was dependent on Dutch goodwill, simply because he (M. de Karnebecke) had declared that the Dutch Government was ready to take note, in a spirit of goodwill, of any proposals Belgium might suggest for the improvement of communications. This situation, he would point out, was due to geographical conditions alone. There was, for instance, a point which he would not have raised but which he felt it was right to mention, namely, the question of the Meuse. It had been alleged in Holland for several years, whether rightly or wrongly, that works made in Belgian territory along the Meuse considerably hampered the prosperity of Holland. This, therefore, was an analogous case to that of the Scheldt referred to by M. Hymans. M. Hymans had further declared that the Dutch representative appeared to recommend a private and isolated discussion between Holland and Belgium. He would not deny that he had made this proposal on the previous day. He had done it deliberately and for the following reason. The revision of the treaties was not the only question pending between Belgium and Holland. There was also the question of the relations between the two countries. These relations had been influenced by the crisis and he thought it was his duty, first of all, to re-establish mutual confidence between the two countries. For himself, this was the bigger question and he was inclined to give it precedence over that of the revision. He had, therefore, thought that, should the preliminary work be entrusted to the two countries, a useful result would be obtained not only in regard to the treaties but also in regard to the interests of the two countries. He did not wish to emphasise this any further, but he thought it right to mention the matter as a subject for consideration.

As regards M. Hymans' proposals, he wished to state at once that he had no desire to produce delay or to adjourn the discussion, but the proposals just made were of such a scope that it was impossible for him to make an immediate declaration. Belgium's desiderata were now, for the first time, placed before Holland. He would ask M. Hymans to hand him the text of his proposals which would be subjected to the most impartial examination, with a view to discovering whether the method of procedure suggested by M. Hymans could be accepted. He would, therefore, examine the proposals as soon as M. Hymans had handed him the text. It might be necessary for him to consult his colleagues in Holland, but he again repeated he had no desire to introduce avoidable delays. It was a question of deciding on the best method and of following it. It might also be desirable for him to consult M. Hymans on certain questions of detail and they might require to consider together what executive consequences should result from the proposals, in particular what programme of work should be submitted to the Commission. He thought it would be easy for them, by remaining in close touch, to hasten the solution of the question.

M. HYMANS said that he very willingly accepted this proposal.

M. PICHON said that, as M. Hymans and M. de Karnebecke appeared to agree, he would ask the Council to endorse the suggestion. M. HYMANS said he would like to say a few words regarding an historical point connected with Limburg. During the common regime, the deputies were divided into two groups, those of the Northern Netherlands and those of the Southern, that is to say, the Dutch and the Belgian. The deputies of Limburg were Belgian. In 1830, when the revolution broke out, the Limburg deputies had voluntarily fought on the Belgian side. With the Belgians, they had voted the constitution and had remained with them until 1839. Many traces of Belgian sympathies still existed in Limburg. In 1839, Limburg had been given to the House of Nassau. It was attached to the German Confederation, which it only left in 1867. Article 3 of the Treaty of 19th April, 1839, showed under what conditions Limburg had been given to the House of Nassau:

"Article 3. In return for the cessions made in the preceding Article, there shall be assigned to His Majesty the King of the Netherlands, Grand Duke of Luxembourg, a Territorial Indemnity in the Province of Limburg."

He would point out that it would not be usual to offer as an indemnity anything which previously belonged to the recipient.

He wished to endorse heartily all that his Dutch colleague had said regarding the close and cordial relations that ought to exist between the two countries. He understood full well that conversations between them would be useful, but he thought they could well be made to concur with the negotiations he had suggested. In this respect, his proposal for the nomination of one or two Commissions appeared to him to be of advantage. Delegates working together in a Commission acquired intimate and cordial relations. After hearing M. de Karnebecke, he concluded that he was not opposed in principle to the study of the question by a Commission of Experts. He would, therefore, wait until the Dutch Representative had made his declaration.

M. DE KARNEBECKE said that he must again state that he would not be able to make any definite undertaking on that day.

M. HYMANS said that he understood this, but he would point out that there were a number of technical questions requiring study. He would, himself, not be competent to discuss them. The discussion would, moreover, be long and tiresome to the Council of Foreign Ministers before whom they appeared. His proposal amounted to putting the various experts of the Delegations in touch with one another. By this means, public opinion would not acquire the false impression that an assault at arms was going on between the Dutch and Belgian Foreign Ministers. He thought it would be enough for each Power to nominate two delegates, while Holland and Belgium

should be permitted to call in all experts they might wish to produce to take part in the discussion.

