Naval Warfare.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIV, Issue 9, 5 July 1911, Page 5

Naval Warfare.

THE DECLARATION OF LONDON. DISCUSSION" IN THE COMMONS. SIR E. CI,AY'S TRENCHANT STATEMENT. By Cable. —Frees Association.—Copyright Received 4, 10.45 p.m. London, July 4. Mr. Balfour, during the course of the Declaration of London debate in the House of Commons, said Mr. McKenna's attack on admirals would come ill from any man. but more particularly from the First Lord of the Admiralty. The interests of neutrals and belligerents were inseparable. He 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, everything being left to the belated decision of an imperfect tribunal. Mr. Balfour emphasised the value of diplomatic pressure, and all it involved. He had a groat objection to the Declaration, not that a prize court was n 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 favored the military asainst the naval, and the continental against the island Power. He appealed for n closer examination by experts before Britain committed itself to ratification, which was never revisable. MISSTATEMENT AND MISREPRESENTATION. Sir Edward Grey, Secretary /or Foreign Affairs, amid loud Ministerial cheers, said the remarks of the Opposition to the Declaration embodied a gross amount of misstatement and misrepresentation regarding food. He relied on the broad proposition: "If we are able to keep the sea free to the British flag in war time we will be able to keep it free from neutrals. (Cheers.) If we failed to keep the sea, starvation would not be prevented by a neutral flag. He proceeded to say that the enemy's efforts would be devoted, firstly, to 'attacking British, not neutral, vessels. Members of the Opposition tried to prove that, without the 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 said that if he and other officers saw twenty vessels with the enemy's food supply they would put them down if they hanged for it. (Laughter.)

THE IMPORTANT POINTS. ( Sir Edward Grey complained that Mr. Balfour's and others' belated views were not focussed on the most important points. Hence they had a pectivc and a false view of the whole Declaration. The most important matter was the effect of the agreement on the right of blockade. He felt that if he could convince Opposition members that our food supplies would be safeguarded when we were belligerents they would not demand 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 nevertheless four neutrals were sunk afterwards. No remedy was oflared, except the Russian prize court. No compensation was obtained for sinking the boats, but only because of the probably insufficient case against contraband. (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 majority over all the tninor neutral 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 were building. He did not pretend that the Declaration was a substitute for cruisers. He would not suggest any paper 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 be treated as absolute contraband, and if cargo were illegally seized compensation would follow. Regarding the treatment of neutrals, the only difference the Declaration made was, namely, if a Power against whom wo were at war sank a neutral coming to Britain lie would he compelled to prove emergency before a court whereon he ha>d only one representative, instead of a court of his owm nationality. The only great neutral Power interested in the supply of food to Britain, with a licet strong enongh to interfere effectively, was the United State.*, who were parties to the Declaration. If the Unite States wished to send lis food in war time she could convey it under Articles CI and 02 of the Declaration.

AX TMPORTAXT COXCERSIOX. 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. We 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 the doctrine of blockade, making a blockade ''under modern conditions useless for our purpose." ("• rpT>s;*

Sir Edward Grey emphasised the 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 with be a tendency to restrict belligerent action. The Government had dealt with blockade from the standpoint of high policy, and in this matter tlie Government did not intend to devolve its responsibilities on any commission of experts. (Cheers.) "As belligerents we would do our beßt to destroy converted merchantmen The fact that these are few and all well known makes the question comparatively unimportant. Moreover, neutrals were under the 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 continental nations and the United States to have some international agreement on the points mentioned."

If it cauld be shown that there was anything in the Declaration vitally endangering its use, he, even at the eleventh hour, would be prepared to*ay: "We ought to draw back." He hoped and felt it could be proved that where Britain had' not gained by the Declaration the Government were not making things worse than before. Britain, on the other hand, made some undesirable practices more difficult, and, where Britain wanted to be 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 this agreement, wherein it was perfectly safe for us to enter. After Mr. Bonar Law criticised the Declaration as falling far short of the Government's aspirations, Mr. Asquith summarised the points raised. He admitted, regarding the right to sanction the 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 tlien read a second time without division.