The Sun.
London, England, 1870-08-04 00:00:00

LONDON, THURSDAY, AUGUST 4, 1870.

As to what really constitutes contraband of war—
that is the difficulty. According to one great
authority on international law it applies, this phrase
of contraband of war, exclusively to articles useful
only for the purposes of battle, as for example, arms
and ammunition. According to another eminent
jurisconsult the term is equally applicable to what
may be of vital importance to the belligerent sup-
plied, as for instance fodder to cavalry, or food
to a beleagured garrison. Relax the line of
demarcation at all, and there is nothing that might
not be eventually included. While, whatever dis-
tinctions, like these, of a minute character are traced
by the bold and ingenious hands of men like VATTEL
and GROTIUS, it is impossible not to recognise this
fact in regard to what is contraband of war, that
here, as in regard to every other portion of the
International Code, the law must be perpetually
liable to vary according to the variation of circum-
stances. In the particular instance which
is just now attracting so much attention
to itself, namely that of coal, the argument
which would interdict the supply of coal to
either of the belligerents in the Franco-Prussian
war by a neutral power like that of England, is of
comparatively recent date—deriving its whole force, as
it does, from the development of science. Without
coal a steam war ship is as useless for the purposes
of war as a piece of ordnance would be without
gunpowder. For that matter, however, it might
with equal reason be insisted upon that hay and bread
being essential for the men and horses in an army,
must needs also, under any and every circumstance,
be regarded and dealt with as contraband of war if
supplied by a neutral to one or other of the belli-
gerent forces. Carrying out that reasoning rigidly
and inexorably, the dictates of humanity must no
longer be obeyed by on-lookers during the period of
hostilities. Lint for the wounded, brandy for the
fainting, might, by a parity of reasoning, be tabooed
equally as contraband of war. According to which,
if only the soldier on the field of Zutphen
to whom Sir PHILIP SIDNEY handed his bottle of
water before himself drinking from it, had
been one of the enemy, instead of a
lacerated Englishman, as mere contraband
of war that bottle of water would have been
liable to confiscation. Whether or not the prin-
ciples of free trade might be applied advantageously
here as elsewhere, may be matter for after consider-
ation. But, meanwhile, there cannot by possibility
be two opinions upon the subject as the law now
stands, that coal comes, must by necessity come,
distinctly within the definition of contraband of
war, as supplied by neutral traders during a time of
war, to the armed steamships of any one or other of
the belligerents. It has been aptly quoted from Pro-
fessor BLUNSCHLI, of Heidelburg, by a correspondent
of one our contemporaries, this remarkable passage—
" Neutrality is not participation in war. When a
neutral state aids one of the belligerents, it takes
part in the war in favour of such belligerent, and
therefore ceases to be neutral. The other belligerent
is justified in treating this participation as an act of
hostility." Apply this dictum of BLUNSCHLI to the
question of coal, and then say—lf coal be not contra-
band of war, what is ?

THE last report of the Committee of Council on
Education greatly resembles its predecessors. Like
them it records a gradual improvement in the gene-
ral state of education throughout the country;
like them it testifies that in spite of all
the progress that has been achieved, and all
that may be expected, the means of national
instruction must, under present conditions, remain
utterly inadequate to the end. During the year
1869, the number of scholars in attendance at
elementary schools increased, the number of schools
was considerably augmented, and the sum devoted
to purposes of instruction became greater. But the
children who actually were at school still bore a start-
lingly small ratio to those who ought to have been there,
the funds yet remained insufficient, and the quality
of the instruction, as before, was decidedly poor. The
system in all respects betrays its origin. Supported
by voluntary subscriptions, aided by Government
subventions, which are not given unless charitable
assistance be forthcoming, the organisation is neces-
sarily limited in extent, extremely difficult
to maintain, and unequal in its application,
for the best supply of instruction is by
no means to be found where there is the
greatest need for it. Some of the figures are well
worthy of note. The school accommodation in Eng-
land and Wales is equal to educating 1,824,306
children; but the total number on the books are only
1,569,139, of whom only 149,119 are upwards of
twelve years of age the time of life when
when instruction is most useful. Moreover
this million and a half of children include
everybody who is "on the books," no matter
how few times they may have attended. In fact only
a million children are in daily average attendance
throughout the year. Worse still, Dr. Faun cahu
lates that of the class for whom the national system
is designed nearly four millions of children are of
school age, and ought properly to be there. It
follows, then, that the school accommodation in
England and Wales is equal to only one half of-
what should be the demand upon it, and that the
average attendance amounts to only one quarter of
the children who are of school age. This is bad, but
even worse remains. It is not sufficient that
young England should come to school; we must
have a guarantee that some benefit is reaped
whilst there, and in order to test the efficiency of the
teaching, an examination test is prescribed. The
results are melancholy. Of the poor million, who
represent the average daily attendance, only 696,000
were presented for examination last year, -and
but 470,000 passed without failure in reading,
writing, and arithmetic, Here is the net