It depended upon the action of France what operations Germany might be forced to enter upon in Belgium, but, when the war was over, Belgian integrity would be respected if she had not sided against Germany.

Let the House observe the distinction between those two cases.  In regard to Holland it was not only independence and integrity but also neutrality; but in regard to Belgium, there was no mention of neutrality at all, nothing but an assurance that after the war came to an end the integrity of Belgium would be respected.  Then his Excellency added: 

Ever since he had been Chancellor the object of his policy had been to bring about an understanding with England.  He trusted that these assurances—­the assurances I have read out to the House—­ might form the basis of that understanding which he so much desired.

What does that amount to?  Let me just ask the House.  I do so, not with the object of inflaming passion, certainly not with the object of exciting feeling against Germany, but I do so to vindicate and make clear the position of the British Government in this matter.  What did that proposal amount to?  In the first place, it meant this:  That behind the back of France—­they were not made a party to these communications—­we should have given, if we had assented to that, a free licence to Germany to annex, in the event of a successful war, the whole of the extra-European dominions and possessions of France.  What did it mean as regards Belgium?  When she addressed, as she has addressed in these last few days, her moving appeal to us to fulfil our solemn guarantee of her neutrality, what reply should we have given?  What reply should we have given to that Belgian appeal?  We should have been obliged to say that without her knowledge we had bartered away to the Power threatening her our obligation to keep our plighted word.  The House has read, and the country has read, of course, in the last few hours, the most pathetic appeal addressed by the King of Belgium, and I do not envy the man who can read that appeal with an unmoved heart.  Belgians are fighting and losing their lives.  What would have been the position of Great Britain to-day in the face of that spectacle if we had assented to this infamous proposal?  Yes, and what are we to get in return for the betrayal of our friends and the dishonour of our obligations?  What are we to get in return?  A promise—­nothing more; a promise as to what Germany would do in certain eventualities; a promise, be it observed—­I am sorry to have to say it, but it must be put upon record—­given by a Power which was at that very moment announcing its intention to violate its own treaty and inviting us to do the same.  I can only say, if we had dallied or temporized, we, as a Government, should have covered ourselves with dishonour, and we should have betrayed the interests of this country, of which we are trustees.  I am glad, and I think the, country will be glad, to turn to the reply which my right hon. friend made, and of which I will read to the House two of the more salient passages.  This document, No. 101 of my Paper, puts on record a week ago the attitude of the British Government, and, as I believe, of the British people.  My right hon. friend says: