CLASS V.—COLONIAL, CONSULAR, AND OTHER FOREIGN SERVICES. (Hansard, 29 July 1879)

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
took occasion to call the attention of the Committee to the amounts which they were asked to vote for the Embassy at Berlin and the Legation in Switzerland. Having served, he said, on the Committee which sat two years ago to inquire into the subject of diplomatic salaries, he had come to the conclusion that no reasonable grounds existed at the present time for the difference which was maintained between the salaries which, were paid to the members of certain Embassies and Legations and those which were paid to others. He would now offer no opinion on the general scale of diplomatic salaries; but he wished to point out to the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that the salary which was paid to our Ambassador at Berlin was, so far as he was able to form a judgment in the matter, too low as compared with those of some of our other Ambassadors. He saw no good reason why that should be so, because the cost of living was not, he believed, less in Berlin than in any of the other European capitals. He was also of opinion that the salaries which were paid to the members of the Legation in Switzerland were very much too small as contrasted with the allowances which were made to the members of other Legations of the same rank. He would not now discuss the expediency of reducing the allowances for all our Embassies; but would simply confine himself to drawing the attention of the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to the difference which he had mentioned, and which he thought ought not to be allowed to continue, for it seemed clear to him that either the sums expended on other Embassies and Legations were too high, or that the amounts which the Committee were asked to vote for the Embassy at Berlin and the Legation in Switzerland were too low.

§ MR. BOURKE
said, the question which the hon. Baronet had raised was one of considerable interest. The Embassy at Berlin was, no doubt, a very 1586 important one, and it was the fact that the salaries paid to the members of that Embassy were less than the allowances which were made in the case of the Embassies at Paris, or St. Petersburg, or Vienna. He was not, he might add, by any means prepared to contend that it might not be fair to raise the salaries of the members of the Berlin Embassy; but the difference to which the hon. Baronet had called attention had existed for a long time, and it did not seem to the Government to be desirable to make any change in the amounts paid to the various Embassies at present. They were also of opinion that they would scarcely be justified in asking the Committee to vote a further sum of money for the purpose of increasing the salaries of the members of the Swiss Legation.

§ MR. RYLANDS
said, the speech of the hon. Gentleman furnished another illustration of the manner in which Under Secretaries of State for Foreign Affairs invariably dealt with criticisms on the Diplomatic Estimates. They, and, indeed, all the officials connected, with the Foreign Office, appeared to be of opinion that the scale at which diplomatic salaries had been fixed should be maintained, although circumstances might have entirely changed. He understood his hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke) to desire to call attention to what was patent to every hon. Member, that a very considerable change had taken place in the position of our Embassies in the different capitals of Europe, and that the salaries of our Ministers in some of those capitals did not bear that proportion one to another which they ought. He did not, however, understand his hon. Friend by any means to contend that the salary of our Ambassador at Berlin should be raised, but that that should be done only in the event of its being shown that the salaries of our Ambassadors at the other Courts of Europe were not too high; for if they were they ought to be lowered. His own opinion was that the salaries paid to those Ambassadors were too high; and he would suggest that, instead of raising the salary of the Ambassador at Berlin, the salaries of the Ambassadors at Paris, and some of the other capitals of Europe, should be reduced to the level of that which the Ambassador at Berlin received. The case of Paris appeared to him, he might add, to be a somewhat 1587 curious one. The position of that city had undergone a complete change within the last few years. The main political influence of Europe, which at one time was centered there, was now centred in Berlin; yet we continued to keep up in Paris an Embassy at an enormous expense, instead of reducing the charge to the amount which we expended on our Embassy at a Court where the political influence was at least equal, if not much greater. He might also take the case of Constantinople in support of the view which he desired to impress on the Committee. The political character and power of the Porte had recently undergone a very great change indeed. No one would, for a moment, argue that the position of the present Sultan had not been greatly impaired as compared with that which was occupied by his Predecessors on the Ottoman Throne. Yet we still maintained at Constantinople an enormous Embassy. It was, perhaps, the most expensive of all our Embassies. He found that our Ambassador in Turkey received a salary of £8,000 a-year, and that he occupied a palace of great magnificence. He was aided in the discharge of his duties by a principal Secretary of Embassy, who had a salary of £900 a-year. There were, besides, three second Secretaries of Embassy, a third Secretary, a physician, a chaplain, and a number of other officials. Then there were miscellaneous expenses which had to be provided for, and the result was that the amount expended on the Embassy at Constantinople exceeded, if he was not mistaken, the charge borne on the Estimates in connection with any Embassy in Europe. Now, he had some years ago induced the House to appoint a Committee before which the whole question of our diplomatic expenditure was brought; and he was quite prepared to believe that that Committee had done a certain amount of useful work. He could not, at the same time, say that the expenditure on account of the Diplomatic Service had been reduced. We paid our Ministers abroad salaries far larger than those which were paid to their Ministers by any other country in the world; and he was strongly of opinion that the time must soon arrive when another review must be taken of the scale of our expenditure for the Diplomatic Service, and when the question must be consi- 1588 dered how far the great changes which had taken place in Europe rendered it the duty of the Government to reduce the charges on account of our Embassies and Missions abroad. A considerable reduction might, he felt satisfied, be made in many cases with advantage; while, in other cases, no doubt, it might be found that the present establishments did not go beyond what was expedient and desirable. But although, on examining the Vote, he was by no means satisfied with its general character or the total expenditure on the Diplomatic Service, he did not think it was necessary, or that it would be advantageous, to challenge a Division upon it at that moment. He could not ignore the fact that this was a moribund Parliament, and he did not think it would be well to have questions such as those to which he had been referring investigated now that the present House of Commons was so near the end of its existence. He could have no expectation, at all events, that the present House would enter upon the subject in the spirit of reform and economy. He could only hope that the next House of Commons would contain a larger number of economists, from whom a Motion for the reduction of our Expenditure would receive a more favourable reception than could now be expected from it.

