for public obligations in the present times. Recent cases have occurred of two States being at war and yet of the interest on the public debt being paid, with unfailing punctuality, and at the end of the war the debt being still recognized. This occurred in the Crimean War in the case of England and Russia. obligatory to I must say a word about Requisitions. During Requisitions. the late Franco-German war, it was said that a great deal of injustice was inflicted on the peasants through the making of requisitions; and much doubt still exists as to whether requisitions should or should not be paid for. The true principle It is not undoubtedly is that they need not be paid for, pay for them. because it may be said that, though they are levied immediately upon particular persons, yet still the State whose territory is invaded is the debtor who should pay and who should make all persons who are its citizens contribute to the particular loss which directly falls upon a few in the community. It is obvious that this is a very imperfect remedy for the losses immediately incurred, and a very slow remedy. It is imperfect because States in circumstances of great pressure are likely to forget the claims of those of its citizens who have suffered. However it has been well argued, in modern times, It is advanthat it is to the interest of each belligerent State pay for them. always to pay for its own requisitions. This plan always ensures a ready supply from point to point, because when there is a good market and a certain market, and when the things brought are sure to be paid for, the supplies needed will be ready for tageous to Treatment of the army upon its approach. Instead of the citizens hiding all their things and flying to avoid the seizure of them, they are likely to do their best to supply the market. It is argued further that it is always desirable for both parties,the defending as well as the invading armies,— to pay for their requisitions, because it is pretty certain that the citizens will be most anxious to serve that Government which pays best and causes them least trouble. However patriotic the citizens may be, they will be certain to reserve all their best stores for the Government which does not seize but which pays; so that, in the long run, there is the general principle of self-interest in favour of regular payments. But that is a matter of expediency and not of Law. The rule of Law seems to be that it is not compulsory upon a State to pay, if it is invading the territory of another State, on the ground that the question merely concerns the Government of the other State, which, if it has due regard for the claims and interests of its own subjects, ought to make full compensation for losses. Next, as to the treatment and release of Prisoners. We are all aware that the treatment of prisoners in the present day is extremely courteous. States vie with each other in this respect, and it is now a matter with which International Law has very little to do. The only point at which International Law comes in is the extreme case in which the State may have a large number of prisoners suddenly thrown into its hands. It may be doubtful what to do with them. It may be impossible to sustain them, and it may be extremely inconvenient to surrender them. The question may arise, as it did arise in the case of Napoleon in Egypt, how these prisoners should be dealt with; whether they may be treated badly, or put to death. If a conqueror in any case put his prisoners to death, he would undoubtedly be considered as having outraged both International Law and the claims of humanity. But the claims of humanity are in themselves so strong that I think the incidental fact of a breach of International Law would be put aside and left out of account altogether. International Law, therefore, has practically little to do with it. The injustice of sueing for a heavy ransom, or of detaining prisoners longer than the war lasts, or of ill-treating them, is so considerable that it is not likely that States will incur the risk of the consequences of such conduct. I say the doctrine that war is to be persevered in only as long and as far as it is necessary to attain the object, applies here. The object of war is to not get hold of so many prisoners, but to secure Rights. ment. Now I may mention briefly one or two other points. BombardOne is as to bombarding of towns. This is likewise more a question of civilisation and general humanity than of Law. There are cases in which towns,particularly towns well defended and important strongholds, may still have to be bombarded. the same time there are all kinds of modifications introduced into the practice of bombardment. Women and children and non-combatants are gene At rally allowed, as far as possible, to retreat. Works of art and public buildings are, as far as possible, protected, and the horrors of a triumphant entry are restricted within the narrowest limits. Soldiers have now regular prize-money instead of being allowed to pay themselves out of the proceeds of the capture. The abolition of the use of explosive weapons and of such devices as the poisoning of wells; the maintenance of the neutrality of ambulances for the sick and wounded; all these have been matters of recent treaties. I may particularly allude to the change embodied in the treaty of 1864 and in the supplement to it in 1868. All the important States of the world, with the exception of the United States, Brazil, and Mexico, are parties to one or other of these ConvenNeutrality of tions. By the first of these Conventions the neu Medical Ser vice. trality of Ambulances and of Military Hospitals was established, and they were placed under the common protection of both belligerents. All persons engaged in tending the sick, and coming to their aid, were equally to be treated as neutrals, and the general duty of tending and curing sick or wounded soldiers was affirmed. A flag and a distinctive badge for those so employed were determined upon. Twenty-two States signed this Convention. The supplementary Convention of 1868 was generally acquiesced in though not formally signed. The purport of it was that wounded soldiers, on being healed, should be sent to their homes, on condition of not taking up arms again during the war; and the regulations of the previous Convention were plosive balls extended to maritime wars. By a Convention made Use of exthe same year at St. Petersburgh, the use of certain excluded. explosive balls was forbidden. weapons. The question as to the use of certain peculiar Peculiar weapons has been very much disputed by writers on International Law, and it is difficult to say whether anything of the kind is forbidden. The mitrailleuse was formerly forbidden, but there is no objection made to it now. The prevalent doctrine, however, is that no means should be used to weaken the enemy which would make innocent individuals suffer more than is necessary in order to prevent their taking further part in the war. Maritime Wars. Now in most of my remarks, I have had in my Principles regulating the mind land wars principally. The principles ruling conduct of the conduct of maritime wars have been less subjected to modification than those with respect to wars on land. The tendency hitherto has been to the detriment of the property of non-combatants,— that is of the mercantile marine. There is a great tendency now to modify that principle as far as possible. The United States and, latterly, independent English thinkers, such as the late Mr. Cobden, have lost no opportunity of expressing themselves strongly in favour of the limitation of maritime war to the property of the State, and to the persons of actual combatants. This principle, no doubt, presses with very unequal force upon States the warlike strength of which must consist in their navy rather than in their army. Their assertion is that the destruction of their enemies' commerce is the only instrument in their hands for crippling |