THE BLOCKADE.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXVII, Issue 17077, 28 January 1916, Page 7

THE BLOCKADE.

DEBATE IN COMMONS.

MOTION FOR MORE RI«OUR.

SIR EDWARD GREY'S SPEECH,

FOREIGN OFFICE POLICY

DEFENDED

RIGHTS OF NEUTRALS.

TRADE FIGURES QUOTED ARE

INCORRECT.

By Telegraph-Press Association-Copyright. (Received January 27, 8.40 p.m.) LONDON, January 26.

Mr A! Shirley Bonn (Unionist) moved a resolution urging the Government to enforce as effective a blockade as possible without interfering with neutral countries' normal requirements for internal consumption. He said that U the Government had grasped the nettle firmly and had used its sea power with greater effect it might have saved a certain period of the war. He hoped that the Government, in conjunction with Britain's Allies, would prevent the whole of Germany's oceanic trade by blockade, and make everything for Germany and out of Germany contraband. He did not think the Americans would object, as they were full of common sense. The majority of American people were keenly alive to their interest in seeing that Britain won the war. Mr F. Leverton Harris (Unionist) referred to Germany's ruses to get contraband through. The Navy had seized honey, which an analysis had proved to he a mixture of rubber and glycerine, and had also seized rubber disguised as onions, and metaJs as Japanese works of art wrapped in ruDber. Sir Edward Grey said that the subject was not as simple as might appear from tho speeches and nowspajje* articles. It was most difficult and complicated. There was a real misapprehension in the House of Commons with regard to the amount of trade passing through neutral countries to the enemy, and a vast underestimate of what the Government was doing to prevent it. The figures recently scattered broadcast would not bear examination, and the conclusion founded 011 them had undoubtedly done great harm. One fact overlooked was that in peaee time many neutrals drew their supplies from countries which were not available ia war time, and further that a largo amount of stuff from the United States, believed to be destined for the enemy, never reached the neutrals because it was in the British. Prize Courts. With regard to the statement that the export of wheat from tlie United States to Scandinavia had increased from 19,000,000 bushels in ten months of 1913 to 00,000,000 in 1915, those 30,000,000 included the exports to Spam, Portugal, Greece and* i>xai.u», amounting to 23,000,000 bushels. Tho last-named countries hitherto had largely depended on the Black Sea ports. I Phere must also be deducted several

million bushels used for the' relief of Belgium. Ho instanced several more deductions to show' that tho Scandinavian imports were not excessive. Britain could not' stop a leakage altogether, whatever system was adopted; she could not take over the administration of neutral affairs-or prevent smugling against the neutrals' own regulations. It was impossible, however strict the supervision, for the Navy to ensure that no part of a cargo could find its way to the enemy. Sir Alexander Henderson's report snowed that what was being done was the maximum that was possible without serious trouble with neutrals. The charge that the Foreign Office was spoiling and undoing the Navy's work was grossly. unfair and untrue. Since the beginning of 1916 the Government had only released three ships without consulting the Contraband Committee. Two of these were cases that had been discussed by the Cabinet, and.the ships had been* released for special reasons. The third was the Stockholm case, about which the Swedish Government had specially appealed. "We telegraphed that if we received' certain assurances we would release the vessel. We have received this undertaking. Is it not time that these reckless statements Avere stopped " The Foreign Office had best retain the goodwill of neutrals from whom Britain wanted special supplies. Britain had to explain and justify any interference with their trade, and that was not easv. "We have no right to say that the Prize Court is the neck of the bottle through which all their trade must pass. Had we attempted to go so far as that the war might possibly be over now, because the wholo world would have joined against us and' we and our Allies would have collapsed under its resentment. Our correspondence with the' United States continues, in the justification of our policy. We are consulting with France before replying to the last Note from the United States with a view to pursuing the same policy of justifying with the same arguments and putting the same case before the world. We are perfectly ready to examine any means of carrying out the policy set out last March which is likely to be more agreeable to neutrals and less inconvenient in practice. So long as it is effective we cannot adjourn the right to interfere with the enemy's trade." . • "We could not exercise it without considerable inconvenience to neutrals, who must answer one main question: Do they admit our right to apply the principles which America applied in the war between tho North and. the South nnd to do our best to prevent trade with the enemy through neutrals? If the neutrals answer yes, as in fairness ibey are bound to do ? we say: Make it easy for us to distinguish goods which are bona fide destined for neutral consumption. If they answer no then we must definitely say that their attitude is a' departure from neutrality. The last Note from the United State's' contained proposals which, if conceded.' would make it absolutely impossible for us to prevent even contrahand' goods .going wholesale through neutral* to the enemy. If we conceded oil that the Note asked we might as well Rfve ui> tno attempt of carrying nut the blockade. But I do not underhand that the United' States or any government holds that view. .We are entitled to claim the utmost rights recognised by International law in previous wars." He did not intend to say what would he the conditions of peace ±ie pointed °„ t that Britain must end German mi1..l ..l - om which was a constant menace ffK* The whole. of Britain's resources were engaged 1.1 the war Her max mum. efforts, military naval. and 2Sial were at her Allies disposal £Trrving on the conflict. Britain SSSBSrt all her efforts to put the -JiYinm pressure on her enemies. S'Tthat pressure might be the «.ntin!r of supplies going to the preventing o >| r flf th enemy bv W«!£ J ortf fa com _ S'wit*Ther Allies, to see the thing through to the end.

