It may be worth while to enquire how far this state of things would be affected by the Convention of 1888, were it to come into operation. The _status_ of the canal in time of peace would be substantially untouched, save by the prohibition to the territorial Power to fortify its banks. Even with reference to time of war, several of the articles of the Convention merely reaffirm well-understood rules applicable to all neutral waters--e.g. that no hostilities may take place therein. The innovations proposed by the Convention are mainly contained, as "M.B." points out, in the first article, which deals with the position of the canal when the territorial Power is belligerent. In such a case, subject to certain exceptions, with a view to the defence of the country, the ships of that Power are neither to attack nor to be attacked in the canal, or within three miles of its ports of access, nor are the entrances of the canal to be blockaded. This is "neutralisation" only in a limited and vague sense of the term, the employment of which was indeed carefully avoided not only in the Convention itself but also in the diplomatic discussions which preceded it. I am, Sir, your obedient servant, T. E. HOLLAND. Brighton, October 4 (1898). THE SUEZ CANAL Sir,--Your correspondent "M.B.," if he will allow me to say so, supports this morning a good case by a bad argument, which ought hardly to pass without remark. It is impossible to accept his suggestion that the article which he quotes from the Treaty of Paris can be taken as containing "an international official definition of neutralisation as applied to waters." The article in question, after declaring the Black Sea to be "neutralisée," no doubt goes on to explain the sense in which this phrase is to be understood, by laying down that the waters and ports of that sea are perpetually closed to the ships of war of all nations. It is, however, well known that such a state of things as is described in the latter part of the article is so far from being involved in the definition of "neutralisation" as not even to be an ordinary accompaniment of that process. Belgium is unquestionably "neutralised," but no one supposes that the appearance in its waters and ports of ships of war is therefore prohibited. The fact is that the term "neutralisée" was employed in the Treaty of Paris as a euphemism, intended to make less unpalatable to Russia a restriction upon her sovereign rights which she took the earliest opportunity of repudiating. I am, Sir, your obedient servant, T. E. HOLLAND. Brighton, October 6 (1898). THE SUEZ CANAL Sir,--Will you allow me to reply in the fewest possible words to the questions very courteously addressed to me by Mr. Gibson Bowles in his letter which appeared in _The Times_ of yesterday?