It is fair to say that not dissimilar, though less stringent, instructions were issued by France in 1870 and by the United States in 1898; also that, although the French instructions expressly contemplate "l'etablissement des indemnites a attribuer aux neutres," a French prize Court in 1870 refused compensation to neutral owners for the loss of their property on board of enemy ships burnt at sea.
The question, however, remains whether such regulations are in accordance with the rules of international law.

The statement of these rules by Lord Stowell, who speaks of them as "clear in principle and established in practice," may, I think, be summarised as follows: An enemy's ship, after her crew has been placed in safety, may be destroyed.

Where there is any ground for believing that the ship, or any part of her cargo, is neutral property, such action is justifiable only in cases of "the gravest importance to the captor's own State," after securing the ship's papers and subject to the right of neutral owners to receive fall compensation (_Actaeon_, 2 Dods.

48; _Felicity, ib._ 381; substantially followed by Dr.Lushington in the _Leucade_, Spinks, 221).
It is not the case, as is alleged by the _Novoe Vremya_, that any British regulations "contain the same provisions as the Russian" on this subject.

On the contrary, the Admiralty Manual of 1888 allows destruction of enemy vessels only; and goes so far in the direction of liberality as to order the release, without ransom, of a neutral prize which either from its condition, or from lack of a prize crew, cannot be sent in for adjudication.