Has the 



LosDos, Jiina 1, n) I z. permanent blow fo 

 Glory departed ? ^" '^^"^ '^l^.te of victory, whether we, by a 

 reminiscent of much that can at least partially 



is finest in the naval 



history of this conn- 

 try, it is almost with 

 sadness tliat we have 

 to ask ourselves 

 whether the clay does 

 not show us that 

 ( i r e a t Britain no 

 longer lead-, the way 

 ill maritime matters. 



I 



ossesseil 



of 



the 



hugest of merchant 

 fleets, master of the 

 world's commerce, 

 we liave been also 

 ever regarded as tin.- 

 dictator ol" thing, 

 maritime, the giver 

 of laws tile layer 

 down of re^;ulations. 

 To-day we h ivc lost 

 that posiiidii, and it 

 lies Willi w-, Id decide 

 whether tin- loss of 

 the I'ilanii and the 

 subsequent l.u k. of 

 reform in the JJoard 



I'not.-iraph fy\ 



\K.N..l. 



The late King of Denmark. 



This innnshot shows (he I.ilc Kinj; with hi> sister the Dinvafier- 

 t Trade shall be a '■•"'l"'*-'*'* f>n<"^i'>i ami l'ti"c<; Waldcmar of Denmark (holding 



a c.imcra). 



national prestige, or 

 great patriotic effort, 

 regain the lost ground. 

 Thanks to a per- 

 nicious state of 

 affairs there is no 

 douln that the Board 

 of Trade, in wliose 

 hands lies the control 

 of British shipping, 

 is in the pocket of 

 interested parties. 

 This has come about 

 through the lack of 

 interest on the part 

 of the public, and 

 because of the ex- 

 aggeration of inter- 

 est on the |)art of 

 those who make 

 money out of ships. 

 N\'e do not say that 

 all slii|)owners are 

 tonceriied in the 

 control of the Board 

 ol Trade — we believe 

 that many ship- 

 builders would pre- 

 fer to build more 

 efficient ships, but 

 until we can see 

 clearly which are the 



