8 
LAND ^ WATER 
October 3, 1918 
and the arrows on the right, the corresponding averages 
for the last three months under review. 
* 
^ Mar Apr W^ Juae July At^- 
* 
' ^\ 
V 
^ 
.•• i 
t 
'■ - 1 

\ 
y 
* • \^ 
^y 
A 
....... 

^ 
y" 
\, 

\ 
> 
..'' 
^ 
,y 
— 
— 
C 
\ 
V 
" , , , , 1 
Expressed in tabular form, the figures are as follows 
Losses for eight months, Jan-Aug. . . 
Replacements for eight months, J an. -Aug. 
Net loss 
Losses for five months, Jan.-May . . 
Replacements for five months, Jan.-May . . 
Net loss 
Replacements for three months, June- Aug. 
Losses for three months, June- Aug. 
Net gain 
2,758,000 
2,304,000 
454,000 
1,825,000 
1,176,000 
649,000 
1,120,000 
925,000 
195,000 
From the above diagram and table the following conclu- 
sions are fairly obvious. There has been a fairly steady 
decline in losses. The year 1917 ended with a monthly rate 
of loss of about 420,000 tons. The last three months show a 
rate of only just over 300,000 tons. It seems to show that the 
art of defence has been advanced, just as the machinery of 
defence has been extended. The replacement curve, B, is 
not so satisfactory. The rate of building has increased from 
310,000 tons a month, at which it stood for the last quarter 
of last year, to 37o,'ooo — the mean of June, July, and August. 
This is bad, because the last three months of 1917 showed 
an advance of 100,000 tons a month over the preceding 
quarter, whereas at the end of eight months we now only 
show an advance of 60,000 tons a month. In point of fact, 
it was not till June that the rate of building this year passed 
the rate of the close of last year. And but for the decline in 
losses there would be no net gain in the world's shipping at all. 
It is, no doubt, the British returns that are most dis- 
appointing in this matter. The following table shows the 
actual production of gross tons of completed shipping for 
the two countries during the last ei§ht months : 
1918 
January. . 
February 
March 
April 
May 
June 
July 
August . . 
1.374.534 1,029,869 
From this it appears that from January to May the United 
States only produced between fifty and sixty thousand 
greater tonnage than did this country ; but that in June, 
July, and August the Americans produced nearly 320,000 
tons more. Indeed, the only satisfactory part of this table 
is the recent rise in the American production. It has not 
slipped back once, and seems to be advancing to that produc- 
tion of 400,000 tons a month which Mr. Schwab's reorganisa- 
tion of last December appeared to make possible. If there 
were no change in the present rate of loss, and if the British 
production could be brought up to 200,000 and the Americans 
to 400,000 tons, there would be a net gain of 300,000 tons a 
month : a state of things that would bring the world's ship- 
ping back to where it was jn 1914 in less than a year's time. 
For, as we may remember, from the March return, the net 
loss to the end of last year was 2,632,297 tons, which, added 
to the net loss of this year, gives the present shortage of 
3,115,859 tons. ^ 
But we should, of course, be lookmg at the submarine 
campaign from a totally wrong angle if we proposed to rest 
content with the losses remaining at the present figure, and 
relied only on replacement for dealing with this menace not 
only to the present military position, but to the world's 
United 
United 
States. 
Kingdom. 
64,795 
58,568 
117,601 
100,038 
117.145 
161,674 
163,050 
"1,533 
194,464 
197.274 
201,425 
134.159 
255.025 
141,948 
261,029 • 
124,675 
economic future. It is far more important that the attack 
on shipping should be prevented than that the attack, when 
made, should be thw;irted. With the military position as 
it stood in March, and in the subsequent four months, the 
problem of the moment was to bring American troops to 
France, and to bring them without loss. 
The Need of an Offensive Policy 
But the campaign cannot be left in this position for two 
reasons. First, we do not know that defensive measures 
alone will keep our losses to their present figure. The Germans 
claim, and we admit, an achieved and growing 'increase in 
their submarine forces. Skill must increase vvitli experience, 
so that we have straight off two factors tending to higher 
efi&ciency. Add to these that never has Germany's necessity 
for success at sea been greater than it is now. The Govern- 
merit is pledged to it. It is admittedly their only hope. A 
new naval command has been substituted, and the public 
have been told that its special mission is to continue, and, 
indeed redouble, the particular form of sea attack on which 
our enemy has relied for victory. So far, then, w; the German 
command can control the situation, necessity and its public 
pledges drive it inexorably along a very definite course. 
But can the enemy command control the position ? Is he 
sure of the hioral of his submarine crews ? The commanders 
may be resolute enough, but' there are ominous rumours that 
the Kaiser's recent appearance at Kiel was made necessary by 
the same cause that elicited his bombastic and blasphemous 
speech at Essen. If he addressed the U-boat crews at Kiel 
because he thought their courage \yas going, then it is well 
for us to remember that it is not primarily the convoy, but 
our active offensive that has been the main agent in whittling 
that courage away. The publication of the list of U-boat 
commanders killed, captuted, and interned, has done its work. 
And this is the psychological moment for resuming extensive 
and vigorous measures of aggression. Arthur Pollen. 
The Battle of St. Quentin 1557 
In view of the importance of St. Quentin at the present moment, 
it is interesting to recall the first battle which was fought in 
that place over 350 years ago. 
The following is copied from the MSS. of William Bray, the 
antiquarian and author of Manning and Bray's " History of 
Surrey." The original MSS. is in the possession of Sir 
Reginald Bray. 
"At Stoke Dabemon there was a three-quarter length 
of the second Lord (Bray) with this inscription : 
'^TATIS SEViE XXIIII. 
John Lord Bray a paragon in Coorte, and of sweet en- 
tertainment he dyed AFTER his return from the 
wining of QVNTYNES at the age of 36 A°.D IIII 
1557.' He married Anne daughter of George Earl of 
Shrewsbury, in what year has not been found, but she 
was his wife on the 22nd June 1556 at which time he 
was a prisoner in the Tower as appears by a letter 
written by one of' the Earl's servants to the Countess. 
He says 'At my lady's coming to London my Lord 
Bray was in close prison at the Flete and the Tuesday 
following he was removed to the Tower and there re- 
maineth in close prison, etc., etc' (here follows a long 
letter). ... A pardpn was granted under the privy 
seal to Lord Bray dated the 14th May 3 and 4 Philip 
and Mary 1557. The pardon as obtained shews the 
cause of his commitment to be for having used trai- 
torous expressions respecting the Queen and King 
Philip; the words used were these, viz., 'If my 
neighbour of Hatfield might once reign (meaning the 
Lady Elizabeth*) he should have his lands and debts 
given him again which he much wished for and trusted 
once to see.' At the time the pardon was granted 
the Queen had sent troops to France which troops 
were engaged at the siege of Qvntynes to which he 
sent the Lord Bray, whether this was a mark of re- 
newed confidence or by way of a punishment admits 
of a question, anyway it seems to have cost him his 
life, for he returned to his house in Blackfriars and he 
died there on the i8th of November 1557 in the 37th 
year of his age." 
He was buried at Chelsea Old Church, where his 
father, Edmund Lord Bray, was buried. 
• At this time the Lady Elizabeth, the Queen's sister, resided at 
Hatfield, in Herts, not far distant from Eton Bray, which occasioned 
him to speak of her as a neighbour. 
