If an officer makes an armistice in disobedience to orders received fromhis sovereignhe is punishable by that sovereignbut the sovereign is boundby the armisticeinasmuch as the enemy could not be supposed to have knownof the limitation of authority imposed on the officer.
It is suggested by several of the international writersand it is probable,that armistices first arose from the truce or truces of God which were repeatedlyproclaimed by the ChurchThese truces took many and very singular forms.
Thus one famous truce of God was to begin every Wednesday at sunsetandlast till the following Monday at sunriseIt was to continue from Adventto the octaves of Epiphanyand from Quinquagesima Sunday to the octavesof EasterIf any person broke the truce and refused to give satisfactionhe was excommunicatedand after the third admonition the bishop who excommunicatedhim was not to admit him into communion under the penalty of deprivation.
The truce was confirmed at many councilsand especially at the Lateran Councilof 1179Some of the regulations were extended into Englandand Wednesdayand Friday were set apart as days for keeping peaceIt is exceedingly likelythat these temporary and limited truces accustomed the warlike communitiesof those days to temporary suspensions of hostilitiesand armistices manifestlygrew into considerable favourBut they also gave riseand indeed they giverise stillto a number of rather difficult questionsWe find a greet numberof rules laid down as to what belligerent parties might do or might not doduring an armisticeThe views taken of these duties in modern times aredecidedly contradictoryOn the one side it is held that all equivocal actsof hostility should be abstained from during an armistice whether they come,or do notwithin the description of acts capable of being interrupted bythe enemywhile on the other hand it is contended thataccording to thepractice of modern warfarebelligerents have a perfect right to alter thedisposition of their troopsconstruct entrenchmentsrepair breachesordo any acts by which they may think fit to prepare themselves for the resumptionof hostilitiesThe violation of an armistice by either of the contendingparties gives to the other the right to put an end to itbut its violationby private individuals only confers the right to demand the punishment ofthe guilty personsThe question is one of great practical difficultyandin all the Manuals the advice is given that the greatest caution should beobserved in the case of an armistice to specify the acts which are or arenot to be permitted during its continuance.
Another question whichevidentlywas thought to present great difficulties,was the date of the commencement and the time of the termination of an armistice.
Supposing it to be made for a certain number of days -that isfrom the1st of May to the 1st of August -questions have been raised whether thedays named are both included or excludedThe usual mode of reckoning inEngland as legal time is to include the first day and exclude the last(consequently,in the above-mentioned caseaccording to English lawthe truce begins atthe moment on which the 30th of April ends and ceases at the moment at whichthe 31st of July endsTo avoid difficultiesit should be stated from the1st of May inclusive to the 1st of August inclusiveif it is intended toinclude the 1st of Augustor better still to begin at a certain hour onone dayand to end at a certain hour on anotherIn the case of a shortarmistice the number of hours should be statedand it is advisable in allcases where an armistice has been arrangedto agree to indicate by somesignal for examplethe hoisting of a flag or the firing of a cannon -boththe commencement and the termination of the armisticeAn armisticeit isto be rememberedis only a qualified peaceand the state of war continues,though active hostilities are suspendedThis anomalous state of things leads,in the absence of express stipulationto considerable difficulty in ascertainingwhat is allowed to be done or continued to be doneApart from particularstipulationthe general rule seems to be that a belligerent cannot takeadvantage of an armistice to do any aggressive act which but for the armisticehe could not have done without danger to himselfFor examplein the caseof an armistice between a besieging army and a besieged townthe besiegersmust not continue their works against the townand the besieged are forbiddento repair their wallsraise fresh fortificationsor introduce succoursor reinforcements into the townThe last dangerous question which arosein Europearose on one of the class of terms which I have been examining.
