and men of the Regular Army of a hostile belligerent Power, found within the limits of the United Kingdom after an act of declaration of war; and would such persons be liable to be treated as prisoners of war, or would they be despatched under the protection of the Government to join the forces of the enemy ?" The general effect of the Attorney-General's reply may be gathered from the quotations from it made in the letter.

The topic was again touched upon on March 3, in a question put by Captain Faber, to which Mr. Haldane replied.

FOREIGN SOLDIERS IN ENGLAND

SIR,-The question raised last night by Mr. ArnoldForster is one which calls for more careful consideration than it appears yet to have received. International law has in modern times spoken with no very certain voice as to the permissible treatment of alien enemies found within the territory of a belligerent at the outbreak of war.

There is, however, little doubt that such persons, although now more usually allowed to remain, during good behaviour, may be expelled, and, if necessary, wholesale, as were Germans from France in 1870. But may such persons be, for good reasons, arrested, or otherwise prevented from leaving the country, as Germans were prevented from leaving France in the earlier days of the Franco-Prussian War? Grotius speaks with approval of such a step being taken, "ad minuendas hostium vires." Bynkershoek, more than a century later, recognises the right of thus acting, "though it is rarely exercised." So the Supreme Court of the United States in "Brown v. United States (1814). So Chancellor Kent (1826), and Mr. Manning (1839) is explicit that the arrest in question is lawful, and that “the individuals are prisoners of war."

Vattel, it is true (1758), ventures to lay down that

"Le Souverain qui déclare la guerre ne peut retenir les sujets de l'ennemi qui se trouvent dans ses états au moment de la déclaration en leur permettant d'entrer dans ses terres et d'y séjourner, il leur a promis tacitement toute liberté et toute sûreté pour le retour."

...

And he has been followed by some recent writers. There is, however, I venture to hold, no ground for asserting that this indulgent system is imposed by international law. I am glad, therefore, to find the Attorney-General laying down that

"for strictly military reasons, any nation is entitled to detain and to intern soldiers found upon the territory at the outbreak of war."

And I should be surprised if, under all circumstances, as the learned Attorney-General seems to think probable—

66

England would follow, whatever the strict law may be, the humane and chivalrous practice of modern times, and would give to any subjects of a hostile Power who might be found here engaging in civilian pursuits a reasonable time within which to leave for their own country, even although they were under the obligation of entering for service under the enemy's flag.”

The doctrine of Vattel has, in fact, become less plausible than it was before universal liability to military service had become the rule in most Continental countries. The peaceably engaged foreign resident is now in all probability a trained soldier, and liable to be recalled to the flag of a possible enemy.

There may, of course, be considerable practical difficulties in the way of ascertaining the nationality of any given foreigner, and whether he has completed, or evaded, the military training required by the laws of his country. It may also be a question of high policy whether resident enemies would not be a greater danger to this country if

they were compelled to remain here, than if they were allowed, or compelled, to depart, possibly to return as invaders.

I am only concerned to maintain that, as far as international law is concerned, England has a free hand either to expel resident enemies or to prevent them from leaving the country, as may seem most conducive to her own safety.

I am, Sir, your obedient servant,

Oxford, February 25 (1909).

T. E. HOLLAND.

CHAPTER IV

THE CONDUCT OF WARFARE AS BETWEEN

BELLIGERENTS

SECTION 1

Localities closed to Hostilities

BESIDES neutral territory and waters generally, certain localities are more specifically closed to operations of war. The following letters deal with the Convention of October 29, 1888, with reference to the Suez Canal. Their object was to obviate some misconceptions as to the purport of the Convention, and to maintain that it was not, at the time of writing, operative, so far as Great Britain was concerned. This state of things was altered by the Anglo-French Convention of April 8, 1904, which, concerned principally with the settlement of the Egyptian and Newfoundland questions, provides, in Article 6, that "In order to assure the free passage of the Suez Canal, the Government of His Britannic Majesty declares that it adheres to the stipulations of the Treaty concluded on the 29th October, 1888, and to their becoming operative. The free passage of the canal being thus

guaranteed, the execution of the last phrase of paragraph 1, and that of paragraph 2 of the 8th article of this Treaty will remain suspended."

The last phrase of paragraph 1 is: "The Canal shall never be subjected to the exercise of the right of blockade."

Paragraph 2 of the Article 8 relates to the presidency of a special commissioner of the Ottoman Government over meetings of the agents of the signatory Powers.

On the whole question see Parl. Papers, Egypt, No. 1 (1888), Commercial, No. 2 (1889), and the present writer's Studies in International Law, p. 270.

THE SUEZ CANAL

SIR,-Your correspondent "M.B." has done good service by calling attention to the misleading nature of the oftenrepeated statement that the Suez Canal has been "neutralised" by the Convention of 1888. Perhaps you will allow me more explicitly to show why, and how far, this statement is misleading.

In the first place, this Convention is inoperative. It is so in consequence of the following reservation made by Lord Salisbury in the course of the negotiations which resulted in the signature of the Convention :

"Les Délégués de la Grande-Bretagne . . pensent qu'il est de leur devoir de formuler une réserve générale quant à l'application de ces dispositions en tant qu'elles ne seraient pas compatibles avec l'état transitoire et exceptionel où se trouve actuellement l'Egypte, et qu'elles pourraient entraver la liberté d'action de leur Gouvernement pendant la période de l'occupation de l'Egypte par les forces de sa Majesté Britannique."

Being thus unaffected by the treaty, the canal retains those characteristics which it possesses, under the common law of nations, as a narrow strait, wholly within the territory of one Power and connecting two open seas. The fact that