OFFICIAL REPLY TO PRESS CRITICS

Dominion, Volume 9, Issue 2680, 28 January 1916, Page 5

OFFICIAL REPLY TO PRESS CRITICS

ARGUMENTS BASED ON INACCURACIES STATEMENT IN PARLIAMENT SIR EDWARD GREY REPLIES TO CRITICS By Telegraph—Press Association—OoDyrißh' London, January J26. The Press Bureau has issued a reply by tlie War Trade Department to tho "Daily Mail" article's alleging that the blockade is ineffective. The "Daily Mail's" information, it says, is derived from tlie Danish paper "Borsen." A comparison of the cargo lists in the "Borsen" and the official lists in Briindicate defects introduced by including consignments to Norway and •elsewhere. Arrangements were made months ago for Danish ships, by which articles destined for tho Prize Court were allowed to proceed to Denmark on an undertaking that they -would be returned to Britain, or in some cases stored in Denmark until the end of tho war. This was necessary owing to goods being often at the bottom of the Holds, necessitating the entire unloading of the vessel. The "Borsen". included the whole cargoes, and it was therefore easily realised that with. two such great sources of error the "Daily Mail's" figures were much inflated. In nearly all cases the calculation of percentages was excessive by 100 per cent. There was no reason to suppose that tho official figures Were incorrect. The statement then deals with the figures given by the "Morning Post's" New York correspondent, which, it declares, are incorrect, and do not agree with the American trade returns. It Bays that the implication was mado that the increased quantities exported from America filtered to Germany, but the fact that tho neutral European countries in normal times obtain great supplies from Germany and Russia is overlooked. It adds: "Tlie American figures overlook the goods unloaded in England and placed in tho Prize Courts." The report generally denies or minimises the figures.

MOTION IN PARLIAMENT GOVERNMENT POLICY DEFENDED "DIFFICULT AND COMPLICATED QUESTION." (Rec. January 27, 8.40 p.m.) London, January 26. In the House of Commons, Mr. A. Shirley Benu (Unionist member for Plymouth) moved his resolution urging the Government to enforce as effective a blockade as possible without interfering with the neutral countries' normal requirements for internal consumption. The mover said that if-the Government had grasped _ the nettle, and used its sea power with greater effect it might liavo saved us. a. certain period of the war. • He hoped that the Government, in conjunction with our Allies, would prevent "the whole of oceanic trade" by the blockade, and make "everything for Germany and out of Germany" contraband. He did not think that the Americans would object, as they were full of common-sense, and the majority of the people pvere keenly alive to their interest in seMng that we won the war. . • Mr. F. Leverton .Harris (Unioniut) referred to Germany's ruses to get contraband through. The Navy had seized honey which 'on analysis proved to be a mixture of rubber and glycerine; also rubber disguised as onions, and metals as Japanese works of art,- wrapped in rubber. The._Mlnister's Reply. Sir Edward Grey (Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs) said that the' subject was not so simple as it might appear from the speeches which had been made, and the articles which had been written. It was a most difficult - aud complicated question. There was a real misapprehension in the House of Commons_ in regard to\the amount of trade which was passing through neutrals'to the .enemy, and a vast, underestimate of what the Government was doing to prevent it. Figures had rerecently been scattered broadcast which would not bear examination, and the conclusions-which had been' founded thereon had undoubtedly done great harm,_ The fact had been overlooked that in peace time many of the neutrals drew their 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 the neutrals, as it was in the British Prize Courts.

Neutrals' Trade Statistics. ■ In regard to a statement that the export of wheat from the United States and Scandinavia liad increased i from nineteen million bushels for ten months in 191H to fifty millions in 1915, those fifty millions included exports Spain/ Portugal, Greece, and Malta, amounting to twenty-three millions; the lastnamed countries had hitherto largely depended on the Black Sea ports. They must also deduct several millions of bushels which were used for the relief of Belgium. The Minister instanced several nioro deductions to show that the Scandinavian imports were not excessive. They could not stop the leakage altogether, whatever system were adopted, and they could not take over the administration of tho neutrals' trade, or prevent smuggling against the neutrals' own regulations. It would be impossible, however strict the supervision of the Navy, to ensure that no part of a cargo could find its way to the enemy. Reckless Statements. Sir [Alexander Henderson's report showed that the maximum was being done thai could possibly be done without serious trouble with the neutrals. The charge that the Foreign Office was spoiling or undoing the Navy's work was grossly unfair and untrue. Since the beginning of 1916 tho Government had cnly released three ships without consulting tho Contraband Committee. Two of these cases were discussed by Cabinet, 'and the ships wero released for special reasons'; the third was the Stockholm, about which the Swedish Government liad spocially appealed. "Wo telegraphed that if wo received certain assurances we would release the vessel. Wo did not receive tliat undertaking. Was it not time," he asked, "that these reckless statements wero stopped P Tho Foreign Office had to do its best to retain tho goodwill of the neutrals, from whom we wanted special supplies, and had to explain and justify our interference with their trade. That was not easy. We had no right to say that the Prize Court was tho neck of the bottle through whioh all their trado must pass. Had we attempted to go so far as that tho war might possibly be over now, bccanso tho whole world would join against us, and we and our .Allies would collapse under its resentment, In our correspondence with the ■Waited States -wo watiauc fra iujtJfjj

