[Letters To """"The Times"""" Upon War And Neutrality (1881-1920) by Thomas Erskine Holland]@TWC D-Link book
Letters To """"The Times"""" Upon War And Neutrality (1881-1920)

CHAPTER VI
3/89

Note must, of course, now be taken of the constitutional changes resulting from the war of 1914.
The provisions of the Treaty of 1888, with reference to the free navigation of the Suez Canal, have, of course, acquired a new importance from their adoption into the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty of November 18, 1901, as to the Panama Canal, and from the divergent views taken of their interpretation, as so adopted.
SECTION 1 _On the Open Sea_ "THE FREEDOM OF THE SEAS"?
Sir,--Your remarks upon "the wide and ambiguous suggestions" contained in the Pope's Peace Note are especially apposite to his desire for "the freedom of the seas." It is regrettable that his Holiness does not explain the meaning which he attaches to this phrase, in itself unmeaning, so dear to the Germans.

He is doubtless well aware that the sea is already free enough, except to pirates, in time of peace, and must be presumed to refer to time of war, and specifically to propose the prohibition of any such interference with neutral shipping as is now legalised by the rules relating to visit and search, contraband and blockade.
If this be indeed the Pope's meaning, his aspirations are now less likely than ever to be realised.

It is curious to reflect that the proposal actually made by our own Government at The Hague Conference of 1907, apparently under the impression that Great Britain would be always neutral, for protecting the carriage of contraband was most fortunately defeated by the opposition of the other great naval Powers, of which Germany was one.
I am, Sir, your obedient servant, T.E.HOLLAND.
Oxford, August 16 (1917).
* * * * * SECTION 2 _In Other Waters_ THE SUEZ CANAL Sir,--Your correspondent "M.B." has done good service by calling attention to the misleading nature of the often-repeated statement that the Suez Canal has been "neutralised" by the Convention of 1888.

Perhaps you will allow me more explicitly to show why, and how far, this statement is misleading.
In the first place, this Convention is inoperative.

It is so in consequence of the following reservation made by Lord Salisbury in the course of the negotiations which resulted in the signature of the Convention:-- "Les Delegues de la Grande-Bretagne ...


<<Back  Index  Next>>

D-Link book Top

TWC mobile books