CAPTURE OF SHIPS AT SEA.

Wanganui Chronicle, Issue 20142, 8 August 1914, Page 3

CAPTURE OF SHIPS AT SEA.

WHY PIRACY- IN WAR TIME SHOULD BE STOPPED.

'LONDON, July 20. A good deal of discussion is taking place upon the desirability of doing away with the right of nations at war to capture the merchant vessels of an enemy. Sir Edward Grey says that a step will be taken towards the solution of the armaments' problem if there is "a growing relief among the great nations of the world that they have good intentions towards one another." And nothing could promote their friendly feelings more than the sweeping aside by all countries of the piratical right of capture. The existence of the right of capture is a great tax eh trade and commerce, and the continued retention of this right of booty is an obstruction of the greatest and most vital national interests. ARMED MERCHANTMEN. A passenger on one of the newlyarmed merchantmen wrote to the "Nation," saying: — "I am travelling on one of the new 'defensive privateers.' Two 4.7 guns are stowed away out of sight in the stern of the ship, and there are several bluejackets on board playing : deck quoits, and trying to kill time at the public expense. The sailors say it is a 'piece of foolery,' and that the owners have only consented to it to please the Admiralty, iii order to get a quid pro quo. The idea of a beautifully-built passenger vessel like this, equipped at huge expense (and : crowded with passengers) engaging in a fight at sea, is really too absurd. The officers tell me that if one of these guns was fired, every porthole and window, and every bit of .class in the ship would be smashed or blown in. One shot from a cruis- ■ er would send the ship to the bottom." GOVERNMENT'S ATTITUDE. Sir Edward Grey, in reply to a demand for a revision of the existing ; law, made an important statement in ' tho Commons. i Mr. Morel's motion invited the Government to negotiate with- other Powers for such a revision of the laws I of naval w rarfare as would secure imj munity to all private property, except ; in the case of ships carrying material of war or attempting to violate a blockade. To this Sir Edward Grey replied that "the Government not consider or accept any motion committing them to the abolition of the right of blockade in time of war. But if that question were eliminated, they could discuss the matter in a much less uncompromising spirit. The Government could not say point-blank that they were prepared to agree to the abolition of the right of capture of private property at sea, but their attitude had never been irreconcilI able, and the question was one which j they would have to consider more carefully before the next Hague Con- • I ference." | OPPOSITION TO THE ABOLI- ! TION. I The case against any change in the present law has been strongly put by the "New Statesman," which says j that "the Liberal and Labour case for S declaring private property to be im_ mune from capture at sea rests on j three arguments: (1) that as Great j Britain depends more on her merchant shipping in war time than any other country, she would gain most by an agrement that such shipping should be immune; (2) that the German navy has been built to protect the German mercantile marine, and, therefore, that> declare that- marine | immune would relax Anglo-German ; • naval competition; (3) that the cap- j ! turo of merchantmen at sea "'s a bnr- ; 1 barous anachronism, a relic of piracy, | which human progress ought to elimi- j nato from war." j The "New Statesman" then says . that the third argument may be curt- ' ly dismissed since "all war is a barbarous anachronism, but it is hardly progress to be^in by eliminating the lcarsfc inhumane of ita alternative methods. Nor is the second argument —that about Anglo-German naval competition—-ranch more tenable, j for, while the British Government j has been willing to consider the im- I ' munity of shipping in conjunction ' with an agreement, to reduce firran-

\ ments, the German Government has l consistently declined to reduce armaments on this or any other suggested ground. "We are thus left with the single j argument about the advantage to j Great Britain'of having her own enorI mous merchant shipping immune ) from capture in war time. But in '" the first place, even if the immunity ; v/ere absolute, the possibility of mili- | tary invasion would compel us still to maintain a preponderant Navy, as being by far the best means of defending our islands, and the only means of defending our oversea Empire. Secondly, it could not be absolute, and no one could predict how far it would be observed. And, moreover, "no country can defend itself unless $ has some power of attack. The capture of merchantmen and the institution of blockades are the only offensive weapons that a purely naval Power possesses. If we gave them up we should have to develop a nonnaval weapon insteead —i.e., become a military Power like the other Powers."