HC Deb 09 March 1883 vol 276 cc2008-18

(7.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £31,312, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1883, for the Expenses of Her Majesty's Embassies and Missions Abroad.

MR. ONSLOW

urged the Government to postpone this Vote, as it contained a good deal of contentious matter.

LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE

replied, that there were peculiar reasons, which he hoped the Committee would accept, for not postponing this Vote. If it were not proceeded with, he himself would be put to very great personal inconvenience, because an important meeting of the Danubian Conference was to be held to-day, at which he was obliged to attend. It would be exceedingly difficult for him to be in the House and at the Conference at the same time; and, looking at the peculiar character of the situation, he hoped the Committee would take the Vote, and allow him to offer any explanation on any of the points involved. He thought there were some points which he had anticipated, and he hoped he might be allowed to offer explanations now.

MR. ONSLOW

said, he should be very sorry to put the noble Lord to any inconvenience; but still he thought that if the Committee had to vote such a large sum of money as this, the personal inconvenience of the noble Lord could be set against the question of the enormous additional sum of money which they now required. He would be glad if the noble Lord would explain how £16,500 in the Vote given could have been spent on telegrams, and he would remind the Committee that they had already voted a large sum in excess for telegrams in another Vote. This was an enormous sum they were asked to pay; and there was also another sum of £9,730 for "Special Missions." He was not aware what "Special Missions" there had been. They had had no particulars whatever, and no explanation had been made to them why Special Missions had been sent. An explanation on these points was due to the House. He did not intend to obstruct this Vote. If it would be inconvenient for the noble Lord (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) to come down to-morrow, hon. Members would not be unreasonable and insist upon his coming, for the simple reason that they themselves would be obliged to be present. He trusted, however, that the noble Lord would enter somewhat into detail as to the enormous sum they were now asked to vote.

MR. LABOUOHERE

said, that, no doubt, this £16,000 was a large excess for telegrams, though he supposed it was in connection with Egypt and the East. It was necessary that a large number of telegrams should be sent; therefore, he did not quarrel with the item. But as to this £9,730 for Special Missions, they should have some explanation to show whether or not the charge was legitimate. One item he would have to ask an explanation of was this—"Expenses incurred in Moscow in anticipation of the Czar's Coronation, £320." He supposed this expense was incurred through a house being taken for Her Majesty's Representative when it was expected that the Czar's Coronation would take place last year. This seemed to have been rather a reckless proceeding; and the explanation, no doubt, would be, that when they had to send a Special Mission on an occasion of this sort, they had to take time by the forelock and hire a house. This would lead him to suppose that they were going to send a Special Mission to the Czar's Coronation; and, on these grounds, he would oppose the item. As to these Missions, he knew it was the rule or habit of Her Majesty to send some special Representative—some Nobleman—as a species of glorified beadle to take part in Coronation ceremonies at Foreign Courts; but he saw no reason why the House of Commons should allow it to be done at the expense of the country. In the present case, we had a great Embassy at St. Petersburgh, and there was no reason in the world why our Ambassador there should not represent Her Majesty at the Coronation of the Czar. It was merely the love of spending money, and the love of Gentlemen sitting on the Treasury Bench, whoever they might be, of following bad precedents which brought about these Special Missions. To his mind, the inauguration of the President of a Republic was a far nobler thing than the Coronation of an Emperor. ["Oh!"] Well, everyone could enjoy his own opinion—the hon. Alderman opposite (Mr. R. N. Fowler) was entitled to take another view of the matter if he chose. The hon. Alderman, if he liked, could go to Russia as the special Representative of the City of London, and, no doubt, would not only be a worthy Representative of the City of London, but a fine Representative of England. So far as he (Mr. Labouchere) was concerned, he objected to these Special Missions. No one could say why they were sent. As he had said, we had an Ambassador at St. Petersburgh; therefore, they wore only sending coals to Newcastle by despatching one or two, or perhaps half-a-dozen, Noblemen as a Mission to the Russian capital. He intended to move the reduction of the Vote, and wished to have a distinct understanding from the noble Lord—first, whether there was to be a Special Mission this year to Russia; and, secondly, whether, if there was to be one, it would not be well for them to have the expense charged beforehand, instead of having it in a subsidiary Estimate as they had last year? The House would then be able to say whether the charge was a proper one or not. Do not let the Government come to them and say—"The thing is done now—you must pay the money." He begged to move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £320.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £30,992, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1883, for the Expenses of Her Majesty's Embassies and Missions Abroad."—(Mr. Labouchere.)

