which subjected the Belgians resident in China to Chinese jurisdiction. This scheme was rejected. Thereupon Chinese students made a demonstration in the streets of the capital. The Belgian Government then proposed that the points in dispute should be specified for the purpose of being submitted by joint agreement to the International Court of Justice. China refused, as she wished the dispute to be submitted to the Council of the League of Nations. Belgium thereupon carried the conflict unilaterally, by way of request, before the Court of The Hague, of which China has recognised the obligatory competence. At the end of December, a Communist deputy proposed in the Chamber the voluntary abrogation of the Treaty of 1865 and the recognition of the Government of Canton, provided that it would undertake to protect Belgian interests in China. In the debate on this proposal, which was rejected, M. Vandervelde gave a detailed account of the whole dispute, and expressed warm approval of the pacific spirit and the breadth of view which characterised the British memorandum.

THE NETHERLANDS.

"1

The Government crisis caused by the decision, on November 11, 1925, to abolish the representation at the Vatican (vide ANNUAL REGISTER, 1925, pp. 216, 217), lasted throughout the year, and will probably prove to have been the longest in Parliamentary history. After the failure of Dr. Marchant, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, to form a Ministry, Dr. de Visser, the leader of the Christian Historicals, had tried in vain to continue the Colijn Cabinet, if only as an "extra-Parliamentary one. Mr. Colijn had suggested that the Dutch Minister at the Vatican, Jhr. van Nispentot Sevenaer, should be removed to Vienna, where the legation had become vacant, but that at the same time he should be accredited to the Vatican. The Roman Catholics were willing to accept this compromise providing that the Christian Historicals would pledge themselves to abstain from giving their vote to any resolution of disapproval. The Christian Historicals, however, rejected the proposal. Dr. de Visser then made another effort to form an extra-Parliamentary Cabinet, but again failed, and in consequence abandoned the attempt on January 22. The Queen thereupon requested Dr. J. Limburg to form an extra-Parliamentary Cabinet. Dr. Limburg, formerly a distinguished Liberal Democrat member of the Second Chamber, who of late years had not taken an active part in politics, might be considered as a persona gratissima to all parties owing to his great juridical knowledge, his Parliamentary abilities, and his

1 By an extra-Parliamentary Cabinet in Holland is understood a Government independent of any party, so that no one of its members represents in the Cabinet the party or group to which he may belong.

Р

personal qualities. His acceptance of the mandate was, indeed, greeted with sympathy by the parties of the Right and the Socialists, but met with the strong opposition of his own party, the Liberal Democrats, whom he had not consulted, and who refused to agree to any solution of the crisis except by the formation of a Cabinet on a Parliamentary basis.

On February 16, as the crisis had already lasted for three months and the efforts of Dr. Limburg had not yet been crowned with success, the Socialist group asked for a convocation of the Second Chamber in order to discuss their proposal that the Queen should be advised to dissolve the Second Chamber. This proposal was rejected in the session of March 2. It was, indeed, clear that, with the system of proportional representation, a dissolution of the Chamber followed by new elections would scarcely be calculated to put an end to the crisis. The Socialists and the one Communist member voted in favour of the proposal, the other parties did not condescend even to discuss it.

In the meantime Dr. Limburg had continued his endeavours, but he, too, could not attain his end. He had succeeded in finding persons prepared to sit in his Cabinet, but his idea that the Cabinet should stand or fall by the representation at the Vatican was not shared by his Christian Historical collaborators. On March 3 he requested the Queen to relieve him of his task. Dr. J. B. Kan, the Secretary-General of the Home Department, was next requested to form a Cabinet of functionaries, but he raised difficulties on grounds of public law. Dr. Patijn, the burgomaster of The Hague, having also excused himself, the Queen appealed to Jhr. Dr. D. J. de Geer, formerly a prominent Christian Historical member of the Second Chamber, Minister of Finance and of the Home Department, and the principal collaborator of Dr. Limburg. Dr. de Geer succeeded, on March 5, in forming an extra-Parliamentary Cabinet, composed of himself as President of the Council and Minister of Finance; Jhr. dr. H. A. van Karnebeek (no party), Foreign Affairs; Dr. J. Donner (Anti-Revolutionary), Justice; Dr. J. B. Kan (Liberal), Home Department; Dr. M. A. M. Waszink (Roman Catholic), Education; Professor L. A. van Royen (Liberal), War and also Navy ad interim; Dr. H. van der Vegte (Anti-Revolutionary), Public Works; Professor dr. J. R. Slotemaker de Bruïne, member of the First Chamber (Christian Historical), Labour, Trade, and Industry; and Dr. J. C. Koningsberger, formerly President of the Dutch East Indies People's Council (Liberal), Colonies. Most of the Ministers were new to politics.

