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. May I refer him, for an explanation of this phenomenon, to the words (now italicised) omitted in his quotation of my statement? It is, of course, common enough, when the reference is obviously not to the case as a whole but to an extract from it, thus to give a clue to the extract, the formula then employed being frequently "_at_ page so-and-so." 2. I had summarised the effect, as I conceive it, of the group of cases above mentioned in the following terms: "Such action is justifiable only in cases of the gravest importance to the captor's own State, _after securing the ship's papers, and subject to the right of the neutral owners to receive full compensation_." Here, again, while purporting to quote me, Mr. Bowles omits the all-important words now italicised. I am, however, maltreated in good company. Mr. Bowles represents Lord Stowell as holding that destruction of neutral property cannot be justified, even in cases of the gravest importance to the captor's own State. What Lord Stowell actually says, in the very passage quoted by Mr. Bowles, is that "to the neutral can only be justified, under any such circumstances, by a full 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.