§ MR. BOURKE
said, that the fact of the matter was, as the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down must be aware, that although the Vote might look large upon paper it had been found impossible to reduce it. The Diplomatic Service, as a whole, was badly paid; and he did not think that any Government, taking into account the duties which had to be performed, and having due regard to the interests of the country, could say that our Representatives at foreign capitals should not be liberally remunerated and enabled to maintain a position of becoming dignity.

§ MR. CHILDERS
asked for an explanation of the item of £3,000 for providing a new steamer on the River Tigris. The item was one, he thought, which ought to come under the head of the Consular Expenditure, as the matter was connected with the duties which were discharged by our Consul General at Bagdad.

§ MR. BOURKE
said, the right hon. Gentleman was probably a better authority than himself on the question of 1589 whether the item should be placed in the Consular or Diplomatic Vote, but the point was one of only minor importance. As to the steamer on the Tigris, the right hon. Gentleman was aware that we had had a ship on that river for many years. The old vessel had become worn out, and it was anxiously desired by the Indian Government that she should be replaced. Her Majesty's Government, after carefully considering the communications which they had received on the subject, thought it their duty to insert in the Estimates the sum of £3,000 as a contribution to the building of a new ship; but that was not to be an annual Vote.

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, he found no mention made in the Estimates of a salary for a Consul at Philippopolis. There was an item for the salary of a Vice Consul; but that was an old item. The salaries of some of the new Consuls were given, but not those of all of them. Was it proposed to have a Supplementary Vote?

§ MR. BOURKE
said he had stated some time ago, in answer to a question which had been put to him in the House, that several new Consuls had been appointed, and he thought the provision made for their salaries in the Estimates would be sufficient, without having recourse to a Supplementary Vote. It would, of course, be the duty of the Government to propose a Supplementary Vote, if necessary.

§ MR. CHILDERS
reminded the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that a Return had been promised with regard to the Anatolian Consuls before the Estimates were made; but that no such Return had been laid upon the Table of the House. Looking at the multifarious duties of, the Foreign Office, he would be the last to blame the hon. Gentleman for this; but thought it was only right that the House of Commons should have placed before it, before the end of the Session, a Paper showing the changes which had taken place in the Asiatic Consulates as a result of the Treaty of Berlin.

