The Press.
London, England, 1854-08-05 00:00:00

great embarrassment. The Government might add
to the revenue police without material expense, and
thus leave the constabulary to fulfil its proper duties.
The noble lord then moved an amendment, to the
effect that sub-constables should be excluded from

employment upon revenue cases.
Lord CANNING contended that the employment of
the police in suppressing Illicit distillation would not
impair their efficiency, and referred to the authority
of several officers in support of this view. The ex-
periment, limited as it was by the terms of the bill,
could not be productive of any mischief.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE considered that no
good reason had been shown for the diversion of the
constabulary from their regular duties.
The amendment was negatived, but their lordships
afterwards divided upon clause 13, which enables
the Lord Lieutenant to employ the constabulary in
the suppression of illicit distillation.
The numbers were—
For the clause
Against it
Majority for —o
The bill was then passed.
THE RUSSO DUTCH LOAN.
After numerous disappointments, Lord DUDLEY
STUART succeeded on Tuesday in finding an oppor-
tunity to bring forward and enforce his motion setting
forth that, in consequence of the conduct of Russia,
England was freed from all obligation to make any
further payments on account of the Russo-Dutch loan.
The noble lord appended to his motion a eries of
explanatory resolutions, declaring
that the treaty of Vienna stipulates that the navigation of
rivers which separate or cross the states of parties to the treaty
shall be entirely free, from the point where each of them becomes
navigable to its mouth, and that each state bordering on the ri-
vers is to be at the expense of maintaining, through the extent
of its territory, the necessary works, in order that no obstacle may
be experienced to the navigation. That Russia has, notwith-
standing the reiterated remonstrances of this country, wilfully
neglected the duty of maintaining the necessary works in the
channel of the Danube, at the mouth of the Sulina branch,
thereby seriously injuring the commerce of this country. That
there has already been paid from the British treasury, towards
the principal and interest of the Russo-Dutch loan, the sum of
4,110,9681. Is. 10d., and that the liquidation of the remaining part
of the loan will require further annual payments from the British
treasury until the year 1911, amounting to 3,386010. 95. 3d.,
making then the aggregate payment, 7,291,6661., and the average
for each of the 100 years, 14,0781. Ile. Gd. That by the conven-
tion of the leo day of November, 1831, between the King of
Great Britain and the Emperor of Russia, it was agreed by Great
Britain to secure to Russia the payment of a portion of her old
Dutch debt, in consideration of the general arrangements of the
Congress of Vienna, to which she had given her adhesion, arrange.
ments which remain in full force. That this house is, theretore,
of opinion that Russia, having withdrawn that adhesion, and
those arrangements being through her act no longer in force,
the payments from this country on account of that debt should
be henceforth suspended.
These resolutions Lord Dudley now supported by
a variety of arguments and citations tending to prove
that the engagements into which this country had
entered in 1815 for the payment of the loan in ques-
tion were practically bound np in a treaty concluded
in 1831, with various other conditions which Russia had
undertaken to fulfil. As these conditions, and especially
one whereby the free navigation of the Sulina mouth of
the Danube VMS to be kept free from all natural or di-
plomatic obstacles, had been flagrantly violated by the
Russian Government, England was, he contended,
exonerated on her side from the obligation of per-
forming her part of the convention. The observance
of treatie", he argued, should not be one-sided, and
any infraction of their articles on one part justified
reprisals on the other. Even if peace had continued,
this country would have been freed from all further
obligation according to the rules of international law.
War having broken out, there was a fresh argument
in favour of his resolutions, under the hypothesis that
all treaties lapsed upon the occurrence of hostilities.
Sir W. MotEswonxn saw no difference between
the conclusions aimed at in the resolutions now
presented and the doctrine of repudiation. Similar
motions had been made and rejected in 1847, after
the seizure of Cracow, and yet the claim might then
have been resisted with a better grace, since we were
at peace with Russia at that period, while during
war the country was more especially bound in honour
to pay its debts. All modern publicists agreed
in deciding that nations were bound to keep
faith with their creditors without inquiring into
the nationality of those creditors or the accidents
of war or peace between their respective sovereigns.
This doctrine was sanctioned by all modern prac-
tice ; it was the sign and token of our improved
civilisation ; and any attempt to revert to the
system of reprisals was a retrograde step towards
the customs of a bygone barbarism. After laying
down these general principles, Sir W. Molesworth
adverted to the special circumstances under which
the engagements for paying the Dutch loan to Russia
had been entered into by this country. These, he
alleged, involved the payment by England of a large
sum by way of purchase-money for the colonies of the
Cape, Demerara, Essequibo, and Berbice ; and the
continuance of our liability depended not upon war
or peace, but simply upon the abstinence, on the part
of Russia, of any interference with the territorial
arrangements of Belgium and Holland. Russia not