^{page 61 note 2} Bibliothdque publique et universitaire de Genève (BPU), Msfr 4590, p. 23 recto.Google Scholar

^{page 62 note 1} Pierre Boissier alone deduced the role played by Dunant in Histoire du Comité international de la Croix-Rouge, Paris, Plon 1963, Vol. I, “De Solférino à Tsoushima”, 512 pp.Google Scholar; see pp. 379 to 388.

^{page 63 note 1} Dunant, Henry's Mémoires published by Professor Bernard Gagnebin, [Genève et] Lausanne, Institut Henry-Dunant et l'Age d'Homme, 1971, 366 pp.Google Scholar; see p. 37 (which reproduces p. 12 of manuscript Msfr 2072 kept by BPU).

^{page 63 note 2} [Geneva], n.d., probably the end of July or early in August 1864, 59 pp.; see p. 23. We have italicized “towards the vanquished enemy” and “prisoner”.

^{page 64 note 1} Boissier, Pierre, op. cit., pp. 273 and 274.Google Scholar

^{page 64 note 2} Boissier, Pierre, op. cit., p. 274.Google Scholar

^{page 64 note 3} Boissier, Pierre, op. cit., p. 277.Google Scholar

^{page 65 note 1} Paris, Paul Dupont, 1867, 15 pp. This report, which was forgotten for almost fifty years, was republished in 1915 by Dunant's nephew, in 1953 by the ICRC, and in 1969 by the Henry Dunant Institute.

^{page 65 note 2} Conférences Internationales à Paris. Sociétés de secours aux blessés militaires des armées de terre et de mer, 1867, Paris, Commission générale des détégués, 1867, 2 volumesGoogle Scholar; see Volume 1, Section 3, p. 66.

^{page 65 note 3} With the exception of the 1870–1871 war and at least until 1874, the International Committee renounced the idea of concerning itself with prisoners of war: it had not been established for that purpose and it feared that its budding project might thereby be jeopardized. See Bulletin international, 10 1870, p. 90 CrossRefGoogle Scholar: “they [our Societies] had to leave the care […] of prisoners of war to others”.

Similarly, the International Conference of the Red Cross dealt with the question of prisoners of war only after the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 […] and especially at Washington in 1912”. See Bulletin international, 09 1943 Google Scholar, E[tienne] C[louzot], “La Croix-Rouge et les prisonniers de guerre”, pp. 743 to 751; see p. 748.Google Scholar

^{page 66 note 1} BPU Msfr 2110, p. 33.

^{page 67 note 1} See Congrès de l'Alliance universelle de l'ordre et de la civilisation, Paris, A. Pougin, 1872, XII–216 pp.Google Scholar; see p. 45. The BPU copy bears Dunant's signature, preceded by “Paris, 3 June 1872, J.H.D.”.

^{page 68 note 1} BPU, Msfr 2115, C. pp. 79 and 80 recto-verso.

^{page 69 note 1} A Proposal for Introducing Uniformity into the Condition of Prisoners of War, London, 1872 24 pp.Google Scholar; see p. 19. This booklet, which was published in English, went through two editions in one year.

^{page 69 note 2} The text of the lecture was published in The Globe and Traveller of London, on 13 September, and on the following day by The Western Daily Mercury. Lastly, under the title of “L'arbitrage international”, excerpts from Dunant's French manuscript appeared in Un Souvenir de Solférino suivi de l'avenir sanglant, [Genève et Lausanne], Institut Henry-Dunant et l'Age d'Homme, 1969, XXII, 199 pp.Google Scholar; pp. 139 to 146.

^{page 70 note 1} BPU, Msfr 2110, p. 186 recto-verso. The quotation is taken from a copy kept with Henry Dunant's correspondence.

^{page 70 note 2} BPU, Msfr 2110, p. 85 recto-verso. The same remark applies.

^{page 71 note 1} This episode, which is not directly relevant, shows the credit which Dunant still enjoyed and his devotion to the Red Cross, regardless of his relations with the International Committee.

^{page 71 note 2} BPU, Msfr 2115C, p. 85 verso.