M. PICHON said that he felt the Council would not refuse M. de Karnebecke the delay he asked for. The Council would ask him to give notice as soon as he had completed his study of the questions and another meeting would then be called.

MR. LANSING said that this procedure did not entirely meet his views. The Conference could not last for ever, and he thought some limit should be assigned to the delay.

M. DE KARNEBECKE said that it would be equally difficult for him to remain long in Paris. He wished to act quickly, but it was impossible for him to fix a date immediately, before he had even seen the text of the Belgian claims. As soon as he had this text in his hands, he would study it and give a reply in the shortest possible time.

MR. LANSING asked whether, after he had received and considered the text, M. de Karnebecke could then decide on a date for another meeting.

M. DE KARNEBECKE replied that it might, as he had already said, be necessary for him to consult his colleagues in Holland. He thought that a fortnight might be necessary.

M. HYMANS said that he would at once hand the text of the Belgian proposals to M. de Karnebecke.

M. PICHON said that he took note of M. de Karnebecke's undertaking to reply in the shortest possible time.

MR. LANSING asked whether a delay of one week could not be fixed. If, at the end of a week, M. de Karnebecke was not ready to make a reply, a meeting might be held to grant him a further delay.

M. DE KARNEBECKE said that he would accept this proposal. He could not, at the present time, undertake more.

M. HYMANS asked whether the principle of a Commission could not be accepted at once and whether its members could be nominated. M. DE KARNEBECKE said that it was impossible for him to accept this. He had not yet had time to examine the Belgian proposals which had been read to him very rapidly and of which he had not been able to take any notes.

M. PICHON said that it was agreed that M. Hymans should, without delay, deliver to M. de Karnebecke the text of the Belgian proposals. The Dutch Minister would examine them and inform the Council in a week, either through the Secretary-General or directly to the Chairman should he prefer it, whether he was ready for a discussion or whether he required more time.

(This was accepted, and the meeting adjourned.) PARIS, 21st May 1919.

314579-43-VOL. IV-48

Paris Peace Conf. 180.03201/19

FM-19

Notes of a Meeting of Foreign Ministers Held in M. Pichon's Room at the Quai d'Orsay, Paris, on Friday, 23rd May, 1919, at 3 p. m.

1. M. PICHON asked M. Tardieu to make a statement on this

Frontier of

Roumania in
Bukovina

subject.

M. TARDIEU said he had nothing to add to the Report. The Committee had been unanimous and its award was shown by the blue line on the map attached to the report.

1

1 Report No. 1 (April 6, 1919) of the Committee for the Study of Territorial Questions Relating to Rumania and Yugoslavia (Commission on Rumanian and Yugoslav Affairs).

He was ready, however, to answer any question that might be put to him.

MR. BALFOUR said that in the previous discussion regarding frontiers, the principle had been adopted that whenever the Committee had been unanimous, it was unnecessary for the Council to go over the ground again. He thought this was a good principle and that it should be adhered to. At the risk of breaking his own rule, however, he would enquire whether the Council was asked to consider the space between the red and blue lines.

M. TARDIEU said that the red line indicated the claims of the Roumanians, the blue the limits adopted by the committee. The Committee, therefore, had no concern with the space between the red and blue lines.

M. SONNINO said that it would seem that the space between these two lines had been attributed to no one.

MR. BALFOUR asked whether according to a previous decision, such areas should not be formally assigned to the Allied and Associated Powers.

M. LAROCHE said that in discussing the Treaty with Austria, a formula had been accepted whereby all territories not immediately assigned to any new State were to be ceded by Austria to the Allied and Associated Powers for final disposal later on. At that time, the Roumanian frontiers had not been fixed. The territory alluded to by Mr. Balfour would seem automatically to fall under the principle and to be assignable to the Allied and Associated Powers. (See I. C. 186 (6).)2

(No objection having been raised to the frontier proposed by the Committee, the Roumanian frontier in Bukovina was adopted.)

2. MR. BALFOUR asked whether the proposed frontier had been unanimously adopted.

Frontier Between

Roumania and Jugo-Slavia in the Banat

M. TARDIEU said that it had been reached unanimously.

MR. LANSING asked whether the Committee had discussed the question of the Dobrudja. He understood that a connection had been established between the concessions Roumania would make in the Dobrudja and the satisfaction of her claims in the Banat.

M. SONNINO pointed out that the question of the Dobrudja had been adjourned in the hope that Bulgaria and Roumania might come to terms.

M. TARDIEU recalled the discussion that had taken place on May 16th (I. C. 187, 1. b.). He saw no advantage in linking the discussion of

'FM-15, p. 711.

'FM-16, p. 717.