A passage in Cæsar's Gallic War (II. 32) suggests an approximation to what was, until lately, a doctrine of the modern Law of War. "Cæsar respondet Adriaticis, 'se magis consuetudine suâ quam merito eorum civitatem conservaturum, si priusquam aries murum attigisset se dedidissent.'" Though a definite rule was not laid down in the Hague Convention on the point, it may be regarded as settled that quarter should be given to a garrison which continues to resist after a practicable breach has been made. Sir E. Creasy, when discussing the question of the treatment to be accorded to a garrison under these circumstances, quotes from the Duke of Wellington's despatches:-" Of late years, however, the French have availed themselves of the humanity of modern warfare, and have made a new regulation, requiring that a breach should stand one assault at least. The consequence of this regulation was to me the loss of the flower of the army, in the assaults of Ciudad Rodrigo and Badajos. I certainly should have thought myself justified in putting both garrisons to the sword; and if I had done so to the first, it is probable that I should have saved 5000 men in the assault of the second. I mention this to show you that the practice of refusing quarter to a garrison which stands an assault is not a useless effusion of blood."

The most remarkable passage to be found in all the

ancient classics dealing with the subject of International relations is set out by Plato in the 15th and 16th chapters of his "Republic." In this passage certain points are examined, some of which have, within the last few years, been the subject of discussion at conferences of International Jurists. Anticipating some of the most enlightened doctrines of the present age, Plato lays down five distinct rules in relation to the usages of war, all based upon those principles of PanHellenic unity and brotherhood which, as we have seen, Kallikratidas had, a short time previously, so boldly enunciated and carried into effect. His first position is, that no Hellenic city should have hand, act, or part in reducing another to slavery, and that Greek individuals likewise should not hold one another in bondage. He next condemns the custom of plundering the bodies of the slain, with the exception that their weapons may lawfully be taken; and censures as weak and childish the practice of offering violence to the inanimate corpse of a fallen enemy. In the third place, the crime of sacrilege is visited with his severest condemnation. The custom of ravaging the country and burning houses is then discussed and likewise disapproved, with the exception that the growing crops and fruits may be appropriated. In reference to this point, Plato lays down the well-known principle that an enemy should be met as though he would at

some time become a friend. His fifth position is, that a marked distinction is to be made between combatants and non-combatants; that not all the men, women, and children in a city are to be regarded as enemies, but only the few men who are to blame for the occurrence of hostilities, and that resentment should be satisfied with the exaction of a penalty from these. He concludes the discussion with the remark that, while war should be conducted on these principles between Hellenic States, the Greeks should in their contests with the barbarians extend to them so much leniency and moderation as they now use to one another.

The principles and practice of International Law among the Greeks and Romans with reference to the Laws and Usages of War have now been briefly sketched. The nascent growth of the science was checked by the establishment of the Empire and of the universal dominion exercised by the Romans over the known world. It must be remembered that International Law has no raison d'être except as between a number of independent political communities standing more or less on the same plane of civilization, and among which no State is so powerful as to be capable of dominating the others. When, therefore, it was possible for Cæsar Augustus to issue a decree that all the world should be taxed, it is clear that there was little room for International Law. The rules, in

consequence, which had come into existence in the Hellenic times for the mutual guidance of independent States had already fallen into abeyance, and little is heard of them for many centuries.

When the world was again split up into distinct fractions after the overthrow of the Roman power, it might have been expected that those rules of International Law which had formerly been recognised would shortly have re-appeared. Such, however, was not the case, and the excesses indulged in by the armies of the Middle Ages can only be described as brutal in the extreme. A few examples will show the savage spirit which had existed from early times among the peoples which established themselves upon the ruins of the Roman Empire. At the siege and sack of Rome in the year 410 A.D., the city, when captured, was pillaged indiscriminately for six days by the victorious Goths in spite of the orders issued by their leader Alaric, forbidding the destruction of Christian churches and the murder of unresisting citizens. The reign of Charlemagne (768-814) is marked by similar excesses. Some thousands of Saxons were executed by him in one day for the crime of defending their country-a proceeding which only served to embitter his enemies, who, in consequence, offered a stout resistance and were not finally subdued for thirtythree years. In the year 1161 Frederick Barbarossa

razed the city of Milan to the ground; but this act of barbarity became the cause of a revulsion of feeling against the Emperor, who was defeated on the field of Legnano, and forced to acknowledge the independence of the Lombards. On another occasion the same Prince bound his captives to the engines of war employed at the siege of Crema, so that they might be killed by the missiles of their own friends.

Various other atrocities were perpetrated from time to time during this period. Blinding and mutilation were at times resorted to, and much depended on the temper and personal characteristics of the conqueror. Richard I was guilty of slaying some thousands of captives in sight of the besieged town to which they belonged. Poisoned weapons were frequently used, and it was a common practice to poison the wells and rivers from which the army of the enemy drew its supply. The French at the Battle of Agincourt determined to mutilate the captured English soldiers by cutting off the fingers of their right hands, so that they could no longer draw the long bow, following the example of Adoni-bezek, lord of the Canaanites, who, having been in the habit of treating his enemies in this fashion, suffered a similar mutilation at the hands of the men of Judah (Judges i. 7).

The sack of the city of Rome by the soldiers of Charles de Montpensier, Duc de Bourbon, illustrates