Page 195
Page 195
i
23
export of stone, cement, and bricks should be prohibited at certain ports in time of war.
The Board have now received from the Commissioners of Customs and Excise
reports which have been furnished by that Department's officers at the ports in question, with regard to the constwise shipments, inward and outwards, of the articles mentioned.
A summary of such reports has been made in this Department, and is trans- mitted to you herewith. It will be seen that the reports relate to different recent periods, and are in diverse forms, but they appear to indicate sufficiently—when taken in conjunction with the statements in regard to the import and export trade which were communicated to you with the Board's previous letter-the extent of the traffic in stone, cement, and brick carried on at the several ports.
In particular it will be observed that at most of the ports the inward coast- wise trade appears to be of considerably greater importance than the outward trade.
Before considering the matter further the Board would be obliged if you would be good enough to inquire of the Admiralty why their proposal was limited-
1. To bricks, stone, and cement, when other articles, such as coal, iron-ore, slates, &c., would appear to be equally suitable for blocking the fairway;
2. To the outward trade, omitting the inward trade; and
3. To exports to foreign countries, omitting shipments coastwise.
I am, &c.
(Signed)
The Secretary, Committee of Imperial Defence,
H. LLEWELLYN SMITH.
2, Whitehall Gardens, 8.W.
APPENDIX IV.
Page 195
(Confidential.) (M-01364/1912.)
Sir,
Admiralty, September 30, 1912. WITH reference to your letter of the 7th ultimo, B-27 (40), regarding a proposal to prohibit entirely the export of cargoes of stone, cement, bricks, and similar cargo at certain ports in time of war, I am commanded by my Lord Commissioners of the Admiralty to forward the following observations :—
1. As regards Question (a), although certain articles such as coal, iron-ore, &c., are quite suitable for blocking purposes, the export of such cargoes could not be prohibited in war without causing unnecessary loss to our own merchants, especially as the coastwise trade in these articles is shown by the Board of Trade to be considerably greater than that to ports abroad.
As, however, all vessels have to obtain a clearance from the local Customs Officer before departure from a British port, and as special arrangements have been made for the Customs Officials working in co-operation with the Coast Guard to be constantly on the watch during peace and strained relations for the presence of suspicious vessels at all the ports mentioned in paragraph 14 of Home Ports Defence Committee Memo- randum No. 25-M, the issue of the Special Order in Council mentioned in that paragraph does not seem to be necessary. Moreover, on the actual outbreak of war, far more stringent and peremptory measures could be taken, and any vessel about which there was the slightest doubt on account of the nature of her cargo could be detained by the local Customs Official pending further enquiry.
2. With regard to Question (b) the measures to be taken by the Customs Authorities with regard to the "Treatment of Enemy and Neutral Merchant Ships in War," refer to outgoing vessels only; the question of incoming trade at certain ports where no Examination Service exists at present requires, in their Lordships' opinion, separate attention.
The prevention of attempts to block the Channels by incoming ships will usually rest with the Examination Services where such exist, but that is only the case at five out of the following sixteen ports which are considered as easily blocked ports:- Newhaven, Weymouth, Avonmouth, Cardiff, Penarth, Barry, Swansea, Dublin, Belfast, Londonderry, Barrow, River Clyde, Aberdeen, Leith, Hartlepool, Blyth. The eleven others include the four principal Welsh coaling ports and Barrow, which
• Not reproduced.
Page 195
Page 195Page 196