HC Deb 06 August 1881 vol 264 cc1143-66

(4.) £93,570, to complete the sum for the Diplomatic Services.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

wished for some explanation with regard to the item of £10,000 on account of Her Majesty's Mission to Persia. There was nothing estimated for last year, and the amount on the earlier Estimates was £12,000.

LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH

said, that nothing was included in the Estimates of last year, because there had been a long-pending dispute as to the quota to be paid by India in respect of this Mission.

SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF

said, he could not understand why the rent of the Minister's house at Brussels did not appear on the Estimates.

LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH

said, that this matter was in the hands of the Board of Works.

MR. LEE

said, there appeared to be a great want of regularity in regard to the appointments of chaplains. For his own part, he did not think they were required at all.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, that during the last Parliament a Committee sat to consider this question, and reported in favour of the re-creation of these Consular chaplaincies.

MR. LABOUCHERE

pointed out that a Committee had also recommended that at the age of 70, Ministers should be called upon to retire. He believed the object of this was to increase the chances of promotion; but it seemed to him a foolish suggestion, and he was sorry that the Foreign Office had acted upon it. It seemed to proceed on the assumption that at the age of 70 a man must necessarily have broken down, while it was perfectly well known that at the age in question our Ministers had shown themselves able to do excellent service. The result of this hard-and-fast line being drawn would very likely be that persons would be put into positions in which they would not do the work as well as their predecessors.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, that the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs might, if he chose, disregard the rule in exceptional cases.

SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF

asked what had been done under the rule instituted by Earl Granville with regard to the changing of Ministers at the end of five years? He remembered that Baron Beust was removed because his Government said he had resided so long in England that he had become more English than German, and he also knew of cases where British subjects abroad could get nothing done for them, because the Minister wished to make himself acceptable to the Power to which he was accredited rather than to his own Government. He hoped that something would be done in the matter of changing Ministers who had been a long time at their posts.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, that changes had been more frequent since Earl Granville came into Office. The principle was, no doubt, a good one, though the long and valuable services of Lord Lyons at Paris and Lord Ampthill at Berlin formed important exceptions to the general rule.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

asked why India was called upon to pay £15,000 a-year towards the expenses of the Embassy in China? He could not see that India had any direct concern with our relations with China, which were important only to the general interest of the Empire. Surely the taxpayers of England were far better able to pay for this Embassy than the poor people of India, who, as far as he could understand, were in no way benefited by it. In looking over the list of Embassies he was astonished to find the magnitude of the salaries paid to Ministers abroad—for instance, to the Ambassador at Constantinople, £8,000; St. Petersburg, £7,800; Brussels, £4,000; Paris, £10,000; Japan, £4,000; Spain, £5,000; and Sweden, £3,000. He might live to see the day when the hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) was Leader of that House, and he felt sure he would then make a regular crusade against this portion of the Estimates. He could not but feel that the salaries paid to Ministers abroad were far beyond the resources of the country to afford. Moreover, in many cases, there had never been much advantage in having the offices at all, except, perhaps, when the doctrine of Civis Romanus sum gave to the English- man abroad the privilege of making himself a nuisance wherever he went. He thought that we had now arrived at a much healthier position in respect to foreign affairs, and that we ought, in consequence of the change that had taken place, to get rid of some of the salaries and charges which were created at a time when our foreign policy was quite different.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, he thought that the contribution of India to the cost of the Legation in China was justified by the circumstances. The reason why the charge appeared in its present form was because India had very important and delicate interests in Persia, while the amount paid by India in connection with the Legation in China was estimated in relation to the share of Indian commerce with that country. With regard to the salaries of Ambassadors, he feared he could not hold out any hope of their being reduced. The best way of arriving at a conclusion as to whether they were too high was to compare them with the salaries paid to the Representatives of other great Powers. It had been supposed that the salaries paid to English Ministers were greater than those paid by other Powers; but subsequent examination had shown that this was not the case. His hon. Friend the Member for Galway had instanced St. Petersburg, Paris, and Constantinople, as places at which the salaries were unnecessarily large; but he could assure the Committee that it was impossible for the Ambassadors in those cities to save any money on their present allowances. He was, however, not in a position to say that our Ministers at places of less importance would not be able to do so; but, as a rule, he believed that our Ambassadors were generally out of pocket. Under the circumstances, he was not able to hold out any expectation of reduction under this head.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, as a matter of fact, Constantinople was the only city in which our Ambassadors could save any money, because he believed that there everything was paid for them. But the objection was not to the salaries at the large cities, but to those at places of minor importance—to small Courts like that of Darmstadt, where the gentleman who resided there had absolutely nothing to do, except to give a dinner Occasionally to the few English living there. Economy was not to be secured by reducing the salaries at the large places; but by doing away with them at these small Courts, where a Minister was unnecessary.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

pointed out that since 1870 several Missions had been altogether suppressed.

