One of the most important subjects of which the new Manuals treat is the person of the enemy. The enemy， it is laid down， consists of armed forces and of the unarmed population. The first principle of war is that armed forces as long as they resist may be destroyed by any legitimate means. The right of killing an armed man exists only so long as he resists. As soon as he submits， he is entitled to be treated as a prisoner of war. Quarter should never be refused to men who surrender， unless they have been guilty of some such violation of the customs of war as would of itself expose them to the penalty of death； and when so guilty they should， whenever practicable， be taken prisoners and put upon their trial before being executed， as it is seldom justifiable in a combatant to take the law into his own hands against an unresisting enemy. Most of you， I imagine， are aware that this principle， stated in this broad way， is quite modern. Most of us have learnt， when children， touching stories of the refusal of quarter to garrisons that had surrendered in our avers of succession with France. Many of us remember Froissart's story of six citizens of Calais whom Edward III was with difficulty restrained from hanging for the obstinate resistance they had made to the siege of their town. In point of fact， during this war， and the later war of Henry V against France， even when the successful General was disposed to be merciful， he generally reserved a certain number of the besieged， though a small number， for execution. When Rouen surrendered to Henry V the latter stipulated for three of the citizens to be left at his disposal， of whom two purchased their lives， but the third was beheaded. When the same king， the year following， was besieging the castle of Montereau， he sent twenty prisoners to treat with the Governor for a surrender； but when the Governor refused to treat even to save their lives， and when， after taking leave of their wives and families， they were escorted back to the English army， the King of England ordered erected， and had them all hanged in sight of those within the castle. When Meaux surrendered to the same king， it was stipulated that six of the bravest defenders should be delivered up to justice， four of whom were beheaded at Paris， and its commander at once hanged on a tree outside the walls of the city. No doubt this severity was due in a great degree to the hard measure which in those days was always dealt out to a force which had resisted an attack when there was no chance of success. And this is one ground on which the savage practices which accompanied storms and sieges were explained； but it is always to be recollected that in these French and English wars there was another cause of extreme truculence. In the minds of those who waged them they were wars of succession， and questions therefore of the faith and submission due to a sovereign mixed themselves up with the ordinary considerations of the field. On reading the accounts of them carefully， the special severities of our Edward III and our Henry V may be seen to be constantly explained by the successful king's belief that he was dealing with traitors who had surrendered themselves； and in fact it appears to have been the conviction that the population attacked owed legally fealty to the General of the army attacking them， which led specially to the cruelties of these wars， just as a conviction of the lawfulness of the severest punishment for heresy and infidelity led to the savageness of the wars of religion. There is no doubt that at present the Manuals state the practice correctly， that quarter ought never to be refused to men who surrender， unless they have been guilty of some such violation of the customs of war as would of itself expose them to the penalty of death， and when so guilty they should whenever practicable be taken prisoners and put upon their trial before they are executed， for it is seldom justifiable for a combatant to take the law into his own hands against an unresisting enemy. The point was one which was largely discussed at the Conference of Brussels， and it was proposed by some of the delegates that even spies should be no longer executed when taken， but should always be treated as prisoners of war.

　　We come now to portions of these Manuals of warlike customs which are pleasanter reading. 'The wounded must not only be spared， but humanity commands that if they fall into the hands of their opponents the care taken of them should be second only to the care taken of the wounded belonging to the captors. Surgeons and others in attendance on the wounded， though forming part of the armed forces， are exempted from the liability of being attacked unless they divest themselves of their non-combatant character by actually using arms， in which case they may be treated as part of the combatant body. The same amenity and under the same conditions should be extended to camp followers， and other persons in attendance on the army but not bearing arms，'

　　The first and last parts of this paragraph give the results of the Geneva Convention， the furthest point which has at present been reached by humane doctrine in the actual conduct of war. This Convention was signed on August 22， 1864. It states that it was drawn up for the amelioration of the condition of the wounded of armies in the field. I will read you a few of its principal provisions：

　　'Ambulance end military Hospitals shall be acknowledged to be neutral， and as such shall be protected and respected by belligerents so long as any sick or wounded may be therein. Such neutrality shall cease if the ambulances or Hospitals should be held by a military force. Persons employed in Hospitals and ambulances， comprising the staff for superintendence， medical service， administration， transport of wounded， as well as chaplains， shall participate in the benefit of neutrality while so employed， and so long as there remain any wounded to bring in and to succour.' The persons designated in the preceding article may even after occupation by the enemy continue to fulfil their duty in the Hospital or ambulance which they serve， or may withdraw in order to rejoin the corps to which they belong. Under such circumstances， when those persons shall cease from their functions they shall be delivered by the occupying army to the outposts of the enemy. As the equipment of military Hospitals remains subject to the laws of war， persons attached to such Hospitals cannot on their withdrawing carry away any articles but their own private property； and under the circumstances an ambulance shall， on the contrary， retain its equipment. Inhabitants of the country who may bring help to the wounded shall be respected and remain free. The Generals of the belligerent Powers shall make it their care to inform the inhabitants of the appeal addressed to their humanity， and of the neutrality which shad be the consequence of it. Any wounded when entertained and taken care of in a house shall be considered as a protection thereto. Any inhabitant who shall have entertained wounded men in his house shall be exempted from the quartering of troops， as well as from a part of the contributions of war which may be imposed. Wounded or sick soldiers shall be entertained and taken care of， to whatever nation they may belong. Commanders-in-chief shall have the power to delver immediately to the outposts of the enemy soldiers who have been wounded in an engagement， when circumstances permit it to be done， and with the consent of both parties. Those who are recognised， after their wounds are healed， as incapable of serving， shad be sent back to their country. The others may also be sent back on condition of not again bearing arms during the continuance of the war. Evacuations， together with the persons under whose directions they take place， shall be protected by absolute neutrality. A distinctive and uniform dag shall be adopted for Hospitals， ambulances， and evacuations. It must on every occasion be accompanied by the neutral flag. A badge for the arm shall also be allowed for individuals neutralized； but the delivery thereof shall be left to the neutral authority. The flag and the badge shall bear a red cross on a white ground.

　　The conduct of the Hospitals established under the Geneva Convention has been carried on by surgeons， nurses， and military servants， with the greatest self-sacrifice and with the greatest enthusiasm. Nothing， I hope， will ever occur to provoke retrograde measures with regard to so great a reform. At the same time there are some drawbacks， from a military point of view， to the application of the provisions of the Geneva Convention， on which I will say a few words in conclusion. I am told on very excellent authority that it is very difficult to persuade military commanders in the field of the perfect fairness and good faith with which these provisions are carried into action. You may not fire on a Geneva Hospital or ambulance， and yet the Geneva Hospital， with its ambulances and appurtenances generally kept a good deal in motion， is a very extensive set of structures， and protects a considerable portion of the field from the line of fire. Generals are apt to think， or to persuade themselves

[1] [2]