an analogous project conceived in the same spirit, but upon a plan more general. This coincidence being in the eyes of the Cabinet of St. Petersburg an evidence of the opportuneness of a similar rule, he wished to express a desire that the two projects should be melted into one, which should be submitted to the examination of an assembly of special plenipotentiaries, and which should serve as the basis of a general rule for international relations in time of war.

The Society eagerly expressed to Prince ORLOW its profound gratitude for a mark so flattering of his personal goodwill, and, in order to render a respectful homage to the generous intentions of the CZAR, it did not hesitate to forego the preparatory conference to which several States had already given in their adhesion.

Count d'HOUDETOT had the honour of being received at Stuttgart, on the 7th of May, by His Highness Prince GORTCHAKOW, who informed him. that the Imperial Cabinet had just proposed to all the European Governments the meeting at Brussels, on the 15th-27th of next July, of a diplomatic conference, to be charged to draw up the terms of a general rule of international relations in time of war, and gave him the new assurance that the project, of which he is the author, and which had been discusseda nd adopted by the Society for the Amelioration of the lot of Prisoners of War, should be added to that of the Cabinet of St. Petersburg, and presented to the official assembly at Brussels.

Prince GORTCHAKOW authorised Count d'HOUDETOT to inform the Cabinets of Asia and America, who had been requested to allow themselves to be represented at the preparatory conference at Paris, that if it entered in their views to take part in that at Brussels, their delegates would be received there with eagerness.

Having made known to our readers the important result obtained by the Society for the Amelioration of the lot of Prisoners of War, we now call their attention to the importance of the Treaty which is being elaborated at Brussels. It would require a space which unfortunately we have not at our disposal to develop questions of so great an interest, as much from the point of view of international relations in time of war, as from the point of view of the consequences which will follow the measures adopted by all the contracting States in the order of the progress of civilisation, and humanity. We must limit ourselves to a summary of the propositions on which these States are about to be called on to pronounce.

We are not acquainted with the project of the Cabinet of St. Petersburg, but according to the intention which Prince GORTCHAKOW has expressed, of submitting, to the Conference of Brussels, a work embracing all the facts inherent to a state of war, we are naturally induced to think that this project treats of the violation of international law; of the opening of hostilities; of the lawless practices of war; of the property of private individuals in an enemy's country; of the laws of maritime war; of the relations and negotiations between belligerents; of suspension of arms; of armistices and capitulations; of the re-establishment of peace; of the law of Postliminium, a phrase which designates the re-establishment of the order of things which a war has overthrown; of the principles of neutrality; o the rights and obligations which it involves; of the commerce of neutrals; of contraband of war; of the Right of Search; of blockade; of Prize Courts -in a word, of all the questions of great interest which have to enter a general rule of international relations in time of war.

The project of the Society, which has been formed by the aid of great research in the diplomatic and military archives of every people relating

more especially to the question of prisoners of war, determines the rights. and duties of belligerents to troops and inhabitants of the hostile State, its administrators and magistrates; specifies what artifices (ruses de guerre) are to be forbidden in war, treats of the attributes of Councils of War, enjoins respect for private property, protects the populations, and defines the duties of neutral States with regard to belligerents, the position of volunteers and foreign troops in the pay of the States, as also the conditions of levies en masse; treats of espionage, of reconnoitering parties and messengers; demands the suppression of hostages; fixes the duty of belligerents with regard to troops who lay down their arms, and of military noncombatants, and the conditions of internment; regulates the setting of prisoners at liberty; fixes the reward for their labour, excludes them from all participation in the establishment of works belonging to the defence of the hostile State; establishes the measures to be taken for the transport of prisoners to the place where they have to undergo their captivity; enlarges on the organisation of depôts, the maintenance of prisoners, their exchange and repatriation, and the distribution of the aid destined for them; regulates the police and discipline of depôts, and finally devotes a very important chapter to the very delicate question of liberty on parole. This important work is the natural complement of the project for a general rule prepared by the Cabinet of St. Petersburg.

The members of the Executive Committee of the Society for the Amelioration of Prisoners of War, whose generous initiative has just obtained so striking a success, and whose names will remain connected with this great work, belong to a great number of nationalities; some of them are delegated to represent their governments at the Conference of Brussels. Russia is represented in this Committee by His Highness Prince SUWAROW, Chamberlain to the Emperor; France by Count D'HOUDETOT, president-reporter, Viscount DE CROISMARE, M. FRANCHET D'ESPEREY, M. HENRI MUSSON, M. JAUNEZ SPONVILLE; England by Lords BEAUMONT and ELIOT, the Hon. ALLAN HERBERT and Major HAVILAND; Germany by M. E. DE BUNSEN, Chamberlain of the Emperor; the United States by Mr. O. SULLIVAN, formerly Minister to Portugal; South America by M. E. M. TORRES CACIEDO, Minister Plenipotentiary of Salvador; Austria by Baron ADHEMAR VON LINDEN, General Secretary; Bavaria by Baron voN LINDEN, Chamberlain of the King; Denmark by M. PAUL CALON, ConsulGeneral; Spain by His Excellency Don ARTURO DE MACOARTU; Greece by Commandant NICOLAIDIS; Italy by Dr. D'ANCONA; the Netherlands by M. CHARLES ARNOULD; Sweden and Norway by M. GEORGE BrosTREM; and Switzerland by M. HENRI DUNANT, International Secretary.

PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS DEFENDING THEIR COUNTRY TO BE TREATED AS CRIMINALS.

As we go

to press we have received a copy, not of the scheme to be proposed by the Russian Government, but of that drawn up by the Universal Alliance, published by them last March, and which was to have been submitted to a Conference at Paris on the 18th of May. From 147 articles we extract the following:

Foreign Troops in the pay of the Enemy-Volunteers-Levée en masse-Peaceable

Inhabitants.

ARTICLE 45.

Every state has the right to take foreign troops into its pay, and such troops

are completely assimilated to the national troops; by the mere fact of their incorporation in the army they are endowed with all the rights, and contract all the obligations which the laws of war accord and impose on the soldiers of the belligerent armies.

ARTICLE 46.

In order that bodies of volunteers engaged in irregular guerilla warfare may claim to be treated as enemies, it is necessary that the State had called for volunteers to defend the country;

That the military character of the volunteers be placed beyond doubt by the adoption of a uniform recognised by their Government;

That the volunteers be organised hierarchically and militarily, and that their chiefs be subordinate to the commander-in-chief of the army;

That these chiefs be authorised by regular commissions;

That the volunteers respect the laws and usages of war.

ARTICLE 47.

Privateers and armed bands undertaking expeditions without the authority of their Government are to be TREATED AS CRIMINALS.

ARTICLE 48.

If, on the approach of an enemy's army, the population of that part of the enemy's country which is not yet occupied, or the population of the entire country, should rise en masse to resist the invader by order of the competent authorities, such population, when it operates conjointly with the active army, is to be treated as a declared enemy, and all of them who may be captured are prisoners of war. Nevertheless, if the citizens, or a certain number of the citizens of a country already occupied by the enemy's army rise of their own accord against it, they violate the laws of war, and cannot appeal to the protection of such laws.

ARTICLE 49.

The peaceable inhabitants of a territory occupied by the enemy must submit to the necessary consequences of the war, and to the decisions of the victorious military authority; they cannot, however, be constrained to act against the defence of their country.

Armed bands not belonging to the Enemy's Army properly so called.

ARTICLE 50.

Men or bands of men who commit hostilities, whether in military expeditions, or in destruction and pillage, without being part of the organised army, without taking any permanent part in the war, laying down their arms when it suits them to return to their homes and their pacific occupations, or assuming at times a pacific appearance externally and putting off the appearance or character of soldiers-such individuals or bands are not belligerents. If captured they have no right to the privileges of prisoners of war, and may be summarily tried and sentenced as highway robbers and pirates.

These regulations which, if observed, would render impossible the defence of any country which, like England, does not maintain a numerous standing army, form part of a plan which appears to have been inspired by a delusive hope of ameliorating the condition of the We have yet to see what scheme will be incorporated with it by the more astute humanity of the destroyers of Poland and the lords of Siberia.

human race.

The

Link between between the the Washington Treaty, the Geneva Tribunal, and the Brussels Congress.

THs public probably suppose that the Treaty of Washington, the legacy of the late Government, belongs now merely to past history, as the money is paid, which was the result of its signature, and the amount of which was

Neutral instead of Belligerent Interests to be now sacrificed.

179

not felt, as it only diminished a little of Mr. Lowe's surplus. Never was the public more mistaken, as it will discover before long, if, as it is already rumoured, the Brussels "Congress" should turn out to be closely connected with the Geneva "Tribunal."

Of all the juggles that are constructed in these days, under the name of Treaty, Convention, Protocol, Despatch, or Declaration, the Washington Treaty has been perhaps the most adroit. England was to be prevented from doing what was right towards the United States; and yet the United States were to be gratified by the acknowledgment that their complaints against England were well founded. By that Treaty the two objects were attained, and much more. For by making Eugland maintain that she was right, and yet willing to submit to a decision on the ground that she had been wrong, the United States obtained, not only the money of England, but her humiliation.

