one of the Convention of St. Petersburg to which the Chapter III prohibition would be attached. He hoped, therefore, that the British Government might see fit to conform to the views of the majority. Great Britain to principle Lord Pauncefote replied that his instructions did Adherence of not admit of his acceding to the text adopted by the majority, which was a condemnation of pro-involved. jectiles which British experts declared did not produce unnecessary suffering, and added that the British Delegates had declared their entire adherence to the humanitarian principles of the St. Petersburg Convention. Sir John Ardagh said that it had been represented by responsible officers that the present British fully mantled bullet was not sufficient to stop a charge of cavalry or a rush of fanatics, that even the savage enemies of England looked on it with contempt, and that the British military authorities were firmly convinced that it was their duty to give the soldier an arm on which he could rely. They were not altogether satisfied with the modified bullets which had been tried, and intended to make further experiments, with a view to producing a bullet which shall comply with the military as well as the humanitarian requirements. There were several texts to which they were prepared to accede. There was the Austrian text of Colonel Khuepach, the American text of Captain Crozier, the text comprised in the last paragraph of Sir John Ardagh's declaration, and the language of the Convention of St. Petersburg; but to the actual Chapter III Disagreement as to the form text, as voted, he thought it was most improbable Sir Henry Howard suggested that the Report might state that it had been found impossible to arrive at unanimity on the text which had been voted by the majority, but that all were agreed upon the acceptance of the humanitarian principle enunciated in the other texts which had been considered. Jonkheer van Karnebeek said that in his position as Reporter, he was bound to give prominence to the vote of the majority. Lord Pauncefote thanked Jonkheer van Karneof Statement. beek for the pains which he had taken in endeavoring to reconcile divergent views, and promised to lay his suggestions before Her Majesty's Government. He could not, however, under his present instructions, hold out any hope of withdrawal from the position which they maintained, and he feared that persistence in adhering to the text voted by the majority, when the matter came before the Plenary Conference, would result in Her Majesty's Government refusing to accede — not on the ground of principle, for in that they were all in accord- but on account of these technical details of construction which might prove, both now and in the future, extremely embarrassing to those who were endeavoring to solve this difficult problem. Captain Crozier, with the approval of the American Commission, and in its name, proposed to the discussion on Amendment. full Conference, at its session on July 21, the above- Chapter III mentioned formula as an amendment to the propo- Further sition submitted by the First Committee, for the Captain reason that the record had been left in a most un- Crozier's satisfactory state by the action of the CommitteeGreat Britain and the United States appearing most unjustly to oppose a proposition of humanitarian intent, without indicating that the American Government not only stood ready to support, but had even proposed by its representative, a formula which was believed to meet the requirements of humanity much better than the one adopted by the Committee. In supporting his amendment Captain Crozier made the following address: Captain "The general principle touching the subject was Speech of well stated at St. Petersburg in 1868, viz.. that justi-Crozier. fiable limits would be passed by the use of arms which would aggravate uselessly the sufferings of men already placed hors de combat, or would render their death inevitable.' The Convention of St. Petersburg then proceded to declare the proscription of the only violation of the principle then in view, i.e. the use of explosive projectiles of weight below 400 grammes. "It is now desired to extend the prohibition to other than explosive bullets, having in view efforts to increase the shock produced by the bullets of small calibres now in use, or of the still smaller calibres which may come. In formulating the prohibition, what is the object to be kept in view? Evidently to forbid everything, which, in the direction of cruelty, goes beyond necessity. And what Chapter III Speech of Criticism of the article as proposed. is necessity? The declaration of St. Petersburg says: It is sufficient to place hors de combat the greatest number of men possible.' My honorable colleague, the delegate from Russia, has stated here, that, the object of war is to put men hors de combat. For military men there can be but one answer to the question, that the man hit by a bullet shall be placed hors de combat; and with this object, and the prohibition of everything beyond it in view, I propose the amendment, which states directly what is admissible and all that is admissible. "It has also been stated that ordinary bullets suffice to place hors de combat'; there are differences of opinion as to this, as covering all cases. I can speak of them freely because the United States are satisfied with their bullet, and see no reason for changing it; but whatever may be the case with the bullets actually in use, no one can say what it will be if the decrease of calibre, which the Conference has not limited, shall continue. And here we see the weak point of the article, which confines the prohibition to a single class, viz.: bullets which expand or flatten, and gives as illustration certain details for construction: "The use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as jacketed bullets, of which the jacket does not entirely cover the core, or contains incisions, should be forbidden.' "The advantages of the small calibre are well known,-flatter trajectory, greater danger space, less recoil, and, particularly, less weight of ammunition ; and if any nation shall consider them sufficiently Chapter III great to wish to pass to a smaller calibre, which is to be regarded as quite possible, her military experts will at once occupy themselves with a method of avoiding the principal disadvantage-the absence of shock produced by the bullet. In devising means to increase the shock they will naturally examine the prohibitions which have been imposed, and they will find that with the exception of the two classes, viz.: explosive bullets and bullets which expand or flatten, the field is entirely clear; they will see that they can avoid the forbidden detail of construction by making a bullet with a large part of the covering so thin as to be ineffective, and that they can avoid altogether the proscribed classes by making a bullet such that the point would turn easily to one side upon entering the body, so as to cause it to turn end over end, revolving about its shorter axis;-it is well known how easily a rifle projectile can be made to act in this way. Or by making one of such original form as, without changing it, would inflict a torn wound. It is useless to give further examples. A technical officer could spend an indefinite time in suggesting designs of bullets, desperately cruel in their effects, which, forbidden by the amendment which I now propose, would be permitted under the article as it comes from the Committee. In fact they would be even more than permitted, for one might be driven, in the effort to avoid the specified class, to the adoption of another less humane. If the shocking power of the bullet is to be increased |