MR. LYULPH STANLEY

remarked, that anyone looking at the Estimates would observe that we were represented at Dresden by a Legation, at £750 a-year; whereas at Darmstadt, a place of less importance, we paid £1,050 a-year. He was quite aware that at one time there were reasons why we should be specially represented at the latter place; but they existed no longer. He thought this was one of those little irregularities which might be corrected when a vacancy occurred at the post.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

said, he wished for information from the hon. Baronet with regard to the ransom of Colonel Synge in Turkey. That gentleman, whilst travelling on his own account, had very foolishly placed himself in a position in which he ought never to have been. He was seized by brigands, and the Foreign Office were saddled with a charge of £12,000 to get him set free. Consul Blunt had been obliged to go in an undignified way to make terms with the brigands—purchasing rifles and watches for them, and handing them a draft on the bank at Salonica. The Foreign Office had demurred to this payment; but it was finally charged upon the Estimates, and it was proposed to treat it as an advance. He believed the amount was still outstanding. The Turkish Government were presumed to be liable to pay this money back, but it was doubtful whether they could do so; and he should, therefore, be glad to know what steps it was proposed to take in this matter. Did the Government intend to allow Colonel Synge to get off without paying anything; did they intend to press the claim on the Turkish Government, or did they mean to wipe off the amount as irrecoverable?

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, that in the last resort they held the Turkish Government responsible for the repayment of the money; and he failed to see any reason why a part of the money in hand belonging to the Turkish Government should not be kept back until the ransom was paid.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

suggested, in that case, that steps should be taken to make the Foreign Office secure.

Vote agreed to.

(5.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £142,387, 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 1882, for the Expense of the Consular Establishments Abroad, and for other Expenditure chargeable on the Consular Vote.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, he wished to move to reduce the Vote by £1,600, the amount paid to Mr. Lascelles, as Consul and Diplomatic Agent—our Represen-tative—in Bulgaria. He did not wish to enter into a long discussion on the question, on a side issue like this; but he must say one word as to our position in Bulgaria, because one of the grounds of his objecting to the Vote was the conduct of the Prince of Bulgaria, and the opinion that was entertained in many quarters that it was improper for us to hold any diplomatic relations with him. After the war between Turkey and Russia there had been a persistent effort made by the English Government then in power to get the province of Bulgaria divided between Bulgaria East and Roumania. That division did take place, and Bulgaria was left, to all intents and purposes, not the large Bulgaria that was hoped for by the present Prime Minister, but consisting of the Northern part of the original Province. By the Treaty of Berlin it was laid down that a Constitution should be elaborated for Bulgaria. That Constitution he had seen reflected on in the newspapers as a bad Constitution. He had made himself familiar with that Constitution, and he must say he regretted that, in almost every instance, the Constitution of this country was not the same as that of Bulgaria. He had never heard of or seen a more sound and excellent Democratic Constitution than that which was given to Bulgaria.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member cannot discuss the question of the Constitution of Bulgaria on this Vote. He can only discuss any transaction in which Mr. Lascelles took part.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, he should approach the conduct of Mr. Lascelles directly; but it was necessary for him to describe the circumstances in which the conduct he complained of took place. The Prince of Bulgaria was elected under this Constitution. There was a Chamber, and the Prince was under it—the sound principle adopted in the Constitution being that the Prince reigned and did not rule. One Ministry after another was formed, and the Prince became surrounded by foreign adventurers. The Prince was anxious that the Government should fall into the hands of these adventurers. At the commencement of the summer the Prince resolved to make a coup d'êtat. He announced that a plébescite would be taken, by which autocratic power was to be given to him for five years. He went through the form of gathering together a Grand National Assembly, which was to vote him this supreme power. It was one of the grossest farces ever perpetrated.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Gentleman is still discussing the question of the Constitution of Bulgaria. I must again inform him that he is bound to confine himself to the question of the conduct of Mr. Lascelles.

