to join in the perennial jest at his own quite unusual limitations. He could tell a good story cleverly in his broad, West-country accents, and was a capital listener, who often volunteered a dry observation redolent of natural humour. He never smoked; and nothing amused him more than the fruitless efforts of opposing unsophisticated cricketers to lure him into indiscretions at the luncheon table. Let it be added that he was exemplary in all the relationships of family life, that he possessed a host of friends, and that he was blessed with rude health and exuberant spirits.

His last two public appearances were among the most dignified of his career. At the dinner in commemoration of the centenary of Lord's cricket ground (1914), Mr C. E. Green proposed his health as 'the greatest cricketer that ever lived or ever will live'; to which Grace replied very briefly, saying he considered county cricket as good as ever it was, but that match play was rather too slow. A couple of months later, patriotically moved, he came forward with an eloquent letter urging the community to stop cricket: war-time is no time for games.' His own time arrived all too soon; and it is certain that thousands, who never felt the crushing grip with which he shook hands, realised an irreparable gap when they learnt that he had gone. A light of the happy past has been extinguished amid the deepening gloom caused by the bravest and best giving their lives in the noblest The death of W. G. Grace closes an epoch in the annals of our national game. It also coincides with the end of an epoch in our national history. What will be the result of the war upon our social life, it is too soon to say; but one thing is pretty clear, that the easygoing, pleasure-loving times in which games assumed such importance, and in which it was possible for a great performer to attain such popular eminence, are gone, if not for ever, at least for a period of which even the younger generation can hardly expect to see the end.

cause.

HOME GORDON.

Art. 11.-THE SHIPPING PROBLEM.

THE description of 'The Greatest Economic Problem' was given to the shipping question, or, as it is better called, 'series of shipping questions,' a few weeks ago by the President of the Board of Trade, who has within his view the whole range of commercial subjects. The briefest reflection will show that the phrase was no exaggeration. People are sometimes apt to argue that, as in all previous wars freights have risen to high levels, therefore the evil of the present high freights should be endured without protest. The weak point in this contention is that in previous wars the country was not dependent to anything like its present extent on oversea commerce. Some centuries ago, Great Britain was selfsupporting. Then came the time when we began to import certain luxuries, such as tea, coffee, and tobacco. All the time the population was steadily increasing. Today the country is dependent on imports for the great bulk of the products required to feed and clothe the people, not to mention the innumerable commodities which are now regarded as essential to civilised life. Even the success of agriculture and the raising of live stock in this country is now dependent to a large extent on fertilisers and foodstuffs imported from abroad. So, whereas a hundred years ago high freights might have been regarded as an interesting though unpleasant feature of war, to-day they seriously affect the life of every one. Of course, high freights are only the direct result of an inadequate supply of shipping to meet the requirements of the country. The ordinary person is not in a position to know how far short the supply falls of the requirements; he merely knows that freights have risen enormously and that the prices of all the necessaries of life have risen in accordance. There have never been such magnificent crops as have been harvested during the past twelve months-the supply of wheat has been far in excess of the world's requirements-yet the price of bread has risen to extraordinary levels. Other commodities have been produced in ample supply, yet it has only been too true that the strength of the chain of services between producer and consumer has been governed by the strength of the weakest link; and that

has proved to be shipping. The strengthening of the link is not a matter merely for shipowners; it is the vital concern of everyone in these islands.

It is important to remember that the present acute shortage of shipping has only indirectly been brought about by the action of the enemy, for the percentage of tonnage which the enemy has destroyed has, in spite of all his efforts, been quite small. The restriction of tonnage is mainly due to the action of Great Britain in throwing herself wholeheartedly into the European struggle. The high freights which the people of the United Kingdom are called upon to pay, a substantial proportion of which go in the form of taxation to the State, are undoubtedly part of the contribution which the nation is making to the common cause of the Allies. The people make this contribution every time they eat food or buy clothes. At the outbreak of war there seemed to be a superfluity of tonnage, and freights fell to very low levels. It was Admiralty requisitioning which started the upward movement. The ships first removed from the market were, presumably, colliers and storeships to serve the Fleet; then ships were taken to act as merchant cruisers, patrol vessels, and transports. Finally, ships were taken to bring the cargoes of munitions and other commodities, such as sugar, controlled by the Government. The amount of tonnage taken up by the Admiralty has steadily increased. The Dardanelles Campaign made heavy demands and, later, the Salonika Expedition. The amount of tonnage now in the hands of the Government is understood to be about 40 per cent. of the British mercantile marine, the great bulk of which is withdrawn from commercial purposes; and it cannot be too strongly emphasised that the removal of so much tonnage is the principal cause of the present scarcity of shipping.

