The second document published is a short memorandum of a discussion between Lieutenant-Colonel Bridges and General Jungbluth, chief of the Belgian General Staff, which took place on April 23.1 The point emphasised by Germany is a statement by Colonel Bridges that "the British Government, at the time of the recent events, would have im"mediately landed troops on our territory, even if "we had not asked for help." At worst, in view of the fact that there is no note of any of these conversations at the British War Office or Foreign Office, this must be regarded as an informal expression of Colonel Bridges' private opinion as to a past contingency. General Jungbluth, moreover, at once demurred, protesting that Belgian consent was necessary; and he added that Belgium was, after all, perfectly able to prevent the Germans from going through--another expression of a private opinion.

2

When all is said, there is no suggestion in either document of any action on the part of Great Britain unless and until Belgian neutrality had already been violated. If, as there was ample reason to suspect there was a prospect of the violation of Belgian neutrality, it was the duty of the British military authorities to prepare for the execution of their function as guarantors of that neutrality; and nothing was ever arranged which went beyond the scope of that duty. That Great Britain never intended to violate Belgian neutrality is made plain not only by Sir Edward Grey's letter to the British Minister at Brussels on April 7, 1913, wherein he reiterates the intention of this country to respect her treaty obligations, but by the circumstance that, when violation by Germany became an accomplished fact, it was not until August 5, more than 60 hours after the presentation of the German ultimatum, that Great Britain promised her assistance to Belgium.'

1" Vermutlich 1912," according to the German publication.
'Belgian Grey Book, No. 2. No. 102, enclosure.
'Belgian Grey Book, No. 48.

[2005]

D

of Belgium

AUTHORITIES

THE question of the guarantee of Belgian neutrality was first exhaustively dealt with by J. B. Nothomb, Essai historique et politique sur la révolution belge, 1st edition, Bruxelles, 1833; 4th edition, 1876, 3 vols.; but he did not state the formal differences between the XVIII Articles and the XXIV Articles. These differences were pointed out by Van de Weyer, or rather by Banning, who used the notes of Van de Weyer in the Histoire des relations extérieures depuis 1830 (in Patria belgica, II (1873), p. 334). The author of this article, however, did not infer from these formal differences an alteration of the character of the neutrality. Nys took another view; and, although lawyers such as J. Westlake (Notes on Neutrality, in Revue de Droit international et de Législation comparée, 1901) showed from the beginning the weakness of his view, and maintained that neutrality covers integrity and inviolability of territory, most of the authors who explained the origins of the Belgian Kingdom were struck by Nys' arguments.

E.

In 1902 Ed. Descamps published a volume entitled La Neutralité de la Belgique (Bruxelles-Paris). He tried to refute Nys' theory, but he seems to have worked too hastily. His exhaustive book contains, side by side with judicious remarks, rash presumptions; as, for instance, that the words" integrity integrity" and "inviolability of the XVIII Articles were replaced by the more comprehensive term "independence" in the XXIV Articles. In consequence of this strange statement, Nys believed himself to be right in maintaining his theory in the new edition (1912) of his treatise on International Law. F. de Lannoy, Les origines diplomatiques de l'indépendance belge (Louvain, 1903), deals only incidentally with the question, quotes Descamps and Nys, and seems to adopt the view of Banning. The same author wrote a paper in 1913, La neutralité est-elle encore utile à la Belgique et à l'Europe? (Lierre). He concludes that this neutrality is no longer useful, as the dangers which were the cause of its creation no longer exist. Charles De Visscher, Belgium's Case: a juridical Enquiry (London, 1916), collects a good deal of information, contains many useful remarks, but does not study the question from the historical point of view.

The chief work on Swiss neutrality is still that of Schweizer, Geschichte der schweizerischen Neutralität (1893-95). It is based on first-hand study of the sources, and supplies the essential texts. The commentary is sometimes confused and over-subtle.

INDEX TO VOL. V.

[The figures in heavy type give the number of the book referred to,
those in lighter type the page.]

Wt. 35739/200/PS/71 500 F.O.P. 6/20 (2853)