HC Deb 08 June 1869 vol 196 cc1445-8
MR. SHERIDAN

, in moving the Motion of which he had given notice, said, that at the close of the last war with France arrangements were made that English, subjects, resident in France, whose property had been confiscated during the war, should have compensation given to them out of funds vested for that purpose in the hands of certain Commissioners. The position of the British Government in the matter had been defined as that of a trustee, and the object of his Motion was to exhibit the manner in which the fund had been distributed, with reference especially to some matters deserving the attention of the House.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That there be laid before this House, Statements of 'Rentes' deposited with the British Government by the French Government, in pursuance of the Treaties of 1814 and 1815, and under the Convention of the 20th day of November 1815 [No. 7] and the 25th day of April 1818, in satisfaction of the claims of British subjects, and the dates at which such 'Rentes' were deposited: Of the sums paid out of such moneys to the persons whose claims were admitted: Copy of a Minute of the Board of Treasury, dated the 17th day of February 1826, ordering payment of £23,707 10s. out of such moneys to Monsieur Laffon de Ladebat: And, Statement in detail of the manner ill which the difference between the aggregate sum (principal and interest) received on account of the claims of British subjects, under the above-named Conventions, and the payment in satisfaction of such claims has been disposed of, and of any balance still remaining unappropriated."—(Mr. Henry B. Sheridan.)

VISCOUNT MILTON

, in seconding the Motion, said, that he and those who bore the same name with himself had been acquainted with these claims for many years, and that honesty as well as policy required that they should be examined by a fair and impartial tribunal. This was the fifth time the question had been brought before the House; and he complained of the manner in which it had been dealt with by successive Governments, who had met it, not by one, but by six different answers. The Government justly took credit for doing an act of justice to Ireland, and he trusted that they would not refuse it in the present case, because it was an individual who was concerned.

MR. AYRTON

could assure the House that if this were really a Motion for Papers in order to give information to the House he should be only too happy to comply with it; but the Motion was the first stop towards establishing certain claims upon the public Exchequer, and it was his duty to oppose that first step. It was, in fact, an attempt to revive a question which had been settled by the proceedings of that House many years ago. It was, further, a claim upon a fund that had now no existence. At the Peace of Paris certain funds wore placed at the disposal of a Mixed Commission which sat in France. After a few years that Commission was put an end to, and the funds were placed at the disposal of the British Government by a Commission to be appointed by the Crown for the satisfaction of certain claims then unliquidated. An Act of Parliament was, at the same time, passed under which the funds were appropriated in discharge of the claims, until, in 1848, a Minute of the Treasury was laid upon the table which described the point at which the proceedings had then arrived. To that Minute he might refer as a standpoint in this transaction. From that document it appeared that the balance, after providing for actual appropriations, was about £21,000. and that there remained a sum of £16,000 to be disposed of by the Commission in making a, pro ratá payment of the claims which were admitted. In accordance with that Minute, Dr. Phillimore, the Commissioner, proceeded to make an apportionment, the particulars of which were given in his final Report, dated May, 1852. Every sixpence of the indemnity fund, he might remind the House, had long ago been appropriated to specific claimants, and every claimant had been paid, except a few. whose demands amounted to £277 14s. 8d., which sum still remained in the Treasury. With this exception the fund had been disposed of, and, consequently, it did not matter who had a claim against it. The House would see, therefore, how useless it would be for the Government to consent to the production of Papers for the purpose of establishing claims against the fund. But misapprehension on this subject pervaded the minds of some gentlemen who would not read the Papers which had been laid upon the table, and who persisted in imagining that there were enormous sums locked up in the Treasury out of which their claims might be paid. It was assumed that the sum in the hands of the Treasury had never been appropriated to the satisfaction of the claims, and that it had been accumulating with interest down to the present time. One gentleman, indeed, rose up in the French Chambers and inquired of the French Government, whether it was true that Her Majesty's Government had 64,000,000 of francs which were appropriated for the payment of claims, but which had not been applied to that purpose; and. if so, whether Her Majesty's Government ought not to be called upon to give the money back to the Emperor of the French. Again, while the fund was in the Exchequer it was used for public purposes, being re-funded as soon as it was required, and ultimately distributed among the claimants. Nevertheless the claimants spread abroad the idea that their money had been spent in building Buckingham Palace. He need hardly add that that was a mere fiction. Whatever decision might have been arrived at whether rightly or wrongly, as to any particular claim, was now of no practical importance, because the cases could not be re-opened. He hoped the House would not agree to the Motion, and that nothing more would be heard of these claims.

MR. SHERIDAN

said., the hon. Gentleman's reply had not satisfactorily disposed of the question. If, as had been stated, there was an impression in Franco, as well as in this country, that there was a sum not yet disposed of, he did not think the explanation of the hon. Gentleman would be calculated to re-move that impression. If the Return were presented, and if the House decided that there was a substantial case for investigation, the allegation that there were no funds might perhaps then be the best answer that could be given to the Motion.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 80; Noes 109: Majority 29.