December i8, 1915. 
LAND AND WATER. 
or stationary. In all cases the first element in 
protecting a ship from submarines is its own speed 
and power of movement. In point of fact, as 
we now know, both Triumph and Majestic were 
amply protected by destroyers. But as both 
were anchored or still, it did not help them. But 
is there any reason why Queen Elizabeth and the 
newer ships should have fled, or why Triumph 
and Majestic should have fallen, had they been 
free to do their work just as accurately at top 
speed or under helm as when stationary or 
anchored ? Once more then we find that 
the solution of the problem that the long-range 
torpedo has made obligatory for fleet tactics, 
would have enabled the bombardment of the 
Dardanelles to continue after the submarines had 
arrived exactly as if they were not there. 
NEUTRALS AND SEA POWER. 
There is one thing the enemy submarine 
has done for us in the Mediterranean, the im- 
portance of which can hardly be exaggerated 
I mean the attack on the Ancona. The 
American Government has falsified my predictions 
too often for it to be tempting to enter the realm 
of prophecy once more, but it seems clear that this 
latest outrage has awakened Transatlantic opinion 
to the reahties of the position, and restored a sense 
of proportion to the American view. So long as 
the murders of the Lusitania and Ancona are 
unavenged, it must be difficult, if not impossible, 
for Mr. Wilson to embark on any of the courses 
hostile to the Allies which resentment provoked by 
our blockade policy has suggested. To some extent 
the matter is being taken out of the Government's 
hands. These vexed questions have been put on a 
new plane by Senator Lodge, for he has moved 
that they be made the subject of a Parliamentary 
enquiry. The conspiracies to bomb the Ordnance 
works, to defraud the Customs, to obtain forged 
passports—these things, added to the Ancona 
outrage, make America's somewhat tame sub- 
mission to humiUation a little difficult to defend, 
and a more vigorous insistence on trade rights 
than on justice appears a little unworthy. 
The present then is a favourable time for 
putting our policy with regard to the blockade of 
Germany on an intelligible, bold and simple basis. 
That it is not on such a basis now is lamentably 
clear. To-day our sea power is largely ineffective. 
That the enemy is getting supplies and vast sup- 
plies of food through the neutral countries can 
hardly be disputed. In a recent issue of the 
Manchester Guardian, it was pointed out, for 
instance, that in five picked weeks— one in August, 
one in October, two in November and one in 
December, nearly 14,000,000 pounds of lard were 
shipped from Chicago to the Continent— it is 
believed to Rotterdam. In the same weeks nearly 
40,000 boxes of bacon were sent to the same 
destination, and about 43,000 barrels of cotton oil. 
Has it really come to the point that we are 
]wwerless to check food entering Germany througn 
Holland ? As to the Danish Agreement, Lord Robert 
Cecil declares emphatically that it is not to the 
public interest that its provisions should be known. 
But letters published on Monday morning, from 
Sir Edward Carson and Lord Charles Beresford, 
seem to say that the provisions of this agreement 
are already familiar to innumerable Chambers of 
Commerce and neutrals, and indeed, to many well- 
informed people in London. If its arrangements 
aic along the lines that these letters suggest, an 
unfortunate situation has arisen. It is not, of 
course, to be doubted that in sanctioning it 
the Foreign Office has dealt with an exceedingly 
delicate and difficult position to the best of its 
capacity. But the Foreign Office does not, in 
this matter, carry sufficient weight with public 
opinion for the world to accept its policies 
blindfold. 
The question really is this. Is it possible 
that the Foreign Office is attaching excessive 
importance to the susceptibilities of neutrals ? 
Are military _ considerations only being weighed ? 
International Law recognises the principle 
that the legitimacy of sea-borne trade can be 
judged by its ultimate destination. Our military 
necessities compel us to push this doctrine to the 
furthest point that it will bear. In 181 2 we 
preferred war with America to abating any of the 
sea rights which we considered essential to success. 
At an earlier date in the same war we seized the 
Danish Fleet, though we were nominally at peace 
with that country. May we not have to face 
alternatives as strenuous as these before this war 
closes ? It is a reflection which brings us back to 
a point which has been insisted on again and again 
in these columns. Our sea power is our greatest 
asset for victory to-day. It will not be so used 
unless it is wielded by our seamen. The seamen 
can only wield it constitutionally through the 
Board of Admiralty. The present Board was not 
appointed to be a Board at all. Except Sir Henry 
Jackson, the sailors were appointed to, and 
accepted their posts as heads of departments only. 
Mr. Asquith's undertaking that the Board is to 
be restored to its old status can only be made 
good if war-trained admirals fresh from the Fleet 
are brought in and charged with "collective 
responsibility " for the use of our greatest weapon. 
Then two things are needed. War experience, 
and the more authoritative commission. It would 
be unwise and unnecessary to change the whole 
Board, but two at least of the Junior Sea Lords 
should change places with admirals at sea. Once 
this change is made, the whole of the arrangement 
with all the neutrals should be taken out of the 
hands of the Foreign Office and entrusted to the 
Admiralty alone. We should have a stronger 
policy, and what is not less important, an authority 
for the policy that would carry convictiou. It 
was Nelson who said that a squadron of British 
battleships was the best of negotiators. Admirals 
with a fleet behind them. The prescription is a 
good one — and the only one. 
Captain R W Campbell, author of The Kangaroo 
Marines (Cassell and Co., is. net), has written his story from 
first-hand knowledge of the fighting in GaUipoli, arid has 
strung together the incidents in the formation and work of a 
typical Austrahan battalion in the form of a story taking 
four men of the battalion as his heroes. The result is a'" live " 
story, giving a good idea of the work the Austrahans have 
done in Galhpoh, and especially of the Anzac landing. 
Few appeals are more deserving than the one on behalf 
of the wounded soldiers of France. The French Government 
medical and nursing service, like our own, is admirably 
equipped and highly efficient ; but, again like our own it 
needs to be supplemented by private endeavour, the ready 
charity of the French people has done much in this direction 
but It IS handicapped by the paralysis of industry through 
the invasion of some of France's richest provinces. Britons 
therefore feel they ought to help by supporting the 
Urgency Cases Hospital for France, which has been 
established at Kevigny. This Hospital is staffed by British 
surgeons and nurses, and maintained at the cost of the people 
of Bnlain. 'ly sum of £.5,000 is needed for extensions 
uiul working expenses. The Hon. Secretary, Mr. James 
Baird, 5o.\, Curzoii Street, will acknowledge all donations " 
H 
