But, Sir, another event of which I must now remind the House happened about that time.  In November the King of Denmark died.  The death of the King of Denmark entirely changed the character of the question between Germany and Denmark.  The question was a federal question before, as the noble lord, from the dispatches I have read, was perfectly aware; but by the death of the King of Denmark it became an international question, because the controversy of the King of Denmark was with the Diet of Germany, which had not recognized the change in the lex regia, or the changes in the succession to the various dominions of the King.  It was, therefore, an international question of magnitude and of a menacing character.  Under these circumstances, when the question became European, when the difficulties were immensely magnified and multiplied—­the offer of a Congress having been made on November 5, and not refused until the 27th, the King of Denmark having died on the 16th—­it was, I say, with the complete knowledge of the increased risk and of the increased dimensions of the interests at stake, that the noble lord sent that answer to the invitation of the Emperor of the French.  I say, Sir, that at this moment it became the Government of England seriously to consider their position.  With the offer of the Congress and with the death of the King of Denmark—­with these two remarkable events before the noble lord’s eyes, it is my duty to remind the House of the manner in which the noble lord the Secretary of State addressed the European Powers.  Neither of these great events seems to have induced the noble lord to modify his tone.  On November 19, the King having just died, the Secretary of State writes to Sir Alexander Malet, our Minister to the Diet, to remind him that all the Powers of Europe had agreed to the treaty of 1852.  On the 20th he writes a letter of menace to the German Powers, saying that Her Majesty’s Government expect, as a matter of course, that all the Powers will recognize the succession of the King of Denmark as heir of all the states which, according to the Treaty of London, were united under the sceptre of the late King.  And on the 23rd, four days before he refused the invitation to the Congress, he writes to Lord Bloomfield: 

Her Majesty’s Government would have no right to interfere on behalf of Denmark if the troops of the Confederation should enter Holstein on federal grounds.  But if execution were enforced on international grounds, the Powers who signed the treaty of 1852 would have a right to interfere.  (No. 3, 230.)

To Sir Augustus Paget, our Minister at Copenhagen, on November 30—­the House will recollect that this was after he had refused the Congress, after the King had died, and after the question had become an international one—­he writes announcing his refusal of the Congress and proposing the sole mediation of England.  Then he writes to Sir Alexander Malet in the same month, that Her Majesty’s Government can only leave to Germany the sole responsibility of raising a war in Europe, which the Diet seemed bent on making.