’ARTICLE VII.  Belgium within the limits specified in Articles I, II, and IV shall form an independent and perpetually neutral state.  It shall be bound to observe such neutrality towards all other states’.[4]

It is unnecessary to elaborate further the point of law.  That, it seems, has been admitted by the Imperial Chancellor before the German Reichstag.  What is necessary to remember is that, in regard to Belgium, Germany has assumed the position which the Government of the French Revolution adopted towards the question of the Scheldt, and which Napoleon adopted towards the guaranteed neutrality of Switzerland and Holland.  Now, as then, England has special interests at stake.  The consequences of the oppression or the extinction of the smaller nationalities are bound to excite peculiar alarm in England.  In particular she cannot forget how she would be menaced by the establishment of a militarist state in Belgium.  But since in England’s case the dangers and uncertainties of a state of things in which Might is treated as Right are particularly apparent, it is only to be expected that she should insist with special emphasis upon the sanctity of treaties, a sanctity which in the long run is as necessary to the strongest nation as to the weakest.  If treaties count for nothing, no nation is secure so long as any imaginable combination of Powers can meet it in battle or diplomacy on equal terms; and the stronger nations must perforce fight one another to the death for the privilege of enslaving civilization.  Whether the progress of such a competition would be a trifling evil, whether the success of any one among such competitors would conduce to the higher interests of humanity, impartial onlookers may debate if they please.  England has answered both these questions with an unhesitating negative.

II

Under existing treaty law the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg stands for all practical purposes in the same legal position as its northern neighbour; and the ruler of Luxemburg has protested against the German invasion[5] of her territory no less emphatically than King Albert, though with less power of giving expression in action to her just resentment.  If the defence of Belgium has appealed more forcibly to the ordinary Englishman, it is because he is more familiar with the past history of Belgium and sees more clearly in her case the ultimate issues that are involved in the German violation of her rights.  As the following narrative will show, the neutrality of Luxemburg was guaranteed in the interests and at the instance of the Prussian state, as a protection against French aggression.  The legal case could not be clearer, and it might perhaps be asked why the attack on Luxemburg, which preceded that on Belgium, was not treated by this country as a casus belli.  England’s attitude towards Luxemburg is that which she has consistently adopted towards those smaller states of Europe which