Page images

be observed from our note that the registrar came to the conclusion that though the debt in respect of which the final judgment was obtained could not properly be called a trade debt, it was an obligation incurred in the course of the business of the debtor, and that she came, therefore, within the provisions of the sub-section. Is there any difference between such a debt, which is represented by damages recovered in an action for tort, and a debt arising merely out of a dealing in the course of trade? That was the question that called for the ruling of the Court of Appeal. And, as stated in our note, the view entertained by the learned registrar was adopted without hesitation. The point appears to be a novel one, since no authority exactly on all fours therewith was capable of being cited. But the conclusion arrived at seems indisputably correct.

Trade Ceased to be Carried on by Married Woman. ANOTHER point of some importance was raised in the case of Re Allen; Ex parte Shaw, to which we are now referring, and it considerable stress upon was laid. The debtor had ceased to carry on her business long before the date of the commencement of the action to recover damages for the negligence of her servant when engaged in assisting her in carrying it on. In the case of Re Worsley; Ex parte Lambert (84 L. T. Rep. 100; (1901) 1 K. B. 309), it was decided by the Court of Appeal, approving the decision of the Divisional Court in Re Dagnall; Ex parte Soan and Morley (75 L. T. Rep. 142; (1896) 2 Q. B. 407), that such a ceasing to carry on business by a married woman trader did not avail her anything. If debts incurred by her in connection with her business, carried on by her separately from her husband, remained undischarged at the date of the presentation of a bankruptcy petition against her, she was held to be subject to the bankruptcy laws in respect of her separate property, under sect. 1, sub-sect. 5, of the Married Women's Property Act 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 75), although she had then ceased to carry on the business. The question was whether the effect of sect. 12 of the Bankruptcy and Deeds of Arrangement Act 1913 was the same, and whether the case was governed by the decision of the Court of Appeal in Re Worsley; Ex parte Lambert (ubi sup.). The learned registrar considered that such was the fact, and the Court of Appeal have now affirmed his decision. In fine, once it was established that the damages recovered in the action for tort, although not a trade debt in the strict sense of that term, were to be regarded in the same light, the previous decision of the Court of Appeal was sure to apply. The circumstance that in the earlier case a short period merely had elapsed since the married woman had ceased to trade, while in the present case years had expired, could make no difference in principle.


Mr. Justice Horridge and Mr. Justice Shearman will open the commissions on Monday next, at Leeds, on the North-Eastern Circuit. When the business at this town is finished they will return to London and remain until the end of the present sittings.

The following are the judges for the King's Bench Division who will travel the winter circuits, which will commence on or about the 12th Jan. next: Northern Circuit, the Lord Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Sankey; South-Eastern Circuit, first part (commencing at Huntingdon and finishing at Chelmsford), Mr. Justice Ridley; second part (commencing at Hertford and finishing at Lewes), Mr. Justice Horridge; Western Circuit, Mr. Justice Darling and Mr. Justice Scrutton; North-Eastern Circuit, Mr. Justice Coleridge and Mr. Justice Bailhache; Oxford Circuit, Mr. Justice Bankes and Mr. Justice Avory; North Wales Circuit, Mr. Justice Lush; South Wales Circuit, Mr. Justice Atkin; Midland Circuit, Mr. Justice Rowlatt and Mr. Justice Shearman.

An intermediate session for cases arising in the county of Middlesex will commence on Saturday next at the Guildhall, Westminster, at 10.30.

Sir Edward Clarke celebrated on Tuesday the completion of his fiftieth year at the Bar, having been called by Lincoln's-inn on the 17th Nov. 1864.

Mr. Richard Henry Barrett, aged seventy-four, of Slough, Bucks, solicitor, left estate valued at £23 521.

Mr. Fettes, solicitor, of the firm of Messrs. Cooper, Bake, Roche, and Fettes, of 6 and 7, Portman-street, Portman-square, has been elected mayor of the metropolitan borough of St. Marylebone.

Lord Adams, aged eighty-nine, of 34, Moray-place, Edinburgh, and of Middleton Hall, Gorebridge, Midlothian, retired Judge of Session, left personal estate in the United Kingd m valued at £116,986.

A meeting of the Union Society of London was held on Wednesday at 3, Plowden-buildings, Temple, the president, Mr. Harry Geen, in the chair. Mr. Cape moved: "That this House would welcome some form of conscr ption." Mr. Burleigh opposed, and there also spoke Messrs. Stevens, Coley, Eustace, Fowler, and Baker. The motion was lost.

