HC Deb 17 August 1860 vol 160 cc1462-72

House in Committee.

Mr. MASSEY in the Chair.

(1). Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £10,750, be granted to Her Majesty, to pay the Salaries and Expenses of the Mixed Commissions established under the Treaties with Foreign Powers for suppressing the Traffic in Slaves, to the 31st day of March, 1801.

MR. LAING

said, the explanation given by him at a previous sitting, with reference to this Vote, was, he found, quite correct. The balances to which allusions were made had been drawn, and there must be a settlement of accounts with the Treasury.

MR. DANBY SEYMOUR

said, he would move that the Vote be reduced by £1,300, the salary of the Judge and arbitrator at the Havannah. He would also like to know what steps were being taken to compel Spain to fulfil her contract with reference to the suppression of the slave trade?

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the item of £1,300, for the Judge and Arbitrator of the Mixed Commission at Havana, be omitted from the proposed Vote.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS

said, the Courts of the "Mixed Commission" were held under treaty, and there was an obligation on the part of this country to pay the salaries of the judges and arbitrators. With regard to the suppression of the slave trade, every exertion was made, not only with Spain, but with other countries, by the Government of this country to secure so desirable an object. No man had displayed more anxiety on the subject than the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, but it certainly would be a singular mode of checking the slave trade to withdraw our Commissioner from the Havannah.

MR. LONGFIELD

said, he thought they had every reason to complain of the conduct of Spain; but certainly it was not probable that throwing difficulties in the way of this Vote was the best mode of inducing the Government of that country to discharge the obligations of her contracts.

MR. DANBY SEYMOUR

said, he would withdraw his Amendment.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

(2.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £158,229, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Expense of the Consular Establishments Abroad, to the 31st day of March, 1861.

MR. DODSON

drew attention to several items in this Estimate, and complained that without any new appointments there had been a large increase of expenditure. He wished to ask particularly for an explanation with regard to the expenditure for Consuls at New York, Odessa, and in China.

COLONEL DUNNE

asked how long a Consul was required to serve before he became entitled to compensation.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, there was an increase of £24,000 in the Consuls' salaries in the last four years, without the least increase of duty. In fact, in many places the duties had diminished, owing to the decline of our commerce. But unfortunately the House would not interfere to check any extravagance on the part of the Government, however flagrant. There were payments of £1,000 to the Consul at Petersburg, £350 to one at Frankfort, and other places, where we had little or no trade. The Ambassadorial establishments at those places ought to be sufficient.

MR. LAING

observed that if Government had followed out the recommendations of a Committee of the House, the augmentation of the Vote for Consuls would have been much greater than it was, but they had only followed it to a modified extent. A good deal of the increase of late years was only apparent, as the fees were, in many cases, now paid into the Treasury. At Odessa the fees exceeded the salary of the Consul, and the salaries in New York and other places were very much made up by the fees.

MR. AYRTON

complained of the manner in which the Committee was left to transact important branches of business in the absence of Cabinet Ministers to whose departments the very subjects under discussion belonged. The noble Lord at the head of Foreign Affairs, who had certainly exerted himself in the beginning of the Session in occupying many days of the time of the House, had left them now to dispose of this business as well as they could. The Committee seemed to have thought it always necessary that either a merchant should be appointed as Consul or a stipendiary officer. He thought in many places a native, and not a merchant, might have been advantageously and economically employed—a lawyer, for instance, who, being acquainted with the commercial laws of the ports, would be competent to advise with merchants, but who would be free from any commercial bias, having no special connection with commercial business.

MR. DODSON

complained that there was still a Vote taken for a Consul at New York, whose office was abolished. One gentleman was receiving a pension who had retired from this office, and there was a Vote taken for salary to another.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the item of £1,200, for the Consul at New York, be reduced by the amount of £900.

MR. LAING

said, he would make inquiry respecting the objection of the hon. Member.

Motion by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

(3.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £23,320, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expenses of the Establishments in China, Japan, and Siam, to the 31st day of March, 1861.

MR. WHITE

said, he wished to call attention to the expenses for Consulships at Newchoang, Tangchoo, Chinseang, and Swatow. The Consuls in these places were to have been appointed as the result of the ratification of the Treaty of Tientsin, which treaty had not yet been ratified. At Swatow they were content to have a Consul there, but to the other places Consulships could not be sent until the result of the Chinese war became known. In that new war, he contended, they should never have engaged. Had the Earl of Elgin done what he was urged to do by every one practically acquainted with China, the war would never have been rendered necessary. The East India and China Association impressed on the Earl of Elgin the necessity of staying in China until he had finished the work for which he went out. Had he followed that advice, an immense expenditure and a loss of life would have been spared. Again, if the distinguished Admiral, now a Member of the House (Sir Michael Seymour), had had the prestige of aristocratic rank, power might have been conferred upon him to arrange affairs in China; and from the sagacity and justice he had displayed in his dealing's there, he would, in all probability, have been successful.

