§ 2. Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked whether the guns mounted in trading steamships are regarded as being intended for the purpose of self defence; whether the use of the guns for that purpose would not in fact constitute an offensive act; whether the commanding officers of the vessels in question are commissioned officers in His Majesty's service; and, if not, what would be their position in International Law in the event of the guns being used against a hostile commissioned ship, whether commissioned regularly or by letter of marque?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLThe guns that have been mounted in some merchant steamships are intended for the purpose of self defence in certain contingencies. These guns if used for self defence would not constitute an offensive act in the sense that the vessel was taking the offensive. The officers commanding the vessels so armed might have commissions as officers of the Royal Naval Reserve, but their position on those vessels would be the same as that of other masters of merchant ships. The intention of this part of the question is not understood. Defence on the part of a belligerent is not in any way contrary to International Law, and therefore the master of a merchant steamship defending herself would not be liable to any special penalty. It may be added that the issue of letters of marque was abolished by the Declaration of Paris.
§ Mr. MIDDLEMOREAm I to understand that if one of these captains in question fires in self defence he would not, in case of capture, be regarded as a privateer?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLI think that that is the effect of my answer; but it is a legal question, and I could not, as a layman, attempt to answer such a question without consulting the authorities at my disposal