the river were open to the ships of a friendly Power. If reinforcements, munitions, and supplies were debarred from reaching Antwerp, the entrenched camp would prove to be a trap, and the whole scheme of defence would fall to the ground. (5) Under present conditions, Antwerp could not become a naval base, though this is a necessity for a colonial Power.

To take the last two of these grievances first (and that they are real grievances cannot be denied), there can be no remedy without expunging from the Fundamental Treaty, to which Belgium owes its existence as an independent State, Article XIV, which expressly declares:

"Le port d'Anvers, conformément aux stipulations de l'Article XV du Traité de Paris du 30 mai, 1814, continuera d'être uniquement un port de commerce.

How far it was legitimate for the Belgian Government to make Antwerp into an entrenched camp is discussed in a supplementary Note. It must be granted, however, that this Article, as it stands, forbids the conversion of this commercial port into a naval base. After the war the treaty of 1839 may in many respects be considerably modified; but, until that takes place, the question of the Scheldt and of Antwerp is not simply a DutchBelgian question. Both Holland and Belgium are still bound by the terms of settlement imposed upon them by the Five Powers of the Conference of London. Events since 1914 have further shown that the strict maintenance by the Dutch of their rights and duties, as a neutral Power, has been on the whole advantageous to the Allied cause, since they have prevented Antwerp from serving as a base for German submarines and destroyers.

(B) SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

(a) The Treaty Status of Antwerp

Lord Castlereagh, when he left London to attend the Congress of Châtillon, took with him a memorandum of secret instruction dated December 26, 1813. One of the conditions, on which he was instructed to insist, as a sine qua non for the relinquishment by Great Britain of her conquests, was the absolute exclusion of France from any naval establishment on the Scheldt, and especially at Antwerp.

This insistence took definite shape in Art. XV of the Preliminary Treaty of Paris, May 30, 1814, which declares :

"Dorénavant le port d'Anvers sera uniquement un port de

commerce.

At the Congress of Vienna a Commission was appointed to deal, inter alia, with the conversion of Antwerp into a commercial port. The British Plenipotentiary, the Duke of Wellington, was opposed to the demolition of works which were essential for the defence of the town. It was resolved, therefore, that the matter should be referred to the consideration of British and Dutch Commissioners chosen for the purpose; and the following instructions were given to them in a Protocol of the General Congress, March 29, 1815, for their guidance :

Que les Gouvernements de l'Angleterre et des Pays-Bas seront tous les deux invités à nommer immédiatement chacun un commissaire, qui se réuniront sans délai à Anvers, et arrangeront entre eux:

"1. Lesquels seraient les objets à détruire totalement, comme le camp retranché et autres, pas nécessaires pour la défense de la place.

[2004]

C

2. Quels sont ceux à conserver, comme essentiels à cette défense.

3. Quels sont ceux qui, en même temps qu'ils pourraient être maintenus comme utiles au commerce, pourraient être également rendus inapplicables au service marine maritime.

4. Que les commissaires procéderont sans délai à diriger la destruction, totale ou partielle, selon leurs arrangements de tous les ouvrages destinés par leur accord à cet effet.”

The revolt of Belgium and the erection of Belgium into an independent kingdom in no way altered the views of the Great Powers in regard to Antwerp.

Article XIV of the treaty of April 19, 1839, is quite clear on this point:

"Le port d'Anvers conformément aux stipulations de l'article XV du Traité de Paris du 30 mai, 1814, continuera d'être uniquement un port de commerce.

The action taken by the Congress of Vienna may therefore be held to sanction the maintenance of fortifications necessary for the defence of Antwerp; but it is more than doubtful whether the conditions laid down by the Congress for the guidance of the British and Dutch Commissioners can be interpreted as sanctioning the creation of a vast entrenched camp round the city.

