The Sun.
London, England, 1854-08-02 00:00:00

RUSSO-DU FCH LOAN.

- -
Lord D. STUART called the attention of the house
to the termination of all obligition on the part of this
country, in consequence of the conduct of Russia, to
continue to make any payments on account of the Rus-
so-Dutch Loan, and he moved a series of resolutions,
the effect of which was that Russia, by her neglect to
maintain at the Sulina mouth of the Danube the works
necessary to prevent obstacles to its navigation, had vio-
lated the treaty cf Vienna and injured the commerce of
this country ; that upwards of 4,000,000 had already
been paid tower. Is the principal and for the interest of
the Russo Dutch Loan, and that 3,386,0001. more would
be required ; and that, inasmuch as the convention of
1831 between England and Russia secured the payment
to the latter part of her old Dutch debt, in consideration
of her adhesion to the general arrangements of the Con-
gress of Viennas the withdrawal by Russia of that adhe-
sion made it proper to suspend the payments. His lord-
ship supported these propositions in a speech of great
length, most of It delivered to a house of consilerably
fewer than forty members
Mr. DI(BY SEYMOUR seconded the motion.

Sir W. MOLESWORTH resisted the proposition.
For two centuries it had been the custom of civi
lised nations to pay debts due to an enemy, the
single exception being in the case of the Silesian loan, a
case in which the conduct of the King of Prussia had
been pronounced to be contrary to the law of nations.
If the Emperor of Russia had money in our funds at
this time he would receive the div,dends thereon, and
there was really no difference between such a case and
that in question. The de-ired backsliding and departure
from the rule dictated by the spirit of the age ought to
be most strongly vindicated He admitted the general
violation of the treaty of Vienna, which, had we not
been at war, would have been a cases belli, but neither
that nor war would justify the required repudiation •
and he contended that the Emperor of Russia had
not committed the specific violation requisite to in-
validate our agreement. Sir William showed that
we had purchased from the Netherlands, the
CBaerpbeipeof ,
onGcomond Hope,ditioiofpart of the purchase-
money Demerara,
applyingemeraa Essequibo, and
in the dischar:;e of the obligation in question ;
and that in 1831 we had expressly purcba-ed the assent
of Russia to the new arrangement between Belgium and
Holland, and that we were bound to continue our pay-
ments, except in the caws of Russia ceasing to concur in
our policy in regard to those countries, a contingency
which had not arisen. We were, therefore, engaged by
treaties arid acts of Parliament to fulfil our obligations ;
and he made an eloquent appeal to the house to resist
a proposition which would have come better from the
obscure delegate of some bankrupt transatlantic state
than the representative of a great metropolitan consti
tuen cy.
Mr. DIGBY SEYMOI7R vehemently supported the
motion, controverting the arguments of Sir W. Moles-
worth, and contending that we ought to stand upon our
strict rights.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL explained that Mr.
Seymour's energy was entirely thrown away, as he bad
misconceived the arguments of Sir W. Molesworth. He
briefly re-stated the case, which he characterised as a
perfectly clear and simple one. The debt did not rest
upon the treaty of Vienna, and no infraction of that
treaty could invalidate our liability.
Lord D. STUART replied, and said that he had
effected his object,
the subj, ct.
Mr. CA which sto procure a discussion of
YLEY urged the withdrawal of the motion,
against the character Mr. FE4Litirm,of which he strongly protested.
divide. " alio urged Lord D. Stuart not to