It is satisfactory to know, on the highest authority, that the "Monroe doctrine" is not intended to shield American States against the consequences of their wrongdoing; since the cordial approval of the doctrine which has just been expressed by our own Government can only be supposed to extend to it so far as it is reasonably defined and applied.
Great Britain, for one, has no desire for an acre of new territory on the American continent.

The United States, on the other hand, will doubtless readily recognise that, if international wrongs are to be redressed upon that continent, aggrieved European Powers may occasionally be obliged to resort to stronger measures than a mere embargo on shipping, or the blockade (whether "pacific" or "belligerent") of a line of coast.
I am, Sir, your obedient servant, T.E.HOLLAND.
Oxford, December 18 (1902).
THE VENEZUELA PROTOCOL Sir,--The close (for the present, at any rate) of the Venezuelan incident will be received with general satisfaction.

One of the articles of the so-called "protocol" of February 18 seems, however, to point a moral which one may hope will not be lost sight of in the future--viz.
the desirability of keeping unblurred the line of demarcation between such unfriendly pressure as constitutes "reprisals" and actual war.
After all that has occurred--statements in Parliament, action of the Governor of Trinidad in bringing into operation the dormant powers of the Supreme Court of the island as a prize Court, &c .-- one would have supposed that there could be no doubt, though no declaration had been issued, that we were at war with Venezuela.
Our Government has, therefore, been well advised in providing for the renewal of any treaty with that Power which may have been abrogated by the war; but it is curious to find that the article (7) of the protocol which effects this desirable result begins by a recital to the effect that "it may be contended that the establishment of a blockade of the Venezuelan ports by the British naval forces has _ipso facto_ created a state of war between Great Britain and Venezuela." It is surely desirable that henceforth Great Britain should know, and that other nations should at least have the means of knowing, for certain, whether she is at war or at peace.
I am, Sir, your obedient servant, T.E.HOLLAND.
Oxford, February 17 (1903).
WAR AND REPRISALS Sir,--Professor Westlake's interesting letter as to the measures recently taken by the Netherlands Government in Venezuelan waters opportunely recalls attention to a topic upon which I addressed you when, six years ago, our own Government was similarly engaged in putting pressure upon Venezuela--viz.

the desirability of drawing a clear line between war and reprisals.

Perhaps I may now be allowed to return, very briefly, to this topic, with special reference to Professor Westlake's remarks.
In any discussion of the questions involved, we ought, I think, clearly to realise that The Hague Convention, No.iii.of 1907, has no application to any measures not amounting to war.