The words" continuera d'être uniquement un port de commerce" plainly forbid the conversion of Ant. werp into a naval arsenal. The following extract from the Protocol of the Congress of Vienna (March 29, 1815), a portion of which has been already quoted, confirms this statement:

"Les Puissances ayant stipulé dans le XVe Article du Traité de Paris que, dorénavant, le port d'Anvers sera uniquement un port de commerce, le mode le plus simple pour l'exécution de cette stipulation sera sans doute de résoudre la destruction totale de tous les ouvrages, les fortifications, les quais, les bassins, &c., qui ont été construits sous les ordres de Bonaparte, dans la vue de rendre le port d'Anvers un arsenal de guerre maritime et une place pour la construction, l'équipement et le maintien des vaisseaux de guerre. Mais la Commission l'honneur de soumettre au jugement éclairé de leurs Excellences Messieurs les Plénipotentiaires des Hautes Puissances signataires du traité que quelques-uns de ces ouvrages pourront être jugés essentiels pour la défense de la place, et que parmi

a

les autres il pourrait s'en trouver qui, utiles toutefois au com merce, en même temps qu'il serait peut-être praticable de les rendre inapplicables aux objets d'une marine militaire, pourraient être maintenus pour tous les objets légitimes d'une marine commercielle.

(b) The Case of the "Phoenix

In 1875 a Danish vessel, the "Phoenix," ran down a Dutch ship, and, on the refusal of the owners to pay damages, was seized by a Dutch gunboat in the Scheldt. The Danish Government settled the matter amicably, but the Belgian Government were uneasy at this assertion of Dutch sovereignty, and addressed an appeal to the Powers. They questioned the legality of the Dutch action in seizing a vessel not in a Dutch port, but in the channel of the Scheldt forming the communication between Antwerp and the sea an international waterway whose freedom was safeguarded by treaty. No definite action was taken by the Powers, and this may be regarded as a silent acknowledgment that there was no case against the Dutch. The seizure of the Phoenix was an act of police, such as a riparian Power had the right to exercise, according to the General Regulations drawn up by the Congress of Vienna (March, 1815) for the free navigation of rivers.

66

Art. II of these General Regulations runs as follows:

66

The navigation of rivers along their whole course from the point where each of them becomes navigable to their mouth, shall be entirely free, and shall not, in respect of commerce, be prohibited to anyone; it being, however, understood that the negotiations established with regard to the police of this navigation shall be respected, as they will be framed alike for all and as favourable as possible to the commerce of all nations.

By Article IX of the treaty between Holland and Belgium, April 19, 1839, under the guarantee of the Five Great Powers, these Regulations of the ActGeneral of the Congress of Vienna are specifically applied to the rivers and streams which traverse Holland and Belgium.

A number of detailed regulations were drawn up by the Dutch and Belgian Governments in 1842 and 1843. One of these, dated May 20, 1843, deals with the execution of Article IX of the treaty of 1839 in regard to the waters intermediate between the Scheldt and the Rhine.

Article I runs as follows:

"The navigation and the transit of the intermediate Dutch waters between the Western Scheldt and the Rhine shall be, from Belgium to the Rhine, or vice versa, reciprocally free, it being well understood that it will be in conformity with the police regulations demanded for the maintenance of general security, and with the dispositions laid down by the present regulation."

(c) The Fortification of Flushing

The proposal of the Dutch Government in November, 1910, to spend 38,000,000 florins upon the fortifications of Flushing aroused a considerable amount of controversial criticism in the press of Belgium, France, and England, on the alleged ground that such fortification, if carried out, was intended to prevent (in the possible event of the outbreak of an Anglo-German war) the sudden seizure of this important seaport at the mouth of the Western Scheldt by a British naval force. Public opinion was the more disposed to criticise adversely the action of the Dutch Government, because it was believed that this action was taken under secret pressure on the part of Germany.

The agitation met with no response from responsible Statesmen. In reply to a question in the House of Commons, Sir Edward Grey (February 10, 1911) replied: That the British Government thought it undesirable to state its views upon a measure taken by a foreign State to protect its own territory." The French Foreign Minister and the German Chancellor used words to the same effect. The subject was, in fact,

"Bien entendu que l'on se conformera aux règlements de police exigés pour le maintien de la sûreté générale.