British Secret Service During the Great War Part 34

Sir Samuel Evans: How many herrings in 50,000 tons?

The Attorney-General: My a.s.sistants and confederates inform me that there are about 450,000,000 herrings. It is a conservative estimate.

These are official figures published by the Netherlands Statistical Department on May 20th, 1916; such great a.s.sistance rendered to Germany is more serious owing to the fact that Germany's gain has been our loss.

FOODSTUFFS SENT FROM HOLLAND, IN TONS.

(Covering the months January to April.)

EGGS-- 1914. 1916.

To Germany 3,101 11,825 To Britain 2,733 557

FISH-- To Germany 21,337 29,378 To Belgium -- --

MEAT-- To Germany 4,156 30,621 To Britain 25,460 555

POTATO FLOUR and its products-- To Germany 13,991 43,861 To Britain 8,831 5,520

COFFEE-- To Germany 17,429 39,684

COCOA POWDER-- To Germany 598 3,302 To Britain 2,155 1,437

b.u.t.tER-- To Germany 4,010 10,237 To Britain 1,387 33

CHEESE-- To Germany 4,120 25,437 To Britain 5,624 407

One has only to cast the eye down these figures to see what Holland means as a depot for Germany's food.

During the first four months of 1916 Holland had imported by consent of Great Britain 432,702 tons of cereals. No less than 283,792 tons were re-exported from Holland and consequently did not go into home consumption there; 272,630 tons of this went over into Belgium. It is important, also, to note that of the cereals imported 102,722 tons of maize were included in the total. Most of this maize was used for fattening pigs, which were eventually slaughtered and sent to Germany.

This abundance of pig food allowed by us to be consumed by the Dutch pigs in fact enabled the Dutch to fatten the immense supply which they sent over to Germany. The meat figures given above must be read in the light of this fact.

The more we sent into Holland for her home supply, the more she could release of her home-grown products to the enemy. As between Holland, Germany and ourselves, we lost tremendously. Germany and Holland were of immense a.s.sistance to each other, at our expense.

A weekly circular of the London Rice Brokers' a.s.sociation shows the following striking contrasts in exports from London:

EXPORTS OF RICE FROM LONDON.

January 1st to May 27th, 1915. Same period, 1916.

Cwt. Cwt.

To Holland 247,869 905,078 (say 45,000 tons) To France 22,607 430

Thus the export to Holland had greatly increased and the supply to France had dwindled almost out of existence. During the single week ended May 27th, 1916, 224,252 cwt. (say 11,212 tons) were s.h.i.+pped to Holland from London.

On June 2nd, 1916, the London Press wailed over the enormous supplies of grain entering Germany through Roumania, which she was enabled to purchase by exchanging goods made from the raw material permitted so kindly by England to leak through the blockade.

In April one consignment of 1,500,000 eggs pa.s.sed from Holland to Germany in two days only. Indeed, so vast was the drain of Germany upon Holland that the Dutch people complained in June that they were being stinted of their proper food supply. Norway continued to supply nickel, fish, copper, fish oils, and many other things, although England at last awoke in the spring of 1916 to the advisability of purchasing part of the Norwegian fish harvests. In this deal, however, her lawyer Government had not the sense to consult the best export fish merchants, who are essentially business men. She went to work in the usual amateurish way, which spelt reckless waste and extravagance; paying 5 to 7 per package for what could have been previously arranged for at about 10s. or less.

The English Government throughout the war had the Norwegian fish trade absolutely in its own hands. Yet one of its own Consuls supplied Germany wholesale in 1914; it supplied coal and salt to a.s.sist the Germans to garner in practically the entire harvest of 1915; and it was not until the middle of 1916 that some English sluggard in power woke up and paid through the nose for what could have been purchased practically on our own terms.

Sweden continued to supply almost everything and anything that Germany required, openly when possible, smuggled in by all manner of tricks and dodges should any difficulty of transport be likely to arise.

