initial commit of ebook 14447HEADmain

7 files changed, 39455 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/old/14447-8.txt b/old/14447-8.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..09f71b3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/old/14447-8.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,9400 @@
+The Project Gutenberg EBook of Letters To "The Times" Upon War And
+Neutrality (1881-1920), by Thomas Erskine Holland
+
+This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
+almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
+re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
+with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
+
+
+Title: Letters To "The Times" Upon War And Neutrality (1881-1920)
+
+Author: Thomas Erskine Holland
+
+Release Date: December 24, 2004 [EBook #14447]
+
+Language: English
+
+Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1
+
+*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK UPON WAR AND NEUTRALITY ***
+
+
+
+
+Produced by Robert Connal, Aaron Reed and the Online Distributed
+Proofreading Team. This file was produced from images generously
+made available by the Bibliothèque nationale de France (BnF/Gallica)
+at http://gallica.bnf.fr
+
+
+
+
+
+
+                           LETTERS
+
+                             UPON
+
+                      WAR AND NEUTRALITY
+
+                         (1881-1920)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+LETTERS TO "THE TIMES"
+
+UPON
+
+WAR AND NEUTRALITY
+
+(1881-1920)
+
+WITH SOME COMMENTARY
+
+BY
+
+SIR THOMAS ERSKINE HOLLAND
+K.C., D.C.L., F.B.A.
+
+FELLOW OF ALL SOULS COLLEGE
+SOMETIME CHICHELE PROFESSOR OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
+MEMBRE (PRÉSIDENT 1913) DE L'INSTITUT DE DROIT INTERNATIONAL
+ETC., ETC.
+
+THIRD EDITION
+
+LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO.
+39 PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON
+
+FOURTH AVENUE & 30TH STREET, NEW YORK
+BOMBAY, CALCUTTA, AND MADRAS
+
+1921
+
+
+
+
+PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION
+
+For a good many years past I have been allowed to comment, in letters to
+_The Times_, upon points of International Law, as they have been raised
+by the events of the day. These letters have been fortunate enough to
+attract some attention, both at home and abroad, and requests have
+frequently reached me that they should be rendered more easily
+accessible than they can be in the files of the newspaper in which they
+originally appeared.
+
+I have, accordingly, thought that it might be worth while to select,
+from a greater number, such of my letters as bear upon those questions
+of War and Neutrality of which so much has been heard in recent years,
+and to group them for republication, with some elucidatory matter (more
+especially with reference to changes introduced by the Geneva Convention
+of 1906, The Hague Conventions of 1907, and the Declaration of London of
+the present year) under the topics to which they respectively relate.
+
+The present volume has been put together in accordance with this plan;
+and my best thanks are due to the proprietors of The Times for
+permitting the reissue of the letters in a collected form.
+Cross-references and a full Index will, I hope, to some extent remove
+the difficulties which might otherwise be caused by the fragmentary
+character, and the chances of repetition, inseparable from such a work.
+
+T. E. H.
+EGGISHORN, SWITZERLAND,
+_September_ 14, 1909.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION
+
+I have again to thank _The Times_ for permission to print in this new
+edition letters which have appeared in its columns during the past four
+years. They will be found to deal largely with still unsettled questions
+suggested by the work of the Second Peace Conference, by the Declaration
+of London, and by the, unfortunately conceived, Naval Prize Bill of
+1911.
+
+I have no reason to complain of the reception which has so far been
+accorded to the views which I have thought it my duty to put forward.
+
+T. E. H.
+OXFORD,
+_January_ 10, 1914.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION
+
+This, doubtless final, edition of my letters upon War and Neutrality
+contains, by renewed kind permission of _The Times_, the whole series of
+such letters, covering a period of no less than forty years. To the
+letters which have already appeared in former editions, I have now added
+those contained in the "Supplement" of 1916 (for some time out of print)
+to my second edition; as also others of still more recent date. All
+these have been grouped, as were their predecessors, under the various
+topics which they were intended to illustrate. The explanatory
+commentaries have been carefully brought up to date, and a perhaps
+superfluously full Index should facilitate reference for those
+interested in matters of the kind. Such persons may not be sorry to have
+their attention recalled to many questions which have demanded practical
+treatment of late years, more especially during the years of the great
+war.
+
+Not a few of these questions are sure again to come to the front, so
+soon as the rehabilitation of International Law, rendered necessary by
+the conduct of that War, shall be seriously taken in hand.
+
+T. E. H.
+OXFORD,
+_April_ 25, 1921.
+
+
+
+
+CONTENTS
+
+
+CHAPTER I
+
+MEASURES SHORT OF WAR FOR THE SETTLEMENT
+OF INTERNATIONAL CONTROVERSIES      1
+
+SECTION 1
+_Friendly Measures_      1
+
+The Petition to the President of the United States (1899)      2
+Commissions of Enquiry and The Hague Convention (1904)      3
+The League of Nations (1919)      7
+ "     "    "    "    ( " )      8
+ "     "    "    "    (1920)      9
+
+SECTION 2
+_Pacific Reprisals_      9
+
+The Blockade of the Menam (1893)      10
+Pacific Blockade (1897)      11
+The Venezuelan Controversy (1902)      13
+The Venezuela Protocol (1903)      18
+War and Reprisals (1908)      18
+
+
+CHAPTER II
+STEPS TOWARDS A WRITTEN LAW OF WAR      22
+
+Count von Moltke on the Laws of Warfare (1881)      23
+Professor Bluntschli's Reply to Count von Moltke (1881)      26
+The United States Naval War Code (1901)      29
+A Naval War Code (1902)      31
+
+
+CHAPTER III
+
+TERMINOLOGY      33
+
+International Terminology (1918)      33
+
+
+CHAPTER IV
+
+CONVENTIONS AND LEGISLATION      36
+
+Government Bills and International Conventions (1911)      36
+The present Bill in Parliament (1914)      38
+The Foreign Enlistment Bill (1912)      39
+
+
+CHAPTER V
+
+THE COMMENCEMENT OF WAR      41
+
+SECTION 1
+_Declaration of War_      41
+
+The Sinking of the _Kowshing_ (1894)      41
+
+
+SECTION 2
+_The Immediate Effects of the Outbreak of War_      44
+
+Foreign Soldiers in England (1909)      45
+The Naval Prize Bill: Civil Disabilities of Enemy
+   Subjects (1911)      47
+Enemy Ships in Port (1917)      49
+
+
+CHAPTER VI
+
+THE CONDUCT OF WARFARE      50
+
+SECTION 1
+_On the Open Sea_      51
+
+The Freedom of the Seas? (1917)      51
+
+
+SECTION 2
+_In Other Waters_      51
+
+The Suez Canal (1898)      51
+ "   "     "   ( " )      51
+ "   "     "   ( " )      53
+ "   "     "   ( " )      54
+The Closing of the Dardanelles (1912)      55
+ "     "    "   "      "       ( " )      58
+
+
+SECTION 3
+_In a Special Danger Zone?_      59
+
+The German Threat (1915)      59
+
+
+SECTION 4
+_Aerial Warfare_      61
+
+The Debate on Aeronautics (1909)      61
+The Aerial Navigation Act (1913)      63
+Sovereignty over the Air (1913)      65
+Attack from the Air: The Enforcement of International Law (1914)      66
+  "      "   "   "   The Rules of International Law (1914)      67
+
+
+SECTION 5
+_Submarines_      69
+
+Germany and the Hague (1914)      69
+The "Pirates" (March 13, 1915)      70
+Submarine Crews (March 22, 1915)      71
+Mr. Wilson's Note (May 16, 1915)      72
+
+
+SECTION 6
+_Lawful Belligerents_      73
+
+Guerilla Warfare (1906)      73
+The Russian Use of Chinese Clothing (1904)      75
+The Rights of Armed Civilians (1914)      77
+Civilians in Warfare: The Right to take up Arms (1914)      78
+Civilians and a Raid (1914)      79
+Miss Cavell's Case (1915)      79
+
+
+SECTION 7
+_Privateering and the Declaration of Paris_      80
+
+Our Mercantile Marine in War Time (1898)      81
+ "      "        "    "   "    " ( " )      84
+Our Mercantile Marine in War (1898)      87
+The Declaration of Paris (1911)      87
+ "       "      "    "   (1914)      89
+ "       "      "    "   (1916)      91
+ "       "      "    "   (1916)      92
+
+
+SECTION 8
+_Assassination_      93
+
+The Natal Proclamation (1906)      93
+
+
+SECTION 9
+_The Choice of Means of Injuring_      94
+
+Bullets in Savage Warfare (1903)      94
+Gases (1918)      97
+
+
+SECTION 10
+_The Geneva Convention_      98
+
+Wounded Horses in War (1899)      98
+
+
+SECTION 11
+_Enemy Property in Occupied Territory_      100
+
+International "Usufruct" (1898)      101
+Requisitions in Warfare (1902)      103
+
+
+SECTION 12
+_Enemy Property at Sea_      104
+
+Private Property at Sea (1913)      104
+
+
+SECTION 13
+_Martial Law_      105
+
+The Executions at Pretoria (1901)      106
+The Petition of Right (1901)      108
+The Petition of Right (1902)      109
+Martial Law in Natal (1906)      111
+
+
+SECTION 14
+_The Naval Bombardment of Open Coast Towns_      112
+
+Naval Atrocities (1888)      113
+The Naval Manoeuvres (1888)      113
+ "    "        "     ( " )      117
+Naval Bombardments of Unfortified Places (1904)      120
+
+
+SECTION 15
+_Belligerent Reprisals_      123
+
+Reprisals (1917)      123
+    "     ( " )      124
+
+
+SECTION 16
+_Peace_      124
+
+Undesirable Peace Talk (1915)      124
+
+
+CHAPTER VII
+
+THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF NEUTRALS      126
+
+SECTION 1
+_The Criterion of Neutral Conduct_      126
+
+Professor de Martens on the Situation (1905)      126
+Neutrals and the Laws of War (1915)      127
+
+
+SECTION 2
+_The Duties of Neutral States, and the Liabilities of Neutral
+   Individuals, distinguished_      129
+
+Contraband of War (1904)      130
+Coal for the Russian Fleet (1904)      132
+German War Material for Turkey (1911)      135
+
+
+SECTION 3
+
+_Neutrality Proclamations_      135
+
+The British Proclamation of Neutrality (1904)      136
+ "      "         "              "     ( " )      138
+ "      "         "              "     (1911)      141
+The Proclamation of Neutrality (1911)      143
+
+
+SECTION 4
+
+_Neutral Hospitality_      143
+
+Belligerent Fleets in Neutral Waters (1905)      144
+The _Appam_ (1916)      146
+
+
+SECTION 5
+
+_Carriage of Contraband_      147
+
+_Absolute and Conditional Contraband_      147
+    Contraband of War (1898)      147
+    Is Coal Contraband of War? (1904)      149
+    Cotton as Contraband of War (1905)      151
+      "     "      "         " (1916)      154
+    Japanese Prize Law (1905)      155
+       "        "    " (1915)      157
+
+_Continuous Voyages_      157
+    Prize Law (1900)      158
+    The _Allanton_ (1904)      161
+
+_Unqualified Captors_      162
+    The _Allanton_ (1904)      162
+
+
+SECTION 6
+
+_Methods of Warfare as affecting Neutrals_      164
+
+_Mines_      164
+    Mines in the Open Sea (1904)      164
+    Territorial Waters (1904)      166
+
+_Cable-cutting_      168
+    Submarine Cables (1881)      168
+       "       "    in Time of War (1897)      169
+       "       "     "   "   " "  ( " )      171
+
+
+SECTION 7
+
+_Destruction of Neutral Prizes_      173
+
+Russian Prize Law (1904)      174
+   "       "    " ( " )      177
+   "       "    " ( " )      178
+The Sinking of Neutral Prizes (1905)      179
+
+
+SECTION 8
+
+_An International Prize Court_      181
+
+An International Prize Court (1907)      182
+A New Prize Law (1907)      183
+" "    "    " ( " )      186
+" "    "    " ( " )      189
+
+
+SECTION 9
+
+_The Naval Prize Bill_      191
+
+The Naval Prize Bill (1910)      192
+ "    "      "    "  (1911)      194
+Naval Prize Money    (1918)      195
+
+
+SECTION 10
+
+_The Declaration of London_      196
+
+The Declaration of London (1909)      196
+ "        "     "     "   (1910)      197
+ "        "     "     "   (1911)      199
+ "        "     "     "   ( " )      202
+ "        "     "     "   ( " )      203
+ "        "     "     "   (1915)      204
+ "        "     "     "   (1916)      205
+Germany wrong again (1917)      207
+
+
+INDEX      209
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER I
+
+MEASURES SHORT OF WAR FOR THE SETTLEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL CONTROVERSIES
+
+
+SECTION 1
+
+_Friendly Measures_
+
+    Of the letters which follow, the first was suggested by a
+    petition presented in October, 1899, to the President of the
+    United States, asking him to use his good offices to terminate
+    the war in South Africa; the second by discussions as to the
+    advisability of employing, for the first time, an International
+    Commission of Enquiry, for the purpose of ascertaining the
+    facts of the lamentable attack perpetrated by the Russian fleet
+    upon British fishing vessels off the Dogger Bank, on October
+    21, 1905. The Commission sat from January 19 to February 25,
+    1905, and its report was the means of terminating a period of
+    great tension in the relations of the two Powers concerned (see
+    _Parl. Paper_, Russia, 1905, No. 3): this letter deals also
+    with Arbitration, under The Hague Convention of 1899.
+
+    It may be worth while here to point out that besides direct
+    negotiation between the Powers concerned, four friendly methods
+    for the settlement of questions at issue between them are now
+    recognised, _viz_ (1) Good offices and mediation of third
+    Powers; (2) "Special mediation"; (3) "International Commissions
+    of Enquiry"; (4) Arbitration. All four were recommended by The
+    Hague Convention of 1899 "For the Peaceful Settlement of
+    International Disputes" (by which, indeed, (2) and (3) were
+    first suggested), as also by the amended re-issue of that
+    convention in 1907. It must be noticed that resort to any of
+    these methods is entirely discretionary, so far as any rule of
+    International Law is concerned; all efforts to render it
+    universally and unconditionally obligatory having, perhaps
+    fortunately, hitherto failed.
+
+    It remains to be seen how far the settlement of international
+    controversies has been facilitated by the establishment of a
+    "League of Nations" (to which reference is made in the
+    concluding letters of this chapter), and, in particular, by the
+    plan for the establishment of a "Permanent Court of
+    International Justice," formulated by the League, in pursuance
+    of Art. 14 of the Treaty of Versailles, and submitted to its
+    members in December, 1920.
+
+
+
+THE PETITION TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
+
+Sir,--It seems that a respectably, though perhaps thoughtlessly signed
+petition was on Thursday presented to President McKinley, urging him to
+offer his good offices to bring to an end the war now being waged in
+South Africa. From the _New York World_ cablegram, it would appear that
+the President was requested to take this step "in accordance with Art. 3
+of the protocol of the Peace Conference at The Hague." The reference
+intended is doubtless to the _Convention pour le règlement pacifique des
+conflits internationaux_, prepared at the Conference [of 1899], Art. 3
+of which is to the following effect:--
+
+      "Les Puissances signataires jugent utile qu'une ou plusieurs
+      Puissances étrangères au conflit offrent de leur propre
+      initiative, en tant que les circonstances s'y prêtent, leurs
+      bons offices ou leur médiation aux États en conflit.
+
+      "Le droit d'offrir les bons offices ou la médiation appartient
+      aux Puissances étrangères au conflit, même pendant le cours
+      des hostilités.
+
+      "L'exercice de ce droit ne peut jamais être considéré par
+      l'une ou l'autre des parties en litige comme un acte peu
+      amical."
+
+Several remarks are suggested by the presentation of this petition:--
+
+(1) One might suppose from the glib reference here and elsewhere made to
+The Hague Convention, that this convention is already in force, whereas
+it is [1899], in the case of most, if not all, of the Powers represented
+at the conference, a mere unratified draft, under the consideration of
+the respective Governments.
+
+(2) The article, if it were in force, would impose no duty of offering
+good offices, but amounts merely to the expression of opinion that an
+offer of good offices is a useful and unobjectionable proceeding, in
+suitable cases (_en tant que les circonstances s'y prêtent_). It cannot
+for a moment be supposed that the President would consider that an
+opportunity of the kind contemplated was offered by the war in South
+Africa.
+
+(3) One would like to know at what date, if at all, the Prime Minister
+of the British colony of the Cape was pleased, as is alleged, to follow
+the lead of the Presidents of the two Boer Republics in bestowing his
+grateful approval upon the petition in question.
+
+Your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, October 28 (1899).
+
+
+    _Par._ 2 (1).--The Convention of 1899 was ratified by Great
+    Britain, on September 4, 1900; and between that year and 1907
+    practically all civilised Powers ratified or acceded to it. It
+    is now, for almost all Powers, superseded by The Hague
+    Convention, No. i. of 1907, which, reproduces Art. 3 of the
+    older Convention, inserting, however, after the word "utile,"
+    the words "et désirable."
+
+    _Ib._ (2).--On March 6, 1900, the two Boer Republics proposed
+    that peace should be made on terms which included the
+    recognition of their independence. Great Britain having, on
+    March 11, declared such recognition to be inadmissible, the
+    European Powers which were requested to use their good offices
+    to bring this about declined so to intervene. The President of
+    the United States, however, in a note delivered in London on
+    March 13, went so far as to "express an earnest hope that a way
+    to bring about peace might be found," and to say that he would
+    aid "in any friendly manner to bring about so happy a result."
+    Lord Salisbury, on the following day, while thanking the United
+    States Government, replied that "H.M. Government does not
+    propose to accept the intervention of any Power in the South
+    African War." Similar replies to similar offers had been made
+    both by France and Prussia in 1870, and by the United States in
+    1898.
+
+
+COMMISSIONS OF ENQUIRY AND THE HAGUE CONVENTION
+
+Sir,--It is just now [1904] especially desirable that the purport of
+those provisions of The Hague Convention "for the peaceful settlement of
+international controversies" which deal with "international commissions
+of enquiry" should be clearly understood. It is probably also desirable
+that a more correct idea should be formed of the effect of that
+convention, as a whole, than seems to be generally prevalent. You may,
+therefore, perhaps, allow me to say a few words upon each of these
+topics.
+
+Art. 9 of the convention contains an expression of opinion to the effect
+that recourse to an international commission of enquiry into disputed
+questions of fact would be useful. This recommendation is, however,
+restricted to "controversies in which neither honour nor essential
+interests are involved," and is further limited by the phrase "so far as
+circumstances permit." Two points are here deserving of notice.
+
+In the first place, neither "the honour and vital interests clause," as
+seems to be supposed by your correspondent Mr. Schidrowitz, nor the
+clause as to circumstances permitting, is in any way modified by the
+article which follows. Art. 10 does not enlarge the scope of Art. 9, but
+merely indicates the procedure to be followed by Powers desirous of
+acting under it. In the second place, it is wholly unimportant whether
+or no the scope of Art. 9 is enlarged by Art. 10. The entire liberty of
+the Powers to make any arrangement which may seem good to them for
+clearing up their differences is neither given, nor impaired, by the
+articles in question, to which the good sense of the Conference declined
+to attach any such obligatory force as had been proposed by Russia. It
+may well be that disputant Powers may at any time choose to agree to
+employ the machinery suggested by those articles, or something
+resembling it, in cases of a far more serious kind than those to which
+alone the convention ventured to make its recommendation applicable; and
+this is the course which seems to have been followed by the Powers
+interested with reference to the recent lamentable occurrence in the
+North Sea.
+
+As to the convention as a whole, it is important to bear in mind that,
+differing in this respect from the two other conventions concluded at
+The Hague, it is of a non-obligatory character, except in so far as it
+provides for the establishment of a permanent tribunal at The Hague, to
+which, however, no Power is bound to resort. It resembles not so much a
+treaty as a collection of "pious wishes" (_voeux_), such as those which
+were also adopted at The Hague. The operative phrases of most usual
+occurrence in the convention are, accordingly, such as "jugent utile";
+"sont d'accord pour recommander"; "est reconnu comme le moyen le plus
+efficace"; "se réservent de conclure des accords nouveaux, en vue
+d'étendre l'arbitrage obligatoire à tous les cas qu'elles jugeront
+possible de lui soumettre."
+
+It is a matter for rejoicing that, in accordance with the suggestion
+contained in the phrase last quoted, so many treaties, of which that
+between Great Britain and Portugal is the most recent, have been entered
+into for referring to The Hague tribunal "differences of a juridical
+nature, or such as relate to the interpretation of treaties; on
+condition that they do not involve either the vital interests or the
+independence or honour of the two contracting States." Such treaties,
+conforming as they all do to one carefully defined type, may be
+productive of much good. They testify to, and may promote, a very widely
+spread _entente cordiale_, they enhance the prestige of the tribunal of
+The Hague, and they assure the reference to that tribunal of certain
+classes of questions which might otherwise give rise to international
+complications. Beyond this it would surely be unwise to proceed. It is
+beginning to be realised that what are called "general" treaties of
+arbitration, by which States would bind themselves beforehand to submit
+to external decision questions which might involve high political
+issues, will not be made between Powers of the first importance; also,
+that such treaties, if made, would be more likely to lead to fresh
+misunderstandings than to secure the peaceful settlement of disputed
+questions.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, November 21 (1904).
+
+
+    _Pars._ 1-3.--The topic of "Commissions of Enquiry," which
+    occupied Arts. 9-13 of the Convention of 1899 "For the Peaceful
+    Settlement of International Disputes," is more fully dealt with
+    in Arts. 9-36 of the Convention as amended in 1907.
+
+    _Par._ 4.--The amended Convention, as a whole, is still, like
+    its predecessor, purely facultative. The Russian proposal to
+    make resort to arbitration universally obligatory in a list of
+    specified cases, unless when the "vital interests or national
+    honour" of States might be involved, though negatived in 1899,
+    was renewed in 1907, in different forms, by several Powers,
+    which eventually concurred in supporting the
+    Anglo-Portuguese-American proposal, according to which,
+    differences of a juridical character, and especially those
+    relating to the interpretation of treaties, are to be submitted
+    to arbitration, unless they affect the vital interests,
+    independence, or honour, of the States concerned, or the
+    interests of third States; while all differences as to the
+    interpretation of treaties relating to a scheduled list of
+    topics, or as to the amount of damages payable, where liability
+    to some extent is undisputed, are to be so submitted without
+    any such reservation. This proposal was accepted by thirty-two
+    Powers, but as nine Powers opposed it, and three abstained from
+    voting, it failed to become a convention. The delegates to the
+    Conference of 1907 went, however, so far as to include in their
+    "Final Act" a statement to the effect that they were unanimous:
+    (1) "in recognising the principle of obligatory arbitration";
+    (2) "in declaring that certain differences, and, in particular,
+    such as relate to the interpretation and application of the
+    provisions of International Conventions, are suitable for being
+    submitted to obligatory arbitration, without any reservations."
+
+    _Par._ 5.--The Convention between France and Great Britain,
+    concluded on October 14, 1903, for five years, and renewed in
+    1908, and again in 1913, for a like period, by which the
+    parties agree to submit to The Hague tribunal any differences
+    which may arise between them, on condition "that they do not
+    involve either the vital interests, or the independence, or
+    honour of the two contracting States, and that they do not
+    affect the interests of a third Power," has served as a model
+    or "common form," for a very large number of conventions to the
+    same effect, entered into between one State and another. The
+    Convention of April 11, 1908, between Great Britain and the
+    United States is substantially of this type.
+
+    But see now the three letters which follow.
+
+
+THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS
+
+Sir,--The League is unquestionably "a brave design." Sympathy with its
+objects and some hope that they may be realised have induced myself, as,
+doubtless many others, to abstain from criticising the way in which the
+topic has been handled by the representatives of the victorious Powers.
+Recent discussions seem, however, to render such reticence no longer
+desirable.
+
+It begins to be recognised that, as some of us have all along held to be
+the case, a serious mistake was made by the Paris delegates when they
+combined in one and the same document provisions needed for putting an
+end to an existing state of war with other provisions aiming at the
+creation in the future of a new supernational society. Two matters so
+wholly incongruous in character should surely have been dealt with
+separately. Whether it is now too late to attempt a remedy for the
+consequences of this unfortunate combination is a question which can be
+answered only by the diplomatists whose business it is to be intimately
+in touch with the susceptibilities of the various nations concerned. In
+the meantime, however, on the assumption that this state of things is
+productive of regrettable results, I may perhaps venture to indicate,
+recommending their adoption, the steps which appear to be required for
+the reformation of the Treaty as drafted. My suggestions would run as
+follows:--
+
+(1) Subtract from the Treaty of Versailles, Parts I. and XIII., the
+former constituting a League of Nations, the latter, in pursuance of a
+recital that universal peace "can be established only if it is based
+upon social justice," wholly occupied with a sufficiently ambitious
+scheme for the regulation by the League of all questions relating to
+"Labour" which may arise within its jurisdiction.
+
+(2) Let Part I., with Part XIII. annexed, constitute a new and
+independent Treaty; to be, as such, submitted to the Powers for further
+consideration. (The opportunity might be taken of ridding it of all
+references to a system of "mandates," which might very probably lead to
+jealousies and misunderstandings.)
+
+(3) Parts II. to XII., XIV., and XV. would then constitute the real
+Treaty of Peace, in which it would, however, be necessary in the
+numerous articles attributing functions, for the most part of a
+temporary character, the "League of Nations," to substitute for any
+mention of the League words descriptive of some other authority, yet to
+be created, such as, for instance, "a Commission to be constituted by
+the principal Allied and Associated Powers."
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, December 16 (1919).
+
+
+Sir,--Let me assure Lord Robert Cecil that I am perfectly serious in
+giving expression to a long-felt wish that the Treaty of Peace could be
+relieved of articles relating exclusively to an as yet to be created
+League of Nations, and in proceeding to indicate the steps that must be
+taken if this reform is to be effected.
+
+It can hardly be necessary also to assure Lord Robert that I am fully
+aware of the formidable, though perhaps not insuperable, difficulties
+which would beset any efforts to carry out my suggestions. He may have
+inferred so much from my letter of the 16th, in which, treating the
+question whether it is now too late to attempt a remedy for the existing
+state of things as beyond the competence of an outsider, I describe it
+as one which can be answered "only by the diplomatists whose business it
+is to be intimately in touch with the susceptibilities of the various
+nations concerned."
+
+On a point of detail, I am surprised that Lord Robert is unwilling that
+the contents of Part XIII. should be removed to their natural context,
+on the ground that the Labour organisation might be annoyed if this were
+done. I am, however, confident that the organisation is too intelligent
+not to see that it would lose nothing if the articles in which it is
+interested were made an integral part of a Convention constituting a
+League of Nations; the League being already solely charged with giving
+effect to the articles in question.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, December 20 (1919).
+
+
+Sir,--Professor Alison Phillips is not quite accurate in attributing to
+me a belief that the task of amending the Treaty of Versailles is "not
+beyond the powers of competent diplomatists." No such belief is
+expressed in my letter of December 16, in which I was careful to admit
+that the question, "whether it is now too late to attempt" the reform
+which appears to me to be desirable is one "which can be answered only
+by the diplomatists."
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, January 5 (1920).
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+SECTION 2
+
+_Pacific Reprisals_
+
+    The four letters next following were suggested by the ambiguous
+    character of the blockades instituted by France against Siam in
+    1893, by the Great Powers against Crete in 1897, and by Great
+    Britain, Germany, and Italy, against Venezuela in 1902. The
+    object, in each case, was to explain the true nature of the
+    species of reprisals known as "Pacific Blockade," and to point
+    out the difference between the consequences of such a measure
+    and those which result from a "Belligerent Blockade." A fifth
+    letter, written with reference to the action of the Netherlands
+    against Venezuela in 1908, emphasises the desirability of more
+    clearly distinguishing between war and reprisals. On the
+    various applications of a blockade in time of peace, see the
+    author's _Studies in International Law_, pp. 130-150.
+
+
+THE BLOCKADE OF THE MENAM
+
+Sir,--Upon many questions of fact and of policy involved in the quarrel
+between France and Siam it may be premature as yet to expect explicit
+information from the French Government; but there should not be a
+moment's doubt as to the meaning of the blockade which has probably by
+this time been established.
+
+Is France at war with Siam? This may well be the case, according to
+modern practice, without any formal declaration of war; and it is, for
+international purposes, immaterial whether the French Cabinet, if it has
+commenced a war without the sanction of the Chambers, has or has not
+thereby violated the French Constitution. If there is a war, and if the
+blockade, being effective, has been duly notified to the neutral Powers,
+the vessels of those Powers are, of course, liable to be visited, and,
+if found to be engaged in breach of the blockade, to be dealt with by
+the French Prize Courts.
+
+Or is France still at peace with Siam, and merely putting upon her that
+form of pressure which is known as "pacific blockade"?
+
+In this case, since there is no belligerency there is no neutrality, and
+the ships of States other than that to which the pressure is being
+applied are not liable to be interfered with. The particular mode of
+applying pressure without going to war known as "pacific blockade"
+dates, as is well known, only from 1827. It has indeed been enforced, by
+England as well as by France, upon several occasions, against the
+vessels of third Powers; but this practice has always been protested
+against, especially by French jurists, as an unwarrantable interference
+with the rights of such Powers, and was acknowledged by Lord Palmerston
+to be illegal. The British Government distinctly warned the French in
+1884 that their blockade of Formosa could be recognised as affecting
+British vessels only if it constituted an act of war against China; and
+when the Great Powers in 1886 proclaimed a pacific blockade of the
+coasts of Greece they carefully limited its operation to ships under the
+Greek flag.
+
+The Subject has been exhaustively considered by the Institut de Droit
+International, which, at its meeting at Heidelberg in 1887, arrived at
+certain conclusions which may be taken to express the view of learned
+Europe. They are as follows:--
+
+      "L'établissement d'un blocus en dehors de l'état de guerre ne
+      doit être considere comme permis par le droit des gens que
+      sous les conditions suivantes:--
+
+      "1. Les navires de pavillon étranger peuvent entrer librement
+      malgré le blocus.
+
+      "2. Le blocus pacifique doit être déclaré et notifié
+      officiellement, et maintenu par une force suffisante.
+
+      "Les navires de la puissance bloquée qui ne respectent pas un
+      pareil blocus peuvent être séquestrés. Le blocus ayant cessé,
+      ils doivent être restitués avec leur cargaisons à leurs
+      propriétaires, mais sans dédommagement à aucun titre."
+
+If the French wish to reap the full advantages of a blockade of the
+Siamese coast they must be prepared, by becoming belligerent, to face
+the disadvantages which may result from the performance by this country
+of her duties as a neutral.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Athenæum Club, July 26 (1893).
+
+
+PACIFIC BLOCKADE
+
+Sir,--The letter signed "M." in your issue of this morning contains, I
+think, some statements which ought not to pass uncorrected. A "blockade"
+is, of course, the denial by a naval squadron of access for vessels to a
+defined portion of the coasts of a given nation. A "pacific blockade" is
+one of the various methods--generically described as "reprisals," such
+as "embargo," or seizure of ships on the high seas--by which, without
+resort to war, pressure, topographically or otherwise limited in extent,
+may be put upon an offending State. The need for pressure of any kind
+is, of course, regrettable, the only question being whether such limited
+pressure be not more humane to the nation which experiences it, and less
+distasteful to the nation which exercises it, than is the letting loose
+of the limitless calamities of war.
+
+The opinion of statesmen and jurists upon this point has undergone a
+change, and this because the practice known as "pacific blockade" has
+itself changed. The practice, which is comparatively modern, dating only
+from 1827, was at first directed against ships under all flags, and
+ships arrested for breach of a pacific blockade were at one time
+confiscated, as they would have been in time of war. It has been purged
+of these defects as the result of discussions, diplomatic and
+scientific. As now understood, the blockade is enforced only against
+vessels belonging to the "quasi-enemy," and even such vessels, when
+arrested, are not confiscated, but merely detained till the blockade is
+raised. International law does not stand still; and having some
+acquaintance with Continental opinion on the topic under consideration,
+I read with amazement "M.'s" assertion that "the majority in number,"
+"the most weighty in authority" of the writers on international law
+"have never failed to protest against such practices as indefensible in
+principle." The fact is that the objections made by, e.g. Lord
+Palmerston in 1846, and by several writers of textbooks, to pacific
+blockade, had reference to the abuses connected with the earlier stages
+of its development. As directed only against the ships of the
+"quasi-enemy," it has received the substantially unanimous approbation
+of the Institut de Droit International at Heidelberg in 1887, after a
+very interesting debate, in which the advocates of the practice were led
+by M. Perels, of the Prussian Admiralty, and its detractors by Professor
+Geffken. It is true that in an early edition of his work upon
+international law my lamented friend, Mr. Hall, did use the words
+attributed to him by "M.": "It is difficult to see how a pacific
+blockade is justifiable." But many things, notably Lord Granville's
+correspondence with France in 1884 and the blockade of the Greek coast
+in 1886, have occurred since those words were written. If "M." will turn
+to a later edition of the work in question he will see that Mr. Hall had
+completely altered his opinion on the subject, or rather that, having
+disapproved of the practice as unreformed, he blesses it altogether in
+its later development. With reference to the utility of the practice, I
+should like to call the attention of "M." to a passage in the latest
+edition of Hall's book which is perhaps not irrelevant to current
+politics:--
+
+      "The circumstances of the Greek blockade of 1886 show that
+      occasions may occur in which pacific blockade has an efficacy
+      which no other measure would possess. The irresponsible
+      recklessness of Greece was endangering the peace of the
+      world; advice and threats had been proved to be useless; it
+      was not till the material evidence of the blockade was
+      afforded that the Greek imagination could be impressed with
+      the belief that the majority of the Great Powers of Europe
+      were in earnest in their determination that war should be
+      avoided."
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, March 5 (1897).
+
+
+THE VENEZUELAN CONTROVERSY
+
+Sir,--Apart from the practical difficulty, so ably described by Sir
+Robert Giffen in your issue of this morning, of obtaining compensation
+in money from a State which seems to be at once bankrupt and in the
+throes of revolution, not a few questions of law and policy, as to which
+misunderstanding is more than probable, are raised from day to day by
+the action of the joint squadrons in Venezuelan waters. It may therefore
+be worth while to attempt to disentangle the more important of these
+questions from the rest, and to indicate in each case the principles
+involved.
+
+1. Are we at war with Venezuela? Till reading the reports of what passed
+last night in the House of Commons, I should have replied to this
+question unhesitatingly in the negative. Most people whose attention has
+been directed to such matters must have supposed that we were engaged in
+the execution of "reprisals," the nature and legitimacy of which have
+long been recognised by international law. They consist, of course, in
+the exertion of pressure, short of war; over which they possess the
+following advantages: They are strictly limited in scope; they cease,
+when their object has been attained, without the formalities of a treaty
+of peace; and, no condition of "belligerency" existing between the
+Powers immediately concerned, third Powers are not called upon to
+undertake the onerous obligations of "neutrality." The objection
+sometimes made to reprisals, that they are applicable only to the weaker
+Powers, since a strong Power would at once treat them as acts of war, is
+indeed the strongest recommendation of this mode of obtaining redress.
+To localise hostile pressure as far as possible, and to give to it such
+a character as shall restrict its incidence to the peccant State, is
+surely in the interest of the general good. That the steps taken are
+such as would probably, between States not unequally matched, cause an
+outbreak of war cannot render them inequitable in cases where so
+incalculable an evil is unlikely to follow upon their employment.
+
+2. The justification of a resort either to reprisals or to war, in any
+given case, depends, of course, upon the nature of the acts complained
+of, and upon the validity of the excuses put forward either for the acts
+themselves, or for failure to give satisfaction for them. The British
+claims against Venezuela seem to fall into three classes. It will hardly
+be disputed that acts of violence towards British subjects or vessels,
+committed under State authority, call for redress. Losses by British
+subjects in the course of civil wars would come next, and would need
+more careful scrutiny (on this point the debates and votes of the
+Institut de Droit International, at its meeting at Neuchâtel in 1900,
+may be consulted with advantage). Last of all would come the claims of
+unpaid bondholders, as to which Mr. Balfour would seem to endorse, in
+principle, the statement made in 1880 by Lord Salisbury who, while
+observing that "it would be an extreme assertion to say that this
+country ought never to interfere on the part of bondholders who have
+been wronged," went on to say that "it would be hardly fair if any body
+of capitalists should have it in their power to pledge the people of
+this country to exertions of such an extensive character.... They would
+be getting the benefit of an English guarantee without paying the price
+of it."
+
+3. Reprisals may be exercised in many ways; from such a high-handed act
+as the occupation of the Principalities by Russia in 1853, to such a
+mere seizure of two or three merchant vessels as occurred in the course
+of our controversy with Brazil in 1861. In modern practice, these
+measures imply a temporary sequestration, as opposed to confiscation or
+destruction, of the property taken. In the belief that reprisals only
+were being resorted to against Venezuela one was therefore glad to hear
+that the sinking of gunboats by the Germans had been explained as
+rendered necessary by their unseaworthiness.
+
+4. Pacific reprisals should also, according to the tendency of modern
+opinion and practice, be so applied as not to interfere with the
+interests of third Powers and their subjects. This point has been
+especially discussed with reference to that species of reprisal known as
+a "pacific blockade," of which some mention has been made in the present
+controversy. The legitimacy of this operation, though dating only from
+1827, if properly applied, is open to no question. Its earlier
+applications were, no doubt, unduly harsh, not only towards the peccant
+State, but also towards third States, the ships of which were even
+confiscated for attempting to break a blockade of this nature. Two views
+on this subject are now entertained--viz. (1) that the ships of third
+Powers breaking a pacific blockade may be turned back with any needful
+exertion of force, and, if need be, temporarily detained; (2) that they
+may not be interfered with. The former view is apparently that of the
+German Government. It was certainly maintained by M. Perels, then as now
+the adviser to the German Admiralty, during the discussion of the
+subject by the Institut de Droit International at Heidelberg in 1887.
+The latter view is that which was adopted by the Institut on that
+occasion. It was maintained by Great Britain, with reference to the
+French blockade of Formosa in 1884; was acted on by the allied Powers in
+the blockade of the coast of Greece, instituted in 1886; and is
+apparently put forward by the United States at the present moment.
+
+5. If, however, we are at war with Venezuela (as will, no doubt, be the
+case if we proclaim a belligerent blockade of the coast, and may at any
+moment occur, should Venezuela choose to treat our acts, even if
+intended only by way of reprisals, as acts of war), the situation is
+changed in two respects: (1) the hostilities which may be carried on by
+the allies are no longer localised, or otherwise limited, except by the
+dictates of humanity; (2) third States become _ipso facto_ "neutrals,"
+and, as such, subject to obligations to which up to that moment they had
+not been liable. Whatever may have previously been the case, it is
+thenceforth certain that their merchant vessels must respect the (now
+belligerent) blockade, and are liable to visit, search, seizure, and
+confiscation if they attempt to break it.
+
+6. If hostile pressure, whether by way of reprisals or of war, is
+exercised by the combined forces of allies, the terms on which this is
+to be done must obviously be arranged by previous agreement. More
+especially would this be requisite where, as in the case of Great
+Britain and Germany, different views are entertained with reference to
+the acts which are permissible under a "pacific blockade."
+
+7. When, besides the Power, or Powers, putting pressure upon a given
+State, with a view to obtaining compensation for injuries received from
+it, other Powers, though taking no part in what is going on, give notice
+that they also have claims against the same offender; delicate questions
+may obviously arise between the creditors who have and those who have
+not taken active steps to make their claims effective. In the present
+instance, France is said to assert that she has acquired a sort of prior
+mortgage on the assets of Venezuela; and the United States, Spain, and
+Belgium declare themselves entitled to the benefit of the
+"most-favoured-nation clause" when those assets are made available for
+creditors. What principles are applicable to the solution of the novel
+questions suggested by these competing claims?
+
+8. It is satisfactory to know, on the highest authority, that the
+"Monroe doctrine" is not intended to shield American States against the
+consequences of their wrongdoing; since the cordial approval of the
+doctrine which has just been expressed by our own Government can only be
+supposed to extend to it so far as it is reasonably defined and applied.
+Great Britain, for one, has no desire for an acre of new territory on
+the American continent. The United States, on the other hand, will
+doubtless readily recognise that, if international wrongs are to be
+redressed upon that continent, aggrieved European Powers may
+occasionally be obliged to resort to stronger measures than a mere
+embargo on shipping, or the blockade (whether "pacific" or
+"belligerent") of a line of coast.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, December 18 (1902).
+
+
+THE VENEZUELA PROTOCOL
+
+Sir,--The close (for the present, at any rate) of the Venezuelan
+incident will be received with general satisfaction. One of the articles
+of the so-called "protocol" of February 18 seems, however, to point a
+moral which one may hope will not be lost sight of in the future--viz.
+the desirability of keeping unblurred the line of demarcation between
+such unfriendly pressure as constitutes "reprisals" and actual war.
+
+After all that has occurred--statements in Parliament, action of the
+Governor of Trinidad in bringing into operation the dormant powers of
+the Supreme Court of the island as a prize Court, &c.--one would have
+supposed that there could be no doubt, though no declaration had been
+issued, that we were at war with Venezuela.
+
+Our Government has, therefore, been well advised in providing for the
+renewal of any treaty with that Power which may have been abrogated by
+the war; but it is curious to find that the article (7) of the protocol
+which effects this desirable result begins by a recital to the effect
+that "it may be contended that the establishment of a blockade of the
+Venezuelan ports by the British naval forces has _ipso facto_ created a
+state of war between Great Britain and Venezuela."
+
+It is surely desirable that henceforth Great Britain should know, and
+that other nations should at least have the means of knowing, for
+certain, whether she is at war or at peace.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, February 17 (1903).
+
+
+WAR AND REPRISALS
+
+Sir,--Professor Westlake's interesting letter as to the measures
+recently taken by the Netherlands Government in Venezuelan waters
+opportunely recalls attention to a topic upon which I addressed you
+when, six years ago, our own Government was similarly engaged in putting
+pressure upon Venezuela--viz. the desirability of drawing a clear line
+between war and reprisals. Perhaps I may now be allowed to return, very
+briefly, to this topic, with special reference to Professor Westlake's
+remarks.
+
+In any discussion of the questions involved, we ought, I think, clearly
+to realise that The Hague Convention, No. iii. of 1907, has no
+application to any measures not amounting to war. The "hostilities"
+mentioned in Art. 1 of the Convention are, it will be observed,
+exclusively such as must not commence without either a "declaration of
+war," or "an ultimatum with a conditional declaration of war"; and Art.
+2 requires that the "state of war" thus created shall be notified to
+"neutral Powers." There are, of course, no Powers answering to this
+description till war has actually broken out. Neutrality presupposes
+belligerency. Any other interpretation of the Convention would, indeed,
+render "pacific blockades" henceforth impossible.
+
+In the next place, we must at once recognise that the application of the
+term "reprisals," whatever may have been its etymological history, must
+no longer be restricted to seizure of property. It has now come to
+cover, and it is the only term which does cover generically, an
+indeterminate list of unfriendly acts, such as embargo, pacific
+blockade, seizure of custom-houses, and even occupation of territory, to
+which resort is had in order to obtain redress from an offending State
+without going to war with it. The pressure thus exercised, unlike the
+unlimited _licentia laedendi_ resulting from a state of war, is
+localised and graduated. It abrogates no treaties, and terminates
+without a treaty of peace. It affects only indirectly, if at all, the
+rights of States which take no part in the quarrel.
+
+The questions which remain for consideration would seem to be the
+following:--
+
+1. Would it be feasible to draw up a definite list of the measures which
+may legitimately be taken with a view to exercising pressure short of
+war?--I think not. States differ so widely in offensive power and
+vulnerability that it would be hardly advisable thus to fetter the
+liberty of action of a State which considers itself to have been
+injured.
+
+2. Ought it to be made obligatory that acts of reprisal should be
+preceded, or accompanied, by a notification to the State against which
+they are exercised that they are reprisals and not operations of
+war?--This would seem to be highly desirable; unless indeed it can be
+assumed that, in pursuance of The Hague Convention of 1907, no war will
+henceforth be commenced without declaration.
+
+8. Ought a statement to the like effect to be made to nations not
+concerned in the quarrel?--This would, doubtless, be convenient, unless
+the non-receipt by them of any notification of a "state of war," in
+pursuance of the Convention, could be supposed to render such a
+statement superfluous.
+
+On the ambiguous character sometimes attaching to reprisals as now
+practised, I may perhaps refer to an article in the _Law Quarterly
+Review_ for 1903, entitled "War Sub Modo."
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, December 26 (1908).
+
+
+    The operations against Venezuela which were closed by the
+    protocol of February 13, 1903, had given rise to the
+    enunciation of the so-called "Drago doctrine," in a despatch,
+    addressed on December 29 of the preceding year, by the
+    Argentine Minister for Foreign Affairs to the Government of the
+    United States, which asserts that "public indebtedness cannot
+    justify armed intervention by a European Power, much less
+    material occupation by it of territory belonging to any
+    American nation." The reply of the United States declined to
+    carry the "Monroe doctrine" to this length, citing the passage
+    in President Roosevelt's message in which he says: "We do not
+    guarantee any State against punishment, if it misconducts
+    itself, provided such punishment does not take the form of the
+    acquisition of territory by any non-American Power."
+
+    It is, however, now provided by The Hague Convention, No. ii.
+    of 1907, ratified by Great Britain on November 27, 1909, that
+    "the contracting Powers have agreed not to have recourse to
+    armed force for the recovery of contractual debts, claimed from
+    the Government of a country by the Government of another
+    country, as being due to its subjects. This stipulation shall
+    have no application when the debtor State declines, or leaves
+    unanswered, an offer of arbitration, or, having accepted it,
+    renders impossible the conclusion of the terms of reference
+    (_compromis_), or, after the arbitration, fails to comply with
+    the arbitral decision."
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER II
+
+STEPS TOWARDS A WRITTEN LAW OF WAR
+
+
+    A large body of written International Law, with reference to
+    the conduct of warfare, has been, in the course of the last
+    half-century, and, more especially, in quite recent years,
+    called into existence by means of General Conventions, or
+    Declarations, of which mention must frequently be made in the
+    following pages. Such are:--
+
+    (i.) With reference to war, whether on land or at sea: the
+    Declaration of St. Petersburg, of 1868, as to explosive
+    bullets; the three Hague Declarations of 1899 (of which the
+    first was repeated in 1907), as to projectiles from balloons,
+    projectiles spreading dangerous gases, and expanding bullets;
+    The Hague Convention, No. iii. of 1907 as to Declaration of
+    War; all ratified by Great Britain, except the Declaration of
+    St. Petersburg, which was thought to need no ratification.
+
+    (ii.) With reference only to war on land: the Geneva Convention
+    of 1906 (superseding that of 1864) as to the sick and wounded,
+    which was generally ratified, though by Great Britain only in
+    1911 (it was extended to maritime warfare by Conventions iii.
+    of 1899 and x. of 1907, both ratified by Great Britain, _cf.
+    infra_, Ch. VI. Section 10); the Hague Conventions of 1907, No.
+    iv. (superseding the Convention of 1899) as to the conduct of
+    warfare, and No. v. as to neutrals, of which only the former
+    has as yet been ratified by Great Britain.
+
+    (iii.) With reference only to war at sea: the Declaration of
+    Paris, of 1856, supposed apparently to need no ratification (to
+    which the United States is now the only important Power which
+    has not become a party), as to privateering, combination of
+    enemy and neutral property and blockades; The Hague Conventions
+    of 1907, No. vi. as to enemy merchant vessels at outbreak, No.
+    vii. as to conversion of merchantmen into warships, No. viii.
+    as to mines, No. ix. as to naval bombardments, No. x. as to the
+    sick and wounded, No. xi. as to captures, No. xii. as to an
+    International Prize Court, supplemented by the Convention of
+    1910, No. xiii. as to neutrals. It must be observed that, of
+    these Conventions, Great Britain has ratified only vi., vii.,
+    viii., ix., and x., the three last subject to reservations. The
+    Declaration of London of 1909, purporting to codify the laws of
+    naval warfare as to blockade, contraband, hostile assistance,
+    destruction of prizes, change of flag, enemy character, convoy,
+    resistance and compensation, and so to facilitate the working
+    of the proposed International Prize Court, if, and when, this
+    Court should come into existence, has failed to obtain
+    ratification, as will be hereafter explained.
+
+
+    Concurrently with the efforts which have thus been made to
+    ascertain the laws of war by general diplomatic agreement, the
+    way for such agreement has been prepared by the labours of the
+    Institut de Droit International, and by the issue by several
+    governments of instructions addressed to their respective
+    armies and navies.
+
+    The _Manuel des Lois de la Guerre sur Terre_, published by the
+    Institut in 1880, is the subject of the two letters which
+    immediately follow. Their insertion here, although the part in
+    them of the present writer is but small, may be justified by
+    the fact that they set out a correspondence which is at once
+    interesting (especially from its bearing upon the war of 1914)
+    and not readily elsewhere accessible.
+
+    The remaining letters in this chapter relate to the _Naval War
+    Code_, issued by the Government of the United States in 1900,
+    but withdrawn in 1904, though still expressing the views of
+    that Government, for reasons specified in a note to the British
+    _chargé d'affaires_ at Washington and printed in _Parl. Papers,
+    Miscell._ No. 5 (1909), p. 8. The United States, it will be
+    remembered, were also the first Power to attempt a codification
+    of the laws of war on land, in their _Instructions for the
+    Government of Armies of the United States_, issued in 1863, and
+    reissued in 1898. Some information as to this and similar
+    bodies of national instructions may be found in the present
+    writer's _Studies in International Law_, 1898, p. 85. _Cf._ his
+    _Manual of Naval Prize Law_, issued by authority of the
+    Admiralty in 1888, his _Handbook of the Laws and Customs of War
+    on Land_, issued by authority to the British Army in 1904, and
+    his _The Laws of War on Land (written and unwritten)_, 1908.
+    The Institut de Droit International, which has been engaged for
+    some years upon the Law of War at Sea, by devoting the whole of
+    its session at Oxford, in 1913, to the discussion of the
+    subject, produced a _Manuel des Lois de la Guerre sur Mer_,
+    framed in accordance with the now-accepted view which sanctions
+    the capture of enemy private property at sea. It is to be
+    followed by a manual framed in accordance with the contrary
+    view. _Cf._ the letters upon the _Declaration of London_, in
+    Ch. VII. Section 10, _infra_.
+
+
+COUNT VON MOLTKE ON THE LAWS OF WARFARE
+
+Sir,--You may perhaps think that the accompanying letter, recently
+addressed by Count von Moltke to Professor Bluntschli, is of sufficient
+general interest to be inserted in _The Times_. It was written with
+reference to the Manual of the Laws of War which was adopted by the
+Institut de Droit International at its recent session at Oxford. The
+German text of the letter will appear in a few days at Berlin. My
+translation is made from the proof-sheets of the February number of the
+_Revue de Droit International_, which will contain also Professor
+Bluntschli's reply.
+
+Your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, January 29 (1881).
+
+      "Berlin, Dec. 11, 1880.
+
+      "You have been so good as to forward to me the manual
+      published by the Institut de Droit International, and you hope
+      for my approval of it. In the first place I fully appreciate
+      the philanthropic effort to soften the evils which result from
+      war. Perpetual peace is a dream, and it is not even a
+      beautiful dream. War is an element in the order of the world
+      ordained by God. In it the noblest virtues of mankind are
+      developed; courage and the abnegation of self, faithfulness to
+      duty, and the spirit of sacrifice: the soldier gives his life.
+      Without war the world would stagnate, and lose itself in
+      materialism.
+
+      "I agree entirely with the proposition contained in the
+      introduction that a gradual softening of manners ought to be
+      reflected also in the mode of making war. But I go further,
+      and think the softening of manners can alone bring about this
+      result, which cannot be attained by a codification of the law
+      of war. Every law presupposes an authority to superintend and
+      direct its execution, and international conventions are
+      supported by no such authority. What neutral States would ever
+      take up arms for the sole reason that, two Powers being at
+      war, the 'laws of war' had been violated by one or both of the
+      belligerents? For offences of that sort there is no earthly
+      judge. Success can come only from the religious moral
+      education of individuals and from the feeling of honour and
+      sense of justice of commanders who enforce the law and conform
+      to it so far as the exceptional circumstances of war permit.
+
+      "This being so, it is necessary to recognise also that
+      increased humanity in the mode of making war has in reality
+      followed upon the gradual softening of manners. Only compare
+      the horrors of the Thirty Years' War with the struggles of
+      modern times.
+
+      "A great step has been made in our own day by the
+      establishment of compulsory military service, which introduces
+      the educated classes into armies. The brutal and violent
+      element is, of course, still there, but it is no longer alone,
+      as once it was. Again, Governments have two powerful means of
+      preventing the worst kind of excesses--strict discipline
+      maintained in time of peace, so that the soldier has become
+      habituated to it, and care on the part of the department which
+      provides for the subsistence of troops in the field. If that
+      care fails, discipline can only be imperfectly maintained. It
+      is impossible for the soldier who endures sufferings,
+      hardships, fatigues, who meets danger, to take only 'in
+      proportion to the resources of the country.' He must take
+      whatever is needful for his existence. We cannot ask him for
+      what is superhuman.
+
+      "The greatest kindness in war is to bring it to a speedy
+      conclusion. It should be allowable with that view to employ
+      all methods save those which are absolutely objectionable
+      ('dazu müssen alle nicht geradezu verwerfliche Mittel
+      freistehen'). I can by no means profess agreement with the
+      Declaration of St. Petersburg when it asserts that 'the
+      weakening of the military forces of the enemy' is the only
+      lawful procedure in war. No, you must attack all the resources
+      of the enemy's Government: its finances, its railways, its
+      stores, and even its prestige. Thus energetically, and yet
+      with a moderation previously unknown, was the late war against
+      France conducted. The issue of the campaign was decided in two
+      months, and the fighting did not become embittered till a
+      revolutionary Government, unfortunately for the country,
+      prolonged the war for four more months.
+
+      "I am glad to see that the manual, in clear and precise
+      articles, pays more attention to the necessities of war than
+      has been paid by previous attempts. But for Governments to
+      recognise these rules will not be enough to insure that they
+      shall be observed. It has long been a universally recognised
+      custom of warfare that a flag of truce must not be fired on,
+      and yet we have seen that rule violated on several occasions
+      during the late war.
+
+      "Never will an article learnt by rote persuade soldiers to see
+      a regular enemy (sections 2-4) in the unorganised population
+      which takes up arms 'spontaneously' (so of its own motion) and
+      puts them in danger of their life at every moment of day and
+      night. Certain requirements of the manual might be impossible
+      of realisation; for instance, the identification of the slain
+      after a great battle. Other requirements would be open to
+      criticism did not the intercalation of such words as 'if
+      circumstances permit,' 'if possible,' 'if it can be done,' 'if
+      necessary,' give them an elasticity but for which the bonds
+      they impose must be broken by inexorable reality.
+
+      "I am of opinion that in war, where everything must be
+      individual, the only articles which will prove efficacious are
+      those which are addressed specifically to commanders. Such are
+      the rules of the manual relating to the wounded, the sick, the
+      surgeons, and medical appliances. The general recognition of
+      these principles, and of those also which relate to prisoners,
+      would mark a distinct step of progress towards the goal
+      pursued with so honourable a persistency by the Institut de
+      Droit International.
+
+      "COUNT VON MOLTKE, Field-Marshal-General."
+
+
+PROFESSOR BLUNTSCHLI'S REPLY TO COUNT VON MOLTKE
+
+Sir,--In accordance with a wish expressed in several quarters, I send
+you, on the chance of your being able to make room for it, a translation
+of Professor Bluntschli's reply to the letter from Count von Moltke
+which appeared in _The Times_ of the 1st inst.
+
+Your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, February (1881).
+
+      "Christmas, 1880.
+
+      "I am very grateful for your Excellency's detailed and kind
+      statement of opinion as to the manual of the laws of war. This
+      statement invites serious reflections. I see in it a testimony
+      of the highest value, of historical importance; and I shall
+      communicate it forthwith to the members of the Institut de
+      Droit International.
+
+      "For the present I do not think I can better prove my
+      gratitude to your Excellency than by sketching the reasons
+      which have guided our members, and so indicating the nature of
+      the different views which prevail upon the subject.
+
+      "It is needless to say that the same facts present themselves
+      in a different light and give a different impression as they
+      are looked at from the military or the legal point of view.
+      The difference is diminished, but not removed, when an
+      illustrious general from his elevated position takes also into
+      consideration the great moral and political duties of States,
+      and when, on the other hand, the representatives of science of
+      international law set themselves to bring legal principles
+      into relation with military necessities.
+
+      "For the man of arms the interest of the safety and success of
+      the army will always take precedence of that of the
+      inoffensive population, while the jurist, convinced that law
+      is the safeguard of all, and especially for the weak against
+      the strong, will ever feel it a duty to secure for private
+      individuals in districts occupied by an enemy the
+      indispensable protection of law. There may be members of the
+      Institut who do not give up the hope that some day, thanks to
+      the progress of civilisation, humanity will succeed in
+      substituting an organised international justice for the wars
+      which now-a-days take place between sovereign States. But the
+      body of the Institut, as a whole, well knows that that hope
+      has no chance of being realised in our time, and limits its
+      action in this matter to two principal objects, the attainment
+      of which is possible:--
+
+      "1. To open and facilitate the settlement of trifling disputes
+      between nations by judicial methods, war being unquestionably
+      a method out of all proportion in such cases.
+
+      "2. To aid in elucidating and strengthening legal order even
+      in time of war.
+
+      "I acknowledge unreservedly that the customs of warfare have
+      improved since the establishment of standing armies, a
+      circumstance which has rendered possible a stricter
+      discipline, and has necessitated a greater care for the
+      provisionment of troops. I also acknowledge unreservedly that
+      the chief credit for this improvement is due to military
+      commanders. Brutal and barbarous pillage was prohibited by
+      generals before jurists were convinced of its illegality. If
+      in our own day a law recognised by the civilised world
+      forbids, in a general way, the soldier to make booty in
+      warfare on land, we have here a great advance in civilisation,
+      and the jurists have had their share in bringing it about.
+      Since compulsory service has turned standing armies into
+      national armies, war has also become national. Laws of war are
+      consequently more than ever important and necessary, since, in
+      the differences of culture and opinion which prevail between
+      individuals and classes, law is almost the only moral power
+      the force of which is acknowledged by all, and which binds all
+      together under common rules. This pleasing and cheering
+      circumstance is one which constantly meets us in the Institut
+      de Droit International. We see a general legal persuasion ever
+      in process of more and more distinct formation uniting all
+      civilised peoples. Men of nations readily disunited and
+      opposed--Germans and French, English and Russians, Spaniards
+      and Dutchmen, Italians and Austrians--are, as a rule, all of
+      one mind as to the principles of international law.
+
+      "This is what makes it possible to proclaim an international
+      law of war, approved by the legal conscience of all civilised
+      peoples; and when a principle is thus generally accepted, it
+      exerts an authority over minds and manners which curbs sensual
+      appetites and triumphs over barbarism. We are well aware of
+      the imperfect means of causing its decrees to be respected and
+      carried out which are at the disposal of the law of nations.
+      We know also that war, which moves nations so deeply, rouses
+      to exceptional activity the good qualities as well as the evil
+      instincts of human nature. It is for this very reason that the
+      jurist is impelled to present the legal principles, of the
+      need for which he is convinced, in a clear and precise form,
+      to the feeling of justice of the masses, and to the legal
+      conscience of those who guide them. He is persuaded that his
+      declaration will find a hearing in the conscience of those
+      whom it principally concerns, and a powerful echo in the
+      public opinion of all countries.
+
+      "The duty of seeing that international law is obeyed, and of
+      punishing violations of it, belongs, in the first instance, to
+      States, each within the limits of its own supremacy. The
+      administration of the law of war ought therefore to be
+      intrusted primarily to the State which wields the public power
+      in the place where an offence is committed. No State will
+      lightly, and without unpleasantness and danger, expose itself
+      to a just charge of having neglected its international duties;
+      it will not do so even when it knows that it runs no risk of
+      war on the part Of neutral States. Every State, even the most
+      powerful, will gain sensibly in honour with God and man if it
+      is found to be faithful and sincere in respect and obedience
+      to the law of nations.
+
+      "Should we be deceiving ourselves if we admitted that a belief
+      in the law of nations, as in a sacred and necessary authority,
+      ought to facilitate the enforcement of discipline in the Army
+      and help to prevent many faults and many harmful excesses? I,
+      for my part, am convinced that the error, which has been
+      handed down to us from antiquity, according to which all law
+      is suspended during war, and everything is allowable against
+      the enemy nation--that this abominable error can but increase
+      the unavoidable sufferings and evils of war without necessity,
+      and without utility from the point of view of that energetic
+      way of making war which I also think is the right way.
+
+      "With reference to several rules being stated with the
+      qualifications 'if possible,' 'according to circumstances,' we
+      look on this as a safety-valve, intended to preserve the
+      inflexible rule of law from giving way when men's minds are
+      overheated in a struggle against all sorts of dangers, and so
+      to insure the application of the rules in many other
+      instances. Sad experience teaches us that in every war there
+      are numerous violations of law which must unavoidably remain
+      unpunished, but this will not cause the jurist to abandon the
+      authoritative principle which has been violated. Quite the
+      reverse. If, for instance, a flag of truce has been fired
+      upon, in contravention of the law of nations, the jurist will
+      uphold and proclaim more strongly than ever the rule that a
+      flag of truce is inviolable.
+
+      "I trust that your Excellency will receive indulgently this
+      sincere statement of my views, and will regard it as an
+      expression of my gratitude, as well as of my high personal
+      esteem and of my respectful consideration.
+
+      "Dr. BLUNTSCHLI, Privy Councillor, Professor."
+
+
+THE UNITED STATES NAVAL WAR CODE.[1]
+
+Sir,--The "Naval War Code" of the United States, upon which an
+interesting article appeared in _The Times_ of Friday last, in so well
+deserving of attention in this country that I may perhaps be allowed to
+supplement the remarks of your Correspondent from the results of a
+somewhat minute examination of the code made shortly after its
+publication.
+
+One notes, in the first place, that the Government of the United States
+does not shirk responsibility. It puts the code into the hands of its
+officers "for the government of all persons attached to the naval
+service," and is doubtless prepared to stand by the rules contained in
+it, as being in accordance with international law. These rules deal
+boldly with even so disagreeable a topic as "Reprisals" (Art. 8), upon
+which the Brussels, and after it The Hague, Conference preferred to keep
+silence; and they take a definite line on many questions upon which
+there are wide differences of opinion. On most debatable points, the
+rules are in accordance with the views of this country--e.g. as to the
+right of search (Art. 22), as to the two-fold list of contraband (Arts.
+34-36), as to the moment at which the liability of a blockade-runner
+commences (Art. 44), and as to the capture of private property (Art.
+14), although the prohibition of such capture has long been favoured by
+the Executive of the United States, and was advocated by the American
+delegates at The Hague Conference. So also Arts. 34-36, by apparently
+taking for granted the correctness of the rulings of the Supreme Court
+in the Civil War cases of the _Springbok_ and the _Peterhoff_ with
+reference to what may be described as "continuous carriage," are in
+harmony with the views which Lord Salisbury recently had occasion to
+express as to the trade of the _Bundesrath_ and other German vessels
+with Lorenzo Marques. It must be observed, on the other hand, that Art.
+30 flatly contradicts the British rule as to convoy; while Art. 3 sets
+out The Hague Declaration as to projectiles dropped from balloons, to
+which this country is not a party. Art. 7 departs from received views by
+prohibiting altogether the use of false colours, and Art. 14 (doubtless
+in pursuance of the recent decision of the Supreme Court in the _Paquete
+Habana_), by affirming the absolute immunity of coast fishing vessels,
+as such, from capture.
+
+On novel questions the code is equally ready with a solution. It speaks
+with no uncertain voice on the treatment of mail steamers and mail-bags
+(Art. 20). On cable-cutting it adopts in Art. 5, as your Correspondent
+points out, the views which I ventured to maintain in your columns when
+the question was raised during the war of 1898.[2] I may also, by the
+way, claim the support of the code for the view taken by me, in a,
+correspondence also carried on in your columns during the naval
+manoeuvres of 1888, of the bombardment of open coast towns.[3] Art. 4
+sets out substantially the rules upon this subject for which I secured
+the _imprimatur_ of the Institut de Droit International in 1896.
+
+Secondly, the code is so well brought up to date as to incorporate
+(Arts. 21-29) the substance of The Hague Convention, ratified only in
+September last, for applying to maritime warfare the principles of the
+Convention of Geneva. Art. 10 of The Hague Convention has been
+reproduced in the code, in forgetfulness perhaps of the fact that that
+article has not been ratified.
+
+Thirdly, the code contains, very properly, some general provisions
+applicable equally to warfare upon land (Arts. 1, 3, 8, 12, 54).
+
+Fourthly, it is clearly expressed; and it is brief, consisting of only
+54 articles, occupying 22 pages.
+
+Fifthly, it deals with two very distinct topics--viz. the mode of
+conducting hostilities against the forces of the enemy, and the
+principles applicable to the making prize of merchant vessels, which as
+often as not may be the property of neutrals. These topics are by no
+means kept apart as they might be, articles on prize occurring
+unexpectedly in the section avowedly devoted to hostilities.
+
+It is worth considering whether something resembling the United States
+code would not be found useful in the British Navy. Our code might be
+better arranged than its predecessor, and would differ from it on
+certain questions, but should resemble it in clearness of expression, in
+brevity, and, above all things, in frank acceptance of responsibility.
+What naval men most want is definite guidance, in categorical language,
+upon those points of maritime international law upon which our
+Government has made up its own mind.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, April 8 (1901).
+
+NOTES
+ - 1: Withdrawn in 1904.
+ - 2: _Infra_, Ch. VII. Section 6.
+ - 3: _Infra_, Ch. VI. Section 14.
+
+
+A NAVAL WAR CODE
+
+Sir,--It is now nearly a year ago since I ventured to suggest in your
+columns (for April 10, 1901) that something resembling the United States
+"Naval War Code," dealing with "the laws and usages of war at sea,"
+would be found useful in the British Navy.
+
+The matter is, however, not quite so simple as might be inferred from
+some of the allusions to it which occurred during last night's debate
+upon the Navy Estimates. Upon several disputable and delicate questions
+the Government of the United States has not hesitated to express
+definite views; and they are not always views which the Government of
+our own country would be prepared to endorse. For some remarks upon
+these questions in detail, and upon the code generally, I must refer to
+my former letter, but may perhaps be allowed to quote its concluding
+words, which were to the following effect:--
+
+      "Our code might be better arranged than its predecessor, and
+      would differ from it on certain questions, but should
+      resemble it in clearness of expression, in brevity, and,
+      above all things, in frank acceptance of responsibility. What
+      naval men most want is definite guidance, in categorical
+      language, upon those points of maritime international law
+      upon which our Government has made up its own mind."
+
+Before issuing such a code our authorities would have to decide--first,
+what are the classes of topics as to which it is desirable to give
+definite instructions to naval officers; and, secondly, with reference
+to topics, to be included in the instructions, as to which there exist
+international differences of view, what is, in each case, the view by
+which the British Government is prepared to stand.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, March 12 (1902).
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER III
+
+TERMINOLOGY
+
+INTERNATIONAL TERMINOLOGY
+
+
+Sir,--Demands for the punishment of the ex-Kaiser have produced many
+"curiosities of literature," sometimes even over the signatures of men
+deservedly respected as authorities upon subjects which they have made
+their own; but _ne sutor supra crepidam_. A.B.,[1] for instance, wrote
+of the Kaiser as guilty of "an indictable offence." X.Y.[1] naturally
+protests against this misuse of terminology, which is, indeed, far more
+specifically erroneous than was the popular application, which you
+allowed me to criticise, of the terms "murder" and "piracy" to certain
+detestable acts perpetrated under Government authority.[2] He goes on to
+give an elaborate, though perhaps hardly necessary, explanation that
+breaches of that generally accepted body of rules to be followed by
+States _inter se_, which is known as "international law," can be
+enforced, in the last resort, only by hostile State action--a fact which
+he seems to suppose may entitle him to qualify the rules as "a mockery."
+
+X.Y.[1] then proceeds to give an account of the so-called "private
+international law" which surely needs revision for the benefit of any
+"man in the street" who may care to hear about it. X.Y.[1] defines it as
+"that part of the law of each separate country, as administered in its
+own Courts, which deals with international matters," and he enumerates
+as such matters "prize, contraband, blockade, the rights of
+ambassadors." In fact none of these matters are within the scope of
+"private international law," but are governed by "(public) international
+law," non-compliance with which by the Courts or subjects of any State
+is ground of complaint for the Government of any other State thereby
+wrongfully affected.
+
+The so-called "private international law," better described as "the
+conflict of laws," deals, in reality, with the rules which the Courts of
+each country apply, apart from any international obligation, to the
+solution of questions, usually between private litigants, in which doubt
+may arise as to the national law by which a given transaction ought to
+be governed--e.g. with reference to a contract made in France, but to
+be performed in England. There is here a "conflict," or "collision," of
+laws, and it is decided in accordance with rules adopted in the country
+in which the litigation occurs. These rules have no "international"
+validity, and the term is applied to them, merely in a popular way, to
+indicate that a Court may have in some cases to apply the law of a
+country other than that in which it is sitting. The unfortunate
+opposition of "public" to "private" international law has to answer for
+much confusion of thought. "International law," properly so called, has,
+of course, no need to be described as "public" to distinguish it from
+rules for solving the "conflicts" of private laws, which are
+"international" rules only in the sense that laws are sometimes applied
+in countries other than those in which they are primarily binding.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, December 19 (1918).
+
+NOTES
+ - 1: Writer's names are omitted as immaterial.
+ - 2: _Infra_, p. 70.
+
+
+    A full discussion of the topics dealt with in the last
+    paragraph of this letter may be found in my _Elements of
+    Jurisprudence_, edit. xii., pp. 409-425. A translation, by
+    Professor Nys, of the chapter in which those pages occur, as it
+    stood in edit. i., appeared in the _Revue de Droit
+    International_, t. xii., pp. 565, &c.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER IV
+
+CONVENTIONS AND LEGISLATION
+
+
+    Not a few International Conventions necessitate, before they
+    can be ratified, in order that their provisions may be carried
+    into effect, a certain amount of municipal legislation.
+
+    The letters which follow are concerned with some measures
+    introduced into the British Parliament for this purpose,
+    relating respectively to Naval Prize, to the Geneva Convention
+    of 1906, and to Conventions signed at The Hague Peace
+    Conference of 1907. It is with criticisms of Bills dealing with
+    the last-mentioned topic that this chapter is mainly occupied.
+
+
+GOVERNMENT BILLS AND INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS
+
+Sir,--You have already allowed me to point out how singularly
+ill-adapted is the resuscitated "Naval Prize Consolidation Bill"[1] to
+inform Parliament upon the highly technical points as to which a vote in
+favour of the Bill might be supposed to imply approval of the Government
+policy.
+
+Two other Bills have now been presented to the House of Commons in such
+a shape as to raise a doubt whether the wish of the Government, or of
+the draftsman, has been that the topics to which they relate shall be
+discussed _en pleine connaissance de cause_.
+
+The "Geneva Convention Bill"[2] is intended to facilitate the withdrawal
+of reservations subject to which the Convention was ratified by Great
+Britain. These reservations, upon which I insisted at Geneva, somewhat
+to the surprise of my French and Russian colleagues, relate to Arts. 23,
+27, and 28 of the Convention, one of the effects of which would have
+been to impose upon our Government an obligation to carry through,
+within five years, an Act of Parliament, making the employment of the
+Geneva emblem or name, except for military purposes, a criminal offence.
+Any one who knows something of the difficulties which beset legislation
+in this country, especially where commercial interests are involved,
+will see that the performance of such an undertaking might well have
+proved to be impossible. Though myself strongly in favour of placing, at
+the proper time and in an appropriate manner, legislative restrictions
+upon the general use of the emblem and name, I can hardly think the Bill
+now before Parliament to be well adapted for its purpose. The
+"Memorandum" prefixed to it ought surely to have stated, in plain
+language, the effect of the articles in question and the reasons which
+prevented them from being ratified together with the rest of the
+Convention. Instead of this, only one of those articles is cited, and
+few members of Parliament will be aware that an omitted paragraph of
+that article requires that the use of the emblem or name should be
+penalised by British law at the latest five years and six months from
+the date of the British ratification, which was deposited on April 16,
+1907--_i.e._, not later than October 16, 1912. This requirement is not
+satisfied by the Bill, which, even if passed in the present Session,
+would preserve intact till 1915 the rights of proprietors of
+trade-marks, while somewhat harshly rendering forthwith illegal the user
+of the emblem or name by all other persons.
+
+On the drafting of the "Second Peace Conference Conventions Bill," I
+will only remark that neither in the preamble nor elsewhere is any
+information vouchsafed as to the Conventions, out of thirteen drafted at
+The Hague, which are within the purview of the Bill. The reader is left
+to puzzle out for himself, supposing him to have the necessary materials
+at hand, that certain clauses of the Bill relate respectively to certain
+articles which must be looked for in the Conventions numbered I., V.,
+X., XII., and XIII.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+The Athenæum, July 7 (1911).
+
+NOTES
+ - 1: This Bill, originally introduced in the House of Commons on June 23
+      1910, to enable the Government to ratify Hague Convention No xii.
+      of 1907 and the Declaration of London of 1909, was passed by that
+      House on December 7, 1911, but rejected on the 12th of the same
+      month, by 145 to 53 votes, in the House of Lords. Cf. _infra_,
+      pp. 191-196.
+ - 2: Cf. _infra_, p. 98. The Bill became an Act, 1 & 2 Geo. 5,
+      c. 20.
+
+    Questions were put and objections raised, in the sense of my
+    criticisms upon the drafting of the "Second Peace Conference
+    (Conventions) Bill" of 1911, upon several occasions in the
+    House of Commons, especially in August of that year, and on
+    December 16 the Bill was finally withdrawn. On the
+    re-introduction of the Bill in 1914, see the following letter.
+
+
+THE PRESENT BILL IN PARLIAMENT
+
+Sir,--In reintroducing their Bill "to make such amendments in the law as
+are necessary in order to enable certain conventions to be carried into
+effect," the Government has justified the criticisms which I addressed
+to you upon the way in which this measure was first presented to
+Parliament.
+
+I pointed out that neither in the preamble nor elsewhere was any
+information vouchsafed as to which of "the various conventions drawn up
+at the second Peace Conference" were within the purview of the Bill.
+Still less was any clue given to those articles, out of nearly 400
+contained in the 13 conventions in question, which are relevant to the
+proposed legislation. Members of Parliament sufficiently inquisitive not
+to be inclined to take the measure on trust, were left to puzzle out all
+this for themselves, but proved so restive under the treatment that the
+Bill, which was introduced in June, 1911, had to be withdrawn in the
+following December.
+
+As now resuscitated, the Bill is accompanied by a memorandum containing
+information which will enable the reader, even though no specialist,
+supposing him to have the necessary documents at hand, though probably
+only after several hours of labour, to ascertain what would be the
+result of passing it. Is it too much to hope that similar aids to the
+understanding of complicated legislative proposals will be
+systematically provided in the future?
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, April 13, 1914.
+
+
+    This Bill was introduced into the House of Commons on April 8,
+    1914, with a memorandum proposed in compliance with the
+    criticisms, which had led to the withdrawal of its predecessor
+    of 1911. _Cf. supra_, p. 37. It also was withdrawn, after
+    sustaining much renewed criticism, on July 17, 1914.
+
+
+THE FOREIGN ENLISTMENT BILL
+
+Sir,--It is doubtless the case, as stated in your leading article of
+to-day, that the Foreign Enlistment Bill has not received the attention
+which it deserves. It may perhaps be worth while to mention, as
+affording some explanation of this neglect, the fact that the memorandum
+prefixed to the Bill vaguely describes its main object as being to bring
+our law into conformity with "The Hague Conventions" at large. An
+ordinary member of Parliament would surely be grateful to be referred
+specifically to Convention No. xiii., Arts. 8, 17, and 25. He might well
+shrink from the labour of exploring the hundreds of articles contained
+in "The Hague Conventions" in order to ascertain which of the articles
+suggest some modification of the English statute.
+
+I would also venture to suggest that, in Article 1 (1) (b) of the Bill
+the words "or allows to depart," carried over from the old Act, should
+be omitted, as of doubtful interpretation. Would it not also be
+desirable to take this opportunity of severing the enlistment articles
+of the overgrown principal Act from those forbidding the despatch of
+ships fitted for hostilities and restricting the hospitality which may
+be extended to belligerent war ships?
+
+Upon quite a different subject, I should like to answer the question
+propounded in your article, as to the weight now to be given to the
+Declaration of London, by saying that no weight should be given to it,
+except as between Powers who may have ratified it or may have agreed to
+be temporarily bound by its provisions. One has of late been surprised
+to read of vessels carrying contraband being allowed to continue their
+voyage after surrendering the contraband goods, in accordance with a new
+rule suggested by the Declaration, whereas, under still existing
+international law, the duty of a captor is to bring in the vessel
+together with her cargo, in order that the rightfulness of the seizure
+may be investigated by a Prize Court.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, November 23 (1912).
+
+
+    The Bill of 1912 "to amend the Foreign Enlistment Act, 1870,"
+    passed the House of Lords with little comment, but was
+    withdrawn, after much adverse criticism, in the House of
+    Commons on February 12, 1913.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER V
+
+THE COMMENCEMENT OF WAR
+
+
+SECTION 1
+
+_Declaration of War_
+
+    The following letter bears upon the question, much discussed in
+    recent years, of the lawfulness of hostilities commenced
+    without anything amounting to a declaration of war. Although
+    several modern wars, e.g. the Franco-Prussian of 1870, and
+    the Russo-Turkish of 1877, were preceded by declaration, it was
+    hardly possible, in view of the practice of the last two
+    centuries, to maintain, that this was required by international
+    law, and it has never been alleged that any definite interval
+    need intervene between a declaration and the first act of
+    hostilities. On the destruction of the _Kowshing_, the present
+    writer may further refer to his _Studies in International Law_,
+    1898, p. 126, and to Professor Takahashi's _International Law
+    during the Chino-Japanese War_, 1899, pp. 24, 192. But see now
+    the note at the end of the "Letter" which follows.
+
+
+THE SINKING OF THE _KOWSHING_
+
+Sir,--The words of soberness and truth were spoken with reference to the
+sinking of the _Kowshing_ in the letter from Professor Westlake which
+you printed on Friday last. Ignorance dies hard, or, after the
+appearance of that letter and of your remarks upon it, one might have
+expected that leading articles would be less lavishly garnished with
+such phrases as "act of piracy," "war without declaration," "insult to
+the British flag," "condign punishment of the Japanese commander." But
+these flowers of speech continue to blossom; and, now that the facts of
+the case seem to be established beyond reasonable doubt by the telegrams
+of this morning, I should be glad to be allowed to state shortly what I
+believe will be the verdict of international law upon what has occurred.
+
+If the visiting, and eventual sinking, of the _Kowshing_ occurred in
+time of peace, or in time of war before she had notice that war had
+broken out, a gross outrage has taken place. But the facts are
+otherwise.
+
+In the first place, a state of war existed. It is trite knowledge, and
+has been over and over affirmed by Courts, both English and American,
+that a war may legally commence with a hostile act on one side, not
+preceded by declaration. How frequently this has occurred in practice
+may be seen from a glance at an historical statement prepared for the
+War Office by Colonel Maurice _à propos_ of the objections to a Channel
+tunnel. Whether or no hostilities had previously occurred upon the
+mainland, I hold that the acts of the Japanese commander in boarding the
+_Kowshing_ and threatening her with violence in case of disobedience to
+his orders were acts of war.
+
+In the second place, the _Kowshing_ had notice of the existence of a
+war, at any rate from the moment when she received the orders of the
+Japanese commander.
+
+The _Kowshing_, therefore, before the first torpedo was fired, was, and
+knew that she was, a neutral ship engaged in the transport service of a
+belligerent. (Her flying the British flag, whether as a _ruse de guerre_
+or otherwise, is wholly immaterial.) Her liabilities, as such ship, were
+twofold:--
+
+1. Regarded as an isolated vessel, she was liable to be stopped,
+visited, and taken in for adjudication by a Japanese Prize Court. If, as
+was the fact, it was practically impossible for a Japanese prize crew to
+be placed on board of her, the Japanese commander was within his rights,
+in using any amount of force necessary to compel her to obey his orders.
+
+2. As one of a fleet of transports and men-of-war engaged in carrying
+reinforcements to the Chinese troops on the mainland, the _Kowshing_ was
+clearly part of a hostile expedition, or one which might be treated as
+hostile, which the Japanese were entitled, by the use of all needful
+force, to prevent from reaching its destination.
+
+The force employed seems not to have been in excess of what might
+lawfully be used, either for the arrest of an enemy's neutral transport
+or for barring the progress of a hostile expedition. The rescued
+officers also having been set at liberty in due course, I am unable to
+see that any violation of the rights of neutrals has occurred. No
+apology is due to our Government, nor have the owners of the _Kowshing_,
+or the relatives of any of her European officers who may have been lost,
+any claim for compensation. I have said nothing about the violation by
+the Japanese of the usages of civilised warfare (not of the Geneva
+Convention, which has no bearing upon the question), which would be
+involved by their having fired upon the Chinese troops in the water; not
+only because the evidence upon this point is as yet insufficient, but
+also because the grievance, if established, would affect only the rights
+of the Belligerents _inter se_; not the rights of neutrals, with which
+alone this letter is concerned. I have also confined my observations to
+the legal aspects of the question, leaving to others to test the conduct
+of the Japanese commander by the rules of chivalrous dealing or of
+humanity.
+
+Your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Athenæum Club, August 6 (1894)
+
+
+    The controversy caused by the sinking of the _Kowshing_ in 1894
+    was revived by the manner of the Japanese attack upon Port
+    Arthur, in 1904 (see Professor Takahashi's _International Law
+    applied to the Russo-Japanese War_, 1908, p. 1), and led to a
+    careful study of the subject by a committee of the Institut de
+    Droit International, resulting in the adoption by the Institut,
+    at its Ghent Meeting in 1906, of the following resolutions:--
+
+    (1) "It is in conformity with the requirements of International
+    law, to the loyalty which the nations owe to one another in
+    their, mutual relations, as well as to the general interests of
+    all States, that hostilities ought not to commence without
+    previous and unequivocal warning.
+
+    (2) "This warning may be given either in the shape of a
+    declaration of war pure and simple, or in the shape of an
+    ultimatum duly notified to the adversary by the State which
+    wishes to begin the war.
+
+    (3) "Hostilities must not commence until after the expiration
+    of a delay which would suffice to prevent the rule as to a
+    previous and unequivocal warning from being thought to be
+    evaded." See the _Annuaire de l'Institut_, t, xxi. p. 292.
+
+    In accordance with the principles underlying the first and
+    second of these resolutions, The Hague Convention, No. iii. of
+    1907 (ratified generally by Great Britain on November 27,
+    1909), has now laid down as a principle of International Law,
+    binding upon the contracting Powers, that--
+
+    (1) "Hostilities between them ought not to commence without a
+    warning previously given and unequivocal, in the form either of
+    a reasoned declaration of war, or of an ultimatum, with a
+    conditional declaration of war."
+
+    And the Convention goes on to provide that--
+
+    (2) "The state of war ought to be notified without delay to
+    neutral Powers, and shall be of no effect with reference to
+    them, until after a notification, which may be made even
+    telegraphically. Nevertheless, neutral Powers may not plead
+    absence of notification, if it has been shown beyond question
+    that they were in fact cognisant of the state of war." Any
+    reference to the need of an interval between declaration and
+    the first act of hostility (such as is contained in the third
+    of the resolutions of the Institut) was deliberately omitted
+    from the Convention, although a declaration immediately
+    followed by an attack would obviously be of little service to
+    the party attacked. (See the present writer's _Laws of War on
+    Land (written and unwritten)_, 1908, P. 18.)
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+SECTION 2
+
+_The Immediate Effects of the Outbreak of War_
+
+_Enemy Residents_
+
+    Before any actual hostilities have taken place, each
+    belligerent acquires, _ipso facto_, certain new rights over
+    persons and property belonging to the other, which happen to be
+    at the time within its power, e.g. the right, much softened
+    in modern practice, and specifically dealt with in The Hague
+    Convention, No. vi. of 1907, of capturing enemy merchant
+    vessels so situated.
+
+    The following letter deals with the permissible treatment of
+    enemy persons so situated; and was suggested by a question
+    asked in the House of Commons on February 25, 1909, by Mr.
+    Arnold-Forster: viz. "What would be the _status_ of officers
+    and men of the regular Army of a hostile belligerent Power,
+    found within the limits of the United Kingdom after an act or
+    declaration of war; and would such persons be liable to be
+    treated as prisoners of war, or would they be despatched under
+    the protection of the Government to join the forces of the
+    enemy?" The general effect of the Attorney-General's reply may
+    be gathered from the quotations from it made in the letter.
+
+    The topic was again touched upon on March 3, in a question put
+    by Captain Faber, to which Mr. Haldane replied.
+
+
+FOREIGN SOLDIERS IN ENGLAND
+
+Sir,--The question raised last night by Mr. Arnold-Forster is one which
+calls for more careful consideration than it appears yet to have
+received. International law has in modern times spoken with no very
+certain voice as to the permissible treatment of alien enemies found
+within the territory of a belligerent at the outbreak of war.
+
+There is, however, little doubt that such persons, although now more
+usually allowed to remain, during good behaviour, may be expelled, and,
+if necessary, wholesale, as were Germans from France in 1870. But may
+such persons be, for good reasons, arrested, or otherwise prevented from
+leaving the country, as Germans were prevented from leaving France in
+the earlier days of the Franco-Prussian War? Grotius speaks with
+approval of such a step being taken, "ad minuendas hostium vires."
+Bynkershoek, more than a century later, recognises the right of thus
+acting, "though it is rarely exercised." So the Supreme Court of the
+United States in _Brown v. United States_ (1814). So Chancellor Kent
+(1826), and Mr. Manning (1889) is explicit that the arrest in question
+is lawful, and that "the individuals are prisoners of war."
+
+Vattel, is it true (1758), ventures to lay down that--
+
+      "Le Souverain qui déclare la guerre ne peut retenir les
+      sujets de ennemi qui se trouvent dans ses états au moment de
+      la déclaration ... en leur permettant d'entrer dans ses
+      terres et d'y séjourner, il leur a promis tacitement toute
+      liberté et toute sûreté pour le retour."
+
+And he has been followed by some recent writers. There is, however, I
+venture to hold, no ground for asserting that this indulgent system is
+imposed by international law. I am glad, therefore, to find the
+Attorney-General laying down that--
+
+      "for strictly military reasons, any nation is entitled to
+      detain and to intern soldiers found upon the territory at the
+      outbreak of war."
+
+And I should be surprised if, under all circumstances, as the learned
+Attorney-General seems to think probable--
+
+      "England would follow, whatever the strict law may be, the
+      humane and chivalrous practice of modern times, and would
+      give to any subjects of a hostile Power who might be found
+      here engaging in civilian pursuits a reasonable time within
+      which to leave for their own country, even although they were
+      under the obligation of entering for service under the
+      enemy's flag."
+
+The doctrine of Vattel has, in fact, become less plausible than it was
+before universal liability to military service had become the rule in
+most Continental countries. The peaceably engaged foreign resident is
+now in all probability a trained soldier, and liable to be recalled to
+the flag of a possible enemy.
+
+There may, of course, be considerable practical difficulties in the way
+of ascertaining the nationality of any given foreigner, and whether he
+has completed, or evaded, the military training required by the laws of
+his country. It may also be a question of high policy whether resident
+enemies would not be a greater danger to this country if they were
+compelled to remain here, than if they were allowed, or compelled, to
+depart, possibly to return as invaders.
+
+I am only concerned to maintain that, as far as international law is
+concerned, England has a free hand either to expel resident enemies or
+to prevent them from leaving the country, as may seem most conducive to
+her own safety.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, February 25 (1909).
+
+
+_Civil Disabilities of Alien Enemies_
+
+THE NAVAL PRIZE BILL
+
+CIVIL DISABILITIES OF ENEMY SUBJECTS
+
+Sir,--The Naval Prize Bill has sins enough of its own to answer for. The
+question dealt with under that heading in Mr. Arthur Cohen's letter of
+this morning has, however, nothing to do with naval matters, but arises
+under The Hague Convention of 1907 as to warfare on land, which was
+ratified by our Government two years ago; unfortunately without any
+reserve as to the extraordinary provision contained in Art. 28 (_h_) of
+that Convention.
+
+I lose not a moment in asking to be allowed to state that my view of the
+question is, and always has been, the reverse of that attributed to me
+by my friend Mr. Cohen. No less than three views are entertained as to
+the meaning of Art. 28 (_h_). (1) Continental writers, e.g., MM.
+Fauchille, Kohler, and Ullmann, with the German Whitebook, assert, in
+the most unqualified manner, that Great Britain and the United States
+have under this clause abandoned their long-established doctrine as to
+the suspension of the private rights and remedies of enemy subjects; (2)
+Our own Government, in a non-confidential reply to an inquiry from
+Professor Oppenheim, asserts categorically, as does General Davis in the
+United States, that the clause relates only to the action of a commander
+in a territory of which he is in occupation; while (3) most English and
+American writers look upon the meaning of the clause as doubtful. If Mr.
+Cohen will look at p. 44 of my _Laws of War on Land_, 1909, he will find
+that I carry this sceptical attitude so far as to include the clause in
+question in brackets as "apocryphal," with the comment that "it can
+hardly, till its policy has been seriously discussed, be treated as a
+rule of international law." I have accordingly maintained, in
+correspondence with my Continental colleagues, that the clause should be
+treated as "non avenue," as "un non sens," on the ground that, while,
+torn from their context, its words would seem ("ont faux air") to bear
+the Continental interpretation, its position as part of a "Règlement,"
+in conformity with which the Powers are to "issue instructions to their
+armed land forces," conclusively negatives this interpretation. I will
+not to-day trouble you in detail with the very curious history of the
+clause; which, as originally proposed by Germany, merely prohibited (a
+commander?) from announcing that the private claims ("réclamations") of
+enemy subjects would be unenforceable. It is astonishing that no
+objection was raised by the British or by the American delegates to the
+subsequent transformation of this innocent clause into something very
+different, first by the insertion of the words "en justice," and later
+by the substitution of "droits et actions" for "réclamations." The
+quiescence of the delegates is the more surprising, as, at the first
+meeting of the sub-committee, General de Gundel, in the plainest
+language, foreshadowed what was aimed at by the clause.
+
+Art. 23 (_h_) is, I submit, incapable of rational interpretation and
+should be so treated by the Powers. If interpreted at all, its sense
+must be taken to be that which is now, somewhat tardily, put upon it by
+our own Government.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, November 6 (1911).
+
+
+    I may perhaps refer here to my _Laws of War on Land_ (1908), p.
+    44, where I describe as "apocryphal" Art. 23 (_h_) of the Hague
+    Convention No. iv. of 1907; and to my paper upon that article
+    in the _Law Quarterly Review_ for 1912, pp. 94-98, reproduced
+    in the _Revue de Droit International_, the _Revue Générale de
+    Droit International Public_, and the _Zeitschrift für
+    Völkerrecht und Bundesstaatsrecht_, for the same year.
+
+    The view there maintained was affirmed by the Court of Appeal
+    in _Porter_ v. _Freudenberg_, [1915] 1 K.B. 857, _at_ p. 874.
+
+
+_Enemy Ships in Port_
+
+ENEMY SHIPS IN PORT
+
+Sir,--The action taken by the United States in seizing German merchant
+ships lying in their ports will raise several questions of interest. It
+is, however, important at once to realise that, apart from anything
+which may be contained in old treaties with Prussia, their hands are
+entirely free in the matter. The indulgences so often granted: to such
+ships during the last 60 years, notably by themselves in the Spanish War
+of 1898, under endlessly varying conditions, have been admittedly acts
+of grace, required by no established rule of international law.
+
+The United States are also unaffected by The Hague Convention No. vi, to
+which they are not a party. It is therefore superfluous to inquire what
+construction they would have been bound to put upon the ambiguous
+language of Section 1 of the Convention, which proclaims that "when a
+merchant ship of one of the belligerent Powers is, at the commencement
+of hostilities, in an enemy port, _it is desirable_ that it should be
+allowed to depart freely," &c. It might perhaps be argued that our own
+Prize Court might well have refrained from treating this section as if
+it were obligatory, and have founded its decisions rather upon
+international law, as supplemented by a non-obligatory custom. Be this
+as it may, it would seem that the policy of the United States has to
+some extent felt the influence of Convention vi. in announcing that
+seizure will, provisionally, only amount to requisitioning.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, April 7 (1917).
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER VI
+
+THE CONDUCT OF WARFARE
+
+
+    The three following sections relate to the waters in which
+    hostile operations may take place. Section 1 probably calls for
+    no explanatory remark. With reference to Section 2, dealing
+    with certain spaces of water more or less closed to belligerent
+    action, it may be desirable to state that the letters as to the
+    Suez Canal were written to obviate some misconceptions as to
+    the purport of the Convention of October 29, 1888, and to
+    maintain that it was not, at the time of writing, operative, so
+    far as Great Britain was concerned.
+
+    This state of things was, however, altered by the Anglo-French
+    Convention of April 8, 1804, which, concerned principally with
+    the settlement of the Egyptian and Newfoundland questions,
+    provides, in Art. 6, that "In order to assure the free passage
+    of the Suez Canal, the Government of His Britannic Majesty
+    declares that it adheres to the stipulations of the Treaty
+    concluded on the 29th October 1888; and to their becoming
+    operative. The free passage of the canal being thus guaranteed,
+    the execution of the last phrase of paragraph 1, and that of
+    paragraph 2 of the 8th article of this Treaty, will remain
+    suspended."
+
+    The last phrase of paragraph 1 of Art. 8 relates to annual
+    meetings of the agents of the signatory Powers.
+
+    Paragraph 2 of this Article relates to the presidency of a
+    special commissioner of the Ottoman Government over those
+    meetings.
+
+    On the whole question see _Parl. Papers, Egypt_, No. 1 (1888),
+    _Commercial_, No. 2 (1889), and the present writer's _Studies
+    in International Law_, pp. 275-293. Note must, of course, now
+    be taken of the constitutional changes resulting from the war
+    of 1914.
+
+    The provisions of the Treaty of 1888, with reference to the
+    free navigation of the Suez Canal, have, of course, acquired a
+    new importance from their adoption into the Hay-Pauncefote
+    Treaty of November 18, 1901, as to the Panama Canal, and from
+    the divergent views taken of their interpretation, as so
+    adopted.
+
+
+SECTION 1
+
+_On the Open Sea_
+
+
+"THE FREEDOM OF THE SEAS"?
+
+Sir,--Your remarks upon "the wide and ambiguous suggestions" contained
+in the Pope's Peace Note are especially apposite to his desire for "the
+freedom of the seas." It is regrettable that his Holiness does not
+explain the meaning which he attaches to this phrase, in itself
+unmeaning, so dear to the Germans. He is doubtless well aware that the
+sea is already free enough, except to pirates, in time of peace, and
+must be presumed to refer to time of war, and specifically to propose
+the prohibition of any such interference with neutral shipping as is now
+legalised by the rules relating to visit and search, contraband and
+blockade.
+
+If this be indeed the Pope's meaning, his aspirations are now less
+likely than ever to be realised. It is curious to reflect that the
+proposal actually made by our own Government at The Hague Conference of
+1907, apparently under the impression that Great Britain would be always
+neutral, for protecting the carriage of contraband was most fortunately
+defeated by the opposition of the other great naval Powers, of which
+Germany was one.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, August 16 (1917).
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+SECTION 2
+
+_In Other Waters_
+
+
+THE SUEZ CANAL
+
+Sir,--Your correspondent "M.B." has done good service by calling
+attention to the misleading nature of the often-repeated statement that
+the Suez Canal has been "neutralised" by the Convention of 1888. Perhaps
+you will allow me more explicitly to show why, and how far, this
+statement is misleading.
+
+In the first place, this Convention is inoperative. It is so in
+consequence of the following reservation made by Lord Salisbury in the
+course of the negotiations which resulted in the signature of the
+Convention:--
+
+      "Les Délégués de la Grande-Bretagne ... pensent qu'il est de
+      leur devoir de formuler une réserve générale quant à
+      l'application de ces dispositions en tant qu'elles ne
+      seraient pas compatibles avec l'état transitoire et
+      exceptionnel où se trouve actuellement l'Egypte, et qu'elles
+      pourraient entraver la liberté d'action de leur Gouvernement
+      pendant la période de l'occupation de l'Egypte par les forces
+      de sa Majesté Britannique."
+
+Being thus unaffected by the treaty, the canal retains those
+characteristics which it possesses, under the common law of nations, as
+a narrow strait, wholly within the territory of one Power and connecting
+two open seas. The fact that the strait is artificial may, I think, be
+dismissed from consideration, for reasons stated by me in the
+_Fortnightly Review_ for July, 1883. The characteristics of such a
+strait are unfortunately by no means well ascertained, but may perhaps
+be summarised as follows. In time of peace, the territorial Power is
+bound by modern usage to allow "innocent passage," under reasonable
+conditions as to tolls and the like, not only to the merchant vessels,
+but also, probably, to the ships of war, of all nations. In time of war,
+the territorial Power, if belligerent, may of course carry on, and is
+exposed to, hostilities in the strait as elsewhere, and the entrances to
+the strait are liable to a blockade. Should the territorial Power be
+neutral, the strait would be closed to hostilities, though it would
+probably be open to the "innocent passage" of belligerent ships of war.
+
+It may be worth while to enquire how far this state of things would be
+affected by the Convention of 1888, were it to come into operation. The
+_status_ of the canal in time of peace would be substantially untouched,
+save by the prohibition to the territorial Power to fortify its banks.
+Even with reference to time of war, several of the articles of the
+Convention merely reaffirm well-understood rules applicable to all
+neutral waters--e.g. that no hostilities may take place therein. The
+innovations proposed by the Convention are mainly contained, as "M.B."
+points out, in the first article, which deals with the position of the
+canal when the territorial Power is belligerent. In such a case, subject
+to certain exceptions, with a view to the defence of the country, the
+ships of that Power are neither to attack nor to be attacked in the
+canal, or within three miles of its ports of access, nor are the
+entrances of the canal to be blockaded. This is "neutralisation" only in
+a limited and vague sense of the term, the employment of which was
+indeed carefully avoided not only in the Convention itself but also in
+the diplomatic discussions which preceded it.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Brighton, October 4 (1898).
+
+
+THE SUEZ CANAL
+
+Sir,--Your correspondent "M.B.," if he will allow me to say so, supports
+this morning a good case by a bad argument, which ought hardly to pass
+without remark.
+
+It is impossible to accept his suggestion that the article which he
+quotes from the Treaty of Paris can be taken as containing "an
+international official definition of neutralisation as applied to
+waters." The article in question, after declaring the Black Sea to be
+"neutralisée," no doubt goes on to explain the sense in which this
+phrase is to be understood, by laying down that the waters and ports of
+that sea are perpetually closed to the ships of war of all nations. It
+is, however, well known that such a state of things as is described in
+the latter part of the article is so far from being involved in the
+definition of "neutralisation" as not even to be an ordinary
+accompaniment of that process. Belgium is unquestionably "neutralised,"
+but no one supposes that the appearance in its waters and ports of ships
+of war is therefore prohibited. The fact is that the term "neutralisée"
+was employed in the Treaty of Paris as a euphemism, intended to make
+less unpalatable to Russia a restriction upon her sovereign rights which
+she took the earliest opportunity of repudiating.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Brighton, October 6 (1898).
+
+
+THE SUEZ CANAL
+
+Sir,--Will you allow me to reply in the fewest possible words to the
+questions very courteously addressed to me by Mr. Gibson Bowles in his
+letter which appeared in _The Times_ of yesterday?
+
+1. It is certainly my opinion, for what it is worth, that the full
+operation of the Convention of 1888 is suspended by the reserves first
+made on behalf of this country during the sittings of the Conference of
+1885. These reserves were texually repeated by Lord Salisbury in his
+despatch of October 21, 1887, enclosing the draft convention which,
+three days later, was signed at Paris by the representatives of France
+and Great Britain, the two Powers which, with the assent of the rest,
+had been carrying on the resumed negotiations with reference to the
+canal. Lord Salisbury's language was also carefully brought to the
+notice of each of the other Powers concerned; in the course of the
+somewhat protracted discussions which preceded the final signature of
+the same convention at Constantinople on October 29, 1888.
+
+2. All the signatories of the convention having thus become parties to
+it after express notice of "the conditions under which her Majesty's
+Government have expressed their willingness to agree to it," must, it
+can hardly be doubted, share the view that the convention is operative
+only _sub modo_.
+
+3. Supposing the convention to have become operative, and supposing the
+territorial Power to be neutral in a war between States which we may
+call A and B, the convention would certainly entitle A to claim
+unmolested passage for its ships of war on their way to attack the
+forces of B in the Eastern seas.
+
+4. The language of the convention, being as it, is the expression of a
+compromise involving much re-drafting, is by no means always as clear as
+it might be. But when Mr. Gibson Bowles is again within reach of
+Blue-books he will probably agree with me that the treaty need not, as
+he suggests, be "read as obliging the territorial Power, even when
+itself a belligerent, to allow its enemy to use the canal freely for the
+passage of that enemy's men-of-war." The wide language of Art. 1 (which
+is substantially in accordance with Mr. Gibson Bowles's reminiscence of
+it) must be read in connection with Art. 10, and without forgetting
+that, in discussing the effect of an attack upon the canal by one of the
+parties to the convention, Lord Salisbury wrote in 1887, "on the whole
+it appears to be the sounder view that, in such a case, the treaty,
+being broken by one of its signatories, would lose its force in all
+respects."
+
+Your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, October 9 (1898).
+
+
+THE CLOSING OF THE DARDANELLES
+
+Sir,--Now that the pressure upon your space due to the clash of opposing
+views of domestic politics is likely to be for the moment relaxed, you
+may, perhaps, not think it inopportune that attention should be recalled
+to a question of permanent international interest raised by the recent
+action of the Turkish Government in closing the Dardanelles to even
+commercial traffic.
+
+I cordially agree, as would, I suppose, most people, with your leading
+article of some weeks since in deprecating any crude application to the
+case of the Dardanelles and Bosporus of _dicta_ with reference to
+freedom of passage through straits connecting two open seas. It would,
+indeed, be straining what may be taken to be a general principle of
+international law to say that Turkey is by it prohibited from protecting
+her threatened capital by temporarily closing the Straits.
+
+A good deal of vague reference has, however, been made in the
+discussions which have taken place upon the subject to "Treaties" under
+which it seems to be thought that trading ships enjoy, in all
+circumstances, rights of free navigation through the Straits in question
+which they would not have possessed otherwise. I should like, therefore,
+with your permission, to state what seem to be the relevant Treaty
+provisions upon the subject, whether between the Powers constituting the
+European Concert collectively, or between Russia and Turkey as
+individual Powers.
+
+As to what may be described as the "European" Treaties, it is necessary,
+once for all, to put aside as irrelevant Art. 10 of the Treaty of Paris
+of 1856 and its annexed Convention; Art. 2 of the Treaty of London of
+1871; and the confirmatory Art. 63 of the Treaty of Berlin of 1878.
+These articles have exclusive reference to the "ancient rule of the
+Ottoman Empire," under which, so long as the Porte is at peace, no
+foreign ships of war are to be admitted into the Straits. There are,
+however, two articles, still in force, of these "European" Treaties
+which may seem to bear upon the present inquiry. By Art. 12 of the
+Treaty of Paris:--
+
+      "Free from any impediment, the commerce in the ports and
+      waters of the Black Sea shall be subject only to regulations
+      of health, Customs, and police, framed in a spirit favourable
+      to the development of commercial transactions."
+
+And by Art. 3 of the Treaty of London:--
+
+      "The Black Sea remains open, as heretofore, to the mercantile
+      marine of all nations."
+
+It is submitted that these provisions relate solely to commerce carried
+on by vessels already within the Black Sea, and contain no covenant for
+an unrestricted right of access to that sea.
+
+As between Russia and Turkey individually, Treaties which are still in
+force purport, no doubt, to give to the former a stronger claim to free
+passage through the Straits for her mercantile marine than that which
+can be supposed to be enjoyed by other Powers. By Art. 7, for instance,
+of the Treaty of Adrianople of 1829, the Porte recognises and declares
+the passage of the "Canal de Constantinople," and of the Strait of the
+Dardanelles, to be entirely free and open to Russian merchant vessels;
+and goes on to extend the same privilege to the merchant vessels of all
+Powers at peace with Turkey. Art. 24 of the Treaty of San Stefano is
+still more explicit, providing that "the Bosporus and Dardanelles shall
+remain open in time of war as in time of peace to the merchant vessels
+of neutral States arriving from or bound to Russian ports." The rest of
+the article contains a promise by the Porte never henceforth to
+establish a "fictitious blockade, at variance with the spirit of the
+Declaration of Paris"; meaning thereby such a blockade of ports on the
+Black Sea as had been enforced by Turkish ships of war stationed at the
+entrance to the Bosporus.
+
+It may well be doubted whether these articles, containing concessions
+extorted from Turkey at the end of wars in which she had been defeated,
+ought not, like so many other provisions of the Treaty of San Stefano,
+to have been abrogated by the Treaty of Berlin. They are of such a
+character that, in the struggle for existence, Turkey can hardly be
+blamed for disregarding them. As was said long ago, "Ius commerciorum
+aequum est, at hoc acquius, tuendae salutis." The imperious necessities
+of self-preservation were recognised both by Lord Morley and by Lord
+Lansdowne in the debate which took place on May 3, although Lord
+Lansdowne intimated that
+
+      "the real question, which will have to be considered sooner
+      or later, is the extent to which a belligerent Power,
+      controlling narrow waters which form a great trade avenue for
+      the commerce of the world, is justified in entirely closing
+      such an avenue in order to facilitate the hostile operations
+      in which the Power finds itself involved."
+
+It is, I think, clear that the solution of a question at once so novel
+and so delicate must be undertaken, not by any one Power, but by the
+Concert of Europe, or of the civilised world, which must devise some
+guarantee for the safety of any littoral Power which would be called
+upon in the general interest to restrict its measures of self-defence.
+In the meantime, we may surely say that the case is provided for neither
+by established international law nor by "European" Treaties; and,
+further, that the Treaties between Russia and Turkey, which do provide
+for it, are not such as it is desirable to perpetuate.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, May 22 (1912).
+
+
+THE CLOSING OF THE DARDANELLES
+
+Sir,--I am reminded by Mr. Lucien Wolf's courteous letter that I ought
+probably to have mentioned, in alluding to the Treaty of San Stefano,
+that it is doubtful whether Art. 24 of that Treaty is in force. It was
+certainly left untouched by the Treaty of Berlin, but the language of
+the relevant article (3) of the definitive Treaty of Peace of 1879 is
+somewhat obscure, nor is much light to be gained upon the point from the
+protocol of the 14th _séance_ of the Congress of Berlin, at which Art.
+24 came up for discussion.
+
+The earlier Treaties, however, which were revived beyond question by
+Art. 10 of the Treaty of 1879, grant to Russian merchant vessels full
+rights of passage between the Black Sea and the Ægean, exercisable, for
+all that appears, in time of war as well as of peace, although these
+Treaties contain no express words to that effect. Such rights, I would
+again urge, if enjoyed by one Power, should be enjoyed by all; upon
+terms to be settled, not by any pair of Powers but by the Powers
+collectively.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, June 5 (1912).
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+SECTION 3
+
+_In a Special Danger Zone?_
+
+
+THE GERMAN THREAT
+
+Sir,--It may perhaps be desirable, for the benefit of the general
+reader, to distinguish clearly between the two topics dealt with in the
+recent announcement of German naval policy.
+
+1. We find in it what may, at first sight, suggest the establishment of
+a gigantic "paper blockade," such as was proclaimed in the Berlin Decree
+of 1806, stating that "Les îles Britanniques sont déclarées en état de
+blocus." But in the new decree the term "blockade" does not occur, nor
+is there any indication of an intention to comply with the prescriptions
+of the Declaration of Paris of 1856 as to the mode in which such an
+operation must be conducted. What we really find in the announcement is
+the specification of certain large spaces of water, including the whole
+of the British Channel, within which German ships will endeavour to
+perpetrate the atrocities about to be mentioned.
+
+2. These promised, and already perpetrated, atrocities consist in the
+destruction of merchant shipping without any of those decent preliminary
+steps, for the protection of human life and neutral property, which are
+insisted on by long established rules of international law. Under these
+rules, the exercise of violence against a merchant vessel is
+permissible, in the first instance, only in case of her attempting by
+resistance or flight to frustrate the right of visit which belongs to
+every belligerent cruiser. Should she obey the cruiser's summons to
+stop, and allow its officers to come on board, they will satisfy
+themselves, by examination of her papers, and, if necessary, by further
+search, of the nationality of ship and cargo, of the destination of
+each, and of the character of the latter. They will then decide whether
+or no they should make prize of the ship, and in some cases may feel
+justified in sending a prize to the bottom, instead of taking her into
+port. Before doing so it is their bounden duty to preserve the ship
+papers, and, what is far more important, to provide for the safety of
+all on board.
+
+This procedure seems to have been followed, more or less, by the
+submarines which sank the _Durward_ in the North Sea, and several small
+vessels near the Mersey, but is obviously possible to such craft only
+under very exceptional circumstances. It was scandalously not followed
+in the cases of the _Tokomaru_, the _Ikaria_, and the hospital ship (!)
+_Asturias_, against which a submarine fired torpedoes, off Havre,
+without warning or inquiry, and, of course, regardless of the fate of
+those on board. The threat that similar methods of attack will be
+systematically employed, on a large scale, on and after the 18th inst.,
+naturally excites as much indignation among neutrals as among the Allies
+of the Entente.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, February 12 (1915).
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+SECTION 4
+
+_Aerial Warfare_
+
+    It may be desirable to supplement what is said in the following
+    letters by mentioning that the Declaration of 1899 (to remain
+    in force for five years) was largely ratified, though not by
+    Great Britain; that of 1907 (to remain in force till the
+    termination of the third Peace Conference) was ratified by
+    Great Britain and by most of the other great Powers in 1909,
+    not, however, by Germany or Austria; that aerial navigation is
+    regulated by the Acts, I & 2 Geo. 5, c. 4, and 2 & 3 Geo. 5, c.
+    22; and that an agreement upon the subject was entered into
+    between France and Germany, on July 26, 1913, by exchange of
+    notes, "en attendant la conclusion d'une convention sur cette
+    matière entre un plus grand nombre d'états" (the international
+    Conference held at Paris in 1910 had failed to agree upon the
+    terms of such a Convention); and that Art. 25 of The Hague
+    Convention of 1907, No. iv., was ratified by Great Britain, and
+    generally.
+
+
+THE DEBATE ON AERONAUTICS
+
+Sir,--It is not to be wondered at that the Chairman of Committees
+declined to allow yesterday's debate on aviation to diverge into an
+enquiry whether the Powers could be induced to prohibit, or limit, the
+dropping of high explosives from aerial machines in war time. The
+question is, however, one of great interest, and it may be desirable,
+with a view to future discussions, to state precisely, since little
+seems to be generally known upon the subject, what has already been
+attempted in this direction.
+
+In the _Règlement_ annexed to The Hague Convention of 1899, as to the
+"Laws and Customs of War on Land," Art. 23, which specifically prohibits
+certain "means of injuring the enemy," makes no mention of aerial
+methods; but Art. 25, which prohibits "the bombardment of towns,
+villages, habitations, or buildings, which are not defended," was
+strengthened, when the _Règlement_ was reissued in 1907 as an annexe to
+the, as yet not generally ratified, Hague Convention No. iv. of that
+year, by the insertion, after the word "bombardment," of the words "by
+any means whatever," with the expressed intention of including in the
+prohibition the throwing of projectiles from balloons.
+
+The Hague Convention No. ix. of 1907, also not yet generally ratified,
+purports to close a long controversy, in accordance with the view which
+you allowed me to advocate, with reference to the naval manoeuvres of
+1888, by prohibiting the "naval bombardment of ports, towns, villages,
+habitations, or buildings, which are not defended." The words "by any
+means whatever" have not been here inserted, one would incline to think
+by inadvertence, having regard to what passed in Committee, and to the
+recital of the Convention, which sets out the propriety of extending to
+naval bombardments the principles of the _Règlement_ (cited, perhaps
+again by inadvertence, as that of 1899) as to the Laws and Customs of
+War on Land.
+
+But the topic was first squarely dealt with by the first of the three
+Hague Declarations of 1899, by which the Powers agreed to prohibit, for
+five years, "the throwing of projectiles and explosives from balloons,
+or by other analogous new methods." The Declaration was signed and
+ratified by almost all the Powers concerned; not, however, by Great
+Britain.
+
+At The Hague Conference of 1907, when the Belgian delegates proposed
+that this Declaration, which had expired by efflux of time, should be
+renewed, some curious changes of opinion were found to have occurred.
+Twenty-nine Powers, of which Great Britain was one, voted for renewal,
+but eight Powers, including Germany, Spain, France, and Russia, were
+opposed to it, while seven Powers, one of which was Japan, abstained
+from voting. The Japanese delegation had previously intimated that, "in
+view of the absence of unanimity on the part of the great military
+Powers, there seemed to be no great use in binding their country as
+against certain Powers, while, as against the rest, it would still be
+necessary to study and bring to perfection this mode of making war."
+Although the Declaration, as renewed, was allowed to figure in the "Acte
+final" of the Conference of 1907, the dissent from it of several Powers
+of the first importance must render its ratification by the others
+highly improbable; nor would it seem worth while to renew, for some time
+to come, a proposal which, only two years ago, was so ill received.
+
+I may perhaps add, with reference to what was said by one of yesterday's
+speakers, that any provision on the topic under discussion would be
+quite out of place in the Geneva Convention, which deals, not with
+permissible means of inflicting injury, but exclusively with the
+treatment of those who are suffering from injuries inflicted.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, August 3 (1909).
+
+
+THE AERIAL NAVIGATION ACT
+
+PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES
+
+Sir,--The haste with which Colonel Seely's Bill, authorising resort to
+extreme measures for the prevention of aerial trespass under suspicious
+circumstances, has been passed through all its stages, was amply
+justified by the urgent need for such legislation, which Russia seems to
+have been the first to recognise. The task of those responsible for
+framing regulations for the working of the new Act will be no easy one.
+They will be brought face to face with practical difficulties, such as
+led to the adjournment of the Paris Conference of 1910.
+
+In the meantime, it may interest your readers to have some clue to what
+has taken place, with reference to the more theoretical aspects of the
+questions involved, in so competent and representative a body as the
+Institut de Droit International. The Institut has had the topic under
+consideration ever since 1900, more especially at its sessions for the
+years 1902, 1906, 1910, and 1911. In the volumes of its "Annuaire" for
+those years will be found not only the text of the resolutions adopted
+on each occasion, together with a summary account of the debates which
+preceded their adoption, but also, fully set out, the material which had
+been previously circulated for the information of members, in the shape
+of reports and counter-reports from inter-sessional committees, draft
+resolutions, and such critical observations upon these documents as had
+been received by the secretary. The special committee upon the subject,
+of which M. Fauchille is _Rapporteur_, is still sitting, and the topic
+will doubtless be further debated at the session of the Institut, which
+will this year be held at Oxford. No success has attended efforts to
+pass resolutions in favour of any interference with the employment of
+_aéronefs_ in time of war, such as was proposed by The (now discredited)
+Hague Declaration, prohibiting the throwing of projectiles and
+explosives from airships. With reference to the use of these machines in
+time of peace, the debates have all along revealed a fundamental
+divergence of opinion between the majority of the Institut and a
+minority, comprising those English members who have made known their
+views. Both parties are agreed that aerial navigation must submit to
+some restrictions, but the majority, starting from the Roman law dictum,
+"Naturali iure omnium communia sunt _aer_, aqua profluens, et mare,"
+would always presume in favour of freedom of passage. The minority, on
+the other hand, citing sometimes the old English saying, "Cuius est
+solum eius est usque ad coelum," hold that the presumption must be in
+favour of sovereignty and ownership as applicable to superimposed air
+space.
+
+It is hardly necessary to observe that neither of the maxims just
+mentioned was formulated with reference to problems which have only
+presented themselves within the last few years. The Romans, in the
+passage quoted, were thinking not of aerial space, but of the element
+which fills it. The old English lawyers were preoccupied with questions
+as to projecting roofs and overhanging boughs of trees. The problems now
+raised are admittedly incapable of solution _a priori_, but the
+difference between the two schools of thinkers is instructive, as
+bearing upon the extent to which those who belong to one or the other
+school would incline towards measures of precaution against abuses of
+the novel art. This difference was well summed up at one of our meetings
+by Professor Westlake as follows: "Conservation et passage, comment
+combiner ces deux droits? Lequel des deux est la règle? Lequel
+l'exception? Pour le Rapporteur (M. Fauchille) c'est le droit de passage
+qui prime. Pour moi c'est le droit de conservation."
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, February 15 (1913).
+
+
+SOVEREIGNTY OVER THE AIR
+
+Sir,--Mr. Arthur Cohen has done good service by explaining that Great
+Britain has practically asserted the right of a State to absolute
+control of the airspace vertically above its territory. I may, however,
+perhaps be permitted to remark that he seems to have been misinformed
+when he states that the Institute of International Law has arrived at no
+decision upon the subject. The facts are as follows: The problems
+presented by the new art of aerostation have been under the
+consideration of the Institute since 1900, producing a large literature
+of reports, counter-reports, observations, and draft rules, to debates
+upon which no fewer than four sittings were devoted at the Madrid
+meeting in 1911. Wide differences of opinion then disclosed themselves
+as to territorial rights over the air, the radical opposition being
+between those members who, with M. Fauchille, the Reporter of the
+Committee, would presume in favour of freedom of aerial navigation,
+subject, as they would admit, to some measures of territorial
+precaution, and those who, like the present writer ("il se proclame
+opposé au principe de la liberté de la navigation aérienne, et s'en
+tiendrait[A] plutôt au principe _cuius est solum, huius est usque ad
+coelum_, en y apportant au besoin quelques restrictions," "Annuaire," p.
+821), would subject all aerial access to the discretion of the
+territorial Power.
+
+The discussion took place upon certain _bases_, and No. 3 of these was
+ultimately adopted, though only by 21 against 10 votes, to the following
+effect: "La circulation aérienne internationale est libre, sauf le droit
+pour les états sous-jacents de prendre certaines mesures à déterminer,
+en vue de leur sécurité et de celle des personnes et des biens de leur
+territoire."
+
+The Institut then proceeded to deal with _bases_ relating to a time of
+war, but was unable to make much progress with them in the time
+available. The debate upon the "Régime juridique des aérostats" was not
+resumed at Christiania in 1911, nor is it likely to be at Oxford "in the
+autumn of the present year," as Mr. Cohen has been led to suppose. Other
+arrangements were found to be necessary, at a meeting which took place a
+week ago between myself and the other members of our _bureau_.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, May 30 (1913).
+
+
+ATTACK FROM THE AIR
+
+THE ENFORCEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
+
+Sir,--In his interesting and important address at the Royal United
+Service Institution, Colonel Jackson inquired: "Can any student of
+international law tell us definitely that such a thing as aerial attack
+on London is outside the rules; and, further, that there exists an
+authority by which the rules can be enforced?" As one of the students to
+whom the Colonel appeals I should be glad to be allowed to reply to the
+first of his questions.
+
+The "Geneva Convention" mentioned in the address has, of course, no
+bearing upon aerial dangers. The answer to the question is contained in
+the, now generally ratified, Hague Convention No. iv. of 1907. Art. 25
+of the regulations annexed to this Convention runs as follows:
+
+      "It is forbidden to attack or to bombard _by any means
+      whatever (par quelque moyen que ce soit)_ towns, villages,
+      habitations, or buildings which are not defended."
+
+It clearly appears from the "Actes de la Conférence," e.g. _T._ i.,
+pp. 106, 109, that the words which I have italicised were inserted in
+the article, deliberately and after considerable discussion, in order to
+render illegal any attack from the air upon undefended localities; among
+which I conceive that London would unquestionably be included.
+
+I cannot venture to ask the hospitality of your columns for an adequate
+discussion of the gallant officer's second question, as to the binding
+force attributable to international law. Upon this I may, however,
+perhaps venture to refer him to some brief remarks, addressed to you a
+good many years ago, and now to be found at pp. 101 and 105 of the new
+edition of my "Letters to _The Times_ upon War and Neutrality
+(1881-1918)."
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, April 24 (1914).
+
+
+ATTACK FROM THE AIR
+
+THE RULES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
+
+Sir,--In reply to Colonel Jackson's inquiry as to any rule of
+international law bearing upon aerial attack upon London, I referred him
+to the, now generally accepted, prohibition of the "bombardment, _by any
+means whatever_, of towns, &c., which are not defended." This rule has
+been growing into its present form ever since the Brussels Conference of
+1874. The words italicised were added to it in 1907, to show that it
+applies to the action of _aéronefs_ as well as to that of land
+batteries. It clearly prohibits any wanton bombardment, undertaken with
+no distinctly military object in view, and the prohibition is much more
+sweeping, for reasons not far to seek, than that imposed by Convention
+No. ix. of 1907 upon the treatment of coast towns by hostile fleets.
+
+So far good; but further questions arise, as to which no diplomatically
+authoritative answers are as yet available; and I, for one, am not wise
+above that which is written. One asks, for instance, what places are
+_prima facie_ "undefended." Can a "great centre of population" claim
+this character, although it contains barracks, stores, and bodies of
+troops? For the affirmative I can vouch only the authority of the
+Institut de Droit International, which in 1896, in the course of the
+discussion of a draft prepared by General Den Beer Pourtugael and
+myself, adopted a statement to that effect. A different view seems to be
+taken in the German _Kriegsbrauch_, p. 22. One also asks: Under what
+circumstances does a place, _prima facie_, "undefended," cease to
+possess that character? Doubtless so soon as access to it is forcibly
+denied to the land forces of the enemy; hardly, to borrow an
+illustration from Colonel Jackson's letter of Thursday last, should the
+place merely decline to submit to the dictation of two men in an
+aeroplane.
+
+I read with great pleasure the colonel's warning, addressed to the
+United Service Institution, and am as little desirous as he is that
+London should rely for protection upon The Hague article, ambiguous as I
+have confessed it to be; trusting, indeed, that our capital may be
+enabled so to act at once in case of danger as wholly to forfeit such
+claim as it may in ordinary times possess to be considered an
+"undefended" town. Let the principle involved in Art. 25 be carried into
+much further detail, should that be found feasible, but, in the
+meantime, let us not for a moment relax our preparation of vertical
+firing guns and defensive aeroplanes.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, May 2 (1914).
+
+
+    The war of 1914 has definitely established the employment of
+    aircraft for hostile purposes, and, as evidenced by the
+    reception given by belligerents to neutral protests, the
+    sovereignty of a state over its superincumbent air-spaces.
+
+    On the bombardment of undefended places, _cf. supra_, pp. 30,
+    62, 67, 68; _infra_, pp. 97, 109, 112-123.
+
+    On the authority of International Law, _supra_, pp. 25, 66, 67;
+    _infra_, pp. 77, 114, 115, 137, 169.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+SECTION 5
+
+_Submarines_
+
+
+GERMANY AND THE HAGUE
+
+Sir,--One excuse for German atrocities put forward, as you report, in
+the _Kolnische Zeitung_, ought probably not to pass unnoticed, denying,
+as it does, any binding authority to the restrictions imposed upon the
+conduct of warfare, on land or at sea, by The Hague Conventions of 1907.
+It is true that each of these Conventions contains an article to the
+effect that its provisions "are applicable only between the contracting
+Powers, and only if all the belligerents are parties to the Convention."
+It is also true that three of the belligerents in the world-war now
+raging--namely, Serbia, Montenegro, and, recently, Turkey--although they
+have (through their delegates) signed these Conventions, have not yet
+ratified them. Therefore, urges the _Zeitung_, the Conventions are, for
+present purposes, waste paper. The argument is as technically correct as
+its application would be unreasonable; and I should like to recall the
+fact that, in the important prize case of the _Möwe_, Sir Samuel Evans,
+in a considered judgment, pointed out the undesirability of refusing
+application to the maritime conventions because they had not been
+ratified by Montenegro, which has no navy, or by Serbia, which has no
+seaboard; and accordingly, even after Turkey, which also has not
+ratified, had become a belligerent, declined to deprive a German
+shipowner of an indulgence to which he was entitled under the Sixth
+Hague Convention.
+
+Admiral von Tirpitz was perhaps not serious when he intimated to the
+representative of the United Press of America that German submarines
+might be instructed to torpedo all trading vessels of the Allies which
+approach the British coasts. The first duty of a ship of war which
+proposes to sink an enemy vessel is admittedly, before so doing, to
+provide for the safety of all its occupants, which (except in certain
+rare eventualities) can only be secured by their being taken on board of
+the warship. A submarine has obviously no space to spare for such an
+addition to its own staff.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, December 26 (1914).
+
+
+    The charitable view taken in the last paragraph has, of course,
+    not been justified.
+
+    For the _Möwe_, see 2 Lloyd, 70. On the restrictive article in
+    The Hague Convention, _cf. passim_.
+
+
+"THE PIRATES"
+
+Sir,--Would it not be desirable, in discussing the execrable tactics of
+the German submarines, to abandon the employment of the terms "piracy"
+and "murder," unless with a distinct understanding that they are used
+merely as terms of abuse?
+
+A ship is regarded by international law as "piratical" only if, upon the
+high seas, she either attacks other vessels, without being commissioned
+by any State so to do (_nullius Principis auctoritate_, as Bynkershoek
+puts it), or wrongfully displaces the authority of her own commander.
+The essence of the offence is absence of authority, although certain
+countries, for their own purposes, have, by treaty or legislation, given
+a wider meaning to the term, e.g., by applying it to the slave-trade.
+"Murder" is such slaying as is forbidden by the national law of the
+country which takes cognizance of it.
+
+In ordering the conduct of which we complain, Germany commits an
+atrocious crime against humanity and public law; but those who, being
+duly commissioned, carry out her orders, are neither pirates nor
+murderers. The question of the treatment appropriate to such persons,
+when they fall into our hands, is a new one, needing careful
+consideration. In any case, it is not for us to rival the barbarism of
+their Government by allowing them to drown.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, March 13 (1915)
+
+
+SUBMARINE CREWS
+
+Sir,--My letter in _The Times_ of March 15 with reference to the conduct
+of certain of the German submarines has been followed by a good many
+other letters upon the same subject. Some of your correspondents have
+travelled far from the question at issue into the general question of
+permissible reprisals, into which I have no intention of following them.
+But others, by exhibiting what I may venture to describe as an
+_ignoratio elenchi_, have made it desirable to recall attention to the
+specific purport of my former letter. It was to the effect--(1) that the
+acts of those who, in pursuance of a Government commission, sink
+merchant vessels without warning are not "piracy," the essence of that
+offence at international law being that it is committed under no
+recognised authority; and that neither is it "murder" under English law;
+(2) that the question of the treatment appropriate to the perpetrators
+of such acts, even under the orders of their Government, is a new one,
+needing careful consideration. I was, of course, far from stating, as a
+general rule, that Government authority exempts all who act under it
+from penal consequences. The long-established treatment of spies is
+sufficient proof to the contrary.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, March 22 (1915).
+
+
+MR. WILSON'S NOTE
+
+Sir,--I may perhaps be permitted to endorse every word of the high
+praise bestowed in your leading article of this morning upon the Note
+addressed to Germany by the Government of the United States. The
+frequent mentions which it contains of "American ships," "American
+citizens," and the like, were, no doubt, natural and necessary, as
+establishing the _locus standi_ of that Government in the controversy
+which it is carrying on. But we find also in the Note matters of even
+more transcendent interest, relating to the hitherto universally
+accepted doctrines of international law, applicable to the treatment of
+enemy as well as of neutral vessels.
+
+It may suffice to cite the paragraph which assumes as indisputable
+
+      "the rule that the lives of non-combatants, whether they be
+      of neutral citizenship or citizens of one of the nations at
+      war, cannot lawfully or rightfully be put in jeopardy by the
+      capture or destruction of unarmed merchantmen,"
+
+as also
+
+      "the obligation to take the usual precaution of visit and
+      search to ascertain whether a suspected merchantman is in
+      fact of belligerent nationality, or is in fact carrying
+      contraband under a neutral flag."
+
+
+[I assume that the word "unarmed" here does not exclude the case of a
+vessel carrying arms solely for defence.]
+
+The Note also recognises, what you some time ago allowed me to point
+out,
+
+      "the practical impossibility of employing submarines in the
+      destruction of commerce without disregarding those rules of
+      fairness, reason, justice, and humanity which modern opinion
+      regards as imperative."
+
+Adding:--
+
+      "It is practically impossible for them to make a prize of
+      her, and if they cannot put a prize crew on board, they
+      cannot sink her without leaving her crew and all on board her
+      to the mercy of the sea in her small boats."
+
+Nothing could be more satisfactory than the views thus authoritatively
+put forth, first as to the applicable law, and secondly as to the means
+by which its prescriptions can be carried out.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Brighton, May 15 (1915).
+
+
+    _Cf. supra_, p. 70.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+SECTION 6
+
+_Lawful Belligerents_
+
+
+GUERILLA WARFARE
+
+Sir,--When Mr. Balfour last night quoted certain articles of the
+"Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the
+Field" with reference to guerilla warfare, some observations were made,
+and questions put, upon which you will perhaps allow me to say a word or
+two.
+
+1. Mr. Healy seemed to think that something turned upon the date (May,
+1898) at which these articles were promulgated. In point of fact they
+were a mere reissue of articles drawn by the well-known jurist Francis
+Lieber, and, after revision by a military board, issued in April, 1868
+by President Lincoln.
+
+2. To Mr. Morley's enquiry, "Have we no rules of our own?" the answer
+must be in the negative. The traditional policy of our War Office has
+been to "trust to the good sense of the British officer." This policy,
+though surprisingly justified by results, is so opposed to modern
+practice and opinion that, as far back as 1878-80, I endeavoured,
+without success, to induce the Office to issue to the Army some
+authoritative, though simple, body of instructions such as have been
+issued on the Continent of Europe and in America. The War Office was,
+however, content to include in its "Manual of Military Law," published
+in 1888, a chapter which is avowedly unauthoritative, and expressly
+stated to contain only "the opinions of the compiler, as drawn from the
+authorities cited."
+
+3. The answer to Sir William Harcourt's unanswered question, "Were there
+no rules settled at the Hague?" must be as follows. The Hague Convention
+of 1899, upon "the laws and customs of warfare," ratified by this
+country on September 4 last, binds the contracting parties to give to
+their respective armies instructions in conformity with the _Règlement_
+annexed to the Convention. This _Règlement_, which is substantially a
+reproduction of the unratified _projet_ of the Brussels Conference of
+1874, does deal, in Arts. 1-3, with guerilla warfare. It is no doubt
+highly desirable that, as soon as may be, the drafting of rules in
+accordance with the _Règlement_ should be seriously taken in hand, our
+Government having now abandoned its _non possumus_ attitude in the
+matter. It will, however, be found to be the case, as was pointed out by
+Mr. Balfour, that the sharp distinction between combatants and
+non-combatants contemplated by the ordinary laws of war is inapplicable
+(without the exercise of undue severity) to operations such as those now
+being carried out in South Africa.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, December 7 (1900).
+
+
+    "Lieber's Instructions," issued in 1863 and reissued in 1898,
+    will doubtless be superseded, or modified, in consequence of
+    the United States having, on April 9, 1902, ratified the
+    Convention of 1899, and on March 10, 1908, that of 1907, as to
+    the Laws and Customs of War on Land.
+
+    The answer to Mr. Morley's enquiry in 1900 would not now be in
+    the negative. The present writer's representations resulted in
+    Mr. Brodrick, when Secretary for War, commissioning him to
+    prepare a Handbook of the _Laws and Customs of War on Land_,
+    which was issued to the Army by authority in 1904. On the
+    instructions issued by other National Governments, see the
+    author's _Laws of War on Land_, 1908, pp. 71-73.
+
+    The answer, given in the letter, to Sir William Harcourt's
+    question must now be supplemented by a reference to the
+    Handbook above mentioned as having contained rules founded upon
+    the _Règlement_ annexed to the Convention of 1899, and by a
+    statement that that Convention, with its _Règlement_, is now
+    superseded by Conventions No. iv. (with its _Règlement_) and
+    No. v. of 1907, of which account has been taken in a new
+    Handbook upon _Land Warfare_, issued by the War Office in 1913.
+
+    As to what is required from a lawful belligerent, see Arts. 1
+    and 2 of the _Règlement_ of 1899, practically repeated in that
+    of 1907. The substance of Art. 1 is set out in the letter which
+    follows.
+
+    Art. 2 grants some indulgence to "the population of a territory
+    which has not been occupied who, on the approach of the enemy,
+    spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading troops,
+    without having had time to organise themselves in accordance
+    with Art. 1." _Cf. infra_, pp. 76, 79.
+
+
+THE RUSSIAN USE OF CHINESE CLOTHING
+
+Sir,--If Russian troops have actually attacked while disguised in
+Chinese costume, they have certainly violated the laws of war. It may,
+however, be worth while, to point out that the case is not covered, as
+might be inferred from the telegram forwarded to you from Tokio on
+Wednesday last, by the text of Art. 23 (_f_) of the _Règlement_ annexed
+to The Hague Convention "on the laws and customs of war on land." This
+article merely prohibits "making improper use of the flag of truce, of
+the national flag or the military distinguishing marks and the uniform
+of the enemy, as well as of the distinguishing signs of the Geneva
+Convention."
+
+Art. 1 of the _Règlement_ is more nearly in point, insisting, as it
+does, that even bodies not belonging to the regular army, which, it is
+assumed, would be in uniform (except in the case of a hasty rising to
+resist invasion), shall, in order to be treated as "lawful
+belligerents," satisfy the following requirements, viz.:--
+
+      "(1) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his
+      subordinates;
+
+      "(2) That of having a distinctive mark, recognisable at a
+      distance;
+
+      "(3) That of carrying their arms openly; and
+
+      "(4) That of conducting their operations in accordance with
+      the laws and customs of war."
+
+The fact that, in special circumstances, as in the Boer war, marks in
+the nature of uniform have not been insisted upon, has, of course, no
+bearing upon the complaint now made by the Japanese Government.
+
+All signatories of The Hague Convention are bound to issue to their
+troops instructions in conformity with the _Règlement_ annexed to it.
+The only countries which, so far as I am aware, have as yet fulfilled
+their obligations in this respect are Italy, which has circulated the
+French text of the _Règlement_ without comment; Russia, which has
+prepared a little pamphlet of sixteen pages for the use of its armies in
+the Far East; and Great Britain, which has issued a Handbook, containing
+explanatory and supplementary matter, besides the text of the relevant
+diplomatic Acts.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, October 21 (1904).
+
+
+THE RIGHTS OF ARMED CIVILIANS
+
+Sir,--It is interesting to be reminded by Sir Edward Ridley of the view
+taken by Sir Walter Scott of the right and duty of civilians to defend
+themselves against an invading enemy. International law is, however,
+made neither by the ruling of an "impartial historian," on the one hand,
+nor by the _ipse dixit_ of an Emperor, on the other.
+
+In point of fact, the question raised by Sir Edward is not an open one,
+and, even in our own favoured country, it is most desirable that every
+one should know exactly how matters stand. The universally accepted
+rules as to the persons who alone can claim to act with impunity as
+belligerents are set forth in that well-known "scrap of paper" The Hague
+Convention No. iv. of 1907; to the effect that members of "an army" (in
+which term militia and bodies of volunteers are included) must (1) be
+responsibly commanded, (2) bear distinctive marks, visible at a
+distance, (3) carry their arms openly, and (4) conform to the laws of
+war. By way of concession, inhabitants of a district not yet "occupied"
+who spontaneously rise to resist invasion, without having had time to
+become organised, will be privileged if they conform to requirements (3)
+and (4). These rules are practically a republication of those of The
+Hague Convention of 1899, which again were founded upon the
+recommendations of the Brussels Conference of 1874, although, at the
+Conference, Baron Lambermont regretted that "si les citoyens doivent
+être conduits au supplice pour avoir tenté de défendre leur pays, au
+péril de leur vie, ils trouvent inscrit, sur le poteau au pied duquel
+ils seront fusillés, l'article d'un Traité signé par leur propre
+gouvernement qui d'avance les condamnait à mort."
+
+_An Englishman's Home_ was a play accurately representing the accepted
+practice, shocking as it must be. I remember the strength of an epithet
+which was launched from the gallery at the German officer on his
+ordering the shooting of the offending householder. It may be hardly
+necessary to add that nothing in international usage justifies execution
+of innocent wives and children.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, September 17 (1914).
+
+
+    This letter was, it seems, perverted in the _Kreuz Zeitung_.
+
+
+CIVILIANS IN WARFARE
+
+THE RIGHT TO TAKE UP ARMS
+
+Sir,--I have read with some surprise so much of Sir Ronald Ross's letter
+of to-day as states that "the issue still remains dark" as to the right
+of civilians to bear arms in case of invasion. It has long been settled
+that non-molestation of civilians by an invader is only possible upon
+the understanding that they abstain from acts of violence against him.
+Modern written international law has defined, with increasing
+liberality, by the draft Declaration of 1874 and the Conventions of 1899
+and 1907, the persons who will be treated as lawful belligerents. Art. 1
+of The Hague Regulations of 1907 recognises as such, not only the
+regular army, but also militia and volunteers. Art. 2 grants indulgence
+to a _levée en masse_ of "la population" (officially mistranslated "the
+inhabitants") of a territory not yet occupied. Art. 3, also cited by Sir
+Ronald, has no bearing upon the question.
+
+The rules are, I submit, as clear as they could well be made, and are
+decisive against the legality of resistance by individual civilians, the
+sad, but inevitable consequence of which was, as I pointed out in _The
+Times_ of September 19 last, truthfully represented on the stage in _An
+Englishman's Home_.
+
+In the same letter I wrote that "even in our own favoured country it is
+most desirable that every one should know exactly how matters stand."
+There are, however, obvious objections, possibly not insuperable, to
+this result being brought about, as is proposed by Sir Ronald Ross, by
+Government action.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, October 26 (1914).
+
+
+CIVILIANS AND A RAID
+
+Sir,--It is satisfactory to learn, from Mr. McKenna's answer to a
+question last night, that the duty of the civilian population, at any
+rate in certain counties, is engaging the attention of Government. I
+confess, however, to having read with surprise Mr. Tennant's
+announcement that "it was provided by The Hague Convention that the
+wearing of a brassard ensured that the wearer would be regarded as a
+belligerent." It ought surely to be now generally known that, among the
+four conditions imposed by the Convention upon Militia and bodies of
+Volunteers, in order to their being treated as belligerents, the third
+is "that they shall bear a distinctive mark, fixed and recognisable at a
+distance." Whether an enemy would accept the mere wearing of a brassard
+as fulfilling this condition is perhaps an open question upon which some
+light may be thrown by the controversies of 1871 with reference to
+_francs-tireurs_.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, November 24 (1914).
+
+
+MISS CAVELL'S CASE
+
+Sir,--The world-wide abhorrence of the execution of Miss Cavell,
+aggravated as it was by the indecent and stealthy haste with which it
+was carried out, is in no need of enhancement by questionable arguments,
+such as, I venture to say, are those addressed to you by Sir James
+Swettenham.
+
+It is, of course, the case that Germany is in Belgium only as the result
+of her deliberate violation of solemnly contracted treaties, but she is
+in military "occupation" of the territory. From such "occupation" it
+cannot be disputed that there flow certain rights of self-defence. No
+one, for instance, would have complained of her stern repression of
+civilian attacks upon her troops, so long as it was confined to actual
+offenders. The passages quoted by Sir James from Hague Convention v.,
+and from the _Kriegsbrauch_, relate entirely to the rights and duties of
+Governments, and have no bearing upon the tragical abuse of jurisdiction
+which is occupying the minds of all of us.
+
+May I take this opportunity of calling attention to the fresh evidence
+afforded by the new Order in Council of our good fortune in not being
+bound by the Declaration of London, which erroneously professed to
+"correspond in substance with the generally recognised principles of
+International Law"? Is it too late, even now, to announce, by a
+comprehensive Order in Council, any relaxations which we and our Allies
+think proper to make of well-established rules of Prize Law, without any
+reference to the more and more discredited provisions of the
+Declaration, the partial and provisional adoption of which seems, at the
+outbreak of the war, to have been thought likely to save trouble?
+
+Your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, October 26 (1915).
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+SECTION 7
+
+_Privateering_
+
+    The three letters which immediately follow were written to
+    point out that neither belligerent in the war of 1898 was under
+    any obligation not to employ privateers. Within, however, a few
+    days after the date of the second of these letters, both the
+    United States and Spain, though both still to be reckoned among
+    the few powers which had not acceded to the Declaration of
+    Paris, announced their intention to conduct the war in
+    accordance with the rules laid down by the Declaration.
+
+    Art. 3 of the Spanish Royal Decree of April 23 was to the
+    effect that "notwithstanding that Spain is not bound by the
+    Declaration signed in Paris on April 16, 1856, as she expressly
+    stated her wish not to adhere to it, my Government, guided by
+    the principles of international law, intends to observe, and
+    hereby orders that the following regulations for maritime law
+    be observed," viz. Arts. 2, 3, and 4 of the Declaration,
+    after setting out which, the Decree proceeds to state that the
+    Government, while maintaining "their right to issue letters of
+    marque, ... will organise, for the present, a service of
+    auxiliary cruisers ... subject to the statutes and jurisdiction
+    of the Navy."
+
+    The Proclamation of the President of the United States of April
+    26 recited the desirability of the war being "conducted upon
+    principles in harmony with the present views of nations, and
+    sanctioned by their recent practice," and that it "has already
+    been announced that the policy of the Government will not be to
+    resort to privateering, but to adhere to the rules of the
+    Declaration of Paris," and goes on to adopt rules 2, 3, and 4
+    of the Declaration.
+
+    Ten years afterwards, viz. on January 18, 1908, Spain
+    signified "her entire and definitive adhesion to the four
+    clauses contained in the Declaration," undertaking scrupulously
+    to conduct herself accordingly. Mexico followed suit on
+    February 13, 1909. The United States are therefore now the only
+    important Power which has not formally bound itself not to
+    employ privateers. It seems unlikely that privateers, in the
+    old sense of the term, will be much heard of in the future,
+    though many questions may arise as to "volunteer navies" and
+    subsidised liners, such as those touched upon in the last
+    section, with reference to captures made by the _Malacca_;
+    possibly also as to ships "converted" on the High Seas.
+
+
+OUR MERCANTILE MARINE IN WAR TIME
+
+Sir,--There can be no doubt that serious loss would be occasioned to
+British commerce by a war between the United States and Spain in which
+either of those Powers should exercise its right of employing privateers
+or of confiscating enemy goods in neutral bottoms.
+
+Before, however, adopting the measures recommended, with a view to the
+prevention of this loss, by Sir George Baden-Powell in your issue of
+this morning, it would be desirable to enquire how far they would be in
+accordance with international law, and what would be the net amount of
+the relief which they would afford.
+
+It is hardly necessary to say that non-compliance with the provisions of
+the Declaration of Paris by a non-signatory carries with it none of the
+consequences of a breach of the law of nations. The framers of that
+somewhat hastily conceived attempt to engraft a paper amendment upon the
+slowly matured product of oecumenical opinion, far from professing to
+make general law, expressly state that the Declaration "shall not be
+binding except upon those Powers who have acceded, or shall accede, to
+it." As regards Spain and the United States the Declaration is _res
+inter alios acta_.
+
+It follows that, in recommending that any action taken by privateers
+against British vessels should be treated as an act of piracy, Sir
+George Baden-Powell is advocating an inadmissible atrocity, which
+derives no countenance from the view theoretically maintained by the
+United States, at the outset of the Civil War, of the illegality of
+commissions granted by the Southern Confederation. His recommendation
+that our ports should be "closed" to privateers is not very
+intelligible. Privateers would, of course, be placed under the
+restrictions which were imposed in 1870, in accordance with Lord
+Granville's instructions, even on the men-of-war of belligerents. They
+would be forbidden to bring in prizes, to stay more than twenty-four
+hours, to leave within twenty-four hours of the start of a ship of the
+other belligerent, to take more coal than enough to carry them to the
+nearest home port, and to take any further supply of coal within three
+months. We might, no doubt, carry discouragement of privateers by so
+much further as to make refusal of coal absolute in their case, but
+hardly so far as to deny entry to them under stress of weather.
+
+The difficulties in the way of accepting Sir G. Baden-Powell's other
+suggestion are of a different order. Although we could not complain of
+the confiscation by either of the supposed belligerents of enemy
+property found in British vessels, as being a violation of international
+duty, we might, at our own proper peril, announce that we should treat
+such confiscation as "an act of war." International law has long
+abandoned the attempt to define a "just cause of war." That must be left
+to the appreciation of the nations concerned. So to announce would be,
+in effect, to say: "Although by acting as you propose you would violate
+no rule, yet the consequences would be so injurious to me that I should
+throw my sword into the opposite scale." We should be acting in the
+spirit of the "Armed Neutralities" of 1780 and 1800. The expediency of
+so doing depends, first, upon the extent to which the success of our
+action would obviate the mischief against which it would be directed;
+and, secondly, upon the likelihood that the benefit which could be
+obtained only by imposing a new rule of international law _in invitos_
+would counterbalance the odium incurred by its imposition. On the former
+question it may be worth while to remind the mercantile community that,
+even under the Declaration of Paris, neutral trade must inevitably be
+put to much inconvenience. Any merchant vessel may be stopped with a
+view to the verification of her national character, of which the flag is
+no conclusive evidence. She is further liable to be visited and searched
+on suspicion of being engaged in the carriage of contraband, or of enemy
+military persons, or of despatches, or in running a blockade. Should the
+commander of the visiting cruiser "have probable cause" for suspecting
+any of these things, though the vessel is in fact innocent of them, he
+is justified in putting a prize crew on board and sending her into port,
+with a view to the institution of proceedings against her in a prize
+Court. A non-signatory of the Declaration of Paris may investigate and
+penalise, in addition to the above-mentioned list of offences, the
+carriage of enemy goods. This is, no doubt, by far the most important
+branch of the trade which is carried on for belligerents by neutrals,
+but it must not be forgotten that even were this branch of trade
+universally indulged, in accordance with the Declaration of Paris
+neutral commerce would still remain liable to infinite annoyance from
+visit and search, with its possible sequel in a prize Court.
+
+The question of the balance between benefit to be gained and odium to be
+incurred by insisting upon freedom to carry the goods of belligerents I
+leave to the politicians.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+The Athenæum, April 16 (1898).
+
+
+OUR MERCANTILE MARINE IN WAR TIME
+
+Sir,--To-day's debate should throw some light upon the views of the
+Government, both as to existing rules of international law and as to the
+policy demanded by the interests of British trade. It is, however,
+possible that the Government may decline to anticipate the terms of the
+Declaration of Neutrality which they may too probably find themselves
+obliged to issue in the course of the next few days, and it is not
+unlikely that the law officers may decline to advise shipowners upon
+questions to which authoritative replies can be given only with
+reference to concrete cases by a prize Court.
+
+You may perhaps, therefore, allow me in the meantime to supplement my
+former letter by a few remarks, partly suggested by what has since been
+written upon the subject.
+
+It is really too clear for argument that privateers are not, and cannot
+be treated as, pirates.
+
+Sir George Baden-Powell still fails to see that the Declaration of Paris
+was not a piece of legislation, but a contract, producing no effect upon
+the rights and duties of nations which were not parties to it. We did
+not thereby, as he supposes, "decline to recognise private vessels of
+war as competent to use force on neutral merchantmen." We merely bound
+ourselves not to use such vessels for such a purpose. Sir George is
+still unable to discover for privateers any other category than the
+"_status_ of pirate." He admits that it would not be necessary for their
+benefit to resort to "the universal use of the fore-yard-arm." Let me
+assure him that the bearer of a United States private commission of war
+would run no risk even of being hanged at Newgate. President Lincoln, it
+is true, at the outset of the Civil War, threatened to treat as pirates
+vessels operating under the "pretended authority" of the rebel States;
+but he was speedily instructed by his own law Courts--e.g. in the
+_Savannah_ and in the _Golden Rocket_ (insurance) cases--that even such
+vessels were not pirates _iure gentium_. It is also tolerably
+self-evident that we cannot absolutely "close" our ports to any class of
+vessels. There is no inconsistency here between my friend Sir Sherston
+Baker and myself. We can discourage access, and of course, by refusal of
+coal, render egress impossible for privateers. Mr. Coltman would
+apparently be inclined to carry this policy so far that he would disarm
+and intern even belligerent ships of war which should visit our ports: a
+somewhat hazardous innovation, one would think.
+
+It is quite possible that the question of privateering may not become a
+practical one during the approaching war. Both parties may expressly
+renounce the practice, or they may follow the example of Prussia in
+1870, and Russia at a later date, in commissioning fast liners under the
+command of naval officers--a practice, by the by, which is not, as Sir
+George seems to think, "right in the teeth of the Declaration of Paris."
+See Lord Granville's despatch in 1870.
+
+On Sir George's proposals with reference to the carriage of enemy goods,
+little more need be said, except to deprecate arguments founded upon the
+metaphorical statement that "a vessel is part of the territory covered
+by her flag," a statement which Lord Stowell found it necessary to meet
+by the assertion that a ship is a "mere movable." There can be no
+possible doubt of the right, under international law, of Spain and the
+United States to visit and search neutral ships carrying enemy's goods,
+and to confiscate such goods when found. They may also visit and search
+on many other grounds, and the question (one of policy) is whether,
+rather than permit this addition to the list, we choose to take a step
+which would practically make us belligerent. This question also, it may
+be hoped, will not press for solution.
+
+In any case, let me express my cordial concurrence with your hope that,
+when hostilities are over, some really universal and lasting agreement
+may be arrived at with reference to the matters dealt with, as I venture
+to think prematurely, by the Declaration of Paris. A reform of maritime
+law to which the United States are not a party is of little worth. That
+search for contraband of war can ever be suppressed I do not believe,
+and fear that it may be many years before divergent national interests
+can be so far reconciled as to secure an agreement as to the list of
+contraband articles. In the meantime this country is unfortunately a
+party to that astonishing piece of draftsmanship, the "three rules" of
+the Treaty of Washington, to which less reference than might have been
+expected has been made in recent discussions. The ambiguities of this
+document, which have prevented it from ever being, as was intended,
+brought to the notice of the other Powers, with a view to their
+acceptance of it, are such that, its redrafting, or, better still, its
+cancellation, should be the first care of both contracting parties when
+the wished for congress shall take place.
+
+May I add that no serious student of international law is likely either
+to overrate the authority which it most beneficially exercises, or to
+conceive of it as an unalterable body of theory.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Brighton, April 21 (1898).
+
+
+OUR MERCANTILE MARINE IN WAR
+
+Sir,--Let me assure Sir George Baden-Powell that if, as he seems to
+think, I have been unsuccessful in grasping the meaning of his very
+interesting letters, it has not been from neglect to study them with the
+attention which is due to anything which he may write. How privateering,
+previously innocent, can have become piratical, _i.e._ an offence,
+everywhere justiciable, against the Law of Nations, if the Declaration
+of Paris was not in the nature of a piece of legislation, I confess
+myself unable to understand; but have no wish to repeat the remarks
+which you have already allowed me to make upon the subject.
+
+I shall, however, be glad at once to remove the impression suggested by
+Sir George's letter of this morning, that Art. 7 of the Spanish Decree
+of April 24 has any bearing upon the legitimacy of privateering
+generally. The article in question (following, by the by, the very
+questionable precedent of a notification issued by Admiral Baudin,
+during the war between France and Mexico in 1889) merely threatens with
+punishment neutrals who may accept letters of marque from a belligerent
+Government.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, April 27 (1898).
+
+
+THE DECLARATION OF PARIS
+
+Sir,--There is really no question at issue between your two
+correspondents Mr. Gibson Bowles and "Anglo-Saxon" as to the attitude of
+the United States towards the Declaration of Paris.
+
+Mr. Bowles rightly maintains that the United States has not acceded to
+the Declaration as a whole, or to its second article, which exempts from
+capture enemy property in neutral ships. He means, of course, that
+neither the whole nor any part of that Declaration has been ratified by
+the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. The whole
+contains, indeed, an article on privateering, to which, as it stands,
+the United States have always objected, and no part of the Declaration
+can be accepted separately.
+
+"Anglo-Saxon," on the other hand, is equally justified in asserting that
+the "officially-recorded policy" of the States, _i.e._ of the Executive,
+is in accordance with Art. 2 of the Declaration. This policy has been
+consistently followed for more than half a century. Its strongest
+expression is perhaps to be found in the President's Proclamation of
+April 26, 1898, in which, after reciting that it being desirable that
+the war with Spain "should be conducted upon principles in harmony with
+the present views of nations and sanctioned by their recent practice, it
+has already been announced that the policy of the Government will not be
+to resort to privateering, but to adhere to the rules for the
+Declaration of Paris," he goes on to "declare and proclaim" the three
+other articles of the Declaration. The rule of Art. 2, as to exemption
+of enemy goods in neutral ships, was embodied in Art. 19 of the Naval
+War Code of 1900 (withdrawn in 1904, for reasons not affecting the
+article in question), and reappears in Art. 17, amended only by the
+addition of a few words relating to "hostile assistance" in the draft
+Code which the United States delegates to the Conferences of 1907 and
+1908 were instructed to bring forward "with the suggested changes, and
+such further changes as may be made necessary by other agreements
+reached at the Conference, as a tentative formulation of the rules which
+should be considered." (My quotation is from the instructions as
+originally issued in English.) Such changes as have been made in the
+Code are due to discussions which have taken place between high naval
+and legal authorities at the Naval War College. I do not know whether
+the annual reports of these discussions, with which I am kindly
+supplied, are generally accessible, but would refer, especially with
+reference to the Declaration of Paris, to the volumes for 1904 and 1906.
+
+It can hardly be necessary to add that no acts of the Executive, such as
+the Proclamation of 1898, the order putting in force the Code of 1900,
+or the instructions to delegates in 1907 and 1909, amount to anything
+like a ratification of the Declaration in the manner prescribed by the
+Constitution of the United States.
+
+I have the honour to be, Sir,
+Your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, January 4 (1911).
+
+
+THE DECLARATION OF PARIS
+
+Sir,--Mr. Gibson Bowles resuscitates this morning his crusade against
+the Declaration of 1856. It is really superfluous to argue in support of
+rules which have met with general acceptance for nearly sixty years
+past, to all of which Spain and Mexico, who were not originally parties
+to the Declaration, announced their formal adhesion in 1907, while the
+United States, which for well-known reasons declined to accede to the
+Declaration, described, in 1898, all the articles except that dealing
+with privateering as "recognised rules of International Law."
+
+It may, however, be worth while to point out why it was that no
+provision was made for the ratification of the Declaration of 1856, or
+for that of 1868 relating to the use of explosive bullets. At those
+dates, when the first steps were being taken towards the general
+adoption of written rules for the conduct of warfare, it was, curiously
+enough, supposed that agreement upon such rules might be sufficiently
+recorded without the solemnity of a treaty. This was, in my opinion, a
+mistake, which has been avoided in more recent times, in which the
+written law of war has been developed with such marvellous rapidity. Not
+only have codes of such rules been promulgated in regular "Conventions,"
+made in 1899, 1906, and 1907, but the so-called "Declarations," dealing
+with the same topic, of 1899, 1907, and 1909 have been as fully equipped
+as were those Conventions with provisions for ratification. The
+distinction between a "Convention" and a "Declaration" is therefore now
+one without a difference, and should no longer be drawn. Nothing in the
+nature of rules for the conduct of warfare can prevent their expression
+in Conventions, and the reason which seems to have promoted the
+misdescription of the work of the London Conference of 1908-9 as a
+"Declaration"--viz. an imaginary difference between rules for the
+application of accepted principles and wholly new rules--is founded in
+error. Much of the contents of The Hague "Conventions" is as old as the
+hills while much of the "Declaration" of London is revolutionary.
+
+This by the way. It is not very clear whether Mr. Gibson Bowles, in
+exhorting us to denounce the Declaration, relies upon its original lack
+of ratification, or upon some alleged "privateering" on the part of the
+Germans. Nothing of the kind has been reported. The commissioning of
+warships on the high seas is a different thing, which may possibly be
+regarded as an offence of a graver nature. Great Britain is not going to
+imitate the cynical contempt for treaties, evidenced by the action of
+Germany in Belgium and Luxemburg, in disregard not only of the
+well-known treaties of 1889 and 1867, but of a quite recent solemn
+undertaking, to which I have not noticed any reference. Art. 2 of The
+Hague Convention No. v. of 1907, ratified by her in 1909, is to the
+following effect:--
+
+      "Belligerents are forbidden to move across the territory of a
+      neutral Power troops or convoys, whether of munitions or of
+      supplies."
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, August 12 (1914).
+
+The true ground for objecting to the legality of the purchase by Turkey
+of the German warships which have been forced to take refuge in her
+waters is no doubt that stated by Sir William Scott in the _Minerva_, 6
+C. Rob. at p. 400--viz. that it would enable the belligerent to whom
+the ships belong "so far to rescue himself from the disadvantage into
+which he has fallen as to have the value at least restored to him by a
+neutral purchaser." The point is not touched upon in the (draft)
+Declaration of London.
+
+Even supposing the purchase to be unobjectionable, the duty of Turkey to
+remove all belligerents from the ships would be unquestionable.
+
+
+    _Cf._ on the Declaration of Paris, _passim_, see Index; on the
+    misuse of Declarations, _infra_, p. 92; on privateering,
+    _supra_, pp. 80-84.
+
+
+THE DECLARATION OF PARIS
+
+Sir,--The resuscitation, a few days ago, in the House of Commons of an
+old controversy reminds one of the mistaken procedure which made such a
+controversy possible. It can hardly now be doubted that the rules set
+forth in the Declaration of Paris of 1856, except possibly the
+prohibition of privateering, have by general acceptance during sixty
+years, strengthened by express accessions on the part of so many
+Governments, become a portion of international law, and are thus binding
+upon Great Britain, notwithstanding her omission to ratify the
+Declaration. This omission is now seen to have been a mistake. So also
+was the description of the document as a "declaration." Both mistakes
+were repeated in 1868 with reference to the "Declaration" of St.
+Petersburg (as to explosive bullets).
+
+In those early attempts at legislation for the conduct of warfare it
+seems to have been thought sufficient that the conclusions arrived at by
+authorised delegates should be announced without being embodied in a
+treaty. Surely, however, what purported to be international agreements
+upon vastly important topics ought to have been accompanied by all the
+formalities required for "conventions," and should have been so
+entitled. In later times this has become the general rule for the
+increasingly numerous agreements which bear upon the conduct of
+hostilities. Thus we have The Hague "conventions" of 1899 and 1907, and
+the Geneva "convention" of 1906, all duly equipped with provisions for
+ratification. Such provisions are also inserted in certain other recent
+agreements dealing with aerial bombardments, gases, and expanding
+bullets, which it has nevertheless pleased their contrivers to
+misdescribe as "declarations." Equally so misdescribed was the deceased
+Declaration of London, with a view, apparently, to suggesting, as was
+far from being the case, that it was a mere orderly statement of
+universally accepted principles, creating no new obligations.
+
+Is it not to be desired that all future attempts for the international
+regulation of warfare should not only be specifically made subject to
+ratification, but should also, in accordance with fact, be described as
+"conventions"?
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, August 13 (1916).
+
+
+THE DECLARATION OF PARIS
+
+Sir,--If Mr. Gibson Bowles, whose courteous letter I have just been
+reading, will look again at my letter of the 18th, I think he will see
+that I there carefully distinguished between the Declaration of Paris,
+which, as is notorious, must be accepted as a whole or not at all, and
+the rules set forth in it, "except, possibly, the prohibition of
+privateering," which I thought, for the reasons which I stated, might be
+taken to have become a portion of International Law.
+
+I must be excused from following Mr. Bowles into a discussion of the
+bearing of those rules upon the Order in Council of March 11, 1915--a
+large and delicate topic, which must be studied in elaborate dispatches
+exchanged between this country and the United States.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, August 17 (1916).
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+SECTION 8
+
+_Assassination_
+
+
+THE NATAL PROCLAMATION
+
+Sir,--It was reported a few days ago that the Natal Government had
+offered a reward for Bambaata, dead or alive. I have waited for a
+statement that no offer of the kind had been made, or that it had been
+made by some over-zealous official, whose act had been disavowed. No
+such statement has appeared. On the contrary, we read that "the price
+placed upon the rebel's head has excited native cupidity." It may
+therefore be desirable to point out that what is alleged to have been
+done is opposed to the customs of warfare, whether against foreign
+enemies or rebels.
+
+By Art. 28 (_b_) of The Hague Regulations, "it is especially prohibited
+to kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile
+nation or army": words which, one cannot doubt, would include not only
+assassination of individuals, but also, by implication, any offer for an
+individual "dead or alive." The Regulations are, of course, technically
+binding only between signatories of the convention to which they are
+appended; but Art. 28 (_b_) is merely an express enactment of a
+well-established rule of the law of nations. A recent instance of its
+application occurred, before the date of The Hague Convention, during
+operations in the neighbourhood of Suakin. An offer by the British
+Admiral of a reward for Osman Digna, dead or alive, was, if I mistake
+not, promptly cancelled and disavowed by the home Government.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Brighton, April 17 (1906).
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+SECTION 9
+
+_The Choice of Means of Injuring_
+
+
+BULLETS IN SAVAGE WARFARE
+
+Sir,--The Somaliland debate was sufficient evidence that The Hague
+Convention "respecting the laws and customs of war on land" is far more
+talked about than read. Colonel Cobbe had, it appears, complained of the
+defective stopping power, as against the foes whom he was encountering,
+of the Lee-Metford bullet. It is the old story that wounds inflicted by
+this bullet cannot be relied on to check the onrush of a hardy and
+fanatical savage, though they may ultimately result in his death.
+Whereupon arises, on the one hand, the demand for a more effective
+projectile, and, on the other hand, the cry that the proposed substitute
+is condemned by "the universal consent of Christendom"; or, in
+particular, "by the Convention of The Hague," which, as was correctly
+stated by Mr. Lee, prohibits only the use of arms which cause
+superfluous injury.
+
+You print to-day two letters enforcing the view of the inefficiency
+against savages of the ordinary service bullet. Perhaps you will find
+space for a few words upon the question whether the employment for this
+purpose of a severer form of projectile, such as the Dum Dum bullet,
+would be a contravention of the "laws of war."
+
+The law of the subject, as embodied in general international national
+agreements, is to be found in four paragraphs; to which, be it observed,
+nothing is added by the unwritten, or customary, law of nations. Of
+these paragraphs, which I shall set out textually, three affirm general
+principles, while the fourth contains a specific prohibition. The
+general provisions are as follows:--
+
+      "The progress of civilisation should have the effect of
+      alleviating as much as possible the calamities of war. The
+      only legitimate object which States should set before
+      themselves during war is to weaken the military forces of the
+      enemy. For this purpose it is sufficient to disable the
+      greatest possible number of men. This object would be
+      exceeded by the employment of arms which would uselessly
+      aggravate the sufferings of disabled men or render their
+      death inevitable. The employment of such arms would,
+      therefore, be contrary to the laws of humanity." (St.
+      Petersburg Declaration, 1868. Preamble.)
+
+      "The right of belligerents to adopt means of injuring the
+      enemy is not unlimited." (Hague _Règlement_, Art. 22.)
+
+      "Besides the prohibitions provided by special conventions [the
+      Declaration of St. Petersburg alone answers to this
+      description] it is in particular prohibited (_e_) to employ
+      arms, projectiles, or material of a nature to cause
+      superfluous injury." (_Ib._ Art. 23.)
+
+The only special prohibition is that contained in the Declaration of St.
+Petersburg, by which the contracting parties--
+
+      "Engage mutually to renounce, in case of war among
+      themselves, the employment by their military or naval forces
+      of any projectile of a weight below 400 grammes which is
+      either explosive or charged with fulminating or inflammable
+      substances."
+
+No one, so far as I am aware, has any wish to employ a bullet weighing
+less than 14 oz. which is either explosive or charged as above. So far,
+therefore, as the generally accepted laws of warfare are concerned, the
+only question as to the employment of Dum Dum or other expanding bullets
+is whether they "uselessly aggravate the sufferings of disabled men, or
+render their death inevitable"; in other words, whether they are "of a
+nature to cause superfluous injury." It is, however, probable that
+people who glibly talk of such bullets being "prohibited by The Hague
+Convention" are hazily reminiscent, not of the _Règlement_ appended to
+that convention, but of a certain "Declaration," signed by the delegates
+of many of the Powers represented at The Hague in 1899, to the effect
+that--
+
+      "The contracting Powers renounce the use of bullets which
+      expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets
+      with a hard casing, which does not entirely cover the core,
+      or is pierced with incisions."
+
+To this declaration neither Great Britain nor the United States are
+parties, and it is waste-paper, except for Powers on whose behalf it has
+not only been signed, but has also been subsequently ratified.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Athenæum Club, May 2 (1903).
+
+
+    The Declaration last mentioned (No. 3 of the first Peace
+    Conference) is now something more than waste paper, having been
+    generally ratified. Great Britain, on August 17, 1907, at the
+    fourth plenary sitting of the Second Peace Conference,
+    announced her adhesion to it, as also to the, also generally
+    ratified, Declaration No. 2 of 1899, which forbids the
+    employment of projectiles constructed solely for the diffusion
+    suffocating or harmful gases.
+
+    The provisions of Arts. 22 and 23 (_e_) of the _Règlement_
+    annexed to The Hague Convention of 1899 "concerning the Laws
+    and Customs of War on Land," as quoted in the letter, have been
+    textually reproduced in Arts. 22 and 23 (_e_) of the
+    _Règlement_ annexed to the Hague Convention, No. iv. of 1907,
+    on the same subject, ratified by Great Britain on November 27,
+    1909.
+
+    The written agreements as to the choice of weapons may be taken
+    therefore to start from the general principles laid down in the
+    preamble to the Declaration of St. Petersburg (though held by
+    some Powers to err in the direction of liberality), and in
+    Arts. 22 and 23 (_e_) of The Hague _Règlements_. The specially
+    prohibited means of destruction are, by the Declaration of St.
+    Petersburg, explosive bullets; by The Hague _Règlements_, Art.
+    23 (_a_) poison or poisoned arms; by The Hague Declarations of
+    1898, Nos. 2 and 3, "projectiles the sole object of which is
+    the diffusion of asphyxiating or harmful gases," and "bullets
+    which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as
+    bullets with a hard casing, which does not entirely cover the
+    core, or is pierced with incisions." As to Declaration No. 1,
+    _cf. supra_, p. 22. It must be remarked that the Declarations
+    of St. Petersburg and of The Hague, unlike The Hague
+    Règlements, apply to war at sea, as well as on land.
+
+    _Cf. supra_, p. 22, and see the author's _The Laws of War on
+    Land (written and unwritten)_, 1908, pp. 40-43.
+
+
+GASES
+
+Sir,--The weightily signed medical protest which you publish this
+morning will be widely welcomed. The German employment of poisonous
+gases for military purposes, which the Allies were obliged, reluctantly,
+though necessarily, to reciprocate, was, of course, prohibited by
+international Acts to which Germany is a party. Not only does the
+Declaration of 1899 specifically render unlawful "the use of projectiles
+the sole object of which is the diffusion of asphyxiating or harmful
+gases," but the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 both forbid, in
+general terms, the employment of "(_a_) poison or poisoned arms," "(_c_)
+arms, projectiles, or material of a nature to cause superfluous
+suffering." The United States, like the rest of the world, are a party
+to the two Conventions, and would doubtless, after the experiences of
+recent years, no longer hesitate, as hitherto, to adhere to the
+Declaration of 1899; in accordance with Admiral Mahan's view at that
+date, to the effect that "the effect of gas shells has yet to be
+ascertained," and, in particular, "whether they would be more, or less,
+merciful than missiles now available."
+
+The prohibition ought, no doubt, to be renewed and, if possible,
+strengthened; but this is surely not, as your correspondents suggest,
+work for the Peace Congress. The rules for naval warfare set out in the
+Declaration of Paris of 1856 form no part of the Treaty of Paris of that
+year.
+
+I venture to make a similar remark with reference to any discussion by
+the Peace Congress of "the freedom of the seas," a topic unfortunately
+included by President Wilson among his "14 points." The peace delegates
+will be concerned with questions of regroupings of territory, penalties,
+and reparation. The rehabilitation and revision of international law is
+a different business, and should be reserved for a subsequent
+conference.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, November 29 (1918).
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+SECTION 10
+
+_The Geneva Convention_
+
+    As far back as the year 1870, the Society for the Prevention of
+    Cruelty to Animals exerted itself to induce both sides in the
+    great war then commencing to make some special provision for
+    relieving, or terminating, the sufferings of horses wounded in
+    battle.
+
+    In 1899 it made the same suggestion to the British War Office,
+    but the reply of the Secretary of State was to the effect that
+    "he is informed that soldiers always shoot badly wounded horses
+    after, or during, a battle, whenever they are given time to do
+    so, _i.e._ whenever the operation does not involve risk to
+    human life. He fears that no more than this can be done unless
+    and until some international convention extends to those who
+    care for wounded animals the same protection for which the
+    Geneva Convention provides in the case of men; and he would
+    suggest that you should turn your efforts in that direction."
+
+    Thereupon, Mr. Lawrence Pike, on November 23, addressed to _The
+    Times_ the letter which called forth the letter which follows.
+
+
+WOUNDED HORSES IN WAR
+
+Sir,--Everyone must sympathise with the anxiety felt by Mr. L.W. Pike to
+diminish the sufferings of horses upon the field of battle. How far any
+systematic alleviation of such sufferings may be compatible with the
+exigencies of warfare must be left to the decision of military experts.
+In the meantime it may be as well to assure Mr. Pike that the Geneva
+Convention of 1864 has nothing to do with the question, relating, as it
+does, exclusively to the relief of human suffering. This is equally the
+case with the second Geneva Convention, which Mr. Pike is right in
+supposing never to have been ratified. He is also right in supposing
+that "the terms of the convention are capable of amendment from time to
+time," but wrong in supposing that they can be amended "by the setting
+up of precedents." The convention can be amended only by a new
+convention.
+
+It is not the case that Art. 7 of the convention, which merely confides
+to commanders-in-chief, under the instructions of their respective
+Governments, "les détails d'exécution de la présente convention," gives
+them any authority to extend its scope beyond what is expressly stated
+to be its object--viz. "l'amélioration du sort des militaires blessés
+dans les armées en campagne." While, however, the Geneva Convention,
+does not contemplate the relief of animal suffering, it certainly cannot
+be "set up as a bar" to the provision of such relief. Commanders who may
+see their way to neutralising persons engaged in the succour or
+slaughter of wounded horses would be quite within their powers in
+entering into temporary agreements for that purpose.
+
+I may add that the "Convention concerning the laws and customs of war on
+land," prepared by the recent conference at The Hague, and signed on
+behalf of most Governments, including our own, though not yet ratified,
+contains a chapter "Des malades et des blessés," which merely states
+that the obligations of belligerents on this point are governed by the
+Convention of Geneva of 1864, with such modifications as may be made in
+it. Among the aspirations (_voeux_) recorded in the "Acte final" of
+the conference, is one to the effect that steps may be taken for the
+assembling of a special conference, having for its object the revision
+of the Geneva Convention. Should such a conference be assembled Mr. Pike
+will have an opportunity of addressing it upon the painfully interesting
+subject which he has brought forward in your columns.
+
+Your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, November 27 (1899).
+
+
+    The "second Geneva Convention," above mentioned, was the
+    "Projet d'Articles additionnels," signed on October 20, 1868,
+    but never ratified.
+
+    Art. 21 of the _Règlement_ annexed to The Hague Convention of
+    1899 as to the "Laws and Customs of War on Land," stating that
+    "the obligations of belligerents, with reference to the care of
+    the sick and wounded, are governed by the Convention of Geneva
+    of August 22, 1864, subject to alterations which may be made in
+    it," is now represented by Art. 21 of The Hague _Règlement_ of
+    1907, which mentions "the Convention of Geneva," without
+    mention of any date, or of possible alterations. The Convention
+    intended in this later _Règlement_ is, of course, that of 1906,
+    for the numerous Powers which have already ratified it, since
+    for them it has superseded that of 1864. The British
+    ratification, of April 16, 1907, was subject to a reservation,
+    the necessity for which was intended to be removed by 1 & 2
+    Geo. 5, c. 20, as to which, see _supra_, p, 37. The later is
+    somewhat wider in scope than the earlier Convention, its
+    recital referring to "the sick," as well as to the wounded, and
+    its first article naming not only "les militaires," but also
+    "les autres personnes officiellement attachées aux armées."
+
+    With a view to the expected meeting of the Conference by which
+    the Convention was signed in 1906, Mr. Pike and his friends
+    again, in 1903, pressed upon the British Government their
+    desire that the new Convention should extend protection to
+    persons engaged in relieving the sufferings of wounded horses.
+    The British delegates to the Conference, however, who had
+    already been appointed, and were holding meetings in
+    preparation for it, were not prepared to advise the insertion
+    of provisions for this purpose in the revised Convention of
+    Geneva.
+
+    "The principles of the Geneva Convention" of 1864 were applied
+    to naval warfare by The Hague Convention No. iii. of 1899, and
+    those of the Geneva Convention of 1906 by The Hague Convention
+    No. x. of 1907 respectively. Both were ratified by Great
+    Britain. Cf. _supra_, Chapters ii. and iv.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+SECTION 11
+
+_Enemy Property in Occupied Territory_
+
+    By Art. 55 of The Hague _Règlement_ of 1899, which reproduces
+    Art. 7 of the Brussels _Projet_, and is repeated as Art. 55 of
+    the _Règlement_ of 1907: "The occupying State shall regard
+    itself as being only administrator and usufructuary of the
+    public buildings, immoveable property, forests and agricultural
+    undertakings belonging to the hostile State and situated in the
+    hostile country. It must protect the substance of these
+    properties and administer them according to the rules of
+    usufruct."
+
+    The following letter touches incidentally upon the description
+    of the rights of an invader over certain kinds of State
+    property in the occupied territory as being those of a
+    "usufructuary."
+
+
+INTERNATIONAL "USUFRUCT"
+
+Sir,--The terminology of the law of nations has been enriched by a new
+phrase. We are all getting accustomed to "spheres of influence." We have
+been meditating for some time past upon the interpretation to be put
+upon "a lease of sovereign rights." But what is an international
+"usufruct"? The word has, of course, a perfectly ascertained sense in
+Roman law and its derivatives; but it has been hitherto employed,
+during, perhaps two thousand years, always as a term of private
+law--_i.e._ as descriptive of a right enjoyed by one private individual
+or corporation over the property of another. It is the "ius utendi
+fruendi, salva rerum substantia." The usufructuary of land not merely
+has the use of it, but may cut its forests and work its mines, so long
+as he does not destroy the character of the place as he received it. His
+interest terminates with his life, though it might also be granted to
+him for a shorter period. If the grantee be a corporation, in order to
+protect the outstanding right of the owner an artificial limit is
+imposed upon the tenure--e.g. in Roman law 100 years, by the French
+Code 30 years. For details it may suffice to refer to the Institutes of
+Justinian, II. 4; the Digest, VII. 1; the Code Civil, sects. 573-636;
+the new German Civil Code, sects. 1030-1089.
+
+It remains to be seen how the conception of "usufruct" is to be imported
+into the relations of sovereign States, and, more especially, what are
+to be the relations of the usufructuary to States other than the State
+under which he holds. It is, of course, quite possible to adapt the
+terms of Roman private law to international use. "Dominium,"
+"Possessio," "Occupatio," have long been so adapted, but it has yet to
+be proved that "Usufructus" is equally malleable. I can recall no other
+use of the term in international discussions than the somewhat
+rhetorical statement that an invader should consider himself as merely
+the "usufructuary" of the resources of the country which he is invading;
+which is no more than to say that he should use them "en bon père de
+famille." It will be a very different matter to put a strict legal
+construction upon the grant of the "usufruct" of Port Arthur. By way of
+homage to the conception of such a grant, as presumably creating at the
+outside a life-interest, Russia seems to have taken it, in the first
+instance, only for twenty-five years. One may, however, be pardoned for
+sharing, with reference to this transaction, the scruples which were
+felt at Rome as to allowing the grant of a usufruct to a
+corporation--"periculum enim esse videbatur, ne perpetuus fieret."
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, March 30 (1898).
+
+P.S.--It would seem from M. Lehr's _Éléments du droit civil Russe_ that
+"usufruct" is almost unknown to the law of Russia, though a restricted
+form of it figures in the code of the Baltic provinces.
+
+
+    It is certain that, apart from general conventions,
+    international law imposes no liability on an invader to pay for
+    requisitioned property or services, or to honour any receipts
+    which he may have given for them.
+
+    The Hague Convention of 1899 made no change in this respect.
+    Arts. 51 and 52 of the _Règlement_ annexed to the Convention
+    direct, it is true, that receipts should be given for
+    contributions ("un reçu sera délivré aux contribuables") also
+    for requisitions in kind, if not paid for ("elles seront
+    constatées par des reçus"), but these receipts were to be
+    merely evidence that money or goods have been taken, and it was
+    left an open question, by whom, if at all, compensation was to
+    be made or the losses thus established.
+
+    The _Règlement_ of 1907 is more liberal than that of 1899 with
+    reference to requisitioned property (though not with reference
+    to contributions). By the new Art. 52, "supplies furnished in
+    kind shall be paid for, so far as possible, on the spot. If
+    not, they shall be vouched for (_constatées_) by receipts, and
+    payment of the sums due shall be made as soon as may be." The
+    Hague Convention mentioned in the following letter is, of
+    course, that of 1899.
+
+
+REQUISITIONS IN WARFARE
+
+Sir,--A few words of explanation may not be out of place with reference
+to a topic touched upon last night in the House of Commons--viz. the
+liability of the British Government to pay for stock requisitioned
+during the late war from private enemy owners. It should be clearly
+understood that no such liability is imposed by international law. The
+commander of invading forces may, for valid reasons of his own, pay cash
+for any property which he takes, and, if he does not do so, is nowadays
+expected to give receipts for it. These receipts are, however, not in
+the nature of evidence of a contract to pay for the goods. They are
+intended merely to _constater_ the fact that the goods have been
+requisitioned, with a view to any indemnity which may eventually be
+granted to the sufferers by their own Government. What steps should be
+taken by a Government towards indemnifying enemies who have subsequently
+become its subjects, as is now happily the case in South Africa, is a
+question not of international law, but of grace and favour.
+
+An article in the current number of the _Review of Reviews_, to which my
+attention has just been called, contains some extraordinary statements
+upon the topic under discussion. The uninformed public is assured that
+"we owe the Boers payment in full for all the devastation which we have
+inflicted upon their private property ... it is our plain legal
+obligation, from the point of view of international law, to pay it to
+the last farthing." Then The Hague Convention is invoked as permitting
+interference with private property "only on condition that it is paid
+for in cash by the conqueror, and, if that is not possible at the
+moment, he must in every case give a receipt, which he must discharge at
+the conclusion of hostilities." There is no such provision as to
+honouring receipts in this much-misquoted convention.
+
+Your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, July 30 (1962).
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+SECTION 12
+
+_Enemy Property at Sea_
+
+
+PRIVATE PROPERTY AT SEA
+
+Sir,--The letter which you print this morning from Mr. Charles Stewart
+can hardly be taken as a serious contribution to the discussion of a
+question which has occupied for many years the attention of politicians,
+international lawyers, shipowners, traders, and naval experts. Mr.
+Stewart actually thinks that Lord Sydenham's argument to the effect that
+"the fear of the severe economic strain which must result from the
+stoppage of a great commerce is a factor which makes for peace" may be
+fairly paraphrased as advice to "retain the practice because it is so
+barbarous that it will sicken the enemy of warfare." He goes on to say
+that this argument "would apply equally to the poisoning of wells and to
+the use of explosive bullets."
+
+It may be worth while to contrast with the attitude of a writer who
+seems unable to distinguish between economic pressure and physical
+cruelty that taken up by a competent body, the large majority of the
+members of which belong to nations which, for various reasons, incline
+to the abolition of the usage in question. The Institut de Droit
+International, encouraged by the weight attached to its _Manual of the
+Law of War on Land_ by the first and second Peace Conferences, has been,
+for some time past, working upon a _Manual of the Laws of War at Sea_.
+At its Christiania meeting in 1912 the Institut, while maintaining the
+previously expressed opinion of a majority of its members in favour of a
+change in the law, recognised that such a change has not yet come to
+pass, and that, till it occurs, regulations for the exercise of capture
+are indispensable, and directed the committee charged with the topic to
+draft rules presupposing the right of capture, and other rules to be
+applied should the right be hereafter surrendered (_Annuaire_, t. xxv.,
+p. 602).
+
+The committee accordingly prepared a draft, framed in accordance with
+the existing practice, to the discussion of which the Institut devoted
+the whole of its recent session at Oxford, eventually giving its
+_imprimatur_ to a Manual of the law of maritime warfare, as between the
+belligerents, in 116 articles. As opportunity serves, the committee will
+prepare a second draft, proceeding upon the hypothesis that the right of
+capturing private property at sea has been surrendered, which, in its
+turn, will be debated, word for word, by the Institut de Droit
+International.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, November 4 (1913).
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+SECTION 13
+
+_Martial Law_
+
+    The first of the letters which follow has reference to the case
+    of two Boer prisoners who, having taken the oath of neutrality
+    on the British occupation of Pretoria, attempted to escape from
+    the town. Both were armed, and one of them fired upon and
+    wounded a sentinel who called upon them to stop. They were
+    tried by court-martial, condemned to death, and shot on June
+    11, 1901. The Hague Convention quoted in the letter is that of
+    1899, but the same Art. 8 figures in the Convention of 1907.
+
+    The second and third of these letters relate to a question of
+    English public law, growing out of the exercise of martial law
+    in British territory in time of war. One Marais, accused of
+    having contravened the martial law regulations of May 1, 1901,
+    was imprisoned in Cape Colony by military authority, and the
+    Supreme Court at the Cape held that it had no authority to
+    order his release. The Privy Council refused an application for
+    leave to appeal against this decision, saying that "no doubt
+    has ever existed that, when war actually prevails, the ordinary
+    courts have no jurisdiction over the action of the military
+    authorities"; adding that "the framers of the Petition of Right
+    knew well what they meant when they made a condition of peace
+    the ground of the illegality of unconstitutional procedure"
+    (_Ex parte_ D.F. Marais, [1902] A.C. 109). Thereupon arose a
+    discussion as to the extent of the prohibition of the exercise
+    of martial law contained in the Petition of Right; and Mr.
+    Edward Jenks, in letters to _The Times_ of December 27, 1901,
+    and January 4, 1902, maintained that the prohibition in
+    question was not confined to time of peace.
+
+    The last letter deals with the true character of a Proclamation
+    of Martial Law, and was suggested by the refusal of the Privy
+    Council, on April 2, 1906, to grant leave to appeal from
+    sentences passed in Natal by court-martial, in respect of acts
+    committed on February 8, 1906, whereby retrospective effect
+    had, it was alleged, been given to a proclamation not issued
+    till the day after the acts were committed, _See_ Mcomini
+    Mzinelwe and Wanda _v._ H.E. the Governor and the A.G. for the
+    Colony of Natal, 22 _Times Law Reports_, 413.
+
+
+THE EXECUTIONS AT PRETORIA
+
+Sir,--No doubt is possible that by international law, as probably by
+every system of national law, all necessary means, including shooting,
+may be employed to prevent the escape of a prisoner of war. The question
+raised by the recent occurrence at Pretoria is, however, a different
+one--viz. What are the circumstances in connection with an attempt to
+escape which justify execution after trial by court-martial of the
+persons concerned in it? This question may well be dealt with a part
+from the facts, as to which we are as yet imperfectly informed, which
+have called for Mr. Winston Churchill's letter. With the arguments of
+that letter I in the main agree, but should not attach so much
+importance as Mr. Churchill appears to do to a chapter of the British
+_Manual of Military Law_, which, though included in a Government
+publication, cannot be taken as official, since it is expressly stated
+"to have no official authority" and to "express only the opinions of the
+compiler, as drawn from the authorities cited."
+
+I propose, without comment, to call attention to what may be found upon
+this subject in conventional International Law, in one or two
+representative national codes, and in the considered judgment of the
+leading contemporary international lawyers.
+
+I. The Hague "Convention on the laws and customs of war on land"
+(ratified by twenty Powers) lays down:--
+
+      "ARTICLE 8.--Prisoners of war shall be subject to the laws,
+      regulations, and orders in force in the army of the State
+      into whose hands they have fallen. Any act of insubordination
+      warrants the adoption as regards them of such measures of
+      severity as may be necessary. Escaped prisoners, recaptured
+      before they have succeeded in rejoining their army, or before
+      quitting the territory occupied by the army that captured
+      them, are liable to disciplinary punishment. Prisoners who
+      after succeeding in escaping are again taken prisoners are
+      not liable to any punishment for their previous flight."
+
+The Hague Conference, in adopting this article, adopted also, as an
+"authentic interpretation" of it, a statement that the indulgence
+granted to escapes does not apply to such as are accompanied by "special
+circumstances," of which the instances given are "complot, rébellion,
+émeute."
+
+      "ARTICLE 12.--Any prisoner of war who is liberated on parole
+      and recaptured bearing arms against the Government to which
+      he had pledged his honour, or against the allies of that
+      Government, forfeits his right to be treated as a prisoner of
+      war, and can be put on his trial."
+
+II. The United States Instructions:--
+
+      "ARTICLE 77.--A prisoner of war may be shot or otherwise
+      killed in his flight; but neither death nor any other
+      punishment shall be inflicted on him simply for his
+      attempt.... If, however, a conspiracy is discovered, the
+      purpose of which is a united or general escape, the
+      conspirators may be rigorously punished even with death, &c."
+
+      "ARTICLE 78.--If prisoners of war, having given no pledge nor
+      made any promise on their honour, forcibly or otherwise,
+      escape, and are captured again in battle, having rejoined
+      their own army, they shall not be punished for their escape."
+
+      "ARTICLE 124.--Breaking the parole is punished with death when
+      the person breaking the parole is captured again."
+
+_Cf._ the French _Code de Justice Militaire_, Art. 204, and other
+Continental codes to the same effect.
+
+III. The _Manuel des Lois de la guerre sur terre_ of the Institute of
+International Law lays down:--
+
+      "ARTICLE 68.--Si le fugitif ressaisi[B] ou capturé de nouveau
+      avait donne sa parole de ne pas s'évader, il peut être privé
+      des droits de prisonnier de guerre."
+
+      "ARTICLE 78.--Tout prisonnier libéré sur parole et repris
+      portant les armes contre le gouvernement auquel il l'avait
+      donnée, peut être privé des droits de prisonnier de guerre, à
+      moins que, postérieurement à sa liberation, il n'ait été
+      compris dans un cartel d'échange sans conditions."
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, June 17 (1901).
+
+
+THE PETITION OF RIGHT
+
+Sir,--This is, I think, not a convenient time, nor perhaps are your
+columns the place, for an exhaustive discussion of the interpretation
+and application of the Petition of Right. It may, however, be just worth
+while to make the following remarks, for the comfort of any who may have
+been disquieted by the letter addressed to you by my friend Mr. Jenks:--
+
+1. Although, as is common knowledge, the words "in time of peace," so
+familiar in the Mutiny Acts from the reign of Queen Anne onwards, do not
+occur in the Petition, they do occur, over and over again, in the
+arguments used in the House of Commons by "the framers of the Petition
+of Right," to employ the phraseology of the judgment recently delivered
+in the Privy Council by the Lord Chancellor.
+
+2. The prohibition contained in the Petition, so far from being
+"absolute and unqualified," is perfectly specific. It refers expressly
+to "Commissions of like nature" with certain Commissions lately
+issued:--
+
+      "By which certain persons have been assigned and appointed
+      Commissioners, with power and authority to proceed within the
+      land, according to the justice of martial law, against such
+      soldiers or mariners, or other dissolute persons joining with
+      them, as should commit any murder, robbery, felony, mutiny,
+      or other outrage or misdemeanour whatsoever, and by such
+      summary course and order as is agreeable to martial law, and
+      is used in armies in time of war, &c."
+
+The text of these Commissions, the revocation of which is demanded by
+the Petition, is still extant.
+
+3. The Petition neither affirms nor denies the legality of martial law
+in time of war; although its advocates were agreed that at such a time
+martial law would be applicable to soldiers.
+
+4. A war carried on at a distance from the English shore as was the war
+with France in 1628, did not produce such a state of things as was
+described by the advocates of the Petition as "a time of war." "We have
+now no army in the field, and it is no time of war," said Mason in the
+course of the debates. "If the Chancery and Courts of Westminster be
+shut up, it is time of war, but if the Courts be open, it is otherwise;
+yet, if war be in any part of the Kingdom, that the Sheriff cannot
+execute the King's writ, there is _tempus belli_," said Rolls.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, December 31 (1901).
+
+
+THE PETITION OF RIGHT
+
+Sir,--In a letter which you allowed me to address to you a few days ago,
+I dealt with two perfectly distinct topics.
+
+In the first place I pointed out that the words occurring in a recent
+judgment of the Privy Council, which were cited by Mr. Jenks as a clear
+example of an assumption "that the Petition of Right, in prohibiting the
+exercise of martial law, restricted its prohibition to time of peace,"
+imply, as I read them, no assumption as to the meaning of that document,
+but merely contain an accurate statement of fact as to the line of
+argument followed by the supporters of the Petition in the House of
+Commons. Can Mr. Jenks really suppose that in making this remark I was
+"appealing from the 'text of the Petition' to the debates in
+Parliament"?
+
+I then proceeded to deal very shortly with the Petition itself, showing
+that while it neither condemns nor approves of the application of
+martial law in time of war (see Lord Blackburn's observations in R. _v._
+Eyre), the prohibition contained in its martial law clauses, so far from
+being "absolute and unqualified," relates exclusively to "commissions of
+like nature" with certain commissions which had been lately issued (at a
+time which admittedly, for the purposes of this discussion, was not "a
+time of war"), the text of which is still preserved, and the character
+of which is set forth in the Petition itself, as having authorised
+proceedings within the land, "according to the justice of martial law,
+against such soldiers or mariners," as also against "such other
+dissolute persons joining with them," &c. The description of these
+commissions, be it observed, is not merely introduced into the Petition
+by way of recital, but is incorporated by express reference into the
+enacting clause.
+
+Thus much and no more I thought it desirable to say upon these two
+topics by way of dissent from a letter of Mr. Jenks upon the subject. In
+a second letter Mr. Jenks rides off into fresh country. I do not propose
+to follow him into the history of the conferences which took place in
+May, 1628, after the framing of the Petition of Right, except to remark
+that what passed at these conferences is irrelevant to the
+interpretation to be placed upon the Petition, and, if relevant, would
+be opposed to Mr. Jenks's contention. It is well known that the Lords
+pressed the Commons to introduce various amendments into the Petition
+and to add to it the famous reservation of the "sovereign power" of the
+King. One of the proposed amendments referred, as Mr. Jenks says, to
+martial law, forbidding its application to "any but soldiers and
+mariners," or "in time of peace, or when your Majesty's Army is not on
+foot." The Commons' objection to this seems to have been that it was
+both unnecessary and obscurely expressed. "Their complaint is against
+commissions in time of peace." "It may be a time of peace, and yet his
+Majesty's Army may be on foot, and that martial law was not lawful here
+in England in time of peace, when the Chancery and other Courts do sit."
+"They feared that this addition might extend martial law to the trained
+bands, for the uncertainty thereof." The objections of the Commons were,
+however, directed not so much to the amendments in detail as to any
+tampering with the text of the Petition. "They would not alter any part
+of the Petition" (nor did they, except by expunging two words alleged to
+be needlessly offensive), still less would they consent to add to it the
+reservation as to the "sovereign power" of the King.
+
+The story of these abortive conferences, however interesting
+historically, appears to me to have no bearing upon the legality of
+martial law, and I have no intention of returning to the subject.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, January 8 (1902).
+
+
+MARTIAL LAW IN NATAL
+
+Sir,--It seems that in the application made yesterday to the Judicial
+Committee of the Privy Council, on behalf of Natal natives under
+sentence of death, much stress was laid upon the argument that a
+proclamation of martial law cannot have a retrospective application. You
+will, perhaps, therefore allow me to remind your readers that, so far
+from the date of the proclamation having any bearing upon the merits of
+this painful case, the issue of any proclamation of martial law, in a
+self-governing British colony, neither increases nor diminishes the
+powers of the military or other authorities to take such steps as they
+may think proper for the safety of the country. If those steps were
+properly taken they are covered by the common law; if they have exceeded
+the necessities of the case they can be covered only by an Act of
+Indemnity. The proclamation is issued merely, from abundant caution, as
+a useful warning to those whom it may concern.
+
+This view, I venture to think, cannot now be seriously controverted; and
+I am glad to find, on turning to Mr. Clode's _Military and Martial Law_
+that the passage cited in support of Mr. Jellicoe's contention as to a
+proclamation having no retroactive application is merely to the effect
+that this is so, if certain statements, made many years ago in a debate
+upon the subject, are correct. As to their correctness, or otherwise,
+Mr. Clode expresses no opinion.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+SECTION 14
+
+_The Naval Bombardment of Open Coast Towns_
+
+    The four letters which first follow were suggested by the
+    British Naval Manoeuvres of 1888, during which operations
+    were supposed to be carried on, by the squadron playing the
+    part of a hostile fleet, which I ventured to assert to be in
+    contravention of international law. Many letters were written
+    by naval men in a contrary sense, and the report of a committee
+    of admirals appointed to consider, among other questions, "the
+    feasibility and expediency of cruisers making raids on an
+    enemy's coasts and unprotected towns for the purpose of levying
+    contributions," was to the effect that "there can be no doubt
+    about the feasibility of such operations by a maritime enemy
+    possessed of sufficient power; and as to the expediency, there
+    can be as little doubt but that any Power at war with Great
+    Britain will adopt every possible means of weakening her enemy;
+    and we know of no means more efficacious for making an enemy
+    feel the pinch of war than by thus destroying his property and
+    touching his pocket." (_Parl. Paper_, 1889 [c. 5632], pp. 4,
+    8.) The supposed hostile squadron had, it seems, received
+    express instructions "to attack any port in Great Britain."
+    (See more fully in the writer's _Studies in International Law_,
+    1898, p. 96.) The fifth letter was suggested by a Russian
+    protest against alleged Japanese action in 1904.
+
+    The subsequent history of this controversy, some account of
+    which will be found at the end of this section, has, it is
+    submitted, established the correctness of the views maintained
+    in it.
+
+
+NAVAL ATROCITIES
+
+Sir,--I trust we may soon learn on authority whether or no the enemies
+of this country are conducting naval hostilities in accordance with the
+rules of civilised warfare. I read with indignation that the _Spider_
+has destroyed Greenock; that she announced her intention of "blowing
+down" Ardrossan; that she has been "shelling the fine marine residences
+and watering-places in the Vale of Clyde." Can this be true, and was
+there really any ground for expecting that "a bombardment of the outside
+coast of the Isle of Wight" would take place last night?
+
+Your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Athenæum Club, August 7 (1888).
+
+
+THE NAVAL MANOEUVRES
+
+Sir,--In a letter which I addressed to you on the 7th inst. I ventured
+to point out the discrepancy between the proceedings of certain vessels
+belonging to Admiral Tryon's fleet and the rules of civilised warfare.
+Your correspondent on board Her Majesty's ship _Ajax_ yesterday told us
+something of the opinion of the fleet as to the bombardment and
+ransoming of defenceless seaboard towns, going on to predict that, in a
+war in which England should be engaged, privateers would again be as
+plentiful as in the days of Paul Jones, and assuring us that in such a
+war "not the slightest respect would be paid to old-fashioned treaties,
+protocols, or other diplomatic documents." Captain James appears, from
+his letter which you print to-day, to be of the same opinion as the
+fleet, with reference both to bombardments and to privateers; telling us
+also in plain language that "the talk about international law is all
+nonsense."
+
+Two questions are thus raised which seem worthy of serious
+consideration. First, what are the rules of international law with
+reference to the bombardment of open towns from the sea (I leave out of
+consideration the better understood topic of privateering)? Secondly,
+are future wars likely to be conducted without regard to international
+law?
+
+1. I need hardly say that I do not, as Captain James supposes, contend
+"that unfortified towns will never be bombarded or ransomed."
+International law has never prohibited, though it has attempted to
+restrict, the bombardment of such towns. Even in 1694 our Government
+defended the destruction of Dieppe, Havre, and Calais only as a measure
+of retaliation, and in subsequent naval wars operations of this kind
+have been more and more carefully limited, till in the Crimean war our
+cruisers were careful to abstain from doing further damage than was
+involved in the confiscation or destruction of stores of arms and
+provisions. The principles involved were carefully considered by the
+military delegates of all the States of Europe at the Brussels
+Conference of 1874, and their conclusions, which apply, I conceive,
+_mutatis mutandis_, to operations conducted by naval forces against
+places on land, are as follows:--
+
+      "ARTICLE 15.--Fortified places are alone liable to be
+      besieged. Towns, agglomerations of houses, or villages which
+      are open or undefended cannot be attacked or bombarded."
+
+      "ARTICLE 16.--But if a town, &c., be defended, the commander
+      of the attacking forces should, before commencing a
+      bombardment, and except in the case of surprise, do all in his
+      power to warn the authorities."
+
+      "ARTICLE 40.--As private property should be respected, the
+      enemy will demand from parishes or the inhabitants only such
+      payments and services as are connected with the necessities of
+      war generally acknowledged, in proportion to the resources of
+      the country."
+
+      "ARTICLE 41.--The enemy in levying contributions, whether as
+      equivalents for taxes or for payments which should be made in
+      kind, or as fines, will proceed, as far as possible, according
+      to the rules of the distribution and assessment of the taxes
+      in force in the occupied territory. Contributions can be
+      imposed only on the order and on the responsibility of the
+      general in chief."
+
+      "ARTICLE 42.--Requisitions shall be made only by the authority
+      of the commandant of the locality occupied."
+
+These conclusions are substantially followed in the chapter on the
+"Customs of War" contained in the _Manual of Military Law_ issued for
+the use of officers by the British War Office.
+
+The bombardment of an unfortified town would, I conceive, be lawful--(1)
+as a punishment for disloyal conduct; (2) in extreme cases, as
+retaliation for disloyal conduct elsewhere; (3) for the purpose of
+quelling armed resistance (not as a punishment for resistance when
+quelled); (4) in case of refusal of reasonable supplies requisitioned,
+or of a reasonable money contribution in lieu of supplies. It would, I
+conceive, be unlawful--(1) for the purpose of enforcing a fancy
+contribution or ransom, such as we were told was exacted from Liverpool;
+(2) by way of wanton injury to private property, such as was supposed to
+have been caused in the Clyde and at Folkestone, and _a fortiori_ such
+as would have resulted from the anticipated shelling during the
+night-time of the south coast of the Isle of Wight.
+
+2. Is it the case that international law is "all nonsense," and that
+"when we are at war with an enemy he will do his best to injure us: he
+will do so in what way he thinks proper, all treaties and all so-called
+international law notwithstanding"? Are we, with Admiral Aube, to speak
+of "cette monstrueuse association de mots: les droits de la guerre"? If
+so, _cadit quæstio_, and a vast amount of labour has been wasted during
+the last three centuries. I can only say that such a view of the future
+is not in accordance with the teachings of the past. The body of
+accepted usage, supplemented by special conventions, which is known as
+international law, has, as a matter of fact, exercised, even in time of
+war, a re staining influence on national conduct. This assertion might
+be illustrated from the discussions which have arisen during recent wars
+with reference to the Geneva Conventions to the treatment of the wounded
+and the St. Petersburg declaration against the use of explosive bullets.
+The binding obligation of these instruments, which would doubtless be
+classed by your correspondent with the fleet among "old-fashioned
+treaties, protocols, and other diplomatic documents," has never been
+doubted, while each party has eagerly endeavoured to disprove alleged
+infractions of them.
+
+The naval manoeuvres have doubtless taught many lessons of practical
+seamanship. They will have done good service of another sort if they
+have brought to the attention of responsible statesmen such questions as
+those with which I have attempted to deal. It is essential that the
+country should know the precise extent of the risks to which our
+seaboard towns will be exposed in time of war, and it is desirable that
+our naval forces should be warned against any course of action, in their
+conduct of mimic warfare, which could be cited against us, in case we
+should ever have to complain of similar action on the part of a real
+enemy.
+
+Your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, August 18 (1888).
+
+
+THE NAVAL MANOEUVRES
+
+Sir,--In my first letter I called attention to certain operations of the
+_Spider_ and her consorts which seemed to be inspired by no principle
+beyond that of doing unlimited mischief to the enemy's seaboard. In a
+second letter I endeavoured to distinguish between the mischief which
+would and that which would not be regarded as permissible in civilised
+warfare. The correspondence which has subsequently appeared in your
+columns has made sufficiently clear the opposition between the view
+which seems to find favour just now in naval circles and the principles
+of international law, as I have attempted to define them. The question
+between my critics and myself is, in effect, whether the mediæval or the
+modern view as to the treatment of private property is to prevail.
+According to the former, all such property is liable to be seized or
+destroyed, in default of a "Brandschatz," or ransom. According to the
+latter, it is inviolable, subject only to certain well-defined
+exceptions, among which reasonable requisitions of supplies would be
+recognised, while demands of money contributions, as such, would not be
+recognised.
+
+The evidence in favour of the modern view being what I have stated it to
+be is, indeed, overwhelming; but I should like to call special attention
+to the _Manuel de Droit International à l'Usage des Officiers de l'Armée
+de Terre_, issued by the French Government, as going even further than
+the Brussels Conference in the restrictions which it imposes upon the
+levying of requisitions and contributions. The Duke of Wellington, who
+used to be thought an authority in these matters, wrote in 1844, with
+reference to a pamphlet in which the Prince de Joinville had advocated
+depredations on the English coasts:--
+
+      "What but the inordinate desire of popularity could have
+      induced a man in his station to write and publish an
+      invitation and provocation to war, to be carried on in a
+      manner such as has been disclaimed by the civilised portions
+      of mankind?"
+
+The naval historian, Mr. Younge, in commenting on the burning of Paita,
+in Chili, as far back as 1871, for non-compliance with a demand for a
+money contribution (ultimately reduced to a requisition of provisions
+for the ships), speaks of it as "worthy only of the most lawless pirate
+or buccaneer, ... as a singular proof of how completely the principles
+of civilised warfare were conceived to be confined to Europe."
+
+Such exceptional acts as the burning of Paita, or the bombardment of
+Valparaiso, mentioned by Mr. Herries, will, of course, occur from time
+to time. My position is that they are so far stigmatised as barbarous by
+public opinion that their perpetration in civilised warfare may be
+regarded as improbable; in other words, that they are forbidden by
+international law.
+
+It is a further question whether the rules of international law on this
+point are to be changed or disregarded in future. Do we expect, and are
+we desirous, that future wars shall be conducted in accordance with
+buccaneering precedent, or with what has hitherto been the general
+practice of the nineteenth century? Your naval correspondents incline to
+revert to buccaneering and thus to the introduction into naval coast
+operations of a rigour long unknown to the operations of military forces
+on land; but they do so with a difference. Lord Charles Beresford
+(writing early in the controversy) asserts the permissibility of
+ransoming and destroying, without any qualifying expressions; while
+Admiral de Horsey would apparently only ask "rich" towns for
+contributions, insisting also that a contribution must be "reasonable,"
+and expressly repudiating any claim to do "wanton injury to property of
+poor communities, and still less to individuals." In the light of these
+concessions, I venture to claim Admiral de Horsey's concurrence in my
+condemnation of most of the doings mentioned in my first letter,
+although on the whole he ranges himself on the side of the advocates of
+what I maintain to be a change in the existing law of war. Whether or no
+the existing law needs revision is a question for politicians and for
+military and naval experts. It is within my province only to express a
+hope that the contradiction between existing law and new military
+necessities (if, indeed, such contradiction exists) will not be solved
+by a repudiation of all law as "nonsense"; and, further, that, if a
+change of law is to be effected, it will be done with due deliberation
+and under a sense of responsibility. It should be remembered that
+operations conducted with the apparent approval of the highest naval
+authorities, and letters in _The Times_ from distinguished admirals, are
+in truth the stuff that public opinion, and in particular that
+department of public opinion known as "international law," is made of.
+
+The ignorance, by the by, which certain of my critics have displayed of
+the nature and claims of international law is not a little surprising.
+Some seem to identify it with treaties; others with "Vattel." Several,
+having become aware that it is not law of the kind which is enforced by
+a policeman or a County Court bailiff, have hastened, much exhilarated,
+to give the world the benefit of their discovery. Most of them are under
+the impression that it has been concocted by "bookworms," "jurists,"
+"professors," or other "theorists," instead of, as is the fact, mainly
+by statesmen, diplomatists, prize courts, generals and admirals. This
+is, however, a wide field, into which I must not stray. I have even
+avoided the pleasant by-paths of disquisition on contraband,
+privateering, and the Declaration of Paris generally, into which some of
+your correspondents have courteously invited me. I fear we are as yet
+far from having disposed of the comparatively simple question as to the
+operations which may be properly undertaken by a naval squadron against
+an undefended seaboard.
+
+I am, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Llanfairfechan, August 27 (1888).
+
+
+NAVAL BOMBARDMENTS OF UNFORTIFIED PLACES
+
+Sir,--The protest reported to have been lodged by the Russian Government
+against the bombardment by the Japanese fleet of a quarantine station on
+the island of San-shan-tao, apart from questions of fact, as to which we
+have as yet no reliable information, recalls attention to a question of
+international law of no slight importance--viz. under what, if any,
+circumstances it is permissible for a naval force to bombard an "open"
+coast town.
+
+In the first place, it may be hardly necessary to point out the
+irrelevancy of the reference, alleged to have been made in the Russian
+Note, to "Article 25 of The Hague Convention." The Convention and the
+_Règlement_ annexed to it are, of course, exclusively applicable to "la
+guerre sur terre." Not only, however, would any mention of a naval
+bombardment have been out of place in that _Règlement_, but a proposal
+to bring such action within the scope of its 25th Article, which
+prohibits "the attack or bombardment of towns, villages, habitations, or
+buildings which are not defended," was expressly negatived by the
+Conference of The Hague. It became abundantly clear, during the
+discussion of this proposal, that the only chance of an agreement being
+arrived at was that any allusion to maritime warfare should be carefully
+avoided. It was further ultimately admitted, even by the advocates of
+the proposal, that the considerations applicable to bombardments by an
+army and by a naval force respectively are not identical. It was, for
+instance, urged that an army has means other than those which may alone
+be available to a fleet for obtaining from an open town absolutely
+needful supplies. The Hague Conference, therefore, left the matter where
+it found it, recording, however, among its "pious wishes" (_voeux_)
+one to the effect "that the proposal to regulate the question of the
+bombardment of ports, towns, and villages by a naval force should be
+referred for examination to a future conference."
+
+The topic is not a new one. You, Sir, allowed me to raise it in your
+columns with reference to the naval manoeuvres of 1888, when a
+controversy ensued which disclosed the existence of a considerable
+amount of naval opinion in favour of practices which I ventured to think
+in contravention of international law. It was also thoroughly debated in
+1896 at the Venice meeting of the Institut de Droit International upon a
+report drafted by myself, as chairman of a committee appointed a year
+previously. This report lays down that the restrictions placed by
+international law upon bombardments on land apply also to those effected
+from the sea, except that such operations are lawful for a naval force
+when undertaken with a view to (1) obtaining supplies of which it is in
+need; (2) destroying munitions of war or warships which may be in a
+port; (3) punishing, by way of reprisal, violations by the enemy of the
+laws of war. Bombardments for the purpose of exacting a ransom or of
+putting pressure upon the hostile Power by injury to peaceful
+individuals or their property were to be unlawful. The views of the
+committee were, in substance, adopted by the Institut, with the omission
+only of the paragraph allowing bombardment by way of reprisals.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, April 2 (1904).
+
+
+    The "Hague Conference" and "Hague Convention" to which
+    reference was made in the last of these letters were, of
+    course, those of 1899.
+
+    For the action taken by the Institut de Droit International in
+    1895 and 1896, on the initiative of the present writer, see the
+    _Annuaire de l'Institut_, t. xiv p. 295, t. xv. pp. 145-151,
+    309, 317; and his _Studies in International Law_, pp. 106-111.
+    See also, at p. 104 of the same work, an opinion given by him
+    to the Chevalier Tindal as to the liability of The Hague to be
+    bombarded.
+
+    The later growth of opinion has been in accordance with the
+    views maintained by the writer of these letters, and with the
+    _Rapport_ drafted by him for the Institut. The Hague Conference
+    of 1899, though unable to discuss the subject, had registered a
+    _væu_ "that the proposal to regulate the question of the
+    bombardment of ports, towns and villages by a naval force may
+    be referred for examination to a future Conference." See _Parl.
+    Paper, Miscell._ No. 1 (1889), pp. 139, 146, 162, 165, 258,
+    283. At the Conference of 1907 a Convention, No. ix., was
+    accordingly signed and generally ratified, notably by Germany
+    and Great Britain, Art. 1 of which prohibits "the bombardment
+    by naval forces of ports towns, villages, houses, or buildings
+    which are not defended," Germany, France, Great Britain and
+    Japan dissenting from the second paragraph of this article,
+    which explains that a place is not to be considered to be
+    defended merely because it is protected by submarine
+    contact-mines. Bombardment is, however, permitted, by Art. 2,
+    of places which are, in fact, military or naval bases, and, by
+    Arts. 3 and 4, of places which refuse to comply with reasonable
+    requisitions for food needed by the fleet, though not for
+    refusal of money contributions. The _Acte Final_ of the
+    Conference further registers a _væu_ that "the Powers should,
+    in all cases, apply, as far as possible, to war at sea the
+    principles of the Convention concerning the laws and customs of
+    war on land." (_Parl. Paper, Miscell._ No. 1 (1908), p. 30.)
+    This Convention, No. iv. of 1907, in Art. 25 of the _Règlement_
+    annexed to it, lays down that "the attack or bombardment, by
+    whatsoever means, of towns, villages, habitations, or buildings
+    which are not defended is prohibited."
+
+    The British Government had, in 1907, so far departed from the
+    Admiralty views of 1888 as to instruct their delegates to the
+    Conference of that year to the effect that "the Government
+    consider that the objection, on humanitarian grounds, to the
+    bombardment of unfortified towns is too strong to justify a
+    resort to that measure, even though it may be permissible under
+    the abstract doctrines of international law [?]. They wish it,
+    however, to be clearly understood that any general prohibition
+    of such practice must not be held to apply to such operations
+    as the bombardment of towns or places used as bases or
+    storehouses of naval or military equipment or supply, or ports
+    containing fighting ships, and that the landing of troops, or
+    anything partaking of the character of a military or naval
+    operation, is also not covered."
+
+    It is hardly necessary to chronicle the indignation aroused by
+    the raids upon undefended coast towns carried out by German
+    cruisers during the war of 1914, in violation of modern
+    International Law and notwithstanding the German ratification
+    of Convention No. ix. of 1907.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+SECTION 15
+
+_Belligerent Reprisals_
+
+
+REPRISALS
+
+Sir,--The controversy as to the legitimacy of the recent attack on
+Freiburg tends to stray into irrelevancies. If the attack was made upon
+barracks or troop trains no one would surely criticise what is of
+everyday occurrence, although not unlikely to cause incidentally death
+or injury to innocent persons. There seems, however, to be no reason for
+supposing that such military objects were in view, or that our
+aeroplanes were instructed to confine their activity, as far as
+possible, to the attainment of such objects. We must assume, for any
+useful discussion of the question raised, that the operation was
+deliberately intended to result in injury to the property and persons of
+civilian inhabitants, not, of course, by way of vengeance, but by way of
+reprisal--_i.e._ with the practical object of inducing the enemy to
+abstain in the future from his habitually practised illegal barbarities.
+Such reprisals, as is to-day so well explained by your correspondent
+"Jurist," are no violations of international law. Objections might, of
+course, be made to them as unlikely to produce their hoped-for effect,
+or as repugnant to our feelings of humanity or honour. They are not
+illegal.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, May 4 (1917).
+
+
+REPRISALS
+
+Sir,--If my friend Sir Edward Clarke will glance again at my letter of
+Monday, he will, I think, cease to be surprised that it contains no
+answer to his censure from an ethical standpoint of our treatment of
+Freiburg. My object was merely to indicate the desirability of keeping
+the question whether acts of the kind are in violation of international
+law (which I answered in the negative) distinct from questions, which I
+catalogued, as to their practical inutility, with which some of your
+correspondents have occupied themselves, or their repugnancy to feelings
+of honour and humanity with which Sir Edward has dealt exclusively. Any
+discussion of political expediency or of high morals would have been
+beside my purpose.
+
+It is curious that Sir Herbert Stephen should to-day speak of my letter
+of the 7th as a defence of the aerial bombardment of Freiburg. It
+neither attacked nor defended the bombardment, but, solely in the
+interests of clear thinking, indicated the desirability of keeping
+distinct the three points of view from which the topic may be regarded,
+viz.: (1) of international law; (2) of practical utility; (3) of
+morality and honour.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, May 9 (1917).
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+SECTION 16
+
+_Peace_
+
+
+UNDESIRABLE PEACE TALK
+
+Sir,--There has been more than enough of premature discussion by groups
+of well-meaning amateurs, not unfrequently wirepulled by influences
+hostile to this country, with reference to the terms of the treaty of
+peace by which the world-war now raging will be brought to a close.
+
+Movements of the kind have culminated in the action of a body rejoicing
+in the somewhat cumbrous title of the "International Central
+Organisation for a Durable Peace," which is inviting members of about
+fifty societies, of very varying degrees of competence, to a
+cosmopolitan meeting, to be held at Berne in December next. Lest the
+unwary should be beguiled into having anything to do with the plausible
+offer made to them that they should, there and then, assist in compiling
+"a scientific dossier, containing material that will be of vast
+importance to the diplomats who may be chosen to participate in the
+peace congress itself," it may be worth while to call attention to the
+composition of the executive committee by which the invitations are
+issued, and to its "minimum programme."
+
+Of the members of this committee (of thirteen), on which Great Britain
+is represented only by Mr. Lowes Dickenson (mistakenly described as a
+Cambridge Professor), and America only by Mrs. Andrews, of Boston, the
+best known are Professors Lammasch, of Vienna, and Schücking, of
+Marburg. The "minimum programme" demands, _inter alia_, "equal rights
+for all nations in the colonies, &c.," of the Powers; submission of all
+disputes to "pacific procedure," joint action by the Powers against any
+one of them resorting to military measures, rather than to such
+procedure; and that "the right of prize shall be abolished, and the
+freedom of the seas shall be guaranteed." The _provenance_ of this
+"minimum programme" is sufficiently obvious. What is likely to be the
+character of such a "maximum programme" as will doubtless be aimed at by
+the proposed gathering?
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, October 16 (1915).
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER VII
+
+THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF NEUTRALS
+
+
+SECTION 1
+
+_The Criterion of Neutral Conduct_
+
+    The main object of the first of the following letters was to
+    assert, as against any possible misunderstanding of phraseology
+    attributed to a great international lawyer (since lost to
+    science and to his friends by his sudden death on June 20,
+    1909), the authority by which alone neutral rights and duties
+    are defined.
+
+    The letter also touches upon the limit of time which a neutral
+    Power is bound to place upon the stay in its ports of
+    belligerent ships of war; a topic more fully discussed in
+    Section 4.
+
+
+PROFESSOR DE MARTENS ON THE SITUATION
+
+Sir,--The name of my distinguished friend, M. de Martens, carries so
+much weight that I hope you will allow me at once to say that I am
+convinced that to-day's telegraphic report of some communication made by
+him to the St. Petersburg newspapers fails to convey an accurate account
+of the views which he has thus expressed.
+
+On matters of fact it would appear that he is no better informed than
+are most of us in this country; and under matters of fact may be
+included the breaches of neutrality which he is represented as
+counter-charging against the Japanese. It is exclusively with the views
+on questions of law which are attributed to Professor de Martens that I
+am now concerned. He is unquestionably right in saying, as I pointed out
+in a recent letter, that the hard-and-fast rule, fixing 24 hours as the
+limit, under ordinary circumstances, of the stay of a belligerent
+warship in neutral waters, is not yet universally accepted as a rule of
+international law; and, in particular, is not adopted by France.
+
+But what of the further _dictum_ attributed to Professor de Martens, to
+the effect that "each country is its own judge as regards the discharge
+of its duties as a neutral"? This statement would be a superfluous
+truism if it meant merely that each country, when neutral, must, in the
+first instance, decide for itself what courses of action are demanded
+from it under the circumstances. The words may, however, be read as
+meaning that the decision of the neutral country, as to the propriety of
+its conduct, is final, and not to be questioned by other Powers. An
+assertion to this effect would obviously be the negation of the whole
+system of international law, of which Professor de Martens is so great a
+master, resting, as that system does, not on individual caprice, but
+upon the agreement of nations in restraint of the caprice of any one of
+them. The last word, with reference to the propriety of the conduct of
+any given State, rests, of course, not with that State; but with its
+neighbours. "Securus indicat orbis terrarum." Any Power which fails in
+the discharge, to the best of its ability, of a generally recognised
+duty, is likely to find that self-satisfaction is no safeguard against
+unpleasant consequences. Professor de Martens would, I am certain,
+endorse this statement.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, May 12 (1905).
+
+
+NEUTRALS AND THE LAWS OF WAR
+
+Sir,--The interesting address by Sir Edward Carson reported in your
+issue of yesterday will remind many of us of our regret that President
+Wilson, in Notes complaining of injuries sustained by American citizens,
+dwelt so slightly upon the violations of international law by which
+those injuries were brought about.
+
+Sir Edward seems, however, to have made use of certain expressions which
+might be taken to imply a view of neutral responsibility which can
+hardly be accepted. The United States were warned in the address that
+they will not "by a mere Note maintain the obligations which are put
+upon them, as parties to international law, which are to prevent
+breaches of civilisation and to mitigate the horrors of war." Neutrals
+were spoken of as "the executives of international law," and as alone
+standing "behind the conventions" (for humanising warfare). "Abolish,"
+we were told, "the power of neutrals, and you have abolished
+international law itself."
+
+Is this so? The contract into which a State enters with other States, by
+adopting the customary laws of war and by ratifying express Conventions
+dealing with the same subject, obliges it, while remaining neutral, to
+submit to certain inconveniences resulting from the war, and, when
+belligerent, to abstain from certain modes of carrying on hostilities.
+It is assuredly no term of the contract that the State in question shall
+sit in judgment upon its co-contractors and forcibly intervene in _rebus
+inter alios actis_. Its hands are absolutely free. It may remain a
+quiescent spectator of evil, or, if strong enough and indignant with the
+wrongdoing, may endeavour to abate the mischief by remonstrance, and, in
+the last resort, by taking sides against the offender. Let us hope that
+at the present crisis the United States may see their way to choosing
+the better part.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, November 28 (1915).
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+SECTION 2
+
+_The Duties of Neutral States, and the Liabilities of Neutral
+Individuals, distinguished_
+
+    The duties of neutral States have been classified by the
+    present writer under the heads, of "Abstention," "Prevention,"
+    and "Acquiescence." (_Transactions of the British Academy_,
+    vol. ii, p. 55; reproduced in the _Revue de Droit
+    International_, the _Revista de Derecho International_, and the
+    _Marine Rundschau_.) In the three letters which follow, an
+    attempt is made to point out the confusion which has resulted
+    from failure to distinguish between the two last-mentioned
+    heads of neutral duty; on the one hand, namely, the cases in
+    which a neutral government is bound itself to come forward and
+    take steps to prevent certain classes of action on the part of
+    belligerents, or of its own subjects, e.g. the overstay in its
+    ports of belligerent fleets, or the export from its shores of
+    ships of war for belligerent use; and, on the other hand, the
+    cases in which the neutral government is bound only to
+    passively acquiesce in interference by belligerents with the
+    commerce of such of its subjects as may choose, at their own
+    risk and peril, to engage in carriage of contraband, breach of
+    blockade, and the like.
