RATIFIED.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1171, 5 July 1911, Page 7

RATIFIED.

DECLARATION OF LONDON.

SIR. E. GREY CONTRASTS PRESENT

CONDITIONS.

MR. BALFOUR'S PROTEST.

By Telcirr&Dh-Press AssociatioD-CoDyriebl

(Rec. July 1, 11.35 p.m.)

London, July 4. The debate on the Naval Prize BiU. which gives legislative effect to the provisions of the Declaration, of London, was continued in the House of Commons yesterday, the two principal speakers being Mr. Balfour, Lender of the Opposition, and Sir Edward Grey, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Mr. Balfour, in opening his speech, referred to the recent statement by Mr. M'Kenna, First Lord of the Admiralty, that of the 120 admirals who had protested against the Declaration, the bulk liad been promoted to flag rank after their retirement, 23 only had hoisted their flags as admirals, and only 11 had had administrative experience as admirals. Mr. M'Kenna's attack, said Mr. Balfour, would come ill from any man, but more particularly from the First Lord of the Admiralty.

Military Powers Favoured. The interests of neutrals and belligerents, he continued, were inseparable. He was unable to understand why so grossly unfair a discrimination had been made between foodstuffs going to an island like Britain and foodstuffs going- to a Continental nation. The Declaration precluded the Government from ever protesting against the illegal treatment of British subjects as neutrals, everything being left to the belated decision of an imperfect tribunal. Mr. Balfour also emphasised the value of diplomatic pressure, and all it involved. His great objection to the Declaration was not that a prize court provided a very inefficient method of compensating wronged, individuals, but that the Declaration destroyed the existing remedy, which was both immediate and powerful, and had often proved effective. (Unionist cheers.) All the changes far-

ourcd the military as against the naval, the Continental as against the Island Power. He appealed for a closer examination of the Declaration by experts before the country was committed to its ratification, which would never be revis able. Gross Misrstatement. Sir Edward Grey, who rose amid loud Ministerial cheers, said the remarks generally'made in opposition to tho Declaration embodied a gross amount of misstatement and misrepresentation. Ho complained that the belated views of Mr. Balfour and others were focussed, i ■ on tho most important points, and that they had thus given a wrong perspective and a false view of the whole Declaration. Tho most important matter was t! effect of the agreement on the right c blockade. Ho felt that if he could convince Opposition members that British food supplies would be safeguarded when Britain was a belligerent, they would not demand a three-days' debate. As neutrals, it was clear they were gainers under the free list. The late Government had protested to Russia against the sinking of a neutral British ship, but four neutrals were sunk afterwards, • and no remedy, was .offered, exenpt what could be obtained through a prize court. No compensation had been obtained for the sinking of the ships, but probably only because there was ■ an insufficient case against tho charge that ships had carried contraband. (Ministerial cheers.) Sinking of Neutral Ships, Since then a majority of the great P<ers, at tho Hague, had decided against the prohibition of tho sinking of neutrals, and it was therefore hopeless to seek the acceptance of tho principle that no sinking should be allowed. Although tho proposed International Prize Court would not be perfect, the great Powers being in a minority as against all the minor noutral Powers, yet Great Britain in her last two arbitrations had had constant and willing recourse to tho Hague representatives of minor Powers in determining the Court's decisions. Position of Foodstuffs. Regarding the inclusion of food as conditional contraband, Sir Edward Grey said he relied upon the broad proposition that if they were able to keep the sea free to the British flag in war time, they wero able to keep it free as neutrals. (Cheers.) If they failed to keep the eea, starvation would not bo prevented by attempts to obtain food under a neutral flag. The enemy's efforts would be devoted, firstly, to attacking British and not neutral vessels. Tho members opposite had tried to prove that without t.-,e Declaration they had no fear of food being declared absolute contraband, and anticipated no danger to British food supplies. Admiral Lord Charles Beresford had said that if he and other officers saw twenty vessels with the enemy's food supiny on board, they would put them dowu if they hanged for it. (laughter.) Thus in one sentence Lord Charles had blown out of the . water tho whole- structure which the opponents of the Declaration had been building up.

