HC Deb 17 July 1877 vol 235 cc1404-19

(14.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £139,725, 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 1878, for the Expenses of Her Majesty's Emhassies and Missions Abroad.

MR. RYLANDS

protested against the large expenditure under this head, and moved to reduce the Vote by £5,000. He remarked that there was no branch of the public service, except perhaps the Navy, which had created a larger amount of criticism. The diplomatic expenditure had gone on increasing for a great number of years. The Committee on Official Salaries, which sat in 1850, suggested certain reductions and economies in the Diplomatic Service, and if these recommendations had been carried out they would have saved £150,000 in their diplomatic expenditure during the last 25 years. He raised the question in 1869 of the diplomatic expenditures, and on that occasion, in a large Committee of the Whole House, the Motion for reduction was only rejected by the casting vote of the Chairman of the Committee. During the last few years the tendency had been to increase the expenditure, and there was £25,000 more spent than in 1850–1. It had been said with truth that the Diplomatic Service was an aristocratic preserve, and there was no doubt that the Service was arranged in a manner very different from the other Public Services. The Diplomatic Service, instead of having the principle of competition applied to it, rested upon the nomination of the Foreign Secretary, and the young attachés were selected from families of great political and social position; and instead of the expenditure being cut down when an Embassy was found to be unnecessary, there was always a pressure to keep it up. He wished to remind the Committee that whilst this expenditure on the Diplomatic Service had been increasing to so large an extent the circumstances under which the Diplomatic Service existed had entirely changed, and it had been rendered much less important. At the beginning of this century British interests were supposed to be involved in every little change in the petty States of Europe. We went into the French revolutionary wars to retain the old respectable Royal Families of Europe in their legitimate position. But all this had now passed away. We could watch revolutions abroad without thinking it necessary that our Foreign Office should have their fingers in the pie. The policy of this Kingdom had changed with regard to the question of intervention; but we still considered it necessary to keep up the old-established system. In those days a very great part of the arrangements of Europe depended upon secret and complicated negotiations, carried on by means that were now never contemplated. In fact, the personal influence of a Sovereign was paramount, and upon his state of health or mind depended the issue of peace or war. And women, too, played a large part in work- ing out Court secrets in those days. The Secret Service money was then a reality, and not the mere sham which it was at the present time. Everybody was bribed, from a King's mistress down to some petty officer of the Government. There was a tradition that important information respecting the secret Articles of the Treaty of Tilsit was purchased by the gift of a diamond necklace to a lady connected with the Russian Embassy. But all this had been changed. Europe was then covered by petty States, the focus of intrigue and mischief; but these had been consolidated into the Great Empires of Germany and Italy, and no longer endangered the peace of Europe. The telegraph and railways had brought the British Government into immediate contact with all the great capitals of Europe. The Foreign Office could communicate by the telegraph with the Ambassadors, and there was now not the necessity for a large staff of diplomatists. By looking at the Blue Books hon. Members would see how completely the British Ambassadors were even guided and governed by the Foreign Office. Constantly, either by despatches or by telegraphic messages, as matters of importance had arisen, the Foreign Office had communicated with the Ambassadors abroad; and by means of the telegraph, or by other means of communication, the Foreign Secretary had directed the Ambassadors as to the course which they ought to take. It seemed to him that all the circumstances which he had very briefly glanced at, showed that though the number and the class of the representatives in the Diplomatic Service might have been justified under the circumstances which existed 50 years ago, it was entirely unjustifiable at the present moment. To the Great Powers of France, Germany, Russia, Austria, Italy, the United States, and he supposed he might still say Turkey, they sent Ambassadors of the first rank, and surrounded them with a very large staff. There was not one of the staffs that might not be reduced. He was quite ready to admit that if it was necessary to have representatives anywhere it was clearly necessary to have them in these centres of political influence, but below these great Embassies were the small Kingdoms and States of Europe, where there might be a very great reduction indeed. There was no necessity to have a Minister of first rank in Denmark, Sweden, or some of the lesser European States, where, under ordinary circumstances, a Chargé d'affaires would be sufficient, and if anything turned up of importance, it was easy to send a Plenipotentiary. And then, again, the small German States were under the control of Germany, and there was no necessity to have special representatives at those petty Governments. Then there were some third-class representatives in South American States who might be done away with, and their duties discharged by Consuls. For instance, the Argentine Republic cost us £4,400, when, perhaps, £2,200 would be amply sufficient. In moving that the Vote be reduced by £5,000, he merely wished to intimate that the Vote was excessive. He believed if the Foreign Office would deal with it in a thorough manner and get rid of unnecessary officials, and reduce the rank of some of the American Embassies, they might save many thousands per annum. The second and third class Secretaries of Legation were much more numerous than were required by the necessities of the case. In speaking on this Vote last year he understood the Under Secretary to promise that a Return would be given of the expenditure of the different Embassies, but he had not yet seen the Return.

