AsIsay，theonetenableargumentagainsttheirrestorationwasthegreater
conveniencetothecivilisedworldoftheirbeingleftinParis;butinan
ageofrailwaystheirdistanceinItalyisnoappreciableinconvenience，
andtheManualspublishedrecentlybycivilisedstatesgenerallycondemn
thecaptureofworksofart。OurownManualsaysthattheseizureofscientific
objectsandworksofartcanonlybejustifiedasameasureofretaliation。
HereImayobservethatanactattributabletoaBritishcommanderofBritish
troops，whichisalmostuniversallycondemnedinthenumerousAmericanworks
onInternationalLaw，canalwaysbejustifiedinthesameway。Undoubtedly，
atfirstsight，thedestructionoftheCapitolatWashingtonin1814isnot
anactofwhichanEnglishmancanbeproud;butonexaminingthehistory
ofthatwar，itwillappearthattheBritishtroopsinWashingtonhadbeen
firedatfromthearsenal;andthatalso，ashorttimebefore，thechief
cityofLowerCanada，thencalledYork，hadbeenburntwithallitspublic
buildingsbytheAmericantroopswhooccupiedit。Hencethisact，whichat
firstsightdeservesunqualifiedcondemnation，maybetoacertainextentjustifiedasameasureofreprisal。Inallmodernbooksonthissubjectthereismoreorlessdistinctcondemnation
ofunauthorizedpillagebythesoldiersofaninvadingarmy;yetthereis，
unfortunately，nodoubtthatinallwarspillagedoescontinue，andespecially
ineverylandwar。Thereisaveryoldassociationbetweenwarandpillage，
andpillageisgenerallyveryeasy。Agreatdealofit，thoughnotofthe
worstkind，unquestionablytookplacewhentheGermansoccupiedlargeportions
ofFrance。TheEnglishinSpainabstainedfromitsofarastheordersof
Wellingtoncompelledthemtodoso。Heinfactsometimesemployedtheseverest
punishmentsforthepurposeofdeterringhistroopsfromplunder;however，
hewasoperatinginafriendlycountry，andwouldhavesufferedseriousdamage
byitsbeingconvertedtounfriendliness。Acommandermay，however，authorise
pillage;butastoauthorisedpillagethereisoneconsiderablemitigation。
MovablepropertycapturedaccordingtotheRomanprinciple，whichInternational
Lawinherited，isresnulls;andithasbeenseveraltimesobserved，bymyself
amongothers，thatinthechangeofEuropefromRomantoFeudalprinciples
resnulliusappearedtohavebecomevestedinthesovereign，andveryoften
inthelordofthemanorinwhichtheywerefound，andlostthereforetheir
oldRomancharacter。Theprincipleobtainsinauthorisedpillage。Itbecomes
technicallythepropertyoftheCrown;itiscollectedtogether，andthen
equitablydividedamongtheconqueringtroopsasbooty。Itisalsotobe
notedthatmodernusageauthorisesrequisitionsandforcedmilitarycontributions，
and，onthewhole，thepresenttheoryisthatthesemilitarycontributionsandrequisitionshavesupersededalltheolderformsofcapture。Requisitionsmaybemadeinthreeways。First，theinhabitantsmaybe
requiredtoprovidesupplieswithoutpayment;secondly，theymayberequired
toprovidesuppliesatamoderatecost，withoutregardbeinghadtotheincreased
valueaccruingfromthepresenceofthearmy;thirdly，theymayberequired
toprovidethesuppliesonpaymentofsuchpriceastheydemand。Whichof
thesethreewaysistobeadopted，isinthediscretionoftheGeneral。Wellington
disapprovedofforcedrequisitionswhenevertheycouldbeavoided;andwhen
heenteredFrancehesenttheSpaniardsbackratherthanbecompelledto
resorttorequisitionforthepurposeofsupportinghisarmy。BoththeGermans
andtheFrenchhaveconstantlyexercisedtheright;andundoubtedlythestrict
ruleadmittedbythecustomsofwaristhatwarmaybemadetosupplyitself。
Thesameprinciplesapplytocontributionsofmoneyleviedonatownoron
awholecommunity。Asanarrangementsuchalevyisjust，asameansofmaintaining
anbrinyitislawful，andpossiblyinsomecasesitismoreequitablethan
requisition。Thequestionis，whetheritisexpedient。Itwillbeverygenerally
rememberedthatatthecloseoftheFranco—Germanwaranenormousrequisition
wasexactedfromtheFrench。TheGermanpolicywas，undoubtedly，sotocripple
Francethatitshouldbeincapableoffurtherattackonitsneighbours。But
themoneyrequisitionedforthepaymentwasraisedbyloanswithsurprising
facility，anditisdoubtfulwhethertheenormousincreaseoftheFrench
NationalDebt——nowthelargestintheworldwhichitentailedhasseriouslyaffectedthefeelingoftheFrenchpeopletowardsthosewhoinvadedthem。Thissubjectofforeignloansbringsmetoaquestionwhichhasexcited
perhapsmoreinterestthanallothermodesofimpoverishinganenemybycapture，
andoneevenmoreimportantthanwasatfirstsupposed。Canasovereignconfiscate
debts？Canhecompelhisownsubjects，oranycommunityoverwhomhehas
militarypowers，topaytohimdebtswhichtheyowetotheenemy;thatis，
tothehostilesovereignorhissubjects？Thequestionhasiconmuchconsidered
bytwohighauthorities——theSupremeCourtoftheUnitedStates，andthe
