COMMERCE AND WAR.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXI, Issue 4891, 24 November 1876, Page 3

COMMERCE AND WAR.

(From the Melbourne Argus.) While there is every hope that the peace of Europe will not be disturbed so far as Great Britain is concerned, yet the revival of the Eastern question, and the action of the underwriters in increasing the premiums for war risks naturally directs attention to the new conditions under which naval warfare is likely to be conducted. In her previous wars England, it has been pointed out by the Pall Mall Gazette in a recent careful analysis of the situation, depended upon three weapons:—(l) Invasion and capture of the enemy’s country; (2) the blockade of his ports; and (3) the destruction of his commerce. In the French war at the beginning of the century, and the Russian struggle in the middle, Great Britain, with her allies, resorted to all three expedients. Without allies, however, Great Britain is not likely to be able to face any of the great continental nations on their own soil. It is generally confessed that in these days, when armed nations instead of armies are the rule abroad, the invasion weapon is less reliable than before, and that Great Britain is thrown more upon her power to strike hard from the sea. Here, the blows she can deliver take the form of block ades and the destruction of commerce. Steam has increased the ability of a naval nation to maintain a blockade, for no squadron need now be blown clear of a coast, as Nelson sometimes was, and in this direction the undoubted naval supremacy of Great Britain is likely to be more effective than ever. We then come to the destruction of the enemy’s commerce, which has always been our moat dangerous weapon. The methods of destruction have been twofold. Our men-of-war or privateers have captured the enemy’s ships, or our cruisers have visited and searched neutral vessels, and confiscated the goods on board belonging to the hostile power. Here, again, .Great Britain would bo more capable of waging an offensive war than ever before in history, but that the circumstances have been entirely changed by the Declaration of Paris in 1856, with its provision, “ the neutral flag covers enemies’ goods, except contraband of war.”

This rule has been observed so far to the great advantage of Great Britain, In the FrancoGerman war she carried goods for both nations, and no attempt was made to stop or to search the vessels. A dispute arose ns to whether coal was contraband of war, and as to whether certain British colliers seized by Germany in a French port were legally or illegally dealt with; but Germany made a reparation and an apology. Despite the formidable character of the war, neither French nor German commerce suffered in any way from the seizure or destruction of merchant-vessels. Since 1856,

in ffact, 1 private property has been perfectly safe at sea, provided that it has been shipped in a neutral bottom for an unblookaded port; and. therefore . it. would appear as ■ if .an enemy’s commerce may in future evade" destruction, no matter how powerful may be the maritime force'of the foe. Were England engaged in a. war with'suob a power as France it might be" practically impossible to blockade every one of her ports, and in that case neutral bottoms "could carry on the whole commerce of the Republic. So with the United States, And of course, as the rule works both ways, so with Great Britain. ,;N6t a power,on the face of the globe could‘hope to blockade every one - of her harbors, and, 'consequently, neutral vessels would be free to come and go without any risk of capture. , , The'revolution thus accomplished is a very great one, and probably affects no people in the. world more than it does the colonists of Australia, for few communities have an export and import trade of a greater magnitude than our own. We cannot help having an immense stake always at sea, and therefore the change well deserves our closest attention. Under the old rule, as the Pall Mall Gazette indicates, “it was in vain for ah enemy trader to ship his goods on board neutral vessels, where they are more liable to capture than on board his native vessels. For the native vessels might sail with a convoy and resist capture, but it was a breach of neutrality for neutral ships to resist search under such protection. , The neutral is, in theory at least, not damaged by the capture, because his freight is paid. . . The shipping on board a neutral vessel was almost a useless expedient, for though the risk of discovery was a little less, yet the certainty of confiscation in case of discovery was also absolute.” In fact, under the old rules goods placed on board a neutral vessel wore exposed to the maximum of danger, while under the Declaration of Paris they are offered an almost absolute safety. Hitherto, in war time colonies have always avoided neutral flags. They trusted their commerce in the main to convoys, but now there is a new way out of the danger, and we in Australia may comfort ourselves with the reflection that so long as our ports are not blockaded, and so long as the British harbors are open, our gold and our wool can be shipped under a neutral flag with perfect safety, and without additional expense in the way of premiums against capture. Prior to the Declaration of Paris, the. merchant had but two courses open to him. He might wait for those convoys of which Captain Marryat’s novels are so full of particulars, or he might take his chance on the fastest vessels available. A third way is now open to him. The wisdom of the Declaration of Paris with regard to its ultimate effect on the carrying trade of Great Britain, and on her naval supremacy, is much disputed; but into these questions it is not necessary to enter. Our intention has been to remind the public that naval warfare has entered upon a new phase, and that the safety of commerce on the high seas is far more assured than it has ever been before. To this extent war has been robbed of one of its horrors.