Untitled

Press, Volume LIII, Issue 15872, 11 April 1917, Page 6

A peal of bells, well and truly rung, is a beautiful thing in itself and hallowed by beautiful associations. To attain excellence in bell-ringing, as in other things, practice is necessary. Therefore, we do not for one moment join in the childish complaints of those who object to the bellringer s of the Cathedral putting in the needful amount of practice, although wo have not found propinquity to the Cathedral on practice nights at all conducive to literary composition. What we fail to understand., however, is the necessity or advantage of the performance which now usually takes place on Tuesday evening, when an attempt is made to spell out—if we may use the expression—various hymn tunes on the octave of bells. The bells, not having been constructed for such exercises, are r.ot strictly in tune, and the general effect is that of a child trying to hammer out with one finger a series of airs on n piano which wants tuning, the loud pedal being kept hard down the while. If this is genuine "campanology" then all we can say is that the art is neither so beautiful nor so difficult as we had supposed it to be.

Some very interesting phases of prize law were expounded by the President of the Prize Court, Sir Samuel Evans, in delivering judgment on a motion brought on behalf of Commander Edward Courtney Boyle, V.C., and the officers and ship's company of H.M. submarine El 4 for a declaration that they were entitled to £31,375 as prize bounty for the destruction of an unknown Turkish gunboat and of the Turkish transport, Gul Djeml, in tho Sea of Marmora on May Ist and 10th, 1915, respectively. As to the .Turkish gunboat, the Court found that she had 75 men on board, and that tho sum of J £375 (£5 per head) was payable as ! prize bounty to the commander, officer.-*, ! and crew of the submarine. The Gul i Djeml was a transport, and the first question to bo decided was whether she was an enemy armed ship in respect of which any prize bounty at all is pay- ] able. There was also the question | whether, if the bounty was payable, it j i was to be calculated according to the 1 J number of the crew of the ship, or to | j the number of all persons on board. { j The crow consisted of two hundred. If j they were the determining factor, the j prize bounty would be £1000. She also ! i carried 6000 Turkish troops, and if the j | number of persons on board were the J determining factor, tho prize bounty would be £31,000. The Court was not satisfied that the transport was an armed ship. Sho to have been a fleet auxiliary, manned bv naval ratings. and commanded by officers of the Turkish jSavy, but even if she had a few light guns, in the opinion of the Court, that did not constitute her an armed ship any more than a merchant vessel armed for self-defence, nor did the fact that she carried troops armed with rifles, some field-guns, and other ammunition intended to be used after the landing of the troops.

Acting, therefore, with the meticulous care for the strict observance of

the law always snown by English Courts, even where enemy ships are concerned, Sir Samuel Evans held that tho application for prize bounty failed in the case of the transport. He added that it was just possible that at some future time further evidence might be procured as to tho alleged armament of the vessel and to safeguard the possible rights of the bravo officers and sailors concerned, in disallowing tho prize application he did so without prejudice to any further application that they might be advised to inako on any further evidence that might be forthcoming.

During the judgment, an interesting history was given of the granting of prize bounty, or head money, as it was called in olden times. In th 0 time of the Commonwealth it was ordained that a bounty should bo given for sinking, firing, or destroying any of tho revolted ships, or of any other fleet that should fight against the Commonwealth. If the ship destroyed was the Admiral's the. bounty was to be £20 for each piece of ordnance on the ship, and thero was a sliding scale down to £10 for each gun in the case of a shin not a flagship. It was by statute of Queen Anne changed to a sum of £o for every man living on board the enemy ship taken in action. In George lll.'s reign, it was enacted that a bounty of £5 for each man who was living on board should be paid for sinking, burning, or otherwise destroying an armed ship of the enomy. Tho Act now in force is tho Naval Prize Act, 1864, which gives bounty for destruction of the aimed ships of the enemy. It will bo seen that formerly the amount was calculated on the number of guns that the enemy carried, and later by tho number of men on board. In olden days tho number of guns carried was largo in proportion to tho number of men; in modern, times tho number of guns is Tery small in comparison, and in proportion, to tho men required for the equipment of tho fighting vessel.