Let us first ask ourselveswhat is supposed to be the object in war ofsubjecting the property of an enemy to captureeither in his own ships orin neutral bottomsIt does not directly benefit the country carrying outthe lawbecause under modern practice a vessel properly captured belongs,not to the Statebut to the captorsThe assumption is that it distressesthe enemythat it enfeebles his tradeand raises greatly the price of manyluxuries and commoditiesandmore than allthat it seriously diminisheshis capitalIt is here to be observed that the view of maritime law taken,even by international lawyersdoes not quite answer to the truth A metaphorused in the last century was that the operations of maritime war resembleda flight of carrier pigeons pursued by a flight of hawksBut he who wouldrepeat this figure would have to forget the enormous growth of the practiceof maritime insuranceIt may happen as to war risks as with insurance againstperils of the seathat a capture of as man's vesselif prudently managed,may enrich rather than impoverish himNo doubt enhanced rates of insurancedo impoverish a nationand do diminish its capitalBut the loss is widelydiffusedit falls on the well-to-do classand a war must be very protractedin which increase of marine insurance would be sensibly felt by the massof the population.
Another general position may be noticedIn a war in which aggressionis kept on the old footing by the powers of armament which privateering gives,the Power which has most property at sea is most injuredThe old law tookfor granted the equality not only of naval strength among statesbut involume of trade and of property riskedTo the amount of risk the amountof loss will always correspondThe question,thereforeariseswhat interesthave wewhat interest has Great Britainin refusing to grant a generalimmunity from capture to all private property at seaIn the first place,so far as trade is conducted by maritime conveyancethis country has incomparablythe largest share in itThis is in great part a consequence of a revolutionin shipbuildingSo long as ships were built of woodthe maritime Powerswere those which commanded most timberThe Baltic statesRussiaand theUnited States seemed likely to have in turn a monopoly of transportTheDutch swept the world for timber adapted to maritime purposesBut now thatships of all classes are made of ironthe monopoly of construction and possessionhas passed to Great BritainWe are both the constructors and the carriersof the worldand we suffer more than any other community from all dangers,interruptionsand annoyances which beset maritime carriage.
But far the most serious consideration affecting the matter before us-that isthe conformity of the Declaration of Paris to our permanent interests-is the relation of maritime lawwhich it sets upto the supply of food.
The statesmen of the last centuryand of the first part of thisunhesitatinglyassumed that it was the interest of this country to raise the largest partof the food of its population from British soilThey were used to wars,and the great French war seemed to them to establish that a country not fedby the produce of its own soil might be reduced to the greatest straits.
In factthe price of corn during the great French warand even for someyears following itwas absolutely prodigiousThis is the secret of theirprotectionismand not any particular economical theoryThey looked on theevils of importing food from abroad as a clear deduction from experience.
Since that periodthe infrequency of wars has kept out of sight the unexamplednature of our position with regard to foodSo far as the articles most necessaryto life are concernedwe are mainly fed from other countriesremoved fromus by vast distances from North America and from Indiathat is to sayagreat part of the national food before reaching us is only accessible tous through maritime carriagevery long and capable of very easy interruption.
Sir James Cairdin a paper which he has recently publishedsays that thefood imported into Great Britain during the year 188would probably reachone hundred and forty millions sterlingNor can the balance between foreigncommodities and home supplies be seriously alteredSir James Caird pointsout in the same paper that Great Britain is steadily becoming a pastoralcountry instead of an agricultural countryThe state of living under anycircumstances is at all times very hard to alterand populationat variousdegrees of pacealways multiplies up to subsistenceOn the other hand,the price which we pay for our prodigious purchase of food in other countriesis really paid by our manufacturesof which the ultimate sources are ourcoal and our ironand the inherited skill of our operative classesThusthe greater part of the food which we consume in any year can only reachus through a long voyageand the price which is the means of bringing itto us must also come through a voyage of equal lengthTheseof course,are economical reasonsbut I also look on the subject from the point ofview of International LawUnless wars must be altogether discarded as certainnever again to recurour situation is one of unexampled dangerSome partof the supplies which are matter of life and death to us may be brought tous as neutral cargo with less difficulty than before the Declaration of Pariswas issuedbut a nation still permitted to employ privateers can interruptand endanger our supplies at a great number of pointsand so can any nationwith a maritime force of which any material portion can be detached for predatorycruisingIt seemsthenthat the proposal of the American Government togive up privateers on condition of exempting all private property from capture,might well be made by some very strong friend of Great BritainIf universallyadoptedit would save our foodand it would save the commodities whichare the price of our foodfrom their most formidable enemiesand woulddisarm the most formidable class of those enemies.
Of course I am aware of the objections which might be madeIt may beasked whether it would tend to diminish wars if economical loss were reducedto the lowest pointand if hostility between nations resolved itself intoa battle of armed championsof ironclads and trained armiesif war wereto be something like the contests between the Italian States in the MiddleAgesconducted by free companies in the pay of this or that communityIthink thateven thus modifiedwar would be greatly abatedBut this isa subject which ought not to be taken for granted without discussionandI hope in some future lecture to take it up and go into it completely.
