Seeing that a guaranteeing State has no right to interfere in our internal concerns, not even in anything we think good for our defence, we shall always be free to keep up a military force, large or small. But a neutralized State is obliged to disarm the troops of other belligerent powers that may overstep its frontiers, just as of course, under the lawless condition which war is and which it entails, it has, according to its ability, to protect its boundaries with arms. But if this duty cannot exempt Switzerland and Belgium from proportionately large war burdens in time of peace, this would not at all in the same degree affect the neutralization of the Scandinavian peninsula, since there could never be a question of disarming troops which had overstepped its boundaries, but only of preventing the war-ships of a belligerent power from entering Norwegian or Swedish seas, a thing which, under the protection of a guaranteed neutrality, could not take place. Respecting the fifth objection, which declares that the proposition is untimely, I do not hesitate to express my opinion that just now, during the truce which prevails, is the time to bring it forward. The need of a settled peace increases everywhere, and it is therefore probable that a proposition to the great powers respecting a guaranteed neutrality for the united kingdoms would meet with general sympathy in Europe. On these and many other grounds I sought to maintain my proposition. It was opposed by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Baron Hochschild, amongst others, who declared that he could not possibly support it. He informed us that the whole of his colleagues in the Government took the same view of the subject as himself. He desired that the bill as well as the contingent appointment of a committee should be thrown out totally and entirely. As the minister in this way has made the matter into a cabinet question, there could not well, under the present conditions, be any question of the adoption of the bill. In spite of this, however, the request of the Foreign Minister was not complied with, seeing the Second Chamber adopted an amendment after fifty-three members had voted for the acceptance of the original bill. By the amendment which was adopted, the Chamber did not accept the grounds of the committee's opinion--which the Foreign Secretary approved--but, in the hope that the Government would spontaneously carry out the chief object of the bill, accepted for the present the report of the committee that no address be sent to the King on the subject. By reason of this result in the Second Chamber no action was taken in the First on the matter.[21]