MR. BOURKE

was understood to say that the Return for 1875 was given with the Appropriation Accounts some months ago.

MR. RYLANDS

said, that his reason for asking for it was that in former years great abuses had arisen under the heads of miscellaneous expenditure, and it was a great check to have the items laid on the Table of the House. He begged to move that the Vote be reduced by £5,000.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £134,725, 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 1878, for the Expenses of Her Majesty's Embassies and Missions Abroad."—(Mr. Rylands.)

MR. BOURKE

said, the hon. Member had not moved the reduction of the Vote upon the ground of extravagance in any particular Mission, but upon the general ground that a reduction should take place in the Service. He thought that was hardly the way to deal with any branch of the Public Service. The only way of showing whether a large reduction could be made was by going into particulars and pointing out instances of extravagance in detail; but the hon. Member had only so far gone into particulars as to state that he thought certain Missions—such as the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden, and Denmark —could be abolished or reduced. With regard to the Netherlands, the Minister there had not a large salary; but his (Mr. Bourke's) experience since he had been in office showed him that there was no country in Europe with whom he had so many and so diverse commercial relations as the Netherlands. Again, we must maintain our position with other countries. There was no doubt that the interests of England would suffer if we had Ministers of inferior rank to other countries at the various places mentioned. All these matters had been minutely gone into by the Committee of 1871, of which the hon. Gentleman was a Member. That Committee made a Report to which the hon. Gentleman assented, and the effect of that Report was that it had not been shown to the satisfaction of the Committee that the expenditure had been extravagant, while many reforms had been made by the chiefs of the Foreign Office. That was the Report of the Committee in 1871, and since 1871 many other reforms had been effected, which had tended to the economy and efficiency of the Diplomatic Service. With regard to the other places mentioned—the minor German States, Darmstadt and Coburg—the hon. Member was well aware that there were special reasons for retaining a Minister at these places. At both Hesse Darmstadt and Coburg personal considerations connected with the relations of the Sovereign had rendered it especially desirable that a Minister should be retained, and they had often been found extremely useful. Other Powers had representatives there of equal rank with ours, and it did not follow, as had been shown by Mr. Hammond before the Committee, that because a place was small a representative there was of no use. As to the system of appointment to the Diplomatic Service, that question had been raised by the hon. Member for the Border Boroughs (Mr. Trevelyan) in the early part of the Session, when he (Mr. Bourke) pointed out that Lord Derby thought it impossible to make it an open service. The majority of the Committee of 1871 recommended that the present system should be continued, and if it were not continued he must say that a very large increase would have to be made in the salaries, and consequently a great increase in the expense must be expected. Both Lord Derby and the late Foreign Minister (Earl Granville) had come to the conclusion that, under all the circumstances, it was impossible to appoint any one to the Diplomatic Service who had not private means. The salaries paid were inadequate to the amount which those engaged in the Service were obliged to spend. He thought the present was a most inopportune moment for reducing this Estimate. In fact, it was found it would be necessary to increase, rather than diminish, the number of our Consular Agents abroad. There was hardly any Department in the Foreign Office which was receiving more attention than was this Department; and the House might depend upon it that it would be the desire of the Government to keep it efficient without incurring any unnecessary expense.