No Substitute for Cruisers. Ho would not pretend that the Declaration was a substitute for cruisers/ Hβ could not suggest any paper instrument as fitted for such purpose Every Government was aware of thu intentiou o.* the Declaration to prevent all food from being treated as contraband in war-time. Anybody treating it as if it were all contraband in war would violate the clear intention of the Declaration. The underwriters were aware that undeT the Declaration food cannot be legally treated as absolute contraband, and if a cargo was illegally seized, compensation would follow. Regarding the treatment of neutrals, the only difference tho Declaration mado was thijt if a Power against whom Britain was at war sank a neutral coming to a British port, it would bo compelled to prove that an emergency had existed, and that before n Court, on which it would have only one representative, instead of before a Court of its own nationality. Effect on American Trade. The only great neutral Pow«r interested in the supply of food to Britain with a fleet strong enough to interfere effectively was the United States, which was a party to the Declaration. If the United Slates wished to send us food in war time it could convoy it under Articles 61 and G2 of the -Declaration, which provide that neutral vessels under convoy are exempt from search. The Right of Blockade, Sir Edward Grey, continuing, said ho attached the greatest importanco to the concession made to Britain in the matter of blockade. A weapon which they practically retained unimpaired was the right to blockade, and this was one which it was essential that neutrals should not interfere with. This was why tho two naval delegates had signed tho report. They

had secured the conditions essential in the Admiralty's opinion for the effective use of the rijtht of blockade. Under the Declaration Britain :\b a belligerent: avoided the. risk of one or more Powers interposing with a doctrine of blockado and making a, blockade under modern conditions useless for our purpose.

He wished to emphasise the increasing dependence of every belligerent in future upon the consent of neutrals. There was a. certainty that as with tho growth of the shipping peoples became more closely connected there would be a tendency to restrict belligerent action. The Government had dealt with blockade from Ihe standpoint of hign policy, and in this matter tho Government did not intend to devolve ita responsibilities on any commission of experts. (Cheers.) Converted Merchantmen. As belligerents, Britain would do her best to destroy converted merchantmen. The fact that vessels adapted for conversion were few and all known made tho question comparatively unimportant. Moreover, tho obligation of neutrals to prevent such vessels from leaving their ports was positively enjoined in the Declaration. If the Declaration was not ratified they would increase the risk of interference from neutrals in war. time, and they would be defeating the keen desire of Continental nations and the United States to have some international agreement on the points he had mentioned. If it could be shown that there was anything in the Declaration vitally endangering to Britain he, even at this eleventh hour, was prepared to say they ought to draw back. He hoped he had proved that whero they had not gained under the Declaration, they had not mado things worsethan before. The adoption of the Declaration, on the other hand, would make some undesirable practices more difficult, and whero they wanted to be assured they had now got an assurance which they had not before. Refusal to ratify would cause the other Powers to enter into an agreement for arbitration on the basis of this Declaration among themselves. The Government did not wish Britain to be omitted from an agreement into which it was perfectly safe to enter. After Mr. Bonar Law, Conservative member for Manchester North West, had criticised the Declaration as falling far short of the Government'* aspirations, Mr. Asquith summarised the points gained, and admitted regarding the right of sanction to the destruction of neutral ships that a compromise had been effected, but it was a compromise which did no injury to Britain. Second Reading Carried, Mr. J. G. Butcher, Conservative member for York, moved as an amendment that the Declaration of London be referred to a commission of experts. This was negatived, the voting fceing: For the amendment 231 Against the amendment 301 ■ Majority against 70 The result of the division was received with cheers, though there were some Opposition cries of "Traitors." The Bill was then read a second time without division.

PROTEST BY SHIPOWNERS, WEARISOME DELAYS PREDICTED. "A Statement on behalf of the Chamber of Shipping of the United Kingdom on the subject of the Declaration of London" was issued in May. It insists that the Declaration is in tho highest degree prejudicial to British interests and to British shipping. The chamber is composed of thirry-ono shipping, associations in various parts of the united Kingdom. After pointing out numerous disadvantages which it alleges British traders would suffer when Britain was a belligerent, the manifesto deals with the position of British commerce when two other Powers are at war. In the past, it proceeds, British shipping has had the support of his Majesty's Government "when our legitimate trade was endangered." "In future, so long as a belligerent is acting colourably within tho terms of the Declaration, tho British shipowner, when neutral, cannot expect the aid of his Government, but will be referred to the National Prize Court of that belligerent, with tho right of appeal to the International Prize Court. Our tonnage and property may be wantonly destroyed j but . . the hands of our Government will be tied, and the owner 'for his remedy will have to face years of litigation." Lastly, the Statement declines to accept the International Prize Court "which is to be composed of fifteen judges from the eight Great Powers, one only being appointed by England, and the remainder from such Powers as Persia, San Domingo, Haiti, Colombia; while Canada, Australia, and the other self-governing colonies are not represented,", as a fit or appropriate tribunal. It points out that "no machinery is set up for enforcing the judgments of tho Court."

"Wo are not prepared, when neutrals, to exchange the certainty of the support of our Government for the uncertainties created by the Declaration and the privilege of appealing to a hybrid Prizo Court. We are of opinion that this controversy would not have arisen had the views of the mercantile community and our colonies been obtained before calling the Conference (of London) together. "The conclusion is irresistibly forced upon us that, desirable as an International Agreement may be, the Declaration of London is charged with such possibilities of danger to this country and carries with it so few advantages that we earnestly urge that ratification be withheld.