heretofore on the 1st Article of the Quintuple Treaty of the
19th of April, 1839.

Much has been made by Mr. Shaw and others of an excerpt from a speech
of Mr. Gladstone in 1870. In that speech, Mr. Gladstone, as an
abstract proposition, declined to accept the broad statement that
under all circumstances the obligations of a treaty might continue,
but there is nothing to justify the belief that Mr. Gladstone in any
respect questioned either the value or the validity of the Treaty of
1839 with respect to Belgium.

Those who invoke the authority of Gladstone should remember that he
also said:

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 the answer to the question
whether, under the circumstances 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
participators in the sin.

These words of the great statesman read as a prophecy.

While these treaties were simply declaratory of the rights, which
Belgium independently enjoyed as a sovereign nation, yet this
solemn guarantee of the great Powers of Europe was so effective that
even in 1870, when France and Germany were locked in vital conflict,
and the question arose whether Prussia would disregard her treaty
obligation, the Iron Chancellor, who ordinarily did not permit moral
considerations to warp his political policies, wrote to the Belgian
minister in Berlin on July 22, 1870:

In confirmation of my verbal assurance, I have the honor to
give in writing a declaration, which, in view of the
treaties in force, _is quite superfluous_, that the
Confederation of the North and its allies (Germany) will
respect the neutrality of Belgium on the understanding of
course that it is respected by the other belligerent.

At that time, Belgium had so fine a sense of honor, that although it
was not inconsistent with the principles of international law, yet in
order to discharge her obligations of neutrality in the spirit as well
as the letter, she restricted the clear legal right of her people to
supply arms and ammunition to the combatants, thus construing the
treaty to her own disadvantage.

It can be added to the credit of both France and Prussia t