THE Daily News. THURSDAY, JUNE 8, 1911. THE DECLARATION OF LONDON.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIII, Issue 322, 8 June 1911, Page 4

THE Daily News. THURSDAY, JUNE 8, 1911. THE DECLARATION OF LONDON.

The fact that the Imperial Conference has consented, not altogether unanimously, to the ratification of the Declaration of London, is not an absolute guide to its possible acceptance by the, great Powers. The discussion by the Conference is useful in showing to the world that a new era has dawned in which representatives of overseas Dominions are invited to discuss matters of tremendous Imperial and international importance. The Declaration of London defines the rights of enemy nations and belligerents during war, the chief point of interest being the safety or danger of foodstuffs intended for an enemy country, to be consumed by non-combatants. It is at once obvious that in a state of war, the most powerful navy having control of the sea routes to an enemy country, dependent for its food on outside supply, could starve that country into complete subjection. The Declaration, as fa.r as foodstuffs are concerned, rules a line between the act of fighting a country's armed forces and fighting a country's non-combatant inhabitants. There was apparent disagreement among the delegates as to the meaning of the articles regarding foodstuffs. The Commonwealth Premier (Mr. Fisher) moved the resolution which was the subject of debate in the following terms: "That it is regretted that the Dominions were not consulted prior to the acceptance by the British delegates of the terms of the Declaration of London; that it is not desirable that Great Britain should adopt the inclusion in Article 24 of foodstuffs, in view of the fact that so large a part of the trade of the Empire is in those articles; that it is not desirable that Great Britain should adopt the provisions of Articles 48-54, permitting the destruction of neutral vessels."

It is obvious that the Commonwealth Premier read a meaning into the articles on foodstuffs, other delegates had not seen. Dr. Findlay, for instance, said that (he articles embodied British usage (in time of war) with respect to foodstuffs for the past century. Except for expressions of regret that initially a matter involving a most important declaration of international rights had been virtually arranged without consultation with the overseas Dominions, the fact still re7iiains that in future wars between Britain and other Powers the weight of overseas opinion will not he sufficient to prevent Britain from declaring war, if Britain believes there is justification for it. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Prime Minister of Canada, touched a vital point when he suggested that a failure to ratify the Declaration might prejudicially affect the hoped-for arbitration agreement between Britain and the United States. One other useful effect the discussion and' disagreement as to details has had. is in the extraction of a promise from Sir E. Grey that the Dominions would, in future, he consulted on matters of in- ' ternational moment. The British Prime Minister has said' the Declaration is an enormous step in advance, and forms n code of international law. The fact that it Is generally approved by Imperial statesmen will have a, £reat moral in-

Ilucnce on the other leading Powers, who are as anxious for a clear definition of their powers during a state of war as Britain is, and who, moreover, welcome any discussion that may* hinder armed conflict, and which will assist in a better mutual understanding between probable belligerents. It is more important to Britain that her seaborne foodstuffs should be safe in time of war than to any other nation, because she is weakly dependent on food not grown in the British Isles. Whether or not British ships, carrying food for non-combatant Britons, are immune from capture, means victory or defeat for Britain. If unarmed vessels are not immune, it necessarily follows that they must be convoyed by warships, and must court destruction. It will be seen that when Sir E. Grey gaid that a refusal to ratify the Declaration would be an incentive to other Powers to conclude international agreements without consulting Britain, he suggested that, without ratification, Britain could have no rights of sea other than those prescribed by other Powers jealous of her naval dominion. In fact, it presupposed a concentration of force capable of wresting the rule of the waves from this Empire. Although the passing of Mr. Fisher's resolution need not necessarily have shaken the Imperial Government's intention to institute a new code of international law, it would unquestionably have incensed the Powers agreeable to the code. In which case sea-borne goods from the Dominions to the Home Land would be in great jeopardy, particularly those from Australasia, which have to travel such immense distances. If foodstuffs are in danger of interference by an enemy Power in time of war— <m> they will according to precedent, very likely be—the danger to the foodstuffs of the stronger nation will be the least. Retaliation will, of course, follow privateering or food raids by enemy ships, and if events pan out according to precedent it will he difficult for an enemy Power to starve Britain into subjection. While Britain, by the aid of diplomacy and the help of the Dominions; is endeavoring to hasten universal peace, she recognises the fact that war might emasculate any prearranged agreement for its conduct. In the Declaration of London Britain has been generous enough, depending on the strength of her great navy for safety under any circumstances. Any concessions to foreign Powers are useless to them if they have not the men and metal to push their advantages. The safety of British food in time of war will depend on the ability of the navy to protect it. It will probably be able to do so.