from parishes or the inhabitants only such
payments and services as are connected with the necessities of
war generally acknowledged, in proportion to the resources of
the country."

"ARTICLE 41.--The enemy in levying contributions, whether as
equivalents for taxes or for payments which should be made in
kind, or as fines, will proceed, as far as possible, according
to the rules of the distribution and assessment of the taxes
in force in the occupied territory. Contributions can be
imposed only on the order and on the responsibility of the
general in chief."

"ARTICLE 42.--Requisitions shall be made only by the authority
of the commandant of the locality occupied."

These conclusions are substantially followed in the chapter on the
"Customs of War" contained in the _Manual of Military Law_ issued for
the use of officers by the British War Office.

The bombardment of an unfortified town would, I conceive, be lawful--(1)
as a punishment for disloyal conduct; (2) in extreme cases, as
retaliation for disloyal conduct elsewhere; (3) for the purpose of
quelling armed resistance (not as a punishment for resistance when
quelled); (4) in case of refusal of reasonable supplies requisitioned,
or of a reasonable money contribution in lieu of supplies. It would, I
conceive, be unlawful--(1) for the purpose of enforcing a fancy
contribution or ransom, such as we were told was exacted from Liverpool;
(2) by way of wanton injury to private property, such as was supposed to
have been caused in the Clyde and at Folkestone, and _a fortiori_ such
as would have resulted from the anticipated shelling during the
night-time of the south coast of the Isle of Wight.

2. Is it the case that international law is "all nonsense," and that
"when we are at war with an enemy he will do his best to injure us: he
will do so in what way he thinks proper, all treaties and all so-called
international law notwithstanding"? Are we, with Admiral Aube, to speak
of "cette monstrueuse association de mots: les droits de la guerre"? If
so, _cadit quaestio_, and a vast amount of labour has been wasted during
the last three centuries. I can only say that such a view of the future
is not in accordance with the teachings of the past. The body of
accepted usage, supplemented by special conventions, which is known as
international law, has, as a matter of fact, exercised, even in time of
war,