There can be no doubt that the purpose of that treaty was one which entitled it to the respect of the communities of Europe.  Its language is simple and expresses its purpose.  The Powers who concluded that treaty announced that they concluded it, not from their own will or arbitrary impulse, but at the invitation of the Danish Government, in order to give to the arrangements relative to the succession an additional pledge of stability by an act of European recognition.  If honourable gentlemen look to that treaty—­and I doubt not that they are familiar with it—­they will find the first article entirely occupied with the recitals of the efforts of the King of Denmark—­and, in his mind, successful efforts—­to make the necessary arrangements with the principal estates and personages of his kingdom, in order to effect the requisite alterations in the lex regia regulating the order of succession; and the article concludes by an invitation and appeal to the Powers of Europe, by a recognition of that settlement, to preserve his kingdom from the risk of external danger.

Sir, under that treaty England incurred no legal responsibility which was not equally entered into by France and by Russia.  If, indeed, I were to dwell on moral obligations—­which I think constitute too dangerous a theme to introduce into a debate of this kind—­but if I were to dwell upon that topic, I might say that the moral obligations which France, for example, had incurred to Denmark, were of no ordinary character.  Denmark had been the ally of France in that severe struggle which forms the most considerable portion of modern history, and had proved a most faithful ally.  Even at St. Helena, when contemplating his marvellous career and moralizing over the past, the first emperor of the dynasty which now governs France rendered justice to the complete devotion of the Kings of Denmark and Saxony, the only sovereigns, he said, who were faithful under all proof and the extreme of adversity.  On the other hand, if we look to our relations with Denmark, in her we found a persevering though a gallant foe.  Therefore, so far as moral obligations are concerned, while there are none which should influence England, there is a great sense of gratitude which might have influenced the councils of France.  But, looking to the treaty, there is no legal obligation incurred by England towards Denmark which is not equally shared by Russia and by France.

Now, the question which I would first ask the House is this:  How is it that, under these circumstances, the position of France relative to Denmark is one so free from embarrassment—­I might say, so dignified—­that she recently received a tribute to her demeanour and unimpeachable conduct in this respect from Her Majesty’s Secretary of State; while the position of England, under the same obligation, contained in the same treaty, with relation to Denmark, is one, all will admit, of infinite perplexity, and, I am afraid I must add, terrible