Article 53 of the Hague Convention of 1907 prohibits occupying powers from seizing property in occupied countries other than armaments, means of transport, military stores and supplies, etc., and cash funds and realizable securities which are strictly the property of the State. Occupying powers may, on payment of compensation, requisition the property of private individuals to meet the immediate requirements of their own armed forces. Otherwise, the seizure of private property is prohibited, and, therefore, an occupying power which took over the gold deposits of Joint-Stock Banks, or the machinery of a privately-owned company, or shares in a privately-owned concern, would be guilty of looting. The same is true as regards art treasures, the contents of libraries and, generally speaking, the property of all institutions, such as hospitals, educational establishments, universities, etc., whether privately-owned or the property of the State.

2. There is no precise international rule prohibiting a neutral from receiving in its territory private property wrongly seized and appropriated by an occupying power. But in so far as a neutral power who facilitated the concealment or transfer of looted property would thereby be aiding and abetting a breach of the Hague Convention and hindering proper restitution, most neutral Governments would probably feel bound to do what they could to prevent their territories and nationals being concerned in such dealings.

3. To a large extent, therefore, Mr. Gray's Note of the 2nd October¹ asks us to do nothing more than, as a neutral country, we would probably be disposed to do of our own initiative in any case. But the request made in Mr. Gray's Note is not altogether restricted to the limits of breaches of the Hague Convention. It is all right to ask us to prevent the disposition or transfer within our territory of looted gold, currency, art objects, securities, etc., but it is quite another question to ask us to prevent the concealment by fraudulent means … of assets belonging to, or alleged to belong to, enemy leaders, their associates and collaborators. No doubt, the underlying intention of the latter request is that a large part of the assets of 'enemy leaders' would consist of property looted from occupied countries; but that is not expressly stated.

4. We obviously don't want to get into a tangle with Mr. Gray as to what does or does not constitute 'looting', or as to what, if anything, a neutral Government might reasonably be expected to do to prevent dealings in property which is merely alleged or suspected to consist of, or to contain, assets wrongfully appropriated in occupied countries. I think we can brush this point aside by simply saying that we are prepared to prevent dealings here in property 'wrongfully appropriated in the present war'. That formula seems to me to constitute a satisfactory reply to Mr. Gray's Note and to be narrow enough to safeguard ourselves against any charge of going further than the attitude which a neutral country would naturally seek to adopt in any matter in dispute between the two belligerents. We must remember further that although, in replying to this Note, we would not wish to sound too hostile to the Germans, we would, at the same time, not wish to sound too callous about the interests of countries like France, Belgium, Holland and Poland, which probably have large and legitimate claims in this matter against the German State.

5. So far as we are concerned, we have only had, so far as I can remember, one case of the disposal of property here which could be regarded as coming within the terms of Mr. Gray's Note. About two years ago, we received, through the bag, for the German Minister about £3,200 worth of stock in the Éire Financial Agreement Loan 1938, which appeared from the accompanying papers to have been the property of a Bank in Holland. Herr Hempel negotiated the stock through the Munster and Leinster Bank. The transfer was admitted by the Bank of Ireland and, so far as I know, the stock was acquired by the Minister for Finance for the Sinking Fund.²

6. It will be remembered, of course, in connection with this whole matter that all debts due to persons in Germany, as well as all stocks, shares, and other negotiable assets held in this country on behalf of persons in Germany are due to be paid or surrendered to the Minister for Finance under the recent Emergency Powers Order.