第42章 RULES AS TO PRISONERS AND QUARTER.(1)

At the close of my last lecture I spoke of the Geneva Convention of 1864as the farthestas well as the most recentpoint of advance reached bya concert of nations in the attempt to mitigate the inevitable sufferingsof warInternational Lawas now understoodcontains a number of rulesof greater antiquity having the same object in viewThe status of the prisonerof war is historically descended from the status of the slaveHe representsthe class whichas the Romans put ithad lost libertycountryand family;by capture he had forfeited to the captor all the rights which he possessed,and was bound to labour at the order of the captorand anybody who succeededthe captor in titleto the end of his lifeBut as slavery fell into disreputeand decay chiefly owing to the influence of the Christian Churcha numberof rules gradually grew up for the purpose of limiting the power of the captorover the prisoner of warThey may be described as intended to prevent hisbeing treated actually as a slavein the form which they have now taken.

In the Manuals which several of the great civilised states have preparedfor their officers in the fieldit is declared that the object of detainingprisoners of war is to prevent their taking part again in the operationsof warSo much restraintthereforeand no moreshould be applied as issufficient for that purposeThey cannot be compelled to aid their captorsin military operationsbut they may be employed in any other manner suitableto their conditionThe money which they earn by work should be placed totheir credit after deducting the expenses of subsistenceA prisoner of warwho has committed an offense against the customs of war -suchfor example,as stabbing or robbing wounded men -may be considered to have forfeitedthe character of a prisoner of warand be punished with death for his crime.

The primary obligation to support prisoners of war necessarily lies withthe captorand he should maintain them in a manner suitable to their condition.

A prisoner of warunless he has given a pledge or promise not to escape,is justified in making the attemptbut if retaken he is not punishable bydeathor otherwisefor having made the attemptas the customs of war donot regard an attempt to escape on the part of a prisoner as a crimeOnthe other handa rising amongst prisoners of war with a view to effect ageneral escape may be rigorously punishedeven with death in the case ofabsolute necessityas self-security is the law of the conquerorand thecustoms of war justify the use of means necessary to that endStricter meansof confinement may be used after an unsuccessful attempt to escapeBut aprisoner of war cannot be ill treated or punished for refusing to give informationas to the forces to which he belongedor for giving false information.

It has happened in modern days that after great warsor where communicationbetween the belligerents was possible during themserious complaints havebeen made of the imperfect discharge of the obligatious imposed by InternationalLaw or by usage on a captor holding a captive in duressAt the close ofthe War of Secession between the Northern and Southern sections of the UnitedStatesthe Northern armies obtained possession of the person of a Confederateofficer who had been in charge of the prisoners taken by the Confederatesduring the vicarHe had been accused of barbarous cruelties towards hisenemies who were captivesand the Northern armyafter a trial which onthe other side was charged with every kind of carelessness and irregularity,put him to death by hangingThe English Government wasat the beginningof this century and the end of the lastconstantly accused of barbaritytowards the French prisoners who were detained in the hulks at Portsmouthand other portsand probably to this day it is a commonplace amongst theFrench that this is one of the greatest crimes which the English have perpetratedagainst themselvesEngland was in reality in great difficulties in providingplaces of confinement for the prisoners through the want or scarcity of suchplaces in this countryand in the last part of the struggle the EmperorNapoleon Iis now known to have been indisposed to facilitate exchange ofprisoners between the two countriesGathering his vast armies not only fromFrancebut practically from the whole of the Continenthe looked with littlefavour on anything that would add to the numbers of the British armywhichhe believed to be smaller than it really wasor on anything that would increasethe extent of his own overgrown forcesStill it is probable that both inthe War of Secessionand in the French and English war at the beginningof the centurytoo little tenderness was shown to prisonersand I hopethat with the emphatic expressions which are contained in the new Manuals,and which will henceforward give the law in the fieldthere will be no reasonin the future to make a grievance of the treatment of prisoners of warTheonly complete mitigation of the misfortune of captivity isof coursetobe found either in the escape of the prisoneron which I have said a fewwordsor else in some rules which should authorise his discharge from thecaptive conditionIn all probability these methods of releasing prisonersare all descended from the system of ransom now extinctOne result of thetheory that the captive had become a slave wasnaturallythat if he wereable he might pay to his captor such a price as would induce him to releasewhat had become his own propertyVery large Bums of money seem to have beenexacted in the Middle Ages as the ransom of a mailed knight when taken prisoner.