The Sun.
London, England, 1850-06-05 00:00:00

GREECE.

Mr. BAILLIE rose to ask a question of the Noble
Lord the Sectretary for Foreign Affairs. It appeared
from the papers presented to Parliament relating to
Greece, that her Majesty's Government had assumed
the right to demand satisfaction, or rather compensation,
for aay damage or injury sustained by British subjects,
either from riots or rebellions in the countries in which
they had been residing, without reference to the laws or
the legal tribunals of those countries. It also appeared
by the answer given by the Noble Lord to the ques-
t tion recently put to him by the Honourable and Learned
Member for Southampton (Mr. Cockburn) that her Ma-
jesty's Government did not make any such pretensions
with respect to any damage or injury which British sub-
' jects might sustain when they went to reside in the
United States of America. He (Mr. Baillie) wished to
ask the Noble Lord—first, why a different course should
be pursued with reference to the states of Europe, from
that which had been pursued with reference to the
United States of America; and secondly, whether h
was true that the representatives of Rus3ia and Austria
had protested against our interpretation of the law of
nations; and whether those Governments had intimated
any intention of refusing to allow British subjects to
reside in the states under their rule, unless they would
renounce their allegiance to their own country ?

Lord PALMERSTON said, the Hon. Member had
supposed that the Government had laid down the broad
assertion that the British Government would claim com-
pensation for any damage or loss which a British subject
might in any case sustain in Greece or in any other
country by reason of riots, disturbances, or other similar
causes. The Government had laid down no such pro
position. Their demands were founded on the
particular circumstances of the particular cases to
which they applied, and did not involve
any general rife, such as hail been assumed by the.
Renoureble Gentleman.—(hear, hear.) He (Lord
Palmerston) apprehended that all cases of that
sort must rest on the particular circum-
stances connected with them. It was impossible
to maintain that in all cese i foreigners were entitled to
compenSatian from the Government of the country in
which they ensteined injury or loss such as that to which
the Hon. Gentleman referred. On the other hand it was
equally impossible to maintain that there a ere
not cases in which, by the law of nations, da
magee should net be given to persona so situated.
'Vette', one of the bsst authorities on tho law cf
nations, draws a distinction in those matters,
In speaking of war, that author said that the
pillage and the destruction of towns, the devatte-
lion of countries, and the ravaging and setting
fire to houses, were measures in the last degree odious,
in every case, without absolute necessity ; that the
property of neutral's ought to be treated in the same
manner as the property of enemies; and in civil war
she insurgents were the enemy against whom war
was made. He stated, again, the cases in which compensa-
tion can be justly demanded, which was in the cases
where wanton and unnecessary damage was done. Her
Slejosty's Ministers drew no distinction, as the Hoe.
Gentleman supposed, bsteeen the tribunals of America
and other countries, but he thought in America he might
say the tribunals were more open to give justice in tease
matters than the tribunals of some Other countries he
could name. It was perfectly true that Austria and
Russia, in stating their opinion upon other claims
of a similar kind, argued trim an imperfect know-
ledge. They were of opinion that it was impossible to
draw a distinction between the subjects of a country
and foreigners residing in the country, and if a Go-
vernment refused to compensate its own subjects in s
particular case, they were entitled to refits,
compensation to foreigners. This, was, how-
an argument, and nothing more. A gas,
had lately occurred in which an Austrian brig, being
in distress off some port of the Irish coast,
had suffered some damage at the hands of the
country people there. A prosecution was
commenced by the Irish Government, but failed
beceuse of the difficulty of ascertaining the exact place.
Her Majesty's Government, however, with the liberality
which always distinguished them in matters relating to
foreign countries, had determined to grant compensa-
tion to the owners or this brig to the amount of 1001.—
(Cheers.)
Mr. B. COCHRANE wished to know what course
the Noble Lord proposed to take with reference to the
interests of the Greek loan, and whether he meant to
take any steps tl compensate those who had suffered
from his Lordship's policy?

Lord PALMtagTOR said it was but a short time
since the Hon. Member had censured him for pressing
loan claims upon a foreign Government too strongly.
The case of a loan was very different from the case of
British subjects who had eustlined an injury. The lout
was guaranteed by three powers, and ho did not think
that any one of the three powers could singly press the
subje,t without consultinz the other two upon the point.
In answer to Mr. M. GIBSON,
Lord PALMERSTON said that the Government had
deoidei upon compensating the Austrian brig about a
month ago.