pouvoir librement se ravitailler ou se réparer dans un port neutre, sans subir les restrictions imposées aux bâtiments de guerre. La position de l'État neutre entre les deux belligérants ne sera-t-elle pas délicate et ne s'exposera-t-il pas à des reproches, qu'il traite en navire de commerce ou en bâtiment de guerre le bâtiment récemment transformé? L'accord se serait peut-être fait sur cette proposition, mais il a semblé qu'il était bien difficile de s'attacher à ce côté secondaire d'une question qu'on ne pouvait songer à régler dans son ensemble. C'est la raison déterminante du rejet de toute proposition.

Pour être complet, je mentionnerai une proposition qui, partant de la possibilité d'une retransformation, voulait au moins en diminuer les inconvénients au moyen d'une certaine publicité: “la retransformation d'un navire marchand en bâtiment de guerre, dans le cas où ce navire a déjà une fois changé de caractère pendant la guerre, doit être communiquée aux différents Gouvernements neutres au moins quinze jours d'avance."

La conclusion de ce rapport est donc purement négative, puisque aucune proposition n'a pu être admise. Il en résulte que la question reste entière. (Ibid., p. 340.)

British view in 1908.-In a preparatory memorandum setting forth the British view upon the points enumerated in the program of the international naval conference in 1908, the statement in regard to conversion of merchant vessels into warships on the high seas was as follows:

No general practice of nations has prevailed in the past on this point from which any principles can be deduced and formulated as the established rules of international law. So far as can be ascertained there are no precedents on the subject.

The question is regarded by His Majesty's Government as one to be decided by reference to the rights of neutrals. Resistance on the part of a neutral merchant vessel to the exercise of the admitted belligerent right of visit and search, involving as it does the possible condemnation of the vessel as good prize, is so serious a matter for the neutral that it is essential that there should be no possibility of doubt as to the ships that are entitled to exercise this right. It is submitted that the true rule to be deduced from the principles which govern the relation between belligerents and neutrals is that the exercise of the right to visit and bring in neutral merchant vessels is strictly limited to ships being, and known to be, public ships of the belligerent fighting fleet flying the pendant. It would be a grave extension of that right if it were held to be permissible to exercise those powers by means of vessels, believed by neutrals to be peaceful

merchant vessels, suddenly and without warning converted into ships of war, possibly in the immediate neighborhood of vessels which they desire to stop and search. Any further limitation to the security of peaceful commerce or of the freedom of neutral vessels to navigate the seas is opposed to the general interests of nations, while the exercise of belligerent force against neutrals in the manner indicated above would almost inevitably lead to friction, with the attendant danger of bringing other nations into the arena of war. The somewhat arbitrary powers accorded to belligerents as against neutrals for the protection of the vital interests of the former should not, it is submitted, be increased, by according sanction to proceedings which, however, they may be argumentatively sustained, are entirely novel and without the support of any existing principles of international law. His Majesty's Government, therefore, regard it as of great importance to neutrals that units of the fighting force of a belligerent should not be created except within the jurisdiction of that power. (Correspondence and Documents, International Naval Conference, Miscellaneous, No. 4 (1909), p. 10.)

Instructions to British delegates, 1908.-In the instructions to the British delegates to the international naval conference in 1908, Sir Edward Grey said:

The condition under which merchant ships may be converted into warships were much debated at the second peace conference, and on a number of points an agreement was reached, which was finally embodied in one of the conventions annexed to the final act of the conference. In regard to one important point, however, namely, as to whether such conversion could be legally effected on the high seas, it was found impossible to arrive at any understanding. The preamble of the convention referred to accordingly recites that:

"Whereas the contracting powers have been unable to come to an agreement on the question whether the conversion of a merchant ship into a warship may take place upon the high seas, it is understood that the question of the place where such conversion is effected remains outside the scope of this agreement, and is in no way affected by the following rules.

**

In the presence of this clearly recorded divergence of views it is not possible to expect that the forthcoming conference could bring about agreement as to the existing law, but His Majesty's Government earnestly hope that means will be found to frame a common rule to which the principal naval powers will bind themselves to conform in future. Such a rule must obviously be in the nature of a compromise, and it would have to be established by way of a convention. Apart from the important question of principle involved, there are two practical considerations which

have chiefly weighed with His Majesty's Government in refusing to recognize the right to convert merchant vessels into ships of war on the high seas. One is the facility which such a right would give to the captain of a merchant vessel qualified to act as a warship, to seize enemy or neutral ships without warning. The other is that enemy vessels under the mercantile flag, but suitable for conversion, would be able, as merchantmen, to claim and obtain in neutral ports all the hospitality and privileges which would, under the accepted rules of naval warfare, be denied to them if they were warships. Availing herself of these advantages, such a vessel, found in distant waters after the outbreak of hostilities, would be enabled to pass from one neutral port to another until she reached the particular point in her voyage where she might most conveniently be converted into a commerce destroyer. These difficulties might be met by restricting the right of conversion on the high seas to the case of vessels which had previously been specifically and publicly designated by the respective Governments as suitable for the purpose and borne on their navy lists; and by subjecting such vessels, while in neutral ports, to the same treatment as belligerent men-of-war. But any other suggestions which may be made in the desired direction, His Majesty's Government will be ready to examine sympathetically. (Correspondence and Documents, International Naval Conference, Miscellaneous, No. 4 (1909), p. 31.)

