HL Deb 11 May 1824 vol 10 cc871-85

On the order of the day for the third reading of this bill,

Lord Holland

rose to make a few observations on this measure. He said, he was certainly ready to acknowledge, and had already acknowledged, that though the sum received on this transaction was much less than the sum that was due, yet that it was much more than the country, or the humble individual now addressing their lordships, ever expected would be paid by the imperial debtor. He must therefore acknowledge, that much ability appeared to have been employed in bringing this transaction to its present conclusion. There was, probably, also much exercise of good temper in the manner of conducting the negotiation; for as it was to be presumed there was some good feeling in the imperial character, it was doubtless thought advisable not to expose, in plain terms, the nature of the settlement, but to allow the debtor to take credit for some virtue, though he was at a loss what that virtue might be; it was not generosity, and it could hardly be called honesty. He was ready, however, to acquiesce in this bill, and to concur in carrying it into effect; but not in the statements and recital with which it had been passed by the Commons. He did not object so much to the language of the preamble on account of his own opinion, as to preserve the consistency and dignity of parliament. In negociating the convention on which the bill was founded, there might be some reason for concealing the sum due, and stating only that which was paid. He was aware that persons, moving in high situations must have a nice sense of honour, or at least were always supposed to have it; but whether they had it or not, from the modes of courts and the servility unfortunately too common in human nature, that quality was always attributed to them. It was therefore to be presumed, that those who managed this transaction did not choose to exhibit it to one of the parties in its true light; but thought it necessary, from motives of delicacy, to disguise, as far as possible, the nature of it from his imperial majesty; whose nice sensibility would doubtless have been greatly affected if he had been told, that he was compounding a debt, instead of honourably discharging it. This might be the excuse for not stating what was really due in the convention; but he saw no reason for the same delicacy in an act of parliament. Great talent must, however, have been displayed by the persons who managed this affair, in persuading his imperial majesty, that his large debt was paid. It was extremely difficult to discover how this persuasion could have been produced, and he had been puzzling himself with conjectures about it. Perhaps those who acted for his imperial majesty had been pursuing a study for which a gentleman on his (lord H's) entrance into life was greatly distinguished. That gentleman, the late Mr. Horne Tooke, had directed his attention to the origin and meaning of words, and to their various applications. In spite of the little that was to be got by the barren nature of the one study, and the sandy foundation of the other, he had carried his etymology into metaphysics, in order to account for the different shades in the sense of words. Now, as it did not appear from the convention with Austria, that a word of doubt had been thrown out as to the sum mentioned being less than it ought to have been—as there was nowhere any specification of the amount due—he could not understand by what kind of logic the emperor had been convinced that the debt was paid. He had, consequently, been, like Mr. Home Tooke, driven to etymology, in order to discover the meaning which was attached in the imperial court to the verb "to pay." Perhaps the negotiators derived it from the word pagus, because it was from districts, or towns, or the people who inhabit them, that all payments come, according to the saying, "pagorum populi vectigalia premuntur"; and this was what all who were lavish of the public money, whether emperors or legislators, should well consider and bear in mind. Another word, however, was perhaps the origin of the idea conveyed in the convention. It might come from pacio or paciscor, because the imperial negotiator considered the matter done and settled, the bargain carried into effect, and completed by the payment. If this would not do, perhaps their lordships would allow that the derivation might be from pacare, to make tractable, and also to pacify, satisfy, and appease. Thus his imperial majesty might be taught to say, "It is true I do not pay my debts in full, but I shall give something to pacify and appease those members of the British parliament who have been talking so loudly and so freely of my affairs." Something had accordingly been done to pacify and appease their lordships. A sum, not amounting to one-seventh of what was fairly due, had been transmitted to this country.