+
+    I. A neutral State is bound to prevent its territory from
+    becoming, in any way, a "base of operations" for either
+    belligerent. Of the various obligations thus arising, the
+    following letters deal with the duty of the State (1) to
+    prevent the departure from its ports of vessels carrying coal
+    intended to supply directly the needs of a belligerent fleet;
+    and (2) to prevent the reception accorded in its ports to
+    belligerent warships from being such as will unduly facilitate
+    their subsequent operations. It is pointed out that the rule
+    adopted by the United States and this country, as well as by
+    some others, when neutral, by which the stay of belligerent
+    warships is limited to twenty-four hours, has not been adopted
+    by the nations of the European continent. The attempt made at
+    The Hague Conference of 1907 to secure the general acceptance
+    of this rule was unsuccessful; and Convention No. xiii. of that
+    year, not yet ratified by Great Britain, which deals with this
+    subject, merely lays down, in Art. 12, that "_In the absence of
+    special provisions to the contrary in the legislation of a
+    neutral Power_, belligerent warships are not permitted to
+    remain in the ports, roadsteads, or territorial waters of the
+    said Power for more than twenty-four hours, except in the cases
+    covered by this Convention." Art. 27 obliges the contracting
+    Powers to "communicate to each other in due course all laws,
+    proclamations, and other enactments, regulating in their
+    respective countries the _Status_ of belligerent warships in
+    their ports laid waters."
+
+    II. A neutral State is not bound to prevent such assistance
+    being rendered by its subjects to either belligerent as is
+    involved in, e.g. blockade-running or carriage of contraband;
+    but merely to acquiesce in the loss and inconvenience which may
+    in consequence be inflicted by the belligerents upon persons so
+    acting. In order to explain this statement, it became necessary
+    to say much as to the true character of "carriage of
+    contraband" (although this topic is more specifically dealt
+    with in the letters contained in Section 5), and to point out
+    that such carriage is neither a breach of international law nor
+    forbidden by the law of England. For the same reason, it seemed
+    desirable to criticise some of the clauses now usually inserted
+    in British Proclamations of Neutrality.
+
+    The view here maintained commended itself to the Institut de
+    Droit International, at its Cambridge and Venice sessions,
+    1895, 1896, as against the efforts of MM Kleen and Brusa to
+    impose on States a duty of preventing carriage of contraband by
+    its subjects (_Annuaire_, t. xiv. p. 191, t. xv. p. 205). It
+    has now received formal expression in The Hague Convention No.
+    x. of 1907, Art. 7 of which lays down that "a neutral Power is
+    _not_ bound to prevent the export or transit, for the use of
+    either belligerent, of arms, ammunition, or, in general, of
+    anything which could be of use to an army or fleet."
+
+
+CONTRABAND OF WAR
+
+Sir,--As a good deal of discussion is evidently about to take place as
+to the articles which may be properly treated as contraband of war, and,
+in particular, as to coal being properly so treated, I venture to think
+that it may be desirable to reduce this topic (a sufficiently large one)
+to its true dimensions by distinguishing it from other topics with which
+it is too liable to be confused.
+
+Articles are "contraband of war" which a belligerent is justified in
+intercepting while in course of carriage to his enemy, although such
+carriage is being effected by a neutral vessel. Whether any given
+article should be treated as contraband is, in the first instance,
+entirely a question for the belligerent Government and its Prize Court.
+A neutral Government has no right to complain, of hardships which may
+thus be incurred by vessels sailing under its flag, but is bound to
+acquiesce in the views maintained by the belligerent Government and its
+Courts, unless these views involve, in the language employed by Lord
+Granville in 1861, "a flagrant violation of international law." This is
+the beginning and end of the doctrine of contraband. A neutral
+Government has none other than this passive duty of acquiescence. Its
+neutrality would not be compromised by the shipment from its shores, and
+the carriage by its merchantmen, of any quantity of cannon, rifles, and
+gunpowder.
+
+Widely different from the above are the following three topics, into the
+consideration of which discussions upon contraband occasionally
+diverge:--
+
+1. The international duty of the neutral Government not to allow its
+territory to become a base of belligerent operations: e.g. by the
+organisation on its shores of an expedition, such as that which in 1828
+sailed from Plymouth in the interest of Dona Maria; by the despatch from
+its harbours for belligerent use of anything so closely resembling an
+expedition as a fully equipped ship of war (as was argued in the case of
+the _Alabama_); by the use of its ports by belligerent ships of war for
+the reception of munitions of war, or, except under strict limitations,
+for the renewal of their stock of coal; or by such an employment of its
+colliers as was alleged during the Franco-Prussian war to have
+implicated British merchantmen in the hostile operations of the French
+fleet in the North Sea. The use of the term "contraband" with reference
+to the failure of a neutral State to prevent occurrences of this kind is
+purely misleading.
+
+2. The powers conferred upon a Government by legislation of restraining
+its subjects from intermeddling in a war in which the Government takes
+no part. Of such legislation our Foreign Enlistment Act is a striking
+example. The large powers conferred by it have no commensurable relation
+to the duties which attach to the position of neutrality. Its effect is
+to enable the Government to prohibit and punish, from abundant caution,
+many acts on the part of its subjects for which it would incur no
+international liability. It does empower the Government to prevent the
+use of its territory as a base: e.g. by aid directly rendered thence
+to a belligerent fleet; but it, of course, gives no right of
+interference with the export or carriage of articles which may be
+treated as contraband.
+
+3. The powers conferred upon a Government by such legislation as section
+150 of the Customs Consolidation Act; 1853, now reproduced in a later
+enactment, of forbidding at any time, by Order in Council, the export of
+articles useful in war. The power thus given has no relation to
+international duty, and is mainly intended to be exercised, in the way
+of self-protection, when Great Britain is, or is likely to be, engaged
+in war. The object of the enactment is to enable the Government to
+retain in the country articles of which we may ourselves be in need, or
+to prevent them from reaching the hands of our enemies. The articles
+enumerated--e.g. arms, ammunition, marine engines, &c.--are, neither
+in the Act of 1853 nor in the Order in Council of the following year,
+described as "contraband of war."
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, March 5 (1904).
+
+
+COAL FOR THE RUSSIAN FLEET
+
+Sir,--The use of coal for belligerent purposes is, of course, of
+comparatively modern date, and it is hardly surprising to find that the
+mercantile community, as would appear from your marine insurance article
+of this morning, does not clearly distinguish between the different
+classes of questions to which such use may give rise. There is indeed a
+widely prevalent confusion, even in quarters which ought to be better
+informed, between two topics which it is essential to keep
+separate--viz. the shipment of contraband, and the use of neutral
+territory as a base for belligerent operations.
+
+A neutral Government (our own at the present moment) occupies a very
+different position with reference to these two classes of acts. With
+reference to the former, its international duty (as also its national
+policy) is merely one of acquiescence. It is bound to stand aside, and
+make no claim to protect from the recognised consequences of their acts
+such of its subjects as are engaged in carriage of contraband. So far as
+the neutral Government is concerned, its subjects may carry even cannon
+and gunpowder to a belligerent port, while the belligerent, on the other
+hand, who is injured by the trade may take all necessary stops to
+suppress it.
+
+Such is the compromise which long experience has shown to be both
+reasonable and expedient between the, in themselves irreconcilable,
+claims of neutral and belligerent States. So far, it has remained
+unshaken by the arguments of theorists, such as the Swedish diplomatist
+M. Kleen, who would impose upon neutral Governments the duty of
+preventing the export of contraband by their subjects. A British trader
+may, therefore, at his own proper risk, despatch as many thousand tons
+of coal as he chooses, just as he may despatch any quantity of rifles or
+bayonets, to Vladivostok or to Nagasaki.
+
+It by no means follows that British shipowners may charter their vessels
+"for such purposes as following the Russian fleet with coal supplies."
+Lord Lansdowne's recent letter to Messrs. Woods, Tylor, and Brown is
+explicit to the effect that such conduct is "not permissible." Lord
+Lansdowne naturally confined himself to answering the question which had
+been addressed by those gentlemen to the Foreign Office; but the reason
+for his answer is not far to seek. The unlawfulness of chartering
+British vessels for the purpose above mentioned is wholly unconnected
+with the doctrine of contraband, but is a consequence of the
+international duty, which if incumbent on every neutral State, of seeing
+that its territory is not made a base of belligerent operations. The
+question was thoroughly threshed out as long ago as 1870, when Mr.
+Gladstone said in the House Of Commons that the Government had adopted
+the opinion of the law officers:
+
+      "That if colliers are chartered for the purpose of attending
+      the fleet of a belligerent and supplying it with coal, to
+      enable it to pursue its hostile operations, such colliers
+      would, to all practical purposes, become store-ships to the
+      fleet, and would be liable, if within reach, to the operation
+      of the English law under the (old) Foreign Enlistment Act."
+
+British colliers attendant on a Russian fleet would be so undeniably
+aiding and abetting the operations of that fleet as to give just cause
+of complaint against us to the Government of Japan. The British shipper
+of coal to a belligerent fleet at sea, besides thus laying his
+Government open to a charge of neglect of an international duty, lays
+himself open to criminal proceedings under the Foreign Enlistment Act of
+1870. By section 8 (3) and (4) of that Act "any person within H.M.
+Dominions" who (subject to certain exceptions) equips or despatches any
+ship, with intent, or knowledge, that the same will be employed in the
+military or naval service of a foreign State, at war with any friendly
+State, is liable to fine or imprisonment, and to the forfeiture of the
+ship. By section 30, "naval service" covers "user as a store-ship," and
+"equipping" covers furnishing a ship with "stores or any other thing
+which is used in or about a ship for the purpose of adapting her for
+naval service." Our Government has, therefore, ample powers for
+restraining, in this respect, the use of its territory as a base. It has
+no power, had it the wish (except for its own protection, under a
+different statute), to restrain the export of contraband of war.
+
+It would tend to clearness of thought if the term "contraband" were
+never employed in discussions with reference to prohibition of the
+supply of coal to a belligerent fleet at sea.
+
+Your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, November 7 (1904).
+
+
+GERMAN WAR MATERIAL FOR TURKEY
+
+Sir,--The _Cologne Gazette_ rightly treats as incredible the rumour,
+mentioned by your Sofia Correspondent, that a trainload of munitions of
+war had been despatched by the German Government for the use of Turkey,
+while admitting that such a consignment may very likely have been
+forwarded from private German workshops.
+
+It has long been settled international law that a neutral Government,
+while, on the one hand, it is precluded from itself supplying munitions
+to a belligerent, is, on the other hand, not bound to prevent private
+individuals from so acting. The latter half of this rule has now
+received written expression in Art. 7 of The Hague Convention No. v. of
+1907, which deals with "Neutral Powers and Persons in War on Land."
+
+The only fault to be found with the paragraph in the _Cologne Gazette_
+quoted by your Berlin Correspondent, supposing it to be correctly
+transcribed, would be that it seems to imply that the above-mentioned
+Art. 7 legitimatises the supply of war material to belligerents by
+"neutral States." It is, however, obvious from the rest of the paragraph
+that the _Gazette_ is not really under that impression.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, December 24 (1911).
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+SECTION 3
+
+_Neutrality Proclamations_
+
+    The criticisms directed against the Proclamation of 1904, in
+    the first two letters which follow, have produced some
+    improvement in Proclamations of later date. See the last two
+    letters of this section. See also Appendix A in F.E. Smith and
+    N.W. Sibley's _International Law in the Russo-Chinese War_
+    (1905), devoted to a consideration of those criticisms.
+
+
+THE BRITISH PROCLAMATION OF NEUTRALITY
+
+Sir,--You were good enough to insert in your issue of November 9 some
+observations which I had addressed to you upon the essential difference
+between carriage of contraband, which takes place at the risk of the
+neutral shipowner, and use of neutral territory as a base for
+belligerent operations, an act which may implicate the neutral Power
+internationally, while also rendering the shipper liable to penal
+proceedings on the part of his own Government. I am gratified, to find
+that the views thus expressed by me are in exact accordance with those
+set forth by Lord Lansdowne in his reply of November 25 to the Chamber
+of Shipping of the United Kingdom. Perhaps you will allow me to say
+something further upon the same subject, suggested by several letters
+which appear in your paper of this morning. I am especially desirous of
+emphasising the proposition that carriage of contraband is no offence,
+either against international law or against the law of England.
+
+1. The rule of international law upon the subject may, I think, be
+expressed as follows: "A belligerent is entitled to capture a neutral
+ship engaged in carrying contraband of war to his enemy, to confiscate
+the contraband cargo, and, in some cases, to confiscate the ship also,
+without thereby giving to, the Power to whose subjects the property in
+question belongs any ground for complaint." Or, to vary the phrase, "a
+neutral Power is bound to acquiesce in losses inflicted by a belligerent
+upon such of its subjects as are engaged in adding to the military
+resources of the enemy of that belligerent." This is the rule to which
+the nations have consented, as a compromise between the right of the
+neutral State that its subjects should carry on their trade without
+interruption, and the right of the belligerent State to prevent that
+trade from bringing an accession of strength to his enemy. International
+law here, as always, deals with relations between States, and has
+nothing to do with the contraband trader, except in so far as it
+deprives him of the protection of his Government. If authority were
+needed for what is here advanced, it might be found in Mr. Justice
+Story's judgment in the _Santissima Trinidad_, in President Pierce's
+message of 1854, and in the statement by the French Government in 1898,
+with reference to the case of the _Fram_, that "the neutral State is not
+required to prevent the sending of arms and ammunition by its subjects."
+
+2. Neither is carriage of contraband any offence against the law of
+England; as may be learnt, by any one who is in doubt as to the
+statement, from the lucid language of Lord Westbury in _Ex parte
+Chavasse_ (34 L.J., Bkry., 17). And this brings me to the gist of this
+letter. I have long thought that the form of the Proclamation of
+Neutrality now in use in this country much needs reconsideration and
+redrafting. The clauses of the Proclamation which are set out by Mr.
+Gibson Bowles in your issue of this morning rightly announce that every
+person engaging in breach of blockade or carriage of contraband "will be
+justly liable to hostile capture and to the penalties denounced by the
+law of nations in that behalf, and will in no wise obtain protection
+from us against such capture or such penalties." So far, so good. But
+the Proclamation also speaks of such acts as those just mentioned as
+being done "in contempt of this our Royal Proclamation, in derogation of
+their duty as subjects of a neutral Power in a war between other Powers,
+or in violation or contravention of the law of nations in that behalf."
+It proceeds to say that all persons "who may misconduct themselves in
+the premises ... will incur our high displeasure for such misconduct." I
+venture to submit that all these last-quoted phrases are of the nature
+of misleading rhetoric, and should be eliminated from a statement the
+effective purport of which is to warn British subjects of the treatment
+to which certain courses of conduct will expose them at the hands of
+belligerents, and to inform them that the British Government will not
+protect them against such treatment. The reason why our Government will
+abstain from interference is, not that such courses of action are
+offences either against international or English law, but that it has no
+right to so interfere; having become a party to a rule of international
+law, under which a neutral Government waives the right, which it would
+otherwise possess, to protect the trade of its subjects from
+molestation.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, November 28 (1904).
+
+
+THE BRITISH PROCLAMATION OF NEUTRALITY
+
+Sir,--Enquiries which have reached me with reference to the observations
+which I recently addressed to you upon the British Proclamation of
+Neutrality induce me to think that some account of the development of
+the text of the proclamation now in use may be of interest to your
+readers. The proclamations with which I am acquainted conform to one or
+other of two main types, each of which has its history.
+
+1. The earlier proclamations merely call attention to the English law
+against enlistments, &c., for foreign service; and command obedience to
+the law, upon pain of the penalties thereby inflicted, "and of his
+Majesty's high displeasure." In the proclamation of 1817, the tacit
+reference is doubtless to certain Acts of George II, which, having been
+passed for a very different purpose, and having proved inadequate in
+their new application, were repealed by the Foreign Enlistment Act of
+1819. This is the Act to which reference is made in the proclamations of
+1823 and 1825; in the former of which we first get a recital of
+neutrality; while in the latter the clause enjoining all subjects
+strictly to observe the duties of neutrality and to respect the exercise
+of belligerent rights first makes its appearance.
+
+2. The proclamation of 1859 is of a very different character, bearing
+traces of the influence of the ideas which had inspired the action of
+President Washington in 1793. While carrying on the old, it presents
+several new features. British subjects are enjoined to abstain from
+violating, not only "the laws and statutes of the realm," but also (for
+the first time) "the law of nations." They are also (for the first time)
+warned that, if any of them "shall presume, in contempt of this our
+Royal Proclamation, and of our high displeasure, to do any acts in
+derogation of their duty as subjects of a neutral Sovereign, ... or in
+violation of the law of nations, ... as, more especially," by breach of
+blockade, or carriage of contraband, &c., they will "rightfully incur,
+and be justly liable to, hostile capture, and to the penalties denounced
+by the law of nations in that behalf"; and notice is (for the first
+time) given that those "who may misconduct themselves in the premises
+will do so at their peril, and of their own wrong; and that they will in
+no wise obtain any protection from Us against such capture, or such
+penalties as aforesaid, but will, on the contrary, incur Our high
+displeasure by such misconduct."
+
+The proclamations of 1861 and February and March 1866 complicate
+matters, by making the warning clause as to blockade and contraband
+apply also to the statutory offences of enlistment, &c.; but the
+proclamation of June, 1866, gets rid of this complication by returning
+to the formula of 1859, which has been also followed in 1870, 1877,
+1898, and in the present year.
+
+The formula as it now stands, after the process of growth already
+described, may be said to consist of seven parts--viz. (1) a recital
+of neutrality; (2) a command to subjects to observe a strict neutrality,
+and to abstain from contravention of the laws of the realm or the law of
+nations in relation thereto; (3) a recital of the Foreign Enlistment Act
+of 1870; (4) a command that the statute be obeyed, upon pain of the
+penalties thereby imposed, "and of Our high displeasure"; (5) a warning
+to observe the duties of neutrality, and to respect the exercise of
+belligerent rights; (6) a further warning to those who, in contempt of
+the proclamation "and of Our high displeasure," may do any acts "in
+derogation of neutral duty, or in violation of the law of nations,"
+especially by breach of blockade, carriage of contraband, &c., that they
+will be liable to capture "and to the penalties denounced by the law of
+nations"; (7) a notification that persons so misconducting themselves
+"will in no wise obtain any protection from Us," but will, "on the
+contrary, incur Our high displeasure by such misconduct."
+
+The question which I have ventured to raise is whether the _textus
+receptus_, built up, as it has been, by successive accretions, is
+sufficiently in accordance with the facts to which it purports to call
+the attention of British subjects to be properly submitted to His
+Majesty for signature. I would suggest for consideration: 1. Whether the
+phrases commanding obedience, on pain of His Majesty's "high
+displeasure," and the term "misconduct," should not be used only with
+reference to offences recognised as such by the law of England. 2.
+Whether such condensed, and therefore incorrect, though very commonly
+employed, expressions as imply that breach of blockade and carriage of
+contraband are "in violation of the law of nations," and are liable to
+"the penalties denounced by the law of nations," should not be replaced
+by expressions more scientifically correct. The law of nations neither
+prohibits the acts in question nor prescribes penalties to be incurred
+by the doers of them. What it really does is to define the measures to
+which a belligerent may resort for the suppression of such acts, without
+laying himself open to remonstrance from the neutral Government to which
+the traders implicated owe allegiance.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, December 5 (1904).
+
+
+THE BRITISH PROCLAMATION OF NEUTRALITY
+
+Sir,--I am glad that Mr. Gibson Bowles has called attention to certain
+respects in which the Proclamation of Neutrality issued by our
+Government on the 3rd of the present month differs from that issued on
+February 11, 1904.
+
+In two letters addressed to you with reference to the Proclamation of
+that year, I ventured to point out what appeared to me to be its
+defects, alike from a scientific and from a practical point of view. The
+present Proclamation has slightly minimised these defects, but, as a
+whole, remains open to the objections which I then raised. I have no
+wish to repeat in detail the contents of my letters of 1904, especially
+as they may be now found in my _Letters upon War and Neutrality_,
+published in 1909, pp. 95 and 98, but am unwilling not to take this
+opportunity once more to urge the desirability of redrafting the
+document in question.
+
+The Proclamation just issued still answers to my description of that of
+1904, as consisting of seven parts--viz.: (1) A recital of neutrality;
+(2) a command to subjects to observe a strict neutrality, and to abstain
+from contravention of the laws of the realm or the Law of Nations in
+relation thereto; (3) a recital of the Foreign Enlistment Act, 1870; (4)
+a command that the statute be obeyed, upon pain of the penalties thereby
+imposed, and of "Our high displeasure"; (5) a warning to observe the
+duties of neutrality and to respect the exercise of belligerent rights;
+(6) a further warning that any persons presuming, in contempt of the
+Proclamation, to do acts in derogation of their duty as subjects of a
+neutral Power, or of the Law of Nations, will incur the penalties
+denounced by such law; (7) a notice that persons so misconducting
+themselves will obtain no protection from their Sovereign.
+
+With the phraseology of No. 1, reciting British neutrality, and Nos.
+2-5, dealing with the duties of British subjects under the Foreign
+Enlistment Act of 1870, and constituting the bulk of the Proclamation,
+little serious fault can be found. It is well that such persons should
+be warned of the penalties which they may incur, including the Royal
+displeasure.
+
+The remaining two clauses relate, however, to matters of a totally
+different character from those previously mentioned, and care should
+therefore have been taken, but has not been taken, to make this
+perfectly clear. I would further remark upon these clauses: (1) That I
+agree with Mr. Bowles in regretting the omission here of the specific
+mention made in 1904 of "breach of blockade," "carriage of contraband,"
+&c., as specimens of the acts undoubtedly contemplated in these two
+clauses; (2) that it is a mistake to describe acts of this kind as being
+in derogation of "the duty of subjects of a neutral Power," or "in
+violation of the Law of Nations," or as "liable to the penalties
+denounced by such law." Carriage of contraband, and acts of the same
+class, are notoriously not condemned by English law, neither are they,
+in any proper sense, breaches of the Law of Nations, which, speaking
+scientifically, never deals with individuals, as such, but only with the
+rights and duties of States _inter se_. What the Law of Nations really
+does is, as I said in 1904, "to define the measures to which a
+belligerent may resort for the suppression of such acts, without laying
+himself open to remonstrance from the neutral Government to which the
+traders implicated owe allegiance"; (3) that on the other hand, I am
+glad to find that, in accordance with my suggestion, while it continues
+very properly to be stated that persons doing the acts under discussion
+"will in no wise obtain any protection from Us against such capture,
+&c.," the further statement that such persons "will, on the contrary,
+incur Our high displeasure by such misconduct," has now been with equal
+propriety omitted.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+The Athenæum, October 9 (1911).
+
+
+THE PROCLAMATION OF NEUTRALITY
+
+Sir,--May I be allowed to point out that two questions arise upon the
+recent British Proclamation of Neutrality which were not, as they should
+have been, in the House of Commons last night, kept entirely distinct?
+
+The Government has surely done right in now omitting, as I suggested in
+1904, with reference to certain classes of acts which are prohibited
+neither by English nor by International Law, a phrase announcing that
+the doers of them would incur the King's "high displeasure"; while
+retaining the warning that doers of such acts must be prepared for
+consequences from which their own Government will not attempt to shield
+them.
+
+On the other hand, our Government has surely erred in not specifying, as
+in previous Proclamations, the sort of acts to which this warning
+relates--viz., to acts such as carriage of contraband, enemy service,
+and breach of blockade, which differ wholly in character from those
+violations of the Foreign Enlistment Act against which the bulk of the
+Proclamation is directed. As the Proclamation now stands, no clear
+transition is marked between breaches of English law and the unspecified
+acts which, though perfectly legal, will forfeit for the doers of them
+any claim to British protection from the consequences involved. Traders
+are left to find out as best they may the meaning of the general words
+"any acts in derogation of their duty as subjects of a neutral Power."
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, October 31 (1911).
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+SECTION 4
+
+_Neutral Hospitality_
+
+    The Hague Convention of 1907, No. xiii., not yet ratified by
+    Great Britain, suggests in Art. 12, with reference to the
+    question here raised, that "à défaut d'autres dispositions
+    spéciales de la législation de la Puissance neutre, il est
+    interdit aux navires de guerre des belligérants de demeurer
+    dans les ports et rades ou dans les eaux territoriales de la
+    dite Puissance pendant plus de 24 heures sauf dans les cas
+    prévues par la présente Convention."
+
+
+BELLIGERENT FLEETS IN NEUTRAL WATERS
+
+Sir,--A novel question as to belligerent responsibilities would be
+suggested for solution if, as seems to be reported in Paris, Admiral
+Rozhdestvensky over-stayed his welcome in the waters of Madagascar,
+although ordered to leave them by his own Government in compliance with
+"pressing representations" on the part of the Government of France.
+
+A much larger question is, however, involved in the discussion which has
+arisen as to the alleged neglect by France to prevent the use of her
+Cochin-Chinese waters by the Russians as a base of operations against
+Japan. We are as yet in the dark as to what is actually occurring in
+those waters, and are, perhaps, for that very reason in a better
+position for endeavouring to ascertain what are the obligations imposed
+on a neutral in such a case by international law.
+
+It is admitted on all hands that a neutral Power is bound not to permit
+the "asylum" which she may grant to ships of war to be so abused as to
+render her waters a "base of operations" for the belligerent to which
+those ships belong. Beyond this, international law speaks at present
+with an uncertain voice, leaving to each Power to resort to such
+measures in detail as may be necessary to ensure the due performance of
+a duty which, as expressed in general terms, is universally recognised.
+
+The rule enforced since 1862 by Great Britain for this purpose limits
+the stay of a belligerent warship, under ordinary circumstances, to a
+period of twenty-four hours; and the same provision will be found in the
+neutrality proclamations issued last year by, e.g. the United States,
+Egypt, China, Denmark, Sweden and Norway. So by Japan and Russia in
+1898. This rule, convenient and reasonable as it is, is not yet a rule
+of international law; as Lord Percy has had occasion to point out, in
+replying to a question addressed to him in the House of Commons. The
+proclamations of most of the Continental Powers do not commit their
+respective Governments to any period of time, and the material clauses
+of the French circular, to which most attention will be directed at the
+present time, merely provide as follows:--
+
+      "(1) En aucun cas, un belligérant ne peut faire usage d'un
+      port Français, ou appartenant à un État protégé, dans un but
+      de guerre, &c. (2) La durée du séjour dans nos ports de
+      belligérants, non accompagnés d'une prise, n'a été limitée
+      par aucune disposition spéciale; mais pour être autorisés à y
+      séjourner, ils sont tenus de se conformer aux conditions
+      ordinaires de la neutralité, qui peuvent se résumer ainsi
+      qu'il suit:--(_a_) ... (_b_) Les dits navires ne peuvent, _à
+      l'aide de ressources puisées à terre_, augmenter leur
+      matériel de guerre, renforcer leurs équipages, ni faire des
+      enrôlements volontaires, même parmi leurs nationaux. (_c_)
+      Ils doivent s'abstenir de toute enquête sur les forces,
+      l'emplacement ou les ressources de leurs ennemis, ne pas
+      appareiller brusquement pour poursuivre ceux qui leur
+      seraient signalés; en un mot, s'abstenir de faire du lieu de
+      leur résidence la base d'une opération quelconque contre
+      l'ennemi. (3) Il ne peut être fourni à un belligérant que les
+      vivres, denrées, et moyens de réparations nécessaires à la
+      subsistence de son équipage ou à la sécurité de sa
+      navigation."
+
+Under the twenty-four hours rule, the duty of the neutral Government is
+clear. Under the French rules, all must evidently turn upon the wisdom
+and _bonne volonté_ of the officials on the spot, and of the home
+Government, so far as it is in touch with them. We have no reason to
+suppose that the qualities in question will not characterise the conduct
+of the French at the present moment. There can, however, be no doubt
+that a better definition of the mode in which a neutral Power should
+prevent abusive use of the asylum afforded by its ports and waters is
+urgently required. The point is one which must prominently engage the
+attention of the special conference upon the rights and duties of
+neutrals, for which a wish was expressed by The Hague Conference of
+1899, and, more recently, by President Roosevelt.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, April 20 (1905).
+
+
+THE APPAM
+
+Sir,--It is satisfactory to learn that the United States Neutrality
+Board has decided adversely to the contention that the _Appam_ is a
+German ship of war. Her treatment as a prize would then, _prima facie_,
+seem to be governed by Art. 21 of The Hague Convention, No. xiii., which
+provides for her being released, together with her officers and crew,
+while the prize crew is to be interned. This Convention has been duly
+ratified both by Germany and by the United States. Its non-ratification
+by Great Britain is, I conceive, irrelevant.
+
+But Germany contends that the situation is governed by Art. 19, the text
+of which has been several times set out in your columns, of the old
+Convention of 1799. This may startle those who are acquainted with what
+occurred at The Hague in 1907, and I have seen no reference to what must
+be the gist of the German argument on the point. They no doubt argue
+that the old Convention remains unrepealed by No. xiii. of The Hague,
+because the latter Convention is of no effect, in pursuance of its
+common form Art. 28, to the effect that:--"The provisions of the present
+Convention do not apply except between contracting Powers, and then only
+if all the belligerents are parties to the Convention" (which is by no
+means the case).
+
+Your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, February 4 (1916).
+
+
+    Certain reservations on ratification do not affect Arts. 21 or
+    22.
+
+    The State Department ruled that the case did not fall within
+    the protecting clauses of the Treaty of 1799, which granted
+    asylum only to ships of war accompanying prizes, whereas the
+    _Appam_ was herself a prize. Proceedings by the owners in the
+    local Federal Court for possession of the ship resulted in a
+    decision in their favour, against which the Germans are
+    appealing in the Supreme Court. They do not seem to have raised
+    the objection, mentioned in the letter, as to the applicability
+    of Convention viii.
+
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+SECTION 5
+
+_Carriage of Contraband. (Absolute and Conditional Contraband:
+Continuous Voyages: Unqualified Captors: The Declaration of London)_
+
+    The letters included in the preceding sections 2 and 3 touched
+    incidentally upon carriage of contraband, in relation to other
+    departments of the law affecting neutrals. The eight letters
+    which follow, suggested respectively by the Spanish-American,
+    the Boer, and the Russo-Japanese wars, deal exclusively with
+    this topic, which seems likely to be henceforth governed no
+    longer only by customary and judge-made law, but largely also
+    by written rules, such as those suggested by the unratified
+    Declaration of London of 1909.
+
+
+    (_Absolute and Conditional Contraband_)
+
+    The divergence which has so long existed between Anglo-American
+    and Continental views upon contraband was very noticeable at
+    the commencement of the war of 1898, which gave occasion to the
+    letter which immediately follows. While the Spanish Decree of
+    April 23 set out only one list of contraband goods, the United
+    States Instructions of June 20 recognised two lists--viz. of
+    "absolute" and of "conditional" contraband, including under the
+    latter head "coal when destined for a naval station, a port of
+    call, or a ship or ships of the enemy; materials for the
+    construction of railways or telegraphs, and money, when such
+    materials or money are destined for an enemy's forces,
+    provisions, when destined for an enemy's ship or ships, for a
+    place besieged."
+
+    An answer was thus supplied to the question suggested in this
+    letter, as to articles _ancipitis usus_.
+
+
+CONTRABAND OF WAR
+
+Sir,--I fear that the mercantile community will hardly profit so much as
+the managers of the Atlas Steamship Company seem to expect by the
+information contained in their letter which you print this morning. It
+was, indeed, unlikely that the courteous reply of the Assistant
+Secretary of State at Washington to the enquiry addressed to him by the
+New York agents of the company would contain a declaration of the policy
+of the United States with reference to contraband of war. The threefold
+classification of "merchandise" (not of "contraband") quoted in the
+reply occurs, in the judgment of the Supreme Court in the well-known
+case of the _Peterhoff_ (5 Wallace, 58), but it is substantially that of
+Grotius, and has long been accepted in this country and in the United
+States, while the Continent is, generally speaking, inclined to deny the
+existence of "contraband by accident," and to recognise only such a
+restricted list of contraband as was contained in the Spanish decree of
+April 24 last.
+
+The questions upon which shippers are really desirous of information
+(which they are, however, perhaps not likely to obtain, otherwise than
+from decisions of prize Courts) are of a less elementary character. They
+would like to know what articles _ancipitis usus_ ("used for purposes of
+war or peace according to circumstances") will be treated by the United
+States as contraband, and with what penalty the carriage of such
+articles will be visited--_i.e._ whether by confiscation or merely by
+pre-emption.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, May 9 (1898).
+
+
+    The four letters which next follow also relate to the two
+    classes of contraband goods, with especial reference to the
+    character attributed to foodstuffs, coal and cotton.
+
+    On foodstuffs, see the _Report of the Royal Commission on the
+    Supply of Food, &c., in Time of War_, 1905. _Cf._ also
+    _infra._, pp. 174, 176, 177. They were placed by the unratified
+    Declaration of London, Art. 24, in the class of conditional
+    contraband; as is also coal. By Art. 28 of the Declaration, raw
+    cotton was enumerated among the articles which cannot be
+    declared contraband of war.
+
+    The suggestion in the letter of February 20, 1904, that certain
+    words quoted from the Japanese instructions had been
+    mistransmitted or misquoted was borne out by the Regulations
+    governing captures at sea, issued on March 15, 1904, Art. 14 of
+    which announces that certain goods are contraband "in case they
+    are destined to the enemy's army or navy, or in case they are
+    destined to the enemy's territory, and from the landing place
+    it can be inferred that they are intended for military
+    purposes."
+
+    The letters of March 10 and 15, 1905, will sufficiently explain
+    themselves. The accuracy of the statements contained in them
+    was vouched for by Baron Suyematsu, in a letter which appeared
+    in _The Times_ for March 16, to the effect that: "In Japan the
+    matters relating to the organisation and procedure of the prize
+    court, and the matters relating to prize, contraband goods,
+    &c., are regulated by two separate sets of laws.... The
+    so-called prize Court law of August 20, 1894, and amendment
+    dated March 1, 1904, which your correspondent refers to, are
+    the provisions relating to the former matters. The rules
+    regulating the latter matters--viz. prize, contraband goods,
+    &c., are not comprised in them. The rules which relate to the
+    latter matters, as existing at present, are consolidated and
+    comprised in an enactment which was issued on March 7, 1904....
+    Under the circumstances I can only repeat what Professor
+    Holland says ... in other words, I fully concur with the views
+    taken by the Professor."
+
+    The distinction between articles which are "absolutely
+    contraband," those which are "conditionally contraband," and
+    those which are incapable of being declared contraband was
+    expressly adopted in Arts. 22, 24, and 28 of the unratified
+    Declaration of London of 1909, as to which, see the comment at
+    the end of this section, as also the whole of Section 10.
+
+
+IS COAL CONTRABAND OF WAR?
+
+Sir,--This question has now been answered, in unmistakable terms, on
+behalf of this country by Lord Lansdowne in his reply, which you printed
+yesterday, to Messrs. Powley, Thomas, and Co., and on behalf of Japan by
+the proclamation which appears in _The Times_ of to-day. Both of these
+documents set forth the old British doctrine, now fully adopted in the
+United States, and beginning to win its way on the Continent of Europe,
+that, besides articles which are absolutely contraband, other articles
+_ancipitis usus_, and amongst them coal, may become so under certain
+conditions. "When destined," says Lord Lansdowne, "for warlike as
+opposed to industrial use." "When destined," says Japan, "for the
+enemy's army or navy, or in such cases where, _being goods arriving, at
+enemy's territory_, there is reason to believe that they are intended
+for use of enemy's army or navy."
+
+I may say that the words which I have italicised must, I think, have
+been mistranslated or mistransmitted. Their intention is, doubtless,
+substantially that which was more clearly expressed in the Japanese
+proclamation of 1894 by the words: "Either the enemy's fleet at sea or a
+hostile port used exclusively or mainly for naval or military
+equipment."
+
+A phrase in your issue of to-day with reference to the Cardiff coal
+trade suggests that it may be worth while to touch upon the existence of
+a widely-spread confusion between the grounds on which export of coal
+may be prohibited by a neutral country and those which justify its
+confiscation, although on board a neutral ship, by a belligerent. A
+neutral State restrains, under certain circumstances, the export of
+coal, not because coal is contraband, but because such export is
+converting the neutral territory into a base of belligerent operations.
+The question of contraband or no contraband only arises between the
+neutral carrier and the belligerent when the latter claims to be
+entitled to interfere with the trade of the former.
+
+Since the rules applicable to the carriage of coal are, I venture to
+think, equally applicable, to the carriage of foodstuffs, I may perhaps
+be allowed to add a few words with reference to the letter addressed to
+you a day or two ago by Sir Henry Bliss. I share his desire for some
+explanation of the telegram which reached you on the 12th of this month
+from British Columbia. One would like to know: (1) What is "the
+Government," if any, which has instructed the Empress Line not to
+forward foodstuffs to Japan; (2) whether the refusal relates to
+foodstuffs generally, or only to those with a destination for warlike
+use; (3) what is meant by the statement that "the steamers of the
+Empress Line belong to the Naval Reserve"? I presume the meaning to be
+that the line is subsidised with a view to the employment of the ships
+of the company as British cruisers when Great Britain is at war. The
+bearing of this fact upon the employment of the ships when Great Britain
+is at peace is far from apparent. It is, of course, possible that the
+Government contract with the company may have been so drawn, _ex
+abundanti cautela_, as greatly to restrict what would otherwise have
+been the legitimate trade of the company.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, February 20 (1904).
+
+
+COTTON AS CONTRABAND OF WAR
+
+Sir,--The text of the decision of the Court of Appeal at St. Petersburg
+in the case of the _Calchas_ has at length reached this country, and we
+are thus informed, upon the highest authority, though, perhaps, not in
+the clearest language, of the meaning which is now to be placed upon the
+Russian notification that cotton is contraband of war.
+
+This notification, promulgated on April 21, 1904, was received with
+general amazement, not diminished by an official gloss to the effect
+that it "applied only to raw cotton suitable for the manufacture of
+explosives, and not to yarn or tissues." It must be remembered that at
+the date mentioned, and for some months afterwards, Russia stoutly
+maintained that all the articles enumerated in her list of contraband of
+February 28, 1904, and in the additions to that list, were "absolutely"
+such; _i.e._ were confiscable if in course of carriage to any enemy's
+port, irrespectively of the character of that port, or of the use to
+which the articles would probably be put. It was only after much
+correspondence, and the receipt of strong protests from Great Britain
+and the United States, that Russia consented to recognise the well-known
+distinction between "absolute" and "conditional" contraband; the latter
+class consisting of articles useful in peace as well as for war, the
+character of which must, therefore, depend upon whether they are, in
+point of fact, destined for warlike or for peaceful uses. This
+concession was made about the middle of September last, and it was then
+agreed that provisions should be placed in the secondary category (as
+was duly explained in the Petersburg judgment in the case of the
+_Arabia_ on December 14) together with some other articles, among which
+it seemed that raw cotton was not included.
+
+The final decision in the _Calchas_ case marks a welcome change of
+policy. Cotton has now followed foodstuffs into the category of
+"conditional" contraband, and effect has so far been given to the
+representations on the subject made by Mr. Hay in circular despatches of
+June 10 and August 30, 1904, and by Sir Charles Hardinge, in a note
+presented to Count Lamsdorff on October 9 of the same year.
+
+The question had become a practical one in the case of the _Calchas_. On
+July 25 this vessel, laden with, _inter alia_, nine tons of raw cotton
+for Yokohama and Kobe, was seized by a Russian cruiser and carried into
+Vladivostok, where, on September 18, the cotton, together with other
+portions of her cargo, was condemned as absolutely contraband. The
+reasons for repudiating this decision, and the notification to which it
+gave effect, were not far to seek, and it may still be worth while to
+insist upon them. As against Russia, it is well to recall that, from the
+days of the Armed Neutralities onwards, her traditional policy has been
+to favour a very restricted list of contraband; that when in 1877, as
+again in 1900 and 1904, she included in it materials "servant de faire
+sauter les obstacles," the examples given of such materials were things
+so immediately fitted for warlike use as "les mines, les torpilles, la
+dynamite," &c.; and that what is said as to "conditional contraband" by
+her trusted adviser, Professor de Martens, in his _Droit International_,
+t. iii (1887), pp. 351-354, can scarcely be reconciled with her recent
+action.
+
+But a still stronger argument against the inclusion of cotton in the
+list of "absolute" contraband is that this is wholly without precedent.
+It has, indeed, been alleged that cotton was declared to be "contraband"
+by the United States in their Civil War. The Federal proclamations will,
+however, be searched in vain for anything of the kind. The mistake is
+due to an occasional loose employment of the term, as descriptive of
+articles found by an invader in an enemy's territory, which, although
+the property of private, and even neutral, individuals, happen to be so
+useful for the purposes of the war as to be justly confiscated. That
+this was so will appear from an attentive reading of the case of _Mrs.
+Alexander's Cotton_, in 1861 (2 Wallace, 404), and of the arguments in
+the claim made by Messrs. Maza and Larrache against the United States in
+1886 (Foreign Relations of U.S., 1887). A similarly loose use of the
+term was its application by General B.F. Butler to runaway slaves who
+had been employed on military works--an application of which he
+confessed himself "never very proud as a lawyer," though "as an
+executive officer, much comforted with it." The phrase caught the
+popular fancy, came to be applied to slaves generally, and was
+immortalised in a song, long a favourite among negro children, the
+refrain of which was "I'se a happy little contraband."
+
+The decision of the Court of St. Petersburg in the case of the
+_Calchas_, so far as it recognises the existence of a conditional class
+of contraband, and that raw cotton, as _res ancipitis usus_, must be
+treated in accordance with the rules applicable to goods belonging to
+that class, has laid down an unimpeachable proposition of law. Whether
+the view taken by the Court of the facts of the case, so far as they
+relate to the cotton cargo, is equally satisfactory, is a different and
+less important question, upon which I refrain from troubling you upon
+the present occasion.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+
+P.S.--It may be worth while to add, for the benefit of those only who
+care to be provided with a clue (not to be found in the judgment)
+through the somewhat labyrinthine details of the question under
+discussion, a summary of its history. The Russian rules as to contraband
+are contained in several documents--viz. the "Regulations as to Naval
+Prize" of 1895, Arts. 11-14; the "Admiralty Instructions" of 1900, Arts.
+97, 98, and the appended "Special Declaration" as to the articles
+considered to be contraband (partly modelled on the list of 1877); the
+"Imperial Order" of February 28, 1904, rule 6 (this Order keeps alive
+the rules of 1895 and 1900, except in so far as they are varied by it);
+the "Order" of March 19, 1904, defining "food" and bringing machinery of
+certain kinds into the list of contraband; the "Order," of April 21,
+1904, bringing "raw cotton" into the list; and, lastly, the
+"Instructions" of September 30 and October 28, 1904, recognising, in
+effect, a class of "conditional" contraband, placing foodstuffs in this
+class, as also, ultimately, other objects "capable of warlike use and
+not specified in sections 1-9 of rule 6."
+
+T. E. H.
+Temple, July 1 (1905).
+
+
+COTTON AS CONTRABAND
+
+Sir,--Your correspondent "Judex" will rejoice, as I do, that cotton has
+now been declared to be "absolute contraband." May I, however, suggest
+that the topic should be discussed without any reference to the
+fortunately unratified Declaration of London, that premature attempt to
+codify the law of maritime warfare, claiming, misleadingly, that its
+rules "correspond in substance with the generally recognised principles
+of international law"?
+
+It is surely regrettable that, by the Order in Council of August 20,
+1914, our Government adopted the provisions of the Declaration "during
+the present hostilities," and "subject to various additions and
+modifications," the list of which has since been considerably extended.
+This half-hearted course of action painfully recalls certain vicious
+methods of legislation by reference, and was additionally uncalled for,
+since, as has been shown by recent events, about two-thirds of the rules
+laid down by the Declaration are inapplicable to modern warfare.
+
+The straightforward announcement made by the United States in their Note
+of January 25 is surely far preferable. It states in plain terms that,
+"As the Declaration of London is not in force, the rules of
+international law only apply. As to articles to be regarded as
+contraband there is no general agreement between nations." In point of
+fact, the hard-and-fast categories of neutral imports, suggested by the
+threefold Grotian division, as set forth in the Declaration, are
+unlikely ever to be generally accepted. Even Grotius is careful to limit
+his proposals, and Bynkershoek, in commenting upon them, points out that
+the test of contraband of the most noxious kind must be the, possibly
+exceptional, importance of objects for hostile use; their being of use
+also for non-hostile purposes being immaterial ("nec interesse an et
+extra bellum usum praebeant"). The application of these remarks to the
+case of cotton is sufficiently obvious.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, August 23 (1915).
+
+
+JAPANESE PRIZE LAW
+
+Sir,--I hope you will allow me space for a few words with reference to
+some statements occurring to-day in your Marine Insurance news which I
+venture to think are of a misleading character.
+
+Your Correspondent observes that--
+
+      "Although the Japanese are signatories to the Treaty of
+      Paris, it should not be forgotten that they haw a Prize Court
+      Law of their own (August 20, 1894), and are more likely to
+      follow its provisions, in dealing with the various captured
+      steamers, than the general principles of the Treaty of
+      Paris."
+
+Upon this paragraph let me remark:--
+
+1. The action of the Japanese is in full accordance with the letter and
+spirit of all four articles of the Declaration of Paris. ("The Treaty of
+Paris" has, of course, no bearing upon prize law.)
+
+2. "The general principles" of that Declaration is a phrase which
+conveys to me, I confess, no meaning.
+
+3. The Japanese have, of course, a prize law of their own, borrowed, for
+the most part, from our own Admiralty Manual of Prize Law. Neither the
+British nor the Japanese instructions are in conflict with, or indeed
+stand in any relation to, the Declaration of Paris.
+
+4. The existing prize law of Japan was promulgated on March 7, 1904, not
+on August 20, 1894.
+
+Your Correspondent goes on to say that the Japanese definition of
+contraband "is almost as sweeping as was the Russian definition, to
+which the British Government took active objection last summer." So far
+is this from being the case that the Japanese list is practically the
+same as our own, both systems recognising the distinction between
+"absolute" and "conditional" contraband, which, till the other day, was
+ignored by Russia.
+
+The Japanese rules as to the cases in which ships carrying contraband
+may be confiscated are quite reasonable and in accordance with British
+views. The third ground for confiscation mentioned by your Correspondent
+does not occur in the instructions of 1904.
+
+Ships violating a blockade are, of course, confiscable; but the Japanese
+do not, as your Correspondent seems to have been informed, make the
+existence of a blockade conditional upon its having been "notified to
+the Consuls of all States in the blockaded port." Commanders are, no
+doubt, instructed to notify the fact, "as far as possible, to the
+competent authorities and the Consuls of the neutral Powers within the
+circumference of the blockade"; but that is a very different thing.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+The Athenæum, March 10 (1905).
+
+
+JAPANESE PRIZE LAW
+
+Sir,--Let me assure your correspondent upon Marine Insurance that I have
+been familiar, ever since its promulgation, with the Japanese prize law
+of 1894, quoted by him as authority for statements made in your issue of
+March 10, the misleading character of which I felt bound to point out in
+a letter of the same date. All the topics mentioned by him on that
+occasion, and to-day, are, however, regulated, not by that law, but by
+notifications and instructions issued from time to time during 1904.
+
+I make it my business not only to be authoritatively informed on such
+matters, but also to see that my information is up to date.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, March 15 (1905).
+
+
+_(Continuous Voyages)_
+
+    The opinion expressed in the letter which immediately follows,
+    that the American decisions, applying to carriage of contraband
+    the doctrine of "continuous voyages," seem to be "demanded by
+    the conditions of modern commerce, and might well be followed
+    by a British prize Court," was referred to by Lord Salisbury in
+    a despatch of January 10, 1900, to be communicated to Count von
+    Bülow, with reference to the seizure of _Bundesrath_. _Parl.
+    Papers_, Africa, No. 1 (1900), p. 19.
+
+    The distinction, drawn in the same letter, between "carriage of
+    contraband" and "enemy service," which has sometimes been lost
+    sight of, was established in the case of _Yangtsze Insurance
+    Association_ v. _Indemnity Mutual Marine Company_, [1908] K.B.
+    910, in which it was held by Bigham, J., that the transport of
+    military officers of a belligerent State, as passengers in a
+    neutral ship, is not a breach or a warranty against contraband
+    of war in a policy of marine insurance. The carriage of enemy
+    despatches will no longer be generally treated as "enemy
+    service" since The Hague Convention, No. xi. of 1907, ratified
+    by most of the Powers, including Great Britain, on November 27,
+    1909, by Art. 1 provides that, except in the case of breach of
+    blockade, "the postal correspondence of neutrals or
+    _belligerents_, whether of _an official_ or a private
+    character, found on board a _neutral_ or enemy ship on the High
+    Seas is inviolable."
+
+    The case of the _Allanton_, which gave occasion for the letter
+    of July 11, 1904, was as follows. This British ship left
+    Cardiff on February 24 of that year, with a cargo of coal to be
+    delivered either at Hong-Kong or Sasebo. On arrival at
+    Hong-Kong, she found orders to deliver at Sasebo, and, having
+    made delivery accordingly, was chartered by a Japanese company
+    at another Japanese port, to carry coal to a British firm at
+    Singapore. On her way thither, she was captured by a Russian
+    squadron and taken in to Vladivostok, where on June 24 she was
+    condemned by the prize Court for carriage of contraband. The
+    Court held, ignoring the rule that a vessel ceases to be _in
+    dilecto_ when she has "deposited" her contraband (since
+    affirmed by Art. 38 of the Declaration of London of 1909), that
+    she was liable in respect of her voyage to Sasebo; as also in
+    respect of the voyage on which she was captured, on the ground
+    that her real destination was at that time the Japanese fleet,
+    or some Japanese port. This decision was reversed, as to both
+    ship and cargo, by the Court of Appeal at St. Petersburg, on
+    October 22 of the same year.
+
+    The doctrine of "continuous voyages" was by the Declaration of
+    London, Art. 30, recognised in the case of "absolute," but by
+    Art. 35 was stated to be inapplicable to the case of
+    "conditional" contraband.
+
+
+PRIZE LAW
+
+Sir,--Questions of maritime international law which are likely to give
+rise not only to forensic argument in the prize Courts which we have
+established at Durban and at the Cape, but also to diplomatic
+communications between Great Britain and neutral Governments, should
+obviously be handled just now with a large measure of reserve. Lord
+Rosebery has, however, in your columns called upon our Government to
+define its policy with reference to foodstuffs as contraband of war,
+while several other correspondents have touched upon, cognate topics.
+You may perhaps therefore be disposed to allow one who is responsible
+for the _Admiralty Manual of the Law of Prize_, to which reference has
+been made by your correspondent "S.," to make a few statements as to
+points upon which it may be desirable for the general reader to be in
+possession of information accurate, one may venture to hope, as far as
+it goes.
+
+Of the four inconveniences to which neutral trading vessels are liable
+in time of war, "blockade" may be left out of present consideration. You
+can only blockade the ports of your enemy, and the South African
+Republics have no port of their own. The three other inconveniences
+must, however, all be endured--viz. prohibition to carry "contraband,"
+prohibition to engage in "enemy service," and liability to be "visited
+and searched" anywhere except within three miles of a neutral coast, in
+order that it may be ascertained whether they are disregarding either of
+these prohibitions, as to the meaning of which some explanation may not
+be superfluous.
+
+1. "Carriage of contraband" implies (1) that the goods carried are fit
+for hostile use; (2) that they are on their way to a hostile
+destination. Each of these requirements has given rise to wide
+divergence of views and to a considerable literature. As to (1), while
+Continental opinion and practice favour a hard-and-fast list of
+contraband articles, comprising only such as are already suited, or can
+readily be adapted, for use in operations of war, English and American
+opinion and practice favour a longer list, and one capable of being from
+time to time extended to meet the special exigencies of the war. In such
+a list may figure even provisions, "under circumstances arising out of
+the particular situation of the war," especially if "going with a highly
+probable destination to military use"--Lord Stowell in the _Jonge
+Margaretha_ (1 Rob. 188); _cf._ Story, J., in the _Commercen_ (1 Wheat.
+382), the date and purport of which are, by the by, incorrectly given by
+"S." It would be in accordance with our own previous practice and with
+Lord Granville's despatches during the war between France and China in
+1885, if we treated flour as contraband only when ear-marked as destined
+for the use of enemy fleets, armies, or fortresses. Even in such cases
+our practice has been not to confiscate the cargo, but merely to
+exercise over it a right of "pre-emption," so as to deprive the enemy of
+its use without doing more injury than can be helped to neutral
+trade--as is explained by Lord Stowell in the _Haabet_ (2 Rob. 174). As
+to (2), the rule was expressed by Lord Stowell to be that "goods going
+to a neutral port cannot come under the description of contraband, all
+goods going there being equally lawful"--_Imina_ (3 Rob. 167); but
+innovations were made upon this rule during the American Civil War which
+seem to be demanded by the conditions of modern commerce, and might well
+be followed by a British prize Court. It was held that contraband goods,
+although _bona fide_ on their way to a neutral port, might be condemned,
+if intended afterwards to reach the enemy by another ship or even by
+means of land carriage--_Bermuda_ (3 Wallace); _Peterhoff_ (5 Wallace).
+A consignment to Lorenzo Marques, connected as is the town by only forty
+miles of railway with the Transvaal frontier, would seem to be well
+within the principles of the Civil War cases as to "continuous voyages."
+
+2. The carriage by a neutral ship of enemy troops, or of even a few
+military officers, as also of enemy despatches, is an "enemy service" of
+so important a kind as to involve the confiscation of the vessel
+concerned, a penalty which, under ordinary circumstances, is not imposed
+upon carriage of "contraband" property so called. See Lord Stowell's
+luminous judgments in _Orozembo_ (6 Rob. 430) and _Atalanta_ (_ib._
+440). The alleged offence of the ship _Bundesrath_ would seem to be of
+this description.
+
+The questions, both of "contraband" and of "enemy service," with which
+our prize Courts must before long have to deal, will be such as to
+demand from the Judges a competent knowledge of the law of prize,
+scrupulous fairness towards neutral claimants, and prompt penetration of
+the Protean disguises which illicit trade so readily assumes in time of
+war.
+
+Your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, January 2 (1900).
+
+
+THE _ALLANTON_ _(Continuous Voyage)_
+
+Sir,--I venture to think that the letter which you print this morning
+from my friend Dr. Baty, with reference to the steamship _Allanton_,
+calls for a word of warning; unless, indeed, it is to be taken as merely
+expressing the private opinion of the writer as to what would be a
+desirable rule of law.
+
+It would be disastrous if shipowners and insurers were to assume, that a
+neutral vessel, if destined for a neutral port, is necessarily safe from
+capture. Words at any rate capable of this construction may, no doubt,
+be quoted from one of Lord Stowell's judgments, now more than a century
+old; but many things have happened, notably the invention of railways,
+since the days of that great Judge. The United States cases, decided in
+the sixties (as Dr. Baty thinks, "on a demonstrably false analogy"), in
+which certain ships were held to be engaged in the carriage of
+contraband, although their destination was a neutral port, were
+substantially approved of by Great Britain. Their principle wast adopted
+by Italy, in the _Doelwijk_, in 1896, and was supported by Great Britain
+in the correspondence upon this subject which took place with Germany in
+1900. It was endorsed, after prolonged discussion, by the Institut de
+Droit International in 1896.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, July 11 (1904).
+
+
+_(Unqualified Captors)_
+
+    Among the objections raised by the British Government to the
+    capture by the Russian ship _Peterburg_ in the Red Sea, on July
+    13, 1904, of the P. and O. ss. _Malacca_, for carriage of
+    contraband were (1) that the so-called contraband consisted of
+    government ammunition for the use of the British fleet in
+    Chinese waters; and (2) what was more serious, that the
+    capturing vessel, which belonged to the Russian volunteer
+    fleet, after issuing from the Black Sea under the commercial
+    flag had subsequently, and without touching at any Russian
+    port, brought up guns from her hold, and had proceeded to
+    exercise belligerent rights under the Russian naval flag. In
+    consequence of the protest of the British Government, and to
+    close the incident, the _Malacca_ was released at Algiers,
+    after a purely formal examination, on July 27, and Russia
+    agreed to instruct the officers of her volunteer fleet not to
+    make any similar captures.
+
+    The question of the legitimacy of the transformation on the
+    high seas into a ship-of-war of a vessel which has previously
+    been sailing under the commercial flag was much discussed at
+    The Hague Conference of 1907, but without result. Opinions were
+    so much divided upon the point, that no mention of it is made
+    in Convention No. vii. of that year, ratified by Great Britain
+    on November 27, 1909, "as to the transformation of merchant
+    vessels into ships-of-war." At the session of the Institut de
+    Droit International held at Oxford in 1913, this question was
+    discussed, and rules relating to it will be found in Section 2
+    of the _Manuel des lois de la guerre maritime_, the drafting of
+    which occupied the whole of the session.
+
+
+THE _ALLANTON_ _(Unqualified Captors)_
+
+Sir,--The indignation caused by the treatment of the _Allanton_ is
+natural, and will almost certainly prove to be well founded; but Mr.
+Rae, in the letter which you print this morning, overstates a good case.
+He asks that, "whatever steps are taken for the release of the
+_Malacca_, equally strong steps should be taken for the release of the
+_Allanton_"; and he can see no difference between the cases of the two
+ships, except that the former is owned by a powerful company in the
+habit of carrying British mails, while the latter is his private
+property.
+
+One would have supposed it to be notorious that the facts which
+distinguish the one case from the other are, first, that the capture of
+the _Malacca_ was effected by a vessel not entitled to exercise
+belligerent rights; and, secondly, that Great Britain is prepared to
+claim the incriminated cargo as belonging to the British Government.
+Capture by an unqualified cruiser is so sufficient a ground for a claim
+of restoration and compensation that, except perhaps as facilitating the
+retreat of Russia from a false position, it would seem, to say the
+least, superfluous to pray in aid any other reason for the cancellation
+of an act unlawful _ab initio._
+
+I have not noticed any statement as to the actual constitution of the
+prize Court concerned in the condemnation of the _Allanton._ Under Rule
+54 of the Russian Naval Regulations of 1895, a "Port Prize Court" must,
+for a decree of confiscation, consist of six members, of whom three must
+be officials of the Ministries of Marine, Justice, and Foreign Affairs
+respectively. An "Admirals' Prize Court," for the same purpose, need
+consist of only four members, all of whom are naval officers.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, July 25 (1904).
+
+
+_(Note upon the Declaration of London)_
+
+    The British delegates to The Hague Conference of 1907 were
+    instructed that H.M. Government "are ready and willing for
+    their part, in lieu of endeavouring to frame new and more
+    satisfactory rules for the prevention of contraband trade in
+    the future, to abandon the principle of contraband of war
+    altogether, thus allowing the oversea trade in neutral vessels
+    between belligerents on the one hand and neutrals on the other,
+    to continue during war without any restriction," except with
+    reference to blockades. This proposal, fortunately, was not
+    accepted by the Conference, which was unable even to agree upon
+    lists of contraband articles, and recommended that the question
+    should be further considered by the Governments concerned,
+    _Parl. Paper, Miscell._ No. 1 (1908), p. 194.
+
+    This task was accordingly among those undertaken at the
+    Conference of Maritime Powers held in London in 1908-1909,
+    which resulted in a Declaration, Arts. 22-44 of which
+    constituted a fairly complete code of the law of contraband.
+    Reference has already been made, in comments upon letters
+    comprised in previous sections, to this Declaration, the
+    demerits and history of which are more fully dealt with in
+    section 10, _infra_, pp. 196-207.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+SECTION 6
+
+_Methods of Warfare as affecting Neutrals_
+
+_(Mines)_
+
+    On the views expressed in the first of the two letters which
+    follow, as also in the writer's British Academy paper on
+    _Neutral Duties_, as translated in the _Marine Rundschau_, see
+    Professor von Martitz of Berlin, in the _Transactions_ of the
+    International Law Association, 1907. The Institut de Droit
+    International has for some years past had under its
+    consideration questions relating to mines, and has arrived at
+    conclusions which will be found in its _Annuaire_, t. xxi. p.
+    330, t. xxii. p. 344, t xxiii. p. 429, t. xxiv. pp. 286, 301.
+
+    The topic has also been dealt with in The Hague Convention, No.
+    viii. of 1907, ratified with a reservation, by Great Britain on
+    November 27, 1907. By Art. 1 it is forbidden "(1) to lay
+    unanchored automatic-contact mines, unless they are so
+    constructed as to become harmless one hour at most after he who
+    has laid them has lost control over them; (2) to lay anchored
+    automatic-contact mines which do not become harmless as soon as
+    they have broken loose from their moorings; (3) to employ
+    torpedoes which do not become harmless when they have missed
+    their mark." By Art. 2, (which is, however, not accepted by
+    France or Germany) it is forbidden "to lay automatic-contact
+    mines off the coast and ports of an enemy, with the sole object
+    of intercepting commercial navigation."
+
+
+MINES IN THE OPEN SEA
+
+Sir,--The question raised in your columns by Admiral do Horsey with
+reference to facts as to which we are as yet imperfectly informed, well
+illustrates the perpetually recurring conflict between belligerent and
+neutral interests. They are, of course, irreconcilable, and the rights
+of the respective parties can be defined only by way of compromise. It
+is beyond doubt that the theoretically absolute right of neutral ships,
+whether public or private, to pursue their ordinary routes over the high
+sea in time of war, is limited by the right of the belligerents to fight
+on those seas a naval battle, the scene of which can be approached by
+such ships only at their proper risk and peril. In such a case the
+neutral has ample warning of the danger to which he would be exposed did
+he not alter his intended course. It would, however, be an entirely
+different affair if he should find himself implicated in belligerent war
+risks, of the existence of which it was impossible for him to be
+informed, while pursuing his lawful business in waters over which no
+nation pretends to exercise jurisdiction.
+
+It is certain that no international usage sanctions the employment by
+one belligerent against the other of mines, or other secret
+contrivances, which would, without notice, render dangerous the
+navigation of the high seas. No belligerent has ever asserted a right to
+do anything of the kind; and it may be in the recollection of your
+readers that strong disapproval was expressed of a design, erroneously
+attributed to the United States a few years since, of effecting the
+blockade of certain Cuban ports by torpedoes, instead of by a cruising
+squadron. These, it was pointed out, would superadd to the risk of
+capture and confiscation, to which a blockade-runner is admittedly
+liable, the novel penalty of total destruction of the ship and all on
+board.
+
+It may be worth while to add, as bearing upon the question under
+discussion, that there is a tendency in expert opinion towards allowing
+the line between "territorial waters" and the "high seas" to be drawn at
+a considerably greater distance than the old measurement of three miles
+from the shore.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, May 23 (1904).
+
+
+TERRITORIAL WATERS
+
+Sir,--Most authorities would, I think, agree with Admiral de Horsey that
+the line between "territorial waters" and "the high sea" is drawn by
+international law, if drawn by it anywhere, at a distance of three miles
+from low-water mark. In the first place, the ridiculously wide claims
+made, on behalf of certain States, by mediæval jurists were cut down by
+Grotius to so much water as can be controlled from the land. The Grotian
+formula was then worked out by Bynkershoek with reference to the range
+of cannon; and, finally, this somewhat variable test was before the end
+of the eighteenth century, as we may see from the judgments of Lord
+Stowell, superseded by the hard-and-fast rule of the three-mile limit,
+which has since received ample recognition in treaties, legislation, and
+judicial decisions.
+
+The subordinate question, also touched upon by the Admiral, of the
+character to be attributed to bays, the entrance to which exceeds six
+miles in breadth, presents more difficulty than that relating to
+strictly coastal waters. I will only say that the Privy Council, in _The
+Direct U.S. Cable Co._ v. _Anglo-American Telegraph Co._ (L.R. 2 App.
+Ca. 394), carefully avoided giving an opinion as to the international
+law applicable to such bays, but decided the case before them, which had
+arisen with reference to the Bay of Conception, in Newfoundland, on the
+narrow ground that, as a British Court, they were bound by certain
+assertions of jurisdiction made in British Acts of Parliament.
+
+The three-mile distance has, no doubt, become inadequate in consequence
+of the increased range of modern cannon, but no other can be substituted
+for it without express agreement of the Powers. One can hardly admit the
+view which has been maintained, e.g. by Professor de Martens, that the
+distance shifts automatically in accordance with improvements in
+artillery. The whole matter might well be included among the questions
+relating to the rights and duties of neutrals, for the consideration of
+which by a conference, to be called at an early date, a wish was
+recorded by The Hague Conference, of 1899.
+
+In the meantime it may be worth while to call attention to the view of
+the subject taken by a specially qualified and representative body of
+international experts. The Institut de Droit International, after
+discussions and enquiries which had lasted for several years, adopted,
+at their Paris meeting in 1894, the following resolutions, as a
+statement of what, in the opinion of the Institut, would be reasonable
+rules with reference to territorial waters (I cite only those bearing
+upon the extent of such waters):--
+
+      "Art. 2.--La mer territoriale s'étend à six milles marins (60
+      au degré de latitude) de la laisse de basse marée sur tout
+      l'étendue des côtes. Art. 3.--Pour les baies, la mer
+      territoriale suit les sinuosités de la côte, sauf qu'elle
+      mesurée à partir d'une ligne droite tirée en travers de la
+      baie, dans la partie la plus rapprochée de l'ouverture vers
+      la mer, où l'écart entre les deux côtes de la baie est de
+      douze milles marins de largeur, à moins qu'un usage continu
+      et séculaire n'ait consacré une largeur plus grande. Art.
+      4.--En cas de guerre, l'état riverain neutre a le droit de
+      fixer, par la déclaration de neutralité, ou par notification
+      spéciale, sa zone neutre au dela de six milles, jusqu'à
+      portée du canon des côtes. Art. 5.--Tous les navires sans
+      distinction ont le droit de passage inoffensif par la mer
+      territoriale, sauf le droit des belligérants de règlementer
+      et, dans un but de défense, de barrer le passage dans la dite
+      mer pour tout navire, et sauf le droit de neutres de
+      règlementer le passage dans la dite mer pour les navires de
+      guerre de toutes nationalités." (_Annuaire de l'Institut_, t.
+      xiii. p. 329).
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, June 1 (1904).
+
+
+    A French decree, of October 18, 1912, accordingly extends, when
+    France is neutral, her territorial waters to a distance of six
+    miles (11 kilom.) from low-water mark.
+
+
+_(Cable-cutting)_
+
+    With the letters which follow, compare the article by the
+    present writer on "Les cables sous-marins en temps de guerre,"
+    in the _Journal de Droit International Privé_, 1898, p. 648.
+
+    The topic of cable-cutting, as to which the Institut de Droit
+    International arrived in 1879 at the conclusions set out in the
+    first of these letters, was again taken into consideration by
+    the Institut in 1902: see the _Annuaire_ for that year, pp.
+    301-332.
+
+    The Hague Convention; No. iv. of 1907, provides, in Art. 54,
+    that "submarine cables connecting occupied territory with a
+    neutral territory shall not be destroyed or seized, unless in
+    case of absolute necessity. They must be restored, and
+    compensation must be arranged for them at the peace."
+
+    Convention No. v., by Art. 3, forbids belligerents (1) to
+    install on neutral territory a radio-telegraphic station, or
+    any other apparatus, for communicating with their land or sea
+    forces; (2) to employ such apparatus, established by them there
+    before the war, for purely military purposes. By Art. 5, a
+    neutral Power is bound to permit nothing of the sort.
+
+
+SUBMARINE CABLES
+
+Sir,--The possibility of giving some legal protection to submarine
+cables has been carefully considered by the Institut de Droit
+International. A committee was appointed in 1878 to consider the
+subject, and the presentation of its report to the meeting at Brussels
+in 1879 was followed by an interesting discussion (see the _Annuaire de
+l'Institut_, 1879-80, pp. 351-394). The conclusions ultimately adopted
+by the Institut were as follows:--
+
+      "1. It would be very useful if the various States would come
+      to an understanding to declare that destruction of, or injury
+      to, submarine cables in the high seas is an offence under the
+      Law of Nations, and to fix precisely the wrongful character
+      of the acts, and the appropriate penalties. With reference to
+      the last-mentioned point, the degree of uniformity attainable
+      must depend on the amount of difference between systems of
+      criminal legislation. The right of arresting offenders, or
+      those presumed to be such, might be given to the public
+      vessels of all nations, under conditions regulated by
+      treaties, but the right to try them should be reserved to the
+      national Courts of the vessel arrested.
+
+      "2. A submarine-telegraph cable uniting two neutral
+      territories is inviolable. It is desirable that, when
+      telegraphic communication must be interrupted in consequence
+      of war, a belligerent should confine himself to such measures
+      as are absolutely necessary to prevent the cable from being
+      used, and that such measures should be discontinued, or that
+      any damage caused by them, should be repaired as soon as the
+      cessation of hostilities may permit."
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, November 23 (1881).
+
+
+SUBMARINE CABLES IN TIME OF WAR
+
+Sir,--I venture to think that the question which has been raised as to
+the legitimacy of cable-cutting is not so insoluble as most of the
+allusions to it might lead one to suppose. It is true that no light is
+thrown upon it by the Convention of 1884, which relates exclusively to
+time of peace, and was indeed signed by Lord Lyons, on behalf of Great
+Britain, only with an express reservation to that effect. Nor are we
+helped by the case to which attention was called in your columns some
+time since by Messrs. Eyre and Spottiswoode. Their allusion was
+doubtless to the _International_ (L.R. 3 A. and E. 321), which is
+irrelevant to the present enquiry. The question is a new one, but,
+though covered by no precedent, I cannot doubt that it is covered by
+certain well-established principles of international law, which, it is
+hardly necessary to remark, is no cut-and-dried system but a body of
+rules founded upon, and moving with, the public opinion of nations.
+
+That branch of international law which deals with the relations of
+neutrals and belligerents is, of course, a compromise between what
+Grotius calls the "belli rigor" and the "commerciorum libertas." The
+terms of the compromise, originally suggested partly by equity, partly
+by national interest, have been varied and re-defined, from time to
+time, with reference to the same considerations. It is perhaps
+reasonable that, in settling these terms, preponderant weight should
+have been given to the requirements of belligerents, engaged possibly in
+a life-and-death struggle. "Ius commerciorum æquum est," says Gentili;
+"at hoc æquius, tuendæ salutis." There is accordingly no doubt that in
+land warfare a belligerent may not only interrupt communications by
+road, railway, post, or telegraph without giving any ground of complaint
+to neutrals who may be thereby inconvenienced, but may also lay hands on
+such neutral property--shipping, railway carriages, or telegraphic
+plant--as may be essential to the conduct of his operations, making use
+of and even destroying it, subject only to a duty to compensate the
+owners. This he does in pursuance of the well-known "droit d'angarie,"
+an extreme application of which occurred in 1871, when certain British
+colliers were sunk in the Seine by the Prussians in order to prevent the
+passage of French gunboats up the river. Count Bismarck undertook that
+the owners of the ships should be indemnified, and Lord Granville did
+not press for anything further. Such action, if it took place outside of
+belligerent territory, would not be tolerated for a moment.
+
+The application of these principles to the case of submarine cables
+would appear to be, to a certain point at any rate, perfectly clear.
+Telegraphic communication with the outside world may well be as
+important to a State engaged in warfare as similar means of
+communication between one point and another within its own territory.
+Just as an invader would without scruple interrupt messages, and even
+destroy telegraphic plant, on land, so may he thus act within the
+enemy's territorial waters, or, perhaps, even so far from shore as he
+could reasonably place a blockading squadron. It may be objected that a
+belligerent has no right to prevent the access of neutral ships to
+unblockaded portions of the enemy's coast on the ground that by carrying
+diplomatic agents or despatches they are keeping up the communications
+of his enemy with neutral Governments. But this indulgence rests on the
+presumption that such official communications are "innocent," a
+presumption obviously inapplicable to telegraphic messages
+indiscriminately received in the course of business. It would seem,
+therefore, to be as reasonable as it is in accordance with analogy, that
+a belligerent should be allowed, within the territorial waters of his
+enemy, to cut a cable, even though it may be neutral property, of which
+the _terminus ad quem_ is enemy territory, subject only to a liability
+to indemnify the neutral owners.
+
+The cutting, elsewhere than in the enemy's waters, of a cable connecting
+enemy with neutral territory receives no countenance from international
+law. Still less permissible would be the cutting of a cable connecting
+two neutral ports, although messages may pass through it which, by
+previous and subsequent stages of transmission, may be useful to the
+enemy.
+
+Your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, May 21 (1897).
+
+
+SUBMARINE CABLES IN TIME OF WAR
+
+Sir,--Will you allow me to refer in a few words to the interesting
+letters upon the subject of submarine cables which have been addressed
+to you by Mr. Parsoné and Mr. Charles Bright? In asserting that "the
+question as to the legitimacy of cable-cutting is covered by no
+precedent," I had no intention of denying that belligerent interference
+with cables had ever occurred. International precedents are made by
+diplomatic action (or deliberate inaction) with reference to facts, not
+by those facts themselves. To the best of my belief no case of
+cable-cutting has ever been made matter of diplomatic representation,
+and I understand Mr. Parsoné to admit that no claim in respect of damage
+to cables was presented to the mixed Commission appointed under the
+Convention of 1883 between Great Britain and Chile.
+
+In the course of his able address upon "Belligerents and Neutrals,"
+reported in your issue of this morning, I observe that Mr. Macdonell
+suggests that the Institut de Droit International might usefully study
+the question of cables in time of war. It may, therefore, be well to
+state that this service hat already been rendered. The Institut, at its
+Paris meeting in 1878, appointed a committee, of which M. Renault was
+chairman, to consider the whole subject of the protection of cables,
+both in peace and in war; and at its Brussels meeting, in 1879,
+carefully discussed the exhaustive report of its committee and voted
+certain "conclusions," notably the following:--
+
+      "Le câble télégraphique sous-marin qui unit deux territoires
+      neutres est inviolable.
+
+      "Il est à désirer, quand les communications télégraphiques
+      doivent cesser par suite de l'état de guerre, que l'on se
+      borne aux mesures strictement nécessaires pour empêcher
+      l'usage du cable, et qu'il soit mis fin à ces mesures, ou que
+      l'on en répare les consequences, aussitôt que le permettra la
+      cessation des hostilités."
+
+It was in no small measure due to the initiative of the Institut that
+diplomatic conferences were held at Paris, which in 1882 produced a
+draft convention for the protection of cables, not restricted in its
+operation to time of peace; and in 1884 the actual convention, which is
+so restricted.
+
+It may not be generally known that in 1864, before the difficulties of
+the subject were thoroughly appreciated, a convention was signed, though
+it never became operative, by which Brazil, Hayti, Italy, and Portugal
+undertook to recognise the "neutrality" in time of war of a cable to be
+laid by one Balestrini. So, in 1869, the United States were desirous of
+concluding a general convention which should assimilate the destruction
+of cables in the high seas to piracy, and should continue to be in force
+in time of war. The Brussels conference of 1874 avoided any mention of
+"câbles sous-marins."
+
+The moral of all that has been written upon this subject is obviously
+that drawn by Mr. Charles Bright--viz. "the urgent necessity of a
+system of cables connecting the British Empire by direct and independent
+means--_i.e._ without touching on foreign soil."
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, June 3 (1897).
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+SECTION 7
+
+_Destruction of Neutral Prizes_
+
+    A British ship, the _Knight Commander_, bound from New York to
+    Yokohama and Kobe, was stopped on July 23, 1904, by a Russian
+    cruiser, and as her cargo consisted largely of railway
+    material, was considered to be engaged in carriage of
+    contraband. Her crew and papers were taken on board the
+    cruiser, and she was sent to the bottom by fire from its guns.
+    The reasons officially given for this proceeding were that:
+    "The proximity of the enemy's port, the lack of coal on board
+    the vessel to enable her to be taken into a Russian port, and
+    the impossibility of supplying her with coal from one of the
+    Russian cruisers, owing to the high seas running at the time,
+    obliged the commander of the Russian cruiser to sink her."
+
+    The Russian Regulations as to Naval Prize, Art. 21, allowed a
+    commander "in exceptional cases, when the preservation of a
+    captured vessel appears impossible on account of her bad
+    condition or entire worthlessness, the danger of her recapture
+    by the enemy, or the great distance or blockade of ports, or
+    else on account of danger threatening the ship which has made
+    the capture, or the success of her operations," to burn or sink
+    the prize.
+
+    The Japanese Regulations, Art. 91, were to the same effect in
+    cases where the prize (1) cannot be navigated owing to her
+    being unseaworthy, or to dangerous seas; (2) is likely to be
+    recaptured by the enemy; (3) cannot be navigated without
+    depriving the ship-of-war of officers and men required for her
+    own safety.
+
+    The case of the _Knight Commander_ was the subject of comment,
+    on the 27th of the same month, in both Houses of Parliament. In
+    the House of Lords, Lord Lansdowne spoke of what had occurred
+    as "a very serious breach of international law," "an outrage,"
+    against which it had been considered "a duty to lodge a strong
+    protest." In the House of Commons, Mr. Balfour described it as
+    "entirely contrary to the accepted practice of civilised
+    nations." Similar language was used in Parliament on August 10,
+    when Mr. Gibson Bowles alluded to my letter of the 6th, in a
+    way which gave occasion for that of the 14th.
+
+    The _Knight Commander_ was condemned by the Prize Court at
+    Vladivostok on August 16, 1904, and the sentence was confirmed
+    on December 5, 1905, by the Court of Appeal at St. Petersburg,
+    which found it "impossible to agree that the destruction of a
+    neutral vessel is contrary to the principles of international
+    law." The Russian Government remained firm on the point, and in
+    1908 declined to submit the case to arbitration.
+
+    The Institut de Droit International in its _Code des Prises
+    maritimes_, voted in 1887, Art. 50 (not, be it observed,
+    professing to state the law as it is, but as it should be), had
+    taken a view in accordance with that maintained by the British
+    Government (_Annuaire_ for 1888, t. ix. p. 228; _cf. ib._ pp.
+    200, 201). (The _Manuel des lois de la guerre maritime_, voted
+    at Oxford in 1913, dealing exclusively with "les rapports entre
+    les belligérants," does not deal with the topic in question.)
+    It was, however, the opinion of the present writer, as will
+    appear from the following letters, that no rule of
+    international law, by which the sinking of even neutral prizes
+    was absolutely prohibited, could be shown to exist. He had
+    previously touched upon this question in his evidence before
+    the Royal Commission on the Supply of Food, &c., in Time of
+    War, on November, 4, 1903, and returned to it later in his
+    paper upon "The Duties of Neutrals," read to the British
+    Academy on April 12, 1905, _Transactions_, ii. p. 66. It was
+    reproduced in French, German, Belgian, and Spanish periodicals,
+    and was cited in the judgment of the St. Petersburg Court of
+    Appeal in the case of the _Knight Commander._
+
+    The subsequent history of the question, and, in particular, of
+    the rules suggested in Arts. 48-54 of the unratified
+    Declaration of London, may be claimed in favour of the
+    correctness of the opinion maintained in the letters.
+
+
+RUSSIAN PRIZE LAW
+
+Sir,--The neutral Powers have serious ground of complaint as to the mode
+in which Russia is conducting operations at sea. It may, however, be
+doubted whether public opinion is sufficiently well informed to be
+capable of estimating the comparative gravity of the acts which are just
+now attracting attention. Putting aside for the moment questions arising
+out of the Straits Convention of 1856, as belonging to a somewhat
+different order of ideas, we may take it that the topics most needing
+careful consideration relate to removal of contraband from the ship that
+is carrying it without taking her in for adjudication; interference with
+mail steamers and their mail bags; perversely wrong decisions of Prize
+Courts; confiscation of ships as well as of their contraband cargo;
+destruction of prizes at sea; the list of contraband. Of these topics,
+the two last mentioned are probably the most important, and on each of
+these I will ask you to allow me to say a few words.
+
+1. There is no doubt that by the Russian regulations of 1895, Art. 21;
+and instructions of 1901, Art. 40, officers are empowered to destroy
+their prizes at sea, no distinction being drawn between neutral and
+enemy property, under such exceptional circumstances as the bad
+condition or small value of the prize, risk of recapture, distance from
+a Russian port, danger to the Imperial cruiser or to the success of her
+operations. The instructions of 1901, it may be added, explain that an
+officer "incurs no responsibility whatever" for so acting if the
+captured vessel is really liable to confiscation and the special
+circumstances imperatively demand her destruction. It is fair to say
+that not dissimilar, though less stringent, instructions were issued by
+France in 1870 and by the United States in 1898; also that, although the
+French instructions expressly contemplate "l'établissement des
+indemnités à attribuer aux neutres," a French prize Court in 1870
+refused compensation to neutral owners for the loss of their property on
+board of enemy ships burnt at sea.
+
+The question, however, remains whether such regulations are in
+accordance with the rules of international law. The statement of these
+rules by Lord Stowell, who speaks of them as "clear in principle and
+established in practice," may, I think, be summarised as follows: An
+enemy's ship, after her crew has been placed in safety, may be
+destroyed. Where there is any ground for believing that the ship, or any
+part of her cargo, is neutral property, such action is justifiable only
+in cases of "the gravest importance to the captor's own State," after
+securing the ship's papers and subject to the right of neutral owners to
+receive fall compensation (_Actaeon_, 2 Dods. 48; _Felicity, ib._ 381;
+substantially followed by Dr. Lushington in the _Leucade_, Spinks, 221).
+It is not the case, as is alleged by the _Novoe Vremya_, that any
+British regulations "contain the same provisions as the Russian" on this
+subject. On the contrary, the Admiralty Manual of 1888 allows
+destruction of enemy vessels only; and goes so far in the direction of
+liberality as to order the release, without ransom, of a neutral prize
+which either from its condition, or from lack of a prize crew, cannot be
+sent in for adjudication. The Japanese instructions of 1894 permit the
+destruction of only enemy vessels; and Art. 50 of the carefully debated
+"Code des prises" of the Institut de Droit International is to the same
+effect. It may be worth while to add that the eminent Russian jurist, M.
+de Martens, in his book on international law, published some twenty
+years ago, in mentioning that the distance of her ports from the scenes
+of naval operations often obliges Russia to sink her prizes, so that "ce
+qui les lois maritimes de tous les états considèrent comme un moyen
+auquel il n'y a lieu de recourir qu'à la dernière extrémité, se
+transformera nécessairement pour nous en règle normale," foresaw that
+"cette mesure d'un caractère général soulévera indubitablement contre
+notre pays un mécontentement universel."
+
+2. A far more important question is, I venture to think, raised by the
+Russian list of contraband, sweeping, as it does, into the category of
+"absolutely contraband" articles things such as provisions and coal, to
+which a contraband character, in any sense of the term, has usually been
+denied on the Continent, while Great Britain and the United States have
+admitted them into the category of "conditional" contraband, only when
+shown to be suitable and destined for the armed forces of the enemy, or
+for the relief of a place besieged. Still more unwarrantable is the
+Russian claim to interfere with the trade in raw cotton. Her prohibition
+of this trade is wholly unprecedented, for the treatment of cotton
+during the American Civil War will be found on examination to have no
+bearing on the question under consideration. I touch to-day upon this
+large subject only to express a hope that our Government, in concert, if
+possible, with other neutral Governments, has communicated to that of
+Russia, with reference to its list of prohibited articles, a protest in
+language as unmistakable as that employed by our Foreign Office in 1885;
+"I regret to have to inform you, M. l'Ambassadeur," wrote Lord
+Granville, "that Her Majesty's Government feel compelled to take
+exception to the proposed measure, as they cannot admit that,
+consistently with the law and practice of nations, and with the rights
+of neutrals, provisions in general can be treated as contraband of war."
+A timely warning that a claim is inadmissible is surely preferable to
+waiting till bad feeling has been aroused by the concrete application of
+an objectionable doctrine.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, August I (1904).
+
+
+RUSSIAN PRIZE LAW
+
+Sir,--From this hilltop I observe that, in the debate of Thursday last,
+Mr. Gibson Bowles, alluding to a letter of mine which appeared in your
+issue of August 6, complained that I "had not given the proper
+reference" to Lord Stowell's judgments. Mr. Bowles seems to be unaware
+that in referring to a decided case the page mentioned is, in the
+absence of any indication to the contrary, invariably that on which the
+report of the case commences. I may perhaps also be allowed to say that
+he, in my opinion, misapprehends the effect of the passage quoted by him
+from the _Felicity_, which decides only that, whatever may be the
+justification for the destruction of a neutral prize, the neutral owner
+is entitled, as against the captor, to full compensation for the loss
+thereby sustained.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Eggishorn, Valais, Suisse, August 14 (1904).
+
+
+RUSSIAN PRIZE LAW
+
+Sir,--Mr. Gibson Bowles has, I find, addressed to you a letter in which
+he attempts to controvert two statements of mine by the simple expedient
+of omitting essential portions of each of them.
+
+1. Mr. Bowles having revealed himself as unaware that the mode in which
+I had cited a group of cases upon destruction of prizes was the correct
+mode, I thought it well to provide him with the rudimentary information
+that, "in referring to a decided case, the page, mentioned is, _in the
+absence of any indication to the contrary_, invariably that on which the
+report of the case commences." He replies that he has found appended to
+a citation of a passage in a judgment the page in which this passage
+occurs. May I refer him, for an explanation of this phenomenon, to the
+words (now italicised) omitted in his quotation of my statement? It is,
+of course, common enough, when the reference is obviously not to the
+case as a whole but to an extract from it, thus to give a clue to the
+extract, the formula then employed being frequently "_at_ page
+so-and-so."
+
+2. I had summarised the effect, as I conceive it, of the group of cases
+above mentioned in the following terms: "Such action is justifiable only
+in cases of the gravest importance to the captor's own State, _after
+securing the ship's papers, and subject to the right of the neutral
+owners to receive full compensation_." Here, again, while purporting to
+quote me, Mr. Bowles omits the all-important words now italicised. I am,
+however, maltreated in good company. Mr. Bowles represents Lord Stowell
+as holding that destruction of neutral property cannot be justified,
+even in cases of the gravest importance to the captor's own State. What
+Lord Stowell actually says, in the very passage quoted by Mr. Bowles, is
+that "to the neutral can only be justified, under any such
+circumstances, by a full restitution in value." I would, suggest that
+Mr. Bowles should find an opportunity for reading _in extenso_ the
+reports of the _Actaeon_ (2 Dods. 48), and the _Felicity_ (_ib._ 881),
+as also for re-reading the passage which occurs at p. 386 of the latter
+case, before venturing further into the somewhat intricate
+technicalities of prize law.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Eggishorn, Suisse, August 26 (1904).
+
+
+THE SINKING OF NEUTRAL PRIZES
+
+Sir,--In your St. Petersburg correspondence of yesterday I see that some
+reference is made to what I have had occasion to say from time to time
+upon the vexed question of the sinking of neutral vessels, and your
+Correspondent thinks it "would be decidedly interesting" to know whether
+I have really changed my opinion on the subject. Perhaps, therefore, I
+may be allowed to state that my opinion on the subject has suffered no
+change, and may be summarised as follows:--
+
+1. There is no established rule of international law which absolutely
+forbids, under any circumstances, the sinking of a neutral prize. A
+_consensus gentium_ to this effect will hardly be alleged by those who
+are aware that such sinking is permitted by the most recent prize
+regulations of France, Russia, Japan, and the United States.
+
+2. It is much to be desired that the practice should be, by future
+international agreement, absolutely forbidden--- that the lenity of
+British practice in this respect should become internationally
+obligatory.
+
+3. In the meantime, to adopt the language of the French instructions,
+"On ne doit user de ce droit de destruction qu'avec plus la grande
+réserve"; and it may well be that any given set of instructions (e.g.
+the Russian) leaves on this point so large a discretion to commanders of
+cruisers as to constitute an intolerable grievance.
+
+4. In any case, the owner of neutral property, not proved to be good
+prize, is entitled to the fullest compensation for his loss. In the
+language of Lord Stowell:--
+
+      "The destruction of the property may have been a meritorious
+      act towards his own Government; but still the person to whom
+      the property belongs must not be a sufferer ... if the captor
+      has by the act of destruction conferred a benefit upon the
+      public, he must look to his own Government for his
+      indemnity."
+
+It may be worth while to add that the published statements on the
+subject for which I am responsible are contained in the _Admiralty
+Manual of Prize Law_ of 1888 (where section 808 sets out the lenient
+British instructions to commanders, without any implication that
+instructions of a severer kind would have been inconsistent with
+international law); in letters which appeared in your columns on August
+6, 17, and 30, 1904; and in a paper on "Neutral Duties in a Maritime
+War, as illustrated by recent events," read before the British Academy
+in April last, a French translation of which is in circulation on the
+Continent.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Temple, June 29 (1905).
+
+
+    The Russian circular of April 3, 1906, inviting the Powers to a
+    second Peace Conference, included amongst the topics for
+    discussion: "Destruction par force majeure des bâtiments de
+    commerce neutres arrêtés comme prises," and the British
+    delegates were instructed to urge the acceptance of what their
+    Government had maintained to be the existing rule on the
+    subject. The Conference of 1907 declined, however, to define
+    existing law, holding that its business was solely to consider
+    what should be the law in future. After long discussions, in
+    the course of which frequent reference was made to views
+    expressed by the present writer (see _Actes et Documents_, t.
+    iii. pp. 991-993, 1010, 1016, 1018, 1048, 1171), the Conference
+    failed to arrive at any conclusion as to the desirability of
+    prohibiting the destruction of neutral prizes, and confined
+    itself to the expression of a wish (_voeu_) that this, and
+    other unsettled points in the law of naval warfare, should be
+    dealt with by a subsequent Conference.
+
+    This question was, accordingly, one of those submitted to a
+    Conference of ten maritime Powers, which was convoked by Great
+    Britain in 1908, for reasons upon which something will be said
+    in the next section.
+
+    The question of sinking was fully debated in this Conference,
+    with the assistance of memoranda, in which the several Powers
+    represented explained their divergent views upon it, and of
+    reports prepared by committees specially appointed for the
+    purpose. It soon became apparent that the British proposal for
+    an absolute prohibition of the destruction of neutral prizes
+    had no chance of being accepted; while, on the other hand, it
+    was generally agreed that the practice is permissible only in
+    exceptional cases. (See _Parl. Paper, Miscell._ No. 5 (1909),
+    pp. 2-63, 99-102, 120, 189, 205, 215, 223, 248, 268-278, 323,
+    365.) Arts. 48-54 of the Declaration, signed by the delegates
+    to the Conference on February 26, 1909, but not ratified by
+    Great Britain, related to this question. After laying down, in
+    Art. 48, the general principle that "a neutral prize cannot be
+    destroyed by the captor, but should be taken into such port as
+    is proper for the legal decision of the rightfulness of the
+    capture" the Declaration proceeded, in Art. 49, to qualify this
+    principle by providing that "exceptionally, a neutral vessel
+    captured by a belligerent warship, which would be liable to
+    confiscation, may be destroyed, if obedience to Art. 48 might
+    compromise the safety of the warship, or the success of the
+    operations in which she is actually engaged."
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+SECTION 8
+
+_An International Prize Court_
+
+    The forecast, incidentally attempted in the following letters,
+    of the general results likely to be arrived at by the second
+    Peace Conference, has been justified by the event. As much may
+    be claimed for the views maintained upon the topic with which
+    these letters were more specifically concerned. Instead of
+    letting loose the judges of the proposed International prize
+    Court to "make law," in accordance with what might happen to be
+    their notions of "the general principles of justice and
+    equity," a serious attempt has been made to supply them with a
+    Code of the law which they would be expected to administer.
+
+    Some account will be given at the end of this section of the
+    movement towards the establishment of an International Court of
+    Appeal in oases of prize.
+
+
+AN INTERNATIONAL PRIZE COURT
+
+SIR--The idea suggested by the question addressed on February 19 to the
+Government by Mr. A. Herbert--viz. that the appeal in prize cases
+should lie, not to a Court belonging to the belligerent from whose Court
+of first instance the appeal is brought, but to an international
+tribunal, has a plausible appearance of fairness, but involves many
+preliminary questions which must not be lost sight of.
+
+Prize Courts are, at present, Courts of enquiry, to which a belligerent
+Government entrusts the duty of ascertaining whether the captures made
+by its officers have been properly made, according to the views of
+international law entertained by that Government. There exists, no
+doubt, among Continental jurists, a considerable body of opinion in
+favour of giving to Courts of Appeal, at any rate, in prize cases a
+wholly different character. This opinion found its expression in Arts.
+100-109 of the _Code des Prises maritimes_, finally adopted at its
+Heidelberg meeting, in 1887, by the Institut de Droit International.
+Art. 100 runs as follows:--
+
+      "Au début de chaque guerre, chacune des parties belligérantes
+      constitue un tribunal international d'appel en matière de
+      prises maritimes. Chacun de ces tribunaux est composé de cinq
+      membres, designés comme suit: L'état belligérant nommera
+      lui-même le président et un des membres. Il désignera en
+      outre trois états neutres, qui choisiront chacun un des trois
+      autres membres."
+
+In the abstract, and supposing that a tribunal perfectly satisfactory
+both to belligerents and neutrals could be constituted, whether
+antecedently or _ad hoc_, there might be much to be said for the
+proposal; subject, however, to one condition--viz. that an agreement
+had been previously arrived at as to the law which the Court is to
+apply. At the present time there exists, on many vital questions of
+prize law, no such agreement. It will be sufficient to mention those
+relating to the list of contraband, the distinction between "absolute"
+and "conditional" contraband, the doctrine of "continuous voyages," the
+right of sinking a neutral prize, the moment from which a vessel becomes
+liable for breach of blockade.
+
+Just as the _Alabama_ arbitration would have been impossible had not an
+agreement been arrived at upon the principles in accordance with which
+neutral duties as to the exit of ships of war were to be construed, so,
+also, before an international Court can be empowered to decide questions
+of prize, whether in the first instance or on appeal, it is
+indispensable that the law to be applied on the points above mentioned,
+and many others, should have been clearly defined and accepted, if not
+generally, at least by all parties concerned. The moral which I would
+venture to draw is, therefore, that although questions of fact, arising
+out of capture of a prize, might sometimes be submitted to a tribunal of
+arbitration, no case, involving rules of law as to which nations take
+different views, could possibly be so submitted. One is glad, therefore,
+to notice that the Prime Minister's reply to Mr. A. Herbert was of the
+most guarded character. The settlement of the law of prize must
+necessarily precede any general resort to an international prize Court;
+and if the coming Hague Conference does no more than settle some of the
+most pressing of these questions, it will have done much to promote the
+cause of peace.
+
+I am, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, February 20 (1907).
+
+
+A NEW PRIZE LAW
+
+Sir,--The leading articles which you have recently published upon the
+doings of the Peace Conference, as also the weighty letter addressed to
+you by my eminent colleague, Professor Westlake, will have been welcomed
+by many of your readers who are anxious that the vital importance of
+some of the questions under discussion at The Hague should not be lost
+sight of.
+
+The Conference may now be congratulated upon having already given a
+_quietus_ to several proposals for which, whether or not they may be
+rightly described as Utopian, the time is admittedly not yet ripe. Such
+has been the fate of the suggestions for the limitation of armaments,
+and the exemption from capture of private property at sea. Such also,
+there is every reason to hope, is the destiny which awaits the still
+more objectionable proposals for rendering obligatory the resort to
+arbitration, which by the Convention of 1899 was wisely left optional.
+
+Should the labours of the delegates succeed in placing some restrictions
+upon the employment of submarine mines, the bombardment of open coast
+towns, and the conversion of merchant vessels into ships of war; in
+making some slight improvements in each of the three Conventions of
+1899; and in solving some of the more pressing questions as to the
+rights and duties of neutrals, especially with reference to the
+reception in their ports of belligerent warships, it will have more than
+justified the hopes for its success which have been entertained by
+persons conversant with the difficulty and complexity of the problems
+involved.
+
+But what shall we say of certain proposals for revolutionising the law
+of prize, which still remain for consideration, notably for the
+establishment of an international Court of Appeal, and for the abolition
+of contraband? It can hardly be supposed that either suggestion will win
+its way to acceptance.
+
+1. The British scheme for an international Court of Appeal in prize
+cases is, indeed, far preferable to the German; but the objections to
+anything of the kind would seem to be, for the present, insuperable,
+were it only for the reason which you allowed me to point out, some
+months ago, _à propos_ of a question put in the House of Commons by Mr.
+Arnold Herbert. As long as nations hold widely different views on many
+points of prize law, it cannot be expected that they should agree
+beforehand that, when belligerent, they will leave it to a board of
+arbitrators to say which of several competing rules shall be applied to
+any given case of capture, or to evolve out of their inner consciousness
+a new rule, hitherto unknown to any national prize Court. It would seem
+that the German advocates of the innovation claim in its favour the
+authority of the Institut de Droit International. Permit me, therefore,
+as one who has taken part in all the discussions of the Institut upon
+the subject, to state that when it was first handled, at Zurich, in
+1878, the difficulties in the way of an international Court were
+insisted on by such men as Asser, Bernard, Bluntschli, Bulmerincq, and
+Neumann, and the vote of a majority in its favour was coupled with one
+which demanded the acceptance by treaty of a universally applicable
+system of prize law. The drafting of such a system was accordingly the
+main object of the _Code des Prises maritimes_, which, after occupying
+several sessions of the Institut, was finally adopted by it, at
+Heidelberg, in 1887. Only ten of the 122 sections of this Code deal with
+an international Court of Appeal. A complete body of law, by which
+States have agreed to be bound, must, one would think, necessarily
+precede the establishment of a mixed Court by which that law is to be
+interpreted.
+
+2. While the several delegations are vying with one another in devising
+new definitions of contraband, there would seem to be little likelihood
+that the British proposal for its total abandonment will be seriously
+entertained. Such a step could be justified, if at all, from the point
+of view of national interest, only on the ground that it might possibly
+throw increased difficulties in the way of an enemy desirous, even by
+straining the existing law, of interfering with the supply of foodstuffs
+to the British Islands. I propose, for the present, only to call
+attention to the concluding paragraph of the British notice of motion on
+this point, which would seem to imply much more than the abandonment of
+contraband. The words in question, if indeed they are authentically
+reported, are as follows: "Le droit de visite ne serait exercé que pour
+constater le caractère neutre du bâtiment de commerce." Does this mean
+that the visiting officer, as soon as he has ascertained from the ship's
+papers that she is neutral property, is to make his bow and return to
+the cruiser whence he came? If so, what has become of our existing right
+to detain any vessel which has sailed for a blockaded port, or is
+carrying, as a commercial venture, or even ignorantly, hostile troops or
+despatches? No such definition as is proposed of an "auxiliary
+ship-of-war" would safeguard the right in question, since a ship, to
+come within that definition, must, it appears, be under the orders of a
+belligerent fleet.
+
+I would venture to suggest that the motto of a reformer of prize law
+should be _festina lente._ The existing system is the fruit of practical
+experience extending over several centuries, and, though it may need,
+here and there, some readjustment to new conditions, brought about by
+the substitution of steam for sails, is not one which can safely be
+pulled to pieces in a couple of months. Let us leave something for
+future Hague Conferences.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, July 24 (1907).
+
+
+A NEW PRIZE LAW
+
+Sir,--In a letter under the above heading, for which you were so good as
+to find room in July last, I returned to the thesis which I had ventured
+to maintain some months previously, _à propos_ of a question put in the
+House of Commons. My contention was that the establishment of an
+international prize Court, assuming it to be under any circumstances
+desirable, should follow, not precede, a general international agreement
+as to the law which the Court is to administer.
+
+It would appear, from such imperfect information as intermittently
+reaches Swiss mountain hotels, that a conviction of the truth of this
+proposition is at length making way among the delegates to The Hague
+Conference and among observers of its doings. In a recent number of the
+_Courrier de la Conférence_, a publication which cannot be accused of
+lukewarmness in the advocacy of proposals for the peaceful settlement of
+international differences, I find an article entitled "Pas de Code
+Naval, pas de Cour des Prises," to the effect that "l'acceptation de la
+Cour des Prises est strictement conditionnelle à la rédaction du Code,
+qu'elle aura à interpréter." Its decisions must otherwise be founded
+upon the opinions of its Judges, "the majority of whom will belong to a
+school which has never accepted what Great Britain looks upon as the
+fundamental principles of naval warfare." One learns also from other
+sources, that efforts are being made to arrive, by a series of
+compromises, at some common understanding upon the points as to which
+the differences of view between the Powers are most pronounced. It may,
+however, be safely predicted that many years must elapse before any such
+result will be achieved.
+
+In the meantime, a very different solution of the difficulty has
+commended itself to the partisans of the proposed Court. M. Renault, the
+accomplished Reporter of the committee which deals in the first instance
+with the subject, after stating that "sur beaucoup de points le droit de
+la guerre maritime est encore incertain, et chaque État le formule au
+gré de ses idées et de ses intérêts," lays down that, in accordance with
+strict juridical reasoning, when international law is silent an
+international Court should apply the law of the captor. He is,
+nevertheless, prepared to recommend, as the spokesman of the committee,
+that in such cases the Judges should decide "d'après les principes[C]
+généraux de la justice et de l'équité"--a process which I had, less
+complimentarily, described as "evolving new rules out of their inner
+consciousness." The Court, in pursuance of this confessedly "hardie
+solution," would be called upon to "faire le droit."
+
+One may be permitted to hope that this proposal will not be accepted.
+The beneficent action of English Judges in developing the common law of
+England may possibly be cited in its favour; but the analogy is
+delusive. The Courts of a given country in evolving new rules of law are
+almost certain to do so in accordance with the views of public policy
+generally entertained in that country. Should they act otherwise their
+error can be promptly corrected by the national Legislature. Far
+different would be the effect of the decision of an international Court,
+in which, though it might run directly counter to British theory and
+practice, Great Britain would have bound herself beforehand to
+acquiesce. The only quasi-legislative body by which the _ratio
+decidendi_ of such a decision could be disallowed would be an
+international gathering in which British views might find scanty
+support. The development of a system of national law by national Judges
+offers no analogy to the working of an international Court, empowered,
+at its free will and pleasure, to disregard the views of a sovereign
+Power as to the proper rule to be applied in cases as to which
+international law gives no guidance. In such cases the ultimate
+adjustment of differences of view is the appropriate work, not of a law
+Court, but of diplomacy.
+
+It is hardly necessary to combat the notion that there already exists,
+_in nubibus_, a complete system of prize law, which is in some
+mysterious way accessible to Judges, and reveals to them the rule
+applicable to each new case as it arises. This notion, so far as it is
+prevalent, seems to have arisen from a mistaken reading of certain
+_dicta_ of Lord Stowell, in which that great Judge, in his finest
+eighteenth-century manner, insists that the law which it was his duty to
+administer "has no locality" and "belongs to other nations as well as
+our own." He was, of course, thinking of the rules of prize law upon
+which the nations are agreed, not of the numerous questions upon which
+no agreement exists, and was dealing with the difficult position of a
+Judge who has to choose (as in the recent _Moray Firth_ case) between
+obedience to such rules and obedience to the legislative, or
+quasi-legislative, acts of his own Government.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Eggishorn, Suisse, September 16 (1907).
+
+
+A NEW PRIZE LAW
+
+Sir,--The speech of the Prime Minister at the Guildhall contains a
+paragraph which will be read with a sense of relief by those who, like
+myself, have all along viewed with surprise and apprehension The Hague
+proposals for an international prize Court.
+
+Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman admits that "it is desirable, and it may be
+essential, that, before legislation can be undertaken to make such a
+Court effective, the leading maritime nations should come to an
+agreement as to the rules regarding some of the more important subjects
+of warfare which are to be administered by the Court"; and his
+subsequent eulogy of the Court presupposes that it is provided with "a
+body of rules which has received the sanction of the great maritime
+Powers." What is said as to the necessary postponement of any
+legislation in the sense of The Hague Convention must, of course, apply
+_a fortiori_ to the ratification of the Convention.
+
+We have here, for the first time, an authoritative repudiation of the
+notion that fifteen gentlemen of mixed nationality composing an
+international prize Court, are to be let loose to "make law," in
+accordance with what may happen to be their conceptions of "justice and
+equity." It seems at last to be recognised that such a Court cannot be
+set to work unless, and until, the great maritime Powers shall have come
+to an agreement upon the rules of law which the Court is to administer.
+
+I may add that it is surely too much to expect that the rules in
+question will be discussed by the Powers, to use Sir H.
+Campbell-Bannerman's phrase, "without any political _arrière pensêe._"
+Compromise between opposing political interests must ever remain one of
+the most important factors in the development of the law of nations.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, November 11 (1907).
+
+
+    Although the establishment of an International Prize Court of
+    Appeal was not one of the topics included in the programme of
+    the Russian invitation; to a second Peace Conference, no
+    objection was made to its being taken into consideration, when
+    proposals to that effect were made by the British and American
+    delegates to the Conference. The idea seems first to have been
+    suggested by Hübner, who proposed to confer jurisdiction in
+    cases of neutral prize on Courts composed of ministers or
+    consuls, accredited by neutrals to the belligerents, together
+    with commissioners appointed by the Sovereign of the captors or
+    of the country to which the prize has been brought, as also,
+    perhaps, "des personnes pleines de probité et de connaissances
+    dans tout ce qui concerne les Loix des Nations et les Traités
+    des Puissances modernes." The Court is to decide in accordance
+    with treaties, "ou, à leur défaut, la loi universelle des
+    nations." _De la Saisie des Bâtiments neutres_ (1759), ii. pp.
+    45-61. The Institut de Droit International, after discussions
+    extending over several years, accepted the principle of an
+    International Court of Appeal, though only in combination with
+    a complete scheme of prize law, in its _Code des Prises
+    maritimes_, completed in 1887, section 100.
+
+    At the Conference of 1907, the work of several committees, and
+    a masterly report by Professor Renault, _Parl. Papers_, No. iv.
+    (1908), p. 9, resulted in The Hague Convention, No. xii. of
+    that year, providing for the establishment of a mixed Court of
+    Appeal from national prize Courts.
+
+    According to Art. 7 of this Convention, in default of any
+    relevant treaty between the Governments of the litigant
+    parties, and of generally recognised rules of international law
+    bearing upon the question at issue, the Court is to decide "in
+    accordance with the general principles of justice and equity."
+    It seems, however, to have been soon perceived that the
+    proposal to institute a Court, unprovided with any fixed system
+    of law by which to decide the cases which might be brought
+    before it, could not well be entertained, and the Final Act of
+    the Conference accordingly expresses a wish that "the
+    preparation of a _Règlement_, relative to the laws and customs
+    of maritime war, may be mentioned in the programme of the next
+    Conference."
+
+    Thereupon, without waiting for the meeting of a third Hague
+    Conference, the British Government on February 27, 1908,
+    addressed a circular to the great maritime Powers, which, after
+    alluding to the impression gained "that the establishment of
+    the International Prize Court would not meet with general
+    acceptance so long as vagueness and uncertainty exist as to the
+    principles which the Court, in dealing with appeals brought
+    before it, would apply to questions of far-reaching importance,
+    affecting naval policy and practice," went on to propose that
+    another Conference should meet in London, in the autumn of the
+    same year, "with the object of arriving at an agreement as to
+    what are the generally recognised principles of international
+    law within the meaning of paragraph 2 of Article 7 of the
+    Convention, as to those matters wherein the practice of nations
+    has varied, and of then formulating the rules which, in the
+    absence of special treaty provisions applicable to a particular
+    case, the Court should observe in dealing with appeals brought
+    before it for decision.... It would be difficult, if not
+    impossible, for H.M. Government to carry the legislation
+    necessary to give effect to the Convention, unless they could
+    assure both Houses of the British Parliament that some more
+    definite understanding had been reached as to the rules by
+    which the new Tribunal should be governed."
+
+    In response to this invitation, delegates from ten principal
+    maritime States assembled at the Foreign Office on December 4,
+    1908, and after discussing the topics to which their attention
+    was directed, viz.: (1) Contraband; (2) Blockade; (3)
+    Continuous voyage; (4) Destruction of neutral prizes; (5)
+    Unneutral service; (6) Conversion of merchant vessels into
+    warships on the high seas; (7) Transfer to a neutral flag; (8)
+    Nationality or domicil, as the test of enemy property; signed
+    on February 26, 1909, the Declaration of London.
+
+    The Convention No. xii. of 1907 and the Declaration of London
+    of 1909 have alike failed to obtain ratification. _Cf._ now the
+    two immediately following sections, 9 and 10.
+
+    An ultimate Court of Appeal in cases of Prize seems now likely
+    to be provided by the "Permanent Court of International
+    Justice," proposed by the League of Nations in pursuance of
+    Art. 14 of the Treaty of Versailles. See also Art. 24 of the
+    Treaty. _Cf. supra_, p. 2.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+SECTION 9
+
+_The Naval Prize Bill_
+
+    The first two letters in this section contain the criticisms of
+    the Bill to which allusion is made in the first lines of a
+    letter of later date, q.v. _supra_, p. 36. On the rejection of
+    the Bill, see _ib._, note 1.
+
+
+THE NAVAL PRIZE BILL
+
+Sir--A paternal interest in the Naval Prize Bill may perhaps be thought
+a sufficient excuse for the few remarks which I am about to make upon
+it. The Bill owes its existence to a suggestion made by me, just ten
+years ago, while engaged in bringing up to date for the Admiralty my
+_Manual of Naval Prise Law_ of 1888. It was drafted by me, after
+prolonged communications with Judges, Law Officers, and the Government
+Departments concerned, so as not only to reproduce the provisions of
+several "cross and cuffing" statutes dealing with the subject, but also
+to exhibit them in a more logical order than is always to be met with in
+Acts of Parliament.
+
+The Bill was thought of sufficient importance to be mentioned on two
+occasions in the King's Speech, and has been several times passed, after
+careful consideration, by the House of Lords; but pressure of other
+business has hitherto impeded its passage through the House of Commons.
+It has now been reintroduced, this time in the Lower House, with an
+imposing backing of Government support; primarily, no doubt, with a view
+to facilitating the ratification of The Hague Convention for the
+establishment of an International Prize Court of Appeal. For this
+purpose, several pieces of new cloth have been sewn into the old
+garment, and I may perhaps be allowed to call attention to three or four
+points in which, on a first reading, the new clauses strike one as
+needing reconsideration.
+
+Tactical reasons have, no doubt, operated to induce the Government to
+include in the Consolidation Bill the provisions for which statutory
+authority must be obtained before it will be possible to ratify the
+Convention; instead of first introducing a Bill having this sole object
+in view, and afterwards, should this be passed, inserting the new law in
+a reintroduced Consolidation Bill.
+
+The course adopted necessitates an otherwise unnecessary preamble, and
+the qualification of the new Part III. by the words "in the event of an
+International Prize Court being established" (Clause 23). The reference,
+by the by, in this clause to "the said Convention" is somewhat awkward,
+no mention of any Convention having occurred previously, except in the
+preamble of the Bill. Is not also the statutory approval given by this
+clause, not only to the Convention of 1907 but also to "any Convention
+amending the same," somewhat startling, as tending to exclude
+Parliamentary criticism of such an amending Convention before its
+ratification?
+
+By Clause 9, the members of the Judicial Committee who are to be
+nominated to act as the British Court of Appeal in cases of prize are to
+be described by the novel title of "the Supreme Prize Court." Is not the
+use made of the term "Supreme" in the Judicature Acts, as covering both
+the High Court and the Court of Appeal, already sufficiently
+unsatisfactory?
+
+But the question which, of all others _saute aux yeux_, in reading the
+new Part III., is whether the Convention is to be approved as it stands,
+irrespectively of a general acceptance of the new Code of Prize Law
+contained in the Declaration of London of 1909. The objections to Art. 7
+of the Contention, providing that, in the absence of rules of
+International Law generally recognised (and on many points of Prize Law
+there are no such rules), the Court is to decide in accordance with
+(what it may be pleased to consider) "the general principles of law and
+equity," are well known. The purpose of the Declaration of London
+(itself the subject of much difference of opinion) was to curtail this
+licence of decision, by providing the Court with so much ascertained
+Prize Law as to render action under the too-elastic phrase above quoted
+almost inconceivable.
+
+Is it too much of a counsel of perfection to suggest that the debatable
+questions arising under the Convention of 1907 and the Declaration of
+1909 should first be threshed out in discussions on a Bill dealing with
+those questions only; and that the decision, if any, thus arrived at
+should be subsequently inserted, freed from hypothesis, in the
+Consolidation Bill which has so long awaited the leisure of the House of
+Commons?
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, July 10 (1910).
+
+
+THE NAVAL PRIZE BILL
+
+Sir,--The Government has so far yielded to the representations of the
+Opposition as to have refrained from forcing on Friday night a division
+upon the Naval Prize Bill. Is it too much to hope that the Government
+may even now withdraw altogether a measure so ill adapted to place
+fairly before Parliament the question of the desirability of ratifying
+two documents held by a large body of competent opinion to be certain,
+if ratified, seriously to endanger the vital interests of the country?
+The Bill, as I have already pointed out, as originally drawn, was a
+careful consolidation of the law and procedure governing British Courts
+of Prize. Into this has now been incongruously thrust a set of clauses
+intended to give effect to a novel and highly controversial proposal for
+the creation of an International Prize Court. About the Declaration of
+London, alleged to contain a body of law which would adequately equip
+such a Court for the performance of its duties, not a word is said in
+the Bill; yet, should approval of the Bill be snatched by a purely party
+majority, the intention of the Government is to proceed straightway to
+the ratification both of the Prize Court Convention and the Declaration.
+Whether they intend also to endeavour to obtain the ratification, as an
+auxiliary Convention, of the lengthy covering commentary upon the
+Declaration, supplied by the committee by which the Declaration was
+drafted, does not yet appear. Of such a step I have already written that
+it "would be calamitous should a practice be introduced of attempting to
+cure the imperfect expression of a treaty by tacking on to it an equally
+authoritative reasoned commentary. The result would be _obscurum per
+obscurius_, a remedy worse than the disease."
+
+The alternatives before Parliament on Monday next will be either, by
+reading the Naval Prize Bill a second time, to bring about, in the teeth
+of protests from those best qualified to express an independent opinion
+upon the subject, the immediate ratification of the Convention and the
+Declaration, or to ask that before, this momentous step is taken the
+infinitely complex and delicate questions involved should be examined
+and passed upon by a Commission of representative experts. Which shall
+it be?
+
+Your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, July I (1911).
+
+
+    _Cf._ a letter of July 7, 1911, _supra_, p. 36.
+
+
+NAVAL PRIZE MONEY
+
+Sir,--The existing enactments as to prize bounty are, it seems,
+unsuitable to present conditions of naval warfare, and are accordingly
+to be varied by a bill shortly to be introduced.
+
+May I venture to recommend that the Bill should contain merely the
+half-dozen clauses needed for this purpose, leaving untouched for
+subsequent uncontroversial passage, the Naval Prize Consolidation with
+Amendments Bill? This Bill, suggested and drafted by myself, in the
+spacious times of peace, in consultation with the Admiralty and other
+Government Departments, as also with the Judge of the Admiralty Division
+and the Law Officers (including the present Lord Chancellor), was twice
+mentioned in the King's Speech, and several times, after careful
+consideration, passed by the House of Lords, but still awaits the
+leisure of the Lower House. It deserved a better fate than to have been
+used, in 1911, as a corpus vile for facilitating the ratification of the
+Convention for an International Prize Court and of the Declaration of
+London; receiving, most fortunately, as so perverted, its _coup de
+grâce_ from the Lords. It should be passed as an artistic whole, apart
+from any contentious matter, account having, of course, been taken of
+recent legislation by which it may have been, here and there, affected.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, May 23 (1918).
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+SECTION 10
+
+The Declaration of London
+
+    For incidental mentions of the Declaration in earlier sections
+    see _supra_, pp. 22, 36, 39, 55, 58, 80, 90, 92, 148, 149, 154,
+    155, 156, 158, 163, 164, 174, 181, 191, 193, 194, 195, 196.
+
+    See also my paper upon _Proposed Changes in the Law of Naval
+    Prize_, read to the British Academy on May 31, 1911,
+    _Transactions_, vol. v., of which a translation appeared in the
+    _Revue de Droit International_, N.S., t. xiii, pp. 336-355.
+
+
+THE DECLARATION OF LONDON
+
+Sir,--The questions put last night by Mr. M'Arthur need, perhaps, more
+fully considered answers than they received from Mr. McKinnon Wood.
+
+With reference to the first answer, it may be worth while to point out
+that, in Art. 66 of the Declaration, the Powers undertake not only, as
+in the passage quoted, "to give the necessary instructions to their
+authorities and armed forces," but also "to take the measures which may
+be proper for guaranteeing the application of the rules Contained in the
+Declaration by their Courts, and, in particular, by their Courts of
+Prize." The "authentic commentary" upon the article in M. Renault's
+"Report" explains that the measures in question "may vary in different
+countries, and may or may not require the intervention of the
+Legislature."
+
+The second answer lays down broadly that "the decisions of the British
+Prize Courts are founded on International Law, and not on municipal
+enactments." Our Prize Courts have, no doubt, on most points, decided in
+accordance with International Law, in the sense of the principles
+generally followed by civilised nations; but, on not a few points, in
+accordance with the British view of what is, or ought to be,
+International Law, in opposition to views persistently maintained by
+other countries--e.g. with reference to the moment from which a
+blockade-runner becomes liable to capture. The fact is that, whatever
+grandiloquent language may have been judicially employed by Lord Stowell
+in a contrary sense, it will now hardly be denied that a Prize Court
+sits by national, not international, authority, and is bound to take the
+view of International Law which, if any, is prescribed to it by the
+constitutionally expressed will of its own Government.
+
+The Declaration of London is in many ways a great achievement; but one
+is glad to learn from Mr. McKinnon Wood's third answer that opportunity
+will be given for discussing all important points in connexion with its
+rules.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, March 30 (1909).
+
+
+THE DECLARATION OF LONDON
+
+Sir,--Both the Prize Court Convention of 1907 and its complement, the
+London Declaration of 1909, stand greatly in need of full and
+well-informed discussion before receiving the Parliamentary approval
+which ought to be a condition precedent to the ratification of either of
+them. It is well, therefore, that many Chambers of Commerce have called
+the attention of Government to the detriment to British interest which
+may in their opinion result from these agreements if ratified, although
+the representations thus made exhibit, in some cases, so little
+technical knowledge as to have been readily disposed of by the Foreign
+Secretary. For the same reason, I welcome the letter from Mr. Gibson
+Bowles, which appeared in _The Times_ of yesterday, although it contains
+some statements the inaccuracy of which it may be desirable at once to
+point out.
+
+1. The Declaration of Paris is neither implicitly nor explicitly adopted
+by the Declaration of London, "as a part of the common law of nations
+which can no longer be disputed." The later makes no mention of the
+earlier one, and M. Benault's _rapport_ (as to the interpretative
+authority of which opinions may well differ) applies the words quoted,
+not to the Paris Declaration as a whole, but to one only of its
+articles. Mr. Bowles's statement that "the Declaration of London, if
+adopted, would reaffirm, and its ratification would in effect, for the
+first time ratify, the Declaration of Paris" cannot be supported.
+
+2. Mr. Bowles asserts it to be "an unquestioned doctrine of the Law of
+Nations that war abrogates and annuls treaty obligations between
+belligerents." One would have supposed it to be common knowledge that
+large classes of treaties are wholly unaffected by war. Such are, for
+instance, what are called conventions _transitoires_, because their
+effect is produced once for all, as in the case of cessions of
+territory; and, notably, treaties entered into for the regulation of the
+conduct of war, such as the Geneva Convention, many of The Hague
+Conventions of 1907, and the Declaration of Paris itself, which Mr.
+Bowles appears to think would _ipso facto_ cease to be obligatory
+between its signatories on their becoming belligerent.
+
+It is a pleasure to be able to agree with Mr. Bowles in his wish that
+the Naval Prize Bill, if reintroduced, should be rejected, though I
+would rather say "withdrawn." You have already allowed me (on July 10)
+to point out that if the Convention and Declaration are to be
+effectively discussed in Parliament they should be disentangled from
+that Bill, into which the Convention, and, by implication, the
+Declaration, have been incongruously thrust. This practically
+non-contentious Consolidation Bill, after several times securing the
+approval of the House of Lords, has hitherto for several years awaited
+the leisure of the House of Commons, but was suddenly reintroduced last
+Session, apparently as an unobtrusive vehicle for the new and highly
+debatable matter contained in the two above-mentioned documents. May I
+now repeat my suggestion that "the debatable questions arising under the
+Convention of 1907 and the Declaration of 1909 should first be threshed
+out in discussions on a Bill dealing with these questions only; and that
+the decision, if any, thus arrived at should be subsequently inserted,
+freed from hypothesis, in the Consolidation Bill"?
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, December 28 (1910).
+
+
+THE DECLARATION OF LONDON
+
+Sir,--I have read Professor Westlake's letters upon the Declaration of
+London with the attention due to anything written by my very learned
+friend, but, although myself opposed to the ratification alike of the
+Prize Court Convention and of its complement, the Declaration, do not at
+present wish to enter upon the demerits of either instrument.
+
+There is, however, a preliminary question upon which, with your
+permission, I should like to say a few words. My friend justly observes
+that in dealing with the Declaration "the first necessity is to know
+what it is that we have before us"; and he devotes his letter of January
+31 to maintaining that the Declaration must be read as interpreted by
+the explanations of it given to the full Conference by the Drafting
+Committee, of which M. Renault was president. Professor Westlake
+supports his opinion by a quotation from the reply of the Foreign Office
+in November last to the Edinburgh Chamber of Commerce (_Miscell._ 1910,
+No. 4, p. 21). I may mention that a similar reply had been given, a year
+previously, by Mr. McKinnon Wood to a question in the House of Commons.
+The source of these replies is doubtless to be found in a paragraph of
+the Report, addressed on March 1, 1909, to Sir Edward Grey, of the
+British Delegates to the London Conference, which runs as follows:--
+
+      "It should be borne in mind that, in accordance with the
+      principles and practice of Continental jurisprudence, such a
+      Report is considered an authoritative statement of the
+      meaning and intention of the instrument which it explains,
+      and that consequently foreign Governments and Courts, and no
+      doubt also the International Prize Court, will construe and
+      interpret the provisions of the Declaration by the light of
+      the Commentary given in the Report." (_Miscell._ 1909, No. 4,
+      p. 94.)
+
+It is desirable to know upon what authority this statement rests. I am
+aware of none. The nearest approach to an assertion of anything like it
+occurred at The Hague Conference of 1899, when the "approval" accorded
+to "the work of the Second Committee, as embodied in the articles voted
+and in the interpretative Report which accompanies them" was alleged by
+M. de Martens to amount to an acceptance of the Report "comme un
+commentaire interprétatif authentique des articles votés." (_Miscell._
+1899, No. 1, p. 165.) The drafting Report presented to the Geneva
+Conference of 1906 is merely said to have been "adopted" (Actes, p.
+286); and M. Renault's Report to the Conference of London was similarly
+merely "accepted," although he presented it as containing
+
+      "Un commentaire précis, dégagé de tout controverse, qui,
+      devenu commentaire officiel par l'approbation de la
+      Conférence, soit de nature à guider les autorités diverses,
+      administratives, militaires, judiciaires, qui pourront avoir
+      à l'appliquer." (_Miscell._ 1909, No. 5, p. 344.)
+
+It would seem that in each of these cases the adoption of the Report,
+and even a suggestion or two for a change in its phraseology, amounted
+to nothing more than an expression of opinion on the part of the
+Delegates to the Conference that the Report contained explanations which
+had satisfied themselves, and might satisfy their Governments, that the
+Convention which they were about to forward to those Governments might
+safely be accepted.
+
+So far as Governments are concerned, the adoption of a Report by their
+Delegates is _res inter alios acta_. An "authentic interpretation" of a
+contract can be given only by the parties to it, who, in the case of a
+treaty, are the States concerned. If these States desire to give to the
+report of a drafting committee the force of an authentic interpretation
+of their contract, they can surely do so only by something amounting to
+a supplementary convention. Writers upon international law naturally
+throw but little light upon questions to which the somewhat novel
+practice of argumentative drafting Reports has given rise; but I may
+cite Professor Ullmann, of Vienna, as saying:--
+
+      "Eine authentische Interpretation kann nur die durch
+      Kontrahenten selbst, in einem gemeinschaftlichen, ihren
+      Willen ausser Zweifel setzenden Acte (einem Nachtrags-oder
+      Erlauterungsvertrage), erfolgen" (Volkerrecht, p. 282);
+
+and Professor Fiore, of Naples, to the effect that what is called
+"authentic interpretation" is not
+
+      "interpretazione propriamente detta, ma una dichiarazione di
+      quello che fu gia concordato, o un nuovo trattato" (Diritto
+      Internazionale, ss. 1, 118);
+
+and that
+
+      "il trattato non può essere interpretato che dalle stesse
+      Parti (_i.e._ Stati) contrahenti; e per la validità dell'
+      atto è indispensabile che la relativa convenzione di
+      interpretazione abbia gli stessi requisiti ... di ogni altra
+      convenzione tra Stato e Stato" (Il Dir. Int. Codif., § 816).
+
+I would submit that such a Report as that which accompanies the
+Declaration of London has no claim to the sort of interpretative
+authority which has been attributed to it; nor is it desirable that the
+requisite steps should be taken for giving it that authority. It would
+be calamitous should a practice be introduced of attempting to cure the
+imperfect expression of a treaty by tacking on to it an equally
+authoritative reasoned commentary, likely, as in the present case, to be
+enormously longer than the test to which it relates.
+
+It is a wholly different question whether Governments or Courts would be
+inclined to take notice of such a Report, among other facts antecedent
+to a Convention, or Declaration, which they might be called upon to
+construe. A British Court would not, I conceive, be so inclined. On the
+probable inclinations of Continental Courts, and of an International
+Prize Court, should one be instituted, further expert information would
+seem to be called for.
+
+The fact is that the vitally important questions of theory and practice
+raised by the Convention and the Declaration need calmer and better
+instructed discussion than they have yet received. Ought they not to be
+referred to a Royal Commission, on which should be placed
+representatives of the Navy and Merchant Service, of the corn trade, and
+of the Colonies, together with international lawyers, in touch with the
+views of their Continental colleagues?
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, February 16 (1911).
+
+
+THE DECLARATION OF LONDON
+
+Sir,--Professor Westlake, replying in _The Times_ of to-day to the
+arguments by which I had endeavoured to show that the Report made to the
+Conference of London has no pretensions to be treated as an authentic
+interpretation of the Declaration prepared by the Conference, still
+maintains that "the essential question will be, what the agreement was
+that the Conference arrived at." I had maintained, on the contrary, that
+the essential question will be, What is the agreement entered into by
+the Powers, as evidenced by their ratifications? anything outside of the
+ratified agreement being _res inter alios acta_. I should not be
+justified in asking you to allow me to repeat the contents of my letter
+of Monday last in support of this view. The pleadings are, I think,
+exhausted. "Therefore let a jury come."
+
+I should like, however, to point out that I did not, as my friend seems
+to think, attribute the acceptance of the Report to the delegates
+"singly." It was, no doubt accepted by all present without protest. My
+colleague will, I am sure, pardon me if I add that I cannot concur in
+his exegesis of my citations from Ullmann and Fiore.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, February 25 (1911).
+
+
+THE DECLARATION OF LONDON
+
+Sir,--It is satisfactory that so high an authority as Mr. Arthur Cohen
+distinctly accedes to the view that the Declaration of London ought not
+to be ratified as it stands. I should, however, be sorry were his
+suggestion accepted that the Declaration and the argumentative report
+which accompanies it might be ratified together. The result would be
+_obscurum per obscurius_, a remedy worse than the disease.
+
+I shall ask leave to add that, if Mr. Cohen will take the trouble to
+look again at my letters of February 10 and 25, he will cease to suppose
+it possible that in writing "the pleadings are, I think, exhausted,
+&c.," I meant to convey that no further discussion of the merits or
+demerits of the Declaration was required. On the contrary I expressly
+limited myself to a consideration of the preliminary question, whether
+interpretative authority would rightly be attributed to the report in
+question, stating that, while opposed to the ratification alike of the
+Prize Court Convention and of the Declaration, I did not, for the
+present, wish to enter upon the demerits of either instrument; and ended
+my first letter by suggesting the reference to a Royal Commission of
+"the vitally important questions of theory and practice raised by the
+Convention and the Declaration," as needing "calmer and better
+instructed discussion than they have yet received."
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, March 1 (1911).
+
+
+THE DECLARATION OF LONDON
+
+Sir,--After Tuesday's debate in the House of Lords it may be hoped that
+not even "the man in the street" will suppose the Declaration of London
+to be anything more than an objectionable draft, by which no country has
+consented to be bound. Every day of the war makes more apparent our debt
+to the House of Lords for having, four years ago, prevented the British
+Government from ratifying either the International Prize Court
+Convention or this Declaration, which, while misleadingly professing
+that its provisions "correspond in substance with the generally
+recognised principles of international law," contains, interspersed with
+truisms familiar to all concerned with such matters, a good many
+undesirable novelties.
+
+This being so, it was surely unfortunate that our Government, with a
+view apparently to saving time and trouble, decided, in the early days
+of the war, to adopt the Declaration _en bloc_ as a statement of prize
+law "during the present hostilities," subject, however, to "certain
+additions and modifications"; to which it, of course, retained the power
+of making additions. This power has been so freely exercised, and large
+portions of the Declaration, not thereby affected, have proved to be so
+inapplicable to modern conditions, as disclosed by the war, that the
+document, so far from providing reliable guidance, is now a mere source
+of hopeless confusion.
+
+To put an end to this confusion, I venture to suggest that, in concert
+with our Allies, the Declaration should be finally consigned to
+oblivion. Either let its place be taken by some clear and simple
+statement of unquestioned prize law, for the use of commanders and
+officials (something like a confidential document in the drafting of
+which I had a hand some years ago, but, of course, brought up to date),
+or let established principles take care of themselves, certain doubtful
+points only being dealt with, from time to time, by Orders in Council.
+
+While heartily concurring in Lord Portsmouth's description of the
+unratified "Declaration" as "rubbish," I regret that he seems to
+relegate to the same category even those generally ratified "Hague
+Conventions" which, as far as they go, mark a real advance upon
+previously accepted rules. Still less acceptable is his advice to "sweep
+away juridical niceties" in the conduct of hostilities. Did he intend
+thus to describe the whole fabric of the rules by which international
+law has endeavoured, with considerable success, to restrain barbarity in
+warfare?
+
+I must mention that this letter was written before seeing this morning
+the letter of Mr. Gibson Bowles, my worthy ally in attacks upon the
+Declaration.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, December 3 (1915).
+
+
+THE DECLARATION OF LONDON
+
+Sir,--You have allowed me, in a good many letters, to criticise the
+Declaration of London, both in its original inception and in its
+subsequent applications. Thanks to the House of Lords, the Declaration,
+which erroneously professed to "correspond in substance with the
+generally recognised principles of International Law," has remained
+unratified, and therefore diplomatically of no effect.
+
+Its admirers have, however, too long preserved it, perhaps _sub spe
+rati_, in a state of suspended animation, using it by way of, as they
+supposed, a convenient handbook of maritime law for the purposes of the
+present war, though subject to such variations as might from time to
+time be found convenient by the Allies. The mistake thus made soon
+became apparent. The elaborate classification of contraband had to be at
+once thrown overboard, and most of the remaining provisions of the
+Declaration proved to be inapplicable to modern warfare.
+
+In December last I accordingly wrote as follows:--
+
+      "To put an end to this confusion, I venture to suggest that,
+      in concert with our Allies, the Declaration should be finally
+      consigned to oblivion. Either let its place be taken by some
+      clear and simple statement of unquestioned prize law, for the
+      use of commanders and Officials, ... or established
+      principles take care of themselves, certain doubtful points
+      only being dealt with from time to time by Orders in
+      Council."
+
+I need hardly say that to anyone holding the views thus expressed,
+yesterday's Order in Council must be most satisfactory; getting rid, as
+it does for good and all, of the unfortunate Declaration, leaving the
+application of established principles to those acquainted with them and
+promulgating authoritative guidance on specific novel questions.
+
+I may perhaps add a word or two on the undesirability of describing as
+"Declarations" documents which, being equipped with provisions for
+ratification, although they may profess to set out old law, differ in no
+respect from other conventions. Also, as to the need for greater caution
+on the part of our representatives than has been shown by their
+acceptance of various craftily suggested anti-British suggestions, such
+as were several embodied in the Declaration in question, and notably
+that of the notorious cl. 23 (_h_) of The Hague Convention iv., the
+interpretation of which has exercised the ingenuity of the Foreign
+Office and, more recently, of the Court of Appeal.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Brighton, July 9 (1916).
+
+
+    On July 7, 1916, an Order in Council was made, revoking all
+    Orders by which the provisions of the Declaration had been
+    adopted, or modified, for the duration of the war; stating the
+    intention of the Allies to exercise their belligerent rights at
+    sea in strict accordance with the law of nations; but dealing
+    specifically with certain doubtful points. The Order was
+    accompanied by a memorandum, drawn up by the British and French
+    Governments, explaining how their expectation that in the
+    Declaration they would find "a suitable digest of principles
+    and compendium of working rules" had not been realised. See
+    also Lord Robert Cecil in the House of Commons on August 23,
+    with reference to the Zamora case, [1916] 2 Ch. c. 77.
+
+    On misuses of the term "Declaration" _cf. supra_, pp. 90, 91,
+    92.
+
+
+GERMANY WRONG AGAIN
+
+Sir,--The new German Note handed on Thursday last to the representatives
+of the neutral Powers supports its allegation that the four Allied
+Powers "have trampled upon right and torn up the treaties on which it
+was based" by the following statement:--
+
+      "Already in the first weeks of the war England had renounced
+      the Declaration of London, the contents of which her own
+      delegates had recognised as binding in international law."
+
+It is surely notorious that the delegates of a Power, by agreeing to the
+draft of a treaty, give to it no international validity, which results
+only when the treaty has been ratified by their Government. The
+Declaration of London has, most fortunately, never been ratified by the
+Government of Great Britain.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, January 13 (1917).
+
+
+
+
+INDEX
+
+
+Absolute contraband. _See_ Contraband
+Abstention, 129
+Acquiescence, State duty of, 129, 130, 133, 136
+_Actæon_, the, 176, 179
+Acts of Parliament, 61, 63
+Admiralty Manual of Prize Law, 156, 159, 192
+Aerial warfare, 61
+Air, opposite views as to rights over, 64, 65
+Aircraft in war, 69
+_Alabama_, the, 131, 183
+_Alexander, Mrs., the cotton of_, 153
+Alien enemies, civil disabilities of, 47, 49, 205
+_Allanton_, the, 158, 161, 162, 163
+_Ancipitis usus_, articles, 148
+_Angarie, Droit d'_, 170
+_Appam_, the, 146
+_Arabia_, the, 152
+Arbitration, 1-6, 184
+   treaties, general, 6, 7
+   treaties, limited, _ib._
+   cases fit for, 5
+   the Hague tribunal of, 5
+Armaments, limitation of, 184
+Armed civilians, 77
+   Neutralities, the, 83
+Army, duties of, 77
+Article 23 (h), 47, 49, 206, 207
+   restricting application, 146
+Aspirations, 99
+Assassination, 93
+_Asturias_, the, 60
+Asylum to belligerent warships, 129, 143
+_Atalanta_, the, 160
+Aube, Admiral, 116
+Authentic interpretation, 107, 196, 199, 201, 205
+
+
+Baden-Powell, Sir G., 81, 85, 87
+Baker, Sir Sherston, 85
+Balfour, Mr. A.J., 13, 15, 73, 74, 173
+Balloons, projectiles from, 30, 62
+Base of operations, neutral duty as to, 129, 134, 144, 145
+Baty, Dr. T., 161
+Bays, 166, 167
+Belligerents, lawful, 73, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79
+Beresford, Lord Charles, 118
+_Bermuda_, the, 160
+Bills criticised, 36-40, 47, 192
+Birkenhead, Lord, 135
+Bismarck, Prince, 170
+Bliss, Sir H., 150
+Blockade,
+   belligerent, 29, 83, 156
+   fictitious, 57, 59
+   pacific, 9-14, 17
+Bluntschli's reply to Von Moltke, 26
+Bombardment, 62
+   of open coast towns, 30, 62
+   from the air, 112, 123
+Bondholders, foreign, vindication of rights of, 15
+Bowles, Mr. Gibson, 54, 87, 89, 90, 92, 141, 173, 177, 178, 198
+Brandschatz, 117
+Brassard, effect of a, 79
+Bright, Sir Charles, 171, 172
+British Academy, author's paper at, 174
+British Manual of Military Law, 74
+   Handbooks on War on Land, 75, 76
+Brodrick, Mr., 75
+_Brown_ v. _United States_, 45
+Brusa, Prof., 130
+Brussels Conference, the, of 1874, 68, 74, 77, 114, 172
+Bullets,
+   expanding, 22, 94, 96
+   explosive, 22, 94, 95
+   in savage warfare, 94
+_Bundesrath_, the, 29, 157, 160
+Butler, General B.F., 153
+Bynkershoek, 45, 71, 165, 166
+
+
+Cable-cutting, 30, 168-173
+Cables, submarine, 168
+Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H., 189
+Captors, unqualified, 71, 73, 162, 163
+Carson, Sir Edward, 127
+Cavell, Miss, case of, 79
+_Calchas_, the, 151, 152, 153
+Cecil, Lord Robert, 8, 207
+Channel tunnel, 42
+_Chavasse, ex parte_, 137
+Civilians armed, position of, 77, 78, 79
+Churchill, Mr. Winston, 106
+Claims, competitive, 17
+Clarke, Sir Edward, 124
+Clode, Mr., 112
+Closed localities, 50
+Clothing, use of enemy, 75
+Coal, 176
+   conditional contraband, 149
+   for belligerent fleet, 131, 134
+Coast fishing vessels, 30
+Codification of laws of war, 22, 23
+Cohen, Mr. Arthur, 47, 203
+Coltman, Mr., 85
+Commencement of war, 41
+_Commercen_, the, 159
+Commissioning on the High Seas, 90
+Commissions of enquiry, 4
+Compromise, the, between belligerent and neutral rights, 133, 136, 164,
+     169
+Conditional contraband. _See_ Contraband
+Conduct of warfare between belligerents, 50
+Conflict of Laws, 34, 35
+Continuous voyages, 29, 157, 162, 183
+"Contraband, a happy little," 153
+Contraband of war,
+   what it is, 130, 134, 159, 175
+   absolute and conditional, 147, 151, 152, 154, 158
+   British proposal to abolish doctrine of, 163, 184, 185
+   coal, how far, 132, 134, 149, 176
+   cotton, how far, 151, 152, 177
+   food-stuffs, how far, 176, 185
+   Japanese rules as to, 149, 155, 156
+   misuse of the term, 134
+   no neutral duty to prohibit export of, 113, 140
+   Russian rules as to, 154, 176
+   the Declaration of London as to, 164
+   the two constituents of, 159
+Contractual debts, 21
+Contributions, 102, 118
+Conventions. _See_ Geneva, Hague, &c.
+   and Legislation, 36
+   "transitoires," 198
+Conversion. _See_ Transformation
+Convoy, 31
+Cotton, 177
+   as contraband, 149, 151, 152
+Court of International Justice, a permanent, 2, 191
+Criticism of Bills, 36-40, 192
+Customs Consolidation Act, 1853, 132
+
+
+Danger zone, a, 59
+Dardanelles, closing of, 55, 58, 80, 90, 92
+"Declaration," misuse of the term, 90, 92, 206
+Declaration, the, of London, 22, 36, 39, 80, 92, 147, 149, 154, 155,
+     158, 161, 163, 164, 181, 191, 193-207
+   provisional adoption of, as modified, 154, 204
+   rejection of, 206, 207
+Declaration, the, of Paris, 22, 26, 57, 59, 80, 81, 82, 83, 87, 89, 156,
+     198
+   accession to, of Spain and Mexico, 81, 86, 87, 88, 89, 91
+Declaration, the, of St. Petersburg, 22, 27, 91, 95, 96, 97
+   von Moltke upon, 25
+Declaration of war, 10, 41, 43
+Declarations,
+   mistaken view as to their not needing ratification, 90, 91
+   the three, of the Hague in 1899. _See_ Hague
+De Horsey, Admiral, 118, 164
+De Joinville, Prince, 117
+De Martens, Prof., 162, 166, 176, 200
+Deposit of delict, 158
+Despatches, enemy, 156, 158, 160
+Destination, 8, 155, 156
+Destruction of neutral prizes, 22, 173-181
+Dickenson, Mr. Lowes, 125
+_Direct U.S. Cable Co._ v. _Anglo-American Tel. Co._, 166
+Disguise, 75, 76
+Distinctive marks, 77, 79
+_Doelwijk_, the, 161
+Drago doctrine, the, 20
+_Droit d'angarie_, the, 170
+Dum-dum bullet. _See_ Bullets
+_Durward_, the, 60
+
+
+Embargo, 11
+Enemy,
+   who is an ?, 401[E]
+   disabilities of, 47, 49, 206
+   goods in neutral bottoms, 83
+   in occupied territory, 102
+   merchant vessels at outbreak, 45, 49
+   property on land, 102
+   property at sea, 29, 104, 184
+   resident at outbreak, 44
+   service, 157, 158, 186
+"Englishman's Home, An," the play, 77
+Enquiry, international Commissions of, 1, 3, 4, 6
+Evans, Sir Samuel, 70
+
+
+False colours, 30, 43, 76
+Fauchille, M., 47, 64, 65
+_Felicity_, the, 164, 166, 167, 175, 177, 179
+Fiore, Prof., 201
+Fishing vessels, 31
+Flag of truce, 76
+Food-stuffs, 148, 174
+   how far contraband, 148, 176, 185
+Food, Royal Commission on, 148, 174, 177
+Foreign Enlistment Acts, the, 131, 134, 138, 139, 141, 143
+Foreign Enlistment Bills, new, 39
+Foreign soldiers, 45
+Forster, Arnold-, Mr., 45
+_Fox_, the, 176, 177
+_Fram_, the, 137
+_Francs-tireurs_, 79
+"Freedom of the seas," 51, 97
+French Government Manual for Land Warfare, 117
+Friendly methods of settlement, 1
+
+
+Gases, harmful, whether employment of, legitimate, 22, 96, 97
+Geffken, Prof., 13
+General principles of justice and equity, the, 187, 189, 190, 193
+Geneva Convention Bill, 36
+Geneva Conventions, the, 22, 34, 67, 98, 100
+   application of, to maritime warfare, 30, 98
+Gentili, A., 170
+Germany. _Cf._ Hague Conventions
+   proclamation by, of a danger zone, 59
+   wrong as to Declaration of London, 207
+Giffen, Sir R., 13
+Gladstone, Mr., 134
+_Goeben_ and _Breslau_, the, 91
+_Golden Rocket_, the, 85
+Good offices, 1, 2, 3
+Government authority, as a protection, 72
+Government Bills and International Conventions, 36-40, 192, 195, 204
+Granville, Lord, 82, 85, 131, 170, 177
+Greek coast, blockade of, 13
+Guerilla warfare, 73
+Gundel, General de, 48
+Grotius, 45, 148, 155, 166, 168, 169
+
+
+_Haabet_, the, 160
+Hague Conventions, the,
+   of 1889, 1, 2, 3, 6, 30, 61, 74, 75, 94, 102, 105, 107, 120, 184
+   of 1907, 1, 6
+   applicable only between contracting Powers, 69
+   No. i., 2, 3, 6
+   No. ii., 21, 22
+   No. iii., 22, 36, 44
+   No. iv., 22, 45, 60, 61, 67, 75, 76, 77, 96, 105, 107, 122, 168, 206
+   No. v., 22, 68, 75, 80, 90, 135, 168
+   No. vi., 22, 45, 70
+   No. vii., 22, 162
+   No. viii., 22, 45, 164
+   No. ix., 22, 68, 122
+   No. x., 22, 100, 130
+   No. xi., 22, 158
+   No. xii., 22, 36, 190, 194, 195, 197, 204
+   No. xiii., 22, 129, 143, 146
+Hague Declarations, the, 22, 30, 61, 62, 63, 64, 96
+Hague _Règlements_, the, as to war on land, 75, 76, 78, 93, 95, 100
+Hague Tribunal, the, 5
+   reference to, not obligatory, 25
+Haldane, Mr. R.B., 45
+Hall, Mr. W.E., on pacific blockade, 13
+Harcourt, Sir W., 74
+Hardinge, Sir C., 152
+Herbert, Mr. Arnold, 182, 184
+Holland, Sir T.E., references to writings of, 8, 9, 20, 23, 35, 44, 47,
+     50, 52, 66, 75, 97, 113, 122, 164, 168, 180, 192, 196
+Honour and vital interests clause, the, 4, 5, 6
+Horses, wounded, 98, 100
+Horsey, Adml., 118, 164, 166
+Hostile assistance, 88, 157, 160, 186
+Hübner, 190
+
+
+_Ikaria_, the, 60
+_Imina_, the, 160
+Immediate effects of outbreak of war, the, 45
+Institut de Droit International, the, 11, 12, 16, 23, 24, 30, 43, 44,
+     48, 63, 64, 65, 66, 68, 104, 105, 108, 121, 130, 162, 163, 164,
+     167, 168, 172, 174, 176, 182, 185, 190
+   its _Manuel des lois de la guerre maritime_, 163
+   its _Manuel des lois de la guerre sur terre_, 23, 24, 25, 27, 108
+Instructions, national,
+   on laws of war on land, 75, 76
+   on laws of war at sea:
+      British, 156, 180
+      French, 179
+      Japanese, 148, 149, 150, 155, 156, 157, 173
+      Russian, 154, 173, 174, 176, 177, 179
+      United States, 179
+_International_, the, 169
+International Court of Appeal, an, 184
+International Justice, a Permanent Court of, 2
+International Law, the nature and authority of, 66, 67, 77, 86, 114,
+     115, 116, 119, 127, 169, 188
+International Prize Court, proposal for an, 23, 181-191
+
+
+Jackson, Colonel, 66, 68
+James, Captain, 114
+Jenks, Mr., 106, 108, 110
+_Jonge Margaretha_, the, 159
+Just cause of war, 83
+"Justice and equity, general principles of," 187, 189, 190, 193
+
+
+Kent, Chancellor, 45
+Kleen, Mr., 130, 133
+_Knight-Commander_, the, 173, 174
+Kohler, Mr., 47
+_Kowshing_, the case of the, 41, 43
+"Kriegsbrauch," the, 68, 80
+
+
+Lambermont, Baron, 77
+Lammasch, Prof., 125
+Lansdowne, Marquess of, 58, 133, 136, 149, 169, 173
+Lawful belligerents, 69, 78
+League of Nations, the, 1, 2, 7, 9, 191
+Lehr, Prof., 102
+_Leucade_, the, 176
+Lincoln, President, 74
+Lieber's Instructions, 74, 75
+Localities closed to hostilities, 52
+London, Conference of, 181, 190, 191
+London, Declaration of, 22, 55, 58, 92, 181, 191, 193, 194, 195, 196-207
+Lyons, Lord, 169
+
+
+MacDonell, Prof., 172
+McKenna, Mr., 78
+Mahan, Admiral, 97
+Mail steamers and bags, 30
+_Malacca_, the case of the, 81, 162, 163
+Mandates, 8
+Manning, Mr., 45
+Manual of military law, the British, 107
+Manuals of warfare
+   on land, 105
+   at sea, 105
+Manuel des Lois de la guerre maritime, the, of Institut, 23
+Manual des Lois de la guerre sur terre, 23, 24, 174
+_Marais, ex parte_, 106
+Martens, de, Prof., 126
+Martial law, 105-112
+Maurice, Colonel, 42
+_Mcomini and others_ v. _Governor &c. of Natal_, 107
+Means of injuring, 94
+Measures short of war, 1-21
+Mediation. _See_ Good offices
+Menam, blockade of the, 10
+Mercantile Marine in war, 81, 84, 87
+Merchant ships, visit of, 60
+Militia, 77
+_Minerva_, the, 91
+Mines, 164
+Moltke, von, on conduct of war, 24
+Monroe doctrine, the, 17, 20
+_Moray Firth_, the, 189
+Morley, Lord, 58, 74
+"Most favoured nation" clause, 17
+_Möwe_, the, 70
+"Murder," 70, 71, 72, 84
+Mutiny Acts, the, 109
+
+
+National Instructions, 75, 76
+Naval bombardments of open coast towns, 30, 112, 123
+Naval manoeuvres of 1888, the, 113, 123
+Naval war code, a British, 30, 31, 32
+Naval warfare, 22
+Naval Prize (Consolidation) Bill, the, 36, 191-196, 198
+   object of, 194,195
+   rejection of, 196
+Naval Prize money, 195
+Neutral conduct, the criterion of, 125
+Neutral duties, as classified by the author, 129
+Neutral hospitality, 143
+Neutral States and individuals, their liabilities distinguished, 129-135
+Neutral territory, passage through, 90
+Neutral trade, the four inconveniences, to, 159
+Neutralisation, the term, 53, 54
+Neutrality,
+   correlative to belligerency, 10, 16, 19
+   British proclamations of, 130, 135-143
+Neutrals, methods of warfare affecting, 164-181
+Non-combatants, 72, 74
+_Novoe Vremya_, the, 176
+
+
+Occupied territory,
+   right of the invader in, 80, 100
+   not yet occupied, 77
+Oppenheim, Prof., 47
+_Orozembo_, the, 160
+"Ottoman Empire, ancient rule of the," 56
+
+
+Pacific blockade, 10
+Palmerston, Lord, 12
+Panama Canal, the, 50
+_Paquete Habana_, the, 30
+Paris. _See_ Declaration of
+Paris, Treaty of, 53, 54, 56, 81, 87, 89, 155
+"Pas de Code Naval, pas de Cour des Prises," 187
+Passage, 64, 90
+Peace talk, 125
+Peaceful settlement of disputes, the Conventions for,
+   of 1899, 2, 3, 6
+   of 1907, 2, 6
+   are non-obligatory, 173
+Perels, Prof., 16
+Permanent Court of International Justice, a, 191
+_Peterburg_, the, 162
+_Peterhoff_, the, 20, 149, 160
+Petition of Right, the, 106, 108, 109
+Pike, Mr., 98, 100
+"Piracy," 70, 71, 84
+Poison, 96
+Pope's Note, the, 51
+Port, enemy ships in, 49
+_Porter_ v. _Freudenberg_, 49
+Portsmouth, Lord, 205
+Pourtugael, den Beer, Prof., 68
+Pre-emption, 148
+Prevention, State duties of, 129, 131
+Prisoners of war, 45, 106, 107
+   liabilities of, 106
+Private International Law, 34
+Privateers, 81, 84
+   restrictions on, 82
+   commissioned liners are not, 70
+Private property at sea, 184
+Prize Court,
+   the Russian, 163
+   an international Court of Appeal, 23, 170-182
+   a settled prize law, must precede, 181, 183, 185, 190, 191, 193
+   a supreme, 181
+Prize Law Consolidation Bill, 193, 194, 199
+"Probable cause," 83
+Proclamations of neutrality, the British, criticised, 135-143
+"Professors," 119
+Projectiles,
+  from balloons, 22, 30, 62
+  for diffusion of gases, 22, 96, 97
+
+
+"Quasi-enemy," 12
+
+
+Radiotelegraphic stations, 168
+Rae, Mr., 162
+Ratification, 203
+Receipts, 102
+_Règlements_, the Hague. _See_ Hague
+Renault, Prof., 172, 187, 190, 196, 198, 199
+   Report of the force of (_see_ Authentic Interpretation)
+Reprisals,
+   advantages of, 14, 19
+   how differing from war, 9, 12, 14, 19
+   opposite views as to, 16
+   species of, 12, 15, 19
+   United States, instructions as to, 29
+   belligerent, 97, 123
+Requisitions, 102, 117
+Restrictive clause, the, 69, 146
+Retaliation, 97
+Reward for, dead or alive, 93
+_R._ v. _Eyre_, 110
+Ridley, Sir E., 77
+Roman Law terminology, 102
+Roosevelt, Pres., 146
+Rosebery, Lord, 158
+Ross, Sir R., 78
+Russian Prize Law, 162, 174, 176
+
+
+Salisbury, Lord, 3, 15, 52, 54, 157
+_Santissima Trinidad_, the, 137
+Savage warfare, 94
+_Savannah_, the, 85
+Scott, Sir Walter, 77, 91
+Scott, Sir William, 91
+Search. _See_ Visit and Search
+Second Peace Conference Conventions Bill, 37, 38, 39
+Seely, Col., 63
+Ship, a "mere moveable," 85
+Shucking, Prof., 125
+Siam, 10
+Sinking. _See_ Destruction
+Smith (Lord Birkenhead) and Sibley, on International Law in the
+     Russo-Japanese War, 135
+_Spider_, the, 113, 117
+Spies, 72
+_Springbok_, the, 29
+Stephen, Sir Herbert, 124
+Stewart, Mr. C., 104
+Story, J., 159
+Stowell, Lord, 85, 159, 160, 161, 166, 175, 177, 178, 180, 197
+Straits, 52, 56
+Submarine cables, 168, 169, 171, 188
+Submarines, 69
+Suez Canal, the, 50, 51, 52, 54
+Superfluous injury, 94, 95
+Suyematsu, Baron, 149
+Swettenham, Sir James, 79
+Sydenham, Lord, 104
+
+
+Takahashi, Prof., 43
+Terminology, 33
+Territorial waters, 165, 166, 167
+Tindal, le Chevalier, 122
+Tirpitz, Admiral von, 70
+_Tocumaro_, the, 60[D]
+Torpedoes, 164
+Transformation into ships of war, 162
+Treaties,
+   who are the parties to, 202, 207
+   effect of war on, 18, 198
+Treaty, the Hay-Pauncefote, 50
+Twenty-three (h) clause, the, 47, 206
+Twenty-four hours rule, the, 127, 144, 145
+Ullmann, Prof., 47, 106, 201
+Unarmed merchantmen, 72, 73
+Undefended towns, 30, 67, 68
+Uniform, 75
+United States
+   instructions for war on land, 23, 73, 107
+   naval war code, 23, 30, 31, 88
+   Naval War College, 8
+   ratification of Conventions, 75
+   views of, compared with British, 29, 31
+Unqualified captors, 72, 73
+Unratified Conventions, effect of, 40
+Usufruct, 101
+
+
+Vattel, 46, 119
+Venezuela, 13, 18
+Visit and search, 72, 83, 84, 159, 186
+"Violations of law of nations," term misapplied, 140, 142
+Voeux, 5, 99, 121, 122, 167, 180, 190
+Volunteers, 77
+
+
+War. _See_ Reprisals
+   Declaration of, 10, 41
+   legitimate object of, 25, 95
+   _sub modo_, 20, 55
+   written law of, 22
+Washington, the Three Rules of, 86
+Wellington, Duke of, 117
+Westbury, Lord, 137
+Westlake, Prof., 18, 41, 65, 183, 199, 202
+Wilson, Pres., 72, 97, 127
+Wolf, Mr., 58
+Wood, Mackinnon, Mr., 196, 197, 200
+Wounded and Sick. _See_ Geneva Conventions
+   horses, 98, 100
+
+
+_Yangtsze Insurance Association_ v. _Indemnity Mutual Marine Company_,
+   157
+Younge, Mr., 118
+
+
+_Zamora_, the, 207
+Zone, a danger, 59
+
+
+
+
+Printed by SPOTTISWOODE, BALLANTYNE & CO. LTD.
+Colchester, London & Eton, England
+
+
+
+
+BY THE SAME AUTHOR
+
+
+AN ESSAY ON COMPOSITION DEEDS UNDER 24 AND 25 VICT. c. 134. London,
+Sweet, 1864, 12mo. 7s.
+
+A PLAN FOR THE FORMAL AMENDMENT OF THE LAW OF ENGLAND. London,
+Butterworths, 1867, 8vo. 1s.
+
+ESSAYS UPON THE FORM OF THE LAW. London, Butterworths, 1870, 8vo. 7s.
+6d.
+
+THE INSTITUTES OF JUSTINIAN, edited as a recension of the Institutes of
+Gaius. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1873, second edit. 1881, 12mo. 5s.
+
+SELECT TITLES FROM THE DIGEST OF JUSTINIAN, edited, with C.L. Shadwell.
+Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1874-1881, 8vo. 14s.
+
+ALBERICUS GENTILIS, an Inaugural Lecture delivered at All Souls College,
+November 7, 1874. London, Macmillan, 1874, 8vo. 1s. 6d.
+
+ALBERICUS GENTILIS, tradotto da Aurelio Saffi. Roma, Loescher, 1884.
+
+THE BRUSSELS CONFERENCE OF 1874, and other diplomatic attempts to
+mitigate the rigour of warfare. Oxford and London, James Parker, 1876,
+8vo. 1s. 6d.
+
+THE TREATY RELATIONS OF RUSSIA AND TURKEY, 1774 to 1853, with an
+Appendix of Treaties. London, Macmillan, 1877, 12mo. 2s.
+
+ALBERICI GENTILIS DE IURE BELLI LIBRI TRES, edited. Oxford, Clarendon
+Press, 1877, 4to. 21s.
+
+THE ELEMENTS OF JURISPRUDENCE. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1880, 8vo,
+twelfth edit. 1916, 8vo. 14s.
+
+THE EUROPEAN CONCERT IN THE EASTERN QUESTION: a Collection of Treaties
+and other Public Acts, Edited, with Introductions and Notes. Oxford,
+Clarendon Press, 1885, 8vo. 12s. 6d.
+
+A MANUAL OF NAVAL PRIZE LAW. Issued by authority of the Lords
+Commissioners of the Admiralty. London, Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1888, 8vo.
+
+STUDIES IN INTERNATIONAL LAW. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1898, 8vo. 10s.
+6d.
+
+THE LAWS AND CUSTOMS OF WAR ON LAND, &c. (issued by the War Office to
+the British Army). London, Harrison & Sons, 1904, 12mo. 6d.
+
+NEUTRAL DUTIES IN A MARITIME WAR, as illustrated by recent events (_from
+the Proceedings of the British Academy_). London, H. Frowde, 1905, 8vo.
+1s.
+
+THE LAW OF WAR ON LAND (written and unwritten). Oxford, Clarendon Press,
+1908, 8vo. 6s. net.
+
+A VALEDICTORY RETROSPECT (1874-1910), being a Lecture delivered at All
+Souls College, June 17, 1910. Oxford, at the Clarendon Press, 1910.
+1s.
+
+PROPOSED CHANGES IN NAVAL PRIZE LAW (_from the Proceedings of the
+British Academy_). London, H. Frowde, 1911, 8vo. 1s.
+
+R. ZOUCHAEI IURIS ET IUDICII FECIALIS, sive Iuris inter gentes
+explicatio, edited in 2 vols., with biographical and bibliographical
+Introduction, for the Carnegie Institution of Washington, at the Oxford
+University Press, 1911, 4to. $4.
+
+IOHANNIS DB LIGNANO DB IURE BELLI, edited from the fourteenth-century
+MS., with biographical and bibliographical Introduction, for the
+Carnegie Institution of Washington, at the Oxford University Press,
+1917, 4to. £2 2s. 6d.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+[Transcriber's Note: The spelling and usage of non-English words and
+characters is occasionally inconsistent throughout the work. This etext
+preserves the usage in each instance as it appears in the printed book,
+except in cases of probable error as noted below.]
+
+[Note A: Printed _s'entiendrait_ in original.]
+
+[Note B: Printed _ressasi_ in original.]
+
+[Note C: Printed _principles_ in original.]
+
+[Note D: Spelled _Tokomaru_ where it appears in the text.]
+
+[Note E: Misprinted in original--intended page unknown.]
+
+
+
+
+
+End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of Letters To "The Times" Upon War And
+Neutrality (1881-1920), by Thomas Erskine Holland
+
+*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK UPON WAR AND NEUTRALITY ***
+
+***** This file should be named 14447-8.txt or 14447-8.zip *****
+This and all associated files of various formats will be found in:
+        https://www.gutenberg.org/1/4/4/4/14447/
+
+Produced by Robert Connal, Aaron Reed and the Online Distributed
+Proofreading Team. This file was produced from images generously
+made available by the Bibliothèque nationale de France (BnF/Gallica)
+at http://gallica.bnf.fr
+
+
+Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions
+will be renamed.
+
+Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no
+one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation
+(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without
+permission and without paying copyright royalties.  Special rules,
+set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to
+copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to
+protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark.  Project
+Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you
+charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission.  If you
+do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the
+rules is very easy.  You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose
+such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
+research.  They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do
+practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks.  Redistribution is
+subject to the trademark license, especially commercial
+redistribution.
+
+
+
+*** START: FULL LICENSE ***
+
+THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
+PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
+
+To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free
+distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
+(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project
+Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project
+Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at
+https://gutenberg.org/license).
+
+
+Section 1.  General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic works
+
+1.A.  By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
+and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
+(trademark/copyright) agreement.  If you do not agree to abide by all
+the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy
+all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession.
+If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the
+terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
+entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
+
+1.B.  "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark.  It may only be
+used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
+agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement.  There are a few
+things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
+even without complying with the full terms of this agreement.  See
+paragraph 1.C below.  There are a lot of things you can do with Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement
+and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works.  See paragraph 1.E below.
+
+1.C.  The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation"
+or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic works.  Nearly all the individual works in the
+collection are in the public domain in the United States.  If an
+individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are
+located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from
+copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative
+works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg
+are removed.  Of course, we hope that you will support the Project
+Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by
+freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of
+this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with
+the work.  You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by
+keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project
+Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others.
+
+1.D.  The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
+what you can do with this work.  Copyright laws in most countries are in
+a constant state of change.  If you are outside the United States, check
+the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement
+before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or
+creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project
+Gutenberg-tm work.  The Foundation makes no representations concerning
+the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United
+States.
+
+1.E.  Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
+
+1.E.1.  The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate
+access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently
+whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the
+phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project
+Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed,
+copied or distributed:
+
+This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
+almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
+re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
+with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
+
+1.E.2.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived
+from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is
+posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied
+and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees
+or charges.  If you are redistributing or providing access to a work
+with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the
+work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1
+through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the
+Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or
+1.E.9.
+
+1.E.3.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted
+with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
+must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional
+terms imposed by the copyright holder.  Additional terms will be linked
+to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the
+permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.
+
+1.E.4.  Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
+work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm.
+
+1.E.5.  Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
+electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
+prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
+active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
+Gutenberg-tm License.
+
+1.E.6.  You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
+compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any
+word processing or hypertext form.  However, if you provide access to or
+distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than
+"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version
+posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org),
+you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a
+copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon
+request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other
+form.  Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
+
+1.E.7.  Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
+performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works
+unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
+
+1.E.8.  You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
+access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided
+that
+
+- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
+     the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method
+     you already use to calculate your applicable taxes.  The fee is
+     owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he
+     has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the
+     Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.  Royalty payments
+     must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you
+     prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax
+     returns.  Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and
+     sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the
+     address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to
+     the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation."
+
+- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
+     you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
+     does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+     License.  You must require such a user to return or
+     destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium
+     and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of
+     Project Gutenberg-tm works.
+
+- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any
+     money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
+     electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days
+     of receipt of the work.
+
+- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
+     distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works.
+
+1.E.9.  If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
+forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
+both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael
+Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark.  Contact the
+Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.
+
+1.F.
+
+1.F.1.  Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
+effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
+public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm
+collection.  Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain
+"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or
+corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual
+property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a
+computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by
+your equipment.
+
+1.F.2.  LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right
+of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
+Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
+Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
+liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
+fees.  YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
+LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
+PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH F3.  YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
+TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
+LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
+INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
+DAMAGE.
+
+1.F.3.  LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
+defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
+receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
+written explanation to the person you received the work from.  If you
+received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with
+your written explanation.  The person or entity that provided you with
+the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a
+refund.  If you received the work electronically, the person or entity
+providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to
+receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund.  If the second copy
+is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further
+opportunities to fix the problem.
+
+1.F.4.  Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
+in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER
+WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
+WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
+
+1.F.5.  Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
+warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
+If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
+law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
+interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by
+the applicable state law.  The invalidity or unenforceability of any
+provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
+
+1.F.6.  INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
+trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
+providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance
+with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production,
+promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works,
+harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees,
+that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do
+or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm
+work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any
+Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause.
+
+
+Section  2.  Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of
+electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers
+including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers.  It exists
+because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from
+people in all walks of life.
+
+Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
+assistance they need, is critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's
+goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will
+remain freely available for generations to come.  In 2001, the Project
+Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
+and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations.
+To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
+and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4
+and the Foundation web page at https://www.pglaf.org.
+
+
+Section 3.  Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
+Foundation
+
+The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit
+501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
+state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
+Revenue Service.  The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification
+number is 64-6221541.  Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at
+https://pglaf.org/fundraising.  Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
+Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent
+permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws.
+
+The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S.
+Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered
+throughout numerous locations.  Its business office is located at
+809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email
+business@pglaf.org.  Email contact links and up to date contact
+information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official
+page at https://pglaf.org
+
+For additional contact information:
+     Dr. Gregory B. Newby
+     Chief Executive and Director
+     gbnewby@pglaf.org
+
+
+Section 4.  Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
+Literary Archive Foundation
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide
+spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
+increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
+freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest
+array of equipment including outdated equipment.  Many small donations
+($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
+status with the IRS.
+
+The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
+charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
+States.  Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
+considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
+with these requirements.  We do not solicit donations in locations
+where we have not received written confirmation of compliance.  To
+SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any
+particular state visit https://pglaf.org
+
+While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
+have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
+against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
+approach us with offers to donate.
+
+International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
+any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
+outside the United States.  U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
+
+Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation
+methods and addresses.  Donations are accepted in a number of other
+ways including including checks, online payments and credit card
+donations.  To donate, please visit: https://pglaf.org/donate
+
+
+Section 5.  General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works.
+
+Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm
+concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared
+with anyone.  For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project
+Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.
+
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed
+editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S.
+unless a copyright notice is included.  Thus, we do not necessarily
+keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.
+
+
+Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility:
+
+     https://www.gutenberg.org
+
+This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm,
+including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
+Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
+subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
diff --git a/old/14447-8.zip b/old/14447-8.zip
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..e1e1178
--- /dev/null
+++ b/old/14447-8.zip
diff --git a/old/14447-h.zip b/old/14447-h.zip
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..39af23a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/old/14447-h.zip
diff --git a/old/14447-h/14447-h.htm b/old/14447-h/14447-h.htm
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..887267b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/old/14447-h/14447-h.htm
@@ -0,0 +1,10328 @@
+<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
+<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
+    "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
+
+<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" lang="en">
+  <head>
+    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=UTF-8" />
+    <title>
+      Letters To The Times Upon War And Neutrality, by Sir Thomas Erskine Holland.
+    </title>
+    <style type="text/css">
+/*<![CDATA[  XML blockout */
+<!--
+    p {  margin-top: .75em;
+         text-align: justify;
+         margin-bottom: .75em;
+         }
+    h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6 {
+         text-align: center; /* all headings centered */
+         clear: both;
+         }
+    hr { width: 33%;
+	 margin-top: 2em;
+	 margin-bottom: 2em;
+         margin-left: auto;
+         margin-right: auto;
+         clear: both;
+       }
+    body{margin-left: 10%;
+         margin-right: 10%;
+         max-width: 40em;
+        }
+
+    .TOCnum	{ display:none; }
+    .TOCchap {font-size:125%; text-align:center;padding-top:1.5em;}
+    .TOCchaptit {font-size:110%; text-align:center;padding-top:1em;padding-bottom:0.5em;}
+    .TOCsec  {font-weight:bold; text-align:center;padding-top:1em;}
+    .TOCsectit {font-style:italic; text-align:center;padding-bottom:1em;}
+
+    table {margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;}
+
+    .newpage  {position: absolute; right: 4%; left: 95%; font-size: 66%;}
+
+    .linenum  {position: absolute; top: auto; left: 4%;} /* poetry number */
+    .blockquot{margin-left: 5%; margin-right: 10%;}
+
+    .intronotes {font-size: 90%; padding: 1em; border: thin solid gray;}
+    .postnotes {font-size: 90%; padding-left: 1em; border-left: thick double gray;}
+    .letterquot {font-size: 90%; margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 10%;}
+    .letterquot p {text-align: left;}
+    .quotedletter {font-size: 90%; margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 10%;}
+
+    div.signature { line-height: 0.8em; }
+    .sigbody {text-align:right; padding-right: 6em; }
+    .signame {text-align:right; padding-right: 2em; margin-top:0;}
+    .sigdate {font-size: 90%; text-align: left; padding-left: 1em; }
+
+    .sectionhead {text-align: center; font-size: 125%;}
+    .subsectionhead {text-align: center; font-size: 110%; font-style: italic;}
+    .lettertitle {text-align: center; padding-top: 2em; text-decoration:underline;}
+    .chaptertitle {text-align: center; font-size: 110%; font-weight: bold;}
+    .indexsubentry {margin-left: 2em;}
+    .indexsubsubentry {margin-left: 4em;}
+
+    ins.correction {text-decoration:none; border-bottom: thin dotted gray;}
+    .center   {text-align: center;}
+
+    .indented  {padding-left: 2em;}
+    .footnotes        {border: dashed 1px;}
+    .footnote         {margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 10%; font-size: 0.9em;}
+    .footnote .label  {position: absolute; right: 84%; text-align: right;}
+    .fnanchor         {vertical-align: super; font-size: .8em; padding-left:0.3em;
+                       padding-right:0.3em;}
+
+     .titlepagehuge  {font-size:200%; font-weight:bold; text-align:center;}
+    .titlepagebig  {font-size:125%; font-weight:bold; text-align:center;}
+    .titlepagesmall  {font-weight:bold; text-align:center;}
+    // -->
+    /* XML end  ]]>*/
+    </style>
+  </head>
+<body>
+
+
+<pre>
+
+The Project Gutenberg EBook of Letters To "The Times" Upon War And
+Neutrality (1881-1920), by Thomas Erskine Holland
+
+This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
+almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
+re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
+with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
+
+
+Title: Letters To "The Times" Upon War And Neutrality (1881-1920)
+
+Author: Thomas Erskine Holland
+
+Release Date: December 24, 2004 [EBook #14447]
+
+Language: English
+
+Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1
+
+*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK UPON WAR AND NEUTRALITY ***
+
+
+
+
+Produced by Robert Connal, Aaron Reed and the Online Distributed
+Proofreading Team. This file was produced from images generously
+made available by the Biblioth�que nationale de France (BnF/Gallica)
+at http://gallica.bnf.fr
+
+
+
+
+
+
+</pre>
+
+
+
+<p>&nbsp;</p>
+<p>&nbsp;</p>
+<p>&nbsp;</p>
+<p>&nbsp;</p>
+<p>&nbsp;</p>
+<p>&nbsp;</p>
+<h1>LETTERS UPON WAR AND NEUTRALITY</h1>
+<p class="titlepagebig">(1881-1920)</p>
+<p>&nbsp;</p>
+<p>&nbsp;</p>
+<p>&nbsp;</p>
+<p>&nbsp;</p>
+<p>&nbsp;</p>
+<p>&nbsp;</p>
+
+<h2>LETTERS TO &quot;THE TIMES&quot;</h2>
+
+<p class="titlepagesmall">UPON</p>
+
+<p class="titlepagehuge">WAR AND NEUTRALITY</p>
+
+<p class="titlepagesmall">(1881-1920)</p>
+
+<p class="titlepagesmall">WITH SOME COMMENTARY</p>
+
+<p>&nbsp;</p>
+<p class="titlepagesmall">BY</p>
+
+<p class="titlepagebig">SIR THOMAS ERSKINE HOLLAND</p>
+
+<p class="titlepagesmall">K.C., D.C.L., F.B.A.</p>
+
+<p class="titlepagesmall">FELLOW OF ALL SOULS COLLEGE<br />
+SOMETIME CHICHELE PROFESSOR OF INTERNATIONAL LAW<br />
+MEMBRE (PR&Eacute;SIDENT 1913) DE L'INSTITUT DE DROIT INTERNATIONAL<br />
+ETC., ETC.</p>
+
+<p>&nbsp;</p>
+<p class="titlepagebig">THIRD EDITION</p>
+
+<p>&nbsp;</p>
+<p class="titlepagebig">LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO.</p>
+<p class="titlepagesmall">39 PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON<br />
+FOURTH AVENUE &amp; 30TH STREET, NEW YORK<br />
+BOMBAY, CALCUTTA, AND MADRAS</p>
+
+<p class="titlepagebig">1921</p>
+
+
+<p>&nbsp;</p>
+<p>&nbsp;</p>
+
+<p class="sectionhead">
+PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION
+</p>
+
+<p>For a good many years past I have been allowed to
+comment, in letters to <i>The Times</i>, upon points of
+International Law, as they have been raised by the events
+of the day. These letters have been fortunate enough to
+attract some attention, both at home and abroad, and
+requests have frequently reached me that they should be
+rendered more easily accessible than they can be in the
+files of the newspaper in which they originally appeared.</p>
+
+<p>I have, accordingly, thought that it might be worth
+while to select, from a greater number, such of my letters
+as bear upon those questions of War and Neutrality of
+which so much has been heard in recent years, and to
+group them for republication, with some elucidatory matter
+(more especially with reference to changes introduced by
+the Geneva Convention of 1906, The Hague Conventions
+of 1907, and the Declaration of London of the present
+year) under the topics to which they respectively relate.</p>
+
+<p>The present volume has been put together in accordance
+with this plan; and my best thanks are due to the
+proprietors of The Times for permitting the reissue of
+the letters in a collected form. Cross-references and a full
+Index will, I hope, to some extent remove the difficulties
+which might otherwise be caused by the fragmentary
+character, and the chances of repetition, inseparable from
+such a work.</p>
+
+<p class="prefacesignature">
+T. E. H.<br />
+EGGISHORN, SWITZERLAND,<br />
+<i>September</i> 14, 1909.<br />
+</p>
+
+<hr style='width: 45%;' />
+
+<p class="sectionhead">PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION</p>
+
+<p>I have again to thank <i>The Times</i> for permission to print in
+this new edition letters which have appeared in its columns
+during the past four years. They will be found to deal largely
+with still unsettled questions suggested by the work of
+the Second Peace Conference, by the Declaration of London,
+and by the, unfortunately conceived, Naval Prize Bill of
+1911.</p>
+
+<p>I have no reason to complain of the reception which
+has so far been accorded to the views which I have thought
+it my duty to put forward.</p>
+
+<p class="prefacesignature">
+T. E. H.<br />
+OXFORD,<br />
+<i>January</i> 10, 1914.<br />
+</p>
+
+<hr style='width: 45%;' />
+
+<p class="sectionhead">PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION</p>
+
+<p>This, doubtless final, edition of my letters upon War and
+Neutrality contains, by renewed kind permission of <i>The
+Times</i>, the whole series of such letters, covering a period
+of no less than forty years. To the letters which have
+already appeared in former editions, I have now added
+those contained in the &quot;Supplement&quot; of 1916 (for some
+time out of print) to my second edition; as also others of
+still more recent date. All these have been grouped, as
+were their predecessors, under the various topics which
+they were intended to illustrate. The explanatory commentaries
+have been carefully brought up to date, and
+a perhaps superfluously full Index should facilitate reference
+for those interested in matters of the kind. Such
+persons may not be sorry to have their attention recalled
+to many questions which have demanded practical treatment
+of late years, more especially during the years of
+the great war.</p>
+
+<p>Not a few of these questions are sure again to come
+to the front, so soon as the rehabilitation of International
+Law, rendered necessary by the conduct of that War,
+shall be seriously taken in hand.</p>
+
+<p class="prefacesignature">
+T. E. H.<br />
+OXFORD,<br />
+<i>April</i> 25, 1921.<br />
+</p>
+
+
+
+<hr style="width: 65%;" />
+<h2><a name="CONTENTS" id="CONTENTS" />CONTENTS</h2>
+
+<div class="TOC">
+<div class="TOCchap"><a href="#CHAPTER_I">CHAPTER I</a></div>
+<div class="TOCchaptit">MEASURES SHORT OF WAR FOR THE SETTLEMENT<br />
+OF INTERNATIONAL CONTROVERSIES</div>  <span class="TOCnum">1</span>
+<div class="TOCsec"><a href="#CHAPTER_I_SECTION_1">SECTION 1</a></div><br />
+<div class="TOCsectit">Friendly Measures</div> <span class="TOCnum">1</span>
+<a href="#THE-PETITION-TO-THE-PRESIDENT-OF-THE-UNITED-STATES">The Petition to the President of the United States (1899)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page002">2</a></span><br />
+<a href="#COMMISSIONS-OF-ENQUIRY-AND-THE-HAGUE-CONVENTION">Commissions of Enquiry and The Hague Convention (1904)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page003">3</a></span><br />
+<a href="#THE-LEAGUE-OF-NATIONS-1919">The League of Nations (1919)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page007">7</a></span><br />
+<a href="#THE-LEAGUE-OF-NATIONS-1919-B">The League of Nations (1919)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page008">8</a></span><br />
+<a href="#THE-LEAGUE-OF-NATIONS-1920">The League of Nations (1920)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page009">9</a></span>
+<div class="TOCsec"><a href="#CHAPTER_I_SECTION_2">SECTION 2</a></div><br />
+<div class="TOCsectit">Pacific Reprisals</div> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page009">9</a></span>
+<a href="#THE-BLOCKADE-OF-THE-MENAM">The Blockade of the Menam (1893)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page010">10</a></span><br />
+<a href="#PACIFIC-BLOCKADE">Pacific Blockade (1897)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page011">11</a></span><br />
+<a href="#THE-VENEZUELAN-CONTROVERSY">The Venezuelan Controversy (1902)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page013">13</a></span><br />
+<a href="#THE-VENEZUELA-PROTOCOL">The Venezuela Protocol (1903)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page018">18</a></span><br />
+<a href="#WAR-AND-REPRISALS">War and Reprisals (1908)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page018">18</a></span>
+<br />
+<div class="TOCchap"><a href="#CHAPTER_II">CHAPTER II</a></div>
+<div class="TOCchaptit">STEPS TOWARDS A WRITTEN LAW OF WAR</div> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page022">22</a></span>
+<a href="#COUNT-VON-MOLTKE-ON-THE-LAWS-OF-WARFARE">Count von Moltke on the Laws of Warfare (1881)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page023">23</a></span><br />
+<a href="#PROFESSOR-BLUNTSCHLIS-REPLY-TO-COUNT-VON-MOLTKE">Professor Bluntschli's Reply to Count von Moltke (1881)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page026">26</a></span><br />
+<a href="#THE-UNITED-STATES-NAVAL-WAR-CODE">The United States Naval War Code (1901)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page029">29</a></span><br />
+<a href="#A-NAVAL-WAR-CODE">A Naval War Code (1902)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page031">31</a></span>
+<br />
+<div class="TOCchap"><a href="#CHAPTER_III">CHAPTER III</a></div>
+<div class="TOCchaptit">TERMINOLOGY</div> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page033">33</a></span>
+<a href="#INTERNATIONAL-TERMINOLOGY">International Terminology (1918)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page033">33</a></span>
+<br />
+<div class="TOCchap"><a href="#CHAPTER_IV">CHAPTER IV</a></div>
+<div class="TOCchaptit">CONVENTIONS AND LEGISLATION</div> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page036">36</a></span>
+<a href="#GOVERNMENT-BILLS-AND-INTERNATIONAL-CONVENTIONS">Government Bills and International Conventions (1911)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page036">36</a></span><br />
+<a href="#THE-PRESENT-BILL-IN-PARLIAMENT">The present Bill in Parliament (1914)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page038">38</a></span><br />
+<a href="#THE-FOREIGN-ENLISTMENT-BILL">The Foreign Enlistment Bill (1912)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page039">39</a></span>
+<br />
+<div class="TOCchap"><a href="#CHAPTER_V">CHAPTER V</a></div>
+<div class="TOCchaptit">THE COMMENCEMENT OF WAR</div> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page041">41</a></span>
+<div class="TOCsec"><a href="#CHAPTER_V_SECTION_1">SECTION 1</a></div><br />
+<div class="TOCsectit">Declaration of War</div> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page041">41</a></span>
+<a href="#THE-SINKING-OF-THE-KOWSHING">The Sinking of the <i>Kowshing</i> (1894)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page041">41</a></span>
+<br />
+<div class="TOCsec"><a href="#CHAPTER_V_SECTION_2">SECTION 2</a></div><br />
+<div class="TOCsectit">The Immediate Effects of the Outbreak of War</div> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page044">44</a></span>
+<a href="#FOREIGN-SOLDIERS-IN-ENGLAND">Foreign Soldiers in England (1909)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page045">45</a></span><br />
+<a href="#THE-NAVAL-PRIZE-BILL-CIVIL-DISABILITIES-OF-ENEMY-SUBJECTS">The Naval Prize Bill: Civil Disabilities of Enemy Subjects (1911)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page047">47</a></span><br />
+<a href="#ENEMY-SHIPS-IN-PORT">Enemy Ships in Port (1917)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page049">49</a></span>
+<br />
+<div class="TOCchap"><a href="#CHAPTER_VI">CHAPTER VI</a></div>
+<div class="TOCchaptit">THE CONDUCT OF WARFARE</div> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page050">50</a></span>
+<div class="TOCsec"><a href="#CHAPTER_VI_SECTION_1">SECTION 1</a></div><br />
+<div class="TOCsectit">On the Open Sea</div> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page051">51</a></span>
+<a href="#THE-FREEDOM-OF-THE-SEAS">The Freedom of the Seas? (1917)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page051">51</a></span>
+<br />
+<div class="TOCsec"><a href="#CHAPTER_VI_SECTION_2">SECTION 2</a></div><br />
+<div class="TOCsectit">In Other Waters</div> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page051">51</a></span>
+<a href="#THE-SUEZ-CANAL">The Suez Canal (1898)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page051">51</a></span><br />
+<a href="#THE-SUEZ-CANAL-B">The Suez Canal (1898)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page053">53</a></span><br />
+<a href="#THE-SUEZ-CANAL-C">The Suez Canal (1898)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page054">54</a></span><br />
+<a href="#THE-CLOSING-OF-THE-DARDANELLES">The Closing of the Dardanelles (1912)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page055">55</a></span><br />
+<a href="#THE-CLOSING-OF-THE-DARDANELLES-B">The Closing of the Dardanelles (1912)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page058">58</a></span>
+<br />
+<div class="TOCsec"><a href="#CHAPTER_VI_SECTION_3">SECTION 3</a></div><br />
+<div class="TOCsectit">In a Special Danger Zone?</div> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page059">59</a></span>
+<a href="#THE-GERMAN-THREAT">The German Threat (1915)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page059">59</a></span>
+<br />
+<div class="TOCsec"><a href="#CHAPTER_VI_SECTION_4">SECTION 4</a></div><br />
+<div class="TOCsectit">Aerial Warfare</div> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page061">61</a></span>
+<a href="#THE-DEBATE-ON-AERONAUTICS">The Debate on Aeronautics (1909)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page061">61</a></span><br />
+<a href="#THE-AERIAL-NAVIGATION-ACT">The Aerial Navigation Act (1913)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page063">63</a></span><br />
+<a href="#SOVEREIGNTY-OVER-THE-AIR">Sovereignty over the Air (1913)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page065">65</a></span><br />
+<a href="#ATTACK-FROM-THE-AIR-THE-ENFORCEMENT-OF-INTERNATIONAL-LAW">Attack from the Air: The Enforcement of International Law (1914)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page066">66</a></span><br />
+<a href="#ATTACK-FROM-THE-AIR-THE-RULES-OF-INTERNATIONAL-LAW">Attack from the Air: The Rules of International Law (1914)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page067">67</a></span>
+<br />
+<div class="TOCsec"><a href="#CHAPTER_VI_SECTION_5">SECTION 5</a></div><br />
+<div class="TOCsectit">Submarines</div> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page069">69</a></span>
+<a href="#GERMANY-AND-THE-HAGUE">Germany and the Hague (1914)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page069">69</a></span><br />
+<a href="#THE-PIRATES">The &quot;Pirates&quot; (March 13, 1915)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page070">70</a></span><br />
+<a href="#SUBMARINE-CREWS">Submarine Crews (March 22, 1915)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page071">71</a></span><br />
+<a href="#MR-WILSONS-NOTE">Mr. Wilson's Note (May 16, 1915)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page072">72</a></span>
+<br />
+<div class="TOCsec"><a href="#CHAPTER_VI_SECTION_6">SECTION 6</a></div><br />
+<div class="TOCsectit">Lawful Belligerents</div> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page073">73</a></span>
+<a href="#GUERILLA-WARFARE">Guerilla Warfare (1906)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page073">73</a></span><br />
+<a href="#THE-RUSSIAN-USE-OF-CHINESE-CLOTHING">The Russian Use of Chinese Clothing (1904)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page075">75</a></span><br />
+<a href="#THE-RIGHTS-OF-ARMED-CIVILIANS">The Rights of Armed Civilians (1914)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page077">77</a></span><br />
+<a href="#CIVILIANS-IN-WARFARE-THE-RIGHT-TO-TAKE-UP-ARMS">Civilians in Warfare: The Right to take up Arms (1914)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page078">78</a></span><br />
+<a href="#CIVILIANS-AND-A-RAID">Civilians and a Raid (1914)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page079">79</a></span><br />
+<a href="#MISS-CAVELLS-CASE">Miss Cavell's Case (1915)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page079">79</a></span>
+<br />
+<div class="TOCsec"><a href="#CHAPTER_VI_SECTION_7">SECTION 7</a></div><br />
+<div class="TOCsectit">Privateering and the Declaration of Paris</div> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page080">80</a></span>
+<a href="#OUR-MERCANTILE-MARINE-IN-WAR-TIME-A">Our Mercantile Marine in War Time (1898)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page081">81</a></span><br />
+<a href="#OUR-MERCANTILE-MARINE-IN-WAR-TIME-B">Our Mercantile Marine in War Time (1898)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page084">84</a></span><br />
+<a href="#OUR-MERCANTILE-MARINE-IN-WAR">Our Mercantile Marine in War (1898)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page087">87</a></span><br />
+<a href="#THE-DECLARATION-OF-PARIS-1911">The Declaration of Paris (1911)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page087">87</a></span><br />
+<a href="#THE-DECLARATION-OF-PARIS-1914">The Declaration of Paris (1914)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page089">89</a></span><br />
+<a href="#THE-DECLARATION-OF-PARIS-1916">The Declaration of Paris (1916)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page091">91</a></span><br />
+<a href="#THE-DECLARATION-OF-PARIS-1916-B">The Declaration of Paris (1916)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page092">92</a></span>
+<br />
+<div class="TOCsec"><a href="#CHAPTER_VI_SECTION_8">SECTION 8</a></div><br />
+<div class="TOCsectit">Assassination</div> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page093">93</a></span>
+<a href="#THE-NATAL-PROCLAMATION">The Natal Proclamation (1906)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page093">93</a></span>
+<br />
+<div class="TOCsec"><a href="#CHAPTER_VI_SECTION_9">SECTION 9</a></div><br />
+<div class="TOCsectit">The Choice of Means of Injuring</div> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page094">94</a></span>
+<a href="#BULLETS-IN-SAVAGE-WARFARE">Bullets in Savage Warfare (1903)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page094">94</a></span><br />
+<a href="#GASES">Gases (1918)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page097">97</a></span>
+<br />
+<div class="TOCsec"><a href="#CHAPTER_VI_SECTION_10">SECTION 10</a></div><br />
+<div class="TOCsectit">The Geneva Convention</div> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page098">98</a></span>
+<a href="#WOUNDED-HORSES-IN-WAR">Wounded Horses in War (1899)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page098">98</a></span>
+<br />
+<div class="TOCsec"><a href="#CHAPTER_VI_SECTION_11">SECTION 11</a></div><br />
+<div class="TOCsectit">Enemy Property in Occupied Territory</div> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page100">100</a></span>
+<a href="#INTERNATIONAL-USUFRUCT">International &quot;Usufruct&quot; (1898)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page101">101</a></span><br />
+<a href="#REQUISITIONS-IN-WARFARE">Requisitions in Warfare (1902)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page103">103</a></span>
+<br />
+<div class="TOCsec"><a href="#CHAPTER_VI_SECTION_12">SECTION 12</a></div><br />
+<div class="TOCsectit">Enemy Property at Sea</div> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page104">104</a></span>
+<a href="#PRIVATE-PROPERTY-AT-SEA">Private Property at Sea (1913)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page104">104</a></span>
+<br />
+<div class="TOCsec"><a href="#CHAPTER_VI_SECTION_13">SECTION 13</a></div><br />
+<div class="TOCsectit">Martial Law</div> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page105">105</a></span>
+<a href="#THE-EXECUTIONS-AT-PRETORIA">The Executions at Pretoria (1901)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page106">106</a></span><br />
+<a href="#THE-PETITION-OF-RIGHT-1901">The Petition of Right (1901)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page108">108</a></span><br />
+<a href="#THE-PETITION-OF-RIGHT-1902">The Petition of Right (1902)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page109">109</a></span><br />
+<a href="#MARTIAL-LAW-IN-NATAL">Martial Law in Natal (1906)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page111">111</a></span>
+<br />
+<div class="TOCsec"><a href="#CHAPTER_VI_SECTION_14">SECTION 14</a></div><br />
+<div class="TOCsectit">The Naval Bombardment of Open Coast Towns</div> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page112">112</a></span>
+<a href="#NAVAL-ATROCITIES">Naval Atrocities (1888)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page113">113</a></span><br />
+<a href="#THE-NAVAL-MANOEUVRES-A">The Naval Manoeuvres (1888)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page113">113</a></span><br />
+<a href="#THE-NAVAL-MANOEUVRES-B">The Naval Manoeuvres (1888)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page117">117</a></span><br />
+<a href="#NAVAL-BOMBARDMENTS-OF-UNFORTIFIED-PLACES">Naval Bombardments of Unfortified Places (1904)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page120">120</a></span>
+<br />
+<div class="TOCsec"><a href="#CHAPTER_VI_SECTION_15">SECTION 15</a></div><br />
+<div class="TOCsectit">Belligerent Reprisals</div> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page123">123</a></span>
+<a href="#REPRISALS-A">Reprisals (1917)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page123">123</a></span><br />
+<a href="#REPRISALS-B">Reprisals (1917)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page124">124</a></span>
+<br />
+<div class="TOCsec"><a href="#CHAPTER_VI_SECTION_16">SECTION 16</a></div><br />
+<div class="TOCsectit">Peace</div> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page124">124</a></span>
+<a href="#UNDESIRABLE-PEACE-TALK">Undesirable Peace Talk (1915)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page124">124</a></span>
+<br />
+<div class="TOCchap"><a href="#CHAPTER_VII">CHAPTER VII</a></div>
+<div class="TOCchaptit">THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF NEUTRALS</div> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page126">126</a></span>
+<div class="TOCsec"><a href="#CHAPTER_VII_SECTION_1">SECTION 1</a></div><br />
+<div class="TOCsectit">The Criterion of Neutral Conduct</div> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page126">126</a></span>
+<a href="#PROFESSOR-DE-MARTENS-ON-THE-SITUATION">Professor de Martens on the Situation (1905)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page126">126</a></span><br />
+<a href="#NEUTRALS-AND-THE-LAWS-OF-WAR">Neutrals and the Laws of War (1915)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page127">127</a></span>
+<br />
+<div class="TOCsec"><a href="#CHAPTER_VII_SECTION_2">SECTION 2</a></div><br />
+<div class="TOCsectit">The Duties of Neutral States, and the Liabilities of Neutral
+Individuals, distinguished</div> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page129">129</a></span>
+<a href="#CONTRABAND-OF-WAR-1904">Contraband of War (1904)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page130">130</a></span><br />
+<a href="#COAL-FOR-THE-RUSSIAN-FLEET">Coal for the Russian Fleet (1904)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page132">132</a></span><br />
+<a href="#GERMAN-WAR-MATERIAL-FOR-TURKEY">German War Material for Turkey (1911)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page135">135</a></span>
+<br />
+<div class="TOCsec"><a href="#CHAPTER_VII_SECTION_3">SECTION 3</a></div>
+<div class="TOCsectit">Neutrality Proclamations</div> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page135">135</a></span>
+<a href="#THE-BRITISH-PROCLAMATION-OF-NEUTRALITY-1904">The British Proclamation of Neutrality (1904)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page136">136</a></span><br />
+<a href="#THE-BRITISH-PROCLAMATION-OF-NEUTRALITY-1904-B">The British Proclamation of Neutrality (1904)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page138">138</a></span><br />
+<a href="#THE-BRITISH-PROCLAMATION-OF-NEUTRALITY-1911">The British Proclamation of Neutrality (1911)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page141">141</a></span><br />
+<a href="#THE-PROCLAMATION-OF-NEUTRALITY">The Proclamation of Neutrality (1911)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page143">143</a></span>
+<br />
+<div class="TOCsec"><a href="#CHAPTER_VII_SECTION_4">SECTION 4</a></div>
+<div class="TOCsectit">Neutral Hospitality</div> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page143">143</a></span>
+<a href="#BELLIGERENT-FLEETS-IN-NEUTRAL-WATERS">Belligerent Fleets in Neutral Waters (1905)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page144">144</a></span><br />
+<a href="#THE-APPAM">The <i>Appam</i> (1916)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page146">146</a></span>
+<br />
+<div class="TOCsec"><a href="#CHAPTER_VII_SECTION_5">SECTION 5</a></div>
+<div class="TOCsectit">Carriage of Contraband</div> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page147">147</a></span>
+<i>Absolute and Conditional Contraband</i> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page147">147</a></span><br />
+<span class="indented"><a href="#CONTRABAND-OF-WAR-1898">Contraband of War (1898)</a></span> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page147">147</a></span><br />
+<span class="indented"><a href="#IS-COAL-CONTRABAND-OF-WAR">Is Coal Contraband of War? (1904)</a></span> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page149">149</a></span><br />
+<span class="indented"><a href="#COTTON-AS-CONTRABAND-OF-WAR-1905">Cotton as Contraband of War (1905)</a></span> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page151">151</a></span><br />
+<span class="indented"><a href="#COTTON-AS-CONTRABAND-OF-WAR-1916">Cotton as Contraband of War (1916)</a></span> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page154">154</a></span><br />
+<span class="indented"><a href="#JAPANESE-PRIZE-LAW-1905">Japanese Prize Law (1905)</a></span> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page155">155</a></span><br />
+<span class="indented"><a href="#JAPANESE-PRIZE-LAW-1915">Japanese Prize Law (1915)</a></span> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page157">157</a></span><br />
+<i>Continuous Voyages</i> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page157">157</a></span><br />
+<span class="indented"><a href="#PRIZE-LAW">Prize Law (1900)</a></span> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page158">158</a></span><br />
+<span class="indented"><a href="#THE-ALLANTON-A">The <i>Allanton</i> (1904)</a></span> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page161">161</a></span><br />
+<i>Unqualified Captors</i> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page162">162</a></span><br />
+<span class="indented"><a href="#THE-ALLANTON-B">The <i>Allanton</i> (1904)</a></span> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page162">162</a></span>
+<br />
+<div class="TOCsec"><a href="#CHAPTER_VII_SECTION_6">SECTION 6</a></div>
+<div class="TOCsectit">Methods of Warfare as affecting Neutrals</div> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page164">164</a></span>
+<i>Mines</i> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page164">164</a></span><br />
+<span class="indented"><a href="#MINES-IN-THE-OPEN-SEA">Mines in the Open Sea (1904)</a></span> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page164">164</a></span><br />
+<span class="indented"><a href="#TERRITORIAL-WATERS">Territorial Waters (1904)</a></span> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page166">166</a></span><br />
+<i>Cable-cutting</i> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page168">168</a></span><br />
+<span class="indented"><a href="#SUBMARINE-CABLES">Submarine Cables (1881)</a></span> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page168">168</a></span><br />
+<span class="indented"><a href="#SUBMARINE-CABLES-IN-TIME-OF-WAR">Submarine Cables in Time of War (1897)</a></span> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page169">169</a></span><br />
+<span class="indented"><a href="#SUBMARINE-CABLES-IN-TIME-OF-WAR-B">Submarine Cables in Time of War (1897)</a></span> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page171">171</a></span>
+<br />
+<div class="TOCsec"><a href="#CHAPTER_VII_SECTION_7">SECTION 7</a></div>
+<div class="TOCsectit">Destruction of Neutral Prizes</div> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page173">173</a></span>
+<a href="#RUSSIAN-PRIZE-LAW">Russian Prize Law (1904)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page174">174</a></span><br />
+<a href="#RUSSIAN-PRIZE-LAW-B">Russian Prize Law (1904)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page177">177</a></span><br />
+<a href="#RUSSIAN-PRIZE-LAW-C">Russian Prize Law (1904)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page178">178</a></span><br />
+<a href="#THE-SINKING-OF-NEUTRAL-PRIZES">The Sinking of Neutral Prizes (1905)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page179">179</a></span>
+<br />
+<div class="TOCsec"><a href="#CHAPTER_VII_SECTION_8">SECTION 8</a></div>
+<div class="TOCsectit">An International Prize Court</div> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page181">181</a></span>
+<a href="#AN-INTERNATIONAL-PRIZE-COURT">An International Prize Court (1907)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page182">182</a></span><br />
+<a href="#A-NEW-PRIZE-LAW">A New Prize Law (1907)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page183">183</a></span><br />
+<a href="#A-NEW-PRIZE-LAW-B">A New Prize Law (1907)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page186">186</a></span><br />
+<a href="#A-NEW-PRIZE-LAW-C">A New Prize Law (1907)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page189">189</a></span>
+<br />
+<div class="TOCsec"><a href="#CHAPTER_VII_SECTION_9">SECTION 9</a></div>
+<div class="TOCsectit">The Naval Prize Bill</div> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page191">191</a></span>
+<a href="#THE-NAVAL-PRIZE-BILL-1910">The Naval Prize Bill (1910)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page192">192</a></span><br />
+<a href="#THE-NAVAL-PRIZE-BILL-1911">The Naval Prize Bill (1911)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page194">194</a></span><br />
+<a href="#NAVAL-PRIZE-MONEY">Naval Prize Money    (1918)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page195">195</a></span>
+<br />
+<div class="TOCsec"><a href="#CHAPTER_VII_SECTION_10">SECTION 10</a></div>
+<div class="TOCsectit">The Declaration of London</div> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page196">196</a></span>
+<a href="#THE-DECLARATION-OF-LONDON-1909">The Declaration of London (1909)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page196">196</a></span><br />
+<a href="#THE-DECLARATION-OF-LONDON-1910">The Declaration of London (1910)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page197">197</a></span><br />
+<a href="#THE-DECLARATION-OF-LONDON-1911">The Declaration of London (1911)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page199">199</a></span><br />
+<a href="#THE-DECLARATION-OF-LONDON-1911-B">The Declaration of London (1911)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page202">202</a></span><br />
+<a href="#THE-DECLARATION-OF-LONDON-1911-C">The Declaration of London (1911)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page203">203</a></span><br />
+<a href="#THE-DECLARATION-OF-LONDON-1915">The Declaration of London (1915)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page204">204</a></span><br />
+<a href="#THE-DECLARATION-OF-LONDON-1916">The Declaration of London (1916)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page205">205</a></span><br />
+<a href="#GERMANY-WRONG-AGAIN">Germany wrong again (1917)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page207">207</a></span>
+<br />
+<div class="TOCchap"><a href="#INDEX">INDEX</a></div> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page209">209</a></span><br />
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page001" id="page001">[001]</a></span>
+</div>
+
+
+
+
+
+<hr style="width: 65%;" />
+<h2><a name="CHAPTER_I" id="CHAPTER_I" />CHAPTER I</h2>
+
+<p class="chaptertitle">MEASURES SHORT OF WAR FOR THE SETTLEMENT
+OF INTERNATIONAL CONTROVERSIES</p>
+
+
+<h3 class="sectionhead"><a name="CHAPTER_I_SECTION_1" />SECTION 1</h3>
+
+<p class="subsectionhead">Friendly Measures</p>
+
+<div class="intronotes"><p>Of the letters which follow, the first was suggested by a petition
+presented in October, 1899, to the President of the United States,
+asking him to use his good offices to terminate the war in South Africa;
+the second by discussions as to the advisability of employing, for the
+first time, an International Commission of Enquiry, for the purpose
+of ascertaining the facts of the lamentable attack perpetrated by the
+Russian fleet upon British fishing vessels off the Dogger Bank, on
+October 21, 1905. The Commission sat from January 19 to February
+25, 1905, and its report was the means of terminating a period of
+great tension in the relations of the two Powers concerned (see <i>Parl.
+Paper</i>, Russia, 1905, No. 3): this letter deals also with Arbitration,
+under The Hague Convention of 1899.</p>
+
+<p>It may be worth while here to point out that besides direct negotiation
+between the Powers concerned, four friendly methods for the
+settlement of questions at issue between them are now recognised,
+<i>viz</i> (1) Good offices and mediation of third Powers; (2) &quot;Special
+mediation&quot;; (3) &quot;International Commissions of Enquiry&quot;; (4)
+Arbitration. All four were recommended by The Hague Convention
+of 1899 &quot;For the Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes&quot;
+(by which, indeed, (2) and (3) were first suggested), as also by the
+amended re-issue of that convention in 1907. It must be noticed
+that resort to any of these methods is entirely discretionary, so far
+as any rule of International Law is concerned; all efforts to render
+it universally and unconditionally obligatory having, perhaps fortunately,
+hitherto failed.</p>
+
+<p>It remains to be seen how far the settlement of international
+controversies has been facilitated by the establishment of a &quot;League
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page002" id="page002">[002]</a></span>of Nations&quot; (to which reference is made in the concluding letters of
+this chapter), and, in particular, by the plan for the establishment of
+a &quot;Permanent Court of International Justice,&quot; formulated by the
+League, in pursuance of Art. 14 of the Treaty of Versailles, and
+submitted to its members in December, 1920.</p></div>
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="THE-PETITION-TO-THE-PRESIDENT-OF-THE-UNITED-STATES" />THE PETITION TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;It seems that a respectably, though perhaps
+thoughtlessly signed petition was on Thursday presented
+to President McKinley, urging him to offer his good offices
+to bring to an end the war now being waged in South
+Africa. From the <i>New York World</i> cablegram, it would
+appear that the President was requested to take this step
+&quot;in accordance with Art. 3 of the protocol of the Peace
+Conference at The Hague.&quot; The reference intended is
+doubtless to the <i>Convention pour le r&egrave;glement pacifique des
+conflits internationaux</i>, prepared at the Conference [of 1899],
+Art. 3 of which is to the following effect:&mdash;</p>
+
+<div class="letterquot"><p>&quot;Les Puissances signataires jugent utile qu'une ou plusieurs Puissances
+&eacute;trang&egrave;res au conflit offrent de leur propre initiative, en tant
+que les circonstances s'y pr&ecirc;tent, leurs bons offices ou leur m&eacute;diation
+aux &Eacute;tats en conflit.</p>
+
+<p>&quot;Le droit d'offrir les bons offices ou la m&eacute;diation appartient aux
+Puissances &eacute;trang&egrave;res au conflit, m&ecirc;me pendant le cours des hostilit&eacute;s.</p>
+
+<p>&quot;L'exercice de ce droit ne peut jamais &ecirc;tre consid&eacute;r&eacute; par l'une ou
+l'autre des parties en litige comme un acte peu amical.&quot;</p></div>
+
+<p>Several remarks are suggested by the presentation of
+this petition:&mdash;</p>
+
+<p>(1) One might suppose from the glib reference here
+and elsewhere made to The Hague Convention, that this
+convention is already in force, whereas it is [1899], in the
+case of most, if not all, of the Powers represented at the
+conference, a mere unratified draft, under the consideration
+of the respective Governments.</p>
+
+<p>(2) The article, if it were in force, would impose no
+duty of offering good offices, but amounts merely to the
+expression of opinion that an offer of good offices is a
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page003" id="page003">[003]</a></span>useful and unobjectionable proceeding, in suitable cases
+(<i>en tant que les circonstances s'y pr&ecirc;tent</i>). It cannot for
+a moment be supposed that the President would consider
+that an opportunity of the kind contemplated was offered
+by the war in South Africa.</p>
+
+<p>(3) One would like to know at what date, if at all,
+the Prime Minister of the British colony of the Cape was
+pleased, as is alleged, to follow the lead of the Presidents of
+the two Boer Republics in bestowing his grateful approval
+upon the petition in question.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">Your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, October 28 (1899).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+<div class="postnotes"><p><i>Par.</i> 2 (1).&mdash;The Convention of 1899 was ratified by Great Britain,
+on September 4, 1900; and between that year and 1907 practically
+all civilised Powers ratified or acceded to it. It is now, for almost all
+Powers, superseded by The Hague Convention, No. i. of 1907, which,
+reproduces Art. 3 of the older Convention, inserting, however, after
+the word &quot;utile,&quot; the words &quot;et d&eacute;sirable.&quot;</p>
+
+<p><i>Ib.</i> (2).&mdash;On March 6, 1900, the two Boer Republics proposed that
+peace should be made on terms which included the recognition of
+their independence. Great Britain having, on March 11, declared
+such recognition to be inadmissible, the European Powers which were
+requested to use their good offices to bring this about declined so to
+intervene. The President of the United States, however, in a note
+delivered in London on March 13, went so far as to &quot;express an earnest
+hope that a way to bring about peace might be found,&quot; and to say that
+he would aid &quot;in any friendly manner to bring about so happy a
+result.&quot; Lord Salisbury, on the following day, while thanking the
+United States Government, replied that &quot;H.M. Government does
+not propose to accept the intervention of any Power in the South
+African War.&quot; Similar replies to similar offers had been made both
+by France and Prussia in 1870, and by the United States in 1898.</p></div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="COMMISSIONS-OF-ENQUIRY-AND-THE-HAGUE-CONVENTION" />COMMISSIONS OF ENQUIRY AND THE HAGUE
+CONVENTION</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;It is just now [1904] especially desirable that the
+purport of those provisions of The Hague Convention &quot;for
+the peaceful settlement of international controversies&quot;<span class="newpage"><a name="page004" id="page004">[004]</a></span>
+which deal with &quot;international commissions of enquiry&quot;
+should be clearly understood. It is probably also desirable
+that a more correct idea should be formed of the effect
+of that convention, as a whole, than seems to be generally
+prevalent. You may, therefore, perhaps, allow me to say
+a few words upon each of these topics.</p>
+
+<p>Art. 9 of the convention contains an expression of
+opinion to the effect that recourse to an international
+commission of enquiry into disputed questions of fact
+would be useful. This recommendation is, however,
+restricted to &quot;controversies in which neither honour nor
+essential interests are involved,&quot; and is further limited by
+the phrase &quot;so far as circumstances permit.&quot; Two points
+are here deserving of notice.</p>
+
+<p>In the first place, neither &quot;the honour and vital interests
+clause,&quot; as seems to be supposed by your correspondent
+Mr. Schidrowitz, nor the clause as to circumstances permitting,
+is in any way modified by the article which
+follows. Art. 10 does not enlarge the scope of Art. 9,
+but merely indicates the procedure to be followed by
+Powers desirous of acting under it. In the second place,
+it is wholly unimportant whether or no the scope of
+Art. 9 is enlarged by Art. 10. The entire liberty of
+the Powers to make any arrangement which may seem
+good to them for clearing up their differences is neither
+given, nor impaired, by the articles in question, to which
+the good sense of the Conference declined to attach any
+such obligatory force as had been proposed by Russia. It
+may well be that disputant Powers may at any time
+choose to agree to employ the machinery suggested by
+those articles, or something resembling it, in cases of a
+far more serious kind than those to which alone the convention
+ventured to make its recommendation applicable;
+and this is the course which seems to have been followed
+by the Powers interested with reference to the recent
+lamentable occurrence in the North Sea.<span class="newpage"><a name="page005" id="page005">[005]</a></span></p>
+
+<p>As to the convention as a whole, it is important to
+bear in mind that, differing in this respect from the two
+other conventions concluded at The Hague, it is of a
+non-obligatory character, except in so far as it provides
+for the establishment of a permanent tribunal at The
+Hague, to which, however, no Power is bound to resort.
+It resembles not so much a treaty as a collection of &quot;pious
+wishes&quot; (<i>voeux</i>), such as those which were also adopted
+at The Hague. The operative phrases of most usual occurrence
+in the convention are, accordingly, such as &quot;jugent
+utile&quot;; &quot;sont d'accord pour recommander&quot;; &quot;est reconnu
+comme le moyen le plus efficace&quot;; &quot;se r&eacute;servent de conclure
+des accords nouveaux, en vue d'&eacute;tendre l'arbitrage
+obligatoire &agrave; tous les cas qu'elles jugeront possible de lui
+soumettre.&quot;</p>
+
+<p>It is a matter for rejoicing that, in accordance with
+the suggestion contained in the phrase last quoted, so
+many treaties, of which that between Great Britain and
+Portugal is the most recent, have been entered into for
+referring to The Hague tribunal &quot;differences of a juridical
+nature, or such as relate to the interpretation of treaties;
+on condition that they do not involve either the vital
+interests or the independence or honour of the two contracting
+States.&quot; Such treaties, conforming as they all do
+to one carefully defined type, may be productive of much
+good. They testify to, and may promote, a very widely
+spread <i>entente cordiale</i>, they enhance the prestige of the
+tribunal of The Hague, and they assure the reference to
+that tribunal of certain classes of questions which might
+otherwise give rise to international complications. Beyond
+this it would surely be unwise to proceed. It is beginning
+to be realised that what are called &quot;general&quot; treaties of
+arbitration, by which States would bind themselves beforehand
+to submit to external decision questions which might
+involve high political issues, will not be made between
+Powers of the first importance; also, that such treaties, if
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page006" id="page006">[006]</a></span>made, would be more likely to lead to fresh misunderstandings
+than to secure the peaceful settlement of disputed
+questions.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, November 21 (1904).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+<div class="postnotes"><p><i>Pars.</i> 1-3.&mdash;The topic of &quot;Commissions of Enquiry,&quot; which occupied
+Arts. 9-13 of the Convention of 1899 &quot;For the Peaceful Settlement of
+International Disputes,&quot; is more fully dealt with in Arts. 9-36 of the
+Convention as amended in 1907.</p>
+
+<p><i>Par.</i> 4.&mdash;The amended Convention, as a whole, is still, like its
+predecessor, purely facultative. The Russian proposal to make resort
+to arbitration universally obligatory in a list of specified cases, unless
+when the &quot;vital interests or national honour&quot; of States might be
+involved, though negatived in 1899, was renewed in 1907, in different
+forms, by several Powers, which eventually concurred in supporting
+the Anglo-Portuguese-American proposal, according to which, differences
+of a juridical character, and especially those relating to the
+interpretation of treaties, are to be submitted to arbitration, unless
+they affect the vital interests, independence, or honour, of the States
+concerned, or the interests of third States; while all differences as to
+the interpretation of treaties relating to a scheduled list of topics,
+or as to the amount of damages payable, where liability to some
+extent is undisputed, are to be so submitted without any such reservation.
+This proposal was accepted by thirty-two Powers, but as
+nine Powers opposed it, and three abstained from voting, it failed
+to become a convention. The delegates to the Conference of 1907
+went, however, so far as to include in their &quot;Final Act&quot; a statement
+to the effect that they were unanimous: (1) &quot;in recognising the
+principle of obligatory arbitration&quot;; (2) &quot;in declaring that certain
+differences, and, in particular, such as relate to the interpretation
+and application of the provisions of International Conventions, are
+suitable for being submitted to obligatory arbitration, without any
+reservations.&quot;</p>
+
+<p><i>Par.</i> 5.&mdash;The Convention between France and Great Britain,
+concluded on October 14, 1903, for five years, and renewed in 1908,
+and again in 1913, for a like period, by which the parties agree to
+submit to The Hague tribunal any differences which may arise between
+them, on condition &quot;that they do not involve either the vital interests,
+or the independence, or honour of the two contracting States, and that
+they do not affect the interests of a third Power,&quot; has served as a model
+or &quot;common form,&quot; for a very large number of conventions to the same
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page007" id="page007">[007]</a></span>effect, entered into between one State and another. The Convention
+of April 11, 1908, between Great Britain and the United States is
+substantially of this type.</p>
+
+<p>But see now the three letters which follow.</p></div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="THE-LEAGUE-OF-NATIONS-1919" />THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;The League is unquestionably &quot;a brave design.&quot;
+Sympathy with its objects and some hope that they may
+be realised have induced myself, as, doubtless many others,
+to abstain from criticising the way in which the topic has
+been handled by the representatives of the victorious
+Powers. Recent discussions seem, however, to render such
+reticence no longer desirable.</p>
+
+<p>It begins to be recognised that, as some of us have all
+along held to be the case, a serious mistake was made by
+the Paris delegates when they combined in one and the
+same document provisions needed for putting an end to
+an existing state of war with other provisions aiming at
+the creation in the future of a new supernational society.
+Two matters so wholly incongruous in character should
+surely have been dealt with separately. Whether it is
+now too late to attempt a remedy for the consequences
+of this unfortunate combination is a question which can
+be answered only by the diplomatists whose business it is
+to be intimately in touch with the susceptibilities of the
+various nations concerned. In the meantime, however, on
+the assumption that this state of things is productive of
+regrettable results, I may perhaps venture to indicate,
+recommending their adoption, the steps which appear to
+be required for the reformation of the Treaty as drafted.
+My suggestions would run as follows:&mdash;</p>
+
+<p>(1) Subtract from the Treaty of Versailles, Parts I. and
+XIII., the former constituting a League of Nations, the
+latter, in pursuance of a recital that universal peace &quot;can
+be established only if it is based upon social justice,&quot; wholly
+occupied with a sufficiently ambitious scheme for the
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page008" id="page008">[008]</a></span>regulation by the League of all questions relating to
+&quot;Labour&quot; which may arise within its jurisdiction.</p>
+
+<p>(2) Let Part I., with Part XIII. annexed, constitute a
+new and independent Treaty; to be, as such, submitted
+to the Powers for further consideration. (The opportunity
+might be taken of ridding it of all references to a system
+of &quot;mandates,&quot; which might very probably lead to jealousies
+and misunderstandings.)</p>
+
+<p>(3) Parts II. to XII., XIV., and XV. would then constitute
+the real Treaty of Peace, in which it would, however,
+be necessary in the numerous articles attributing functions,
+for the most part of a temporary character, the &quot;League
+of Nations,&quot; to substitute for any mention of the League
+words descriptive of some other authority, yet to be created,
+such as, for instance, &quot;a Commission to be constituted by
+the principal Allied and Associated Powers.&quot;</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, December 16 (1919).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="THE-LEAGUE-OF-NATIONS-1919-B" /></p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;Let me assure Lord Robert Cecil that I am perfectly
+serious in giving expression to a long-felt wish that
+the Treaty of Peace could be relieved of articles relating
+exclusively to an as yet to be created League of Nations,
+and in proceeding to indicate the steps that must be taken
+if this reform is to be effected.</p>
+
+<p>It can hardly be necessary also to assure Lord Robert
+that I am fully aware of the formidable, though perhaps
+not insuperable, difficulties which would beset any efforts
+to carry out my suggestions. He may have inferred so
+much from my letter of the 16th, in which, treating the
+question whether it is now too late to attempt a remedy
+for the existing state of things as beyond the competence
+of an outsider, I describe it as one which can be answered
+&quot;only by the diplomatists whose business it is to be intimately
+in touch with the susceptibilities of the various
+nations concerned.&quot;<span class="newpage"><a name="page009" id="page009">[009]</a></span></p>
+
+<p>On a point of detail, I am surprised that Lord Robert
+is unwilling that the contents of Part XIII. should be
+removed to their natural context, on the ground that the
+Labour organisation might be annoyed if this were done.
+I am, however, confident that the organisation is too intelligent
+not to see that it would lose nothing if the articles
+in which it is interested were made an integral part of a
+Convention constituting a League of Nations; the League
+being already solely charged with giving effect to the
+articles in question.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, December 20 (1919).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="THE-LEAGUE-OF-NATIONS-1920" /></p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;Professor Alison Phillips is not quite accurate in
+attributing to me a belief that the task of amending the
+Treaty of Versailles is &quot;not beyond the powers of competent
+diplomatists.&quot; No such belief is expressed in my letter of
+December 16, in which I was careful to admit that the
+question, &quot;whether it is now too late to attempt&quot; the reform
+which appears to me to be desirable is one &quot;which can be
+answered only by the diplomatists.&quot;</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, January 5 (1920).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+<hr style='width: 45%;' />
+
+<h3 class="sectionhead"><a name="CHAPTER_I_SECTION_2" />SECTION 2</h3>
+
+<p class="subsectionhead">Pacific Reprisals</p>
+
+<div class="intronotes">
+<p>The four letters next following were suggested by the ambiguous
+character of the blockades instituted by France against Siam in 1893,
+by the Great Powers against Crete in 1897, and by Great Britain,
+Germany, and Italy, against Venezuela in 1902. The object, in each
+case, was to explain the true nature of the species of reprisals known
+as &quot;Pacific Blockade,&quot; and to point out the difference between the
+consequences of such a measure and those which result from a &quot;Belligerent
+Blockade.&quot; A fifth letter, written with reference to the action
+of the Netherlands against Venezuela in 1908, emphasises the desira<span class="newpage"><a name="page010" id="page010">[010]</a></span>bility
+of more clearly distinguishing between war and reprisals. On
+the various applications of a blockade in time of peace, see the author's
+<i>Studies in International Law</i>, pp. 130-150.</p>
+</div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="THE-BLOCKADE-OF-THE-MENAM" />THE BLOCKADE OF THE MENAM</p>
+
+
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;Upon many questions of fact and of policy involved
+in the quarrel between France and Siam it may be premature
+as yet to expect explicit information from the French
+Government; but there should not be a moment's doubt
+as to the meaning of the blockade which has probably by
+this time been established.</p>
+
+<p>Is France at war with Siam? This may well be the
+case, according to modern practice, without any formal
+declaration of war; and it is, for international purposes,
+immaterial whether the French Cabinet, if it has commenced
+a war without the sanction of the Chambers, has or has not
+thereby violated the French Constitution. If there is a
+war, and if the blockade, being effective, has been duly
+notified to the neutral Powers, the vessels of those Powers
+are, of course, liable to be visited, and, if found to be engaged
+in breach of the blockade, to be dealt with by the French
+Prize Courts.</p>
+
+<p>Or is France still at peace with Siam, and merely putting
+upon her that form of pressure which is known as &quot;pacific
+blockade&quot;?</p>
+
+<p>In this case, since there is no belligerency there is no
+neutrality, and the ships of States other than that to which
+the pressure is being applied are not liable to be interfered
+with. The particular mode of applying pressure without
+going to war known as &quot;pacific blockade&quot; dates, as is well
+known, only from 1827. It has indeed been enforced, by
+England as well as by France, upon several occasions, against
+the vessels of third Powers; but this practice has always
+been protested against, especially by French jurists, as
+an unwarrantable interference with the rights of such
+Powers, and was acknowledged by Lord Palmerston to
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page011" id="page011">[011]</a></span>be illegal. The British Government distinctly warned
+the French in 1884 that their blockade of Formosa could
+be recognised as affecting British vessels only if it constituted
+an act of war against China; and when the Great
+Powers in 1886 proclaimed a pacific blockade of the coasts
+of Greece they carefully limited its operation to ships under
+the Greek flag.</p>
+
+<p>The Subject has been exhaustively considered by the
+Institut de Droit International, which, at its meeting at
+Heidelberg in 1887, arrived at certain conclusions which
+may be taken to express the view of learned Europe. They
+are as follows:&mdash;</p>
+
+<div class="letterquot"><p>&quot;L'&eacute;tablissement d'un blocus en dehors de l'&eacute;tat de guerre ne doit
+&ecirc;tre considere comme permis par le droit des gens que sous les conditions
+suivantes:&mdash;</p>
+
+<p>&quot;1. Les navires de pavillon &eacute;tranger peuvent entrer librement
+malgr&eacute; le blocus.</p>
+
+<p>&quot;2. Le blocus pacifique doit &ecirc;tre d&eacute;clar&eacute; et notifi&eacute; officiellement,
+et maintenu par une force suffisante.</p>
+
+<p>&quot;Les navires de la puissance bloqu&eacute;e qui ne respectent pas un pareil
+blocus peuvent &ecirc;tre s&eacute;questr&eacute;s. Le blocus ayant cess&eacute;, ils doivent
+&ecirc;tre restitu&eacute;s avec leur cargaisons &agrave; leurs propri&eacute;taires, mais sans
+d&eacute;dommagement &agrave; aucun titre.&quot;</p></div>
+
+<p>If the French wish to reap the full advantages of a
+blockade of the Siamese coast they must be prepared,
+by becoming belligerent, to face the disadvantages which
+may result from the performance by this country of her
+duties as a neutral.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Athen&aelig;um Club, July 26 (1893).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="PACIFIC-BLOCKADE" />PACIFIC BLOCKADE</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;The letter signed &quot;M.&quot; in your issue of this
+morning contains, I think, some statements which ought not
+to pass uncorrected. A &quot;blockade&quot; is, of course, the denial
+by a naval squadron of access for vessels to a defined portion
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page012" id="page012">[012]</a></span>of the coasts of a given nation. A &quot;pacific blockade&quot; is one
+of the various methods&mdash;generically described as &quot;reprisals,&quot;
+such as &quot;embargo,&quot; or seizure of ships on the high seas&mdash;by
+which, without resort to war, pressure, topographically
+or otherwise limited in extent, may be put upon an offending
+State. The need for pressure of any kind is, of course,
+regrettable, the only question being whether such limited
+pressure be not more humane to the nation which experiences it,
+and less distasteful to the nation which exercises it,
+than is the letting loose of the limitless calamities of war.</p>
+
+<p>The opinion of statesmen and jurists upon this point
+has undergone a change, and this because the practice
+known as &quot;pacific blockade&quot; has itself changed. The
+practice, which is comparatively modern, dating only from
+1827, was at first directed against ships under all flags,
+and ships arrested for breach of a pacific blockade were at
+one time confiscated, as they would have been in time of
+war. It has been purged of these defects as the result of
+discussions, diplomatic and scientific. As now understood,
+the blockade is enforced only against vessels belonging to
+the &quot;quasi-enemy,&quot; and even such vessels, when arrested,
+are not confiscated, but merely detained till the blockade
+is raised. International law does not stand still; and having
+some acquaintance with Continental opinion on the topic
+under consideration, I read with amazement &quot;M.'s&quot; assertion
+that &quot;the majority in number,&quot; &quot;the most weighty in
+authority&quot; of the writers on international law &quot;have never
+failed to protest against such practices as indefensible in
+principle.&quot; The fact is that the objections made by, e.g.