Complaints have again been made by the Profession as to the time of publication of the Old Bailey daily lists in the Temple Cloisters. It is impossible to understand why these lists are not published at 5 o'clock each evening during the sessions instead of 6.30 pm. The members of the Bar are put to considerable inconvenience in consequence, and it is hoped that the authorities will take notice of the well-founded complaint.

The death was announced at the Manchester City Police-court, on the 12th inst., of Mr. John Ashley, the oldest probation officer attending the courts. Reference was made to his death by the Stipendiary (Mr. E. Brierley), who said Mr. Ashley had been in attendance at the courts for over thirty years, and had been a probation officer since the inception of the Act. The worth and value of his work could not be estimated. because it was of a kind where very often results could not be measured. It has been decided to change the title of the Inns of Court Veteran Corps to Inns of Court Reserve Corps. and to extend the membership to others besides actual past members of the I.C R.V. and O.T.C. Subject to the inability of candidates, through age or private responsibilities, to join the active forces of the Crown, the qualification is now the same as for the Inns of Court OT.C. Application for enrolment should be made by letter to the hon. sec., G. Nugent Bankes, 123, St. George's-road, S.W.

His Honour Judge Atherley-Jones, K.C., will preside at a social meeting of the Royal Courts of Justice and Legal Temperance Society, which will be held in the Old Hall, Lincoln's-inn, on Tuesday, the 24th inst., at 6.30 p.m. Mr. W. A. Chapple, M.D., M.P., will be amongst the speakers. The musical portion of the programme will be provided by Miss Elsie Wright and Mr Arthur Beck with (vocalists), Mr. Fred Topping (violinist), and Miss Edith Jowers (accompanist). Tea and coffee will be served from 6.30, the chair will be taken at seven o'clock, and the meeting will conclude at 8.30. The committee cordially invite those connected with the Profession.

Dr. Glaister, professor of forensic medicine in the University of Glasgow, speaking in Edinburgh, recently, made two interesting statements. One was that the Constitution of Oxford was written at Buittle in Galloway, and the other hd reference to the Gretna Green registers. The professor said that he had tried to do some service for the State in ende vouring to secure some records of Gretna Green marriages. He happened to be vicechairman of the historical section of the last Glasgow Exhibition, and, as such, he had the custody of two authentic volumes of the registers of Gretna Green marriages. Not a few notable families entered the realm of matrimony in that particular way. Records of these marriages belonged to an old woman, which seemed to be the only thing she could turn into money, and he was negotiating with her about them, when her "cute Yankee nephew," hearing of that, bought them at a less sum than the State was prepared to give her. The Gretna Green records were now in America.

Some interesting light is incidentally thrown on the working of the Scottish system of registration of deeds by the recent case in the Court of Session of Macdonald v. Keeper of the General Register of Sasines (1914, S. C. 854). There the extraordinary jurisdiction of the court, or the nobile officium as it is technically termed, was invoked to order the Keeper of the Register of Sasines to record what was in reality a testamentary disposition in favour of the pursuer by a person who was still alive. The desire for registration was to secure priority of title in respect of a certain property. Registration had been refused on the ground that the description of the property was insufficient for its identification, but, as the court pointed out, the application was for the registration of the will of a living person, and therefore could not be entertained. In the course of an extremely interesting and instructive judgment, the Lord President, after referring to the unprecedented character of the application, and pointing out the futility of ordering the registration of a document which

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]

could be revoked by the grantor the next moment, stated that during the last sixty years no fewer than 28,963 deeds had been rejected upon a variety of grounds-a surprisingly large number, we should have thought, considering the long familiarity of the Scottish people with the system of registration of deeds. Incidentally it may be observed that in Scotland there appears to be no equivalent of the English depository for wills of living persons such as was established by the Court of Probate Act 1857. The provision of this depository was regarded by the late Lord Hannen as extremely valuable--see his observations in Sugden v. Lord St. Leonards (Ĭ P. Div., at p. 204)-and he mentioned that he regretted so little advantage was taken of it. Of course, this depository has no analogy to a register; its object is merely the safe custody of testamentary documents.

