Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, The Paris Peace Conference, 1919, Volume IV

Paris Peace Conf. 180.03201/21

FM–21

Secretary’s Notes of a Meeting of Foreign Ministers Held in M. Pichon’s Room at the Quai d’Orsay, Paris, on Tuesday, June 3rd, 1919, at 3 p.m.

Paris, June 3, 1919, 3 p.m.

Present	Also Present
America, United States of	America, United States of
Hon. R. Lansing	Dr. C. H. Haskins
Secretary	British Empire
Mr. L. Harrison	Sir Eyre Crowe
British Empire	Brig. General H. O. Mance
The Rt. Hon. A. J. Balfour	Colonel Twiss
Secretary	Captain C. T. M. Fuller
Mr. H. Norman	Hon. A. Akers-Douglas
France	France
M. Stephen Pichon	M. Andre Tardieu
Secretaries	M. Laroche
Capt. de St. Quentin	Italy
M. de Bearn	M. Ricci-Busatti
Italy	Belgium
H. E. Baron Sonnino	M. Bassompierre
Secretary	M. Orts
M. Bertele	M. Hostie
Japan	Holland
H. E. Baron Makino	M. Swinderen
Belgium	M. Struycken
M. Hymans	M. London
Holland	M. Leder
M. de Karnebeck	M. de Heeckeren

Joint Secretariat

America, United States of	Colonel U. S. Grant
British Empire	Capt. E. Abraham
France	Capt. A. Portier
Italy	Lieut. Zanchi
Japan	M. Kawai

M. Pichon said that the meeting had been called to resume the examination of the revision of the Treaties of 1839. At the end of the previous meeting the Dutch Minister of Foreign Affairs had declared that he would be in a position to throw further light on the intentions of his Government regarding this question. The best thing therefore, was to ask M. Van Karnebeek to speak.

M. Van Karnebeek said that the meeting would remember that he had asked his Belgian colleague at the end of the last meeting to communicate to him the requests of the Belgian Government. He had since become cognisant of the statements made by M. Hymans in the two previous meetings, and he had been able to form an opinion of the ideas inspiring the proposals of the Belgian Government. He did not intend to enter into the details of the question or repeat what he had said on a previous occasion. From one point of view, however, he felt that he ought to reiterate the declaration already made regarding the question of the territorial status quo of Holland. As would be remembered he had declared that the Government of the Netherlands could not allow any modification of this status, and could engage in no negotiations regarding territorial modification. It followed that he was obliged to exclude from discussion some of the Belgian proposals tending, either upon grounds of defence or, for economic reasons, to withdraw certain territories from Dutch sovereignty in order to transfer them to Belgian sovereignty. He would not press this matter any further, but he had thought it necessary in a few words, to recall the views of the Dutch Government on the question.

His Belgian colleague would allow him to call attention to point “C” relating to the management by Belgium of the Locks regulating the flow of water in Flanders. This matter was regulated according to the Treaty of 1843,¹ but as the system was not fully satisfactory, a Commission had been instituted to deal with the question. The labours of this Commission had been interrupted in 1914 by the war. If Belgium had any further requests to make on this subject, he was glad to state that the Netherlands Government would willingly take cognisance of them, and examine them with the utmost goodwill.

The second question was that of the grievances of the Belgian fishermen at Bouchante. This problem, if it might be called a problem, resulted from the damming of the waters of Dragmund. The Dutch Government had begun the construction of a new Port and of a new canal, both of which would shortly be completed, and as a result, the fishermen would receive satisfaction and would be better off than before. If other difficulties arose, the Belgian Government need only communicate them to the Dutch Government, and the latter would immediately examine them with the wish to find a satisfactory solution.

Thirdly, his Belgian colleague had mentioned the canal from Antwerp to Moerdijk. The Meeting would know that there was a line of communication between Moerdijk and Antwerp, which was reputed to be better than in former days. The Belgian Delegation had now put forward the idea that another line of communication ought to be made. The Dutch Government had not as yet received the reasons which might militate in favour of this change, but he was prepared to renew the same declaration, and to assure the Belgian Government that any communications made by them to the Dutch Government would be studied by the latter very willingly with the object of finding a common settlement of the question.