—He had thus gone through most of the words from which those persons who amused themselves with such studies were likely to account for this new conventional meaning of the word "pay." But he must not forget the word pecus; and that brought to his recollection the golden fleece, which had been transferred to his imperial majesty's family from the dukes of Burgundy, and according to which the House of Austria, with reference to this transaction, might still say "Pretium non vile laboris." As much ingenuity had doubtless been exercised by the learned men of Austria, in satisfying any imperial scruples which might have existed as to the meaning of paying one's debts, it was to be hoped that their labours would more reconcile their emperor to learning. He had heard stories of a visit paid some years ago by his imperial majesty to Italy, in the course of which that sovereign was said to have exhibited no great desire to encourage any kind of study. From what was reported, it would appear that his imperial majesty wanted for subjects men who" never troubled themselves either with reading or thinking. He sincerely hoped that, the next time his imperial majesty should visit his loyal and learned university of Pavia, he would show that he entertained a grateful sense of the service which some clever scholars had rendered him by so ably glossing over the word "pay." Then, indeed, he might be expected to exclaim— How charming is divine philosophy! Not harsh and crabbed, as dull fools suppose, But musical as is Apollo's lute, And a perpetual feast of nectar'd sweets, Where no crude surfeit reigns. But, let the court of Vienna explain the matter as it might, it was for their lordships to take care that they did not pass a bill which on the face of it, suppressed a fact and contained an absurdity. The preamble recited, that this country had granted two loans to the emperor of Austria, and it was afterwards stated that his imperial majesty would pay 2,500,000l; in satisfaction of the debt thus contracted. Now, it might be convenient to give up claiming the full repayment, and to be satisfied and appeased with these 2,500,000l.; but why was not the amount of the debt stated? Were their lordships aware of the amount of the sums which this country had expended on Austria? Besides subsidies, the debt in question arose from two loans contracted for, the one in the year 1795, the other in the year 1797. Two reasons were assigned for granting these loans. The first was, that the money afforded facilities for bringing Austria into the field; the second, that good security was given by that power for the repayment; indeed, it was boasted in that House, that the security was as solid as that of the Bank of England. It was triumphantly said, that we could sue the emperor for the money in his own courts. These reasons, and the great advantage of the co-operation of Austria to the common cause, were the grounds urged for this profuse expenditure of the public money. But, what was the result of this extravagance? Part of the money arising from these loans was actually not paid to the emperor of Austria, until after he had made peace, and was in his turn paying money to the enemy of this country. After the treaty of Campo Formio was concluded, remittances of the instalments of these loans were made to Austria. The two loans amounted to more than six millions, and this country was bound for the payment both of principal and interest. Great Britain had guaranteed the payment of certain annuities for twenty-five years, which on the whole amounted to more than 5,000,000l.; as to the interest, it appeared that his imperial majesty never paid it for more than one year. These annuities, added to the original debt made about 12,600,000l. But we were still bound to pay for a time about 223,000l., which, taken at the present rate of the money market, might be reckoned at other 5 millions. So that, with what was paid and what was lost, the bargain cost the courtry altogether about 17½ millions. This was the amount, without calculating compound interest, which he might fairly have done. For this vast sum all that was now paid was 2½ millions. Such being the nature of the transaction, he was not surprised that his imperial majesty did not choose to describe it; but he saw no reason why it should not have been fairly recorded by the framers of this bill. He had heard that this extraordinary settlement of an account had somewhere or other been considered as a "God-send." Such a description of the transaction certainly was not very decorous to the emperor of Austria; for it was a plain acknowledgment, that to pay his debts was the last thing expected by those who were the loudest in their approbation of his imperial majesty's sense of honour and justice. He should like to know what would be said of a similar case in the city of London. Were he to go within Temple-bar with a promissory-note for 10,000l., and inquire the character of the person whose signature it bore, would it not be strange if, in answer to his inquiries, some one should launch out in praise of the acceptor, and say—"Oh, there's not an honester man in the world, nor one more able and willing to pay his debts"—and after all were to end with the observation, "if you get 1,000l. from him, for your note, it will be a Godsend."