The Northern Advocate THURSDAY, JANUARY 26, 1911. THE DECLARATION OF LONDON.

Northern Advocate, 26 January 1911, Page 4

The Northern Advocate THURSDAY, JANUARY 26, 1911. THE DECLARATION OF LONDON.

DURING the past few days there have been many references in our cable news to what appears to be a steady cannonade of protest against the Declaration of London. Such further protests are recorded to-day as enable it to be said that there is in British shipping and commercial circles a very strong feeling against Britain's adoption of the proposals of the International Naval Conference. This Conference, arranged by Britain, and attended by delegates from practically all the Powers, sat in London from December, 19LS, t<- February. l.:) 09, and formulated an extremely comprehensive mass of laws of naval warfare. Rightly or wrongly there began to grow, upon the publication of the report of the Conference, a feeling that Britain had made some very serious sacrifices. The points about which hostile criticism has chiefly settled are: The addition of foodstuffs to the list of "conditional 'Ontraband" and the undesirable scope of this list in other respects, the disadvantage to Britain in the immunity given to neutral vessels carrying conditional contraband to neutral ports, the provisions relating to neutral prizes, and the atsence of any agreement about the conversion of merchant vessels into ships of war. In a memorandum to the Foreign Office the Bristol branch of the Navy League put the principal objection in these terms: "Whilst enemies' cruisers can search, sink, and cestroy our vessels, we should be precluded from interference with those bound for a neutral port," and -no teally satisfactory reply to it has been made. The strongest reply that can b'.". given was Sir Edward Grey's statement in the House of Commons on April 7, 1909: "Is it more or less likely that a foreign warship in time of war will attempt to interfere with food supplies coming into this country under a neutral flag than it was before? Whenever it does our hands are just as free as they were before."

But under the new laws there is iiothing to prevent the carrying of food and other conditional contraband to a neutral European port, thereafter to be sent by land to the European enemy. Since there are no neutral ports in Britain, she will have fter food supplies carried at a risk which can be easily avoided by any Continental or non-insular Power. The Foreign Office, in reply to a protest from the Edinburgh Chamber of Commerce, declared that under the Declaration food supplies could not be declared "absolute" contraband, whereas "instances have occurred in recent years in which a powerful belligerent has, with the approval of other great Powers, declared food supples to b? absolute contraband, and such instances may occur again at any moment in time of war." But lit-J.e :e----flection is required to see that this is not an improvement that will greatly assist Britain. The temper :>f some of the critics of the Declaration will be seen from the following extract from an article in the "Morning Post" by Mr Harold F. Wyatt, Avho, after enumerating some of the articles that are "conditional contraband" —including foodstuffs, forage, grain, fuel, clothing, coin or bullion, vessels, boats, floating docks, railway or telegraph material, balloons, flying machines, horseshoes, etc.—adds:

All these goods, many of them invaluable for purposes of war, may be carried by neutral vessels, under the

very noses of British cruisers, smitten into impotence by Sir Edward Grey, into Antwerp, into Amsterdam, or any other non-German Continental port, whence their transit can be immediately continued by land, until they are handed over to the German naval or military authorities. Imagine, if we can, the sentiments of the captains and officers and men of a squadron of British cruisers who, under this "Libe-» ral" provision, have to watch merchant ships, loaded with stores for their enemy, pass unmolested on their way. Is this arrangement an instance of the superhuman wisdom of the Liberal party and of the Liberal Secretary for Foreign Affairs? Is this the proof of their anxious solicitude for the poor man's interests? Or can the records of any nation supply a parallel en the part of any Government to such rank imbecility, to such callous indifference, or to such brutal neglect? But what is sauce for the German gander is not to be sauce for the English goose. Truly, Sir Edward Grey and Mr Lloyd-George and Co. do not • believe in reciprocity. They prova that by the Declaration of London. For the great and substantial benefits thus conferred upon Germany are denied to Britain. The German is to be allowed to draw on the supply sources of the world, brought over the seas of the world, and forwarded by the briefest of journeys by land. The Briton is to be refused such help. Every neutral ship which brings towards our shores either foodstuffs (with one notable exception) or any of the articles enumerated above will do so at the same deadly risk which will be encountered by one of our own merchantmen.

Objection is also urged against the character and powers of the Prize Courts, and against what is alleged to be such slack rules governing blockade that Britain loses much of the advantage of this weapon. Even the "Manchester Guardian" had to protest against Sir Edward Grey's reply tc the argument of the Glasgow Chamber of Commerce that conditional contraband carried by a neutral to any British port could be captured, since any such port could be regarded as "a base for the armed forces of the enemy." Sir Edward Grey said the effect of this clause was "merely" to throw the burden of proof that goods are not in fact intended for the use of the armed forces of the Crown from the captor to the owner of the captured goods. At present the captor can prove little. But under the ion proof of innocence by the owner will be so very difficult that the change will "make all the difference between normal condemnation and normal immunity." The "Guardian," by the way, is responsible for the report, cabled ' last week, that the Foreign Office has decided not to proceed with the ratification owing to an intimation by the Ausralian Government that it desires yo discuss the Declaration. The colonies are, as Admiral Fremantle said a few days ago, immensely interested in the question. If the "Guardian's" report is accurate, it. is not without its significance for its bearing on interImperial relations where international ? issues are concerned.