general to use Spies, or to tempt the enemy's soldiers to desert, they visit with immediate death any one found engaged in such attempts. But it is to be recollected that in War, the infliction of death is not a punishment, but a means to an end. A general must, from a regard to his own safety and success, make the task of spies and seducers as difficult and dangerous as possible.

1153. By the progress of the Laws of War, from their ancient to their modern forms, much has been done to make Warfare more humane, or, as it is termed, more civilized. In the middle ages, the practice was introduced of sparing the lives of conquered foes, and giving them their liberty, on the payment of ransom. In more recent times, when soldiers yield, they ask for quarter, and are made prisoners of war. Such prisoners are often exchanged between the two hostile parties by a cartel or agreement. And even before a prisoner of war is liberated or exchanged, he often has his liberty allowed him, on giving his parole, or word of honour, that he will not serve as a soldier till the War is ended.

1154. In War, as we have said, the destruction of men is used as means to an end; but every step, in the Laws of War, by which bloodshed and violence are, in their extent, limited to their end, the attainment of just terms of peace, is a gain to humanity. Hence it is to be desired that the Laws of War should condemn that wanton and aimless inhumanity which, as has been mentioned, is often perpetrated in hot blood on the storming of a fortress. It is therefore very satisfactory to find an eminent military writer* expressing an opinion, that the plunder of a town after an assault ought to be made criminal by the Articles of War.

1155. In the treatment of Non-combatants

*Napier, Hist. of the War in the Peninsula, Vol. vi., p. 215.

especially, the modern Laws of War are more humane than those of ancient times. When an enemy invades the territory of a hostile State, it strikes at the State, not at individuals. Its object may be to take permanent possession of the territory on the part of its own State; but at any rate, its operations suppress and exclude the authority of the hostile State; and thus do violence to it as a State. Hence, the invading army, so far as it succeeds, supersedes the higher functions of the State in the invaded country. It respects private property; but it assumes the right of taxation, and exercises it, as in a case of exigency, by levying a heavy Contribution. If the inhabitants pay this contribution, by the Laws of War they are not to be further molested; and are to be protected in the exercise of agriculture, trade, and art. In such cases, the usual Tribunals are, to some extent, superseded by Military Law; because, as we have said, the invading Army assumes the functions of the invaded State.

1156. In War, though Private Property is respected on Land, it is not spared at Sea. Merchantvessels and their freight, belonging to citizens of hostile States, become the prize of their captors. There is an evident reason for this difference of the Laws of War, on Land and on Sea; for a merchant's vessel at Sea is not under the protection of the State, in the same manner as his warehouse on land. To make prize of a merchant-ship, is an obvious way of showing that its own State is unable to protect it at sea; and thus, is a mode of attacking the State. It has sometimes been proposed that, in time of war, Private Property should be protected at sea, as well as on land; but there are great difficulties in carrying such a Rule into effect.* Conventions have, however, sometimes been made between nations to this effect.

al

Manning, Law of Nations, B. III., c. iv.

1157. On the other hand, States often grant to private persons, who are willing to fit out a ship at their own expense, letters of marque, authorising them to carry on warlike operations against the enemy. Such persons are called privateers. Such authority is sometimes given under the name of reprisals, as a means of obtaining redress for private wrongs. Such practices make a kind of partisan warfare at sea.

1158. In many other cases, as well as in that of merchants, the fortune of non-combatants is inextricably mixed up with that of the combatants; thus, when a town is besieged, the inhabitants necessarily suffer by the attempts which the besiegers make to overpower the garrison. And sometimes the greatest weight of the misery thus produced may fall upon the peaceable inhabitants; as for instance, when a town is reduced to yield by famine. The horror ex

cited by such cases has led to the suggestion that it should be one of the Laws of War that all non-combatants should be allowed to go out of a blockaded town; and that the general who should refuse to let them pass should be regarded in the same light as one who should murder his prisoners, or should be in the habit of butchering women and children.*

1159. In order that countries which are the seat of War may enjoy the advantage of the Laws of civilized warfare, it is necessary that they themselves should attend strictly to the distinction of Combatants and Non-combatants. If the inhabitants of the invaded country carry on what is called a guerilla or partisan warfare against the invaders; the inhabitants, individually, destroying them and their means of action, in any way that they can; such a country cannot be treated according to the more humane Laws of War; for the inhabitants themselves destroy the foundation of such Laws, the distinction of Combatants and Non-combatants. And this re*Arnold, Lectures on History, Lect. iv., p. 220.

striction need not interfere with the patriotic zeal which the inhabitants feel, to repel the invaders. For they may enlist in the organized army of their own country; and supply the Government with resources for its defence to the utmost of their power.

1160. It may be asked, whether, on these principles, the Laws of War allow the bombardment of an undefended town, or the laying waste a province with fire and sword. Such proceedings are condemned as odious by international jurists ;* who, however, do not venture to pronounce these violations of the Rights of War. It is evident that, like destroying ships, such acts show that the suffering State cannot defend its subjects. But they belong to a savage and cruel form of war, which all humane and civilized men must desire to see utterly abrogated.

1161. As War has its Laws, it has also its Formalities, which are requisite as a justification of warlike acts. It ought to be preceded by a Demand of Redress, and begun by a Declaration of War. This formality the Romans called Clarigatio. When a place is blockaded, neutral persons have no longer a Right to carry thither Munitions of War; and hence the Rights of Neutrals are affected by declaring a place in a State of Blockade. The Block

aders have a Right of Search, in order that they may ascertain whether the Blockade is violated. The Conflict of the Rights of Belligerents and of Neutrals, in this and the like cases, give rise to many questions of International Jus. Others arise from doubts, whether enemy's vessels captured were taken in time of War or not, and the like. For the decision of such questions, there have been established Courts, in which International Law is administered; Courts of Prize; Courts of Admiralty; Courts of Maritime Law.

1162. Having thus spoken of the Rights of War, I must now notice the International Rights which subsist during Peace. These I must enumerate very briefly, by the aid of well-esteemed writers on the subject for my object is only to give such a sketch as may show the place which International Jus occupies in a System of Morality.

I shall arrange the Rights of which I have to speak, as International Rights of Property, International Rights of Jurisdiction, International Rights of Intercourse.

CHAPTER III.

INTERNATIONAL RIGHTS OF PROPERTY.

1163. WE have already said (832) that every State has a Right to the National Territory. This is an International Right; and is absolutely and completely valid, as excluding Rights of other States. With regard to the citizens of the State itself, the Right to any part of the Territory is not simple ownership, but that permanent proprietorship which is called Dominium Eminens (144), by which the State prescribes the condition on which individuals are to hold and enjoy their possessions.

1164. Nations have come into possession of their present territories by the migrations of the various tribes of mankind (930); and by various other historical events, as conquests, colonies, and the like. Their present Rights rest upon these previous facts; and the fact of the national possession of any Territory, continued and unquestioned, of itself constitutes a Right of possession. Prescription, which is a mode