187
some of their ships should be protected have to be conceded, but
those companies which now provide and pay for their own guards
would have to be relieved of this expense. And the large number
of smaller craft flying the British flag, which navigate the
inland waters where the incidence of piracy is greatest, would
also have to be considered.
4. But I would strongly submit that the shipping
companies' claim is not a sound one, and the responsibility
for the internal proteotion of their ships is their own.
5. Oven in England, railway companies organise their own
police force for duty on their property; race course companies,
football ground companies, etc., pay large sums for the use
of police in order to ensure a peaceful carrying on of their
businesses. It would be unreasonable to suggest that these
services should be provided free by the State in order that the
companies could pay larger dividends.
€. And the same applics to shipping firms when they
engage in the very profitable but risky business of carrying
300lies on the China Station. Some of these profits should
be devoted to securing a safe uarrying on of their business, and
it should not fall as a charge on the British taxpayer.
7.
I doubt very much whether the shipping companies who
claim protection as a right fully realise what would be tac
result if their claim was upheld. It is obvious that if the invel
authorities were made responsible for the internal protection of
the ships, definite rules and regulations ould have to be issued
to ensure their safety, with the result that protection would bo
given a prior importance to actual trade. Those responsible would
not be justified in taking any risk and the situation would be
similar to that existing in wor time. This would necessarily be
so detrimental to the shipping companies' business that it is
quite certain that this is not what they wish.