In the second place, the _Kowshing_ had notice of the existence of a war, at any rate from the moment when she received the orders of the Japanese commander.
The _Kowshing_, therefore, before the first torpedo was fired, was, and knew that she was, a neutral ship engaged in the transport service of a belligerent. (Her flying the British flag, whether as a _ruse de guerre_ or otherwise, is wholly immaterial.) Her liabilities, as such ship, were twofold:--
1. Regarded as an isolated vessel, she was liable to be stopped, visited, and taken in for adjudication by a Japanese Prize Court. If, as was the fact, it was practically impossible for a Japanese prize crew to be placed on board of her, the Japanese commander was within his rights, in using any amount of force necessary to compel her to obey his orders.
2. As one of a fleet of transports and men-of-war engaged in carrying reinforcements to the Chinese troops on the mainland, the _Kowshing_ was clearly part of a hostile expedition, or one which might be treated as hostile, which the Japanese were entitled, by the use of all needful force, to prevent from reaching its destination.
The force employed seems not to have been in excess of what might lawfully be used, either for the arrest of an enemy's neutral transport or for barring the progress of a hostile expedition. The rescued officers also having been set at liberty in due course, I am unable to see that any violation of the rights of neutrals has occurred. No apology is due to our Government, nor have the owners of the _Kowshing_, or the relatives of any of her European officers who may have been lost, any claim for compensation. I have said nothing about the violation by the Japanese of the usages of civilised warfare (not of the Geneva Convention, which has no bearing upon the question), which would be involved by their having fired upon the Chinese troops in the water; not only because the evidence upon this point is as yet insufficient, but also because the grievance, if established, would affect only the rights of the Belligerents _inter se_; not the rights of neutrals, with which alone this letter is concerned. I have also confined my observations to the legal aspects of the question, leaving to others to test the conduct of the Japanese commander by the rules of chivalrous dealing or of humanity.