M. LE MINISTRE,

(No. 17.)-Sir A. Johnstone to M. Loudon. The Hague, February 28, 1915. I FORWARDED to His Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a copy of the note which your Excellency did me the honour of addressing to me on the 3rd instant, explaining the attitude taken up by the Netherlands Government towards the passage down the Scheldt of German lighters seized by the Belgian Government upon the outbreak of war and released again after the capture of Antwerp.

I have now the honour to inform your Excellency in reply, and under instructions from Sir Edward Grey, that His Majesty's Government are unable to agree with the contention of the Netherlands Government that a distinction should be made, from the point of view of international law, between these these lighters and the the German ocean-going steamers at Antwerp, to which the Netherlands Government have refused the right of passage through Netherlands territory.

His Majesty's Government are not concerned to contest the view that, in the case of such vessels as inland barges, coal floats, or rafts, there might be some justification for the contention of the Netherlands Government that the rules of international law as to the rights and duties of neutrals with regard to maritime warfare do not apply. They cannot agree, however, that this is the case with the lighters now in question, which are vessels of considerable tonnage and capable of navigation in the narrow seas, and doubtless used from time to time for that purpose.

66

I am instructed to refer your Excellency to the decision of the Japanese Prize Court in the case of the harbour launch Juliette" in the Russo-Japanese War, and I am to point out to your Excellency that this case fully supports the view of His Majesty's Government.

Government consider complain that the while Antwerp was

I am to add that His Majesty's that they have some right to Netherlands Government did not, still in Belgian possession, indicate the distinction which they now draw between the lighters in question and oceangoing vessels. It was in reliance upon the undertaking given by the Netherlands Government that the German ships seized by the Belgian Government would not be allowed to pass down the Scheldt, in the event of the port falling into the hands of the Germans, that the lighters were left intact. Had the attitude of the Netherlands Government been made clear at the time, it is probable that steps would have been taken to ensure that the lighters would not be available for use if recaptured.

In bringing the above to your Excellency's knowledge, I venture to express the confident hope that your Excellency will be good enough, after examining the precedent quoted, to alter your view about the lighters in question.

I avail, &c.

ALAN JOHNSTONE.

(No. 18.)-M. Loudon to Sir A. Johnstone.

M. LE MINISTRE,

La Haye, le 17 mars, 1915.

PAR son office du 28 février dernier, votre Excellence a bien voulu me faire savoir que le Gouvernement britannique maintient sa manière de voir que la situation juridique actuelle des allèges et autres bateaux de navigation fluviale, appartenant à des sujets allemands, et qui se trouvaient dans le port d'Anvers au commencement de la guerre, ne diffère pas de celle des trente-cinq navires de commerce maritime.

J'ai déjà eu l'honneur d'exposer dans mes lettres précédentes les principes du droit des gens en vertu desquels le Gouvernement de la Reine considère de son devoir d'appliquer un régime différent à ces deux catégories de vaisseaux.

Le Gouvernement de la Reine ne saurait admettre le bien-fondé des deux arguments que le Gouvernement britannique vient de produire à l'appui de son opinion contraire. Un navire ne perd pas son caractère de bateau de navigation fluviale par le fait que son tonnage est considérable ou parce qu'il pourrait sans trop de danger se risquer sur mer dans des circonstances exceptionnelles. Dans le cas de la "Juliette," cité par votre Excellence, une Cour des Prises a assimilé un bâtiment de navigation locale à un navire de commerce maritime. Ce fait isolé ne saurait constituer un motif pour le Gouvernement de la Reine de se départir de la ligne de conduite qu'il considère comme juste. D'ailleurs, on pourrait se demander si la Cour japonaise prononcerait encore à l'heure qu'il est un arrêt semblable à celui du 24 mai, 1904, vu que depuis la convention de 1907 relative à certaines restrictions de l'exercice du droit de capture dans la guerre maritime, les bateaux affectés à des services de petite navigation locale sont exempts de capture. D'autre part, la Juliette était affectée au trafic dans un port de mer tandis que les allèges et bateaux de navigation intérieure, trouvés à Anvers, ne sont destinés qu'à la navigation sur les canaux et rivières.

Le Gouvernement britannique estime qu'il y aurait lieu. de se plaindre de ce que le Gouvernement de la Reine n'ait [1917-18. cxI.]

2 L

pas avant la prise d'Anvers attiré l'attention sur la distinction à faire entre les navires de commerce maritime et les bateaux de navigation fluviale.