In the pathetic speech of the Grand Duchess of Luxemburg from the throne at the opening of the Parliamentary session on the 12th inst., it is stated that the neutrality of Luxemburg was violated, and that a protest had been lodged informing the guarantee Powers. The Grand Duchy of Luxemburg is a neutralised State-in other words, a State prohibited from entering into any political alliance with other States-its neutrality or the inviolability of its territory being guaranteed in return by the Great Powers. In 1866, when the German Confederation came to an end, Napoleon III. made efforts to acquire Luxemburg by purchase from the King of Holland, who was at the same time Grand Duke of Luxemburg. As Prussia objected to this, it seemed advisable to the Powers to neutralise Luxemburg. A conference met in London at which Great Britain, Austria, France, Holland, Luxemburg, Italy, Prussia, and Russia were represented, and on the 11th May 1867 a treaty was signed for the purpose of the neutralisation, which is stipulated and collectively guaranteed by all the signatory Powers, Belgium as a neutralised State herself excepted. The submission of Luxemburg to the violation of her neutrality will recall that the neutralisation took place under the abnormal condition that she is not bound to keep any armed force, with the exception of a police for the maintenance of safety and order, nor to possess any fortresses. Under these circumstances Luxemburg, unlike Belgium and Switzerland, who are also neutralised States, can do nothing for the defence of her neutrality The reference in the speech of the Duchess of Luxemburg to the guarantee Powers draws attention to the circumstances that a controversy arose in 1867 as to English obligations under the Treaty of Luxemburg. In reply to a question as to whether, if the other parties to such a collective guarantee decline to intervene on Occasion, a single signatory is released from his obligations, Lord Derby, as Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, said: "In the event of a violat on of neutrality, all the Powers who have signed the treaty may be called upon for collective action. No one of these Powers is liable to be called upon to act singly or separately. It is a case, so to speak, of limited liability." Mr. Hall criticises this view on the ground that a guarantee is meaningless if it does not do more than provide for common action under circumstances in which the guaranteeing Powers would act together apart from treaty, or for a right of single action as a matter of policy. On principle Lord Derby's contention is unreasonable. If a State undertakes its duty in concert with others, on what principle is it committed to an isolated performance.

[blocks in formation]

THE annexation of Cyprus by Great Britain, as a sequel of her announcement of a state of war with Turkey, will recall a memorable occasion on which Cyprus became an object lesson of the secrecy with which the foreign policy of this country is conducted, and of the limitation of the functions of Parliament in the control and the direction, much less the initiation, of a foreign policy owing to the deliberate withholding of information from the "Grand Inquest of the Nation," which has forced Lord Bryce to the conclusion that Parliament has virtually no control over foreign policy. On the 28th March 1878 Lord Derby, by permission from the Crown and Lord Beaconsfield, then Prime Minister, announced in the House of Lords his resignation of his position as Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and his seat in the Cabinet. He then stated that he was at liberty to use his own discretion in explaining to Parliament the nature and character of the differences between his colleagues and himself. "But," said Lord Derby, “your

Lordships will easily understand that in the present state of our foreign relations there are many things which require to be considered and decided upon by those who are responsible for the conduct of public affairs which it is not in the interest of the State should be made public at the time when the decision upon them is taken. My Lords, the Cabinet have arrived at certain conclusions which are, no doubt, of a grave and important character. In the measures which they propose I have not been able to concur." In the June following, Lord Derby, speaking in the House of Lords, said: "Three months ago when I quitted the Cabinet it was on account of the decision then taken-namely, that it was necessary to secure a naval station in the eastern part of the Mediterranean, and that for that purpose it was necessary to seize upon and occupy the island of Cyprus, together with a point on the Syrian coast. This was to be done by a secret naval expedition sent out from England with or without the consent of the Sultan, although a part of the arrangement was that full compensation should be made to the Sultan for any loss of revenue he might sustain. My Lords, I endeavoured to induce the Cabinet to reconsider this determination, and, from whatever cause the change took place, I am heartily glad that resolution was modified." The reply of Lord Salisbury, who had succeeded Lord Derby as Secretary of Siate for Foreign Affairs, was a bold and emphatic enunciation of the doctrine of secrecy in foreign policy. Having compared Lord Derby's "instalments of revelations" to the successive disclosures of Titus Oates, he said: "I would venture to point out that there is a great inconvenience in these revelations from the interior of the Cabinet. Of course my noble friend must treat his own obligations in the spirit which pleases himself. but I do not know that I would like to announce so broadly or palpably as my noble friend has to the world that any person who hereafter serves with him in the Cabinet must be prepared to have anything which passes or is supposed to pass there produced ultimately, in spite of the rule which Privy Councillors have hitherto observed."

The King's Speech.

ON the reassembly of the Houses of Parliament after the delivery of the Gracious Speech from the Throne, it was reported and read by the Speaker in the House of Commons, who stated, according to the ancient practice, that for greater accuracy he had procured a copy. But befo e this is done it is the unbroken custom in both Houses to read some Bill a first time pro forma in order to assert their right of deliberating without reference to the immediate cause of summons. This practice in the Lords is enjoined by Standing Order 2, but in the Commons the same form is observed pursuant to ancient usage. In the House of Commons "The Clandestine Outlawries Bill" has been used for this purpose for upwards of a century and a half. It is read as a pure matter of form, and no more is heard of it till it reappears at the opening of the next session. In 1794 Mr. Sheridan raised a debate on the first reading of this Bill, which the Speaker held to be in order, but such a proceeding has since been prohibited by the Standing Orders of the House. Professor Redlich states that this practice dates from the early years of the seventeenth century. It was observed, however, so early as the 24th Jan. 1557. D'Ewes, in his Journal of the 24th March 1571, records that "immediately after the return of the House of Commons from the House of Lords, when Queen Elizabeth had signified her approval of the Speaker, the Bill, according to the usual course, had its first reading."

The Address in Reply.

THE overshadowing of all the ordinary Parliamentary business by the war has led, in the short time occupied in the discussion of the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne to a temporary reversion to the practice of bygone days. From 1801 till 1879 the address was almost invariably voted after one adjournment; in a few sessions two or three days were taken. The modern practice of lengthy debates on the address and the moving of formal amendments thereto is one of the consequences of the material diminution in the number of

opportunities for general political debates which have been effected in the last thirty years. On the 17th Feb. 1887 Mr. W. H. Smith, in moving that the consideration of the new rules of procedure have precedence over all other business, pointed out that the incompleted debate on the address in that session had already occupied sixteen days. Since the introduction of the closure the Government have stopped the debate after a reasonable number of sittings has been devoted to it, thus cutting short the discussion and excluding all amendments not yet disposed of. In 1902 the debate on the Address took up ten sittings, and in 1903 eight. Since 1880 the time has varied between the limits of six days in 1882 and sixteen in 1887, if we except the time occupied with the discussion on the address on the opening of the present session and on the opening of the autumn session of 1890-1, when, owing to the excitement caused by the Parnell split, the debate on the address was concluded in one sitting. The form of the address used to be paragraph by paragraph to the speech. In both Houses, however, since the session 1890-1, the answer has been moved in the form of a single resolution expressing their thanks to the Sovereign for the most gracious speech addressed to both Houses of Parliament, and amendments to the address are received by way of addition thereto. Amendments to the address carried in 1885 on the motion of Mr. Jesse Collings, and in Aug. 1892 on the motion of Mr. Asquith, were accepted as votes of want of confidence and immediately followed In March 1894 an by the resignation of the Government. amendment to the address having been carried on a non-vital question, the address as amended, was negatived and another address was proposed by Sir William Harcourt, as Leader of the House, and agreed to.

Members and Commissions.

[ocr errors]

MR. ASQUITH stated in the House of Commons on the 12th inst., in reply to a question addressed to him with reference to further emergency legislation contemplated by the Government, that one of the most urgent of the forthcoming emergency measures would affect members of the House of Commons themselves. It appears to be the law," said the Prime Minister, "that members who had accepted His Majesty's commissions had accepted offices of profit under the Crown and therefore vacated their seats. It is of the highest importance that this should be set right." Mr. Asquith's allusion was exclusively directed to the Parliamentary status of members of the House of Commons who had accepted commissions in the navy or army without being at the time of their acceptance of these commissions holders of other commissions in the navy or army. Members of the House of Commons who are naval and military officers are not, by a special provision of the Place Act 6 Anne, c. 47, s. 27), affected in their Parliamentary status by the operation of that statute. The receipt of a new or other commission by a member who is in the army or navy does not vacate his seat, although the receipt of any rew commission in the army or navy, unless within this exception, disqualifies under sect. 24 of the Act. The same exception has been extended by construction to officers in the Marines and to the office of Master-General or LieutenantGeneral in the Ordnance accepted by an officer in the army, and to military governorships accepted by officers in the army. On the 9th May 1733, General Wade having accepted the office of governor of the three military forts in Scotland, it was resolved that the acceptance of such an office by a member, being an officer in the army, did not vacate his seat.

[blocks in formation]


LORD ROBERTS OF WATERFORD, PRETORIA, AND KANDAHAR, though born at Cawnpore eighty-two years ago, was an Irishman belonging to a Waterford family, his mother being a native of Tipperary. His name appears on the Freeman's roll of Parliamentary voters for the city of Waterford for over half a century. It was fitting that his death should take place with the Indian troops with whom he had so long served, and by the side of whom he had won so great a renown.

