HC Deb 27 June 1864 vol 176 cc403-8

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 (Power for Treasury to relinquish £4,000 a year).

COLONEL DUNNE

said, he wished to move, at the end of the clause, a proviso to secure the payment of certain pensions due to British subjects. The pensions to which he referred were charged as an offset against the remission of £4,000 under the Bill, and his Amendment provided that the sum should not be remitted until the salaries were paid.

MR. LAYARD

said, there was no practicable mode of effecting the object which the hon. Gentleman had in view. The treaty was in specific terms, and the Bill merely ratified the treaty. It was not possible to add the present proviso to the treaty, as it would be a breach of good faith.

COLONEL DUNNE

said, that if the Government made an improper use of their power that House was not bound to ratify it. He hoped the Committee would be no parties to such dishonesty, and he asked them to condemn the conduct of the Government with regard to it. Those gentlemen had subscribed for years to a fund; they had served the Ionian Republic, and Her Majesty's Government were bound to guarantee these pensions.

MAJOR HAMILTON

said, this country was bound to give the3e officers security for their pensions. The pensions were granted under a stipulation that these officers should not be employed by the English Government, and that had been carried out. He loped the Committee would be no party to such a fraud.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he did not know an instance in which such liberal care had been taken of the private interests of individuals. After a short term of service they found themselves in possession of incomes which were by no means applicable to such a case in this country. Assuredly the hon. Member could not intend that the private interests of those gentlemen should be mixed up with our diplomatic engagements. Her Majesty had made an engagement with other Powers to surrender a certain sum, and that was a matter entirely distinct from the case of those pensioners. Perhaps the hon. Member would say that it was only in case of breach of faith that the proviso would come into operation; but we had no right to make that a ground for not fulfilling an engagement on our part. We had solemnly engaged to give the King of Greece £4,000 a year, and any breach of faith on the part of the Greek Parliament would not in the slightest degree relieve us from the obligation of paying this personal dotation.

LORD ROBERT CECIL

said, if he understood the right hon. Gentleman he asked the House to consent to a treaty, when the Crown of England was already so unconditionally pledged that if the consent of the House was refused a breach of faith would be incurred. He could not understand how any decision of that House upon a question proposed to it by the Government could be determined in one way or another by the argument of a breach of faith. With regard to the liberal provision made for those gentlemen, it might be a liberal provision if the money were paid; but if not paid it could not be called a liberal provision. If the faith of England were pledged to the payment, it would, indeed, be a liberal provision; but with the faith of Greece pledged it was quite another thing.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, if the noble Lord had been in his place in the early part of the evening he would have heard a discussion of the whole question, and would have learnt that the course pursued by Her Majesty's Government was in entire accordance with precedent. Whether that was a proper course or not was a question which it was quite competent for the noble Lord to raise. Twelve months ago he explained to the House that the grant would be founded upon diplomatic arrangements which would be made on the responsibility of the executive Government, who would then appeal to the House for its approval, and that explanation was received as perfectly satisfactory. The course which had been taken was in conformity with established practice, and the effect of it undoubtedly was that the Crown had entered into an unconditional engagement. The noble Lord might make it an occasion for censure if he pleased.

MR. AYRTON

said, the discussion which had just taken place would illustrate the state of things which he had endeavoured to bring under the notice of the House, when hon. Members were too absorbed in another matter to attend to anything else. The House found itself in this ridiculous position, that when anyone got up to express his opinion he was told it was most impertinent to do so. The Chancellor of the Exchequer exhibited an instance of Chinese politeness. He offered a Bill for the consideration of the House, with the clear understanding, however, that the House was not to consider it at all. That was evidently an unsatisfactory state of things, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, knowing it to be so, had said he hoped it would not occur again, and he was good enough to suggest that there were precedents—which were very bad precedents—in accordance with which the Government had acted. But if the Government had acted as it ought to have done, in fulfilment of the pledge given by the right hon. Gentleman, he would venture to affirm that the House of Commons would never have consented to pass the Bill before them without some provision by which the money to be paid to the servants of the Crown would be made an antecedent charge. But in the position in which the House was placed he believed they had no alternative but to pass the Bill, as Her Majesty had entered into a treaty by which her faith was pledged.