famousAmericanjuristChancellorKent。TheSupremeCourthassolemnlydecided
thatinstrictlawtherighttoconfiscatedebtsstillexistsasasettled
andundoubtedrightofwar，recognizedbytheLawofNations，buttheCourt
atthesametimeadmittedittobetheuniversalpracticeatpresenttoforbear
toseizeandconfiscatedebtsandcreditseveninacountryontheopening
ofawar。TheCourtwouldnotconfiscateanydebtwithoutanactofthelegislative
powerdeclaringitswillthatsuchpropertyshouldbecondemned。Aftera
fullexaminationofalltheauthoritiesanddecisionsonthisquestion，Chancellor
Kentsays：’Wemay，therefore，layitdownasaprincipleofpubliclaw，
sofarasthesameisunderstoodanddeclaredbythehighestjudicialauthorities
inthiscountry，thatitrestsinthediscretionofthelegislatureofthe
Unionbyaspeciallawforthatpurpose，toconfiscatedebtscontractedby
ourcitizensandduetotheenemy;’butitisassertedbythesameauthority：
’Thisrightiscontrarytouniversalpractice，andthereforeitmaywell
beconsideredasanakedandimpoliticright，condemnedbytheenlightened
conscienceandjudgmentofmodernlimes。’[Kent，Comm。i，64]Inthemodern
instancesinwhichtherighthasbeenexercised，itisworthobservingthat
thequestionofbelligerentrightwasmixedupwiththequestionofallegiance。
Forexample，privatedebtswereconfiscatedasagainsttheSouthernStates
bytheNorthernStatesinthewar，andbytheSouthernasagainsttheNorthern。
AndthesameprinciplehasafewtimesbeenappliedinIndiainacasewheretheenemywasalsoarebel。Butthebranchofthisquestionwhichhasnowbeenconsideredformore
thanonehundredyearsislessgeneralthanthatwhichIhaveput;itis，
canacity，canasovereign，confiscatedebtsduefromitselforhimself
toenemies？ThisisthepointraisedinthefamouscaseoftheSilesianloan。
Thehistoryofitisasfollows：Aloanof80，000l。hadbeenadvancedby
subjectsofGreatBritaintotheEmperorCharlesVI。Onthesecurityofthe
DuchyofSilesia。Silesia，incourseoftime，wastransferredtoPrussia
byvirtueoftheTreatiesofBreslauandDresden，andinconsiderationof
thiscessionPrussiawastodischargethedebt。ThelyingofPrussia，however，
attached，i。e。tookintohisownhands，thedebtbywayofreprisals，but
thisbythetermsofthetreatyhehadnopowertodo。Heprofessedhimself
tobeaggrievedbythedecisionofcertainEnglishprizecourtsinrespect
ofactsofvesselsbelongingtohissubjects，andrefusedtopaytheBritish
subjectstheinterestwhichhehadpledgedhimselftopay。TheEnglishSecretary
ofStateatonceaddressedtohim，forPrussiawasafriendlyPoweratthe
time，aletterdatedFebruary8，1753，inwhichhedwellsupontheunprecedented
natureoftheproceeding，andstatesthathehastheKing’sorderstosend
totheKingofPrussiaareportmadetohisMajestybySirGeorgeLee，Judge
ofthePrerogativeCourt;Dr。Paul，hisMajesty’sAdvocate—General;SirDudley
Ryder，andMr。Murray——theMr。MurraywhoafterwardsbecameLordMansfield。
ThereportinquestionisoneofwhichBritishlawyersandtheBritishForeign
Officehavealwaysbeenexceedinglyproud。Itispraisedbytwogreatforeign
authoritiesofthetime——VattelandMontesquieu;theybothofthemspeak
ofitasadmirable;itis，infact，amostexcellentexampleofthemethod
ofreasoningofwhichInternationalLawadmits;andintheendtheKingof
Prussiagavewaytoitsarguments，andtheinterestontheSilesianloan
waseverafterwardspunctuallypaid。ThepointwhichIhavebeendescribing，
isnotstrictlyraisedbythefacts，asMr。W。E。Hallobservesinhisbook;
buttheopinionofthelawofficersgoesintomanyquestionsbesidesthe
mainquestionsubmittedtothem，andamongthesethetrivialquestionwhether
asovereigncanconfiscatedebtsduetohimself，andarguesagainstit。Ever
since，ithasbeenheldthatnosovereigncanunderthesecircumstancesrefuse
topaytheinterestonaloanwhichhehascontractedbecausetherecipients
oftheinterestareforthemomenthisenemies。Thedangerintroducedby
thePrussianpretensionwasagreatone。Perhapswedonotalwaysnotice
sufficientlytheextenttowhichBritishfinancialandeconomicalinterests
areboundupwiththesanctityofforeignloans。Fromthetimeatwhichthis
countrybegantogrowrichtillitbecametherichestinEurope，thedifficulty
offindinginvestmentforBritishsavingswasveryseriouslyfelt。InStuart
timesthesurpluswealthwhichwasnotexpendedinland，orembarkeddirectly
intradeormanufacture，whichwerestillintheirinfancy，waslentonpersonal
orlandedsecurities。Thereareplentyofallusionsinthedramaticliterature
oftheseventeenthcenturywhichmightbeproducedinproofofthis。Itwas
scarcityofpublicinvestmentswhichledtotheviolentstrugglebetween
thetwocompaniesformedfortradingwithIndiawhichwereafterwardsfused
intothegreatEastIndiaCompany，andalsotothehotcontestaboutthe
foundationoftheBankofEngland。Inanotherwaythisscarcityledtothe
enthusiasmformerespeculativeundertakings，or，astheywerethencalled，
