WHO ARE THE HUNS?

PART TWO.
Questions of Legality in Naval Warfare.
CHAPTER XXVI.
England, the Laws of Naval Warfare, and
Ourselves.
The chief fundamental laws in the matter of conducting
war on land are sufficiently clearly defined from an international
standpoint in the so-called "Rules and Regulations of War
on Land." There are gaps, to be sure, such as are bound to
ensue, considering the difficulties surrounding the entire matter
and the recent attempts at regulation. But where the will
exists to interpret them properly they form an excellent code
for a humane conduct of war. But this is not the case in the
matter of naval warfare. In this, England, under the sham
halo of a concern for the liberty of Europe, had until the middle
of the 19th century defended the principle or rather the privilege
of capturing prizes at sea. All efforts made to attack
this, especially at the Congress at Chatillon (1814) were frustrated.
"Never," cried Lord Cathcart, in a manner truly English,
"will Great Britain acknowledge any other law upon the seas
—than the universal law of the nations." England regarded
the seizure of merchant vessels as a universal law of the nations t
The original edition contains a thorough-going description
of the evolution of international sea-law (see page 401 et seq.).
England has appended her signature to all conventions;
she has ratified the 6th, 7th and 8th (with a reservation) the
9th and the nth Conventions of the Hague Conference.
Her position with respect to international law is dictated
solely by the chief dogma of her naval policy: Every power,
Muller, Who are the Huns? 18