Great Britain's Sea Policy: A Reply to an American Critic, reprinted from 'The Atlantic Monthly'

In Short

This political essay serves as a direct rebuttal to American journalist Arthur Bullard, who criticized Great Britain's wartime naval tactics in The Atlantic Monthly. Written during World War I, the text defends British maritime blockades, the doctrine of continuous voyage, and mail censorship as necessary, legal measures under extraordinary circumstances. It endures as an essential historical document illustrating how liberal nations reconcile international legal frameworks with total war, offering a rare window into Allied diplomatic strategy and wartime propaganda.

The Story

The text opens by analyzing Arthur Bullard's critique of British foreign policy, characterizing his stance as moralistic yet fundamentally unfair. The argument contextualizes British statecraft within two historic traditions: the conservative, interest-driven approach of figures like Lord North and Disraeli, and the liberal, moral tradition of Fox, Gladstone, and Sir Edward Grey. The author maintains that British policy during the conflict reflects a principled compromise managed by Grey, who balance moral ideals with his duty as the steward of a global empire.

Addressing specific legal accusations, the essay refutes the charge that Britain tore up a treaty by disregarding the Declaration of London. The author points out that the Declaration was never ratified by any nation, including Great Britain, and was originally conceived in peacetime as a series of mutual compromises to conciliate Germany and prevent conflict. When Germany invaded Belgium and France, Britain was under no obligation to enforce an unratified code against itself. Furthermore, quotes from Lord Desart are contextualized to show that the Declaration was an attempt to apply existing legal principles to modern conditions, not a mere recording of established law.

The narrative shifts to practical naval enforcement, focusing on the doctrine of "continuous voyage." Originating during the American Civil War, this principle allows a blockading power to seize contraband bound for neutral ports if the ultimate destination is enemy territory. Because Germany imported supplies through neutral neighbors like Denmark and Holland, Britain extended this doctrine to intercept German-bound material. To minimize harm to legitimate neutral commerce, British authorities established trust agreements with neutral merchant guilds and monitored pre-war import averages to identify illegal smuggling.

The text then examines the total economic blockade imposed after Germany declared the waters around the British Isles a warzone in February 1915. The author defends Britain’s retaliatory policy of intercepting all goods headed to or from Germany, noting that Germany's government had nationalized its food supply, making foodstuffs legitimate contraband. The tragic starvation in occupied Poland and Serbia is attributed directly to German requisitions rather than British naval actions, as Germany refused to guarantee that imported relief would remain with civilian populations.

Finally, the defense addresses secondary grievances, including the seizure of enemy bunker coal and the inspection of neutral mail. The author argues that modern technology, such as steamships and widespread transatlantic communication networks used for espionage, necessitates updated rules. The essay concludes by affirming that British prize courts operate with rigorous impartiality and expressing hope for a post-war international tribunal to establish a clear code for the freedom of the seas.

How It Unfolds

Answering the critic The author evaluates Arthur Bullard's criticisms in The Atlantic Monthly, arguing that while Bullard purports to champion British Liberalism, his accusations rely on unfair moralizing. He frames British foreign policy as a balance between pragmatic self-interest and moral ideals, defended at the time by Foreign Secretary Sir Edward Grey.

Demolishing the treaty myth The essay addresses the claim that Britain violated international law by abandoning the Declaration of London. The author demonstrates that the Declaration was never ratified by any nation and was intended as a peacetime compromise rather than binding international code.

Expanding maritime doctrine The text explains the necessity of expanding the doctrine of "continuous voyage" to stop supplies flowing into Germany through neutral ports like Copenhagen. To avoid harming neutral economies, Britain monitored import averages and formed voluntary agreements with neutral trade unions.

Retaliating against submarine warfare Following Germany's declaration of an unrestricted submarine zone and the nationalization of its domestic food supplies, Britain established a complete naval blockade. The author defends shutting off enemy commerce as a proportionate response to submarine attacks on commercial shipping.

