CLASS V.—FOREIGN AND COLONIAL SERVICES.

HC Deb 23 August 1887 vol 319 cc1622-72

(9.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £104,524, 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 1888, for the Expenses of Her Majesty's Embassies and Missions Abroad.

THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON) (Manchester, N.E.)

I am anxious to offer to the Committee a little explanation of a statement I made the other night. In the course of the debate reference was made to the cost of the European Army in Egypt, and I stated, without particular reference to the figures, that the cost of the Army of Occupation in Egypt would be only about £98,000. I had the figures before me when I stated that; but those figures rather referred to the sum to which it was hoped the charge for the Army of Occupation might be brought down than to the actual sum to which it had been reduced. I hope the Committee will give me credit for desiring to give it every possible information in my power on that subject, and I certainly feel it my duty to say that on that point I mis-stated the fact, because at the present moment the cost of the Army of Occupation in Egypt is not brought down much below £200,000. But all the circumstances connected with it are under the strict examination of the Treasury and the War Department, with certain assistance from the Foreign Office, which I hope may bring the cost down to a considerably lower sum, and the amount which I stated the Other day is that to which we hope to bring it down. But, in saying that to the Committee, I think it right to observe that, of course, I do not pretend to be intimately acquainted with the finances of Egypt, which are not under the direct control of Her Majesty's Government. My desire is to give all the information in my power; but all the details of this matter are in. the hands of the Egyptian Government, and are not controlled by us.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL (Kirkcaldy, &c.)

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the Egyptian Government are to pay, or are not to pay, the £200,000 included in the Estimates? The calculation of the right hon. Gentleman the other day on this matter struck me as being very extraordinary. The sum of £200,000 stands in this year's Estimate as the amount which the Egyptian Government are to pay this country for the European Army, the cost of which is more than £100 per man; and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to tell us whether that £200,000 will be received, or is to be cut down?

SIR JAMES FERGUSSON

Her Majesty's Government have recognized, as I informed the House last February, that this country ought not to bear any barge for the occupation of Egypt, beyond the normal charge for the battalions employed there, and that any extra charge for the Army of Occupation ought to be borne by the Government of that country. It is difficult to state at any particular time what the charge for the Army of Occupation will be throughout the year, and it is still more difficult to bring that charge per man within that sum which is usually thought sufficient for the maintenance of a British Force, and for this reason— that the number of troops in Egypt is dependent on the requirements of the country and the interests of its security. The troops, as I told the Committee the other night, have been constantly reduced, first from 16,000 to 13,000, then from 13,000 to 9,000, then from 9,000 to 5,000, and now from 5,000 to 4,500, approximately; but it is very difficult, as the battalions are reduced, to reduce the Staff and Commissariat Establishment. Therefore, it might well appear that the cost per man is high compared to the numerical proportions of the reduced Force. Of course, all the Establishment ought to be reduced proportionately; and I can only say, having had the advantage of conferring with the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War (Mr. E. Stanhope) and with others on the subject, that there is a great desire to reduce the Force as far as it can be reduced with safety. We have done a great deal in the direction of reducing it since Her Majesty's Government came into Office. We have reduced it by half, and, as I said the other night, it is not intended that the present Establishment shall remain where it is. But it is impossible to say with any confidence that the rate per man is what it should be, or what it will be within a few months. The Government are doing their utmost to bring the Force down to safe limits, and I hope that another year will show a very material reduction. There are a great many things to be dealt with, such as the barrack department, prisons, military law, and so forth, and we have to proceed step by step; but I hope the Committee will believe that Her Majesty's Government are doing their utmost to bring this Force down to an amount which it is possible for Egypt to pay, and which is no more than necessary for the protection of the country. The cost, whatever it is, of the troops will be paid by the Government of Egypt.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has apprehended the question. He was in India when this matter was settled; but no doubt the right hon. Gentleman, the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) will remember what occurred. I appreciate what is said of the efforts of the Government to reduce the Army in Egypt; but I would impress upon the right hon. Gentleman that the contract we made with the Egyptian Government that they should pay £4 per month per man to cover all the extra charge of our remaining in Egypt. The proviso was that, however large the number of troops, the amount of the burden should not exceed £200,000. I wish to know if the Egyptian Government are to be released from their contract with regard to the payment of £4 per man?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN) (St. George's, Hanover Square)

It is the decision of Her Majesty's Government that for this year and the coming year the Egyptian Government shall not pay more than the exact extra cost of the Army of Occupation; and when troops are removed, and that extra cost falls below the £200,000, then the Egyptian Government is to have the benefit which will result. The English taxpayer is not to pay any portion of the extra cost of the Army in Egypt, nor is Egypt to pay one farthing more than the extra cost. We hope that the cost will be below the £200,000 which the Egyptian Government have contracted to pay.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

By whom has this been calculated?