§ MR. BOURKE
promised that a Paper should be laid upon the Table. The Government were rather anxious that 1590 the spheres of the Consuls in the districts referred to should from time to time be changeable.

§ SIR JULIAN GOLDSMID
said, it was not satisfactory that the House should vote money for Consulates, such as Bosnia and Cyprus, which had been abolished, in order to apply it to others the Government proposed to establish, with regard to which the House had no information.

§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL
said, several Consular appointments had been made to Anatolia and Roumania which had not been gazetted. He complained that the Committee should be called upon to vote money for Consulates that did not exist, and no money for those which were in existence. He trusted the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary would furnish the Committee with the best information in his power with reference to the salaries proposed to be given to the Consuls in Anatolia and Roumania and Paphos in general terms, and would also state who were the Consuls proposed to be appointed to these districts.

§ MR. BOURKE
believed that two of the Consuls in Anatolia would receive salaries of £800 and £900, and the others £400 and £500 a-year.

§ MR. RYLANDS
had to call the attention of the hon. Gentleman to another part of the world. He had not expected that this Vote would come on that evening, and had given Notice of a Question which it would, perhaps, be more convenient to ask now in order that the Under Secretary might have an opportunity of making an explanation to the Committee which would probably be satisfactory to them. The case, which was altogether a peculiar one, had reference to the Consul General in Siam. He was informed that, on a recent occasion, the King of Siam flogged one of his Ministers—a circumstance, probably, of very little interest to the Members of the House. Now, it so happened that this Minister of the King married the daughter of the Consul at Bankok; and the Consul, feeling that British interests were seriously affected in consequence of his son-in-law, the Prime Minister of the King of Siam, having been flogged, immediately ordered up from Singapore the Foxhound, one of Her Majesty's gunboats. This vessel arrived and anchored off Bankok in order to make some de- 1591 mands to satisfy the wounded honour of Great Britain. He had put a Question to the Under Secretary some time ago upon this subject, asking him whether there was any truth in the statement which had been made, and the hon. Gentleman said, in reply, that the information was correct, that some difference existed between the Consul General and the King of Siam; but he did not give the House any information as to the particular facts. According to the information which he (Mr. Rylands) had, and which he believed to be correct, this state of contention between the Consul General and the King continued, and the Foxhound was still lying off Bankok to support the Consul General for some object or other. He was also informed that the Consul General had marked his serene displeasure with the conduct of the King by giving orders that the officers of the gunboat should not receive courtesies from the Siamese nor pay to them any courtesies whatever, and that a garden party having taken place which was visited by some of the ship's officers in undress, the Consul General, on hearing of it, issued a prohibition against the officers visiting or inviting the Siamese. He, therefore, wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it was a fact that the son-in-law of the Consul General having been flogged by his master the King of Siam, a British gunboat had been sent up to Bankok, and whether it was a fact that a considerable amount of ill-feeling had been caused by that transaction? In his opinion, the Consul General had exceeded the duties of his office, and the Committee had a right to complain that one of Her Majesty's gunboats had been used in this matter, unless there was some reason for the act other than had appeared.

§ MR. BOURKE
could not state whether the circumstances related by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. RYLANDS) were true or not, although they were, probably, substantially correct. It was correct to say that the Consul General did order up a gunboat; but it had since left Bankok. Her Majesty's Government were quite alive to the necessity of the strictest investigation into the conduct of the Consul General.

§ SIR CHAELES W. DILKE
asked whether the Consul General had, of his own accord, sent home any Report of the 1592 case before an explanation was asked for?

§ MR. BOURKE
said, he thought a Report had been received.

§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH
called attention to the item under subhead L. He believed that Sir Bartle Frere no longer held the office of Her Majesty's High Commissioner for South Africa and Governor-in-Chief of the Cape and Griqualand West; but the Estimates, nevertheless, provided for his salary. Sir Garnet Wolseley having gone out to the Cape as High Commissioner to the seat of war and also to Natal, he asked what effect would that change have upon the Vote?

