DECLARATION OF LONDON.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXIX, Issue 89, 3 June 1911, Page 5

DECLARATION OF LONDON.

CABLE NEWS

By Elect rie Telegraph—Cnpv right United IV.--, Association.

o CONST! LT! NO TIIE CO LON IES. London. June 2. At the Imperial Conference, Mr. Asquith presided. Mr. L. Ilarcouvt (Secretary for the Colonies) was also present. Mr. Fisher, in moving the resolution, attached most importance to the first part thereof, dealing with the constitution of tho dominions, which hitherto had not boon consulted regarding treaties and conventions. That was the weak point of the position of the selfgoverning communities. The time had arrived ’when they should be informed, and, if need be, consulted before arrangements affecting their interests were concluded. They did not desire to restrict Britain, but wished to be taken into her confidence. The Declaration of London afforded an opportunity to raise the question. He hoped the first portion of fhe resolution would he agreed to, so that when Britain was approached by other nations they would have tho assurance that she was voicing in essentials the dominions’ views. This, without weakening Britain, would strengthen the dominions and make them feel that they shared everything done for the protection of the Empire.

Mn Batchelor (Minister of Australian External Affairs) said ho did not desiic to snpptjrt any particular party view. They were approaching the consideration of the Declaration of London too late to' alter the course of negotiations or effectively modify them. They might adopt the extreme course of urging that they should not ratify. This would ho only justified if they felt the safety of the Empire were endangered. That was a highly satisfactory position for the dominions to be in. Australia, per head of population, had the greatest commerce of any country. Tf Australia had hoon an independent State she would have been consulted, hut the first information they received about the Declaration was contained in the Blue Book. When possible modifications were suggested, they were told it was 100 .late to introduce them. It was recognised that there must he one foreign policy and one final authority, but that should not preclude the possibility of consultation. Mr. Batchelor,' continuing, said the making of foodstuffs conditional contraband was probably advantageous compared with Hie existing position. It would be better, however, if some of the terms were less vague. As regarded the right to sink neutrals, that right in the pash was denied by Britain. Sir Edward Grey interjected that it was not always Hie case. Moreover, other nations had taken an entirely different view. Mr. Batchelor proceeded to say that the practice of the strongest naval Powers had been to object to sinning neutral prizes. Consequently sinking was impossible owing to the danger of offending the greatest Powers. Sir Edward Grey said that had not proved impossible daring the last naval war. The discussion at the last Hague Conference showed that international feeling against sinking neutrals was weaker than was expected. Mr. Batchelor went on to say that even so. seeing that America had agreed with Britain on the point, it would be

perilous for any nation to adopt wholesale destruction. When, however, it was once laid down that prizes could he sunk without fear of reprisals that course would more likely be followed. Article "4 required a hotter definition. "W hat did the word “enemy” mean —an “enemy of the people” or “enemy of the Government”? M hat did the words “base of supply” mean? The danger of r,inking prises would greatly affect of goods in Britain. Australia regretted that no provision was made in regard (o the conversion of merchantmen on the high seas. While they did no! ii-k the Government to decline to ratif> the Declaration, if they thought the ad vantages outweighed the disadvantages, it certain points could ho altered, the alteration would benefit the Empire generally. Sir Bd'wArd Grey said it was intended to make clear that “enemy” meant “enemy of Ihe Government” as a condition of ratification. ' Certain people considered that Britain, being the strongest maritime Power, ought not to allow auv restrictions in regard to the u-e of

the fleet, hut ought to ho free to make her own rules of war. That -position Iml lircn abandoned in the treaty basis. II '.vas not in the Declaration of London Having agreed that there should he international treaties on those subjects, and if they were to remain on good terms with the other Powers, it was essential that they should not decline tc he parties to such international arrangement. Another line of criticism was that \vc had declared certain things to he international law. hut introduced an amount of consent into the international rules which never before obtained. A

slate of chaos in regard to foodstuffs had been raised in the past when thos; aggrieved depended for redress upon the belligerent's courts, which were unsatisfactory. For a neutral to appeal to tin Hague Prize Court of Appeal was oh vionslv of considerable advantage to neutrals. It was agreed that in connection with some foodstuffs the terms were vague, hut it was impossible to get an agreement in more definite terms, bn! the latitude which the vagueness gave was common in all. History had shown that vagueness of terms had hitherto been an advantage to the stronger fleet which would have the same liberties un der the Declaration that were conceded to other Powers. If was not a onesided declaration. Admiral Mahan, in

s criticism of the Declaration. li.nl

asked. WlnM.dnl th- Government re;r:i>'<; as I lie exact legal force of the ere acral report? Sir Edward Grey said it was accepted as part of the general agreement, as it constituted an authoritative interpretation of {lie declarations and provisions. That, was another point which was a condition of ratification. The Government agreed in regard to tne doctrine of continuous voyage not to seize contraband consigned to neutral ports, though it might ho destined for an enemy. They had gained by this concession in other ways. 'lf they found a difficulty in clearing the whole Atlantic of the enemy’s cruisers, it would ho possible that goods could he consigned to neutral European ports. If the British Navy were unable to do that, tbe war would lie over, as tbe British Xavy would he beaten.

