British Naval Defences.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 5011, 20 May 1889, Page 3

British Naval Defences.

In moving the adoption of the annual report of the London Chamber of Commerce on March 20th, Sir John Lubbock, the president, referred to the question of defence, and is thus reported by a London daily paper " The extraordinary increase in the armament of the great European Powers had naturally attracted the attention of the mercantile community here. There was a widely spread feeling that we must be prepared, not for attack, but for defence. They all regretted, he believed, that it should be so ; and they felt keenly the competition of other Powers ; but «n the other hand they were ready to consider the grounds put forward by Her Majesty’s Government to justify this proposal. _ The naval strength which it might be requisite to maintain depended, of course, on the duties it had to perform. They would remember that after the Crimean war a conference was held at Paris at which it was proposed—Firstly, that the flag should cover the goods; secondly 'that privateering should be abolished ; and thirdly, that private ships should be free from capture and seizure. To the first two England agreed, but they declined to accede to the third, the consequence of which was that the United States refused to concur in the arrangement, though they would have done so if we had agreed to make private ships free from capture and seizure. The present situation then seemed to the council to be one fraught with great peril to our mercantile marine. In the first place, they were committed, while some other countries, such as the United States, had their hands still free. The question whether food could be regarded as contraband of war in case of a conflict was certainly one of vital importance to this country. 3Jnt apart from that the council were of opinion that it would be most important for our shipping interests that private vessels should be made free from capture and seizure at sea. Unless this was done our Navy, even with the proposed additions, would be unable protect our shipping. They know how two or three crusiers destroyed the American mercantile marine during the War of Secession, and in case of war ours would be liable to the same fate, being crushed, not necessarily by actual capture but by the rate of insurance which they would have to pay- On the other hand, if ships wore not liable to capture our Navy would bo free for the defence of our coasts. More than one-halt of the whole amount of vessels on the ocean belonged to this counlry. We had in fact, at present, everything to lose and nothing to gain; it was Lombard-street to a China orange; and our refusal to adopt the course suggested by other countries with reference to private property at sea was, in his judgment, one of the greatest mistakes which had been made in the foreign policy of this country for many years past. The excessive burden imposed upon the people of Europe by their gigantic military armaments was becoming so serious as to bo almost intolerable, and would render any competition with America, the British colonies, and other less highly-taxed communities, more and more difficult. It • seemed to him to be a question well worthy the consideration of European statesmen whether the time had not arrived to make a serious effort to remedy a slate of things which pressed so heavily on the people of this continent. Arbitration had been successfully adopted in some cases, even though a special tribunal had to be created for each case, a course in' which there were manifest drawbacks. He could not but think that the tigje h?d come when statesmen should con-

aider the advisability of establishing a permanent international court of arbitration to which any dispute might be submitted. This would at any rate give time and opportunity for reflection, and obviate the fear of sudden attack.