MR. GOLDSMID

said, the hon. Member for Burnley evidently thought he had a mission to alter and re-arrange the map of Europe, and with the assistance of the German Emperor he certainly had to some extent been successful. But he hoped the Committee were not prepared to express a wish to see the smaller States of Germany absorbed in order that we might no longer send representatives to them. He, in common with many other hon. Members, strongly disapproved of the annexations made by the German Emperor—such as that of Hanover—and also regretted that this country was no longer represented in some very important places. He felt quite sure that the Netherlands could not be regarded as an insignificant country; and when it was remembered that it was a country that had done more for the march of freedom even than the hon. Member, it was not desirable that we should give notice that its independence ought to cease because some Members might wish to withdraw the salary of our Diplomatic Representative. We had such Representatives in only 32 countries, and in other countries we had only Consular servants. He believed that many of the difficulties which had recently arisen were owing in a great measure to the reduction of our Diplomatic and Consular Establishments. He hoped the Government would not give way to the ill-advised pressure which had been brought to bear upon them during the last few years for a further reduction of our Diplomatic and Consular staff. As the Under Secretary had just stated, the present was a time not for reduction, but rather for increase. The country ought to be well represented in small independent States as well as in the larger ones, and he trusted the independence of those small States would be preserved for many years to come.

DR. CAMERON

agreed with much that had fallen from the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands). He (Dr. Cameron) had last year moved the reduction of the Vote on account of certain proceedings which had taken place in Peru, and he considered it desirable to call attention to the fact that we had been dragged into something worse than a fiasco by the course taken by Admiral De Horsey, who had acted on some information that the Huascar had been committing outrages on British interests. If we had to wait for more detailed information on that subject we should have to wait until next Session or the Session after that. He objected to our having such highly-paid representatives in Peru, where they could not be communicated with speedily; where they could not be controlled by the Foreign Office; but they had just such powers as to get us into mischief. He cordially supported the Motion of the hon. Member.

MR. GORST

said, there was no part of the world in which it was more necessary that we should be represented by efficient public servants than it was in the Republics of South America, because delicate and difficult questions arose which must be decided without the advantage of telegraphic communication with England. The very fact that we required such efficient servants was a reason why the sum at the disposal of the Foreign Office should not be reduced.

MR. HAYTER

said, he should like to know who was now in actual receipt of the £8,000 charged for the Ambassador at Constantinople. If Mr. Layard received that amount there must be a vacancy at Madrid, for which £5,000 was charged, and if Mr. Layard was at Constantinople only temporarily, then perhaps Sir Henry Elliot was receiving it. There was, too, a larger number of Secretaries at Constantinople than at any of the principal Courts of Europe; for while there were five at Constantinople there were only four in Austria, three in Germany, three in Italy, and three in Russia. It would be satisfactory to know why two more were kept in Constantinople than in Germany, Italy, or Russia. He would also be glad to know on what principle the salaries of our representatives in Greece and Denmark were based; because there seemed to him to be a great disparity in some of the items connected with those Embassies.

MR. BENTINCK

considered the course pursued by the hon. Member opposite (Dr. Cameron) as most irregular with regard to the Shah and the Huascar, when it was known to him that the Papers relating to the matter would be produced; and with regard to the conduct of Admiral De Horsey, it would be found that he had been fully justified in the course he had taken by the circumstances of the case.

MR. BOURKE

said, he was not aware whether Mr. Layard was now receiving the Madrid salary of £5,000, or the Constantinople salary of £8,000; but his impression was that a special arangement was entered into with him when he went to Constantinople. He was not at present able to answer the question more fully. With regard to the Secretaries at Constantinople, he did not think there was any Mission in the world that was more hardly worked than the Mission in that city, and there were frequent complaints of the large amount of work that had to be done. It would be impossible to reduce the staff at Constantinople. The gentleman who was acting as Chargé d'Affaires at Madrid was receiving extra pay of £1 a-day. [An hon. MEMBER: Sir Henry Elliot?] According to the rules of the Service, Sir Henry Elliot received half his salary. Salaries had been adjusted from time to time, and when a salary had been settled it was almost impossible for a Secretary of State to reduce it.