MR. LABOUCHERE

You will see how I come to it.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member must come to it, and not go into the whole question of the Government of Bulgaria.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, he was just coming to Mr. Lascelles. This Grand National Assembly was called together—["Order!"] He thought he was strictly in Order, as he was introducing the speech delivered by the German Consul General, as doyen of the Corps Diplomatique, of whom Mr. Lascelles was one. It would be seen directly that he had been obliged to make these preliminary remarks. The Grand National Assembly was called together at Sistova. It was surrounded by troops, in order to prevent the outraged people from turning the Prince out. The Corps Diplomatique met together for the purpose of addressing the Prince, and, under these circumstances, the doyen, or the gentleman who had been longest in the Corps Diplomatique, was in the habit of speaking in the name of all the members of the Diplomatic Body. He (Mr. Labouchere) might presume that the doyen's Address had been read over to Mr. Lascelles, and that his opinion was taken on the subject. At any rate, as Mr. Lascelles was at the meeting, he was reponsible for what took place. "What did take place was this. The doyen, speaking in the name of Mr. Lascelles and the others, said— The Corps Diplomatique is happy to greet your Highness, through me as intermediary, on your arrival in this town. The Representatives of Europe, on the eve of the meeting of the Great National Assembly, form the sincerest wish that the union between your Highness and the country may be indissolubly maintained. Your Highness, by the high destinies which have devolved upon you, constitutes, in the eyes of Europe, a guarantee of order and tranquillity, and the pledge of a happy development of Bulgaria in the path of progress. It must be remembered that this language was addressed to the Prince, after what he should be prepared to show—had he the opportunity of making his speech in the House instead of the Committee—was one of the most outrageous and nefarious attacks upon public liberty ever perpetrated. The Prince replied to the Corps Diplomatique as follows:— Messieurs les Agents, I am happy to see you in this town under the grave circumstances which have brought me here. As you say, M. l' Agent, on the part of your colleagues, being in the eyes of Europe the representative and depositary of the destinies of the nation —why he said so, he (Mr. Labouchere) did not know; but the Corps Diplomatique, Mr. Lascelles amongst the number, listened to it— which has been confided to me, I do not doubt for an instant that my country, marching in the paths of progress opened to it, will always be able to justify the sympathies of the world, and the confidence which Europe evinces in us. I am also happy that you, MM. les Agents, being in the country, have already been able yourselves to realize what is the will of the people, guided by Divine Providence, in the accomplishment of its destinies. I am also happy that you, MM. les Agents, for the lively interest of which you have given me proof during this crisis, so vital for the future of the Bulgarian nation. So that the Prince accepted the words of the doyen as a statement of the opinion, not only of the Corps Diplomatique, but of the Powers of Europe, England included. The Prince, in reply to an Address presented to him by the Representative of England, said he would be able to justify the sympathies of the world, and the confidence which England evinced in him. Then the Prince said the Corps Diplomatique had been able to realize what was the will of the people "guided by Divine Providence." Why, that was rank blasphemy. Then, with Mr. Lascelles standing by, the Prince thanked him for the lively interest he had taken in him during what he (the Prince) was pleased to call "this crisis so vital for the future of the Bulgarian nation." The Prime Minister of England had, when this took place, already received the telegram from the three Ministers who had been ejected from the country—one of whom, he had read the other day, was sent to prison, released, and again incarcerated—and the President of the Ordinary National Assembly. He would call attention to the words of the telegram. They were as follows:— In the hardest times for our nation we find ourselves obliged to have recourse to the generosity of the English nation, and personally to you, and most humbly to pray you to deliver the order by legality [i.e., legal order] and liberty (for which every Englishman has always been the true guardian) of our country from a foreign unrestrained and imposed militarism. You know, Sir, better than everybody else, that elections for the just and true expression of the national will, when taking place under the pressure of whips, bayonets, and guns—as is the case with us at present—are simple mockery of the national will, and a most flagrant violation of liberty. (Signed) Ex-Minister KARAVELOFF. Ex-Minister ZANCOFF. Ex-Minister SLAVELIKOFF. President of the Ordinary National Assembly, SOUENAROFF. The opinion he had expressed, therefore, was not only his own opinion derived from the correspondence, but it was the clear and distinct statement of the gentlemen who, up to the time of the coup d'êtat took place were supposed, and, he presumed, supposed rightly, to represent the views of the Bulgarian nation. A vote was taken in the Great National Assembly—and a unanimous vote, under the guns of the soldiery was, he believed, given in favour of the Prince. The doyen of the Corps Diplomatique, subsequently, in the presence of his colleagues, congratulated the Prince of Bulgaria upon the vote of the Assembly. He said— The Corps Diplomatique hastens by my voice to present to your Highness their respectful congratulations on the occasion of the solemn vote of the Great National Assembly. My colleagues and I are glad to note that the Bulgarian nation, under the present circumstances, has pronounced its opinion with the same unanimity as when it made choice of your Highness as the depositary of its destinies. This fresh expression of the will of the Bulgarian people is a striking proof of their feelings of confidence in and fidelity towards your Highness, and of their resolution to follow you in the path in which you will lead them to ensure the progress, welfare, and prosperity of Bulgaria. In his reply, his Highness thanked the Corps Diplomatique for their congratulations, and requested them to convey to their respective Governments the expression of his gratitude for the sympathy which had been shown him during the crisis. The other day, when the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs was asked whether any communication had been received from Foreign Governments, asking that a united action should be taken to endorse, on the part of all Signatories of the Berlin Treaty, the action of the Prince of Bulgaria, the hon. Baronet had replied that such a communication had been received, but that Her Majesty's Government had declined to do so. He understood that Her Majesty's Government were not prepared to adopt the course of armed intervention. It was desirable that Her Majesty's Government should maintain, as far as possible, the European Concert; but it must be remembered that Russia had never lost an opportunity of supporting the Prince. ["Order!"]

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member is discussing the question of the present condition of Bulgaria in a Committee devoted entirely to Supply. He would have been in Order in doing so before the Speaker left the Chair, but he is not in Order now.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, the Committee would see the difficulty he was in. He was endeavouring, in every way he could, to avoid an infringement of the Rules. However, he would merely say this, that Mr. Lascelles had thoroughly misconducted himself. There was no reason why we should have any Representative in Bulgaria; but, at any rate, if we were to have one, it should not be a gentleman who had recognized an outrageous and nefarious attack upon public liberty, and pledged Her Majesty's Government to support it.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £140,787, he 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 1882, for the Expense of the Consular Establishments Abroad, and for other Expenditure chargeable on the Consular Vote."—(Mr. Labouchere.)