MR. JUSTICE BARTON, of the Chancery Division, was among those nominated by the Government last week to the senate of the National University. His Lordship had been a member of the first senate selected by the Crown, and had done great service to the institution from its foundation in 1908 along with the Lord Chief Baron, who also did not spare himself. The latter has retired from all his activities other than law.

ABOUT sixty solicitors in Ireland, and a larger number of young apprentices, bave joined the colours, and are at present in training. In every case arrangements have been made for carrying on their business and duties by the co-operation of loyal colleagues and friends. Indeed, both branches of the Profession in Ireland have responded to the call of duty with most praiseworthy patriotism.

THE members of the Bar who acted as revising barristers in 1914 held a meeting last week in the Law Library, Four Courts, and decided to take immediate action unless the Treasury paid the salaries due for this year's work. This proceeding had the desired effect; the claims were discharged within a few days following. It is not known whether any promise or guarantee has been given in respect of the appointments for next year, but nothing can be done without legislation on the question, and a Bill to confer on the Treasury the powers it desires to possess would hardly be regarded as non-controversial.

THERE were only six registry appeals heard by the Court of Appeal this year. The number is the lowest since the Parliamentary Registration (Ireland) Act 1885 was passed. Seven cases were lodged, but the appellants in one case did not proceed with it. As was pointed out in this column two months ago, the fight in the revision courts was watered down on account of the war, and the constituency of North Tyr ne, which usually furnishes dozens of cases-on one occasion it provided fifty-six separate appeals on its own account-this year did not supply one. The same remark applies to Derry City and to the other three divisions of County Tyrone. In any event these app-als must be wearing out. The wit of man can hardly raise a new point, and for some years new points have mostly been evolved from close study of the decisions of the Court of Appeal itself.

BUT there was this year one point decided of first-rate importance. At the revision in Belfast the party objections in numerous cases were grounded upon a break in occupation in the case of inhabitant householders, and the way this was proved, or sought to be proved, was by the production of a certificate of an order made at petty sessions for the ejectment of the voter from the qualifying premises during the qualifying period. This order heretofore has always been taken to be evidence that a notice to quit and demand of possession had been served and made, and no objection has been raised to its production. It was issued under sect. 21 of the Petty Sessions Ireland) Act 1851. A close reading of that section, however, disclosed apparently two things: one that the certificate could only be granted to one of the parties in the case, and the other that it was only evidence between such parties that such certificate was to be" received as good evidence of the conviction or order in all courts of justice." The revising barrister yielded to this view and rejected the evidence, retaining on the list of vot rs 165 names of persons who had been so objected to. The objector pressed to have a case stated, but then arose the difficulty of the 78th section of the Registration (Ireland) Act 1850, which reproduces, without altertion, sect. 65 of the English Act of 1843, and which seems to make the revising barrister the sole authority upon a question of the admissibility or effect of evidence. The barrister under these circumstances stated a case, but expressed his opinion that the matter was solely one in his own discretion and not subject to review under the section mentioned.

THE Court of Appeal, consisting of the Lord Chief Justice and Lords Justices Holmes and Moriarty, invited counsel for the objector to address himself in the first instance to the question



ive of






ate of

Der of


h the










[ocr errors]

The section

of their jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.
above mentioned says: "No appeal or notice of appeal
under this Act shall be received or allowed against any
decision of any assistant barrister
upon the admissi-
bility or effect of any evidence, or admission," &c. Counsel
argued that these words precluded an appeal only where
the assistant barrister received evidence, not where he had rejected
legal evidence. In support of this view there were dicta in two
other cases by Lords Justices Fitzgibbon and Walker to the
effect that a barrister cannot under the section reject legal
evidence and avoid an appeal, but there was no case where the
point contended had been decided. On the other hand, there
were many cases in which the barrister had received evidence,
and the court held it had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal:
(Keys v. Collum, 1857, 7 I. C. L. R. 385; Carroll v. Fisher,
1864, 15 I. C. L. R. 369). In point of law the barrister in
one of these cases was clearly wrong, nevertheless the court
would not interfere. After a long argument, the case of Storey v.
Town Clerk of Bermondsey (102 L. T. Rep. 52 ;*(1910) 1 K. B.
203) was accepted as covering the question. It was there laid
down that where the revising barrister has decided the question
of evidence, then sect. 65 prohibits an appeal from his decision,
though it does not enable him to admit and act upon evidence,
though objected to, irrespective of the question of its admissi-
bility according to law. The court accordingly unanimously
dismissed the appeal.