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

said, he saw, in connection with this Vote, that in the Appropriation Accounts just returned to Parliament, last year there was a saving of £1,700, which was explained by the fact that a charge usually attached to the Embassy at Constantinople had lapsed during Lord Dufferin's Special Mission to Egypt. He (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) wished to know if a diminution corresponding with that of the Vote would take place in the grant for Lord Dufferin?

MR. DAWSON

desired to be informed whether anything was included in the Vote for the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Errington) and his reported Embassy?

MR. MONK

asked whether this would be the whole of the Vote for Lord Dufferin's Mission, or would there be a Supplementary Vote?

LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE

said, he must apologize to the Committee for taking the Vote at this late hour (2.30 A.M.); but, as he had explained, he had to attend a meeting of the Conference to-day, and it was for the convenience of the Members of the Conference, not for his own convenience, as the hon. Member for Guildford suggested, that he desired to dispose of the matter without being put to the necessity of coming down to the House again. As to the most important point which had been raised—that of the telegrams—he had been permitted the other evening, when the telegrams in the earlier part of the Estimates were in question—that was to say, the telegrams sent by the Foreign Office as distinguished from those sent to the Foreign Office—to make an explanation, because he had felt that the two items really came together. He had satisfied the Committee on that occasion, he thought, that the matter had received very careful attention, and that this great increase—and in this he was supported by his Predecessor in Office—was entirely owing to the condition of affairs in Egypt, and that when the special increase was separated from what might be called the ordinary expense of the Office in the matter of telegrams, it would be found that there was really no increase at all. There was a good deal of discussion on the matter, and, no doubt, it deserved the very close attention of the Committee. He now came to the point raised by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere)—a point on which he had quite anticipated that some questions would be asked. The circumstances as to the change now made were accurately stated by the hon. Member. As the Committee were aware, preparations had been made for the Coronation of the Czar at Moscow; but, for reasons which it was unnecessary to enter into, that Coronation was postponed. Preparations were made by every great European Government which intended to be represented; and, as the hon. Member had said, it was necessary, in the matter of house accommodation, under the circumstances, to take time by the forelock. The sum in the Estimates represented the payment made for the hire of a house, and a fine to the owner for breaking the contract when it was suddenly found that the Coronation was not going to take place. He (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) could, if necessary, furnish the hon. Member with the exact items. Then he came to the point on which the hon. Member wished for some explanation—namely, as to what it was intended to do in regard to the Coronation which was going to take place this year. It was a fact that there was going to be a Special Mission, and he was in a position to mention a circumstance which he believed would be well received by the Committee, the House, and the country, and that was that the Special Representative of Her Majesty would be His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh. He need not remind the Committee that the Duke of Edinburgh was well fitted, personally, to discharge the duties that would devolve upon him, and that, owing to his close relationship with the Imperial Family of Russia, he would be singularly welcome in that country, both to the Imperial Family and to the people. As to the expenses of Lord Dufferin's Mission, it was to be explained that there was a careful set-off against everything which had been allowed to His Excellency for his Special Mission to Egypt. In regard to all those allowances and circumstances which remained the same there had been no special charge whatever. Only those items had been charged in which there had been actually an increase of expense; therefore, on the whole, there had been no increase at all in those matters which were found usually charged under the head of the Mission to Constantinople. He had all the items before him; but he hardly thought the Committee would care to have them. He only thought it right to explain to the Committee that there had not been anything like the smallest attempt at anything like running up a double bill or charge; but that everything had been carefully looked into. As to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk), it was impossible for him to say whether or not any further charge would have to be made in respect of Lord Dufferin's Mission, because the exact duration of the Mission—how long he would remain in Egypt, when he would return to Constantinople, and so on—was a question which would depend on the course of events in Egypt. At this moment it would be rash in him to undertake to say that there would be no further charge; nevertheless, he need not remind the Committee that Lord Dufferin's Mission to Egypt was a temporary one, and that there was no intention of requiring him to remain permanently in the country. Sir Edward Malet was the ordinary Representative of Her Majesty in that country; and he, with Lord Dufferin, had discharged all the duties which had devolved on the Mission, and there was every intention on the part of Her Majesty's Government to continue their confidence in him. A question had been put as to the Estimate of last year—whether the amount of saving had been properly accredited?

