RUSSIAN-DUTCH LOAN—GREECE. (Hansard, 4 June 1832)

Mr. Baring
said, there was another subject to which he was anxious to call the attention of the noble Lord, before bringing up the Report. It would be recollected, that early in the present Session, a long discussion took place on the motion of a right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Herries), on the payment of a debt of Russia, part of which was guaranteed by this country and by Holland. That debt was paid in part by the present Government; but the noble Lord, whether from some misgivings as to the question, or to put it on a more secure ground, stated that it was his intention to bring in a bill on the subject. He wished to know from the noble Lord, whether such was still his intention, and when he intended to bring in the bill? There was another subject on which he was anxious to put a question to the noble Lord. He had heard it stated, and indeed on such good authority, that unless he heard it denied by the noble Lord be should consider it authentic, that this country had entered into an engagement to pay a large sum of money for the pur- 389 pose of supporting a German prince on the throne of Greece. He wished to know whether the fact was so?

§ Lord Althorp
said, that one ground on which the payment to Russia had been defended was, that although we had admitted that a separation had taken place between Belgium and Holland, yet that Russia had not. Russia had since admitted and made itself a party to an acknowledgment of that separation, and in that respect she stood on somewhat different grounds. In consequence, a convention had been drawn up between this country and Russia, and was now in progress, though it had not yet been ratified. When that convention should be ratified, it would be laid on the Table, and such measures would be proposed with respect to it as might be considered necessary. In the mean time, Parliament would not be called upon for any measures on the subject of the Russian-Dutch loan, payment of which would, until such ratification, be suspended. On the subject of the hon. Gentleman's second question, he would only say, that, as it was the subject of a pending negotiation, the hon. Member must excuse him if he declined giving any explanation respecting it.

Mr. Herries
expressed his satisfaction at hearing the new decision of submitting this question to Parliament, and that the payments of the loan till then were suspended. That was something gained by the discussion to which he had given rise, though the majority decided against him. He rose, however, to enter his protest against what the noble Lord stated as the ground of the opposition to the motion. On the part of the Government the line taken was the ground assumed by the Law Officers, that the separation had taken place. He admitted, that one person on the side of the Government had made use of the argument, that the separation was not complete as far as Russia was concerned; but the ground laid down by the law officers, on which all their arguments were founded, was, that the separation was complete.

§ Lord Althorp
The right hon. Gentleman admitted that one person had made use of that argument, and that one person was the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. The argument used by the law officers undoubtedly was, that the separation was complete as far as this country was concerned, but not complete for Russia, who had never acknowledged it.

§ Mr. Croker
reminded the noble Lord, that the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs only made use of that argument in his reply at the close of the Debate. Then he did not insist on it, but only threw it in obiter—as a make-weight, as if it were necessary to assist his other arguments which the noble Lord described to be irresistible.