THE Institute of France entered upon its session last week with
the usual public meeting of the five academies, and the gathering
might be appropriately termed a war séance, for all the papers
read had some bearing on war ancient or modern. The paper
most interesting to lawyers was entitled "La Guerre et le Droit
des Gens au Vingtième Siècle," by M. Louis Renault, sometime
one of the Law Professors in the University of Paris, a member
of the Court of Arbitration at The Hague, and a member of the
Académie de Sciences Morales et Politiques. M. Renault in his
prefatory remarks observed that it was not his intention to enter
upon a criticism of the belligerents, but to examine and set before
his audience the rules or regulations under which war was
supposed to be waged. The paper was, in fact, a clear and
succinct summary of the laws of war, and as such the principal
portions are given below.

There has been formed little by little, M. Renault said, a customary law of warfare-that is to say, an ensemble of the practices and rules accepted tacitly by one and another, constituting for belligerents rights and obligations. Some Governments had incorporated certain of these rules into their military instructions, but they were generally brief and few, because they considered that the traditional spirit of professional armies would supplement them; but this was found insufficient in the case of improvised armies, which were wanting these traditions. Without this observation one could not easily understand how it was that a non-military country, engaged suddenly in a great war, took the initiative of drawing up detailed regulations on the subject. The "Instructions of 1863 for the Armies of the United States in Campaign," in spite of the just criticism of the foundation and form, have rendered a great service in showing the possibility of submitt ng the conduct of armies to precise rules. During more than forty years efforts of Governments, aided by public opinion and by the action of jurists and learned societies, have resulted in the establishment of precise rules of a conventional character for the conduct of belligerents. To these steps I shall

make reference.

The first manifestation in this sense was the celebrated Convention of Geneva of the 22nd Aug. 1864 on the subject of the wounded on fields of battle. Called forth by a great outburst of humanity, it was produced somewhat hastily, and was, as a consequence, on some points defective. Signed by a small number of States with France at the head, it has since been accep ed by almost all the States of the world, and, despite many infractions, sometime due to ignorance, it has done great service. It is replaced to day by the convention of the 6th July 1906, likewise signed at Geneva, following a conference at which more than thirty States were represented by diplomatists, doctors, military men, and lawyers.

Next came a declaration signed at St. Petersburg on the 11th Dec. 1863, which has a limited object, but which is interesting for the general idea formulated in its preamble, which is as follows:

Considering that the progress of civilisation should have the effect of lessening as much as possible the evils of war; That the only legitimate end that the States should have during the war is the enfeeblement of the military forces of the enemy;

That to this effect it suffices to put hors de combat the greatest number of men possible;

That this end would be exceeded by the employment of arms which would uselessly aggravate the sufferings of the men placed hors de combat, or render their death inevitable; That the employment of such arms would then be contrary to the laws of humanity;

In consequence it is forbidden to employ explosive projectiles of a weight inferior to 400 grammes (about 14oz. av.).

This declaration has been accepted by a great number of States who have thus bound themselves one towards the other. It is interesting to note that this declaration was not the result of a gathering of jurists or of philosophers, but of a conference composed exclusively of military men.

It was at the first Conférence de la Paix that the rules prepared by the Conference of Brussels of 1874 were for the most part adopted. After twenty five years the ideas had ripened, certain oppositions had weakened, and I do not hesitate to say that the success was due to the skill of M. de Martens, who made his début at the Brussels Conference.

Twenty-six States were represented at The Hague in June 1899. A committee was specially charged to prepare a regulation upon the laws and customs of war upon land, aking the project of Brussels of 1874 as the basis of their deliberations. Accord was reached, but not without difficulty. In these deliberations there took part distinguished generals from Germany, England, France, and Russia, This accord was declared by a convention to which is annexed a réglement. "The high contracting parties shall give to their armed land forces instructions which shall conform to the réglement concernant les lois et coutumes de la guere sur terre annexed to the present convention," says the first article of the convention. This form, a little complicated, was adopted to satisfy certain scruples. It does not make the provisions of the réglement obligatory, as follows from the text itself and the explanations given at the conference. The spirit of the

accord interposing on the subject of the conduct of war shows itself further in the preamble of the convention which I will recité :

The Sovereigns and the heads of States, considering that while searching for means to safeguard peace and to prevent armed conflicts between nations, it is likewise necessary to have regard to cases where the appeal to arms shall have been brought about by events which their solici tude had not been able to avert; animated by the desire to serve further, in this extreme hypothesis, the interests of humanity and the progressive exigencies of civilisation; considering that it is necessary for this end to revise the laws and general customs of war, either with the view of defining with greater precision, or in order to lay down certain fixed limits, to restrict as much as possible the rigour, prompted by the views recommended to-day, as twenty-five years ago at the conference at Brussels of 1874, by a wise and generous foresight; have in this spirit adopted a number of provisions which have for their object to define and regulate the usages of war upon land.

