HC Deb 11 June 1883 vol 280 cc280-8

Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Question [8th June], "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair" (for Committee on Lord Alcester's Grant (re-committed) Bill."

And which Amendment was, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House will, upon this day three months, resolve itself into the said Committee,"—(Sir Wilfrid Lawson,)—instead thereof.

Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

Debate resumed.

MR. BIGGAR

said, he opposed the grant, on the ground that no particular skill was shown in the bombardment of Alexandria, and that no great victory was achieved by a Fleet of overwhelming power silencing a few comparatively weak forts. If a real fight had occurred between our Fleet and a Fleet equal to it in power and armament, and the former had been victorious, he thought the grant would be thoroughly justifiable; but he protested against a grant for services which had given no evidence of skill or ability.

MR. WADDY

said, he felt it impossible to give a vote on this occasion without explaining the reasons why he gave it; because, while he felt it impossible to vote for this grant to be made to Lord Alcester on the one hand, and Lord Wolseley on the other, he should be sorry if it were imagined that the motives that actuated him were such as had been too obvious a great deal in the remarks of some hon. Members who had taken part in the debate. The proposal had been made an opportunity for attacks on the character of Lord Alcester, which he much deplored, on his skill, on the bravery and conduct of our troops, and on the policy of the Government—points which ought not to have boon introduced into the discussion, and with which the question had really nothing to do. He based his opposition to the grants on broader grounds. In the first place, because the services rendered—however well they might have been performed—were not such as, according to the history of the country and the precedents of former times, warranted the bestowal of such large amounts of money. He contended that, compared with those precedents, the present proposal was an extreme and a very exceptional one; and, in proof of this, he might refer to the case of Lord Rodney. He gave this instance simply as one illustration out of scores, and it was not necessary to multiply cases. Lord Rodney had performed many services far more dangerous and far more important than those rendered by Lord Alcester before any rank whatever was conferred upon him, and before any pecuniary reward was given to him. When those honours were conferred they were given slowly and by degrees; and the Peerage was conferred only as an acknowledgment of most distinguished services. Yet, in the present case, they were to proceed at once per saltum to such a reward as that proposed. In the next place, he protested against pecuniary rewards being given for military services at all. If the officers who commanded our Army and Navy were not adequately paid, let them be so; but he objected to their receiving large grants of this kind in addition to their pay for the services they rendered; and he hoped this would be the last time they should hear of such a thing being done. The practice was not observed in the other Departments of the Public Service; and he wished to see the same principles brought to bear on the Army and Navy as were applied to them.

MR. WARTON

said, there were pensions and rewards in the Civil Service, and pensions were enjoyed by ex-Ministers of State. Peerages ought to be accompanied by pensions, in order to enable the recipients to maintain the dignity of their position. He was sorry the Government had changed the annuities into lump sums, for they had lost a day, which might have been saved by firmness in adhering to their original proposition. It was a pity that such grants should provoke opposition, for that deprived them of half their grace.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 229; Noes 45: Majority 184.—(Div. List, No. 125.)

Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 1 (Grant of £25,000 to Baron Alcester).

MR. MACFARLANE

moved, in page 1, line 13, to leave out the words "twenty-five thousand," and insert the words "twelve thousand five hundred." he did not think it was necessary that there should be a protracted discussion upon the matter; but his object was to reduce the Vote to the same sum as that which had been granted to General Sir Frederick Roberts and General Sir Donald Stewart. He should carefully avoid saying one word in disparagement of Lord Alcester; but there was no comparison between his achievement and that for which General Roberts and General Stewart received sums of £12,500, or only one-half the sum now proposed. There was absolutely no comparison between them. It was said that in the one case the Government only gave a Baronetcy, and that it was usual to grant a smaller sum in the case of a Baronetcy than in that of a Peerage. He failed to see why it was more necessary to confer a Peerage upon Sir Beauchamp Seymour and Sir Garnet Wolseley than it was in the case of General Roberts and General Stewart. He objected altogether to the payment of blood-money of this kind. He thought the proper reward for soldiers was promotion in their profession, and not so many pounds a-head for every Egyptian they had killed. He begged to move the Amendment standing in his name.

