THE DECLARATION

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 10278, 5 July 1911, Page 5

THE DECLARATION

CABLE NEWS

United Press Association—-By Electrie Telegraph—Copyright

SPEECH BY MR BALFOUR. SPEECH BY MR BALFOUR. - A SEVERE CRITICISM. (Received Last Night. 10.45 o'clock.) LONDON, July 4. The Hon. A. J. Balfour, speamng in tho debate on the Docla ration of London in the House ot Commons, said that the Hon. R. McKenna's attack on the 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. Ho was unable to understand why a so grossly unfair discrimination had been made between foodstuffs going to an island 'ike Britain, and foodstuffs going t.' a i Continental nation. The Declaration precluded the Government from ever protesting against tho illegal treatment of neutrals. Everything was being left to belated discussion and an imperfect tribunal. Mr, Balfour emphasised the value of diplomatic pressure and all it involved. His great objection to the Declaration was not that tho Prize Court was very ineffectual in its method of compensating a wronged individual, but the Declaration destroyed the existing remedy, Which was immediate and powerful, and had often proved effectual. (Unionist cheers.) All the changes favoured the military against the naval, and the Continental as against the island power. He appealed for a closer examination by experts before the House was committed to the ratification of the Declaration, which was never revisable. Sir Edward Grey, amid loud Ministerial -cheers, said that the remarks in general of those in opposition to the Declaration embodied a gross amount of misstatement and misrepresentation. »

Continuing, Sir Edward Grey complained that Mr Balfour's and others' helated views were focussed not on the most important points, hence the wrong perspective produced a false the wholes Declaration. The most important matter was the effects of the agreement on the right blockade. He felt that if he could convince the Opposition members that our food supplies' would he safeguarded against would be belligerents, they would not demand a three days' debate. As neutrals, it was clear that we would be gainers under the Free List. The late Government had protested against Russia sinking a neutral, but four neutrals were sunk afterwards. No remedy was offered except a Russian Prize Oourb. No compensation was obtained for the sinking, but only because there was probably an insufficient case against contraband. (Ministerial cheers.) Since then a majority of the great Powers at The Hague were against the prohibition, of sinking. It was the'refore hopeless to seek the acceptance of the principle that no sinking should be allowed. Although an International Prize Court would not be perfect, the Great Powers would have a majority over the minor neutral powers. We in the last two Arbitration cases had constant and willing recourse to home representatives of the minor Powers in arranging the Courts decision. Regarding food, he relied om a broad r^voposition. If we are able to keep the tea free to the British flag in war time we should bo able to keen it free-, from neutrals. (Cheers). If Britain failed to keep the sea. starvation would not be prevented by the neutral flag. The enemy's efforts would be devoted firstly to attacking British and not neutral vesols. Members of the Opposition tried to prove that without the Declaration there was no fea.r that food would bo declared absolute contraband and there would bo no danger to our food supplies. Lord Bevesford had said that he and other officers saw twenty ve'sels with food supplies. They-would put t;hem down if they were hanged for it!'(Laughter.) Sir Edward Grey, continuing, said that." thus, ( in ' oiio sentence ha blow out water on the whole of : the.sti'iictaii'e.which ..the. of the Declaration had -been building. He did not pretend that the Declaration was a substitute for cruiser p. Ho did not suggest any paper instrument for such a purpose. Every Government was aware it was the intention of the Declaration to prevent all food being treated .as contraband in war time. Anybody treating it as if it was all contraband in war time would violate the clear intention of the underwriter. He was .aware that under the Declaration food cannot be legally treated as absolute contraband, and if cargo was illegally sei/zcd compensation would follow. Regarding the treatment of neutrals, the only difference the Declaration made was viz., if the Power against whom we were engaged in war sank a neutral coming to Britain it would bo compelled to prove an emergency before, the Court, whereon he had only one. representative instead of a Court of his own nationality. The only great neutral Power interested to supply 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 we could could convey it under articles 61 and

CABLE NEWS

United fress Association — By Electric Telegraph — Copyright.

62 of the Declaration. He attached the greatest importance to the concession made us in the matter of a blockade. The weapon we particularly retain as unimpaired is a blockade, with which it is essential that neutrals should not interfere. Tin's was why two naval delegates signed report. We liave secured conditions which are essential in the Admiralty's opinion to the effective use of the right of the blockade under the Declaration. We as belligerents avoided the risk of one or more Powers interposing in the doctrine of blockade. Making a , blockade urder modem conditions was i usele:s to our purpose. Sir Edward Grey emphasised the increasing dependence of every l>e]ligernt in future upon the consent of neutrals. It was a certainty that as with the growth of shipping the pie would be more closely connected', and there would be a tendency to restrict belligerent action. TQ;o Govenniment liad dealt with .the blockade from tllie standpoint of high, policy, and an this matter the Government did not intend to devolve its responsibilities on any commission of ex- | ports. (Cheers.) As belligerents we I would, do our best to destroy converted merchantmen. The fact was that these were few, and makes the question, comp-aa-atively unimportant. Moreover, the neutrals were under an, obligation to prevent such from leaving port if positively emjoiwed in the Declaa-ation. If it is not ratified we wall increase the risk of initerfeirence from neutrals in war time. Wia will ibe deifeating a keen desire of Oontinieaital nation's 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 in the eleventh hour, would be prepared to say "We ought to draw back." He hoped it would be proved that whea'o \re have not gained in the Declaration, we are not making things worse than before, and that we, on the other hand, have made some undesirable praotaoes .more difficult, and where ) we wanted to' be assured we have j got assurances that we had not before. I