En réponse, j'ai l'honneur de vous faire observer ce qui suit I ressort de la note initiale de votre Excellence en date du 2 septembre dernier* qu'il ne s'y agissait que de navires de commerce maritime. Les expressions "navires de commerce capturés et navires de commerce non armés employées dans cette note verbale, ainsi que dans votre note du 11 septembre suivant, ne pouvaient que se rapporter à des navires de commerce destinés à naviguer sur la haute mer. La mention faite par votre Excellence dans sa note du 11 septembre de l'article 10 de la convention concernant les droits et les devoirs des Puissances neutres en cas de guerre maritime prouve égale ment qu'il n'était question que de navires régis par le droit de la guerre maritime. Dans cette même note votre Excellence invoqua la convention relative au régime des navires de commerce ennemis au début des hostilités; cette convention n'est applicable qu'à des vaisseaux de commerce maritime. Pour le Gouvernement de la Reine la teneur exacte de la demande du Gouvernement britannique ne faisait donc pas l'objet du moindre doute. Aussi, le Gouvernement britannique ne saurait-il lui faire un reproche de ce que sa réponse se soit limitée aux navires de commerce maritime et n'ait pas fait mention du régime à appliquer, le cas échéant, aux bateaux de navigation fluviale. Je tiens, du reste, à vous assurer formellement que, si le Gouvernement de la Reine, malgré la précision de votre demande, avait eu lieu de supposer que le Gouvernement britannique pourrait ne pas être d'avis que les bateaux de navigation fluviale fussent propriété privée inviolable, il n'aurait pas manqué d'indiquer dans sa réponse aussi le régime qu'il comptait appliquer à ceux-ci.

Ce n'est que par sa lettre du 26 novembre, accompagnée d'une liste qui comprenait, outre les trente-cinq navires de commerce maritime allemands, quarante-sept chalands, allèges et autres bateaux servant exclusivement à la navigation fluviale, que votre Excellence fit entrevoir que son Gouvernement s'attendait à ce que le passage à travers le territoire néerlandais serait refusé aux bateaux appartenant à cette dernière catégorie. Pour le Gouvernement de la Reine il n'y avait pas de doute que dans les communications échangées au mois de septembre les deux Gouvernements ne visaient que les navires de commerce maritime. Le fait que, au mois d'octobre, les forces anglo-belges n'ont

* See Nos. 1, 2 and 6. pages 500 and 501.

+ Page 505,

+ Page 503,

endommagé que les navires appartenant à cette catégorie est de nature à confirmer la justesse de cette opinion.

Aussi, le Gouvernement de la Reine était-il en toute bonne foi fondé à ne pas accepter l'interprétation qu'impliquait la demande contenue dans l'office de votre Excellence du 26 novembre dernier.

Veuillez, &c.

J. LOUDON.

Appendix.

Article 10 of Netherlands Neutrality Regulations.

(Translation.)

A PRIZE may only be brought within the jurisdiction of the State on account of unseaworthiness, stress of weather, or want of fuel or provisions.

It must leave as soon as the circumstances which justified its entry are at an end.

If it does not do so, it shall be ordered to leave at once. Should it fail to obey, the means at disposal shall be used to release the prize, its officers and crew, and to intern the prize crew.

CORRESPONDENCE between the British and Netherlands Governments respecting the Requisitioning of Dutch Ships in exercise of the Right of Angary by the British and Associated Governments.-March-April 1918.*

(No. 1.)—Mr. Balfour to Sir W. Townley. (Telegraphic.)

Foreign Office, March 21, 1918. I REQUEST you to make the following communication to the Minister for Foreign Affairs:—

"1. After full consideration, the Associated Governments have decided to requisition the services of Dutch ships in their ports in exercise of the right of angary. They would have preferred to obtain the use of the ships by way of agreement with the Netherlands Government, and, as your Excellency knows, an arrangement for this purpose was made between representatives of the Netherlands Govern

Parliamentary Paper, "Miscellaneous, No. 11 (1918)."

[1917-18. CXI.]

2 L 2

ment and of the Associated Governments as long ago as the beginning of last January.

2. Unfortunately, the Netherlands Government for more than two months did not see their way to ratify that arrangement. They, moreover, had found it impossible to carry out in all its terms the modus vivendi which had been arrived at pending the ratification of the agreement, explaining that the German Government would not allow them to do so. It seemed, therefore, clear to the Associated Governments that the proposals originally made were not adequate to the present situation. Delay had altered the

circumstances. The condition that Dutch shipping was not to be used in the danger zone was no longer acceptable in itself, and might at any time have been made still less so by an extension of the zone by our enemies. Further, the

fate of the modus vivendi had shown that in the very difficult position in which the Netherlands Government was placed, the execution of the agreement would probably have been attended with difficulties and delays still more prejudicial to the interest of the Associated Governments.

"3. The Associated Governments therefore proposed that the limitation on the use of Dutch shipping contemplated under the original scheme should be abandoned, and that, in its altered form, the agreement should come into force immediately. To this the Netherlands Government could not assent, except upon terms which would have made it practically impossible for the Associated Governments to make any use of the Dutch shipping. To say that shipping shall not be employed for the carriage of war material is at this stage of the war equivalent to saying that it shall not be used at all. For, with respect to the great majority of cargoes, it is impossible to say that they are not required, directly or indirectly, for the purposes of war.

4. For these reasons the Associated Governments have felt compelled to fall back on their unquestionable right to employ any shipping found in their ports for the necessities of war. But they are very anxious that the exercise of this right should be as little burdensome to the shipowners and as little obnoxious to the Netherlands Government as it can be made.

5. The Associated Governments hope that it may be possible to arrive at an agreement with the owners as to rates of payment, values for insurance, &c., and on these points a further communication to the Netherlands Government will be sent very shortly. At the end of the war the ships will be returned to their owners, who will, of course, be compensated for any losses caused among the ships by enemy action, The Associated Governments are willing,