MR. DILLWYN

thought it most extraordinary that the hon. Gentleman was not able to give the Committee any satisfactory information on transactions which had been the subject of discussion all over Europe. As the Government seemed to take the matter so easily, and turned their attention to the matter so little, he thought it desirable that the Vote should be postponed in order that the hon. Gentleman might be able to obtain further information respecting these matters.

MR. BOURKE

said, he had given all the information that had been required, except on one point, and that was as to whether Mr. Layard was receiving the Madrid salary. If the hon. Member considered it important he would give the information when the Report was brought up.

Question put, and negatived.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

(15.) £165,894, to complete the sum for Consular Services.

In reply to Sir CHARLES W. DILKE,

MR. BOURKE

said, that the appointment of a Chief Justice of China and Japan was still under consideration.

MR. EVELYN ASHLEY

called attention to the importance of appointing a Consul at Massowah, where a representative of England formerly was stationed. A great sea trade went on from the ports since the Egyptian Government had extended its dominions to the Red Sea, and he thought it of great importance to this country to know what was going on in Abyssinia and the neighbouring countries.

MR. BOURKE

concurred in the importance of appointing a Consul at Massowah, which, after inquiry, had been decided to be the best place for a Consul on that part of the coast of the Red Sea.

Vote agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £53,176, 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 1878, in aid of Colonial Local Revenue, and for the Salaries and Allowances of Governors, &c., and for other Expenses in certain Colonies.

MR. GOLDSMID

urged that full information concerning the state of these Colonies ought to be laid before the House with the Estimates, in order that it might know what it was doing. Especially the House ought to be informed whether the revenue was pro- gressive or not, and what was the condition generally of the Colonial revenues in those cases in which grants in aid were asked for.

MR. ERRINGTON

observed, that it was difficult to calculate the expenditure that took place in the Colonies, as there was no mention of it in the Army Estimates. He thought the House should be informed upon that subject. Last year the military expenditure at Barbadoes was not less than £100,000, and the events that then took place in that Island must have greatly increased it. It was very objectionable that the House should not be in possession of information as to the nature of Colonial expenditure.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, that certain expenses incurred on Imperial account were charged to the Imperial Exchequer, but military expenses for local services were charged to the Colonies themselves. The item of £3,000 odd charged in the Malta account represented, of course, a very small proportion of the military expenditure incurred in the Island, but was paid on local account as a portion of the police estimate. This was a very moderate sum for keeping order in the Island. As regarded information to be given to the House, it should be understood that the Estimates were laid on the Table in February last, and the Supplemental Estimates at the end of the following month.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

said, he had hoped that the Under Secretary would have given the House some account of the financial position of Fiji. The sum of £30,000 was proposed to be taken in aid of Fiji in these Estimates, and £35,000 was taken last year. From private information he was aware that there had been a remarkable increase in the revenue of that country, but he should like to know from the mouth of the Home Secretary whether this was the case.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, he was glad to hear of the improved state of Fiji, but it would be more satisfactory if the information came from the Government. The Papers last presented to the House only showed that the Colony was in a state of hopeless bankruptcy. It was feared last year that a war would break out in Fiji, and those fears had been realized. They should, he thought, have some explanation as to that war, and as to the fact the forces employed by the Governor had been commanded by Mr. Gordon, a civilian and secretary to the Governor. In order to obtain that explanation, he would move the reduction of the Vote by £30,000.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £23,176, 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 1878, in aid of Colonial Local Revenue, and for the Salaries and Allowances of Governors, &c., and for other Expenses in certain Colonies."—(Sir Charles W. Dilke.)

