CAB7-4 — Page 644

Page 644

Page 644

contributions, and the others would not pay a propor- tionate increase. Time should be given to the Colonies to make alternative arrangements, and they might be called upon to pay some small contribution in consi- deration of help rendered in cases of emergency (2716, 2717, 2719, 2720). Under the present system, troops might have to be withdrawn on the outbreak of war, and outlying stations would be thrown into confusion in the absence of thoroughly organized police (2718).

Warlike Stores at Distant Stations.-Looking to the rapidity of development of modern wars, it is very desirable that at important distant stations stores, ammunition, &c., should be accumulated; but then they must be defended, and larger garrisons are necessary, as the existence of large supplies of stores would invite attack. As many descriptions of stores deteriorate in tropical climates, they would require particular care (2724-2726).

Details of the garrisons necessary for the various stations, and the forces available to supply them, will be found in a paper annexed to the evidence of His Royal Highness.

May 28, 1880. THOMAS HENRY FARRER, Esq., Permanent Secretary of the Board of Trade.

British Interests at Sea. The amount of British shipping and the magnitude of British interests at sea have been correctly given by Mr. Giffen (2797-2798).

Supersession of Sailing-ships.-His statements as to the supersession of sailing-ships by steamers are equally correct. Steam, twenty years ago, comprised one-ninth of our total tonnage; now it comprises one-third. Freights from Liverpool to New York by steamer have decreased on the whole between 1860 and 1880 by about one-half to one-third. The average speed of steamers in the New York trade has been accelerated 2 knots per hour, and the speed of mail-steamers 3 knots per hour in the same period (2819, 2820). A ton of coal would now do about twice as much work as the same quantity did twenty years ago. Great improvements, which are by no means at an end, have been made in machinery. The superheating of stean, surface-condensers, and compound engines are means for getting more power out of a given quantity of coal. The conclusion is that steam will, in a short time, supersede sailing-vessels (2819-2821).

Defence of Trade-In a maritime war it would be impossible to defend sailing-ships, and it is fortunate for us that they are going out. The number of very fast steam-ships is limited. The great bulk of our trade is carried on in steamers of from 8 to 10 knots speed, which would be very liable to capture by fast steam-cruizers. It is infinitely more important for us to defend our own interests than to injure our enemy. The means of offence would be (1) maritime capture; (2) blockade; (3) seizure of contraband of war (2800– 2803).

Maritime Capture.-Maritime capture, by far the most important of these three, would be less formidable in our hands now than in former days, and could be used with greater effect against us than against any other Power. Two-thirds of the trade of the world, including all the most valuable goods, is under the British flag, and the proportion is constantly increasing. Much of the trade under other flags is also British (2810, 2817, 2818), and it would be impossible to strike at the commerce of an enemy without injuring our own commercial interests. Any injury done to the commerce of a great trading nation would in the end result in injury to ourselves (2811-2813). Thus maritime capture is likely to do more harm than good (2814), and it is our interest to do away with it (2815, 2816). There is, moreover, nothing to prevent the trade of our enemy taking refuge under a neutral flag, when we should be unable to touch it (2818).

614

Blockade. Notwithstanding the naval supremacy which, considering our superior resources in materials, plant, experience, and skill, we are able to maintain (2804, 2868), blockade would be ineffectual as a means

of destroying an enemy's trade. Railroads have greatly altered the effect of a blockade. A blockade of a single port would be of little avail. For instance, in a war with Russia, Russian trade might pass in and out of German ports; or in a war with Germany, German trade might pass in and out of Belgian or Dutch ports.

In a war with the United States, it would be scarcely possible for us to blockade the whole coast, and trade would pass by railway from one part of the country to another (2804, 2809).

Contraband of War. The seizure of such things as guns and gunpowder would very little affect general trade. The power of taking things which may bo used for the purposes of either war or peace, the most important of which is coal, would most affect trade. We could, however, do little to injure the trade of an enemy by treating coal as contraband of war, because we could only take it when bound to a military port. Neutrals would not submit to our taking coal, and the ships carrying it, if there was a prospect of its being intended for peaceful purposes (2808). It would be very difficult to enforce the belligerent right of contra- band against neutral ships so as to cut off the supply of coal to hostile cruizers (2809).

Embargo.-Embargo is a mode of warfare which seems to be dying out. It has not been enforced in any recent wars, and is scarcely likely to be revived (2890-2892).

Foreign Enlistment Act.—In 1863 some of the leading ship-owners in Liverpool presented a Memorial to Her Majesty's Government after seeing the effect of the "Alabama" upon the trade of the Federal States. Our steamers were certainly fewer and slower then than they are now, but, on the other hand, the facility for building and equipping fast steam cruizers for employment by our enemy has increased, and the arguments of the memorialists still apply to the slower classes of steamers (2823, 2825). The main object of the Memorial (see 2824) was to procure the amendment of the Foreign Enlistment Act with a view to prevent the construction or equipment of ships in British ports for the use of belligerents. Her Majesty's Government declined at the time to amend the Act (2824); but in 1867, the year after the close of the Civil War in America, they issued a Commission, known as the Neutrality Commission, to consider the Foreign Enlistment Act. The Commission reported in 1868 in favour of a very considerable and stringent amendment of the Act, and the result was a new Act, passed in 1870, which goes far to meet the difficulties of the case (2826, 2828). The Act made great changes in the previous Law. It made the building of a cruizer an offence; it gave the executive power to seize and take into a Prize Court any ship fitting out for an unlawful purpose; it threw the burden of proving that the ship was innocent upon the person who had sent her to sea; and it gave a very wide meaning to the word "equip" (2828).

The Act does not prohibit the bond fide sale of an existing ship to a belligerent (2830-2832), and was not intended to apply to the case of a vessel primarily and principally used for trading purposes. It is much more easy to apply this Law where the ship is originally built for fighting purposes. Trading vessels may doubtless be easily adapted for fighting purposes (2835-2839), but it would not do to harass the ordi- nary trading sales of ships, and it would be difficult in practice to distinguish between ordinary sales and sales for purposes of war.

The best means of defending our trade is to get the policy of our Foreign Enlistment Act adopted by all nations. The laws of other nations are not precise like ours. The Americans have their own Act, the pro- visions of which have proved very stringent for the purpose of stopping the equipment and issue of cruizers; and the French Government have very large executive powers, but they have no laws for the special purpose of preventing breaches of neutrality.

The Treaty of Washington.—The Treaty of Washing- ton was ratified in 1871. We did not admit the three Rules of the Treaty to be law when the "Alabama"

Page 644

Page 644

Page 644