MR. GOSCHEN

By the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War (Mr. E. Stanhope), with his advisers, checked by the Treasury, and with the distinct desire, under a pledge which I will give my hon. Friend and the Committee, that there will be nothing whatever charged to the Egyptian Government beyond the fair amount for that extra cost. The examination of the matter has been conducted in the spirit that Egypt shall not have to complain of any undue charge.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

I want, to know what the British taxpayer will have to pay?

MR. GOSCHEN

We intend to hold an even balance between the two parties. The hon. Member first asks me about the burden of Egypt, and complains of its being too heavy. I tell him that Egypt will be treated fairly, and then he turns round and says that we must consider the English taxpayer. Well, a fair arrangement will be made between the two. I will not admit that any cost should be put on the taxpayer for the occupation of Egypt; but, at the same time, Egypt will be charged only the precise sum extra spent in consequence of the occupation. As a Minister of the Crown, and as responsible, to some extent, for treating Egypt fairly in this matter, I must say that we do not desire to make anything out of Egypt, but to charge her exactly the sum which may be regarded as the extra cost.

MR. BRYCE (Aberdeen, S.)

I do not desire to resume the debate we had last Saturday upon Egypt, because I think the views of both sides of the House had fair expression then. I will only say, referring to the explanation given by the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Sir James Fergusson), that I think, if he is going to make an explanation, he should give us a little more indication than was given on Saturday in reply to numerous questions as to the course the Government intend to pursue during the next six months. He gave us little or no information as to whether or not it was contemplated to resume negotiations with France or the Porte on the basis of the lately attempted, but now extinct, Convention. I desire to call the attention of the Committee, however, to two other points—and I should not have referred to the first of them if it had not been for the somewhat cavalier answer given by the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary to a Question of mine a few days ago as to a reported conflict between the Christian and Mahommedan populations at Amasia, in Asia Minor, arising out of an outrage reported to have been perpetrated by the Turkish Governor of the town. The right hon. Gentleman said it was no matter what outrages occurred, and he treated the matter in the well-known style of the "Coffee-house babble"—language used by Lord Beaconsfield on a famous occasion in 1876. The right hon. Baronet the Under Secretary was in India at that time, and perhaps he does not realize the feeling that was created by the way in which the then Prime Minister treated the first accounts that reached this country of the Bulgarian massacres. He does not now realize how much inflammable matter there is in Asia Minor. By the Treaty of Berlin this country, as one of the signatory Powers, has undertaken duties towards the Christian population of Asia Minor, and the Sultan has promised, to introduce certain reforms, and to report the progress which is made in the application of these reforms. I am well aware of the difficulties which surround the matter; but the Sultan has not introduced these reforms, and is not likely to do so, and I think we are entitled to expect that Her Majesty's Government will do their best to endeavour to diminish the existing evils, and when they find Turkish Governors committing outrages that they will remonstrate with those Governors, and when they find conflicts are arising in a district like Asia Minor, where we know the use which has been made of outrages to endeavour to prevent the restoration of peace and good order in these countries, we think it is the imperative duty of the Government to see to the matter. I do not know whether the report I have referred to has been confirmed; but I think, as the right hon. Gentleman seemed to imply that Her Majesty's Government has no duty in the matter, it would be as well for me to remind him that such matters were dealt with in the Treaty of Berlin, and if conflicts are to be apprehended which would lead to the danger of the occupation of Armenia by any other Power, we shall require a strict account from the Government of the steps they have taken in order to avoid dangers which are sufficiently palpable. Now I turn to another subject, and I want to say a few words on the question of the occupation of the New Hebrides by France. I understand that the Government do not think it desirable to give us any further information as to those negotiations, and I shall not press them for any information if they, as Ministers of the Crown, tell us that it would be undesirable, and would retard the prospects of a settlement, for them to tell us in exactly what state the negotiations now are. I will not ask them to do so; but I feel bound, in the interests of our Colonies, and on behalf of those on this side of the House who feel with myself on the question, to call the attention of the Committee to the grave position in which the matter stands. The people o four Australian Colonies are very deeply interested in the condition of the Islands lying near Australia—they are very keenly and justifiably interested in them. There was a discussion at the late Colonial Conference on the subject, and that discussion was of so vivacious a character that Her Majesty's Government have not deemed it expedient to publish in the proceedings of the Conference any Report of that discussion; but we have since heard of what has been said by some delegates who attended the Conference, and we know how warm their feelings are. Now, our Colonial fellow-subjects have no representation in this House, and they have no voice in connection with the foreign policy of this country. They trust entirely to the House of Commons and the public opinion of England to see that their interests are properly safeguarded; and I submit, in this condition of affairs, it becomes an unusually solemn duty of this House to see that the interests of our Colonies do net suffer through their non-representation. We are bound, as far as we can, to put them in the same position that they would be in if they had Representatives sitting in this House side by side with the Representatives of England, Scotland, and Ireland, and, Sir, no reason stronger can be supposed than that which we have for securing and preserving the good-will of our Colonies. We have seen how great their attachment to their Mother Country is. We know that their future connection with us—a connection which I hold to be of the utmost benefit to both them and us —depends largely on maintaining sentiments of cordiality towards and confidence in the Mother Country, and we ought to be specially anxious to safeguard their interests in every particular as much as we would safeguard the interests of these British Islands themselves. Now, what are the facts with regard to the French in the New Hebrides? A simple narrative of the facts makes the case stronger than any comment I could add. In 1878 the French Government, alarmed by articles they had read in the Australian newspapers suggesting the annexation of the New Hebrides by ourselves, addressed representations to Her Majesty's Go- vernment on the subject, and asked us to join with them in declaring that both countries would respect the independence of the New Hebrides, and would not seek to occupy them or establish a Protectorate over them. Now, the Committee will observe——