forBubbles，suchastheSouthSeaandDarienCompanies。Duringtheeighteenth
centuryBritishsavingswereinvestedinforeignloanswherevertheycould
befound，asthiscaseoftheSilesianloanshows，andprobablyagooddeal
ofBritishwealthwasembarkedintheconstantloansraisedbytheKingof
France，whohowever，wasatalltimesaveryunpunctualdebtor。Butthefavourite
fields，nodoubt，duringthatcenturyforBritishinvestmentwerethetropical
colonieswhichweregraduallyacquiredintheWestIndiesandmoresoutherly
partsofNorthAmerica。Attheendofthatcenturyandinthebeginningof
thepresenttheEnglishNationalDebtgrewtosuchproportionsastoswallow
upallotherfickleofinvestment;butatthecloseofthegreatwarloans
toforeignstatesbecamecommoner，andmuchBritishwealthwasdrawntothem。
Inearlydaystheyhadtoencountermanydangers。ThevariousAmericanStates
hadborrowedlargely，butalsorepudiatedlargelytheirliabilityontechnical
grounds。Butifasovereigncouldhavegotridofindebtednessbygoingto
warwiththecountryinwhichhehadmostcreditors，theriskwouldhave
beensogreatthatprobablyfewornoforeignloanscouldhavebeennegotiated，
andtheeconomichistoryofEnglandandEuropewouldhavebeenquitedifferent。
Themethodofdistributingthesurpluscapitaloftherichestcountries，
towhichthecivilisedworldisgreatlyindebted，owesitsexistencetothis
reportoftheEnglishlawofficersinthisdeservedlyfamouscaseofthe
Silesianloan。
LECTUREXII。
PROPOSALSTOABATEWARTothislastlectureofthepresentcourse，itseemstomedesirablethat
Ishouldbrieflynoticesomeassertionsorsuggestions，notuncommonlyheard
inthepresentday，thatthegreatevilsofwarmightbeabatedbytheadoption
ofprinciplesofactionnotnecessarilyidenticalwiththosewhichhavebeen
discussedinpreviouslectures。Ipassovergeneralstatementswhichseem
tometobemerecalumnies，suchasthechargeagainstinfluentialmilitary
men，thatineverysocietytheydotheirutmosttoencouragethespiritof
belligerency。Thosewhohavehadtheprivilegeofacquaintancewithfamous
soldierswillbearmeoutinsayingthat，whilethereisnoclassofmen
morehumane，thereisnonedistinguishedbyadeeperdislikeorhatredof
war，howevertheymaybelieveittobeinevitable。Butanotherassertion
frequentlymadeismuchmorerespectable，andcontainsalargerproportion
oftruth。War，itissaid，isirreconcilablewithChristianbeliefandChristian
practice。Ifmenacteduptothestandardsofconductwhichgreatnumbers
ofthemtheoreticallyaccept，therewouldbefewwarsornone。Thishaslong
beenthedoctrineofasectwhosevariousservicestohumanityIhavealready
gratefullycommemorated——theQuakers;andalsoofanobscurercommunity，
theMennonites。Itwillbeevident，Ithink，toeverybodywhobestowssome
carefulthoughtonthesubject，thattherewouldbegreatdifficultyinadapting
asystemwhichprofessestoregulatetherelationsofindividualmenwith
oneanother，totherelationsofgroupsofmen，ofstates;andinpointof
facttheQuakershavenotalwaysbeenquiteconsistentintheapplication
oftheirprinciple。TheQuakersofthecolonyofPennsylvaniawereinthe
AmericanWarofIndependencestrongpartisansofthecolonialcause;and
BenjaminFranklinhasleftussomecuriousstoriesofthefictionsbywhich
thePennsylvanianQuakersreconciledtheirconscientiousobjectionstowar
withtheirkeendesiretoassistthecolonialtroops。Butitisproperto
observethatthisopinionoftheunlawfulnessofwarhas，inthecourseof
ecclesiasticalhistory，seemedseveraltimeslikelytobecometheopinion
ofthewholeChristianChurch，orofalargeportionofit。Wehavemost
ofusbeentaughttobelieve，ontheauthorityofawell—knownpassagein
Tertullian，thattheRomanImperialarmieswerefullofChristiansoldiers;
butthepassageisinconsistentwithothersinthesamewriter;andIhave
seenalongcatenaofextractsfrompatristicauthorities，extendingfrom
JustinMartyrtoJeromeandCyril，inwhichtheinconsistencyofthemilitary
professionwithChristianbeliefismaintained。Infact，thisbecameone
ofthemainpointsofcontentionbetweenChristiansandpagans。Thecontention
ofCelsus，thattheChristiansrefusetobeararmsevenincasesofnecessity，
ismetbyOrigenwiththeadmissionthatthefactisso，butwiththeargument
thattheChristiansdonotgooncampaignswiththeEmperorbecausethey
servehimwiththeirprayers。Iftheseopinionsdidnotbecomethoseofthe
wholeChurch，thecausemustprobablybesoughtinthecourseofhistorical
events，fortheinvadingTeutonictribeswhospreadovertheEmpirecould
notbeuntaughttheartandpracticeoffighting，evenwhentheyaccepted
someformofChristianity。Passingoveralongspaceoftimetothebeginning
ofthemodernhistoryofChristianity，itseemednotimprobablethatthe
unlawfulnessofwarwouldbecomeadoctrineofalltheProtestantsects;
amongtheologiansnotquiteestrangedfromCatholicity，thegreatErasmus
