The Southland Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. Luceo Non Uro. THURSDAY, JANUARY 26, 1911. THE DECLARATION OF LONDON.

Southland Times, Issue 14634, 26 January 1911, Page 4

The Southland Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. Luceo Non Uro. THURSDAY, JANUARY 26, 1911. THE DECLARATION OF LONDON.

Australia's protest against the Declaration of London lias had the effect ■ of drawing attention to a code of international law of far-reaching effect that promises in time of war to act detrimentally to the interests of Great Britain and her dependencies. From | the information at hand it would seem I that the Declaration is regarded by j the British Government as a progres- | give one, and its entire ratification 1 would no doubt have been conceded j had it not been for the timely protest that Australia has made, a protest which seems to have received the endorsement of other self-governing States. It is difficult to conceive why ! (he British authorities have been led to view favourably what appear to be surrenders- of advantages which, owing to her geographical position and economic system, seem to be of vital

national importance to her. It may have been the intention of the Government to humanise naval war and to remove its worst barbarities, but a dispassionate review of the Declaration indicates that, in so far as Britain herself is concerned, it will have a decidedly opposite effect. If in their desire to promote peace the British authorities have granted concessions to the other great powers, then from a national, and from an Empire point of view, such action may justifiably be characterised as a display of inexcusable, or, in the circumstances, even suicidal, weakness. Why should Great Britain, to her own detriment, grant concessions to other powers? In the face of the signs and portents of the times, one might be pardoned for saying that in doing so she has unexpectedly exhibited a tendency to commit national suicide. The points about which hostile criticism has chieily settled are: The addition of foodstuffs to the list of “conditional contraband" 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 provision relating to neutral prizes; and the absence of any agreement about the conversion of mer.chant vessels into 3hips of war. If Britain’s food supplies were cut off in time of war, she would become about the most helpless country in the world, for, owing to the conditions which have been deliberately created, Britain is almost entirely dependent for her food supplies from overseas. Sir Edward Grey, in the House of Commons on April 7, 1909, said:—“ls it more or less likely that a foreign warship in time of war will attempt to interfere with food supplies coming info this country under a neutral flag than it was before? W’henever it does our hands are just as free as they were before.” But under the new laws there is nothing 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 her food supplies* carried at a risk which can easily be avoided by

any Continental or non-insular power. It will at once be noticed that great and substantial benefits are thus conferred on a country like Germany. 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 Britain’s shores foodstuffs, forage, grain, fuel, clothing, coin or bullion, vessels, boats, floating docks, railway or telegraph material, balloons, flying machines, horse shoes, etc., will do so at the same deadly risk which will be encountered by British merchantmen. In Mr T. Gibson Bowles’ “Sea Law and Sea Power,” objection has also been urged against the limitation of the right to blockade which, it is alleged, will paralyse the British fleets, and in the same book it is also pertinently pointed out that if Britain was desirous of humanising naval war and of removing its worst barbarities, the authorities ought to have objected to the murderous and merciless submarine mine, which makes no distinction between neutral and enemy, between warship and liner, and which may be sown anywhere at sea with the “manifest mockery," that it “shall not be placed on the coasts of an adversary with the sole purpose of intercepting commercial navigation.” Altogether, Britain seems to have emerged from the Conference at which the Declaration was drawn up without having obtained a single concession that will benefit her in time of war in any way, but, on the other hand, as has already been pointed out, possible enemies Have benefited largely at her expense. It is gratifying to know that the Declaration of London is to ba discussed at the Imperial Conference, and, in ranking such an emphatic protest against the ratification of the Declaration, Australia has done an inestimable service to the Empire. And further, attention has now been drawn to the injustice that has been done to Australia and New Zealand in treating them as inferior States in civilisation to Columbia, Greece, Norway, Roumania, Paraguay, Hayti, and other minor countries. The shipping of the British Dominions is sixth in the shipping world, and yet they have no say in the making or the administering of international codes of law’ such as ithe Declaration of London. However, it is satisfactory to note that the increasing importance of her dependencies is now being appreciated by the British authorities, and a sufficient indication of this improved attitude is apparent in the fact that Australia’s protest has resulted in at least a postponement of the ratification of the Declaration by Great Britain.