DR. CLARK (Caithness)

I rise to a point of Order. I understood the Motion before the Committee was an Amendment by the lion. Member for Kirkcaldy, and that he has refused to withdraw that Amendment. I should like to know whether the discussion of the question of the New Hebrides is in Order upon the Amendment?

THE CHAIRMAN

Amendments in Supply do not survive from one Sitting to another. That Amendment is not now before the Committee.

MR. BRYCE

The Committee will observe that that proposal was voluntary on the part of France. We did not ask France to agree to neutralize the New Hebrides; but France suggested that both countries should respect her independence. Therefore, in 1878, we entered into an agreement of that kind with France, and we sent out word to the Colonies to that effect, thereby giving a pledge that our policy was to be one of non-occupation on our own part, and that there was to be no occupation on the part of France. That agreement was renewed in 1883 by what is known as a Note Verbale on the part of the two Governments. Nothing happened until January, 1886, when the French Government asked us whether we would consent to waive this agreement, and permit them to occupy the New Hebrides, the consideration they offered being that they would send no more convicts to New Caledonia. We sent that proposal to the Colonies for their consideration. The Colonies objected very strongly to it, and it was accordingly dropped. We come now to June, 1886; and what happened in that month? Why, in June last we received news from Australia, coming along with angry protests on the part of the Colonists, that a French expedition had started for the New Hebrides, carrying both troops and materials for erecting barracks. Lord Rosebery was Foreign Secretary at that time, and he telegraphed in a most energetic manner to France, and followed that up by the despatch of some British vessels of war to the New Hebrides, with orders to see and watch what was being done. The French Government admitted that they were bound by the Agreements of 1878 and 1883, and promised that they would withdraw their troops, saying that they had only sent them there for the protection of the French settlers, there having been some murders committed there by the Natives. The French Government then said they did not contemplate occupation, and they did not intend to depart from the obligation they had contracted. In the autumn of the same year the Foreign Office was in the hands of Lord Salisbury, and he proposed a scheme of joint naval protection, by which the Naval Forces of both countries would form a sort of police, and protect European settlers from the Natives. The French Government accepted these proposals, and approved of the basis of agreement which was sent to Franco in October. On the 1st of November, however, the French Government sent a counter-proposal. We replied on the 26th November, and from that time to now there has been really, so far as I know, no answer on the part of France—or,at any rate, there has been no answer communicated to this House. The Colonial Memorandum presented to the Colonial delegates by the Colonial Office says that on the 19th February Lord Salisbury pressed for an answer, and that the French Government replied that an answer would be sent immediately, and on the 9th of March the French Government said that they would send instructions to their Ambassador here; but after the 9th March we know nothing, because my right hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State (Sir James Fergusson), no doubt, in the judicious exercise of his official discretion, has given no answer to the repeated Questions addressed to him, but has only told us that negotiations are proceeding, and that he hopes the matter will soon be settled. So late as last November a batch of French convicts were sent to New Caledonia, and every batch of convicts which goes out increases the alarm and anxiety of the Colonists, because it increases the stock of dangerous characters who are always likely to disgorge themselves on the Australian Coasts; and we learn from the French newspapers from time to time that groups of French Colonists go out and settle in the New Hebrides. My right hon. Friend answered the Question put to him yesterday by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) to the effect that there was nothing in the Agreement between the two countries bearing on colonization. That is quite true—there is nothing in the Agreement that precludes the subjects of either country settling in the Islands; but, at the same time, it is easy to see that the settlement of French Colonists there is not without its significance. Every settlement of French Colonists that occurs is taken by the French as a further step towards annexation, and every fresh batch of French Colonists produces greater anxiety in the Colonial mind. It is in that state of facts that we have to act. The French Government are continuing to evade the demands which Her Majesty's Government have made for an immediate and separate settlement. We understand, from the answer given by the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary himself, that the French Government are endeavouring to mix up the question of the evacuation of the New Hebrides with the question of the Suez Canal and the settlement of Egypt. I hope that every suggestion of that character will be resisted by Her Majesty's Government. They admit they have no objection to discuss the questions together.

