"For the rest, what can be seen is still sufficient to give us an idea.
"I will commence with the tonnage. You are aware that in the first two months of the unrestricted submarine warfare more than 1,600,000 tons were sunk, of which probably considerably over one million tons sailed under the British flag.
"The estimates as to the quant.i.ty of English tonnage at present available are somewhat divergent; in any case, whether we take the higher or the lower figures, a loss of more than a million tons in two months is a thing that England cannot endure for long. And to replace it, even approximately, by new building, is out of the question. In the year 1914 England"s newly-built ships gave a tonnage increment of 1,600,000; in 1915 it was 650,000 tons, in 1916 only 580,000, despite all efforts. And the normal loss of the British merchant fleet in peace time amounts to between 700,000 and 800,000 tons. It is hopeless to think of maintaining equilibrium by urging on the building of new vessels.
"The attempts which are made to enlist the neutral tonnage in British service by a system of rewards and punishments may here and there, to the ultimate disadvantage of the neutrals themselves, have met with some success, but even so, the neutrals must consider the need for preserving a merchant fleet themselves for peace time, so that there is a narrow limit to what can be attained in this manner. Even in January of this year about 30 per cent. of the shipping entries into British ports were under foreign flags. I have heard estimates brought up to 80 per cent. in order to terrify the neutrals; if but 50 per cent. of this be correct it means a decrease in British shipping traffic of roughly one-sixth. Counting tonnage sunk and tonnage frightened off, the arrivals at British ports have been reduced, at a low estimate, by one-fourth, and probably by as much as one-third, as against January. In January arrivals amounted to 2.2 million net tons.
I may supplement the incomplete English statistics by the information that in March the arrivals were only 1.5 to 1.6 million tons net, and leave it to Mr. Carson to refute this. The 1.5 to 1.6 million tons represent, compared with the average entries in peace time, amounting to 4.2 millions, not quite 40 per cent. This low rate will be further progressively reduced. Lloyd George at the beginning of the war reckoned on the last milliard. Those days are now past. Then he based his plans on munitions. England has here, with the aid of America, achieved extraordinary results. But the Somme and Arras showed that, even with those enormous resources, England was not able to beat us.
Now, in his greeting to the American Allies, Lloyd George cries out: "Ships, ships, and yet more ships." And this time he is on the right tack; it is on ships that the fate of the British world-empire will depend.
"The Americans, too, have understood this. They propose to build a thousand wooden vessels of 3,000 tons. But before these can be brought into action they will, I confidently hope, have nothing left to save.
"I base this confidence upon the indications which are visible, despite the English policy of suppression and concealment.
"Take the total British trade. The figures for March are still not yet available, but those for February tell us enough.
"British imports amounted in January of this year to 90 million pounds sterling, in February to only 70 million; the exports have gone down from 46 to 37 millions sterling--imports and exports together showing a decline of over 20 per cent. in the first month of the submarine warfare. And again, the rise in prices all round has, since the commencement of the U-boat war, continued at a more rapid rate, so that the decline in the import quant.i.ty from one month to another may fairly be estimated at 25 per cent. The figures for imports and exports, then, confirm my supposition as to the decrease of tonnage in the traffic with British ports.
"The British Government has endeavoured, by the strictest measures rigorously prohibiting import of less important articles, to ward off the decline in the quant.i.ty of vital necessaries imported. The attempt can only partially succeed.
"In 1916, out of a total import quant.i.ty of 42 million tons, about 31 millions fall to three important groups alone, viz., foodstuffs and luxuries, timber, and iron ore; all other goods, including important war materials, such as other ores and metals, petroleum, cotton and wool, rubber, only 11 million tons, or roughly one-fourth. A decline of one-fourth, then, as brought about by the first month of unrestricted submarine warfare, must affect articles indispensable to life and to the purposes of war.
