Many letters were written by naval men in a contrary sense, and the report of a committee of admirals appointed to consider, among other questions, "the feasibility and expediency of cruisers making raids on an enemy's coasts and unprotected towns for the purpose of levying contributions," was to the effect that "there can be no doubt about the feasibility of such operations by a maritime enemy possessed of sufficient power; and as to the expediency, there can be as little doubt but that any Power at war with Great Britain will adopt every possible means of weakening her enemy; and we know of no means more efficacious for making an enemy feel the pinch of war than by thus destroying his property and touching his pocket." (_Parl.

Paper_, 1889 [c.

5632], pp.

4, 8.) The supposed hostile squadron had, it seems, received express instructions "to attack any port in Great Britain." (See more fully in the writer's _Studies in International Law_, 1898, p.

96.) The fifth letter was suggested by a Russian protest against alleged Japanese action in 1904.
The subsequent history of this controversy, some account of which will be found at the end of this section, has, it is submitted, established the correctness of the views maintained in it.
NAVAL ATROCITIES Sir,--I trust we may soon learn on authority whether or no the enemies of this country are conducting naval hostilities in accordance with the rules of civilised warfare.