be ready on every proper occasion to argue—­that there is no measure so well adapted to meet the peculiar character of such an occasion as that which we have proposed.  It is said that the Treaty of 1839 would have sufficed, and that we ought to have announced our determination to abide by it.  But if we were disposed at once to act upon the guarantee contained in that treaty, what state of circumstances does it contemplate?  It contemplates the invasion of the frontiers of Belgium and the violation of the neutrality of that country by some other Power.  That is the only case in which we could have been called upon to act under the Treaty of 1839, and that is the only case in which we can be called upon to act under the treaty now before the House.  But in what, then, lies the difference between the two treaties?  It is in this:  that, in accordance with our obligations, we should have had to act under the Treaty of 1839 without any stipulated assurance of being supported from any quarter whatever against any combination, however formidable; whereas by the treaty now formally before Parliament, under the conditions laid down in it, we secure powerful support in the event of our having to act—­a support with respect to which we may well say that it brings the object in view within the sphere of the practicable and attainable, instead of leaving it within the sphere of what might have been desirable, but which might have been most difficult, under all the circumstances, to have realized.  The hon. member says that by entering into this engagement we have destroyed the Treaty of 1839.  But if he will carefully consider the terms of this instrument he will see that there is nothing in them calculated to bear out that statement.  It is perfectly true that this is a cumulative treaty, added to the Treaty of 1839, as the right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli), with perfect precision, described it.  Upon that ground I very much agree with the general opinion he expressed; but, at the same time, peculiar circumstances call for a departure from general rules, and the circumstances are most peculiar under which we have thought it right to adopt the method of proceeding which we have actually done.  The Treaty of 1839 loses nothing of its force even during, the existence of this present treaty.  There is no derogation from it whatever.  The Treaty of 1839 includes terms which are expressly included in the present instrument, lest by any chance it should be said that, in consequence of the existence of this instrument, the Treaty of 1839 had been injured or impaired.  That would have been a mere opinion; but it is an opinion which we thought lit to provide against.  The hon. member has said that this is a most peculiar method of bringing a treaty before the House.  I admit it.  There is no doubt at all that it is so.  But it is not easy to say what circumstances there are that will justify the breaking up of general rules in a matter so delicate and important as the making of communications to Parliament