The next portion of the Manual has for a title： 'The means by which war should be carried on' —— that is to say， the means by which war is as a fact carried on among civilised and relatively humane enemies. The writer says： 'The poisoning of water or food is a mode of warfare absolutely forbidden； but the turning off the supply by stopping convoys of food to the enemy is one of the usual methods of reducing them to submission. The use of poisoned weapons and of weapons calculated to produce unnecessary pain or misery is prohibited， on the ground that， as the object of war is confined to disabling the enemy， the infliction of any injury beyond that which is required to produce disability is needless cruelty.'

　　As to the poisoning of water and food， the best explanation of its prohibition is that it seems to have existed from very earliest times. It is quite certain that both Greeks and Romans thought that the poisoning of water and food was worthy only of barbarians. What was the origin of this feeling？ has been asked by writers of modern days. It may have been that the poisoning of water and food was thought a peculiarly pailful mode of inflicting death. The only poison of great efficacy which seems to have been known to antiquity， and which indeed was the base of the subtle poisons employed in the Middle Ages by the Italians， was arsenic， which no doubt causes death coupled with the extremest pain. Or it may have been the idea that poison was not fair fighting —— and this shows itself as a very strong feeling in very ancient days —— that on the whole each combatant ought to have the means of employing his skill in resistance.

　　On the subject of the use of poisoned weapons， and weapons calculated to produce unnecessary pain or injury， one of the chief modern reforms of the law of war has been attempted， and with as much success as it was possible for it to command. By the Declaration of St. Petersburg， proposed by the Emperor Alexander II and signed in 1868 by all the civilised Powers， the contracting parties agreed to renounce the use by their forces on land or sea of an explosive projectile of a weight below 400 grammes —— a little more than fourteen ounces —— charged with fulminating or inflammable matter. I have heard that this provision in the Declaration of St. Petersburg has no longer its humane effect in consequence of the progress of science， which， I am sorry to say， has often had the effect of defeating attempts to increase the area of humanity. It is alleged that the conical bullets which are universal in modern armament do in fact cause pain as severe and wounds as incurable as ever did the explosive bullets which were just coming in about the year 1868. I am myself incompetent to meet the objection， but at all events we must mark that the Declaration of St. Petersburg， expressing the opinion of the whole civilised world， declares that the object of war is confined to disabling the enemy， and lawful usage does not warrant any state in causing injuries which give more pain than is necessary for that comparatively humane object.

　　A further universally accepted rule is as follows： 'Assassination is against the customs of war. Assassination is the murder by treachery of individuals of the hostile forces. The essence of the crime is treachery， as a surprise is always allowable， and a small force may penetrate into the enemy's camp， despatch the sentinels， take the general officer prisoner or kill him， without infringing any of the customs of war or subjecting themselves， if taken， to be treated otherwise than as prisoners of war. It is the duty of the enemy to be prepared against a military surprise， but not to guard himself against the treacherous attacks of individuals introduced in disguise into the camp.'

　　Assassination began to be regarded with peculiar horror immediately after the Reformation. No doubt it was the murder of William of Orange， more than suspected of having been prompted by the Spaniards， which brought about the fierce denunciations of which it is the subject. There will always， of course， be some danger of this crime being resorted to when a war， as is sometimes the case， appears to depend entirely on the life of one individual —— a great statesman or a great general. That was the position of William of Orange， in the opinion of all his Catholic enemies. But it has often been noted that a new feeling had arisen in the interval between the wars of the Reformation and the progress of the greatest war in which this country has ever been engaged. Many writers quote with the strongest approval the action of Mr. Fox when Foreign Secretary. A promising scheme for the murder of the great Napoleon was communicated to him， and he at once made it known in Paris and informed the Emperor of the danger which threatened him. The feeling elicited by this proceeding of the English Foreign Secretary was so strong and has so little decayed， that I think with the writer of the Manual we may safely lay down that assassination is against the customs of war.

　　He proceeds： 'With the exception of the means above stated to be prohibited， any instruments of destruction， whether open or concealed， partial or widespread in their effects， shells of any weight， torpedoes， mines， and the like， may legitimately be employed against any enemy； and seeing that the use is legitimate， there is no reason why the officers or soldiers employing them should be refused quarter or be treated in a worse manner than other combatants. A humane commander will， no doubt， so far as the exigencies of war admit， endeavour to provide that the effect of the explosion of a mine or torpedo should extend to combatants only， but practically no rule can be laid down on the subject. The general principle is， that in the mode of carrying on war no greater harm shall be done to the enemy than necessity requires for the purpose of bringing him to terms. This principle excludes gratuitous barbarities， and every description of cruelty and insult that serves only to exasperate the sufferings or to increase the hatred of the enemy without weakening his strength or tending to procure his submission.'

