View source for Treaties and Documents Relative to the Neutrality of the Netherlands and Belgium

<p align="right">
[[Main_Page | WWI Document Archive ]] > [[Official Papers]] > '''Treaties and Documents Relative to the Neutrality of the Netherlands and Belgium'''
</p><hr>

<blockquote>

<center><FONT COLOR="#1822CD" SIZE=+2>Alexander Fuehr<BR>
THE NEUTRALITY OF BELGIUM<BR>
1915</FONT></center>

<center><FONT SIZE=+2>APPENDIX</FONT> <BR>
<FONT SIZE=+3>A</FONT></center>

<center><FONT SIZE=+1>TREATIES RELATIVE TO<BR>
THE NETHERLANDS AND BELGIUM</FONT></center>

<center>signed at London, April 19, 1839.</center>

<center>PRESENTED TO BOTH HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT BY <BR>
COMMAND OF HER MAJESTY, 1839</center><br><br>

<FONT SIZE=+1>1. Treaty between Great Britain, Austria, France, Prussia
and Russia, on the one part, and the Netherlands, on the other.</FONT><br><br>


In the Name of the Most Holy and Indivisible Trinity.<br><br>

Her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland,
His Majesty the Emperor of Austria, King of Hungary and Bohemia, His Majesty
the King of the French, His Majesty the King of Prussia, and His Majesty
the Emperor of all the Russias, having taken into consideration their Treaty
concluded with His Majesty the King of the Belgians, on the 15th of November
1831; and His Majesty the King of the Netherlands, Grand Duke of Luxembourg,
being disposed to conclude a definite arrangement on the basis of the 24
Articles agreed upon by the Plenipotentiaries of Great Britain, Austria,
France, Prussia, and Russia on the 14th of October, 1831; their said Majesties
have named for their Plenipotentiaries, that is to say: <nowiki>* * *</nowiki> <br><br>

Who, after having communicated to each other their Full Powers, found
in good and due form, have agreed upon the following Articles:<br><br>

<center>ARTICLE I</center><br><br>

His Majesty the King of the Netherlands, Grand Duke of Luxembourg, engages
to cause to be immediately converted into a Treaty with His Majesty the
King of the Belgians, the Articles annexed to the present Act, and agreed
upon by common consent, under the auspices of the Courts of Great Britain,
Austria, France, Prussia and Russia.<br><br>

<center>ARTICLE II</center><br><br>

Her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland,
His Majesty the Emperor of Austria, King of Hungary and Bohemia, His Majesty
the King of the French, His Majesty the King of Prussia, and His Majesty
the Emperor of all the Russias declare, that the Articles mentioned in the
preceding Article, are considered as having the same force and validity
as if they were textually inserted in the present Act, and that they are
thus placed under the guarantee of their said Majesties.<br><br>

<center>ARTICLE III</center><br><br>

The union which has existed between Holland and Belgium, in virtue of
the Treaty of Vienna, of the 31st of May, 1815, is acknowledged by His Majesty
the King of the Netherlands, Grand Duke of Luxembourg, to be dissolved.<br><br>

<center>ARTICLE IV</center><br><br>

The present Treaty shall be ratified, and the ratifications shall be
exchanged at London at the expiration of six weeks, or sooner, if possible.
The exchange of these ratifications shall take place at the same time as
that of the ratifications of the Treaty between Holland and Belgium.<br><br>

In witness whereof, the respective Plenipotentiaries have signed the
present Treaty, and have affixed thereto the seal of their Arms.<br><br>

Done at London, the nineteenth day of April, in the year of Our Lord
one thousand eight hundred and thirty-nine.<br><br>

<BLOCKQUOTE>
    (L. S.) PALMERSTON, <BR>
    (L. S.) SENFFT,<BR>
    (L. S.) H. SEBASTIANI, <BR>
    (L. S.) B&Uuml;LOW,<BR>
    (L. S.) POZZO DI BORGO, <BR>
    (L. S.) DEDEL.
</BLOCKQUOTE>

Annex to the Treaty signed at London, on the 19th of April, 1839, between
Great Britain, Austria, France, Prussia and Russia, on the one part, and
the Netherlands, on the Other. [FOOTNOTE: Of the Twenty-Four Articles annexed
to the treaty only such parts are reproduced here, as are of particular
interest for the present study. A summary of the contents of all the Twenty-Four
Articles is given in the footnote of page 48.<br><br>

<center>ARTICLE I</center><br><br>

The Belgian territory shall be composed of the provinces:<br><br>

<BLOCKQUOTE>
    South Brabant; <BR>
    Li&eacute;ge;<BR>
    Namur;<BR>
    Hainault;<BR>
    West Flanders; <BR>
    East Flanders; <BR>
    Antwerp; and <BR>
    Limburg;
</BLOCKQUOTE>

such as they formed part of the United Kingdom of the Netherlands constituted
in 1815, with the exception of those districts of the province of Limburg
which are designated in Article IV.<br><br>

The Belgian territory shall, moreover, comprise that part of the Grand
Duchy of Luxembourg which is specified in Article II.

<center>ARTICLE II</center><br><br>

In the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the limits of the Belgian territory
shall be such as will be hereinafter described, viz.. . .

<center>ARTICLE IV</center><br><br>

In execution of that part of Article I which relates to the province
of Limburg, and in consequence of the cessions of His Majesty the King of
the Netherlands, Grand Duke of Luxembourg, makes in Article II, his said
Majesty shall possess. . . .<br><br>

<center>ARTICLE VII</center><br><br>

Belgium within the limits specified in Articles I, II and IV shall form
an independent and perpetually neutral State. It shall be bound to observe
such neutrality toward all other States.<br><br>

<BLOCKQUOTE>
    (L. S.) PALMERSTON, <BR>
    (L. S.) SENFFT,<BR>
    (L. S.) H. SEBASTIANI, <BR>
    (L. S.) B&Uuml;LOW,<BR>
    (L. S.) POZZO DI BORGO, <BR>
    (L. S.) DEDEL.
</BLOCKQUOTE>

<FONT SIZE=+1>(A Treaty between Holland and Belgium comprising the 24
Articles above recited, together with the usual engagement for Peace and
Friendship between the Parties, was also signed by the Plenipotentiaries
of those two Powers on the 19th of April; and the ratifications were exchanged
at the same time and place as those of the preceding Treaty.).</FONT><br><br>

<FONT SIZE=+1>2. Treaty between Great Britain, Austria, France, Prussia
and Russia, on the one part, and Belgium, on the other.</FONT><br><br>

In the Name of the Most Holy and Indivisible Trinity.<br><br>

Her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland,
His Majesty the Emperor of Austria, King of Hungary and Bohemia, His Majesty
the King of the French, His Majesty the King of Prussia, and His Majesty
the Emperor of All the Russias, taking into consideration, as well as His
Majesty the King of the Belgians, their Treaty concluded at London on the
15th of November, 1831, as well as the Treaties signed this day, between
their Majesties the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland,
the Emperor of Austria, King of Hungary and Bohemia, the King of the French,
the King of Prussia, and the Emperor of All the Russias, on the one part,
and His Majesty the King of the Netherlands, Grand Duke of Luxembourg, on
the other part, and between His Majesty the King of the Belgians and His
said Majesty the King of the Netherlands, Grand Duke of Luxembourg, their
said Majesties have named as their Plenipotentiaries, that is to say: <nowiki>*
* *</nowiki><br><br>

Who, after having communicated to each other their Full Powers, found
in good and due form, have agreed upon the following Articles:<br><br>

<center>ARTICLE I</center><br><br>

Her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland,
His Majesty the Emperor of Austria, King of Hungary and Bohemia, His Majesty
the King of the French, His Majesty the King of Prussia, and His Majesty
the Emperor of All the Russias, declare, that the Article hereunto annexed,
and forming the tenor of the Treaty concluded this day between His Majesty
the King of the Belgians and His Majesty the King of Netherlands, Grand
Duke of Luxembourg, are considered as having the same force and validity
as if they were textually inserted in the present Act, and that they are
thus placed under the Guarantee of their said Majesties.<br><br>

<center>ARTICLE II</center><br><br>

The Treaty of the 15th of November, 1831, between their Majesties the
Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, the Emperor of
Austria, King of Hungary and Bohemia, the King of the French, the King of
Prussia, and the Emperor of All the Russias, and His Majesty the King of
the Belgians, is declared not to be obligatory upon the High Contracting
Parties.<br><br>