§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH
said, the office continued to be held by Sir Bartle Frere in South Africa, except as to that part which was connected with the seat of war, where the functions of the office were, of course, transferred to Sir Garnet Wolseley. Sir Bartle Frere was still the Governor and High Commissioner of the Cape and Griqualand West, with respect to which his functions remained, practically, what they were before. The Vote, therefore, remained at the same figure as formerly.

§ MR. GOURLEY
asked for information with respect to the sum of £1,500 for the government of the small Island of Heligoland. He also remarked that the same amount of £3,000 was charged as formerly for the steamer on the African coast, and thought that, inasmuch as there was a very large number of small steamers in connection with the Admiralty lying at various places and rarely used, he did not see why one of them should not be sent out to the Coast of Africa. He thought the time had come when the class of vessels used on the Coast of Africa might be revised by the Admiralty.

§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH
said, the several places on the Coast of West Africa under the jurisdiction of the Government of Sierra Leone could only be conveniently reached from Sierra Leone by sea; and it was, therefore, necessary that the Governor should have a steamer at his disposal, of which he made excellent use for ascending rivers into the interior, open- 1593 ing up those rivers, and establishing friendly relations with the Natives. The Island of Heligoland was, no doubt, a small possession of the Crown; but it was a possession which, he ventured to say, this country would not readily give up, while he was quite sure the inhabitants of the Island would be very sorry to see it given up. He did not think the small sum annually voted in aid of its government could be regarded as excessive.

§ MR. W. H. JAMES
thought the Committee were entitled to information of a more definite character with regard to the salary of Sir Bartle Frere than had been afforded by the right hon. Gentleman. He asked, in the event of Sir Bartle Frere not resuming the position which he formerly held by the end of the present year, whether his salary would remain the same, or whether the residue would be paid to Sir Garnet Wolseley? The right hon. Gentleman had mentioned that the expenses would be equally great; but it must be borne in mind, that the duties and responsibilities of the office would be infinitely less under the present arrangement.

§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH
had said that the arrangement made when Sir Garnet Wolseley was sent out must be looked upon as temporary in character. The question now asked was one which it was impossible for him to answer. Everything would depend upon events. He trusted to see Sir Garnet Wolseley soon complete the work which he had been sent out to do, when it would become necessary for the Government to decide how the Commissionership should in future be arranged; but it was impossible to make any statement upon the subject at that moment.

§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL
inquired the reason why the salaries of the Lieutenant Governors of the Islands of St. Vincent, Grenada, and Tobago, which were not to be continued beyond the present year, were each £325 in excess of the amounts charged last year?

§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH
explained that the apparent difference was merely a matter of account, and arose from the fact that these salaries were not to be continued beyond March, 1880. The change in question had made it necessary to include five quarters' salary instead of four.

§ MR. RAMSAY
asked why it was that the country had to pay £1,226 for charges under the head of Clergy in North America? He had understood some years ago when he was in Canada, that an arrangement had been made for the Colony to bear this expense. He confessed that the amount under the head of Missionaries of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel appeared to him to be quite uncalled for.

§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH
said, this was not a Vote for the maintenance of the Church in Canada. When the former system was changed those persons who were officials in the service of the Crown had, of course, a right to have their vested interests reserved, and there had since been an annual Vote for their salaries, which was becoming gradually less.

§ MR. WHITWELL
trusted that if the present High Commissioner for the Northern part of South Africa were recalled at the close of the war, Sir Bartle Frere would not, in consequence, act again as High Commissioner of Natal and the Transvaal. Was the Committee right in understanding that a fresh appointment of Sir Bartle Frere to Natal would not take place?

§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH
said, the question was one which it was quite impossible for him to answer.

§ MR. RYLANDS
remarked that the sum of £3,000 for the Pacific Island Commission appeared for the first time in the Estimates of this year. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would inform the Committee in what way this amount was expended?

§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH
explained that the charge was for salaries and travelling expenses—the latter being a very important item of expenditure under the Pacific Islanders Protection Act.

