LAND AND WATER. 
February 3, iqiO. 
improved, and except for the concession about co-opera- 
tiiif,' with France, nowilHngness to adopt a more stringent 
or a more forward poUcy was expressed. Why then m as 
Sir Edward Grey's speech recei\ed with such universal 
— and quite proper — satisfaction? It was because he 
challenged all the neutral countries to question or oppose' 
the AUies' right to use their sea power to the full. We 
iiad no right he said, to deprive neutrals of goods genuinely 
intended for their own use, but we could not give up our 
right to interfere with enemy trade. The main question 
for neutrals was tliis. Do they admit our rigiit to apply 
the principles employed by the American (iovernments 
in the war betewen North "and South ? In fairness they 
are bound to admit it, and if they do, surely they should 
assist — at least through corporations of private traders— 
to make our exercise of that right as easy and as effective 
as possible. But if any neutral takes upon himself to 
deny that right, the Allies ulll regard siicli a cloiial as a 
departure from netilralily. In saying this the Foreign 
Secretary took the highest tone it was possible for him 
to take, and he put the policy of this country and of its 
Allies upon a foundation which it is impossible for any 
neutral to misunderstand. Such plain speaking could 
not have been necessary — except that the situation called 
for new departures, and that new departures were coming. 
If drastic step's for tightening the bonds on Germany 
are in contemplation, the neutral powers have to be 
prepared for their employment. And, as if to reconcile 
them to this new and sterner policy. Sir Edward Grey 
ended with an indictment of German conduct at sea that 
left nothing to be desired in scathing vigour. Those of 
us, then, who have been urging a stricter siege so 
patiently, can, it seems to me, rest satisfied with the 
situation. 
Part of Sir Edward Grey's indictment of Germany's 
sea policy was that she had continually sunk merchant 
vessels w'ithout notice or warning or attempting to safe- 
guard passengers and crews, and that she had done this, 
not only by submarines, but by sowing the sea with 
mines, by w-hich ships that were not even bound for any 
port within the so-called war zone had been destroyed. 
And he noted that no protest has been made by neutral 
governments to Germany in this matter of the kind made 
against our own quite civilised proceedings. Our action 
could indeed be questioned on the grounds at law, but 
it's illegality was, at its worst, doubtful. But German 
action was not only obviously illegal, but scandalously 
inhumane to boot. In emphasing this point. Sir Edward 
was no doubt anticipating a part of the reply to Mr. 
Lansing's latest proposals. 
Reckless Mine laying. 
The recent great and reckless extension of the 
German mine-laying poHcy must also be taken into 
account. The restrictions imposed upon mine-laying 
by the Hague Conventions are well known. Germany 
has never observed these restrictions and the develop- 
ment of mine-laying submarines confers on her the 
capacity to lay these mines where she will. It is obviously 
impossible for any system of sweeping to keep the channels 
leading, to all commercial ports constantly swept, and the 
fact that mines are laid so far afield as the Spanish coast 
is a final evidence that there is no pretence that they are 
laid with anv military object, or so as to destroy belligerent 
shipping only. Indeed, the fact that neutral vessels 
mostly not bound for belligerent ports at all have been 
sunk at the rate cf nearly eight a month since the war 
began, is conclusive evidence of the character of (German 
contempt for civilised opinion. Wc must, I fear, be 
pripared for an increase in the loss of merchant shipping 
both from this cause and from attacks— at least on our 
own shipping — by submarines in areas in which these 
boats have not hitherto operated. Nor can wi; reason- 
ably hope very greatly to restrict the operations of sub- 
marines in the open sea by the kind of counter-offensive 
tiiat has been effective in home waters. The only effective 
means of limiting their action would be by making the 
>uppiy of oil and other necessaries to them impossible. 
Bui w ithout the co-operation of powers now neutral, this 
cutting off of supplies is exceedingly difiicuU. The only 
limitation then to the destructive malignity of oiu- 
•nemies will be the opportunity afforded to them, 
and. for practical purposes, the only way of hmitm^- 
their opportimities, is for all merchantmen to be 
armed. 
The New American Proposals. 
When then we come to consider America's latest 
proposals we must bear these two fundamental facts in 
mind. First, Germany's breach of the canons of civilised 
war is not limited to the sinking of merchantmen and 
liners by submarines, but has, from the very outbreak of 
hostilities, included the most dastardly of all crimes the 
wholesale sowing of mines upon tlie sea, a policy which 
the minelaying submarine now enables her to extend in- 
definitely. And, secondly, the sole means of protecting 
merchantmen and liners against submarines, outside of 
home waters, is for the trading ship to carry guns. This 
is so because, if the ship is defenceless, a modern sub- 
marine can operate safely as a surface ship armed with 
guns uverhaul and run down almost any ship afloat, thus 
making every merchantman seen a certain victim unless 
rescued by a patrol : whereas, if the submarine can only 
mancEUvre to attack when submerged and is limited to 
the use of the torpedo as a weapon, the number of her 
victims is necessarily reduced to those ships that she has 
been successful in waylaying. Such ships as she waylays 
she will sink on sight,' and there will no doubt be a hcAvy 
loss of life in each case. If no .ships arc armed three or 
four times as many ships will be sunk, and the loss of life 
will depend upon' the inclination or convenience of the 
submarine commander who sinks them. 
The official text of Mr. Lansing's proposal has not 
been published, but the summaries, if correct, show that 
America proposes to forbid the Allies to arm merchant- 
men, and Germany to sink merchantmen without pro- 
viding for the safety of those on board. If the AUies 
decline this request,"^ their ships are to be forbidden the 
use of American ports, except on warship terms. If 
Germany declines, or having accepted breaks her word, 
the penalties are not specified. What should our attitude 
towards these proposals be ? 
The two most obvious objections are these, .^s we 
have seen, the disarmament of merchantmen makes the 
destruction of our sea trade incalculably easier for the 
submarine. Consequently to fall in with the proposal 
would be to condemn our merchant shipping to far niore 
serious losses than it has yet endured. The next objec- 
tion is that we should get nothing for this sacrifice except 
Germany's word that no sinkings at sight would take 
place, nor any sinkings without passengers and crew being 
secured. There are two difficulties in accepting Germany's 
word in this matter. The first is that no one outside o f 
(iermany believes that that country's plighted word will 
ever be kept a moment longer than convenience dictates. 
And they believe this because no one inside Germany 
has ever professed any other doctrine. Our disinclination 
to accept Germany's word then, is based not only on her 
many and atrocious breaches of it, but more firmly on 
the fact that she glories in her freedom to break it when 
she needs to. But supposing this difficulty could be got 
over, a large assumption, what is the worth of any under- 
taking given by submarine captains that the safety of 
those on board sunk merchantmen should be secured ? 
There is only one method of providing for this safety. It 
is to put passengers and crews into properly manned and 
properly provided boats, and to turn them adrift to make 
their best way to port. Whether this is virtual safety 
v>r not depends upon a great number of things— the 
distance from port, the weather, the currents to be encoun- 
tered, the frequented or imfrequented state of the sea 
neighbourhood amongst others. Is a code of rules to be 
drawn up in these matters and to be accepted by the 
Germans ? Can turning women and children adrift in 
these circumstances more than, say, twelve hours from 
port, in any circumstances be regarded as a civilised 
proceeding ? 
Nor is this all. The excuse given for sinking the 
Arabic was that the submarine commander suspected her 
intention to ram him. Disarming merchantmen will not 
necessarily make submarines safe from merchantmen. 
The submarine captain with guns and torpedoes at his 
disposal must be left with a free hand to jtidge the military 
necessity. Wiiat kind of guarantee can there be here that 
life will be respected ? Merely on the merits of the pro- 
posals, then, one sees certain objections almost impossible 
{Conlinued on i>oge lu.) 
