rule on the continent' a good many years before 1909, even before 1880, when the first edition appeared. Our last quotations will be from Prof. Oppenheim. In the 2nd edition (1912) of his justly valued treatise on International Law, he states the principle thus: 'It may safely be maintained that there is now a customary rule of International Law, according to which all such subjects of the enemy as have not according to the Municipal Law of their country to join the armed forces of the enemy must be allowed a reasonable period for withdrawal. On the other hand, such enemy subjects as are active or reserve officers, or reservists, and the like, may be prevented from leaving the country and detained as prisoners of war; for the principle of self-preservation must justify belligerents in refusing to furnish each other with resources which increase their means of offence and defence' (ii, 131). Again, in the preface to Mr R. F. Roxburgh's recent volume on 'The Prisoners of War Information Bureau in London,' the same judicious authority says that 'the discussions at the Second Hague Peace Conference of 1907 ... make it quite clear that it was considered inadmissible to imprison subjects of the enemy who at the outbreak of war are on the territory of belligerents. However, this discussion did not touch upon the treatment of such enemy civilians on the territory of a belligerent as are of a military age or even reservists. If they were allowed to leave, they would be able to join the forces of the enemy, and for this reason belligerents cannot be compelled to allow them to depart unhindered.' Further on he adds: "That the question of the legality of the treatment of civilian prisoners is raised at all is due to the fact that the internment of such civilian enemy subjects is an entirely novel departure. To my knowledge it has, since the time of Napoleon I, never been resorted to; at any rate not on a large scale' (pp. vi, viii). One feels tempted to ask whether the naval and military attachés of the enemy's embassy may be detained as officers of the armed force, or must be allowed to leave with the Ambassador. The only hostile measure which yet remains to be adopted, if one is to judge from the conduct of one belligerent Power since the outbreak of the present war, seems to be the detention and incarceration of the enemy's diplomatic representatives (and consular officers), after the manner of the Turks so late as the fourth quarter of the 18th century. On the present occasion the example of treating enemy aliens with rigour has been set by Germany and Austria. No days of grace were granted either at Berlin or Vienna. All male British subjects, no matter what their age or condition, were refused permission to return to their native country. Amongst them were invalids over the military age, taking the baths at Nauheim or Carlsbad; and some of them are still detained. At Homburg, about ten days or a fortnight after war was declared, an order was published that all foreigners to leave, carrying only hand-baggage, for the German frontier, and to cross over into Holland on foot, the distance in some cases being as much as eight miles, in others even more. Many Englishmen were detained as prisoners and sent to a working camp. We have no precise information as to the orders given by the police in other parts of Germany, but judging by one case of which we know the particulars, men of military age were imprisoned, some in solitary cells, on the day war was declared, and were afterwards transferred to an internment camp at Ruhleben. It is evident that the treatment they received was very harsh at the outset; but from papers recently presented to Parliament we learn that, owing to the efforts of the American diplomatic and Consular officials, the conditions under which British prisoners are now living in Germany have been greatly ameliorated. (Misc. No. 12 (1915).) With the immediate prospect in view of a declaration of war being presented by Germany, the French Government on August 2 gave notice that all foreigners might leave France before the end of the first day of mobilisation. Austro-Hungarian and German subjects who wished to remain were ordered to betake themselves to any unfortified place outside Paris, with the exception of certain departments. After the first day of mobilisation, all, who had not already left Paris, were, without distinction of age or sex, to be removed to provisional places of refuge in the west of France, where they would be provided with food and lodging, and if possible with work. Other provisions of the order left unconditionally free all natives of Alsace-Lorraine, not naturalised as French citizens, belonging to families long established in the country, whose origin and French sentiments were known, and also families of which at least one member had enlisted in the foreign legion; but such families of which any member had left in response to the German order of mobilisation were to be considered as German. All other foreigners, no matter what their nationality, were to retire behind a line stretching from Dunkirk to Nice, certain specified defended towns and ports being prohibited to them as places of residence. · Great Britain accorded to German subjects a period of seven days during which they might leave. After that a considerable number who had elected to remain were interned as prisoners of war, but some 30,000 were allowed to retain their liberty. In consequence of the riots which followed, in London and other cities, on the sinking of the Lusitania' by a German submarine or submarines, and the pressure put upon the Government by certain members of