them to be employed in British trade. It is, indeed, difficult to imagine that neutral vessels could even in these times find adequate employment outside British trade. Practically the only full cargo available for export from Europe is British coal. Neutral ships are accustomed not only to load coal cargoes in this country but also to come here for bunkers. They bunker also at British coaling stations throughout the world. Apart from political interests, the British and neutral Mercantile Marines have a great deal in common; and there is a strong body of opinion which holds that, if neutral ships enjoy all the coaling and other facilities available for British vessels, they should undertake not to engage in any trades inimical to the interests of British shipping. A certain amount of pressure has already been brought to bear on neutral owners in this way. Neutral firms have had the same facilities given to them as are given to British ships. They have even come to this country for repairs and have been dealt with while British ships were consequently kept waiting. Again, there is no reason why, if it should be so decided, vessels chartered to the Government should not reap the benefit of the highest market rates available. The only difference from the system hitherto existing would be that the Government, after paying the owners a liberal rate of hire and a commission on the profits, would take all the surplus earnings. A most serious aspect of the rise in freights which has been allowed to go on has been the benefit to neutrals. They have throughout been able to earn even higher freights than the British owners, and they have all strengthened their position enormously. Denmark recently announced a special tax of 20 per cent, on shipping profits; and a similar measure has just been proposed in Greece. The events of the war have, no doubt, impressed neutrals with the desirability of owning large mercantile fleets of their own. American business men have seen enormous quantities of cotton, grain and timber detained at their ports simply because there were not enough ships to transport them to European markets. In peace there were always enough ships, mostly British, to transport their products across the ocean. It is not surprising that Americans should have come to realise that, if ships are not available, there is an important link missing in the chain of transactions between the grower and the consumer. In normal times the United States could not compare with Great Britain in cheapness and building costs, but the war has brought British and American costs to much the same level, while in this country, owing to the demand for naval work, the output of mercantile tonnage is extremely limited. It is somewhat unfortunate that British shipowners should have come in for so much criticism during the controversy. No thinking person could regret seeing shipowners enjoy prosperity, since the whole welfare of the country depends upon an efficient mercantile marine. Anything which discouraged enterprise would be damaging to the national interests, but the more intelligent owners have honestly regretted that the rise in freights has reached such levels, because they have realised that the movement has injuriously affected every industry in the country. It has been my privilege to discuss shipping problems with many London shipowners and managers during the past few months; and in almost every case they have shown a readiness to consider these questions from a quite impartial point of view. Many of them are engaged in other businesses besides shipping, and are in a position to realise the harmful and far-reaching effect of extraordinarily high freights. They have declared they had no desire to make unreasonably large profits, and have expressed a willingness to fall in with any scheme, once they were convinced of its effectiveness for the purpose in view, though some have thought the opportunity for strong action had been missed in the early stages of the war. The Liverpool owners have publicly expressed their mistrust of Government control; but they too, like the London owners, are among the best type of business men, and are prepared at any rate to devote time to trying to discover a solution of the difficulties. Whether the large number of owners of small fleets throughout the country are as capable of looking at the problem from an independent standpoint seems another matter. It is not improbable that many of them argue that, as shipowners have passed through lean periods in the past, it is only fitting that they should now be enjoying prosperity, and that they are justified in making all they can before bad times recur. The Government has, it would seem, reconciled itself to the high freights, and has even come to see a merit in the situation. On Dec. 24, 1915, when freights were far from their zenith, Mr Balfour referred in the House of Commons to the 'present terrible level' of freights, a level which 'certainly increases the price both of necessities of life to the poor, and of many things which are necessary to the Government in the proper conduct of the war.' Nevertheless shipowners have lately been given the impression that the Government sees no objection to high freights, and rather regards them as profitable to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. How far this change of attitude is due to a recognition that the situation has been allowed to go beyond Government control can only be a matter of surmise. It is to be hoped that, though the Government delayed vigorous action on the tonnage question until it was really too late, they will formulate a clear policy on mercantile shipbuilding. Even the resumption of work on ships interrupted by naval orders has been delayed owing to discussions between builders and owners as to who should bear the increased cost of labour and material, the Government having refused to accept any liability on this account. Owners are afraid to place contracts with builders when complete uncertainty surrounds the cost and the date of delivery; yet the need of a vigorous mercantile shipbuilding programme is very urgent. In the opinion of naval architects much time might be gained by standardisation of construction; and it is satisfactory to learn from a recent answer from the President of the Board of Trade that a scheme for the placing of large contracts for standard cargo-ships has been under consideration. Joint action of some kind will be necessary, otherwise neutral owners will easily be able to outbid British owners in the terms offered for new tonnage. The appointment of a strong committee by the Chamber of Shipping, acting in co-operation with the Liverpool Steamship Owners' Association, to consider trade policy after the war, is of hopeful augury. The appointment followed a speech delivered by Mr Runciman in Parliament on Jan. 11, in which he declared that heavily subsidised foreign lines ought not to have the same use of our ports as those which received no artificial assistance, and instanced cases in which German ships had even had an advantage at British ports over British ships. In the past there has been little cohesion among British shipowners, and consequently they have had to yield bit by bit to the encroachments of the highly organised and subsidised German mercantile marine. It was difficult to arouse interest on the subject of the economic war which Germany was actively, though quietly, carrying on in peace time; but the British nation is now wide awake and realises at last that an efficient mercantile marine is just as important in its way for this country as a magnificent Navy. The officers and men of the mercantile marine, in facing hidden dangers as part of the day's work, have deserved well of the country; and, in spite of all the discussion of the past few months, the whole of the mercantile marine has found a place in the nation's heart which it never had before. That alone means much for the future. CUTHBERT MAUGHAN. Art. 12.-HORACE AT HIS SABINE FARM. 1. Découverte de la Maison de Campagne d'Horace. Par l'Abbé Capmartin de Chaupy. Three vols. Rome, 1767-69. 2. Nouvelles Promenades Archéologiques Horace et Virgile. Par Gaston Boissier. Sixth edition. Paris: Hachette, 1907. 3. The Roman Poets of the Augustan Age: Horace and the Elegiac Poets. By W. Y. Sellar. Second edition. Oxford University Press, 1899. 4. Horace; Odes and Epodes, with an English translation by C. E. Bennett (Loeb Classical Library). London: Heinemann, 1914. AMONG the poets of antiquity whose works have been preserved, none is so noted as Horace for the frequency and fullness of his allusions to the rural surroundings amidst which he lived, and for the warmth with which he acknowledged how much he owed to them as sources of his inspiration. He has made his farm among the Sabine Hills familiar to thousands of readers in all lands, who know it only as it is pictured in his poems. The actual site of an ancient author's home cannot often be definitely ascertained; but that of Horace has been determined beyond all reasonable doubt. In the latter half of the 18th century an enthusiastic Frenchman, the Abbé Capmartin de Chaupy, devoted himself with extraordinary ardour to an exhaustive examination of the Sabine region, and succeeded in identifying the position of the celebrated farm. The results of his labours were published by him in three learned volumes, which, though they now stand dusty and unread on the shelves of public libraries, will preserve the name of their author in lasting remembrance among students of the classics. Since his time pilgrims to the place have been many, of whom some have left accounts of their visits. Probably the most widely known and generally appreciated of these narratives is that of the late Gaston Boissier, the accomplished Secretary of the Académie Française. In the admirable essay on Horace by the late Prof. Sellar, his account of the poet's home Vol. 225.-No. 447. 2 к |