Wreck Report for 'Isis', 'William Thrift' and 'Secret', 1882

Robert Hook "saviour of more than two
hundred lives" -
illustration from The Graphic (1883)

On 28 October 1882 the Isis, William Thrift, Secret and other vessels were wrecked with great loss of life in the neighbourhood of Lowestoft during a heavy storm. The crew of the Lowestoft lifeboat 'Samuel Plimsoll' did not immediately launch their vessel to undertake a rescue, but Hook and his crew were eventually induced to launch their lifeboat and rescued 17 men. Their reluctance to launch was because they felt they had not been fairly treated during an incident earlier in the year when they had not been able to effect the rescue of a distressed fishing smack; however, a lifeboat from nearby Pakefield had managed to reach it resulting in the Lowestoft crew not getting their full pay allowance, which caused bitter resentment.

Hook was coxswain when on 14 November 1882, 25 men of the Lowestoft lifeboat rescued the eight-man crew of the barque Berthon following which each lifeboatman was awarded a silver medal as a reward for their bravery.

As coxswain during the incidents that had occurred on the evening of 28 October 1882, Hook was called before a Board of Inquiry held at Lowestoft on 13 to 16 December 1882 to explain why he was serving customers at his inn at the time the ships were being wrecked. He was questioned as to why the Lowestoft lifeboat did not proceed to render assistance to the Isis and other vessels before 11.30 p.m. on that day and then only after Hook had been confronted about the matter and after he and the crew had been offered a financial inducement to do so. In a scathing report, the Inquiry said of Hook: "...we are told that he has since then gone out, I think, on four separate occasions, and rendered good service in the saving of life. It cannot, however, be denied that Hook's conduct on and before the 28th of October in taking part with the beachmen has resulted in a great loss of life." 

In 1883, Hook was dismissed from the service -- amid much controversy for failing to launch the lifeboat on 28 October 1882 when over 22 people died-- having served 39 years with the RNLI at Lowestoft - 30 of them as coxswain.

For those who love reading about the Board of Inquiry, the full text of the report is reprinted below.

Wreck Report for 'Isis', 'William Thrift' and 'Secret', 1882

 

Description:     Board of Trade Wreck Report for 'Isis', 'William Thrift' and 'Secret', 1882

Creator:           Board of Trade

Date:                1882

Inquiry as to why Assistance was not promptly afforded to the "Isis," "William Thrift," "Secret" and other Vessels wrecked in the neighbourhood of Lowestoft on the evening of the 28th of October last.

This was a supplementary inquiry to the inquiries which had been ordered in the cases of the "Isis," "William Thrift," and "Secret," and was instituted with a view to ascertain why it was that assistance had not been promptly afforded to these and other vessels which were wrecked in the immediate neighbourhood of Lowestoft on the evening of the 28th of October last. The case was heard at Lowestoft on the 13th, 14th, 15th, and 16th December 1882, when Mr. Mansel Jones and Mr. Howard Smith appeared for the Board of Trade, Mr. Simms Reeve for the Great Eastern Railway Company, the owners of the Lowestoft Harbour Tugs, Mr. Preston, junior, for the coxswain of the Lowestoft Lifeboat, Mr. Woods for the coxswain of the Pakefield Lifeboat, and Mr. Warman, the acting honorary secretary of the Pakefield Branch of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, on his own behalf. Captain Nepean, the Inspector of the Hull District of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, was present, but was not represented by either counsel or solicitor. Eighteen witnesses having been produced by the Board of Trade and examined, Mr. Mansel Jones handed in a statement of the questions upon which the Board of Trade desired the opinion of the Court Mr. Simms Reeve and Mr. Preston were then heard on behalf of their respective parties, and Mr. Mansel Jones having replied for the Board of Trade, the Court proceeded to give judgment on the questions on which its opinion had been asked. The circumstances of the case are as follows:

From the returns with which we have been favoured by Mr. Balfour, the Receiver of Wreck at Lowestoft, it appears that on Saturday evening of 28th of October last, 16 vessels were wrecked in the immediate vicinity of that place; the first of them came ashore at about 5 p.m., and between that hour and half-past 8 p.m. ten more were wrecked, most if not all of them showing signals of distress. We are further told that from these vessels 18 persons were saved by lines from the ship to the shore, 28 by the rocket apparatus, and 17 by the lifeboat. The loss of life, however, was very great, 22 having been known to have perished, besides the whole of the crew of a foreign vessel called the "Anna," and possibly also that of a schooner name unknown. With a view, then, to ascertain how it was that so great a loss of life occurred, the Board of Trade have selected three cases for inquiry, the "Isis," the "William Thrift," and the "Secret." The first of these, the "Isis," went ashore at about 7.30 p.m. on the South Beach, and out of her crew of seven hands three were drowned, one was saved by a life-buoy, two were rescued by the rocket apparatus, and one by the lifeboat. The second, the "William Thrift," went ashore at about 8 p.m. on Pakefield Beach, and all her crew were rescued by the rocket apparatus. The third vessel, the "Secret," struck at about 8.30 p.m. on the Newcome Sand, whence she drifted to Kessingland Beach, and of her crew of 13 hands only one was saved. Into the circumstances under which these vessels were stranded and lost we have already inquired, and what we have now to do is to ascertain why so much delay occurred in sending assistance to the unfortunate men who were on board these vessels, and how it was that so many of them were drowned.

And the first question upon which our opinion has been asked is, "What " was the reason, when signals of distress were exhibited from vessels in " Lowestoft Roads on the afternoon and evening of the 28th October last, " that the Lowestoft lifeboat did not proceed to render assistance to the " 'Isis' and other vessels before 11.30 p.m. on that day?" It seems that there are at Lowestoft two lifeboats, both belonging to the Royal National Lifeboat Institution. They are under the control of the local committee, consisting of a number of gentlemen resident on the spot. At page 7 of the Instructions for the management of the lifeboat stations issued by the parent society it is said that "the honorary secretary of the local branch of the institution is invariably looked on as the sole representative in his locality both " of the parent institution and of the local committee, and accordingly the " correspondence with the parent body is always conducted through him, " and the general control of the lifeboat establishment committed to him, " subject, of course, to the approval of his own committee at their quarterly " meetings and on other occasions." We are told, however, that the local branch was in existence before the parent institution, and accordingly, when it was affiliated to the parent body, it was agreed that the same regulations which had been in existence before the union should be continued, and that the duties usually belonging to the office of honorary secretary should be divided between an honorary secretary and an honorary superintendent; the honorary secretary, who is not a nautical man, taking the duties relating to the finance and office work, and the honorary superintendent, who had formerly been the chief officer of the coastguard at this place, having the management of the lifeboat. At the time of the occurrences which form the subject of this inquiry, Mr. Frederick Morse was the honorary secretary, and Mr. John Henderson the honorary superintendent. We are not prepared to say that there is any objection to this division of the duties of the honorary secretary, it having been done with the entire sanction both of the local committee and of the parent institution.

As regards the larger lifeboat, or lifeboat No. 1, as it is called, with which alone we have to do in this inquiry, the care of it is entrusted to a coxswain, whose duty it is to keep her in a state of cleanliness and efficiency, and who, immediately on an intimation of a wreck, or that there is a vessel in distress, is required to use his utmost exertions to assemble his crew, launch his boat, and go to her assistance. Robert Hook was at the time the coxswain, and he received the sum of 8l. a year for his services. As regards the crew, it seems to have been the practice, or perhaps we ought to say the privilege, of certain persons, called beachmen, to man her. These beachmen belong to two companies, the old and the new company, the former containing about 100 to 120 members, the latter something less, and they claimed to have the right to man the lifeboat to the exclusion of all others.

