In this connection I quote the British sentiment, as expressed by
Gladstone regarding Belgium neutrality in the year 1870:
But I am not able to subscribe to the doctrine of those who
have held in this House, what plainly amounts to the assertion
that the simple fact of the existence of a guarantee is
binding to every party to it, irrespective altogether of the
particular position in which it may find itself at the time
when the occasion for _acting on the question arises_.
This shows that England herself reserved the right, whenever her
interests required her to do so, to act in violation of the treaty with
Belgium. That, at least, is my understanding of Gladstone's language.
England did not respect Danish neutrality a hundred years ago, when she
destroyed the Danish fleet at Copenhagen because her interests required,
and England does not now, through its Asiatic ally, and directly,
respect Chinese neutrality, claiming the right primarily to consult her
own interests. Should this right, asserted by our own Supreme Court, and
actually assumed by England and Japan, be denied to Germany? Finally, I
understand that The Hague Conference of 1907 drafted a convention which
reads:
The territory of neutral powers is inviolable.
Pages:
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438