HC Deb 22 July 1850 vol 113 cc122-8

(6.) Motion made, and Question proposed— That a sum, not exceeding 155,486l., be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge of the Consular Establishments Abroad, to the 31st day of March, 1851.

MR. COBDEN

said, he wished to call attention to two of these establishments in China, Ningpo and Foo-Chow-Foo, where it appeared there was no trade for British vessels. The half-yearly reports of the consuls there stated that in some periods not a single British vessel had visited the ports. The consular establishments on the coast of China were altogether on an extravagant scale; and these two might well be discontinued, there being no trade. Altogether the consular establishments in China cost 32,096l.; they had been formed on the expectation of a very large increase of trade consequent on the opening of the five ports; and we had little reason to congratulate ourselves on the results of that war, discreditable to us as it was in all other respects. Our export trade to China had increased very little; in 1848 it amounted to 1,445,000l.; while in 1838, before our aggressive inroad there, it was 1,204,000l. This should be a lesson to the commercial community how they encouraged any war, conquest, or aggressive operation, for the purpose of opening up trade. He believed that our trade with China would have been more extensive had it been confined to Canton; and if, instead of the war, we had reduced our duty on tea one-half, our exports to China would have been much larger than they were at present. Our expenses there had been immensely increased, and we ought to take every possible means of reducing them. It was not merely the consuls; there were large military and naval establishments at Hong-Kong, and a ship of war was kept at each of the ports. In fact, the Earl of Auckland had stated before the Select Committee on the Navy Estimates last year, that eight ships of war were required in China, one at each of the ports, and three or four at Hong-Kong. This, with the military establishment at Hong-Kong, and the increased consular establishment, made an increase of our expenditure on the coast of China consequent on that war of something approaching to 200,000l. Yet in the face of all that, our exports had hardly increased at all. Seeing that to the two ports of Ningpo and Foo-Chow-Foo, no English ships resorted, he should move that the sums put down for those two consular establishments—2,142l. and 2,180l., together 4,322l.—be struck out of the vote. It was probable there were other items which ought to be disallowed for the same reason, but at present he would confine his Amendment to those two sums.

Whereupon Motion made, and Question put— That a sum, not exceeding 151,164l., be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge of the Consular Establishments Abroad, to the 31st day of March, 1851.

MR. CAYLEY

seconded the Amendment, on the ground that where there were no duties to perform, and where there was no trade, there could be no necessity for consuls.

LORD J. MANNERS

wished to ask the hon. Member for the West Riding whether he intended to propose to reduce the salary of Dr. Bowring?

MR. COBDEN

replied that Dr. Bowring was at Canton, not at one of those ports where there was no trade.

LORD J. MANNERS

wished, however, distinctly to know whether the hon. Member was prepared to propose to reduce the salary of Dr. Bowring?

MR. COBDEN

said: No. Dr. Bowring was stationed at Canton, the chief seat of our commerce in those parts.

COLONEL SIBTHORP

said, when he heard the hon. Member for the West Riding propose reductions, he very much doubted his sincerity. The hon. Member cavilled and pretended to attack the Government, while all the time he was the cause of great expenditure. The hon. Member would strain at a gnat, but was perfectly ready to swallow a camel. He (Colonel Sibthorp) did not like such underhand proceedings. The present Motion was a mere flash in the pan—it was blank cartridge, which would only make a noise. The hon. Member was only tickling on the raw, and barking where he was afraid to bite. If the hon. Member was sincere, he would join him in raising the Government fore and aft, for their mean, cunning, and underhand proceedings.

MR. PLOWDEN

wished to observe, that when the East India Company had the monopoly of the trade with China, it endeavoured to obtain tea direct from Foo-Chow-Foo, as that was the nearest port to the black tea-growing countries. They were in hopes of being able to induce the Chinese black tea merchants to send their tea down to Foo-Chow-Foo, to be shipped thence for Canton, and they hoped by this means they should be able to get it unadulterated, and altogether of better quality. The result was, that when the plan was adopted, they obtained their tea by Chinese junks in sixteen days, whereas it took forty-eight to procure it by land carriage, as it had to be carried for a great portion of the distance by men. Hon. Gentlemen must be aware of the difficulties Sir Henry Pottinger had to contend with before he could induce the Chinese Government to give way on the point of opening certain ports to British ships. Great importance was attached at the time by those connected with the trade with China to have Foo-Chow-Foo as one of those ports. At present it unfortunately happened that there was no trade with that port; but he trusted, when restrictions which at present existed there were overcome, that merchants would send ships there, when no doubt a large trade would grow up. He trusted the House would persist in keeping up the consular establishments at these two ports.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