—It had seemed necessary for him to say thus much, to dissipate the delusion which prevailed, and to make it be kept in mind, that the money received was really nothing more than a small composition for a large debt. These 2,500,000l. seemed, however, to be received by certain persons, as if a shower of gold had descended upon them. They seemed at a loss what to do with it, and looked anxiously about for objects to expend it upon. "How shall we lay it out? Does the Church want any thing? Does the Crown want any thing?" were the exclamations which this God-send excited. Now, if their lordships House, or the other House of parliament, thought fit to give the public money to the building of palaces or churches—and, by-the-by, it was remarkable that the church of England, which was one of the richest churches in Europe, was the only one he ever heard of that never did any thing for itself—he did not mean to say that such an application of money might not be right; that was a question for consideration; but certainly, the reason of its being right was not the receipt of this money from the emperor of Austria, though the whole manner in which the subject had been treated tended to impress that opinion on the public. The people of England, like the fleece of Gideon, received none of the dew which was falling around them. A commission had been appointed for regulating the repairs of Windsor Palace. To this he seriously objected. Whatever was thought necessary to be done in that way, ought to be done under the direction of the legal and official servants of the crown, on their responsibility. He said this solely from a just constitutional jealousy. Those who had promoted this measure—among whom were many persons whom he respected—would not suppose that he reflected on the appointment of this committee on any other ground, than that he considered it derogatory to the Crown. It was derogatory to the Crowns; because the constitution always supposed that it was left to the constitutional officers of the Crown to determine what money ought to be expended on such objects. It might be said, that the object of the commission was to take care that nothing unsuitable to the honour of the country should be done. That, however, was a reason which was not very complimentary to the Crown. But even viewed in that way, he could not look at the institution of a committee of taste as the best means of attaining such an object. In the affairs of government he was will- ing to go as far as most people—indeed, many of his friends thought he went too far in support of the maxim that "in the multitude of counsellors there is wisdom." But, in affairs of taste as well as of war, he was convinced that the direction ought to be left to one individual; because, as the former required promptness of execution, so did the latter simplicity of design; and these advantages could only be obtained by trusting to individuals. He need not go far from their lordships' House to find many instances, which might prove that committees of taste, though composed of men of great eminence in various departments, never produced any thing that did honour to the country. It was not, however, on this ground that he objected to the commission, but because its appointment was an invasion of the constitution. If any thing more important than another had been gained to this country by the Revolution, it was the necessity under which the servants of the Crown were placed, of having the confidence of parliament. He was therefore against lessening their responsibility. It was necessary that they should always keep in mind, that the servants of the Crown must have the confidence of the Crown; but that could not be separated from the confidence of both Houses of Parliament. He did not mean to say, that the evil to which this measure tended was desired. It was not done, he believed, from design, but arose out of that convenience of the moment, upon which the noble earl the other night excused another measure. Their lordships ought, however, to be on their guard against the tendency of thus yielding to the convenience of the moment. He should therefore move, that this bill be re-committed, with the intention of altering the preamble.

