218 TRANSACTIONS OF SECTION E. 



moreover, riparian sovereignty must be limited, even in the interests of the 

 riparians themselves, for the presence of non-riparians on the executive may be, 

 and has been on the Danube, of the greatest value in minimising friction amongst 

 the riparians. In this respect France has played a most honourable part, 

 generally supported by Britain, especially on the Danube, where, e.g., Austria 

 tried to exclude Bavaria from the deliberations about the river, and to dominate 

 and intimidate the representatives of the lower riparians. Indeed, it was only 

 the day before yesterday that we had the gratification of reading the German 

 decision to ' exclude French and British representatives from the Danube Com- 

 mission on the ground that they had hindered the ships of the more important 

 nations from obtaining 'priority of treatment.' What greater compliment could 

 have been paid to us? 



The fact only emphasises the vital point referred to above, that different 

 parts of the same river have different conditions and may need different 

 treatment, i.e., that even riparians have not all naturally equal use of the 

 river, and that the strongest or the most favourably situated can grossly 

 misuse their opportunities. The Dutch showed this on the Rhine in 1816, and 

 the Austrians on the Danube in 1856. Obviously, such differences are, in 

 themselves, potential causes of serious trouble; riparians have not necessarily 

 and naturally real equality even when the executive consists of only one 

 representative from each riparian State. The greater opportunities of expan- 

 sion, political and economic, on the lower river may favour the growth of a 

 stronger Power; and the State with the largest share of the river or the 

 best position on it has already advanta.ge over the others. iFor instance, the 

 Dutch on the Maas and the Russians on the Danube have indulged in ' voluntary 

 negligence ' ; it was in this way that Russia blocked the mouth of the Danube, 

 and that Holland made it impossible for the Belgians to continue their com- 

 mercial navigation on the Meuse down through Holland to the sea, though, 

 since the discovery of coal in Limburg, the Belgians have — stupidly — turned 

 the tables on Holland to some extent. A low riparian may no more monopolise 

 or ruin navigation on the lower course of a river than a high riparian may 

 poison or exhaust its upper waters. The river is a unit, and its unity is essential 

 to the fulfilling of its duties in the evolution of world commerce; and, therefore, 

 it needs a unity of administration. This is best secured by a commission of 

 riparians and non-riparians, and such conditions facilitate the use of a river 

 as a political boundary. 



Nearly all the important details involved in the internationalising of navig- 

 able^ rivers have been illustrated already in the history of Rhine and Danube, 

 and in both cases France has been an admiraWe guide to Europe. On the Rhine, 

 as I have mentioned, she abolished in 1795 most of the restrictions which had 

 made the river practically useless even to riparians; and that she was not 

 thinking only of her own interests was proved by her attempt — defeated by 

 Holland— to extend the freedom of the river to 'all nations in 1797. Again 

 in the Convention of Paris (1804) France enforced unity of administration — 

 sharing this with Germany on the ground that the river was of special concern 

 to herself and Germany, as she has shared the administration of the Niger with 

 us in recent years on the same ground. 



The Rhine thus received a simple, just, uniform administration, which is 

 a model for us now. All tolls were abolished except two — one on the boat 

 and the other on the cargo — ^^vhich were to be only large enough to meet the 

 upkeep of the waterway, and were to be used for no other purposes. These 

 tolls could be paid in each political area with the coin of that area, but a 

 fixed ratio was maintained between the various coinages. 



Of course, in 1815 France was ousted from the bank of the river : and in 

 the reorganisation elaborated by the Congress of Vienna Von Humboldt, the 

 Prussian representative, adroitly introduced into the regulations for the Central 

 Commission of Riparian Representatives words which were afterwards made 

 to mean exactly the opposite of the freedom enforced by France, and exactly 

 the opposite of what our British diplomats at the time thought and said that 

 they meant ! Not only so ; but during the sixteen long years while France 

 remained more or less submerged, Holland was allowed to make the whole 

 .scheme ridiculous by the claim that ' to the sea ' did not mean ' out into the 

 sea,' and that a tidal estuary was ' sea.' The Regulations of Mainz gave each 



