"What but the inordinate desire of popularity could have induced a man in his station to write and publish an invitation and provocation to war, to be carried on in a manner such as has been disclaimed by the civilised portions of mankind?"
The naval historian, Mr. Younge, in commenting on the burning of Paita, in Chili, as far back as 1871, for non-compliance with a demand for a money contribution (ultimately reduced to a requisition of provisions for the ships), speaks of it as "worthy only of the most lawless pirate or buccaneer, ... as a singular proof of how completely the principles of civilised warfare were conceived to be confined to Europe."
Such exceptional acts as the burning of Paita, or the bombardment of Valparaiso, mentioned by Mr. Herries, will, of course, occur from time to time. My position is that they are so far stigmatised as barbarous by public opinion that their perpetration in civilised warfare may be regarded as improbable; in other words, that they are forbidden by international law.
It is a further question whether the rules of international law on this point are to be changed or disregarded in future. Do we expect, and are we desirous, that future wars shall be conducted in accordance with buccaneering precedent, or with what has hitherto been the general practice of the nineteenth century? Your naval correspondents incline to revert to buccaneering and thus to the introduction into naval coast operations of a rigour long unknown to the operations of military forces on land; but they do so with a difference. Lord Charles Beresford (writing early in the controversy) asserts the permissibility of ransoming and destroying, without any qualifying expressions; while Admiral de Horsey would apparently only ask "rich" towns for contributions, insisting also that a contribution must be "reasonable," and expressly repudiating any claim to do "wanton injury to property of poor communities, and still less to individuals." In the light of these concessions, I venture to claim Admiral de Horsey's concurrence in my condemnation of most of the doings mentioned in my first letter, although on the whole he ranges himself on the side of the advocates of what I maintain to be a change in the existing law of war. Whether or no the existing law needs revision is a question for politicians and for military and naval experts. It is within my province only to express a hope that the contradiction between existing law and new military necessities (if, indeed, such contradiction exists) will not be solved by a repudiation of all law as "nonsense"; and, further, that, if a change of law is to be effected, it will be done with due deliberation and under a sense of responsibility. It should be remembered that operations conducted with the apparent approval of the highest naval authorities, and letters in _The Times_ from distinguished admirals, are in truth the stuff that public opinion, and in particular that department of public opinion known as "international law," is made of.