The Earl of Liverpool

was free to acknowledge, that the noble lord had been very entertaining in the first part of his speech. After attending, however, to it very closely, he could not clearly discover what the noble lord's object was. When the noble lord gave notice of his intention to call the consideration of the House to this bill, it appeared that he had in view to object to the phraseology of it, as not sufficiently describing what was meant to be enacted. Now no person could suppose that it would be proper to draw up such a bill as the present, in a very offensive manner to one of the parties. But, what more could be done than to refer to the transaction as it took place? The fact was, that a loan had been granted to Austria, and this country had accepted a sum in lieu of the whole demand. The real object of the noble lord appeared to be lather to read the House a lecture on the Austrian government, than to make any amendment on the bill. Had this been done fairly, he should not have thought it objectionable; but the noble lord had acted like a counsel stating a case, and had brought forward every thing unfavourable to the side he opposed, carefully keeping in the back ground every thing tending to the honour of the Austrian government. The noble lord had argued, that this money had been granted to the emperor of Austria, without any necessity—as if ho wars had intervened, between the time at which it was advanced, and the time of payment; and as if no good reason could be assigned for letting it lie over for five-and-twenty years. He appealed to their lordships whether any person listening to the noble lord's speech would not consider this to be the nature of the transaction? The whole question, however, at the time the loan was granted, was, whether it would be better to give Austria six millions in that way or as a subsidy? Many persons thought it would have been better to have granted it as a subsidy than as a loan; and certainly at the time the transaction was carried into effect, there was no individual who voted for the loan who would not have voted for giving the money as a subsidy. It was true, as the noble lord said, that some of the instalments had been remitted after the peace of Campo Formio; but after that peace, Austria had been engaged in no less than four wars; namely, the war which terminated with the battles of Marengo and Hohenlinden; the war which terminated with the battle of Austerlitz; the war which terminated with the battle of Wagram; and the war which terminated with the battle which brought the affairs of Europe into the state in which they were now placed. He believed that no public man, who had examined the transactions of those times, could fail to be convinced, that Austria had in all those wars, fought to the last—that she had never yielded but from necessity, and was always ready to rise again, against the common enemy. Under such circumstances, it became this government to consider what was due to Austria. He had already stated, that there had been four wars since the loan was granted. During those wars three subsidies had been granted to Austria; and, in granting those subsidies, not a word had been said on the subject of this loam When the friends of the noble lord were in office, they themselves offered a subsidy to Austria, if she would march and cooperate with Prussia. He certainly did not blame them for this; but he wished to remind the noble lord, that in making that offer, no idea of repayment of the loan was suggested. Austria did not march; but notwithstanding her refusal, Some charges which the Austrian government had incurred were paid by the noble lord's friends; and in liquidating those charges they never once reminded Austria of the existence of this loan. The present government, however, did call upon Austria to settle this transaction; but he certainly was not sanguine as to the amount which might be received. At the same time such was his sense of the policy which ought to be followed by the Austrian government, that he would have advised the payment of something. Many persons, well informed on the subject, were perfectly convinced that nothing had more tended to raise the credit of that government than this very measure, and he was convinced that Austria had gained more than she had lost by this payment. When all the circumstances were taken into consideration, any reasonable person Would rather be inclined to doubt whether we were justified in asking so much, than whether we ought to have demanded more. With regard to the personal character of the emperor of Austria he should be wanting in duty if he were not to say, that no sovereign ever sat on a throne who possessed nicer or more honourable feelings. He doubtless was desirous to bring the transaction to an adjustment; but whatever misconception might have gone abroad, he must also say, that the individual by whom his Imperial majesty was supposed to be chiefly advised, was also convinced of the necessity of making the arrangement. His noble friend had alluded to what had passed elsewhere on the subject of this loan, when a right hon. friend of his had stated the manner in which he proposed to provide for certain public services. In opening the state of the finances for the year, his right hon. friend had referred to the receipt of 2,500,000l. from Aus- tria, and had stated, that government would be enabled—not in consequence of that payment alone, but by it and the existence of a surplus revenue—to afford some relief to the country, and to apply a portion to certain other purposes. The objects to which the application was proposed to be made were those which appeared most necessary. He should say nothing about the 500,000l. proposed to be granted for churches. After what had been said on a former occasion on that subject, it could not now be necessary to discuss it. The other appropriation which had been alluded to was equally unobjectionable. It was, for the preservation and the ornament of a structure which was venerated in this country, and had been admired by all foreigners who had had the opportunity of viewing it. The receipt of the money from Austria had given facility to the arrangements which the government had in view; but the specific sum which had been proposed to be applied to the building of churches, and to the repairs of Windsor Castle, would have been so applied, although the money had never been paid by Austria. He therefore could not think that the observations of his noble friend were at all warranted. It was not a new palace which was to be built, but certain necessary alterations to be made in a structure which was the object of general admiration. Funds must have been found for carrying on the works; for the repairs could not have been longer delayed. As to the bill, he saw no ambiguity in it; and with regard to the sum expressed in it, the country had received as much from Austria as it had any just reason to expect.

