§
(27.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £152,245, 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 1886, for the Expenses of Her Majesty's Embassies and Missions Abroad.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREobserved that there was a charge of £5,000 for the salary of the Agent in Egypt, and that there was a further charge of £2,000 for allowances. Hon. Members had been given to understand that another gentleman was going to Egypt. Ho (Mr. Labouchere) did not in the least complain that that gentleman should have been appointed to the office; but he wished to know something about the salaries to be paid. Sir Evelyn Baring was the Agent at present in Egypt; and he would like to know whether Sir Evelyn Baring was to receive £7,000 per annum after his departure from Egypt, and whether the gentleman who was to replace him was also to receive his expenses whilst in the country? "Expenses" was a very pleasant word, but it was perfectly well known that a Minister abroad practically received a salary in the payment 1748 of his expenses. He did not desire to raise the question of the advisability of sending a particular gentleman to Egypt. What he wanted was information as to what was intended from the financial point of view.
§ THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE TOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. BOURKE)said, he understood the hon. Gentleman to ask whether it was intended to pay a salary to the gentleman to be sent to Egypt.
MR, LABOUCHEREWhat I desire to know is, whether the salary of Sir Evelyn Baring will be continued, and whether the new salary is to be an extra one?
§ THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATEsaid, that Sir Evelyn Baring was coming home on leave, and no steps had been taken to appoint his successor. For aught that he (Mr. Bourke) knew, Sir Evelyn Baring might return to Egypt and continue to draw the same salary as hitherto. As to the gentleman who might be sent on a special Mission, his salary had not been determined upon by the Secretary of State. He did not think the Committee would take it for granted that that question should come before them during the present Session.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he thought the question ought to come before the Committee during the present Session. The right hon. Gentleman was aware that their Agents received allowances in addition to salary. In this particular case they were told that the Agent received £7,000 per annum, that he was going away, and that he would enjoy his salary during his absence, that while he was away a gentleman also with a large salary was to be sent to replace him. They were told that the extra salary was not to come before the House during the present year. He thought that was something strong. Surely £7,000 a-year was sufficient for them to pay their Representative in Egypt. It seemed, however, very likely that they would be called upon to pay double that amount. He would like it to be clearly understood whether they were to have an opportunity of raising any objection to an increase of the payment during the present year.
§ THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATEsaid, he had not said that Sir Evelyn Baring was coming away 1749 from Egypt in the sense which the hon. Gentleman appeared to have in mind. With respect to the salary of any other gentleman who might be sent to Egypt, the hon. Gentleman would have an ample opportunity of giving an opinion on the subject when the proper time came.
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked when, in the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman, the proper time would come—would it be before the end of the present Session? The Votes in Classes III. and IV. had been skipped over, and the Government were now attempting to take the Votes in Class V., which raised many grave diplomatic questions. Was it intended that the House should have an opportunity of discussing this subject before they separated, because, although they might have very considerable regard for individual Members, the Government was only an irresponsible Government—they were but an ornamental Government—
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he would try to keep himself within the Rules of Debate. What he contended was that, whatever the Government might be, this Parliament was likely, within a few weeks, to separate and not to meet again. It was, therefore, very necessary that hon. Members should know what course would be followed in regard to the point raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere). The Committee desired an opportunity of discussing matters which would arise on these diplomatic and other Votes.
§ MR. HIBBERTsaid, he thought he ought to explain why Classes III. and IV. had been omitted and Class V. taken. It was owing to an arrangement entered into during the discussion of the Estimates last year. A certain order was then decided upon, and it had been deemed desirable that the Votes should follow in succession the same routine this year as last year When they had taken Class I. this year, the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) had drawn his (Mr. Hibbert's) attention to the conversation which had taken place on the subject last year, and had asked whether several of the classes should not be deferred. Upon that he (Mr. Hibbert) had put down Classes II. and 1750 V., and the hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Holland), who was now filling the place that he had filled in the late Government, was simply carrying out his arrangement.
§ MR. ONSLOWsaid, there was an item of expenditure that perhaps his right hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Bourke) would explain, or which, if he could not, perhaps some hon. Member belonging to the Opposition would explain. On page 421 of the Estimates he saw an item of £10,300for Unforeseen Services. That was a very large item. He assumed that it included the Earl of Northbrook's Mission to Egypt. The item as put down gave them very little information. It was a most important item in connection with the Diplomatic Service; and if it were the case, as he imagined, that the expenses of the Earl of Northbrook's Mission were included, it was, he thought, due to the House and the country that the whole of that nobleman's Report should be made public. The whole of that Report had not been published, and he should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman below him (Mr. Bourke) whether he had considered the point? This was a legitimate question to raise; and certainly he, for one—he thought in common with nearly all who sat on the Benches behind the Government—was of opinion that before they had a discussion on Egyptian matters they ought to have the full text of the Earl of Northbrook's Report before them. Ho would ask how it was that only a partial and not a complete Report had been submitted to the House? The country was asked to vote a large sum for these Unforeseen Services, and in voting it it had a right to expect from the Government a quid pro quo—it was entitled to ask for full information respecting the Vote and the results achieved by it. For a large sum of money to be expended on sending a Minister abroad to report on certain matters for the benefit of the country, and, on the return of that Minister, to publish not the whole but only a part of his Report, was not treating the country nor the House with the respect due to them.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, that in his opinion it was very unfair to badger the present Government about Estimates over the preparation of which they had not presided, and as to which 1751 they could not be held responsible in any sense or way. The Government had been obliged to take up the figures of their Predecessors and make the most of them. It was not fair to challenge them with not having altered items and not having done certain things with regard to items as to which they had not had time to obtain information. He quite agreed with the hon. Gentleman near him that the Government could not be held responsible for Estimates they did not themselves prepare. On the face of the Estimates, however, there were one or two things upon which it was only reasonable that the Committee should expect some amount of information. The first item of this kind was one upon which there had been an increase of a considerable amount. On looking through the details, on page 419 of the Estimates, he found "Mexico £300" figuring as a new item. There were sundry items put down to Mexico this year which did not appear last year. Then on page 421, if he remembered rightly, there was an item of £1.400 or so for special services in Corea; what did that moan? Then, £1,600 had been spent in connection with the Afghan Boundary Commission. That sum of £1,600 was very moderate indeed; but in some Indian Papers, or Papers relating to India, which had come under his hand, he had seen an item of £120,000 put down in connection with the same service. He should like to ask the Government what had really been the cost of the Afghan Boundary Commission, or what was it to be, and how was it to be described? Was it a fair proportion to ask India to pay—this £120,000? Was the British Exchequer to bear no more than £1,600; and if that was the way the expense was to be distributed, why was that proportion adopted? How could this arrangement be considered fair to India—to the poor unfortunate inhabitants of that country, who were in no way responsible for the expenditure? He wished for information on these three points—what was the position of diplomatic affairs with Mexico; what was the Special Mission to Corea; and why was only £1,600 charged against the Imperial funds for the Afghan Boundary Commission, while so large a sum as £120,000 was to be abstracted from the pockets of the taxpayers of India?
§ MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, his hon. Friend (Mr. A. O'Connor) had started a most astounding theory—namely, that when one set of Ministers prepared Estimates and another set brought them in, the House of Commons was to fall between two stools, and was not to examine or discuss those Estimates. The hon. Member (Mr. A. Connor), however, had not adhered very strictly to his own theory, because, having laid down the doctrine that one set of Ministers were not responsible for the Estimates prepared by another set of Ministers who had immediately preceded them in Office, and that therefore the Government were "not to be badgered," he had gone on to complain of certain items being vague, and to request explanations in a manner that he (Mr. Labouchere) had thought very sensible. The Estimates were far too high, whether brought in by Liberals or Conservatives. He had frequently made complaints on this score, and had done his best to get the Estimates reduced, with perfect indifference as to what Party was in power. He had now to take very strong exception to this item "Unforeseen Services." He thought the House of Commons, who supplied the money, had a right to know what were the particular expenses of particular services. To put down £10,300 for these "Unforeseen Services" was not legitimate. He did not know who was responsible for the manner in which the items were put down; but, at any rate, he would ask the Government to state what these Unforeseen Missions and Services were?
§ MR. ONSLOWsaid, it had been decided that the whole of the expenses of the Afghan Boundary Commission proper should be borne by the Revenues of India. The £1,600 charged upon the Imperial Funds was merely for the payment of Mr. Condie Stephen and the secretary who accompanied Sir Peter Lumsden. The remainder of the cost of the Commission was charged upon India, against which he had protested on a former occasion. Seeing that such important items as this were included in the Vote, he certainly thought they were passing the Estimates somewhat too rapidly. Perhaps some hon. Member on the other side of the House would be able to explain what the £10,300 for "Unforeseen Services" represented. It might be for the Earl of Northbrook's 1753 Mission, or it might be for something else.
MR. H. H. FOWLRconsidered that the original question raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) had not been satisfactorily answered. He (Mr. Fowler) thought they ought to have a distinct statement from the Government as to this Vote of £7,000 for Sir Evelyn Baring. They were given to understand that the Government were going to supersede him. ["No, no!"] Well, that Sir Evelyn Baring was about to "come home on leave." What the House of Commons wanted to know was this—supposing another hon. or right hon. Gentleman was sent out to Egypt to do the work of Sir Evelyn Baring, and that Sir Evelyn Baring was to come home on leave, was the country to pay the salaries of two Agents at the same time? They had no objection to the Government superseding Sir Evelyn Baring, and putting in his place someone in whom they had confidence; but they did object to two gentlemen being retained at the same time to do the work of one, and to a double salary being paid.
§ THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATEsaid, he had not the smallest objection to giving whatever information he had in his power to give to the hon. Gentleman or the House. He must say, however, that he found himself very much in the position of a cuckoo in another bird's nest, as the House would understand. He thought the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down (Mr. H. H. Fowler) unreasonable; and he (Mr. Bourke) was surprised at the attitude the hon. Member had assumed, seeing that he had so lately held an official position himself. The hon. Member had, on mere newspaper reports, made a statement with respect to Sir Evelyn Baring, from which he (Mr. Bourke) entirely dissented. Her Majesty's Government had taken no judgment or decision with respect to the position of Sir Evelyn Baring so far as he knew. He should be much surprised to hear that Sir Evelyn Baring's position had been altered, and he was surprised to hear the hon. Member (Mr. H. H. Fowler) put to the Government the question he had put. All the Committee had to do was to consider the salaries of officers already appointed. So far as he knew, there had been no 1754 appointment of anyone to supersede Sir Evelyn Baring. The House, he was sure, would easily understand the position of affairs. It would, he was sure, see that the position he took was a reasonable one, when he said that all that they had to do was to criticize as much as they pleased the appointment and salaries of officers already in the service of the Crown. As he had said, to the best of his knowledge there had been no one appointed to supersede Sir Evelyn Baring; therefore he declared it to be premature to discuss the salary of such a person. He had no observation to make in regard to the salary of Sir Evelyn Baring, which was the only question which could be raised on the present Vote. He did not know that Sir Evelyn's position was going to be altered, and he would say nothing whatever on that question.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he would move the reduction of the Vote by £7,000—the amount for their special Agent in Egypt, together with special allowances. Although the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bourke) told them he could give no information as to Sir Evelyn Baring having been superseded, they must go, to a certain extent, on public report. The right hon. Gentleman could not say that no other agent was going to Egypt; and there could be no doubt that the Committee would be voting the Estimate under a misapprehension if they were to suppose that Sir Evelyn Baring's salary was the only one which would be given to an Agent in Egypt. The Committee assumed that some other salary would be paid to a gentleman representing England in Egypt—that some other Agent would be sent out, and that some other salary would consequently have to be paid. As the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs did not say that that would be the case, he (Mr. Labouchere) would ask the Committee to divide against this £7,000. Not that he objected to it if the salary were not increased, but because he believed that before long there would be another salary of a similar kind to pay. When that salary was proposed for payment would be the time for them to decide what amount should be paid to Agents in Egypt.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREYes; by £7,000.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £145,245, 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 1886, for the Expenses of Her Majesty's Embassies and Missions Abroad."—(Mr. Labouchere.)