I must now go back to the 7th of March in the present year, when a small fishing smack, called the "Alert," got on the Newcome Sand, and flares having been exhibited, a yawl, manned by some of the beachmen, put off from the North Beach to go to her assistance, but on getting near the vessel they found it impossible to board her, and accordingly they returned to the shore, got out the lifeboat, and proceeded towards her. In the meantime, however, the lifeboat from Pakefield had gone out, arrived before them, and, having succeeded in getting the "Alert" off, received a salvage award of 105l. for their services. The Lowestoft lifeboat accordingly returned to the shore, and T on subsequently sending in an application to the local committee for the usual allowance for going out to a wreck, the committee had the coxswains of the Pakefield and Lowestoft lifeboats before them, and they then came to the conclusion that they would not be justified in recommending the full allowance for the service in question, but that they should receive the same remuneration as when the boat is taken out for exercise. I should here observe that by the 19th regulation it is provided that, when the lifeboat goes out, each of the crew is to receive the sum of 10s. if the service is rendered in the daytime, and 1£1. if at night, and that for every time of going afloat for exercise they are to be paid 4s. each. On the recommendation of the local committee being received, it was approved by the parent association, and a sum of 3£. 16s., or 4s. a head, in addition to the 5£. which is always paid for launching the boat, was sent down to be distributed amongst the men. On its being tendered to them, however, the men refused it; and it was thereupon sent back again to the parent society. The result was that so strong a feeling of dissatisfaction was created amongst the beachmen, that when it became necessary in July following to haul the boat into its house, in accordance with the usual practice, the men refused to do it. Mr. Henderson, the honorary superintendent, finding that the men would not baul the boat up, then ordered Hook to employ a Mr. Sparham, a carpenter in the town, to do it; and this was accordingly done. On the 15th of September following, Captain Nepean, Inspector of Lifeboats for the district in which Lowestoft is situated, came there in the ordinary discharge of his duty, examined the boat, and found it in excellent condition; and he directed that she should be hauled down the beach on the 1st of October following, so as to be ready for launching, when the bad weather recommenced. There was very little remaining to be done to the boat when Captain Nepean examined it, and there is no pretence for saying that she might not, had the men been willing, have been hauled down to the beach by the 1st October. Mr. Henderson it seems was at that time in some family trouble, and, probably in consequence, did not pay that attention to his duties which I have no doubt he would have done at another time; he did not see, as it was his duty to do, that the lifeboat was put down upon the beach on the 1st October. Hook himself seems to have taken no steps for that purpose. Some conversation seems to have taken place between them on the subject, when Mr. Henderson told him that if the men would not assist him to take the boat down, he must get Sparham to do it. Hook, however, did not speak to Sparham about getting her on to the beach, and she remained in the boathouse, and was there on the 28th October, when these unfortunate casualties occurred.

 

I have stated that it was about 5 o'clock when the first vessel went ashore, and between that hour and half-past 7 no less than six vessels went on the South Beach, all of them showing signals of distress. It can readily be imagined that there was great excitement in the town, and loud calls for the lifeboat; owing, however, to the dissatisfaction which had arisen in regard to the affair of the "Alert," the men, thinking that they had not been fairly treated in that matter, refused to get out the lifeboat. It happened, however, that a gentleman named Mr. Hazard, a visitor to the, town, was on the South Pier at this time, and seeing the necessity that assistance should without delay be given to the unfortunate men on the wrecked vessels, he determined to make an effort to get the lifeboat out, and with that view he asked to be shown the way to the boathouse, which a resident named Ambler, who was standing by, offered to do. On arriving at the boathouse and finding it locked, Mr. Hazard asked to be shown to Hook's house, a little inn near at hand, where he found Hook, as he says, smoking his pipe, and serving his customers. Mr. Hazard endeavoured in every possible way to induce Hook to take the boat out, but all that Hook would say was that it was of no use, for that the men would not man her. No doubt very strong language was used on that occasion by both of them; not stronger, however, on the part of Mr. Hazard than the occasion seemed to him to require. Finding that he could do nothing with him, Mr. Hazard returned to the boathouse, and a messenger was despatched to the South Pier to summon volunteers to man the lifeboat. In the meantime Hook came down to the boathouse, and another passage of arms took place between him and Mr. Hazard. Mr. Hazard then, as an additional inducement, offered to give a pound a head to any men who would man the lifeboat; and a Mr. Stacey who was standing by, offered to give another. Hook, "whether he heard the offer or not has not been clearly proved” then went round to the door at the back of the boathouse and opened it, and a number of volunteers having then come up, they began to l get the boat out of the house and to haul her down to the beach. It was now between 7 and 8 o'clock. What became of Hook for about three quarters of an hour or hour from this time it is not easy to say. According to his own account he went home to get his oilskins, but he had told us before that he had put his oilskins into the boathouse that morning to be in readiness in case he should require them. At all events he was not there when they were hauling the boat down to the beach, and the result was that she was brought to a part of the beach whence, owing to a vessel which had there gone ashore, it was found impossible to launch her. Her head had accordingly to be hauled to the southward, but at this time the turntable was found to be missing, and in attempting to launch her, owing to her not being end on to the sea, she was thrown up broadside on the beach, and it was not until about 11.30 that she was fairly afloat. These, then, are the reasons why the lifeboat did not go out sooner to the assistance of the shipwrecked crews.