<center>ARTICLE III</center><br><br>

The present treaty shall be ratified, and the Ratifications shall be
exchanged at London at the expiration of six weeks, or sooner if possible.
This exchange shall take place the same time as that of the Ratifications
of the Treaty between Belgium and Holland.<br><br>

In witness whereof, the respective Plenipotentiaries have signed the
present Treaty, and have affixed thereto the Seal of their Arms.<br><br>

Done at London, the 19th day of April, in the year of Our Lord, 1839.<br><br>

<BLOCKQUOTE>
    (L. S.) PALMERSTON, <BR>
    (L. S.) SENFFT,<BR>
    (L. S.) H. SEBASTIANI, <BR>
    (L. S.) B&Uuml;LOW,<BR>
    (L. S.) POZZO DI BORGO, <BR>
    (L. S.) SYLVAIN VAN DE WEYER.
</BLOCKQUOTE>

<center> <nowiki>* * *</nowiki> </center><br><br>

Annex to the Treaty signed at London on the 19th of April, 1839, between
Great Britain, Austria, France, Prussia and Russia, on the one part, and
Belgium, on the other part.<br><br>

<FONT SIZE=+1>(This annex, signed by the same Plenipotentiaries who signed
the preceding Treaty, is word for word the same as the Annex to the Treaty
between the Five Powers and the King of the Netherlands.)</FONT><br><br>

3. Act of accession on the part of the
Germanic Confederation to the territorial Arrangements concerning the Grand
Duchy of Luxembourg contained in the first seven Articles of the Annex to
the two preceding Treaties.<br><br>

The Plenipotentiaries of the Courts of Great Britain, Austria, Belgium,
France, the Netherlands, Prussia and Russia, having this day, signed the
Treaties concluded between the five Courts and His Majesty the King of the
Netherlands, Grand Duke of Luxembourg, between their Majesties the King
of the Belgians and the King of the Netherlands, Grand Duke of Luxembourg,
and between the five Courts and His Majesty the King of the Belgians, the
Plenipotentiaries have deemed it expedient that the Plenipotentiaries of
Austria and Prussia, invested with Full Powers from the Diet of the Germanic
Confederation, should be invited to accede in the name of the said Confederation,
to the arrangements concerning the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, which are
contained in the Treaties above mentioned.<br><br>

In consequence, the Plenipotentiaries of Austria and Prussia, representing
the Diet in virtue of the said Full Powers, declare that the Germanic Confederation
formally accedes to the territorial arrangements concerning the Grand Duchy
of Luxembourg, which are contained in Articles I, II, III, IV, V, VI and
VII, of the Annex to the Treaties this day concluded between the five Courts
and His Majesty the King of the Netherlands, Grand Duke of Luxembourg, and
between the five Courts and His Majesty the King of the Belgians, as well
as in the corresponding Articles of the Treaty signed at the same time between
His Majesty the King of the Belgians and His Majesty the King of the Netherlands,
Grand Duke of Luxembourg. And they take towards the Courts of Great Britain,
Austria, Belgium, France, the Netherlands, Prussia and Russia, in the name
of the Germanic Confederation, the engagement that the Confederation will
entirely conform to the stipulations contained in the said Articles, which
are hereinafter inserted word for word, so far as they concern the Germanic
Confederation .<br><br>

[Here follow the first seven Articles of the Annex to the two preceding
Treaties.]<br><br>

The Plenipotentiaries of Great Britain, Belgium, France, the Netherlands,
Prussia and Russia, in virtue of their Full Powers, formally accept, in
the name of their respective Courts, the said Accession on the part of the
Germanic Confederation.<br><br>

The present Act of Accession shall be ratified by the Courts of Great
Britain, Austria, Belgium, France, the Netherlands, Prussia and Russia,
and also by the Germanic Confederation, by means of a Decree of the Diet,
of which the requisite number of copies shall be prepared. And the respective
Acts of Ratification shall be exchanged at London at the expiration of six
weeks from this date, or sooner if possible, and at the same time as the
exchange of the Ratifications of the three Treaties above mentioned.<br><br>

In witness whereof the respective Plenipotentiaries have signed the present
Act of Accession, and have affixed thereto the Seal of their Arms.<br><br>

Done at London, the 19th day of April, in the year of our Lord, 1839.<br><br>

<BLOCKQUOTE>
    (L. S.) PALMERSTON,<BR>
    (L. S.) SENFFT,<BR>
    (L. S.) SYLVAIN VAN DE WEYER,<BR>
    (L. S.) H. SEBASTIANI,<BR>
    (L. S.) DEDEL,<BR>
    (L. S.) B&Uuml;LOW.<BR>
    (L. S.) POZZO DI BORGO,
    (L. S.) SENFFT,<BR>
    (L. S.) B&Uuml;LOW
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<hr>

<center><FONT SIZE=+2>APPENDIX</FONT><BR>
<FONT SIZE=+3>B</FONT></center>

<center><FONT SIZE=+1>TREATY<BR>
BETWEEN HER MAJESTY<BR>
AND THE KING OF PRUSSIA<BR>
RELATIVE TO<BR>
THE INDEPENDENCE AND NEUTRALITY<BR>
OF BELGIUM</FONT></center>

<center>Signed at London, August 9, 1870</center>

<center>PRESENTED TO BOTH HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT BY <BR>
COMMAND OF HER MAJESTY, 1871</center>

<center>(Ratifications exchanged at London, August 26, 1870)</center><br><br>

Her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland,
and His Majesty the King of Prussia, being desirous at the present time
of recording in a solemn Act their fixed determination to maintain the independence
and neutrality of Belgium, as provided in Article VII of the Treaty signed
at London on the 19th of April, 1839, between Belgium and the Netherlands,
which Article was declared by the Quintuple Treaty of 1839 to be considered
as having the same force and value as if textually inserted in the said
Quintuple Treaty, their said Majesties have determined to conclude between
themselves a separate Treaty, which, without impairing or invalidating the
conditions of the said Quintuple Treaty, shall be subsidiary and accessory
to it; and they have accordingly named as their Plenipotentiaries for that
purpose, that is to say.<nowiki> * * *</nowiki> <br><br>

Who, after having communicated to each other their respective full powers,
found in good and due form, have agreed upon and concluded the following
Articles:

<center>ARTICLE I</center><br><br>

His Majesty the King of Prussia having declared that, notwithstanding
the hostilities in which the North German Confederation is engaged with
France, it is his fixed determination to respect the neutrality of Belgium,
so long as the same shall be respected by France, Her Majesty the Queen
of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland on her part declares
that, if during the said hostilities the armies of France should violate
that neutrality, she will be prepared to co-operate with His Prussian Majesty
for the defense of the same in such manner as may be mutually agreed upon,
employing for that purpose her naval and military forces to insure its observance,
and to maintain, in conjunction with His Prussian Majesty, then and thereafter,
the independence and neutrality of Belgium.<br><br>

It is clearly understood that Her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom
of Great Britain and Ireland does not engage herself by this Treaty to take
part in any of the general operations of the war now carried on between
the North German Confederation and France, beyond the limits of Belgium,
as defined in the Treaty between Belgium and the Netherlands of April 19,
1839.

<center>ARTICLE II</center><br><br>

His Majesty the King of Prussia agrees on his part, in the event provided
for in the foregoing Article, to co-operate with Her Majesty the Queen of
the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, employing his naval and
military forces for the purpose aforesaid; and, the case arising, to concert
with Her Majesty the measures which shall be taken, separately or in common,
to secure the neutrality and independence of Belgium.

<center>ARTICLE III</center><br><br>

This Treaty shall be binding on the High Contracting Parties during the
continuance of the present war between the North German Confederation and
France, and for twelve months after the ratification of any Treaty of Peace
concluded between those Parties; and on the expiration of that time the
independence and neutrality of Belgium will, so far as the High Contracting
Parties are respectively concerned, continue to rest as heretofore on Article
I of the Quintuple Treaty of the 19th of April, 1839.

