IMPERIAL POLITICS

Timaru Herald, Volume XCIV, Issue 14480, 29 June 1911, Page 5

IMPERIAL POLITICS

DECLARATION OF LONDON. CX)MMERCIAIToPPOSITION. Press Association—By Tel.—Copyright. LONDON, Juno 27. Fifty-three Chambers of Commerce have signed and forwarded to Mr Asquith and Sir Edward Grey, a protest against the Declaration of London. Received 10.45 p.m., June 28th. Mr Balfour, in the course of his speech to Stock Exchange members, added that in wartime starvation and not invasion was Britain's danger - A weaker naval power, without an effective blockade, might so interfere with the supply of foodstuffs that no or patriotism, would enable us to deal with tha situation, and such national emergency might arise under the Declaration of London from its treatment, first, of food as contraband: secondly, converting mercantile vessels into cruisers on the high seas; thirdlv, capture and sinking if neutrals. An enemy might say, no matter what it costs two years hence; we shall use privateers in order to secure immediate advantage in a life and death struggle.

Mr Balfour continued that the' Declaration of London was equivalent to the destruction of Britain's great naval power. An invasion of Britain would be a very risky operation. That was an advantage which no parchments could take away, and it was an asset which'cannot be tossed into the gutter by any Government, however careless, but her island position makes it vevy difficult for Britain to exercise pressure on a- belligerent Power. Blockade and the power of seizing an enemy's vessels and goods were almost Britain's only methods of exercising pressure. The present Government expressly refused two years ago, to try to get property at sea made nonliabla to capture, b.ecause it was the only method of dealing wCth belligerents. ''You do net- promote peace by making it relatively ekeai> and easy to go to Mar with Britain."

Mr Atherlc-y Jones, M.P., seconded the protest against the Declaration. Ho contended that the matted involved no Liberal party interests, but was solely a matter of national concern. Lord Charles Beresford, Mr Gibson Bowks, and Mr Balfour addressed a great overflow meeting. Sir Hedworth Lambton in a letter ,to the newspapers strongly opposes ratification of the Declaration. MR, BALFOUR'S CRITICISM. Mr Balfour, addressing a non-party city meeting of members of the Stock ■ Exchange, merchants, and shippers, emphasised the fact that the Declara-. tion of London was a step backward, and was ambiguous regarding the vital question of food contraband. It was stud : eclly ambiguous also regarding the conversion of merchantmen into cruisers.