+Lord Palmerston in 1846, and by several writers of textbooks,
+to pacific blockade, had reference to the abuses
+connected with the earlier stages of its development. As
+directed only against the ships of the &quot;quasi-enemy,&quot; it
+has received the substantially unanimous approbation
+of the Institut de Droit International at Heidelberg in
+1887, after a very interesting debate, in which the advo<span class="newpage"><a name="page013" id="page013">[013]</a></span>cates
+of the practice were led by M. Perels, of the Prussian
+Admiralty, and its detractors by Professor Geffken. It is
+true that in an early edition of his work upon international
+law my lamented friend, Mr. Hall, did use the words attributed
+to him by &quot;M.&quot;: &quot;It is difficult to see how a pacific
+blockade is justifiable.&quot; But many things, notably Lord
+Granville's correspondence with France in 1884 and the
+blockade of the Greek coast in 1886, have occurred since
+those words were written. If &quot;M.&quot; will turn to a later edition
+of the work in question he will see that Mr. Hall had completely
+altered his opinion on the subject, or rather that,
+having disapproved of the practice as unreformed, he
+blesses it altogether in its later development. With reference
+to the utility of the practice, I should like to call the attention
+of &quot;M.&quot; to a passage in the latest edition of Hall's book
+which is perhaps not irrelevant to current politics:&mdash;</p>
+
+<div class="letterquot"><p>&quot;The circumstances of the Greek blockade of 1886 show that
+occasions may occur in which pacific blockade has an efficacy which no
+other measure would possess. The irresponsible recklessness of Greece
+was endangering the peace of the world; advice and threats had been
+proved to be useless; it was not till the material evidence of the
+blockade was afforded that the Greek imagination could be impressed
+with the belief that the majority of the Great Powers of Europe were
+in earnest in their determination that war should be avoided.&quot;</p></div>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, March 5 (1897).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="THE-VENEZUELAN-CONTROVERSY" />THE VENEZUELAN CONTROVERSY</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;Apart from the practical difficulty, so ably described
+by Sir Robert Giffen in your issue of this morning, of
+obtaining compensation in money from a State which seems
+to be at once bankrupt and in the throes of revolution, not
+a few questions of law and policy, as to which misunderstanding
+is more than probable, are raised from day to day
+by the action of the joint squadrons in Venezuelan waters.
+It may therefore be worth while to attempt to disentangle
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page014" id="page014">[014]</a></span>the more important of these questions from the rest, and to
+indicate in each case the principles involved.</p>
+
+<p>1. Are we at war with Venezuela? Till reading the
+reports of what passed last night in the House of Commons,
+I should have replied to this question unhesitatingly in
+the negative. Most people whose attention has been
+directed to such matters must have supposed that we were
+engaged in the execution of &quot;reprisals,&quot; the nature and
+legitimacy of which have long been recognised by international
+law. They consist, of course, in the exertion of
+pressure, short of war; over which they possess the following
+advantages: They are strictly limited in scope; they
+cease, when their object has been attained, without the
+formalities of a treaty of peace; and, no condition of
+&quot;belligerency&quot; existing between the Powers immediately
+concerned, third Powers are not called upon to undertake
+the onerous obligations of &quot;neutrality.&quot; The objection sometimes
+made to reprisals, that they are applicable only to the
+weaker Powers, since a strong Power would at once treat
+them as acts of war, is indeed the strongest recommendation
+of this mode of obtaining redress. To localise hostile
+pressure as far as possible, and to give to it such a character
+as shall restrict its incidence to the peccant State, is surely
+in the interest of the general good. That the steps taken
+are such as would probably, between States not unequally
+matched, cause an outbreak of war cannot render them
+inequitable in cases where so incalculable an evil is unlikely
+to follow upon their employment.</p>
+
+<p>2. The justification of a resort either to reprisals or to war,
+in any given case, depends, of course, upon the nature of the
+acts complained of, and upon the validity of the excuses put
+forward either for the acts themselves, or for failure to give
+satisfaction for them. The British claims against Venezuela
+seem to fall into three classes. It will hardly be disputed
+that acts of violence towards British subjects or vessels,
+committed under State authority, call for redress. Losses
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page015" id="page015">[015]</a></span>by British subjects in the course of civil wars would come
+next, and would need more careful scrutiny (on this point
+the debates and votes of the Institut de Droit International,
+at its meeting at Neuch&acirc;tel in 1900, may be consulted with
+advantage). Last of all would come the claims of unpaid
+bondholders, as to which Mr. Balfour would seem to endorse,
+in principle, the statement made in 1880 by Lord Salisbury
+who, while observing that &quot;it would be an extreme assertion
+to say that this country ought never to interfere on the part
+of bondholders who have been wronged,&quot; went on to say that
+&quot;it would be hardly fair if any body of capitalists should
+have it in their power to pledge the people of this country
+to exertions of such an extensive character.... They
+would be getting the benefit of an English guarantee without
+paying the price of it.&quot;</p>
+
+<p>3. Reprisals may be exercised in many ways; from such
+a high-handed act as the occupation of the Principalities by
+Russia in 1853, to such a mere seizure of two or three
+merchant vessels as occurred in the course of our controversy
+with Brazil in 1861. In modern practice, these measures
+imply a temporary sequestration, as opposed to confiscation
+or destruction, of the property taken. In the belief that
+reprisals only were being resorted to against Venezuela one
+was therefore glad to hear that the sinking of gunboats by
+the Germans had been explained as rendered necessary by
+their unseaworthiness.</p>
+
+<p>4. Pacific reprisals should also, according to the tendency
+of modern opinion and practice, be so applied as not to
+interfere with the interests of third Powers and their subjects.
+This point has been especially discussed with reference to
+that species of reprisal known as a &quot;pacific blockade,&quot; of
+which some mention has been made in the present controversy.
+The legitimacy of this operation, though dating only
+from 1827, if properly applied, is open to no question. Its
+earlier applications were, no doubt, unduly harsh, not only
+towards the peccant State, but also towards third States,
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page016" id="page016">[016]</a></span>the ships of which were even confiscated for attempting to
+break a blockade of this nature. Two views on this subject
+are now entertained&mdash;viz. (1) that the ships of third Powers
+breaking a pacific blockade may be turned back with any
+needful exertion of force, and, if need be, temporarily
+detained; (2) that they may not be interfered with. The
+former view is apparently that of the German Government.
+It was certainly maintained by M. Perels, then as now the
+adviser to the German Admiralty, during the discussion of
+the subject by the Institut de Droit International at Heidelberg
+in 1887. The latter view is that which was adopted by
+the Institut on that occasion. It was maintained by Great
+Britain, with reference to the French blockade of Formosa
+in 1884; was acted on by the allied Powers in the blockade
+of the coast of Greece, instituted in 1886; and is apparently
+put forward by the United States at the present
+moment.</p>
+
+<p>5. If, however, we are at war with Venezuela (as will,
+no doubt, be the case if we proclaim a belligerent blockade
+of the coast, and may at any moment occur, should Venezuela
+choose to treat our acts, even if intended only by way of
+reprisals, as acts of war), the situation is changed in two
+respects: (1) the hostilities which may be carried on by the
+allies are no longer localised, or otherwise limited, except by
+the dictates of humanity; (2) third States become <i>ipso facto</i>
+&quot;neutrals,&quot; and, as such, subject to obligations to which up
+to that moment they had not been liable. Whatever may
+have previously been the case, it is thenceforth certain that
+their merchant vessels must respect the (now belligerent)
+blockade, and are liable to visit, search, seizure, and confiscation
+if they attempt to break it.</p>
+
+<p>6. If hostile pressure, whether by way of reprisals or of
+war, is exercised by the combined forces of allies, the terms
+on which this is to be done must obviously be arranged by
+previous agreement. More especially would this be requisite
+where, as in the case of Great Britain and Germany, different
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page017" id="page017">[017]</a></span>views are entertained with reference to the acts which are
+permissible under a &quot;pacific blockade.&quot;</p>
+
+<p>7. When, besides the Power, or Powers, putting pressure
+upon a given State, with a view to obtaining compensation
+for injuries received from it, other Powers, though taking
+no part in what is going on, give notice that they also
+have claims against the same offender; delicate questions
+may obviously arise between the creditors who have and
+those who have not taken active steps to make their claims
+effective. In the present instance, France is said to assert
+that she has acquired a sort of prior mortgage on the assets
+of Venezuela; and the United States, Spain, and Belgium
+declare themselves entitled to the benefit of the &quot;most-favoured-nation
+clause&quot; when those assets are made available
+for creditors. What principles are applicable to the
+solution of the novel questions suggested by these competing
+claims?</p>
+
+<p>8. It is satisfactory to know, on the highest authority,
+that the &quot;Monroe doctrine&quot; is not intended to shield
+American States against the consequences of their wrongdoing;
+since the cordial approval of the doctrine which
+has just been expressed by our own Government can only
+be supposed to extend to it so far as it is reasonably defined
+and applied. Great Britain, for one, has no desire for an
+acre of new territory on the American continent. The
+United States, on the other hand, will doubtless readily
+recognise that, if international wrongs are to be redressed
+upon that continent, aggrieved European Powers may
+occasionally be obliged to resort to stronger measures than
+a mere embargo on shipping, or the blockade (whether
+&quot;pacific&quot; or &quot;belligerent&quot;) of a line of coast.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, December 18 (1902).</div><br />
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page018" id="page018">[018]</a></span></div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="THE-VENEZUELA-PROTOCOL" />THE VENEZUELA PROTOCOL</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;The close (for the present, at any rate) of the
+Venezuelan incident will be received with general satisfaction.
+One of the articles of the so-called &quot;protocol&quot; of
+February 18 seems, however, to point a moral which one
+may hope will not be lost sight of in the future&mdash;<i>viz.</i> the
+desirability of keeping unblurred the line of demarcation
+between such unfriendly pressure as constitutes &quot;reprisals&quot;
+and actual war.</p>
+
+<p>After all that has occurred&mdash;statements in Parliament,
+action of the Governor of Trinidad in bringing into operation
+the dormant powers of the Supreme Court of the island as
+a prize Court, &amp;c.&mdash;one would have supposed that there
+could be no doubt, though no declaration had been issued,
+that we were at war with Venezuela.</p>
+
+<p>Our Government has, therefore, been well advised in
+providing for the renewal of any treaty with that Power
+which may have been abrogated by the war; but it is
+curious to find that the article (7) of the protocol which
+effects this desirable result begins by a recital to the effect
+that &quot;it may be contended that the establishment of a
+blockade of the Venezuelan ports by the British naval
+forces has <i>ipso facto</i> created a state of war between Great
+Britain and Venezuela.&quot;</p>
+
+<p>It is surely desirable that henceforth Great Britain
+should know, and that other nations should at least have
+the means of knowing, for certain, whether she is at war or
+at peace.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, February 17 (1903).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="WAR-AND-REPRISALS" />WAR AND REPRISALS</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;Professor Westlake's interesting letter as to the
+measures recently taken by the Netherlands Government in<span class="newpage"><a name="page019" id="page019">[019]</a></span>
+Venezuelan waters opportunely recalls attention to a topic
+upon which I addressed you when, six years ago, our own
+Government was similarly engaged in putting pressure
+upon Venezuela&mdash;<i>viz.</i> the desirability of drawing a clear
+line between war and reprisals. Perhaps I may now be
+allowed to return, very briefly, to this topic, with special
+reference to Professor Westlake's remarks.</p>
+
+<p>In any discussion of the questions involved, we ought,
+I think, clearly to realise that The Hague Convention, No. iii.
+of 1907, has no application to any measures not amounting
+to war. The &quot;hostilities&quot; mentioned in Art. 1 of the
+Convention are, it will be observed, exclusively such as
+must not commence without either a &quot;declaration of war,&quot;
+or &quot;an ultimatum with a conditional declaration of war&quot;;
+and Art. 2 requires that the &quot;state of war&quot; thus created
+shall be notified to &quot;neutral Powers.&quot; There are, of course,
+no Powers answering to this description till war has actually
+broken out. Neutrality presupposes belligerency. Any
+other interpretation of the Convention would, indeed,
+render &quot;pacific blockades&quot; henceforth impossible.</p>
+
+<p>In the next place, we must at once recognise that the
+application of the term &quot;reprisals,&quot; whatever may have
+been its etymological history, must no longer be restricted
+to seizure of property. It has now come to cover, and it
+is the only term which does cover generically, an indeterminate
+list of unfriendly acts, such as embargo, pacific
+blockade, seizure of custom-houses, and even occupation of
+territory, to which resort is had in order to obtain redress
+from an offending State without going to war with it. The
+pressure thus exercised, unlike the unlimited <i>licentia laedendi</i>
+resulting from a state of war, is localised and graduated.
+It abrogates no treaties, and terminates without a treaty
+of peace. It affects only indirectly, if at all, the rights of
+States which take no part in the quarrel.</p>
+
+<p>The questions which remain for consideration would
+seem to be the following:&mdash;<span class="newpage"><a name="page020" id="page020">[020]</a></span></p>
+
+<p>1. Would it be feasible to draw up a definite list of the
+measures which may legitimately be taken with a view to
+exercising pressure short of war?&mdash;I think not. States
+differ so widely in offensive power and vulnerability that
+it would be hardly advisable thus to fetter the liberty of
+action of a State which considers itself to have been
+injured.</p>
+
+<p>2. Ought it to be made obligatory that acts of reprisal
+should be preceded, or accompanied, by a notification to
+the State against which they are exercised that they are
+reprisals and not operations of war?&mdash;This would seem to
+be highly desirable; unless indeed it can be assumed that,
+in pursuance of The Hague Convention of 1907, no war will
+henceforth be commenced without declaration.</p>
+
+<p>8. Ought a statement to the like effect to be made to
+nations not concerned in the quarrel?&mdash;This would, doubtless,
+be convenient, unless the non-receipt by them of any
+notification of a &quot;state of war,&quot; in pursuance of the Convention,
+could be supposed to render such a statement
+superfluous.</p>
+
+<p>On the ambiguous character sometimes attaching to
+reprisals as now practised, I may perhaps refer to an
+article in the <i>Law Quarterly Review</i> for 1903, entitled &quot;War
+Sub Modo.&quot;</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, December 26 (1908).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+<div class="postnotes"><p>The operations against Venezuela which were closed by the protocol
+of February 13, 1903, had given rise to the enunciation of the so-called
+&quot;Drago doctrine,&quot; in a despatch, addressed on December 29
+of the preceding year, by the Argentine Minister for Foreign Affairs to
+the Government of the United States, which asserts that &quot;public
+indebtedness cannot justify armed intervention by a European Power,
+much less material occupation by it of territory belonging to any
+American nation.&quot; The reply of the United States declined to carry
+the &quot;Monroe doctrine&quot; to this length, citing the passage in President
+Roosevelt's message in which he says: &quot;We do not guarantee any
+State against punishment, if it misconducts itself, provided such
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page021" id="page021">[021]</a></span>punishment does not take the form of the acquisition of territory by
+any non-American Power.&quot;</p>
+
+<p>It is, however, now provided by The Hague Convention, No. ii.
+of 1907, ratified by Great Britain on November 27, 1909, that &quot;the
+contracting Powers have agreed not to have recourse to armed force
+for the recovery of contractual debts, claimed from the Government
+of a country by the Government of another country, as being due to
+its subjects. This stipulation shall have no application when the
+debtor State declines, or leaves unanswered, an offer of arbitration,
+or, having accepted it, renders impossible the conclusion of the terms
+of reference (<i>compromis</i>), or, after the arbitration, fails to comply
+with the arbitral decision.&quot;<span class="newpage"><a name="page022" id="page022">[022]</a></span></p></div>
+
+
+
+<hr style="width: 65%;" />
+<h2><a name="CHAPTER_II" id="CHAPTER_II" />CHAPTER II</h2>
+
+<p class="chaptertitle">STEPS TOWARDS A WRITTEN LAW OF WAR</p>
+
+
+<div class="intronotes"><p>A large body of written International Law, with reference to the
+conduct of warfare, has been, in the course of the last half-century,
+and, more especially, in quite recent years, called into existence by
+means of General Conventions, or Declarations, of which mention
+must frequently be made in the following pages. Such are:&mdash;</p>
+
+<p>(i.) With reference to war, whether on land or at sea: the Declaration
+of St. Petersburg, of 1868, as to explosive bullets; the three
+Hague Declarations of 1899 (of which the first was repeated in 1907),
+as to projectiles from balloons, projectiles spreading dangerous gases,
+and expanding bullets; The Hague Convention, No. iii. of 1907 as to
+Declaration of War; all ratified by Great Britain, except the Declaration
+of St. Petersburg, which was thought to need no ratification.</p>
+
+<p>(ii.) With reference only to war on land: the Geneva Convention
+of 1906 (superseding that of 1864) as to the sick and wounded, which
+was generally ratified, though by Great Britain only in 1911 (it was
+extended to maritime warfare by Conventions iii. of 1899 and x. of
+1907, both ratified by Great Britain, <i>cf. infra</i>, <a href="#CHAPTER_VI_SECTION_10">Ch. VI. Section 10</a>); the
+Hague Conventions of 1907, No. iv. (superseding the Convention of 1899)
+as to the conduct of warfare, and No. v. as to neutrals, of which only
+the former has as yet been ratified by Great Britain.</p>
+
+<p>(iii.) With reference only to war at sea: the Declaration of Paris,
+of 1856, supposed apparently to need no ratification (to which the
+United States is now the only important Power which has not become
+a party), as to privateering, combination of enemy and neutral property
+and blockades; The Hague Conventions of 1907, No. vi. as to
+enemy merchant vessels at outbreak, No. vii. as to conversion of
+merchantmen into warships, No. viii. as to mines, No. ix. as to naval
+bombardments, No. x. as to the sick and wounded, No. xi. as to captures,
+No. xii. as to an International Prize Court, supplemented by the Convention
+of 1910, No. xiii. as to neutrals. It must be observed that, of
+these Conventions, Great Britain has ratified only vi., vii., viii., ix., and
+x., the three last subject to reservations. The Declaration of London
+of 1909, purporting to codify the laws of naval warfare as to blockade,
+contraband, hostile assistance, destruction of prizes, change of flag,
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page023" id="page023">[023]</a></span>enemy character, convoy, resistance and compensation, and so to
+facilitate the working of the proposed International Prize Court, if,
+and when, this Court should come into existence, has failed to obtain
+ratification, as will be hereafter explained.</p>
+
+
+<p>Concurrently with the efforts which have thus been made to ascertain
+the laws of war by general diplomatic agreement, the way for
+such agreement has been prepared by the labours of the Institut de
+Droit International, and by the issue by several governments of
+instructions addressed to their respective armies and navies.</p>
+
+<p>The <i>Manuel des Lois de la Guerre sur Terre</i>, published by the
+Institut in 1880, is the subject of the two letters which immediately
+follow. Their insertion here, although the part in them of the present
+writer is but small, may be justified by the fact that they set out a
+correspondence which is at once interesting (especially from its bearing
+upon the war of 1914) and not readily elsewhere accessible.</p>
+
+<p>The remaining letters in this chapter relate to the <i>Naval War Code</i>,
+issued by the Government of the United States in 1900, but withdrawn
+in 1904, though still expressing the views of that Government, for
+reasons specified in a note to the British <i>charg&eacute; d'affaires</i> at Washington
+and printed in <i>Parl. Papers, Miscell.</i> No. 5 (1909), p. 8. The United
+States, it will be remembered, were also the first Power to attempt a
+codification of the laws of war on land, in their <i>Instructions for the
+Government of Armies of the United States</i>, issued in 1863, and reissued
+in 1898. Some information as to this and similar bodies of national
+instructions may be found in the present writer's <i>Studies in International
+Law</i>, 1898, p. 85. <i>Cf.</i> his <i>Manual of Naval Prize Law</i>, issued
+by authority of the Admiralty in 1888, his <i>Handbook of the Laws and
+Customs of War on Land</i>, issued by authority to the British Army in
+1904, and his <i>The Laws of War on Land (written and unwritten)</i>, 1908.
+The Institut de Droit International, which has been engaged for some
+years upon the Law of War at Sea, by devoting the whole of its session
+at Oxford, in 1913, to the discussion of the subject, produced a <i>Manuel
+des Lois de la Guerre sur Mer</i>, framed in accordance with the now-accepted
+view which sanctions the capture of enemy private property
+at sea. It is to be followed by a manual framed in accordance with
+the contrary view. <i>Cf.</i> the letters upon the <i>Declaration of London</i>,
+in <a href="#CHAPTER_VII_SECTION_10">Ch. VII. Section 10</a>, <i>infra</i>.</p></div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="COUNT-VON-MOLTKE-ON-THE-LAWS-OF-WARFARE" />COUNT VON MOLTKE ON THE LAWS OF
+WARFARE</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;You may perhaps think that the accompanying
+letter, recently addressed by Count von Moltke to Professor<span class="newpage"><a name="page024" id="page024">[024]</a></span>
+Bluntschli, is of sufficient general interest to be inserted
+in <i>The Times</i>. It was written with reference to the
+Manual of the Laws of War which was adopted by the
+Institut de Droit International at its recent session at
+Oxford. The German text of the letter will appear in
+a few days at Berlin. My translation is made from the
+proof-sheets of the February number of the <i>Revue de
+Droit International</i>, which will contain also Professor
+Bluntschli's reply.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">Your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, January 29 (1881).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+<div class="quotedletter"><p>&quot;Berlin, Dec. 11, 1880.</p>
+
+<p>&quot;You have been so good as to forward to me the manual published
+by the Institut de Droit International, and you hope for my approval
+of it. In the first place I fully appreciate the philanthropic effort to
+soften the evils which result from war. Perpetual peace is a dream,
+and it is not even a beautiful dream. War is an element in the order
+of the world ordained by God. In it the noblest virtues of mankind
+are developed; courage and the abnegation of self, faithfulness to duty,
+and the spirit of sacrifice: the soldier gives his life. Without war the
+world would stagnate, and lose itself in materialism.</p>
+
+<p>&quot;I agree entirely with the proposition contained in the introduction
+that a gradual softening of manners ought to be reflected also in the
+mode of making war. But I go further, and think the softening of
+manners can alone bring about this result, which cannot be attained
+by a codification of the law of war. Every law presupposes an
+authority to superintend and direct its execution, and international
+conventions are supported by no such authority. What neutral
+States would ever take up arms for the sole reason that, two Powers
+being at war, the 'laws of war' had been violated by one or both of the
+belligerents? For offences of that sort there is no earthly judge.
+Success can come only from the religious moral education of individuals
+and from the feeling of honour and sense of justice of commanders who
+enforce the law and conform to it so far as the exceptional circumstances
+of war permit.</p>
+
+<p>&quot;This being so, it is necessary to recognise also that increased
+humanity in the mode of making war has in reality followed upon the
+gradual softening of manners. Only compare the horrors of the Thirty
+Years' War with the struggles of modern times.</p>
+
+<p>&quot;A great step has been made in our own day by the establishment
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page025" id="page025">[025]</a></span>of compulsory military service, which introduces the educated classes
+into armies. The brutal and violent element is, of course, still there,
+but it is no longer alone, as once it was. Again, Governments have
+two powerful means of preventing the worst kind of excesses&mdash;strict
+discipline maintained in time of peace, so that the soldier has become
+habituated to it, and care on the part of the department which provides
+for the subsistence of troops in the field. If that care fails, discipline
+can only be imperfectly maintained. It is impossible for the soldier
+who endures sufferings, hardships, fatigues, who meets danger, to
+take only 'in proportion to the resources of the country.' He must
+take whatever is needful for his existence. We cannot ask him for
+what is superhuman.</p>
+
+<p>&quot;The greatest kindness in war is to bring it to a speedy conclusion.
+It should be allowable with that view to employ all methods save those
+which are absolutely objectionable ('dazu m&uuml;ssen alle nicht geradezu
+verwerfliche Mittel freistehen'). I can by no means profess agreement
+with the Declaration of St. Petersburg when it asserts that 'the weakening
+of the military forces of the enemy' is the only lawful procedure
+in war. No, you must attack all the resources of the enemy's Government:
+its finances, its railways, its stores, and even its prestige. Thus
+energetically, and yet with a moderation previously unknown, was the
+late war against France conducted. The issue of the campaign was
+decided in two months, and the fighting did not become embittered till
+a revolutionary Government, unfortunately for the country, prolonged
+the war for four more months.</p>
+
+<p>&quot;I am glad to see that the manual, in clear and precise articles,
+pays more attention to the necessities of war than has been paid by
+previous attempts. But for Governments to recognise these rules will
+not be enough to insure that they shall be observed. It has long been
+a universally recognised custom of warfare that a flag of truce must not
+be fired on, and yet we have seen that rule violated on several occasions
+during the late war.</p>
+
+<p>&quot;Never will an article learnt by rote persuade soldiers to see a
+regular enemy (sections 2-4) in the unorganised population which takes
+up arms 'spontaneously' (so of its own motion) and puts them in
+danger of their life at every moment of day and night. Certain requirements
+of the manual might be impossible of realisation; for instance,
+the identification of the slain after a great battle. Other requirements
+would be open to criticism did not the intercalation of such words as
+'if circumstances permit,' 'if possible,' 'if it can be done,' 'if necessary,'
+give them an elasticity but for which the bonds they impose must
+be broken by inexorable reality.</p>
+
+<p>&quot;I am of opinion that in war, where everything must be individual,
+the only articles which will prove efficacious are those which are
+addressed specifically to commanders. Such are the rules of the
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page026" id="page026">[026]</a></span>manual relating to the wounded, the sick, the surgeons, and medical
+appliances. The general recognition of these principles, and of those
+also which relate to prisoners, would mark a distinct step of progress
+towards the goal pursued with so honourable a persistency by the
+Institut de Droit International.</p>
+
+<p>&quot;COUNT VON MOLTKE, Field-Marshal-General.&quot;</p></div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="PROFESSOR-BLUNTSCHLIS-REPLY-TO-COUNT-VON-MOLTKE" />PROFESSOR BLUNTSCHLI'S REPLY TO COUNT
+VON MOLTKE</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;In accordance with a wish expressed in several
+quarters, I send you, on the chance of your being able to
+make room for it, a translation of Professor Bluntschli's
+reply to the letter from Count von Moltke which appeared
+in <i>The Times</i> of the 1st inst.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">Your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, February (1881).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+<div class="quotedletter"><p>&quot;Christmas, 1880.</p>
+
+<p>&quot;I am very grateful for your Excellency's detailed and kind statement
+of opinion as to the manual of the laws of war. This statement
+invites serious reflections. I see in it a testimony of the highest value,
+of historical importance; and I shall communicate it forthwith to
+the members of the Institut de Droit International.</p>
+
+<p>&quot;For the present I do not think I can better prove my gratitude
+to your Excellency than by sketching the reasons which have guided
+our members, and so indicating the nature of the different views which
+prevail upon the subject.</p>
+
+<p>&quot;It is needless to say that the same facts present themselves in a
+different light and give a different impression as they are looked at from
+the military or the legal point of view. The difference is diminished,
+but not removed, when an illustrious general from his elevated position
+takes also into consideration the great moral and political duties of
+States, and when, on the other hand, the representatives of science
+of international law set themselves to bring legal principles into relation
+with military necessities.</p>
+
+<p>&quot;For the man of arms the interest of the safety and success of the
+army will always take precedence of that of the inoffensive population,
+while the jurist, convinced that law is the safeguard of all, and especially
+for the weak against the strong, will ever feel it a duty to secure for
+private individuals in districts occupied by an enemy the indispensable
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page027" id="page027">[027]</a></span>protection of law. There may be members of the Institut who do not
+give up the hope that some day, thanks to the progress of civilisation,
+humanity will succeed in substituting an organised international justice
+for the wars which now-a-days take place between sovereign States.
+But the body of the Institut, as a whole, well knows that that hope has
+no chance of being realised in our time, and limits its action in this
+matter to two principal objects, the attainment of which is possible:&mdash;</p>
+
+<p>&quot;1. To open and facilitate the settlement of trifling disputes between
+nations by judicial methods, war being unquestionably a method out
+of all proportion in such cases.</p>
+
+<p>&quot;2. To aid in elucidating and strengthening legal order even in
+time of war.</p>
+
+<p>&quot;I acknowledge unreservedly that the customs of warfare have
+improved since the establishment of standing armies, a circumstance
+which has rendered possible a stricter discipline, and has necessitated
+a greater care for the provisionment of troops. I also acknowledge
+unreservedly that the chief credit for this improvement is due to military
+commanders. Brutal and barbarous pillage was prohibited by
+generals before jurists were convinced of its illegality. If in our own
+day a law recognised by the civilised world forbids, in a general way,
+the soldier to make booty in warfare on land, we have here a great
+advance in civilisation, and the jurists have had their share in bringing
+it about. Since compulsory service has turned standing armies into
+national armies, war has also become national. Laws of war are consequently
+more than ever important and necessary, since, in the differences
+of culture and opinion which prevail between individuals and
+classes, law is almost the only moral power the force of which is acknowledged
+by all, and which binds all together under common rules. This
+pleasing and cheering circumstance is one which constantly meets us
+in the Institut de Droit International. We see a general legal persuasion
+ever in process of more and more distinct formation uniting
+all civilised peoples. Men of nations readily disunited and opposed&mdash;Germans
+and French, English and Russians, Spaniards and Dutchmen,
+Italians and Austrians&mdash;are, as a rule, all of one mind as to the principles
+of international law.</p>
+
+<p>&quot;This is what makes it possible to proclaim an international law
+of war, approved by the legal conscience of all civilised peoples; and
+when a principle is thus generally accepted, it exerts an authority over
+minds and manners which curbs sensual appetites and triumphs over
+barbarism. We are well aware of the imperfect means of causing its
+decrees to be respected and carried out which are at the disposal of the
+law of nations. We know also that war, which moves nations so deeply,
+rouses to exceptional activity the good qualities as well as the evil
+instincts of human nature. It is for this very reason that the jurist is
+impelled to present the legal principles, of the need for which he is
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page028" id="page028">[028]</a></span>convinced, in a clear and precise form, to the feeling of justice of the
+masses, and to the legal conscience of those who guide them. He is
+persuaded that his declaration will find a hearing in the conscience of
+those whom it principally concerns, and a powerful echo in the public
+opinion of all countries.</p>
+
+<p>&quot;The duty of seeing that international law is obeyed, and of punishing
+violations of it, belongs, in the first instance, to States, each within
+the limits of its own supremacy. The administration of the law of
+war ought therefore to be intrusted primarily to the State which wields
+the public power in the place where an offence is committed. No State
+will lightly, and without unpleasantness and danger, expose itself to a
+just charge of having neglected its international duties; it will not do
+so even when it knows that it runs no risk of war on the part Of neutral
+States. Every State, even the most powerful, will gain sensibly in
+honour with God and man if it is found to be faithful and sincere in
+respect and obedience to the law of nations.</p>
+
+<p>&quot;Should we be deceiving ourselves if we admitted that a belief in
+the law of nations, as in a sacred and necessary authority, ought to
+facilitate the enforcement of discipline in the Army and help to prevent
+many faults and many harmful excesses? I, for my part, am convinced
+that the error, which has been handed down to us from antiquity,
+according to which all law is suspended during war, and everything is
+allowable against the enemy nation&mdash;that this abominable error can
+but increase the unavoidable sufferings and evils of war without necessity,
+and without utility from the point of view of that energetic way
+of making war which I also think is the right way.</p>
+
+<p>&quot;With reference to several rules being stated with the qualifications
+'if possible,' 'according to circumstances,' we look on this as a safety-valve,
+intended to preserve the inflexible rule of law from giving way
+when men's minds are overheated in a struggle against all sorts of
+dangers, and so to insure the application of the rules in many other
+instances. Sad experience teaches us that in every war there are
+numerous violations of law which must unavoidably remain unpunished,
+but this will not cause the jurist to abandon the authoritative principle
+which has been violated. Quite the reverse. If, for instance, a flag of
+truce has been fired upon, in contravention of the law of nations, the
+jurist will uphold and proclaim more strongly than ever the rule that
+a flag of truce is inviolable.</p>
+
+<p>&quot;I trust that your Excellency will receive indulgently this sincere
+statement of my views, and will regard it as an expression of my
+gratitude, as well as of my high personal esteem and of my respectful
+consideration.</p>
+
+<p>&quot;Dr. BLUNTSCHLI, Privy Councillor, Professor.&quot;<span class="newpage"><a name="page029" id="page029">[029]</a></span></p></div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="THE-UNITED-STATES-NAVAL-WAR-CODE" />THE UNITED STATES NAVAL WAR CODE.<a class="fnanchor" id="footnotetag01" name="footnotetag01" href=
+  "#footnote01">1</a></p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;The &quot;Naval War Code&quot; of the United States,
+upon which an interesting article appeared in <i>The Times</i> of
+Friday last, in so well deserving of attention in this country
+that I may perhaps be allowed to supplement the remarks of
+your Correspondent from the results of a somewhat minute
+examination of the code made shortly after its publication.</p>
+
+<p>One notes, in the first place, that the Government of
+the United States does not shirk responsibility. It puts
+the code into the hands of its officers &quot;for the government
+of all persons attached to the naval service,&quot; and is doubtless
+prepared to stand by the rules contained in it, as being in
+accordance with international law. These rules deal boldly
+with even so disagreeable a topic as &quot;Reprisals&quot; (Art. 8),
+upon which the Brussels, and after it The Hague, Conference
+preferred to keep silence; and they take a definite line on
+many questions upon which there are wide differences of
+opinion. On most debatable points, the rules are in accordance
+with the views of this country&mdash;<i>e.g.</i> as to the right of
+search (Art. 22), as to the two-fold list of contraband
+(Arts. 34-36), as to the moment at which the liability of a
+blockade-runner commences (Art. 44), and as to the capture
+of private property (Art. 14), although the prohibition of
+such capture has long been favoured by the Executive of
+the United States, and was advocated by the American
+delegates at The Hague Conference. So also Arts. 34-36, by
+apparently taking for granted the correctness of the rulings
+of the Supreme Court in the Civil War cases of the <i>Springbok</i>
+and the <i>Peterhoff</i> with reference to what may be described
+as &quot;continuous carriage,&quot; are in harmony with the views
+which Lord Salisbury recently had occasion to express as to
+the trade of the <i>Bundesrath</i> and other German vessels with
+Lorenzo Marques. It must be observed, on the other
+hand, that Art. 30 flatly contradicts the British rule as to
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page030" id="page030">[030]</a></span>convoy; while Art. 3 sets out The Hague Declaration as
+to projectiles dropped from balloons, to which this country
+is not a party. Art. 7 departs from received views by
+prohibiting altogether the use of false colours, and Art. 14
+(doubtless in pursuance of the recent decision of the Supreme
+Court in the <i>Paquete Habana</i>), by affirming the absolute
+immunity of coast fishing vessels, as such, from capture.</p>
+
+<p>On novel questions the code is equally ready with a
+solution. It speaks with no uncertain voice on the treatment
+of mail steamers and mail-bags (Art. 20). On cable-cutting
+it adopts in Art. 5, as your Correspondent points
+out, the views which I ventured to maintain in your columns
+when the question was raised during the war of 1898.<a class="fnanchor" id="footnotetag02" name="footnotetag02" href=
+  "#footnote02">2</a> I
+may also, by the way, claim the support of the code for the
+view taken by me, in a, correspondence also carried on in
+your columns during the naval manoeuvres of 1888, of the
+bombardment of open coast towns.<a class="fnanchor" id="footnotetag03" name="footnotetag03" href=
+  "#footnote03">3</a> Art. 4 sets out substantially
+the rules upon this subject for which I secured the
+<i>imprimatur</i> of the Institut de Droit International in 1896.</p>
+
+<p>Secondly, the code is so well brought up to date as to
+incorporate (Arts. 21-29) the substance of The Hague
+Convention, ratified only in September last, for applying
+to maritime warfare the principles of the Convention of
+Geneva. Art. 10 of The Hague Convention has been reproduced
+in the code, in forgetfulness perhaps of the fact
+that that article has not been ratified.</p>
+
+<p>Thirdly, the code contains, very properly, some general
+provisions applicable equally to warfare upon land (Arts.
+1, 3, 8, 12, 54).</p>
+
+<p>Fourthly, it is clearly expressed; and it is brief, consisting
+of only 54 articles, occupying 22 pages.</p>
+
+<p>Fifthly, it deals with two very distinct topics&mdash;<i>viz.</i> the
+mode of conducting hostilities against the forces of the
+enemy, and the principles applicable to the making prize
+of merchant vessels, which as often as not may be the
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page031" id="page031">[031]</a></span>property of neutrals. These topics are by no means kept
+apart as they might be, articles on prize occurring unexpectedly
+in the section avowedly devoted to hostilities.</p>
+
+<p>It is worth considering whether something resembling
+the United States code would not be found useful in the
+British Navy. Our code might be better arranged than
+its predecessor, and would differ from it on certain questions,
+but should resemble it in clearness of expression, in brevity,
+and, above all things, in frank acceptance of responsibility.
+What naval men most want is definite guidance, in
+categorical language, upon those points of maritime international
+law upon which our Government has made up its
+own mind.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, April 8 (1901).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="A-NAVAL-WAR-CODE" />A NAVAL WAR CODE</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;It is now nearly a year ago since I ventured to
+suggest in your columns (for April 10, 1901) that something
+resembling the United States &quot;Naval War Code,&quot; dealing
+with &quot;the laws and usages of war at sea,&quot; would be found
+useful in the British Navy.</p>
+
+<p>The matter is, however, not quite so simple as might be
+inferred from some of the allusions to it which occurred
+during last night's debate upon the Navy Estimates. Upon
+several disputable and delicate questions the Government
+of the United States has not hesitated to express definite
+views; and they are not always views which the Government
+of our own country would be prepared to endorse.
+For some remarks upon these questions in detail, and upon
+the code generally, I must refer to my former letter, but
+may perhaps be allowed to quote its concluding words,
+which were to the following effect:&mdash;</p>
+
+<div class="letterquot"><p>&quot;Our code might be better arranged than its predecessor, and would
+differ from it on certain questions, but should resemble it in clearness
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page032" id="page032">[032]</a></span>of expression, in brevity, and, above all things, in frank acceptance of
+responsibility. What naval men most want is definite guidance, in
+categorical language, upon those points of maritime international law
+upon which our Government has made up its own mind.&quot;</p></div>
+
+<p>Before issuing such a code our authorities would have
+to decide&mdash;first, what are the classes of topics as to which
+it is desirable to give definite instructions to naval officers;
+and, secondly, with reference to topics, to be included in
+the instructions, as to which there exist international differences
+of view, what is, in each case, the view by which the
+British Government is prepared to stand.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, March 12 (1902).</div><br />
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page033" id="page033">[033]</a></span></div>
+
+
+
+<hr style="width: 65%;" />
+<h2><a name="CHAPTER_III" id="CHAPTER_III" />CHAPTER III</h2>
+
+<p class="chaptertitle">TERMINOLOGY</p>
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="INTERNATIONAL-TERMINOLOGY" />INTERNATIONAL TERMINOLOGY</p>
+
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;Demands for the punishment of the ex-Kaiser
+have produced many &quot;curiosities of literature,&quot; sometimes
+even over the signatures of men deservedly respected as
+authorities upon subjects which they have made their own;
+but <i>ne sutor supra crepidam</i>. A.B.,<a class="fnanchor" id="footnotetag04a" name="footnotetag04a" href=
+  "#footnote04">4</a> for instance, wrote of
+the Kaiser as guilty of &quot;an indictable offence.&quot; X.Y.<a class="fnanchor" id="footnotetag04b" name="footnotetag04b" href=
+  "#footnote04">4</a>
+naturally protests against this misuse of terminology, which
+is, indeed, far more specifically erroneous than was the
+popular application, which you allowed me to criticise, of
+the terms &quot;murder&quot; and &quot;piracy&quot; to certain detestable
+acts perpetrated under Government authority.<a class="fnanchor" id="footnotetag05" name="footnotetag05" href="#footnote05">5</a> He goes
+on to give an elaborate, though perhaps hardly necessary,
+explanation that breaches of that generally accepted body
+of rules to be followed by States <i>inter se</i>, which is known
+as &quot;international law,&quot; can be enforced, in the last resort,
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page034" id="page034">[034]</a></span>only by hostile State action&mdash;a fact which he seems to
+suppose may entitle him to qualify the rules as &quot;a
+mockery.&quot;</p>
+
+<p>X.Y.<a class="fnanchor" id="footnotetag04c" name="footnotetag04c" href=
+  "#footnote04">4</a> then proceeds to give an account of the so-called
+&quot;private international law&quot; which surely needs revision
+for the benefit of any &quot;man in the street&quot; who may care
+to hear about it. X.Y.<a class="fnanchor" id="footnotetag04d" name="footnotetag04d" href=
+  "#footnote04">4</a> defines it as &quot;that part of the law
+of each separate country, as administered in its own Courts,
+which deals with international matters,&quot; and he enumerates
+as such matters &quot;prize, contraband, blockade, the rights
+of ambassadors.&quot; In fact none of these matters are within
+the scope of &quot;private international law,&quot; but are governed
+by &quot;(public) international law,&quot; non-compliance with which
+by the Courts or subjects of any State is ground of complaint
+for the Government of any other State thereby wrongfully
+affected.</p>
+
+<p>The so-called &quot;private international law,&quot; better
+described as &quot;the conflict of laws,&quot; deals, in reality, with
+the rules which the Courts of each country apply, apart
+from any international obligation, to the solution of
+questions, usually between private litigants, in which doubt
+may arise as to the national law by which a given transaction
+ought to be governed&mdash;<i>e.g.</i> with reference to a contract
+made in France, but to be performed in England. There
+is here a &quot;conflict,&quot; or &quot;collision,&quot; of laws, and it is decided
+in accordance with rules adopted in the country in which
+the litigation occurs. These rules have no &quot;international&quot;
+validity, and the term is applied to them, merely in a popular
+way, to indicate that a Court may have in some cases
+to apply the law of a country other than that in which
+it is sitting. The unfortunate opposition of &quot;public&quot; to
+&quot;private&quot; international law has to answer for much confusion
+of thought. &quot;International law,&quot; properly so called,
+has, of course, no need to be described as &quot;public&quot; to
+distinguish it from rules for solving the &quot;conflicts&quot; of
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page035" id="page035">[035]</a></span>private laws, which are &quot;international&quot; rules only in the
+sense that laws are sometimes applied in countries other
+than those in which they are primarily binding.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, December 19 (1918).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+
+
+<div class="postnotes"><p>A full discussion of the topics dealt with in the last paragraph of
+this letter may be found in my <i>Elements of Jurisprudence</i>, edit. xii.,
+pp. 409-425. A translation, by Professor Nys, of the chapter in which
+those pages occur, as it stood in edit. i., appeared in the <i>Revue de
+Droit International</i>, t. xii., pp. 565, &amp;c.<span class="newpage"><a name="page036" id="page036">[036]</a></span></p></div>
+
+
+
+<hr style="width: 65%;" />
+<h2><a name="CHAPTER_IV" id="CHAPTER_IV" />CHAPTER IV</h2>
+
+<p class="chaptertitle">CONVENTIONS AND LEGISLATION</p>
+
+
+<div class="intronotes"><p>Not a few International Conventions necessitate, before they can
+be ratified, in order that their provisions may be carried into effect, a
+certain amount of municipal legislation.</p>
+
+<p>The letters which follow are concerned with some measures introduced
+into the British Parliament for this purpose, relating respectively
+to Naval Prize, to the Geneva Convention of 1906, and to Conventions
+signed at The Hague Peace Conference of 1907. It is with criticisms
+of Bills dealing with the last-mentioned topic that this chapter is
+mainly occupied.</p></div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="GOVERNMENT-BILLS-AND-INTERNATIONAL-CONVENTIONS" />GOVERNMENT BILLS AND INTERNATIONAL
+CONVENTIONS</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;You have already allowed me to point out how
+singularly ill-adapted is the resuscitated &quot;Naval Prize
+Consolidation Bill&quot;<a class="fnanchor" id="footnotetag06" name="footnotetag06" href="#footnote06">6</a> to inform Parliament upon the highly
+technical points as to which a vote in favour of the Bill
+might be supposed to imply approval of the Government
+policy.</p>
+
+<p>Two other Bills have now been presented to the House
+of Commons in such a shape as to raise a doubt whether
+the wish of the Government, or of the draftsman, has been
+that the topics to which they relate shall be discussed <i>en
+pleine connaissance de cause</i>.</p>
+
+<p>The &quot;Geneva Convention Bill&quot;<a class="fnanchor" id="footnotetag07" name="footnotetag07" href="#footnote07">7</a> is intended to facilitate
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page037" id="page037">[037]</a></span>the withdrawal of reservations subject to which the Convention
+was ratified by Great Britain. These reservations,
+upon which I insisted at Geneva, somewhat to the surprise
+of my French and Russian colleagues, relate to Arts. 23, 27,
+and 28 of the Convention, one of the effects of which would
+have been to impose upon our Government an obligation
+to carry through, within five years, an Act of Parliament,
+making the employment of the Geneva emblem or name,
+except for military purposes, a criminal offence. Any one
+who knows something of the difficulties which beset legislation
+in this country, especially where commercial interests
+are involved, will see that the performance of such an undertaking
+might well have proved to be impossible. Though
+myself strongly in favour of placing, at the proper time and
+in an appropriate manner, legislative restrictions upon the
+general use of the emblem and name, I can hardly think
+the Bill now before Parliament to be well adapted for its
+purpose. The &quot;Memorandum&quot; prefixed to it ought surely
+to have stated, in plain language, the effect of the articles
+in question and the reasons which prevented them from
+being ratified together with the rest of the Convention.
+Instead of this, only one of those articles is cited, and few
+members of Parliament will be aware that an omitted paragraph
+of that article requires that the use of the emblem
+or name should be penalised by British law at the latest
+five years and six months from the date of the British ratification,
+which was deposited on April 16, 1907&mdash;<i>i.e.</i>, not
+later than October 16, 1912. This requirement is not
+satisfied by the Bill, which, even if passed in the present
+Session, would preserve intact till 1915 the rights of proprietors
+of trade-marks, while somewhat harshly rendering
+forthwith illegal the user of the emblem or name by all other
+persons.</p>
+
+<p>On the drafting of the &quot;Second Peace Conference Conventions
+Bill,&quot; I will only remark that neither in the preamble
+nor elsewhere is any information vouchsafed as to the<span class="newpage"><a name="page038" id="page038">[038]</a></span>
+Conventions, out of thirteen drafted at The Hague, which
+are within the purview of the Bill. The reader is left to
+puzzle out for himself, supposing him to have the necessary
+materials at hand, that certain clauses of the Bill relate
+respectively to certain articles which must be looked for
+in the Conventions numbered I., V., X., XII., and XIII.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">The Athen&aelig;um, July 7 (1911).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+
+
+<div class="postnotes"><p>Questions were put and objections raised, in the sense of my criticisms
+upon the drafting of the &quot;Second Peace Conference (Conventions)
+Bill&quot; of 1911, upon several occasions in the House of Commons,
+especially in August of that year, and on December 16 the Bill was
+finally withdrawn. On the re-introduction of the Bill in 1914, see
+the following letter.</p></div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="THE-PRESENT-BILL-IN-PARLIAMENT" />THE PRESENT BILL IN PARLIAMENT</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;In reintroducing their Bill &quot;to make such amendments
+in the law as are necessary in order to enable certain
+conventions to be carried into effect,&quot; the Government has
+justified the criticisms which I addressed to you upon the
+way in which this measure was first presented to Parliament.</p>
+
+<p>I pointed out that neither in the preamble nor elsewhere
+was any information vouchsafed as to which of
+&quot;the various conventions drawn up at the second Peace
+Conference&quot; were within the purview of the Bill. Still
+less was any clue given to those articles, out of nearly 400
+contained in the 13 conventions in question, which are relevant
+to the proposed legislation. Members of Parliament
+sufficiently inquisitive not to be inclined to take the measure
+on trust, were left to puzzle out all this for themselves,
+but proved so restive under the treatment that the Bill,
+which was introduced in June, 1911, had to be withdrawn
+in the following December.</p>
+
+<p>As now resuscitated, the Bill is accompanied by a
+memorandum containing information which will enable
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page039" id="page039">[039]</a></span>the reader, even though no specialist, supposing him to
+have the necessary documents at hand, though probably
+only after several hours of labour, to ascertain what would
+be the result of passing it. Is it too much to hope that
+similar aids to the understanding of complicated legislative
+proposals will be systematically provided in the future?</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, April 13, 1914.</div><br />
+</div>
+
+<div class="postnotes"><p>This Bill was introduced into the House of Commons on April 8,
+1914, with a memorandum proposed in compliance with the criticisms,
+which had led to the withdrawal of its predecessor of 1911. <i>Cf. supra</i>,
+p. <a href="#page037">37</a>. It also was withdrawn, after sustaining much renewed criticism,
+on July 17, 1914.</p></div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="THE-FOREIGN-ENLISTMENT-BILL" />THE FOREIGN ENLISTMENT BILL</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;It is doubtless the case, as stated in your leading
+article of to-day, that the Foreign Enlistment Bill has not
+received the attention which it deserves. It may perhaps
+be worth while to mention, as affording some explanation
+of this neglect, the fact that the memorandum prefixed
+to the Bill vaguely describes its main object as being to
+bring our law into conformity with &quot;The Hague Conventions&quot;
+at large. An ordinary member of Parliament would
+surely be grateful to be referred specifically to Convention
+No. xiii., Arts. 8, 17, and 25. He might well shrink from
+the labour of exploring the hundreds of articles contained
+in &quot;The Hague Conventions&quot; in order to ascertain which
+of the articles suggest some modification of the English
+statute.</p>
+
+<p>I would also venture to suggest that, in Article 1 (1) (b)
+of the Bill the words &quot;or allows to depart,&quot; carried over
+from the old Act, should be omitted, as of doubtful interpretation.
+Would it not also be desirable to take this
+opportunity of severing the enlistment articles of the overgrown
+principal Act from those forbidding the despatch of
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page040" id="page040">[040]</a></span>ships fitted for hostilities and restricting the hospitality
+which may be extended to belligerent war ships?</p>
+
+<p>Upon quite a different subject, I should like to answer
+the question propounded in your article, as to the weight
+now to be given to the Declaration of London, by saying
+that no weight should be given to it, except as between
+Powers who may have ratified it or may have agreed to be
+temporarily bound by its provisions. One has of late been
+surprised to read of vessels carrying contraband being
+allowed to continue their voyage after surrendering the
+contraband goods, in accordance with a new rule suggested
+by the Declaration, whereas, under still existing international
+law, the duty of a captor is to bring in the vessel
+together with her cargo, in order that the rightfulness of
+the seizure may be investigated by a Prize Court.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, November 23 (1912).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+<div class="postnotes"><p>The Bill of 1912 &quot;to amend the Foreign Enlistment Act, 1870,&quot;
+passed the House of Lords with little comment, but was withdrawn,
+after much adverse criticism, in the House of Commons on
+February 12, 1913.<span class="newpage"><a name="page041" id="page041">[041]</a></span></p></div>
+
+
+
+<hr style="width: 65%;" />
+<h2><a name="CHAPTER_V" id="CHAPTER_V" />CHAPTER V</h2>
+
+<p class="chaptertitle">THE COMMENCEMENT OF WAR</p>
+
+
+<h3 class="sectionhead"><a name="CHAPTER_V_SECTION_1" />SECTION 1</h3>
+
+<p class="subsectionhead">Declaration of War</p>
+
+<div class="intronotes"><p>The following letter bears upon the question, much discussed in
+recent years, of the lawfulness of hostilities commenced without
+anything amounting to a declaration of war. Although several
+modern wars, <i>e.g.</i> the Franco-Prussian of 1870, and the Russo-Turkish
+of 1877, were preceded by declaration, it was hardly possible, in view
+of the practice of the last two centuries, to maintain, that this was
+required by international law, and it has never been alleged that any
+definite interval need intervene between a declaration and the first
+act of hostilities. On the destruction of the <i>Kowshing</i>, the present
+writer may further refer to his <i>Studies in International Law</i>, 1898,
+p. 126, and to Professor Takahashi's <i>International Law during the Chino-Japanese
+War</i>, 1899, pp. 24, 192. But see now the note at the end
+of the &quot;Letter&quot; which follows.</p></div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="THE-SINKING-OF-THE-KOWSHING" />THE SINKING OF THE <i>KOWSHING</i></p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;The words of soberness and truth were spoken
+with reference to the sinking of the <i>Kowshing</i> in the letter
+from Professor Westlake which you printed on Friday last.
+Ignorance dies hard, or, after the appearance of that letter
+and of your remarks upon it, one might have expected that
+leading articles would be less lavishly garnished with such
+phrases as &quot;act of piracy,&quot; &quot;war without declaration,&quot;
+&quot;insult to the British flag,&quot; &quot;condign punishment of the
+Japanese commander.&quot; But these flowers of speech continue
+to blossom; and, now that the facts of the case seem
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page042" id="page042">[042]</a></span>to be established beyond reasonable doubt by the telegrams
+of this morning, I should be glad to be allowed to state
+shortly what I believe will be the verdict of international
+law upon what has occurred.</p>
+
+<p>If the visiting, and eventual sinking, of the <i>Kowshing</i>
+occurred in time of peace, or in time of war before she had
+notice that war had broken out, a gross outrage has taken
+place. But the facts are otherwise.</p>
+
+<p>In the first place, a state of war existed. It is trite
+knowledge, and has been over and over affirmed by Courts,
+both English and American, that a war may legally commence
+with a hostile act on one side, not preceded by
+declaration. How frequently this has occurred in practice
+may be seen from a glance at an historical statement prepared
+for the War Office by Colonel Maurice <i>&agrave; propos</i> of the
+objections to a Channel tunnel. Whether or no hostilities
+had previously occurred upon the mainland, I hold that the
+acts of the Japanese commander in boarding the <i>Kowshing</i>
+and threatening her with violence in case of disobedience
+to his orders were acts of war.</p>
+
+<p>In the second place, the <i>Kowshing</i> had notice of the
+existence of a war, at any rate from the moment when she
+received the orders of the Japanese commander.</p>
+
+<p>The <i>Kowshing</i>, therefore, before the first torpedo was
+fired, was, and knew that she was, a neutral ship engaged
+in the transport service of a belligerent. (Her flying the
+British flag, whether as a <i>ruse de guerre</i> or otherwise, is
+wholly immaterial.) Her liabilities, as such ship, were
+twofold:&mdash;</p>
+
+<p>1. Regarded as an isolated vessel, she was liable to
+be stopped, visited, and taken in for adjudication by a
+Japanese Prize Court. If, as was the fact, it was practically
+impossible for a Japanese prize crew to be placed on board
+of her, the Japanese commander was within his rights, in
+using any amount of force necessary to compel her to obey
+his orders.<span class="newpage"><a name="page043" id="page043">[043]</a></span></p>
+
+<p>2. As one of a fleet of transports and men-of-war engaged
+in carrying reinforcements to the Chinese troops on the
+mainland, the <i>Kowshing</i> was clearly part of a hostile expedition,
+or one which might be treated as hostile, which the
+Japanese were entitled, by the use of all needful force, to
+prevent from reaching its destination.</p>
+
+<p>The force employed seems not to have been in excess of
+what might lawfully be used, either for the arrest of an
+enemy's neutral transport or for barring the progress of a
+hostile expedition. The rescued officers also having been
+set at liberty in due course, I am unable to see that any
+violation of the rights of neutrals has occurred. No apology
+is due to our Government, nor have the owners of the
+<i>Kowshing</i>, or the relatives of any of her European officers
+who may have been lost, any claim for compensation. I
+have said nothing about the violation by the Japanese of
+the usages of civilised warfare (not of the Geneva Convention,
+which has no bearing upon the question), which
+would be involved by their having fired upon the Chinese
+troops in the water; not only because the evidence upon
+this point is as yet insufficient, but also because the grievance,
+if established, would affect only the rights of the Belligerents
+<i>inter se</i>; not the rights of neutrals, with which alone this
+letter is concerned. I have also confined my observations
+to the legal aspects of the question, leaving to others to
+test the conduct of the Japanese commander by the rules
+of chivalrous dealing or of humanity.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">Your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Athen&aelig;um Club, August 6 (1894)</div><br />
+</div>
+
+<div class="postnotes"><p>The controversy caused by the sinking of the <i>Kowshing</i> in 1894
+was revived by the manner of the Japanese attack upon Port Arthur,
+in 1904 (see Professor Takahashi's <i>International Law applied to the
+Russo-Japanese War</i>, 1908, p. 1), and led to a careful study of the subject
+by a committee of the Institut de Droit International, resulting in the
+adoption by the Institut, at its Ghent Meeting in 1906, of the following
+resolutions:&mdash;<span class="newpage"><a name="page044" id="page044">[044]</a></span></p>
+
+<p>(1) &quot;It is in conformity with the requirements of International
+law, to the loyalty which the nations owe to one another in their,
+mutual relations, as well as to the general interests of all States, that
+hostilities ought not to commence without previous and unequivocal
+warning.</p>
+
+<p>(2) &quot;This warning may be given either in the shape of a declaration
+of war pure and simple, or in the shape of an ultimatum duly notified
+to the adversary by the State which wishes to begin the war.</p>
+
+<p>(3) &quot;Hostilities must not commence until after the expiration of
+a delay which would suffice to prevent the rule as to a previous and
+unequivocal warning from being thought to be evaded.&quot; See the
+<i>Annuaire de l'Institut</i>, t, xxi. p. 292.</p>
+
+<p>In accordance with the principles underlying the first and second
+of these resolutions, The Hague Convention, No. iii. of 1907 (ratified
+generally by Great Britain on November 27, 1909), has now laid
+down as a principle of International Law, binding upon the contracting
+Powers, that&mdash;</p>
+
+<p>(1) &quot;Hostilities between them ought not to commence without
+a warning previously given and unequivocal, in the form either of a
+reasoned declaration of war, or of an ultimatum, with a conditional
+declaration of war.&quot;</p>
+
+<p>And the Convention goes on to provide that&mdash;</p>
+
+<p>(2) &quot;The state of war ought to be notified without delay to neutral
+Powers, and shall be of no effect with reference to them, until after a
+notification, which may be made even telegraphically. Nevertheless,
+neutral Powers may not plead absence of notification, if it has been
+shown beyond question that they were in fact cognisant of the state of
+war.&quot; Any reference to the need of an interval between declaration
+and the first act of hostility (such as is contained in the third of the
+resolutions of the Institut) was deliberately omitted from the Convention,
+although a declaration immediately followed by an attack
+would obviously be of little service to the party attacked. (See the
+present writer's <i>Laws of War on Land (written and unwritten)</i>, 1908,
+P. 18.)</p></div>
+
+<hr style='width: 45%;' />
+
+<h3 class="sectionhead"><a name="CHAPTER_V_SECTION_2" />SECTION 2</h3>
+
+<p class="subsectionhead">The Immediate Effects of the Outbreak of War</p>
+
+<p class="subsectionhead">Enemy Residents</p>
+
+<div class="intronotes"><p>Before any actual hostilities have taken place, each belligerent
+acquires, <i>ipso facto</i>, certain new rights over persons and property
+belonging to the other, which happen to be at the time within its power,<span class="newpage"><a name="page045" id="page045">[045]</a></span>
+<i>e.g.</i> the right, much softened in modern practice, and specifically dealt
+with in The Hague Convention, No. vi. of 1907, of capturing enemy
+merchant vessels so situated.</p>
+
+<p>The following letter deals with the permissible treatment of enemy
+persons so situated; and was suggested by a question asked in the
+House of Commons on February 25, 1909, by Mr. Arnold-Forster:
+<i>viz.</i> &quot;What would be the <i>status</i> of officers and men of the regular
+Army of a hostile belligerent Power, found within the limits of the
+United Kingdom after an act or declaration of war; and would such
+persons be liable to be treated as prisoners of war, or would they be
+despatched under the protection of the Government to join the forces
+of the enemy?&quot; The general effect of the Attorney-General's reply
+may be gathered from the quotations from it made in the letter.</p>
+
+<p>The topic was again touched upon on March 3, in a question put
+by Captain Faber, to which Mr. Haldane replied.</p></div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="FOREIGN-SOLDIERS-IN-ENGLAND" />FOREIGN SOLDIERS IN ENGLAND</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;The question raised last night by Mr. Arnold-Forster
+is one which calls for more careful consideration
+than it appears yet to have received. International law
+has in modern times spoken with no very certain voice as
+to the permissible treatment of alien enemies found within
+the territory of a belligerent at the outbreak of war.</p>
+
+<p>There is, however, little doubt that such persons,
+although now more usually allowed to remain, during good
+behaviour, may be expelled, and, if necessary, wholesale, as
+were Germans from France in 1870. But may such persons
+be, for good reasons, arrested, or otherwise prevented from
+leaving the country, as Germans were prevented from
+leaving France in the earlier days of the Franco-Prussian
+War? Grotius speaks with approval of such a step being
+taken, &quot;ad minuendas hostium vires.&quot; Bynkershoek,
+more than a century later, recognises the right of thus
+acting, &quot;though it is rarely exercised.&quot; So the Supreme
+Court of the United States in <i>Brown v. United States</i>
+(1814). So Chancellor Kent (1826), and Mr. Manning
+(1889) is explicit that the arrest in question is lawful, and
+that &quot;the individuals are prisoners of war.&quot;</p>
+
+<p><span class="newpage"><a name="page046" id="page046">[046]</a></span>Vattel, is it true (1758), ventures to lay down that&mdash;</p>
+
+<div class="letterquot"><p>&quot;Le Souverain qui d&eacute;clare la guerre ne peut retenir les sujets de
+ennemi qui se trouvent dans ses &eacute;tats au moment de la d&eacute;claration
+... en leur permettant d'entrer dans ses terres et d'y s&eacute;journer, il leur
+a promis tacitement toute libert&eacute; et toute s&ucirc;ret&eacute; pour le retour.&quot;</p></div>
+
+<p>And he has been followed by some recent writers. There
+is, however, I venture to hold, no ground for asserting that
+this indulgent system is imposed by international law.
+I am glad, therefore, to find the Attorney-General laying
+down that&mdash;</p>
+
+<div class="letterquot"><p>&quot;for strictly military reasons, any nation is entitled to detain and to
+intern soldiers found upon the territory at the outbreak of war.&quot;</p></div>
+
+<p>And I should be surprised if, under all circumstances,
+as the learned Attorney-General seems to think probable&mdash;</p>
+
+<div class="letterquot"><p>&quot;England would follow, whatever the strict law may be, the humane
+and chivalrous practice of modern times, and would give to any subjects
+of a hostile Power who might be found here engaging in civilian pursuits
+a reasonable time within which to leave for their own country, even
+although they were under the obligation of entering for service under
+the enemy's flag.&quot;</p></div>
+
+<p>The doctrine of Vattel has, in fact, become less plausible
+than it was before universal liability to military service had
+become the rule in most Continental countries. The peaceably
+engaged foreign resident is now in all probability a
+trained soldier, and liable to be recalled to the flag of a
+possible enemy.</p>
+
+<p>There may, of course, be considerable practical difficulties
+in the way of ascertaining the nationality of any
+given foreigner, and whether he has completed, or evaded,
+the military training required by the laws of his country.
+It may also be a question of high policy whether resident
+enemies would not be a greater danger to this country if
+they were compelled to remain here, than if they were
+allowed, or compelled, to depart, possibly to return as
+invaders.</p>
+
+<p>I am only concerned to maintain that, as far as inter<span class="newpage"><a name="page047" id="page047">[047]</a></span>national
+law is concerned, England has a free hand either
+to expel resident enemies or to prevent them from leaving the
+country, as may seem most conducive to her own safety.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, February 25 (1909).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+<p>&nbsp;</p>
+
+<p class="subsectionhead">Civil Disabilities of Alien Enemies</p>
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="THE-NAVAL-PRIZE-BILL-CIVIL-DISABILITIES-OF-ENEMY-SUBJECTS" />THE NAVAL PRIZE BILL<br /><br />
+
+CIVIL DISABILITIES OF ENEMY SUBJECTS</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;The Naval Prize Bill has sins enough of its own
+to answer for. The question dealt with under that heading
+in Mr. Arthur Cohen's letter of this morning has, however,
+nothing to do with naval matters, but arises under The
+Hague Convention of 1907 as to warfare on land, which was
+ratified by our Government two years ago; unfortunately
+without any reserve as to the extraordinary provision
+contained in Art. 28 (<i>h</i>) of that Convention.</p>
+
+<p>I lose not a moment in asking to be allowed to state
+that my view of the question is, and always has been, the
+reverse of that attributed to me by my friend Mr. Cohen.
+No less than three views are entertained as to the meaning
+of Art. 28 (<i>h</i>). (1) Continental writers, <i>e.g.</i>, MM. Fauchille,
+Kohler, and Ullmann, with the German Whitebook, assert,
+in the most unqualified manner, that Great Britain and
+the United States have under this clause abandoned their
+long-established doctrine as to the suspension of the private
+rights and remedies of enemy subjects; (2) Our own
+Government, in a non-confidential reply to an inquiry
+from Professor Oppenheim, asserts categorically, as does
+General Davis in the United States, that the clause relates
+only to the action of a commander in a territory of which
+he is in occupation; while (3) most English and American
+writers look upon the meaning of the clause as doubtful.
+If Mr. Cohen will look at p. 44 of my <i>Laws of War on Land</i>,<span class="newpage"><a name="page048" id="page048">[048]</a></span>
+1909, he will find that I carry this sceptical attitude so
+far as to include the clause in question in brackets as
+&quot;apocryphal,&quot; with the comment that &quot;it can hardly,
+till its policy has been seriously discussed, be treated as a
+rule of international law.&quot; I have accordingly maintained,
+in correspondence with my Continental colleagues, that the
+clause should be treated as &quot;non avenue,&quot; as &quot;un non
+sens,&quot; on the ground that, while, torn from their context,
+its words would seem (&quot;ont faux air&quot;) to bear the Continental
+interpretation, its position as part of a &quot;R&egrave;glement,&quot;
+in conformity with which the Powers are to &quot;issue
+instructions to their armed land forces,&quot; conclusively
+negatives this interpretation. I will not to-day trouble
+you in detail with the very curious history of the clause;
+which, as originally proposed by Germany, merely prohibited
+(a commander?) from announcing that the private claims
+(&quot;r&eacute;clamations&quot;) of enemy subjects would be unenforceable.
+It is astonishing that no objection was raised by the
+British or by the American delegates to the subsequent
+transformation of this innocent clause into something very
+different, first by the insertion of the words &quot;en justice,&quot;
+and later by the substitution of &quot;droits et actions&quot; for
+&quot;r&eacute;clamations.&quot; The quiescence of the delegates is the
+more surprising, as, at the first meeting of the sub-committee,
+General de Gundel, in the plainest language, foreshadowed
+what was aimed at by the clause.</p>
+
+<p>Art. 23 (<i>h</i>) is, I submit, incapable of rational interpretation
+and should be so treated by the Powers. If interpreted
+at all, its sense must be taken to be that which is
+now, somewhat tardily, put upon it by our own Government.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, November 6 (1911).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+<div class="postnotes"><p>I may perhaps refer here to my <i>Laws of War on Land</i> (1908), p. 44,
+where I describe as &quot;apocryphal&quot; Art. 23 (<i>h</i>) of the Hague Convention
+No. iv. of 1907; and to my paper upon that article in the <i>Law Quarterly
+Review</i> for 1912, pp. 94-98, reproduced in the <i>Revue de Droit Inter<span class="newpage"><a name="page049" id="page049">[049]</a></span>national</i>,
+the <i>Revue G&eacute;n&eacute;rale de Droit International Public</i>, and the
+<i>Zeitschrift f&uuml;r V&ouml;lkerrecht und Bundesstaatsrecht</i>, for the same year.</p>
+
+<p>The view there maintained was affirmed by the Court of Appeal
+in <i>Porter</i> v. <i>Freudenberg</i>, [1915] 1 K.B. 857, <i>at</i> p. 874.</p></div>
+
+<p>&nbsp;</p>
+<p class="subsectionhead">Enemy Ships in Port</p>
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="ENEMY-SHIPS-IN-PORT" />ENEMY SHIPS IN PORT</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;The action taken by the United States in seizing
+German merchant ships lying in their ports will raise several
+questions of interest. It is, however, important at once
+to realise that, apart from anything which may be contained
+in old treaties with Prussia, their hands are entirely free
+in the matter. The indulgences so often granted: to such
+ships during the last 60 years, notably by themselves in
+the Spanish War of 1898, under endlessly varying conditions,
+have been admittedly acts of grace, required by no established
+rule of international law.</p>
+
+<p>The United States are also unaffected by The Hague
+Convention No. vi, to which they are not a party. It is
+therefore superfluous to inquire what construction they
+would have been bound to put upon the ambiguous language
+of Section 1 of the Convention, which proclaims that &quot;when
+a merchant ship of one of the belligerent Powers is, at the
+commencement of hostilities, in an enemy port, <i>it is desirable</i>
+that it should be allowed to depart freely,&quot; &amp;c. It might
+perhaps be argued that our own Prize Court might well
+have refrained from treating this section as if it were
+obligatory, and have founded its decisions rather upon
+international law, as supplemented by a non-obligatory
+custom. Be this as it may, it would seem that the policy of
+the United States has to some extent felt the influence of
+Convention vi. in announcing that seizure will, provisionally,
+only amount to requisitioning.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, April 7 (1917).</div><br />
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page050" id="page050">[050]</a></span></div>
+
+
+
+<hr style="width: 65%;" />
+<h2><a name="CHAPTER_VI" id="CHAPTER_VI" />CHAPTER VI</h2>
+
+<p class="chaptertitle">THE CONDUCT OF WARFARE</p>
+
+
+<div class="intronotes"><p>The three following sections relate to the waters in which hostile
+operations may take place. Section 1 probably calls for no explanatory
+remark. With reference to Section 2, dealing with certain spaces of
+water more or less closed to belligerent action, it may be desirable to
+state that the letters as to the Suez Canal were written to obviate some
+misconceptions as to the purport of the Convention of October 29, 1888,
+and to maintain that it was not, at the time of writing, operative,
+so far as Great Britain was concerned.</p>
+
+<p>This state of things was, however, altered by the Anglo-French
+Convention of April 8, 1804, which, concerned principally with the
+settlement of the Egyptian and Newfoundland questions, provides,
+in Art. 6, that &quot;In order to assure the free passage of the Suez Canal,
+the Government of His Britannic Majesty declares that it adheres to
+the stipulations of the Treaty concluded on the 29th October 1888; and
+to their becoming operative. The free passage of the canal being thus
+guaranteed, the execution of the last phrase of paragraph 1, and
+that of paragraph 2 of the 8th article of this Treaty, will remain
+suspended.&quot;</p>
+
+<p>The last phrase of paragraph 1 of Art. 8 relates to annual meetings
+of the agents of the signatory Powers.</p>
+
+<p>Paragraph 2 of this Article relates to the presidency of a special
+commissioner of the Ottoman Government over those meetings.</p>
+
+<p>On the whole question see <i>Parl. Papers, Egypt</i>, No. 1 (1888),
+<i>Commercial</i>, No. 2 (1889), and the present writer's
+<i>Studies in International Law</i>, pp. 275-293. Note must, of course,
+now be taken of the constitutional changes resulting from the war of 1914.</p>
+
+<p>The provisions of the Treaty of 1888, with reference to the free
+navigation of the Suez Canal, have, of course, acquired a new
+importance from their adoption into the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty of
+November 18, 1901, as to the Panama Canal, and from the divergent
+views taken of their interpretation, as so adopted.<span class="newpage"><a name="page051" id="page051">[051]</a></span></p></div>
+
+
+<h3 class="sectionhead"><a name="CHAPTER_VI_SECTION_1" />SECTION 1</h3>
+
+<p class="subsectionhead">On the Open Sea</p>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="THE-FREEDOM-OF-THE-SEAS" />&quot;THE FREEDOM OF THE SEAS&quot;?</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;Your remarks upon &quot;the wide and ambiguous
+suggestions&quot; contained in the Pope's Peace Note are
+especially apposite to his desire for &quot;the freedom of the
+seas.&quot; It is regrettable that his Holiness does not explain
+the meaning which he attaches to this phrase, in itself
+unmeaning, so dear to the Germans. He is doubtless well
+aware that the sea is already free enough, except to pirates,
+in time of peace, and must be presumed to refer to time
+of war, and specifically to propose the prohibition of any
+such interference with neutral shipping as is now legalised
+by the rules relating to visit and search, contraband and
+blockade.</p>
+
+<p>If this be indeed the Pope's meaning, his aspirations
+are now less likely than ever to be realised. It is curious
+to reflect that the proposal actually made by our own
+Government at The Hague Conference of 1907, apparently
+under the impression that Great Britain would be always
+neutral, for protecting the carriage of contraband was most
+fortunately defeated by the opposition of the other great
+naval Powers, of which Germany was one.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, August 16 (1917).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+<hr style='width: 45%;' />
+
+<h3 class="sectionhead"><a name="CHAPTER_VI_SECTION_2" />SECTION 2</h3>
+
+<p class="subsectionhead">In Other Waters</p>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="THE-SUEZ-CANAL" />THE SUEZ CANAL</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;Your correspondent &quot;M.B.&quot; has done good service
+by calling attention to the misleading nature of the often-repeated
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page052" id="page052">[052]</a></span>statement that the Suez Canal has been &quot;neutralised&quot;
+by the Convention of 1888. Perhaps you will allow
+me more explicitly to show why, and how far, this
+statement is misleading.</p>
+
+<p>In the first place, this Convention is inoperative. It
+is so in consequence of the following reservation made by
+Lord Salisbury in the course of the negotiations which
+resulted in the signature of the Convention:&mdash;</p>
+
+<div class="letterquot"><p>&quot;Les D&eacute;l&eacute;gu&eacute;s de la Grande-Bretagne ... pensent qu'il est de leur
+devoir de formuler une r&eacute;serve g&eacute;n&eacute;rale quant &agrave; l'application de ces
+dispositions en tant qu'elles ne seraient pas compatibles avec l'&eacute;tat
+transitoire et exceptionnel o&ugrave; se trouve actuellement l'Egypte, et qu'elles
+pourraient entraver la libert&eacute; d'action de leur Gouvernement pendant
+la p&eacute;riode de l'occupation de l'Egypte par les forces de sa Majest&eacute;
+Britannique.&quot;</p></div>
+
+<p>Being thus unaffected by the treaty, the canal retains
+those characteristics which it possesses, under the common
+law of nations, as a narrow strait, wholly within the territory
+of one Power and connecting two open seas. The fact that
+the strait is artificial may, I think, be dismissed from
+consideration, for reasons stated by me in the <i>Fortnightly
+Review</i> for July, 1883. The characteristics of such a strait
+are unfortunately by no means well ascertained, but may
+perhaps be summarised as follows. In time of peace, the
+territorial Power is bound by modern usage to allow &quot;innocent
+passage,&quot; under reasonable conditions as to tolls and
+the like, not only to the merchant vessels, but also, probably,
+to the ships of war, of all nations. In time of war, the
+territorial Power, if belligerent, may of course carry on, and
+is exposed to, hostilities in the strait as elsewhere, and the
+entrances to the strait are liable to a blockade. Should
+the territorial Power be neutral, the strait would be closed
+to hostilities, though it would probably be open to the
+&quot;innocent passage&quot; of belligerent ships of war.</p>
+
+<p>It may be worth while to enquire how far this state of
+things would be affected by the Convention of 1888, were
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page053" id="page053">[053]</a></span>it to come into operation. The <i>status</i> of the canal in time
+of peace would be substantially untouched, save by the
+prohibition to the territorial Power to fortify its banks.
+Even with reference to time of war, several of the articles
+of the Convention merely reaffirm well-understood rules
+applicable to all neutral waters&mdash;<i>e.g.</i> that no hostilities
+may take place therein. The innovations proposed by the
+Convention are mainly contained, as &quot;M.B.&quot; points out,
+in the first article, which deals with the position of the canal
+when the territorial Power is belligerent. In such a case,
+subject to certain exceptions, with a view to the defence of
+the country, the ships of that Power are neither to attack
+nor to be attacked in the canal, or within three miles of its
+ports of access, nor are the entrances of the canal to be
+blockaded. This is &quot;neutralisation&quot; only in a limited and
+vague sense of the term, the employment of which was
+indeed carefully avoided not only in the Convention itself
+but also in the diplomatic discussions which preceded it.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Brighton, October 4 (1898).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="THE-SUEZ-CANAL-B" />THE SUEZ CANAL</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;Your correspondent &quot;M.B.,&quot; if he will allow
+me to say so, supports this morning a good case by a bad
+argument, which ought hardly to pass without remark.</p>
+
+<p>It is impossible to accept his suggestion that the article
+which he quotes from the Treaty of Paris can be taken as
+containing &quot;an international official definition of neutralisation
+as applied to waters.&quot; The article in question, after
+declaring the Black Sea to be &quot;neutralis&eacute;e,&quot; no doubt goes
+on to explain the sense in which this phrase is to be
+understood, by laying down that the waters and ports of that
+sea are perpetually closed to the ships of war of all nations.
+It is, however, well known that such a state of things as is
+described in the latter part of the article is so far from
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page054" id="page054">[054]</a></span>being involved in the definition of &quot;neutralisation&quot; as
+not even to be an ordinary accompaniment of that process.
+Belgium is unquestionably &quot;neutralised,&quot; but no one
+supposes that the appearance in its waters and ports of ships
+of war is therefore prohibited. The fact is that the term
+&quot;neutralis&eacute;e&quot; was employed in the Treaty of Paris as a
+euphemism, intended to make less unpalatable to Russia
+a restriction upon her sovereign rights which she took
+the earliest opportunity of repudiating.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Brighton, October 6 (1898).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="THE-SUEZ-CANAL-C" />THE SUEZ CANAL</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;Will you allow me to reply in the fewest possible
+words to the questions very courteously addressed to me
+by Mr. Gibson Bowles in his letter which appeared in
+<i>The Times</i> of yesterday?</p>
+
+<p>1. It is certainly my opinion, for what it is worth, that
+the full operation of the Convention of 1888 is suspended
+by the reserves first made on behalf of this country during
+the sittings of the Conference of 1885. These reserves
+were texually repeated by Lord Salisbury in his despatch
+of October 21, 1887, enclosing the draft convention which,
+three days later, was signed at Paris by the representatives
+of France and Great Britain, the two Powers which, with
+the assent of the rest, had been carrying on the resumed
+negotiations with reference to the canal. Lord Salisbury's
+language was also carefully brought to the notice of each of
+the other Powers concerned; in the course of the somewhat
+protracted discussions which preceded the final signature
+of the same convention at Constantinople on October 29, 1888.</p>
+
+<p>2. All the signatories of the convention having thus
+become parties to it after express notice of &quot;the conditions
+under which her Majesty's Government have expressed
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page055" id="page055">[055]</a></span>their willingness to agree to it,&quot; must, it can hardly be
+doubted, share the view that the convention is operative
+only <i>sub modo</i>.</p>
+
+<p>3. Supposing the convention to have become operative,
+and supposing the territorial Power to be neutral in a war
+between States which we may call A and B, the convention
+would certainly entitle A to claim unmolested passage for
+its ships of war on their way to attack the forces of B in the
+Eastern seas.</p>
+
+<p>4. The language of the convention, being as it, is the
+expression of a compromise involving much re-drafting, is
+by no means always as clear as it might be. But when
+Mr. Gibson Bowles is again within reach of Blue-books he
+will probably agree with me that the treaty need not, as he
+suggests, be &quot;read as obliging the territorial Power, even
+when itself a belligerent, to allow its enemy to use the
+canal freely for the passage of that enemy's men-of-war.&quot;
+The wide language of Art. 1 (which is substantially in
+accordance with Mr. Gibson Bowles's reminiscence of it)
+must be read in connection with Art. 10, and without forgetting
+that, in discussing the effect of an attack upon the
+canal by one of the parties to the convention, Lord
+Salisbury wrote in 1887, &quot;on the whole it appears to be
+the sounder view that, in such a case, the treaty, being
+broken by one of its signatories, would lose its force in all
+respects.&quot;</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">Your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, October 9 (1898).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="THE-CLOSING-OF-THE-DARDANELLES" />THE CLOSING OF THE DARDANELLES</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;Now that the pressure upon your space due to
+the clash of opposing views of domestic politics is likely to
+be for the moment relaxed, you may, perhaps, not think it
+inopportune that attention should be recalled to a question
+of permanent international interest raised by the recent
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page056" id="page056">[056]</a></span>action of the Turkish Government in closing the Dardanelles
+to even commercial traffic.</p>
+
+<p>I cordially agree, as would, I suppose, most people,
+with your leading article of some weeks since in deprecating
+any crude application to the case of the Dardanelles and
+Bosporus of <i>dicta</i> with reference to freedom of passage
+through straits connecting two open seas. It would,
+indeed, be straining what may be taken to be a general
+principle of international law to say that Turkey is by
+it prohibited from protecting her threatened capital by
+temporarily closing the Straits.</p>
+
+<p>A good deal of vague reference has, however, been made
+in the discussions which have taken place upon the subject
+to &quot;Treaties&quot; under which it seems to be thought that
+trading ships enjoy, in all circumstances, rights of free
+navigation through the Straits in question which they
+would not have possessed otherwise. I should like,
+therefore, with your permission, to state what seem to be
+the relevant Treaty provisions upon the subject, whether
+between the Powers constituting the European Concert
+collectively, or between Russia and Turkey as individual
+Powers.</p>
+
+<p>As to what may be described as the &quot;European&quot; Treaties,
+it is necessary, once for all, to put aside as irrelevant
+Art. 10 of the Treaty of Paris of 1856 and its annexed
+Convention; Art. 2 of the Treaty of London of 1871; and
+the confirmatory Art. 63 of the Treaty of Berlin of 1878.
+These articles have exclusive reference to the &quot;ancient
+rule of the Ottoman Empire,&quot; under which, so long as the
+Porte is at peace, no foreign ships of war are to be admitted
+into the Straits. There are, however, two articles, still
+in force, of these &quot;European&quot; Treaties which may seem to
+bear upon the present inquiry. By Art. 12 of the Treaty
+of Paris:&mdash;</p>
+
+<div class="letterquot"><p>&quot;Free from any impediment, the commerce in the ports and waters of
+the Black Sea shall be subject only to regulations of health, Customs,
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page057" id="page057">[057]</a></span>and police, framed in a spirit favourable to the development of
+commercial transactions.&quot;</p></div>
+
+<p>And by Art. 3 of the Treaty of London:&mdash;</p>
+
+<div class="letterquot"><p>&quot;The Black Sea remains open, as heretofore, to the mercantile
+marine of all nations.&quot;</p></div>
+
+<p>It is submitted that these provisions relate solely to
+commerce carried on by vessels already within the Black Sea,
+and contain no covenant for an unrestricted right of access
+to that sea.</p>
+
+<p>As between Russia and Turkey individually, Treaties
+which are still in force purport, no doubt, to give to the
+former a stronger claim to free passage through the Straits
+for her mercantile marine than that which can be supposed
+to be enjoyed by other Powers. By Art. 7, for instance,
+of the Treaty of Adrianople of 1829, the Porte recognises
+and declares the passage of the &quot;Canal de Constantinople,&quot;
+and of the Strait of the Dardanelles, to be entirely free and
+open to Russian merchant vessels; and goes on to extend
+the same privilege to the merchant vessels of all Powers
+at peace with Turkey. Art. 24 of the Treaty of San
+Stefano is still more explicit, providing that &quot;the Bosporus
+and Dardanelles shall remain open in time of war as in time
+of peace to the merchant vessels of neutral States arriving
+from or bound to Russian ports.&quot; The rest of the article
+contains a promise by the Porte never henceforth to establish
+a &quot;fictitious blockade, at variance with the spirit of the
+Declaration of Paris&quot;; meaning thereby such a blockade
+of ports on the Black Sea as had been enforced by Turkish
+ships of war stationed at the entrance to the Bosporus.</p>
+
+<p>It may well be doubted whether these articles, containing
+concessions extorted from Turkey at the end of wars in
+which she had been defeated, ought not, like so many other
+provisions of the Treaty of San Stefano, to have been
+abrogated by the Treaty of Berlin. They are of such a
+character that, in the struggle for existence, Turkey can
+hardly be blamed for disregarding them. As was said
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page058" id="page058">[058]</a></span>long ago, &quot;Ius commerciorum aequum est, at hoc acquius,
+tuendae salutis.&quot; The imperious necessities of
+self-preservation were recognised both by Lord Morley and
+by Lord Lansdowne in the debate which took place on May 3,
+although Lord Lansdowne intimated that</p>
+
+<div class="letterquot"><p>&quot;the real question, which will have to be considered sooner or later, is
+the extent to which a belligerent Power, controlling narrow waters
+which form a great trade avenue for the commerce of the world, is
+justified in entirely closing such an avenue in order to facilitate the
+hostile operations in which the Power finds itself involved.&quot;</p></div>
+
+<p>It is, I think, clear that the solution of a question at once
+so novel and so delicate must be undertaken, not by any
+one Power, but by the Concert of Europe, or of the civilised
+world, which must devise some guarantee for the safety
+of any littoral Power which would be called upon in the
+general interest to restrict its measures of self-defence. In
+the meantime, we may surely say that the case is provided
+for neither by established international law nor by
+&quot;European&quot; Treaties; and, further, that the Treaties between
+Russia and Turkey, which do provide for it, are not such
+as it is desirable to perpetuate.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, May 22 (1912).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="THE-CLOSING-OF-THE-DARDANELLES-B" />THE CLOSING OF THE DARDANELLES</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;I am reminded by Mr. Lucien Wolf's courteous
+letter that I ought probably to have mentioned, in alluding
+to the Treaty of San Stefano, that it is doubtful whether
+Art. 24 of that Treaty is in force. It was certainly left
+untouched by the Treaty of Berlin, but the language of
+the relevant article (3) of the definitive Treaty of Peace
+of 1879 is somewhat obscure, nor is much light to be gained
+upon the point from the protocol of the 14th <i>s&eacute;ance</i> of the
+Congress of Berlin, at which Art. 24 came up for discussion.</p>
+
+<p>The earlier Treaties, however, which were revived beyond
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page059" id="page059">[059]</a></span>question by Art. 10 of the Treaty of 1879, grant to Russian
+merchant vessels full rights of passage between the Black
+Sea and the &AElig;gean, exercisable, for all that appears, in
+time of war as well as of peace, although these Treaties
+contain no express words to that effect. Such rights, I
+would again urge, if enjoyed by one Power, should be
+enjoyed by all; upon terms to be settled, not by any pair
+of Powers but by the Powers collectively.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, June 5 (1912).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+<hr style='width: 45%;' />
+
+<h3 class="sectionhead"><a name="CHAPTER_VI_SECTION_3" />SECTION 3</h3>
+
+<p class="subsectionhead">In a Special Danger Zone?</p>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="THE-GERMAN-THREAT" />THE GERMAN THREAT</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;It may perhaps be desirable, for the benefit of
+the general reader, to distinguish clearly between the two
+topics dealt with in the recent announcement of German
+naval policy.</p>
+
+<p>1. We find in it what may, at first sight, suggest the
+establishment of a gigantic &quot;paper blockade,&quot; such as
+was proclaimed in the Berlin Decree of 1806, stating that
+&quot;Les &icirc;les Britanniques sont d&eacute;clar&eacute;es en &eacute;tat de blocus.&quot;
+But in the new decree the term &quot;blockade&quot; does not
+occur, nor is there any indication of an intention to comply
+with the prescriptions of the Declaration of Paris of 1856
+as to the mode in which such an operation must be
+conducted. What we really find in the announcement is the
+specification of certain large spaces of water, including
+the whole of the British Channel, within which German
+ships will endeavour to perpetrate the atrocities about
+to be mentioned.</p>
+
+<p>2. These promised, and already perpetrated, atrocities
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page060" id="page060">[060]</a></span>consist in the destruction of merchant shipping without
+any of those decent preliminary steps, for the protection
+of human life and neutral property, which are insisted
+on by long established rules of international law. Under
+these rules, the exercise of violence against a merchant
+vessel is permissible, in the first instance, only in case of
+her attempting by resistance or flight to frustrate the right
+of visit which belongs to every belligerent cruiser. Should
+she obey the cruiser's summons to stop, and allow its officers
+to come on board, they will satisfy themselves, by examination
+of her papers, and, if necessary, by further search,
+of the nationality of ship and cargo, of the destination of
+each, and of the character of the latter. They will then
+decide whether or no they should make prize of the ship,
+and in some cases may feel justified in sending a prize to
+the bottom, instead of taking her into port. Before doing
+so it is their bounden duty to preserve the ship papers, and,
+what is far more important, to provide for the safety of all
+on board.</p>
+
+<p>This procedure seems to have been followed, more or
+less, by the submarines which sank the <i>Durward</i> in the
+North Sea, and several small vessels near the Mersey, but
+is obviously possible to such craft only under very
+exceptional circumstances. It was scandalously not followed
+in the cases of the <i>Tokomaru</i>, the <i>Ikaria</i>, and the
+hospital ship (!) <i>Asturias</i>, against which a submarine fired
+torpedoes, off Havre, without warning or inquiry, and, of course,
+regardless of the fate of those on board. The threat that
+similar methods of attack will be systematically employed,
+on a large scale, on and after the 18th inst., naturally
+excites as much indignation among neutrals as among
+the Allies of the Entente.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, February 12 (1915).</div><br />
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page061" id="page061">[061]</a></span></div>
+
+<hr style='width: 45%;' />
+
+<h3 class="sectionhead"><a name="CHAPTER_VI_SECTION_4" />SECTION 4</h3>
+
+<p class="subsectionhead">Aerial Warfare</p>
+
+<div class="intronotes"><p>It may be desirable to supplement what is said in the following
+letters by mentioning that the Declaration of 1899 (to remain in force
+for five years) was largely ratified, though not by Great Britain; that of
+1907 (to remain in force till the termination of the third Peace
+Conference) was ratified by Great Britain and by most of the other great
+Powers in 1909, not, however, by Germany or Austria; that aerial
+navigation is regulated by the Acts, I &amp; 2 Geo. 5, c. 4, and 2 &amp; 3 Geo. 5,
+c. 22; and that an agreement upon the subject was entered into
+between France and Germany, on July 26, 1913, by exchange of notes,
+&quot;en attendant la conclusion d'une convention sur cette mati&egrave;re entre
+un plus grand nombre d'&eacute;tats&quot; (the international Conference held at
+Paris in 1910 had failed to agree upon the terms of such a Convention);
+and that Art. 25 of The Hague Convention of 1907, No. iv., was ratified
+by Great Britain, and generally.</p></div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="THE-DEBATE-ON-AERONAUTICS" />THE DEBATE ON AERONAUTICS</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;It is not to be wondered at that the Chairman
+of Committees declined to allow yesterday's debate on
+aviation to diverge into an enquiry whether the Powers
+could be induced to prohibit, or limit, the dropping of
+high explosives from aerial machines in war time. The
+question is, however, one of great interest, and it may be
+desirable, with a view to future discussions, to state precisely,
+since little seems to be generally known upon the subject,
+what has already been attempted in this direction.</p>
+
+<p>In the <i>R&egrave;glement</i> annexed to The Hague Convention
+of 1899, as to the &quot;Laws and Customs of War on Land,&quot;
+Art. 23, which specifically prohibits certain &quot;means of
+injuring the enemy,&quot; makes no mention of aerial methods;
+but Art. 25, which prohibits &quot;the bombardment of towns,
+villages, habitations, or buildings, which are not defended,&quot;
+was strengthened, when the <i>R&egrave;glement</i> was reissued in
+1907 as an annexe to the, as yet not generally ratified,
+Hague Convention No. iv. of that year, by the insertion,
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page062" id="page062">[062]</a></span>after the word &quot;bombardment,&quot; of the words &quot;by any
+means whatever,&quot; with the expressed intention of including
+in the prohibition the throwing of projectiles from balloons.</p>
+
+<p>The Hague Convention No. ix. of 1907, also not yet
+generally ratified, purports to close a long controversy, in
+accordance with the view which you allowed me to advocate,
+with reference to the naval manoeuvres of 1888, by
+prohibiting the &quot;naval bombardment of ports, towns, villages,
+habitations, or buildings, which are not defended.&quot; The
+words &quot;by any means whatever&quot; have not been here inserted,
+one would incline to think by inadvertence, having
+regard to what passed in Committee, and to the recital
+of the Convention, which sets out the propriety of extending
+to naval bombardments the principles of the <i>R&egrave;glement</i>
+(cited, perhaps again by inadvertence, as that of 1899) as
+to the Laws and Customs of War on Land.</p>
+
+<p>But the topic was first squarely dealt with by the first
+of the three Hague Declarations of 1899, by which the
+Powers agreed to prohibit, for five years, &quot;the throwing
+of projectiles and explosives from balloons, or by other
+analogous new methods.&quot; The Declaration was signed
+and ratified by almost all the Powers concerned; not,
+however, by Great Britain.</p>
+
+<p>At The Hague Conference of 1907, when the Belgian
+delegates proposed that this Declaration, which had expired
+by efflux of time, should be renewed, some curious changes
+of opinion were found to have occurred. Twenty-nine
+Powers, of which Great Britain was one, voted for renewal,
+but eight Powers, including Germany, Spain, France, and
+Russia, were opposed to it, while seven Powers, one of
+which was Japan, abstained from voting. The Japanese
+delegation had previously intimated that, &quot;in view of the
+absence of unanimity on the part of the great military
+Powers, there seemed to be no great use in binding their
+country as against certain Powers, while, as against the
+rest, it would still be necessary to study and bring to perfection
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page063" id="page063">[063]</a></span>this mode of making war.&quot; Although the Declaration,
+as renewed, was allowed to figure in the &quot;Acte final&quot;
+of the Conference of 1907, the dissent from it of several
+Powers of the first importance must render its ratification
+by the others highly improbable; nor would it seem worth
+while to renew, for some time to come, a proposal which,
+only two years ago, was so ill received.</p>
+
+<p>I may perhaps add, with reference to what was said
+by one of yesterday's speakers, that any provision on the
+topic under discussion would be quite out of place in the
+Geneva Convention, which deals, not with permissible
+means of inflicting injury, but exclusively with the
+treatment of those who are suffering from injuries inflicted.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, August 3 (1909).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="THE-AERIAL-NAVIGATION-ACT" />THE AERIAL NAVIGATION ACT<br /><br />
+PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;The haste with which Colonel Seely's Bill, authorising
+resort to extreme measures for the prevention of
+aerial trespass under suspicious circumstances, has been
+passed through all its stages, was amply justified by the
+urgent need for such legislation, which Russia seems to
+have been the first to recognise. The task of those
+responsible for framing regulations for the working of the
+new Act will be no easy one. They will be brought face to
+face with practical difficulties, such as led to the
+adjournment of the Paris Conference of 1910.</p>
+
+<p>In the meantime, it may interest your readers to have
+some clue to what has taken place, with reference to the
+more theoretical aspects of the questions involved, in so
+competent and representative a body as the Institut de
+Droit International. The Institut has had the topic
+under consideration ever since 1900, more especially at
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page064" id="page064">[064]</a></span>its sessions for the years 1902, 1906, 1910, and 1911. In
+the volumes of its &quot;Annuaire&quot; for those years will be found
+not only the text of the resolutions adopted on each occasion,
+together with a summary account of the debates which
+preceded their adoption, but also, fully set out, the material
+which had been previously circulated for the information
+of members, in the shape of reports and counter-reports
+from inter-sessional committees, draft resolutions, and
+such critical observations upon these documents as had
+been received by the secretary. The special committee upon
+the subject, of which M. Fauchille is <i>Rapporteur</i>, is still
+sitting, and the topic will doubtless be further debated at
+the session of the Institut, which will this year be held at
+Oxford. No success has attended efforts to pass resolutions
+in favour of any interference with the employment of
+<i>a&eacute;ronefs</i> in time of war, such as was proposed by The
+(now discredited) Hague Declaration, prohibiting the throwing
+of projectiles and explosives from airships. With reference
+to the use of these machines in time of peace, the debates
+have all along revealed a fundamental divergence of opinion
+between the majority of the Institut and a minority,
+comprising those English members who have made known their
+views. Both parties are agreed that aerial navigation
+must submit to some restrictions, but the majority,
+starting from the Roman law dictum, &quot;Naturali iure omnium
+communia sunt <i>aer</i>, aqua profluens, et mare,&quot; would
+always presume in favour of freedom of passage. The minority,
+on the other hand, citing sometimes the old English saying,
+&quot;Cuius est solum eius est usque ad coelum,&quot; hold that
+the presumption must be in favour of sovereignty and
+ownership as applicable to superimposed air space.</p>
+
+<p>It is hardly necessary to observe that neither of the
+maxims just mentioned was formulated with reference
+to problems which have only presented themselves within
+the last few years. The Romans, in the passage quoted,
+were thinking not of aerial space, but of the element which
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page065" id="page065">[065]</a></span>fills it. The old English lawyers were preoccupied with
+questions as to projecting roofs and overhanging boughs
+of trees. The problems now raised are admittedly incapable
+of solution <i>a priori</i>, but the difference between the
+two schools of thinkers is instructive, as bearing upon the
+extent to which those who belong to one or the other school
+would incline towards measures of precaution against
+abuses of the novel art. This difference was well summed
+up at one of our meetings by Professor Westlake as follows:
+&quot;Conservation et passage, comment combiner ces deux
+droits? Lequel des deux est la r&egrave;gle? Lequel l'exception?
+Pour le Rapporteur (M. Fauchille) c'est le droit de passage
+qui prime. Pour moi c'est le droit de conservation.&quot;</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, February 15 (1913).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="SOVEREIGNTY-OVER-THE-AIR" />SOVEREIGNTY OVER THE AIR</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;Mr. Arthur Cohen has done good service by
+explaining that Great Britain has practically asserted the
+right of a State to absolute control of the airspace
+vertically above its territory. I may, however, perhaps be
+permitted to remark that he seems to have been misinformed
+when he states that the Institute of International
+Law has arrived at no decision upon the subject. The
+facts are as follows: The problems presented by the new
+art of aerostation have been under the consideration of the
+Institute since 1900, producing a large literature of reports,
+counter-reports, observations, and draft rules, to debates
+upon which no fewer than four sittings were devoted at
+the Madrid meeting in 1911. Wide differences of opinion
+then disclosed themselves as to territorial rights over the
+air, the radical opposition being between those members
+who, with M. Fauchille, the Reporter of the Committee,
+would presume in favour of freedom of aerial navigation,
+subject, as they would admit, to some measures of
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page066" id="page066">[066]</a></span>territorial precaution, and those who, like the present
+writer (&quot;il se proclame oppos&eacute; au principe de la libert&eacute; de
+la navigation a&eacute;rienne, et <ins class="correction"
+  title="Transcriber's note: Printed _s'entiendrait_ in original.">
+s'en tiendrait</ins> plut&ocirc;t au principe
+<i>cuius est solum, huius est usque ad coelum</i>, en y apportant
+au besoin quelques restrictions,&quot; &quot;Annuaire,&quot; p. 821),
+would subject all aerial access to the discretion of the
+territorial Power.</p>
+
+<p>The discussion took place upon certain <i>bases</i>, and No. 3
+of these was ultimately adopted, though only by 21 against
+10 votes, to the following effect: &quot;La circulation a&eacute;rienne
+internationale est libre, sauf le droit pour les &eacute;tats
+sous-jacents de prendre certaines mesures &agrave; d&eacute;terminer, en vue
+de leur s&eacute;curit&eacute; et de celle des personnes et des biens de
+leur territoire.&quot;</p>
+
+<p>The Institut then proceeded to deal with <i>bases</i> relating
+to a time of war, but was unable to make much progress
+with them in the time available. The debate upon the
+&quot;R&eacute;gime juridique des a&eacute;rostats&quot; was not resumed at
+Christiania in 1911, nor is it likely to be at Oxford &quot;in the
+autumn of the present year,&quot; as Mr. Cohen has been led to
+suppose. Other arrangements were found to be necessary,
+at a meeting which took place a week ago between myself
+and the other members of our <i>bureau</i>.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, May 30 (1913).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="ATTACK-FROM-THE-AIR-THE-ENFORCEMENT-OF-INTERNATIONAL-LAW" />ATTACK FROM THE AIR<br /><br />
+THE ENFORCEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL LAW</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;In his interesting and important address at the
+Royal United Service Institution, Colonel Jackson inquired:
+&quot;Can any student of international law tell us definitely
+that such a thing as aerial attack on London is outside
+the rules; and, further, that there exists an authority by
+which the rules can be enforced?&quot; As one of the students
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page067" id="page067">[067]</a></span>to whom the Colonel appeals I should be glad to be allowed
+to reply to the first of his questions.</p>
+
+<p>The &quot;Geneva Convention&quot; mentioned in the address
+has, of course, no bearing upon aerial dangers. The answer
+to the question is contained in the, now generally ratified,
+Hague Convention No. iv. of 1907. Art. 25 of the regulations
+annexed to this Convention runs as follows:</p>
+
+<div class="letterquot"><p>&quot;It is forbidden to attack or to bombard <i>by any means whatever
+(par quelque moyen que ce soit)</i> towns, villages, habitations, or
+buildings which are not defended.&quot;</p></div>
+
+<p>It clearly appears from the &quot;Actes de la Conf&eacute;rence,&quot; <i>e.g.</i>
+<i>T.</i> i., pp. 106, 109, that the words which I have italicised
+were inserted in the article, deliberately and after
+considerable discussion, in order to render illegal any attack
+from the air upon undefended localities; among which I
+conceive that London would unquestionably be included.</p>
+
+<p>I cannot venture to ask the hospitality of your columns
+for an adequate discussion of the gallant officer's second
+question, as to the binding force attributable to
+international law. Upon this I may, however, perhaps venture
+to refer him to some brief remarks, addressed to you a
+good many years ago, and now to be found at pp. 101 and
+105 of the new edition of my &quot;Letters to <i>The Times</i> upon
+War and Neutrality (1881-1918).&quot;</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, April 24 (1914).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="ATTACK-FROM-THE-AIR-THE-RULES-OF-INTERNATIONAL-LAW" />ATTACK FROM THE AIR<br /><br />
+
+THE RULES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;In reply to Colonel Jackson's inquiry as to any
+rule of international law bearing upon aerial attack upon
+London, I referred him to the, now generally accepted,
+prohibition of the &quot;bombardment, <i>by any means whatever</i>,
+of towns, &amp;c., which are not defended.&quot; This rule has
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page068" id="page068">[068]</a></span>been growing into its present form ever since the Brussels
+Conference of 1874. The words italicised were added to
+it in 1907, to show that it applies to the action of <i>a&eacute;ronefs</i>
+as well as to that of land batteries. It clearly prohibits
+any wanton bombardment, undertaken with no distinctly
+military object in view, and the prohibition is much more
+sweeping, for reasons not far to seek, than that imposed
+by Convention No. ix. of 1907 upon the treatment of coast
+towns by hostile fleets.</p>
+
+<p>So far good; but further questions arise, as to which
+no diplomatically authoritative answers are as yet available;
+and I, for one, am not wise above that which is
+written. One asks, for instance, what places are <i>prima
+facie</i> &quot;undefended.&quot; Can a &quot;great centre of population&quot;
+claim this character, although it contains barracks, stores,
+and bodies of troops? For the affirmative I can vouch
+only the authority of the Institut de Droit International,
+which in 1896, in the course of the discussion of a draft
+prepared by General Den Beer Pourtugael and myself,
+adopted a statement to that effect. A different view
+seems to be taken in the German <i>Kriegsbrauch</i>, p. 22. One
+also asks: Under what circumstances does a place, <i>prima
+facie</i>, &quot;undefended,&quot; cease to possess that character?
+Doubtless so soon as access to it is forcibly denied to the
+land forces of the enemy; hardly, to borrow an illustration
+from Colonel Jackson's letter of Thursday last, should the
+place merely decline to submit to the dictation of two men
+in an aeroplane.</p>
+
+<p>I read with great pleasure the colonel's warning,
+addressed to the United Service Institution, and am as
+little desirous as he is that London should rely for protection
+upon The Hague article, ambiguous as I have
+confessed it to be; trusting, indeed, that our capital may
+be enabled so to act at once in case of danger as wholly to
+forfeit such claim as it may in ordinary times possess to
+be considered an &quot;undefended&quot; town. Let the principle
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page069" id="page069">[069]</a></span>involved in Art. 25 be carried into much further detail,
+should that be found feasible, but, in the meantime, let us
+not for a moment relax our preparation of vertical firing
+guns and defensive aeroplanes.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, May 2 (1914).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+<div class="postnotes"><p>The war of 1914 has definitely established the employment of
+aircraft for hostile purposes, and, as evidenced by the reception given
+by belligerents to neutral protests, the sovereignty of a state over its
+superincumbent air-spaces.</p>
+
+<p>On the bombardment of undefended places, <i>cf. supra</i>, pp. <a href="#page030">30</a>, <a href="#page062">62</a>,
+<a href="#page067">67</a>, <a href="#page068">68</a>; <i>infra</i>, pp. <a href="#page097">97</a>, <a href="#page109">109</a>, <a href="#page112">112</a>-123.</p>
+
+<p>On the authority of International Law, <i>supra</i>, pp. <a href="#page025">25</a>, <a href="#page066">66</a>, <a href="#page067">67</a>; <i>infra</i>,
+pp. <a href="#page077">77</a>, <a href="#page114">114</a>, <a href="#page115">115</a>, <a href="#page137">137</a>, <a href="#page169">169</a>.</p></div>
+
+<hr style='width: 45%;' />
+
+<h3 class="sectionhead"><a name="CHAPTER_VI_SECTION_5" />SECTION 5</h3>
+
+<p class="subsectionhead">Submarines</p>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="GERMANY-AND-THE-HAGUE" />GERMANY AND THE HAGUE</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;One excuse for German atrocities put forward,
+as you report, in the <i>Kolnische Zeitung</i>, ought probably
+not to pass unnoticed, denying, as it does, any binding
+authority to the restrictions imposed upon the conduct of
+warfare, on land or at sea, by The Hague Conventions of
+1907. It is true that each of these Conventions contains
+an article to the effect that its provisions &quot;are applicable
+only between the contracting Powers, and only if all the
+belligerents are parties to the Convention.&quot; It is also true
+that three of the belligerents in the world-war now raging&mdash;namely,
+Serbia, Montenegro, and, recently, Turkey&mdash;although
+they have (through their delegates) signed these
+Conventions, have not yet ratified them. Therefore, urges
+the <i>Zeitung</i>, the Conventions are, for present purposes,
+waste paper. The argument is as technically correct as
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page070" id="page070">[070]</a></span>its application would be unreasonable; and I should like
+to recall the fact that, in the important prize case of the
+<i>M&ouml;we</i>, Sir Samuel Evans, in a considered judgment, pointed
+out the undesirability of refusing application to the maritime
+conventions because they had not been ratified by
+Montenegro, which has no navy, or by Serbia, which has
+no seaboard; and accordingly, even after Turkey, which
+also has not ratified, had become a belligerent, declined to
+deprive a German shipowner of an indulgence to which he
+was entitled under the Sixth Hague Convention.</p>
+
+<p>Admiral von Tirpitz was perhaps not serious when he
+intimated to the representative of the United Press of
+America that German submarines might be instructed to
+torpedo all trading vessels of the Allies which approach
+the British coasts. The first duty of a ship of war which
+proposes to sink an enemy vessel is admittedly, before so
+doing, to provide for the safety of all its occupants, which
+(except in certain rare eventualities) can only be secured
+by their being taken on board of the warship. A submarine
+has obviously no space to spare for such an addition to
+its own staff.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, December 26 (1914).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+<div class="postnotes"><p>The charitable view taken in the last paragraph has, of course, not
+been justified.</p>
+
+<p>For the <i>M&ouml;we</i>, see 2 Lloyd, 70. On the restrictive article in The
+Hague Convention, <i>cf. passim</i>.</p></div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="THE-PIRATES" />&quot;THE PIRATES&quot;</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;Would it not be desirable, in discussing the
+execrable tactics of the German submarines, to abandon
+the employment of the terms &quot;piracy&quot; and &quot;murder,&quot;
+unless with a distinct understanding that they are used
+merely as terms of abuse?</p>
+
+<p>A ship is regarded by international law as &quot;piratical&quot;<span class="newpage"><a name="page071" id="page071">[071]</a></span>
+only if, upon the high seas, she either attacks other vessels,
+without being commissioned by any State so to do (<i>nullius
+Principis auctoritate</i>, as Bynkershoek puts it), or wrongfully
+displaces the authority of her own commander. The
+essence of the offence is absence of authority, although
+certain countries, for their own purposes, have, by treaty
+or legislation, given a wider meaning to the term, <i>e.g.</i>, by
+applying it to the slave-trade. &quot;Murder&quot; is such slaying
+as is forbidden by the national law of the country which
+takes cognizance of it.</p>
+
+<p>In ordering the conduct of which we complain, Germany
+commits an atrocious crime against humanity and public
+law; but those who, being duly commissioned, carry out
+her orders, are neither pirates nor murderers. The question
+of the treatment appropriate to such persons, when they
+fall into our hands, is a new one, needing careful consideration.
+In any case, it is not for us to rival the barbarism
+of their Government by allowing them to drown.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, March 13 (1915)</div><br />
+</div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="SUBMARINE-CREWS" />SUBMARINE CREWS</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;My letter in <i>The Times</i> of March 15 with reference
+to the conduct of certain of the German submarines has
+been followed by a good many other letters upon the same
+subject. Some of your correspondents have travelled far
+from the question at issue into the general question of
+permissible reprisals, into which I have no intention of
+following them. But others, by exhibiting what I may
+venture to describe as an <i>ignoratio elenchi</i>, have made it
+desirable to recall attention to the specific purport of my
+former letter. It was to the effect&mdash;(1) that the acts of
+those who, in pursuance of a Government commission, sink
+merchant vessels without warning are not &quot;piracy,&quot; the
+essence of that offence at international law being that it
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page072" id="page072">[072]</a></span>is committed under no recognised authority; and that
+neither is it &quot;murder&quot; under English law; (2) that the
+question of the treatment appropriate to the perpetrators
+of such acts, even under the orders of their Government,
+is a new one, needing careful consideration. I was, of
+course, far from stating, as a general rule, that Government
+authority exempts all who act under it from penal consequences.
+The long-established treatment of spies is
+sufficient proof to the contrary.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, March 22 (1915).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="MR-WILSONS-NOTE" />MR. WILSON'S NOTE</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;I may perhaps be permitted to endorse every
+word of the high praise bestowed in your leading article
+of this morning upon the Note addressed to Germany by
+the Government of the United States. The frequent
+mentions which it contains of &quot;American ships,&quot; &quot;American
+citizens,&quot; and the like, were, no doubt, natural and
+necessary, as establishing the <i>locus standi</i> of that Government
+in the controversy which it is carrying on. But we
+find also in the Note matters of even more transcendent
+interest, relating to the hitherto universally accepted
+doctrines of international law, applicable to the treatment
+of enemy as well as of neutral vessels.</p>
+
+<p>It may suffice to cite the paragraph which assumes as
+indisputable</p>
+
+<div class="letterquot"><p>&quot;the rule that the lives of non-combatants, whether they be of neutral
+citizenship or citizens of one of the nations at war, cannot lawfully or
+rightfully be put in jeopardy by the capture or destruction of unarmed
+merchantmen,&quot;</p></div>
+
+<p>as also</p>
+
+<div class="letterquot"><p>&quot;the obligation to take the usual precaution of visit and search to
+ascertain whether a suspected merchantman is in fact of belligerent
+nationality, or is in fact carrying contraband under a neutral flag.&quot;<span class="newpage"><a name="page073" id="page073">[073]</a></span></p></div>
+
+<p>[I assume that the word &quot;unarmed&quot; here does not
+exclude the case of a vessel carrying arms solely for
+defence.]</p>
+
+<p>The Note also recognises, what you some time ago
+allowed me to point out,</p>
+
+<div class="letterquot"><p>&quot;the practical impossibility of employing submarines in the destruction
+of commerce without disregarding those rules of fairness, reason, justice,
+and humanity which modern opinion regards as imperative.&quot;</p></div>
+
+<p>Adding:&mdash;</p>
+
+<div class="letterquot"><p>&quot;It is practically impossible for them to make a prize of her, and
+if they cannot put a prize crew on board, they cannot sink her without
+leaving her crew and all on board her to the mercy of the sea in her
+small boats.&quot;</p></div>
+
+<p>Nothing could be more satisfactory than the views
+thus authoritatively put forth, first as to the applicable
+law, and secondly as to the means by which its prescriptions
+can be carried out.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Brighton, May 15 (1915).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+<div class="postnotes"><p><i>Cf. supra</i>, p. <a href="#page070">70</a>.</p></div>
+
+<hr style='width: 45%;' />
+
+<h3 class="sectionhead"><a name="CHAPTER_VI_SECTION_6" />SECTION 6</h3>
+
+<p class="subsectionhead">Lawful Belligerents</p>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="GUERILLA-WARFARE" />GUERILLA WARFARE</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;When Mr. Balfour last night quoted certain
+articles of the &quot;Instructions for the Government of Armies
+of the United States in the Field&quot; with reference to guerilla
+warfare, some observations were made, and questions
+put, upon which you will perhaps allow me to say a
+word or two.</p>
+
+<p>1. Mr. Healy seemed to think that something turned
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page074" id="page074">[074]</a></span>upon the date (May, 1898) at which these articles were
+promulgated. In point of fact they were a mere reissue of
+articles drawn by the well-known jurist Francis Lieber,
+and, after revision by a military board, issued in April,
+1868 by President Lincoln.</p>
+
+<p>2. To Mr. Morley's enquiry, &quot;Have we no rules of our
+own?&quot; the answer must be in the negative. The traditional
+policy of our War Office has been to &quot;trust to the
+good sense of the British officer.&quot; This policy, though
+surprisingly justified by results, is so opposed to modern
+practice and opinion that, as far back as 1878-80, I
+endeavoured, without success, to induce the Office to issue
+to the Army some authoritative, though simple, body of
+instructions such as have been issued on the Continent of
+Europe and in America. The War Office was, however,
+content to include in its &quot;Manual of Military Law,&quot; published
+in 1888, a chapter which is avowedly unauthoritative,
+and expressly stated to contain only &quot;the opinions of the
+compiler, as drawn from the authorities cited.&quot;</p>
+
+<p>3. The answer to Sir William Harcourt's unanswered
+question, &quot;Were there no rules settled at the Hague?&quot;
+must be as follows. The Hague Convention of 1899, upon
+&quot;the laws and customs of warfare,&quot; ratified by this country
+on September 4 last, binds the contracting parties to give
+to their respective armies instructions in conformity with
+the <i>R&egrave;glement</i> annexed to the Convention. This <i>R&egrave;glement</i>,
+which is substantially a reproduction of the unratified
+<i>projet</i> of the Brussels Conference of 1874, does deal, in
+Arts. 1-3, with guerilla warfare. It is no doubt highly
+desirable that, as soon as may be, the drafting of rules in
+accordance with the <i>R&egrave;glement</i> should be seriously taken in
+hand, our Government having now abandoned its <i>non
+possumus</i> attitude in the matter. It will, however, be found
+to be the case, as was pointed out by Mr. Balfour, that the
+sharp distinction between combatants and non-combatants
+contemplated by the ordinary laws of war is inapplicable<span class="newpage"><a name="page075" id="page075">[075]</a></span>
+(without the exercise of undue severity) to operations such
+as those now being carried out in South Africa.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, December 7 (1900).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+<div class="postnotes"><p>&quot;Lieber's Instructions,&quot; issued in 1863 and reissued in 1898, will
+doubtless be superseded, or modified, in consequence of the United
+States having, on April 9, 1902, ratified the Convention of 1899, and
+on March 10, 1908, that of 1907, as to the Laws and Customs of War
+on Land.</p>
+
+<p>The answer to Mr. Morley's enquiry in 1900 would not now be in the
+negative. The present writer's representations resulted in Mr. Brodrick,
+when Secretary for War, commissioning him to prepare a Handbook of
+the <i>Laws and Customs of War on Land</i>, which was issued to the Army
+by authority in 1904. On the instructions issued by other National
+Governments, see the author's <i>Laws of War on Land</i>, 1908, pp. 71-73.</p>
+
+<p>The answer, given in the letter, to Sir William Harcourt's question
+must now be supplemented by a reference to the Handbook above
+mentioned as having contained rules founded upon the <i>R&egrave;glement</i>
+annexed to the Convention of 1899, and by a statement that that
+Convention, with its <i>R&egrave;glement</i>, is now superseded by Conventions
+No. iv. (with its <i>R&egrave;glement</i>) and No. v. of 1907, of which account has
+been taken in a new Handbook upon <i>Land Warfare</i>, issued by the War
+Office in 1913.</p>
+
+<p>As to what is required from a lawful belligerent, see Arts. 1 and 2
+of the <i>R&egrave;glement</i> of 1899, practically repeated in that of 1907. The
+substance of Art. 1 is set out in the letter which follows.</p>
+
+<p>Art. 2 grants some indulgence to &quot;the population of a territory
+which has not been occupied who, on the approach of the enemy,
+spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading troops, without
+having had time to organise themselves in accordance with Art. 1.&quot;
+<i>Cf. infra</i>, pp. <a href="#page076">76</a>, <a href="#page079">79</a>.</p></div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="THE-RUSSIAN-USE-OF-CHINESE-CLOTHING" />THE RUSSIAN USE OF CHINESE CLOTHING</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;If Russian troops have actually attacked while
+disguised in Chinese costume, they have certainly violated
+the laws of war. It may, however, be worth while, to point
+out that the case is not covered, as might be inferred from
+the telegram forwarded to you from Tokio on Wednesday
+last, by the text of Art. 23 (<i>f</i>) of the <i>R&egrave;glement</i> annexed to<span class="newpage"><a name="page076" id="page076">[076]</a></span>
+The Hague Convention &quot;on the laws and customs of war
+on land.&quot; This article merely prohibits &quot;making improper
+use of the flag of truce, of the national flag or the military
+distinguishing marks and the uniform of the enemy, as well
+as of the distinguishing signs of the Geneva Convention.&quot;</p>
+
+<p>Art. 1 of the <i>R&egrave;glement</i> is more nearly in point, insisting,
+as it does, that even bodies not belonging to the regular
+army, which, it is assumed, would be in uniform (except
+in the case of a hasty rising to resist invasion), shall, in order
+to be treated as &quot;lawful belligerents,&quot; satisfy the following
+requirements, <i>viz.</i>:&mdash;</p>
+
+<div class="letterquot"><p>&quot;(1) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his
+subordinates;</p>
+
+<p>&quot;(2) That of having a distinctive mark, recognisable at a distance;</p>
+
+<p>&quot;(3) That of carrying their arms openly; and</p>
+
+<p>&quot;(4) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the
+laws and customs of war.&quot;</p></div>
+
+<p>The fact that, in special circumstances, as in the Boer
+war, marks in the nature of uniform have not been insisted
+upon, has, of course, no bearing upon the complaint now
+made by the Japanese Government.</p>
+
+<p>All signatories of The Hague Convention are bound
+to issue to their troops instructions in conformity with
+the <i>R&egrave;glement</i> annexed to it. The only countries which,
+so far as I am aware, have as yet fulfilled their obligations
+in this respect are Italy, which has circulated the French
+text of the <i>R&egrave;glement</i> without comment; Russia, which has
+prepared a little pamphlet of sixteen pages for the use of its
+armies in the Far East; and Great Britain, which has issued
+a Handbook, containing explanatory and supplementary
+matter, besides the text of the relevant diplomatic Acts.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, October 21 (1904).</div><br />
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page077" id="page077">[077]</a></span></div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="THE-RIGHTS-OF-ARMED-CIVILIANS" />THE RIGHTS OF ARMED CIVILIANS</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;It is interesting to be reminded by Sir Edward
+Ridley of the view taken by Sir Walter Scott of the right
+and duty of civilians to defend themselves against an
+invading enemy. International law is, however, made
+neither by the ruling of an &quot;impartial historian,&quot; on the
+one hand, nor by the <i>ipse dixit</i> of an Emperor, on the other.</p>
+
+<p>In point of fact, the question raised by Sir Edward is
+not an open one, and, even in our own favoured country,
+it is most desirable that every one should know exactly
+how matters stand. The universally accepted rules as to
+the persons who alone can claim to act with impunity as
+belligerents are set forth in that well-known &quot;scrap of
+paper&quot; The Hague Convention No. iv. of 1907; to the
+effect that members of &quot;an army&quot; (in which term militia
+and bodies of volunteers are included) must (1) be responsibly
+commanded, (2) bear distinctive marks, visible at a distance,
+(3) carry their arms openly, and (4) conform to the laws of
+war. By way of concession, inhabitants of a district not
+yet &quot;occupied&quot; who spontaneously rise to resist invasion,
+without having had time to become organised, will be
+privileged if they conform to requirements (3) and (4).
+These rules are practically a republication of those of The
+Hague Convention of 1899, which again were founded upon
+the recommendations of the Brussels Conference of 1874,
+although, at the Conference, Baron Lambermont regretted
+that &quot;si les citoyens doivent &ecirc;tre conduits au supplice pour
+avoir tent&eacute; de d&eacute;fendre leur pays, au p&eacute;ril de leur vie, ils
+trouvent inscrit, sur le poteau au pied duquel ils seront
+fusill&eacute;s, l'article d'un Trait&eacute; sign&eacute; par leur propre gouvernement
+qui d'avance les condamnait &agrave; mort.&quot;</p>
+
+<p><i>An Englishman's Home</i> was a play accurately representing
+the accepted practice, shocking as it must be. I
+remember the strength of an epithet which was launched
+from the gallery at the German officer on his ordering the
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page078" id="page078">[078]</a></span>shooting of the offending householder. It may be hardly
+necessary to add that nothing in international usage justifies
+execution of innocent wives and children.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, September 17 (1914).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+<div class="postnotes"><p>This letter was, it seems, perverted in the <i>Kreuz Zeitung</i>.</p></div>
+
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="CIVILIANS-IN-WARFARE-THE-RIGHT-TO-TAKE-UP-ARMS" />CIVILIANS IN WARFARE<br /><br />
+
+THE RIGHT TO TAKE UP ARMS</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;I have read with some surprise so much of Sir
+Ronald Ross's letter of to-day as states that &quot;the issue
+still remains dark&quot; as to the right of civilians to bear arms
+in case of invasion. It has long been settled that non-molestation
+of civilians by an invader is only possible upon
+the understanding that they abstain from acts of violence
+against him. Modern written international law has defined,
+with increasing liberality, by the draft Declaration of 1874
+and the Conventions of 1899 and 1907, the persons who
+will be treated as lawful belligerents. Art. 1 of The Hague
+Regulations of 1907 recognises as such, not only the regular
+army, but also militia and volunteers. Art. 2 grants
+indulgence to a <i>lev&eacute;e en masse</i> of &quot;la population&quot; (officially
+mistranslated &quot;the inhabitants&quot;) of a territory not yet
+occupied. Art. 3, also cited by Sir Ronald, has no bearing
+upon the question.</p>
+
+<p>The rules are, I submit, as clear as they could well be
+made, and are decisive against the legality of resistance by
+individual civilians, the sad, but inevitable consequence of
+which was, as I pointed out in <i>The Times</i> of September 19
+last, truthfully represented on the stage in <i>An Englishman's
+Home</i>.</p>
+
+<p>In the same letter I wrote that &quot;even in our own favoured
+country it is most desirable that every one should know
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page079" id="page079">[079]</a></span>exactly how matters stand.&quot; There are, however, obvious
+objections, possibly not insuperable, to this result being
+brought about, as is proposed by Sir Ronald Ross, by
+Government action.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, October 26 (1914).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="CIVILIANS-AND-A-RAID" />CIVILIANS AND A RAID</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;It is satisfactory to learn, from Mr. McKenna's
+answer to a question last night, that the duty of the civilian
+population, at any rate in certain counties, is engaging the
+attention of Government. I confess, however, to having
+read with surprise Mr. Tennant's announcement that &quot;it
+was provided by The Hague Convention that the wearing
+of a brassard ensured that the wearer would be regarded
+as a belligerent.&quot; It ought surely to be now generally
+known that, among the four conditions imposed by the
+Convention upon Militia and bodies of Volunteers, in order
+to their being treated as belligerents, the third is &quot;that
+they shall bear a distinctive mark, fixed and recognisable
+at a distance.&quot; Whether an enemy would accept the mere
+wearing of a brassard as fulfilling this condition is perhaps
+an open question upon which some light may be thrown
+by the controversies of 1871 with reference to <i>francs-tireurs</i>.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, November 24 (1914).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="MISS-CAVELLS-CASE" />MISS CAVELL'S CASE</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;The world-wide abhorrence of the execution of
+Miss Cavell, aggravated as it was by the indecent and
+stealthy haste with which it was carried out, is in no need
+of enhancement by questionable arguments, such as, I
+venture to say, are those addressed to you by Sir James
+Swettenham.<span class="newpage"><a name="page080" id="page080">[080]</a></span></p>
+
+<p>It is, of course, the case that Germany is in Belgium
+only as the result of her deliberate violation of solemnly
+contracted treaties, but she is in military &quot;occupation&quot;
+of the territory. From such &quot;occupation&quot; it cannot be
+disputed that there flow certain rights of self-defence.
+No one, for instance, would have complained of her stern
+repression of civilian attacks upon her troops, so long as
+it was confined to actual offenders. The passages quoted
+by Sir James from Hague Convention v., and from the
+<i>Kriegsbrauch</i>, relate entirely to the rights and duties of
+Governments, and have no bearing upon the tragical abuse
+of jurisdiction which is occupying the minds of all of us.</p>
+
+<p>May I take this opportunity of calling attention to the
+fresh evidence afforded by the new Order in Council of
+our good fortune in not being bound by the Declaration
+of London, which erroneously professed to &quot;correspond
+in substance with the generally recognised principles of
+International Law&quot;? Is it too late, even now, to announce,
+by a comprehensive Order in Council, any relaxations which
+we and our Allies think proper to make of well-established
+rules of Prize Law, without any reference to the more and
+more discredited provisions of the Declaration, the partial
+and provisional adoption of which seems, at the outbreak
+of the war, to have been thought likely to save trouble?</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">Your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, October 26 (1915).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+<hr style='width: 45%;' />
+
+<h3 class="sectionhead"><a name="CHAPTER_VI_SECTION_7" />SECTION 7</h3>
+
+<p class="subsectionhead">Privateering</p>
+
+<div class="intronotes"><p>The three letters which immediately follow were written to point
+out that neither belligerent in the war of 1898 was under any obligation
+not to employ privateers. Within, however, a few days after the date
+of the second of these letters, both the United States and Spain, though
+both still to be reckoned among the few powers which had not acceded
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page081" id="page081">[081]</a></span>to the Declaration of Paris, announced their intention to conduct the
+war in accordance with the rules laid down by the Declaration.</p>
+
+<p>Art. 3 of the Spanish Royal Decree of April 23 was to the effect
+that &quot;notwithstanding that Spain is not bound by the Declaration
+signed in Paris on April 16, 1856, as she expressly stated her wish not
+to adhere to it, my Government, guided by the principles of international
+law, intends to observe, and hereby orders that the following regulations
+for maritime law be observed,&quot; <i>viz.</i> Arts. 2, 3, and 4 of the Declaration,
+after setting out which, the Decree proceeds to state that the Government,
+while maintaining &quot;their right to issue letters of marque, ... will
+organise, for the present, a service of auxiliary cruisers ... subject
+to the statutes and jurisdiction of the Navy.&quot;</p>
+
+<p>The Proclamation of the President of the United States of April 26
+recited the desirability of the war being &quot;conducted upon principles
+in harmony with the present views of nations, and sanctioned by
+their recent practice,&quot; and that it &quot;has already been announced that
+the policy of the Government will not be to resort to privateering,
+but to adhere to the rules of the Declaration of Paris,&quot; and goes on to
+adopt rules 2, 3, and 4 of the Declaration.</p>
+
+<p>Ten years afterwards, <i>viz.</i> on January 18, 1908, Spain signified
+&quot;her entire and definitive adhesion to the four clauses contained in
+the Declaration,&quot; undertaking scrupulously to conduct herself accordingly.
+Mexico followed suit on February 13, 1909. The United
+States are therefore now the only important Power which has not
+formally bound itself not to employ privateers. It seems unlikely
+that privateers, in the old sense of the term, will be much heard of in
+the future, though many questions may arise as to &quot;volunteer navies&quot;
+and subsidised liners, such as those touched upon in the last section,
+with reference to captures made by the <i>Malacca</i>; possibly also as to
+ships &quot;converted&quot; on the High Seas.</p></div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="OUR-MERCANTILE-MARINE-IN-WAR-TIME-A" />OUR MERCANTILE MARINE IN WAR TIME</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;There can be no doubt that serious loss would
+be occasioned to British commerce by a war between the
+United States and Spain in which either of those Powers
+should exercise its right of employing privateers or of
+confiscating enemy goods in neutral bottoms.</p>
+
+<p>Before, however, adopting the measures recommended,
+with a view to the prevention of this loss, by Sir George
+Baden-Powell in your issue of this morning, it would be
+desirable to enquire how far they would be in accordance
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page082" id="page082">[082]</a></span>with international law, and what would be the net amount
+of the relief which they would afford.</p>
+
+<p>It is hardly necessary to say that non-compliance with
+the provisions of the Declaration of Paris by a non-signatory
+carries with it none of the consequences of a breach of the
+law of nations. The framers of that somewhat hastily
+conceived attempt to engraft a paper amendment upon
+the slowly matured product of &oelig;cumenical opinion, far
+from professing to make general law, expressly state that
+the Declaration &quot;shall not be binding except upon those
+Powers who have acceded, or shall accede, to it.&quot; As
+regards Spain and the United States the Declaration is
+<i>res inter alios acta</i>.</p>
+
+<p>It follows that, in recommending that any action taken
+by privateers against British vessels should be treated as
+an act of piracy, Sir George Baden-Powell is advocating
+an inadmissible atrocity, which derives no countenance
+from the view theoretically maintained by the United
+States, at the outset of the Civil War, of the illegality of
+commissions granted by the Southern Confederation. His
+recommendation that our ports should be &quot;closed&quot; to
+privateers is not very intelligible. Privateers would, of
+course, be placed under the restrictions which were imposed
+in 1870, in accordance with Lord Granville's instructions,
+even on the men-of-war of belligerents. They would be
+forbidden to bring in prizes, to stay more than twenty-four
+hours, to leave within twenty-four hours of the start of a
+ship of the other belligerent, to take more coal than enough
+to carry them to the nearest home port, and to take any
+further supply of coal within three months. We might, no
+doubt, carry discouragement of privateers by so much further
+as to make refusal of coal absolute in their case, but hardly
+so far as to deny entry to them under stress of weather.</p>
+
+<p>The difficulties in the way of accepting Sir G. Baden-Powell's
+other suggestion are of a different order. Although
+we could not complain of the confiscation by either of the
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page083" id="page083">[083]</a></span>supposed belligerents of enemy property found in British
+vessels, as being a violation of international duty, we might,
+at our own proper peril, announce that we should treat
+such confiscation as &quot;an act of war.&quot; International law
+has long abandoned the attempt to define a &quot;just cause of
+war.&quot; That must be left to the appreciation of the nations
+concerned. So to announce would be, in effect, to say:
+&quot;Although by acting as you propose you would violate no
+rule, yet the consequences would be so injurious to me that
+I should throw my sword into the opposite scale.&quot; We
+should be acting in the spirit of the &quot;Armed Neutralities&quot;
+of 1780 and 1800. The expediency of so doing depends,
+first, upon the extent to which the success of our action
+would obviate the mischief against which it would be
+directed; and, secondly, upon the likelihood that the
+benefit which could be obtained only by imposing a new
+rule of international law <i>in invitos</i> would counterbalance
+the odium incurred by its imposition. On the former
+question it may be worth while to remind the mercantile
+community that, even under the Declaration of Paris,
+neutral trade must inevitably be put to much inconvenience.
+Any merchant vessel may be stopped with a view to the
+verification of her national character, of which the flag is no
+conclusive evidence. She is further liable to be visited and
+searched on suspicion of being engaged in the carriage of
+contraband, or of enemy military persons, or of despatches,
+or in running a blockade. Should the commander of the
+visiting cruiser &quot;have probable cause&quot; for suspecting
+any of these things, though the vessel is in fact innocent
+of them, he is justified in putting a prize crew on board
+and sending her into port, with a view to the institution of
+proceedings against her in a prize Court. A non-signatory
+of the Declaration of Paris may investigate and penalise,
+in addition to the above-mentioned list of offences, the
+carriage of enemy goods. This is, no doubt, by far the
+most important branch of the trade which is carried on
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page084" id="page084">[084]</a></span>for belligerents by neutrals, but it must not be forgotten
+that even were this branch of trade universally indulged,
+in accordance with the Declaration of Paris neutral commerce
+would still remain liable to infinite annoyance from
+visit and search, with its possible sequel in a prize Court.</p>
+
+<p>The question of the balance between benefit to be gained
+and odium to be incurred by insisting upon freedom to carry
+the goods of belligerents I leave to the politicians.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">The Athen&aelig;um, April 16 (1898).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="OUR-MERCANTILE-MARINE-IN-WAR-TIME-B" />OUR MERCANTILE MARINE IN WAR TIME</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;To-day's debate should throw some light upon
+the views of the Government, both as to existing rules of
+international law and as to the policy demanded by the
+interests of British trade. It is, however, possible that
+the Government may decline to anticipate the terms of the
+Declaration of Neutrality which they may too probably
+find themselves obliged to issue in the course of the next
+few days, and it is not unlikely that the law officers may
+decline to advise shipowners upon questions to which
+authoritative replies can be given only with reference to
+concrete cases by a prize Court.</p>
+
+<p>You may perhaps, therefore, allow me in the meantime
+to supplement my former letter by a few remarks, partly
+suggested by what has since been written upon the subject.</p>
+
+<p>It is really too clear for argument that privateers are
+not, and cannot be treated as, pirates.</p>
+
+<p>Sir George Baden-Powell still fails to see that the Declaration
+of Paris was not a piece of legislation, but a contract,
+producing no effect upon the rights and duties of nations
+which were not parties to it. We did not thereby, as he
+supposes, &quot;decline to recognise private vessels of war as
+competent to use force on neutral merchantmen.&quot; We
+merely bound ourselves not to use such vessels for such a
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page085" id="page085">[085]</a></span>purpose. Sir George is still unable to discover for privateers
+any other category than the &quot;<i>status</i> of pirate.&quot; He admits
+that it would not be necessary for their benefit to resort to
+&quot;the universal use of the fore-yard-arm.&quot; Let me assure
+him that the bearer of a United States private commission
+of war would run no risk even of being hanged at Newgate.
+President Lincoln, it is true, at the outset of the Civil War,
+threatened to treat as pirates vessels operating under the
+&quot;pretended authority&quot; of the rebel States; but he was
+speedily instructed by his own law Courts&mdash;<i>e.g.</i> in the
+<i>Savannah</i> and in the <i>Golden Rocket</i> (insurance) cases&mdash;that
+even such vessels were not pirates <i>iure gentium</i>. It is also
+tolerably self-evident that we cannot absolutely &quot;close&quot;
+our ports to any class of vessels. There is no inconsistency
+here between my friend Sir Sherston Baker and myself.
+We can discourage access, and of course, by refusal of coal,
+render egress impossible for privateers. Mr. Coltman would
+apparently be inclined to carry this policy so far that he
+would disarm and intern even belligerent ships of war which
+should visit our ports: a somewhat hazardous innovation,
+one would think.</p>
+
+<p>It is quite possible that the question of privateering may
+not become a practical one during the approaching war.
+Both parties may expressly renounce the practice, or they
+may follow the example of Prussia in 1870, and Russia
+at a later date, in commissioning fast liners under the command
+of naval officers&mdash;a practice, by the by, which is not,
+as Sir George seems to think, &quot;right in the teeth of the Declaration
+of Paris.&quot; See Lord Granville's despatch in 1870.</p>
+
+<p>On Sir George's proposals with reference to the carriage
+of enemy goods, little more need be said, except to deprecate
+arguments founded upon the metaphorical statement that
+&quot;a vessel is part of the territory covered by her flag,&quot; a
+statement which Lord Stowell found it necessary to meet
+by the assertion that a ship is a &quot;mere movable.&quot; There
+can be no possible doubt of the right, under international
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page086" id="page086">[086]</a></span>law, of Spain and the United States to visit and search
+neutral ships carrying enemy's goods, and to confiscate such
+goods when found. They may also visit and search on
+many other grounds, and the question (one of policy) is
+whether, rather than permit this addition to the list, we
+choose to take a step which would practically make us
+belligerent. This question also, it may be hoped, will not
+press for solution.</p>
+
+<p>In any case, let me express my cordial concurrence with
+your hope that, when hostilities are over, some really
+universal and lasting agreement may be arrived at with
+reference to the matters dealt with, as I venture to think
+prematurely, by the Declaration of Paris. A reform of
+maritime law to which the United States are not a party
+is of little worth. That search for contraband of war can
+ever be suppressed I do not believe, and fear that it may
+be many years before divergent national interests can be
+so far reconciled as to secure an agreement as to the list of
+contraband articles. In the meantime this country is unfortunately
+a party to that astonishing piece of draftsmanship,
+the &quot;three rules&quot; of the Treaty of Washington, to
+which less reference than might have been expected has
+been made in recent discussions. The ambiguities of this
+document, which have prevented it from ever being, as was
+intended, brought to the notice of the other Powers, with a
+view to their acceptance of it, are such that, its redrafting,
+or, better still, its cancellation, should be the first care of
+both contracting parties when the wished for congress shall
+take place.</p>
+
+<p>May I add that no serious student of international law
+is likely either to overrate the authority which it most
+beneficially exercises, or to conceive of it as an unalterable
+body of theory.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Brighton, April 21 (1898).</div><br />
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page087" id="page087">[087]</a></span></div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="OUR-MERCANTILE-MARINE-IN-WAR" />OUR MERCANTILE MARINE IN WAR</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;Let me assure Sir George Baden-Powell that if,
+as he seems to think, I have been unsuccessful in grasping
+the meaning of his very interesting letters, it has not been
+from neglect to study them with the attention which is
+due to anything which he may write. How privateering,
+previously innocent, can have become piratical, <i>i.e.</i> an
+offence, everywhere justiciable, against the Law of Nations,
+if the Declaration of Paris was not in the nature of a piece
+of legislation, I confess myself unable to understand; but
+have no wish to repeat the remarks which you have already
+allowed me to make upon the subject.</p>
+
+<p>I shall, however, be glad at once to remove the impression
+suggested by Sir George's letter of this morning, that
+Art. 7 of the Spanish Decree of April 24 has any bearing
+upon the legitimacy of privateering generally. The article
+in question (following, by the by, the very questionable
+precedent of a notification issued by Admiral Baudin,
+during the war between France and Mexico in 1889) merely
+threatens with punishment neutrals who may accept letters
+of marque from a belligerent Government.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, April 27 (1898).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="THE-DECLARATION-OF-PARIS-1911" />THE DECLARATION OF PARIS</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;There is really no question at issue between
+your two correspondents Mr. Gibson Bowles and &quot;Anglo-Saxon&quot;
+as to the attitude of the United States towards
+the Declaration of Paris.</p>
+
+<p>Mr. Bowles rightly maintains that the United States
+has not acceded to the Declaration as a whole, or to its
+second article, which exempts from capture enemy property
+in neutral ships. He means, of course, that neither the
+whole nor any part of that Declaration has been ratified
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page088" id="page088">[088]</a></span>by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate.
+The whole contains, indeed, an article on privateering,
+to which, as it stands, the United States have always
+objected, and no part of the Declaration can be accepted
+separately.</p>
+
+<p>&quot;Anglo-Saxon,&quot; on the other hand, is equally justified
+in asserting that the &quot;officially-recorded policy&quot; of the
+States, <i>i.e.</i> of the Executive, is in accordance with
+Art. 2 of the Declaration. This policy has been consistently
+followed for more than half a century. Its strongest
+expression is perhaps to be found in the President's
+Proclamation of April 26, 1898, in which, after reciting that
+it being desirable that the war with Spain &quot;should be
+conducted upon principles in harmony with the present
+views of nations and sanctioned by their recent practice,
+it has already been announced that the policy of the Government
+will not be to resort to privateering, but to adhere
+to the rules for the Declaration of Paris,&quot; he goes on to
+&quot;declare and proclaim&quot; the three other articles of the
+Declaration. The rule of Art. 2, as to exemption of enemy
+goods in neutral ships, was embodied in Art. 19 of the
+Naval War Code of 1900 (withdrawn in 1904, for reasons
+not affecting the article in question), and reappears in
+Art. 17, amended only by the addition of a few words
+relating to &quot;hostile assistance&quot; in the draft Code which
+the United States delegates to the Conferences of 1907
+and 1908 were instructed to bring forward &quot;with the
+suggested changes, and such further changes as may be
+made necessary by other agreements reached at the Conference,
+as a tentative formulation of the rules which should
+be considered.&quot; (My quotation is from the instructions
+as originally issued in English.) Such changes as have
+been made in the Code are due to discussions which have
+taken place between high naval and legal authorities at
+the Naval War College. I do not know whether the annual
+reports of these discussions, with which I am kindly supplied,
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page089" id="page089">[089]</a></span>are generally accessible, but would refer, especially with
+reference to the Declaration of Paris, to the volumes for
+1904 and 1906.</p>
+
+<p>It can hardly be necessary to add that no acts of the
+Executive, such as the Proclamation of 1898, the order
+putting in force the Code of 1900, or the instructions to
+delegates in 1907 and 1909, amount to anything like a
+ratification of the Declaration in the manner prescribed
+by the Constitution of the United States.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<span class="sigbody">I have the honour to be, Sir,<br />
+Your obedient servant,</span><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, January 4 (1911).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="THE-DECLARATION-OF-PARIS-1914" />THE DECLARATION OF PARIS</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;Mr. Gibson Bowles resuscitates this morning his
+crusade against the Declaration of 1856. It is really
+superfluous to argue in support of rules which have met with
+general acceptance for nearly sixty years past, to all of
+which Spain and Mexico, who were not originally parties
+to the Declaration, announced their formal adhesion in
+1907, while the United States, which for well-known reasons
+declined to accede to the Declaration, described, in 1898,
+all the articles except that dealing with privateering as
+&quot;recognised rules of International Law.&quot;</p>
+
+<p>It may, however, be worth while to point out why it
+was that no provision was made for the ratification of the
+Declaration of 1856, or for that of 1868 relating to the use
+of explosive bullets. At those dates, when the first steps
+were being taken towards the general adoption of written
+rules for the conduct of warfare, it was, curiously enough,
+supposed that agreement upon such rules might be
+sufficiently recorded without the solemnity of a treaty.
+This was, in my opinion, a mistake, which has been avoided
+in more recent times, in which the written law of war has
+been developed with such marvellous rapidity. Not only
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page090" id="page090">[090]</a></span>have codes of such rules been promulgated in regular
+&quot;Conventions,&quot; made in 1899, 1906, and 1907, but the so-called
+&quot;Declarations,&quot; dealing with the same topic, of 1899, 1907,
+and 1909 have been as fully equipped as were those
+Conventions with provisions for ratification. The distinction
+between a &quot;Convention&quot; and a &quot;Declaration&quot; is therefore
+now one without a difference, and should no longer be
+drawn. Nothing in the nature of rules for the conduct of
+warfare can prevent their expression in Conventions, and
+the reason which seems to have promoted the misdescription
+of the work of the London Conference of 1908-9 as
+a &quot;Declaration&quot;&mdash;<i>viz.</i> an imaginary difference between
+rules for the application of accepted principles and wholly
+new rules&mdash;is founded in error. Much of the contents of
+The Hague &quot;Conventions&quot; is as old as the hills while much
+of the &quot;Declaration&quot; of London is revolutionary.</p>
+
+<p>This by the way. It is not very clear whether
+Mr. Gibson Bowles, in exhorting us to denounce the Declaration,
+relies upon its original lack of ratification, or upon
+some alleged &quot;privateering&quot; on the part of the Germans.
+Nothing of the kind has been reported. The commissioning
+of warships on the high seas is a different thing, which
+may possibly be regarded as an offence of a graver nature.
+Great Britain is not going to imitate the cynical contempt
+for treaties, evidenced by the action of Germany in Belgium
+and Luxemburg, in disregard not only of the well-known
+treaties of 1889 and 1867, but of a quite recent solemn
+undertaking, to which I have not noticed any reference.
+Art. 2 of The Hague Convention No. v. of 1907, ratified
+by her in 1909, is to the following effect:&mdash;</p>
+
+<div class="letterquot"><p>&quot;Belligerents are forbidden to move across the territory of a neutral
+Power troops or convoys, whether of munitions or of supplies.&quot;</p></div>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, August 12 (1914).</div><br />
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page091" id="page091">[091]</a></span></div>
+
+<p>The true ground for objecting to the legality of the
+purchase by Turkey of the German warships which have
+been forced to take refuge in her waters is no doubt that
+stated by Sir William Scott in the <i>Minerva</i>, 6 C. Rob.
+at p. 400&mdash;<i>viz.</i> that it would enable the belligerent to whom
+the ships belong &quot;so far to rescue himself from the disadvantage
+into which he has fallen as to have the value at
+least restored to him by a neutral purchaser.&quot; The point
+is not touched upon in the (draft) Declaration of London.</p>
+
+<p>Even supposing the purchase to be unobjectionable,
+the duty of Turkey to remove all belligerents from the
+ships would be unquestionable.</p>
+
+<div class="postnotes"><p><i>Cf.</i> on the Declaration of Paris, <i>passim</i>, see Index; on the misuse
+of Declarations, <i>infra</i>, p. <a href="#page092">92</a>; on privateering, <i>supra</i>, pp. <a href="#page080">80</a>-84.</p></div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="THE-DECLARATION-OF-PARIS-1916" />THE DECLARATION OF PARIS</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;The resuscitation, a few days ago, in the House
+of Commons of an old controversy reminds one of the
+mistaken procedure which made such a controversy possible.
+It can hardly now be doubted that the rules set forth in
+the Declaration of Paris of 1856, except possibly the
+prohibition of privateering, have by general acceptance during
+sixty years, strengthened by express accessions on the part
+of so many Governments, become a portion of international
+law, and are thus binding upon Great Britain,
+notwithstanding her omission to ratify the Declaration.
+This omission is now seen to have been a mistake. So also
+was the description of the document as a &quot;declaration.&quot;
+Both mistakes were repeated in 1868 with reference to the
+&quot;Declaration&quot; of St. Petersburg (as to explosive bullets).</p>
+
+<p>In those early attempts at legislation for the conduct
+of warfare it seems to have been thought sufficient that
+the conclusions arrived at by authorised delegates should
+be announced without being embodied in a treaty. Surely,
+however, what purported to be international agreements
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page092" id="page092">[092]</a></span>upon vastly important topics ought to have been
+accompanied by all the formalities required for
+&quot;conventions,&quot; and should have been so entitled. In later
+times this has become the general rule for the increasingly
+numerous agreements which bear upon the conduct of
+hostilities. Thus we have The Hague &quot;conventions&quot; of
+1899 and 1907, and the Geneva &quot;convention&quot; of 1906,
+all duly equipped with provisions for ratification. Such
+provisions are also inserted in certain other recent agreements
+dealing with aerial bombardments, gases, and expanding
+bullets, which it has nevertheless pleased their
+contrivers to misdescribe as &quot;declarations.&quot; Equally so
+misdescribed was the deceased Declaration of London,
+with a view, apparently, to suggesting, as was far from
+being the case, that it was a mere orderly statement of
+universally accepted principles, creating no new obligations.</p>
+
+<p>Is it not to be desired that all future attempts for the
+international regulation of warfare should not only be
+specifically made subject to ratification, but should also,
+in accordance with fact, be described as &quot;conventions&quot;?</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, August 13 (1916).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="THE-DECLARATION-OF-PARIS-1916-B" />THE DECLARATION OF PARIS</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;If Mr. Gibson Bowles, whose courteous letter I
+have just been reading, will look again at my letter of the
+18th, I think he will see that I there carefully distinguished
+between the Declaration of Paris, which, as is notorious,
+must be accepted as a whole or not at all, and the rules
+set forth in it, &quot;except, possibly, the prohibition of
+privateering,&quot; which I thought, for the reasons which
+I stated, might be taken to have become a portion of
+International Law.</p>
+
+<p>I must be excused from following Mr. Bowles into a
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page093" id="page093">[093]</a></span>discussion of the bearing of those rules upon the Order in
+Council of March 11, 1915&mdash;a large and delicate topic,
+which must be studied in elaborate dispatches exchanged
+between this country and the United States.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, August 17 (1916).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+<hr style='width: 45%;' />
+
+<h3 class="sectionhead"><a name="CHAPTER_VI_SECTION_8" />SECTION 8</h3>
+
+<p class="subsectionhead">Assassination</p>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="THE-NATAL-PROCLAMATION" />THE NATAL PROCLAMATION</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;It was reported a few days ago that the Natal
+Government had offered a reward for Bambaata, dead or
+alive. I have waited for a statement that no offer of the
+kind had been made, or that it had been made by some
+over-zealous official, whose act had been disavowed. No
+such statement has appeared. On the contrary, we read that
+&quot;the price placed upon the rebel's head has excited native
+cupidity.&quot; It may therefore be desirable to point out
+that what is alleged to have been done is opposed to the
+customs of warfare, whether against foreign enemies or rebels.</p>
+
+<p>By Art. 28 (<i>b</i>) of The Hague Regulations, &quot;it is
+especially prohibited to kill or wound treacherously individuals
+belonging to the hostile nation or army&quot;: words which,
+one cannot doubt, would include not only assassination
+of individuals, but also, by implication, any offer for an
+individual &quot;dead or alive.&quot; The Regulations are, of course,
+technically binding only between signatories of the convention
+to which they are appended; but Art. 28 (<i>b</i>) is
+merely an express enactment of a well-established rule of
+the law of nations. A recent instance of its application
+occurred, before the date of The Hague Convention, during
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page094" id="page094">[094]</a></span>operations in the neighbourhood of Suakin. An offer by
+the British Admiral of a reward for Osman Digna, dead
+or alive, was, if I mistake not, promptly cancelled and
+disavowed by the home Government.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Brighton, April 17 (1906).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+<hr style='width: 45%;' />
+
+<h3 class="sectionhead"><a name="CHAPTER_VI_SECTION_9" />SECTION 9</h3>
+
+<p class="subsectionhead">The Choice of Means of Injuring</p>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="BULLETS-IN-SAVAGE-WARFARE" />BULLETS IN SAVAGE WARFARE</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;The Somaliland debate was sufficient evidence
+that The Hague Convention &quot;respecting the laws and
+customs of war on land&quot; is far more talked about than read.
+Colonel Cobbe had, it appears, complained of the defective
+stopping power, as against the foes whom he was encountering,
+of the Lee-Metford bullet. It is the old story
+that wounds inflicted by this bullet cannot be relied on to
+check the onrush of a hardy and fanatical savage, though
+they may ultimately result in his death. Whereupon
+arises, on the one hand, the demand for a more effective
+projectile, and, on the other hand, the cry that the
+proposed substitute is condemned by &quot;the universal consent
+of Christendom&quot;; or, in particular, &quot;by the Convention
+of The Hague,&quot; which, as was correctly stated by Mr. Lee,
+prohibits only the use of arms which cause superfluous injury.</p>
+
+<p>You print to-day two letters enforcing the view of the
+inefficiency against savages of the ordinary service bullet.
+Perhaps you will find space for a few words upon the question
+whether the employment for this purpose of a severer
+form of projectile, such as the Dum Dum bullet, would be
+a contravention of the &quot;laws of war.&quot;</p>
+
+<p>The law of the subject, as embodied in general international
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page095" id="page095">[095]</a></span>national agreements, is to be found in four paragraphs;
+to which, be it observed, nothing is added by the unwritten,
+or customary, law of nations. Of these paragraphs, which
+I shall set out textually, three affirm general principles,
+while the fourth contains a specific prohibition. The
+general provisions are as follows:&mdash;</p>
+
+<div class="letterquot"><p>&quot;The progress of civilisation should have the effect of alleviating as
+much as possible the calamities of war. The only legitimate object
+which States should set before themselves during war is to weaken the
+military forces of the enemy. For this purpose it is sufficient to disable
+the greatest possible number of men. This object would be exceeded by
+the employment of arms which would uselessly aggravate the sufferings
+of disabled men or render their death inevitable. The employment
+of such arms would, therefore, be contrary to the laws of humanity.&quot;
+(St. Petersburg Declaration, 1868. Preamble.)</p>
+
+<p>&quot;The right of belligerents to adopt means of injuring the enemy is
+not unlimited.&quot; (Hague <i>R&egrave;glement</i>, Art. 22.)</p>
+
+<p>&quot;Besides the prohibitions provided by special conventions [the
+Declaration of St. Petersburg alone answers to this description] it is
+in particular prohibited (<i>e</i>) to employ arms, projectiles, or
+material of a nature to cause superfluous injury.&quot; (<i>Ib.</i> Art. 23.)</p></div>
+
+<p>The only special prohibition is that contained in the
+Declaration of St. Petersburg, by which the contracting
+parties&mdash;</p>
+
+<div class="letterquot"><p>&quot;Engage mutually to renounce, in case of war among themselves,
+the employment by their military or naval forces of any projectile of a
+weight below 400 grammes which is either explosive or charged with
+fulminating or inflammable substances.&quot;</p></div>
+
+<p>No one, so far as I am aware, has any wish to employ
+a bullet weighing less than 14 oz. which is either explosive
+or charged as above. So far, therefore, as the generally
+accepted laws of warfare are concerned, the only question
+as to the employment of Dum Dum or other expanding
+bullets is whether they &quot;uselessly aggravate the sufferings
+of disabled men, or render their death inevitable&quot;; in other
+words, whether they are &quot;of a nature to cause superfluous
+injury.&quot; It is, however, probable that people who glibly
+talk of such bullets being &quot;prohibited by The Hague Convention&quot;
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page096" id="page096">[096]</a></span>are hazily reminiscent, not of the <i>R&egrave;glement</i>
+appended to that convention, but of a certain &quot;Declaration,&quot;
+signed by the delegates of many of the Powers represented
+at The Hague in 1899, to the effect that&mdash;</p>
+
+<div class="letterquot"><p>&quot;The contracting Powers renounce the use of bullets which expand
+or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard casing,
+which does not entirely cover the core, or is pierced with incisions.&quot;</p></div>
+
+<p>To this declaration neither Great Britain nor the United
+States are parties, and it is waste-paper, except for Powers
+on whose behalf it has not only been signed, but has also
+been subsequently ratified.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Athen&aelig;um Club, May 2 (1903).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+<div class="postnotes"><p>The Declaration last mentioned (No. 3 of the first Peace Conference)
+is now something more than waste paper, having been generally
+ratified. Great Britain, on August 17, 1907, at the fourth plenary
+sitting of the Second Peace Conference, announced her adhesion to it,
+as also to the, also generally ratified, Declaration No. 2 of 1899, which
+forbids the employment of projectiles constructed solely for the diffusion
+suffocating or harmful gases.</p>
+
+<p>The provisions of Arts. 22 and 23 (<i>e</i>) of the <i>R&egrave;glement</i> annexed to
+The Hague Convention of 1899 &quot;concerning the Laws and Customs of
+War on Land,&quot; as quoted in the letter, have been textually reproduced
+in Arts. 22 and 23 (<i>e</i>) of the <i>R&egrave;glement</i> annexed to the Hague
+Convention, No. iv. of 1907, on the same subject, ratified by Great Britain on
+November 27, 1909.</p>
+
+<p>The written agreements as to the choice of weapons may be taken
+therefore to start from the general principles laid down in the preamble
+to the Declaration of St. Petersburg (though held by some Powers to
+err in the direction of liberality), and in Arts. 22 and 23 (<i>e</i>) of The
+Hague <i>R&egrave;glements</i>. The specially prohibited means of destruction
+are, by the Declaration of St. Petersburg, explosive bullets; by The
+Hague <i>R&egrave;glements</i>, Art. 23 (<i>a</i>) poison or poisoned arms; by The
+Hague Declarations of 1898, Nos. 2 and 3, &quot;projectiles the sole object
+of which is the diffusion of asphyxiating or harmful gases,&quot; and &quot;bullets
+which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with
+a hard casing, which does not entirely cover the core, or is pierced
+with incisions.&quot; As to Declaration No. 1, <i>cf. supra</i>, p. <a href="#page022">22</a>. It must
+be remarked that the Declarations of St. Petersburg and of The<span class="newpage"><a name="page097" id="page097">[097]</a></span>
+Hague, unlike The Hague R&egrave;glements, apply to war at sea, as well as
+on land.</p>
+
+<p><i>Cf. supra</i>, p. <a href="#page022">22</a>, and see the author's <i>The Laws of War on Land
+(written and unwritten)</i>, 1908, pp. <a href="#page040">40</a>-43.</p></div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="GASES" />GASES</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;The weightily signed medical protest which you
+publish this morning will be widely welcomed. The German
+employment of poisonous gases for military purposes, which
+the Allies were obliged, reluctantly, though necessarily,
+to reciprocate, was, of course, prohibited by international
+Acts to which Germany is a party. Not only does the
+Declaration of 1899 specifically render unlawful &quot;the use
+of projectiles the sole object of which is the diffusion of
+asphyxiating or harmful gases,&quot; but the Hague Conventions
+of 1899 and 1907 both forbid, in general terms, the
+employment of &quot;(<i>a</i>) poison or poisoned arms,&quot; &quot;(<i>c</i>) arms,
+projectiles, or material of a nature to cause superfluous
+suffering.&quot; The United States, like the rest of the world,
+are a party to the two Conventions, and would doubtless,
+after the experiences of recent years, no longer hesitate, as
+hitherto, to adhere to the Declaration of 1899; in accordance
+with Admiral Mahan's view at that date, to the effect that
+&quot;the effect of gas shells has yet to be ascertained,&quot; and, in
+particular, &quot;whether they would be more, or less, merciful
+than missiles now available.&quot;</p>
+
+<p>The prohibition ought, no doubt, to be renewed and, if
+possible, strengthened; but this is surely not, as your correspondents
+suggest, work for the Peace Congress. The rules
+for naval warfare set out in the Declaration of Paris of 1856
+form no part of the Treaty of Paris of that year.</p>
+
+<p>I venture to make a similar remark with reference to
+any discussion by the Peace Congress of &quot;the freedom of the
+seas,&quot; a topic unfortunately included by President Wilson
+among his &quot;14 points.&quot; The peace delegates will be concerned
+with questions of regroupings of territory, penalties,
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page098" id="page098">[098]</a></span>and reparation. The rehabilitation and revision of international
+law is a different business, and should be reserved
+for a subsequent conference.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, November 29 (1918).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+<hr style='width: 45%;' />
+
+<h3 class="sectionhead"><a name="CHAPTER_VI_SECTION_10" />SECTION 10</h3>
+
+<p class="subsectionhead">The Geneva Convention</p>
+
+<div class="intronotes"><p>As far back as the year 1870, the Society for the Prevention of
+Cruelty to Animals exerted itself to induce both sides in the great war
+then commencing to make some special provision for relieving, or
+terminating, the sufferings of horses wounded in battle.</p>
+
+<p>In 1899 it made the same suggestion to the British War Office,
+but the reply of the Secretary of State was to the effect that &quot;he is
+informed that soldiers always shoot badly wounded horses after, or
+during, a battle, whenever they are given time to do so, <i>i.e.</i> whenever
+the operation does not involve risk to human life. He fears that no
+more than this can be done unless and until some international convention
+extends to those who care for wounded animals the same
+protection for which the Geneva Convention provides in the case of
+men; and he would suggest that you should turn your efforts in that
+direction.&quot;</p>
+
+<p>Thereupon, Mr. Lawrence Pike, on November 23, addressed to
+<i>The Times</i> the letter which called forth the letter which follows.</p></div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="WOUNDED-HORSES-IN-WAR" />WOUNDED HORSES IN WAR</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;Everyone must sympathise with the anxiety felt
+by Mr. L.W. Pike to diminish the sufferings of horses upon
+the field of battle. How far any systematic alleviation
+of such sufferings may be compatible with the exigencies
+of warfare must be left to the decision of military experts.
+In the meantime it may be as well to assure Mr. Pike that
+the Geneva Convention of 1864 has nothing to do with the
+question, relating, as it does, exclusively to the relief of
+human suffering. This is equally the case with the second
+Geneva Convention, which Mr. Pike is right in supposing
+never to have been ratified. He is also right in supposing
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page099" id="page099">[099]</a></span>that &quot;the terms of the convention are capable of amendment
+from time to time,&quot; but wrong in supposing that
+they can be amended &quot;by the setting up of precedents.&quot;
+The convention can be amended only by a new convention.</p>
+
+<p>It is not the case that Art. 7 of the convention, which
+merely confides to commanders-in-chief, under the instructions
+of their respective Governments, &quot;les d&eacute;tails d'ex&eacute;cution
+de la pr&eacute;sente convention,&quot; gives them any authority
+to extend its scope beyond what is expressly stated to be
+its object&mdash;<i>viz.</i> &quot;l'am&eacute;lioration du sort des militaires
+bless&eacute;s dans les arm&eacute;es en campagne.&quot; While, however,
+the Geneva Convention, does not contemplate the relief of
+animal suffering, it certainly cannot be &quot;set up as a bar&quot;
+to the provision of such relief. Commanders who may
+see their way to neutralising persons engaged in the succour
+or slaughter of wounded horses would be quite within their
+powers in entering into temporary agreements for that
+purpose.</p>
+
+<p>I may add that the &quot;Convention concerning the laws
+and customs of war on land,&quot; prepared by the recent conference
+at The Hague, and signed on behalf of most Governments,
+including our own, though not yet ratified, contains
+a chapter &quot;Des malades et des bless&eacute;s,&quot; which merely states
+that the obligations of belligerents on this point are governed
+by the Convention of Geneva of 1864, with such modifications
+as may be made in it. Among the aspirations (<i>v&oelig;ux</i>)
+recorded in the &quot;Acte final&quot; of the conference, is one to
+the effect that steps may be taken for the assembling of
+a special conference, having for its object the revision of
+the Geneva Convention. Should such a conference be
+assembled Mr. Pike will have an opportunity of addressing
+it upon the painfully interesting subject which he has
+brought forward in your columns.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">Your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+Oxford, November 2<span class="newpage"><a name="page100" id="page100">[100]</a></span>7 (1899).<br />
+</div>
+
+<div class="postnotes"><p>The &quot;second Geneva Convention,&quot; above mentioned, was the
+&quot;Projet d'Articles additionnels,&quot; signed on October 20, 1868, but
+never ratified.</p>
+
+<p>Art. 21 of the <i>R&egrave;glement</i> annexed to The Hague Convention of
+1899 as to the &quot;Laws and Customs of War on Land,&quot; stating that
+&quot;the obligations of belligerents, with reference to the care of the sick
+and wounded, are governed by the Convention of Geneva of August 22,
+1864, subject to alterations which may be made in it,&quot; is now represented
+by Art. 21 of The Hague <i>R&egrave;glement</i> of 1907, which mentions
+&quot;the Convention of Geneva,&quot; without mention of any date, or of
+possible alterations. The Convention intended in this later <i>R&egrave;glement</i>
+is, of course, that of 1906, for the numerous Powers which have already
+ratified it, since for them it has superseded that of 1864. The British
+ratification, of April 16, 1907, was subject to a reservation, the necessity
+for which was intended to be removed by 1 &amp; 2 Geo. 5, c. 20, as to
+which, see <i>supra</i>, p. <a href="#page037">37</a>. The later is somewhat wider in scope than
+the earlier Convention, its recital referring to &quot;the sick,&quot; as well
+as to the wounded, and its first article naming not only &quot;les militaires,&quot;
+but also &quot;les autres personnes officiellement attach&eacute;es aux arm&eacute;es.&quot;</p>
+
+<p>With a view to the expected meeting of the Conference by which
+the Convention was signed in 1906, Mr. Pike and his friends again, in
+1903, pressed upon the British Government their desire that the new
+Convention should extend protection to persons engaged in relieving
+the sufferings of wounded horses. The British delegates to the Conference,
+however, who had already been appointed, and were holding
+meetings in preparation for it, were not prepared to advise the insertion
+of provisions for this purpose in the revised Convention of Geneva.</p>
+
+<p>&quot;The principles of the Geneva Convention&quot; of 1864 were applied
+to naval warfare by The Hague Convention No. iii. of 1899, and those
+of the Geneva Convention of 1906 by The Hague Convention No. x.
+of 1907 respectively. Both were ratified by Great Britain. Cf. <i>supra</i>,
+<a href="#CHAPTER_II">Chapters ii.</a> and <a href="#CHAPTER_IV">iv.</a></p></div>
+
+<hr style='width: 45%;' />
+
+<h3 class="sectionhead"><a name="CHAPTER_VI_SECTION_11" />SECTION 11</h3>
+
+<p class="subsectionhead">Enemy Property in Occupied Territory</p>
+
+<div class="intronotes"><p>By Art. 55 of The Hague <i>R&egrave;glement</i> of 1899, which reproduces Art. 7
+of the Brussels <i>Projet</i>, and is repeated as Art. 55 of the <i>R&egrave;glement</i> of
+1907: &quot;The occupying State shall regard itself as being only administrator
+and usufructuary of the public buildings, immoveable property,
+forests and agricultural undertakings belonging to the hostile State
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page101" id="page101">[101]</a></span>and situated in the hostile country. It must protect the substance
+of these properties and administer them according to the rules of
+usufruct.&quot;</p>
+
+<p>The following letter touches incidentally upon the description of
+the rights of an invader over certain kinds of State property in the
+occupied territory as being those of a &quot;usufructuary.&quot;</p></div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="INTERNATIONAL-USUFRUCT" />INTERNATIONAL &quot;USUFRUCT&quot;</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;The terminology of the law of nations has been
+enriched by a new phrase. We are all getting accustomed
+to &quot;spheres of influence.&quot; We have been meditating for
+some time past upon the interpretation to be put upon &quot;a
+lease of sovereign rights.&quot; But what is an international
+&quot;usufruct&quot;? The word has, of course, a perfectly ascertained
+sense in Roman law and its derivatives; but it has
+been hitherto employed, during, perhaps two thousand years,
+always as a term of private law&mdash;<i>i.e.</i> as descriptive of a
+right enjoyed by one private individual or corporation over
+the property of another. It is the &quot;ius utendi fruendi,
+salva rerum substantia.&quot; The usufructuary of land not
+merely has the use of it, but may cut its forests and work
+its mines, so long as he does not destroy the character of
+the place as he received it. His interest terminates with
+his life, though it might also be granted to him for a shorter
+period. If the grantee be a corporation, in order to protect
+the outstanding right of the owner an artificial limit is
+imposed upon the tenure&mdash;<i>e.g.</i> in Roman law 100 years, by
+the French Code 30 years. For details it may suffice to
+refer to the Institutes of Justinian, II. 4; the Digest, VII.
+1; the Code Civil, sects. 573-636; the new German Civil
+Code, sects. 1030-1089.</p>
+
+<p>It remains to be seen how the conception of &quot;usufruct&quot;
+is to be imported into the relations of sovereign States, and,
+more especially, what are to be the relations of the usufructuary
+to States other than the State under which he
+holds. It is, of course, quite possible to adapt the terms
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page102" id="page102">[102]</a></span>of Roman private law to international use. &quot;Dominium,&quot;
+&quot;Possessio,&quot; &quot;Occupatio,&quot; have long been so adapted,
+but it has yet to be proved that &quot;Usufructus&quot; is equally
+malleable. I can recall no other use of the term in international
+discussions than the somewhat rhetorical statement
+that an invader should consider himself as merely the
+&quot;usufructuary&quot; of the resources of the country which he
+is invading; which is no more than to say that he should
+use them &quot;en bon p&egrave;re de famille.&quot; It will be a very
+different matter to put a strict legal construction upon the
+grant of the &quot;usufruct&quot; of Port Arthur. By way of
+homage to the conception of such a grant, as presumably
+creating at the outside a life-interest, Russia seems to have
+taken it, in the first instance, only for twenty-five years.
+One may, however, be pardoned for sharing, with reference
+to this transaction, the scruples which were felt at Rome
+as to allowing the grant of a usufruct to a corporation&mdash;&quot;periculum
+enim esse videbatur, ne perpetuus fieret.&quot;</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, March 30 (1898).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+<p>P.S.&mdash;It would seem from M. Lehr's <i>&Eacute;l&eacute;ments du droit
+civil Russe</i> that &quot;usufruct&quot; is almost unknown to the law
+of Russia, though a restricted form of it figures in the code
+of the Baltic provinces.</p>
+
+<div class="letterquot"><p>It is certain that, apart from general conventions, international
+law imposes no liability on an invader to pay for requisitioned property
+or services, or to honour any receipts which he may have given for them.</p>
+
+<p>The Hague Convention of 1899 made no change in this respect.
+Arts. 51 and 52 of the <i>R&egrave;glement</i> annexed to the Convention direct, it
+is true, that receipts should be given for contributions (&quot;un re&ccedil;u sera
+d&eacute;livr&eacute; aux contribuables&quot;) also for requisitions in kind, if not paid for
+(&quot;elles seront constat&eacute;es par des re&ccedil;us&quot;), but these receipts were to
+be merely evidence that money or goods have been taken, and it was
+left an open question, by whom, if at all, compensation was to be made
+or the losses thus established.</p>
+
+<p>The <i>R&egrave;glement</i> of 1907 is more liberal than that of 1899 with reference
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page103" id="page103">[103]</a></span>to requisitioned property (though not with reference to contributions).
+By the new Art. 52, &quot;supplies furnished in kind shall be paid for, so
+far as possible, on the spot. If not, they shall be vouched for (<i>constat&eacute;es</i>)
+by receipts, and payment of the sums due shall be made as soon
+as may be.&quot; The Hague Convention mentioned in the following letter
+is, of course, that of 1899.</p></div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="REQUISITIONS-IN-WARFARE" />REQUISITIONS IN WARFARE</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;A few words of explanation may not be out of
+place with reference to a topic touched upon last night in
+the House of Commons&mdash;<i>viz.</i> the liability of the British
+Government to pay for stock requisitioned during the late
+war from private enemy owners. It should be clearly
+understood that no such liability is imposed by international
+law. The commander of invading forces may, for valid
+reasons of his own, pay cash for any property which he
+takes, and, if he does not do so, is nowadays expected to
+give receipts for it. These receipts are, however, not in
+the nature of evidence of a contract to pay for the goods.
+They are intended merely to <i>constater</i> the fact that the goods
+have been requisitioned, with a view to any indemnity
+which may eventually be granted to the sufferers by their
+own Government. What steps should be taken by a Government
+towards indemnifying enemies who have subsequently
+become its subjects, as is now happily the case in South
+Africa, is a question not of international law, but of grace
+and favour.</p>
+
+<p>An article in the current number of the <i>Review of Reviews</i>,
+to which my attention has just been called, contains some
+extraordinary statements upon the topic under discussion.
+The uninformed public is assured that &quot;we owe the Boers
+payment in full for all the devastation which we have inflicted
+upon their private property ... it is our plain
+legal obligation, from the point of view of international
+law, to pay it to the last farthing.&quot; Then The Hague Convention
+is invoked as permitting interference with private
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page104" id="page104">[104]</a></span>property &quot;only on condition that it is paid for in cash by
+the conqueror, and, if that is not possible at the moment,
+he must in every case give a receipt, which he must discharge
+at the conclusion of hostilities.&quot; There is no such
+provision as to honouring receipts in this much-misquoted
+convention.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">Your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, July 30 (1962).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+<hr style='width: 45%;' />
+
+<h3 class="sectionhead"><a name="CHAPTER_VI_SECTION_12" />SECTION 12</h3>
+
+<p class="subsectionhead">Enemy Property at Sea</p>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="PRIVATE-PROPERTY-AT-SEA" />PRIVATE PROPERTY AT SEA</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;The letter which you print this morning from
+Mr. Charles Stewart can hardly be taken as a serious
+contribution to the discussion of a question which has
+occupied for many years the attention of politicians, international
+lawyers, shipowners, traders, and naval experts.
+Mr. Stewart actually thinks that Lord Sydenham's argument
+to the effect that &quot;the fear of the severe economic strain
+which must result from the stoppage of a great commerce
+is a factor which makes for peace&quot; may be fairly paraphrased
+as advice to &quot;retain the practice because it is so
+barbarous that it will sicken the enemy of warfare.&quot; He
+goes on to say that this argument &quot;would apply equally
+to the poisoning of wells and to the use of explosive bullets.&quot;</p>
+
+<p>It may be worth while to contrast with the attitude of
+a writer who seems unable to distinguish between economic
+pressure and physical cruelty that taken up by a competent
+body, the large majority of the members of which belong
+to nations which, for various reasons, incline to the abolition
+of the usage in question. The Institut de Droit International,
+encouraged by the weight attached to its <i>Manual<span class="newpage"><a name="page105" id="page105">[105]</a></span>
+of the Law of War on Land</i> by the first and second Peace
+Conferences, has been, for some time past, working upon
+a <i>Manual of the Laws of War at Sea</i>. At its Christiania
+meeting in 1912 the Institut, while maintaining the
+previously expressed opinion of a majority of its members
+in favour of a change in the law, recognised that such a
+change has not yet come to pass, and that, till it occurs,
+regulations for the exercise of capture are indispensable,
+and directed the committee charged with the topic to draft
+rules presupposing the right of capture, and other rules
+to be applied should the right be hereafter surrendered
+(<i>Annuaire</i>, t. xxv., p. 602).</p>
+
+<p>The committee accordingly prepared a draft, framed in
+accordance with the existing practice, to the discussion of
+which the Institut devoted the whole of its recent session
+at Oxford, eventually giving its <i>imprimatur</i> to a Manual
+of the law of maritime warfare, as between the belligerents,
+in 116 articles. As opportunity serves, the committee will
+prepare a second draft, proceeding upon the hypothesis
+that the right of capturing private property at sea has been
+surrendered, which, in its turn, will be debated, word for
+word, by the Institut de Droit International.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, November 4 (1913).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+<hr style='width: 45%;' />
+
+<h3 class="sectionhead"><a name="CHAPTER_VI_SECTION_13" />SECTION 13</h3>
+
+<p class="subsectionhead">Martial Law</p>
+
+<div class="intronotes"><p>The first of the letters which follow has reference to the case of
+two Boer prisoners who, having taken the oath of neutrality on the
+British occupation of Pretoria, attempted to escape from the town.
+Both were armed, and one of them fired upon and wounded a sentinel
+who called upon them to stop. They were tried by court-martial,
+condemned to death, and shot on June 11, 1901. The Hague Convention
+quoted in the letter is that of 1899, but the same Art. 8 figures
+in the Convention of 1907.<span class="newpage"><a name="page106" id="page106">[106]</a></span></p>
+
+<p>The second and third of these letters relate to a question of English
+public law, growing out of the exercise of martial law in British territory
+in time of war. One Marais, accused of having contravened the
+martial law regulations of May 1, 1901, was imprisoned in Cape Colony
+by military authority, and the Supreme Court at the Cape held that
+it had no authority to order his release. The Privy Council refused an
+application for leave to appeal against this decision, saying that &quot;no
+doubt has ever existed that, when war actually prevails, the ordinary
+courts have no jurisdiction over the action of the military authorities&quot;;
+adding that &quot;the framers of the Petition of Right knew well what
+they meant when they made a condition of peace the ground of the
+illegality of unconstitutional procedure&quot; (<i>Ex parte</i> D.F. Marais, [1902]
+A.C. 109). Thereupon arose a discussion as to the extent of the prohibition
+of the exercise of martial law contained in the Petition of
+Right; and Mr. Edward Jenks, in letters to <i>The Times</i> of December 27,
+1901, and January 4, 1902, maintained that the prohibition in question
+was not confined to time of peace.</p>
+
+<p>The last letter deals with the true character of a Proclamation of
+Martial Law, and was suggested by the refusal of the Privy Council,
+on April 2, 1906, to grant leave to appeal from sentences passed in
+Natal by court-martial, in respect of acts committed on February 8,
+1906, whereby retrospective effect had, it was alleged, been given to a
+proclamation not issued till the day after the acts were committed,
+<i>See</i> Mcomini Mzinelwe and Wanda <i>v.</i> H.E. the Governor and the A.G.
+for the Colony of Natal, 22 <i>Times Law Reports</i>, 413.</p></div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="THE-EXECUTIONS-AT-PRETORIA" />THE EXECUTIONS AT PRETORIA</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;No doubt is possible that by international law, as
+probably by every system of national law, all necessary
+means, including shooting, may be employed to prevent the
+escape of a prisoner of war. The question raised by the
+recent occurrence at Pretoria is, however, a different one&mdash;<i>viz.</i>
+What are the circumstances in connection with an
+attempt to escape which justify execution after trial by
+court-martial of the persons concerned in it? This question
+may well be dealt with a part from the facts, as to which we
+are as yet imperfectly informed, which have called for Mr.
+Winston Churchill's letter. With the arguments of that
+letter I in the main agree, but should not attach so much
+importance as Mr. Churchill appears to do to a chapter of
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page107" id="page107">[107]</a></span>the British <i>Manual of Military Law</i>, which, though included
+in a Government publication, cannot be taken as official,
+since it is expressly stated &quot;to have no official authority&quot;
+and to &quot;express only the opinions of the compiler, as drawn
+from the authorities cited.&quot;</p>
+
+<p>I propose, without comment, to call attention to what
+may be found upon this subject in conventional International
+Law, in one or two representative national codes,
+and in the considered judgment of the leading contemporary
+international lawyers.</p>
+
+<p>I. The Hague &quot;Convention on the laws and customs of
+war on land&quot; (ratified by twenty Powers) lays down:&mdash;</p>
+
+<div class="letterquot"><p>&quot;ARTICLE 8.&mdash;Prisoners of war shall be subject to the laws, regulations,
+and orders in force in the army of the State into whose hands
+they have fallen. Any act of insubordination warrants the adoption
+as regards them of such measures of severity as may be necessary.
+Escaped prisoners, recaptured before they have succeeded in rejoining
+their army, or before quitting the territory occupied by the army that
+captured them, are liable to disciplinary punishment. Prisoners who
+after succeeding in escaping are again taken prisoners are not liable to
+any punishment for their previous flight.&quot;</p></div>
+
+<p>The Hague Conference, in adopting this article, adopted
+also, as an &quot;authentic interpretation&quot; of it, a statement
+that the indulgence granted to escapes does not apply to
+such as are accompanied by &quot;special circumstances,&quot; of
+which the instances given are &quot;complot, r&eacute;bellion, &eacute;meute.&quot;</p>
+
+<div class="letterquot"><p>&quot;ARTICLE 12.&mdash;Any prisoner of war who is liberated on parole and
+recaptured bearing arms against the Government to which he had
+pledged his honour, or against the allies of that Government, forfeits
+his right to be treated as a prisoner of war, and can be put on his trial.&quot;</p></div>
+
+<p>II. The United States Instructions:&mdash;</p>
+
+<div class="letterquot"><p>&quot;ARTICLE 77.&mdash;A prisoner of war may be shot or otherwise killed
+in his flight; but neither death nor any other punishment shall be
+inflicted on him simply for his attempt.... If, however, a conspiracy
+is discovered, the purpose of which is a united or general escape, the
+conspirators may be rigorously punished even with death, &amp;c.&quot;</p>
+
+<p>&quot;ARTICLE 78.&mdash;If prisoners of war, having given no pledge nor
+made any promise on their honour, forcibly or otherwise, escape, and
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page108" id="page108">[108]</a></span>are captured again in battle, having rejoined their own army, they
+shall not be punished for their escape.&quot;</p>
+
+<p>&quot;ARTICLE 124.&mdash;Breaking the parole is punished with death when
+the person breaking the parole is captured again.&quot;</p></div>
+
+<p><i>Cf.</i> the French <i>Code de Justice Militaire</i>, Art. 204, and
+other Continental codes to the same effect.</p>
+
+<p>III. The <i>Manuel des Lois de la guerre sur terre</i> of the
+Institute of International Law lays down:&mdash;</p>
+
+<div class="letterquot"><p>&quot;ARTICLE 68.&mdash;Si le fugitif
+<ins class="correction"
+  title="Transcriber's note: Printed _ressasi_ in original text.">
+ressaisi</ins> ou captur&eacute; de nouveau avait
+donne sa parole de ne pas s'&eacute;vader, il peut &ecirc;tre priv&eacute; des droits de
+prisonnier de guerre.&quot;</p>
+
+<p>&quot;ARTICLE 78.&mdash;Tout prisonnier lib&eacute;r&eacute; sur parole et repris portant
+les armes contre le gouvernement auquel il l'avait donn&eacute;e, peut &ecirc;tre
+priv&eacute; des droits de prisonnier de guerre, &agrave; moins que, post&eacute;rieurement
+&agrave; sa liberation, il n'ait &eacute;t&eacute; compris dans un cartel d'&eacute;change sans
+conditions.&quot;</p></div>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, June 17 (1901).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="THE-PETITION-OF-RIGHT-1901" />THE PETITION OF RIGHT</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;This is, I think, not a convenient time, nor perhaps
+are your columns the place, for an exhaustive discussion of
+the interpretation and application of the Petition of Right.
+It may, however, be just worth while to make the following
+remarks, for the comfort of any who may have been
+disquieted by the letter addressed to you by my friend
+Mr. Jenks:&mdash;</p>
+
+<p>1. Although, as is common knowledge, the words &quot;in
+time of peace,&quot; so familiar in the Mutiny Acts from the reign
+of Queen Anne onwards, do not occur in the Petition, they
+do occur, over and over again, in the arguments used in
+the House of Commons by &quot;the framers of the Petition
+of Right,&quot; to employ the phraseology of the judgment
+recently delivered in the Privy Council by the Lord
+Chancellor.<span class="newpage"><a name="page109" id="page109">[109]</a></span></p>
+
+<p>2. The prohibition contained in the Petition, so far
+from being &quot;absolute and unqualified,&quot; is perfectly specific.
+It refers expressly to &quot;Commissions of like nature&quot; with
+certain Commissions lately issued:&mdash;</p>
+
+<div class="letterquot"><p>&quot;By which certain persons have been assigned and appointed
+Commissioners, with power and authority to proceed within the land,
+according to the justice of martial law, against such soldiers or mariners,
+or other dissolute persons joining with them, as should commit any
+murder, robbery, felony, mutiny, or other outrage or misdemeanour
+whatsoever, and by such summary course and order as is agreeable to
+martial law, and is used in armies in time of war, &amp;c.&quot;</p></div>
+
+<p>The text of these Commissions, the revocation of which
+is demanded by the Petition, is still extant.</p>
+
+<p>3. The Petition neither affirms nor denies the legality of
+martial law in time of war; although its advocates were
+agreed that at such a time martial law would be applicable
+to soldiers.</p>
+
+<p>4. A war carried on at a distance from the English shore
+as was the war with France in 1628, did not produce such
+a state of things as was described by the advocates of the
+Petition as &quot;a time of war.&quot; &quot;We have now no army in
+the field, and it is no time of war,&quot; said Mason in the course
+of the debates. &quot;If the Chancery and Courts of Westminster
+be shut up, it is time of war, but if the Courts be
+open, it is otherwise; yet, if war be in any part of the
+Kingdom, that the Sheriff cannot execute the King's writ,
+there is <i>tempus belli</i>,&quot; said Rolls.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, December 31 (1901).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="THE-PETITION-OF-RIGHT-1902" />THE PETITION OF RIGHT</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;In a letter which you allowed me to address to
+you a few days ago, I dealt with two perfectly distinct
+topics.</p>
+
+<p>In the first place I pointed out that the words occurring
+in a recent judgment of the Privy Council, which were cited
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page110" id="page110">[110]</a></span>by Mr. Jenks as a clear example of an assumption &quot;that
+the Petition of Right, in prohibiting the exercise of martial
+law, restricted its prohibition to time of peace,&quot; imply, as
+I read them, no assumption as to the meaning of that document,
+but merely contain an accurate statement of fact as
+to the line of argument followed by the supporters of the
+Petition in the House of Commons. Can Mr. Jenks really
+suppose that in making this remark I was &quot;appealing from
+the 'text of the Petition' to the debates in Parliament&quot;?</p>
+
+<p>I then proceeded to deal very shortly with the Petition
+itself, showing that while it neither condemns nor approves
+of the application of martial law in time of war (see Lord
+Blackburn's observations in R. <i>v.</i> Eyre), the prohibition
+contained in its martial law clauses, so far from being &quot;absolute
+and unqualified,&quot; relates exclusively to &quot;commissions
+of like nature&quot; with certain commissions which had been
+lately issued (at a time which admittedly, for the purposes
+of this discussion, was not &quot;a time of war&quot;), the text of
+which is still preserved, and the character of which is set
+forth in the Petition itself, as having authorised proceedings
+within the land, &quot;according to the justice of martial
+law, against such soldiers or mariners,&quot; as also against
+&quot;such other dissolute persons joining with them,&quot; &amp;c. The
+description of these commissions, be it observed, is not
+merely introduced into the Petition by way of recital, but
+is incorporated by express reference into the enacting clause.</p>
+
+<p>Thus much and no more I thought it desirable to say
+upon these two topics by way of dissent from a letter of
+Mr. Jenks upon the subject. In a second letter Mr. Jenks
+rides off into fresh country. I do not propose to follow him
+into the history of the conferences which took place in May,
+1628, after the framing of the Petition of Right, except to
+remark that what passed at these conferences is irrelevant
+to the interpretation to be placed upon the Petition, and,
+if relevant, would be opposed to Mr. Jenks's contention.
+It is well known that the Lords pressed the Commons to
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page111" id="page111">[111]</a></span>introduce various amendments into the Petition and to
+add to it the famous reservation of the &quot;sovereign power&quot;
+of the King. One of the proposed amendments referred,
+as Mr. Jenks says, to martial law, forbidding its application
+to &quot;any but soldiers and mariners,&quot; or &quot;in time of peace,
+or when your Majesty's Army is not on foot.&quot; The
+Commons' objection to this seems to have been that it was
+both unnecessary and obscurely expressed. &quot;Their complaint
+is against commissions in time of peace.&quot; &quot;It may
+be a time of peace, and yet his Majesty's Army may be on
+foot, and that martial law was not lawful here in England
+in time of peace, when the Chancery and other Courts do
+sit.&quot; &quot;They feared that this addition might extend martial
+law to the trained bands, for the uncertainty thereof.&quot;
+The objections of the Commons were, however, directed not
+so much to the amendments in detail as to any tampering
+with the text of the Petition. &quot;They would not alter any
+part of the Petition&quot; (nor did they, except by expunging
+two words alleged to be needlessly offensive), still less would
+they consent to add to it the reservation as to the &quot;sovereign
+power&quot; of the King.</p>
+
+<p>The story of these abortive conferences, however interesting
+historically, appears to me to have no bearing upon
+the legality of martial law, and I have no intention of
+returning to the subject.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, January 8 (1902).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="MARTIAL-LAW-IN-NATAL" />MARTIAL LAW IN NATAL</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;It seems that in the application made yesterday
+to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, on behalf
+of Natal natives under sentence of death, much stress was
+laid upon the argument that a proclamation of martial law
+cannot have a retrospective application. You will, perhaps,
+therefore allow me to remind your readers that, so far from
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page112" id="page112">[112]</a></span>the date of the proclamation having any bearing upon the
+merits of this painful case, the issue of any proclamation
+of martial law, in a self-governing British colony, neither
+increases nor diminishes the powers of the military or other
+authorities to take such steps as they may think proper
+for the safety of the country. If those steps were properly
+taken they are covered by the common law; if they have
+exceeded the necessities of the case they can be covered
+only by an Act of Indemnity. The proclamation is issued
+merely, from abundant caution, as a useful warning to those
+whom it may concern.</p>
+
+<p>This view, I venture to think, cannot now be seriously
+controverted; and I am glad to find, on turning to Mr.
+Clode's <i>Military and Martial Law</i> that the passage cited
+in support of Mr. Jellicoe's contention as to a proclamation
+having no retroactive application is merely to the effect that
+this is so, if certain statements, made many years ago in a
+debate upon the subject, are correct. As to their correctness,
+or otherwise, Mr. Clode expresses no opinion.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+</div>
+
+<hr style='width: 45%;' />
+
+<h3 class="sectionhead"><a name="CHAPTER_VI_SECTION_14" />SECTION 14</h3>
+
+<p class="subsectionhead">The Naval Bombardment of Open Coast Towns</p>
+
+<div class="intronotes"><p>The four letters which first follow were suggested by the British
+Naval Man&oelig;uvres of 1888, during which operations were supposed
+to be carried on, by the squadron playing the part of a hostile fleet,
+which I ventured to assert to be in contravention of international law.
+Many letters were written by naval men in a contrary sense, and the
+report of a committee of admirals appointed to consider, among other
+questions, &quot;the feasibility and expediency of cruisers making raids on
+an enemy's coasts and unprotected towns for the purpose of levying
+contributions,&quot; was to the effect that &quot;there can be no doubt about
+the feasibility of such operations by a maritime enemy possessed of
+sufficient power; and as to the expediency, there can be as little doubt
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page113" id="page113">[113]</a></span>but that any Power at war with Great Britain will adopt every possible
+means of weakening her enemy; and we know of no means more
+efficacious for making an enemy feel the pinch of war than by thus
+destroying his property and touching his pocket.&quot; (<i>Parl. Paper</i>,
+1889 [c. 5632], pp. 4, 8.) The supposed hostile squadron had, it
+seems, received express instructions &quot;to attack any port in Great
+Britain.&quot; (See more fully in the writer's <i>Studies in International
+Law</i>, 1898, p. 96.) The fifth letter was suggested by a Russian protest
+against alleged Japanese action in 1904.</p>
+
+<p>The subsequent history of this controversy, some account of which
+will be found at the end of this section, has, it is submitted, established
+the correctness of the views maintained in it.</p></div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="NAVAL-ATROCITIES" />NAVAL ATROCITIES</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;I trust we may soon learn on authority whether
+or no the enemies of this country are conducting naval
+hostilities in accordance with the rules of civilised warfare.
+I read with indignation that the <i>Spider</i> has destroyed
+Greenock; that she announced her intention of &quot;blowing
+down&quot; Ardrossan; that she has been &quot;shelling the fine
+marine residences and watering-places in the Vale of Clyde.&quot;
+Can this be true, and was there really any ground for expecting
+that &quot;a bombardment of the outside coast of the
+Isle of Wight&quot; would take place last night?</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">Your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Athen&aelig;um Club, August 7 (1888).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="THE-NAVAL-MANOEUVRES-A" />THE NAVAL MAN&OElig;UVRES</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;In a letter which I addressed to you on the 7th
+inst. I ventured to point out the discrepancy between the
+proceedings of certain vessels belonging to Admiral Tryon's
+fleet and the rules of civilised warfare. Your correspondent
+on board Her Majesty's ship <i>Ajax</i> yesterday told us something
+of the opinion of the fleet as to the bombardment
+and ransoming of defenceless seaboard towns, going on to
+predict that, in a war in which England should be engaged,
+privateers would again be as plentiful as in the days of<span class="newpage"><a name="page114" id="page114">[114]</a></span>
+Paul Jones, and assuring us that in such a war &quot;not the
+slightest respect would be paid to old-fashioned treaties,
+protocols, or other diplomatic documents.&quot; Captain James
+appears, from his letter which you print to-day, to be of
+the same opinion as the fleet, with reference both to
+bombardments and to privateers; telling us also in plain
+language that &quot;the talk about international law is all
+nonsense.&quot;</p>
+
+<p>Two questions are thus raised which seem worthy of
+serious consideration. First, what are the rules of
+international law with reference to the bombardment of open
+towns from the sea (I leave out of consideration the better
+understood topic of privateering)? Secondly, are future
+wars likely to be conducted without regard to international
+law?</p>
+
+<p>1. I need hardly say that I do not, as Captain James
+supposes, contend &quot;that unfortified towns will never be
+bombarded or ransomed.&quot; International law has never
+prohibited, though it has attempted to restrict, the
+bombardment of such towns. Even in 1694 our Government
+defended the destruction of Dieppe, Havre, and Calais
+only as a measure of retaliation, and in subsequent naval
+wars operations of this kind have been more and more
+carefully limited, till in the Crimean war our cruisers were
+careful to abstain from doing further damage than was
+involved in the confiscation or destruction of stores of arms
+and provisions. The principles involved were carefully
+considered by the military delegates of all the States of
+Europe at the Brussels Conference of 1874, and their
+conclusions, which apply, I conceive, <i>mutatis mutandis</i>, to
+operations conducted by naval forces against places on
+land, are as follows:&mdash;</p>
+
+<div class="letterquot"><p>&quot;ARTICLE 15.&mdash;Fortified places are alone liable to be besieged.
+Towns, agglomerations of houses, or villages which are open or
+undefended cannot be attacked or bombarded.&quot;</p>
+
+<p>&quot;ARTICLE 16.&mdash;But if a town, &amp;c., be defended, the commander of
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page115" id="page115">[115]</a></span>the attacking forces should, before commencing a bombardment,
+and except in the case of surprise, do all in his power to warn the
+authorities.&quot;</p>
+
+<p>&quot;ARTICLE 40.&mdash;As private property should be respected, the enemy
+will demand from parishes or the inhabitants only such payments
+and services as are connected with the necessities of war generally
+acknowledged, in proportion to the resources of the country.&quot;</p>
+
+<p>&quot;ARTICLE 41.&mdash;The enemy in levying contributions, whether as
+equivalents for taxes or for payments which should be made in kind,
+or as fines, will proceed, as far as possible, according to the rules of
+the distribution and assessment of the taxes in force in the occupied
+territory. Contributions can be imposed only on the order and on the
+responsibility of the general in chief.&quot;</p>
+
+<p>&quot;ARTICLE 42.&mdash;Requisitions shall be made only by the authority
+of the commandant of the locality occupied.&quot;</p></div>
+
+<p>These conclusions are substantially followed in the
+chapter on the &quot;Customs of War&quot; contained in the <i>Manual
+of Military Law</i> issued for the use of officers by the British
+War Office.</p>
+
+<p>The bombardment of an unfortified town would, I
+conceive, be lawful&mdash;(1) as a punishment for disloyal
+conduct; (2) in extreme cases, as retaliation for disloyal
+conduct elsewhere; (3) for the purpose of quelling armed
+resistance (not as a punishment for resistance when quelled);
+(4) in case of refusal of reasonable supplies requisitioned,
+or of a reasonable money contribution in lieu of supplies.
+It would, I conceive, be unlawful&mdash;(1) for the purpose of
+enforcing a fancy contribution or ransom, such as we were
+told was exacted from Liverpool; (2) by way of wanton
+injury to private property, such as was supposed to have
+been caused in the Clyde and at Folkestone, and <i>a fortiori</i>
+such as would have resulted from the anticipated shelling
+during the night-time of the south coast of the Isle of Wight.</p>
+
+<p>2. Is it the case that international law is &quot;all nonsense,&quot;
+and that &quot;when we are at war with an enemy he will do
+his best to injure us: he will do so in what way he thinks
+proper, all treaties and all so-called international law
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page116" id="page116">[116]</a></span>notwithstanding&quot;? Are we, with Admiral Aube, to
+speak of &quot;cette monstrueuse association de mots: les
+droits de la guerre&quot;? If so, <i>cadit qu&aelig;stio</i>, and a vast
+amount of labour has been wasted during the last three
+centuries. I can only say that such a view of the future
+is not in accordance with the teachings of the past. The
+body of accepted usage, supplemented by special conventions,
+which is known as international law, has, as a matter
+of fact, exercised, even in time of war, a re staining influence
+on national conduct. This assertion might be illustrated
+from the discussions which have arisen during recent wars
+with reference to the Geneva Conventions to the treatment
+of the wounded and the St. Petersburg declaration against
+the use of explosive bullets. The binding obligation of
+these instruments, which would doubtless be classed by
+your correspondent with the fleet among &quot;old-fashioned
+treaties, protocols, and other diplomatic documents,&quot; has
+never been doubted, while each party has eagerly
+endeavoured to disprove alleged infractions of them.</p>
+
+<p>The naval man&oelig;uvres have doubtless taught many
+lessons of practical seamanship. They will have done
+good service of another sort if they have brought to the
+attention of responsible statesmen such questions as those
+with which I have attempted to deal. It is essential that
+the country should know the precise extent of the risks to
+which our seaboard towns will be exposed in time of war,
+and it is desirable that our naval forces should be warned
+against any course of action, in their conduct of mimic
+warfare, which could be cited against us, in case we should
+ever have to complain of similar action on the part of a
+real enemy.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">Your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, August 18 (1888).</div><br />
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page117" id="page117">[117]</a></span></div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="THE-NAVAL-MANOEUVRES-B" />THE NAVAL MAN&OElig;UVRES</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;In my first letter I called attention to certain
+operations of the <i>Spider</i> and her consorts which seemed
+to be inspired by no principle beyond that of doing
+unlimited mischief to the enemy's seaboard. In a second
+letter I endeavoured to distinguish between the mischief
+which would and that which would not be regarded as
+permissible in civilised warfare. The correspondence which
+has subsequently appeared in your columns has made
+sufficiently clear the opposition between the view which
+seems to find favour just now in naval circles and the
+principles of international law, as I have attempted to
+define them. The question between my critics and myself
+is, in effect, whether the medi&aelig;val or the modern view
+as to the treatment of private property is to prevail.
+According to the former, all such property is liable to be
+seized or destroyed, in default of a &quot;Brandschatz,&quot; or
+ransom. According to the latter, it is inviolable, subject
+only to certain well-defined exceptions, among which
+reasonable requisitions of supplies would be recognised,
+while demands of money contributions, as such, would not
+be recognised.</p>
+
+<p>The evidence in favour of the modern view being what
+I have stated it to be is, indeed, overwhelming; but I
+should like to call special attention to the <i>Manuel de Droit
+International &agrave; l'Usage des Officiers de l'Arm&eacute;e de Terre</i>,
+issued by the French Government, as going even further
+than the Brussels Conference in the restrictions which it
+imposes upon the levying of requisitions and contributions.
+The Duke of Wellington, who used to be thought an
+authority in these matters, wrote in 1844, with reference
+to a pamphlet in which the Prince de Joinville had advocated
+depredations on the English coasts:&mdash;</p>
+
+<div class="letterquot"><p>&quot;What but the inordinate desire of popularity could have induced
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page118" id="page118">[118]</a></span>a man in his station to write and publish an invitation and provocation
+to war, to be carried on in a manner such as has been disclaimed by
+the civilised portions of mankind?&quot;</p></div>
+
+<p>The naval historian, Mr. Younge, in commenting on
+the burning of Paita, in Chili, as far back as 1871, for
+non-compliance with a demand for a money contribution
+(ultimately reduced to a requisition of provisions for the
+ships), speaks of it as &quot;worthy only of the most lawless
+pirate or buccaneer, ... as a singular proof of how completely
+the principles of civilised warfare were conceived
+to be confined to Europe.&quot;</p>
+
+<p>Such exceptional acts as the burning of Paita, or the
+bombardment of Valparaiso, mentioned by Mr. Herries,
+will, of course, occur from time to time. My position is
+that they are so far stigmatised as barbarous by public
+opinion that their perpetration in civilised warfare may be
+regarded as improbable; in other words, that they are
+forbidden by international law.</p>
+
+<p>It is a further question whether the rules of international
+law on this point are to be changed or disregarded in future.
+Do we expect, and are we desirous, that future wars shall
+be conducted in accordance with buccaneering precedent,
+or with what has hitherto been the general practice of the
+nineteenth century? Your naval correspondents incline
+to revert to buccaneering and thus to the introduction into
+naval coast operations of a rigour long unknown to the
+operations of military forces on land; but they do so with
+a difference. Lord Charles Beresford (writing early in the
+controversy) asserts the permissibility of ransoming and
+destroying, without any qualifying expressions; while
+Admiral de Horsey would apparently only ask &quot;rich&quot;
+towns for contributions, insisting also that a contribution
+must be &quot;reasonable,&quot; and expressly repudiating any
+claim to do &quot;wanton injury to property of poor communities,
+and still less to individuals.&quot; In the light of
+these concessions, I venture to claim Admiral de Horsey's
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page119" id="page119">[119]</a></span>concurrence in my condemnation of most of the doings
+mentioned in my first letter, although on the whole he
+ranges himself on the side of the advocates of what I
+maintain to be a change in the existing law of war.
+Whether or no the existing law needs revision is a question
+for politicians and for military and naval experts. It is
+within my province only to express a hope that the
+contradiction between existing law and new military necessities
+(if, indeed, such contradiction exists) will not be solved by
+a repudiation of all law as &quot;nonsense&quot;; and, further,
+that, if a change of law is to be effected, it will be done
+with due deliberation and under a sense of responsibility.
+It should be remembered that operations conducted with
+the apparent approval of the highest naval authorities,
+and letters in <i>The Times</i> from distinguished admirals, are
+in truth the stuff that public opinion, and in particular
+that department of public opinion known as &quot;international
+law,&quot; is made of.</p>
+
+<p>The ignorance, by the by, which certain of my critics
+have displayed of the nature and claims of international
+law is not a little surprising. Some seem to identify it
+with treaties; others with &quot;Vattel.&quot; Several, having
+become aware that it is not law of the kind which is
+enforced by a policeman or a County Court bailiff, have
+hastened, much exhilarated, to give the world the benefit
+of their discovery. Most of them are under the impression
+that it has been concocted by &quot;bookworms,&quot; &quot;jurists,&quot;
+&quot;professors,&quot; or other &quot;theorists,&quot; instead of, as is the
+fact, mainly by statesmen, diplomatists, prize courts,
+generals and admirals. This is, however, a wide field, into
+which I must not stray. I have even avoided the pleasant
+by-paths of disquisition on contraband, privateering, and
+the Declaration of Paris generally, into which some of
+your correspondents have courteously invited me. I fear
+we are as yet far from having disposed of the comparatively
+simple question as to the operations which may be
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page120" id="page120">[120]</a></span>properly undertaken by a naval squadron against an
+undefended seaboard.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Llanfairfechan, August 27 (1888).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="NAVAL-BOMBARDMENTS-OF-UNFORTIFIED-PLACES" />NAVAL BOMBARDMENTS OF UNFORTIFIED PLACES</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;The protest reported to have been lodged by the
+Russian Government against the bombardment by the
+Japanese fleet of a quarantine station on the island of
+San-shan-tao, apart from questions of fact, as to which
+we have as yet no reliable information, recalls attention
+to a question of international law of no slight importance&mdash;<i>viz.</i>
+under what, if any, circumstances it is permissible
+for a naval force to bombard an &quot;open&quot; coast town.</p>
+
+<p>In the first place, it may be hardly necessary to point
+out the irrelevancy of the reference, alleged to have been
+made in the Russian Note, to &quot;Article 25 of The Hague
+Convention.&quot; The Convention and the <i>R&egrave;glement</i> annexed
+to it are, of course, exclusively applicable to &quot;la guerre
+sur terre.&quot; Not only, however, would any mention of
+a naval bombardment have been out of place in that
+<i>R&egrave;glement</i>, but a proposal to bring such action within the
+scope of its 25th Article, which prohibits &quot;the attack or
+bombardment of towns, villages, habitations, or buildings
+which are not defended,&quot; was expressly negatived by the
+Conference of The Hague. It became abundantly clear,
+during the discussion of this proposal, that the only
+chance of an agreement being arrived at was that any
+allusion to maritime warfare should be carefully avoided.
+It was further ultimately admitted, even by the advocates
+of the proposal, that the considerations applicable to
+bombardments by an army and by a naval force respectively
+are not identical. It was, for instance, urged that
+an army has means other than those which may alone be
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page121" id="page121">[121]</a></span>available to a fleet for obtaining from an open town absolutely
+needful supplies. The Hague Conference, therefore,
+left the matter where it found it, recording, however,
+among its &quot;pious wishes&quot; (<i>v&oelig;ux</i>) one to the effect &quot;that
+the proposal to regulate the question of the bombardment
+of ports, towns, and villages by a naval force should be
+referred for examination to a future conference.&quot;</p>
+
+<p>The topic is not a new one. You, Sir, allowed me
+to raise it in your columns with reference to the naval
+man&oelig;uvres of 1888, when a controversy ensued which
+disclosed the existence of a considerable amount of naval
+opinion in favour of practices which I ventured to think
+in contravention of international law. It was also
+thoroughly debated in 1896 at the Venice meeting of the
+Institut de Droit International upon a report drafted by
+myself, as chairman of a committee appointed a year
+previously. This report lays down that the restrictions
+placed by international law upon bombardments on land
+apply also to those effected from the sea, except that such
+operations are lawful for a naval force when undertaken
+with a view to (1) obtaining supplies of which it is in need;
+(2) destroying munitions of war or warships which may
+be in a port; (3) punishing, by way of reprisal, violations
+by the enemy of the laws of war. Bombardments for the
+purpose of exacting a ransom or of putting pressure upon
+the hostile Power by injury to peaceful individuals or their
+property were to be unlawful. The views of the committee
+were, in substance, adopted by the Institut, with the
+omission only of the paragraph allowing bombardment by
+way of reprisals.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, April 2 (1904).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+<div class="postnotes"><p>The &quot;Hague Conference&quot; and &quot;Hague Convention&quot; to which
+reference was made in the last of these letters were, of course, those
+of 1899.</p>
+
+<p>For the action taken by the Institut de Droit International in 1895
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page122" id="page122">[122]</a></span>and 1896, on the initiative of the present writer, see the <i>Annuaire de
+l'Institut</i>, t. xiv p. 295, t. xv. pp. 145-151, 309, 317; and his
+<i>Studies in International Law</i>, pp. 106-111. See also, at p. 104 of the
+same work, an opinion given by him to the Chevalier Tindal as to the
+liability of The Hague to be bombarded.</p>
+
+<p>The later growth of opinion has been in accordance with the views
+maintained by the writer of these letters, and with the <i>Rapport</i> drafted
+by him for the Institut. The Hague Conference of 1899, though
+unable to discuss the subject, had registered a <i>v&aelig;u</i> &quot;that the proposal
+to regulate the question of the bombardment of ports, towns and
+villages by a naval force may be referred for examination to a future
+Conference.&quot; See <i>Parl. Paper, Miscell.</i> No. 1 (1889), pp. 139, 146,
+162, 165, 258, 283. At the Conference of 1907 a Convention, No. ix.,
+was accordingly signed and generally ratified, notably by Germany and
+Great Britain, Art. 1 of which prohibits &quot;the bombardment by naval
+forces of ports towns, villages, houses, or buildings which are not
+defended,&quot; Germany, France, Great Britain and Japan dissenting
+from the second paragraph of this article, which explains that a place is
+not to be considered to be defended merely because it is protected by
+submarine contact-mines. Bombardment is, however, permitted, by
+Art. 2, of places which are, in fact, military or naval bases, and, by
+Arts. 3 and 4, of places which refuse to comply with reasonable requisitions
+for food needed by the fleet, though not for refusal of money contributions.
+The <i>Acte Final</i> of the Conference further registers a <i>v&aelig;u</i> that
+&quot;the Powers should, in all cases, apply, as far as possible, to war at sea
+the principles of the Convention concerning the laws and customs
+of war on land.&quot; (<i>Parl. Paper, Miscell.</i> No. 1 (1908), p. 30.) This
+Convention, No. iv. of 1907, in Art. 25 of the <i>R&egrave;glement</i> annexed to it,
+lays down that &quot;the attack or bombardment, by whatsoever means,
+of towns, villages, habitations, or buildings which are not defended
+is prohibited.&quot;</p>
+
+<p>The British Government had, in 1907, so far departed from the
+Admiralty views of 1888 as to instruct their delegates to the Conference
+of that year to the effect that &quot;the Government consider that the
+objection, on humanitarian grounds, to the bombardment of unfortified
+towns is too strong to justify a resort to that measure, even
+though it may be permissible under the abstract doctrines of international
+law [?]. They wish it, however, to be clearly understood that
+any general prohibition of such practice must not be held to apply to
+such operations as the bombardment of towns or places used as bases
+or storehouses of naval or military equipment or supply, or ports
+containing fighting ships, and that the landing of troops, or anything
+partaking of the character of a military or naval operation, is also not
+covered.&quot;<span class="newpage"><a name="page123" id="page123">[123]</a></span></p>
+
+<p>It is hardly necessary to chronicle the indignation aroused by
+the raids upon undefended coast towns carried out by German cruisers
+during the war of 1914, in violation of modern International Law
+and notwithstanding the German ratification of Convention No. ix.
+of 1907.</p></div>
+
+<hr style='width: 45%;' />
+
+<h3 class="sectionhead"><a name="CHAPTER_VI_SECTION_15" />SECTION 15</h3>
+
+<p class="subsectionhead">Belligerent Reprisals</p>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="REPRISALS-A" />REPRISALS</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;The controversy as to the legitimacy of the
+recent attack on Freiburg tends to stray into irrelevancies.
+If the attack was made upon barracks or troop trains no
+one would surely criticise what is of everyday occurrence,
+although not unlikely to cause incidentally death or injury
+to innocent persons. There seems, however, to be no
+reason for supposing that such military objects were in
+view, or that our aeroplanes were instructed to confine
+their activity, as far as possible, to the attainment of such
+objects. We must assume, for any useful discussion of
+the question raised, that the operation was deliberately
+intended to result in injury to the property and persons
+of civilian inhabitants, not, of course, by way of vengeance,
+but by way of reprisal&mdash;<i>i.e.</i> with the practical object of
+inducing the enemy to abstain in the future from his
+habitually practised illegal barbarities. Such reprisals, as is
+to-day so well explained by your correspondent &quot;Jurist,&quot;
+are no violations of international law. Objections might,
+of course, be made to them as unlikely to produce their
+hoped-for effect, or as repugnant to our feelings of humanity
+or honour. They are not illegal.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, May 4 (1917).</div><br />
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page124" id="page124">[124]</a></span></div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="REPRISALS-B" />REPRISALS</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;If my friend Sir Edward Clarke will glance again
+at my letter of Monday, he will, I think, cease to be surprised
+that it contains no answer to his censure from an ethical
+standpoint of our treatment of Freiburg. My object
+was merely to indicate the desirability of keeping the
+question whether acts of the kind are in violation of
+international law (which I answered in the negative) distinct
+from questions, which I catalogued, as to their practical
+inutility, with which some of your correspondents have
+occupied themselves, or their repugnancy to feelings of
+honour and humanity with which Sir Edward has dealt
+exclusively. Any discussion of political expediency or of
+high morals would have been beside my purpose.</p>
+
+<p>It is curious that Sir Herbert Stephen should to-day
+speak of my letter of the 7th as a defence of the
+aerial bombardment of Freiburg. It neither attacked nor
+defended the bombardment, but, solely in the interests
+of clear thinking, indicated the desirability of keeping
+distinct the three points of view from which the topic may
+be regarded, <i>viz.</i>: (1) of international law;
+(2) of practical utility; (3) of morality and honour.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, May 9 (1917).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+<hr style='width: 45%;' />
+
+<h3 class="sectionhead"><a name="CHAPTER_VI_SECTION_16" />SECTION 16</h3>
+
+<p class="subsectionhead">Peace</p>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="UNDESIRABLE-PEACE-TALK" />UNDESIRABLE PEACE TALK</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;There has been more than enough of premature
+discussion by groups of well-meaning amateurs, not unfrequently
+wirepulled by influences hostile to this country,
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page125" id="page125">[125]</a></span>with reference to the terms of the treaty of peace by which
+the world-war now raging will be brought to a close.</p>
+
+<p>Movements of the kind have culminated in the action
+of a body rejoicing in the somewhat cumbrous title of the
+&quot;International Central Organisation for a Durable Peace,&quot;
+which is inviting members of about fifty societies, of very
+varying degrees of competence, to a cosmopolitan meeting,
+to be held at Berne in December next. Lest the unwary
+should be beguiled into having anything to do with the
+plausible offer made to them that they should, there and
+then, assist in compiling &quot;a scientific dossier, containing
+material that will be of vast importance to the diplomats
+who may be chosen to participate in the peace congress itself,&quot;
+it may be worth while to call attention to the composition
+of the executive committee by which the invitations
+are issued, and to its &quot;minimum programme.&quot;</p>
+
+<p>Of the members of this committee (of thirteen), on
+which Great Britain is represented only by Mr. Lowes
+Dickenson (mistakenly described as a Cambridge Professor),
+and America only by Mrs. Andrews, of Boston, the best
+known are Professors Lammasch, of Vienna, and Sch&uuml;cking,
+of Marburg. The &quot;minimum programme&quot; demands, <i>inter
+alia</i>, &quot;equal rights for all nations in the colonies, &amp;c.,&quot;
+of the Powers; submission of all disputes to &quot;pacific
+procedure,&quot; joint action by the Powers against any one
+of them resorting to military measures, rather than to
+such procedure; and that &quot;the right of prize shall be
+abolished, and the freedom of the seas shall be guaranteed.&quot;
+The <i>provenance</i> of this &quot;minimum programme&quot; is
+sufficiently obvious. What is likely to be the character
+of such a &quot;maximum programme&quot; as will doubtless be
+aimed at by the proposed gathering?</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, October 16 (1915).</div><br />
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page126" id="page126">[126]</a></span></div>
+
+
+
+<hr style="width: 65%;" />
+<h2><a name="CHAPTER_VII" id="CHAPTER_VII" />CHAPTER VII</h2>
+
+<p class="chaptertitle">THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF NEUTRALS</p>
+
+
+<h3 class="sectionhead"><a name="CHAPTER_VII_SECTION_1" />SECTION 1</h3>
+
+<p class="subsectionhead">The Criterion of Neutral Conduct</p>
+
+<div class="intronotes"><p>The main object of the first of the following letters was to assert, as
+against any possible misunderstanding of phraseology attributed to
+a great international lawyer (since lost to science and to his friends by
+his sudden death on June 20, 1909), the authority by which alone
+neutral rights and duties are defined.</p>
+
+<p>The letter also touches upon the limit of time which a neutral
+Power is bound to place upon the stay in its ports of belligerent ships
+of war; a topic more fully discussed in Section 4.</p></div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="PROFESSOR-DE-MARTENS-ON-THE-SITUATION" />PROFESSOR DE MARTENS ON THE SITUATION</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;The name of my distinguished friend, M. de
+Martens, carries so much weight that I hope you will allow
+me at once to say that I am convinced that to-day's
+telegraphic report of some communication made by him to
+the St. Petersburg newspapers fails to convey an accurate
+account of the views which he has thus expressed.</p>
+
+<p>On matters of fact it would appear that he is no better
+informed than are most of us in this country; and under
+matters of fact may be included the breaches of neutrality
+which he is represented as counter-charging against the
+Japanese. It is exclusively with the views on questions of
+law which are attributed to Professor de Martens that I am
+now concerned. He is unquestionably right in saying, as I
+pointed out in a recent letter, that the hard-and-fast rule,
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page127" id="page127">[127]</a></span>fixing 24 hours as the limit, under ordinary circumstances,
+of the stay of a belligerent warship in neutral waters, is not
+yet universally accepted as a rule of international law;
+and, in particular, is not adopted by France.</p>
+
+<p>But what of the further <i>dictum</i> attributed to Professor
+de Martens, to the effect that &quot;each country is its own judge
+as regards the discharge of its duties as a neutral&quot;? This
+statement would be a superfluous truism if it meant merely
+that each country, when neutral, must, in the first instance,
+decide for itself what courses of action are demanded from
+it under the circumstances. The words may, however, be
+read as meaning that the decision of the neutral country,
+as to the propriety of its conduct, is final, and not to be
+questioned by other Powers. An assertion to this effect
+would obviously be the negation of the whole system of
+international law, of which Professor de Martens is so great
+a master, resting, as that system does, not on individual
+caprice, but upon the agreement of nations in restraint of
+the caprice of any one of them. The last word, with reference
+to the propriety of the conduct of any given State,
+rests, of course, not with that State; but with its neighbours.
+&quot;Securus indicat orbis terrarum.&quot; Any Power which fails
+in the discharge, to the best of its ability, of a generally
+recognised duty, is likely to find that self-satisfaction is no
+safeguard against unpleasant consequences. Professor de
+Martens would, I am certain, endorse this statement.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, May 12 (1905).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="NEUTRALS-AND-THE-LAWS-OF-WAR" />NEUTRALS AND THE LAWS OF WAR</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;The interesting address by Sir Edward Carson
+reported in your issue of yesterday will remind many of
+us of our regret that President Wilson, in Notes complaining
+of injuries sustained by American citizens, dwelt so slightly
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page128" id="page128">[128]</a></span>upon the violations of international law by which those
+injuries were brought about.</p>
+
+<p>Sir Edward seems, however, to have made use of certain
+expressions which might be taken to imply a view of neutral
+responsibility which can hardly be accepted. The United
+States were warned in the address that they will not &quot;by
+a mere Note maintain the obligations which are put upon
+them, as parties to international law, which are to prevent
+breaches of civilisation and to mitigate the horrors of war.&quot;
+Neutrals were spoken of as &quot;the executives of international
+law,&quot; and as alone standing &quot;behind the conventions&quot;
+(for humanising warfare). &quot;Abolish,&quot; we were told, &quot;the
+power of neutrals, and you have abolished international
+law itself.&quot;</p>
+
+<p>Is this so? The contract into which a State enters with
+other States, by adopting the customary laws of war and
+by ratifying express Conventions dealing with the same
+subject, obliges it, while remaining neutral, to submit to
+certain inconveniences resulting from the war, and, when
+belligerent, to abstain from certain modes of carrying on
+hostilities. It is assuredly no term of the contract that
+the State in question shall sit in judgment upon its co-contractors
+and forcibly intervene in <i>rebus inter alios actis</i>.