On March 11 Jhr. de Geer presented his Cabinet to the Second Chamber, and on April 7 to the First Chamber. He pointed out that his Cabinet was an extra-Parliamentary one, and considered itself merely as a stopgap. It would only remain in office until there should be again a Parliamentary majority prepared to take

over the Government. The programme of the Cabinet was framed in such a way as to enable it to obtain occasional majorities, e.g., further retrenchment and reduction of taxation, further legal regulations for the collective labour contract, and extension of the sphere of the Labour Act. The Cabinet advocated energetic co-operation in all matters calculated to promote the supremacy of law amongst the nations and to lead to simultaneous and mutual reduction of armaments. A fusion of the Departments of War and of the Navy into one Department of Defence was planned, as also a more thorough inquiry into the question of splitting up the Navy into a home and an East Indian fleet, and of a further simplification of the defence arrangements.

In regard to the representation at the Vatican, the Government judged the vote of November 11 to be partly the result of political manœuvres. Another opportunity would therefore be given to deal with the question essentially on its own merits, and in such a way as not to affect the position of any of the Ministers. The decisive vote was taken on March 19, when the Second Chamber, dealing with the Budget for Foreign Affairs, rejected the credit for the Legation at the Vatican by 48 votes to 41 (Roman Catholics and Anti-Revolutionaries). The Liberal Democrats now declared that the arguments of Jhr. van Karnebeek had not convinced them that a Netherlands representation at the Vatican was of great practical use. The Anti-Revolutionaries, in order to give some satisfaction to their Roman Catholic allies, had voted in favour of the Legation, but their Press declared that this was the last time they would give their support, and that, as they had already had trouble enough over this question, they would prefer to see this apple of discord among the groups of the Right disappear. The Christian Historicals. opposed once more the representation at the Vatican.

The position of the De Geer Cabinet after this was well established, and was not shaken even by the resignation, on April 22, of Professor van Royen as Minister of the War and, ad interim, of the Navy, on a conflict with the Cabinet concerning the fusion of the military departments. His place was taken by Mr. J. Lambooy, a Roman Catholic, who had already held this portfolio in the Colijn Cabinet. The fear that this might be a first step towards gradually changing the extra-Parliamentary Government into one of the Right Coalition proved to be groundless.

The Cabinet further strengthened its position in the Budget debate at the end of the year, when it succeeded in reducing the income tax, the household tax, and the death and donation. duties the latter in spite of the keen opposition of the Liberal Democrats and the Socialists-by fully 44 millions. At the same time the Government refused to sanction any increase of expenditure, the strictest economy, in its opinion, being still necessary despite the favourable results of previous years. The financial

year 1925, instead of ending with a deficit of 6-8 millions as anticipated, showed a surplus of 41.6 millions on the ordinary, and of 5.6 millions on the whole, service. For 1926 a surplus of 6.4 millions was estimated; at the end of the year the revenue exceeded that of the previous year by 25 millions and the estimate for 1926 by 31 millions.

Where the Cabinet met with least success was in dealing with the military question. Mr. Lambooy published schemes for the reorganisation of the Army and of the Navy and for a fusion of the military departments. His plans were opposed by the Conservative groups as going too far, and by the Democrats as not going far enough. A Socialist disarmament proposal was put forward, but met with strong opposition. In order to show their readiness to take their share in Governmental responsibility, the Socialists for the first time attended the opening of Parliament by the Queen on September 21.

