ON THE BLOCKADE.

Feilding Star, Volume XII, Issue 2855, 28 January 1916, Page 2

ON THE BLOCKADE.

S!!i EIIWAIII) Lillys VIEW

WARNING TO AMERICA

IiIUTAIN STANDS FIRM

UY ELECTItIO TELEGBArH.-'-COPTniGHX. PER PREBB ASBOPIATION. London, January 26. Replying to .interrogations in the House o! Commons in .reference to the blockade of Germany, Sir Edward Grey, foreign Minister, said the subject was not us simple as might appear from speeches in the House and articles in the papers and magazines. On the contrary, it was most difficult and complicated. There was a real misapprehension in the House of Commons in regard to the amount of trade [Kissing through neutral nations to the enemy. " There was also a vast under-ostimate of what the Government was doing to prevent goods reaching the enemy. The figures ■■recently scattered broadcast by the London Daily Mail would not bear and the conclusions 'founded thereon had undoubtedly done a great deal of harm.

THE FACT WAS OVERLOOKED that in peace time many neutral nations drew supplies from countries which were not available in war timo: Further, a large amount of stuff from tho United States of America, believed to be destined to the enemy, had never reached neutrals, as it is now in the British Prize Courts. In regard to the statements that tho export of .wheat from the United States to Scandinavia had increased from 19,000.000 bushels for ten months in 1913 to 50,000,000 in 1915, those 50 millions included exports to Spain, Portugal. Greece, and Malta, amounting to 23,000,000. The last-named countries had hitherto largely depended on the Mack Soa ports. We must also deduct several millions of bushels used for the relief of Belgium. He instanced several more deductions to, show that the Scandinavia imports WERE NOT EXCESSIVE. We could not stop the leakage altogether, whatever system we adopted. We could not take over the .administration of neutral countries nor pre--,-vent smuggling against the neutrals, own 'regulations. It was impossible,, however strict tho supervision, that tho British navy could ensure that nopart of the cargo would find its way to the enemy. Sir Alexander Henderson's report showed that the maximum was being done that was possible without serious trouble with, neutral nations. The charge that theForeign Office was spoiling and undoing the navy's work was

GROSSLY-UNFAIR AND UNTRUE. Since the beginning of I'JIO the Government had only released three ships without consulting the Contraband Committee. Two of these cases wero discussed by Cabinet and the ships released for special reasons. The third was the Stockholm, about which the Swedish Government specially appealed. We telegraphed that if we received certain assurances we would release the vessel. These assurances were not received. Was not it time that these statements should be stopped? The- Foreign Office had done its best to return the goodwill of a neutral from whom we wanted special supplies. We had to explain. to justify interference with their trade, that it was not easy. We had no right to nay that the Prize Court I held "the neck of a bottle through * which all their trade must pass. Hat! we attempted to go that far, the war might possibly have been over now, because, the whole "world would lutye JOINED AGAINST US, and we and our Allies would have collapsed under its resentment. Our correspondence with the United States continues to justify our policy. Wo consulted with France before replying to the United States' last Note, with the view of pursuing the same policy and justifying it with the same arguments before putting the same- case before the world. We are perfectly ready to confer with any man crying out against the policy determined upon last March, in order to vary it with one which is likely to be agreeable to neutrals or less inconvenient in practice; but so lone as it was elFective we could not adjourn Die right to interfere with enemy trade. "We could not exercise it without considerable inconvenience!, to neutrals, who must answer one : main question. Do they admit onr, right to apply principles which America applied in tho war between the, North and the South ami do our best, to prevent trade with the enemy through neutrals? If the neutrals answered "Ycr," as in fairness they were bound to do, we, will say: Then make it easy for us to distinguish goods which are bona fide destined for neutral consumption. If they answered "No," then we must say definitely that that attitude is A DEPARTURE FROM NEUTRALITY. The latest Note from the United States Government contained proposals which, if conceded, would make it absolutely impossible to prevent even contraband goods going wholesale through neutrals to the enemy. If we had conceded all the Note asked, we might as well give up the at-

