The Sun.
London, England, 1855-07-28 00:00:00

THE SttN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, .JULY 28, 1855,

should be made between the two services—(hear, hear)—
but the army warrant was not yet finally settled, and he
could not, therefore, say what its terms might be. With
regard to the second question of the hon. and gallant gen-
tleman, the Admiralty had given as large a portion to the
widow of Admiral Boxer as it was in their power to award,
but the house would be glad to learn that there were other
sources from which that lady might derive benefit, and
that her Majesty had been graciously pleased to take her
claim into consideration, with a view to that result.
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY BILL.
In replj to Mr. WIGBAM,
Mr. B ITVERIE said that this bill would not be pro-
ceeded with on Monday, but he would state on that day
when it was to come on.
THE AFFAIR AT MALLAGHEA.

In answer to Mr. BRIGHT,
Lord PALMERSTON said he had received the de-
spatches relative to this affair, from the Colonial-office,
only last night, and that he had been sa much engaged all
to-day that he had not had time to examine them.
Mr. BRIGHT--If the noble lord ss ill lot us have them
on Monday I shall be obliged to him.
Lord PALMERSTON—I really will. (Laughter.)
THE 10TH HUSSARS AND 12TH LANCERS.
Colonel DUNNE moved that the house, at its rising, do
adjourn till Monday next, for the purpose of asking the
Secretary for War, whether the !Nth Hussars and 12th
Lancers have been reduced to the European establishment?
Whether those officers who have been reduced are still left
as supernumeraries with their regiments during the war?
And whether, after having fought through the war, it was
intended to place them on half-pay ?
Mr. PEEL said the two regiments which returned from
India on the Indian establishment had been reduced to the
Crimean establishment, which was much larger than the
English establishment. The number of rank and file was
less than the number of rank and file in India by about 50,
and the number of officers about 10. All officers in excess
of the Crimean establishment were supernumeraries, and
serving as such, and he understood that as casualties oc-
curred in the course of the service they would be absorbed
in the regiments.
Colonel DUNNE would repeat the question on Monday,
as it was clear the hcn. gentleman did not understand it.
(A. laugh.)
ORDNANCE SURVEY (SCOTLAND) EXPT.A..
NATIONS.
Lord ELCHO complained of certain statements touch-
ing his own conduct with regard to the Scotch survey,
made by Lord Seymour during tho recent debate on that
subject, denying that he had endeavoured to obtain a sur-
vey advantageous to himself as a lauded proprietor at tho
üblic expense.

Lord SEYMOUR having explained his meaning in the
statements alluded to, the subject dropped after a few
words frem Lord Palmerston.
Some discussion having arisen respecting the commission
appointed to investigate the subject of decimal coinage,
the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER and Mr. GLADSTONE
vindicated the impartiality of the selected commissioners,
and denied that either of the three members named had
arrived at any foregone conclusion on the subject.
In reply to a question from Sir J. WALSH,
Lord PALMERSTON said that Omer Pasha had gone
to Constantinople for the purpose of making arrangements
respecting some military equipments, but that he had no
intention of resigning his command.
The motion was then agreed to.
OFFICE 'OF STEAKER.

The Office of Speaker Bill was read a third time and
passed.
The other orders were postponed until after the Turkish
Loan Bill.

TURKISH LOAN.
The house then went into committee on the Turkish
Loran Bill.
Clause 1.

