shall be free to the ships of all nations, and that these ships shall not be subject to any delay, to any visit or examination of cargo, but, merely, without distinction of flag, to a moderate tonnage duty?

"Answer 4. A provisional measure, as to the navigation of the Scheldt, having been proposed by the said five Courts in the last lines of the 9th article of the said 24, the cabinet of the Hague has acquiesced; and that provisional measure, not having been made since the object of any official controversy, the Netherlands' plenipotentiary finds himself authorized only to reproduce the same stipulation as he had the honour of transmitting in his project of treaty of the 30th of June, a stipulation, besides, superabundantly confirmed in the note of the Conference of the 10th of July last.

"Question 5. Will the Netherlands' plenipotentiary be ready to secure to the Belgians in the said treaty the navigation of the intermediate waters between the Scheldt and the Rhine, at a rate which will not exceed that of the tariffs fixed by consent of the riverain states for the navigation of the Rhine, in proportion to the regulated distances?

"Answer 5. The said plenipotentiary is ready, in conformity with his complimentary note of the 25th of July last, and with the explanations which have been subsequently given, to consider the diplomatic intentions to be to secure to the Belgians the passage of the interior waters.

"First,Immediately after the exchange of the ratifications. "Secondly,-On the footing of the most favoured nations. "Thirdly, According to the existing tariffs,

"Observing, however, that from the month of February, 1831, and on the occasion of the adhesion of the king to the bases of the separation, the cabinet of the Hague carefully avoided all misunderstanding with regard to the rivers and interior waters; and finding some ambiguity in the arrangement of the 3rd article as to these bases, it would not consent to their adoption without a conservative declaration given by Lord Palmerston, in the name of the Conference, destined to prevent all assimilation of the Meuse and the Scheldt with the internal waters, which internal waters, forming a territory exclusively Dutch, remain subject to the legislation of the country to which they belong exclusively.

"Question 6. Will the Dutch plenipotentiary adopt the arrangement of the 11th article of the 24 articles of the 14th of October?

"Answer 6. The Conference, in its note of the 10th of July last, having reminded the cabinet of the Hague that anterior notes on its part were far from refusing commercial communications, the nature and establishment of which should form the object of amicable arrangement, the said cabinet hastened, conformably to its note of the 14th of December, 1881, and to which the Conference alluded, to propose the following article for the regulation of the communications through Limburg :-"There shall be assured to Belgium all the facilities desirable for establishing her commercial communications with Germany through Limburg, especially by the towns of Maestricht and of Sittardt, excepting in cases of paramount and peremptory necessity. The barrier-dues on the routes which, passing

through these two towns, lead to the frontier of Germany, and which routes shall be preserved in a good condition, shall be levied after a moderate rate only."

"Question 7. If the 12th article of the 24 articles should be suppressed in the treaty between Holland and Belgium, what would be the compensation which the Dutch government would offer in return to Belgium?

"Answer 7. The undersigned plenipotentiary has no instructions upon the question. He is ready to apply for them.

"Question 8. Does the Dutch government adopt the 13th and 14th articles concerning the debt, such as they are set forth in the 24 articles, except the changes of date acknowledged to be neces?

sary

Answer 8. The said plenipotentiary adopts in general the arti cles concerning the debt, excepting the alterations in arrangement which the changes of date, the reciprocal capitalization, the liquidation agreeably to the order of the Syndicate, and a more explicit arrangement in respect to the Losseuten (redeemable bonds) render necessary. As to the article concerning the arrear, he must renew his protest against a material error which was introduced respecting this point into the calculations of the Conference in setting out from the date of the 1st of November, 1830, as from an epoch to which hitherto the royal treasure had been integrally made up from the taxes in Belgium, whilst the Netherlands plenipotentiary had quoted that date as the epoch at which the collection of the said imposts had integrally ceased.

"Question 9. If the liquidation of the sinking fund should not take

place except as a measure of order, what will be the compensation which the Netherlands' plenipotentiary would be authorized to propose to Belgium for its part in the active debt which will result from the liquidation, if it should take place?

"Answer 9. The demand of compensation for reducing the liquidation of the Syndicate-bonds in the order in which they are drawn having given rise to diplomatic interpretations which have followed the delivery of the note of the 25th of July, and the proposition having been made to the Dutch plenipotentiary that this compensation should be founded on the defalcation of part of the arrears, this principle has been adopted by the cabinet of the Hague. If it be not yet agreed upon as to the proportion of the defalcation, it is because the negotiation which the Dutch plenipotentiary followed up with eager ness has been paralyzed by the communication of the refusal of Belgium to concur in it.

PROTOCOL, No. 70, of the CON

FERENCE held at the FOREIGN OFFICE, OCTOBER 1, 1832. Present:- The Plenipotentiaries of Austria, France, Great Bri tain, Prussia, and Russia.

