HC Deb 08 June 1865 vol 179 cc1280-96

(8.) £4,200, Bermudas.

LORD NAAS

said, he wished to ask whether any formal decision had been come to as to the restoration of the convict establishments at this colony.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, an application had been made to him by the War Department with regard to the employment of convicts upon the works at the Bermudas. No formal determination had been come to on the subject, but he thought it inexpedient to restore the convict establishment' in the colony, except in case of necessity, and he hoped that other means would be found to execute the works there.

MR. AUGUSTUS SMITH

said, he thought it remarkable that, although the local revenue was constantly increas- ing, the Imperial expenditure there was I the same as before.

MR. CARDWELL

said, the local revenue had increased from causes connected with the American war, but it had already begun to decline.

Vote agreed to.

(9.) £2,813, to complete the sum for Clergy, North America.

(10.) £1,000, Indian Department, Canada.

(11.) £23,278, Governors and others, West Indies, &c.

(12.) £6,200, to complete the sum for I Justices, West Indies.

(13.) £6,730, to complete the sum for Western Coast of Africa.

(14.) £2,924, to complete the sum for St. Helena.

(15.) £700, Orange River Territory.

(16.) £1,104, Heligoland.

(17.) £3,488, to complete the sum for Falkland Islands.

(18.) £2,641, to complete the sum for Labuan.

MR. DARBY GRIFFITH

said, that the Vote was of considerable amount. There were charges for all the paraphernalia of a colonial Government, and he should like to hear from the Government what was the condition of things in the colony.

MR. CARDWELL

said, that it had been thought expedient to maintain Labuan as a British colony on account of the coal mines which existed there, in order that we might have a coaling station in that neighbourhood.

Vote agreed to.

(19.) £300, Pitcairn's Islanders.

(20.) £10,531, Emigration.

(21.) £1,657, Zambesi Expedition.

(22.) £3,000, Treasury Chest.

(23.) £35,000, to complete the sum for Captured Negroes, Bounties on Slaves, &c.

MR. WHITE

said, he wished to inquire whether the expected co-operation of the American Government in the suppression of the slave trade was not likely to lead to a diminution of the Vote on a future occasion.

MR. LAYARD

said, he thought the hearty co-operation promised to this country by the United States Government would lead most effectually to a decrease, if not to the extinction, of the slave trade. Now that the civil war was at an end, and their ships of war would be free, they would be able to co-operate with us to a greater extent than hitherto.

Vote agreed to.

(24.) £7,650, to complete the sum for Commissions for Suppression of Slave Trade.

(25.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £91,018, 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 1866, for the Consular Establishments Abroad.

MR. CLAY

said, that for many years a body called the Russian Company levied charges on British shipping in the Russian ports, a system altogether out of date, and so wholly indefensible that the company itself had given up all these charges with one exception. The company now existed only for the purpose of distributing the revenue arising from its own accumulated funds, and which were exceedingly well spent in charities at St. Petersburg. The solitary charge which they still levied on British shipping was called agency money, yielding about £1,100 per annum; and it had always gone to the British Consul at St. Petersburg, who was also the company's agent; that charge on shipping being, in fact, a way of supplementing the insufficient salary of the Consul. In 1858, 1859, and 1860 the Consul's salary was raised from £750 to £1,000, and it was then quite understood that the charge for agency moneylevied on British shipping should cease. However, whether the Consul thought that £1,100 per annum was better than an extra £250 to his allowance, or whether for some other reason, the charge for agency money had been resorted to again, to the surprise of the shipowners, and was still levied to this day. He had the authority of the Chairman of the Russian Company for saying that they had no wish to continue that impost, a relic of a barbarous age, and that if the Consul were prevented from receiving it they would not appoint another agent, and so the charge would cease. The charge had been condemned by Lord Napier in his despatches to Lord Russell as an unusual and objectionable mode of remunerating the Consul. The Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs had said it could not be defended, and that when the next Consul at St. Petersburg was appointed it would be put an end to. The culprit having thus been condemned, the question was when he should be executed. He had brought the subject before the House last year, when he was assured that something would be done, but the matter had not since then advanced a step. In order, therefore, to raise the question in the only way open to him, whether that objectionable mode of supplementing an insufficient salary by a tax on British shipping should not De discontinued, he begged to move that the item of £750 for the Consul at St. Petersburg be omitted from the present Vote.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Item of £750, for the Salary of Her Majesty's Consul at St. Petersburg, be omitted from the proposed Vote."—(Mr. Clay.)