^{page 71 note 3} London, Army and Navy Library, 1873, 11 pp.

^{page 71 note 4} Convention for Prisoners of War, op. cit., p. 7 Google Scholar. Original text in English.

^{page 71 note 5} Op. cit., p. 11.Google Scholar

^{page 72 note 1} Procès-verbaux du Comité Exécutif International pour l'amélioration du sort des prisonniers de guerre, drawn up by Henry Musson or Frédéric Kastner, BPU Msfr 2117. These records confirm the prestige enjoyed by Dunant, who was called upon to act, so to speak, as the Committee's ambassador to the English government, besides his functions as international secretary.

^{page 73 note 1} BPU, Msfr 2110, p. 118 recto-verso.

^{page 74 note 1} BPU, Msfr 2110, p. 135 verso. Gortchakov's letter to Orloff was reproduced in Actes de la Conference de Bruxelles (1874)Google Scholar, Bruxelles, Imprimerie du Moniteur belge, 1874, IV–76 pp.; see p. III.

^{page 74 note 2} BPU, Msfr 2117, p. 19 verso: “The President believed that a special meeting was required because of the need to consider the postponement of the Congress to a date subsequent to 4 May. He proposed the date of 18 May. Between now and 4 May, it is physically impossible to receive an official reply from several States […].”

^{page 75 note 1} Ibid., p. 23 verso.

^{page 75 note 2} Actes, op. cit., p. IV.Google Scholar

^{page 75 note 3} BPU, Msfr 2110, p. 166 et seq. Houdetot used the same terms before the International Executive Committee on his return to Paris. See Procès-Verbaux, op. cit., p. 29 Google Scholar verso and 30 recto.

^{page 75 note 4} An invitation of “unusual rapidity” commented Jean De Bruecker in “La déclaration de Bruxelles de 1874 concernant les lois et coutumes de la guerre” in Chronique depolitique étrangère, Institut royal des relations Internationales, Brussels, 01 1974, p. 1–108, and in particular, p. 6.Google Scholar

^{page 76 note 1} Op. cit., p. 32 verso.Google Scholar

^{page 77 note 1} U.N.-L. of N. Suttner-Fried Collection, Aa II, a 34.

^{page 77 note 2} BPU, Msfr 2110, p. 173. The quotation is from a draft of the letter written by Dunant.

^{page 78 note 1} He also found out that reticence on this point was not limited to Russia. In its plenary session in 29 July, the Conference decided to admit only the official delegates of the governments invited by Russia. The Society for Prisoners of War, whether in the form of its International Executive Committee, its English branch or its Belgian committee, was to be excluded.

^{page 79 note 1} De Breucker, Jean, op. cit., p. 18.Google Scholar

^{page 79 note 2} The Russian proposal was divided into paragraphs, whereas the Society's proposal consisted of articles.

^{page 79 note 3} The paragraphs on the left are from the Russian proposal and the articles on the right from the Society's proposal.

^{page 81 note 1} Op. cit., see p. 29. This reference is from the manuscript at the BPU, Msfr 2093 B/1, p. 12 verso.

^{page 82 note 1} BPU, Msfr 2115 C, p. 94–95 recto-verso.

^{page 83 note 1} BPU, Msfr 2115 C, p. 96–97 recto-verso.

^{page 83 note 2} Op. cit., p. 84.Google Scholar

^{page 83 note 3} Op. cit., p. 86.Google Scholar

^{page 83 note 4} This was apparently, written during the period when Dunant was drafting his Mémoires (op. cit., see p. 29, reproducing Msfr 2093 B/1, p. 12 verso), in which he applauded the Russian initiative of 1874 and attributed to England alone the responsibility for the failure of the Conference: “This Conference took place at Brussels, but England's systematic hostility prevented the achievement of a diplomatic entente on this question between the European Powers”.

^{page 84 note 1} La proposition de Sa Majesté l'Empereur Nicolas II, op. cit., p. 15.Google Scholar

^{page 84 note 2} Op. cit. p. 16.Google Scholar

^{page 85 note 1} Op. cit., p. 19.Google Scholar