DECLARATION OF LONDON.

Southland Times, Issue 14634, 26 January 1911, Page 5

DECLARATION OF LONDON.

POSTPONEMENT REPORTED CONTROVERSY GOES OS. (By Telegraph.—Press Association. —Copyright.) LONDON, Jan. 25. Received Jan. 25, 9.5 p.m. Some newspapers announce that the ratification of the Declaration of London will be postponed until the Imperial Conference has discussed it. The Berlin Post declares that the campaign against the Declaration requires foreign powers to reckon with the peril that may arise if ratification is refused and the old privateering rights are re-afflrfned. The Post adds that the recent British naval manoeuvres showed that the sacrifice of an enemy's fleet would make possible the almost complete destruction of the British mercantile marine, and such crippling of the mercantile marine would perpetually jeopardise British supremacy and shipping trade. The Daily Mail’s Ottawa correspondent reports that owing to meagre despatches the Declaration of London has attracted little attention in Canada. The general opinion is that the Dominions should not be overlooked in a matter of this kind. Sir W. Laurier has not studied the matter, and before he comes to a definite decision Government experts will analyse the Declaration. The South Australian Agent-General interviewed said that the Declaration ought not to be ratified without due discussion. LONDON, January 25. Received January 25, 10.52 p.m. The ‘‘Manchester Guardian” regards the Declaration of London as unwise. It would mean abandonment of the principle which England had defended for a century, namely, that the onus of proof lay with the captor while the Declaration of London laid the burden on the owner. England had two courses: Either to make the sea in War time British territory, this involving enormous cost, or to secure complete freedom of the seas to commerce. PUBTHES OPINIONS. LONDON, Jan. 24. Lord Inverclyde, addressing the Shipowners’ Association of Glasgow, asked whether the Government’s desire to ratify the Declaration of London was not equivalent to an admission that the Navy was unable to protect trade routes. Admiral Wilson was too sanguine regarding the impossibilities of invasion. Britain was entitled to command of the sea commercially, and the Navy must be equal to any necessity. Admiral Fremantle condemns the Declaration, believing that none of the signatories would observe it in war time. The International Court could have no power to enforce its decision. He is also of opinion that the new blockade rules would much hamper British naval commanders.