MR. LAYARD

said, he had stated to the Committee in a former year that that addition to the salary of our Consul at St. Petersburg was exceedingly objectionable on principle, although, as the Correspondence presented to the House showed, there was really no grievance in the present case. Yet, as soon as an arrangement could be made, either by finding another post for Mr. de Michele, or by his retirement, the Consul at St. Petersburg would receive a salary adequate to his position, and that fee on British shipping would no longer be levied. Negotiations were pending, the result of which, he hoped, would be that the post would soon become vacant, when a new arrangement would be made. The Government would do their very best that Mr. de Michele should have another place; but it would be scarcely fair to deprive an efficient and long-tried public servant of the salary he had enjoyed for so many years, and which was attached to the office before he accepted it, without adequate compensation. He hoped his hon. Friend would accept the assurance he now gave that, unless he was greatly disappointed, next year this charge would not be made on British shipping; and that he would not divide the Committee on this occasion.

MR. CLAY

said, that there was a very simple mode of rectifying this grievance to the shipping interest, amounting to £1,000 a year. If the Government could not provide for Mr. de Michele otherwise, let him be paid as other Consuls were—a proper and sufficient salary being brought forward in the Estimates. If his hon. Friend would promise that, he would not divide on this Vote.

SIR MINTO FARQUHAR

said, he must remind the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, that in the Committee on the Consular Department it had been clearly demonstrated that charges of this kind created much discontent among the mercantile classes, and engendered disagreeable feelings towards our Consuls. He had nothing to say against the efficiency of Mr. Michele, who, he believed, was a very good Consul; but the charge was one that certainly ought not to be maintained.

MR. KINNAIRD

said, he had every reason to rely on the undertaking of his hon. Friend the Under Secretary, but he hoped that not only in this case but in every other where fees were levied on British shipping the practice would be discontinued.

MR. LAYARD

said, this was the only case of the kind, and it arose out of the old system of "British factories." He did trust that some better arrangement would be made before next year.

MR. CLAY

said, his hon. Friend might be disappointed in his expectations. He was quite certain the Government would do all they could in the matter, but they might not be able to find another appointment for Mr. Michele, or if they did that gentleman might not accept it. Would the hon. Gentleman in that case put a proper salary on the Estimates and relieve the shipping from this obnoxious tax?

MR. AUGUSTUS SMITH

said, he thought the Consul at St. Petersburg received more than he ought to receive, and unless this Vote were reduced Mr. Michele would most likely decline to accept another situation when offered.

MR. LAYARD

did not think the salary too high, considering how expensive a place St. Petersburg was, but he quite admitted that in principle it was objectionable that a salary should be supplemented by such means as his hon. Friend the Member for Hull had pointed out.

MR. CLAY

said, he must repeat his question; would the salary of the Consul at St. Petersburg be placed next year on a proper footing?

MR. LAYARD

said, he was certain that no difficulty would be raised on the part of Mr. de Michele, who was anxious to leave St. Petersburg, but of course he could make no promise with regard to the Estimates of next year, which must be left to the Treasury.

MR. DARBY GRIFFITH

said, he hoped the Consul at St. Petersburg would not in the meantime be considered to have a vested interest in what he now obtained in an irregular way by fees on British shipping.

THE CHAIRMAN

Does the hon. Member for Hull withdraw his Motion? [Mr. CLAY: Certainly not.] It would be more convenient to take the Motion of which notice had been given by the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) first. It would be open to the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Clay) to propose the reduction of the Vote alter-wards.

MR. HENRY SEYMOUR

Surely the Committee could divide more than once on the same Vote.

THE CHAIRMAN

If they took a division on this item they could not go back and discuss a former item.

MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK

said, he wished to call attention to the Consular Establishment at Venice, and asked from the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs some explanation of the grounds on which it was maintained. It appeared by reference to the Estimates that there was not only a Consul General with a salary of £800 a year, but a Vice Consul with £200 a year. He could understand why we should have kept up the present consular establishment in Venice, when the Austrian Government possessed not only Mantua and Venice, but also Lombardy; when English diplomatic agents in the Lesser Italian States were very few; and when the means of communication with the seat of Government were somewhat difficult; but now matters were very much altered. Austria had lost Lombardy, and the communications with Vienna exist both by railway and electric telegraph, and by the cession of the Ionian Islands the visits of British shipping had been very much reduced. At Venice the entries inwards of British ships for the year 1864 had been forty sailing vessels and thirty-one screw steamers running once a month from Liverpool and London. The latter were regular packets belonging to one company, and they absorbed the largest part of the carrying trade. There was, therefore, very little for a Vice Consul to do at Venice on that score. "What the Consul General did he could not conceive. Not only was there a Vice Consul at Venice with £200 a year, but there was also a Vice Consul at Trieste who had much more to do, but whose salary was only £100 a year. That was an enigma he could not understand. It was not his intention to move any reduction in the Vote, because the holders of those offices he thought were entitled to at least a year's notice; but he hoped the reduction would be moved next year unless the explanation of the Government were necessary.

MR. LAYARD

said, the hon. Gentleman must be aware that the position of the Venetian territories with the great fortified cities of Venice, Mantua, and Verona was very exceptional, and it was well that we should have the means of communicating with the authorities through our Consul General, who was an old and well known servant of the Crown. The £800 was not mis-spent. By this means we had obtained very valuable and important information. As to the Vice Consul seventy ships must require constant attention. The Vice Consul at Trieste received only £100 a year, because he was allowed to trade.

MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK

said, the present Vice Consul at Venice had been a trader whilst acting as Vice Consul also—he was formerly a banker, though some years ago he became bankrupt.

SIR WILLIAM FRASER

said, he wished to know what course he was to pursue, as he desired to call the attention of the Committee to the item under the head of Rome.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, that the rule was that after any Motion for the reduction of an item on the Vote had been proposed from the Chair it was not competent for any hon. Member to propose a Motion on or to debate any previous item.

MR. HENRY SEYMOUR

said, it was very difficult for an hon. Member to know what to do. He was desirous of calling the attention of the Committee to the charge for our Consul at Abyssinia, but he was unable to catch the eye of the Chairman. Another hon. Member who was more fortunate commenced a discussion upon a later item, and thus debarred him from making any remarks at all.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, that when the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Clay) commenced his remarks upon our Consularship at St. Petersburg, the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Henry Seymour) should have risen, and said that he desired to offer some remarks upon an earlier item.

MR. HENRY SEYMOUR

said, that if this rule, which he believed to be a new one, were persisted in they should have beforehand to beg the Government to break up the Vote into smaller items.

MR. LAYARD

said, he thought that all difficulty would be avoided if hon. Gentlemen would give notice of any Amendments they desired to propose.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, that the hon. Member could exercise his right in discussing the whole Vote after the particular Motion before the Committee had been disposed of.

MR. DARBY GRIFFITH

said, he demurred entirely to the doctrine of the necessity of giving notice, because the right of raising any matter without giving notice was the especial privilege of the Committee. The rule, as stated by the Chairman, was an extremely inconvenient one, and it might be advisable to consider whether it should not be repealed.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, that the rule was analogous to that which guided the deliberations of the House when in Committee upon any Bill. In Committees of that kind no Amendment could be submitted on any portion of a clause previous to that portion on which an Amendment had been proposed. But on the question that the clause should stand part of the Bill any hon. Member could object to the whole or any portion of the clause.

Question put:—The Committee divided:—Ayes 20; Noes 50: Majority 30.

MR. DARBY GRIFFITH

said, he desired to call the attention of the Committee to the case of the two unfortunate gentlemen who had recently been captured by brigands in Italy. One of them had been released, but the other—Mr. Moens—had been detained by his captors. He hoped that the hon. Gentleman would be able to state that the Foreign Office was taking some steps on behalf of this unfortunate gentleman.

