Sessional_Paper_1927 — Page 109

105

3. I feel that an apology is due to the Commission for the length at which I have expressed myself: but the "Minority" Report is not an easy paper to answer briefly.

The Hon. Mr. E. R. HALLIFAX, C.M.G., C.B.E.,

Chairman of the "Sunning" Piracy Commission.

I have, etc..

(Sd.) L. J. PITCAIRN JONES, Lieut. Commander, (R.N.)

REMARKS ON THE "MINORITY" REPORT.

General. The "Minority" Report appears to lay itself open to the two following general criticisms:-

:

A. It appears to base its contentions on the erroneous assumption that the duty of defending a merchant. ship against piratical attack lies primarily with the Royal Navy in the second place with the Government; and in the third place, (and this only touched upon once in the whole Report, and is at once dis- missed as being impracticable), -with the master and officers of the ship. B. Its criticisms are almost entirely destructive, and it is difficult to read it with- out gathering the impression that the underlying object of the paper is to foist every vestige of the responsibility of merchant ships' officers and owners on to the shoulders of the Government or of the Royal Navy, and even to avoid the expense involved in taking any special precautions which may be recom- mended to them.

2. With regard to A, I would submit that the defence of any individual merchant ship against piracy, either external or internal, must rest. primarily with that ship's officers. Both in Law, and (in bye-gone days at any rate) in practice this was clearly recognised indeed, for the master and crew not to resist piratical attack by every means in their power is an offence still punishable by Law, (enacted in the days of Charles II). Of course, the peculiar form of attack which we know as "Internal" piracy was not con- templated by the framers of this Law, but the law remains on the Statute Book, and the principle involved (of Resistance) is the same.

3. With regard to B, it is an historical fact that merchant ships were commonly armed in the days when piracy flourished, as the most obvious counter to this menace, thereby clearly implying a recognition of the responsibility of owners to assist their officers in carrying out this duty.

I would therefore suggest that the order of degrees of responsibility should be amended as follows:-

(i) The master and ship's officers, the owners being morally bound to give them such support, (in the way of anti-piracy fittings, guards &c.) as may be considered necessary. In the United Kingdom at the present day this entails nothing, in China unfortunately a good deal, but the responsibility is there in either case.

(ii) The Royal Navy, which is bound to render all the assistance in its power, should the menace assume such dimensions as to be beyond the power of those most directly concerned to cope with it, and

(iii) The Government, should the steps contemplated by the Royal Navy involve political considerations outside the competence of the Naval Authorities to arrange, (e.g. attack on pirate bases situated in Foreign Territory) or measures involving special civil legislation (e.g. police search of passengers &c.)