§ (29.) £21,730, Diplomatic Services.
§ MR. MONKwished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a question as to the Special Embassy of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen). The expense of his Special Embassy was £6,950, and he (Mr. Monk) wished to know whether this was a sum in excess of the charge made when Mr. Layard was Ambassador at Constantinople? He should be glad if the Government would explain whether a portion of this sum was salary to the right hon. Gentleman, and the rest for his outfit, or for what purpose the sum was asked. He should also like to know what was the meaning of the next item—"Sir Charles Rivers Wilson's expenses on Commission of Liquidation in Egypt £950?" This charge, it appeared to him, ought to be borne by the Egyptian Court. Sir Charles Rivers Wilson was sent out at the request of the Khedive, and surely his expenses ought not to be paid by this country.
MR. NORTHCOTEhoped that some explanation would be given to the Committee of the great discrepancy in the charge in the original Estimate for Special Missions and Services and the actual expenditure. He also concurred with the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) in asking for information in reference to the charge of £950 in connection with the expenses of Sir Charles Rivers Wilson. The items for the International Commission for revising Mixed Tribunals in Egypt, and the charge for the expenses of the British Commissioners in the Mixed Commission for inquiring into and defining the Limits of the North-Western Boundary of the Liberian Republic, also required explanation. He further asked if it was not possible to include the cost of telegrams in such cases as the Special Embassy to Constantinople in the ordinary Vote for the Mission?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he saw no reason why the suggestion of his hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Northcote), in regard to the cost of telegrams, should not be adopted. In reply to the observations of his hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk), he might say that there had been no salaries paid in connection with Sir Charles Rivers Wilson's Mission to Egypt. The expenses of Mr. Goschen's Mission to Constantinople, which were of a public nature, had been paid, and also the cost of the whole staff employed by the right hon. Gentleman. Included in the Vote were several charges for journeys backwards and forwards between this country and Constantinople, and also for the outfit of one of the Secretaries (Mr. Jervis). He held the details in his hand; but he did not suppose that the Committee would desire that he should enter into minute details. The principal items in connection with the Special Missions were as follows:—1st, the journey of Lieutenant Vincent to Bulgaria. Lieutenant Vincent went out with the noble Lord the Member for Calne (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) upon the European Commission. He was afterwards asked by Her Majesty's Government to go up to Bulgaria, and he accordingly went to Bulgaria and Greece. This Mission involved a charge of £200. There was also a charge of £200 for Colonel Wilson, for performing certain duties on the Asiatic side of 987 Turkey. Colonel Wilson was also sent to Bulgaria. Lieutenant Chernside was the British Turkish Commissioner at Batoum, and there was a charge for his expenses. Generally speaking, these extra sums for Special Missions were caused by the difficulties placed in the way of our Military Consuls in travelling on the Asiatic side of Turkey in consequence of the disturbed state of the country.
§ MR. RYLANDSremarked, that his hon. Friend had not explained the item connected with Sir Charles Rivers Wilson. He should like to know how long Sir Charles Rivers Wilson was engaged upon his Mission. He was sent out to assist the Khedive in a somewhat unprecedented manner; but while he was absent from this country, Sir Charles Rivers Wilson actually retained an important office under the Crown as Controller General of the National Debt Office. Although placed officially in connection with the Khedive, he still retained this important office under the Crown, but did not receive the salary of Controller General of the National Debt Office. It was a most singular arrangement altogether, and at the time it was made he (Mr. Rylands) raised a strong objection to it. As soon as Sir Charles Rivers Wilson was able to return to England from the important employment in which he had been engaged, he resumed his office of Controller General of the National Debt Office. He then went out again to Egypt as Commissioner of Liquidation. He (Mr. Rylands) wished to know how long Sir Charles Rivers Wilson was so engaged, and if he received a salary during that time from the National Debt Office; also, generally, what arrangement took place with the Government both with regard to the salary and the expenses incurred by him?