§ MR. D. JENKINS
again called the attention of the Government to the charge for pilotage upon vessels passing through the Suez Canal. He found that this charge had not been reduced since 1595 he referred to the matter some two or three years ago. Ships passing through the Canal had now to pay 1,200 or 1,500 francs; although he knew for a fact that the Company only paid 75 francs to the pilots who had charge of them. He believed that if the Government were to bring this matter before the Commissioners this excessive charge would be reduced.

§ MR. GOURLEY
agreed with the hon. Member for Penryn (Mr. D. Jenkins) that the excessive charge for pilotage levied on ships passing through the Canal might very properly be brought before the Suez Canal Directors with a view to its reduction. He took the opportunity of asking what was the policy of Her Majesty's Government with reference to the Suez Canal? Was it to be regarded as international property; as Anglo-French property or as British property? If it was to be regarded as an international property, to be used by all countries, then, so far as England was concerned as a high road to India, it would, in his opinion, be comparatively useless in the event of war, and as such the Government should re-consider the question whether it would not be better to send their troops to India by the old route viâ the Cape of Good Hope. If, in the event of war, the Canal remained an international high road, our troops would have to be conveyed by large Fleets, and, in addition, it would be necessary to maintain another large Fleet at the entrance to the Canal to prevent our vessels from being molested. Seeing, therefore, that the route by the Cape was now almost as short, in point of time, as that by the Canal, he thought the Government would do well to review their policy in connection with this matter. The time occupied by troop-ships on the passage from England to Bombay, viâ the Canal, was now 31 days.

THE CHAIRMAN
pointed out to the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Gourley) that the Question before the Committee was the salaries and expenses of the three Representatives of Her Majesty's Government on the Council of Administration of the Suez Canal Company, and that the remarks of the hon. Member with reference to the route to India were not in Order.

§ MAJOR NOLAN
reminded the hon. Member for Sunderland that troops used 1596 to be sent to India by way of Suez before the Canal was made.

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
pointed out that the present Vote was taken only for the purpose of protecting British interests in the Canal. With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for Penryn (Mr. D. Jenkins), he thought the question of pilotage might very properly be brought by the British Directors under the notice of the Board of Superintendence, and he had no doubt that they would do everything in their power to protect British interests. In answer to the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Gourley), he regarded the Suez Canal as a great commercial undertaking not confined to any particular nation, but, practically, for the benefit of the world at large.

§ MR. E. JENKINS
said, the Secretary to the Treasury appeared to think that it was hardly right to raise a question in the House of Commons as to the manner in which the business of the Suez Canal was conducted. But he (Mr. E. Jenkins) apprehended that the whole business of the Canal came under the present Vote. We had a serious interest in this Canal, and it was surely proper that ship-owners in England should look to the Government to see that the interests of the country were fairly represented by the Directors. If these Directors were appointed merely for the purpose of registering the opinions of M. Lesseps, he could not see why the country had invested so large a sum of money in the Canal. The Committee had been told that this was done with the object of protecting British interests; but, from the speech of the hon. Gentleman, it had not appeared that British interests were protected at all. The pilotage dues, as the Committee well knew, fell heavily upon vessels passing through the Canal, and that in a larger proportion upon British vessels than upon those of any other nation; and it was surely competent for an hon. Member to rise and point out that serious injury was being done by the imposition of these heavy dues. If the Government could not do anything in the matter, then the public money had been wasted by the purchase of Suez Canal Shares. Although we were a great nation, and had so much money, we had no voice at all in the management. Of course, he expected, when 1597 Her Majesty's Government originally brought this matter forward, that they hoped to get the entire control of the Canal, that our interests would be secured there, and that we could at any time secure a road through it; but, so far as he could now see, the country had, so to speak, only thrown £4,000,000 sterling; into the Canal, for it appeared by the speech of the Under Secretary that we could do nothing whatever in the matter of protecting our interests. The hon. Gentleman had called the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Gourley) to account for bringing forward this question upon the present Vote, saying that the matter was irrelevant to the question before the Committee; but he (Mr. E. Jenkins) ventured to consider it as exceedingly relevant, and that Her Majesty's Government ought to instruct the Directors to make strong representations with respect to the pilotage dues, which weighed very heavily indeed upon British shipping.