wroteasstronglyofthewickednessofwarasanyQuakerofourdaycould
do，andSirThomasMorechargedLutherandhisfollowerswithwishingto
deprivesovereignsoftheirauthoritybydenyingtothemthepowerofresistance。
Ontheotherhand，thewritersdealtwithintheforegoinglectures，the
foundersofInternationalLaw，didnotadopttheopinionoftheLawfulness
ofwar，thoughtheywerenearlyallProtestants。Grotiusarguesvehemently
againstit，chieflyonScripturalgrounds。Itakethefacttobethathe
andhisimmediatefollowersconceivedthebodyofruleswhichtheybelieved
themselvestohaverescuedfromneglecttobemoreserviceableforthepurpose
ofregulatingtheconcernsofnationsinwarandpeace，thananysystemwhich
pretendedtoadirectdescentfromChristianrecordsorChristiantradition。
TheLawofNaturewhichtheyspokeof，andapparentlybelievedin，withas
littlehesitationasiftheywerethinkingoftheEnglishCommonLaw，has
notstoodagainsttheassaultsofmoderncriticism，andspeciallynotagainst
theinferencessuggestedbythemodernstudyofprimitivemankind。Butit
didprovepossibletoapplytherulesassociatedwithittohumansocieties
inpeaceandwar;whereas，thoughageneralbeliefthatwarDivasunrighteous
wouldassuredlyhavehadimportanteffects，nobodycansayconfidentlywhat
thoseeffectswouldhavebeen，orcanassertthattheywouldhaveincludedtheextensionandstabilityofpeace。Anothersweepingproposalforthevirtualabolitionofwar，oneofavery
differentorder，however，fromthatjustconsideredbyme，musthavecome
underthenoticeofmostofus。Itissaidthatthereisalwaysanalternative
toacontestinarms。Nationsfightbecausetheycannotgotolaw。Theold
ideathatthedisputesofstatesarereferredbywartoasupernaturalarbitrament
isnowabandoned;butthoughthereisnointernationaltribunalwhichcan
entertainasofrightthecontroversiesofnations，thereisasubstitute
foritininternationalarbitration。Let，therefore，everydisputebereferred
toanarbitratorortoabodyofarbitrators，andletcivilisedcommunities
defertotheawardwithnomoredemurthantheyexhibitinsubmittingto
thedecisionofacourtofjustice。Abeliefinthisremedyforwarisbeing
widelyextendedinourday。Itisheldbypersonsworthyofailrespectand
promotedbypowerfulvoluntaryassociations。Ishouldbethelastperson
todenythatarbitrationininternationalaffairshasoftenbeenveryhappily
applied。Nationsveryoften，likemen，adheretotheirviewofdisputedpoints
morefromprideofopinionthanfromanyrealinterestinit。Someofthese
disputes，again，turnonquestionsoffact，whichhavenotbeensolvedbecause
theyhavenotbeenproperlyinvestigated，butwhichareeasilydisposedofwhenthuslookedintobyfreshanddisc。passionateminds。Butbeforethisoranyothercountrycommitsitselftoarbitrationas
auniversalremedyforwar，oneortwoofitsdefectsoughttobespecially
noticed。Inthefirstplace，thougharbitrationinindividualdisputesis
wellknownandfrequentlytried。itisveryunlikethearbitrationproposed
byitsadvocatesforinternationaldifferences。Thearbitrationwithwhich
alllawyersarefamiliar，ismerelyadisplacementofthestructureofan
ordinarycourtofjustice。Thepartiesagreetoreferallorpartofthe
mattersindisputebetweenthemtothedecisionofanarbitrator，whotakes
theplaceofthejudgeorofthejudgeandajury，andtheyatthesametime
agreethathisdecision，unlessimpeachableoncertaingroundsoflaw，shall
beenforcedbythecourtaswouldbeitsowndecree。Itisaveryconvenient
coursewhenthequestionsoffacttobeadjudicateduponarenumerousand
complicated，andtheprincipalobjectiontoitisthatitisapttobevery
expensive。WhatIwishtopointoutisthatarbitrationasinusebetween
individualsinEnglanddoesnotexcludetheonegreatfeatureofacourt
ofjustice，theforcewhichunderliesitsoperations。Thereare，nodoubt，
arbitrationswhichcomenearerthearbitrationscontemplatedbytheenthusiasts
foruniversalarbitrationsbetweendisputantsovereigns。Askilfulmanof
businessinBritishcommercialcities，aneminentspecialistinthepractical
applicationsofscience，willsometimesobtainasortofcelebrityforjust
andwiseadjudication，andnothingliketheprocessofacourtisfoundnecessary
tosecureobediencetohisaward。Itis，however，manycenturiessincesuch
authoritywasattributedtoanymanorclassininternationalmatters;the
currentofopinioninourdayrunsdistinctlyagainsttheassumptionthat
anyexceptionalknowledgeisnecessaryforthesolutionofgreatpolitical
andinternationalquestions，andthereforethearbitrationofwhichwehear
somuchwouldinthelongrun，andiftriedonagreatscale，provetohave
thedefectswhichwouldsoonshowthemselvesinacourtofjusticewhichtheStatehadfailedtoinvestwithirresistiblecoercivepower。Thewantofcoercivepoweris，infact，theoneimportantdrawbackwhich
attendsallattemptstoimproveInternationalLawbycontrivancesimitated
fromtheinternaleconomyofstates，bysomethinglikelegislation，andby