MR. ONSLOW

said, that, in rising to second the Amendment, he, like his hon. Friend, did so without any intention of disparaging the services Lord Alcester had rendered to the country. He seconded the Amendment for the same reasons as his hon. Friend had moved it. The work General Roberts and General Stewart had done was far superior to anything Lord Alcester had done. The House would recollect that Lord Alcester was fighting against a people who were practically offering no resistance at all, and who could not possibly successfully oppose him; whereas General Roberts and General Stewart encountered a nation of warriors. There was no comparison whatever to be drawn between the achievements of Lord Alcester and those of General Stewart and General Roberts. He had voted in the minority on the last occasion, and he had done so for this reason—because he thought that the rewards given to Lord Wolseley and Lord Alcester were far superior to the achievements they had performed. He knew it was said that when they gave a Peerage to a person, they must accompany it by a money grant sufficient to enable the title to be supported. But he did not see why the performance of very insignificant duties should be rewarded in this very ultra-magnificent way. He failed to see in the past history of the country that such extravagant rewards had been conferred; and he asked the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister to look at the performances of many officers, who had not been rewarded at all, and compare them with the achievements of Lord Wolseley and Lord Alcester. The country had granted a Peerage to these officers, who had, no doubt, done their work well; but he thought that a sum of £12,500, in addition to the Peerage, was quite ample compensation.

Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 13, to leave out the words "twenty-five thousand," and insert the words "twelve thousand five hundred,"—(Mr. Macfarlane,) —instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words 'twenty-five thousand' stand part of the Clause."

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

said, he was opposed to any grant at all; and he strongly objected to the principle of giving annuities for two lives. That part of the proposition which represented the second life he objected to; but he could not go so far as the Amendment. He was quite willing to accept the decision of the House to make a grant to Lord Alcester and Lord Wolseley; and he was not disposed to cut the amount below the value of the pension originally proposed for one life.

MR. O'BRIEN

said, he was not inclined to huxter over the amount of the reward proposed to be given to Lord Alcester; but he thought it grotesque to find the House discussing this enormous grant to a man who was responsible for the destruction of Alexandria, after they had been discussing all the evening and justifying the execution of an Egyptian soldier, who had only had a small share in the burning of that city. Surely an Egyptian soldier had as much right to burn Alexandria as Lord Alcester had to bombard it. Both took the course which they deemed to be most effectual, from a military point of view; and, although he entertained no great hopes of the Liberal Party, he had hoped they would have been consistent enough to advocate the hanging of Lord Alcester, instead of rewarding him for causing much more bloodshed, and with much less justification, in bombarding Alexandria than Suleiman Sami in what he had done. He was quite sure the hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) and some of his Friends were sincere in opposing the grant, and that he did not object to it in any mere huxtering spirit; but, while he said this, judging from the demeanour of the Radical Party generally during these dis- cussions, their extreme timidity in offering any opinion of their own, and their great impatience when Anybody else had anything to say against those Bills, he could only regard their opposition to them as a mere sham. They thought more of saving two hours of the Government time than of all who had been killed and hanged in consequence of Lord Alcester's demonstration. He hoped the hon. Member would press the Amendment. Hon. Members opposite, a few years ago, were loud in their denunciations of Lord Beaconsfield, for fear he might lead the country into taking part in what would have been, at all events, a less inglorious war than that which had occurred in Egypt. He hoped the country would watch the conspiracy of silence on the Radical Benches, having for its object the expediting of Bills which they pretended to oppose.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, he trusted the House would not expect him to enter at any length into the question. The hon. Member who had moved the Amendment gave it as his opinion that the services of Lord Alcester and Lord Wolseley were inferior to other services which had been rewarded with the sum now proposed. The question was one which connected itself with the grant of a Peerage. He admitted that the House was not responsible for the grant of a Peerage in these two cases; but he thought it had the approval of an overwhelming majority of the House. It would be invidious, and very unprofitable, to follow the comparison into detail; but if any hon. Member would carry his eye along the column of the Return that was printed a short time ago on the Motion of the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff), and which exhibited all those pensions, he would see that it was no great wonder the Government had arrived at the conclusion that the services performed in that case, with the immense responsibility attending them, and the most formidable consequences that would have followed any want of care, courage, or judgment in the execution of the operations, were services of a class which should carry Peerages with them; and, if that were so, then the reward now proposed was not an immoderate one. But the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Macfarlane) had, in the main, founded his objection to the grant on principle; and it being, therefore, only the re-trial of the Motion which the House had just decided, he could not doubt that the House would repeat the judgment it had already given.

