BRITISH TRADE IN WAR TIME.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1144, 3 June 1911, Page 5

BRITISH TRADE IN WAR TIME.

DISCUSSION.

THE DOMNIONS TO BE CONSULTED IN FUTURE.

88R. FISHER mm HIS POINT.

8.7 Telegraph-Press Assoclatlon-Oopyrient (Rcc. Juno 2, 9.30 p.m.) London, June 2. The Imperial Conference yesterday discussed ilr. Fisher's motion, protesting against the provisions of the Declaration of London, of 1909. The debate was adjourned after a number of important speeches had bpen made, and it is evident that the members of the conference are almost unanimously in favour of ratifying the Declaration as it stands. '' The Prime Minister, Mr. Asquith, presided, and- Mr. Lewis Harcourt, Secretary of State for the Colonies, was present. Mr. Fisher, Prime Minister of Australia, moved: ''That it is regretted that the Dominions were not consulted prior to tho acceptance by the British delegates of the terms of tho Declaration of London; that it is not desirable that Great Britain should adopt the inclusion in Article 21 of foodstuffs, in view of tho fact that so large a part of the trade of the Empire is in those articles; that it.is not desirablo that Great Britain should adopt tho provisions of Articles 48-54, permitting the destruction of neutral vessels." MR. FISHER'S OBJECT, In addressing the Conference, Mr. Fisher said he merely wished that the Dominions should bo taken into the confidence of tho Imperial authorities wherever possible. The. Declaration afforded a most suitablo opportunity for illustrating that argument. Ho attached most importance to tho first part of the resolution, which touched on tho Constitution of the Empire. The Dominions hitherto had not been consulted regarding treaties and conventions, and that was a weak point in 'their position as self-governing communities. The timp had arrived when they should be informed, and, if need be, consulted,, before arrangements affecting their interests were concluded. They did not desiro to restrict Great Britain, but wished to be taken into her confidence. The Declaration of London afforded on opportunity to raiso the question. Ho hoped that tho first portion -sf the resolution would bo agreed to, 'so that when Britain approached other nations sho would have tho assurance that she was voicing in their essentials tho Dominions' views. This, without weakening Britain, would strengthen the Dominions and make them feel that they shared in everything that was done for tho protection of tho Empire.

AUSTRALIA'S COMMERCE. Mr. Batchelor, the Commonwealth Minister for External Attairs, said ho did not desire to suppor? any particular party view. They were approaching the consideration of the Declaration too lato to alter the course of tho negotiations, or effectively to modify it. They might adopt the extreme course of urging that Great Britain should not ratify it. This, however, would only bo justified if they felt that the safety of the Empire was endangered. This was a highly satisfactory position for a Dominion to bo in. Australia, per head of population, had the greatest commerco of any- country. If she were an independent State she would have been consulted, but as it was the first information received about the Declaration was from a Bluebook, andvhen possible, modifications were suggested, they were told that it was too late to introduce them. Ho recognised that there must be one foreign policy and one final authority, but that did not preclude the possibility of consultation. DECLARATION TOO VAGUE. The making of foodstuffs as conditional contraband was probably advantageous as compared with the existing position, but it would bo better if some of the terms were less vague. As "regarded the right to sink neutral ships, that right in the past was denied by Great Britain. Sir Edward Grey: That was not always tho case. Moreover, other nations had taken an entirely different view. Mr. Batchelor continuing, said the practice of tho strongest naval lowers had been to object to tho sinking of neutral prizes. Consequently,, sinking was impossible, owing to the danger of offending the greatest Powers. Sir Edward Grey: That had not been proved impossible during tho last naval war. The discussion at the last Hague Conference showed that the international feeling against the sinking of neutrals was weaker than had been expected. SINKING OF NEUTRAL SHIPS. Mr. Batchelor, proceeding, argued that, oven so, seeing that America agreed with Britain on tho point, it would be perilous for any nation to adopt wholesale destruction. When it was once laid down that prizes could be sunk without fear of reprisals that course would be more likely to be followed. Article 34 required better definition. What did the term "enemy" mean ? Enemy of the people or enemy of tho Government? What did "base of supply" mean? The danger of sinking prizes would be that it would greatly affect iho price of goods here. Australia regretted that no provision was made with regard to tho conversion into warships of merchantmen whilo on tho high seas. Concluding his speech, Mr. Batchelor said that while ho did not ask the Government to decline to ratify the Declaration if it thought the advantages outweighed the disadvantages, nevertheless if certain points could bo altered it would benefit the Empire generally. SIR EDWARD GREY SPEAKS. Sir Edward Grey, Secretary for Foreign Affairs, followed. Mr. Batchelor, and said it was intended to mako clear that the term "enemy" meant "enemy of tho Government,", as a condition of ratification. Certain people considered that Great Britain, being tho strongest maritime Power, ought not to allow any restrictions to bo placed on the use of hoi- fleet, and that she ought to be freo (o make her own rules of war. That positon bad been abandoned, as tho basis for a treaty, and in the Declaration of London they had agreed that there should bo international treaties on thoso subjects. If they were to remain on good terms with other Powers, it was essential that they should not declino to bo parties to such international arrangements. Another lino of criticism wins .that wc for Foreimi Affairs, who cs<