<center>ARTICLE IV</center><br><br>

The present Treaty shall be ratified, and the ratifications shall be
exchanged at London as soon as possible.<br><br>

In witness wherof the respective Plenipotentiaries have signed the same,
and have affixed thereto the seal of their arms.<br><br>

Done at London, the 9th day of August, in the year of our Lord 1870.<br><br>

<BLOCKQUOTE>
(L. S.) GRANVILLE,<BR>
(L. S.) BERNSTORFF.
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<hr>

<center><FONT SIZE=+2>APPENDIX</FONT><BR>
<FONT SIZE=+3>C</FONT></center>

<center><FONT SIZE=+1>TREATY<BR>
BETWEEN HER MAJESTY<BR>
AND THE EMPEROR OF THE FRENCH<BR>
RELATIVE TO<BR>
THE INDEPENDENCE AND NEUTRALITY<BR>
OF BELGIUM</FONT></center>

<center>Signed at London, August 11, 1870</center>

<center>PRESENTED TO BOTH HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT BY <BR>
COMMAND OF HER MAJESTY, 1871</center>

<center>(Ratifications exchanged at London, August 26, 1870)</center><br><br>

Her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland,
and His Majesty the Emperor of the French, being desirous at the present
time of recording in a solemn Act their fixed determination to maintain
the independence and neutrality of Belgium, as provided by Article VII of
the Treaty signed at London on the 19th of April, 1839, between Belgium
and the Netherlands, which Article was declared by the Quintuple Treaty
of 1839 to be considered as having the same force and value as if textually
in the said Quintuple Treaty, their said Majesties have determined to conclude
between themselves a separate Treaty, which, without impairing or invalidating
the conditions of the said Quintuple Treaty, shall be subsidiary and accessory
to it; and they have accordingly named as their Plenipotentiaries for the
purpose, that is to say: <nowiki>* * *</nowiki><br><br>

Who, after having communicated to each other their respective full powers,
found in good and due form, have agreed upon and concluded the following
Articles:

<center>ARTICLE I</center><br><br>

His Majesty the Emperor of the French having declared that, notwithstanding
the hostilities in which France is now engaged with the North German Confederation
and its Allies, it is his fixed determination to respect the neutrality
of Belgium, so long as the same shall be respected by the North German Confederation
and its Allies, Her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Ireland on her part declares that, if during the said hostilities the
armies of the North German Confederation and its Allies should violate that
neutrality, she will be prepared to co-operate with His Imperial Majesty
for the defense of the same in such manner as may be mutually 'agreed upon,
employing for that purpose her naval and military forces to insure its observance,
and to maintain, in conjunction with His Imperial Majesty, then and thereafter,
the independence and neutrality of Belgium.<br><br>

It is clearly understood that Her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom
of Great Britain and Ireland does not engage herself by this Treaty to take
part in any of the general operations of the war now carried on between
France and the North German Confederation and its Allies, beyond the limits
of Belgium, as defined in the Treaty between Belgium and the Netherlands
of April 19, 1839.

<center>ARTICLE II</center><br><br>

His Majesty the Emperor of the French agrees on his part, in the event
provided for in the foregoing Article, to co-operate with Her Majesty the
Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, employing his
naval and military forces for the purpose aforesaid; and, the case arising,
to concert with Her Majesty the measures which shall be taken, separately
or in common, to secure the neutrality and independence of Belgium.

<center>ARTICLE III</center><br><br>

This Treaty shall be binding on the High Contracting Parties during the
continuance of the present war between France and the North German Confederation
and its Allies, and for twelve months after the ratification of any Treaty
of Peace concluded between those Parties; and on the expiration of that
time the independence and neutrality Of Belgium will, so far as the High
Contracting Parties are respectively concerned, continue to rest, as heretofore,
on Article I of the Quintuple Treaty of the 19th of April, 1839.

<center>ARTICLE IV</center><br><br>

The present Treaty shall be ratified, and the ratifications shall be
exchanged at London as soon as possible.<br><br>

In witness whereof the respect[ive] Plenipotentiaries have signed the
same, and have affixed thereto the seal of their arms.<br><br>

Done at London, the 11th day of August, in the year of our Lord, 1870.<br><br>

<BLOCKQUOTE>
    (L. S.) GRANVILLE, <BR>
    (L. S.) LA VALETTE.
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<hr>

<center><FONT SIZE=+2>APPENDIX</FONT><BR>
<FONT SIZE=+3>D</FONT></center>

<center><FONT SIZE=+2>THE FRENCH PLAN OF CAMPAIGN</FONT></center>

<center>(From the North German Gazette of September 30, 1914)</center><br><br>

The plans for the general French advance against the German forces were
found among the papers of a French officer, captured near Verdun. They are
as follows:<br><br>

First Army, consisting of the I, II, III and X army-corps, concentrates
at Maubeuge;<br><br>

Second Army, consisting of the IX, XI, IV and. VI army-corps,. concentrates
at Verdun;<br><br>

Third Army, consisting of the XX, V. and VIII army-corps, concentrates
at Toul;<br><br>

Fourth Army, consisting of the XIII, XII, XVII and XVIII army-corps,
concentrates at Epinal;<br><br>

Fifth Army, consisting of the VII, XIV, XV and XVI army-corps, concentrates
at Belfort.<br><br>

The First Army unites with the English and Belgian forces, and. after
marching through Belgium, occupies Cologne and Coblenz, and opposes the
German forces advancing from Northern Germany.<br><br>

The Second Army has to occupy Metz, and, after having accomplished this,
turns towards Saarlouis and Coblenz, where it will join with the First Army.<br><br>

The Third Army penetrates Lorraine, occupies the northern part of the
Vosges, and will then take up a position before Strassburg.<br><br>

The Fourth Army occupies the remainder of the Vosges and afterwards follows
the advance of the other Armies as reserve reinforcement.<br><br>

The Fifth Army will storm Altkirch and Muehlhausen, and then remove towards
Strassburg, which is to be taken, after which it joins the Third Army.<br><br>

After which there will remain only three armies, that is to say:<br><br>

Army A in Coblenz,<BR>
Army C in Strassburg,<BR>
Army D in reserve.
<hr>

<center><FONT SIZE=+2>APPENDIX</FONT><BR>
<FONT SIZE=+3>E</FONT></center>

<center><FONT SIZE=+1>EXTRACT FROM THE SPEECH OF THE<BR>
IMPERIAL CHANCELLOR,<BR>
DR. VON BETHMANN HOLLWEG</FONT></center>

<center>GIVEN IN THE REICHSTAG, ON AUGUST 4, 1914</center>

<center>(Translated from the Supplement to the North German Gazette
of August 9, 1914)</center><br><br>

&quot;Gentlemen: We are, at present, in a state of legitimate defense
and necessity knows no law! [FOOTNOTE: This translation does not render
exactly the German original <I>&quot;Wir sind jetzt in Notwehr; und Not
kennt kein Gebot!&quot; </I>but the English language hardly suggests any
other rendering.] Our troops have occupied Luxembourg; perhaps they have
entered already Belgian territory. Gentlemen, this is contrary to the rules
of international law. It is true that the French Government has declared
at Brussels that it would respect Belgium's neutrality as long as the adversary
would respect it. However, we knew that France was ready for an invasion.
France could afford to wait, but we could not! A French invasion at our
flank, at the Lower Rhine, could have become fatal to us. Thus, we were
forced to disregard the justified protests of the Governments of Luxembourg
and Belgium. The wrong---I speak openly---the wrong which thereby we commit,
we shall try to make good as soon as our military aim is attained. Whoever
is threatened as we are, is not allowed to have any other consideration
beyond that how he will hack his way through!&quot;
<hr>

<center><FONT SIZE=+2>APPENDIX</FONT><BR>
<FONT SIZE=+3>F</FONT></center>

<center><FONT SIZE=+1>FAC-SIMILE REPRODUCTIONS OF THE<BR>
&quot;BRUSSELS DOCUMENTS&quot;</FONT></center><br><br>

a. [http://wwi.lib.byu.edu/images/c/c9/Treaties_and_Documents_Relative_to_the_Neutrality_of_the_Netherlands_and_Belgium_Pre-1914_The_original_cover.jpg The original cover], in which the report
of General Ducarne was found.<br><br>

b.[http://wwi.lib.byu.edu/images/6/6c/Treaties_and_Documents_Relative_to_the_Neutrality_of_the_Netherlands_and_Belgium_Pre-1914_The_report.gif The report] of General Ducarne
to the Belgian Minister of War, concerning his military conversations with
the British Lieutenant-Colonel Barnardiston.<br><br>

c. The Minutes of the military conversations between General Jungbluth
and the British Lieutenant-Colonel Bridges.

