§ MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEsaid, he rose to call attention to the discrepancies which exist between the statements made by Her Majesty's Government and those of the advisers of the King of Greece respecting the conditions on which the Ionian Islands have been annexed to Greece, and also to the Convention between Her Majesty and the King of the Hellenes respecting the claims of British subjects and others, signed at London 29th March, 1864. As the Ionian Islands belonged to Greece, it was not his intention to go into the question of the policy or wisdom of their cession by England. Since the debate on the 18th of March on the subject, some papers had been laid before the House which had given rise to a certain amount of ill-feeling throughout Greece, and which also suggested questions of great importance to two classes of people in this country—those holding pensions under the Ionian Government and the Greek bondholders. There were also some remarkable discrepancies between the statements of Her Majesty's Ministers and those of the advisers of the King of Greece, which it was desirable should be cleared up. It would be recollected that on the 18th of March the hon. Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs asserted in a very decided 1576 manner that the proposals for the neutralization of the Islands and the destruction of the fortifications had been communicated to the young King and his counsellors, and had met with their approval. The hon. Gentleman said—
He held in his hand despatches which showed that in August the matter was discussed at Copenhagen long before the King left that city, and both His Majesty and Count Sponneck were well aware of what was proposed to be done, Count Sponneck in the middle of summer not only acceding to the proposal, but suggesting that the whole of Greece should be declared a neutral State.The Chancellor of the Exchequer also made a statement even more strongly to a similar effect. These declarations on the part of Her Majesty's Ministers had placed Count Sponneck in a very awkward position, and had excited some irritation against him on the part of the Greek people. It was not his habit to deal in imputations concerning the falsification of despatches, and he did not mean to suggest that there was any intentional misstatement by the Ministers; but it appeared that after Count Sponneck arrived in Greece he declared that the whole proceeding took him by surprise. When they looked at the despatches, however, OK which the statements of the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen were based, they would see that there had been a serious misapprehension. In a despatch, dated the 10th of August, 1863, Sir Augustus Paget wrote to Earl Russell as follows:—Count Sponneck has learnt that there was a project of treaty communicated by your Lordship to the representatives of the five Powers assembled in Conference for the affairs of Greece, which embodied two conditions relative to the annexation of the Ionian Islands, which he understood to be the upshot of communications which had taken place between Her Majesty's Government and the Cabinet of Vienna. The first condition was the neutrality of the Ionian Islands; the second, that the fortifications of Corfu should be razed. After speaking of the possible effect which the knowledge of these conditions might have in indisposing the Ionian Parliament to vote the annexation, for which reason it became of still greater importance to King George to have the vote before setting out for Greece, Count Sponneck said that if the union between the Islands and the kingdom was to be a real one (an incorporation, in short), as was apparently intended, he did not understand how the Islands could be neutralized without extending the neutrality to the rest of Greece.It was plain that Count Sponneck in saying that the neutralization of the Islands involved the neutralization of the whole kingdom, was merely using the argumentum ad absurdum, and endeavouring to show that the proposal was a grave po- 1577 litical error. Sir Augustus Paget added that "Count Sponneck appears to have no objection to the razing of the fortifications;" but he submitted that that despatch did not justify the very strong expressions used by the Under Secretary and Chancellor of the Exchequer.The next point to which he wished to draw attention was the unjust treatment of gentlemen who had accepted service in the Ionian Islands on the guarantee by the British Government of their salaries and pensions. Until lately there was, of course, no idea that these Islands would be given up by England, and these gentle men naturally looked to the British Government for recompense. Indeed, they had sacrificed annually so much of their income in order to secure superannuation. In February, 1864, M. Tricoupi pointed out to Her Majesty's Government that they ought to accept the responsibility of meeting the indemnity to officials. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, however, declared that Parliament would not vote a credit for the purpose, but suggested that the amount might be diminished by withholding the indemnity in cases where other appointments under the British Government were accepted. That was at variance with a previous statement of the Duke of Newcastle, who evidently contemplated that the indemnity might be enjoyed even by those who received other employment. He thought the payment of these pensions would fall with some degree of harshness upon the Greek Treasury, and as it would be unjust to pensioners that they should not be paid, was the English Government to step in? In considering the question it must be borne in mind that the gentlemen entitled to the pensions had been sent out from this country, and that when they were appointed they had not the slightest conception that they would be placed in the position in which they found themselves by an act of policy on the part of the British Government. Were they to do battle with the Greek Government in order that they might obtain their pensions instead of receiving them direct from the Home Government, as they were entitled to do under the guarantees they had received? He trusted that the Government would give some explanations of their intentions upon the subject.
