that for this purpose it is sufficient to disable the greatest possible number of men; that this object would be exceeded by the employment of arms which uselessly aggravate the sufferings of disabled men, or render their death inevitable; that the employment of such arms would, therefore, be contrary to the laws of humanity." The contracting parties thereupon "engage to renounce, in case of War among themselves, the employment by their military or naval troops of any projectile of a weight below 400 grammes, which is either explosive or charged with fulminating or inflammable substances."

The most ambitious effort which has been made in recent times to review and include in a general survey all

Society for Ameliorating the Condition of Prisoners of War.

the chief branches of the Laws of War was inaugurated in 1874 by the Society for the Amelioration of the Condition of Prisoners of War, and was greatly advanced by the proceedings of the Brussels Conference, convoked by the Emperor of Russia in the course of the same year. The Society owed its existence to the Universal Alliance Congress, which sat at Paris in June, 1872; and its scheme was mainly confined to carrying still further, in the interests of prisoners of War, the beneficent projects to which the Conventions of Geneva and St. Petersburg had already given substantial effect.

In the original circular letter addressed by the Comte de Hondetot, President of the Executive Committee of the Society, to Foreign Governments, soliciting them to send delegates to a Conference to be opened at Paris in May, 1874, it was said that "the disparity in the rules already existing relative to the treatment of soldiers who become prisoners of War, and the absence of any rule whatever in most countries, have suggested the formation of a Society, composed of members of various nationalities, with the view of moving the Governments to conclude an agreement upon a question so highly interesting to civilization and humanity."

Proposals
of Prince
Gortchakow.

This letter was dated March 28th, 1874; and on the 6th of April the Russian Government, in the person of Prince Gortchakow, sent a communication to the Foreign Governments, announcing the answer which it had already returned to the proposal of the Society, and further declaring that it had arrived at the intention of "laying before the cabinets a project for an International Code, with the object of determining the laws and usages of warfare." The words of Prince Gortchakow in this despatch are noticeable. He encloses the project therewith, and adds: “The motive by which it is inspired is one of humanity; which, we are convinced, will meet a general feeling, a general interest, and a general need. The more that solidarity becomes developed which tends in these times to bring together, to unite, nations as the members of one family, the more their military organization tends to give to their Wars the character of conflicts between armed nations; the more necessary does it become, therefore, to determine, with greater precision than in past times, the laws and usages admissible in a state of War, in order to limit the consequences and to diminish the calamities attendant upon it, so far as it may be possible and desirable. With this end in view, it seems indispensable to establish, by common accord, upon a basis of complete reciprocity, rules which may be made binding on all Governments and their armies. We believe this to be both the duty and the interest of every State. The project which we submit to the examination of the cabinets is only a starting-point for ulterior deliberations, which we trust will prepare the way for a general understanding. To this end, we are of opinion that a Conference of special Plenipotentiaries might be convoked to discuss these questions, and to decide upon a definite code, which might thenceforth be clothed with an international character."

Prince Gortchakow goes on to suggest the City of Brussels as particularly appropriate for such a Congress, and names the

The Brussels
Congress.

15th of July as a convenient date of meeting. The Congress met, accordingly, at Brussels in July, the English Government having specially guarded itself against doing more than "sending a military officer as delegate, who would not be invested with any plenipotentiary powers, and who would simply report the proceedings, reserving to Her Majesty's Government entire liberty of action in regard to them." Lord Derby, the British Foreign Secretary, had also expressly stipulated that such a delegate could only be sent upon his Government receiving from the Russian Government, as well as from the Governments of all the Powers invited to take part in the Conference, the most positive and distinct assurance that their delegates at the Conference should be instructed to confine themselves to the consideration of details of military operations, of the nature of those dealt with in the Project of the Russian Government, and should not entertain in any shape, directly or indirectly, anything relating to maritime operations or naval warfare."

Result of the Congress in modifying and codifying the Laws of War.

66

The results of the Congress are of the highest interest, though no actual convention has, as yet, resulted from them. The discussions between the representatives of the larger and of the smaller States served to bring to light many of the inherent, but scarcely suspected, obstacles to unanimity in the attempt to codify the Laws of War at the present time, and to expose in the clearest light some insuperable difficulties in the way of conciliating opposing interests, owing to the mere transitory influence of passions already excited by recent Wars. A careful review of the original text for the amendment of the Laws of War proposed by the Russian Government, of the text as finally "modified by the Conference," and of the arguments, or almost desultory conversations, in which the different representatives expressed their views on every part of the scheme, will be found to afford the best attainable instruction on the whole subject of

the Laws of War, as applicable, and in fact applied, to the present circumstances of European States. The text, as modified by the Conference, embodies in clear and legal, though not technical, language all the best recognized, as well as all the unwritten, rules and usages relating to the conduct of land warfare.

In two clauses it summarily includes all the regulations of the Conventions of Geneva and St. Petersburg. It further reduces to precise expression the least vague and uncertain of the rules of practice which the more modern requirements of War had already suggested and partially enforced. The distinction between combatants and non-combatants, the treatment by an invading army of invaded territory and of its inhabitants, the conduct of sieges and bombardments, and, according to the original purport of the whole movement, the situation of prisoners of War, form a series of topics, each of which is handled with minuteness, but not prolixity. Taken together, they present a code which, whatever its legally binding force, cannot be henceforth left out of account in any attempt to ascertain the actual customs and usages, as well as the moral sentiments, of many of the most enlightened Governments of the world at the present time. Specimens of the enactments of this code are given at a later page.

Unwillingness of England to co-operate in

gress.

Two deductions from the value of this code have to be made. One is, the persistent reluctance of England, in the interests, as asserted by the Foreign Secretary, Lord a second Con- Derby, of all the smaller States, and of England itself, to assent to the renewal of the Conference in the following year (1875), for the purpose of giving more cogent effect to its recommendations. Lord Derby went so far as to say that "the result of the Brussels Conference had been to prove that it was not possible to create an understanding with respect to the really important articles of the Russian project; that the interests of the invading and of the invaded State are irreconcilable; and that, even could certain Laws of War be

The work of the Congress incomplete.

published in terms which admitted of general adhesion, they would only exercise in fact that fictitious influence which the Russian Government had protested against at the opening of the Conference. In these circumstances Her Majesty's Government could not consent to pursue the matter, nor to take any part in further negotiations or Conferences on the subject." The second deduction from the value of the results of the Congress, is the glaring imperfection of those results in some important respects. This is manifested, for instance, in the total omission from the modified text of the subject of reprisals, which was a prominent topic of the original scheme, and was discussed at the sittings Topic of repriof the Congress. This omission seems to have sals omitted. been owing to the strong feelings, not yet abated, which had been aroused in the late Franco-German War. The language in which Baron Jomini, the Russian delegate, expressed his regret for the total omission of the topic is interesting, as pointing out the expectations and conceptions which the Russian Government, at all events, professed to have entertained:

66

I regret that the uncertainty of silence is to prevail with respect to one of the most bitter necessities of War. If the practice could be suppressed by this reticence, I could but approve of this course. But if it is still to exist, this reticence may, it is to be feared, remove any limits to its exercise. Nevertheless, I believe that the mere mention in the protocol that the committee, after having endeavored to regulate, to soften, and to restrain reprisals, has shrunk from the task before the general repugnance felt with regard to the subject, will have a most serious moral bearing. It will, perhaps, be the best limitation we have been able to affix to the practice, and especially to the use which may be made of it in future."

Without considering too minutely the motives of the various States which took part in this celebrated Congress, or weighing the amount of the separate interests they may be presumed to