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

said, that, perhaps, he had not been sufficiently clear. What he desired to know was, whether there would be a saving in consequence of Lord Dufferin's Special Mission to Egypt this year, in the same way that there was a saving of £1,747 in connection with the Special Mission of Mr. Goschen to Egypt or Constantinople last year?

LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE

said, he thought he understood the point—whether the saving had been properly accredited? Assuming that he took the question properly, he answered in the affirmative, although the circumstances of the two cases were different. The right hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen) had not been a member of the Diplomatic Corps, and the whole circumstances of his Mission were matters of special and peculiar arrangement, and a great number of items had to be considered. He (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) was in Constantinople on another Mission at the time the right hon. Member for Ripon was on his; therefore, the circumstances of the cases were fully fixed on his memory. He trusted the explanation he had given would be satisfactory.

MR. DAWSON

said, the noble Lord had not referred to the matter to which he (Mr. Dawson) had drawn attention—namely, the reported Embassy of the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Errington).

LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE

said, it had been repeatedly stated by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board that he knew nothing of such a Mission as that suggested; therefore, it was unnecessary to touch upon the matter further.

MR. ONSLOW

said, he thought he was justified in bringing forward the question of the telegrams for which £16,500 was charged under this Vote. The item was described as consequent on the state of affairs abroad, and they had passed a somewhat similar Vote for the Foreign Office. In the present item, however, was included a sum in connection with the Legation at China, which was partly repayable out of the Indian Revenues. He had no notion how that was, and he would ask for information as to whether India had been consulted at all in the matter, and whether she had consented to pay anything? He was not sure that the sum was not connected in some way with the opium trade. It appeared to him to be an extra, and he should like to know whether India would some day be told that she must pay some portion of this Vote without being in any way consulted by Her Majesty's Government? That sort of thing had been done before. He really thought that he and others who were interested in this matter had a right to demand some explanation of how it was that India was called upon to pay a portion of this sum.

LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE

said, he had on a former occasion given very full information with regard to the sum in the former Vote to which the hon. Member had alluded. He admitted there was a slight error in the words employed, which ought to have been "abroad generally." With regard to the further point raised in connection with the Legation to China, this charge, which had been on the Estimates of the last two or three years, would be renewed for the same period. Hon. Members might be assured that the matter had received the most careful examination.

MR. LABOUOHERE

said, he was not in that wild state of excitement which the noble Lord anticipated because the Duke of Edinburgh was going to represent Her Majesty at the Coronation of the Czar. He objected to anyone going, whether Duke or otherwise. They had a Gentleman already at St. Petersburg, who, if he was able to conduct diplomatic business, was equally able to carry out the tom-foolery about to take place. They had refused to give the smallest pittance to the thousands of men who were starving in Ireland; and, at the same time, they were asked to grant an enormous sum for the purpose in question, which amounted to an insulting and wasteful attack on the pockets of the taxpayers of the country. The noble Lord had not replied to one of his questions—were they to have on the Estimates the amount which it was anticipated the journey of the Duke of Edinburgh would cost; or were they to be told that the money must be paid because it had already been expended? There were many Gentlemen who, had they known that the Vote would be taken so late, would have remained to oppose it; and he thought that advantage ought not to be taken of their absence. If, however, the Government thought otherwise, he would like to take the division at once.

LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE

said, in answer to the hon. Member who had just sat down, he thought it impossible that the Vote for this Mission could appear on the ordinary Estimates of the year, because the circumstances which determined the decision of the Government had only recently been arrived at. The Mission was a matter concerning which an accurate Estimate could not 37et be formed; but he was bound to say that he did not anticipate any greater expenditure of money being incurred by the fact of the Duke of Edinburgh attending the Mission than would be incurred if it had been confided to any other Nobleman. It must be borne in mind that there were peculiar circumstances in connection with the present case. The great importance attaching to the occasion, and the intimate alliance existing between the Royal Families of the two countries, were circumstances in which the Government believed that they were acting in conformity with the feeling of the country, and in conformity with precedent, in sending a Special Mission on the conditions proposed to assist at the approaching ceremony. That being so, he thought that no fitter person could have been chosen than His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh.