Mr. WALPOLE called the attention of the Government
to the fact that in the original convention, in French, the
word " separately" occurred in the articles. In the trans-
lation into English, however, the word " separately" had
been omitted. The legal effect of the convention would
be very different according as that word was inserted or
omitted. The bill was framed on the basis of the word
" separately" or " severally." The enacting part of it made
t lawful for her Majesty to guarantee, in conjunction with
the French Emperor, the Turkish loan of 5,000,0001. on
the terms set forth in the convention. If the English
translation or mistranslation was followed, those terms
were different from the terms of the bill. He. therefore,
asked the right hon. gentleman whether the Government
would be prepared to amend the bill in committee, by in-
serting the word " separately" or " severally," so as to
make it separate as well as joint, in accordance with the
terms of the convention ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
guarantee of France as well as England bound both coun-
tries jointly and severally to the entire loan. It was in
that sense he read the convention. As regarded the trans-
lation of the word solidairement in the convention, the
ight hon. gentleman said it meant separately or severally.
He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), on the contrary,
thoegh it meant in conjunction. (Laughter.) The original
draft was first translated "conjointly and unitedly ;" but
it was remarked that "unitedly" was not good English
moreover, it gave an additional force to the phrase, and
therefore it was omitted. Solidairement in French corre-
sponded, as the right hon. gentleman, who was both a
scholar and a lawyer, perfectly wellknew, with the insolida
of the ancient Roman law. It was, therefore, best repre-
sented in English by the word " conjointly," which he (the
Chancellor of the Exchequer) maintained was a literal and
faithful translation. If, however, it was thought that any
sa dditional force wail I be given to the statute by the words
of the right hon. gentleman, he should have no objection
to give them the fullest consideration. All that was
sought was to carry out the stipulations of the conven-
tion, about the meaning of which there could be no pos-
sible doubt. The guarantee was separate as well as con-
joint on the part of England and France. and either
was liable for the whole in the event of the failure of
the other to meet it. As regarded the Act of Parliament,
the objection of the right hon. gentleman might be mate-
rial. As regarded the treaty itself, it was not, as the par-
ties were bound by the original convention, which was in
the French language, and as the words in question were to
be found in that document. The English copy was an un-
authenticated one made for the use of the Government. He
(the Chancellor of the Exchequer) then proceeded to reply
to the remarks of the right hon. member for the University
of Oxford, made at the morning sitting. The right hon.
gentleman had said that the house had unanimously con-
demned the bill with respect to its terms ; that the
principle of a guarantee had been pronounced purely
bad, and that nothing could redeem it from condemna-
tion. Further, he said that the Government had shown
no disposition to modify these arrangements. Now, with
regard to the terms of the bill, the Government
had no power whatever over them, inasmuch as
the treaty had been agreed to by the three powers; and
could not be altered without the consent of each and all of
those powers. To do this, however, it would have to be re-
ferred to those powers, and he (the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer) asked what would be the position of this country
if the treaty had to be referred back to Franco ? (Hear,
hear.) The Moniteur of Friday, Tilly 20, promulgated the
treaty for the Turkish loan, and contained the sanction of
the Emperor to the guarantee which had been adopted by
the Chambers. The session of the Chambers was concluded.
How could this Government therefore approach the French
Government with a proposition to change the terms of that
treaty and that sanction? What arguments could they use
to induce a reconsideration of the subject? Thecommatee
would. therefore, see that the course recommended by the
right hon. gentleman offered obstacles and difficulties in
the way of its adoption which, for practical purposes,
might he considered as insurmountable. Bat it was said
the principle of guarantee was incurably bad. Ho would
call attention to the two alternatives before them. Sup-
nosing Government bad attempted to resort to the expe-
d ent of a loan, would the French Government, in addition
t) their own loan, have added two and a half millions
t) their own debt to
.lend the money to Turkey ? Were
aye in a condition to go into the market to borrow 21 mil-
lions? Were we in a condition to add to the large re-
qinrementa for the service of the year the additional suns
of 221 millions to lend it to Turkey ? The Sardinian loan
had been offered to Government as a model to follow on
this occasion. But what were the circumstances of that
loan? We agreed to lend Sarainia 2i millions, but France
took no share in that uen
burden. In the present case we
divide the burden withoudrally, and all that was objected
to it was that we had a
jointt guarantee. But, then, to
guarantee, carry out that joint
in had we not the good faith
of our ally, which was, his
was said that we ought to have raised amply sufficient. It
that the money and given
the money absolutely to Turkey,ratsthis course would
have avoided all diplomatic difficulties, and that a free
gift would have been more advantageous parties than
a joint loan. But he differed that to all parties
He con-
sidered if a gift was made that the borrower might come
again. He would ask what was the effect olviais'e guarantees
by Mr. Pitt in 1795 and 1797, when twoloanssvere
raised
by the Emperor of Austria and guaranteed h
In 1824 the Imperial annuities were abolished, andEug hlanla,
whole of these two loans was incorporated into the
nationalt
a .bt. The lossinctirred by this country was about 4,0)0000/
_dere was a case in which a guaranteed loan by Mr. Pitt
had cost the country a loss of 4,090,0001. But, on the other
hand, we gained the services and alliance of Austria in the
great war in which we were then engaged, and part of the
loss was afterwards repaid by Austria; but the fact re-
mained, that a guaranteed loan eventually resolved itself
into a gift. He now came to the question of the separate
liability. It was considered that our liability ought to
have been separate, and that in a loan of 5,000,0001. to Tor-
key, our obligations ought to have been limited to '2,500,000a;
France being placed on the same footing. He collected
from the right hon. gentleman that he laid some stress on
the example afforded by the Greek loan. He would call
the attention of the house to the history, and point out
some of the features, of the Greek loan, and would show
that in that loan the interests of Greece were not very se-
dttlously attended to. The particulars of the Greek loan
would be found in the convention. The financial arrauge-
mente were made by the Greek Government. Two com-
missioners left Paris, and contracted with Messrs. Roths-
child in 1833 for the whole 16,003,000 f., at the same price
—namely, 94. By this means the credit of England,
France, and Russia were measured out at precisely the
Same rate. The price of the Greek bonds in the market
Was found to range at lower figure than the lowest price
of the Five per
ehlaltosv pa
as an Cents. of any of the guaranteeing powers.
e,
toarrorigement which the right hon. gentleman
could hardly
conceive anything sof
perfection. Now, he
snore ruinous to a foreign state than
such a course, or less calculated to obtain the benefit of a
guarantee. War was
parent of urgent necessities, a hard taskmaster, and was the
measures which It compelled nations to en-
forcevveoealuo.ntarily it would not have re•
course to in time
Bat beyond that necessity
which every government eaa3.t
experience in circumstances
such as those in which we now placed, he caw no
reason for thinking that better terms than those under the
consideration of the house could have been obtained by
her Majesty's Government, or
reconsideration
of the subject, such as that proposed
ills right
better
gentleman, would enable Government to obtain
arms.
Mr. GLADSTONE said the object of his previous re-
marks was not to raise a question as to the
bill, or to draw a comparison between this and former
the
measures, but the remarks of the right hon. gentleman had
opened up the question of the principle of the bill. The
l
right hon. gentleman had dwelt on the principle of the
Greek and Sardinian loans; but when ho came to the terms
of the present convention be passed- the subject by, show.
ing that he was altogether in the dark as to the view he
(Mr. Gladstone) had endeavoured to impress on the house
in his former observations. The right bon. gentleman had
spoken of the wasteful way of raising the money in the
case of the Greek loan; but this was but a very small ques-
tion, and it was not the way in which the present question
ought to be viewed. The right hon. .lentleman appeared
only to consider how lie could save 5/. in this loan. The
financial question was of no weight compared with the
political question involved in this loan. (Hear.) His
right hon. friend had spoken so coolly and composedly of
the question of joint guarantees, that it convinced hill'
the right hon. gentleman considered them as matters only
of a simple and every-day kind—that it mattered very

