DECLARATION OF LONDON

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIII, Issue 319, 5 June 1911, Page 5

DECLARATION OF LONDON

FAVORABLE VIEWS. PREMIERS IN CONFERENCE. By cable.—Press Association.—Copyright London. June 2. Sir Joseph Ward supported the De claration because it reduced the risk tt> which foodstuffs were now exposed. The establishment of an international court of appeal was a great improvement on a belligerents' court. The crux of the whole position was the maintenance of the British Navy. "Keep it," he said, "so powerful that the sea routes will be protected, and there is not the slightest chance but that the Declaration will pass the test." It was of material importance to consult the dominions on these matters and to secure their opinions before finality was reached. He regretted that this had not been done in the present instance. Though all would have liked to be consulted, they had not provided for and were not prepared to support the rejection of the Declaration.

Dr. Findlay (New Zealand) said that the more the Declaration was examined the more they would see that it was advantageous to Britain. It embodied the British practice for a century with respect to foodstuffs. In concluding his speech, Sir Edward Grey said the Declaration was a step forward, and if the conference refused to ratify it it would be a great blow to the confidence of other nations in us as a Power prepared to forward arbitration. It was essential to go through with the Declaration. Our withdrawal would be an incentive to others to proceed with international arrangements without us.

Replying to Mr. Fisher's question whether consultation of the dominions was to be confined to questions brought before the Hague Arbitration Court, Sir Edward Grey said it would not be so limited, though there were eases of treaties where it would be difficult to consult the dominions, but io far as it could be done the Government would do it.

Sir Wilfrid Laurier said it was a farreaching proposition, and the dominions should be consulted with regard to treaties. Canada claimed. the liberty of negotiating her own commercial treaties, and if that were conceded with regard to other treaties it might seriously embarrass the Home Government. Britain carried the greater burden of the Empire, and it would be going too far if the overseas dominions were to be consulted on matters which might result in war. He thought it would be better to leave the matter to the discretion of the Imperial Government. The Declaration was an immense advance, and if Sir Edward Grey concluded the arbitration treaty with America it would be the greatest act of his career. That

consummation might perhaps be prevent- - ed if the Declaration were not ratified. , Mr. Fisher withdrew his resolution and a motion approving Sir Edward Grey's statement was passed. Sir Joseph Ward's proposal approving the Declaration was carried, the Australian delegates alone abstaining from

voting. | The Standard states that Mr. Fisher modified some of his opinions about the Declaration under the influence of the British Government, but arguments which are convincing in Downing-street may not survive transportation, since Australian ships and neutral ships alike are liable to seizure if privateering is permitted. The truth is that Sir Edward Grey and Mr. McKenna were completely outfaced by foreign diplomats. , IMPORTANT RESOLUTIONS. STATEMENT BY BRITISH PREMIER. DECLARATION A CODE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW. London. June 2. General Botha resumed the discussion on the Declaration of London and of Mr. Fisher's resolution that the Imperial Government should not definitely bind itself to foreign agreements without consulting the dominions. He would not hesitate, he said, to vote against the Declaration if it went against the interests of the Empire. He believed the balance of the advantage was in favor of the ratification.

Sir E. Morris (Newfoundland) said Sir Edward Grey's promise to consult the Dominions would be one of the most important results of the Conference. Britain would, he thought, be a considerable gainer by the Declaration.

Mr. Fisher said he did not intend to hit either the Government or the Declaration. The Commonwealth of Australia held that certain features were bad, but had not attacked the Declaration's general trend. He was gratified at Sir Edward Grey's definite promise to consult the dominions, and did not wish to press his resolution. He and his colleagues agreed as the Declaration was a great advance it would be unwise to destroy it, because it did not contain all they desired. In withdrawing the motion, he substituted the following:—

