(4) Their procedure is peculiar, taking the form rather of an enquiry by the government than of an ordinary trial between litigants.

(5) The State is responsible for their acts; and if they give unjust decisions, it is bound to grant satisfaction to the parties aggrieved, especially when they are neutral subjects.

D. The proposed Exemption of Private Property from Capture at Sea.

Great Britain is the only country that stands out strongly for the retention of the undoubted right to capture private property at sea in time of war. Other States desire its abolition. If we consider the question, we shall find that

(1) The arguments in favour of the change on general grounds are not conclusive.

The analogy of land warfare is deceptive: the plea of humanity will hardly bear examination; and the contention that, since the right of capturing enemy's property in neutral vessels has been surrendered, the proposed change would be but a small one, is a great exaggeration.

(2) Great Britain would act wisely if she acceded to the wishes of other nations in this matter.

Her trade is so vast, and so essential to her

existence, and the damage that could be done to it by one hostile cruiser is so enormous, that in spite of her maritime superiority she might be seriously injured even by a weak foe.

QUESTIONS.

1. Under what circumstances may enemy goods be captured on the High Seas?

2. Explain the nature and extent of the Right of Search.

3. What are Prize Courts? Over what classes of cases have they jurisdiction? Examine the pecularities of their procedure.

4. Discuss the proposal to exempt private property from belligerent capture at sea.

HINTS AS TO READING.

In Hall the last pages of Chapters III. and v. of Part III. should be read, and also Chapter X. of Part IV. In Wheaton Chapters I. and II. of Part IV. will still repay perusal, especially if it is possible to read with them Dana's notes. Halleck deals fully with our present subject in Chapters XXII., XXVII., XXXI., XXXII., and XXXV., as does Twiss in Vol. II. Chapter v. The letter on The Right of Search in the Letters of Historicus is an able exposition of undoubted law, and a trenchant exposure of popular fallacies. The seventh of Lawrence's Essays (second edition) discusses the proposal to exempt private property from capture at sea.

CHAPTER V.

THE AGENTS AND INSTRUMENTS OF WARFARE.

A. Agents.

The soldiers and sailors of the regular army and navy of the belligerents, including fully organised militia and reserves, are of course lawful agents of warfare. But doubts and disputes have arisen as to the employment of certain kinds of persons. Some of the most difficult and controverted points of modern International Law arise with regard to them. We will consider them under the heads of

(1) Guerilla Troops.

It is generally held that they are lawful combatants if they wear a distinctive badge, carry arms openly, observe the ordinary rules of war, and act under the orders of a person responsible for his subordinates.

(2) Levies en masse.

When the inhabitants of districts not occupied by an enemy rise in obedience to the orders of their government, and are armed and organised under its authority, there can be no doubt that they are lawful combatants. With regard to spontaneous risings on the approach of an invader there is more difficulty; but the better opinion is that they are legal if the armed populations respect the laws of war. It is certain, however, that an insur

rection of the inhabitants of occupied districts against an invader will not be regarded by him as a lawful act of war.

(3) Privateers.

Nearly all civilised States have formally given up the right to use them by signing the Declaration of Paris of 1856, which forbids them. The new device of a volunteer navy bears some resemblance to them, its legality depending upon the kind and degree of the control over the ships and crews exercised by the authorities of the State which employs them.

(4) Savage Troops.

The practice of employing them as allies and

auxiliaries is reprehensible, but it is hardly possible to call it illegal. If they are regularly embodied and drilled, and led by civilised officers, they can undoubtedly be used; and it is the custom in warfare with barbarous tribes to accept the aid of other barbarians organised and led in their own fashion.

(5) Spies.

They may be used by commanders, but if they are caught by the other side, the penalty is death.

With regard to most of the above cases, the resolutions of the Brussels Conference of 1874 afford valuable information.

B. Instruments.

We may discuss these under the following heads, bearing in mind that all means and instruments of destruction not expressly forbidden by International Law are allowed. It will not be necessary, therefore, to deal with any but the prohibited and doubtful cases. We may lay down that

(1) The poisoning of food and water likely to be used by the enemy is unlawful, as is also the use of poisoned weapons.

(2) Assassination is forbidden.

(3) The use of incendiary shells, and of explosive bullets below a certain weight, is regarded as unlawful; but there is some doubt with regard to red-hot shot.

(4) The loading of guns with scraps of iron, glass, and other kinds of rubbish, is condemned.

(5) The devastation of territory is sometimes lawful and sometimes unlawful.

Devastation by an enemy is lawful when immediate and overwhelming military necessity can be pleaded as a justification of it. Otherwise it is regarded as barbarous and illegal. But the devastation by a population of their own country, in order to check the advance of an invader, is an act of heroic self-sacrifice which the laws of war in no way forbid.

(6) Stratagems which violate the general