their energy in concocting theories to solve an imaginary problem—­the only problem being that which exists in their own minds.  There is nothing else to solve.  Once the mildew is out of the way and the doors are set wide open, we shall soon have a full supply of recruits.  During the last few years several steamship owners have so far overcome their prejudices as to take apprentices.  Those who have worked it properly have succeeded; while others complain of the system being absolutely unsuccessful.  My own impression is that the want of success is not the fault of the lads, but those who have the controlling of them.

Mr. Ritchie, when he was the head of the Board of Trade, introduced a system of barter, whereby a certain reduction of light dues was to be made to the firms who undertook to train boys for the merchant service and the Royal Naval Reserve.  Needless to say, the very nature of the conditions caused it to fail.  In the first place the parents of the boys looked upon the proposal as a form of conscription; and in the second, owners would have no truck with a partial abatement of the light dues.  They very properly claimed that the charge should be abolished altogether.  All other countries, except America and Turkey, have made the lighting of their coast-lines an Imperial question; and America only levies it against British shipping as a retaliatory measure.  Mr. Ritchie lost his chance of doing a national service by neglecting to take into his confidence shipowners who were conversant with the voluntary system of training seamen.  Had he done this, it is pretty certain they would have guided him clear of the difficulties he got into, and his measure would have been fashioned into a beneficent, workable scheme instead of proving a fiasco.

There are shipowners who believe that it is the duty of the State to pay a subsidy of twenty to fifty pounds per annum for every apprentice carried.  I have always been puzzled to know from whence they derive their belief.  When pressed to state definitely what arguments they have to give in favour of such a demand, their mental processes seem to become confused.  They are driven to prophetic allusions to future naval war, and the usefulness of seamen in that event.  Of course no one can dispute the usefulness of sailors at any time and under any circumstances; but if that is the only reason for asking the Government to pay owners part of the cost of manning their ships, then they are living in a fool’s paradise, and are much too credulous about public philanthropy, and very unobservant and illogical too if they imagine that national interests are entirely centred in the industry they happen to be engaged in.  It would be just as reasonable for Armstrong’s or Vickers’ to request a subsidy for training their men because their business happens to be the manufacture of guns and the construction of warships.  Or on the same logical grounds the ordinary shipbuilder and engine-maker