possession of the colonies she had given up to this country; how then would the case stand?  If Holland was justified in refusing to pay a portion of the loan, surely she would, in the case he was supposing, be equally justified in refusing to pay the whole; and, therefore, if this country had not been put in possession of the Dutch colonies, Holland would have retained her colonies and would have no debt to pay.  But England had the colonies, and to what Power then, according to the reasoning of the hon. member, ought England to make the payment of her portion of the loan?  Surely to Holland.  It might be very convenient, for ensuring Russian acquiescence, to make the payment to Russia, but certainly, according to the reasoning of the hon. member (Mr. Gisborne), it was anything but just.  But he never would admit that Holland had behaved with harshness or injustice to Belgium, or that the revolt was justifiable by the conduct of Holland.  The revolution in Belgium followed as a consequence from the revolution in France.  If the French Revolution had not occurred, they would have heard nothing of the separation of Belgium from Holland; and we had no pretext in the misconduct of Holland for exonerating ourselves from our pecuniary obligations to that country.  He wished not to enter upon the question of the policy pursued by His Majesty’s Government with respect to Belgium; but he could not help smiling when he heard an hon. member contend that to place Prince Leopold on the throne of Belgium was a matter of great advantage to this country; because, forsooth, that prince had formerly been allied to a daughter of the King of England.  What did the hon. member think of the alliance which the King of Belgium was now about to form?  If a matrimonial alliance, that had now ceased fifteen years, was to have so powerful an influence over King Leopold’s politics, what did the hon. member think would be the effect of a marriage with one of the daughters of the King of the French?  If the former connexion had made Leopold an English prince, would not the new connexion make him a French prince, and would not all the advantages of placing him on the throne, which were expected to belong to England, in reality belong to France?  He implored the Government not to drive the House to a premature discussion of those matters.  The payment could not rest upon the old convention, but must depend upon the new, mixed up with considerations arising out of the old.  The Government had been rescued from a vote of censure, and might, therefore, without difficulty, consent to a postponement of the question.  He asked not for an indefinite postponement, but as long a one as the duration of the session would authorize.  A premature discussion on Belgian affairs was open to great objection.  It was true that the five Powers had agreed to the separation, and had recognized King Leopold, but it was also true that none of the necessary arrangements were yet completed.  The last article of the convention clearly proved that