96
regard to the prevention of piracy were at present under consideration and asking each of such bodies to nominate a representative to serve on a Committee with certain Govern- ment officials to consider the proposals put forward and make recommendations thereon to the Government.
The three bodies so named nominated Neilage Sharp Brown, Chau Tsun Nin and Tom Turnbull Laurenson respectively the signatories hereto as their nominees. The first meeting of the Committee was held on Friday the 5th of December 1924 at which the Assistant Harbour Master, Commander Conway Hake, R.N.R. presided. It was explained by the Chairman at the outset that the "'certain further proposals" which the Committee was appointed to consider were principally proposals for the amendment of the Piracy Prevention Regulations, and that the Committee were not to be allowed to discuss the general question of piracy prevention apart from the regulations. In these circumstances the signatories knowing the general opinion of those whom they represented, felt themselves compelled to refer the matter back to them before proceeding further with the discussion. The bodies referred to were of the opinion that the existing regulations were most unsatis- factory and that no revision of them would be effectual for the purpose of the sup- pression of piracy and that unless the whole subject was considered, and all explored, no good purpose could be served by the signatories continuing on the Com- mittee and that if wider discussion which such bodies contemplated was not to be allowed it would be better if their representatives should withdraw from the Committee and go thoroughly into the matter themselves and submit a minority report. At the adjourned meeting of the Committee the Chairman again made it clear that the wider consideration was outside the scope of the Committee and the signatories hereto accordingly withdrew.
avenues
Although both the Shipowners and the Personnel on the Ships from the outset have realized the many defects of the existing Ordinance they have unquestionably given the system more than a fair trial. They cannot, however, continue to willingly subscribe to a system which from experience they are convinced is wrong.
The Regulations. It is strongly urged that it is the province of the Navy to protect commerce particularly British commerce against the depredations of pirates. Under the Regulations the responsibility for the defence of the local Mercantile Marine is thrown upon the owners and the officers of each vessel. The idea of a merchant ship of the class plying in the Canton Delta or on the coast having "a citadel fortified garrisoned defended" (vide Report of Sui An Piracy Commission) is as impracticable as it is absurd. It is accepted as axiomatic that it is the duty of the master and his officers to defend their ship but it is submitted that adequate protection from piractical attacks from within the ship is utterly impracticable in the case of vessels employed on the trades in question. Vessels constructed for commercial purposes to carry passengers and cargo from one port to another cannot be converted into fortresses. It is common ground that the element of surprise is always inevitably present in the case of such attacks. The most that can be hoped for or attempted is the defence of the bridge and engine room for a sufficient time to enable the officers to send out distress signals from the bridge. The finding of the Commission appointed to enquire into the 'Sui An' Piracy goes to show that if the, then Piracy Prevention Regulations had been carried out to the letter and the strongest possible fight put up the bridge could only have been held for a sufficient time to have robbed the attack of its element of surprise, and opportunity would have been furnished to inflict damage upon the attackers and to send up signals of distress. It is probable that the bridge could not have been finally held against the determined assault by a large party of armed men". With one exception every recent piratical attack from within the ship has been successful in spite of the existing Regulations. The exception referred to is the case of the "Tai Lee" in April 1924. She was then the mother ship of her convoy and carried eight armed Indian Guards in charge of two European Sergeants, in addition to the six armed Indian Guards attached to the vessel and signed on articles.
<
The pirates launched the attack upon the engine room and, control having been gained, they drew the fires with the intention of causing the vessel to drift ashore where a considerable body of pirates well armed were waiting ready to loot the vessel and murder anyone who resisted.