MR. ILLINGWORTH

said, he hoped that the proposed Mission would not cause any unnecessary charge to be thrown upon the people of this country. It was true that a relationship existed between the Duke of Edinburgh and the Czar of Russia; but when such relationships existed, those invited, as a rule, were very willing to pay the expense connected either with a wedding or any other ceremony. For his part, he regretted that we should have indulged in this ridiculous expenditure. The noble Lord said that the relationships between this country and Russia were of a very important character; but he was sorry to point out that notwithstanding all this, we did not get on very well with the people of the latter country. There was in England a very great prejudice against Russia, and he was bound to add that there was amongst the people of Russia a great prejudice against us. As a protest against the expenditure, he should be glad to vote for the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Northampton.

Mr. O'DONNELL

asked for information with regard to the charge of £75, which appeared on page 37 of the Estimates, as gratuities to two Naval officers employed on the Sfax Commission. He had already asked a question on the subject. As he understood, a large amount of British property was destroyed at Sfax, and a Commission of officers had been appointed by France and Italy to inquire into the circumstances. But he also understood that as soon as the investigation seemed to involve the conduct of the French soldiery, the French Associate closed the Commission, stating that he would not allow any inquiry to be made which reflected on the honour of the French Army. The Investigation Commission was, therefore, no Commission at all; and he now asked whether there was any estimate of British loss; if so, how was it arrived at, and had the French Government consented to pay any indemnity for such loss? He had endeavoured to obtain some information on the subject from the Predecessor of the noble Lord, who, however, was not remarkable for the readiness with which he communicated or volunteered information; and he now asked the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he was in a position to furnish the desired information? Of course, if it was inconvenient to reply to the question at the moment, he would defer it till another clay.

LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE

said, he would do his best to answer the question on Notice.

MR. AKTHUR O'CONNOR

said, the Committee would, in his opinion, do well to obtain information with respect to the Special Mission to assist at the Coronation of the Czar. If he understood the noble Lord, there would afterwards be submitted to the Committee what might be called an Estimate—that was to say, after the Coronation had taken place, and this interesting family gathering had been brought to an end. Now, it seemed to him that to apply the term Estimate to money that had been already spent, and which the Government, without any previous explanation, said must be paid because it had been spent, was to make a strange use of words.

LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE

said, he admitted the inconvenience of Supplementary Estimates, and the remark applied not only to this particular Supplementary Vote, but to all of them generally. It would, no doubt, be desirable that every item of this kind should be brought forward only once in the year. At the same time, he did not think there was any greater objection to the present charge than that which applied to all Supplementary Estimates. As already explained, it was not possible to insert it in the regular Estimates, because the decision of the Government was only arrived at a few days ago.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

said, he thought the Estimate might be issued in amended form. They had a similar Paper issued when the Government came into Office. Their Predecessors had prepared the Estimates, and the changes made at the time necessitated alterations in the Estimates. On that occasion the Prime Minister caused an amended Estimate to be inserted in the Estimate already issued. That year there was an amended form of a particular Vote, and he could not understand why there could not be an amended form issued as a separate Paper—Class V., Vote 1, Diplomatic Services, which would enable the Committee to come to a decision with regard to that branch of the Service, not in a Supplementary Estimate, but in due course, when the Vote in question came on in the regular Estimates.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 18; Noes 59: Majority 41.—(Div. List, No. 24.)

Original Question put, and agreed to.

(8.) £1,750, Consular Services.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

said, he did not want to raise any objection to the Vote, but merely rose to put a question to the Government as to their intentions regarding subsequent Votes. He wished to ask if the Government would consent to postpone Vote 3, Class VII., and also Vote 3 in the Revenue Department?

MR. COURTNEY

said, if it was found there was any serious objection to those Votes, the Government would not press them now. Perhaps, however, the hon. Gentleman would raise the point when the Votes were reached.

Vote agreed to.

(9.) £1,182, Suppression of the Slave Trade.

(10.) £3,500, Colonies, Giants in Aid.

(11.) £6,600, Subsidies to Telegraph Companies.