Seventy years ago the question of the right of a successful enemy to carryaway with him works of art was a matter of violent controversy in this countryand in the whole of Europeand the subject was several times debated inthe British ParliamentIt is a fact very generally known that after theearly and astonishing successes of Napoleon Bonaparte in 1796and afterwardsin 1797there was only one of the small Italian States which was not compelledto give up to the conquering French Government the works of art that werethe glory of its chief citiesThe Apollo Belvederethe Dying Gladiator,the Medicean Venusthe Laocoonthe Bronze Horseswere conveyed to Parisand deposited in the Louvrein which they remained until the overthrow ofthe first French EmpireOn the overthrow of that Empirewhen the allies,entering Paris for the second timegained possession of the whole city,they restored most of these famous masterpieces to their original owners.
The French expressedand no doubt genuinely feltthe greatest indignation,which washowevermanifestly treated with much scorn by the English writersof that daywho seemed to look upon the anger of the French or Parisianpopulation as amounting to an absurd refusal to have a rule applied to themselveswhich they had freely applied to othersbut if we are to suppose that strictlaw applied to the case there was something to say against the internationalvalidity of the restorations in the way in which they were actually accomplished.
Argumentsfounded on thiswere submitted to the British House of Commons,especially by the great lawyer RomillyIt was a fact that some of theseworks of art had formed part of forced military contributionswhich a conquerormay always levyand some were given up under express conventions to whichthe surrendering state had no power of resistanceIn some other cases thestate to which the return was made had been absorbed in another state duringthe long war with FranceFor exampleVenicewhich had surrendered someof the most beautiful works of art in the Louvrehad now become absorbedin the Austrian EmpireIt was further argued that it was for the advantageof civilization that these works of art should not be dispersed over a numberof small cities in Italy which were not thenall of themeasily accessible,but that they should remain in a place which on the whole was so easily reachedas ParisThe fact seems to be that the carrying off of these works of artfrom their old Italian homes had been a new rule of warFor exampleFrederickthe Greatwho more than once occupied Dresdenalways spared the famousgallery and its contentsThe new rule was introduced by Napoleon Bonaparteas conqueror of Italyand what the allies in occupation of Paris appliedseems to have been the rule of reprisalThere wasno doubtif we throwthe technical rule asidea great deal to be urged on behalf of giving backthese sculptures and paintings to the Italian citiesThey were valued bythem more than any mere propertySome of these cities before the war werehardly ever visited except by persons desirous of seeing some famous work.
As I saythe one tenable argument against their restoration was the greaterconvenience to the civilised world of their being left in Parisbut in anage of railways their distance in Italy is no appreciable inconvenience,and the Manuals published recently by civilised states generally condemnthe capture of works of artOur own Manual says that the seizure of scientificobjects and works of art can only be justified as a measure of retaliation.
Here I may observe that an act attributable to a British commander of Britishtroopswhich is almost universally condemned in the numerous American workson International Lawcan always be justified in the same wayUndoubtedly,at first sightthe destruction of the Capitol at Washington in 181is notan act of which an Englishman can be proudbut on examining the historyof that warit will appear that the British troops in Washington had beenfired at from the arsenaland that alsoa short time beforethe chiefcity of Lower Canadathen called Yorkhad been burnt with all its publicbuildings by the American troops who occupied itHence this actwhich atfirst sight deserves unqualified condemnationmay be to a certain extentjustified as a measure of reprisal.
In all modern books on this subject there is more or less distinct condemnationof unauthorized pillage by the soldiers of an invading armyyet there is,unfortunatelyno doubt that in all wars pillage does continueand especiallyin every land warThere is a very old association between war and pillage,and pillage is generally very easyA great deal of itthough not of theworst kindunquestionably took place when the Germans occupied large portionsof FranceThe English in Spain abstained from it so far as the orders ofWellington compelled them to do soHe in fact sometimes employed the severestpunishments for the purpose of deterring his troops from plunderhowever,he was operating in a friendly countryand would have suffered serious damageby its being converted to unfriendlinessA commander mayhoweverauthorisepillagebut as to authorised pillage there is one considerable mitigation.
