Part 33 (1/2)

”The figures,” says _Fairplay_, the s.h.i.+pping paper, ”sufficiently indicate the absurdity of supposing that the Netherlands Overseas Trust or any similar artificial would-be barrier as at present const.i.tuted can, in fact, prevent the enemy from receiving vital supplies of raw or manufactured material.”

Nineteen days after the delivery of Sir Edward Grey's ”blockade” speech in the House of Commons Mr. T. Gibson Bowles, speaking at a great City demonstration in London on February 14th, 1917, under Lord Devonport as Chairman and convened for the purpose of protesting against hampering our Navy, said: ”Since the war began Sir Edward Grey had hampered, shackled, and strangled the Fleet in the performance of its duties.”

Whilst Lord Charles Beresford wrote to the Chairman: ”If the Government had used our sea power as they were legally ent.i.tled to do at the commencement of the war, by inst.i.tuting an effective blockade and making all goods entering Germany absolute contraband, the war would now be over.”

Lord Aberconway added: ”The matter is far too serious to be trifled with any longer; my personal knowledge intensifies my conviction.”

The Government having attempted to evade any direct answer to the startling figures and accusations of the _Daily Mail_ disclosing the get-rich-quick method of the Scandinavian Goulashes, Lord Northcliffe sent a Special Commissioner to Holland, and published the result of his investigations in February, 1916. It showed a repet.i.tion of the sordid Scandinavian fiasco, a further proof that the so-called blockade was leaking in every seam.

To enumerate the ma.s.ses of statistics would be wearisome. It is sufficient for present purposes to quote a few extracts.

_Cocoa Beans._--Of the 528 tons imported into Holland in 1916 Germany received the whole.

_Cocoa b.u.t.ter._--England could only obtain half what she had in 1913, whereas Germany obtained five times as much.

_Cocoa Powder._--England obtained half 1913 supplies, whereas Germany obtained approximately ten times as much.

_Cocoa in Blocks._--In 1913 Germany imported 4 tons from Holland, Belgium none at all; whereas in 1915 no less than 565 tons were exported from Holland into these two countries, all for German use.

_Copra._--In 1913 Germany obtained 26,728 tons of copra from Holland, whereas in 1915 the amount rose to the amazing total of 106,613 tons.

It would appear from the figures that England was indirectly supplying Germany _inter alia_ with margarine.

In 1913 Great Britain sent to Holland 1,914 tons of the raw material, as against 6,166 tons in 1916. Germany sent no raw material to Holland during either of the years quoted.

In 1913 Holland exported 308 tons of margarine to Belgium and to Germany 401 tons.

In 1915 Holland exported 7,616 tons to Belgium and 21,721 tons to Germany. _Totals of 709 tons suddenly jumped to 29,237._

_Coffee._--Before the war Germany had always exported coffee to Holland in thousands of tons. During 1915 she sent in none at all, but she imported from Holland 129,968 tons; whilst 32,822 tons in addition were sent to Belgium for German use as against a prior yearly average import of about 8,000 tons.

_N.B._--England, which during 1911, 1912 and 1918 exported a yearly average of 6,720 tons of coffee to Holland, suddenly increased her exports to this country to 15,672 tons in 1914 and to 28,425 tons in 1915.

In March, 1916, Brazil was seizing German s.h.i.+ps because she could not collect a trifle of about 4,000,000 owing to her for coffee by the Fatherland.

_Cotton._--In the three years before the war England exported an average of 7,808 tons of unspun cotton to Holland, but in 1915 she sent no less than 22,856 tons. Germany, which _exported_ an average of 33,975 tons before the war, actually _imported_ from Holland direct in 1915 no less than 38,750 tons.

The Commercial Treaty of the Rhine, cunningly made by the clever Teutons before war was declared, prevented the Dutch from even examining any cargoes which were thereunder arranged for direct s.h.i.+pment into Germany; whilst from the very first the workings of the much-boasted arrangement made by our Foreign Office with the Netherlands Overseas Trust _piled up evidence, week by week and month by month, that our so-called blockade was an absolute farce_.

In the famous ”Kim” case before the Prize Court, the President, Sir Samuel Evans, made the law quite clear. Figures were placed before the Court to show that the average monthly quant.i.ties of lard exported from the United States to all Scandinavia in October and November, 1913, was 427,428 lbs. Within three months of the outbreak of war one company was s.h.i.+pping to Copenhagen alone _considerably over twenty times that quant.i.ty in three weeks_.

When it might have been thought that the public had forgotten this complete and overwhelming evidence, Lord Emmott, speaking on behalf of the Government, told the House of Lords that ”an abnormal supply to a country is not sufficient reason to stop a cargo.” Here was a Government spokesman absolutely contradicting the Prize Court Judge--another unwarrantable interference with the rights of Democracy.

On February 22nd and 23rd, 1916, the House of Lords debated an important motion ably advocated by Lord Sydenham.

”That in conformity with the principle of international law and the legitimate rights of neutrals, more effective use could be made of the Allied Fleets in preventing supplies, directly conducing to the prolongation of the war, from reaching the enemy.”

Lord Lansdowne, Lord Emmott and the Marquis of Crewe spoke in defence of the Government, but they brought forward no direct proof to upset the alarming statistics which had been quoted against them. Some figures, however, were given to show that during the last past month a greater activity had been caused, in consequence of which there had been some diminution of imports to Germany; whilst it was further promised that as an attempt to concentrate the general supervision of the War Trades Committee the work should be placed in the hands of one Minister, Lord Robert Cecil, who would be given Cabinet rank.

That Lord Robert Cecil is a man of great ability no one doubts. The stock he springs from is pedigree so far as politics are concerned, but he is a lawyer. For many years past this country has suffered greatly from a glut of lawyer politicians, particularly in the unwieldy Cabinet of twenty-three members. The nation remembered only too well how this n.o.ble lord had fought so strenuously and so persistently against cotton being made contraband. His appointment therefore to this post of vital importance, which could influence, affect and control the duration of the war to such a great extent, was strongly objected to by the public at large. Neither the act nor the man carried an iota of confidence.