of Japan throughout the war. The outcry about Russia's misuse of French harbours in the voyage of the Baltic Fleet was (so far as the legal aspect of the matter is concerned) probably based to some extent on misconceptions bound to occur through the vagueness of French rules upon the subject of belligerents visiting French harbours. Japan as the interested party protested to the full extent of which she was capable, but no other nation interested itself on the legal points involved in France's benevolence to her ally.
The chief trouble that neutral harbours caused to Japan was, however, in connection with the fugitives from Round Island. The Tsarevitch and the other runaways were ethically Japanese prizes. Being separated from their fleet they would, in a wider ocean, have fallen into Japanese hands or have been sunk by Japanese ships; but, owing to the existence of neutral harbours near at hand, they were able to escape the full consequences of defeat by internment in places where it would not have paid Japan to follow them.
Then there is the Chemulpo affair. Here the Japanese took up positions so that the Russians were liable to immediate annihilation—torpedo-boats being placed ready to discharge.
The Variag's captain then appealed to the neutral warships present, and on the grounds that neutral (British) property might be damaged did an action take place in the harbour, the Japanese agreed to