+Its hands are absolutely free. It may remain a quiescent
+spectator of evil, or, if strong enough and indignant with
+the wrongdoing, may endeavour to abate the mischief
+by remonstrance, and, in the last resort, by taking sides
+against the offender. Let us hope that at the present crisis
+the United States may see their way to choosing the better part.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, November 28 (1915).</div><br />
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page129" id="page129">[129]</a></span></div>
+
+<hr style='width: 45%;' />
+
+<h3 class="sectionhead"><a name="CHAPTER_VII_SECTION_2" />SECTION 2</h3>
+
+<p class="subsectionhead">The Duties of Neutral States, and the Liabilities of Neutral
+Individuals, distinguished</p>
+
+<div class="intronotes">
+<p>The duties of neutral States have been classified by the present
+writer under the heads, of &quot;Abstention,&quot; &quot;Prevention,&quot; and &quot;Acquiescence.&quot;
+(<i>Transactions of the British Academy</i>, vol. ii, p. 55; reproduced
+in the <i>Revue de Droit International</i>, the <i>Revista de Derecho International</i>,
+and the <i>Marine Rundschau</i>.) In the three letters which follow, an
+attempt is made to point out the confusion which has resulted from
+failure to distinguish between the two last-mentioned heads of neutral
+duty; on the one hand, namely, the cases in which a neutral government
+is bound itself to come forward and take steps to prevent certain classes
+of action on the part of belligerents, or of its own subjects, <i>e.g.</i> the overstay
+in its ports of belligerent fleets, or the export from its shores of
+ships of war for belligerent use; and, on the other hand, the cases in
+which the neutral government is bound only to passively acquiesce in
+interference by belligerents with the commerce of such of its subjects
+as may choose, at their own risk and peril, to engage in carriage of
+contraband, breach of blockade, and the like.</p>
+
+<p>I. A neutral State is bound to prevent its territory from becoming,
+in any way, a &quot;base of operations&quot; for either belligerent. Of the
+various obligations thus arising, the following letters deal with the duty
+of the State (1) to prevent the departure from its ports of vessels
+carrying coal intended to supply directly the needs of a belligerent
+fleet; and (2) to prevent the reception accorded in its ports to belligerent
+warships from being such as will unduly facilitate their subsequent
+operations. It is pointed out that the rule adopted by the
+United States and this country, as well as by some others, when neutral,
+by which the stay of belligerent warships is limited to twenty-four
+hours, has not been adopted by the nations of the European continent.
+The attempt made at The Hague Conference of 1907 to secure the
+general acceptance of this rule was unsuccessful; and Convention
+No. xiii. of that year, not yet ratified by Great Britain, which deals
+with this subject, merely lays down, in Art. 12, that &quot;<i>In the absence of
+special provisions to the contrary in the legislation of a neutral Power</i>,
+belligerent warships are not permitted to remain in the ports, roadsteads,
+or territorial waters of the said Power for more than twenty-four
+hours, except in the cases covered by this Convention.&quot; Art. 27 obliges
+the contracting Powers to &quot;communicate to each other in due course
+all laws, proclamations, and other enactments, regulating in their
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page130" id="page130">[130]</a></span>respective countries the <i>Status</i> of belligerent warships in their ports
+laid waters.&quot;</p>
+
+<p>II. A neutral State is not bound to prevent such assistance being
+rendered by its subjects to either belligerent as is involved in, <i>e.g.</i>
+blockade-running or carriage of contraband; but merely to acquiesce
+in the loss and inconvenience which may in consequence be inflicted
+by the belligerents upon persons so acting. In order to explain this
+statement, it became necessary to say much as to the true character
+of &quot;carriage of contraband&quot; (although this topic is more specifically
+dealt with in the letters contained in Section 5), and to point out that
+such carriage is neither a breach of international law nor forbidden
+by the law of England. For the same reason, it seemed desirable to
+criticise some of the clauses now usually inserted in British Proclamations
+of Neutrality.</p>
+
+<p>The view here maintained commended itself to the Institut de
+Droit International, at its Cambridge and Venice sessions, 1895, 1896,
+as against the efforts of MM Kleen and Brusa to impose on States a
+duty of preventing carriage of contraband by its subjects (<i>Annuaire</i>,
+t. xiv. p. 191, t. xv. p. 205). It has now received formal expression in
+The Hague Convention No. x. of 1907, Art. 7 of which lays down that
+&quot;a neutral Power is <i>not</i> bound to prevent the export or transit, for
+the use of either belligerent, of arms, ammunition, or, in general, of
+anything which could be of use to an army or fleet.&quot;</p>
+</div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="CONTRABAND-OF-WAR-1904" />CONTRABAND OF WAR</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;As a good deal of discussion is evidently about to
+take place as to the articles which may be properly treated
+as contraband of war, and, in particular, as to coal being
+properly so treated, I venture to think that it may be
+desirable to reduce this topic (a sufficiently large one) to its
+true dimensions by distinguishing it from other topics with
+which it is too liable to be confused.</p>
+
+<p>Articles are &quot;contraband of war&quot; which a belligerent
+is justified in intercepting while in course of carriage to his
+enemy, although such carriage is being effected by a neutral
+vessel. Whether any given article should be treated as
+contraband is, in the first instance, entirely a question for
+the belligerent Government and its Prize Court. A neutral
+Government has no right to complain, of hardships which
+may thus be incurred by vessels sailing under its flag, but
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page131" id="page131">[131]</a></span>is bound to acquiesce in the views maintained by the
+belligerent Government and its Courts, unless these views
+involve, in the language employed by Lord Granville in
+1861, &quot;a flagrant violation of international law.&quot; This is
+the beginning and end of the doctrine of contraband. A
+neutral Government has none other than this passive duty
+of acquiescence. Its neutrality would not be compromised
+by the shipment from its shores, and the carriage by its
+merchantmen, of any quantity of cannon, rifles, and gunpowder.</p>
+
+<p>Widely different from the above are the following three
+topics, into the consideration of which discussions upon
+contraband occasionally diverge:&mdash;</p>
+
+<p>1. The international duty of the neutral Government
+not to allow its territory to become a base of belligerent
+operations: <i>e.g.</i> by the organisation on its shores of an
+expedition, such as that which in 1828 sailed from Plymouth
+in the interest of Dona Maria; by the despatch from its
+harbours for belligerent use of anything so closely resembling
+an expedition as a fully equipped ship of war (as was argued
+in the case of the <i>Alabama</i>); by the use of its ports by
+belligerent ships of war for the reception of munitions of war,
+or, except under strict limitations, for the renewal of their
+stock of coal; or by such an employment of its colliers as was
+alleged during the Franco-Prussian war to have implicated
+British merchantmen in the hostile operations of the French
+fleet in the North Sea. The use of the term &quot;contraband&quot;
+with reference to the failure of a neutral State to prevent
+occurrences of this kind is purely misleading.</p>
+
+<p>2. The powers conferred upon a Government by legislation
+of restraining its subjects from intermeddling in a
+war in which the Government takes no part. Of such
+legislation our Foreign Enlistment Act is a striking example.
+The large powers conferred by it have no commensurable
+relation to the duties which attach to the position of
+neutrality. Its effect is to enable the Government to pro<span class="newpage"><a name="page132" id="page132">[132]</a></span>hibit
+and punish, from abundant caution, many acts on the
+part of its subjects for which it would incur no international
+liability. It does empower the Government to prevent the
+use of its territory as a base: <i>e.g.</i> by aid directly rendered
+thence to a belligerent fleet; but it, of course, gives no right
+of interference with the export or carriage of articles which
+may be treated as contraband.</p>
+
+<p>3. The powers conferred upon a Government by such
+legislation as section 150 of the Customs Consolidation Act;
+1853, now reproduced in a later enactment, of forbidding at
+any time, by Order in Council, the export of articles useful
+in war. The power thus given has no relation to international
+duty, and is mainly intended to be exercised, in the
+way of self-protection, when Great Britain is, or is likely to
+be, engaged in war. The object of the enactment is to
+enable the Government to retain in the country articles of
+which we may ourselves be in need, or to prevent them from
+reaching the hands of our enemies. The articles enumerated&mdash;<i>e.g.</i>
+arms, ammunition, marine engines, &amp;c.&mdash;are, neither
+in the Act of 1853 nor in the Order in Council of the following
+year, described as &quot;contraband of war.&quot;</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, March 5 (1904).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="COAL-FOR-THE-RUSSIAN-FLEET" />COAL FOR THE RUSSIAN FLEET</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;The use of coal for belligerent purposes is, of course,
+of comparatively modern date, and it is hardly surprising
+to find that the mercantile community, as would appear
+from your marine insurance article of this morning, does
+not clearly distinguish between the different classes of
+questions to which such use may give rise. There is indeed
+a widely prevalent confusion, even in quarters which ought
+to be better informed, between two topics which it is
+essential to keep separate&mdash;<i>viz.</i> the shipment of contraband,
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page133" id="page133">[133]</a></span>and the use of neutral territory as a base for belligerent
+operations.</p>
+
+<p>A neutral Government (our own at the present moment)
+occupies a very different position with reference to these
+two classes of acts. With reference to the former, its international
+duty (as also its national policy) is merely one of
+acquiescence. It is bound to stand aside, and make no
+claim to protect from the recognised consequences of their
+acts such of its subjects as are engaged in carriage of contraband.
+So far as the neutral Government is concerned,
+its subjects may carry even cannon and gunpowder to a
+belligerent port, while the belligerent, on the other hand,
+who is injured by the trade may take all necessary stops to
+suppress it.</p>
+
+<p>Such is the compromise which long experience has
+shown to be both reasonable and expedient between the, in
+themselves irreconcilable, claims of neutral and belligerent
+States. So far, it has remained unshaken by the arguments
+of theorists, such as the Swedish diplomatist M. Kleen, who
+would impose upon neutral Governments the duty of
+preventing the export of contraband by their subjects.
+A British trader may, therefore, at his own proper risk,
+despatch as many thousand tons of coal as he chooses,
+just as he may despatch any quantity of rifles or bayonets,
+to Vladivostok or to Nagasaki.</p>
+
+<p>It by no means follows that British shipowners may
+charter their vessels &quot;for such purposes as following the
+Russian fleet with coal supplies.&quot; Lord Lansdowne's recent
+letter to Messrs. Woods, Tylor, and Brown is explicit to the
+effect that such conduct is &quot;not permissible.&quot; Lord Lansdowne
+naturally confined himself to answering the question
+which had been addressed by those gentlemen to the Foreign
+Office; but the reason for his answer is not far to seek.
+The unlawfulness of chartering British vessels for the purpose
+above mentioned is wholly unconnected with the doctrine of
+contraband, but is a consequence of the international duty,
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page134" id="page134">[134]</a></span>which if incumbent on every neutral State, of seeing that its
+territory is not made a base of belligerent operations. The
+question was thoroughly threshed out as long ago as 1870,
+when Mr. Gladstone said in the House Of Commons that the
+Government had adopted the opinion of the law officers:</p>
+
+<div class="letterquot"><p>&quot;That if colliers are chartered for the purpose of attending the fleet
+of a belligerent and supplying it with coal, to enable it to pursue its
+hostile operations, such colliers would, to all practical purposes, become
+store-ships to the fleet, and would be liable, if within reach, to the
+operation of the English law under the (old) Foreign Enlistment Act.&quot;</p></div>
+
+<p>British colliers attendant on a Russian fleet would be so
+undeniably aiding and abetting the operations of that fleet
+as to give just cause of complaint against us to the Government
+of Japan. The British shipper of coal to a belligerent
+fleet at sea, besides thus laying his Government open to a
+charge of neglect of an international duty, lays himself open
+to criminal proceedings under the Foreign Enlistment Act
+of 1870. By section 8 (3) and (4) of that Act &quot;any person
+within H.M. Dominions&quot; who (subject to certain exceptions)
+equips or despatches any ship, with intent, or knowledge,
+that the same will be employed in the military or naval
+service of a foreign State, at war with any friendly State,
+is liable to fine or imprisonment, and to the forfeiture of
+the ship. By section 30, &quot;naval service&quot; covers &quot;user as a
+store-ship,&quot; and &quot;equipping&quot; covers furnishing a ship with
+&quot;stores or any other thing which is used in or about a ship
+for the purpose of adapting her for naval service.&quot; Our
+Government has, therefore, ample powers for restraining, in
+this respect, the use of its territory as a base. It has no
+power, had it the wish (except for its own protection, under a
+different statute), to restrain the export of contraband of war.</p>
+
+<p>It would tend to clearness of thought if the term &quot;contraband&quot;
+were never employed in discussions with reference to
+prohibition of the supply of coal to a belligerent fleet at sea.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">Your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, November 7 (1904).</div><br />
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page135" id="page135">[135]</a></span></div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="GERMAN-WAR-MATERIAL-FOR-TURKEY" />GERMAN WAR MATERIAL FOR TURKEY</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;The <i>Cologne Gazette</i> rightly treats as incredible
+the rumour, mentioned by your Sofia Correspondent, that
+a trainload of munitions of war had been despatched by
+the German Government for the use of Turkey, while
+admitting that such a consignment may very likely have
+been forwarded from private German workshops.</p>
+
+<p>It has long been settled international law that a neutral
+Government, while, on the one hand, it is precluded from
+itself supplying munitions to a belligerent, is, on the other
+hand, not bound to prevent private individuals from so
+acting. The latter half of this rule has now received written
+expression in Art. 7 of The Hague Convention No. v. of
+1907, which deals with &quot;Neutral Powers and Persons in
+War on Land.&quot;</p>
+
+<p>The only fault to be found with the paragraph in the
+<i>Cologne Gazette</i> quoted by your Berlin Correspondent,
+supposing it to be correctly transcribed, would be that it
+seems to imply that the above-mentioned Art. 7 legitimatises
+the supply of war material to belligerents by &quot;neutral
+States.&quot; It is, however, obvious from the rest of the
+paragraph that the <i>Gazette</i> is not really under that impression.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, December 24 (1911).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+<hr style='width: 45%;' />
+
+<h3 class="sectionhead"><a name="CHAPTER_VII_SECTION_3" />SECTION 3</h3>
+
+<p class="subsectionhead">Neutrality Proclamations</p>
+
+<div class="intronotes"><p>The criticisms directed against the Proclamation of 1904, in the
+first two letters which follow, have produced some improvement in
+Proclamations of later date. See the last two letters of this section.
+See also Appendix A in F.E. Smith and N.W. Sibley's <i>International
+Law in the Russo-Chinese War</i> (1905), devoted to a consideration of
+those criticisms.<span class="newpage"><a name="page136" id="page136">[136]</a></span></p></div>
+
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="THE-BRITISH-PROCLAMATION-OF-NEUTRALITY-1904" />THE BRITISH PROCLAMATION OF
+NEUTRALITY</p>
+
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;You were good enough to insert in your issue of
+November 9 some observations which I had addressed to
+you upon the essential difference between carriage of
+contraband, which takes place at the risk of the neutral
+shipowner, and use of neutral territory as a base for belligerent
+operations, an act which may implicate the neutral
+Power internationally, while also rendering the shipper
+liable to penal proceedings on the part of his own Government.
+I am gratified, to find that the views thus expressed
+by me are in exact accordance with those set forth by Lord
+Lansdowne in his reply of November 25 to the Chamber of
+Shipping of the United Kingdom. Perhaps you will allow
+me to say something further upon the same subject,
+suggested by several letters which appear in your paper of
+this morning. I am especially desirous of emphasising the
+proposition that carriage of contraband is no offence, either
+against international law or against the law of England.</p>
+
+<p>1. The rule of international law upon the subject may,
+I think, be expressed as follows: &quot;A belligerent is entitled
+to capture a neutral ship engaged in carrying contraband of
+war to his enemy, to confiscate the contraband cargo, and,
+in some cases, to confiscate the ship also, without thereby
+giving to, the Power to whose subjects the property in
+question belongs any ground for complaint.&quot; Or, to vary
+the phrase, &quot;a neutral Power is bound to acquiesce in losses
+inflicted by a belligerent upon such of its subjects as are
+engaged in adding to the military resources of the enemy of
+that belligerent.&quot; This is the rule to which the nations
+have consented, as a compromise between the right of the
+neutral State that its subjects should carry on their trade
+without interruption, and the right of the belligerent State
+to prevent that trade from bringing an accession of strength
+to his enemy. International law here, as always, deals with
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page137" id="page137">[137]</a></span>relations between States, and has nothing to do with the
+contraband trader, except in so far as it deprives him of the
+protection of his Government. If authority were needed
+for what is here advanced, it might be found in Mr. Justice
+Story's judgment in the <i>Santissima Trinidad</i>, in President
+Pierce's message of 1854, and in the statement by the
+French Government in 1898, with reference to the case of
+the <i>Fram</i>, that &quot;the neutral State is not required to prevent
+the sending of arms and ammunition by its subjects.&quot;</p>
+
+<p>2. Neither is carriage of contraband any offence against
+the law of England; as may be learnt, by any one who
+is in doubt as to the statement, from the lucid language
+of Lord Westbury in <i>Ex parte Chavasse</i> (34 L.J., Bkry.,
+17). And this brings me to the gist of this letter. I have
+long thought that the form of the Proclamation of
+Neutrality now in use in this country much needs
+reconsideration and redrafting. The clauses of the Proclamation
+which are set out by Mr. Gibson Bowles in your issue of
+this morning rightly announce that every person engaging
+in breach of blockade or carriage of contraband &quot;will be
+justly liable to hostile capture and to the penalties
+denounced by the law of nations in that behalf, and will in no
+wise obtain protection from us against such capture or such
+penalties.&quot; So far, so good. But the Proclamation also
+speaks of such acts as those just mentioned as being done
+&quot;in contempt of this our Royal Proclamation, in derogation
+of their duty as subjects of a neutral Power in a war
+between other Powers, or in violation or contravention of
+the law of nations in that behalf.&quot; It proceeds to say that
+all persons &quot;who may misconduct themselves in the premises
+... will incur our high displeasure for such misconduct.&quot;
+I venture to submit that all these last-quoted phrases are
+of the nature of misleading rhetoric, and should be eliminated
+from a statement the effective purport of which is to
+warn British subjects of the treatment to which certain
+courses of conduct will expose them at the hands of
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page138" id="page138">[138]</a></span>belligerents, and to inform them that the British Government
+will not protect them against such treatment. The
+reason why our Government will abstain from interference
+is, not that such courses of action are offences either against
+international or English law, but that it has no right to so
+interfere; having become a party to a rule of international
+law, under which a neutral Government waives the right,
+which it would otherwise possess, to protect the trade of its
+subjects from molestation.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, November 28 (1904).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="THE-BRITISH-PROCLAMATION-OF-NEUTRALITY-1904-B" />THE BRITISH PROCLAMATION OF
+NEUTRALITY</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;Enquiries which have reached me with reference
+to the observations which I recently addressed to you upon
+the British Proclamation of Neutrality induce me to think
+that some account of the development of the text of the
+proclamation now in use may be of interest to your readers.
+The proclamations with which I am acquainted conform to
+one or other of two main types, each of which has its history.</p>
+
+<p>1. The earlier proclamations merely call attention to the
+English law against enlistments, &amp;c., for foreign service;
+and command obedience to the law, upon pain of the
+penalties thereby inflicted, &quot;and of his Majesty's high
+displeasure.&quot; In the proclamation of 1817, the tacit reference
+is doubtless to certain Acts of George II, which, having
+been passed for a very different purpose, and having proved
+inadequate in their new application, were repealed by the
+Foreign Enlistment Act of 1819. This is the Act to which
+reference is made in the proclamations of 1823 and 1825;
+in the former of which we first get a recital of neutrality;
+while in the latter the clause enjoining all subjects strictly
+to observe the duties of neutrality and to respect the exercise
+of belligerent rights first makes its appearance.<span class="newpage"><a name="page139" id="page139">[139]</a></span></p>
+
+<p>2. The proclamation of 1859 is of a very different character,
+bearing traces of the influence of the ideas which had
+inspired the action of President Washington in 1793. While
+carrying on the old, it presents several new features.
+British subjects are enjoined to abstain from violating, not
+only &quot;the laws and statutes of the realm,&quot; but also (for the
+first time) &quot;the law of nations.&quot; They are also (for the
+first time) warned that, if any of them &quot;shall presume, in
+contempt of this our Royal Proclamation, and of our high
+displeasure, to do any acts in derogation of their duty as
+subjects of a neutral Sovereign, ... or in violation of
+the law of nations, ... as, more especially,&quot; by breach
+of blockade, or carriage of contraband, &amp;c., they will &quot;rightfully
+incur, and be justly liable to, hostile capture, and to the
+penalties denounced by the law of nations in that behalf&quot;;
+and notice is (for the first time) given that those &quot;who may
+misconduct themselves in the premises will do so at their
+peril, and of their own wrong; and that they will in no wise
+obtain any protection from Us against such capture, or such
+penalties as aforesaid, but will, on the contrary, incur Our
+high displeasure by such misconduct.&quot;</p>
+
+<p>The proclamations of 1861 and February and March
+1866 complicate matters, by making the warning clause
+as to blockade and contraband apply also to the statutory
+offences of enlistment, &amp;c.; but the proclamation of June,
+1866, gets rid of this complication by returning to the
+formula of 1859, which has been also followed in 1870, 1877,
+1898, and in the present year.</p>
+
+<p>The formula as it now stands, after the process of growth
+already described, may be said to consist of seven parts&mdash;<i>viz.</i>
+(1) a recital of neutrality; (2) a command to subjects
+to observe a strict neutrality, and to abstain from contravention
+of the laws of the realm or the law of nations in
+relation thereto; (3) a recital of the Foreign Enlistment
+Act of 1870; (4) a command that the statute be obeyed,
+upon pain of the penalties thereby imposed, &quot;and of Our
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page140" id="page140">[140]</a></span>high displeasure&quot;; (5) a warning to observe the duties of
+neutrality, and to respect the exercise of belligerent rights;
+(6) a further warning to those who, in contempt of the proclamation
+&quot;and of Our high displeasure,&quot; may do any acts
+&quot;in derogation of neutral duty, or in violation of the law
+of nations,&quot; especially by breach of blockade, carriage of
+contraband, &amp;c., that they will be liable to capture &quot;and to
+the penalties denounced by the law of nations&quot;; (7) a
+notification that persons so misconducting themselves &quot;will
+in no wise obtain any protection from Us,&quot; but will, &quot;on the
+contrary, incur Our high displeasure by such misconduct.&quot;</p>
+
+<p>The question which I have ventured to raise is whether
+the <i>textus receptus</i>, built up, as it has been, by successive
+accretions, is sufficiently in accordance with the facts to
+which it purports to call the attention of British subjects
+to be properly submitted to His Majesty for signature.
+I would suggest for consideration: 1. Whether the phrases
+commanding obedience, on pain of His Majesty's &quot;high
+displeasure,&quot; and the term &quot;misconduct,&quot; should not be
+used only with reference to offences recognised as such by
+the law of England. 2. Whether such condensed, and
+therefore incorrect, though very commonly employed, expressions
+as imply that breach of blockade and carriage
+of contraband are &quot;in violation of the law of nations,&quot;
+and are liable to &quot;the penalties denounced by the law of
+nations,&quot; should not be replaced by expressions more
+scientifically correct. The law of nations neither prohibits
+the acts in question nor prescribes penalties to be incurred
+by the doers of them. What it really does is to define
+the measures to which a belligerent may resort for the
+suppression of such acts, without laying himself open to
+remonstrance from the neutral Government to which the
+traders implicated owe allegiance.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, December 5 (1904).</div><br />
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page141" id="page141">[141]</a></span></div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="THE-BRITISH-PROCLAMATION-OF-NEUTRALITY-1911" />THE BRITISH PROCLAMATION OF NEUTRALITY</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;I am glad that Mr. Gibson Bowles has called
+attention to certain respects in which the Proclamation of
+Neutrality issued by our Government on the 3rd of the
+present month differs from that issued on February 11, 1904.</p>
+
+<p>In two letters addressed to you with reference to the
+Proclamation of that year, I ventured to point out what
+appeared to me to be its defects, alike from a scientific
+and from a practical point of view. The present Proclamation
+has slightly minimised these defects, but, as a whole,
+remains open to the objections which I then raised. I have
+no wish to repeat in detail the contents of my letters of
+1904, especially as they may be now found in my <i>Letters
+upon War and Neutrality</i>, published in 1909, pp. 95 and 98,
+but am unwilling not to take this opportunity once more to
+urge the desirability of redrafting the document in question.</p>
+
+<p>The Proclamation just issued still answers to my description
+of that of 1904, as consisting of seven parts&mdash;<i>viz.</i>:
+(1) A recital of neutrality; (2) a command to subjects
+to observe a strict neutrality, and to abstain from contravention
+of the laws of the realm or the Law of Nations
+in relation thereto; (3) a recital of the Foreign Enlistment
+Act, 1870; (4) a command that the statute be obeyed,
+upon pain of the penalties thereby imposed, and of &quot;Our
+high displeasure&quot;; (5) a warning to observe the duties of
+neutrality and to respect the exercise of belligerent rights;
+(6) a further warning that any persons presuming, in contempt
+of the Proclamation, to do acts in derogation of
+their duty as subjects of a neutral Power, or of the Law of
+Nations, will incur the penalties denounced by such law;
+(7) a notice that persons so misconducting themselves will
+obtain no protection from their Sovereign.</p>
+
+<p>With the phraseology of No. 1, reciting British neutrality,
+and Nos. 2-5, dealing with the duties of British subjects
+under the Foreign Enlistment Act of 1870, and constituting
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page142" id="page142">[142]</a></span>the bulk of the Proclamation, little serious fault can be found.
+It is well that such persons should be warned of the penalties
+which they may incur, including the Royal displeasure.</p>
+
+<p>The remaining two clauses relate, however, to matters
+of a totally different character from those previously
+mentioned, and care should therefore have been taken, but
+has not been taken, to make this perfectly clear. I would
+further remark upon these clauses: (1) That I agree with
+Mr. Bowles in regretting the omission here of the specific
+mention made in 1904 of &quot;breach of blockade,&quot; &quot;carriage
+of contraband,&quot; &amp;c., as specimens of the acts undoubtedly
+contemplated in these two clauses; (2) that it is a mistake
+to describe acts of this kind as being in derogation of
+&quot;the duty of subjects of a neutral Power,&quot; or &quot;in violation
+of the Law of Nations,&quot; or as &quot;liable to the penalties
+denounced by such law.&quot; Carriage of contraband, and
+acts of the same class, are notoriously not condemned by
+English law, neither are they, in any proper sense, breaches
+of the Law of Nations, which, speaking scientifically, never
+deals with individuals, as such, but only with the rights
+and duties of States <i>inter se</i>. What the Law of Nations
+really does is, as I said in 1904, &quot;to define the measures to
+which a belligerent may resort for the suppression of such
+acts, without laying himself open to remonstrance from the
+neutral Government to which the traders implicated owe
+allegiance&quot;; (3) that on the other hand, I am glad to find
+that, in accordance with my suggestion, while it continues
+very properly to be stated that persons doing the acts
+under discussion &quot;will in no wise obtain any protection
+from Us against such capture, &amp;c.,&quot; the further statement
+that such persons &quot;will, on the contrary, incur Our high
+displeasure by such misconduct,&quot; has now been with equal
+propriety omitted.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">The Athen&aelig;um, October 9 (1911).</div><br />
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page143" id="page143">[143]</a></span></div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="THE-PROCLAMATION-OF-NEUTRALITY" />THE PROCLAMATION OF NEUTRALITY</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;May I be allowed to point out that two questions
+arise upon the recent British Proclamation of Neutrality
+which were not, as they should have been, in the House
+of Commons last night, kept entirely distinct?</p>
+
+<p>The Government has surely done right in now omitting,
+as I suggested in 1904, with reference to certain classes
+of acts which are prohibited neither by English nor by
+International Law, a phrase announcing that the doers of
+them would incur the King's &quot;high displeasure&quot;; while
+retaining the warning that doers of such acts must be
+prepared for consequences from which their own Government
+will not attempt to shield them.</p>
+
+<p>On the other hand, our Government has surely erred
+in not specifying, as in previous Proclamations, the sort
+of acts to which this warning relates&mdash;<i>viz.</i>, to acts such
+as carriage of contraband, enemy service, and breach of
+blockade, which differ wholly in character from those
+violations of the Foreign Enlistment Act against which the
+bulk of the Proclamation is directed. As the Proclamation
+now stands, no clear transition is marked between breaches
+of English law and the unspecified acts which, though
+perfectly legal, will forfeit for the doers of them any
+claim to British protection from the consequences involved.
+Traders are left to find out as best they may the meaning
+of the general words &quot;any acts in derogation of their
+duty as subjects of a neutral Power.&quot;</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, October 31 (1911).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+<hr style='width: 45%;' />
+
+<h3 class="sectionhead"><a name="CHAPTER_VII_SECTION_4" />SECTION 4</h3>
+
+<p class="subsectionhead">Neutral Hospitality</p>
+
+<div class="intronotes"><p>The Hague Convention of 1907, No. xiii., not yet ratified by Great
+Britain, suggests in Art. 12, with reference to the question here raised,
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page144" id="page144">[144]</a></span>that &quot;&agrave; d&eacute;faut d'autres dispositions sp&eacute;ciales de la l&eacute;gislation de la
+Puissance neutre, il est interdit aux navires de guerre des bellig&eacute;rants
+de demeurer dans les ports et rades ou dans les eaux territoriales de la
+dite Puissance pendant plus de 24 heures sauf dans les cas pr&eacute;vues par
+la pr&eacute;sente Convention.&quot;</p></div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="BELLIGERENT-FLEETS-IN-NEUTRAL-WATERS" />BELLIGERENT FLEETS IN NEUTRAL WATERS</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;A novel question as to belligerent responsibilities
+would be suggested for solution if, as seems to be reported
+in Paris, Admiral Rozhdestvensky over-stayed his welcome
+in the waters of Madagascar, although ordered to leave them
+by his own Government in compliance with &quot;pressing representations&quot;
+on the part of the Government of France.</p>
+
+<p>A much larger question is, however, involved in the discussion
+which has arisen as to the alleged neglect by France
+to prevent the use of her Cochin-Chinese waters by the
+Russians as a base of operations against Japan. We are as
+yet in the dark as to what is actually occurring in those
+waters, and are, perhaps, for that very reason in a better
+position for endeavouring to ascertain what are the obligations
+imposed on a neutral in such a case by international law.</p>
+
+<p>It is admitted on all hands that a neutral Power is bound
+not to permit the &quot;asylum&quot; which she may grant to ships
+of war to be so abused as to render her waters a &quot;base of
+operations&quot; for the belligerent to which those ships belong.
+Beyond this, international law speaks at present with an
+uncertain voice, leaving to each Power to resort to such
+measures in detail as may be necessary to ensure the due
+performance of a duty which, as expressed in general terms,
+is universally recognised.</p>
+
+<p>The rule enforced since 1862 by Great Britain for this
+purpose limits the stay of a belligerent warship, under
+ordinary circumstances, to a period of twenty-four hours;
+and the same provision will be found in the neutrality
+proclamations issued last year by, <i>e.g.</i> the United States,
+Egypt, China, Denmark, Sweden and Norway. So by<span class="newpage"><a name="page145" id="page145">[145]</a></span>
+Japan and Russia in 1898. This rule, convenient and
+reasonable as it is, is not yet a rule of international law;
+as Lord Percy has had occasion to point out, in replying
+to a question addressed to him in the House of Commons.
+The proclamations of most of the Continental Powers do
+not commit their respective Governments to any period
+of time, and the material clauses of the French circular,
+to which most attention will be directed at the present time,
+merely provide as follows:&mdash;</p>
+
+<div class="letterquot"><p>&quot;(1) En aucun cas, un bellig&eacute;rant ne peut faire usage d'un port
+Fran&ccedil;ais, ou appartenant &agrave; un &Eacute;tat prot&eacute;g&eacute;, dans un but de guerre, &amp;c.
+(2) La dur&eacute;e du s&eacute;jour dans nos ports de bellig&eacute;rants, non accompagn&eacute;s
+d'une prise, n'a &eacute;t&eacute; limit&eacute;e par aucune disposition sp&eacute;ciale;
+mais pour &ecirc;tre autoris&eacute;s &agrave; y s&eacute;journer, ils sont tenus de se conformer
+aux conditions ordinaires de la neutralit&eacute;, qui peuvent se r&eacute;sumer ainsi
+qu'il suit:&mdash;(<i>a</i>) ... (<i>b</i>) Les dits navires ne peuvent, <i>&agrave; l'aide de ressources
+puis&eacute;es &agrave; terre</i>, augmenter leur mat&eacute;riel de guerre, renforcer
+leurs &eacute;quipages, ni faire des enr&ocirc;lements volontaires, m&ecirc;me parmi
+leurs nationaux. (<i>c</i>) Ils doivent s'abstenir de toute enqu&ecirc;te sur les
+forces, l'emplacement ou les ressources de leurs ennemis, ne pas
+appareiller brusquement pour poursuivre ceux qui leur seraient signal&eacute;s;
+en un mot, s'abstenir de faire du lieu de leur r&eacute;sidence la base d'une
+op&eacute;ration quelconque contre l'ennemi. (3) Il ne peut &ecirc;tre fourni &agrave; un
+bellig&eacute;rant que les vivres, denr&eacute;es, et moyens de r&eacute;parations n&eacute;cessaires
+&agrave; la subsistence de son &eacute;quipage ou &agrave; la s&eacute;curit&eacute; de sa navigation.&quot;</p></div>
+
+<p>Under the twenty-four hours rule, the duty of the neutral
+Government is clear. Under the French rules, all must
+evidently turn upon the wisdom and <i>bonne volont&eacute;</i> of the
+officials on the spot, and of the home Government, so far as
+it is in touch with them. We have no reason to suppose
+that the qualities in question will not characterise the
+conduct of the French at the present moment. There can,
+however, be no doubt that a better definition of the mode
+in which a neutral Power should prevent abusive use of
+the asylum afforded by its ports and waters is urgently
+required. The point is one which must prominently engage
+the attention of the special conference upon the rights and
+duties of neutrals, for which a wish was expressed by The<span class="newpage"><a name="page146" id="page146">[146]</a></span>
+Hague Conference of 1899, and, more recently, by President
+Roosevelt.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, April 20 (1905).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="THE-APPAM" />THE APPAM</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;It is satisfactory to learn that the United States
+Neutrality Board has decided adversely to the contention
+that the <i>Appam</i> is a German ship of war. Her treatment
+as a prize would then, <i>prima facie</i>, seem to be governed
+by Art. 21 of The Hague Convention, No. xiii., which
+provides for her being released, together with her officers
+and crew, while the prize crew is to be interned. This
+Convention has been duly ratified both by Germany and
+by the United States. Its non-ratification by Great Britain
+is, I conceive, irrelevant.</p>
+
+<p>But Germany contends that the situation is governed
+by Art. 19, the text of which has been several times set
+out in your columns, of the old Convention of 1799. This
+may startle those who are acquainted with what occurred
+at The Hague in 1907, and I have seen no reference to what
+must be the gist of the German argument on the point.
+They no doubt argue that the old Convention remains
+unrepealed by No. xiii. of The Hague, because the latter
+Convention is of no effect, in pursuance of its common form
+Art. 28, to the effect that:&mdash;&quot;The provisions of the present
+Convention do not apply except between contracting Powers,
+and then only if all the belligerents are parties to the
+Convention&quot; (which is by no means the case).</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">Your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, February 4 (1916).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+<div class="postnotes"><p>Certain reservations on ratification do not affect Arts. 21 or 22.</p>
+
+<p>The State Department ruled that the case did not fall within the
+protecting clauses of the Treaty of 1799, which granted asylum only
+to ships of war accompanying prizes, whereas the <i>Appam</i> was herself
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page147" id="page147">[147]</a></span>a prize. Proceedings by the owners in the local Federal Court for
+possession of the ship resulted in a decision in their favour, against
+which the Germans are appealing in the Supreme Court. They do
+not seem to have raised the objection, mentioned in the letter, as to
+the applicability of Convention viii.</p></div>
+
+<hr style='width: 45%;' />
+
+<h3 class="sectionhead"><a name="CHAPTER_VII_SECTION_5" />SECTION 5</h3>
+
+<p class="subsectionhead">Carriage of Contraband. (Absolute and Conditional Contraband:
+Continuous Voyages: Unqualified Captors: The Declaration of London)</p>
+
+<div class="intronotes"><p>The letters included in the preceding sections 2 and 3 touched
+incidentally upon carriage of contraband, in relation to other departments
+of the law affecting neutrals. The eight letters which follow,
+suggested respectively by the Spanish-American, the Boer, and the
+Russo-Japanese wars, deal exclusively with this topic, which seems likely
+to be henceforth governed no longer only by customary and judge-made
+law, but largely also by written rules, such as those suggested by the
+unratified Declaration of London of 1909.</p>
+
+
+<p class="subsectionhead">(Absolute and Conditional Contraband)</p>
+
+<p>The divergence which has so long existed between Anglo-American
+and Continental views upon contraband was very noticeable at the
+commencement of the war of 1898, which gave occasion to the letter
+which immediately follows. While the Spanish Decree of April 23
+set out only one list of contraband goods, the United States Instructions
+of June 20 recognised two lists&mdash;<i>viz.</i> of &quot;absolute&quot; and of &quot;conditional&quot;
+contraband, including under the latter head &quot;coal when destined for a
+naval station, a port of call, or a ship or ships of the enemy; materials
+for the construction of railways or telegraphs, and money, when such
+materials or money are destined for an enemy's forces, provisions,
+when destined for an enemy's ship or ships, for a place besieged.&quot;</p>
+
+<p>An answer was thus supplied to the question suggested in this
+letter, as to articles <i>ancipitis usus</i>.</p></div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="CONTRABAND-OF-WAR-1898" />CONTRABAND OF WAR</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;I fear that the mercantile community will hardly
+profit so much as the managers of the Atlas Steamship Company
+seem to expect by the information contained in their
+letter which you print this morning. It was, indeed, un<span class="newpage"><a name="page148" id="page148">[148]</a></span>likely
+that the courteous reply of the Assistant Secretary of
+State at Washington to the enquiry addressed to him by
+the New York agents of the company would contain a
+declaration of the policy of the United States with reference
+to contraband of war. The threefold classification of
+&quot;merchandise&quot; (not of &quot;contraband&quot;) quoted in the
+reply occurs, in the judgment of the Supreme Court in the
+well-known case of the <i>Peterhoff</i> (5 Wallace, 58), but it is
+substantially that of Grotius, and has long been accepted in
+this country and in the United States, while the Continent
+is, generally speaking, inclined to deny the existence of
+&quot;contraband by accident,&quot; and to recognise only such
+a restricted list of contraband as was contained in the
+Spanish decree of April 24 last.</p>
+
+<p>The questions upon which shippers are really desirous of
+information (which they are, however, perhaps not likely to
+obtain, otherwise than from decisions of prize Courts) are of
+a less elementary character. They would like to know what
+articles <i>ancipitis usus</i> (&quot;used for purposes of war or peace
+according to circumstances&quot;) will be treated by the United
+States as contraband, and with what penalty the carriage of
+such articles will be visited&mdash;<i>i.e.</i> whether by confiscation or
+merely by pre-emption.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, May 9 (1898).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+<div class="postnotes"><p>The four letters which next follow also relate to the two classes of
+contraband goods, with especial reference to the character attributed
+to foodstuffs, coal and cotton.</p>
+
+<p>On foodstuffs, see the <i>Report of the Royal Commission on the Supply
+of Food, &amp;c., in Time of War</i>, 1905. <i>Cf.</i> also <i>infra.</i>, pp. <a href="#page174">174</a>, <a href="#page176">176</a>, <a href="#page177">177</a>.
+They were placed by the unratified Declaration of London, Art. 24,
+in the class of conditional contraband; as is also coal. By Art. 28
+of the Declaration, raw cotton was enumerated among the articles
+which cannot be declared contraband of war.</p>
+
+<p>The suggestion in the letter of February 20, 1904, that certain
+words quoted from the Japanese instructions had been mistransmitted
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page149" id="page149">[149]</a></span>or misquoted was borne out by the Regulations governing captures at
+sea, issued on March 15, 1904, Art. 14 of which announces that certain
+goods are contraband &quot;in case they are destined to the enemy's army
+or navy, or in case they are destined to the enemy's territory, and from
+the landing place it can be inferred that they are intended for military
+purposes.&quot;</p>
+
+<p>The letters of March 10 and 15, 1905, will sufficiently explain themselves.
+The accuracy of the statements contained in them was vouched
+for by Baron Suyematsu, in a letter which appeared in <i>The Times</i> for
+March 16, to the effect that: &quot;In Japan the matters relating to the
+organisation and procedure of the prize court, and the matters relating
+to prize, contraband goods, &amp;c., are regulated by two separate sets of
+laws.... The so-called prize Court law of August 20, 1894, and amendment
+dated March 1, 1904, which your correspondent refers to, are the
+provisions relating to the former matters. The rules regulating the
+latter matters&mdash;<i>viz.</i> prize, contraband goods, &amp;c., are not comprised
+in them. The rules which relate to the latter matters, as existing at
+present, are consolidated and comprised in an enactment which was
+issued on March 7, 1904.... Under the circumstances I can only
+repeat what Professor Holland says ... in other words, I fully concur
+with the views taken by the Professor.&quot;</p>
+
+<p>The distinction between articles which are &quot;absolutely contraband,&quot;
+those which are &quot;conditionally contraband,&quot; and those which are
+incapable of being declared contraband was expressly adopted in
+Arts. 22, 24, and 28 of the unratified Declaration of London of 1909,
+as to which, see the comment at the end of this section, as also the
+whole of Section 10.</p></div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="IS-COAL-CONTRABAND-OF-WAR" />IS COAL CONTRABAND OF WAR?</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;This question has now been answered, in unmistakable
+terms, on behalf of this country by Lord Lansdowne
+in his reply, which you printed yesterday, to Messrs. Powley,
+Thomas, and Co., and on behalf of Japan by the proclamation
+which appears in <i>The Times</i> of to-day. Both of these
+documents set forth the old British doctrine, now fully
+adopted in the United States, and beginning to win its way
+on the Continent of Europe, that, besides articles which are
+absolutely contraband, other articles <i>ancipitis usus</i>, and
+amongst them coal, may become so under certain conditions.
+&quot;When destined,&quot; says Lord Lansdowne, &quot;for warlike as
+opposed to industrial use.&quot; &quot;When destined,&quot; says Japan,<span class="newpage"><a name="page150" id="page150">[150]</a></span>
+&quot;for the enemy's army or navy, or in such cases where, <i>being
+goods arriving, at enemy's territory</i>, there is reason to believe
+that they are intended for use of enemy's army or navy.&quot;</p>
+
+<p>I may say that the words which I have italicised must, I
+think, have been mistranslated or mistransmitted. Their
+intention is, doubtless, substantially that which was more
+clearly expressed in the Japanese proclamation of 1894 by
+the words: &quot;Either the enemy's fleet at sea or a hostile port
+used exclusively or mainly for naval or military equipment.&quot;</p>
+
+<p>A phrase in your issue of to-day with reference to the
+Cardiff coal trade suggests that it may be worth while to
+touch upon the existence of a widely-spread confusion
+between the grounds on which export of coal may be prohibited
+by a neutral country and those which justify its confiscation,
+although on board a neutral ship, by a belligerent.
+A neutral State restrains, under certain circumstances, the
+export of coal, not because coal is contraband, but because
+such export is converting the neutral territory into a base of
+belligerent operations. The question of contraband or no
+contraband only arises between the neutral carrier and the
+belligerent when the latter claims to be entitled to interfere
+with the trade of the former.</p>
+
+<p>Since the rules applicable to the carriage of coal are, I
+venture to think, equally applicable, to the carriage of foodstuffs,
+I may perhaps be allowed to add a few words with
+reference to the letter addressed to you a day or two ago by
+Sir Henry Bliss. I share his desire for some explanation of
+the telegram which reached you on the 12th of this month
+from British Columbia. One would like to know: (1) What
+is &quot;the Government,&quot; if any, which has instructed the
+Empress Line not to forward foodstuffs to Japan; (2)
+whether the refusal relates to foodstuffs generally, or only to
+those with a destination for warlike use; (3) what is meant
+by the statement that &quot;the steamers of the Empress Line
+belong to the Naval Reserve&quot;? I presume the meaning to
+be that the line is subsidised with a view to the employment
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page151" id="page151">[151]</a></span>of the ships of the company as British cruisers when Great
+Britain is at war. The bearing of this fact upon the employment
+of the ships when Great Britain is at peace is far from
+apparent. It is, of course, possible that the Government
+contract with the company may have been so drawn, <i>ex
+abundanti cautela</i>, as greatly to restrict what would otherwise
+have been the legitimate trade of the company.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, February 20 (1904).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="COTTON-AS-CONTRABAND-OF-WAR-1905" />COTTON AS CONTRABAND OF WAR</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;The text of the decision of the Court of Appeal at
+St. Petersburg in the case of the <i>Calchas</i> has at length reached
+this country, and we are thus informed, upon the highest
+authority, though, perhaps, not in the clearest language, of
+the meaning which is now to be placed upon the Russian
+notification that cotton is contraband of war.</p>
+
+<p>This notification, promulgated on April 21, 1904, was
+received with general amazement, not diminished by an
+official gloss to the effect that it &quot;applied only to raw cotton
+suitable for the manufacture of explosives, and not to yarn
+or tissues.&quot; It must be remembered that at the date mentioned,
+and for some months afterwards, Russia stoutly
+maintained that all the articles enumerated in her list of contraband
+of February 28, 1904, and in the additions to that
+list, were &quot;absolutely&quot; such; <i>i.e.</i> were confiscable if in
+course of carriage to any enemy's port, irrespectively of the
+character of that port, or of the use to which the articles
+would probably be put. It was only after much correspondence,
+and the receipt of strong protests from Great
+Britain and the United States, that Russia consented to
+recognise the well-known distinction between &quot;absolute&quot;
+and &quot;conditional&quot; contraband; the latter class consisting
+of articles useful in peace as well as for war, the character
+of which must, therefore, depend upon whether they are, in
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page152" id="page152">[152]</a></span>point of fact, destined for warlike or for peaceful uses. This
+concession was made about the middle of September last,
+and it was then agreed that provisions should be placed in
+the secondary category (as was duly explained in the Petersburg
+judgment in the case of the <i>Arabia</i> on December 14)
+together with some other articles, among which it seemed
+that raw cotton was not included.</p>
+
+<p>The final decision in the <i>Calchas</i> case marks a welcome
+change of policy. Cotton has now followed foodstuffs into
+the category of &quot;conditional&quot; contraband, and effect has so
+far been given to the representations on the subject made by
+Mr. Hay in circular despatches of June 10 and August 30,
+1904, and by Sir Charles Hardinge, in a note presented to
+Count Lamsdorff on October 9 of the same year.</p>
+
+<p>The question had become a practical one in the case of
+the <i>Calchas</i>. On July 25 this vessel, laden with, <i>inter alia</i>,
+nine tons of raw cotton for Yokohama and Kobe, was seized
+by a Russian cruiser and carried into Vladivostok, where,
+on September 18, the cotton, together with other portions of
+her cargo, was condemned as absolutely contraband. The
+reasons for repudiating this decision, and the notification to
+which it gave effect, were not far to seek, and it may still be
+worth while to insist upon them. As against Russia, it is
+well to recall that, from the days of the Armed Neutralities
+onwards, her traditional policy has been to favour a very
+restricted list of contraband; that when in 1877, as again in
+1900 and 1904, she included in it materials &quot;servant de faire
+sauter les obstacles,&quot; the examples given of such materials
+were things so immediately fitted for warlike use as &quot;les
+mines, les torpilles, la dynamite,&quot; &amp;c.; and that what is
+said as to &quot;conditional contraband&quot; by her trusted adviser,
+Professor de Martens, in his <i>Droit International</i>, t. iii (1887),
+pp. 351-354, can scarcely be reconciled with her recent action.</p>
+
+<p>But a still stronger argument against the inclusion of
+cotton in the list of &quot;absolute&quot; contraband is that this is
+wholly without precedent. It has, indeed, been alleged that
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page153" id="page153">[153]</a></span>cotton was declared to be &quot;contraband&quot; by the United
+States in their Civil War. The Federal proclamations will,
+however, be searched in vain for anything of the kind. The
+mistake is due to an occasional loose employment of the
+term, as descriptive of articles found by an invader in an
+enemy's territory, which, although the property of private,
+and even neutral, individuals, happen to be so useful for the
+purposes of the war as to be justly confiscated. That this
+was so will appear from an attentive reading of the case of
+<i>Mrs. Alexander's Cotton</i>, in 1861 (2 Wallace, 404), and of the
+arguments in the claim made by Messrs. Maza and Larrache
+against the United States in 1886 (Foreign Relations of U.S.,
+1887). A similarly loose use of the term was its application
+by General B.F. Butler to runaway slaves who had been
+employed on military works&mdash;an application of which he
+confessed himself &quot;never very proud as a lawyer,&quot; though
+&quot;as an executive officer, much comforted with it.&quot; The
+phrase caught the popular fancy, came to be applied to
+slaves generally, and was immortalised in a song, long a
+favourite among negro children, the refrain of which was
+&quot;I'se a happy little contraband.&quot;</p>
+
+<p>The decision of the Court of St. Petersburg in the case of
+the <i>Calchas</i>, so far as it recognises the existence of a conditional
+class of contraband, and that raw cotton, as <i>res
+ancipitis usus</i>, must be treated in accordance with the rules
+applicable to goods belonging to that class, has laid down an
+unimpeachable proposition of law. Whether the view taken
+by the Court of the facts of the case, so far as they relate to
+the cotton cargo, is equally satisfactory, is a different and
+less important question, upon which I refrain from troubling
+you upon the present occasion.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+</div>
+
+<p>P.S.&mdash;It may be worth while to add, for the benefit of
+those only who care to be provided with a clue (not to be
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page154" id="page154">[154]</a></span>found in the judgment) through the somewhat labyrinthine
+details of the question under discussion, a summary of its
+history. The Russian rules as to contraband are contained
+in several documents&mdash;<i>viz.</i> the &quot;Regulations as to Naval
+Prize&quot; of 1895, Arts. 11-14; the &quot;Admiralty Instructions&quot;
+of 1900, Arts. 97, 98, and the appended &quot;Special Declaration&quot;
+as to the articles considered to be contraband (partly
+modelled on the list of 1877); the &quot;Imperial Order&quot; of
+February 28, 1904, rule 6 (this Order keeps alive the rules
+of 1895 and 1900, except in so far as they are varied by it);
+the &quot;Order&quot; of March 19, 1904, defining &quot;food&quot; and
+bringing machinery of certain kinds into the list of contraband;
+the &quot;Order,&quot; of April 21, 1904, bringing &quot;raw
+cotton&quot; into the list; and, lastly, the &quot;Instructions&quot; of
+September 30 and October 28, 1904, recognising, in effect,
+a class of &quot;conditional&quot; contraband, placing foodstuffs
+in this class, as also, ultimately, other objects &quot;capable of
+warlike use and not specified in sections 1-9 of rule 6.&quot;</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+T. E. H.<br />
+<div class="sigdate">Temple, July 1 (1905).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="COTTON-AS-CONTRABAND-OF-WAR-1916" />COTTON AS CONTRABAND</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;Your correspondent &quot;Judex&quot; will rejoice, as
+I do, that cotton has now been declared to be &quot;absolute
+contraband.&quot; May I, however, suggest that the topic
+should be discussed without any reference to the fortunately
+unratified Declaration of London, that premature attempt
+to codify the law of maritime warfare, claiming, misleadingly,
+that its rules &quot;correspond in substance with the generally
+recognised principles of international law&quot;?</p>
+
+<p>It is surely regrettable that, by the Order in Council
+of August 20, 1914, our Government adopted the provisions
+of the Declaration &quot;during the present hostilities,&quot; and
+&quot;subject to various additions and modifications,&quot; the
+list of which has since been considerably extended. This
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page155" id="page155">[155]</a></span>half-hearted course of action painfully recalls certain vicious
+methods of legislation by reference, and was additionally
+uncalled for, since, as has been shown by recent events,
+about two-thirds of the rules laid down by the Declaration
+are inapplicable to modern warfare.</p>
+
+<p>The straightforward announcement made by the United
+States in their Note of January 25 is surely far preferable.
+It states in plain terms that, &quot;As the Declaration of London
+is not in force, the rules of international law only apply.
+As to articles to be regarded as contraband there is no
+general agreement between nations.&quot; In point of fact,
+the hard-and-fast categories of neutral imports, suggested
+by the threefold Grotian division, as set forth in the Declaration,
+are unlikely ever to be generally accepted. Even
+Grotius is careful to limit his proposals, and Bynkershoek,
+in commenting upon them, points out that the test of
+contraband of the most noxious kind must be the, possibly
+exceptional, importance of objects for hostile use; their
+being of use also for non-hostile purposes being immaterial
+(&quot;nec interesse an et extra bellum usum praebeant&quot;). The
+application of these remarks to the case of cotton is
+sufficiently obvious.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, August 23 (1915).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="JAPANESE-PRIZE-LAW-1905" />JAPANESE PRIZE LAW</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;I hope you will allow me space for a few words
+with reference to some statements occurring to-day in your
+Marine Insurance news which I venture to think are of a
+misleading character.</p>
+
+<p>Your Correspondent observes that&mdash;</p>
+
+<div class="letterquot"><p>&quot;Although the Japanese are signatories to the Treaty of Paris, it
+should not be forgotten that they haw a Prize Court Law of their own
+(August 20, 1894), and are more likely to follow its provisions, in
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page156" id="page156">[156]</a></span>dealing with the various captured steamers, than the general principles
+of the Treaty of Paris.&quot;</p></div>
+
+<p>Upon this paragraph let me remark:&mdash;</p>
+
+<p>1. The action of the Japanese is in full accordance with
+the letter and spirit of all four articles of the Declaration of
+Paris. (&quot;The Treaty of Paris&quot; has, of course, no bearing
+upon prize law.)</p>
+
+<p>2. &quot;The general principles&quot; of that Declaration is a
+phrase which conveys to me, I confess, no meaning.</p>
+
+<p>3. The Japanese have, of course, a prize law of their
+own, borrowed, for the most part, from our own Admiralty
+Manual of Prize Law. Neither the British nor the
+Japanese instructions are in conflict with, or indeed stand
+in any relation to, the Declaration of Paris.</p>
+
+<p>4. The existing prize law of Japan was promulgated on
+March 7, 1904, not on August 20, 1894.</p>
+
+<p>Your Correspondent goes on to say that the Japanese
+definition of contraband &quot;is almost as sweeping as was the
+Russian definition, to which the British Government took
+active objection last summer.&quot; So far is this from being
+the case that the Japanese list is practically the same as
+our own, both systems recognising the distinction between
+&quot;absolute&quot; and &quot;conditional&quot; contraband, which, till the
+other day, was ignored by Russia.</p>
+
+<p>The Japanese rules as to the cases in which ships carrying
+contraband may be confiscated are quite reasonable and in
+accordance with British views. The third ground for confiscation
+mentioned by your Correspondent does not occur
+in the instructions of 1904.</p>
+
+<p>Ships violating a blockade are, of course, confiscable;
+but the Japanese do not, as your Correspondent seems to
+have been informed, make the existence of a blockade conditional
+upon its having been &quot;notified to the Consuls of
+all States in the blockaded port.&quot; Commanders are, no
+doubt, instructed to notify the fact, &quot;as far as possible,
+to the competent authorities and the Consuls of the neutral<span class="newpage"><a name="page157" id="page157">[157]</a></span>
+Powers within the circumference of the blockade&quot;; but
+that is a very different thing.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">The Athen&aelig;um, March 10 (1905).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="JAPANESE-PRIZE-LAW-1915" />JAPANESE PRIZE LAW</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;Let me assure your correspondent upon Marine
+Insurance that I have been familiar, ever since its promulgation,
+with the Japanese prize law of 1894, quoted by him as
+authority for statements made in your issue of March 10,
+the misleading character of which I felt bound to point out
+in a letter of the same date. All the topics mentioned by
+him on that occasion, and to-day, are, however, regulated,
+not by that law, but by notifications and instructions issued
+from time to time during 1904.</p>
+
+<p>I make it my business not only to be authoritatively informed
+on such matters, but also to see that my information
+is up to date.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, March 15 (1905).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+<p>&nbsp;</p>
+
+<p class="subsectionhead">(Continuous Voyages)</p>
+
+<div class="intronotes"><p>The opinion expressed in the letter which immediately follows,
+that the American decisions, applying to carriage of contraband the
+doctrine of &quot;continuous voyages,&quot; seem to be &quot;demanded by the
+conditions of modern commerce, and might well be followed by a
+British prize Court,&quot; was referred to by Lord Salisbury in a despatch
+of January 10, 1900, to be communicated to Count von B&uuml;low, with
+reference to the seizure of <i>Bundesrath</i>. <i>Parl. Papers</i>, Africa, No. 1
+(1900), p. 19.</p>
+
+<p>The distinction, drawn in the same letter, between &quot;carriage of
+contraband&quot; and &quot;enemy service,&quot; which has sometimes been lost
+sight of, was established in the case of <i>Yangtsze Insurance Association</i>
+v. <i>Indemnity Mutual Marine Company</i>, [1908] K.B. 910, in which it
+was held by Bigham, J., that the transport of military officers of a
+belligerent State, as passengers in a neutral ship, is not a breach or a
+warranty against contraband of war in a policy of marine insurance.<span class="newpage"><a name="page158" id="page158">[158]</a></span>
+The carriage of enemy despatches will no longer be generally treated
+as &quot;enemy service&quot; since The Hague Convention, No. xi. of 1907,
+ratified by most of the Powers, including Great Britain, on November
+27, 1909, by Art. 1 provides that, except in the case of breach of blockade,
+&quot;the postal correspondence of neutrals or <i>belligerents</i>, whether of <i>an
+official</i> or a private character, found on board a <i>neutral</i> or enemy
+ship on the High Seas is inviolable.&quot;</p>
+
+<p>The case of the <i>Allanton</i>, which gave occasion for the letter of
+July 11, 1904, was as follows. This British ship left Cardiff on February 24
+of that year, with a cargo of coal to be delivered either at Hong-Kong
+or Sasebo. On arrival at Hong-Kong, she found orders to deliver at
+Sasebo, and, having made delivery accordingly, was chartered by a
+Japanese company at another Japanese port, to carry coal to a British
+firm at Singapore. On her way thither, she was captured by a Russian
+squadron and taken in to Vladivostok, where on June 24 she was
+condemned by the prize Court for carriage of contraband. The Court
+held, ignoring the rule that a vessel ceases to be <i>in dilecto</i> when she
+has &quot;deposited&quot; her contraband (since affirmed by Art. 38 of the
+Declaration of London of 1909), that she was liable in respect of her
+voyage to Sasebo; as also in respect of the voyage on which she was
+captured, on the ground that her real destination was at that time the
+Japanese fleet, or some Japanese port. This decision was reversed,
+as to both ship and cargo, by the Court of Appeal at St. Petersburg, on
+October 22 of the same year.</p>
+
+<p>The doctrine of &quot;continuous voyages&quot; was by the Declaration
+of London, Art. 30, recognised in the case of &quot;absolute,&quot; but by
+Art. 35 was stated to be inapplicable to the case of &quot;conditional&quot;
+contraband.</p></div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="PRIZE-LAW" />PRIZE LAW</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;Questions of maritime international law which
+are likely to give rise not only to forensic argument in
+the prize Courts which we have established at Durban
+and at the Cape, but also to diplomatic communications
+between Great Britain and neutral Governments, should
+obviously be handled just now with a large measure of
+reserve. Lord Rosebery has, however, in your columns
+called upon our Government to define its policy with reference
+to foodstuffs as contraband of war, while several other
+correspondents have touched upon, cognate topics. You
+may perhaps therefore be disposed to allow one who is
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page159" id="page159">[159]</a></span>responsible for the <i>Admiralty Manual of the Law of Prize</i>, to
+which reference has been made by your correspondent &quot;S.,&quot;
+to make a few statements as to points upon which it may
+be desirable for the general reader to be in possession of
+information accurate, one may venture to hope, as far
+as it goes.</p>
+
+<p>Of the four inconveniences to which neutral trading
+vessels are liable in time of war, &quot;blockade&quot; may be left
+out of present consideration. You can only blockade the
+ports of your enemy, and the South African Republics have
+no port of their own. The three other inconveniences must,
+however, all be endured&mdash;<i>viz.</i> prohibition to carry &quot;contraband,&quot;
+prohibition to engage in &quot;enemy service,&quot; and
+liability to be &quot;visited and searched&quot; anywhere except
+within three miles of a neutral coast, in order that it may be
+ascertained whether they are disregarding either of these
+prohibitions, as to the meaning of which some explanation
+may not be superfluous.</p>
+
+<p>1. &quot;Carriage of contraband&quot; implies (1) that the goods
+carried are fit for hostile use; (2) that they are on their way
+to a hostile destination. Each of these requirements has
+given rise to wide divergence of views and to a considerable
+literature. As to (1), while Continental opinion and practice
+favour a hard-and-fast list of contraband articles, comprising
+only such as are already suited, or can readily be adapted,
+for use in operations of war, English and American opinion
+and practice favour a longer list, and one capable of being
+from time to time extended to meet the special exigencies
+of the war. In such a list may figure even provisions,
+&quot;under circumstances arising out of the particular situation
+of the war,&quot; especially if &quot;going with a highly probable
+destination to military use&quot;&mdash;Lord Stowell in the <i>Jonge
+Margaretha</i> (1 Rob. 188); <i>cf.</i> Story, J., in the <i>Commercen</i>
+(1 Wheat. 382), the date and purport of which are, by the
+by, incorrectly given by &quot;S.&quot; It would be in accordance
+with our own previous practice and with Lord Granville's
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page160" id="page160">[160]</a></span>despatches during the war between France and China in
+1885, if we treated flour as contraband only when ear-marked
+as destined for the use of enemy fleets, armies, or fortresses.
+Even in such cases our practice has been not to confiscate
+the cargo, but merely to exercise over it a right of &quot;pre-emption,&quot;
+so as to deprive the enemy of its use without
+doing more injury than can be helped to neutral trade&mdash;as
+is explained by Lord Stowell in the <i>Haabet</i> (2 Rob. 174).
+As to (2), the rule was expressed by Lord Stowell to be that
+&quot;goods going to a neutral port cannot come under the
+description of contraband, all goods going there being equally
+lawful&quot;&mdash;<i>Imina</i> (3 Rob. 167); but innovations were made
+upon this rule during the American Civil War which seem
+to be demanded by the conditions of modern commerce,
+and might well be followed by a British prize Court. It
+was held that contraband goods, although <i>bona fide</i> on their
+way to a neutral port, might be condemned, if intended
+afterwards to reach the enemy by another ship or even by
+means of land carriage&mdash;<i>Bermuda</i> (3 Wallace); <i>Peterhoff</i>
+(5 Wallace). A consignment to Lorenzo Marques, connected
+as is the town by only forty miles of railway with the Transvaal
+frontier, would seem to be well within the principles
+of the Civil War cases as to &quot;continuous voyages.&quot;</p>
+
+<p>2. The carriage by a neutral ship of enemy troops, or of
+even a few military officers, as also of enemy despatches, is
+an &quot;enemy service&quot; of so important a kind as to involve
+the confiscation of the vessel concerned, a penalty which,
+under ordinary circumstances, is not imposed upon carriage
+of &quot;contraband&quot; property so called. See Lord Stowell's
+luminous judgments in <i>Orozembo</i> (6 Rob. 430) and <i>Atalanta</i>
+(<i>ib.</i> 440). The alleged offence of the ship <i>Bundesrath</i> would
+seem to be of this description.</p>
+
+<p>The questions, both of &quot;contraband&quot; and of &quot;enemy
+service,&quot; with which our prize Courts must before long have
+to deal, will be such as to demand from the Judges a competent
+knowledge of the law of prize, scrupulous fairness
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page161" id="page161">[161]</a></span>towards neutral claimants, and prompt penetration of the
+Protean disguises which illicit trade so readily assumes in
+time of war.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">Your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, January 2 (1900).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="THE-ALLANTON-A" />THE <i>ALLANTON (Continuous Voyage)</i></p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;I venture to think that the letter which you
+print this morning from my friend Dr. Baty, with reference
+to the steamship <i>Allanton</i>, calls for a word of warning;
+unless, indeed, it is to be taken as merely expressing the
+private opinion of the writer as to what would be a desirable
+rule of law.</p>
+
+<p>It would be disastrous if shipowners and insurers were
+to assume, that a neutral vessel, if destined for a neutral
+port, is necessarily safe from capture. Words at any rate
+capable of this construction may, no doubt, be quoted
+from one of Lord Stowell's judgments, now more than a
+century old; but many things have happened, notably
+the invention of railways, since the days of that great
+Judge. The United States cases, decided in the sixties
+(as Dr. Baty thinks, &quot;on a demonstrably false analogy&quot;),
+in which certain ships were held to be engaged in the carriage
+of contraband, although their destination was a neutral
+port, were substantially approved of by Great Britain.
+Their principle wast adopted by Italy, in the <i>Doelwijk</i>,
+in 1896, and was supported by Great Britain in the correspondence
+upon this subject which took place with Germany
+in 1900. It was endorsed, after prolonged discussion, by
+the Institut de Droit International in 1896.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, July 11 (1904).</div><br />
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page162" id="page162">[162]</a></span></div>
+
+<p>&nbsp;</p>
+<p class="subsectionhead">(Unqualified Captors)</p>
+
+<div class="intronotes"><p>Among the objections raised by the British Government to the
+capture by the Russian ship <i>Peterburg</i> in the Red Sea, on July 13, 1904,
+of the P. and O. ss. <i>Malacca</i>, for carriage of contraband were (1) that
+the so-called contraband consisted of government ammunition for the
+use of the British fleet in Chinese waters; and (2) what was more serious,
+that the capturing vessel, which belonged to the Russian volunteer fleet,
+after issuing from the Black Sea under the commercial flag had subsequently,
+and without touching at any Russian port, brought up guns
+from her hold, and had proceeded to exercise belligerent rights under
+the Russian naval flag. In consequence of the protest of the British
+Government, and to close the incident, the <i>Malacca</i> was released at
+Algiers, after a purely formal examination, on July 27, and Russia
+agreed to instruct the officers of her volunteer fleet not to make any
+similar captures.</p>
+
+<p>The question of the legitimacy of the transformation on the high
+seas into a ship-of-war of a vessel which has previously been sailing under
+the commercial flag was much discussed at The Hague Conference of
+1907, but without result. Opinions were so much divided upon the
+point, that no mention of it is made in Convention No. vii. of that year,
+ratified by Great Britain on November 27, 1909, &quot;as to the transformation
+of merchant vessels into ships-of-war.&quot; At the session
+of the Institut de Droit International held at Oxford in 1913, this
+question was discussed, and rules relating to it will be found in
+Section 2 of the <i>Manuel des lois de la guerre maritime</i>, the drafting
+of which occupied the whole of the session.</p></div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="THE-ALLANTON-B" />THE <i>ALLANTON (Unqualified Captors)</i></p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;The indignation caused by the treatment of the
+<i>Allanton</i> is natural, and will almost certainly prove to be
+well founded; but Mr. Rae, in the letter which you print
+this morning, overstates a good case. He asks that,
+&quot;whatever steps are taken for the release of the <i>Malacca</i>,
+equally strong steps should be taken for the release of the
+<i>Allanton</i>&quot;; and he can see no difference between the cases
+of the two ships, except that the former is owned by a
+powerful company in the habit of carrying British mails,
+while the latter is his private property.</p>
+
+<p>One would have supposed it to be notorious that the
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page163" id="page163">[163]</a></span>facts which distinguish the one case from the other are,
+first, that the capture of the <i>Malacca</i> was effected by a vessel
+not entitled to exercise belligerent rights; and, secondly,
+that Great Britain is prepared to claim the incriminated
+cargo as belonging to the British Government. Capture
+by an unqualified cruiser is so sufficient a ground for a
+claim of restoration and compensation that, except perhaps
+as facilitating the retreat of Russia from a false position, it
+would seem, to say the least, superfluous to pray in aid
+any other reason for the cancellation of an act unlawful
+<i>ab initio.</i></p>
+
+<p>I have not noticed any statement as to the actual constitution
+of the prize Court concerned in the condemnation
+of the <i>Allanton.</i> Under Rule 54 of the Russian Naval
+Regulations of 1895, a &quot;Port Prize Court&quot; must, for a
+decree of confiscation, consist of six members, of whom
+three must be officials of the Ministries of Marine, Justice,
+and Foreign Affairs respectively. An &quot;Admirals' Prize
+Court,&quot; for the same purpose, need consist of only four
+members, all of whom are naval officers.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, July 25 (1904).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+<p>&nbsp;</p>
+<p class="subsectionhead">(Note upon the Declaration of London)</p>
+
+<div class="intronotes"><p>The British delegates to The Hague Conference of 1907 were
+instructed that H.M. Government &quot;are ready and willing for their
+part, in lieu of endeavouring to frame new and more satisfactory
+rules for the prevention of contraband trade in the future, to abandon
+the principle of contraband of war altogether, thus allowing the oversea
+trade in neutral vessels between belligerents on the one hand and
+neutrals on the other, to continue during war without any restriction,&quot;
+except with reference to blockades. This proposal, fortunately, was
+not accepted by the Conference, which was unable even to agree upon
+lists of contraband articles, and recommended that the question
+should be further considered by the Governments concerned, <i>Parl.
+Paper, Miscell.</i> No. 1 (1908), p. 194.</p>
+
+<p>This task was accordingly among those undertaken at the Conference
+of Maritime Powers held in London in 1908-1909, which resulted in
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page164" id="page164">[164]</a></span>a Declaration, Arts. 22-44 of which constituted a fairly complete code
+of the law of contraband. Reference has already been made, in comments
+upon letters comprised in previous sections, to this Declaration,
+the demerits and history of which are more fully dealt with in
+section 10, <i>infra</i>, pp. <a href="#page196">196</a>-207.</p></div>
+
+<hr style='width: 45%;' />
+
+<h3 class="sectionhead"><a name="CHAPTER_VII_SECTION_6" />SECTION 6</h3>
+
+<p class="subsectionhead">Methods of Warfare as affecting Neutrals</p>
+
+<p class="subsectionhead">(Mines)</p>
+
+<div class="intronotes"><p>On the views expressed in the first of the two letters which follow,
+as also in the writer's British Academy paper on <i>Neutral Duties</i>, as
+translated in the <i>Marine Rundschau</i>, see Professor von Martitz of
+Berlin, in the <i>Transactions</i> of the International Law Association, 1907.
+The Institut de Droit International has for some years past had under
+its consideration questions relating to mines, and has arrived at conclusions
+which will be found in its <i>Annuaire</i>, t. xxi. p. 330, t. xxii. p. 344,
+t xxiii. p. 429, t. xxiv. pp. 286, 301.</p>
+
+<p>The topic has also been dealt with in The Hague Convention,
+No. viii. of 1907, ratified with a reservation, by Great Britain on November
+27, 1907. By Art. 1 it is forbidden &quot;(1) to lay unanchored automatic-contact
+mines, unless they are so constructed as to become
+harmless one hour at most after he who has laid them has lost control
+over them; (2) to lay anchored automatic-contact mines which do
+not become harmless as soon as they have broken loose from their
+moorings; (3) to employ torpedoes which do not become harmless
+when they have missed their mark.&quot; By Art. 2, (which is, however,
+not accepted by France or Germany) it is forbidden &quot;to lay automatic-contact
+mines off the coast and ports of an enemy, with the sole object
+of intercepting commercial navigation.&quot;</p></div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="MINES-IN-THE-OPEN-SEA" />MINES IN THE OPEN SEA</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;The question raised in your columns by Admiral
+do Horsey with reference to facts as to which we are as
+yet imperfectly informed, well illustrates the perpetually
+recurring conflict between belligerent and neutral interests.
+They are, of course, irreconcilable, and the rights of the
+respective parties can be defined only by way of compromise.
+It is beyond doubt that the theoretically absolute
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page165" id="page165">[165]</a></span>right of neutral ships, whether public or private, to pursue
+their ordinary routes over the high sea in time of war, is
+limited by the right of the belligerents to fight on those
+seas a naval battle, the scene of which can be approached
+by such ships only at their proper risk and peril. In such
+a case the neutral has ample warning of the danger to which
+he would be exposed did he not alter his intended course.
+It would, however, be an entirely different affair if he
+should find himself implicated in belligerent war risks, of
+the existence of which it was impossible for him to be
+informed, while pursuing his lawful business in waters over
+which no nation pretends to exercise jurisdiction.</p>
+
+<p>It is certain that no international usage sanctions the
+employment by one belligerent against the other of mines,
+or other secret contrivances, which would, without notice,
+render dangerous the navigation of the high seas. No
+belligerent has ever asserted a right to do anything of
+the kind; and it may be in the recollection of your
+readers that strong disapproval was expressed of a design,
+erroneously attributed to the United States a few years
+since, of effecting the blockade of certain Cuban ports by
+torpedoes, instead of by a cruising squadron. These, it
+was pointed out, would superadd to the risk of capture
+and confiscation, to which a blockade-runner is admittedly
+liable, the novel penalty of total destruction of the ship
+and all on board.</p>
+
+<p>It may be worth while to add, as bearing upon the
+question under discussion, that there is a tendency in
+expert opinion towards allowing the line between &quot;territorial
+waters&quot; and the &quot;high seas&quot; to be drawn at a
+considerably greater distance than the old measurement of
+three miles from the shore.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, May 23 (1904).</div><br />
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page166" id="page166">[166]</a></span></div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="TERRITORIAL-WATERS" />TERRITORIAL WATERS</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;Most authorities would, I think, agree with
+Admiral de Horsey that the line between &quot;territorial
+waters&quot; and &quot;the high sea&quot; is drawn by international
+law, if drawn by it anywhere, at a distance of three miles
+from low-water mark. In the first place, the ridiculously
+wide claims made, on behalf of certain States, by medi&aelig;val
+jurists were cut down by Grotius to so much water as can
+be controlled from the land. The Grotian formula was
+then worked out by Bynkershoek with reference to the
+range of cannon; and, finally, this somewhat variable test
+was before the end of the eighteenth century, as we may
+see from the judgments of Lord Stowell, superseded by
+the hard-and-fast rule of the three-mile limit, which has
+since received ample recognition in treaties, legislation, and
+judicial decisions.</p>
+
+<p>The subordinate question, also touched upon by the
+Admiral, of the character to be attributed to bays, the
+entrance to which exceeds six miles in breadth, presents
+more difficulty than that relating to strictly coastal waters.
+I will only say that the Privy Council, in <i>The Direct U.S.
+Cable Co.</i> v. <i>Anglo-American Telegraph Co.</i> (L.R. 2 App.
+Ca. 394), carefully avoided giving an opinion as to the
+international law applicable to such bays, but decided
+the case before them, which had arisen with reference to
+the Bay of Conception, in Newfoundland, on the narrow
+ground that, as a British Court, they were bound by
+certain assertions of jurisdiction made in British Acts of
+Parliament.</p>
+
+<p>The three-mile distance has, no doubt, become inadequate
+in consequence of the increased range of modern
+cannon, but no other can be substituted for it without
+express agreement of the Powers. One can hardly admit
+the view which has been maintained, <i>e.g.</i> by Professor de
+Martens, that the distance shifts automatically in accord<span class="newpage"><a name="page167" id="page167">[167]</a></span>ance
+with improvements in artillery. The whole matter
+might well be included among the questions relating to
+the rights and duties of neutrals, for the consideration of
+which by a conference, to be called at an early date, a
+wish was recorded by The Hague Conference, of 1899.</p>
+
+<p>In the meantime it may be worth while to call attention
+to the view of the subject taken by a specially qualified and
+representative body of international experts. The Institut
+de Droit International, after discussions and enquiries which
+had lasted for several years, adopted, at their Paris meeting
+in 1894, the following resolutions, as a statement of
+what, in the opinion of the Institut, would be reasonable
+rules with reference to territorial waters (I cite only those
+bearing upon the extent of such waters):&mdash;</p>
+
+<div class="letterquot"><p>&quot;Art. 2.&mdash;La mer territoriale s'&eacute;tend &agrave; six milles marins (60 au
+degr&eacute; de latitude) de la laisse de basse mar&eacute;e sur tout l'&eacute;tendue des
+c&ocirc;tes. Art. 3.&mdash;Pour les baies, la mer territoriale suit les sinuosit&eacute;s de la
+c&ocirc;te, sauf qu'elle mesur&eacute;e &agrave; partir d'une ligne droite tir&eacute;e en travers
+de la baie, dans la partie la plus rapproch&eacute;e de l'ouverture vers la mer,
+o&ugrave; l'&eacute;cart entre les deux c&ocirc;tes de la baie est de douze milles marins
+de largeur, &agrave; moins qu'un usage continu et s&eacute;culaire n'ait consacr&eacute;
+une largeur plus grande. Art. 4.&mdash;En cas de guerre, l'&eacute;tat riverain
+neutre a le droit de fixer, par la d&eacute;claration de neutralit&eacute;, ou par
+notification sp&eacute;ciale, sa zone neutre au dela de six milles, jusqu'&agrave;
+port&eacute;e du canon des c&ocirc;tes. Art. 5.&mdash;Tous les navires sans distinction
+ont le droit de passage inoffensif par la mer territoriale, sauf le droit
+des bellig&eacute;rants de r&egrave;glementer et, dans un but de d&eacute;fense, de barrer le
+passage dans la dite mer pour tout navire, et sauf le droit de neutres
+de r&egrave;glementer le passage dans la dite mer pour les navires de guerre
+de toutes nationalit&eacute;s.&quot; (<i>Annuaire de l'Institut</i>, t. xiii. p. 329).</p></div>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, June 1 (1904).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+<div class="postnotes"><p>A French decree, of October 18, 1912, accordingly extends, when
+France is neutral, her territorial waters to a distance of six miles
+(11 kilom.) from low-water mark.<span class="newpage"><a name="page168" id="page168">[168]</a></span></p></div>
+
+<p>&nbsp;</p>
+
+<p class="subsectionhead">(Cable-cutting)</p>
+
+<div class="intronotes"><p>With the letters which follow, compare the article by the present
+writer on &quot;Les cables sous-marins en temps de guerre,&quot; in the <i>Journal
+de Droit International Priv&eacute;</i>, 1898, p. 648.</p>
+
+<p>The topic of cable-cutting, as to which the Institut de Droit International
+arrived in 1879 at the conclusions set out in the first of these
+letters, was again taken into consideration by the Institut in 1902: see
+the <i>Annuaire</i> for that year, pp. 301-332.</p>
+
+<p>The Hague Convention; No. iv. of 1907, provides, in Art. 54, that
+&quot;submarine cables connecting occupied territory with a neutral
+territory shall not be destroyed or seized, unless in case of absolute
+necessity. They must be restored, and compensation must be arranged
+for them at the peace.&quot;</p>
+
+<p>Convention No. v., by Art. 3, forbids belligerents (1) to install
+on neutral territory a radio-telegraphic station, or any other apparatus,
+for communicating with their land or sea forces; (2) to employ such
+apparatus, established by them there before the war, for purely military
+purposes. By Art. 5, a neutral Power is bound to permit nothing of
+the sort.</p></div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="SUBMARINE-CABLES" />SUBMARINE CABLES</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;The possibility of giving some legal protection
+to submarine cables has been carefully considered by the
+Institut de Droit International. A committee was appointed
+in 1878 to consider the subject, and the presentation of its
+report to the meeting at Brussels in 1879 was followed
+by an interesting discussion (see the <i>Annuaire de l'Institut</i>,
+1879-80, pp. 351-394). The conclusions ultimately adopted
+by the Institut were as follows:&mdash;</p>
+
+<div class="letterquot"><p>&quot;1. It would be very useful if the various States would come
+to an understanding to declare that destruction of, or injury to, submarine
+cables in the high seas is an offence under the Law of Nations,
+and to fix precisely the wrongful character of the acts, and the appropriate
+penalties. With reference to the last-mentioned point, the
+degree of uniformity attainable must depend on the amount of difference
+between systems of criminal legislation. The right of arresting offenders,
+or those presumed to be such, might be given to the public vessels
+of all nations, under conditions regulated by treaties, but the right to
+try them should be reserved to the national Courts of the vessel arrested.</p>
+
+<p>&quot;2. A submarine-telegraph cable uniting two neutral territories
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page169" id="page169">[169]</a></span>is inviolable. It is desirable that, when telegraphic communication
+must be interrupted in consequence of war, a belligerent should confine
+himself to such measures as are absolutely necessary to prevent the
+cable from being used, and that such measures should be discontinued,
+or that any damage caused by them, should be repaired as soon as the
+cessation of hostilities may permit.&quot;</p></div>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, November 23 (1881).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="SUBMARINE-CABLES-IN-TIME-OF-WAR" />SUBMARINE CABLES IN TIME OF WAR</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;I venture to think that the question which has
+been raised as to the legitimacy of cable-cutting is not so
+insoluble as most of the allusions to it might lead one to
+suppose. It is true that no light is thrown upon it by the
+Convention of 1884, which relates exclusively to time of
+peace, and was indeed signed by Lord Lyons, on behalf
+of Great Britain, only with an express reservation to that
+effect. Nor are we helped by the case to which attention
+was called in your columns some time since by Messrs.
+Eyre and Spottiswoode. Their allusion was doubtless to
+the <i>International</i> (L.R. 3 A. and E. 321), which is irrelevant
+to the present enquiry. The question is a new one, but,
+though covered by no precedent, I cannot doubt that it
+is covered by certain well-established principles of international
+law, which, it is hardly necessary to remark, is no
+cut-and-dried system but a body of rules founded upon, and
+moving with, the public opinion of nations.</p>
+
+<p>That branch of international law which deals with the
+relations of neutrals and belligerents is, of course, a compromise
+between what Grotius calls the &quot;belli rigor&quot; and the
+&quot;commerciorum libertas.&quot; The terms of the compromise,
+originally suggested partly by equity, partly by national
+interest, have been varied and re-defined, from time to
+time, with reference to the same considerations. It is perhaps
+reasonable that, in settling these terms, preponderant
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page170" id="page170">[170]</a></span>weight should have been given to the requirements of belligerents,
+engaged possibly in a life-and-death struggle. &quot;Ius
+commerciorum &aelig;quum est,&quot; says Gentili; &quot;at hoc &aelig;quius,
+tuend&aelig; salutis.&quot; There is accordingly no doubt that in
+land warfare a belligerent may not only interrupt communications
+by road, railway, post, or telegraph without giving
+any ground of complaint to neutrals who may be thereby
+inconvenienced, but may also lay hands on such neutral
+property&mdash;shipping, railway carriages, or telegraphic plant&mdash;as
+may be essential to the conduct of his operations, making
+use of and even destroying it, subject only to a duty to
+compensate the owners. This he does in pursuance of the
+well-known &quot;droit d'angarie,&quot; an extreme application of
+which occurred in 1871, when certain British colliers were
+sunk in the Seine by the Prussians in order to prevent the
+passage of French gunboats up the river. Count Bismarck
+undertook that the owners of the ships should be indemnified,
+and Lord Granville did not press for anything further.
+Such action, if it took place outside of belligerent territory,
+would not be tolerated for a moment.</p>
+
+<p>The application of these principles to the case of submarine
+cables would appear to be, to a certain point at any
+rate, perfectly clear. Telegraphic communication with the
+outside world may well be as important to a State engaged
+in warfare as similar means of communication between
+one point and another within its own territory. Just as an
+invader would without scruple interrupt messages, and even
+destroy telegraphic plant, on land, so may he thus act
+within the enemy's territorial waters, or, perhaps, even so
+far from shore as he could reasonably place a blockading
+squadron. It may be objected that a belligerent has no
+right to prevent the access of neutral ships to unblockaded
+portions of the enemy's coast on the ground that by carrying
+diplomatic agents or despatches they are keeping up the
+communications of his enemy with neutral Governments.
+But this indulgence rests on the presumption that such
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page171" id="page171">[171]</a></span>official communications are &quot;innocent,&quot; a presumption
+obviously inapplicable to telegraphic messages indiscriminately
+received in the course of business. It would seem,
+therefore, to be as reasonable as it is in accordance with
+analogy, that a belligerent should be allowed, within the
+territorial waters of his enemy, to cut a cable, even though it
+may be neutral property, of which the <i>terminus ad quem</i> is
+enemy territory, subject only to a liability to indemnify
+the neutral owners.</p>
+
+<p>The cutting, elsewhere than in the enemy's waters, of
+a cable connecting enemy with neutral territory receives
+no countenance from international law. Still less permissible
+would be the cutting of a cable connecting two
+neutral ports, although messages may pass through it which,
+by previous and subsequent stages of transmission, may
+be useful to the enemy.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">Your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, May 21 (1897).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="SUBMARINE-CABLES-IN-TIME-OF-WAR-B" />SUBMARINE CABLES IN TIME OF WAR</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;Will you allow me to refer in a few words to the
+interesting letters upon the subject of submarine cables
+which have been addressed to you by Mr. Parson&eacute; and
+Mr. Charles Bright? In asserting that &quot;the question as to
+the legitimacy of cable-cutting is covered by no precedent,&quot;
+I had no intention of denying that belligerent interference
+with cables had ever occurred. International precedents
+are made by diplomatic action (or deliberate inaction) with
+reference to facts, not by those facts themselves. To the
+best of my belief no case of cable-cutting has ever been
+made matter of diplomatic representation, and I understand
+Mr. Parson&eacute; to admit that no claim in respect of
+damage to cables was presented to the mixed Commission
+appointed under the Convention of 1883 between Great
+Britain and Chile.<span class="newpage"><a name="page172" id="page172">[172]</a></span></p>
+
+<p>In the course of his able address upon &quot;Belligerents
+and Neutrals,&quot; reported in your issue of this morning, I
+observe that Mr. Macdonell suggests that the Institut de
+Droit International might usefully study the question of
+cables in time of war. It may, therefore, be well to state
+that this service hat already been rendered. The Institut,
+at its Paris meeting in 1878, appointed a committee, of
+which M. Renault was chairman, to consider the whole
+subject of the protection of cables, both in peace and in
+war; and at its Brussels meeting, in 1879, carefully discussed
+the exhaustive report of its committee and voted
+certain &quot;conclusions,&quot; notably the following:&mdash;</p>
+
+<div class="letterquot"><p>&quot;Le c&acirc;ble t&eacute;l&eacute;graphique sous-marin qui unit deux territoires
+neutres est inviolable.</p>
+
+<p>&quot;Il est &agrave; d&eacute;sirer, quand les communications t&eacute;l&eacute;graphiques doivent
+cesser par suite de l'&eacute;tat de guerre, que l'on se borne aux mesures
+strictement n&eacute;cessaires pour emp&ecirc;cher l'usage du cable, et qu'il soit mis
+fin &agrave; ces mesures, ou que l'on en r&eacute;pare les consequences, aussit&ocirc;t que
+le permettra la cessation des hostilit&eacute;s.&quot;</p></div>
+
+<p>It was in no small measure due to the initiative of the
+Institut that diplomatic conferences were held at Paris, which
+in 1882 produced a draft convention for the protection of
+cables, not restricted in its operation to time of peace; and
+in 1884 the actual convention, which is so restricted.</p>
+
+<p>It may not be generally known that in 1864, before the
+difficulties of the subject were thoroughly appreciated, a
+convention was signed, though it never became operative,
+by which Brazil, Hayti, Italy, and Portugal undertook to
+recognise the &quot;neutrality&quot; in time of war of a cable to be
+laid by one Balestrini. So, in 1869, the United States were
+desirous of concluding a general convention which should
+assimilate the destruction of cables in the high seas to
+piracy, and should continue to be in force in time of war.
+The Brussels conference of 1874 avoided any mention of
+&quot;c&acirc;bles sous-marins.&quot;</p>
+
+<p>The moral of all that has been written upon this subject
+is obviously that drawn by Mr. Charles Bright&mdash;<i>viz.</i> &quot;the
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page173" id="page173">[173]</a></span>urgent necessity of a system of cables connecting the
+British Empire by direct and independent means&mdash;<i>i.e.</i>
+without touching on foreign soil.&quot;</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, June 3 (1897).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+<hr style='width: 45%;' />
+
+<h3 class="sectionhead"><a name="CHAPTER_VII_SECTION_7" />SECTION 7</h3>
+
+<p class="subsectionhead">Destruction of Neutral Prizes</p>
+
+<div class="intronotes"><p>A British ship, the <i>Knight Commander</i>, bound from New York
+to Yokohama and Kobe, was stopped on July 23, 1904, by a Russian
+cruiser, and as her cargo consisted largely of railway material, was
+considered to be engaged in carriage of contraband. Her crew and
+papers were taken on board the cruiser, and she was sent to the bottom
+by fire from its guns. The reasons officially given for this proceeding
+were that: &quot;The proximity of the enemy's port, the lack of coal on
+board the vessel to enable her to be taken into a Russian port, and the
+impossibility of supplying her with coal from one of the Russian
+cruisers, owing to the high seas running at the time, obliged the
+commander of the Russian cruiser to sink her.&quot;</p>
+
+<p>The Russian Regulations as to Naval Prize, Art. 21, allowed a
+commander &quot;in exceptional cases, when the preservation of a captured
+vessel appears impossible on account of her bad condition or entire
+worthlessness, the danger of her recapture by the enemy, or the great
+distance or blockade of ports, or else on account of danger threatening
+the ship which has made the capture, or the success of her operations,&quot;
+to burn or sink the prize.</p>
+
+<p>The Japanese Regulations, Art. 91, were to the same effect in
+cases where the prize (1) cannot be navigated owing to her being unseaworthy,
+or to dangerous seas; (2) is likely to be recaptured by the
+enemy; (3) cannot be navigated without depriving the ship-of-war of
+officers and men required for her own safety.</p>
+
+<p>The case of the <i>Knight Commander</i> was the subject of comment,
+on the 27th of the same month, in both Houses of Parliament. In
+the House of Lords, Lord Lansdowne spoke of what had occurred as
+&quot;a very serious breach of international law,&quot; &quot;an outrage,&quot; against
+which it had been considered &quot;a duty to lodge a strong protest.&quot; In
+the House of Commons, Mr. Balfour described it as &quot;entirely contrary
+to the accepted practice of civilised nations.&quot; Similar language was
+used in Parliament on August 10, when Mr. Gibson Bowles alluded to
+my letter of the 6th, in a way which gave occasion for that of the 14th.<span class="newpage"><a name="page174" id="page174">[174]</a></span></p>
+
+<p>The <i>Knight Commander</i> was condemned by the Prize Court at
+Vladivostok on August 16, 1904, and the sentence was confirmed on
+December 5, 1905, by the Court of Appeal at St. Petersburg, which
+found it &quot;impossible to agree that the destruction of a neutral vessel
+is contrary to the principles of international law.&quot; The Russian
+Government remained firm on the point, and in 1908 declined to submit
+the case to arbitration.</p>
+
+<p>The Institut de Droit International in its <i>Code des Prises maritimes</i>,
+voted in 1887, Art. 50 (not, be it observed, professing to state the law
+as it is, but as it should be), had taken a view in accordance with
+that maintained by the British Government (<i>Annuaire</i> for 1888, t. ix.
+p. 228; <i>cf. ib.</i> pp. 200, 201). (The <i>Manuel des lois de la guerre maritime</i>,
+voted at Oxford in 1913, dealing exclusively with &quot;les rapports
+entre les bellig&eacute;rants,&quot; does not deal with the topic in question.) It
+was, however, the opinion of the present writer, as will appear from
+the following letters, that no rule of international law, by which the
+sinking of even neutral prizes was absolutely prohibited, could be shown
+to exist. He had previously touched upon this question in his evidence
+before the Royal Commission on the Supply of Food, &amp;c., in Time of
+War, on November, 4, 1903, and returned to it later in his paper upon
+&quot;The Duties of Neutrals,&quot; read to the British Academy on April 12,
+1905, <i>Transactions</i>, ii. p. 66. It was reproduced in French, German,
+Belgian, and Spanish periodicals, and was cited in the judgment of the
+St. Petersburg Court of Appeal in the case of the <i>Knight Commander.</i></p>
+
+<p>The subsequent history of the question, and, in particular, of the
+rules suggested in Arts. 48-54 of the unratified Declaration of London,
+may be claimed in favour of the correctness of the opinion maintained
+in the letters.</p></div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="RUSSIAN-PRIZE-LAW" />RUSSIAN PRIZE LAW</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;The neutral Powers have serious ground of complaint
+as to the mode in which Russia is conducting
+operations at sea. It may, however, be doubted whether
+public opinion is sufficiently well informed to be capable
+of estimating the comparative gravity of the acts which
+are just now attracting attention. Putting aside for the
+moment questions arising out of the Straits Convention of
+1856, as belonging to a somewhat different order of ideas,
+we may take it that the topics most needing careful consideration
+relate to removal of contraband from the ship
+that is carrying it without taking her in for adjudication;
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page175" id="page175">[175]</a></span>interference with mail steamers and their mail bags; perversely
+wrong decisions of Prize Courts; confiscation of
+ships as well as of their contraband cargo; destruction of
+prizes at sea; the list of contraband. Of these topics, the
+two last mentioned are probably the most important, and
+on each of these I will ask you to allow me to say a few
+words.</p>
+
+<p>1. There is no doubt that by the Russian regulations
+of 1895, Art. 21; and instructions of 1901, Art. 40, officers
+are empowered to destroy their prizes at sea, no distinction
+being drawn between neutral and enemy property, under
+such exceptional circumstances as the bad condition or
+small value of the prize, risk of recapture, distance from a
+Russian port, danger to the Imperial cruiser or to the
+success of her operations. The instructions of 1901, it may
+be added, explain that an officer &quot;incurs no responsibility
+whatever&quot; for so acting if the captured vessel is really
+liable to confiscation and the special circumstances imperatively
+demand her destruction. It is fair to say that not
+dissimilar, though less stringent, instructions were issued
+by France in 1870 and by the United States in 1898; also
+that, although the French instructions expressly contemplate
+&quot;l'&eacute;tablissement des indemnit&eacute;s &agrave; attribuer aux
+neutres,&quot; a French prize Court in 1870 refused compensation
+to neutral owners for the loss of their property on board of
+enemy ships burnt at sea.</p>
+
+<p>The question, however, remains whether such regulations
+are in accordance with the rules of international law. The
+statement of these rules by Lord Stowell, who speaks of
+them as &quot;clear in principle and established in practice,&quot; may,
+I think, be summarised as follows: An enemy's ship, after
+her crew has been placed in safety, may be destroyed.
+Where there is any ground for believing that the ship, or any
+part of her cargo, is neutral property, such action is justifiable
+only in cases of &quot;the gravest importance to the captor's
+own State,&quot; after securing the ship's papers and subject to
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page176" id="page176">[176]</a></span>the right of neutral owners to receive fall compensation
+(<i>Actaeon</i>, 2 Dods. 48; <i>Felicity, ib.</i> 381; substantially
+followed by Dr. Lushington in the <i>Leucade</i>, Spinks, 221). It
+is not the case, as is alleged by the <i>Novoe Vremya</i>, that any
+British regulations &quot;contain the same provisions as the
+Russian&quot; on this subject. On the contrary, the Admiralty
+Manual of 1888 allows destruction of enemy vessels only;
+and goes so far in the direction of liberality as to order the
+release, without ransom, of a neutral prize which either from
+its condition, or from lack of a prize crew, cannot be sent
+in for adjudication. The Japanese instructions of 1894
+permit the destruction of only enemy vessels; and Art. 50
+of the carefully debated &quot;Code des prises&quot; of the Institut
+de Droit International is to the same effect. It may be
+worth while to add that the eminent Russian jurist, M. de
+Martens, in his book on international law, published some
+twenty years ago, in mentioning that the distance of her
+ports from the scenes of naval operations often obliges
+Russia to sink her prizes, so that &quot;ce qui les lois maritimes
+de tous les &eacute;tats consid&egrave;rent comme un moyen auquel il
+n'y a lieu de recourir qu'&agrave; la derni&egrave;re extr&eacute;mit&eacute;, se transformera
+n&eacute;cessairement pour nous en r&egrave;gle normale,&quot; foresaw
+that &quot;cette mesure d'un caract&egrave;re g&eacute;n&eacute;ral soul&eacute;vera
+indubitablement contre notre pays un m&eacute;contentement
+universel.&quot;</p>
+
+<p>2. A far more important question is, I venture to think,
+raised by the Russian list of contraband, sweeping, as it
+does, into the category of &quot;absolutely contraband&quot; articles
+things such as provisions and coal, to which a contraband
+character, in any sense of the term, has usually been denied
+on the Continent, while Great Britain and the United States
+have admitted them into the category of &quot;conditional&quot;
+contraband, only when shown to be suitable and destined for
+the armed forces of the enemy, or for the relief of a place
+besieged. Still more unwarrantable is the Russian claim to
+interfere with the trade in raw cotton. Her prohibition of
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page177" id="page177">[177]</a></span>this trade is wholly unprecedented, for the treatment of
+cotton during the American Civil War will be found on
+examination to have no bearing on the question under consideration.
+I touch to-day upon this large subject only to
+express a hope that our Government, in concert, if possible,
+with other neutral Governments, has communicated to that
+of Russia, with reference to its list of prohibited articles, a
+protest in language as unmistakable as that employed by
+our Foreign Office in 1885; &quot;I regret to have to inform
+you, M. l'Ambassadeur,&quot; wrote Lord Granville, &quot;that Her
+Majesty's Government feel compelled to take exception to
+the proposed measure, as they cannot admit that, consistently
+with the law and practice of nations, and with the
+rights of neutrals, provisions in general can be treated as
+contraband of war.&quot; A timely warning that a claim is
+inadmissible is surely preferable to waiting till bad feeling
+has been aroused by the concrete application of an objectionable
+doctrine.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, August I (1904).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="RUSSIAN-PRIZE-LAW-B" />RUSSIAN PRIZE LAW</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;From this hilltop I observe that, in the debate of
+Thursday last, Mr. Gibson Bowles, alluding to a letter of
+mine which appeared in your issue of August 6, complained
+that I &quot;had not given the proper reference&quot; to Lord
+Stowell's judgments. Mr. Bowles seems to be unaware that
+in referring to a decided case the page mentioned is, in the
+absence of any indication to the contrary, invariably that
+on which the report of the case commences. I may perhaps
+also be allowed to say that he, in my opinion, misapprehends
+the effect of the passage quoted by him from the <i>Felicity</i>,
+which decides only that, whatever may be the justification
+for the destruction of a neutral prize, the neutral owner is
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page178" id="page178">[178]</a></span>entitled, as against the captor, to full compensation for the
+loss thereby sustained.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Eggishorn, Valais, Suisse, August 14 (1904).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="RUSSIAN-PRIZE-LAW-C" />RUSSIAN PRIZE LAW</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;Mr. Gibson Bowles has, I find, addressed to you a
+letter in which he attempts to controvert two statements of
+mine by the simple expedient of omitting essential portions
+of each of them.</p>
+
+<p>1. Mr. Bowles having revealed himself as unaware that
+the mode in which I had cited a group of cases upon destruction
+of prizes was the correct mode, I thought it well to
+provide him with the rudimentary information that, &quot;in
+referring to a decided case, the page, mentioned is, <i>in the
+absence of any indication to the contrary</i>, invariably that on
+which the report of the case commences.&quot; He replies that he
+has found appended to a citation of a passage in a judgment
+the page in which this passage occurs. May I refer him,
+for an explanation of this phenomenon, to the words (now
+italicised) omitted in his quotation of my statement? It is,
+of course, common enough, when the reference is obviously
+not to the case as a whole but to an extract from it, thus to
+give a clue to the extract, the formula then employed being
+frequently &quot;<i>at</i> page so-and-so.&quot;</p>
+
+<p>2. I had summarised the effect, as I conceive it, of the
+group of cases above mentioned in the following terms:
+&quot;Such action is justifiable only in cases of the gravest importance
+to the captor's own State, <i>after securing the ship's
+papers, and subject to the right of the neutral owners to receive
+full compensation</i>.&quot; Here, again, while purporting to quote
+me, Mr. Bowles omits the all-important words now italicised.
+I am, however, maltreated in good company. Mr. Bowles
+represents Lord Stowell as holding that destruction of neutral
+property cannot be justified, even in cases of the gravest
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page179" id="page179">[179]</a></span>importance to the captor's own State. What Lord Stowell
+actually says, in the very passage quoted by Mr. Bowles, is
+that &quot;to the neutral can only be justified, under any such
+circumstances, by a full restitution in value.&quot; I would,
+suggest that Mr. Bowles should find an opportunity for
+reading <i>in extenso</i> the reports of the <i>Actaeon</i> (2 Dods. 48),
+and the <i>Felicity</i> (<i>ib.</i> 881), as also for re-reading the passage
+which occurs at p. 386 of the latter case, before venturing
+further into the somewhat intricate technicalities of prize
+law.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Eggishorn, Suisse, August 26 (1904).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="THE-SINKING-OF-NEUTRAL-PRIZES" />THE SINKING OF NEUTRAL PRIZES</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;In your St. Petersburg correspondence of yesterday
+I see that some reference is made to what I have had occasion
+to say from time to time upon the vexed question of the
+sinking of neutral vessels, and your Correspondent thinks it
+&quot;would be decidedly interesting&quot; to know whether I have
+really changed my opinion on the subject. Perhaps, therefore,
+I may be allowed to state that my opinion on the
+subject has suffered no change, and may be summarised as
+follows:&mdash;</p>
+
+<p>1. There is no established rule of international law which
+absolutely forbids, under any circumstances, the sinking of
+a neutral prize. A <i>consensus gentium</i> to this effect will
+hardly be alleged by those who are aware that such sinking
+is permitted by the most recent prize regulations of France,
+Russia, Japan, and the United States.</p>
+
+<p>2. It is much to be desired that the practice should be,
+by future international agreement, absolutely forbidden&mdash;- that
+the lenity of British practice in this respect should
+become internationally obligatory.</p>
+
+<p>3. In the meantime, to adopt the language of the French
+instructions, &quot;On ne doit user de ce droit de destruction
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page180" id="page180">[180]</a></span>qu'avec plus la grande r&eacute;serve&quot;; and it may well be that
+any given set of instructions (<i>e.g.</i> the Russian) leaves on
+this point so large a discretion to commanders of cruisers
+as to constitute an intolerable grievance.</p>
+
+<p>4. In any case, the owner of neutral property, not proved
+to be good prize, is entitled to the fullest compensation for
+his loss. In the language of Lord Stowell:&mdash;</p>
+
+<div class="letterquot"><p>&quot;The destruction of the property may have been a meritorious act
+towards his own Government; but still the person to whom the
+property belongs must not be a sufferer ... if the captor has by the
+act of destruction conferred a benefit upon the public, he must look to
+his own Government for his indemnity.&quot;</p></div>
+
+<p>It may be worth while to add that the published statements
+on the subject for which I am responsible are contained
+in the <i>Admiralty Manual of Prize Law</i> of 1888 (where
+section 808 sets out the lenient British instructions to commanders,
+without any implication that instructions of a
+severer kind would have been inconsistent with international
+law); in letters which appeared in your columns on August
+6, 17, and 30, 1904; and in a paper on &quot;Neutral Duties in a
+Maritime War, as illustrated by recent events,&quot; read before
+the British Academy in April last, a French translation of
+which is in circulation on the Continent.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Temple, June 29 (1905).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+
+<div class="postnotes"><p>The Russian circular of April 3, 1906, inviting the Powers to a second
+Peace Conference, included amongst the topics for discussion: &quot;Destruction
+par force majeure des b&acirc;timents de commerce neutres arr&ecirc;t&eacute;s
+comme prises,&quot; and the British delegates were instructed to urge the
+acceptance of what their Government had maintained to be the existing
+rule on the subject. The Conference of 1907 declined, however, to
+define existing law, holding that its business was solely to consider what
+should be the law in future. After long discussions, in the course of
+which frequent reference was made to views expressed by the present
+writer (see <i>Actes et Documents</i>, t. iii. pp. 991-993, 1010, 1016, 1018,
+1048, 1171), the Conference failed to arrive at any conclusion as to the
+desirability of prohibiting the destruction of neutral prizes, and confined
+itself to the expression of a wish (<i>v&oelig;u</i>) that this, and other un<span class="newpage"><a name="page181" id="page181">[181]</a></span>settled
+points in the law of naval warfare, should be dealt with by a
+subsequent Conference.</p>
+
+<p>This question was, accordingly, one of those submitted to a Conference
+of ten maritime Powers, which was convoked by Great Britain
+in 1908, for reasons upon which something will be said in the next
+section.</p>
+
+<p>The question of sinking was fully debated in this Conference,
+with the assistance of memoranda, in which the several Powers represented
+explained their divergent views upon it, and of reports prepared
+by committees specially appointed for the purpose. It soon became
+apparent that the British proposal for an absolute prohibition of the
+destruction of neutral prizes had no chance of being accepted; while,
+on the other hand, it was generally agreed that the practice is permissible
+only in exceptional cases. (See <i>Parl. Paper, Miscell.</i> No. 5 (1909),
+pp. 2-63, 99-102, 120, 189, 205, 215, 223, 248, 268-278, 323, 365.)
+Arts. 48-54 of the Declaration, signed by the delegates to the Conference
+on February 26, 1909, but not ratified by Great Britain, related to this
+question. After laying down, in Art. 48, the general principle that
+&quot;a neutral prize cannot be destroyed by the captor, but should be
+taken into such port as is proper for the legal decision of the rightfulness
+of the capture&quot; the Declaration proceeded, in Art. 49, to qualify this
+principle by providing that &quot;exceptionally, a neutral vessel captured
+by a belligerent warship, which would be liable to confiscation, may be
+destroyed, if obedience to Art. 48 might compromise the safety of the
+warship, or the success of the operations in which she is actually
+engaged.&quot;</p></div>
+
+<hr style='width: 45%;' />
+
+<h3 class="sectionhead"><a name="CHAPTER_VII_SECTION_8" />SECTION 8</h3>
+
+<p class="subsectionhead">An International Prize Court</p>
+
+<div class="intronotes"><p>The forecast, incidentally attempted in the following letters,
+of the general results likely to be arrived at by the second Peace
+Conference, has been justified by the event. As much may be
+claimed for the views maintained upon the topic with which these
+letters were more specifically concerned. Instead of letting loose the
+judges of the proposed International prize Court to &quot;make law,&quot; in
+accordance with what might happen to be their notions of &quot;the general
+principles of justice and equity,&quot; a serious attempt has been made to
+supply them with a Code of the law which they would be expected to
+administer.</p>
+
+<p>Some account will be given at the end of this section of the movement
+towards the establishment of an International Court of Appeal in
+oases of prize.<span class="newpage"><a name="page182" id="page182">[182]</a></span></p></div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="AN-INTERNATIONAL-PRIZE-COURT" />AN INTERNATIONAL PRIZE COURT</p>
+
+<p>Sir&mdash;The idea suggested by the question addressed
+on February 19 to the Government by Mr. A. Herbert&mdash;<i>viz.</i>
+that the appeal in prize cases should lie, not to a Court
+belonging to the belligerent from whose Court of first instance
+the appeal is brought, but to an international tribunal, has
+a plausible appearance of fairness, but involves many preliminary
+questions which must not be lost sight of.</p>
+
+<p>Prize Courts are, at present, Courts of enquiry, to which
+a belligerent Government entrusts the duty of ascertaining
+whether the captures made by its officers have been properly
+made, according to the views of international law entertained
+by that Government. There exists, no doubt, among
+Continental jurists, a considerable body of opinion in favour
+of giving to Courts of Appeal, at any rate, in prize cases a
+wholly different character. This opinion found its expression
+in Arts. 100-109 of the <i>Code des Prises maritimes</i>, finally
+adopted at its Heidelberg meeting, in 1887, by the Institut
+de Droit International. Art. 100 runs as follows:&mdash;</p>
+
+<div class="letterquot"><p>&quot;Au d&eacute;but de chaque guerre, chacune des parties bellig&eacute;rantes
+constitue un tribunal international d'appel en mati&egrave;re de prises
+maritimes. Chacun de ces tribunaux est compos&eacute; de cinq membres,
+design&eacute;s comme suit: L'&eacute;tat bellig&eacute;rant nommera lui-m&ecirc;me le pr&eacute;sident
+et un des membres. Il d&eacute;signera en outre trois &eacute;tats neutres,
+qui choisiront chacun un des trois autres membres.&quot;</p></div>
+
+<p>In the abstract, and supposing that a tribunal perfectly
+satisfactory both to belligerents and neutrals could be
+constituted, whether antecedently or <i>ad hoc</i>, there might be
+much to be said for the proposal; subject, however, to one
+condition&mdash;<i>viz.</i> that an agreement had been previously
+arrived at as to the law which the Court is to apply. At the
+present time there exists, on many vital questions of prize
+law, no such agreement. It will be sufficient to mention
+those relating to the list of contraband, the distinction
+between &quot;absolute&quot; and &quot;conditional&quot; contraband, the
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page183" id="page183">[183]</a></span>doctrine of &quot;continuous voyages,&quot; the right of sinking a
+neutral prize, the moment from which a vessel becomes
+liable for breach of blockade.</p>
+
+<p>Just as the <i>Alabama</i> arbitration would have been impossible
+had not an agreement been arrived at upon the
+principles in accordance with which neutral duties as to the
+exit of ships of war were to be construed, so, also, before an
+international Court can be empowered to decide questions
+of prize, whether in the first instance or on appeal, it is indispensable
+that the law to be applied on the points above
+mentioned, and many others, should have been clearly
+defined and accepted, if not generally, at least by all parties
+concerned. The moral which I would venture to draw is,
+therefore, that although questions of fact, arising out of
+capture of a prize, might sometimes be submitted to a
+tribunal of arbitration, no case, involving rules of law as
+to which nations take different views, could possibly be so
+submitted. One is glad, therefore, to notice that the Prime
+Minister's reply to Mr. A. Herbert was of the most guarded
+character. The settlement of the law of prize must necessarily
+precede any general resort to an international prize
+Court; and if the coming Hague Conference does no more
+than settle some of the most pressing of these questions, it
+will have done much to promote the cause of peace.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, February 20 (1907).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="A-NEW-PRIZE-LAW" />A NEW PRIZE LAW</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;The leading articles which you have recently
+published upon the doings of the Peace Conference, as also
+the weighty letter addressed to you by my eminent colleague,
+Professor Westlake, will have been welcomed by many of
+your readers who are anxious that the vital importance of
+some of the questions under discussion at The Hague should
+not be lost sight of.<span class="newpage"><a name="page184" id="page184">[184]</a></span></p>
+
+<p>The Conference may now be congratulated upon having
+already given a <i>quietus</i> to several proposals for which,
+whether or not they may be rightly described as Utopian,
+the time is admittedly not yet ripe. Such has been the fate
+of the suggestions for the limitation of armaments, and
+the exemption from capture of private property at sea.
+Such also, there is every reason to hope, is the destiny which
+awaits the still more objectionable proposals for rendering
+obligatory the resort to arbitration, which by the Convention
+of 1899 was wisely left optional.</p>
+
+<p>Should the labours of the delegates succeed in placing
+some restrictions upon the employment of submarine mines,
+the bombardment of open coast towns, and the conversion of
+merchant vessels into ships of war; in making some slight
+improvements in each of the three Conventions of 1899; and
+in solving some of the more pressing questions as to the
+rights and duties of neutrals, especially with reference to
+the reception in their ports of belligerent warships, it will
+have more than justified the hopes for its success which have
+been entertained by persons conversant with the difficulty
+and complexity of the problems involved.</p>
+
+<p>But what shall we say of certain proposals for revolutionising
+the law of prize, which still remain for consideration,
+notably for the establishment of an international Court
+of Appeal, and for the abolition of contraband? It can
+hardly be supposed that either suggestion will win its way
+to acceptance.</p>
+
+<p>1. The British scheme for an international Court of
+Appeal in prize cases is, indeed, far preferable to the German;
+but the objections to anything of the kind would seem to be,
+for the present, insuperable, were it only for the reason which
+you allowed me to point out, some months ago, <i>&agrave; propos</i> of
+a question put in the House of Commons by Mr. Arnold
+Herbert. As long as nations hold widely different views
+on many points of prize law, it cannot be expected that they
+should agree beforehand that, when belligerent, they will
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page185" id="page185">[185]</a></span>leave it to a board of arbitrators to say which of several
+competing rules shall be applied to any given case of capture,
+or to evolve out of their inner consciousness a new rule,
+hitherto unknown to any national prize Court. It would
+seem that the German advocates of the innovation claim
+in its favour the authority of the Institut de Droit International.
+Permit me, therefore, as one who has taken part in
+all the discussions of the Institut upon the subject, to state
+that when it was first handled, at Zurich, in 1878, the difficulties
+in the way of an international Court were insisted on
+by such men as Asser, Bernard, Bluntschli, Bulmerincq, and
+Neumann, and the vote of a majority in its favour was
+coupled with one which demanded the acceptance by treaty
+of a universally applicable system of prize law. The
+drafting of such a system was accordingly the main object
+of the <i>Code des Prises maritimes</i>, which, after occupying
+several sessions of the Institut, was finally adopted by it,
+at Heidelberg, in 1887. Only ten of the 122 sections of this
+Code deal with an international Court of Appeal. A complete
+body of law, by which States have agreed to be bound,
+must, one would think, necessarily precede the establishment
+of a mixed Court by which that law is to be interpreted.</p>
+
+<p>2. While the several delegations are vying with one
+another in devising new definitions of contraband, there
+would seem to be little likelihood that the British proposal
+for its total abandonment will be seriously entertained.
+Such a step could be justified, if at all, from the point of
+view of national interest, only on the ground that it might
+possibly throw increased difficulties in the way of an enemy
+desirous, even by straining the existing law, of interfering
+with the supply of foodstuffs to the British Islands. I
+propose, for the present, only to call attention to the concluding
+paragraph of the British notice of motion on this
+point, which would seem to imply much more than the
+abandonment of contraband. The words in question, if
+indeed they are authentically reported, are as follows:<span class="newpage"><a name="page186" id="page186">[186]</a></span>
+&quot;Le droit de visite ne serait exerc&eacute; que pour constater le
+caract&egrave;re neutre du b&acirc;timent de commerce.&quot; Does this
+mean that the visiting officer, as soon as he has ascertained
+from the ship's papers that she is neutral property, is to
+make his bow and return to the cruiser whence he came?
+If so, what has become of our existing right to detain any
+vessel which has sailed for a blockaded port, or is carrying,
+as a commercial venture, or even ignorantly, hostile troops
+or despatches? No such definition as is proposed of an
+&quot;auxiliary ship-of-war&quot; would safeguard the right in
+question, since a ship, to come within that definition, must,
+it appears, be under the orders of a belligerent fleet.</p>
+
+<p>I would venture to suggest that the motto of a reformer
+of prize law should be <i>festina lente.</i> The existing system is
+the fruit of practical experience extending over several
+centuries, and, though it may need, here and there, some
+readjustment to new conditions, brought about by the
+substitution of steam for sails, is not one which can safely
+be pulled to pieces in a couple of months. Let us leave
+something for future Hague Conferences.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, July 24 (1907).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="A-NEW-PRIZE-LAW-B" />A NEW PRIZE LAW</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;In a letter under the above heading, for which you
+were so good as to find room in July last, I returned to the
+thesis which I had ventured to maintain some months
+previously, <i>&agrave; propos</i> of a question put in the House of
+Commons. My contention was that the establishment of
+an international prize Court, assuming it to be under any
+circumstances desirable, should follow, not precede, a general
+international agreement as to the law which the Court is to
+administer.</p>
+
+<p>It would appear, from such imperfect information as
+intermittently reaches Swiss mountain hotels, that a con<span class="newpage"><a name="page187" id="page187">[187]</a></span>viction
+of the truth of this proposition is at length making
+way among the delegates to The Hague Conference and
+among observers of its doings. In a recent number of the
+<i>Courrier de la Conf&eacute;rence</i>, a publication which cannot be
+accused of lukewarmness in the advocacy of proposals for
+the peaceful settlement of international differences, I find
+an article entitled &quot;Pas de Code Naval, pas de Cour des
+Prises,&quot; to the effect that &quot;l'acceptation de la Cour des
+Prises est strictement conditionnelle &agrave; la r&eacute;daction du Code,
+qu'elle aura &agrave; interpr&eacute;ter.&quot; Its decisions must otherwise
+be founded upon the opinions of its Judges, &quot;the majority
+of whom will belong to a school which has never accepted
+what Great Britain looks upon as the fundamental principles
+of naval warfare.&quot; One learns also from other sources,
+that efforts are being made to arrive, by a series of compromises,
+at some common understanding upon the points
+as to which the differences of view between the Powers are
+most pronounced. It may, however, be safely predicted
+that many years must elapse before any such result will
+be achieved.</p>
+
+<p>In the meantime, a very different solution of the difficulty
+has commended itself to the partisans of the proposed Court.
+M. Renault, the accomplished Reporter of the committee
+which deals in the first instance with the subject, after
+stating that &quot;sur beaucoup de points le droit de la guerre
+maritime est encore incertain, et chaque &Eacute;tat le formule
+au gr&eacute; de ses id&eacute;es et de ses int&eacute;r&ecirc;ts,&quot; lays down that, in
+accordance with strict juridical reasoning, when international
+law is silent an international Court should apply the law of
+the captor. He is, nevertheless, prepared to recommend,
+as the spokesman of the committee, that in such cases the
+Judges should decide &quot;d'apr&egrave;s les
+<ins class="correction"
+  title="Transcriber's note: Printed as _principles_ in original text.">
+principes</ins> g&eacute;n&eacute;raux de la
+justice et de l'&eacute;quit&eacute;&quot;&mdash;a process which I had, less complimentarily,
+described as &quot;evolving new rules out of their inner
+consciousness.&quot; The Court, in pursuance of this confessedly
+&quot;hardie solution,&quot; would be called upon to &quot;faire le droit.&quot;<span class="newpage"><a name="page188" id="page188">[188]</a></span></p>
+
+<p>One may be permitted to hope that this proposal will
+not be accepted. The beneficent action of English Judges
+in developing the common law of England may possibly
+be cited in its favour; but the analogy is delusive. The
+Courts of a given country in evolving new rules of law are
+almost certain to do so in accordance with the views of
+public policy generally entertained in that country. Should
+they act otherwise their error can be promptly corrected by
+the national Legislature. Far different would be the effect
+of the decision of an international Court, in which, though
+it might run directly counter to British theory and practice,
+Great Britain would have bound herself beforehand to
+acquiesce. The only quasi-legislative body by which the
+<i>ratio decidendi</i> of such a decision could be disallowed would
+be an international gathering in which British views might
+find scanty support. The development of a system of
+national law by national Judges offers no analogy to the
+working of an international Court, empowered, at its free
+will and pleasure, to disregard the views of a sovereign
+Power as to the proper rule to be applied in cases as to
+which international law gives no guidance. In such cases
+the ultimate adjustment of differences of view is the
+appropriate work, not of a law Court, but of diplomacy.</p>
+
+<p>It is hardly necessary to combat the notion that there
+already exists, <i>in nubibus</i>, a complete system of prize law,
+which is in some mysterious way accessible to Judges, and
+reveals to them the rule applicable to each new case as it
+arises. This notion, so far as it is prevalent, seems to have
+arisen from a mistaken reading of certain <i>dicta</i> of Lord
+Stowell, in which that great Judge, in his finest eighteenth-century
+manner, insists that the law which it was his duty
+to administer &quot;has no locality&quot; and &quot;belongs to other
+nations as well as our own.&quot; He was, of course, thinking
+of the rules of prize law upon which the nations are agreed,
+not of the numerous questions upon which no agreement
+exists, and was dealing with the difficult position of a Judge
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page189" id="page189">[189]</a></span>who has to choose (as in the recent <i>Moray Firth</i> case) between
+obedience to such rules and obedience to the legislative,
+or quasi-legislative, acts of his own Government.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Eggishorn, Suisse, September 16 (1907).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="A-NEW-PRIZE-LAW-C" />A NEW PRIZE LAW</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;The speech of the Prime Minister at the Guildhall
+contains a paragraph which will be read with a sense of relief
+by those who, like myself, have all along viewed with
+surprise and apprehension The Hague proposals for an
+international prize Court.</p>
+
+<p>Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman admits that &quot;it is desirable,
+and it may be essential, that, before legislation can be undertaken
+to make such a Court effective, the leading maritime
+nations should come to an agreement as to the rules regarding
+some of the more important subjects of warfare which
+are to be administered by the Court&quot;; and his subsequent
+eulogy of the Court presupposes that it is provided with
+&quot;a body of rules which has received the sanction of the great
+maritime Powers.&quot; What is said as to the necessary postponement
+of any legislation in the sense of The Hague
+Convention must, of course, apply <i>a fortiori</i> to the ratification
+of the Convention.</p>
+
+<p>We have here, for the first time, an authoritative repudiation
+of the notion that fifteen gentlemen of mixed nationality
+composing an international prize Court, are to be let loose
+to &quot;make law,&quot; in accordance with what may happen to be
+their conceptions of &quot;justice and equity.&quot; It seems at last
+to be recognised that such a Court cannot be set to work
+unless, and until, the great maritime Powers shall have come
+to an agreement upon the rules of law which the Court is to
+administer.</p>
+
+<p>I may add that it is surely too much to expect that
+the rules in question will be discussed by the Powers, to
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page190" id="page190">[190]</a></span>use Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman's phrase, &quot;without any
+political <i>arri&egrave;re pens&ecirc;e.</i>&quot; Compromise between opposing
+political interests must ever remain one of the most important
+factors in the development of the law of nations.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, November 11 (1907).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+<div class="postnotes"><p>Although the establishment of an International Prize Court of
+Appeal was not one of the topics included in the programme of the
+Russian invitation; to a second Peace Conference, no objection was made
+to its being taken into consideration, when proposals to that effect
+were made by the British and American delegates to the Conference.
+The idea seems first to have been suggested by H&uuml;bner, who proposed
+to confer jurisdiction in cases of neutral prize on Courts composed
+of ministers or consuls, accredited by neutrals to the belligerents,
+together with commissioners appointed by the Sovereign of the captors
+or of the country to which the prize has been brought, as also, perhaps,
+&quot;des personnes pleines de probit&eacute; et de connaissances dans tout ce
+qui concerne les Loix des Nations et les Trait&eacute;s des Puissances
+modernes.&quot; The Court is to decide in accordance with treaties, &quot;ou,
+&agrave; leur d&eacute;faut, la loi universelle des nations.&quot; <i>De la Saisie des B&acirc;timents
+neutres</i> (1759), ii. pp. 45-61. The Institut de Droit International,
+after discussions extending over several years, accepted the principle
+of an International Court of Appeal, though only in combination with a
+complete scheme of prize law, in its <i>Code des Prises maritimes</i>, completed
+in 1887, section 100.</p>
+
+<p>At the Conference of 1907, the work of several committees, and a
+masterly report by Professor Renault, <i>Parl. Papers</i>, No. iv. (1908), p. 9,
+resulted in The Hague Convention, No. xii. of that year, providing for the
+establishment of a mixed Court of Appeal from national prize Courts.</p>
+
+<p>According to Art. 7 of this Convention, in default of any relevant
+treaty between the Governments of the litigant parties, and of generally
+recognised rules of international law bearing upon the question at issue,
+the Court is to decide &quot;in accordance with the general principles of
+justice and equity.&quot; It seems, however, to have been soon perceived
+that the proposal to institute a Court, unprovided with any fixed
+system of law by which to decide the cases which might be brought
+before it, could not well be entertained, and the Final Act of the Conference
+accordingly expresses a wish that &quot;the preparation of a
+<i>R&egrave;glement</i>, relative to the laws and customs of maritime war, may be
+mentioned in the programme of the next Conference.&quot;</p>
+
+<p>Thereupon, without waiting for the meeting of a third Hague
+Conference, the British Government on February 27, 1908, addressed a
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page191" id="page191">[191]</a></span>circular to the great maritime Powers, which, after alluding to the
+impression gained &quot;that the establishment of the International Prize
+Court would not meet with general acceptance so long as vagueness
+and uncertainty exist as to the principles which the Court, in dealing
+with appeals brought before it, would apply to questions of far-reaching
+importance, affecting naval policy and practice,&quot; went on to
+propose that another Conference should meet in London, in the autumn
+of the same year, &quot;with the object of arriving at an agreement as to
+what are the generally recognised principles of international law
+within the meaning of paragraph 2 of Article 7 of the Convention, as
+to those matters wherein the practice of nations has varied, and of
+then formulating the rules which, in the absence of special treaty
+provisions applicable to a particular case, the Court should observe in
+dealing with appeals brought before it for decision.... It would be
+difficult, if not impossible, for H.M. Government to carry the legislation
+necessary to give effect to the Convention, unless they could assure
+both Houses of the British Parliament that some more definite understanding
+had been reached as to the rules by which the new Tribunal
+should be governed.&quot;</p>
+
+<p>In response to this invitation, delegates from ten principal maritime
+States assembled at the Foreign Office on December 4, 1908,
+and after discussing the topics to which their attention was directed,
+viz.: (1) Contraband; (2) Blockade; (3) Continuous voyage; (4)
+Destruction of neutral prizes; (5) Unneutral service; (6) Conversion
+of merchant vessels into warships on the high seas; (7) Transfer to a
+neutral flag; (8) Nationality or domicil, as the test of enemy property;
+signed on February 26, 1909, the Declaration of London.</p>
+
+<p>The Convention No. xii. of 1907 and the Declaration of London
+of 1909 have alike failed to obtain ratification. <i>Cf.</i> now the two
+immediately following sections, 9 and 10.</p>
+
+<p>An ultimate Court of Appeal in cases of Prize seems now likely
+to be provided by the &quot;Permanent Court of International Justice,&quot;
+proposed by the League of Nations in pursuance of Art. 14 of the
+Treaty of Versailles. See also Art. 24 of the Treaty. <i>Cf. supra</i>, p. <a href="#page002">2</a>.</p></div>
+
+<hr style='width: 45%;' />
+
+<h3 class="sectionhead"><a name="CHAPTER_VII_SECTION_9" />SECTION 9</h3>
+
+<p class="subsectionhead">The Naval Prize Bill</p>
+
+<div class="intronotes"><p>The first two letters in this section contain the criticisms of the
+Bill to which allusion is made in the first lines of a letter of later date,
+q.v. <i>supra</i>, p. <a href="#page036">36</a>. On the rejection of the Bill, see <i>ib.</i>, note 1.<span class="newpage"><a name="page192" id="page192">[192]</a></span></p></div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="THE-NAVAL-PRIZE-BILL-1910" />THE NAVAL PRIZE BILL</p>
+
+<p>Sir&mdash;A paternal interest in the Naval Prize Bill may
+perhaps be thought a sufficient excuse for the few remarks
+which I am about to make upon it. The Bill owes its
+existence to a suggestion made by me, just ten years ago,
+while engaged in bringing up to date for the Admiralty
+my <i>Manual of Naval Prise Law</i> of 1888. It was drafted
+by me, after prolonged communications with Judges, Law
+Officers, and the Government Departments concerned, so
+as not only to reproduce the provisions of several &quot;cross
+and cuffing&quot; statutes dealing with the subject, but also
+to exhibit them in a more logical order than is always to
+be met with in Acts of Parliament.</p>
+
+<p>The Bill was thought of sufficient importance to be
+mentioned on two occasions in the King's Speech, and has
+been several times passed, after careful consideration, by
+the House of Lords; but pressure of other business has
+hitherto impeded its passage through the House of Commons.
+It has now been reintroduced, this time in the Lower House,
+with an imposing backing of Government support; primarily,
+no doubt, with a view to facilitating the ratification of The
+Hague Convention for the establishment of an International
+Prize Court of Appeal. For this purpose, several pieces of
+new cloth have been sewn into the old garment, and I
+may perhaps be allowed to call attention to three or four
+points in which, on a first reading, the new clauses strike
+one as needing reconsideration.</p>
+
+<p>Tactical reasons have, no doubt, operated to induce
+the Government to include in the Consolidation Bill the
+provisions for which statutory authority must be obtained
+before it will be possible to ratify the Convention; instead
+of first introducing a Bill having this sole object in view,
+and afterwards, should this be passed, inserting the new
+law in a reintroduced Consolidation Bill.<span class="newpage"><a name="page193" id="page193">[193]</a></span></p>
+
+<p>The course adopted necessitates an otherwise unnecessary
+preamble, and the qualification of the new Part III. by the
+words &quot;in the event of an International Prize Court being
+established&quot; (Clause 23). The reference, by the by, in
+this clause to &quot;the said Convention&quot; is somewhat awkward,
+no mention of any Convention having occurred previously,
+except in the preamble of the Bill. Is not also the statutory
+approval given by this clause, not only to the Convention
+of 1907 but also to &quot;any Convention amending the same,&quot;
+somewhat startling, as tending to exclude Parliamentary
+criticism of such an amending Convention before its
+ratification?</p>
+
+<p>By Clause 9, the members of the Judicial Committee
+who are to be nominated to act as the British Court of
+Appeal in cases of prize are to be described by the novel
+title of &quot;the Supreme Prize Court.&quot; Is not the use made
+of the term &quot;Supreme&quot; in the Judicature Acts, as covering
+both the High Court and the Court of Appeal, already
+sufficiently unsatisfactory?</p>
+
+<p>But the question which, of all others <i>saute aux yeux</i>,
+in reading the new Part III., is whether the Convention is
+to be approved as it stands, irrespectively of a general
+acceptance of the new Code of Prize Law contained in the
+Declaration of London of 1909. The objections to Art. 7
+of the Contention, providing that, in the absence of rules
+of International Law generally recognised (and on many
+points of Prize Law there are no such rules), the Court is
+to decide in accordance with (what it may be pleased to
+consider) &quot;the general principles of law and equity,&quot; are
+well known. The purpose of the Declaration of London
+(itself the subject of much difference of opinion) was to
+curtail this licence of decision, by providing the Court with
+so much ascertained Prize Law as to render action under
+the too-elastic phrase above quoted almost inconceivable.</p>
+
+<p>Is it too much of a counsel of perfection to suggest that
+the debatable questions arising under the Convention of<span class="newpage"><a name="page194" id="page194">[194]</a></span>
+1907 and the Declaration of 1909 should first be threshed
+out in discussions on a Bill dealing with those questions
+only; and that the decision, if any, thus arrived at should
+be subsequently inserted, freed from hypothesis, in the
+Consolidation Bill which has so long awaited the leisure
+of the House of Commons?</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, July 10 (1910).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="THE-NAVAL-PRIZE-BILL-1911" />THE NAVAL PRIZE BILL</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;The Government has so far yielded to the representations
+of the Opposition as to have refrained from
+forcing on Friday night a division upon the Naval Prize
+Bill. Is it too much to hope that the Government may
+even now withdraw altogether a measure so ill adapted
+to place fairly before Parliament the question of the desirability
+of ratifying two documents held by a large body of
+competent opinion to be certain, if ratified, seriously to
+endanger the vital interests of the country? The Bill,
+as I have already pointed out, as originally drawn, was a
+careful consolidation of the law and procedure governing
+British Courts of Prize. Into this has now been incongruously
+thrust a set of clauses intended to give effect to
+a novel and highly controversial proposal for the creation
+of an International Prize Court. About the Declaration of
+London, alleged to contain a body of law which would
+adequately equip such a Court for the performance of its
+duties, not a word is said in the Bill; yet, should approval
+of the Bill be snatched by a purely party majority, the
+intention of the Government is to proceed straightway to
+the ratification both of the Prize Court Convention and the
+Declaration. Whether they intend also to endeavour to
+obtain the ratification, as an auxiliary Convention, of the
+lengthy covering commentary upon the Declaration, supplied
+by the committee by which the Declaration was drafted,
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page195" id="page195">[195]</a></span>does not yet appear. Of such a step I have already written
+that it &quot;would be calamitous should a practice be introduced
+of attempting to cure the imperfect expression of a treaty
+by tacking on to it an equally authoritative reasoned commentary.
+The result would be <i>obscurum per obscurius</i>, a
+remedy worse than the disease.&quot;</p>
+
+<p>The alternatives before Parliament on Monday next
+will be either, by reading the Naval Prize Bill a second
+time, to bring about, in the teeth of protests from those
+best qualified to express an independent opinion upon the
+subject, the immediate ratification of the Convention and
+the Declaration, or to ask that before, this momentous step is
+taken the infinitely complex and delicate questions involved
+should be examined and passed upon by a Commission of
+representative experts. Which shall it be?</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">Your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, July I (1911).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+<div class="postnotes"><p><i>Cf.</i> a letter of July 7, 1911, <i>supra</i>, p. <a href="#page036">36</a>.</p></div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="NAVAL-PRIZE-MONEY" />NAVAL PRIZE MONEY</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;The existing enactments as to prize bounty are,
+it seems, unsuitable to present conditions of naval warfare,
+and are accordingly to be varied by a bill shortly to be
+introduced.</p>
+
+<p>May I venture to recommend that the Bill should contain
+merely the half-dozen clauses needed for this purpose,
+leaving untouched for subsequent uncontroversial passage,
+the Naval Prize Consolidation with Amendments Bill?
+This Bill, suggested and drafted by myself, in the spacious
+times of peace, in consultation with the Admiralty and other
+Government Departments, as also with the Judge of the
+Admiralty Division and the Law Officers (including the
+present Lord Chancellor), was twice mentioned in the King's
+Speech, and several times, after careful consideration,
+passed by the House of Lords, but still awaits the leisure of
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page196" id="page196">[196]</a></span>the Lower House. It deserved a better fate than to have
+been used, in 1911, as a corpus vile for facilitating the ratification
+of the Convention for an International Prize Court and
+of the Declaration of London; receiving, most fortunately,
+as so perverted, its <i>coup de gr&acirc;ce</i> from the Lords. It should
+be passed as an artistic whole, apart from any contentious
+matter, account having, of course, been taken of recent
+legislation by which it may have been, here and there,
+affected.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, May 23 (1918).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+<hr style='width: 45%;' />
+
+<h3 class="sectionhead"><a name="CHAPTER_VII_SECTION_10" />SECTION 10</h3>
+
+<p class="subsectionhead">The Declaration of London</p>
+
+<div class="intronotes"><p>For incidental mentions of the Declaration in earlier sections see
+<i>supra</i>, pp. <a href="#page022">22</a>, <a href="#page022">36</a>, <a href="#page022">39</a>, <a href="#page055">55</a>, <a href="#page058">58</a>, <a href="#page080">80</a>, <a href="#page090">90</a>, <a href="#page092">92</a>, <a href="#page148">148</a>, <a href="#page154">154</a>, <a href="#page155">155</a>, <a href="#page156">156</a>, <a href="#page158">158</a>,
+<a href="#page163">163</a>, <a href="#page164">164</a>, <a href="#page174">174</a>, <a href="#page181">181</a>, <a href="#page191">191</a>, <a href="#page193">193</a>, <a href="#page194">194</a>, <a href="#page195">195</a>, <a href="#page196">196</a>.</p>
+
+<p>See also my paper upon <i>Proposed Changes in the Law of Naval Prize</i>,
+read to the British Academy on May 31, 1911, <i>Transactions</i>, vol. v.,
+of which a translation appeared in the <i>Revue de Droit International</i>,
+N.S., t. xiii, pp. 336-355.</p></div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="THE-DECLARATION-OF-LONDON-1909" />THE DECLARATION OF LONDON</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;The questions put last night by Mr. M'Arthur need,
+perhaps, more fully considered answers than they received
+from Mr. McKinnon Wood.</p>
+
+<p>With reference to the first answer, it may be worth while
+to point out that, in Art. 66 of the Declaration, the Powers
+undertake not only, as in the passage quoted, &quot;to give the
+necessary instructions to their authorities and armed forces,&quot;
+but also &quot;to take the measures which may be proper for
+guaranteeing the application of the rules Contained in the
+Declaration by their Courts, and, in particular, by their
+Courts of Prize.&quot; The &quot;authentic commentary&quot; upon the
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page197" id="page197">[197]</a></span>article in M. Renault's &quot;Report&quot; explains that the measures
+in question &quot;may vary in different countries, and may or
+may not require the intervention of the Legislature.&quot;</p>
+
+<p>The second answer lays down broadly that &quot;the decisions
+of the British Prize Courts are founded on International
+Law, and not on municipal enactments.&quot; Our Prize Courts
+have, no doubt, on most points, decided in accordance with
+International Law, in the sense of the principles generally
+followed by civilised nations; but, on not a few points, in
+accordance with the British view of what is, or ought to be,
+International Law, in opposition to views persistently maintained
+by other countries&mdash;<i>e.g.</i> with reference to the moment
+from which a blockade-runner becomes liable to capture.
+The fact is that, whatever grandiloquent language may have
+been judicially employed by Lord Stowell in a contrary
+sense, it will now hardly be denied that a Prize Court sits
+by national, not international, authority, and is bound
+to take the view of International Law which, if any, is
+prescribed to it by the constitutionally expressed will of
+its own Government.</p>
+
+<p>The Declaration of London is in many ways a great
+achievement; but one is glad to learn from Mr. McKinnon
+Wood's third answer that opportunity will be given for
+discussing all important points in connexion with its rules.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, March 30 (1909).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="THE-DECLARATION-OF-LONDON-1910" />THE DECLARATION OF LONDON</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;Both the Prize Court Convention of 1907 and
+its complement, the London Declaration of 1909, stand
+greatly in need of full and well-informed discussion before
+receiving the Parliamentary approval which ought to be a
+condition precedent to the ratification of either of them. It
+is well, therefore, that many Chambers of Commerce have
+called the attention of Government to the detriment to<span class="newpage"><a name="page198" id="page198">[198]</a></span>
+British interest which may in their opinion result from these
+agreements if ratified, although the representations thus
+made exhibit, in some cases, so little technical knowledge as
+to have been readily disposed of by the Foreign Secretary.
+For the same reason, I welcome the letter from Mr. Gibson
+Bowles, which appeared in <i>The Times</i> of yesterday, although
+it contains some statements the inaccuracy of which it
+may be desirable at once to point out.</p>
+
+<p>1. The Declaration of Paris is neither implicitly nor
+explicitly adopted by the Declaration of London, &quot;as a part
+of the common law of nations which can no longer be disputed.&quot;
+The later makes no mention of the earlier one,
+and M. Benault's <i>rapport</i> (as to the interpretative authority
+of which opinions may well differ) applies the words quoted,
+not to the Paris Declaration as a whole, but to one only of
+its articles. Mr. Bowles's statement that &quot;the Declaration
+of London, if adopted, would reaffirm, and its ratification
+would in effect, for the first time ratify, the Declaration of
+Paris&quot; cannot be supported.</p>
+
+<p>2. Mr. Bowles asserts it to be &quot;an unquestioned doctrine
+of the Law of Nations that war abrogates and annuls treaty
+obligations between belligerents.&quot; One would have supposed
+it to be common knowledge that large classes of treaties
+are wholly unaffected by war. Such are, for instance, what
+are called conventions <i>transitoires</i>, because their effect is
+produced once for all, as in the case of cessions of territory;
+and, notably, treaties entered into for the regulation of the
+conduct of war, such as the Geneva Convention, many of
+The Hague Conventions of 1907, and the Declaration of
+Paris itself, which Mr. Bowles appears to think would <i>ipso
+facto</i> cease to be obligatory between its signatories on their
+becoming belligerent.</p>
+
+<p>It is a pleasure to be able to agree with Mr. Bowles in
+his wish that the Naval Prize Bill, if reintroduced, should
+be rejected, though I would rather say &quot;withdrawn.&quot;
+You have already allowed me (on July 10) to point out that
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page199" id="page199">[199]</a></span>if the Convention and Declaration are to be effectively
+discussed in Parliament they should be disentangled from
+that Bill, into which the Convention, and, by implication,
+the Declaration, have been incongruously thrust. This
+practically non-contentious Consolidation Bill, after several
+times securing the approval of the House of Lords, has
+hitherto for several years awaited the leisure of the House
+of Commons, but was suddenly reintroduced last Session,
+apparently as an unobtrusive vehicle for the new and highly
+debatable matter contained in the two above-mentioned
+documents. May I now repeat my suggestion that &quot;the
+debatable questions arising under the Convention of
+1907 and the Declaration of 1909 should first be threshed
+out in discussions on a Bill dealing with these questions
+only; and that the decision, if any, thus arrived at should
+be subsequently inserted, freed from hypothesis, in the
+Consolidation Bill&quot;?</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, December 28 (1910).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="THE-DECLARATION-OF-LONDON-1911" />THE DECLARATION OF LONDON</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;I have read Professor Westlake's letters upon the
+Declaration of London with the attention due to anything
+written by my very learned friend, but, although myself
+opposed to the ratification alike of the Prize Court Convention
+and of its complement, the Declaration, do not at
+present wish to enter upon the demerits of either instrument.</p>
+
+<p>There is, however, a preliminary question upon which,
+with your permission, I should like to say a few words.
+My friend justly observes that in dealing with the Declaration
+&quot;the first necessity is to know what it is that we have
+before us&quot;; and he devotes his letter of January 31 to
+maintaining that the Declaration must be read as interpreted
+by the explanations of it given to the full Conference
+by the Drafting Committee, of which M. Renault was presi<span class="newpage"><a name="page200" id="page200">[200]</a></span>dent.
+Professor Westlake supports his opinion by a quotation
+from the reply of the Foreign Office in November last to
+the Edinburgh Chamber of Commerce (<i>Miscell.</i> 1910, No. 4,
+p. 21). I may mention that a similar reply had been given,
+a year previously, by Mr. McKinnon Wood to a question in
+the House of Commons. The source of these replies is
+doubtless to be found in a paragraph of the Report, addressed
+on March 1, 1909, to Sir Edward Grey, of the British
+Delegates to the London Conference, which runs as
+follows:&mdash;</p>
+
+<div class="letterquot"><p>&quot;It should be borne in mind that, in accordance with the principles
+and practice of Continental jurisprudence, such a Report is considered
+an authoritative statement of the meaning and intention of the instrument
+which it explains, and that consequently foreign Governments
+and Courts, and no doubt also the International Prize Court, will
+construe and interpret the provisions of the Declaration by the light
+of the Commentary given in the Report.&quot; (<i>Miscell.</i> 1909, No. 4, p. 94.)</p></div>
+
+<p>It is desirable to know upon what authority this statement
+rests. I am aware of none. The nearest approach to
+an assertion of anything like it occurred at The Hague
+Conference of 1899, when the &quot;approval&quot; accorded to
+&quot;the work of the Second Committee, as embodied in the
+articles voted and in the interpretative Report which
+accompanies them&quot; was alleged by M. de Martens to
+amount to an acceptance of the Report &quot;comme un commentaire
+interpr&eacute;tatif authentique des articles vot&eacute;s.&quot;
+(<i>Miscell.</i> 1899, No. 1, p. 165.) The drafting Report presented
+to the Geneva Conference of 1906 is merely said to
+have been &quot;adopted&quot; (Actes, p. 286); and M. Renault's
+Report to the Conference of London was similarly merely
+&quot;accepted,&quot; although he presented it as containing</p>
+
+<div class="letterquot"><p>&quot;Un commentaire pr&eacute;cis, d&eacute;gag&eacute; de tout controverse, qui, devenu
+commentaire officiel par l'approbation de la Conf&eacute;rence, soit de nature
+&agrave; guider les autorit&eacute;s diverses, administratives, militaires, judiciaires,
+qui pourront avoir &agrave; l'appliquer.&quot; (<i>Miscell.</i> 1909, No. 5, p. 344.)</p></div>
+
+<p>It would seem that in each of these cases the adoption
+of the Report, and even a suggestion or two for a change
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page201" id="page201">[201]</a></span>in its phraseology, amounted to nothing more than an
+expression of opinion on the part of the Delegates to the
+Conference that the Report contained explanations which
+had satisfied themselves, and might satisfy their Governments,
+that the Convention which they were about to
+forward to those Governments might safely be accepted.</p>
+
+<p>So far as Governments are concerned, the adoption of a
+Report by their Delegates is <i>res inter alios acta</i>. An &quot;authentic
+interpretation&quot; of a contract can be given only by
+the parties to it, who, in the case of a treaty, are the States
+concerned. If these States desire to give to the report of
+a drafting committee the force of an authentic interpretation
+of their contract, they can surely do so only by something
+amounting to a supplementary convention. Writers upon
+international law naturally throw but little light upon
+questions to which the somewhat novel practice of argumentative
+drafting Reports has given rise; but I may cite
+Professor Ullmann, of Vienna, as saying:&mdash;</p>
+
+<div class="letterquot"><p>&quot;Eine authentische Interpretation kann nur die durch Kontrahenten
+selbst, in einem gemeinschaftlichen, ihren Willen ausser Zweifel
+setzenden Acte (einem Nachtrags-oder Erlauterungsvertrage), erfolgen&quot;
+(Volkerrecht, p. 282);</p></div>
+
+<p>and Professor Fiore, of Naples, to the effect that what is
+called &quot;authentic interpretation&quot; is not</p>
+
+<div class="letterquot"><p>&quot;interpretazione propriamente detta, ma una dichiarazione di quello
+che fu gia concordato, o un nuovo trattato&quot; (Diritto Internazionale,
+ss. 1, 118);</p></div>
+
+<p>and that</p>
+
+<div class="letterquot"><p>&quot;il trattato non pu&ograve; essere interpretato che dalle stesse Parti (<i>i.e.</i> Stati)
+contrahenti; e per la validit&agrave; dell' atto &egrave; indispensabile che la relativa
+convenzione di interpretazione abbia gli stessi requisiti ... di ogni
+altra convenzione tra Stato e Stato&quot; (Il Dir. Int. Codif., &sect; 816).</p></div>
+
+<p>I would submit that such a Report as that which accompanies
+the Declaration of London has no claim to the sort
+of interpretative authority which has been attributed to it;
+nor is it desirable that the requisite steps should be taken
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page202" id="page202">[202]</a></span>for giving it that authority. It would be calamitous should
+a practice be introduced of attempting to cure the imperfect
+expression of a treaty by tacking on to it an equally authoritative
+reasoned commentary, likely, as in the present case,
+to be enormously longer than the test to which it relates.</p>
+
+<p>It is a wholly different question whether Governments
+or Courts would be inclined to take notice of such a Report,
+among other facts antecedent to a Convention, or Declaration,
+which they might be called upon to construe. A
+British Court would not, I conceive, be so inclined. On
+the probable inclinations of Continental Courts, and of an
+International Prize Court, should one be instituted, further
+expert information would seem to be called for.</p>
+
+<p>The fact is that the vitally important questions of theory
+and practice raised by the Convention and the Declaration
+need calmer and better instructed discussion than they have
+yet received. Ought they not to be referred to a Royal
+Commission, on which should be placed representatives
+of the Navy and Merchant Service, of the corn trade, and
+of the Colonies, together with international lawyers, in
+touch with the views of their Continental colleagues?</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, February 16 (1911).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="THE-DECLARATION-OF-LONDON-1911-B" />THE DECLARATION OF LONDON</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;Professor Westlake, replying in <i>The Times</i> of
+to-day to the arguments by which I had endeavoured to
+show that the Report made to the Conference of London has
+no pretensions to be treated as an authentic interpretation
+of the Declaration prepared by the Conference, still maintains
+that &quot;the essential question will be, what the agreement
+was that the Conference arrived at.&quot; I had maintained,
+on the contrary, that the essential question will
+be, What is the agreement entered into by the Powers, as
+evidenced by their ratifications? anything outside of the
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page203" id="page203">[203]</a></span>ratified agreement being <i>res inter alios acta</i>. I should not
+be justified in asking you to allow me to repeat the contents
+of my letter of Monday last in support of this view. The
+pleadings are, I think, exhausted. &quot;Therefore let a jury
+come.&quot;</p>
+
+<p>I should like, however, to point out that I did not, as
+my friend seems to think, attribute the acceptance of the
+Report to the delegates &quot;singly.&quot; It was, no doubt
+accepted by all present without protest. My colleague
+will, I am sure, pardon me if I add that I cannot concur in
+his exegesis of my citations from Ullmann and Fiore.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, February 25 (1911).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="THE-DECLARATION-OF-LONDON-1911-C" />THE DECLARATION OF LONDON</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;It is satisfactory that so high an authority as Mr.
+Arthur Cohen distinctly accedes to the view that the Declaration
+of London ought not to be ratified as it stands. I
+should, however, be sorry were his suggestion accepted that
+the Declaration and the argumentative report which accompanies
+it might be ratified together. The result would be
+<i>obscurum per obscurius</i>, a remedy worse than the disease.</p>
+
+<p>I shall ask leave to add that, if Mr. Cohen will take the
+trouble to look again at my letters of February 10 and 25,
+he will cease to suppose it possible that in writing &quot;the
+pleadings are, I think, exhausted, &amp;c.,&quot; I meant to convey
+that no further discussion of the merits or demerits of the
+Declaration was required. On the contrary I expressly
+limited myself to a consideration of the preliminary question,
+whether interpretative authority would rightly be attributed
+to the report in question, stating that, while opposed to the
+ratification alike of the Prize Court Convention and of the
+Declaration, I did not, for the present, wish to enter upon
+the demerits of either instrument; and ended my first
+letter by suggesting the reference to a Royal Commission of<span class="newpage"><a name="page204" id="page204">[204]</a></span>
+&quot;the vitally important questions of theory and practice
+raised by the Convention and the Declaration,&quot; as needing
+&quot;calmer and better instructed discussion than they have
+yet received.&quot;</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, March 1 (1911).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="THE-DECLARATION-OF-LONDON-1915" />THE DECLARATION OF LONDON</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;After Tuesday's debate in the House of Lords
+it may be hoped that not even &quot;the man in the street&quot;
+will suppose the Declaration of London to be anything
+more than an objectionable draft, by which no country
+has consented to be bound. Every day of the war makes
+more apparent our debt to the House of Lords for having,
+four years ago, prevented the British Government from
+ratifying either the International Prize Court Convention
+or this Declaration, which, while misleadingly professing
+that its provisions &quot;correspond in substance with the
+generally recognised principles of international law,&quot; contains,
+interspersed with truisms familiar to all concerned
+with such matters, a good many undesirable novelties.</p>
+
+<p>This being so, it was surely unfortunate that our Government,
+with a view apparently to saving time and trouble,
+decided, in the early days of the war, to adopt the Declaration
+<i>en bloc</i> as a statement of prize law &quot;during the present
+hostilities,&quot; subject, however, to &quot;certain additions and
+modifications&quot;; to which it, of course, retained the power
+of making additions. This power has been so freely exercised,
+and large portions of the Declaration, not thereby
+affected, have proved to be so inapplicable to modern
+conditions, as disclosed by the war, that the document, so
+far from providing reliable guidance, is now a mere source
+of hopeless confusion.</p>
+
+<p>To put an end to this confusion, I venture to suggest
+that, in concert with our Allies, the Declaration should be
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page205" id="page205">[205]</a></span>finally consigned to oblivion. Either let its place be taken
+by some clear and simple statement of unquestioned prize
+law, for the use of commanders and officials (something
+like a confidential document in the drafting of which I had
+a hand some years ago, but, of course, brought up to date),
+or let established principles take care of themselves, certain
+doubtful points only being dealt with, from time to time,
+by Orders in Council.</p>
+
+<p>While heartily concurring in Lord Portsmouth's description
+of the unratified &quot;Declaration&quot; as &quot;rubbish,&quot; I regret
+that he seems to relegate to the same category even those
+generally ratified &quot;Hague Conventions&quot; which, as far as
+they go, mark a real advance upon previously accepted
+rules. Still less acceptable is his advice to &quot;sweep away
+juridical niceties&quot; in the conduct of hostilities. Did he
+intend thus to describe the whole fabric of the rules by
+which international law has endeavoured, with considerable
+success, to restrain barbarity in warfare?</p>
+
+<p>I must mention that this letter was written before
+seeing this morning the letter of Mr. Gibson Bowles, my
+worthy ally in attacks upon the Declaration.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, December 3 (1915).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="THE-DECLARATION-OF-LONDON-1916" />THE DECLARATION OF LONDON</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;You have allowed me, in a good many letters,
+to criticise the Declaration of London, both in its original
+inception and in its subsequent applications. Thanks to
+the House of Lords, the Declaration, which erroneously
+professed to &quot;correspond in substance with the generally
+recognised principles of International Law,&quot; has remained
+unratified, and therefore diplomatically of no effect.</p>
+
+<p>Its admirers have, however, too long preserved it,
+perhaps <i>sub spe rati</i>, in a state of suspended animation,
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page206" id="page206">[206]</a></span>using it by way of, as they supposed, a convenient handbook
+of maritime law for the purposes of the present war,
+though subject to such variations as might from time to
+time be found convenient by the Allies. The mistake
+thus made soon became apparent. The elaborate classification
+of contraband had to be at once thrown overboard,
+and most of the remaining provisions of the Declaration
+proved to be inapplicable to modern warfare.</p>
+
+<p>In December last I accordingly wrote as follows:&mdash;</p>
+
+<div class="letterquot"><p>&quot;To put an end to this confusion, I venture to suggest that, in
+concert with our Allies, the Declaration should be finally consigned to
+oblivion. Either let its place be taken by some clear and simple
+statement of unquestioned prize law, for the use of commanders and
+Officials, ... or established principles take care of themselves,
+certain doubtful points only being dealt with from time to time by
+Orders in Council.&quot;</p></div>
+
+<p>I need hardly say that to anyone holding the views
+thus expressed, yesterday's Order in Council must be most
+satisfactory; getting rid, as it does for good and all, of the
+unfortunate Declaration, leaving the application of established
+principles to those acquainted with them and promulgating
+authoritative guidance on specific novel questions.</p>
+
+<p>I may perhaps add a word or two on the undesirability
+of describing as &quot;Declarations&quot; documents which, being
+equipped with provisions for ratification, although they
+may profess to set out old law, differ in no respect from
+other conventions. Also, as to the need for greater caution
+on the part of our representatives than has been shown by
+their acceptance of various craftily suggested anti-British
+suggestions, such as were several embodied in the Declaration
+in question, and notably that of the notorious
+cl. 23 (<i>h</i>) of The Hague Convention iv., the interpretation
+of which has exercised the ingenuity of the Foreign Office
+and, more recently, of the Court of Appeal.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+Brighton, July <span class="newpage"><a name="page207" id="page207">[207]</a></span>9 (1916).<br />
+</div>
+
+<div class="postnotes"><p>On July 7, 1916, an Order in Council was made, revoking all Orders
+by which the provisions of the Declaration had been adopted, or
+modified, for the duration of the war; stating the intention of the
+Allies to exercise their belligerent rights at sea in strict accordance with
+the law of nations; but dealing specifically with certain doubtful
+points. The Order was accompanied by a memorandum, drawn up
+by the British and French Governments, explaining how their expectation
+that in the Declaration they would find &quot;a suitable digest of
+principles and compendium of working rules&quot; had not been realised.
+See also Lord Robert Cecil in the House of Commons on August 23,
+with reference to the Zamora case, [1916] 2 Ch. c. 77.</p>
+
+<p>On misuses of the term &quot;Declaration&quot; <i>cf. supra</i>, pp. <a href="#page090">90</a>, <a href="#page091">91</a>, <a href="#page092">92</a>.</p></div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="GERMANY-WRONG-AGAIN" />GERMANY WRONG AGAIN</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;The new German Note handed on Thursday last
+to the representatives of the neutral Powers supports its
+allegation that the four Allied Powers &quot;have trampled upon
+right and torn up the treaties on which it was based&quot; by
+the following statement:&mdash;</p>
+
+<div class="letterquot"><p>&quot;Already in the first weeks of the war England had renounced
+the Declaration of London, the contents of which her own delegates
+had recognised as binding in international law.&quot;</p></div>
+
+<p>It is surely notorious that the delegates of a Power, by
+agreeing to the draft of a treaty, give to it no international
+validity, which results only when the treaty has been ratified
+by their Government. The Declaration of London has,
+most fortunately, never been ratified by the Government
+of Great Britain.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, January 13 (1917).</div><br />
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page208" id="page208">[208]</a></span>
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page209" id="page209">[209]</a></span></div>
+
+
+
+<hr style="width: 65%;" />
+<h2><a name="INDEX" id="INDEX" />INDEX</h2>
+
+
+<div class="index">
+Absolute contraband. <i>See</i> Contraband<br />
+Abstention, <a href="#page129">129</a><br />
+Acquiescence, State duty of, <a href="#page129">129</a>, <a href="#page130">130</a>, <a href="#page133">133</a>, <a href="#page136">136</a><br />
+<i>Act&aelig;on</i>, the, <a href="#page176">176</a>, <a href="#page179">179</a><br />
+Acts of Parliament, <a href="#page061">61</a>, <a href="#page063">63</a><br />
+Admiralty Manual of Prize Law, <a href="#page156">156</a>, <a href="#page159">159</a>, <a href="#page192">192</a><br />
+Aerial warfare, <a href="#page061">61</a><br />
+Air, opposite views as to rights over, <a href="#page064">64</a>, <a href="#page065">65</a><br />
+Aircraft in war, <a href="#page069">69</a><br />
+<i>Alabama</i>, the, <a href="#page131">131</a>, <a href="#page183">183</a><br />
+<i>Alexander, Mrs., the cotton of</i>, <a href="#page153">153</a><br />
+Alien enemies, civil disabilities of, <a href="#page047">47</a>, <a href="#page049">49</a>, <a href="#page205">205</a><br />
+<i>Allanton</i>, the, <a href="#page158">158</a>, <a href="#page161">161</a>, <a href="#page162">162</a>, <a href="#page163">163</a><br />
+<i>Ancipitis usus</i>, articles, <a href="#page148">148</a><br />
+<i>Angarie, Droit d'</i>, <a href="#page170">170</a><br />
+<i>Appam</i>, the, <a href="#page146">146</a><br />
+<i>Arabia</i>, the, <a href="#page152">152</a><br />
+Arbitration, <a href="#page001">1</a>-6, <a href="#page184">184</a><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">treaties, general, <a href="#page006">6</a>, <a href="#page007">7</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">treaties, limited, <i>ib.</i></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">cases fit for, <a href="#page005">5</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">the Hague tribunal of, <a href="#page005">5</a></span><br />
+Armaments, limitation of, <a href="#page184">184</a><br />
+Armed civilians, <a href="#page077">77</a><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">Neutralities, the, <a href="#page083">83</a></span><br />
+Army, duties of, <a href="#page077">77</a><br />
+Article <a href="#page023">23</a> (h), <a href="#page047">47</a>, <a href="#page049">49</a>, <a href="#page206">206</a>, <a href="#page207">207</a><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">restricting application, <a href="#page146">146</a></span><br />
+Aspirations, <a href="#page099">99</a><br />
+Assassination, <a href="#page093">93</a><br />
+<i>Asturias</i>, the, <a href="#page060">60</a><br />
+Asylum to belligerent warships, <a href="#page129">129</a>, <a href="#page143">143</a><br />
+<i>Atalanta</i>, the, <a href="#page160">160</a><br />
+Aube, Admiral, <a href="#page116">116</a><br />
+Authentic interpretation, <a href="#page107">107</a>, <a href="#page196">196</a>, <a href="#page199">199</a>, <a href="#page201">201</a>, <a href="#page205">205</a><br />
+<br />
+<br />
+Baden-Powell, Sir G., <a href="#page081">81</a>, <a href="#page085">85</a>, <a href="#page087">87</a><br />
+Baker, Sir Sherston, <a href="#page085">85</a><br />
+Balfour, Mr. A.J., <a href="#page013">13</a>, <a href="#page015">15</a>, <a href="#page073">73</a>, <a href="#page074">74</a>, <a href="#page173">173</a><br />
+Balloons, projectiles from, <a href="#page030">30</a>, <a href="#page062">62</a><br />
+Base of operations, neutral duty as to, <a href="#page129">129</a>, <a href="#page134">134</a>, <a href="#page144">144</a>, <a href="#page145">145</a><br />
+Baty, Dr. T., <a href="#page161">161</a><br />
+Bays, <a href="#page166">166</a>, <a href="#page167">167</a><br />
+Belligerents, lawful, <a href="#page073">73</a>, <a href="#page075">75</a>, <a href="#page076">76</a>, <a href="#page077">77</a>, <a href="#page078">78</a>, <a href="#page079">79</a><br />
+Beresford, Lord Charles, <a href="#page118">118</a><br />
+<i>Bermuda</i>, the, <a href="#page160">160</a><br />
+Bills criticised, <a href="#page036">36</a>-40, <a href="#page047">47</a>, <a href="#page192">192</a><br />
+Birkenhead, Lord, <a href="#page135">135</a><br />
+Bismarck, Prince, <a href="#page170">170</a><br />
+Bliss, Sir H., <a href="#page150">150</a><br />
+Blockade,<br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">belligerent, <a href="#page029">29</a>, <a href="#page083">83</a>, <a href="#page156">156</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">fictitious, <a href="#page057">57</a>, <a href="#page059">59</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">pacific, <a href="#page009">9</a>-14, <a href="#page017">17</a></span><br />
+Bluntschli's reply to Von Moltke, <a href="#page026">26</a><br />
+Bombardment, <a href="#page062">62</a><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">of open coast towns, <a href="#page030">30</a>, <a href="#page062">62</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">from the air, <a href="#page112">112</a>, <a href="#page123">123</a></span><br />
+Bondholders, foreign, vindication of rights of, <a href="#page015">15</a><br />
+Bowles, Mr. Gibson, <a href="#page054">54</a>, <a href="#page087">87</a>, <a href="#page089">89</a>, <a href="#page090">90</a>, <a href="#page092">92</a>, <a href="#page141">141</a>, <a href="#page173">173</a>, <a href="#page177">177</a>, <a href="#page178">178</a>, <a href="#page198">198</a><br />
+Brandschatz, <a href="#page117">117</a><br />
+Brassard, effect of a, <a href="#page079">79</a><br />
+Bright, Sir Charles, <a href="#page171">171</a>, <a href="#page172">172</a><br />
+British Academy, author's paper at, <a href="#page174">174</a><br />
+British Manual of Military Law, <a href="#page074">74</a><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">Handbooks on War on Land, <a href="#page075">75</a>, <a href="#page076">76</a></span><br />
+Brodrick, Mr., <a href="#page075">75</a><br />
+<i>Brown</i> v. <i>United States</i>, <a href="#page045">45</a><br />
+Brusa, Prof., <a href="#page130">130</a><br />
+Brussels Conference, the, of 1874, <a href="#page068">68</a>, <a href="#page074">74</a>, <a href="#page077">77</a>, <a href="#page114">114</a>, <a href="#page172">172</a><br />
+Bullets,<br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">expanding, <a href="#page022">22</a>, <a href="#page094">94</a>, <a href="#page096">96</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">explosive, <a href="#page022">22</a>, <a href="#page094">94</a>, <a href="#page095">95</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">in savage warfare, <a href="#page094">94</a></span><br />
+<i>Bundesrath</i>, the, <a href="#page029">29</a>, <a href="#page157">157</a>, <a href="#page160">160</a><br />
+Butler, General B.F., <a href="#page153">153</a><br />
+Bynkershoek, <a href="#page045">45</a>, <a href="#page071">71</a>, <a href="#page165">165</a>, <a href="#page166">166</a><br />
+<br />
+<br />
+Cable-cutting, <a href="#page030">30</a>, <a href="#page168">168</a>-173<br />
+Cables, submarine, <a href="#page168">168</a><br />
+Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H., <a href="#page189">189</a><br />
+Captors, unqualified, <a href="#page071">71</a>, <a href="#page073">73</a>, <a href="#page162">162</a>, <a href="#page163">163</a><br />
+Carson, Sir Edward, <a href="#page127">127</a><br />
+Cavell, Miss, case of, <a href="#page079">79</a><br />
+<i>Calchas</i>, the, <a href="#page151">151</a>, <a href="#page152">152</a>, <a href="#page153">153</a><br />
+Cecil, Lord Robert, <a href="#page008">8</a>, <a href="#page207">207</a><br />
+Channel tunnel, <a href="#page042">42</a><br />
+<i>Chavasse, ex parte</i>, <a href="#page137">137</a><br />
+Civilians armed, position of, <a href="#page077">77</a>, <a href="#page078">78</a>, <a href="#page079">79</a><br />
+Churchill, Mr. Winston, <a href="#page106">106</a><br />
+Claims, competitive, <a href="#page017">17</a><br />
+Clarke, Sir Edward, <a href="#page124">124</a><br />
+Clode, Mr., <a href="#page112">112</a><br />
+Closed localities, <a href="#page050">50</a><br />
+Clothing, use of enemy, <a href="#page075">75</a><br />
+Coal, <a href="#page176">176</a><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">conditional contraband, <a href="#page149">149</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">for belligerent fleet, <a href="#page131">131</a>, <a href="#page134">134</a></span><br />
+Coast fishing vessels, <a href="#page030">30</a><br />
+Codification of laws of war, <a href="#page022">22</a>, <a href="#page023">23</a><br />
+Cohen, Mr. Arthur, <a href="#page047">47</a>, <a href="#page203">203</a><br />
+Coltman, Mr., <a href="#page085">85</a><br />
+Commencement of war, <a href="#page041">41</a><br />
+<i>Commercen</i>, the, <a href="#page159">159</a><br />
+Commissioning on the High Seas, <a href="#page090">90</a><br />
+Commissions of enquiry, <a href="#page004">4</a><br />
+Compromise, the, between belligerent and neutral rights, <a href="#page133">133</a>, <a href="#page136">136</a>, <a href="#page164">164</a>, <a href="#page169">169</a><br />
+Conditional contraband. <i>See</i> Contraband<br />
+Conduct of warfare between belligerents, <a href="#page050">50</a><br />
+Conflict of Laws, <a href="#page034">34</a>, <a href="#page035">35</a><br />
+Continuous voyages, <a href="#page029">29</a>, <a href="#page157">157</a>, <a href="#page162">162</a>, <a href="#page183">183</a><br />
+&quot;Contraband, a happy little,&quot; <a href="#page153">153</a><br />
+Contraband of war,<br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">what it is, <a href="#page130">130</a>, <a href="#page134">134</a>, <a href="#page159">159</a>, <a href="#page175">175</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">absolute and conditional, <a href="#page147">147</a>, <a href="#page151">151</a>, <a href="#page152">152</a>, <a href="#page154">154</a>, <a href="#page158">158</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">British proposal to abolish doctrine of, <a href="#page163">163</a>, <a href="#page184">184</a>, <a href="#page185">185</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">coal, how far, <a href="#page132">132</a>, <a href="#page134">134</a>, <a href="#page149">149</a>, <a href="#page176">176</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">cotton, how far, <a href="#page151">151</a>, <a href="#page152">152</a>, <a href="#page177">177</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">food-stuffs, how far, <a href="#page176">176</a>, <a href="#page185">185</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">Japanese rules as to, <a href="#page149">149</a>, <a href="#page155">155</a>, <a href="#page156">156</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">misuse of the term, <a href="#page134">134</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">no neutral duty to prohibit export of, <a href="#page113">113</a>, <a href="#page140">140</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">Russian rules as to, <a href="#page154">154</a>, <a href="#page176">176</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">the Declaration of London as to, <a href="#page164">164</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">the two constituents of, <a href="#page159">159</a></span><br />
+Contractual debts, <a href="#page021">21</a><br />
+Contributions, <a href="#page102">102</a>, <a href="#page118">118</a><br />
+Conventions. <i>See</i> Geneva, Hague, &amp;c.<br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">and Legislation, <a href="#page036">36</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">&quot;transitoires,&quot; <a href="#page198">198</a></span><br />
+Conversion. <i>See</i> Transformation<br />
+Convoy, <a href="#page031">31</a><br />
+Cotton, <a href="#page177">177</a><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">as contraband, <a href="#page149">149</a>, <a href="#page151">151</a>, <a href="#page152">152</a></span><br />
+Court of International Justice, a permanent, <a href="#page002">2</a>, <a href="#page191">191</a><br />
+Criticism of Bills, <a href="#page036">36</a>-40, <a href="#page192">192</a><br />
+Customs Consolidation Act, <a href="#page185">185</a>3, <a href="#page132">132</a><br />
+<br />
+<br />
+Danger zone, a, <a href="#page059">59</a><br />
+Dardanelles, closing of, <a href="#page055">55</a>, <a href="#page058">58</a>, <a href="#page080">80</a>, <a href="#page090">90</a>, <a href="#page092">92</a><br />
+&quot;Declaration,&quot; misuse of the term, <a href="#page090">90</a>, <a href="#page092">92</a>, <a href="#page206">206</a><br />
+Declaration, the, of London, <a href="#page022">22</a>, <a href="#page036">36</a>, <a href="#page039">39</a>, <a href="#page080">80</a>, <a href="#page092">92</a>, <a href="#page147">147</a>, <a href="#page149">149</a>, <a href="#page154">154</a>, <a href="#page155">155</a>, <a href="#page158">158</a>, <a href="#page161">161</a>, <a href="#page163">163</a>, <a href="#page164">164</a>, <a href="#page181">181</a>, <a href="#page191">191</a>, <a href="#page193">193</a>-207<br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">provisional adoption of, as modified, <a href="#page154">154</a>, <a href="#page204">204</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">rejection of, <a href="#page206">206</a>, <a href="#page207">207</a></span><br />
+Declaration, the, of Paris, <a href="#page022">22</a>, <a href="#page026">26</a>, <a href="#page057">57</a>, <a href="#page059">59</a>, <a href="#page080">80</a>, <a href="#page081">81</a>, <a href="#page082">82</a>, <a href="#page083">83</a>, <a href="#page087">87</a>, <a href="#page089">89</a>, <a href="#page156">156</a>, <a href="#page198">198</a><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">accession to, of Spain and Mexico, <a href="#page081">81</a>, <a href="#page086">86</a>, <a href="#page087">87</a>, <a href="#page088">88</a>, <a href="#page089">89</a>, <a href="#page091">91</a></span><br />
+Declaration, the, of St. Petersburg, <a href="#page022">22</a>, <a href="#page027">27</a>, <a href="#page091">91</a>, <a href="#page095">95</a>, <a href="#page096">96</a>, <a href="#page097">97</a><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">von Moltke upon, <a href="#page025">25</a></span><br />
+Declaration of war, <a href="#page010">10</a>, <a href="#page041">41</a>, <a href="#page043">43</a><br />
+Declarations,<br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">mistaken view as to their not needing ratification, <a href="#page090">90</a>, <a href="#page091">91</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">the three, of the Hague in 1899. <i>See</i> Hague</span><br />
+De Horsey, Admiral, <a href="#page118">118</a>, <a href="#page164">164</a><br />
+De Joinville, Prince, <a href="#page117">117</a><br />
+De Martens, Prof., <a href="#page162">162</a>, <a href="#page166">166</a>, <a href="#page176">176</a>, <a href="#page200">200</a><br />
+Deposit of delict, <a href="#page158">158</a><br />
+Despatches, enemy, <a href="#page156">156</a>, <a href="#page158">158</a>, <a href="#page160">160</a><br />
+Destination, <a href="#page008">8</a>, <a href="#page155">155</a>, <a href="#page156">156</a><br />
+Destruction of neutral prizes, <a href="#page022">22</a>, <a href="#page173">173</a>-181<br />
+Dickenson, Mr. Lowes, <a href="#page125">125</a><br />
+<i>Direct U.S. Cable Co.</i> v. <i>Anglo-American Tel. Co.</i>, <a href="#page166">166</a><br />
+Disguise, <a href="#page075">75</a>, <a href="#page076">76</a><br />
+Distinctive marks, <a href="#page077">77</a>, <a href="#page079">79</a><br />
+<i>Doelwijk</i>, the, <a href="#page161">161</a><br />
+Drago doctrine, the, <a href="#page020">20</a><br />
+<i>Droit d'angarie</i>, the, <a href="#page170">170</a><br />
+Dum-dum bullet. <i>See</i> Bullets<br />
+<i>Durward</i>, the, <a href="#page060">60</a><br />
+<br />
+<br />
+Embargo, <a href="#page011">11</a><br />
+Enemy,<br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">who is an ?, <ins class="correction"
+  title="Transcriber's note: Misprinted in original--intended page is not clear.">401</ins></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">disabilities of, <a href="#page047">47</a>, <a href="#page049">49</a>, <a href="#page206">206</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">goods in neutral bottoms, <a href="#page083">83</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">in occupied territory, <a href="#page102">102</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">merchant vessels at outbreak, <a href="#page045">45</a>, <a href="#page049">49</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">property on land, <a href="#page102">102</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">property at sea, <a href="#page029">29</a>, <a href="#page104">104</a>, <a href="#page184">184</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">resident at outbreak, <a href="#page044">44</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">service, <a href="#page157">157</a>, <a href="#page158">158</a>, <a href="#page186">186</a></span><br />
+&quot;Englishman's Home, An,&quot; the play, <a href="#page077">77</a><br />
+Enquiry, international Commissions of, <a href="#page001">1</a>, <a href="#page003">3</a>, <a href="#page004">4</a>, <a href="#page006">6</a><br />
+Evans, Sir Samuel, <a href="#page070">70</a><br />
+<br />
+<br />
+False colours, <a href="#page030">30</a>, <a href="#page043">43</a>, <a href="#page076">76</a><br />
+Fauchille, M., <a href="#page047">47</a>, <a href="#page064">64</a>, <a href="#page065">65</a><br />
+<i>Felicity</i>, the, <a href="#page164">164</a>, <a href="#page166">166</a>, <a href="#page167">167</a>, <a href="#page175">175</a>, <a href="#page177">177</a>, <a href="#page179">179</a><br />
+Fiore, Prof., <a href="#page201">201</a><br />
+Fishing vessels, <a href="#page031">31</a><br />
+Flag of truce, <a href="#page076">76</a><br />
+Food-stuffs, <a href="#page148">148</a>, <a href="#page174">174</a><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">how far contraband, <a href="#page148">148</a>, <a href="#page176">176</a>, <a href="#page185">185</a></span><br />
+Food, Royal Commission on, <a href="#page148">148</a>, <a href="#page174">174</a>, <a href="#page177">177</a><br />
+Foreign Enlistment Acts, the, <a href="#page131">131</a>, <a href="#page134">134</a>, <a href="#page138">138</a>, <a href="#page139">139</a>, <a href="#page141">141</a>, <a href="#page143">143</a><br />
+Foreign Enlistment Bills, new, <a href="#page039">39</a><br />
+Foreign soldiers, <a href="#page045">45</a><br />
+Forster, Arnold-, Mr., <a href="#page045">45</a><br />
+<i>Fox</i>, the, <a href="#page176">176</a>, <a href="#page177">177</a><br />
+<i>Fram</i>, the, <a href="#page137">137</a><br />
+<i>Francs-tireurs</i>, <a href="#page079">79</a><br />
+&quot;Freedom of the seas,&quot; <a href="#page051">51</a>, <a href="#page097">97</a><br />
+French Government Manual for Land Warfare, <a href="#page117">117</a><br />
+Friendly methods of settlement, <a href="#page001">1</a><br />
+<br />
+<br />
+Gases, harmful, whether employment of, legitimate, <a href="#page022">22</a>, <a href="#page096">96</a>, <a href="#page097">97</a><br />
+Geffken, Prof., <a href="#page013">13</a><br />
+General principles of justice and equity, the, <a href="#page187">187</a>, <a href="#page189">189</a>, <a href="#page190">190</a>, <a href="#page193">193</a><br />
+Geneva Convention Bill, <a href="#page036">36</a><br />
+Geneva Conventions, the, <a href="#page022">22</a>, <a href="#page034">34</a>, <a href="#page067">67</a>, <a href="#page098">98</a>, <a href="#page100">100</a><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">application of, to maritime warfare, <a href="#page030">30</a>, <a href="#page098">98</a></span><br />
+Gentili, A., <a href="#page170">170</a><br />
+Germany. <i>Cf.</i> Hague Conventions<br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">proclamation by, of a danger zone, <a href="#page059">59</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">wrong as to Declaration of London, <a href="#page207">207</a></span><br />
+Giffen, Sir R., <a href="#page013">13</a><br />
+Gladstone, Mr., <a href="#page134">134</a><br />
+<i>Goeben</i> and <i>Breslau</i>, the, <a href="#page091">91</a><br />
+<i>Golden Rocket</i>, the, <a href="#page085">85</a><br />
+Good offices, <a href="#page001">1</a>, <a href="#page002">2</a>, <a href="#page003">3</a><br />
+Government authority, as a protection, <a href="#page072">72</a><br />
+Government Bills and International Conventions, <a href="#page036">36</a>-40, <a href="#page192">192</a>, <a href="#page195">195</a>, <a href="#page204">204</a><br />
+Granville, Lord, <a href="#page082">82</a>, <a href="#page085">85</a>, <a href="#page131">131</a>, <a href="#page170">170</a>, <a href="#page177">177</a><br />
+Greek coast, blockade of, <a href="#page013">13</a><br />
+Guerilla warfare, <a href="#page073">73</a><br />
+Gundel, General de, <a href="#page048">48</a><br />
+Grotius, <a href="#page045">45</a>, <a href="#page148">148</a>, <a href="#page155">155</a>, <a href="#page166">166</a>, <a href="#page168">168</a>, <a href="#page169">169</a><br />
+<br />
+<br />
+<i>Haabet</i>, the, <a href="#page160">160</a><br />
+Hague Conventions, the,<br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">of 1889, <a href="#page001">1</a>, <a href="#page002">2</a>, <a href="#page003">3</a>, <a href="#page006">6</a>, <a href="#page030">30</a>, <a href="#page061">61</a>, <a href="#page074">74</a>, <a href="#page075">75</a>, <a href="#page094">94</a>, <a href="#page102">102</a>, <a href="#page105">105</a>, <a href="#page107">107</a>, <a href="#page120">120</a>, <a href="#page184">184</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">of 1907, <a href="#page001">1</a>, <a href="#page006">6</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">applicable only between contracting Powers, <a href="#page069">69</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">No. i., <a href="#page002">2</a>, <a href="#page003">3</a>, <a href="#page006">6</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">No. ii., <a href="#page021">21</a>, <a href="#page022">22</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">No. iii., <a href="#page022">22</a>, <a href="#page036">36</a>, <a href="#page044">44</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">No. iv., <a href="#page022">22</a>, <a href="#page045">45</a>, <a href="#page060">60</a>, <a href="#page061">61</a>, <a href="#page067">67</a>, <a href="#page075">75</a>, <a href="#page076">76</a>, <a href="#page077">77</a>, <a href="#page096">96</a>, <a href="#page105">105</a>, <a href="#page107">107</a>, <a href="#page122">122</a>, <a href="#page168">168</a>, <a href="#page206">206</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">No. v., <a href="#page022">22</a>, <a href="#page068">68</a>, <a href="#page075">75</a>, <a href="#page080">80</a>, <a href="#page090">90</a>, <a href="#page135">135</a>, <a href="#page168">168</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">No. vi., <a href="#page022">22</a>, <a href="#page045">45</a>, <a href="#page070">70</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">No. vii., <a href="#page022">22</a>, <a href="#page162">162</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">No. viii., <a href="#page022">22</a>, <a href="#page045">45</a>, <a href="#page164">164</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">No. ix., <a href="#page022">22</a>, <a href="#page068">68</a>, <a href="#page122">122</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">No. x., <a href="#page022">22</a>, <a href="#page100">100</a>, <a href="#page130">130</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">No. xi., <a href="#page022">22</a>, <a href="#page158">158</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">No. xii., <a href="#page022">22</a>, <a href="#page036">36</a>, <a href="#page190">190</a>, <a href="#page194">194</a>, <a href="#page195">195</a>, <a href="#page197">197</a>, <a href="#page204">204</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">No. xiii., <a href="#page022">22</a>, <a href="#page129">129</a>, <a href="#page143">143</a>, <a href="#page146">146</a></span><br />
+Hague Declarations, the, <a href="#page022">22</a>, <a href="#page030">30</a>, <a href="#page061">61</a>, <a href="#page062">62</a>, <a href="#page063">63</a>, <a href="#page064">64</a>, <a href="#page096">96</a><br />
+Hague <i>R&egrave;glements</i>, the, as to war on land, <a href="#page075">75</a>, <a href="#page076">76</a>, <a href="#page078">78</a>, <a href="#page093">93</a>, <a href="#page095">95</a>, <a href="#page100">100</a><br />
+Hague Tribunal, the, <a href="#page005">5</a><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">reference to, not obligatory, <a href="#page025">25</a></span><br />
+Haldane, Mr. R.B., <a href="#page045">45</a><br />
+Hall, Mr. W.E., on pacific blockade, <a href="#page013">13</a><br />
+Harcourt, Sir W., <a href="#page074">74</a><br />
+Hardinge, Sir C., <a href="#page152">152</a><br />
+Herbert, Mr. Arnold, <a href="#page182">182</a>, <a href="#page184">184</a><br />
+Holland, Sir T.E., references to writings of, <a href="#page008">8</a>, <a href="#page009">9</a>, <a href="#page020">20</a>, <a href="#page023">23</a>, <a href="#page035">35</a>, <a href="#page044">44</a>, <a href="#page047">47</a>, <a href="#page050">50</a>, <a href="#page052">52</a>, <a href="#page066">66</a>, <a href="#page075">75</a>, <a href="#page097">97</a>, <a href="#page113">113</a>, <a href="#page122">122</a>, <a href="#page164">164</a>, <a href="#page168">168</a>, <a href="#page180">180</a>, <a href="#page192">192</a>, <a href="#page196">196</a><br />
+Honour and vital interests clause, the, <a href="#page004">4</a>, <a href="#page005">5</a>, <a href="#page006">6</a><br />
+Horses, wounded, <a href="#page098">98</a>, <a href="#page100">100</a><br />
+Horsey, Adml., <a href="#page118">118</a>, <a href="#page164">164</a>, <a href="#page166">166</a><br />
+Hostile assistance, <a href="#page088">88</a>, <a href="#page157">157</a>, <a href="#page160">160</a>, <a href="#page186">186</a><br />
+H&uuml;bner, <a href="#page190">190</a><br />
+<br />
+<br />
+<i>Ikaria</i>, the, <a href="#page060">60</a><br />
+<i>Imina</i>, the, <a href="#page160">160</a><br />
+Immediate effects of outbreak of war, the, <a href="#page045">45</a><br />
+Institut de Droit International, the, <a href="#page011">11</a>, <a href="#page012">12</a>, <a href="#page016">16</a>, <a href="#page023">23</a>, <a href="#page024">24</a>, <a href="#page030">30</a>, <a href="#page043">43</a>, <a href="#page044">44</a>, <a href="#page048">48</a>, <a href="#page063">63</a>, <a href="#page064">64</a>, <a href="#page065">65</a>, <a href="#page066">66</a>, <a href="#page068">68</a>, <a href="#page104">104</a>, <a href="#page105">105</a>, <a href="#page108">108</a>, <a href="#page121">121</a>, <a href="#page130">130</a>, <a href="#page162">162</a>, <a href="#page163">163</a>, <a href="#page164">164</a>, <a href="#page167">167</a>, <a href="#page168">168</a>, <a href="#page172">172</a>, <a href="#page174">174</a>, <a href="#page176">176</a>, <a href="#page182">182</a>, <a href="#page185">185</a>, <a href="#page190">190</a><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">its <i>Manuel des lois de la guerre maritime</i>, <a href="#page163">163</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">its <i>Manuel des lois de la guerre sur terre</i>, <a href="#page023">23</a>, <a href="#page024">24</a>, <a href="#page025">25</a>, <a href="#page027">27</a>, <a href="#page108">108</a></span><br />
+Instructions, national,<br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">on laws of war on land, <a href="#page075">75</a>, <a href="#page076">76</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">on laws of war at sea:</span><br />
+<span class="indexsubsubentry">British, <a href="#page156">156</a>, <a href="#page180">180</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubsubentry">French, <a href="#page179">179</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubsubentry">Japanese, <a href="#page148">148</a>, <a href="#page149">149</a>, <a href="#page150">150</a>, <a href="#page155">155</a>, <a href="#page156">156</a>, <a href="#page157">157</a>, <a href="#page173">173</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubsubentry">Russian, <a href="#page154">154</a>, <a href="#page173">173</a>, <a href="#page174">174</a>, <a href="#page176">176</a>, <a href="#page177">177</a>, <a href="#page179">179</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubsubentry">United States, <a href="#page179">179</a></span><br />
+<i>International</i>, the, <a href="#page169">169</a><br />
+International Court of Appeal, an, <a href="#page184">184</a><br />
+International Justice, a Permanent Court of, <a href="#page002">2</a><br />
+International Law, the nature and authority of, <a href="#page066">66</a>, <a href="#page067">67</a>, <a href="#page077">77</a>, <a href="#page086">86</a>, <a href="#page114">114</a>, <a href="#page115">115</a>, <a href="#page116">116</a>, <a href="#page119">119</a>, <a href="#page127">127</a>, <a href="#page169">169</a>, <a href="#page188">188</a><br />
+International Prize Court, proposal for an, <a href="#page023">23</a>, <a href="#page181">181</a>-191<br />
+<br />
+<br />
+Jackson, Colonel, <a href="#page066">66</a>, <a href="#page068">68</a><br />
+James, Captain, <a href="#page114">114</a><br />
+Jenks, Mr., <a href="#page106">106</a>, <a href="#page108">108</a>, <a href="#page110">110</a><br />
+<i>Jonge Margaretha</i>, the, <a href="#page159">159</a><br />
+Just cause of war, <a href="#page083">83</a><br />
+&quot;Justice and equity, general principles of,&quot; <a href="#page187">187</a>, <a href="#page189">189</a>, <a href="#page190">190</a>, <a href="#page193">193</a><br />
+<br />
+<br />
+Kent, Chancellor, <a href="#page045">45</a><br />
+Kleen, Mr., <a href="#page130">130</a>, <a href="#page133">133</a><br />
+<i>Knight-Commander</i>, the, <a href="#page173">173</a>, <a href="#page174">174</a><br />
+Kohler, Mr., <a href="#page047">47</a><br />
+<i>Kowshing</i>, the case of the, <a href="#page041">41</a>, <a href="#page043">43</a><br />
+&quot;Kriegsbrauch,&quot; the, <a href="#page068">68</a>, <a href="#page080">80</a><br />
+<br />
+<br />
+Lambermont, Baron, <a href="#page077">77</a><br />
+Lammasch, Prof., <a href="#page125">125</a><br />
+Lansdowne, Marquess of, <a href="#page058">58</a>, <a href="#page133">133</a>, <a href="#page136">136</a>, <a href="#page149">149</a>, <a href="#page169">169</a>, <a href="#page173">173</a><br />
+Lawful belligerents, <a href="#page069">69</a>, <a href="#page078">78</a><br />
+League of Nations, the, <a href="#page001">1</a>, <a href="#page002">2</a>, <a href="#page007">7</a>, <a href="#page009">9</a>, <a href="#page191">191</a><br />
+Lehr, Prof., <a href="#page102">102</a><br />
+<i>Leucade</i>, the, <a href="#page176">176</a><br />
+Lincoln, President, <a href="#page074">74</a><br />
+Lieber's Instructions, <a href="#page074">74</a>, <a href="#page075">75</a><br />
+Localities closed to hostilities, <a href="#page052">52</a><br />
+London, Conference of, <a href="#page181">181</a>, <a href="#page190">190</a>, <a href="#page191">191</a><br />
+London, Declaration of, <a href="#page022">22</a>, <a href="#page055">55</a>, <a href="#page058">58</a>, <a href="#page092">92</a>, <a href="#page181">181</a>, <a href="#page191">191</a>, <a href="#page193">193</a>, <a href="#page194">194</a>, <a href="#page195">195</a>, <a href="#page196">196</a>-207<br />
+Lyons, Lord, <a href="#page169">169</a><br />
+<br />
+<br />
+MacDonell, Prof., <a href="#page172">172</a><br />
+McKenna, Mr., <a href="#page078">78</a><br />
+Mahan, Admiral, <a href="#page097">97</a><br />
+Mail steamers and bags, <a href="#page030">30</a><br />
+<i>Malacca</i>, the case of the, <a href="#page081">81</a>, <a href="#page162">162</a>, <a href="#page163">163</a><br />
+Mandates, <a href="#page008">8</a><br />
+Manning, Mr., <a href="#page045">45</a><br />
+Manual of military law, the British, <a href="#page107">107</a><br />
+Manuals of warfare<br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">on land, <a href="#page105">105</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">at sea, <a href="#page105">105</a></span><br />
+Manuel des Lois de la guerre maritime, the, of Institut, <a href="#page023">23</a><br />
+Manual des Lois de la guerre sur terre, <a href="#page023">23</a>, <a href="#page024">24</a>, <a href="#page174">174</a><br />
+<i>Marais, ex parte</i>, <a href="#page106">106</a><br />
+Martens, de, Prof., <a href="#page126">126</a><br />
+Martial law, <a href="#page105">105</a>-112<br />
+Maurice, Colonel, <a href="#page042">42</a><br />
+<i>Mcomini and others</i> v. <i>Governor &amp;c. of Natal</i>, <a href="#page107">107</a><br />
+Means of injuring, <a href="#page094">94</a><br />
+Measures short of war, <a href="#page001">1</a>-21<br />
+Mediation. <i>See</i> Good offices<br />
+Menam, blockade of the, <a href="#page010">10</a><br />
+Mercantile Marine in war, <a href="#page081">81</a>, <a href="#page084">84</a>, <a href="#page087">87</a><br />
+Merchant ships, visit of, <a href="#page060">60</a><br />
+Militia, <a href="#page077">77</a><br />
+<i>Minerva</i>, the, <a href="#page091">91</a><br />
+Mines, <a href="#page164">164</a><br />
+Moltke, von, on conduct of war, <a href="#page024">24</a><br />
+Monroe doctrine, the, <a href="#page017">17</a>, <a href="#page020">20</a><br />
+<i>Moray Firth</i>, the, <a href="#page189">189</a><br />
+Morley, Lord, <a href="#page058">58</a>, <a href="#page074">74</a><br />
+&quot;Most favoured nation&quot; clause, <a href="#page017">17</a><br />
+<i>M&ouml;we</i>, the, <a href="#page070">70</a><br />
+&quot;Murder,&quot; <a href="#page070">70</a>, <a href="#page071">71</a>, <a href="#page072">72</a>, <a href="#page084">84</a><br />
+Mutiny Acts, the, <a href="#page109">109</a><br />
+<br />
+<br />
+National Instructions, <a href="#page075">75</a>, <a href="#page076">76</a><br />
+Naval bombardments of open coast towns, <a href="#page030">30</a>, <a href="#page112">112</a>, <a href="#page123">123</a><br />
+Naval man&oelig;uvres of <a href="#page188">188</a>8, the, <a href="#page113">113</a>, <a href="#page123">123</a><br />
+Naval war code, a British, <a href="#page030">30</a>, <a href="#page031">31</a>, <a href="#page032">32</a><br />
+Naval warfare, <a href="#page022">22</a><br />
+Naval Prize (Consolidation) Bill, the, <a href="#page036">36</a>, <a href="#page191">191</a>-196, <a href="#page198">198</a><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">object of, <a href="#page194">194</a>,195</span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">rejection of, <a href="#page196">196</a></span><br />
+Naval Prize money, <a href="#page195">195</a><br />
+Neutral conduct, the criterion of, <a href="#page125">125</a><br />
+Neutral duties, as classified by the author, <a href="#page129">129</a><br />
+Neutral hospitality, <a href="#page143">143</a><br />
+Neutral States and individuals, their liabilities distinguished, <a href="#page129">129</a>-135<br />
+Neutral territory, passage through, <a href="#page090">90</a><br />
+Neutral trade, the four inconveniences, to, <a href="#page159">159</a><br />
+Neutralisation, the term, <a href="#page053">53</a>, <a href="#page054">54</a><br />
+Neutrality,<br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">correlative to belligerency, <a href="#page010">10</a>, <a href="#page016">16</a>, <a href="#page019">19</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">British proclamations of, <a href="#page130">130</a>, <a href="#page135">135</a>-143</span><br />
+Neutrals, methods of warfare affecting, <a href="#page164">164</a>-181<br />
+Non-combatants, <a href="#page072">72</a>, <a href="#page074">74</a><br />
+<i>Novoe Vremya</i>, the, <a href="#page176">176</a><br />
+<br />
+<br />
+Occupied territory,<br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">right of the invader in, <a href="#page080">80</a>, <a href="#page100">100</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">not yet occupied, <a href="#page077">77</a></span><br />
+Oppenheim, Prof., <a href="#page047">47</a><br />
+<i>Orozembo</i>, the, <a href="#page160">160</a><br />
+&quot;Ottoman Empire, ancient rule of the,&quot; <a href="#page056">56</a><br />
+<br />
+<br />
+Pacific blockade, <a href="#page010">10</a><br />
+Palmerston, Lord, <a href="#page012">12</a><br />
+Panama Canal, the, <a href="#page050">50</a><br />
+<i>Paquete Habana</i>, the, <a href="#page030">30</a><br />
+Paris. <i>See</i> Declaration of<br />
+Paris, Treaty of, <a href="#page053">53</a>, <a href="#page054">54</a>, <a href="#page056">56</a>, <a href="#page081">81</a>, <a href="#page087">87</a>, <a href="#page089">89</a>, <a href="#page155">155</a><br />
+&quot;Pas de Code Naval, pas de Cour des Prises,&quot; <a href="#page187">187</a><br />
+Passage, <a href="#page064">64</a>, <a href="#page090">90</a><br />
+Peace talk, <a href="#page125">125</a><br />
+Peaceful settlement of disputes, the Conventions for,<br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">of 1899, <a href="#page002">2</a>, <a href="#page003">3</a>, <a href="#page006">6</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">of 1907, <a href="#page002">2</a>, <a href="#page006">6</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">are non-obligatory, <a href="#page173">173</a></span><br />
+Perels, Prof., <a href="#page016">16</a><br />
+Permanent Court of International Justice, a, <a href="#page191">191</a><br />
+<i>Peterburg</i>, the, <a href="#page162">162</a><br />
+<i>Peterhoff</i>, the, <a href="#page020">20</a>, <a href="#page149">149</a>, <a href="#page160">160</a><br />
+Petition of Right, the, <a href="#page106">106</a>, <a href="#page108">108</a>, <a href="#page109">109</a><br />
+Pike, Mr., <a href="#page098">98</a>, <a href="#page100">100</a><br />
+&quot;Piracy,&quot; <a href="#page070">70</a>, <a href="#page071">71</a>, <a href="#page084">84</a><br />
+Poison, <a href="#page096">96</a><br />
+Pope's Note, the, <a href="#page051">51</a><br />
+Port, enemy ships in, <a href="#page049">49</a><br />
+<i>Porter</i> v. <i>Freudenberg</i>, <a href="#page049">49</a><br />
+Portsmouth, Lord, <a href="#page205">205</a><br />
+Pourtugael, den Beer, Prof., <a href="#page068">68</a><br />
+Pre-emption, <a href="#page148">148</a><br />
+Prevention, State duties of, <a href="#page129">129</a>, <a href="#page131">131</a><br />
+Prisoners of war, <a href="#page045">45</a>, <a href="#page106">106</a>, <a href="#page107">107</a><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">liabilities of, <a href="#page106">106</a></span><br />
+Private International Law, <a href="#page034">34</a><br />
+Privateers, <a href="#page081">81</a>, <a href="#page084">84</a><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">restrictions on, <a href="#page082">82</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">commissioned liners are not, <a href="#page070">70</a></span><br />
+Private property at sea, <a href="#page184">184</a><br />
+Prize Court,<br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">the Russian, <a href="#page163">163</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">an international Court of Appeal, <a href="#page023">23</a>, <a href="#page170">170</a>-182</span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">a settled prize law, must precede, <a href="#page181">181</a>, <a href="#page183">183</a>, <a href="#page185">185</a>, <a href="#page190">190</a>, <a href="#page191">191</a>, <a href="#page193">193</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">a supreme, <a href="#page181">181</a></span><br />
+Prize Law Consolidation Bill, <a href="#page193">193</a>, <a href="#page194">194</a>, <a href="#page199">199</a><br />
+&quot;Probable cause,&quot; <a href="#page083">83</a><br />
+Proclamations of neutrality, the British, criticised, <a href="#page135">135</a>-143<br />
+&quot;Professors,&quot; <a href="#page119">119</a><br />
+Projectiles,<br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">from balloons, <a href="#page022">22</a>, <a href="#page030">30</a>, <a href="#page062">62</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">for diffusion of gases, <a href="#page022">22</a>, <a href="#page096">96</a>, <a href="#page097">97</a></span><br />
+<br />
+<br />
+&quot;Quasi-enemy,&quot; <a href="#page012">12</a><br />
+<br />
+<br />
+Radiotelegraphic stations, <a href="#page168">168</a><br />
+Rae, Mr., <a href="#page162">162</a><br />
+Ratification, <a href="#page203">203</a><br />
+Receipts, <a href="#page102">102</a><br />
+<i>R&egrave;glements</i>, the Hague. <i>See</i> Hague<br />
+Renault, Prof., <a href="#page172">172</a>, <a href="#page187">187</a>, <a href="#page190">190</a>, <a href="#page196">196</a>, <a href="#page198">198</a>, <a href="#page199">199</a><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">Report of the force of (<i>see</i> Authentic Interpretation)</span><br />
+Reprisals,<br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">advantages of, <a href="#page014">14</a>, <a href="#page019">19</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">how differing from war, <a href="#page009">9</a>, <a href="#page012">12</a>, <a href="#page014">14</a>, <a href="#page019">19</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">opposite views as to, <a href="#page016">16</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">species of, <a href="#page012">12</a>, <a href="#page015">15</a>, <a href="#page019">19</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">United States, instructions as to, <a href="#page029">29</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">belligerent, <a href="#page097">97</a>, <a href="#page123">123</a></span><br />
+Requisitions, <a href="#page102">102</a>, <a href="#page117">117</a><br />
+Restrictive clause, the, <a href="#page069">69</a>, <a href="#page146">146</a><br />
+Retaliation, <a href="#page097">97</a><br />
+Reward for, dead or alive, <a href="#page093">93</a><br />
+<i>R.</i> v. <i>Eyre</i>, <a href="#page110">110</a><br />
+Ridley, Sir E., <a href="#page077">77</a><br />
+Roman Law terminology, <a href="#page102">102</a><br />
+Roosevelt, Pres., <a href="#page146">146</a><br />
+Rosebery, Lord, <a href="#page158">158</a><br />
+Ross, Sir R., <a href="#page078">78</a><br />
+Russian Prize Law, <a href="#page162">162</a>, <a href="#page174">174</a>, <a href="#page176">176</a><br />
+<br />
+<br />
+Salisbury, Lord, <a href="#page003">3</a>, <a href="#page015">15</a>, <a href="#page052">52</a>, <a href="#page054">54</a>, <a href="#page157">157</a><br />
+<i>Santissima Trinidad</i>, the, <a href="#page137">137</a><br />
+Savage warfare, <a href="#page094">94</a><br />
+<i>Savannah</i>, the, <a href="#page085">85</a><br />
+Scott, Sir Walter, <a href="#page077">77</a>, <a href="#page091">91</a><br />
+Scott, Sir William, <a href="#page091">91</a><br />
+Search. <i>See</i> Visit and Search<br />
+Second Peace Conference Conventions Bill, <a href="#page037">37</a>, <a href="#page038">38</a>, <a href="#page039">39</a><br />
+Seely, Col., <a href="#page063">63</a><br />
+Ship, a &quot;mere moveable,&quot; <a href="#page085">85</a><br />
+Shucking, Prof., <a href="#page125">125</a><br />
+Siam, <a href="#page010">10</a><br />
+Sinking. <i>See</i> Destruction<br />
+Smith (Lord Birkenhead) and Sibley, on International Law in the Russo-Japanese War, <a href="#page135">135</a><br />
+<i>Spider</i>, the, <a href="#page113">113</a>, <a href="#page117">117</a><br />
+Spies, <a href="#page072">72</a><br />
+<i>Springbok</i>, the, <a href="#page029">29</a><br />
+Stephen, Sir Herbert, <a href="#page124">124</a><br />
+Stewart, Mr. C., <a href="#page104">104</a><br />
+Story, J., <a href="#page159">159</a><br />
+Stowell, Lord, <a href="#page085">85</a>, <a href="#page159">159</a>, <a href="#page160">160</a>, <a href="#page161">161</a>, <a href="#page166">166</a>, <a href="#page175">175</a>, <a href="#page177">177</a>, <a href="#page178">178</a>, <a href="#page180">180</a>, <a href="#page197">197</a><br />
+Straits, <a href="#page052">52</a>, <a href="#page056">56</a><br />
+Submarine cables, <a href="#page168">168</a>, <a href="#page169">169</a>, <a href="#page171">171</a>, <a href="#page188">188</a><br />
+Submarines, <a href="#page069">69</a><br />
+Suez Canal, the, <a href="#page050">50</a>, <a href="#page051">51</a>, <a href="#page052">52</a>, <a href="#page054">54</a><br />
+Superfluous injury, <a href="#page094">94</a>, <a href="#page095">95</a><br />
+Suyematsu, Baron, <a href="#page149">149</a><br />
+Swettenham, Sir James, <a href="#page079">79</a><br />
+Sydenham, Lord, <a href="#page104">104</a><br />
+<br />
+<br />
+Takahashi, Prof., <a href="#page043">43</a><br />
+Terminology, <a href="#page033">33</a><br />
+Territorial waters, <a href="#page165">165</a>, <a href="#page166">166</a>, <a href="#page167">167</a><br />
+Tindal, le Chevalier, <a href="#page122">122</a><br />
+Tirpitz, Admiral von, <a href="#page070">70</a><br />
+<ins class="correction"
+  title="Transcriber's note: Spelled _Tokomaru_ where it appears in the text.">
+<i>Tocumaro</i></ins>, the, <a href="#page060">60</a><br />
+Torpedoes, <a href="#page164">164</a><br />
+Transformation into ships of war, <a href="#page162">162</a><br />
+Treaties,<br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">who are the parties to, <a href="#page202">202</a>, <a href="#page207">207</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">effect of war on, <a href="#page018">18</a>, <a href="#page198">198</a></span><br />
+Treaty, the Hay-Pauncefote, <a href="#page050">50</a><br />
+Twenty-three (h) clause, the, <a href="#page047">47</a>, <a href="#page206">206</a><br />
+Twenty-four hours rule, the, <a href="#page127">127</a>, <a href="#page144">144</a>, <a href="#page145">145</a><br />
+Ullmann, Prof., <a href="#page047">47</a>, <a href="#page106">106</a>, <a href="#page201">201</a><br />
+Unarmed merchantmen, <a href="#page072">72</a>, <a href="#page073">73</a><br />
+Undefended towns, <a href="#page030">30</a>, <a href="#page067">67</a>, <a href="#page068">68</a><br />
+Uniform, <a href="#page075">75</a><br />
+United States<br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">instructions for war on land, <a href="#page023">23</a>, <a href="#page073">73</a>, <a href="#page107">107</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">naval war code, <a href="#page023">23</a>, <a href="#page030">30</a>, <a href="#page031">31</a>, <a href="#page088">88</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">Naval War College, <a href="#page008">8</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">ratification of Conventions, <a href="#page075">75</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">views of, compared with British, <a href="#page029">29</a>, <a href="#page031">31</a></span><br />
+Unqualified captors, <a href="#page072">72</a>, <a href="#page073">73</a><br />
+Unratified Conventions, effect of, <a href="#page040">40</a><br />
+Usufruct, <a href="#page101">101</a><br />
+<br />
+<br />
+Vattel, <a href="#page046">46</a>, <a href="#page119">119</a><br />
+Venezuela, <a href="#page013">13</a>, <a href="#page018">18</a><br />
+Visit and search, <a href="#page072">72</a>, <a href="#page083">83</a>, <a href="#page084">84</a>, <a href="#page159">159</a>, <a href="#page186">186</a><br />
+&quot;Violations of law of nations,&quot; term misapplied, <a href="#page140">140</a>, <a href="#page142">142</a><br />
+V&oelig;ux, <a href="#page005">5</a>, <a href="#page099">99</a>, <a href="#page121">121</a>, <a href="#page122">122</a>, <a href="#page167">167</a>, <a href="#page180">180</a>, <a href="#page190">190</a><br />
+Volunteers, <a href="#page077">77</a><br />
+<br />
+<br />
+War. <i>See</i> Reprisals<br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">Declaration of, <a href="#page010">10</a>, <a href="#page041">41</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">legitimate object of, <a href="#page025">25</a>, <a href="#page095">95</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry"><i>sub modo</i>, <a href="#page020">20</a>, <a href="#page055">55</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">written law of, <a href="#page022">22</a></span><br />
+Washington, the Three Rules of, <a href="#page086">86</a><br />
+Wellington, Duke of, <a href="#page117">117</a><br />
+Westbury, Lord, <a href="#page137">137</a><br />
+Westlake, Prof., <a href="#page018">18</a>, <a href="#page041">41</a>, <a href="#page065">65</a>, <a href="#page183">183</a>, <a href="#page199">199</a>, <a href="#page202">202</a><br />
+Wilson, Pres., <a href="#page072">72</a>, <a href="#page097">97</a>, <a href="#page127">127</a><br />
+Wolf, Mr., <a href="#page058">58</a><br />
+Wood, Mackinnon, Mr., <a href="#page196">196</a>, <a href="#page197">197</a>, <a href="#page200">200</a><br />
+Wounded and Sick. <i>See</i> Geneva Conventions<br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">horses, <a href="#page098">98</a>, <a href="#page100">100</a></span><br />
+<br />
+<br />
+<i>Yangtsze Insurance Association</i> v. <i>Indemnity Mutual Marine Company</i>, <a href="#page157">157</a><br />
+Younge, Mr., <a href="#page118">118</a><br />
+<br />
+<br />
+<i>Zamora</i>, the, <a href="#page207">207</a><br />
+Zone, a danger, <a href="#page059">59</a><br />
+</div>
+
+<p>&nbsp;</p>
+<p>&nbsp;</p>
+<p>Printed by SPOTTISWOODE, BALLANTYNE &amp; CO. LTD.<br />
+Colchester, London &amp; Eton, England<br />
+</p>
+
+
+
+<hr style="width: 65%;" />
+<h2><a name="BY_THE_SAME_AUTHOR" id="BY_THE_SAME_AUTHOR" />BY THE SAME AUTHOR</h2>
+
+
+<p>AN ESSAY ON COMPOSITION DEEDS UNDER 24 AND 25 VICT. c. 134.
+London, Sweet, 1864, 12mo. 7<i>s</i>.</p>
+
+<p>A PLAN FOR THE FORMAL AMENDMENT OF THE LAW OF ENGLAND.
+London, Butterworths, 1867, 8vo. 1<i>s</i>.</p>
+
+<p>ESSAYS UPON THE FORM OF THE LAW. London, Butterworths, 1870,
+8vo. 7<i>s</i>. 6<i>d</i>.</p>
+
+<p>THE INSTITUTES OF JUSTINIAN, edited as a recension of the Institutes
+of Gaius. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1873, second edit. 1881,
+12mo. 5<i>s</i>.</p>
+
+<p>SELECT TITLES FROM THE DIGEST OF JUSTINIAN, edited, with C.L.
+Shadwell. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1874-1881, 8vo. 14<i>s</i>.</p>
+
+<p>ALBERICUS GENTILIS, an Inaugural Lecture delivered at All Souls
+College, November 7, 1874. London, Macmillan,
+1874, 8vo. 1<i>s</i>. 6<i>d</i>.</p>
+
+<p>ALBERICUS GENTILIS, tradotto da Aurelio Saffi. Roma, Loescher, 1884.</p>
+
+<p>THE BRUSSELS CONFERENCE OF 1874, and other diplomatic attempts
+to mitigate the rigour of warfare. Oxford and London, James
+Parker, 1876, 8vo. 1<i>s</i>. 6<i>d</i>.</p>
+
+<p>THE TREATY RELATIONS OF RUSSIA AND TURKEY, 1774 to 1853, with
+an Appendix of Treaties. London, Macmillan, 1877, 12mo. 2<i>s</i>.</p>
+
+<p>ALBERICI GENTILIS DE IURE BELLI LIBRI TRES, edited. Oxford,
+Clarendon Press, 1877, 4to. 21<i>s</i>.</p>
+
+<p>THE ELEMENTS OF JURISPRUDENCE. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1880,
+8vo, twelfth edit. 1916, 8vo. 14<i>s</i>.</p>
+
+<p>THE EUROPEAN CONCERT IN THE EASTERN QUESTION: a Collection
+of Treaties and other Public Acts, Edited, with Introductions
+and Notes. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1885, 8vo. 12<i>s</i>. 6<i>d</i>.</p>
+
+<p>A MANUAL OF NAVAL PRIZE LAW. Issued by authority of the Lords
+Commissioners of the Admiralty. London, Eyre &amp; Spottiswoode,
+1888, 8vo.</p>
+
+<p>STUDIES IN INTERNATIONAL LAW. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1898,
+8vo. 10<i>s</i>. 6<i>d</i>.</p>
+
+<p>THE LAWS AND CUSTOMS OF WAR ON LAND, &amp;c. (issued by the War
+Office to the British Army). London, Harrison &amp; Sons, 1904,
+12mo. 6<i>d</i>.</p>
+
+<p>NEUTRAL DUTIES IN A MARITIME WAR, as illustrated by recent events
+(<i>from the Proceedings of the British Academy</i>). London, H. Frowde,
+1905, 8vo. 1<i>s</i>.</p>
+
+<p>THE LAW OF WAR ON LAND (written and unwritten). Oxford, Clarendon
+Press, 1908, 8vo. 6<i>s</i>. net.</p>
+
+<p>A VALEDICTORY RETROSPECT (1874-1910), being a Lecture delivered
+at All Souls College, June 17, 1910. Oxford, at the Clarendon
+Press, 1910. 1<i>s</i>.</p>
+
+<p>PROPOSED CHANGES IN NAVAL PRIZE LAW (<i>from the Proceedings of
+the British Academy</i>). London, H. Frowde, 1911, 8vo. 1<i>s</i>.</p>
+
+<p>R. ZOUCHAEI IURIS ET IUDICII FECIALIS, sive Iuris inter gentes
+explicatio, edited in 2 vols., with biographical and bibliographical
+Introduction, for the Carnegie Institution of Washington, at the
+Oxford University Press, 1911, 4to. $4.</p>
+
+<p>IOHANNIS DB LIGNANO DB IURE BELLI, edited from the fourteenth-century
+MS., with biographical and bibliographical Introduction,
+for the Carnegie Institution of Washington, at the Oxford
+University Press, 1917, 4to. &pound;2 2<i>s</i>. 6<i>d</i>.</p>
+
+<p>&nbsp;</p>
+
+<div class="footnotes">
+<p style="margin-left:10%;text-decoration:underline;">ENDNOTES</p>
+<p class="footnote"><span class="label"><a href="#footnotetag01">1</a></span><a name="footnote01"></a>Withdrawn in 1904.</p>
+<p class="footnote"><span class="label"><a href="#footnotetag02">2</a></span><a name="footnote02"></a><i>Infra</i>, <a href="#CHAPTER_VII_SECTION_6">Ch. VII. Section 6</a>.</p>
+<p class="footnote"><span class="label"><a href="#footnotetag03">3</a></span><a name="footnote03"></a><i>Infra</i>, <a href="#CHAPTER_VI_SECTION_14">Ch. VI. Section 14</a>.</p>
+<p class="footnote"><span class="label"><a href="#footnotetag04a">4</a></span><a name="footnote04"></a>Writer's names are omitted as immaterial.</p>
+<p class="footnote"><span class="label"><a href="#footnotetag05">5</a></span><a name="footnote05"></a><i>Infra</i>, p. <a href="#page070">70</a>.</p>
+<p class="footnote"><span class="label"><a href="#footnotetag06">6</a></span><a name="footnote06"></a>This
+Bill, originally introduced in the House of Commons on June 23 1910, to enable
+the Government to ratify Hague Convention No xii. of 1907 and the Declaration
+ of London of 1909, was passed by that House on December 7, 1911, but rejected
+ on the 12th of the same month, by 145 to 53 votes, in the House of Lords.
+ Cf. <i>infra</i>, pp. <a href="#page191">191</a>-196.</p>
+<p class="footnote"><span class="label"><a href="#footnotetag07">7</a></span><a name="footnote07"></a>Cf. <i>infra</i>, p. <a href="#page098">98</a>. The Bill became an Act, 1 &amp; 2 Geo. 5, c. 20.</p>
+</div>
+
+<p>&nbsp;</p>
+
+
+<p>&nbsp;</p>
+
+<hr style="width: 65%;" />
+<p>[Transcriber's Note: The spelling and usage of non-English words and
+characters is occasionally inconsistent throughout the work. This etext
+preserves the usage as it appears in the printed book,
+except where noted.]</p>
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+<pre>
+
+
+
+
+
+End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of Letters To "The Times" Upon War And
+Neutrality (1881-1920), by Thomas Erskine Holland
+
+*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK UPON WAR AND NEUTRALITY ***
+
+***** This file should be named 14447-h.htm or 14447-h.zip *****
+This and all associated files of various formats will be found in:
+        https://www.gutenberg.org/1/4/4/4/14447/
+
+Produced by Robert Connal, Aaron Reed and the Online Distributed
+Proofreading Team. This file was produced from images generously
+made available by the Biblioth�que nationale de France (BnF/Gallica)
+at http://gallica.bnf.fr
+
+
+Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions
+will be renamed.
+
+Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no
+one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation
+(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without
+permission and without paying copyright royalties.  Special rules,
+set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to
+copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to
+protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark.  Project
+Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you
+charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission.  If you
+do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the
+rules is very easy.  You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose
+such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
+research.  They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do
+practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks.  Redistribution is
+subject to the trademark license, especially commercial
+redistribution.
+
+
+
+*** START: FULL LICENSE ***
+
+THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
+PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
+
+To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free
+distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
+(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project
+Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project
+Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at
+https://gutenberg.org/license).
+
+
+Section 1.  General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic works
+
+1.A.  By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
+and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
+(trademark/copyright) agreement.  If you do not agree to abide by all
+the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy
+all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession.
+If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the
+terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
+entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
+
+1.B.  "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark.  It may only be
+used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
+agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement.  There are a few
+things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
+even without complying with the full terms of this agreement.  See
+paragraph 1.C below.  There are a lot of things you can do with Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement
+and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works.  See paragraph 1.E below.
+
+1.C.  The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation"
+or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic works.  Nearly all the individual works in the
+collection are in the public domain in the United States.  If an
+individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are
+located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from
+copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative
+works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg
+are removed.  Of course, we hope that you will support the Project
+Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by
+freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of
+this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with
+the work.  You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by
+keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project
+Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others.
+
+1.D.  The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
+what you can do with this work.  Copyright laws in most countries are in
+a constant state of change.  If you are outside the United States, check
+the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement
+before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or
+creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project
+Gutenberg-tm work.  The Foundation makes no representations concerning
+the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United
+States.
+
+1.E.  Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
+
+1.E.1.  The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate
+access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently
+whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the
+phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project
+Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed,
+copied or distributed:
+
+This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
+almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
+re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
+with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
+
+1.E.2.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived
+from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is
+posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied
+and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees
+or charges.  If you are redistributing or providing access to a work
+with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the
+work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1
+through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the
+Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or
+1.E.9.
+
+1.E.3.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted
+with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
+must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional
+terms imposed by the copyright holder.  Additional terms will be linked
+to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the
+permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.
+
+1.E.4.  Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
+work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm.
+
+1.E.5.  Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
+electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
+prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
+active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
+Gutenberg-tm License.
+
+1.E.6.  You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
+compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any
+word processing or hypertext form.  However, if you provide access to or
+distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than
+"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version
+posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org),
+you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a
+copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon
+request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other
+form.  Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
+
+1.E.7.  Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
+performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works
+unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
+
+1.E.8.  You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
+access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided
+that
+
+- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
+     the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method
+     you already use to calculate your applicable taxes.  The fee is
+     owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he
+     has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the
+     Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.  Royalty payments
+     must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you
+     prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax
+     returns.  Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and
+     sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the
+     address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to
+     the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation."
+
+- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
+     you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
+     does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+     License.  You must require such a user to return or
+     destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium
+     and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of
+     Project Gutenberg-tm works.
+
+- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any
+     money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
+     electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days
+     of receipt of the work.
+
+- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
+     distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works.
+
+1.E.9.  If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
+forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
+both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael
+Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark.  Contact the
+Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.
+
+1.F.
+
+1.F.1.  Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
+effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
+public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm
+collection.  Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain
+"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or
+corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual
+property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a
+computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by
+your equipment.
+
+1.F.2.  LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right
+of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
+Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
+Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
+liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
+fees.  YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
+LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
+PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH F3.  YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
+TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
+LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
+INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
+DAMAGE.
+
+1.F.3.  LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
+defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
+receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
+written explanation to the person you received the work from.  If you
+received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with
+your written explanation.  The person or entity that provided you with
+the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a
+refund.  If you received the work electronically, the person or entity
+providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to
+receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund.  If the second copy
+is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further
+opportunities to fix the problem.
+
+1.F.4.  Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
+in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER
+WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
+WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
+
+1.F.5.  Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
+warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
+If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
+law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
+interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by
+the applicable state law.  The invalidity or unenforceability of any
+provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
+
+1.F.6.  INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
+trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
+providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance
+with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production,
+promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works,
+harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees,
+that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do
+or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm
+work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any
+Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause.
+
+
+Section  2.  Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of
+electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers
+including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers.  It exists
+because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from
+people in all walks of life.
+
+Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
+assistance they need, is critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's
+goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will
+remain freely available for generations to come.  In 2001, the Project
+Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
+and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations.
+To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
+and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4
+and the Foundation web page at https://www.pglaf.org.
+
+
+Section 3.  Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
+Foundation
+
+The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit
+501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
+state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
+Revenue Service.  The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification
+number is 64-6221541.  Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at
+https://pglaf.org/fundraising.  Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
+Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent
+permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws.
+
+The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S.
+Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered
+throughout numerous locations.  Its business office is located at
+809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email
+business@pglaf.org.  Email contact links and up to date contact
+information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official
+page at https://pglaf.org
+
+For additional contact information:
+     Dr. Gregory B. Newby
+     Chief Executive and Director
+     gbnewby@pglaf.org
+
+
+Section 4.  Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
+Literary Archive Foundation
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide
+spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
+increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
+freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest
+array of equipment including outdated equipment.  Many small donations
+($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
+status with the IRS.
+
+The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
+charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
+States.  Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
+considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
+with these requirements.  We do not solicit donations in locations
+where we have not received written confirmation of compliance.  To
+SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any
+particular state visit https://pglaf.org
+
+While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
+have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
+against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
+approach us with offers to donate.
+
+International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
+any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
+outside the United States.  U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
+
+Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation
+methods and addresses.  Donations are accepted in a number of other
+ways including including checks, online payments and credit card
+donations.  To donate, please visit: https://pglaf.org/donate
+
+
+Section 5.  General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works.
+
+Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm
+concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared
+with anyone.  For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project
+Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.
+
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed
+editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S.
+unless a copyright notice is included.  Thus, we do not necessarily
+keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.
