The Sun.
London, England, 1832-02-07 00:00:00

Crowe to communicate the contents r(
Parliament.—(Hear, bear, hear.)
s,
cation of those three Powers in no -
the engagements entered into by England ;
reason, therefore, why the treaty should not . _
to Parliament. There might be reasons why Hon. Mem •
berm should wish to represent the treaty as incomplete--
(Cheers)—but as far as the engagements of England were
concerned, the transaction was complete. His Majesty's
Government had laid that treaty before Parliament, and
:- withwere rperseppeacrtedt o
Member to bring the subject before that House.
tiot
, defendwh en
ei ty,ear si
tweslhl
oausl d theirpleaioew
aanyconHdounc.t
Mr. CHOKER wished to know whether, according to
' the law of nations, if a treaty were negociated between
I several parties, and only two out of three of the parties,
for instance, ratified it, that ratification was binding on
the parties who had ratified, though the third refused to
come in and ratify?
Lord PALMERSTON had no hesitation in answtring
" Yes" to the question that had just been put. to him. As
far as be was informed of the laws of nations, a treaty
concluded, like the present, between five parties or powers,
two ratifying and three refusing to ratify, the ratifications
was equally binding on those who had ratified, whether
the other three continued to refuse to ratify or not.
RUSSIAN LOAN.
Mr. ROBINSON felt it his duty to advert again to
what bad been said the other night respecting the
state of this country with regard to the Russian
loan. The House would, be had no (lowa, tecollect
that by its vote upon a r+ cent motion it negatived the
proposition that the last payment had not been warranted .
hy the law ; there had been no vote whatever declaring
that the payment had been according to the law, therefore
he, (Mr. Robinson), considered that the question now
rested where it was. On that occasion it was stead that
B. lgium was not separate d from this country—alter
the speech of to-night, however, it was to be hoped
the House would net hear such a declaration from the
Ti easury Bench again. He (Mr. R.) contended that
the Government had no right to make any further ply-
ment on account of the Russian loan without bringing
the whole of the merits of the ett*e before Parliament: He
stated this the more, because on a forrnereaecamon one reason
given as an argument for the continuance.of the payments
by his Majesty's Paymaster of the Forms, was chatn,nstanees
growing out of what had taken place in the years 1830
and 1831. Now if the Gevernment bads any reason for
saying they were bound to make these plyneente atter they
bad been strictly called upon to make them, he (Mr. R.)
had such an opinion of Parliament as to believe that
upon that reason being explained to Parliament, it would
authorise the continuance of the payment. At the saint.
time, according to the strict and literal meaning of the con-
tract, the Hon. Gentleman contended that Government had
no right to snake one more payment without the approba-
tion of Parliament. He asked, therefore, and begged to hare
an answer to his question, whether Government
considered themselves entitled to continue to make
the payments on account of the Ruoian lo ,n, without
first bringing the subject before Parliament ? Should the
Noble Lord opposite state 'in reply that Government
meant on some future occasion to bring the question with
all its details before Parliament, he (Mr. 11.) would allow the,
subject to rest till that time ; but should the Noble Lord say
Government felt themselves authorised to continue the pay-
inents, and meant to continue snaking them, he would
consider such a course an usuipation of the privileges of the
House, and would himself move (if some snore able and
Honourable Member did not think proper to bring tomtits/
such a motion) a resolution to restrain Government frons
making any further payment hereafter on account of the
loan until after Parliament had had all the circuro-
stances submitted to its consideration.

Lord ALTHORP could not pretend to say ,A hat Hon.
Members ought to do, and what they ought to abstain from
doing, upon the exercise of their own discretion. He would
content himself by saying, in answer to the question, as
he understood it put to him, that he was prepared
to contend the separation of Belgium from Holland did nor
relieve this country from continuing its future payments
yet that separation had made such a change in the
circumstances of the case as to render it necessary to con-
sider the question in another form, and which it was un-
doubtedly the intention of his Majesty's Government to
submit to Parliament.—(Loud cheers.)