"The decline in the imports in February, 1917, as against February, 1916, appears as follows:
"Wool 17 per cent., cotton 27 per cent., flax 38 per cent., hemp 48 per cent., jute 74 per cent., woollen materials 83 per cent., copper and copper ore 49 per cent., iron and steel 59 per cent. As to the imports of iron ore I will give more detailed figures:
"Coffee 66 per cent., tea 41 per cent., raw sugar 10 per cent., refined sugar 90 per cent., bacon 17 per cent., b.u.t.ter 21 per cent., lard 21 per cent., eggs 39 per cent., timber 42 per cent.
"The only increases worth noting are in the case of leather, hides, rubber and tin.
"As regards the group in which we are most interested, the various sorts of grain, no figures for quant.i.ties have been given from February onwards.
"The mere juxtaposition of two comparable values naturally gives no complete idea of the facts. It should be borne in mind that the commencement of the unrestricted U-boat campaign came at a time when the economical position of England was not normal, but greatly weakened already by two and a half years of war. A correct judgment will, then, only be possible when we take into consideration the entire development of the imports during the course of the war.
"I will here give only the most important figures.
"In the case of iron ore, England has up to now maintained its position better than in other respects.
"Imports amounted in 1913 to 7.4 million tons.
"In 1916 to 6.9 million tons.
"January, 1913, 689,000 tons; February, 1913, 658,000 tons.
"January, 1916, 526,000 tons; February, 1916, 404,000 tons.
"January, 1917, 512,000 tons; February, 1917, 508,000 tons.
"Here again comparison with the peace year 1913 shows for the months of January and February a not inconsiderable decrease, though the imports, especially in February, 1917, were in excess of those for the same month in 1916.
"Timber imports, 1913, 10.1 million loads.
" " 1916, 5.9 " "
" February, 1913, 406,000 loads.
" " 1916, 286,000 "
" " 1917, 167,000 "
"As regards mining timber especially, the import of which fell from 3.5 million loads in 1913 to 2.0 million in 1916, we have here December, 1916, and January, 1917, with 102,000 and 107,000 loads as the lowest import figures given since the beginning of 1913; a statement for the import of mining timber is missing for February.
"Before turning to the import of foodstuffs a word may be said as to the export of coal.
"The total export of coal has decreased from 78 million tons in 1913 to 461/2 million tons in 1915; in 1916 only about 42 million tons were exported. In December, 1916, the export quant.i.ty fell for the first time below 3 million tons, having remained between 3.2 and 3.9 million tons during the months from January to November, 1916. In January, 1917, a figure of 3.5 million tons was again reached; it is the more significant, therefore, that the coal export, which from the nature of the case exhibits only slight fluctuations from month to month, falls again in February, 1917, to 2.9 million tons (as against 3.4 million tons in February of the year before), thus almost reaching once more to the lowest point hitherto recorded--that of December, 1916. And it should be remembered that here, as in the case of all other exports, sunk transports are included in the English statistics.
"Details as to the destination of exported coal have since the beginning of this year been withheld. England is presumably desirous of saving the French and Italians the further distress of reading for the future in black and white the calamitous decline in their coal supply. The serious nature of this decline, even up to the end of 1916, may be seen from the following figures:
"England"s coal export to France amounted in December, 1916, to only 1,128,000 tons, as against 1,269,000 tons in January of the same year; the exports to Italy in December, 1916, amounted only to 278,000 tons, as against 431,000 tons in January, and roughly 800,000 tons monthly average for the peace year 1913.
"As to the further development since the end of February, I am able to give some interesting details. Scotland"s coal export in the first week of April was 103,000 tons, as against 194,000 tons the previous year; from the beginning of the year 1,783,000 tons, as against 2,486,000 tons the previous year. From this it is easy to see how the operations of the U-boats are striking at the root of railway and war industries in the countries allied with England.
"Lloyd George, in a great speech made on January 22 of this year, showed the English how they could protect themselves against the effects of submarine warfare by increased production in their own country. The practicability and effectiveness of his counsels are more than doubtful. He makes no attempt, however, to instruct his Allies how they are to protect themselves against the throttling of the coal supply.