§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, that the Amendment practically amounted to one for the reduction of the salary of Sir Evelyn Baring for services already partly performed. It was the Secretary to the Treasury of the late Government who had prepared the Estimate now under discussion, conferring the salary upon their own Agent. It was true that another Secretary to the Treasury was now in Office; but he had merely adopted the Estimate prepared by his Predecessor. If any change in the nature of an addition for Agents in Egypt were made that addition would take the form of a Supplementary Estimate, which would have to be submitted to the House. At the present moment they were dealing with the salary of Sir Evelyn Baring for services already rendered, which was moved for by the late Government in that House, and simply adopted by the present Government on the recommendation of their Predecessors. The Vote was to pay a gentleman who had done his work, and in no way applied to any change which would take place in the future in the Estimate.
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he hoped the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs would give an answer to a question he had addressed to him—that he would tell them whether, before Parliament was prorogued, there would be another opportunity afforded for the discussion of this Vote?
§ THE POSTMASTER GENEEAL (LORD JOHN MANNERS)said, he wished to point out that if any other appointment was made with a salary attached to it a Supplementary Estimate would be required.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREwished to say, with all due respect to the noble Lord, that he believed he was in error, or under a misapprehension. It was true that if a salary were attached to a second appointment a Supplementary Estimate would have to be asked for; but if the 1756 Mission was a special one, the money would be asked for after, and not before, that Mission was sent out. That was why he was raising the question at the present moment. If the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bourke) would assure the Committee that on a Supplementary Estimate they would have an opportunity of discussing any expenditure on the part of Her Majesty's Government in regard to the appointment of a second Agent to be sent out to Egypt before the Prorogation, he would withdraw his Motion to reduce the Vote. His object in now raising the question was to find out whether there was to be an increase in the Vote or not.
§ MR. HIBBERTsaid, he would explain the reason why this item for Special Missions was inserted in the Estimates this year. In previous years, in respect of unexpected Missions, expenditure of this nature had been provided for in Supplementary Estimates; and it had been thought desirable that instead of taking Supplementary Estimates for these amounts they should be provided for in the future in the Estimates of the year. It had been thought that that system would be found to work advantageously in the interests of economy. Though £21,000 was spent on Special Missions last year, this year only £10,000 would be asked for—a much less sum, although one rather over the expenditure of previous years. He wished to say, whilst he was on his feet, that if the hon. Gentleman persisted in his Motion to reduce the Vote, he (Mr. Hibbert), as a Member of the late Government, should be compelled to vote against him. He did not see how he would be justified in taking any other course.
§ MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) had put a question to the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs which seemed a very fair one, and one deserving an answer. The hon. Member proposed a reduction of the Vote, but was willing to forbear pressing his proposal to a division provided Her Majesty's Government would give a pledge to the Committee that if they employed Sir Henry Drummond Wolff or any other new Agent in Egypt during the present financial year they would present a Supplementary Estimate to the House before the close of the Session.