+
+
+Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility:
+
+     https://www.gutenberg.org
+
+This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm,
+including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
+Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
+subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
+
+
+</pre>
+
+</body>
+</html>
+
+
diff --git a/old/14447.txt b/old/14447.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..7e36132
--- /dev/null
+++ b/old/14447.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,9400 @@
+The Project Gutenberg EBook of Letters To "The Times" Upon War And
+Neutrality (1881-1920), by Thomas Erskine Holland
+
+This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
+almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
+re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
+with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
+
+
+Title: Letters To "The Times" Upon War And Neutrality (1881-1920)
+
+Author: Thomas Erskine Holland
+
+Release Date: December 24, 2004 [EBook #14447]
+
+Language: English
+
+Character set encoding: ASCII
+
+*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK UPON WAR AND NEUTRALITY ***
+
+
+
+
+Produced by Robert Connal, Aaron Reed and the Online Distributed
+Proofreading Team. This file was produced from images generously
+made available by the Bibliotheque nationale de France (BnF/Gallica)
+at http://gallica.bnf.fr
+
+
+
+
+
+
+                           LETTERS
+
+                             UPON
+
+                      WAR AND NEUTRALITY
+
+                         (1881-1920)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+LETTERS TO "THE TIMES"
+
+UPON
+
+WAR AND NEUTRALITY
+
+(1881-1920)
+
+WITH SOME COMMENTARY
+
+BY
+
+SIR THOMAS ERSKINE HOLLAND
+K.C., D.C.L., F.B.A.
+
+FELLOW OF ALL SOULS COLLEGE
+SOMETIME CHICHELE PROFESSOR OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
+MEMBRE (PRESIDENT 1913) DE L'INSTITUT DE DROIT INTERNATIONAL
+ETC., ETC.
+
+THIRD EDITION
+
+LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO.
+39 PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON
+
+FOURTH AVENUE & 30TH STREET, NEW YORK
+BOMBAY, CALCUTTA, AND MADRAS
+
+1921
+
+
+
+
+PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION
+
+For a good many years past I have been allowed to comment, in letters to
+_The Times_, upon points of International Law, as they have been raised
+by the events of the day. These letters have been fortunate enough to
+attract some attention, both at home and abroad, and requests have
+frequently reached me that they should be rendered more easily
+accessible than they can be in the files of the newspaper in which they
+originally appeared.
+
+I have, accordingly, thought that it might be worth while to select,
+from a greater number, such of my letters as bear upon those questions
+of War and Neutrality of which so much has been heard in recent years,
+and to group them for republication, with some elucidatory matter (more
+especially with reference to changes introduced by the Geneva Convention
+of 1906, The Hague Conventions of 1907, and the Declaration of London of
+the present year) under the topics to which they respectively relate.
+
+The present volume has been put together in accordance with this plan;
+and my best thanks are due to the proprietors of The Times for
+permitting the reissue of the letters in a collected form.
+Cross-references and a full Index will, I hope, to some extent remove
+the difficulties which might otherwise be caused by the fragmentary
+character, and the chances of repetition, inseparable from such a work.
+
+T. E. H.
+EGGISHORN, SWITZERLAND,
+_September_ 14, 1909.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION
+
+I have again to thank _The Times_ for permission to print in this new
+edition letters which have appeared in its columns during the past four
+years. They will be found to deal largely with still unsettled questions
+suggested by the work of the Second Peace Conference, by the Declaration
+of London, and by the, unfortunately conceived, Naval Prize Bill of
+1911.
+
+I have no reason to complain of the reception which has so far been
+accorded to the views which I have thought it my duty to put forward.
+
+T. E. H.
+OXFORD,
+_January_ 10, 1914.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION
+
+This, doubtless final, edition of my letters upon War and Neutrality
+contains, by renewed kind permission of _The Times_, the whole series of
+such letters, covering a period of no less than forty years. To the
+letters which have already appeared in former editions, I have now added
+those contained in the "Supplement" of 1916 (for some time out of print)
+to my second edition; as also others of still more recent date. All
+these have been grouped, as were their predecessors, under the various
+topics which they were intended to illustrate. The explanatory
+commentaries have been carefully brought up to date, and a perhaps
+superfluously full Index should facilitate reference for those
+interested in matters of the kind. Such persons may not be sorry to have
+their attention recalled to many questions which have demanded practical
+treatment of late years, more especially during the years of the great
+war.
+
+Not a few of these questions are sure again to come to the front, so
+soon as the rehabilitation of International Law, rendered necessary by
+the conduct of that War, shall be seriously taken in hand.
+
+T. E. H.
+OXFORD,
+_April_ 25, 1921.
+
+
+
+
+CONTENTS
+
+
+CHAPTER I
+
+MEASURES SHORT OF WAR FOR THE SETTLEMENT
+OF INTERNATIONAL CONTROVERSIES      1
+
+SECTION 1
+_Friendly Measures_      1
+
+The Petition to the President of the United States (1899)      2
+Commissions of Enquiry and The Hague Convention (1904)      3
+The League of Nations (1919)      7
+ "     "    "    "    ( " )      8
+ "     "    "    "    (1920)      9
+
+SECTION 2
+_Pacific Reprisals_      9
+
+The Blockade of the Menam (1893)      10
+Pacific Blockade (1897)      11
+The Venezuelan Controversy (1902)      13
+The Venezuela Protocol (1903)      18
+War and Reprisals (1908)      18
+
+
+CHAPTER II
+STEPS TOWARDS A WRITTEN LAW OF WAR      22
+
+Count von Moltke on the Laws of Warfare (1881)      23
+Professor Bluntschli's Reply to Count von Moltke (1881)      26
+The United States Naval War Code (1901)      29
+A Naval War Code (1902)      31
+
+
+CHAPTER III
+
+TERMINOLOGY      33
+
+International Terminology (1918)      33
+
+
+CHAPTER IV
+
+CONVENTIONS AND LEGISLATION      36
+
+Government Bills and International Conventions (1911)      36
+The present Bill in Parliament (1914)      38
+The Foreign Enlistment Bill (1912)      39
+
+
+CHAPTER V
+
+THE COMMENCEMENT OF WAR      41
+
+SECTION 1
+_Declaration of War_      41
+
+The Sinking of the _Kowshing_ (1894)      41
+
+
+SECTION 2
+_The Immediate Effects of the Outbreak of War_      44
+
+Foreign Soldiers in England (1909)      45
+The Naval Prize Bill: Civil Disabilities of Enemy
+   Subjects (1911)      47
+Enemy Ships in Port (1917)      49
+
+
+CHAPTER VI
+
+THE CONDUCT OF WARFARE      50
+
+SECTION 1
+_On the Open Sea_      51
+
+The Freedom of the Seas? (1917)      51
+
+
+SECTION 2
+_In Other Waters_      51
+
+The Suez Canal (1898)      51
+ "   "     "   ( " )      51
+ "   "     "   ( " )      53
+ "   "     "   ( " )      54
+The Closing of the Dardanelles (1912)      55
+ "     "    "   "      "       ( " )      58
+
+
+SECTION 3
+_In a Special Danger Zone?_      59
+
+The German Threat (1915)      59
+
+
+SECTION 4
+_Aerial Warfare_      61
+
+The Debate on Aeronautics (1909)      61
+The Aerial Navigation Act (1913)      63
+Sovereignty over the Air (1913)      65
+Attack from the Air: The Enforcement of International Law (1914)      66
+  "      "   "   "   The Rules of International Law (1914)      67
+
+
+SECTION 5
+_Submarines_      69
+
+Germany and the Hague (1914)      69
+The "Pirates" (March 13, 1915)      70
+Submarine Crews (March 22, 1915)      71
+Mr. Wilson's Note (May 16, 1915)      72
+
+
+SECTION 6
+_Lawful Belligerents_      73
+
+Guerilla Warfare (1906)      73
+The Russian Use of Chinese Clothing (1904)      75
+The Rights of Armed Civilians (1914)      77
+Civilians in Warfare: The Right to take up Arms (1914)      78
+Civilians and a Raid (1914)      79
+Miss Cavell's Case (1915)      79
+
+
+SECTION 7
+_Privateering and the Declaration of Paris_      80
+
+Our Mercantile Marine in War Time (1898)      81
+ "      "        "    "   "    " ( " )      84
+Our Mercantile Marine in War (1898)      87
+The Declaration of Paris (1911)      87
+ "       "      "    "   (1914)      89
+ "       "      "    "   (1916)      91
+ "       "      "    "   (1916)      92
+
+
+SECTION 8
+_Assassination_      93
+
+The Natal Proclamation (1906)      93
+
+
+SECTION 9
+_The Choice of Means of Injuring_      94
+
+Bullets in Savage Warfare (1903)      94
+Gases (1918)      97
+
+
+SECTION 10
+_The Geneva Convention_      98
+
+Wounded Horses in War (1899)      98
+
+
+SECTION 11
+_Enemy Property in Occupied Territory_      100
+
+International "Usufruct" (1898)      101
+Requisitions in Warfare (1902)      103
+
+
+SECTION 12
+_Enemy Property at Sea_      104
+
+Private Property at Sea (1913)      104
+
+
+SECTION 13
+_Martial Law_      105
+
+The Executions at Pretoria (1901)      106
+The Petition of Right (1901)      108
+The Petition of Right (1902)      109
+Martial Law in Natal (1906)      111
+
+
+SECTION 14
+_The Naval Bombardment of Open Coast Towns_      112
+
+Naval Atrocities (1888)      113
+The Naval Manoeuvres (1888)      113
+ "    "        "     ( " )      117
+Naval Bombardments of Unfortified Places (1904)      120
+
+
+SECTION 15
+_Belligerent Reprisals_      123
+
+Reprisals (1917)      123
+    "     ( " )      124
+
+
+SECTION 16
+_Peace_      124
+
+Undesirable Peace Talk (1915)      124
+
+
+CHAPTER VII
+
+THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF NEUTRALS      126
+
+SECTION 1
+_The Criterion of Neutral Conduct_      126
+
+Professor de Martens on the Situation (1905)      126
+Neutrals and the Laws of War (1915)      127
+
+
+SECTION 2
+_The Duties of Neutral States, and the Liabilities of Neutral
+   Individuals, distinguished_      129
+
+Contraband of War (1904)      130
+Coal for the Russian Fleet (1904)      132
+German War Material for Turkey (1911)      135
+
+
+SECTION 3
+
+_Neutrality Proclamations_      135
+
+The British Proclamation of Neutrality (1904)      136
+ "      "         "              "     ( " )      138
+ "      "         "              "     (1911)      141
+The Proclamation of Neutrality (1911)      143
+
+
+SECTION 4
+
+_Neutral Hospitality_      143
+
+Belligerent Fleets in Neutral Waters (1905)      144
+The _Appam_ (1916)      146
+
+
+SECTION 5
+
+_Carriage of Contraband_      147
+
+_Absolute and Conditional Contraband_      147
+    Contraband of War (1898)      147
+    Is Coal Contraband of War? (1904)      149
+    Cotton as Contraband of War (1905)      151
+      "     "      "         " (1916)      154
+    Japanese Prize Law (1905)      155
+       "        "    " (1915)      157
+
+_Continuous Voyages_      157
+    Prize Law (1900)      158
+    The _Allanton_ (1904)      161
+
+_Unqualified Captors_      162
+    The _Allanton_ (1904)      162
+
+
+SECTION 6
+
+_Methods of Warfare as affecting Neutrals_      164
+
+_Mines_      164
+    Mines in the Open Sea (1904)      164
+    Territorial Waters (1904)      166
+
+_Cable-cutting_      168
+    Submarine Cables (1881)      168
+       "       "    in Time of War (1897)      169
+       "       "     "   "   " "  ( " )      171
+
+
+SECTION 7
+
+_Destruction of Neutral Prizes_      173
+
+Russian Prize Law (1904)      174
+   "       "    " ( " )      177
+   "       "    " ( " )      178
+The Sinking of Neutral Prizes (1905)      179
+
+
+SECTION 8
+
+_An International Prize Court_      181
+
+An International Prize Court (1907)      182
+A New Prize Law (1907)      183
+" "    "    " ( " )      186
+" "    "    " ( " )      189
+
+
+SECTION 9
+
+_The Naval Prize Bill_      191
+
+The Naval Prize Bill (1910)      192
+ "    "      "    "  (1911)      194
+Naval Prize Money    (1918)      195
+
+
+SECTION 10
+
+_The Declaration of London_      196
+
+The Declaration of London (1909)      196
+ "        "     "     "   (1910)      197
+ "        "     "     "   (1911)      199
+ "        "     "     "   ( " )      202
+ "        "     "     "   ( " )      203
+ "        "     "     "   (1915)      204
+ "        "     "     "   (1916)      205
+Germany wrong again (1917)      207
+
+
+INDEX      209
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER I
+
+MEASURES SHORT OF WAR FOR THE SETTLEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL CONTROVERSIES
+
+
+SECTION 1
+
+_Friendly Measures_
+
+    Of the letters which follow, the first was suggested by a
+    petition presented in October, 1899, to the President of the
+    United States, asking him to use his good offices to terminate
+    the war in South Africa; the second by discussions as to the
+    advisability of employing, for the first time, an International
+    Commission of Enquiry, for the purpose of ascertaining the
+    facts of the lamentable attack perpetrated by the Russian fleet
+    upon British fishing vessels off the Dogger Bank, on October
+    21, 1905. The Commission sat from January 19 to February 25,
+    1905, and its report was the means of terminating a period of
+    great tension in the relations of the two Powers concerned (see
+    _Parl. Paper_, Russia, 1905, No. 3): this letter deals also
+    with Arbitration, under The Hague Convention of 1899.
+
+    It may be worth while here to point out that besides direct
+    negotiation between the Powers concerned, four friendly methods
+    for the settlement of questions at issue between them are now
+    recognised, _viz_ (1) Good offices and mediation of third
+    Powers; (2) "Special mediation"; (3) "International Commissions
+    of Enquiry"; (4) Arbitration. All four were recommended by The
+    Hague Convention of 1899 "For the Peaceful Settlement of
+    International Disputes" (by which, indeed, (2) and (3) were
+    first suggested), as also by the amended re-issue of that
+    convention in 1907. It must be noticed that resort to any of
+    these methods is entirely discretionary, so far as any rule of
+    International Law is concerned; all efforts to render it
+    universally and unconditionally obligatory having, perhaps
+    fortunately, hitherto failed.
+
+    It remains to be seen how far the settlement of international
+    controversies has been facilitated by the establishment of a
+    "League of Nations" (to which reference is made in the
+    concluding letters of this chapter), and, in particular, by the
+    plan for the establishment of a "Permanent Court of
+    International Justice," formulated by the League, in pursuance
+    of Art. 14 of the Treaty of Versailles, and submitted to its
+    members in December, 1920.
+
+
+
+THE PETITION TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
+
+Sir,--It seems that a respectably, though perhaps thoughtlessly signed
+petition was on Thursday presented to President McKinley, urging him to
+offer his good offices to bring to an end the war now being waged in
+South Africa. From the _New York World_ cablegram, it would appear that
+the President was requested to take this step "in accordance with Art. 3
+of the protocol of the Peace Conference at The Hague." The reference
+intended is doubtless to the _Convention pour le reglement pacifique des
+conflits internationaux_, prepared at the Conference [of 1899], Art. 3
+of which is to the following effect:--
+
+      "Les Puissances signataires jugent utile qu'une ou plusieurs
+      Puissances etrangeres au conflit offrent de leur propre
+      initiative, en tant que les circonstances s'y pretent, leurs
+      bons offices ou leur mediation aux Etats en conflit.
+
+      "Le droit d'offrir les bons offices ou la mediation appartient
+      aux Puissances etrangeres au conflit, meme pendant le cours
+      des hostilites.
+
+      "L'exercice de ce droit ne peut jamais etre considere par
+      l'une ou l'autre des parties en litige comme un acte peu
+      amical."
+
+Several remarks are suggested by the presentation of this petition:--
+
+(1) One might suppose from the glib reference here and elsewhere made to
+The Hague Convention, that this convention is already in force, whereas
+it is [1899], in the case of most, if not all, of the Powers represented
+at the conference, a mere unratified draft, under the consideration of
+the respective Governments.
+
+(2) The article, if it were in force, would impose no duty of offering
+good offices, but amounts merely to the expression of opinion that an
+offer of good offices is a useful and unobjectionable proceeding, in
+suitable cases (_en tant que les circonstances s'y pretent_). It cannot
+for a moment be supposed that the President would consider that an
+opportunity of the kind contemplated was offered by the war in South
+Africa.
+
+(3) One would like to know at what date, if at all, the Prime Minister
+of the British colony of the Cape was pleased, as is alleged, to follow
+the lead of the Presidents of the two Boer Republics in bestowing his
+grateful approval upon the petition in question.
+
+Your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, October 28 (1899).
+
+
+    _Par._ 2 (1).--The Convention of 1899 was ratified by Great
+    Britain, on September 4, 1900; and between that year and 1907
+    practically all civilised Powers ratified or acceded to it. It
+    is now, for almost all Powers, superseded by The Hague
+    Convention, No. i. of 1907, which, reproduces Art. 3 of the
+    older Convention, inserting, however, after the word "utile,"
+    the words "et desirable."
+
+    _Ib._ (2).--On March 6, 1900, the two Boer Republics proposed
+    that peace should be made on terms which included the
+    recognition of their independence. Great Britain having, on
+    March 11, declared such recognition to be inadmissible, the
+    European Powers which were requested to use their good offices
+    to bring this about declined so to intervene. The President of
+    the United States, however, in a note delivered in London on
+    March 13, went so far as to "express an earnest hope that a way
+    to bring about peace might be found," and to say that he would
+    aid "in any friendly manner to bring about so happy a result."
+    Lord Salisbury, on the following day, while thanking the United
+    States Government, replied that "H.M. Government does not
+    propose to accept the intervention of any Power in the South
+    African War." Similar replies to similar offers had been made
+    both by France and Prussia in 1870, and by the United States in
+    1898.
+
+
+COMMISSIONS OF ENQUIRY AND THE HAGUE CONVENTION
+
+Sir,--It is just now [1904] especially desirable that the purport of
+those provisions of The Hague Convention "for the peaceful settlement of
+international controversies" which deal with "international commissions
+of enquiry" should be clearly understood. It is probably also desirable
+that a more correct idea should be formed of the effect of that
+convention, as a whole, than seems to be generally prevalent. You may,
+therefore, perhaps, allow me to say a few words upon each of these
+topics.
+
+Art. 9 of the convention contains an expression of opinion to the effect
+that recourse to an international commission of enquiry into disputed
+questions of fact would be useful. This recommendation is, however,
+restricted to "controversies in which neither honour nor essential
+interests are involved," and is further limited by the phrase "so far as
+circumstances permit." Two points are here deserving of notice.
+
+In the first place, neither "the honour and vital interests clause," as
+seems to be supposed by your correspondent Mr. Schidrowitz, nor the
+clause as to circumstances permitting, is in any way modified by the
+article which follows. Art. 10 does not enlarge the scope of Art. 9, but
+merely indicates the procedure to be followed by Powers desirous of
+acting under it. In the second place, it is wholly unimportant whether
+or no the scope of Art. 9 is enlarged by Art. 10. The entire liberty of
+the Powers to make any arrangement which may seem good to them for
+clearing up their differences is neither given, nor impaired, by the
+articles in question, to which the good sense of the Conference declined
+to attach any such obligatory force as had been proposed by Russia. It
+may well be that disputant Powers may at any time choose to agree to
+employ the machinery suggested by those articles, or something
+resembling it, in cases of a far more serious kind than those to which
+alone the convention ventured to make its recommendation applicable; and
+this is the course which seems to have been followed by the Powers
+interested with reference to the recent lamentable occurrence in the
+North Sea.
+
+As to the convention as a whole, it is important to bear in mind that,
+differing in this respect from the two other conventions concluded at
+The Hague, it is of a non-obligatory character, except in so far as it
+provides for the establishment of a permanent tribunal at The Hague, to
+which, however, no Power is bound to resort. It resembles not so much a
+treaty as a collection of "pious wishes" (_voeux_), such as those which
+were also adopted at The Hague. The operative phrases of most usual
+occurrence in the convention are, accordingly, such as "jugent utile";
+"sont d'accord pour recommander"; "est reconnu comme le moyen le plus
+efficace"; "se reservent de conclure des accords nouveaux, en vue
+d'etendre l'arbitrage obligatoire a tous les cas qu'elles jugeront
+possible de lui soumettre."
+
+It is a matter for rejoicing that, in accordance with the suggestion
+contained in the phrase last quoted, so many treaties, of which that
+between Great Britain and Portugal is the most recent, have been entered
+into for referring to The Hague tribunal "differences of a juridical
+nature, or such as relate to the interpretation of treaties; on
+condition that they do not involve either the vital interests or the
+independence or honour of the two contracting States." Such treaties,
+conforming as they all do to one carefully defined type, may be
+productive of much good. They testify to, and may promote, a very widely
+spread _entente cordiale_, they enhance the prestige of the tribunal of
+The Hague, and they assure the reference to that tribunal of certain
+classes of questions which might otherwise give rise to international
+complications. Beyond this it would surely be unwise to proceed. It is
+beginning to be realised that what are called "general" treaties of
+arbitration, by which States would bind themselves beforehand to submit
+to external decision questions which might involve high political
+issues, will not be made between Powers of the first importance; also,
+that such treaties, if made, would be more likely to lead to fresh
+misunderstandings than to secure the peaceful settlement of disputed
+questions.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, November 21 (1904).
+
+
+    _Pars._ 1-3.--The topic of "Commissions of Enquiry," which
+    occupied Arts. 9-13 of the Convention of 1899 "For the Peaceful
+    Settlement of International Disputes," is more fully dealt with
+    in Arts. 9-36 of the Convention as amended in 1907.
+
+    _Par._ 4.--The amended Convention, as a whole, is still, like
+    its predecessor, purely facultative. The Russian proposal to
+    make resort to arbitration universally obligatory in a list of
+    specified cases, unless when the "vital interests or national
+    honour" of States might be involved, though negatived in 1899,
+    was renewed in 1907, in different forms, by several Powers,
+    which eventually concurred in supporting the
+    Anglo-Portuguese-American proposal, according to which,
+    differences of a juridical character, and especially those
+    relating to the interpretation of treaties, are to be submitted
+    to arbitration, unless they affect the vital interests,
+    independence, or honour, of the States concerned, or the
+    interests of third States; while all differences as to the
+    interpretation of treaties relating to a scheduled list of
+    topics, or as to the amount of damages payable, where liability
+    to some extent is undisputed, are to be so submitted without
+    any such reservation. This proposal was accepted by thirty-two
+    Powers, but as nine Powers opposed it, and three abstained from
+    voting, it failed to become a convention. The delegates to the
+    Conference of 1907 went, however, so far as to include in their
+    "Final Act" a statement to the effect that they were unanimous:
+    (1) "in recognising the principle of obligatory arbitration";
+    (2) "in declaring that certain differences, and, in particular,
+    such as relate to the interpretation and application of the
+    provisions of International Conventions, are suitable for being
+    submitted to obligatory arbitration, without any reservations."
+
+    _Par._ 5.--The Convention between France and Great Britain,
+    concluded on October 14, 1903, for five years, and renewed in
+    1908, and again in 1913, for a like period, by which the
+    parties agree to submit to The Hague tribunal any differences
+    which may arise between them, on condition "that they do not
+    involve either the vital interests, or the independence, or
+    honour of the two contracting States, and that they do not
+    affect the interests of a third Power," has served as a model
+    or "common form," for a very large number of conventions to the
+    same effect, entered into between one State and another. The
+    Convention of April 11, 1908, between Great Britain and the
+    United States is substantially of this type.
+
+    But see now the three letters which follow.
+
+
+THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS
+
+Sir,--The League is unquestionably "a brave design." Sympathy with its
+objects and some hope that they may be realised have induced myself, as,
+doubtless many others, to abstain from criticising the way in which the
+topic has been handled by the representatives of the victorious Powers.
+Recent discussions seem, however, to render such reticence no longer
+desirable.
+
+It begins to be recognised that, as some of us have all along held to be
+the case, a serious mistake was made by the Paris delegates when they
+combined in one and the same document provisions needed for putting an
+end to an existing state of war with other provisions aiming at the
+creation in the future of a new supernational society. Two matters so
+wholly incongruous in character should surely have been dealt with
+separately. Whether it is now too late to attempt a remedy for the
+consequences of this unfortunate combination is a question which can be
+answered only by the diplomatists whose business it is to be intimately
+in touch with the susceptibilities of the various nations concerned. In
+the meantime, however, on the assumption that this state of things is
+productive of regrettable results, I may perhaps venture to indicate,
+recommending their adoption, the steps which appear to be required for
+the reformation of the Treaty as drafted. My suggestions would run as
+follows:--
+
+(1) Subtract from the Treaty of Versailles, Parts I. and XIII., the
+former constituting a League of Nations, the latter, in pursuance of a
+recital that universal peace "can be established only if it is based
+upon social justice," wholly occupied with a sufficiently ambitious
+scheme for the regulation by the League of all questions relating to
+"Labour" which may arise within its jurisdiction.
+
+(2) Let Part I., with Part XIII. annexed, constitute a new and
+independent Treaty; to be, as such, submitted to the Powers for further
+consideration. (The opportunity might be taken of ridding it of all
+references to a system of "mandates," which might very probably lead to
+jealousies and misunderstandings.)
+
+(3) Parts II. to XII., XIV., and XV. would then constitute the real
+Treaty of Peace, in which it would, however, be necessary in the
+numerous articles attributing functions, for the most part of a
+temporary character, the "League of Nations," to substitute for any
+mention of the League words descriptive of some other authority, yet to
+be created, such as, for instance, "a Commission to be constituted by
+the principal Allied and Associated Powers."
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, December 16 (1919).
+
+
+Sir,--Let me assure Lord Robert Cecil that I am perfectly serious in
+giving expression to a long-felt wish that the Treaty of Peace could be
+relieved of articles relating exclusively to an as yet to be created
+League of Nations, and in proceeding to indicate the steps that must be
+taken if this reform is to be effected.
+
+It can hardly be necessary also to assure Lord Robert that I am fully
+aware of the formidable, though perhaps not insuperable, difficulties
+which would beset any efforts to carry out my suggestions. He may have
+inferred so much from my letter of the 16th, in which, treating the
+question whether it is now too late to attempt a remedy for the existing
+state of things as beyond the competence of an outsider, I describe it
+as one which can be answered "only by the diplomatists whose business it
+is to be intimately in touch with the susceptibilities of the various
+nations concerned."
+
+On a point of detail, I am surprised that Lord Robert is unwilling that
+the contents of Part XIII. should be removed to their natural context,
+on the ground that the Labour organisation might be annoyed if this were
+done. I am, however, confident that the organisation is too intelligent
+not to see that it would lose nothing if the articles in which it is
+interested were made an integral part of a Convention constituting a
+League of Nations; the League being already solely charged with giving
+effect to the articles in question.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, December 20 (1919).
+
+
+Sir,--Professor Alison Phillips is not quite accurate in attributing to
+me a belief that the task of amending the Treaty of Versailles is "not
+beyond the powers of competent diplomatists." No such belief is
+expressed in my letter of December 16, in which I was careful to admit
+that the question, "whether it is now too late to attempt" the reform
+which appears to me to be desirable is one "which can be answered only
+by the diplomatists."
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, January 5 (1920).
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+SECTION 2
+
+_Pacific Reprisals_
+
+    The four letters next following were suggested by the ambiguous
+    character of the blockades instituted by France against Siam in
+    1893, by the Great Powers against Crete in 1897, and by Great
+    Britain, Germany, and Italy, against Venezuela in 1902. The
+    object, in each case, was to explain the true nature of the
+    species of reprisals known as "Pacific Blockade," and to point
+    out the difference between the consequences of such a measure
+    and those which result from a "Belligerent Blockade." A fifth
+    letter, written with reference to the action of the Netherlands
+    against Venezuela in 1908, emphasises the desirability of more
+    clearly distinguishing between war and reprisals. On the
+    various applications of a blockade in time of peace, see the
+    author's _Studies in International Law_, pp. 130-150.
+
+
+THE BLOCKADE OF THE MENAM
+
+Sir,--Upon many questions of fact and of policy involved in the quarrel
+between France and Siam it may be premature as yet to expect explicit
+information from the French Government; but there should not be a
+moment's doubt as to the meaning of the blockade which has probably by
+this time been established.
+
+Is France at war with Siam? This may well be the case, according to
+modern practice, without any formal declaration of war; and it is, for
+international purposes, immaterial whether the French Cabinet, if it has
+commenced a war without the sanction of the Chambers, has or has not
+thereby violated the French Constitution. If there is a war, and if the
+blockade, being effective, has been duly notified to the neutral Powers,
+the vessels of those Powers are, of course, liable to be visited, and,
+if found to be engaged in breach of the blockade, to be dealt with by
+the French Prize Courts.
+
+Or is France still at peace with Siam, and merely putting upon her that
+form of pressure which is known as "pacific blockade"?
+
+In this case, since there is no belligerency there is no neutrality, and
+the ships of States other than that to which the pressure is being
+applied are not liable to be interfered with. The particular mode of
+applying pressure without going to war known as "pacific blockade"
+dates, as is well known, only from 1827. It has indeed been enforced, by
+England as well as by France, upon several occasions, against the
+vessels of third Powers; but this practice has always been protested
+against, especially by French jurists, as an unwarrantable interference
+with the rights of such Powers, and was acknowledged by Lord Palmerston
+to be illegal. The British Government distinctly warned the French in
+1884 that their blockade of Formosa could be recognised as affecting
+British vessels only if it constituted an act of war against China; and
+when the Great Powers in 1886 proclaimed a pacific blockade of the
+coasts of Greece they carefully limited its operation to ships under the
+Greek flag.
+
+The Subject has been exhaustively considered by the Institut de Droit
+International, which, at its meeting at Heidelberg in 1887, arrived at
+certain conclusions which may be taken to express the view of learned
+Europe. They are as follows:--
+
+      "L'etablissement d'un blocus en dehors de l'etat de guerre ne
+      doit etre considere comme permis par le droit des gens que
+      sous les conditions suivantes:--
+
+      "1. Les navires de pavillon etranger peuvent entrer librement
+      malgre le blocus.
+
+      "2. Le blocus pacifique doit etre declare et notifie
+      officiellement, et maintenu par une force suffisante.
+
+      "Les navires de la puissance bloquee qui ne respectent pas un
+      pareil blocus peuvent etre sequestres. Le blocus ayant cesse,
+      ils doivent etre restitues avec leur cargaisons a leurs
+      proprietaires, mais sans dedommagement a aucun titre."
+
+If the French wish to reap the full advantages of a blockade of the
+Siamese coast they must be prepared, by becoming belligerent, to face
+the disadvantages which may result from the performance by this country
+of her duties as a neutral.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Athenaeum Club, July 26 (1893).
+
+
+PACIFIC BLOCKADE
+
+Sir,--The letter signed "M." in your issue of this morning contains, I
+think, some statements which ought not to pass uncorrected. A "blockade"
+is, of course, the denial by a naval squadron of access for vessels to a
+defined portion of the coasts of a given nation. A "pacific blockade" is
+one of the various methods--generically described as "reprisals," such
+as "embargo," or seizure of ships on the high seas--by which, without
+resort to war, pressure, topographically or otherwise limited in extent,
+may be put upon an offending State. The need for pressure of any kind
+is, of course, regrettable, the only question being whether such limited
+pressure be not more humane to the nation which experiences it, and less
+distasteful to the nation which exercises it, than is the letting loose
+of the limitless calamities of war.
+
+The opinion of statesmen and jurists upon this point has undergone a
+change, and this because the practice known as "pacific blockade" has
+itself changed. The practice, which is comparatively modern, dating only
+from 1827, was at first directed against ships under all flags, and
+ships arrested for breach of a pacific blockade were at one time
+confiscated, as they would have been in time of war. It has been purged
+of these defects as the result of discussions, diplomatic and
+scientific. As now understood, the blockade is enforced only against
+vessels belonging to the "quasi-enemy," and even such vessels, when
+arrested, are not confiscated, but merely detained till the blockade is
+raised. International law does not stand still; and having some
+acquaintance with Continental opinion on the topic under consideration,
+I read with amazement "M.'s" assertion that "the majority in number,"
+"the most weighty in authority" of the writers on international law
+"have never failed to protest against such practices as indefensible in
+principle." The fact is that the objections made by, e.g. Lord
+Palmerston in 1846, and by several writers of textbooks, to pacific
+blockade, had reference to the abuses connected with the earlier stages
+of its development. As directed only against the ships of the
+"quasi-enemy," it has received the substantially unanimous approbation
+of the Institut de Droit International at Heidelberg in 1887, after a
+very interesting debate, in which the advocates of the practice were led
+by M. Perels, of the Prussian Admiralty, and its detractors by Professor
+Geffken. It is true that in an early edition of his work upon
+international law my lamented friend, Mr. Hall, did use the words
+attributed to him by "M.": "It is difficult to see how a pacific
+blockade is justifiable." But many things, notably Lord Granville's
+correspondence with France in 1884 and the blockade of the Greek coast
+in 1886, have occurred since those words were written. If "M." will turn
+to a later edition of the work in question he will see that Mr. Hall had
+completely altered his opinion on the subject, or rather that, having
+disapproved of the practice as unreformed, he blesses it altogether in
+its later development. With reference to the utility of the practice, I
+should like to call the attention of "M." to a passage in the latest
+edition of Hall's book which is perhaps not irrelevant to current
+politics:--
+
+      "The circumstances of the Greek blockade of 1886 show that
+      occasions may occur in which pacific blockade has an efficacy
+      which no other measure would possess. The irresponsible
+      recklessness of Greece was endangering the peace of the
+      world; advice and threats had been proved to be useless; it
+      was not till the material evidence of the blockade was
+      afforded that the Greek imagination could be impressed with
+      the belief that the majority of the Great Powers of Europe
+      were in earnest in their determination that war should be
+      avoided."
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, March 5 (1897).
+
+
+THE VENEZUELAN CONTROVERSY
+
+Sir,--Apart from the practical difficulty, so ably described by Sir
+Robert Giffen in your issue of this morning, of obtaining compensation
+in money from a State which seems to be at once bankrupt and in the
+throes of revolution, not a few questions of law and policy, as to which
+misunderstanding is more than probable, are raised from day to day by
+the action of the joint squadrons in Venezuelan waters. It may therefore
+be worth while to attempt to disentangle the more important of these
+questions from the rest, and to indicate in each case the principles
+involved.
+
+1. Are we at war with Venezuela? Till reading the reports of what passed
+last night in the House of Commons, I should have replied to this
+question unhesitatingly in the negative. Most people whose attention has
+been directed to such matters must have supposed that we were engaged in
+the execution of "reprisals," the nature and legitimacy of which have
+long been recognised by international law. They consist, of course, in
+the exertion of pressure, short of war; over which they possess the
+following advantages: They are strictly limited in scope; they cease,
+when their object has been attained, without the formalities of a treaty
+of peace; and, no condition of "belligerency" existing between the
+Powers immediately concerned, third Powers are not called upon to
+undertake the onerous obligations of "neutrality." The objection
+sometimes made to reprisals, that they are applicable only to the weaker
+Powers, since a strong Power would at once treat them as acts of war, is
+indeed the strongest recommendation of this mode of obtaining redress.
+To localise hostile pressure as far as possible, and to give to it such
+a character as shall restrict its incidence to the peccant State, is
+surely in the interest of the general good. That the steps taken are
+such as would probably, between States not unequally matched, cause an
+outbreak of war cannot render them inequitable in cases where so
+incalculable an evil is unlikely to follow upon their employment.
+
+2. The justification of a resort either to reprisals or to war, in any
+given case, depends, of course, upon the nature of the acts complained
+of, and upon the validity of the excuses put forward either for the acts
+themselves, or for failure to give satisfaction for them. The British
+claims against Venezuela seem to fall into three classes. It will hardly
+be disputed that acts of violence towards British subjects or vessels,
+committed under State authority, call for redress. Losses by British
+subjects in the course of civil wars would come next, and would need
+more careful scrutiny (on this point the debates and votes of the
+Institut de Droit International, at its meeting at Neuchatel in 1900,
+may be consulted with advantage). Last of all would come the claims of
+unpaid bondholders, as to which Mr. Balfour would seem to endorse, in
+principle, the statement made in 1880 by Lord Salisbury who, while
+observing that "it would be an extreme assertion to say that this
+country ought never to interfere on the part of bondholders who have
+been wronged," went on to say that "it would be hardly fair if any body
+of capitalists should have it in their power to pledge the people of
+this country to exertions of such an extensive character.... They would
+be getting the benefit of an English guarantee without paying the price
+of it."
+
+3. Reprisals may be exercised in many ways; from such a high-handed act
+as the occupation of the Principalities by Russia in 1853, to such a
+mere seizure of two or three merchant vessels as occurred in the course
+of our controversy with Brazil in 1861. In modern practice, these
+measures imply a temporary sequestration, as opposed to confiscation or
+destruction, of the property taken. In the belief that reprisals only
+were being resorted to against Venezuela one was therefore glad to hear
+that the sinking of gunboats by the Germans had been explained as
+rendered necessary by their unseaworthiness.
+
+4. Pacific reprisals should also, according to the tendency of modern
+opinion and practice, be so applied as not to interfere with the
+interests of third Powers and their subjects. This point has been
+especially discussed with reference to that species of reprisal known as
+a "pacific blockade," of which some mention has been made in the present
+controversy. The legitimacy of this operation, though dating only from
+1827, if properly applied, is open to no question. Its earlier
+applications were, no doubt, unduly harsh, not only towards the peccant
+State, but also towards third States, the ships of which were even
+confiscated for attempting to break a blockade of this nature. Two views
+on this subject are now entertained--viz. (1) that the ships of third
+Powers breaking a pacific blockade may be turned back with any needful
+exertion of force, and, if need be, temporarily detained; (2) that they
+may not be interfered with. The former view is apparently that of the
+German Government. It was certainly maintained by M. Perels, then as now
+the adviser to the German Admiralty, during the discussion of the
+subject by the Institut de Droit International at Heidelberg in 1887.
+The latter view is that which was adopted by the Institut on that
+occasion. It was maintained by Great Britain, with reference to the
+French blockade of Formosa in 1884; was acted on by the allied Powers in
+the blockade of the coast of Greece, instituted in 1886; and is
+apparently put forward by the United States at the present moment.
+
+5. If, however, we are at war with Venezuela (as will, no doubt, be the
+case if we proclaim a belligerent blockade of the coast, and may at any
+moment occur, should Venezuela choose to treat our acts, even if
+intended only by way of reprisals, as acts of war), the situation is
+changed in two respects: (1) the hostilities which may be carried on by
+the allies are no longer localised, or otherwise limited, except by the
+dictates of humanity; (2) third States become _ipso facto_ "neutrals,"
+and, as such, subject to obligations to which up to that moment they had
+not been liable. Whatever may have previously been the case, it is
+thenceforth certain that their merchant vessels must respect the (now
+belligerent) blockade, and are liable to visit, search, seizure, and
+confiscation if they attempt to break it.
+
+6. If hostile pressure, whether by way of reprisals or of war, is
+exercised by the combined forces of allies, the terms on which this is
+to be done must obviously be arranged by previous agreement. More
+especially would this be requisite where, as in the case of Great
+Britain and Germany, different views are entertained with reference to
+the acts which are permissible under a "pacific blockade."
+
+7. When, besides the Power, or Powers, putting pressure upon a given
+State, with a view to obtaining compensation for injuries received from
+it, other Powers, though taking no part in what is going on, give notice
+that they also have claims against the same offender; delicate questions
+may obviously arise between the creditors who have and those who have
+not taken active steps to make their claims effective. In the present
+instance, France is said to assert that she has acquired a sort of prior
+mortgage on the assets of Venezuela; and the United States, Spain, and
+Belgium declare themselves entitled to the benefit of the
+"most-favoured-nation clause" when those assets are made available for
+creditors. What principles are applicable to the solution of the novel
+questions suggested by these competing claims?
+
+8. It is satisfactory to know, on the highest authority, that the
+"Monroe doctrine" is not intended to shield American States against the
+consequences of their wrongdoing; since the cordial approval of the
+doctrine which has just been expressed by our own Government can only be
+supposed to extend to it so far as it is reasonably defined and applied.
+Great Britain, for one, has no desire for an acre of new territory on
+the American continent. The United States, on the other hand, will
+doubtless readily recognise that, if international wrongs are to be
+redressed upon that continent, aggrieved European Powers may
+occasionally be obliged to resort to stronger measures than a mere
+embargo on shipping, or the blockade (whether "pacific" or
+"belligerent") of a line of coast.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, December 18 (1902).
+
+
+THE VENEZUELA PROTOCOL
+
+Sir,--The close (for the present, at any rate) of the Venezuelan
+incident will be received with general satisfaction. One of the articles
+of the so-called "protocol" of February 18 seems, however, to point a
+moral which one may hope will not be lost sight of in the future--viz.
+the desirability of keeping unblurred the line of demarcation between
+such unfriendly pressure as constitutes "reprisals" and actual war.
+
+After all that has occurred--statements in Parliament, action of the
+Governor of Trinidad in bringing into operation the dormant powers of
+the Supreme Court of the island as a prize Court, &c.--one would have
+supposed that there could be no doubt, though no declaration had been
+issued, that we were at war with Venezuela.
+
+Our Government has, therefore, been well advised in providing for the
+renewal of any treaty with that Power which may have been abrogated by
+the war; but it is curious to find that the article (7) of the protocol
+which effects this desirable result begins by a recital to the effect
+that "it may be contended that the establishment of a blockade of the
+Venezuelan ports by the British naval forces has _ipso facto_ created a
+state of war between Great Britain and Venezuela."
+
+It is surely desirable that henceforth Great Britain should know, and
+that other nations should at least have the means of knowing, for
+certain, whether she is at war or at peace.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, February 17 (1903).
+
+
+WAR AND REPRISALS
+
+Sir,--Professor Westlake's interesting letter as to the measures
+recently taken by the Netherlands Government in Venezuelan waters
+opportunely recalls attention to a topic upon which I addressed you
+when, six years ago, our own Government was similarly engaged in putting
+pressure upon Venezuela--viz. the desirability of drawing a clear line
+between war and reprisals. Perhaps I may now be allowed to return, very
+briefly, to this topic, with special reference to Professor Westlake's
+remarks.
+
+In any discussion of the questions involved, we ought, I think, clearly
+to realise that The Hague Convention, No. iii. of 1907, has no
+application to any measures not amounting to war. The "hostilities"
+mentioned in Art. 1 of the Convention are, it will be observed,
+exclusively such as must not commence without either a "declaration of
+war," or "an ultimatum with a conditional declaration of war"; and Art.
+2 requires that the "state of war" thus created shall be notified to
+"neutral Powers." There are, of course, no Powers answering to this
+description till war has actually broken out. Neutrality presupposes
+belligerency. Any other interpretation of the Convention would, indeed,
+render "pacific blockades" henceforth impossible.
+
+In the next place, we must at once recognise that the application of the
+term "reprisals," whatever may have been its etymological history, must
+no longer be restricted to seizure of property. It has now come to
+cover, and it is the only term which does cover generically, an
+indeterminate list of unfriendly acts, such as embargo, pacific
+blockade, seizure of custom-houses, and even occupation of territory, to
+which resort is had in order to obtain redress from an offending State
+without going to war with it. The pressure thus exercised, unlike the
+unlimited _licentia laedendi_ resulting from a state of war, is
+localised and graduated. It abrogates no treaties, and terminates
+without a treaty of peace. It affects only indirectly, if at all, the
+rights of States which take no part in the quarrel.
+
+The questions which remain for consideration would seem to be the
+following:--
+
+1. Would it be feasible to draw up a definite list of the measures which
+may legitimately be taken with a view to exercising pressure short of
+war?--I think not. States differ so widely in offensive power and
+vulnerability that it would be hardly advisable thus to fetter the
+liberty of action of a State which considers itself to have been
+injured.
+
+2. Ought it to be made obligatory that acts of reprisal should be
+preceded, or accompanied, by a notification to the State against which
+they are exercised that they are reprisals and not operations of
+war?--This would seem to be highly desirable; unless indeed it can be
+assumed that, in pursuance of The Hague Convention of 1907, no war will
+henceforth be commenced without declaration.
+
+8. Ought a statement to the like effect to be made to nations not
+concerned in the quarrel?--This would, doubtless, be convenient, unless
+the non-receipt by them of any notification of a "state of war," in
+pursuance of the Convention, could be supposed to render such a
+statement superfluous.
+
+On the ambiguous character sometimes attaching to reprisals as now
+practised, I may perhaps refer to an article in the _Law Quarterly
+Review_ for 1903, entitled "War Sub Modo."
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, December 26 (1908).
+
+
+    The operations against Venezuela which were closed by the
+    protocol of February 13, 1903, had given rise to the
+    enunciation of the so-called "Drago doctrine," in a despatch,
+    addressed on December 29 of the preceding year, by the
+    Argentine Minister for Foreign Affairs to the Government of the
+    United States, which asserts that "public indebtedness cannot
+    justify armed intervention by a European Power, much less
+    material occupation by it of territory belonging to any
+    American nation." The reply of the United States declined to
+    carry the "Monroe doctrine" to this length, citing the passage
+    in President Roosevelt's message in which he says: "We do not
+    guarantee any State against punishment, if it misconducts
+    itself, provided such punishment does not take the form of the
+    acquisition of territory by any non-American Power."
+
+    It is, however, now provided by The Hague Convention, No. ii.
+    of 1907, ratified by Great Britain on November 27, 1909, that
+    "the contracting Powers have agreed not to have recourse to
+    armed force for the recovery of contractual debts, claimed from
+    the Government of a country by the Government of another
+    country, as being due to its subjects. This stipulation shall
+    have no application when the debtor State declines, or leaves
+    unanswered, an offer of arbitration, or, having accepted it,
+    renders impossible the conclusion of the terms of reference
+    (_compromis_), or, after the arbitration, fails to comply with
+    the arbitral decision."
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER II
+
+STEPS TOWARDS A WRITTEN LAW OF WAR
+
+
+    A large body of written International Law, with reference to
+    the conduct of warfare, has been, in the course of the last
+    half-century, and, more especially, in quite recent years,
+    called into existence by means of General Conventions, or
+    Declarations, of which mention must frequently be made in the
+    following pages. Such are:--
+
+    (i.) With reference to war, whether on land or at sea: the
+    Declaration of St. Petersburg, of 1868, as to explosive
+    bullets; the three Hague Declarations of 1899 (of which the
+    first was repeated in 1907), as to projectiles from balloons,
+    projectiles spreading dangerous gases, and expanding bullets;
+    The Hague Convention, No. iii. of 1907 as to Declaration of
+    War; all ratified by Great Britain, except the Declaration of
+    St. Petersburg, which was thought to need no ratification.
+
+    (ii.) With reference only to war on land: the Geneva Convention
+    of 1906 (superseding that of 1864) as to the sick and wounded,
+    which was generally ratified, though by Great Britain only in
+    1911 (it was extended to maritime warfare by Conventions iii.
+    of 1899 and x. of 1907, both ratified by Great Britain, _cf.
+    infra_, Ch. VI. Section 10); the Hague Conventions of 1907, No.
+    iv. (superseding the Convention of 1899) as to the conduct of
+    warfare, and No. v. as to neutrals, of which only the former
+    has as yet been ratified by Great Britain.
+
+    (iii.) With reference only to war at sea: the Declaration of
+    Paris, of 1856, supposed apparently to need no ratification (to
+    which the United States is now the only important Power which
+    has not become a party), as to privateering, combination of
+    enemy and neutral property and blockades; The Hague Conventions
+    of 1907, No. vi. as to enemy merchant vessels at outbreak, No.
+    vii. as to conversion of merchantmen into warships, No. viii.
+    as to mines, No. ix. as to naval bombardments, No. x. as to the
+    sick and wounded, No. xi. as to captures, No. xii. as to an
+    International Prize Court, supplemented by the Convention of
+    1910, No. xiii. as to neutrals. It must be observed that, of
+    these Conventions, Great Britain has ratified only vi., vii.,
+    viii., ix., and x., the three last subject to reservations. The
+    Declaration of London of 1909, purporting to codify the laws of
+    naval warfare as to blockade, contraband, hostile assistance,
+    destruction of prizes, change of flag, enemy character, convoy,
+    resistance and compensation, and so to facilitate the working
+    of the proposed International Prize Court, if, and when, this
+    Court should come into existence, has failed to obtain
+    ratification, as will be hereafter explained.
+
+
+    Concurrently with the efforts which have thus been made to
+    ascertain the laws of war by general diplomatic agreement, the
+    way for such agreement has been prepared by the labours of the
+    Institut de Droit International, and by the issue by several
+    governments of instructions addressed to their respective
+    armies and navies.
+
+    The _Manuel des Lois de la Guerre sur Terre_, published by the
+    Institut in 1880, is the subject of the two letters which
+    immediately follow. Their insertion here, although the part in
+    them of the present writer is but small, may be justified by
+    the fact that they set out a correspondence which is at once
+    interesting (especially from its bearing upon the war of 1914)
+    and not readily elsewhere accessible.
+
+    The remaining letters in this chapter relate to the _Naval War
+    Code_, issued by the Government of the United States in 1900,
+    but withdrawn in 1904, though still expressing the views of
+    that Government, for reasons specified in a note to the British
+    _charge d'affaires_ at Washington and printed in _Parl. Papers,
+    Miscell._ No. 5 (1909), p. 8. The United States, it will be
+    remembered, were also the first Power to attempt a codification
+    of the laws of war on land, in their _Instructions for the
+    Government of Armies of the United States_, issued in 1863, and
+    reissued in 1898. Some information as to this and similar
+    bodies of national instructions may be found in the present
+    writer's _Studies in International Law_, 1898, p. 85. _Cf._ his
+    _Manual of Naval Prize Law_, issued by authority of the
+    Admiralty in 1888, his _Handbook of the Laws and Customs of War
+    on Land_, issued by authority to the British Army in 1904, and
+    his _The Laws of War on Land (written and unwritten)_, 1908.
+    The Institut de Droit International, which has been engaged for
+    some years upon the Law of War at Sea, by devoting the whole of
+    its session at Oxford, in 1913, to the discussion of the
+    subject, produced a _Manuel des Lois de la Guerre sur Mer_,
+    framed in accordance with the now-accepted view which sanctions
+    the capture of enemy private property at sea. It is to be
+    followed by a manual framed in accordance with the contrary
+    view. _Cf._ the letters upon the _Declaration of London_, in
+    Ch. VII. Section 10, _infra_.
+
+
+COUNT VON MOLTKE ON THE LAWS OF WARFARE
+
+Sir,--You may perhaps think that the accompanying letter, recently
+addressed by Count von Moltke to Professor Bluntschli, is of sufficient
+general interest to be inserted in _The Times_. It was written with
+reference to the Manual of the Laws of War which was adopted by the
+Institut de Droit International at its recent session at Oxford. The
+German text of the letter will appear in a few days at Berlin. My
+translation is made from the proof-sheets of the February number of the
+_Revue de Droit International_, which will contain also Professor
+Bluntschli's reply.
+
+Your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, January 29 (1881).
+
+      "Berlin, Dec. 11, 1880.
+
+      "You have been so good as to forward to me the manual
+      published by the Institut de Droit International, and you hope
+      for my approval of it. In the first place I fully appreciate
+      the philanthropic effort to soften the evils which result from
+      war. Perpetual peace is a dream, and it is not even a
+      beautiful dream. War is an element in the order of the world
+      ordained by God. In it the noblest virtues of mankind are
+      developed; courage and the abnegation of self, faithfulness to
+      duty, and the spirit of sacrifice: the soldier gives his life.
+      Without war the world would stagnate, and lose itself in
+      materialism.
+
+      "I agree entirely with the proposition contained in the
+      introduction that a gradual softening of manners ought to be
+      reflected also in the mode of making war. But I go further,
+      and think the softening of manners can alone bring about this
+      result, which cannot be attained by a codification of the law
+      of war. Every law presupposes an authority to superintend and
+      direct its execution, and international conventions are
+      supported by no such authority. What neutral States would ever
+      take up arms for the sole reason that, two Powers being at
+      war, the 'laws of war' had been violated by one or both of the
+      belligerents? For offences of that sort there is no earthly
+      judge. Success can come only from the religious moral
+      education of individuals and from the feeling of honour and
+      sense of justice of commanders who enforce the law and conform
+      to it so far as the exceptional circumstances of war permit.
+
+      "This being so, it is necessary to recognise also that
+      increased humanity in the mode of making war has in reality
+      followed upon the gradual softening of manners. Only compare
+      the horrors of the Thirty Years' War with the struggles of
+      modern times.
+
+      "A great step has been made in our own day by the
+      establishment of compulsory military service, which introduces
+      the educated classes into armies. The brutal and violent
+      element is, of course, still there, but it is no longer alone,
+      as once it was. Again, Governments have two powerful means of
+      preventing the worst kind of excesses--strict discipline
+      maintained in time of peace, so that the soldier has become
+      habituated to it, and care on the part of the department which
+      provides for the subsistence of troops in the field. If that
+      care fails, discipline can only be imperfectly maintained. It
+      is impossible for the soldier who endures sufferings,
+      hardships, fatigues, who meets danger, to take only 'in
+      proportion to the resources of the country.' He must take
+      whatever is needful for his existence. We cannot ask him for
+      what is superhuman.
+
+      "The greatest kindness in war is to bring it to a speedy
+      conclusion. It should be allowable with that view to employ
+      all methods save those which are absolutely objectionable
+      ('dazu muessen alle nicht geradezu verwerfliche Mittel
+      freistehen'). I can by no means profess agreement with the
+      Declaration of St. Petersburg when it asserts that 'the
+      weakening of the military forces of the enemy' is the only
+      lawful procedure in war. No, you must attack all the resources
+      of the enemy's Government: its finances, its railways, its
+      stores, and even its prestige. Thus energetically, and yet
+      with a moderation previously unknown, was the late war against
+      France conducted. The issue of the campaign was decided in two
+      months, and the fighting did not become embittered till a
+      revolutionary Government, unfortunately for the country,
+      prolonged the war for four more months.
+
+      "I am glad to see that the manual, in clear and precise
+      articles, pays more attention to the necessities of war than
+      has been paid by previous attempts. But for Governments to
+      recognise these rules will not be enough to insure that they
+      shall be observed. It has long been a universally recognised
+      custom of warfare that a flag of truce must not be fired on,
+      and yet we have seen that rule violated on several occasions
+      during the late war.
+
+      "Never will an article learnt by rote persuade soldiers to see
+      a regular enemy (sections 2-4) in the unorganised population
+      which takes up arms 'spontaneously' (so of its own motion) and
+      puts them in danger of their life at every moment of day and
+      night. Certain requirements of the manual might be impossible
+      of realisation; for instance, the identification of the slain
+      after a great battle. Other requirements would be open to
+      criticism did not the intercalation of such words as 'if
+      circumstances permit,' 'if possible,' 'if it can be done,' 'if
+      necessary,' give them an elasticity but for which the bonds
+      they impose must be broken by inexorable reality.
+
+      "I am of opinion that in war, where everything must be
+      individual, the only articles which will prove efficacious are
+      those which are addressed specifically to commanders. Such are
+      the rules of the manual relating to the wounded, the sick, the
+      surgeons, and medical appliances. The general recognition of
+      these principles, and of those also which relate to prisoners,
+      would mark a distinct step of progress towards the goal
+      pursued with so honourable a persistency by the Institut de
+      Droit International.
+
+      "COUNT VON MOLTKE, Field-Marshal-General."
+
+
+PROFESSOR BLUNTSCHLI'S REPLY TO COUNT VON MOLTKE
+
+Sir,--In accordance with a wish expressed in several quarters, I send
+you, on the chance of your being able to make room for it, a translation
+of Professor Bluntschli's reply to the letter from Count von Moltke
+which appeared in _The Times_ of the 1st inst.
+
+Your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, February (1881).
+
+      "Christmas, 1880.
+
+      "I am very grateful for your Excellency's detailed and kind
+      statement of opinion as to the manual of the laws of war. This
+      statement invites serious reflections. I see in it a testimony
+      of the highest value, of historical importance; and I shall
+      communicate it forthwith to the members of the Institut de
+      Droit International.
+
+      "For the present I do not think I can better prove my
+      gratitude to your Excellency than by sketching the reasons
+      which have guided our members, and so indicating the nature of
+      the different views which prevail upon the subject.
+
+      "It is needless to say that the same facts present themselves
+      in a different light and give a different impression as they
+      are looked at from the military or the legal point of view.
+      The difference is diminished, but not removed, when an
+      illustrious general from his elevated position takes also into
+      consideration the great moral and political duties of States,
+      and when, on the other hand, the representatives of science of
+      international law set themselves to bring legal principles
+      into relation with military necessities.
+
+      "For the man of arms the interest of the safety and success of
+      the army will always take precedence of that of the
+      inoffensive population, while the jurist, convinced that law
+      is the safeguard of all, and especially for the weak against
+      the strong, will ever feel it a duty to secure for private
+      individuals in districts occupied by an enemy the
+      indispensable protection of law. There may be members of the
+      Institut who do not give up the hope that some day, thanks to
+      the progress of civilisation, humanity will succeed in
+      substituting an organised international justice for the wars
+      which now-a-days take place between sovereign States. But the
+      body of the Institut, as a whole, well knows that that hope
+      has no chance of being realised in our time, and limits its
+      action in this matter to two principal objects, the attainment
+      of which is possible:--
+
+      "1. To open and facilitate the settlement of trifling disputes
+      between nations by judicial methods, war being unquestionably
+      a method out of all proportion in such cases.
+
+      "2. To aid in elucidating and strengthening legal order even
+      in time of war.
+
+      "I acknowledge unreservedly that the customs of warfare have
+      improved since the establishment of standing armies, a
+      circumstance which has rendered possible a stricter
+      discipline, and has necessitated a greater care for the
+      provisionment of troops. I also acknowledge unreservedly that
+      the chief credit for this improvement is due to military
+      commanders. Brutal and barbarous pillage was prohibited by
+      generals before jurists were convinced of its illegality. If
+      in our own day a law recognised by the civilised world
+      forbids, in a general way, the soldier to make booty in
+      warfare on land, we have here a great advance in civilisation,
+      and the jurists have had their share in bringing it about.
+      Since compulsory service has turned standing armies into
+      national armies, war has also become national. Laws of war are
+      consequently more than ever important and necessary, since, in
+      the differences of culture and opinion which prevail between
+      individuals and classes, law is almost the only moral power
+      the force of which is acknowledged by all, and which binds all
+      together under common rules. This pleasing and cheering
+      circumstance is one which constantly meets us in the Institut
+      de Droit International. We see a general legal persuasion ever
+      in process of more and more distinct formation uniting all
+      civilised peoples. Men of nations readily disunited and
+      opposed--Germans and French, English and Russians, Spaniards
+      and Dutchmen, Italians and Austrians--are, as a rule, all of
+      one mind as to the principles of international law.
+
+      "This is what makes it possible to proclaim an international
+      law of war, approved by the legal conscience of all civilised
+      peoples; and when a principle is thus generally accepted, it
+      exerts an authority over minds and manners which curbs sensual
+      appetites and triumphs over barbarism. We are well aware of
+      the imperfect means of causing its decrees to be respected and
+      carried out which are at the disposal of the law of nations.
+      We know also that war, which moves nations so deeply, rouses
+      to exceptional activity the good qualities as well as the evil
+      instincts of human nature. It is for this very reason that the
+      jurist is impelled to present the legal principles, of the
+      need for which he is convinced, in a clear and precise form,
+      to the feeling of justice of the masses, and to the legal
+      conscience of those who guide them. He is persuaded that his
+      declaration will find a hearing in the conscience of those
+      whom it principally concerns, and a powerful echo in the
+      public opinion of all countries.
+
+      "The duty of seeing that international law is obeyed, and of
+      punishing violations of it, belongs, in the first instance, to
+      States, each within the limits of its own supremacy. The
+      administration of the law of war ought therefore to be
+      intrusted primarily to the State which wields the public power
+      in the place where an offence is committed. No State will
+      lightly, and without unpleasantness and danger, expose itself
+      to a just charge of having neglected its international duties;
+      it will not do so even when it knows that it runs no risk of
+      war on the part Of neutral States. Every State, even the most
+      powerful, will gain sensibly in honour with God and man if it
+      is found to be faithful and sincere in respect and obedience
+      to the law of nations.
+
+      "Should we be deceiving ourselves if we admitted that a belief
+      in the law of nations, as in a sacred and necessary authority,
+      ought to facilitate the enforcement of discipline in the Army
+      and help to prevent many faults and many harmful excesses? I,
+      for my part, am convinced that the error, which has been
+      handed down to us from antiquity, according to which all law
+      is suspended during war, and everything is allowable against
+      the enemy nation--that this abominable error can but increase
+      the unavoidable sufferings and evils of war without necessity,
+      and without utility from the point of view of that energetic
+      way of making war which I also think is the right way.
+
+      "With reference to several rules being stated with the
+      qualifications 'if possible,' 'according to circumstances,' we
+      look on this as a safety-valve, intended to preserve the
+      inflexible rule of law from giving way when men's minds are
+      overheated in a struggle against all sorts of dangers, and so
+      to insure the application of the rules in many other
+      instances. Sad experience teaches us that in every war there
+      are numerous violations of law which must unavoidably remain
+      unpunished, but this will not cause the jurist to abandon the
+      authoritative principle which has been violated. Quite the
+      reverse. If, for instance, a flag of truce has been fired
+      upon, in contravention of the law of nations, the jurist will
+      uphold and proclaim more strongly than ever the rule that a
+      flag of truce is inviolable.
+
+      "I trust that your Excellency will receive indulgently this
+      sincere statement of my views, and will regard it as an
+      expression of my gratitude, as well as of my high personal
+      esteem and of my respectful consideration.
+
+      "Dr. BLUNTSCHLI, Privy Councillor, Professor."
+
+
+THE UNITED STATES NAVAL WAR CODE.[1]
+
+Sir,--The "Naval War Code" of the United States, upon which an
+interesting article appeared in _The Times_ of Friday last, in so well
+deserving of attention in this country that I may perhaps be allowed to
+supplement the remarks of your Correspondent from the results of a
+somewhat minute examination of the code made shortly after its
+publication.
+
+One notes, in the first place, that the Government of the United States
+does not shirk responsibility. It puts the code into the hands of its
+officers "for the government of all persons attached to the naval
+service," and is doubtless prepared to stand by the rules contained in
+it, as being in accordance with international law. These rules deal
+boldly with even so disagreeable a topic as "Reprisals" (Art. 8), upon
+which the Brussels, and after it The Hague, Conference preferred to keep
+silence; and they take a definite line on many questions upon which
+there are wide differences of opinion. On most debatable points, the
+rules are in accordance with the views of this country--e.g. as to the
+right of search (Art. 22), as to the two-fold list of contraband (Arts.
+34-36), as to the moment at which the liability of a blockade-runner
+commences (Art. 44), and as to the capture of private property (Art.
+14), although the prohibition of such capture has long been favoured by
+the Executive of the United States, and was advocated by the American
+delegates at The Hague Conference. So also Arts. 34-36, by apparently
+taking for granted the correctness of the rulings of the Supreme Court
+in the Civil War cases of the _Springbok_ and the _Peterhoff_ with
+reference to what may be described as "continuous carriage," are in
+harmony with the views which Lord Salisbury recently had occasion to
+express as to the trade of the _Bundesrath_ and other German vessels
+with Lorenzo Marques. It must be observed, on the other hand, that Art.
+30 flatly contradicts the British rule as to convoy; while Art. 3 sets
+out The Hague Declaration as to projectiles dropped from balloons, to
+which this country is not a party. Art. 7 departs from received views by
+prohibiting altogether the use of false colours, and Art. 14 (doubtless
+in pursuance of the recent decision of the Supreme Court in the _Paquete
+Habana_), by affirming the absolute immunity of coast fishing vessels,
+as such, from capture.
+
+On novel questions the code is equally ready with a solution. It speaks
+with no uncertain voice on the treatment of mail steamers and mail-bags
+(Art. 20). On cable-cutting it adopts in Art. 5, as your Correspondent
+points out, the views which I ventured to maintain in your columns when
+the question was raised during the war of 1898.[2] I may also, by the
+way, claim the support of the code for the view taken by me, in a,
+correspondence also carried on in your columns during the naval
+manoeuvres of 1888, of the bombardment of open coast towns.[3] Art. 4
+sets out substantially the rules upon this subject for which I secured
+the _imprimatur_ of the Institut de Droit International in 1896.
+
+Secondly, the code is so well brought up to date as to incorporate
+(Arts. 21-29) the substance of The Hague Convention, ratified only in
+September last, for applying to maritime warfare the principles of the
+Convention of Geneva. Art. 10 of The Hague Convention has been
+reproduced in the code, in forgetfulness perhaps of the fact that that
+article has not been ratified.
+
+Thirdly, the code contains, very properly, some general provisions
+applicable equally to warfare upon land (Arts. 1, 3, 8, 12, 54).
+
+Fourthly, it is clearly expressed; and it is brief, consisting of only
+54 articles, occupying 22 pages.
+
+Fifthly, it deals with two very distinct topics--viz. the mode of
+conducting hostilities against the forces of the enemy, and the
+principles applicable to the making prize of merchant vessels, which as
+often as not may be the property of neutrals. These topics are by no
+means kept apart as they might be, articles on prize occurring
+unexpectedly in the section avowedly devoted to hostilities.
+
+It is worth considering whether something resembling the United States
+code would not be found useful in the British Navy. Our code might be
+better arranged than its predecessor, and would differ from it on
+certain questions, but should resemble it in clearness of expression, in
+brevity, and, above all things, in frank acceptance of responsibility.
+What naval men most want is definite guidance, in categorical language,
+upon those points of maritime international law upon which our
+Government has made up its own mind.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, April 8 (1901).
+
+NOTES
+ - 1: Withdrawn in 1904.
+ - 2: _Infra_, Ch. VII. Section 6.
+ - 3: _Infra_, Ch. VI. Section 14.
+
+
+A NAVAL WAR CODE
+
+Sir,--It is now nearly a year ago since I ventured to suggest in your
+columns (for April 10, 1901) that something resembling the United States
+"Naval War Code," dealing with "the laws and usages of war at sea,"
+would be found useful in the British Navy.
+
+The matter is, however, not quite so simple as might be inferred from
+some of the allusions to it which occurred during last night's debate
+upon the Navy Estimates. Upon several disputable and delicate questions
+the Government of the United States has not hesitated to express
+definite views; and they are not always views which the Government of
+our own country would be prepared to endorse. For some remarks upon
+these questions in detail, and upon the code generally, I must refer to
+my former letter, but may perhaps be allowed to quote its concluding
+words, which were to the following effect:--
+
+      "Our code might be better arranged than its predecessor, and
+      would differ from it on certain questions, but should
+      resemble it in clearness of expression, in brevity, and,
+      above all things, in frank acceptance of responsibility. What
+      naval men most want is definite guidance, in categorical
+      language, upon those points of maritime international law
+      upon which our Government has made up its own mind."
+
+Before issuing such a code our authorities would have to decide--first,
+what are the classes of topics as to which it is desirable to give
+definite instructions to naval officers; and, secondly, with reference
+to topics, to be included in the instructions, as to which there exist
+international differences of view, what is, in each case, the view by
+which the British Government is prepared to stand.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, March 12 (1902).
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER III
+
+TERMINOLOGY
+
+INTERNATIONAL TERMINOLOGY
+
+
+Sir,--Demands for the punishment of the ex-Kaiser have produced many
+"curiosities of literature," sometimes even over the signatures of men
+deservedly respected as authorities upon subjects which they have made
+their own; but _ne sutor supra crepidam_. A.B.,[1] for instance, wrote
+of the Kaiser as guilty of "an indictable offence." X.Y.[1] naturally
+protests against this misuse of terminology, which is, indeed, far more
+specifically erroneous than was the popular application, which you
+allowed me to criticise, of the terms "murder" and "piracy" to certain
+detestable acts perpetrated under Government authority.[2] He goes on to
+give an elaborate, though perhaps hardly necessary, explanation that
+breaches of that generally accepted body of rules to be followed by
+States _inter se_, which is known as "international law," can be
+enforced, in the last resort, only by hostile State action--a fact which
+he seems to suppose may entitle him to qualify the rules as "a mockery."
+
+X.Y.[1] then proceeds to give an account of the so-called "private
+international law" which surely needs revision for the benefit of any
+"man in the street" who may care to hear about it. X.Y.[1] defines it as
+"that part of the law of each separate country, as administered in its
+own Courts, which deals with international matters," and he enumerates
+as such matters "prize, contraband, blockade, the rights of
+ambassadors." In fact none of these matters are within the scope of
+"private international law," but are governed by "(public) international
+law," non-compliance with which by the Courts or subjects of any State
+is ground of complaint for the Government of any other State thereby
+wrongfully affected.
+
+The so-called "private international law," better described as "the
+conflict of laws," deals, in reality, with the rules which the Courts of
+each country apply, apart from any international obligation, to the
+solution of questions, usually between private litigants, in which doubt
+may arise as to the national law by which a given transaction ought to
+be governed--e.g. with reference to a contract made in France, but to
+be performed in England. There is here a "conflict," or "collision," of
+laws, and it is decided in accordance with rules adopted in the country
+in which the litigation occurs. These rules have no "international"
+validity, and the term is applied to them, merely in a popular way, to
+indicate that a Court may have in some cases to apply the law of a
+country other than that in which it is sitting. The unfortunate
+opposition of "public" to "private" international law has to answer for
+much confusion of thought. "International law," properly so called, has,
+of course, no need to be described as "public" to distinguish it from
+rules for solving the "conflicts" of private laws, which are
+"international" rules only in the sense that laws are sometimes applied
+in countries other than those in which they are primarily binding.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, December 19 (1918).
+
+NOTES
+ - 1: Writer's names are omitted as immaterial.
+ - 2: _Infra_, p. 70.
+
+
+    A full discussion of the topics dealt with in the last
+    paragraph of this letter may be found in my _Elements of
+    Jurisprudence_, edit. xii., pp. 409-425. A translation, by
+    Professor Nys, of the chapter in which those pages occur, as it
+    stood in edit. i., appeared in the _Revue de Droit
+    International_, t. xii., pp. 565, &c.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER IV
+
+CONVENTIONS AND LEGISLATION
+
+
+    Not a few International Conventions necessitate, before they
+    can be ratified, in order that their provisions may be carried
+    into effect, a certain amount of municipal legislation.
+
+    The letters which follow are concerned with some measures
+    introduced into the British Parliament for this purpose,
+    relating respectively to Naval Prize, to the Geneva Convention
+    of 1906, and to Conventions signed at The Hague Peace
+    Conference of 1907. It is with criticisms of Bills dealing with
+    the last-mentioned topic that this chapter is mainly occupied.
+
+
+GOVERNMENT BILLS AND INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS
+
+Sir,--You have already allowed me to point out how singularly
+ill-adapted is the resuscitated "Naval Prize Consolidation Bill"[1] to
+inform Parliament upon the highly technical points as to which a vote in
+favour of the Bill might be supposed to imply approval of the Government
+policy.
+
+Two other Bills have now been presented to the House of Commons in such
+a shape as to raise a doubt whether the wish of the Government, or of
+the draftsman, has been that the topics to which they relate shall be
+discussed _en pleine connaissance de cause_.
+
+The "Geneva Convention Bill"[2] is intended to facilitate the withdrawal
+of reservations subject to which the Convention was ratified by Great
+Britain. These reservations, upon which I insisted at Geneva, somewhat
+to the surprise of my French and Russian colleagues, relate to Arts. 23,
+27, and 28 of the Convention, one of the effects of which would have
+been to impose upon our Government an obligation to carry through,
+within five years, an Act of Parliament, making the employment of the
+Geneva emblem or name, except for military purposes, a criminal offence.
+Any one who knows something of the difficulties which beset legislation
+in this country, especially where commercial interests are involved,
+will see that the performance of such an undertaking might well have
+proved to be impossible. Though myself strongly in favour of placing, at
+the proper time and in an appropriate manner, legislative restrictions
+upon the general use of the emblem and name, I can hardly think the Bill
+now before Parliament to be well adapted for its purpose. The
+"Memorandum" prefixed to it ought surely to have stated, in plain
+language, the effect of the articles in question and the reasons which
+prevented them from being ratified together with the rest of the
+Convention. Instead of this, only one of those articles is cited, and
+few members of Parliament will be aware that an omitted paragraph of
+that article requires that the use of the emblem or name should be
+penalised by British law at the latest five years and six months from
+the date of the British ratification, which was deposited on April 16,
+1907--_i.e._, not later than October 16, 1912. This requirement is not
+satisfied by the Bill, which, even if passed in the present Session,
+would preserve intact till 1915 the rights of proprietors of
+trade-marks, while somewhat harshly rendering forthwith illegal the user
+of the emblem or name by all other persons.
+
+On the drafting of the "Second Peace Conference Conventions Bill," I
+will only remark that neither in the preamble nor elsewhere is any
+information vouchsafed as to the Conventions, out of thirteen drafted at
+The Hague, which are within the purview of the Bill. The reader is left
+to puzzle out for himself, supposing him to have the necessary materials
+at hand, that certain clauses of the Bill relate respectively to certain
+articles which must be looked for in the Conventions numbered I., V.,
+X., XII., and XIII.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+The Athenaeum, July 7 (1911).
+
+NOTES
+ - 1: This Bill, originally introduced in the House of Commons on June 23
+      1910, to enable the Government to ratify Hague Convention No xii.
+      of 1907 and the Declaration of London of 1909, was passed by that
+      House on December 7, 1911, but rejected on the 12th of the same
+      month, by 145 to 53 votes, in the House of Lords. Cf. _infra_,
+      pp. 191-196.
+ - 2: Cf. _infra_, p. 98. The Bill became an Act, 1 & 2 Geo. 5,
+      c. 20.
+
+    Questions were put and objections raised, in the sense of my
+    criticisms upon the drafting of the "Second Peace Conference
+    (Conventions) Bill" of 1911, upon several occasions in the
+    House of Commons, especially in August of that year, and on
+    December 16 the Bill was finally withdrawn. On the
+    re-introduction of the Bill in 1914, see the following letter.
+
+
+THE PRESENT BILL IN PARLIAMENT
+
+Sir,--In reintroducing their Bill "to make such amendments in the law as
+are necessary in order to enable certain conventions to be carried into
+effect," the Government has justified the criticisms which I addressed
+to you upon the way in which this measure was first presented to
+Parliament.
+
+I pointed out that neither in the preamble nor elsewhere was any
+information vouchsafed as to which of "the various conventions drawn up
+at the second Peace Conference" were within the purview of the Bill.
+Still less was any clue given to those articles, out of nearly 400
+contained in the 13 conventions in question, which are relevant to the
+proposed legislation. Members of Parliament sufficiently inquisitive not
+to be inclined to take the measure on trust, were left to puzzle out all
+this for themselves, but proved so restive under the treatment that the
+Bill, which was introduced in June, 1911, had to be withdrawn in the
+following December.
+
+As now resuscitated, the Bill is accompanied by a memorandum containing
+information which will enable the reader, even though no specialist,
+supposing him to have the necessary documents at hand, though probably
+only after several hours of labour, to ascertain what would be the
+result of passing it. Is it too much to hope that similar aids to the
+understanding of complicated legislative proposals will be
+systematically provided in the future?
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, April 13, 1914.
+
+
+    This Bill was introduced into the House of Commons on April 8,
+    1914, with a memorandum proposed in compliance with the
+    criticisms, which had led to the withdrawal of its predecessor
+    of 1911. _Cf. supra_, p. 37. It also was withdrawn, after
+    sustaining much renewed criticism, on July 17, 1914.
+
+
+THE FOREIGN ENLISTMENT BILL
+
+Sir,--It is doubtless the case, as stated in your leading article of
+to-day, that the Foreign Enlistment Bill has not received the attention
+which it deserves. It may perhaps be worth while to mention, as
+affording some explanation of this neglect, the fact that the memorandum
+prefixed to the Bill vaguely describes its main object as being to bring
+our law into conformity with "The Hague Conventions" at large. An
+ordinary member of Parliament would surely be grateful to be referred
+specifically to Convention No. xiii., Arts. 8, 17, and 25. He might well
+shrink from the labour of exploring the hundreds of articles contained
+in "The Hague Conventions" in order to ascertain which of the articles
+suggest some modification of the English statute.
+
+I would also venture to suggest that, in Article 1 (1) (b) of the Bill
+the words "or allows to depart," carried over from the old Act, should
+be omitted, as of doubtful interpretation. Would it not also be
+desirable to take this opportunity of severing the enlistment articles
+of the overgrown principal Act from those forbidding the despatch of
+ships fitted for hostilities and restricting the hospitality which may
+be extended to belligerent war ships?
+
+Upon quite a different subject, I should like to answer the question
+propounded in your article, as to the weight now to be given to the
+Declaration of London, by saying that no weight should be given to it,
+except as between Powers who may have ratified it or may have agreed to
+be temporarily bound by its provisions. One has of late been surprised
+to read of vessels carrying contraband being allowed to continue their
+voyage after surrendering the contraband goods, in accordance with a new
+rule suggested by the Declaration, whereas, under still existing
+international law, the duty of a captor is to bring in the vessel
+together with her cargo, in order that the rightfulness of the seizure
+may be investigated by a Prize Court.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, November 23 (1912).
+
+
+    The Bill of 1912 "to amend the Foreign Enlistment Act, 1870,"
+    passed the House of Lords with little comment, but was
+    withdrawn, after much adverse criticism, in the House of
+    Commons on February 12, 1913.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER V
+
+THE COMMENCEMENT OF WAR
+
+
+SECTION 1
+
+_Declaration of War_
+
+    The following letter bears upon the question, much discussed in
+    recent years, of the lawfulness of hostilities commenced
+    without anything amounting to a declaration of war. Although
+    several modern wars, e.g. the Franco-Prussian of 1870, and
+    the Russo-Turkish of 1877, were preceded by declaration, it was
+    hardly possible, in view of the practice of the last two
+    centuries, to maintain, that this was required by international
+    law, and it has never been alleged that any definite interval
+    need intervene between a declaration and the first act of
+    hostilities. On the destruction of the _Kowshing_, the present
+    writer may further refer to his _Studies in International Law_,
+    1898, p. 126, and to Professor Takahashi's _International Law
+    during the Chino-Japanese War_, 1899, pp. 24, 192. But see now
+    the note at the end of the "Letter" which follows.
+
+
+THE SINKING OF THE _KOWSHING_
+
+Sir,--The words of soberness and truth were spoken with reference to the
+sinking of the _Kowshing_ in the letter from Professor Westlake which
+you printed on Friday last. Ignorance dies hard, or, after the
+appearance of that letter and of your remarks upon it, one might have
+expected that leading articles would be less lavishly garnished with
+such phrases as "act of piracy," "war without declaration," "insult to
+the British flag," "condign punishment of the Japanese commander." But
+these flowers of speech continue to blossom; and, now that the facts of
+the case seem to be established beyond reasonable doubt by the telegrams
+of this morning, I should be glad to be allowed to state shortly what I
+believe will be the verdict of international law upon what has occurred.
+
+If the visiting, and eventual sinking, of the _Kowshing_ occurred in
+time of peace, or in time of war before she had notice that war had
+broken out, a gross outrage has taken place. But the facts are
+otherwise.
+
+In the first place, a state of war existed. It is trite knowledge, and
+has been over and over affirmed by Courts, both English and American,
+that a war may legally commence with a hostile act on one side, not
+preceded by declaration. How frequently this has occurred in practice
+may be seen from a glance at an historical statement prepared for the
+War Office by Colonel Maurice _a propos_ of the objections to a Channel
+tunnel. Whether or no hostilities had previously occurred upon the
+mainland, I hold that the acts of the Japanese commander in boarding the
+_Kowshing_ and threatening her with violence in case of disobedience to
+his orders were acts of war.
+
+In the second place, the _Kowshing_ had notice of the existence of a
+war, at any rate from the moment when she received the orders of the
+Japanese commander.
+
+The _Kowshing_, therefore, before the first torpedo was fired, was, and
+knew that she was, a neutral ship engaged in the transport service of a
+belligerent. (Her flying the British flag, whether as a _ruse de guerre_
+or otherwise, is wholly immaterial.) Her liabilities, as such ship, were
+twofold:--
+
+1. Regarded as an isolated vessel, she was liable to be stopped,
+visited, and taken in for adjudication by a Japanese Prize Court. If, as
+was the fact, it was practically impossible for a Japanese prize crew to
+be placed on board of her, the Japanese commander was within his rights,
+in using any amount of force necessary to compel her to obey his orders.
+
+2. As one of a fleet of transports and men-of-war engaged in carrying
+reinforcements to the Chinese troops on the mainland, the _Kowshing_ was
+clearly part of a hostile expedition, or one which might be treated as
+hostile, which the Japanese were entitled, by the use of all needful
+force, to prevent from reaching its destination.
+
+The force employed seems not to have been in excess of what might
+lawfully be used, either for the arrest of an enemy's neutral transport
+or for barring the progress of a hostile expedition. The rescued
+officers also having been set at liberty in due course, I am unable to
+see that any violation of the rights of neutrals has occurred. No
+apology is due to our Government, nor have the owners of the _Kowshing_,
+or the relatives of any of her European officers who may have been lost,
+any claim for compensation. I have said nothing about the violation by
+the Japanese of the usages of civilised warfare (not of the Geneva
+Convention, which has no bearing upon the question), which would be
+involved by their having fired upon the Chinese troops in the water; not
+only because the evidence upon this point is as yet insufficient, but
+also because the grievance, if established, would affect only the rights
+of the Belligerents _inter se_; not the rights of neutrals, with which
+alone this letter is concerned. I have also confined my observations to
+the legal aspects of the question, leaving to others to test the conduct
+of the Japanese commander by the rules of chivalrous dealing or of
+humanity.
+
+Your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Athenaeum Club, August 6 (1894)
+
+
+    The controversy caused by the sinking of the _Kowshing_ in 1894
+    was revived by the manner of the Japanese attack upon Port
+    Arthur, in 1904 (see Professor Takahashi's _International Law
+    applied to the Russo-Japanese War_, 1908, p. 1), and led to a
+    careful study of the subject by a committee of the Institut de
+    Droit International, resulting in the adoption by the Institut,
+    at its Ghent Meeting in 1906, of the following resolutions:--
+
+    (1) "It is in conformity with the requirements of International
+    law, to the loyalty which the nations owe to one another in
+    their, mutual relations, as well as to the general interests of
+    all States, that hostilities ought not to commence without
+    previous and unequivocal warning.
+
+    (2) "This warning may be given either in the shape of a
+    declaration of war pure and simple, or in the shape of an
+    ultimatum duly notified to the adversary by the State which
+    wishes to begin the war.
+
+    (3) "Hostilities must not commence until after the expiration
+    of a delay which would suffice to prevent the rule as to a
+    previous and unequivocal warning from being thought to be
+    evaded." See the _Annuaire de l'Institut_, t, xxi. p. 292.
+
+    In accordance with the principles underlying the first and
+    second of these resolutions, The Hague Convention, No. iii. of
+    1907 (ratified generally by Great Britain on November 27,
+    1909), has now laid down as a principle of International Law,
+    binding upon the contracting Powers, that--
+
+    (1) "Hostilities between them ought not to commence without a
+    warning previously given and unequivocal, in the form either of
+    a reasoned declaration of war, or of an ultimatum, with a
+    conditional declaration of war."
+
+    And the Convention goes on to provide that--
+
+    (2) "The state of war ought to be notified without delay to
+    neutral Powers, and shall be of no effect with reference to
+    them, until after a notification, which may be made even
+    telegraphically. Nevertheless, neutral Powers may not plead
+    absence of notification, if it has been shown beyond question
+    that they were in fact cognisant of the state of war." Any
+    reference to the need of an interval between declaration and
+    the first act of hostility (such as is contained in the third
+    of the resolutions of the Institut) was deliberately omitted
+    from the Convention, although a declaration immediately
+    followed by an attack would obviously be of little service to
+    the party attacked. (See the present writer's _Laws of War on
+    Land (written and unwritten)_, 1908, P. 18.)
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+SECTION 2
+
+_The Immediate Effects of the Outbreak of War_
+
+_Enemy Residents_
+
+    Before any actual hostilities have taken place, each
+    belligerent acquires, _ipso facto_, certain new rights over
+    persons and property belonging to the other, which happen to be
+    at the time within its power, e.g. the right, much softened
+    in modern practice, and specifically dealt with in The Hague
+    Convention, No. vi. of 1907, of capturing enemy merchant
+    vessels so situated.
+
+    The following letter deals with the permissible treatment of
+    enemy persons so situated; and was suggested by a question
+    asked in the House of Commons on February 25, 1909, by Mr.
+    Arnold-Forster: viz. "What would be the _status_ of officers
+    and men of the regular Army of a hostile belligerent Power,
+    found within the limits of the United Kingdom after an act or
+    declaration of war; and would such persons be liable to be
+    treated as prisoners of war, or would they be despatched under
+    the protection of the Government to join the forces of the
+    enemy?" The general effect of the Attorney-General's reply may
+    be gathered from the quotations from it made in the letter.
+
+    The topic was again touched upon on March 3, in a question put
+    by Captain Faber, to which Mr. Haldane replied.
+
+
+FOREIGN SOLDIERS IN ENGLAND
+
+Sir,--The question raised last night by Mr. Arnold-Forster is one which
+calls for more careful consideration than it appears yet to have
+received. International law has in modern times spoken with no very
+certain voice as to the permissible treatment of alien enemies found
+within the territory of a belligerent at the outbreak of war.
+
+There is, however, little doubt that such persons, although now more
+usually allowed to remain, during good behaviour, may be expelled, and,
+if necessary, wholesale, as were Germans from France in 1870. But may
+such persons be, for good reasons, arrested, or otherwise prevented from
+leaving the country, as Germans were prevented from leaving France in
+the earlier days of the Franco-Prussian War? Grotius speaks with
+approval of such a step being taken, "ad minuendas hostium vires."
+Bynkershoek, more than a century later, recognises the right of thus
+acting, "though it is rarely exercised." So the Supreme Court of the
+United States in _Brown v. United States_ (1814). So Chancellor Kent
+(1826), and Mr. Manning (1889) is explicit that the arrest in question
+is lawful, and that "the individuals are prisoners of war."
+
+Vattel, is it true (1758), ventures to lay down that--
+
+      "Le Souverain qui declare la guerre ne peut retenir les
+      sujets de ennemi qui se trouvent dans ses etats au moment de
+      la declaration ... en leur permettant d'entrer dans ses
+      terres et d'y sejourner, il leur a promis tacitement toute
+      liberte et toute surete pour le retour."
+
+And he has been followed by some recent writers. There is, however, I
+venture to hold, no ground for asserting that this indulgent system is
+imposed by international law. I am glad, therefore, to find the
+Attorney-General laying down that--
+
+      "for strictly military reasons, any nation is entitled to
+      detain and to intern soldiers found upon the territory at the
+      outbreak of war."
+
+And I should be surprised if, under all circumstances, as the learned
+Attorney-General seems to think probable--
+
+      "England would follow, whatever the strict law may be, the
+      humane and chivalrous practice of modern times, and would
+      give to any subjects of a hostile Power who might be found
+      here engaging in civilian pursuits a reasonable time within
+      which to leave for their own country, even although they were
+      under the obligation of entering for service under the
+      enemy's flag."
+
+The doctrine of Vattel has, in fact, become less plausible than it was
+before universal liability to military service had become the rule in
+most Continental countries. The peaceably engaged foreign resident is
+now in all probability a trained soldier, and liable to be recalled to
+the flag of a possible enemy.
+
+There may, of course, be considerable practical difficulties in the way
+of ascertaining the nationality of any given foreigner, and whether he
+has completed, or evaded, the military training required by the laws of
+his country. It may also be a question of high policy whether resident
+enemies would not be a greater danger to this country if they were
+compelled to remain here, than if they were allowed, or compelled, to
+depart, possibly to return as invaders.
+
+I am only concerned to maintain that, as far as international law is
+concerned, England has a free hand either to expel resident enemies or
+to prevent them from leaving the country, as may seem most conducive to
+her own safety.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, February 25 (1909).
+
+
+_Civil Disabilities of Alien Enemies_
+
+THE NAVAL PRIZE BILL
+
+CIVIL DISABILITIES OF ENEMY SUBJECTS
+
+Sir,--The Naval Prize Bill has sins enough of its own to answer for. The
+question dealt with under that heading in Mr. Arthur Cohen's letter of
+this morning has, however, nothing to do with naval matters, but arises
+under The Hague Convention of 1907 as to warfare on land, which was
+ratified by our Government two years ago; unfortunately without any
+reserve as to the extraordinary provision contained in Art. 28 (_h_) of
+that Convention.
+
+I lose not a moment in asking to be allowed to state that my view of the
+question is, and always has been, the reverse of that attributed to me
+by my friend Mr. Cohen. No less than three views are entertained as to
+the meaning of Art. 28 (_h_). (1) Continental writers, e.g., MM.
+Fauchille, Kohler, and Ullmann, with the German Whitebook, assert, in
+the most unqualified manner, that Great Britain and the United States
+have under this clause abandoned their long-established doctrine as to
+the suspension of the private rights and remedies of enemy subjects; (2)
+Our own Government, in a non-confidential reply to an inquiry from
+Professor Oppenheim, asserts categorically, as does General Davis in the
+United States, that the clause relates only to the action of a commander
+in a territory of which he is in occupation; while (3) most English and
+American writers look upon the meaning of the clause as doubtful. If Mr.
+Cohen will look at p. 44 of my _Laws of War on Land_, 1909, he will find
+that I carry this sceptical attitude so far as to include the clause in
+question in brackets as "apocryphal," with the comment that "it can
+hardly, till its policy has been seriously discussed, be treated as a
+rule of international law." I have accordingly maintained, in
+correspondence with my Continental colleagues, that the clause should be
+treated as "non avenue," as "un non sens," on the ground that, while,
+torn from their context, its words would seem ("ont faux air") to bear
+the Continental interpretation, its position as part of a "Reglement,"
+in conformity with which the Powers are to "issue instructions to their
+armed land forces," conclusively negatives this interpretation. I will
+not to-day trouble you in detail with the very curious history of the
+clause; which, as originally proposed by Germany, merely prohibited (a
+commander?) from announcing that the private claims ("reclamations") of
+enemy subjects would be unenforceable. It is astonishing that no
+objection was raised by the British or by the American delegates to the
+subsequent transformation of this innocent clause into something very
+different, first by the insertion of the words "en justice," and later
+by the substitution of "droits et actions" for "reclamations." The
+quiescence of the delegates is the more surprising, as, at the first
+meeting of the sub-committee, General de Gundel, in the plainest
+language, foreshadowed what was aimed at by the clause.
+
+Art. 23 (_h_) is, I submit, incapable of rational interpretation and
+should be so treated by the Powers. If interpreted at all, its sense
+must be taken to be that which is now, somewhat tardily, put upon it by
+our own Government.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, November 6 (1911).
+
+
+    I may perhaps refer here to my _Laws of War on Land_ (1908), p.
+    44, where I describe as "apocryphal" Art. 23 (_h_) of the Hague
+    Convention No. iv. of 1907; and to my paper upon that article
+    in the _Law Quarterly Review_ for 1912, pp. 94-98, reproduced
+    in the _Revue de Droit International_, the _Revue Generale de
+    Droit International Public_, and the _Zeitschrift fuer
+    Voelkerrecht und Bundesstaatsrecht_, for the same year.
+
+    The view there maintained was affirmed by the Court of Appeal
+    in _Porter_ v. _Freudenberg_, [1915] 1 K.B. 857, _at_ p. 874.
+
+
+_Enemy Ships in Port_
+
+ENEMY SHIPS IN PORT
+
+Sir,--The action taken by the United States in seizing German merchant
+ships lying in their ports will raise several questions of interest. It
+is, however, important at once to realise that, apart from anything
+which may be contained in old treaties with Prussia, their hands are
+entirely free in the matter. The indulgences so often granted: to such
+ships during the last 60 years, notably by themselves in the Spanish War
+of 1898, under endlessly varying conditions, have been admittedly acts
+of grace, required by no established rule of international law.
+
+The United States are also unaffected by The Hague Convention No. vi, to
+which they are not a party. It is therefore superfluous to inquire what
+construction they would have been bound to put upon the ambiguous
+language of Section 1 of the Convention, which proclaims that "when a
+merchant ship of one of the belligerent Powers is, at the commencement
+of hostilities, in an enemy port, _it is desirable_ that it should be
+allowed to depart freely," &c. It might perhaps be argued that our own
+Prize Court might well have refrained from treating this section as if
+it were obligatory, and have founded its decisions rather upon
+international law, as supplemented by a non-obligatory custom. Be this
+as it may, it would seem that the policy of the United States has to
+some extent felt the influence of Convention vi. in announcing that
+seizure will, provisionally, only amount to requisitioning.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, April 7 (1917).
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER VI
+
+THE CONDUCT OF WARFARE
+
+
+    The three following sections relate to the waters in which
+    hostile operations may take place. Section 1 probably calls for
+    no explanatory remark. With reference to Section 2, dealing
+    with certain spaces of water more or less closed to belligerent
+    action, it may be desirable to state that the letters as to the
+    Suez Canal were written to obviate some misconceptions as to
+    the purport of the Convention of October 29, 1888, and to
+    maintain that it was not, at the time of writing, operative, so
+    far as Great Britain was concerned.
+
+    This state of things was, however, altered by the Anglo-French
+    Convention of April 8, 1804, which, concerned principally with
+    the settlement of the Egyptian and Newfoundland questions,
+    provides, in Art. 6, that "In order to assure the free passage
+    of the Suez Canal, the Government of His Britannic Majesty
+    declares that it adheres to the stipulations of the Treaty
+    concluded on the 29th October 1888; and to their becoming
+    operative. The free passage of the canal being thus guaranteed,
+    the execution of the last phrase of paragraph 1, and that of
+    paragraph 2 of the 8th article of this Treaty, will remain
+    suspended."
+
+    The last phrase of paragraph 1 of Art. 8 relates to annual
+    meetings of the agents of the signatory Powers.
+
+    Paragraph 2 of this Article relates to the presidency of a
+    special commissioner of the Ottoman Government over those
+    meetings.
+
+    On the whole question see _Parl. Papers, Egypt_, No. 1 (1888),
+    _Commercial_, No. 2 (1889), and the present writer's _Studies
+    in International Law_, pp. 275-293. Note must, of course, now
+    be taken of the constitutional changes resulting from the war
+    of 1914.
+
+    The provisions of the Treaty of 1888, with reference to the
+    free navigation of the Suez Canal, have, of course, acquired a
+    new importance from their adoption into the Hay-Pauncefote
+    Treaty of November 18, 1901, as to the Panama Canal, and from
+    the divergent views taken of their interpretation, as so
+    adopted.
+
+
+SECTION 1
+
+_On the Open Sea_
+
+
+"THE FREEDOM OF THE SEAS"?
+
+Sir,--Your remarks upon "the wide and ambiguous suggestions" contained
+in the Pope's Peace Note are especially apposite to his desire for "the
+freedom of the seas." It is regrettable that his Holiness does not
+explain the meaning which he attaches to this phrase, in itself
+unmeaning, so dear to the Germans. He is doubtless well aware that the
+sea is already free enough, except to pirates, in time of peace, and
+must be presumed to refer to time of war, and specifically to propose
+the prohibition of any such interference with neutral shipping as is now
+legalised by the rules relating to visit and search, contraband and
+blockade.
+
+If this be indeed the Pope's meaning, his aspirations are now less
+likely than ever to be realised. It is curious to reflect that the
+proposal actually made by our own Government at The Hague Conference of
+1907, apparently under the impression that Great Britain would be always
+neutral, for protecting the carriage of contraband was most fortunately
+defeated by the opposition of the other great naval Powers, of which
+Germany was one.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, August 16 (1917).
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+SECTION 2
+
+_In Other Waters_
+
+
+THE SUEZ CANAL
+
+Sir,--Your correspondent "M.B." has done good service by calling
+attention to the misleading nature of the often-repeated statement that
+the Suez Canal has been "neutralised" by the Convention of 1888. Perhaps
+you will allow me more explicitly to show why, and how far, this
+statement is misleading.
+
+In the first place, this Convention is inoperative. It is so in
+consequence of the following reservation made by Lord Salisbury in the
+course of the negotiations which resulted in the signature of the
+Convention:--
+
+      "Les Delegues de la Grande-Bretagne ... pensent qu'il est de
+      leur devoir de formuler une reserve generale quant a
+      l'application de ces dispositions en tant qu'elles ne
+      seraient pas compatibles avec l'etat transitoire et
+      exceptionnel ou se trouve actuellement l'Egypte, et qu'elles
+      pourraient entraver la liberte d'action de leur Gouvernement
+      pendant la periode de l'occupation de l'Egypte par les forces
+      de sa Majeste Britannique."
+
+Being thus unaffected by the treaty, the canal retains those
+characteristics which it possesses, under the common law of nations, as
+a narrow strait, wholly within the territory of one Power and connecting
+two open seas. The fact that the strait is artificial may, I think, be
+dismissed from consideration, for reasons stated by me in the
+_Fortnightly Review_ for July, 1883. The characteristics of such a
+strait are unfortunately by no means well ascertained, but may perhaps
+be summarised as follows. In time of peace, the territorial Power is
+bound by modern usage to allow "innocent passage," under reasonable
+conditions as to tolls and the like, not only to the merchant vessels,
+but also, probably, to the ships of war, of all nations. In time of war,
+the territorial Power, if belligerent, may of course carry on, and is
+exposed to, hostilities in the strait as elsewhere, and the entrances to
+the strait are liable to a blockade. Should the territorial Power be
+neutral, the strait would be closed to hostilities, though it would
+probably be open to the "innocent passage" of belligerent ships of war.
+
+It may be worth while to enquire how far this state of things would be
+affected by the Convention of 1888, were it to come into operation. The
+_status_ of the canal in time of peace would be substantially untouched,
+save by the prohibition to the territorial Power to fortify its banks.
+Even with reference to time of war, several of the articles of the
+Convention merely reaffirm well-understood rules applicable to all
+neutral waters--e.g. that no hostilities may take place therein. The
+innovations proposed by the Convention are mainly contained, as "M.B."
+points out, in the first article, which deals with the position of the
+canal when the territorial Power is belligerent. In such a case, subject
+to certain exceptions, with a view to the defence of the country, the
+ships of that Power are neither to attack nor to be attacked in the
+canal, or within three miles of its ports of access, nor are the
+entrances of the canal to be blockaded. This is "neutralisation" only in
+a limited and vague sense of the term, the employment of which was
+indeed carefully avoided not only in the Convention itself but also in
+the diplomatic discussions which preceded it.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Brighton, October 4 (1898).
+
+
+THE SUEZ CANAL
+
+Sir,--Your correspondent "M.B.," if he will allow me to say so, supports
+this morning a good case by a bad argument, which ought hardly to pass
+without remark.
+
+It is impossible to accept his suggestion that the article which he
+quotes from the Treaty of Paris can be taken as containing "an
+international official definition of neutralisation as applied to
+waters." The article in question, after declaring the Black Sea to be
+"neutralisee," no doubt goes on to explain the sense in which this
+phrase is to be understood, by laying down that the waters and ports of
+that sea are perpetually closed to the ships of war of all nations. It
+is, however, well known that such a state of things as is described in
+the latter part of the article is so far from being involved in the
+definition of "neutralisation" as not even to be an ordinary
+accompaniment of that process. Belgium is unquestionably "neutralised,"
+but no one supposes that the appearance in its waters and ports of ships
+of war is therefore prohibited. The fact is that the term "neutralisee"
+was employed in the Treaty of Paris as a euphemism, intended to make
+less unpalatable to Russia a restriction upon her sovereign rights which
+she took the earliest opportunity of repudiating.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Brighton, October 6 (1898).
+
+
+THE SUEZ CANAL
+
+Sir,--Will you allow me to reply in the fewest possible words to the
+questions very courteously addressed to me by Mr. Gibson Bowles in his
+letter which appeared in _The Times_ of yesterday?
+
+1. It is certainly my opinion, for what it is worth, that the full
+operation of the Convention of 1888 is suspended by the reserves first
+made on behalf of this country during the sittings of the Conference of
+1885. These reserves were texually repeated by Lord Salisbury in his
+despatch of October 21, 1887, enclosing the draft convention which,
+three days later, was signed at Paris by the representatives of France
+and Great Britain, the two Powers which, with the assent of the rest,
+had been carrying on the resumed negotiations with reference to the
+canal. Lord Salisbury's language was also carefully brought to the
+notice of each of the other Powers concerned; in the course of the
+somewhat protracted discussions which preceded the final signature of
+the same convention at Constantinople on October 29, 1888.
+
+2. All the signatories of the convention having thus become parties to
+it after express notice of "the conditions under which her Majesty's
+Government have expressed their willingness to agree to it," must, it
+can hardly be doubted, share the view that the convention is operative
+only _sub modo_.
+
+3. Supposing the convention to have become operative, and supposing the
+territorial Power to be neutral in a war between States which we may
+call A and B, the convention would certainly entitle A to claim
+unmolested passage for its ships of war on their way to attack the
+forces of B in the Eastern seas.
+
+4. The language of the convention, being as it, is the expression of a
+compromise involving much re-drafting, is by no means always as clear as
+it might be. But when Mr. Gibson Bowles is again within reach of
+Blue-books he will probably agree with me that the treaty need not, as
+he suggests, be "read as obliging the territorial Power, even when
+itself a belligerent, to allow its enemy to use the canal freely for the
+passage of that enemy's men-of-war." The wide language of Art. 1 (which
+is substantially in accordance with Mr. Gibson Bowles's reminiscence of
+it) must be read in connection with Art. 10, and without forgetting
+that, in discussing the effect of an attack upon the canal by one of the
+parties to the convention, Lord Salisbury wrote in 1887, "on the whole
+it appears to be the sounder view that, in such a case, the treaty,
+being broken by one of its signatories, would lose its force in all
+respects."
+
+Your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, October 9 (1898).
+
+
+THE CLOSING OF THE DARDANELLES
+
+Sir,--Now that the pressure upon your space due to the clash of opposing
+views of domestic politics is likely to be for the moment relaxed, you
+may, perhaps, not think it inopportune that attention should be recalled
+to a question of permanent international interest raised by the recent
+action of the Turkish Government in closing the Dardanelles to even
+commercial traffic.
+
+I cordially agree, as would, I suppose, most people, with your leading
+article of some weeks since in deprecating any crude application to the
+case of the Dardanelles and Bosporus of _dicta_ with reference to
+freedom of passage through straits connecting two open seas. It would,
+indeed, be straining what may be taken to be a general principle of
+international law to say that Turkey is by it prohibited from protecting
+her threatened capital by temporarily closing the Straits.
+
+A good deal of vague reference has, however, been made in the
+discussions which have taken place upon the subject to "Treaties" under
+which it seems to be thought that trading ships enjoy, in all
+circumstances, rights of free navigation through the Straits in question
+which they would not have possessed otherwise. I should like, therefore,
+with your permission, to state what seem to be the relevant Treaty
+provisions upon the subject, whether between the Powers constituting the
+European Concert collectively, or between Russia and Turkey as
+individual Powers.
+
+As to what may be described as the "European" Treaties, it is necessary,
+once for all, to put aside as irrelevant Art. 10 of the Treaty of Paris
+of 1856 and its annexed Convention; Art. 2 of the Treaty of London of
+1871; and the confirmatory Art. 63 of the Treaty of Berlin of 1878.
+These articles have exclusive reference to the "ancient rule of the
+Ottoman Empire," under which, so long as the Porte is at peace, no
+foreign ships of war are to be admitted into the Straits. There are,
+however, two articles, still in force, of these "European" Treaties
+which may seem to bear upon the present inquiry. By Art. 12 of the
+Treaty of Paris:--
+
+      "Free from any impediment, the commerce in the ports and
+      waters of the Black Sea shall be subject only to regulations
+      of health, Customs, and police, framed in a spirit favourable
+      to the development of commercial transactions."
+
+And by Art. 3 of the Treaty of London:--
+
+      "The Black Sea remains open, as heretofore, to the mercantile
+      marine of all nations."
+
+It is submitted that these provisions relate solely to commerce carried
+on by vessels already within the Black Sea, and contain no covenant for
+an unrestricted right of access to that sea.
+
+As between Russia and Turkey individually, Treaties which are still in
+force purport, no doubt, to give to the former a stronger claim to free
+passage through the Straits for her mercantile marine than that which
+can be supposed to be enjoyed by other Powers. By Art. 7, for instance,
+of the Treaty of Adrianople of 1829, the Porte recognises and declares
+the passage of the "Canal de Constantinople," and of the Strait of the
+Dardanelles, to be entirely free and open to Russian merchant vessels;
+and goes on to extend the same privilege to the merchant vessels of all
+Powers at peace with Turkey. Art. 24 of the Treaty of San Stefano is
+still more explicit, providing that "the Bosporus and Dardanelles shall
+remain open in time of war as in time of peace to the merchant vessels
+of neutral States arriving from or bound to Russian ports." The rest of
+the article contains a promise by the Porte never henceforth to
+establish a "fictitious blockade, at variance with the spirit of the
+Declaration of Paris"; meaning thereby such a blockade of ports on the
+Black Sea as had been enforced by Turkish ships of war stationed at the
+entrance to the Bosporus.
+
+It may well be doubted whether these articles, containing concessions
+extorted from Turkey at the end of wars in which she had been defeated,
+ought not, like so many other provisions of the Treaty of San Stefano,
+to have been abrogated by the Treaty of Berlin. They are of such a
+character that, in the struggle for existence, Turkey can hardly be
+blamed for disregarding them. As was said long ago, "Ius commerciorum
+aequum est, at hoc acquius, tuendae salutis." The imperious necessities
+of self-preservation were recognised both by Lord Morley and by Lord
+Lansdowne in the debate which took place on May 3, although Lord
+Lansdowne intimated that
+
+      "the real question, which will have to be considered sooner
+      or later, is the extent to which a belligerent Power,
+      controlling narrow waters which form a great trade avenue for
+      the commerce of the world, is justified in entirely closing
+      such an avenue in order to facilitate the hostile operations
+      in which the Power finds itself involved."
+
+It is, I think, clear that the solution of a question at once so novel
+and so delicate must be undertaken, not by any one Power, but by the
+Concert of Europe, or of the civilised world, which must devise some
+guarantee for the safety of any littoral Power which would be called
+upon in the general interest to restrict its measures of self-defence.
+In the meantime, we may surely say that the case is provided for neither
+by established international law nor by "European" Treaties; and,
+further, that the Treaties between Russia and Turkey, which do provide
+for it, are not such as it is desirable to perpetuate.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, May 22 (1912).
+
+
+THE CLOSING OF THE DARDANELLES
+
+Sir,--I am reminded by Mr. Lucien Wolf's courteous letter that I ought
+probably to have mentioned, in alluding to the Treaty of San Stefano,
+that it is doubtful whether Art. 24 of that Treaty is in force. It was
+certainly left untouched by the Treaty of Berlin, but the language of
+the relevant article (3) of the definitive Treaty of Peace of 1879 is
+somewhat obscure, nor is much light to be gained upon the point from the
+protocol of the 14th _seance_ of the Congress of Berlin, at which Art.
+24 came up for discussion.
+
+The earlier Treaties, however, which were revived beyond question by
+Art. 10 of the Treaty of 1879, grant to Russian merchant vessels full
+rights of passage between the Black Sea and the AEgean, exercisable, for
+all that appears, in time of war as well as of peace, although these
+Treaties contain no express words to that effect. Such rights, I would
+again urge, if enjoyed by one Power, should be enjoyed by all; upon
+terms to be settled, not by any pair of Powers but by the Powers
+collectively.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, June 5 (1912).
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+SECTION 3
+
+_In a Special Danger Zone?_
+
+
+THE GERMAN THREAT
+
+Sir,--It may perhaps be desirable, for the benefit of the general
+reader, to distinguish clearly between the two topics dealt with in the
+recent announcement of German naval policy.
+
+1. We find in it what may, at first sight, suggest the establishment of
+a gigantic "paper blockade," such as was proclaimed in the Berlin Decree
+of 1806, stating that "Les iles Britanniques sont declarees en etat de
+blocus." But in the new decree the term "blockade" does not occur, nor
+is there any indication of an intention to comply with the prescriptions
+of the Declaration of Paris of 1856 as to the mode in which such an
+operation must be conducted. What we really find in the announcement is
+the specification of certain large spaces of water, including the whole
+of the British Channel, within which German ships will endeavour to
+perpetrate the atrocities about to be mentioned.
+
+2. These promised, and already perpetrated, atrocities consist in the
+destruction of merchant shipping without any of those decent preliminary
+steps, for the protection of human life and neutral property, which are
+insisted on by long established rules of international law. Under these
+rules, the exercise of violence against a merchant vessel is
+permissible, in the first instance, only in case of her attempting by
+resistance or flight to frustrate the right of visit which belongs to
+every belligerent cruiser. Should she obey the cruiser's summons to
+stop, and allow its officers to come on board, they will satisfy
+themselves, by examination of her papers, and, if necessary, by further
+search, of the nationality of ship and cargo, of the destination of
+each, and of the character of the latter. They will then decide whether
+or no they should make prize of the ship, and in some cases may feel
+justified in sending a prize to the bottom, instead of taking her into
+port. Before doing so it is their bounden duty to preserve the ship
+papers, and, what is far more important, to provide for the safety of
+all on board.
+
+This procedure seems to have been followed, more or less, by the
+submarines which sank the _Durward_ in the North Sea, and several small
+vessels near the Mersey, but is obviously possible to such craft only
+under very exceptional circumstances. It was scandalously not followed
+in the cases of the _Tokomaru_, the _Ikaria_, and the hospital ship (!)
+_Asturias_, against which a submarine fired torpedoes, off Havre,
+without warning or inquiry, and, of course, regardless of the fate of
+those on board. The threat that similar methods of attack will be
+systematically employed, on a large scale, on and after the 18th inst.,
+naturally excites as much indignation among neutrals as among the Allies
+of the Entente.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, February 12 (1915).
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+SECTION 4
+
+_Aerial Warfare_
+
+    It may be desirable to supplement what is said in the following
+    letters by mentioning that the Declaration of 1899 (to remain
+    in force for five years) was largely ratified, though not by
+    Great Britain; that of 1907 (to remain in force till the
+    termination of the third Peace Conference) was ratified by
+    Great Britain and by most of the other great Powers in 1909,
+    not, however, by Germany or Austria; that aerial navigation is
+    regulated by the Acts, I & 2 Geo. 5, c. 4, and 2 & 3 Geo. 5, c.
+    22; and that an agreement upon the subject was entered into
+    between France and Germany, on July 26, 1913, by exchange of
+    notes, "en attendant la conclusion d'une convention sur cette
+    matiere entre un plus grand nombre d'etats" (the international
+    Conference held at Paris in 1910 had failed to agree upon the
+    terms of such a Convention); and that Art. 25 of The Hague
+    Convention of 1907, No. iv., was ratified by Great Britain, and
+    generally.
+
+
+THE DEBATE ON AERONAUTICS
+
+Sir,--It is not to be wondered at that the Chairman of Committees
+declined to allow yesterday's debate on aviation to diverge into an
+enquiry whether the Powers could be induced to prohibit, or limit, the
+dropping of high explosives from aerial machines in war time. The
+question is, however, one of great interest, and it may be desirable,
+with a view to future discussions, to state precisely, since little
+seems to be generally known upon the subject, what has already been
+attempted in this direction.
+
+In the _Reglement_ annexed to The Hague Convention of 1899, as to the
+"Laws and Customs of War on Land," Art. 23, which specifically prohibits
+certain "means of injuring the enemy," makes no mention of aerial
+methods; but Art. 25, which prohibits "the bombardment of towns,
+villages, habitations, or buildings, which are not defended," was
+strengthened, when the _Reglement_ was reissued in 1907 as an annexe to
+the, as yet not generally ratified, Hague Convention No. iv. of that
+year, by the insertion, after the word "bombardment," of the words "by
+any means whatever," with the expressed intention of including in the
+prohibition the throwing of projectiles from balloons.
+
+The Hague Convention No. ix. of 1907, also not yet generally ratified,
+purports to close a long controversy, in accordance with the view which
+you allowed me to advocate, with reference to the naval manoeuvres of
+1888, by prohibiting the "naval bombardment of ports, towns, villages,
+habitations, or buildings, which are not defended." The words "by any
+means whatever" have not been here inserted, one would incline to think
+by inadvertence, having regard to what passed in Committee, and to the
+recital of the Convention, which sets out the propriety of extending to
+naval bombardments the principles of the _Reglement_ (cited, perhaps
+again by inadvertence, as that of 1899) as to the Laws and Customs of
+War on Land.
+
+But the topic was first squarely dealt with by the first of the three
+Hague Declarations of 1899, by which the Powers agreed to prohibit, for
+five years, "the throwing of projectiles and explosives from balloons,
+or by other analogous new methods." The Declaration was signed and
+ratified by almost all the Powers concerned; not, however, by Great
+Britain.
+
+At The Hague Conference of 1907, when the Belgian delegates proposed
+that this Declaration, which had expired by efflux of time, should be
+renewed, some curious changes of opinion were found to have occurred.
+Twenty-nine Powers, of which Great Britain was one, voted for renewal,
+but eight Powers, including Germany, Spain, France, and Russia, were
+opposed to it, while seven Powers, one of which was Japan, abstained
+from voting. The Japanese delegation had previously intimated that, "in
+view of the absence of unanimity on the part of the great military
+Powers, there seemed to be no great use in binding their country as
+against certain Powers, while, as against the rest, it would still be
+necessary to study and bring to perfection this mode of making war."
+Although the Declaration, as renewed, was allowed to figure in the "Acte
+final" of the Conference of 1907, the dissent from it of several Powers
+of the first importance must render its ratification by the others
+highly improbable; nor would it seem worth while to renew, for some time
+to come, a proposal which, only two years ago, was so ill received.
+
+I may perhaps add, with reference to what was said by one of yesterday's
+speakers, that any provision on the topic under discussion would be
+quite out of place in the Geneva Convention, which deals, not with
+permissible means of inflicting injury, but exclusively with the
+treatment of those who are suffering from injuries inflicted.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, August 3 (1909).
+
+
+THE AERIAL NAVIGATION ACT
+
+PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES
+
+Sir,--The haste with which Colonel Seely's Bill, authorising resort to
+extreme measures for the prevention of aerial trespass under suspicious
+circumstances, has been passed through all its stages, was amply
+justified by the urgent need for such legislation, which Russia seems to
+have been the first to recognise. The task of those responsible for
+framing regulations for the working of the new Act will be no easy one.
+They will be brought face to face with practical difficulties, such as
+led to the adjournment of the Paris Conference of 1910.
+
+In the meantime, it may interest your readers to have some clue to what
+has taken place, with reference to the more theoretical aspects of the
+questions involved, in so competent and representative a body as the
+Institut de Droit International. The Institut has had the topic under
+consideration ever since 1900, more especially at its sessions for the
+years 1902, 1906, 1910, and 1911. In the volumes of its "Annuaire" for
+those years will be found not only the text of the resolutions adopted
+on each occasion, together with a summary account of the debates which
+preceded their adoption, but also, fully set out, the material which had
+been previously circulated for the information of members, in the shape
+of reports and counter-reports from inter-sessional committees, draft
+resolutions, and such critical observations upon these documents as had
+been received by the secretary. The special committee upon the subject,
+of which M. Fauchille is _Rapporteur_, is still sitting, and the topic
+will doubtless be further debated at the session of the Institut, which
+will this year be held at Oxford. No success has attended efforts to
+pass resolutions in favour of any interference with the employment of
+_aeronefs_ in time of war, such as was proposed by The (now discredited)
+Hague Declaration, prohibiting the throwing of projectiles and
+explosives from airships. With reference to the use of these machines in
+time of peace, the debates have all along revealed a fundamental
+divergence of opinion between the majority of the Institut and a
+minority, comprising those English members who have made known their
+views. Both parties are agreed that aerial navigation must submit to
+some restrictions, but the majority, starting from the Roman law dictum,
+"Naturali iure omnium communia sunt _aer_, aqua profluens, et mare,"
+would always presume in favour of freedom of passage. The minority, on
+the other hand, citing sometimes the old English saying, "Cuius est
+solum eius est usque ad coelum," hold that the presumption must be in
+favour of sovereignty and ownership as applicable to superimposed air
+space.
+
+It is hardly necessary to observe that neither of the maxims just
+mentioned was formulated with reference to problems which have only
+presented themselves within the last few years. The Romans, in the
+passage quoted, were thinking not of aerial space, but of the element
+which fills it. The old English lawyers were preoccupied with questions
+as to projecting roofs and overhanging boughs of trees. The problems now
+raised are admittedly incapable of solution _a priori_, but the
+difference between the two schools of thinkers is instructive, as
+bearing upon the extent to which those who belong to one or the other
+school would incline towards measures of precaution against abuses of
+the novel art. This difference was well summed up at one of our meetings
+by Professor Westlake as follows: "Conservation et passage, comment
+combiner ces deux droits? Lequel des deux est la regle? Lequel
+l'exception? Pour le Rapporteur (M. Fauchille) c'est le droit de passage
+qui prime. Pour moi c'est le droit de conservation."
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, February 15 (1913).
+
+
+SOVEREIGNTY OVER THE AIR
+
+Sir,--Mr. Arthur Cohen has done good service by explaining that Great
+Britain has practically asserted the right of a State to absolute
+control of the airspace vertically above its territory. I may, however,
+perhaps be permitted to remark that he seems to have been misinformed
+when he states that the Institute of International Law has arrived at no
+decision upon the subject. The facts are as follows: The problems
+presented by the new art of aerostation have been under the
+consideration of the Institute since 1900, producing a large literature
+of reports, counter-reports, observations, and draft rules, to debates
+upon which no fewer than four sittings were devoted at the Madrid
+meeting in 1911. Wide differences of opinion then disclosed themselves
+as to territorial rights over the air, the radical opposition being
+between those members who, with M. Fauchille, the Reporter of the
+Committee, would presume in favour of freedom of aerial navigation,
+subject, as they would admit, to some measures of territorial
+precaution, and those who, like the present writer ("il se proclame
+oppose au principe de la liberte de la navigation aerienne, et s'en
+tiendrait[A] plutot au principe _cuius est solum, huius est usque ad
+coelum_, en y apportant au besoin quelques restrictions," "Annuaire," p.
+821), would subject all aerial access to the discretion of the
+territorial Power.
+
+The discussion took place upon certain _bases_, and No. 3 of these was
+ultimately adopted, though only by 21 against 10 votes, to the following
+effect: "La circulation aerienne internationale est libre, sauf le droit
+pour les etats sous-jacents de prendre certaines mesures a determiner,
+en vue de leur securite et de celle des personnes et des biens de leur
+territoire."
+
+The Institut then proceeded to deal with _bases_ relating to a time of
+war, but was unable to make much progress with them in the time
+available. The debate upon the "Regime juridique des aerostats" was not
+resumed at Christiania in 1911, nor is it likely to be at Oxford "in the
+autumn of the present year," as Mr. Cohen has been led to suppose. Other
+arrangements were found to be necessary, at a meeting which took place a
+week ago between myself and the other members of our _bureau_.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, May 30 (1913).
+
+
+ATTACK FROM THE AIR
+
+THE ENFORCEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
+
+Sir,--In his interesting and important address at the Royal United
+Service Institution, Colonel Jackson inquired: "Can any student of
+international law tell us definitely that such a thing as aerial attack
+on London is outside the rules; and, further, that there exists an
+authority by which the rules can be enforced?" As one of the students to
+whom the Colonel appeals I should be glad to be allowed to reply to the
+first of his questions.
+
+The "Geneva Convention" mentioned in the address has, of course, no
+bearing upon aerial dangers. The answer to the question is contained in
+the, now generally ratified, Hague Convention No. iv. of 1907. Art. 25
+of the regulations annexed to this Convention runs as follows:
+
+      "It is forbidden to attack or to bombard _by any means
+      whatever (par quelque moyen que ce soit)_ towns, villages,
+      habitations, or buildings which are not defended."
+
+It clearly appears from the "Actes de la Conference," e.g. _T._ i.,
+pp. 106, 109, that the words which I have italicised were inserted in
+the article, deliberately and after considerable discussion, in order to
+render illegal any attack from the air upon undefended localities; among
+which I conceive that London would unquestionably be included.
+
+I cannot venture to ask the hospitality of your columns for an adequate
+discussion of the gallant officer's second question, as to the binding
+force attributable to international law. Upon this I may, however,
+perhaps venture to refer him to some brief remarks, addressed to you a
+good many years ago, and now to be found at pp. 101 and 105 of the new
+edition of my "Letters to _The Times_ upon War and Neutrality
+(1881-1918)."
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, April 24 (1914).
+
+
+ATTACK FROM THE AIR
+
+THE RULES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
+
+Sir,--In reply to Colonel Jackson's inquiry as to any rule of
+international law bearing upon aerial attack upon London, I referred him
+to the, now generally accepted, prohibition of the "bombardment, _by any
+means whatever_, of towns, &c., which are not defended." This rule has
+been growing into its present form ever since the Brussels Conference of
+1874. The words italicised were added to it in 1907, to show that it
+applies to the action of _aeronefs_ as well as to that of land
+batteries. It clearly prohibits any wanton bombardment, undertaken with
+no distinctly military object in view, and the prohibition is much more
+sweeping, for reasons not far to seek, than that imposed by Convention
+No. ix. of 1907 upon the treatment of coast towns by hostile fleets.
+
+So far good; but further questions arise, as to which no diplomatically
+authoritative answers are as yet available; and I, for one, am not wise
+above that which is written. One asks, for instance, what places are
+_prima facie_ "undefended." Can a "great centre of population" claim
+this character, although it contains barracks, stores, and bodies of
+troops? For the affirmative I can vouch only the authority of the
+Institut de Droit International, which in 1896, in the course of the
+discussion of a draft prepared by General Den Beer Pourtugael and
+myself, adopted a statement to that effect. A different view seems to be
+taken in the German _Kriegsbrauch_, p. 22. One also asks: Under what
+circumstances does a place, _prima facie_, "undefended," cease to
+possess that character? Doubtless so soon as access to it is forcibly
+denied to the land forces of the enemy; hardly, to borrow an
+illustration from Colonel Jackson's letter of Thursday last, should the
+place merely decline to submit to the dictation of two men in an
+aeroplane.
+
+I read with great pleasure the colonel's warning, addressed to the
+United Service Institution, and am as little desirous as he is that
+London should rely for protection upon The Hague article, ambiguous as I
+have confessed it to be; trusting, indeed, that our capital may be
+enabled so to act at once in case of danger as wholly to forfeit such
+claim as it may in ordinary times possess to be considered an
+"undefended" town. Let the principle involved in Art. 25 be carried into
+much further detail, should that be found feasible, but, in the
+meantime, let us not for a moment relax our preparation of vertical
+firing guns and defensive aeroplanes.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, May 2 (1914).
+
+
+    The war of 1914 has definitely established the employment of
+    aircraft for hostile purposes, and, as evidenced by the
+    reception given by belligerents to neutral protests, the
+    sovereignty of a state over its superincumbent air-spaces.
+
+    On the bombardment of undefended places, _cf. supra_, pp. 30,
+    62, 67, 68; _infra_, pp. 97, 109, 112-123.
+
+    On the authority of International Law, _supra_, pp. 25, 66, 67;
+    _infra_, pp. 77, 114, 115, 137, 169.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+SECTION 5
+
+_Submarines_
+
+
+GERMANY AND THE HAGUE
+
+Sir,--One excuse for German atrocities put forward, as you report, in
+the _Kolnische Zeitung_, ought probably not to pass unnoticed, denying,
+as it does, any binding authority to the restrictions imposed upon the
+conduct of warfare, on land or at sea, by The Hague Conventions of 1907.
+It is true that each of these Conventions contains an article to the
+effect that its provisions "are applicable only between the contracting
+Powers, and only if all the belligerents are parties to the Convention."
+It is also true that three of the belligerents in the world-war now
+raging--namely, Serbia, Montenegro, and, recently, Turkey--although they
+have (through their delegates) signed these Conventions, have not yet
+ratified them. Therefore, urges the _Zeitung_, the Conventions are, for
+present purposes, waste paper. The argument is as technically correct as
+its application would be unreasonable; and I should like to recall the
+fact that, in the important prize case of the _Moewe_, Sir Samuel Evans,
+in a considered judgment, pointed out the undesirability of refusing
+application to the maritime conventions because they had not been
+ratified by Montenegro, which has no navy, or by Serbia, which has no
+seaboard; and accordingly, even after Turkey, which also has not
+ratified, had become a belligerent, declined to deprive a German
+shipowner of an indulgence to which he was entitled under the Sixth
+Hague Convention.
+
+Admiral von Tirpitz was perhaps not serious when he intimated to the
+representative of the United Press of America that German submarines
+might be instructed to torpedo all trading vessels of the Allies which
+approach the British coasts. The first duty of a ship of war which
+proposes to sink an enemy vessel is admittedly, before so doing, to
+provide for the safety of all its occupants, which (except in certain
+rare eventualities) can only be secured by their being taken on board of
+the warship. A submarine has obviously no space to spare for such an
+addition to its own staff.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, December 26 (1914).
+
+
+    The charitable view taken in the last paragraph has, of course,
+    not been justified.
+
+    For the _Moewe_, see 2 Lloyd, 70. On the restrictive article in
+    The Hague Convention, _cf. passim_.
+
+
+"THE PIRATES"
+
+Sir,--Would it not be desirable, in discussing the execrable tactics of
+the German submarines, to abandon the employment of the terms "piracy"
+and "murder," unless with a distinct understanding that they are used
+merely as terms of abuse?
+
+A ship is regarded by international law as "piratical" only if, upon the
+high seas, she either attacks other vessels, without being commissioned
+by any State so to do (_nullius Principis auctoritate_, as Bynkershoek
+puts it), or wrongfully displaces the authority of her own commander.
+The essence of the offence is absence of authority, although certain
+countries, for their own purposes, have, by treaty or legislation, given
+a wider meaning to the term, e.g., by applying it to the slave-trade.
+"Murder" is such slaying as is forbidden by the national law of the
+country which takes cognizance of it.
+
+In ordering the conduct of which we complain, Germany commits an
+atrocious crime against humanity and public law; but those who, being
+duly commissioned, carry out her orders, are neither pirates nor
+murderers. The question of the treatment appropriate to such persons,
+when they fall into our hands, is a new one, needing careful
+consideration. In any case, it is not for us to rival the barbarism of
+their Government by allowing them to drown.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, March 13 (1915)
+
+
+SUBMARINE CREWS
+
+Sir,--My letter in _The Times_ of March 15 with reference to the conduct
+of certain of the German submarines has been followed by a good many
+other letters upon the same subject. Some of your correspondents have
+travelled far from the question at issue into the general question of
+permissible reprisals, into which I have no intention of following them.
+But others, by exhibiting what I may venture to describe as an
+_ignoratio elenchi_, have made it desirable to recall attention to the
+specific purport of my former letter. It was to the effect--(1) that the
+acts of those who, in pursuance of a Government commission, sink
+merchant vessels without warning are not "piracy," the essence of that
+offence at international law being that it is committed under no
+recognised authority; and that neither is it "murder" under English law;
+(2) that the question of the treatment appropriate to the perpetrators
+of such acts, even under the orders of their Government, is a new one,
+needing careful consideration. I was, of course, far from stating, as a
+general rule, that Government authority exempts all who act under it
+from penal consequences. The long-established treatment of spies is
+sufficient proof to the contrary.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, March 22 (1915).
+
+
+MR. WILSON'S NOTE
+
+Sir,--I may perhaps be permitted to endorse every word of the high
+praise bestowed in your leading article of this morning upon the Note
+addressed to Germany by the Government of the United States. The
+frequent mentions which it contains of "American ships," "American
+citizens," and the like, were, no doubt, natural and necessary, as
+establishing the _locus standi_ of that Government in the controversy
+which it is carrying on. But we find also in the Note matters of even
+more transcendent interest, relating to the hitherto universally
+accepted doctrines of international law, applicable to the treatment of
+enemy as well as of neutral vessels.
+
+It may suffice to cite the paragraph which assumes as indisputable
+
+      "the rule that the lives of non-combatants, whether they be
+      of neutral citizenship or citizens of one of the nations at
+      war, cannot lawfully or rightfully be put in jeopardy by the
+      capture or destruction of unarmed merchantmen,"
+
+as also
+
+      "the obligation to take the usual precaution of visit and
+      search to ascertain whether a suspected merchantman is in
+      fact of belligerent nationality, or is in fact carrying
+      contraband under a neutral flag."
+
+
+[I assume that the word "unarmed" here does not exclude the case of a
+vessel carrying arms solely for defence.]
+
+The Note also recognises, what you some time ago allowed me to point
+out,
+
+      "the practical impossibility of employing submarines in the
+      destruction of commerce without disregarding those rules of
+      fairness, reason, justice, and humanity which modern opinion
+      regards as imperative."
+
+Adding:--
+
+      "It is practically impossible for them to make a prize of
+      her, and if they cannot put a prize crew on board, they
+      cannot sink her without leaving her crew and all on board her
+      to the mercy of the sea in her small boats."
+
+Nothing could be more satisfactory than the views thus authoritatively
+put forth, first as to the applicable law, and secondly as to the means
+by which its prescriptions can be carried out.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Brighton, May 15 (1915).
+
+
+    _Cf. supra_, p. 70.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+SECTION 6
+
+_Lawful Belligerents_
+
+
+GUERILLA WARFARE
+
+Sir,--When Mr. Balfour last night quoted certain articles of the
+"Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the
+Field" with reference to guerilla warfare, some observations were made,
+and questions put, upon which you will perhaps allow me to say a word or
+two.
+
+1. Mr. Healy seemed to think that something turned upon the date (May,
+1898) at which these articles were promulgated. In point of fact they
+were a mere reissue of articles drawn by the well-known jurist Francis
+Lieber, and, after revision by a military board, issued in April, 1868
+by President Lincoln.
+
+2. To Mr. Morley's enquiry, "Have we no rules of our own?" the answer
+must be in the negative. The traditional policy of our War Office has
+been to "trust to the good sense of the British officer." This policy,
+though surprisingly justified by results, is so opposed to modern
+practice and opinion that, as far back as 1878-80, I endeavoured,
+without success, to induce the Office to issue to the Army some
+authoritative, though simple, body of instructions such as have been
+issued on the Continent of Europe and in America. The War Office was,
+however, content to include in its "Manual of Military Law," published
+in 1888, a chapter which is avowedly unauthoritative, and expressly
+stated to contain only "the opinions of the compiler, as drawn from the
+authorities cited."
+
+3. The answer to Sir William Harcourt's unanswered question, "Were there
+no rules settled at the Hague?" must be as follows. The Hague Convention
+of 1899, upon "the laws and customs of warfare," ratified by this
+country on September 4 last, binds the contracting parties to give to
+their respective armies instructions in conformity with the _Reglement_
+annexed to the Convention. This _Reglement_, which is substantially a
+reproduction of the unratified _projet_ of the Brussels Conference of
+1874, does deal, in Arts. 1-3, with guerilla warfare. It is no doubt
+highly desirable that, as soon as may be, the drafting of rules in
+accordance with the _Reglement_ should be seriously taken in hand, our
+Government having now abandoned its _non possumus_ attitude in the
+matter. It will, however, be found to be the case, as was pointed out by
+Mr. Balfour, that the sharp distinction between combatants and
+non-combatants contemplated by the ordinary laws of war is inapplicable
+(without the exercise of undue severity) to operations such as those now
+being carried out in South Africa.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, December 7 (1900).
+
+
+    "Lieber's Instructions," issued in 1863 and reissued in 1898,
+    will doubtless be superseded, or modified, in consequence of
+    the United States having, on April 9, 1902, ratified the
+    Convention of 1899, and on March 10, 1908, that of 1907, as to
+    the Laws and Customs of War on Land.
+
+    The answer to Mr. Morley's enquiry in 1900 would not now be in
+    the negative. The present writer's representations resulted in
+    Mr. Brodrick, when Secretary for War, commissioning him to
+    prepare a Handbook of the _Laws and Customs of War on Land_,
+    which was issued to the Army by authority in 1904. On the
+    instructions issued by other National Governments, see the
+    author's _Laws of War on Land_, 1908, pp. 71-73.
+
+    The answer, given in the letter, to Sir William Harcourt's
+    question must now be supplemented by a reference to the
+    Handbook above mentioned as having contained rules founded upon
+    the _Reglement_ annexed to the Convention of 1899, and by a
+    statement that that Convention, with its _Reglement_, is now
+    superseded by Conventions No. iv. (with its _Reglement_) and
+    No. v. of 1907, of which account has been taken in a new
+    Handbook upon _Land Warfare_, issued by the War Office in 1913.
+
+    As to what is required from a lawful belligerent, see Arts. 1
+    and 2 of the _Reglement_ of 1899, practically repeated in that
+    of 1907. The substance of Art. 1 is set out in the letter which
+    follows.
+
+    Art. 2 grants some indulgence to "the population of a territory
+    which has not been occupied who, on the approach of the enemy,
+    spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading troops,
+    without having had time to organise themselves in accordance
+    with Art. 1." _Cf. infra_, pp. 76, 79.
+
+
+THE RUSSIAN USE OF CHINESE CLOTHING
+
+Sir,--If Russian troops have actually attacked while disguised in
+Chinese costume, they have certainly violated the laws of war. It may,
+however, be worth while, to point out that the case is not covered, as
+might be inferred from the telegram forwarded to you from Tokio on
+Wednesday last, by the text of Art. 23 (_f_) of the _Reglement_ annexed
+to The Hague Convention "on the laws and customs of war on land." This
+article merely prohibits "making improper use of the flag of truce, of
+the national flag or the military distinguishing marks and the uniform
+of the enemy, as well as of the distinguishing signs of the Geneva
+Convention."
+
+Art. 1 of the _Reglement_ is more nearly in point, insisting, as it
+does, that even bodies not belonging to the regular army, which, it is
+assumed, would be in uniform (except in the case of a hasty rising to
+resist invasion), shall, in order to be treated as "lawful
+belligerents," satisfy the following requirements, viz.:--
+
+      "(1) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his
+      subordinates;
+
+      "(2) That of having a distinctive mark, recognisable at a
+      distance;
+
+      "(3) That of carrying their arms openly; and
+
+      "(4) That of conducting their operations in accordance with
+      the laws and customs of war."
+
+The fact that, in special circumstances, as in the Boer war, marks in
+the nature of uniform have not been insisted upon, has, of course, no
+bearing upon the complaint now made by the Japanese Government.
+
+All signatories of The Hague Convention are bound to issue to their
+troops instructions in conformity with the _Reglement_ annexed to it.
+The only countries which, so far as I am aware, have as yet fulfilled
+their obligations in this respect are Italy, which has circulated the
+French text of the _Reglement_ without comment; Russia, which has
+prepared a little pamphlet of sixteen pages for the use of its armies in
+the Far East; and Great Britain, which has issued a Handbook, containing
+explanatory and supplementary matter, besides the text of the relevant
+diplomatic Acts.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, October 21 (1904).
+
+
+THE RIGHTS OF ARMED CIVILIANS
+
+Sir,--It is interesting to be reminded by Sir Edward Ridley of the view
+taken by Sir Walter Scott of the right and duty of civilians to defend
+themselves against an invading enemy. International law is, however,
+made neither by the ruling of an "impartial historian," on the one hand,
+nor by the _ipse dixit_ of an Emperor, on the other.
+
+In point of fact, the question raised by Sir Edward is not an open one,
+and, even in our own favoured country, it is most desirable that every
+one should know exactly how matters stand. The universally accepted
+rules as to the persons who alone can claim to act with impunity as
+belligerents are set forth in that well-known "scrap of paper" The Hague
+Convention No. iv. of 1907; to the effect that members of "an army" (in
+which term militia and bodies of volunteers are included) must (1) be
+responsibly commanded, (2) bear distinctive marks, visible at a
+distance, (3) carry their arms openly, and (4) conform to the laws of
+war. By way of concession, inhabitants of a district not yet "occupied"
+who spontaneously rise to resist invasion, without having had time to
+become organised, will be privileged if they conform to requirements (3)
+and (4). These rules are practically a republication of those of The
+Hague Convention of 1899, which again were founded upon the
+recommendations of the Brussels Conference of 1874, although, at the
+Conference, Baron Lambermont regretted that "si les citoyens doivent
+etre conduits au supplice pour avoir tente de defendre leur pays, au
+peril de leur vie, ils trouvent inscrit, sur le poteau au pied duquel
+ils seront fusilles, l'article d'un Traite signe par leur propre
+gouvernement qui d'avance les condamnait a mort."
+
+_An Englishman's Home_ was a play accurately representing the accepted
+practice, shocking as it must be. I remember the strength of an epithet
+which was launched from the gallery at the German officer on his
+ordering the shooting of the offending householder. It may be hardly
+necessary to add that nothing in international usage justifies execution
+of innocent wives and children.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, September 17 (1914).
+
+
+    This letter was, it seems, perverted in the _Kreuz Zeitung_.
+
+
+CIVILIANS IN WARFARE
+
+THE RIGHT TO TAKE UP ARMS
+
+Sir,--I have read with some surprise so much of Sir Ronald Ross's letter
+of to-day as states that "the issue still remains dark" as to the right
+of civilians to bear arms in case of invasion. It has long been settled
+that non-molestation of civilians by an invader is only possible upon
+the understanding that they abstain from acts of violence against him.
+Modern written international law has defined, with increasing
+liberality, by the draft Declaration of 1874 and the Conventions of 1899
+and 1907, the persons who will be treated as lawful belligerents. Art. 1
+of The Hague Regulations of 1907 recognises as such, not only the
+regular army, but also militia and volunteers. Art. 2 grants indulgence
+to a _levee en masse_ of "la population" (officially mistranslated "the
+inhabitants") of a territory not yet occupied. Art. 3, also cited by Sir
+Ronald, has no bearing upon the question.
+
+The rules are, I submit, as clear as they could well be made, and are
+decisive against the legality of resistance by individual civilians, the
+sad, but inevitable consequence of which was, as I pointed out in _The
+Times_ of September 19 last, truthfully represented on the stage in _An
+Englishman's Home_.
+
+In the same letter I wrote that "even in our own favoured country it is
+most desirable that every one should know exactly how matters stand."
+There are, however, obvious objections, possibly not insuperable, to
+this result being brought about, as is proposed by Sir Ronald Ross, by
+Government action.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, October 26 (1914).
+
+
+CIVILIANS AND A RAID
+
+Sir,--It is satisfactory to learn, from Mr. McKenna's answer to a
+question last night, that the duty of the civilian population, at any
+rate in certain counties, is engaging the attention of Government. I
+confess, however, to having read with surprise Mr. Tennant's
+announcement that "it was provided by The Hague Convention that the
+wearing of a brassard ensured that the wearer would be regarded as a
+belligerent." It ought surely to be now generally known that, among the
+four conditions imposed by the Convention upon Militia and bodies of
+Volunteers, in order to their being treated as belligerents, the third
+is "that they shall bear a distinctive mark, fixed and recognisable at a
+distance." Whether an enemy would accept the mere wearing of a brassard
+as fulfilling this condition is perhaps an open question upon which some
+light may be thrown by the controversies of 1871 with reference to
+_francs-tireurs_.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, November 24 (1914).
+
+
+MISS CAVELL'S CASE
+
+Sir,--The world-wide abhorrence of the execution of Miss Cavell,
+aggravated as it was by the indecent and stealthy haste with which it
+was carried out, is in no need of enhancement by questionable arguments,
+such as, I venture to say, are those addressed to you by Sir James
+Swettenham.
+
+It is, of course, the case that Germany is in Belgium only as the result
+of her deliberate violation of solemnly contracted treaties, but she is
+in military "occupation" of the territory. From such "occupation" it
+cannot be disputed that there flow certain rights of self-defence. No
+one, for instance, would have complained of her stern repression of
+civilian attacks upon her troops, so long as it was confined to actual
+offenders. The passages quoted by Sir James from Hague Convention v.,
+and from the _Kriegsbrauch_, relate entirely to the rights and duties of
+Governments, and have no bearing upon the tragical abuse of jurisdiction
+which is occupying the minds of all of us.
+
+May I take this opportunity of calling attention to the fresh evidence
+afforded by the new Order in Council of our good fortune in not being
+bound by the Declaration of London, which erroneously professed to
+"correspond in substance with the generally recognised principles of
+International Law"? Is it too late, even now, to announce, by a
+comprehensive Order in Council, any relaxations which we and our Allies
+think proper to make of well-established rules of Prize Law, without any
+reference to the more and more discredited provisions of the
+Declaration, the partial and provisional adoption of which seems, at the
+outbreak of the war, to have been thought likely to save trouble?
+
+Your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, October 26 (1915).
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+SECTION 7
+
+_Privateering_
+
+    The three letters which immediately follow were written to
+    point out that neither belligerent in the war of 1898 was under
+    any obligation not to employ privateers. Within, however, a few
+    days after the date of the second of these letters, both the
+    United States and Spain, though both still to be reckoned among
+    the few powers which had not acceded to the Declaration of
+    Paris, announced their intention to conduct the war in
+    accordance with the rules laid down by the Declaration.
+
+    Art. 3 of the Spanish Royal Decree of April 23 was to the
+    effect that "notwithstanding that Spain is not bound by the
+    Declaration signed in Paris on April 16, 1856, as she expressly
+    stated her wish not to adhere to it, my Government, guided by
+    the principles of international law, intends to observe, and
+    hereby orders that the following regulations for maritime law
+    be observed," viz. Arts. 2, 3, and 4 of the Declaration,
+    after setting out which, the Decree proceeds to state that the
+    Government, while maintaining "their right to issue letters of
+    marque, ... will organise, for the present, a service of
+    auxiliary cruisers ... subject to the statutes and jurisdiction
+    of the Navy."
+
+    The Proclamation of the President of the United States of April
+    26 recited the desirability of the war being "conducted upon
+    principles in harmony with the present views of nations, and
+    sanctioned by their recent practice," and that it "has already
+    been announced that the policy of the Government will not be to
+    resort to privateering, but to adhere to the rules of the
+    Declaration of Paris," and goes on to adopt rules 2, 3, and 4
+    of the Declaration.
+
+    Ten years afterwards, viz. on January 18, 1908, Spain
+    signified "her entire and definitive adhesion to the four
+    clauses contained in the Declaration," undertaking scrupulously
+    to conduct herself accordingly. Mexico followed suit on
+    February 13, 1909. The United States are therefore now the only
+    important Power which has not formally bound itself not to
+    employ privateers. It seems unlikely that privateers, in the
+    old sense of the term, will be much heard of in the future,
+    though many questions may arise as to "volunteer navies" and
+    subsidised liners, such as those touched upon in the last
+    section, with reference to captures made by the _Malacca_;
+    possibly also as to ships "converted" on the High Seas.
+
+
+OUR MERCANTILE MARINE IN WAR TIME
+
+Sir,--There can be no doubt that serious loss would be occasioned to
+British commerce by a war between the United States and Spain in which
+either of those Powers should exercise its right of employing privateers
+or of confiscating enemy goods in neutral bottoms.
+
+Before, however, adopting the measures recommended, with a view to the
+prevention of this loss, by Sir George Baden-Powell in your issue of
+this morning, it would be desirable to enquire how far they would be in
+accordance with international law, and what would be the net amount of
+the relief which they would afford.
+
+It is hardly necessary to say that non-compliance with the provisions of
+the Declaration of Paris by a non-signatory carries with it none of the
+consequences of a breach of the law of nations. The framers of that
+somewhat hastily conceived attempt to engraft a paper amendment upon the
+slowly matured product of oecumenical opinion, far from professing to
+make general law, expressly state that the Declaration "shall not be
+binding except upon those Powers who have acceded, or shall accede, to
+it." As regards Spain and the United States the Declaration is _res
+inter alios acta_.
+
+It follows that, in recommending that any action taken by privateers
+against British vessels should be treated as an act of piracy, Sir
+George Baden-Powell is advocating an inadmissible atrocity, which
+derives no countenance from the view theoretically maintained by the
+United States, at the outset of the Civil War, of the illegality of
+commissions granted by the Southern Confederation. His recommendation
+that our ports should be "closed" to privateers is not very
+intelligible. Privateers would, of course, be placed under the
+restrictions which were imposed in 1870, in accordance with Lord
+Granville's instructions, even on the men-of-war of belligerents. They
+would be forbidden to bring in prizes, to stay more than twenty-four
+hours, to leave within twenty-four hours of the start of a ship of the
+other belligerent, to take more coal than enough to carry them to the
+nearest home port, and to take any further supply of coal within three
+months. We might, no doubt, carry discouragement of privateers by so
+much further as to make refusal of coal absolute in their case, but
+hardly so far as to deny entry to them under stress of weather.
+
+The difficulties in the way of accepting Sir G. Baden-Powell's other
+suggestion are of a different order. Although we could not complain of
+the confiscation by either of the supposed belligerents of enemy
+property found in British vessels, as being a violation of international
+duty, we might, at our own proper peril, announce that we should treat
+such confiscation as "an act of war." International law has long
+abandoned the attempt to define a "just cause of war." That must be left
+to the appreciation of the nations concerned. So to announce would be,
+in effect, to say: "Although by acting as you propose you would violate
+no rule, yet the consequences would be so injurious to me that I should
+throw my sword into the opposite scale." We should be acting in the
+spirit of the "Armed Neutralities" of 1780 and 1800. The expediency of
+so doing depends, first, upon the extent to which the success of our
+action would obviate the mischief against which it would be directed;
+and, secondly, upon the likelihood that the benefit which could be
+obtained only by imposing a new rule of international law _in invitos_
+would counterbalance the odium incurred by its imposition. On the former
+question it may be worth while to remind the mercantile community that,
+even under the Declaration of Paris, neutral trade must inevitably be
+put to much inconvenience. Any merchant vessel may be stopped with a
+view to the verification of her national character, of which the flag is
+no conclusive evidence. She is further liable to be visited and searched
+on suspicion of being engaged in the carriage of contraband, or of enemy
+military persons, or of despatches, or in running a blockade. Should the
+commander of the visiting cruiser "have probable cause" for suspecting
+any of these things, though the vessel is in fact innocent of them, he
+is justified in putting a prize crew on board and sending her into port,
+with a view to the institution of proceedings against her in a prize
+Court. A non-signatory of the Declaration of Paris may investigate and
+penalise, in addition to the above-mentioned list of offences, the
+carriage of enemy goods. This is, no doubt, by far the most important
+branch of the trade which is carried on for belligerents by neutrals,
+but it must not be forgotten that even were this branch of trade
+universally indulged, in accordance with the Declaration of Paris
+neutral commerce would still remain liable to infinite annoyance from
+visit and search, with its possible sequel in a prize Court.
+
+The question of the balance between benefit to be gained and odium to be
+incurred by insisting upon freedom to carry the goods of belligerents I
+leave to the politicians.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+The Athenaeum, April 16 (1898).
+
+
+OUR MERCANTILE MARINE IN WAR TIME
+
+Sir,--To-day's debate should throw some light upon the views of the
+Government, both as to existing rules of international law and as to the
+policy demanded by the interests of British trade. It is, however,
+possible that the Government may decline to anticipate the terms of the
+Declaration of Neutrality which they may too probably find themselves
+obliged to issue in the course of the next few days, and it is not
+unlikely that the law officers may decline to advise shipowners upon
+questions to which authoritative replies can be given only with
+reference to concrete cases by a prize Court.
+
+You may perhaps, therefore, allow me in the meantime to supplement my
+former letter by a few remarks, partly suggested by what has since been
+written upon the subject.
+
+It is really too clear for argument that privateers are not, and cannot
+be treated as, pirates.
+
+Sir George Baden-Powell still fails to see that the Declaration of Paris
+was not a piece of legislation, but a contract, producing no effect upon
+the rights and duties of nations which were not parties to it. We did
+not thereby, as he supposes, "decline to recognise private vessels of
+war as competent to use force on neutral merchantmen." We merely bound
+ourselves not to use such vessels for such a purpose. Sir George is
+still unable to discover for privateers any other category than the
+"_status_ of pirate." He admits that it would not be necessary for their
+benefit to resort to "the universal use of the fore-yard-arm." Let me
+assure him that the bearer of a United States private commission of war
+would run no risk even of being hanged at Newgate. President Lincoln, it
+is true, at the outset of the Civil War, threatened to treat as pirates
+vessels operating under the "pretended authority" of the rebel States;
+but he was speedily instructed by his own law Courts--e.g. in the
+_Savannah_ and in the _Golden Rocket_ (insurance) cases--that even such
+vessels were not pirates _iure gentium_. It is also tolerably
+self-evident that we cannot absolutely "close" our ports to any class of
+vessels. There is no inconsistency here between my friend Sir Sherston
+Baker and myself. We can discourage access, and of course, by refusal of
+coal, render egress impossible for privateers. Mr. Coltman would
+apparently be inclined to carry this policy so far that he would disarm
+and intern even belligerent ships of war which should visit our ports: a
+somewhat hazardous innovation, one would think.
+
+It is quite possible that the question of privateering may not become a
+practical one during the approaching war. Both parties may expressly
+renounce the practice, or they may follow the example of Prussia in
+1870, and Russia at a later date, in commissioning fast liners under the
+command of naval officers--a practice, by the by, which is not, as Sir
+George seems to think, "right in the teeth of the Declaration of Paris."
+See Lord Granville's despatch in 1870.
+
+On Sir George's proposals with reference to the carriage of enemy goods,
+little more need be said, except to deprecate arguments founded upon the
+metaphorical statement that "a vessel is part of the territory covered
+by her flag," a statement which Lord Stowell found it necessary to meet
+by the assertion that a ship is a "mere movable." There can be no
+possible doubt of the right, under international law, of Spain and the
+United States to visit and search neutral ships carrying enemy's goods,
+and to confiscate such goods when found. They may also visit and search
+on many other grounds, and the question (one of policy) is whether,
+rather than permit this addition to the list, we choose to take a step
+which would practically make us belligerent. This question also, it may
+be hoped, will not press for solution.
+
+In any case, let me express my cordial concurrence with your hope that,
+when hostilities are over, some really universal and lasting agreement
+may be arrived at with reference to the matters dealt with, as I venture
+to think prematurely, by the Declaration of Paris. A reform of maritime
+law to which the United States are not a party is of little worth. That
+search for contraband of war can ever be suppressed I do not believe,
+and fear that it may be many years before divergent national interests
+can be so far reconciled as to secure an agreement as to the list of
+contraband articles. In the meantime this country is unfortunately a
+party to that astonishing piece of draftsmanship, the "three rules" of
+the Treaty of Washington, to which less reference than might have been
+expected has been made in recent discussions. The ambiguities of this
+document, which have prevented it from ever being, as was intended,
+brought to the notice of the other Powers, with a view to their
+acceptance of it, are such that, its redrafting, or, better still, its
+cancellation, should be the first care of both contracting parties when
+the wished for congress shall take place.
+
+May I add that no serious student of international law is likely either
+to overrate the authority which it most beneficially exercises, or to
+conceive of it as an unalterable body of theory.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Brighton, April 21 (1898).
+
+
+OUR MERCANTILE MARINE IN WAR
+
+Sir,--Let me assure Sir George Baden-Powell that if, as he seems to
+think, I have been unsuccessful in grasping the meaning of his very
+interesting letters, it has not been from neglect to study them with the
+attention which is due to anything which he may write. How privateering,
+previously innocent, can have become piratical, _i.e._ an offence,
+everywhere justiciable, against the Law of Nations, if the Declaration
+of Paris was not in the nature of a piece of legislation, I confess
+myself unable to understand; but have no wish to repeat the remarks
+which you have already allowed me to make upon the subject.
+
+I shall, however, be glad at once to remove the impression suggested by
+Sir George's letter of this morning, that Art. 7 of the Spanish Decree
+of April 24 has any bearing upon the legitimacy of privateering
+generally. The article in question (following, by the by, the very
+questionable precedent of a notification issued by Admiral Baudin,
+during the war between France and Mexico in 1889) merely threatens with
+punishment neutrals who may accept letters of marque from a belligerent
+Government.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, April 27 (1898).
+
+
+THE DECLARATION OF PARIS
+
+Sir,--There is really no question at issue between your two
+correspondents Mr. Gibson Bowles and "Anglo-Saxon" as to the attitude of
+the United States towards the Declaration of Paris.
+
+Mr. Bowles rightly maintains that the United States has not acceded to
+the Declaration as a whole, or to its second article, which exempts from
+capture enemy property in neutral ships. He means, of course, that
+neither the whole nor any part of that Declaration has been ratified by
+the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. The whole
+contains, indeed, an article on privateering, to which, as it stands,
+the United States have always objected, and no part of the Declaration
+can be accepted separately.
+
+"Anglo-Saxon," on the other hand, is equally justified in asserting that
+the "officially-recorded policy" of the States, _i.e._ of the Executive,
+is in accordance with Art. 2 of the Declaration. This policy has been
+consistently followed for more than half a century. Its strongest
+expression is perhaps to be found in the President's Proclamation of
+April 26, 1898, in which, after reciting that it being desirable that
+the war with Spain "should be conducted upon principles in harmony with
+the present views of nations and sanctioned by their recent practice, it
+has already been announced that the policy of the Government will not be
+to resort to privateering, but to adhere to the rules for the
+Declaration of Paris," he goes on to "declare and proclaim" the three
+other articles of the Declaration. The rule of Art. 2, as to exemption
+of enemy goods in neutral ships, was embodied in Art. 19 of the Naval
+War Code of 1900 (withdrawn in 1904, for reasons not affecting the
+article in question), and reappears in Art. 17, amended only by the
+addition of a few words relating to "hostile assistance" in the draft
+Code which the United States delegates to the Conferences of 1907 and
+1908 were instructed to bring forward "with the suggested changes, and
+such further changes as may be made necessary by other agreements
+reached at the Conference, as a tentative formulation of the rules which
+should be considered." (My quotation is from the instructions as
+originally issued in English.) Such changes as have been made in the
+Code are due to discussions which have taken place between high naval
+and legal authorities at the Naval War College. I do not know whether
+the annual reports of these discussions, with which I am kindly
+supplied, are generally accessible, but would refer, especially with
+reference to the Declaration of Paris, to the volumes for 1904 and 1906.
+
+It can hardly be necessary to add that no acts of the Executive, such as
+the Proclamation of 1898, the order putting in force the Code of 1900,
+or the instructions to delegates in 1907 and 1909, amount to anything
+like a ratification of the Declaration in the manner prescribed by the
+Constitution of the United States.
+
+I have the honour to be, Sir,
+Your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, January 4 (1911).
+
+
+THE DECLARATION OF PARIS
+
+Sir,--Mr. Gibson Bowles resuscitates this morning his crusade against
+the Declaration of 1856. It is really superfluous to argue in support of
+rules which have met with general acceptance for nearly sixty years
+past, to all of which Spain and Mexico, who were not originally parties
+to the Declaration, announced their formal adhesion in 1907, while the
+United States, which for well-known reasons declined to accede to the
+Declaration, described, in 1898, all the articles except that dealing
+with privateering as "recognised rules of International Law."
+
+It may, however, be worth while to point out why it was that no
+provision was made for the ratification of the Declaration of 1856, or
+for that of 1868 relating to the use of explosive bullets. At those
+dates, when the first steps were being taken towards the general
+adoption of written rules for the conduct of warfare, it was, curiously
+enough, supposed that agreement upon such rules might be sufficiently
+recorded without the solemnity of a treaty. This was, in my opinion, a
+mistake, which has been avoided in more recent times, in which the
+written law of war has been developed with such marvellous rapidity. Not
+only have codes of such rules been promulgated in regular "Conventions,"
+made in 1899, 1906, and 1907, but the so-called "Declarations," dealing
+with the same topic, of 1899, 1907, and 1909 have been as fully equipped
+as were those Conventions with provisions for ratification. The
+distinction between a "Convention" and a "Declaration" is therefore now
+one without a difference, and should no longer be drawn. Nothing in the
+nature of rules for the conduct of warfare can prevent their expression
+in Conventions, and the reason which seems to have promoted the
+misdescription of the work of the London Conference of 1908-9 as a
+"Declaration"--viz. an imaginary difference between rules for the
+application of accepted principles and wholly new rules--is founded in
+error. Much of the contents of The Hague "Conventions" is as old as the
+hills while much of the "Declaration" of London is revolutionary.
+
+This by the way. It is not very clear whether Mr. Gibson Bowles, in
+exhorting us to denounce the Declaration, relies upon its original lack
+of ratification, or upon some alleged "privateering" on the part of the
+Germans. Nothing of the kind has been reported. The commissioning of
+warships on the high seas is a different thing, which may possibly be
+regarded as an offence of a graver nature. Great Britain is not going to
+imitate the cynical contempt for treaties, evidenced by the action of
+Germany in Belgium and Luxemburg, in disregard not only of the
+well-known treaties of 1889 and 1867, but of a quite recent solemn
+undertaking, to which I have not noticed any reference. Art. 2 of The
+Hague Convention No. v. of 1907, ratified by her in 1909, is to the
+following effect:--
+
+      "Belligerents are forbidden to move across the territory of a
+      neutral Power troops or convoys, whether of munitions or of
+      supplies."
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, August 12 (1914).
+
+The true ground for objecting to the legality of the purchase by Turkey
+of the German warships which have been forced to take refuge in her
+waters is no doubt that stated by Sir William Scott in the _Minerva_, 6
+C. Rob. at p. 400--viz. that it would enable the belligerent to whom
+the ships belong "so far to rescue himself from the disadvantage into
+which he has fallen as to have the value at least restored to him by a
+neutral purchaser." The point is not touched upon in the (draft)
+Declaration of London.
+
+Even supposing the purchase to be unobjectionable, the duty of Turkey to
+remove all belligerents from the ships would be unquestionable.
+
+
+    _Cf._ on the Declaration of Paris, _passim_, see Index; on the
+    misuse of Declarations, _infra_, p. 92; on privateering,
+    _supra_, pp. 80-84.
+
+
+THE DECLARATION OF PARIS
+
+Sir,--The resuscitation, a few days ago, in the House of Commons of an
+old controversy reminds one of the mistaken procedure which made such a
+controversy possible. It can hardly now be doubted that the rules set
+forth in the Declaration of Paris of 1856, except possibly the
+prohibition of privateering, have by general acceptance during sixty
+years, strengthened by express accessions on the part of so many
+Governments, become a portion of international law, and are thus binding
+upon Great Britain, notwithstanding her omission to ratify the
+Declaration. This omission is now seen to have been a mistake. So also
+was the description of the document as a "declaration." Both mistakes
+were repeated in 1868 with reference to the "Declaration" of St.
+Petersburg (as to explosive bullets).
+
+In those early attempts at legislation for the conduct of warfare it
+seems to have been thought sufficient that the conclusions arrived at by
+authorised delegates should be announced without being embodied in a
+treaty. Surely, however, what purported to be international agreements
+upon vastly important topics ought to have been accompanied by all the
+formalities required for "conventions," and should have been so
+entitled. In later times this has become the general rule for the
+increasingly numerous agreements which bear upon the conduct of
+hostilities. Thus we have The Hague "conventions" of 1899 and 1907, and
+the Geneva "convention" of 1906, all duly equipped with provisions for
+ratification. Such provisions are also inserted in certain other recent
+agreements dealing with aerial bombardments, gases, and expanding
+bullets, which it has nevertheless pleased their contrivers to
+misdescribe as "declarations." Equally so misdescribed was the deceased
+Declaration of London, with a view, apparently, to suggesting, as was
+far from being the case, that it was a mere orderly statement of
+universally accepted principles, creating no new obligations.
+
+Is it not to be desired that all future attempts for the international
+regulation of warfare should not only be specifically made subject to
+ratification, but should also, in accordance with fact, be described as
+"conventions"?
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, August 13 (1916).
+
+
+THE DECLARATION OF PARIS
+
+Sir,--If Mr. Gibson Bowles, whose courteous letter I have just been
+reading, will look again at my letter of the 18th, I think he will see
+that I there carefully distinguished between the Declaration of Paris,
+which, as is notorious, must be accepted as a whole or not at all, and
+the rules set forth in it, "except, possibly, the prohibition of
+privateering," which I thought, for the reasons which I stated, might be
+taken to have become a portion of International Law.
+
+I must be excused from following Mr. Bowles into a discussion of the
+bearing of those rules upon the Order in Council of March 11, 1915--a
+large and delicate topic, which must be studied in elaborate dispatches
+exchanged between this country and the United States.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, August 17 (1916).
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+SECTION 8
+
+_Assassination_
+
+
+THE NATAL PROCLAMATION
+
+Sir,--It was reported a few days ago that the Natal Government had
+offered a reward for Bambaata, dead or alive. I have waited for a
+statement that no offer of the kind had been made, or that it had been
+made by some over-zealous official, whose act had been disavowed. No
+such statement has appeared. On the contrary, we read that "the price
+placed upon the rebel's head has excited native cupidity." It may
+therefore be desirable to point out that what is alleged to have been
+done is opposed to the customs of warfare, whether against foreign
+enemies or rebels.
+
+By Art. 28 (_b_) of The Hague Regulations, "it is especially prohibited
+to kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile
+nation or army": words which, one cannot doubt, would include not only
+assassination of individuals, but also, by implication, any offer for an
+individual "dead or alive." The Regulations are, of course, technically
+binding only between signatories of the convention to which they are
+appended; but Art. 28 (_b_) is merely an express enactment of a
+well-established rule of the law of nations. A recent instance of its
+application occurred, before the date of The Hague Convention, during
+operations in the neighbourhood of Suakin. An offer by the British
+Admiral of a reward for Osman Digna, dead or alive, was, if I mistake
+not, promptly cancelled and disavowed by the home Government.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Brighton, April 17 (1906).
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+SECTION 9
+
+_The Choice of Means of Injuring_
+
+
+BULLETS IN SAVAGE WARFARE
+
+Sir,--The Somaliland debate was sufficient evidence that The Hague
+Convention "respecting the laws and customs of war on land" is far more
+talked about than read. Colonel Cobbe had, it appears, complained of the
+defective stopping power, as against the foes whom he was encountering,
+of the Lee-Metford bullet. It is the old story that wounds inflicted by
+this bullet cannot be relied on to check the onrush of a hardy and
+fanatical savage, though they may ultimately result in his death.
+Whereupon arises, on the one hand, the demand for a more effective
+projectile, and, on the other hand, the cry that the proposed substitute
+is condemned by "the universal consent of Christendom"; or, in
+particular, "by the Convention of The Hague," which, as was correctly
+stated by Mr. Lee, prohibits only the use of arms which cause
+superfluous injury.
+
+You print to-day two letters enforcing the view of the inefficiency
+against savages of the ordinary service bullet. Perhaps you will find
+space for a few words upon the question whether the employment for this
+purpose of a severer form of projectile, such as the Dum Dum bullet,
+would be a contravention of the "laws of war."
+
+The law of the subject, as embodied in general international national
+agreements, is to be found in four paragraphs; to which, be it observed,
+nothing is added by the unwritten, or customary, law of nations. Of
+these paragraphs, which I shall set out textually, three affirm general
+principles, while the fourth contains a specific prohibition. The
+general provisions are as follows:--
+
+      "The progress of civilisation should have the effect of
+      alleviating as much as possible the calamities of war. The
+      only legitimate object which States should set before
+      themselves during war is to weaken the military forces of the
+      enemy. For this purpose it is sufficient to disable the
+      greatest possible number of men. This object would be
+      exceeded by the employment of arms which would uselessly
+      aggravate the sufferings of disabled men or render their
+      death inevitable. The employment of such arms would,
+      therefore, be contrary to the laws of humanity." (St.
+      Petersburg Declaration, 1868. Preamble.)
+
+      "The right of belligerents to adopt means of injuring the
+      enemy is not unlimited." (Hague _Reglement_, Art. 22.)
+
+      "Besides the prohibitions provided by special conventions [the
+      Declaration of St. Petersburg alone answers to this
+      description] it is in particular prohibited (_e_) to employ
+      arms, projectiles, or material of a nature to cause
+      superfluous injury." (_Ib._ Art. 23.)
+
+The only special prohibition is that contained in the Declaration of St.
+Petersburg, by which the contracting parties--
+
+      "Engage mutually to renounce, in case of war among
+      themselves, the employment by their military or naval forces
+      of any projectile of a weight below 400 grammes which is
+      either explosive or charged with fulminating or inflammable
+      substances."
+
+No one, so far as I am aware, has any wish to employ a bullet weighing
+less than 14 oz. which is either explosive or charged as above. So far,
+therefore, as the generally accepted laws of warfare are concerned, the
+only question as to the employment of Dum Dum or other expanding bullets
+is whether they "uselessly aggravate the sufferings of disabled men, or
+render their death inevitable"; in other words, whether they are "of a
+nature to cause superfluous injury." It is, however, probable that
+people who glibly talk of such bullets being "prohibited by The Hague
+Convention" are hazily reminiscent, not of the _Reglement_ appended to
+that convention, but of a certain "Declaration," signed by the delegates
+of many of the Powers represented at The Hague in 1899, to the effect
+that--
+
+      "The contracting Powers renounce the use of bullets which
+      expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets
+      with a hard casing, which does not entirely cover the core,
+      or is pierced with incisions."
+
+To this declaration neither Great Britain nor the United States are
+parties, and it is waste-paper, except for Powers on whose behalf it has
+not only been signed, but has also been subsequently ratified.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Athenaeum Club, May 2 (1903).
+
+
+    The Declaration last mentioned (No. 3 of the first Peace
+    Conference) is now something more than waste paper, having been
+    generally ratified. Great Britain, on August 17, 1907, at the
+    fourth plenary sitting of the Second Peace Conference,
+    announced her adhesion to it, as also to the, also generally
+    ratified, Declaration No. 2 of 1899, which forbids the
+    employment of projectiles constructed solely for the diffusion
+    suffocating or harmful gases.
+
+    The provisions of Arts. 22 and 23 (_e_) of the _Reglement_
+    annexed to The Hague Convention of 1899 "concerning the Laws
+    and Customs of War on Land," as quoted in the letter, have been
+    textually reproduced in Arts. 22 and 23 (_e_) of the
+    _Reglement_ annexed to the Hague Convention, No. iv. of 1907,
+    on the same subject, ratified by Great Britain on November 27,
+    1909.
+
+    The written agreements as to the choice of weapons may be taken
+    therefore to start from the general principles laid down in the
+    preamble to the Declaration of St. Petersburg (though held by
+    some Powers to err in the direction of liberality), and in
+    Arts. 22 and 23 (_e_) of The Hague _Reglements_. The specially
+    prohibited means of destruction are, by the Declaration of St.
+    Petersburg, explosive bullets; by The Hague _Reglements_, Art.
+    23 (_a_) poison or poisoned arms; by The Hague Declarations of
+    1898, Nos. 2 and 3, "projectiles the sole object of which is
+    the diffusion of asphyxiating or harmful gases," and "bullets
+    which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as
+    bullets with a hard casing, which does not entirely cover the
+    core, or is pierced with incisions." As to Declaration No. 1,
+    _cf. supra_, p. 22. It must be remarked that the Declarations
+    of St. Petersburg and of The Hague, unlike The Hague
+    Reglements, apply to war at sea, as well as on land.
+
+    _Cf. supra_, p. 22, and see the author's _The Laws of War on
+    Land (written and unwritten)_, 1908, pp. 40-43.
+
+
+GASES
+
+Sir,--The weightily signed medical protest which you publish this
+morning will be widely welcomed. The German employment of poisonous
+gases for military purposes, which the Allies were obliged, reluctantly,
+though necessarily, to reciprocate, was, of course, prohibited by
+international Acts to which Germany is a party. Not only does the
+Declaration of 1899 specifically render unlawful "the use of projectiles
+the sole object of which is the diffusion of asphyxiating or harmful
+gases," but the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 both forbid, in
+general terms, the employment of "(_a_) poison or poisoned arms," "(_c_)
+arms, projectiles, or material of a nature to cause superfluous
+suffering." The United States, like the rest of the world, are a party
+to the two Conventions, and would doubtless, after the experiences of
+recent years, no longer hesitate, as hitherto, to adhere to the
+Declaration of 1899; in accordance with Admiral Mahan's view at that
+date, to the effect that "the effect of gas shells has yet to be
+ascertained," and, in particular, "whether they would be more, or less,
+merciful than missiles now available."
+
+The prohibition ought, no doubt, to be renewed and, if possible,
+strengthened; but this is surely not, as your correspondents suggest,
+work for the Peace Congress. The rules for naval warfare set out in the
+Declaration of Paris of 1856 form no part of the Treaty of Paris of that
+year.
+
+I venture to make a similar remark with reference to any discussion by
+the Peace Congress of "the freedom of the seas," a topic unfortunately
+included by President Wilson among his "14 points." The peace delegates
+will be concerned with questions of regroupings of territory, penalties,
+and reparation. The rehabilitation and revision of international law is
+a different business, and should be reserved for a subsequent
+conference.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, November 29 (1918).
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+SECTION 10
+
+_The Geneva Convention_
+
+    As far back as the year 1870, the Society for the Prevention of
+    Cruelty to Animals exerted itself to induce both sides in the
+    great war then commencing to make some special provision for
+    relieving, or terminating, the sufferings of horses wounded in
+    battle.
+
+    In 1899 it made the same suggestion to the British War Office,
+    but the reply of the Secretary of State was to the effect that
+    "he is informed that soldiers always shoot badly wounded horses
+    after, or during, a battle, whenever they are given time to do
+    so, _i.e._ whenever the operation does not involve risk to
+    human life. He fears that no more than this can be done unless
+    and until some international convention extends to those who
+    care for wounded animals the same protection for which the
+    Geneva Convention provides in the case of men; and he would
+    suggest that you should turn your efforts in that direction."
+
+    Thereupon, Mr. Lawrence Pike, on November 23, addressed to _The
+    Times_ the letter which called forth the letter which follows.
+
+
+WOUNDED HORSES IN WAR
+
+Sir,--Everyone must sympathise with the anxiety felt by Mr. L.W. Pike to
+diminish the sufferings of horses upon the field of battle. How far any
+systematic alleviation of such sufferings may be compatible with the
+exigencies of warfare must be left to the decision of military experts.
+In the meantime it may be as well to assure Mr. Pike that the Geneva
+Convention of 1864 has nothing to do with the question, relating, as it
+does, exclusively to the relief of human suffering. This is equally the
+case with the second Geneva Convention, which Mr. Pike is right in
+supposing never to have been ratified. He is also right in supposing
+that "the terms of the convention are capable of amendment from time to
+time," but wrong in supposing that they can be amended "by the setting
+up of precedents." The convention can be amended only by a new
+convention.
+
+It is not the case that Art. 7 of the convention, which merely confides
+to commanders-in-chief, under the instructions of their respective
+Governments, "les details d'execution de la presente convention," gives
+them any authority to extend its scope beyond what is expressly stated
+to be its object--viz. "l'amelioration du sort des militaires blesses
+dans les armees en campagne." While, however, the Geneva Convention,
+does not contemplate the relief of animal suffering, it certainly cannot
+be "set up as a bar" to the provision of such relief. Commanders who may
+see their way to neutralising persons engaged in the succour or
+slaughter of wounded horses would be quite within their powers in
+entering into temporary agreements for that purpose.
+
+I may add that the "Convention concerning the laws and customs of war on
+land," prepared by the recent conference at The Hague, and signed on
+behalf of most Governments, including our own, though not yet ratified,
+contains a chapter "Des malades et des blesses," which merely states
+that the obligations of belligerents on this point are governed by the
+Convention of Geneva of 1864, with such modifications as may be made in
+it. Among the aspirations (_voeux_) recorded in the "Acte final" of
+the conference, is one to the effect that steps may be taken for the
+assembling of a special conference, having for its object the revision
+of the Geneva Convention. Should such a conference be assembled Mr. Pike
+will have an opportunity of addressing it upon the painfully interesting
+subject which he has brought forward in your columns.
+
+Your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, November 27 (1899).
+
+
+    The "second Geneva Convention," above mentioned, was the
+    "Projet d'Articles additionnels," signed on October 20, 1868,
+    but never ratified.
+
+    Art. 21 of the _Reglement_ annexed to The Hague Convention of
+    1899 as to the "Laws and Customs of War on Land," stating that
+    "the obligations of belligerents, with reference to the care of
+    the sick and wounded, are governed by the Convention of Geneva
+    of August 22, 1864, subject to alterations which may be made in
+    it," is now represented by Art. 21 of The Hague _Reglement_ of
+    1907, which mentions "the Convention of Geneva," without
+    mention of any date, or of possible alterations. The Convention
+    intended in this later _Reglement_ is, of course, that of 1906,
+    for the numerous Powers which have already ratified it, since
+    for them it has superseded that of 1864. The British
+    ratification, of April 16, 1907, was subject to a reservation,
+    the necessity for which was intended to be removed by 1 & 2
+    Geo. 5, c. 20, as to which, see _supra_, p, 37. The later is
+    somewhat wider in scope than the earlier Convention, its
+    recital referring to "the sick," as well as to the wounded, and
+    its first article naming not only "les militaires," but also
+    "les autres personnes officiellement attachees aux armees."
+
+    With a view to the expected meeting of the Conference by which
+    the Convention was signed in 1906, Mr. Pike and his friends
+    again, in 1903, pressed upon the British Government their
+    desire that the new Convention should extend protection to
+    persons engaged in relieving the sufferings of wounded horses.
+    The British delegates to the Conference, however, who had
+    already been appointed, and were holding meetings in
+    preparation for it, were not prepared to advise the insertion
+    of provisions for this purpose in the revised Convention of
+    Geneva.
+
+    "The principles of the Geneva Convention" of 1864 were applied
+    to naval warfare by The Hague Convention No. iii. of 1899, and
+    those of the Geneva Convention of 1906 by The Hague Convention
+    No. x. of 1907 respectively. Both were ratified by Great
+    Britain. Cf. _supra_, Chapters ii. and iv.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+SECTION 11
+
+_Enemy Property in Occupied Territory_
+
+    By Art. 55 of The Hague _Reglement_ of 1899, which reproduces
+    Art. 7 of the Brussels _Projet_, and is repeated as Art. 55 of
+    the _Reglement_ of 1907: "The occupying State shall regard
+    itself as being only administrator and usufructuary of the
+    public buildings, immoveable property, forests and agricultural
+    undertakings belonging to the hostile State and situated in the
+    hostile country. It must protect the substance of these
+    properties and administer them according to the rules of
+    usufruct."
+
+    The following letter touches incidentally upon the description
+    of the rights of an invader over certain kinds of State
+    property in the occupied territory as being those of a
+    "usufructuary."
+
+
+INTERNATIONAL "USUFRUCT"
+
+Sir,--The terminology of the law of nations has been enriched by a new
+phrase. We are all getting accustomed to "spheres of influence." We have
+been meditating for some time past upon the interpretation to be put
+upon "a lease of sovereign rights." But what is an international
+"usufruct"? The word has, of course, a perfectly ascertained sense in
+Roman law and its derivatives; but it has been hitherto employed,
+during, perhaps two thousand years, always as a term of private
+law--_i.e._ as descriptive of a right enjoyed by one private individual
+or corporation over the property of another. It is the "ius utendi
+fruendi, salva rerum substantia." The usufructuary of land not merely
+has the use of it, but may cut its forests and work its mines, so long
+as he does not destroy the character of the place as he received it. His
+interest terminates with his life, though it might also be granted to
+him for a shorter period. If the grantee be a corporation, in order to
+protect the outstanding right of the owner an artificial limit is
+imposed upon the tenure--e.g. in Roman law 100 years, by the French
+Code 30 years. For details it may suffice to refer to the Institutes of
+Justinian, II. 4; the Digest, VII. 1; the Code Civil, sects. 573-636;
+the new German Civil Code, sects. 1030-1089.
+
+It remains to be seen how the conception of "usufruct" is to be imported
+into the relations of sovereign States, and, more especially, what are
+to be the relations of the usufructuary to States other than the State
+under which he holds. It is, of course, quite possible to adapt the
+terms of Roman private law to international use. "Dominium,"
+"Possessio," "Occupatio," have long been so adapted, but it has yet to
+be proved that "Usufructus" is equally malleable. I can recall no other
+use of the term in international discussions than the somewhat
+rhetorical statement that an invader should consider himself as merely
+the "usufructuary" of the resources of the country which he is invading;
+which is no more than to say that he should use them "en bon pere de
+famille." It will be a very different matter to put a strict legal
+construction upon the grant of the "usufruct" of Port Arthur. By way of
+homage to the conception of such a grant, as presumably creating at the
+outside a life-interest, Russia seems to have taken it, in the first
+instance, only for twenty-five years. One may, however, be pardoned for
+sharing, with reference to this transaction, the scruples which were
+felt at Rome as to allowing the grant of a usufruct to a
+corporation--"periculum enim esse videbatur, ne perpetuus fieret."
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, March 30 (1898).
+
+P.S.--It would seem from M. Lehr's _Elements du droit civil Russe_ that
+"usufruct" is almost unknown to the law of Russia, though a restricted
+form of it figures in the code of the Baltic provinces.
+
+
+    It is certain that, apart from general conventions,
+    international law imposes no liability on an invader to pay for
+    requisitioned property or services, or to honour any receipts
+    which he may have given for them.
+
+    The Hague Convention of 1899 made no change in this respect.
+    Arts. 51 and 52 of the _Reglement_ annexed to the Convention
+    direct, it is true, that receipts should be given for
+    contributions ("un recu sera delivre aux contribuables") also
+    for requisitions in kind, if not paid for ("elles seront
+    constatees par des recus"), but these receipts were to be
+    merely evidence that money or goods have been taken, and it was
+    left an open question, by whom, if at all, compensation was to
+    be made or the losses thus established.
+
+    The _Reglement_ of 1907 is more liberal than that of 1899 with
+    reference to requisitioned property (though not with reference
+    to contributions). By the new Art. 52, "supplies furnished in
+    kind shall be paid for, so far as possible, on the spot. If
+    not, they shall be vouched for (_constatees_) by receipts, and
+    payment of the sums due shall be made as soon as may be." The
+    Hague Convention mentioned in the following letter is, of
+    course, that of 1899.
+
+
+REQUISITIONS IN WARFARE
+
+Sir,--A few words of explanation may not be out of place with reference
+to a topic touched upon last night in the House of Commons--viz. the
+liability of the British Government to pay for stock requisitioned
+during the late war from private enemy owners. It should be clearly
+understood that no such liability is imposed by international law. The
+commander of invading forces may, for valid reasons of his own, pay cash
+for any property which he takes, and, if he does not do so, is nowadays
+expected to give receipts for it. These receipts are, however, not in
+the nature of evidence of a contract to pay for the goods. They are
+intended merely to _constater_ the fact that the goods have been
+requisitioned, with a view to any indemnity which may eventually be
+granted to the sufferers by their own Government. What steps should be
+taken by a Government towards indemnifying enemies who have subsequently
+become its subjects, as is now happily the case in South Africa, is a
+question not of international law, but of grace and favour.
+
+An article in the current number of the _Review of Reviews_, to which my
+attention has just been called, contains some extraordinary statements
+upon the topic under discussion. The uninformed public is assured that
+"we owe the Boers payment in full for all the devastation which we have
+inflicted upon their private property ... it is our plain legal
+obligation, from the point of view of international law, to pay it to
+the last farthing." Then The Hague Convention is invoked as permitting
+interference with private property "only on condition that it is paid
+for in cash by the conqueror, and, if that is not possible at the
+moment, he must in every case give a receipt, which he must discharge at
+the conclusion of hostilities." There is no such provision as to
+honouring receipts in this much-misquoted convention.
+
+Your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, July 30 (1962).
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+SECTION 12
+
+_Enemy Property at Sea_
+
+
+PRIVATE PROPERTY AT SEA
+
+Sir,--The letter which you print this morning from Mr. Charles Stewart
+can hardly be taken as a serious contribution to the discussion of a
+question which has occupied for many years the attention of politicians,
+international lawyers, shipowners, traders, and naval experts. Mr.
+Stewart actually thinks that Lord Sydenham's argument to the effect that
+"the fear of the severe economic strain which must result from the
+stoppage of a great commerce is a factor which makes for peace" may be
+fairly paraphrased as advice to "retain the practice because it is so
+barbarous that it will sicken the enemy of warfare." He goes on to say
+that this argument "would apply equally to the poisoning of wells and to
+the use of explosive bullets."
+
+It may be worth while to contrast with the attitude of a writer who
+seems unable to distinguish between economic pressure and physical
+cruelty that taken up by a competent body, the large majority of the
+members of which belong to nations which, for various reasons, incline
+to the abolition of the usage in question. The Institut de Droit
+International, encouraged by the weight attached to its _Manual of the
+Law of War on Land_ by the first and second Peace Conferences, has been,
+for some time past, working upon a _Manual of the Laws of War at Sea_.
+At its Christiania meeting in 1912 the Institut, while maintaining the
+previously expressed opinion of a majority of its members in favour of a
+change in the law, recognised that such a change has not yet come to
+pass, and that, till it occurs, regulations for the exercise of capture
+are indispensable, and directed the committee charged with the topic to
+draft rules presupposing the right of capture, and other rules to be
+applied should the right be hereafter surrendered (_Annuaire_, t. xxv.,
+p. 602).
+
+The committee accordingly prepared a draft, framed in accordance with
+the existing practice, to the discussion of which the Institut devoted
+the whole of its recent session at Oxford, eventually giving its
+_imprimatur_ to a Manual of the law of maritime warfare, as between the
+belligerents, in 116 articles. As opportunity serves, the committee will
+prepare a second draft, proceeding upon the hypothesis that the right of
+capturing private property at sea has been surrendered, which, in its
+turn, will be debated, word for word, by the Institut de Droit
+International.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, November 4 (1913).
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+SECTION 13
+
+_Martial Law_
+
+    The first of the letters which follow has reference to the case
+    of two Boer prisoners who, having taken the oath of neutrality
+    on the British occupation of Pretoria, attempted to escape from
+    the town. Both were armed, and one of them fired upon and
+    wounded a sentinel who called upon them to stop. They were
+    tried by court-martial, condemned to death, and shot on June
+    11, 1901. The Hague Convention quoted in the letter is that of
+    1899, but the same Art. 8 figures in the Convention of 1907.
+
+    The second and third of these letters relate to a question of
+    English public law, growing out of the exercise of martial law
+    in British territory in time of war. One Marais, accused of
+    having contravened the martial law regulations of May 1, 1901,
+    was imprisoned in Cape Colony by military authority, and the
+    Supreme Court at the Cape held that it had no authority to
+    order his release. The Privy Council refused an application for
+    leave to appeal against this decision, saying that "no doubt
+    has ever existed that, when war actually prevails, the ordinary
+    courts have no jurisdiction over the action of the military
+    authorities"; adding that "the framers of the Petition of Right
+    knew well what they meant when they made a condition of peace
+    the ground of the illegality of unconstitutional procedure"
+    (_Ex parte_ D.F. Marais, [1902] A.C. 109). Thereupon arose a
+    discussion as to the extent of the prohibition of the exercise
+    of martial law contained in the Petition of Right; and Mr.
+    Edward Jenks, in letters to _The Times_ of December 27, 1901,
+    and January 4, 1902, maintained that the prohibition in
+    question was not confined to time of peace.
+
+    The last letter deals with the true character of a Proclamation
+    of Martial Law, and was suggested by the refusal of the Privy
+    Council, on April 2, 1906, to grant leave to appeal from
+    sentences passed in Natal by court-martial, in respect of acts
+    committed on February 8, 1906, whereby retrospective effect
+    had, it was alleged, been given to a proclamation not issued
+    till the day after the acts were committed, _See_ Mcomini
+    Mzinelwe and Wanda _v._ H.E. the Governor and the A.G. for the
+    Colony of Natal, 22 _Times Law Reports_, 413.
+
+
+THE EXECUTIONS AT PRETORIA
+
+Sir,--No doubt is possible that by international law, as probably by
+every system of national law, all necessary means, including shooting,
+may be employed to prevent the escape of a prisoner of war. The question
+raised by the recent occurrence at Pretoria is, however, a different
+one--viz. What are the circumstances in connection with an attempt to
+escape which justify execution after trial by court-martial of the
+persons concerned in it? This question may well be dealt with a part
+from the facts, as to which we are as yet imperfectly informed, which
+have called for Mr. Winston Churchill's letter. With the arguments of
+that letter I in the main agree, but should not attach so much
+importance as Mr. Churchill appears to do to a chapter of the British
+_Manual of Military Law_, which, though included in a Government
+publication, cannot be taken as official, since it is expressly stated
+"to have no official authority" and to "express only the opinions of the
+compiler, as drawn from the authorities cited."
+
+I propose, without comment, to call attention to what may be found upon
+this subject in conventional International Law, in one or two
+representative national codes, and in the considered judgment of the
+leading contemporary international lawyers.
+
+I. The Hague "Convention on the laws and customs of war on land"
+(ratified by twenty Powers) lays down:--
+
+      "ARTICLE 8.--Prisoners of war shall be subject to the laws,
+      regulations, and orders in force in the army of the State
+      into whose hands they have fallen. Any act of insubordination
+      warrants the adoption as regards them of such measures of
+      severity as may be necessary. Escaped prisoners, recaptured
+      before they have succeeded in rejoining their army, or before
+      quitting the territory occupied by the army that captured
+      them, are liable to disciplinary punishment. Prisoners who
+      after succeeding in escaping are again taken prisoners are
+      not liable to any punishment for their previous flight."
+
+The Hague Conference, in adopting this article, adopted also, as an
+"authentic interpretation" of it, a statement that the indulgence
+granted to escapes does not apply to such as are accompanied by "special
+circumstances," of which the instances given are "complot, rebellion,
+emeute."
+
+      "ARTICLE 12.--Any prisoner of war who is liberated on parole
+      and recaptured bearing arms against the Government to which
+      he had pledged his honour, or against the allies of that
+      Government, forfeits his right to be treated as a prisoner of
+      war, and can be put on his trial."
+
+II. The United States Instructions:--
+
+      "ARTICLE 77.--A prisoner of war may be shot or otherwise
+      killed in his flight; but neither death nor any other
+      punishment shall be inflicted on him simply for his
+      attempt.... If, however, a conspiracy is discovered, the
+      purpose of which is a united or general escape, the
+      conspirators may be rigorously punished even with death, &c."
+
+      "ARTICLE 78.--If prisoners of war, having given no pledge nor
+      made any promise on their honour, forcibly or otherwise,
+      escape, and are captured again in battle, having rejoined
+      their own army, they shall not be punished for their escape."
+
+      "ARTICLE 124.--Breaking the parole is punished with death when
+      the person breaking the parole is captured again."
+
+_Cf._ the French _Code de Justice Militaire_, Art. 204, and other
+Continental codes to the same effect.
+
+III. The _Manuel des Lois de la guerre sur terre_ of the Institute of
+International Law lays down:--
+
+      "ARTICLE 68.--Si le fugitif ressaisi[B] ou capture de nouveau
+      avait donne sa parole de ne pas s'evader, il peut etre prive
+      des droits de prisonnier de guerre."
+
+      "ARTICLE 78.--Tout prisonnier libere sur parole et repris
+      portant les armes contre le gouvernement auquel il l'avait
+      donnee, peut etre prive des droits de prisonnier de guerre, a
+      moins que, posterieurement a sa liberation, il n'ait ete
+      compris dans un cartel d'echange sans conditions."
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, June 17 (1901).
+
+
+THE PETITION OF RIGHT
+
+Sir,--This is, I think, not a convenient time, nor perhaps are your
+columns the place, for an exhaustive discussion of the interpretation
+and application of the Petition of Right. It may, however, be just worth
+while to make the following remarks, for the comfort of any who may have
+been disquieted by the letter addressed to you by my friend Mr. Jenks:--
+
+1. Although, as is common knowledge, the words "in time of peace," so
+familiar in the Mutiny Acts from the reign of Queen Anne onwards, do not
+occur in the Petition, they do occur, over and over again, in the
+arguments used in the House of Commons by "the framers of the Petition
+of Right," to employ the phraseology of the judgment recently delivered
+in the Privy Council by the Lord Chancellor.
+
+2. The prohibition contained in the Petition, so far from being
+"absolute and unqualified," is perfectly specific. It refers expressly
+to "Commissions of like nature" with certain Commissions lately
+issued:--
+
+      "By which certain persons have been assigned and appointed
+      Commissioners, with power and authority to proceed within the
+      land, according to the justice of martial law, against such
+      soldiers or mariners, or other dissolute persons joining with
+      them, as should commit any murder, robbery, felony, mutiny,
+      or other outrage or misdemeanour whatsoever, and by such
+      summary course and order as is agreeable to martial law, and
+      is used in armies in time of war, &c."
+
+The text of these Commissions, the revocation of which is demanded by
+the Petition, is still extant.
+
+3. The Petition neither affirms nor denies the legality of martial law
+in time of war; although its advocates were agreed that at such a time
+martial law would be applicable to soldiers.
+
+4. A war carried on at a distance from the English shore as was the war
+with France in 1628, did not produce such a state of things as was
+described by the advocates of the Petition as "a time of war." "We have
+now no army in the field, and it is no time of war," said Mason in the
+course of the debates. "If the Chancery and Courts of Westminster be
+shut up, it is time of war, but if the Courts be open, it is otherwise;
+yet, if war be in any part of the Kingdom, that the Sheriff cannot
+execute the King's writ, there is _tempus belli_," said Rolls.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, December 31 (1901).
+
+
+THE PETITION OF RIGHT
+
+Sir,--In a letter which you allowed me to address to you a few days ago,
+I dealt with two perfectly distinct topics.
+
+In the first place I pointed out that the words occurring in a recent
+judgment of the Privy Council, which were cited by Mr. Jenks as a clear
+example of an assumption "that the Petition of Right, in prohibiting the
+exercise of martial law, restricted its prohibition to time of peace,"
+imply, as I read them, no assumption as to the meaning of that document,
+but merely contain an accurate statement of fact as to the line of
+argument followed by the supporters of the Petition in the House of
+Commons. Can Mr. Jenks really suppose that in making this remark I was
+"appealing from the 'text of the Petition' to the debates in
+Parliament"?
+
+I then proceeded to deal very shortly with the Petition itself, showing
+that while it neither condemns nor approves of the application of
+martial law in time of war (see Lord Blackburn's observations in R. _v._
+Eyre), the prohibition contained in its martial law clauses, so far from
+being "absolute and unqualified," relates exclusively to "commissions of
+like nature" with certain commissions which had been lately issued (at a
+time which admittedly, for the purposes of this discussion, was not "a
+time of war"), the text of which is still preserved, and the character
+of which is set forth in the Petition itself, as having authorised
+proceedings within the land, "according to the justice of martial law,
+against such soldiers or mariners," as also against "such other
+dissolute persons joining with them," &c. The description of these
+commissions, be it observed, is not merely introduced into the Petition
+by way of recital, but is incorporated by express reference into the
+enacting clause.
+
+Thus much and no more I thought it desirable to say upon these two
+topics by way of dissent from a letter of Mr. Jenks upon the subject. In
+a second letter Mr. Jenks rides off into fresh country. I do not propose
+to follow him into the history of the conferences which took place in
+May, 1628, after the framing of the Petition of Right, except to remark
+that what passed at these conferences is irrelevant to the
+interpretation to be placed upon the Petition, and, if relevant, would
+be opposed to Mr. Jenks's contention. It is well known that the Lords
+pressed the Commons to introduce various amendments into the Petition
+and to add to it the famous reservation of the "sovereign power" of the
+King. One of the proposed amendments referred, as Mr. Jenks says, to
+martial law, forbidding its application to "any but soldiers and
+mariners," or "in time of peace, or when your Majesty's Army is not on
+foot." The Commons' objection to this seems to have been that it was
+both unnecessary and obscurely expressed. "Their complaint is against
+commissions in time of peace." "It may be a time of peace, and yet his
+Majesty's Army may be on foot, and that martial law was not lawful here
+in England in time of peace, when the Chancery and other Courts do sit."
+"They feared that this addition might extend martial law to the trained
+bands, for the uncertainty thereof." The objections of the Commons were,
+however, directed not so much to the amendments in detail as to any
+tampering with the text of the Petition. "They would not alter any part
+of the Petition" (nor did they, except by expunging two words alleged to
+be needlessly offensive), still less would they consent to add to it the
+reservation as to the "sovereign power" of the King.
+
+The story of these abortive conferences, however interesting
+historically, appears to me to have no bearing upon the legality of
+martial law, and I have no intention of returning to the subject.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, January 8 (1902).
+
+
+MARTIAL LAW IN NATAL
+
+Sir,--It seems that in the application made yesterday to the Judicial
+Committee of the Privy Council, on behalf of Natal natives under
+sentence of death, much stress was laid upon the argument that a
+proclamation of martial law cannot have a retrospective application. You
+will, perhaps, therefore allow me to remind your readers that, so far
+from the date of the proclamation having any bearing upon the merits of
+this painful case, the issue of any proclamation of martial law, in a
+self-governing British colony, neither increases nor diminishes the
+powers of the military or other authorities to take such steps as they
+may think proper for the safety of the country. If those steps were
+properly taken they are covered by the common law; if they have exceeded
+the necessities of the case they can be covered only by an Act of
+Indemnity. The proclamation is issued merely, from abundant caution, as
+a useful warning to those whom it may concern.
+
+This view, I venture to think, cannot now be seriously controverted; and
+I am glad to find, on turning to Mr. Clode's _Military and Martial Law_
+that the passage cited in support of Mr. Jellicoe's contention as to a
+proclamation having no retroactive application is merely to the effect
+that this is so, if certain statements, made many years ago in a debate
+upon the subject, are correct. As to their correctness, or otherwise,
+Mr. Clode expresses no opinion.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+SECTION 14
+
+_The Naval Bombardment of Open Coast Towns_
+
+    The four letters which first follow were suggested by the
+    British Naval Manoeuvres of 1888, during which operations
+    were supposed to be carried on, by the squadron playing the
+    part of a hostile fleet, which I ventured to assert to be in
+    contravention of international law. Many letters were written
+    by naval men in a contrary sense, and the report of a committee
+    of admirals appointed to consider, among other questions, "the
+    feasibility and expediency of cruisers making raids on an
+    enemy's coasts and unprotected towns for the purpose of levying
+    contributions," was to the effect that "there can be no doubt
+    about the feasibility of such operations by a maritime enemy
+    possessed of sufficient power; and as to the expediency, there
+    can be as little doubt but that any Power at war with Great
+    Britain will adopt every possible means of weakening her enemy;
+    and we know of no means more efficacious for making an enemy
+    feel the pinch of war than by thus destroying his property and
+    touching his pocket." (_Parl. Paper_, 1889 [c. 5632], pp. 4,
+    8.) The supposed hostile squadron had, it seems, received
+    express instructions "to attack any port in Great Britain."
+    (See more fully in the writer's _Studies in International Law_,
+    1898, p. 96.) The fifth letter was suggested by a Russian
+    protest against alleged Japanese action in 1904.
+
+    The subsequent history of this controversy, some account of
+    which will be found at the end of this section, has, it is
+    submitted, established the correctness of the views maintained
+    in it.
+
+
+NAVAL ATROCITIES
+
+Sir,--I trust we may soon learn on authority whether or no the enemies
+of this country are conducting naval hostilities in accordance with the
+rules of civilised warfare. I read with indignation that the _Spider_
+has destroyed Greenock; that she announced her intention of "blowing
+down" Ardrossan; that she has been "shelling the fine marine residences
+and watering-places in the Vale of Clyde." Can this be true, and was
+there really any ground for expecting that "a bombardment of the outside
+coast of the Isle of Wight" would take place last night?
+
+Your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Athenaeum Club, August 7 (1888).
+
+
+THE NAVAL MANOEUVRES
+
+Sir,--In a letter which I addressed to you on the 7th inst. I ventured
+to point out the discrepancy between the proceedings of certain vessels
+belonging to Admiral Tryon's fleet and the rules of civilised warfare.
+Your correspondent on board Her Majesty's ship _Ajax_ yesterday told us
+something of the opinion of the fleet as to the bombardment and
+ransoming of defenceless seaboard towns, going on to predict that, in a
+war in which England should be engaged, privateers would again be as
+plentiful as in the days of Paul Jones, and assuring us that in such a
+war "not the slightest respect would be paid to old-fashioned treaties,
+protocols, or other diplomatic documents." Captain James appears, from
+his letter which you print to-day, to be of the same opinion as the
+fleet, with reference both to bombardments and to privateers; telling us
+also in plain language that "the talk about international law is all
+nonsense."
+
+Two questions are thus raised which seem worthy of serious
+consideration. First, what are the rules of international law with
+reference to the bombardment of open towns from the sea (I leave out of
+consideration the better understood topic of privateering)? Secondly,
+are future wars likely to be conducted without regard to international
+law?
+
+1. I need hardly say that I do not, as Captain James supposes, contend
+"that unfortified towns will never be bombarded or ransomed."
+International law has never prohibited, though it has attempted to
+restrict, the bombardment of such towns. Even in 1694 our Government
+defended the destruction of Dieppe, Havre, and Calais only as a measure
+of retaliation, and in subsequent naval wars operations of this kind
+have been more and more carefully limited, till in the Crimean war our
+cruisers were careful to abstain from doing further damage than was
+involved in the confiscation or destruction of stores of arms and
+provisions. The principles involved were carefully considered by the
+military delegates of all the States of Europe at the Brussels
+Conference of 1874, and their conclusions, which apply, I conceive,
+_mutatis mutandis_, to operations conducted by naval forces against
+places on land, are as follows:--
+
+      "ARTICLE 15.--Fortified places are alone liable to be
+      besieged. Towns, agglomerations of houses, or villages which
+      are open or undefended cannot be attacked or bombarded."
+
+      "ARTICLE 16.--But if a town, &c., be defended, the commander
+      of the attacking forces should, before commencing a
+      bombardment, and except in the case of surprise, do all in his
+      power to warn the authorities."
+
+      "ARTICLE 40.--As private property should be respected, the
+      enemy will demand from parishes or the inhabitants only such
+      payments and services as are connected with the necessities of
+      war generally acknowledged, in proportion to the resources of
+      the country."
+
+      "ARTICLE 41.--The enemy in levying contributions, whether as
+      equivalents for taxes or for payments which should be made in
+      kind, or as fines, will proceed, as far as possible, according
+      to the rules of the distribution and assessment of the taxes
+      in force in the occupied territory. Contributions can be
+      imposed only on the order and on the responsibility of the
+      general in chief."
+
+      "ARTICLE 42.--Requisitions shall be made only by the authority
+      of the commandant of the locality occupied."
+
+These conclusions are substantially followed in the chapter on the
+"Customs of War" contained in the _Manual of Military Law_ issued for
+the use of officers by the British War Office.
+
+The bombardment of an unfortified town would, I conceive, be lawful--(1)
+as a punishment for disloyal conduct; (2) in extreme cases, as
+retaliation for disloyal conduct elsewhere; (3) for the purpose of
+quelling armed resistance (not as a punishment for resistance when
+quelled); (4) in case of refusal of reasonable supplies requisitioned,
+or of a reasonable money contribution in lieu of supplies. It would, I
+conceive, be unlawful--(1) for the purpose of enforcing a fancy
+contribution or ransom, such as we were told was exacted from Liverpool;
+(2) by way of wanton injury to private property, such as was supposed to
+have been caused in the Clyde and at Folkestone, and _a fortiori_ such
+as would have resulted from the anticipated shelling during the
+night-time of the south coast of the Isle of Wight.
+
+2. Is it the case that international law is "all nonsense," and that
+"when we are at war with an enemy he will do his best to injure us: he
+will do so in what way he thinks proper, all treaties and all so-called
+international law notwithstanding"? Are we, with Admiral Aube, to speak
+of "cette monstrueuse association de mots: les droits de la guerre"? If
+so, _cadit quaestio_, and a vast amount of labour has been wasted during
+the last three centuries. I can only say that such a view of the future
+is not in accordance with the teachings of the past. The body of
+accepted usage, supplemented by special conventions, which is known as
+international law, has, as a matter of fact, exercised, even in time of
+war, a re staining influence on national conduct. This assertion might
+be illustrated from the discussions which have arisen during recent wars
+with reference to the Geneva Conventions to the treatment of the wounded
+and the St. Petersburg declaration against the use of explosive bullets.
+The binding obligation of these instruments, which would doubtless be
+classed by your correspondent with the fleet among "old-fashioned
+treaties, protocols, and other diplomatic documents," has never been
+doubted, while each party has eagerly endeavoured to disprove alleged
+infractions of them.
+
+The naval manoeuvres have doubtless taught many lessons of practical
+seamanship. They will have done good service of another sort if they
+have brought to the attention of responsible statesmen such questions as
+those with which I have attempted to deal. It is essential that the
+country should know the precise extent of the risks to which our
+seaboard towns will be exposed in time of war, and it is desirable that
+our naval forces should be warned against any course of action, in their
+conduct of mimic warfare, which could be cited against us, in case we
+should ever have to complain of similar action on the part of a real
+enemy.
+
+Your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, August 18 (1888).
+
+
+THE NAVAL MANOEUVRES
+
+Sir,--In my first letter I called attention to certain operations of the
+_Spider_ and her consorts which seemed to be inspired by no principle
+beyond that of doing unlimited mischief to the enemy's seaboard. In a
+second letter I endeavoured to distinguish between the mischief which
+would and that which would not be regarded as permissible in civilised
+warfare. The correspondence which has subsequently appeared in your
+columns has made sufficiently clear the opposition between the view
+which seems to find favour just now in naval circles and the principles
+of international law, as I have attempted to define them. The question
+between my critics and myself is, in effect, whether the mediaeval or the
+modern view as to the treatment of private property is to prevail.
+According to the former, all such property is liable to be seized or
+destroyed, in default of a "Brandschatz," or ransom. According to the
+latter, it is inviolable, subject only to certain well-defined
+exceptions, among which reasonable requisitions of supplies would be
+recognised, while demands of money contributions, as such, would not be
+recognised.
+
+The evidence in favour of the modern view being what I have stated it to
+be is, indeed, overwhelming; but I should like to call special attention
+to the _Manuel de Droit International a l'Usage des Officiers de l'Armee
+de Terre_, issued by the French Government, as going even further than
+the Brussels Conference in the restrictions which it imposes upon the
+levying of requisitions and contributions. The Duke of Wellington, who
+used to be thought an authority in these matters, wrote in 1844, with
+reference to a pamphlet in which the Prince de Joinville had advocated
+depredations on the English coasts:--
+
+      "What but the inordinate desire of popularity could have
+      induced a man in his station to write and publish an
+      invitation and provocation to war, to be carried on in a
+      manner such as has been disclaimed by the civilised portions
+      of mankind?"
+
+The naval historian, Mr. Younge, in commenting on the burning of Paita,
+in Chili, as far back as 1871, for non-compliance with a demand for a
+money contribution (ultimately reduced to a requisition of provisions
+for the ships), speaks of it as "worthy only of the most lawless pirate
+or buccaneer, ... as a singular proof of how completely the principles
+of civilised warfare were conceived to be confined to Europe."
+
+Such exceptional acts as the burning of Paita, or the bombardment of
+Valparaiso, mentioned by Mr. Herries, will, of course, occur from time
+to time. My position is that they are so far stigmatised as barbarous by
+public opinion that their perpetration in civilised warfare may be
+regarded as improbable; in other words, that they are forbidden by
+international law.
+
+It is a further question whether the rules of international law on this
+point are to be changed or disregarded in future. Do we expect, and are
+we desirous, that future wars shall be conducted in accordance with
+buccaneering precedent, or with what has hitherto been the general
+practice of the nineteenth century? Your naval correspondents incline to
+revert to buccaneering and thus to the introduction into naval coast
+operations of a rigour long unknown to the operations of military forces
+on land; but they do so with a difference. Lord Charles Beresford
+(writing early in the controversy) asserts the permissibility of
+ransoming and destroying, without any qualifying expressions; while
+Admiral de Horsey would apparently only ask "rich" towns for
+contributions, insisting also that a contribution must be "reasonable,"
+and expressly repudiating any claim to do "wanton injury to property of
+poor communities, and still less to individuals." In the light of these
+concessions, I venture to claim Admiral de Horsey's concurrence in my
+condemnation of most of the doings mentioned in my first letter,
+although on the whole he ranges himself on the side of the advocates of
+what I maintain to be a change in the existing law of war. Whether or no
+the existing law needs revision is a question for politicians and for
+military and naval experts. It is within my province only to express a
+hope that the contradiction between existing law and new military
+necessities (if, indeed, such contradiction exists) will not be solved
+by a repudiation of all law as "nonsense"; and, further, that, if a
+change of law is to be effected, it will be done with due deliberation
+and under a sense of responsibility. It should be remembered that
+operations conducted with the apparent approval of the highest naval
+authorities, and letters in _The Times_ from distinguished admirals, are
+in truth the stuff that public opinion, and in particular that
+department of public opinion known as "international law," is made of.
+
+The ignorance, by the by, which certain of my critics have displayed of
+the nature and claims of international law is not a little surprising.
+Some seem to identify it with treaties; others with "Vattel." Several,
+having become aware that it is not law of the kind which is enforced by
+a policeman or a County Court bailiff, have hastened, much exhilarated,
+to give the world the benefit of their discovery. Most of them are under
+the impression that it has been concocted by "bookworms," "jurists,"
+"professors," or other "theorists," instead of, as is the fact, mainly
+by statesmen, diplomatists, prize courts, generals and admirals. This
+is, however, a wide field, into which I must not stray. I have even
+avoided the pleasant by-paths of disquisition on contraband,
+privateering, and the Declaration of Paris generally, into which some of
+your correspondents have courteously invited me. I fear we are as yet
+far from having disposed of the comparatively simple question as to the
+operations which may be properly undertaken by a naval squadron against
+an undefended seaboard.
+
+I am, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Llanfairfechan, August 27 (1888).
+
+
+NAVAL BOMBARDMENTS OF UNFORTIFIED PLACES
+
+Sir,--The protest reported to have been lodged by the Russian Government
+against the bombardment by the Japanese fleet of a quarantine station on
+the island of San-shan-tao, apart from questions of fact, as to which we
+have as yet no reliable information, recalls attention to a question of
+international law of no slight importance--viz. under what, if any,
+circumstances it is permissible for a naval force to bombard an "open"
+coast town.
+
+In the first place, it may be hardly necessary to point out the
+irrelevancy of the reference, alleged to have been made in the Russian
+Note, to "Article 25 of The Hague Convention." The Convention and the
+_Reglement_ annexed to it are, of course, exclusively applicable to "la
+guerre sur terre." Not only, however, would any mention of a naval
+bombardment have been out of place in that _Reglement_, but a proposal
+to bring such action within the scope of its 25th Article, which
+prohibits "the attack or bombardment of towns, villages, habitations, or
+buildings which are not defended," was expressly negatived by the
+Conference of The Hague. It became abundantly clear, during the
+discussion of this proposal, that the only chance of an agreement being
+arrived at was that any allusion to maritime warfare should be carefully
+avoided. It was further ultimately admitted, even by the advocates of
+the proposal, that the considerations applicable to bombardments by an
+army and by a naval force respectively are not identical. It was, for
+instance, urged that an army has means other than those which may alone
+be available to a fleet for obtaining from an open town absolutely
+needful supplies. The Hague Conference, therefore, left the matter where
+it found it, recording, however, among its "pious wishes" (_voeux_)
+one to the effect "that the proposal to regulate the question of the
+bombardment of ports, towns, and villages by a naval force should be
+referred for examination to a future conference."
+
+The topic is not a new one. You, Sir, allowed me to raise it in your
+columns with reference to the naval manoeuvres of 1888, when a
+controversy ensued which disclosed the existence of a considerable
+amount of naval opinion in favour of practices which I ventured to think
+in contravention of international law. It was also thoroughly debated in
+1896 at the Venice meeting of the Institut de Droit International upon a
+report drafted by myself, as chairman of a committee appointed a year
+previously. This report lays down that the restrictions placed by
+international law upon bombardments on land apply also to those effected
+from the sea, except that such operations are lawful for a naval force
+when undertaken with a view to (1) obtaining supplies of which it is in
+need; (2) destroying munitions of war or warships which may be in a
+port; (3) punishing, by way of reprisal, violations by the enemy of the
+laws of war. Bombardments for the purpose of exacting a ransom or of
+putting pressure upon the hostile Power by injury to peaceful
+individuals or their property were to be unlawful. The views of the
+committee were, in substance, adopted by the Institut, with the omission
+only of the paragraph allowing bombardment by way of reprisals.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, April 2 (1904).
+
+
+    The "Hague Conference" and "Hague Convention" to which
+    reference was made in the last of these letters were, of
+    course, those of 1899.
+
+    For the action taken by the Institut de Droit International in
+    1895 and 1896, on the initiative of the present writer, see the
+    _Annuaire de l'Institut_, t. xiv p. 295, t. xv. pp. 145-151,
+    309, 317; and his _Studies in International Law_, pp. 106-111.
+    See also, at p. 104 of the same work, an opinion given by him
+    to the Chevalier Tindal as to the liability of The Hague to be
+    bombarded.
+
+    The later growth of opinion has been in accordance with the
+    views maintained by the writer of these letters, and with the
+    _Rapport_ drafted by him for the Institut. The Hague Conference
+    of 1899, though unable to discuss the subject, had registered a
+    _vaeu_ "that the proposal to regulate the question of the
+    bombardment of ports, towns and villages by a naval force may
+    be referred for examination to a future Conference." See _Parl.
+    Paper, Miscell._ No. 1 (1889), pp. 139, 146, 162, 165, 258,
+    283. At the Conference of 1907 a Convention, No. ix., was
+    accordingly signed and generally ratified, notably by Germany
+    and Great Britain, Art. 1 of which prohibits "the bombardment
+    by naval forces of ports towns, villages, houses, or buildings
+    which are not defended," Germany, France, Great Britain and
+    Japan dissenting from the second paragraph of this article,
+    which explains that a place is not to be considered to be
+    defended merely because it is protected by submarine
+    contact-mines. Bombardment is, however, permitted, by Art. 2,
+    of places which are, in fact, military or naval bases, and, by
+    Arts. 3 and 4, of places which refuse to comply with reasonable
+    requisitions for food needed by the fleet, though not for
+    refusal of money contributions. The _Acte Final_ of the
+    Conference further registers a _vaeu_ that "the Powers should,
+    in all cases, apply, as far as possible, to war at sea the
+    principles of the Convention concerning the laws and customs of
+    war on land." (_Parl. Paper, Miscell._ No. 1 (1908), p. 30.)
+    This Convention, No. iv. of 1907, in Art. 25 of the _Reglement_
+    annexed to it, lays down that "the attack or bombardment, by
+    whatsoever means, of towns, villages, habitations, or buildings
+    which are not defended is prohibited."
+
+    The British Government had, in 1907, so far departed from the
+    Admiralty views of 1888 as to instruct their delegates to the
+    Conference of that year to the effect that "the Government
+    consider that the objection, on humanitarian grounds, to the
+    bombardment of unfortified towns is too strong to justify a
+    resort to that measure, even though it may be permissible under
+    the abstract doctrines of international law [?]. They wish it,
+    however, to be clearly understood that any general prohibition
+    of such practice must not be held to apply to such operations
+    as the bombardment of towns or places used as bases or
+    storehouses of naval or military equipment or supply, or ports
+    containing fighting ships, and that the landing of troops, or
+    anything partaking of the character of a military or naval
+    operation, is also not covered."
+
+    It is hardly necessary to chronicle the indignation aroused by
+    the raids upon undefended coast towns carried out by German
+    cruisers during the war of 1914, in violation of modern
+    International Law and notwithstanding the German ratification
+    of Convention No. ix. of 1907.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+SECTION 15
+
+_Belligerent Reprisals_
+
+
+REPRISALS
+
+Sir,--The controversy as to the legitimacy of the recent attack on
+Freiburg tends to stray into irrelevancies. If the attack was made upon
+barracks or troop trains no one would surely criticise what is of
+everyday occurrence, although not unlikely to cause incidentally death
+or injury to innocent persons. There seems, however, to be no reason for
+supposing that such military objects were in view, or that our
+aeroplanes were instructed to confine their activity, as far as
+possible, to the attainment of such objects. We must assume, for any
+useful discussion of the question raised, that the operation was
+deliberately intended to result in injury to the property and persons of
+civilian inhabitants, not, of course, by way of vengeance, but by way of
+reprisal--_i.e._ with the practical object of inducing the enemy to
+abstain in the future from his habitually practised illegal barbarities.
+Such reprisals, as is to-day so well explained by your correspondent
+"Jurist," are no violations of international law. Objections might, of
+course, be made to them as unlikely to produce their hoped-for effect,
+or as repugnant to our feelings of humanity or honour. They are not
+illegal.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, May 4 (1917).
+
+
+REPRISALS
+
+Sir,--If my friend Sir Edward Clarke will glance again at my letter of
+Monday, he will, I think, cease to be surprised that it contains no
+answer to his censure from an ethical standpoint of our treatment of
+Freiburg. My object was merely to indicate the desirability of keeping
+the question whether acts of the kind are in violation of international
+law (which I answered in the negative) distinct from questions, which I
+catalogued, as to their practical inutility, with which some of your
+correspondents have occupied themselves, or their repugnancy to feelings
+of honour and humanity with which Sir Edward has dealt exclusively. Any
+discussion of political expediency or of high morals would have been
+beside my purpose.
+
+It is curious that Sir Herbert Stephen should to-day speak of my letter
+of the 7th as a defence of the aerial bombardment of Freiburg. It
+neither attacked nor defended the bombardment, but, solely in the
+interests of clear thinking, indicated the desirability of keeping
+distinct the three points of view from which the topic may be regarded,
+viz.: (1) of international law; (2) of practical utility; (3) of
+morality and honour.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, May 9 (1917).
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+SECTION 16
+
+_Peace_
+
+
+UNDESIRABLE PEACE TALK
+
+Sir,--There has been more than enough of premature discussion by groups
+of well-meaning amateurs, not unfrequently wirepulled by influences
+hostile to this country, with reference to the terms of the treaty of
+peace by which the world-war now raging will be brought to a close.
+
+Movements of the kind have culminated in the action of a body rejoicing
+in the somewhat cumbrous title of the "International Central
+Organisation for a Durable Peace," which is inviting members of about
+fifty societies, of very varying degrees of competence, to a
+cosmopolitan meeting, to be held at Berne in December next. Lest the
+unwary should be beguiled into having anything to do with the plausible
+offer made to them that they should, there and then, assist in compiling
+"a scientific dossier, containing material that will be of vast
+importance to the diplomats who may be chosen to participate in the
+peace congress itself," it may be worth while to call attention to the
+composition of the executive committee by which the invitations are
+issued, and to its "minimum programme."
+
+Of the members of this committee (of thirteen), on which Great Britain
+is represented only by Mr. Lowes Dickenson (mistakenly described as a
+Cambridge Professor), and America only by Mrs. Andrews, of Boston, the
+best known are Professors Lammasch, of Vienna, and Schuecking, of
+Marburg. The "minimum programme" demands, _inter alia_, "equal rights
+for all nations in the colonies, &c.," of the Powers; submission of all
+disputes to "pacific procedure," joint action by the Powers against any
+one of them resorting to military measures, rather than to such
+procedure; and that "the right of prize shall be abolished, and the
+freedom of the seas shall be guaranteed." The _provenance_ of this
+"minimum programme" is sufficiently obvious. What is likely to be the
+character of such a "maximum programme" as will doubtless be aimed at by
+the proposed gathering?
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, October 16 (1915).
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER VII
+
+THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF NEUTRALS
+
+
+SECTION 1
+
+_The Criterion of Neutral Conduct_
+
+    The main object of the first of the following letters was to
+    assert, as against any possible misunderstanding of phraseology
+    attributed to a great international lawyer (since lost to
+    science and to his friends by his sudden death on June 20,
+    1909), the authority by which alone neutral rights and duties
+    are defined.
+
+    The letter also touches upon the limit of time which a neutral
+    Power is bound to place upon the stay in its ports of
+    belligerent ships of war; a topic more fully discussed in
+    Section 4.
+
+
+PROFESSOR DE MARTENS ON THE SITUATION
+
+Sir,--The name of my distinguished friend, M. de Martens, carries so
+much weight that I hope you will allow me at once to say that I am
+convinced that to-day's telegraphic report of some communication made by
+him to the St. Petersburg newspapers fails to convey an accurate account
+of the views which he has thus expressed.
+
+On matters of fact it would appear that he is no better informed than
+are most of us in this country; and under matters of fact may be
+included the breaches of neutrality which he is represented as
+counter-charging against the Japanese. It is exclusively with the views
+on questions of law which are attributed to Professor de Martens that I
+am now concerned. He is unquestionably right in saying, as I pointed out
+in a recent letter, that the hard-and-fast rule, fixing 24 hours as the
+limit, under ordinary circumstances, of the stay of a belligerent
+warship in neutral waters, is not yet universally accepted as a rule of
+international law; and, in particular, is not adopted by France.
+
+But what of the further _dictum_ attributed to Professor de Martens, to
+the effect that "each country is its own judge as regards the discharge
+of its duties as a neutral"? This statement would be a superfluous
+truism if it meant merely that each country, when neutral, must, in the
+first instance, decide for itself what courses of action are demanded
+from it under the circumstances. The words may, however, be read as
+meaning that the decision of the neutral country, as to the propriety of
+its conduct, is final, and not to be questioned by other Powers. An
+assertion to this effect would obviously be the negation of the whole
+system of international law, of which Professor de Martens is so great a
+master, resting, as that system does, not on individual caprice, but
+upon the agreement of nations in restraint of the caprice of any one of
+them. The last word, with reference to the propriety of the conduct of
+any given State, rests, of course, not with that State; but with its
+neighbours. "Securus indicat orbis terrarum." Any Power which fails in
+the discharge, to the best of its ability, of a generally recognised
+duty, is likely to find that self-satisfaction is no safeguard against
+unpleasant consequences. Professor de Martens would, I am certain,
+endorse this statement.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, May 12 (1905).
+
+
+NEUTRALS AND THE LAWS OF WAR
+
+Sir,--The interesting address by Sir Edward Carson reported in your
+issue of yesterday will remind many of us of our regret that President
+Wilson, in Notes complaining of injuries sustained by American citizens,
+dwelt so slightly upon the violations of international law by which
+those injuries were brought about.
+
+Sir Edward seems, however, to have made use of certain expressions which
+might be taken to imply a view of neutral responsibility which can
+hardly be accepted. The United States were warned in the address that
+they will not "by a mere Note maintain the obligations which are put
+upon them, as parties to international law, which are to prevent
+breaches of civilisation and to mitigate the horrors of war." Neutrals
+were spoken of as "the executives of international law," and as alone
+standing "behind the conventions" (for humanising warfare). "Abolish,"
+we were told, "the power of neutrals, and you have abolished
+international law itself."
+
+Is this so? The contract into which a State enters with other States, by
+adopting the customary laws of war and by ratifying express Conventions
+dealing with the same subject, obliges it, while remaining neutral, to
+submit to certain inconveniences resulting from the war, and, when
+belligerent, to abstain from certain modes of carrying on hostilities.
+It is assuredly no term of the contract that the State in question shall
+sit in judgment upon its co-contractors and forcibly intervene in _rebus
+inter alios actis_. Its hands are absolutely free. It may remain a
+quiescent spectator of evil, or, if strong enough and indignant with the
+wrongdoing, may endeavour to abate the mischief by remonstrance, and, in
+the last resort, by taking sides against the offender. Let us hope that
+at the present crisis the United States may see their way to choosing
+the better part.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, November 28 (1915).
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+SECTION 2
+
+_The Duties of Neutral States, and the Liabilities of Neutral
+Individuals, distinguished_
+
+    The duties of neutral States have been classified by the
+    present writer under the heads, of "Abstention," "Prevention,"
+    and "Acquiescence." (_Transactions of the British Academy_,
+    vol. ii, p. 55; reproduced in the _Revue de Droit
+    International_, the _Revista de Derecho International_, and the
+    _Marine Rundschau_.) In the three letters which follow, an
+    attempt is made to point out the confusion which has resulted
+    from failure to distinguish between the two last-mentioned
+    heads of neutral duty; on the one hand, namely, the cases in
+    which a neutral government is bound itself to come forward and
+    take steps to prevent certain classes of action on the part of
+    belligerents, or of its own subjects, e.g. the overstay in its
+    ports of belligerent fleets, or the export from its shores of
+    ships of war for belligerent use; and, on the other hand, the
+    cases in which the neutral government is bound only to
+    passively acquiesce in interference by belligerents with the
+    commerce of such of its subjects as may choose, at their own
+    risk and peril, to engage in carriage of contraband, breach of
+    blockade, and the like.
