FREEDOM OF THE SEAS

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 97, 18 January 1919, Page 8

FREEDOM OF THE SEAS

HOW BRITAIN WON IT FOR THE WORLD

HOW SHEfMAINTAINED IT

(Special to Tub Dominion.)

By "freedom of the seas" in peacetime is meant the right of peaceful merchant ships to go where they pleas© on the eons of the world free from all perils and restrictions save those imposed by the weather. This right is not. one that has, like Topsy, "just growed" ; on the contrary, before it became established as a doctrine of international law—which niay . bo thus stated: that outsido territorial limits (three miles) the seas are the property of no State, but are open to all—it had to overcome two doughty opponents in monopoly, otherwise restrictions, sought to be imposed by a naval Power, and piracy. It has up" to tho present time taken two naval ware to defeat the first of these opponents. In 1493 the Pope of that day claimed the right to give a mpnopoly of most of tho seas of the world to Spain and Portugal. England, it is hardly necessary to say, never admitted either the Pope's right to grant such a monopoly or the right of Spain or Portugal to profit by it. But still, for the best part of a century, her ships'and those lof all other nations save. Spain and Portugal eailed at their peril in the South Atlantic, the Indian, and the Pacific Oceans. Drake and Lord Howard of Effingham destroyed this monopoly when , they . defeated the Spanish Armada and ended Spanish naval supremacy. . ' Bait this victory did not mean the crushing; of monopoly for all time. In the following century neglect of the' Navy by the later Stuarts led to our naval supremacy passing into the hands .of the Dutch,, just as in the twentieth century .the follies of; Mr. Asquith's Government might have allowed it to pass into the hands of the Germans if the war had not broken out. The Dutch, in their turn, established . a monopoly in all the waters east of the Straits of Malacca. Once more England caine to the rescue of tho world's rights. She destroyed the naval power of the Dutch, and from that time until now- she' hasj by virtue of her acknowledged naval supremacy, , and at her own expense, maintained •' inviolate the doctrine that outside territorial ' limits the eeas of the world are open to all nations. So, too, as regards the other enemy of the doctrine, piracy. The destruction of piracy has been achieved almost entirelv by the unceasing vigilance of the British' Navy, and at tho sole cost of England. Thus, then,, the freedom ofthe seas in peaco time, as we -have , known it in the past, and liopc to know it in the future, is due so far only to the supremacy of the British Navy. If it is asked why England lias never yet abused her power, answers are not far to seek. First of- all, Britain, above all other nations, worships freedom, and combines' with that worship a strain of luisolfishness vorginc on the quixotic. In-the next place she has been for centuries a firm believer in the broader ■aspects of free trade. It has been stiefrosted that there is. pprhans. a third reason, viz, that England has never, soupht .to ho a great military Power; and that, as a grent naval Power, can seldom if over force a definite' decision in war unless she also has great military power, England has been afraid, to abuse the advantages her .naval supremacy has given her. The .'soundness of this reasoning seems open to doubt. It raipbthe accepted if the case of the Spaniards was the. only case in point, because their naval supremacy was hardly, if at all, greater than 'their military supremacy during the: Bame period. / But this eanrofc lie said of the Dutch. At no time during lie comparatively short period that their their naval supremacy la3ted was their military strength at allona par with it ':-■'■■-. -' ' ' ' ■

We see then that the doctrine of in-, ternational law in regard to the freedom of the seas in peace time. really owes its oxistence solely to the. comparatively short period that freedom by means of her naval supremacy. 'We. see that to obtain this success England first staked her existence as a nation in a war against the then 'greatest naval and military Power in the world. We see that in the noxt century, she, still with the same object in view, defeated another powerful opponent. And we see, also, that during the long period of over three'.hundred year?!, during which England lias, almost without interruption, held the naval supremacy of the world; she lias never once used, or attempted to use, that power to tho detriment of her neighbours. Any other nation in tho world miglit well be proud of such a record. But because it is England that holds this/record, her conduct in tho matter is taken by all other "nations as a matter of course, an indirect but a well-deserved.compliment to our country.

Is it likely that the .world at. largo would have fared as. well under the naval domination of some other great Power? It is certain that it would not if Germany had been that .other great Power. And if we may judge from some of America's maritime legislation, it is not certain that even she, in spite of her Anglo-Saxon origin, would uso her power with the same colossal unselfishness as Britain has done. For Great Britain to part with her naval supremacy would .be the greatest misfortune that could come upon the rest of the world. For it would have to' face the risk of that supremacy falling into the. hands of some Power— (1) which was so formidable on land as to terrorise other Powers; (2) which was not inspired by a dominating tradition of liberty; and (3) which believed in the value of commercial monopoly and the destruction of trade rivals.

Finally, tho passing of naval sunremacv from England must mark Hie downfall of the British Empire. Therefore, to us in these colonies it is vital, above all other things, that the Empire shall retain its supremacy.