It may be hardly necessary to add that nothing in international usage justifies execution of innocent wives and children.
I am, Sir, your obedient servant, T.E.HOLLAND.
Oxford, September 17 (1914).
This letter was, it seems, perverted in the _Kreuz Zeitung_.
CIVILIANS IN WARFARE THE RIGHT TO TAKE UP ARMS Sir,--I have read with some surprise so much of Sir Ronald Ross's letter of to-day as states that "the issue still remains dark" as to the right of civilians to bear arms in case of invasion.

It has long been settled that non-molestation of civilians by an invader is only possible upon the understanding that they abstain from acts of violence against him.
Modern written international law has defined, with increasing liberality, by the draft Declaration of 1874 and the Conventions of 1899 and 1907, the persons who will be treated as lawful belligerents.Art.

1 of The Hague Regulations of 1907 recognises as such, not only the regular army, but also militia and volunteers.Art.2 grants indulgence to a _levee en masse_ of "la population" (officially mistranslated "the inhabitants") of a territory not yet occupied.Art.3, also cited by Sir Ronald, has no bearing upon the question.
The rules are, I submit, as clear as they could well be made, and are decisive against the legality of resistance by individual civilians, the sad, but inevitable consequence of which was, as I pointed out in _The Times_ of September 19 last, truthfully represented on the stage in _An Englishman's Home_.
In the same letter I wrote that "even in our own favoured country it is most desirable that every one should know exactly how matters stand." There are, however, obvious objections, possibly not insuperable, to this result being brought about, as is proposed by Sir Ronald Ross, by Government action.
I am, Sir, your obedient servant, T.E.HOLLAND.
Oxford, October 26 (1914).
CIVILIANS AND A RAID Sir,--It is satisfactory to learn, from Mr.McKenna's answer to a question last night, that the duty of the civilian population, at any rate in certain counties, is engaging the attention of Government.

I confess, however, to having read with surprise Mr.Tennant's announcement that "it was provided by The Hague Convention that the wearing of a brassard ensured that the wearer would be regarded as a belligerent." It ought surely to be now generally known that, among the four conditions imposed by the Convention upon Militia and bodies of Volunteers, in order to their being treated as belligerents, the third is "that they shall bear a distinctive mark, fixed and recognisable at a distance." Whether an enemy would accept the mere wearing of a brassard as fulfilling this condition is perhaps an open question upon which some light may be thrown by the controversies of 1871 with reference to _francs-tireurs_.
I am, Sir, your obedient servant, T.E.HOLLAND.
Oxford, November 24 (1914).
MISS CAVELL'S CASE Sir,--The world-wide abhorrence of the execution of Miss Cavell, aggravated as it was by the indecent and stealthy haste with which it was carried out, is in no need of enhancement by questionable arguments, such as, I venture to say, are those addressed to you by Sir James Swettenham.
It is, of course, the case that Germany is in Belgium only as the result of her deliberate violation of solemnly contracted treaties, but she is in military "occupation" of the territory.

From such "occupation" it cannot be disputed that there flow certain rights of self-defence.