+
+    I. A neutral State is bound to prevent its territory from
+    becoming, in any way, a "base of operations" for either
+    belligerent. Of the various obligations thus arising, the
+    following letters deal with the duty of the State (1) to
+    prevent the departure from its ports of vessels carrying coal
+    intended to supply directly the needs of a belligerent fleet;
+    and (2) to prevent the reception accorded in its ports to
+    belligerent warships from being such as will unduly facilitate
+    their subsequent operations. It is pointed out that the rule
+    adopted by the United States and this country, as well as by
+    some others, when neutral, by which the stay of belligerent
+    warships is limited to twenty-four hours, has not been adopted
+    by the nations of the European continent. The attempt made at
+    The Hague Conference of 1907 to secure the general acceptance
+    of this rule was unsuccessful; and Convention No. xiii. of that
+    year, not yet ratified by Great Britain, which deals with this
+    subject, merely lays down, in Art. 12, that "_In the absence of
+    special provisions to the contrary in the legislation of a
+    neutral Power_, belligerent warships are not permitted to
+    remain in the ports, roadsteads, or territorial waters of the
+    said Power for more than twenty-four hours, except in the cases
+    covered by this Convention." Art. 27 obliges the contracting
+    Powers to "communicate to each other in due course all laws,
+    proclamations, and other enactments, regulating in their
+    respective countries the _Status_ of belligerent warships in
+    their ports laid waters."
+
+    II. A neutral State is not bound to prevent such assistance
+    being rendered by its subjects to either belligerent as is
+    involved in, e.g. blockade-running or carriage of contraband;
+    but merely to acquiesce in the loss and inconvenience which may
+    in consequence be inflicted by the belligerents upon persons so
+    acting. In order to explain this statement, it became necessary
+    to say much as to the true character of "carriage of
+    contraband" (although this topic is more specifically dealt
+    with in the letters contained in Section 5), and to point out
+    that such carriage is neither a breach of international law nor
+    forbidden by the law of England. For the same reason, it seemed
+    desirable to criticise some of the clauses now usually inserted
+    in British Proclamations of Neutrality.
+
+    The view here maintained commended itself to the Institut de
+    Droit International, at its Cambridge and Venice sessions,
+    1895, 1896, as against the efforts of MM Kleen and Brusa to
+    impose on States a duty of preventing carriage of contraband by
+    its subjects (_Annuaire_, t. xiv. p. 191, t. xv. p. 205). It
+    has now received formal expression in The Hague Convention No.
+    x. of 1907, Art. 7 of which lays down that "a neutral Power is
+    _not_ bound to prevent the export or transit, for the use of
+    either belligerent, of arms, ammunition, or, in general, of
+    anything which could be of use to an army or fleet."
+
+
+CONTRABAND OF WAR
+
+Sir,--As a good deal of discussion is evidently about to take place as
+to the articles which may be properly treated as contraband of war, and,
+in particular, as to coal being properly so treated, I venture to think
+that it may be desirable to reduce this topic (a sufficiently large one)
+to its true dimensions by distinguishing it from other topics with which
+it is too liable to be confused.
+
+Articles are "contraband of war" which a belligerent is justified in
+intercepting while in course of carriage to his enemy, although such
+carriage is being effected by a neutral vessel. Whether any given
+article should be treated as contraband is, in the first instance,
+entirely a question for the belligerent Government and its Prize Court.
+A neutral Government has no right to complain, of hardships which may
+thus be incurred by vessels sailing under its flag, but is bound to
+acquiesce in the views maintained by the belligerent Government and its
+Courts, unless these views involve, in the language employed by Lord
+Granville in 1861, "a flagrant violation of international law." This is
+the beginning and end of the doctrine of contraband. A neutral
+Government has none other than this passive duty of acquiescence. Its
+neutrality would not be compromised by the shipment from its shores, and
+the carriage by its merchantmen, of any quantity of cannon, rifles, and
+gunpowder.
+
+Widely different from the above are the following three topics, into the
+consideration of which discussions upon contraband occasionally
+diverge:--
+
+1. The international duty of the neutral Government not to allow its
+territory to become a base of belligerent operations: e.g. by the
+organisation on its shores of an expedition, such as that which in 1828
+sailed from Plymouth in the interest of Dona Maria; by the despatch from
+its harbours for belligerent use of anything so closely resembling an
+expedition as a fully equipped ship of war (as was argued in the case of
+the _Alabama_); by the use of its ports by belligerent ships of war for
+the reception of munitions of war, or, except under strict limitations,
+for the renewal of their stock of coal; or by such an employment of its
+colliers as was alleged during the Franco-Prussian war to have
+implicated British merchantmen in the hostile operations of the French
+fleet in the North Sea. The use of the term "contraband" with reference
+to the failure of a neutral State to prevent occurrences of this kind is
+purely misleading.
+
+2. The powers conferred upon a Government by legislation of restraining
+its subjects from intermeddling in a war in which the Government takes
+no part. Of such legislation our Foreign Enlistment Act is a striking
+example. The large powers conferred by it have no commensurable relation
+to the duties which attach to the position of neutrality. Its effect is
+to enable the Government to prohibit and punish, from abundant caution,
+many acts on the part of its subjects for which it would incur no
+international liability. It does empower the Government to prevent the
+use of its territory as a base: e.g. by aid directly rendered thence
+to a belligerent fleet; but it, of course, gives no right of
+interference with the export or carriage of articles which may be
+treated as contraband.
+
+3. The powers conferred upon a Government by such legislation as section
+150 of the Customs Consolidation Act; 1853, now reproduced in a later
+enactment, of forbidding at any time, by Order in Council, the export of
+articles useful in war. The power thus given has no relation to
+international duty, and is mainly intended to be exercised, in the way
+of self-protection, when Great Britain is, or is likely to be, engaged
+in war. The object of the enactment is to enable the Government to
+retain in the country articles of which we may ourselves be in need, or
+to prevent them from reaching the hands of our enemies. The articles
+enumerated--e.g. arms, ammunition, marine engines, &c.--are, neither
+in the Act of 1853 nor in the Order in Council of the following year,
+described as "contraband of war."
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, March 5 (1904).
+
+
+COAL FOR THE RUSSIAN FLEET
+
+Sir,--The use of coal for belligerent purposes is, of course, of
+comparatively modern date, and it is hardly surprising to find that the
+mercantile community, as would appear from your marine insurance article
+of this morning, does not clearly distinguish between the different
+classes of questions to which such use may give rise. There is indeed a
+widely prevalent confusion, even in quarters which ought to be better
+informed, between two topics which it is essential to keep
+separate--viz. the shipment of contraband, and the use of neutral
+territory as a base for belligerent operations.
+
+A neutral Government (our own at the present moment) occupies a very
+different position with reference to these two classes of acts. With
+reference to the former, its international duty (as also its national
+policy) is merely one of acquiescence. It is bound to stand aside, and
+make no claim to protect from the recognised consequences of their acts
+such of its subjects as are engaged in carriage of contraband. So far as
+the neutral Government is concerned, its subjects may carry even cannon
+and gunpowder to a belligerent port, while the belligerent, on the other
+hand, who is injured by the trade may take all necessary stops to
+suppress it.
+
+Such is the compromise which long experience has shown to be both
+reasonable and expedient between the, in themselves irreconcilable,
+claims of neutral and belligerent States. So far, it has remained
+unshaken by the arguments of theorists, such as the Swedish diplomatist
+M. Kleen, who would impose upon neutral Governments the duty of
+preventing the export of contraband by their subjects. A British trader
+may, therefore, at his own proper risk, despatch as many thousand tons
+of coal as he chooses, just as he may despatch any quantity of rifles or
+bayonets, to Vladivostok or to Nagasaki.
+
+It by no means follows that British shipowners may charter their vessels
+"for such purposes as following the Russian fleet with coal supplies."
+Lord Lansdowne's recent letter to Messrs. Woods, Tylor, and Brown is
+explicit to the effect that such conduct is "not permissible." Lord
+Lansdowne naturally confined himself to answering the question which had
+been addressed by those gentlemen to the Foreign Office; but the reason
+for his answer is not far to seek. The unlawfulness of chartering
+British vessels for the purpose above mentioned is wholly unconnected
+with the doctrine of contraband, but is a consequence of the
+international duty, which if incumbent on every neutral State, of seeing
+that its territory is not made a base of belligerent operations. The
+question was thoroughly threshed out as long ago as 1870, when Mr.
+Gladstone said in the House Of Commons that the Government had adopted
+the opinion of the law officers:
+
+      "That if colliers are chartered for the purpose of attending
+      the fleet of a belligerent and supplying it with coal, to
+      enable it to pursue its hostile operations, such colliers
+      would, to all practical purposes, become store-ships to the
+      fleet, and would be liable, if within reach, to the operation
+      of the English law under the (old) Foreign Enlistment Act."
+
+British colliers attendant on a Russian fleet would be so undeniably
+aiding and abetting the operations of that fleet as to give just cause
+of complaint against us to the Government of Japan. The British shipper
+of coal to a belligerent fleet at sea, besides thus laying his
+Government open to a charge of neglect of an international duty, lays
+himself open to criminal proceedings under the Foreign Enlistment Act of
+1870. By section 8 (3) and (4) of that Act "any person within H.M.
+Dominions" who (subject to certain exceptions) equips or despatches any
+ship, with intent, or knowledge, that the same will be employed in the
+military or naval service of a foreign State, at war with any friendly
+State, is liable to fine or imprisonment, and to the forfeiture of the
+ship. By section 30, "naval service" covers "user as a store-ship," and
+"equipping" covers furnishing a ship with "stores or any other thing
+which is used in or about a ship for the purpose of adapting her for
+naval service." Our Government has, therefore, ample powers for
+restraining, in this respect, the use of its territory as a base. It has
+no power, had it the wish (except for its own protection, under a
+different statute), to restrain the export of contraband of war.
+
+It would tend to clearness of thought if the term "contraband" were
+never employed in discussions with reference to prohibition of the
+supply of coal to a belligerent fleet at sea.
+
+Your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, November 7 (1904).
+
+
+GERMAN WAR MATERIAL FOR TURKEY
+
+Sir,--The _Cologne Gazette_ rightly treats as incredible the rumour,
+mentioned by your Sofia Correspondent, that a trainload of munitions of
+war had been despatched by the German Government for the use of Turkey,
+while admitting that such a consignment may very likely have been
+forwarded from private German workshops.
+
+It has long been settled international law that a neutral Government,
+while, on the one hand, it is precluded from itself supplying munitions
+to a belligerent, is, on the other hand, not bound to prevent private
+individuals from so acting. The latter half of this rule has now
+received written expression in Art. 7 of The Hague Convention No. v. of
+1907, which deals with "Neutral Powers and Persons in War on Land."
+
+The only fault to be found with the paragraph in the _Cologne Gazette_
+quoted by your Berlin Correspondent, supposing it to be correctly
+transcribed, would be that it seems to imply that the above-mentioned
+Art. 7 legitimatises the supply of war material to belligerents by
+"neutral States." It is, however, obvious from the rest of the paragraph
+that the _Gazette_ is not really under that impression.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, December 24 (1911).
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+SECTION 3
+
+_Neutrality Proclamations_
+
+    The criticisms directed against the Proclamation of 1904, in
+    the first two letters which follow, have produced some
+    improvement in Proclamations of later date. See the last two
+    letters of this section. See also Appendix A in F.E. Smith and
+    N.W. Sibley's _International Law in the Russo-Chinese War_
+    (1905), devoted to a consideration of those criticisms.
+
+
+THE BRITISH PROCLAMATION OF NEUTRALITY
+
+Sir,--You were good enough to insert in your issue of November 9 some
+observations which I had addressed to you upon the essential difference
+between carriage of contraband, which takes place at the risk of the
+neutral shipowner, and use of neutral territory as a base for
+belligerent operations, an act which may implicate the neutral Power
+internationally, while also rendering the shipper liable to penal
+proceedings on the part of his own Government. I am gratified, to find
+that the views thus expressed by me are in exact accordance with those
+set forth by Lord Lansdowne in his reply of November 25 to the Chamber
+of Shipping of the United Kingdom. Perhaps you will allow me to say
+something further upon the same subject, suggested by several letters
+which appear in your paper of this morning. I am especially desirous of
+emphasising the proposition that carriage of contraband is no offence,
+either against international law or against the law of England.
+
+1. The rule of international law upon the subject may, I think, be
+expressed as follows: "A belligerent is entitled to capture a neutral
+ship engaged in carrying contraband of war to his enemy, to confiscate
+the contraband cargo, and, in some cases, to confiscate the ship also,
+without thereby giving to, the Power to whose subjects the property in
+question belongs any ground for complaint." Or, to vary the phrase, "a
+neutral Power is bound to acquiesce in losses inflicted by a belligerent
+upon such of its subjects as are engaged in adding to the military
+resources of the enemy of that belligerent." This is the rule to which
+the nations have consented, as a compromise between the right of the
+neutral State that its subjects should carry on their trade without
+interruption, and the right of the belligerent State to prevent that
+trade from bringing an accession of strength to his enemy. International
+law here, as always, deals with relations between States, and has
+nothing to do with the contraband trader, except in so far as it
+deprives him of the protection of his Government. If authority were
+needed for what is here advanced, it might be found in Mr. Justice
+Story's judgment in the _Santissima Trinidad_, in President Pierce's
+message of 1854, and in the statement by the French Government in 1898,
+with reference to the case of the _Fram_, that "the neutral State is not
+required to prevent the sending of arms and ammunition by its subjects."
+
+2. Neither is carriage of contraband any offence against the law of
+England; as may be learnt, by any one who is in doubt as to the
+statement, from the lucid language of Lord Westbury in _Ex parte
+Chavasse_ (34 L.J., Bkry., 17). And this brings me to the gist of this
+letter. I have long thought that the form of the Proclamation of
+Neutrality now in use in this country much needs reconsideration and
+redrafting. The clauses of the Proclamation which are set out by Mr.
+Gibson Bowles in your issue of this morning rightly announce that every
+person engaging in breach of blockade or carriage of contraband "will be
+justly liable to hostile capture and to the penalties denounced by the
+law of nations in that behalf, and will in no wise obtain protection
+from us against such capture or such penalties." So far, so good. But
+the Proclamation also speaks of such acts as those just mentioned as
+being done "in contempt of this our Royal Proclamation, in derogation of
+their duty as subjects of a neutral Power in a war between other Powers,
+or in violation or contravention of the law of nations in that behalf."
+It proceeds to say that all persons "who may misconduct themselves in
+the premises ... will incur our high displeasure for such misconduct." I
+venture to submit that all these last-quoted phrases are of the nature
+of misleading rhetoric, and should be eliminated from a statement the
+effective purport of which is to warn British subjects of the treatment
+to which certain courses of conduct will expose them at the hands of
+belligerents, and to inform them that the British Government will not
+protect them against such treatment. The reason why our Government will
+abstain from interference is, not that such courses of action are
+offences either against international or English law, but that it has no
+right to so interfere; having become a party to a rule of international
+law, under which a neutral Government waives the right, which it would
+otherwise possess, to protect the trade of its subjects from
+molestation.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, November 28 (1904).
+
+
+THE BRITISH PROCLAMATION OF NEUTRALITY
+
+Sir,--Enquiries which have reached me with reference to the observations
+which I recently addressed to you upon the British Proclamation of
+Neutrality induce me to think that some account of the development of
+the text of the proclamation now in use may be of interest to your
+readers. The proclamations with which I am acquainted conform to one or
+other of two main types, each of which has its history.
+
+1. The earlier proclamations merely call attention to the English law
+against enlistments, &c., for foreign service; and command obedience to
+the law, upon pain of the penalties thereby inflicted, "and of his
+Majesty's high displeasure." In the proclamation of 1817, the tacit
+reference is doubtless to certain Acts of George II, which, having been
+passed for a very different purpose, and having proved inadequate in
+their new application, were repealed by the Foreign Enlistment Act of
+1819. This is the Act to which reference is made in the proclamations of
+1823 and 1825; in the former of which we first get a recital of
+neutrality; while in the latter the clause enjoining all subjects
+strictly to observe the duties of neutrality and to respect the exercise
+of belligerent rights first makes its appearance.
+
+2. The proclamation of 1859 is of a very different character, bearing
+traces of the influence of the ideas which had inspired the action of
+President Washington in 1793. While carrying on the old, it presents
+several new features. British subjects are enjoined to abstain from
+violating, not only "the laws and statutes of the realm," but also (for
+the first time) "the law of nations." They are also (for the first time)
+warned that, if any of them "shall presume, in contempt of this our
+Royal Proclamation, and of our high displeasure, to do any acts in
+derogation of their duty as subjects of a neutral Sovereign, ... or in
+violation of the law of nations, ... as, more especially," by breach of
+blockade, or carriage of contraband, &c., they will "rightfully incur,
+and be justly liable to, hostile capture, and to the penalties denounced
+by the law of nations in that behalf"; and notice is (for the first
+time) given that those "who may misconduct themselves in the premises
+will do so at their peril, and of their own wrong; and that they will in
+no wise obtain any protection from Us against such capture, or such
+penalties as aforesaid, but will, on the contrary, incur Our high
+displeasure by such misconduct."
+
+The proclamations of 1861 and February and March 1866 complicate
+matters, by making the warning clause as to blockade and contraband
+apply also to the statutory offences of enlistment, &c.; but the
+proclamation of June, 1866, gets rid of this complication by returning
+to the formula of 1859, which has been also followed in 1870, 1877,
+1898, and in the present year.
+
+The formula as it now stands, after the process of growth already
+described, may be said to consist of seven parts--viz. (1) a recital
+of neutrality; (2) a command to subjects to observe a strict neutrality,
+and to abstain from contravention of the laws of the realm or the law of
+nations in relation thereto; (3) a recital of the Foreign Enlistment Act
+of 1870; (4) a command that the statute be obeyed, upon pain of the
+penalties thereby imposed, "and of Our high displeasure"; (5) a warning
+to observe the duties of neutrality, and to respect the exercise of
+belligerent rights; (6) a further warning to those who, in contempt of
+the proclamation "and of Our high displeasure," may do any acts "in
+derogation of neutral duty, or in violation of the law of nations,"
+especially by breach of blockade, carriage of contraband, &c., that they
+will be liable to capture "and to the penalties denounced by the law of
+nations"; (7) a notification that persons so misconducting themselves
+"will in no wise obtain any protection from Us," but will, "on the
+contrary, incur Our high displeasure by such misconduct."
+
+The question which I have ventured to raise is whether the _textus
+receptus_, built up, as it has been, by successive accretions, is
+sufficiently in accordance with the facts to which it purports to call
+the attention of British subjects to be properly submitted to His
+Majesty for signature. I would suggest for consideration: 1. Whether the
+phrases commanding obedience, on pain of His Majesty's "high
+displeasure," and the term "misconduct," should not be used only with
+reference to offences recognised as such by the law of England. 2.
+Whether such condensed, and therefore incorrect, though very commonly
+employed, expressions as imply that breach of blockade and carriage of
+contraband are "in violation of the law of nations," and are liable to
+"the penalties denounced by the law of nations," should not be replaced
+by expressions more scientifically correct. The law of nations neither
+prohibits the acts in question nor prescribes penalties to be incurred
+by the doers of them. What it really does is to define the measures to
+which a belligerent may resort for the suppression of such acts, without
+laying himself open to remonstrance from the neutral Government to which
+the traders implicated owe allegiance.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, December 5 (1904).
+
+
+THE BRITISH PROCLAMATION OF NEUTRALITY
+
+Sir,--I am glad that Mr. Gibson Bowles has called attention to certain
+respects in which the Proclamation of Neutrality issued by our
+Government on the 3rd of the present month differs from that issued on
+February 11, 1904.
+
+In two letters addressed to you with reference to the Proclamation of
+that year, I ventured to point out what appeared to me to be its
+defects, alike from a scientific and from a practical point of view. The
+present Proclamation has slightly minimised these defects, but, as a
+whole, remains open to the objections which I then raised. I have no
+wish to repeat in detail the contents of my letters of 1904, especially
+as they may be now found in my _Letters upon War and Neutrality_,
+published in 1909, pp. 95 and 98, but am unwilling not to take this
+opportunity once more to urge the desirability of redrafting the
+document in question.
+
+The Proclamation just issued still answers to my description of that of
+1904, as consisting of seven parts--viz.: (1) A recital of neutrality;
+(2) a command to subjects to observe a strict neutrality, and to abstain
+from contravention of the laws of the realm or the Law of Nations in
+relation thereto; (3) a recital of the Foreign Enlistment Act, 1870; (4)
+a command that the statute be obeyed, upon pain of the penalties thereby
+imposed, and of "Our high displeasure"; (5) a warning to observe the
+duties of neutrality and to respect the exercise of belligerent rights;
+(6) a further warning that any persons presuming, in contempt of the
+Proclamation, to do acts in derogation of their duty as subjects of a
+neutral Power, or of the Law of Nations, will incur the penalties
+denounced by such law; (7) a notice that persons so misconducting
+themselves will obtain no protection from their Sovereign.
+
+With the phraseology of No. 1, reciting British neutrality, and Nos.
+2-5, dealing with the duties of British subjects under the Foreign
+Enlistment Act of 1870, and constituting the bulk of the Proclamation,
+little serious fault can be found. It is well that such persons should
+be warned of the penalties which they may incur, including the Royal
+displeasure.
+
+The remaining two clauses relate, however, to matters of a totally
+different character from those previously mentioned, and care should
+therefore have been taken, but has not been taken, to make this
+perfectly clear. I would further remark upon these clauses: (1) That I
+agree with Mr. Bowles in regretting the omission here of the specific
+mention made in 1904 of "breach of blockade," "carriage of contraband,"
+&c., as specimens of the acts undoubtedly contemplated in these two
+clauses; (2) that it is a mistake to describe acts of this kind as being
+in derogation of "the duty of subjects of a neutral Power," or "in
+violation of the Law of Nations," or as "liable to the penalties
+denounced by such law." Carriage of contraband, and acts of the same
+class, are notoriously not condemned by English law, neither are they,
+in any proper sense, breaches of the Law of Nations, which, speaking
+scientifically, never deals with individuals, as such, but only with the
+rights and duties of States _inter se_. What the Law of Nations really
+does is, as I said in 1904, "to define the measures to which a
+belligerent may resort for the suppression of such acts, without laying
+himself open to remonstrance from the neutral Government to which the
+traders implicated owe allegiance"; (3) that on the other hand, I am
+glad to find that, in accordance with my suggestion, while it continues
+very properly to be stated that persons doing the acts under discussion
+"will in no wise obtain any protection from Us against such capture,
+&c.," the further statement that such persons "will, on the contrary,
+incur Our high displeasure by such misconduct," has now been with equal
+propriety omitted.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+The Athenaeum, October 9 (1911).
+
+
+THE PROCLAMATION OF NEUTRALITY
+
+Sir,--May I be allowed to point out that two questions arise upon the
+recent British Proclamation of Neutrality which were not, as they should
+have been, in the House of Commons last night, kept entirely distinct?
+
+The Government has surely done right in now omitting, as I suggested in
+1904, with reference to certain classes of acts which are prohibited
+neither by English nor by International Law, a phrase announcing that
+the doers of them would incur the King's "high displeasure"; while
+retaining the warning that doers of such acts must be prepared for
+consequences from which their own Government will not attempt to shield
+them.
+
+On the other hand, our Government has surely erred in not specifying, as
+in previous Proclamations, the sort of acts to which this warning
+relates--viz., to acts such as carriage of contraband, enemy service,
+and breach of blockade, which differ wholly in character from those
+violations of the Foreign Enlistment Act against which the bulk of the
+Proclamation is directed. As the Proclamation now stands, no clear
+transition is marked between breaches of English law and the unspecified
+acts which, though perfectly legal, will forfeit for the doers of them
+any claim to British protection from the consequences involved. Traders
+are left to find out as best they may the meaning of the general words
+"any acts in derogation of their duty as subjects of a neutral Power."
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, October 31 (1911).
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+SECTION 4
+
+_Neutral Hospitality_
+
+    The Hague Convention of 1907, No. xiii., not yet ratified by
+    Great Britain, suggests in Art. 12, with reference to the
+    question here raised, that "a defaut d'autres dispositions
+    speciales de la legislation de la Puissance neutre, il est
+    interdit aux navires de guerre des belligerants de demeurer
+    dans les ports et rades ou dans les eaux territoriales de la
+    dite Puissance pendant plus de 24 heures sauf dans les cas
+    prevues par la presente Convention."
+
+
+BELLIGERENT FLEETS IN NEUTRAL WATERS
+
+Sir,--A novel question as to belligerent responsibilities would be
+suggested for solution if, as seems to be reported in Paris, Admiral
+Rozhdestvensky over-stayed his welcome in the waters of Madagascar,
+although ordered to leave them by his own Government in compliance with
+"pressing representations" on the part of the Government of France.
+
+A much larger question is, however, involved in the discussion which has
+arisen as to the alleged neglect by France to prevent the use of her
+Cochin-Chinese waters by the Russians as a base of operations against
+Japan. We are as yet in the dark as to what is actually occurring in
+those waters, and are, perhaps, for that very reason in a better
+position for endeavouring to ascertain what are the obligations imposed
+on a neutral in such a case by international law.
+
+It is admitted on all hands that a neutral Power is bound not to permit
+the "asylum" which she may grant to ships of war to be so abused as to
+render her waters a "base of operations" for the belligerent to which
+those ships belong. Beyond this, international law speaks at present
+with an uncertain voice, leaving to each Power to resort to such
+measures in detail as may be necessary to ensure the due performance of
+a duty which, as expressed in general terms, is universally recognised.
+
+The rule enforced since 1862 by Great Britain for this purpose limits
+the stay of a belligerent warship, under ordinary circumstances, to a
+period of twenty-four hours; and the same provision will be found in the
+neutrality proclamations issued last year by, e.g. the United States,
+Egypt, China, Denmark, Sweden and Norway. So by Japan and Russia in
+1898. This rule, convenient and reasonable as it is, is not yet a rule
+of international law; as Lord Percy has had occasion to point out, in
+replying to a question addressed to him in the House of Commons. The
+proclamations of most of the Continental Powers do not commit their
+respective Governments to any period of time, and the material clauses
+of the French circular, to which most attention will be directed at the
+present time, merely provide as follows:--
+
+      "(1) En aucun cas, un belligerant ne peut faire usage d'un
+      port Francais, ou appartenant a un Etat protege, dans un but
+      de guerre, &c. (2) La duree du sejour dans nos ports de
+      belligerants, non accompagnes d'une prise, n'a ete limitee
+      par aucune disposition speciale; mais pour etre autorises a y
+      sejourner, ils sont tenus de se conformer aux conditions
+      ordinaires de la neutralite, qui peuvent se resumer ainsi
+      qu'il suit:--(_a_) ... (_b_) Les dits navires ne peuvent, _a
+      l'aide de ressources puisees a terre_, augmenter leur
+      materiel de guerre, renforcer leurs equipages, ni faire des
+      enrolements volontaires, meme parmi leurs nationaux. (_c_)
+      Ils doivent s'abstenir de toute enquete sur les forces,
+      l'emplacement ou les ressources de leurs ennemis, ne pas
+      appareiller brusquement pour poursuivre ceux qui leur
+      seraient signales; en un mot, s'abstenir de faire du lieu de
+      leur residence la base d'une operation quelconque contre
+      l'ennemi. (3) Il ne peut etre fourni a un belligerant que les
+      vivres, denrees, et moyens de reparations necessaires a la
+      subsistence de son equipage ou a la securite de sa
+      navigation."
+
+Under the twenty-four hours rule, the duty of the neutral Government is
+clear. Under the French rules, all must evidently turn upon the wisdom
+and _bonne volonte_ of the officials on the spot, and of the home
+Government, so far as it is in touch with them. We have no reason to
+suppose that the qualities in question will not characterise the conduct
+of the French at the present moment. There can, however, be no doubt
+that a better definition of the mode in which a neutral Power should
+prevent abusive use of the asylum afforded by its ports and waters is
+urgently required. The point is one which must prominently engage the
+attention of the special conference upon the rights and duties of
+neutrals, for which a wish was expressed by The Hague Conference of
+1899, and, more recently, by President Roosevelt.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, April 20 (1905).
+
+
+THE APPAM
+
+Sir,--It is satisfactory to learn that the United States Neutrality
+Board has decided adversely to the contention that the _Appam_ is a
+German ship of war. Her treatment as a prize would then, _prima facie_,
+seem to be governed by Art. 21 of The Hague Convention, No. xiii., which
+provides for her being released, together with her officers and crew,
+while the prize crew is to be interned. This Convention has been duly
+ratified both by Germany and by the United States. Its non-ratification
+by Great Britain is, I conceive, irrelevant.
+
+But Germany contends that the situation is governed by Art. 19, the text
+of which has been several times set out in your columns, of the old
+Convention of 1799. This may startle those who are acquainted with what
+occurred at The Hague in 1907, and I have seen no reference to what must
+be the gist of the German argument on the point. They no doubt argue
+that the old Convention remains unrepealed by No. xiii. of The Hague,
+because the latter Convention is of no effect, in pursuance of its
+common form Art. 28, to the effect that:--"The provisions of the present
+Convention do not apply except between contracting Powers, and then only
+if all the belligerents are parties to the Convention" (which is by no
+means the case).
+
+Your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, February 4 (1916).
+
+
+    Certain reservations on ratification do not affect Arts. 21 or
+    22.
+
+    The State Department ruled that the case did not fall within
+    the protecting clauses of the Treaty of 1799, which granted
+    asylum only to ships of war accompanying prizes, whereas the
+    _Appam_ was herself a prize. Proceedings by the owners in the
+    local Federal Court for possession of the ship resulted in a
+    decision in their favour, against which the Germans are
+    appealing in the Supreme Court. They do not seem to have raised
+    the objection, mentioned in the letter, as to the applicability
+    of Convention viii.
+
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+SECTION 5
+
+_Carriage of Contraband. (Absolute and Conditional Contraband:
+Continuous Voyages: Unqualified Captors: The Declaration of London)_
+
+    The letters included in the preceding sections 2 and 3 touched
+    incidentally upon carriage of contraband, in relation to other
+    departments of the law affecting neutrals. The eight letters
+    which follow, suggested respectively by the Spanish-American,
+    the Boer, and the Russo-Japanese wars, deal exclusively with
+    this topic, which seems likely to be henceforth governed no
+    longer only by customary and judge-made law, but largely also
+    by written rules, such as those suggested by the unratified
+    Declaration of London of 1909.
+
+
+    (_Absolute and Conditional Contraband_)
+
+    The divergence which has so long existed between Anglo-American
+    and Continental views upon contraband was very noticeable at
+    the commencement of the war of 1898, which gave occasion to the
+    letter which immediately follows. While the Spanish Decree of
+    April 23 set out only one list of contraband goods, the United
+    States Instructions of June 20 recognised two lists--viz. of
+    "absolute" and of "conditional" contraband, including under the
+    latter head "coal when destined for a naval station, a port of
+    call, or a ship or ships of the enemy; materials for the
+    construction of railways or telegraphs, and money, when such
+    materials or money are destined for an enemy's forces,
+    provisions, when destined for an enemy's ship or ships, for a
+    place besieged."
+
+    An answer was thus supplied to the question suggested in this
+    letter, as to articles _ancipitis usus_.
+
+
+CONTRABAND OF WAR
+
+Sir,--I fear that the mercantile community will hardly profit so much as
+the managers of the Atlas Steamship Company seem to expect by the
+information contained in their letter which you print this morning. It
+was, indeed, unlikely that the courteous reply of the Assistant
+Secretary of State at Washington to the enquiry addressed to him by the
+New York agents of the company would contain a declaration of the policy
+of the United States with reference to contraband of war. The threefold
+classification of "merchandise" (not of "contraband") quoted in the
+reply occurs, in the judgment of the Supreme Court in the well-known
+case of the _Peterhoff_ (5 Wallace, 58), but it is substantially that of
+Grotius, and has long been accepted in this country and in the United
+States, while the Continent is, generally speaking, inclined to deny the
+existence of "contraband by accident," and to recognise only such a
+restricted list of contraband as was contained in the Spanish decree of
+April 24 last.
+
+The questions upon which shippers are really desirous of information
+(which they are, however, perhaps not likely to obtain, otherwise than
+from decisions of prize Courts) are of a less elementary character. They
+would like to know what articles _ancipitis usus_ ("used for purposes of
+war or peace according to circumstances") will be treated by the United
+States as contraband, and with what penalty the carriage of such
+articles will be visited--_i.e._ whether by confiscation or merely by
+pre-emption.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, May 9 (1898).
+
+
+    The four letters which next follow also relate to the two
+    classes of contraband goods, with especial reference to the
+    character attributed to foodstuffs, coal and cotton.
+
+    On foodstuffs, see the _Report of the Royal Commission on the
+    Supply of Food, &c., in Time of War_, 1905. _Cf._ also
+    _infra._, pp. 174, 176, 177. They were placed by the unratified
+    Declaration of London, Art. 24, in the class of conditional
+    contraband; as is also coal. By Art. 28 of the Declaration, raw
+    cotton was enumerated among the articles which cannot be
+    declared contraband of war.
+
+    The suggestion in the letter of February 20, 1904, that certain
+    words quoted from the Japanese instructions had been
+    mistransmitted or misquoted was borne out by the Regulations
+    governing captures at sea, issued on March 15, 1904, Art. 14 of
+    which announces that certain goods are contraband "in case they
+    are destined to the enemy's army or navy, or in case they are
+    destined to the enemy's territory, and from the landing place
+    it can be inferred that they are intended for military
+    purposes."
+
+    The letters of March 10 and 15, 1905, will sufficiently explain
+    themselves. The accuracy of the statements contained in them
+    was vouched for by Baron Suyematsu, in a letter which appeared
+    in _The Times_ for March 16, to the effect that: "In Japan the
+    matters relating to the organisation and procedure of the prize
+    court, and the matters relating to prize, contraband goods,
+    &c., are regulated by two separate sets of laws.... The
+    so-called prize Court law of August 20, 1894, and amendment
+    dated March 1, 1904, which your correspondent refers to, are
+    the provisions relating to the former matters. The rules
+    regulating the latter matters--viz. prize, contraband goods,
+    &c., are not comprised in them. The rules which relate to the
+    latter matters, as existing at present, are consolidated and
+    comprised in an enactment which was issued on March 7, 1904....
+    Under the circumstances I can only repeat what Professor
+    Holland says ... in other words, I fully concur with the views
+    taken by the Professor."
+
+    The distinction between articles which are "absolutely
+    contraband," those which are "conditionally contraband," and
+    those which are incapable of being declared contraband was
+    expressly adopted in Arts. 22, 24, and 28 of the unratified
+    Declaration of London of 1909, as to which, see the comment at
+    the end of this section, as also the whole of Section 10.
+
+
+IS COAL CONTRABAND OF WAR?
+
+Sir,--This question has now been answered, in unmistakable terms, on
+behalf of this country by Lord Lansdowne in his reply, which you printed
+yesterday, to Messrs. Powley, Thomas, and Co., and on behalf of Japan by
+the proclamation which appears in _The Times_ of to-day. Both of these
+documents set forth the old British doctrine, now fully adopted in the
+United States, and beginning to win its way on the Continent of Europe,
+that, besides articles which are absolutely contraband, other articles
+_ancipitis usus_, and amongst them coal, may become so under certain
+conditions. "When destined," says Lord Lansdowne, "for warlike as
+opposed to industrial use." "When destined," says Japan, "for the
+enemy's army or navy, or in such cases where, _being goods arriving, at
+enemy's territory_, there is reason to believe that they are intended
+for use of enemy's army or navy."
+
+I may say that the words which I have italicised must, I think, have
+been mistranslated or mistransmitted. Their intention is, doubtless,
+substantially that which was more clearly expressed in the Japanese
+proclamation of 1894 by the words: "Either the enemy's fleet at sea or a
+hostile port used exclusively or mainly for naval or military
+equipment."
+
+A phrase in your issue of to-day with reference to the Cardiff coal
+trade suggests that it may be worth while to touch upon the existence of
+a widely-spread confusion between the grounds on which export of coal
+may be prohibited by a neutral country and those which justify its
+confiscation, although on board a neutral ship, by a belligerent. A
+neutral State restrains, under certain circumstances, the export of
+coal, not because coal is contraband, but because such export is
+converting the neutral territory into a base of belligerent operations.
+The question of contraband or no contraband only arises between the
+neutral carrier and the belligerent when the latter claims to be
+entitled to interfere with the trade of the former.
+
+Since the rules applicable to the carriage of coal are, I venture to
+think, equally applicable, to the carriage of foodstuffs, I may perhaps
+be allowed to add a few words with reference to the letter addressed to
+you a day or two ago by Sir Henry Bliss. I share his desire for some
+explanation of the telegram which reached you on the 12th of this month
+from British Columbia. One would like to know: (1) What is "the
+Government," if any, which has instructed the Empress Line not to
+forward foodstuffs to Japan; (2) whether the refusal relates to
+foodstuffs generally, or only to those with a destination for warlike
+use; (3) what is meant by the statement that "the steamers of the
+Empress Line belong to the Naval Reserve"? I presume the meaning to be
+that the line is subsidised with a view to the employment of the ships
+of the company as British cruisers when Great Britain is at war. The
+bearing of this fact upon the employment of the ships when Great Britain
+is at peace is far from apparent. It is, of course, possible that the
+Government contract with the company may have been so drawn, _ex
+abundanti cautela_, as greatly to restrict what would otherwise have
+been the legitimate trade of the company.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, February 20 (1904).
+
+
+COTTON AS CONTRABAND OF WAR
+
+Sir,--The text of the decision of the Court of Appeal at St. Petersburg
+in the case of the _Calchas_ has at length reached this country, and we
+are thus informed, upon the highest authority, though, perhaps, not in
+the clearest language, of the meaning which is now to be placed upon the
+Russian notification that cotton is contraband of war.
+
+This notification, promulgated on April 21, 1904, was received with
+general amazement, not diminished by an official gloss to the effect
+that it "applied only to raw cotton suitable for the manufacture of
+explosives, and not to yarn or tissues." It must be remembered that at
+the date mentioned, and for some months afterwards, Russia stoutly
+maintained that all the articles enumerated in her list of contraband of
+February 28, 1904, and in the additions to that list, were "absolutely"
+such; _i.e._ were confiscable if in course of carriage to any enemy's
+port, irrespectively of the character of that port, or of the use to
+which the articles would probably be put. It was only after much
+correspondence, and the receipt of strong protests from Great Britain
+and the United States, that Russia consented to recognise the well-known
+distinction between "absolute" and "conditional" contraband; the latter
+class consisting of articles useful in peace as well as for war, the
+character of which must, therefore, depend upon whether they are, in
+point of fact, destined for warlike or for peaceful uses. This
+concession was made about the middle of September last, and it was then
+agreed that provisions should be placed in the secondary category (as
+was duly explained in the Petersburg judgment in the case of the
+_Arabia_ on December 14) together with some other articles, among which
+it seemed that raw cotton was not included.
+
+The final decision in the _Calchas_ case marks a welcome change of
+policy. Cotton has now followed foodstuffs into the category of
+"conditional" contraband, and effect has so far been given to the
+representations on the subject made by Mr. Hay in circular despatches of
+June 10 and August 30, 1904, and by Sir Charles Hardinge, in a note
+presented to Count Lamsdorff on October 9 of the same year.
+
+The question had become a practical one in the case of the _Calchas_. On
+July 25 this vessel, laden with, _inter alia_, nine tons of raw cotton
+for Yokohama and Kobe, was seized by a Russian cruiser and carried into
+Vladivostok, where, on September 18, the cotton, together with other
+portions of her cargo, was condemned as absolutely contraband. The
+reasons for repudiating this decision, and the notification to which it
+gave effect, were not far to seek, and it may still be worth while to
+insist upon them. As against Russia, it is well to recall that, from the
+days of the Armed Neutralities onwards, her traditional policy has been
+to favour a very restricted list of contraband; that when in 1877, as
+again in 1900 and 1904, she included in it materials "servant de faire
+sauter les obstacles," the examples given of such materials were things
+so immediately fitted for warlike use as "les mines, les torpilles, la
+dynamite," &c.; and that what is said as to "conditional contraband" by
+her trusted adviser, Professor de Martens, in his _Droit International_,
+t. iii (1887), pp. 351-354, can scarcely be reconciled with her recent
+action.
+
+But a still stronger argument against the inclusion of cotton in the
+list of "absolute" contraband is that this is wholly without precedent.
+It has, indeed, been alleged that cotton was declared to be "contraband"
+by the United States in their Civil War. The Federal proclamations will,
+however, be searched in vain for anything of the kind. The mistake is
+due to an occasional loose employment of the term, as descriptive of
+articles found by an invader in an enemy's territory, which, although
+the property of private, and even neutral, individuals, happen to be so
+useful for the purposes of the war as to be justly confiscated. That
+this was so will appear from an attentive reading of the case of _Mrs.
+Alexander's Cotton_, in 1861 (2 Wallace, 404), and of the arguments in
+the claim made by Messrs. Maza and Larrache against the United States in
+1886 (Foreign Relations of U.S., 1887). A similarly loose use of the
+term was its application by General B.F. Butler to runaway slaves who
+had been employed on military works--an application of which he
+confessed himself "never very proud as a lawyer," though "as an
+executive officer, much comforted with it." The phrase caught the
+popular fancy, came to be applied to slaves generally, and was
+immortalised in a song, long a favourite among negro children, the
+refrain of which was "I'se a happy little contraband."
+
+The decision of the Court of St. Petersburg in the case of the
+_Calchas_, so far as it recognises the existence of a conditional class
+of contraband, and that raw cotton, as _res ancipitis usus_, must be
+treated in accordance with the rules applicable to goods belonging to
+that class, has laid down an unimpeachable proposition of law. Whether
+the view taken by the Court of the facts of the case, so far as they
+relate to the cotton cargo, is equally satisfactory, is a different and
+less important question, upon which I refrain from troubling you upon
+the present occasion.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+
+P.S.--It may be worth while to add, for the benefit of those only who
+care to be provided with a clue (not to be found in the judgment)
+through the somewhat labyrinthine details of the question under
+discussion, a summary of its history. The Russian rules as to contraband
+are contained in several documents--viz. the "Regulations as to Naval
+Prize" of 1895, Arts. 11-14; the "Admiralty Instructions" of 1900, Arts.
+97, 98, and the appended "Special Declaration" as to the articles
+considered to be contraband (partly modelled on the list of 1877); the
+"Imperial Order" of February 28, 1904, rule 6 (this Order keeps alive
+the rules of 1895 and 1900, except in so far as they are varied by it);
+the "Order" of March 19, 1904, defining "food" and bringing machinery of
+certain kinds into the list of contraband; the "Order," of April 21,
+1904, bringing "raw cotton" into the list; and, lastly, the
+"Instructions" of September 30 and October 28, 1904, recognising, in
+effect, a class of "conditional" contraband, placing foodstuffs in this
+class, as also, ultimately, other objects "capable of warlike use and
+not specified in sections 1-9 of rule 6."
+
+T. E. H.
+Temple, July 1 (1905).
+
+
+COTTON AS CONTRABAND
+
+Sir,--Your correspondent "Judex" will rejoice, as I do, that cotton has
+now been declared to be "absolute contraband." May I, however, suggest
+that the topic should be discussed without any reference to the
+fortunately unratified Declaration of London, that premature attempt to
+codify the law of maritime warfare, claiming, misleadingly, that its
+rules "correspond in substance with the generally recognised principles
+of international law"?
+
+It is surely regrettable that, by the Order in Council of August 20,
+1914, our Government adopted the provisions of the Declaration "during
+the present hostilities," and "subject to various additions and
+modifications," the list of which has since been considerably extended.
+This half-hearted course of action painfully recalls certain vicious
+methods of legislation by reference, and was additionally uncalled for,
+since, as has been shown by recent events, about two-thirds of the rules
+laid down by the Declaration are inapplicable to modern warfare.
+
+The straightforward announcement made by the United States in their Note
+of January 25 is surely far preferable. It states in plain terms that,
+"As the Declaration of London is not in force, the rules of
+international law only apply. As to articles to be regarded as
+contraband there is no general agreement between nations." In point of
+fact, the hard-and-fast categories of neutral imports, suggested by the
+threefold Grotian division, as set forth in the Declaration, are
+unlikely ever to be generally accepted. Even Grotius is careful to limit
+his proposals, and Bynkershoek, in commenting upon them, points out that
+the test of contraband of the most noxious kind must be the, possibly
+exceptional, importance of objects for hostile use; their being of use
+also for non-hostile purposes being immaterial ("nec interesse an et
+extra bellum usum praebeant"). The application of these remarks to the
+case of cotton is sufficiently obvious.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, August 23 (1915).
+
+
+JAPANESE PRIZE LAW
+
+Sir,--I hope you will allow me space for a few words with reference to
+some statements occurring to-day in your Marine Insurance news which I
+venture to think are of a misleading character.
+
+Your Correspondent observes that--
+
+      "Although the Japanese are signatories to the Treaty of
+      Paris, it should not be forgotten that they haw a Prize Court
+      Law of their own (August 20, 1894), and are more likely to
+      follow its provisions, in dealing with the various captured
+      steamers, than the general principles of the Treaty of
+      Paris."
+
+Upon this paragraph let me remark:--
+
+1. The action of the Japanese is in full accordance with the letter and
+spirit of all four articles of the Declaration of Paris. ("The Treaty of
+Paris" has, of course, no bearing upon prize law.)
+
+2. "The general principles" of that Declaration is a phrase which
+conveys to me, I confess, no meaning.
+
+3. The Japanese have, of course, a prize law of their own, borrowed, for
+the most part, from our own Admiralty Manual of Prize Law. Neither the
+British nor the Japanese instructions are in conflict with, or indeed
+stand in any relation to, the Declaration of Paris.
+
+4. The existing prize law of Japan was promulgated on March 7, 1904, not
+on August 20, 1894.
+
+Your Correspondent goes on to say that the Japanese definition of
+contraband "is almost as sweeping as was the Russian definition, to
+which the British Government took active objection last summer." So far
+is this from being the case that the Japanese list is practically the
+same as our own, both systems recognising the distinction between
+"absolute" and "conditional" contraband, which, till the other day, was
+ignored by Russia.
+
+The Japanese rules as to the cases in which ships carrying contraband
+may be confiscated are quite reasonable and in accordance with British
+views. The third ground for confiscation mentioned by your Correspondent
+does not occur in the instructions of 1904.
+
+Ships violating a blockade are, of course, confiscable; but the Japanese
+do not, as your Correspondent seems to have been informed, make the
+existence of a blockade conditional upon its having been "notified to
+the Consuls of all States in the blockaded port." Commanders are, no
+doubt, instructed to notify the fact, "as far as possible, to the
+competent authorities and the Consuls of the neutral Powers within the
+circumference of the blockade"; but that is a very different thing.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+The Athenaeum, March 10 (1905).
+
+
+JAPANESE PRIZE LAW
+
+Sir,--Let me assure your correspondent upon Marine Insurance that I have
+been familiar, ever since its promulgation, with the Japanese prize law
+of 1894, quoted by him as authority for statements made in your issue of
+March 10, the misleading character of which I felt bound to point out in
+a letter of the same date. All the topics mentioned by him on that
+occasion, and to-day, are, however, regulated, not by that law, but by
+notifications and instructions issued from time to time during 1904.
+
+I make it my business not only to be authoritatively informed on such
+matters, but also to see that my information is up to date.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, March 15 (1905).
+
+
+_(Continuous Voyages)_
+
+    The opinion expressed in the letter which immediately follows,
+    that the American decisions, applying to carriage of contraband
+    the doctrine of "continuous voyages," seem to be "demanded by
+    the conditions of modern commerce, and might well be followed
+    by a British prize Court," was referred to by Lord Salisbury in
+    a despatch of January 10, 1900, to be communicated to Count von
+    Buelow, with reference to the seizure of _Bundesrath_. _Parl.
+    Papers_, Africa, No. 1 (1900), p. 19.
+
+    The distinction, drawn in the same letter, between "carriage of
+    contraband" and "enemy service," which has sometimes been lost
+    sight of, was established in the case of _Yangtsze Insurance
+    Association_ v. _Indemnity Mutual Marine Company_, [1908] K.B.
+    910, in which it was held by Bigham, J., that the transport of
+    military officers of a belligerent State, as passengers in a
+    neutral ship, is not a breach or a warranty against contraband
+    of war in a policy of marine insurance. The carriage of enemy
+    despatches will no longer be generally treated as "enemy
+    service" since The Hague Convention, No. xi. of 1907, ratified
+    by most of the Powers, including Great Britain, on November 27,
+    1909, by Art. 1 provides that, except in the case of breach of
+    blockade, "the postal correspondence of neutrals or
+    _belligerents_, whether of _an official_ or a private
+    character, found on board a _neutral_ or enemy ship on the High
+    Seas is inviolable."
+
+    The case of the _Allanton_, which gave occasion for the letter
+    of July 11, 1904, was as follows. This British ship left
+    Cardiff on February 24 of that year, with a cargo of coal to be
+    delivered either at Hong-Kong or Sasebo. On arrival at
+    Hong-Kong, she found orders to deliver at Sasebo, and, having
+    made delivery accordingly, was chartered by a Japanese company
+    at another Japanese port, to carry coal to a British firm at
+    Singapore. On her way thither, she was captured by a Russian
+    squadron and taken in to Vladivostok, where on June 24 she was
+    condemned by the prize Court for carriage of contraband. The
+    Court held, ignoring the rule that a vessel ceases to be _in
+    dilecto_ when she has "deposited" her contraband (since
+    affirmed by Art. 38 of the Declaration of London of 1909), that
+    she was liable in respect of her voyage to Sasebo; as also in
+    respect of the voyage on which she was captured, on the ground
+    that her real destination was at that time the Japanese fleet,
+    or some Japanese port. This decision was reversed, as to both
+    ship and cargo, by the Court of Appeal at St. Petersburg, on
+    October 22 of the same year.
+
+    The doctrine of "continuous voyages" was by the Declaration of
+    London, Art. 30, recognised in the case of "absolute," but by
+    Art. 35 was stated to be inapplicable to the case of
+    "conditional" contraband.
+
+
+PRIZE LAW
+
+Sir,--Questions of maritime international law which are likely to give
+rise not only to forensic argument in the prize Courts which we have
+established at Durban and at the Cape, but also to diplomatic
+communications between Great Britain and neutral Governments, should
+obviously be handled just now with a large measure of reserve. Lord
+Rosebery has, however, in your columns called upon our Government to
+define its policy with reference to foodstuffs as contraband of war,
+while several other correspondents have touched upon, cognate topics.
+You may perhaps therefore be disposed to allow one who is responsible
+for the _Admiralty Manual of the Law of Prize_, to which reference has
+been made by your correspondent "S.," to make a few statements as to
+points upon which it may be desirable for the general reader to be in
+possession of information accurate, one may venture to hope, as far as
+it goes.
+
+Of the four inconveniences to which neutral trading vessels are liable
+in time of war, "blockade" may be left out of present consideration. You
+can only blockade the ports of your enemy, and the South African
+Republics have no port of their own. The three other inconveniences
+must, however, all be endured--viz. prohibition to carry "contraband,"
+prohibition to engage in "enemy service," and liability to be "visited
+and searched" anywhere except within three miles of a neutral coast, in
+order that it may be ascertained whether they are disregarding either of
+these prohibitions, as to the meaning of which some explanation may not
+be superfluous.
+
+1. "Carriage of contraband" implies (1) that the goods carried are fit
+for hostile use; (2) that they are on their way to a hostile
+destination. Each of these requirements has given rise to wide
+divergence of views and to a considerable literature. As to (1), while
+Continental opinion and practice favour a hard-and-fast list of
+contraband articles, comprising only such as are already suited, or can
+readily be adapted, for use in operations of war, English and American
+opinion and practice favour a longer list, and one capable of being from
+time to time extended to meet the special exigencies of the war. In such
+a list may figure even provisions, "under circumstances arising out of
+the particular situation of the war," especially if "going with a highly
+probable destination to military use"--Lord Stowell in the _Jonge
+Margaretha_ (1 Rob. 188); _cf._ Story, J., in the _Commercen_ (1 Wheat.
+382), the date and purport of which are, by the by, incorrectly given by
+"S." It would be in accordance with our own previous practice and with
+Lord Granville's despatches during the war between France and China in
+1885, if we treated flour as contraband only when ear-marked as destined
+for the use of enemy fleets, armies, or fortresses. Even in such cases
+our practice has been not to confiscate the cargo, but merely to
+exercise over it a right of "pre-emption," so as to deprive the enemy of
+its use without doing more injury than can be helped to neutral
+trade--as is explained by Lord Stowell in the _Haabet_ (2 Rob. 174). As
+to (2), the rule was expressed by Lord Stowell to be that "goods going
+to a neutral port cannot come under the description of contraband, all
+goods going there being equally lawful"--_Imina_ (3 Rob. 167); but
+innovations were made upon this rule during the American Civil War which
+seem to be demanded by the conditions of modern commerce, and might well
+be followed by a British prize Court. It was held that contraband goods,
+although _bona fide_ on their way to a neutral port, might be condemned,
+if intended afterwards to reach the enemy by another ship or even by
+means of land carriage--_Bermuda_ (3 Wallace); _Peterhoff_ (5 Wallace).
+A consignment to Lorenzo Marques, connected as is the town by only forty
+miles of railway with the Transvaal frontier, would seem to be well
+within the principles of the Civil War cases as to "continuous voyages."
+
+2. The carriage by a neutral ship of enemy troops, or of even a few
+military officers, as also of enemy despatches, is an "enemy service" of
+so important a kind as to involve the confiscation of the vessel
+concerned, a penalty which, under ordinary circumstances, is not imposed
+upon carriage of "contraband" property so called. See Lord Stowell's
+luminous judgments in _Orozembo_ (6 Rob. 430) and _Atalanta_ (_ib._
+440). The alleged offence of the ship _Bundesrath_ would seem to be of
+this description.
+
+The questions, both of "contraband" and of "enemy service," with which
+our prize Courts must before long have to deal, will be such as to
+demand from the Judges a competent knowledge of the law of prize,
+scrupulous fairness towards neutral claimants, and prompt penetration of
+the Protean disguises which illicit trade so readily assumes in time of
+war.
+
+Your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, January 2 (1900).
+
+
+THE _ALLANTON_ _(Continuous Voyage)_
+
+Sir,--I venture to think that the letter which you print this morning
+from my friend Dr. Baty, with reference to the steamship _Allanton_,
+calls for a word of warning; unless, indeed, it is to be taken as merely
+expressing the private opinion of the writer as to what would be a
+desirable rule of law.
+
+It would be disastrous if shipowners and insurers were to assume, that a
+neutral vessel, if destined for a neutral port, is necessarily safe from
+capture. Words at any rate capable of this construction may, no doubt,
+be quoted from one of Lord Stowell's judgments, now more than a century
+old; but many things have happened, notably the invention of railways,
+since the days of that great Judge. The United States cases, decided in
+the sixties (as Dr. Baty thinks, "on a demonstrably false analogy"), in
+which certain ships were held to be engaged in the carriage of
+contraband, although their destination was a neutral port, were
+substantially approved of by Great Britain. Their principle wast adopted
+by Italy, in the _Doelwijk_, in 1896, and was supported by Great Britain
+in the correspondence upon this subject which took place with Germany in
+1900. It was endorsed, after prolonged discussion, by the Institut de
+Droit International in 1896.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, July 11 (1904).
+
+
+_(Unqualified Captors)_
+
+    Among the objections raised by the British Government to the
+    capture by the Russian ship _Peterburg_ in the Red Sea, on July
+    13, 1904, of the P. and O. ss. _Malacca_, for carriage of
+    contraband were (1) that the so-called contraband consisted of
+    government ammunition for the use of the British fleet in
+    Chinese waters; and (2) what was more serious, that the
+    capturing vessel, which belonged to the Russian volunteer
+    fleet, after issuing from the Black Sea under the commercial
+    flag had subsequently, and without touching at any Russian
+    port, brought up guns from her hold, and had proceeded to
+    exercise belligerent rights under the Russian naval flag. In
+    consequence of the protest of the British Government, and to
+    close the incident, the _Malacca_ was released at Algiers,
+    after a purely formal examination, on July 27, and Russia
+    agreed to instruct the officers of her volunteer fleet not to
+    make any similar captures.
+
+    The question of the legitimacy of the transformation on the
+    high seas into a ship-of-war of a vessel which has previously
+    been sailing under the commercial flag was much discussed at
+    The Hague Conference of 1907, but without result. Opinions were
+    so much divided upon the point, that no mention of it is made
+    in Convention No. vii. of that year, ratified by Great Britain
+    on November 27, 1909, "as to the transformation of merchant
+    vessels into ships-of-war." At the session of the Institut de
+    Droit International held at Oxford in 1913, this question was
+    discussed, and rules relating to it will be found in Section 2
+    of the _Manuel des lois de la guerre maritime_, the drafting of
+    which occupied the whole of the session.
+
+
+THE _ALLANTON_ _(Unqualified Captors)_
+
+Sir,--The indignation caused by the treatment of the _Allanton_ is
+natural, and will almost certainly prove to be well founded; but Mr.
+Rae, in the letter which you print this morning, overstates a good case.
+He asks that, "whatever steps are taken for the release of the
+_Malacca_, equally strong steps should be taken for the release of the
+_Allanton_"; and he can see no difference between the cases of the two
+ships, except that the former is owned by a powerful company in the
+habit of carrying British mails, while the latter is his private
+property.
+
+One would have supposed it to be notorious that the facts which
+distinguish the one case from the other are, first, that the capture of
+the _Malacca_ was effected by a vessel not entitled to exercise
+belligerent rights; and, secondly, that Great Britain is prepared to
+claim the incriminated cargo as belonging to the British Government.
+Capture by an unqualified cruiser is so sufficient a ground for a claim
+of restoration and compensation that, except perhaps as facilitating the
+retreat of Russia from a false position, it would seem, to say the
+least, superfluous to pray in aid any other reason for the cancellation
+of an act unlawful _ab initio._
+
+I have not noticed any statement as to the actual constitution of the
+prize Court concerned in the condemnation of the _Allanton._ Under Rule
+54 of the Russian Naval Regulations of 1895, a "Port Prize Court" must,
+for a decree of confiscation, consist of six members, of whom three must
+be officials of the Ministries of Marine, Justice, and Foreign Affairs
+respectively. An "Admirals' Prize Court," for the same purpose, need
+consist of only four members, all of whom are naval officers.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, July 25 (1904).
+
+
+_(Note upon the Declaration of London)_
+
+    The British delegates to The Hague Conference of 1907 were
+    instructed that H.M. Government "are ready and willing for
+    their part, in lieu of endeavouring to frame new and more
+    satisfactory rules for the prevention of contraband trade in
+    the future, to abandon the principle of contraband of war
+    altogether, thus allowing the oversea trade in neutral vessels
+    between belligerents on the one hand and neutrals on the other,
+    to continue during war without any restriction," except with
+    reference to blockades. This proposal, fortunately, was not
+    accepted by the Conference, which was unable even to agree upon
+    lists of contraband articles, and recommended that the question
+    should be further considered by the Governments concerned,
+    _Parl. Paper, Miscell._ No. 1 (1908), p. 194.
+
+    This task was accordingly among those undertaken at the
+    Conference of Maritime Powers held in London in 1908-1909,
+    which resulted in a Declaration, Arts. 22-44 of which
+    constituted a fairly complete code of the law of contraband.
+    Reference has already been made, in comments upon letters
+    comprised in previous sections, to this Declaration, the
+    demerits and history of which are more fully dealt with in
+    section 10, _infra_, pp. 196-207.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+SECTION 6
+
+_Methods of Warfare as affecting Neutrals_
+
+_(Mines)_
+
+    On the views expressed in the first of the two letters which
+    follow, as also in the writer's British Academy paper on
+    _Neutral Duties_, as translated in the _Marine Rundschau_, see
+    Professor von Martitz of Berlin, in the _Transactions_ of the
+    International Law Association, 1907. The Institut de Droit
+    International has for some years past had under its
+    consideration questions relating to mines, and has arrived at
+    conclusions which will be found in its _Annuaire_, t. xxi. p.
+    330, t. xxii. p. 344, t xxiii. p. 429, t. xxiv. pp. 286, 301.
+
+    The topic has also been dealt with in The Hague Convention, No.
+    viii. of 1907, ratified with a reservation, by Great Britain on
+    November 27, 1907. By Art. 1 it is forbidden "(1) to lay
+    unanchored automatic-contact mines, unless they are so
+    constructed as to become harmless one hour at most after he who
+    has laid them has lost control over them; (2) to lay anchored
+    automatic-contact mines which do not become harmless as soon as
+    they have broken loose from their moorings; (3) to employ
+    torpedoes which do not become harmless when they have missed
+    their mark." By Art. 2, (which is, however, not accepted by
+    France or Germany) it is forbidden "to lay automatic-contact
+    mines off the coast and ports of an enemy, with the sole object
+    of intercepting commercial navigation."
+
+
+MINES IN THE OPEN SEA
+
+Sir,--The question raised in your columns by Admiral do Horsey with
+reference to facts as to which we are as yet imperfectly informed, well
+illustrates the perpetually recurring conflict between belligerent and
+neutral interests. They are, of course, irreconcilable, and the rights
+of the respective parties can be defined only by way of compromise. It
+is beyond doubt that the theoretically absolute right of neutral ships,
+whether public or private, to pursue their ordinary routes over the high
+sea in time of war, is limited by the right of the belligerents to fight
+on those seas a naval battle, the scene of which can be approached by
+such ships only at their proper risk and peril. In such a case the
+neutral has ample warning of the danger to which he would be exposed did
+he not alter his intended course. It would, however, be an entirely
+different affair if he should find himself implicated in belligerent war
+risks, of the existence of which it was impossible for him to be
+informed, while pursuing his lawful business in waters over which no
+nation pretends to exercise jurisdiction.
+
+It is certain that no international usage sanctions the employment by
+one belligerent against the other of mines, or other secret
+contrivances, which would, without notice, render dangerous the
+navigation of the high seas. No belligerent has ever asserted a right to
+do anything of the kind; and it may be in the recollection of your
+readers that strong disapproval was expressed of a design, erroneously
+attributed to the United States a few years since, of effecting the
+blockade of certain Cuban ports by torpedoes, instead of by a cruising
+squadron. These, it was pointed out, would superadd to the risk of
+capture and confiscation, to which a blockade-runner is admittedly
+liable, the novel penalty of total destruction of the ship and all on
+board.
+
+It may be worth while to add, as bearing upon the question under
+discussion, that there is a tendency in expert opinion towards allowing
+the line between "territorial waters" and the "high seas" to be drawn at
+a considerably greater distance than the old measurement of three miles
+from the shore.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, May 23 (1904).
+
+
+TERRITORIAL WATERS
+
+Sir,--Most authorities would, I think, agree with Admiral de Horsey that
+the line between "territorial waters" and "the high sea" is drawn by
+international law, if drawn by it anywhere, at a distance of three miles
+from low-water mark. In the first place, the ridiculously wide claims
+made, on behalf of certain States, by mediaeval jurists were cut down by
+Grotius to so much water as can be controlled from the land. The Grotian
+formula was then worked out by Bynkershoek with reference to the range
+of cannon; and, finally, this somewhat variable test was before the end
+of the eighteenth century, as we may see from the judgments of Lord
+Stowell, superseded by the hard-and-fast rule of the three-mile limit,
+which has since received ample recognition in treaties, legislation, and
+judicial decisions.
+
+The subordinate question, also touched upon by the Admiral, of the
+character to be attributed to bays, the entrance to which exceeds six
+miles in breadth, presents more difficulty than that relating to
+strictly coastal waters. I will only say that the Privy Council, in _The
+Direct U.S. Cable Co._ v. _Anglo-American Telegraph Co._ (L.R. 2 App.
+Ca. 394), carefully avoided giving an opinion as to the international
+law applicable to such bays, but decided the case before them, which had
+arisen with reference to the Bay of Conception, in Newfoundland, on the
+narrow ground that, as a British Court, they were bound by certain
+assertions of jurisdiction made in British Acts of Parliament.
+
+The three-mile distance has, no doubt, become inadequate in consequence
+of the increased range of modern cannon, but no other can be substituted
+for it without express agreement of the Powers. One can hardly admit the
+view which has been maintained, e.g. by Professor de Martens, that the
+distance shifts automatically in accordance with improvements in
+artillery. The whole matter might well be included among the questions
+relating to the rights and duties of neutrals, for the consideration of
+which by a conference, to be called at an early date, a wish was
+recorded by The Hague Conference, of 1899.
+
+In the meantime it may be worth while to call attention to the view of
+the subject taken by a specially qualified and representative body of
+international experts. The Institut de Droit International, after
+discussions and enquiries which had lasted for several years, adopted,
+at their Paris meeting in 1894, the following resolutions, as a
+statement of what, in the opinion of the Institut, would be reasonable
+rules with reference to territorial waters (I cite only those bearing
+upon the extent of such waters):--
+
+      "Art. 2.--La mer territoriale s'etend a six milles marins (60
+      au degre de latitude) de la laisse de basse maree sur tout
+      l'etendue des cotes. Art. 3.--Pour les baies, la mer
+      territoriale suit les sinuosites de la cote, sauf qu'elle
+      mesuree a partir d'une ligne droite tiree en travers de la
+      baie, dans la partie la plus rapprochee de l'ouverture vers
+      la mer, ou l'ecart entre les deux cotes de la baie est de
+      douze milles marins de largeur, a moins qu'un usage continu
+      et seculaire n'ait consacre une largeur plus grande. Art.
+      4.--En cas de guerre, l'etat riverain neutre a le droit de
+      fixer, par la declaration de neutralite, ou par notification
+      speciale, sa zone neutre au dela de six milles, jusqu'a
+      portee du canon des cotes. Art. 5.--Tous les navires sans
+      distinction ont le droit de passage inoffensif par la mer
+      territoriale, sauf le droit des belligerants de reglementer
+      et, dans un but de defense, de barrer le passage dans la dite
+      mer pour tout navire, et sauf le droit de neutres de
+      reglementer le passage dans la dite mer pour les navires de
+      guerre de toutes nationalites." (_Annuaire de l'Institut_, t.
+      xiii. p. 329).
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, June 1 (1904).
+
+
+    A French decree, of October 18, 1912, accordingly extends, when
+    France is neutral, her territorial waters to a distance of six
+    miles (11 kilom.) from low-water mark.
+
+
+_(Cable-cutting)_
+
+    With the letters which follow, compare the article by the
+    present writer on "Les cables sous-marins en temps de guerre,"
+    in the _Journal de Droit International Prive_, 1898, p. 648.
+
+    The topic of cable-cutting, as to which the Institut de Droit
+    International arrived in 1879 at the conclusions set out in the
+    first of these letters, was again taken into consideration by
+    the Institut in 1902: see the _Annuaire_ for that year, pp.
+    301-332.
+
+    The Hague Convention; No. iv. of 1907, provides, in Art. 54,
+    that "submarine cables connecting occupied territory with a
+    neutral territory shall not be destroyed or seized, unless in
+    case of absolute necessity. They must be restored, and
+    compensation must be arranged for them at the peace."
+
+    Convention No. v., by Art. 3, forbids belligerents (1) to
+    install on neutral territory a radio-telegraphic station, or
+    any other apparatus, for communicating with their land or sea
+    forces; (2) to employ such apparatus, established by them there
+    before the war, for purely military purposes. By Art. 5, a
+    neutral Power is bound to permit nothing of the sort.
+
+
+SUBMARINE CABLES
+
+Sir,--The possibility of giving some legal protection to submarine
+cables has been carefully considered by the Institut de Droit
+International. A committee was appointed in 1878 to consider the
+subject, and the presentation of its report to the meeting at Brussels
+in 1879 was followed by an interesting discussion (see the _Annuaire de
+l'Institut_, 1879-80, pp. 351-394). The conclusions ultimately adopted
+by the Institut were as follows:--
+
+      "1. It would be very useful if the various States would come
+      to an understanding to declare that destruction of, or injury
+      to, submarine cables in the high seas is an offence under the
+      Law of Nations, and to fix precisely the wrongful character
+      of the acts, and the appropriate penalties. With reference to
+      the last-mentioned point, the degree of uniformity attainable
+      must depend on the amount of difference between systems of
+      criminal legislation. The right of arresting offenders, or
+      those presumed to be such, might be given to the public
+      vessels of all nations, under conditions regulated by
+      treaties, but the right to try them should be reserved to the
+      national Courts of the vessel arrested.
+
+      "2. A submarine-telegraph cable uniting two neutral
+      territories is inviolable. It is desirable that, when
+      telegraphic communication must be interrupted in consequence
+      of war, a belligerent should confine himself to such measures
+      as are absolutely necessary to prevent the cable from being
+      used, and that such measures should be discontinued, or that
+      any damage caused by them, should be repaired as soon as the
+      cessation of hostilities may permit."
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, November 23 (1881).
+
+
+SUBMARINE CABLES IN TIME OF WAR
+
+Sir,--I venture to think that the question which has been raised as to
+the legitimacy of cable-cutting is not so insoluble as most of the
+allusions to it might lead one to suppose. It is true that no light is
+thrown upon it by the Convention of 1884, which relates exclusively to
+time of peace, and was indeed signed by Lord Lyons, on behalf of Great
+Britain, only with an express reservation to that effect. Nor are we
+helped by the case to which attention was called in your columns some
+time since by Messrs. Eyre and Spottiswoode. Their allusion was
+doubtless to the _International_ (L.R. 3 A. and E. 321), which is
+irrelevant to the present enquiry. The question is a new one, but,
+though covered by no precedent, I cannot doubt that it is covered by
+certain well-established principles of international law, which, it is
+hardly necessary to remark, is no cut-and-dried system but a body of
+rules founded upon, and moving with, the public opinion of nations.
+
+That branch of international law which deals with the relations of
+neutrals and belligerents is, of course, a compromise between what
+Grotius calls the "belli rigor" and the "commerciorum libertas." The
+terms of the compromise, originally suggested partly by equity, partly
+by national interest, have been varied and re-defined, from time to
+time, with reference to the same considerations. It is perhaps
+reasonable that, in settling these terms, preponderant weight should
+have been given to the requirements of belligerents, engaged possibly in
+a life-and-death struggle. "Ius commerciorum aequum est," says Gentili;
+"at hoc aequius, tuendae salutis." There is accordingly no doubt that in
+land warfare a belligerent may not only interrupt communications by
+road, railway, post, or telegraph without giving any ground of complaint
+to neutrals who may be thereby inconvenienced, but may also lay hands on
+such neutral property--shipping, railway carriages, or telegraphic
+plant--as may be essential to the conduct of his operations, making use
+of and even destroying it, subject only to a duty to compensate the
+owners. This he does in pursuance of the well-known "droit d'angarie,"
+an extreme application of which occurred in 1871, when certain British
+colliers were sunk in the Seine by the Prussians in order to prevent the
+passage of French gunboats up the river. Count Bismarck undertook that
+the owners of the ships should be indemnified, and Lord Granville did
+not press for anything further. Such action, if it took place outside of
+belligerent territory, would not be tolerated for a moment.
+
+The application of these principles to the case of submarine cables
+would appear to be, to a certain point at any rate, perfectly clear.
+Telegraphic communication with the outside world may well be as
+important to a State engaged in warfare as similar means of
+communication between one point and another within its own territory.
+Just as an invader would without scruple interrupt messages, and even
+destroy telegraphic plant, on land, so may he thus act within the
+enemy's territorial waters, or, perhaps, even so far from shore as he
+could reasonably place a blockading squadron. It may be objected that a
+belligerent has no right to prevent the access of neutral ships to
+unblockaded portions of the enemy's coast on the ground that by carrying
+diplomatic agents or despatches they are keeping up the communications
+of his enemy with neutral Governments. But this indulgence rests on the
+presumption that such official communications are "innocent," a
+presumption obviously inapplicable to telegraphic messages
+indiscriminately received in the course of business. It would seem,
+therefore, to be as reasonable as it is in accordance with analogy, that
+a belligerent should be allowed, within the territorial waters of his
+enemy, to cut a cable, even though it may be neutral property, of which
+the _terminus ad quem_ is enemy territory, subject only to a liability
+to indemnify the neutral owners.
+
+The cutting, elsewhere than in the enemy's waters, of a cable connecting
+enemy with neutral territory receives no countenance from international
+law. Still less permissible would be the cutting of a cable connecting
+two neutral ports, although messages may pass through it which, by
+previous and subsequent stages of transmission, may be useful to the
+enemy.
+
+Your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, May 21 (1897).
+
+
+SUBMARINE CABLES IN TIME OF WAR
+
+Sir,--Will you allow me to refer in a few words to the interesting
+letters upon the subject of submarine cables which have been addressed
+to you by Mr. Parsone and Mr. Charles Bright? In asserting that "the
+question as to the legitimacy of cable-cutting is covered by no
+precedent," I had no intention of denying that belligerent interference
+with cables had ever occurred. International precedents are made by
+diplomatic action (or deliberate inaction) with reference to facts, not
+by those facts themselves. To the best of my belief no case of
+cable-cutting has ever been made matter of diplomatic representation,
+and I understand Mr. Parsone to admit that no claim in respect of damage
+to cables was presented to the mixed Commission appointed under the
+Convention of 1883 between Great Britain and Chile.
+
+In the course of his able address upon "Belligerents and Neutrals,"
+reported in your issue of this morning, I observe that Mr. Macdonell
+suggests that the Institut de Droit International might usefully study
+the question of cables in time of war. It may, therefore, be well to
+state that this service hat already been rendered. The Institut, at its
+Paris meeting in 1878, appointed a committee, of which M. Renault was
+chairman, to consider the whole subject of the protection of cables,
+both in peace and in war; and at its Brussels meeting, in 1879,
+carefully discussed the exhaustive report of its committee and voted
+certain "conclusions," notably the following:--
+
+      "Le cable telegraphique sous-marin qui unit deux territoires
+      neutres est inviolable.
+
+      "Il est a desirer, quand les communications telegraphiques
+      doivent cesser par suite de l'etat de guerre, que l'on se
+      borne aux mesures strictement necessaires pour empecher
+      l'usage du cable, et qu'il soit mis fin a ces mesures, ou que
+      l'on en repare les consequences, aussitot que le permettra la
+      cessation des hostilites."
+
+It was in no small measure due to the initiative of the Institut that
+diplomatic conferences were held at Paris, which in 1882 produced a
+draft convention for the protection of cables, not restricted in its
+operation to time of peace; and in 1884 the actual convention, which is
+so restricted.
+
+It may not be generally known that in 1864, before the difficulties of
+the subject were thoroughly appreciated, a convention was signed, though
+it never became operative, by which Brazil, Hayti, Italy, and Portugal
+undertook to recognise the "neutrality" in time of war of a cable to be
+laid by one Balestrini. So, in 1869, the United States were desirous of
+concluding a general convention which should assimilate the destruction
+of cables in the high seas to piracy, and should continue to be in force
+in time of war. The Brussels conference of 1874 avoided any mention of
+"cables sous-marins."
+
+The moral of all that has been written upon this subject is obviously
+that drawn by Mr. Charles Bright--viz. "the urgent necessity of a
+system of cables connecting the British Empire by direct and independent
+means--_i.e._ without touching on foreign soil."
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, June 3 (1897).
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+SECTION 7
+
+_Destruction of Neutral Prizes_
+
+    A British ship, the _Knight Commander_, bound from New York to
+    Yokohama and Kobe, was stopped on July 23, 1904, by a Russian
+    cruiser, and as her cargo consisted largely of railway
+    material, was considered to be engaged in carriage of
+    contraband. Her crew and papers were taken on board the
+    cruiser, and she was sent to the bottom by fire from its guns.
+    The reasons officially given for this proceeding were that:
+    "The proximity of the enemy's port, the lack of coal on board
+    the vessel to enable her to be taken into a Russian port, and
+    the impossibility of supplying her with coal from one of the
+    Russian cruisers, owing to the high seas running at the time,
+    obliged the commander of the Russian cruiser to sink her."
+
+    The Russian Regulations as to Naval Prize, Art. 21, allowed a
+    commander "in exceptional cases, when the preservation of a
+    captured vessel appears impossible on account of her bad
+    condition or entire worthlessness, the danger of her recapture
+    by the enemy, or the great distance or blockade of ports, or
+    else on account of danger threatening the ship which has made
+    the capture, or the success of her operations," to burn or sink
+    the prize.
+
+    The Japanese Regulations, Art. 91, were to the same effect in
+    cases where the prize (1) cannot be navigated owing to her
+    being unseaworthy, or to dangerous seas; (2) is likely to be
+    recaptured by the enemy; (3) cannot be navigated without
+    depriving the ship-of-war of officers and men required for her
+    own safety.
+
+    The case of the _Knight Commander_ was the subject of comment,
+    on the 27th of the same month, in both Houses of Parliament. In
+    the House of Lords, Lord Lansdowne spoke of what had occurred
+    as "a very serious breach of international law," "an outrage,"
+    against which it had been considered "a duty to lodge a strong
+    protest." In the House of Commons, Mr. Balfour described it as
+    "entirely contrary to the accepted practice of civilised
+    nations." Similar language was used in Parliament on August 10,
+    when Mr. Gibson Bowles alluded to my letter of the 6th, in a
+    way which gave occasion for that of the 14th.
+
+    The _Knight Commander_ was condemned by the Prize Court at
+    Vladivostok on August 16, 1904, and the sentence was confirmed
+    on December 5, 1905, by the Court of Appeal at St. Petersburg,
+    which found it "impossible to agree that the destruction of a
+    neutral vessel is contrary to the principles of international
+    law." The Russian Government remained firm on the point, and in
+    1908 declined to submit the case to arbitration.
+
+    The Institut de Droit International in its _Code des Prises
+    maritimes_, voted in 1887, Art. 50 (not, be it observed,
+    professing to state the law as it is, but as it should be), had
+    taken a view in accordance with that maintained by the British
+    Government (_Annuaire_ for 1888, t. ix. p. 228; _cf. ib._ pp.
+    200, 201). (The _Manuel des lois de la guerre maritime_, voted
+    at Oxford in 1913, dealing exclusively with "les rapports entre
+    les belligerants," does not deal with the topic in question.)
+    It was, however, the opinion of the present writer, as will
+    appear from the following letters, that no rule of
+    international law, by which the sinking of even neutral prizes
+    was absolutely prohibited, could be shown to exist. He had
+    previously touched upon this question in his evidence before
+    the Royal Commission on the Supply of Food, &c., in Time of
+    War, on November, 4, 1903, and returned to it later in his
+    paper upon "The Duties of Neutrals," read to the British
+    Academy on April 12, 1905, _Transactions_, ii. p. 66. It was
+    reproduced in French, German, Belgian, and Spanish periodicals,
+    and was cited in the judgment of the St. Petersburg Court of
+    Appeal in the case of the _Knight Commander._
+
+    The subsequent history of the question, and, in particular, of
+    the rules suggested in Arts. 48-54 of the unratified
+    Declaration of London, may be claimed in favour of the
+    correctness of the opinion maintained in the letters.
+
+
+RUSSIAN PRIZE LAW
+
+Sir,--The neutral Powers have serious ground of complaint as to the mode
+in which Russia is conducting operations at sea. It may, however, be
+doubted whether public opinion is sufficiently well informed to be
+capable of estimating the comparative gravity of the acts which are just
+now attracting attention. Putting aside for the moment questions arising
+out of the Straits Convention of 1856, as belonging to a somewhat
+different order of ideas, we may take it that the topics most needing
+careful consideration relate to removal of contraband from the ship that
+is carrying it without taking her in for adjudication; interference with
+mail steamers and their mail bags; perversely wrong decisions of Prize
+Courts; confiscation of ships as well as of their contraband cargo;
+destruction of prizes at sea; the list of contraband. Of these topics,
+the two last mentioned are probably the most important, and on each of
+these I will ask you to allow me to say a few words.
+
+1. There is no doubt that by the Russian regulations of 1895, Art. 21;
+and instructions of 1901, Art. 40, officers are empowered to destroy
+their prizes at sea, no distinction being drawn between neutral and
+enemy property, under such exceptional circumstances as the bad
+condition or small value of the prize, risk of recapture, distance from
+a Russian port, danger to the Imperial cruiser or to the success of her
+operations. The instructions of 1901, it may be added, explain that an
+officer "incurs no responsibility whatever" for so acting if the
+captured vessel is really liable to confiscation and the special
+circumstances imperatively demand her destruction. It is fair to say
+that not dissimilar, though less stringent, instructions were issued by
+France in 1870 and by the United States in 1898; also that, although the
+French instructions expressly contemplate "l'etablissement des
+indemnites a attribuer aux neutres," a French prize Court in 1870
+refused compensation to neutral owners for the loss of their property on
+board of enemy ships burnt at sea.
+
+The question, however, remains whether such regulations are in
+accordance with the rules of international law. The statement of these
+rules by Lord Stowell, who speaks of them as "clear in principle and
+established in practice," may, I think, be summarised as follows: An
+enemy's ship, after her crew has been placed in safety, may be
+destroyed. Where there is any ground for believing that the ship, or any
+part of her cargo, is neutral property, such action is justifiable only
+in cases of "the gravest importance to the captor's own State," after
+securing the ship's papers and subject to the right of neutral owners to
+receive fall compensation (_Actaeon_, 2 Dods. 48; _Felicity, ib._ 381;
+substantially followed by Dr. Lushington in the _Leucade_, Spinks, 221).
+It is not the case, as is alleged by the _Novoe Vremya_, that any
+British regulations "contain the same provisions as the Russian" on this
+subject. On the contrary, the Admiralty Manual of 1888 allows
+destruction of enemy vessels only; and goes so far in the direction of
+liberality as to order the release, without ransom, of a neutral prize
+which either from its condition, or from lack of a prize crew, cannot be
+sent in for adjudication. The Japanese instructions of 1894 permit the
+destruction of only enemy vessels; and Art. 50 of the carefully debated
+"Code des prises" of the Institut de Droit International is to the same
+effect. It may be worth while to add that the eminent Russian jurist, M.
+de Martens, in his book on international law, published some twenty
+years ago, in mentioning that the distance of her ports from the scenes
+of naval operations often obliges Russia to sink her prizes, so that "ce
+qui les lois maritimes de tous les etats considerent comme un moyen
+auquel il n'y a lieu de recourir qu'a la derniere extremite, se
+transformera necessairement pour nous en regle normale," foresaw that
+"cette mesure d'un caractere general soulevera indubitablement contre
+notre pays un mecontentement universel."
+
+2. A far more important question is, I venture to think, raised by the
+Russian list of contraband, sweeping, as it does, into the category of
+"absolutely contraband" articles things such as provisions and coal, to
+which a contraband character, in any sense of the term, has usually been
+denied on the Continent, while Great Britain and the United States have
+admitted them into the category of "conditional" contraband, only when
+shown to be suitable and destined for the armed forces of the enemy, or
+for the relief of a place besieged. Still more unwarrantable is the
+Russian claim to interfere with the trade in raw cotton. Her prohibition
+of this trade is wholly unprecedented, for the treatment of cotton
+during the American Civil War will be found on examination to have no
+bearing on the question under consideration. I touch to-day upon this
+large subject only to express a hope that our Government, in concert, if
+possible, with other neutral Governments, has communicated to that of
+Russia, with reference to its list of prohibited articles, a protest in
+language as unmistakable as that employed by our Foreign Office in 1885;
+"I regret to have to inform you, M. l'Ambassadeur," wrote Lord
+Granville, "that Her Majesty's Government feel compelled to take
+exception to the proposed measure, as they cannot admit that,
+consistently with the law and practice of nations, and with the rights
+of neutrals, provisions in general can be treated as contraband of war."
+A timely warning that a claim is inadmissible is surely preferable to
+waiting till bad feeling has been aroused by the concrete application of
+an objectionable doctrine.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, August I (1904).
+
+
+RUSSIAN PRIZE LAW
+
+Sir,--From this hilltop I observe that, in the debate of Thursday last,
+Mr. Gibson Bowles, alluding to a letter of mine which appeared in your
+issue of August 6, complained that I "had not given the proper
+reference" to Lord Stowell's judgments. Mr. Bowles seems to be unaware
+that in referring to a decided case the page mentioned is, in the
+absence of any indication to the contrary, invariably that on which the
+report of the case commences. I may perhaps also be allowed to say that
+he, in my opinion, misapprehends the effect of the passage quoted by him
+from the _Felicity_, which decides only that, whatever may be the
+justification for the destruction of a neutral prize, the neutral owner
+is entitled, as against the captor, to full compensation for the loss
+thereby sustained.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Eggishorn, Valais, Suisse, August 14 (1904).
+
+
+RUSSIAN PRIZE LAW
+
+Sir,--Mr. Gibson Bowles has, I find, addressed to you a letter in which
+he attempts to controvert two statements of mine by the simple expedient
+of omitting essential portions of each of them.
+
+1. Mr. Bowles having revealed himself as unaware that the mode in which
+I had cited a group of cases upon destruction of prizes was the correct
+mode, I thought it well to provide him with the rudimentary information
+that, "in referring to a decided case, the page, mentioned is, _in the
+absence of any indication to the contrary_, invariably that on which the
+report of the case commences." He replies that he has found appended to
+a citation of a passage in a judgment the page in which this passage
+occurs. May I refer him, for an explanation of this phenomenon, to the
+words (now italicised) omitted in his quotation of my statement? It is,
+of course, common enough, when the reference is obviously not to the
+case as a whole but to an extract from it, thus to give a clue to the
+extract, the formula then employed being frequently "_at_ page
+so-and-so."
+
+2. I had summarised the effect, as I conceive it, of the group of cases
+above mentioned in the following terms: "Such action is justifiable only
+in cases of the gravest importance to the captor's own State, _after
+securing the ship's papers, and subject to the right of the neutral
+owners to receive full compensation_." Here, again, while purporting to
+quote me, Mr. Bowles omits the all-important words now italicised. I am,
+however, maltreated in good company. Mr. Bowles represents Lord Stowell
+as holding that destruction of neutral property cannot be justified,
+even in cases of the gravest importance to the captor's own State. What
+Lord Stowell actually says, in the very passage quoted by Mr. Bowles, is
+that "to the neutral can only be justified, under any such
+circumstances, by a full restitution in value." I would, suggest that
+Mr. Bowles should find an opportunity for reading _in extenso_ the
+reports of the _Actaeon_ (2 Dods. 48), and the _Felicity_ (_ib._ 881),
+as also for re-reading the passage which occurs at p. 386 of the latter
+case, before venturing further into the somewhat intricate
+technicalities of prize law.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Eggishorn, Suisse, August 26 (1904).
+
+
+THE SINKING OF NEUTRAL PRIZES
+
+Sir,--In your St. Petersburg correspondence of yesterday I see that some
+reference is made to what I have had occasion to say from time to time
+upon the vexed question of the sinking of neutral vessels, and your
+Correspondent thinks it "would be decidedly interesting" to know whether
+I have really changed my opinion on the subject. Perhaps, therefore, I
+may be allowed to state that my opinion on the subject has suffered no
+change, and may be summarised as follows:--
+
+1. There is no established rule of international law which absolutely
+forbids, under any circumstances, the sinking of a neutral prize. A
+_consensus gentium_ to this effect will hardly be alleged by those who
+are aware that such sinking is permitted by the most recent prize
+regulations of France, Russia, Japan, and the United States.
+
+2. It is much to be desired that the practice should be, by future
+international agreement, absolutely forbidden--- that the lenity of
+British practice in this respect should become internationally
+obligatory.
+
+3. In the meantime, to adopt the language of the French instructions,
+"On ne doit user de ce droit de destruction qu'avec plus la grande
+reserve"; and it may well be that any given set of instructions (e.g.
+the Russian) leaves on this point so large a discretion to commanders of
+cruisers as to constitute an intolerable grievance.
+
+4. In any case, the owner of neutral property, not proved to be good
+prize, is entitled to the fullest compensation for his loss. In the
+language of Lord Stowell:--
+
+      "The destruction of the property may have been a meritorious
+      act towards his own Government; but still the person to whom
+      the property belongs must not be a sufferer ... if the captor
+      has by the act of destruction conferred a benefit upon the
+      public, he must look to his own Government for his
+      indemnity."
+
+It may be worth while to add that the published statements on the
+subject for which I am responsible are contained in the _Admiralty
+Manual of Prize Law_ of 1888 (where section 808 sets out the lenient
+British instructions to commanders, without any implication that
+instructions of a severer kind would have been inconsistent with
+international law); in letters which appeared in your columns on August
+6, 17, and 30, 1904; and in a paper on "Neutral Duties in a Maritime
+War, as illustrated by recent events," read before the British Academy
+in April last, a French translation of which is in circulation on the
+Continent.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Temple, June 29 (1905).
+
+
+    The Russian circular of April 3, 1906, inviting the Powers to a
+    second Peace Conference, included amongst the topics for
+    discussion: "Destruction par force majeure des batiments de
+    commerce neutres arretes comme prises," and the British
+    delegates were instructed to urge the acceptance of what their
+    Government had maintained to be the existing rule on the
+    subject. The Conference of 1907 declined, however, to define
+    existing law, holding that its business was solely to consider
+    what should be the law in future. After long discussions, in
+    the course of which frequent reference was made to views
+    expressed by the present writer (see _Actes et Documents_, t.
+    iii. pp. 991-993, 1010, 1016, 1018, 1048, 1171), the Conference
+    failed to arrive at any conclusion as to the desirability of
+    prohibiting the destruction of neutral prizes, and confined
+    itself to the expression of a wish (_voeu_) that this, and
+    other unsettled points in the law of naval warfare, should be
+    dealt with by a subsequent Conference.
+
+    This question was, accordingly, one of those submitted to a
+    Conference of ten maritime Powers, which was convoked by Great
+    Britain in 1908, for reasons upon which something will be said
+    in the next section.
+
+    The question of sinking was fully debated in this Conference,
+    with the assistance of memoranda, in which the several Powers
+    represented explained their divergent views upon it, and of
+    reports prepared by committees specially appointed for the
+    purpose. It soon became apparent that the British proposal for
+    an absolute prohibition of the destruction of neutral prizes
+    had no chance of being accepted; while, on the other hand, it
+    was generally agreed that the practice is permissible only in
+    exceptional cases. (See _Parl. Paper, Miscell._ No. 5 (1909),
+    pp. 2-63, 99-102, 120, 189, 205, 215, 223, 248, 268-278, 323,
+    365.) Arts. 48-54 of the Declaration, signed by the delegates
+    to the Conference on February 26, 1909, but not ratified by
+    Great Britain, related to this question. After laying down, in
+    Art. 48, the general principle that "a neutral prize cannot be
+    destroyed by the captor, but should be taken into such port as
+    is proper for the legal decision of the rightfulness of the
+    capture" the Declaration proceeded, in Art. 49, to qualify this
+    principle by providing that "exceptionally, a neutral vessel
+    captured by a belligerent warship, which would be liable to
+    confiscation, may be destroyed, if obedience to Art. 48 might
+    compromise the safety of the warship, or the success of the
+    operations in which she is actually engaged."
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+SECTION 8
+
+_An International Prize Court_
+
+    The forecast, incidentally attempted in the following letters,
+    of the general results likely to be arrived at by the second
+    Peace Conference, has been justified by the event. As much may
+    be claimed for the views maintained upon the topic with which
+    these letters were more specifically concerned. Instead of
+    letting loose the judges of the proposed International prize
+    Court to "make law," in accordance with what might happen to be
+    their notions of "the general principles of justice and
+    equity," a serious attempt has been made to supply them with a
+    Code of the law which they would be expected to administer.
+
+    Some account will be given at the end of this section of the
+    movement towards the establishment of an International Court of
+    Appeal in oases of prize.
+
+
+AN INTERNATIONAL PRIZE COURT
+
+SIR--The idea suggested by the question addressed on February 19 to the
+Government by Mr. A. Herbert--viz. that the appeal in prize cases
+should lie, not to a Court belonging to the belligerent from whose Court
+of first instance the appeal is brought, but to an international
+tribunal, has a plausible appearance of fairness, but involves many
+preliminary questions which must not be lost sight of.
+
+Prize Courts are, at present, Courts of enquiry, to which a belligerent
+Government entrusts the duty of ascertaining whether the captures made
+by its officers have been properly made, according to the views of
+international law entertained by that Government. There exists, no
+doubt, among Continental jurists, a considerable body of opinion in
+favour of giving to Courts of Appeal, at any rate, in prize cases a
+wholly different character. This opinion found its expression in Arts.
+100-109 of the _Code des Prises maritimes_, finally adopted at its
+Heidelberg meeting, in 1887, by the Institut de Droit International.
+Art. 100 runs as follows:--
+
+      "Au debut de chaque guerre, chacune des parties belligerantes
+      constitue un tribunal international d'appel en matiere de
+      prises maritimes. Chacun de ces tribunaux est compose de cinq
+      membres, designes comme suit: L'etat belligerant nommera
+      lui-meme le president et un des membres. Il designera en
+      outre trois etats neutres, qui choisiront chacun un des trois
+      autres membres."
+
+In the abstract, and supposing that a tribunal perfectly satisfactory
+both to belligerents and neutrals could be constituted, whether
+antecedently or _ad hoc_, there might be much to be said for the
+proposal; subject, however, to one condition--viz. that an agreement
+had been previously arrived at as to the law which the Court is to
+apply. At the present time there exists, on many vital questions of
+prize law, no such agreement. It will be sufficient to mention those
+relating to the list of contraband, the distinction between "absolute"
+and "conditional" contraband, the doctrine of "continuous voyages," the
+right of sinking a neutral prize, the moment from which a vessel becomes
+liable for breach of blockade.
+
+Just as the _Alabama_ arbitration would have been impossible had not an
+agreement been arrived at upon the principles in accordance with which
+neutral duties as to the exit of ships of war were to be construed, so,
+also, before an international Court can be empowered to decide questions
+of prize, whether in the first instance or on appeal, it is
+indispensable that the law to be applied on the points above mentioned,
+and many others, should have been clearly defined and accepted, if not
+generally, at least by all parties concerned. The moral which I would
+venture to draw is, therefore, that although questions of fact, arising
+out of capture of a prize, might sometimes be submitted to a tribunal of
+arbitration, no case, involving rules of law as to which nations take
+different views, could possibly be so submitted. One is glad, therefore,
+to notice that the Prime Minister's reply to Mr. A. Herbert was of the
+most guarded character. The settlement of the law of prize must
+necessarily precede any general resort to an international prize Court;
+and if the coming Hague Conference does no more than settle some of the
+most pressing of these questions, it will have done much to promote the
+cause of peace.
+
+I am, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, February 20 (1907).
+
+
+A NEW PRIZE LAW
+
+Sir,--The leading articles which you have recently published upon the
+doings of the Peace Conference, as also the weighty letter addressed to
+you by my eminent colleague, Professor Westlake, will have been welcomed
+by many of your readers who are anxious that the vital importance of
+some of the questions under discussion at The Hague should not be lost
+sight of.
+
+The Conference may now be congratulated upon having already given a
+_quietus_ to several proposals for which, whether or not they may be
+rightly described as Utopian, the time is admittedly not yet ripe. Such
+has been the fate of the suggestions for the limitation of armaments,
+and the exemption from capture of private property at sea. Such also,
+there is every reason to hope, is the destiny which awaits the still
+more objectionable proposals for rendering obligatory the resort to
+arbitration, which by the Convention of 1899 was wisely left optional.
+
+Should the labours of the delegates succeed in placing some restrictions
+upon the employment of submarine mines, the bombardment of open coast
+towns, and the conversion of merchant vessels into ships of war; in
+making some slight improvements in each of the three Conventions of
+1899; and in solving some of the more pressing questions as to the
+rights and duties of neutrals, especially with reference to the
+reception in their ports of belligerent warships, it will have more than
+justified the hopes for its success which have been entertained by
+persons conversant with the difficulty and complexity of the problems
+involved.
+
+But what shall we say of certain proposals for revolutionising the law
+of prize, which still remain for consideration, notably for the
+establishment of an international Court of Appeal, and for the abolition
+of contraband? It can hardly be supposed that either suggestion will win
+its way to acceptance.
+
+1. The British scheme for an international Court of Appeal in prize
+cases is, indeed, far preferable to the German; but the objections to
+anything of the kind would seem to be, for the present, insuperable,
+were it only for the reason which you allowed me to point out, some
+months ago, _a propos_ of a question put in the House of Commons by Mr.
+Arnold Herbert. As long as nations hold widely different views on many
+points of prize law, it cannot be expected that they should agree
+beforehand that, when belligerent, they will leave it to a board of
+arbitrators to say which of several competing rules shall be applied to
+any given case of capture, or to evolve out of their inner consciousness
+a new rule, hitherto unknown to any national prize Court. It would seem
+that the German advocates of the innovation claim in its favour the
+authority of the Institut de Droit International. Permit me, therefore,
+as one who has taken part in all the discussions of the Institut upon
+the subject, to state that when it was first handled, at Zurich, in
+1878, the difficulties in the way of an international Court were
+insisted on by such men as Asser, Bernard, Bluntschli, Bulmerincq, and
+Neumann, and the vote of a majority in its favour was coupled with one
+which demanded the acceptance by treaty of a universally applicable
+system of prize law. The drafting of such a system was accordingly the
+main object of the _Code des Prises maritimes_, which, after occupying
+several sessions of the Institut, was finally adopted by it, at
+Heidelberg, in 1887. Only ten of the 122 sections of this Code deal with
+an international Court of Appeal. A complete body of law, by which
+States have agreed to be bound, must, one would think, necessarily
+precede the establishment of a mixed Court by which that law is to be
+interpreted.
+
+2. While the several delegations are vying with one another in devising
+new definitions of contraband, there would seem to be little likelihood
+that the British proposal for its total abandonment will be seriously
+entertained. Such a step could be justified, if at all, from the point
+of view of national interest, only on the ground that it might possibly
+throw increased difficulties in the way of an enemy desirous, even by
+straining the existing law, of interfering with the supply of foodstuffs
+to the British Islands. I propose, for the present, only to call
+attention to the concluding paragraph of the British notice of motion on
+this point, which would seem to imply much more than the abandonment of
+contraband. The words in question, if indeed they are authentically
+reported, are as follows: "Le droit de visite ne serait exerce que pour
+constater le caractere neutre du batiment de commerce." Does this mean
+that the visiting officer, as soon as he has ascertained from the ship's
+papers that she is neutral property, is to make his bow and return to
+the cruiser whence he came? If so, what has become of our existing right
+to detain any vessel which has sailed for a blockaded port, or is
+carrying, as a commercial venture, or even ignorantly, hostile troops or
+despatches? No such definition as is proposed of an "auxiliary
+ship-of-war" would safeguard the right in question, since a ship, to
+come within that definition, must, it appears, be under the orders of a
+belligerent fleet.
+
+I would venture to suggest that the motto of a reformer of prize law
+should be _festina lente._ The existing system is the fruit of practical
+experience extending over several centuries, and, though it may need,
+here and there, some readjustment to new conditions, brought about by
+the substitution of steam for sails, is not one which can safely be
+pulled to pieces in a couple of months. Let us leave something for
+future Hague Conferences.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, July 24 (1907).
+
+
+A NEW PRIZE LAW
+
+Sir,--In a letter under the above heading, for which you were so good as
+to find room in July last, I returned to the thesis which I had ventured
+to maintain some months previously, _a propos_ of a question put in the
+House of Commons. My contention was that the establishment of an
+international prize Court, assuming it to be under any circumstances
+desirable, should follow, not precede, a general international agreement
+as to the law which the Court is to administer.
+
+It would appear, from such imperfect information as intermittently
+reaches Swiss mountain hotels, that a conviction of the truth of this
+proposition is at length making way among the delegates to The Hague
+Conference and among observers of its doings. In a recent number of the
+_Courrier de la Conference_, a publication which cannot be accused of
+lukewarmness in the advocacy of proposals for the peaceful settlement of
+international differences, I find an article entitled "Pas de Code
+Naval, pas de Cour des Prises," to the effect that "l'acceptation de la
+Cour des Prises est strictement conditionnelle a la redaction du Code,
+qu'elle aura a interpreter." Its decisions must otherwise be founded
+upon the opinions of its Judges, "the majority of whom will belong to a
+school which has never accepted what Great Britain looks upon as the
+fundamental principles of naval warfare." One learns also from other
+sources, that efforts are being made to arrive, by a series of
+compromises, at some common understanding upon the points as to which
+the differences of view between the Powers are most pronounced. It may,
+however, be safely predicted that many years must elapse before any such
+result will be achieved.
+
+In the meantime, a very different solution of the difficulty has
+commended itself to the partisans of the proposed Court. M. Renault, the
+accomplished Reporter of the committee which deals in the first instance
+with the subject, after stating that "sur beaucoup de points le droit de
+la guerre maritime est encore incertain, et chaque Etat le formule au
+gre de ses idees et de ses interets," lays down that, in accordance with
+strict juridical reasoning, when international law is silent an
+international Court should apply the law of the captor. He is,
+nevertheless, prepared to recommend, as the spokesman of the committee,
+that in such cases the Judges should decide "d'apres les principes[C]
+generaux de la justice et de l'equite"--a process which I had, less
+complimentarily, described as "evolving new rules out of their inner
+consciousness." The Court, in pursuance of this confessedly "hardie
+solution," would be called upon to "faire le droit."
+
+One may be permitted to hope that this proposal will not be accepted.
+The beneficent action of English Judges in developing the common law of
+England may possibly be cited in its favour; but the analogy is
+delusive. The Courts of a given country in evolving new rules of law are
+almost certain to do so in accordance with the views of public policy
+generally entertained in that country. Should they act otherwise their
+error can be promptly corrected by the national Legislature. Far
+different would be the effect of the decision of an international Court,
+in which, though it might run directly counter to British theory and
+practice, Great Britain would have bound herself beforehand to
+acquiesce. The only quasi-legislative body by which the _ratio
+decidendi_ of such a decision could be disallowed would be an
+international gathering in which British views might find scanty
+support. The development of a system of national law by national Judges
+offers no analogy to the working of an international Court, empowered,
+at its free will and pleasure, to disregard the views of a sovereign
+Power as to the proper rule to be applied in cases as to which
+international law gives no guidance. In such cases the ultimate
+adjustment of differences of view is the appropriate work, not of a law
+Court, but of diplomacy.
+
+It is hardly necessary to combat the notion that there already exists,
+_in nubibus_, a complete system of prize law, which is in some
+mysterious way accessible to Judges, and reveals to them the rule
+applicable to each new case as it arises. This notion, so far as it is
+prevalent, seems to have arisen from a mistaken reading of certain
+_dicta_ of Lord Stowell, in which that great Judge, in his finest
+eighteenth-century manner, insists that the law which it was his duty to
+administer "has no locality" and "belongs to other nations as well as
+our own." He was, of course, thinking of the rules of prize law upon
+which the nations are agreed, not of the numerous questions upon which
+no agreement exists, and was dealing with the difficult position of a
+Judge who has to choose (as in the recent _Moray Firth_ case) between
+obedience to such rules and obedience to the legislative, or
+quasi-legislative, acts of his own Government.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Eggishorn, Suisse, September 16 (1907).
+
+
+A NEW PRIZE LAW
+
+Sir,--The speech of the Prime Minister at the Guildhall contains a
+paragraph which will be read with a sense of relief by those who, like
+myself, have all along viewed with surprise and apprehension The Hague
+proposals for an international prize Court.
+
+Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman admits that "it is desirable, and it may be
+essential, that, before legislation can be undertaken to make such a
+Court effective, the leading maritime nations should come to an
+agreement as to the rules regarding some of the more important subjects
+of warfare which are to be administered by the Court"; and his
+subsequent eulogy of the Court presupposes that it is provided with "a
+body of rules which has received the sanction of the great maritime
+Powers." What is said as to the necessary postponement of any
+legislation in the sense of The Hague Convention must, of course, apply
+_a fortiori_ to the ratification of the Convention.
+
+We have here, for the first time, an authoritative repudiation of the
+notion that fifteen gentlemen of mixed nationality composing an
+international prize Court, are to be let loose to "make law," in
+accordance with what may happen to be their conceptions of "justice and
+equity." It seems at last to be recognised that such a Court cannot be
+set to work unless, and until, the great maritime Powers shall have come
+to an agreement upon the rules of law which the Court is to administer.
+
+I may add that it is surely too much to expect that the rules in
+question will be discussed by the Powers, to use Sir H.
+Campbell-Bannerman's phrase, "without any political _arriere pensee._"
+Compromise between opposing political interests must ever remain one of
+the most important factors in the development of the law of nations.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, November 11 (1907).
+
+
+    Although the establishment of an International Prize Court of
+    Appeal was not one of the topics included in the programme of
+    the Russian invitation; to a second Peace Conference, no
+    objection was made to its being taken into consideration, when
+    proposals to that effect were made by the British and American
+    delegates to the Conference. The idea seems first to have been
+    suggested by Huebner, who proposed to confer jurisdiction in
+    cases of neutral prize on Courts composed of ministers or
+    consuls, accredited by neutrals to the belligerents, together
+    with commissioners appointed by the Sovereign of the captors or
+    of the country to which the prize has been brought, as also,
+    perhaps, "des personnes pleines de probite et de connaissances
+    dans tout ce qui concerne les Loix des Nations et les Traites
+    des Puissances modernes." The Court is to decide in accordance
+    with treaties, "ou, a leur defaut, la loi universelle des
+    nations." _De la Saisie des Batiments neutres_ (1759), ii. pp.
+    45-61. The Institut de Droit International, after discussions
+    extending over several years, accepted the principle of an
+    International Court of Appeal, though only in combination with
+    a complete scheme of prize law, in its _Code des Prises
+    maritimes_, completed in 1887, section 100.
+
+    At the Conference of 1907, the work of several committees, and
+    a masterly report by Professor Renault, _Parl. Papers_, No. iv.
+    (1908), p. 9, resulted in The Hague Convention, No. xii. of
+    that year, providing for the establishment of a mixed Court of
+    Appeal from national prize Courts.
+
+    According to Art. 7 of this Convention, in default of any
+    relevant treaty between the Governments of the litigant
+    parties, and of generally recognised rules of international law
+    bearing upon the question at issue, the Court is to decide "in
+    accordance with the general principles of justice and equity."
+    It seems, however, to have been soon perceived that the
+    proposal to institute a Court, unprovided with any fixed system
+    of law by which to decide the cases which might be brought
+    before it, could not well be entertained, and the Final Act of
+    the Conference accordingly expresses a wish that "the
+    preparation of a _Reglement_, relative to the laws and customs
+    of maritime war, may be mentioned in the programme of the next
+    Conference."
+
+    Thereupon, without waiting for the meeting of a third Hague
+    Conference, the British Government on February 27, 1908,
+    addressed a circular to the great maritime Powers, which, after
+    alluding to the impression gained "that the establishment of
+    the International Prize Court would not meet with general
+    acceptance so long as vagueness and uncertainty exist as to the
+    principles which the Court, in dealing with appeals brought
+    before it, would apply to questions of far-reaching importance,
+    affecting naval policy and practice," went on to propose that
+    another Conference should meet in London, in the autumn of the
+    same year, "with the object of arriving at an agreement as to
+    what are the generally recognised principles of international
+    law within the meaning of paragraph 2 of Article 7 of the
+    Convention, as to those matters wherein the practice of nations
+    has varied, and of then formulating the rules which, in the
+    absence of special treaty provisions applicable to a particular
+    case, the Court should observe in dealing with appeals brought
+    before it for decision.... It would be difficult, if not
+    impossible, for H.M. Government to carry the legislation
+    necessary to give effect to the Convention, unless they could
+    assure both Houses of the British Parliament that some more
+    definite understanding had been reached as to the rules by
+    which the new Tribunal should be governed."
+
+    In response to this invitation, delegates from ten principal
+    maritime States assembled at the Foreign Office on December 4,
+    1908, and after discussing the topics to which their attention
+    was directed, viz.: (1) Contraband; (2) Blockade; (3)
+    Continuous voyage; (4) Destruction of neutral prizes; (5)
+    Unneutral service; (6) Conversion of merchant vessels into
+    warships on the high seas; (7) Transfer to a neutral flag; (8)
+    Nationality or domicil, as the test of enemy property; signed
+    on February 26, 1909, the Declaration of London.
+
+    The Convention No. xii. of 1907 and the Declaration of London
+    of 1909 have alike failed to obtain ratification. _Cf._ now the
+    two immediately following sections, 9 and 10.
+
+    An ultimate Court of Appeal in cases of Prize seems now likely
+    to be provided by the "Permanent Court of International
+    Justice," proposed by the League of Nations in pursuance of
+    Art. 14 of the Treaty of Versailles. See also Art. 24 of the
+    Treaty. _Cf. supra_, p. 2.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+SECTION 9
+
+_The Naval Prize Bill_
+
+    The first two letters in this section contain the criticisms of
+    the Bill to which allusion is made in the first lines of a
+    letter of later date, q.v. _supra_, p. 36. On the rejection of
+    the Bill, see _ib._, note 1.
+
+
+THE NAVAL PRIZE BILL
+
+Sir--A paternal interest in the Naval Prize Bill may perhaps be thought
+a sufficient excuse for the few remarks which I am about to make upon
+it. The Bill owes its existence to a suggestion made by me, just ten
+years ago, while engaged in bringing up to date for the Admiralty my
+_Manual of Naval Prise Law_ of 1888. It was drafted by me, after
+prolonged communications with Judges, Law Officers, and the Government
+Departments concerned, so as not only to reproduce the provisions of
+several "cross and cuffing" statutes dealing with the subject, but also
+to exhibit them in a more logical order than is always to be met with in
+Acts of Parliament.
+
+The Bill was thought of sufficient importance to be mentioned on two
+occasions in the King's Speech, and has been several times passed, after
+careful consideration, by the House of Lords; but pressure of other
+business has hitherto impeded its passage through the House of Commons.
+It has now been reintroduced, this time in the Lower House, with an
+imposing backing of Government support; primarily, no doubt, with a view
+to facilitating the ratification of The Hague Convention for the
+establishment of an International Prize Court of Appeal. For this
+purpose, several pieces of new cloth have been sewn into the old
+garment, and I may perhaps be allowed to call attention to three or four
+points in which, on a first reading, the new clauses strike one as
+needing reconsideration.
+
+Tactical reasons have, no doubt, operated to induce the Government to
+include in the Consolidation Bill the provisions for which statutory
+authority must be obtained before it will be possible to ratify the
+Convention; instead of first introducing a Bill having this sole object
+in view, and afterwards, should this be passed, inserting the new law in
+a reintroduced Consolidation Bill.
+
+The course adopted necessitates an otherwise unnecessary preamble, and
+the qualification of the new Part III. by the words "in the event of an
+International Prize Court being established" (Clause 23). The reference,
+by the by, in this clause to "the said Convention" is somewhat awkward,
+no mention of any Convention having occurred previously, except in the
+preamble of the Bill. Is not also the statutory approval given by this
+clause, not only to the Convention of 1907 but also to "any Convention
+amending the same," somewhat startling, as tending to exclude
+Parliamentary criticism of such an amending Convention before its
+ratification?
+
+By Clause 9, the members of the Judicial Committee who are to be
+nominated to act as the British Court of Appeal in cases of prize are to
+be described by the novel title of "the Supreme Prize Court." Is not the
+use made of the term "Supreme" in the Judicature Acts, as covering both
+the High Court and the Court of Appeal, already sufficiently
+unsatisfactory?
+
+But the question which, of all others _saute aux yeux_, in reading the
+new Part III., is whether the Convention is to be approved as it stands,
+irrespectively of a general acceptance of the new Code of Prize Law
+contained in the Declaration of London of 1909. The objections to Art. 7
+of the Contention, providing that, in the absence of rules of
+International Law generally recognised (and on many points of Prize Law
+there are no such rules), the Court is to decide in accordance with
+(what it may be pleased to consider) "the general principles of law and
+equity," are well known. The purpose of the Declaration of London
+(itself the subject of much difference of opinion) was to curtail this
+licence of decision, by providing the Court with so much ascertained
+Prize Law as to render action under the too-elastic phrase above quoted
+almost inconceivable.
+
+Is it too much of a counsel of perfection to suggest that the debatable
+questions arising under the Convention of 1907 and the Declaration of
+1909 should first be threshed out in discussions on a Bill dealing with
+those questions only; and that the decision, if any, thus arrived at
+should be subsequently inserted, freed from hypothesis, in the
+Consolidation Bill which has so long awaited the leisure of the House of
+Commons?
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, July 10 (1910).
+
+
+THE NAVAL PRIZE BILL
+
+Sir,--The Government has so far yielded to the representations of the
+Opposition as to have refrained from forcing on Friday night a division
+upon the Naval Prize Bill. Is it too much to hope that the Government
+may even now withdraw altogether a measure so ill adapted to place
+fairly before Parliament the question of the desirability of ratifying
+two documents held by a large body of competent opinion to be certain,
+if ratified, seriously to endanger the vital interests of the country?
+The Bill, as I have already pointed out, as originally drawn, was a
+careful consolidation of the law and procedure governing British Courts
+of Prize. Into this has now been incongruously thrust a set of clauses
+intended to give effect to a novel and highly controversial proposal for
+the creation of an International Prize Court. About the Declaration of
+London, alleged to contain a body of law which would adequately equip
+such a Court for the performance of its duties, not a word is said in
+the Bill; yet, should approval of the Bill be snatched by a purely party
+majority, the intention of the Government is to proceed straightway to
+the ratification both of the Prize Court Convention and the Declaration.
+Whether they intend also to endeavour to obtain the ratification, as an
+auxiliary Convention, of the lengthy covering commentary upon the
+Declaration, supplied by the committee by which the Declaration was
+drafted, does not yet appear. Of such a step I have already written that
+it "would be calamitous should a practice be introduced of attempting to
+cure the imperfect expression of a treaty by tacking on to it an equally
+authoritative reasoned commentary. The result would be _obscurum per
+obscurius_, a remedy worse than the disease."
+
+The alternatives before Parliament on Monday next will be either, by
+reading the Naval Prize Bill a second time, to bring about, in the teeth
+of protests from those best qualified to express an independent opinion
+upon the subject, the immediate ratification of the Convention and the
+Declaration, or to ask that before, this momentous step is taken the
+infinitely complex and delicate questions involved should be examined
+and passed upon by a Commission of representative experts. Which shall
+it be?
+
+Your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, July I (1911).
+
+
+    _Cf._ a letter of July 7, 1911, _supra_, p. 36.
+
+
+NAVAL PRIZE MONEY
+
+Sir,--The existing enactments as to prize bounty are, it seems,
+unsuitable to present conditions of naval warfare, and are accordingly
+to be varied by a bill shortly to be introduced.
+
+May I venture to recommend that the Bill should contain merely the
+half-dozen clauses needed for this purpose, leaving untouched for
+subsequent uncontroversial passage, the Naval Prize Consolidation with
+Amendments Bill? This Bill, suggested and drafted by myself, in the
+spacious times of peace, in consultation with the Admiralty and other
+Government Departments, as also with the Judge of the Admiralty Division
+and the Law Officers (including the present Lord Chancellor), was twice
+mentioned in the King's Speech, and several times, after careful
+consideration, passed by the House of Lords, but still awaits the
+leisure of the Lower House. It deserved a better fate than to have been
+used, in 1911, as a corpus vile for facilitating the ratification of the
+Convention for an International Prize Court and of the Declaration of
+London; receiving, most fortunately, as so perverted, its _coup de
+grace_ from the Lords. It should be passed as an artistic whole, apart
+from any contentious matter, account having, of course, been taken of
+recent legislation by which it may have been, here and there, affected.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, May 23 (1918).
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+SECTION 10
+
+The Declaration of London
+
+    For incidental mentions of the Declaration in earlier sections
+    see _supra_, pp. 22, 36, 39, 55, 58, 80, 90, 92, 148, 149, 154,
+    155, 156, 158, 163, 164, 174, 181, 191, 193, 194, 195, 196.
+
+    See also my paper upon _Proposed Changes in the Law of Naval
+    Prize_, read to the British Academy on May 31, 1911,
+    _Transactions_, vol. v., of which a translation appeared in the
+    _Revue de Droit International_, N.S., t. xiii, pp. 336-355.
+
+
+THE DECLARATION OF LONDON
+
+Sir,--The questions put last night by Mr. M'Arthur need, perhaps, more
+fully considered answers than they received from Mr. McKinnon Wood.
+
+With reference to the first answer, it may be worth while to point out
+that, in Art. 66 of the Declaration, the Powers undertake not only, as
+in the passage quoted, "to give the necessary instructions to their
+authorities and armed forces," but also "to take the measures which may
+be proper for guaranteeing the application of the rules Contained in the
+Declaration by their Courts, and, in particular, by their Courts of
+Prize." The "authentic commentary" upon the article in M. Renault's
+"Report" explains that the measures in question "may vary in different
+countries, and may or may not require the intervention of the
+Legislature."
+
+The second answer lays down broadly that "the decisions of the British
+Prize Courts are founded on International Law, and not on municipal
+enactments." Our Prize Courts have, no doubt, on most points, decided in
+accordance with International Law, in the sense of the principles
+generally followed by civilised nations; but, on not a few points, in
+accordance with the British view of what is, or ought to be,
+International Law, in opposition to views persistently maintained by
+other countries--e.g. with reference to the moment from which a
+blockade-runner becomes liable to capture. The fact is that, whatever
+grandiloquent language may have been judicially employed by Lord Stowell
+in a contrary sense, it will now hardly be denied that a Prize Court
+sits by national, not international, authority, and is bound to take the
+view of International Law which, if any, is prescribed to it by the
+constitutionally expressed will of its own Government.
+
+The Declaration of London is in many ways a great achievement; but one
+is glad to learn from Mr. McKinnon Wood's third answer that opportunity
+will be given for discussing all important points in connexion with its
+rules.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, March 30 (1909).
+
+
+THE DECLARATION OF LONDON
+
+Sir,--Both the Prize Court Convention of 1907 and its complement, the
+London Declaration of 1909, stand greatly in need of full and
+well-informed discussion before receiving the Parliamentary approval
+which ought to be a condition precedent to the ratification of either of
+them. It is well, therefore, that many Chambers of Commerce have called
+the attention of Government to the detriment to British interest which
+may in their opinion result from these agreements if ratified, although
+the representations thus made exhibit, in some cases, so little
+technical knowledge as to have been readily disposed of by the Foreign
+Secretary. For the same reason, I welcome the letter from Mr. Gibson
+Bowles, which appeared in _The Times_ of yesterday, although it contains
+some statements the inaccuracy of which it may be desirable at once to
+point out.
+
+1. The Declaration of Paris is neither implicitly nor explicitly adopted
+by the Declaration of London, "as a part of the common law of nations
+which can no longer be disputed." The later makes no mention of the
+earlier one, and M. Benault's _rapport_ (as to the interpretative
+authority of which opinions may well differ) applies the words quoted,
+not to the Paris Declaration as a whole, but to one only of its
+articles. Mr. Bowles's statement that "the Declaration of London, if
+adopted, would reaffirm, and its ratification would in effect, for the
+first time ratify, the Declaration of Paris" cannot be supported.
+
+2. Mr. Bowles asserts it to be "an unquestioned doctrine of the Law of
+Nations that war abrogates and annuls treaty obligations between
+belligerents." One would have supposed it to be common knowledge that
+large classes of treaties are wholly unaffected by war. Such are, for
+instance, what are called conventions _transitoires_, because their
+effect is produced once for all, as in the case of cessions of
+territory; and, notably, treaties entered into for the regulation of the
+conduct of war, such as the Geneva Convention, many of The Hague
+Conventions of 1907, and the Declaration of Paris itself, which Mr.
+Bowles appears to think would _ipso facto_ cease to be obligatory
+between its signatories on their becoming belligerent.
+
+It is a pleasure to be able to agree with Mr. Bowles in his wish that
+the Naval Prize Bill, if reintroduced, should be rejected, though I
+would rather say "withdrawn." You have already allowed me (on July 10)
+to point out that if the Convention and Declaration are to be
+effectively discussed in Parliament they should be disentangled from
+that Bill, into which the Convention, and, by implication, the
+Declaration, have been incongruously thrust. This practically
+non-contentious Consolidation Bill, after several times securing the
+approval of the House of Lords, has hitherto for several years awaited
+the leisure of the House of Commons, but was suddenly reintroduced last
+Session, apparently as an unobtrusive vehicle for the new and highly
+debatable matter contained in the two above-mentioned documents. May I
+now repeat my suggestion that "the debatable questions arising under the
+Convention of 1907 and the Declaration of 1909 should first be threshed
+out in discussions on a Bill dealing with these questions only; and that
+the decision, if any, thus arrived at should be subsequently inserted,
+freed from hypothesis, in the Consolidation Bill"?
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, December 28 (1910).
+
+
+THE DECLARATION OF LONDON
+
+Sir,--I have read Professor Westlake's letters upon the Declaration of
+London with the attention due to anything written by my very learned
+friend, but, although myself opposed to the ratification alike of the
+Prize Court Convention and of its complement, the Declaration, do not at
+present wish to enter upon the demerits of either instrument.
+
+There is, however, a preliminary question upon which, with your
+permission, I should like to say a few words. My friend justly observes
+that in dealing with the Declaration "the first necessity is to know
+what it is that we have before us"; and he devotes his letter of January
+31 to maintaining that the Declaration must be read as interpreted by
+the explanations of it given to the full Conference by the Drafting
+Committee, of which M. Renault was president. Professor Westlake
+supports his opinion by a quotation from the reply of the Foreign Office
+in November last to the Edinburgh Chamber of Commerce (_Miscell._ 1910,
+No. 4, p. 21). I may mention that a similar reply had been given, a year
+previously, by Mr. McKinnon Wood to a question in the House of Commons.
+The source of these replies is doubtless to be found in a paragraph of
+the Report, addressed on March 1, 1909, to Sir Edward Grey, of the
+British Delegates to the London Conference, which runs as follows:--
+
+      "It should be borne in mind that, in accordance with the
+      principles and practice of Continental jurisprudence, such a
+      Report is considered an authoritative statement of the
+      meaning and intention of the instrument which it explains,
+      and that consequently foreign Governments and Courts, and no
+      doubt also the International Prize Court, will construe and
+      interpret the provisions of the Declaration by the light of
+      the Commentary given in the Report." (_Miscell._ 1909, No. 4,
+      p. 94.)
+
+It is desirable to know upon what authority this statement rests. I am
+aware of none. The nearest approach to an assertion of anything like it
+occurred at The Hague Conference of 1899, when the "approval" accorded
+to "the work of the Second Committee, as embodied in the articles voted
+and in the interpretative Report which accompanies them" was alleged by
+M. de Martens to amount to an acceptance of the Report "comme un
+commentaire interpretatif authentique des articles votes." (_Miscell._
+1899, No. 1, p. 165.) The drafting Report presented to the Geneva
+Conference of 1906 is merely said to have been "adopted" (Actes, p.
+286); and M. Renault's Report to the Conference of London was similarly
+merely "accepted," although he presented it as containing
+
+      "Un commentaire precis, degage de tout controverse, qui,
+      devenu commentaire officiel par l'approbation de la
+      Conference, soit de nature a guider les autorites diverses,
+      administratives, militaires, judiciaires, qui pourront avoir
+      a l'appliquer." (_Miscell._ 1909, No. 5, p. 344.)
+
+It would seem that in each of these cases the adoption of the Report,
+and even a suggestion or two for a change in its phraseology, amounted
+to nothing more than an expression of opinion on the part of the
+Delegates to the Conference that the Report contained explanations which
+had satisfied themselves, and might satisfy their Governments, that the
+Convention which they were about to forward to those Governments might
+safely be accepted.
+
+So far as Governments are concerned, the adoption of a Report by their
+Delegates is _res inter alios acta_. An "authentic interpretation" of a
+contract can be given only by the parties to it, who, in the case of a
+treaty, are the States concerned. If these States desire to give to the
+report of a drafting committee the force of an authentic interpretation
+of their contract, they can surely do so only by something amounting to
+a supplementary convention. Writers upon international law naturally
+throw but little light upon questions to which the somewhat novel
+practice of argumentative drafting Reports has given rise; but I may
+cite Professor Ullmann, of Vienna, as saying:--
+
+      "Eine authentische Interpretation kann nur die durch
+      Kontrahenten selbst, in einem gemeinschaftlichen, ihren
+      Willen ausser Zweifel setzenden Acte (einem Nachtrags-oder
+      Erlauterungsvertrage), erfolgen" (Volkerrecht, p. 282);
+
+and Professor Fiore, of Naples, to the effect that what is called
+"authentic interpretation" is not
+
+      "interpretazione propriamente detta, ma una dichiarazione di
+      quello che fu gia concordato, o un nuovo trattato" (Diritto
+      Internazionale, ss. 1, 118);
+
+and that
+
+      "il trattato non puo essere interpretato che dalle stesse
+      Parti (_i.e._ Stati) contrahenti; e per la validita dell'
+      atto e indispensabile che la relativa convenzione di
+      interpretazione abbia gli stessi requisiti ... di ogni altra
+      convenzione tra Stato e Stato" (Il Dir. Int. Codif., Sec. 816).
+
+I would submit that such a Report as that which accompanies the
+Declaration of London has no claim to the sort of interpretative
+authority which has been attributed to it; nor is it desirable that the
+requisite steps should be taken for giving it that authority. It would
+be calamitous should a practice be introduced of attempting to cure the
+imperfect expression of a treaty by tacking on to it an equally
+authoritative reasoned commentary, likely, as in the present case, to be
+enormously longer than the test to which it relates.
+
+It is a wholly different question whether Governments or Courts would be
+inclined to take notice of such a Report, among other facts antecedent
+to a Convention, or Declaration, which they might be called upon to
+construe. A British Court would not, I conceive, be so inclined. On the
+probable inclinations of Continental Courts, and of an International
+Prize Court, should one be instituted, further expert information would
+seem to be called for.
+
+The fact is that the vitally important questions of theory and practice
+raised by the Convention and the Declaration need calmer and better
+instructed discussion than they have yet received. Ought they not to be
+referred to a Royal Commission, on which should be placed
+representatives of the Navy and Merchant Service, of the corn trade, and
+of the Colonies, together with international lawyers, in touch with the
+views of their Continental colleagues?
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, February 16 (1911).
+
+
+THE DECLARATION OF LONDON
+
+Sir,--Professor Westlake, replying in _The Times_ of to-day to the
+arguments by which I had endeavoured to show that the Report made to the
+Conference of London has no pretensions to be treated as an authentic
+interpretation of the Declaration prepared by the Conference, still
+maintains that "the essential question will be, what the agreement was
+that the Conference arrived at." I had maintained, on the contrary, that
+the essential question will be, What is the agreement entered into by
+the Powers, as evidenced by their ratifications? anything outside of the
+ratified agreement being _res inter alios acta_. I should not be
+justified in asking you to allow me to repeat the contents of my letter
+of Monday last in support of this view. The pleadings are, I think,
+exhausted. "Therefore let a jury come."
+
+I should like, however, to point out that I did not, as my friend seems
+to think, attribute the acceptance of the Report to the delegates
+"singly." It was, no doubt accepted by all present without protest. My
+colleague will, I am sure, pardon me if I add that I cannot concur in
+his exegesis of my citations from Ullmann and Fiore.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, February 25 (1911).
+
+
+THE DECLARATION OF LONDON
+
+Sir,--It is satisfactory that so high an authority as Mr. Arthur Cohen
+distinctly accedes to the view that the Declaration of London ought not
+to be ratified as it stands. I should, however, be sorry were his
+suggestion accepted that the Declaration and the argumentative report
+which accompanies it might be ratified together. The result would be
+_obscurum per obscurius_, a remedy worse than the disease.
+
+I shall ask leave to add that, if Mr. Cohen will take the trouble to
+look again at my letters of February 10 and 25, he will cease to suppose
+it possible that in writing "the pleadings are, I think, exhausted,
+&c.," I meant to convey that no further discussion of the merits or
+demerits of the Declaration was required. On the contrary I expressly
+limited myself to a consideration of the preliminary question, whether
+interpretative authority would rightly be attributed to the report in
+question, stating that, while opposed to the ratification alike of the
+Prize Court Convention and of the Declaration, I did not, for the
+present, wish to enter upon the demerits of either instrument; and ended
+my first letter by suggesting the reference to a Royal Commission of
+"the vitally important questions of theory and practice raised by the
+Convention and the Declaration," as needing "calmer and better
+instructed discussion than they have yet received."
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, March 1 (1911).
+
+
+THE DECLARATION OF LONDON
+
+Sir,--After Tuesday's debate in the House of Lords it may be hoped that
+not even "the man in the street" will suppose the Declaration of London
+to be anything more than an objectionable draft, by which no country has
+consented to be bound. Every day of the war makes more apparent our debt
+to the House of Lords for having, four years ago, prevented the British
+Government from ratifying either the International Prize Court
+Convention or this Declaration, which, while misleadingly professing
+that its provisions "correspond in substance with the generally
+recognised principles of international law," contains, interspersed with
+truisms familiar to all concerned with such matters, a good many
+undesirable novelties.
+
+This being so, it was surely unfortunate that our Government, with a
+view apparently to saving time and trouble, decided, in the early days
+of the war, to adopt the Declaration _en bloc_ as a statement of prize
+law "during the present hostilities," subject, however, to "certain
+additions and modifications"; to which it, of course, retained the power
+of making additions. This power has been so freely exercised, and large
+portions of the Declaration, not thereby affected, have proved to be so
+inapplicable to modern conditions, as disclosed by the war, that the
+document, so far from providing reliable guidance, is now a mere source
+of hopeless confusion.
+
+To put an end to this confusion, I venture to suggest that, in concert
+with our Allies, the Declaration should be finally consigned to
+oblivion. Either let its place be taken by some clear and simple
+statement of unquestioned prize law, for the use of commanders and
+officials (something like a confidential document in the drafting of
+which I had a hand some years ago, but, of course, brought up to date),
+or let established principles take care of themselves, certain doubtful
+points only being dealt with, from time to time, by Orders in Council.
+
+While heartily concurring in Lord Portsmouth's description of the
+unratified "Declaration" as "rubbish," I regret that he seems to
+relegate to the same category even those generally ratified "Hague
+Conventions" which, as far as they go, mark a real advance upon
+previously accepted rules. Still less acceptable is his advice to "sweep
+away juridical niceties" in the conduct of hostilities. Did he intend
+thus to describe the whole fabric of the rules by which international
+law has endeavoured, with considerable success, to restrain barbarity in
+warfare?
+
+I must mention that this letter was written before seeing this morning
+the letter of Mr. Gibson Bowles, my worthy ally in attacks upon the
+Declaration.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, December 3 (1915).
+
+
+THE DECLARATION OF LONDON
+
+Sir,--You have allowed me, in a good many letters, to criticise the
+Declaration of London, both in its original inception and in its
+subsequent applications. Thanks to the House of Lords, the Declaration,
+which erroneously professed to "correspond in substance with the
+generally recognised principles of International Law," has remained
+unratified, and therefore diplomatically of no effect.
+
+Its admirers have, however, too long preserved it, perhaps _sub spe
+rati_, in a state of suspended animation, using it by way of, as they
+supposed, a convenient handbook of maritime law for the purposes of the
+present war, though subject to such variations as might from time to
+time be found convenient by the Allies. The mistake thus made soon
+became apparent. The elaborate classification of contraband had to be at
+once thrown overboard, and most of the remaining provisions of the
+Declaration proved to be inapplicable to modern warfare.
+
+In December last I accordingly wrote as follows:--
+
+      "To put an end to this confusion, I venture to suggest that,
+      in concert with our Allies, the Declaration should be finally
+      consigned to oblivion. Either let its place be taken by some
+      clear and simple statement of unquestioned prize law, for the
+      use of commanders and Officials, ... or established
+      principles take care of themselves, certain doubtful points
+      only being dealt with from time to time by Orders in
+      Council."
+
+I need hardly say that to anyone holding the views thus expressed,
+yesterday's Order in Council must be most satisfactory; getting rid, as
+it does for good and all, of the unfortunate Declaration, leaving the
+application of established principles to those acquainted with them and
+promulgating authoritative guidance on specific novel questions.
+
+I may perhaps add a word or two on the undesirability of describing as
+"Declarations" documents which, being equipped with provisions for
+ratification, although they may profess to set out old law, differ in no
+respect from other conventions. Also, as to the need for greater caution
+on the part of our representatives than has been shown by their
+acceptance of various craftily suggested anti-British suggestions, such
+as were several embodied in the Declaration in question, and notably
+that of the notorious cl. 23 (_h_) of The Hague Convention iv., the
+interpretation of which has exercised the ingenuity of the Foreign
+Office and, more recently, of the Court of Appeal.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Brighton, July 9 (1916).
+
+
+    On July 7, 1916, an Order in Council was made, revoking all
+    Orders by which the provisions of the Declaration had been
+    adopted, or modified, for the duration of the war; stating the
+    intention of the Allies to exercise their belligerent rights at
+    sea in strict accordance with the law of nations; but dealing
+    specifically with certain doubtful points. The Order was
+    accompanied by a memorandum, drawn up by the British and French
+    Governments, explaining how their expectation that in the
+    Declaration they would find "a suitable digest of principles
+    and compendium of working rules" had not been realised. See
+    also Lord Robert Cecil in the House of Commons on August 23,
+    with reference to the Zamora case, [1916] 2 Ch. c. 77.
+
+    On misuses of the term "Declaration" _cf. supra_, pp. 90, 91,
+    92.
+
+
+GERMANY WRONG AGAIN
+
+Sir,--The new German Note handed on Thursday last to the representatives
+of the neutral Powers supports its allegation that the four Allied
+Powers "have trampled upon right and torn up the treaties on which it
+was based" by the following statement:--
+
+      "Already in the first weeks of the war England had renounced
+      the Declaration of London, the contents of which her own
+      delegates had recognised as binding in international law."
+
+It is surely notorious that the delegates of a Power, by agreeing to the
+draft of a treaty, give to it no international validity, which results
+only when the treaty has been ratified by their Government. The
+Declaration of London has, most fortunately, never been ratified by the
+Government of Great Britain.
+
+I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
+T. E. HOLLAND.
+Oxford, January 13 (1917).
+
+
+
+
+INDEX
+
+
+Absolute contraband. _See_ Contraband
+Abstention, 129
+Acquiescence, State duty of, 129, 130, 133, 136
+_Actaeon_, the, 176, 179
+Acts of Parliament, 61, 63
+Admiralty Manual of Prize Law, 156, 159, 192
+Aerial warfare, 61
+Air, opposite views as to rights over, 64, 65
+Aircraft in war, 69
+_Alabama_, the, 131, 183
+_Alexander, Mrs., the cotton of_, 153
+Alien enemies, civil disabilities of, 47, 49, 205
+_Allanton_, the, 158, 161, 162, 163
+_Ancipitis usus_, articles, 148
+_Angarie, Droit d'_, 170
+_Appam_, the, 146
+_Arabia_, the, 152
+Arbitration, 1-6, 184
+   treaties, general, 6, 7
+   treaties, limited, _ib._
+   cases fit for, 5
+   the Hague tribunal of, 5
+Armaments, limitation of, 184
+Armed civilians, 77
+   Neutralities, the, 83
+Army, duties of, 77
+Article 23 (h), 47, 49, 206, 207
+   restricting application, 146
+Aspirations, 99
+Assassination, 93
+_Asturias_, the, 60
+Asylum to belligerent warships, 129, 143
+_Atalanta_, the, 160
+Aube, Admiral, 116
+Authentic interpretation, 107, 196, 199, 201, 205
+
+
+Baden-Powell, Sir G., 81, 85, 87
+Baker, Sir Sherston, 85
+Balfour, Mr. A.J., 13, 15, 73, 74, 173
+Balloons, projectiles from, 30, 62
+Base of operations, neutral duty as to, 129, 134, 144, 145
+Baty, Dr. T., 161
+Bays, 166, 167
+Belligerents, lawful, 73, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79
+Beresford, Lord Charles, 118
+_Bermuda_, the, 160
+Bills criticised, 36-40, 47, 192
+Birkenhead, Lord, 135
+Bismarck, Prince, 170
+Bliss, Sir H., 150
+Blockade,
+   belligerent, 29, 83, 156
+   fictitious, 57, 59
+   pacific, 9-14, 17
+Bluntschli's reply to Von Moltke, 26
+Bombardment, 62
+   of open coast towns, 30, 62
+   from the air, 112, 123
+Bondholders, foreign, vindication of rights of, 15
+Bowles, Mr. Gibson, 54, 87, 89, 90, 92, 141, 173, 177, 178, 198
+Brandschatz, 117
+Brassard, effect of a, 79
+Bright, Sir Charles, 171, 172
+British Academy, author's paper at, 174
+British Manual of Military Law, 74
+   Handbooks on War on Land, 75, 76
+Brodrick, Mr., 75
+_Brown_ v. _United States_, 45
+Brusa, Prof., 130
+Brussels Conference, the, of 1874, 68, 74, 77, 114, 172
+Bullets,
+   expanding, 22, 94, 96
+   explosive, 22, 94, 95
+   in savage warfare, 94
+_Bundesrath_, the, 29, 157, 160
+Butler, General B.F., 153
+Bynkershoek, 45, 71, 165, 166
+
+
+Cable-cutting, 30, 168-173
+Cables, submarine, 168
+Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H., 189
+Captors, unqualified, 71, 73, 162, 163
+Carson, Sir Edward, 127
+Cavell, Miss, case of, 79
+_Calchas_, the, 151, 152, 153
+Cecil, Lord Robert, 8, 207
+Channel tunnel, 42
+_Chavasse, ex parte_, 137
+Civilians armed, position of, 77, 78, 79
+Churchill, Mr. Winston, 106
+Claims, competitive, 17
+Clarke, Sir Edward, 124
+Clode, Mr., 112
+Closed localities, 50
+Clothing, use of enemy, 75
+Coal, 176
+   conditional contraband, 149
+   for belligerent fleet, 131, 134
+Coast fishing vessels, 30
+Codification of laws of war, 22, 23
+Cohen, Mr. Arthur, 47, 203
+Coltman, Mr., 85
+Commencement of war, 41
+_Commercen_, the, 159
+Commissioning on the High Seas, 90
+Commissions of enquiry, 4
+Compromise, the, between belligerent and neutral rights, 133, 136, 164,
+     169
+Conditional contraband. _See_ Contraband
+Conduct of warfare between belligerents, 50
+Conflict of Laws, 34, 35
+Continuous voyages, 29, 157, 162, 183
+"Contraband, a happy little," 153
+Contraband of war,
+   what it is, 130, 134, 159, 175
+   absolute and conditional, 147, 151, 152, 154, 158
+   British proposal to abolish doctrine of, 163, 184, 185
+   coal, how far, 132, 134, 149, 176
+   cotton, how far, 151, 152, 177
+   food-stuffs, how far, 176, 185
+   Japanese rules as to, 149, 155, 156
+   misuse of the term, 134
+   no neutral duty to prohibit export of, 113, 140
+   Russian rules as to, 154, 176
+   the Declaration of London as to, 164
+   the two constituents of, 159
+Contractual debts, 21
+Contributions, 102, 118
+Conventions. _See_ Geneva, Hague, &c.
+   and Legislation, 36
+   "transitoires," 198
+Conversion. _See_ Transformation
+Convoy, 31
+Cotton, 177
+   as contraband, 149, 151, 152
+Court of International Justice, a permanent, 2, 191
+Criticism of Bills, 36-40, 192
+Customs Consolidation Act, 1853, 132
+
+
+Danger zone, a, 59
+Dardanelles, closing of, 55, 58, 80, 90, 92
+"Declaration," misuse of the term, 90, 92, 206
+Declaration, the, of London, 22, 36, 39, 80, 92, 147, 149, 154, 155,
+     158, 161, 163, 164, 181, 191, 193-207
+   provisional adoption of, as modified, 154, 204
+   rejection of, 206, 207
+Declaration, the, of Paris, 22, 26, 57, 59, 80, 81, 82, 83, 87, 89, 156,
+     198
+   accession to, of Spain and Mexico, 81, 86, 87, 88, 89, 91
+Declaration, the, of St. Petersburg, 22, 27, 91, 95, 96, 97
+   von Moltke upon, 25
+Declaration of war, 10, 41, 43
+Declarations,
+   mistaken view as to their not needing ratification, 90, 91
+   the three, of the Hague in 1899. _See_ Hague
+De Horsey, Admiral, 118, 164
+De Joinville, Prince, 117
+De Martens, Prof., 162, 166, 176, 200
+Deposit of delict, 158
+Despatches, enemy, 156, 158, 160
+Destination, 8, 155, 156
+Destruction of neutral prizes, 22, 173-181
+Dickenson, Mr. Lowes, 125
+_Direct U.S. Cable Co._ v. _Anglo-American Tel. Co._, 166
+Disguise, 75, 76
+Distinctive marks, 77, 79
+_Doelwijk_, the, 161
+Drago doctrine, the, 20
+_Droit d'angarie_, the, 170
+Dum-dum bullet. _See_ Bullets
+_Durward_, the, 60
+
+
+Embargo, 11
+Enemy,
+   who is an ?, 401[E]
+   disabilities of, 47, 49, 206
+   goods in neutral bottoms, 83
+   in occupied territory, 102
+   merchant vessels at outbreak, 45, 49
+   property on land, 102
+   property at sea, 29, 104, 184
+   resident at outbreak, 44
+   service, 157, 158, 186
+"Englishman's Home, An," the play, 77
+Enquiry, international Commissions of, 1, 3, 4, 6
+Evans, Sir Samuel, 70
+
+
+False colours, 30, 43, 76
+Fauchille, M., 47, 64, 65
+_Felicity_, the, 164, 166, 167, 175, 177, 179
+Fiore, Prof., 201
+Fishing vessels, 31
+Flag of truce, 76
+Food-stuffs, 148, 174
+   how far contraband, 148, 176, 185
+Food, Royal Commission on, 148, 174, 177
+Foreign Enlistment Acts, the, 131, 134, 138, 139, 141, 143
+Foreign Enlistment Bills, new, 39
+Foreign soldiers, 45
+Forster, Arnold-, Mr., 45
+_Fox_, the, 176, 177
+_Fram_, the, 137
+_Francs-tireurs_, 79
+"Freedom of the seas," 51, 97
+French Government Manual for Land Warfare, 117
+Friendly methods of settlement, 1
+
+
+Gases, harmful, whether employment of, legitimate, 22, 96, 97
+Geffken, Prof., 13
+General principles of justice and equity, the, 187, 189, 190, 193
+Geneva Convention Bill, 36
+Geneva Conventions, the, 22, 34, 67, 98, 100
+   application of, to maritime warfare, 30, 98
+Gentili, A., 170
+Germany. _Cf._ Hague Conventions
+   proclamation by, of a danger zone, 59
+   wrong as to Declaration of London, 207
+Giffen, Sir R., 13
+Gladstone, Mr., 134
+_Goeben_ and _Breslau_, the, 91
+_Golden Rocket_, the, 85
+Good offices, 1, 2, 3
+Government authority, as a protection, 72
+Government Bills and International Conventions, 36-40, 192, 195, 204
+Granville, Lord, 82, 85, 131, 170, 177
+Greek coast, blockade of, 13
+Guerilla warfare, 73
+Gundel, General de, 48
+Grotius, 45, 148, 155, 166, 168, 169
+
+
+_Haabet_, the, 160
+Hague Conventions, the,
+   of 1889, 1, 2, 3, 6, 30, 61, 74, 75, 94, 102, 105, 107, 120, 184
+   of 1907, 1, 6
+   applicable only between contracting Powers, 69
+   No. i., 2, 3, 6
+   No. ii., 21, 22
+   No. iii., 22, 36, 44
+   No. iv., 22, 45, 60, 61, 67, 75, 76, 77, 96, 105, 107, 122, 168, 206
+   No. v., 22, 68, 75, 80, 90, 135, 168
+   No. vi., 22, 45, 70
+   No. vii., 22, 162
+   No. viii., 22, 45, 164
+   No. ix., 22, 68, 122
+   No. x., 22, 100, 130
+   No. xi., 22, 158
+   No. xii., 22, 36, 190, 194, 195, 197, 204
+   No. xiii., 22, 129, 143, 146
+Hague Declarations, the, 22, 30, 61, 62, 63, 64, 96
+Hague _Reglements_, the, as to war on land, 75, 76, 78, 93, 95, 100
+Hague Tribunal, the, 5
+   reference to, not obligatory, 25
+Haldane, Mr. R.B., 45
+Hall, Mr. W.E., on pacific blockade, 13
+Harcourt, Sir W., 74
+Hardinge, Sir C., 152
+Herbert, Mr. Arnold, 182, 184
+Holland, Sir T.E., references to writings of, 8, 9, 20, 23, 35, 44, 47,
+     50, 52, 66, 75, 97, 113, 122, 164, 168, 180, 192, 196
+Honour and vital interests clause, the, 4, 5, 6
+Horses, wounded, 98, 100
+Horsey, Adml., 118, 164, 166
+Hostile assistance, 88, 157, 160, 186
+Huebner, 190
+
+
+_Ikaria_, the, 60
+_Imina_, the, 160
+Immediate effects of outbreak of war, the, 45
+Institut de Droit International, the, 11, 12, 16, 23, 24, 30, 43, 44,
+     48, 63, 64, 65, 66, 68, 104, 105, 108, 121, 130, 162, 163, 164,
+     167, 168, 172, 174, 176, 182, 185, 190
+   its _Manuel des lois de la guerre maritime_, 163
+   its _Manuel des lois de la guerre sur terre_, 23, 24, 25, 27, 108
+Instructions, national,
+   on laws of war on land, 75, 76
+   on laws of war at sea:
+      British, 156, 180
+      French, 179
+      Japanese, 148, 149, 150, 155, 156, 157, 173
+      Russian, 154, 173, 174, 176, 177, 179
+      United States, 179
+_International_, the, 169
+International Court of Appeal, an, 184
+International Justice, a Permanent Court of, 2
+International Law, the nature and authority of, 66, 67, 77, 86, 114,
+     115, 116, 119, 127, 169, 188
+International Prize Court, proposal for an, 23, 181-191
+
+
+Jackson, Colonel, 66, 68
+James, Captain, 114
+Jenks, Mr., 106, 108, 110
+_Jonge Margaretha_, the, 159
+Just cause of war, 83
+"Justice and equity, general principles of," 187, 189, 190, 193
+
+
+Kent, Chancellor, 45
+Kleen, Mr., 130, 133
+_Knight-Commander_, the, 173, 174
+Kohler, Mr., 47
+_Kowshing_, the case of the, 41, 43
+"Kriegsbrauch," the, 68, 80
+
+
+Lambermont, Baron, 77
+Lammasch, Prof., 125
+Lansdowne, Marquess of, 58, 133, 136, 149, 169, 173
+Lawful belligerents, 69, 78
+League of Nations, the, 1, 2, 7, 9, 191
+Lehr, Prof., 102
+_Leucade_, the, 176
+Lincoln, President, 74
+Lieber's Instructions, 74, 75
+Localities closed to hostilities, 52
+London, Conference of, 181, 190, 191
+London, Declaration of, 22, 55, 58, 92, 181, 191, 193, 194, 195, 196-207
+Lyons, Lord, 169
+
+
+MacDonell, Prof., 172
+McKenna, Mr., 78
+Mahan, Admiral, 97
+Mail steamers and bags, 30
+_Malacca_, the case of the, 81, 162, 163
+Mandates, 8
+Manning, Mr., 45
+Manual of military law, the British, 107
+Manuals of warfare
+   on land, 105
+   at sea, 105
+Manuel des Lois de la guerre maritime, the, of Institut, 23
+Manual des Lois de la guerre sur terre, 23, 24, 174
+_Marais, ex parte_, 106
+Martens, de, Prof., 126
+Martial law, 105-112
+Maurice, Colonel, 42
+_Mcomini and others_ v. _Governor &c. of Natal_, 107
+Means of injuring, 94
+Measures short of war, 1-21
+Mediation. _See_ Good offices
+Menam, blockade of the, 10
+Mercantile Marine in war, 81, 84, 87
+Merchant ships, visit of, 60
+Militia, 77
+_Minerva_, the, 91
+Mines, 164
+Moltke, von, on conduct of war, 24
+Monroe doctrine, the, 17, 20
+_Moray Firth_, the, 189
+Morley, Lord, 58, 74
+"Most favoured nation" clause, 17
+_Moewe_, the, 70
+"Murder," 70, 71, 72, 84
+Mutiny Acts, the, 109
+
+
+National Instructions, 75, 76
+Naval bombardments of open coast towns, 30, 112, 123
+Naval manoeuvres of 1888, the, 113, 123
+Naval war code, a British, 30, 31, 32
+Naval warfare, 22
+Naval Prize (Consolidation) Bill, the, 36, 191-196, 198
+   object of, 194,195
+   rejection of, 196
+Naval Prize money, 195
+Neutral conduct, the criterion of, 125
+Neutral duties, as classified by the author, 129
+Neutral hospitality, 143
+Neutral States and individuals, their liabilities distinguished, 129-135
+Neutral territory, passage through, 90
+Neutral trade, the four inconveniences, to, 159
+Neutralisation, the term, 53, 54
+Neutrality,
+   correlative to belligerency, 10, 16, 19
+   British proclamations of, 130, 135-143
+Neutrals, methods of warfare affecting, 164-181
+Non-combatants, 72, 74
+_Novoe Vremya_, the, 176
+
+
+Occupied territory,
+   right of the invader in, 80, 100
+   not yet occupied, 77
+Oppenheim, Prof., 47
+_Orozembo_, the, 160
+"Ottoman Empire, ancient rule of the," 56
+
+
+Pacific blockade, 10
+Palmerston, Lord, 12
+Panama Canal, the, 50
+_Paquete Habana_, the, 30
+Paris. _See_ Declaration of
+Paris, Treaty of, 53, 54, 56, 81, 87, 89, 155
+"Pas de Code Naval, pas de Cour des Prises," 187
+Passage, 64, 90
+Peace talk, 125
+Peaceful settlement of disputes, the Conventions for,
+   of 1899, 2, 3, 6
+   of 1907, 2, 6
+   are non-obligatory, 173
+Perels, Prof., 16
+Permanent Court of International Justice, a, 191
+_Peterburg_, the, 162
+_Peterhoff_, the, 20, 149, 160
+Petition of Right, the, 106, 108, 109
+Pike, Mr., 98, 100
+"Piracy," 70, 71, 84
+Poison, 96
+Pope's Note, the, 51
+Port, enemy ships in, 49
+_Porter_ v. _Freudenberg_, 49
+Portsmouth, Lord, 205
+Pourtugael, den Beer, Prof., 68
+Pre-emption, 148
+Prevention, State duties of, 129, 131
+Prisoners of war, 45, 106, 107
+   liabilities of, 106
+Private International Law, 34
+Privateers, 81, 84
+   restrictions on, 82
+   commissioned liners are not, 70
+Private property at sea, 184
+Prize Court,
+   the Russian, 163
+   an international Court of Appeal, 23, 170-182
+   a settled prize law, must precede, 181, 183, 185, 190, 191, 193
+   a supreme, 181
+Prize Law Consolidation Bill, 193, 194, 199
+"Probable cause," 83
+Proclamations of neutrality, the British, criticised, 135-143
+"Professors," 119
+Projectiles,
+  from balloons, 22, 30, 62
+  for diffusion of gases, 22, 96, 97
+
+
+"Quasi-enemy," 12
+
+
+Radiotelegraphic stations, 168
+Rae, Mr., 162
+Ratification, 203
+Receipts, 102
+_Reglements_, the Hague. _See_ Hague
+Renault, Prof., 172, 187, 190, 196, 198, 199
+   Report of the force of (_see_ Authentic Interpretation)
+Reprisals,
+   advantages of, 14, 19
+   how differing from war, 9, 12, 14, 19
+   opposite views as to, 16
+   species of, 12, 15, 19
+   United States, instructions as to, 29
+   belligerent, 97, 123
+Requisitions, 102, 117
+Restrictive clause, the, 69, 146
+Retaliation, 97
+Reward for, dead or alive, 93
+_R._ v. _Eyre_, 110
+Ridley, Sir E., 77
+Roman Law terminology, 102
+Roosevelt, Pres., 146
+Rosebery, Lord, 158
+Ross, Sir R., 78
+Russian Prize Law, 162, 174, 176
+
+
+Salisbury, Lord, 3, 15, 52, 54, 157
+_Santissima Trinidad_, the, 137
+Savage warfare, 94
+_Savannah_, the, 85
+Scott, Sir Walter, 77, 91
+Scott, Sir William, 91
+Search. _See_ Visit and Search
+Second Peace Conference Conventions Bill, 37, 38, 39
+Seely, Col., 63
+Ship, a "mere moveable," 85
+Shucking, Prof., 125
+Siam, 10
+Sinking. _See_ Destruction
+Smith (Lord Birkenhead) and Sibley, on International Law in the
+     Russo-Japanese War, 135
+_Spider_, the, 113, 117
+Spies, 72
+_Springbok_, the, 29
+Stephen, Sir Herbert, 124
+Stewart, Mr. C., 104
+Story, J., 159
+Stowell, Lord, 85, 159, 160, 161, 166, 175, 177, 178, 180, 197
+Straits, 52, 56
+Submarine cables, 168, 169, 171, 188
+Submarines, 69
+Suez Canal, the, 50, 51, 52, 54
+Superfluous injury, 94, 95
+Suyematsu, Baron, 149
+Swettenham, Sir James, 79
+Sydenham, Lord, 104
+
+
+Takahashi, Prof., 43
+Terminology, 33
+Territorial waters, 165, 166, 167
+Tindal, le Chevalier, 122
+Tirpitz, Admiral von, 70
+_Tocumaro_, the, 60[D]
+Torpedoes, 164
+Transformation into ships of war, 162
+Treaties,
+   who are the parties to, 202, 207
+   effect of war on, 18, 198
+Treaty, the Hay-Pauncefote, 50
+Twenty-three (h) clause, the, 47, 206
+Twenty-four hours rule, the, 127, 144, 145
+Ullmann, Prof., 47, 106, 201
+Unarmed merchantmen, 72, 73
+Undefended towns, 30, 67, 68
+Uniform, 75
+United States
+   instructions for war on land, 23, 73, 107
+   naval war code, 23, 30, 31, 88
+   Naval War College, 8
+   ratification of Conventions, 75
+   views of, compared with British, 29, 31
+Unqualified captors, 72, 73
+Unratified Conventions, effect of, 40
+Usufruct, 101
+
+
+Vattel, 46, 119
+Venezuela, 13, 18
+Visit and search, 72, 83, 84, 159, 186
+"Violations of law of nations," term misapplied, 140, 142
+Voeux, 5, 99, 121, 122, 167, 180, 190
+Volunteers, 77
+
+
+War. _See_ Reprisals
+   Declaration of, 10, 41
+   legitimate object of, 25, 95
+   _sub modo_, 20, 55
+   written law of, 22
+Washington, the Three Rules of, 86
+Wellington, Duke of, 117
+Westbury, Lord, 137
+Westlake, Prof., 18, 41, 65, 183, 199, 202
+Wilson, Pres., 72, 97, 127
+Wolf, Mr., 58
+Wood, Mackinnon, Mr., 196, 197, 200
+Wounded and Sick. _See_ Geneva Conventions
+   horses, 98, 100
+
+
+_Yangtsze Insurance Association_ v. _Indemnity Mutual Marine Company_,
+   157
+Younge, Mr., 118
+
+
+_Zamora_, the, 207
+Zone, a danger, 59
+
+
+
+
+Printed by SPOTTISWOODE, BALLANTYNE & CO. LTD.
+Colchester, London & Eton, England
+
+
+
+
+BY THE SAME AUTHOR
+
+
+AN ESSAY ON COMPOSITION DEEDS UNDER 24 AND 25 VICT. c. 134. London,
+Sweet, 1864, 12mo. 7s.
+
+A PLAN FOR THE FORMAL AMENDMENT OF THE LAW OF ENGLAND. London,
+Butterworths, 1867, 8vo. 1s.
+
+ESSAYS UPON THE FORM OF THE LAW. London, Butterworths, 1870, 8vo. 7s.
+6d.
+
+THE INSTITUTES OF JUSTINIAN, edited as a recension of the Institutes of
+Gaius. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1873, second edit. 1881, 12mo. 5s.
+
+SELECT TITLES FROM THE DIGEST OF JUSTINIAN, edited, with C.L. Shadwell.
+Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1874-1881, 8vo. 14s.
+
+ALBERICUS GENTILIS, an Inaugural Lecture delivered at All Souls College,
+November 7, 1874. London, Macmillan, 1874, 8vo. 1s. 6d.
+
+ALBERICUS GENTILIS, tradotto da Aurelio Saffi. Roma, Loescher, 1884.
+
+THE BRUSSELS CONFERENCE OF 1874, and other diplomatic attempts to
+mitigate the rigour of warfare. Oxford and London, James Parker, 1876,
+8vo. 1s. 6d.
+
+THE TREATY RELATIONS OF RUSSIA AND TURKEY, 1774 to 1853, with an
+Appendix of Treaties. London, Macmillan, 1877, 12mo. 2s.
+
+ALBERICI GENTILIS DE IURE BELLI LIBRI TRES, edited. Oxford, Clarendon
+Press, 1877, 4to. 21s.
+
+THE ELEMENTS OF JURISPRUDENCE. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1880, 8vo,
+twelfth edit. 1916, 8vo. 14s.
+
+THE EUROPEAN CONCERT IN THE EASTERN QUESTION: a Collection of Treaties
+and other Public Acts, Edited, with Introductions and Notes. Oxford,
+Clarendon Press, 1885, 8vo. 12s. 6d.
+
+A MANUAL OF NAVAL PRIZE LAW. Issued by authority of the Lords
+Commissioners of the Admiralty. London, Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1888, 8vo.
+
+STUDIES IN INTERNATIONAL LAW. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1898, 8vo. 10s.
+6d.
+
+THE LAWS AND CUSTOMS OF WAR ON LAND, &c. (issued by the War Office to
+the British Army). London, Harrison & Sons, 1904, 12mo. 6d.
+
+NEUTRAL DUTIES IN A MARITIME WAR, as illustrated by recent events (_from
+the Proceedings of the British Academy_). London, H. Frowde, 1905, 8vo.
+1s.
+
+THE LAW OF WAR ON LAND (written and unwritten). Oxford, Clarendon Press,
+1908, 8vo. 6s. net.
+
+A VALEDICTORY RETROSPECT (1874-1910), being a Lecture delivered at All
+Souls College, June 17, 1910. Oxford, at the Clarendon Press, 1910.
+1s.
+
+PROPOSED CHANGES IN NAVAL PRIZE LAW (_from the Proceedings of the
+British Academy_). London, H. Frowde, 1911, 8vo. 1s.
+
+R. ZOUCHAEI IURIS ET IUDICII FECIALIS, sive Iuris inter gentes
+explicatio, edited in 2 vols., with biographical and bibliographical
+Introduction, for the Carnegie Institution of Washington, at the Oxford
+University Press, 1911, 4to. $4.
+
+IOHANNIS DB LIGNANO DB IURE BELLI, edited from the fourteenth-century
+MS., with biographical and bibliographical Introduction, for the
+Carnegie Institution of Washington, at the Oxford University Press,
+1917, 4to. L2 2s. 6d.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+[Transcriber's Note: The spelling and usage of non-English words and
+characters is occasionally inconsistent throughout the work. This etext
+preserves the usage in each instance as it appears in the printed book,
+except in cases of probable error as noted below.]
+
+[Note A: Printed _s'entiendrait_ in original.]
+
+[Note B: Printed _ressasi_ in original.]
+
+[Note C: Printed _principles_ in original.]
+
+[Note D: Spelled _Tokomaru_ where it appears in the text.]
+
+[Note E: Misprinted in original--intended page unknown.]
+
+
+
+
+
+End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of Letters To "The Times" Upon War And
+Neutrality (1881-1920), by Thomas Erskine Holland
+
+*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK UPON WAR AND NEUTRALITY ***
+
+***** This file should be named 14447.txt or 14447.zip *****
+This and all associated files of various formats will be found in:
+        https://www.gutenberg.org/1/4/4/4/14447/
+
+Produced by Robert Connal, Aaron Reed and the Online Distributed
+Proofreading Team. This file was produced from images generously
+made available by the Bibliotheque nationale de France (BnF/Gallica)
+at http://gallica.bnf.fr
+
+
+Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions
+will be renamed.
+
+Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no
+one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation
+(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without
+permission and without paying copyright royalties.  Special rules,
+set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to
+copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to
+protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark.  Project
+Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you
+charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission.  If you
+do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the
+rules is very easy.  You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose
+such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
+research.  They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do
+practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks.  Redistribution is
+subject to the trademark license, especially commercial
+redistribution.
+
+
+
+*** START: FULL LICENSE ***
+
+THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
+PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
+
+To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free
+distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
+(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project
+Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project
+Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at
+https://gutenberg.org/license).
+
+
+Section 1.  General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic works
+
+1.A.  By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
+and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
+(trademark/copyright) agreement.  If you do not agree to abide by all
+the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy
+all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession.
+If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the
+terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
+entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
+
+1.B.  "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark.  It may only be
+used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
+agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement.  There are a few
+things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
+even without complying with the full terms of this agreement.  See
+paragraph 1.C below.  There are a lot of things you can do with Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement
+and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works.  See paragraph 1.E below.
+
+1.C.  The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation"
+or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic works.  Nearly all the individual works in the
+collection are in the public domain in the United States.  If an
+individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are
+located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from
+copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative
+works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg
+are removed.  Of course, we hope that you will support the Project
+Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by
+freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of
+this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with
+the work.  You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by
+keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project
+Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others.
+
+1.D.  The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
+what you can do with this work.  Copyright laws in most countries are in
+a constant state of change.  If you are outside the United States, check
+the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement
+before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or
+creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project
+Gutenberg-tm work.  The Foundation makes no representations concerning
+the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United
+States.
+
+1.E.  Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
+
+1.E.1.  The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate
+access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently
+whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the
+phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project
+Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed,
+copied or distributed:
+
+This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
+almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
+re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
+with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
+
+1.E.2.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived
+from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is
+posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied
+and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees
+or charges.  If you are redistributing or providing access to a work
+with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the
+work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1
+through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the
+Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or
+1.E.9.
+
+1.E.3.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted
+with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
+must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional
+terms imposed by the copyright holder.  Additional terms will be linked
+to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the
+permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.
+
+1.E.4.  Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
+work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm.
+
+1.E.5.  Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
+electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
+prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
+active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
+Gutenberg-tm License.
+
+1.E.6.  You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
+compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any
+word processing or hypertext form.  However, if you provide access to or
+distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than
+"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version
+posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org),
+you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a
+copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon
+request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other
+form.  Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
+
+1.E.7.  Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
+performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works
+unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
+
+1.E.8.  You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
+access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided
+that
+
+- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
+     the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method
+     you already use to calculate your applicable taxes.  The fee is
+     owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he
+     has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the
+     Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.  Royalty payments
+     must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you
+     prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax
+     returns.  Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and
+     sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the
+     address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to
+     the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation."
+
+- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
+     you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
+     does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+     License.  You must require such a user to return or
+     destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium
+     and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of
+     Project Gutenberg-tm works.
+
+- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any
+     money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
+     electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days
+     of receipt of the work.
+
+- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
+     distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works.
+
+1.E.9.  If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
+forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
+both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael
+Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark.  Contact the
+Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.
+
+1.F.
+
+1.F.1.  Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
+effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
+public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm
+collection.  Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain
+"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or
+corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual
+property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a
+computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by
+your equipment.
+
+1.F.2.  LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right
+of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
+Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
+Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
+liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
+fees.  YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
+LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
+PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH F3.  YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
+TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
+LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
+INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
+DAMAGE.
+
+1.F.3.  LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
+defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
+receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
+written explanation to the person you received the work from.  If you
+received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with
+your written explanation.  The person or entity that provided you with
+the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a
+refund.  If you received the work electronically, the person or entity
+providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to
+receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund.  If the second copy
+is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further
+opportunities to fix the problem.
+
+1.F.4.  Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
+in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER
+WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
+WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
+
+1.F.5.  Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
+warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
+If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
+law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
+interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by
+the applicable state law.  The invalidity or unenforceability of any
+provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
+
+1.F.6.  INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
+trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
+providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance
+with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production,
+promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works,
+harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees,
+that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do
+or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm
+work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any
+Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause.
+
+
+Section  2.  Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of
+electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers
+including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers.  It exists
+because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from
+people in all walks of life.
+
+Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
+assistance they need, is critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's
+goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will
+remain freely available for generations to come.  In 2001, the Project
+Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
+and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations.
+To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
+and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4
+and the Foundation web page at https://www.pglaf.org.
+
+
+Section 3.  Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
+Foundation
+
+The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit
+501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
+state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
+Revenue Service.  The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification
+number is 64-6221541.  Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at
+https://pglaf.org/fundraising.  Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
+Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent
+permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws.
+
+The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S.
+Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered
+throughout numerous locations.  Its business office is located at
+809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email
+business@pglaf.org.  Email contact links and up to date contact
+information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official
+page at https://pglaf.org
+
+For additional contact information:
+     Dr. Gregory B. Newby
+     Chief Executive and Director
+     gbnewby@pglaf.org
+
+
+Section 4.  Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
+Literary Archive Foundation
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide
+spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
+increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
+freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest
+array of equipment including outdated equipment.  Many small donations
+($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
+status with the IRS.
+
+The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
+charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
+States.  Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
+considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
+with these requirements.  We do not solicit donations in locations
+where we have not received written confirmation of compliance.  To
+SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any
+particular state visit https://pglaf.org
+
+While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
+have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
+against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
+approach us with offers to donate.
+
+International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
+any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
+outside the United States.  U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
+
+Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation
+methods and addresses.  Donations are accepted in a number of other
+ways including including checks, online payments and credit card
+donations.  To donate, please visit: https://pglaf.org/donate
+
+
+Section 5.  General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works.
+
+Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm
+concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared
+with anyone.  For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project
+Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.
+
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed
+editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S.
+unless a copyright notice is included.  Thus, we do not necessarily
+keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.
+
+
+Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility:
+
+     https://www.gutenberg.org
+
+This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm,
+including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
+Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
+subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
diff --git a/old/14447.zip b/old/14447.zip
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..49ab7b2
--- /dev/null
+++ b/old/14447.zip
diff --git a/old/old/14447-h.htm.2020-12-18 b/old/old/14447-h.htm.2020-12-18
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..6494879
--- /dev/null
+++ b/old/old/14447-h.htm.2020-12-18
@@ -0,0 +1,10327 @@
+<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
+<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
+    "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
+
+<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" lang="en">
+  <head>
+    <title>
+      Letters To The Times Upon War And Neutrality, by Sir Thomas Erskine Holland.
+    </title>
+    <style type="text/css">
+/*<![CDATA[  XML blockout */
+<!--
+    p {  margin-top: .75em;
+         text-align: justify;
+         margin-bottom: .75em;
+         }
+    h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6 {
+         text-align: center; /* all headings centered */
+         clear: both;
+         }
+    hr { width: 33%;
+	 margin-top: 2em;
+	 margin-bottom: 2em;
+         margin-left: auto;
+         margin-right: auto;
+         clear: both;
+       }
+    body{margin-left: 10%;
+         margin-right: 10%;
+         max-width: 40em;
+        }
+
+    .TOCnum	{ display:none; }
+    .TOCchap {font-size:125%; text-align:center;padding-top:1.5em;}
+    .TOCchaptit {font-size:110%; text-align:center;padding-top:1em;padding-bottom:0.5em;}
+    .TOCsec  {font-weight:bold; text-align:center;padding-top:1em;}
+    .TOCsectit {font-style:italic; text-align:center;padding-bottom:1em;}
+
+    table {margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;}
+
+    .newpage  {position: absolute; right: 4%; left: 95%; font-size: 66%;}
+
+    .linenum  {position: absolute; top: auto; left: 4%;} /* poetry number */
+    .blockquot{margin-left: 5%; margin-right: 10%;}
+
+    .intronotes {font-size: 90%; padding: 1em; border: thin solid gray;}
+    .postnotes {font-size: 90%; padding-left: 1em; border-left: thick double gray;}
+    .letterquot {font-size: 90%; margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 10%;}
+    .letterquot p {text-align: left;}
+    .quotedletter {font-size: 90%; margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 10%;}
+
+    div.signature { line-height: 0.8em; }
+    .sigbody {text-align:right; padding-right: 6em; }
+    .signame {text-align:right; padding-right: 2em; margin-top:0;}
+    .sigdate {font-size: 90%; text-align: left; padding-left: 1em; }
+
+    .sectionhead {text-align: center; font-size: 125%;}
+    .subsectionhead {text-align: center; font-size: 110%; font-style: italic;}
+    .lettertitle {text-align: center; padding-top: 2em; text-decoration:underline;}
+    .chaptertitle {text-align: center; font-size: 110%; font-weight: bold;}
+    .indexsubentry {margin-left: 2em;}
+    .indexsubsubentry {margin-left: 4em;}
+
+    ins.correction {text-decoration:none; border-bottom: thin dotted gray;}
+    .center   {text-align: center;}
+
+    .indented  {padding-left: 2em;}
+    .footnotes        {border: dashed 1px;}
+    .footnote         {margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 10%; font-size: 0.9em;}
+    .footnote .label  {position: absolute; right: 84%; text-align: right;}
+    .fnanchor         {vertical-align: super; font-size: .8em; padding-left:0.3em;
+                       padding-right:0.3em;}
+
+     .titlepagehuge  {font-size:200%; font-weight:bold; text-align:center;}
+    .titlepagebig  {font-size:125%; font-weight:bold; text-align:center;}
+    .titlepagesmall  {font-weight:bold; text-align:center;}
+    // -->
+    /* XML end  ]]>*/
+    </style>
+  </head>
+<body>
+
+
+<pre>
+
+The Project Gutenberg EBook of Letters To "The Times" Upon War And
+Neutrality (1881-1920), by Thomas Erskine Holland
+
+This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
+almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
+re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
+with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
+
+
+Title: Letters To "The Times" Upon War And Neutrality (1881-1920)
+
+Author: Thomas Erskine Holland
+
+Release Date: December 24, 2004 [EBook #14447]
+
+Language: English
+
+Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1
+
+*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK UPON WAR AND NEUTRALITY ***
+
+
+
+
+Produced by Robert Connal, Aaron Reed and the Online Distributed
+Proofreading Team. This file was produced from images generously
+made available by the Bibliothèque nationale de France (BnF/Gallica)
+at http://gallica.bnf.fr
+
+
+
+
+
+
+</pre>
+
+
+
+<p>&nbsp;</p>
+<p>&nbsp;</p>
+<p>&nbsp;</p>
+<p>&nbsp;</p>
+<p>&nbsp;</p>
+<p>&nbsp;</p>
+<h1>LETTERS UPON WAR AND NEUTRALITY</h1>
+<p class="titlepagebig">(1881-1920)</p>
+<p>&nbsp;</p>
+<p>&nbsp;</p>
+<p>&nbsp;</p>
+<p>&nbsp;</p>
+<p>&nbsp;</p>
+<p>&nbsp;</p>
+
+<h2>LETTERS TO &quot;THE TIMES&quot;</h2>
+
+<p class="titlepagesmall">UPON</p>
+
+<p class="titlepagehuge">WAR AND NEUTRALITY</p>
+
+<p class="titlepagesmall">(1881-1920)</p>
+
+<p class="titlepagesmall">WITH SOME COMMENTARY</p>
+
+<p>&nbsp;</p>
+<p class="titlepagesmall">BY</p>
+
+<p class="titlepagebig">SIR THOMAS ERSKINE HOLLAND</p>
+
+<p class="titlepagesmall">K.C., D.C.L., F.B.A.</p>
+
+<p class="titlepagesmall">FELLOW OF ALL SOULS COLLEGE<br />
+SOMETIME CHICHELE PROFESSOR OF INTERNATIONAL LAW<br />
+MEMBRE (PR&Eacute;SIDENT 1913) DE L'INSTITUT DE DROIT INTERNATIONAL<br />
+ETC., ETC.</p>
+
+<p>&nbsp;</p>
+<p class="titlepagebig">THIRD EDITION</p>
+
+<p>&nbsp;</p>
+<p class="titlepagebig">LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO.</p>
+<p class="titlepagesmall">39 PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON<br />
+FOURTH AVENUE &amp; 30TH STREET, NEW YORK<br />
+BOMBAY, CALCUTTA, AND MADRAS</p>
+
+<p class="titlepagebig">1921</p>
+
+
+<p>&nbsp;</p>
+<p>&nbsp;</p>
+
+<p class="sectionhead">
+PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION
+</p>
+
+<p>For a good many years past I have been allowed to
+comment, in letters to <i>The Times</i>, upon points of
+International Law, as they have been raised by the events
+of the day. These letters have been fortunate enough to
+attract some attention, both at home and abroad, and
+requests have frequently reached me that they should be
+rendered more easily accessible than they can be in the
+files of the newspaper in which they originally appeared.</p>
+
+<p>I have, accordingly, thought that it might be worth
+while to select, from a greater number, such of my letters
+as bear upon those questions of War and Neutrality of
+which so much has been heard in recent years, and to
+group them for republication, with some elucidatory matter
+(more especially with reference to changes introduced by
+the Geneva Convention of 1906, The Hague Conventions
+of 1907, and the Declaration of London of the present
+year) under the topics to which they respectively relate.</p>
+
+<p>The present volume has been put together in accordance
+with this plan; and my best thanks are due to the
+proprietors of The Times for permitting the reissue of
+the letters in a collected form. Cross-references and a full
+Index will, I hope, to some extent remove the difficulties
+which might otherwise be caused by the fragmentary
+character, and the chances of repetition, inseparable from
+such a work.</p>
+
+<p class="prefacesignature">
+T. E. H.<br />
+EGGISHORN, SWITZERLAND,<br />
+<i>September</i> 14, 1909.<br />
+</p>
+
+<hr style='width: 45%;' />
+
+<p class="sectionhead">PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION</p>
+
+<p>I have again to thank <i>The Times</i> for permission to print in
+this new edition letters which have appeared in its columns
+during the past four years. They will be found to deal largely
+with still unsettled questions suggested by the work of
+the Second Peace Conference, by the Declaration of London,
+and by the, unfortunately conceived, Naval Prize Bill of
+1911.</p>
+
+<p>I have no reason to complain of the reception which
+has so far been accorded to the views which I have thought
+it my duty to put forward.</p>
+
+<p class="prefacesignature">
+T. E. H.<br />
+OXFORD,<br />
+<i>January</i> 10, 1914.<br />
+</p>
+
+<hr style='width: 45%;' />
+
+<p class="sectionhead">PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION</p>
+
+<p>This, doubtless final, edition of my letters upon War and
+Neutrality contains, by renewed kind permission of <i>The
+Times</i>, the whole series of such letters, covering a period
+of no less than forty years. To the letters which have
+already appeared in former editions, I have now added
+those contained in the &quot;Supplement&quot; of 1916 (for some
+time out of print) to my second edition; as also others of
+still more recent date. All these have been grouped, as
+were their predecessors, under the various topics which
+they were intended to illustrate. The explanatory commentaries
+have been carefully brought up to date, and
+a perhaps superfluously full Index should facilitate reference
+for those interested in matters of the kind. Such
+persons may not be sorry to have their attention recalled
+to many questions which have demanded practical treatment
+of late years, more especially during the years of
+the great war.</p>
+
+<p>Not a few of these questions are sure again to come
+to the front, so soon as the rehabilitation of International
+Law, rendered necessary by the conduct of that War,
+shall be seriously taken in hand.</p>
+
+<p class="prefacesignature">
+T. E. H.<br />
+OXFORD,<br />
+<i>April</i> 25, 1921.<br />
+</p>
+
+
+
+<hr style="width: 65%;" />
+<h2><a name="CONTENTS" id="CONTENTS" />CONTENTS</h2>
+
+<div class="TOC">
+<div class="TOCchap"><a href="#CHAPTER_I">CHAPTER I</a></div>
+<div class="TOCchaptit">MEASURES SHORT OF WAR FOR THE SETTLEMENT<br />
+OF INTERNATIONAL CONTROVERSIES</div>  <span class="TOCnum">1</span>
+<div class="TOCsec"><a href="#CHAPTER_I_SECTION_1">SECTION 1</a></div><br />
+<div class="TOCsectit">Friendly Measures</div> <span class="TOCnum">1</span>
+<a href="#THE-PETITION-TO-THE-PRESIDENT-OF-THE-UNITED-STATES">The Petition to the President of the United States (1899)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page002">2</a></span><br />
+<a href="#COMMISSIONS-OF-ENQUIRY-AND-THE-HAGUE-CONVENTION">Commissions of Enquiry and The Hague Convention (1904)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page003">3</a></span><br />
+<a href="#THE-LEAGUE-OF-NATIONS-1919">The League of Nations (1919)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page007">7</a></span><br />
+<a href="#THE-LEAGUE-OF-NATIONS-1919-B">The League of Nations (1919)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page008">8</a></span><br />
+<a href="#THE-LEAGUE-OF-NATIONS-1920">The League of Nations (1920)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page009">9</a></span>
+<div class="TOCsec"><a href="#CHAPTER_I_SECTION_2">SECTION 2</a></div><br />
+<div class="TOCsectit">Pacific Reprisals</div> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page009">9</a></span>
+<a href="#THE-BLOCKADE-OF-THE-MENAM">The Blockade of the Menam (1893)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page010">10</a></span><br />
+<a href="#PACIFIC-BLOCKADE">Pacific Blockade (1897)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page011">11</a></span><br />
+<a href="#THE-VENEZUELAN-CONTROVERSY">The Venezuelan Controversy (1902)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page013">13</a></span><br />
+<a href="#THE-VENEZUELA-PROTOCOL">The Venezuela Protocol (1903)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page018">18</a></span><br />
+<a href="#WAR-AND-REPRISALS">War and Reprisals (1908)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page018">18</a></span>
+<br />
+<div class="TOCchap"><a href="#CHAPTER_II">CHAPTER II</a></div>
+<div class="TOCchaptit">STEPS TOWARDS A WRITTEN LAW OF WAR</div> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page022">22</a></span>
+<a href="#COUNT-VON-MOLTKE-ON-THE-LAWS-OF-WARFARE">Count von Moltke on the Laws of Warfare (1881)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page023">23</a></span><br />
+<a href="#PROFESSOR-BLUNTSCHLIS-REPLY-TO-COUNT-VON-MOLTKE">Professor Bluntschli's Reply to Count von Moltke (1881)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page026">26</a></span><br />
+<a href="#THE-UNITED-STATES-NAVAL-WAR-CODE">The United States Naval War Code (1901)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page029">29</a></span><br />
+<a href="#A-NAVAL-WAR-CODE">A Naval War Code (1902)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page031">31</a></span>
+<br />
+<div class="TOCchap"><a href="#CHAPTER_III">CHAPTER III</a></div>
+<div class="TOCchaptit">TERMINOLOGY</div> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page033">33</a></span>
+<a href="#INTERNATIONAL-TERMINOLOGY">International Terminology (1918)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page033">33</a></span>
+<br />
+<div class="TOCchap"><a href="#CHAPTER_IV">CHAPTER IV</a></div>
+<div class="TOCchaptit">CONVENTIONS AND LEGISLATION</div> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page036">36</a></span>
+<a href="#GOVERNMENT-BILLS-AND-INTERNATIONAL-CONVENTIONS">Government Bills and International Conventions (1911)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page036">36</a></span><br />
+<a href="#THE-PRESENT-BILL-IN-PARLIAMENT">The present Bill in Parliament (1914)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page038">38</a></span><br />
+<a href="#THE-FOREIGN-ENLISTMENT-BILL">The Foreign Enlistment Bill (1912)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page039">39</a></span>
+<br />
+<div class="TOCchap"><a href="#CHAPTER_V">CHAPTER V</a></div>
+<div class="TOCchaptit">THE COMMENCEMENT OF WAR</div> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page041">41</a></span>
+<div class="TOCsec"><a href="#CHAPTER_V_SECTION_1">SECTION 1</a></div><br />
+<div class="TOCsectit">Declaration of War</div> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page041">41</a></span>
+<a href="#THE-SINKING-OF-THE-KOWSHING">The Sinking of the <i>Kowshing</i> (1894)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page041">41</a></span>
+<br />
+<div class="TOCsec"><a href="#CHAPTER_V_SECTION_2">SECTION 2</a></div><br />
+<div class="TOCsectit">The Immediate Effects of the Outbreak of War</div> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page044">44</a></span>
+<a href="#FOREIGN-SOLDIERS-IN-ENGLAND">Foreign Soldiers in England (1909)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page045">45</a></span><br />
+<a href="#THE-NAVAL-PRIZE-BILL-CIVIL-DISABILITIES-OF-ENEMY-SUBJECTS">The Naval Prize Bill: Civil Disabilities of Enemy Subjects (1911)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page047">47</a></span><br />
+<a href="#ENEMY-SHIPS-IN-PORT">Enemy Ships in Port (1917)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page049">49</a></span>
+<br />
+<div class="TOCchap"><a href="#CHAPTER_VI">CHAPTER VI</a></div>
+<div class="TOCchaptit">THE CONDUCT OF WARFARE</div> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page050">50</a></span>
+<div class="TOCsec"><a href="#CHAPTER_VI_SECTION_1">SECTION 1</a></div><br />
+<div class="TOCsectit">On the Open Sea</div> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page051">51</a></span>
+<a href="#THE-FREEDOM-OF-THE-SEAS">The Freedom of the Seas? (1917)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page051">51</a></span>
+<br />
+<div class="TOCsec"><a href="#CHAPTER_VI_SECTION_2">SECTION 2</a></div><br />
+<div class="TOCsectit">In Other Waters</div> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page051">51</a></span>
+<a href="#THE-SUEZ-CANAL">The Suez Canal (1898)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page051">51</a></span><br />
+<a href="#THE-SUEZ-CANAL-B">The Suez Canal (1898)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page053">53</a></span><br />
+<a href="#THE-SUEZ-CANAL-C">The Suez Canal (1898)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page054">54</a></span><br />
+<a href="#THE-CLOSING-OF-THE-DARDANELLES">The Closing of the Dardanelles (1912)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page055">55</a></span><br />
+<a href="#THE-CLOSING-OF-THE-DARDANELLES-B">The Closing of the Dardanelles (1912)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page058">58</a></span>
+<br />
+<div class="TOCsec"><a href="#CHAPTER_VI_SECTION_3">SECTION 3</a></div><br />
+<div class="TOCsectit">In a Special Danger Zone?</div> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page059">59</a></span>
+<a href="#THE-GERMAN-THREAT">The German Threat (1915)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page059">59</a></span>
+<br />
+<div class="TOCsec"><a href="#CHAPTER_VI_SECTION_4">SECTION 4</a></div><br />
+<div class="TOCsectit">Aerial Warfare</div> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page061">61</a></span>
+<a href="#THE-DEBATE-ON-AERONAUTICS">The Debate on Aeronautics (1909)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page061">61</a></span><br />
+<a href="#THE-AERIAL-NAVIGATION-ACT">The Aerial Navigation Act (1913)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page063">63</a></span><br />
+<a href="#SOVEREIGNTY-OVER-THE-AIR">Sovereignty over the Air (1913)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page065">65</a></span><br />
+<a href="#ATTACK-FROM-THE-AIR-THE-ENFORCEMENT-OF-INTERNATIONAL-LAW">Attack from the Air: The Enforcement of International Law (1914)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page066">66</a></span><br />
+<a href="#ATTACK-FROM-THE-AIR-THE-RULES-OF-INTERNATIONAL-LAW">Attack from the Air: The Rules of International Law (1914)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page067">67</a></span>
+<br />
+<div class="TOCsec"><a href="#CHAPTER_VI_SECTION_5">SECTION 5</a></div><br />
+<div class="TOCsectit">Submarines</div> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page069">69</a></span>
+<a href="#GERMANY-AND-THE-HAGUE">Germany and the Hague (1914)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page069">69</a></span><br />
+<a href="#THE-PIRATES">The &quot;Pirates&quot; (March 13, 1915)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page070">70</a></span><br />
+<a href="#SUBMARINE-CREWS">Submarine Crews (March 22, 1915)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page071">71</a></span><br />
+<a href="#MR-WILSONS-NOTE">Mr. Wilson's Note (May 16, 1915)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page072">72</a></span>
+<br />
+<div class="TOCsec"><a href="#CHAPTER_VI_SECTION_6">SECTION 6</a></div><br />
+<div class="TOCsectit">Lawful Belligerents</div> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page073">73</a></span>
+<a href="#GUERILLA-WARFARE">Guerilla Warfare (1906)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page073">73</a></span><br />
+<a href="#THE-RUSSIAN-USE-OF-CHINESE-CLOTHING">The Russian Use of Chinese Clothing (1904)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page075">75</a></span><br />
+<a href="#THE-RIGHTS-OF-ARMED-CIVILIANS">The Rights of Armed Civilians (1914)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page077">77</a></span><br />
+<a href="#CIVILIANS-IN-WARFARE-THE-RIGHT-TO-TAKE-UP-ARMS">Civilians in Warfare: The Right to take up Arms (1914)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page078">78</a></span><br />
+<a href="#CIVILIANS-AND-A-RAID">Civilians and a Raid (1914)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page079">79</a></span><br />
+<a href="#MISS-CAVELLS-CASE">Miss Cavell's Case (1915)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page079">79</a></span>
+<br />
+<div class="TOCsec"><a href="#CHAPTER_VI_SECTION_7">SECTION 7</a></div><br />
+<div class="TOCsectit">Privateering and the Declaration of Paris</div> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page080">80</a></span>
+<a href="#OUR-MERCANTILE-MARINE-IN-WAR-TIME-A">Our Mercantile Marine in War Time (1898)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page081">81</a></span><br />
+<a href="#OUR-MERCANTILE-MARINE-IN-WAR-TIME-B">Our Mercantile Marine in War Time (1898)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page084">84</a></span><br />
+<a href="#OUR-MERCANTILE-MARINE-IN-WAR">Our Mercantile Marine in War (1898)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page087">87</a></span><br />
+<a href="#THE-DECLARATION-OF-PARIS-1911">The Declaration of Paris (1911)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page087">87</a></span><br />
+<a href="#THE-DECLARATION-OF-PARIS-1914">The Declaration of Paris (1914)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page089">89</a></span><br />
+<a href="#THE-DECLARATION-OF-PARIS-1916">The Declaration of Paris (1916)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page091">91</a></span><br />
+<a href="#THE-DECLARATION-OF-PARIS-1916-B">The Declaration of Paris (1916)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page092">92</a></span>
+<br />
+<div class="TOCsec"><a href="#CHAPTER_VI_SECTION_8">SECTION 8</a></div><br />
+<div class="TOCsectit">Assassination</div> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page093">93</a></span>
+<a href="#THE-NATAL-PROCLAMATION">The Natal Proclamation (1906)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page093">93</a></span>
+<br />
+<div class="TOCsec"><a href="#CHAPTER_VI_SECTION_9">SECTION 9</a></div><br />
+<div class="TOCsectit">The Choice of Means of Injuring</div> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page094">94</a></span>
+<a href="#BULLETS-IN-SAVAGE-WARFARE">Bullets in Savage Warfare (1903)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page094">94</a></span><br />
+<a href="#GASES">Gases (1918)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page097">97</a></span>
+<br />
+<div class="TOCsec"><a href="#CHAPTER_VI_SECTION_10">SECTION 10</a></div><br />
+<div class="TOCsectit">The Geneva Convention</div> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page098">98</a></span>
+<a href="#WOUNDED-HORSES-IN-WAR">Wounded Horses in War (1899)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page098">98</a></span>
+<br />
+<div class="TOCsec"><a href="#CHAPTER_VI_SECTION_11">SECTION 11</a></div><br />
+<div class="TOCsectit">Enemy Property in Occupied Territory</div> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page100">100</a></span>
+<a href="#INTERNATIONAL-USUFRUCT">International &quot;Usufruct&quot; (1898)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page101">101</a></span><br />
+<a href="#REQUISITIONS-IN-WARFARE">Requisitions in Warfare (1902)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page103">103</a></span>
+<br />
+<div class="TOCsec"><a href="#CHAPTER_VI_SECTION_12">SECTION 12</a></div><br />
+<div class="TOCsectit">Enemy Property at Sea</div> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page104">104</a></span>
+<a href="#PRIVATE-PROPERTY-AT-SEA">Private Property at Sea (1913)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page104">104</a></span>
+<br />
+<div class="TOCsec"><a href="#CHAPTER_VI_SECTION_13">SECTION 13</a></div><br />
+<div class="TOCsectit">Martial Law</div> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page105">105</a></span>
+<a href="#THE-EXECUTIONS-AT-PRETORIA">The Executions at Pretoria (1901)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page106">106</a></span><br />
+<a href="#THE-PETITION-OF-RIGHT-1901">The Petition of Right (1901)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page108">108</a></span><br />
+<a href="#THE-PETITION-OF-RIGHT-1902">The Petition of Right (1902)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page109">109</a></span><br />
+<a href="#MARTIAL-LAW-IN-NATAL">Martial Law in Natal (1906)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page111">111</a></span>
+<br />
+<div class="TOCsec"><a href="#CHAPTER_VI_SECTION_14">SECTION 14</a></div><br />
+<div class="TOCsectit">The Naval Bombardment of Open Coast Towns</div> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page112">112</a></span>
+<a href="#NAVAL-ATROCITIES">Naval Atrocities (1888)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page113">113</a></span><br />
+<a href="#THE-NAVAL-MANOEUVRES-A">The Naval Manoeuvres (1888)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page113">113</a></span><br />
+<a href="#THE-NAVAL-MANOEUVRES-B">The Naval Manoeuvres (1888)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page117">117</a></span><br />
+<a href="#NAVAL-BOMBARDMENTS-OF-UNFORTIFIED-PLACES">Naval Bombardments of Unfortified Places (1904)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page120">120</a></span>
+<br />
+<div class="TOCsec"><a href="#CHAPTER_VI_SECTION_15">SECTION 15</a></div><br />
+<div class="TOCsectit">Belligerent Reprisals</div> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page123">123</a></span>
+<a href="#REPRISALS-A">Reprisals (1917)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page123">123</a></span><br />
+<a href="#REPRISALS-B">Reprisals (1917)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page124">124</a></span>
+<br />
+<div class="TOCsec"><a href="#CHAPTER_VI_SECTION_16">SECTION 16</a></div><br />
+<div class="TOCsectit">Peace</div> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page124">124</a></span>
+<a href="#UNDESIRABLE-PEACE-TALK">Undesirable Peace Talk (1915)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page124">124</a></span>
+<br />
+<div class="TOCchap"><a href="#CHAPTER_VII">CHAPTER VII</a></div>
+<div class="TOCchaptit">THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF NEUTRALS</div> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page126">126</a></span>
+<div class="TOCsec"><a href="#CHAPTER_VII_SECTION_1">SECTION 1</a></div><br />
+<div class="TOCsectit">The Criterion of Neutral Conduct</div> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page126">126</a></span>
+<a href="#PROFESSOR-DE-MARTENS-ON-THE-SITUATION">Professor de Martens on the Situation (1905)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page126">126</a></span><br />
+<a href="#NEUTRALS-AND-THE-LAWS-OF-WAR">Neutrals and the Laws of War (1915)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page127">127</a></span>
+<br />
+<div class="TOCsec"><a href="#CHAPTER_VII_SECTION_2">SECTION 2</a></div><br />
+<div class="TOCsectit">The Duties of Neutral States, and the Liabilities of Neutral
+Individuals, distinguished</div> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page129">129</a></span>
+<a href="#CONTRABAND-OF-WAR-1904">Contraband of War (1904)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page130">130</a></span><br />
+<a href="#COAL-FOR-THE-RUSSIAN-FLEET">Coal for the Russian Fleet (1904)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page132">132</a></span><br />
+<a href="#GERMAN-WAR-MATERIAL-FOR-TURKEY">German War Material for Turkey (1911)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page135">135</a></span>
+<br />
+<div class="TOCsec"><a href="#CHAPTER_VII_SECTION_3">SECTION 3</a></div>
+<div class="TOCsectit">Neutrality Proclamations</div> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page135">135</a></span>
+<a href="#THE-BRITISH-PROCLAMATION-OF-NEUTRALITY-1904">The British Proclamation of Neutrality (1904)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page136">136</a></span><br />
+<a href="#THE-BRITISH-PROCLAMATION-OF-NEUTRALITY-1904-B">The British Proclamation of Neutrality (1904)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page138">138</a></span><br />
+<a href="#THE-BRITISH-PROCLAMATION-OF-NEUTRALITY-1911">The British Proclamation of Neutrality (1911)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page141">141</a></span><br />
+<a href="#THE-PROCLAMATION-OF-NEUTRALITY">The Proclamation of Neutrality (1911)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page143">143</a></span>
+<br />
+<div class="TOCsec"><a href="#CHAPTER_VII_SECTION_4">SECTION 4</a></div>
+<div class="TOCsectit">Neutral Hospitality</div> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page143">143</a></span>
+<a href="#BELLIGERENT-FLEETS-IN-NEUTRAL-WATERS">Belligerent Fleets in Neutral Waters (1905)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page144">144</a></span><br />
+<a href="#THE-APPAM">The <i>Appam</i> (1916)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page146">146</a></span>
+<br />
+<div class="TOCsec"><a href="#CHAPTER_VII_SECTION_5">SECTION 5</a></div>
+<div class="TOCsectit">Carriage of Contraband</div> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page147">147</a></span>
+<i>Absolute and Conditional Contraband</i> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page147">147</a></span><br />
+<span class="indented"><a href="#CONTRABAND-OF-WAR-1898">Contraband of War (1898)</a></span> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page147">147</a></span><br />
+<span class="indented"><a href="#IS-COAL-CONTRABAND-OF-WAR">Is Coal Contraband of War? (1904)</a></span> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page149">149</a></span><br />
+<span class="indented"><a href="#COTTON-AS-CONTRABAND-OF-WAR-1905">Cotton as Contraband of War (1905)</a></span> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page151">151</a></span><br />
+<span class="indented"><a href="#COTTON-AS-CONTRABAND-OF-WAR-1916">Cotton as Contraband of War (1916)</a></span> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page154">154</a></span><br />
+<span class="indented"><a href="#JAPANESE-PRIZE-LAW-1905">Japanese Prize Law (1905)</a></span> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page155">155</a></span><br />
+<span class="indented"><a href="#JAPANESE-PRIZE-LAW-1915">Japanese Prize Law (1915)</a></span> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page157">157</a></span><br />
+<i>Continuous Voyages</i> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page157">157</a></span><br />
+<span class="indented"><a href="#PRIZE-LAW">Prize Law (1900)</a></span> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page158">158</a></span><br />
+<span class="indented"><a href="#THE-ALLANTON-A">The <i>Allanton</i> (1904)</a></span> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page161">161</a></span><br />
+<i>Unqualified Captors</i> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page162">162</a></span><br />
+<span class="indented"><a href="#THE-ALLANTON-B">The <i>Allanton</i> (1904)</a></span> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page162">162</a></span>
+<br />
+<div class="TOCsec"><a href="#CHAPTER_VII_SECTION_6">SECTION 6</a></div>
+<div class="TOCsectit">Methods of Warfare as affecting Neutrals</div> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page164">164</a></span>
+<i>Mines</i> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page164">164</a></span><br />
+<span class="indented"><a href="#MINES-IN-THE-OPEN-SEA">Mines in the Open Sea (1904)</a></span> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page164">164</a></span><br />
+<span class="indented"><a href="#TERRITORIAL-WATERS">Territorial Waters (1904)</a></span> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page166">166</a></span><br />
+<i>Cable-cutting</i> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page168">168</a></span><br />
+<span class="indented"><a href="#SUBMARINE-CABLES">Submarine Cables (1881)</a></span> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page168">168</a></span><br />
+<span class="indented"><a href="#SUBMARINE-CABLES-IN-TIME-OF-WAR">Submarine Cables in Time of War (1897)</a></span> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page169">169</a></span><br />
+<span class="indented"><a href="#SUBMARINE-CABLES-IN-TIME-OF-WAR-B">Submarine Cables in Time of War (1897)</a></span> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page171">171</a></span>
+<br />
+<div class="TOCsec"><a href="#CHAPTER_VII_SECTION_7">SECTION 7</a></div>
+<div class="TOCsectit">Destruction of Neutral Prizes</div> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page173">173</a></span>
+<a href="#RUSSIAN-PRIZE-LAW">Russian Prize Law (1904)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page174">174</a></span><br />
+<a href="#RUSSIAN-PRIZE-LAW-B">Russian Prize Law (1904)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page177">177</a></span><br />
+<a href="#RUSSIAN-PRIZE-LAW-C">Russian Prize Law (1904)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page178">178</a></span><br />
+<a href="#THE-SINKING-OF-NEUTRAL-PRIZES">The Sinking of Neutral Prizes (1905)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page179">179</a></span>
+<br />
+<div class="TOCsec"><a href="#CHAPTER_VII_SECTION_8">SECTION 8</a></div>
+<div class="TOCsectit">An International Prize Court</div> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page181">181</a></span>
+<a href="#AN-INTERNATIONAL-PRIZE-COURT">An International Prize Court (1907)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page182">182</a></span><br />
+<a href="#A-NEW-PRIZE-LAW">A New Prize Law (1907)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page183">183</a></span><br />
+<a href="#A-NEW-PRIZE-LAW-B">A New Prize Law (1907)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page186">186</a></span><br />
+<a href="#A-NEW-PRIZE-LAW-C">A New Prize Law (1907)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page189">189</a></span>
+<br />
+<div class="TOCsec"><a href="#CHAPTER_VII_SECTION_9">SECTION 9</a></div>
+<div class="TOCsectit">The Naval Prize Bill</div> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page191">191</a></span>
+<a href="#THE-NAVAL-PRIZE-BILL-1910">The Naval Prize Bill (1910)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page192">192</a></span><br />
+<a href="#THE-NAVAL-PRIZE-BILL-1911">The Naval Prize Bill (1911)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page194">194</a></span><br />
+<a href="#NAVAL-PRIZE-MONEY">Naval Prize Money    (1918)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page195">195</a></span>
+<br />
+<div class="TOCsec"><a href="#CHAPTER_VII_SECTION_10">SECTION 10</a></div>
+<div class="TOCsectit">The Declaration of London</div> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page196">196</a></span>
+<a href="#THE-DECLARATION-OF-LONDON-1909">The Declaration of London (1909)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page196">196</a></span><br />
+<a href="#THE-DECLARATION-OF-LONDON-1910">The Declaration of London (1910)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page197">197</a></span><br />
+<a href="#THE-DECLARATION-OF-LONDON-1911">The Declaration of London (1911)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page199">199</a></span><br />
+<a href="#THE-DECLARATION-OF-LONDON-1911-B">The Declaration of London (1911)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page202">202</a></span><br />
+<a href="#THE-DECLARATION-OF-LONDON-1911-C">The Declaration of London (1911)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page203">203</a></span><br />
+<a href="#THE-DECLARATION-OF-LONDON-1915">The Declaration of London (1915)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page204">204</a></span><br />
+<a href="#THE-DECLARATION-OF-LONDON-1916">The Declaration of London (1916)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page205">205</a></span><br />
+<a href="#GERMANY-WRONG-AGAIN">Germany wrong again (1917)</a> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page207">207</a></span>
+<br />
+<div class="TOCchap"><a href="#INDEX">INDEX</a></div> <span class="TOCnum"><a href="#page209">209</a></span><br />
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page001" id="page001">[001]</a></span>
+</div>
+
+
+
+
+
+<hr style="width: 65%;" />
+<h2><a name="CHAPTER_I" id="CHAPTER_I" />CHAPTER I</h2>
+
+<p class="chaptertitle">MEASURES SHORT OF WAR FOR THE SETTLEMENT
+OF INTERNATIONAL CONTROVERSIES</p>
+
+
+<h3 class="sectionhead"><a name="CHAPTER_I_SECTION_1" />SECTION 1</h3>
+
+<p class="subsectionhead">Friendly Measures</p>
+
+<div class="intronotes"><p>Of the letters which follow, the first was suggested by a petition
+presented in October, 1899, to the President of the United States,
+asking him to use his good offices to terminate the war in South Africa;
+the second by discussions as to the advisability of employing, for the
+first time, an International Commission of Enquiry, for the purpose
+of ascertaining the facts of the lamentable attack perpetrated by the
+Russian fleet upon British fishing vessels off the Dogger Bank, on
+October 21, 1905. The Commission sat from January 19 to February
+25, 1905, and its report was the means of terminating a period of
+great tension in the relations of the two Powers concerned (see <i>Parl.
+Paper</i>, Russia, 1905, No. 3): this letter deals also with Arbitration,
+under The Hague Convention of 1899.</p>
+
+<p>It may be worth while here to point out that besides direct negotiation
+between the Powers concerned, four friendly methods for the
+settlement of questions at issue between them are now recognised,
+<i>viz</i> (1) Good offices and mediation of third Powers; (2) &quot;Special
+mediation&quot;; (3) &quot;International Commissions of Enquiry&quot;; (4)
+Arbitration. All four were recommended by The Hague Convention
+of 1899 &quot;For the Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes&quot;
+(by which, indeed, (2) and (3) were first suggested), as also by the
+amended re-issue of that convention in 1907. It must be noticed
+that resort to any of these methods is entirely discretionary, so far
+as any rule of International Law is concerned; all efforts to render
+it universally and unconditionally obligatory having, perhaps fortunately,
+hitherto failed.</p>
+
+<p>It remains to be seen how far the settlement of international
+controversies has been facilitated by the establishment of a &quot;League
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page002" id="page002">[002]</a></span>of Nations&quot; (to which reference is made in the concluding letters of
+this chapter), and, in particular, by the plan for the establishment of
+a &quot;Permanent Court of International Justice,&quot; formulated by the
+League, in pursuance of Art. 14 of the Treaty of Versailles, and
+submitted to its members in December, 1920.</p></div>
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="THE-PETITION-TO-THE-PRESIDENT-OF-THE-UNITED-STATES" />THE PETITION TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;It seems that a respectably, though perhaps
+thoughtlessly signed petition was on Thursday presented
+to President McKinley, urging him to offer his good offices
+to bring to an end the war now being waged in South
+Africa. From the <i>New York World</i> cablegram, it would
+appear that the President was requested to take this step
+&quot;in accordance with Art. 3 of the protocol of the Peace
+Conference at The Hague.&quot; The reference intended is
+doubtless to the <i>Convention pour le r&egrave;glement pacifique des
+conflits internationaux</i>, prepared at the Conference [of 1899],
+Art. 3 of which is to the following effect:&mdash;</p>
+
+<div class="letterquot"><p>&quot;Les Puissances signataires jugent utile qu'une ou plusieurs Puissances
+&eacute;trang&egrave;res au conflit offrent de leur propre initiative, en tant
+que les circonstances s'y pr&ecirc;tent, leurs bons offices ou leur m&eacute;diation
+aux &Eacute;tats en conflit.</p>
+
+<p>&quot;Le droit d'offrir les bons offices ou la m&eacute;diation appartient aux
+Puissances &eacute;trang&egrave;res au conflit, m&ecirc;me pendant le cours des hostilit&eacute;s.</p>
+
+<p>&quot;L'exercice de ce droit ne peut jamais &ecirc;tre consid&eacute;r&eacute; par l'une ou
+l'autre des parties en litige comme un acte peu amical.&quot;</p></div>
+
+<p>Several remarks are suggested by the presentation of
+this petition:&mdash;</p>
+
+<p>(1) One might suppose from the glib reference here
+and elsewhere made to The Hague Convention, that this
+convention is already in force, whereas it is [1899], in the
+case of most, if not all, of the Powers represented at the
+conference, a mere unratified draft, under the consideration
+of the respective Governments.</p>
+
+<p>(2) The article, if it were in force, would impose no
+duty of offering good offices, but amounts merely to the
+expression of opinion that an offer of good offices is a
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page003" id="page003">[003]</a></span>useful and unobjectionable proceeding, in suitable cases
+(<i>en tant que les circonstances s'y pr&ecirc;tent</i>). It cannot for
+a moment be supposed that the President would consider
+that an opportunity of the kind contemplated was offered
+by the war in South Africa.</p>
+
+<p>(3) One would like to know at what date, if at all,
+the Prime Minister of the British colony of the Cape was
+pleased, as is alleged, to follow the lead of the Presidents of
+the two Boer Republics in bestowing his grateful approval
+upon the petition in question.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">Your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, October 28 (1899).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+<div class="postnotes"><p><i>Par.</i> 2 (1).&mdash;The Convention of 1899 was ratified by Great Britain,
+on September 4, 1900; and between that year and 1907 practically
+all civilised Powers ratified or acceded to it. It is now, for almost all
+Powers, superseded by The Hague Convention, No. i. of 1907, which,
+reproduces Art. 3 of the older Convention, inserting, however, after
+the word &quot;utile,&quot; the words &quot;et d&eacute;sirable.&quot;</p>
+
+<p><i>Ib.</i> (2).&mdash;On March 6, 1900, the two Boer Republics proposed that
+peace should be made on terms which included the recognition of
+their independence. Great Britain having, on March 11, declared
+such recognition to be inadmissible, the European Powers which were
+requested to use their good offices to bring this about declined so to
+intervene. The President of the United States, however, in a note
+delivered in London on March 13, went so far as to &quot;express an earnest
+hope that a way to bring about peace might be found,&quot; and to say that
+he would aid &quot;in any friendly manner to bring about so happy a
+result.&quot; Lord Salisbury, on the following day, while thanking the
+United States Government, replied that &quot;H.M. Government does
+not propose to accept the intervention of any Power in the South
+African War.&quot; Similar replies to similar offers had been made both
+by France and Prussia in 1870, and by the United States in 1898.</p></div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="COMMISSIONS-OF-ENQUIRY-AND-THE-HAGUE-CONVENTION" />COMMISSIONS OF ENQUIRY AND THE HAGUE
+CONVENTION</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;It is just now [1904] especially desirable that the
+purport of those provisions of The Hague Convention &quot;for
+the peaceful settlement of international controversies&quot;<span class="newpage"><a name="page004" id="page004">[004]</a></span>
+which deal with &quot;international commissions of enquiry&quot;
+should be clearly understood. It is probably also desirable
+that a more correct idea should be formed of the effect
+of that convention, as a whole, than seems to be generally
+prevalent. You may, therefore, perhaps, allow me to say
+a few words upon each of these topics.</p>
+
+<p>Art. 9 of the convention contains an expression of
+opinion to the effect that recourse to an international
+commission of enquiry into disputed questions of fact
+would be useful. This recommendation is, however,
+restricted to &quot;controversies in which neither honour nor
+essential interests are involved,&quot; and is further limited by
+the phrase &quot;so far as circumstances permit.&quot; Two points
+are here deserving of notice.</p>
+
+<p>In the first place, neither &quot;the honour and vital interests
+clause,&quot; as seems to be supposed by your correspondent
+Mr. Schidrowitz, nor the clause as to circumstances permitting,
+is in any way modified by the article which
+follows. Art. 10 does not enlarge the scope of Art. 9,
+but merely indicates the procedure to be followed by
+Powers desirous of acting under it. In the second place,
+it is wholly unimportant whether or no the scope of
+Art. 9 is enlarged by Art. 10. The entire liberty of
+the Powers to make any arrangement which may seem
+good to them for clearing up their differences is neither
+given, nor impaired, by the articles in question, to which
+the good sense of the Conference declined to attach any
+such obligatory force as had been proposed by Russia. It
+may well be that disputant Powers may at any time
+choose to agree to employ the machinery suggested by
+those articles, or something resembling it, in cases of a
+far more serious kind than those to which alone the convention
+ventured to make its recommendation applicable;
+and this is the course which seems to have been followed
+by the Powers interested with reference to the recent
+lamentable occurrence in the North Sea.<span class="newpage"><a name="page005" id="page005">[005]</a></span></p>
+
+<p>As to the convention as a whole, it is important to
+bear in mind that, differing in this respect from the two
+other conventions concluded at The Hague, it is of a
+non-obligatory character, except in so far as it provides
+for the establishment of a permanent tribunal at The
+Hague, to which, however, no Power is bound to resort.
+It resembles not so much a treaty as a collection of &quot;pious
+wishes&quot; (<i>voeux</i>), such as those which were also adopted
+at The Hague. The operative phrases of most usual occurrence
+in the convention are, accordingly, such as &quot;jugent
+utile&quot;; &quot;sont d'accord pour recommander&quot;; &quot;est reconnu
+comme le moyen le plus efficace&quot;; &quot;se r&eacute;servent de conclure
+des accords nouveaux, en vue d'&eacute;tendre l'arbitrage
+obligatoire &agrave; tous les cas qu'elles jugeront possible de lui
+soumettre.&quot;</p>
+
+<p>It is a matter for rejoicing that, in accordance with
+the suggestion contained in the phrase last quoted, so
+many treaties, of which that between Great Britain and
+Portugal is the most recent, have been entered into for
+referring to The Hague tribunal &quot;differences of a juridical
+nature, or such as relate to the interpretation of treaties;
+on condition that they do not involve either the vital
+interests or the independence or honour of the two contracting
+States.&quot; Such treaties, conforming as they all do
+to one carefully defined type, may be productive of much
+good. They testify to, and may promote, a very widely
+spread <i>entente cordiale</i>, they enhance the prestige of the
+tribunal of The Hague, and they assure the reference to
+that tribunal of certain classes of questions which might
+otherwise give rise to international complications. Beyond
+this it would surely be unwise to proceed. It is beginning
+to be realised that what are called &quot;general&quot; treaties of
+arbitration, by which States would bind themselves beforehand
+to submit to external decision questions which might
+involve high political issues, will not be made between
+Powers of the first importance; also, that such treaties, if
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page006" id="page006">[006]</a></span>made, would be more likely to lead to fresh misunderstandings
+than to secure the peaceful settlement of disputed
+questions.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, November 21 (1904).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+<div class="postnotes"><p><i>Pars.</i> 1-3.&mdash;The topic of &quot;Commissions of Enquiry,&quot; which occupied
+Arts. 9-13 of the Convention of 1899 &quot;For the Peaceful Settlement of
+International Disputes,&quot; is more fully dealt with in Arts. 9-36 of the
+Convention as amended in 1907.</p>
+
+<p><i>Par.</i> 4.&mdash;The amended Convention, as a whole, is still, like its
+predecessor, purely facultative. The Russian proposal to make resort
+to arbitration universally obligatory in a list of specified cases, unless
+when the &quot;vital interests or national honour&quot; of States might be
+involved, though negatived in 1899, was renewed in 1907, in different
+forms, by several Powers, which eventually concurred in supporting
+the Anglo-Portuguese-American proposal, according to which, differences
+of a juridical character, and especially those relating to the
+interpretation of treaties, are to be submitted to arbitration, unless
+they affect the vital interests, independence, or honour, of the States
+concerned, or the interests of third States; while all differences as to
+the interpretation of treaties relating to a scheduled list of topics,
+or as to the amount of damages payable, where liability to some
+extent is undisputed, are to be so submitted without any such reservation.
+This proposal was accepted by thirty-two Powers, but as
+nine Powers opposed it, and three abstained from voting, it failed
+to become a convention. The delegates to the Conference of 1907
+went, however, so far as to include in their &quot;Final Act&quot; a statement
+to the effect that they were unanimous: (1) &quot;in recognising the
+principle of obligatory arbitration&quot;; (2) &quot;in declaring that certain
+differences, and, in particular, such as relate to the interpretation
+and application of the provisions of International Conventions, are
+suitable for being submitted to obligatory arbitration, without any
+reservations.&quot;</p>
+
+<p><i>Par.</i> 5.&mdash;The Convention between France and Great Britain,
+concluded on October 14, 1903, for five years, and renewed in 1908,
+and again in 1913, for a like period, by which the parties agree to
+submit to The Hague tribunal any differences which may arise between
+them, on condition &quot;that they do not involve either the vital interests,
+or the independence, or honour of the two contracting States, and that
+they do not affect the interests of a third Power,&quot; has served as a model
+or &quot;common form,&quot; for a very large number of conventions to the same
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page007" id="page007">[007]</a></span>effect, entered into between one State and another. The Convention
+of April 11, 1908, between Great Britain and the United States is
+substantially of this type.</p>
+
+<p>But see now the three letters which follow.</p></div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="THE-LEAGUE-OF-NATIONS-1919" />THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;The League is unquestionably &quot;a brave design.&quot;
+Sympathy with its objects and some hope that they may
+be realised have induced myself, as, doubtless many others,
+to abstain from criticising the way in which the topic has
+been handled by the representatives of the victorious
+Powers. Recent discussions seem, however, to render such
+reticence no longer desirable.</p>
+
+<p>It begins to be recognised that, as some of us have all
+along held to be the case, a serious mistake was made by
+the Paris delegates when they combined in one and the
+same document provisions needed for putting an end to
+an existing state of war with other provisions aiming at
+the creation in the future of a new supernational society.
+Two matters so wholly incongruous in character should
+surely have been dealt with separately. Whether it is
+now too late to attempt a remedy for the consequences
+of this unfortunate combination is a question which can
+be answered only by the diplomatists whose business it is
+to be intimately in touch with the susceptibilities of the
+various nations concerned. In the meantime, however, on
+the assumption that this state of things is productive of
+regrettable results, I may perhaps venture to indicate,
+recommending their adoption, the steps which appear to
+be required for the reformation of the Treaty as drafted.
+My suggestions would run as follows:&mdash;</p>
+
+<p>(1) Subtract from the Treaty of Versailles, Parts I. and
+XIII., the former constituting a League of Nations, the
+latter, in pursuance of a recital that universal peace &quot;can
+be established only if it is based upon social justice,&quot; wholly
+occupied with a sufficiently ambitious scheme for the
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page008" id="page008">[008]</a></span>regulation by the League of all questions relating to
+&quot;Labour&quot; which may arise within its jurisdiction.</p>
+
+<p>(2) Let Part I., with Part XIII. annexed, constitute a
+new and independent Treaty; to be, as such, submitted
+to the Powers for further consideration. (The opportunity
+might be taken of ridding it of all references to a system
+of &quot;mandates,&quot; which might very probably lead to jealousies
+and misunderstandings.)</p>
+
+<p>(3) Parts II. to XII., XIV., and XV. would then constitute
+the real Treaty of Peace, in which it would, however,
+be necessary in the numerous articles attributing functions,
+for the most part of a temporary character, the &quot;League
+of Nations,&quot; to substitute for any mention of the League
+words descriptive of some other authority, yet to be created,
+such as, for instance, &quot;a Commission to be constituted by
+the principal Allied and Associated Powers.&quot;</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, December 16 (1919).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="THE-LEAGUE-OF-NATIONS-1919-B" /></p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;Let me assure Lord Robert Cecil that I am perfectly
+serious in giving expression to a long-felt wish that
+the Treaty of Peace could be relieved of articles relating
+exclusively to an as yet to be created League of Nations,
+and in proceeding to indicate the steps that must be taken
+if this reform is to be effected.</p>
+
+<p>It can hardly be necessary also to assure Lord Robert
+that I am fully aware of the formidable, though perhaps
+not insuperable, difficulties which would beset any efforts
+to carry out my suggestions. He may have inferred so
+much from my letter of the 16th, in which, treating the
+question whether it is now too late to attempt a remedy
+for the existing state of things as beyond the competence
+of an outsider, I describe it as one which can be answered
+&quot;only by the diplomatists whose business it is to be intimately
+in touch with the susceptibilities of the various
+nations concerned.&quot;<span class="newpage"><a name="page009" id="page009">[009]</a></span></p>
+
+<p>On a point of detail, I am surprised that Lord Robert
+is unwilling that the contents of Part XIII. should be
+removed to their natural context, on the ground that the
+Labour organisation might be annoyed if this were done.
+I am, however, confident that the organisation is too intelligent
+not to see that it would lose nothing if the articles
+in which it is interested were made an integral part of a
+Convention constituting a League of Nations; the League
+being already solely charged with giving effect to the
+articles in question.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, December 20 (1919).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="THE-LEAGUE-OF-NATIONS-1920" /></p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;Professor Alison Phillips is not quite accurate in
+attributing to me a belief that the task of amending the
+Treaty of Versailles is &quot;not beyond the powers of competent
+diplomatists.&quot; No such belief is expressed in my letter of
+December 16, in which I was careful to admit that the
+question, &quot;whether it is now too late to attempt&quot; the reform
+which appears to me to be desirable is one &quot;which can be
+answered only by the diplomatists.&quot;</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, January 5 (1920).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+<hr style='width: 45%;' />
+
+<h3 class="sectionhead"><a name="CHAPTER_I_SECTION_2" />SECTION 2</h3>
+
+<p class="subsectionhead">Pacific Reprisals</p>
+
+<div class="intronotes">
+<p>The four letters next following were suggested by the ambiguous
+character of the blockades instituted by France against Siam in 1893,
+by the Great Powers against Crete in 1897, and by Great Britain,
+Germany, and Italy, against Venezuela in 1902. The object, in each
+case, was to explain the true nature of the species of reprisals known
+as &quot;Pacific Blockade,&quot; and to point out the difference between the
+consequences of such a measure and those which result from a &quot;Belligerent
+Blockade.&quot; A fifth letter, written with reference to the action
+of the Netherlands against Venezuela in 1908, emphasises the desira<span class="newpage"><a name="page010" id="page010">[010]</a></span>bility
+of more clearly distinguishing between war and reprisals. On
+the various applications of a blockade in time of peace, see the author's
+<i>Studies in International Law</i>, pp. 130-150.</p>
+</div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="THE-BLOCKADE-OF-THE-MENAM" />THE BLOCKADE OF THE MENAM</p>
+
+
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;Upon many questions of fact and of policy involved
+in the quarrel between France and Siam it may be premature
+as yet to expect explicit information from the French
+Government; but there should not be a moment's doubt
+as to the meaning of the blockade which has probably by
+this time been established.</p>
+
+<p>Is France at war with Siam? This may well be the
+case, according to modern practice, without any formal
+declaration of war; and it is, for international purposes,
+immaterial whether the French Cabinet, if it has commenced
+a war without the sanction of the Chambers, has or has not
+thereby violated the French Constitution. If there is a
+war, and if the blockade, being effective, has been duly
+notified to the neutral Powers, the vessels of those Powers
+are, of course, liable to be visited, and, if found to be engaged
+in breach of the blockade, to be dealt with by the French
+Prize Courts.</p>
+
+<p>Or is France still at peace with Siam, and merely putting
+upon her that form of pressure which is known as &quot;pacific
+blockade&quot;?</p>
+
+<p>In this case, since there is no belligerency there is no
+neutrality, and the ships of States other than that to which
+the pressure is being applied are not liable to be interfered
+with. The particular mode of applying pressure without
+going to war known as &quot;pacific blockade&quot; dates, as is well
+known, only from 1827. It has indeed been enforced, by
+England as well as by France, upon several occasions, against
+the vessels of third Powers; but this practice has always
+been protested against, especially by French jurists, as
+an unwarrantable interference with the rights of such
+Powers, and was acknowledged by Lord Palmerston to
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page011" id="page011">[011]</a></span>be illegal. The British Government distinctly warned
+the French in 1884 that their blockade of Formosa could
+be recognised as affecting British vessels only if it constituted
+an act of war against China; and when the Great
+Powers in 1886 proclaimed a pacific blockade of the coasts
+of Greece they carefully limited its operation to ships under
+the Greek flag.</p>
+
+<p>The Subject has been exhaustively considered by the
+Institut de Droit International, which, at its meeting at
+Heidelberg in 1887, arrived at certain conclusions which
+may be taken to express the view of learned Europe. They
+are as follows:&mdash;</p>
+
+<div class="letterquot"><p>&quot;L'&eacute;tablissement d'un blocus en dehors de l'&eacute;tat de guerre ne doit
+&ecirc;tre considere comme permis par le droit des gens que sous les conditions
+suivantes:&mdash;</p>
+
+<p>&quot;1. Les navires de pavillon &eacute;tranger peuvent entrer librement
+malgr&eacute; le blocus.</p>
+
+<p>&quot;2. Le blocus pacifique doit &ecirc;tre d&eacute;clar&eacute; et notifi&eacute; officiellement,
+et maintenu par une force suffisante.</p>
+
+<p>&quot;Les navires de la puissance bloqu&eacute;e qui ne respectent pas un pareil
+blocus peuvent &ecirc;tre s&eacute;questr&eacute;s. Le blocus ayant cess&eacute;, ils doivent
+&ecirc;tre restitu&eacute;s avec leur cargaisons &agrave; leurs propri&eacute;taires, mais sans
+d&eacute;dommagement &agrave; aucun titre.&quot;</p></div>
+
+<p>If the French wish to reap the full advantages of a
+blockade of the Siamese coast they must be prepared,
+by becoming belligerent, to face the disadvantages which
+may result from the performance by this country of her
+duties as a neutral.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Athen&aelig;um Club, July 26 (1893).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="PACIFIC-BLOCKADE" />PACIFIC BLOCKADE</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;The letter signed &quot;M.&quot; in your issue of this
+morning contains, I think, some statements which ought not
+to pass uncorrected. A &quot;blockade&quot; is, of course, the denial
+by a naval squadron of access for vessels to a defined portion
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page012" id="page012">[012]</a></span>of the coasts of a given nation. A &quot;pacific blockade&quot; is one
+of the various methods&mdash;generically described as &quot;reprisals,&quot;
+such as &quot;embargo,&quot; or seizure of ships on the high seas&mdash;by
+which, without resort to war, pressure, topographically
+or otherwise limited in extent, may be put upon an offending
+State. The need for pressure of any kind is, of course,
+regrettable, the only question being whether such limited
+pressure be not more humane to the nation which experiences it,
+and less distasteful to the nation which exercises it,
+than is the letting loose of the limitless calamities of war.</p>
+
+<p>The opinion of statesmen and jurists upon this point
+has undergone a change, and this because the practice
+known as &quot;pacific blockade&quot; has itself changed. The
+practice, which is comparatively modern, dating only from
+1827, was at first directed against ships under all flags,
+and ships arrested for breach of a pacific blockade were at
+one time confiscated, as they would have been in time of
+war. It has been purged of these defects as the result of
+discussions, diplomatic and scientific. As now understood,
+the blockade is enforced only against vessels belonging to
+the &quot;quasi-enemy,&quot; and even such vessels, when arrested,
+are not confiscated, but merely detained till the blockade
+is raised. International law does not stand still; and having
+some acquaintance with Continental opinion on the topic
+under consideration, I read with amazement &quot;M.'s&quot; assertion
+that &quot;the majority in number,&quot; &quot;the most weighty in
+authority&quot; of the writers on international law &quot;have never
+failed to protest against such practices as indefensible in
+principle.&quot; The fact is that the objections made by, e.g.