somethingliketheadministrationoflawbyorganisedtribunals。Still，nobody
whounderstandsthesubject，andhasobservedthecourseofevents，will
denyacertainmeasureofsuccesstointernationalarbitrations，andthere
ismuchreasontowishthemanextendedsphere。Buttherearesomepractical
defectsinthem，astheystand，whichshouldbeobservedupon，becausethey
maypossiblyadmitofbeingremedied。ItiswellknowntoEnglishpracticing
lawyersthatacertainclassoflitigantsare，sotoputit，unpopularin
Englishcourts，sothatthereisconsiderabledifficultyinobtainingfor
themafullmeasureofjustice。Amongthese，togiveinstances，areinsurance
companies，andtosomeextentrailwaycompanies。Inthesamewaytherearestatesbringing
theircontroversiesbeforebodiesofinternationalarbitratorswhoarein
thesamesenseunpopularlitigants;and，ifinquirywerepracticable，Ishould
notbesurprisedtofindthat，intheopinionofEnglishdiplomatistsand
statesmeninchargeofourforeignaffairs，ourowncountryisnotaPopular
litigantinarbitrations。Thetruthisourcountryisthoughttobevery
wealthy，andtobeabletobeartheburdenofamoneyawardagainstitbetter
thananyothercommunity。Itisbelievedtobecomparativelycarelessof
itsforeignpolicy，andnottoshowmuchsensitivenessunderajudicialrebuff。
Lastly，thereisageneralimpressionthatithassocontriveditsinternational
relationsastoescapefromitsfairshareoftheanxietiesandsufferings
whichfalluponotherstatesthroughwar，apprehensionofwar，andpreparationforwar。Again，itisnot，Ithink，tobedeniedthatthecompositionofcourts
（ifImayforthemomentsostylethem）ofinternationalarbitrationisnot
altogethersatisfactory。Anindispensableelementinitisoneormoreof
theclassoflawyerswhoarecommonlycalledjuristsButthiswordhasmuch
changeditsmeaning。Aslatelyasthelastcenturytherewasaclassoflawyers
bearingthistitlewhohadmadeaspecialstudyofInternationalLaw，and
whosecollectiveopinionhadseriousinfluenceonthedevelopmentofthe
system。ButinEnglandtheEcclesiasticalandAdmiraltyCourtshavebeen
transformed，andthespecialclassoflawyerstrainedinRomanCivilLaw
whopracticedinthosecourtshaseitherdisappearedorisonthepointof
disappearing。Nobodycanquitesayatpresentwhatajuristis。Theword
isusedinanumberofnewsenses;andinpointoffactmostfamousforeign
writersonInternationalLawaresalariedfunctionariesofforeignchanceries，
norcananyreaderofverymoderntreatisesonthesubjectfailtoseethat
manyofthen1arestronglyaffectedbytheofficialconnectionofthewriter
withhisGovernment，andbyhisknowledgeoftheinterestwhichhesupposes
thatGovernmenttohaveintheestablishment，maintenance，ordevelopment
ofparticularfeaturesoftheinternationalsystem。Thislast—mentioneddrawback
ontheusefulnessofinternationalquasi—courtsofarbitration，thatinour
daytheyarenotalwayssatisfactorilyconstituted，iscloselyconnected
withonegeneraldefectwhichatpresentcharacterizesthem——theydonot
exerciseanycontinuousjurisdiction，theyarealwaysformedforthesingle
occasion。Itisquiteuncertainwhatweightistobeattachedtotheaward
ofinternationalarbitratorsasaprecedent。ThemodeinwhichInternational
LawmakesprogressindefaultofaregularLegislatureisaveryimportant
subject，whichIhavenotbeenabletotakeupinamannerworthyofitin
thepresentcourseoflectures，butwhichIhopetoenteruponatsomefuture
time。Thereis，however，nodoubtthataquasi—judicialaward，givenona
seriousoccasion，andacquiescedinbypowerfulnationswhowereparties
tothelitigation，deeplyandpermanentlyaffectsthelaw。Butquasi—courts
ofarbitrators，constitutedadhoc，ofnecessityattendsimplytothequestion
inimmediatedispute，anddonotweightheopiniontheygiveregardedas
aprecedent。Theycannotlookbeforeandafter——totheentirehistoryof
theLawofNations。Thisresultoftheirdefectivestructureisparticularly
conspicuousandparticularlydangerousinwhatwasperhapsthegreatestof
allarbitrations，thatwhichsettledthedifferencewhichhadarisenbetween
GreatBritainandtheUnitedStatesastoliabilityforthedepredations
ofSouthernConfederatecruisersonNorthernAmericanshipping。Ihavenothing
tosayagainstthevalueoftheGenevaarbitrationinregardtotheparticular
occasiononwhichitwasresortedto。Itputanendtoanumberofbitterly
disputedquestionswhichhadaccumulatedduringtheWarofSecession，and
whichmighthavesmoulderedonforyears，tothegreatdangerofthewhole
civilisedworld。ButtheserviceablenessoftheGenevaawardinitseffects
onInternationalLawismuchmorequestionable。Evenattheoutset，thedisputants
arefoundarguingthatthearbitratorsshouldhaveregardtoprincipleswhich
oneofthemdidnotadmittobeincludedinInternationalLaw。GreatBritain
protestsagainstthisprinciple，butneverthelessallowsthearbitration
