1. Are we at war with Venezuela? Till reading the reports of what passed last night in the House of Commons, I should have replied to this question unhesitatingly in the negative. Most people whose attention has been directed to such matters must have supposed that we were engaged in the execution of "reprisals," the nature and legitimacy of which have long been recognised by international law. They consist, of course, in the exertion of pressure, short of war; over which they possess the following advantages: They are strictly limited in scope; they cease, when their object has been attained, without the formalities of a treaty of peace; and, no condition of "belligerency" existing between the Powers immediately concerned, third Powers are not called upon to undertake the onerous obligations of "neutrality." The objection sometimes made to reprisals, that they are applicable only to the weaker Powers, since a strong Power would at once treat them as acts of war, is indeed the strongest recommendation of this mode of obtaining redress. To localise hostile pressure as far as possible, and to give to it such a character as shall restrict its incidence to the peccant State, is surely in the interest of the general good. That the steps taken are such as would probably, between States not unequally matched, cause an outbreak of war cannot render them inequitable in cases where so incalculable an evil is unlikely to follow upon their employment. 2. The justification of a resort either to reprisals or to war, in any given case, depends, of course, upon the nature of the acts complained of, and upon the validity of the excuses put forward either for the acts themselves, or for failure to give satisfaction for them. The British claims against Venezuela seem to fall into three classes. It will hardly be disputed that acts of violence towards British subjects or vessels, committed under State authority, call for redress. Losses by British subjects in the course of civil wars would come next, and would need more careful scrutiny (on this point the debates and votes of the Institut de Droit International, at its meeting at Neuchâtel in 1900, may be consulted with advantage). Last of all would come the claims of unpaid bondholders, as to which Mr. Balfour would seem to endorse, in principle, the statement made in 1880 by Lord Salisbury who, while observing that "it would be an extreme assertion to say that this country ought never to interfere on the part of bondholders who have been wronged," went on to say that "it would be hardly fair if any body of capitalists should have it in their power to pledge the people of this country to exertions of such an extensive character.... They would be getting the benefit of an English guarantee without paying the price of it."