§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHstated that all the arrangements were made by the late Government, and he was not personally very conversant with them. He believed that Sir Charles Rivers Wilson had rendered important services both to this country and to Egypt.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEwas afraid that he could not recollect offhand exactly what the arrangement was; but he believed that the gentleman who filled the second position in the National 988 Debt Office undertook the duties of Sir Charles Rivers Wilson, and that Sir Charles Rivers Wilson gave up, at all events, a portion of his salary to that gentleman. He regretted that he was not aware that the question was likely to be brought forward. If he had been he would have refreshed his memory. No additional expense was thrown upon the public; the duties were discharged by a person who was perfectly competent to undertake them, and they were paid for out of Sir Charles Rivers Wilson's salary.
§ MR. RYLANDSsaid, it was perfectly true that when Sir Charles Rivers Wilson was appointed to assist the Khedive and became a Member of the Egyptian Cabinet, he ceased to receive a salary as Controller of the National Debt Office; but the singular arrangement was that in the absence of Sir Charles Rivers Wilson £500 a-year was paid to the Assistant Controller, so that the Assistant Controller was paid for time which had already been purchased by the State, and was able to do the duties of another person who was receiving a large salary as Administrator in Egypt. What he (Mr. Rylands) wished to ask now was, whether during the time Sir Charles Rivers Wilson was serving upon the Commission of Liquidation he received any salary, or whether the former course was adopted and, while Sir Charles Rivers Wilson received no salary as Controller General of the National Debt Office, the second officer received £500 a-year for doing his duties?
§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, he would make inquiries and give an explanation on the Report.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (30.) £4,365, Consular Services.
§ (31.) £12,188, Colonies, Grants in Aid.
§ MR. MONKwished to point out that a large sum amounting to £4,000 was asked for the passages of Governors, in addition to a sum of £6,500 included in the original Estimate, and making £10,500 altogether. He thought the Committee was entitled to have a little more information than was contained in the heading "Passages of Governors, &c." He would, therefore, ask his right hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Grant 989 Duff) to explain what number of Governors there were, or for what purpose this large sum of £4,000 was required?
MR. GORSTalso wished to put a Question to the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies—namely, what the present and future arrangements wore respecting the High Commissioner of the Western Pacific? He believed that Sir Arthur Gordon, who had been removed from Fiji to New Zealand, still retained the position of Western Pacific High Commissioner? He wished to know if the office of High Commissioner was to continue to be held by the Governor of New Zealand. It was obvious that this would be a most inconvenient arrangement, seeing that the Governor in New Zealand would be at so great a distance from the seat of his jurisdiction as High Commissioner. He wished to know whether the arrangement by which Sir Arthur Gordon retained both appointments was temporary or permanent?
§ CAPTAIN O'SHEAasked, what was the meaning of an item of £2,500 for "Half of cost of Conversion, &c.?"
MR. GRANT DUFFsaid, he would answer in the first instance the Question of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst). Nothing could be more reasonable than that Question, for he admitted that it would be most inconvenient to make provision that the Governor of New Zealand should be in perpetuity also High Commissioner for the Western Pacific. The present arrangement was a purely temporary one. As the hon. and learned Member knew, Sir Arthur Gordon was the First Commissioner of the Western Pacific, and he had shown considerable ability in directing the affairs intrusted to him. With regard to the Question of the hon. and gallant Member for Clare (Captain O'Shea), who inquired what was meant by the item of £2,500 for "Half the cost in 1880–81 of Conversion, &c.," it had, of course, no sort of reference to the conversion of the Natives to Christianity, but referred to the conversion of the ship called the Cruiser. He was not at all surprised that his hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) should ask for an explanation of the large additional sum included in the Estimate for the passages of Governors. The fact, however, was that during the last few months there had been, from various causes, a very unusual amount 990 of movement among the Colonial Governors. In the first place, Sir George Strahan came home from Barbadoes and then went out in temporary charge of the Cape when Sir Bartle Frere returned. Then Sir Hercules Robinson was brought to England from New Zealand to confer with the Government and was then sent out to South Africa. In the next place, General Lefroy was sent out to Tasmania, Sir George Strahan was brought back from the Cape, and Sir Hercules Robinson was sent to the Cape. There had, consequently, been an exceptional number of passages during the last few months.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (32.) £7,800, Tonnage Bounties, &c. and Liberated African Department.
