States of America, Denmark, Great Britain, Greece, Chapter III and Portugal. Luxemburg did not vote.

On the question whether the American amendment should be voted on before the original proposition, seventeen states voted, "No" and eight, namely: the United States of America, Belgium, China, Denmark, Great Britain, Greece, Portugal, and Servia, voted in the affirmative-Luxemburg again not voting.

ration.

Lord Pauncefote, at the same meeting, gave notice British Declathat he would submit a declaration on the same subject on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, which he would request to have spread upon the minutes in extenso. In view of the action taken, however, he subsequently withdrew this request. The declaration itself, however, which in printed in the British Blue Book (Miscellaneous No. 1, 1899, p. 118) is given below.'

1"When Her Majesty's Government, following the example set by other Powers, introduced the small-bore rifle, they adopted at the same time a bullet entirely covered by a hard envelope.

"Previous to the introduction of the small-bore rifle, there was no covering or envelope of any sort to the leaden bullets used with all rifles by every nation. The hard envelope was not introduced for humanitarian purposes, but because it was found to be necessary with the rapid twist of rifling of the small-bore rifle, in order to prevent the grooves becoming choked with lead.

"Experience with this bullet in the Chitral Campaign of 1895 proved that it had not sufficient stopping power, that the bullet drilled through a bone and did not fracture it, that at close quarters the injury was insufficient to cause immediate shock, and that when soft tissues only were struck, the amount of damage was comparatively trivial.

"It was proved that the enemy expressed contempt for the weapon, as compared with that previously in use; and numerous cases were

Chapter III

There can be little doubt that history will vindicate the position taken by the United States of America and Great Britain on this subject. No

brought to light in which men struck by these bullets were not prevented from remaining in action.

"Under these circumstances, Her Majesty's Government ordered experiments to be undertaken with the object of obtaining a bullet which should possess equal stopping power effect with that of the rifle of larger calibre. The Committee which investigated the question recommended two bullets, one of which was proved to make more severe wounds than the other: Her Majesty's Government, however, rejected the one making the more severe wounds, and decided to adopt the less destructive bullet, now known as Mark IV. pattern, as giving the minimum of stopping effect necessary.

"This bullet has a small cylindrical cavity in the head, over which the hard metal envelope is turned down.

"There is nothing new in this cavity in the head of the bullet. It existed in the Snider bullet, with which Her Majesty's troops were armed for many yearsa bullet which was perfectly well known to all the Powers of Europe, which was actually in use in Her Majesty's army at the date of the St. Petersburg Convention of 1868, and to which, nevertheless, no objection was ever raised on humanitarian grounds.

"The Indian Government for the same reasons adopted the socalled Dum Dum bullet, in which a very small portion of the head of the leaden bullet is not covered by the hard metal envelope.

"Her Majesty's Government are unable to admit that a bullet which has been deliberately adopted by them as possessing the minimum of destructive effect necessary, can be considered as inflicting unnecessary suffering; and in view of the fact that until recently all rifles of all Powers fired bullets consisting entirely of lead without a covering, and that the bullet with a cavity in the head was the bullet in use in Her Majesty's army at the date of the St. Petersburg Convention, and for many years subsequently, they are equally unable to admit that there is anything in either the exposure of a small portion of lead or the existence of a cavity, to justify the condemnation of either of these methods of construction.

"The experiments conducted in this country lead to the conclusion that the wounds inflicted by these bullets are not more severe than — if so severe as the wounds inflicted by the larger bullets fired from

attempt was made to meet their arguments on the Chapter III merits, and the best that can be hoped for is, that the decision of the Conference may not eventually defeat its own object.

METHODS OF NAVAL WARFARE

The propositions included in the fourth paragraph of the circular of Count Mouravieff were as follows:

"1. The prohibition of the use, in naval battles, of submarine and diving torpedo boats, or all other agencies of destruction of the same nature. 2. An agreement not to construct in the future warships armed with rams."

These subjects were referred to a special naval sub-committee, presided over by Jonkheer A. P. C. van Karnebeek of the Netherlands, the Vice-President of the Conference.

Captain Scheine, on behalf of the Russian Govern- Limitation of ment, submitted a proposal respecting naval

guns and

armor, to the effect that the Powers should for the period of five years agree to limit the calibre of their guns to seventeen inches, the initial velocity to thirteen thousand feet a second, and the length of

previous rifles; therefore, Her Majesty's Government, while entirely sympathizing with the desire to avoid the use of missiles which inflict wounds of unnecessary severity, are unable to admit that this is involved by either of the above methods of construction. It is, however, their intention to pursue their investigations, and to spare no pains in order to combine with the necessary amount of stopping power the minimum aggravation of suffering on the part of the wounded, but they consider it absolutely essential that such stopping power should exist in the bullet employed by Her Majesty's troops."

calibre.

Chapter III

Rams.

New types

and calibres

guns to forty-five calibres; further, that armor should be limited to fourteen inches of the latest Krupp pattern.

This proposition was received by all the naval representatives ad referendum, with the result that it was almost unanimously negatived. The United States and British Governments both rejected it by cable very promptly.

Upon the proposal not to construct warships armed with rams, a majority of the Governments represented declared their readiness to enter such an agreement provided it were unanimous. Unanimity was, however, frustrated by the declarations of the delegates from Germany, Austria-Hungary, Denmark, Sweden and Norway, to the effect that their Governments did not approve of the idea.

Upon the subject of rifles and naval guns, and the of naval guns. possibility of an agreement respecting the employment of new types and calibres, a brief discussion showed that the utmost result attainable upon the subject was the expression of a wish, which was adopted, that the question should be relegated to the further study of the Governments.

Projectiles for

of asphyxiating gases.

The proposition that the Contracting Powers agree the diffusion to abstain from the use of projectiles, the object of which is the diffusion of asphyxiating or deleterious gases, was adopted, with only one dissenting votethat of the United States of America, and one vote conditioned upon unanimity that of Great Britain. The distinguished representative of the United States of America on the naval sub-committee.

Captain Mahan, gave the following reasons for Chapter III voting against this provision, and they were inserted in the report of the proceedings of the Committee:

Mahan's

"1. That no shell emitting such gases is as yet Captain in practical use or has undergone adequate experi-objections. ment; consequently, a vote taken now would be taken in ignorance of the facts as to whether the results would be of a decisive character, or whether injury in excess of that necessary to attain the end of warfare, of immediately disabling the enemy, would be inflicted.

"2. That the reproach of cruelty and perfidy addressed against these supposed shells was equally uttered formerly against firearms and torpedoes, although each are now employed without scruple. Until we know the effects of such asphyxiating shells, there was no saying whether they would be more or less merciful than missiles now permitted.

"3. That it was illogical and not demonstrably humane, to be tender about asphyxiating men with gas, when all were prepared to admit that it was allowable to blow the bottom out of an ironclad at midnight, throwing four or five hundred men into the sea to be choked by water, with scarcely the remotest chance of escape. If, and when, a shell emitting asphyxiating gases has been successfully produced, then, and not before, will men be able to vote intelligently on the subject."

Whatever views may be held upon the merits of the various propositions considered by the First Committee, there can be no question as to the great