toproceed。Wemay，however，bequitesurethatifananalogousdisputeshould
hereafteroccur，thisprinciplewillbeurgedbyanyPowerwhichhasaninterest
ininsistinguponit，andunderanycircumstancesagraveuncertaintyis
introducedintoInternationalLaw。ButtheGenevadecision，regardedasan
internationalprecedent，isopentomuchmoreseriousobjectionthanthis。
Asiswellknown，GreatBritainduringtheConfederateWarwasaneutral，
andshewascondemnedbythearbitratorstopayveryheavydamagesaspunishment
forbreachesofherdutyasaneutral。Shewaspenallydealtwithforanumber
ofactsandomissions，eachinitselfinnocent。Shehadastandardofdue
diligenceappliedtoherneglectswhichwasnewandextremelysevere。And
generallyshehadaruleofneutraldutyappliedtoherwhich，ifithas
beenreallyengraftedontheLawofNations，haschangedthatlawmaterially
fortheworse。Butiftherebeonethingmorethananotherwhichatruecourt
ofinternationaljusticemightbedesiredtokeepinviewinitsdecisions，
itistheirfutureeffectontherightsofneutrals。Nothingtendstoenlarge
theareaofmaritimewarssomuchastheneglectoftheserights。Nothing
tendssomuchtomakewarintolerablyoppressiveasanyrulewhichhelps，
beyondwhatisabsolutelynecessary，toinvadetheprinciplethatneutral
statesaremerelystateswhichhavekeptoutofacalamitywhichhasfallen
onothers，andwhichmerelydesiretofollowtheirownbusinessintheir
ownway。Fromthispointofview，theresultoftheGenevaarbitrationis
nothappy。Itturnsbackprotantothedriftoflegalopiniononneutral
fights，whichformanyyearshadbeensettinginanotherdirection。TheGeneva
arbitration，Irepeat，conferredgreatbenefitforthemomentonGreatBritain
andtheUnitedStates。But，lookedatasaprecedentlikelytoexerciseserious
influenceonthewholeLawofNations，Ifearitwasdangerous，aswellasreactionaryandretrogressive。IhavedweltonthisaspectoftheGenevaarbitrationbecauseitputs
inwhatappearstomeastrikinglightthedisadvantageswhichattendthese
expedientsforsettlinginternationaldisputes，throughtheirbeinginvariably
broughtintoactionmerelyadhoc。Atruecourtofquasi—justice，likea
courtofmunicipaljustice，wouldbesuretoconsidertheeffectofagiven
decisiononthewholebranchoflawwhichitadministers。Thedefect，however，
appearstometobeoneforwhichitwouldnotbealtogetherimpossibleto
findaremedy。Many，indeed，oftheinnovationswhichhavebeenproposed
forthecureofpalpableinfirmitiesintheapplicationofourInternational
Jurisprudencetofactsseemtohavebutsmallchanceofadoption，atany
rateinasocietyofnationslikethatinwhichwelive，throughthemagnitude
ofthesacrificeswhichtheywouldimposeonparticularcommunities。But
noappreciablesacrificewouldhavetobemadebythesingleorcorporate
sovereignsofthecivilisedworldiftheyweretoagreetoconstituteasingle
permanentcourt，orboard，orassemblageofarbitrators，whoshouldactas
refereesinanyquestionswhichanycommunityorcommunitiesshouldchoose
tosubmittothem。Suchacourtwouldnotbefreefromtheinfirmitywhich
afflictsallsuchadditionstotheinternationalsystem。Itwouldhaveno
forceatitsback。ButIthinkitwouldbebetterconstituted。Ithinkit
wouldbemorefreefromprejudice，andwouldsoonberecognisedasfreer，
thanthepresentoccasionaladjudicators。AndIthinkitcouldbebetter
trustedtoadjustitsawardstotheentirebodyofinternationalprinciples，
distinctions，andrules。SuchatribunalasIhavedescribed，acourt，board，
orcommissionofarbitrators，havingacertaindegreeofpermanence，might
havealltheadvantageswhichIhavedescribedforit——itmightbebetter
constitutedforitspurposethanarethebodieswhicharenowtrustedto
conductarbitrations，itsawardsmightbebetterconsideredwithregardto
theireffectontheentiretyoftheLawofNations，anditmightbeemployed
morefreelyasabodyofrefereesoncriticalquestionswhicharenowleft
tothemselvesforwantofanyauthoritytowhichtheirconsiderationmight
becommitted。Butstillitwouldnotbeatruecourtofjustice。Itwould
sharethecharacteristic，inmoderneyestheweakness，ofallInternational
Law，thatitcannotcommandtheassistanceofforce。Itsruleshavenosanction。
Itcannotpunishthebreachofitsrulesortheviolationofaninternational
duty。ItistruethatadefianceoftheLawofNationssometimesdrawsdown
upontheoffenderaveryserioussanction，thoughitisindirect。Fewsovereigns
orstatesremainunmovedbythedisapprobationwhichanopenbreachofinternational
obligationprovokesdisapprobationnowrapidlydiffusedoverthewholecivilised
worldbythetelegraphandthepress。Nothingcouldbemoresatisfactory
thantheoutburstofindignationwhichoccurredin1870，whentheRussian
GovernmenttookadvantageofthedifficultiesinwhichEuropewasplaced
bythewarbetweenGermanyandFrance，torepudiatetherestrictionsunder
whichRussialayinrespectofnavalactionintheBlackSeathroughthe