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, he was happy to be able to confirm the statement of the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Shaw Lefevre), that there was a very good prospect of a considerable improvement taking place in the revenues of Fiji. No doubt the position of the Colony last year was such as to cause some anxiety, but recent accounts showed that there had been a great improvement. He explained that £25,000 was required this year in aid of the local revenues, and that the other £5,000 was wanted to meet charges arising out of an Act passed by the House with general acclamation for the protection of the labour traffic; but expressed a hope that another year it might not be necessary to ask for a grant. The war to which reference had been made by the hon. Baronet (Sir Charles Dilke) was unavoidable, having been brought about by the attacks made upon friendly Natives by hostile tribes in the interior of the country. The fact that the chief command on that occasion was confided to a civilian did not escape the notice of Lord Carnarvon, and the explanation tendered was that the force employed against the Natives was a civilian force, consisting of police and volunteers, and that as there was a difficulty in the way of obtaining the services of an officer of the Regular Army, and there was no very able strategist to contend against, the command was entrusted to a very energetic and able official who was on the spot, and who conducted the operations to a successful issue. Owing to the exertions of Sir Arthur Gordon, the labour traffic had been brought within a very narrow compass, and nothing approximating to domestic slavery existed in the Colony.

MR. CHILDERS

asked what was the revenue and expenditure of Fiji last year; what were the estimates this year of the revenue and expenditure; and what was the total indebtedness of the Colony to this country at the present moment?

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, that unfortunately the estimated revenue was considerably in excess of the sum obtained, the discrepancy being caused by the epidemic of measles which broke out soon after the establishment of the Colony. It was, therefore, found necessary to apply to Parliament for £35,000. As regarded the total indebtedness and expenditure of last year, he had not the figures with him, but he would undertake to produce them on the Report. As regarded the expenditure for the present year he could only give round numbers, as there was great difficulty in getting statistics from a new Colony like Fiji.

MR. JOHN BRIGHT

wished to ask the hon. Gentleman a question with regard to what he had called the war in which Mr. Gordon led the resisting force. He did not know whether it could be called a war or not, but it was a disturbance of some kind. But, after it was over, he judged from the reports in the newspapers that there was rather an extreme measure taken in the execution of some savages. He did not know whether they were hanged or shot, or by whose orders, or under what law or after what trial. But it appeared to him, judging from the newspaper reports, to have been a very singular and a very severe measure, and he thought the House ought to have some information upon it. The Colonial Office must have received some special account of a transaction of so serious a nature, and he wished to ask the hon. Gentleman whether he would be kind enough to lay the Papers on the Table, together with the Correspondence which had taken place with regard to the employment of Mr. Gordon in a military capacity? He thought the whole matter should be laid before Parliament.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, he should have much pleasure in laying upon the Table all the despatches with reference to this matter. As regarded the execution of the persons mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham, it was an act which Sir Arthur Gordon represented to be one of absolute necessity, but one which Sir Arthur Gordon, nevertheless, deeply regretted.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

wished to know whether it was not a fact that the reason these people had been executed was they had not only been taken in open rebellion against the Queen's authority, but that they had committed the most revolting crimes of murder and cannibalism.

MR. GOLDSMID

wished to know what was the revenue last year of the Island of Fiji and what the expenditure. He thought further information was necessary, or they would have to endeavour to postpone the Vote.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, he had not the figures by him, but he would produce them on Report. With reference to the question of the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Shaw Lefevre), there could be no doubt that the persons executed had been guilty of very serious atrocities, but he could not say whether they had been guilty of the particular atrocity mentioned.

MR. JOHN BRIGHT

said, it must not be understood that he made any charge against Sir Arthur Gordon. He had known him for many years, and he was the very last person whom he should think capable of doing anything very severe. He (Mr. Bright) thought, however, that this was a case in regard to which we ought to have further information. These savages were said to be guilty of a crime because they had eaten their prisoners. Well, that was merely a habit of the country. It had been so for a long time, and he did not believe there was anything in our law to put a man to death on account of that.

