Page 204
Page 204
Page 204
detail in the present memorandum; but it may be convenient to quote the following extract from a précis, enclosed in a despatch from His Majesty's Minister at Brussels, of a debate which took place in the Belgian Chamber in March 1887, as showing the Belgian view of those obligations :-
Estruct from Précis of Debate in Belgian Chamber.
In 1815, when the Kingdom of the Netherlands was constituted, the Lord Vivian frontiers were guarded by a strong chain of fortresses, directed against the (Brussels), No. 74, Power which at that time was the most to be feared, and the assistance
March 5, 1887. of the allies was promised in defending them.
After the revolution of 1830, when Belgium was left to her own resources, the Great Powers engaged to respect and guarantee her neutrality.
Doubts have been cast, during the recent panic, on this guaranteed neutrality; it has been declared to be almost valueless, and quite unworthy of consideration.
What are the real facts as to this neutrality?
There are different kinds of neutrality: voluntary and involuntary, armed and unarmed neutralities, neutralities with collective or with individual guarantees. As an instance of a disarmed neutrality, M. Frère- Orban cited the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg :-
In 1867 a dispute, which nearly led to war, arose between France and Germany respecting the fortress of Luxemburg. The Powers intervened, and declared that the fortress should be razed and the Grand Duchy neutralised. But in a later Protocol the Powers declared that the disarma- ment clause should not be interpreted as preventing the development of the military forces of other neutral States, a declaration specially referring to Belgium, which is protected by an armed neutrality.
The Luxemburg Treaty of 1867 was communicated to the British Parliament, and Lord Derby explained what Her Majesty's Government understood by their guarantee of Luxemburg :
Lord Derby.
"If it had been a continuance of the guarantee first given, I should ** Hansard's think it a very serious matter, because the guarantee of the possession of vol. clxxxviii,
Debates," Luxemburg to the King of Holland was a joint and several guarantee pages 150, 151. similar to that which was given with regard to the independence and neutrality of Belgium; it was binding individually and separately upon each of the Powers. That was the nature of the guarantee which was given with regard to Belgium and with regard to the possession of Luxomburg by the King-Duke. Now a guarantee of neutrality is very different from a guarantee of possession. If France and Prussin were to have a quarrel between themselves, and either were to viclate the neutrality of Luxemburg by passing their troops through the Duchy for the purpose of making war on the other, we might, if the guarantee had been individual as well as joint, have been under the necessity of preventing that violation, and the same obligation would have rested upon each guarantor; but as it is we are not exposed to so serious a contingency, because the guarantee is only collective-that is to say, is binding only upon all the Powers in their collective capacity; they all agree to maintain the neutrality of Luxemburg, but not one of those Powers is bound to fulfil the obligation alone.”
Lord Clarendon replied :-
"Hansard's Debates,"
“I look upon our guarantee in the case of Belgium as an individual vol. clxxxviii, guarantee, and have always so regarded it; but this (the guarantee in the page 150. case of Luxemburg) is a collective guarantee.”;
د
Page 204
Page 204