MR. LAING

said, the Committee could hardly expect him to touch upon the Question of general policy. The Estimate was prepared upon the supposition that the treaty would come into operation, and the occurrences which followed had been totally unexpected. At any moment, an announcement might arrive that the treaty had been ratified; and therefore it was quite necessary to frame the present Estimate.

MR. AYRTON

asked on what footing the Chinese Embassy was at present. He wished to know whether these two Envoys to China were both paid, and why this double establishment was necessary. It might be a nice family arrangement to send out one brother to look after another, but he wished to know whether it was necessary for the public interests.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, if Mr. Bruce was the person receiving the salary of £8,000, lie thought in common justice that sum ought to be rejected altogether. To call the conduct of Mr. Bruce a blunder would not properly express the nature of that conduct. To call it insolence would but very faintly characterize it.

SIR. GEORGE LEWIS

said, he understood that the opposition to the Vote was intended substantially as a vote of censure against the Earl of Elgin and Mr. Bruce, but he thought more fitting opportunities of proposing such a censure than in Committee of Supply on the 17th of August might be found. The treaty was stipulated by the Earl of Elgin during the Administration of the Earl of Derby. He completed the work he had to do, and came home. Mr. Bruce was sent out to proceed to Pekin in terms of one of the stipulations of the treaty, and when he was in the act of doing so the affair of the Peiho took place. He did not see that the Earl of Elgin was open to censure for the course be had taken in China, or that Mr. Bruce was in any way to blame for his conduct in following up the instructions communicated to him. It was thought that the Earl of Elgin, by proceeding a second time to China, might perhaps avert the evils of war by inducing the Chinese to carry out the treaty, but when he reached Hong Kong he saw little hopes of doing so. His mission was an extraordinary mission, and did not at all interfere with that of Mr. Bruce, and it was possible he might yet succeed in bringing the Chinese authorities to a recognition of the obligations of the treaty. As to the expenses, they were put down in accordance with those usually incurred in such circumstances in the East, and were not at all out of place.

MR. CONINGHAM

said, it was the fault of the Government that the Estimates were brought on at such an inconvenient time of the Session. When the Vote for Kensington Museum, or any other great project was under consideration, the whole of the Ministers were present; they took care to vote their own salaries; but now there was no one to give any explanation. He should be inclined to vote for the reduction, if it were pressed.

MR. AYRTON

asked, if there was any expense for the Plenipotentiary Extraordinary looking after the Plenipotentiary Ordinary. They might put questions of this nature to the Government; but it was really impossible for them to enter into a discussion of these questions in the present state of the House. The condition of things was this, that the mode in which the most important business of the nation was carried on was a mere farce, the number of Members present at these morning sittings hardly ever exceeding what should be found on a Committee upstairs. He wished to know distinctly what were the expenses of Lord Elgin and for what they were incurred.

SIR JAMES GRAHAM

said, he also wished to ask whether the Estimate had been framed on the assumption that we were at peace with China, There was a Vote of £8,000 a year proposed for Mr. Bruce, on the assumption that we should be at peace with China; but Mr. Bruce was there under very altered circumstances, as we were at war with China; and an Ambassador Extraordinary had been sent out to assist in the war, and to endeavour to bring round a state of peace with China. He wished to know from what source the expenses of the Envoy Extraordinary were to be paid?

MR. LAING

said, the Estimate was framed on the assumption that we were at peace with China. If a war with China was established, no doubt the ordinary rule would be applied to the payment of Mr. Bruce's salary. The expense of defraying the Earl of Elgin's embassy would be paid out of the Civil Contingencies; but, in the absence of the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary, he could give no more explicit statement. He was able to state, however, that the expense of the former extraordinary embassy to China was £6,485.