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, his hon. Friend had concluded his remarks by saying that we ought not to have any Representative in Bulgaria at all. But a Representative in a country was not intended entirely, or even chiefly, to do honour to the country to which he was sent; but he was sent principally for the protection of our own people and our own trade, and in order to give us information as to what was passing in a certain portion of the world. But he did not suppose that his hon. Friend seriously intended to leave us without a Representative in Bulgaria. Departing from that ground, it was difficult to discuss this matter, because the House was not yet in possession of the Papers which he himself had only received within the last few hours. He had laid them on the Table last night, and they would be shortly in the hands of hon. Members. He had only just received the assents of the Governments interested in the publication of the documents, and therefore the Papers were only presented yesterday. They were, technically, before the House; therefore, he could refer to them. It appeared that Mr. Lascelles had succeeded in considerably modifying the form of the Declaration which was made to the Prince of Bulgaria by the Corps Diplomatique. Mr. Lascelles wrote to Earl Granville on the 15th July—having telegraphed the substance of the despatch—as follows:— A proposal had been originally made that the Corps Diplomatique should express the hope that the Great National Assembly would ratify the choice of the nation, which had been clearly expressed by the recent plébiscite; but I objected strongly to this, on the ground that I could not join in what appeared to me to he a direct interference in the internal affairs of the country, and an attempt on the part of the foreign Representatives to influence the vote of the Great National Assembly. My opinion was shared by the French and Italian Agents, and it was finally decided that the sentence to which I objected should be omitted from the speech. The speech was considerably modified at Mr. Lascelles' suggestion, and the most objectionable matter was taken from it. With regard to what did appear in the speech, Mr. Lascelles wrote at considerable length. He said, writing from Sistova— On my arrival here on the 10th instant, I found your Lordship's telegram of the 8th in- stant on the subject of the Declaration which it was proposed that the Representatives of the Great Powers in Bulgaria should make on the occasion of the meeting of the Great National Assembly, and instructing me only to join in this Declaration if it should be worded as was at first proposed. The German Agent, who has been to Varna for the purpose of consulting his Russian and Austrian colleagues as to the best means of carrying out their instructions, has informed me that, as it seems certain that the Great National Assembly will accept the Prince's conditions without opposition, they have decided not to make the Declaration unless a change in the disposition of the Deputies should indicate a possibility of the Prince's conditions being rejected, in which case they would address a strong Declaration to the Assembly. They thought, however, that at the reception which the Prince of Bulgaria was about to hold of the Corps Diplomatique on his arrival at Sistova, it would be advisable for M. de Thielaû, as doyen of the Corps, to make a speech, which would, to a certain extent, replace the declaration. M. de Thielaû read to me the draft of the speech which he had drawn up with the approval of M. Hitrovo and M. de Burian, in which the hope was expressed that the Great National Assembly would ratify the decision of the nation as expressed by the recent plébiscite. The speech continued by assuring His Highness that the foreign Representatives, on the eve of the meeting of the Great National Assembly, formed the most sincere wishes for the maintenance of the Union between His Highness and the country, and that His Highness constituted in the eyes of Europe a guarantee of order and tranquillity, and a pledge of the development of Bulgaria in the path of progress. I told M. de Thielaû that it appeared to me that the first part of the speech was a direct interference in the internal affairs of the Principality, in which I could not join. Your Lordship's instructions were precise upon that point, and although there was, no doubt, some difference between a formal declaration and a speech addressed to the Prince by the doyen of the Corps Diplomatique, the speech would evidently be published, and would be looked upon as an attempt on the part of the Agents to influence the vote of the Assembly. I had no objections to make to the concluding portions of the speech, although I should have preferred to omit all mention of the Great National Assembly. At a meeting of the Agents and Consuls-General, at which all the Representatives of the Great Powers were present, with the exception of the Russian Agent, M. de Thielaû pointed out that, as he and his Russian and Austro-Hungarian colleagues had received instructions to give a very strong support to the Prince, they had thought that it would be ad. visable to take advantage of the reception of the Corps Diplomatique to give His Highness a proof of that support. He added that the speech had been prepared with the consent of M. Hitrovo, and had been approved by the Prince, and that, as His Highness intended to receive us immediately after his arrival, there would be no time to submit to him any altera- tions in it. He suggested that he might make those portions of the speech to which I had no objection in the name of all his colleagues, and then add that the Representatives of the three Empires had been instructed to express the hope that the Great National Assembly would accept His Highness's conditions. My French and Italian colleagues joined me in objecting to this course, which Would have the effect of proving that a difference of opinion existed among the Great Powers. It was most undesirable from every point of view that this should be done, and great encouragement would be given to the Prince's opponents if it became known that the Great Powers were not agreed upon the Bulgarian Question. M. de Thielaû then proposed that he and M. Hitrovo and M. de Burian, after the reception of the Corps Diplomatique, should ask for an interview with the Prince, in order to communicate their instructions to His Highness. I observed that this course would equally indicate a difference of opinion among the Powers, and it was finally decided that M. de Thielaû should consult the Prince and M. de Hitrovo on their arrival, and, if they should agree to the omission of the paragraph to which I had objected, he should make a speech in the name of all the Powers. He (Sir Charles W. Dilke) need only quote two other despatches. In a further despatch, on the 18th July, from Varna, Mr. Lascelles said— I told M. Hitrovo that I was sorry to have been obliged to object to the speech. Your Lordship's instructions were, however, so precise that it would have been impossible for me to have done otherwise. Even as it was, there were parts of the speech which had actually been delivered which I would gladly have seen altered; but, as all direct interference in the internal affairs of the country had been avoided, I thought myself justified in not separating myself from my colleagues, as it appeared to me most important that we should act together, and thus avoid all appearance of any divergence of opinion among the Great Powers on the Bulgarian Question, and I recognized the difficulty of making any further change in a speech which had been already submitted to the Prince, and to which His Highness had prepared a reply. Lord Granville, in his reply to this despatch, used the following words—and with these he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) would conclude:— As regards the speech of congratulation made by the doyen on behalf of the Diplomatic Body to the Prince of Bulgaria, after the vote of the Assembly, of which a copy is enclosed in your further Despatch, No. 114 of the 13th inst. (which has likewise been laid before Her Majesty), I have to state to you that this speech goes further in some of its expressions than Her Majesty's Government would themselves have desired; but they can understand the difficulty you would have had in separating yourself from your colleagues on such an occasion, and the more so as the Assembly had already pronounced itself in favour of the Prince's pro- posals, and the address could not, therefore, be considered as designed to influence their vote, or as having the same political importance as the one delivered before the meeting of the Assembly.

