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 in

form 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.

Paris Peace Conf. 180.03201/22

FM-22

Secretary's Notes of a Meeting of Foreign Ministers Held in M. Pichon's Room at the Quai d'Orsay, Paris, on Wednesday, 4th June, 1919, at 3 p. m.

Revision of the

Lieut. C. Burden

Capt. E. Abraham

Capt. A. Portier
Lieut. Zanchi

1. M. PICHON said that M. Tardieu had prepared a proposal, which he wished to lay before the Council, regarding the procedure to be followed for the revision of the Treaties of 1839. M. TARDIEU said that the Council had to deal with two questions, one of method, and one of substance. The question of method was whether negotiations should be carried on directly between the Dutch and the Belgians, or in an international

Treaties of 1839

Commission, on which the Great Powers and those two countries should be represented. The question of substance was how far the revision of the Treaties should extend. He thought he was in a position to give the views of the Commission on Belgian Affairs.

As regards the first question, it seemed difficult for the Powers which had declared revision necessary, especially for such of them as were signatories to the Treaty, not to take part in the discussion. On this point, therefore, the contention of the Belgians should be accepted.

As to the second point, it seemed that, as the Conference had decided that no territorial compensation to Holland at the expense of Germany could be enforced, all territorial questions arising out of the revision of the Treaties must be excluded. A further argument was that no Commission had considered the question of territorial readjustments in Flanders or Limbourg. The solution he proposed, therefore, was one that could be adopted speedily and which offered the advantage of a middle course between the Belgian and Dutch points of view. In regard to territory, Belgium would be refused her demand, but in regard to the method of conducting negotiations, her requests would be satisfied.

MR. BALFOUR said that he was inclined to agree with the policy proposed by M. Tardieu. He felt sure that it was useless to try and negotiate territorial changes in view of the categorical refusal of Holland. Anyone in the position of the Dutch Minister of Foreign Affairs would have adopted the same attitude. The Powers could not compel, nor could they induce Holland to give up any territory. He also agreed with M. Tardieu in his general view regarding procedure. It was difficult for any of the Great Powers who were signatory to the Treaties of 1839 to disinterest themselves from the negotiations. He was not sure, however, that it would not be better for the Great Powers to remain in the background while Belgium and Holland conducted the negotiations as far as possible, directly. This, he thought, was not necessarily in contradiction with what M. Tardieu had proposed. M. Hymans wished all the Delegations concerned to discuss questions of railways, canals, the Scheldt etc. as it were, in Plenary Conference. These questions were no doubt important, but hardly justified such a procedure. It would be better, he thought, that Belgium and Holland should try to obtain agreement, and come to the Conference should they fail to obtain it. The Great Powers would, of course, be party in any case to the final settlement. The smaller the number of people discussing such questions as related to waterways, the better, and the solution would be all the speedier. Moreover, if Belgium and Holland really wished to come to an agreement, they would be better alone. He did not know whether this would suit

M. Hymans, but M. Van Karnebeek had shown a conciliatory spirit towards the Belgian demands, and this suggestion might lead to a friendly arrangement. He said this in the interest of Belgium. He wished Belgium to obtain all the privileges she asked for, and he thought she would get them more readily by a friendly talk with Holland than by what might appear to the Dutch as coercion by the Great Powers.

M. TARDIEU said that he concurred with what Mr. Balfour had said. It was obviously desirable to obtain a friendly arrangement between the Dutch and the Belgians, but according to the plan suggested, the Great Powers would be placed in the position of arbiter. An arbiter was generally a person foreign to the dispute. The fact could not be neglected, however, that several of the Great Powers were signatories of the Treaties under revision. He would therefore propose a solution very similar to Mr. Balfour's, namely, that the Great Powers, together with Belgium and Holland, should constitute a Commission. This Commission would immediately ask the Dutch and Belgian Members to form a sub-Commission, in order to clear the ground. This sub-Commission would be able, it was hoped, to find solutions for all the more domestic problems concerning the two countries. There were some subjects, however, notably the military problem M. Hymans had alluded to, the fortification of the Scheldt, the Port of Flushing, and similar questions, in which the Great Powers were interested. Their advice might be of use in finding a solution to these questions.

MR. BALFOUR said that he accepted this proposal.

MR. LANSING said that he was not able to say that he would accept it. Whatever the origin of the divisions of territory and reciprocal rights arranged in 1839, the matter had now become essentially one concerning Belgium and Holland. The military question, in his view, was of small importance. The principal question was economic and the Great Powers were not properly interested in this question. He therefore proposed that a joint Dutch and Belgian Committee be appointed to consider the whole problem. In case of disagreement, or in case of undue delay, the Great Powers, or the League of Nations, or Holland and Belgium, might appoint a single individual to arbitrate.

BARON SONNINO said that this could only be given in the form of a recommendation. Of the two proposals, he thought perhaps Mr. Lansing's was the more conciliatory.

MR. BALFOUR asked whether, in Baron Sonnino's opinion, Belgium would prefer it.

M. PICHON said that he thought Holland might, but that Belgium would not.

BARON SONNINO said that both sides could not be satisfied.