The third point he wished to notice was the future position of the bondholders. The value of the loan was nearly £8,000,000 sterling, and so far the bond- 1578 holders had received scarcely anything. The Greek Government a few months ago forwarded a circular to the Allied Powers, inquiring if they would be willing to limit their demands on the Greek Treasury for five years to only £36,000 per annum in lieu of £140,000, which the Allies were paying for interest and sinking fund, so that the Greek Government might be able to make an offer to the holders of the bonds issued in 1824 and 1825, which if accepted would restore the credit of Greece, and thus insure her future progress. It was important to know if the application had been replied to, and in the event of the Greek Government making a pseudo offer, if the British Government was bound (under those circumstances) to limit its demand to one-third of the £36,000. In spite of the great difficulties by which they had been surrounded, Greece was prosperous, wages were high, the prospects of the country generally were good, and the revenue had increased by one-fifth. The Government, however, were depressed by the amount of debt for which they were responsible, and it was most desirable that some understanding should be come to on the subject, and it appeared to him that the best course to pursue would be for Government to forego a portion of their claim on Greece, and that arrangements should be adopted under which the remainder of her liabilities should be punctually liquidated. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs would afford them some explanation upon each of these three topics.
§ MR. LAYARDsaid, he regretted that his hon. Friend had thought it necessary to bring before the House the first part of his question. He had hoped that that matter had been forgotten in Greece, and that such a good understanding existed between Count Sponneck and the people of that country, that there could be no occasion for reviving it in reference to either of these irritating topics. But he could not allow the hon. Gentleman to contradict the statements which he (Mr. Layard) had made on a previous occasion without re-asserting that they were strictly true.
§ MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEsaid, he had only read an extract from the despatches.
§ MR. LAYARDThe only statement he had made in that House was that the 1579 intention of razing the fortifications of Corfu, and of neutralizing the Ionian Islands, must have been known to Count Sponneck before he started for Greece, because those questions were discussed at Copenhagen in the month of August, and the statement which he (Mr. Layard) had made was fully borne out by the despatches. The question was discussed in the month of August between Count Sponneck and Sir Augustus Paget, and Sir Augustus Paget declared that Count Sponneck raised no objection to the destruction of the fortifications. In a speech made in another place last year by Earl Russell, in the month of June, the noble Earl declared that the fortifications would be razed in consequence of demands which had been made by Austria, demands in which there were reasons to believe Prussia and Russia would acquiesce, and the statement then made was entirely approved by the Earl of Derby. It was also fully corroborated by the despatches. It was perfectly true that Count Sponneck had directed his secretary to write a most improper letter upon the matter to the Archbishop of Corfu, in which very unbecoming language was used towards Earl Russell and himself (Mr. Layard). That letter was posted all over the Island, and such a proceeding at such a moment might have led to grave consequences, but fortunately no such result had followed. He had hoped that the matter would have been entirely forgotten, and he was sorry that it had been revived. With regard to the pensioners, his hon. Friend was in error when he said they were gentlemen who had served the English Government. Those included in Table A of the Convention were gentlemen who came under the Superannuation Fund, and from whose salaries certain sums were deducted in order to provide pensions. [Mr. BAILLIE COCHRANE: By the English Government.] They were paid out of the Civil List in the Island of Corfu, and had nothing whatever to do with the English Government. Having paid towards the Civil List in Corfu, it would be an extraordinary proceeding for this country to guarantee the payment of their pensions. We had done all we could, and had entered into a solemn diplomatic arrangement with regard to the payment of the pensions. By the Convention the Greek Government were bound every year to communicate with Her Majesty's Minister at Athens, who was also to receive notice that the pensions bad been satisfied. There were 1580 two classes of claimants who had some cause to complain; but their case had been strongly recommended by Her Majesty's Government to the Greek Government, and he trusted that the Greek Government would deal liberally with them. With regard to the bondholders, the hon. Member wished the Government to remit a portion of the debt owing to the public here in order that the bondholders might be served, but he (Mr. Layard) doubted whether the House would consent to such an arrangement. He did not think that the British Government were in any way called upon to make any arrangement for the benefit of the private creditors of Greece.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, it was of very little consequence whether Count Sponneck understood that the fortifications were to be razed or not. Count Sponneck could scarcely feel surprise at such a course being taken, because in the blue-book a conversation was reported between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and M. Tricoupi, in which the right hon. Gentleman distinctly expressed himself in favour of the neutralization of the Islands. We could not have handed over these Islands to Greece without neutralizing them or destroying their fortifications. Those fortifications would have served as a place d'armes for the invasion of Turkey, and would have enabled the frontier of that country to be turned. With regard to the gentlemen who had claims to pensions for their past services in the Ionian Islands, the treatment they had received was shameful. Her Majesty's Government ought not to have ceded these Islands to Greece without insisting on a much better security for the pensions of these gentlemen than that which had been obtained. They had for years subscribed to a fund which would have been sufficient to have ensured the pensions had it not been appropriated by the Ionian Government then under the protection of Great Britain. Our Government had remitted its own claims on the kingdom of Greece in order to add to the civil list of the young King