tional 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.

For the action taken by the Institut de Droit International in
1895 and 1896, on the initiative of the present writer, see the
_Annuaire de l'Institut_, t. xiv p. 295, t. xv. pp. 145-151,
309, 317; and his _Studies in International Law_, pp. 106-111.
See also, at p. 104 of the same work, an opinion given by him
to the Chevalier Tindal as to the liability of The Hague to be
bombarded.

The later growth of opinion has been in accordance with the
views maintained by the writer of these letters, and with the
_Rapport_ drafted by him for the Institut. The Hague Conference
of 1899, though unable to discuss the subject, had registered a
_vaeu_ "that the proposal to regulate the question of the
bombardment of ports, towns and villages by a naval force may
be referred for examination to a future Conference." See _Parl.
Paper, Miscell._ No. 1 (1889), pp. 139, 146, 162, 165, 258,
283. At the Conference of 1907 a Convention, No. ix., was
accordingly signed and generally ratified, notably by Germany
and Great Britain, Art. 1 of which prohibits "the bombardment
by naval forces of ports towns, villages, houses, or buildings
which are not defended," Germany, France, Great Britain and
Japan dissenting from the second paragraph of this article,
which explains that a place is not to be considered to be
defended merely because it is protected by submarine
contact-mines. Bombardment is, however, permitted, by Art. 2,
of places which are, in fa