The delegates did not pretend to have foreseen everything, but, while awaiting a more complete code of the laws of war to be drawn up, the high contracting parties judged it opportune to make certain that in the cases not comprised in the depositions adopted by them the inhabitants and belligerents should remain under the safeguard and under the governing influence of the principles of the law of nations, such as result from the usages established among civilised peoples, from the laws of humanity, and the exigencies of the public conscience.

In 1907 at the second Peace Conference there was a revision of the réglement of 1899. The provisions of this réglement were recognised as generally satisfactory, and they were not modified in any essential manner. The number of signatories in 1907 had increased, forty four delegates being present. The present belligerents are all bound by this convention and réglement.

During the interval between the two Peace Conferences a matter arose to which I must refer. In 1902 the German military authorities published a brochure entitled Krieg-brauch im Landkriege (translated into French by Paul Carpentier, under the title Le lois de la guerre continentale) and no little surprise was created when it was stated therein that, to the German military authorities, the réglement of The Hague seemed to have no obligatory force, since the provisions of the réglement are on the same footing as the project of Brussels. After having spoken with disdain upon humanitarian attempts to evolute the usages of war in a sense contrary to themselves, the editor of the

manual said that these efforts had already found a moral recognition in the Convention of Geneva, and at the Conferences of Brussels and at The Hague. This phrase not being in accord with the engagement taken by Germany three years previously, the conference of 1907 demanded an explanation of the German delegates. They then presented a provision having for its end to sanction the prescription of the réglement. The terms were slightly amended, and the German proposal became art. 3 of the convention, as follows:

The party belligerent who violates the dispositions of the said réglement will be liable for an indemnity if there be cause. He shall be responsible for all acts committed by the persons making part of his armed force.

The réglement is clearly obligatory since the unmindful one is held to make reparation for the prejudice caused by this violation. The conference also provided that the réglement must not only be observed by the commanders of belligerent armies, but in a general manner-by all the officers, non commissioned officers, and men. For this reason it has extended to the law of nations, in all the cases of infraction the principle of private law, whereby the master is responsible for his managers and agents: (art. 1384, du Code civil français).

The prescription which imposes itself in the first place upon belligerents is to operate only upon their own territories and to respect the territories of those States which intend to remain neutral. It seems almost unnecessary to state this expressly. Nevertheless the Convention of The Hague in its first article says, concerning the rights and duties of neutral States: "Le territoire des puissances neutres est inviolable." There are two kinds of neutral States-those who are voluntarily neutral and those who are so in virtue of a convention by which they are in all times in this condition. The end of perpetual neutrality is to keep away from important strategic points Powers against whom war can be raised. An inoffensive State is placed between these points to give to her neighbours conditions of security for their frontiers. As say the writers (for example, Funck-Brentano and Sorel), the Powers in limiting their field of battle and in increasing the difficulty of warfare have effected an act wise and political. This neutrality is generally guaranteed-that is to say, the States that are parties to its establishment promise not only to respect it, but to make it respected. Three States enjoy this régime in virtue of treaties, to which I will call your attention.

The Powers assembled in the Congress of Vienna on the 20th March 1815 declared "that the general interest demands in favour of the Corps Helvétique the benefit of a perpetual neutrality. By a declaration drawn up in Paris on the 20th Nov. 1815 in the name of Austria, France, Great Britain, Portugal, Prussia, and Russia, the signatory Powers of the declaration of the 20th March made by the present acte a formal and authentic recognition of the neutrality of Switzerland, and they guaranteed the inviolability of her territory in its new limits."

When it was a question of separating Belgium from Holland after the revolution of 1830, it was proposed to make the new kingdom a neutral State. The Treaty of London of the 15th Nov. 1831 between Austria, Belgium, France, Great Britain, Prussia, and Russia contains the two provisions following:

Art. 7. Belgium in the limits indicated in arts. 1, 2, and 4 shall form an independent State and perpetually neutral. It shall be held to observe the same neutrality towards all the other States.

Art. 25. The Courts of Austria, France, Great Britain, Prussia, and Russia guarantee to His Majesty the King of the Belgians the execution of all the articles which precede.