There was also the question of the Dam of Baerle-duc. This was a very simple question, and was in process of settlement.

Finally, there was the question of communication between the Rhine, the Meuse and the Scheldt. He would again make the declaration made on a previous occasion, namely, that the Netherlands Government was disposed to enter into conversations with the Belgian Government regarding the latter’s desiderata. He would like to pause for a moment over the question of the Scheldt. It had been discussed on the previous occasion. His Belgian colleague had had certain grievances against the existing system. He, himself, had endeavoured to show from his point of view that the application of the existing regulation should not give rise to any complaint on the part of the Belgian Government. He thought it was fair to say that the system established by the Powers had not hampered the prosperity of Belgium. Nevertheless, in a spirit of conciliation he would ask M. Hymans the following question:—“could not Belgium and Holland come to an agreement on the question of extending the already existing system of co-operation from the matters to which it applied to other matters”? This might be a means of satisfying Belgium. The system of co-operation he referred to applied to the management of buoys, piloting and preservation of channels, all of which were regulated by a mixed Commission. He thought perhaps this system of co-operation might be extended to yet other interests even administratively in such a way as to afford Belgium the satisfaction she desired regarding guarantees of the navigability of the stream. He wished to submit this idea to his Belgian colleague.

Such, in a few words, was the declaration he wished to make regarding the desires formulated by the Belgian Government. M. Hymans would not fail to observe that he was animated by the same spirit as at the first and second Meetings of the Council. He had previously said that he had not come to make matters more difficult, but to make them easier, and to see whether and to what extent Belgian desires could be met. He was glad to believe he had been able to open to his Belgian colleague an avenue of progress, and he thought that there was now a basis for conversations between Belgium and Holland. If he recollected aright, during the last discussion he and his Belgian colleague had not been in agreement regarding the method to be followed in dealing with this question. He would like to add a few words on this subject. He had said on the previous day that the choice of the method should be governed by the consideration of bringing about the utmost mutual confidence between the two countries. It was clear that if Belgium and Holland wished to achieve new arrangements, these arrangements should be based on reciprocal good will. He need hardly remind M. Hymans that the Netherlands were under no obligation in this respect, and that no change could be imposed on Holland. Nevertheless, the country wished to reach agreement with Belgium in a spirit of cordiality which would itself contain guarantees for the future of both countries.

His impression was, that Belgium in this manner, would find a welcoming attitude, if she wished to consult with the Dutch Government. He wished to speak frankly. His impression was, that the questions to be raised, would present themselves in a different form, if, first of all, the two Powers concerned were called upon to examine them in concert. Belgium desired certain changes. These changes, in a large measure, depended on the good-will of Holland. He would ask his Belgian colleague to consider what conditions would incline Holland to be most yielding. Did he not think that it would be by adopting the method he recommended, namely, that Holland and Belgium should meet, face to face, and realise together the necessity for both to go forward harmoniously in the future.

He had a few more observations to make regarding the question of method. He would like to remind M. Hymans of all the questions, which, since 1839, had been directly transacted between Holland and Belgium. There were a considerable number of Treaties to which he might allude. Some of these agreements related to questions dealt with in the Treaty of 1839, others had a more extended scope. This showed that many of the Belgian desiderata could be transacted directly between the Government at Brussels and the Government of the Netherlands. He would indicate in a few words the principal Treaties in question.

• Treaty of November 5th, 1842,² supplementary to and explanatory of Treaty of April 19th, 1839.
• Treaty of May 20th, 1843, laying down several regulations regarding navigation and fisheries.³
• Delimitation Treaty of August 8th, 1843.⁴
• Treaty of July 12th, 1845 regarding the creation of a lattoral [lateral] canal to the Meuse between the towns of Liege and Maestricht.⁵
• Treaty of May 12th, 1863, regarding the redemption of the toll on the Scheldt.⁶
• Treaty of May 12th, 1863, regulating the right of taking water from the Meuse.⁷
• Treaty of September 19th, 1863, relating to pilotage on the Scheldt.⁸
• Treaty of March 31st, 1866, providing for the establishment of a series of new lights on the Scheldt, and at its mouth, as well as further Treaties relating to pilotage, lighting and buoying of the Scheldt.⁹
• Treaty of January 11th, 1873,¹⁰ modifying Treaty of 12th May, 1863, above mentioned.
• Treaty of January 13th, 1873, providing for the passage of a line of railway across Limburg.¹¹
• Treaty of May 24th, 1873 [1872], regarding the damming of the Zwin.¹²
• Treaty of October 31st, 1879, regarding improvements in the Canal from Ghent to Terneuzen.¹³
• Treaty of April 7th, 1886, regulating the conditions of construction and upkeep of bridge on the Meuse at Maeseyk.¹⁴
• Treaty of June 29th, 1895, regarding improvements in Canal from Ghent to Terneuzen.¹⁵
• Treaty of March 8th, 1892 [1902], modifying Treaty regarding improvements in the Canal from Ghent to Terneuzen.¹⁶

He had recalled these Treaties to show that the subjects with which the meeting was concerned, relating to Canals, means of communication and lights, had been settled in the past by direct agreements between Belgium and Holland, and not by international regulations. He wished to draw the attention of the meeting to this, because if Holland and Belgium had, in a cordial spirit, found the solution to all these problems, he could not see why such questions as, the outflow of water from Flanders, as that of the grievances of the Belgian fishermen, of communication between Limbourg and the Rhine, of the Canal from Moerdijk to the Meuse, why all these questions should be regarded as of an international character.

His impression was, that all these Treaties should serve to indicate the method that should be followed, and that if the same method was adopted, it would lead to the discovery of the means whereby the Netherlands could satisfy Belgium on all these questions.

His Belgian colleague, however, had suggested that these subjects should be submitted to a Commission composed of representatives of the Allied Powers and of Belgium and Holland. On his side, he would like to insist on the idea elaborated above, namely, that the Belgian and Dutch Governments be asked to begin the examination of these questions directly. These two Governments might nominate a mixed Commission of Dutch and Belgian representatives, who would study the problems and make a report. If, after their examination, any points remained outstanding, he thought that the new international organ lately created could take cognisance of the matter and find a suitable solution. He referred to the League of Nations. He pressed strongly for another method than that suggested by M. Hymans, because he had the impression that the question was of great importance. Holland had come to meet Belgium as Belgium had asked for certain changes. Holland said to Belgium, “Tell us what you wish, we are ready to concert with you and see what can be done.” In order to obtain success and a happy result, he thought the procedure indicated by him should be followed, and he begged to urge his Belgian colleague to adopt it. Present conditions must not be lost sight of. It was not a question only of finding means to arrange certain difficulties between Holland and Belgium, but of harmonising the whole relations of the two countries.

His Belgian colleague, the other day, recalled the trials through which Belgium had passed. As representative of the Netherlands, he wished to say that his country had proved to the Belgians that it had not been indifferent to their trouble. At the beginning of the War, the Dutch had opened their frontiers and their doors to the Belgians. They had been happy to do so, and the Belgians had been their guests.

Subsequently to this, to speak frankly, as he thought he should before a meeting which was to settle questions between Belgium and Holland, a certain ill-will had been shown in Belgium against the Dutch people, which had been more or less affected thereby. It seemed to him therefore, that the most important work to be accomplished was to dissipate this feeling, which might estrange and had estranged the Belgian from the Dutch people. He would, therefore, repeat with emphasis that the best means of obtaining this result, was to put the representatives of the two peoples face to face, in order that they should seek means of agreement on these various questions.