provisionsoftheTreatyofParis，restrictionswhich，itmustbeconfessed，
werenotwhollyreasonable。TheRussianGovernmenthadtoabandonitsposition;
andataConferenceoftherepresentativesofPowerswhohadbeensignatories
oftheTreatyofParis，itwasdeclaredthat’itisanessentialprinciple
oftheLawofNationsthatnoPowercanliberateitselffromtheengagement
ofatreaty，normodifythestipulationsthereof，unlesswiththeconsent
ofthecontractingPowersbymeansofanamicableengagement。’Itistrue
thatthisassertionofthevirtualperpetuityoftreaties（towhichanexception
mustbeintroduced，savebytheeffectofwar）containsaprinciplewhich
isnotwithoutadangerofitsown。Buttherecededprincipleisthatwhich
waslaiddownattheConference。Thetruthisthatanoffenderagainstthe
obligationsofInternationalLawisatpresentseriouslyweakenedbythe
disapprobationheincurs。NobodyknewthisbetterthanNapoleonBonaparte，
who，nextperhapstoFredericktheGreat，wasthemostperfidioussovereign
inmodernhistory，whenhepersistentlyendeavouredthroughhisofficialscribestofastenonthiscountrythenameof’perfidiousAlbion。’Butafterallqualificationshavebeenallowed，thedenialtoInternational
Lawofthatauxiliaryforcewhichiscommandedbyallmunicipallaw，and
byeverymunicipaltribunal，isamostlamentabledisadvantage。Thesystem
owestoiteverysortofinfirmity。Itsefficiencyanditsimprovementare
alikehindered。Andinthelastresort，whentwoormoredisputantPowers
havewroughtthemselvestosuchaheatofpassionthattheyaredetermined
tofight，therestofthecivilisedworld，thoughpersuadedthatthecontest
isunnecessaryandpersuadedthatitscontagionwillspread，has，inthe
presentstateofinternationalrelations，nopopoverofforbiddingorpunish
ingthearmedattacksofonestateonanother。Thegreatmajorityofthose
entitledtohaveanopinionmaycondemnthethreatenedwar，butthereis
noofficeroftheLawofNationstointerferewiththeheadlongcombatants。
Theamountofforcewhichisatthedisposalofwhatiscalledthecommonwealth
ofnationscollectivelyisimmenseandpracticallyirresistible，butitis
badlydistributedandnotwelldirected，anditistoooftenimpotent，notonlyforthepromotionofgood，butforthepreventionofacknowledgedevil。Aboutsixmonthsago，whenanAssociationwhichhasbeenformedforthe
codificationoftheLawofNations（whichImaydescribeparenthetically
asmostexcellentundertaking）washoldingitsmeetings，thesubjectattracted
considerable，thoughonlymomentary，attention。AneminentFrencheconomist，
M。deMolinari，publishedaproposalforwhathecalledaLeagueofNeutral
Powers。Themajorityofcivilisedstatesarealwaysneutral，thoughtheneutrals
arenotalwaysthesame。Iftheneutralscombinetheyareirresistible，partly
fromtheirstrengthandpartlyfromtheirpowertomakeoneoftwobelligerent
Powersirresistiblebyjoiningitsside。M。deMolinari’ssuggestionwas
thatitshouldbeoneofthedutiesofneutralitytothwartthespiritof
belligerency，tomakeitarulethattheoutbreakofhostilitybetweenany
twoPowersshouldbeacasusbelliasregardstherest，andtoembodythese
arrangementsinthestipulationsofatreaty。Itisimpossibletodenythat
ifsuchacombinationofneutralPowerscouldbeeffectedunderthesuggested
conditionsitwouldbeamosteffectualsafeguardagainstwar，andthisis
initselfanamplejustificationforstartingtheproposal。Buttheobjections
toitareplain，andwereatonceadvanced。Ifcarriedintoeffect，itmight
diminishthechancesofwar;butittakesforgrantedthatthemechanism
ofwarwillremainunimpaired。Ifneutralsaretobeequaltotheirnewduties，
theymustmaintaingreatarmiesandnaviesonthemodernscale，ortheymay
notbeabletocopewiththecontemplatedemergency。Thus，thoughtherisk
ofwarmightbelessened，theburdenofwarwouldatbestremainthesame;
therewouldbethesamevastunproductiveexpenditure，thesameruinousdisplacement
ofindustryOneresultoftheschememight，infact，defeatanother。Itis
notaltogethertrueincivilaffairsthatthestrongmanarmedkeepshis
houseinpeace。Thefactthathewearsfullarmourissometimesasourceofquarrelsomeness，andatemptationtoattackhisneighbours。TheschemeofH。deMolinarifailedtocommandtheattentionandinterest
whichwereessentialtoitsseriousconsideration，becauseitwastoolarge
andambitious。Itwasneverthelessfounded，asitappearstome，onacorrect
principle，that，ifwarisevertobearrested，itwillbearrestedbysacrifices
onthepartofthosestateswhichareneitheratwarnordesiretogoto
war。Thereisaveryancientexampleofthismethodofarrestingandpreventing
thespreadofwar。JustbeforethedawnofGreekhistory，evehaveaglimpse
oftheexistenceofseveralcombinationsofGreektribes（whichasyetcan
scarcelybecalledstates）forthepurposeofpreventingwaramongthemselves
andresistingattacksfromoutside。Ofthese’amphiktiones，’alliancesof