MR. J. COWEN

said, it was the misfortune of Members that they had had no opportunity this Session of discussing in a regular way such subjects as the one raised by his hon. Friend the Member for Northampton. The matter would have been much more appropriately considered on going into Supply rather than in Committee; but the complete control that the Government had taken of all the time of the House had driven Members to resort to Committee discussions, as it was the only chance they had of raising points of public interest. They were hampered by the Rules, and hence matters in dispute could not be fairly stated. They laboured under a further disadvantage, inasmuch as the Papers the Government had promised them had not yet been published, and they had to argue the subject, if not blindfold, certainly with very insufficient data. He would try to keep within the narrow line that the Orders of the House prescribed. But it was impossible, even faintly, to state the case without some reference to the general position of Eastern affairs. These were the facts—The people in Bulgaria complained, and with justice, that they had no direct influence on the government of their State—that the Turkish Pashas treated them unjustly, sometimes cruelly. They demanded their freedom from that domination. As a consequence of the War between Russia and Turkey this desire was in a sense gratified. The European States settled a Constitution for the Bulgarians, and a Prince was appointed to give effect to it. The idea was that the Bulgars—within the lines of this Constitution and under the rule of this Prince—were to govern themselves. That was the intention of the Great Powers. Certainly it was the intention of this country; for, whatever differences of opinion there might have been amongst them at the preliminary stage of the dispute, they were all agreed as to the sort of government that was to obtain as the result of the conflict. What had been the issue? The Prince had from the first conspired against the Constitution that had been put in operation at the commands of Europe. He had now overturned it, and established a despotism. The Bulgarian people had discovered that they did not get independence. Instead of being governed by a Turkish Pasha they were now ruled by a Russian satrap. The Prince was not only a foreigner and an adventurer himself, but his Ministers were foreigners and adventurers like him. The English Representative, by the part he took, had sanctioned this violation of the Constitution and this breaking of his oath by the Prince. This he held was a distinct interference with the internal affairs of another State, and was contrary to the settled policy of this country. It was quite true that Mr. Lascelles could not prevent the Prince's usurpation, and he was not suggesting that the Government should have taken steps to reverse it. But what he did complain of was that our Ministry should have been in such haste to endorse those high-handed proceedings, and thereby give countenance to them. Distinguished men had suffered for their precipitancy under like circumstances. Lord Russell went so far as to advise the dismissal of Lord Palmerston, who was then Foreign Minister, because he had—first in a conversation with a French Ambassador, and next in a despatch to Lord Normanby—expressed his approval of the usurpation effected by the coup d'êtat of Louis Bonaparte. If such strong measures could be taken with a man like Lord Palmerston, they were not to be prevented from censuring the course that Mr. Lascelles had taken under like conditions. The Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had said it was not customary to withdraw Ministers. There had been instances, however, where that was done. It would be within the remembrance of some present that our Minister at Naples was withdrawn at the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) himself when the Neapolitan Government was acting in a despotic and indefensible way. There was the occasion of our withholding Ambassadorial connection with Spain, and there were numerous instances in South America—amongst them the cases of Rosas, of Mexico, and of Buenos Ayres. There was precedent enough for withdrawing a Minister from a usurping Government when we disap- proved of its course. It was said, further, that our Minister had succeeded in getting the Address of the Consuls modified. But, even admitting this, the modified Address was objectionable. What he wished to know from the Government was—did they, or did they not, approve of the modified Address? Did they, or did they not, sanction the course that Mr. Lascelles had taken? He was astounded at the indifference with which the unconstitutional proceedings of Prince Alexander had been viewed in this country. A few years ago the warmest possible interest was manifested in Bulgarian affairs. The cry on all hands was that the Bulgarians should be permitted to assert and establish their independence and nationality. And yet here was a Prince who, having been charged by Europe to maintain that independence and uphold that nationality, had overturned the one and trampled upon the other, and established in his own name, and, he (Mr. Cowen) regretted to say, with the approval of our Minister, what was little less than a Russian Governorship in this new State.

SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF

deprecated the discussion which had taken place, and declared that this attack upon Mr. Lascelles was most unfair. Whatever this gentleman had done had been condoned by Her Majesty's Government. They had acquiesced in his action, and if it had been necessary to censure anyone, it would have been much more pertinent to censure Her Majesty's Government. Between the 8th of May and the time the speech of the doyen was delivered, Mr. Lascelles secured an important alteration in it; and there could be no doubt, whatever might be said about his withdrawal, that it would be difficult to find a better man to fill the post he occupied. Things were in a dangerous state in Bulgaria, and Mr. Lascelles was most acceptable, not only to the Prince, but also to the people of the country. It was all very well for the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) to read despatches, and telegrams, and letters from ex-Ministers whom he (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) believed were at the time conspiring against the Prince of Bulgaria, and who, since they had had the administration of the affairs of the country, had done an incalculable amount of injury.

MR. LABOUCHERE

rose to Order. He wished to point out to the Committee that he had not been allowed to go into questions of this kind, and that he would not be allowed to reply to the hon. Gentleman.

THE CHAIRMAN

I must say I think the hon. Member for Portsmouth is travelling a little wide of the Question.

SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF

said, he would not pursue the question. He must say that Mr. Lascelles, instead of being reprimanded for the course he had taken, ought to be congratulated. He had done that which was advantageous to all parties concerned; and if anybody's salary ought to be stopped it would be that of some Member of the Government, and not that of Mr. Lascelles.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

said, that unless hon. Members had something on their minds which they were prevented from bringing before the Committee he was afraid they had not much case. What he understood the hon. Baronet to say was this—that the leading principle on which Mr. Lascelles was required to act was as little interference as possible with the internal affairs of Bulgaria. Well, in spite of that, he abandoned the principle of non-interference—but it was only for the purpose of obtaining a modification of the original Address to the Prince. He interfered in the draft of the Address, and that was an abandonment of the principle of non-interference altogether. As he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) understood it, Mr. Lascelles would have interfered further if he had thought he could have done any good. What was Mr. Lascelles' position? He had a choice of two things, either to signify his disapproval of the action of the Prince and his colleagues, by having nothing to do with the Address, or to make the best of a bad bargain, and not separate himself from the rest of his colleagues. What was the logical conclusion of the remarks of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) with reference to Mr. Lascelles? Why this, that he would have wished him to go to the Prince, saying—"I protest against your whole proceedings, and I am going out of Bulgaria." The hon. Member would have had Mr. Lascelles go to the Prince, and say—"I so highly disapprove of your proceed- ings that I leave you and yours." Well, if he had done that, the Prince of Bulgaria might have replied—"If you want to leave my country, you are at perfect liberty to do so—it is your affair and not mine; but I object that you, as the Representative of England, should sepaate your self from the Diplomatic Body." Suppose Mr. Lascelles had gone; would anybody have taken his place? But suppose Mr. Lascelles had said to the Prince—"You have suspended the Constitution of Bulgaria." The Prince would have replied—"Not at all; I have only brought in a Peace Preservation Act." Mr. Lascelles would have said—"You have arrested a certain number of honourable gentlemen." But the reply would have been—"Not at all; I have only arrested a certain number of dissolute ruffians and village tyrants." If Mr. Lascelles had adopted the opinions of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), the Prince would have been perfectly justified in saying—"Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones."

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, he should not divide the Committee on the question. They had had an opportunity of discussing the conduct of Mr. Lascelles, and of listening to the very mild defence of the hon. Baronet the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. He thought they might gather from the hon. Baronet's remarks that he agreed very much with their protest. If the Government would not go so far as to withdraw altogether our Representative from Bulgaria, he trusted they would consider the desirability of withdrawing Mr. Lascelles, and of sending someone to replace him who had not compromised himself in this extraordinary way. The hon. Baronet had said that the Address could not be altered when Mr. Lascelles counselled an alteration of it, because the Prince would not have an opportunity of saying whether he permitted it. If that was a specimen of the freedom of speech in Bulgaria, he could only say—"Heaven help Bulgaria."