This, then, brings us to the second question, "Whether the local committee " of the Lowestoft lifeboat, or any, and if so which, of them, is to blame for " the delay in the despatch of such lifeboat?" it appears to us that the local committee, in recommending that only 4s. should be paid to each man for going out to the "Alert" instead of 1£, committed a very grave error of judgment. It is not stated what were the reasons which induced them to do so; it is suggested, however, that they believed the men in fault for having taken out the yawl first with the object of making a salvage service of it, and it is said that they ought to have taken out the lifeboat at once. But I am not quite so certain that they are to blame for this. If the service could be rendered by the yawl, I am inclined to think that the beachmen would be right not to employ the lifeboat for the purpose; for the 13th Article of the Lifeboat Regulations says that "the lifeboat is to be reserved for cases " involving risk of life." Now, we are told that the wind, although strong, was from S.W. by S., or nearly an off-shore wind, and they might naturally expect that there would not be a very high or dangerous sea on the sands; at all events not too much for their yawl. And under these circumstances it may well be that they did right to take the yawl out first, thinking that they could get alongside the "Alert" in her; indeed, it is incredible that they should have gone out in the yawl unless they thought that they could render the services with it. By the time, however, they had returned and got the lifeboat out, the Pakefield lifeboat was afloat, and having the wind aft would run down to the "Alert" much more quickly than would the Lowestoft lifeboat. Nor would the Lowestoft men know that the Pakefield boat was afloat, the Pakefield men having neglected to send up a green rocket as a signal that they were off until some minutes after the boat had been launched. We cannot see, therefore, that the Lowestoft boatmen were in any way to blame for having gone off on this occasion with the lifeboat to the "Alert." They ought, therefore, to have received the usual remuneration, namely, 1£. a head; and we think that in recommending that they should be paid on a lower scale the local committee made a mistake. I see, however, from a subsequent note in the minute book, that when the facts were fully reported to the parent institution they ordered full payment to be made in the case of the "Alert" of 1£ a head to each of the men, and that that sum has been paid to them. Mr. Henderson also, the honorary superintendent, is, in our opinion, especially to blame for not having seen that the boat was taken down to the beach by the 1st October. He well knew that there was a good deal of dissatisfaction amongst the men on the account of the "Alert's" business, and that they had expressed an intention not to work her; and it was therefore all the more important that the boat should be on the beach, whence it could be more easily launched by a crew of volunteers, if the regular beachmen refused to man her. The only excuse for Mr. Henderson is that he had at that time a heavy family affliction.

The third question which we are asked is, "Whether the coxswain superintendent was to blame, and if so, in what respect?" That Hook was greatly to blame seems to admit of no doubt. Hook knew, if any one did, of the existence of this dissatisfaction amongst the men; he knew that the men had refused to haul the boat up to the boathouse, and that they had refused to haul it down again to the beach. Hook knew that it was his duty immediately on the occurrence of any casualty involving risk of life, "to use his " utmost exertions to assemble his crew, launch the boat, and proceed to her " assistance"; but he took no steps for that purpose until roused by Mr. Hazard's threats, and by his promises of reward. Unfortunately, Hook belongs to one of those companies of beachmen, and seems to have thought that his allegiance to them should override his duty as a salaried officer of the National Lifeboat Institution. He took no steps to have the boat brought down to the beach in accordance with Captain Nepean's orders, so as to be in readiness to go out in case her services should be required. He took no steps when the emergency arose to summons the beachmen, although we were told by one of the beachmen, George Thomas Ayres, that had he been summoned, he would have gone in her; and as a matter of fact, the boat was ultimately manned by beachmen. But Hook's choice was not confined to the beachmen alone, for his instructions tell him that "in the event of a sufficient number of his crew not being present, he is to select the best volunteers he " can get to supply their places;" and that there was an ample supply of competent volunteers at hand, had they been called upon, there is not a shadow of a doubt. Hook, after the lifeboat was at length launched, took charge of her, and rendered good service in saving the lives of some 17 men; and we are told that he has since then gone out, I think, on four several occasions, and rendered good service in the saving of life. It cannot, however, be denied that Hook's conduct on and before the 28th of October in taking part with the beachmen has resulted in a great loss of life.