MR. HENRY SEYMOUR

said, he wished to inquire about the captives in Abyssinia. It appeared that Her Majesty's Consul, Captain Cameron, two missionaries, and some other individuals had remained for more than a year in captivity in Abyssinia, and the Foreign Office had not been able to procure their release. Upon a former occasion his hon. Friend had stated that anything spoken in that House would come to the knowledge of the King of Abyssinia and might tend to aggravate the misfortunes of the captives. It could not, however, be expected that silence was always to be maintained upon so serious a matter, and the mother of one of the captives had made an appeal to the public upon the subject. Being acquainted with Captain Cameron he had heard of his captivity with alarm, which was heightened by the recent information that the King of Abyssinia had returned unsuccessful from a military expedition. He did not believe that Abyssinia was a country exceedingly difficult to reach. The King was a Christian. The Bishop of Abyssinia was, he understood, sent up in chains from Cairo under a new interpretation, perhaps, of the allegation—nolo episcopari. There was constant communication from Cairo, and we had a Consul at Massowah. He believed that a very able gentleman had been sent from Aden to procure the release of the unfortunate prisoners, but he wished to know whether the Government would lay upon the table information as to the efforts that had been made to procure their release, and would state what policy they intended to pursue. He did not know whether the presence of a ship of war on the Abyssinian coast would have any effect, but it was certain that to allow these unfortunate gentlemen to remain in captivity without using every possible means in their favour would be a slur upon the Government which it would be difficult to explain away.

MR. LAYARD

, in reply to the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Darby Griffith), said, that every effort was being made by the Foreign Office on behalf of the gentleman—Mr. Moens—to whom he referred, and the Italian Government was doing even more than could be expected from them. It was not advisable to say too much, but he might state that within a few hours intelligence had been received from Naples to the effect that the gentleman had been seen, was well, was fairly treated by the brigands, his captors, and that there were hopes of his speedy release.

The case alluded to by his hon. Friend of the Abyssinian captives was one of very painful interest. The Committee would understand that the Foreign Office could have but one object—to obtain the liberty of the unfortunate gentlemen who were held in captivity. It was a most difficult question to deal with, and one requiring great prudence and circumspection. He would willingly state all that had occurred were it prudent to do so, and the time would come when he thought he should be able to prove that nothing had been omitted to procure the release of the captives; but he could assure his hon. Friend—and he did so most conscientiously—that he believed any public statement at present might lead to serious results. Within the last few days he had received a letter from Mr. Rassam, in which he implored him to prevent the publication of statements relating to this matter, because such statements found their way to Abyssinia, and were used by a party in that country hostile to England for the purpose of inflaming the King's mind. He must express the deep regret he felt to find that there was some one—he did not know whom—in the public service who had betrayed official secrets in a manner deserving of the highest reprobation. In the Pall Mall Gazette had appeared extracts from a letter which had been sent confidentially through official channels. He would never desire to restrict the freedom of the press, but when he found that there were persons in public offices who were capable of betraying the trust placed in them it gave him great pain, and he hoped that the journal to which he had alluded, which was a highly respectable journal, would not in future allow such statements to appear, as they were not only injurious, but might possibly lead to actual loss of life. The gentleman who had been selected to go to Massowah to obtain the release of the captives was in communication with leading persons in Abyssinia, and hoped to succeed in his endeavours. Mr. Rassam had been chosen because, although not an Englishman, he had received an English education, partly under his (Mr. Layard's) care. He had studied at Oxford, he had exhibited great ability, and had shown great caution and skill throughout these proceedings. Mr. Rassam was peculiarly fitted for the task intrusted to him, being well acquainted with Eastern manners and languages. The Committee, however, would, he hoped, not require him to enter further into details at present, as they would be attended by risk, but at a future time he should be able to show that the Foreign Office had not neglected its duty. He could hardly tell them for what cause Captain Cameron had been thrown into captivity, for there were different reasons assigned, and in the present state of uncertainty he would avoid any speculation on the subject. In the other House of Parliament a Motion for papers connected with this case had been carried by a majority of one. Those papers were in course of preparation, and if they could be given without risk of injury to the captives they would be produced; but if the Government should be of opinion that their production would be injurious, then it would be their duty to refuse them. Everything that could be done had been done, and was doing, on behalf of the unfortunate prisoners.