Refuting minor grievances The argument tackles secondary accusations regarding the seizure of bunker coal and the inspection of transatlantic neutral mail. The author contends that historical precedents from the era of sailing ships cannot govern modern warfare involving steam power and international subversion plots.

Vindicating the courts The essay concludes by praising the independence of British prize courts, which have repeatedly overruled government actions that violated established precedent. The author calls for patience until a post-war convention can formally establish an updated code for the freedom of the seas.

The People

Arthur Bullard An American journalist and critic whose article in The Atlantic Monthly prompts this entire defense. Bullard accuses Great Britain of adopting a "Might makes Right" mentality and breaking international sea law. The author views him as well-meaning but misguided, comparing him to a hyper-moralistic minister who inadvertently trips up the victim of a robbery while criticizing their language.

Sir Edward Grey The British Foreign Secretary who represents the Liberal tradition in foreign policy. Grey seeks to balance international equity, arbitration, and cordial relations with his duty to protect the British Empire. Throughout the text, he stands as the architect of a firm yet fair maritime policy, willing to submit disputed sea laws to an international convention after the war.

Lord Desart A British delegate to the London Naval Conference whose statements are quoted by critics to argue that the Declaration of London merely codified existing international law. The author defends Desart by showing how critics selectively quoted his words, omitting crucial qualifiers regarding modern commercial and military conditions.

The Neutral Traders The collective body of merchants in countries like Denmark, Holland, Norway, Sweden, and the United States whose commerce is disrupted by the blockade. They seek to maintain lucrative trade routes, while Britain attempts to distinguish their legitimate domestic needs from illegal smuggling operations serving the German military.

In Its Own Voice

"It was not exactly pro-German. Most of its general sentiments were unexceptionable. It did not seem to be written in bad faith. Yet it was full of sneers and accusations against Great Britain which almost any candid reader, who knew the facts, must see to be unfair."

Context: The author introduces Arthur Bullard's article, explaining his initial difficulty in classifying the American writer's subtle prejudices.

"And Mr. Bullard coolly assumes that we ought to put in practice against ourselves, in war, the code which no nation had adopted and which had been meant as a concession to avoid war!"

Context: The author points out the absurdity of expecting Britain to unilaterally adhere to the unratified Declaration of London during an existential conflict.

"A German in Denmark or Sweden arranges for an Indian in San Francisco to come to England with a false American passport in order to murder Sir Edward Grey: is he to have the right of sending and receiving letters, unhindered, under the eyes of the British fleet?"

Context: The essay justifies the interception and searching of neutral transatlantic mail by citing the real danger of wartime conspiracies.

What It's Really About

At its core, the text explores the tension between written international agreements and the realities of total warfare. It asks whether a nation fighting for its survival can be expected to abide by unratified peacetime compromises while its enemy ignores established humanitarian norms. The central argument posits that international law is not a static set of rigid rules, but an evolving tradition of precedent that must adapt to new technological developments like steam power, submarines, and global postal networks.

The work also examines the responsibilities of neutral powers during global conflicts. The author challenges the notion that trade with a belligerent is a purely private right, maintaining that blockading powers have a legitimate right of self-defense to prevent supplies from reaching their enemies through indirect routes.

Why Read It Today

This text appeals directly to readers interested in World War I history, naval strategy, international law, and political rhetoric. Reading it feels like sitting in on a high-level diplomatic debate: the tone is calm, intellectual, and sharply reasoned, substituting logical precision for emotional hyperbole. Gilbert Murray's background as a classicist and Liberal intellectual shines through in his structured prose and subtle wit.

The piece offers a compelling historical portrait of how wartime governments reasoned through complex moral dilemmas under immense pressure. It provides valuable insight into the diplomatic friction between Great Britain and the United States prior to America's entry into the war, highlighting the intense ideological struggle over maritime rights.

The primary difficulty for modern readers lies in its specific legal context. The text assumes a passing familiarity with early 20th-century international agreements—such as the Hague Conventions and the unratified Declaration of London—as well as Civil War legal precedents like the Zamora case. However, the author's clear explanations ensure that the broader arguments regarding statecraft and international ethics remain entirely accessible.