Lord King

objected strongly to the preamble of the bill, since it did not mention the sum received from Austria as being the payment of a debt. Without such an acknowledgment in direct terms, the clause in the preamble was unintelligible. Nobody could certainly deny, that we had advanced money to the government of Austria under a promise of repayment, and that this was our only return. What else was necessary to constitute a debt? It had been said, that our money had been expended in Wars; but, for whose advantage were those wars carried on? For the advantage of the emperor of Austria. It was true the emperor had not succeeded in those wars: but that was not our fault. It however showed, that the emperor had then made the same kind of miscalculation respecting the difficulties of the contest and the probabilities of success, which he had since made respecting the amount of his obligations to this country and the sum necessary for fulfilling them. Had the transaction between the emperor and this country been placed on its proper footing, either in the preamble of the bill or in the statements of the minister, much of what was now said against the Austrian government might have been spared. People would not probably in that case have been so malicious as to have talked of those two millions and a half, as being a saving out of abankrupt's property, as a composition with an insolvent, as half-a-crown in the pound wrung from an unwilling or dishonest debtor: nor would the ministers have insulted the emperor, by pretending surprise, that he should pay his debts, and calling that payment a "God-send." In order to shew that the preamble might have been more precise, and have denominated this money as the payment of a debt, he begged to call the attention of their lordships to the transactions out of which the debt arose. The minister of the day, Mr. Pitt, had called upon parliament to lend this money to the government of Austria, on what he termed good security, the very best security. A regular contract was entered into, the deed was signed, sealed, and delivered. Mr. Pitt had boasted of the certainty which it gave us of recovering our due; he even went the length of saying, that if the emperor refused to pay us voluntarily, we could sue him, like a reluctant debtor, in his own courts. Now, here he would beg leave to ask, whether the minister had stated this last security from excess of caution, or for the purposes of delusion? This appeared to him a very proper question to be solved by the Pitt club, and he should expect to see it answered at its next meeting. Some persons were disposed to put the latter interpretation on the words of the minister; while others had considered the money transaction mentioned in the bill before the House as the result of a legal proceeding, or the proceeds arising out of the sale of a bankrupt's estate. God forbid that he should so consider it. God forbid that he should insinuate any thing against the honour of his Imperial majesty, or even hint a suspicion that the emperor had not paid his just debts! As our power to sue him in his own courts had been so broadly stated, he (lord K.) had a right to assume that our rulers had done so, that the suit had been carried on for the last twenty years, and that, as it happened nearer home, a great part of the contested property had been swallowed up in fees of court and other law expenses [a laugh}. The great cause of "Rex v. Emperor," involving so vast an interest, must have been heard and re-heard—It must have been considered and re-considered—it must have been argued and re-argued, before the Austrian great judge of equity. The court must have taken home the papers; and then the court must have lost the papers; and then the court must have required to have its memory refreshed, and to be supplied with new papers; The lawyers also must have had refreshers. The court afterwards must have fixed a day for judgment, and that day having arrived, the court must not have given judgment; and then the court, under a solemn promise to give judgment, must have fixed upon another day; and when that other day came, the court must have had a doubt, and have postponed its decision to another day; and when that other day arrived, the court must have required again to be refreshed. At last, when the law and the lawyers had had their full swing, and twenty years had been spent in forwarding the cause, the court must have pronounced its decree, by which the emperor was ordered to pay the account of 2,500,000l., while we paid by far the greater sum to the lawyers, and for the bill of costs [a laugh]. We had thus obtained only 2,500,000l. out of six millions which was the original loan, and we had lost all the interest, which in the course of twenty years had swelled the debt to twenty millions; but we could not very much complain, when we considered what might have happened nearer home, namely, that we might have lost not only the original principal sum of six millions, but might have expended, in an attempt to recover it, the other two and a half millions, which we were now enabled to pocket. With the proceeds of this successful suit at Vienna, ministers would be enabled to repeal our law taxes—to give us law cheaper at home. Another consequence, probably, of this expensive litigation with the emperor was, a bill to diminish the expenses of law proceedings for the recovery of small debts. Government had found it so difficult to recover this debt from Austria, that it was willing to facilitate the recovery of other debts. Then, from the experience of the evils of delay in our suit with the emperor, ministers had seen the propriety of instituting inquiry into the causes of delay in the court of chancery [a laugh]. All these beneficial consequences, he was glad to perceive, had resulted from the termination of this long-protracted suit at Vienna. Now, he thought ministers ought to have inserted a proper description of these transactions, and an avowal of the debt, in the preamble to the bill before the House.