AN OVATION. (Received January 2tf, 1.15 a.m.) LONDON, January 27. Sir Edward Grey received' a prolonged ovation at the close of his spech. Tho House was impressed by the weight of his arguments, and even doubters realised the difficulty of the problem.

REPLY TO CRITICISM.

WAR TRADE DEPARTMENT'S STATEMENT.

FIGURES QUOTED INCORRECT

LONDON, January 26. The Press Bureau has issued a reply by the War Trade Department to the "Daily Mail's" articles, alleging that the blockade is ineffective. The statement soys:—"The 'Daily Mail's' information was derived from a Danish newspaper. A comparison between the cargo lists of Borsen and official lists m Britain indicates defects by the inclusion of consignments to Norway and elsewhere. Arrangements were made months ago in regard to Danish ships, whereby articles that should have gone before a Prize Court were allowed to proceed to Denmark on the undertaking that they would be returned to Britain or, in some cases, stored in Denmark until the end of the war. This was necessary owing to goods often being in the bottom of holds and neces-. sitating entire unloading. The Borsen lists include whole cargoes. Thereforo it can easily be realised that, with two such great sources of error, the ' Daily Mail's' figures, are much inflated. In nearly all cases the calculation of percentages is excessive by 100 per cent. There is no reason, to suppose that the official figures are incorrect." The reply then goes on to deal with the figures supplied by the "Morning Post's" New York correspondent, which it declares are incorrect and do not agree with the American trado returns. Tho reply says that the implication is made that the increased quantities of goods exported from America have filtered through to Germany, hut the fact is that neutral European countries in normal times obtain rreat supplies from Germany. Russia is also overlooked. The reply adds: '' American figures overlook "the fact that goods are unloaded in England and placed before Prize Courts." .The report •generally denies and 'minimises the figures.

DR DILLON'S PROTESTS.

FOREIGN OFFICE SPOILS BLOCKADE. (Received January 27, 8.30 p.m.) LONDON, January 26. Dr Dillon in an article iu the "Fortnightly Review i" protests against the thwarting of the magnificent efforts of the Navy by the Foreign Office going out of its way to make tho blockade a farce. "Only the British sea power is between us and defeat. If success depended on tho exercise of intelligence superior to that'of the enemy, wo might regard the war as already lost beyond recovery." The chief reason for the present desperate plight was the absence of genuine leaders of strong will, high purpose, and true insight, and also to lack of efficient internal organisation. The failure which had paralysed the heroism of the Army had been applied with considerably more subtlety to tlnvartinp tho magnificent efforts of the Navy. "If the Foreign Office had not hampered the Navy, Germany would have been forced to sue for peace before the end of 1915. Wo are slowly organising for defence and hare yet to organise for -rictory. To-morrow we may have to organiso for bare existence. The public believe that things are now going better. I know enough to bo unablo to share in that consoling faith."

THE ENEMY'S TRICKS.

TRYING TO GET CONTRABAND THROUGH. (Received January 27, 10.3 Q p.m.) LONDON, January 26. The Foreign Office, reporting the result of searches of neutral steamers, states that they disclose, that the Germans are endeavouring to evade the blockade restrictions by sending by post as jewellerv, rubber marked "samples of no value." and also "propagandist literature."

A DUTCH THREAT.

'MIGHT LEAD TO CONFLICT. THE HAGUE, January 26. The " Vaderland," in commenting on the tightening of the British blockade, and its consequences upon Holland s lawful commerce with Germany, says that this is not in British interests and might involve a conflict with Holland and thus prolong the war.

COLONEL HOUSE.

HIS MISSION TO EUROPE.

THE GERMAN VIEW

" Times " and Sydney '' Sun " Services. LONDON, January 26.

The " Daily Mail's " Salonika correspondent says that the German Press insists on the importance of Colonel House's mission to Europe, and hints that he is sounding belligerents in regard to peace. His immediate business, it is said, is to restore harmony among the various American Ambassadors. A section of the Press asserts that Dr Page, American Ambassador to Britain, is a violent Anglophile, and has been interfering with Mr Gerard's activity.- He would have been recalled, but bis attitude coincides with that of President Wilson. Colonel House will advise him to use more caution.

(A message from Paris on Monday said: —Colonel House, President Wilson's envoy to Europe, states that his mission is concerned with submarine warfare and the blockad'e, and not with mediation. He will also give President Wilson his impression of the belligerents' position and feeling).