The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1870-11-15
ENGLISH NEUTRALITY.

HSrd Grnnville's Reply Ia OsHot BsrnbtOrG.
Lord Granville, in his reply, dated October
a, to Count Bernstorff's last despatch on
neutral obligations, thus states the policy of
the British Government:
From the date of the outbreak of the war
the Cabinet has never hesitated as TO the
course which should be pursued The views
of the House of Commons were clearly mani
tested when, on the 4th of August, an amend
ment, by which it was proposed to insert in
the Foreign Enlistment act, then under dis
cussion, clause prohibiting the expectation
to belligerents of arms or munitions of war
was rejected by large majority; and the
same opinions wero shown to be held by the
House of Lords in the debate of August 8, on
the same bill, in which the Lord Chancellor,
the Lord Privy Seal and Lerd Cairns took
part. | myself, in answer to a question ad-
dressed to me in the House of Lords by the
Marquis of Clanricarde on the 22d of July,
went so far as to express some doubts whether
a policy of prohibition was advisable even in
sell. defer Sc; and in the constant conversa-
tions on the subject which l have had with
your Excellency since the commencement of
the war, l have invariably explained to you
that the new Foreign enlistment act neither
diminished nor added to the powers of the
Government as regarded the expectation of
munitions of war. and that it was our inten-
tion to adhere, on that point, to the usual
practice of this country, which practice we
believe to be in conformity with the esta-
blished principles of public law"
Then, after reminding the Count that his
former 'series of irrefutable facts, as he
called them, had nearly all been shown to be
quite unfounded, Lord Granville proceeds to
demolish two fresh accusations. Count Pa
hkaos statement, as reported in the Journal
OBiCte, was merely that arms had been or
dered q getrdn9eT, not in England; no trace
can be discovered of the order ever having
been received in this country, and it is GER
tain that If it was received it was not exc
cuted. Again, full returns show that the
supplies of arms drawn by France from this
country between the two specified dates are
less than those drawn by her from the United
States, whence no exports have been made
approaching the figures mentioned by his
Excellency. This reference to the United
States suggests an expression of surprise that
o monopoly OF the an--, 'srts had
-,O.Inan compltIA-
been reserved for US, while the exports from
the United States, and the positive assertion
of the President of the privileges of neutrals
had ELECTED no remark from the North Ger
man Government. In regard to a complaint
of the sale of the Hypatia and Norseman to
the French Government to be used as store
ships, Lord Granville points out that in both
cases the vessels were despatched from Eng
iohu bOAolO tAO OAOiSh I%hioOlhSh1 oSC Va
1870 came into operation; consequently the
owners who were not liable to penalties un-
der the previous Enlistment act, could not be
successfully prosecuted under the provisions of
the new act. Moreover, the actual sale was
effected at Cherbourg, and the vessels were
there handed over to the purchasers before
the passing of the new act Two eases ad-
duced by Count Bernstorff, one in 1926 and
the other in 1S4S, when the export of arms
was prohibited by our Government, are met
by the answer that the interference then ex-
ercised was in fulfilment of special treaty
obligations with Denmark and Spain. In
conclusion, Lord Granville congratulates his
Excellency on having withdrawn from the
untenable doctrine of benevolent neutra-
hty;" for though good offices may be be-
be so;" and, repudiating all Jealousy of d Ger.
man unity, repeats his assurance of the
friendly and sympathetic feelings of this
country towards Germany.