Now, listen to this.  The new demand was to repeal the old constitution.  I want to put clearly before the House the position of the Danish Government with respect to this much-talked-of constitution.  There had been in the preceding year a Parliamentary Reform Bill carried in Denmark.  The King died before having given his assent to it, though he was most willing to have done so.  The instant the new King succeeded, the Parliamentary Reform Bill was brought to him.  Of course great excitement prevailed in Denmark, just as it did in England at the time of the Reform Bill under similar circumstances, and the King was placed in a most difficult position.  Now, observe this:  England, who was so obtrusive and pragmatical in the counsels which she gave, who was always offering advice and suggestions, hung back when the question arose whether the new King should give his assent to the Reform Bill or not.  England was selfishly silent, and would incur no responsibility.  The excitement in Copenhagen was great, and the King gave his assent to the Bill.  But mark! at that moment it was not at all impossible that if Her Majesty’s Government had written a dispatch to Copenhagen asking the King not to give his assent to the Bill for the space of six weeks in order to assist England in the negotiations she was carrying on in behalf of Denmark; and if the King had convened his council and laid before them the express wish of an ally who was then looked upon by Denmark with confidence and hope, especially from the time that France had declared she would not assist her, I cannot doubt that the King would have complied with a request that was so important to his fortunes.  But the instant the King had sanctioned the new constitution, the English Government began writing dispatches calling upon him to revoke it.  Aye, but what was his position then?  How could he revoke it?  The King was a constitutional king; he could have put an end to this constitution only by a coup d’etat; and he was not in a position, nor I believe if he were had he the inclination, to do such an act.  The only constitutional course open to him was to call the new Parliament together with the view of revoking the constitution.

But see what would have been the position of affairs then.  In England the Reform Act was passed in 1832, new elections took place under it, and the House assembled under Lord Althorp, as the leader of the Government.  Now, suppose Lord Althorp had come down to that House with a King’s speech recommending them to revoke the Reform Act, and have asked leave to introduce another Bill for the purpose of reforming the constitution, would it not have been asking an utter impossibility?  But how did Her Majesty’s Government act towards Denmark in similar circumstances?  First of all, the noble lord at the head of the Foreign Office wrote to Lord Wodehouse on December 20, giving formal advice to the Danish Government to repeal the constitution, and Lord Wodehouse, who had been sent upon this painful and, I must say, impossible office to the Danish Minister, thus speaks of the way in which he had performed his task: