DEFENCE OF BLOCKADE OF GERMANY.

Gisborne Times, Volume XLVIII, Issue 4580, 8 June 1917, Page 3

DEFENCE OF BLOCKADE OF GERMANY.

ENEAIY SHORT OF MANY NEEDFUL ARTICLES.

CAUSE OF FOOD RJOTS.

SIR E. CARSON SUPPORTSLORD ROBERT CECIL.

That the British blockade of Germany is no mere make-believe was made plain in the House of Commons by Lorcf Robert Cecil (Blockade Minister) and Sir E. Carson, who- replied to various critics of tlio measures adopted. Lord Robert declared that the Alinistry had established the principle of rationing for neutrals. It had been found that- rationing by agreement had been far more effective, and had resulted in fajr less friction than would have been the case with compulsory rationing. The Danish agreement had been a complete success.

Tlio measures taken had for some months had the result of producing a complete cessation of overseas importation into enemy countries. 'Hie Minister quoted figures relating to corn and grain, cocoa, oils, fats and fertilisers, showing that less' of these commodities was going into neutral countries than before the war and that there was no leakage of these commodities through neutrals to enemy, countries. When we had succeeded in stopping all oversea imports, we still had not done all that was necessary to complete the blockade, added Lord Robert. The only wav to prevent neutral trade with our enemies was by obtaining an agreement with these neutrals.

We used to get before the war the hulk of Denmark’s agricultural produce. and the Germans got the bulk of the meat, including live stock. The Germans still got practically the whole of the 'mjeafc, while had always continued to export to this country—unlike some other neutrals —a very considerable proportion of agricultural produce. Owing to economic and other pressure our share had undoubtedly gone down. WHAT JELLICOE THINKS. From Holland we used to get something like half the agricultural produce. In 1915' Ave practically got nothing, and that went on until the middle of 1916. In consequence of negotiations we had now got to some thing like the pre-war position. It would not be practicable to transfer the administration of the blockade to the Admiralty, Lord Robert added. He had never claimed t!i at- wo could achieve miracles from the blockade, but he believed there was in Germany, as a consequence of the blockade, a very great shortage of food and other necessaries. The well-authenticated stories of food riots there indicated the profound discontent of the German population with the existing conditions. Sir E. Carson declared that to say “leave, the blockade to the Navy” was absurd. The Cabinet laid .down the policy, and the Foreign Office, by negotiations, and the Navy, by action. Had to carry it out. Those who put forwrd the ridiculous doctrine ol “seize every neutral ship and take out the goods” meant that, we should go to war with, everybody. Sir Edward said he had discussed tiie whole matter with the* naval experts including the First Sea Lora, and Sir John Jellicoe had informed him that- ho knew of no other system, save that which was being carried out. under which the blockade could he conducted in the circumstances m which wo were placed. . A similar reply to criticisms was returned by Lord Lansdo" tie aiu Lord Svltoh, Lord-in-Waiting, in tlio House of Lords. f “If we won this war bv a policy oi ‘necessity knows no law. ” said Lora Emmett,"’ “we should have become Prussianised in tlie process and the German spirit would he victorious although the German cause had suf.eied del eat.”