ct that that
article has not been ratified.

Thirdly, the code contains, very properly, some general provisions
applicable equally to warfare upon land (Arts. 1, 3, 8, 12, 54).

Fourthly, it is clearly expressed; and it is brief, consisting of only
54 articles, occupying 22 pages.

Fifthly, it deals with two very distinct topics--viz. the mode of
conducting hostilities against the forces of the enemy, and the
principles applicable to the making prize of merchant vessels, which as
often as not may be the property of neutrals. These topics are by no
means kept apart as they might be, articles on prize occurring
unexpectedly in the section avowedly devoted to hostilities.

It is worth considering whether something resembling the United States
code would not be found useful in the British Navy. Our code might be
better arranged than its predecessor, and would differ from it on
certain questions, but should resemble it in clearness of expression, in
brevity, and, above all things, in frank acceptance of responsibility.
What naval men most want is definite guidance, in categorical language,
upon those points of maritime international law upon which our
Government has made up its own mind.

I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
T. E. HOLLAND.
Oxford, April 8 (1901).

NOTES
- 1: Withdrawn in 1904.
- 2: _Infra_, Ch. VII. Section 6.
- 3: _Infra_, Ch. VI. Section 14.

A NAVAL WAR CODE

Sir,--It is now nearly a year ago since I ventured to suggest in your
columns (for April 10, 1901) that something resembling the United States
"Naval War Code," dealing with "the laws and usages of war at sea,"
would be found useful in the British Navy.

The matter is, however, not quite so simple as might be inferred from
some of the allusions to it which occurred during last night's debate
upon the Navy Estimates. Upon several disputable and delicate questions
the Government of the United States has not hesitated to express
definite views; and they are not always views which the Government of
our own country would be prepared to endorse. For some remarks upon
these questions in detail, and upon the code generally, I must refer to
my former letter, but may perhaps be allowed to quote its concluding
words, which were to the following effect:--

"Our code might be better arranged than its predecessor, and
would differ from it on certain questions, but should
resemble it in clearness of expression, in brevity, and,