That the Conference, after hearing Sir Edward Grey, cordially welcomes the proposal to consult the dominions, In regard to the Hague proceeding, that the conventions provisionally absented to there be circulated for the dominions' consideration. That a similar procedure he taken where time and opportunity and sub ject permit in regard to other negotiations affecting the dominions. The motion was carried unanimously. Sir Joseph Ward said that in view of the discussion and Sir Edward Grey'e clear statement, he though it the wiser course to adopt the Declaration. He moved— That the Conference, after full consideration and debate, approves of the ratification of the Declaration of London. Mr. Fisher said the resolution placed the Australian delegates in a Roiiiewhal difficult position. Mr. Fisher said that -while fully recognising the position the Australian Government had taken up and the admir-

able spirit shown in the desire to wnre unanimity, tlie Imperial Government would attach considerable importance to the passing of the Declaration. Tim Declaration was a tremendous step in advance. It was a code of international law which while not perfect was an enormous improvement. The International Court might be trusted to act impartially in getting the great world Powers into agreement. It was a marked and significant stage on the road they all hoped to travel. It would be an immense encouragement if the Conference, whatever the views they might entertain regarding particular provisions, agreed on a general resolution of the kind proposed. Its ratification would not prejudice the freedom of advocating further improvements.

Mr. Fisher said the Declaration was not before the Conference for approval. In his withdrawal of the original resolution he meant nominal approval, but Sir Joseph Ward's resolution asked for definite approval of something his Government was unable to approve wholly. It would be wrong to abandon the Declaration, but that was different from approving the whole. Mr. Asquith said the proposal simply meant the Conference approving of ratification. Mr. Fisher: But Sir Edward Grey said the Declaration was settled and final. Mr. Asquith said it was final in the sense that no further progress would hereafter be made. Mr. Fisher said that while under the circumstances he could not give his full approval, he would, not oppose the mo tion, which was carried, Mr. Fisher and the other Australian representatives not voting. MR. FISHER CRITICISED. Received 4, 5.5 p.m. London, June 3. The Standard states that Mr. Fisher had shown a strong desire to get into line with other delegates, but Australia considered thfc Declaration of London too great a menace to trade. It would be better if Mr. Fisher had not displayed such a desire to be convinced. He had come under the Home Ministers' pres sure, and had drifted away from Austra lian opinion. "Australians," continues the Standard, "will find it hard to forgive their delegates standing aside, and would not have forgiven them if they had voted."

SIR JOSEPH WARD INTERVIEWED. Received 4, 5.5 p.m. London, June 3. The Standard interviewed Sir Joseph Ward, who defended tlie Conference approving the ratification, although he admitted there was room for considerable difference of opinion as to de'-'ils. He spoke for himself. He exp. .sed the view that the overseas reprr-:t:ilives had approached the subject with absolutely independent minds and arrived at a decision which in their judgment was best for the Empire.

TRIBUTE TO THE PREMIERS. Received 4, 5.5 p.m. London, June B. The Times states the capacity and foresight of the Australian delegates were strikingly attested by their conduct during the Declaration of London debate, and illustrates Mr. Fisher's demands by what happened over the New Hebrides convention, when Australia was consulted after its completion. The paper comments on the Australian representatives bringing about a momentous change in Foreign Office methods.

CONSERVATIVE PRESS DISAPPOINTED. Received 4, 5.5 p.m. London, June 3. The Chronicle states that the frenzied appeals and addresses of the dominion Premiers to reject the Declaration conspicuously failed. In connection with the promise to consult the dominions regarding future treaties, the Chronicle adds that Mr. Fisher was thinking more especially of future negotiations with Japan. The Conservative papers generally are disappointed with the result of the Conference on the Declaration, and rannot understand the Premiers' attitude in vhw of the condemnation of tho Declaration by leading mercantile bodies, except that they were outmatched in private conferences with the Cabinet and its lawyers, or were afraid of being accused of playing into the hands of the Conservatives.

The Morning Post states that it is better that the Declaration be ratified with the consent of the dominions than without. The future would prove the critics were right. The dominions were unable to blame this country when their own representatives permitted them a full share of responsibility.