asked, was this money to be ultimately paid or not?  He would say this:  unquestionably it was to be paid, if the country was bound to its payment by good faith.  He would not tarnish the fair fame of the country for any sum whatever, upon any occasion, but more especially upon an occasion on which England had received a valuable consideration.  When we incurred this responsibility on the behalf of Holland, we received from that country the colonies of the Cape of Good Hope, Demerara, Essequibo, and Berbice; we still retained those colonies, they were valuable possessions, and therefore we were the more strictly bound not to shrink from any equitable obligation we had incurred.  He agreed with his hon. friends that the money might be due from England; but to whom ought it to be paid?  He could by no means admit that the first convention justified the second as a matter of course; but still there might be circumstances, not at present known to the House, which would still call for the continued payment to Russia, and authorize the new convention:  but what those circumstances were, the House had a right to know before it was called upon to ratify the convention.  The noble lord said, this country was bound to continue the payment to Russia by the good faith that Power had evinced.  It appeared that, when the separation was about to take place between Holland and Belgium, Russia said, ’I am ready to fulfil the treaty; my troops shall march upon Belgium, to continue the incorporation.’  ‘Oh! no,’ said England, ’our policy is altered; we wish the separation to take place.’  ‘Very well,’ was the reply of Russia, ’continue to me the payment, and I am ready to subscribe to your policy with respect to Holland and Belgium.’  Such might be the fact; but, if it were, it ought to be established.  The documents proving that to be the case ought to be in the possession of the House before it was called upon to ratify the treaty.  The King might make a new treaty under a new system of policy, but it was for the House to say, in a case in which the payment of money was concerned, whether it would enable the King to execute such a treaty.  If it were proved that this country had induced Russia, by a promise of the continuance of the payment, to act in the manner she had done, that gave rise to a new case, and a new convention was necessary, the policy of which depended upon many mixed considerations.  He had said, he was not free from doubts as to whom the money ought to be paid.  An hon. member (Mr. Gisborne), who had argued the question ably, had said that Holland was badly used; but the same hon. member contended that England was exonerated from making the payment to Holland on account of the unjust and impolitic conduct of that country to Belgium.  That argument appeared to him most unsatisfactory.  The hon. member admitted that Holland had a right to refuse to pay her part of the loan to Russia.  Let him suppose that the whole of the loan had been payable by Holland, and that that country had retained