This was done by the English Commissioners proposing that new rules were to be formed by which her conduct was to be judged, as if such rules had been in existence at the time when the acts complained of had taken place. This device, by which our country was degraded, and the mind of each Englishman still further perverted, was thus worked out of the sailing of the Alabama from Liverpool, to prey upon American commerce, which sailing was obtained by delaying an order to stop her, until "it was just too late."

These "new rules" are contained in Article VI. of the Treaty of Washington. By the same Treaty England and the United States pledged themselves, moreover, to do what they could to obtain the assent to them of the other Governments. This was the master stroke. No sooner did Lord GRANVILLE, with a proper regard to the faith of treaties, bring Article VI. to the notice of Prince BISMARCK, than he rejoined that he could only agree to it, on the condition that the rules laid down with reference to ships of war should be extended to all contraband of war; that is to say that neutral states should be made responsible towards each belligerent for any delivery of arms, ammunition, and the like, by any of its subjects to the other belligerent! Here is, indeed, a change since the Crimean War and the Declaration of Paris.

In the year 1854, the proper thing was for belligerents to give up injuring the enemy for fear of subjecting the neutral to inconvenience, and this was found to answer so well, that in 1856, the rule was rendered perpetual. Now it is the neutral that is to be placed in such a predicament for the benefit of the belligerent, that to be neutral will be virtually an impossibility.

Now the rumour goes that Prince BISMARCK has chosen as his special part to play in the new piece, the bringing forward again of the above proposal, which Lord GRANVILLE had declined to entertain in 1872. If this be Prussia's part, it is not difficult to conceive what Russia's will be: it is laid out for her; for is she not the champion of neutral rights and of the freedom of the seas? She will step in and say; "There is but one way of settling this difficulty, but that is an easy and most desirable way; let us abrogate all these cumbersome and antiquated distinctions between neutral flag and enemies' flag, between what is contraband and what is not contraband, and settle that the neutral flag shall cover every thing, and that the enemy's flag, when displayed over peaceful merchantmen, shall also go free. This will prevent all disputes and be a great step in advance towards the 'Universal Alliance' and the federation of Europe."

We beg attention to the way in which this unheard of proposal of Prince

BISMARCK has been brought about. It comes out of what England herself has done. Let those who want to understand look back to what was written in our columns at the time on the Washington Treaty, and especially to a Memorial sent to the QUEEN by the Foreign Affairs Committees on the subject.*

This is the lesson to be learnt. That from the moment that the Law is departed from, and the system of changing it is entered upon, when that is done even by a Treaty freely concluded between States, and not by a general Congress, the path of safety has been left.

66

Once it is pretended that the Law of Nations can be altered whether by Treaty or by Declaration, that Law becomes itself the most fruitful and dangerous source of disturbance. This arises from no arbitrary cause, but from the nature of things. The Law, as it exists, is founded on immutable principles, and applied by common sense; as is shown by the case in point. There were no new rules" necessary in respect to the Alabama. England was condemned under the Law, by reason of the special circumstances of that case; the new rules will only give rise to new difficulties, as has already appeared. On the other hand, it has been held from time immemorial, that while armaments against a friendly country by private persons had, of course, to be prevented; the country was not to be held responsible for the mere shipping of arms and ammunition, the destination of which it would be impossible always to ascertain. For that was substituted the penalty to be paid by the shipper, if he were caught; which is confiscation of ship as well as cargo.

The facility with which the minds of men can now be disturbed on points hitherto undisputed, is shown by its being possible even to propose that the fitting out of ships in a neutral port for a belligerent, and the shipment of arms and ammunition, should be placed on the same footing.

That it is very desirable to spread this wonderful perversion appears by the Times having inserted a letter from an unknown member of the Edinburgh University, which shows the danger to be apprehended at the Congress from Prince BISMARCK calling for these new burdens on neutrals, but does so only to argue that the way of escape is to "boldly and openly abandon a doctrine which is in conflict with the free spirit of our age and country," and "to revert to the principles of the common law of nations, and carry them out by declaring that freedom of trade shall extend to munitions of war, and that the neutral flag shall cover everything!" The Times has not yet had an article on the Congress, or even referred to it, except as news, but it inserts this letter from Edinburgh.

The Pall Mall Gazette, the only journal we believe that has yet ventured to deal with the Congress, concludes that England had much better abstain from attending it, as her representative will unquestionably be asked to give up the right of seizing enemies' goods at sea. To which remark we would add that, as unquestionably, if an English representative goes there, he will not go to say "No;" or even should he arrive at Brussels with the intention of saying that important little word, the faculty to do so will be taken from him, after having passed a certain number of hours in the place.

One of the means by which that result will be arrived at, will be Article VI. of the Washington Treaty.

*See Diplomatic Review for April and July, 1871; April, July, and October, 1872; and January, 1873.