The plenipotentiaries of the five Powers of Austria, France, Great Britain, Prussia, and Russia, having met in Conference at the Foreign Office, the plenipotentiary of France said

That at a former meeting he had, in conformity with the orders of his Court, and in consequence of the want of success in every attempt at negotiation between Holland and Belgium, demanded

that the Conference exclusively engaged in the means of procuring for Belgium the execution of the treaty concluded with her, should recognize as necessary the employment of coercive measures, which, it appeared, were alone capable of overcoming the resistance of the Dutch Government.

That that demand on his part, supported by the plenipotentiary of his Britannic majesty, had called forth on the part of the plenipotentiaries of the Courts of Austria, Russia, and Prussia, without discussing his motives, the expression of a desire that some means might be found to bring about the end proposed without an immediate recurrence to the employment of material force.

That the British plenipotentiary having then suggested that it would be possible to employ in the first place the measures proposed in the note of the Conference of the 11th of June, that he (the plenipotentiary of France) had admitted the proposition, having reserved to himself the right to call for the employment of more energetic measures in the event of those not proving sufficient for the attainment of their objects. That, in consequence of the preceding discussion, he now presented to the Conference, with the approbation of the plenipotentiary of his Britannic Majesty, the following plans upon which they had determined :

"The plenipotentiaries of the five Courts assembled in Conference have again taken into consideration

"1st. The report made to them at the meeting of the 24th of September, by the British plenipotentiary, of his private and con

fidential communication with M. le Baron de Zuylen with regard to the circumstance and motives by which he had been dictated, and the strict silence which had been observed by the government of the Pays Bas.

2ud. The note dated September 20th, in which the Dutch plenipotentiary, without replying in any way to the confidential communications which he had himself received and transmitted, renews, in the name of his Court, all its previous recriminations, and calls for the signature of a treaty of separation between Holland and Belgium, on the footing of the Netherlands notes of June the 30th and July the 25th.

"3rd. The memorandum of the 24th of September, explaining the situation in which the Conference finds itself in consequence of the refusals in which the cabinet of the Hague had persisted.

"4th. The series of questions addressed to the Netherlands plenipotentiary in the Conference of the 25th of September, with the written replies sent on the morrow, the resumption of explanations added verbally, and the observations which were made on the subject of these same replies.

"After a strict and careful examination of these documents, the plenipotentiaries of the five Courts are convinced that if already the refusal of the cabinet of the Hague to adhere to the 67th protocol of July the 11th, had necessarily suspended all official acts, on the part of the Conference, for the negotiation of a definitive treaty between Holland and Belgium, the silence observed with respect to the private and confidential communications of the British plenipotentiary, the re

peated presentation by the government of the Netherlands of a project of a treaty which the Conference had declared inadmissible, and the last replies made by the Dutch Plenipotentiary to the questions which the Conference had deemed it their duty to address to him, have equally shut out the adoption of any confidential proceedings, and no longer leave any hope that the government of the Netherlands can be brought by ordinary means of negotiation to a direct settlement of Belgium, even after the proofs given that the latter would not refuse to negociate upon the modifications which were the object of the complaints of Holland, as well as certain reserves and declarations on the part of the Courts of Russia, Prussia, and Austria.

"Having, therefore, been fully persuaded that there was a duty which they had to perform, that of procuring for Belgium the execution of the treaty concluded with her, the plenipotentiaries of the five Courts have resolved at once to give effect to the threatening declaration which ended their note of the 11th of June, expressed in the following terms:

"The Conference cannot too often repeat it, these facilities are the only ones it can offer to his Majesty the king of the Netherlands; and it cannot dissemble the fact, that if he does not make use of them before the expiration of a short period, he will no longer prevent it from putting a stop to new delays which might succeed so many previous ones, and that very serious consequences may accrue to Holland, one of the most important of which would be the downright refusal to pay, on the part of Belgium, from the 1st of

January, 1832, the arrears of her quotient of the debt of the united kingdom of the Netherlands, forced, as she would be, to employ the amount of the same in the legitimate defence of her territory.

"As it is evident that the refusal to adhere to the propositions of the 11th of June, renewed on the 11th of July, but at the same time declared to be the last which would emanate from the Conference, and the menacing attitude offered by Holland to Belgium, have caused the latter, for the purpose of making preparations for the legitimate defence of her territory, expenses for which she is to seek indemnity, the Conference would not itself urge such a measure if it had not been declared by the following resolution:

That Belgium will be justified in refusing from the 1st of January, 1832, and until the conclusion of a definitive treaty with Holland, the payment of her quotient of the debt of the quondam united kingdom of the Netherlands.'

Moreover, and as the fundamental basis of the treaty concluded with Belgium the 15th of November last is the settlement of her territory, the Conference cannot refuse to seek means for the purpose of putting her in possession of the city of Antwerp, and surrounding points which belong to the same. The first which presents itself, without prejudicing the more serious measures indicated in the note of the 11th of June, and of which it is necessary expressly to make a reserve, would be to reimburse her for the pecuniary expense of a defence which the occupation of the citadel of Antwerp by the Dutch renders every day more indispensable; at the same time that it forms the