SIR JAMES FERGUSSON

said, he would suggest that if his hon. and gallant Friend would leave out the last line of his Resolution the National Treasury would have to pay, in default of that of Greece, and there would be no occasion to make any deduction from the £4,000 a year.

COLONEL DUNNE

said, he differed from the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the length of time those gentlemen had served. Many of them had passed half their lives in our service. We were parties to the seizing of the fund which guaranteed their pensions, and should now take care that they did not suffer through our neglect.

LORD ROBERT CECIL

said, he would move that the Chairman report Progress.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Lord Robert Cecil.)

The Committee divided:—Ayes 48; Noes 58: Majority 10.

COLONEL DUNNE

said, he would move the addition of the first part of his Proviso only, namely— Provided always that certain sums for pensions and compensations, payable to British subjects and others who were employed in the service of the Ionian Republic when under British protection, and guaranteed by the said treaty, shall be regularly paid.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, that the alteration would not remove the difficulty.

COLONEL DUNNE

said that what he desired was, that the King of the Hellenes, as our pensioner, should not be paid unless he paid our pensioners.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, that such a proposal would be most inequitable. The claims of these persons was not against the King of the Hellenes in his personal capacity, but against the Greek State and Government, and it was under the custody and charge of the British Government to see it satisfied. The arrangement, however, was not with the Greek Government or the Greek State, but was an arrangement for the benefit of the King of the Hellenes personally, and attached to him irrespective of the Greek State, or of his being at the head of it. If he were to cease to be King of the Hellenes, his right would remain the same, and if the Greeks were to put him out and then refuse to pay these pensioners it would be very hard that he should not receive the money.

LORD ROBERT CECIL

said, that after what had just fallen from the Chancellor of the Exchequer he should recommend his hon. Friend to withdraw his proviso. The right hon. Gentleman said that there was a charge upon the Greek Government, and that it was under the custody and charge of the British Government to make the Greek Government pay it. That was a pledge from a Minister of the Crown to go to war if it was not paid. Those who were present would remember the pledge, and he thought that his hon. and gallant Friend might safely withdraw his Motion.

COLONEL DUNNE

said, that he should take the advice which the noble Lord had given to him. The arrangement was for a remission of the debt to the Greek Government, and he thought that if the King was kicked out he would be very clever if he ever got his pension.

MR. HENNESSY

said, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had rebuked the hon. Member for Stamford for not understanding the Question; he would show how little the right hon. Gentleman knew of his own Bill. The right hon. Gentleman said that the money would be paid to the King, not only during but after his reign. The words of the Bill, however, were— "It shall be lawful to pay the said sum to George I., King of Greece, during his reign."

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, that he was speaking from recollection on the diplomatic arrangement, and his impression and belief was that the remission was intended as a personal dotation to the King individually. The words "personal dotation" were employed in the treaty, and the essence of the matter was that the dotation should be independent of his retaining the throne of Greece.

MR. AYRTON

said, that the treaty made it a personal dotation, and gave it to the King for his life. Her Majesty's Government had confined it to his reign, and had put an interpretation upon the treaty which the King would not have placed upon it.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, it did so appear from the Bill itself, and therefore by the next stage of the Bill the error could be remedied.

MR. L0NGFIELD

said, then in that case the Government ought to consent to the Chairman reporting Progress. He should therefore move, That the Chairman report Progress.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. LYGON

asked, what course the Government intended to take to bring the Bill into harmony with the treaty?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, that the question was, whether or not he was right in his construction of the words "personal dotation?" The terms of the Bill as they stood were against him. His hon. Friend the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs would ascertain before the next stage of the Bill came on what was the construction that ought to be placed upon these words.

Clause agreed to.

House resumed.

Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read 3o on Thursday.

House adjourned at a quarter after Two o'clock.