This contract of guarantee was renewed in the Treaties of London of the 19th Aug. 1839, which have definitely regulated the situation of Belgium in concert with the King of Holland. The learned academician next made the following noteworthy statement, at least politically so: "Quite recently I came across the minutes of the committee of The Hague (sence of the 6th June 1890) which devoted itself to the consideration of the réglement apropos of the situation of small States from the point of view of the rules of occupation, and I find there words in a speech of M. Bernaert, the eminent Belgium statesman whom we (the institute) know as one of our foreign associates: As to Belgium, you are well aware, her situation is special. She is neutral, and her neutrali y is guaranteed by the Great Powers, and notably by our powerful neighbours. Nous ne pouvons donc pas être envahis.' M. Louis Renault added, Our eminent confrère still believed in the value of treaties."

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

According to the Treaty of London of the 11th May 1867 : The Grand Duchy of Luxemburg, in the limits determined by the acte annexed to the treaties of the 19th April 1839, under the guarantee of the Courts of Austria, France, Great Britain, Prussia, and Russia, shall henceforth form a State perpetually neutral.

She will be held to observe this same neutrality towards all the other States.

The high contracting parties engage themselves to respect the principle of neutrality stipulated by the present article.

This principle is and continues under the sanction of the collective guarantee of the signatory Powers of the present treaty, with the exception of Belgium, which is herself a neutral State : (art. 2).

The signatory Powers are Austria-Hungary, France, Great Britain, Italy, Prussia, and Russia.

I pass now to the principal provisions of the réglement of The Hague which concern the conduct of belligerents. The fundamental rule is set out in art. 22:

Belligerents have not an unlimited right (droit illimité) as to the choice of means of injuring (nuire) the enemy. This is, I may say, the essential idea of the law of war of the twentieth century. Some restrictions are placed upon the employment of force, insomuch that this employment would constitute either barbarity or perfidy; it is to one or the other of these ideas that the prohibitions attach_themselves. As instances may be cited the Declaration of St. Petersburg (ante) and the Declaration of The Hague which interdicts

The employment of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as the balles à enveloppe dure of which the enveloppe does not completely cover the noyau or may be provided with incisions.

This refers to the famous dum-dum bullets. I also call attention to a declaration concerning the employment of projectiles which have for their sole end to carry asphyxiating or deleterious gases.

In a general manner it is forbidden by art. 23

To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary pain or hurt (maux superflus).

This is a development of the initial idea of the Declaration of St. Petersburg. One must not injure for the sake of injuring. Art. 23 also enumerated a series of prohibitions relating to acts which can only be termed barbarous. Notably it is forbidden

(a) To employ poison or arms that have been empoisoned.
(c) To kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down his
arms, or no longer having the means of defending himself,
surrenders at discretion.

(d) To declare that no quarter will be given.

Art. 4, par. 2, says that prisoners of war must be treated with humanity.

Among those falling to the power of the enemy there are those who merit particular attention; these are the wounded concerning whom international law has been interested from the first. The general principle laid down by the Convention of Geneva of 1906 is very clear in this respect:

Soldiers and other persons officially attached to armies, who shall become wounded or sick, shall be respected and cared for, without distinction of nationality, by the belligerent who shall have them in his power: (art. 1).

Art. 28 of the same Convention of Geneva ordains that The signatory Governments engage themselves alike to take up or propose to their legislators, in case of the insufficiency of their penal military laws, the measures necessary to repress in time of war individual acts of pillage and bad treatment of the wounded and sick.

In the interest of the wounded, a particular protection is assured to the establishments which receive them and to the persons who care for them :

The formation of movable hospitals-that is to say, those, which are destined to accompany troops on campaign-and the fixed establishments of health shall be respected and protected by the belligerents: (art. 6).

The personnel exclusively charged with the collection, the transport, and the treatment of the wounded and sick, as well as the administration of the sanitary formations aud establishments, the chaplains attached to the armies shall be respected and protected in all circumstances; if they fall into the hands of the enemy they shall not be treated as prisoners of war: (art. 9).

One of the most violent means employed in warfare is bombardment, which, in consequence of the development of artillery, has become the most terrible arm in the hands of a belligerent. In this respect international law has endeavoured to impose some limitations. To begin with, what are the places that can be

bombarded ?

It is forbidden to attack or bombard by any means whatever (par quelque moyen que ce soit) towns, villages, habitations, or buildings which are not protected (défendus): (art. 26 of the réglement).

« EelmineJätka »