M. Hymans said that the statement made by the Dutch Minister of Foreign Affairs had been most friendly and courteous in tone; but he could not conceal that it had disappointed him very deeply. No doubt M. Van Karnebeek had declared himself ready to give benevolent attention to certain grievances, which though important were in the whole problem insignificant. There was for instance the affair of the fishermen, and that of the locks for the Flanders streams. M. Van Karnebeek had also suggested certain proposals relating to an extension of the system of co-operation. The formula was vague, and it was difficult without further study to see how far it would reach. He was not, therefore, able to express an opinion regarding this proposal, which in any case would have to be submitted to the examination of technical experts. His Dutch colleague had produced on him the impression that he had excluded from the revision of the Treaty all territorial and military questions. In effect he maintained the regime of the 1839 treaties, of which the Belgian Delegation required the revision. Now the great Powers, after an impartial examination of the problem, had come to the conclusion that revision was necessary, and that it affected all of the clauses of the 1839 Treaty, inasmuch as the system brought about by that Treaty had diminished Belgium’s capacity for defence, and that it was necessary to amend the system in order to shelter Belgium and general peace from the risks of the future. This conclusion had in view the interest of Europe. This was a point he wished to make clear. It was the system as a whole that was attacked, because it placed Belgium in a state of dependence in regard to Holland, and hampered her capacity for defence. As he had previously observed, Holland was mistress of Belgium’s communications towards the sea and towards the East, and the defence of Belgium depended on decisions taken by the Dutch. M. Van Karnebee’k had not said a word on this question. It did not appear to have struck him, but he must realise that this was the question which in the mind of Belgium took precedence of all others. The state of Europe would be more or less unstable for a long time. Measures no doubt were being taken to ensure a prolonged peace. President Wilson had said that France’s frontiers were the frontiers of freedom. The Belgian frontier was a prolongation of this frontier. Belgium had been the field of battle of Europe for centuries. It was through Belgium that the coast was reached, and it was through Belgium that France could be attacked. He recently had received an address from a Belgian town which said that it had been destroyed six times in the course of last century. It now requested that it be sheltered from a recurrence of such calamities. Belgium had taken military precautions, established a strongly trenched Camp round Antwerp and fortified the Meuse, believing that the town would not be taken or could at least resist for several months. This had been a mistake. As to the future, according to Belgian Military authorities, the line of the Scheldt could not be defended unless the defence rested on the whole course of the stream. Further the salient of Limburg must be blocked. This was a question of life or death for Belgium. Had Liege held out much longer, the Germans would have passed through Limburg. He was, therefore, right in saying that these two questions passed before all others, and that their solution was the solution of the whole problem. It was for this reason that in previous meetings he had formulated the following questions.

1. “Can the line of the Meuse, which is the first defensive line of Belgium, be adequately held and defended according to the territorial status established by the Treaties of 1839 which, in particular, delivered to Holland the town of Maastricht (“Mosae trajectum”) through which, throughout the centuries German invasions have passed into Western Europe?

2. “Can the line of the Scheldt, which is the principal defensive line of Belgium and is of great natural strength, be effectually held unless Belgium can establish her position on the whole length of the stream?”

He had asked that these questions be submitted for examination to the military experts. These questions concerned Europe. This had been the view of the Supreme Council, seeing that in the text of its declaration, this had been explicitly recognised. If in the interest of Europe, it was also in the interest of Holland.

M. Van Karnebeek had shown that there were close ties between the two nations. Like everyone, he had realised in the last war that the security of Holland depended on the security of Belgium. If Belgium had perished, Holland would have perished too. When, therefore, he spoke for the security of Belgium and for the security of Europe, he also spoke for the security of Holland. When he spoke of the interest of Europe, it followed he spoke of the interest of Holland also.

He had just observed that the Powers who examined the question of the revision of the Treaty of 1839, had considered that this revision should be made in the interest of general peace. He had laid stress on this as he had heard M. Van Karnebeek say that Holland was under no obligation to take part in the revision. He thought there was a moral obligation for Holland to take a share in promoting general European peace. This was an obligation to which all countries were liable, especially in relation to a neighbour.

