Forks. Approval is given by Grotius and Vattel to the conduct of the Roman Senate, who promptly disavowed the action of their representatives. These two writers are of opinion that the Samnites must have known that the Roman Consuls were altogether unauthorized to make such a treaty, and therefore that the former were not entitled to have the Roman Army replaced in the hopeless position in which it found itself before the treaty was made. The authors of this agreement were delivered up to the enemy, who, with a dignified protest, refused to receive them.

H. 36. An Armistice, which is in fact only another name for a truce, suspends military operations by mutual agreement between the belligerents, and may be either H. 37. general or partial. The former suspends all military operations and can only be sanctioned by the sovereign authority of the State; while the latter, which only affects certain fractions of the belligerent armies, can be made on the authority of a local commander. The commander making such a truce must take care that it does not confer an undue advantage upon the enemy, but his action cannot be repudiated by his Government. The enemy is not supposed to know that the opposing General is subject to any limitation with regard to the exercise of a power which is usually delegated to an officer commanding a force in the field. If the duration

of the truce is not fixed, hostilities may be resumed at any moment, provided the notice agreed upon by the terms of the armistice has been given to the other belligerent.

Official notice of the existence of an armistice H. 38. must be given in good time to the proper authorities and to the troops. Hostilities are suspended either immediately after the notification or at any moment which may have been agreed upon. The Contracting Parties should define the relations which are to exist H. 39. between themselves and also between each of them and the population within the theatre of war. Any serious breach of the terms of the truce may be visited H. 40. upon the defaulting party by denunciation, and in urgent cases, by the immediate renewal of hostilities. It is often doubtful what acts constitute a breach of this class of agreement. It may be said that both sides are at liberty to do what they could safely have done if no agreement had been made. Thus a besieged force may repair works which are out of reach of the assailants, and may replenish its provisions if the source of supply is not commanded by the enemy at the beginning of the truce. They must not do any act which is incompatible with the spirit of the armistice, such as repairing defences within reach of the enemy's guns. A violation of the terms of the truce by an individual н. 41. acting on his own responsibility stands on a different

footing. In such a case, a demand may be made by the injured belligerent for the punishment of the offender and compensation for any losses resulting from his action.

A few words on the technical terms connected with this subject may be added. The term "Cartel," though used sometimes with reference to other agreements, generally means an engagement for the exchange of prisoners of war, and a "Cartel Ship" is a vessel commissioned for the purpose of such exchange. A "Safe Conduct" or "Passport" is issued by the commander of a force to enable persons to pass within the limits of the area comprised within his authority. A "Passport" is generally used with reference to persons only, while a "Safe Conduct" is applicable both to persons and things. A Safe Conduct, which as a general rule is "express," may also be "implied." This point was decided in the case of M. Schnabele. In the year 1887, M. Schnabele, a French official, was found in the new German territory acquired by Prussia in the Franco-German War, under circumstances which rendered him liable to arrest according to German Law. His defence was that on past occasions he had been asked by German officials to assist in the settlement of frontier questions. After some diplomatic correspondence, he was released by the German Government on the ground that, if invited by German officials to

cross the frontier, he was entitled to an implied safe conduct when returning to France.

A "Safeguard" yet remains to be noticed. By this expression is understood a guard posted by a commanding officer to protect property or persons against the operations of his own troops. Forcing a safeguard, i.e. breaking into premises so protected, is according to English Law, a military offence of the gravest character, and by section 6 of the Army Act of 1881, is punishable with death. The term "safeguard" is also, according to Halleck, taken to include a written document of a protective nature which may be delivered to the party whose person or property is to be protected, or may be posted on the property itself, as upon a church or other public building.

CHAPTER IV.

MILITARY AUTHORITY OVER HOSTILE TERRITORY.

H. 42. TERRITORY is considered to be occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The fourth section of the Declaration of Paris lays down that "Blockades, to be binding, must be effective"; in other words, they must not be "paper" blockades. The case of occupation is strictly analogous : the occupier must be in actual military possession of the area occupied, and must have sufficient force at his command to repress any outbreak of the inhabitants. This act is the proof of his power, and an army of occupation is considered to be established when its. lines of communication and the positions it occupies are made secure by troops detailed for the purpose. The occupation extends only to territory where that authority is capable of being exercised, and in a position to assert itself. The fact that the occupant has taken possession of a portion of the enemy's country does not entitle him to the occupation of the whole. Exclusive possession is the true test. The reduction of a town or fortress dominating the surrounding country entitles the