[http://wwi.lib.byu.edu/images/0/02/Treaties_and_Documents_Relative_to_the_Neutrality_of_the_Netherlands_and_Belgium_Pre-1914_Page_1.gif page one],

[http://wwi.lib.byu.edu/images/3/3b/Treaties_and_Documents_Relative_to_the_Neutrality_of_the_Netherlands_and_Belgium_Pre-1914_Page_2.gif page two], 

[http://wwi.lib.byu.edu/images/a/a0/Treaties_and_Documents_Relative_to_the_Neutrality_of_the_Netherlands_and_Belgium_Pre-1914_Page_3.gif page three],

[http://wwi.lib.byu.edu/images/3/3e/Treaties_and_Documents_Relative_to_the_Neutrality_of_the_Netherlands_and_Belgium_Pre-1914_Page_4.gif page four]<br><br>

<center><HR><FONT SIZE=+2>APPENDIX</FONT><BR>
<FONT SIZE=+3>G</FONT></center>

<center><FONT SIZE=+1>ENGLAND AND BELGIUM</FONT></center>

<center><FONT SIZE=+1>NEW DOCUMENTS CONCERNING ENGLAND'S BREACH
OF NEUTRALITY</FONT></center>

<center>(From the North German Gazette of December 2, 1914)</center><br><br>

Further proofs have been found that England, in cooperation with Belgium,
had prepared the war against Germany already during peace time to the utmost,
not only in a diplomatic but also in a military way. Recently, our troops
seized some secret military guide-books about Belgium, edited by the British
General Army Staff, entitled: &quot;Belgium, Road and River Reports, prepared
by the General Staff, War Office.&quot;<br><br>

We are in possession of four volumes of this handbook, of which volume
I was printed in 1912, volume 2 in 1913, volume 3 (in two parts) and volume
4 in 1914.<br><br>

They show the following imprint: <I>&quot;Confidential. This book is
the property of the British Government and is to be used for the personal
information of . . . . . . . who himself is responsible for the safe keeping
of the book. The contents are to be revealed to authorized persons only.&quot;</I><br><br>

The handbook contains evidences of military investigations in the minutest
and most exact descriptions of the territory. The introduction reads as
follows: &quot;These reports can give only the condition of the roads at
the time in which they were investigated. It will always be advisable to
investigate them again before they are used, in order to make sure that
they are not closed on account of repairs, pipe laying,&quot; etc.<br><br>

Thus, for instance, in volume 1, page 130 and following, the great highroad,
Nieuport-Dixmude-Ypres-Menin-Tourcoing-Tournai, is described and accompanied
by maps, with special regard to quality of the roads, the surrounding country,
tactic considerations, observation posts and water conditions. In this discussion
all the villages along the highroad are enumerated and described. Thus we
find their exact distance from one another, detailed descriptions of the
road net, with reference to elevations, bridges, crossings, telephone and
telegraph stations, railway stations, including length of platforms and
landing places; branch lines, oil tanks, etc. It is always mentioned whether
the population speaks partly or altogether French.<br><br>

As an illustration we may cite the tactical remarks about Dixmude on
page 151:<br><br>

<BLOCKQUOTE>
  It will be difficult to take Dixmude from the north or from the south.
  The best position for defense against attacks from the south would be the
  railway embankment in the west as far as the street, to the east a number
  of small bills. As far as 1,500 yards west of the street the field is favorable
  for firing; farther to the east the view is obstructed by trees. Two battalions
  would be sufficient for occupation. The hostile artillery probably would
  be situated near Hoogmolen and Vertkant; otherwise there is nothing of
  tactical importance, nor is there anything which might retard marching.
  Point of observation, the mill of Reencheek permitting of a free panoramic
  view; also the Koelberg, seven and one-half miles distant from Ypres, with
  outlook toward the east and south.
</BLOCKQUOTE>

It may be mentioned that the church towers are usually mentioned as good
observation points.<br><br>

In a similar detailed manner the entire course of the Scheldt, with all
tributaries, villages, landings, opportunities for crossing, widths and
depths, bridges, supply of boats, etc., is described.<br><br>

Thus the handbooks form an excellent guide for the army leader, the officer
of the general staff and for officers second in command. To the book are
added:<br><br>

First---A schedule containing information about communities and villages
for purposes of billeting; furthermore, instructions regarding transportation
and all other items which may be needed by the local commander.<br><br>

Second---A number of important hints to aviators for that part of Belgium
which is situated south of the line Charleroi-Namur-Li&eacute;ge as well
as for the surroundings of Brussels.<br><br>

This very carefully and comprehensively drawn memorandum is supplemented
by a map showing the landing places. It bears the inscription &quot;Secret&quot;
and is dated July, 1914.<br><br>

These military geographical handbooks cannot be supposed to have been
written shortly before or during the war. That would, aside from putting
them in print, have been impossible. The material for the work has, on the
contrary, as may be seen from remarks in the different parts, been collected
since 1909. The first volume was printed in 1912.<br><br>

The manuals therefore prove a minute preparation carried on during the
last five years for an English campaign in neutral Belgium. They are nothing
else but secret regulations of military service for an English army fighting
in Belgium. The English general staff therefore since long time prepared
themselves for this event and foresaw the same so surely that they undertook
the painstaking work of compiling these military handbooks.<br><br>

Without ready and far-reaching assistance on the part of the Belgian
government and military authorities such at work would not have been possible.
Those strategical and tactical reports, going into the minutest details,
as mentioned above, or such exact data concerning railroads and transportation
service, rolling stock, locks, and bridges, could not have been obtained
in any other way. The schedules about the billeting capacity, which deal
with Belgium as if it were English territory, could only be derived from
the Belgian government. Without doubt official Belgium material has been
used. It is made suitable for English purposes or at many places simply
translated into English!<br><br>

Very extensively, indeed, England and Belgium had prepared themselves
together during times of peace for military co-operation. Belgium in political
as well as in military matters was nothing but a vassal state of England.
The indignation which England today is putting tip before the world because
of Germany's so-called breach of neutrality is made altogether meaningless
and unjust by those documents.<br><br>

When on account of our operations at the coast the English and French
press remarked sneeringly that we were not sufficiently instructed about
the dangers of the inundation district in the so-called &quot;Polderland&quot;
they were right in so far as before the beginning of the war we did not
know Belgian territorial conditions any better than may be learned from
sources obtainable in the book market.<br><br>

The English reconnoitering reports and the excellent maps, therefore,
were very valuable booty for us. We were able to make immediate use of this
remarkable material and thus could fight England with her own weapons. That
should be the best indication of the importance of our enemies' painstaking
labor.
<hr>

<center><FONT SIZE=+2>APPENDIX</FONT><BR>
<FONT SIZE=+3>H</FONT></center>

<center><FONT SIZE=+1>HOW ENGLAND PLAYED WITH BELGIAN<BR>
NEUTRALITY</font></center>

<center>(From the North German Gazette of December 15, 194)</center><br><br>

New and convincing evidence with reference to the Anglo-Belgian complicity
has been found. Some time ago there was detained in Brussels the British
Secretary of Legation, Grant-Watson, who had remained in the British Legation
after the office had been transferred to Antwerp and later on to Havre.
This Grant-Watson has been caught in the act of disposing of a number of
documents which he at the time of his detention had taken with him from
the Legation.<br><br>

An investigation of these documents showed that they were of the most
intimate kind, containing exact information, of the years 1913 and 1914,
about the Belgian mobilization plans and about the defense of Antwerp. Among
them were also found circular decrees directed to the higher Belgian commands,
with fac-simile signatures of the Belgian Minister of War and the Belgian
General Staff. Furthermore, a report of a session of the &quot;commission
for the provisions base at Antwerp&quot; of May 27, 1913, was found.<br><br>

The fact that these documents had been at the British Legation sufficiently
proves that the Belgian Government in military matters had no secrets from
the British Government and that those two governments had a continuous and
most intimate understanding in military matters.<br><br>

Of especial interest is also a handwritten note which was found with
the papers and for the destruction of which the British Secretary was very
anxious. It was of the following tenor:<br><br>