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

asked what would have been the effect of adopting the policy recommended by the hon. Member? It was not certain what would have been the attitude of France; but it was probable that at least Austria, Germany, and Russia would have agreed to a strong unmodi- fied declaration. As it was, Mr. Lascelles detached France and Italy from their colleagues, the Representatives of Germany, Austria, and Russia, and in this way obtained a modification of the speech. The change in the speech seemed to him (Sir Charles W. Dilke) to have been a very important one. He would not go into the question touched upon by the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen) as to the total withdrawal of our Representative from Bulgaria. He could only say he did not think it would be to the interests of England to withdraw our Representative from such a country as Bulgaria. The hon. Member had mentioned some cases where it had been necessary to withdraw the British Representatives; but he could not say that much good was done by those withdrawals. It was desirable in our own interests to keep our Representative in Bulgaria to look after the interests of our own people. In the case referred to, Lord Palmerston had ceased to hold Office because he had taken important action in the internal affairs of a foreign State without consulting his Colleagues. The hon. Member had asked what the Government thought of the action of Mr. Lascelles; and he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) could only repeat that the opinion of Lord Granville would be found in the last despatch in the Papers—the despatch from which he had quoted the most important paragraph. He would repeat some lines from that despatch. Lord Granville said— This speech goes further in some of its expressions than Her Majesty's Government would themselves have desired; but they can understand the difficulty you would have had in separating yourself from your colleagues on such an occasion, and the more so as the Asembly had already pronounced itself in favour of the Prince's proposals; and the Address could not, therefore, be considered as designed to influence their vote, or as having the same political importance as the one delivered before the meeting of the Assembly.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF

asked whether it would not be a good thing to appoint local merchants to the post of Vice Consul in small unimportant places? These men would have something to live on already, and their appointment might lead to economy.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

wished to know whether there was, practically, any limit to the legal absence allowed to Consuls? The reason he asked this was, because he had heard many comments passed as to the absence from his post of a Consul in Egypt for 18 months or two years.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

Why was he absent?

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

did not know why this gentleman had been absent so long. This, he knew, was only a solitary case; but it was an instance of an over-generous allowance of leave. It seemed to him that if this gentleman could be spared away from his post for so long, there was good ground for reducing his salary.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

did not know who the hon. Member referred to; but if he would give him (Sir Charles W. Dilke) private information on the point, he would look into the matter. The Vice Consuls in Egypt did not hold important offices. With regard to the question put to him by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) as to the small Vice Consulates, there was no absolute rule in the Foreign Office as to whether the persons selected should be persons sent out from England or persons on the spot. The Department encouraged the appointments of persons on the spot, and a great many of the less important Consulships were held by local merchants. There were cases where foreign complications had arisen, or were likely to arise, in which it was as well to send out Consuls from England.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, that in some instances the Established Church chaplains attached to the Consulates were paid by the State. There was no reason why this should be, and he thought it would be much more satisfactory if the chaplains were paid by the subscriptions of persons living in the localities. He was told that it was the rule for the State to pay the chaplains a sum equal to that subscribed; and if that system existed, he hoped his hon. Friend (Sir Charles W. Dilke) would take means to put an end to it. He should let it be known at the Consulates that if they wanted chaplains they should pay for them.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, the practice of appointing paid chaplains was being put an end to as vacancies occurred. It was, however, difficult to abolish paid chaplaincies that had existed in the past.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

(6.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £4,097, 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 1882, for the Expenses of the Mixed Commissions established under the Treaties with Foreign Powers for suppressing the Traffic in Slaves, and of other Establishments in connection with that object, including the Muscat Subsidy.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

said, he proposed to move the reduction of this Vote by the amount of the Muscat Subsidy, which he considered a totally unnecessary charge. The necessity for it had passed. Years ago it was considered only temporary, and yet from time to time it was proposed, and yet no ground in the world was adduced in support of it. In, however, last year, one of the Lords of the Treasury, in a letter written by him, said— I take this opportunity of recommending you to remind Lord Granville that no payment should be made of the Muscat Subsidy for 1880–1 without the express sanction of Her Majesty's Treasury. It seemed to him that the view the Treasury took of the matter was correct, and that this subsidy should be no longer granted. It amounted to £1,800 per annum.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £2,297, 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 1882, for the Expenses of the Mixed Commissions established under the Treaties with Foreign Powers for suppressing the Traffic in Slaves, and of other Establishments in connection with that object, including the Muscat Subsidy."—(Mr. Arthur O'Connor.)

MR. CROPPER

wished to know whether any part of the Muscat Subsidy was charged to the revenues of India?

LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH

said, the payment of this subsidy had been brought about by a series of complicated circumstances. Some years ago the Indian Government agreed to the subsidy; and, subsequently, when Sir Bartle Frere went on his mission with the object of suppressing the Slave Trade, it was agreed that the subsidy should be continued to the Sultan of Muscat—being made jointly by India and England. So long as the Sultan of Muscat, as well as the Sultan of Zanzibar, continued to fulfil the obligations he had undertaken, it would be incumbent on the Government to pay half the subsidy. The subject was not lost sight of by the Government, and when the first opportunity to reduce the charge occurred they would avail themselves of it.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

said, the statement of the noble Lord on this subject was distinguished by the accuracy which always characterized his answers. He (Mr. Arthur O'Connor), however, was sorry he had not been able to gather from the noble Lord anything to explain the departure of the Treasury from the attitude they took up in November, 1880. If this letter he had quoted from was well grounded—and it appeared to have been—the answer of the noble Lord was entirely out of accord with it, and required some explanation. He was prepared to withdraw his Motion on the understanding that the Government were considering the matter.

MR. HEALY

said, that before the Motion was withdrawn, he wished to deprecate the zeal with which Her Majesty's Government devoted their attention to putting down the Slave Trade in other countries, without turning their attention to the slave trade in Ireland.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

(7.) £7,047, to complete the sum for Tonnage Bounties, &c. and Liberated African Department.