SIR WILLIAM FRASER

said, he wished to know whether any alteration had been made in the system of passports issued at Rome to British subjects coming home viâ France. Englishmen at Rome were told that returning from Civita Vecchia to Marseilles they would not require passports, but at the latter port there was always a discussion with the gens d'armes as to whether the individuals claiming to be British subjects were really entitled to that character. The position of the British Consul at Rome was peculiar, and it was difficult to understand from what source the Consular fees were obtained, as there was no commercial business to be transacted, Mr. Russell, the British agent at Rome, who fulfilled the duties of his office with great ability, being unaccredited, had no power, and could only apply to the Papal Government upon sufferance. He wished to know whether British subjects leaving Rome were required to obtain the Consular stamp, and whether they were required to pay fees for such stamp when returning viâ France?

MR. LAYARD

said, that during the American war, citizens of the so-called Confederate States had found a difficulty in obtaining the visé of the United States Consul at Rome, and in their case the Papal Government had waived the requirement. Her Majesty's Government had applied to the Papal Government for a similar concession to British subjects, and had pointed out that the Consular visé was not necessary, and was not required elsewhere. No fees were now taken from English travellers leaving Rome. Considerable misapprehension existed in the public mind on the subject of passports. There were several countries in Europe, including Italy and France, in which Englishmen were not required to produce passports; but still they had to identify themselves as Englishmen, and, after all, the readiest and the most convenient plan of doing so was by having a passport, which only costs 2s. He should certainly recommend any one to take out a passport, even for those countries where passports were not re- quired from Englishmen, as the least troublesome mode of proving their nationality.

MR. HENRY SEYMOUR

said, he wished to ask what course the Government were pursuing with regard to the suppression of Consulates in Turkey. No doubt many of the Consuls in the interior of Asia Minor were no longer required, though he certainly regretted the suppression of the Consulate at Batoum.

MR. LAYARD

said, the object of the Foreign Office was, of course, to dispense with all Consuls who were not absolutely required, and they had recently been enabled to effect that object to some extent in the ports of the Mediterranean, in consequence of the transfer of the Ionian Islands to the kingdom of Greece. As regarded Batoum, the place was so exceedingly unhealthy that it was impossible to reside there, except a few months in the winter time. The following statement, which had been drawn up by Mr. Murray of the Foreign Office, showed that the cost of the Consular service was not excessive:— The management of the Consular expenditure since 1861 has now produced the result that was anticipated from adopting the system of placing the control exclusively in the hands of the Secretary of State. The sum actually expended under each head of service is accurately known, and the wants of the next year may confidently be stated. The payments on account of the Consular service have arrived at a stage which enables us to say that, while it is necessary to estimate a larger sum than may actually be spent, somewhat more than £155,000 will cover the annual requirements, for I we avoid increases unless we can make corresponding reductions. The payments for the last year were £155,425, but fees have been paid into the Exchequer of £15,546, so that the net cost to the public was only £139,879, although the sum voted was £166,503. Moreover, it should be borne in mind that there are items charged on the Consular grant for 1864–5 which really have nothing to do with carrying on the Consular service—namely, expenses of churches abroad, £10,355; expenses of hospitals abroad, £592; relief to distressed British subjects, £405; total, £11,352; so that in truth the Consular cost was only £128,527, a sum which can scarcely be called excessive.

MR. HENRY SEYMOUR

said, he wished to know what were our present relations with Russia, and why Russia did not permit us to have a Consul at Tiflis?

MR. LAYARD

said, he was not then prepared to answer so comprehensive a question, but every country had of course a right to determine what foreign agents it would receive.

MR. HENRY SEYMOUR

said, he had always understood that Russia had refused to allow us to have a Consul at Tiflis, because we had not received Russian Consuls in India. But as that refusal on our part no longer existed, he hoped we should be allowed to establish a Consulate at the important town of Tiflis.

