I should also like to mention the great assistance rendered to us all by my American colleague, Mr. Gerard, and his staff. Undeterred by the hooting and hisses with which he was often greeted by the mob on entering and leaving the Embassy, his Excellency came repeatedly to see me to ask how he could help us, and to make arrangements for the safety of stranded British subjects. He extricated many of these from extremely difficult situations at some personal risk to himself, and his calmness and _savoir-faire_ and his firmness in dealing with the Imperial authorities gave full assurance that the protection of British subjects and interests could not have been left in more efficient and able hands. At the sitting of the House of Commons on August 26th, Mr. Keir Hardie exhibited a tendency to quibble and to show his own country in a wrong light. His interference on this occasion was, from his point of view, fruitless; but it had the advantage of enabling the Foreign Secretary to make an effective reply. In his statement, Sir Edward Grey dealt with a few points which, although not at all obscure, were all the better for emphasizing. The temper of the House is sufficiently well indicated by the cheers and interruptions recorded in the following report: Mr. KEIR HARDIE (Lab., Merthyr Tydvil) inquired of the Foreign Secretary whether the suggestions for a peace settlement made by the German Ambassador, together with his invitation to the Foreign Secretary to put forward proposals of his own, which would be acceptable as a basis for neutrality, were submitted to and considered by the Cabinet; and, if not, why proposals involving such far-reaching possibilities were thus rejected. Sir E. GREY: These were personal suggestions made by the Ambassador on August 1st, and without authority, to alter the conditions of neutrality proposed to us by the German Chancellor in No. 85, in the White Paper.[4] The Cabinet did, however, consider most carefully the next morning--that is Sunday, August 2nd--the conditions on which we could remain neutral, and came to the conclusion that respect for the neutrality of Belgium must be one of these conditions. The German Chancellor had already been told, on July 30th, that we could not bargain that away. On Monday, August 3rd, I made a statement in the House, accordingly.[5] I had seen the German Ambassador again, at his own request, on Monday, and he urged me most strongly, though he said that he did not know the plans of the German military authorities, not to make the neutrality of Belgium one of our conditions when I spoke in the House. It was a day of great pressure, for we had another Cabinet in the morning, and I had no time to record the conversation. Therefore, it does not appear in the White Paper; but it was impossible to withdraw that condition--(loud cheers)--without becoming a consenting party to the violation of the treaty, and subsequently to a German attack on Belgium.