THE BLOCKADE QUESTION

Taihape Daily Times, Volume 8, Issue 47, 25 February 1916, Page 7

THE BLOCKADE QUESTION

■IS BRITAIN'S SEA POWER BEING

FULLY USED.

OR IS THE NAVY CRIPPLED?

DEBATE IN THE HOUSE OF

LORDS

LONDON, February 22

In the House of Lords, Lord Sydenham raised the question of an effective blockade, asking whether we are taking full advantage of our sea power. Lord Sydenham contended that L'utain had not brought sufficient pressure en the enemy to 'affect his internal conditions. Submarines had altered the methods of blockade. A great fall in the German exchange indicated that Germany was buying largely in outside markets. The real difficulty was due tc the policy which produced the Declaration of London. That it was still alive was patent. He

urged that all commodities essential to Germany's carrying en of the war should be made absolute contraband. He ridiculed the idea of winning by attrition; we wculd only win by striking hard blows. The war should be ended as scon as possible on terms securing the non-recurrence of German frenzy. Lord Sydenham moved that in conformity with the principle of national law and legitimate neutral rights, more effective use should be made of the Allied fleets in preventing essentials reaching the enemy. Lord Charles Beresford said that if the Government had established an effective blockade at the outset, he honestly believed the war would be ever by now. We had only got a sort cf blockade by proclamation. The Avar would never be won by Orders-in-Couneil. It was necessary to have a policy te turn it over to the navy to enforce. He was convinced that we would only be able to win the war by an absolute blockade. Orders-in-Ccuncil might be statesmanship, but they were net war. If the Fleet was liberated it could grapple Germany by the throat and easily smash her. The Government should finally renounce the Declaration of London. The country should rid itself of 21 amateurs because amateurs could not have any foresight. The management had been worse since the coalition. We were not running the war, but the war .was running us. Lord Lansdowne said the conduct of the war was in the hands of a small committee which was net hampered by civilians in the Cabinet. Complaints about hampering the Fleet seemed to be based on a misapprehension. The war had diverted a great deal of trade into new channels. The entrepot business had pass, ed from Hamburg to Rotterdam and Copenhagen. The Government intended to put the whole blockade business in charge of a single Minister entrusted with the general co-ordina-tion cf these matters. The filtration of goods towards the enemy through neutrals was showing a marked tendency to diminish owing to the Government's measures. There was no danger of a great leakage recurring. It was impossible to hermetically seal all channels. We might appeal confidently tc neutrals to help us to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate commerce.. The Govern-

merit's plan, whatever its faults, had accomplished satisfactory results. It had killed the German export trade and seriously crippled imports. Some, times lie wished that the people ,cf this country could experience for one moment the conditions of the AustroGermans. Then they wculd revtlise the plight to which our adversaries have been brought. Lord Lcreburn said he did not believe that naval pressure would appreciably accelerate the end of the war. There was no short cut to the end. It was the Governments of Europe, not the nations, who were responsible for the beginning and continuance of the war.

Sir G. O. Buckmaster said we should certainly have lost if, when the war ends, it could be urged that we have used our power to infringe neutrals' legitimate rights. The debate was adjourned.