and prevented the French from advancing to their goal of occupying the Netherlands.

In the course of generations France had acquired a considerable portion of the middle strip of the inheritance of Lothair, but until the French Revolution she was never able to acquire those provinces on her northeastern frontier which were successively known as Burgundy, the Spanish Netherlands, the Austrian Netherlands, the Belgic Provinces, and Belgium.

As early as 1609 the great Cardinal Richelieu perceived the futility of any immediate efforts of conquest, and proposed that France and the United Provinces of Holland should enter into a treaty with these provinces, according to the terms of which this middle state, made into an independent Catholic republic, should join in a perpetual alliance with its two neighbors to maintain its independence.1 The great statesman considered such a solution superior to any attempt at partition of these provinces by France and Holland, for the following reasons: (1) It would prevent the maintenance of an expensive system of fortifications between France and the growing Dutch Republic, which Richelieu foresaw would soon acquire a position of great strength. (2) It would do much to remove the causes of war, so difficult to avoid between two powerful coterminous states. (3) It would prevent a coalition of England and Spain to check France. This danger the Cardinal appreciated fully, because he realized the fundamental motives which governed England's policy better than did the English statesmen of the period. (4) An independent republic placed between France and the Dutch Republic would be a factor in preserving peace, because this medial state would understand that the greatest menace to its existence would arise from a conflict between its neighbors.

By insisting that the state so established should be 1 See Documents, chap. XIII.

Catholic, the Cardinal would have made it extremely difficult for the Dutch to incorporate it in their own territory. But the advantages of this plan of the far-seeing Cardinal were not sufficiently appreciated by his contemporaries, and it had to be abandoned in favor of a less perfect scheme.1

The purpose of the Dutch was to acquire a sufficient strip of this territory bordering on France to serve as a barrier for the protection of their own province. In pursuit of this policy, they acquired a strip called the Generality or Common Lands, and succeeded in closing the Scheldt, so that Amsterdam and the Dutch cities might be favored over Antwerp. Unable to secure the establishment of a neutralized state, they decided to adopt the system of a "buffer" state, which was then called a barrière. But in the course of time this plan was modified, and took the form of a system of barrier fortresses, located in these provinces and garrisoned by the Dutch and English. At the conclusion of the Wars of the Spanish Succession these provinces passed to Austria. Even before this the Dutch had attempted to establish a similar system of outposts along the Rhine, by holding Ravestein and Rhineburg in defiance of the rights of their lawful possessors, with the object of protecting their frontier on the German side. The negotiations in regard to these barrier posts may be considered as the very crux of the diplomacy between France, England, and Holland. England was generally to be found helping the adversaries of France, so as to maintain the balance of power on the Continent.

1 Dollot, Neutralité de la Belgique, pp. 56-57. Paris, 1902.

2 "In order to prevent France from encroaching upon Flanders, since otherwise she would be more to be dreaded than Spain, and to this effect just as the Princes of Christendom secured the equality of the balance on the side of Spain by assisting us, let the same procedure be undertaken against France, and Flanders always kept as a dividing wall." (Extract from the minutes of the Session of the States General of April 19, 1647. See Dollot, op. cit., p. 99.)

The system of barrier treaties, as organized in 1709 and continued by the treaties of 1713 and 1715, provided for the Dutch control of the Scheldt and the shutting-off, in favor of Amsterdam, of the competition of the more favorably located Antwerp; the right to garrison certain of the strong places along the frontier; and the placing upon the Austrian Netherlands of the maintenance of this heavy military burden.

The essential idea of this barrier system was to place upon Belgium the cost of maintaining a foreign garrison intended principally for the protection of the Dutch, though incidentally for Belgium's own security against an invasion from France. The adoption of this system was made possible only through the agreement between England and Holland. It amounted to the imposition of a military servitude on these territories in favor of Holland and England.

England had insisted upon treaty recognition of the application of a similar military servitude applied directly to French territory, and had succeeded in securing it; the Treaty of Utrecht, Article 9, required that the fortifications at Dunkirk should be destroyed and not rebuilt.

