15

case of capture brought before a prize court, France did not abandon her view that her action was justified and justifiable, and in the statement of her prize law furnished for the Conference of London occurs the following article : — " Les vivres et les matieres destines aux non-combattants ne sont pas en principe considered comme contrebande de guerre, mais peuvent etre declares tels suivant les circonstances dont le Gouvernement est juge et en vertu dun ordre emanant de lvi," by which she maintains and reserves the right at her discretion to declare, food to be contraband generally. Russia, in her war with Japan, distinctly asserted the right to declare food contraband generally, and though for reasons of policy she withdrew it from her list in that war, she in no way conceded the point of principle. Japan acted in more than one case on this principle during that war, and seized food-stuffs without evidence of Government or military destination. Austria, when consulted as to the Russian claim to declare food generally contraband, said that it was within the rights of the latter country. In face of these facts, I fail to see how it can be suggested either that there is any generally accepted rule that food shall never be absolute contraband or any security that it may not be so declared by our opponent in war. We have no such security at present. To trust to intervention by the Governments of neutrals whose ships might be seized for carrying food-stuffs to our ports would be to depend on a broken reed. The trade in food-stuffs in the merchant-ships of any particular country would probably not be very large, and not of such importance as to induce their Government to incur the possibility of being involved in the war, with its national and economic consequences and risks and the certain strain on its resources. Besides this the political consequences could not be overlooked. This was strikingly exemplified in the Russo-Japanese war, when the treatment of our vessels by Russian commanders and Russian courts was such as to provoke loud protest. For obvious and excellent reasons we, who had the power to do so, did not carry, or even threaten to carry, our complaints to the arbitrament of war. The injury done to our trade w 7 as too disproportionate to the injury to the whole State occasioned by war, to render such a course one even to be thought of. But had we done so, consider the political consequences. It is believed that, under her alliance with Russia, France would in such a case have joined that country, and we should have incurred the risk of being involved in war with a nation with which we were on terms of the closest friendship. How far the addition of this combatant, or even the creation of strained relations between us and France, might have affected the general political relations between other States it would have been impossible to foresee. Similarly, war for such a cause between a protesting neutral and Germany would probably bring in Austria and Italy, and it is really almost inconceivable that in modern conditions a nation would, without direct attack on its honour, go to this extreme remedy on account of the seizure of the vessels of its traders under a prize law which it did not accept. Further, the carriers of food-stuffs to this country, in case of our being at war, would probably in many, if not in most, cases be nationals of States with no great naval force behind any protests they might make. America, with great naval power, has not an extensive mercantile marine, nor has France. Holland and Norw 7 ay are large carriers, but have no great naval power. Argentina, which would probably be a food carrier, has no great naval power, and we ourselves and Germany are really the only two powerful States who have both a large carrying trade and a big navy. It is therefore difficult to see how neutral protest could be relied upon in any way as a deterrent to a Power that thought it could bring effective pressure on this country by treating food-stuffs as absolute contraband. Thus I think it is clear— (a.) That there is now no generally accepted rule of nations that food-stuffs may not be absolute contraband. (b.) That in a war with us attempts might be made so to treat it. (c.) That neutral protest might in such cases be disregarded if the matter was considered of sufficient importance. If so, it is difficult to understand how it can be considered doubtful that the provisions of the Declaration in this respect are of advantage to this country so