ment of which he spoke with so much enthusiasm, as calling upon the Porte to suppress a paper circulated in Turkey which reflected upon the Government of Greece. In fact, it was the Greek Government which had instigated the Porte to ask for the withdrawal of the permission to M. Zenos to send his newspaper through the English post, because that paper contained articles hostile to the Greek Government. He had, he thought, now stated sufficient to show the House the grounds on which the Government had acted in the case of M. Zenos. M. Zenos was perfectly free to circulate his papers, but he was not free to abuse the privilege of the British post. He would now turn to another topic dwelt upon by the hon. Gentleman, who had ventured to insinuate that he (Mr. Layard) had made a speech in that House in favour of Turkish finance because he was interested in it as the recent chairman of the Ottoman Bank, and one of its shareholders. Now, he would not condescend to answer or deny such a charge coming from such a man. He had certainly made in the course of the Session a statement on the subject of Turkish finance, and to that statement he still adhered.

they had granted us, should be taken advantage of, to disseminate such treasonable matter, and be made the instrument by which disaffection and disobedience to the law were incited. Let him suppose that, in answer to such an appeal, the English Government had replied, that they would insist upon the paper in question being circulated; would not the Turkish authorities have been justified in saying, "If you choose to avail yourselves of a privilege, which we with such unexampled liberality grant you, to exercise it in this way, we must, in justice to ourselves, withdraw it altogether?" But the hon. Gentleman was entirely wrong in asserting that the Government of this country had suppressed M. Zenos's newspaper. He might still send it through the Austrian or the French post; nay, he might try even the Roman post. But, to bring the matter to a closer issue, let him suppose that a French postoffice, such as that which was established by the English Government in Turkey, existed in Dublin, and that by its means documents were circulated throughout the country denouncing the oppression under which the people of Ireland were suffering, and urging them on to rebellion-would the English Government not have a right to remonstrate with France and to take the necessary steps to prevent such a privilege as that which she enjoyed being thus abused? So far as the papers asked for by the hon. Gentleman-were concerned, he had not the slightest objection to produce them, with the exception of those embraced in the concluding paragraph of his Motion, which he was obviously unable to give, inasmuch as it called upon him to say which articles were or were not written by the editor of the British Star, or which were those copied from other journals. He could not possibly say what articles were written by M. Zenos, and any such Return, therefore, it would be impossible to give; but if he would be satisfied with the correspondence which had taken place between the Foreign Office and Her Majesty's Minister at Constantinople, and M. Zenos himself, he should have much pleasure MR. SCULLY: I cannot be expected in producing it. The hon. Gentleman, he to vouch for the exact words, but I undermight add, had charged his noble Friend stood the hon. Gentleman to use these at the head of the Foreign Office with in- words :-"I cannot be expected to answer consistency, but it was doubtful whether such a charge coming from such a man." the hon. Gentleman had not in the fullest I move that they be taken down, but I extent laid himself open to that charge, was in hopes that the hon. Gentleman because, while he accused the Turkish Go-would explain.

MR. SCULLY: Sir, I rise to order. I beg to move that the words just used by the hon. Gentleman be taken down. I submit it is unparliamentary to apply such words to any Member of this House, I do do not care who he is. Indeed, the hon. Member to whom they are applied in the present instance, so far from being a friend of mine, has always shown himself to be. my personal enemy. But, be that as it may, the words "such a charge coming from such a man are clearly unparliamentary, and I therefore beg to move that they be taken down by the clerk at the table.

MR. MAGUIRE: I would wish to observe, Sir-["Order, order! "]

MR. SPEAKER: The words which the hon. Gentleman wishes to be taken down must be exactly those which fell from the hon. Member for Southwark.

vernment of being the vilest of despotisms, MR. LAYARD: If, of course, Sir, I have he yet represented the free Greek Govern- used words which are unparliamentary, I

the hon. Gentleman used the words "such a man," which were clearly unparliamentary, and could not be tolerated, inadvertently; and I feel assured he will recall them, and express his regret that he did not use the words "such a quarter,' which, I believe, would not be out of order. That being done, the question might be considered as settled, and we should be able to proceed with the discussion.

should at once submit to any decision with respect to them which you might think proper to pronounce. I should withdraw them if you think I am called upon to do so. You, Sir, heard what the hon. Gentle man opposite said. He accused me, in language not to be mistaken, of unparliamentary and dishonourable conduct. He stated or insinuated that I had made a speech in this House by means of which I endeavoured to force up the Turkish Loan. That, at all events, was the impression he left on my mind. He used the words "rigging the market," and seemed to wish the House to suppose, that because I had recently been chairman of the Ottoman Bank and one of its shareholders, I made the speech in question with the object which I have indicated. Now, I venture to say that so serious a charge as that has scarcely ever before been made in this House against one of its Members, and I certainly did reply to it, as I submit I was perfectly justified in doing, by saying Imentary conduct by private motives. That should be doing what was inconsistent with my character as a man of honour, as a Member of the Government, and as a Member of Parliament, if I condescend to answer such a charge coming from such a quarter. I have no wish to retract those words.