Report of British delegates to international naval conference. The report of the British delegates to the international naval conference shows that the question of conversion of merchant vessels into war vessels was not brought to a satisfactory conclusion:

The one subject of the programme which has found no mention in the declaration is the conversion of merchant-vessels into men-of-war on the high seas. The question is one of those which had been left unsolved by the second Peace Conference, and so decided was the division of opinion subsequently revealed by the memoranda exchanged by the several Governments before the meeting of the present Naval Conference that it had been found impossible to state, in the shape even of a mere Basis of Discussion, an underlying general principle commonly accepted. In our instructions the hope was nevertheless expressed that some means might be found of reconciling the opposing views and to unite on the basis of a compromise, for which we were allowed a fairly wide discretion. We regret, however, that in this instance all our efforts in bringing about an understanding were unsuccessful. We did not fail to put forward the arguments which, in the view of His Majesty's Government, militate against the recognition of an unrestricted right of conversion on the high seas, and we

endeavored in vain to obtain, in return for a recognition of such right subject to proper limitation, some guarantees against the abuses to which it appears to be obviously liable. We were met with a refusal to make any concessions or to abate one jot from the claim to the absolutely unfettered exercise of the right, which its advocates vindicate as a rule forming part of the existing law of nations. In these circumstances we felt that we had no option but to decline to admit the right, and the result is that the question remains an open one. (Correspondence and Documents, International Naval Conference, Miscellaneous, No. 4 (1909), p. 101.)

Opinion in England.-The fact that the International Naval Conference of 1908-9 was unable to reach an agreement on the question of conversion was the cause of many remarks at the time when the naval prize bill involving matters of war on the sea was before the British Parliament. Comments on the same subject appeared elsewhere. The opinions expressed by commercial bodies and other organizations show great diversity. Frequently petitions to the foreign office requested the rejection of the Declaration of London on the ground that the regulation of the conversion of private vessels into war vessels was not included. One of the ablest of these petitions of protest is that of the London Chamber of Commerce of November 11, 1910, which, among other reasons, states:

That the absence of any provision in the declaration for preventing the conversion of merchant vessels into commerce destroyers on the high seas constitute a valid reason for praying His Majesty's Government to decline to ratify the declaration or to proceed with the naval prize bill. (Correspondence Respecting the Declaration of London, Miscellaneous, No. 8 (1911), p. 14.)

In reply to this objection on the part of other commercial bodies, the foreign office had said:

Sir Edward Grey regrets equally with the chamber of commerce that it was not found possible to come to any arrangement on this important question, but, as stated. on page 101 of the Blue Book, the division of opinion between the powers represented at the conference was so decided that it was not possible to state, even in the shape of a basis of discussion, an underlying general principle commonly accepted. In these circumstances, it can hardly be disputed that the course adopted by this country

namely, refusal to admit the right claimed, the question thus remaining an open one-was the best which could be followed.

The chamber of commerce no doubt realizes that by the omission of this subject from the declaration no change is made in the existing position, and this being the case, the failure to come to an arrangement on this point would not justify the loss of the advantages which Sir E. Grey considers accrue to this country under the provisions of the declaration. (Ibid, No. 4 (1910), p. 8.)

A vote favorable to the naval prize bill was passed in the British House of Commons, but was not passed by the House of Lords; consequently the matter remains for the time being unsettled.

Of the discussion in Great Britain, Norman Bentwich, who has given particular consideration to the declaration, says:

As there appears to be some confusion on the point in the public mind, it may be as well to state that England's objection is not to the conversion of merchantmen in general-we propose to use a number of our own liners for naval purposes in case of warbut to their conversion on the high seas. Most of the Continental Powers, possessing as they do few ports outside Europe, claim a right to convert ships in their volunteer navy whenever and wherever they choose. England, on the other hand, who, through her possession of naval stations in every sea, is in a stronger position, claims that the conversion must not take place after the opening of hostilities on the high seas, but only within the national jurisdiction. The Continental demand undoubtedly opens the way to grave abuses. The "sort of warship" is able as a merchantman before conversion to obtain in a neutral port the hospitality and often the necessary supplies for her new career, then at a favorable moment to take out her armament, run up the naval flag, and swoop down on any merchantman, enemy or neutral, whom she may meet; and, later it may be, when fleeing from the enemy's cruisers, to resume her peaceful character and seek the shelter of a neutral port. The Conference was not unwilling to pass a rule that reconversion on the high seas to mercantile character is forbidden during the war; but as agreement on the main question was not attainable, the whole subject was, in the end, left open.

It has been urged by several leading Chambers of Commerce in this country that the failure to secure the acceptance of our standpoint at the Conference should be made a ground for not ratifying the Declaration; but this seems illogical. The Declaration does not in any way prejudice our position in the matter; we are free to protest against any belligerent who adopts the