§ LORD MONTEAGLEwished to obtain an explanation from the Lord President relative to a subject on which a question had been lately put in the other House, to which an answer had been given leading to some confusion if not misapprehension. The matter to which he referred was the contract into which France and this country were about to enter, in order to guarantee a loan of 5,000,000l. for the benefit of Turkey. He was now desirous of ascertaining whether the guarantee we were about to give would be, speaking in legal phraseology, a guarantee joint and several—that was an engagement that England, on her side, should guarantee the whole of the loan; and that France, on her part, should likewise guarantee the whole amount:—or whether it was a divisible guarantee; our Government making itself responsible to the extent of 2,500,000l., and that of France to the extent of the balance of 2,500,000l.? This was a matter of very considerable importance with respect to the future relations between the two countries joining in the guarantee. This was not the first time that a point of this description had been considered. The same question had arisen under the Governments of Lord Grey and Lord Melbourne, and had been decided, in his judgment, rightly. It was originally intended that the Greek Loan of 1832 should be concluded upon the joint guarantee of the three Powers interested—namely, Russia, France, and England; but the inconveniences anticipated from such a form of guarantee were so strongly felt that the question was taken into further consideration by Lord Grey's Government, when they determined that 850 they would submit the propriety of changing the guarantee into a several instead of a joint guarantee, to the other contracting parties; and the form of a several in place of a joint guarantee was ultimately the one adopted for the Greek loan of 1832. It was therefore of importance to know, before entering into any binding engagement, whether the guarantee for the proposed Turkish loan would involve our responsibility for the whole 5,000,000l., or whether England would be liable for one-half only, and France making herself responsible for the other?
§ EARL GRANVILLEIn answer to the question put to me by my noble Friend, I beg to inform him that the first alternative is the one which has been accepted by Her Majesty's Government. It is to be a joint guarantee of a loan of 5,000,000l. sterling; and, undoubtedly, this country will be responsible to the creditor for the whole of that sum. As to whether it is desirable that the precedent of 1832 should be departed from in this instance, it is premature now to enter into the discussion of that question; but, at all events, of this I can assure my noble Friend, that the course we have adopted has not been taken precipitately or in a hurry, but after due deliberation.
§ House adjourned till To-morrow.