+Lord Palmerston in 1846, and by several writers of textbooks,
+to pacific blockade, had reference to the abuses
+connected with the earlier stages of its development. As
+directed only against the ships of the &quot;quasi-enemy,&quot; it
+has received the substantially unanimous approbation
+of the Institut de Droit International at Heidelberg in
+1887, after a very interesting debate, in which the advo<span class="newpage"><a name="page013" id="page013">[013]</a></span>cates
+of the practice were led by M. Perels, of the Prussian
+Admiralty, and its detractors by Professor Geffken. It is
+true that in an early edition of his work upon international
+law my lamented friend, Mr. Hall, did use the words attributed
+to him by &quot;M.&quot;: &quot;It is difficult to see how a pacific
+blockade is justifiable.&quot; But many things, notably Lord
+Granville's correspondence with France in 1884 and the
+blockade of the Greek coast in 1886, have occurred since
+those words were written. If &quot;M.&quot; will turn to a later edition
+of the work in question he will see that Mr. Hall had completely
+altered his opinion on the subject, or rather that,
+having disapproved of the practice as unreformed, he
+blesses it altogether in its later development. With reference
+to the utility of the practice, I should like to call the attention
+of &quot;M.&quot; to a passage in the latest edition of Hall's book
+which is perhaps not irrelevant to current politics:&mdash;</p>
+
+<div class="letterquot"><p>&quot;The circumstances of the Greek blockade of 1886 show that
+occasions may occur in which pacific blockade has an efficacy which no
+other measure would possess. The irresponsible recklessness of Greece
+was endangering the peace of the world; advice and threats had been
+proved to be useless; it was not till the material evidence of the
+blockade was afforded that the Greek imagination could be impressed
+with the belief that the majority of the Great Powers of Europe were
+in earnest in their determination that war should be avoided.&quot;</p></div>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, March 5 (1897).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="THE-VENEZUELAN-CONTROVERSY" />THE VENEZUELAN CONTROVERSY</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;Apart from the practical difficulty, so ably described
+by Sir Robert Giffen in your issue of this morning, of
+obtaining compensation in money from a State which seems
+to be at once bankrupt and in the throes of revolution, not
+a few questions of law and policy, as to which misunderstanding
+is more than probable, are raised from day to day
+by the action of the joint squadrons in Venezuelan waters.
+It may therefore be worth while to attempt to disentangle
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page014" id="page014">[014]</a></span>the more important of these questions from the rest, and to
+indicate in each case the principles involved.</p>
+
+<p>1. Are we at war with Venezuela? Till reading the
+reports of what passed last night in the House of Commons,
+I should have replied to this question unhesitatingly in
+the negative. Most people whose attention has been
+directed to such matters must have supposed that we were
+engaged in the execution of &quot;reprisals,&quot; the nature and
+legitimacy of which have long been recognised by international
+law. They consist, of course, in the exertion of
+pressure, short of war; over which they possess the following
+advantages: They are strictly limited in scope; they
+cease, when their object has been attained, without the
+formalities of a treaty of peace; and, no condition of
+&quot;belligerency&quot; existing between the Powers immediately
+concerned, third Powers are not called upon to undertake
+the onerous obligations of &quot;neutrality.&quot; The objection sometimes
+made to reprisals, that they are applicable only to the
+weaker Powers, since a strong Power would at once treat
+them as acts of war, is indeed the strongest recommendation
+of this mode of obtaining redress. To localise hostile
+pressure as far as possible, and to give to it such a character
+as shall restrict its incidence to the peccant State, is surely
+in the interest of the general good. That the steps taken
+are such as would probably, between States not unequally
+matched, cause an outbreak of war cannot render them
+inequitable in cases where so incalculable an evil is unlikely
+to follow upon their employment.</p>
+
+<p>2. The justification of a resort either to reprisals or to war,
+in any given case, depends, of course, upon the nature of the
+acts complained of, and upon the validity of the excuses put
+forward either for the acts themselves, or for failure to give
+satisfaction for them. The British claims against Venezuela
+seem to fall into three classes. It will hardly be disputed
+that acts of violence towards British subjects or vessels,
+committed under State authority, call for redress. Losses
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page015" id="page015">[015]</a></span>by British subjects in the course of civil wars would come
+next, and would need more careful scrutiny (on this point
+the debates and votes of the Institut de Droit International,
+at its meeting at Neuch&acirc;tel in 1900, may be consulted with
+advantage). Last of all would come the claims of unpaid
+bondholders, as to which Mr. Balfour would seem to endorse,
+in principle, the statement made in 1880 by Lord Salisbury
+who, while observing that &quot;it would be an extreme assertion
+to say that this country ought never to interfere on the part
+of bondholders who have been wronged,&quot; went on to say that
+&quot;it would be hardly fair if any body of capitalists should
+have it in their power to pledge the people of this country
+to exertions of such an extensive character.... They
+would be getting the benefit of an English guarantee without
+paying the price of it.&quot;</p>
+
+<p>3. Reprisals may be exercised in many ways; from such
+a high-handed act as the occupation of the Principalities by
+Russia in 1853, to such a mere seizure of two or three
+merchant vessels as occurred in the course of our controversy
+with Brazil in 1861. In modern practice, these measures
+imply a temporary sequestration, as opposed to confiscation
+or destruction, of the property taken. In the belief that
+reprisals only were being resorted to against Venezuela one
+was therefore glad to hear that the sinking of gunboats by
+the Germans had been explained as rendered necessary by
+their unseaworthiness.</p>
+
+<p>4. Pacific reprisals should also, according to the tendency
+of modern opinion and practice, be so applied as not to
+interfere with the interests of third Powers and their subjects.
+This point has been especially discussed with reference to
+that species of reprisal known as a &quot;pacific blockade,&quot; of
+which some mention has been made in the present controversy.
+The legitimacy of this operation, though dating only
+from 1827, if properly applied, is open to no question. Its
+earlier applications were, no doubt, unduly harsh, not only
+towards the peccant State, but also towards third States,
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page016" id="page016">[016]</a></span>the ships of which were even confiscated for attempting to
+break a blockade of this nature. Two views on this subject
+are now entertained&mdash;viz. (1) that the ships of third Powers
+breaking a pacific blockade may be turned back with any
+needful exertion of force, and, if need be, temporarily
+detained; (2) that they may not be interfered with. The
+former view is apparently that of the German Government.
+It was certainly maintained by M. Perels, then as now the
+adviser to the German Admiralty, during the discussion of
+the subject by the Institut de Droit International at Heidelberg
+in 1887. The latter view is that which was adopted by
+the Institut on that occasion. It was maintained by Great
+Britain, with reference to the French blockade of Formosa
+in 1884; was acted on by the allied Powers in the blockade
+of the coast of Greece, instituted in 1886; and is apparently
+put forward by the United States at the present
+moment.</p>
+
+<p>5. If, however, we are at war with Venezuela (as will,
+no doubt, be the case if we proclaim a belligerent blockade
+of the coast, and may at any moment occur, should Venezuela
+choose to treat our acts, even if intended only by way of
+reprisals, as acts of war), the situation is changed in two
+respects: (1) the hostilities which may be carried on by the
+allies are no longer localised, or otherwise limited, except by
+the dictates of humanity; (2) third States become <i>ipso facto</i>
+&quot;neutrals,&quot; and, as such, subject to obligations to which up
+to that moment they had not been liable. Whatever may
+have previously been the case, it is thenceforth certain that
+their merchant vessels must respect the (now belligerent)
+blockade, and are liable to visit, search, seizure, and confiscation
+if they attempt to break it.</p>
+
+<p>6. If hostile pressure, whether by way of reprisals or of
+war, is exercised by the combined forces of allies, the terms
+on which this is to be done must obviously be arranged by
+previous agreement. More especially would this be requisite
+where, as in the case of Great Britain and Germany, different
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page017" id="page017">[017]</a></span>views are entertained with reference to the acts which are
+permissible under a &quot;pacific blockade.&quot;</p>
+
+<p>7. When, besides the Power, or Powers, putting pressure
+upon a given State, with a view to obtaining compensation
+for injuries received from it, other Powers, though taking
+no part in what is going on, give notice that they also
+have claims against the same offender; delicate questions
+may obviously arise between the creditors who have and
+those who have not taken active steps to make their claims
+effective. In the present instance, France is said to assert
+that she has acquired a sort of prior mortgage on the assets
+of Venezuela; and the United States, Spain, and Belgium
+declare themselves entitled to the benefit of the &quot;most-favoured-nation
+clause&quot; when those assets are made available
+for creditors. What principles are applicable to the
+solution of the novel questions suggested by these competing
+claims?</p>
+
+<p>8. It is satisfactory to know, on the highest authority,
+that the &quot;Monroe doctrine&quot; is not intended to shield
+American States against the consequences of their wrongdoing;
+since the cordial approval of the doctrine which
+has just been expressed by our own Government can only
+be supposed to extend to it so far as it is reasonably defined
+and applied. Great Britain, for one, has no desire for an
+acre of new territory on the American continent. The
+United States, on the other hand, will doubtless readily
+recognise that, if international wrongs are to be redressed
+upon that continent, aggrieved European Powers may
+occasionally be obliged to resort to stronger measures than
+a mere embargo on shipping, or the blockade (whether
+&quot;pacific&quot; or &quot;belligerent&quot;) of a line of coast.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, December 18 (1902).</div><br />
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page018" id="page018">[018]</a></span></div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="THE-VENEZUELA-PROTOCOL" />THE VENEZUELA PROTOCOL</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;The close (for the present, at any rate) of the
+Venezuelan incident will be received with general satisfaction.
+One of the articles of the so-called &quot;protocol&quot; of
+February 18 seems, however, to point a moral which one
+may hope will not be lost sight of in the future&mdash;<i>viz.</i> the
+desirability of keeping unblurred the line of demarcation
+between such unfriendly pressure as constitutes &quot;reprisals&quot;
+and actual war.</p>
+
+<p>After all that has occurred&mdash;statements in Parliament,
+action of the Governor of Trinidad in bringing into operation
+the dormant powers of the Supreme Court of the island as
+a prize Court, &amp;c.&mdash;one would have supposed that there
+could be no doubt, though no declaration had been issued,
+that we were at war with Venezuela.</p>
+
+<p>Our Government has, therefore, been well advised in
+providing for the renewal of any treaty with that Power
+which may have been abrogated by the war; but it is
+curious to find that the article (7) of the protocol which
+effects this desirable result begins by a recital to the effect
+that &quot;it may be contended that the establishment of a
+blockade of the Venezuelan ports by the British naval
+forces has <i>ipso facto</i> created a state of war between Great
+Britain and Venezuela.&quot;</p>
+
+<p>It is surely desirable that henceforth Great Britain
+should know, and that other nations should at least have
+the means of knowing, for certain, whether she is at war or
+at peace.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, February 17 (1903).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="WAR-AND-REPRISALS" />WAR AND REPRISALS</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;Professor Westlake's interesting letter as to the
+measures recently taken by the Netherlands Government in<span class="newpage"><a name="page019" id="page019">[019]</a></span>
+Venezuelan waters opportunely recalls attention to a topic
+upon which I addressed you when, six years ago, our own
+Government was similarly engaged in putting pressure
+upon Venezuela&mdash;<i>viz.</i> the desirability of drawing a clear
+line between war and reprisals. Perhaps I may now be
+allowed to return, very briefly, to this topic, with special
+reference to Professor Westlake's remarks.</p>
+
+<p>In any discussion of the questions involved, we ought,
+I think, clearly to realise that The Hague Convention, No. iii.
+of 1907, has no application to any measures not amounting
+to war. The &quot;hostilities&quot; mentioned in Art. 1 of the
+Convention are, it will be observed, exclusively such as
+must not commence without either a &quot;declaration of war,&quot;
+or &quot;an ultimatum with a conditional declaration of war&quot;;
+and Art. 2 requires that the &quot;state of war&quot; thus created
+shall be notified to &quot;neutral Powers.&quot; There are, of course,
+no Powers answering to this description till war has actually
+broken out. Neutrality presupposes belligerency. Any
+other interpretation of the Convention would, indeed,
+render &quot;pacific blockades&quot; henceforth impossible.</p>
+
+<p>In the next place, we must at once recognise that the
+application of the term &quot;reprisals,&quot; whatever may have
+been its etymological history, must no longer be restricted
+to seizure of property. It has now come to cover, and it
+is the only term which does cover generically, an indeterminate
+list of unfriendly acts, such as embargo, pacific
+blockade, seizure of custom-houses, and even occupation of
+territory, to which resort is had in order to obtain redress
+from an offending State without going to war with it. The
+pressure thus exercised, unlike the unlimited <i>licentia laedendi</i>
+resulting from a state of war, is localised and graduated.
+It abrogates no treaties, and terminates without a treaty
+of peace. It affects only indirectly, if at all, the rights of
+States which take no part in the quarrel.</p>
+
+<p>The questions which remain for consideration would
+seem to be the following:&mdash;<span class="newpage"><a name="page020" id="page020">[020]</a></span></p>
+
+<p>1. Would it be feasible to draw up a definite list of the
+measures which may legitimately be taken with a view to
+exercising pressure short of war?&mdash;I think not. States
+differ so widely in offensive power and vulnerability that
+it would be hardly advisable thus to fetter the liberty of
+action of a State which considers itself to have been
+injured.</p>
+
+<p>2. Ought it to be made obligatory that acts of reprisal
+should be preceded, or accompanied, by a notification to
+the State against which they are exercised that they are
+reprisals and not operations of war?&mdash;This would seem to
+be highly desirable; unless indeed it can be assumed that,
+in pursuance of The Hague Convention of 1907, no war will
+henceforth be commenced without declaration.</p>
+
+<p>8. Ought a statement to the like effect to be made to
+nations not concerned in the quarrel?&mdash;This would, doubtless,
+be convenient, unless the non-receipt by them of any
+notification of a &quot;state of war,&quot; in pursuance of the Convention,
+could be supposed to render such a statement
+superfluous.</p>
+
+<p>On the ambiguous character sometimes attaching to
+reprisals as now practised, I may perhaps refer to an
+article in the <i>Law Quarterly Review</i> for 1903, entitled &quot;War
+Sub Modo.&quot;</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, December 26 (1908).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+<div class="postnotes"><p>The operations against Venezuela which were closed by the protocol
+of February 13, 1903, had given rise to the enunciation of the so-called
+&quot;Drago doctrine,&quot; in a despatch, addressed on December 29
+of the preceding year, by the Argentine Minister for Foreign Affairs to
+the Government of the United States, which asserts that &quot;public
+indebtedness cannot justify armed intervention by a European Power,
+much less material occupation by it of territory belonging to any
+American nation.&quot; The reply of the United States declined to carry
+the &quot;Monroe doctrine&quot; to this length, citing the passage in President
+Roosevelt's message in which he says: &quot;We do not guarantee any
+State against punishment, if it misconducts itself, provided such
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page021" id="page021">[021]</a></span>punishment does not take the form of the acquisition of territory by
+any non-American Power.&quot;</p>
+
+<p>It is, however, now provided by The Hague Convention, No. ii.
+of 1907, ratified by Great Britain on November 27, 1909, that &quot;the
+contracting Powers have agreed not to have recourse to armed force
+for the recovery of contractual debts, claimed from the Government
+of a country by the Government of another country, as being due to
+its subjects. This stipulation shall have no application when the
+debtor State declines, or leaves unanswered, an offer of arbitration,
+or, having accepted it, renders impossible the conclusion of the terms
+of reference (<i>compromis</i>), or, after the arbitration, fails to comply
+with the arbitral decision.&quot;<span class="newpage"><a name="page022" id="page022">[022]</a></span></p></div>
+
+
+
+<hr style="width: 65%;" />
+<h2><a name="CHAPTER_II" id="CHAPTER_II" />CHAPTER II</h2>
+
+<p class="chaptertitle">STEPS TOWARDS A WRITTEN LAW OF WAR</p>
+
+
+<div class="intronotes"><p>A large body of written International Law, with reference to the
+conduct of warfare, has been, in the course of the last half-century,
+and, more especially, in quite recent years, called into existence by
+means of General Conventions, or Declarations, of which mention
+must frequently be made in the following pages. Such are:&mdash;</p>
+
+<p>(i.) With reference to war, whether on land or at sea: the Declaration
+of St. Petersburg, of 1868, as to explosive bullets; the three
+Hague Declarations of 1899 (of which the first was repeated in 1907),
+as to projectiles from balloons, projectiles spreading dangerous gases,
+and expanding bullets; The Hague Convention, No. iii. of 1907 as to
+Declaration of War; all ratified by Great Britain, except the Declaration
+of St. Petersburg, which was thought to need no ratification.</p>
+
+<p>(ii.) With reference only to war on land: the Geneva Convention
+of 1906 (superseding that of 1864) as to the sick and wounded, which
+was generally ratified, though by Great Britain only in 1911 (it was
+extended to maritime warfare by Conventions iii. of 1899 and x. of
+1907, both ratified by Great Britain, <i>cf. infra</i>, <a href="#CHAPTER_VI_SECTION_10">Ch. VI. Section 10</a>); the
+Hague Conventions of 1907, No. iv. (superseding the Convention of 1899)
+as to the conduct of warfare, and No. v. as to neutrals, of which only
+the former has as yet been ratified by Great Britain.</p>
+
+<p>(iii.) With reference only to war at sea: the Declaration of Paris,
+of 1856, supposed apparently to need no ratification (to which the
+United States is now the only important Power which has not become
+a party), as to privateering, combination of enemy and neutral property
+and blockades; The Hague Conventions of 1907, No. vi. as to
+enemy merchant vessels at outbreak, No. vii. as to conversion of
+merchantmen into warships, No. viii. as to mines, No. ix. as to naval
+bombardments, No. x. as to the sick and wounded, No. xi. as to captures,
+No. xii. as to an International Prize Court, supplemented by the Convention
+of 1910, No. xiii. as to neutrals. It must be observed that, of
+these Conventions, Great Britain has ratified only vi., vii., viii., ix., and
+x., the three last subject to reservations. The Declaration of London
+of 1909, purporting to codify the laws of naval warfare as to blockade,
+contraband, hostile assistance, destruction of prizes, change of flag,
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page023" id="page023">[023]</a></span>enemy character, convoy, resistance and compensation, and so to
+facilitate the working of the proposed International Prize Court, if,
+and when, this Court should come into existence, has failed to obtain
+ratification, as will be hereafter explained.</p>
+
+
+<p>Concurrently with the efforts which have thus been made to ascertain
+the laws of war by general diplomatic agreement, the way for
+such agreement has been prepared by the labours of the Institut de
+Droit International, and by the issue by several governments of
+instructions addressed to their respective armies and navies.</p>
+
+<p>The <i>Manuel des Lois de la Guerre sur Terre</i>, published by the
+Institut in 1880, is the subject of the two letters which immediately
+follow. Their insertion here, although the part in them of the present
+writer is but small, may be justified by the fact that they set out a
+correspondence which is at once interesting (especially from its bearing
+upon the war of 1914) and not readily elsewhere accessible.</p>
+
+<p>The remaining letters in this chapter relate to the <i>Naval War Code</i>,
+issued by the Government of the United States in 1900, but withdrawn
+in 1904, though still expressing the views of that Government, for
+reasons specified in a note to the British <i>charg&eacute; d'affaires</i> at Washington
+and printed in <i>Parl. Papers, Miscell.</i> No. 5 (1909), p. 8. The United
+States, it will be remembered, were also the first Power to attempt a
+codification of the laws of war on land, in their <i>Instructions for the
+Government of Armies of the United States</i>, issued in 1863, and reissued
+in 1898. Some information as to this and similar bodies of national
+instructions may be found in the present writer's <i>Studies in International
+Law</i>, 1898, p. 85. <i>Cf.</i> his <i>Manual of Naval Prize Law</i>, issued
+by authority of the Admiralty in 1888, his <i>Handbook of the Laws and
+Customs of War on Land</i>, issued by authority to the British Army in
+1904, and his <i>The Laws of War on Land (written and unwritten)</i>, 1908.
+The Institut de Droit International, which has been engaged for some
+years upon the Law of War at Sea, by devoting the whole of its session
+at Oxford, in 1913, to the discussion of the subject, produced a <i>Manuel
+des Lois de la Guerre sur Mer</i>, framed in accordance with the now-accepted
+view which sanctions the capture of enemy private property
+at sea. It is to be followed by a manual framed in accordance with
+the contrary view. <i>Cf.</i> the letters upon the <i>Declaration of London</i>,
+in <a href="#CHAPTER_VII_SECTION_10">Ch. VII. Section 10</a>, <i>infra</i>.</p></div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="COUNT-VON-MOLTKE-ON-THE-LAWS-OF-WARFARE" />COUNT VON MOLTKE ON THE LAWS OF
+WARFARE</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;You may perhaps think that the accompanying
+letter, recently addressed by Count von Moltke to Professor<span class="newpage"><a name="page024" id="page024">[024]</a></span>
+Bluntschli, is of sufficient general interest to be inserted
+in <i>The Times</i>. It was written with reference to the
+Manual of the Laws of War which was adopted by the
+Institut de Droit International at its recent session at
+Oxford. The German text of the letter will appear in
+a few days at Berlin. My translation is made from the
+proof-sheets of the February number of the <i>Revue de
+Droit International</i>, which will contain also Professor
+Bluntschli's reply.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">Your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, January 29 (1881).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+<div class="quotedletter"><p>&quot;Berlin, Dec. 11, 1880.</p>
+
+<p>&quot;You have been so good as to forward to me the manual published
+by the Institut de Droit International, and you hope for my approval
+of it. In the first place I fully appreciate the philanthropic effort to
+soften the evils which result from war. Perpetual peace is a dream,
+and it is not even a beautiful dream. War is an element in the order
+of the world ordained by God. In it the noblest virtues of mankind
+are developed; courage and the abnegation of self, faithfulness to duty,
+and the spirit of sacrifice: the soldier gives his life. Without war the
+world would stagnate, and lose itself in materialism.</p>
+
+<p>&quot;I agree entirely with the proposition contained in the introduction
+that a gradual softening of manners ought to be reflected also in the
+mode of making war. But I go further, and think the softening of
+manners can alone bring about this result, which cannot be attained
+by a codification of the law of war. Every law presupposes an
+authority to superintend and direct its execution, and international
+conventions are supported by no such authority. What neutral
+States would ever take up arms for the sole reason that, two Powers
+being at war, the 'laws of war' had been violated by one or both of the
+belligerents? For offences of that sort there is no earthly judge.
+Success can come only from the religious moral education of individuals
+and from the feeling of honour and sense of justice of commanders who
+enforce the law and conform to it so far as the exceptional circumstances
+of war permit.</p>
+
+<p>&quot;This being so, it is necessary to recognise also that increased
+humanity in the mode of making war has in reality followed upon the
+gradual softening of manners. Only compare the horrors of the Thirty
+Years' War with the struggles of modern times.</p>
+
+<p>&quot;A great step has been made in our own day by the establishment
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page025" id="page025">[025]</a></span>of compulsory military service, which introduces the educated classes
+into armies. The brutal and violent element is, of course, still there,
+but it is no longer alone, as once it was. Again, Governments have
+two powerful means of preventing the worst kind of excesses&mdash;strict
+discipline maintained in time of peace, so that the soldier has become
+habituated to it, and care on the part of the department which provides
+for the subsistence of troops in the field. If that care fails, discipline
+can only be imperfectly maintained. It is impossible for the soldier
+who endures sufferings, hardships, fatigues, who meets danger, to
+take only 'in proportion to the resources of the country.' He must
+take whatever is needful for his existence. We cannot ask him for
+what is superhuman.</p>
+
+<p>&quot;The greatest kindness in war is to bring it to a speedy conclusion.
+It should be allowable with that view to employ all methods save those
+which are absolutely objectionable ('dazu m&uuml;ssen alle nicht geradezu
+verwerfliche Mittel freistehen'). I can by no means profess agreement
+with the Declaration of St. Petersburg when it asserts that 'the weakening
+of the military forces of the enemy' is the only lawful procedure
+in war. No, you must attack all the resources of the enemy's Government:
+its finances, its railways, its stores, and even its prestige. Thus
+energetically, and yet with a moderation previously unknown, was the
+late war against France conducted. The issue of the campaign was
+decided in two months, and the fighting did not become embittered till
+a revolutionary Government, unfortunately for the country, prolonged
+the war for four more months.</p>
+
+<p>&quot;I am glad to see that the manual, in clear and precise articles,
+pays more attention to the necessities of war than has been paid by
+previous attempts. But for Governments to recognise these rules will
+not be enough to insure that they shall be observed. It has long been
+a universally recognised custom of warfare that a flag of truce must not
+be fired on, and yet we have seen that rule violated on several occasions
+during the late war.</p>
+
+<p>&quot;Never will an article learnt by rote persuade soldiers to see a
+regular enemy (sections 2-4) in the unorganised population which takes
+up arms 'spontaneously' (so of its own motion) and puts them in
+danger of their life at every moment of day and night. Certain requirements
+of the manual might be impossible of realisation; for instance,
+the identification of the slain after a great battle. Other requirements
+would be open to criticism did not the intercalation of such words as
+'if circumstances permit,' 'if possible,' 'if it can be done,' 'if necessary,'
+give them an elasticity but for which the bonds they impose must
+be broken by inexorable reality.</p>
+
+<p>&quot;I am of opinion that in war, where everything must be individual,
+the only articles which will prove efficacious are those which are
+addressed specifically to commanders. Such are the rules of the
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page026" id="page026">[026]</a></span>manual relating to the wounded, the sick, the surgeons, and medical
+appliances. The general recognition of these principles, and of those
+also which relate to prisoners, would mark a distinct step of progress
+towards the goal pursued with so honourable a persistency by the
+Institut de Droit International.</p>
+
+<p>&quot;COUNT VON MOLTKE, Field-Marshal-General.&quot;</p></div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="PROFESSOR-BLUNTSCHLIS-REPLY-TO-COUNT-VON-MOLTKE" />PROFESSOR BLUNTSCHLI'S REPLY TO COUNT
+VON MOLTKE</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;In accordance with a wish expressed in several
+quarters, I send you, on the chance of your being able to
+make room for it, a translation of Professor Bluntschli's
+reply to the letter from Count von Moltke which appeared
+in <i>The Times</i> of the 1st inst.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">Your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, February (1881).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+<div class="quotedletter"><p>&quot;Christmas, 1880.</p>
+
+<p>&quot;I am very grateful for your Excellency's detailed and kind statement
+of opinion as to the manual of the laws of war. This statement
+invites serious reflections. I see in it a testimony of the highest value,
+of historical importance; and I shall communicate it forthwith to
+the members of the Institut de Droit International.</p>
+
+<p>&quot;For the present I do not think I can better prove my gratitude
+to your Excellency than by sketching the reasons which have guided
+our members, and so indicating the nature of the different views which
+prevail upon the subject.</p>
+
+<p>&quot;It is needless to say that the same facts present themselves in a
+different light and give a different impression as they are looked at from
+the military or the legal point of view. The difference is diminished,
+but not removed, when an illustrious general from his elevated position
+takes also into consideration the great moral and political duties of
+States, and when, on the other hand, the representatives of science
+of international law set themselves to bring legal principles into relation
+with military necessities.</p>
+
+<p>&quot;For the man of arms the interest of the safety and success of the
+army will always take precedence of that of the inoffensive population,
+while the jurist, convinced that law is the safeguard of all, and especially
+for the weak against the strong, will ever feel it a duty to secure for
+private individuals in districts occupied by an enemy the indispensable
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page027" id="page027">[027]</a></span>protection of law. There may be members of the Institut who do not
+give up the hope that some day, thanks to the progress of civilisation,
+humanity will succeed in substituting an organised international justice
+for the wars which now-a-days take place between sovereign States.
+But the body of the Institut, as a whole, well knows that that hope has
+no chance of being realised in our time, and limits its action in this
+matter to two principal objects, the attainment of which is possible:&mdash;</p>
+
+<p>&quot;1. To open and facilitate the settlement of trifling disputes between
+nations by judicial methods, war being unquestionably a method out
+of all proportion in such cases.</p>
+
+<p>&quot;2. To aid in elucidating and strengthening legal order even in
+time of war.</p>
+
+<p>&quot;I acknowledge unreservedly that the customs of warfare have
+improved since the establishment of standing armies, a circumstance
+which has rendered possible a stricter discipline, and has necessitated
+a greater care for the provisionment of troops. I also acknowledge
+unreservedly that the chief credit for this improvement is due to military
+commanders. Brutal and barbarous pillage was prohibited by
+generals before jurists were convinced of its illegality. If in our own
+day a law recognised by the civilised world forbids, in a general way,
+the soldier to make booty in warfare on land, we have here a great
+advance in civilisation, and the jurists have had their share in bringing
+it about. Since compulsory service has turned standing armies into
+national armies, war has also become national. Laws of war are consequently
+more than ever important and necessary, since, in the differences
+of culture and opinion which prevail between individuals and
+classes, law is almost the only moral power the force of which is acknowledged
+by all, and which binds all together under common rules. This
+pleasing and cheering circumstance is one which constantly meets us
+in the Institut de Droit International. We see a general legal persuasion
+ever in process of more and more distinct formation uniting
+all civilised peoples. Men of nations readily disunited and opposed&mdash;Germans
+and French, English and Russians, Spaniards and Dutchmen,
+Italians and Austrians&mdash;are, as a rule, all of one mind as to the principles
+of international law.</p>
+
+<p>&quot;This is what makes it possible to proclaim an international law
+of war, approved by the legal conscience of all civilised peoples; and
+when a principle is thus generally accepted, it exerts an authority over
+minds and manners which curbs sensual appetites and triumphs over
+barbarism. We are well aware of the imperfect means of causing its
+decrees to be respected and carried out which are at the disposal of the
+law of nations. We know also that war, which moves nations so deeply,
+rouses to exceptional activity the good qualities as well as the evil
+instincts of human nature. It is for this very reason that the jurist is
+impelled to present the legal principles, of the need for which he is
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page028" id="page028">[028]</a></span>convinced, in a clear and precise form, to the feeling of justice of the
+masses, and to the legal conscience of those who guide them. He is
+persuaded that his declaration will find a hearing in the conscience of
+those whom it principally concerns, and a powerful echo in the public
+opinion of all countries.</p>
+
+<p>&quot;The duty of seeing that international law is obeyed, and of punishing
+violations of it, belongs, in the first instance, to States, each within
+the limits of its own supremacy. The administration of the law of
+war ought therefore to be intrusted primarily to the State which wields
+the public power in the place where an offence is committed. No State
+will lightly, and without unpleasantness and danger, expose itself to a
+just charge of having neglected its international duties; it will not do
+so even when it knows that it runs no risk of war on the part Of neutral
+States. Every State, even the most powerful, will gain sensibly in
+honour with God and man if it is found to be faithful and sincere in
+respect and obedience to the law of nations.</p>
+
+<p>&quot;Should we be deceiving ourselves if we admitted that a belief in
+the law of nations, as in a sacred and necessary authority, ought to
+facilitate the enforcement of discipline in the Army and help to prevent
+many faults and many harmful excesses? I, for my part, am convinced
+that the error, which has been handed down to us from antiquity,
+according to which all law is suspended during war, and everything is
+allowable against the enemy nation&mdash;that this abominable error can
+but increase the unavoidable sufferings and evils of war without necessity,
+and without utility from the point of view of that energetic way
+of making war which I also think is the right way.</p>
+
+<p>&quot;With reference to several rules being stated with the qualifications
+'if possible,' 'according to circumstances,' we look on this as a safety-valve,
+intended to preserve the inflexible rule of law from giving way
+when men's minds are overheated in a struggle against all sorts of
+dangers, and so to insure the application of the rules in many other
+instances. Sad experience teaches us that in every war there are
+numerous violations of law which must unavoidably remain unpunished,
+but this will not cause the jurist to abandon the authoritative principle
+which has been violated. Quite the reverse. If, for instance, a flag of
+truce has been fired upon, in contravention of the law of nations, the
+jurist will uphold and proclaim more strongly than ever the rule that
+a flag of truce is inviolable.</p>
+
+<p>&quot;I trust that your Excellency will receive indulgently this sincere
+statement of my views, and will regard it as an expression of my
+gratitude, as well as of my high personal esteem and of my respectful
+consideration.</p>
+
+<p>&quot;Dr. BLUNTSCHLI, Privy Councillor, Professor.&quot;<span class="newpage"><a name="page029" id="page029">[029]</a></span></p></div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="THE-UNITED-STATES-NAVAL-WAR-CODE" />THE UNITED STATES NAVAL WAR CODE.<a class="fnanchor" id="footnotetag01" name="footnotetag01" href=
+  "#footnote01">1</a></p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;The &quot;Naval War Code&quot; of the United States,
+upon which an interesting article appeared in <i>The Times</i> of
+Friday last, in so well deserving of attention in this country
+that I may perhaps be allowed to supplement the remarks of
+your Correspondent from the results of a somewhat minute
+examination of the code made shortly after its publication.</p>
+
+<p>One notes, in the first place, that the Government of
+the United States does not shirk responsibility. It puts
+the code into the hands of its officers &quot;for the government
+of all persons attached to the naval service,&quot; and is doubtless
+prepared to stand by the rules contained in it, as being in
+accordance with international law. These rules deal boldly
+with even so disagreeable a topic as &quot;Reprisals&quot; (Art. 8),
+upon which the Brussels, and after it The Hague, Conference
+preferred to keep silence; and they take a definite line on
+many questions upon which there are wide differences of
+opinion. On most debatable points, the rules are in accordance
+with the views of this country&mdash;<i>e.g.</i> as to the right of
+search (Art. 22), as to the two-fold list of contraband
+(Arts. 34-36), as to the moment at which the liability of a
+blockade-runner commences (Art. 44), and as to the capture
+of private property (Art. 14), although the prohibition of
+such capture has long been favoured by the Executive of
+the United States, and was advocated by the American
+delegates at The Hague Conference. So also Arts. 34-36, by
+apparently taking for granted the correctness of the rulings
+of the Supreme Court in the Civil War cases of the <i>Springbok</i>
+and the <i>Peterhoff</i> with reference to what may be described
+as &quot;continuous carriage,&quot; are in harmony with the views
+which Lord Salisbury recently had occasion to express as to
+the trade of the <i>Bundesrath</i> and other German vessels with
+Lorenzo Marques. It must be observed, on the other
+hand, that Art. 30 flatly contradicts the British rule as to
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page030" id="page030">[030]</a></span>convoy; while Art. 3 sets out The Hague Declaration as
+to projectiles dropped from balloons, to which this country
+is not a party. Art. 7 departs from received views by
+prohibiting altogether the use of false colours, and Art. 14
+(doubtless in pursuance of the recent decision of the Supreme
+Court in the <i>Paquete Habana</i>), by affirming the absolute
+immunity of coast fishing vessels, as such, from capture.</p>
+
+<p>On novel questions the code is equally ready with a
+solution. It speaks with no uncertain voice on the treatment
+of mail steamers and mail-bags (Art. 20). On cable-cutting
+it adopts in Art. 5, as your Correspondent points
+out, the views which I ventured to maintain in your columns
+when the question was raised during the war of 1898.<a class="fnanchor" id="footnotetag02" name="footnotetag02" href=
+  "#footnote02">2</a> I
+may also, by the way, claim the support of the code for the
+view taken by me, in a, correspondence also carried on in
+your columns during the naval manoeuvres of 1888, of the
+bombardment of open coast towns.<a class="fnanchor" id="footnotetag03" name="footnotetag03" href=
+  "#footnote03">3</a> Art. 4 sets out substantially
+the rules upon this subject for which I secured the
+<i>imprimatur</i> of the Institut de Droit International in 1896.</p>
+
+<p>Secondly, the code is so well brought up to date as to
+incorporate (Arts. 21-29) the substance of The Hague
+Convention, ratified only in September last, for applying
+to maritime warfare the principles of the Convention of
+Geneva. Art. 10 of The Hague Convention has been reproduced
+in the code, in forgetfulness perhaps of the fact
+that that article has not been ratified.</p>
+
+<p>Thirdly, the code contains, very properly, some general
+provisions applicable equally to warfare upon land (Arts.
+1, 3, 8, 12, 54).</p>
+
+<p>Fourthly, it is clearly expressed; and it is brief, consisting
+of only 54 articles, occupying 22 pages.</p>
+
+<p>Fifthly, it deals with two very distinct topics&mdash;<i>viz.</i> the
+mode of conducting hostilities against the forces of the
+enemy, and the principles applicable to the making prize
+of merchant vessels, which as often as not may be the
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page031" id="page031">[031]</a></span>property of neutrals. These topics are by no means kept
+apart as they might be, articles on prize occurring unexpectedly
+in the section avowedly devoted to hostilities.</p>
+
+<p>It is worth considering whether something resembling
+the United States code would not be found useful in the
+British Navy. Our code might be better arranged than
+its predecessor, and would differ from it on certain questions,
+but should resemble it in clearness of expression, in brevity,
+and, above all things, in frank acceptance of responsibility.
+What naval men most want is definite guidance, in
+categorical language, upon those points of maritime international
+law upon which our Government has made up its
+own mind.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, April 8 (1901).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="A-NAVAL-WAR-CODE" />A NAVAL WAR CODE</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;It is now nearly a year ago since I ventured to
+suggest in your columns (for April 10, 1901) that something
+resembling the United States &quot;Naval War Code,&quot; dealing
+with &quot;the laws and usages of war at sea,&quot; would be found
+useful in the British Navy.</p>
+
+<p>The matter is, however, not quite so simple as might be
+inferred from some of the allusions to it which occurred
+during last night's debate upon the Navy Estimates. Upon
+several disputable and delicate questions the Government
+of the United States has not hesitated to express definite
+views; and they are not always views which the Government
+of our own country would be prepared to endorse.
+For some remarks upon these questions in detail, and upon
+the code generally, I must refer to my former letter, but
+may perhaps be allowed to quote its concluding words,
+which were to the following effect:&mdash;</p>
+
+<div class="letterquot"><p>&quot;Our code might be better arranged than its predecessor, and would
+differ from it on certain questions, but should resemble it in clearness
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page032" id="page032">[032]</a></span>of expression, in brevity, and, above all things, in frank acceptance of
+responsibility. What naval men most want is definite guidance, in
+categorical language, upon those points of maritime international law
+upon which our Government has made up its own mind.&quot;</p></div>
+
+<p>Before issuing such a code our authorities would have
+to decide&mdash;first, what are the classes of topics as to which
+it is desirable to give definite instructions to naval officers;
+and, secondly, with reference to topics, to be included in
+the instructions, as to which there exist international differences
+of view, what is, in each case, the view by which the
+British Government is prepared to stand.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, March 12 (1902).</div><br />
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page033" id="page033">[033]</a></span></div>
+
+
+
+<hr style="width: 65%;" />
+<h2><a name="CHAPTER_III" id="CHAPTER_III" />CHAPTER III</h2>
+
+<p class="chaptertitle">TERMINOLOGY</p>
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="INTERNATIONAL-TERMINOLOGY" />INTERNATIONAL TERMINOLOGY</p>
+
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;Demands for the punishment of the ex-Kaiser
+have produced many &quot;curiosities of literature,&quot; sometimes
+even over the signatures of men deservedly respected as
+authorities upon subjects which they have made their own;
+but <i>ne sutor supra crepidam</i>. A.B.,<a class="fnanchor" id="footnotetag04a" name="footnotetag04a" href=
+  "#footnote04">4</a> for instance, wrote of
+the Kaiser as guilty of &quot;an indictable offence.&quot; X.Y.<a class="fnanchor" id="footnotetag04b" name="footnotetag04b" href=
+  "#footnote04">4</a>
+naturally protests against this misuse of terminology, which
+is, indeed, far more specifically erroneous than was the
+popular application, which you allowed me to criticise, of
+the terms &quot;murder&quot; and &quot;piracy&quot; to certain detestable
+acts perpetrated under Government authority.<a class="fnanchor" id="footnotetag05" name="footnotetag05" href="#footnote05">5</a> He goes
+on to give an elaborate, though perhaps hardly necessary,
+explanation that breaches of that generally accepted body
+of rules to be followed by States <i>inter se</i>, which is known
+as &quot;international law,&quot; can be enforced, in the last resort,
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page034" id="page034">[034]</a></span>only by hostile State action&mdash;a fact which he seems to
+suppose may entitle him to qualify the rules as &quot;a
+mockery.&quot;</p>
+
+<p>X.Y.<a class="fnanchor" id="footnotetag04c" name="footnotetag04c" href=
+  "#footnote04">4</a> then proceeds to give an account of the so-called
+&quot;private international law&quot; which surely needs revision
+for the benefit of any &quot;man in the street&quot; who may care
+to hear about it. X.Y.<a class="fnanchor" id="footnotetag04d" name="footnotetag04d" href=
+  "#footnote04">4</a> defines it as &quot;that part of the law
+of each separate country, as administered in its own Courts,
+which deals with international matters,&quot; and he enumerates
+as such matters &quot;prize, contraband, blockade, the rights
+of ambassadors.&quot; In fact none of these matters are within
+the scope of &quot;private international law,&quot; but are governed
+by &quot;(public) international law,&quot; non-compliance with which
+by the Courts or subjects of any State is ground of complaint
+for the Government of any other State thereby wrongfully
+affected.</p>
+
+<p>The so-called &quot;private international law,&quot; better
+described as &quot;the conflict of laws,&quot; deals, in reality, with
+the rules which the Courts of each country apply, apart
+from any international obligation, to the solution of
+questions, usually between private litigants, in which doubt
+may arise as to the national law by which a given transaction
+ought to be governed&mdash;<i>e.g.</i> with reference to a contract
+made in France, but to be performed in England. There
+is here a &quot;conflict,&quot; or &quot;collision,&quot; of laws, and it is decided
+in accordance with rules adopted in the country in which
+the litigation occurs. These rules have no &quot;international&quot;
+validity, and the term is applied to them, merely in a popular
+way, to indicate that a Court may have in some cases
+to apply the law of a country other than that in which
+it is sitting. The unfortunate opposition of &quot;public&quot; to
+&quot;private&quot; international law has to answer for much confusion
+of thought. &quot;International law,&quot; properly so called,
+has, of course, no need to be described as &quot;public&quot; to
+distinguish it from rules for solving the &quot;conflicts&quot; of
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page035" id="page035">[035]</a></span>private laws, which are &quot;international&quot; rules only in the
+sense that laws are sometimes applied in countries other
+than those in which they are primarily binding.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, December 19 (1918).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+
+
+<div class="postnotes"><p>A full discussion of the topics dealt with in the last paragraph of
+this letter may be found in my <i>Elements of Jurisprudence</i>, edit. xii.,
+pp. 409-425. A translation, by Professor Nys, of the chapter in which
+those pages occur, as it stood in edit. i., appeared in the <i>Revue de
+Droit International</i>, t. xii., pp. 565, &amp;c.<span class="newpage"><a name="page036" id="page036">[036]</a></span></p></div>
+
+
+
+<hr style="width: 65%;" />
+<h2><a name="CHAPTER_IV" id="CHAPTER_IV" />CHAPTER IV</h2>
+
+<p class="chaptertitle">CONVENTIONS AND LEGISLATION</p>
+
+
+<div class="intronotes"><p>Not a few International Conventions necessitate, before they can
+be ratified, in order that their provisions may be carried into effect, a
+certain amount of municipal legislation.</p>
+
+<p>The letters which follow are concerned with some measures introduced
+into the British Parliament for this purpose, relating respectively
+to Naval Prize, to the Geneva Convention of 1906, and to Conventions
+signed at The Hague Peace Conference of 1907. It is with criticisms
+of Bills dealing with the last-mentioned topic that this chapter is
+mainly occupied.</p></div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="GOVERNMENT-BILLS-AND-INTERNATIONAL-CONVENTIONS" />GOVERNMENT BILLS AND INTERNATIONAL
+CONVENTIONS</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;You have already allowed me to point out how
+singularly ill-adapted is the resuscitated &quot;Naval Prize
+Consolidation Bill&quot;<a class="fnanchor" id="footnotetag06" name="footnotetag06" href="#footnote06">6</a> to inform Parliament upon the highly
+technical points as to which a vote in favour of the Bill
+might be supposed to imply approval of the Government
+policy.</p>
+
+<p>Two other Bills have now been presented to the House
+of Commons in such a shape as to raise a doubt whether
+the wish of the Government, or of the draftsman, has been
+that the topics to which they relate shall be discussed <i>en
+pleine connaissance de cause</i>.</p>
+
+<p>The &quot;Geneva Convention Bill&quot;<a class="fnanchor" id="footnotetag07" name="footnotetag07" href="#footnote07">7</a> is intended to facilitate
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page037" id="page037">[037]</a></span>the withdrawal of reservations subject to which the Convention
+was ratified by Great Britain. These reservations,
+upon which I insisted at Geneva, somewhat to the surprise
+of my French and Russian colleagues, relate to Arts. 23, 27,
+and 28 of the Convention, one of the effects of which would
+have been to impose upon our Government an obligation
+to carry through, within five years, an Act of Parliament,
+making the employment of the Geneva emblem or name,
+except for military purposes, a criminal offence. Any one
+who knows something of the difficulties which beset legislation
+in this country, especially where commercial interests
+are involved, will see that the performance of such an undertaking
+might well have proved to be impossible. Though
+myself strongly in favour of placing, at the proper time and
+in an appropriate manner, legislative restrictions upon the
+general use of the emblem and name, I can hardly think
+the Bill now before Parliament to be well adapted for its
+purpose. The &quot;Memorandum&quot; prefixed to it ought surely
+to have stated, in plain language, the effect of the articles
+in question and the reasons which prevented them from
+being ratified together with the rest of the Convention.
+Instead of this, only one of those articles is cited, and few
+members of Parliament will be aware that an omitted paragraph
+of that article requires that the use of the emblem
+or name should be penalised by British law at the latest
+five years and six months from the date of the British ratification,
+which was deposited on April 16, 1907&mdash;<i>i.e.</i>, not
+later than October 16, 1912. This requirement is not
+satisfied by the Bill, which, even if passed in the present
+Session, would preserve intact till 1915 the rights of proprietors
+of trade-marks, while somewhat harshly rendering
+forthwith illegal the user of the emblem or name by all other
+persons.</p>
+
+<p>On the drafting of the &quot;Second Peace Conference Conventions
+Bill,&quot; I will only remark that neither in the preamble
+nor elsewhere is any information vouchsafed as to the<span class="newpage"><a name="page038" id="page038">[038]</a></span>
+Conventions, out of thirteen drafted at The Hague, which
+are within the purview of the Bill. The reader is left to
+puzzle out for himself, supposing him to have the necessary
+materials at hand, that certain clauses of the Bill relate
+respectively to certain articles which must be looked for
+in the Conventions numbered I., V., X., XII., and XIII.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">The Athen&aelig;um, July 7 (1911).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+
+
+<div class="postnotes"><p>Questions were put and objections raised, in the sense of my criticisms
+upon the drafting of the &quot;Second Peace Conference (Conventions)
+Bill&quot; of 1911, upon several occasions in the House of Commons,
+especially in August of that year, and on December 16 the Bill was
+finally withdrawn. On the re-introduction of the Bill in 1914, see
+the following letter.</p></div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="THE-PRESENT-BILL-IN-PARLIAMENT" />THE PRESENT BILL IN PARLIAMENT</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;In reintroducing their Bill &quot;to make such amendments
+in the law as are necessary in order to enable certain
+conventions to be carried into effect,&quot; the Government has
+justified the criticisms which I addressed to you upon the
+way in which this measure was first presented to Parliament.</p>
+
+<p>I pointed out that neither in the preamble nor elsewhere
+was any information vouchsafed as to which of
+&quot;the various conventions drawn up at the second Peace
+Conference&quot; were within the purview of the Bill. Still
+less was any clue given to those articles, out of nearly 400
+contained in the 13 conventions in question, which are relevant
+to the proposed legislation. Members of Parliament
+sufficiently inquisitive not to be inclined to take the measure
+on trust, were left to puzzle out all this for themselves,
+but proved so restive under the treatment that the Bill,
+which was introduced in June, 1911, had to be withdrawn
+in the following December.</p>
+
+<p>As now resuscitated, the Bill is accompanied by a
+memorandum containing information which will enable
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page039" id="page039">[039]</a></span>the reader, even though no specialist, supposing him to
+have the necessary documents at hand, though probably
+only after several hours of labour, to ascertain what would
+be the result of passing it. Is it too much to hope that
+similar aids to the understanding of complicated legislative
+proposals will be systematically provided in the future?</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, April 13, 1914.</div><br />
+</div>
+
+<div class="postnotes"><p>This Bill was introduced into the House of Commons on April 8,
+1914, with a memorandum proposed in compliance with the criticisms,
+which had led to the withdrawal of its predecessor of 1911. <i>Cf. supra</i>,
+p. <a href="#page037">37</a>. It also was withdrawn, after sustaining much renewed criticism,
+on July 17, 1914.</p></div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="THE-FOREIGN-ENLISTMENT-BILL" />THE FOREIGN ENLISTMENT BILL</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;It is doubtless the case, as stated in your leading
+article of to-day, that the Foreign Enlistment Bill has not
+received the attention which it deserves. It may perhaps
+be worth while to mention, as affording some explanation
+of this neglect, the fact that the memorandum prefixed
+to the Bill vaguely describes its main object as being to
+bring our law into conformity with &quot;The Hague Conventions&quot;
+at large. An ordinary member of Parliament would
+surely be grateful to be referred specifically to Convention
+No. xiii., Arts. 8, 17, and 25. He might well shrink from
+the labour of exploring the hundreds of articles contained
+in &quot;The Hague Conventions&quot; in order to ascertain which
+of the articles suggest some modification of the English
+statute.</p>
+
+<p>I would also venture to suggest that, in Article 1 (1) (b)
+of the Bill the words &quot;or allows to depart,&quot; carried over
+from the old Act, should be omitted, as of doubtful interpretation.
+Would it not also be desirable to take this
+opportunity of severing the enlistment articles of the overgrown
+principal Act from those forbidding the despatch of
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page040" id="page040">[040]</a></span>ships fitted for hostilities and restricting the hospitality
+which may be extended to belligerent war ships?</p>
+
+<p>Upon quite a different subject, I should like to answer
+the question propounded in your article, as to the weight
+now to be given to the Declaration of London, by saying
+that no weight should be given to it, except as between
+Powers who may have ratified it or may have agreed to be
+temporarily bound by its provisions. One has of late been
+surprised to read of vessels carrying contraband being
+allowed to continue their voyage after surrendering the
+contraband goods, in accordance with a new rule suggested
+by the Declaration, whereas, under still existing international
+law, the duty of a captor is to bring in the vessel
+together with her cargo, in order that the rightfulness of
+the seizure may be investigated by a Prize Court.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, November 23 (1912).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+<div class="postnotes"><p>The Bill of 1912 &quot;to amend the Foreign Enlistment Act, 1870,&quot;
+passed the House of Lords with little comment, but was withdrawn,
+after much adverse criticism, in the House of Commons on
+February 12, 1913.<span class="newpage"><a name="page041" id="page041">[041]</a></span></p></div>
+
+
+
+<hr style="width: 65%;" />
+<h2><a name="CHAPTER_V" id="CHAPTER_V" />CHAPTER V</h2>
+
+<p class="chaptertitle">THE COMMENCEMENT OF WAR</p>
+
+
+<h3 class="sectionhead"><a name="CHAPTER_V_SECTION_1" />SECTION 1</h3>
+
+<p class="subsectionhead">Declaration of War</p>
+
+<div class="intronotes"><p>The following letter bears upon the question, much discussed in
+recent years, of the lawfulness of hostilities commenced without
+anything amounting to a declaration of war. Although several
+modern wars, <i>e.g.</i> the Franco-Prussian of 1870, and the Russo-Turkish
+of 1877, were preceded by declaration, it was hardly possible, in view
+of the practice of the last two centuries, to maintain, that this was
+required by international law, and it has never been alleged that any
+definite interval need intervene between a declaration and the first
+act of hostilities. On the destruction of the <i>Kowshing</i>, the present
+writer may further refer to his <i>Studies in International Law</i>, 1898,
+p. 126, and to Professor Takahashi's <i>International Law during the Chino-Japanese
+War</i>, 1899, pp. 24, 192. But see now the note at the end
+of the &quot;Letter&quot; which follows.</p></div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="THE-SINKING-OF-THE-KOWSHING" />THE SINKING OF THE <i>KOWSHING</i></p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;The words of soberness and truth were spoken
+with reference to the sinking of the <i>Kowshing</i> in the letter
+from Professor Westlake which you printed on Friday last.
+Ignorance dies hard, or, after the appearance of that letter
+and of your remarks upon it, one might have expected that
+leading articles would be less lavishly garnished with such
+phrases as &quot;act of piracy,&quot; &quot;war without declaration,&quot;
+&quot;insult to the British flag,&quot; &quot;condign punishment of the
+Japanese commander.&quot; But these flowers of speech continue
+to blossom; and, now that the facts of the case seem
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page042" id="page042">[042]</a></span>to be established beyond reasonable doubt by the telegrams
+of this morning, I should be glad to be allowed to state
+shortly what I believe will be the verdict of international
+law upon what has occurred.</p>
+
+<p>If the visiting, and eventual sinking, of the <i>Kowshing</i>
+occurred in time of peace, or in time of war before she had
+notice that war had broken out, a gross outrage has taken
+place. But the facts are otherwise.</p>
+
+<p>In the first place, a state of war existed. It is trite
+knowledge, and has been over and over affirmed by Courts,
+both English and American, that a war may legally commence
+with a hostile act on one side, not preceded by
+declaration. How frequently this has occurred in practice
+may be seen from a glance at an historical statement prepared
+for the War Office by Colonel Maurice <i>&agrave; propos</i> of the
+objections to a Channel tunnel. Whether or no hostilities
+had previously occurred upon the mainland, I hold that the
+acts of the Japanese commander in boarding the <i>Kowshing</i>
+and threatening her with violence in case of disobedience
+to his orders were acts of war.</p>
+
+<p>In the second place, the <i>Kowshing</i> had notice of the
+existence of a war, at any rate from the moment when she
+received the orders of the Japanese commander.</p>
+
+<p>The <i>Kowshing</i>, therefore, before the first torpedo was
+fired, was, and knew that she was, a neutral ship engaged
+in the transport service of a belligerent. (Her flying the
+British flag, whether as a <i>ruse de guerre</i> or otherwise, is
+wholly immaterial.) Her liabilities, as such ship, were
+twofold:&mdash;</p>
+
+<p>1. Regarded as an isolated vessel, she was liable to
+be stopped, visited, and taken in for adjudication by a
+Japanese Prize Court. If, as was the fact, it was practically
+impossible for a Japanese prize crew to be placed on board
+of her, the Japanese commander was within his rights, in
+using any amount of force necessary to compel her to obey
+his orders.<span class="newpage"><a name="page043" id="page043">[043]</a></span></p>
+
+<p>2. As one of a fleet of transports and men-of-war engaged
+in carrying reinforcements to the Chinese troops on the
+mainland, the <i>Kowshing</i> was clearly part of a hostile expedition,
+or one which might be treated as hostile, which the
+Japanese were entitled, by the use of all needful force, to
+prevent from reaching its destination.</p>
+
+<p>The force employed seems not to have been in excess of
+what might lawfully be used, either for the arrest of an
+enemy's neutral transport or for barring the progress of a
+hostile expedition. The rescued officers also having been
+set at liberty in due course, I am unable to see that any
+violation of the rights of neutrals has occurred. No apology
+is due to our Government, nor have the owners of the
+<i>Kowshing</i>, or the relatives of any of her European officers
+who may have been lost, any claim for compensation. I
+have said nothing about the violation by the Japanese of
+the usages of civilised warfare (not of the Geneva Convention,
+which has no bearing upon the question), which
+would be involved by their having fired upon the Chinese
+troops in the water; not only because the evidence upon
+this point is as yet insufficient, but also because the grievance,
+if established, would affect only the rights of the Belligerents
+<i>inter se</i>; not the rights of neutrals, with which alone this
+letter is concerned. I have also confined my observations
+to the legal aspects of the question, leaving to others to
+test the conduct of the Japanese commander by the rules
+of chivalrous dealing or of humanity.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">Your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Athen&aelig;um Club, August 6 (1894)</div><br />
+</div>
+
+<div class="postnotes"><p>The controversy caused by the sinking of the <i>Kowshing</i> in 1894
+was revived by the manner of the Japanese attack upon Port Arthur,
+in 1904 (see Professor Takahashi's <i>International Law applied to the
+Russo-Japanese War</i>, 1908, p. 1), and led to a careful study of the subject
+by a committee of the Institut de Droit International, resulting in the
+adoption by the Institut, at its Ghent Meeting in 1906, of the following
+resolutions:&mdash;<span class="newpage"><a name="page044" id="page044">[044]</a></span></p>
+
+<p>(1) &quot;It is in conformity with the requirements of International
+law, to the loyalty which the nations owe to one another in their,
+mutual relations, as well as to the general interests of all States, that
+hostilities ought not to commence without previous and unequivocal
+warning.</p>
+
+<p>(2) &quot;This warning may be given either in the shape of a declaration
+of war pure and simple, or in the shape of an ultimatum duly notified
+to the adversary by the State which wishes to begin the war.</p>
+
+<p>(3) &quot;Hostilities must not commence until after the expiration of
+a delay which would suffice to prevent the rule as to a previous and
+unequivocal warning from being thought to be evaded.&quot; See the
+<i>Annuaire de l'Institut</i>, t, xxi. p. 292.</p>
+
+<p>In accordance with the principles underlying the first and second
+of these resolutions, The Hague Convention, No. iii. of 1907 (ratified
+generally by Great Britain on November 27, 1909), has now laid
+down as a principle of International Law, binding upon the contracting
+Powers, that&mdash;</p>
+
+<p>(1) &quot;Hostilities between them ought not to commence without
+a warning previously given and unequivocal, in the form either of a
+reasoned declaration of war, or of an ultimatum, with a conditional
+declaration of war.&quot;</p>
+
+<p>And the Convention goes on to provide that&mdash;</p>
+
+<p>(2) &quot;The state of war ought to be notified without delay to neutral
+Powers, and shall be of no effect with reference to them, until after a
+notification, which may be made even telegraphically. Nevertheless,
+neutral Powers may not plead absence of notification, if it has been
+shown beyond question that they were in fact cognisant of the state of
+war.&quot; Any reference to the need of an interval between declaration
+and the first act of hostility (such as is contained in the third of the
+resolutions of the Institut) was deliberately omitted from the Convention,
+although a declaration immediately followed by an attack
+would obviously be of little service to the party attacked. (See the
+present writer's <i>Laws of War on Land (written and unwritten)</i>, 1908,
+P. 18.)</p></div>
+
+<hr style='width: 45%;' />
+
+<h3 class="sectionhead"><a name="CHAPTER_V_SECTION_2" />SECTION 2</h3>
+
+<p class="subsectionhead">The Immediate Effects of the Outbreak of War</p>
+
+<p class="subsectionhead">Enemy Residents</p>
+
+<div class="intronotes"><p>Before any actual hostilities have taken place, each belligerent
+acquires, <i>ipso facto</i>, certain new rights over persons and property
+belonging to the other, which happen to be at the time within its power,<span class="newpage"><a name="page045" id="page045">[045]</a></span>
+<i>e.g.</i> the right, much softened in modern practice, and specifically dealt
+with in The Hague Convention, No. vi. of 1907, of capturing enemy
+merchant vessels so situated.</p>
+
+<p>The following letter deals with the permissible treatment of enemy
+persons so situated; and was suggested by a question asked in the
+House of Commons on February 25, 1909, by Mr. Arnold-Forster:
+<i>viz.</i> &quot;What would be the <i>status</i> of officers and men of the regular
+Army of a hostile belligerent Power, found within the limits of the
+United Kingdom after an act or declaration of war; and would such
+persons be liable to be treated as prisoners of war, or would they be
+despatched under the protection of the Government to join the forces
+of the enemy?&quot; The general effect of the Attorney-General's reply
+may be gathered from the quotations from it made in the letter.</p>
+
+<p>The topic was again touched upon on March 3, in a question put
+by Captain Faber, to which Mr. Haldane replied.</p></div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="FOREIGN-SOLDIERS-IN-ENGLAND" />FOREIGN SOLDIERS IN ENGLAND</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;The question raised last night by Mr. Arnold-Forster
+is one which calls for more careful consideration
+than it appears yet to have received. International law
+has in modern times spoken with no very certain voice as
+to the permissible treatment of alien enemies found within
+the territory of a belligerent at the outbreak of war.</p>
+
+<p>There is, however, little doubt that such persons,
+although now more usually allowed to remain, during good
+behaviour, may be expelled, and, if necessary, wholesale, as
+were Germans from France in 1870. But may such persons
+be, for good reasons, arrested, or otherwise prevented from
+leaving the country, as Germans were prevented from
+leaving France in the earlier days of the Franco-Prussian
+War? Grotius speaks with approval of such a step being
+taken, &quot;ad minuendas hostium vires.&quot; Bynkershoek,
+more than a century later, recognises the right of thus
+acting, &quot;though it is rarely exercised.&quot; So the Supreme
+Court of the United States in <i>Brown v. United States</i>
+(1814). So Chancellor Kent (1826), and Mr. Manning
+(1889) is explicit that the arrest in question is lawful, and
+that &quot;the individuals are prisoners of war.&quot;</p>
+
+<p><span class="newpage"><a name="page046" id="page046">[046]</a></span>Vattel, is it true (1758), ventures to lay down that&mdash;</p>
+
+<div class="letterquot"><p>&quot;Le Souverain qui d&eacute;clare la guerre ne peut retenir les sujets de
+ennemi qui se trouvent dans ses &eacute;tats au moment de la d&eacute;claration
+... en leur permettant d'entrer dans ses terres et d'y s&eacute;journer, il leur
+a promis tacitement toute libert&eacute; et toute s&ucirc;ret&eacute; pour le retour.&quot;</p></div>
+
+<p>And he has been followed by some recent writers. There
+is, however, I venture to hold, no ground for asserting that
+this indulgent system is imposed by international law.
+I am glad, therefore, to find the Attorney-General laying
+down that&mdash;</p>
+
+<div class="letterquot"><p>&quot;for strictly military reasons, any nation is entitled to detain and to
+intern soldiers found upon the territory at the outbreak of war.&quot;</p></div>
+
+<p>And I should be surprised if, under all circumstances,
+as the learned Attorney-General seems to think probable&mdash;</p>
+
+<div class="letterquot"><p>&quot;England would follow, whatever the strict law may be, the humane
+and chivalrous practice of modern times, and would give to any subjects
+of a hostile Power who might be found here engaging in civilian pursuits
+a reasonable time within which to leave for their own country, even
+although they were under the obligation of entering for service under
+the enemy's flag.&quot;</p></div>
+
+<p>The doctrine of Vattel has, in fact, become less plausible
+than it was before universal liability to military service had
+become the rule in most Continental countries. The peaceably
+engaged foreign resident is now in all probability a
+trained soldier, and liable to be recalled to the flag of a
+possible enemy.</p>
+
+<p>There may, of course, be considerable practical difficulties
+in the way of ascertaining the nationality of any
+given foreigner, and whether he has completed, or evaded,
+the military training required by the laws of his country.
+It may also be a question of high policy whether resident
+enemies would not be a greater danger to this country if
+they were compelled to remain here, than if they were
+allowed, or compelled, to depart, possibly to return as
+invaders.</p>
+
+<p>I am only concerned to maintain that, as far as inter<span class="newpage"><a name="page047" id="page047">[047]</a></span>national
+law is concerned, England has a free hand either
+to expel resident enemies or to prevent them from leaving the
+country, as may seem most conducive to her own safety.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, February 25 (1909).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+<p>&nbsp;</p>
+
+<p class="subsectionhead">Civil Disabilities of Alien Enemies</p>
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="THE-NAVAL-PRIZE-BILL-CIVIL-DISABILITIES-OF-ENEMY-SUBJECTS" />THE NAVAL PRIZE BILL<br /><br />
+
+CIVIL DISABILITIES OF ENEMY SUBJECTS</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;The Naval Prize Bill has sins enough of its own
+to answer for. The question dealt with under that heading
+in Mr. Arthur Cohen's letter of this morning has, however,
+nothing to do with naval matters, but arises under The
+Hague Convention of 1907 as to warfare on land, which was
+ratified by our Government two years ago; unfortunately
+without any reserve as to the extraordinary provision
+contained in Art. 28 (<i>h</i>) of that Convention.</p>
+
+<p>I lose not a moment in asking to be allowed to state
+that my view of the question is, and always has been, the
+reverse of that attributed to me by my friend Mr. Cohen.
+No less than three views are entertained as to the meaning
+of Art. 28 (<i>h</i>). (1) Continental writers, <i>e.g.</i>, MM. Fauchille,
+Kohler, and Ullmann, with the German Whitebook, assert,
+in the most unqualified manner, that Great Britain and
+the United States have under this clause abandoned their
+long-established doctrine as to the suspension of the private
+rights and remedies of enemy subjects; (2) Our own
+Government, in a non-confidential reply to an inquiry
+from Professor Oppenheim, asserts categorically, as does
+General Davis in the United States, that the clause relates
+only to the action of a commander in a territory of which
+he is in occupation; while (3) most English and American
+writers look upon the meaning of the clause as doubtful.
+If Mr. Cohen will look at p. 44 of my <i>Laws of War on Land</i>,<span class="newpage"><a name="page048" id="page048">[048]</a></span>
+1909, he will find that I carry this sceptical attitude so
+far as to include the clause in question in brackets as
+&quot;apocryphal,&quot; with the comment that &quot;it can hardly,
+till its policy has been seriously discussed, be treated as a
+rule of international law.&quot; I have accordingly maintained,
+in correspondence with my Continental colleagues, that the
+clause should be treated as &quot;non avenue,&quot; as &quot;un non
+sens,&quot; on the ground that, while, torn from their context,
+its words would seem (&quot;ont faux air&quot;) to bear the Continental
+interpretation, its position as part of a &quot;R&egrave;glement,&quot;
+in conformity with which the Powers are to &quot;issue
+instructions to their armed land forces,&quot; conclusively
+negatives this interpretation. I will not to-day trouble
+you in detail with the very curious history of the clause;
+which, as originally proposed by Germany, merely prohibited
+(a commander?) from announcing that the private claims
+(&quot;r&eacute;clamations&quot;) of enemy subjects would be unenforceable.
+It is astonishing that no objection was raised by the
+British or by the American delegates to the subsequent
+transformation of this innocent clause into something very
+different, first by the insertion of the words &quot;en justice,&quot;
+and later by the substitution of &quot;droits et actions&quot; for
+&quot;r&eacute;clamations.&quot; The quiescence of the delegates is the
+more surprising, as, at the first meeting of the sub-committee,
+General de Gundel, in the plainest language, foreshadowed
+what was aimed at by the clause.</p>
+
+<p>Art. 23 (<i>h</i>) is, I submit, incapable of rational interpretation
+and should be so treated by the Powers. If interpreted
+at all, its sense must be taken to be that which is
+now, somewhat tardily, put upon it by our own Government.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, November 6 (1911).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+<div class="postnotes"><p>I may perhaps refer here to my <i>Laws of War on Land</i> (1908), p. 44,
+where I describe as &quot;apocryphal&quot; Art. 23 (<i>h</i>) of the Hague Convention
+No. iv. of 1907; and to my paper upon that article in the <i>Law Quarterly
+Review</i> for 1912, pp. 94-98, reproduced in the <i>Revue de Droit Inter<span class="newpage"><a name="page049" id="page049">[049]</a></span>national</i>,
+the <i>Revue G&eacute;n&eacute;rale de Droit International Public</i>, and the
+<i>Zeitschrift f&uuml;r V&ouml;lkerrecht und Bundesstaatsrecht</i>, for the same year.</p>
+
+<p>The view there maintained was affirmed by the Court of Appeal
+in <i>Porter</i> v. <i>Freudenberg</i>, [1915] 1 K.B. 857, <i>at</i> p. 874.</p></div>
+
+<p>&nbsp;</p>
+<p class="subsectionhead">Enemy Ships in Port</p>
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="ENEMY-SHIPS-IN-PORT" />ENEMY SHIPS IN PORT</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;The action taken by the United States in seizing
+German merchant ships lying in their ports will raise several
+questions of interest. It is, however, important at once
+to realise that, apart from anything which may be contained
+in old treaties with Prussia, their hands are entirely free
+in the matter. The indulgences so often granted: to such
+ships during the last 60 years, notably by themselves in
+the Spanish War of 1898, under endlessly varying conditions,
+have been admittedly acts of grace, required by no established
+rule of international law.</p>
+
+<p>The United States are also unaffected by The Hague
+Convention No. vi, to which they are not a party. It is
+therefore superfluous to inquire what construction they
+would have been bound to put upon the ambiguous language
+of Section 1 of the Convention, which proclaims that &quot;when
+a merchant ship of one of the belligerent Powers is, at the
+commencement of hostilities, in an enemy port, <i>it is desirable</i>
+that it should be allowed to depart freely,&quot; &amp;c. It might
+perhaps be argued that our own Prize Court might well
+have refrained from treating this section as if it were
+obligatory, and have founded its decisions rather upon
+international law, as supplemented by a non-obligatory
+custom. Be this as it may, it would seem that the policy of
+the United States has to some extent felt the influence of
+Convention vi. in announcing that seizure will, provisionally,
+only amount to requisitioning.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, April 7 (1917).</div><br />
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page050" id="page050">[050]</a></span></div>
+
+
+
+<hr style="width: 65%;" />
+<h2><a name="CHAPTER_VI" id="CHAPTER_VI" />CHAPTER VI</h2>
+
+<p class="chaptertitle">THE CONDUCT OF WARFARE</p>
+
+
+<div class="intronotes"><p>The three following sections relate to the waters in which hostile
+operations may take place. Section 1 probably calls for no explanatory
+remark. With reference to Section 2, dealing with certain spaces of
+water more or less closed to belligerent action, it may be desirable to
+state that the letters as to the Suez Canal were written to obviate some
+misconceptions as to the purport of the Convention of October 29, 1888,
+and to maintain that it was not, at the time of writing, operative,
+so far as Great Britain was concerned.</p>
+
+<p>This state of things was, however, altered by the Anglo-French
+Convention of April 8, 1804, which, concerned principally with the
+settlement of the Egyptian and Newfoundland questions, provides,
+in Art. 6, that &quot;In order to assure the free passage of the Suez Canal,
+the Government of His Britannic Majesty declares that it adheres to
+the stipulations of the Treaty concluded on the 29th October 1888; and
+to their becoming operative. The free passage of the canal being thus
+guaranteed, the execution of the last phrase of paragraph 1, and
+that of paragraph 2 of the 8th article of this Treaty, will remain
+suspended.&quot;</p>
+
+<p>The last phrase of paragraph 1 of Art. 8 relates to annual meetings
+of the agents of the signatory Powers.</p>
+
+<p>Paragraph 2 of this Article relates to the presidency of a special
+commissioner of the Ottoman Government over those meetings.</p>
+
+<p>On the whole question see <i>Parl. Papers, Egypt</i>, No. 1 (1888),
+<i>Commercial</i>, No. 2 (1889), and the present writer's
+<i>Studies in International Law</i>, pp. 275-293. Note must, of course,
+now be taken of the constitutional changes resulting from the war of 1914.</p>
+
+<p>The provisions of the Treaty of 1888, with reference to the free
+navigation of the Suez Canal, have, of course, acquired a new
+importance from their adoption into the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty of
+November 18, 1901, as to the Panama Canal, and from the divergent
+views taken of their interpretation, as so adopted.<span class="newpage"><a name="page051" id="page051">[051]</a></span></p></div>
+
+
+<h3 class="sectionhead"><a name="CHAPTER_VI_SECTION_1" />SECTION 1</h3>
+
+<p class="subsectionhead">On the Open Sea</p>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="THE-FREEDOM-OF-THE-SEAS" />&quot;THE FREEDOM OF THE SEAS&quot;?</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;Your remarks upon &quot;the wide and ambiguous
+suggestions&quot; contained in the Pope's Peace Note are
+especially apposite to his desire for &quot;the freedom of the
+seas.&quot; It is regrettable that his Holiness does not explain
+the meaning which he attaches to this phrase, in itself
+unmeaning, so dear to the Germans. He is doubtless well
+aware that the sea is already free enough, except to pirates,
+in time of peace, and must be presumed to refer to time
+of war, and specifically to propose the prohibition of any
+such interference with neutral shipping as is now legalised
+by the rules relating to visit and search, contraband and
+blockade.</p>
+
+<p>If this be indeed the Pope's meaning, his aspirations
+are now less likely than ever to be realised. It is curious
+to reflect that the proposal actually made by our own
+Government at The Hague Conference of 1907, apparently
+under the impression that Great Britain would be always
+neutral, for protecting the carriage of contraband was most
+fortunately defeated by the opposition of the other great
+naval Powers, of which Germany was one.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, August 16 (1917).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+<hr style='width: 45%;' />
+
+<h3 class="sectionhead"><a name="CHAPTER_VI_SECTION_2" />SECTION 2</h3>
+
+<p class="subsectionhead">In Other Waters</p>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="THE-SUEZ-CANAL" />THE SUEZ CANAL</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;Your correspondent &quot;M.B.&quot; has done good service
+by calling attention to the misleading nature of the often-repeated
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page052" id="page052">[052]</a></span>statement that the Suez Canal has been &quot;neutralised&quot;
+by the Convention of 1888. Perhaps you will allow
+me more explicitly to show why, and how far, this
+statement is misleading.</p>
+
+<p>In the first place, this Convention is inoperative. It
+is so in consequence of the following reservation made by
+Lord Salisbury in the course of the negotiations which
+resulted in the signature of the Convention:&mdash;</p>
+
+<div class="letterquot"><p>&quot;Les D&eacute;l&eacute;gu&eacute;s de la Grande-Bretagne ... pensent qu'il est de leur
+devoir de formuler une r&eacute;serve g&eacute;n&eacute;rale quant &agrave; l'application de ces
+dispositions en tant qu'elles ne seraient pas compatibles avec l'&eacute;tat
+transitoire et exceptionnel o&ugrave; se trouve actuellement l'Egypte, et qu'elles
+pourraient entraver la libert&eacute; d'action de leur Gouvernement pendant
+la p&eacute;riode de l'occupation de l'Egypte par les forces de sa Majest&eacute;
+Britannique.&quot;</p></div>
+
+<p>Being thus unaffected by the treaty, the canal retains
+those characteristics which it possesses, under the common
+law of nations, as a narrow strait, wholly within the territory
+of one Power and connecting two open seas. The fact that
+the strait is artificial may, I think, be dismissed from
+consideration, for reasons stated by me in the <i>Fortnightly
+Review</i> for July, 1883. The characteristics of such a strait
+are unfortunately by no means well ascertained, but may
+perhaps be summarised as follows. In time of peace, the
+territorial Power is bound by modern usage to allow &quot;innocent
+passage,&quot; under reasonable conditions as to tolls and
+the like, not only to the merchant vessels, but also, probably,
+to the ships of war, of all nations. In time of war, the
+territorial Power, if belligerent, may of course carry on, and
+is exposed to, hostilities in the strait as elsewhere, and the
+entrances to the strait are liable to a blockade. Should
+the territorial Power be neutral, the strait would be closed
+to hostilities, though it would probably be open to the
+&quot;innocent passage&quot; of belligerent ships of war.</p>
+
+<p>It may be worth while to enquire how far this state of
+things would be affected by the Convention of 1888, were
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page053" id="page053">[053]</a></span>it to come into operation. The <i>status</i> of the canal in time
+of peace would be substantially untouched, save by the
+prohibition to the territorial Power to fortify its banks.
+Even with reference to time of war, several of the articles
+of the Convention merely reaffirm well-understood rules
+applicable to all neutral waters&mdash;<i>e.g.</i> that no hostilities
+may take place therein. The innovations proposed by the
+Convention are mainly contained, as &quot;M.B.&quot; points out,
+in the first article, which deals with the position of the canal
+when the territorial Power is belligerent. In such a case,
+subject to certain exceptions, with a view to the defence of
+the country, the ships of that Power are neither to attack
+nor to be attacked in the canal, or within three miles of its
+ports of access, nor are the entrances of the canal to be
+blockaded. This is &quot;neutralisation&quot; only in a limited and
+vague sense of the term, the employment of which was
+indeed carefully avoided not only in the Convention itself
+but also in the diplomatic discussions which preceded it.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Brighton, October 4 (1898).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="THE-SUEZ-CANAL-B" />THE SUEZ CANAL</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;Your correspondent &quot;M.B.,&quot; if he will allow
+me to say so, supports this morning a good case by a bad
+argument, which ought hardly to pass without remark.</p>
+
+<p>It is impossible to accept his suggestion that the article
+which he quotes from the Treaty of Paris can be taken as
+containing &quot;an international official definition of neutralisation
+as applied to waters.&quot; The article in question, after
+declaring the Black Sea to be &quot;neutralis&eacute;e,&quot; no doubt goes
+on to explain the sense in which this phrase is to be
+understood, by laying down that the waters and ports of that
+sea are perpetually closed to the ships of war of all nations.
+It is, however, well known that such a state of things as is
+described in the latter part of the article is so far from
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page054" id="page054">[054]</a></span>being involved in the definition of &quot;neutralisation&quot; as
+not even to be an ordinary accompaniment of that process.
+Belgium is unquestionably &quot;neutralised,&quot; but no one
+supposes that the appearance in its waters and ports of ships
+of war is therefore prohibited. The fact is that the term
+&quot;neutralis&eacute;e&quot; was employed in the Treaty of Paris as a
+euphemism, intended to make less unpalatable to Russia
+a restriction upon her sovereign rights which she took
+the earliest opportunity of repudiating.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Brighton, October 6 (1898).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="THE-SUEZ-CANAL-C" />THE SUEZ CANAL</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;Will you allow me to reply in the fewest possible
+words to the questions very courteously addressed to me
+by Mr. Gibson Bowles in his letter which appeared in
+<i>The Times</i> of yesterday?</p>
+
+<p>1. It is certainly my opinion, for what it is worth, that
+the full operation of the Convention of 1888 is suspended
+by the reserves first made on behalf of this country during
+the sittings of the Conference of 1885. These reserves
+were texually repeated by Lord Salisbury in his despatch
+of October 21, 1887, enclosing the draft convention which,
+three days later, was signed at Paris by the representatives
+of France and Great Britain, the two Powers which, with
+the assent of the rest, had been carrying on the resumed
+negotiations with reference to the canal. Lord Salisbury's
+language was also carefully brought to the notice of each of
+the other Powers concerned; in the course of the somewhat
+protracted discussions which preceded the final signature
+of the same convention at Constantinople on October 29, 1888.</p>
+
+<p>2. All the signatories of the convention having thus
+become parties to it after express notice of &quot;the conditions
+under which her Majesty's Government have expressed
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page055" id="page055">[055]</a></span>their willingness to agree to it,&quot; must, it can hardly be
+doubted, share the view that the convention is operative
+only <i>sub modo</i>.</p>
+
+<p>3. Supposing the convention to have become operative,
+and supposing the territorial Power to be neutral in a war
+between States which we may call A and B, the convention
+would certainly entitle A to claim unmolested passage for
+its ships of war on their way to attack the forces of B in the
+Eastern seas.</p>
+
+<p>4. The language of the convention, being as it, is the
+expression of a compromise involving much re-drafting, is
+by no means always as clear as it might be. But when
+Mr. Gibson Bowles is again within reach of Blue-books he
+will probably agree with me that the treaty need not, as he
+suggests, be &quot;read as obliging the territorial Power, even
+when itself a belligerent, to allow its enemy to use the
+canal freely for the passage of that enemy's men-of-war.&quot;
+The wide language of Art. 1 (which is substantially in
+accordance with Mr. Gibson Bowles's reminiscence of it)
+must be read in connection with Art. 10, and without forgetting
+that, in discussing the effect of an attack upon the
+canal by one of the parties to the convention, Lord
+Salisbury wrote in 1887, &quot;on the whole it appears to be
+the sounder view that, in such a case, the treaty, being
+broken by one of its signatories, would lose its force in all
+respects.&quot;</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">Your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, October 9 (1898).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="THE-CLOSING-OF-THE-DARDANELLES" />THE CLOSING OF THE DARDANELLES</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;Now that the pressure upon your space due to
+the clash of opposing views of domestic politics is likely to
+be for the moment relaxed, you may, perhaps, not think it
+inopportune that attention should be recalled to a question
+of permanent international interest raised by the recent
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page056" id="page056">[056]</a></span>action of the Turkish Government in closing the Dardanelles
+to even commercial traffic.</p>
+
+<p>I cordially agree, as would, I suppose, most people,
+with your leading article of some weeks since in deprecating
+any crude application to the case of the Dardanelles and
+Bosporus of <i>dicta</i> with reference to freedom of passage
+through straits connecting two open seas. It would,
+indeed, be straining what may be taken to be a general
+principle of international law to say that Turkey is by
+it prohibited from protecting her threatened capital by
+temporarily closing the Straits.</p>
+
+<p>A good deal of vague reference has, however, been made
+in the discussions which have taken place upon the subject
+to &quot;Treaties&quot; under which it seems to be thought that
+trading ships enjoy, in all circumstances, rights of free
+navigation through the Straits in question which they
+would not have possessed otherwise. I should like,
+therefore, with your permission, to state what seem to be
+the relevant Treaty provisions upon the subject, whether
+between the Powers constituting the European Concert
+collectively, or between Russia and Turkey as individual
+Powers.</p>
+
+<p>As to what may be described as the &quot;European&quot; Treaties,
+it is necessary, once for all, to put aside as irrelevant
+Art. 10 of the Treaty of Paris of 1856 and its annexed
+Convention; Art. 2 of the Treaty of London of 1871; and
+the confirmatory Art. 63 of the Treaty of Berlin of 1878.
+These articles have exclusive reference to the &quot;ancient
+rule of the Ottoman Empire,&quot; under which, so long as the
+Porte is at peace, no foreign ships of war are to be admitted
+into the Straits. There are, however, two articles, still
+in force, of these &quot;European&quot; Treaties which may seem to
+bear upon the present inquiry. By Art. 12 of the Treaty
+of Paris:&mdash;</p>
+
+<div class="letterquot"><p>&quot;Free from any impediment, the commerce in the ports and waters of
+the Black Sea shall be subject only to regulations of health, Customs,
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page057" id="page057">[057]</a></span>and police, framed in a spirit favourable to the development of
+commercial transactions.&quot;</p></div>
+
+<p>And by Art. 3 of the Treaty of London:&mdash;</p>
+
+<div class="letterquot"><p>&quot;The Black Sea remains open, as heretofore, to the mercantile
+marine of all nations.&quot;</p></div>
+
+<p>It is submitted that these provisions relate solely to
+commerce carried on by vessels already within the Black Sea,
+and contain no covenant for an unrestricted right of access
+to that sea.</p>
+
+<p>As between Russia and Turkey individually, Treaties
+which are still in force purport, no doubt, to give to the
+former a stronger claim to free passage through the Straits
+for her mercantile marine than that which can be supposed
+to be enjoyed by other Powers. By Art. 7, for instance,
+of the Treaty of Adrianople of 1829, the Porte recognises
+and declares the passage of the &quot;Canal de Constantinople,&quot;
+and of the Strait of the Dardanelles, to be entirely free and
+open to Russian merchant vessels; and goes on to extend
+the same privilege to the merchant vessels of all Powers
+at peace with Turkey. Art. 24 of the Treaty of San
+Stefano is still more explicit, providing that &quot;the Bosporus
+and Dardanelles shall remain open in time of war as in time
+of peace to the merchant vessels of neutral States arriving
+from or bound to Russian ports.&quot; The rest of the article
+contains a promise by the Porte never henceforth to establish
+a &quot;fictitious blockade, at variance with the spirit of the
+Declaration of Paris&quot;; meaning thereby such a blockade
+of ports on the Black Sea as had been enforced by Turkish
+ships of war stationed at the entrance to the Bosporus.</p>
+
+<p>It may well be doubted whether these articles, containing
+concessions extorted from Turkey at the end of wars in
+which she had been defeated, ought not, like so many other
+provisions of the Treaty of San Stefano, to have been
+abrogated by the Treaty of Berlin. They are of such a
+character that, in the struggle for existence, Turkey can
+hardly be blamed for disregarding them. As was said
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page058" id="page058">[058]</a></span>long ago, &quot;Ius commerciorum aequum est, at hoc acquius,
+tuendae salutis.&quot; The imperious necessities of
+self-preservation were recognised both by Lord Morley and
+by Lord Lansdowne in the debate which took place on May 3,
+although Lord Lansdowne intimated that</p>
+
+<div class="letterquot"><p>&quot;the real question, which will have to be considered sooner or later, is
+the extent to which a belligerent Power, controlling narrow waters
+which form a great trade avenue for the commerce of the world, is
+justified in entirely closing such an avenue in order to facilitate the
+hostile operations in which the Power finds itself involved.&quot;</p></div>
+
+<p>It is, I think, clear that the solution of a question at once
+so novel and so delicate must be undertaken, not by any
+one Power, but by the Concert of Europe, or of the civilised
+world, which must devise some guarantee for the safety
+of any littoral Power which would be called upon in the
+general interest to restrict its measures of self-defence. In
+the meantime, we may surely say that the case is provided
+for neither by established international law nor by
+&quot;European&quot; Treaties; and, further, that the Treaties between
+Russia and Turkey, which do provide for it, are not such
+as it is desirable to perpetuate.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, May 22 (1912).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="THE-CLOSING-OF-THE-DARDANELLES-B" />THE CLOSING OF THE DARDANELLES</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;I am reminded by Mr. Lucien Wolf's courteous
+letter that I ought probably to have mentioned, in alluding
+to the Treaty of San Stefano, that it is doubtful whether
+Art. 24 of that Treaty is in force. It was certainly left
+untouched by the Treaty of Berlin, but the language of
+the relevant article (3) of the definitive Treaty of Peace
+of 1879 is somewhat obscure, nor is much light to be gained
+upon the point from the protocol of the 14th <i>s&eacute;ance</i> of the
+Congress of Berlin, at which Art. 24 came up for discussion.</p>
+
+<p>The earlier Treaties, however, which were revived beyond
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page059" id="page059">[059]</a></span>question by Art. 10 of the Treaty of 1879, grant to Russian
+merchant vessels full rights of passage between the Black
+Sea and the &AElig;gean, exercisable, for all that appears, in
+time of war as well as of peace, although these Treaties
+contain no express words to that effect. Such rights, I
+would again urge, if enjoyed by one Power, should be
+enjoyed by all; upon terms to be settled, not by any pair
+of Powers but by the Powers collectively.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, June 5 (1912).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+<hr style='width: 45%;' />
+
+<h3 class="sectionhead"><a name="CHAPTER_VI_SECTION_3" />SECTION 3</h3>
+
+<p class="subsectionhead">In a Special Danger Zone?</p>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="THE-GERMAN-THREAT" />THE GERMAN THREAT</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;It may perhaps be desirable, for the benefit of
+the general reader, to distinguish clearly between the two
+topics dealt with in the recent announcement of German
+naval policy.</p>
+
+<p>1. We find in it what may, at first sight, suggest the
+establishment of a gigantic &quot;paper blockade,&quot; such as
+was proclaimed in the Berlin Decree of 1806, stating that
+&quot;Les &icirc;les Britanniques sont d&eacute;clar&eacute;es en &eacute;tat de blocus.&quot;
+But in the new decree the term &quot;blockade&quot; does not
+occur, nor is there any indication of an intention to comply
+with the prescriptions of the Declaration of Paris of 1856
+as to the mode in which such an operation must be
+conducted. What we really find in the announcement is the
+specification of certain large spaces of water, including
+the whole of the British Channel, within which German
+ships will endeavour to perpetrate the atrocities about
+to be mentioned.</p>
+
+<p>2. These promised, and already perpetrated, atrocities
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page060" id="page060">[060]</a></span>consist in the destruction of merchant shipping without
+any of those decent preliminary steps, for the protection
+of human life and neutral property, which are insisted
+on by long established rules of international law. Under
+these rules, the exercise of violence against a merchant
+vessel is permissible, in the first instance, only in case of
+her attempting by resistance or flight to frustrate the right
+of visit which belongs to every belligerent cruiser. Should
+she obey the cruiser's summons to stop, and allow its officers
+to come on board, they will satisfy themselves, by examination
+of her papers, and, if necessary, by further search,
+of the nationality of ship and cargo, of the destination of
+each, and of the character of the latter. They will then
+decide whether or no they should make prize of the ship,
+and in some cases may feel justified in sending a prize to
+the bottom, instead of taking her into port. Before doing
+so it is their bounden duty to preserve the ship papers, and,
+what is far more important, to provide for the safety of all
+on board.</p>
+
+<p>This procedure seems to have been followed, more or
+less, by the submarines which sank the <i>Durward</i> in the
+North Sea, and several small vessels near the Mersey, but
+is obviously possible to such craft only under very
+exceptional circumstances. It was scandalously not followed
+in the cases of the <i>Tokomaru</i>, the <i>Ikaria</i>, and the
+hospital ship (!) <i>Asturias</i>, against which a submarine fired
+torpedoes, off Havre, without warning or inquiry, and, of course,
+regardless of the fate of those on board. The threat that
+similar methods of attack will be systematically employed,
+on a large scale, on and after the 18th inst., naturally
+excites as much indignation among neutrals as among
+the Allies of the Entente.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, February 12 (1915).</div><br />
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page061" id="page061">[061]</a></span></div>
+
+<hr style='width: 45%;' />
+
+<h3 class="sectionhead"><a name="CHAPTER_VI_SECTION_4" />SECTION 4</h3>
+
+<p class="subsectionhead">Aerial Warfare</p>
+
+<div class="intronotes"><p>It may be desirable to supplement what is said in the following
+letters by mentioning that the Declaration of 1899 (to remain in force
+for five years) was largely ratified, though not by Great Britain; that of
+1907 (to remain in force till the termination of the third Peace
+Conference) was ratified by Great Britain and by most of the other great
+Powers in 1909, not, however, by Germany or Austria; that aerial
+navigation is regulated by the Acts, I &amp; 2 Geo. 5, c. 4, and 2 &amp; 3 Geo. 5,
+c. 22; and that an agreement upon the subject was entered into
+between France and Germany, on July 26, 1913, by exchange of notes,
+&quot;en attendant la conclusion d'une convention sur cette mati&egrave;re entre
+un plus grand nombre d'&eacute;tats&quot; (the international Conference held at
+Paris in 1910 had failed to agree upon the terms of such a Convention);
+and that Art. 25 of The Hague Convention of 1907, No. iv., was ratified
+by Great Britain, and generally.</p></div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="THE-DEBATE-ON-AERONAUTICS" />THE DEBATE ON AERONAUTICS</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;It is not to be wondered at that the Chairman
+of Committees declined to allow yesterday's debate on
+aviation to diverge into an enquiry whether the Powers
+could be induced to prohibit, or limit, the dropping of
+high explosives from aerial machines in war time. The
+question is, however, one of great interest, and it may be
+desirable, with a view to future discussions, to state precisely,
+since little seems to be generally known upon the subject,
+what has already been attempted in this direction.</p>
+
+<p>In the <i>R&egrave;glement</i> annexed to The Hague Convention
+of 1899, as to the &quot;Laws and Customs of War on Land,&quot;
+Art. 23, which specifically prohibits certain &quot;means of
+injuring the enemy,&quot; makes no mention of aerial methods;
+but Art. 25, which prohibits &quot;the bombardment of towns,
+villages, habitations, or buildings, which are not defended,&quot;
+was strengthened, when the <i>R&egrave;glement</i> was reissued in
+1907 as an annexe to the, as yet not generally ratified,
+Hague Convention No. iv. of that year, by the insertion,
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page062" id="page062">[062]</a></span>after the word &quot;bombardment,&quot; of the words &quot;by any
+means whatever,&quot; with the expressed intention of including
+in the prohibition the throwing of projectiles from balloons.</p>
+
+<p>The Hague Convention No. ix. of 1907, also not yet
+generally ratified, purports to close a long controversy, in
+accordance with the view which you allowed me to advocate,
+with reference to the naval manoeuvres of 1888, by
+prohibiting the &quot;naval bombardment of ports, towns, villages,
+habitations, or buildings, which are not defended.&quot; The
+words &quot;by any means whatever&quot; have not been here inserted,
+one would incline to think by inadvertence, having
+regard to what passed in Committee, and to the recital
+of the Convention, which sets out the propriety of extending
+to naval bombardments the principles of the <i>R&egrave;glement</i>
+(cited, perhaps again by inadvertence, as that of 1899) as
+to the Laws and Customs of War on Land.</p>
+
+<p>But the topic was first squarely dealt with by the first
+of the three Hague Declarations of 1899, by which the
+Powers agreed to prohibit, for five years, &quot;the throwing
+of projectiles and explosives from balloons, or by other
+analogous new methods.&quot; The Declaration was signed
+and ratified by almost all the Powers concerned; not,
+however, by Great Britain.</p>
+
+<p>At The Hague Conference of 1907, when the Belgian
+delegates proposed that this Declaration, which had expired
+by efflux of time, should be renewed, some curious changes
+of opinion were found to have occurred. Twenty-nine
+Powers, of which Great Britain was one, voted for renewal,
+but eight Powers, including Germany, Spain, France, and
+Russia, were opposed to it, while seven Powers, one of
+which was Japan, abstained from voting. The Japanese
+delegation had previously intimated that, &quot;in view of the
+absence of unanimity on the part of the great military
+Powers, there seemed to be no great use in binding their
+country as against certain Powers, while, as against the
+rest, it would still be necessary to study and bring to perfection
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page063" id="page063">[063]</a></span>this mode of making war.&quot; Although the Declaration,
+as renewed, was allowed to figure in the &quot;Acte final&quot;
+of the Conference of 1907, the dissent from it of several
+Powers of the first importance must render its ratification
+by the others highly improbable; nor would it seem worth
+while to renew, for some time to come, a proposal which,
+only two years ago, was so ill received.</p>
+
+<p>I may perhaps add, with reference to what was said
+by one of yesterday's speakers, that any provision on the
+topic under discussion would be quite out of place in the
+Geneva Convention, which deals, not with permissible
+means of inflicting injury, but exclusively with the
+treatment of those who are suffering from injuries inflicted.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, August 3 (1909).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="THE-AERIAL-NAVIGATION-ACT" />THE AERIAL NAVIGATION ACT<br /><br />
+PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;The haste with which Colonel Seely's Bill, authorising
+resort to extreme measures for the prevention of
+aerial trespass under suspicious circumstances, has been
+passed through all its stages, was amply justified by the
+urgent need for such legislation, which Russia seems to
+have been the first to recognise. The task of those
+responsible for framing regulations for the working of the
+new Act will be no easy one. They will be brought face to
+face with practical difficulties, such as led to the
+adjournment of the Paris Conference of 1910.</p>
+
+<p>In the meantime, it may interest your readers to have
+some clue to what has taken place, with reference to the
+more theoretical aspects of the questions involved, in so
+competent and representative a body as the Institut de
+Droit International. The Institut has had the topic
+under consideration ever since 1900, more especially at
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page064" id="page064">[064]</a></span>its sessions for the years 1902, 1906, 1910, and 1911. In
+the volumes of its &quot;Annuaire&quot; for those years will be found
+not only the text of the resolutions adopted on each occasion,
+together with a summary account of the debates which
+preceded their adoption, but also, fully set out, the material
+which had been previously circulated for the information
+of members, in the shape of reports and counter-reports
+from inter-sessional committees, draft resolutions, and
+such critical observations upon these documents as had
+been received by the secretary. The special committee upon
+the subject, of which M. Fauchille is <i>Rapporteur</i>, is still
+sitting, and the topic will doubtless be further debated at
+the session of the Institut, which will this year be held at
+Oxford. No success has attended efforts to pass resolutions
+in favour of any interference with the employment of
+<i>a&eacute;ronefs</i> in time of war, such as was proposed by The
+(now discredited) Hague Declaration, prohibiting the throwing
+of projectiles and explosives from airships. With reference
+to the use of these machines in time of peace, the debates
+have all along revealed a fundamental divergence of opinion
+between the majority of the Institut and a minority,
+comprising those English members who have made known their
+views. Both parties are agreed that aerial navigation
+must submit to some restrictions, but the majority,
+starting from the Roman law dictum, &quot;Naturali iure omnium
+communia sunt <i>aer</i>, aqua profluens, et mare,&quot; would
+always presume in favour of freedom of passage. The minority,
+on the other hand, citing sometimes the old English saying,
+&quot;Cuius est solum eius est usque ad coelum,&quot; hold that
+the presumption must be in favour of sovereignty and
+ownership as applicable to superimposed air space.</p>
+
+<p>It is hardly necessary to observe that neither of the
+maxims just mentioned was formulated with reference
+to problems which have only presented themselves within
+the last few years. The Romans, in the passage quoted,
+were thinking not of aerial space, but of the element which
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page065" id="page065">[065]</a></span>fills it. The old English lawyers were preoccupied with
+questions as to projecting roofs and overhanging boughs
+of trees. The problems now raised are admittedly incapable
+of solution <i>a priori</i>, but the difference between the
+two schools of thinkers is instructive, as bearing upon the
+extent to which those who belong to one or the other school
+would incline towards measures of precaution against
+abuses of the novel art. This difference was well summed
+up at one of our meetings by Professor Westlake as follows:
+&quot;Conservation et passage, comment combiner ces deux
+droits? Lequel des deux est la r&egrave;gle? Lequel l'exception?
+Pour le Rapporteur (M. Fauchille) c'est le droit de passage
+qui prime. Pour moi c'est le droit de conservation.&quot;</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, February 15 (1913).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="SOVEREIGNTY-OVER-THE-AIR" />SOVEREIGNTY OVER THE AIR</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;Mr. Arthur Cohen has done good service by
+explaining that Great Britain has practically asserted the
+right of a State to absolute control of the airspace
+vertically above its territory. I may, however, perhaps be
+permitted to remark that he seems to have been misinformed
+when he states that the Institute of International
+Law has arrived at no decision upon the subject. The
+facts are as follows: The problems presented by the new
+art of aerostation have been under the consideration of the
+Institute since 1900, producing a large literature of reports,
+counter-reports, observations, and draft rules, to debates
+upon which no fewer than four sittings were devoted at
+the Madrid meeting in 1911. Wide differences of opinion
+then disclosed themselves as to territorial rights over the
+air, the radical opposition being between those members
+who, with M. Fauchille, the Reporter of the Committee,
+would presume in favour of freedom of aerial navigation,
+subject, as they would admit, to some measures of
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page066" id="page066">[066]</a></span>territorial precaution, and those who, like the present
+writer (&quot;il se proclame oppos&eacute; au principe de la libert&eacute; de
+la navigation a&eacute;rienne, et <ins class="correction"
+  title="Transcriber's note: Printed _s'entiendrait_ in original.">
+s'en tiendrait</ins> plut&ocirc;t au principe
+<i>cuius est solum, huius est usque ad coelum</i>, en y apportant
+au besoin quelques restrictions,&quot; &quot;Annuaire,&quot; p. 821),
+would subject all aerial access to the discretion of the
+territorial Power.</p>
+
+<p>The discussion took place upon certain <i>bases</i>, and No. 3
+of these was ultimately adopted, though only by 21 against
+10 votes, to the following effect: &quot;La circulation a&eacute;rienne
+internationale est libre, sauf le droit pour les &eacute;tats
+sous-jacents de prendre certaines mesures &agrave; d&eacute;terminer, en vue
+de leur s&eacute;curit&eacute; et de celle des personnes et des biens de
+leur territoire.&quot;</p>
+
+<p>The Institut then proceeded to deal with <i>bases</i> relating
+to a time of war, but was unable to make much progress
+with them in the time available. The debate upon the
+&quot;R&eacute;gime juridique des a&eacute;rostats&quot; was not resumed at
+Christiania in 1911, nor is it likely to be at Oxford &quot;in the
+autumn of the present year,&quot; as Mr. Cohen has been led to
+suppose. Other arrangements were found to be necessary,
+at a meeting which took place a week ago between myself
+and the other members of our <i>bureau</i>.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, May 30 (1913).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="ATTACK-FROM-THE-AIR-THE-ENFORCEMENT-OF-INTERNATIONAL-LAW" />ATTACK FROM THE AIR<br /><br />
+THE ENFORCEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL LAW</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;In his interesting and important address at the
+Royal United Service Institution, Colonel Jackson inquired:
+&quot;Can any student of international law tell us definitely
+that such a thing as aerial attack on London is outside
+the rules; and, further, that there exists an authority by
+which the rules can be enforced?&quot; As one of the students
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page067" id="page067">[067]</a></span>to whom the Colonel appeals I should be glad to be allowed
+to reply to the first of his questions.</p>
+
+<p>The &quot;Geneva Convention&quot; mentioned in the address
+has, of course, no bearing upon aerial dangers. The answer
+to the question is contained in the, now generally ratified,
+Hague Convention No. iv. of 1907. Art. 25 of the regulations
+annexed to this Convention runs as follows:</p>
+
+<div class="letterquot"><p>&quot;It is forbidden to attack or to bombard <i>by any means whatever
+(par quelque moyen que ce soit)</i> towns, villages, habitations, or
+buildings which are not defended.&quot;</p></div>
+
+<p>It clearly appears from the &quot;Actes de la Conf&eacute;rence,&quot; <i>e.g.</i>
+<i>T.</i> i., pp. 106, 109, that the words which I have italicised
+were inserted in the article, deliberately and after
+considerable discussion, in order to render illegal any attack
+from the air upon undefended localities; among which I
+conceive that London would unquestionably be included.</p>
+
+<p>I cannot venture to ask the hospitality of your columns
+for an adequate discussion of the gallant officer's second
+question, as to the binding force attributable to
+international law. Upon this I may, however, perhaps venture
+to refer him to some brief remarks, addressed to you a
+good many years ago, and now to be found at pp. 101 and
+105 of the new edition of my &quot;Letters to <i>The Times</i> upon
+War and Neutrality (1881-1918).&quot;</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, April 24 (1914).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="ATTACK-FROM-THE-AIR-THE-RULES-OF-INTERNATIONAL-LAW" />ATTACK FROM THE AIR<br /><br />
+
+THE RULES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;In reply to Colonel Jackson's inquiry as to any
+rule of international law bearing upon aerial attack upon
+London, I referred him to the, now generally accepted,
+prohibition of the &quot;bombardment, <i>by any means whatever</i>,
+of towns, &amp;c., which are not defended.&quot; This rule has
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page068" id="page068">[068]</a></span>been growing into its present form ever since the Brussels
+Conference of 1874. The words italicised were added to
+it in 1907, to show that it applies to the action of <i>a&eacute;ronefs</i>
+as well as to that of land batteries. It clearly prohibits
+any wanton bombardment, undertaken with no distinctly
+military object in view, and the prohibition is much more
+sweeping, for reasons not far to seek, than that imposed
+by Convention No. ix. of 1907 upon the treatment of coast
+towns by hostile fleets.</p>
+
+<p>So far good; but further questions arise, as to which
+no diplomatically authoritative answers are as yet available;
+and I, for one, am not wise above that which is
+written. One asks, for instance, what places are <i>prima
+facie</i> &quot;undefended.&quot; Can a &quot;great centre of population&quot;
+claim this character, although it contains barracks, stores,
+and bodies of troops? For the affirmative I can vouch
+only the authority of the Institut de Droit International,
+which in 1896, in the course of the discussion of a draft
+prepared by General Den Beer Pourtugael and myself,
+adopted a statement to that effect. A different view
+seems to be taken in the German <i>Kriegsbrauch</i>, p. 22. One
+also asks: Under what circumstances does a place, <i>prima
+facie</i>, &quot;undefended,&quot; cease to possess that character?
+Doubtless so soon as access to it is forcibly denied to the
+land forces of the enemy; hardly, to borrow an illustration
+from Colonel Jackson's letter of Thursday last, should the
+place merely decline to submit to the dictation of two men
+in an aeroplane.</p>
+
+<p>I read with great pleasure the colonel's warning,
+addressed to the United Service Institution, and am as
+little desirous as he is that London should rely for protection
+upon The Hague article, ambiguous as I have
+confessed it to be; trusting, indeed, that our capital may
+be enabled so to act at once in case of danger as wholly to
+forfeit such claim as it may in ordinary times possess to
+be considered an &quot;undefended&quot; town. Let the principle
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page069" id="page069">[069]</a></span>involved in Art. 25 be carried into much further detail,
+should that be found feasible, but, in the meantime, let us
+not for a moment relax our preparation of vertical firing
+guns and defensive aeroplanes.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, May 2 (1914).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+<div class="postnotes"><p>The war of 1914 has definitely established the employment of
+aircraft for hostile purposes, and, as evidenced by the reception given
+by belligerents to neutral protests, the sovereignty of a state over its
+superincumbent air-spaces.</p>
+
+<p>On the bombardment of undefended places, <i>cf. supra</i>, pp. <a href="#page030">30</a>, <a href="#page062">62</a>,
+<a href="#page067">67</a>, <a href="#page068">68</a>; <i>infra</i>, pp. <a href="#page097">97</a>, <a href="#page109">109</a>, <a href="#page112">112</a>-123.</p>
+
+<p>On the authority of International Law, <i>supra</i>, pp. <a href="#page025">25</a>, <a href="#page066">66</a>, <a href="#page067">67</a>; <i>infra</i>,
+pp. <a href="#page077">77</a>, <a href="#page114">114</a>, <a href="#page115">115</a>, <a href="#page137">137</a>, <a href="#page169">169</a>.</p></div>
+
+<hr style='width: 45%;' />
+
+<h3 class="sectionhead"><a name="CHAPTER_VI_SECTION_5" />SECTION 5</h3>
+
+<p class="subsectionhead">Submarines</p>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="GERMANY-AND-THE-HAGUE" />GERMANY AND THE HAGUE</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;One excuse for German atrocities put forward,
+as you report, in the <i>Kolnische Zeitung</i>, ought probably
+not to pass unnoticed, denying, as it does, any binding
+authority to the restrictions imposed upon the conduct of
+warfare, on land or at sea, by The Hague Conventions of
+1907. It is true that each of these Conventions contains
+an article to the effect that its provisions &quot;are applicable
+only between the contracting Powers, and only if all the
+belligerents are parties to the Convention.&quot; It is also true
+that three of the belligerents in the world-war now raging&mdash;namely,
+Serbia, Montenegro, and, recently, Turkey&mdash;although
+they have (through their delegates) signed these
+Conventions, have not yet ratified them. Therefore, urges
+the <i>Zeitung</i>, the Conventions are, for present purposes,
+waste paper. The argument is as technically correct as
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page070" id="page070">[070]</a></span>its application would be unreasonable; and I should like
+to recall the fact that, in the important prize case of the
+<i>M&ouml;we</i>, Sir Samuel Evans, in a considered judgment, pointed
+out the undesirability of refusing application to the maritime
+conventions because they had not been ratified by
+Montenegro, which has no navy, or by Serbia, which has
+no seaboard; and accordingly, even after Turkey, which
+also has not ratified, had become a belligerent, declined to
+deprive a German shipowner of an indulgence to which he
+was entitled under the Sixth Hague Convention.</p>
+
+<p>Admiral von Tirpitz was perhaps not serious when he
+intimated to the representative of the United Press of
+America that German submarines might be instructed to
+torpedo all trading vessels of the Allies which approach
+the British coasts. The first duty of a ship of war which
+proposes to sink an enemy vessel is admittedly, before so
+doing, to provide for the safety of all its occupants, which
+(except in certain rare eventualities) can only be secured
+by their being taken on board of the warship. A submarine
+has obviously no space to spare for such an addition to
+its own staff.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, December 26 (1914).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+<div class="postnotes"><p>The charitable view taken in the last paragraph has, of course, not
+been justified.</p>
+
+<p>For the <i>M&ouml;we</i>, see 2 Lloyd, 70. On the restrictive article in The
+Hague Convention, <i>cf. passim</i>.</p></div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="THE-PIRATES" />&quot;THE PIRATES&quot;</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;Would it not be desirable, in discussing the
+execrable tactics of the German submarines, to abandon
+the employment of the terms &quot;piracy&quot; and &quot;murder,&quot;
+unless with a distinct understanding that they are used
+merely as terms of abuse?</p>
+
+<p>A ship is regarded by international law as &quot;piratical&quot;<span class="newpage"><a name="page071" id="page071">[071]</a></span>
+only if, upon the high seas, she either attacks other vessels,
+without being commissioned by any State so to do (<i>nullius
+Principis auctoritate</i>, as Bynkershoek puts it), or wrongfully
+displaces the authority of her own commander. The
+essence of the offence is absence of authority, although
+certain countries, for their own purposes, have, by treaty
+or legislation, given a wider meaning to the term, <i>e.g.</i>, by
+applying it to the slave-trade. &quot;Murder&quot; is such slaying
+as is forbidden by the national law of the country which
+takes cognizance of it.</p>
+
+<p>In ordering the conduct of which we complain, Germany
+commits an atrocious crime against humanity and public
+law; but those who, being duly commissioned, carry out
+her orders, are neither pirates nor murderers. The question
+of the treatment appropriate to such persons, when they
+fall into our hands, is a new one, needing careful consideration.
+In any case, it is not for us to rival the barbarism
+of their Government by allowing them to drown.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, March 13 (1915)</div><br />
+</div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="SUBMARINE-CREWS" />SUBMARINE CREWS</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;My letter in <i>The Times</i> of March 15 with reference
+to the conduct of certain of the German submarines has
+been followed by a good many other letters upon the same
+subject. Some of your correspondents have travelled far
+from the question at issue into the general question of
+permissible reprisals, into which I have no intention of
+following them. But others, by exhibiting what I may
+venture to describe as an <i>ignoratio elenchi</i>, have made it
+desirable to recall attention to the specific purport of my
+former letter. It was to the effect&mdash;(1) that the acts of
+those who, in pursuance of a Government commission, sink
+merchant vessels without warning are not &quot;piracy,&quot; the
+essence of that offence at international law being that it
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page072" id="page072">[072]</a></span>is committed under no recognised authority; and that
+neither is it &quot;murder&quot; under English law; (2) that the
+question of the treatment appropriate to the perpetrators
+of such acts, even under the orders of their Government,
+is a new one, needing careful consideration. I was, of
+course, far from stating, as a general rule, that Government
+authority exempts all who act under it from penal consequences.
+The long-established treatment of spies is
+sufficient proof to the contrary.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, March 22 (1915).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="MR-WILSONS-NOTE" />MR. WILSON'S NOTE</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;I may perhaps be permitted to endorse every
+word of the high praise bestowed in your leading article
+of this morning upon the Note addressed to Germany by
+the Government of the United States. The frequent
+mentions which it contains of &quot;American ships,&quot; &quot;American
+citizens,&quot; and the like, were, no doubt, natural and
+necessary, as establishing the <i>locus standi</i> of that Government
+in the controversy which it is carrying on. But we
+find also in the Note matters of even more transcendent
+interest, relating to the hitherto universally accepted
+doctrines of international law, applicable to the treatment
+of enemy as well as of neutral vessels.</p>
+
+<p>It may suffice to cite the paragraph which assumes as
+indisputable</p>
+
+<div class="letterquot"><p>&quot;the rule that the lives of non-combatants, whether they be of neutral
+citizenship or citizens of one of the nations at war, cannot lawfully or
+rightfully be put in jeopardy by the capture or destruction of unarmed
+merchantmen,&quot;</p></div>
+
+<p>as also</p>
+
+<div class="letterquot"><p>&quot;the obligation to take the usual precaution of visit and search to
+ascertain whether a suspected merchantman is in fact of belligerent
+nationality, or is in fact carrying contraband under a neutral flag.&quot;<span class="newpage"><a name="page073" id="page073">[073]</a></span></p></div>
+
+<p>[I assume that the word &quot;unarmed&quot; here does not
+exclude the case of a vessel carrying arms solely for
+defence.]</p>
+
+<p>The Note also recognises, what you some time ago
+allowed me to point out,</p>
+
+<div class="letterquot"><p>&quot;the practical impossibility of employing submarines in the destruction
+of commerce without disregarding those rules of fairness, reason, justice,
+and humanity which modern opinion regards as imperative.&quot;</p></div>
+
+<p>Adding:&mdash;</p>
+
+<div class="letterquot"><p>&quot;It is practically impossible for them to make a prize of her, and
+if they cannot put a prize crew on board, they cannot sink her without
+leaving her crew and all on board her to the mercy of the sea in her
+small boats.&quot;</p></div>
+
+<p>Nothing could be more satisfactory than the views
+thus authoritatively put forth, first as to the applicable
+law, and secondly as to the means by which its prescriptions
+can be carried out.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Brighton, May 15 (1915).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+<div class="postnotes"><p><i>Cf. supra</i>, p. <a href="#page070">70</a>.</p></div>
+
+<hr style='width: 45%;' />
+
+<h3 class="sectionhead"><a name="CHAPTER_VI_SECTION_6" />SECTION 6</h3>
+
+<p class="subsectionhead">Lawful Belligerents</p>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="GUERILLA-WARFARE" />GUERILLA WARFARE</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;When Mr. Balfour last night quoted certain
+articles of the &quot;Instructions for the Government of Armies
+of the United States in the Field&quot; with reference to guerilla
+warfare, some observations were made, and questions
+put, upon which you will perhaps allow me to say a
+word or two.</p>
+
+<p>1. Mr. Healy seemed to think that something turned
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page074" id="page074">[074]</a></span>upon the date (May, 1898) at which these articles were
+promulgated. In point of fact they were a mere reissue of
+articles drawn by the well-known jurist Francis Lieber,
+and, after revision by a military board, issued in April,
+1868 by President Lincoln.</p>
+
+<p>2. To Mr. Morley's enquiry, &quot;Have we no rules of our
+own?&quot; the answer must be in the negative. The traditional
+policy of our War Office has been to &quot;trust to the
+good sense of the British officer.&quot; This policy, though
+surprisingly justified by results, is so opposed to modern
+practice and opinion that, as far back as 1878-80, I
+endeavoured, without success, to induce the Office to issue
+to the Army some authoritative, though simple, body of
+instructions such as have been issued on the Continent of
+Europe and in America. The War Office was, however,
+content to include in its &quot;Manual of Military Law,&quot; published
+in 1888, a chapter which is avowedly unauthoritative,
+and expressly stated to contain only &quot;the opinions of the
+compiler, as drawn from the authorities cited.&quot;</p>
+
+<p>3. The answer to Sir William Harcourt's unanswered
+question, &quot;Were there no rules settled at the Hague?&quot;
+must be as follows. The Hague Convention of 1899, upon
+&quot;the laws and customs of warfare,&quot; ratified by this country
+on September 4 last, binds the contracting parties to give
+to their respective armies instructions in conformity with
+the <i>R&egrave;glement</i> annexed to the Convention. This <i>R&egrave;glement</i>,
+which is substantially a reproduction of the unratified
+<i>projet</i> of the Brussels Conference of 1874, does deal, in
+Arts. 1-3, with guerilla warfare. It is no doubt highly
+desirable that, as soon as may be, the drafting of rules in
+accordance with the <i>R&egrave;glement</i> should be seriously taken in
+hand, our Government having now abandoned its <i>non
+possumus</i> attitude in the matter. It will, however, be found
+to be the case, as was pointed out by Mr. Balfour, that the
+sharp distinction between combatants and non-combatants
+contemplated by the ordinary laws of war is inapplicable<span class="newpage"><a name="page075" id="page075">[075]</a></span>
+(without the exercise of undue severity) to operations such
+as those now being carried out in South Africa.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, December 7 (1900).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+<div class="postnotes"><p>&quot;Lieber's Instructions,&quot; issued in 1863 and reissued in 1898, will
+doubtless be superseded, or modified, in consequence of the United
+States having, on April 9, 1902, ratified the Convention of 1899, and
+on March 10, 1908, that of 1907, as to the Laws and Customs of War
+on Land.</p>
+
+<p>The answer to Mr. Morley's enquiry in 1900 would not now be in the
+negative. The present writer's representations resulted in Mr. Brodrick,
+when Secretary for War, commissioning him to prepare a Handbook of
+the <i>Laws and Customs of War on Land</i>, which was issued to the Army
+by authority in 1904. On the instructions issued by other National
+Governments, see the author's <i>Laws of War on Land</i>, 1908, pp. 71-73.</p>
+
+<p>The answer, given in the letter, to Sir William Harcourt's question
+must now be supplemented by a reference to the Handbook above
+mentioned as having contained rules founded upon the <i>R&egrave;glement</i>
+annexed to the Convention of 1899, and by a statement that that
+Convention, with its <i>R&egrave;glement</i>, is now superseded by Conventions
+No. iv. (with its <i>R&egrave;glement</i>) and No. v. of 1907, of which account has
+been taken in a new Handbook upon <i>Land Warfare</i>, issued by the War
+Office in 1913.</p>
+
+<p>As to what is required from a lawful belligerent, see Arts. 1 and 2
+of the <i>R&egrave;glement</i> of 1899, practically repeated in that of 1907. The
+substance of Art. 1 is set out in the letter which follows.</p>
+
+<p>Art. 2 grants some indulgence to &quot;the population of a territory
+which has not been occupied who, on the approach of the enemy,
+spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading troops, without
+having had time to organise themselves in accordance with Art. 1.&quot;
+<i>Cf. infra</i>, pp. <a href="#page076">76</a>, <a href="#page079">79</a>.</p></div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="THE-RUSSIAN-USE-OF-CHINESE-CLOTHING" />THE RUSSIAN USE OF CHINESE CLOTHING</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;If Russian troops have actually attacked while
+disguised in Chinese costume, they have certainly violated
+the laws of war. It may, however, be worth while, to point
+out that the case is not covered, as might be inferred from
+the telegram forwarded to you from Tokio on Wednesday
+last, by the text of Art. 23 (<i>f</i>) of the <i>R&egrave;glement</i> annexed to<span class="newpage"><a name="page076" id="page076">[076]</a></span>
+The Hague Convention &quot;on the laws and customs of war
+on land.&quot; This article merely prohibits &quot;making improper
+use of the flag of truce, of the national flag or the military
+distinguishing marks and the uniform of the enemy, as well
+as of the distinguishing signs of the Geneva Convention.&quot;</p>
+
+<p>Art. 1 of the <i>R&egrave;glement</i> is more nearly in point, insisting,
+as it does, that even bodies not belonging to the regular
+army, which, it is assumed, would be in uniform (except
+in the case of a hasty rising to resist invasion), shall, in order
+to be treated as &quot;lawful belligerents,&quot; satisfy the following
+requirements, <i>viz.</i>:&mdash;</p>
+
+<div class="letterquot"><p>&quot;(1) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his
+subordinates;</p>
+
+<p>&quot;(2) That of having a distinctive mark, recognisable at a distance;</p>
+
+<p>&quot;(3) That of carrying their arms openly; and</p>
+
+<p>&quot;(4) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the
+laws and customs of war.&quot;</p></div>
+
+<p>The fact that, in special circumstances, as in the Boer
+war, marks in the nature of uniform have not been insisted
+upon, has, of course, no bearing upon the complaint now
+made by the Japanese Government.</p>
+
+<p>All signatories of The Hague Convention are bound
+to issue to their troops instructions in conformity with
+the <i>R&egrave;glement</i> annexed to it. The only countries which,
+so far as I am aware, have as yet fulfilled their obligations
+in this respect are Italy, which has circulated the French
+text of the <i>R&egrave;glement</i> without comment; Russia, which has
+prepared a little pamphlet of sixteen pages for the use of its
+armies in the Far East; and Great Britain, which has issued
+a Handbook, containing explanatory and supplementary
+matter, besides the text of the relevant diplomatic Acts.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, October 21 (1904).</div><br />
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page077" id="page077">[077]</a></span></div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="THE-RIGHTS-OF-ARMED-CIVILIANS" />THE RIGHTS OF ARMED CIVILIANS</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;It is interesting to be reminded by Sir Edward
+Ridley of the view taken by Sir Walter Scott of the right
+and duty of civilians to defend themselves against an
+invading enemy. International law is, however, made
+neither by the ruling of an &quot;impartial historian,&quot; on the
+one hand, nor by the <i>ipse dixit</i> of an Emperor, on the other.</p>
+
+<p>In point of fact, the question raised by Sir Edward is
+not an open one, and, even in our own favoured country,
+it is most desirable that every one should know exactly
+how matters stand. The universally accepted rules as to
+the persons who alone can claim to act with impunity as
+belligerents are set forth in that well-known &quot;scrap of
+paper&quot; The Hague Convention No. iv. of 1907; to the
+effect that members of &quot;an army&quot; (in which term militia
+and bodies of volunteers are included) must (1) be responsibly
+commanded, (2) bear distinctive marks, visible at a distance,
+(3) carry their arms openly, and (4) conform to the laws of
+war. By way of concession, inhabitants of a district not
+yet &quot;occupied&quot; who spontaneously rise to resist invasion,
+without having had time to become organised, will be
+privileged if they conform to requirements (3) and (4).
+These rules are practically a republication of those of The
+Hague Convention of 1899, which again were founded upon
+the recommendations of the Brussels Conference of 1874,
+although, at the Conference, Baron Lambermont regretted
+that &quot;si les citoyens doivent &ecirc;tre conduits au supplice pour
+avoir tent&eacute; de d&eacute;fendre leur pays, au p&eacute;ril de leur vie, ils
+trouvent inscrit, sur le poteau au pied duquel ils seront
+fusill&eacute;s, l'article d'un Trait&eacute; sign&eacute; par leur propre gouvernement
+qui d'avance les condamnait &agrave; mort.&quot;</p>
+
+<p><i>An Englishman's Home</i> was a play accurately representing
+the accepted practice, shocking as it must be. I
+remember the strength of an epithet which was launched
+from the gallery at the German officer on his ordering the
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page078" id="page078">[078]</a></span>shooting of the offending householder. It may be hardly
+necessary to add that nothing in international usage justifies
+execution of innocent wives and children.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, September 17 (1914).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+<div class="postnotes"><p>This letter was, it seems, perverted in the <i>Kreuz Zeitung</i>.</p></div>
+
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="CIVILIANS-IN-WARFARE-THE-RIGHT-TO-TAKE-UP-ARMS" />CIVILIANS IN WARFARE<br /><br />
+
+THE RIGHT TO TAKE UP ARMS</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;I have read with some surprise so much of Sir
+Ronald Ross's letter of to-day as states that &quot;the issue
+still remains dark&quot; as to the right of civilians to bear arms
+in case of invasion. It has long been settled that non-molestation
+of civilians by an invader is only possible upon
+the understanding that they abstain from acts of violence
+against him. Modern written international law has defined,
+with increasing liberality, by the draft Declaration of 1874
+and the Conventions of 1899 and 1907, the persons who
+will be treated as lawful belligerents. Art. 1 of The Hague
+Regulations of 1907 recognises as such, not only the regular
+army, but also militia and volunteers. Art. 2 grants
+indulgence to a <i>lev&eacute;e en masse</i> of &quot;la population&quot; (officially
+mistranslated &quot;the inhabitants&quot;) of a territory not yet
+occupied. Art. 3, also cited by Sir Ronald, has no bearing
+upon the question.</p>
+
+<p>The rules are, I submit, as clear as they could well be
+made, and are decisive against the legality of resistance by
+individual civilians, the sad, but inevitable consequence of
+which was, as I pointed out in <i>The Times</i> of September 19
+last, truthfully represented on the stage in <i>An Englishman's
+Home</i>.</p>
+
+<p>In the same letter I wrote that &quot;even in our own favoured
+country it is most desirable that every one should know
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page079" id="page079">[079]</a></span>exactly how matters stand.&quot; There are, however, obvious
+objections, possibly not insuperable, to this result being
+brought about, as is proposed by Sir Ronald Ross, by
+Government action.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, October 26 (1914).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="CIVILIANS-AND-A-RAID" />CIVILIANS AND A RAID</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;It is satisfactory to learn, from Mr. McKenna's
+answer to a question last night, that the duty of the civilian
+population, at any rate in certain counties, is engaging the
+attention of Government. I confess, however, to having
+read with surprise Mr. Tennant's announcement that &quot;it
+was provided by The Hague Convention that the wearing
+of a brassard ensured that the wearer would be regarded
+as a belligerent.&quot; It ought surely to be now generally
+known that, among the four conditions imposed by the
+Convention upon Militia and bodies of Volunteers, in order
+to their being treated as belligerents, the third is &quot;that
+they shall bear a distinctive mark, fixed and recognisable
+at a distance.&quot; Whether an enemy would accept the mere
+wearing of a brassard as fulfilling this condition is perhaps
+an open question upon which some light may be thrown
+by the controversies of 1871 with reference to <i>francs-tireurs</i>.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, November 24 (1914).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="MISS-CAVELLS-CASE" />MISS CAVELL'S CASE</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;The world-wide abhorrence of the execution of
+Miss Cavell, aggravated as it was by the indecent and
+stealthy haste with which it was carried out, is in no need
+of enhancement by questionable arguments, such as, I
+venture to say, are those addressed to you by Sir James
+Swettenham.<span class="newpage"><a name="page080" id="page080">[080]</a></span></p>
+
+<p>It is, of course, the case that Germany is in Belgium
+only as the result of her deliberate violation of solemnly
+contracted treaties, but she is in military &quot;occupation&quot;
+of the territory. From such &quot;occupation&quot; it cannot be
+disputed that there flow certain rights of self-defence.
+No one, for instance, would have complained of her stern
+repression of civilian attacks upon her troops, so long as
+it was confined to actual offenders. The passages quoted
+by Sir James from Hague Convention v., and from the
+<i>Kriegsbrauch</i>, relate entirely to the rights and duties of
+Governments, and have no bearing upon the tragical abuse
+of jurisdiction which is occupying the minds of all of us.</p>
+
+<p>May I take this opportunity of calling attention to the
+fresh evidence afforded by the new Order in Council of
+our good fortune in not being bound by the Declaration
+of London, which erroneously professed to &quot;correspond
+in substance with the generally recognised principles of
+International Law&quot;? Is it too late, even now, to announce,
+by a comprehensive Order in Council, any relaxations which
+we and our Allies think proper to make of well-established
+rules of Prize Law, without any reference to the more and
+more discredited provisions of the Declaration, the partial
+and provisional adoption of which seems, at the outbreak
+of the war, to have been thought likely to save trouble?</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">Your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, October 26 (1915).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+<hr style='width: 45%;' />
+
+<h3 class="sectionhead"><a name="CHAPTER_VI_SECTION_7" />SECTION 7</h3>
+
+<p class="subsectionhead">Privateering</p>
+
+<div class="intronotes"><p>The three letters which immediately follow were written to point
+out that neither belligerent in the war of 1898 was under any obligation
+not to employ privateers. Within, however, a few days after the date
+of the second of these letters, both the United States and Spain, though
+both still to be reckoned among the few powers which had not acceded
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page081" id="page081">[081]</a></span>to the Declaration of Paris, announced their intention to conduct the
+war in accordance with the rules laid down by the Declaration.</p>
+
+<p>Art. 3 of the Spanish Royal Decree of April 23 was to the effect
+that &quot;notwithstanding that Spain is not bound by the Declaration
+signed in Paris on April 16, 1856, as she expressly stated her wish not
+to adhere to it, my Government, guided by the principles of international
+law, intends to observe, and hereby orders that the following regulations
+for maritime law be observed,&quot; <i>viz.</i> Arts. 2, 3, and 4 of the Declaration,
+after setting out which, the Decree proceeds to state that the Government,
+while maintaining &quot;their right to issue letters of marque, ... will
+organise, for the present, a service of auxiliary cruisers ... subject
+to the statutes and jurisdiction of the Navy.&quot;</p>
+
+<p>The Proclamation of the President of the United States of April 26
+recited the desirability of the war being &quot;conducted upon principles
+in harmony with the present views of nations, and sanctioned by
+their recent practice,&quot; and that it &quot;has already been announced that
+the policy of the Government will not be to resort to privateering,
+but to adhere to the rules of the Declaration of Paris,&quot; and goes on to
+adopt rules 2, 3, and 4 of the Declaration.</p>
+
+<p>Ten years afterwards, <i>viz.</i> on January 18, 1908, Spain signified
+&quot;her entire and definitive adhesion to the four clauses contained in
+the Declaration,&quot; undertaking scrupulously to conduct herself accordingly.
+Mexico followed suit on February 13, 1909. The United
+States are therefore now the only important Power which has not
+formally bound itself not to employ privateers. It seems unlikely
+that privateers, in the old sense of the term, will be much heard of in
+the future, though many questions may arise as to &quot;volunteer navies&quot;
+and subsidised liners, such as those touched upon in the last section,
+with reference to captures made by the <i>Malacca</i>; possibly also as to
+ships &quot;converted&quot; on the High Seas.</p></div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="OUR-MERCANTILE-MARINE-IN-WAR-TIME-A" />OUR MERCANTILE MARINE IN WAR TIME</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;There can be no doubt that serious loss would
+be occasioned to British commerce by a war between the
+United States and Spain in which either of those Powers
+should exercise its right of employing privateers or of
+confiscating enemy goods in neutral bottoms.</p>
+
+<p>Before, however, adopting the measures recommended,
+with a view to the prevention of this loss, by Sir George
+Baden-Powell in your issue of this morning, it would be
+desirable to enquire how far they would be in accordance
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page082" id="page082">[082]</a></span>with international law, and what would be the net amount
+of the relief which they would afford.</p>
+
+<p>It is hardly necessary to say that non-compliance with
+the provisions of the Declaration of Paris by a non-signatory
+carries with it none of the consequences of a breach of the
+law of nations. The framers of that somewhat hastily
+conceived attempt to engraft a paper amendment upon
+the slowly matured product of &oelig;cumenical opinion, far
+from professing to make general law, expressly state that
+the Declaration &quot;shall not be binding except upon those
+Powers who have acceded, or shall accede, to it.&quot; As
+regards Spain and the United States the Declaration is
+<i>res inter alios acta</i>.</p>
+
+<p>It follows that, in recommending that any action taken
+by privateers against British vessels should be treated as
+an act of piracy, Sir George Baden-Powell is advocating
+an inadmissible atrocity, which derives no countenance
+from the view theoretically maintained by the United
+States, at the outset of the Civil War, of the illegality of
+commissions granted by the Southern Confederation. His
+recommendation that our ports should be &quot;closed&quot; to
+privateers is not very intelligible. Privateers would, of
+course, be placed under the restrictions which were imposed
+in 1870, in accordance with Lord Granville's instructions,
+even on the men-of-war of belligerents. They would be
+forbidden to bring in prizes, to stay more than twenty-four
+hours, to leave within twenty-four hours of the start of a
+ship of the other belligerent, to take more coal than enough
+to carry them to the nearest home port, and to take any
+further supply of coal within three months. We might, no
+doubt, carry discouragement of privateers by so much further
+as to make refusal of coal absolute in their case, but hardly
+so far as to deny entry to them under stress of weather.</p>
+
+<p>The difficulties in the way of accepting Sir G. Baden-Powell's
+other suggestion are of a different order. Although
+we could not complain of the confiscation by either of the
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page083" id="page083">[083]</a></span>supposed belligerents of enemy property found in British
+vessels, as being a violation of international duty, we might,
+at our own proper peril, announce that we should treat
+such confiscation as &quot;an act of war.&quot; International law
+has long abandoned the attempt to define a &quot;just cause of
+war.&quot; That must be left to the appreciation of the nations
+concerned. So to announce would be, in effect, to say:
+&quot;Although by acting as you propose you would violate no
+rule, yet the consequences would be so injurious to me that
+I should throw my sword into the opposite scale.&quot; We
+should be acting in the spirit of the &quot;Armed Neutralities&quot;
+of 1780 and 1800. The expediency of so doing depends,
+first, upon the extent to which the success of our action
+would obviate the mischief against which it would be
+directed; and, secondly, upon the likelihood that the
+benefit which could be obtained only by imposing a new
+rule of international law <i>in invitos</i> would counterbalance
+the odium incurred by its imposition. On the former
+question it may be worth while to remind the mercantile
+community that, even under the Declaration of Paris,
+neutral trade must inevitably be put to much inconvenience.
+Any merchant vessel may be stopped with a view to the
+verification of her national character, of which the flag is no
+conclusive evidence. She is further liable to be visited and
+searched on suspicion of being engaged in the carriage of
+contraband, or of enemy military persons, or of despatches,
+or in running a blockade. Should the commander of the
+visiting cruiser &quot;have probable cause&quot; for suspecting
+any of these things, though the vessel is in fact innocent
+of them, he is justified in putting a prize crew on board
+and sending her into port, with a view to the institution of
+proceedings against her in a prize Court. A non-signatory
+of the Declaration of Paris may investigate and penalise,
+in addition to the above-mentioned list of offences, the
+carriage of enemy goods. This is, no doubt, by far the
+most important branch of the trade which is carried on
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page084" id="page084">[084]</a></span>for belligerents by neutrals, but it must not be forgotten
+that even were this branch of trade universally indulged,
+in accordance with the Declaration of Paris neutral commerce
+would still remain liable to infinite annoyance from
+visit and search, with its possible sequel in a prize Court.</p>
+
+<p>The question of the balance between benefit to be gained
+and odium to be incurred by insisting upon freedom to carry
+the goods of belligerents I leave to the politicians.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">The Athen&aelig;um, April 16 (1898).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="OUR-MERCANTILE-MARINE-IN-WAR-TIME-B" />OUR MERCANTILE MARINE IN WAR TIME</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;To-day's debate should throw some light upon
+the views of the Government, both as to existing rules of
+international law and as to the policy demanded by the
+interests of British trade. It is, however, possible that
+the Government may decline to anticipate the terms of the
+Declaration of Neutrality which they may too probably
+find themselves obliged to issue in the course of the next
+few days, and it is not unlikely that the law officers may
+decline to advise shipowners upon questions to which
+authoritative replies can be given only with reference to
+concrete cases by a prize Court.</p>
+
+<p>You may perhaps, therefore, allow me in the meantime
+to supplement my former letter by a few remarks, partly
+suggested by what has since been written upon the subject.</p>
+
+<p>It is really too clear for argument that privateers are
+not, and cannot be treated as, pirates.</p>
+
+<p>Sir George Baden-Powell still fails to see that the Declaration
+of Paris was not a piece of legislation, but a contract,
+producing no effect upon the rights and duties of nations
+which were not parties to it. We did not thereby, as he
+supposes, &quot;decline to recognise private vessels of war as
+competent to use force on neutral merchantmen.&quot; We
+merely bound ourselves not to use such vessels for such a
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page085" id="page085">[085]</a></span>purpose. Sir George is still unable to discover for privateers
+any other category than the &quot;<i>status</i> of pirate.&quot; He admits
+that it would not be necessary for their benefit to resort to
+&quot;the universal use of the fore-yard-arm.&quot; Let me assure
+him that the bearer of a United States private commission
+of war would run no risk even of being hanged at Newgate.
+President Lincoln, it is true, at the outset of the Civil War,
+threatened to treat as pirates vessels operating under the
+&quot;pretended authority&quot; of the rebel States; but he was
+speedily instructed by his own law Courts&mdash;<i>e.g.</i> in the
+<i>Savannah</i> and in the <i>Golden Rocket</i> (insurance) cases&mdash;that
+even such vessels were not pirates <i>iure gentium</i>. It is also
+tolerably self-evident that we cannot absolutely &quot;close&quot;
+our ports to any class of vessels. There is no inconsistency
+here between my friend Sir Sherston Baker and myself.
+We can discourage access, and of course, by refusal of coal,
+render egress impossible for privateers. Mr. Coltman would
+apparently be inclined to carry this policy so far that he
+would disarm and intern even belligerent ships of war which
+should visit our ports: a somewhat hazardous innovation,
+one would think.</p>
+
+<p>It is quite possible that the question of privateering may
+not become a practical one during the approaching war.
+Both parties may expressly renounce the practice, or they
+may follow the example of Prussia in 1870, and Russia
+at a later date, in commissioning fast liners under the command
+of naval officers&mdash;a practice, by the by, which is not,
+as Sir George seems to think, &quot;right in the teeth of the Declaration
+of Paris.&quot; See Lord Granville's despatch in 1870.</p>
+
+<p>On Sir George's proposals with reference to the carriage
+of enemy goods, little more need be said, except to deprecate
+arguments founded upon the metaphorical statement that
+&quot;a vessel is part of the territory covered by her flag,&quot; a
+statement which Lord Stowell found it necessary to meet
+by the assertion that a ship is a &quot;mere movable.&quot; There
+can be no possible doubt of the right, under international
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page086" id="page086">[086]</a></span>law, of Spain and the United States to visit and search
+neutral ships carrying enemy's goods, and to confiscate such
+goods when found. They may also visit and search on
+many other grounds, and the question (one of policy) is
+whether, rather than permit this addition to the list, we
+choose to take a step which would practically make us
+belligerent. This question also, it may be hoped, will not
+press for solution.</p>
+
+<p>In any case, let me express my cordial concurrence with
+your hope that, when hostilities are over, some really
+universal and lasting agreement may be arrived at with
+reference to the matters dealt with, as I venture to think
+prematurely, by the Declaration of Paris. A reform of
+maritime law to which the United States are not a party
+is of little worth. That search for contraband of war can
+ever be suppressed I do not believe, and fear that it may
+be many years before divergent national interests can be
+so far reconciled as to secure an agreement as to the list of
+contraband articles. In the meantime this country is unfortunately
+a party to that astonishing piece of draftsmanship,
+the &quot;three rules&quot; of the Treaty of Washington, to
+which less reference than might have been expected has
+been made in recent discussions. The ambiguities of this
+document, which have prevented it from ever being, as was
+intended, brought to the notice of the other Powers, with a
+view to their acceptance of it, are such that, its redrafting,
+or, better still, its cancellation, should be the first care of
+both contracting parties when the wished for congress shall
+take place.</p>
+
+<p>May I add that no serious student of international law
+is likely either to overrate the authority which it most
+beneficially exercises, or to conceive of it as an unalterable
+body of theory.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Brighton, April 21 (1898).</div><br />
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page087" id="page087">[087]</a></span></div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="OUR-MERCANTILE-MARINE-IN-WAR" />OUR MERCANTILE MARINE IN WAR</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;Let me assure Sir George Baden-Powell that if,
+as he seems to think, I have been unsuccessful in grasping
+the meaning of his very interesting letters, it has not been
+from neglect to study them with the attention which is
+due to anything which he may write. How privateering,
+previously innocent, can have become piratical, <i>i.e.</i> an
+offence, everywhere justiciable, against the Law of Nations,
+if the Declaration of Paris was not in the nature of a piece
+of legislation, I confess myself unable to understand; but
+have no wish to repeat the remarks which you have already
+allowed me to make upon the subject.</p>
+
+<p>I shall, however, be glad at once to remove the impression
+suggested by Sir George's letter of this morning, that
+Art. 7 of the Spanish Decree of April 24 has any bearing
+upon the legitimacy of privateering generally. The article
+in question (following, by the by, the very questionable
+precedent of a notification issued by Admiral Baudin,
+during the war between France and Mexico in 1889) merely
+threatens with punishment neutrals who may accept letters
+of marque from a belligerent Government.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, April 27 (1898).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="THE-DECLARATION-OF-PARIS-1911" />THE DECLARATION OF PARIS</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;There is really no question at issue between
+your two correspondents Mr. Gibson Bowles and &quot;Anglo-Saxon&quot;
+as to the attitude of the United States towards
+the Declaration of Paris.</p>
+
+<p>Mr. Bowles rightly maintains that the United States
+has not acceded to the Declaration as a whole, or to its
+second article, which exempts from capture enemy property
+in neutral ships. He means, of course, that neither the
+whole nor any part of that Declaration has been ratified
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page088" id="page088">[088]</a></span>by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate.
+The whole contains, indeed, an article on privateering,
+to which, as it stands, the United States have always
+objected, and no part of the Declaration can be accepted
+separately.</p>
+
+<p>&quot;Anglo-Saxon,&quot; on the other hand, is equally justified
+in asserting that the &quot;officially-recorded policy&quot; of the
+States, <i>i.e.</i> of the Executive, is in accordance with
+Art. 2 of the Declaration. This policy has been consistently
+followed for more than half a century. Its strongest
+expression is perhaps to be found in the President's
+Proclamation of April 26, 1898, in which, after reciting that
+it being desirable that the war with Spain &quot;should be
+conducted upon principles in harmony with the present
+views of nations and sanctioned by their recent practice,
+it has already been announced that the policy of the Government
+will not be to resort to privateering, but to adhere
+to the rules for the Declaration of Paris,&quot; he goes on to
+&quot;declare and proclaim&quot; the three other articles of the
+Declaration. The rule of Art. 2, as to exemption of enemy
+goods in neutral ships, was embodied in Art. 19 of the
+Naval War Code of 1900 (withdrawn in 1904, for reasons
+not affecting the article in question), and reappears in
+Art. 17, amended only by the addition of a few words
+relating to &quot;hostile assistance&quot; in the draft Code which
+the United States delegates to the Conferences of 1907
+and 1908 were instructed to bring forward &quot;with the
+suggested changes, and such further changes as may be
+made necessary by other agreements reached at the Conference,
+as a tentative formulation of the rules which should
+be considered.&quot; (My quotation is from the instructions
+as originally issued in English.) Such changes as have
+been made in the Code are due to discussions which have
+taken place between high naval and legal authorities at
+the Naval War College. I do not know whether the annual
+reports of these discussions, with which I am kindly supplied,
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page089" id="page089">[089]</a></span>are generally accessible, but would refer, especially with
+reference to the Declaration of Paris, to the volumes for
+1904 and 1906.</p>
+
+<p>It can hardly be necessary to add that no acts of the
+Executive, such as the Proclamation of 1898, the order
+putting in force the Code of 1900, or the instructions to
+delegates in 1907 and 1909, amount to anything like a
+ratification of the Declaration in the manner prescribed
+by the Constitution of the United States.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<span class="sigbody">I have the honour to be, Sir,<br />
+Your obedient servant,</span><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, January 4 (1911).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="THE-DECLARATION-OF-PARIS-1914" />THE DECLARATION OF PARIS</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;Mr. Gibson Bowles resuscitates this morning his
+crusade against the Declaration of 1856. It is really
+superfluous to argue in support of rules which have met with
+general acceptance for nearly sixty years past, to all of
+which Spain and Mexico, who were not originally parties
+to the Declaration, announced their formal adhesion in
+1907, while the United States, which for well-known reasons
+declined to accede to the Declaration, described, in 1898,
+all the articles except that dealing with privateering as
+&quot;recognised rules of International Law.&quot;</p>
+
+<p>It may, however, be worth while to point out why it
+was that no provision was made for the ratification of the
+Declaration of 1856, or for that of 1868 relating to the use
+of explosive bullets. At those dates, when the first steps
+were being taken towards the general adoption of written
+rules for the conduct of warfare, it was, curiously enough,
+supposed that agreement upon such rules might be
+sufficiently recorded without the solemnity of a treaty.
+This was, in my opinion, a mistake, which has been avoided
+in more recent times, in which the written law of war has
+been developed with such marvellous rapidity. Not only
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page090" id="page090">[090]</a></span>have codes of such rules been promulgated in regular
+&quot;Conventions,&quot; made in 1899, 1906, and 1907, but the so-called
+&quot;Declarations,&quot; dealing with the same topic, of 1899, 1907,
+and 1909 have been as fully equipped as were those
+Conventions with provisions for ratification. The distinction
+between a &quot;Convention&quot; and a &quot;Declaration&quot; is therefore
+now one without a difference, and should no longer be
+drawn. Nothing in the nature of rules for the conduct of
+warfare can prevent their expression in Conventions, and
+the reason which seems to have promoted the misdescription
+of the work of the London Conference of 1908-9 as
+a &quot;Declaration&quot;&mdash;<i>viz.</i> an imaginary difference between
+rules for the application of accepted principles and wholly
+new rules&mdash;is founded in error. Much of the contents of
+The Hague &quot;Conventions&quot; is as old as the hills while much
+of the &quot;Declaration&quot; of London is revolutionary.</p>
+
+<p>This by the way. It is not very clear whether
+Mr. Gibson Bowles, in exhorting us to denounce the Declaration,
+relies upon its original lack of ratification, or upon
+some alleged &quot;privateering&quot; on the part of the Germans.
+Nothing of the kind has been reported. The commissioning
+of warships on the high seas is a different thing, which
+may possibly be regarded as an offence of a graver nature.
+Great Britain is not going to imitate the cynical contempt
+for treaties, evidenced by the action of Germany in Belgium
+and Luxemburg, in disregard not only of the well-known
+treaties of 1889 and 1867, but of a quite recent solemn
+undertaking, to which I have not noticed any reference.
+Art. 2 of The Hague Convention No. v. of 1907, ratified
+by her in 1909, is to the following effect:&mdash;</p>
+
+<div class="letterquot"><p>&quot;Belligerents are forbidden to move across the territory of a neutral
+Power troops or convoys, whether of munitions or of supplies.&quot;</p></div>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, August 12 (1914).</div><br />
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page091" id="page091">[091]</a></span></div>
+
+<p>The true ground for objecting to the legality of the
+purchase by Turkey of the German warships which have
+been forced to take refuge in her waters is no doubt that
+stated by Sir William Scott in the <i>Minerva</i>, 6 C. Rob.
+at p. 400&mdash;<i>viz.</i> that it would enable the belligerent to whom
+the ships belong &quot;so far to rescue himself from the disadvantage
+into which he has fallen as to have the value at
+least restored to him by a neutral purchaser.&quot; The point
+is not touched upon in the (draft) Declaration of London.</p>
+
+<p>Even supposing the purchase to be unobjectionable,
+the duty of Turkey to remove all belligerents from the
+ships would be unquestionable.</p>
+
+<div class="postnotes"><p><i>Cf.</i> on the Declaration of Paris, <i>passim</i>, see Index; on the misuse
+of Declarations, <i>infra</i>, p. <a href="#page092">92</a>; on privateering, <i>supra</i>, pp. <a href="#page080">80</a>-84.</p></div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="THE-DECLARATION-OF-PARIS-1916" />THE DECLARATION OF PARIS</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;The resuscitation, a few days ago, in the House
+of Commons of an old controversy reminds one of the
+mistaken procedure which made such a controversy possible.
+It can hardly now be doubted that the rules set forth in
+the Declaration of Paris of 1856, except possibly the
+prohibition of privateering, have by general acceptance during
+sixty years, strengthened by express accessions on the part
+of so many Governments, become a portion of international
+law, and are thus binding upon Great Britain,
+notwithstanding her omission to ratify the Declaration.
+This omission is now seen to have been a mistake. So also
+was the description of the document as a &quot;declaration.&quot;
+Both mistakes were repeated in 1868 with reference to the
+&quot;Declaration&quot; of St. Petersburg (as to explosive bullets).</p>
+
+<p>In those early attempts at legislation for the conduct
+of warfare it seems to have been thought sufficient that
+the conclusions arrived at by authorised delegates should
+be announced without being embodied in a treaty. Surely,
+however, what purported to be international agreements
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page092" id="page092">[092]</a></span>upon vastly important topics ought to have been
+accompanied by all the formalities required for
+&quot;conventions,&quot; and should have been so entitled. In later
+times this has become the general rule for the increasingly
+numerous agreements which bear upon the conduct of
+hostilities. Thus we have The Hague &quot;conventions&quot; of
+1899 and 1907, and the Geneva &quot;convention&quot; of 1906,
+all duly equipped with provisions for ratification. Such
+provisions are also inserted in certain other recent agreements
+dealing with aerial bombardments, gases, and expanding
+bullets, which it has nevertheless pleased their
+contrivers to misdescribe as &quot;declarations.&quot; Equally so
+misdescribed was the deceased Declaration of London,
+with a view, apparently, to suggesting, as was far from
+being the case, that it was a mere orderly statement of
+universally accepted principles, creating no new obligations.</p>
+
+<p>Is it not to be desired that all future attempts for the
+international regulation of warfare should not only be
+specifically made subject to ratification, but should also,
+in accordance with fact, be described as &quot;conventions&quot;?</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, August 13 (1916).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="THE-DECLARATION-OF-PARIS-1916-B" />THE DECLARATION OF PARIS</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;If Mr. Gibson Bowles, whose courteous letter I
+have just been reading, will look again at my letter of the
+18th, I think he will see that I there carefully distinguished
+between the Declaration of Paris, which, as is notorious,
+must be accepted as a whole or not at all, and the rules
+set forth in it, &quot;except, possibly, the prohibition of
+privateering,&quot; which I thought, for the reasons which
+I stated, might be taken to have become a portion of
+International Law.</p>
+
+<p>I must be excused from following Mr. Bowles into a
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page093" id="page093">[093]</a></span>discussion of the bearing of those rules upon the Order in
+Council of March 11, 1915&mdash;a large and delicate topic,
+which must be studied in elaborate dispatches exchanged
+between this country and the United States.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, August 17 (1916).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+<hr style='width: 45%;' />
+
+<h3 class="sectionhead"><a name="CHAPTER_VI_SECTION_8" />SECTION 8</h3>
+
+<p class="subsectionhead">Assassination</p>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="THE-NATAL-PROCLAMATION" />THE NATAL PROCLAMATION</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;It was reported a few days ago that the Natal
+Government had offered a reward for Bambaata, dead or
+alive. I have waited for a statement that no offer of the
+kind had been made, or that it had been made by some
+over-zealous official, whose act had been disavowed. No
+such statement has appeared. On the contrary, we read that
+&quot;the price placed upon the rebel's head has excited native
+cupidity.&quot; It may therefore be desirable to point out
+that what is alleged to have been done is opposed to the
+customs of warfare, whether against foreign enemies or rebels.</p>
+
+<p>By Art. 28 (<i>b</i>) of The Hague Regulations, &quot;it is
+especially prohibited to kill or wound treacherously individuals
+belonging to the hostile nation or army&quot;: words which,
+one cannot doubt, would include not only assassination
+of individuals, but also, by implication, any offer for an
+individual &quot;dead or alive.&quot; The Regulations are, of course,
+technically binding only between signatories of the convention
+to which they are appended; but Art. 28 (<i>b</i>) is
+merely an express enactment of a well-established rule of
+the law of nations. A recent instance of its application
+occurred, before the date of The Hague Convention, during
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page094" id="page094">[094]</a></span>operations in the neighbourhood of Suakin. An offer by
+the British Admiral of a reward for Osman Digna, dead
+or alive, was, if I mistake not, promptly cancelled and
+disavowed by the home Government.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Brighton, April 17 (1906).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+<hr style='width: 45%;' />
+
+<h3 class="sectionhead"><a name="CHAPTER_VI_SECTION_9" />SECTION 9</h3>
+
+<p class="subsectionhead">The Choice of Means of Injuring</p>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="BULLETS-IN-SAVAGE-WARFARE" />BULLETS IN SAVAGE WARFARE</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;The Somaliland debate was sufficient evidence
+that The Hague Convention &quot;respecting the laws and
+customs of war on land&quot; is far more talked about than read.
+Colonel Cobbe had, it appears, complained of the defective
+stopping power, as against the foes whom he was encountering,
+of the Lee-Metford bullet. It is the old story
+that wounds inflicted by this bullet cannot be relied on to
+check the onrush of a hardy and fanatical savage, though
+they may ultimately result in his death. Whereupon
+arises, on the one hand, the demand for a more effective
+projectile, and, on the other hand, the cry that the
+proposed substitute is condemned by &quot;the universal consent
+of Christendom&quot;; or, in particular, &quot;by the Convention
+of The Hague,&quot; which, as was correctly stated by Mr. Lee,
+prohibits only the use of arms which cause superfluous injury.</p>
+
+<p>You print to-day two letters enforcing the view of the
+inefficiency against savages of the ordinary service bullet.
+Perhaps you will find space for a few words upon the question
+whether the employment for this purpose of a severer
+form of projectile, such as the Dum Dum bullet, would be
+a contravention of the &quot;laws of war.&quot;</p>
+
+<p>The law of the subject, as embodied in general international
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page095" id="page095">[095]</a></span>national agreements, is to be found in four paragraphs;
+to which, be it observed, nothing is added by the unwritten,
+or customary, law of nations. Of these paragraphs, which
+I shall set out textually, three affirm general principles,
+while the fourth contains a specific prohibition. The
+general provisions are as follows:&mdash;</p>
+
+<div class="letterquot"><p>&quot;The progress of civilisation should have the effect of alleviating as
+much as possible the calamities of war. The only legitimate object
+which States should set before themselves during war is to weaken the
+military forces of the enemy. For this purpose it is sufficient to disable
+the greatest possible number of men. This object would be exceeded by
+the employment of arms which would uselessly aggravate the sufferings
+of disabled men or render their death inevitable. The employment
+of such arms would, therefore, be contrary to the laws of humanity.&quot;
+(St. Petersburg Declaration, 1868. Preamble.)</p>
+
+<p>&quot;The right of belligerents to adopt means of injuring the enemy is
+not unlimited.&quot; (Hague <i>R&egrave;glement</i>, Art. 22.)</p>
+
+<p>&quot;Besides the prohibitions provided by special conventions [the
+Declaration of St. Petersburg alone answers to this description] it is
+in particular prohibited (<i>e</i>) to employ arms, projectiles, or
+material of a nature to cause superfluous injury.&quot; (<i>Ib.</i> Art. 23.)</p></div>
+
+<p>The only special prohibition is that contained in the
+Declaration of St. Petersburg, by which the contracting
+parties&mdash;</p>
+
+<div class="letterquot"><p>&quot;Engage mutually to renounce, in case of war among themselves,
+the employment by their military or naval forces of any projectile of a
+weight below 400 grammes which is either explosive or charged with
+fulminating or inflammable substances.&quot;</p></div>
+
+<p>No one, so far as I am aware, has any wish to employ
+a bullet weighing less than 14 oz. which is either explosive
+or charged as above. So far, therefore, as the generally
+accepted laws of warfare are concerned, the only question
+as to the employment of Dum Dum or other expanding
+bullets is whether they &quot;uselessly aggravate the sufferings
+of disabled men, or render their death inevitable&quot;; in other
+words, whether they are &quot;of a nature to cause superfluous
+injury.&quot; It is, however, probable that people who glibly
+talk of such bullets being &quot;prohibited by The Hague Convention&quot;
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page096" id="page096">[096]</a></span>are hazily reminiscent, not of the <i>R&egrave;glement</i>
+appended to that convention, but of a certain &quot;Declaration,&quot;
+signed by the delegates of many of the Powers represented
+at The Hague in 1899, to the effect that&mdash;</p>
+
+<div class="letterquot"><p>&quot;The contracting Powers renounce the use of bullets which expand
+or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard casing,
+which does not entirely cover the core, or is pierced with incisions.&quot;</p></div>
+
+<p>To this declaration neither Great Britain nor the United
+States are parties, and it is waste-paper, except for Powers
+on whose behalf it has not only been signed, but has also
+been subsequently ratified.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Athen&aelig;um Club, May 2 (1903).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+<div class="postnotes"><p>The Declaration last mentioned (No. 3 of the first Peace Conference)
+is now something more than waste paper, having been generally
+ratified. Great Britain, on August 17, 1907, at the fourth plenary
+sitting of the Second Peace Conference, announced her adhesion to it,
+as also to the, also generally ratified, Declaration No. 2 of 1899, which
+forbids the employment of projectiles constructed solely for the diffusion
+suffocating or harmful gases.</p>
+
+<p>The provisions of Arts. 22 and 23 (<i>e</i>) of the <i>R&egrave;glement</i> annexed to
+The Hague Convention of 1899 &quot;concerning the Laws and Customs of
+War on Land,&quot; as quoted in the letter, have been textually reproduced
+in Arts. 22 and 23 (<i>e</i>) of the <i>R&egrave;glement</i> annexed to the Hague
+Convention, No. iv. of 1907, on the same subject, ratified by Great Britain on
+November 27, 1909.</p>
+
+<p>The written agreements as to the choice of weapons may be taken
+therefore to start from the general principles laid down in the preamble
+to the Declaration of St. Petersburg (though held by some Powers to
+err in the direction of liberality), and in Arts. 22 and 23 (<i>e</i>) of The
+Hague <i>R&egrave;glements</i>. The specially prohibited means of destruction
+are, by the Declaration of St. Petersburg, explosive bullets; by The
+Hague <i>R&egrave;glements</i>, Art. 23 (<i>a</i>) poison or poisoned arms; by The
+Hague Declarations of 1898, Nos. 2 and 3, &quot;projectiles the sole object
+of which is the diffusion of asphyxiating or harmful gases,&quot; and &quot;bullets
+which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with
+a hard casing, which does not entirely cover the core, or is pierced
+with incisions.&quot; As to Declaration No. 1, <i>cf. supra</i>, p. <a href="#page022">22</a>. It must
+be remarked that the Declarations of St. Petersburg and of The<span class="newpage"><a name="page097" id="page097">[097]</a></span>
+Hague, unlike The Hague R&egrave;glements, apply to war at sea, as well as
+on land.</p>
+
+<p><i>Cf. supra</i>, p. <a href="#page022">22</a>, and see the author's <i>The Laws of War on Land
+(written and unwritten)</i>, 1908, pp. <a href="#page040">40</a>-43.</p></div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="GASES" />GASES</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;The weightily signed medical protest which you
+publish this morning will be widely welcomed. The German
+employment of poisonous gases for military purposes, which
+the Allies were obliged, reluctantly, though necessarily,
+to reciprocate, was, of course, prohibited by international
+Acts to which Germany is a party. Not only does the
+Declaration of 1899 specifically render unlawful &quot;the use
+of projectiles the sole object of which is the diffusion of
+asphyxiating or harmful gases,&quot; but the Hague Conventions
+of 1899 and 1907 both forbid, in general terms, the
+employment of &quot;(<i>a</i>) poison or poisoned arms,&quot; &quot;(<i>c</i>) arms,
+projectiles, or material of a nature to cause superfluous
+suffering.&quot; The United States, like the rest of the world,
+are a party to the two Conventions, and would doubtless,
+after the experiences of recent years, no longer hesitate, as
+hitherto, to adhere to the Declaration of 1899; in accordance
+with Admiral Mahan's view at that date, to the effect that
+&quot;the effect of gas shells has yet to be ascertained,&quot; and, in
+particular, &quot;whether they would be more, or less, merciful
+than missiles now available.&quot;</p>
+
+<p>The prohibition ought, no doubt, to be renewed and, if
+possible, strengthened; but this is surely not, as your correspondents
+suggest, work for the Peace Congress. The rules
+for naval warfare set out in the Declaration of Paris of 1856
+form no part of the Treaty of Paris of that year.</p>
+
+<p>I venture to make a similar remark with reference to
+any discussion by the Peace Congress of &quot;the freedom of the
+seas,&quot; a topic unfortunately included by President Wilson
+among his &quot;14 points.&quot; The peace delegates will be concerned
+with questions of regroupings of territory, penalties,
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page098" id="page098">[098]</a></span>and reparation. The rehabilitation and revision of international
+law is a different business, and should be reserved
+for a subsequent conference.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, November 29 (1918).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+<hr style='width: 45%;' />
+
+<h3 class="sectionhead"><a name="CHAPTER_VI_SECTION_10" />SECTION 10</h3>
+
+<p class="subsectionhead">The Geneva Convention</p>
+
+<div class="intronotes"><p>As far back as the year 1870, the Society for the Prevention of
+Cruelty to Animals exerted itself to induce both sides in the great war
+then commencing to make some special provision for relieving, or
+terminating, the sufferings of horses wounded in battle.</p>
+
+<p>In 1899 it made the same suggestion to the British War Office,
+but the reply of the Secretary of State was to the effect that &quot;he is
+informed that soldiers always shoot badly wounded horses after, or
+during, a battle, whenever they are given time to do so, <i>i.e.</i> whenever
+the operation does not involve risk to human life. He fears that no
+more than this can be done unless and until some international convention
+extends to those who care for wounded animals the same
+protection for which the Geneva Convention provides in the case of
+men; and he would suggest that you should turn your efforts in that
+direction.&quot;</p>
+
+<p>Thereupon, Mr. Lawrence Pike, on November 23, addressed to
+<i>The Times</i> the letter which called forth the letter which follows.</p></div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="WOUNDED-HORSES-IN-WAR" />WOUNDED HORSES IN WAR</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;Everyone must sympathise with the anxiety felt
+by Mr. L.W. Pike to diminish the sufferings of horses upon
+the field of battle. How far any systematic alleviation
+of such sufferings may be compatible with the exigencies
+of warfare must be left to the decision of military experts.
+In the meantime it may be as well to assure Mr. Pike that
+the Geneva Convention of 1864 has nothing to do with the
+question, relating, as it does, exclusively to the relief of
+human suffering. This is equally the case with the second
+Geneva Convention, which Mr. Pike is right in supposing
+never to have been ratified. He is also right in supposing
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page099" id="page099">[099]</a></span>that &quot;the terms of the convention are capable of amendment
+from time to time,&quot; but wrong in supposing that
+they can be amended &quot;by the setting up of precedents.&quot;
+The convention can be amended only by a new convention.</p>
+
+<p>It is not the case that Art. 7 of the convention, which
+merely confides to commanders-in-chief, under the instructions
+of their respective Governments, &quot;les d&eacute;tails d'ex&eacute;cution
+de la pr&eacute;sente convention,&quot; gives them any authority
+to extend its scope beyond what is expressly stated to be
+its object&mdash;<i>viz.</i> &quot;l'am&eacute;lioration du sort des militaires
+bless&eacute;s dans les arm&eacute;es en campagne.&quot; While, however,
+the Geneva Convention, does not contemplate the relief of
+animal suffering, it certainly cannot be &quot;set up as a bar&quot;
+to the provision of such relief. Commanders who may
+see their way to neutralising persons engaged in the succour
+or slaughter of wounded horses would be quite within their
+powers in entering into temporary agreements for that
+purpose.</p>
+
+<p>I may add that the &quot;Convention concerning the laws
+and customs of war on land,&quot; prepared by the recent conference
+at The Hague, and signed on behalf of most Governments,
+including our own, though not yet ratified, contains
+a chapter &quot;Des malades et des bless&eacute;s,&quot; which merely states
+that the obligations of belligerents on this point are governed
+by the Convention of Geneva of 1864, with such modifications
+as may be made in it. Among the aspirations (<i>v&oelig;ux</i>)
+recorded in the &quot;Acte final&quot; of the conference, is one to
+the effect that steps may be taken for the assembling of
+a special conference, having for its object the revision of
+the Geneva Convention. Should such a conference be
+assembled Mr. Pike will have an opportunity of addressing
+it upon the painfully interesting subject which he has
+brought forward in your columns.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">Your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+Oxford, November 2<span class="newpage"><a name="page100" id="page100">[100]</a></span>7 (1899).<br />
+</div>
+
+<div class="postnotes"><p>The &quot;second Geneva Convention,&quot; above mentioned, was the
+&quot;Projet d'Articles additionnels,&quot; signed on October 20, 1868, but
+never ratified.</p>
+
+<p>Art. 21 of the <i>R&egrave;glement</i> annexed to The Hague Convention of
+1899 as to the &quot;Laws and Customs of War on Land,&quot; stating that
+&quot;the obligations of belligerents, with reference to the care of the sick
+and wounded, are governed by the Convention of Geneva of August 22,
+1864, subject to alterations which may be made in it,&quot; is now represented
+by Art. 21 of The Hague <i>R&egrave;glement</i> of 1907, which mentions
+&quot;the Convention of Geneva,&quot; without mention of any date, or of
+possible alterations. The Convention intended in this later <i>R&egrave;glement</i>
+is, of course, that of 1906, for the numerous Powers which have already
+ratified it, since for them it has superseded that of 1864. The British
+ratification, of April 16, 1907, was subject to a reservation, the necessity
+for which was intended to be removed by 1 &amp; 2 Geo. 5, c. 20, as to
+which, see <i>supra</i>, p. <a href="#page037">37</a>. The later is somewhat wider in scope than
+the earlier Convention, its recital referring to &quot;the sick,&quot; as well
+as to the wounded, and its first article naming not only &quot;les militaires,&quot;
+but also &quot;les autres personnes officiellement attach&eacute;es aux arm&eacute;es.&quot;</p>
+
+<p>With a view to the expected meeting of the Conference by which
+the Convention was signed in 1906, Mr. Pike and his friends again, in
+1903, pressed upon the British Government their desire that the new
+Convention should extend protection to persons engaged in relieving
+the sufferings of wounded horses. The British delegates to the Conference,
+however, who had already been appointed, and were holding
+meetings in preparation for it, were not prepared to advise the insertion
+of provisions for this purpose in the revised Convention of Geneva.</p>
+
+<p>&quot;The principles of the Geneva Convention&quot; of 1864 were applied
+to naval warfare by The Hague Convention No. iii. of 1899, and those
+of the Geneva Convention of 1906 by The Hague Convention No. x.
+of 1907 respectively. Both were ratified by Great Britain. Cf. <i>supra</i>,
+<a href="#CHAPTER_II">Chapters ii.</a> and <a href="#CHAPTER_IV">iv.</a></p></div>
+
+<hr style='width: 45%;' />
+
+<h3 class="sectionhead"><a name="CHAPTER_VI_SECTION_11" />SECTION 11</h3>
+
+<p class="subsectionhead">Enemy Property in Occupied Territory</p>
+
+<div class="intronotes"><p>By Art. 55 of The Hague <i>R&egrave;glement</i> of 1899, which reproduces Art. 7
+of the Brussels <i>Projet</i>, and is repeated as Art. 55 of the <i>R&egrave;glement</i> of
+1907: &quot;The occupying State shall regard itself as being only administrator
+and usufructuary of the public buildings, immoveable property,
+forests and agricultural undertakings belonging to the hostile State
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page101" id="page101">[101]</a></span>and situated in the hostile country. It must protect the substance
+of these properties and administer them according to the rules of
+usufruct.&quot;</p>
+
+<p>The following letter touches incidentally upon the description of
+the rights of an invader over certain kinds of State property in the
+occupied territory as being those of a &quot;usufructuary.&quot;</p></div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="INTERNATIONAL-USUFRUCT" />INTERNATIONAL &quot;USUFRUCT&quot;</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;The terminology of the law of nations has been
+enriched by a new phrase. We are all getting accustomed
+to &quot;spheres of influence.&quot; We have been meditating for
+some time past upon the interpretation to be put upon &quot;a
+lease of sovereign rights.&quot; But what is an international
+&quot;usufruct&quot;? The word has, of course, a perfectly ascertained
+sense in Roman law and its derivatives; but it has
+been hitherto employed, during, perhaps two thousand years,
+always as a term of private law&mdash;<i>i.e.</i> as descriptive of a
+right enjoyed by one private individual or corporation over
+the property of another. It is the &quot;ius utendi fruendi,
+salva rerum substantia.&quot; The usufructuary of land not
+merely has the use of it, but may cut its forests and work
+its mines, so long as he does not destroy the character of
+the place as he received it. His interest terminates with
+his life, though it might also be granted to him for a shorter
+period. If the grantee be a corporation, in order to protect
+the outstanding right of the owner an artificial limit is
+imposed upon the tenure&mdash;<i>e.g.</i> in Roman law 100 years, by
+the French Code 30 years. For details it may suffice to
+refer to the Institutes of Justinian, II. 4; the Digest, VII.
+1; the Code Civil, sects. 573-636; the new German Civil
+Code, sects. 1030-1089.</p>
+
+<p>It remains to be seen how the conception of &quot;usufruct&quot;
+is to be imported into the relations of sovereign States, and,
+more especially, what are to be the relations of the usufructuary
+to States other than the State under which he
+holds. It is, of course, quite possible to adapt the terms
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page102" id="page102">[102]</a></span>of Roman private law to international use. &quot;Dominium,&quot;
+&quot;Possessio,&quot; &quot;Occupatio,&quot; have long been so adapted,
+but it has yet to be proved that &quot;Usufructus&quot; is equally
+malleable. I can recall no other use of the term in international
+discussions than the somewhat rhetorical statement
+that an invader should consider himself as merely the
+&quot;usufructuary&quot; of the resources of the country which he
+is invading; which is no more than to say that he should
+use them &quot;en bon p&egrave;re de famille.&quot; It will be a very
+different matter to put a strict legal construction upon the
+grant of the &quot;usufruct&quot; of Port Arthur. By way of
+homage to the conception of such a grant, as presumably
+creating at the outside a life-interest, Russia seems to have
+taken it, in the first instance, only for twenty-five years.
+One may, however, be pardoned for sharing, with reference
+to this transaction, the scruples which were felt at Rome
+as to allowing the grant of a usufruct to a corporation&mdash;&quot;periculum
+enim esse videbatur, ne perpetuus fieret.&quot;</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, March 30 (1898).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+<p>P.S.&mdash;It would seem from M. Lehr's <i>&Eacute;l&eacute;ments du droit
+civil Russe</i> that &quot;usufruct&quot; is almost unknown to the law
+of Russia, though a restricted form of it figures in the code
+of the Baltic provinces.</p>
+
+<div class="letterquot"><p>It is certain that, apart from general conventions, international
+law imposes no liability on an invader to pay for requisitioned property
+or services, or to honour any receipts which he may have given for them.</p>
+
+<p>The Hague Convention of 1899 made no change in this respect.
+Arts. 51 and 52 of the <i>R&egrave;glement</i> annexed to the Convention direct, it
+is true, that receipts should be given for contributions (&quot;un re&ccedil;u sera
+d&eacute;livr&eacute; aux contribuables&quot;) also for requisitions in kind, if not paid for
+(&quot;elles seront constat&eacute;es par des re&ccedil;us&quot;), but these receipts were to
+be merely evidence that money or goods have been taken, and it was
+left an open question, by whom, if at all, compensation was to be made
+or the losses thus established.</p>
+
+<p>The <i>R&egrave;glement</i> of 1907 is more liberal than that of 1899 with reference
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page103" id="page103">[103]</a></span>to requisitioned property (though not with reference to contributions).
+By the new Art. 52, &quot;supplies furnished in kind shall be paid for, so
+far as possible, on the spot. If not, they shall be vouched for (<i>constat&eacute;es</i>)
+by receipts, and payment of the sums due shall be made as soon
+as may be.&quot; The Hague Convention mentioned in the following letter
+is, of course, that of 1899.</p></div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="REQUISITIONS-IN-WARFARE" />REQUISITIONS IN WARFARE</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;A few words of explanation may not be out of
+place with reference to a topic touched upon last night in
+the House of Commons&mdash;<i>viz.</i> the liability of the British
+Government to pay for stock requisitioned during the late
+war from private enemy owners. It should be clearly
+understood that no such liability is imposed by international
+law. The commander of invading forces may, for valid
+reasons of his own, pay cash for any property which he
+takes, and, if he does not do so, is nowadays expected to
+give receipts for it. These receipts are, however, not in
+the nature of evidence of a contract to pay for the goods.
+They are intended merely to <i>constater</i> the fact that the goods
+have been requisitioned, with a view to any indemnity
+which may eventually be granted to the sufferers by their
+own Government. What steps should be taken by a Government
+towards indemnifying enemies who have subsequently
+become its subjects, as is now happily the case in South
+Africa, is a question not of international law, but of grace
+and favour.</p>
+
+<p>An article in the current number of the <i>Review of Reviews</i>,
+to which my attention has just been called, contains some
+extraordinary statements upon the topic under discussion.
+The uninformed public is assured that &quot;we owe the Boers
+payment in full for all the devastation which we have inflicted
+upon their private property ... it is our plain
+legal obligation, from the point of view of international
+law, to pay it to the last farthing.&quot; Then The Hague Convention
+is invoked as permitting interference with private
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page104" id="page104">[104]</a></span>property &quot;only on condition that it is paid for in cash by
+the conqueror, and, if that is not possible at the moment,
+he must in every case give a receipt, which he must discharge
+at the conclusion of hostilities.&quot; There is no such
+provision as to honouring receipts in this much-misquoted
+convention.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">Your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, July 30 (1962).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+<hr style='width: 45%;' />
+
+<h3 class="sectionhead"><a name="CHAPTER_VI_SECTION_12" />SECTION 12</h3>
+
+<p class="subsectionhead">Enemy Property at Sea</p>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="PRIVATE-PROPERTY-AT-SEA" />PRIVATE PROPERTY AT SEA</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;The letter which you print this morning from
+Mr. Charles Stewart can hardly be taken as a serious
+contribution to the discussion of a question which has
+occupied for many years the attention of politicians, international
+lawyers, shipowners, traders, and naval experts.
+Mr. Stewart actually thinks that Lord Sydenham's argument
+to the effect that &quot;the fear of the severe economic strain
+which must result from the stoppage of a great commerce
+is a factor which makes for peace&quot; may be fairly paraphrased
+as advice to &quot;retain the practice because it is so
+barbarous that it will sicken the enemy of warfare.&quot; He
+goes on to say that this argument &quot;would apply equally
+to the poisoning of wells and to the use of explosive bullets.&quot;</p>
+
+<p>It may be worth while to contrast with the attitude of
+a writer who seems unable to distinguish between economic
+pressure and physical cruelty that taken up by a competent
+body, the large majority of the members of which belong
+to nations which, for various reasons, incline to the abolition
+of the usage in question. The Institut de Droit International,
+encouraged by the weight attached to its <i>Manual<span class="newpage"><a name="page105" id="page105">[105]</a></span>
+of the Law of War on Land</i> by the first and second Peace
+Conferences, has been, for some time past, working upon
+a <i>Manual of the Laws of War at Sea</i>. At its Christiania
+meeting in 1912 the Institut, while maintaining the
+previously expressed opinion of a majority of its members
+in favour of a change in the law, recognised that such a
+change has not yet come to pass, and that, till it occurs,
+regulations for the exercise of capture are indispensable,
+and directed the committee charged with the topic to draft
+rules presupposing the right of capture, and other rules
+to be applied should the right be hereafter surrendered
+(<i>Annuaire</i>, t. xxv., p. 602).</p>
+
+<p>The committee accordingly prepared a draft, framed in
+accordance with the existing practice, to the discussion of
+which the Institut devoted the whole of its recent session
+at Oxford, eventually giving its <i>imprimatur</i> to a Manual
+of the law of maritime warfare, as between the belligerents,
+in 116 articles. As opportunity serves, the committee will
+prepare a second draft, proceeding upon the hypothesis
+that the right of capturing private property at sea has been
+surrendered, which, in its turn, will be debated, word for
+word, by the Institut de Droit International.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, November 4 (1913).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+<hr style='width: 45%;' />
+
+<h3 class="sectionhead"><a name="CHAPTER_VI_SECTION_13" />SECTION 13</h3>
+
+<p class="subsectionhead">Martial Law</p>
+
+<div class="intronotes"><p>The first of the letters which follow has reference to the case of
+two Boer prisoners who, having taken the oath of neutrality on the
+British occupation of Pretoria, attempted to escape from the town.
+Both were armed, and one of them fired upon and wounded a sentinel
+who called upon them to stop. They were tried by court-martial,
+condemned to death, and shot on June 11, 1901. The Hague Convention
+quoted in the letter is that of 1899, but the same Art. 8 figures
+in the Convention of 1907.<span class="newpage"><a name="page106" id="page106">[106]</a></span></p>
+
+<p>The second and third of these letters relate to a question of English
+public law, growing out of the exercise of martial law in British territory
+in time of war. One Marais, accused of having contravened the
+martial law regulations of May 1, 1901, was imprisoned in Cape Colony
+by military authority, and the Supreme Court at the Cape held that
+it had no authority to order his release. The Privy Council refused an
+application for leave to appeal against this decision, saying that &quot;no
+doubt has ever existed that, when war actually prevails, the ordinary
+courts have no jurisdiction over the action of the military authorities&quot;;
+adding that &quot;the framers of the Petition of Right knew well what
+they meant when they made a condition of peace the ground of the
+illegality of unconstitutional procedure&quot; (<i>Ex parte</i> D.F. Marais, [1902]
+A.C. 109). Thereupon arose a discussion as to the extent of the prohibition
+of the exercise of martial law contained in the Petition of
+Right; and Mr. Edward Jenks, in letters to <i>The Times</i> of December 27,
+1901, and January 4, 1902, maintained that the prohibition in question
+was not confined to time of peace.</p>
+
+<p>The last letter deals with the true character of a Proclamation of
+Martial Law, and was suggested by the refusal of the Privy Council,
+on April 2, 1906, to grant leave to appeal from sentences passed in
+Natal by court-martial, in respect of acts committed on February 8,
+1906, whereby retrospective effect had, it was alleged, been given to a
+proclamation not issued till the day after the acts were committed,
+<i>See</i> Mcomini Mzinelwe and Wanda <i>v.</i> H.E. the Governor and the A.G.
+for the Colony of Natal, 22 <i>Times Law Reports</i>, 413.</p></div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="THE-EXECUTIONS-AT-PRETORIA" />THE EXECUTIONS AT PRETORIA</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;No doubt is possible that by international law, as
+probably by every system of national law, all necessary
+means, including shooting, may be employed to prevent the
+escape of a prisoner of war. The question raised by the
+recent occurrence at Pretoria is, however, a different one&mdash;<i>viz.</i>
+What are the circumstances in connection with an
+attempt to escape which justify execution after trial by
+court-martial of the persons concerned in it? This question
+may well be dealt with a part from the facts, as to which we
+are as yet imperfectly informed, which have called for Mr.
+Winston Churchill's letter. With the arguments of that
+letter I in the main agree, but should not attach so much
+importance as Mr. Churchill appears to do to a chapter of
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page107" id="page107">[107]</a></span>the British <i>Manual of Military Law</i>, which, though included
+in a Government publication, cannot be taken as official,
+since it is expressly stated &quot;to have no official authority&quot;
+and to &quot;express only the opinions of the compiler, as drawn
+from the authorities cited.&quot;</p>
+
+<p>I propose, without comment, to call attention to what
+may be found upon this subject in conventional International
+Law, in one or two representative national codes,
+and in the considered judgment of the leading contemporary
+international lawyers.</p>
+
+<p>I. The Hague &quot;Convention on the laws and customs of
+war on land&quot; (ratified by twenty Powers) lays down:&mdash;</p>
+
+<div class="letterquot"><p>&quot;ARTICLE 8.&mdash;Prisoners of war shall be subject to the laws, regulations,
+and orders in force in the army of the State into whose hands
+they have fallen. Any act of insubordination warrants the adoption
+as regards them of such measures of severity as may be necessary.
+Escaped prisoners, recaptured before they have succeeded in rejoining
+their army, or before quitting the territory occupied by the army that
+captured them, are liable to disciplinary punishment. Prisoners who
+after succeeding in escaping are again taken prisoners are not liable to
+any punishment for their previous flight.&quot;</p></div>
+
+<p>The Hague Conference, in adopting this article, adopted
+also, as an &quot;authentic interpretation&quot; of it, a statement
+that the indulgence granted to escapes does not apply to
+such as are accompanied by &quot;special circumstances,&quot; of
+which the instances given are &quot;complot, r&eacute;bellion, &eacute;meute.&quot;</p>
+
+<div class="letterquot"><p>&quot;ARTICLE 12.&mdash;Any prisoner of war who is liberated on parole and
+recaptured bearing arms against the Government to which he had
+pledged his honour, or against the allies of that Government, forfeits
+his right to be treated as a prisoner of war, and can be put on his trial.&quot;</p></div>
+
+<p>II. The United States Instructions:&mdash;</p>
+
+<div class="letterquot"><p>&quot;ARTICLE 77.&mdash;A prisoner of war may be shot or otherwise killed
+in his flight; but neither death nor any other punishment shall be
+inflicted on him simply for his attempt.... If, however, a conspiracy
+is discovered, the purpose of which is a united or general escape, the
+conspirators may be rigorously punished even with death, &amp;c.&quot;</p>
+
+<p>&quot;ARTICLE 78.&mdash;If prisoners of war, having given no pledge nor
+made any promise on their honour, forcibly or otherwise, escape, and
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page108" id="page108">[108]</a></span>are captured again in battle, having rejoined their own army, they
+shall not be punished for their escape.&quot;</p>
+
+<p>&quot;ARTICLE 124.&mdash;Breaking the parole is punished with death when
+the person breaking the parole is captured again.&quot;</p></div>
+
+<p><i>Cf.</i> the French <i>Code de Justice Militaire</i>, Art. 204, and
+other Continental codes to the same effect.</p>
+
+<p>III. The <i>Manuel des Lois de la guerre sur terre</i> of the
+Institute of International Law lays down:&mdash;</p>
+
+<div class="letterquot"><p>&quot;ARTICLE 68.&mdash;Si le fugitif
+<ins class="correction"
+  title="Transcriber's note: Printed _ressasi_ in original text.">
+ressaisi</ins> ou captur&eacute; de nouveau avait
+donne sa parole de ne pas s'&eacute;vader, il peut &ecirc;tre priv&eacute; des droits de
+prisonnier de guerre.&quot;</p>
+
+<p>&quot;ARTICLE 78.&mdash;Tout prisonnier lib&eacute;r&eacute; sur parole et repris portant
+les armes contre le gouvernement auquel il l'avait donn&eacute;e, peut &ecirc;tre
+priv&eacute; des droits de prisonnier de guerre, &agrave; moins que, post&eacute;rieurement
+&agrave; sa liberation, il n'ait &eacute;t&eacute; compris dans un cartel d'&eacute;change sans
+conditions.&quot;</p></div>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, June 17 (1901).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="THE-PETITION-OF-RIGHT-1901" />THE PETITION OF RIGHT</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;This is, I think, not a convenient time, nor perhaps
+are your columns the place, for an exhaustive discussion of
+the interpretation and application of the Petition of Right.
+It may, however, be just worth while to make the following
+remarks, for the comfort of any who may have been
+disquieted by the letter addressed to you by my friend
+Mr. Jenks:&mdash;</p>
+
+<p>1. Although, as is common knowledge, the words &quot;in
+time of peace,&quot; so familiar in the Mutiny Acts from the reign
+of Queen Anne onwards, do not occur in the Petition, they
+do occur, over and over again, in the arguments used in
+the House of Commons by &quot;the framers of the Petition
+of Right,&quot; to employ the phraseology of the judgment
+recently delivered in the Privy Council by the Lord
+Chancellor.<span class="newpage"><a name="page109" id="page109">[109]</a></span></p>
+
+<p>2. The prohibition contained in the Petition, so far
+from being &quot;absolute and unqualified,&quot; is perfectly specific.
+It refers expressly to &quot;Commissions of like nature&quot; with
+certain Commissions lately issued:&mdash;</p>
+
+<div class="letterquot"><p>&quot;By which certain persons have been assigned and appointed
+Commissioners, with power and authority to proceed within the land,
+according to the justice of martial law, against such soldiers or mariners,
+or other dissolute persons joining with them, as should commit any
+murder, robbery, felony, mutiny, or other outrage or misdemeanour
+whatsoever, and by such summary course and order as is agreeable to
+martial law, and is used in armies in time of war, &amp;c.&quot;</p></div>
+
+<p>The text of these Commissions, the revocation of which
+is demanded by the Petition, is still extant.</p>
+
+<p>3. The Petition neither affirms nor denies the legality of
+martial law in time of war; although its advocates were
+agreed that at such a time martial law would be applicable
+to soldiers.</p>
+
+<p>4. A war carried on at a distance from the English shore
+as was the war with France in 1628, did not produce such
+a state of things as was described by the advocates of the
+Petition as &quot;a time of war.&quot; &quot;We have now no army in
+the field, and it is no time of war,&quot; said Mason in the course
+of the debates. &quot;If the Chancery and Courts of Westminster
+be shut up, it is time of war, but if the Courts be
+open, it is otherwise; yet, if war be in any part of the
+Kingdom, that the Sheriff cannot execute the King's writ,
+there is <i>tempus belli</i>,&quot; said Rolls.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, December 31 (1901).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="THE-PETITION-OF-RIGHT-1902" />THE PETITION OF RIGHT</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;In a letter which you allowed me to address to
+you a few days ago, I dealt with two perfectly distinct
+topics.</p>
+
+<p>In the first place I pointed out that the words occurring
+in a recent judgment of the Privy Council, which were cited
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page110" id="page110">[110]</a></span>by Mr. Jenks as a clear example of an assumption &quot;that
+the Petition of Right, in prohibiting the exercise of martial
+law, restricted its prohibition to time of peace,&quot; imply, as
+I read them, no assumption as to the meaning of that document,
+but merely contain an accurate statement of fact as
+to the line of argument followed by the supporters of the
+Petition in the House of Commons. Can Mr. Jenks really
+suppose that in making this remark I was &quot;appealing from
+the 'text of the Petition' to the debates in Parliament&quot;?</p>
+
+<p>I then proceeded to deal very shortly with the Petition
+itself, showing that while it neither condemns nor approves
+of the application of martial law in time of war (see Lord
+Blackburn's observations in R. <i>v.</i> Eyre), the prohibition
+contained in its martial law clauses, so far from being &quot;absolute
+and unqualified,&quot; relates exclusively to &quot;commissions
+of like nature&quot; with certain commissions which had been
+lately issued (at a time which admittedly, for the purposes
+of this discussion, was not &quot;a time of war&quot;), the text of
+which is still preserved, and the character of which is set
+forth in the Petition itself, as having authorised proceedings
+within the land, &quot;according to the justice of martial
+law, against such soldiers or mariners,&quot; as also against
+&quot;such other dissolute persons joining with them,&quot; &amp;c. The
+description of these commissions, be it observed, is not
+merely introduced into the Petition by way of recital, but
+is incorporated by express reference into the enacting clause.</p>
+
+<p>Thus much and no more I thought it desirable to say
+upon these two topics by way of dissent from a letter of
+Mr. Jenks upon the subject. In a second letter Mr. Jenks
+rides off into fresh country. I do not propose to follow him
+into the history of the conferences which took place in May,
+1628, after the framing of the Petition of Right, except to
+remark that what passed at these conferences is irrelevant
+to the interpretation to be placed upon the Petition, and,
+if relevant, would be opposed to Mr. Jenks's contention.
+It is well known that the Lords pressed the Commons to
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page111" id="page111">[111]</a></span>introduce various amendments into the Petition and to
+add to it the famous reservation of the &quot;sovereign power&quot;
+of the King. One of the proposed amendments referred,
+as Mr. Jenks says, to martial law, forbidding its application
+to &quot;any but soldiers and mariners,&quot; or &quot;in time of peace,
+or when your Majesty's Army is not on foot.&quot; The
+Commons' objection to this seems to have been that it was
+both unnecessary and obscurely expressed. &quot;Their complaint
+is against commissions in time of peace.&quot; &quot;It may
+be a time of peace, and yet his Majesty's Army may be on
+foot, and that martial law was not lawful here in England
+in time of peace, when the Chancery and other Courts do
+sit.&quot; &quot;They feared that this addition might extend martial
+law to the trained bands, for the uncertainty thereof.&quot;
+The objections of the Commons were, however, directed not
+so much to the amendments in detail as to any tampering
+with the text of the Petition. &quot;They would not alter any
+part of the Petition&quot; (nor did they, except by expunging
+two words alleged to be needlessly offensive), still less would
+they consent to add to it the reservation as to the &quot;sovereign
+power&quot; of the King.</p>
+
+<p>The story of these abortive conferences, however interesting
+historically, appears to me to have no bearing upon
+the legality of martial law, and I have no intention of
+returning to the subject.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, January 8 (1902).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="MARTIAL-LAW-IN-NATAL" />MARTIAL LAW IN NATAL</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;It seems that in the application made yesterday
+to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, on behalf
+of Natal natives under sentence of death, much stress was
+laid upon the argument that a proclamation of martial law
+cannot have a retrospective application. You will, perhaps,
+therefore allow me to remind your readers that, so far from
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page112" id="page112">[112]</a></span>the date of the proclamation having any bearing upon the
+merits of this painful case, the issue of any proclamation
+of martial law, in a self-governing British colony, neither
+increases nor diminishes the powers of the military or other
+authorities to take such steps as they may think proper
+for the safety of the country. If those steps were properly
+taken they are covered by the common law; if they have
+exceeded the necessities of the case they can be covered
+only by an Act of Indemnity. The proclamation is issued
+merely, from abundant caution, as a useful warning to those
+whom it may concern.</p>
+
+<p>This view, I venture to think, cannot now be seriously
+controverted; and I am glad to find, on turning to Mr.
+Clode's <i>Military and Martial Law</i> that the passage cited
+in support of Mr. Jellicoe's contention as to a proclamation
+having no retroactive application is merely to the effect that
+this is so, if certain statements, made many years ago in a
+debate upon the subject, are correct. As to their correctness,
+or otherwise, Mr. Clode expresses no opinion.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+</div>
+
+<hr style='width: 45%;' />
+
+<h3 class="sectionhead"><a name="CHAPTER_VI_SECTION_14" />SECTION 14</h3>
+
+<p class="subsectionhead">The Naval Bombardment of Open Coast Towns</p>
+
+<div class="intronotes"><p>The four letters which first follow were suggested by the British
+Naval Man&oelig;uvres of 1888, during which operations were supposed
+to be carried on, by the squadron playing the part of a hostile fleet,
+which I ventured to assert to be in contravention of international law.
+Many letters were written by naval men in a contrary sense, and the
+report of a committee of admirals appointed to consider, among other
+questions, &quot;the feasibility and expediency of cruisers making raids on
+an enemy's coasts and unprotected towns for the purpose of levying
+contributions,&quot; was to the effect that &quot;there can be no doubt about
+the feasibility of such operations by a maritime enemy possessed of
+sufficient power; and as to the expediency, there can be as little doubt
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page113" id="page113">[113]</a></span>but that any Power at war with Great Britain will adopt every possible
+means of weakening her enemy; and we know of no means more
+efficacious for making an enemy feel the pinch of war than by thus
+destroying his property and touching his pocket.&quot; (<i>Parl. Paper</i>,
+1889 [c. 5632], pp. 4, 8.) The supposed hostile squadron had, it
+seems, received express instructions &quot;to attack any port in Great
+Britain.&quot; (See more fully in the writer's <i>Studies in International
+Law</i>, 1898, p. 96.) The fifth letter was suggested by a Russian protest
+against alleged Japanese action in 1904.</p>
+
+<p>The subsequent history of this controversy, some account of which
+will be found at the end of this section, has, it is submitted, established
+the correctness of the views maintained in it.</p></div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="NAVAL-ATROCITIES" />NAVAL ATROCITIES</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;I trust we may soon learn on authority whether
+or no the enemies of this country are conducting naval
+hostilities in accordance with the rules of civilised warfare.
+I read with indignation that the <i>Spider</i> has destroyed
+Greenock; that she announced her intention of &quot;blowing
+down&quot; Ardrossan; that she has been &quot;shelling the fine
+marine residences and watering-places in the Vale of Clyde.&quot;
+Can this be true, and was there really any ground for expecting
+that &quot;a bombardment of the outside coast of the
+Isle of Wight&quot; would take place last night?</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">Your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Athen&aelig;um Club, August 7 (1888).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="THE-NAVAL-MANOEUVRES-A" />THE NAVAL MAN&OElig;UVRES</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;In a letter which I addressed to you on the 7th
+inst. I ventured to point out the discrepancy between the
+proceedings of certain vessels belonging to Admiral Tryon's
+fleet and the rules of civilised warfare. Your correspondent
+on board Her Majesty's ship <i>Ajax</i> yesterday told us something
+of the opinion of the fleet as to the bombardment
+and ransoming of defenceless seaboard towns, going on to
+predict that, in a war in which England should be engaged,
+privateers would again be as plentiful as in the days of<span class="newpage"><a name="page114" id="page114">[114]</a></span>
+Paul Jones, and assuring us that in such a war &quot;not the
+slightest respect would be paid to old-fashioned treaties,
+protocols, or other diplomatic documents.&quot; Captain James
+appears, from his letter which you print to-day, to be of
+the same opinion as the fleet, with reference both to
+bombardments and to privateers; telling us also in plain
+language that &quot;the talk about international law is all
+nonsense.&quot;</p>
+
+<p>Two questions are thus raised which seem worthy of
+serious consideration. First, what are the rules of
+international law with reference to the bombardment of open
+towns from the sea (I leave out of consideration the better
+understood topic of privateering)? Secondly, are future
+wars likely to be conducted without regard to international
+law?</p>
+
+<p>1. I need hardly say that I do not, as Captain James
+supposes, contend &quot;that unfortified towns will never be
+bombarded or ransomed.&quot; International law has never
+prohibited, though it has attempted to restrict, the
+bombardment of such towns. Even in 1694 our Government
+defended the destruction of Dieppe, Havre, and Calais
+only as a measure of retaliation, and in subsequent naval
+wars operations of this kind have been more and more
+carefully limited, till in the Crimean war our cruisers were
+careful to abstain from doing further damage than was
+involved in the confiscation or destruction of stores of arms
+and provisions. The principles involved were carefully
+considered by the military delegates of all the States of
+Europe at the Brussels Conference of 1874, and their
+conclusions, which apply, I conceive, <i>mutatis mutandis</i>, to
+operations conducted by naval forces against places on
+land, are as follows:&mdash;</p>
+
+<div class="letterquot"><p>&quot;ARTICLE 15.&mdash;Fortified places are alone liable to be besieged.
+Towns, agglomerations of houses, or villages which are open or
+undefended cannot be attacked or bombarded.&quot;</p>
+
+<p>&quot;ARTICLE 16.&mdash;But if a town, &amp;c., be defended, the commander of
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page115" id="page115">[115]</a></span>the attacking forces should, before commencing a bombardment,
+and except in the case of surprise, do all in his power to warn the
+authorities.&quot;</p>
+
+<p>&quot;ARTICLE 40.&mdash;As private property should be respected, the enemy
+will demand from parishes or the inhabitants only such payments
+and services as are connected with the necessities of war generally
+acknowledged, in proportion to the resources of the country.&quot;</p>
+
+<p>&quot;ARTICLE 41.&mdash;The enemy in levying contributions, whether as
+equivalents for taxes or for payments which should be made in kind,
+or as fines, will proceed, as far as possible, according to the rules of
+the distribution and assessment of the taxes in force in the occupied
+territory. Contributions can be imposed only on the order and on the
+responsibility of the general in chief.&quot;</p>
+
+<p>&quot;ARTICLE 42.&mdash;Requisitions shall be made only by the authority
+of the commandant of the locality occupied.&quot;</p></div>
+
+<p>These conclusions are substantially followed in the
+chapter on the &quot;Customs of War&quot; contained in the <i>Manual
+of Military Law</i> issued for the use of officers by the British
+War Office.</p>
+
+<p>The bombardment of an unfortified town would, I
+conceive, be lawful&mdash;(1) as a punishment for disloyal
+conduct; (2) in extreme cases, as retaliation for disloyal
+conduct elsewhere; (3) for the purpose of quelling armed
+resistance (not as a punishment for resistance when quelled);
+(4) in case of refusal of reasonable supplies requisitioned,
+or of a reasonable money contribution in lieu of supplies.
+It would, I conceive, be unlawful&mdash;(1) for the purpose of
+enforcing a fancy contribution or ransom, such as we were
+told was exacted from Liverpool; (2) by way of wanton
+injury to private property, such as was supposed to have
+been caused in the Clyde and at Folkestone, and <i>a fortiori</i>
+such as would have resulted from the anticipated shelling
+during the night-time of the south coast of the Isle of Wight.</p>
+
+<p>2. Is it the case that international law is &quot;all nonsense,&quot;
+and that &quot;when we are at war with an enemy he will do
+his best to injure us: he will do so in what way he thinks
+proper, all treaties and all so-called international law
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page116" id="page116">[116]</a></span>notwithstanding&quot;? Are we, with Admiral Aube, to
+speak of &quot;cette monstrueuse association de mots: les
+droits de la guerre&quot;? If so, <i>cadit qu&aelig;stio</i>, and a vast
+amount of labour has been wasted during the last three
+centuries. I can only say that such a view of the future
+is not in accordance with the teachings of the past. The
+body of accepted usage, supplemented by special conventions,
+which is known as international law, has, as a matter
+of fact, exercised, even in time of war, a re staining influence
+on national conduct. This assertion might be illustrated
+from the discussions which have arisen during recent wars
+with reference to the Geneva Conventions to the treatment
+of the wounded and the St. Petersburg declaration against
+the use of explosive bullets. The binding obligation of
+these instruments, which would doubtless be classed by
+your correspondent with the fleet among &quot;old-fashioned
+treaties, protocols, and other diplomatic documents,&quot; has
+never been doubted, while each party has eagerly
+endeavoured to disprove alleged infractions of them.</p>
+
+<p>The naval man&oelig;uvres have doubtless taught many
+lessons of practical seamanship. They will have done
+good service of another sort if they have brought to the
+attention of responsible statesmen such questions as those
+with which I have attempted to deal. It is essential that
+the country should know the precise extent of the risks to
+which our seaboard towns will be exposed in time of war,
+and it is desirable that our naval forces should be warned
+against any course of action, in their conduct of mimic
+warfare, which could be cited against us, in case we should
+ever have to complain of similar action on the part of a
+real enemy.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">Your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, August 18 (1888).</div><br />
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page117" id="page117">[117]</a></span></div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="THE-NAVAL-MANOEUVRES-B" />THE NAVAL MAN&OElig;UVRES</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;In my first letter I called attention to certain
+operations of the <i>Spider</i> and her consorts which seemed
+to be inspired by no principle beyond that of doing
+unlimited mischief to the enemy's seaboard. In a second
+letter I endeavoured to distinguish between the mischief
+which would and that which would not be regarded as
+permissible in civilised warfare. The correspondence which
+has subsequently appeared in your columns has made
+sufficiently clear the opposition between the view which
+seems to find favour just now in naval circles and the
+principles of international law, as I have attempted to
+define them. The question between my critics and myself
+is, in effect, whether the medi&aelig;val or the modern view
+as to the treatment of private property is to prevail.
+According to the former, all such property is liable to be
+seized or destroyed, in default of a &quot;Brandschatz,&quot; or
+ransom. According to the latter, it is inviolable, subject
+only to certain well-defined exceptions, among which
+reasonable requisitions of supplies would be recognised,
+while demands of money contributions, as such, would not
+be recognised.</p>
+
+<p>The evidence in favour of the modern view being what
+I have stated it to be is, indeed, overwhelming; but I
+should like to call special attention to the <i>Manuel de Droit
+International &agrave; l'Usage des Officiers de l'Arm&eacute;e de Terre</i>,
+issued by the French Government, as going even further
+than the Brussels Conference in the restrictions which it
+imposes upon the levying of requisitions and contributions.
+The Duke of Wellington, who used to be thought an
+authority in these matters, wrote in 1844, with reference
+to a pamphlet in which the Prince de Joinville had advocated
+depredations on the English coasts:&mdash;</p>
+
+<div class="letterquot"><p>&quot;What but the inordinate desire of popularity could have induced
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page118" id="page118">[118]</a></span>a man in his station to write and publish an invitation and provocation
+to war, to be carried on in a manner such as has been disclaimed by
+the civilised portions of mankind?&quot;</p></div>
+
+<p>The naval historian, Mr. Younge, in commenting on
+the burning of Paita, in Chili, as far back as 1871, for
+non-compliance with a demand for a money contribution
+(ultimately reduced to a requisition of provisions for the
+ships), speaks of it as &quot;worthy only of the most lawless
+pirate or buccaneer, ... as a singular proof of how completely
+the principles of civilised warfare were conceived
+to be confined to Europe.&quot;</p>
+
+<p>Such exceptional acts as the burning of Paita, or the
+bombardment of Valparaiso, mentioned by Mr. Herries,
+will, of course, occur from time to time. My position is
+that they are so far stigmatised as barbarous by public
+opinion that their perpetration in civilised warfare may be
+regarded as improbable; in other words, that they are
+forbidden by international law.</p>
+
+<p>It is a further question whether the rules of international
+law on this point are to be changed or disregarded in future.
+Do we expect, and are we desirous, that future wars shall
+be conducted in accordance with buccaneering precedent,
+or with what has hitherto been the general practice of the
+nineteenth century? Your naval correspondents incline
+to revert to buccaneering and thus to the introduction into
+naval coast operations of a rigour long unknown to the
+operations of military forces on land; but they do so with
+a difference. Lord Charles Beresford (writing early in the
+controversy) asserts the permissibility of ransoming and
+destroying, without any qualifying expressions; while
+Admiral de Horsey would apparently only ask &quot;rich&quot;
+towns for contributions, insisting also that a contribution
+must be &quot;reasonable,&quot; and expressly repudiating any
+claim to do &quot;wanton injury to property of poor communities,
+and still less to individuals.&quot; In the light of
+these concessions, I venture to claim Admiral de Horsey's
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page119" id="page119">[119]</a></span>concurrence in my condemnation of most of the doings
+mentioned in my first letter, although on the whole he
+ranges himself on the side of the advocates of what I
+maintain to be a change in the existing law of war.
+Whether or no the existing law needs revision is a question
+for politicians and for military and naval experts. It is
+within my province only to express a hope that the
+contradiction between existing law and new military necessities
+(if, indeed, such contradiction exists) will not be solved by
+a repudiation of all law as &quot;nonsense&quot;; and, further,
+that, if a change of law is to be effected, it will be done
+with due deliberation and under a sense of responsibility.
+It should be remembered that operations conducted with
+the apparent approval of the highest naval authorities,
+and letters in <i>The Times</i> from distinguished admirals, are
+in truth the stuff that public opinion, and in particular
+that department of public opinion known as &quot;international
+law,&quot; is made of.</p>
+
+<p>The ignorance, by the by, which certain of my critics
+have displayed of the nature and claims of international
+law is not a little surprising. Some seem to identify it
+with treaties; others with &quot;Vattel.&quot; Several, having
+become aware that it is not law of the kind which is
+enforced by a policeman or a County Court bailiff, have
+hastened, much exhilarated, to give the world the benefit
+of their discovery. Most of them are under the impression
+that it has been concocted by &quot;bookworms,&quot; &quot;jurists,&quot;
+&quot;professors,&quot; or other &quot;theorists,&quot; instead of, as is the
+fact, mainly by statesmen, diplomatists, prize courts,
+generals and admirals. This is, however, a wide field, into
+which I must not stray. I have even avoided the pleasant
+by-paths of disquisition on contraband, privateering, and
+the Declaration of Paris generally, into which some of
+your correspondents have courteously invited me. I fear
+we are as yet far from having disposed of the comparatively
+simple question as to the operations which may be
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page120" id="page120">[120]</a></span>properly undertaken by a naval squadron against an
+undefended seaboard.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Llanfairfechan, August 27 (1888).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="NAVAL-BOMBARDMENTS-OF-UNFORTIFIED-PLACES" />NAVAL BOMBARDMENTS OF UNFORTIFIED PLACES</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;The protest reported to have been lodged by the
+Russian Government against the bombardment by the
+Japanese fleet of a quarantine station on the island of
+San-shan-tao, apart from questions of fact, as to which
+we have as yet no reliable information, recalls attention
+to a question of international law of no slight importance&mdash;<i>viz.</i>
+under what, if any, circumstances it is permissible
+for a naval force to bombard an &quot;open&quot; coast town.</p>
+
+<p>In the first place, it may be hardly necessary to point
+out the irrelevancy of the reference, alleged to have been
+made in the Russian Note, to &quot;Article 25 of The Hague
+Convention.&quot; The Convention and the <i>R&egrave;glement</i> annexed
+to it are, of course, exclusively applicable to &quot;la guerre
+sur terre.&quot; Not only, however, would any mention of
+a naval bombardment have been out of place in that
+<i>R&egrave;glement</i>, but a proposal to bring such action within the
+scope of its 25th Article, which prohibits &quot;the attack or
+bombardment of towns, villages, habitations, or buildings
+which are not defended,&quot; was expressly negatived by the
+Conference of The Hague. It became abundantly clear,
+during the discussion of this proposal, that the only
+chance of an agreement being arrived at was that any
+allusion to maritime warfare should be carefully avoided.
+It was further ultimately admitted, even by the advocates
+of the proposal, that the considerations applicable to
+bombardments by an army and by a naval force respectively
+are not identical. It was, for instance, urged that
+an army has means other than those which may alone be
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page121" id="page121">[121]</a></span>available to a fleet for obtaining from an open town absolutely
+needful supplies. The Hague Conference, therefore,
+left the matter where it found it, recording, however,
+among its &quot;pious wishes&quot; (<i>v&oelig;ux</i>) one to the effect &quot;that
+the proposal to regulate the question of the bombardment
+of ports, towns, and villages by a naval force should be
+referred for examination to a future conference.&quot;</p>
+
+<p>The topic is not a new one. You, Sir, allowed me
+to raise it in your columns with reference to the naval
+man&oelig;uvres of 1888, when a controversy ensued which
+disclosed the existence of a considerable amount of naval
+opinion in favour of practices which I ventured to think
+in contravention of international law. It was also
+thoroughly debated in 1896 at the Venice meeting of the
+Institut de Droit International upon a report drafted by
+myself, as chairman of a committee appointed a year
+previously. This report lays down that the restrictions
+placed by international law upon bombardments on land
+apply also to those effected from the sea, except that such
+operations are lawful for a naval force when undertaken
+with a view to (1) obtaining supplies of which it is in need;
+(2) destroying munitions of war or warships which may
+be in a port; (3) punishing, by way of reprisal, violations
+by the enemy of the laws of war. Bombardments for the
+purpose of exacting a ransom or of putting pressure upon
+the hostile Power by injury to peaceful individuals or their
+property were to be unlawful. The views of the committee
+were, in substance, adopted by the Institut, with the
+omission only of the paragraph allowing bombardment by
+way of reprisals.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, April 2 (1904).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+<div class="postnotes"><p>The &quot;Hague Conference&quot; and &quot;Hague Convention&quot; to which
+reference was made in the last of these letters were, of course, those
+of 1899.</p>
+
+<p>For the action taken by the Institut de Droit International in 1895
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page122" id="page122">[122]</a></span>and 1896, on the initiative of the present writer, see the <i>Annuaire de
+l'Institut</i>, t. xiv p. 295, t. xv. pp. 145-151, 309, 317; and his
+<i>Studies in International Law</i>, pp. 106-111. See also, at p. 104 of the
+same work, an opinion given by him to the Chevalier Tindal as to the
+liability of The Hague to be bombarded.</p>
+
+<p>The later growth of opinion has been in accordance with the views
+maintained by the writer of these letters, and with the <i>Rapport</i> drafted
+by him for the Institut. The Hague Conference of 1899, though
+unable to discuss the subject, had registered a <i>v&aelig;u</i> &quot;that the proposal
+to regulate the question of the bombardment of ports, towns and
+villages by a naval force may be referred for examination to a future
+Conference.&quot; See <i>Parl. Paper, Miscell.</i> No. 1 (1889), pp. 139, 146,
+162, 165, 258, 283. At the Conference of 1907 a Convention, No. ix.,
+was accordingly signed and generally ratified, notably by Germany and
+Great Britain, Art. 1 of which prohibits &quot;the bombardment by naval
+forces of ports towns, villages, houses, or buildings which are not
+defended,&quot; Germany, France, Great Britain and Japan dissenting
+from the second paragraph of this article, which explains that a place is
+not to be considered to be defended merely because it is protected by
+submarine contact-mines. Bombardment is, however, permitted, by
+Art. 2, of places which are, in fact, military or naval bases, and, by
+Arts. 3 and 4, of places which refuse to comply with reasonable requisitions
+for food needed by the fleet, though not for refusal of money contributions.
+The <i>Acte Final</i> of the Conference further registers a <i>v&aelig;u</i> that
+&quot;the Powers should, in all cases, apply, as far as possible, to war at sea
+the principles of the Convention concerning the laws and customs
+of war on land.&quot; (<i>Parl. Paper, Miscell.</i> No. 1 (1908), p. 30.) This
+Convention, No. iv. of 1907, in Art. 25 of the <i>R&egrave;glement</i> annexed to it,
+lays down that &quot;the attack or bombardment, by whatsoever means,
+of towns, villages, habitations, or buildings which are not defended
+is prohibited.&quot;</p>
+
+<p>The British Government had, in 1907, so far departed from the
+Admiralty views of 1888 as to instruct their delegates to the Conference
+of that year to the effect that &quot;the Government consider that the
+objection, on humanitarian grounds, to the bombardment of unfortified
+towns is too strong to justify a resort to that measure, even
+though it may be permissible under the abstract doctrines of international
+law [?]. They wish it, however, to be clearly understood that
+any general prohibition of such practice must not be held to apply to
+such operations as the bombardment of towns or places used as bases
+or storehouses of naval or military equipment or supply, or ports
+containing fighting ships, and that the landing of troops, or anything
+partaking of the character of a military or naval operation, is also not
+covered.&quot;<span class="newpage"><a name="page123" id="page123">[123]</a></span></p>
+
+<p>It is hardly necessary to chronicle the indignation aroused by
+the raids upon undefended coast towns carried out by German cruisers
+during the war of 1914, in violation of modern International Law
+and notwithstanding the German ratification of Convention No. ix.
+of 1907.</p></div>
+
+<hr style='width: 45%;' />
+
+<h3 class="sectionhead"><a name="CHAPTER_VI_SECTION_15" />SECTION 15</h3>
+
+<p class="subsectionhead">Belligerent Reprisals</p>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="REPRISALS-A" />REPRISALS</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;The controversy as to the legitimacy of the
+recent attack on Freiburg tends to stray into irrelevancies.
+If the attack was made upon barracks or troop trains no
+one would surely criticise what is of everyday occurrence,
+although not unlikely to cause incidentally death or injury
+to innocent persons. There seems, however, to be no
+reason for supposing that such military objects were in
+view, or that our aeroplanes were instructed to confine
+their activity, as far as possible, to the attainment of such
+objects. We must assume, for any useful discussion of
+the question raised, that the operation was deliberately
+intended to result in injury to the property and persons
+of civilian inhabitants, not, of course, by way of vengeance,
+but by way of reprisal&mdash;<i>i.e.</i> with the practical object of
+inducing the enemy to abstain in the future from his
+habitually practised illegal barbarities. Such reprisals, as is
+to-day so well explained by your correspondent &quot;Jurist,&quot;
+are no violations of international law. Objections might,
+of course, be made to them as unlikely to produce their
+hoped-for effect, or as repugnant to our feelings of humanity
+or honour. They are not illegal.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, May 4 (1917).</div><br />
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page124" id="page124">[124]</a></span></div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="REPRISALS-B" />REPRISALS</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;If my friend Sir Edward Clarke will glance again
+at my letter of Monday, he will, I think, cease to be surprised
+that it contains no answer to his censure from an ethical
+standpoint of our treatment of Freiburg. My object
+was merely to indicate the desirability of keeping the
+question whether acts of the kind are in violation of
+international law (which I answered in the negative) distinct
+from questions, which I catalogued, as to their practical
+inutility, with which some of your correspondents have
+occupied themselves, or their repugnancy to feelings of
+honour and humanity with which Sir Edward has dealt
+exclusively. Any discussion of political expediency or of
+high morals would have been beside my purpose.</p>
+
+<p>It is curious that Sir Herbert Stephen should to-day
+speak of my letter of the 7th as a defence of the
+aerial bombardment of Freiburg. It neither attacked nor
+defended the bombardment, but, solely in the interests
+of clear thinking, indicated the desirability of keeping
+distinct the three points of view from which the topic may
+be regarded, <i>viz.</i>: (1) of international law;
+(2) of practical utility; (3) of morality and honour.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, May 9 (1917).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+<hr style='width: 45%;' />
+
+<h3 class="sectionhead"><a name="CHAPTER_VI_SECTION_16" />SECTION 16</h3>
+
+<p class="subsectionhead">Peace</p>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="UNDESIRABLE-PEACE-TALK" />UNDESIRABLE PEACE TALK</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;There has been more than enough of premature
+discussion by groups of well-meaning amateurs, not unfrequently
+wirepulled by influences hostile to this country,
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page125" id="page125">[125]</a></span>with reference to the terms of the treaty of peace by which
+the world-war now raging will be brought to a close.</p>
+
+<p>Movements of the kind have culminated in the action
+of a body rejoicing in the somewhat cumbrous title of the
+&quot;International Central Organisation for a Durable Peace,&quot;
+which is inviting members of about fifty societies, of very
+varying degrees of competence, to a cosmopolitan meeting,
+to be held at Berne in December next. Lest the unwary
+should be beguiled into having anything to do with the
+plausible offer made to them that they should, there and
+then, assist in compiling &quot;a scientific dossier, containing
+material that will be of vast importance to the diplomats
+who may be chosen to participate in the peace congress itself,&quot;
+it may be worth while to call attention to the composition
+of the executive committee by which the invitations
+are issued, and to its &quot;minimum programme.&quot;</p>
+
+<p>Of the members of this committee (of thirteen), on
+which Great Britain is represented only by Mr. Lowes
+Dickenson (mistakenly described as a Cambridge Professor),
+and America only by Mrs. Andrews, of Boston, the best
+known are Professors Lammasch, of Vienna, and Sch&uuml;cking,
+of Marburg. The &quot;minimum programme&quot; demands, <i>inter
+alia</i>, &quot;equal rights for all nations in the colonies, &amp;c.,&quot;
+of the Powers; submission of all disputes to &quot;pacific
+procedure,&quot; joint action by the Powers against any one
+of them resorting to military measures, rather than to
+such procedure; and that &quot;the right of prize shall be
+abolished, and the freedom of the seas shall be guaranteed.&quot;
+The <i>provenance</i> of this &quot;minimum programme&quot; is
+sufficiently obvious. What is likely to be the character
+of such a &quot;maximum programme&quot; as will doubtless be
+aimed at by the proposed gathering?</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, October 16 (1915).</div><br />
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page126" id="page126">[126]</a></span></div>
+
+
+
+<hr style="width: 65%;" />
+<h2><a name="CHAPTER_VII" id="CHAPTER_VII" />CHAPTER VII</h2>
+
+<p class="chaptertitle">THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF NEUTRALS</p>
+
+
+<h3 class="sectionhead"><a name="CHAPTER_VII_SECTION_1" />SECTION 1</h3>
+
+<p class="subsectionhead">The Criterion of Neutral Conduct</p>
+
+<div class="intronotes"><p>The main object of the first of the following letters was to assert, as
+against any possible misunderstanding of phraseology attributed to
+a great international lawyer (since lost to science and to his friends by
+his sudden death on June 20, 1909), the authority by which alone
+neutral rights and duties are defined.</p>
+
+<p>The letter also touches upon the limit of time which a neutral
+Power is bound to place upon the stay in its ports of belligerent ships
+of war; a topic more fully discussed in Section 4.</p></div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="PROFESSOR-DE-MARTENS-ON-THE-SITUATION" />PROFESSOR DE MARTENS ON THE SITUATION</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;The name of my distinguished friend, M. de
+Martens, carries so much weight that I hope you will allow
+me at once to say that I am convinced that to-day's
+telegraphic report of some communication made by him to
+the St. Petersburg newspapers fails to convey an accurate
+account of the views which he has thus expressed.</p>
+
+<p>On matters of fact it would appear that he is no better
+informed than are most of us in this country; and under
+matters of fact may be included the breaches of neutrality
+which he is represented as counter-charging against the
+Japanese. It is exclusively with the views on questions of
+law which are attributed to Professor de Martens that I am
+now concerned. He is unquestionably right in saying, as I
+pointed out in a recent letter, that the hard-and-fast rule,
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page127" id="page127">[127]</a></span>fixing 24 hours as the limit, under ordinary circumstances,
+of the stay of a belligerent warship in neutral waters, is not
+yet universally accepted as a rule of international law;
+and, in particular, is not adopted by France.</p>
+
+<p>But what of the further <i>dictum</i> attributed to Professor
+de Martens, to the effect that &quot;each country is its own judge
+as regards the discharge of its duties as a neutral&quot;? This
+statement would be a superfluous truism if it meant merely
+that each country, when neutral, must, in the first instance,
+decide for itself what courses of action are demanded from
+it under the circumstances. The words may, however, be
+read as meaning that the decision of the neutral country,
+as to the propriety of its conduct, is final, and not to be
+questioned by other Powers. An assertion to this effect
+would obviously be the negation of the whole system of
+international law, of which Professor de Martens is so great
+a master, resting, as that system does, not on individual
+caprice, but upon the agreement of nations in restraint of
+the caprice of any one of them. The last word, with reference
+to the propriety of the conduct of any given State,
+rests, of course, not with that State; but with its neighbours.
+&quot;Securus indicat orbis terrarum.&quot; Any Power which fails
+in the discharge, to the best of its ability, of a generally
+recognised duty, is likely to find that self-satisfaction is no
+safeguard against unpleasant consequences. Professor de
+Martens would, I am certain, endorse this statement.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, May 12 (1905).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="NEUTRALS-AND-THE-LAWS-OF-WAR" />NEUTRALS AND THE LAWS OF WAR</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;The interesting address by Sir Edward Carson
+reported in your issue of yesterday will remind many of
+us of our regret that President Wilson, in Notes complaining
+of injuries sustained by American citizens, dwelt so slightly
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page128" id="page128">[128]</a></span>upon the violations of international law by which those
+injuries were brought about.</p>
+
+<p>Sir Edward seems, however, to have made use of certain
+expressions which might be taken to imply a view of neutral
+responsibility which can hardly be accepted. The United
+States were warned in the address that they will not &quot;by
+a mere Note maintain the obligations which are put upon
+them, as parties to international law, which are to prevent
+breaches of civilisation and to mitigate the horrors of war.&quot;
+Neutrals were spoken of as &quot;the executives of international
+law,&quot; and as alone standing &quot;behind the conventions&quot;
+(for humanising warfare). &quot;Abolish,&quot; we were told, &quot;the
+power of neutrals, and you have abolished international
+law itself.&quot;</p>
+
+<p>Is this so? The contract into which a State enters with
+other States, by adopting the customary laws of war and
+by ratifying express Conventions dealing with the same
+subject, obliges it, while remaining neutral, to submit to
+certain inconveniences resulting from the war, and, when
+belligerent, to abstain from certain modes of carrying on
+hostilities. It is assuredly no term of the contract that
+the State in question shall sit in judgment upon its co-contractors
+and forcibly intervene in <i>rebus inter alios actis</i>.
