I am bound to say that the noble lord spoke with all that perspicuity and complete detail with which he always treats diplomatic subjects, and in which we acknowledge him to be a master.  The noble lord entered into particulars and gave to the House—­who, with few exceptions, knew little about the matter—­not only a popular, but generally an accurate account of the whole question.  He described the constitution of the Diet itself.  He explained, for the first time in Parliament, what federal execution meant.  The noble lord was a little unhappy in his prophecy as to what was going to happen with regard to federal execution; but we are all liable to error when we prophesy, and it was the only mistake he made.  The noble lord said he did not think there would be a federal execution, and that if there were we might be perfectly easy in our minds, for it would not lead to any disturbance in Europe.  The noble lord also described the position of Holstein as a German duchy, in which the King of Denmark was a sovereign German prince, and in that capacity a member of the Diet, and subject to the laws of the Diet.  The duchy of Schleswig, the noble lord said, was not a German duchy, and the moment it was interfered with, international considerations would arise.  But the noble lord informed us in the most reassuring spirit that his views on our relations with Denmark were such as they had always been.  I will quote the exact passage from the noble lord’s speech, not because it will not be familiar to the majority of those whom I am addressing, but because on an occasion like the present, one should refer to documents, so that it may not be said afterwards that statements have been garbled or misrepresented.  The noble lord concluded his general observations in this manner: 

We are asked what is the policy and the course of Her Majesty’s Government respecting that dispute.  We concur entirely with the honourable gentleman (the member for Horsham), and, I am satisfied, with all reasonable men in Europe, including those in France and Russia, in desiring that the independence, the integrity, and the rights of Denmark may be maintained.  We are convinced—­I am convinced at least—­that if any violent attempt were made to overthrow those rights, and interfere with that independence, those who made the attempt would find in the result that it would not be Denmark alone with which they would have to contend.

I say that is a clear, statesmanlike, and manly declaration of policy.  It was not a hurried or hasty expression of opinion, because on a subject of that importance and that character, the noble lord never makes a hasty expression of opinion.  He was master of the subject, and could not be taken by surprise.  But on that occasion there was no chance of his being taken by surprise.  The occasion was arranged.  The noble lord was perfectly informed of what our object on this side was.  The noble lord sympathized with it.  He wanted the disquietude of the public mind in England, and on the Continent especially, to be soothed and satisfied, and he knew that he could not arrive at such a desirable result more happily and more completely than by a frank expression of the policy of the Government.