as is
involved in, e.g. blockade-running or carriage of contraband;
but merely to acquiesce in the loss and inconvenience which may
in consequence be inflicted by the belligerents upon persons so
acting. In order to explain this statement, it became necessary
to say much as to the true character of "carriage of
contraband" (although this topic is more specifically dealt
with in the letters contained in Section 5), and to point out
that such carriage is neither a breach of international law nor
forbidden by the law of England. For the same reason, it seemed
desirable to criticise some of the clauses now usually inserted
in British Proclamations of Neutrality.

The view here maintained commended itself to the Institut de
Droit International, at its Cambridge and Venice sessions,
1895, 1896, as against the efforts of MM Kleen and Brusa to
impose on States a duty of preventing carriage of contraband by
its subjects (_Annuaire_, t. xiv. p. 191, t. xv. p. 205). It
has now received formal expression in The Hague Convention No.
x. of 1907, Art. 7 of which lays down that "a neutral Power is
_not_ bound to prevent the export or transit, for the use of
either belligerent, of arms, ammunition, or, in general, of
anything which could be of use to an army or fleet."

CONTRABAND OF WAR

Sir,--As a good deal of discussion is evidently about to take place as
to the articles which may be properly treated as contraband of war, and,
in particular, as to coal being properly so treated, I venture to think
that it may be desirable to reduce this topic (a sufficiently large one)
to its true dimensions by distinguishing it from other topics with which
it is too liable to be confused.

Articles are "contraband of war" which a belligerent is justified in
intercepting while in course of carriage to his enemy, although such
carriage is being effected by a neutral vessel. Whether any given
article should be treated as contraband is, in the first instance,
entirely a question for the belligerent Government and its Prize Court.
A neutral Government has no right to complain, of hardships which may
thus be incurred by vessels sailing under its flag, but is bound to
acquiesce in the views maintained by the belligerent Government and its
Courts, unless these views involve, in the language employed by Lord
Granville in 1861, "a flagrant violation of international la