No. 123.
I have the honor to send herewith a circular dispatch of Lord Granville
addressed to her Majesty’s diplomatic and consular representatives in
Germany, which has just been made public, defining the views of the
British government in regard to the export of articles contraband of war
or ancipitis usus, and replying to certain
complaints which have been made in Germany that Great Britain had
deviated from the attitude of neutrality which she had announced her
resolution to observe.
England’s neutrality.
The following is a copy of a circular which has been addressed to her
Majesty’s diplomatic and consular representatives in Germany:
Foreign Office,
August 11, 1870.
Her Majesty’s government have learnt with much regret that an
impression exists in Germany that Great Britain is deviating from
the attitude of neutrality which she has announced her resolution to
observe, by giving France facilities for obtaining certain articles
useful to her for war purposes, such as munitions of war, horses and
coal, while such facilities are not accorded in an equal degree to
the allied German States.
It is not unnatural that, in a moment of excitement like the present,
the German people should be more than ordinarily sensitive in
watching the attitude of nations which are taking no part in the
struggle, and it cannot be wondered at that they should for a time
accept as facts unfounded rumors, and that they should somewhat
hastily condemn, as breaches of neutrality, proceedings which, at a
calmer season, they would not hesitate to pronounce, with that
impartiality of judgment for which they are distinguished, to be
strictly in accordance with the usages of international law and
comity.
Her Majesty’s government lost no time, after the declarations of war
had been exchanged, in announcing the determination of Great Britain
to maintain a position of neutrality between the contending parties,
and this position has been hitherto faithfully [Page 165] observed. It is not true that any
facilities have been given, or any restrictions imposed, which are
not equally applicable to both belligerents.
The steps taken by her Majesty’s government have been strictly in
accordance with precedent and with the principles by which neutral
nations, including Prussia herself, have been guided in recent wars.
But it now appears to be wished that Great Britain should go
further, and that she should not only enjoin upon British subjects
the obligations of neutrality, but that she should take it upon
herself to enforce those obligations in a manner and to an extent
wholly unusual. It is demanded that she should not only forbid, but
absolutely prevent, the exportation of articles contraband of war,
that is to say, that she should decide herself what articles are to
be considered as contraband of war, and that she should keep such a
watch upon her ports as to make it impossible for such articles to
be exported from them.
It requires but little consideration to be convinced that this is a
task which a neutral power can hardly be called upon to perform.
Different nations take different views at different times as to what
articles are to be ranked as contraband of war, and no general
decision has been come to on the subject. Strong remonstrances, for
instance, are made against the export of coal to France; but it has
been held by Prussian authors of high reputation that coal is not
contraband, and that no one power, either neutral or belligerent,
can pronounce it to be so. But. even if this point were clearly
defined, it is beyond dispute that the contraband character would
depend upon the destination. The neutral power could hardly be
called upon to prevent the exportation of such cargoes to a neutral
port; and if this be the case, how could it be decided, at the time
of departure of a vessel, whether the alleged neutral destination
were real or colorable? The question of the destination of the cargo
must be decided in the prize court of a belligerent, and Prussia
could hardly seriously propose to hold the British government
responsible whenever a British ship carrying a contraband cargo
should be captured while attempting to enter a French port.
Her Majesty’s government do not doubt that, when the present
excitement has subsided, the German nation will give them credit for
having honestly acted up to the duties of neutrality to the best of
their power, and they are confirmed in this conviction by the
recollection that, when Prussia was in the same position as that in
which Great Britain now finds herself, her line of conduct was
similar, and she found herself equally unable to enforce upon her
subjects stringent obligations against the exportation even of
unquestionable munitions of war.
During the Crimean war arms and munitions were freely exported from
Prussia to Russia, and arms of Belgian manufacture found their way
to the same quarter through. Prussian territory, in spite of a
decree issued by the Prussian government prohibiting the transport
of arms coming from foreign states.
Reflection upon these points may make the German nation inclined to
take a juster view of the position now occupied by her Majesty’s
government.
As regards the export from this country of horses and ammunition, it
appears from the latest tables which have been obtained from the
British customs that the number of horses exported during the months
of July and August to Germany and Belgium is approximately 413, and
to France 583. As regards the amount of munitions of war exported
during the same period, it appears from the official reports that
none at all have been exported to France; and only the following
exports have been made to German, Belgian, and Dutch ports: To
Belgium, ordnance stores, &c., to the value of 369l.; shot-lead, or iron, 1 cwt.; to Hamburg,
shot-lead, or iron, 5 cwt.; to Holland, shot-lead, or iron, 32
cwt.
It is not irrelevant to this matter to quote the views recently
expressed to a foreign minister at Washington by the Secretary of
State of the United States respecting the duties of neutrals in
regard to trade in articles contraband of war. He is reported to
have said that arms and ammunition had always been considered to be
articles of legitimate commerce by neutrals during war, and that the
United States claimed the right to supply them to all belligerents
without distinction, adding that during the civil war in America
quantities of these articles had been bought from England, France,
and Belgium.
It may be well also to observe that the Belgian government, though by
a recent decree it has provisionally prohibited the transit and
exportation of arms and munitions of war, excepts from this
prohibition articles which can be clearly shown to be destined for a
neutral government, and reserves formally the right of free
exportation for the future.
I am, with great truth, your most obedient, humble servant,