SIR JAMES FERGUSSON

At the same time.

MR. BRYCE

That is what I intended to convey. I quite admit Her Majesty's Government have not admitted that they were going to treat the two matters as one; but unless some care is taken to show that in the view of the Government the matters are entirely distinct, and that nothing done in one is to be regarded as a consideration for the other, there is a serious danger that we may be drawn into making a sort of bargain. That is just what I think the country and this House ought to resist. I cannot imagine a clearer diplomatic case than that which we possess as regards the New Hebrides—it is a clear case on the admission of France herself it is a case which we have no need to mix up with any diplomatic dispute in any other part of the world, and which ought to be settled on its own merits. There is a rumour—I hope an unfounded rumour—that Her Majesty's Government have thought of making some concession to France in some other part of the Pacific in return for France immediately quitting the New Hebrides. I cannot help thinking that any concession of that kind would be regarded with great regret by this country. If we have any right in any other part of the Pacific which the French wish us to yield; if sufficient cause is shown for yielding it; if we get a substantial advantage by yielding it; if, as happened in another case of which the right hon. Gentleman knows, we make a concession of some right to France in some other part of the Pacific, and it is to be made conditional upon France giving something up to us, the country might not object to such a bargain. It would depend whether the consideration was worth what we gave for it. But what I believe the country will disapprove of is that the Government, having a clear right somewhere else in the Pacific, should surrender it to Franco upon the condition that she evacuates the New Hebrides. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to assure us that no such bargain is in the contemplation of Her Majesty's Government, because, if it is, I shall ask the Committee to express disapproval of it. I trust the Government will not think I have gone at all beyond the needs of the case in having said so much. I have not wished to interfere in any way with any current negotiations; but feeling the great gravity of the matter, and feeling also the great importance of firmness in this matter, believing that a firm, clear, and simple course is also a safe one, and that our negotiations will be best conducted, if we say distinctly what we mean, and let it be understood that we will be satisfied with nothing else, feeling also that we are under very serious liabilities to our Australian Colonies in this matter, that we owe a duty to them, and to that splendid future which we anticipate for them, I hope the Government will be able to give us satisfactory assurances, and that they will very soon satisfy the Colonists with, the news that the obligation of France has been fulfilled, and that the New Hebrides have been evacuated.