MR. GORST

hoped the Committee would insist on having further information as to the execution of these unfortunate people in Fiji. These men, no doubt, were cannibals. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham's remark had been received with laughter; but, after all, we had no right to execute men merely because they did what their ancestors had done for generations. It might be a very good reason for introducing civilization into the country, but it was not a reason why they should execute these men.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

pointed out that the Committee were drifting into an inconvenient discussion of a matter of serious importance. In the course of this conversation some expressions had been used which ought not to he employed in discussing so grave a subject. The Government had not at the present moment the Papers which were asked for. He felt, however, that the question put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham ought to be fairly answered, and that a full explanation ought to be given on the subject. No one who was acquainted with Sir Arthur Gordon could doubt that when any matter in which his administration was challenged was brought under the notice of Parliament, it would be found that he had acted with that statesmanlike ability which distinguished him. But the House was really talking of matters in the dark. Nothing could be more mischievous than that such delicate questions referring to the relations of the British power to Native races should be thus discussed. He would therefore suggest that the Report of this Vote should be a distinct Report, and should be taken on a day sufficiently distant to allow of the Papers being produced or information given.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

wished to correct the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) in one particular. The Natives who had been decribed as rebels were so actually, as they had accepted the British authority and had lived under it for some months.

MR. HERMON

pressed the hon. Member for Chelsea to withdraw his Amendment upon the understanding that the Vote should also be deferred.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, he should be happy to postpone the Vote.

MR. PARNELL

hoped that full details would be afforded of the executions of these people, as he knew of instances where men had been cruelly executed nearer home than Fiji.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

, in withdrawing his Amendment, said, that he had alluded only to the financial condition of the Colony.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

(16.) £2,044, to complete the sum for the Orange River Territory and St. Helena, agreed to.

(17.) £5,642, to complete the sum for the Suppression of the Slave Trade, agreed to.

(18.) £11,537, to complete the sum for Tonnage Bounties, &c. and Liberated African Department, agreed to.

(19.) £1,742, to complete the sum for Emigration, agreed to.

(20.) £1,170, to complete the sum for the Suez Canal (British Directors).

In reply to Sir JOHN LUBBOCK,

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, it was true that certain payments were made for the British directors, who did not reside in Paris; but it was the duty of those gentlemen to travel from London to Paris from time to time to attend all the meetings of the Board, in order fully to represent the interests of this country, and that duty they discharged. The whole arrangement had been explained by his right hon. Friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) when the Bill relating to the Suez Canal purchase was passing through Parliament, and when the original Estimate was taken for that service.

MR. MONK

wished to ask whether the nominal value of the shares of 500 francs each, which were held by the Government, would, when drawn, be paid to this country? If so, would this country cease to have an interest in the Suez Canal as soon as the last share had been paid off, or what interest would it still have in the property?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, the question was one of importance, and one which, of course, deserved notice. It was, however, rather a complicated matter. The shares which were held generally by the Suez Canal Company were liable to be paid off in time, according to drawings, and that would naturally apply to all the shares. But the shares which had belonged to the Khedive of Egypt, and which were afterwards purchased by Her Majesty's Government, stood in a peculiar position, because they had been mortgaged, in a certain sense, and handed over to the Company, the coupons being cut off for a certain number of years. Those coupons had been applied to form a new fund called délégations, and the délégataires—the persons who purchased those délégations—were interested in the proceeds of those shares as long as they should continue. Then the question arose, what was to happen if any of those shares which had been so placed in a peculiar position were drawn among the shares which had to be paid off? There was a provision, he believed, that any person who was paid off should retain his right of voting in respect of the shares, though he was not quite sure as to that. But that did not affect the shares of the British Government. If one of the shares with the coupons cut off was paid off, the British Government would receive the value of the share, and that would be more than they had bargained for when they bought the shares, and the délégataires would have less profit than they stipulated to obtain. The provision made was of this nature:—The share was paid off, and the amount was placed to an account, which was under the control of the British Government; but the British Government did not receive the interest on the share so paid off until the expiration of the time for which the coupons were cut off, and during that time the proceeds went to the délégataire. At the end of the time the British Government would receive the capital, which was placed in British securities, and in the names of British officials, so that it would be impossible that the money should be lost to the nation. The arrangement was somewhat complicated, and it was rather difficult to make it clear to the Committee off-hand.

MR. CHILDERS

asked whether the Government were aware, when they purchased those shares, that they were liable to be paid off?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

Yes.

MR. MONK

I wish to know this. At the end of the period when all those shares have been drawn, what interest will the British Government have in the Suez Canal; or will it continue to have any interest in the Canal?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

The shares and profits equal to the shares which the stock represents.

Vote agreed to.