91, were to the same effect in cases where the prize (1) cannot be navigated owing to her being unseaworthy, or to dangerous seas; (2) is likely to be recaptured by the enemy; (3) cannot be navigated without depriving the ship-of-war of officers and men required for her own safety.
The case of the _Knight Commander_ was the subject of comment, on the 27th of the same month, in both Houses of Parliament.

In the House of Lords, Lord Lansdowne spoke of what had occurred as "a very serious breach of international law," "an outrage," against which it had been considered "a duty to lodge a strong protest." In the House of Commons, Mr.Balfour described it as "entirely contrary to the accepted practice of civilised nations." Similar language was used in Parliament on August 10, when Mr.Gibson Bowles alluded to my letter of the 6th, in a way which gave occasion for that of the 14th.
The _Knight Commander_ was condemned by the Prize Court at Vladivostok on August 16, 1904, and the sentence was confirmed on December 5, 1905, by the Court of Appeal at St.Petersburg, which found it "impossible to agree that the destruction of a neutral vessel is contrary to the principles of international law." The Russian Government remained firm on the point, and in 1908 declined to submit the case to arbitration.
The Institut de Droit International in its _Code des Prises maritimes_, voted in 1887, Art.

50 (not, be it observed, professing to state the law as it is, but as it should be), had taken a view in accordance with that maintained by the British Government (_Annuaire_ for 1888, t.ix.p.

228; _cf.

ib._ pp.
200, 201).