The origin and development of the moral ideas

The readiness with which wars are waged, and the destruction of property held legitimate in warfare, are other instances of the little regard felt for the proprietary rights of foreigners. Grotius maintained that “such ravage is tolerable as in a short time reduces the enemy to seek peace”;239 and in the practice of his time devastation was constantly used independently of any immediate military advantage accruing from it.240 In the eighteenth century the alliance of devastation with strategical objects became more close, but it was still regarded as an independent means of attack by Wolff,241 Vattel,242 and others;243 and even at the beginning of the nineteenth century instances of devastation of a not necessary kind occasionally occurred.244 In later days opinion has decisively laid down that the measure of permissible devastation is to be found in the strict necessities of war.245 Yet there is an exception to this rule: during the siege of a fortified town custom still permits the houses of the town itself to be bombarded, with a view to inducing the commandant to surrender on account of the misery suffered by the inhabitants.246 Under the old customs of war a belligerent possessed a right to seize and appropriate all property belonging to a hostile state or its subjects, of whatever kind it might be and in any place where acts of war were permissible.247 Subsequently this extreme right has been tempered by usage, and in a few directions it has disappeared.248 Thus the principle proclaimed, but not always acted on, by the Revolutionary Government of France, that private

property should be respected on a hostile as on a friendly soil,249 is favoured by present opinion and usage,250 and pillage by the soldiers of an invading army is expressly forbidden.251 At the same time there is unfortunately no doubt that in all wars pillage does continue with impunity;252 and we sometimes hear of a captured town being sacked, and the houses of the inhabitants being plundered, on the plea that it was impossible for the general to restrain his soldiers.253 Moreover, private property taken from the enemy on the field of battle, in the operations of a siege, or in the storming of a place which refuses to capitulate, is usually regarded as legitimate spoils of war.254 Military contributions and requisitions are levied upon the inhabitants of the hostile territory.255 And whilst the progress of civilisation has slowly tended to soften the extreme severity of the operations of war by land, it still remains unrelaxed in respect to maritime warfare, the private property of the enemy taken at sea or afloat in port being indiscriminately liable to capture and confiscation. In justification of this it is said that the object of maritime wars is the destruction of the enemy’s commerce and navigation, and that this object can only be attained by the seizure of private property.256

The father’s power over his children may imply that the latter, even when grown-up, have no property of their own, the father having a right to the disposal of their earnings. This is the case among some African peoples,257 and the Kandhs of India.258 In the Laws of Manu, the mythical legislator of the Hindus, it is said, “A wife, a son, and a slave, these three are declared to have no property; the wealth they earn is acquired for him to whom they belong.”259 But according to the standard commentators this only means that the persons mentioned are unable to dispose of their property independently;260 and it is expressly stipulated that property acquired by learning belongs exclusively to the person to whom it was given, and so also the gift of a friend.261 In Rome the peculium, or separate property, allowed to a son was originally subject to the authority of the house-father, should he choose to exercise such authority; and it was only by very late legislation that sons were secured the independent holding of their peculium.262 Even now it is the law in many European countries that, during the minority of a child, the father or mother has the usufruct of its property, with the exception of certain kinds of property expressly specified.263