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
reminded the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Jenkins) that his answer, with respect to the pilotage dues, had been that it was a subject which the Directors ought to bring before the Board of Direction, and that they would, no doubt, do everything in their power to protect British interests. The hon. Member had seen fit to remark upon the throwing of this £4,000,000 into the sea; but he would point out to the Committee that merely as a matter of finance that amount of money returned an ample interest to this country, and, therefore, even from a commercial point of view, it was certainly not right that it should go forth to the country that the money spent upon purchasing the Suez Canal Shares was unproductive, or that the money was absolutely thrown away.

§ MR. D. JENKINS
complained that the charge made as pilotage went into the assets of the Company as tonnage dues; that the Company paid only 100 francs to the pilots, and charged the ship with 1,000 or 1,500 francs.

§ MR. WHITWELL
quite agreed with the hon. Member for Penryn (Mr. D. Jenkins) that the charges were excessive, and that British interests in this respect should be looked after. He objected to them—first, because they were high; secondly, because they fell heavier on 1598 the large number of British ships which, passed through the Canal; and, thirdly, because captains of vessels who had sailed in every sea were bound to take pilots on board so ignorant of the navigation that whenever a stoppage occurred it was entirely through them. He trusted the Secretary to the Treasury would send a recommendation to the Directors to look after the interests of our mail, steamers which had not that preference shown to them that they were entitled to.

§ MR. A. GATHORNE-HARDY
said, he had been through the Suez Canal, and his attention having been directed to the question of pilotage dues, he had, therefore, discussed the subject with the British Admiral in charge at Alexandria, who said that the dues were not excessive. He (Mr. A. Gathorne-Hardy) was far from saying that the question was not one deserving of attention.

§ MR. RAMSAY
thought that the pilotage was a very proper subject for the consideration of the Committee. But he rose chiefly to express his objection to the remarks of the Secretary to the Treasury in speaking of this Vote as being for the purpose of securing our interests in a very good commercial investment. When the House was asked to vote the sum of £4,000,000 for the purchase of the Suez Canal Shares the question was presented distinctly as one of policy. He had never expected that by the acquisition of those Shares we should acquire the right of Sovereignty over the soil. It was upon that very ground of having no Sovereign rights that he had objected to the £4,000,000 being voted. That the Government should enter into commercial transactions of any kind, whether they paid 5, 10, or any lesser sum per cent, he deprecated then, and did still. The matter had, however, been treated as a commercial investment, and the justification was that we had got a promise of 5 per cent.

§ MR. CHILDERS
said, there could be no question that the charges did require especial watchfulness on the part of the Government. With regard to the British Admiral referred to by the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. A. Gathorne-Hardy), the hon. Member was probably not aware that he was not serving the British Government. The officer in question must have been a servant of 1599 the Egyptian Government, as we had no Admiral at Alexandria.

§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL
agreed with the view expressed by the Secretary to the Treasury with reference to the Vote for the Directors of the Suez Canal. But, at the same time, it appeared to him that whereas the subject of the pilotage dues would be a proper one for the Directors to consider, the Committee should recollect that the Directors were not now appointed for the first time. Certainly, therefore, they ought to have looked into the matter before this time and obtained justice for British commerce. If there was any truth in the statement that the Company charged vessels with a much larger sum than they paid to the pilots, that was a fraud upon the British Government, because the subject of British vessels passing through the Canal had been the object of diplomatic consideration. The tonnage dues had been limited, and it therefore appeared to him that if the Company put into their pockets an undue amount under the name of pilotage it was really a fraud upon British commerce, and Her Majesty's Government should interfere and make vigorous representations upon the subject.

§ SIR DAVID WEDDERBURN
asked for information as to the salaries of the non-resident Directors?

§ SIR JOHN LUBBOCK
inquired the names of the Directors, and remarked that the sum charged for the Director resident in Paris was rather large. He thought, moreover, that the Directors should be paid by the Company.

