MARITIME WARFARE.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 555, 9 July 1909, Page 7

MARITIME WARFARE.

BRITISH POLICY ' THE PRIZE COURT AND ITS RULES. BOTH POSTPONED. (By. Telegraph.—l'rose Association.—Copyrlzbt.) , London! July 7. The "Standard" states that tho Prmio Minister (Hγ. Asquith) has postppned indefinitely tho ratification of tho Declaration of London dealing with tho international rules of naval warfaro, which was adopted in February last. Honco tho Declaration remains a dead-letter. The ratiEcation of tho convention for tho establishment of an International Prize Court, has also boon postponed. the declaration's omission. converthdlierchantmen. The question of nn International Prize Court and an international code of laws of maritime warfare naturally go together! When tho last Hague Conference designed the International Prizo Court it did not supply laws or rules for it; tho result would have been that tho Court would hare ntado its own laws, instead of merely the decisions under the lair. Britain decided that the laws must precede the Court if she was to accept tho new tubunal. Hence tho 'international conference which met in London to draw up laws of maritime warfaie. These laws as drawn up by tho conference aro embodied in the Declaration of London, published last March. Decisions a Compromise. It is now cabled that the British Government has postponed the ratification of both the Declaration and the Prize Court, on what ground it not stated. The work of the conterenoe. as embodied in tho Declaration met with fairU goueral acceptance at Home, not a* being perfect, but as being a fair compromise between British and foreign interests \s such, it was defended in the Houso of Coirinons by the Secretary for foreign Aftairs, Sir Edward Grey 'Iho pre'-o.nt po tpouement suggests either a changed opinion in official circles as to what tho conference has done, or —more likely—appiehon ion with regard to what the conference has not done For there is at least one nohble mission fiom tho Dec laration of London, and that is the absence of any definite decision on the right of a belli gerent to come't a merchant vessel into a warship on the high seas .This right Britnin denies, while her 'opponents' maintain it, henoa tho silence of the conference It has been pointed Out that, if the Declaration is , ratified as it stands, it may be left to the Prize Court to "mako the law' on this vital point A Modified Piracy. Referring to the attitude of the conference on this issue, Mr Win Maxnell writes — ' The instructions of Sir Edward Grey were that Biitish delegates should seek to maintain in their integrity thos° belligerent rights which havo proved ess»nhal to tho successful a ver tion of British sei power and to the , defence of British independence and to scoure for neutrals the widest possible freedom 'in the unhindered navigation of the seas Let us seo how the\ hate obeyed this injunction There is one important omis ion from the de clantion that.tno} bo accepted as earnest of their determination to maintain the 'lcgitimato rights oc a belligerent' On tho question of the conversion of merchant'ships into warships Irreconcilable difference between foroifm and I British opinion—already manifest at Iho Pague—prevented en agreement The Con I tinent refused to abandon fie principle that merchant ships may/be converted into warships on the high sett' To thi° principle Gr«it i Britain cannot as-ent for it s obvious that ships so converted would be able not only to s»izo en°my or neutral ships without warning —a modified piracy—but also to claim and ob tain in rieiitril ports all tho hospitality and privileges that would, under tho accepted rules of naval warfare, be denied to them if they were warships", ltll , , , In the debate in the House of Commons on 1 the Deokrahon of London, Mr Austen Cham- , berlam laid, downJhe principle—which wa« acc-pted by/Rir IOTArH Grey-that "how»ur much we mrirhT inin as neutrils, we might purchase that ftaih too dearly if we obtained , it at tho sacrifice of belligerent rnjht" " Thero 13 ft nicety of balance sungestfrd in th.i which makes the task of the British diplomatist , re■semble the performance of Blondin; on cither side he is liable to fill into the abyss Other nations are, no doubt, not without similar worries. ' Right of r Cnpiure—Btfj Navies The party which demands the abindonment of Britain's Tight to capture an enemy's merchant ships (not carrying contraband) was represented in *he d«bate The First lord of tho Admiralty (Mr M'Kenna) refused to abandon such a weapon of wnr on tho part of a maritime nation Mr V. E Smith, tho joumr Unionist, K C«, tool the unexpected line that "we loso more than, we gain bj the mainten- ., .iinoe'-of the/present•; system;" . ;.,The 'outbreak ■' of >war 'with:; Germany;, .only .'Jniean. for;! .■her.'a eu.ddch : ;development: of land conveyance • ■•pf^.Xpo3s v ■and':ith.β^tap^d?■tr■ansfβ^ctlcβ■■^■of■■fier l ' ..' "goods' ■ from .German'. , bottoms'-' to'.rieiitral' ; bot- ■ tdms. ; ; '.\yhile : ,.Britai_n':profossed:that-:hervNaVy"i ,' wan .not i for Aggressive; purposes,, she persisted in !ier.right to oapture.■■■■..ln the circumstances ■ she".; had, no riirht to,' resent the, action -of \ .Ger- , many 'in;:building a-great NaVv.''';. But if once. '. ;tliij.."g^jranfee,,bf. ! go«d..-iaith"--;werey(ilTen.;tc'. I' , Germany, : .\and • she 'then'.went on iexpanding' y jher NaVy;,he-would-,feel they had "indeed ■■' .reachedv.a'>ori3{si-:--..-> ;;■•;>. •:.:;, :.•; ■■.-.-'..Tv.^y^v