"Belligerents are forbidden to move across the territory of a neutral Power troops or convoys, whether of munitions or of supplies." I am, Sir, your obedient servant, T. E. HOLLAND. Oxford, August 12 (1914). The true ground for objecting to the legality of the purchase by Turkey of the German warships which have been forced to take refuge in her waters is no doubt that stated by Sir William Scott in the _Minerva_, 6 C. Rob. at p. 400--viz. that it would enable the belligerent to whom the ships belong "so far to rescue himself from the disadvantage into which he has fallen as to have the value at least restored to him by a neutral purchaser." The point is not touched upon in the (draft) Declaration of London. Even supposing the purchase to be unobjectionable, the duty of Turkey to remove all belligerents from the ships would be unquestionable. _Cf._ on the Declaration of Paris, _passim_, see Index; on the misuse of Declarations, _infra_, p. 92; on privateering, _supra_, pp. 80-84. THE DECLARATION OF PARIS Sir,--The resuscitation, a few days ago, in the House of Commons of an old controversy reminds one of the mistaken procedure which made such a controversy possible. It can hardly now be doubted that the rules set forth in the Declaration of Paris of 1856, except possibly the prohibition of privateering, have by general acceptance during sixty years, strengthened by express accessions on the part of so many Governments, become a portion of international law, and are thus binding upon Great Britain, notwithstanding her omission to ratify the Declaration. This omission is now seen to have been a mistake. So also was the description of the document as a "declaration." Both mistakes were repeated in 1868 with reference to the "Declaration" of St. Petersburg (as to explosive bullets).