It is certain that, apart from general conventions, international law imposes no liability on an invader to pay for requisitioned property or services, or to honour any receipts which he may have given for them. The Hague Convention of 1899 made no change in this respect. Arts. 51 and 52 of the _Règlement_ annexed to the Convention direct, it is true, that receipts should be given for contributions ("un reçu sera délivré aux contribuables") also for requisitions in kind, if not paid for ("elles seront constatées par des reçus"), but these receipts were to be merely evidence that money or goods have been taken, and it was left an open question, by whom, if at all, compensation was to be made or the losses thus established. The _Règlement_ of 1907 is more liberal than that of 1899 with reference to requisitioned property (though not with reference to contributions). By the new Art. 52, "supplies furnished in kind shall be paid for, so far as possible, on the spot. If not, they shall be vouched for (_constatées_) by receipts, and payment of the sums due shall be made as soon as may be." The Hague Convention mentioned in the following letter is, of course, that of 1899. REQUISITIONS IN WARFARE Sir,--A few words of explanation may not be out of place with reference to a topic touched upon last night in the House of Commons--viz. the liability of the British Government to pay for stock requisitioned during the late war from private enemy owners. It should be clearly understood that no such liability is imposed by international law. The commander of invading forces may, for valid reasons of his own, pay cash for any property which he takes, and, if he does not do so, is nowadays expected to give receipts for it. These receipts are, however, not in the nature of evidence of a contract to pay for the goods. They are intended merely to _constater_ the fact that the goods have been requisitioned, with a view to any indemnity which may eventually be granted to the sufferers by their own Government. What steps should be taken by a Government towards indemnifying enemies who have subsequently become its subjects, as is now happily the case in South Africa, is a question not of international law, but of grace and favour.