　　I have further to remark on these portions of the Manuals before us， that one of the most curious passages of the history of armament is the strong detestation which certain inventions of warlike implements have in all centuries provoked， and the repeated attempts to throw them out of use by denying quarter to the soldiers who use them. The most unpopular and detested of weapons was once the crossbow， which was really a very ingenious scientific invention. The crossbow had an anathema put on it， in 1139， by the Lateran Council， which anathematized artem illam mortiferam et Leo odibilem. The anathema was not without effect. Many princes ceased to give the crossbow to their soldiers， and it is said that our Richard I. revived its use with the result that his death by a crossbow bolt was regarded by a great part of Europe as a judgment. It seems quite certain that the condemnation of the weapon by the Lateran Council had much to do with the continued English employment of the older weapon， the longbow， and thus to the English successes in the wars with France. But both crossbow and longbow were before long driven out of employment by the musket， which is in reality a smaller and much improved form of the cannon that at an earlier date were used against fortified walls. During two or three centuries all musketeers were most severely， and as we should now think most unjustly， treated. The Chevalier Bayard thanked God in his last days that he had ordered all musketeers who fell into his hands to be slain without mercy. He states expressly that he held the introduction of firearms to be an unfair innovation on the rules of lawful war. Red-hot shot was also at first objected to， but it was long doubtful whether infantry soldiers carrying the musket were entitled to quarter. Marshal Mont Luc， who has left Memoirs behind him， expressly declares that it was the usage of his day that no musketeer should be spared.

　　The bayonet also has a curious history. No doubt it must be connected by origin in some way with the town of Bayonne， but the stories ordinarily told about its invention and early use seem to be merely fables. No invention added more to the destructiveness of war， as the bayonet turns the musket into a weapon which is at once a firearm and a lance. The remarkable thing about it is， that though known it remained for so long unused. It was Frederick the Great who is said first to have used it generally or even universally among his soldiers. The probability is that the fear of exposing infantry to deprivation of quarter if taken prisoners caused this hesitation in using it. In our own army we have an example of the feeling which the old usage of war on the subject of certain weapons created， in the green uniform of the Rifle Brigade. It seems to have been long doubted whether foot soldiers armed with the early form of rifle would have their lives granted to them if they were taken prisoners； and the green uniform， first used among the olive foliage of Spain and Portugal， was supposed， it is now said untruly， to give a greater protection than clothes of any other colour at a longer distance.

　　Looking back on this long-continued state of feeling on the subjects of new and destructive inventions， one may perhaps wonder that mines and torpedoes， and particularly the torpedo of our day， have not met with harsher feeling. But the reason why no such attempts as were formerly tried to drive out of use especial weapons are likely hereafter to be seen， is that， in the first place， any art， and especially an art of destruction， is in our day likely to see rapid improvements. We know of no limit to the power of destroying human life； and when the extension of the area of this power by a professional class has once set in， it is impossible for us to lay down to what lengths it may go or over what time it may extend. The invention proceeds so rapidly that a peculiarly objectionable form of it can rarely be noted and specified. On the other hand， it is a more satisfactory reflection that wars have on the whole become less frequent， and they have also become shorter. Hence the opportunities of observing the widespread and cruel destruction caused by the most formidable class of new warlike inventions are much rarer than they were.

　　I will proceed to say something on the history of the torpedoes which occupy so much of our attention. I may remark that when it was first invented the torpedo was received with downright execration. It first made its appearance in the war between the revolted colonies， now forming the United States， and the mother country， and it was then known as the 'American Turtle.' Many attempts to obtain an improved form of it were made during the war between England and France， when Napoleon and his armies were hanging on the coast. The principle of using clockwork had already been invented， but the peace of 1814 put an end for the time to that method of invention， and it was long before the world heard again of the catamaran， as the torpedo was next called.

　　The epochs in the period of humanitarian progress and voluntary codification which deserve to be identified with the name of the Emperor Alexander II of Russia are： the Convention of Geneva as to wounded， acceded to by all the European Powers in the course of the years 1864， 1865， and 1866； the Declaration of St. Petersburg in 1868； and the Conference at Brussels， which filled the greater part of the year 1874. I refer you for the results of both to Halleck's excellent book

[1] [2]