enjoy the privileges due to the members of armed forces according to International Law. [Footnote 125: As regards the limited use made of armed natives as scouts, and the like, on the part of the British commanders during the South-African War, see _The Times' History of the War in South Africa_, pp. 249-251. The Boers refused quarter to any such armed natives as fell into their hands.] [Sidenote: Privateers.] § 83. Formerly privateers were a generally recognised part of the armed forces of the belligerents, private vessels being commissioned by the belligerents through Letters of Marque to carry on hostilities at sea, and particularly to capture enemy merchantmen.[126] From the fifteenth century, when privateering began to grow up, down to the eighteenth century, belligerents used to grant such Letters of Marque to private ships owned by their subjects and by the subjects of neutral States. But during the eighteenth century the practice grew up that belligerents granted Letters of Marque to private ships of their own subjects only.[127] However, privateering was abolished by the Declaration of Paris in 1856 as between the signatory Powers and others who joined it later. And although privateering would still be legal as between other Powers, it will in future scarcely be made use of. In all the wars that occurred after 1856 between such Powers, no Letters of Marque were granted to private ships.[128] [Footnote 126: See Martens, _Essai concernant les armateurs, les prises, et surtout les reprises_ (1795).] [Footnote 127: Many publicists maintain that nowadays a privateer commissioned by another State than that of which he is a subject is liable to be treated as a pirate when captured. With this, however, I cannot agree; see above, vol. I. § 273, Hall, § 81, and below, § 330.] [Footnote 128: See below, § 177. It is confidently to be hoped that the great progress made by the abolition of privateering through the Declaration of Paris will never be undone. But it is of importance to note the fact that up to the present day endeavours have been made on the part of freelances to win public opinion for a retrograde step. See, for instance, Munro-Butler Johnstone, _Handbook of Maritime Rights; and the Declaration of Paris Considered_ (1876), and Gibson Bowles, _The Declaration of Paris of 1856_ (1900); see also Perels, pp. 177-179. The Declaration of Paris being a law-making treaty which does not provide the right of the several signatory Powers to give notice of withdrawal, a signatory Power is not at liberty to give such notice, although Mr. Gibson Bowles (_op. cit._ pp. 169-179) asserts that this could be done. See above, vol. I. § 12.] [Sidenote: Converted Merchantmen.]