AFr. Batchelor interjected that Australia had no neutral port at hand. Sir Edward Grey replied that although Australia would not gain she did not lose; whereas in the case of South Africa it might have a very distinct hearing. Regarding what constituted a base of supply, ho did not think it could possibly he interpreted to mean every port from which there was a railway. The meaning of the term was well understood. Mr. Asquith indicated that article T". the governing article, clearly showed that nothing was liable to capture unless destined for tbe use of the Government, Sir Edward Grey said the question of contraband was not so big as sometimes thought, because Britain could not ho. supplied by neutrals alone. If she were unable to keep the sea clear for supplies coming under the British flag, we would he unable to feed the population, and we would he brought to our knees. If wo could prevent interference with the British flag we could prevent interference Avith a neutral flag. Only one tiling could secure our safety in war time: that was the supremacy of the British fleet. If that were maintained, the other points were comparatively insignificant. In reference to consultation with the dominions, it would have been difficult, seeing that they were not consi.ilted about the Hague conference and the Prize Court Convention, to suddenly bring them into connection with the Declaration of London. The Government, however, agreed that the dominions ought to he consulted, and they, would be consulted before the next Hague conference, and consulted automatically about everything arising therefrom. Mr. Fisher: “We desire to he consulted before things are actually done.” Sir Edward Grey said the Government understood the point and desired in practice to employ it. The Government usually held an inter-departmental conference to consider the Hague programme xml settle the delegates’ instructions. That would ho f.he time for consultation with the dominions in whatever way was considered •convenient. The dominions would also he given an opportunity saying whether they were satisfied with the convention before ratification. If dissatisfied, the matter would he thrashed out. Xo complaint would he possible in future that the dominions were not; consulted.

TO-DAY’S MESSAGE. (.Received 3,9.3 u a.in.) London, June 2. At the Imperial Conference Sir Joseph Ward said he supported the Declaration of London because it roliiced the risk to winch, fooastnlfs core non - exposed. r l ha establishment of an International Covet of Appeal was a great improvement on the Belligerent Court. ohe crux o; the whole position was too maintenance of the British Navy, keeping it so powerful that sea routes would he protected, and th re was not'the slightest chance, hut that the Declaration would pass the test. it was of material impm lance to consult the Dominions on these matt ora and secure their opinions before duality was readied. Ho regretted that this had not been clone in the present instance. Though all would have liked to he consulted they were not prepared to support the rejection ol the Declaration. Dr. Findlay said the more the Declaration was examined the more would bo scon of its advantages. fcir Edward Grey, in concluding Ido speech, said it was a step icrwvrd, and if the Conference refused io ratify it it would ho a groat blow io too confidence of ether nations in Britain as a Power.

Replying to Mr. Fisher’s _ question vs to whether the consultation would m confined to The Hague, Sir Eduard Grey said it would not be Hinted. There wore cases of treaties chore it was difficult to consult, but is far as could bo clone the Gcvornueut would do it. Sir Wilfrid La uric.• said it was a far reaching proposition, and the Bo nirious should have .been concur.rd in regard to treaties. .Canada claim'd liberty in negotiating her own •onimorci d treaties. H tnat was conceded in regard to other treaties it night seriously e?nharass the Homo Government. Britain carried. the greater imrden of the Empire. It .vould be going ton far if the Ovim;ens Dominions w. re consulted o;i ■•. attars wliifli ‘.night re; r'li in war. le though.! it bolter' to leave the •mlter to the discretion of the ln:lorial Government. The Declaration vas an immense advance. It, Sir Edward Gray concluded arbitration with America, it would bo the greatest act of in’s career, its cousr.mmaion would perhaps bo prevent:d if the Declaration was not ratified. Supporters of the All-Red rout;.' laid documents before the imperial lonference, including Admiral Cyp- ■ ian Bridge’s report, favouring PlacKsod Bay as tiie po: fc of arrival of ‘dps bringing food in time of war. iliachsod being more remote from ; profs;file enemy’s base, therefore a .mailer naval force would be uccea:ary to defend if.