The question was whether the problem he had drawn attention to should be settled directly between the two Powers, or according to his proposal submitted to a Commission, on which will be represented all the Powers who took part in this discussion. It seemed to him impossible to adopt a system of negotiations between the two only for it concerned a Treaty signed and guaranteed by several Powers, especially by France and England.

These Treaties determine questions which are of interest to the whole of Europe and the Council has considered that it is a question of European interest.

These Treaties were the collective work of Europe in 1839. Their revision must also be the collective work of the Powers and not only the work of Holland and Belgium. The latter course would not be logical and he asked what advantage there could be in depriving themselves of the assistance of competent men who had studied the question. How, further, could such a course assist in the establishment of closer relations between Holland and Belgium which were just as much desired by him as by M. Van Karnebeek?

He was therefore anxious that this question should be looked into by representatives of all countries interested in the revision of the Treaties of 1839. He did not see anything that could in the slightest degree upset his Dutch Colleague or could arouse the susceptibilities of the Dutch Government. They would not be a Court of Judges who would decide the question, but representatives of the Powers who would give their opinion. M. Van Karnebeek’s opinion, in which he (the speaker) agreed, was that the chief question was to re-establish a feeling of confidence between the two countries. It appeared to him that nothing could do more to obtain such a result than a meeting in an Inter-Allied Commission. What could it matter that in such Commissions there were Representatives of other nations? It was just by the exchange of views between members that the Commission would clear the matter up.

Two questions concerning the security and defence of Belgium had been raised and it was on the opinion that was come to about these questions that the solution would depend. He himself did not put forward a solution because he did not wish to impose one and because the solution of the questions should depend on the answer which would be made to the two questions of security and national defence which he had suggested.

This was the point on which he wished to close. He thought that the field of revision could never be limited and he shared that belief with the Allied and Associated Powers, for on this point he did no more than follow the conclusions that the Supreme Council had adopted. The Council had said that the 3 Treaties of 1839 in all their Clauses formed an indivisible whole and that the Belgian-Dutch Treaty could not be separated from the other two. It had further said that these Treaties ought to be revised; it had decided moreover that the territorial and riverine clauses had been a cause of real prejudice to Belgium and had as a conclusion said that these Treaties should be revised.

He asked therefore that the problem should be investigated as a whole, that nothing should be excluded, nothing prejudged and that in good faith a solution should be sought which might ensure the safety of Belgium, and he considered that this investigation should be made by the Representatives of all the Powers.

He did not think that there was anything that could upset Holland or that could hinder her from negotiations with Belgium. That in his opinion was the most certain and most rapid method to be followed, and he earnestly begged his colleague that Holland should agree to such a course.

M. Van Karnebeek asked leave to make a few remarks. He said that M. Hymans had remarked that Holland did not feel bound to assist in the revision of the Treaties of 1839 which Belgium had asked for. This however was not quite the case.

M. Hymans said that he had only replied to an expression that M. Van Karnebeek had used. M. Van Karnebeek had said that Holland had no obligation, and he had remarked that there was a moral obligation.

M. Van Karnebeek said that he offered no criticism on this point; he had come to the Meeting full of the desire to find out how far an agreement with Belgium could be arrived at, but he felt that there was one thing that separated him and M. Hymans. That was, the interpretation to be given to the expression “Revision of the Treaties of 1839”. M. Hymans had spoken as if it was a question of entirely refashioning the separation between Holland and Belgium.

It was hardly necessary for him to point out that the Low Countries could never accept such a point of view. The Dutch Government could never entertain the idea of the disposal of the rights of Holland in order to make a new arrangement. At their first two meetings and even to-day he abstained from entering into details of history or into details of a juridical kind; but he wished to recall a few facts so that there might be no mistakes as to the conception of the revision of these Treaties.

