blockade of a nation is to-day of little value unless adjacent nations
can also be blockaded. The railroad unites all land nations. If
France had been neutral in this war, Germany could not have been
blockaded, for a British threat to blockade France would have thrown
her into the arms of Germany. Even if Italy had remained neutral, an
effective blockade might have forced Italy into the war on the side of
the Teutonic powers. England is using a weapon {251} which at the most
means a serious loss to her enemies but which effectively turned
against her would mean instant death.

There are certain powerful groups in England who are obstinately
opposed to any revision of the sea law in favour of neutral and
belligerent nations. They feel to-day, as Pitt felt in 1801, when the
doctrine was advanced that a neutral flag might protect enemy's
property. "Shall we," asked Pitt, "give up our maritime consequence
and expose ourselves to scorn, to derision, and contempt? No man can
deplore more than I do the loss of human blood--the calamities and
distresses of war; but will you silently stand by and, acknowledging
these monstrous and unheard-of principles of neutrality, insure your
enemy against the effects of your hostility!... Whatever shape it
assumes, it (this doctrine) is a violation of the rights of England,
and imperiously calls upon Englishmen to resist it, even to the last
shilling and the last drop of blood, rather than tamely submit to
degrading consequences or weakly yield the rights of this country to
shameful usurpation."[1] This doctrine, rather than accept which Pitt
was willing that England should fight to the death, was quietly
accepted by Great Britain in the Declaration of Paris (1856) and, half
a century later (1909), the Declaration of London protected neutral
rights even more strongly. But the spirit of Pitt is by no means dead.
The Declaration of London failed of ratification in Parliament partly
because of mere factional opposition and partly because of ancient
pride in England's naval supremacy. It was held that Britain being the
strongest naval power should uphold all naval rights {252} and all
necessary naval aggressions both against belligerents and neutrals.

The argument advanced in support of this position is that so long as
the enemy disregards international law in land warfare Britain has the
right to disregard the laws of sea war. If Germany violates Belgium's
neutrality, why should