§ SIR WHITTAKER ELLISsaid, he thought the Committee would be amused at the great anxiety of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) on the point now at issue, and at the hostility displayed by him to allowing the Government to have power to send a Special Mission to Egypt without the House being first consulted and having control over it. It appeared to him (Sir Whittaker Ellis) that looking at the rather frequent Missions that Her Majesty's late Government had been accustomed to send to Egypt, and at the fact that those Missions had never been inquired into—for instance, that the hon. Member for Northampton had never insisted on knowing how much the Earl of Dufferin's Mission was to cost, or how much was to be expended on the Earl of Northbrook's Mission, both of which were sent out whilst Sir Evelyn Baring was in Egypt, and which there could be no doubt had been very expensive—it was astonishing that the hon. Member should so suddenly become alive to the dire danger in which this country would be plunged by Her Majesty's Government having it in their power to send a Mission to Egypt extraneous to that of Sir Evelyn Baring, their usual Representative in that country. It was more astonishing still that a Member of the late Government (Mr. H. H. Fowler) should be more anxious than even the hon. Member for Northampton to be assured that no expenditure would be incurred except that which had been or could be explained to his satisfaction. The hon. Member for Northampton exhorted the Committee to accept the figures which were set down in this Estimate now before them as the ultimate, and that there should be no others. He (Sir Whittaker Ellis) was of opinion that if the Vote was to be criticized there were other questions upon which criticism should be raised, independent of Unforeseen Missions and Services. Not only would money have to be spent on Unforseen Missions, but a great deal, he was afraid, would have to be expended on Missions, the necessity for which was only too apparent in consequence of the policy pursued by the late Administration. But, so much for that. The money now asked for for Unforeseen Missions had been spent, and the Committee was only called on now to vote the amount. He was afraid that nothing 1758 the hon. Member for Northampton could say or do was likely now to save the country the expenditure of this £10,300. But he would go a little further than that. He saw in this Estimate "General Gordon's Special Mission to Egypt £5,000." [An hon. MEMBER: Last year.] Yes; that was for 1884–5, he took it. But he would suggest that some further information should be given to the Committee on this point—that Her Majesty's Government should state whether there was any other item in the Estimate relating to General Gordon's Mission, and whether this was the only one to be put forward as the cost of the Mission. This legacy from the late Government to the present was about as humiliating as anything could possibly be; and if the hon. Member for Northampton had insisted that before the Vote was passed the Committee should know what the late Government had spent on General Gordon's disastrous undertaking—an undertaking which he (Sir Whittaker Ellis) had no doubt the late Government were proud of, but which he was sure the country very much regretted—the hon. Member would have had fair ground for saying that the present Estimates did not pour-tray to the country the real charges and expenses which it would have to pay. There could be very little doubt that if this matter were gone into it would be found that this Estimate was, to a very large and serious extent, misleading; at any rate, that the financial statement on this subject was misleading at the present moment. He (Sir Whittaker Ellis) could not see why or on what grounds hon. Members opposite could take exception to the voting of money to defray the expenses of transactions to which they themselves had been a party—to meet liabilities incurred by the late Government which the present Ministry had merely taken over from their Predecessors. He trusted the Committee would not allow the Business of the country to be delayed by the discussion of matters which were foregone conclusions, and over which, practically, the Committee had no control.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that, of course, the hon. Member must be aware that, so far as any discussion of the appointment of Sir H. Drummond Wolff was concerned, such a discussion at that mo- 1759 merit would be premature. Her Majesty's Government had this question still under their consideration. It was, of course, probable that Sir H. Drummond "Wolff would be appointed to go on a Mission to Egypt; but the precise nature of that Mission, and the circumstances under which the right hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) would undertake it, were still under consideration. It was impossible for him to say, therefore, what sum of money might be required for the expenses of that Mission. If the sum were a small one, and merely the ordinary expenses of a special unpaid Mission, he apprehended that it might be brought forward in the ordinary Estimates without any Supplementary Estimate at all being presented. But if the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), and other hon. Members, desired to discuss the policy of the appointment of Sir H. Drummond Wolff to a Special Mission in Egypt, that was another matter. Such a question would be a matter of considerable importance; and, of course, it was one for which Her Majesty's Government would have to give facilities for discussion, if those facilities were desired.
MR. THOROLD ROGERSwould like to ask a question—namely, whether it was likely that there would be a large charge on the country in regard to this Mission? If, as the right hon. Gentle man said, there would be no notable supplementary charge—
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERhad not said that. He had stated that it was not settled.
MR. THOROLD ROGERSsaid, he had understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that it was not yet settled whether or not Sir H. Drummond Wolff would be sent on the Mission.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he had not said so.
MR. THOROLD ROGERSsaid, that, at all events, if the right hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) did go, there would be a notable charge, for he understood the right hon. Gentleman had given up Office in order to go on this Mission. [Cries of "No!"] Well, he would not go into that; but did he understand that if the sum was a notable sum Her Majesty's Government would put it into a Supplementary Estimate?
§ THE CHANOELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, of course, if it was a large sum for a Special Mission, it would be brought forward in the form of a Supplementary Estimate.
MR. THOROLD ROGERSasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would say what he considered a notable sum? [Cries of "Oh!"] Well, he supposed it might mean anything between £20,000 and 20,000 pence.
§ MR. HENDERSONcalled the attention of the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Bourke) to the case of the loss of the Mary Marks, a barque from Liverpool, and in connection with which the owners had a boná fide claim against the Spanish Government. The facts of the case had never been denied; but up to the present the late Government had altogether failed to get any satisfaction from the Spanish Government. He mentioned the matter now with a view to directing the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the case, that he might bring it to a satisfactory conclusion.
§ THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATEsaid, that the matter should receive his earnest attention. He knew that complaints which were very well founded were often made to the Spanish Government, and he knew also that the Foreign Office had very great difficulty in getting satisfaction from the Spanish Government. This particular claim had not been brought under his notice since he had been in Office; but he would inquire into it, and, if possible, make a representation to the Spanish Government.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he thought it was only fair that he should ask the Representatives of the late Government if they could tell him what was the meaning of the charge of £1,400 for a Special Mission to Teheran?
§ MR. HIBBERTsaid, the noble Lord the late Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Lord Edmond Fitz-maurice) was not in the House, and this was not a matter with which he (Mr. Hibbert) was cognizant.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Original Question put, and agreed to.
§
(28.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £131,495, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come
1761
in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 18S6,forthe Expense of the Consular Establishments Abroad, and for other Expenditure chargeable on the Consular Vote.
§ MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDregretted very much that the noble Lord the Member for Calne (Lord Edmond Fitz-maurice) was not in his place, so that he could give them some explanation upon a matter of much importance which he desired to bring before the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman the present Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Bourke) might have some cognizance of the facts from his having held the same Office previously, and might now be able to say whether he approved of the state of things of which he (Mr. Arnold) complained. He had a Motion on the Paper to reduce this Estimate by the small sum of £30 on account of the Consul General of Bagdad. [Laughter.] This was no laughing matter. It was a matter of great importance. It happened that the Consul General at Bagdad was the presiding officer over a port, the export and import trade of which amounted in value to £1,000,000. This country had not a Consul General at Bagdad, because the present officer was paid by the Indian Government; and his object in moving the reduction of the Vote was to transfer the charge for the Consul General of Bagdad from the Indian Department to the British Department. His desire was that Her Majesty's Government should be represented by a Consular Agent at Bagdad, and not by a Consul paid and controlled by the India Office. What was the result of the existing state of things? It was this that—they had not received a single Report from the Consul General of Bagdad since 1879. That was owing to the fact that that officer was controlled by the India Office, and not by the Foreign Office, and the general result of the system was indifference to the great commercial interests of this country. He very much regretted the absence of the noble Lord the Member for Calne (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice), who might have been able to give some information on this point. It appeared from his last Report, dated 1879, that the Consul General of Bagdad then recommended it as desirable that steam communication should be carried further up the Tigris, which would have 1762 had the effect of largely increasing their trade with that part of the world. Since that Report, however, no further communication had been received from the Consul General. He was anxious to ascertain from the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, therefore, an expression of opinion as to whether he considered it was a good system under which those Consuls wore paid by the Indian Government instead of by the English Government, and whether he did not agree with him that it was the cause of the decline of their trade with that part of the world? This was in principle a very important matter, and he should be exceedingly glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that he disapproved of this system. He begged to move that the Vote be reduced by £30.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £131,465, 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 1886, for the Expense of the Consular Establishments Abroad, and for other Expenditure chargeable on the Consular Vote."—(Mr. Arthur Arnold.)
§ THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATEsaid, he was very much obliged to the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arnold) for the remarks he had made on this subject, because it was a very important subject. He recognized the importance of the Reports received from their Consular officers, so much depending on the efficiency of their Consular staff abroad in regard to pushing forward their foreign trade. He had always been strongly in favour of appointing Consuls wherever there was any prospect of establishing or pushing forward British trade abroad, and he agreed with his hon. Friend that those objects were very much facilitated by the Reports from their Consuls abroad. The Consular Service had been very much improved of late years, and he was quite sure that that House would not object to increasing the number of their Consuls or increasing their salaries, so long as they saw as the result the prospect of increasing the foreign trade of the country. It was a favourite doctrine of Mr. Cobden's that such Consular Services were of the greatest value to this country. With respect to the question which the hen. Member had brought under 1763 the notice of the Committee, all he could say was that he had looked carefully into the matter, and he would certainly have a despatch written to the Consul General at Bagdad with a view of finding out why it was that no Reports had come from him for the last six years. Ho would also ask the Consul General, with respect to his last despatch, to point out how the further development of their trade in that part of the world could best be achieved.
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he was not prepared to go so far as to say that the cost of those Consuls should be transferred from the Indian Government to the British taxpayer. He denied that such a course would load to greater efficiency, because, as a rule, the administration of the Indian Government was very much more efficiently carried out than that of this country.
§ MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, the hon. Member had a little misunderstood him. He had no doubt that the officials appointed by the Indian Government were very efficient. He had no doubt that they excelled for their diplomatic capacity; but, as in this particular case, they failed in their commercial capacity. After the satisfactory statement of the right hon. Gentleman he begged leave to withdraw his Amendment.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Original Question again proposed.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORmoved to reduce the Vote by £600, in respect of an item which he thought the Government would hardly attempt to justify, seeing that the office no longer existed. It was the charge for a Consul at Khartoum. There was no Consul at Khartoum, at least he believed there was not, and there was not likely to be one during the present financial year. Therefore, he desired to move the reduction.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £130,895, 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 1886, for the Expense of the Consular Establishments Abroad, and for other Expenditure chargeable on the Consular Vote."—(Mr. Arthur O'Connor.)
§ THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATEsaid, that in the absence of anyone on the other side of the House to justify the Vote he must ask the hon. 1764 Member to forbear for the present. He was unable to give any explanation.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORremarked that he did not want any explanation—he wanted to reduce the Vote.
§ THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATEsaid, he did not put it forward as a fact; but the probability was that there might be some arrears of salary due to somebody who had acted as Consul at Khartoum.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORThat would not be charged in the estimated expenditure for the present financial year.
§ THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATEsaid, it might come in the present financial year. That was the only explanation that he could give.
§ MR. MOLLOYdesired to point out that there could be no arrears of salary. The late Consul at Khartoum was Mr. Frank Power, a distinguished young Irishman, who was now dead unfortunately. All that matter was now settled by a very small grant which had been made to Mr. Power's sisters of an annuity of £50 each. So that that matter was closed, and there was no explanation. He did not know if his hon. Friend thought they ought to go to a division; but this Vote was certainly one which had been put down for an office which did not exist. There was no possible explanation of it.
§ THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATEpointed out that if there was nobody to be paid with this money it would be paid back again into the Treasury.
§ MR. HIBBERTsaid, that there was some explanation of this matter. At the time the Estimates were prepared by the late Government there was a Consul who was still alive at Khartoum. There might still be something due to his relatives, so that the Vote might be allowed to stand, and if the whole amount was not required it would be paid back again into the Treasury.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he had effected his purpose by drawing attention to the matter, and asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Original Question put, and agreed to.
§ (29.) £8,272, to complete the sum for the Slave Trade Services.
§ (30.) £2,025, to complete the sum for the Suez Canal (British Directors).
1765§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he thought this was another question upon which they should have some information before Parliament closed. He would not press the general question at present; but there was a special question in which he was interested. What he wanted to ask was something in reference to the position of Sir Rivers Wilson. It would be remembered that Sir Fivers Wilson accepted a paid office in a private Company in the City, and they on that side of the House thought that a public servant in receipt of his official salary should not be allowed to engage in private enterprizes for gain, and he was obliged to resign. The other day his eye had come across the name of Sir Rivers Wilson as one of the Directors of some private Company—he thought an Assurance Company; and he wished to know whether it was proper that a public servant like Sir Rivers Wilson should be allowed to hold such a position?
§ MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he did not see why a person connected with the Government should not be a Trustee of a Company. The duty of a Trustee was to look after the funds, and to do his best to prevent robbery. He believed it was the custom that gentlemen on taking office should not cease to be responsible for money that might have been collected in their names; and, under the circumstances, he thought it rather, hard that if the gentleman in 'question were Trustee of a Company he should not continue to be so.
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he certainly thought the Committee were entitled to receive some assurance from Her Majesty's Government on this subject, and he hoped that Her Majesty's Government would take an opportunity of looking into the matter. He admitted that there was something to be said on both sides of the question.
§ THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURYsaid, he could not decide without further information whether the Trusteeship of Sir Rivers Wilson was consistent with the office he held, though ho had no reason to suppose that it was not. If the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) would give him the Papers he would look to see what the duties of the Trustees were; but he was not prepared to express any 1766 opinion on the subject without reference to them.
§ Vote agreed to.
§
(31.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £21,566, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the pear ending on the 31st day of March 1886, 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. BRODRICKsaid, there was one question connected with this Vote that he would ask the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury. The late Government, some months ago, had advertised for the establishment of telegraphic communication with the West Coast of Africa; and he would be glad to hear whether any decision had been come to on this subject? The communication would undoubtedly be of great value to the commercial interests of the country; and he would also ask the hon. Baronet whether it would, on completion, remain in British hands, and not in the hands of any Foreign Government?
§ THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURYsaid, he could inform the hon. Member that the subject was then receiving very careful consideration from Her Majesty's Government. It had also been carefully considered by the late Government, and two Companies had tendered on the forms of application sent out by them. The late Government had considered the question from the point of view of the commercial interests of the country; and on the same ground it, of course, became a matter for the present Administration to deal with. The Papers were then before the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and not only wore Her Majesty's Government fully alive to the importance of the question, but they were also alive to the importance of having the line in English hands.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, there appeared on this Estimate a charge of £200 for the minister of Trinity Chapel, Quebec, and also, under the head of Nova Scotia, a charge of £551 for missionaries of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel, including widows 1767 of clergy who were in the service in June 1834. No doubt it was a good and excellent thing that there should be missionaries in Nova Scotia, and perhaps, as some hon. Members suggested, in Northampton; but why should the taxpayers of this country be asked to pay £200 a-year for a clergyman at Quebec and £500 for missionaries and widows of missionaries in Nova Scotia? No doubt the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would be able to give a full explanation of those charges, and state the reason why the Committee were called upon to pay them.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Colonel STANLEY)said, that this, as the Committee would be aware, was an expiring charge. It was part of the general arrangement made between the Colony and the Mother Country in following out the changes made in 1832 and 1833. It was then agreed that payments to clergymen and missionaries should be made by this country, and they had been since that time, of course, repeated annually. The Committee would observe that the charge for missionaries and widows of missionaries in Nova Scotia was £300 less this year than it was last year, and it would doubtless not be long before it disappeared from the Estimates.
MR. THOROLD ROGERSsaid, he saw no reason to believe that the persons who received this money were alive. It was 50 years since the charge was first made, and widows, as a rule, did not live 50 years longer than their husbands. Certainty, it did not seem to him probable that anybody in the service in June, 1834, could be, 51 years afterwards, alive and drawing their pensions The hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury was new to the Office, and might not, of course, be in possession of all the facts of the case; but he would like to ask him whether it had been ascertained to be true that those persons were still alive and receiving this money for services done 50 years ago?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIESsaid, that he had no doubt that the vouchers for those charges came before the Comptroller and Auditor General; but as the hon. Gentleman had directed his attention to a particular point in connection with them he would inquire into the matter, and 1768 should be happy to inform the hon. Gentleman of the result.
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, that the Report of the Queensland Commission into the labour traffic of the Western Pacific Islands had disclosed a deplorable state of things to which he trusted the attention of Her Majesty's Government would be directed. Her Majesty's late Government were not there to answer on the subject, and possibly the right hon. and gallant Gentleman who now represented the Colonial Department (Colonel Stanley) might be unprepared to reply upon it; but the Secretary to the Treasury, he believed, knew a good deal about the matter, and before the Vote passed he trusted he would be able to make a statement to the Committee as to whether anything would be done to prevent the evil that existed.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIESsaid, he believed that hon. Members would agree with respect to this traffic with the Western Pacific Islands that there had been in the past very great abuses; and it was with the object of preventing the recurrence of those abuses that the Pacific Islanders Protection Act was passed in 1875. He had seen, but only in a general form, the Report to which the hon. Gentleman alluded upon this subject, and to a very considerable extent he agreed that it disclosed a state of affairs that was very grave and much to be deplored, yet at that moment he was not prepared or in a position to answer in detail as to whether representations would be made to the Colonial authorities on the subject. He could, however, assure the hon. Gentleman that the subject to which Tie had drawn attention should not be lost sight of; and he was sure that that House would at all times be glad to attend to any suggestion that tended to remove the evil complained of.
§ MR. BIGGARthought that as the money voted for widows and clergymen in Canada and Nova Scotia had continued for 51 years there was no chance of the race dying out, and that the best thing under the circumstances was to stop the Vote. He believed there had been a want of careful supervision over the payment of those pensions, and he should therefore move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £751.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £20,815, 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 1886, 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. Biggar.)
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIESsaid, he could add very little to the statement he had made a short time ago in reply to the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Thorold Rogers) and the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere). If there was any specific point of detail upon which the Committee desired information he should be very glad to make inquiry upon it, and communicate the result to the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar). But all he could say now was that this was an arrangement entered into between the Mother Country and the Colony. The system under which the arrangement was carried out came every year before the Committee of Public Accounts, and was subjected to that severe scrutiny which it was very well known items of this kind underwent. The payments had been supported by proper vouchers, and had there been any irregularity he was satisfied that it would have been brought to light before the Public Accounts Committee. For those reasons, he asked the Committee to pass the Vote as it stood.
§ Question put, and negatived.
§ Original Question put, and agreed to.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £24,690, 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 1886, for certain Charges connected with the Orange River Territory, the Transvaal, Zululand, Bechuanaland, the Island of St. Helena, and the High Commissioner for South Africa.
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he would make an appeal to Her Majesty's Government to postpone this Vote, which really involved a whole series of important questions, which it would be quite impossible properly to deal with at that period of the Sitting. In the first place, there was the Vote for 1770 £30,000 on account of Bechuanaland, over which country Her Majesty's late Government had assumed a Protectorate; and the Committee would recollect that when the question was referred to in that House on a former occasion, the then Under Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Evelyn Ashley) said that the proper opportunity for discussing this question would be afforded by the Estimate when it came forward. But at that time the Vote could not be properly discussed; and as it was known that the Government had to proceed that evening with the East India Loan (£10,000,000) Bill, he believed he should be consulting the wishes of hon. Member3 by moving that Progress be reported.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Sir George Campbell.)
§ MR. R. N. FOWLER (LORD MAYOR)said, he could not support the Motion of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell); but he would appeal to his right hon. and gallant Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies (Colonel Stanley) to favour the Committee with some information with regard to this Vote. As the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy had correctly remarked, it involved many important questions; and he should be glad if his right hon. and gallant Friend could supply some information upon it at that time, because, as far as he understood, the present was the best opportunity that was likely to present itself for considering the matter at all before the end of the Session.
§ MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, he thought the proposal of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy a very reasonable one. He believed the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would desire to show the same courtesy to all sections of the House; and as he had yielded to a similar proposal on the part of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), he trusted he would be able to accede to the wish of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIESsaid, he could not help feeling the great force of the appeal made to him by hon. Gentlemen opposite. Communications were passing 1771 daily on the subject referred to by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy, which rendered it in the highest sense desirable that they should not enter into a general discussion, with the present imperfect information which they possessed, of a Vote which did not come within the ordinary scope of financial discussion. Therefore, on the whole, he thought it would be well if the hon. Gentleman would withdraw his Motion to report Progress, and he had no doubt his hon. Friend would make an arrangement for the postponement of the Vote. He thought it perfectly fair that there should be some discussion upon the Vote, and he felt that he could not properly ask the Committee to proceed with it on that occasion.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Original Motion be withdrawn."—(Sir Henry Holland.)
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, on that Question he would ask whether the Government would be willing to consent to the postponement of the Vote in aid of the Revenue of the Island of Cyprus? An hon. Gentleman who had since been appointed as a Member of Her Majesty's Government had given Notice of a Motion for the reduction of the Vote, and that Notice had been removed from the Paper. Hon. Members who would have supported the Motion were, in consequence, placed in a difficulty from the absence of the hon. Gentleman; and, under the circumstances, he hoped the Secretary to the Treasury would consent to the postponement of the Vote in aid of the Island of Cyprus.
§ THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURYsaid, he was unable to postpone that Vote.
§ Motion agreed to.
§ Original Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ (32.) £17,300, to complete the sum for the Subsidies to Eastern and South African Telegraph Company.
§ (33.) £15,000, Cyprus Grant in Aid.
§ MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, he had to thank the right hon. and gallant Gentleman for the courtesy shown to the Committee in postponing the Vote for South Africa and St. Helena. He would now ask the right hon. and gal- 1772 lant Gentleman whether he had any further information to give to the Committee with reference to the reported Revenue frauds in Cyprus? That matter had already been the subject of a Question in the House, and he would be glad if any further information could be communicated. With reference to the subsidy of £15,000 in aid of the Revenues of the Island, by the action of a distinguished Relative of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary to the Colonies the subsidy had been already reduced from £90,000 to the present amount, and he trusted that the Vote would soon disappear from the Estimates altogether. Could the right hon. and gallant Gentleman hold out any expectation of a further reduction of the grant, and of its disappearance within a short time? He confessed to a certain feeling of apprehension on the part of his hon. Friends and himself that, the Island having reverted to those whom he might call its original proprietors, there might be an increased expenditure on account of Cyprus—indeed, they had heard of Estimates reaching to £1,000,000 being in existence for public works there. Therefore, he desired to ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, with reference to what the late Secretary of State for War had properly called "this useless Island," whether he would undertake not to go to any expense for public works in connection with it before he had obtained the sanction of the House to the undertaking of such works?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIESsaid, the hon. Gentleman had spoken very courteously, and ho was prepared to answer in the same manner. As to the Revenue frauds, he thought the Parliamentary Paper which was presented on the subject some time ago practically represented all the information which had reached him, or which could be given. There was, indeed, an inquiry in regard to the extent of the defalcations, and a despatch on the subject had been sent to the Governor. As the despatch could not yet have reached its destination it would hardly be proper that he should announce its contents to the House. There was, however, no reason to suppose that the system of fraud had been at all widespread or general. If there were any other Papers on the subject which 1773 could possibly be produced in continuation of those already presented he would ask the hon. Member (Mr. Arnold) to move for them in the usual course, or he would present them voluntarily. The next question asked him was with reference to the diminution of the Vote in Aid. He was happy to be able to say that there was a great probability that the Vote, instead of being increased, would be diminished. Under the very able administration of Sir Robert Biddulph, the Governor of the Island, and under the care of the Office presided over, as the hon. Gentleman had said, with such great ability by his (Colonel Stanley's) Predecessor, the Vote in Aid had been reduced to what was now a comparatively small sum. He hoped it would continue to diminish annually. But there were certain causes of expenditure, such, for instance, as the expenses connected with locusts and other matters, of very serious moment indeed to the prosperity of the Island, which must fluctuate. Those causes were wholly beyond human control, and therefore, in regard to them, he must hold himself free. He saw no reason why the Island should not continue to prosper, and to, he hoped, in a very few years pay its own way. The hon. Gentleman expressed a doubt which he had very candidly expressed before, and which he was perfectly consistent in expressing now, as to what the future of the Island might be. He (Colonel Stanley) was not aware that he had ever held language which favoured the impression that any large public works would become necessary. He was not aware of a proposal at any time which would in the slightest degree alter the present position of affairs in the Island; and certainly it would be his duty at the earliest possible moment to bring in a Vote if any such proposal were seriously made. At the present time he was not aware of any such proposal. Whatever expenditure might be incurred in Cyprus, he hoped it would be incurred for the purpose of promoting peaceful industry rather than warlike operations. That was all the information he could give; but if he could answer any question as to details he should be very happy to do so.