j tempt to carry out the blockade. But ho did not understand that the United States or any other Government held that view. We wore entitled to claim the utmost right recognised by international law previous to tins war. H» did not intend to say in what j direction the conditions of peace, pointed. Wo MUST END PRUSSIAN MILITARISM, which was a constant menace to peace. The whole of our resources woro engaged in this war. Our maximum efforts—military, naval and financial—were at the Allies' disposal. In carrying on tho conflict, wo would exert all our efforts to put a maximum of pressure upon our enemies. Part* of that pressure-might b<; preventing supplies from going to the enemy. By v.sing that full' power, our navy would relax no effort to assist our common Allies to see the thing through. Sir Edward Grey's speech was followed by a prolonged ■ovation. The House was impressed by the weight of his arguments, and even the doubters were brought to realise the difficult problems which had to lie faced. JOHN DILLON'S VIEWS. DOLEFUL CRITICISM OF THE FOREIGN OFFICE. London January 20. Mr .John Dillon, M.P., in an article in the Fortnightly Review, protests against the thwarting of the magnificent efforts of the Navy by the Foreign Office, which was going out of j its way to make the blockade ix farce. Only the British sea power -was between us and defeat. If our succors depended upon tho exercise of intelligence superior to that of the enemy, we might regard the war as already lost beyond recovery. The chief reasons for our present desperate plight was the absence of genuine leaders of strong will, , high purpose, and true insight, also the lack of an efficient organisation. The failure .which had paralysed the heroism of our army had been applied with considerably more subtlety to thwarting the magnificent efforts of the Navy. Tf the Foreign Oflice had not liam■pered tho Navy, Germany would have been forced to sue for peace before the end of 1915. We Were slowly organising for defence, but we had yet to organise for victory. Wo may tomorrow have to organise for a bare ■existeilce. Tho article concludes: " The public now believes that things are going to be -bettor. I know enough I to be unable to share that consoling j-Jaith." I IMPORTS AND EXPORTS. PROTESTS AND LEAKAGES. (Received January 28, 8.-45 a.m.) London, January 27. A deputation from the I'apermakers' Association met the Hon. Mr llunciman, President of the Board of Trade, owing to it being rumoured that the Government intends to prohibit 60 per cent, of the import of wood pulp, in order to keep the money in the country and to oopo with tho shipping difficulty. The newspapers are considering a proposal to reduce the size of their papers by ■10 per cent, and prohibiting the re-1 turn of unsold papers. The Government similarly contemplates a prohibition of importing cinema films. Delhi, January 27. ' The authorities here favour extontive experiments in the manufacturing of paper from the sabai grass and bamboo.

. Speaking in the House of Lords, Lord Devonport said that since the commencement of the war to the end of 1915 300 cargoes of iron ore, ■amounting to 1,500,000 tons, had arrived at Rotterdam, the inference being that it was intended for Germany. The Duke of Devonshire, replying, said the average imports annually ! from 1911 to 1913 were 5,500,000 : tons, nearly the. wholo proceeding to 1 Germany. Tho imports into Holland in 1915' was 650,000 tons. ; In the Hoxtso of Commons, the : illon. Sir R. B. Finlay proposed that I food be-made an absolute contraband. • Lord Robert Cecil, replying to the debate, admitted that the blockade was imperfect, but the complications were great. The Government had not lost sight of the possibility of a blockade of the Baltic. "We arc trending towards what no other nation ever tried before—trying to blockade Germany through neutral countries. It is'not a case of highhandedness, but of great caution and ■circumspection. It is easy to make i .mistakes which turn out co seriously !as to prevent winning a war." The motion was talked out. PRESS OPINIONS. CRITICISM-OF SIR E. GREY. ! (Received January 28. 9.10 a.m.) ', London, January 27. The Daily Mail is of the opinion that Sir Edward Grey's attack on the "scaremongering press" was an impudent invention, and he bases it on grotesque figures. The Daily Chronicle attacks the Foreign 'Office, and says it is representing a policy of fouling its own nest. The Daily Telegraph expects that Sir Edward Grey's statement will silence impertinent and ignorant criticism. Tho Times maintains the belief that the Government should establish a regular blockade. If the public misunderstood the, Foreign Office, it is because the public is kept in mischievous ignorance. Tho Daily Mail and tho Morning Post remain convinced that a large quantity of goods is going into Germany, despite Sir Edward Grey's arguments. The Morning Post adds that the silence of Mr Balfour is very remarkable. The country holds Mr Balfour. as head of the Admiralty, responsible for any failure in the use of the navy's full powers.