little whether we entered into them or not. Now, he
hopedviewed
this jointw oguul adr abnet ees
the wl
ai
st ht
ogr
tahte
saep Irne lid e
on
fs i
oo np
e,
raant
i he
do
ns.
His right hon. friend had told them that the Government
had
boentereduufl int
herselfo
to sub-contractrem ita
moietywith
f France,the
interest by
whichshe
bad half-
yearly. The liability of the British Government was,
nevertheless, entire in the first instance to the creditor.
If no remittance arrived from abroad when the day of pay-
ment came, would it not be the duty of the Treasury to
put the Bank of England in possession of funds sufficient
to discharge the interest ? If that was so, then he wished
to know what corresponding obligation there was on the
French Government?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he
had read the obligation a short time ago.
Mr. GLADSTONE said that it had not been laid on the
table. The words of the bill were that the guarantee would
be a conjoint one, in terms of the convention ; but the
convention said nothing about making the French Govern.
meat liable for the issue of the money, or for enforcing the
creditors' right, as in England. The legal machinery for
compelling the people of England to bear all the charge
was complete, but there was no such machinery with re-
gard to France. France had done no more than agree with
England that she would send such a moiety of the money
to the Eank of England. He did not deny that the two
Governments stood, with regard to each other, on an equa-
lity, but he denied that their relations were the same with
respect to the creditor. He wanted to know from the Go-
vernment whether they were prepared to say that the re-
lative position of the two parties corresponded with the
legal idea of a joint and several guarantee ? Was the po-
sition of the British Government, with respect to liability
and recovery the same as that of the French Government ?
if their position was not alike in that respect, then he
wished to know whether the rights of the parties were iden-
tical,
or different ? If that house meant to take its place'
in the constitution, it must take care to make its decisions
respected, and see that a more careful, thrifty, and judi-
cious use was made of the prerogative of the Crown, with
regard to the granting of such conventions. He was about
to allude to certain comments which had been made that
day by a colleague of the noble lord, in addressing his
constituents ; but as the gentleman in question would be
in his place in a few days, he should wait, so that he might
have an opportunity of justifying the language he was re-
ported to have used.
The LORD ADVOCATE said that the right hon. gen-
tleman had appealed to him with regard to the argument
in the present case. The difference between a loan and a
subsidy was easily understood. Every day merchants gave
guarantees when not prepared to grant loans, and loans
when not prepared to give guarantees. In the present case
they had acted fin conjuntion with an ally, and were not,
perhaps, free to choose the mode of proceeding. It might
be that the French Government preferred a guarantee to a
loan. The right hon. member for Oxford University
seemed to fear diplomatic complications, and to think that
a guarantee was dangerous, because it gave the parties
making the guarantee power over the country accepting
it. But did not a loan do so also ? (Hear.) Speaking as a
lawyer he should say that a joint and several obligation
meant nothing but this—that each party was liable for the
whole, and that the right of the creditors to recover was
equal against both. (Hear.) There might be a joint and
several obligation by two parties, and yet in the same
deed a greater amount of obligation might be created on
the one security than the other. The guarantee would be
still joint and several, though the place for payment was
fixed elsewhere than it was in the bill..

•
Mr. GIBSON thought they were discussing the question
at some disadvantage, inasmuch as Government had not
placed the whole of the correspondence between England
and France on the subject on the table.
Mr. WILKINSON said that, taking the loan in the
worst point of view, it could, in his opinion, only be re-
garded as a gift of 5,000,0001. to Turkey, in return for
which we should receive the assistance of men, arms, am-
munition, and money. He should confess that he had
been taken quite by surplice by the vote of Friday evening
last, but he could scarcely feel astonished that the right
hon. gentleman the member for Manchester and his friends
should have opposed the loan, as the best means of putting
an end to the war altogether. The real opposition of the
right hon. gentleman, and those who held similar opinions,
was not to the loan, but to the contest in which we were
engaged. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. WALPOLE said that the part which he had taken,
in opposition to the proposed loan, was by no means based
upon hip desire, by stopping the supplies, to put an end
to the war. His reason for opposing the loan was that, in
his opinion, by taking security in the way in which. we had
done for the payment of the interest of the loan in case of
its not being satisfied by Turkey, would involve this country
in complications and embarrassments which he was anxious
I that we should avoid. To any measure which the Govern-
, ment might require for the vigorous prosecution of the war
he for one should be ready to give his hearty assent.
(Hell., hear.) But to return to the terms of the conven-
tion, he should wish to ascertain from the Solicitor-Gene-
ral, whom he saw opposite, whether the construction which
he (Mr. Walpole) put upon the word "solidairentent" was
the correct interpretation ? In his own opinion the true
meaning of that word was " separately and severally."
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that the interpreta-
tion which the right hon. gentleman had put upon the word
" solid,airenzent" was perfectly correct. It was a French
term used in legal phraseology, and it meant that the
creditor might bring an action for the whole amount of his
debt. The corresponding expression in our law was the
word "severally." His attention had been called, for the
first time to-day, to the terms of the convention, and he
had introduced certain amendments into the bill before the
house, which would make the English construction a
faithful interpretation of the French' original.

Mr. RICAIDO thought that no explanation whatever
had been given as to the relative positions of the French
and English Government with reference to the proposed
guarantee. All the difficulties by which that guarantee
was beset might, in his opinion, have been avoided by the
establishment of a separate guarantee, as in the case of the
Greek loan. The price of the Greek stock guaranteed by
England was now at 107, while the price of the Greek
stock guaranteed by France was 98, and that guaranteed
by Russia, 87 ; so that the people of England bore the
burden of the arrangement. He did not mean to enter
further into the merits of the proposition contained in the
bill before the committee, but before he resumed his seat
. . . _ . _

he should wish to ask the right hon. gentleman the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer whether the sinking fund, amount-
ing to a certain sum per cent. upon the whole capital of
5,009,0001., was to be guaranteed by the Government?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—No.
Mr. RICARDO continued—He wished then to learn
how the sinking fund was to be expended—who was to be
charged with its application?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said it
would be a matter of contract between the Government
and the bondholders.

. Mr. RICARDO asked if there would be no power upon
the part of the Government to diminish the interest from
time to time?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he was
not aware that the terms of the convention gave any posier
to 'diminish the interest.

Mr. GLADSTONE said he had at first thought that it
would be desirable that the Governments of France and,
England should have nothing to do with the sinking fund,
inasmuch as there would bo a limitation of what he re-
garded as an objectionable arrangement. But on further
consideration he was disposed to believe•that it would be
better those Governments should reserve to themselves- a
right to deal with that fund.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER sni:l he be-
lieved there would be no difficulty in arranging the terms
on which the sinking fund was to be raised by Turkey.
Mr. JOHN MACGREGOR said, he considered that the
continuance of our friendly relations with France were of
infinitely more importance than any of the frivolous ob-
jections which had been raised to that convention. He
believed the people were influenced upon that subject by.
higher considerations than the doctrines of political eco-
nomy.

Mr. DISRAELI said—Sir, I am sorry to have lived to
hear from the hon. gentleman the member for Glasgow au
invective against political economy. (A laugh.) I must say
I believe that the occnrrencos of this evening fully justify
our conduct in refusing to propeed in this business with
that precipitation which the noble lord at the head of the
Government in his impassioned • harangues advised us to
adopt. What has occurred upon this occasion. Why my
right lion. friend has already succeeded in introducing
into this bill an expression which gives to it quite a new'
character. He has succeeded in giving to the convention
an interpretation which it did not bear at six o'clock
this evening in the opinion cf her Majesty's Government
—an opinion not hastily adopted, but adopted, as we
have bean told, by a member of the Cabinet, after due
deliberation on the part of the Cabinet Ministers, and there.-
fi re, as I presume, aft( r deliberation in a Cabinet Council.
There was a Cabinet Council held to determine,the proper
interpretation to be put on a most important French epi-
thet, and that council decided in favour of an interpreta-
tion which is directly the reverse of that which the epithet
really bears. At six o'clock "solidairc," in the opinion of
the Cabinet, implied a united respons.bility. Bat the pro-
gress of the debate and those discussions which were so un-
patriotic, according to the noble lord, have led to an ex-
actly contrary interpretation of that important word, and
" solidaire" is now taken to imply a separate and several
responsi'oility. I cannot help thinking that such an
occurrence asthis entirely justifies the course which the
committee has taken. What does the honourable and
learned gentleman the Solicitor-General say ? Why, he
gives his unqualified adhesion to that interpretation of
ig
r
the word "trolidaire' which was first broached by the
ht on.
to the espeturan' and which attaches a new meaning
apparent dissent ItY
incurred by the conrention (marks of
The Chancellor from the Chancellor of the Exchequer).
surely the right hop,
the Exchequer shakes hie head. Bat
the interpretatio°u. gentleman does not mean to repudiate
learned gentleman the
i
Solicitor-General ea
mission a strange onYes—onat
gentleman —that he had not read
morning. I should have thought the word given by , the lion. and
Solicitor-General. No doubt the
I confess I considered the ad-
part of the hon. and learned
the convention until this
more advantage to the Governmentught it would have been of
noble lord would condescend to
consult of the noble lord if the
the Crown with respect to the meaning
the law advisers of
he recommends the House of toCommons
treaties before
, However, we have now the unqualified admissionsanction them.
Solicitor-General that the epithet " solidair
of the
meaning exactly contrary to that which with°lPresses a
erudition was promulgated by the Chancellor samuch
of the
Exchequer, and I believe the opinion of the committee
with the hon. and learned gentleman upon that subject.
is
If the hon. and learned gentleman had only expressed
that
• • I should have listened to hisaddresswith • opinion, unmixed
satisfaction. But I confess there was one portion of that
address which filled me with a new alarm. The hon. and
learned gentleman has given us a description of our security
under
this treaty, from which I find that we have strictly
mortgage,on Turkey. Now, I want to know who is to
a thatmortgage if the interestinterestin
t this
case should not be forthcoming
more con-
ceive
en such ar-
rangementan
any circumstance
pregnant then
fficultyy, and even danger to this country.
with di
I have not risen upon
this occasion to vindicate the vote
which I gave on Friday night. I look upon that vote with
have met hon. members
the most complete satisfaction. I
vindicate
tothe vote which
who have thought it necessary
they then gave. I do not wish to interfere between them
and their consciences or their constituents; but I feel that,
as far as I am concerned, my vote was dictated by sound
a vote
Policy and by constitutional feeling, and that
it "is
I
which will ultimately be generally recognised to have been
'wise and prudent. I have risen upon this occasion prin- 1
cipally for the purpose of noticing the extraordinary doc-
trines I have heard laid down to-night by gentlemen who
represent large and popular constituencies and whose
opinionsi.t. I cannot excuse by the charitable sup-
position po ton that they reflection.
spoke without previous
Either the lioness of o C mmons has the privilege or it has
not the privilege
which are made . to sanction those financial arrangements
-Majesty to enter
which Government, when they advise her
If we are to be told thaat?onvention with a foreign state.
and disloyal on the part of thel twould be most impolitic and
then I say it would be much houseeetto exercise that privilege,
it altogether. (Hear.) I hold,blitc,werevtehatrwe should be rid of
thatu it is a privilege
to be approached in a spirit ofgravityreverence, but -

that it iq a real and a substantial privilege. (Hear, hear.)
Let us for a moment consider what might be the conse-
quence of our treating such a proposition as that brought
forward by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as a mere
matter of course, lika the adjournment of tho hotre. The

Government might then raise all the money necessary
to carry on the war without the interference of Par-
liament in any respect whatever. If they could raise
5,000,000/. without our interference, why could they not
raise 10,000,0001., or 20,000,0001., or 50,000,000/. ? They
might thus, by a series of conventions, raise a sum of
money sufficient to carry on a war which might not have
received the sympathy of the country or the approbation
of Parliament. lam sure hon. gentlemen must feel that
nothing can be more absurd than those common-places,
which the hon. gentleman the member for Lambeth has
uttered upon this and upon other occasions in reference to
this subject. I believe that conventions of this kind ought
not to be allowed to pass without a scrupulous examination
and a severe criticism on the part of Parliament. If the
policy of the Government is a sound policy, it will bear
that examination and that criticism, and inquiry can only
serve to show the propriety of the course they have pur-
sued. If, on the contrary, there is, no majority that can
prop up a policy founded on principles essentially fallacious,
then I say the course which we have taken is not unwise
or censurable. lam surprised that any gentleman can for
a moment assert that it is not merely the privilege, but the
highest duty of this house, on occasions like the present,
not to sanction a policy such as this, or to pass measures
of this kind, but with due deliberation and ample and
complete discussion. I agree with those hon. gentle-
men who disapprove of the manner in which the policy
of the convention is to be carried out; and, so far as I have
listened to the debate, I find no substantial or satisfactory
answer to the objections that have been made in that re-
spect. When I find that her Majesty's Government are
not^even aware of the nature of the engagement into which
they have entered, I am the more impressed with that
opinion. I think the system is not satisfactory. But I
am told that the policy may be unwise, the manner in
which yon wish to carry it into effect may be inexpedient,
but it is most hazardous of you to venture to attempt to
change the course of the Government or to alter their
measures, because you are not only endangering, but im-
perilling and destroying, your alliance with France. (Hear.)
Now, before I had any idea that this convention would be
placed on our table, with reference to other subjects, I
took the liberty of warning the house not to encourage
those stereotyped declamations of the Government about
our alliance being endangered by the free expression of
opinion in this House. (Hear, hear.) If our alliance
with France were endangered by any such proceeding,
then, indeed, I would say that that alliance is not as sub-
stantial as I thought it. (Hear.) I say it is the free
expression of opinion that will support and cement that
alliance. But if we are not to discuss the question, but
always to speak in whispers when the name of our ally is
mentioned, I say the time that will elapse cannot be very
great before that alliance will be endangered. (Hear, hear.)
Unless the alliahce springs from a sympathy of feeling and
an identity of interests between both countries, there is no
diplomatic arrangement, no Ministerial management that
can maintain it. (Hear, hear.) It is my opinion that it
arises from the homogeneity of interests and feelings that
has for many years prevailed between the peoples of both
countries. lam sure the alliance is sound and lasting, and
that it cannot be maintained by better means than by
speaking where our interests are concerned with the ut-
most frankness, as well as friendship. (Hear, hear.) Now,
without going so far back for an illustration as the period
of the treaty of Utrecht, I will take a more modern in-
stance of the stable nature of our alliance with France.
So recently as 1852, when my right hon. friends and my-
self were placed in the responsible position of having ac-
ceded to office, we found there was a treaty negotiated
and concluded by our predecessors—the authority of Par-
liament alone being wanted—with the Emperor of the
French, on a much more important subject than the pre-
sent—the extradition of criminals between the two coun-
tries. To carry it into effect it was of course necessary to ap-
peal to Parliament. The Government of my Lord Derby
willingly acknowledged that the treaty had been negotiated
by our predecessors, and claimed no credit for the high po-
licy that characterised it. My noble friend the then Foreign
Secretary introduced the subject in the House of Lords.
It was one of great difficulty, and if not of vital, it was at
least of vast, importance to the interests of the peace of
Europe. Well, sir, notwithstanding we had the honour to
receive the oppositioh of our predecessors in office in the
House of Lords, though they were the very individuals
who had negotiated the treaty—a specimen of that remark-
ably candid conduct which the Administration of Lord
Derby so frequently received. (A laugh.) I acquit the
noble lord (Palmerston) of all participation in it ' • and I
must say that in all matters of foreign policy the noble
lord behaved in a most candid spirit. Well, the noble lord
the Foreign Secretary consulted his col:eagues as to the
course he should pursue, and the possibilityof carrying the
measure through Parliament. I gave my opinion to the
effect that such was the prejudice raised against our Govern-
' ment it was impossible to carry the bill through Parliament
which would have ratified the treaty. I added, " the best
thing you can do would be to express that feeling to the
French Government, and throw yourself on the good sense
and high spirit of the exalted individual who governs the
destinies of the French empire." (Hear, hear.) Now, sir,
had we to appeal to a common-place sovereign, his feelings
might be outraged, and the consequences might be serious.
But we had to appeal to a man of great capacity, and to
one who had long lived in this country and understood
its constitution, and his Imperial Majesty acted in a.
manner that became his great position and his emi-
nent talents. (Hear, hear.) Ho did justice to the spirit of
the English constitution, and the alliance was not destroyed.
(Hear.) He did not turn round and say, " There is an end
of the good feeling between France and England." On the
contrary, he said, "I respect the feeling, whilst deploring
the lamentable event to Europe that this treaty has not
been carried into effect ; but the alliance between Frar.ce
and England is too valuable to be subject to these political
accidents." (Hear.) Well, that, I think, is an answer to
those who come forward and assert that if Parliament ex-
presses an opinion upon the convention negotiated. by
Ministers we are endangering the alliance between the two
countries, and destroying that cordial understanding
which, I admit, is at this moment, and I trust always will
be, the corner stone to the power and prosperity of the
people of both countries. (Hear, hear.) But whether we
look to the policy of the convention, the manner in which
it is carried into effect, or the risks which we may run by
attempting to change or modify its terms, I confess I can
see no grounds whatever for accepting the opinions of the
noble lord (Palmerston) opposite. (Hear.) lam not satis-
fied with the progress or the principles of the war. What
we want is a change in the conception and management of
the campaigns. (Hear, hear.) The noble lord may come
forward, and, in the same patriotic style of effusion, de-
mand greater sacrifices from the people. But if they make
them. excited by the fervid patriotism of the noble lord and
the right hon. member for Southwark, the people of Eng-
land will find out that they are neither securing their end
nor maintaining the independence of Turkey. (Cheers.)
Mr. LABOUCHERE said the right hon. gentleman had
.not confined himself to the question exactly at issue. No
one denied the right of the house to criticise or oppose con-
ventions entered into with foreign powers. Such a doctrine
would be' quite unconstitutional. (Hear.) It was the
:duty of the house to express its opinion freely upon such
subjects, especially with respect to taxation. But the
house must exercise this right with judgment •and with a
due regard to consequences. (Cheers on both sides.) And
he stood appalled at the boldness with which gentlemen
who urged the Government to a vigorous prosecution of the
war should have overlooked the perilous character of the
course they had pursued on this occasion, in opposition to the
present measure. He had been astonished that so many
members of such eminence should have united in such a
course, in the present posture of public affairs—endeavour.
ing to persuade the house to strangle the measure, and
declare that the Crown should not fulfil its engagements.
He rejoiced that their opposition had not succeeded ; be-
lieving, as he did, thatthe defeat of the Government would
have led to the most serious consequences. (A laugh.) He
hoped the danger was escaped of imperilling the stability
of the Government. (Laughter.) He believed the majo-
rity of the house and the country were averse at this time
to a change of Administration. (La fighter. No government
could have continued in office after an adverse vote on such
a measure. If the friends of Lord Derby came into power,
however, and prosecuted the war with vigour, he should
be unwilling to disturb their tenure of power. (Hear.)
But what would have been the effect of an adverse vote
ou the measure upon the Continent- at Paris, at Constan-
tinople, or St. Petersburg? It would have produced the
idea that we were disposed for peace at any price. He was
in favour of peace so soon as it could be safely and honour-
ably obtained. But until then he should support the Go-
vernment in a vigorous prosecution of the war, and the
house should not refuse its assent to the convention except
upon the most serious grounds. (Loud cries of " hear.")
Nor did he consider that such grounds had been shown to
exist. Therefore he rejoiced that this measure had not
been defeated.

