Much of the contents of The Hague "Conventions" is as old as the hills while much of the "Declaration" of London is revolutionary.
This by the way.

It is not very clear whether Mr.Gibson Bowles, in exhorting us to denounce the Declaration, relies upon its original lack of ratification, or upon some alleged "privateering" on the part of the Germans.

Nothing of the kind has been reported.

The commissioning of warships on the high seas is a different thing, which may possibly be regarded as an offence of a graver nature.

Great Britain is not going to imitate the cynical contempt for treaties, evidenced by the action of Germany in Belgium and Luxemburg, in disregard not only of the well-known treaties of 1889 and 1867, but of a quite recent solemn undertaking, to which I have not noticed any reference.Art.2 of The Hague Convention No.v.of 1907, ratified by her in 1909, is to the following effect:-- "Belligerents are forbidden to move across the territory of a neutral Power troops or convoys, whether of munitions or of supplies." I am, Sir, your obedient servant, T.E.HOLLAND.
Oxford, August 12 (1914).
The true ground for objecting to the legality of the purchase by Turkey of the German warships which have been forced to take refuge in her waters is no doubt that stated by Sir William Scott in the _Minerva_, 6 C.Rob.at p.