The case was a difficult one. It was agreed on both sides that 'munitions of war' were liable to seizure; but were provisions landed upon a coast where an army was in the field comprehended under that designation? Moreover, among the cargoes there were goods definitely the property of French owners. Could an enemy trade securely under a neutral flag? Henry, in default of a public law to guide him, had directed that goods which could be proved to be French should be retained as a lawful prize; that the provisions should be sold in England, and the price should be paid over to the Flemish owners; that the ships, with their remaining contents, should at once be restored.[1] There was a common-sense propriety in this decision which Charles ought to have recognized; but he chose to have a verdict more absolute in his subjects' favour. To supply food to a fleet or camp might be illicit, he said, but not to send it into a district where it might possibly be taken up by military or naval contractors. The sale in England did not satisfy him, because in France the scarcity created by the war had enhanced prices enormously, while across the Channel they were at their ordinary level. He insisted on complete redress; and, until it was conceded, he declared his fixed intention of maintaining the arrests.
Prudence obliged the King to disguise his displeasure. He wrote to the Emperor, saying that 'he was much grieved by his strange and unkind demeanour.'
- ↑ State Papers, vol. x. p. 245, &c.
