in this respect—­the conduct of the French Chambers with regard to Poland.  It has been the custom of the Chamber of Deputies in France annually to protest at the commencement of the Session against the acts of the Emperor Nicholas, and to make a declaration in favour of the nationality of Poland.  I think that such annual declarations are illusive; for while they have been made in this manner, they have been followed up by no measures; they are made by a representative assembly, without any action following on that declaration.  Be it observed how great is the difference between that and a protest on the part of a Sovereign.  The Sovereign, by prerogative, entrusted with this power of making treaties, is forced of necessity to some opinion or other—­of tacit acquiescence, of favourable and applauding concurrence, or one involving remonstrance and reproach—­some course or other is forced upon the Executive Government of the country.  But with regard to the House of Commons, it is not necessary, in the ordinary course of foreign affairs, that this House should at all interfere or declare its opinion on these subjects.  I can see no advantage in altering that usual course.  I do not think there would be any advantage in bringing these subjects frequently or constantly before the House, with a view to a declaration of opinion—­I think the House would gain no respect by a deviation from its usual custom.  That is my reason, therefore, while I could have no objections to urge in opinion against this resolution—­for I have already declared what is my opinion with regard to the extinction of the free state of Cracow—­why I object to its being made a resolution of the House of Commons; and on that point I should be disposed to move the previous question.  With regard to the other resolution, I should act in like manner.  That resolution says that—­

’Russia, having withdrawn that adhesion (to the Treaty of Vienna), and those arrangements being through her act no longer in force, the payments from this country on account of the loan should be henceforth suspended.’

Now, that is entirely a different question.  The arrangements at the time of the Treaty of Vienna involved an union of Belgium with Holland; and there being a debt in Holland which was payable, and the interest of which was payable by Russia, Great Britain took upon herself the payment of the interest of that debt, in consideration of Russia being a party to that arrangement.  When, after that, these two countries were separated, Russia no longer attempted to maintain that arrangement; and, therefore, by the letter of the treaty, England might then have said, ’You no longer maintain the union of Belgium with Holland; and therefore as you do not comply with the letter of that treaty, we are free from the discharge of the interest of that debt.’  But although this would have been in perfect and entire conformity with the letter of the treaty, it would have been most inconsistent with