neighbouringcommunitiesclusteredroundatempleasasanctuary，oneonly
constitutedonarespectablescalesurvivedtohistoricaltime，evidently
inastateofdecay，andliabletobecomethetoolofanyaggressivemilitary
Power，butstilleventhengreatlyvenerated。Nowletuslookaroundthe
worldofourday，andtrytoseewhetherwecanfindanywhereanexample
ofasuccessfulamphiktiony，acombinationofneighbouringPowersformedforthepurposeofpreventingwars。Ithinkwehaveseenfortenyearsorthereaboutsacuriouslysimilar
allianceofthesort，framedforasimilarpurpose。Irefertothealliance
ofthethreegreatsovereignsofEasternEuropewhichissometimescalled
theallianceofthethreeEmperors，which，however，theythemselvesdonot
admittobeinformmorethanapersonalunderstanding。Thisallianceor
understanding，ifwemayjudgebythenewspapers，isnotparticularlypopular
inWesternEurope。Perhapswedoitthesameinjustice，andforthesame
reason，whichashistoricalstudentswedotosuchgreatterritorialaggregates
astheMedo—PersianEmpireundertheGreatKing。Politicalfreedomandthe
movementwhichwecallprogressdonotflourishinthesevastterritorial
sovereignties，perhapsthroughsomenecessityofhumannature;andthuswe
contrastthemunfavourablywiththeAthenianRepublic，theparentofart，
science，andpoliticalliberty，orelsewiththosemodernsocietiestowhich
weourselveseminentlybelong。Thereisnotmuchconstitutionalism，aswe
understandtheword，inGermanyandAustro—Hungary，andthereisnoneat
allinRussia，andthuseveareledtoforgettheservicestheyrendertomankindbythemaintenanceofpeaceandthepreventionofbloodshed。Isupposethat，ofthecausesofwarwhichweknowtoexistinourday，
therewereneversomanycombinedasinEasternEuropeduringthelastten
years。TheantecedentsofthethreecombinedEmperorsreveresuchastothreaten
anoutbreakofhostilitiesatanymoment。Germanyhadravagedasuccessful
waragainstAustria，andalsohadinflictedbitterhumiliationonFrance，
tilltheotherdaythemostpowerfulmilitarystateinEurope。Russiain
1877—8hadbeenatwarwiththeTurkishEmpire，which，thoughinthegreatest
decrepitude，exercisedanominalsovereigntyovernearlyallofEasternEurope
whichwasnotincludedinthedominionsofthealliedsovereigns。Amongthe
smallcommunitieswhichwerebrokenfragmentsofthisEmpire，themodern
springsofwarwereinperpetualactivity。Thespiritofambition，thespirit
ofreligiousantagonism，thespiritofracecombinationorofnationality
（whateverithastobecalled），wereallloose。Nevertheless，underthese
menacingconditions，the’amphiktiony’ofthethreeEmpirespreservedthe
peace。Wedonotknowwhatweretheexacttermsoftheunderstanding，nor
dowequiteknowwhenitbegan。Therearesignsofsomethinglikeithaving
existedbeforetheTreatyofBerlinin1878;andthoughithastocontend
withmanydifficulties（atthismomentwithonemostdangerousinBulgaria），
itisstillsaidtoexist。Wecannotdoubtwhatthemainheadsoftheunderstanding
mustbe。ThethreeEmperorsmusthaveagreedtokeepthepeaceamongthemselves，
toresistthesolicitationsofexternalPowers，andtoforgetmanyoftheir
ownrecollections。Theymusthaveaimedatkeepingthequarrelsomelittle
communitiesaboutthemtothelimitsassignedtothembytheBerlinTreaty。
Theyhavenotabsolutelysucceededinthis;but，consideringthedifficulties，thesuccessofthealliancehasbeenconspicuous。Theprecedentisoneonwhichanyonewhosharesthehopesofthefounder
ofthisProfessorshipisforcedtosetthegreateststore。Ithasbeenshown
thatalimitednumberofstates，byisolatingalimitedgroupofquestions，
andagreeingtodotheirbest（ifnecessary，byforce）topreventthesequestions
fromkindlingthefireofbelligerency，maypreservepeaceinapartofthe
worldwhichseemedthreatenedbyimminentwar。Itisnotaverylargeexperiment，
butithasdemandedsacrificesbothofmoneyandsentiment。Itpointsto
amethodofabatingwarwhichinourdayisnovel，butwhich，afterhaving
hadforabouttenyearsthesanctionofoneprecedent，isnowincourseof
obtainingthesanctionofanother。FortheallianceofthethreeEmperors
isabouttobesucceededbythecombinationoftheAustro—HungarianandGerman
GovernmentswiththeGovernmentofItaly。If，then，forperiodsoftenyears
together，onecommunityormore，eagerforwar，canbepreventedfromengaging
init，onelongstepwillhavebeentakentowardstheestablishmentofthatpermanentuniversalpeacewhichhasbeenhithertoadream。Waristoohugeandtooancientanevilfortheretobemuchprobability
thatitwillsubmittoanyoneoranyisolatedpanacea。Iwouldevensay
thatthereisastrongpresumptionagainstanysystemoftreatmentwhich
promisestoputapromptandcompleteendtoit。But，likethoseterrible
conflagrationstowhichithasoftenbeencompared，itmayperhapsbeextinguished
bylocalisolation。Inoneinstanceatleast，whenapparentlyonthepoint
ofburstingoutinamostinflammablestructure，ithashithertobeenkept
under。