"I come now to the most important point: _the position of England with regard to its food supply_.
"First of all I would give a few brief figures by way of calling to mind the degree to which England is dependent upon supplies of foodstuffs from overseas.
"The proportion of imports in total British consumption averaged during the last years of peace as follows:
"Bread-corn, close on 80 per cent.
"Fodder-grain (barley, oats, maize), which can be utilised as subst.i.tutes for, and to supplement, the bread-corn, 50 per cent.; meat, over 40 per cent.; b.u.t.ter, 60-65 per cent. The sugar consumption, failing any home production at all, must be entirely covered by imports from abroad.
"I would further point out that our U-boats, inasmuch as concerns the food situation in England, are operating under quite exceptionally favourable conditions; the world"s record harvest of 1915 has been followed by the world"s worst harvest of 1916, representing a loss of 45-50 million tons of bread and fodder-grain. The countries hardest hit are those most favourably situated, from the English point of view, in North America. The effects are now--the rich stocks from the former harvest having been consumed--becoming more evident every day and everywhere. The Argentine has put an embargo on exports of grain.
As to the condition of affairs in the United States, this may be seen from the following figures:
"The Department of Agriculture estimates the stocks of wheat still in the hands of the farmer on March 1, 1917, at 101 million bushels, or little over 21/2 million tons. The stocks for the previous year on that date amounted to 241 million bushels. Never during the whole of the time I have followed these figures back have the stocks been so low or even nearly so. The same applies to stocks of maize. Against a supply of 1,138,000 bushels on March 1, 1916, we have for this year only 789,000 bushels.
"The extraordinary scarcity of supplies is nearing the panic limit.
The movement of prices during the last few weeks is simply fantastic.
Maize, which was noted in Chicago at the beginning of January, 1917, at 95 cents, rose by the end of April to 127 cents, and by April 25 had risen further to 148 cents. Wheat in New York, which stood at 871/4 cents in July, 1914, and by the beginning of 1917 had already risen to 1911/2 cents, rose at the beginning of April to 229 cents, and was noted at no less than 281 on April 2. This is three and a half times the peace figure! In German currency at normal peace time exchange, these 281 cents represent about 440 marks per ton, or, at present rate of exchange for dollars, about 580 marks per ton.
"That, then, is the state of affairs in the country which is to help England in the war of starvation criminally begun by itself!
"In England no figures are now made public as to imports and stocks of grain. I can, however, state as follows:
"On the last date for which stocks were noted, January 13, 1917, England"s visible stocks of wheat amounted to 5.3 million quarters, as against 6.3 and 5.9 million quarters in the two previous years. From January to May and June there is, as a rule, a marked decline in the stocks, and even in normal years the imports during these months do not cover the consumption. In June, 1914 and 1915, the visible stocks amounted only to about 2 million quarters, representing the requirements for scarcely three weeks.
"We have no reason to believe that matters have developed more favourably during the present year. This is borne out by the import figures for January--as published. The imports of bread-corn and fodder-grain--I take them altogether, as in the English regulations for eking out supplies--amounted only to 12.6 million quarters, as against 19.8 and 19.2 in the two previous years.
"For February the English statistics show an increase in the import value of unstated import quant.i.ty of all grain of 50 per cent., as against February, 1916. This gives, taking the distribution among the various sorts of grain as similar to that of January, and reckoning with the rise in prices since, about the same import quant.i.ty as in the previous year. But in view of the great decrease in American grain shipments and the small quant.i.ty which can have come from India and Australia the statement is hardly credible. We may take it that March has brought a further decline, and that to-day, when we are nearing the time of the three-week stocks, the English supplies are lower than in the previous years.
"The English themselves acknowledge this. Lloyd George stated in February that the English grain supplies were lower than ever within the memory of man. A high official in the English Ministry of Agriculture, Sir Ailwyn Fellowes, speaking in April at an agricultural congress, added that owing to the submarine warfare, which was an extremely serious peril to England, the state of affairs had grown far worse even than then.