The mere statement of the dispute shows that the calm of a High Tribunal of Arbitration is the only atmosphere conducive to its just discussion. That right of war upon the sea, as well as that pure right of neutral traders upon the sea, the Mistress of the Seas must steadfastly maintain, for she holds them in trust for the nations and may not barter them away. Above all, she must know her own mind as to what that right is. She has spoken with full knowledge, and, as I believe, rightly. It would be a grievous blow to her prestige if she were now to abandon the position she has taken up. I cannot imagine such an abandonment to be even dreamed of.[6] * * * * * The scheme of these articles is as follows. In the first, published before the American Protest of the 30th of March was received, I have dealt with the principal points in the early American Notes to Great Britain and Germany, and have traced a process of evolution to which all the principles of contraband and blockade, as we used to know them, do in fact conform. In the second, after combating Mr. Norman Angell’s project for the neutralization of the sea, I have shown how this process of evolution warrants, by a legitimate process of development, the practice laid down by the Order in Council. In the third, I have applied these principles to the discussion to which the Government yielded when it put cotton on the list of contraband. Two questions lie altogether outside the scope of the articles. First, the policy which, prior to the issue of the Order, refrained from making cotton contraband. Secondly, the policy which guides executive action in carrying out the Order. They deal simply with the Order as it stands, not with the method of its enforcement. * * * * * I have, for the greater stability of my edifice, used the reinforced concrete of the logic and arguments which Sir William Harcourt created in the famous, but almost forgotten, ‘Letters of Historicus,’ incorporating in the footnotes more extended quotations from those Letters. In a few instances I have added a paragraph to the articles as they originally appeared, for the sake of greater clearness. I trust that the manner in which I have set forth what I conceive to be the true law of the dispute will give no offence to my friends in the United States. I am sure it will not, for some who took part in the Behring Sea Arbitration are still among the Minority, and they will remember that those discussions did not want for strenuousness with Phelps of counsel for the United States, and Charles Russell for England. _F. T. P._ _November, 1915._ CONTENTS PAGE INTRODUCTION v I. THE NEUTRAL MERCHANT: THREE AMERICAN NOTES AND THE ANSWERS 1