The fact is that the vitally important questions of theory and practice raised by the Convention and the Declaration need calmer and better instructed discussion than they have yet received. Ought they not to be referred to a Royal Commission, on which should be placed representatives of the Navy and Merchant Service, of the corn trade, and of the Colonies, together with international lawyers, in touch with the views of their Continental colleagues? I am, Sir, your obedient servant, T. E. HOLLAND. Oxford, February 16 (1911). THE DECLARATION OF LONDON Sir,--Professor Westlake, replying in _The Times_ of to-day to the arguments by which I had endeavoured to show that the Report made to the Conference of London has no pretensions to be treated as an authentic interpretation of the Declaration prepared by the Conference, still maintains that "the essential question will be, what the agreement was that the Conference arrived at." I had maintained, on the contrary, that the essential question will be, What is the agreement entered into by the Powers, as evidenced by their ratifications? anything outside of the ratified agreement being _res inter alios acta_. I should not be justified in asking you to allow me to repeat the contents of my letter of Monday last in support of this view. The pleadings are, I think, exhausted. "Therefore let a jury come." I should like, however, to point out that I did not, as my friend seems to think, attribute the acceptance of the Report to the delegates "singly." It was, no doubt accepted by all present without protest. My colleague will, I am sure, pardon me if I add that I cannot concur in his exegesis of my citations from Ullmann and Fiore. I am, Sir, your obedient servant, T. E. HOLLAND. Oxford, February 25 (1911). THE DECLARATION OF LONDON Sir,--It is satisfactory that so high an authority as Mr. Arthur Cohen distinctly accedes to the view that the Declaration of London ought not to be ratified as it stands. I should, however, be sorry were his suggestion accepted that the Declaration and the argumentative report which accompanies it might be ratified together. The result would be _obscurum per obscurius_, a remedy worse than the disease.