I would further remark upon these clauses: (1) That I agree with Mr.Bowles in regretting the omission here of the specific mention made in 1904 of "breach of blockade," "carriage of contraband," &c., as specimens of the acts undoubtedly contemplated in these two clauses; (2) that it is a mistake to describe acts of this kind as being in derogation of "the duty of subjects of a neutral Power," or "in violation of the Law of Nations," or as "liable to the penalties denounced by such law." Carriage of contraband, and acts of the same class, are notoriously not condemned by English law, neither are they, in any proper sense, breaches of the Law of Nations, which, speaking scientifically, never deals with individuals, as such, but only with the rights and duties of States _inter se_.

What the Law of Nations really does is, as I said in 1904, "to define the measures to which a belligerent may resort for the suppression of such acts, without laying himself open to remonstrance from the neutral Government to which the traders implicated owe allegiance"; (3) that on the other hand, I am glad to find that, in accordance with my suggestion, while it continues very properly to be stated that persons doing the acts under discussion "will in no wise obtain any protection from Us against such capture, &c.," the further statement that such persons "will, on the contrary, incur Our high displeasure by such misconduct," has now been with equal propriety omitted.
I am, Sir, your obedient servant, T.E.HOLLAND.
The Athenaeum, October 9 (1911).
THE PROCLAMATION OF NEUTRALITY Sir,--May I be allowed to point out that two questions arise upon the recent British Proclamation of Neutrality which were not, as they should have been, in the House of Commons last night, kept entirely distinct?
The Government has surely done right in now omitting, as I suggested in 1904, with reference to certain classes of acts which are prohibited neither by English nor by International Law, a phrase announcing that the doers of them would incur the King's "high displeasure"; while retaining the warning that doers of such acts must be prepared for consequences from which their own Government will not attempt to shield them.
On the other hand, our Government has surely erred in not specifying, as in previous Proclamations, the sort of acts to which this warning relates--viz., to acts such as carriage of contraband, enemy service, and breach of blockade, which differ wholly in character from those violations of the Foreign Enlistment Act against which the bulk of the Proclamation is directed.

As the Proclamation now stands, no clear transition is marked between breaches of English law and the unspecified acts which, though perfectly legal, will forfeit for the doers of them any claim to British protection from the consequences involved.

Traders are left to find out as best they may the meaning of the general words "any acts in derogation of their duty as subjects of a neutral Power." I am, Sir, your obedient servant, T.E.HOLLAND.
Oxford, October 31 (1911).
* * * * * SECTION 4 _Neutral Hospitality_ The Hague Convention of 1907, No.xiii., not yet ratified by Great Britain, suggests in Art.

12, with reference to the question here raised, that "a defaut d'autres dispositions speciales de la legislation de la Puissance neutre, il est interdit aux navires de guerre des belligerants de demeurer dans les ports et rades ou dans les eaux territoriales de la dite Puissance pendant plus de 24 heures sauf dans les cas prevues par la presente Convention." BELLIGERENT FLEETS IN NEUTRAL WATERS Sir,--A novel question as to belligerent responsibilities would be suggested for solution if, as seems to be reported in Paris, Admiral Rozhdestvensky over-stayed his welcome in the waters of Madagascar, although ordered to leave them by his own Government in compliance with "pressing representations" on the part of the Government of France.
A much larger question is, however, involved in the discussion which has arisen as to the alleged neglect by France to prevent the use of her Cochin-Chinese waters by the Russians as a base of operations against Japan.