said, if it happened at any other ports in the world that there were consuls and no trade, he should have no objection to abolish the establishments there. It was very true, as had been said by the hon. Member for the West Riding, that no one attended to transact business at the consular offices in these ports, but they must take into their consideration the very peculiar circumstances connected with our trade with China. As was stated by the hon. Gentleman who just addressed the House, the consular establishments at these ports were formed by treaty, which made it most desirable to pause before any steps were taken to get rid of them. The whole subject, however, had occupied the attention of the Government during the last two years, and, as he had already stated, he had entered into correspondence with Mr. Bonham, and other persons able to form a sound judgement on the subject, as to whether other ports might not be obtained as substitutes for these two. These communications had not led hitherto to any satisfactory result; but in that very month he had received a letter from the Chinese Association at Liverpool, enclosing a very important document from the Chamber of Commerce at Canton, in which it was clearly shown that it would be unwise to abandon at present the consular establishment at Foo-Chow-Foo, as it was probable that before long persons would go there to establish themselves in trade. Sir Henry pottinger might have taken some other port than Foo Chow-Foo, but he had been strongly urged to accept it by persons best acquainted with trade in China. He might add, that he had sent instructions to Mr. Bonham to see whether such arrangements could not be entered into with the Chinese authorities as would get rid of any restrictions which impeded the trade of that port. In the great number of communications which he had received from gentlemen connected with the trade with China, he found no difference of opinion as to the desirableness of having Foo-Chow-Foo as one of the parts open to the trade of this country. Its proximity to the black-tea country was considered a matter of the greatest importance.

MR. SCOTT

agreed with the hon. Member for the West Riding as to this vote. He should have been glad to have seen a reduction in the consular expenditure at Canton and Shanghai; but still there was a large trade carried on with these ports, but there was no trade with Foo-Chow-Foo and Ningpo. Therefore, keeping consuls there was a mere waste of money.

MR. HUME

wished to ask the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary whether in these two ports commercial restrictions did not exist which were not in force in the two other China ports? He wished to know whether they could not get these restrictions removed? If they once gave up their relations with these two ports, they would find it very difficult to get them restored.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

apprehended the restrictions of which this country had reason to complain were imposed some distance in the interior of the country. An additional duty was imposed on the importation of our produce into these districts. Representations had been made the Chinese Government on this subject, but Mr. Bonham in his last despatch stated he had not then received an answer.

MR. SPOONER

thought it was unnecessary to keep up a large establishment at Hong-Kong, as there was very little trade there. The noble Lord had himself admitted that it was useless as a place of trade.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

said, that the hon. Gentleman had misunderstood him. He had not said that Hong-Kong was useless as a place of trade, but that its chief value was not as a place of trade. He might mention, however, that the tonnage of the shipping which entered that port last year was 293,000 tons.

MR. HUME

trusted, after the explanation they had heard from the noble Lord, his hon. Friend would not press his Amendment.

SIR W. JOLLIFFE

wished to call the attention of the noble Lord to the fact, that the consuls in China received salaries out of proportion to those paid to that class of officers in the other ports of the world. In these two places there was absolutely not the least necessity to retain consuls.

MR. V. SMITH

urged the House to pause before they adopted the proposal of the hon. Member for the West Riding till they got two other ports. The hon. Baronet complained of the amount of the salaries paid to the consuls in China; but they were on the same scale as those paid in other distant places, where the cost of living was high. They must not compare the expense of living at a European port with that of residing in China.

MR. CAYLEY

thought the explanation of the noble Lord was satisfactory, and therefore would withdraw his opposition to the vote.

SIR H. WILLOUGHBY

asked what necessity there was to have assistant consuls in those ports where there was nothing to do?

MR. V. SMITH

replied, that there was as much necessity for having assistants in such cases as there was for having principals.

MR. SPOONER

wished to call the attention of the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs to the estimate of the sum required for the payment of the consular establishment at Hong-Kong, namely, 4,261l. There was a chief superintendent, a secretary and registrar, a first assistant and keeper of records, and a second assistant, third assistant, and fourth assistant, a Chinese secretary, an assistant secretary, and four Chinese writers or linguists. It might be necessary to have a Chinese secretary, but there could not be any necessity for three or four assistants.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

said, that Hong-Kong had communication with all the five ports that were open, and the chief superintendent obtained regular periodical reports from these five ports, and communicated them to the Foreign Office.

MR. COBDEN

said, that it appeared, from the evidence taken before the Com- mittee of the House of Lords, that our consular arrangements put our merchants to great disadvantage in competition with American and other shipowners. They could not go out of port so easily; and he thought the consular establishment should be reduced.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 34; Noes 166: Majority 132.

Vote agreed to, as were the following:—

(7.)16,800l.,Ministers at Foreign Courts, Extraordinary Expenses.

(8.) 108,768l., Superannuation and Retired Allowances.

(9.) 3,750l., Toulonese and Corsican Emigrants and American Loyalists.

(10.) 2,000l., Vaccine Establishment.

(11.) 1,000l., Refuge for the Destitute.

(12.) 5,346l., Polish Refugees and Distressed Spaniards.