POSTSCRIPT.
SATURDAY.
The grand subject of debate in the House of Commons, yesterday, was the Turkish Loan Bill. The discussion expanded to great length, and was taken in a manner altogether unusual. The House went into Committee on the bill as soon as the Speaker took the chair, at twelve o'clock ; no further attempt at obstruction being expected. On clause 1, however, Mr. Gi.suroarz rose, and, disclaiming any intention to raise a question on the principle of the bill, he remarked that it was a singular example of a measure which had met with the unanimous disapproval of the House on its merits, but was supposed out of doors to be accepted, notwithstanding its badness, rather than risk the inconveniences conse- quent on its rejection. The House thought fit to pay no attention to the opinion of a minority which was almost a majority ; but, although anxi- ous not to offer any factious opposition, he demanded explanation on difficulties. The general provision of the convention for a joint guarantee is not in harmony with its subsequent provisions. The clause au- thorizes the Government to enter into a guarantee jointly with the Emperor of the French, but it is rather singular that in the French version the phrase is " conjointement et solidairement," which Mr. Gladstone, in the absence of explanation, conjectured to imply a "joint and several" liability. He then wanted to know if, in conform- ity with the payment at the Bank of England, we were to create a legal right to receive the money there. Is France legally liable, or effectu y to be made so ? Should Turkey default, another country might be de- sirous off obtaining security for its guarantee ; and if France were to seize Egypt for that purpose, how would respective claims be settled ? Mr. Gladstone wanted a definition of the rights created by the bill ; and he deprecated being answered by mere political declamation about the con- federacy of Europe, the balance of power, or the integrity of Turkey. Lord Prammisrost had not been prepared for a discussion at that stage of the bill ; he moved that the Chairman report progress; and at the evening sitting, be moved that the orders of the day be set aside in order to go into Committee on the bill. Mr. Wstrorm then stepped forward, and in extremely simple terms asked for an explanation of the omission of the word "fieparement" in three articles of the translation. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER explained that the phrase "con- jointement et solidairement" was understood to be rendered sufficiently by the word "conjointly." In the Foreign Office they were originally trans- lated "conjointly and unitedly," which was not thought exceedingly good English ; and the "unitedly" was struck out. The French word " solidaire- ment " is synonymous with the phrase of the Roman law "in solidn," for which we have no equivalent. The guarantee of each Power is entire and separate. The obligation of each Power separately applies to the whole guarantee. Sir George Lewis then referred to various precedents—the Sardinian Loan, the Austrian Loan of 1795-'7, and the Greek Loan ; showing that by such advances of money this country had promoted its own political and military objects ; and also that the separate guarantee arranged in the case of the Greek Loan had the effect of pledging each Power to worse terms than they could have realized joint13-.
"In January 1833, Messrs. Rothschild contracted for the whole 60,000,000 francs at one and the same time, and one and the same price—viz., 94 for a 5 per cent bond. By this means the credit of England, France, and Russia were weighed out at the same rate. Forty millions, being two out of three in- stalments, were raised at once at that price, and the remaining instalment was also issued at the same rate of 94. In the beginning of 1833 the English Four per Cent Stock was at 102 103; the French Five per Cents at 101, and the Russian Five per Cents at 101. This loan must, therefore, have been very advantageous to the contractors. In August 1836, about which time England guaranteed the remaining third of her third, the price of Three- and-a-half per Cents in London was 100, French Five per Cents 108, and Russian Five per Cents, 112. Now, it is material to observe the value in the open market of the three sets of Greek Bonds guaranteed by the three Powers. The price of the English guarantee is from 108 to 112, the French guarantee 99, and the Russian about 88."
Mr. Gtensi-orte, at great length, renewed the strain of argument that he had taken up early in the day ; dismissing Sir George Lewis's argu- ments as directed only to show how a few pounds might be saved. He thought the financial question utterly trivial and unimportant. He in- sisted upon knowing whether the Law-officers of the Crown had ap- proved of the language of the bill ; whether the French Government was under any obligation ; or whether the terms pointed to any execu- tory machinery for the enforcement of rights as against France, and he asked if it was "decent" to let France, liable in the second instance, seal up the transaction, while the people of this country are liable in the first instance.
"I was going to allude to something that has occurred elsewhere, and to certain comments which have been made on the conduct of the House by a colleague of the Government who has been addressing his constituents; but, as I hope to see that colleague in his place in a few days, I think it will be more convenient to wait till he has taken his seat, and then to call upon him to vindicate the language which he is represented as having used." The debate was continued with all the irregularities of debates in Com- mittee—Mr. MiLinse Ginsou following Mr. Gladetone's lead in alluding
to Sir William Molesworth's speech. Called up by Mr. WALPOLE, the
Bonicrroa-GENERAL said that the words "conjointement et solidaire- meat " should be rendered "conjointly and severally," and he had pre- pared an amendment to introduce those words. He denied that England would be placed in a worse position with regard to the payment of the interest than France.
Mr. Disraeli and Lord Palmerston both took part in the debate : Mr. DISRAELI vindicating the right of the House to criticize such measures,
and the division of Friday night as a warning for the future ; Lord Per.-
waturrost maintaining that the transaction had been quite according to ant and rule, and retorting the caution on those who had attempted e division on Friday night. He agreed with Mr. Disraeli that it would have been quite as well if those who took exception to Sir William Molesworth's remarks had deferred their allusions until Sir William was there to answer for himself.
An amendment proposed by Mr. GIBSON, requiring an account of the Bums transmitted to the Porte to be laid before Parliament, was nega-
tived by 124 to 36; the Solicitor-General's amendment was agreed to, and the Chairman reported progress.
The consideration of the Limited Liability Bill in Committee occupied the greater part of the time of the House at the morning sitting. After much debate, Lord PAucaurrobr agreed to an amendment, moved by Lord Gemmel; omitting the words in clause I limiting the capital.to 20,0004 ; but the House rejected a second amendment, by 88 to 34, for omitting the words limiting the minimum value of the shares to 25/. Here the Chairman reported progress.
In the House of Peers Lord Butaiwe brought in a bill to repeal all acts imposing religious disabilities—" the remnants of the ancient code of persecuting laws that disfigured our statute-book." It was read a first time, on the understanding that it should be referred to the Statute Law Commission.
Earl Fowrzscus presented a petition from the Reverend Clement La- yard, complaining that the Bishop of Exeter had refused to institute him to the perpetual curacy of Eseot, Devonshire, and praying for a remedy.
Previous page
