DECLARATION OF LONDON

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIII, Issue 318, 3 June 1911, Page 5

DECLARATION OF LONDON

MARITIME REGULATIONS. DISCUSSED BY THE CONFERENCE. ■ THE COLONIES' VIEWS. By cable.—Press Association.—Copyright London, June 1. Mr. Fisher moved a resolution that it was a matter for regret that the dominions were not consulted prior to the acceptance of the terms of the Declaration of London, and that it was undesirable that Britain should adopt the inclusion of foodstuffs in article 24 or adapt articles 48 to 54. He said he did not desire to restrict the powers of Britain, but merely wished that the dominions should be taken into confidence wherever possible, and the Declaration afforded a most suitable opportunity of illustrating his argument. Mr. Batchelor said they were approaching the consideration of the Declaration at too late a stage to alter its course or to do anything to effectively modify it. Whilst admitting that there must be one foreign policy, he considered this did not preclude the possibility of some kind of consultation. Sir Edward Grey said the Declaration had not altered existing international law, but introduced consent to international rules which did not exist previously. Sir Wilfrid Laurier thought they were going too far to ask for the overseas dominions to be consulted on all matters. Sir Joseph Ward said that after grave consideration he had formed the conclusion that the Declaration protected foodstuffs more than formerly, and therefore he supported it. The debate was adjourned. It is expected that Mr. Fisher will not press the resolution.

FULLER DETAILS. AX IMPORTANT CONCESSION. CONSULTING THE COLONIES. Received 2, 11 p.m. London, June 2. At the Imperial Conference, Mr. Asquith presided. Mr. L. Harcourt (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 the dominions, which hitherto had not been 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 the resolution would be agreed to, so that when Britain was approached by other nations they would have the 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. Mr. Batchelor (Minister of Australian External Affairs) said he did not desire to support 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 be 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. If Australia had been an independent State she would have been consulted, but the first information they received about the Declaration was contained in the Blue Book. When possible modifications were suggested, they were told it was too late to introduce them. It was recognised that there must be one foreign policy and one final authority, but that should not preclude the possibility of consultation.

Mr. continuing, said the making of foodstuffs conditional contraband was probably advantageous compared with the 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 past was denied by Britain. Sir Edward Grey interjected that it was not always the case. Moreover, other nations had taken an entirely different view.

Mr. Batchelor proceeded to say that tlie practice of the strongest naval Powers had been to object to sinking neutral prizes. Consequently sinking was impossible owing to the danger of offending the greatest Powers. Sir Edward Grey said that had not proved impossible during the last naval war. The discussion at the last Hague Conference showed that international feeling against sinking neutrals was j weaker than was expected. Mr. Batchelor went on to say thai 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 be sunk without fear of reprisals that course would more likely be followed. Article 34 required a better definition. What did the word "enemy" mean—an "enemy of the people" or "enemy of the Government"? What did the words "base of supply" mean? The danger of sinking prizes would greatly affect the price of goods in Britain. Australia regretted that no provision was made in regard to the conversion of merchantmen on the high seas. While they did not ask the Government to decline to ratify the Declaration, if they thought the advantages outweighed the disadvantages, if certain points could be altered, the

alteration would benefit the Kmpire'-gen-erally. Sir Edward Grey said it was intended to make elear that "enemy" meant "enemy of the Government" as a eondi- | tion of ratification. Certain people considered that Britain, being the strongest maritime Power, ought not to allow any restrictions in regard to the use of the fleet, but ought to he free to make her own rules of war. That position had been abandoned in the treaty basis. It was not in the Declaration of London. Having agreed that there should be 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 to be parties to such international arrangement. Another line of criticism was that we had declared certain things to be international law, but introduced an amount of consent into the international rules which never before obtained. A state of chaos in regard to foodstuffs had been raised in the past when those aggrieved depended for redress upon the belligerent's courts, which were unsatisfactory. For a neutral to appeal to the Hagiie Prize Court of Appeal was obviously of considerable advantage to neutrals. It was agreed that in connection with some foodstuffs the terms were vague,, but it was impossible to get an agreement in more definite terms, but the latitude which the vagueness gave was common to all. History had shown that vagueness of terms had hitherto been an advantage to the stronger fleet, which would have the same liberties under the Declaration that were conceded to other Powers. K was not a onesided declaration. Admiral Mahan, in his criticism of the Declaration, had asked, What did the Government regard as the exact legal force of the general report? Sir Edward Grey said it was accepted as part of the general agreement, as it constituted an authoritative interpretation of the declarations and provisions. That was another point which was a condition of ratification. The Government agreed in regard to the doctrine of continuous voyage not to seize contraband consigned to neutral ports, though it might be destined for an enemy. They had gained by this concession in other ways. If they found a difficulty in clearing the whole Atlantic of the enemy's cruisers, it would be possible that goods could be consigned to neutrali European ports. If the British Navy were unable to do that, the war would be over, as the British Navy would be beaten.

Mr. 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 bearing. Regarding what constiM' ' a base of supply, he did,not think it • '<l possibly be interpreted to mean every port from which there was a railway. The meaning of the term was well understood. Mr. Asquith indicated that article 35, the governing article, clearly showed that nothing was liable to capture unless destined for the use of the Government. Sir Edward Grey said the question of contraband was not so big as sometimes thought, because Britain could not be supplied by neutrals alone. If she were unable to keep the sea clear for supplies coming under the British flag, we would be unable to feed the population, and we would be brought to our knees. If we could prevent interference with the British flag we could prevent interference with a neutral flag. Only one thing 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 the dominions, it would have been difficult, seeing that they were not consulted 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 be consulted, and they would be consulted before the next Hague conference, and consulted automatically about everything arising therefrom. Mr. Fisher: "We desire to be consulted before things arc 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 and settle the delegates' instructions. That would be the time for consultation with the dominions in whatever way was considered convenient. The dominions would also be given an opportunity of saying whether they were satisfied with the convention before ratification. Ii dissatisfied, the matter would be thrashed out. No complaint would be possible in future that the dominions were not consulted.

UNANIMOUSLY AGREED TO. London, Later. The conference was practically unanimous in favor of the Declaration of London.