“A STEP BACKWARDS.”

Gisborne Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 3256, 29 June 1911, Page 5

“A STEP BACKWARDS.”

THE DECLARATION OF LONDON.

COMMERCE CHAMBERS PROTEST.

RT. HON. A. J. BALFOUR’S VIEWS.

[UNITED PRESS ASSOCIATION —COPYRIGHT. LONDON, June 27.

Fifty-three Chambers of Commerce have signed and forwarded to Mr. Asquith and Sir Edward Grey a protest against the Declaration of LondojU Mr. Balfour, addressing a non-party city meeting of members of the Stock Exchange, merchants, and shippers, emphasised that the Declaration was a step backwards, and was ambiguous regarding the vital question of food contraband. It was studiedly ambiguous regarding the conversion of merchantmen into cruisers.

“ DESTRUCTION OF BRITANNIA.” ENGLAND’S GREAT DANGER. “ STARVATION, NOT INVASION.” THE QUESTION OF CONTRABAND.

(Received June 28, 10.45 p.m.) LONDON, June 28. Mr Balfour, in the course of his speech to the Stock Exchange members. added: “In wartime, starvation and not invasion is Britain’s danger. A weaker naval power, without any effective blockage might so interfere with the supply of foodstuffs that no self-sacrifice or patriotism would enable us, in time of stress, to deal with a situation of such national emergency as might arise under the Declaration of London. The treatment, first, of foods as contraband, and secondly, converting mercantile vessels into cruisers on the high seas, thirdly, the capture and sinking of neutrals. An enemy might say, no matter what it costs, two years hence we will use privateers in order to secure an immediate advantage in a life and death struggle.” “The Declaration of London is equivalent to the destruction of Britannia as a great naval power. The invasion of Britain would be a very risky operation, and that is an advantage which no parchment can take away. It is an asset which cannot be tossed into the gutter by a government —however careless —but cur island position makes it very difficult for Britain to exercise any pressure on a belligerent power in regard to blockade and the power of seizing an enemy’s vessel and goods. Britain’s only method of exercising that pressure was lost when the present Government expressly refused, two years ago, to try . and get property at sea made non-liable to capture, because it is the only method of dealing with belligerents.”

“You do not promote peace,” he concluded, “by making it relatively cheap and easy to go to war with Great Britain.”

Mr Atherley Jones, M.P., seconded, the protest against the Declaration. He contended that the matter inyolred no liberal party interests, but was solely a matter of national concern. Lord Charles Beresford. Mr T. Gibson Bowles and Mr Balfour addressed a great over-flow meeting. Sir Hedworth Lambton, in a letter to the newspapers, strongly opposes the ratification of the Declaration of London.