<center>RENSEIGNEMENTS</center>

<BLOCKQUOTE>
  (1) Les officiers fran&ccedil;ais ont re&ccedil;u ordre de rejoindre
  d&egrave;s le 27, apr&egrave;s-midi.
  (2) Le m&ecirc;me jour le chef de Gare de Feignies a re&ccedil;u ordre
  de concentrer vers Maubeuge tous les wagons ferm&eacute;s disponibles en
  vue de transport de troupes.
  Communiqu&eacute; par la Brigade de gendarmerie de Frameries.
</BLOCKQUOTE>

<center>INFORMATION</center>

<BLOCKQUOTE>
  (1) The French officers have received order to rejoin on the 27th in
  the afternoon.
  (2) The same day the station master at Feignies has received order to
  concentrate toward Maubeuge all available closed railway cars in view of
  transport of troops.
  Communicated by the brigade de gendarmerie at Frameries.
</BLOCKQUOTE>

It is of interest to note that Feignies is a railway station on the Maubeuge-Mons
line, about three kilometers from the Franco-Belgian boundary.<br><br>

From this note we learn that France as early as July 27 had taken her
first mobilization measures and that the English Legation received notice
of this fact immediately from the Belgian Government.<br><br>

If there were any need for further proof of the relations which existed
between England and Belgium the material found would be a valuable supplement
in that respect.<br><br>

It shows again that Belgium had abandoned her neutrality in favor of
the entente and that she had become an active member of that coalition,
which was formed for the purpose of fighting Germany. For England, however,
Belgian neutrality meant nothing more than a &quot;scrap of paper,&quot;
which she appealed to if it were advantageous to her interests and which
she ignored if this were more to her purposes. It is plain that the English
Government used the violation of Belgian neutrality by Germany as a pretext
only in order to make the world and the English people believe that her
cause for the war was a just one.
<hr>

<center><FONT SIZE=+2>APPENDIX</FONT><BR>
<FONT SIZE=+3>I</FONT></center>

<center><FONT SIZE=+1>EXTRACT FROM THE SPEECH OF THE<BR>
IMPERIAL CHANCELLOR</FONT></center>

<center><FONT SIZE=+1>MADE IN THE GERMAN REICHSTAG, ON DECEMBER
2, 1914.</FONT></center>

<center>(From the North German Gazette of Dec. 3, 1914)</center><br><br>

Belgium's neutrality which England pretended to be shielding is nothing
but a mask.<br><br>

On August 2, at 7 P. m., we informed Brussels that France's plan of campaign,
known to us, compelled us, for reasons of self-preservation, to march through
Belgium. But the same afternoon already, that is to say before anything
of that d&eacute;marche was known and could be known at London, the British
Government had pledged its support to France, pledged it unconditionally
in case the German fleet attacked the French coast. Not one word was then
said of Belgium's neutrality. This fact is established by the declaration
of Sir Edward Grey in the House of Commons on August 3, which, owing to
the difficulties in the transmission of telegrams prevailing at that time,
was not known to me in full on August 4---and it is confirmed by the Blue
Book, issued by the British Government.<br><br>

How then can England pretend that she drew the sword
because we violated Belgium's neutrality?<br><br>

How could British statesmen, who accurately knew the past, talk of Belgian
neutrality at all?<br><br>

When on August 4, 1 referred to the wrong we were doing in marching through
Belgium it was not yet known for certain whether in the hour of affliction
the Brussels Government would not decide after all to spare the country
and to retire to Antwerp under protest. Remembering that, after the occupation
of Li&eacute;ge, I addressed renewed offers in that sense to the Belgian
Government, at the request of our Army Administration, you will understand
that, on August 4, for military reasons, the possibility for such a development
had to be kept open under all circumstances.<br><br>

Even then the guilt of the Belgian Government was apparent from many
a sign. I had not yet any positive documentary proofs thereof at my disposal,
but the British statesmen were perfectly familiar with those proofs.<br><br>

The documents which, in the meantime, have been found at Brussels, and
which have been given publicity by me, prove and establish in what way and
to what degree Belgium had surrendered her neutrality to England.<br><br>

The whole world is now acquainted with two outstanding facts---first,
when, in the night from the 3d to the 4th of August, our troops entered
Belgium, they were not on neutral soil, but on the soil of a state that
had long abandoned its neutrality; second, England has declared war on us,
not for the sake of Belgium's neutrality, which she herself had helped to
undermine, but because she believed that, with the co-operation of two great
military Powers of the Continent, she could overcome and master us.<br><br>

Ever since August 2, when she promised armed support to France, England
was no longer neutral but actually in a state of war with us. Her pointing
at our violation of Belgium's neutrality, when she declared war on us on
August 4, was nothing but a spectacular trick, intended to deceive the English
people and foreign neutral countries about her true war motives.<br><br>

The war plans which England and Belgium had worked out together to the
minutest details now being unveiled, the policy of British statesmen is
branded in world history, for all time to come!
<hr>

<center><FONT SIZE=+2>APPENDIX</FONT><BR>
<FONT SIZE=+3>K</FONT></center>

<center><FONT SIZE=+1>AFFIDAVITS CONCERNING THE PRESENCE OF FRENCH
TROOPS ON<BR>
BELGIAN SOIL PRIOR TO THE<BR>
GERMAN INVASION</FONT></center><br><br>

[FOOTNOTE: Taken from Dr. Richard Grasshof's <I>Belgiens Schuld, </I>where
the author expressly states that he has selected these sworn testimonials
from a large number of depositions made before the German authorities, concerning
this matter.]

<center><FONT SIZE=+2>1.</FONT></center><br><br>

Julian <I>Requet---</I>wrongly called<I> </I>Louis Bellard---sub-corporal
in the 8th regiment of Hussars in the French Army, states:<br><br>

&quot;Together with two other hussars I was out on patrol. While these
two probably fell, I, losing my horse, succeeded in getting away, hurried
to the next village, where I changed my clothes in a house. Thus I was captured
alone and can give no information as to the whereabouts of other comrades.<br><br>

&quot;Upon being asked, the aforementioned stated that his regiment was
mobilized on July 30, 1914. The regiment left its garrison on July 31st
and was detrained at midnight in Hirson. In the same night the regiment
rode to Laneuville-aux-Tourneurs, where it remained two days. From there
it then proceeded to Donchery, and on August 2nd from there to Bouillon.
At Bouillon they united with the dragoon regiments 23 and 27, also with
the 3d regiment of Hussars. These regiments are said to have crossed the
frontier simultaneously.&quot;

<center><FONT SIZE=+2>2.</FONT></center><br><br>

Being duly sworn, Gaston Omar Eugene <I>Sailly</I>, in civil life hairdresser
at St. Omer, since March, 1913, active soldier in the 21st French regiment
of dragoons, states:<br><br>

&quot;The 21st French regiment of dragoons was transported by rail from
Noyon, its garrison, to Hirson in one day, and on the same day the regiment
took quarters in villages in the vicinity of Hirson; the second squadron,
to which I belong, at Bossus. The second squadron remained several days
at Bossus. On the evening of the latter day, about between six and seven
o'clock, I was in Bossus in the place of a hairdresser, who sold tobacco
and had a taproom. In the room in which I sat during this time a bell rang.
The hairdresser stepped to the telephone; someone spoke to him. When he
hung up the receiver he called out to me that he had received per telephone,
just now, the news that just then in France the mobilization had been ordered.
I know positively that the second squadron left Bossus early the next morning
and soon thereafter joined the other squadrons. The regiment made a day's
march to the Belgian city Bouillon, near which the Belgian-French border
was crossed. Simultaneously with the 21st also the 5th French regiment of
dragoons, and also one or several French regiments of cuirassiers which
I saw, but the number of which I do not know, together with artillery, the
regimental number of which I also do not know, crossed the Franco-Belgian
frontier in the direction of Bouillon. Bouillon, therefore, was reached
on the same day on the morning of which the 21st regiment of dragoons had
ridden out of Bossus and the villages in the vicinity. The 21st regiment
of dragoons rode through Bouillon and spent the night in the immediate vicinity,
the second squadron in a small church village, a few kilometers distant.
On the next morning the 21st and 5th regiments of dragoons, forming a brigade,
rode northward deeper into Belgium. There also were French cavalry regiments,
especially cuirassiers and artillery, which I am not able to specify more
minutely.&quot;

<center><FONT SIZE=+2>3.</FONT></center><br><br>

Gustave <I>Cochard, </I>from Rimogne, since the fall of 1913 active soldier
in the 28th French regiment of dragoons, states under oath:<br><br>