declared certain things to be international law, but that we were now about to consent to international rules which had never before obtained. A state' of chaos with regard to foodstuffs had been created in tho past when thoso aggrieved had depended for redress solely in the courts of the belligerents, which was unsatisfactory for a neutral. An appeal to The Hague Conference Prize Court of Appeal was obviously a considerable gain to neutrals. NOT ONE-SIDED. , Sir Edward Grey said he agreed that some of the foodstuffs terms were vague, but it was impossible to get an agreement as to the use of more definite terms. Tho latitude which the vaguenes-s gave was, however, common to all, and history had shown that a vagueness in terms had hitherto been an advantage. The stronger fleet would have the sanjo liberties under the Declaration which were conceded to other Powers. It was not a one-sided Declaration. Mr. Malan (South 'Africa) asked what tho Government regarded as tho exact legal force of the General Report in which the Drafting tommittce of the International Conference had explained the meaning of the Declaration. Sir Edward Grey said the General Report was accepted as part of the general .agreement, as it constituted an authoritative interpretation of tho Declaration audits provisions. That was another point which was a condition of ratification. A GAIN FOR BRITAIN. The Government had agreed to regard the doctrine of "continuous voyage," and. not to sciz-o contraband consigned to neutral ports which it thought might bo destined for an enemy. They had grained by this concession in other ways. One result would be that if they found a difficulty in clearing the wholo Atlantic of tho enemy's cruisers, it would bo possible for goods for Great Britain to bo. consigned to neutral European ports. All they should then have to do would ho to protect the passage of those goods across the Channel to one of their own ports. If the British Navy wero unable to do that, tho war would bo over, as they would be beaten. Mr. .Batchelor interjected: Australia has no neutral port ot hand! Sir Edward Grey replied that although Australia might not gain, sho did not lose. Whereas, in tho caso of South Africa, tho provision might have a very distinct bearing. Regarding: what constituted a "base of supply," ho did not think it could possibly be interpreted to mean every port from which there was a railway. Tho [meaning of tho term was well understood, I THE MAIN THING. Mr. Asquith indicated Articlo 35 as the governing article. It clearly showed, ho pointed out, that nothing was liable to capture unless destined for tho use of an enemy of tho Government. Sir Edward Grey said tho question of contraband-was not so big as was sometimes thought, becausp Great Britain could not be supplied by neutral ships alone. If she wero unable to keep tho sea clear for supplies coming under the British flag sho would he unable to feed her population, and would be brought to her knees. If the Navy could prevent any interference with the British Flag it could also prevent interference with a neutral flag. Only ono thing could secure safety in war time, and that was the supremacy of tho British Fleet. If that were maintained, other points became comparatively insignificant. DOMINIONS WILL BE CONSULTED. With reference to the consultation with tho Dominions, desired by Mr. Fisher, it would have been difficult, seeing that they had not been consulted about the Hague Conference and tho Prizo Court Convention, suddenly to bring them in in connection with the Declaration of London. The Government agreed that the Dominions ought to bo consulted, and.would be consulted, before the next Hague Conference, and consulted automatically about everything arising therefrom. Mr. Fisher: We desire to bo consulted before things are actually done. Sir Edward Grey replied that the Government understood the point, and desired in practice to meet it. Tho Government usually held an, inter-departmental conference to consider the Hague programme, and settle tho delegates' instructions. That would be tho time for consultation, and the Dominions, in whatever way they considered convenient, could be represented at that conference. Tho Dominions would also be given an opportunity of saying lvhother they were satisfied with the Convention before its ratification. If they wero dissatisfied, | the matter would be thrashed out! | NO COMPLAINTS IN FUTURE. No complaint, declared Sir Edward Grey in conclusion, would bo possible in the future that the Dominions had not been consulted. Sir Wilfrid Laurier (Canadian Prime TSfinister) thought it was going too far to ask that tho Overseas Dominions should be consulted on all matters. Sir Joseph Ward said that after grave consideration ho had formed tho conclusion that the Declaration protected foodstuffs more-than formerly; he therefore suppoited it. The debate was adjourned. It is expected that Mr, Fisher will not press tho resolution.