PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATIONS.

Colonist, Volume LVII, Issue 13996, 28 January 1916, Page 5

PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATIONS.

STATEMENT BY SIR EDWARD

GREY

A DIFFICULT AND COMPLICATED

SUBJECT.

BRITAIN ACCOMPLISHING THE

MAXIMUM

UNFOUNDED IMPRESSIONS

PREVALENT,

(Received Jan. 27, 8.40 p.m.)

London, Jan. 26,

In the House of Commons, Mr. A. Shirley Benn 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 if the Government had grasped the nettle and used our sea power to greater effect it might have saved' a certain period of war. He hoped the Government, in conjunction with the Allies, would prevent the whole of Germany's oceanic trade by blockade, and make everything destined for Germany out of Germany contraband. He did not think America would object as she was full of common sense and the majority of her people were keenly alive to their interest in seeing that we won the war.

Mr. F. Leyerton Harris referred to Germany's ruses to get contraband through. The Navy had seized honey which an analysis proved to be a mixture of rubber and glycerine, and also rubber disguised as onions, and metals as Japanese works of art which were wrapped in rubber.

Sir, Edward Grey said the subject was not as simple as might appear from speeches and articles. It was most difficult and complicated. There was a real misapprehension in the House of Commons regarding the amount of trade passing from neutrals to the enemy, and a vast under-estimate of what the Government was doing to prevent it. Figures recently scattered broadcast would not bear examination, and the conclusion founded thereon had undoubtedly done great harm. The fact was overlooked that in peace time many neutrals drew supplies from countries which were not available in war time. Further, a large amount of stuff from the United States which was believed to be destined for the enemy never reached neutrals, as it was in the British Prize Courts. With regard to the statement that the export of wheat from the United States io Scandinavia increased from nineteen million bushels in ten months of 1913 to fifty millions in 1.U15, those fifty millions included ex. ports to Spain, Portugal, Greece, and Malta, amounting to twenty-three millions. The last-named countries had hitherto largely depended upon the Black Sea ports. They must also deduct several million bushels used for the relief of Belgium. He instanced several more deductions to show that the Scandinavian imports were not excessive. They could not stop leakage altogether, whatever system they adopted. They could not take over the adminis> tration of neutrals or prevent smuggling against neutrals' own regulations. It was i impossible, however strict the supervision, for the Navy to ensure that no part of a. .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 neutrals. The,charge that the Foreign Office wats 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 cases were discussed by the Cabinet and the ships were released for special reasons , This third ship was

CABLE NEWS.

L'PBiais Association— Coptbight.]

the Stockholm, about which the Swedish Government specially appealed. We telegraphed that if we received certain assurances we would release the vessel, and we received the undertaking. Was not it time that these reckless statements were stopped ? The Foreign Office had to do its best to retain the goodwill of neutrals, from whom wo wanted special supplies. It had to explain and justify interference with their trade, and that was not easy. We had no right to say that the Prize Court was the neck of a bottle through which all their trade must pass. Had we attempted to go as far as that the war might possibly have been over now, because the whole world would have join-] ed against us and we and the Allies woukl have collapsed under its resentment;. Our Correspondence with the United States would continue in justification of our policy. We werti»consulting France before replying to the United States' last Note, with a view of pursuing the same policy, justifying it with the same arguments, and putting the same case before the world. We were perfectly ready to examine any means of carrying out last March's policy which was likely to be more agreeable to neutrals or less. inconvenient in practice, so long as it was effective. We could not abandon the right to interfere with enemy trade.