MR. HENLEY

said, he thought that the Votes proposed for the Consular establishments in the Ionian. Islands were excessively large. It was larger than the charge for Consuls in the whole Kingdom of Greece. These Votes included sums of £1,000 for a Consul General at Corfu, £500 for the Consul at Zante, and £500 for the Consul at Cephalonia.

MR. LAYARD

said, that in consequence of our long and intimate relations with the Ionian Islands there had arisen between the two countries a variety of interests which required the services of an unusual number of Consular agents. He did not believe that their salaries were at present excessive.

SIR FREDERIC SMITH

said, he did not object to the amount of the salary of the Consul General at Corfu, but he thought it was mere extravagance to allow £500 a year to the Consuls at Cephalonia and Zante.

Original Question (£91,018,for Consular Establishments Abroad) put, and agreed to.

(26.) £102,972, Consular Establishments, China, Japan, and Siam.

COLONEL SYKES

said, he thought that £8,000 was too large a salary to be paid our Minister at Pekin, who could not have to dispense extensive hospitalities as at Paris and Vienna. As contrasted with that, only £200 was allowed to the surgeon there, a sum quite insufficient to support a gentleman. There was £500 for an assistant and accountant at Pekin, and £500 for the Colonial Auditor at Hong Kong. What moneys had he to audit? The Attorney General at Hong Kong received £250 out of this Vote, though he had a full salary from the Colonial Estimates. The importance and trade of Canton had decreased by one-half, and yet we still paid the Consul there £1,600 a year, and the Interpreter £700, and kept up an expensive establishment.

MR. LAYARD

said, it was true the salary paid to our Minister at Pekin was large, although it had recently been considerably reduced, but his expenses were very great. It was not a question of hospitalities, but almost everything—even the supply for his Excellency's table—had to be brought up from the coast. The Accountant at Pekin discharged different duties from those performed by the Colonial Auditor, an independent officer, who audited all Consular accounts, which were sent direct from China to the Treasury. The Attorney General at Hong Kong complained that what he received was not sufficient for what was required of him. It was a retaining salary for special services rendered to the Crown. He had to take all briefs from the Crown without further fee, and he was unable to take briefs against the Crown. He could assure his hon. Friend that every exertion would be made to reduce our expenses in China.

Vote agreed to.

(27.) £32,400, to complete the sum for Ministers at Foreign Courts, Extraordinary Expenses.

MR. AUGUSTUS SMITH

said, that the annual Vote for these extraordinary expenses had increased from under £20,000 to £36,400 within ten years. This Vote ought to be decreasing, in consequence of the increased facilities of communication, owing to railways and telegraphs. Such responsible persons were now unnecessary, as telegraphic messages could be sent direct from headquarters. He objected to the system of employing young attaches to become trained diplomatists, as young men in time must naturally become imbued with the principles and feelings of the countries wherein they resided. Whenever any duty of peculiar importance was to be transacted the system broke down, and an outsider was engaged to discharge it.

COLONEL SYKES

said, he wished to call attention to the fact that while the outlay on stamps on Treasury issues for all these embassies was as small as 9s. 1d. the annual expense of postage was £4,417; and of telegraphic messages, £3,596; nearly £8,000, Then what, he asked, was the necessity of employing couriers at a cost of £6,130 more?

MR. LAYARD

said, he could not agree with the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Augustus Smith) that there was no advantage in having trained persons for the diplomatic service. The service was every year improving in this respect, and he thought no country was served by a more efficient or able body of gentlemen. The public were taking an increasing interest in the monthly Reports of our Secretaries of Legation and Consuls upon the produce, commerce, and finances of the countries in which they resided, which were now laid before Parliament every month. The junior members of the diplomatic service were not kept long at a time at foreign stations, but it would plainly be unfair to them to be constantly removing them. It was impossible to carry on the public service without the assistance of trained diplomatists, and so far from the gentlemen in the employment of this country acquiring foreign principles and foreign feelings, he was proud to say no set of men could be more thoroughly English, in every respect, than were our diplomatic servants. The hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeen (Colonel Sykes) had objected to the employment of special messengers, but it was impossible to send important public documents through the post, or to communicate their contents by telegraph. As to the employment of outsiders in special cases, Government were only too glad to avail themselves of the services of any man whose peculiar qualifications adapted him for the service to be performed.