&quot;On July 31, 1914, at 10 a. m., the two regiments of dragoons, the
28th and the 30th, garrisoned at Sedan, proceeded into the field. At first
they rode together in France, along the State Street to Mouzon, where they
arrived about noon. In the hours of the afternoon, about between 2 and 2:30,
there arrived from a different direction, in the village of Mouzon, four
cannon of the 40th French artillery regiment, garrisoned in Meziers-Charleville,
together. with munition wagons, whereupon the two regiments of dragoons,
the 28th in the lead, then the guns, and following them the 30th regiment
of dragoons, started out, at first again in the direction towards Sedan.<br><br>

&quot;The dragoons rode four abreast, without guards; the 3d troop of
the 3d squadron, to which I belonged, rode furthest in advance. I rode in
the fourth file, and therefore was able to see everything that transpired
at the head of the detachment.<br><br>

&quot;When the detachment had arrived near the French village of Bazeilles,
on the State highroad Mouzon-Sedan, it suddenly turned towards the North
and proceeded via La Chapelle to the Belgian frontier. The Belgian-French
frontier was crossed on July 31, 1914, at about 9 o'clock in the evening,
or a few quarters of an hour thereafter, on the highroad La Chapelle-Bouillon,
by the two French regiments of dragoons and the French battery. Lieutenant
Malespieux, commanding my troop, rode at the head. On the spot where the
highroad La Chapelle-Bouillon crosses the French border, a Belgian brigadier
and four gendarmes on horse, who as such were without difficulty recognizable
by their uniforms, reported to him. The brigadier and the four gendarmes
were waiting already at this point when we arrived there. These five members
of the gendarmerie then proceeded at the head and thus led the detachment
to the city of Bouillon, located three miles from the French border on Belgian
soil. A short distance before Bouillon, the 30th regiment of dragoons, separated
from the detachment in order to take quarters on Belgian territory, so that
only the 28th regiment of dragoons and the battery entered Bouillon on July
31, 1914, about 10 o'clock in the evening. The head of the regiment stopped
in the city before the office of the burgomaster. Captain Lainez, commanding
my squadron, entered the building. After some time---it may have been an
hour---a municipal functionary brought from the burgomaster's office the
quarter notices for the 28th regiment of dragoons and the battery, which
was still standing in the street before the burgomaster's office. I then
proceeded with about thirty other dragoons to my quarters, a barn within
the city.<br><br>

&quot;The night from July 31, 194, to August 1, 1914, therefore was spent
by the 28th French regiment of dragoons and the French battery in the Belgian
city of Bouillon, while the 30th regiment of dragoons also was lying in
quarters on Belgian soil nearby. The reception on the part of the Belgian
population was in no way antagonistic, but on the contrary, very friendly.<br><br>

&quot;After the morning inspection, Lieutenant Malespieux, together with
twenty-five dragoons, I among them, left, as a patrol, in an easterly direction,
before six o'clock in the morning, alternately walking the horses, then
in a trot, we proceeded along the highroad from Bouillon to Arlon, towards
the east, constantly on Belgian soil. The ride of this patrol led from Bouillon
on this road through the Belgian municipalities: St. C&eacute;cile, Chassepierre,
Florenville, Pin, Vincent, Belle Fontaine, St. Marie to St. Laurent, which
lies toward Arlon and is more than forty kilometers distant from Bouillon.
Therefore, on August 1, 1914, more than forty kilometers were covered in
an easterly direction, exclusively on Belgian soil. The officers' patrol,
twenty-five men, arrived at St. Laurent after nine o'clock in the evening.
Lieutenant Malespieux rode according to the map; on the way he did not send
out any smaller patrols. About an hour later, the entire regiment of the
28th dragoons and the French battery arrived in St. Laurent The men stated
that they had followed on the same road along which the patrol had proceeded.
They had ridden together with the 30th regiment of dragoons and the French
battery up to within a short distance of St. Laurent, in the neighborhood
of which the 30th regiment of dragoons separated from the rest of the column
and proceeded to a Belgian village situated a few kilometers distant from
St. Laurent. The two regiments of dragoons and the battery therefore proceeded
on August 1, 1914, more than forty kilometers, advancing into Belgian territory.<br><br>

&quot;When I, on August 1st, together with the officers' patrol of twenty-five
men, riding along the State highroad Bouillon-Arlon, this patrol, in the
section Bouillon-Florenville, passed a country road which crosses the highroad
Bouillon-Florenville and the open field. According to my recollection, about
500 meters behind this crossing, there is a village through which we rode,
situated about three kilometers from Florenville. To the right of the highroad,
three French cavalry regiments were standing as we were passing this crossing
point of the two roads. The men called out to us that they were the Third
and Sixth Cuirassiers, and the French 4th regiment of hussars. As we passed,
the three French cavalry regiments set also in motion and followed the patrol
for several hours. A considerable number of kilometers, it may have been
ten, after riding through Florenville, the three cavalry regiments, which
we had met in probably the earlier hours of the afternoon of August 1, 1914,
at the road-crossing on Belgian soil, and which had followed us for several
hours, turned to the left, and therefore entered still more deeply into
Belgium.<br><br>

&quot;Any mistake concerning the fact that the two regiments of dragoons
and the battery crossed the Belgian frontier on the evening of July 31,
1914, and remained at least the entire following week uninterruptedly on
Belgian territory, is excluded if only for the following reason:<br><br>

&quot;On about July 20, 1914, 1 had entered a request for a fourteen
days' furlough to my home, Rimonge, and this had been granted and was to
begin on August 1, 1914. Even in the evening of July 30, 1914, nothing was
known of the mobilization, and I was of the opinion that on August 1, 1914,
1 would be able to go home for a fortnight. The physical inspection, to
which every French soldier must submit before he goes on furlough, had been
ordered for me the morning of July 31, 1914. Instead of meeting the physician
on July 31, 1914, and going on furlough on August 1, I was obliged on July
31, 194, to suddenly proceed to the field. That has impressed itself on
my memory indelibly. I repeat that every error as to my mentioning of time
and dates is out of the question.&quot;
<hr>

<center><FONT SIZE=+2>APPENDIX</FONT><BR>
<FONT SIZE=+3>L</FONT></center>

<center><FONT SIZE=+1>THE ENGLISH PRESS OF 1887 ON<BR>
BELGIUM'S NEUTRALITY</FONT></center>

<center><FONT SIZE=+2>1</FONT></center>

<center><FONT SIZE=+1>THE BETRAYAL OF BELGIUM<BR>
WHAT THE ENGLISH TORIES ONCE SAID</FONT></center>

<center>(The Labour Leader, February 4, 1915)</center><br><br>

In the records of political hypocrisy we doubt if there is anything more
complete or more dishonest than that of the British Tory Party, regarding
Belgium, and we give today a proof which must make honest men stand aghast
and fill decent citizens with disgust. On February 4, 1887, The Standard
published a letter and leading article, both of which we reproduce below.
At that time The Standard was the official organ of the Tory Government;
its editor was a bosom friend of Lord Salisbury, and every pronouncement
of this character which appeared in it was to all intents and purposes a
Government statement. It will be noted that in the leading article &quot;Diplomaticus&quot;
is described as being a person of high authority, and his letter has been
regarded as official by writers on diplomatic history like M. Milovanovitch.
<I>(Trait&eacute;s de Garantie au XIX Si&egrave;cle</I>, Paris (1888), p.
465).

