§ MR. LAINGasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether there is anything in the Treaty of Berlin, or in the engagements taken by Russia at the Congress, by which the indemnity to be paid by Turkey to Russia is postponed to other debts of the Turkish Government which had no special hypothecations, contrary to the general rule that the debts of a State have no priority, inter se, apart from special hypothecations?
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERSir, there is nothing in the Treaty of Berlin that bears upon this matter; but in the 11th Protocol it will be found that there were some communications that passed between the Plenipotentiaries. I will especially call the hon. Gentleman's attention to what passed between Count Corti and Count Schouvaloff. Count Corti quotes the 522 words of Count Schouvaloff declaring that if the indemnity of 300,000,000 of roubles be affirmed by a vote of the Congress, this sum would enjoy no preferential claims over the loans guaranteed by France and England. His Excellency remarks that he thinks there are other loans not guaranteed, and he thinks he may believe that the Russian declaration extends to all the other loans of Turkey. Count Schouvaloff says that he has not examined this difficulty; but he states generally that Russia proposes to respect the legality of every anterior loan. Prince Gortschakoff remarks that the war indemnity would not affect the interests of the creditors of the Porte. I do not pretend to put an interpretation upon nice questions of international law; but these are points which are material to the Question of my hon. Friend.