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

TURKISH LOAN.

The house then went into committee on the Turkish
Loan 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 wed 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 well knew, with the inio'ida
of the ancient Roman law. It was, therefore, best repre-
sented in English by the word `• conjointly," which be (the
Chancellor of the Exchequer) maintained was a literal and
faithful translation. If, however, it was thought that any
a lditional force woul I be given to the statute by the words
of the right hon. gentleman, ho 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 ono 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 bad 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
bed, 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 Goverment
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 tha treaty had to be referred back to France? (Hear,
hear.) The Moniteur of Friday, July 20, promulgated the
treaty for the Turkish leer, 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? Thecormittee
would, therefore, see that the course recommended by the
right hon. gentleman offered obstacles and difficulties in
the way of its adoption which, for prttctical purposes,
might be considered as insurmountable. But it wss said
the principle of guarantee was incurably bad. He would
call attention to the two alternatives before them. Sup-
nosing Government had attempted to res ort to the exite-
d ent of a loan, would the French Govern] nent, in addition
to their own loan, have added two and a halt millions
t> their own debt to lend the money to Turkey? Were
we in a condition to go into the market to borrow 2A mil-
lions? Were we in a condition to gild to the large re-
quirements for the service of the year the additional sum
of '2i millions to lend it to Turkey ? Sardinian loan
had been offered to Government as ahem odel to follow on
lteheiserc.weasion.But what were the circumstances of that
agreed to lend Sardinia 21 m illions, but France
took no share in that burden. In the present age we
divide the burden with
had
ithour ally,
and all That was objected
to it was that we
carry out that joint guarantee,
joint guarantee. But, then, to
inant amply
had we not the good faith
of our ally, which was,his opinion, sufficient. It
was said that we ought
to have raised the money and „even
the money absolutely to Turkey, that
iest,hissociolutrhsoetwooftriletel
hava avoided all diplomatic difficul
gift. -would have been more advantageous to all parties thsn
a joint loan. But he differel etlma
nwoeirn tm.
ghHteecoomne-
sid‘ered if a gift was made that the borrower
ag• ain. He would ask what was the effect of the guarantees
lry Mr. Pitt in 1795 and 1797, when twoloans were raised
,y the Emperor of Austria and guarantee: h
In 1824 the Imperial annuities were abolished' England.
, (;altn
otehael
whole of these two loans was incorporated into the
d bt. The loss incurred by this country was about 4,
Here was a case in which a guaranteed loan by me '(Yptlt
had cost the country a loss of 4,090,0001. But, on the other
hand, we gained the services and allianceof 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 separates
and that in a loan of 5,000,0301. to Tor-
key,ourobligatioas ought to have beenlimited to 2,500,0001..
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-
dulously attended to. The particulars of the Greek loan
wovdd be found in the convention. The financial arrange-
remits were made by the Greek Government. Two co7n-
misaioners left Paris, and contracted with Mean's. Roths-
child in 1833 for the whole 16,009,000 f, at the same price
--namely, 94. By this 1110 IDS the credit of England,the
France, and Russia were measured out at precisely
same rate, The price of the Greek bonds in the market
was foiled to ran at a lower figure than the lowest price
of the Five per Cege
nts. of any of the guaranteeing powers.
That was an arrangement which the right hon. gentleman
Lad np as &model of perfection. Now, he could hardly
conceive anything more ruinous to a foreign state than
such a course, or less calculated to obtain the benefit of a
guarantee, `par was a hard km ter and was the
parent of urgent necessities,lticaostnpealsled 'nations to en-
force measures which voluntarily it would not have Te•
course to in time of pe
• But beyoP d that necess:ty
which every government must experience in circumstances
such as those in which we p
reason for thinking that better were
now placed, he saw no
could
have been
those under the
consideration of the house been obtained by
her Majesty's Government, or that
any reconsideration.
of the subject, such as that proposed
by tohl!tariinghteht7enr.
gentleman, would Governmentenable
arms.
Mr. GLADSTONE said the object of hisPriirl)crisvlious re-
formerof the
marks was not to raise a question as to the
bill, or to draw a comparison between tits:Elide:
measures, but the remarks of the right hon,
opened up the question of the principle of the bill. The
right hon. gentleman had dwelt on the principle of the
Greek and Sardinian loans; but when he came to the terms
of the present convention he passed the subject by, show.
ins 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 hon. 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. gentleman appeared
tonly to consider how he could save Si. 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 him
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
viewed joint guarantees with great apprehension, and he
hoped this would be the last of these kind of operations.
