3i8 LAND REFORM 



that our enemy will seek to reduce us. . . For this 

 purpose no money will be spared and no opportunity 

 neglected." 



Mr. Harris shows that the United States, before the 

 Civil War, had a just pre-eminence among maritime 

 nations, second only to England in the amount of 

 their tonnage, and that at the end of the war their 

 fleet, through being sold, transferred to neutral flags, 

 or captured, had ceased to exist, and that "this de- 

 struction of their mercantile marine was brought about 

 by a mere handful of Confederate cruisers." 



It is argued in the letter that shipowners, if insured 

 under a scheme of national indemnity, would run risks 

 that it would be ruin for them to run without, and so 

 a continual supply of grain would reach our shores, 

 while the nation would be paying only the actual net 

 losses that might happen. The cost of the scheme, 

 Mr. Harris says, it is impossible to estimate ; it might, 

 he states, be " five millions ; it might be twenty millions 

 or more " ; but he adds, " it is far better to pay for 

 the loss of a few vessels and a few cargoes, than that 

 this country should lose her shipping supremacy and 

 inflict grave sufi'erings on her working classes."^ 



With regard to Lord Selborne's statement that 

 "on the Navy depends the supply of food for the 

 people," in 1903 a very able paper was read on 

 the subject.^ The discussion which followed showed 

 the opinions of men who are qualified above all others 

 to speak on the question of the navy in connection with 

 the food supply in the time of war. Those opinions 



^ "Times," 12 September, 1905. 



^ See "Journal of the Royal United Service Institution," December, 

 1903 : a paper read by Mr. Alfred MauscU on " Food Stuffs in the Tiine 

 of V^ar." 