(8.) £870, to complete the sum for the Suez Canal (British Directors).

MR. MONK

asked the Government if they thought it desirable to continue paying £1,400 a-year to keep Directors of the Suez Canal Company in Paris, in order to attend an occasional meeting, and to communicate occasionally with M. de Lesseps. He was aware that the late Government had fixed the remuneration; but it appeared to him that the duties of these gentlemen were such as appertained to the Embassy at Paris. He wished to know whether the matter had been considered by the present Government, and whether they thought it desirable that three Directors should be maintained at a cost of £1,400 a-year? He wished to know, also, what the item in the Estimates "extra receipts," which was set down at £800, really meant?

LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH

said, the extra receipts were, firstly, fees paid to the Directors of the Suez Canal Company; and, secondly, the interest on the shares that might be called "qualifying shares," bought by this country to enable the Directors to sit on the Board. This matter had not been now for the first time brought under his notice; and he believed that some Correspondence furnished last year showed the duties of the Directors to be important, and such as occupied a great deal of time.

MR. MONK

wisked to know whether the noble Lord would give an assurance to bring this subject of the permanent resident Directors, who were not connected with the Embassy, before the Government?

LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH

said, he should be most happy to consider the matter, and bring it under the notice of the Government.

Vote agreed to.

(9.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £20,751, 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 1882, in aid of Colonial Local Revenue, and for the Salaries and Allowances of Governors, &c, and for other Charges connected with the Colonies, including Expenses incurred under 'The Pacific Islanders Protection Act, 1875.'

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

said, he objected to an item in this Vote for the Falkland Islands. Last year there was a Vote for £1,200 for Gambia in aid of the Mail Service; but that was cut out because the income exceeded the expenditure; but now a precisely similar charge, amounting to £1,000, was made in aid of the Mail Service to the Falkland Islands. Those Islands did not, however, require this aid, and it was purely a gratuity. They were progressing very remarkably, and the population, which in 1861 was 566, was now 1,600. The Revenue in l867 was £6,900; in 1876, £9,150; in 1878, £11,576. The imports had risen from £15,000, in 1865, to £38,000, in 1879; and the exports from £17,000, in 1865, to £71,340, in 1879. He doubted if there was any place in the world which could show the same increase in population, exports, imports, and revenue. Every year there was a surplus; and if for the same reason the grant to the Gambia was withdrawn, à fortiori this grant ought also to be withdrawn. He, therefore, begged to move the reduction of the Vote by £1,000.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £19,751, 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 1882, in aid of Colonial Local Revenue, and for the Salaries and Allowances of Governors, &c, and for other Charges connected with the Colonies, including Expenses incurred under 'The Pacific Islanders Protection Act, 1875.'"—(Mr. Arthur O'Connor.)

LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH

said, that, owing to certain circumstances, the charges for this Mail Service had been increased, and the whole cost would be a very heavy burden upon these Islands.

MR. COURTNEY

explained that the breakdown of a schooner, which had carried on part of the service, had necessitated arrangements which increased the cost from £800 to £1,800, and of this the Islands would pay £800.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

could not regard the explanations as sufficient. He had shown, from official statistics, that there was no necessity whatever for this grant, seeing that the Islands had no debts and had an annually recurring surplus. The surplus this year would be considerably more than the proposed grant in aid. However, it was pretty plain that the Committee hardly cared to divide, and he would not divide upon the point.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question again proposed.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

said, he wished to draw attention to the item for Heligoland. He complained of the Vote not being limited to the Governor's salary, as had been decided by the Colonial Office and the Treasury. He also wished to ask some questions respecting Natal and the Transvaal. There was an over-draft made by the British authorities in the Transvaal, some time ago, on the Standard Bank to the extent of £111,000. That, he believed, had not been repaid, and he did not know whether any steps had been taken to repay it. But when an officer of the Treasury was asked about it by a Select Committee, he said that, in the event of the Bank calling that sum in, he supposed it would be necessary to apply immediately to Parliament for a Vote in aid. Another answer would, he thought, cause the Boers to be rather glad of the Convention. The officer said it was hoped that it might be possible to impose taxation to the extent of £50,000 or £60,000 on the Natives, and that might prevent the necessity of applying to Parliament. The Boers had, by their heroic stand, not only saved their independence, but secured themselves from a deliberate plan by the British Treasury to tax them in order to repay the expenses which the British had chosen to incur, including this overdraft. He was glad that that expectation had been disappointed. The money would have to be paid some time or other, and he presumed it would be necessary to ask Parliament for a Vote. He wished to know what steps had been taken with regard to that matter?

LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH

replied, that, with respect to the Heligoland Vote, Heligoland was not in the same position as the Falkland Islands, for it had no surplus. With regard to the other matter, in consequence of the Convention with Boers, it would be necessary for the Government, this Session, to propose a Vote in aid, and then the subject of this over-draft could be discussed.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

(10.) £1,105, to complete the sum for the Orange River Territory and St. Helena (Non-Effective Charges).

(11.) £17,300, to complete the sum for Subsidies to Telegraph Companies.