could submit to arbitration. Both these Societies have, in the present year, 1875, held interesting meetings at the Hague.

Also our own Association for the Promotion of Social Science and the Amendment of the Law has a section devoted to the consideration of such subjects; and the meetings of 1873, 1874 and 1875 have been especially valuable, from the eminence of the men assembled, and from the instructive discussions in which they took part.

The establishment of such Associations is of very great importance, partly from the promise they hold out of a permanently concentrated attention upon such questions, and partly from bringing together, and making known to each other, men who are engaged in the same investigations, and who have the opportunity of" proving their armour," which nothing affords so well as friendly discussion.

Several treaties and less formal agreements attest the interest recently taken in endeavours to promote more humane observances in the conduct of hostile operations. The Convention of Geneva in 1864, relating to the neutralization of hospitals and ambulances for the wounded, reflects the greatest credit on its humane originators, and seems to be now generally accepted, though some sugges‐ tions have been made for the prevention of abuses of the Geneva Cross alleged to have taken place in the late war. Also the Declaration of St. Petersburgh, in 1868, prohibiting the employment of explosive balls, except under certain conditions of weight and number, must be felt to have been framed in the interest of humanity; and though this rule is said to have been infringed during the late war, this accusation does not seem to have been esta

blished, and the evident advantage of the principle recommends it for general adoption.

In this country there was passed in 1870 an "Act to regulate the Conduct of Her Majesty's Subjects during the Existence of Hostilities between Foreign States with whom Her Majesty is at Peace." This is a great improvement on our Foreign Enlistment Act of 1819, which it repeals and supersedes. The chief advantage of the new Act is that in suspected cases it throws the burthen of the proof of innocence upon the shipbuilder, instead of obliging the Government to establish a right to interfere in a case where the proof of guilt is difficult, while the proof of innocence is easy. Had this Act been passed some ten years previously it would have saved much angry feeling, as well as the heavy penalty awarded against us by the Arbitrators at Geneva.

It was suggested at the Conference at Brussels in 1874 that it would be desirable for the several powers to agree upon municipal laws, to be enacted by the different governments, for the enforcement, by penalties, of regulations connected with International Law which are at present of imperfect obligation. This might have spared us a memorable crisis, when the administration of Lord Palmerston was overthrown, in 1858, for attempting to pass a law to prevent conspiracies in this country against foreign sovereigns, like the then recent case of Orsini. And similar considerations have been brought forward lately in the remarks addressed by the German government to Belgium, respecting certain complaints of a want of comity in respect of the treatment of political conspirators against foreign States, which the Belgian laws were said to be insufficient to secure.

One of the most important agreements ever signed on the subject of Maritime International Law is that known as the Declaration of Paris, dated 16 April, 1856. This derives its great weight partly from the magnitude of the interests which the Declaration proposes to regulate, and partly from the pre-eminent position of the parties to the agreement. Great Britain, Austria, France, Prussia, Russia, Sardinia and Turkey, were the original signitaries of the Declaration, to which most other States have since given their adhesion. The four articles agreed upon are as follows:-I. Privateering is and remains abolished. II. The neutral flag covers enemy's goods, with the exception of contraband of war. III. Neutral goods, with the exception of contraband of war, are not liable to capture under an enemy's flag. IV. Blockades in order to be binding must be effective; that is to say, maintained by a force sufficient really to prevent access to the coast of the enemy.

The Declaration commences by stating that, "considering that maritime law, in time of war, has long been the subject of deplorable disputes; that the uncertainty of the law and of the duties in such a matter gives rise to difficulties of opinion between neutrals and belligerents which may occasion some difficulties, and even conflicts; that it is consequently advantageous to establish an uniform doctrine on so important a point," the powers abovenamed, "having come to an agreement, have adopted the following solemn Declaration."

The instrument concludes by stating that "the present Declaration is not and shall not be binding, except between those Powers who have acceded, or shall accede, to it." This is necessarily the case with all such Declarations, as

agreements relative to International Law cannot be binding on States which are not parties to such agreements. Spain and the United States have not acceded to the Declaration, and are therefore subject to the provisions of the old law. The position of the United States in respect to the articles of this Declaration will be noticed subsequently.

The effect of the Declaration of Paris upon the rights and the interests of Great Britain have been on several occasions discussed both in Parliament and elsewhere. But after the exhaustive debate in the House of Commons on 13th April, 1875, it may be assumed as decided that the national faith is pledged to the permanent observance of the articles of the Declaration, towards all States who are parties to the agreement. And it is said that the United States, Spain and Mexico are the only countries that have not given their adhesion to the articles of the Declaration.

The three rules laid down in Article VI. of the Treaty of Washington would have been of great importance it the Contracting Powers had been able to agree on the meaning of the terms of their own Convention. But as this has not hitherto been accomplished, this Convention adds little to the determination of the rules recommended for the observance of neutrals during war. The three rules are as follow:

A neutral government is bound

First. To use due diligence to prevent the fitting out, arming, or equipping, within its jurisdiction, of any vessel which it has reasonable ground to believe is intended to cruise or carry on war against a Power with which it is at peace; and also to use like diligence to prevent the

departure from its jurisdiction of any vessel intended to cruise or carry on war as above, such vessel having been specially adapted, in whole or in part, within such jurisdiction to warlike use.

Secondly. Not to permit or suffer either belligerent to make use of its ports or waters as the base of naval operations against the other, or for the purpose of the renewal or augmentation of military supplies or arms, or the recruitment of men.

Thirdly. To exercise due diligence in its own ports and waters, and as to all persons within its jurisdiction, to prevent any violation of the foregoing obligations and duties.

The two contracting parties engaged not only to be bound by these stipulations themselves, but to invite other maritime governments to agree to receive the three rules as binding agreements in the observance of neutrality. But it soon transpired that there was a divergence of opinion between the Contracting Powers themselves as to the actual meaning of their own rules, especially of the second. It was proposed by Great Britain to explain this by stating that it was not intended to restrict the export, in the ordinary course of commerce, of arms and military supplies. But the American government refused to agree to this limitation, and it of course became impossible to urge the acceptance by other Powers of rules upon the interpretation of which the Contracting Powers themselves were unable to agree. Perhaps little has been lost by this, as it was hardly probable that maritime powers would

Parl. Paper, North America, No. I. of 1874, Correspondence relating to the Rules of the Treaty of Washington.