International law is, however, made neither by the ruling of an "impartial historian," on the one hand, nor by the _ipse dixit_ of an Emperor, on the other.
In point of fact, the question raised by Sir Edward is not an open one, and, even in our own favoured country, it is most desirable that every one should know exactly how matters stand.

The universally accepted rules as to the persons who alone can claim to act with impunity as belligerents are set forth in that well-known "scrap of paper" The Hague Convention No.iv.of 1907; to the effect that members of "an army" (in which term militia and bodies of volunteers are included) must (1) be responsibly commanded, (2) bear distinctive marks, visible at a distance, (3) carry their arms openly, and (4) conform to the laws of war.

By way of concession, inhabitants of a district not yet "occupied" who spontaneously rise to resist invasion, without having had time to become organised, will be privileged if they conform to requirements (3) and (4).

These rules are practically a republication of those of The Hague Convention of 1899, which again were founded upon the recommendations of the Brussels Conference of 1874, although, at the Conference, Baron Lambermont regretted that "si les citoyens doivent etre conduits au supplice pour avoir tente de defendre leur pays, au peril de leur vie, ils trouvent inscrit, sur le poteau au pied duquel ils seront fusilles, l'article d'un Traite signe par leur propre gouvernement qui d'avance les condamnait a mort." _An Englishman's Home_ was a play accurately representing the accepted practice, shocking as it must be.

I remember the strength of an epithet which was launched from the gallery at the German officer on his ordering the shooting of the offending householder.