<BLOCKQUOTE>
  Standard, Friday, February 4, 1887 <BR>
  <I>To the Editor of The Standard:</I>
</BLOCKQUOTE>

Sir:---Military experts are of the opinion that France has spent so much
money, and spent it so well during the last sixteen years in providing herself
with a fresh military frontier, that a direct advance by the German armies
into France, past the new fortresses and forts that have been erected and
linked together, would be, even if possible, a very hazardous undertaking.<br><br>

But if Germany was, or considered itself to be, provoked into a struggle
of life and death with France would Prince Bismarck, with the mighty forces
he can set in motion, consent to be baffled by the artificial obstacles
to which I have alluded, so long as there existed a natural and undefended
road by which he could escape from his embarrassment?<br><br>

Such a road or way out does exist. It lies on Belgian territory. But
the neutrality of Belgium is protected by European guarantee and England
is one of the guarantors.<br><br>

In 1870 Earl Granville, then at the head of the English Foreign Office,
alive to this danger, promptly and wisely bound England to side with France
if Prussia violated Belgian territory and with Prussia if France did so.<br><br>

Would Lord Salisbury act prudently to take upon himself a similar engagement
in the event of a fresh conflict between these two countries? It is for
Englishmen to answer the question. But it seems to me, as one not indifferent
to the interests and greatness of England, that such a course at the present
moment would be unwise to the last degree. However much England might regret
the invasion of Belgian territory by either party to the struggle, she could
not take part with France against Germany (even if Germany were to seek
to turn the French flank by putting its armies through the Belgian Ardennes)
without utterly vitiating and destroying the main purpose of English policy
all over the world.<br><br>

But, it will be asked, must not England honor its signature and be faithful
to its public pledges? I reply that your Foreign Minister ought to be equal
to the task of meeting this objection without committing England to war.
The temporary use of a right of way is something different from a permanent
and wrongful possession of territory; and surely England would be easily
able to obtain from Prince Bismarck ample and adequate guarantees that,
at the close of the conflict, the territory of Belgium should remain intact
as before?<br><br>

You will see, sir, that I raise, in a very few words, an exceedingly
important question. It is for the English people to perpend and pronounce.
But it is high time they reflected on it.

<BLOCKQUOTE>
  I am, sir, your obedient servant,
  &quot;DIPLOMATICUS.&quot;
</BLOCKQUOTE>

Upon this, The Standard, in a leading article, wrote as follows:<br><br>

<center>Standard Leading Article, February 4, 1887</center><br><br>

We are reminded this morning, by a correspondent who speaks with high
authority, that while we are all wondering how long it will be before a
fresh conflict breaks out between France and Germany, Englishmen are shutting
their eyes to a question closely, and perhaps inevitably, allied with that
contingent event, and affecting the interests of this country more vitally
than they could be affected even by any probable result from the struggle
between those two powerful States. In the event of war between Germany and
France, and in case either Germany or France were to disregard the neutrality
of Belgian territory, what ought England to do? That is the question and
he indicates pretty plainly a reply with which, we may at once say, we do
not believe the English people will be disposed to quarrel. In order, however,
to enable them to respond to the inquiry with full knowledge and deliberate
judgment, it is necessary to lay before them the facts and the contingencies
of the situation somewhat more amply and more in extenso than is done by
&quot;Diplomaticus.&quot; On the declaration of war by France against Prussia
in 1870, Earl Granville, as we all know, with more promptness and decision
than be usually displayed, sought to secure respect for Belgian territory
by notifying that, should either combatant ignore the neutrality secured
to it by public treaty, England would side actively with the other combatant.
It may be said, why cannot the same course be pursued once more in the event
of a similar condition of affairs coming into play? The answer is that a
similar condition of affairs no longer exists. In the first place, in 1870
neither of the combatants had any pressing necessity to resort to a violation
of Belgian territory in the execution of their military designs.<br><br>

The territory of Germany was avowedly vulnerable in several places, and
France was so assured of her military superiority<br><br>

---that no precautions had been taken against the possibility of France
being invaded. . . . Metz and Strassburg are now German fortresses; and
no one requires to be told that Germany has neglected no precautions or
expedients to render the invasion of the territory of the Fatherland a difficult
if not an impracticable undertaking. Armed to the head for offense, Germany
is likewise armed to the heel for defense. She is more invulnerable than
Achilles, for there is no point uncovered.<br><br>

How stands it with France as regards defense against invasion? . . .
Not only does France possess a first line of fortresses, contiguous to German
territory, in Belfort, Epinal, Toul, and Verdun, but all four are linked
with each other in succession by another line of detached forts . . . a
direct advance by the German armies into France by the new fortresses and
forts that have been erected and linked together would be, even if possible,
a very hazardous undertaking. There are, however, two other ways of entering
France from Germany. One is through Switzerland, the other is through Belgium.
Both are what is understood by &quot;neutral territory,&quot; but the mountainous
character of Switzerland renders access to France through its passes more
arduous and less accessible than through the territory of Belgium. In case
the German armies found themselves practically prevented from engaging in
offensive military operations against France by the admirable line of defense
with which she has provided herself, would Prince Bismarck and the great
soldiers whom he would inspire consent to be thwarted by the inviolability
of Belgium as guaranteed by European treaty? &quot;Diplomaticus&quot; puts
the question with undiplomatic bluntness. He forbears from answering it,
and so must we. But it will be obvious to everybody that there is a possibility,
a danger, of Germany not being willing to be debarred from invading France
by an obstacle that has grown up since the treaty guaranteeing the neutrality
of Belgium was signed. Our readers will at once perceive that the situation
is absolutely different from the one that existed in 1870 when Earl Granville
quickly and cheerfully imposed on England the obligation to take part against
either combatant that violated Belgian soil. Neither combatant was much
tempted to do so, and thus the engagement assumed by England---a very proper
one at the time---was not very serious or onerous and saved appearances
rather than created responsibility. Now the situation is entirely changed.
If England, with a view to securing respect for Belgian territory, were
to bind itself, as in 1870, to throw its weight into the balance against
either France or Germany, should either France or Germany violate Belgian
ground, we might, and probably should, find ourselves involved in a war
of giants on our own account.<br><br>

We think that &quot;Diplomaticus&quot; understands the English people
when he hints his suspicion that such a result would be utterly alien alike
to their wishes and to their interests. For over and above the fact that,
as we have seen, the temptation to violate Belgian territory by either side
is much greater than it was in 1870, the relations of England with European
Powers have necessarily and naturally undergone considerable modification
during that period. We concur with our correspondent in the opinion he expresses
that for England and Germany to quarrel, it matters not upon what subject,
would be highly injurious to the interests of both. Indeed, he is right
when he says that the main outlines of our policy would be blurred and its
main purposes embarrassed, if not defeated, were we suddenly to find ourselves
in a state of hostility to Germany instead of one of friendliness and sympathy.
No doubt if Germany were to outrage the honor or disregard the interests
of England we should be ready enough to accept the challenge thrown down
to us. But would the violation of Belgian territory, whether by Germany
or France, be such an injury to our honor and such a blow to our interests?
It might be so in certain circumstances and it would assuredly be so if
it involved a permanent violation of the independence of Belgium. But, as
&quot;Diplomaticus&quot; ingeniously suggests, there is all the difference
in the world between the momentary use of a &quot;right of way,&quot; even
if the use of the right of way be, in a sense, wrongful, and the appropriation
of the ground covered by the right of way. We trust that both Germany and
France would refrain even from this minor trespass. But if they did not?
If one or the other were to say to England, &quot;All the military approaches
to France and Germany have been closed, and only neutral approaches lie
open to us. This state of things is not only detrimental but fatal to our
military success, and it has arisen since the treaty guaranteed the sacredness
of the only roads of which we can now avail ourselves. We will, as a fact,
respect the independence of Belgium, and we will give you the most solemn
and binding guarantees that at the end of the conflict Belgium shall be
as free and independent as before,&quot; if Germany (and of course our hypothesis
applies also to France) were to use this language---though we trust there
will be no occasion for it---we cannot doubt what would be the wise and
proper course for England to pursue, and what would be the answer of the
English Government. England does not wish to shirk its true responsibilities.
But it would be madness for us to incur or to assume responsibilities unnecessarily
when to do so would manifestly involve our participation in a tremendous
war.<br><br>

That week The Spectator, the organ of the respectable classes, commented
upon these pronouncements as follows:

<center>Spectator, Saturday, February 5, 1887</center>

<center>News of the Week</center><br><br>

. . . the general idea is that England will be kept out of this war.
. . . That she will try to do so we do not doubt, but there is the Belgian
difficulty ahead. Our guarantee for her is not a solitary one, and would
not bind us to fight alone; but there are general interests to be considered.
The probability is that we shall insist on her not becoming a theatre of
war but shall not bar---as indeed we cannot bar---the traversing of her
soil.<br><br>

We think that these documents prove the grave statements by which we
introduced them.