In 1839 Europe did not in any way whatever dispose of the rights or the goods of the Low Countries. By the Treaties of 1839 the work of 1814 and 1815 was undone; that work had been the union of the Austrian Low Countries to Holland. It was not a durable work and it needed to be undone, but there was never any intention in 1839, nor even in 1814 and 1815, to touch the secular rights of Holland. Anybody who had studied the protocols of 1830 and 1831 and of 1839 must be convinced that there could be no doubt about this point; but what M. Hymans asked for was an entire reconstruction of the Treaties of 1839. In such a way he would refashion the separation between Belgium and Holland in an entirely different way to that done by the Treaties of 1839. M. Hymans, however, must be aware that in 1839 they had adhered to the status quo of 1790, and that the idea of territorial modifications or of any disposal of the goods and rights of Holland was expressly rejected by the Conference of London. Could it be that any such action should be held of no value and that Holland might find herself in 1919 in a worse situation than that in which she was in 1830 or in 1839?

He had come to the Meeting as he had already said to assist in all necessary modifications in the Treaty of 1839. If it were necessary to modify these Treaties, Holland was ready to look into the question and she was ready to see what could be done in order to satisfy Belgium, but to ask that such arrangements should be made at Holland’s expense was quite another question. That was the point of view and the situation which as a member of the Netherlands Government he could never accept.

M. Hymans in his speech had drawn attention to the importance of distinguishing between military and economic questions. He himself had thought that the proposal he had made was such as to be worthy of the attention of his Belgian colleague. The latter, however, had said that this proposal had seemed to him somewhat vague, and that he could express no opinion about it, but he had nevertheless expatiated on military questions. He had said that it was the military question which dominated the whole discussion. He himself wished to remark that, as far as questions of national defence were concerned, there might well be differences of opinion and that there would no doubt be found some military authorities who would not share the views which M. Hymans had expressed on the question of Limbourg. He did not, however, insist upon that point.

The question, however, which concerned them was what method was to be adopted for the revision of the Treaties of 1839. If Belgium wished to enter into explanations with Holland on military questions that was a matter which might be entertained, but he wished to ask M. Hymans, seeing that such questions concerned the defence of Holland, whether he could imagine or even expect, that Holland would submit her system of defence to an international Commission.

M. Hymans said that he had only spoken of the question of Belgian defence.

M. Van Karnebeek maintained that it would be very difficult to separate entirely the Belgian plans of defence from those of Holland, if the question was put in the form in which M. Hymans put it. There could not be any doubt that in such a case the Low Countries would be forced to expose their system of defence before the international Commission. If Belgium wished to arrive at an explanation with Holland, there would be no difficulty, but it was quite impossible to submit such questions to an international Commission; that alone was an argument against the method suggested by M. Hymans. His Belgian colleague had also said that the Treaties of 1839 were one collective Treaty, and that they concerned not only Belgium and Holland, but several Powers as well, and for that reason their revision could not be entrusted to Belgium and Holland alone. That was an interpretation which might be discussed from the juridical point of view, but he refrained from doing so. He was content to ask why all these questions which from 1839 up to the present day had been the subject of exchanges of views and negotiations between Belgium and Holland, should not still be settled directly between the two Governments.

M. Hymans said that such negotiations had been carried out under the regime whose revision they were now demanding.

M. Van Karnebeek said that many questions which were brought forward to-day by the Belgian Government had already been the subject of an exchange of views before the war with the Dutch Government. For instance, that had been the case with the question of communications between the Meuse and the Rhine, which had been reserved in the Treaty of Peace. There had even been a declaration made on this subject which had certainly not been unfavourable to Belgium. No one had ever thought that this question should be decided only by an international Commission. The same had also been the case with the question of a lateral canal from Maestrick to the Meuse; no one could imagine that that was a question of an international character, and it was so also with many other demands of the Belgian Government which had already been the subject of negotiations between the Cabinets of Brussels and the Hague.

Now it was claimed that because it was a question of the revision of the Treaties of 1839 all these questions must have an international character. There seems to him no foundation for such an argument. The result would be to create such a situation that in the future every demand put forward by Belgium might become an international question. He saw no reason for such a point of view.