§ MR. RYLANDSsaid, he should be very glad if he could induce Her Majesty's Government seriously to consider this Vote, which was, he believed, under an Act of Parliament. The charges under this Vote, which were incurred in the suppression of slavery, were a very serious matter. When a cruiser captured a slave dhow, the value of the prize was determined by the tonnage of the vessel, if she carried no slaves, or by the number of slaves captured. Experience had shown that the adoption of that system had led to a very serious amount of abuse, and many mere smuggling dhows had been captured and treated as slave dhows. The captains engaged in the suppression of the traffic under the existing system were enabled to stretch their power to a most unwarrantable extent. In a particular case mentioned in the Vote, we were called on to pay £10,566, because the captain of one of our cruisers had seized a vessel which was proved afterwards not to be a slave vessel. That was to say, that a captain employed in a certain service, and receiving his ordinary pay, was also allowed to run the chance of augmenting that pay by the receipt of a large bounty, provided that he was able to seize a vessel which he presumed to be a slave vessel. It amounted to this, that a premium was given to the captains of these cruisers, which was sufficient to induce them to run considerable risk in seizing vessels which, after all, might turn out not to have been engaged in the slave trade. He would be glad if the noble Lord the Financial Secretary 991 to the Treasury would tell the Committee the circumstances under which this country was called upon to pay this enormous sum of money, and what arrangement was made with the captain of the cruiser who captured the vessel wrongfully, and for whose mistake we were called on to pay, in regard to his responsibility, or whether there was any arrangement at all by which the action of the captains of cruisers in these seas might be checked. Was it a fact that we offered them a bounty which had the effect of inducing them to stretch their authority in taking possession of vessels that were not actually slave vessels? He entertained grave doubts whether the present system was not open to great abuse, and he hoped the Government would be able to say that something would be done to prevent the possibility in future of such an occurrence as that to which he referred.
§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, the occurrence in question happened several years ago—in 1876, he believed—and the reason why the amount of damages awarded had not been paid, was that there had been an appeal which had only recently been decided. The appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on behalf of the Crown had been dismissed with costs, and, in consequence, the sum of money included in the Estimate became payable.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (33.) £6,369, Subsidies to Telegraph Companies.
§ MR. RAMSAYasked for an explanation of the object for which this sum was paid in the shape of the subsidies to the Telegraph Companies? He asked the question, because it happened that the island in which he lived on the West Coast of Scotland had been deprived for something like four months of all means of telegraphic communication, in consequence of some accident which had occurred to the cable. He did not dispute the desirability of extending telegraphic communication to distant parts of the world, but he thought the British Islands had also a claim to consideration; and, so far as he could learn, in the case he had mentioned, there had not even been an attempt to find out what had been the cause of the interruption he certainly thought that when they were voting money to Telegraph Com- 992 panies for enabling us to communicate with foreign parts, we were entitled to expect some explanation of the cause why communication was not properly maintained at home. He knew he should be told that the revenue derived from this particular quarter was not such as to warrant a large expenditure of money; but he understood that one of the main grounds upon which Parliament agreed to hand over the telegraphs to the Government was that all parts of the Kingdom should be put into telegraphic communication. On the whole, the revenue derived from the telegraphs was profitable; and an isolated district which was not profitable was not to be wholly ignored on that account. He hoped he might receive an assurance that steps would be taken to put an end to the interruption of which he complained. The telegraphic communication in question had been enjoyed for many years, and he hoped to have some explanation of the reason why it had been restored. He had no wish to object in particular to this Vote; but he would certainly move a reduction of the Vote unless the noble Lord the Financial Secretary was able to give such information as would satisfy the Committee that there had been good grounds for withholding the expenditure necessary to restore the communication.
§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, that subsidies were paid to the Telegraph Companies for keeping up certain telegraphic communications which it would be inconvenient for the Post Office to maintain. He did not think this was the exact time for discussing the question whether the service abroad was better kept up than at home. All he could say in regard to the interruption of the telegraphic communication referred to by his hon. Friend (Mr. Ramsay) was that it had been occasioned by an accident, and that it had been extremely difficult to get a vessel adapted for this particular service to restore the communication. He hoped, before long, that the communication would be restored.
§ Vote agreed to.