Mr. CARD WELL said his righthon. friend had favoured
the house with a lecture on constitutional principle, in-
stead of urging any argument in support of the present
measure. (Loud criei of " hear, hear.") No independent
member had endeavoured to defend the measure by argu-
ment. (Hear.) His right hon. friend had relied on the
importance of the stability of the Government. But it
was improper to sacrifice to this object the most serious
objections to a system of injudicious subsidies. (Hear.)
As to the effect of a rejection of such a measure on the
continent, where was that sort of argument to stop ? Was
it to prevent all discussion on every measure propounded
by the Government as to the war ? (Hear.) It would be
cowardly and unworthy conduct on the part of the house
to abstain from a free expression of opinion upon such a
measure? (Hear.)

Lord PALMERSTON said the Government had been
accused of hurrying on the measure; but this was an ac-
cusation which might rather be urged against the Opposi-
tion, who had endeavoured to stifle the measure on the
first stage, and to prevent its discussion. (A. laugh.) The
Government did not at all pretend that Parliament had not
a right to criticise or even reject such a measure. (Hear.)
The terms of the convention itself implied that it could
not be carried into effect without the consent of Parlia-
ment. But what the Government contended was that the
right had been abused—(ob)—and exercised without a due
regard to the interests of their country. The measure was
essential to the vigorous prosecution of the war. How
could the war be vigorously carried on if the Turkish army
was unable to keep the field? And how could it keep the
field if not paid and supported? And how could it be
paid and maintained,without money? (Hear, hear.) The
object of the measure was to supply the Turkish Govern-
ment with money for the purpose, and it was quite in-
consistent in those who professed a desire for a vigorous
prosecution of the war to oppose the measure. He could
not understand the objections to it. (Laughter.) Wls
it that the guarantee was not several? Was it that it
was a guaiantee instead of a loan ; or that it ought rather
to have been a gift? or, on the contrary, that it was really
alga
jure
aeardbasutihtdeayot ?
it
at If the objection were that it was not a several
,t h
oaanladwbear
awoashtuht hadat the y i
eld Governmentyielded
to
tthe
eh
sae,
odne -
owfisahueeshoifaitphoertFarnecna was us chGoernment, not deeming the pointg
(float.)apsar ed
Ito t
was be to the politicaltlP Pe a (Ida
sp. ecTt
hoef
the qoubjeescttioionia.
said that the guarantee would afford either
"
of the guaranteei
gratulisement at ntlePonwperst a
pretext for territorial ag-
the answer was, that if szucerilsao of Turkey. (Hear.) But
1
disposition existed, or ever
could be supposed to exist, evertd guarantee would
afford a greater facility for itsa sexerciserat than a joint and
several one. In the ease of a se
party might claim a right to pursue its remedye
In the case of a joint and several
party to it mightguarantee, either
guaranteea e separately.n ing the
ouvtieletthe pre-
prevent
such a
course l the. other
,right to pay the whole of the money,A
text for territorial aggression on the part of the
those who had been members of the Government of;L'And
Aberdeen could hardly object to a course which had beenord
proposed by
that Minister in regard to the Greek loan. He
thought that less political difficulty was likely to occur
from the form in which this treaty was drawn up than
• however, for the house to consider was,
should the form proposed byhis right hon. fliend. The prac-
tical question, .
should they
? he
throw into the teeth of Fiance a treaty which'
hon. gentleman would involve fresh
had-been entered into in deference to its wishes.. T course
proposed by the rightg

negotiations, and a delay of that assistance which it was of
importance to renderpremptly. He did not think Lheright
hon. gentleman had been quite accurate in his definition
of the yoatyalludei to as having been entered into during

rbi'3 Admicioration That wag an extradition
141 he (Lord Palmerston) had objectel to it when

ho c.;me intooffice.
Mr. DISRAELI—It was Lord Granville.
Lord PALMERSTON—The case of the extradition
treaty was not a parallel one, for the only result of reject-
ing the treaty proposed by France would be that the two
countries would have to fall back upon the treaty ,already
in force. He could not look at the late division on this ques-
tion of a loan in the light in which some hon. gentlemen
regarded it. It would have been a serious thins, indeed.
had the division turned out the other way. (Hear, hear.)
If the treaty had been contumeliously rejected by the house
and flung back with insult to the Government of France,
although that act might not have broken the alliance
with France it would have produced coldness in the inter-
course between the two countries, and its effect for the
moment would have been fatal to le military exertions of
Turkey. The convention had been proposed to preserve
the very existence of Turkey, and to further that vigorous
prosecution of the war which his right hon. friend (Mr.
Gladstone) when ho left the Government was in favour;
and if his right hon. friend were still in office he should
hope he would take the same view of the measure they
were now discussing. The object of this loan was to fur-
nish means to Turkey indispensable for her army, and
without which she could not obtain that success whiah her
allies and herself hoped for. It was with satisfactiOn,
therefore, that after the protest of the right hon. gentle-
man opposite, he hoard him say that it was not his inten-
tion to interpose any further obstacle to this proposition.
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY suggested after the word
"jointly," the word " severally:"
The LORD ADVOCATE said the form of words pro-
posed by the Solicitor-General was " jointly" with his
Majesty the Emperor of the French, and " severally."
These words wore then inserted, and the clause was
agreed to.
On clause 2,

Mr. M. GIBSON' proposed to add words by which it
could be ascertained what sums were transmitted to Tur-
key and the purposes to which they were applied.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
English Government would have na means of tracing the
application of the money.
Mr. GLADSTONE observed that an intimation had
been made by the Government that an arrangement was
about to be made with Turkey as to the application of this
roan, and that it would bo well to give au assurance that
its terms should be stated to Parliament.
Lord PALMERSTON said that instructions had been
sent to Lord Stratford on the subject of the application of
the money through the Turkish commissioners.
Mr. GIBSON should like to know how much of this
money would go into the Turkish Treasury. He doubted
whether it would be applied to the " vigorous prosecution
of the war."