He would speak frankly. He did not wish anyone to gather the impression that Holland wished to keep away the other Powers; that was not the case. The fact that he was there was sufficient to prove that they were not animated by such a feeling. It was very necessary that such a result should be arrived at, but in order that such a result should be arrived at, it was necessary, he spoke frankly, to avoid in his country any appearance of international influence. He thought that if the procedure suggested by M. Hymans was adopted, Holland would be very much on her guard and would not be as much disposed as she had been to meet the wishes of Belgium.

If, however, it was agreed that Belgium and Holland should settle the matter between them, there would be much less hesitation, if indeed there were any; that was the psychological point on which he felt bound to insist. It was important that the path they followed should lead to an improvement of Belgian-Dutch relations, and to the end which he had suggested.

He wished to ask his Belgian colleague whether he thought his country could obtain more by his own methods or by the one which he, the speaker, had suggested. His own proposal was a logical one. Holland was holding out her hand towards Belgium—would Belgium refuse that hand?, would his Belgian colleague take the responsibility of so doing? He hoped that was not the case. He hoped, indeed, M. Hymans would put his hand into the one which he, as a member of the Dutch Government, offered. That was the way in which business could be done, and in which the two Governments could walk in perfect harmony. It was not for technical reasons that he did not share the opinion of his Belgian colleague, but for the serious reasons which he had expounded.

He wished he could agree with M. Hymans. He was convinced that the path which the latter had pointed out would not lead them in the direction in which they wished to go. He asked M. Hymans once more to reflect, for he was aware of his conciliatory attitude. In the name of Holland he offered him his hand, a hand which must not be refused. His own was a logical proceeding. Had anyone ever seen questions which concerned the two States dealt with outside both States by an international commission?

Had M. Hymans taken into consideration the unfortunate impression which had been produced in February last by the answer given by the Belgian Government to the request of the Dutch Government? It was known that Belgium had put before the Peace Conference certain questions which might be of interest to Holland and that the Dutch had asked the Belgian Government to enlighten them on the subject of these demands. The answer of the Brussels Cabinet had been that they would learn later on. The impression produced by this answer in Holland had been deplorable.

He now pointed out to his Belgian colleague the path which they could follow, and he hoped that they might arrive at an agreement and walk in harmony.

M. Pichon said they had before them two contradictory proposals. On the one hand, the proposal of the Foreign Minister of the Low Countries for the setting up of direct negotiations between Belgium and the Low Countries on the subject of the revision of the Treaties of 1839, and on the other hand, the proposal of the Foreign Minister of Belgium, asking that the Allied and Associated Powers should entrust to an International Commission the study of the conditions under which such a revision should take place. He asked whether the representatives of the Powers who had declared that they considered the revision of the Treaties of 1839 necessary thought that these two proposals should be discussed? If such was the opinion of the Representatives of the Allied and Associated Powers he asked Mr. Van Karnebeek to allow them to examine these two contradictory proposals, as they had been put before them; they would then inform him of the steps which they thought it right to take after they had carefully studied the two proposals.

Mr. Lansing took the same view.

Mr. Balfour said that he had no objection.

Baron Sonnino accepted the proposal.

M. Pichon said that they would then look into the question and give an expression of their opinion on the two proposals put before them.

(The Meeting adjourned at 5.0 p.m.)

Paris, June 3rd, 1919.

1. British and Foreign State Pavers, vol. xxxv, p. 1202.
2. British and Foreign State Papers, vol. xxxi, p. 815.
3. Ibid., vol. xxxvii, p. 1248.
4. Ibid., vol. xxxv, p. 1202.
5. Recueil des traités et conventions concernant le Royaume de Belgique, vol. i, p. 424.
6. Ibid., vol. v, p. 299.
7. Recueil des trails et conventions concernant le Royaume de Belgique, vol. v, p. 343.
8. Ibid., p. 446.
9. Ibid., vol. vi, p. 336.
10. Ibid., vol. ix, p. 163.
11. Ibid., p. 170.
12. Ibid., p. 39.
13. Ibid., vol. xi, p. 232.
14. Ibid., vol. xiii, p. 564.
15. Ibid., vol. xvi, p. 376.
16. Ibid., vol. xviii, p. 183.