The fourth question which we are asked is, "Whether the crew of such " lifeboat was to blame; and if so, in what respect?" That the crew of the lifeboat were also to blame is equally clear. Although we do not acquit the local committee of great want of discretion in the matter, we think the conduct of those beachmen was unpardonable in refusing to lend a hand to launch and man the lifeboat, when they saw so many of their fellow-creatures drowning, merely because on some previous occasion they had been offered only 4s. a head, when they thought that they ought to have had 1£ a head. Unfortunately it is the habit of these exclusive bodies to think, not only that they have the exclusive right to perform these services, but that they have the right to prevent others from doing it in their place; and we were told that on this very occasion one man, who was not a beachman, but who had helped to get the boat out and had volunteered when the beachmen were hanging back, was requested to get out of it, lest the other beachmen, seeing him there, should refuse to go in the boat. Whether, if the boat had been down on the beach, a sufficient number of beachmen would have been found to man her, it is not very easy to say; one only has had the courage to come forward and say that he would have been willing to go had he been summoned by the coxswain.

The fifth question which we are asked is, "What was the reason that the " Pakefield lifeboat No. 1 was not launched in time to render assistance to " the 'William Thrift,' or to the 'Secret'?" it seems that there are two lifeboats kept at Pakefield, No. 1, or the large boat, and No. 2, or the surf boat. They both belong to the National Lifeboat Institution and are under the same local committee as the Lowestoft boats, but with different officers; Mr. Warman, who is resident at Pakefield, being the acting honorary secretary, whilst George Warford is the coxswain of No. 1 boat, and Nathaniel Barber the coxswain of the surf boat. It seems that the unfortunate affair of the "Alert" was also the cause of some differences at Pakefield. Warford, the coxswain, having rendered the services for which he and his crew obtained an award of 105£. on the 7th March, neglected to report the case to Mr. Warman until the 9th March, at which Mr. Warman was much annoyed, and spoke to Warford, who had been coxswain for a great many years, in a manner which seems to have wounded him very much. Warford told us that he understood Mr. Warman to say that he was not to take out the boat on any occasion without his, Mr. Warman's, express orders. Accordingly, on the afternoon of the 28th October last, seeing that the weather was becoming bad, he got the boat ready for launching, and then sent up to Mr. Warman's house to know whether it was to be launched, but unfortunately Mr. Warman was not at home; Warford therefore thought that he was not at liberty to launch it The result was that lifeboat No. 1 could not be launched when the "William Thrift" came ashore; it appearing that it is only a little before and a little after low water that this can be done. This seems to have been the reason why the boat was not launched when her services were urgently needed.

This, then, brings us to the sixth question, "Whether the deputy honorary " secretary, or the coxswain superintendent of such lifeboat, or any, and " if so which, of them, was to blame for such lifeboat not having been " launched, and if so, in what respect?" In our opinion both were to blame. The deputy honorary secretary is to blame for having used rather stronger language than the circumstances seemed to justify to a man, who had been for a great many years coxswain of the lifeboat, and had done good service in his time. Mr. Warman told us that he certainly had never prohibited Warford from taking out the lifeboat in case of an emergency arising; all that he had said to him was that, whenever he had occasion to launch the boat, he was to report it to him immediately, and not delay it for two days, as he had done in the case of the "Alert." Mr. Warman, however, added that he thought that possibly Warford may have misunderstood him. As regards Warford, he seems to have been somewhat too ready to take offence at Mr. Warman's expressions, and should have remembered that his instructions expressly required him to go out in case of emergency.

The seventh question which we are asked is, "Whether any signals are " in use at Lowestoft or Pakefield for summoning the crews of lifeboats at " those places; and if not, whether it is desirable that signals should be " made in future for that purpose?" it does not appear that there are any signals in use at either of those places to summon the lifeboat crews, and we are disposed to think that it would be better if there were. At the same time it is right to observe that, until this unfortunate casualty, no difficulty has been found in manning the lifeboats, so many of the beachmen living close to the boathouse as well at Lowestoft as at Pakefield.