a man,

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, I may be allowed to say that I think both hon. Gentlemen have, perhaps, somewhat overstepped those limits within which, on cooler reflection, they would, I am sure, admit it is desirable to keep. In the first place, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dungarvan used very offensive, I may almost say unparliamentary and unbecoming language, as between gentleman and gentleman, in accusing my hon. Friend near me of being influenced in his Parlia

was a charge which everybody must feel that one Member ought not to have launched against another. It was an accusation which no gentleman, conscious of its injustice, could hear made against him with the calmest temper in the world, and I am not surprised that my hon. Friend MR. DISRAELI: I understand there should have replied to it in words someis a question as to whether the words what overstepping the usual courtesy of should be taken down. Certainly, if the debate. The House will recollect, moreover, hon. Gentleman had simply used the that the hon. Member for Dungarvan laid phrase "from such a quarter," his lan- himself open in a peculiar manner to such guage would have been Parliamentary. a retort from my hon. Friend, because he In using, as he did, the words "such said in the course of his speech that he he must, I think, have spoken did not make the statement he was addressinadvertently in the hurry of debate, and ing to the House upon his own knowledge I am the more inclined to that opinion or authority, but upon information derived because in his previous observations he from somebody else. I must say, that if referred in the most courteous terms to an attack should be made upon my private the hon. Member for Dungarvan, for character by a man who says that he does he distinctly called him three times his not speak from his own knowledge, but "hon. Friend." Indeed, so much struck from the instructions of another person, I was I by the remarkable courtesy thus should hesitate before condescending to exhibited by him, notwithstanding the pe-answer" such a charge coming from such culiar expressions used by the hon. Member for Dungarvan with respect to his relations in connection with the Turkish Loan, that it was a matter of observation on the part of my hon. Friends by me and myself that Parliamentary courtesy had MR. MAGUIRE: I shall be glad at any never in all probability been strained to time to settle with the Under Secretary such a degree before. I looked upon the any personal matter which may arise hon. Gentleman, in short, as setting all of between us. My object, however, in us a very good example. But now, as rising now is to make an explanation, for this painful misconception has arisen, II think there should be no misconception think the House will be of opinion that as to the real meaning of what I did say.

a man." My hon. Friend, I am sure, will not insist upon words which may be considered unparliamentary, but will at once submit to the decision of the House and withdraw them.

MR. MAGUIRE: I quoted from the Report that the Franks were not allowed to work mines.

demnation, and yet the Turkish Govern- Some, no doubt, were, but all the customs ment did not hesitate to allow it to be were not farmed. It was impossible to laid before the British Parliament. He carry out any sweeping measure of reformn doubted whether there was another Go- in a single day; but already the Turks had vernment in Europe which would have taken a large portion of their revenue permitted such a Report, made at its own from the farmers, and he believed that request by the agents of a foreign Power, eventually they would have the collection to be published; and he thought the of the whole in their own hands. The Turkish Government were entitled to hon. Gentleman had also asserted that great credit for the liberality they had Franks were not allowed to work mines shown in the matter. The hon. Gen- in Turkey. All he could say was that tleman had said that if the Report had been there were Franks working mines at the published at once, down would have gone present moment. the Turkish loan. Why, the Report had been published, and the Turkish loan was higher now than it was before the Report came out. At that moment, he believed, the loan was at £4 premium, so that the publication of the Report, instead of lessening, had increased public confidence. He might state, moreover, that the Report was communicated to the contractors for the loan before it was laid before Parliament. It was so communicated because our Government wished the contractors to have the whole case fairly before them; and it was submitted to them, too, with the express sanction of the Turkish Ambassador. The hon. Gentleman had gone into details upon the authority of M. Zenos' statements; but no one could have known better than M. Zenos that many of those statements were entirely untrue. M. Zenos was a Greek, and must be supposed to know well what he was writing about. He would show how the hon. Gentleman had nevertheless been misinformed by M. Zenos. First he made an attack on Achmet Vefyk Effendi, a personal friend, he (Mr. Layard) was happy to say, of his own, and a man of genius, and of the highest honour and the most unimpeachable honesty-a man who was never, as the hon. Gentleman had affirmed, dismissed from the Turkish Government; but who had resigned more than once, because he was asked to do things which he did not believe to be compatible with his integrity. It was not true that when he stated to the House that the Turkish Government had put Achmet Vefyk Effendi at the head of the Finance Committee he knew that he had been dismissed. He did not know that Achmet Vefyk Effendi ever had been dismissed. On the contrary, he knew that his career had been most distinguished and successful, and that he was now at the head of a most important Department of State in Turkey. The hon. Gentleman had stated that the Turkish customs were farmed.

MR. LAYARD said, he had been often in Turkey, and had never heard of any such restriction, and he knew that foreigners were working mines in Thessaly and in other parts of that empire. Then the hon. Gentleman said that Christians could not hold land in Turkey. That statement was utterly at variance with the fact, because half the subjects of the Sultan were Christians, and they held land as well as the other subjects of the Sultan. It was true that foreigners could not hold land in Turkey. The hon. Member was surprised that such a state of things should be possible, and asked whether it would be tolerated in England? Why in England by the law no foreigner could hold land. Then the hon. Gentleman taunted the Turkish Government with such charges as taxed the credulity of the House, for he said that any woman might hold land in Turkey because she might be taken possession of for certain purposes. When such a statement was made, he hardly knew how to answer it, except by saying that the person upon whose authority the hon. Gentleman spoke had wilfully and designedly misinformed and cajoled him. The Turkish Government very liberally allowed foreigners to hold land by permitting them to avail themselves of a fiction of the Mohammedan law, and to have the deeds made out in the name of any woman in Turkey, all women by a legal fiction being considered subjects of the Sultan, and a large amount of Catholic and other church property in the East belonging to foreign institutions was actually held and registered in the name of the Virgin Mary. A large number also of English, French, and other foreign subjects, held land in Turkey merely by having it registered in the names of ladies who were not even Turkish subjects, and