that, as a general proposition,

when there is a treaty guarantee so explicit as that expressed
in the Treaty of 1839, I think the wisdom of founding on that
another treaty which involves us in engagements may be open to
doubt.

But he accepted Gladstone's statement

as the declaration of the Cabinet, that they are resolved to
maintain the neutrality and independence of Belgium, I accept
it as a wise and spirited policy, and a policy, in my opinion,
not the less wise because it is spirited.

Gladstone then replied, saying that the reason the Government had not
made a general declaration of its intentions regarding Belgium was that
much danger might arise from such a declaration and that inadvertently
they might have given utterance to words

that might be held to import obligations almost unlimited and
almost irrespectively of circumstances.

We had made up our minds, he continued, that we had a duty to perform,
and we thought a specific declaration of what we thought the obligations
of this country better than any general declaration. Referring to the
two treaties in process of ratification, he concluded:

We thought that by contracting a joint engagement we might
remove the difficulty and prevent Belgium from being
sacrificed.

The policy of the Government continued, however, to be criticised,
mainly on the ground that the Treaty of 1839 amply covered the case. On
Aug. 10 Gladstone defended his policy in the House of Commons in a
speech pitched on a high moral plane, in which he dilated upon Belgium's
historic past and splendid present and on Great Britain's duty to this
little nation irrespective of all questions of its own self-interest.
With genuine fervor, he exclaimed:

If, in order to satisfy a greedy appetite for aggrandisement,
coming whence it may, Belgium were absorbed, the day that
witnessed that absorption would hear the knell of public right
and public law in Europe.... We have an interest in the
independence of Belgium which is wider than that which we may
have in the literal operation of the guarantee. It is found in
answer to the question whether under the circumstance of the
case this country, endowed as it is with influence and power,
would quietly stand by and witness the perpetration of the
direst crime that ever stained the pages of history, and thus
become participat