The eighth question which we are asked is, "Whether the rules, as " published by the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, and circulated among " their various officials, are strictly complied with by the officials of the " Lowestoft and Pakefield branch; and if not, whether it is desirable that " they should be strictly complied with in the future?" No doubt it is desirable that the rules of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution should be strictly complied with. I understand that the object of this question is to obtain from the Court an expression of opinion as to the conduct of Warford in following what he conceived to be Mr. Warman's directions, in preference to the printed instructions which are issued by the Institution. No doubt he ought not to have done so. His excuse, we understand, is that he cannot read very well; but he could read sufficiently to make out the printed instructions which are hung up in the boathouse; and his colleague, Barber, the coxswain of the surf boat, seemed to have been fully aware that it was his duty to launch the lifeboat in case of emergency, whether the honorary secretary instructed him or not.

The ninth question which we are asked is, "Whether blame attaches to any " other person or persons, and if so, to whom, for not rendering assistance to " vessels in distress on the 28th October last?" No blame, in our opinion, rests with any but those whom we have mentioned. We cannot, however, leave this part of the case without expressing our sense of the very great services rendered by Mr. Hazard on this occasion. His courage in facing a man like Hook, and in forcing him to take the lifeboat out, is beyond all praise; and it is mainly due to his exertions that the lifeboat was eventually got out, and that those 17 lives were saved.

The tenth question which we are asked is, "Whether the tugs of the Great " Eastern Railway Company were in readiness on the 28th October to " render assistance in accordance with the pre-concerted signal by tallies " arranged between the harbour-master and the lifeboat authorities at " Lowestoft and Pakefield?" it seems that Lowestoft harbour belongs to the Great Eastern Railway Company, who have a very efficient officer in the harbour-master, Captain Massingham. They have three tugs; two, the "Despatch" and the "Rainbow," are of 60-horse power nominal, and are manned by six hands; the other, the "Imperial," is a small vessel of 27-horse power nominal, and is manned by four hands and a boy. The two larger vessels are always kept in readiness to tow the lifeboats into or out of harbour whenever their services are required. The practice, we are told, is to keep the fires banked, and two hands always on board, a fireman and a deck hand, and as soon as they receive an intimation that one of the lifeboats is about to go out, the fireman at once begins to get up steam, and the deck hand prepares the ship's lights and puts them into position, and at the same time sends off someone to summon the crew; and within half an hour, we are told, the tug is ready to leave the harbour. To prevent misapprehension they have a system of "tallies," as it is called, to indicate the lifeboat requiring their assistance. These tallies or brass labels are in the possession of the coxswains; that in the possession of the Lowestoft coxswain having the letters "L. L. B." stamped on it to indicate that it comes from the Lowestoft lifeboat, and that in the possession of the Pakefield coxswain having the letters "P. L. B." to indicate the Pakefield lifeboat. When, then, either of these lifeboats is about to be launched the coxswain sends the tally to the steam tugs, and they know at once whether it is the Lowestoft or the Pakefield lifeboat which requires their assistance. This practice was adopted owing to some confusion having formerly occurred by verbal messages being conveyed asking for the tug's assistance. For these services of towing the lifeboats in and out of the harbour at all hours of the day or night the Great Eastern Railway Company make no charge, but the Lifeboat Institution sends down on each occasion of their towing the lifeboat out a sum of 30s. as a present to the crew, being 5s. for each man; besides this neither the company nor its officers receive any payment for their services.

On the night in question we are told that the two large steam tugs, although they had been engaged during the afternoon until 7.30 p.m. towing vessels into the harbour were kept all through the night with their steam up and their crews on board, expecting every moment to be summoned to one or other of the lifeboats. Captain Massingham told us that the master of one of them asked to be allowed to go home to get some refreshment and a change of clothes, but Captain Massingham refused to permit him to do so, and the tugs remained, one on the north side and the other on the south side of the entrance to the harbour, expecting to be called out every moment, but it was not until after 11.30 that night that their services were applied for, and then one of them immediately went out and assisted the Lowestoft lifeboat in saving those 17 lives. I may add, that without the lifeboats the steamers could have done nothing. Nothing could be better than the arrangements in regard to the tugs.

The eleventh question which we are asked is, "Whether proper assistance " was rendered by the rocket apparatus, under the control of the chief officer " of the coastguard, and by the coastguard under his command?" Mr. Symes, the chief officer of the Lowestoft coastguard district, told us that at about 4.45 p.m. of that day, within a very short time of the first vessel, the "Messenger," going ashore, he brought the rocket apparatus on to the South Pier, and having thrown the line over that vessel he succeeded in landing from her fifteen persons, namely, her crew of eight hands and seven beachmen who had previously boarded her. He then threw a line over the other vessel, which was aground a little further to the south, but no response having been made the line was hauled in again, and he went down to the end of the pier, where he understood a vessel was on shore, but found when he got there that she had come off with the tide, On returning he was told that the crew of another vessel, the "Alma," had got on board the "Messenger," and he accordingly threw a line over the "Messenger" and rescued the "Alma's" crew, six in number. He was then told that a vessel was ashore on the North Beach, and proceeded immediately in that direction; but on getting to the bridge he was told that the crew had been saved from the shore. He then turned to go south again, when a telegram from Warford, the coxswain of the lifeboat at Pakefield, was put into his hands, which was in these words, "Schooner ashore, lifeboat been off, can render no assistance. Send life " apparatus at once." He accordingly galloped his horses to Pakefield, and arrived there at about 9 o'clock, just in time to throw a line over the vessel, which turned out to be the "William Thrift," and to rescue her crew of five hands before the vessel's masts went, and in ten minutes afterwards she was a wreck on the shore. He then observed another vessel ashore half a mile to the southward of them, and proceeded in that direction; but when in Pakefield Street he met the Kessingland rocket apparatus, and arranged with the officer in charge that he should go to that vessel, whilst he returned to Lowestoft. On his return he threw a line over a vessel, from which he got no response; he thereupon threw it over the "Isis," and a man, who proved to be the mate, got, as was supposed, into the breeches, and was hauled towards the shore, but when about thirty yards from it it was found that the man was outside instead of inside the breeches, and was shouting that he could hold on no longer. Upon which one of the coastguardsmen, named Childs, jumped into the sea with a lifebelt on, and brought the man ashore, but in doing so was seriously injured by striking against the pier. Mr. Symes then heard a cry again from the "Alma"; threw his line over the "Alma," and rescued another of the crew of the "Isis," who had left his vessel and got on board her. In all, Mr. Symes was engaged with his rocket apparatus from 4.45 p.m. till about 1.45 a.m. the following day, during which time he saved no less than 28 lives. Mr. Symes also spoke of the efficient assistance he received from his subordinates, and especially from Beaby, who threw the line so correctly that he never had occasion to throw it more than once at the object aimed at. Wenn, also another coastguardsman, jumped into the sea as Childs had done, and saved another of the crew of the "Isis." This is a record of services of which the coastguard at Lowestoft may be justly proud.

The twelfth question which we are asked is, "Whether it is desirable that " the offer made by the Great Eastern Railway Company to supply a berth " for lifeboats in the harbour, as now proposed to be altered, should be " adopted, and whether the acceptance of such a berth would enable the " Lowestoft lifeboat to proceed to sea, and render assistance with greater " facility and promptitude." it appears from Captain Massingham's evidence that the Great Eastern Railway Company are proposing to build out from that part of the South Pier, which is near the reading-room, a short jetty, inside of which we are told there would be room for two lifeboats to lie afloat. A plan of the proposed alterations has been laid before us, and it is said that the lifeboats, if stationed there, would be close to the tug boats, and ready to be taken out to sea whenever their services were needed. We have no hesitation in saying that, if the Great Eastern Railway Company are willing to do this, it will be of the very greatest service. In the first place, the lifeboats will always be afloat, and there would then be no delay in launching them; and if the beachmen should then refuse to man them, there would be no difficulty in finding a sufficient number of volunteers for the purpose. It is a place where numbers of volunteers could always be obtained at a moment's notice, and there would then be no danger of any such calamity as that into which we have been inquiring. We think also that it would be an advantage if the Great Eastern Railway Company would at the same time build some kind of shelter for the lifeboats; it need not be expensive; all that is wanted is a projecting roof to protect the boats, as well from the snows of winter as from the heats of summer, so that they would always be available when their services are required; and this we are told the Company are quite willing to do.

 

H. C. ROTHERY, Wreck Commissioner.

 

We concur in this Report.

 

HENRY KNOX, Captain R.N.

W. EAMES, C.J.M., R.N.

Assessors.

GEORGE HYDE, R.N.R.

 

 

 

 

 

 

LONDON:

Printed by GEORGE E. B. EYRE and WILLIAM SPOTTISWOODE, Printers to the Queen's most Excellent