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

SA.TV=U,

having infringed this condition, the obligation of
England still remained; and international law, acts
of Parliament, and public honour, alike bound her
to its fulfilment. He trusted the house would
reject a proposition which was more worthy the
delegate of some obscure and bankrupt transatlantic
state than the representative of a metropolitan
county.
Mr. D. SEYMOUR supported the resolutions, cor.-
tending that the loan was secured to Russia by a
S9lOlllll covenant which Russia herself had broken.
The ATTORNEY-CiENEPAL, in opposing the motion,
argued that the character of the transaction was not
the payment of a debt, but the honourable completii n
of a bargain.
Lord D. STUART replied; and after a few words
from Mr. Cayley and Sir D. Norreys,
The house divided—
For the motion 6
Against

RUSSIAN SECURITIES BILL.
The consideration of this bill, whose progress
through the house had been marked by so many Mi-
nisterial differences of opinion, was resumed on Wee-
nesday by the Commons. No sooner, however, had
the house go: into committee on the measure than
the SOISCITOR•GENERAL proposed to supersede its
principal clause, and substitute another of very di.-
ferent texture. The amended formula, which may
be said to contain the whole pith and purport of tl

bill, ran as follows
" If, during the continuance of hostilities between her Majesty
and the Emperor of Buss* any British subject bind', in any
country, wilfully or knowingly take, acquire, become possessed
of, or interested in any stocks, funds, scrip, bonds, debenture'',
or securities fur money, which, since the 29th day of Margin
1854, have or bath been, or which, during the continuance of
tilitiee as aforesaid, shall be created, issued, entered into, or
cured by or in the name of the Government of Russia, or any
person or persons on its behalf, every person so taking, ac-
quiring, becoming possessed of, or interested in any such
stocks, funds, scrip, bonds, debentures, or securities for motley,
as aforesaid, shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and, upon being
convicted thereof, shall be imprisoned for a term of not less than
three calendar months. Provided always, that the provisions of
this act shall not extend to or include the case of a British sub-
ject claiming an interest in the estate or effects of any deceased
person, or the case of a British subject taking the estate or
effects of his debtor in execution, or the case of a British subject
claiming in any country to be interested under any bankluptcy,
insolvency, sequestration, ceesio bonorum, or disposition of pro-
perty in trust for creditors, but that in every such case tho
British subject may take and receive any share, legacy. dividend,
debt or emu of money due or belonging to him, notwithstanding
that the same may arise from or be produced by the sale or pro-
ceeds of any such stocks, funds, scrip, bonds, debentures, ur se-
curities for money as aforesaid."
A preliminary discussion then took place respect-
ing the relative eligibility of the old or the new clause.
During this debate Lord D. Stuart remained aloof,
in an attitude of neutrality, apparently indifferent on
the subject. Finally, his lause was struck out, and
Sir It. Bethell's version adopted. The discussion af-
terwards proceeded upon the general principles
in-
volved in the measure, and assumed a very discursive,
and in some instances personal, character.
Dr. PHILLIMORE supported the bill, which, he
thought, was based upon a sound principle—identi-
fying the people with the Government, by declaring
that we should not at the same moment be carrying
on a military war and a commercial peace.
Mr. HENLEY feared that the amendments opened
a wide door to evasion, the exceptions appearing to
him to be far too wide and too loosely framed.
Lord PALMERSTON said it would be impossible to
frame words which could meet every possible case of
evasion. He thought the Solicitor-General had
framed the clauses with sufficient skill and strin-
gency.
Mr. WILSON, replying chiefly to Lord Palmerston,
sought to prove that there was more sneer nonsense
in the bill than in the arguments of those who op.

posed it.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, although he advocated
the bill, wished it had never been introduced, and
thought it would have been better had the matter
been left to the Queen in Council.
Mr. T. BARING commented upon various incidents
which had occurred in the course of the discussions
which had taken place on the bill. First came the
performance of Lord Palmerston, who had ridden
roughshod over Mr. Wilson ; then they had the
amusement of seeing members of the Government
running about to escape voting with a Cabinet Minis-
ter. Indeed, towards the close of the session, tl e
Government had catered well for the amusement of
the house, for the following night witnessed a sim -
lar exhibition. On neither occasion were the law
advisers of the Crown to be found. They were pro•
bably better employed than in nursing into shape a
deformed Marylebone abortion. At last, however,
the Solicitor-General made his appearance, and
leaned as heavily on the Home Secretary as he had
leant on Mr. Wilson, for he declared that the bill
supported by the noble lord was framed with an ad-
mirable disregard of everything that ought to be in
it. The bill was an absurdity, and he hoped, as such,
it would be rejected by the house.
Mr. WALPOLE would have supported the object of
this bill if he could believe that object would be
attained, but he feared it was impracticable. Mr•