our polioy. We are consulting France before replying to the United States' last Note. With a view to pursuing the same policy and justifying with tlie same arguments, we are putting the same case ■ before the world. We are perfectly ready to examine any means of carrying out our polioy of last March, which would be likely to be more agreeable to •neutrals or leas inconvenient in practice so long as it was effective. We could not adjourn our right to interfere with the enemy's trade, nor could we exercise it without considerable inconvenience to neutrals, who must aiißwer tho one main question: Do they admit our right to apply the principles which America applied to the war between North and South, and do our best to prevent trade witli the enemy through neutrals? If the neutrals answer 'Yes,' as ill fairness they are bound,to do, we will say: 'Make it easy for us to distinguish the goods which are bona fide destined l for neutral consumption.' But if they answer yNo,' then we must say, definitely, tliat'that attitude is a departure from' neutrality. The United States' last Note contained proposals which, if conceded, woulc make it absolutely impossible to prevent' even contraband goods going wholesale through neutrals to the enemy. If we oonceded all that the Note asked for, we might as well give up the attempt to carry out the blockade. But' we did not understand that the United .States or any Government held that view,, as we are entitled to claim the utmost rights which were recognised by international law in previous wars." In conclusion, Sir Edward Grey said that he did not intend to sav what the conditions of peace might be. He pointed out that we must end Prussian militarism, which was a constant'menace ,to peace. The whole of our resources were engaged in the war, and our maximum efforts, military, naval, and financial; wero _ at the Allies' disposal for carrying on . the conflict. We would exert all our efforts, and put the maximum pressure on our enemies. Part of that pressure might be the preventing of supplies going to the enemy, by using the full power of tho Navy, and relax no effort common to the Allies to sec 1 tlie thing through.to the end.. ;

HOUSE IMPRESSED. MINISTER ACCORDED AN OVATION (Rec. January 28, 1.15 a.m.) London, January 27. Sir Edward Grey was accorded a prolonged ovation at the close of liis speech in the House of Commons. The House ■was impressed with the weight of his arguments, and even the, doubters realised the difficulty of the problem. NAVY'S MAGNIFICENT EFFORTS ' . . THWARTED .(Rec. January 27, 8.30 p.m.) London, January 26. Dr. E. J. Dillon,-, in an article in the "Fortnightly Review," protests against the "thwarting of the magnificent efforts of the Navy by the Foreign Office, which," he says, "is going out of its way to make the blockade a farce. There is only British sea-power between us and defeat, for if our success depended on the exercise of intelligence superior to that of the enemy, we might regard the war as already lost beyond recovery." "The ohief reasons for our present desperate plight are the absence of genuine leaders of strong will, high purpose, and true insight. Vie also Jack an efficient internal organisation. The failure which -paralysed the heroism of the Army has been applied with considerably more subtlety to the thwarting of the 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. ' i "We are slowly organising for defence. We have yet to organise for victory, and may, to-morrow, have • to--organise for a bare existence. The public believes that things are now going better. ,1 know enough to be unable to share that consoling faith." EVADING lITLOCKADE

(Rec. January 27, 10.30 p.m.) London, January 26. The Foreign Office, 'reporting on the results of the searches of neutral steam, ers, discloses the fact that the Germans are endeavouring to evade the blockade restrictions by sending "by pbst, as jewellery, rubber-marked samples of no value, and also propagandist literature. DUTCH PRESS COMMENT MIGHT INVOLVE CONFLICT Hague, January 26. The newspaper "Hot Vadcrland" comments on the tightening of the British ; blockade, stating that this is a conse- : quence of Holland's lawful commerce with Germany. This is not in the * ! British interests. It might involve con. diet with Holland, and prolong the warUNNECESSARY IMPORTS RESTRICTIVE LEGISLATION- . The High Commissioner 'reports:—• ; London, January 26. The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Walter Runciman), in tho House.., of 'Commons, said that the Government "l was taking steps to restrict unnecessary imports, and that a fuller state- i ment. would be made later.