[8] This is expressly declared by Article 7 of the Hague Convention of 1907, No. 13, ‘respecting the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers in Maritime War,’ which is as follows:--‘A neutral Power is not bound to prevent the export or transit, for either belligerent, of arms, munitions of war, or, in general, of anything which could be of use to an army or fleet.’ The full meaning of this article is made specially clear by its juxtaposition with Article 6, which provides that ‘The supply, in any manner, directly or indirectly, of war-ships, supplies, or war material of any kind whatever, by a neutral Power to a belligerent Power, is forbidden.’ [9] _Letters of Historicus_, p. 121:--‘The recent unfortunate evasion of the _Alabama_ has given rise to much discussion on the general duty of a neutral Government with respect to the trade of its own subjects with the belligerents in contraband of war. One might have supposed that if there were any question which the authority of accredited writers, the definitions of public documents, and the universal practice of nations, had clearly and decisively ascertained, it was this very question on which, unhappily, there seems to prevail a most general and unfortunate misapprehension. This misapprehension, grave as it is in the exasperation which it is calculated to produce between friendly nations, is not altogether inexplicable. We have the misfortune to live in days when, in the name of liberalism, philanthropy, and civilisation, we are invited to upset the whole fabric of international law which the reason of jurists has designed and the usage of nations has built up, and to rear upon its ruins the trumpery edifice of a shallow caprice. It is the old story of that pretentious philosophy which, by a recurrence to first principles, attempted with so little success to operate the regeneration of mankind. I would that we had yet among us the multitudinous eloquence of Burke or the poignant wit of Canning to do condign justice upon this presumptuous sciolism.’ [10] This was generally accepted as a fact at the time this article was written. It must, however, now be noted that the Captain of the _Emden_ has denied it.--_F. T. P._ [11] Wallace’s (U.S.) Reports, p. 514. [12] A sketch of the view of international law presented in this article appeared in some letters by the present writer to the _Daily Dispatch_. [13] The Earl of Crawford, in the debate in the House of Lords on Naturalisation, 6th January, 1915. [14] Cited, _Letters of Historicus_, p. 127. The quotation comes from Galiani, but is cited by Azuni with approval. He wonders how Galiani, having enunciated so sound a doctrine, could derive from it the unsound conclusions which he successfully combats. [15] See the quotation from Azuni, cited _Letters of Historicus_, pp. 126-131:--‘Whatever may be the other demerits of Azuni’s work, his doctrine on this point is unquestionably sound, and the reasons which he adduces are unimpeachably accurate--