MR. EDWIN JAMES

remarked, that it was a most unsatisfactory state of things. It was unfair that the whole onus of answering these questions should be laid on the Secretary to the Treasury. No one could answer the questions put to him more frankly than he did but it was too much to desire him to answer questions which he could not possibly answer, and which probably could not be answered in the absence of the noble Lord, the Foreign Secretary. Unless a satisfactory answer were given to the question put as to the arrangement made with the Envoy Extraordinary to China, he should move the postponement of the Vote.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS

said, he did not know that his noble Friend the Foreign Secretary could give any definite information on the subject. He did not believe that any estimate of the probable expenses of the Earl of Elgin's extraordinary mission was in existence. The Earl of Elgin was accompanied by Baron Gros on a mission similar to his own, and probably the same expenses would be incurred by both; but he did not believe that there existed any estimate. As to the salary of the permanent Ambassador, Mr. Bruce, he had to observe that legally we were not at war with China. He apprehended that if a question were raised at the present moment as to the seizure of a ship of either country, the decision would be that we were not in a belligerent relation to China. If it were found that we were at hostilities with China, then the rule usually followed in such cases would be put in force—the salary would either cease altogether, or be reduced. But, supposing peace was signed—say in October—the functions of Mr. Bruce, as ordinary Ambassador, would be resumed, and the Earl of Elgin would return to England. As at present we hardly knew whether we were at war or peace, he did not see how it was possible to give any other answer to the questions raised, than had been given. He did not believe that any other Cabinet Minister could give a more definite answer than had already been given.

LORD CLAUD HAMILTON

said, a colleague of the right hon. Gentleman—a noble Duke—had distinctly stated in "another place" that we were at war with China. Though that was not the time to discuss the subject, he could not help saying that there were too many reasons to believe that we were entirely in the wrong in our quarrel with China.

SIR JAMES GRAHAM

said, they were getting further and further into a labyrinth of hopeless uncertainty and so far from the difficulties of the subject being cleared the darkness was becoming thicker. It was now made doubtful whether we were at war with China or not. His right hon. Friend told them that the Earl of Elgin left this country in the hopes that something would take place to bring warlike appearances to an end; but by the time he reached Hong Kong all those hopes were at an end, though, according to his right hon. Friend, we were not yet at war with China, But if war had not taken place the aspects of the case were truly fearful, for without a declaration of war any man who put an end to the life of a Chinese would be guilty of murder. Then, if war was to be declared, why were they asked to vote a salary for a Minister who could only act in time of peace, on the assumption that amicable relations would be maintained? He could not understand why they should vote £8,000 a year to Mr. Bruce as a Minister of Peace when they were told that there was no hope of peace being maintained. He assumed that war would be declared, and in these circumstances he objected to voting a salary to the Ambassador from March, 1860, till March 1861.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS

observed that, had the Government known that we should be at war with China before the 1st of April last, and that it would continue till the 1st of April next, it would have been unreasonable on their part to frame this estimate; but the facts were, in the first place, that they had not heard of the commencement of hostilities in China; and in the next, that if we did come to blows with the Chinese their defeat was all but a matter of absolute certainty, so that the war would be necessarily of short duration. He thought it unreasonable to refuse a vote of this kind in these circumstances. He would undertake thus far, that if the services of Mr. Bruce were not required in China, his salary, according to the ordinary rules of the diplomatic service, would either be suspended or reduced. He did not know exactly what the ordinary rule was in such cases, but he would undertake that it would be followed.

MR. AYRTON

repeated that lie wished to know what was the arrangement on which the Earl of Elgin went to China.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS

had already told all he knew on the subject. He was able to state further, on the authority of his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury, that no arrangement had been made by the Treasury for the payment of the expenses of the Earl of Elgin's mission; nor did he see how it was possible such an arrangement could have been made, He could not say whether anything had passed between the Earl of Elgin and his noble Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, or his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the subject; but if they were able to give any information to the House he was sure they would be ready to do so when they were present.

SIR GEORGE BOWYER

said, he could not understand the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that we were not at war with China. The very fact of a force proceeding to invade China was an act of hostility against that empire.

SIR JAMES GRAHAM

said, he wished to descend from these heights of international law to ask the question whether the House of Commons had ever before sanctioned the payment to Mr. Bruce of £4,000 a year over and above the £4,000 he received as Superintendent of Trade in China. Even on the ground that we were at peace with China, he was ready to maintain that £8,000 a year was an extravagant salary to pay to Mr. Bruce.

MR. AYRTON

said, he should move that the Vote be reduced by £4,000, being the sum payable to Mr. Bruce as Superintendent of Trade in China.

MR. LAING

said, the Vote of £8,000 was passed by the House last year. The present was the second time that it had been proposed to the House.

MR. WHITE

remarked, that the Chinese had evinced a great disposition to continue friendly commercial relations with us.