SIR JAMES FERGUSSON

I am quite aware that on Saturday I replied very inadequately upon some of the points of the speech of my hon. Friend the late Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Bryce). It was not because I undervalued the importance of the matters referred to. It is well known we had some hope of passing the Vote on which we were engaged, and that I could not very well engage the attention of the Committee longer than I did. My hon. Friend has not complained of that; but he has referred to one point which I think he alluded to in the discussion on Saturday, and upon which a reply was not given. He asked about the future negotiations as regards the Turkish Convention. I have stated most distinctly, in answer to Questions put to me by hon. Members, that there are no negotiations proceeding at present, and that there is no likelihood of any early negotiations with regard to this matter. Her Majesty's Government have endeavoured to fulfill their duties to their allies, and particularly to the Sublime Porte, in meeting their wishes and endeavouring to satisfy them on the subject as to the evacuation of Egypt. Unfortunately, these negotiations failed. Her Majesty's Government have resumed the duties that they undertook in Egypt, and are endeavouring, as far as their influence goes, to assist that country to assume a condition in which it may be possible for us to depart from it without a promise as to a date or limitation of time. That is all the answer I can give on that point. Now he says I did not the other day reply to a Question he put to me as to the outrage reported to have taken place in Asia Minor. I did not at all intend to convey to my hon. Friend that Her Majesty's Government had no obligation in connection with Asia Minor, or that they were indifferent to the condition of the populations there. But the Question put to me was with reference to a rumour that had been repeated by a newspaper correspondent at Constantinople — a rumour that there had been some outrage, and that the Governor of the place had been implicated in it. The request was made that we should communicate with Constantinople on the subject, and, if necessary, demand the dismissal of the Governor.

MR. BRYCE

If the rumour proved to be well founded.

SIR JAMES FERGUSSON

To have entered into the hypothetical engagement that we would ask for the dismissal of a Governor of a Province, if he was found to have misbehaved him- self, would have been a very unwise engagement indeed. I thought that at least we ought to wait until the rumour—for t was only a rumour—was confirmed. Well, Sir, I read in the same newspaper a few days afterwards that the rumour was said to be totally unfounded, and I think that justified my reserve. Her Majesty's Government have received no news whatever of the circumstances, and my refusal to give any engagement of he kind does not at all imply indifference on the part of Her Majesty's Government in the question ultimately concerned. I think this ought to be sufficient explanation.

MR. BRYCE

Allow me to say that I did not complain at all of the right ion. Baronet not undertaking to give in engagement. I only asked him to ascertain what were the facts. I did not ask for any pledge.

SIR JAMES FERGUSSON

That I perfectly understand; but I think it was quite premature that, upon the strength of a newspaper report, I should be asked to enter into the engagement. I must say, with all due respect to my hon. Friend, that to give the undertaking desired would be to go beyond the province of Her Majesty's Government, and would not be in accordance with an attitude of prudence towards a friendly Power. Now, as to the hon. Gentleman's observations in regard to the question of the New Hebrides, I have no complaint to make. The question is one which must necessarily attract considerable interest in this country; and beyond that the great degree in which, it engages the notice of the Australian Colonists must render it a topic to which attention must be called when an opportunity occurs for debate. The hon. Gentleman referred to the discussion which is said to have taken place at the Colonial Conference. For reasons which I think all must admit were sufficient, the deliberations of that Conference were not made public; and I must say that the rumours which have got afloat of what passed in that Conference are extremely exaggerated — almost untrue — in the particulars which attracted most attention. No doubt, those who represented the Colonies expressed themselves forcibly on the subject, and I think it is of great advantage that the intelligent and eminent men who represented the Colonies did not hesitate to express themselves frankly to Her Majesty's Government as to the feeling of the Colonies on questions most intimately concerning the Colonies they represented. If the Government had been at all insensible on these matters, they would have been impressed, I think, by the manner in which they were brought to their attention at the Colonial Conference. I myself am, perhaps, as much acquainted as any Member of this House with the feelings of the Colonists on these questions. I have passed six or seven years in the Colonies, and thoroughly understand and appreciate the feelings of the Colonists upon them; but, at the same time, we must also regard and consider the feelings of foreign countries on these questions. It must be evident that other countries, having a sense of power and a desire of expansion, must desire to occupy the unsettled lands of the world, and I think we ought to have certain consideration for the susceptibilities of foreign countries. Now, as regards the New Hebrides. It is true, as my hon. Friend (Mr. Bryce) says, that certain engagements have been entered into between Great Britain and France as to the occupation of the New Hebrides. The French Government held that the protection of their subjects in the New Hebrides required a temporary occupation by a military force. Her Majesty's Government could not look without serious doubt upon the continued presence of a military force in a group of islands which had been agreed upon between the two countries should be permanently neutral, and therefore successive Administrations have urged upon the French Government the necessity of each nation fulfilling its pledge to the other. The French Government have never denied the weight of the obligation they entered into. In the course of last year negotiations took place with a view to the protection of the settlers in those islands; and it is evident that, as far as settlement has gone, there must be some protection for the subjects of either nation. It is no wonder that the Australian Colonists should object to the continuance of a military force there, and Her Majesty's Government have not hesitated lo represent to the French Government that the continued presence of a military force there, and the delay in the settlement of those permanent arrange- ments to which my hon. Friend has referred, has given uneasiness to the Australian Colonists and to the people of this country. Now, my hon. Friend has said I have shown a judicious official reserve in not giving the Committee more information on this subject. My hon. Friend knows perfectly well that when correspondence is going on between two great Powers upon a question so important — not important in itself, but important because it touches closely the national feelings of the two countries—it is impossible to give detailed information to Parliament, and to place correspondence in an incomplete form before the House. I am sure my hon. Friend cannot seriously make complaint against Her Majesty's Government, because they have not made known to the House the course of the correspondence. But, Sir, this I can say, there has been no connection admitted between the question of the New Hebrides and that of the neutralization of the Suez Canal. I have admitted that Her Majesty's Government have not objected to discuss the two questions at the same time, and I ask the Committee if it would be possible, when there are two questions each of which is of great importance to the country, that the discussion of one should be delayed until the other has been settled? It may be that the French Government, attaching great importance to the Suez Canal business, has a desire to press this question forward more rapidly than the other; but, as I have told the Committee, Her Majesty's Government have never admitted that the New Hebrides question can depend upon any other question whatever. Her Majesty's Government have urged upon the French Government the fulfillment of those arrangements, which are in the interest of both countries, without reference to any other question whatever. The question of the colonization of the New Hebrides forms no part of the agreement between the two countries, and we should be absolutely going beyond our rights if we were to object to any settlement in the New Hebrides. The question is, how the emigrants or settlers shall be protected, and the Government of France have had great difficulty in this matter, which cannot be unknown to the students of European politics. But we have received from them and from their Am- bassador in this country, assurances of that friendship which I trust will remain long between these two countries which, are such near neighbours, and which may be neighbours at this end of the world, as well as at the other, without their fair rivalries degenerating into animosities.