parliament, it was decided that the rest of the enemy aliens in this country should be made liable to internment. If they were not a danger before the destruction of the 'Lusitania,' it is difficult to see what difference that cruel act could make in their case. They were in no way responsible for the orders given by the heads of the German Admiralty. Possibly it appeared to the police authorities that it would be easier to protect them from violence if they were gathered together at internment camps than if they continued to dwell isolated among British subjects whose passions are sometimes uncontrollable. Internment and Repatriation committees were set up; and from a return furnished by the Home Secretary on July 27 in answer to a question in the House of Commons, it appeared that out of more than 14,000 applications for exemption, about 6,100 had been granted, to a large extent to Poles, Czechs, Italians and Alsatians; exceptional consideration having been given to applications from Austrians and Hungarians because of the much greater leniency with which British subjects had been treated in Austria and Hungary than in Germany. Some 6300 enemy aliens, including children, have been repatriated since the new policy was announced. Vol. 224.-No. 445. 2 F PENGE PUBLIC LIBRARY Art. 8.-CHARLES FOX AND THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION. 1. The Early History of Charles James Fox. The American Revolution. George III and Charles Fox. Seven vols. By Sir G. O. Trevelyan. London: Longmans, 1880-1914. 2. Charles James Fox. By J. L. Le B. Hammond. London: Methuen, 1903. 3. The True History of the American Revolution. By S. G. Fisher. Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1903. 4. The Old Colonial System. By G. B. Hertz. Manchester: University Press, 1905. 5. British Colonial Policy, 1754-1765. By G. L. Beer. New York: Macmillan, 1907. 6. The First American Civil War. By Henry Belcher. Two vols. London: Macmillan, 1911. 6 At the beginning of the 1881 session of Parliament, a few months after the publication of 'The Early History of Charles James Fox,' the late Mr Justin McCarthy met Sir George Trevelyan in the lobby of the House of Commons and told him that there ought to be a statutory power whereby an Order of Court could be obtained to compel him to finish Fox.' Most of those who have read The Early Life,' all who delight in the great men who gave colour and force to an otherwise dull and futile period, must re-echo that wish. It is true that Sir George has now, after the lapse of thirty-four years, 'finished' his history, but, alas! he has not finished Fox'; and the concluding six volumes of the series are more concerned with the American struggle for independence than with the life of the Whig demi-god whom he introduced to the public with such captivating art. The fact is that everything of moment which Sir George had to tell about his hero, until Fox first undertook the real responsibility of office, was told in the 1880 volume; and he would be a bold man who would wish to improve on that account. It is true that Fox's life is now carried to a point some ten years later than that reached in the 'Early Life,' and in these ten years the second and final stage of Fox's career is begun; but Fox himself appears so rarely in the later volumes, and his conduct during the period is so amply foreshadowed in the 'Early Life, that Sir George himself would no doubt be the first to rest his claims to a judgment on Fox on that first and splendid bit of writing. Fox indeed is so far from being 'finished' that he is only just begun by his biographer. This beginning is no doubt very precious, indispensable, in fact, for a proper understanding of Fox's whole career. For the author has given us all that part of his life so important in forming a man's character-his early education, his life at home, his first and best friendships, and his training as a statesman. But of Fox in the period of his life most interesting to the public, as Secretary of State with Rockingham, as member of the Coalition with North, as the leader of a hopeless minority during the French wars, and finally as once more Secretary of State when his great rival had passed away and his own days were numbered of all this there is nothing. To some of the questions raised by Fox's conduct during that quarter of a century, on which the writer is silent, answers are suggested, if not put forth authoritatively; but it must be a lasting regret to all those who were stirred to enthusiasm by Sir George's first volume that, when after seventeen years he resumed his task, it was not to complete the Life of Fox, but to treat of great affairs in which Fox played but a minor part. No living writer is so well fitted as Sir George Trevelyan to make the general public realise and understand the reason for the halo which has encompassed Fox in Whig tradition. And it undoubtedly needs explaining. To judge from mere achievement, this devotion to Fox's memory seems one of the most paradoxical sentiments in history. Many men, who have never achieved much, have been regarded during their lives as wonders, but after their death have sunk into an oblivion from which the most spirited historian may not hope to rescue them. Of these is Charles Townshend, that blazing star,' now a mere name on which to hang the revolt of America; and Carteret himself, the infamous Hanover-troop minister,' is best remembered as the object of Pitt's fiercest philippics. But it is far otherwise with Fox; and this is the more strange since he had but brief spells of office, where, with rare exceptions, an English statesman can alone hope to obtain his |