RUSSIA AND ENGLAND.

Press, Volume XXIII, Issue 3037, 17 May 1875, Page 3

RUSSIA AND ENGLAND.

[From the Pall Mall Gazette. J

The extraordinary article which the Russian organ in Brussels—the Nord —has published respecting our refusal to attend the forthcoming Conference at St Petersburgh increases the interest which naturally belongs to Lord Derby's recent despatch to Lord A. Lof tus. It inspires some curiosity as to the words in which the insidious and " hypocritical" policy of England finds expression.

After a review of the circumstances which led to the assembling of the former Conference, in tbe course of which review Lord Derby takes occasion to pay a compliment to the "humane motives" of the Emperor of Russia, he proceeds to recount the now wellknown history of the Conference itself, and to remark on the sudden and marvellous extension of the scopeof itsdeliberations which took place after its earlier meetings. When, on the 31st of July, our representative, Sir A. Horsford, " drew attention to that part of his instructions wherein he was directed to abstain from taking part in any discussion on points extending to general principles of international law not already universally recognised and accepted," the announcement was met with the reply from Baron Jomini to the effect that *' tout le monde est d'accord a cet cgard, la Conference n'ayant d'autre but que de consacrer dcs regies universellement admises." What the nature of these universally admitted rules was was soon to appear. It soon became evident " when the more important articles of the project came to be discussed that the attitude of reserve which her Majesty's Government had held towards it and the caution of the British delegate were fully justified. Instead of mere rules for the guidance of military commanders based upon which a general understanding could be shown to be desired in the interests of humanity, the articles of the project were seen to contain or to imply numerous innovations for which no practical necessity was found to exist, and the result of which, if adopted, would have been greatly to the advantage of the Powers having large armies constantly prepared for war and systems of universal compulsory military service." Under these circumstances the Government might in accordance with their previously announced intentions, have instructed the British delegate to protest formally against any attempt on the part of the conference to lay down new rules of international law between belligerents ; but they preferred to leave the discussion to take its course. " being unwilling to throw impediments in the way of a complete inquiry into the project, and thus prevent the Emperor of Russia's wishes in regard to the conference from being adequately carried out." Lord Derby then proceeds to refer in detail to one or two of the abortive attempts to arrive at an agreement on the various articles of the project. After describing the conflict of opinion which arose on the question of "actual" versus " constructive occupation," and the final adoption of modified articles, in which an effort was made to reconcile the conflicting views by the use of carefully balanced expression, Lord Derby adds: " Her Majesty's Government fear that the inhabitants of the invaded territory would find in such colourless phrases very inadequate protection from the liberal interpretation of the necessities and possibilities of warfare by a victorious enemy, while the existence of rules the meaning of which is not distinct and indisputable could not fail should they ever be actually promulgated, to give rise to angry controversy which would intensify rather than mitigate the horrors of war." After somewhat similar comments on the discussion of the articles relating to " combatants and non-combatants," " requisitions and contributions," and " reprisals," Lord Derby points out that by passing over the articles on the last subject in si'ence "the delegates really evaded one of the principal difficulties inherent in any scheme for the preparation of the rules of war to be observed by belligerents— namely, the question: How these rules can be enforced. Rules of international law in which the interests of neutrals and belligerents are concerned can be enforced in the last resort by recourse to war; but in the case of countries already engaged in hostilities tiv-re axe no means except by reprisals for either

| belligerent to force upon che other the observance of any set of rules. Neutrals, it is almost certain, would be appealed to against the infraction of these rnks, but it can scarcely be seiiously contemplated th;it neutral countries should really intervene for tbe enforcement of these rules; and unless their interference were attended by the ex- rci?e of compulsion, ia which case-the circle of hostilities would soon be indefinitely enlarged, it cannot be supposed that the contending nations would respect it." In conclusion. Lord Derby states that " Her Majesty's Government regard the result of the Brussels Conference to have been to demonstrate that there is no possibility of an agreement upon the really important articles of the Russian project; that the interests of the invader and the invaded are irreconcileable ; and that even if certain rules of warfare could be framed in terms which would meet with acquiescence they would prove to exercise little more than that fictitious restraint deprecated by the Russian Government at the opening of the Conference. Under these circumstances her Majesty's Government cannot consent to pursue the matter, or to take part in any further negotiations or conferences upon it. . . . A careful consideration of the whole matter has convinced them that it is their duty firmly to repudiate on behalf of Great Britain and her allies in any future war any project for altering the principles of international law upon which this country has hitherto acted, and, above all, to refuse to be a party to any agreement the effect of which would be to facilitate aggressive wars and to paralyze the patriotic resistance of an invaded people."