His right hon. friend had told them that the Government
had entered into a sub-contract with France, by which she
had bound herself to remit a moiety of the interest 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. GL ADSTONE 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-
ment 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 Bank 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 ho 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 (in conjuntion with an ally, and were not,
perhaps, free to choose the made of proceeding. It might
be that the French Government preferred a guarantee to a
loan. The right hon. member for Oxferd 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
axed 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 surprise 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 his 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
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.
(Hear, 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
" solidaireirtent" 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
arst 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. RICA.RDO 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 be 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
5,000,0001., 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 ofsthe EXCHEQUER said he was
not aware that the terms of the convention gave any power
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 be 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 tho-e Governments should reserve to themselves a
right to deal with that. fund.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, sail be 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 hen, gentleman the member for Glasgow an
invective against political economy. (A laugh.) I must say
I believe that the occurrences of this evening fully justify
our conduct in refusing to proceed 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 hon. 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 conven, ion
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 been told, by a member of the Cabinet, after due
deliberation on the part of the Cabinet Ministers, and there-
f, re, as I presume, affir 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 "solidaire," in the opinion of
the Cabinet, implied a neited responsibility. But 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
responsibility. I cannot help thinking that such an
occurrence as this entirely justifies the course which the
committee has taken. What does the honourable and
right hon. gentleman, learned. gentleman the Solicitor-General say? Why, he
gives his unqualified adhesion to that interpretation of
the Word " solidaire" which was first broached by the
to the responsibility incurred caunrdredwhbiyehtha
tl
surely the right et attaches
nat
inoenw(
mmeaning
f
apparent dissent from the Chancellor of the Exchequer).
The C
learned gentle
the rof the Exchequer shakes his head. But
Solicitor-General hon. gentleman does not mean to repudiate
interpretation of the word given by the hon. and
the Solicitor-General. No doubt the
one
mission a strange says--ant I confess I considered the ad-
the part of the hon. and learned
gentleman—that he
not read the convention until this
morning. I should have morn advantage to the Goe thought it would have been of
noble lord would condescend to of the noble lord if the
consult the law advisers of
the Crown with respect to thee
ida
meaning
of treaties before
he recommends the House of Commo
4 , 801 a,iirr%ifi Bion of the
with so
a
However, we have now the unqualified to sanction them.
Solicitor-General that the epithet
meaning exactly contrary to that which in
erudition was promulgated by the Chancellor
of
Exchequer, and I believe the opinion of the committee much
the
with the hon. and learned gentleman upon thatsintbejeectie
If the hon. and learned gentleman had only expressedthai
opinion, I should have listened to hisaddress with unmixed
satisfaction. But I confess there was one portion of that
address which filled me with a new alarm. The bon. and
learned gentleman has given us a description of our security
under this treaty, from which I find that we have strictly
if the interest in t.
r that mortgage
a mortgage on Turkey. Now, I want to know who is
be the receiver antler
~
ore pregnant than such an ar-
ceive any circumstance more p case should not be forthcoming . I confess I cannot eon-
country.
rangement with difficulty
occasion to vindicate the vote
I have not risen upon .
difficulty and even danger to this
which I gave on Friday
I have met hon. members
the most complete satisfaction.
mg.ht. I look upon that vote with
t fere between them
I do not wish to in er
they then gave. to vindicate the vote which
who have thought it necessary
dictated by sound
as far as I am concerned, my vote. was
it is a vote
constitutional feeling, and that
and their consciences or their constituents; but I feel that,
policy and by
wise and prudent. 1 have risen upon this occasion
prin-
doe-
which will ultimately he generally recogni.s.al to have been
\cipally fur the purpose of noticing the extraordinary
, represent large and popular constituencies, and whose
i doc-
trines I have heard laid down to-night by gentlemen who
°pinions I cannot excuse by the charitable
not the privileee to Commons
SUP-
Position. that they spoke without previous reflection.
Eitlasr the House of has the privilege or it has
tolndtethaat
sanction thee() financialarrangements
which are made by the Government, when they advise her
Majesty to enter i
I hold
If we are to be
disloyal on the part citonwveonutlidonbewirnt with 3
ta foreign
impolitic
andate.
of
much better
to exercise that privilege,
then I say it would be , that we should be rid of
it altogether. (Hear.)however, that it is a privilege
to be approached in a spirit of avity an4:rovprence, but