DECLARATION OF LONDON.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXIX, Issue 114, 5 July 1911, Page 5

DECLARATION OF LONDON.

NAVAL WARFARE. DISCUSSION IN THE COMMONS. By Electric Telegraph.—Copyright. United Dress Association. London, July 4. Mr. Balfour, during the course of the Declaration of London in the House ■ of Commons, said Mr. McKenna’s attack on admirals would come ill from any man, but more particularly from tne First Lord of the Admiralty. The interests of neutrals and belligerents were inseparable. Ho was unable to • understand why so grossly unfair a discrimination was 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 neutrals, everytmng being left to the belated decision ot an imperfect tribunal. Mr. Balfour emphasised the value of diplomatic press-are, and. all it involved. He had a great objection to the Declaration, not that a prize court was a very inefficient method of compensating a wrong of an individual, but the Declaration destroyed the existing remedy, which was immediate and powerful, and had often proved effective. (Unionist cheers.) All the changes favoured the military against the naval, and the continental against the island Power. Ho appealed for a closer examination by experts before Britain committed itself to ratmeation, which was never revisable. Sir Edward Grey, Secretary for For-, eign Affairs; amid loud Ministerial cheers, said, the remarks of Urn Dpposition to the DecM-ation embodied a gross amount of misstatement and misrepresentation regarding food. He relied on the broad proposition: . lx we failed to keep the sea free to Gie British flag in war time we will bo able to keep it free from neutrals. (Cheers.) If wc failed to keep the sea, starvation would not be prevented by a neutral flag. Ho proceeded to say that the enemy’s efforts would be devoted, firstly, to attacking Biitish, not neutral, vessels. Members of the Opposition tried to prove that, without tlie Declaration, there was no fear of food being declared absolute contraband, and that there was no danger in connection with our food supplies. Lord Bercsford had s.ud that if; ho and other officers saw twenty vessels with the enemy s food supply they Would put them down if they hanged for it. (Laughter.) Sir Edward Grey complained that Mr. Balfour’s an<4 others’ belated views were not focussed on the most important points. Hence they had a wrong perspective and a false view, of thp ! Whole Declaration. The most important matter was the effect of the ■ agreement on the right of blockade. He felt that if ho could convince Opposition members that our food supplies, would be safeguarded when wc were belligerents- they would not dori' nT ’d three days’ debate. As neutrals, it was clear we were the gainers under the free list. The late Government protested against Russia sinking neutral British vessels, but. nevertneless, four neutrals were sunk afterwards. No remedy was offered, except the Russian prize court. No compensation was obtained for sinking the boats, but only because of the probably insufficient case against con- ” traband. (Ministerial cheers.) Since then the majority of the great Powers at The Hague were against the prohibition of sinking. Therefore it was hopeless to Seek; acceptance, of the principle that sinking should not be allowed. Although the International Prize Court would not be perfect, it possessed great powers, having a niajority over all the minor neiitiol Powers. We in the last two arbitrations .had constant and willing recourse to the home representatives of minor Powers in arranging the Court’s decision. Thus one sentence blew out of the water the whole structure which the' opponents of the Declaration ware building. He did not pretend that the Declaration was a substitute for cruisers. He would not .suggest any pa tier instrument for such a purpose. Every Government was . aware of the intention of the Declaration to prevent all food being treated as contraband of war. Anybody treating it as all contraband of War would violate the clear intention of the Declaration. He was aware that under the Declaration food cannot legally bo treated as absolute contraband-, and’ if cargo were illegally seized cpmpensation would follow. Regarding the treatment of neutrals, tlie only difference the Declaration made was, namely, if a Power against whom we were at war sank a neutral coming to Britain lie would be compelled to prove emergency before a court W’hereon he had only one representative, instead of a court of his own nationality. The only great neutral Power interested in tiie supply of food to Britain, with a fleet strong enough to interfere effectively, was the United States, who were parties to the Declaration. If the United States wished to send us food in war time she could convey it under Articles 61 and 62 of the Declaration. He attached the greatest importance to the concession made us in the matter of blockade. He proceeded: “The weapon we particularly retain unimpaired is blockade, with which it is essential neutrals cannot interfere. This "is why our two naval delegates signed the report. Wo secured the conditions essential, in the Admiralty's 'opinion, as effective—the use of the right of blockade. Under the Declaration we, as belligerents, will avoid the risk of one .or' more Powers interposing tho doctrine of blockade, making a blockade under modern conditions useless for our purpose.” Sir Edward Grey emphasised tlie increasing dependence of every belligerent in future upon the consent of neutrals. Certainly, as with the growth of the shipping of the peoples more closely connected with it, there will bo a tendency to restrict belligerent action. Government had dealt with blockade from the standpoint of high policy, and in this matter the Government did not intend to devolve its responsibilities on any commission of exports. (Cheers.) “As belligerents we would do our best to destrby converted merchantmen. The fact that these are few and all well known ‘makes the question comparatively unimportant. Moreover, neutrals were under tho obligation to prevent such leaving port, and positively enjoined in the Declaration. If the Declaration were not ratified we would increase the risk of interference from neutrals in war time. We would be defeating the keen desire of coninental nations and the United States to have some international agreement on the points mentioned.” If it could be shown that there was anything in the Declaration vitally endangering its use, he, even at the eleventh hour, would be prepared to say: “We ought to draw back.” Ho hoped and frit it would be proved that where Britain had not gained by tho Declaration the Government were not making tilings worse than before. Britain, on the other hand, made some undesirable practices more difficult,

and, where Britain wanted to bo assured, she got assurances that she had not before. A refusal to ratify the Declaration would cause 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 tiiis agreement, wherein it was perfectly safe for us to enter. After Mr. Bonar Law criticised tho Declaration as falling far short of tho Government’s aspirations, Mr. Asquith summarised tne points raised. He admitted, regarding tne right to sanction tho destruction of neutral ships, a compromise was effected, but it was a compromise that did not injure us. Mr. J. G. Butcher’s amendment to refer the Declaration to a commission of experts was negatived by 301 to 231. There were cheers and some Opposition cries of “Traitors!” The Bill was then read a second time without division.