George, but it ought not to have been generous towards a foreign Sovereign without first being just towards our own subjects. He understood that M. Tricoupi, the Greek Minister, had wished the British Chancellor of the Exchequer to place these pensions on our Consolidated Fund, and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer very properly refused to do anything of the kind; but it appeared that 1581 the right hon. Gentleman had suggested that it would relieve the Greek Treasury if it were arranged that these gentlemen should forfeit their pensions on receiving other employment from the English Government. Now, if these gentlemen had a claim to pensions from the British Government, and the British Government chose to employ them again, it might be very fair that they should forego their pensions in consideration of their official salaries, but that was quite a different case; and he must say he thought it most extraordinary that such advice should have been given by a Minister of this country to the Greek Minister. He would take an instance by way of illustration. If an Englishman entered the service of Austria and earned a pension, would it be right that he should thereby lose a previous pension which he had gained in the service of his own country? Great disorders had taken place in Athens and other parts of Greece since the accession of the young King. A repetition of the fearful scenes which occurred when King Otho first went to Athens had been witnessed after the arrival of King George. A series of most brutal atrocities was enacted, the most horrible outrages were perpetrated upon women, and a state of confusion such as had not been surpassed in the times when he himself was in Greece, prevailed there soon after the glorification and rejoicing upon the election of the present King, all arising from the lawless violence of men who carried on war in order to make their own party predominant in the councils of the new Sovereign. The existing Government of Greece was one to which it was hardly fair to leave the claims of the officers who had lost their appointments through the cession of the Ionian Islands. The talents of those gentlemen were great and their services had been most valuable, and he deeply regretted the state of insecurity in which they were left in regard to their pensions. He felt sure that their case would be brought before that House before long, that they would have to be paid out of the Treasury of this country, and that, perhaps, we should even be involved in war with Greece on this matter.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he was not about to enter into the general discussion, but as he had been referred to be wished to say a few words. A conversation which he had had with the Greek Minister had been alluded to, and 1582 was said to be described in an official letter of that Minister. He had not seen the letter, and could only speak of that conversation from memory. It was a private conversation, and had nothing to do with the negotiations generally. It was true he had told M. Tricoupi that he did not think it would be possible for the British Government to ask Parliament to undertake the payment of the pensions of those gentlemen who had served in the Ionian Islands. M. Tricoupi wished to know whether the British Treasury could in any way be made auxiliary to pay that charge, and his answer was "No." The hon. and gallant Member said he had made to M, Tricoupi the suggestion that in the event of these gentlemen being appointed to offices in this country, the British rule should be applied to them, and that the amount of their compensation should be deducted from their salaries. Now, he never conveyed to M. Tricoupi any pledge whatever on the part of the British Government. He had simply stated his own individual opinion of what would be equitable, and left it for M. Tricoupi to make any proposal of that kind to the responsible department. The hon. and gallant Member said these gentlemen held their rights to their pensions on an insufficient security. Now they held it on the faith of an instrument to which the British Government was a party, and it was evident that the hon. and gallant Member himself regarded that security as no small matter, because he anticipated the contingency of England having under it to make war upon Greece in order to enforce the payment of these pensions. But apart from the question of security, the hon. and gallant Member questioned the equity of causing these pensions to abate; and he said if he went into the Austrian employment and received a pension for his services it would be hard on his coming back and taking service under the British Crown that his pension from the Austrian Government should abate. He granted it would have been inequitable to impose on those officers the rules and ideas which prevailed in reference to such matters in Austria or Greece. Did the hon. and gallant Gentleman believe that in cases of the abolition of offices in Greece officers were treated as they were treated here? He doubted whether any Government treated officers whose offices were abolished with one third of the liberality with which they were treated in this country. These officers were treated not according to Greek ideas and Greek 1583 usages, but according to English usages; and surely it was the plainest justice that they should apply the English rule, of which it was an essential incident that, in case of the resumption of office, the pension should cease? He did not consider that he was at all officially concerned in the matter, but he entirely defended the equity of that principle, and the adoption of any other rule would have been contrary to justice.
MR. KINGLAKEsaid, he thought the view his hon. Friend the Under Secretary had taken of the case was a mistaken one. He had spoken of these officers as the mere servants of the Ionian State. That was not quite a fair light in which to regard them. In order to test whether they had or had not a moral claim for compensation for the loss of their offices, they should see in the first place who appointed them, and, next, who terminated that state of things under which they were entitled to their offices. When they came to consider who it was that drew these men from their former career of life, they found it was the Colonial Government in England. And when they inquired how it came to pass that their offices, on the continuance of which they had a fair right to rely, had been brought to a conclusion, they found again that the Colonial Office was a prominent party in the transaction. If, then, the circumstances should ever arise in which the question had to be considered, he hoped the British Government would have no difficulty in seeing that the claim of these gentlemen was one which in fairness and generosity could not be resisted.