MR. LABOUCHERE

I sincerely hope the Government will not yield to the request of my hon. Friend the Member for South Aberdeen (Mr. Bryce), and ask for the dismissal of the Turkish Governor in Asia Minor. I know of no reason why we should interfere in Asia Minor any more than we should interfere in Japan or China. We constantly get into difficulties owing to interference with other Governments. We have frequently got into difficulties with Turkey; and we should get into great difficulties if we were to take it into our heads that it was our duty to protect the Armenians for instance. We should get into endless difficulty if, whenever we thought a Turkish Governor had done wrong, we demanded his dismissal. The hon. Member for South Aberdeen (Mr. Bryce) cites, the Treaty of Berlin; but it cannot be doubted that it would be most undesirable to make the demand which he suggests. It will be remembered that when we took Cyprus, the Turks undertook to make certain reforms in Asia Minor. In consideration of that, we agreed to make a Defensive Treaty with Turkey as regards Asia Minor. If we acted upon that Treaty, if we, in the exercise of our right, called upon Turkey to dismiss a Governor of whom we disapproved, we shall fully recognize at the present moment the obligation of the Treaty. What should we think if France or Russia were to demand the dismissal of any Governor in Asia Minor, without consulting us? In point of fact, the Turk would not be able to govern his own country, if any one of the Signatory Powers to the Treaty of Berlin were on their own initiative to claim the right to interfere with the Government of Turkey by demanding the dismissal of a certain Governor. Now, the only plea we should have for action in this matter would be the exercise of the Treaty by which we obtained Cyprus, and by which it was agreed that in consideration of our obtaining Cyprus, and in consideration of the Turks making reforms in Asia Minor, we should defend Asia Minor for the Turks against all comers. I think that we should in making this demand upon Turkey be acting upon the Cyprus Treaty, and not upon the Berlin Treaty, and if we do act upon it, the Turks will have a right to demand a quid pro quo—namely, the defence of Asia Minor against Russia or any other Power which attacks it. That is why I hope the Government will think twice before they make this demand upon the Turkish Government. With regard to the New Hebrides, it certainly does seem to me that the position of France towards the New Hebrides and towards us is very like our position towards Egypt and towards France. France has occupied the New Hebrides, and she will not leave. What is our position in Egypt? When we sent troops to Egypt, we pledged ourselves that the occupation would only be temporary. We are calling upon France to evacuate the New Hebrides, and complaining that they are acting contrary to their pledges. The French are calling upon us to evacuate Egypt, and say we are acting contrary to our pledges. It seems to me that we should fulfill our own pledges towards other countries, before we hope other countries will fulfill their pledges to us. I perfectly understand what the right, hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Sir James Fergusson) means, when he says that two matters are being negotiated at the same time, and yet separately. I agree with him entirely that it would be absurd, because we are in Egypt, to refuse to negotiate at the same time with respect to the Suez Canal and the New Hebrides. But the two things ought to be kept entirely separate; and I think, considering the strong feeling that exists in Australia with regard to the question of the New Hebrides, we ought to use exceptional endeavours—I am not talking about going to war, but I refer to diplomatic endeavours—in order to induce the French to withdraw from the position which is of such concern to Australia, and to the Empire at large. I hope the Government will not relax their efforts to do their best to bring about a satisfactory settlement of this question.

