In the first place, it may be hardly necessary to point out the irrelevancy of the reference, alleged to have been made in the Russian Note, to "Article 25 of The Hague Convention." The Convention and the _Règlement_ annexed to it are, of course, exclusively applicable to "la guerre sur terre." Not only, however, would any mention of a naval bombardment have been out of place in that _Règlement_, but a proposal to bring such action within the scope of its 25th Article, which prohibits "the attack or bombardment of towns, villages, habitations, or buildings which are not defended," was expressly negatived by the Conference of The Hague. It became abundantly clear, during the discussion of this proposal, that the only chance of an agreement being arrived at was that any allusion to maritime warfare should be carefully avoided. It was further ultimately admitted, even by the advocates of the proposal, that the considerations applicable to bombardments by an army and by a naval force respectively are not identical. It was, for instance, urged that an army has means other than those which may alone be available to a fleet for obtaining from an open town absolutely needful supplies. The Hague Conference, therefore, left the matter where it found it, recording, however, among its "pious wishes" (_voeux_) one to the effect "that the proposal to regulate the question of the bombardment of ports, towns, and villages by a naval force should be referred for examination to a future conference." The topic is not a new one. You, Sir, allowed me to raise it in your columns with reference to the naval manoeuvres of 1888, when a controversy ensued which disclosed the existence of a considerable amount of naval opinion in favour of practices which I ventured to think in contravention of international law. It was also thoroughly debated in 1896 at the Venice meeting of the Institut de Droit International upon a report drafted by myself, as chairman of a committee appointed a year previously. This report lays down that the restrictions placed by international law upon bombardments on land apply also to those effected from the sea, except that such operations are lawful for a naval force when undertaken with a view to (1) obtaining supplies of which it is in need; (2) destroying munitions of war or warships which may be in a port; (3) punishing, by way of reprisal, violations by the enemy of the laws of war. Bombardments for the purpose of exacting a ransom or of putting pressure upon the hostile Power by injury to peaceful individuals or their property were to be unlawful. The views of the committee were, in substance, adopted by the Institut, with the omission only of the paragraph allowing bombardment by way of reprisals. I am, Sir, your obedient servant, T. E. HOLLAND. Oxford, April 2 (1904). The "Hague Conference" and "Hague Convention" to which reference was made in the last of these letters were, of course, those of 1899.