I fear we are as yet far from having disposed of the comparatively simple question as to the operations which may be properly undertaken by a naval squadron against an undefended seaboard.
I am, your obedient servant, T.E.HOLLAND.
Llanfairfechan, August 27 (1888).
NAVAL BOMBARDMENTS OF UNFORTIFIED PLACES Sir,--The protest reported to have been lodged by the Russian Government against the bombardment by the Japanese fleet of a quarantine station on the island of San-shan-tao, apart from questions of fact, as to which we have as yet no reliable information, recalls attention to a question of international law of no slight importance--viz.

under what, if any, circumstances it is permissible for a naval force to bombard an "open" coast town.
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 _Reglement_ 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 _Reglement_, 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.