The elections for the First Chamber did not alter the position of parties. The Right lost one member to the Liberals, leaving a majority of 30 members of the Right to 20 of the Left. The parties of the Right in the First Chamber showed more willingness than those in the Second Chamber to maintain the Coalition.

In the course of the debates on the programme of his new Cabinet in March, Jhr. de Geer had, among other things, stated that in the opinion of the Government the Belgo-Dutch Treaty (vide ANNUAL REGISTER, 1925, p. 217) should be defended as loyally as possible. Further negotiations with Belgium on the subject had been opened in the autumn of 1925, but they were delayed by the crisis. The result of these negotiations was a Protocol, signed on May 18, by the two Governments and appended to the Memorandum of Reply of the Minister of Foreign Affairs. On May 22, moreover, the Netherlands Government concluded at Paris a Treaty with France, Great Britain, and Belgium concerning the abrogation of the Treaties of April 19, 1839, and putting an end to the neutrality imposed on Belgium and the prohibition of Antwerp from being a military port. Though the Protocol met several of the objections brought against the Treaty, it was not able to allay the violent agitation carried on in the Press, in pamphlets, in meetings, and by way of petitions against the Treaty. The agitators had no objection in principle against an agreement with Belgium, but they were of opinion that the Treaty under consideration required too great sacrifices from Holland and did not safeguard sufficiently Dutch commercial, naval, and even political interests, particularly as regarded the situation of the Scheldt in times of war or danger of war. When, in the beginning of November, the Treaty began to be discussed in the Second Chamber, its ratification, in the face of an adverse public opinion, seemed to be out of the question. Jhr. van Karne

beek, however, made a masterly defence of the Treaty, which convinced not only members who were wavering in their judgment, but even declared adversaries. The Minister emphasised the great importance of friendly relations with Belgium, to secure which even great sacrifices were worth making on the part of Holland. He did not share the fears that the execution of this Treaty would entail considerable injury to Dutch interests; it would, indeed, bring Antwerp nearer to the Rhine, but also Rotterdam into closer connexion with the Walloon industrial districts. The rights of sovereignty over the mouth of the Scheldt remained unimpaired. Further negotiations the Minister held impossible. Jhr. van Karnebeek carried his point, and the Chamber, on November 11, rejected by 53 votes to 44 a motion brought forward by members of all parties calling for a suspension of the debate and expressing the opinion that Belgium had not explicitly recognised the Netherlands' standpoint in the matter of its right to close in times of war and danger of war the Western Scheldt to the passage of Belgian warcraft and that the AntwerpMoerdijk Canal, as specified in the Treaty and in the Explanatory Memorandum, would have serious consequences for the Netherlands. The Treaty thereupon was passed by 50 votes to 47 (25 Roman Catholics, 14 Socialists, 10 Anti-Revolutionaries and 1 Peasant against 5 Roman Catholics, 10 Socialists, 2 AntiRevolutionaries, 2 dissident Protestants, 1 Communist, and all the Liberals, the Liberal Democrats, and the Christian Historicals; three members were absent on account of illness). The Treaty was then laid before the First Chamber which, at the close of the year, had dealt with it only by sections. The agitation in the country against the Treaty did not slacken; it even seemed to be encouraged by the scanty majority in the Second Chamber. The antagonists of the Treaty cherish the hope that the First Chamber will pave the way for fresh negotiations with Belgium.

During the year Holland was elected as a non-permanent member of the Council of the League of Nations. The Dutch Government was represented in the Preliminary Economic and the Preliminary Disarmament Commission of the League. In the latter the Dutch delegation expressed the view that the proportion of armaments to be allowed to each country depended on what is understood by armaments. The reduction of armaments ought to be general and simultaneous. The strength of Dutch armaments was determined by the need of defending Dutch territory against all attacks. Though a Colonial Power, Holland had already taken steps in the direction of a reduction of armaments. It was an essential principle for the Netherlands that the armaments of the mother country and of the colonies should be kept separate and organised independently.

Parliament ratified the renewed acceptance by the Netherlands of obligatory jurisdiction in accordance with Article 36 of