+Its hands are absolutely free. It may remain a quiescent
+spectator of evil, or, if strong enough and indignant with
+the wrongdoing, may endeavour to abate the mischief
+by remonstrance, and, in the last resort, by taking sides
+against the offender. Let us hope that at the present crisis
+the United States may see their way to choosing the better part.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, November 28 (1915).</div><br />
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page129" id="page129">[129]</a></span></div>
+
+<hr style='width: 45%;' />
+
+<h3 class="sectionhead"><a name="CHAPTER_VII_SECTION_2" />SECTION 2</h3>
+
+<p class="subsectionhead">The Duties of Neutral States, and the Liabilities of Neutral
+Individuals, distinguished</p>
+
+<div class="intronotes">
+<p>The duties of neutral States have been classified by the present
+writer under the heads, of &quot;Abstention,&quot; &quot;Prevention,&quot; and &quot;Acquiescence.&quot;
+(<i>Transactions of the British Academy</i>, vol. ii, p. 55; reproduced
+in the <i>Revue de Droit International</i>, the <i>Revista de Derecho International</i>,
+and the <i>Marine Rundschau</i>.) In the three letters which follow, an
+attempt is made to point out the confusion which has resulted from
+failure to distinguish between the two last-mentioned heads of neutral
+duty; on the one hand, namely, the cases in which a neutral government
+is bound itself to come forward and take steps to prevent certain classes
+of action on the part of belligerents, or of its own subjects, <i>e.g.</i> the overstay
+in its ports of belligerent fleets, or the export from its shores of
+ships of war for belligerent use; and, on the other hand, the cases in
+which the neutral government is bound only to passively acquiesce in
+interference by belligerents with the commerce of such of its subjects
+as may choose, at their own risk and peril, to engage in carriage of
+contraband, breach of blockade, and the like.</p>
+
+<p>I. A neutral State is bound to prevent its territory from becoming,
+in any way, a &quot;base of operations&quot; for either belligerent. Of the
+various obligations thus arising, the following letters deal with the duty
+of the State (1) to prevent the departure from its ports of vessels
+carrying coal intended to supply directly the needs of a belligerent
+fleet; and (2) to prevent the reception accorded in its ports to belligerent
+warships from being such as will unduly facilitate their subsequent
+operations. It is pointed out that the rule adopted by the
+United States and this country, as well as by some others, when neutral,
+by which the stay of belligerent warships is limited to twenty-four
+hours, has not been adopted by the nations of the European continent.
+The attempt made at The Hague Conference of 1907 to secure the
+general acceptance of this rule was unsuccessful; and Convention
+No. xiii. of that year, not yet ratified by Great Britain, which deals
+with this subject, merely lays down, in Art. 12, that &quot;<i>In the absence of
+special provisions to the contrary in the legislation of a neutral Power</i>,
+belligerent warships are not permitted to remain in the ports, roadsteads,
+or territorial waters of the said Power for more than twenty-four
+hours, except in the cases covered by this Convention.&quot; Art. 27 obliges
+the contracting Powers to &quot;communicate to each other in due course
+all laws, proclamations, and other enactments, regulating in their
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page130" id="page130">[130]</a></span>respective countries the <i>Status</i> of belligerent warships in their ports
+laid waters.&quot;</p>
+
+<p>II. A neutral State is not bound to prevent such assistance being
+rendered by its subjects to either belligerent as is involved in, <i>e.g.</i>
+blockade-running or carriage of contraband; but merely to acquiesce
+in the loss and inconvenience which may in consequence be inflicted
+by the belligerents upon persons so acting. In order to explain this
+statement, it became necessary to say much as to the true character
+of &quot;carriage of contraband&quot; (although this topic is more specifically
+dealt with in the letters contained in Section 5), and to point out that
+such carriage is neither a breach of international law nor forbidden
+by the law of England. For the same reason, it seemed desirable to
+criticise some of the clauses now usually inserted in British Proclamations
+of Neutrality.</p>
+
+<p>The view here maintained commended itself to the Institut de
+Droit International, at its Cambridge and Venice sessions, 1895, 1896,
+as against the efforts of MM Kleen and Brusa to impose on States a
+duty of preventing carriage of contraband by its subjects (<i>Annuaire</i>,
+t. xiv. p. 191, t. xv. p. 205). It has now received formal expression in
+The Hague Convention No. x. of 1907, Art. 7 of which lays down that
+&quot;a neutral Power is <i>not</i> bound to prevent the export or transit, for
+the use of either belligerent, of arms, ammunition, or, in general, of
+anything which could be of use to an army or fleet.&quot;</p>
+</div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="CONTRABAND-OF-WAR-1904" />CONTRABAND OF WAR</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;As a good deal of discussion is evidently about to
+take place as to the articles which may be properly treated
+as contraband of war, and, in particular, as to coal being
+properly so treated, I venture to think that it may be
+desirable to reduce this topic (a sufficiently large one) to its
+true dimensions by distinguishing it from other topics with
+which it is too liable to be confused.</p>
+
+<p>Articles are &quot;contraband of war&quot; which a belligerent
+is justified in intercepting while in course of carriage to his
+enemy, although such carriage is being effected by a neutral
+vessel. Whether any given article should be treated as
+contraband is, in the first instance, entirely a question for
+the belligerent Government and its Prize Court. A neutral
+Government has no right to complain, of hardships which
+may thus be incurred by vessels sailing under its flag, but
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page131" id="page131">[131]</a></span>is bound to acquiesce in the views maintained by the
+belligerent Government and its Courts, unless these views
+involve, in the language employed by Lord Granville in
+1861, &quot;a flagrant violation of international law.&quot; This is
+the beginning and end of the doctrine of contraband. A
+neutral Government has none other than this passive duty
+of acquiescence. Its neutrality would not be compromised
+by the shipment from its shores, and the carriage by its
+merchantmen, of any quantity of cannon, rifles, and gunpowder.</p>
+
+<p>Widely different from the above are the following three
+topics, into the consideration of which discussions upon
+contraband occasionally diverge:&mdash;</p>
+
+<p>1. The international duty of the neutral Government
+not to allow its territory to become a base of belligerent
+operations: <i>e.g.</i> by the organisation on its shores of an
+expedition, such as that which in 1828 sailed from Plymouth
+in the interest of Dona Maria; by the despatch from its
+harbours for belligerent use of anything so closely resembling
+an expedition as a fully equipped ship of war (as was argued
+in the case of the <i>Alabama</i>); by the use of its ports by
+belligerent ships of war for the reception of munitions of war,
+or, except under strict limitations, for the renewal of their
+stock of coal; or by such an employment of its colliers as was
+alleged during the Franco-Prussian war to have implicated
+British merchantmen in the hostile operations of the French
+fleet in the North Sea. The use of the term &quot;contraband&quot;
+with reference to the failure of a neutral State to prevent
+occurrences of this kind is purely misleading.</p>
+
+<p>2. The powers conferred upon a Government by legislation
+of restraining its subjects from intermeddling in a
+war in which the Government takes no part. Of such
+legislation our Foreign Enlistment Act is a striking example.
+The large powers conferred by it have no commensurable
+relation to the duties which attach to the position of
+neutrality. Its effect is to enable the Government to pro<span class="newpage"><a name="page132" id="page132">[132]</a></span>hibit
+and punish, from abundant caution, many acts on the
+part of its subjects for which it would incur no international
+liability. It does empower the Government to prevent the
+use of its territory as a base: <i>e.g.</i> by aid directly rendered
+thence to a belligerent fleet; but it, of course, gives no right
+of interference with the export or carriage of articles which
+may be treated as contraband.</p>
+
+<p>3. The powers conferred upon a Government by such
+legislation as section 150 of the Customs Consolidation Act;
+1853, now reproduced in a later enactment, of forbidding at
+any time, by Order in Council, the export of articles useful
+in war. The power thus given has no relation to international
+duty, and is mainly intended to be exercised, in the
+way of self-protection, when Great Britain is, or is likely to
+be, engaged in war. The object of the enactment is to
+enable the Government to retain in the country articles of
+which we may ourselves be in need, or to prevent them from
+reaching the hands of our enemies. The articles enumerated&mdash;<i>e.g.</i>
+arms, ammunition, marine engines, &amp;c.&mdash;are, neither
+in the Act of 1853 nor in the Order in Council of the following
+year, described as &quot;contraband of war.&quot;</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, March 5 (1904).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="COAL-FOR-THE-RUSSIAN-FLEET" />COAL FOR THE RUSSIAN FLEET</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;The use of coal for belligerent purposes is, of course,
+of comparatively modern date, and it is hardly surprising
+to find that the mercantile community, as would appear
+from your marine insurance article of this morning, does
+not clearly distinguish between the different classes of
+questions to which such use may give rise. There is indeed
+a widely prevalent confusion, even in quarters which ought
+to be better informed, between two topics which it is
+essential to keep separate&mdash;<i>viz.</i> the shipment of contraband,
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page133" id="page133">[133]</a></span>and the use of neutral territory as a base for belligerent
+operations.</p>
+
+<p>A neutral Government (our own at the present moment)
+occupies a very different position with reference to these
+two classes of acts. With reference to the former, its international
+duty (as also its national policy) is merely one of
+acquiescence. It is bound to stand aside, and make no
+claim to protect from the recognised consequences of their
+acts such of its subjects as are engaged in carriage of contraband.
+So far as the neutral Government is concerned,
+its subjects may carry even cannon and gunpowder to a
+belligerent port, while the belligerent, on the other hand,
+who is injured by the trade may take all necessary stops to
+suppress it.</p>
+
+<p>Such is the compromise which long experience has
+shown to be both reasonable and expedient between the, in
+themselves irreconcilable, claims of neutral and belligerent
+States. So far, it has remained unshaken by the arguments
+of theorists, such as the Swedish diplomatist M. Kleen, who
+would impose upon neutral Governments the duty of
+preventing the export of contraband by their subjects.
+A British trader may, therefore, at his own proper risk,
+despatch as many thousand tons of coal as he chooses,
+just as he may despatch any quantity of rifles or bayonets,
+to Vladivostok or to Nagasaki.</p>
+
+<p>It by no means follows that British shipowners may
+charter their vessels &quot;for such purposes as following the
+Russian fleet with coal supplies.&quot; Lord Lansdowne's recent
+letter to Messrs. Woods, Tylor, and Brown is explicit to the
+effect that such conduct is &quot;not permissible.&quot; Lord Lansdowne
+naturally confined himself to answering the question
+which had been addressed by those gentlemen to the Foreign
+Office; but the reason for his answer is not far to seek.
+The unlawfulness of chartering British vessels for the purpose
+above mentioned is wholly unconnected with the doctrine of
+contraband, but is a consequence of the international duty,
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page134" id="page134">[134]</a></span>which if incumbent on every neutral State, of seeing that its
+territory is not made a base of belligerent operations. The
+question was thoroughly threshed out as long ago as 1870,
+when Mr. Gladstone said in the House Of Commons that the
+Government had adopted the opinion of the law officers:</p>
+
+<div class="letterquot"><p>&quot;That if colliers are chartered for the purpose of attending the fleet
+of a belligerent and supplying it with coal, to enable it to pursue its
+hostile operations, such colliers would, to all practical purposes, become
+store-ships to the fleet, and would be liable, if within reach, to the
+operation of the English law under the (old) Foreign Enlistment Act.&quot;</p></div>
+
+<p>British colliers attendant on a Russian fleet would be so
+undeniably aiding and abetting the operations of that fleet
+as to give just cause of complaint against us to the Government
+of Japan. The British shipper of coal to a belligerent
+fleet at sea, besides thus laying his Government open to a
+charge of neglect of an international duty, lays himself open
+to criminal proceedings under the Foreign Enlistment Act
+of 1870. By section 8 (3) and (4) of that Act &quot;any person
+within H.M. Dominions&quot; who (subject to certain exceptions)
+equips or despatches any ship, with intent, or knowledge,
+that the same will be employed in the military or naval
+service of a foreign State, at war with any friendly State,
+is liable to fine or imprisonment, and to the forfeiture of
+the ship. By section 30, &quot;naval service&quot; covers &quot;user as a
+store-ship,&quot; and &quot;equipping&quot; covers furnishing a ship with
+&quot;stores or any other thing which is used in or about a ship
+for the purpose of adapting her for naval service.&quot; Our
+Government has, therefore, ample powers for restraining, in
+this respect, the use of its territory as a base. It has no
+power, had it the wish (except for its own protection, under a
+different statute), to restrain the export of contraband of war.</p>
+
+<p>It would tend to clearness of thought if the term &quot;contraband&quot;
+were never employed in discussions with reference to
+prohibition of the supply of coal to a belligerent fleet at sea.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">Your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, November 7 (1904).</div><br />
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page135" id="page135">[135]</a></span></div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="GERMAN-WAR-MATERIAL-FOR-TURKEY" />GERMAN WAR MATERIAL FOR TURKEY</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;The <i>Cologne Gazette</i> rightly treats as incredible
+the rumour, mentioned by your Sofia Correspondent, that
+a trainload of munitions of war had been despatched by
+the German Government for the use of Turkey, while
+admitting that such a consignment may very likely have
+been forwarded from private German workshops.</p>
+
+<p>It has long been settled international law that a neutral
+Government, while, on the one hand, it is precluded from
+itself supplying munitions to a belligerent, is, on the other
+hand, not bound to prevent private individuals from so
+acting. The latter half of this rule has now received written
+expression in Art. 7 of The Hague Convention No. v. of
+1907, which deals with &quot;Neutral Powers and Persons in
+War on Land.&quot;</p>
+
+<p>The only fault to be found with the paragraph in the
+<i>Cologne Gazette</i> quoted by your Berlin Correspondent,
+supposing it to be correctly transcribed, would be that it
+seems to imply that the above-mentioned Art. 7 legitimatises
+the supply of war material to belligerents by &quot;neutral
+States.&quot; It is, however, obvious from the rest of the
+paragraph that the <i>Gazette</i> is not really under that impression.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, December 24 (1911).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+<hr style='width: 45%;' />
+
+<h3 class="sectionhead"><a name="CHAPTER_VII_SECTION_3" />SECTION 3</h3>
+
+<p class="subsectionhead">Neutrality Proclamations</p>
+
+<div class="intronotes"><p>The criticisms directed against the Proclamation of 1904, in the
+first two letters which follow, have produced some improvement in
+Proclamations of later date. See the last two letters of this section.
+See also Appendix A in F.E. Smith and N.W. Sibley's <i>International
+Law in the Russo-Chinese War</i> (1905), devoted to a consideration of
+those criticisms.<span class="newpage"><a name="page136" id="page136">[136]</a></span></p></div>
+
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="THE-BRITISH-PROCLAMATION-OF-NEUTRALITY-1904" />THE BRITISH PROCLAMATION OF
+NEUTRALITY</p>
+
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;You were good enough to insert in your issue of
+November 9 some observations which I had addressed to
+you upon the essential difference between carriage of
+contraband, which takes place at the risk of the neutral
+shipowner, and use of neutral territory as a base for belligerent
+operations, an act which may implicate the neutral
+Power internationally, while also rendering the shipper
+liable to penal proceedings on the part of his own Government.
+I am gratified, to find that the views thus expressed
+by me are in exact accordance with those set forth by Lord
+Lansdowne in his reply of November 25 to the Chamber of
+Shipping of the United Kingdom. Perhaps you will allow
+me to say something further upon the same subject,
+suggested by several letters which appear in your paper of
+this morning. I am especially desirous of emphasising the
+proposition that carriage of contraband is no offence, either
+against international law or against the law of England.</p>
+
+<p>1. The rule of international law upon the subject may,
+I think, be expressed as follows: &quot;A belligerent is entitled
+to capture a neutral ship engaged in carrying contraband of
+war to his enemy, to confiscate the contraband cargo, and,
+in some cases, to confiscate the ship also, without thereby
+giving to, the Power to whose subjects the property in
+question belongs any ground for complaint.&quot; Or, to vary
+the phrase, &quot;a neutral Power is bound to acquiesce in losses
+inflicted by a belligerent upon such of its subjects as are
+engaged in adding to the military resources of the enemy of
+that belligerent.&quot; This is the rule to which the nations
+have consented, as a compromise between the right of the
+neutral State that its subjects should carry on their trade
+without interruption, and the right of the belligerent State
+to prevent that trade from bringing an accession of strength
+to his enemy. International law here, as always, deals with
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page137" id="page137">[137]</a></span>relations between States, and has nothing to do with the
+contraband trader, except in so far as it deprives him of the
+protection of his Government. If authority were needed
+for what is here advanced, it might be found in Mr. Justice
+Story's judgment in the <i>Santissima Trinidad</i>, in President
+Pierce's message of 1854, and in the statement by the
+French Government in 1898, with reference to the case of
+the <i>Fram</i>, that &quot;the neutral State is not required to prevent
+the sending of arms and ammunition by its subjects.&quot;</p>
+
+<p>2. Neither is carriage of contraband any offence against
+the law of England; as may be learnt, by any one who
+is in doubt as to the statement, from the lucid language
+of Lord Westbury in <i>Ex parte Chavasse</i> (34 L.J., Bkry.,
+17). And this brings me to the gist of this letter. I have
+long thought that the form of the Proclamation of
+Neutrality now in use in this country much needs
+reconsideration and redrafting. The clauses of the Proclamation
+which are set out by Mr. Gibson Bowles in your issue of
+this morning rightly announce that every person engaging
+in breach of blockade or carriage of contraband &quot;will be
+justly liable to hostile capture and to the penalties
+denounced by the law of nations in that behalf, and will in no
+wise obtain protection from us against such capture or such
+penalties.&quot; So far, so good. But the Proclamation also
+speaks of such acts as those just mentioned as being done
+&quot;in contempt of this our Royal Proclamation, in derogation
+of their duty as subjects of a neutral Power in a war
+between other Powers, or in violation or contravention of
+the law of nations in that behalf.&quot; It proceeds to say that
+all persons &quot;who may misconduct themselves in the premises
+... will incur our high displeasure for such misconduct.&quot;
+I venture to submit that all these last-quoted phrases are
+of the nature of misleading rhetoric, and should be eliminated
+from a statement the effective purport of which is to
+warn British subjects of the treatment to which certain
+courses of conduct will expose them at the hands of
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page138" id="page138">[138]</a></span>belligerents, and to inform them that the British Government
+will not protect them against such treatment. The
+reason why our Government will abstain from interference
+is, not that such courses of action are offences either against
+international or English law, but that it has no right to so
+interfere; having become a party to a rule of international
+law, under which a neutral Government waives the right,
+which it would otherwise possess, to protect the trade of its
+subjects from molestation.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, November 28 (1904).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="THE-BRITISH-PROCLAMATION-OF-NEUTRALITY-1904-B" />THE BRITISH PROCLAMATION OF
+NEUTRALITY</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;Enquiries which have reached me with reference
+to the observations which I recently addressed to you upon
+the British Proclamation of Neutrality induce me to think
+that some account of the development of the text of the
+proclamation now in use may be of interest to your readers.
+The proclamations with which I am acquainted conform to
+one or other of two main types, each of which has its history.</p>
+
+<p>1. The earlier proclamations merely call attention to the
+English law against enlistments, &amp;c., for foreign service;
+and command obedience to the law, upon pain of the
+penalties thereby inflicted, &quot;and of his Majesty's high
+displeasure.&quot; In the proclamation of 1817, the tacit reference
+is doubtless to certain Acts of George II, which, having
+been passed for a very different purpose, and having proved
+inadequate in their new application, were repealed by the
+Foreign Enlistment Act of 1819. This is the Act to which
+reference is made in the proclamations of 1823 and 1825;
+in the former of which we first get a recital of neutrality;
+while in the latter the clause enjoining all subjects strictly
+to observe the duties of neutrality and to respect the exercise
+of belligerent rights first makes its appearance.<span class="newpage"><a name="page139" id="page139">[139]</a></span></p>
+
+<p>2. The proclamation of 1859 is of a very different character,
+bearing traces of the influence of the ideas which had
+inspired the action of President Washington in 1793. While
+carrying on the old, it presents several new features.
+British subjects are enjoined to abstain from violating, not
+only &quot;the laws and statutes of the realm,&quot; but also (for the
+first time) &quot;the law of nations.&quot; They are also (for the
+first time) warned that, if any of them &quot;shall presume, in
+contempt of this our Royal Proclamation, and of our high
+displeasure, to do any acts in derogation of their duty as
+subjects of a neutral Sovereign, ... or in violation of
+the law of nations, ... as, more especially,&quot; by breach
+of blockade, or carriage of contraband, &amp;c., they will &quot;rightfully
+incur, and be justly liable to, hostile capture, and to the
+penalties denounced by the law of nations in that behalf&quot;;
+and notice is (for the first time) given that those &quot;who may
+misconduct themselves in the premises will do so at their
+peril, and of their own wrong; and that they will in no wise
+obtain any protection from Us against such capture, or such
+penalties as aforesaid, but will, on the contrary, incur Our
+high displeasure by such misconduct.&quot;</p>
+
+<p>The proclamations of 1861 and February and March
+1866 complicate matters, by making the warning clause
+as to blockade and contraband apply also to the statutory
+offences of enlistment, &amp;c.; but the proclamation of June,
+1866, gets rid of this complication by returning to the
+formula of 1859, which has been also followed in 1870, 1877,
+1898, and in the present year.</p>
+
+<p>The formula as it now stands, after the process of growth
+already described, may be said to consist of seven parts&mdash;<i>viz.</i>
+(1) a recital of neutrality; (2) a command to subjects
+to observe a strict neutrality, and to abstain from contravention
+of the laws of the realm or the law of nations in
+relation thereto; (3) a recital of the Foreign Enlistment
+Act of 1870; (4) a command that the statute be obeyed,
+upon pain of the penalties thereby imposed, &quot;and of Our
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page140" id="page140">[140]</a></span>high displeasure&quot;; (5) a warning to observe the duties of
+neutrality, and to respect the exercise of belligerent rights;
+(6) a further warning to those who, in contempt of the proclamation
+&quot;and of Our high displeasure,&quot; may do any acts
+&quot;in derogation of neutral duty, or in violation of the law
+of nations,&quot; especially by breach of blockade, carriage of
+contraband, &amp;c., that they will be liable to capture &quot;and to
+the penalties denounced by the law of nations&quot;; (7) a
+notification that persons so misconducting themselves &quot;will
+in no wise obtain any protection from Us,&quot; but will, &quot;on the
+contrary, incur Our high displeasure by such misconduct.&quot;</p>
+
+<p>The question which I have ventured to raise is whether
+the <i>textus receptus</i>, built up, as it has been, by successive
+accretions, is sufficiently in accordance with the facts to
+which it purports to call the attention of British subjects
+to be properly submitted to His Majesty for signature.
+I would suggest for consideration: 1. Whether the phrases
+commanding obedience, on pain of His Majesty's &quot;high
+displeasure,&quot; and the term &quot;misconduct,&quot; should not be
+used only with reference to offences recognised as such by
+the law of England. 2. Whether such condensed, and
+therefore incorrect, though very commonly employed, expressions
+as imply that breach of blockade and carriage
+of contraband are &quot;in violation of the law of nations,&quot;
+and are liable to &quot;the penalties denounced by the law of
+nations,&quot; should not be replaced by expressions more
+scientifically correct. The law of nations neither prohibits
+the acts in question nor prescribes penalties to be incurred
+by the doers of them. What it really does is to define
+the measures to which a belligerent may resort for the
+suppression of such acts, without laying himself open to
+remonstrance from the neutral Government to which the
+traders implicated owe allegiance.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, December 5 (1904).</div><br />
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page141" id="page141">[141]</a></span></div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="THE-BRITISH-PROCLAMATION-OF-NEUTRALITY-1911" />THE BRITISH PROCLAMATION OF NEUTRALITY</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;I am glad that Mr. Gibson Bowles has called
+attention to certain respects in which the Proclamation of
+Neutrality issued by our Government on the 3rd of the
+present month differs from that issued on February 11, 1904.</p>
+
+<p>In two letters addressed to you with reference to the
+Proclamation of that year, I ventured to point out what
+appeared to me to be its defects, alike from a scientific
+and from a practical point of view. The present Proclamation
+has slightly minimised these defects, but, as a whole,
+remains open to the objections which I then raised. I have
+no wish to repeat in detail the contents of my letters of
+1904, especially as they may be now found in my <i>Letters
+upon War and Neutrality</i>, published in 1909, pp. 95 and 98,
+but am unwilling not to take this opportunity once more to
+urge the desirability of redrafting the document in question.</p>
+
+<p>The Proclamation just issued still answers to my description
+of that of 1904, as consisting of seven parts&mdash;<i>viz.</i>:
+(1) A recital of neutrality; (2) a command to subjects
+to observe a strict neutrality, and to abstain from contravention
+of the laws of the realm or the Law of Nations
+in relation thereto; (3) a recital of the Foreign Enlistment
+Act, 1870; (4) a command that the statute be obeyed,
+upon pain of the penalties thereby imposed, and of &quot;Our
+high displeasure&quot;; (5) a warning to observe the duties of
+neutrality and to respect the exercise of belligerent rights;
+(6) a further warning that any persons presuming, in contempt
+of the Proclamation, to do acts in derogation of
+their duty as subjects of a neutral Power, or of the Law of
+Nations, will incur the penalties denounced by such law;
+(7) a notice that persons so misconducting themselves will
+obtain no protection from their Sovereign.</p>
+
+<p>With the phraseology of No. 1, reciting British neutrality,
+and Nos. 2-5, dealing with the duties of British subjects
+under the Foreign Enlistment Act of 1870, and constituting
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page142" id="page142">[142]</a></span>the bulk of the Proclamation, little serious fault can be found.
+It is well that such persons should be warned of the penalties
+which they may incur, including the Royal displeasure.</p>
+
+<p>The remaining two clauses relate, however, to matters
+of a totally different character from those previously
+mentioned, and care should therefore have been taken, but
+has not been taken, to make this perfectly clear. I would
+further remark upon these clauses: (1) That I agree with
+Mr. Bowles in regretting the omission here of the specific
+mention made in 1904 of &quot;breach of blockade,&quot; &quot;carriage
+of contraband,&quot; &amp;c., as specimens of the acts undoubtedly
+contemplated in these two clauses; (2) that it is a mistake
+to describe acts of this kind as being in derogation of
+&quot;the duty of subjects of a neutral Power,&quot; or &quot;in violation
+of the Law of Nations,&quot; or as &quot;liable to the penalties
+denounced by such law.&quot; Carriage of contraband, and
+acts of the same class, are notoriously not condemned by
+English law, neither are they, in any proper sense, breaches
+of the Law of Nations, which, speaking scientifically, never
+deals with individuals, as such, but only with the rights
+and duties of States <i>inter se</i>. What the Law of Nations
+really does is, as I said in 1904, &quot;to define the measures to
+which a belligerent may resort for the suppression of such
+acts, without laying himself open to remonstrance from the
+neutral Government to which the traders implicated owe
+allegiance&quot;; (3) that on the other hand, I am glad to find
+that, in accordance with my suggestion, while it continues
+very properly to be stated that persons doing the acts
+under discussion &quot;will in no wise obtain any protection
+from Us against such capture, &amp;c.,&quot; the further statement
+that such persons &quot;will, on the contrary, incur Our high
+displeasure by such misconduct,&quot; has now been with equal
+propriety omitted.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">The Athen&aelig;um, October 9 (1911).</div><br />
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page143" id="page143">[143]</a></span></div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="THE-PROCLAMATION-OF-NEUTRALITY" />THE PROCLAMATION OF NEUTRALITY</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;May I be allowed to point out that two questions
+arise upon the recent British Proclamation of Neutrality
+which were not, as they should have been, in the House
+of Commons last night, kept entirely distinct?</p>
+
+<p>The Government has surely done right in now omitting,
+as I suggested in 1904, with reference to certain classes
+of acts which are prohibited neither by English nor by
+International Law, a phrase announcing that the doers of
+them would incur the King's &quot;high displeasure&quot;; while
+retaining the warning that doers of such acts must be
+prepared for consequences from which their own Government
+will not attempt to shield them.</p>
+
+<p>On the other hand, our Government has surely erred
+in not specifying, as in previous Proclamations, the sort
+of acts to which this warning relates&mdash;<i>viz.</i>, to acts such
+as carriage of contraband, enemy service, and breach of
+blockade, which differ wholly in character from those
+violations of the Foreign Enlistment Act against which the
+bulk of the Proclamation is directed. As the Proclamation
+now stands, no clear transition is marked between breaches
+of English law and the unspecified acts which, though
+perfectly legal, will forfeit for the doers of them any
+claim to British protection from the consequences involved.
+Traders are left to find out as best they may the meaning
+of the general words &quot;any acts in derogation of their
+duty as subjects of a neutral Power.&quot;</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, October 31 (1911).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+<hr style='width: 45%;' />
+
+<h3 class="sectionhead"><a name="CHAPTER_VII_SECTION_4" />SECTION 4</h3>
+
+<p class="subsectionhead">Neutral Hospitality</p>
+
+<div class="intronotes"><p>The Hague Convention of 1907, No. xiii., not yet ratified by Great
+Britain, suggests in Art. 12, with reference to the question here raised,
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page144" id="page144">[144]</a></span>that &quot;&agrave; d&eacute;faut d'autres dispositions sp&eacute;ciales de la l&eacute;gislation de la
+Puissance neutre, il est interdit aux navires de guerre des bellig&eacute;rants
+de demeurer dans les ports et rades ou dans les eaux territoriales de la
+dite Puissance pendant plus de 24 heures sauf dans les cas pr&eacute;vues par
+la pr&eacute;sente Convention.&quot;</p></div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="BELLIGERENT-FLEETS-IN-NEUTRAL-WATERS" />BELLIGERENT FLEETS IN NEUTRAL WATERS</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;A novel question as to belligerent responsibilities
+would be suggested for solution if, as seems to be reported
+in Paris, Admiral Rozhdestvensky over-stayed his welcome
+in the waters of Madagascar, although ordered to leave them
+by his own Government in compliance with &quot;pressing representations&quot;
+on the part of the Government of France.</p>
+
+<p>A much larger question is, however, involved in the discussion
+which has arisen as to the alleged neglect by France
+to prevent the use of her Cochin-Chinese waters by the
+Russians as a base of operations against Japan. We are as
+yet in the dark as to what is actually occurring in those
+waters, and are, perhaps, for that very reason in a better
+position for endeavouring to ascertain what are the obligations
+imposed on a neutral in such a case by international law.</p>
+
+<p>It is admitted on all hands that a neutral Power is bound
+not to permit the &quot;asylum&quot; which she may grant to ships
+of war to be so abused as to render her waters a &quot;base of
+operations&quot; for the belligerent to which those ships belong.
+Beyond this, international law speaks at present with an
+uncertain voice, leaving to each Power to resort to such
+measures in detail as may be necessary to ensure the due
+performance of a duty which, as expressed in general terms,
+is universally recognised.</p>
+
+<p>The rule enforced since 1862 by Great Britain for this
+purpose limits the stay of a belligerent warship, under
+ordinary circumstances, to a period of twenty-four hours;
+and the same provision will be found in the neutrality
+proclamations issued last year by, <i>e.g.</i> the United States,
+Egypt, China, Denmark, Sweden and Norway. So by<span class="newpage"><a name="page145" id="page145">[145]</a></span>
+Japan and Russia in 1898. This rule, convenient and
+reasonable as it is, is not yet a rule of international law;
+as Lord Percy has had occasion to point out, in replying
+to a question addressed to him in the House of Commons.
+The proclamations of most of the Continental Powers do
+not commit their respective Governments to any period
+of time, and the material clauses of the French circular,
+to which most attention will be directed at the present time,
+merely provide as follows:&mdash;</p>
+
+<div class="letterquot"><p>&quot;(1) En aucun cas, un bellig&eacute;rant ne peut faire usage d'un port
+Fran&ccedil;ais, ou appartenant &agrave; un &Eacute;tat prot&eacute;g&eacute;, dans un but de guerre, &amp;c.
+(2) La dur&eacute;e du s&eacute;jour dans nos ports de bellig&eacute;rants, non accompagn&eacute;s
+d'une prise, n'a &eacute;t&eacute; limit&eacute;e par aucune disposition sp&eacute;ciale;
+mais pour &ecirc;tre autoris&eacute;s &agrave; y s&eacute;journer, ils sont tenus de se conformer
+aux conditions ordinaires de la neutralit&eacute;, qui peuvent se r&eacute;sumer ainsi
+qu'il suit:&mdash;(<i>a</i>) ... (<i>b</i>) Les dits navires ne peuvent, <i>&agrave; l'aide de ressources
+puis&eacute;es &agrave; terre</i>, augmenter leur mat&eacute;riel de guerre, renforcer
+leurs &eacute;quipages, ni faire des enr&ocirc;lements volontaires, m&ecirc;me parmi
+leurs nationaux. (<i>c</i>) Ils doivent s'abstenir de toute enqu&ecirc;te sur les
+forces, l'emplacement ou les ressources de leurs ennemis, ne pas
+appareiller brusquement pour poursuivre ceux qui leur seraient signal&eacute;s;
+en un mot, s'abstenir de faire du lieu de leur r&eacute;sidence la base d'une
+op&eacute;ration quelconque contre l'ennemi. (3) Il ne peut &ecirc;tre fourni &agrave; un
+bellig&eacute;rant que les vivres, denr&eacute;es, et moyens de r&eacute;parations n&eacute;cessaires
+&agrave; la subsistence de son &eacute;quipage ou &agrave; la s&eacute;curit&eacute; de sa navigation.&quot;</p></div>
+
+<p>Under the twenty-four hours rule, the duty of the neutral
+Government is clear. Under the French rules, all must
+evidently turn upon the wisdom and <i>bonne volont&eacute;</i> of the
+officials on the spot, and of the home Government, so far as
+it is in touch with them. We have no reason to suppose
+that the qualities in question will not characterise the
+conduct of the French at the present moment. There can,
+however, be no doubt that a better definition of the mode
+in which a neutral Power should prevent abusive use of
+the asylum afforded by its ports and waters is urgently
+required. The point is one which must prominently engage
+the attention of the special conference upon the rights and
+duties of neutrals, for which a wish was expressed by The<span class="newpage"><a name="page146" id="page146">[146]</a></span>
+Hague Conference of 1899, and, more recently, by President
+Roosevelt.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, April 20 (1905).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="THE-APPAM" />THE APPAM</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;It is satisfactory to learn that the United States
+Neutrality Board has decided adversely to the contention
+that the <i>Appam</i> is a German ship of war. Her treatment
+as a prize would then, <i>prima facie</i>, seem to be governed
+by Art. 21 of The Hague Convention, No. xiii., which
+provides for her being released, together with her officers
+and crew, while the prize crew is to be interned. This
+Convention has been duly ratified both by Germany and
+by the United States. Its non-ratification by Great Britain
+is, I conceive, irrelevant.</p>
+
+<p>But Germany contends that the situation is governed
+by Art. 19, the text of which has been several times set
+out in your columns, of the old Convention of 1799. This
+may startle those who are acquainted with what occurred
+at The Hague in 1907, and I have seen no reference to what
+must be the gist of the German argument on the point.
+They no doubt argue that the old Convention remains
+unrepealed by No. xiii. of The Hague, because the latter
+Convention is of no effect, in pursuance of its common form
+Art. 28, to the effect that:&mdash;&quot;The provisions of the present
+Convention do not apply except between contracting Powers,
+and then only if all the belligerents are parties to the
+Convention&quot; (which is by no means the case).</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">Your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, February 4 (1916).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+<div class="postnotes"><p>Certain reservations on ratification do not affect Arts. 21 or 22.</p>
+
+<p>The State Department ruled that the case did not fall within the
+protecting clauses of the Treaty of 1799, which granted asylum only
+to ships of war accompanying prizes, whereas the <i>Appam</i> was herself
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page147" id="page147">[147]</a></span>a prize. Proceedings by the owners in the local Federal Court for
+possession of the ship resulted in a decision in their favour, against
+which the Germans are appealing in the Supreme Court. They do
+not seem to have raised the objection, mentioned in the letter, as to
+the applicability of Convention viii.</p></div>
+
+<hr style='width: 45%;' />
+
+<h3 class="sectionhead"><a name="CHAPTER_VII_SECTION_5" />SECTION 5</h3>
+
+<p class="subsectionhead">Carriage of Contraband. (Absolute and Conditional Contraband:
+Continuous Voyages: Unqualified Captors: The Declaration of London)</p>
+
+<div class="intronotes"><p>The letters included in the preceding sections 2 and 3 touched
+incidentally upon carriage of contraband, in relation to other departments
+of the law affecting neutrals. The eight letters which follow,
+suggested respectively by the Spanish-American, the Boer, and the
+Russo-Japanese wars, deal exclusively with this topic, which seems likely
+to be henceforth governed no longer only by customary and judge-made
+law, but largely also by written rules, such as those suggested by the
+unratified Declaration of London of 1909.</p>
+
+
+<p class="subsectionhead">(Absolute and Conditional Contraband)</p>
+
+<p>The divergence which has so long existed between Anglo-American
+and Continental views upon contraband was very noticeable at the
+commencement of the war of 1898, which gave occasion to the letter
+which immediately follows. While the Spanish Decree of April 23
+set out only one list of contraband goods, the United States Instructions
+of June 20 recognised two lists&mdash;<i>viz.</i> of &quot;absolute&quot; and of &quot;conditional&quot;
+contraband, including under the latter head &quot;coal when destined for a
+naval station, a port of call, or a ship or ships of the enemy; materials
+for the construction of railways or telegraphs, and money, when such
+materials or money are destined for an enemy's forces, provisions,
+when destined for an enemy's ship or ships, for a place besieged.&quot;</p>
+
+<p>An answer was thus supplied to the question suggested in this
+letter, as to articles <i>ancipitis usus</i>.</p></div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="CONTRABAND-OF-WAR-1898" />CONTRABAND OF WAR</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;I fear that the mercantile community will hardly
+profit so much as the managers of the Atlas Steamship Company
+seem to expect by the information contained in their
+letter which you print this morning. It was, indeed, un<span class="newpage"><a name="page148" id="page148">[148]</a></span>likely
+that the courteous reply of the Assistant Secretary of
+State at Washington to the enquiry addressed to him by
+the New York agents of the company would contain a
+declaration of the policy of the United States with reference
+to contraband of war. The threefold classification of
+&quot;merchandise&quot; (not of &quot;contraband&quot;) quoted in the
+reply occurs, in the judgment of the Supreme Court in the
+well-known case of the <i>Peterhoff</i> (5 Wallace, 58), but it is
+substantially that of Grotius, and has long been accepted in
+this country and in the United States, while the Continent
+is, generally speaking, inclined to deny the existence of
+&quot;contraband by accident,&quot; and to recognise only such
+a restricted list of contraband as was contained in the
+Spanish decree of April 24 last.</p>
+
+<p>The questions upon which shippers are really desirous of
+information (which they are, however, perhaps not likely to
+obtain, otherwise than from decisions of prize Courts) are of
+a less elementary character. They would like to know what
+articles <i>ancipitis usus</i> (&quot;used for purposes of war or peace
+according to circumstances&quot;) will be treated by the United
+States as contraband, and with what penalty the carriage of
+such articles will be visited&mdash;<i>i.e.</i> whether by confiscation or
+merely by pre-emption.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, May 9 (1898).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+<div class="postnotes"><p>The four letters which next follow also relate to the two classes of
+contraband goods, with especial reference to the character attributed
+to foodstuffs, coal and cotton.</p>
+
+<p>On foodstuffs, see the <i>Report of the Royal Commission on the Supply
+of Food, &amp;c., in Time of War</i>, 1905. <i>Cf.</i> also <i>infra.</i>, pp. <a href="#page174">174</a>, <a href="#page176">176</a>, <a href="#page177">177</a>.
+They were placed by the unratified Declaration of London, Art. 24,
+in the class of conditional contraband; as is also coal. By Art. 28
+of the Declaration, raw cotton was enumerated among the articles
+which cannot be declared contraband of war.</p>
+
+<p>The suggestion in the letter of February 20, 1904, that certain
+words quoted from the Japanese instructions had been mistransmitted
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page149" id="page149">[149]</a></span>or misquoted was borne out by the Regulations governing captures at
+sea, issued on March 15, 1904, Art. 14 of which announces that certain
+goods are contraband &quot;in case they are destined to the enemy's army
+or navy, or in case they are destined to the enemy's territory, and from
+the landing place it can be inferred that they are intended for military
+purposes.&quot;</p>
+
+<p>The letters of March 10 and 15, 1905, will sufficiently explain themselves.
+The accuracy of the statements contained in them was vouched
+for by Baron Suyematsu, in a letter which appeared in <i>The Times</i> for
+March 16, to the effect that: &quot;In Japan the matters relating to the
+organisation and procedure of the prize court, and the matters relating
+to prize, contraband goods, &amp;c., are regulated by two separate sets of
+laws.... The so-called prize Court law of August 20, 1894, and amendment
+dated March 1, 1904, which your correspondent refers to, are the
+provisions relating to the former matters. The rules regulating the
+latter matters&mdash;<i>viz.</i> prize, contraband goods, &amp;c., are not comprised
+in them. The rules which relate to the latter matters, as existing at
+present, are consolidated and comprised in an enactment which was
+issued on March 7, 1904.... Under the circumstances I can only
+repeat what Professor Holland says ... in other words, I fully concur
+with the views taken by the Professor.&quot;</p>
+
+<p>The distinction between articles which are &quot;absolutely contraband,&quot;
+those which are &quot;conditionally contraband,&quot; and those which are
+incapable of being declared contraband was expressly adopted in
+Arts. 22, 24, and 28 of the unratified Declaration of London of 1909,
+as to which, see the comment at the end of this section, as also the
+whole of Section 10.</p></div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="IS-COAL-CONTRABAND-OF-WAR" />IS COAL CONTRABAND OF WAR?</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;This question has now been answered, in unmistakable
+terms, on behalf of this country by Lord Lansdowne
+in his reply, which you printed yesterday, to Messrs. Powley,
+Thomas, and Co., and on behalf of Japan by the proclamation
+which appears in <i>The Times</i> of to-day. Both of these
+documents set forth the old British doctrine, now fully
+adopted in the United States, and beginning to win its way
+on the Continent of Europe, that, besides articles which are
+absolutely contraband, other articles <i>ancipitis usus</i>, and
+amongst them coal, may become so under certain conditions.
+&quot;When destined,&quot; says Lord Lansdowne, &quot;for warlike as
+opposed to industrial use.&quot; &quot;When destined,&quot; says Japan,<span class="newpage"><a name="page150" id="page150">[150]</a></span>
+&quot;for the enemy's army or navy, or in such cases where, <i>being
+goods arriving, at enemy's territory</i>, there is reason to believe
+that they are intended for use of enemy's army or navy.&quot;</p>
+
+<p>I may say that the words which I have italicised must, I
+think, have been mistranslated or mistransmitted. Their
+intention is, doubtless, substantially that which was more
+clearly expressed in the Japanese proclamation of 1894 by
+the words: &quot;Either the enemy's fleet at sea or a hostile port
+used exclusively or mainly for naval or military equipment.&quot;</p>
+
+<p>A phrase in your issue of to-day with reference to the
+Cardiff coal trade suggests that it may be worth while to
+touch upon the existence of a widely-spread confusion
+between the grounds on which export of coal may be prohibited
+by a neutral country and those which justify its confiscation,
+although on board a neutral ship, by a belligerent.
+A neutral State restrains, under certain circumstances, the
+export of coal, not because coal is contraband, but because
+such export is converting the neutral territory into a base of
+belligerent operations. The question of contraband or no
+contraband only arises between the neutral carrier and the
+belligerent when the latter claims to be entitled to interfere
+with the trade of the former.</p>
+
+<p>Since the rules applicable to the carriage of coal are, I
+venture to think, equally applicable, to the carriage of foodstuffs,
+I may perhaps be allowed to add a few words with
+reference to the letter addressed to you a day or two ago by
+Sir Henry Bliss. I share his desire for some explanation of
+the telegram which reached you on the 12th of this month
+from British Columbia. One would like to know: (1) What
+is &quot;the Government,&quot; if any, which has instructed the
+Empress Line not to forward foodstuffs to Japan; (2)
+whether the refusal relates to foodstuffs generally, or only to
+those with a destination for warlike use; (3) what is meant
+by the statement that &quot;the steamers of the Empress Line
+belong to the Naval Reserve&quot;? I presume the meaning to
+be that the line is subsidised with a view to the employment
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page151" id="page151">[151]</a></span>of the ships of the company as British cruisers when Great
+Britain is at war. The bearing of this fact upon the employment
+of the ships when Great Britain is at peace is far from
+apparent. It is, of course, possible that the Government
+contract with the company may have been so drawn, <i>ex
+abundanti cautela</i>, as greatly to restrict what would otherwise
+have been the legitimate trade of the company.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, February 20 (1904).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="COTTON-AS-CONTRABAND-OF-WAR-1905" />COTTON AS CONTRABAND OF WAR</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;The text of the decision of the Court of Appeal at
+St. Petersburg in the case of the <i>Calchas</i> has at length reached
+this country, and we are thus informed, upon the highest
+authority, though, perhaps, not in the clearest language, of
+the meaning which is now to be placed upon the Russian
+notification that cotton is contraband of war.</p>
+
+<p>This notification, promulgated on April 21, 1904, was
+received with general amazement, not diminished by an
+official gloss to the effect that it &quot;applied only to raw cotton
+suitable for the manufacture of explosives, and not to yarn
+or tissues.&quot; It must be remembered that at the date mentioned,
+and for some months afterwards, Russia stoutly
+maintained that all the articles enumerated in her list of contraband
+of February 28, 1904, and in the additions to that
+list, were &quot;absolutely&quot; such; <i>i.e.</i> were confiscable if in
+course of carriage to any enemy's port, irrespectively of the
+character of that port, or of the use to which the articles
+would probably be put. It was only after much correspondence,
+and the receipt of strong protests from Great
+Britain and the United States, that Russia consented to
+recognise the well-known distinction between &quot;absolute&quot;
+and &quot;conditional&quot; contraband; the latter class consisting
+of articles useful in peace as well as for war, the character
+of which must, therefore, depend upon whether they are, in
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page152" id="page152">[152]</a></span>point of fact, destined for warlike or for peaceful uses. This
+concession was made about the middle of September last,
+and it was then agreed that provisions should be placed in
+the secondary category (as was duly explained in the Petersburg
+judgment in the case of the <i>Arabia</i> on December 14)
+together with some other articles, among which it seemed
+that raw cotton was not included.</p>
+
+<p>The final decision in the <i>Calchas</i> case marks a welcome
+change of policy. Cotton has now followed foodstuffs into
+the category of &quot;conditional&quot; contraband, and effect has so
+far been given to the representations on the subject made by
+Mr. Hay in circular despatches of June 10 and August 30,
+1904, and by Sir Charles Hardinge, in a note presented to
+Count Lamsdorff on October 9 of the same year.</p>
+
+<p>The question had become a practical one in the case of
+the <i>Calchas</i>. On July 25 this vessel, laden with, <i>inter alia</i>,
+nine tons of raw cotton for Yokohama and Kobe, was seized
+by a Russian cruiser and carried into Vladivostok, where,
+on September 18, the cotton, together with other portions of
+her cargo, was condemned as absolutely contraband. The
+reasons for repudiating this decision, and the notification to
+which it gave effect, were not far to seek, and it may still be
+worth while to insist upon them. As against Russia, it is
+well to recall that, from the days of the Armed Neutralities
+onwards, her traditional policy has been to favour a very
+restricted list of contraband; that when in 1877, as again in
+1900 and 1904, she included in it materials &quot;servant de faire
+sauter les obstacles,&quot; the examples given of such materials
+were things so immediately fitted for warlike use as &quot;les
+mines, les torpilles, la dynamite,&quot; &amp;c.; and that what is
+said as to &quot;conditional contraband&quot; by her trusted adviser,
+Professor de Martens, in his <i>Droit International</i>, t. iii (1887),
+pp. 351-354, can scarcely be reconciled with her recent action.</p>
+
+<p>But a still stronger argument against the inclusion of
+cotton in the list of &quot;absolute&quot; contraband is that this is
+wholly without precedent. It has, indeed, been alleged that
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page153" id="page153">[153]</a></span>cotton was declared to be &quot;contraband&quot; by the United
+States in their Civil War. The Federal proclamations will,
+however, be searched in vain for anything of the kind. The
+mistake is due to an occasional loose employment of the
+term, as descriptive of articles found by an invader in an
+enemy's territory, which, although the property of private,
+and even neutral, individuals, happen to be so useful for the
+purposes of the war as to be justly confiscated. That this
+was so will appear from an attentive reading of the case of
+<i>Mrs. Alexander's Cotton</i>, in 1861 (2 Wallace, 404), and of the
+arguments in the claim made by Messrs. Maza and Larrache
+against the United States in 1886 (Foreign Relations of U.S.,
+1887). A similarly loose use of the term was its application
+by General B.F. Butler to runaway slaves who had been
+employed on military works&mdash;an application of which he
+confessed himself &quot;never very proud as a lawyer,&quot; though
+&quot;as an executive officer, much comforted with it.&quot; The
+phrase caught the popular fancy, came to be applied to
+slaves generally, and was immortalised in a song, long a
+favourite among negro children, the refrain of which was
+&quot;I'se a happy little contraband.&quot;</p>
+
+<p>The decision of the Court of St. Petersburg in the case of
+the <i>Calchas</i>, so far as it recognises the existence of a conditional
+class of contraband, and that raw cotton, as <i>res
+ancipitis usus</i>, must be treated in accordance with the rules
+applicable to goods belonging to that class, has laid down an
+unimpeachable proposition of law. Whether the view taken
+by the Court of the facts of the case, so far as they relate to
+the cotton cargo, is equally satisfactory, is a different and
+less important question, upon which I refrain from troubling
+you upon the present occasion.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+</div>
+
+<p>P.S.&mdash;It may be worth while to add, for the benefit of
+those only who care to be provided with a clue (not to be
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page154" id="page154">[154]</a></span>found in the judgment) through the somewhat labyrinthine
+details of the question under discussion, a summary of its
+history. The Russian rules as to contraband are contained
+in several documents&mdash;<i>viz.</i> the &quot;Regulations as to Naval
+Prize&quot; of 1895, Arts. 11-14; the &quot;Admiralty Instructions&quot;
+of 1900, Arts. 97, 98, and the appended &quot;Special Declaration&quot;
+as to the articles considered to be contraband (partly
+modelled on the list of 1877); the &quot;Imperial Order&quot; of
+February 28, 1904, rule 6 (this Order keeps alive the rules
+of 1895 and 1900, except in so far as they are varied by it);
+the &quot;Order&quot; of March 19, 1904, defining &quot;food&quot; and
+bringing machinery of certain kinds into the list of contraband;
+the &quot;Order,&quot; of April 21, 1904, bringing &quot;raw
+cotton&quot; into the list; and, lastly, the &quot;Instructions&quot; of
+September 30 and October 28, 1904, recognising, in effect,
+a class of &quot;conditional&quot; contraband, placing foodstuffs
+in this class, as also, ultimately, other objects &quot;capable of
+warlike use and not specified in sections 1-9 of rule 6.&quot;</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+T. E. H.<br />
+<div class="sigdate">Temple, July 1 (1905).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="COTTON-AS-CONTRABAND-OF-WAR-1916" />COTTON AS CONTRABAND</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;Your correspondent &quot;Judex&quot; will rejoice, as
+I do, that cotton has now been declared to be &quot;absolute
+contraband.&quot; May I, however, suggest that the topic
+should be discussed without any reference to the fortunately
+unratified Declaration of London, that premature attempt
+to codify the law of maritime warfare, claiming, misleadingly,
+that its rules &quot;correspond in substance with the generally
+recognised principles of international law&quot;?</p>
+
+<p>It is surely regrettable that, by the Order in Council
+of August 20, 1914, our Government adopted the provisions
+of the Declaration &quot;during the present hostilities,&quot; and
+&quot;subject to various additions and modifications,&quot; the
+list of which has since been considerably extended. This
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page155" id="page155">[155]</a></span>half-hearted course of action painfully recalls certain vicious
+methods of legislation by reference, and was additionally
+uncalled for, since, as has been shown by recent events,
+about two-thirds of the rules laid down by the Declaration
+are inapplicable to modern warfare.</p>
+
+<p>The straightforward announcement made by the United
+States in their Note of January 25 is surely far preferable.
+It states in plain terms that, &quot;As the Declaration of London
+is not in force, the rules of international law only apply.
+As to articles to be regarded as contraband there is no
+general agreement between nations.&quot; In point of fact,
+the hard-and-fast categories of neutral imports, suggested
+by the threefold Grotian division, as set forth in the Declaration,
+are unlikely ever to be generally accepted. Even
+Grotius is careful to limit his proposals, and Bynkershoek,
+in commenting upon them, points out that the test of
+contraband of the most noxious kind must be the, possibly
+exceptional, importance of objects for hostile use; their
+being of use also for non-hostile purposes being immaterial
+(&quot;nec interesse an et extra bellum usum praebeant&quot;). The
+application of these remarks to the case of cotton is
+sufficiently obvious.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, August 23 (1915).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="JAPANESE-PRIZE-LAW-1905" />JAPANESE PRIZE LAW</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;I hope you will allow me space for a few words
+with reference to some statements occurring to-day in your
+Marine Insurance news which I venture to think are of a
+misleading character.</p>
+
+<p>Your Correspondent observes that&mdash;</p>
+
+<div class="letterquot"><p>&quot;Although the Japanese are signatories to the Treaty of Paris, it
+should not be forgotten that they haw a Prize Court Law of their own
+(August 20, 1894), and are more likely to follow its provisions, in
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page156" id="page156">[156]</a></span>dealing with the various captured steamers, than the general principles
+of the Treaty of Paris.&quot;</p></div>
+
+<p>Upon this paragraph let me remark:&mdash;</p>
+
+<p>1. The action of the Japanese is in full accordance with
+the letter and spirit of all four articles of the Declaration of
+Paris. (&quot;The Treaty of Paris&quot; has, of course, no bearing
+upon prize law.)</p>
+
+<p>2. &quot;The general principles&quot; of that Declaration is a
+phrase which conveys to me, I confess, no meaning.</p>
+
+<p>3. The Japanese have, of course, a prize law of their
+own, borrowed, for the most part, from our own Admiralty
+Manual of Prize Law. Neither the British nor the
+Japanese instructions are in conflict with, or indeed stand
+in any relation to, the Declaration of Paris.</p>
+
+<p>4. The existing prize law of Japan was promulgated on
+March 7, 1904, not on August 20, 1894.</p>
+
+<p>Your Correspondent goes on to say that the Japanese
+definition of contraband &quot;is almost as sweeping as was the
+Russian definition, to which the British Government took
+active objection last summer.&quot; So far is this from being
+the case that the Japanese list is practically the same as
+our own, both systems recognising the distinction between
+&quot;absolute&quot; and &quot;conditional&quot; contraband, which, till the
+other day, was ignored by Russia.</p>
+
+<p>The Japanese rules as to the cases in which ships carrying
+contraband may be confiscated are quite reasonable and in
+accordance with British views. The third ground for confiscation
+mentioned by your Correspondent does not occur
+in the instructions of 1904.</p>
+
+<p>Ships violating a blockade are, of course, confiscable;
+but the Japanese do not, as your Correspondent seems to
+have been informed, make the existence of a blockade conditional
+upon its having been &quot;notified to the Consuls of
+all States in the blockaded port.&quot; Commanders are, no
+doubt, instructed to notify the fact, &quot;as far as possible,
+to the competent authorities and the Consuls of the neutral<span class="newpage"><a name="page157" id="page157">[157]</a></span>
+Powers within the circumference of the blockade&quot;; but
+that is a very different thing.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">The Athen&aelig;um, March 10 (1905).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="JAPANESE-PRIZE-LAW-1915" />JAPANESE PRIZE LAW</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;Let me assure your correspondent upon Marine
+Insurance that I have been familiar, ever since its promulgation,
+with the Japanese prize law of 1894, quoted by him as
+authority for statements made in your issue of March 10,
+the misleading character of which I felt bound to point out
+in a letter of the same date. All the topics mentioned by
+him on that occasion, and to-day, are, however, regulated,
+not by that law, but by notifications and instructions issued
+from time to time during 1904.</p>
+
+<p>I make it my business not only to be authoritatively informed
+on such matters, but also to see that my information
+is up to date.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, March 15 (1905).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+<p>&nbsp;</p>
+
+<p class="subsectionhead">(Continuous Voyages)</p>
+
+<div class="intronotes"><p>The opinion expressed in the letter which immediately follows,
+that the American decisions, applying to carriage of contraband the
+doctrine of &quot;continuous voyages,&quot; seem to be &quot;demanded by the
+conditions of modern commerce, and might well be followed by a
+British prize Court,&quot; was referred to by Lord Salisbury in a despatch
+of January 10, 1900, to be communicated to Count von B&uuml;low, with
+reference to the seizure of <i>Bundesrath</i>. <i>Parl. Papers</i>, Africa, No. 1
+(1900), p. 19.</p>
+
+<p>The distinction, drawn in the same letter, between &quot;carriage of
+contraband&quot; and &quot;enemy service,&quot; which has sometimes been lost
+sight of, was established in the case of <i>Yangtsze Insurance Association</i>
+v. <i>Indemnity Mutual Marine Company</i>, [1908] K.B. 910, in which it
+was held by Bigham, J., that the transport of military officers of a
+belligerent State, as passengers in a neutral ship, is not a breach or a
+warranty against contraband of war in a policy of marine insurance.<span class="newpage"><a name="page158" id="page158">[158]</a></span>
+The carriage of enemy despatches will no longer be generally treated
+as &quot;enemy service&quot; since The Hague Convention, No. xi. of 1907,
+ratified by most of the Powers, including Great Britain, on November
+27, 1909, by Art. 1 provides that, except in the case of breach of blockade,
+&quot;the postal correspondence of neutrals or <i>belligerents</i>, whether of <i>an
+official</i> or a private character, found on board a <i>neutral</i> or enemy
+ship on the High Seas is inviolable.&quot;</p>
+
+<p>The case of the <i>Allanton</i>, which gave occasion for the letter of
+July 11, 1904, was as follows. This British ship left Cardiff on February 24
+of that year, with a cargo of coal to be delivered either at Hong-Kong
+or Sasebo. On arrival at Hong-Kong, she found orders to deliver at
+Sasebo, and, having made delivery accordingly, was chartered by a
+Japanese company at another Japanese port, to carry coal to a British
+firm at Singapore. On her way thither, she was captured by a Russian
+squadron and taken in to Vladivostok, where on June 24 she was
+condemned by the prize Court for carriage of contraband. The Court
+held, ignoring the rule that a vessel ceases to be <i>in dilecto</i> when she
+has &quot;deposited&quot; her contraband (since affirmed by Art. 38 of the
+Declaration of London of 1909), that she was liable in respect of her
+voyage to Sasebo; as also in respect of the voyage on which she was
+captured, on the ground that her real destination was at that time the
+Japanese fleet, or some Japanese port. This decision was reversed,
+as to both ship and cargo, by the Court of Appeal at St. Petersburg, on
+October 22 of the same year.</p>
+
+<p>The doctrine of &quot;continuous voyages&quot; was by the Declaration
+of London, Art. 30, recognised in the case of &quot;absolute,&quot; but by
+Art. 35 was stated to be inapplicable to the case of &quot;conditional&quot;
+contraband.</p></div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="PRIZE-LAW" />PRIZE LAW</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;Questions of maritime international law which
+are likely to give rise not only to forensic argument in
+the prize Courts which we have established at Durban
+and at the Cape, but also to diplomatic communications
+between Great Britain and neutral Governments, should
+obviously be handled just now with a large measure of
+reserve. Lord Rosebery has, however, in your columns
+called upon our Government to define its policy with reference
+to foodstuffs as contraband of war, while several other
+correspondents have touched upon, cognate topics. You
+may perhaps therefore be disposed to allow one who is
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page159" id="page159">[159]</a></span>responsible for the <i>Admiralty Manual of the Law of Prize</i>, to
+which reference has been made by your correspondent &quot;S.,&quot;
+to make a few statements as to points upon which it may
+be desirable for the general reader to be in possession of
+information accurate, one may venture to hope, as far
+as it goes.</p>
+
+<p>Of the four inconveniences to which neutral trading
+vessels are liable in time of war, &quot;blockade&quot; may be left
+out of present consideration. You can only blockade the
+ports of your enemy, and the South African Republics have
+no port of their own. The three other inconveniences must,
+however, all be endured&mdash;<i>viz.</i> prohibition to carry &quot;contraband,&quot;
+prohibition to engage in &quot;enemy service,&quot; and
+liability to be &quot;visited and searched&quot; anywhere except
+within three miles of a neutral coast, in order that it may be
+ascertained whether they are disregarding either of these
+prohibitions, as to the meaning of which some explanation
+may not be superfluous.</p>
+
+<p>1. &quot;Carriage of contraband&quot; implies (1) that the goods
+carried are fit for hostile use; (2) that they are on their way
+to a hostile destination. Each of these requirements has
+given rise to wide divergence of views and to a considerable
+literature. As to (1), while Continental opinion and practice
+favour a hard-and-fast list of contraband articles, comprising
+only such as are already suited, or can readily be adapted,
+for use in operations of war, English and American opinion
+and practice favour a longer list, and one capable of being
+from time to time extended to meet the special exigencies
+of the war. In such a list may figure even provisions,
+&quot;under circumstances arising out of the particular situation
+of the war,&quot; especially if &quot;going with a highly probable
+destination to military use&quot;&mdash;Lord Stowell in the <i>Jonge
+Margaretha</i> (1 Rob. 188); <i>cf.</i> Story, J., in the <i>Commercen</i>
+(1 Wheat. 382), the date and purport of which are, by the
+by, incorrectly given by &quot;S.&quot; It would be in accordance
+with our own previous practice and with Lord Granville's
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page160" id="page160">[160]</a></span>despatches during the war between France and China in
+1885, if we treated flour as contraband only when ear-marked
+as destined for the use of enemy fleets, armies, or fortresses.
+Even in such cases our practice has been not to confiscate
+the cargo, but merely to exercise over it a right of &quot;pre-emption,&quot;
+so as to deprive the enemy of its use without
+doing more injury than can be helped to neutral trade&mdash;as
+is explained by Lord Stowell in the <i>Haabet</i> (2 Rob. 174).
+As to (2), the rule was expressed by Lord Stowell to be that
+&quot;goods going to a neutral port cannot come under the
+description of contraband, all goods going there being equally
+lawful&quot;&mdash;<i>Imina</i> (3 Rob. 167); but innovations were made
+upon this rule during the American Civil War which seem
+to be demanded by the conditions of modern commerce,
+and might well be followed by a British prize Court. It
+was held that contraband goods, although <i>bona fide</i> on their
+way to a neutral port, might be condemned, if intended
+afterwards to reach the enemy by another ship or even by
+means of land carriage&mdash;<i>Bermuda</i> (3 Wallace); <i>Peterhoff</i>
+(5 Wallace). A consignment to Lorenzo Marques, connected
+as is the town by only forty miles of railway with the Transvaal
+frontier, would seem to be well within the principles
+of the Civil War cases as to &quot;continuous voyages.&quot;</p>
+
+<p>2. The carriage by a neutral ship of enemy troops, or of
+even a few military officers, as also of enemy despatches, is
+an &quot;enemy service&quot; of so important a kind as to involve
+the confiscation of the vessel concerned, a penalty which,
+under ordinary circumstances, is not imposed upon carriage
+of &quot;contraband&quot; property so called. See Lord Stowell's
+luminous judgments in <i>Orozembo</i> (6 Rob. 430) and <i>Atalanta</i>
+(<i>ib.</i> 440). The alleged offence of the ship <i>Bundesrath</i> would
+seem to be of this description.</p>
+
+<p>The questions, both of &quot;contraband&quot; and of &quot;enemy
+service,&quot; with which our prize Courts must before long have
+to deal, will be such as to demand from the Judges a competent
+knowledge of the law of prize, scrupulous fairness
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page161" id="page161">[161]</a></span>towards neutral claimants, and prompt penetration of the
+Protean disguises which illicit trade so readily assumes in
+time of war.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">Your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, January 2 (1900).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="THE-ALLANTON-A" />THE <i>ALLANTON (Continuous Voyage)</i></p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;I venture to think that the letter which you
+print this morning from my friend Dr. Baty, with reference
+to the steamship <i>Allanton</i>, calls for a word of warning;
+unless, indeed, it is to be taken as merely expressing the
+private opinion of the writer as to what would be a desirable
+rule of law.</p>
+
+<p>It would be disastrous if shipowners and insurers were
+to assume, that a neutral vessel, if destined for a neutral
+port, is necessarily safe from capture. Words at any rate
+capable of this construction may, no doubt, be quoted
+from one of Lord Stowell's judgments, now more than a
+century old; but many things have happened, notably
+the invention of railways, since the days of that great
+Judge. The United States cases, decided in the sixties
+(as Dr. Baty thinks, &quot;on a demonstrably false analogy&quot;),
+in which certain ships were held to be engaged in the carriage
+of contraband, although their destination was a neutral
+port, were substantially approved of by Great Britain.
+Their principle wast adopted by Italy, in the <i>Doelwijk</i>,
+in 1896, and was supported by Great Britain in the correspondence
+upon this subject which took place with Germany
+in 1900. It was endorsed, after prolonged discussion, by
+the Institut de Droit International in 1896.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, July 11 (1904).</div><br />
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page162" id="page162">[162]</a></span></div>
+
+<p>&nbsp;</p>
+<p class="subsectionhead">(Unqualified Captors)</p>
+
+<div class="intronotes"><p>Among the objections raised by the British Government to the
+capture by the Russian ship <i>Peterburg</i> in the Red Sea, on July 13, 1904,
+of the P. and O. ss. <i>Malacca</i>, for carriage of contraband were (1) that
+the so-called contraband consisted of government ammunition for the
+use of the British fleet in Chinese waters; and (2) what was more serious,
+that the capturing vessel, which belonged to the Russian volunteer fleet,
+after issuing from the Black Sea under the commercial flag had subsequently,
+and without touching at any Russian port, brought up guns
+from her hold, and had proceeded to exercise belligerent rights under
+the Russian naval flag. In consequence of the protest of the British
+Government, and to close the incident, the <i>Malacca</i> was released at
+Algiers, after a purely formal examination, on July 27, and Russia
+agreed to instruct the officers of her volunteer fleet not to make any
+similar captures.</p>
+
+<p>The question of the legitimacy of the transformation on the high
+seas into a ship-of-war of a vessel which has previously been sailing under
+the commercial flag was much discussed at The Hague Conference of
+1907, but without result. Opinions were so much divided upon the
+point, that no mention of it is made in Convention No. vii. of that year,
+ratified by Great Britain on November 27, 1909, &quot;as to the transformation
+of merchant vessels into ships-of-war.&quot; At the session
+of the Institut de Droit International held at Oxford in 1913, this
+question was discussed, and rules relating to it will be found in
+Section 2 of the <i>Manuel des lois de la guerre maritime</i>, the drafting
+of which occupied the whole of the session.</p></div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="THE-ALLANTON-B" />THE <i>ALLANTON (Unqualified Captors)</i></p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;The indignation caused by the treatment of the
+<i>Allanton</i> is natural, and will almost certainly prove to be
+well founded; but Mr. Rae, in the letter which you print
+this morning, overstates a good case. He asks that,
+&quot;whatever steps are taken for the release of the <i>Malacca</i>,
+equally strong steps should be taken for the release of the
+<i>Allanton</i>&quot;; and he can see no difference between the cases
+of the two ships, except that the former is owned by a
+powerful company in the habit of carrying British mails,
+while the latter is his private property.</p>
+
+<p>One would have supposed it to be notorious that the
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page163" id="page163">[163]</a></span>facts which distinguish the one case from the other are,
+first, that the capture of the <i>Malacca</i> was effected by a vessel
+not entitled to exercise belligerent rights; and, secondly,
+that Great Britain is prepared to claim the incriminated
+cargo as belonging to the British Government. Capture
+by an unqualified cruiser is so sufficient a ground for a
+claim of restoration and compensation that, except perhaps
+as facilitating the retreat of Russia from a false position, it
+would seem, to say the least, superfluous to pray in aid
+any other reason for the cancellation of an act unlawful
+<i>ab initio.</i></p>
+
+<p>I have not noticed any statement as to the actual constitution
+of the prize Court concerned in the condemnation
+of the <i>Allanton.</i> Under Rule 54 of the Russian Naval
+Regulations of 1895, a &quot;Port Prize Court&quot; must, for a
+decree of confiscation, consist of six members, of whom
+three must be officials of the Ministries of Marine, Justice,
+and Foreign Affairs respectively. An &quot;Admirals' Prize
+Court,&quot; for the same purpose, need consist of only four
+members, all of whom are naval officers.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, July 25 (1904).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+<p>&nbsp;</p>
+<p class="subsectionhead">(Note upon the Declaration of London)</p>
+
+<div class="intronotes"><p>The British delegates to The Hague Conference of 1907 were
+instructed that H.M. Government &quot;are ready and willing for their
+part, in lieu of endeavouring to frame new and more satisfactory
+rules for the prevention of contraband trade in the future, to abandon
+the principle of contraband of war altogether, thus allowing the oversea
+trade in neutral vessels between belligerents on the one hand and
+neutrals on the other, to continue during war without any restriction,&quot;
+except with reference to blockades. This proposal, fortunately, was
+not accepted by the Conference, which was unable even to agree upon
+lists of contraband articles, and recommended that the question
+should be further considered by the Governments concerned, <i>Parl.
+Paper, Miscell.</i> No. 1 (1908), p. 194.</p>
+
+<p>This task was accordingly among those undertaken at the Conference
+of Maritime Powers held in London in 1908-1909, which resulted in
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page164" id="page164">[164]</a></span>a Declaration, Arts. 22-44 of which constituted a fairly complete code
+of the law of contraband. Reference has already been made, in comments
+upon letters comprised in previous sections, to this Declaration,
+the demerits and history of which are more fully dealt with in
+section 10, <i>infra</i>, pp. <a href="#page196">196</a>-207.</p></div>
+
+<hr style='width: 45%;' />
+
+<h3 class="sectionhead"><a name="CHAPTER_VII_SECTION_6" />SECTION 6</h3>
+
+<p class="subsectionhead">Methods of Warfare as affecting Neutrals</p>
+
+<p class="subsectionhead">(Mines)</p>
+
+<div class="intronotes"><p>On the views expressed in the first of the two letters which follow,
+as also in the writer's British Academy paper on <i>Neutral Duties</i>, as
+translated in the <i>Marine Rundschau</i>, see Professor von Martitz of
+Berlin, in the <i>Transactions</i> of the International Law Association, 1907.
+The Institut de Droit International has for some years past had under
+its consideration questions relating to mines, and has arrived at conclusions
+which will be found in its <i>Annuaire</i>, t. xxi. p. 330, t. xxii. p. 344,
+t xxiii. p. 429, t. xxiv. pp. 286, 301.</p>
+
+<p>The topic has also been dealt with in The Hague Convention,
+No. viii. of 1907, ratified with a reservation, by Great Britain on November
+27, 1907. By Art. 1 it is forbidden &quot;(1) to lay unanchored automatic-contact
+mines, unless they are so constructed as to become
+harmless one hour at most after he who has laid them has lost control
+over them; (2) to lay anchored automatic-contact mines which do
+not become harmless as soon as they have broken loose from their
+moorings; (3) to employ torpedoes which do not become harmless
+when they have missed their mark.&quot; By Art. 2, (which is, however,
+not accepted by France or Germany) it is forbidden &quot;to lay automatic-contact
+mines off the coast and ports of an enemy, with the sole object
+of intercepting commercial navigation.&quot;</p></div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="MINES-IN-THE-OPEN-SEA" />MINES IN THE OPEN SEA</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;The question raised in your columns by Admiral
+do Horsey with reference to facts as to which we are as
+yet imperfectly informed, well illustrates the perpetually
+recurring conflict between belligerent and neutral interests.
+They are, of course, irreconcilable, and the rights of the
+respective parties can be defined only by way of compromise.
+It is beyond doubt that the theoretically absolute
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page165" id="page165">[165]</a></span>right of neutral ships, whether public or private, to pursue
+their ordinary routes over the high sea in time of war, is
+limited by the right of the belligerents to fight on those
+seas a naval battle, the scene of which can be approached
+by such ships only at their proper risk and peril. In such
+a case the neutral has ample warning of the danger to which
+he would be exposed did he not alter his intended course.
+It would, however, be an entirely different affair if he
+should find himself implicated in belligerent war risks, of
+the existence of which it was impossible for him to be
+informed, while pursuing his lawful business in waters over
+which no nation pretends to exercise jurisdiction.</p>
+
+<p>It is certain that no international usage sanctions the
+employment by one belligerent against the other of mines,
+or other secret contrivances, which would, without notice,
+render dangerous the navigation of the high seas. No
+belligerent has ever asserted a right to do anything of
+the kind; and it may be in the recollection of your
+readers that strong disapproval was expressed of a design,
+erroneously attributed to the United States a few years
+since, of effecting the blockade of certain Cuban ports by
+torpedoes, instead of by a cruising squadron. These, it
+was pointed out, would superadd to the risk of capture
+and confiscation, to which a blockade-runner is admittedly
+liable, the novel penalty of total destruction of the ship
+and all on board.</p>
+
+<p>It may be worth while to add, as bearing upon the
+question under discussion, that there is a tendency in
+expert opinion towards allowing the line between &quot;territorial
+waters&quot; and the &quot;high seas&quot; to be drawn at a
+considerably greater distance than the old measurement of
+three miles from the shore.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, May 23 (1904).</div><br />
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page166" id="page166">[166]</a></span></div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="TERRITORIAL-WATERS" />TERRITORIAL WATERS</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;Most authorities would, I think, agree with
+Admiral de Horsey that the line between &quot;territorial
+waters&quot; and &quot;the high sea&quot; is drawn by international
+law, if drawn by it anywhere, at a distance of three miles
+from low-water mark. In the first place, the ridiculously
+wide claims made, on behalf of certain States, by medi&aelig;val
+jurists were cut down by Grotius to so much water as can
+be controlled from the land. The Grotian formula was
+then worked out by Bynkershoek with reference to the
+range of cannon; and, finally, this somewhat variable test
+was before the end of the eighteenth century, as we may
+see from the judgments of Lord Stowell, superseded by
+the hard-and-fast rule of the three-mile limit, which has
+since received ample recognition in treaties, legislation, and
+judicial decisions.</p>
+
+<p>The subordinate question, also touched upon by the
+Admiral, of the character to be attributed to bays, the
+entrance to which exceeds six miles in breadth, presents
+more difficulty than that relating to strictly coastal waters.
+I will only say that the Privy Council, in <i>The Direct U.S.
+Cable Co.</i> v. <i>Anglo-American Telegraph Co.</i> (L.R. 2 App.
+Ca. 394), carefully avoided giving an opinion as to the
+international law applicable to such bays, but decided
+the case before them, which had arisen with reference to
+the Bay of Conception, in Newfoundland, on the narrow
+ground that, as a British Court, they were bound by
+certain assertions of jurisdiction made in British Acts of
+Parliament.</p>
+
+<p>The three-mile distance has, no doubt, become inadequate
+in consequence of the increased range of modern
+cannon, but no other can be substituted for it without
+express agreement of the Powers. One can hardly admit
+the view which has been maintained, <i>e.g.</i> by Professor de
+Martens, that the distance shifts automatically in accord<span class="newpage"><a name="page167" id="page167">[167]</a></span>ance
+with improvements in artillery. The whole matter
+might well be included among the questions relating to
+the rights and duties of neutrals, for the consideration of
+which by a conference, to be called at an early date, a
+wish was recorded by The Hague Conference, of 1899.</p>
+
+<p>In the meantime it may be worth while to call attention
+to the view of the subject taken by a specially qualified and
+representative body of international experts. The Institut
+de Droit International, after discussions and enquiries which
+had lasted for several years, adopted, at their Paris meeting
+in 1894, the following resolutions, as a statement of
+what, in the opinion of the Institut, would be reasonable
+rules with reference to territorial waters (I cite only those
+bearing upon the extent of such waters):&mdash;</p>
+
+<div class="letterquot"><p>&quot;Art. 2.&mdash;La mer territoriale s'&eacute;tend &agrave; six milles marins (60 au
+degr&eacute; de latitude) de la laisse de basse mar&eacute;e sur tout l'&eacute;tendue des
+c&ocirc;tes. Art. 3.&mdash;Pour les baies, la mer territoriale suit les sinuosit&eacute;s de la
+c&ocirc;te, sauf qu'elle mesur&eacute;e &agrave; partir d'une ligne droite tir&eacute;e en travers
+de la baie, dans la partie la plus rapproch&eacute;e de l'ouverture vers la mer,
+o&ugrave; l'&eacute;cart entre les deux c&ocirc;tes de la baie est de douze milles marins
+de largeur, &agrave; moins qu'un usage continu et s&eacute;culaire n'ait consacr&eacute;
+une largeur plus grande. Art. 4.&mdash;En cas de guerre, l'&eacute;tat riverain
+neutre a le droit de fixer, par la d&eacute;claration de neutralit&eacute;, ou par
+notification sp&eacute;ciale, sa zone neutre au dela de six milles, jusqu'&agrave;
+port&eacute;e du canon des c&ocirc;tes. Art. 5.&mdash;Tous les navires sans distinction
+ont le droit de passage inoffensif par la mer territoriale, sauf le droit
+des bellig&eacute;rants de r&egrave;glementer et, dans un but de d&eacute;fense, de barrer le
+passage dans la dite mer pour tout navire, et sauf le droit de neutres
+de r&egrave;glementer le passage dans la dite mer pour les navires de guerre
+de toutes nationalit&eacute;s.&quot; (<i>Annuaire de l'Institut</i>, t. xiii. p. 329).</p></div>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, June 1 (1904).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+<div class="postnotes"><p>A French decree, of October 18, 1912, accordingly extends, when
+France is neutral, her territorial waters to a distance of six miles
+(11 kilom.) from low-water mark.<span class="newpage"><a name="page168" id="page168">[168]</a></span></p></div>
+
+<p>&nbsp;</p>
+
+<p class="subsectionhead">(Cable-cutting)</p>
+
+<div class="intronotes"><p>With the letters which follow, compare the article by the present
+writer on &quot;Les cables sous-marins en temps de guerre,&quot; in the <i>Journal
+de Droit International Priv&eacute;</i>, 1898, p. 648.</p>
+
+<p>The topic of cable-cutting, as to which the Institut de Droit International
+arrived in 1879 at the conclusions set out in the first of these
+letters, was again taken into consideration by the Institut in 1902: see
+the <i>Annuaire</i> for that year, pp. 301-332.</p>
+
+<p>The Hague Convention; No. iv. of 1907, provides, in Art. 54, that
+&quot;submarine cables connecting occupied territory with a neutral
+territory shall not be destroyed or seized, unless in case of absolute
+necessity. They must be restored, and compensation must be arranged
+for them at the peace.&quot;</p>
+
+<p>Convention No. v., by Art. 3, forbids belligerents (1) to install
+on neutral territory a radio-telegraphic station, or any other apparatus,
+for communicating with their land or sea forces; (2) to employ such
+apparatus, established by them there before the war, for purely military
+purposes. By Art. 5, a neutral Power is bound to permit nothing of
+the sort.</p></div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="SUBMARINE-CABLES" />SUBMARINE CABLES</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;The possibility of giving some legal protection
+to submarine cables has been carefully considered by the
+Institut de Droit International. A committee was appointed
+in 1878 to consider the subject, and the presentation of its
+report to the meeting at Brussels in 1879 was followed
+by an interesting discussion (see the <i>Annuaire de l'Institut</i>,
+1879-80, pp. 351-394). The conclusions ultimately adopted
+by the Institut were as follows:&mdash;</p>
+
+<div class="letterquot"><p>&quot;1. It would be very useful if the various States would come
+to an understanding to declare that destruction of, or injury to, submarine
+cables in the high seas is an offence under the Law of Nations,
+and to fix precisely the wrongful character of the acts, and the appropriate
+penalties. With reference to the last-mentioned point, the
+degree of uniformity attainable must depend on the amount of difference
+between systems of criminal legislation. The right of arresting offenders,
+or those presumed to be such, might be given to the public vessels
+of all nations, under conditions regulated by treaties, but the right to
+try them should be reserved to the national Courts of the vessel arrested.</p>
+
+<p>&quot;2. A submarine-telegraph cable uniting two neutral territories
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page169" id="page169">[169]</a></span>is inviolable. It is desirable that, when telegraphic communication
+must be interrupted in consequence of war, a belligerent should confine
+himself to such measures as are absolutely necessary to prevent the
+cable from being used, and that such measures should be discontinued,
+or that any damage caused by them, should be repaired as soon as the
+cessation of hostilities may permit.&quot;</p></div>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, November 23 (1881).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="SUBMARINE-CABLES-IN-TIME-OF-WAR" />SUBMARINE CABLES IN TIME OF WAR</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;I venture to think that the question which has
+been raised as to the legitimacy of cable-cutting is not so
+insoluble as most of the allusions to it might lead one to
+suppose. It is true that no light is thrown upon it by the
+Convention of 1884, which relates exclusively to time of
+peace, and was indeed signed by Lord Lyons, on behalf
+of Great Britain, only with an express reservation to that
+effect. Nor are we helped by the case to which attention
+was called in your columns some time since by Messrs.
+Eyre and Spottiswoode. Their allusion was doubtless to
+the <i>International</i> (L.R. 3 A. and E. 321), which is irrelevant
+to the present enquiry. The question is a new one, but,
+though covered by no precedent, I cannot doubt that it
+is covered by certain well-established principles of international
+law, which, it is hardly necessary to remark, is no
+cut-and-dried system but a body of rules founded upon, and
+moving with, the public opinion of nations.</p>
+
+<p>That branch of international law which deals with the
+relations of neutrals and belligerents is, of course, a compromise
+between what Grotius calls the &quot;belli rigor&quot; and the
+&quot;commerciorum libertas.&quot; The terms of the compromise,
+originally suggested partly by equity, partly by national
+interest, have been varied and re-defined, from time to
+time, with reference to the same considerations. It is perhaps
+reasonable that, in settling these terms, preponderant
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page170" id="page170">[170]</a></span>weight should have been given to the requirements of belligerents,
+engaged possibly in a life-and-death struggle. &quot;Ius
+commerciorum &aelig;quum est,&quot; says Gentili; &quot;at hoc &aelig;quius,
+tuend&aelig; salutis.&quot; There is accordingly no doubt that in
+land warfare a belligerent may not only interrupt communications
+by road, railway, post, or telegraph without giving
+any ground of complaint to neutrals who may be thereby
+inconvenienced, but may also lay hands on such neutral
+property&mdash;shipping, railway carriages, or telegraphic plant&mdash;as
+may be essential to the conduct of his operations, making
+use of and even destroying it, subject only to a duty to
+compensate the owners. This he does in pursuance of the
+well-known &quot;droit d'angarie,&quot; an extreme application of
+which occurred in 1871, when certain British colliers were
+sunk in the Seine by the Prussians in order to prevent the
+passage of French gunboats up the river. Count Bismarck
+undertook that the owners of the ships should be indemnified,
+and Lord Granville did not press for anything further.
+Such action, if it took place outside of belligerent territory,
+would not be tolerated for a moment.</p>
+
+<p>The application of these principles to the case of submarine
+cables would appear to be, to a certain point at any
+rate, perfectly clear. Telegraphic communication with the
+outside world may well be as important to a State engaged
+in warfare as similar means of communication between
+one point and another within its own territory. Just as an
+invader would without scruple interrupt messages, and even
+destroy telegraphic plant, on land, so may he thus act
+within the enemy's territorial waters, or, perhaps, even so
+far from shore as he could reasonably place a blockading
+squadron. It may be objected that a belligerent has no
+right to prevent the access of neutral ships to unblockaded
+portions of the enemy's coast on the ground that by carrying
+diplomatic agents or despatches they are keeping up the
+communications of his enemy with neutral Governments.
+But this indulgence rests on the presumption that such
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page171" id="page171">[171]</a></span>official communications are &quot;innocent,&quot; a presumption
+obviously inapplicable to telegraphic messages indiscriminately
+received in the course of business. It would seem,
+therefore, to be as reasonable as it is in accordance with
+analogy, that a belligerent should be allowed, within the
+territorial waters of his enemy, to cut a cable, even though it
+may be neutral property, of which the <i>terminus ad quem</i> is
+enemy territory, subject only to a liability to indemnify
+the neutral owners.</p>
+
+<p>The cutting, elsewhere than in the enemy's waters, of
+a cable connecting enemy with neutral territory receives
+no countenance from international law. Still less permissible
+would be the cutting of a cable connecting two
+neutral ports, although messages may pass through it which,
+by previous and subsequent stages of transmission, may
+be useful to the enemy.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">Your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, May 21 (1897).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="SUBMARINE-CABLES-IN-TIME-OF-WAR-B" />SUBMARINE CABLES IN TIME OF WAR</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;Will you allow me to refer in a few words to the
+interesting letters upon the subject of submarine cables
+which have been addressed to you by Mr. Parson&eacute; and
+Mr. Charles Bright? In asserting that &quot;the question as to
+the legitimacy of cable-cutting is covered by no precedent,&quot;
+I had no intention of denying that belligerent interference
+with cables had ever occurred. International precedents
+are made by diplomatic action (or deliberate inaction) with
+reference to facts, not by those facts themselves. To the
+best of my belief no case of cable-cutting has ever been
+made matter of diplomatic representation, and I understand
+Mr. Parson&eacute; to admit that no claim in respect of
+damage to cables was presented to the mixed Commission
+appointed under the Convention of 1883 between Great
+Britain and Chile.<span class="newpage"><a name="page172" id="page172">[172]</a></span></p>
+
+<p>In the course of his able address upon &quot;Belligerents
+and Neutrals,&quot; reported in your issue of this morning, I
+observe that Mr. Macdonell suggests that the Institut de
+Droit International might usefully study the question of
+cables in time of war. It may, therefore, be well to state
+that this service hat already been rendered. The Institut,
+at its Paris meeting in 1878, appointed a committee, of
+which M. Renault was chairman, to consider the whole
+subject of the protection of cables, both in peace and in
+war; and at its Brussels meeting, in 1879, carefully discussed
+the exhaustive report of its committee and voted
+certain &quot;conclusions,&quot; notably the following:&mdash;</p>
+
+<div class="letterquot"><p>&quot;Le c&acirc;ble t&eacute;l&eacute;graphique sous-marin qui unit deux territoires
+neutres est inviolable.</p>
+
+<p>&quot;Il est &agrave; d&eacute;sirer, quand les communications t&eacute;l&eacute;graphiques doivent
+cesser par suite de l'&eacute;tat de guerre, que l'on se borne aux mesures
+strictement n&eacute;cessaires pour emp&ecirc;cher l'usage du cable, et qu'il soit mis
+fin &agrave; ces mesures, ou que l'on en r&eacute;pare les consequences, aussit&ocirc;t que
+le permettra la cessation des hostilit&eacute;s.&quot;</p></div>
+
+<p>It was in no small measure due to the initiative of the
+Institut that diplomatic conferences were held at Paris, which
+in 1882 produced a draft convention for the protection of
+cables, not restricted in its operation to time of peace; and
+in 1884 the actual convention, which is so restricted.</p>
+
+<p>It may not be generally known that in 1864, before the
+difficulties of the subject were thoroughly appreciated, a
+convention was signed, though it never became operative,
+by which Brazil, Hayti, Italy, and Portugal undertook to
+recognise the &quot;neutrality&quot; in time of war of a cable to be
+laid by one Balestrini. So, in 1869, the United States were
+desirous of concluding a general convention which should
+assimilate the destruction of cables in the high seas to
+piracy, and should continue to be in force in time of war.
+The Brussels conference of 1874 avoided any mention of
+&quot;c&acirc;bles sous-marins.&quot;</p>
+
+<p>The moral of all that has been written upon this subject
+is obviously that drawn by Mr. Charles Bright&mdash;<i>viz.</i> &quot;the
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page173" id="page173">[173]</a></span>urgent necessity of a system of cables connecting the
+British Empire by direct and independent means&mdash;<i>i.e.</i>
+without touching on foreign soil.&quot;</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, June 3 (1897).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+<hr style='width: 45%;' />
+
+<h3 class="sectionhead"><a name="CHAPTER_VII_SECTION_7" />SECTION 7</h3>
+
+<p class="subsectionhead">Destruction of Neutral Prizes</p>
+
+<div class="intronotes"><p>A British ship, the <i>Knight Commander</i>, bound from New York
+to Yokohama and Kobe, was stopped on July 23, 1904, by a Russian
+cruiser, and as her cargo consisted largely of railway material, was
+considered to be engaged in carriage of contraband. Her crew and
+papers were taken on board the cruiser, and she was sent to the bottom
+by fire from its guns. The reasons officially given for this proceeding
+were that: &quot;The proximity of the enemy's port, the lack of coal on
+board the vessel to enable her to be taken into a Russian port, and the
+impossibility of supplying her with coal from one of the Russian
+cruisers, owing to the high seas running at the time, obliged the
+commander of the Russian cruiser to sink her.&quot;</p>
+
+<p>The Russian Regulations as to Naval Prize, Art. 21, allowed a
+commander &quot;in exceptional cases, when the preservation of a captured
+vessel appears impossible on account of her bad condition or entire
+worthlessness, the danger of her recapture by the enemy, or the great
+distance or blockade of ports, or else on account of danger threatening
+the ship which has made the capture, or the success of her operations,&quot;
+to burn or sink the prize.</p>
+
+<p>The Japanese Regulations, Art. 91, were to the same effect in
+cases where the prize (1) cannot be navigated owing to her being unseaworthy,
+or to dangerous seas; (2) is likely to be recaptured by the
+enemy; (3) cannot be navigated without depriving the ship-of-war of
+officers and men required for her own safety.</p>
+
+<p>The case of the <i>Knight Commander</i> was the subject of comment,
+on the 27th of the same month, in both Houses of Parliament. In
+the House of Lords, Lord Lansdowne spoke of what had occurred as
+&quot;a very serious breach of international law,&quot; &quot;an outrage,&quot; against
+which it had been considered &quot;a duty to lodge a strong protest.&quot; In
+the House of Commons, Mr. Balfour described it as &quot;entirely contrary
+to the accepted practice of civilised nations.&quot; Similar language was
+used in Parliament on August 10, when Mr. Gibson Bowles alluded to
+my letter of the 6th, in a way which gave occasion for that of the 14th.<span class="newpage"><a name="page174" id="page174">[174]</a></span></p>
+
+<p>The <i>Knight Commander</i> was condemned by the Prize Court at
+Vladivostok on August 16, 1904, and the sentence was confirmed on
+December 5, 1905, by the Court of Appeal at St. Petersburg, which
+found it &quot;impossible to agree that the destruction of a neutral vessel
+is contrary to the principles of international law.&quot; The Russian
+Government remained firm on the point, and in 1908 declined to submit
+the case to arbitration.</p>
+
+<p>The Institut de Droit International in its <i>Code des Prises maritimes</i>,
+voted in 1887, Art. 50 (not, be it observed, professing to state the law
+as it is, but as it should be), had taken a view in accordance with
+that maintained by the British Government (<i>Annuaire</i> for 1888, t. ix.
+p. 228; <i>cf. ib.</i> pp. 200, 201). (The <i>Manuel des lois de la guerre maritime</i>,
+voted at Oxford in 1913, dealing exclusively with &quot;les rapports
+entre les bellig&eacute;rants,&quot; does not deal with the topic in question.) It
+was, however, the opinion of the present writer, as will appear from
+the following letters, that no rule of international law, by which the
+sinking of even neutral prizes was absolutely prohibited, could be shown
+to exist. He had previously touched upon this question in his evidence
+before the Royal Commission on the Supply of Food, &amp;c., in Time of
+War, on November, 4, 1903, and returned to it later in his paper upon
+&quot;The Duties of Neutrals,&quot; read to the British Academy on April 12,
+1905, <i>Transactions</i>, ii. p. 66. It was reproduced in French, German,
+Belgian, and Spanish periodicals, and was cited in the judgment of the
+St. Petersburg Court of Appeal in the case of the <i>Knight Commander.</i></p>
+
+<p>The subsequent history of the question, and, in particular, of the
+rules suggested in Arts. 48-54 of the unratified Declaration of London,
+may be claimed in favour of the correctness of the opinion maintained
+in the letters.</p></div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="RUSSIAN-PRIZE-LAW" />RUSSIAN PRIZE LAW</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;The neutral Powers have serious ground of complaint
+as to the mode in which Russia is conducting
+operations at sea. It may, however, be doubted whether
+public opinion is sufficiently well informed to be capable
+of estimating the comparative gravity of the acts which
+are just now attracting attention. Putting aside for the
+moment questions arising out of the Straits Convention of
+1856, as belonging to a somewhat different order of ideas,
+we may take it that the topics most needing careful consideration
+relate to removal of contraband from the ship
+that is carrying it without taking her in for adjudication;
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page175" id="page175">[175]</a></span>interference with mail steamers and their mail bags; perversely
+wrong decisions of Prize Courts; confiscation of
+ships as well as of their contraband cargo; destruction of
+prizes at sea; the list of contraband. Of these topics, the
+two last mentioned are probably the most important, and
+on each of these I will ask you to allow me to say a few
+words.</p>
+
+<p>1. There is no doubt that by the Russian regulations
+of 1895, Art. 21; and instructions of 1901, Art. 40, officers
+are empowered to destroy their prizes at sea, no distinction
+being drawn between neutral and enemy property, under
+such exceptional circumstances as the bad condition or
+small value of the prize, risk of recapture, distance from a
+Russian port, danger to the Imperial cruiser or to the
+success of her operations. The instructions of 1901, it may
+be added, explain that an officer &quot;incurs no responsibility
+whatever&quot; for so acting if the captured vessel is really
+liable to confiscation and the special circumstances imperatively
+demand her destruction. It is fair to say that not
+dissimilar, though less stringent, instructions were issued
+by France in 1870 and by the United States in 1898; also
+that, although the French instructions expressly contemplate
+&quot;l'&eacute;tablissement des indemnit&eacute;s &agrave; attribuer aux
+neutres,&quot; a French prize Court in 1870 refused compensation
+to neutral owners for the loss of their property on board of
+enemy ships burnt at sea.</p>
+
+<p>The question, however, remains whether such regulations
+are in accordance with the rules of international law. The
+statement of these rules by Lord Stowell, who speaks of
+them as &quot;clear in principle and established in practice,&quot; may,
+I think, be summarised as follows: An enemy's ship, after
+her crew has been placed in safety, may be destroyed.
+Where there is any ground for believing that the ship, or any
+part of her cargo, is neutral property, such action is justifiable
+only in cases of &quot;the gravest importance to the captor's
+own State,&quot; after securing the ship's papers and subject to
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page176" id="page176">[176]</a></span>the right of neutral owners to receive fall compensation
+(<i>Actaeon</i>, 2 Dods. 48; <i>Felicity, ib.</i> 381; substantially
+followed by Dr. Lushington in the <i>Leucade</i>, Spinks, 221). It
+is not the case, as is alleged by the <i>Novoe Vremya</i>, that any
+British regulations &quot;contain the same provisions as the
+Russian&quot; on this subject. On the contrary, the Admiralty
+Manual of 1888 allows destruction of enemy vessels only;
+and goes so far in the direction of liberality as to order the
+release, without ransom, of a neutral prize which either from
+its condition, or from lack of a prize crew, cannot be sent
+in for adjudication. The Japanese instructions of 1894
+permit the destruction of only enemy vessels; and Art. 50
+of the carefully debated &quot;Code des prises&quot; of the Institut
+de Droit International is to the same effect. It may be
+worth while to add that the eminent Russian jurist, M. de
+Martens, in his book on international law, published some
+twenty years ago, in mentioning that the distance of her
+ports from the scenes of naval operations often obliges
+Russia to sink her prizes, so that &quot;ce qui les lois maritimes
+de tous les &eacute;tats consid&egrave;rent comme un moyen auquel il
+n'y a lieu de recourir qu'&agrave; la derni&egrave;re extr&eacute;mit&eacute;, se transformera
+n&eacute;cessairement pour nous en r&egrave;gle normale,&quot; foresaw
+that &quot;cette mesure d'un caract&egrave;re g&eacute;n&eacute;ral soul&eacute;vera
+indubitablement contre notre pays un m&eacute;contentement
+universel.&quot;</p>
+
+<p>2. A far more important question is, I venture to think,
+raised by the Russian list of contraband, sweeping, as it
+does, into the category of &quot;absolutely contraband&quot; articles
+things such as provisions and coal, to which a contraband
+character, in any sense of the term, has usually been denied
+on the Continent, while Great Britain and the United States
+have admitted them into the category of &quot;conditional&quot;
+contraband, only when shown to be suitable and destined for
+the armed forces of the enemy, or for the relief of a place
+besieged. Still more unwarrantable is the Russian claim to
+interfere with the trade in raw cotton. Her prohibition of
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page177" id="page177">[177]</a></span>this trade is wholly unprecedented, for the treatment of
+cotton during the American Civil War will be found on
+examination to have no bearing on the question under consideration.
+I touch to-day upon this large subject only to
+express a hope that our Government, in concert, if possible,
+with other neutral Governments, has communicated to that
+of Russia, with reference to its list of prohibited articles, a
+protest in language as unmistakable as that employed by
+our Foreign Office in 1885; &quot;I regret to have to inform
+you, M. l'Ambassadeur,&quot; wrote Lord Granville, &quot;that Her
+Majesty's Government feel compelled to take exception to
+the proposed measure, as they cannot admit that, consistently
+with the law and practice of nations, and with the
+rights of neutrals, provisions in general can be treated as
+contraband of war.&quot; A timely warning that a claim is
+inadmissible is surely preferable to waiting till bad feeling
+has been aroused by the concrete application of an objectionable
+doctrine.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, August I (1904).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="RUSSIAN-PRIZE-LAW-B" />RUSSIAN PRIZE LAW</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;From this hilltop I observe that, in the debate of
+Thursday last, Mr. Gibson Bowles, alluding to a letter of
+mine which appeared in your issue of August 6, complained
+that I &quot;had not given the proper reference&quot; to Lord
+Stowell's judgments. Mr. Bowles seems to be unaware that
+in referring to a decided case the page mentioned is, in the
+absence of any indication to the contrary, invariably that
+on which the report of the case commences. I may perhaps
+also be allowed to say that he, in my opinion, misapprehends
+the effect of the passage quoted by him from the <i>Felicity</i>,
+which decides only that, whatever may be the justification
+for the destruction of a neutral prize, the neutral owner is
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page178" id="page178">[178]</a></span>entitled, as against the captor, to full compensation for the
+loss thereby sustained.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Eggishorn, Valais, Suisse, August 14 (1904).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="RUSSIAN-PRIZE-LAW-C" />RUSSIAN PRIZE LAW</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;Mr. Gibson Bowles has, I find, addressed to you a
+letter in which he attempts to controvert two statements of
+mine by the simple expedient of omitting essential portions
+of each of them.</p>
+
+<p>1. Mr. Bowles having revealed himself as unaware that
+the mode in which I had cited a group of cases upon destruction
+of prizes was the correct mode, I thought it well to
+provide him with the rudimentary information that, &quot;in
+referring to a decided case, the page, mentioned is, <i>in the
+absence of any indication to the contrary</i>, invariably that on
+which the report of the case commences.&quot; He replies that he
+has found appended to a citation of a passage in a judgment
+the page in which this passage occurs. May I refer him,
+for an explanation of this phenomenon, to the words (now
+italicised) omitted in his quotation of my statement? It is,
+of course, common enough, when the reference is obviously
+not to the case as a whole but to an extract from it, thus to
+give a clue to the extract, the formula then employed being
+frequently &quot;<i>at</i> page so-and-so.&quot;</p>
+
+<p>2. I had summarised the effect, as I conceive it, of the
+group of cases above mentioned in the following terms:
+&quot;Such action is justifiable only in cases of the gravest importance
+to the captor's own State, <i>after securing the ship's
+papers, and subject to the right of the neutral owners to receive
+full compensation</i>.&quot; Here, again, while purporting to quote
+me, Mr. Bowles omits the all-important words now italicised.
+I am, however, maltreated in good company. Mr. Bowles
+represents Lord Stowell as holding that destruction of neutral
+property cannot be justified, even in cases of the gravest
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page179" id="page179">[179]</a></span>importance to the captor's own State. What Lord Stowell
+actually says, in the very passage quoted by Mr. Bowles, is
+that &quot;to the neutral can only be justified, under any such
+circumstances, by a full restitution in value.&quot; I would,
+suggest that Mr. Bowles should find an opportunity for
+reading <i>in extenso</i> the reports of the <i>Actaeon</i> (2 Dods. 48),
+and the <i>Felicity</i> (<i>ib.</i> 881), as also for re-reading the passage
+which occurs at p. 386 of the latter case, before venturing
+further into the somewhat intricate technicalities of prize
+law.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Eggishorn, Suisse, August 26 (1904).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="THE-SINKING-OF-NEUTRAL-PRIZES" />THE SINKING OF NEUTRAL PRIZES</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;In your St. Petersburg correspondence of yesterday
+I see that some reference is made to what I have had occasion
+to say from time to time upon the vexed question of the
+sinking of neutral vessels, and your Correspondent thinks it
+&quot;would be decidedly interesting&quot; to know whether I have
+really changed my opinion on the subject. Perhaps, therefore,
+I may be allowed to state that my opinion on the
+subject has suffered no change, and may be summarised as
+follows:&mdash;</p>
+
+<p>1. There is no established rule of international law which
+absolutely forbids, under any circumstances, the sinking of
+a neutral prize. A <i>consensus gentium</i> to this effect will
+hardly be alleged by those who are aware that such sinking
+is permitted by the most recent prize regulations of France,
+Russia, Japan, and the United States.</p>
+
+<p>2. It is much to be desired that the practice should be,
+by future international agreement, absolutely forbidden&mdash;- that
+the lenity of British practice in this respect should
+become internationally obligatory.</p>
+
+<p>3. In the meantime, to adopt the language of the French
+instructions, &quot;On ne doit user de ce droit de destruction
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page180" id="page180">[180]</a></span>qu'avec plus la grande r&eacute;serve&quot;; and it may well be that
+any given set of instructions (<i>e.g.</i> the Russian) leaves on
+this point so large a discretion to commanders of cruisers
+as to constitute an intolerable grievance.</p>
+
+<p>4. In any case, the owner of neutral property, not proved
+to be good prize, is entitled to the fullest compensation for
+his loss. In the language of Lord Stowell:&mdash;</p>
+
+<div class="letterquot"><p>&quot;The destruction of the property may have been a meritorious act
+towards his own Government; but still the person to whom the
+property belongs must not be a sufferer ... if the captor has by the
+act of destruction conferred a benefit upon the public, he must look to
+his own Government for his indemnity.&quot;</p></div>
+
+<p>It may be worth while to add that the published statements
+on the subject for which I am responsible are contained
+in the <i>Admiralty Manual of Prize Law</i> of 1888 (where
+section 808 sets out the lenient British instructions to commanders,
+without any implication that instructions of a
+severer kind would have been inconsistent with international
+law); in letters which appeared in your columns on August
+6, 17, and 30, 1904; and in a paper on &quot;Neutral Duties in a
+Maritime War, as illustrated by recent events,&quot; read before
+the British Academy in April last, a French translation of
+which is in circulation on the Continent.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Temple, June 29 (1905).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+
+<div class="postnotes"><p>The Russian circular of April 3, 1906, inviting the Powers to a second
+Peace Conference, included amongst the topics for discussion: &quot;Destruction
+par force majeure des b&acirc;timents de commerce neutres arr&ecirc;t&eacute;s
+comme prises,&quot; and the British delegates were instructed to urge the
+acceptance of what their Government had maintained to be the existing
+rule on the subject. The Conference of 1907 declined, however, to
+define existing law, holding that its business was solely to consider what
+should be the law in future. After long discussions, in the course of
+which frequent reference was made to views expressed by the present
+writer (see <i>Actes et Documents</i>, t. iii. pp. 991-993, 1010, 1016, 1018,
+1048, 1171), the Conference failed to arrive at any conclusion as to the
+desirability of prohibiting the destruction of neutral prizes, and confined
+itself to the expression of a wish (<i>v&oelig;u</i>) that this, and other un<span class="newpage"><a name="page181" id="page181">[181]</a></span>settled
+points in the law of naval warfare, should be dealt with by a
+subsequent Conference.</p>
+
+<p>This question was, accordingly, one of those submitted to a Conference
+of ten maritime Powers, which was convoked by Great Britain
+in 1908, for reasons upon which something will be said in the next
+section.</p>
+
+<p>The question of sinking was fully debated in this Conference,
+with the assistance of memoranda, in which the several Powers represented
+explained their divergent views upon it, and of reports prepared
+by committees specially appointed for the purpose. It soon became
+apparent that the British proposal for an absolute prohibition of the
+destruction of neutral prizes had no chance of being accepted; while,
+on the other hand, it was generally agreed that the practice is permissible
+only in exceptional cases. (See <i>Parl. Paper, Miscell.</i> No. 5 (1909),
+pp. 2-63, 99-102, 120, 189, 205, 215, 223, 248, 268-278, 323, 365.)
+Arts. 48-54 of the Declaration, signed by the delegates to the Conference
+on February 26, 1909, but not ratified by Great Britain, related to this
+question. After laying down, in Art. 48, the general principle that
+&quot;a neutral prize cannot be destroyed by the captor, but should be
+taken into such port as is proper for the legal decision of the rightfulness
+of the capture&quot; the Declaration proceeded, in Art. 49, to qualify this
+principle by providing that &quot;exceptionally, a neutral vessel captured
+by a belligerent warship, which would be liable to confiscation, may be
+destroyed, if obedience to Art. 48 might compromise the safety of the
+warship, or the success of the operations in which she is actually
+engaged.&quot;</p></div>
+
+<hr style='width: 45%;' />
+
+<h3 class="sectionhead"><a name="CHAPTER_VII_SECTION_8" />SECTION 8</h3>
+
+<p class="subsectionhead">An International Prize Court</p>
+
+<div class="intronotes"><p>The forecast, incidentally attempted in the following letters,
+of the general results likely to be arrived at by the second Peace
+Conference, has been justified by the event. As much may be
+claimed for the views maintained upon the topic with which these
+letters were more specifically concerned. Instead of letting loose the
+judges of the proposed International prize Court to &quot;make law,&quot; in
+accordance with what might happen to be their notions of &quot;the general
+principles of justice and equity,&quot; a serious attempt has been made to
+supply them with a Code of the law which they would be expected to
+administer.</p>
+
+<p>Some account will be given at the end of this section of the movement
+towards the establishment of an International Court of Appeal in
+oases of prize.<span class="newpage"><a name="page182" id="page182">[182]</a></span></p></div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="AN-INTERNATIONAL-PRIZE-COURT" />AN INTERNATIONAL PRIZE COURT</p>
+
+<p>Sir&mdash;The idea suggested by the question addressed
+on February 19 to the Government by Mr. A. Herbert&mdash;<i>viz.</i>
+that the appeal in prize cases should lie, not to a Court
+belonging to the belligerent from whose Court of first instance
+the appeal is brought, but to an international tribunal, has
+a plausible appearance of fairness, but involves many preliminary
+questions which must not be lost sight of.</p>
+
+<p>Prize Courts are, at present, Courts of enquiry, to which
+a belligerent Government entrusts the duty of ascertaining
+whether the captures made by its officers have been properly
+made, according to the views of international law entertained
+by that Government. There exists, no doubt, among
+Continental jurists, a considerable body of opinion in favour
+of giving to Courts of Appeal, at any rate, in prize cases a
+wholly different character. This opinion found its expression
+in Arts. 100-109 of the <i>Code des Prises maritimes</i>, finally
+adopted at its Heidelberg meeting, in 1887, by the Institut
+de Droit International. Art. 100 runs as follows:&mdash;</p>
+
+<div class="letterquot"><p>&quot;Au d&eacute;but de chaque guerre, chacune des parties bellig&eacute;rantes
+constitue un tribunal international d'appel en mati&egrave;re de prises
+maritimes. Chacun de ces tribunaux est compos&eacute; de cinq membres,
+design&eacute;s comme suit: L'&eacute;tat bellig&eacute;rant nommera lui-m&ecirc;me le pr&eacute;sident
+et un des membres. Il d&eacute;signera en outre trois &eacute;tats neutres,
+qui choisiront chacun un des trois autres membres.&quot;</p></div>
+
+<p>In the abstract, and supposing that a tribunal perfectly
+satisfactory both to belligerents and neutrals could be
+constituted, whether antecedently or <i>ad hoc</i>, there might be
+much to be said for the proposal; subject, however, to one
+condition&mdash;<i>viz.</i> that an agreement had been previously
+arrived at as to the law which the Court is to apply. At the
+present time there exists, on many vital questions of prize
+law, no such agreement. It will be sufficient to mention
+those relating to the list of contraband, the distinction
+between &quot;absolute&quot; and &quot;conditional&quot; contraband, the
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page183" id="page183">[183]</a></span>doctrine of &quot;continuous voyages,&quot; the right of sinking a
+neutral prize, the moment from which a vessel becomes
+liable for breach of blockade.</p>
+
+<p>Just as the <i>Alabama</i> arbitration would have been impossible
+had not an agreement been arrived at upon the
+principles in accordance with which neutral duties as to the
+exit of ships of war were to be construed, so, also, before an
+international Court can be empowered to decide questions
+of prize, whether in the first instance or on appeal, it is indispensable
+that the law to be applied on the points above
+mentioned, and many others, should have been clearly
+defined and accepted, if not generally, at least by all parties
+concerned. The moral which I would venture to draw is,
+therefore, that although questions of fact, arising out of
+capture of a prize, might sometimes be submitted to a
+tribunal of arbitration, no case, involving rules of law as
+to which nations take different views, could possibly be so
+submitted. One is glad, therefore, to notice that the Prime
+Minister's reply to Mr. A. Herbert was of the most guarded
+character. The settlement of the law of prize must necessarily
+precede any general resort to an international prize
+Court; and if the coming Hague Conference does no more
+than settle some of the most pressing of these questions, it
+will have done much to promote the cause of peace.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, February 20 (1907).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="A-NEW-PRIZE-LAW" />A NEW PRIZE LAW</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;The leading articles which you have recently
+published upon the doings of the Peace Conference, as also
+the weighty letter addressed to you by my eminent colleague,
+Professor Westlake, will have been welcomed by many of
+your readers who are anxious that the vital importance of
+some of the questions under discussion at The Hague should
+not be lost sight of.<span class="newpage"><a name="page184" id="page184">[184]</a></span></p>
+
+<p>The Conference may now be congratulated upon having
+already given a <i>quietus</i> to several proposals for which,
+whether or not they may be rightly described as Utopian,
+the time is admittedly not yet ripe. Such has been the fate
+of the suggestions for the limitation of armaments, and
+the exemption from capture of private property at sea.
+Such also, there is every reason to hope, is the destiny which
+awaits the still more objectionable proposals for rendering
+obligatory the resort to arbitration, which by the Convention
+of 1899 was wisely left optional.</p>
+
+<p>Should the labours of the delegates succeed in placing
+some restrictions upon the employment of submarine mines,
+the bombardment of open coast towns, and the conversion of
+merchant vessels into ships of war; in making some slight
+improvements in each of the three Conventions of 1899; and
+in solving some of the more pressing questions as to the
+rights and duties of neutrals, especially with reference to
+the reception in their ports of belligerent warships, it will
+have more than justified the hopes for its success which have
+been entertained by persons conversant with the difficulty
+and complexity of the problems involved.</p>
+
+<p>But what shall we say of certain proposals for revolutionising
+the law of prize, which still remain for consideration,
+notably for the establishment of an international Court
+of Appeal, and for the abolition of contraband? It can
+hardly be supposed that either suggestion will win its way
+to acceptance.</p>
+
+<p>1. The British scheme for an international Court of
+Appeal in prize cases is, indeed, far preferable to the German;
+but the objections to anything of the kind would seem to be,
+for the present, insuperable, were it only for the reason which
+you allowed me to point out, some months ago, <i>&agrave; propos</i> of
+a question put in the House of Commons by Mr. Arnold
+Herbert. As long as nations hold widely different views
+on many points of prize law, it cannot be expected that they
+should agree beforehand that, when belligerent, they will
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page185" id="page185">[185]</a></span>leave it to a board of arbitrators to say which of several
+competing rules shall be applied to any given case of capture,
+or to evolve out of their inner consciousness a new rule,
+hitherto unknown to any national prize Court. It would
+seem that the German advocates of the innovation claim
+in its favour the authority of the Institut de Droit International.
+Permit me, therefore, as one who has taken part in
+all the discussions of the Institut upon the subject, to state
+that when it was first handled, at Zurich, in 1878, the difficulties
+in the way of an international Court were insisted on
+by such men as Asser, Bernard, Bluntschli, Bulmerincq, and
+Neumann, and the vote of a majority in its favour was
+coupled with one which demanded the acceptance by treaty
+of a universally applicable system of prize law. The
+drafting of such a system was accordingly the main object
+of the <i>Code des Prises maritimes</i>, which, after occupying
+several sessions of the Institut, was finally adopted by it,
+at Heidelberg, in 1887. Only ten of the 122 sections of this
+Code deal with an international Court of Appeal. A complete
+body of law, by which States have agreed to be bound,
+must, one would think, necessarily precede the establishment
+of a mixed Court by which that law is to be interpreted.</p>
+
+<p>2. While the several delegations are vying with one
+another in devising new definitions of contraband, there
+would seem to be little likelihood that the British proposal
+for its total abandonment will be seriously entertained.
+Such a step could be justified, if at all, from the point of
+view of national interest, only on the ground that it might
+possibly throw increased difficulties in the way of an enemy
+desirous, even by straining the existing law, of interfering
+with the supply of foodstuffs to the British Islands. I
+propose, for the present, only to call attention to the concluding
+paragraph of the British notice of motion on this
+point, which would seem to imply much more than the
+abandonment of contraband. The words in question, if
+indeed they are authentically reported, are as follows:<span class="newpage"><a name="page186" id="page186">[186]</a></span>
+&quot;Le droit de visite ne serait exerc&eacute; que pour constater le
+caract&egrave;re neutre du b&acirc;timent de commerce.&quot; Does this
+mean that the visiting officer, as soon as he has ascertained
+from the ship's papers that she is neutral property, is to
+make his bow and return to the cruiser whence he came?
+If so, what has become of our existing right to detain any
+vessel which has sailed for a blockaded port, or is carrying,
+as a commercial venture, or even ignorantly, hostile troops
+or despatches? No such definition as is proposed of an
+&quot;auxiliary ship-of-war&quot; would safeguard the right in
+question, since a ship, to come within that definition, must,
+it appears, be under the orders of a belligerent fleet.</p>
+
+<p>I would venture to suggest that the motto of a reformer
+of prize law should be <i>festina lente.</i> The existing system is
+the fruit of practical experience extending over several
+centuries, and, though it may need, here and there, some
+readjustment to new conditions, brought about by the
+substitution of steam for sails, is not one which can safely
+be pulled to pieces in a couple of months. Let us leave
+something for future Hague Conferences.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, July 24 (1907).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="A-NEW-PRIZE-LAW-B" />A NEW PRIZE LAW</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;In a letter under the above heading, for which you
+were so good as to find room in July last, I returned to the
+thesis which I had ventured to maintain some months
+previously, <i>&agrave; propos</i> of a question put in the House of
+Commons. My contention was that the establishment of
+an international prize Court, assuming it to be under any
+circumstances desirable, should follow, not precede, a general
+international agreement as to the law which the Court is to
+administer.</p>
+
+<p>It would appear, from such imperfect information as
+intermittently reaches Swiss mountain hotels, that a con<span class="newpage"><a name="page187" id="page187">[187]</a></span>viction
+of the truth of this proposition is at length making
+way among the delegates to The Hague Conference and
+among observers of its doings. In a recent number of the
+<i>Courrier de la Conf&eacute;rence</i>, a publication which cannot be
+accused of lukewarmness in the advocacy of proposals for
+the peaceful settlement of international differences, I find
+an article entitled &quot;Pas de Code Naval, pas de Cour des
+Prises,&quot; to the effect that &quot;l'acceptation de la Cour des
+Prises est strictement conditionnelle &agrave; la r&eacute;daction du Code,
+qu'elle aura &agrave; interpr&eacute;ter.&quot; Its decisions must otherwise
+be founded upon the opinions of its Judges, &quot;the majority
+of whom will belong to a school which has never accepted
+what Great Britain looks upon as the fundamental principles
+of naval warfare.&quot; One learns also from other sources,
+that efforts are being made to arrive, by a series of compromises,
+at some common understanding upon the points
+as to which the differences of view between the Powers are
+most pronounced. It may, however, be safely predicted
+that many years must elapse before any such result will
+be achieved.</p>
+
+<p>In the meantime, a very different solution of the difficulty
+has commended itself to the partisans of the proposed Court.
+M. Renault, the accomplished Reporter of the committee
+which deals in the first instance with the subject, after
+stating that &quot;sur beaucoup de points le droit de la guerre
+maritime est encore incertain, et chaque &Eacute;tat le formule
+au gr&eacute; de ses id&eacute;es et de ses int&eacute;r&ecirc;ts,&quot; lays down that, in
+accordance with strict juridical reasoning, when international
+law is silent an international Court should apply the law of
+the captor. He is, nevertheless, prepared to recommend,
+as the spokesman of the committee, that in such cases the
+Judges should decide &quot;d'apr&egrave;s les
+<ins class="correction"
+  title="Transcriber's note: Printed as _principles_ in original text.">
+principes</ins> g&eacute;n&eacute;raux de la
+justice et de l'&eacute;quit&eacute;&quot;&mdash;a process which I had, less complimentarily,
+described as &quot;evolving new rules out of their inner
+consciousness.&quot; The Court, in pursuance of this confessedly
+&quot;hardie solution,&quot; would be called upon to &quot;faire le droit.&quot;<span class="newpage"><a name="page188" id="page188">[188]</a></span></p>
+
+<p>One may be permitted to hope that this proposal will
+not be accepted. The beneficent action of English Judges
+in developing the common law of England may possibly
+be cited in its favour; but the analogy is delusive. The
+Courts of a given country in evolving new rules of law are
+almost certain to do so in accordance with the views of
+public policy generally entertained in that country. Should
+they act otherwise their error can be promptly corrected by
+the national Legislature. Far different would be the effect
+of the decision of an international Court, in which, though
+it might run directly counter to British theory and practice,
+Great Britain would have bound herself beforehand to
+acquiesce. The only quasi-legislative body by which the
+<i>ratio decidendi</i> of such a decision could be disallowed would
+be an international gathering in which British views might
+find scanty support. The development of a system of
+national law by national Judges offers no analogy to the
+working of an international Court, empowered, at its free
+will and pleasure, to disregard the views of a sovereign
+Power as to the proper rule to be applied in cases as to
+which international law gives no guidance. In such cases
+the ultimate adjustment of differences of view is the
+appropriate work, not of a law Court, but of diplomacy.</p>
+
+<p>It is hardly necessary to combat the notion that there
+already exists, <i>in nubibus</i>, a complete system of prize law,
+which is in some mysterious way accessible to Judges, and
+reveals to them the rule applicable to each new case as it
+arises. This notion, so far as it is prevalent, seems to have
+arisen from a mistaken reading of certain <i>dicta</i> of Lord
+Stowell, in which that great Judge, in his finest eighteenth-century
+manner, insists that the law which it was his duty
+to administer &quot;has no locality&quot; and &quot;belongs to other
+nations as well as our own.&quot; He was, of course, thinking
+of the rules of prize law upon which the nations are agreed,
+not of the numerous questions upon which no agreement
+exists, and was dealing with the difficult position of a Judge
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page189" id="page189">[189]</a></span>who has to choose (as in the recent <i>Moray Firth</i> case) between
+obedience to such rules and obedience to the legislative,
+or quasi-legislative, acts of his own Government.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Eggishorn, Suisse, September 16 (1907).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="A-NEW-PRIZE-LAW-C" />A NEW PRIZE LAW</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;The speech of the Prime Minister at the Guildhall
+contains a paragraph which will be read with a sense of relief
+by those who, like myself, have all along viewed with
+surprise and apprehension The Hague proposals for an
+international prize Court.</p>
+
+<p>Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman admits that &quot;it is desirable,
+and it may be essential, that, before legislation can be undertaken
+to make such a Court effective, the leading maritime
+nations should come to an agreement as to the rules regarding
+some of the more important subjects of warfare which
+are to be administered by the Court&quot;; and his subsequent
+eulogy of the Court presupposes that it is provided with
+&quot;a body of rules which has received the sanction of the great
+maritime Powers.&quot; What is said as to the necessary postponement
+of any legislation in the sense of The Hague
+Convention must, of course, apply <i>a fortiori</i> to the ratification
+of the Convention.</p>
+
+<p>We have here, for the first time, an authoritative repudiation
+of the notion that fifteen gentlemen of mixed nationality
+composing an international prize Court, are to be let loose
+to &quot;make law,&quot; in accordance with what may happen to be
+their conceptions of &quot;justice and equity.&quot; It seems at last
+to be recognised that such a Court cannot be set to work
+unless, and until, the great maritime Powers shall have come
+to an agreement upon the rules of law which the Court is to
+administer.</p>
+
+<p>I may add that it is surely too much to expect that
+the rules in question will be discussed by the Powers, to
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page190" id="page190">[190]</a></span>use Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman's phrase, &quot;without any
+political <i>arri&egrave;re pens&ecirc;e.</i>&quot; Compromise between opposing
+political interests must ever remain one of the most important
+factors in the development of the law of nations.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, November 11 (1907).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+<div class="postnotes"><p>Although the establishment of an International Prize Court of
+Appeal was not one of the topics included in the programme of the
+Russian invitation; to a second Peace Conference, no objection was made
+to its being taken into consideration, when proposals to that effect
+were made by the British and American delegates to the Conference.
+The idea seems first to have been suggested by H&uuml;bner, who proposed
+to confer jurisdiction in cases of neutral prize on Courts composed
+of ministers or consuls, accredited by neutrals to the belligerents,
+together with commissioners appointed by the Sovereign of the captors
+or of the country to which the prize has been brought, as also, perhaps,
+&quot;des personnes pleines de probit&eacute; et de connaissances dans tout ce
+qui concerne les Loix des Nations et les Trait&eacute;s des Puissances
+modernes.&quot; The Court is to decide in accordance with treaties, &quot;ou,
+&agrave; leur d&eacute;faut, la loi universelle des nations.&quot; <i>De la Saisie des B&acirc;timents
+neutres</i> (1759), ii. pp. 45-61. The Institut de Droit International,
+after discussions extending over several years, accepted the principle
+of an International Court of Appeal, though only in combination with a
+complete scheme of prize law, in its <i>Code des Prises maritimes</i>, completed
+in 1887, section 100.</p>
+
+<p>At the Conference of 1907, the work of several committees, and a
+masterly report by Professor Renault, <i>Parl. Papers</i>, No. iv. (1908), p. 9,
+resulted in The Hague Convention, No. xii. of that year, providing for the
+establishment of a mixed Court of Appeal from national prize Courts.</p>
+
+<p>According to Art. 7 of this Convention, in default of any relevant
+treaty between the Governments of the litigant parties, and of generally
+recognised rules of international law bearing upon the question at issue,
+the Court is to decide &quot;in accordance with the general principles of
+justice and equity.&quot; It seems, however, to have been soon perceived
+that the proposal to institute a Court, unprovided with any fixed
+system of law by which to decide the cases which might be brought
+before it, could not well be entertained, and the Final Act of the Conference
+accordingly expresses a wish that &quot;the preparation of a
+<i>R&egrave;glement</i>, relative to the laws and customs of maritime war, may be
+mentioned in the programme of the next Conference.&quot;</p>
+
+<p>Thereupon, without waiting for the meeting of a third Hague
+Conference, the British Government on February 27, 1908, addressed a
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page191" id="page191">[191]</a></span>circular to the great maritime Powers, which, after alluding to the
+impression gained &quot;that the establishment of the International Prize
+Court would not meet with general acceptance so long as vagueness
+and uncertainty exist as to the principles which the Court, in dealing
+with appeals brought before it, would apply to questions of far-reaching
+importance, affecting naval policy and practice,&quot; went on to
+propose that another Conference should meet in London, in the autumn
+of the same year, &quot;with the object of arriving at an agreement as to
+what are the generally recognised principles of international law
+within the meaning of paragraph 2 of Article 7 of the Convention, as
+to those matters wherein the practice of nations has varied, and of
+then formulating the rules which, in the absence of special treaty
+provisions applicable to a particular case, the Court should observe in
+dealing with appeals brought before it for decision.... It would be
+difficult, if not impossible, for H.M. Government to carry the legislation
+necessary to give effect to the Convention, unless they could assure
+both Houses of the British Parliament that some more definite understanding
+had been reached as to the rules by which the new Tribunal
+should be governed.&quot;</p>
+
+<p>In response to this invitation, delegates from ten principal maritime
+States assembled at the Foreign Office on December 4, 1908,
+and after discussing the topics to which their attention was directed,
+viz.: (1) Contraband; (2) Blockade; (3) Continuous voyage; (4)
+Destruction of neutral prizes; (5) Unneutral service; (6) Conversion
+of merchant vessels into warships on the high seas; (7) Transfer to a
+neutral flag; (8) Nationality or domicil, as the test of enemy property;
+signed on February 26, 1909, the Declaration of London.</p>
+
+<p>The Convention No. xii. of 1907 and the Declaration of London
+of 1909 have alike failed to obtain ratification. <i>Cf.</i> now the two
+immediately following sections, 9 and 10.</p>
+
+<p>An ultimate Court of Appeal in cases of Prize seems now likely
+to be provided by the &quot;Permanent Court of International Justice,&quot;
+proposed by the League of Nations in pursuance of Art. 14 of the
+Treaty of Versailles. See also Art. 24 of the Treaty. <i>Cf. supra</i>, p. <a href="#page002">2</a>.</p></div>
+
+<hr style='width: 45%;' />
+
+<h3 class="sectionhead"><a name="CHAPTER_VII_SECTION_9" />SECTION 9</h3>
+
+<p class="subsectionhead">The Naval Prize Bill</p>
+
+<div class="intronotes"><p>The first two letters in this section contain the criticisms of the
+Bill to which allusion is made in the first lines of a letter of later date,
+q.v. <i>supra</i>, p. <a href="#page036">36</a>. On the rejection of the Bill, see <i>ib.</i>, note 1.<span class="newpage"><a name="page192" id="page192">[192]</a></span></p></div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="THE-NAVAL-PRIZE-BILL-1910" />THE NAVAL PRIZE BILL</p>
+
+<p>Sir&mdash;A paternal interest in the Naval Prize Bill may
+perhaps be thought a sufficient excuse for the few remarks
+which I am about to make upon it. The Bill owes its
+existence to a suggestion made by me, just ten years ago,
+while engaged in bringing up to date for the Admiralty
+my <i>Manual of Naval Prise Law</i> of 1888. It was drafted
+by me, after prolonged communications with Judges, Law
+Officers, and the Government Departments concerned, so
+as not only to reproduce the provisions of several &quot;cross
+and cuffing&quot; statutes dealing with the subject, but also
+to exhibit them in a more logical order than is always to
+be met with in Acts of Parliament.</p>
+
+<p>The Bill was thought of sufficient importance to be
+mentioned on two occasions in the King's Speech, and has
+been several times passed, after careful consideration, by
+the House of Lords; but pressure of other business has
+hitherto impeded its passage through the House of Commons.
+It has now been reintroduced, this time in the Lower House,
+with an imposing backing of Government support; primarily,
+no doubt, with a view to facilitating the ratification of The
+Hague Convention for the establishment of an International
+Prize Court of Appeal. For this purpose, several pieces of
+new cloth have been sewn into the old garment, and I
+may perhaps be allowed to call attention to three or four
+points in which, on a first reading, the new clauses strike
+one as needing reconsideration.</p>
+
+<p>Tactical reasons have, no doubt, operated to induce
+the Government to include in the Consolidation Bill the
+provisions for which statutory authority must be obtained
+before it will be possible to ratify the Convention; instead
+of first introducing a Bill having this sole object in view,
+and afterwards, should this be passed, inserting the new
+law in a reintroduced Consolidation Bill.<span class="newpage"><a name="page193" id="page193">[193]</a></span></p>
+
+<p>The course adopted necessitates an otherwise unnecessary
+preamble, and the qualification of the new Part III. by the
+words &quot;in the event of an International Prize Court being
+established&quot; (Clause 23). The reference, by the by, in
+this clause to &quot;the said Convention&quot; is somewhat awkward,
+no mention of any Convention having occurred previously,
+except in the preamble of the Bill. Is not also the statutory
+approval given by this clause, not only to the Convention
+of 1907 but also to &quot;any Convention amending the same,&quot;
+somewhat startling, as tending to exclude Parliamentary
+criticism of such an amending Convention before its
+ratification?</p>
+
+<p>By Clause 9, the members of the Judicial Committee
+who are to be nominated to act as the British Court of
+Appeal in cases of prize are to be described by the novel
+title of &quot;the Supreme Prize Court.&quot; Is not the use made
+of the term &quot;Supreme&quot; in the Judicature Acts, as covering
+both the High Court and the Court of Appeal, already
+sufficiently unsatisfactory?</p>
+
+<p>But the question which, of all others <i>saute aux yeux</i>,
+in reading the new Part III., is whether the Convention is
+to be approved as it stands, irrespectively of a general
+acceptance of the new Code of Prize Law contained in the
+Declaration of London of 1909. The objections to Art. 7
+of the Contention, providing that, in the absence of rules
+of International Law generally recognised (and on many
+points of Prize Law there are no such rules), the Court is
+to decide in accordance with (what it may be pleased to
+consider) &quot;the general principles of law and equity,&quot; are
+well known. The purpose of the Declaration of London
+(itself the subject of much difference of opinion) was to
+curtail this licence of decision, by providing the Court with
+so much ascertained Prize Law as to render action under
+the too-elastic phrase above quoted almost inconceivable.</p>
+
+<p>Is it too much of a counsel of perfection to suggest that
+the debatable questions arising under the Convention of<span class="newpage"><a name="page194" id="page194">[194]</a></span>
+1907 and the Declaration of 1909 should first be threshed
+out in discussions on a Bill dealing with those questions
+only; and that the decision, if any, thus arrived at should
+be subsequently inserted, freed from hypothesis, in the
+Consolidation Bill which has so long awaited the leisure
+of the House of Commons?</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, July 10 (1910).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="THE-NAVAL-PRIZE-BILL-1911" />THE NAVAL PRIZE BILL</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;The Government has so far yielded to the representations
+of the Opposition as to have refrained from
+forcing on Friday night a division upon the Naval Prize
+Bill. Is it too much to hope that the Government may
+even now withdraw altogether a measure so ill adapted
+to place fairly before Parliament the question of the desirability
+of ratifying two documents held by a large body of
+competent opinion to be certain, if ratified, seriously to
+endanger the vital interests of the country? The Bill,
+as I have already pointed out, as originally drawn, was a
+careful consolidation of the law and procedure governing
+British Courts of Prize. Into this has now been incongruously
+thrust a set of clauses intended to give effect to
+a novel and highly controversial proposal for the creation
+of an International Prize Court. About the Declaration of
+London, alleged to contain a body of law which would
+adequately equip such a Court for the performance of its
+duties, not a word is said in the Bill; yet, should approval
+of the Bill be snatched by a purely party majority, the
+intention of the Government is to proceed straightway to
+the ratification both of the Prize Court Convention and the
+Declaration. Whether they intend also to endeavour to
+obtain the ratification, as an auxiliary Convention, of the
+lengthy covering commentary upon the Declaration, supplied
+by the committee by which the Declaration was drafted,
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page195" id="page195">[195]</a></span>does not yet appear. Of such a step I have already written
+that it &quot;would be calamitous should a practice be introduced
+of attempting to cure the imperfect expression of a treaty
+by tacking on to it an equally authoritative reasoned commentary.
+The result would be <i>obscurum per obscurius</i>, a
+remedy worse than the disease.&quot;</p>
+
+<p>The alternatives before Parliament on Monday next
+will be either, by reading the Naval Prize Bill a second
+time, to bring about, in the teeth of protests from those
+best qualified to express an independent opinion upon the
+subject, the immediate ratification of the Convention and
+the Declaration, or to ask that before, this momentous step is
+taken the infinitely complex and delicate questions involved
+should be examined and passed upon by a Commission of
+representative experts. Which shall it be?</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">Your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, July I (1911).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+<div class="postnotes"><p><i>Cf.</i> a letter of July 7, 1911, <i>supra</i>, p. <a href="#page036">36</a>.</p></div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="NAVAL-PRIZE-MONEY" />NAVAL PRIZE MONEY</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;The existing enactments as to prize bounty are,
+it seems, unsuitable to present conditions of naval warfare,
+and are accordingly to be varied by a bill shortly to be
+introduced.</p>
+
+<p>May I venture to recommend that the Bill should contain
+merely the half-dozen clauses needed for this purpose,
+leaving untouched for subsequent uncontroversial passage,
+the Naval Prize Consolidation with Amendments Bill?
+This Bill, suggested and drafted by myself, in the spacious
+times of peace, in consultation with the Admiralty and other
+Government Departments, as also with the Judge of the
+Admiralty Division and the Law Officers (including the
+present Lord Chancellor), was twice mentioned in the King's
+Speech, and several times, after careful consideration,
+passed by the House of Lords, but still awaits the leisure of
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page196" id="page196">[196]</a></span>the Lower House. It deserved a better fate than to have
+been used, in 1911, as a corpus vile for facilitating the ratification
+of the Convention for an International Prize Court and
+of the Declaration of London; receiving, most fortunately,
+as so perverted, its <i>coup de gr&acirc;ce</i> from the Lords. It should
+be passed as an artistic whole, apart from any contentious
+matter, account having, of course, been taken of recent
+legislation by which it may have been, here and there,
+affected.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, May 23 (1918).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+<hr style='width: 45%;' />
+
+<h3 class="sectionhead"><a name="CHAPTER_VII_SECTION_10" />SECTION 10</h3>
+
+<p class="subsectionhead">The Declaration of London</p>
+
+<div class="intronotes"><p>For incidental mentions of the Declaration in earlier sections see
+<i>supra</i>, pp. <a href="#page022">22</a>, <a href="#page022">36</a>, <a href="#page022">39</a>, <a href="#page055">55</a>, <a href="#page058">58</a>, <a href="#page080">80</a>, <a href="#page090">90</a>, <a href="#page092">92</a>, <a href="#page148">148</a>, <a href="#page154">154</a>, <a href="#page155">155</a>, <a href="#page156">156</a>, <a href="#page158">158</a>,
+<a href="#page163">163</a>, <a href="#page164">164</a>, <a href="#page174">174</a>, <a href="#page181">181</a>, <a href="#page191">191</a>, <a href="#page193">193</a>, <a href="#page194">194</a>, <a href="#page195">195</a>, <a href="#page196">196</a>.</p>
+
+<p>See also my paper upon <i>Proposed Changes in the Law of Naval Prize</i>,
+read to the British Academy on May 31, 1911, <i>Transactions</i>, vol. v.,
+of which a translation appeared in the <i>Revue de Droit International</i>,
+N.S., t. xiii, pp. 336-355.</p></div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="THE-DECLARATION-OF-LONDON-1909" />THE DECLARATION OF LONDON</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;The questions put last night by Mr. M'Arthur need,
+perhaps, more fully considered answers than they received
+from Mr. McKinnon Wood.</p>
+
+<p>With reference to the first answer, it may be worth while
+to point out that, in Art. 66 of the Declaration, the Powers
+undertake not only, as in the passage quoted, &quot;to give the
+necessary instructions to their authorities and armed forces,&quot;
+but also &quot;to take the measures which may be proper for
+guaranteeing the application of the rules Contained in the
+Declaration by their Courts, and, in particular, by their
+Courts of Prize.&quot; The &quot;authentic commentary&quot; upon the
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page197" id="page197">[197]</a></span>article in M. Renault's &quot;Report&quot; explains that the measures
+in question &quot;may vary in different countries, and may or
+may not require the intervention of the Legislature.&quot;</p>
+
+<p>The second answer lays down broadly that &quot;the decisions
+of the British Prize Courts are founded on International
+Law, and not on municipal enactments.&quot; Our Prize Courts
+have, no doubt, on most points, decided in accordance with
+International Law, in the sense of the principles generally
+followed by civilised nations; but, on not a few points, in
+accordance with the British view of what is, or ought to be,
+International Law, in opposition to views persistently maintained
+by other countries&mdash;<i>e.g.</i> with reference to the moment
+from which a blockade-runner becomes liable to capture.
+The fact is that, whatever grandiloquent language may have
+been judicially employed by Lord Stowell in a contrary
+sense, it will now hardly be denied that a Prize Court sits
+by national, not international, authority, and is bound
+to take the view of International Law which, if any, is
+prescribed to it by the constitutionally expressed will of
+its own Government.</p>
+
+<p>The Declaration of London is in many ways a great
+achievement; but one is glad to learn from Mr. McKinnon
+Wood's third answer that opportunity will be given for
+discussing all important points in connexion with its rules.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, March 30 (1909).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="THE-DECLARATION-OF-LONDON-1910" />THE DECLARATION OF LONDON</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;Both the Prize Court Convention of 1907 and
+its complement, the London Declaration of 1909, stand
+greatly in need of full and well-informed discussion before
+receiving the Parliamentary approval which ought to be a
+condition precedent to the ratification of either of them. It
+is well, therefore, that many Chambers of Commerce have
+called the attention of Government to the detriment to<span class="newpage"><a name="page198" id="page198">[198]</a></span>
+British interest which may in their opinion result from these
+agreements if ratified, although the representations thus
+made exhibit, in some cases, so little technical knowledge as
+to have been readily disposed of by the Foreign Secretary.
+For the same reason, I welcome the letter from Mr. Gibson
+Bowles, which appeared in <i>The Times</i> of yesterday, although
+it contains some statements the inaccuracy of which it
+may be desirable at once to point out.</p>
+
+<p>1. The Declaration of Paris is neither implicitly nor
+explicitly adopted by the Declaration of London, &quot;as a part
+of the common law of nations which can no longer be disputed.&quot;
+The later makes no mention of the earlier one,
+and M. Benault's <i>rapport</i> (as to the interpretative authority
+of which opinions may well differ) applies the words quoted,
+not to the Paris Declaration as a whole, but to one only of
+its articles. Mr. Bowles's statement that &quot;the Declaration
+of London, if adopted, would reaffirm, and its ratification
+would in effect, for the first time ratify, the Declaration of
+Paris&quot; cannot be supported.</p>
+
+<p>2. Mr. Bowles asserts it to be &quot;an unquestioned doctrine
+of the Law of Nations that war abrogates and annuls treaty
+obligations between belligerents.&quot; One would have supposed
+it to be common knowledge that large classes of treaties
+are wholly unaffected by war. Such are, for instance, what
+are called conventions <i>transitoires</i>, because their effect is
+produced once for all, as in the case of cessions of territory;
+and, notably, treaties entered into for the regulation of the
+conduct of war, such as the Geneva Convention, many of
+The Hague Conventions of 1907, and the Declaration of
+Paris itself, which Mr. Bowles appears to think would <i>ipso
+facto</i> cease to be obligatory between its signatories on their
+becoming belligerent.</p>
+
+<p>It is a pleasure to be able to agree with Mr. Bowles in
+his wish that the Naval Prize Bill, if reintroduced, should
+be rejected, though I would rather say &quot;withdrawn.&quot;
+You have already allowed me (on July 10) to point out that
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page199" id="page199">[199]</a></span>if the Convention and Declaration are to be effectively
+discussed in Parliament they should be disentangled from
+that Bill, into which the Convention, and, by implication,
+the Declaration, have been incongruously thrust. This
+practically non-contentious Consolidation Bill, after several
+times securing the approval of the House of Lords, has
+hitherto for several years awaited the leisure of the House
+of Commons, but was suddenly reintroduced last Session,
+apparently as an unobtrusive vehicle for the new and highly
+debatable matter contained in the two above-mentioned
+documents. May I now repeat my suggestion that &quot;the
+debatable questions arising under the Convention of
+1907 and the Declaration of 1909 should first be threshed
+out in discussions on a Bill dealing with these questions
+only; and that the decision, if any, thus arrived at should
+be subsequently inserted, freed from hypothesis, in the
+Consolidation Bill&quot;?</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, December 28 (1910).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="THE-DECLARATION-OF-LONDON-1911" />THE DECLARATION OF LONDON</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;I have read Professor Westlake's letters upon the
+Declaration of London with the attention due to anything
+written by my very learned friend, but, although myself
+opposed to the ratification alike of the Prize Court Convention
+and of its complement, the Declaration, do not at
+present wish to enter upon the demerits of either instrument.</p>
+
+<p>There is, however, a preliminary question upon which,
+with your permission, I should like to say a few words.
+My friend justly observes that in dealing with the Declaration
+&quot;the first necessity is to know what it is that we have
+before us&quot;; and he devotes his letter of January 31 to
+maintaining that the Declaration must be read as interpreted
+by the explanations of it given to the full Conference
+by the Drafting Committee, of which M. Renault was presi<span class="newpage"><a name="page200" id="page200">[200]</a></span>dent.
+Professor Westlake supports his opinion by a quotation
+from the reply of the Foreign Office in November last to
+the Edinburgh Chamber of Commerce (<i>Miscell.</i> 1910, No. 4,
+p. 21). I may mention that a similar reply had been given,
+a year previously, by Mr. McKinnon Wood to a question in
+the House of Commons. The source of these replies is
+doubtless to be found in a paragraph of the Report, addressed
+on March 1, 1909, to Sir Edward Grey, of the British
+Delegates to the London Conference, which runs as
+follows:&mdash;</p>
+
+<div class="letterquot"><p>&quot;It should be borne in mind that, in accordance with the principles
+and practice of Continental jurisprudence, such a Report is considered
+an authoritative statement of the meaning and intention of the instrument
+which it explains, and that consequently foreign Governments
+and Courts, and no doubt also the International Prize Court, will
+construe and interpret the provisions of the Declaration by the light
+of the Commentary given in the Report.&quot; (<i>Miscell.</i> 1909, No. 4, p. 94.)</p></div>
+
+<p>It is desirable to know upon what authority this statement
+rests. I am aware of none. The nearest approach to
+an assertion of anything like it occurred at The Hague
+Conference of 1899, when the &quot;approval&quot; accorded to
+&quot;the work of the Second Committee, as embodied in the
+articles voted and in the interpretative Report which
+accompanies them&quot; was alleged by M. de Martens to
+amount to an acceptance of the Report &quot;comme un commentaire
+interpr&eacute;tatif authentique des articles vot&eacute;s.&quot;
+(<i>Miscell.</i> 1899, No. 1, p. 165.) The drafting Report presented
+to the Geneva Conference of 1906 is merely said to
+have been &quot;adopted&quot; (Actes, p. 286); and M. Renault's
+Report to the Conference of London was similarly merely
+&quot;accepted,&quot; although he presented it as containing</p>
+
+<div class="letterquot"><p>&quot;Un commentaire pr&eacute;cis, d&eacute;gag&eacute; de tout controverse, qui, devenu
+commentaire officiel par l'approbation de la Conf&eacute;rence, soit de nature
+&agrave; guider les autorit&eacute;s diverses, administratives, militaires, judiciaires,
+qui pourront avoir &agrave; l'appliquer.&quot; (<i>Miscell.</i> 1909, No. 5, p. 344.)</p></div>
+
+<p>It would seem that in each of these cases the adoption
+of the Report, and even a suggestion or two for a change
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page201" id="page201">[201]</a></span>in its phraseology, amounted to nothing more than an
+expression of opinion on the part of the Delegates to the
+Conference that the Report contained explanations which
+had satisfied themselves, and might satisfy their Governments,
+that the Convention which they were about to
+forward to those Governments might safely be accepted.</p>
+
+<p>So far as Governments are concerned, the adoption of a
+Report by their Delegates is <i>res inter alios acta</i>. An &quot;authentic
+interpretation&quot; of a contract can be given only by
+the parties to it, who, in the case of a treaty, are the States
+concerned. If these States desire to give to the report of
+a drafting committee the force of an authentic interpretation
+of their contract, they can surely do so only by something
+amounting to a supplementary convention. Writers upon
+international law naturally throw but little light upon
+questions to which the somewhat novel practice of argumentative
+drafting Reports has given rise; but I may cite
+Professor Ullmann, of Vienna, as saying:&mdash;</p>
+
+<div class="letterquot"><p>&quot;Eine authentische Interpretation kann nur die durch Kontrahenten
+selbst, in einem gemeinschaftlichen, ihren Willen ausser Zweifel
+setzenden Acte (einem Nachtrags-oder Erlauterungsvertrage), erfolgen&quot;
+(Volkerrecht, p. 282);</p></div>
+
+<p>and Professor Fiore, of Naples, to the effect that what is
+called &quot;authentic interpretation&quot; is not</p>
+
+<div class="letterquot"><p>&quot;interpretazione propriamente detta, ma una dichiarazione di quello
+che fu gia concordato, o un nuovo trattato&quot; (Diritto Internazionale,
+ss. 1, 118);</p></div>
+
+<p>and that</p>
+
+<div class="letterquot"><p>&quot;il trattato non pu&ograve; essere interpretato che dalle stesse Parti (<i>i.e.</i> Stati)
+contrahenti; e per la validit&agrave; dell' atto &egrave; indispensabile che la relativa
+convenzione di interpretazione abbia gli stessi requisiti ... di ogni
+altra convenzione tra Stato e Stato&quot; (Il Dir. Int. Codif., &sect; 816).</p></div>
+
+<p>I would submit that such a Report as that which accompanies
+the Declaration of London has no claim to the sort
+of interpretative authority which has been attributed to it;
+nor is it desirable that the requisite steps should be taken
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page202" id="page202">[202]</a></span>for giving it that authority. It would be calamitous should
+a practice be introduced of attempting to cure the imperfect
+expression of a treaty by tacking on to it an equally authoritative
+reasoned commentary, likely, as in the present case,
+to be enormously longer than the test to which it relates.</p>
+
+<p>It is a wholly different question whether Governments
+or Courts would be inclined to take notice of such a Report,
+among other facts antecedent to a Convention, or Declaration,
+which they might be called upon to construe. A
+British Court would not, I conceive, be so inclined. On
+the probable inclinations of Continental Courts, and of an
+International Prize Court, should one be instituted, further
+expert information would seem to be called for.</p>
+
+<p>The fact is that the vitally important questions of theory
+and practice raised by the Convention and the Declaration
+need calmer and better instructed discussion than they have
+yet received. Ought they not to be referred to a Royal
+Commission, on which should be placed representatives
+of the Navy and Merchant Service, of the corn trade, and
+of the Colonies, together with international lawyers, in
+touch with the views of their Continental colleagues?</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, February 16 (1911).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="THE-DECLARATION-OF-LONDON-1911-B" />THE DECLARATION OF LONDON</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;Professor Westlake, replying in <i>The Times</i> of
+to-day to the arguments by which I had endeavoured to
+show that the Report made to the Conference of London has
+no pretensions to be treated as an authentic interpretation
+of the Declaration prepared by the Conference, still maintains
+that &quot;the essential question will be, what the agreement
+was that the Conference arrived at.&quot; I had maintained,
+on the contrary, that the essential question will
+be, What is the agreement entered into by the Powers, as
+evidenced by their ratifications? anything outside of the
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page203" id="page203">[203]</a></span>ratified agreement being <i>res inter alios acta</i>. I should not
+be justified in asking you to allow me to repeat the contents
+of my letter of Monday last in support of this view. The
+pleadings are, I think, exhausted. &quot;Therefore let a jury
+come.&quot;</p>
+
+<p>I should like, however, to point out that I did not, as
+my friend seems to think, attribute the acceptance of the
+Report to the delegates &quot;singly.&quot; It was, no doubt
+accepted by all present without protest. My colleague
+will, I am sure, pardon me if I add that I cannot concur in
+his exegesis of my citations from Ullmann and Fiore.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, February 25 (1911).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="THE-DECLARATION-OF-LONDON-1911-C" />THE DECLARATION OF LONDON</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;It is satisfactory that so high an authority as Mr.
+Arthur Cohen distinctly accedes to the view that the Declaration
+of London ought not to be ratified as it stands. I
+should, however, be sorry were his suggestion accepted that
+the Declaration and the argumentative report which accompanies
+it might be ratified together. The result would be
+<i>obscurum per obscurius</i>, a remedy worse than the disease.</p>
+
+<p>I shall ask leave to add that, if Mr. Cohen will take the
+trouble to look again at my letters of February 10 and 25,
+he will cease to suppose it possible that in writing &quot;the
+pleadings are, I think, exhausted, &amp;c.,&quot; I meant to convey
+that no further discussion of the merits or demerits of the
+Declaration was required. On the contrary I expressly
+limited myself to a consideration of the preliminary question,
+whether interpretative authority would rightly be attributed
+to the report in question, stating that, while opposed to the
+ratification alike of the Prize Court Convention and of the
+Declaration, I did not, for the present, wish to enter upon
+the demerits of either instrument; and ended my first
+letter by suggesting the reference to a Royal Commission of<span class="newpage"><a name="page204" id="page204">[204]</a></span>
+&quot;the vitally important questions of theory and practice
+raised by the Convention and the Declaration,&quot; as needing
+&quot;calmer and better instructed discussion than they have
+yet received.&quot;</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, March 1 (1911).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="THE-DECLARATION-OF-LONDON-1915" />THE DECLARATION OF LONDON</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;After Tuesday's debate in the House of Lords
+it may be hoped that not even &quot;the man in the street&quot;
+will suppose the Declaration of London to be anything
+more than an objectionable draft, by which no country
+has consented to be bound. Every day of the war makes
+more apparent our debt to the House of Lords for having,
+four years ago, prevented the British Government from
+ratifying either the International Prize Court Convention
+or this Declaration, which, while misleadingly professing
+that its provisions &quot;correspond in substance with the
+generally recognised principles of international law,&quot; contains,
+interspersed with truisms familiar to all concerned
+with such matters, a good many undesirable novelties.</p>
+
+<p>This being so, it was surely unfortunate that our Government,
+with a view apparently to saving time and trouble,
+decided, in the early days of the war, to adopt the Declaration
+<i>en bloc</i> as a statement of prize law &quot;during the present
+hostilities,&quot; subject, however, to &quot;certain additions and
+modifications&quot;; to which it, of course, retained the power
+of making additions. This power has been so freely exercised,
+and large portions of the Declaration, not thereby
+affected, have proved to be so inapplicable to modern
+conditions, as disclosed by the war, that the document, so
+far from providing reliable guidance, is now a mere source
+of hopeless confusion.</p>
+
+<p>To put an end to this confusion, I venture to suggest
+that, in concert with our Allies, the Declaration should be
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page205" id="page205">[205]</a></span>finally consigned to oblivion. Either let its place be taken
+by some clear and simple statement of unquestioned prize
+law, for the use of commanders and officials (something
+like a confidential document in the drafting of which I had
+a hand some years ago, but, of course, brought up to date),
+or let established principles take care of themselves, certain
+doubtful points only being dealt with, from time to time,
+by Orders in Council.</p>
+
+<p>While heartily concurring in Lord Portsmouth's description
+of the unratified &quot;Declaration&quot; as &quot;rubbish,&quot; I regret
+that he seems to relegate to the same category even those
+generally ratified &quot;Hague Conventions&quot; which, as far as
+they go, mark a real advance upon previously accepted
+rules. Still less acceptable is his advice to &quot;sweep away
+juridical niceties&quot; in the conduct of hostilities. Did he
+intend thus to describe the whole fabric of the rules by
+which international law has endeavoured, with considerable
+success, to restrain barbarity in warfare?</p>
+
+<p>I must mention that this letter was written before
+seeing this morning the letter of Mr. Gibson Bowles, my
+worthy ally in attacks upon the Declaration.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, December 3 (1915).</div><br />
+</div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="THE-DECLARATION-OF-LONDON-1916" />THE DECLARATION OF LONDON</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;You have allowed me, in a good many letters,
+to criticise the Declaration of London, both in its original
+inception and in its subsequent applications. Thanks to
+the House of Lords, the Declaration, which erroneously
+professed to &quot;correspond in substance with the generally
+recognised principles of International Law,&quot; has remained
+unratified, and therefore diplomatically of no effect.</p>
+
+<p>Its admirers have, however, too long preserved it,
+perhaps <i>sub spe rati</i>, in a state of suspended animation,
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page206" id="page206">[206]</a></span>using it by way of, as they supposed, a convenient handbook
+of maritime law for the purposes of the present war,
+though subject to such variations as might from time to
+time be found convenient by the Allies. The mistake
+thus made soon became apparent. The elaborate classification
+of contraband had to be at once thrown overboard,
+and most of the remaining provisions of the Declaration
+proved to be inapplicable to modern warfare.</p>
+
+<p>In December last I accordingly wrote as follows:&mdash;</p>
+
+<div class="letterquot"><p>&quot;To put an end to this confusion, I venture to suggest that, in
+concert with our Allies, the Declaration should be finally consigned to
+oblivion. Either let its place be taken by some clear and simple
+statement of unquestioned prize law, for the use of commanders and
+Officials, ... or established principles take care of themselves,
+certain doubtful points only being dealt with from time to time by
+Orders in Council.&quot;</p></div>
+
+<p>I need hardly say that to anyone holding the views
+thus expressed, yesterday's Order in Council must be most
+satisfactory; getting rid, as it does for good and all, of the
+unfortunate Declaration, leaving the application of established
+principles to those acquainted with them and promulgating
+authoritative guidance on specific novel questions.</p>
+
+<p>I may perhaps add a word or two on the undesirability
+of describing as &quot;Declarations&quot; documents which, being
+equipped with provisions for ratification, although they
+may profess to set out old law, differ in no respect from
+other conventions. Also, as to the need for greater caution
+on the part of our representatives than has been shown by
+their acceptance of various craftily suggested anti-British
+suggestions, such as were several embodied in the Declaration
+in question, and notably that of the notorious
+cl. 23 (<i>h</i>) of The Hague Convention iv., the interpretation
+of which has exercised the ingenuity of the Foreign Office
+and, more recently, of the Court of Appeal.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+Brighton, July <span class="newpage"><a name="page207" id="page207">[207]</a></span>9 (1916).<br />
+</div>
+
+<div class="postnotes"><p>On July 7, 1916, an Order in Council was made, revoking all Orders
+by which the provisions of the Declaration had been adopted, or
+modified, for the duration of the war; stating the intention of the
+Allies to exercise their belligerent rights at sea in strict accordance with
+the law of nations; but dealing specifically with certain doubtful
+points. The Order was accompanied by a memorandum, drawn up
+by the British and French Governments, explaining how their expectation
+that in the Declaration they would find &quot;a suitable digest of
+principles and compendium of working rules&quot; had not been realised.
+See also Lord Robert Cecil in the House of Commons on August 23,
+with reference to the Zamora case, [1916] 2 Ch. c. 77.</p>
+
+<p>On misuses of the term &quot;Declaration&quot; <i>cf. supra</i>, pp. <a href="#page090">90</a>, <a href="#page091">91</a>, <a href="#page092">92</a>.</p></div>
+
+
+<p class="lettertitle"><a name="GERMANY-WRONG-AGAIN" />GERMANY WRONG AGAIN</p>
+
+<p>Sir,&mdash;The new German Note handed on Thursday last
+to the representatives of the neutral Powers supports its
+allegation that the four Allied Powers &quot;have trampled upon
+right and torn up the treaties on which it was based&quot; by
+the following statement:&mdash;</p>
+
+<div class="letterquot"><p>&quot;Already in the first weeks of the war England had renounced
+the Declaration of London, the contents of which her own delegates
+had recognised as binding in international law.&quot;</p></div>
+
+<p>It is surely notorious that the delegates of a Power, by
+agreeing to the draft of a treaty, give to it no international
+validity, which results only when the treaty has been ratified
+by their Government. The Declaration of London has,
+most fortunately, never been ratified by the Government
+of Great Britain.</p>
+
+<div class="signature">
+<div class="sigbody">I am, Sir, your obedient servant,</div><br />
+<div class="signame">T. E. HOLLAND</div><br />
+<div class="sigdate">Oxford, January 13 (1917).</div><br />
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page208" id="page208">[208]</a></span>
+<span class="newpage"><a name="page209" id="page209">[209]</a></span></div>
+
+
+
+<hr style="width: 65%;" />
+<h2><a name="INDEX" id="INDEX" />INDEX</h2>
+
+
+<div class="index">
+Absolute contraband. <i>See</i> Contraband<br />
+Abstention, <a href="#page129">129</a><br />
+Acquiescence, State duty of, <a href="#page129">129</a>, <a href="#page130">130</a>, <a href="#page133">133</a>, <a href="#page136">136</a><br />
+<i>Act&aelig;on</i>, the, <a href="#page176">176</a>, <a href="#page179">179</a><br />
+Acts of Parliament, <a href="#page061">61</a>, <a href="#page063">63</a><br />
+Admiralty Manual of Prize Law, <a href="#page156">156</a>, <a href="#page159">159</a>, <a href="#page192">192</a><br />
+Aerial warfare, <a href="#page061">61</a><br />
+Air, opposite views as to rights over, <a href="#page064">64</a>, <a href="#page065">65</a><br />
+Aircraft in war, <a href="#page069">69</a><br />
+<i>Alabama</i>, the, <a href="#page131">131</a>, <a href="#page183">183</a><br />
+<i>Alexander, Mrs., the cotton of</i>, <a href="#page153">153</a><br />
+Alien enemies, civil disabilities of, <a href="#page047">47</a>, <a href="#page049">49</a>, <a href="#page205">205</a><br />
+<i>Allanton</i>, the, <a href="#page158">158</a>, <a href="#page161">161</a>, <a href="#page162">162</a>, <a href="#page163">163</a><br />
+<i>Ancipitis usus</i>, articles, <a href="#page148">148</a><br />
+<i>Angarie, Droit d'</i>, <a href="#page170">170</a><br />
+<i>Appam</i>, the, <a href="#page146">146</a><br />
+<i>Arabia</i>, the, <a href="#page152">152</a><br />
+Arbitration, <a href="#page001">1</a>-6, <a href="#page184">184</a><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">treaties, general, <a href="#page006">6</a>, <a href="#page007">7</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">treaties, limited, <i>ib.</i></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">cases fit for, <a href="#page005">5</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">the Hague tribunal of, <a href="#page005">5</a></span><br />
+Armaments, limitation of, <a href="#page184">184</a><br />
+Armed civilians, <a href="#page077">77</a><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">Neutralities, the, <a href="#page083">83</a></span><br />
+Army, duties of, <a href="#page077">77</a><br />
+Article <a href="#page023">23</a> (h), <a href="#page047">47</a>, <a href="#page049">49</a>, <a href="#page206">206</a>, <a href="#page207">207</a><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">restricting application, <a href="#page146">146</a></span><br />
+Aspirations, <a href="#page099">99</a><br />
+Assassination, <a href="#page093">93</a><br />
+<i>Asturias</i>, the, <a href="#page060">60</a><br />
+Asylum to belligerent warships, <a href="#page129">129</a>, <a href="#page143">143</a><br />
+<i>Atalanta</i>, the, <a href="#page160">160</a><br />
+Aube, Admiral, <a href="#page116">116</a><br />
+Authentic interpretation, <a href="#page107">107</a>, <a href="#page196">196</a>, <a href="#page199">199</a>, <a href="#page201">201</a>, <a href="#page205">205</a><br />
+<br />
+<br />
+Baden-Powell, Sir G., <a href="#page081">81</a>, <a href="#page085">85</a>, <a href="#page087">87</a><br />
+Baker, Sir Sherston, <a href="#page085">85</a><br />
+Balfour, Mr. A.J., <a href="#page013">13</a>, <a href="#page015">15</a>, <a href="#page073">73</a>, <a href="#page074">74</a>, <a href="#page173">173</a><br />
+Balloons, projectiles from, <a href="#page030">30</a>, <a href="#page062">62</a><br />
+Base of operations, neutral duty as to, <a href="#page129">129</a>, <a href="#page134">134</a>, <a href="#page144">144</a>, <a href="#page145">145</a><br />
+Baty, Dr. T., <a href="#page161">161</a><br />
+Bays, <a href="#page166">166</a>, <a href="#page167">167</a><br />
+Belligerents, lawful, <a href="#page073">73</a>, <a href="#page075">75</a>, <a href="#page076">76</a>, <a href="#page077">77</a>, <a href="#page078">78</a>, <a href="#page079">79</a><br />
+Beresford, Lord Charles, <a href="#page118">118</a><br />
+<i>Bermuda</i>, the, <a href="#page160">160</a><br />
+Bills criticised, <a href="#page036">36</a>-40, <a href="#page047">47</a>, <a href="#page192">192</a><br />
+Birkenhead, Lord, <a href="#page135">135</a><br />
+Bismarck, Prince, <a href="#page170">170</a><br />
+Bliss, Sir H., <a href="#page150">150</a><br />
+Blockade,<br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">belligerent, <a href="#page029">29</a>, <a href="#page083">83</a>, <a href="#page156">156</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">fictitious, <a href="#page057">57</a>, <a href="#page059">59</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">pacific, <a href="#page009">9</a>-14, <a href="#page017">17</a></span><br />
+Bluntschli's reply to Von Moltke, <a href="#page026">26</a><br />
+Bombardment, <a href="#page062">62</a><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">of open coast towns, <a href="#page030">30</a>, <a href="#page062">62</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">from the air, <a href="#page112">112</a>, <a href="#page123">123</a></span><br />
+Bondholders, foreign, vindication of rights of, <a href="#page015">15</a><br />
+Bowles, Mr. Gibson, <a href="#page054">54</a>, <a href="#page087">87</a>, <a href="#page089">89</a>, <a href="#page090">90</a>, <a href="#page092">92</a>, <a href="#page141">141</a>, <a href="#page173">173</a>, <a href="#page177">177</a>, <a href="#page178">178</a>, <a href="#page198">198</a><br />
+Brandschatz, <a href="#page117">117</a><br />
+Brassard, effect of a, <a href="#page079">79</a><br />
+Bright, Sir Charles, <a href="#page171">171</a>, <a href="#page172">172</a><br />
+British Academy, author's paper at, <a href="#page174">174</a><br />
+British Manual of Military Law, <a href="#page074">74</a><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">Handbooks on War on Land, <a href="#page075">75</a>, <a href="#page076">76</a></span><br />
+Brodrick, Mr., <a href="#page075">75</a><br />
+<i>Brown</i> v. <i>United States</i>, <a href="#page045">45</a><br />
+Brusa, Prof., <a href="#page130">130</a><br />
+Brussels Conference, the, of 1874, <a href="#page068">68</a>, <a href="#page074">74</a>, <a href="#page077">77</a>, <a href="#page114">114</a>, <a href="#page172">172</a><br />
+Bullets,<br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">expanding, <a href="#page022">22</a>, <a href="#page094">94</a>, <a href="#page096">96</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">explosive, <a href="#page022">22</a>, <a href="#page094">94</a>, <a href="#page095">95</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">in savage warfare, <a href="#page094">94</a></span><br />
+<i>Bundesrath</i>, the, <a href="#page029">29</a>, <a href="#page157">157</a>, <a href="#page160">160</a><br />
+Butler, General B.F., <a href="#page153">153</a><br />
+Bynkershoek, <a href="#page045">45</a>, <a href="#page071">71</a>, <a href="#page165">165</a>, <a href="#page166">166</a><br />
+<br />
+<br />
+Cable-cutting, <a href="#page030">30</a>, <a href="#page168">168</a>-173<br />
+Cables, submarine, <a href="#page168">168</a><br />
+Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H., <a href="#page189">189</a><br />
+Captors, unqualified, <a href="#page071">71</a>, <a href="#page073">73</a>, <a href="#page162">162</a>, <a href="#page163">163</a><br />
+Carson, Sir Edward, <a href="#page127">127</a><br />
+Cavell, Miss, case of, <a href="#page079">79</a><br />
+<i>Calchas</i>, the, <a href="#page151">151</a>, <a href="#page152">152</a>, <a href="#page153">153</a><br />
+Cecil, Lord Robert, <a href="#page008">8</a>, <a href="#page207">207</a><br />
+Channel tunnel, <a href="#page042">42</a><br />
+<i>Chavasse, ex parte</i>, <a href="#page137">137</a><br />
+Civilians armed, position of, <a href="#page077">77</a>, <a href="#page078">78</a>, <a href="#page079">79</a><br />
+Churchill, Mr. Winston, <a href="#page106">106</a><br />
+Claims, competitive, <a href="#page017">17</a><br />
+Clarke, Sir Edward, <a href="#page124">124</a><br />
+Clode, Mr., <a href="#page112">112</a><br />
+Closed localities, <a href="#page050">50</a><br />
+Clothing, use of enemy, <a href="#page075">75</a><br />
+Coal, <a href="#page176">176</a><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">conditional contraband, <a href="#page149">149</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">for belligerent fleet, <a href="#page131">131</a>, <a href="#page134">134</a></span><br />
+Coast fishing vessels, <a href="#page030">30</a><br />
+Codification of laws of war, <a href="#page022">22</a>, <a href="#page023">23</a><br />
+Cohen, Mr. Arthur, <a href="#page047">47</a>, <a href="#page203">203</a><br />
+Coltman, Mr., <a href="#page085">85</a><br />
+Commencement of war, <a href="#page041">41</a><br />
+<i>Commercen</i>, the, <a href="#page159">159</a><br />
+Commissioning on the High Seas, <a href="#page090">90</a><br />
+Commissions of enquiry, <a href="#page004">4</a><br />
+Compromise, the, between belligerent and neutral rights, <a href="#page133">133</a>, <a href="#page136">136</a>, <a href="#page164">164</a>, <a href="#page169">169</a><br />
+Conditional contraband. <i>See</i> Contraband<br />
+Conduct of warfare between belligerents, <a href="#page050">50</a><br />
+Conflict of Laws, <a href="#page034">34</a>, <a href="#page035">35</a><br />
+Continuous voyages, <a href="#page029">29</a>, <a href="#page157">157</a>, <a href="#page162">162</a>, <a href="#page183">183</a><br />
+&quot;Contraband, a happy little,&quot; <a href="#page153">153</a><br />
+Contraband of war,<br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">what it is, <a href="#page130">130</a>, <a href="#page134">134</a>, <a href="#page159">159</a>, <a href="#page175">175</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">absolute and conditional, <a href="#page147">147</a>, <a href="#page151">151</a>, <a href="#page152">152</a>, <a href="#page154">154</a>, <a href="#page158">158</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">British proposal to abolish doctrine of, <a href="#page163">163</a>, <a href="#page184">184</a>, <a href="#page185">185</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">coal, how far, <a href="#page132">132</a>, <a href="#page134">134</a>, <a href="#page149">149</a>, <a href="#page176">176</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">cotton, how far, <a href="#page151">151</a>, <a href="#page152">152</a>, <a href="#page177">177</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">food-stuffs, how far, <a href="#page176">176</a>, <a href="#page185">185</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">Japanese rules as to, <a href="#page149">149</a>, <a href="#page155">155</a>, <a href="#page156">156</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">misuse of the term, <a href="#page134">134</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">no neutral duty to prohibit export of, <a href="#page113">113</a>, <a href="#page140">140</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">Russian rules as to, <a href="#page154">154</a>, <a href="#page176">176</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">the Declaration of London as to, <a href="#page164">164</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">the two constituents of, <a href="#page159">159</a></span><br />
+Contractual debts, <a href="#page021">21</a><br />
+Contributions, <a href="#page102">102</a>, <a href="#page118">118</a><br />
+Conventions. <i>See</i> Geneva, Hague, &amp;c.<br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">and Legislation, <a href="#page036">36</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">&quot;transitoires,&quot; <a href="#page198">198</a></span><br />
+Conversion. <i>See</i> Transformation<br />
+Convoy, <a href="#page031">31</a><br />
+Cotton, <a href="#page177">177</a><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">as contraband, <a href="#page149">149</a>, <a href="#page151">151</a>, <a href="#page152">152</a></span><br />
+Court of International Justice, a permanent, <a href="#page002">2</a>, <a href="#page191">191</a><br />
+Criticism of Bills, <a href="#page036">36</a>-40, <a href="#page192">192</a><br />
+Customs Consolidation Act, <a href="#page185">185</a>3, <a href="#page132">132</a><br />
+<br />
+<br />
+Danger zone, a, <a href="#page059">59</a><br />
+Dardanelles, closing of, <a href="#page055">55</a>, <a href="#page058">58</a>, <a href="#page080">80</a>, <a href="#page090">90</a>, <a href="#page092">92</a><br />
+&quot;Declaration,&quot; misuse of the term, <a href="#page090">90</a>, <a href="#page092">92</a>, <a href="#page206">206</a><br />
+Declaration, the, of London, <a href="#page022">22</a>, <a href="#page036">36</a>, <a href="#page039">39</a>, <a href="#page080">80</a>, <a href="#page092">92</a>, <a href="#page147">147</a>, <a href="#page149">149</a>, <a href="#page154">154</a>, <a href="#page155">155</a>, <a href="#page158">158</a>, <a href="#page161">161</a>, <a href="#page163">163</a>, <a href="#page164">164</a>, <a href="#page181">181</a>, <a href="#page191">191</a>, <a href="#page193">193</a>-207<br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">provisional adoption of, as modified, <a href="#page154">154</a>, <a href="#page204">204</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">rejection of, <a href="#page206">206</a>, <a href="#page207">207</a></span><br />
+Declaration, the, of Paris, <a href="#page022">22</a>, <a href="#page026">26</a>, <a href="#page057">57</a>, <a href="#page059">59</a>, <a href="#page080">80</a>, <a href="#page081">81</a>, <a href="#page082">82</a>, <a href="#page083">83</a>, <a href="#page087">87</a>, <a href="#page089">89</a>, <a href="#page156">156</a>, <a href="#page198">198</a><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">accession to, of Spain and Mexico, <a href="#page081">81</a>, <a href="#page086">86</a>, <a href="#page087">87</a>, <a href="#page088">88</a>, <a href="#page089">89</a>, <a href="#page091">91</a></span><br />
+Declaration, the, of St. Petersburg, <a href="#page022">22</a>, <a href="#page027">27</a>, <a href="#page091">91</a>, <a href="#page095">95</a>, <a href="#page096">96</a>, <a href="#page097">97</a><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">von Moltke upon, <a href="#page025">25</a></span><br />
+Declaration of war, <a href="#page010">10</a>, <a href="#page041">41</a>, <a href="#page043">43</a><br />
+Declarations,<br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">mistaken view as to their not needing ratification, <a href="#page090">90</a>, <a href="#page091">91</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">the three, of the Hague in 1899. <i>See</i> Hague</span><br />
+De Horsey, Admiral, <a href="#page118">118</a>, <a href="#page164">164</a><br />
+De Joinville, Prince, <a href="#page117">117</a><br />
+De Martens, Prof., <a href="#page162">162</a>, <a href="#page166">166</a>, <a href="#page176">176</a>, <a href="#page200">200</a><br />
+Deposit of delict, <a href="#page158">158</a><br />
+Despatches, enemy, <a href="#page156">156</a>, <a href="#page158">158</a>, <a href="#page160">160</a><br />
+Destination, <a href="#page008">8</a>, <a href="#page155">155</a>, <a href="#page156">156</a><br />
+Destruction of neutral prizes, <a href="#page022">22</a>, <a href="#page173">173</a>-181<br />
+Dickenson, Mr. Lowes, <a href="#page125">125</a><br />
+<i>Direct U.S. Cable Co.</i> v. <i>Anglo-American Tel. Co.</i>, <a href="#page166">166</a><br />
+Disguise, <a href="#page075">75</a>, <a href="#page076">76</a><br />
+Distinctive marks, <a href="#page077">77</a>, <a href="#page079">79</a><br />
+<i>Doelwijk</i>, the, <a href="#page161">161</a><br />
+Drago doctrine, the, <a href="#page020">20</a><br />
+<i>Droit d'angarie</i>, the, <a href="#page170">170</a><br />
+Dum-dum bullet. <i>See</i> Bullets<br />
+<i>Durward</i>, the, <a href="#page060">60</a><br />
+<br />
+<br />
+Embargo, <a href="#page011">11</a><br />
+Enemy,<br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">who is an ?, <ins class="correction"
+  title="Transcriber's note: Misprinted in original--intended page is not clear.">401</ins></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">disabilities of, <a href="#page047">47</a>, <a href="#page049">49</a>, <a href="#page206">206</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">goods in neutral bottoms, <a href="#page083">83</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">in occupied territory, <a href="#page102">102</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">merchant vessels at outbreak, <a href="#page045">45</a>, <a href="#page049">49</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">property on land, <a href="#page102">102</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">property at sea, <a href="#page029">29</a>, <a href="#page104">104</a>, <a href="#page184">184</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">resident at outbreak, <a href="#page044">44</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">service, <a href="#page157">157</a>, <a href="#page158">158</a>, <a href="#page186">186</a></span><br />
+&quot;Englishman's Home, An,&quot; the play, <a href="#page077">77</a><br />
+Enquiry, international Commissions of, <a href="#page001">1</a>, <a href="#page003">3</a>, <a href="#page004">4</a>, <a href="#page006">6</a><br />
+Evans, Sir Samuel, <a href="#page070">70</a><br />
+<br />
+<br />
+False colours, <a href="#page030">30</a>, <a href="#page043">43</a>, <a href="#page076">76</a><br />
+Fauchille, M., <a href="#page047">47</a>, <a href="#page064">64</a>, <a href="#page065">65</a><br />
+<i>Felicity</i>, the, <a href="#page164">164</a>, <a href="#page166">166</a>, <a href="#page167">167</a>, <a href="#page175">175</a>, <a href="#page177">177</a>, <a href="#page179">179</a><br />
+Fiore, Prof., <a href="#page201">201</a><br />
+Fishing vessels, <a href="#page031">31</a><br />
+Flag of truce, <a href="#page076">76</a><br />
+Food-stuffs, <a href="#page148">148</a>, <a href="#page174">174</a><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">how far contraband, <a href="#page148">148</a>, <a href="#page176">176</a>, <a href="#page185">185</a></span><br />
+Food, Royal Commission on, <a href="#page148">148</a>, <a href="#page174">174</a>, <a href="#page177">177</a><br />
+Foreign Enlistment Acts, the, <a href="#page131">131</a>, <a href="#page134">134</a>, <a href="#page138">138</a>, <a href="#page139">139</a>, <a href="#page141">141</a>, <a href="#page143">143</a><br />
+Foreign Enlistment Bills, new, <a href="#page039">39</a><br />
+Foreign soldiers, <a href="#page045">45</a><br />
+Forster, Arnold-, Mr., <a href="#page045">45</a><br />
+<i>Fox</i>, the, <a href="#page176">176</a>, <a href="#page177">177</a><br />
+<i>Fram</i>, the, <a href="#page137">137</a><br />
+<i>Francs-tireurs</i>, <a href="#page079">79</a><br />
+&quot;Freedom of the seas,&quot; <a href="#page051">51</a>, <a href="#page097">97</a><br />
+French Government Manual for Land Warfare, <a href="#page117">117</a><br />
+Friendly methods of settlement, <a href="#page001">1</a><br />
+<br />
+<br />
+Gases, harmful, whether employment of, legitimate, <a href="#page022">22</a>, <a href="#page096">96</a>, <a href="#page097">97</a><br />
+Geffken, Prof., <a href="#page013">13</a><br />
+General principles of justice and equity, the, <a href="#page187">187</a>, <a href="#page189">189</a>, <a href="#page190">190</a>, <a href="#page193">193</a><br />
+Geneva Convention Bill, <a href="#page036">36</a><br />
+Geneva Conventions, the, <a href="#page022">22</a>, <a href="#page034">34</a>, <a href="#page067">67</a>, <a href="#page098">98</a>, <a href="#page100">100</a><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">application of, to maritime warfare, <a href="#page030">30</a>, <a href="#page098">98</a></span><br />
+Gentili, A., <a href="#page170">170</a><br />
+Germany. <i>Cf.</i> Hague Conventions<br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">proclamation by, of a danger zone, <a href="#page059">59</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">wrong as to Declaration of London, <a href="#page207">207</a></span><br />
+Giffen, Sir R., <a href="#page013">13</a><br />
+Gladstone, Mr., <a href="#page134">134</a><br />
+<i>Goeben</i> and <i>Breslau</i>, the, <a href="#page091">91</a><br />
+<i>Golden Rocket</i>, the, <a href="#page085">85</a><br />
+Good offices, <a href="#page001">1</a>, <a href="#page002">2</a>, <a href="#page003">3</a><br />
+Government authority, as a protection, <a href="#page072">72</a><br />
+Government Bills and International Conventions, <a href="#page036">36</a>-40, <a href="#page192">192</a>, <a href="#page195">195</a>, <a href="#page204">204</a><br />
+Granville, Lord, <a href="#page082">82</a>, <a href="#page085">85</a>, <a href="#page131">131</a>, <a href="#page170">170</a>, <a href="#page177">177</a><br />
+Greek coast, blockade of, <a href="#page013">13</a><br />
+Guerilla warfare, <a href="#page073">73</a><br />
+Gundel, General de, <a href="#page048">48</a><br />
+Grotius, <a href="#page045">45</a>, <a href="#page148">148</a>, <a href="#page155">155</a>, <a href="#page166">166</a>, <a href="#page168">168</a>, <a href="#page169">169</a><br />
+<br />
+<br />
+<i>Haabet</i>, the, <a href="#page160">160</a><br />
+Hague Conventions, the,<br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">of 1889, <a href="#page001">1</a>, <a href="#page002">2</a>, <a href="#page003">3</a>, <a href="#page006">6</a>, <a href="#page030">30</a>, <a href="#page061">61</a>, <a href="#page074">74</a>, <a href="#page075">75</a>, <a href="#page094">94</a>, <a href="#page102">102</a>, <a href="#page105">105</a>, <a href="#page107">107</a>, <a href="#page120">120</a>, <a href="#page184">184</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">of 1907, <a href="#page001">1</a>, <a href="#page006">6</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">applicable only between contracting Powers, <a href="#page069">69</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">No. i., <a href="#page002">2</a>, <a href="#page003">3</a>, <a href="#page006">6</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">No. ii., <a href="#page021">21</a>, <a href="#page022">22</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">No. iii., <a href="#page022">22</a>, <a href="#page036">36</a>, <a href="#page044">44</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">No. iv., <a href="#page022">22</a>, <a href="#page045">45</a>, <a href="#page060">60</a>, <a href="#page061">61</a>, <a href="#page067">67</a>, <a href="#page075">75</a>, <a href="#page076">76</a>, <a href="#page077">77</a>, <a href="#page096">96</a>, <a href="#page105">105</a>, <a href="#page107">107</a>, <a href="#page122">122</a>, <a href="#page168">168</a>, <a href="#page206">206</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">No. v., <a href="#page022">22</a>, <a href="#page068">68</a>, <a href="#page075">75</a>, <a href="#page080">80</a>, <a href="#page090">90</a>, <a href="#page135">135</a>, <a href="#page168">168</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">No. vi., <a href="#page022">22</a>, <a href="#page045">45</a>, <a href="#page070">70</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">No. vii., <a href="#page022">22</a>, <a href="#page162">162</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">No. viii., <a href="#page022">22</a>, <a href="#page045">45</a>, <a href="#page164">164</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">No. ix., <a href="#page022">22</a>, <a href="#page068">68</a>, <a href="#page122">122</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">No. x., <a href="#page022">22</a>, <a href="#page100">100</a>, <a href="#page130">130</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">No. xi., <a href="#page022">22</a>, <a href="#page158">158</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">No. xii., <a href="#page022">22</a>, <a href="#page036">36</a>, <a href="#page190">190</a>, <a href="#page194">194</a>, <a href="#page195">195</a>, <a href="#page197">197</a>, <a href="#page204">204</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">No. xiii., <a href="#page022">22</a>, <a href="#page129">129</a>, <a href="#page143">143</a>, <a href="#page146">146</a></span><br />
+Hague Declarations, the, <a href="#page022">22</a>, <a href="#page030">30</a>, <a href="#page061">61</a>, <a href="#page062">62</a>, <a href="#page063">63</a>, <a href="#page064">64</a>, <a href="#page096">96</a><br />
+Hague <i>R&egrave;glements</i>, the, as to war on land, <a href="#page075">75</a>, <a href="#page076">76</a>, <a href="#page078">78</a>, <a href="#page093">93</a>, <a href="#page095">95</a>, <a href="#page100">100</a><br />
+Hague Tribunal, the, <a href="#page005">5</a><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">reference to, not obligatory, <a href="#page025">25</a></span><br />
+Haldane, Mr. R.B., <a href="#page045">45</a><br />
+Hall, Mr. W.E., on pacific blockade, <a href="#page013">13</a><br />
+Harcourt, Sir W., <a href="#page074">74</a><br />
+Hardinge, Sir C., <a href="#page152">152</a><br />
+Herbert, Mr. Arnold, <a href="#page182">182</a>, <a href="#page184">184</a><br />
+Holland, Sir T.E., references to writings of, <a href="#page008">8</a>, <a href="#page009">9</a>, <a href="#page020">20</a>, <a href="#page023">23</a>, <a href="#page035">35</a>, <a href="#page044">44</a>, <a href="#page047">47</a>, <a href="#page050">50</a>, <a href="#page052">52</a>, <a href="#page066">66</a>, <a href="#page075">75</a>, <a href="#page097">97</a>, <a href="#page113">113</a>, <a href="#page122">122</a>, <a href="#page164">164</a>, <a href="#page168">168</a>, <a href="#page180">180</a>, <a href="#page192">192</a>, <a href="#page196">196</a><br />
+Honour and vital interests clause, the, <a href="#page004">4</a>, <a href="#page005">5</a>, <a href="#page006">6</a><br />
+Horses, wounded, <a href="#page098">98</a>, <a href="#page100">100</a><br />
+Horsey, Adml., <a href="#page118">118</a>, <a href="#page164">164</a>, <a href="#page166">166</a><br />
+Hostile assistance, <a href="#page088">88</a>, <a href="#page157">157</a>, <a href="#page160">160</a>, <a href="#page186">186</a><br />
+H&uuml;bner, <a href="#page190">190</a><br />
+<br />
+<br />
+<i>Ikaria</i>, the, <a href="#page060">60</a><br />
+<i>Imina</i>, the, <a href="#page160">160</a><br />
+Immediate effects of outbreak of war, the, <a href="#page045">45</a><br />
+Institut de Droit International, the, <a href="#page011">11</a>, <a href="#page012">12</a>, <a href="#page016">16</a>, <a href="#page023">23</a>, <a href="#page024">24</a>, <a href="#page030">30</a>, <a href="#page043">43</a>, <a href="#page044">44</a>, <a href="#page048">48</a>, <a href="#page063">63</a>, <a href="#page064">64</a>, <a href="#page065">65</a>, <a href="#page066">66</a>, <a href="#page068">68</a>, <a href="#page104">104</a>, <a href="#page105">105</a>, <a href="#page108">108</a>, <a href="#page121">121</a>, <a href="#page130">130</a>, <a href="#page162">162</a>, <a href="#page163">163</a>, <a href="#page164">164</a>, <a href="#page167">167</a>, <a href="#page168">168</a>, <a href="#page172">172</a>, <a href="#page174">174</a>, <a href="#page176">176</a>, <a href="#page182">182</a>, <a href="#page185">185</a>, <a href="#page190">190</a><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">its <i>Manuel des lois de la guerre maritime</i>, <a href="#page163">163</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">its <i>Manuel des lois de la guerre sur terre</i>, <a href="#page023">23</a>, <a href="#page024">24</a>, <a href="#page025">25</a>, <a href="#page027">27</a>, <a href="#page108">108</a></span><br />
+Instructions, national,<br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">on laws of war on land, <a href="#page075">75</a>, <a href="#page076">76</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">on laws of war at sea:</span><br />
+<span class="indexsubsubentry">British, <a href="#page156">156</a>, <a href="#page180">180</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubsubentry">French, <a href="#page179">179</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubsubentry">Japanese, <a href="#page148">148</a>, <a href="#page149">149</a>, <a href="#page150">150</a>, <a href="#page155">155</a>, <a href="#page156">156</a>, <a href="#page157">157</a>, <a href="#page173">173</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubsubentry">Russian, <a href="#page154">154</a>, <a href="#page173">173</a>, <a href="#page174">174</a>, <a href="#page176">176</a>, <a href="#page177">177</a>, <a href="#page179">179</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubsubentry">United States, <a href="#page179">179</a></span><br />
+<i>International</i>, the, <a href="#page169">169</a><br />
+International Court of Appeal, an, <a href="#page184">184</a><br />
+International Justice, a Permanent Court of, <a href="#page002">2</a><br />
+International Law, the nature and authority of, <a href="#page066">66</a>, <a href="#page067">67</a>, <a href="#page077">77</a>, <a href="#page086">86</a>, <a href="#page114">114</a>, <a href="#page115">115</a>, <a href="#page116">116</a>, <a href="#page119">119</a>, <a href="#page127">127</a>, <a href="#page169">169</a>, <a href="#page188">188</a><br />
+International Prize Court, proposal for an, <a href="#page023">23</a>, <a href="#page181">181</a>-191<br />
+<br />
+<br />
+Jackson, Colonel, <a href="#page066">66</a>, <a href="#page068">68</a><br />
+James, Captain, <a href="#page114">114</a><br />
+Jenks, Mr., <a href="#page106">106</a>, <a href="#page108">108</a>, <a href="#page110">110</a><br />
+<i>Jonge Margaretha</i>, the, <a href="#page159">159</a><br />
+Just cause of war, <a href="#page083">83</a><br />
+&quot;Justice and equity, general principles of,&quot; <a href="#page187">187</a>, <a href="#page189">189</a>, <a href="#page190">190</a>, <a href="#page193">193</a><br />
+<br />
+<br />
+Kent, Chancellor, <a href="#page045">45</a><br />
+Kleen, Mr., <a href="#page130">130</a>, <a href="#page133">133</a><br />
+<i>Knight-Commander</i>, the, <a href="#page173">173</a>, <a href="#page174">174</a><br />
+Kohler, Mr., <a href="#page047">47</a><br />
+<i>Kowshing</i>, the case of the, <a href="#page041">41</a>, <a href="#page043">43</a><br />
+&quot;Kriegsbrauch,&quot; the, <a href="#page068">68</a>, <a href="#page080">80</a><br />
+<br />
+<br />
+Lambermont, Baron, <a href="#page077">77</a><br />
+Lammasch, Prof., <a href="#page125">125</a><br />
+Lansdowne, Marquess of, <a href="#page058">58</a>, <a href="#page133">133</a>, <a href="#page136">136</a>, <a href="#page149">149</a>, <a href="#page169">169</a>, <a href="#page173">173</a><br />
+Lawful belligerents, <a href="#page069">69</a>, <a href="#page078">78</a><br />
+League of Nations, the, <a href="#page001">1</a>, <a href="#page002">2</a>, <a href="#page007">7</a>, <a href="#page009">9</a>, <a href="#page191">191</a><br />
+Lehr, Prof., <a href="#page102">102</a><br />
+<i>Leucade</i>, the, <a href="#page176">176</a><br />
+Lincoln, President, <a href="#page074">74</a><br />
+Lieber's Instructions, <a href="#page074">74</a>, <a href="#page075">75</a><br />
+Localities closed to hostilities, <a href="#page052">52</a><br />
+London, Conference of, <a href="#page181">181</a>, <a href="#page190">190</a>, <a href="#page191">191</a><br />
+London, Declaration of, <a href="#page022">22</a>, <a href="#page055">55</a>, <a href="#page058">58</a>, <a href="#page092">92</a>, <a href="#page181">181</a>, <a href="#page191">191</a>, <a href="#page193">193</a>, <a href="#page194">194</a>, <a href="#page195">195</a>, <a href="#page196">196</a>-207<br />
+Lyons, Lord, <a href="#page169">169</a><br />
+<br />
+<br />
+MacDonell, Prof., <a href="#page172">172</a><br />
+McKenna, Mr., <a href="#page078">78</a><br />
+Mahan, Admiral, <a href="#page097">97</a><br />
+Mail steamers and bags, <a href="#page030">30</a><br />
+<i>Malacca</i>, the case of the, <a href="#page081">81</a>, <a href="#page162">162</a>, <a href="#page163">163</a><br />
+Mandates, <a href="#page008">8</a><br />
+Manning, Mr., <a href="#page045">45</a><br />
+Manual of military law, the British, <a href="#page107">107</a><br />
+Manuals of warfare<br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">on land, <a href="#page105">105</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">at sea, <a href="#page105">105</a></span><br />
+Manuel des Lois de la guerre maritime, the, of Institut, <a href="#page023">23</a><br />
+Manual des Lois de la guerre sur terre, <a href="#page023">23</a>, <a href="#page024">24</a>, <a href="#page174">174</a><br />
+<i>Marais, ex parte</i>, <a href="#page106">106</a><br />
+Martens, de, Prof., <a href="#page126">126</a><br />
+Martial law, <a href="#page105">105</a>-112<br />
+Maurice, Colonel, <a href="#page042">42</a><br />
+<i>Mcomini and others</i> v. <i>Governor &amp;c. of Natal</i>, <a href="#page107">107</a><br />
+Means of injuring, <a href="#page094">94</a><br />
+Measures short of war, <a href="#page001">1</a>-21<br />
+Mediation. <i>See</i> Good offices<br />
+Menam, blockade of the, <a href="#page010">10</a><br />
+Mercantile Marine in war, <a href="#page081">81</a>, <a href="#page084">84</a>, <a href="#page087">87</a><br />
+Merchant ships, visit of, <a href="#page060">60</a><br />
+Militia, <a href="#page077">77</a><br />
+<i>Minerva</i>, the, <a href="#page091">91</a><br />
+Mines, <a href="#page164">164</a><br />
+Moltke, von, on conduct of war, <a href="#page024">24</a><br />
+Monroe doctrine, the, <a href="#page017">17</a>, <a href="#page020">20</a><br />
+<i>Moray Firth</i>, the, <a href="#page189">189</a><br />
+Morley, Lord, <a href="#page058">58</a>, <a href="#page074">74</a><br />
+&quot;Most favoured nation&quot; clause, <a href="#page017">17</a><br />
+<i>M&ouml;we</i>, the, <a href="#page070">70</a><br />
+&quot;Murder,&quot; <a href="#page070">70</a>, <a href="#page071">71</a>, <a href="#page072">72</a>, <a href="#page084">84</a><br />
+Mutiny Acts, the, <a href="#page109">109</a><br />
+<br />
+<br />
+National Instructions, <a href="#page075">75</a>, <a href="#page076">76</a><br />
+Naval bombardments of open coast towns, <a href="#page030">30</a>, <a href="#page112">112</a>, <a href="#page123">123</a><br />
+Naval man&oelig;uvres of <a href="#page188">188</a>8, the, <a href="#page113">113</a>, <a href="#page123">123</a><br />
+Naval war code, a British, <a href="#page030">30</a>, <a href="#page031">31</a>, <a href="#page032">32</a><br />
+Naval warfare, <a href="#page022">22</a><br />
+Naval Prize (Consolidation) Bill, the, <a href="#page036">36</a>, <a href="#page191">191</a>-196, <a href="#page198">198</a><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">object of, <a href="#page194">194</a>,195</span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">rejection of, <a href="#page196">196</a></span><br />
+Naval Prize money, <a href="#page195">195</a><br />
+Neutral conduct, the criterion of, <a href="#page125">125</a><br />
+Neutral duties, as classified by the author, <a href="#page129">129</a><br />
+Neutral hospitality, <a href="#page143">143</a><br />
+Neutral States and individuals, their liabilities distinguished, <a href="#page129">129</a>-135<br />
+Neutral territory, passage through, <a href="#page090">90</a><br />
+Neutral trade, the four inconveniences, to, <a href="#page159">159</a><br />
+Neutralisation, the term, <a href="#page053">53</a>, <a href="#page054">54</a><br />
+Neutrality,<br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">correlative to belligerency, <a href="#page010">10</a>, <a href="#page016">16</a>, <a href="#page019">19</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">British proclamations of, <a href="#page130">130</a>, <a href="#page135">135</a>-143</span><br />
+Neutrals, methods of warfare affecting, <a href="#page164">164</a>-181<br />
+Non-combatants, <a href="#page072">72</a>, <a href="#page074">74</a><br />
+<i>Novoe Vremya</i>, the, <a href="#page176">176</a><br />
+<br />
+<br />
+Occupied territory,<br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">right of the invader in, <a href="#page080">80</a>, <a href="#page100">100</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">not yet occupied, <a href="#page077">77</a></span><br />
+Oppenheim, Prof., <a href="#page047">47</a><br />
+<i>Orozembo</i>, the, <a href="#page160">160</a><br />
+&quot;Ottoman Empire, ancient rule of the,&quot; <a href="#page056">56</a><br />
+<br />
+<br />
+Pacific blockade, <a href="#page010">10</a><br />
+Palmerston, Lord, <a href="#page012">12</a><br />
+Panama Canal, the, <a href="#page050">50</a><br />
+<i>Paquete Habana</i>, the, <a href="#page030">30</a><br />
+Paris. <i>See</i> Declaration of<br />
+Paris, Treaty of, <a href="#page053">53</a>, <a href="#page054">54</a>, <a href="#page056">56</a>, <a href="#page081">81</a>, <a href="#page087">87</a>, <a href="#page089">89</a>, <a href="#page155">155</a><br />
+&quot;Pas de Code Naval, pas de Cour des Prises,&quot; <a href="#page187">187</a><br />
+Passage, <a href="#page064">64</a>, <a href="#page090">90</a><br />
+Peace talk, <a href="#page125">125</a><br />
+Peaceful settlement of disputes, the Conventions for,<br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">of 1899, <a href="#page002">2</a>, <a href="#page003">3</a>, <a href="#page006">6</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">of 1907, <a href="#page002">2</a>, <a href="#page006">6</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">are non-obligatory, <a href="#page173">173</a></span><br />
+Perels, Prof., <a href="#page016">16</a><br />
+Permanent Court of International Justice, a, <a href="#page191">191</a><br />
+<i>Peterburg</i>, the, <a href="#page162">162</a><br />
+<i>Peterhoff</i>, the, <a href="#page020">20</a>, <a href="#page149">149</a>, <a href="#page160">160</a><br />
+Petition of Right, the, <a href="#page106">106</a>, <a href="#page108">108</a>, <a href="#page109">109</a><br />
+Pike, Mr., <a href="#page098">98</a>, <a href="#page100">100</a><br />
+&quot;Piracy,&quot; <a href="#page070">70</a>, <a href="#page071">71</a>, <a href="#page084">84</a><br />
+Poison, <a href="#page096">96</a><br />
+Pope's Note, the, <a href="#page051">51</a><br />
+Port, enemy ships in, <a href="#page049">49</a><br />
+<i>Porter</i> v. <i>Freudenberg</i>, <a href="#page049">49</a><br />
+Portsmouth, Lord, <a href="#page205">205</a><br />
+Pourtugael, den Beer, Prof., <a href="#page068">68</a><br />
+Pre-emption, <a href="#page148">148</a><br />
+Prevention, State duties of, <a href="#page129">129</a>, <a href="#page131">131</a><br />
+Prisoners of war, <a href="#page045">45</a>, <a href="#page106">106</a>, <a href="#page107">107</a><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">liabilities of, <a href="#page106">106</a></span><br />
+Private International Law, <a href="#page034">34</a><br />
+Privateers, <a href="#page081">81</a>, <a href="#page084">84</a><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">restrictions on, <a href="#page082">82</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">commissioned liners are not, <a href="#page070">70</a></span><br />
+Private property at sea, <a href="#page184">184</a><br />
+Prize Court,<br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">the Russian, <a href="#page163">163</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">an international Court of Appeal, <a href="#page023">23</a>, <a href="#page170">170</a>-182</span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">a settled prize law, must precede, <a href="#page181">181</a>, <a href="#page183">183</a>, <a href="#page185">185</a>, <a href="#page190">190</a>, <a href="#page191">191</a>, <a href="#page193">193</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">a supreme, <a href="#page181">181</a></span><br />
+Prize Law Consolidation Bill, <a href="#page193">193</a>, <a href="#page194">194</a>, <a href="#page199">199</a><br />
+&quot;Probable cause,&quot; <a href="#page083">83</a><br />
+Proclamations of neutrality, the British, criticised, <a href="#page135">135</a>-143<br />
+&quot;Professors,&quot; <a href="#page119">119</a><br />
+Projectiles,<br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">from balloons, <a href="#page022">22</a>, <a href="#page030">30</a>, <a href="#page062">62</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">for diffusion of gases, <a href="#page022">22</a>, <a href="#page096">96</a>, <a href="#page097">97</a></span><br />
+<br />
+<br />
+&quot;Quasi-enemy,&quot; <a href="#page012">12</a><br />
+<br />
+<br />
+Radiotelegraphic stations, <a href="#page168">168</a><br />
+Rae, Mr., <a href="#page162">162</a><br />
+Ratification, <a href="#page203">203</a><br />
+Receipts, <a href="#page102">102</a><br />
+<i>R&egrave;glements</i>, the Hague. <i>See</i> Hague<br />
+Renault, Prof., <a href="#page172">172</a>, <a href="#page187">187</a>, <a href="#page190">190</a>, <a href="#page196">196</a>, <a href="#page198">198</a>, <a href="#page199">199</a><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">Report of the force of (<i>see</i> Authentic Interpretation)</span><br />
+Reprisals,<br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">advantages of, <a href="#page014">14</a>, <a href="#page019">19</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">how differing from war, <a href="#page009">9</a>, <a href="#page012">12</a>, <a href="#page014">14</a>, <a href="#page019">19</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">opposite views as to, <a href="#page016">16</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">species of, <a href="#page012">12</a>, <a href="#page015">15</a>, <a href="#page019">19</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">United States, instructions as to, <a href="#page029">29</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">belligerent, <a href="#page097">97</a>, <a href="#page123">123</a></span><br />
+Requisitions, <a href="#page102">102</a>, <a href="#page117">117</a><br />
+Restrictive clause, the, <a href="#page069">69</a>, <a href="#page146">146</a><br />
+Retaliation, <a href="#page097">97</a><br />
+Reward for, dead or alive, <a href="#page093">93</a><br />
+<i>R.</i> v. <i>Eyre</i>, <a href="#page110">110</a><br />
+Ridley, Sir E., <a href="#page077">77</a><br />
+Roman Law terminology, <a href="#page102">102</a><br />
+Roosevelt, Pres., <a href="#page146">146</a><br />
+Rosebery, Lord, <a href="#page158">158</a><br />
+Ross, Sir R., <a href="#page078">78</a><br />
+Russian Prize Law, <a href="#page162">162</a>, <a href="#page174">174</a>, <a href="#page176">176</a><br />
+<br />
+<br />
+Salisbury, Lord, <a href="#page003">3</a>, <a href="#page015">15</a>, <a href="#page052">52</a>, <a href="#page054">54</a>, <a href="#page157">157</a><br />
+<i>Santissima Trinidad</i>, the, <a href="#page137">137</a><br />
+Savage warfare, <a href="#page094">94</a><br />
+<i>Savannah</i>, the, <a href="#page085">85</a><br />
+Scott, Sir Walter, <a href="#page077">77</a>, <a href="#page091">91</a><br />
+Scott, Sir William, <a href="#page091">91</a><br />
+Search. <i>See</i> Visit and Search<br />
+Second Peace Conference Conventions Bill, <a href="#page037">37</a>, <a href="#page038">38</a>, <a href="#page039">39</a><br />
+Seely, Col., <a href="#page063">63</a><br />
+Ship, a &quot;mere moveable,&quot; <a href="#page085">85</a><br />
+Shucking, Prof., <a href="#page125">125</a><br />
+Siam, <a href="#page010">10</a><br />
+Sinking. <i>See</i> Destruction<br />
+Smith (Lord Birkenhead) and Sibley, on International Law in the Russo-Japanese War, <a href="#page135">135</a><br />
+<i>Spider</i>, the, <a href="#page113">113</a>, <a href="#page117">117</a><br />
+Spies, <a href="#page072">72</a><br />
+<i>Springbok</i>, the, <a href="#page029">29</a><br />
+Stephen, Sir Herbert, <a href="#page124">124</a><br />
+Stewart, Mr. C., <a href="#page104">104</a><br />
+Story, J., <a href="#page159">159</a><br />
+Stowell, Lord, <a href="#page085">85</a>, <a href="#page159">159</a>, <a href="#page160">160</a>, <a href="#page161">161</a>, <a href="#page166">166</a>, <a href="#page175">175</a>, <a href="#page177">177</a>, <a href="#page178">178</a>, <a href="#page180">180</a>, <a href="#page197">197</a><br />
+Straits, <a href="#page052">52</a>, <a href="#page056">56</a><br />
+Submarine cables, <a href="#page168">168</a>, <a href="#page169">169</a>, <a href="#page171">171</a>, <a href="#page188">188</a><br />
+Submarines, <a href="#page069">69</a><br />
+Suez Canal, the, <a href="#page050">50</a>, <a href="#page051">51</a>, <a href="#page052">52</a>, <a href="#page054">54</a><br />
+Superfluous injury, <a href="#page094">94</a>, <a href="#page095">95</a><br />
+Suyematsu, Baron, <a href="#page149">149</a><br />
+Swettenham, Sir James, <a href="#page079">79</a><br />
+Sydenham, Lord, <a href="#page104">104</a><br />
+<br />
+<br />
+Takahashi, Prof., <a href="#page043">43</a><br />
+Terminology, <a href="#page033">33</a><br />
+Territorial waters, <a href="#page165">165</a>, <a href="#page166">166</a>, <a href="#page167">167</a><br />
+Tindal, le Chevalier, <a href="#page122">122</a><br />
+Tirpitz, Admiral von, <a href="#page070">70</a><br />
+<ins class="correction"
+  title="Transcriber's note: Spelled _Tokomaru_ where it appears in the text.">
+<i>Tocumaro</i></ins>, the, <a href="#page060">60</a><br />
+Torpedoes, <a href="#page164">164</a><br />
+Transformation into ships of war, <a href="#page162">162</a><br />
+Treaties,<br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">who are the parties to, <a href="#page202">202</a>, <a href="#page207">207</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">effect of war on, <a href="#page018">18</a>, <a href="#page198">198</a></span><br />
+Treaty, the Hay-Pauncefote, <a href="#page050">50</a><br />
+Twenty-three (h) clause, the, <a href="#page047">47</a>, <a href="#page206">206</a><br />
+Twenty-four hours rule, the, <a href="#page127">127</a>, <a href="#page144">144</a>, <a href="#page145">145</a><br />
+Ullmann, Prof., <a href="#page047">47</a>, <a href="#page106">106</a>, <a href="#page201">201</a><br />
+Unarmed merchantmen, <a href="#page072">72</a>, <a href="#page073">73</a><br />
+Undefended towns, <a href="#page030">30</a>, <a href="#page067">67</a>, <a href="#page068">68</a><br />
+Uniform, <a href="#page075">75</a><br />
+United States<br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">instructions for war on land, <a href="#page023">23</a>, <a href="#page073">73</a>, <a href="#page107">107</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">naval war code, <a href="#page023">23</a>, <a href="#page030">30</a>, <a href="#page031">31</a>, <a href="#page088">88</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">Naval War College, <a href="#page008">8</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">ratification of Conventions, <a href="#page075">75</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">views of, compared with British, <a href="#page029">29</a>, <a href="#page031">31</a></span><br />
+Unqualified captors, <a href="#page072">72</a>, <a href="#page073">73</a><br />
+Unratified Conventions, effect of, <a href="#page040">40</a><br />
+Usufruct, <a href="#page101">101</a><br />
+<br />
+<br />
+Vattel, <a href="#page046">46</a>, <a href="#page119">119</a><br />
+Venezuela, <a href="#page013">13</a>, <a href="#page018">18</a><br />
+Visit and search, <a href="#page072">72</a>, <a href="#page083">83</a>, <a href="#page084">84</a>, <a href="#page159">159</a>, <a href="#page186">186</a><br />
+&quot;Violations of law of nations,&quot; term misapplied, <a href="#page140">140</a>, <a href="#page142">142</a><br />
+V&oelig;ux, <a href="#page005">5</a>, <a href="#page099">99</a>, <a href="#page121">121</a>, <a href="#page122">122</a>, <a href="#page167">167</a>, <a href="#page180">180</a>, <a href="#page190">190</a><br />
+Volunteers, <a href="#page077">77</a><br />
+<br />
+<br />
+War. <i>See</i> Reprisals<br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">Declaration of, <a href="#page010">10</a>, <a href="#page041">41</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">legitimate object of, <a href="#page025">25</a>, <a href="#page095">95</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry"><i>sub modo</i>, <a href="#page020">20</a>, <a href="#page055">55</a></span><br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">written law of, <a href="#page022">22</a></span><br />
+Washington, the Three Rules of, <a href="#page086">86</a><br />
+Wellington, Duke of, <a href="#page117">117</a><br />
+Westbury, Lord, <a href="#page137">137</a><br />
+Westlake, Prof., <a href="#page018">18</a>, <a href="#page041">41</a>, <a href="#page065">65</a>, <a href="#page183">183</a>, <a href="#page199">199</a>, <a href="#page202">202</a><br />
+Wilson, Pres., <a href="#page072">72</a>, <a href="#page097">97</a>, <a href="#page127">127</a><br />
+Wolf, Mr., <a href="#page058">58</a><br />
+Wood, Mackinnon, Mr., <a href="#page196">196</a>, <a href="#page197">197</a>, <a href="#page200">200</a><br />
+Wounded and Sick. <i>See</i> Geneva Conventions<br />
+<span class="indexsubentry">horses, <a href="#page098">98</a>, <a href="#page100">100</a></span><br />
+<br />
+<br />
+<i>Yangtsze Insurance Association</i> v. <i>Indemnity Mutual Marine Company</i>, <a href="#page157">157</a><br />
+Younge, Mr., <a href="#page118">118</a><br />
+<br />
+<br />
+<i>Zamora</i>, the, <a href="#page207">207</a><br />
+Zone, a danger, <a href="#page059">59</a><br />
+</div>
+
+<p>&nbsp;</p>
+<p>&nbsp;</p>
+<p>Printed by SPOTTISWOODE, BALLANTYNE &amp; CO. LTD.<br />
+Colchester, London &amp; Eton, England<br />
+</p>
+
+
+
+<hr style="width: 65%;" />
+<h2><a name="BY_THE_SAME_AUTHOR" id="BY_THE_SAME_AUTHOR" />BY THE SAME AUTHOR</h2>
+
+
+<p>AN ESSAY ON COMPOSITION DEEDS UNDER 24 AND 25 VICT. c. 134.
+London, Sweet, 1864, 12mo. 7<i>s</i>.</p>
+
+<p>A PLAN FOR THE FORMAL AMENDMENT OF THE LAW OF ENGLAND.
+London, Butterworths, 1867, 8vo. 1<i>s</i>.</p>
+
+<p>ESSAYS UPON THE FORM OF THE LAW. London, Butterworths, 1870,
+8vo. 7<i>s</i>. 6<i>d</i>.</p>
+
+<p>THE INSTITUTES OF JUSTINIAN, edited as a recension of the Institutes
+of Gaius. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1873, second edit. 1881,
+12mo. 5<i>s</i>.</p>
+
+<p>SELECT TITLES FROM THE DIGEST OF JUSTINIAN, edited, with C.L.
+Shadwell. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1874-1881, 8vo. 14<i>s</i>.</p>
+
+<p>ALBERICUS GENTILIS, an Inaugural Lecture delivered at All Souls
+College, November 7, 1874. London, Macmillan,
+1874, 8vo. 1<i>s</i>. 6<i>d</i>.</p>
+
+<p>ALBERICUS GENTILIS, tradotto da Aurelio Saffi. Roma, Loescher, 1884.</p>
+
+<p>THE BRUSSELS CONFERENCE OF 1874, and other diplomatic attempts
+to mitigate the rigour of warfare. Oxford and London, James
+Parker, 1876, 8vo. 1<i>s</i>. 6<i>d</i>.</p>
+
+<p>THE TREATY RELATIONS OF RUSSIA AND TURKEY, 1774 to 1853, with
+an Appendix of Treaties. London, Macmillan, 1877, 12mo. 2<i>s</i>.</p>
+
+<p>ALBERICI GENTILIS DE IURE BELLI LIBRI TRES, edited. Oxford,
+Clarendon Press, 1877, 4to. 21<i>s</i>.</p>
+
+<p>THE ELEMENTS OF JURISPRUDENCE. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1880,
+8vo, twelfth edit. 1916, 8vo. 14<i>s</i>.</p>
+
+<p>THE EUROPEAN CONCERT IN THE EASTERN QUESTION: a Collection
+of Treaties and other Public Acts, Edited, with Introductions
+and Notes. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1885, 8vo. 12<i>s</i>. 6<i>d</i>.</p>
+
+<p>A MANUAL OF NAVAL PRIZE LAW. Issued by authority of the Lords
+Commissioners of the Admiralty. London, Eyre &amp; Spottiswoode,
+1888, 8vo.</p>
+
+<p>STUDIES IN INTERNATIONAL LAW. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1898,
+8vo. 10<i>s</i>. 6<i>d</i>.</p>
+
+<p>THE LAWS AND CUSTOMS OF WAR ON LAND, &amp;c. (issued by the War
+Office to the British Army). London, Harrison &amp; Sons, 1904,
+12mo. 6<i>d</i>.</p>
+
+<p>NEUTRAL DUTIES IN A MARITIME WAR, as illustrated by recent events
+(<i>from the Proceedings of the British Academy</i>). London, H. Frowde,
+1905, 8vo. 1<i>s</i>.</p>
+
+<p>THE LAW OF WAR ON LAND (written and unwritten). Oxford, Clarendon
+Press, 1908, 8vo. 6<i>s</i>. net.</p>
+
+<p>A VALEDICTORY RETROSPECT (1874-1910), being a Lecture delivered
+at All Souls College, June 17, 1910. Oxford, at the Clarendon
+Press, 1910. 1<i>s</i>.</p>
+
+<p>PROPOSED CHANGES IN NAVAL PRIZE LAW (<i>from the Proceedings of
+the British Academy</i>). London, H. Frowde, 1911, 8vo. 1<i>s</i>.</p>
+
+<p>R. ZOUCHAEI IURIS ET IUDICII FECIALIS, sive Iuris inter gentes
+explicatio, edited in 2 vols., with biographical and bibliographical
+Introduction, for the Carnegie Institution of Washington, at the
+Oxford University Press, 1911, 4to. $4.</p>
+
+<p>IOHANNIS DB LIGNANO DB IURE BELLI, edited from the fourteenth-century
+MS., with biographical and bibliographical Introduction,
+for the Carnegie Institution of Washington, at the Oxford
+University Press, 1917, 4to. &pound;2 2<i>s</i>. 6<i>d</i>.</p>
+
+<p>&nbsp;</p>
+
+<div class="footnotes">
+<p style="margin-left:10%;text-decoration:underline;">ENDNOTES</p>
+<p class="footnote"><span class="label"><a href="#footnotetag01">1</a></span><a name="footnote01"></a>Withdrawn in 1904.</p>
+<p class="footnote"><span class="label"><a href="#footnotetag02">2</a></span><a name="footnote02"></a><i>Infra</i>, <a href="#CHAPTER_VII_SECTION_6">Ch. VII. Section 6</a>.</p>
+<p class="footnote"><span class="label"><a href="#footnotetag03">3</a></span><a name="footnote03"></a><i>Infra</i>, <a href="#CHAPTER_VI_SECTION_14">Ch. VI. Section 14</a>.</p>
+<p class="footnote"><span class="label"><a href="#footnotetag04a">4</a></span><a name="footnote04"></a>Writer's names are omitted as immaterial.</p>
+<p class="footnote"><span class="label"><a href="#footnotetag05">5</a></span><a name="footnote05"></a><i>Infra</i>, p. <a href="#page070">70</a>.</p>
+<p class="footnote"><span class="label"><a href="#footnotetag06">6</a></span><a name="footnote06"></a>This
+Bill, originally introduced in the House of Commons on June 23 1910, to enable
+the Government to ratify Hague Convention No xii. of 1907 and the Declaration
+ of London of 1909, was passed by that House on December 7, 1911, but rejected
+ on the 12th of the same month, by 145 to 53 votes, in the House of Lords.
+ Cf. <i>infra</i>, pp. <a href="#page191">191</a>-196.</p>
+<p class="footnote"><span class="label"><a href="#footnotetag07">7</a></span><a name="footnote07"></a>Cf. <i>infra</i>, p. <a href="#page098">98</a>. The Bill became an Act, 1 &amp; 2 Geo. 5, c. 20.</p>
+</div>
+
+<p>&nbsp;</p>
+
+
+<p>&nbsp;</p>
+
+<hr style="width: 65%;" />
+<p>[Transcriber's Note: The spelling and usage of non-English words and
+characters is occasionally inconsistent throughout the work. This etext
+preserves the usage as it appears in the printed book,
+except where noted.]</p>
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+<pre>
+
+
+
+
+
+End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of Letters To "The Times" Upon War And
+Neutrality (1881-1920), by Thomas Erskine Holland
+
+*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK UPON WAR AND NEUTRALITY ***
+
+***** This file should be named 14447-h.htm or 14447-h.zip *****
+This and all associated files of various formats will be found in:
+        https://www.gutenberg.org/1/4/4/4/14447/
+
+Produced by Robert Connal, Aaron Reed and the Online Distributed
+Proofreading Team. This file was produced from images generously
+made available by the Bibliothèque nationale de France (BnF/Gallica)
+at http://gallica.bnf.fr
+
+
+Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions
+will be renamed.
+
+Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no
+one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation
+(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without
+permission and without paying copyright royalties.  Special rules,
+set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to
+copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to
+protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark.  Project
+Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you
+charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission.  If you
+do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the
+rules is very easy.  You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose
+such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
+research.  They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do
+practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks.  Redistribution is
+subject to the trademark license, especially commercial
+redistribution.
+
+
+
+*** START: FULL LICENSE ***
+
+THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
+PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
+
+To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free
+distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
+(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project
+Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project
+Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at
+https://gutenberg.org/license).
+
+
+Section 1.  General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic works
+
+1.A.  By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
+and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
+(trademark/copyright) agreement.  If you do not agree to abide by all
+the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy
+all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession.
+If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the
+terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
+entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
+
+1.B.  "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark.  It may only be
+used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
+agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement.  There are a few
+things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
+even without complying with the full terms of this agreement.  See
+paragraph 1.C below.  There are a lot of things you can do with Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement
+and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works.  See paragraph 1.E below.
+
+1.C.  The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation"
+or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic works.  Nearly all the individual works in the
+collection are in the public domain in the United States.  If an
+individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are
+located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from
+copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative
+works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg
+are removed.  Of course, we hope that you will support the Project
+Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by
+freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of
+this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with
+the work.  You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by
+keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project
+Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others.
+
+1.D.  The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
+what you can do with this work.  Copyright laws in most countries are in
+a constant state of change.  If you are outside the United States, check
+the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement
+before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or
+creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project
+Gutenberg-tm work.  The Foundation makes no representations concerning
+the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United
+States.
+
+1.E.  Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
+
+1.E.1.  The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate
+access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently
+whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the
+phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project
+Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed,
+copied or distributed:
+
+This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
+almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
+re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
+with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
+
+1.E.2.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived
+from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is
+posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied
+and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees
+or charges.  If you are redistributing or providing access to a work
+with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the
+work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1
+through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the
+Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or
+1.E.9.
+
+1.E.3.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted
+with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
+must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional
+terms imposed by the copyright holder.  Additional terms will be linked
+to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the
+permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.
+
+1.E.4.  Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
+work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm.
+
+1.E.5.  Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
+electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
+prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
+active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
+Gutenberg-tm License.
+
+1.E.6.  You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
+compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any
+word processing or hypertext form.  However, if you provide access to or
+distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than
+"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version
+posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org),
+you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a
+copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon
+request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other
+form.  Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
+
+1.E.7.  Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
+performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works
+unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
+
+1.E.8.  You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
+access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided
+that
+
+- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
+     the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method
+     you already use to calculate your applicable taxes.  The fee is
+     owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he
+     has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the
+     Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.  Royalty payments
+     must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you
+     prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax
+     returns.  Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and
+     sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the
+     address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to
+     the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation."
+
+- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
+     you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
+     does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+     License.  You must require such a user to return or
+     destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium
+     and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of
+     Project Gutenberg-tm works.
+
+- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any
+     money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
+     electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days
+     of receipt of the work.
+
+- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
+     distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works.
+
+1.E.9.  If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
+forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
+both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael
+Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark.  Contact the
+Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.
+
+1.F.
+
+1.F.1.  Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
+effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
+public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm
+collection.  Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain
+"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or
+corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual
+property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a
+computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by
+your equipment.
+
+1.F.2.  LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right
+of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
+Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
+Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
+liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
+fees.  YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
+LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
+PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH F3.  YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
+TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
+LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
+INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
+DAMAGE.
+
+1.F.3.  LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
+defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
+receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
+written explanation to the person you received the work from.  If you
+received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with
+your written explanation.  The person or entity that provided you with
+the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a
+refund.  If you received the work electronically, the person or entity
+providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to
+receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund.  If the second copy
+is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further
+opportunities to fix the problem.
+
+1.F.4.  Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
+in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER
+WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
+WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
+
+1.F.5.  Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
+warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
+If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
+law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
+interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by
+the applicable state law.  The invalidity or unenforceability of any
+provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
+
+1.F.6.  INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
+trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
+providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance
+with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production,
+promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works,
+harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees,
+that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do
+or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm
+work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any
+Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause.
+
+
+Section  2.  Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of
+electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers
+including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers.  It exists
+because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from
+people in all walks of life.
+
+Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
+assistance they need, is critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's
+goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will
+remain freely available for generations to come.  In 2001, the Project
+Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
+and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations.
+To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
+and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4
+and the Foundation web page at https://www.pglaf.org.
+
+
+Section 3.  Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
+Foundation
+
+The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit
+501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
+state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
+Revenue Service.  The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification
+number is 64-6221541.  Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at
+https://pglaf.org/fundraising.  Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
+Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent
+permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws.
+
+The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S.
+Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered
+throughout numerous locations.  Its business office is located at
+809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email
+business@pglaf.org.  Email contact links and up to date contact
+information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official
+page at https://pglaf.org
+
+For additional contact information:
+     Dr. Gregory B. Newby
+     Chief Executive and Director
+     gbnewby@pglaf.org
+
+
+Section 4.  Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
+Literary Archive Foundation
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide
+spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
+increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
+freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest
+array of equipment including outdated equipment.  Many small donations
+($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
+status with the IRS.
+
+The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
+charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
+States.  Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
+considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
+with these requirements.  We do not solicit donations in locations
+where we have not received written confirmation of compliance.  To
+SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any
+particular state visit https://pglaf.org
+
+While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
+have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
+against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
+approach us with offers to donate.
+
+International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
+any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
+outside the United States.  U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
+
+Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation
+methods and addresses.  Donations are accepted in a number of other
+ways including including checks, online payments and credit card
+donations.  To donate, please visit: https://pglaf.org/donate
+
+
+Section 5.  General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works.
+
+Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm
+concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared
+with anyone.  For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project
+Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.
+
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed
+editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S.
+unless a copyright notice is included.  Thus, we do not necessarily
+keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.
+
+
+Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility:
+
+     https://www.gutenberg.org
+
+This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm,
+including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
+Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
+subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
+
+
+</pre>
+
+</body>
+</html>
+
+