The existing prize law of Japan was promulgated on March 7, 1904, not on August 20, 1894.
Your Correspondent goes on to say that the Japanese definition of contraband "is almost as sweeping as was the Russian definition, to which the British Government took active objection last summer." So far is this from being the case that the Japanese list is practically the same as our own, both systems recognising the distinction between "absolute" and "conditional" contraband, which, till the other day, was ignored by Russia.
The Japanese rules as to the cases in which ships carrying contraband may be confiscated are quite reasonable and in accordance with British views.

The third ground for confiscation mentioned by your Correspondent does not occur in the instructions of 1904.
Ships violating a blockade are, of course, confiscable; but the Japanese do not, as your Correspondent seems to have been informed, make the existence of a blockade conditional upon its having been "notified to the Consuls of all States in the blockaded port." Commanders are, no doubt, instructed to notify the fact, "as far as possible, to the competent authorities and the Consuls of the neutral Powers within the circumference of the blockade"; but that is a very different thing.
I am, Sir, your obedient servant, T.E.HOLLAND.
The Athenaeum, March 10 (1905).
JAPANESE PRIZE LAW Sir,--Let me assure your correspondent upon Marine Insurance that I have been familiar, ever since its promulgation, with the Japanese prize law of 1894, quoted by him as authority for statements made in your issue of March 10, the misleading character of which I felt bound to point out in a letter of the same date.

All the topics mentioned by him on that occasion, and to-day, are, however, regulated, not by that law, but by notifications and instructions issued from time to time during 1904.
I make it my business not only to be authoritatively informed on such matters, but also to see that my information is up to date.
I am, Sir, your obedient servant, T.E.HOLLAND.
Oxford, March 15 (1905).
_( Continuous Voyages)_ The opinion expressed in the letter which immediately follows, that the American decisions, applying to carriage of contraband the doctrine of "continuous voyages," seem to be "demanded by the conditions of modern commerce, and might well be followed by a British prize Court," was referred to by Lord Salisbury in a despatch of January 10, 1900, to be communicated to Count von Buelow, with reference to the seizure of _Bundesrath_.

_Parl.
Papers_, Africa, No.

1 (1900), p.