SUPPLY—CONSULAR CHAPLAINS. (Hansard, 9 July 1838)

§ Mr. Hume
wished to call the attention of the Committee to two items in this grant—namely, one containing the salaries paid to the chaplains at our different foreign factories, and another containing the expenditure incurred for building chapels abroad. He contended, that where the congregations were sufficiently numerous, they should pay the salaries of their own chaplains: for the rule now in force, that where the congregation paid one half of the salary, the Government would pay the other half, was most unfair, as in many of the foreign factories more than half the residents were Scotchmen and Presbyterians, and the rest were generally Roman Catholics from Ireland, whilst the chaplain belonged, almost as a matter of course, to the Church of England. He thought, that from this item 5,000l. should be deducted on account of the salaries of chaplains, and 3,500l. on account of the building of two chapels.

§ Viscount Palmerston
had great pleasure in informing the hon. Member for Kilkenny, that the grant for defraying the I salaries of chaplains was founded on more liberal principles, than he appeared to imagine; for it permitted contributions to be made by Government, to the chaplains of congregations belonging to the Church of Scotland as well as to the chaplains belonging to congregations of the Church of England. The condition on which, that grant was made was, that the congregation should themselves pay one half of the chaplain's salary, and, that the Government, on being furnished with the chaplain's receipt for that sum, should 37 immediately pay him the other half. Thus no demand could be made on the public purse, unless the same amount was paid by the congregation themselves.

§ Sir R. Peel
wished to know whether the prohibition was universal, that our consuls should not engage in commercial dealings?

§ Viscount Palmerston
reminded the right hon. Baronet, that before the year 1826 our consuls could levy, not only fees on all notarial acts, as they did at present, but also fees on the tonnage of the different British ships which came to the port, at which they were stationed. This produced a great inequality in the amount of the emoluments received by our consuls, especially on the south American stations, and also led to various descriptions of abuses. His right hon. Friend, Mr. Canning, had discontinued that system, and had given our consuls fixed salaries in lieu of fees. The notarial fees, however, still continued; they were small in amount, and did not vary much from year to year. With respect to the prohibition, preventing our consuls from engaging in trade, he had only to reply, that it was not universal. The prohibition was given or not, according to the nature of the appointment. Wherever the consul was more of a political, than of a commercial agent, and had diplomatic functions to perform—as in most of the states of South America—there he was prohibited from engaging in trade? but in other places, as in Europe, where we had distinct diplomatic agents, and where the consuls had only commercial functions to execute, there he had no objection to let the consuls engage in commercial pursuits; for, by so doing, it enabled the country, to obtain consuls on smaller salaries, than it would otherwise be able to obtain them.