Motion made, and Question put, That the item of £8,000, for the Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary, and Chief Superintendent of Trade, be reduced by the sum of £4,000.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 32; Noes 36: Majority 4.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

(4.) £30,000, Embassies and Missions Abroad.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

took exception to the charge for the Embassy in Tuscany, on the ground that it was now unnecessary.

MR. LAING

explained that the expenditure took place in the years 1858 and 1859. The system, on the whole, was unsatisfactory, for they got the details of the expenditure a long time after it took place. He had conferred with Mr. Hamilton, of the Foreign Office, and a circular had been sent to all ministers to foreign Courts, asking them to send in their accounts earlier than they had been in the habit of doing, and requesting that the accounts should be kept in a more regular form.

Vote agreed to.

(5.) £3,353, Polish Refugees, &c.

MR. SPOONER

asked for an explanation of the Vote.

LORD HENRY LENNOX

said, the Votes for refugees were somewhat extraordinary. There were Votes for Corsicans, Toulouese, and Poles, and refugees of all nations and denominations.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS

said, that happily that class of Votes was nearly extinct. When he was at the Treasury he caused inquiries to be made, and he certainly found that those accounts were sufficiently checked, and that no fraud, as far as the Treasury was concerned, was practised. There was an item for an American loyalist, which dated from 1782. He supposed the payment was made to some person who was old enough to have compensation granted to him at the end of the American war, and was now alive.

Vote agreed to.

(6.) £4,081, Miscellaneous Allowances.

MR. EDWIN JAMES

asked what was meant by an annuity granted by Charles II., and charged on the coal duties.

SIR JAMES GRAHAM

wished to know the amount of the unexhausted balances on this Vote; he was told it was about £3,000.

MR. LAING

promised that any sum that was not required would be surrendered.

SIR JAMES GRAHAM

said, he heard that announcement with great pleasure. It was the commencement of a system whereby a remedy would be applied for the removal of a great evil.

Vote agreed to; as were also the following Votes.

(7.) £1,839, Public Infirmaries (Ireland).

(8.) £2,600, Westmoreland Lock Hospital (Dublin).

(9.) £700, Rotunda Lying-in Hospital (Dublin).

(10.) £200, Coombe Lying-in Hospital (Dublin).

(11.) £5,600, Hospitals of House of Industry (Dublin).

(12.) £1,900, House of Recovery and Fever Hospital (Dublin).

(13.) £600, Meath Hospital (Dublin).

(14.) £100, St. Mark's Ophthalmic Hospital (Dublin).

(15.) £1,300, Dr. Steeven's Hospital (Dublin).

(16.) £265, Superintendence of Hospitals (Dublin.)

(17.) £6,847, Charitable Allowances, &c. (Ireland).

(18.) £31,747, Nonconforming, &c, Ministers (Ireland).

MR. HADFIELD

took objection to the increase of the Vote. It was a mistaken policy to pander to religious communities at the expense of the State. One society assisted by the Vote had raised in one year £30,000 for a purpose of their own—manses; they could do everything but support their own ministers. That sect to which he referred was remarkable for paying its ministers worse than any other. He moved that the Vote should be reduced, hut did not press his Amendment.

MR. CARDWBLL

declined to enter into a discussion of the circumstances under which the grants had been made, some of which dated from the time of Cromwell.

COLONEL SYKES

inquired whether it was proposed to subsidize churches in China in the same way?

Vote agreed to; as was also,

(19.) £6,010, Local Government Act.

(20.) £3,750, Ecclesiastical Commission.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

objected to the Vote, and especially to that part relating to the Church Building Acts.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS

said, it was not necessary to enter into the general merits of the Ecclesiastical Commission. The Commission had now to discharge the duties of those who formerly carried out what were called the Church Building Acts, and the Vote to which the hon. Member for Lambeth referred was applicable to the expenses of that department of the Commission which was engaged in giving effect to those Church Building Acts.

MR. CHILDERS

expressed a hope that the Vote would not be passed at that time, in order to a full consideration of the sub- ject. He understood a promise had been given that no Vote would be asked for on behalf of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS

said, he was not aware of such a promise having been made.

MR. AYRTON

said, the Government hoped to get out of the difficulty that stared them in the face by proposing a Vote for the Commissioners as Church Building Commissioners. He was opposed to giving them any grant at all. When he considered the profuse and scandalous manner in which they had squandered the funds committed to their charge, and especially the manner in which they had raised the salary of the Dean of York, he thought the Committee should pause before they consented to a grant like this.

And it being Four of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to report Resolutions, and ask leave to sit again.