POSTSCRIPT.
SATURDAY..
The occasion of going into Committee of the whole House of Com- mons last night on the Turkish Loan, was seized by all the Oppositions as an opportunity for assailing the existence of the Government, and the continuance of the war.
The House having gone into Committee, the Chairman read the reso- lution authorizing the Crown to guarantee the payment of interest on the loan of 5,000,0001. sterling, to be contracted by the Sultan, and to pay that interest, if necessary, out of the national revenue.
Lord PALMERSTON explained that the Turkish Government had already been obliged to resort to a loan, nominally of 5,000,0001., but on high terms—[6 per cent, stock at somewhere about 80]—and that only between two:and three millions were raised. There is no doubt that the undeveloped resources of Turkey, and her mines, both of metals and coals, would supply her with ample means to make good her engagements, if she had not hi- therto been obstructed by the influence of Russian agency whenever she attempted to develop those resources. The immediate security for the loan, however, is the available surplus of the tribute of Egypt. Mr. J. L. RICARDO objected, in limine, to reentering on the old system of subsidies, to interfering when Turkey could easily raise a loan by her- self, and to the joint guarantee—arguments subsequently repeated with much more alarming suggestions by Mr. GLADSTONE. It was a financial step, he said, to excite a deep and general feeling of suspicion, mistrust, alarm, and aversion. He promised to deal with the question "just as if the difference between four ships and eight ships, between limitation and counterpoise, justified the effusion of all the blood and treasure which it has cost, and is still likely to cost." We know that Turkey has greatly mismanaged her first attempt in the financial market. She has already received a subsidy in disguise, in the shape of a royalty of ten shillings per ton on the coal purchased of her [at Heraclea]. He anticipated heartburnings and quarrellings between France and England from the joint guarantee—supposing the two countries should differ as to the ability of Turkey to pay, or one get an equivalent which the other did not.
Mr. DISRAELI, Mr. COBDEN, Mr. CARDWELL, and Mr. Wenzmo, rose alternately after speakers on the other side, to press the same arguments; Mr. LAING assisting, Sir DE Lees Evarfs urging reconsideration on the particular details of the plan. Lord PALMERSTON and Sir GEORGE LEWIS explained the precedents, and showed how absolutely necessary assistance is to prevent the Turkish army from falling to pieces' and to keep up the life-blood of its action. Lord Palmerston showed the position in which Government would be placed if the Commons were to refuse ratification of its engagements. He entreated the House not to stand upon differences of opinion as to the particular method, when no such difference could be a fundamental objection to a measure upon which, in the eyes of foreign countries, the honour of this country is at stake. A refusal would have the most cala- mitous consequences. On a division, the resolution was carried by 135 to 132—a bare ma- jority of three. The Opposition cheered loudly, and the Ministerial benches echoed the defiance in the same noisy manner.
In reply to Mr. LAVARD, Lord PALMERSTON said that there was no commission sitting at Vienna for the purpose of settling a constitution for the Principalities; but there is a mixed Commission empowered to re- ceive complaints from the inhabitants respecting the conduct of the army of occupation. He also stated that, for reasons best known to himself, Sr Charles Napier had declined the honour, for which be had been re- commended to her Majesty, of the Grand Cross of the Bath.
Mr. DISRAELI asked whether Lord Palmerston would lay on the table a copy of the instructions given to Lord John Russell as Plenipotentiary at 'Vienna ? Lord PALMERSTON said the Government would have no ob- jection to produce such portions of the instructions es relate to the specific points under discussion. To produce the whole would be injurious to the public service.
On the motion of Mr. SPOONER, and in spite of opposition from the Government, a motion to appoint a Select Committee to inquire into the circumstances under which the report and evidence of the late Maynooth Commission had been tampered with, was agreed to by 97 to 76.
In the House of Peers, Lord LYNDHURST asked for explanations re- specting measures for the amendment of the law introduced or promised. The Law of Divorce Bill was withdrawn. A large measure to reform the Ecclesiastical Courts was promised, but nothing was done to redeem the pledge except to bring in the Testamentary Jurisdiction Bill, and withdraw it again. He believed there was a want of good understanding between the Lord Chancellor and the Law-officers of the Crown—a belief supported by the fact that one of those officers objected to the Lord Chan- cellor's Registration of Deeds Bill, and that neither would sign the Re- port of the Statute Law Commission.
The Lord CHANCELLOR referred the withdrawal of the Testamentary Jurisdiction Bill to the state of public business arising from "those dis- cussions which have occupied four-fifths of the time" of the other House. Lord Lyndhurst had himself failed to carry a measure of this sort in 1843 and 1844. As to the Divorce Bill, its progress depended on that of the Testamentary Jurisdiction Bill; and with regard to a bill on Church Discipline, the difficulties were so great that no measure could be ma- tured. The Solicitor-General did not oppose the Registration of Deeds Bill, but thought it did not go far enough ; the bill was referred to a Se- lect Committee ; and a Commission, at its recommendation, had been issued. To show that something had been done, the Lord Chancellor mentioned measures in progress—The Summary Jurisdiction Bill, the Leases and Sales of Settled Estates Bill, the Assizes and Sessions Bill, the University of Cambridge Bill.
Lord BROUGHAM hoped that the Lord Chancellor would apply his mind to the law of divorce, which is in a shamefully imperfect and disgraceful
state; and concurred with Lord Lirsronintsr in thinking that the Scotch law of divorce should be applied to England.
In reply to the Duke of Encomium, the Duke of ARGYLL stated that the Government do not intend to introduce a bill continuing for another year the salaries of parish-schoolmasters in Scotland. Before the act ex- pires, Parliament. will, be sitting again.
Previous page