As the power of Austria and Holland waned, they were quick to recognize that they could place upon England the principal burden of preserving the independence of the Austrian Netherlands. When England became involved in difficulties, she could no longer sustain the burden of this military establishment, and on April 18, 1782, the last of the Scotch regiments left Namur. The system of the barrier had come to an end, as was tacitly admitted by the Treaty of Fontainebleau of November 19, 1785, which omits all mention of it.1

When in 1789 Belgium revolted because of the attempt of Emperor Joseph II to introduce certain religious and administrative reforms, Prussia feared that the modifica

1 Dollot, op. cit., p. 440.

tion introduced might strengthen Austria's position and affect her political influence. Accordingly, Frederick William favored the project of establishing Belgium as an independent republic; but England, although the scheme was in general harmony with her policy, was not willing to give Prussia her support, not wishing to antagonize Austria.1 The Belgian revolt was quickly suppressed, only to be succeeded shortly after by another uprising. The efforts of the Provinces to break away from Austria found enthusiastic support in France, and in 1792 the French invaded Belgium to free her, as they considered, from the Austrian yoke. Maurier, French Minister for Foreign Affairs, realized, however, that England would not place much confidence in the French protestations of disinterestedness. England was aroused, but offered no resistance to the French, who acquired control of the country. The French Convention was so lacking in all appreciation of the political situation as to remove the restrictions on the navigation of the Scheldt and thus to goad England on to declare war. This French occupation of Belgium and Holland undoubtedly was a vigorous spur toward urging England on to accomplish the fall of Napoleon. Even during the great conflict which ensued, we trace the formation of the idea of the régime to be applied to Belgium. On January 9, 1805, Pitt remarked to the Russian Ambassador to England: "Belgium can never exist as a separate and independent state." This thought of Pitt's was put into effect when Holland and Belgium were united for the purpose of forming a "stopper" state against French advance. Certain of the old Dutch barrier forts, which had been destroyed by Napoleon in 1803, were rebuilt, and the old system of the barrière was thereby reëstablished against

1 Dollot, op. cit., pp. 452-53.

2 Ibid., p. 515. In an article on "The Neutrality of Belgium," by Th. Baty, The Quarterly Review, January, 1915, p. 216, is the following note: "Pitt's original plan was to give Belgium to Prussia. Castlereagh preferred to strengthen Holland (Hansard, Nov. 2, 1830, col. 40).”

France, though in a more perfected form, and placed under the general guaranty of the powers. This arrangement was intended to be not merely for the advantage of the English and the Dutch, but to serve as a rampart for all Europe against another revolutionary outbreak on the part of France.

1

Without repeating what has been said already 1 about the separation of Belgium from Holland in 1830, we need only recall how the Treaty of November 15, 1831, guaranteeing the neutrality and independence of Belgium, was replaced eight years later by the treaties signed April 19, 1839, after Holland had agreed at last to recognize Belgian independence.

2. The obligation to respect the Treaty of April 19, 1839 The obligation to respect the neutrality of Belgium may be considered to rest upon the obligation to respect the Treaty of April 19, 1839, which sets forth this obligation in express terms. To understand the question of observance we must, however, examine the nature of this treaty and of treaties in general. Although there is no good classification of treaties, some of the divisions into which they fall are: (1) political treaties; (2) commercial treaties; (3) treaties of settlement; (4) treaties to take effect in the event of war; and (5) law-making treaties. We cannot here enter into a discussion of the nature of the different kinds of treaties except in so far as it is germane to the question of Belgium.

The treaty of neutralization of Belgium is certainly either a political treaty or a treaty made for the event of war. It may, in fact, belong to both categories.2 This dual characteristic of the neutralization treaty is one of the

1 See chap. I.

2 Many authorities regard the stipulations establishing the neutrality of Belgium as a lawmaking treaty. See Oppenheim, International Law, vol. 1, §§ 555, 558, 18, 492 (2d edition, New York, 1912); and Westlake, International Law, part 1, pp. 29-30, Cambridge, 1910.