THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES WEDNESDAY, JANUARY SI, 1917. SAFEGUARDING THE MERCHANT SERVICE.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 16916, 31 January 1917, Page 4

THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES WEDNESDAY, JANUARY SI, 1917. SAFEGUARDING THE MERCHANT SERVICE.

According to Mr Cyril Brown, an American correspondent at Berlin, the conclusion is growing in German naval circles that the submarine campaign against merchantmen must settle the war, and the rxithless submarining party is tugging at the leash, which must shortly be loosed. This harmonises with much that we have heard before, but only emphasises the desperate hopes to which the enemy is compelled to cling. It raises, moreover, the question of the extent to which Germany can make her submarine campaign more formidable than it already is. The British Admiralty is not remaining inactive all this time in instituting measures to improve the efficiency of its anti-submarine precautions. The loss of every British or neutral vessel is immediately published, but not so the fate of the enemy's submarine caught in the prosecution of its nefarious war against commeirce. To the fact that Britain is enlarging the North Sea area marked off as dangerous to shipping considerable importance no doubt attaches, and this is to be viewed evidently as a measure as much designed to circumscribe movement on the part of the enemy as to afford greater protection to merchant shipping. The increasing toll levied by enemy submarines upon the mercantile marine has evoked some strong criticism in the Old Country of the methods of the Imperial Government in dealinowith this menace, such views finding expression in the resolution moved by Lord Beresford and carried by a recent meeting under the auspices of the British Empire Union, reading: " We citizens of the city of London resolve to demand of his Majesty's Government that measures be instantly adopted by the Admiralty for dealing with the submarine and mine menace to overseas trade, and $hat British l , merchant vessels, be. so

armed as to enable them to defend themselves against piratical attacks; that a more effectual blockade be enforced, and that no vessel seized by the naval authorities be released until after adjudication by the Prize Courts, and that the British navy be set free to exercise to the full its lawful sea powers." As may be imagined, Lord Beresford did not spare- the Government in illuminating its sins of omission. The gravamen of his cornjDlaint was that Britain had command of the sea, but did not; use it. Mr T. Gibson Bowles, in seconding the resolution, urged that Admiral Beatty must have—as Sir John Jellicoe did not have—complete control of all naval arms—ships, submarines, mines, and aircraft. As to what the Imperial Government is doing at the present time to ensure greater safety for the merchant service we are not likely to get very specific details. The New York Times was responsible very recently for the report that under the new Lloyd George plan for controlling British shipping the White Star and Cunard liners wotild ojoerate between Liverpool and Halifax instead of coming on to New York, and would be armed with sixinch guns fore and aft; while in addition to the protection afforded by the guns there would be fast cruisers in certain positions known to the commanders of the liners, who would be provided with special signals to enable them to call for assistance in the event of attack' The ban placed by the British Admiralty on the publication of reports concerning the movements of steamers in the Atlantic trade was expected to make it more difficult for the Germans to get news. A despatch from Paris of December 24th reads: "The Journal Officiel publishes a decree permitting the State alone to charter shipping. The Government will divide into several groups all shipping employed in the conveyance of foodstuffs and coal for the general public, and these convoys will be escorted by So far as can be judged there is to be at least a partial adoption in the meantime by the Allies of the convoy system. We read that a Navy League deputation submitting proposals for a more vigorous suppression of submarines went away satisfied with the explanation given it by Sir Edward Carson and Sir John Jellicoe as to the - i Admiralty's counter-attacking measures. We may take it for granted that steps are being taken to arm the merchant service as speedily as possible, though that matter has been a problem presenting considerable difficulty. Lord Beresford would have merchant vessels armed bow, beam, and quarter, their captains given a status, and the abandonment of the policy of arming such ships only for defence and in such a manner that they have to run away before bringing their guns into action. He and others advocate a complete armament policy for merchantmen and apparently the commissioning of ships. The policy of armament fore and aft and on the beam would call, Mr Archibald Hurd has estimated, for no fewer than 12,000 guns and gun-mount-ings and at least twice as many trained gunners, and he asks where these would come from at a time when our resources are strained to the utmost. Then again neutral Governments would probably not permit such vessels to use their ports except as men-of-war making a twenty-four hours' ' visit, which would be useless for loading or unloading cargoes. The wholesale i policy of arming in relation to the merchant service is probably impracticable. But the late President of the Board of Trade, Mr Runciman, stated a few weeks ago.that he could see no objection to a certain number of merchant vessels being put in commission in order that the status of the captains might be placed on a clear footing, while the task would not be very difficult as two or three thousand light guns on suitable mountings would probably suffice for all the ships it was desirable to arm. By giving the masters of these ships commissions in the Royal Naval Reserve and notifying that all such vessels were commissioned their status would, of course, be changed. They would become men-of-war, and it would be permissible on the part of the enemy to attack them without warning; but as the enemy does that already the advantages attendant on the change would appear to outweigh the disadvantages. " The position,".says Mr Archibald Hurd, " is clear. The arming policy could be applied to all our commercial ships as soon as guns can be px-o-vided, but only those voyaging between British , and allied ports oould be commissioned, as they would become men-of-war and be excluded from neutral ports. An enormous proportion of our shipping falls, in fact, into the latter category at present, and that proportion could be armed as heavily as was desirable and practicable—and commissioned. The adoption of that policy would, it is held on high authority, go a lo'ng way to defeat the enemy's aims." It was reported some time ago in the American press that the French Government had given commissions in the navy to all commanders of French Atlantic liners which would henceforth trade between Halifax, in place of New York, and Bordeaux. The actual shipping losses suffered by Great Britain in the war, according to an estimate made by Sir Norman Hill, secretary of the Liverpool Steamship Owners' Association, for the twenty-seven months from August, 1914, to October, 1916, have been 435 steam vessels of more than 1600 tons, representing 1,774,000 tons gross register.' As Great Britain started the war with 3600 vessels of 16,000,000 tons gross, the losses represent 12 per cent, in numbers or 11 per cent, in tonnage, being less than one-half of 1 per cent, a month. The value of the cargoes lost is calculated at 0.49 per cent, of the total by Sir Norman Hill, who adds:" A ten shillings in one hundred pounds •blockade will never starve us." This is a comforting reply to Germany's hopes and it takes no account of the rapidity with which new ships a.re l>eing turned out to replace those lost. But the sum total of the loss inflicted by Germany on the world's shipping is of course immensely greater . than that inflicted on

British shipping alone, and the destruction of neutral vessels is all part of the enemy campaign against Britain's food supplies.