MR. BIGGAR

(who rose amid calls for a Division) said, it was always objectionable to act in a hurry. He thought that the Prime Minister had adduced an argument against the proposed reduction of the Vote. As for the evil consequences that might have ensued if a blunder had been committed, it would have been an evidence of the grossest mismanagement on Lord Alcester's part if any misfortune had occurred in such operations. Some hon. Members would probably recollect that about 30 years ago the performances at Vauxhall used to wind up with the blowing up of some fortifications; and the achievement of our Admiral at Alexandria was, in his view, very much on a par with that finale of a Vauxhall entertainment. The reward proposed to be given by the Amendment was quite sufficient for such a feat.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 242; Noes 37: Majority 205.—(Div. List, No. 126.)

MR. PARNELL

said, he proposed to move an Amendment reducing the amount of the grant to £20,000. Many of his hon. Friends considered that that sum would be ample—and, indeed, more than ample—for the purpose intended.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, he must point out to the hon. Member that, as the words "twenty-five thousand pounds" had been agreed to by the Committee, he would not be in Order in moving the proposed Amendment.

Question proposed, "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 250; Noes 18: Majority 232.—(Div. List, No. 127.)

Clause 2 (Short title).

Question put, "That Clause 2 stand part of the Bill."

MR O'DONNELL

I beg to propose an Amendment to this clause.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member is too late. I have already put the clause to the Committee.

MR. O'DONNELL

Then, Sir, it is my distinct impression that I rose at the very first moment compatible with the respect I have for the Chair to move my Amendment. But as you rule that I am too late, I must challenge a Division upon the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

COLONEL ALEXANDER

said, although he did not agree with the views of the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) on the subject, yet he was bound to say that the hon. Member rose immediately the clause was called.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, if the hon. Member desired to move an Amendment, he should have risen before the Question was put from the Chair.

MR. O'DONNELL

said, of course he accepted the ruling of the Chair that be had risen too late to propose his Amendment; but, at the same time, it was absolutely impossible for him to have risen any earlier. His intention had been to move to leave out the title of the Bill, so that the Act might be thereafter cited as "The Piracy at Alexandria Grant Act." As it was too late for him to move that Amendment, he could not do otherwise than take a Division upon the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." "Lord Alcester's Grant Act" was neither a proper, nor a sufficient, nor a fitting title for the Act; and, in his opinion, some such Amendment as he had proposed to move was required to characterize it correctly. If the clause were carried in its present form it would probably lead to sonic practical inconvenience in the future conduct of the measure; it was possible, however, that Her Majesty's Government, who had already led the House into the very depths of difficulty with regard to the Bill, would be able to see their way to modify it. This was a Bill for the remuneration of one of the most infamous acts of piracy on record amongst civilized or uncivilized nations, and should be designated as it deserved; and it was in order that hon. Members should have an opportunity of expressing their opinion upon it that he moved the rejection of the clause.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, he had anticipated no Amendment to the clause, and he might have put the Question somewhat rapidly; but, as a matter of fact, he did so before the hon. Member rose.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 245; Noes 16: Majority 229.—(Div. List, No. 128.)

Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time upon Thursday.