being desirous at the present time of recording in a solemn
     act their fixed determination to maintain the independence and
     neutrality of Belgium,

as provided in the Treaty of 1839, have concluded this separate treaty, which,

     without impairing or invalidating the conditions of the said
     Quintuple Treaty, shall be subsidiary and accessory to it.

Article III. further provided that these Treaties of 1870 were to expire twelve months after the conclusion of the existing war, and that thereafter the independence and neutrality of Belgium would “continue to rest, as heretofore,” on the Treaty of 1839.

These documents tell a plain tale, which is amply confirmed by the proceedings in Parliament in connection with this matter.  On Aug. 5, 1870, while the negotiations leading to the above-mentioned treaties were still pending, questions were raised in the House of Commons about the recently published abortive Treaty of 1866-7 between Prussia and France.  In reply Gladstone stated that

     the Treaty of 1839 is that under which the relations of the
     contracting powers with Belgium are at present regulated;

and that, while he could not explain the intentions of the Government “in a matter of this very grave character in answer to a question,” he hoped to be able to communicate some further information in an authentic manner.  Three days later, as these treaties with France and Prussia had been virtually concluded, Gladstone was able to satisfy the anxiety of the House and outlined their terms.  He explicitly stated that, after their expiration,

     the respective parties, being parties to the Treaty of 1839,
     shall fall back upon the obligations they took upon themselves
     under that treaty.

After Gladstone had finished speaking the leader of the opposition, Disraeli, took the floor and pointed out 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: