in which life was saved than in cases in which there was no saving of life. The men were taken out for training, and the boats were overhauled at least four times a year, and very much oftener. In every particular cove, or landing place or slip, the fishermen were best acquainted with the narrows, the channels, and the dangers of the tides, and if for no other reason, it would be foolish to deprive the lifeboat service of these men with their local knowledge; to place the service under the red-tape of the Admiralty, which would fill it with men drafted from all parts of the country, who could not be so well acquainted with the local dangers of the coasts as the fishermen who passed over them day after day and night after night. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Resolution was wrong in stating that the rocket life-saving apparatus was under Trinity House; it was under the Admiralty, and was worked by the coastguards. His contention was that both services—the lifeboat and the rocket—were necessary; for at the very moment the lifeboat crew were out to a ship in distress, the coastguard men would be engaged in looking after wreckage coming ashore in the storm. It might not be generally known that, practically speaking, the only place where it was possible to use the lifeboat was where there was shallow water; and outlying dangers of sands and rocks. The lifeboat was practically useless on iron-bound coasts where the water came smack up to the rocks. It was in the latter case that the benefit of the rocket system was experienced. Of course, if telegraph communication were established between the various lightships and the shore, the lifeboat service would be improved to an enormous extent. He wished to tell the House what had occurred at the wreck of The Chicago, which was recently wrecked off the coast of Cork. The cargo consisted of a large quantity of spirits and some bacon and cotton. The men of the coastguard station were fully occupied in looking after the cargo washed ashore; and if the manning of the lifeboat had depended on the coastguards, it would have been im- possible to send the lifeboat to the vessel. The lifeboat did go to the vessel, but its services were not necessary. But the lights which were lit on shore by the persons protecting the wreckage deceived a ship called the Vandor, and she came on shore straight under the rocks. Fortunately, there was an efficient brigade with the rocket service at the coastguard station, and they were on the spot in 10 minutes; in 19 minutes the rocket apparatus was working, and before 40 minutes every soul on the wreck was safe on shore. It would he a pity if the House, by the adoption of the Resolution, determined to spoil the two magnificent services of the lifeboats and the rockets for the sake of a sentiment, not well-founded nor widely entertained, that the work of both should be performed by the men of the Royal Navy or the coastguards. The Royal National Lifeboat Institution looked to the public for support on account of the good work it had done in the past. He was well aware that such an Institution, administering some £70,000 or £80,000 per annum, was exposed to attacks from many quarters, but principally from un-susscesful inventors of life-saving apparatus. But no Government Department was secure from such attacks, and the National Lifeboat Institution had to meet and repel them just as the Government Departments. One of their chief difficulties was in testing and trying the apparatus submitted to them by inventors. The hon. Member who moved the Resolution spoke of the boats of the Institution as not being of the best type. That opened a very large question. There were no two points on the coasts of these islands where the same type of boat could be used. There were no two tide ways, no two sots of shores, no two currents that were exactly the same; nay, further, there were no two sets of fishermen who used the same class of boat; and, therefore, what the Institution had got to do was to place it in the power of each local committee—who worked for nothing but for the love of the cause, and without red tape; who were not attacked from one side or other of the House, because they were in or out of Office, for they were of all shades of politics—to procure the best type of boat best suited for each particular locality. Marine science and architecture had made enormous strides in the last few years, and the Institution had endeavoured to the best of its ability to keep step with those strides in the improvement of the lifeboats. Last year the Institution had held at Lowestoft a series of competitive trials. Coxswains were selected from the lifeboat stations in all parts of England, and wont to Lowestoft. Four types of lifeboat competed, and for months the committee waited for adverse currents of wind and storms in order to thoroughly test the boats. The coxswains were allowed to select the type of boat they thought best for each individual district; and as soon as funds permitted, the Institution intended to send to each of the districts the boat most efficient for the district, and the boat in which the men would have the most confidence. But the Institution was not satisfied that the lifeboats had been sufficiently tested, so that they started at Montrose in the winter a second series of trials. Coxswains were again brought from all parts of the United Kingdom. They came from Teignmouth, Port Isaac, Holy Island, Scarborough, Penmon, Skegness, and Boulmer. These trials of four different types of lifeboat had only concluded that evening, and, therefore, the report of the committee had not yet been received. In addition to these types of boats, a steam lifeboat had been started by the Institution. He confessed that as an old-fashioned seafaring man he had been intensely opposed to the steam launches, and had done his best to prevent the money of the Institution from being spent in such an adventure. But he had seen the steam launch tried, and he could assure the House that from first to last she was a complete success. He believed that the time was not far distant when they would have at most of the important lifeboat stations a steam lifeboat, propelled by the turbine system, but not by screws. It was quite true that America had its lifeboat service under Government control, and that they had in America signals for warning vessels off shoals. But he knew something of American lighthouses, their lightships and buoyage, and he contended that they could not compare in excellence with the lighthouses, lightships, and buoyage of the United Kingdom. He had no doubt that if marine invention proceeded at the same rate at which it had advanced in the past, they would have sound signals which, used in the lighthouses and lightships, would be as useful as the fog-horn on board ship. He looked with confidence to the President of the Board of Trade, for he knew the interest the right hon. Gentleman took in these matters. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to melt the stony heart of the Secretary to the Treasury to provide the necessary cash to establish telegraphic communication direct between the lifeboat stations and the lightships, so that in the case of a wreck it would be known exactly where to send the lifeboats, instead of letting them, wander wildly about at sea. He wished to impress on the Government the importance of establishing this communication by submarine cable, in the interest of the lifeboat service. In conclusion, he appealed to the House not to cast a slight upon the Royal National Lifeboat Institution by the adoption of the Resolution. The Institution had endeavoured to do all the good it was in its power to do with the funds entrusted to it by the nation, and he hoped the House would never attempt to dam up the contributions of Englishmen and women for the purpose of saving life through the agency of the Institution which he had the honour to represent.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)

said, he wished to add his testimony in favour of the work done by the Royal National Lifeboat Institution. It was a mistake to suppose that every part of our coast was suitable for lifeboats. In those parts where the deep water came right up to the shore vessels were in no danger of grounding until they reached the shore; but where there wore outlying sands, such as the Goodwins, the lifeboats were required to reach the vessels outside. Local knowledge on the part of those who used the lifeboats was absolutely necessary, and it was quite impossible for the men of the Royal Navy to have that local knowledge and aptitude that wore always possessed by the local fishermen. Again, there were different types of boats used which required special handling that only could be obtained by the boatmen who used them from their youth up, and it would not be proper to dislodge these men from the lifeboat service in favour of those who had not been so trained. He thought that, perhaps, a contribution might be made by the Government towards the lifeboat services and the rocket apparatus service, and other matters connected with the service to ships in danger. Large sums were levied off ships in the shape of dues, but they largely went not to the Trinity House but to some clerks in Whitehall. He had interviewed Trinity House with respect to the provision of a new lightship, and they told him it was impossible to entertain the application, because they had not enough money for the purpose from the Board of Trade. He hoped the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Mundella) would take the question into consideration, and that the House would not do anything that would remove lifeboat work from the National Lifeboat Institution, which was specially qualified to carry it out efficiently.

THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. MUNDELLA,) Sheffield, Brightside

