§ MR. BAILLIE COCHRANESir, I am anxious to make a personal explanation, and in order to set myself right with the House I will move "the adjournment—a course I never before adopted since I have had the honour of being a Member of this House. When I brought forward the question of the Ionian Islands' pensioners the other evening I made two statements, both of which received a most emphatic contradiction from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The statements were these:—First, that the Duke of Newcastle, when Colonial Secretary, and when the cession of the Ionian Islands was under consideration, counselled the British officers who served Her Majesty in those islands to accept a guarantee for their pensions from the Greek Government, for this reason—if they were paid their pensions by the Greek Government they might at the same time hold appointments under the British Crown. The other statement which I made was this—that an understanding having been entered into with the Duke of Newcastle, it was violated by the advice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. 373 Now, to both of these statements the right hon. Gentleman opposite gave a denial in such strong terms that I almost felt he impugned the veracity of my statements. In respect to the first statement, having reference to the understanding which had been come to between the Duke of Newcastle and the gentlemen in question, I received yesterday morning a letter from a gentleman of the highest consideration, who belonged to the Supreme Court of Justice at Corfu. With the permission of the House I will read an extract from that letter—
In the debate upon the Ionian Islands pension question I perceive that Mr. Gladstone—
§ [Cries of "Order!"]
§ MR. SPEAKERsaid, that a letter commenting on a debate in this House was not in order.
§ MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEthen continued to read the letter, which, after alluding to a denial on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that a promise was ever given by the late Duke of Newcastle, because his Grace would not have repudiated it had he given it, proceeded in the following terms:—
There can be no doubt that the late Duke of Newcastle never did, nor ever would, have receded from nor repudiated any promise he had made. This unenviable task devolved on others after he became incapacitated from attending to public business, shortly before the signature of the Treaty of the 29th of March, 1864. You are quite accurate in stating that his Grace, acquainted as he was with the provisions of the Ionian pension law, expressed his regret that he could not succeed in obtaining for us a British pension, but that a Greek pension would at least have the advantage over a British one of being tenable with employment under the British Crown; and that as to the doubtful security of the Greek Exchequer, Great Britain would see those pensions paid. His Grace added that he would place his opinion on record in such a manner as to bind his successors. You were, therefore, entirely justified in the statements which you made, and of which I am ready to assume the whole responsibility.P. M'C. COLQUHOUN.So far I think I have justified my first statement. Now with respect to the second statement I made as to the advice given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer I am sure I am not mistaken in that statement, and I am borne out in it by the testimony of several gentlemen connected with the matter to whom I have spoken. But the right hon. Gentleman opposite stated that I was not justified in saying that he had advised a breach of the engagement that had been entered into in 374 respect to those pensions. This very morning papers connected with the Ionian Islands question were laid upon the table of the House, and in one of them I found a copy of a letter addressed by M. Tricoupi to a Greek official, in which he referred to a conversation with Mr. Gladstone. Writing to M. Delyanni from Athens on the 1st of February, 1864, M. Tricoupi said—I likewise spoke about the compensations to the employés who are not entitled to pension. I requested him (Mr. Gladstone) to charge on the English Exchequer the expense thereof. Mr. Gladstone replied that Parliament would not vote a credit for this purpose; but he was of opinion that the amount agreed on for this object might be reduced. That the payment of the compensation might cease on anyone entitled accepting a salaried post under the British Government.I will not retort upon the right hon. Gentleman the very severe language which he applied to my statements the other night. I am only anxious to show that I never have made in this House, for which I have the deepest respect, a statement which did not deem myself in the fullest degree I justified in making, and which I did not think rested on the most unexceptionable I authority. I beg, Sir, to move the adjournment of the House.
§ MR. SPEAKERI am much obliged to the hon. Member for desiring to observe the Rules of the House, I must remark that he will better satisfy those Rules by I not moving the adjournment, having had the full opportunity of making his personal I explanation.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERAs far, Sir, as I am concerned, I confess I do not quite understand in what sense the statement just delivered by the hon. Gentleman is a personal explanation affecting his own character or veracity. No charge whatever of that kind was made by me against the hon. Gentleman on the former occasion—absolutely none; and, moreover, I venture to tell my hon. Friend that if he thought I had made such a charge the proper course would have been to take notice of it there and then; for then it would have been my duty to explain. [Mr. BAILLIE COCHRANE: I had not then got the letter.] I must distinguish between the soundness of my hon. Friend's arguments and his own personal veracity. I impugned, indeed, the soundness of his reasoning, and also showed grounds for believing that the statement which he made with regard to the Duke of Newcastle could not be correct. But 375 that statement was not made by my hon. Friend himself upon his own credit. That was perfectly well understood at the time. If, however, my hon. Friend thought his veracity impugned by anything that I said, I must repeat that he should have pointed it out at the moment. He speaks of the very severe language used by me. Will he have the kindness to point out a single phrase employed by me of which he has reason to complain, and I will withdraw it in a moment?
§ MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEThe language used by the right hon. Gentleman was this—
He (Mr. Cochrane) had brought a serious charge against the late Duke of Newcastle, for he had accused that nobleman of departing from an agreement which he had made with these gentlemen. For his own part, he did not know that any such agreement had ever been entered into by the late Duke of Newcastle. …He must say that he possessed so much confidence in the honour of the late Duke of Newcastle that he felt convinced that no such agreement ever existed.The right hon. Gentleman went on to say—His hon. Friend had not laid before the House the grounds upon which he asserted that the engagement he had stated had been made.I think that is very strong language.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERI am really, Sir, as much at a loss as when I began to know what words, what expression, what idea, what suggestion conveyed in those words it is that my hon. Friend complains of. I did not impugn the veracity of my hon. Friend, but I endeavoured to show that he must have been inaccurately informed. I did not presume to state that the Duke of Newcastle had not made such an agreement. ["Oh!"] Has not my hon. Friend just read the very words in which I stated that I was convinced the noble Duke had not made such an agreement? And is not that a different thing from stating, as a matter of fact within my own knowledge, that he had not made such an agreement? How could I under take to state with regard to one who is, unhappily, removed from among us what he had done in answer to a statement of that kind, not resting upon any words of his own, but upon the assertion of some one not in this House, who had been in communication with him? What I endeavoured to show was this:—The Duke of Newcastle was ultimately a party to the arrangement made with regard to 376 these gentlemen. As a portion of that arrangement it was agreed that the pensions which they were to receive should abate upon their taking office in the same manner as if they had been English pensioners. My hon. Friend said that was contrary to the assurance given by the Duke of Newcastle, and I replied that that statement, if it were true, would imply that the Duke of Newcastle was guilty of what I am sure no one would think of imputing to him. I am entirely at a loss to understand how in any of the words which I used, or of the arguments which I addressed to the House, there could have been anything in the slightest degree offensive to the hon. Gentleman. If he will have the goodness to point out to me more decidedly, in a way that I can understand, what it is that he complains of—although, perhaps, I might have some ground of complaint as to what has occurred—I shall be most happy to render him every reparation in my power. Then the hon. Member says that I deny having given the advice to the Greek Minister that the pensions should abate in the manner I have described. I never made any such denial. What I denied was that I had been a party to any breach of an understanding. I must, indeed, have been devoid of all sense to have made the denial which the hon. Member imputes to me, because I stated distinctly in this House last year that I had given that advice. I think that advice was just and rational, and I am therefore far from shrinking from the responsibility of having given it. But I entirely deny any knowledge of any such engagement as my hon. Friend refers to which is at variance with that advice; and when it is considered that the Duke of Newcastle acted upon that advice the inference is, I think, pretty strong that he was not aware of any such engagement. I will take this opportunity of saying that the statement of facts made in the debate of last week by the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Kinglake) with regard to what took place last year was perfectly accurate.
§ MR. ROEBUCKI do not know, Sir, whether I am strictly in order—
§ MR. SPEAKERAs the hon. and learned Gentleman appeals to me, I will venture to call to the recollection of the House what its Rules are with respect to proceedings of this nature. A debate has taken place and has passed by; but if an hon. Gentleman desires to make a per- 377 sonal explanation he may do so without making any Motion; and the object of that rule is to withdraw from the general debate matter of a merely personal nature. I therefore took the liberty of pointing out to the hon. Member (Mr. B. Cochrane) that the Rules of the House permitted him to make a personal explanation without moving the adjournment, and that he would be more in order in making his explanation without moving the adjournment of the House—because a Motion involves a following debate. The general Rule of the House is that when a general debate has taken place it ought to pass by, giving an opportunity indeed for personal explanations, but not allowing the former debate to be revived.
§ MR. ROEBUCKAllow me, Sir, to say that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been allowed to make statements also, and in these statements he has distinctly impugned the veracity of a gentleman who is not a Member of this House.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERI have impugned no man's veracity. ["Order, order!"]
§ MR. ROEBUCKThen, Sir, I will move the adjournment of the House. I did not wish to take that step, but the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman has forced me to do so. A charge was made against the right hon. Gentleman, and he attempted to get out of it by withdrawing from the hon. Member (Mr. Cochrane) his implied imputation on his veracity. But a practised rhetorician like the right hon. Gentleman knew how to shape his phrase so as, while withdrawing the imputation from the hon. Member who is present to shift it to the absent person who had given the hon. Member his information. Now, Sir, I am here to say that the whole of this matter from beginning to end has been a disgrace to the British Government, and I will add that the chief person on whom that disgrace rests is the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I will justify what I have said—["Order!"] and that to the meanest capacity in this House. ["Order, order!"]
§ MR. SPEAKERI invite the hon. and learned Member to consider whether it will be in accordance with the Rules of the House to go back to a discussion which has lately taken place; because the hon. and learned Member is not now confining himself to personal explanation; 378 but he states that the whole transaction to which he is referring is a disgrace to Her Majesty's Government—meaning the whole subject of the debate which has recently taken place. It is for the House to say whether that is regular; but in my opinion the course which has been pursued in reviving a discussion which lately took place is not in accordance with the Rules of the House.
§ MR. ROEBUCKIn obedience to you, Sir, I abstain at once from making any further observations. Another opportunity will, no doubt, be given me of justifying my assertion. I have said what I have said, and the justification will come hereafter.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER; Really, Sir—
§ MR. ROEBUCKI rise to Order, Sir. I shut my mouth at your command, and I now appeal to you whether there shall be a reply upon what I have not said.