Her prohibition of this trade is wholly unprecedented, for the treatment of cotton during the American Civil War will be found on examination to have no bearing on the question under consideration.

I touch to-day upon this large subject only to express a hope that our Government, in concert, if possible, with other neutral Governments, has communicated to that of Russia, with reference to its list of prohibited articles, a protest in language as unmistakable as that employed by our Foreign Office in 1885; "I regret to have to inform you, M.l'Ambassadeur," wrote Lord Granville, "that Her Majesty's Government feel compelled to take exception to the proposed measure, as they cannot admit that, consistently with the law and practice of nations, and with the rights of neutrals, provisions in general can be treated as contraband of war." A timely warning that a claim is inadmissible is surely preferable to waiting till bad feeling has been aroused by the concrete application of an objectionable doctrine.
I am, Sir, your obedient servant, T.E.HOLLAND.
Oxford, August I (1904).
RUSSIAN PRIZE LAW Sir,--From this hilltop I observe that, in the debate of Thursday last, Mr.Gibson Bowles, alluding to a letter of mine which appeared in your issue of August 6, complained that I "had not given the proper reference" to Lord Stowell's judgments.

Mr.Bowles seems to be unaware that in referring to a decided case the page mentioned is, in the absence of any indication to the contrary, invariably that on which the report of the case commences.

I may perhaps also be allowed to say that he, in my opinion, misapprehends the effect of the passage quoted by him from the _Felicity_, which decides only that, whatever may be the justification for the destruction of a neutral prize, the neutral owner is entitled, as against the captor, to full compensation for the loss thereby sustained.
I am, Sir, your obedient servant, T.E.HOLLAND.
Eggishorn, Valais, Suisse, August 14 (1904).
RUSSIAN PRIZE LAW Sir,--Mr.Gibson Bowles has, I find, addressed to you a letter in which he attempts to controvert two statements of mine by the simple expedient of omitting essential portions of each of them.
1.

Mr.Bowles having revealed himself as unaware that the mode in which I had cited a group of cases upon destruction of prizes was the correct mode, I thought it well to provide him with the rudimentary information that, "in referring to a decided case, the page, mentioned is, _in the absence of any indication to the contrary_, invariably that on which the report of the case commences." He replies that he has found appended to a citation of a passage in a judgment the page in which this passage occurs.