Vote agreed, to.

(28.) £19,000, to complete the sum for Special Missions, Outfits, &c.

MR. HENNESSY

said, he wished to draw the attention of the House to the item of £42 14s. in that Vote. He had the greatest possible respect for Viscount Amberley, and although on the whole he differed from him on political questions, he was far from grudging him a share of the moderate amount he had mentioned, and therefore he did not intend to move the reduction of the Vote by that amount. Some little explanation, however, should be afforded by Government of the Vote which was under the head of "Conveyance," and was in these terms— Hon. H. Elliott, Viscount Amberley, and Mr. G. Conyngham, on board Her Majesty's ship Phœbe, from Corinth to Ancona, and from Piræus to Kalamaki, on board Her Majesty's ship Liffey, in April, 1863. He should like to ask the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs what Lord Amberley was doing on board Her Majesty's ships Phœbe and Liffey that afforded an opportunity to the country of contributing towards his travelling expenses. Taking into consideration the great dearth of public news at the present time, and the fact that Viscount Amberley had made so many interesting speeches, which had actually afforded matter for three leading articles in The Times, he thought they ought not to refuse to pay him the little compliment contained in the item to which he had drawn attention.

MR. LAYARD

said, he had no particular explanation to give regarding the item in question, and it was scarcely necessary to give one after the excellent defence of it made by the hon. Member himself. Mr. Elliott, our Minister at Greece, was engaged in visiting certain parts of that country, and in a portion of his journey he was accompanied by Viscount Amberley who acted as his private Secretary. When Ministers and other diplomatic officers were sent on any special mission they were frequently taken on board vessels of war, and in such cases some small allowance for expenses of entertainment was made by Government to the captain of the vessel. It was apparent from the manner in which the item was worded that there was no wish to conceal the nature of these charges, which were really very trifling in amount. In the same way, Government were always very glad to afford all the assistance in their power to persons engaged in good and benevolent works. In another part of the Estimate would be found a Vote of £48 for expenses of conveyance of Sir Moses Montefiore, from Gibraltar to Morocco, on board Her Majesty's ship Magicienne in January and February, 1864, when that gentleman proceeded on his benevolent mission to the Emperor of Morocco.

COLONEL KNOX

said, he wished to ask whether Viscount Amberley was attached to the mission?

MR. LAYARD

said, he was not quite certain, but he believed that the noble Lord was not formally attached to the mission, although acting as Mr. Elliott's private Secretary.

SIR WILLIAM FRASER

said, he wished to ask for some information respecting the Vote of £3,500 for the Commission employed on the regulation of the navigation of the Danube.

MR. AUGUSTUS SMITH

said, he thought that the operations of the Persian Boundary Commission ought to be brought to an end.

MR. LAYARD

said, that he shared the anxiety which was generally entertained that the Turco-Persian Boundary Commission should bring its labours to a close, and would do his best to expedite their termination. The other Commission, upon which all the great Powers of Europe were represented, was performing a work most important to the corn trade of the country. It had already opened one mouth of the Danube, and was now turning its attention to another.

In reply to Colonel SYKES,

Mr. LAYARD

said, that the sum voted was not for works, but for the expenses of the Commission.

MR. HENNESSY

said, he wished to revert to the subject of Viscount Amberley, and to inquire what was the rule laid down by the Government as to the payment of travelling expenses. Must a man, for instance, be the son of a Peer or a Member of that House? If he knew what was the rule he would do his best to qualify himself under it.

MR. LAYARD

said, that this was not really a ease of the payment of travelling expenses, but of providing a passage where there was no regular means of communication. He was sure that if the hon. and learned Gentleman himself, notwithstanding his persistent opposition to Her Majesty's Government, found himself at some foreign port where no packets were plying, and one of Her Majesty's ships called there he would not be refused a passage.

COLONEL SYKES

said, he had to complain of the length of time during which the Persian Boundary Commission had been in existence.

Vote agreed to.

(29.) £4,500, Third Secretaries of Embassies.