Lord PALMERSTON said there would be no indisposi-
tion to furnish any returns on the subject when moved for.
Mr. GIBSON said his only object was to get at the total
sum which was transmitted to Turkey, and with this view
he would change the terms of his amendment, and move
the insertion of the words, " transmitted to the Sublime
Porte on account of the capital of the loan."

The committee then divided—
Ayes 36
Noes l2l
Majority against the amendment... —BB
The clause was then ordered to stand part of the bill,
which was passed through committee, and reported to the
house. •

The Customs' Laws Consolidation Bill was passed
through committee.

The-amendments on the Excise Duties Bill were agreed
to.

TIIE LATE DISTURBANCES IN TIYDE•

PARK.

NQUIRY INTO TFIE ALLEGED MISCONDUCT I
OF THE POLICE.
The Commissioners took their seats yesterday morn-
ing shortly after 11 o'clock.
Police-sergeant 12 A was the first witness called. He
stated he had been upwards of eleven years in the ser-
vice, and 'five years a sergeant. He took Adam
Holding into custody on Sunday, Ist July (the
man sitting on a heap of earth with his wife read-
ing the Family Herald). The force acted on this
occasion in clearing the drive as they did at races
and other public places ; such as flourishing their
truncheons over the heads of the front rank to in-
duce those behind to move back. No doubt some
person's hat might have been struck; it was the case on
other occasions, and then the public took it in good part.
It was necessary some times to assume an attitude of
determination to intimidate the people and induce them
to keep back. Holden was apprehended in consequence
of his hooting and yelling, and flourishing a paper about,
and calling on the people not to allow him to be taken
into custody. His conduct was so violent he had to
be handcuffed. Witness denied that the man taken
from the Serpentine was struck in the yard of the re-
ceiving-house. The police did not strike at the people
as had been described. Witness struck no one that day.
He dii not throw a delicate young man over the rails,
as spoken to by Ur. Sims.
Cross-examined by Mr. Mitchell—The police always
draw their truncheons when they act in a body. He
was unable to say who gave the order for the truncheons
to be drawn. He could not see how a prisoner could
be irritated at having handcuffs put on him. He did
not consider this a serious case as regarded the police,
although by the 14th clause of the Metropolitan Police
Act, if the charges were proved against the men charged,
they would be liable to a fine of 101., or imprisonment
for a limited period.
By Chief Commissioner Wortley—The usual manner.
of flourishing the truncheons was likely to mislead people
at a distance, an induce them to imagine the people
were being Struck.
Mr. Herbert Williams', superintendent of the Royal
Humane Society, was at the receiving-house on the Ist
July. He did not see the man brought from the Ser-
pentine struck in the yard. He was not bleeding.
Witness heard no violent language used by the police.
He saw many persons take stones from the heap near
the receiving-house and put them into their pockets ; the
police then made a rush and drove the people away.
Cross-examined by Mr. Mitchell—He was only in the
yard about 10 or 15 minutes. A mistake had been
made m confounding the receiving-house with the park-
keeper's residence, where the prisoners were taken, and
the statement of Henbery, the park-keeper, as that of
the Royal Humane Society's man, who in consequence
had been subject to much annoyance. The stones were
not considerably diminished. He saw several respectable
people break through the police ; it was principally
mechanics who resisted them.
Re-examined by Mr. Ellice—He saw some stones
thrown in the direction of Superintendent Hughes from
the crowd behind.
20 D was identified by Mr. Floyd as the man who
struck him when he was held by three other policemen.
He was also identified by Mr. Couchman.
Inspector Durkin said he was 39 years of age, and had
been in the force nearly 20 years. The man who was
taken from the Serpentine was very violent before he
got into the water. The man was intoxicated. He
found his reasoning with the people had great effect.
There were some obstinate people who would not listen
to reason. He cautioned the men against striking the
people, and he did not see them strike any one when
flourishing their truncheons to cause the people to stand
back. He used great forbearance that day, and impressed
it on the men. -He saw Superintendent Hughes repeat-
edly, but did not see him strike any one during the day.
Mr. Mitchell said he witnessed his forbearance.
377 A took the " wet man" into custody. He was
very violent, and it took four men to take him to the
Dairy-lodge. He saw no one strike him, nor any blood
about him.
1 Cross-examined by Mr. Mitchell—Referring to a copy
of the magistrate's clerk's notes, he asked the witness if
he did not state before the magistrate at Marylebone-
street, in reference to Mr. Majr's case, "that, being a
gentleman, if be had gone to the superintendent he
might have got off by making an apology ?"
Witness said he did not.
72 D went with the "wet man " in a cab to the sta-
tion. The man's nose was bleeding when he first saw
him at the dairy lodge. He did not see any one strike
him. Witness struck the man in the cab with his
truncheon in self-defence. The "wet man" made a blow
at him with his fists when handcuffed. The man made
no complaint before the magistrates, but apologised that
day for what he had done. The "wet man did not
actually strike him.
Cross-examined by Mr: Mitchell—The truncheon
touched the man on the forehead. Witness was much
punished that day. He did not hear a policeman say,
" this was the best day's lark he had ever had,"
63 A was identified by Mr. M`Lowman.
229 A, usually on duty at the House of Commons,
spoken to by Mr. Coulcher, was put in the box for iden-
tification ; but Mr. Coulcher was unable to attend to do
so, being in Devonshire.
229 A said he was at home the whole of the day, be-
ing off duty.
Charles Thomas Henley, with whom 229 A lodged,
corroborated his statement.
Inspector Lester, of the A division, said he was 37
years of age, and has been 19 years in the force. He was
on duty in Park-street on the Ist July. He denied hav-
ing struck any one that day. There were no policemen
stationed in Lord R. Grosvenor's house that day.
Cross-examined by Mr. Mitchell—The men had no
beer supplied to them that day. He was of the C divi-
sion, attached to the reserved A division.
Mr. Sandell spoke to having been assaulted by an in-
spector, he believed of the name of Lester, who had the
letter C on his collar.
Witness had no coat with the letter C on it.
84 C stated he was 23 years of age, and had been in
the service two years. He was in Park-street far ten
minutes. He had no recollection of hitting a man on
the back as he lay in the street or kick a man in the side,
as deposed to by Mr. Humphries.
By Mr. Commissioner Armstrong—The street was
cleared in ten minutes.
Mr. Mitchell—Then you made a sharp, short, and
decisive charge ?
Witness—l don't know what you mean. He did not
know if ladies were in the balconies of the houses in
Park-street. There were women there. He saw one man
bleeding.
This witness gave his evidence in a very abrupt man-
ner. He was asked by Mr. Mitchell what part of Suffolk
he came from ; but be declined answering till he bad
appealed to the Commissioner. He then stated he came
from Hyde. He was not aware of a saying, " Silly
Suffolk." (Laughter.)
Pogce-serjeant 21 C said he was 32 years of age, and had
been in the service 10 years. He denied having felled
any person to the ground on the Ist of July, or having
committed "more frightful destruction than ever mad-
man committed" as deposed against him. He touched
a man on the back with his truncheon who had a stone
in his hand. He ran after him and put the truncheon
against him to stop himself short rather than strike the
man. He did not think it prudent to apprehend him.
He ran after a second man, but could not overtake him.
Cross-examined by Mr. Mitchell—He heard one man
say, "Give it to the blues," and he ran after him, see-
ing he had a stone in his hand. The description given
him by Mr. Humphries was anything but correct ; it
had given him a new character. He estimated the
people in Park-street at 2,000. He witnessed no violence
by any policeman. He used persuasion to disperse the
crowd. He could not, account for the blood on the man
he had referred to.
By Mr. Chief Commissioner Wortley—He saw nothing
of the attack on the people by the police as described by
Colonel Lindsay.
147 A said he was 21 years of age, and has been in
the force about 12 months. He was on duty in the
Park on the Ist. He struck a boy on the temple (John
Thomas King). On his return from Nine-street he was
assaulted with stones ; one struck a child in a female's
arms. She pointed the boy out to him, and he went to
apprehend him. Witness was then assailed by a number
of men with sticks, one of them taking his truncheon
from him, and the boy was rescued. • Witness described
the attack, and said he was also kicked, and produced
a stick which he said he took from one of his assailants.
A female struck him over the head with her parasol.
Wituess's head was cut, and the next morning a place
had swollen up the size of an egg. Stones and pieces of
railings were flying in all directions.
Cross-examined by Mr. Mitchell—He took a Mr.
Smith to Vine-street for riotous conduct, and assaulting
him. Mr. Smith was the son of a member of Parlia-
ment. The case stood over for a week, when witness
withdrew the charge.
The Court then adjourned.