The Mover and Seconder of this Motion have referred to America as an example of what we ought to follow in England. I should be sorry to say a word in derogation of the life-saving apparatus in operation in the United States. The coastline covered, as compared which ours, is enormous, and they expend something like £100,000 a year in maintaining a staff at every station, and keeping up the life-saving apparatus; compare that with what is done upon our small coast, and I cannot think there is any doubt that the work done on the coast of the United Kingdom is infinitely more efficient, more effective, and that the proportion of lifeboats to the extent of coast is much greater in this country than in any other country in the world. The hon. Gentleman the Mover of the Resolution said you would have a staff of men always attached to the boats and paid by the Government for constant attendance. What the United States complained of was that they were constantly losing their men, who left the localities in order to obtain more remunerative employment. Neither the Mover nor the Seconder have ventured to allege that the service performed by the National Lifeboat Institution is inefficient or insufficient. If it could be alleged there was loss of life through the lack of life-saving apparatus, or that the lifeboat service was insufficient or inefficient, there would be some claim for the Government to step in and do the work, but no one has attempted to make that statement. I did not hear anything from the Mover or Seconder in that direction. My hon. Friend the Mover of the Resolution was most anxious not to say a word against the work done by the National Lifeboat Institution. That work has been steadily growing from the date of its foundation up to to-day, and last year the service rendered was greater than in any former year; the expenditure was over £80,000, the number of lives saved was 1,026, I believe, and not a single member of any one of the crews was lost during the whole of that service. That shows the efficiency of the service, to say nothing of the number of ships that were saved, and the crews of which were assisted. It shows the greatest efficiency on the part of the National Lifeboat Institution. I would like to ask the House, Is the luxury of doing good to be left exclusively to Government Departments; are we to do nothing either in the way of benevolence, or heroism, or of good service to the nation except through a Government Department? Is the Government to become a special providence for everyone? I venture to say, with respect to the National Lifeboat Institution, there is not an Institution in the whole of the United Kingdom that has more right to be called a National Institution than this. The whole of the people of these islands are entirely in sympathy with the work of this Institution. There is a growing interest in this work, as is seen from such movements as the "Lifeboat Saturday" and the "Lifeboat Sunday" collections, and the dwellers in the towns take the deepest interest in the lifeboats sent from their own neighbourhoods, and maintained at the expense of a particular neighbourhood, and certainly it is a good thing there should be this sympathy between the dwellers of the town and the seafaring population. I do not know whether the Mover and Seconder have thought of the fact that it is most desirable that the crews who man the lifeboats and render these great services should be residents on the spot and know all the intricacies and danger of the coast. That is one of the most important things—that the men should be resident; and as they are mostly fishermen or seamen resident on the spot, they are acquainted with their part of the coast, and know all the dangers they have to contend against. The Mover of the Resolution asked, as we are believers in the voluntary system, why do we not hand over the rocket apparatus to the lifeboat crows? There is a very good reason for that. This apparatus has to be manned by men who have special experience, and who have been drilled and trained for the work; it requires men who know exactly how to handle the rocket apparatus, who can throw the line, and take advantage of all the machinery, so that their services may be utilised to the uttermost. They are mainly coastguard men, and even with their voluntary' service the cost comes to something like £50,000 a year, which falls upon the Board of Trade. In addition, there are the life line and patent ladder apparatus, which have rendered good service in the past year, 398 lives having been saved, according to the last Return, by this apparatus. I ask the House whether it thinks it is so easy a matter to go to the Treasury constantly for money, and I want to know whether a Government Department would evoke all the sympathy and all the heroism which has been evoked by this National Lifeboat Institution? Every hon. Member of this House, and every person in England, from time to time reads the thrilling story of the noble services these men render. It is not merely the question of the expenditure of the National Lifeboat Institution, but the men are stimulated by the honour conferred upon them by the presentation of the gold or silver medal, and by the good opinion of the country at their efforts to save life. I must ask the House to pause before it ventures to interfere with this excellent work. There are other Institutions that do a noble work, and we are glad to welcome them. For instance, there is the Royal Humane Society and the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children has done a work which this House, with all its legislation, has not been able to accomplish, and which could not be accomplished unless we had the voluntary and national support of the people behind, and I trust we shall at least leave something to be done by national generosity and benevolence. The hon. Gentleman who moved the rejection of this Resolution, the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Penrose FitzGerald), made an appeal to be with respect to the electric communication with lightships from the shore and the rock lighthouses. I believe my right hon. Friend the Postmaster General (Mr. Arnold Morley) is connecting the lightships with the shore by electric telegraphy all round the coast, and both as to the lightships and the rock lighthouses I am sure we shall heartily co-operate in the work, as we desire to see it as perfect as the hon. Gentleman himself. We have a Committee now sitting composed of three members of the Royal Commission, one representing Trinity House, one representing the Board of Trade, and the other representing the Post Office. We are anxious that the work shall be done thoroughly, and that Committee will report upon the best means of carrying it out. We think the work can be more economically and more efficiently done by the Post Office than by outside contractors. I do not know that I can add anything more to what has been said. I can only hope that after having ventilated the question my hon. Friend will not put the House to the trouble of a Division, but will be content to allow those who are doing the work to continue it. If the work was done insufficiently or inefficiently you might come and insist upon the Government stepping in. I do not agree with the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman opposite that because we have given funds there must be Government control. Let the National Lifeboat Institution do its work, and if more has to be done let us do our own work, and I trust that, both combined, there will be nothing lacking to make everything as complete as possible for the saving of life on our coasts.

MR. A. C. MORTON (Peterborough)

wished to call attention to one point. It was said there had not been occasions when it was found the lifeboat was inefficient. He remembered there was a case near Liverpool, not so long ago, when it was found the Lifeboat Service was not strong enough, and not able to get out to vessels in distress. He remembered having a conversation at the time with the President of the Board of Trade of the late Government, and the right hon. Gentleman went so far as to say that more assistance in the shape of tug boats was required to get the lifeboat out than was available. Everyone would acknowledge that the National Lifeboat Institution was doing a good work, and probably were doing all they could, but he thought it would be absurd to say they were doing all that was wanted, and he thought it was equally absurd to say that they were necessarily better as a voluntary institution than they would be if they became a public institution. Would any hon. Member say that the Fire Brigades were ruined because it had been found necessary to put them under a public authority? The Voluntary Fire Brigade did good work, and in some places did good work now, but it was felt they could not do the work necessary, and therefore a public authority had to take upon themselves the duty of doing the work properly. He should be sorry to interfere with the National Lifeboat Institution, but he thought in some way further assistance was required to complete the work. He was glad the Government were going to do something in the shape of electric communication between the shore and the lightships and the rock lighthouses, and he should also have been glad if the Government were able further to assist the National Lifeboat Institution, if they were not able to take the work in hand themselves. He thought also that without any great expense ships belonging to our Navy might often render service to the National Lifeboat Institution. With regard to America, there of course they had a much larger amount of coast to look after, but he was informed that the American rescue service was much more efficient than ours. [Mr. MUNDELLA dissented.] It was all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to shake his head, but he was informed on very good authority that the American service was more complete than ours for the reason that they spent more money upon it, and if it was required he could produce evidence to establish this. He believed in voluntary work as much as any one, and they did a good deal of it in this country, but there were occasions when it was necessary the work should be done by some stronger and better off authority than voluntary effort. He did not know whether his hon. Friend intended to go to a Division, but if he did he would vote with him. They knew there were occasions when all that was required could not be done by voluntary effort, and oven at this late hour he trusted the Government would consider whether something could not be done to help this Institution and make it as complete as their excellent sailors had a right to demand at the hands of the Government of the country.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 67; Noes 108.—(Division List, No. 52.)