I read with indignation that the _Spider_ has destroyed Greenock; that she announced her intention of "blowing down" Ardrossan; that she has been "shelling the fine marine residences and watering-places in the Vale of Clyde." Can this be true, and was there really any ground for expecting that "a bombardment of the outside coast of the Isle of Wight" would take place last night?
Your obedient servant, T.E.HOLLAND.
Athenaeum Club, August 7 (1888).
THE NAVAL MANOEUVRES Sir,--In a letter which I addressed to you on the 7th inst.

I ventured to point out the discrepancy between the proceedings of certain vessels belonging to Admiral Tryon's fleet and the rules of civilised warfare.
Your correspondent on board Her Majesty's ship _Ajax_ yesterday told us something of the opinion of the fleet as to the bombardment and ransoming of defenceless seaboard towns, going on to predict that, in a war in which England should be engaged, privateers would again be as plentiful as in the days of Paul Jones, and assuring us that in such a war "not the slightest respect would be paid to old-fashioned treaties, protocols, or other diplomatic documents." Captain James appears, from his letter which you print to-day, to be of the same opinion as the fleet, with reference both to bombardments and to privateers; telling us also in plain language that "the talk about international law is all nonsense." Two questions are thus raised which seem worthy of serious consideration.

First, what are the rules of international law with reference to the bombardment of open towns from the sea (I leave out of consideration the better understood topic of privateering)?
Secondly, are future wars likely to be conducted without regard to international law?
1.

I need hardly say that I do not, as Captain James supposes, contend "that unfortified towns will never be bombarded or ransomed." International law has never prohibited, though it has attempted to restrict, the bombardment of such towns.

Even in 1694 our Government defended the destruction of Dieppe, Havre, and Calais only as a measure of retaliation, and in subsequent naval wars operations of this kind have been more and more carefully limited, till in the Crimean war our cruisers were careful to abstain from doing further damage than was involved in the confiscation or destruction of stores of arms and provisions.