of information on the subject.  This course was according to precedent, because the negotiations were pending; but it was equally in conformity with precedent that, under these circumstances, the House ought not to be called upon to pledge itself to the payment of the money.  It had been stated in an official newspaper, published in Holland, that Russia accompanied the ratification with an important reserve.  The treaty before the House contained twenty-four articles, the execution of which was guaranteed by the contracting parties; but those articles, as far as the distribution of territory was concerned, could not be acted upon until Holland and Belgium should sign and ratify another treaty.  The first question, then, was, Had Belgium and Holland signed the treaty on which the execution of the other depends?  The answer was, No; they had not.  Under these circumstances it was practising a delusion on Parliament to talk of the treaty being ratified.  It was well known that Holland insisted on the modification of three articles contained in this treaty.  She insisted on not being compelled to abandon Luxembourg—­on not being compelled to permit the free access of Belgic navigation to artificial canals—­and on not being compelled to permit the Belgians to make the military roads through the new territories assigned to them.  It was premature to enter into the question whether Holland was right or wrong in insisting on these points; but it was a notorious fact that Russia had accompanied her ratification of the treaty with this reserve—­that Holland shall not be compelled to consent to the articles which she objected to.  This, he might remark, was a proof that the policy of Russia was not concurrent with ours.  It was evident that, if this reservation of Russia were insisted upon, it would be fatal to the treaty, and therefore it was not treating the House fairly to make the dry statement that Russia had ratified the treaty, without informing it whether her ratification was accompanied with such a reservation.  The House ought, also, to be made acquainted with the reasons why the treaty was not ratified at the appointed time.  It was stipulated that the ratifications should be exchanged within six weeks after the signing of the convention.  The signatures were affixed to the convention on November 16; but, from a paper signed by Mr. Pemberton, by order of the Lords of the Treasury, it appeared that the ratifications were not received on June 4.  That was an additional proof that the policy of Russia was not concurrent with our own.  Was it so, when Russia ratified with a reservation?  Did that reservation still exist?  If so, was it consistent with our policy?  It was a mere mockery of the functions of the House of Commons to require it to fulfil the conditions of this convention whilst Ministers were unable to explain the state in which the negotiations stood at the present moment.  It had been justly observed by his hon. friend the member for the University of