At the end of June, 1916, a Liverpool merchant contributed some remarkable facts and figures to the _Liverpool Courier_, proving that England was helping Germany to obtain what she required at the expense of the home consumer in England. The net result of his arguments was that our s.h.i.+pping and home ports were congested for several months by Dutch imports through private arrangements between Holland and England, whereby Holland was supplying Germany to a colossal extent and frustrating the supreme purposes of the so-called blockade. In conclusion, he plaintively besought the nation to adopt the strangle-knot of Mr. Hughes by so tightening the blockade that Holland would no longer be able to provide the Germans with food for her peoples and materials for the manufacture of guns and explosives to slaughter our sons.

The tables of figures quoted showed in glaring contrast the usual enormous increases of imports upon pre-war returns which the British reader had grown quite accustomed to see. To give but one example: the s.h.i.+pments of margarine from Holland to Germany during 1915 showed thirteen times greater, etc.

On July 20th, 1916, during the hearing of a case in the London Prize Court relating to the S.S. _Maracus_, the Solicitor-General (Sir George Cave) read an affidavit by Mr. John Hargreaves, provision merchant, Liverpool, stating that in 1915 the price of lard in Germany was 100s.

per cwt., as against 50s. in Liverpool. At that price there was an inducement to American s.h.i.+ppers to risk s.h.i.+pment to Germany, and to German buyers to open credits in New York. Should the American s.h.i.+pper succeed in getting two s.h.i.+pments through, he might well make a large profit which would amply compensate him for the loss of one s.h.i.+pment, apart from his chance of recovering compensation from the British Government.

An affidavit by Mr. R. M. Greenwood, a.s.sistant Treasury Solicitor, showed the imports of foodstuffs into Copenhagen during the first six months of 1915 as compared with the similar period of 1913. The figures were:

1913. 1915.

PORK 948,400 lbs. 15,062,060 lbs.

LARD 3,999,700 " 23,458,720 "

OLEO 2,509,900 " 8,775,750 "

The evidence in the case proved that the s.h.i.+p was bound for Germany and her captain had been promised a bonus of 200 if the goods reached their destination.

On June 28th, 1916, Lord Robert Cecil in reply to a question in the House of Commons, said:

"As the result of the Paris Conference His Majesty would be advised to issue an Order in Council withdrawing the successive Orders which had been issued adopting with modifications the Declaration of London, and a general statement should also be issued explaining the reason for this step."

Amidst the loud cheering which followed a voice was heard to exclaim, "After twenty-three months!"

How Potsdam must have hugged itself with delight in 1909, 1910, and 1911 at the absurdly childish simplicity exhibited by the English Liberal Government in nullifying all its geographical advantages by accepting such a one-sided code of sea-law which gave Germany the right to stop food _en route_ to British ports, while forbidding Great Britain to stop food _en route_ to Germany, and whilst in force rendered any effective blockade of Germany impossible.

But what powerful mysterious motives prompted its re-adoption after it had been rejected by the House of Lords? Again on August 20th, 1914, why did the Cabinet illegally put it into force with modifications--though Article 65 thereof states that the code is indivisible?

What was held in the unseen hand and to whom was it extended?

On August 2nd, 1916, M. Clemenceau published an article in _L'Homme Enchaine_, headed, "A Fresh a.s.sa.s.sination," in which, after commenting upon the brutal murders of Nurse Cavell and the innocent Captain Fryatt, he wrote:

"It is time that Great Britain made the weight of her will felt, especially as regards the strict application of the blockade, which, has too often been relaxed out of a desire not to arouse an unpleasant quarrel with Was.h.i.+ngton. It is time to end these half-measures. We must make up our minds as to what to do, and do it."

On July 6th, 1916, Lord Robert Cecil admitted in the House of Commons, in reply, what was tantamount to a confession that the British Fleet employed in the blockade was still muzzled, being bound down by red-tape precedents and strict London directions.

On July 9th he was further compelled to confess that 10,708 tons of lard had been permitted to enter Belgium, as well as about 2,000 tons of tallow and other fats. Nominally this was fathered by the Neutral Relief Committee, but in reality it was just so much more a.s.sistance granted to the enemy.

FAT (FOR EXPLOSIVES) IN TONS

In the early part of 1914 Germany exported lard to Holland, but this ceased on the eve of war. Great Britain, on the other hand, for some extraordinary and unintelligible reason, permitted her exports to Holland to increase. These are the figures: