After all, there is precedent without end, for in nearly every instance where a city has fallen by direct assault, and where there has been only flight, not surrender, on the part of the defenders, the town has been sacked. The force of example need hardly be quoted as an excuse, because it amounts to an admittance of moral weakness, and in no case do two wrongs make a right. But War itself is hardly an ideal state of affairs, and it is harsh to blame a little easing up of discipline within strict limits, after a bloody and bitter conflict, brought to a successful issue solely by the discipline and devotion of the troops engaged. If further argument is necessary, it remains to be said that by far the greatest thieves were the Chinese themselves, who as soon as they found they were not noticed in the general scramble, were untiring in their endeavours to make their fortune at the expense of others; and these men, not even excepting the civilians from the settlement, were undoubtedly those whose measure of success was greatest. As a proof of how partial the sack of the city really was, a well-known Chinese Tientsin banker remarked quite recently, that of thirty-eight banks of importance, and the treasury, only the latter and one of the former had been touched, thanks to the innate “wile” of the owners, who invariably take the greatest pains to put their wealth out of sight. Given the desire and power to loot, it only remains to be told the method employed by the various nations, and for the loot to be described, to gather a fairly accurate idea of the scene. The arrangement at first had been to allow looting to be proceeded with until noon on the 15th, when it would be suppressed; and all loot found in the possession of people who had broken the rule would be forfeited to a common fund to go to the troops who had done the fighting.