s makes it abundantly clear that the purpose and scope of the
Regulations is limited to the proceedings of the armies in the field;
those armies are under the orders of the commanders, and the Governments
are bound to issue instructions to those commanders to act in accordance
with the Regulations. That is all. There is nothing in the Convention or
in the Regulations dealing with the rights or the status of the
non-combatant individuals, whether of enemy nationality or domiciled in
enemy territory. They are, of course, if inhabitants of the theatre of
war, affected by the provisions of the Regulations because they are
individuals who are affected by the military operations, and in a sense
a regulation which forbids a military commander from poisoning a well
gives a non-combatant inhabitant a right or a quasi-right not to have
his well poisoned, but his rights against his neighbours, his relations
with private individuals, whether of his own or of enemy nationality,
remain untouched by this series of rules for the conduct of warfare on
land.

Turning now to the actual wording of Article 23(h) it will be seen that
it begins with the wording 'to declare.' It is particularly forbidden
'to _declare_ abolished, &c.' This wording necessarily contemplates the
issue of some proclamation or notification purporting to abrogate or to
change rights previously existing and which would otherwise have
continued to exist, and in view of Article I of the Convention this
hypothetical proclamation must have been one which it was assumed the
commander of the army would issue; consequently, stated broadly, the
effect of Article 23(h) is that a commander in the field is forbidden to
attempt to terrorise the inhabitants of the theatre of war by depriving
them of existing opportunities of obtaining relief to which they are
entitled in respect of private claims.

Sir E. Grey is much obliged to you for calling his attention to the
extract which you quote from the German White Book. This extract may be
translated as follows:--'Article 23 has also received on German
proposal two weighty additions. By the first the fundamental principle
of the inviolability of private property in the domain of legal claims
is recognised. According to the legislation of individual states, war
has the result of extinguishing or temporarily suspending, or at least
of suppressing the liability of the state or its nationals to be sued by
nationals of the enemy. These pr