[1] By a letter of February 28, 1911, I drew the attention of the Foreign Office to the interpretation of Article 23(h) which generally prevailed on the Continent. This letter and the answer I received were privately printed, and copies were distributed amongst those members and associates of the Institute of International Law who attended the meeting at Madrid. Since French, German, and Italian International Law Journals published translations, but the original of the correspondence was never published in this country, I think it advisable to append it to this lecture. APPENDIX CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE FOREIGN OFFICE RESPECTING THE INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE 23(h) OF THE HAGUE REGULATIONS CONCERNING LAND WARFARE LETTER FROM THE PRESENT WRITER TO THE FOREIGN OFFICE. WHEWELL HOUSE, CAMBRIDGE, _28th February, 1911_. TO THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS. SIR,-- I venture to bring the following matter before your consideration:-- In the course of my recent studies I have been dealing with the laws and usages of war on land, and I have had to consider the interpretation of Article 23(h) of the Regulations attached to the Convention of 1907 relating to the Laws and Customs of war on land. I find that the interpretation prevailing among all continental and some English and American authorities is contrary to the old English rule, and I would respectfully ask to be informed of the view which His Majesty's Government place upon the article in question. To give some idea as to how an interpretation of Article 23(h) contrary to the old English rule prevails generally, I will quote a number of French, German, English, and American writers, the works of whom I have at hand in my library, and I will also quote the German _Weissbuch_ concerning the results of the second Hague Conference of 1907. Bonfils, _Manuel de droit international public_, 5th ed. by Fauchille, 1908, discusses, on page 651, the doctrine which denies to an enemy subject any _persona standi in judicio_, but adds:--'... Article 23(h) decide qu'il est interdit de declarer eteints, suspendus ou non recevables en justice, les droits et actions des nationaux de la partie adverse.' Politis, Professor of International Law in the University of Poitiers (France), in his report to the Institute of International Law, Session of Paris (1910), concerning _Effets de la Guerre sur les Obligations Internationales et les Contrats prives_, page 18, says: 'Un point hors de doute, c'est, que la guerre ne peut, ni par elle-meme ni par la volonte des belligerants, affecter la validite ou l'execution des contrats anterieurs. Cette regle fait desormais partie du droit positif. L'article 23(h) du nouveau Reglement de la Haye interdit formellement aux belligerants "de declarer eteints, suspendus ou non recevables en justice les droits et actions des nationaux de la partie adverse."