<center><FONT SIZE=+2>2.</FONT></center>

<center>THE BETRAYAL OF BELGIUM<BR>
WHAT THE ENGLISH LIBERALS ONCE SAID</center>

<center>(The Labour Leader, February 11, 1915)</center><br><br>

The article we published recently from The Standard appeared in its issue
of February 4, 1887. That afternoon the Pall Mall Gazette, then edited by
Mr. Stead, whose aggressive Liberalism on the subject of small nationalities
and sacredness of treaties is well known, published the following article:<br><br>

&quot;Pall Mall Gazette,&quot; February 4, 1887

<BLOCKQUOTE>
  England and Belgium.<BR>
  Are we bound to intervene? <BR>
  There is no guarantee.
</BLOCKQUOTE>

The Standard this morning gives special prominence to a letter signed
&quot;Diplomaticus&quot; on the neutrality of Belgium. It also devotes its
first leading article to the subject. The gist of these utterances may be
summed up in two propositions: (1) England is under a treaty of obligation
to defend the neutrality of Belgium; (2) But circumstances have altered
since the contraction of the said obligation, and as against Germany, at
any rate, England must pocket its pledges, and allow France to be invaded
through Belgium without protesting or interfering.<br><br>

Considerable importance is likely to be attributed to these conclusions
abroad owing to its being understood that The Standard is at present the
Governmental Salisburian organ. Each of the propositions laid down by our
contemporary is, it will be seen, likely to be taken hold of. Germany. might
read the second as an invitation to invade France through Belgium; France
might read the first as an admission of our obligation to prevent, or rather
to punish, such an infringement of neutral territory, if we dared.<br><br>

It becomes important, therefore, to point out that The Standard's argument
rests on a false assumption. We do not for the present argue whether in
the contingencies contemplated it would be England's interest to intervene
by declaring war against whichever belligerent might violate the neutrality
of Belgium; we confine ourselves to the preliminary statement essential
for clearing up the case---that it is not England's obligation to do so.<br><br>

The origin of the mistaken views prevailing on the question is undoubtedly
a confusion between the Special Treaty of 1831 and 1839 which it temporarily
superseded. By the treaty of 1870 the obligation of England was, of course,
clear and specific. Here is the pledge which was given in the identical
treaties concluded mutatis mutandis with both France and Prussia:

<BLOCKQUOTE>
  &quot;Her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
  Ireland declares that if during the said hostilities the armies of France
  (or Prussia) should violate the neutrality of Belgium, she will be prepared
  to co-operate with his Prussian Majesty (or the Emperor of the French)
  for the defense of the same in such a manner as may be mutually agreed
  upon, employing for that purpose her naval and military forces to ensure
  its observance.&quot;
</BLOCKQUOTE>

There could be no doubt about that pledge; but then it expired twelve
months after the conclusion of peace. At the expiration of that period,
so the treaty continued:

<BLOCKQUOTE>
  &quot;The independence and neutrality of Belgium will, so far as the
  High Contracting Parties are respectively concerned, continue to rest as
  heretofore on the first article of the Quintuple Treaty of the 19th of
  April, 1839.&quot;
</BLOCKQUOTE>

Now, what some people do is to read this treaty of 1839 by the light
of the more specific treaty of 1870, and to deduce from the former the same
obligation on the part of England to intervene against any infringement
of Belgium's neutrality as was contained in the 1870 treaty.<br><br>

This, however, is a completely untenable proceeding. The treaty of 1839
must stand on its own legs, and these, it will be seen, are by no means
very strong. The following are the terms of its second article:

<BLOCKQUOTE>
  &quot;His Majesty the Emperor of Austria, King of Hungary and Bohemia,
  His Majesty the King of the French, Her Majesty the Queen of the United
  Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, His Majesty the King of Prussia,
  and His Majesty the Emperor of all the Russias, declare that the articles
  hereby annexed to the treaty concluded this day between His Majesty the
  King of the Belgians and His Majesty the King of the Netherlands, Grand
  Duke of Luxembourg, are considered as having the same force and value as
  if they were textually inserted in the present act, and that they are thus
  placed under the guarantee of their Majesties.&quot;
</BLOCKQUOTE>

Here, then, we are sent off from the treaty between the Great Powers
to the treaty between Belgium and the Netherlands. The seventh article of
this treaty (which is identical with the same article of the 1831 treaty)
runs:

<BLOCKQUOTE>
  &quot;Belgium will form, within the limits indicated in 1, 2, and 4,
  an independent and perpetually neutral State. She will be bound to observe
  this same neutrality toward all other States.&quot;
</BLOCKQUOTE>

In this treaty it will be seen there is nothing about any guarantee;
all that can be elicited from it, and from the one cited as referring to
it, is this, that this clause is placed under the guarantee of &quot;their
said Majesties,&quot; that is, England, Austria, France, Germany and Russia.<br><br>

But that is not all. This constructive guarantee must be considered in
relation to the party to whom it was given---namely to the Netherlands.
For the treaty of 1839 was one between the five Powers on the one hand and
the Netherlands on the other; and what the five Powers did was to guarantee
to the Netherlands the treaty contracted between it and Belgium, one clause
of which treaty said that Belgium should form, &quot;an independent and
perpetually neutral State&quot; and should &quot;be bound to observe such
neutrality toward all other States.&quot;<br><br>

In the treaty of 1831, it is true, there was a further article guaranteeing
the execution of all preceding articles (including, therefore, the one just
cited in similar terms from the 1839 treaty) to the King of the Belgians,
but in the 1839 treaty, on which the independence of Belgian is now said
to rest, Lord Palmerston omitted any such guarantee.<br><br>

There is, therefore, no English guarantee to Belgium. It is possible,
perhaps, to &quot;construct such a guarantee; but the case may be summed
up as follows: (1) England is under no guarantee whatever except such as
is common to Austria, France, Russia, and Germany; (2) that guarantee is
not specifically of the neutrality of Belgium at all; and (3) is given not
to Belgium but to the Netherlands.

<center>Pall Mall Gazette, February 5, 1887</center>

<center>OCCASIONAL NOTES.</center><br><br>

The attempt of the Morning Post to prove that this country is under a
guarantee to Belgium to defend its neutrality is highly unsuccessful. &quot;The
treaty of the 15th of November, 1831,&quot; it says, &quot;was cancelled
by treaties of the 19th of April, 1839, but the provisions regarding the
neutrality of Belgium remained intact.&quot; This, as we pointed out yesterday,
is not the case. The treaty of 1831 was with Belgium, and the execution
of its articles (including one which provided for the neutrality of Belgium)
was guaranteed to the King of the Belgians. But in the treaty of 1839, though
the article asserting the neutrality of Belgium remains, the guarantee disappears.
It is the more surprising that the Morning Post should be at such pains
to prove that there is still a guarantee, since the only action it would
in any case recommend being taken on it is a platonic protest. To construe
a non-existent guarantee in order to have the privilege of uttering an unavailing
protest is surely the very superfluity of futility.<br><br>

But the line taken by the Morning Post is perhaps not quite so absurd
as that which The Standard yesterday suggested, and a correspondent repeats
this morning. We are to construct the guarantee and are then to declare
our obligation to defend the neutrality of Belgium against all comers. But
when any particular comer infringes that neutrality we are to grant him
a special dispensation. The Standard and its correspondent speak only of
giving this dispensation to Germany; what is to be allowed to Germany could
not be denied to France. Our defense of the neutrality of Belgium would
thus be never today but always every other day; it would be asserted against
anyone in general, but withdrawn against anyone in particular. With such
absurdities staring them in the face, it is surprising that our contemporaries
do not take the trouble to ascertain that the guarantee which they are so
ingeniously but unheroically whittling down does not in fact exist at all.<br><br>

We wonder if national honour was held in less esteem in 1887 than in
1914. That cannot be the explanation of these articles and of the professions
of Liberal and Tory politicians at the present moment. We have a shrewd
suspicion that the real explanation is that in the minds of these politicians
national honour is merely an affair of party convenience, that &quot;circumstances&quot;
caused our diplomatists in 1887 to take one view, whereas in 1914 they caused
the same gentlemen to take another view. The unsophisticated man in the
street is steady all the time. He has an instinctive sense of what is right
and what is wrong, and we shall have neither consistency nor honour in foreign
politics until means are adopted which will enable him to control them.
He is now a mere victim in the hands of Foreign Offices which muddle their
business and the power to involve his life and his honour in whatever they
say or do.
<hr>
<p align="right">
[[Main_Page | WWI Document Archive ]] > [[Official Papers]] > '''Treaties and Documents Relative to the Neutrality of the Netherlands and Belgium'''
</p><hr>
<center></center>