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he thought the Government were to be congratulated on the fact that the expense 1774 of Cyprus had been diminished. At the same time, there was the military expenditure on the Island, which was defrayed by this country. Perhaps this would not be a proper moment to ask what the Brigade of Guards was sent to Cyprus for? But it was possible that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Stanley) could tell them what was the nature of the accommodation provided for the Guards; what was the climate in which they were stationed; at what elevation above the sea they were, and how they were housed?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOE THE COLONIESsaid, he could not state what the exact accommodation afforded was; but he apprehended that the Guards would be camped on healthy ground at a considerable elevation.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, that anyone who had listened to the discussion on this Vote would be half inclined to imagine that the condition of things in Cyprus was quite satisfactory. Now the very reverse was the case. It was well known that a tremendous system of fraud had been carried on in Cyprus for a long time, and that a large number of officials, some of them of very considerable status, had been involved. It was known that no reasonable effort was made to discover the fraud, or, when suspected, to trace the offenders, until a considerable amount of pressure was put on the officer in charge from that House. It was not until the subject was ventilated in the newspapers and Questions were asked in Parliament that anything like active steps were taken to bring the defaulters to justice. What were the real facts of the case? Apparently, the Colonial authorities required a sum of £15,000 to enable the Island to meet its expenditure. But that was not so. If there was anything like a proper administration of the local resources, if there was anything like an honest collection of the land revenue, there would be no necessity at all for the authorities to come to the House of Commons for a Vote in aid of the local revenue. Under the Returns given in the last Appropriation Account, he found that the Island authorities had in March, 1884, a balance in hand of £50,000, and that during the 12 months the assets were £55,000 in excess of the liabilities. That being so, it was perfectly plain that the 1775 Island authorities were not in need of this Vote at all. If they were told that they must meet their local expenditure out of the local resources, and punish severely those who were proved to have been defaulters, there would be no need at all to come to the House of Commons for assistance. He regretted that the present Solicitor General (Mr. Gorst) was not able to move the Motion for the reduction of the Vote of which he had given Notice. That was only another illustration of the danger one incurred by trusting to anybody else to oppose a Vote which he thought ought to be impugned. If he had imagined for a moment that the Solicitor General would not have been in his place to have moved the reduction of the Vote, he (Mr. A. O'Connor) would have been prepared to move the reduction. He could only regret that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Salford (Mr. Arnold) had not had the courage to proceed to a division. Perhaps the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies (Colonel Stanley) could tell the Committee what was the present position of Mr. Le Starkie, the head official connected with the collection of the land revenue, and the man who was in charge of all the subordinates who were implicated in the frauds? Perhaps the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would tell the Committee why it was that Mr. Le Starkie had escaped scot free; whether there was any reason why he should be screened? He was told that Mr. Le Starkie was informed that, at any rate, he was suspected, and that he then wanted to resign; but that a message was sent to the Island to the effect that he was not to be allowed to resign. As a matter of fact, had Mr. Le Starkie tendered his resignation, and had the Colonial authorities directed the Governor to refuse to' accept the resignation? If so, what was the position of Mr. Le Starkie at the present time THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES said, that he would rather not, as he had already stated, anticipate the information, which had not yet reached the Governor's hands. The Papers of which he had spoken would, he believed, show all that could be shown about the matter. He might say, however, that he had come to the conclusion, after very careful examina- 1776 tion, that there was nothing to support a criminal charge against Mr. Le Starkie.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORHas he tendered his resignation?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIESsaid, that Mr. Le Starkie did tender his resignation to his (Colonel Stanley's) Predecessor. There was nothing, however, to sustain a criminal charge. On the present occasion he (Colonel Stanley) would rather not say more on the subject. Care was now being taken to prevent fraud and to improve the valuation, which was certainly a step in advance. Other improvements were being effected which would tend to a more rapid collection of revenue. That was all he could say now.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked if Mr. Le Starkie had furnished any security?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIEScould not say; but if the hon. Gentleman would put a Question to him on the subject at some future time he would make the necessary inquiries.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
§ Committee to sit again To-morrow.