EULES OF WAR. PROTECTION OF TRADE ROUTES THE LONDON DECLARATION.

Evening Post, Volume LXXXI, Issue 20, 25 January 1911, Page 7

EULES OF WAR. PROTECTION OF TRADE ROUTES THE LONDON DECLARATION.

ADVERSE TO BRITAIN'S INTERESTS., By, Telegraph.— Press Association.— Copyright* (Received January 25, 9.40 a.m.) LONDON, 24th January. Lord Inverelyde, head of the Cunard! Line, addressing the Shipowners' Asso-c ciation at Glasgow, asked whether ths Government's desiro J.o ratify the De-. claration of London was not equivalent! to an admission that the British Navjfc was unable to protect the trade routes. The First Sea Lord, Admiral Sir Arthur Wilson, was rather sanguine regarding the impossibility of invasion. Britain,, however, was entitled to command th«l sea commercially, and the Navy must! be equal to the necessity. Admiral Sir Edmund Fremantle eon.-* demns the Declaration, believing thatnone of the signatories would observe it in war time. An International Court had no power to enforce its decision. The new blockade rules, adds the Admiral, would much hamper British ¦ naval commanders. A LIBERAL JOURNAL SUPPORTS" THE CHANGE. SIR JOHN TAYERNER'S VIEW. LONDON, 24th January. ¦The Daily News says if the Imperial! Conference supports. Australia in its.» . protest against the Declaration of Lon-. don, Uie decision Avill practically kill! the Declaration as far as England is;> concerned. The Declaration, says the News, ijfoes not place Britain in a -worse position, as regards raw material and foodstuffs, and it would be a pity if the Declaration were obstructed because it is leas • .progressive than it might be. The Daily News interviewed Sir Johm Taverner, Agent-General for Victoria,, who declared that the ratification of the Declaration as it stands would be a. "heathen policy." Germany and France were self-supporting, but Britain was. incapable of providing food for hep millions who were dependent upon othef countries, notably Australia.