Government intend to propose to Parliament a grant
of 8001. for the erection of a monument to Sir John
Franklin and the officers and men who have lost their
lives in the Arctic expedition.
[ADVERTISEMENT.I-Among the numerous extraordinary
cures without medicine effected by Du Barry's delicious health-
restoring Revaleuta Arabica Food, the following are not the
least remarkable : —Cure 48,615.—" Plymouth, May 9th,
1851.—For the last ten years I have been suffering from
dyspepsia, headaches, nervousness, low spirits, sleeplessness,
and delusions, and swallowed an incredible amount of medi-
cine without relief. I am happy to say that your food has
cured me, and I am now enjoying better health than I have
had for many years past.—J. S. NEWTON." Cute No. 180.

" Twenty-five years' nervousness, constipation, indigestion,
and debility, from which I have suffered great misery, and,
which no medicine could remove or relieve, have been effec-
tually cured by Du Barry's Food in a very short time.—W. R.
REEVES, Pool Anthony, Tiverton." No. 4,208. —" Eight
years' dyspepsia, nervousness, debility, with cramps, spasms,
and nausea, have been effectually removed by Du Barry's
health-restoring food. I shall be happy to answer any inquiries.
—REV, JOHN W. FLAVELL, Riddlington, Rectory, Norfolk."
Tlnhe 2lcal
canisters,
11b. 2s. 9d.; 21b. 4s. 6d.; 51b. lls. ; 121 b. 22e.
carriage free, on receipt of Post-office order. Barry
Du Barry & Co., 77, Regent-street; London ; also at Ib2,
Piccadilly ; 60, Cracechurch-street ; 330, and 451, Strand;
4, Cheapside ; 60 and 68 Cornhill ; 49, Bishopsgate-street;
55, Charing-cross; 54, Upper Baker-street; 63 and 150,
Oxford-street ; 89, High-street, Camdenttown ; 18, Pall-
mall ; 7, Pall-mall-East ; 132, New Bond-street ; 24, Mot
comb-street ; 13, King William-'street, City ; 30, Conduit
street; 21, Cockspur-street ; 95, Farringclon-street ; 67, St.
Paul's Churchyard; 0, Edward-street, l'crtutuz•square.

HYDROPHOBIA.—The following remedy for the bite of
a mad dog is reported to have been used by a person who
was bitten by a rabid animal six times, and never used
any other remedy : —Dissolve a pound of common salt
in a quart of spring water, and wash and squeeze the
bitten part immediately after the infliction of the wound
for an hour, and then bind some salt upon it for 12
hours. This will neither counteract nor supersede any
other men that may be deemed necessary. The per-
son bitten should keep as quiet as possible before the
ablution, that exertion may not promote the absorption
of the virus. In Germany when such an occurrence
takes place some dust, or any dry article, is directly
thrown on the bitten part, which absorbs the froth or
saliva, and thereby tends to diminish infection by im-
bibing the infectious matter. When so many eminent
practitioners have failed in their endeavours to cure this
dreadful malady, so simple an expedient is worth the
trial ; for, if it does not effectually cure the disorder, it I
will doubtless mitigate its direful effects.