676
Sir,
Foreign Office to the London Chamber of Commerce,
Foreign Office, November 2, 1904.
I HAVE laid before the Marquess of Lansdowne your letter of the 18th ultimo, in which you inquire whether there are any fresh developments in the attitude adopted by the Russian Government in regard to contraband of war, and, in reply, I am directed by his Lordship to communicate to you, for the information of the London Chamber of Commerce, the following statement:--
On the 28th February last an Imperial Order was issued, containing Rules which it was stated that the Russian Government would enforce during the war with Japan. A translation of this Order was published, as your Chamber is no doubt aware, in the "London Gazette" of the 11th March last. An extract from the "Gazette" is inclosed, for convenience of reference, in this letter, and it is therefore unnecessary to recapitulate the provisions of the Order. The more important of them are contained in Articles Nos. 6 and 7.
On the 18th March the Russian Government published instructions to the Commanders of their war-ships, from which it appeared that additions had been made to paragraph 10 of Article 6, so as to include, under the head of provisions, forage, all kinds of grain, fish, fish products, beans, bean oil, and oil-cakes, and to the list of remaining articles for use in war were added machinery and parts thereof intended for the manufacture of cannons, small arms, and projectiles. A Notice to this effect was published in the "London Gazette" of the 22nd March, of which a copy is inclosed.
On the 9th May following, His Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires at St. Petersburgh reported by telegraph that cotton had been added to the list of articles declared to be contraband. As this was the first occasion, so far as Lord Lansdowne was aware, that this article had been so described, inquiries were at once instituted at St. Petersburgh, as a result of which it transpired that the declaration applied only to raw cotton suitable for the manufacture of explosives, and not to cotton yarns or tissues. Notices relating to this Order were duly published in the "London Gazettes" of the 10th and 31st May last (see copies inclosed).
Now, although a very large majority of the articles enumerated in the ten paragraphs of Rule 6 are unquestionably such as would be generally admitted to have an absolutely contraband character, the list included other articles, notably coal, naphtha, alcohol, rice, provisions, horses and beasts of burden, which are susceptible of use for peaceful as well as warlike purposes, and cotton falls under the same category. Inquiries were therefore at once instituted at St. Petersburgh, in order to ascertain whether the order implied that these articles were all regarded as unconditionally contraband.
The Russian Government replied that this was the case, and His Majesty's Government thereupon expressed their great surprise and concern at this announcement. They did not contest that, in particular circumstances, provisions might acquire a contraband character, as, for instance, if they should be consigned direct to the army or fleet of a belligerent, or to a port where such fleet might be lying, or if facts should exist which raised the presumption that they were to be employed in victualling the fleet of the enemy. In such cases, it was not denied that the belligerent would be entitled to seize provisions as contraband, on the ground that they would afford material assistance towards the carrying on of warlike operations. It was pointed out that the real test appeared to be whether there were circumstances relating to any particular cargo to show that it was destined for military or naval uses; but that to treat such articles as unconditionally contraband was a step which His Majesty's Government regarded as inconsistent with the law and practice of nations. They further stated that they would not consider themselves bound to
[1344]