ull restitution in value." I would, suggest that
Mr. Bowles should find an opportunity for reading _in extenso_ the
reports of the _Actaeon_ (2 Dods. 48), and the _Felicity_ (_ib._ 881),
as also for re-reading the passage which occurs at p. 386 of the latter
case, before venturing further into the somewhat intricate
technicalities of prize law.

I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
T. E. HOLLAND.
Eggishorn, Suisse, August 26 (1904).

THE SINKING OF NEUTRAL PRIZES

Sir,--In your St. Petersburg correspondence of yesterday I see that some
reference is made to what I have had occasion to say from time to time
upon the vexed question of the sinking of neutral vessels, and your
Correspondent thinks it "would be decidedly interesting" to know whether
I have really changed my opinion on the subject. Perhaps, therefore, I
may be allowed to state that my opinion on the subject has suffered no
change, and may be summarised as follows:--

1. There is no established rule of international law which absolutely
forbids, under any circumstances, the sinking of a neutral prize. A
_consensus gentium_ to this effect will hardly be alleged by those who
are aware that such sinking is permitted by the most recent prize
regulations of France, Russia, Japan, and the United States.

2. It is much to be desired that the practice should be, by future
international agreement, absolutely forbidden--- that the lenity of
British practice in this respect should become internationally
obligatory.

3. In the meantime, to adopt the language of the French instructions,
"On ne doit user de ce droit de destruction qu'avec plus la grande
reserve"; and it may well be that any given set of instructions (e.g.
the Russian) leaves on this point so large a discretion to commanders of
cruisers as to constitute an intolerable grievance.

4. In any case, the owner of neutral property, not proved to be good
prize, is entitled to the fullest compensation for his loss. In the
language of Lord Stowell:--

"The destruction of the property may have been a meritorious
act towards his own Government; but still the person to whom
the property belongs must not be a sufferer ... if the captor
has by the act of destruction conferred a benefit upon the
public, he must look to his own Government for his
indemnity."

It may be worth while to add that the published statements on the
subject for which I am responsible are contained in th