This fact is the justification of those who have called attention to what they believed to be waste in the management of the requisitioned ships. Waste in the management has been admitted in Parliament, but always with the proviso that, where naval and military requirements are predominant, there must be what appears to the commercial mind waste. Criticism by business men is difficult, because they have not the inside knowledge of circumstances which have caused

certain apparently extraordinary incidents. We are aware that the Transport Department of the Admiralty before the war was a small office; and probably no one ever dreamed that it would be called upon to direct the movements of between 1,500 and 2,000 ships. Its task has been colossal, and, even if its organisation had been perfect, waste must have occurred. The shortage of shipping is so obvious now that it is inconceivable that the Department is not deeply impressed with the importance of making the utmost use of every ton of shipping within its control. It has at different times called to its assistance practical shipping men who certainly can have no doubts as to the urgent need of conserving tonnage; and the Department would not be keeping faith with the public if it relaxed its efforts in this direction.

While Admiralty requisitioning has been the main factor in reducing the supply of tonnage, there have been other considerable influences. One of the most important of these, because one of the most persistent, has been the difficulty of dealing with commerce at the ports, resulting in ships being kept in port far beyond the normal period. The difficulty was caused by the heavy enlistment of dock-workers and railway men, by Customs regulations imposed with the object of preventing the possibility of goods from this country reaching the enemy, and also, at different times, by the large dumping of certain Government cargoes. The congestion at all British ports has from time to time been very grave, though probably never so serious as at certain French and Italian ports. Obviously, sheer waste of tonnage occurs when ships are delayed for many weeks, waiting to discharge their cargoes, as has been the case at all British ports. Shipowners have been perfectly justified in arguing that it was futile to say that there was a shortage of shipping while there were not facilities at the ports to deal promptly with the tonnage available.

Another cause has been the substitution, owing to the war, of certain long voyages for short passages. For instance, a large number of ships have been employed in bringing sugar from the East and West Indies to replace the supplies which before the war made the short passage across the North Sea from Germany. Moreover, new trades have been created. There is the traffic in

merchandise across the North Atlantic, a steady flow of commodities from the United States to Vladivostok for the use of Russia, and the supply of foodstuffs organised by the Commission for Relief in Belgium. Within a year of the outbreak of war nearly 200 full cargoes of foodstuffs were brought from North and South America to Rotterdam for the feeding of the Belgian civilian population, involving the continuous employment of perhaps 35 large steamers. (It is interesting to note that the chartering of all these steamers has been done by British brokers, and that the whole of the commission received by them, amounting to a great many thousand pounds, has been given by them to the Relief Fund. The British underwriters quoted specially low rates of insurance.) These and other causes aggravated the trouble, but it was not until the early autumn of 1915 that a fresh rise took place, and freights began to reach those levels which have been the subject of so much public discussion. Two events which occurred in September assisted this upward movement.

On Sept. 21 Mr McKenna announced his intention of taking 50 per cent. of all excess profits during the war. There was clearly much to be said for this proposal, but it at once created an atmosphere conducive to a further advance in freights. Shipowners have since often in conversation expressed the view that this taxation nullified much of the objection to the extraordinary high rates. There has been an inclination to suggest that there could not be anything very wrong in their earning large profits when the State was going to take in taxation such a substantial proportion of them. It has even been maintained that these high freights became a very convenient means of taxing the people-taxation which none could escape. At all events, immediately after this taxation was announced, freights began to move upwards again. They rose so much further that within a short time the 50 per cent. left to the owners amounted to just as much as 100 per cent. of the profits before the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his announcement. It afterwards became probable that the Government would not be satisfied with taking only 50 per cent. of the excess profits.

On Sept. 22 the Panama Canal was closed, owing to a Vol. 225.-No. 447.

2 I