§ MR. EVELYN ASHLEY
asked the Secretary to the Treasury if the Directors kept any records, and if Her Majesty's Government had any means of knowing whether they did any work?

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
said, one of the Directors resided in Paris, where the Offices of the Board were situate. The other two Directors were Mr. Rivers Wilson, of the National Debt Office, and General Stokes. The Directors kept the Reports, which were sent to the Government, of the transactions of the Board. He thought the Committee would see that it was advisable that certain Commissioners should be resident in England, so that they might be in constant communication with the commercial world, and that this in 1600 no way interfered with the usefulness of their action on the Board.

§ MR. RYLANDS
thought that his hon. Friends expected from the British Directors a great deal more than they were likely to get. They seemed to imagine that they could, by their position on the Board, secure terms of an advantageous character with regard to the charges upon British ships. This pilotage left a large profit, which was distributed amongst the shareholders in the Company. But the shares held by this country did not carry with them a share of the profits; and, therefore, any representations which might tend to the reduction of the income of the Company coming from the British Directors would necessarily be looked upon with disfavour by the other Directors who represented shares which did participate in the profits of the Canal. The Committee had heard a good deal about Cyprus that evening; but this Suez Canal affair was about as absurd a business as it was possible to conceive. When the Government said this was a good investment he would like any man to be found who would guarantee that the Khedive of Egypt would repay to this country the money advanced on these shares. He did not know that the country had that confidence in Egypt to enable it to believe that the whole of the money would be received back in the way contemplated by Government. He did not anticipate, from the position which the Directors occupied on the Board, that the interests of Great Britain were likely to be promoted at all. The House voted the salaries of the Directors from year to year; but he should be glad to find out what they did in return.

§ SIR JOHN LUBBOCK
observed, that the answer of the Government seemed to him to be eminently unsatisfactory. One of the resident Directors was the Controller of the National Debt, and had also held the position of Minister of Finance to the Khedive. It had been alleged that it was desirable that those Directors should reside in England, in order that Her Majesty's Government might know what was going on; but one of those resident Directors appeared to reside in Egypt. The position of that gentleman was, therefore, perfectly anomalous. In his opinion, it was the duty of Directors to do their best for the benefit of 1601 the shareholders; and in that respect again the English Directors appeared to be in an anomalous position. The whole matter was one which required further consideration before it again came before the Committee. He still thought that the salaries of Directors should be paid by the Company; but he did not divide against the Vote without having given previous Notice.

§ MR. DODSON
inquired the name of the Director who resided in Egypt and was also in the service of the Khedive?

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
Mr. Standen.

§ MR. DODSON
supposed that Mr. Standen received pay as a British Director, and also as a Minister of the Khedive. He should like to know whether it was intended that that arrangement should be permanent?

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
said, that his absence in Egypt was only temporary, and he recived a salary from this country during the time of his absence.

§ MR. E. JENKINS
asked why there was a Consul at Mozambique? He should also like to know what work that Consul did at Mozambique? He saw no justification for the appointment of a Consul at Mozambique; and he should like the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to explain to the Committee what that Consul did for his salary of £600 a-year.

§ MR. GRAY
observed, that the Consul referred to by the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Jenkins) apparently required the services of a chaplain.

§ MR. BOURKE
did not know whether there was a chaplain at Mozambique or not.

§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL
thought that the Consul at Mozambique was required in respect of the Slave Trade carried on in the Red Sea. He should like to know whether the efforts of the Consul extended to both sides of the Red Sea?

§ MR. BOURKE
said, that the Consul at Mozambique directed his exertions to the suppression of the Slave Trade in the Red Sea. His efforts were not confined to any port; but no port required and 1602 received more attention at his hands than Jeddah.