The Earl of Aberdeen

said, that in rising to make a few observations on the question, he would refrain from noticing the speech of the noble lord who spoke last, which, was of too facetious a nature to require an answer. He was however prepared to defend the court of Vienna from any imputation of bad faith or dishonest feeling in the present transaction. The loan for which we were now paid the 2,500,000l. was advanced to Austria for the accomplishment of objects particularly connected with the interests and policy of Great Britain. It was peculiarly a British object at that time to drive the French out of the Netherlands; and to enable Austria to effect this, an advance of money was necessary. Mr. Fox had said at the time, that, so little did he expect its repayment, he would have preferred a subsidy to a loan. It was so peculiarly destined to enable Austria to recover possession of the Netherlands, that its repayment, was fixed on the Belgic revenues. Had the enterprise succeeded, which this money was intended to promote, there could be little doubt that the loan would have been punctually paid. That it was rather intended as a subsidy than a loan, was evident from the fact, that we had thrice subsidized the Austrian government since, and had never alluded to this debt. In 1805, in 1809, and in 1813, when Austria received pecuniary aid from this country, no mention was made of any obligation under which she previously laid. Had the subject been mentioned, and had Austria, anticipating a future claim, requested at any of these epochs that this debt should be annulled, could any noble lord believe that the demand would have been resisted? Austria had therefore a right to be surprised at the renewal of this claim. In 1816, when, after having passed what was called two successive bankruptcies, the Austrian government determined to adopt a new financial system, it published a list of all its debts, and property. In this list the debt to Great Britain did not appear. On seeing this list, we were bound to mention so important an omission, if we had meant to make a future claim. But we took no such step. What surprise must not Austria have felt, therefore, when after this she saw the claim revived. Much had been said about suing the emperor in his own courts, and if he had been so sued, probably his courts would have decided against him; but he much doubted, after twenty years silence, with so many opportunities of making the claim, whether our own courts would have given a decision against him. The amount of the sum advanced in lieu of all claims had been the subject of animadversion; but that amount was not so much a question of will, as of ability. Had Great Britain demanded more, she would have obtained nothing. Yet the sum, small as it was, compared with the nominal amount of the debt, was nearly as much as Austria had received. Though the loan was about six millions, yet, from the state of the exchanges, and the difficulties of transfer, not much more than three millions had reached the coffers of Austria. The money was so far advanced for British interests, that it was stipulated to be expended under the inspection of British officers. Officers had accordingly been appointed for the purpose, and there was no doubt that every farthing of it had been employed to forward operations which fell in with the policy of our own government. He was glad that his noble friend (the earl of Liverpool) had not only done justice to the character of the emperor of Austria, in this transaction, but to that of his minister prince Metternich. With regard to the emperor, he would say, that a more virtuous prince never sat on the throne of any country; but still he would add, that contrary to the advice of his chief minister, he would not have urged the repayment of this sum. The noble earl then expressed his approbation of the objects for which a part of this sum was to be employed; namely, the building of churches, the creation of a picture gallery, and the repairs of Windsor Castle.

Lord Clifden

observed, that part of the money which we lent to the emperor of Austria had found its way into the pockets of Napoleon. The fashion seemed now to be to compliment the emperor of Austria; but if he was to credit the account which Mr. Rose had given of the present state of Italy, a more detestable tyrant never existed than the emperor appeared to be in that part of his dominions. Yet this account had come from no jacobin or radical, but from a gentleman whose character gave weight to his testimony on such a subject. His government of Italy had been excessively cruel. He had ground down that unfortunate country to the very dust; and, as he had ruined it, it was not improbable that from Italy would ultimately proceed the destruction of himself and his race.

Lord Ellenborough

said, he thought the emperor an absolute angel, compared with the rest of the Holy Alliance. He was the only member of that alliance on whom we could place confidence. Adverting to the commission to be appointed to superintend the expenditure of the money to be granted for public buildings, the noble lord asked if it was to be a parliamentary commission, or one appointed by the Crown?

The Earl of Liverpool

said, that the duties of the commission might be settled by parliament, and the names be filled up by the Crown.

Lord Ellenborough

hoped the commissioners would be named by act of parliament. He was glad to see an increasing jealousy directed towards the expenditure of parliamentary grants.

The bill was read a third time, and passed.