for a liberal list, according to their conception of the necessities of the case, and that they have placed all articles of which ammunition was manufactured', including copper, upon their contraband list. He also pointed out that the doctrine of continuous voyage had been not only asserted by American tribunals, but extended by them; and that they had held that the shipment of articles of contraband to a neutral port to order', from which, as a matter of fact, cargoes have been shipped to the enemy, is corroborative evidence that the cargo was really destined to an enemy instead of to a neutral port of delivery.1 In the interim British reply of January 7, 1915,2 Sir Edward Grey admitted, with regard to the seizure of foodstuffs, that such articles should not be detained and put into a prize court without a presumption that they are intended for the armed forces of the enemy or the enemy government. He also stated that it was the intention of the British Government to adhere to that rule, though they could not give an unlimited and unconditional undertaking in view of the departure by those against whom they were fighting from hitherto accepted rules of civilization and humanity, and the uncertainty as to the extent to which such rules might be violated by them in the future. British reply of 1915. January 7, interim Govern assumes On January 25, 1915, the German Federal Council German published a decree, whereby the German Government ment assumed the control of all foodstuffs in the country, and control of under Article 45 of which all grain and flour imported foodstuffs. into Germany after January 31 was declared deliverable only to certain organizations under direct government control or to municipal authorities; but by a later decree of February 6 the earlier decree was repealed with regard to imported grain and flour. In the meantime 1 9 A. J. (1915), 446–7. 2 The Times, January 11, 1915. Seizure of the Wilhelmina. Justification of British action. the American steamer Wilhelmina left New York for Hamburg on January 23 with a cargo of provisions consigned to an American citizen in Germany. The shippers contended that the food was intended for civilians only, not for combatants, and said that if the vessel was seized they would file a protest with the American State Department. The Wilhelmina arrived at Falmouth on February 9 and was arrested. On February 16 representations were made to Sir Edward Grey by the United States Ambassador, and three days later Sir Edward Grey sent a memorandum1 in reply, in which he referred to the German decree for the control of all supplies of grain and flour, and pointed out that imports were excepted from the decree only after the seizure of the Wilhelmina. Sir Edward Grey also referred to the sinking of the Dutch vessel Maria by the Karlsruhe in the previous September, and pointed out that the German Government had treated every town or port on the English east coast as a fortified place and base of operations, had subjected them to bombardment, and had seized neutral vessels with cargoes destined to them on the ground that they carried conditional contraband, which must have been intended for the British forces. Germany could not have it both ways. If Scarborough and Whitby were fortified towns and naval bases, so a fortiori was Hamburg, to which the Wilhelmina was bound; and on that ground her cargo was under a presumption of being destined for the German forces, and therefore contraband. He repeated, however, what he had already said in his full reply 2 to the American Note of December 28, that Great Britain had not so far declared foodstuffs to be absolute contraband. The British Government, he said, had not interfered with any neutral vessels on account 1 The Times, February 20, 1915. 2 Id. February 18, 1915. of their carrying foodstuffs, except on the basis of such foodstuffs being liable to capture if destined for the enemy's forces or Governments. In so acting it has been guided by the general principle, of late universally upheld by civilized nations, and observed in practice, that the civil populations of the countries at war are not to be exposed to the treatment rightly reserved for combatants.' But in view of the way in which this distinction had been repeatedly ignored by the German Government, Great Britain expected that neutrals would not challenge any interference with German trade that might be taken by way of reprisal, whether by declaring foodstuffs absolute contraband or otherwise. ment of matter. In a statement issued by the British Foreign Office on SettleFebruary 4,1 it was intimated that there was no question of taking any proceedings against the Wilhelmina herself, and that the owners of the vessel would be indemnified for any delay caused to her and the shippers of the cargo compensated for any loss caused to them by the action of the British authorities, and the case was ultimately settled by an agreement on these lines between the British Government and the owners of the cargo.2 Great Britain agreed to pay the owners the prices which would have been obtained in Hamburg for the cargo, and also damage and demurrage for the detention of the vessel, and all reasonable expenses incurred in connexion with the matter. 'blockade' Isles. At the beginning of February, 1915, the German German Government issued a decree, ostensibly as an answer to of the Great Britain's exclusion of foodstuffs from Germany, British declaring the waters round the British Isles a war area from February 18, and threatening after that date to destroy every enemy merchant ship found in that area without its always being possible to avert the consequent 1 Id. February 5, 1915. 2 Id. April 15, 1915. Council of 1915. peril to persons and cargoes and neutral shipping.1 In reply to this 'substitution of indiscriminate destruction for regulated capture', as Mr. Asquith most appropriately Order in described the German policy,2 an Order in Council was March 11, published on March 11,3 whereby it was declared to be the intention of the British Government to divert all ships trafficking with Germany, and to take them into port, though without confiscating either ship or cargo, save where they would otherwise be liable to confiscation. In this Order in Council the words 'blockade ' and contraband' and other technical terms of international law were purposely omitted because, as the Prime Minister said, 'in dealing with an opponent who has openly repudiated all the principles both of law and humanity', Great Britain and her Allies were not going to allow their efforts to be strangled in a network of juridical niceties '.4 The actual effect, however, of the Order in Council was to establish a rigorous blockade of Germany, and in the subsequent correspondence with the United States 5 Sir Edward Grey said: 'The Government of Great Britain have now frankly declared, in concert with the Government of France, their intention to meet the German attempt to stop all supplies of every kind from leaving or entering British or French ports, by themselves stopping supplies going to or from Germany. For this end, the British fleet has instituted a blockade, effectively controlling by cruiser "cordon " all passage to and from Germany by sea.' But vessels and their cargoes are still only liable to confiscation when they come within the provisions of the law of contraband, as the blockade of Germany is not to be enforced by means of the usual penalty of confiscation for every attempted breach. 1 Proclamation of February 4, 1915 (Hub. and King, 143–8). 4 70 Hansard, 600. The Times, March 18, 1915. CHAPTER XV THE PREVENTION OF CARRIAGE OF CONTRABAND 1. VISIT AND SEARCH AND CONVOY for belli right of in six century. A NEUTRAL government being, as we have seen, under Necessity no obligation to prevent its subjects from trading in gerent contraband of war, it is essential to the maintenance of visit and the right to seize the prohibited goods that a belligerent search. cruiser shall have the right to stop and search any neutral merchantman she may meet on the high seas or within her own or her enemy's territorial waters.1 Henry VIII Exercised instructed the admiral of the fleet which sailed in the teenth expedition to Guienne in 1512 that 'If any shippe or shippes of the flete mete any other shippes or vessels on the see or in porte or portes, making rebellion, resistance, or defence ayenst them, then it is lawful for them to assaulte and take theym with strong hand, to bring them holy and entirely to the said admiral without despoyllyng, rifelyng or enbeselyng of the goods, or doing harme to the parties ther to abyde the ordinance of the lawe, as the said admirall shall awarde'.2 In 1591, of four Dutch ships brought before the Privy Council, three, which yielded without resistance, were ordered to be restored to their owners, their cargoes being stayed pending examination in the Admiralty Court; but the fourth, which had forcibly resisted search, was not restored. After France had concluded peace with Spain 3 1 Cf. Reddie, Researches in Mar. Int. Law, i. 77–8. 2 Rym. VI. i. 32. 3 Monson's Tracts, i. 271–2; Marsden in 67 Naut. Mag. (1898), |