§ MR. GOURLEY
could aver, from his own knowledge, that the Consul at Mozambique was extremely useful. The Channel at that point was extremely dangerous in respect of navigation, and, of course, the Consul of a country with so much commerce as Great Britain must, of necessity, be of great service. Then with reference to the suppression of the Slave Trade in the Red Sea, the Consul at Mozambique did great good. Many captures took place in the Mozambique Channel owing to the traffic in slaves that went on there. Owing to the fact that the Portuguese authorities were on one side and the French on the other side of the Channel, an English Consul was necessary, and rendered very valuable assistance. Great efforts were being made to suppress the Slave Trade in those parts; but, at the present moment, more slavery went on in the Mozambique Channel than on any other part of the African coast.

§ MR. GOURLEY
begged to move the reduction of this Vote by the sum of £5,000. He did so because he considered that the money was not required, and that there was already sufficient money to meet all expenses with reference to the capture of slavers by British vessels. At the present moment a very large sum of money stood to the credit of the account of naval prize money, and a large balance was transferred to the Consolidated Fund in 1865. Moreover, a very great decrease had taken place in the Slave Trade since the Treaty with the Sultan of Zanzibar. Two years ago the number of slaves captured in a year averaged from 500 to 1,000, but that number was now very much reduced. In consequence of the diminution in the Slave Trade a number of vessels employed in its suppression had been reduced; but, still, Parliament was asked to grant a 1603 sum of £10,000 in respect of the expenses connected with the suppression of the trade. He did not, however, rely so much upon the reduction in the number of slaves captured as upon the fact that there was a considerable amount of money in hand to meet those expenses. Under these circumstances, he thought that it was reasonable to ask the Government to reduce the Vote by the sum of £5,000. There was another point connected with the Vote to which he should like to call attention—namely, the expenses incurred in respect of the maintenance of liberated Africans. In the present year the estimated charge of their maintenance was £3,102. They had no explanation how the charge arose, or how the money was spent for the liberated Africans. He thought that, instead of maintaining those persons, they ought to be sent to their own homes, or to some employment. There was no reason why liberated Africans should be permanently maintained at the expense of this country. Either the liberated Africans should find employment for themselves, or the Government should find it for them. He begged to move the reduction of the Vote by £5,000. Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £5,247, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1880, for Tonnage Bounties, Bounties on Slaves, Costs of Captors, &c, and Expenses of the Liberated African Department."—(Mr. Gourley.)

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
said, that the same sum was asked in that year for slave bounties as was granted last year, and was estimated upon what it was thought would be really wanted. It very often happened that payments had to be provided for which were not anticipated. He might tell the hon. Member that the amounts voted in previous years had been usually entirely spent. It might be that the amount now asked for would not be wanted during the current year, but it had to be provided for, and if not spent the amount would be paid back at the end of the financial year into the Exchequer; and, therefore, they provided for what might occur, and which, judging by the evidence of past years, they had a right to suppose might fairly 1604 occur. With regard to the question raised as to the maintenance of liberated Africans, the hon. Member would see that the expense in respect of those persons had diminished that year by the sum of £250, and the whole expense would be gradually wiped out.

§ MR. GOURLEY
did not think that the large sum of money asked for under that Vote ought to be granted. The number of vessels employed in the suppression of the Slave Trade had been reduced; and as it was evident from that that the number of slaves captured must also be reduced, the same amount of money for incidental expenses could not now, as formerly, be required. Unless the Government would reduce the Vote by the sum of £5,000 he should be prepared to divide the Committee.

§ MR. CHILDERS
hoped the hon. Member would not take a division upon that Vote.

§ MR. E. JENKINS
hoped that his hon. Friend would not divide the House, for it would be taken as an expression of feeling against the suppression of slavery, and he was sure that there was nothing upon which the country entertained so strong an opinion as upon that.

§ MR. WHITWELL
observed, that there was a small charge in the Vote in respect of St. Helena. He wished to know whether the Government would give them a statement of the income and expenditure of St. Helena, and also of Sierra Leone? He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies would give them a statement of those expenses, as had been done by some of his Predecessors.

§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH
was afraid that he was unable at present to give the hon. Member the information he required.

§ MR. WHITWELL
wished to have a Paper, similar to that with which they were supplied last year, showing the income and expenditure of Sierra Leone.

§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH
promised to find out what was done last year, in order to comply, if possible, with the request of the hon. Member.