MR. E. ROBERTSON (Dundee)

Mr. Courtney, I beg to move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £100, part of the salary of our Ambassador in France. I need hardly say I do not make this Motion as an attack upon the amount of that salary, although I think the salary of our Ambassador in France—and, indeed, of every Ambassador whose name figures in this list—is so great that the House might reasonably consider whether it ought not to be seriously cut down. My object is to invite the attention of the Committee to the conduct of Her Majesty's Government in refusing to take part in the approaching International Exhibition at Paris, on the ground that it is intended as a commemoration of the French Revolution. I assure the right, hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) that, in consideration of the lateness of the hour (11.55), and also the lateness of the Session, I shall compress what I have to say on this subject within the smallest possible compass. I assure hon. Members opposite that I do not mean to make this a Party question, because I grieve to say that from my reading of the correspondence on this subject, I find that the Liberal Government who preceded the present Government is almost, if not quite, as much to blame in the matter as Her Majesty's present Advisers are. I will not trouble the Committee by going through the Correspondence which was laid on the Table the other day by the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Sir James Fergusson) relating to this matter. But if the Committee will permit me, I will state in a few words the main points of the Correspondence. The Correspondence began so long ago as November, 1884, when an official document announcing the holding of the Exhibition was sent to Her Majesty's Government. In that document, the French Minister observes that the date 1889 is the proper date for this Exhibition—firstly, because it is the end of the usual interval of 11 years which is allowed to elapse between Exhibitions of this character in France; and, secondly, because it is the anniversary of the Hegira of French patriotism. On the 12th February, 1886, the Earl of Rosebery, writing to Lord Lyons, asked whether the Exhibition was intended to be a celebration of the Revolution of 1789. That is the beginning of the objection taken by Her Majesty's Government, and on which Her Majesty's Government have acted in refusing to take part in this celebration. M. Waddington, in his despatch soliciting the co-operation of our Government, recognized the fact that upon the valuable co-operation of this country depended, in a great part, the success of this work of peace and industry. It was added that, if England took no official part in the Exhibition, the French Government would give all facilities to British exhibitors. Very well, that is really the whole of the matter. What does it come to? This, that the British Government have refused the courteous invitation of the Government of France to take part in a great international work of peace and industry because of the coincidence in date with the centenary of the Revolution of 1789. I say that is an unworthy position for the Government of a free country to take up, whether that Government for the moment be a Liberal or a Conservative Government; and I would contrast it for a moment with the attitude taken by the Liberal Government who were contemporary with the very events which occurred. If the House will permit me, I will read a single sentence from the history of the lamented Mr. Green. He says— The States General no sooner met at Versailles in May, 1789, than the fabric of despotism and privilege began to crumble. A rising in Paris destroyed the Bastille, and the capture of this fortress was taken for the sign of a new era of constitutional freedom for France and for Europe. Everywhere men thrilled with a strange joy at the tidings of its fall. 'How much is this the greatest event that ever happened in the world!' Fox cried, with a burst of enthusiam; 'and how much the least!' That is what was said by the Leader of the Liberal Party 100 years ago, when these events were happening; and what one of the noblest of the Liberal Leaders was not afraid to look upon with satisfaction, his degenerate successors 100 years afterwards were afraid even to associate themselves with in such an indirect way as to participate in an International work of peace and industry which happens to take place 100 years after these great events. I say, as I have already said, that I blame both the late and the present Government for their discourteous refusal, as I cannot help thinking it is, to take part in this Exhibition. But the present Government are mainly responsible, for it is they who gave the refusal. By taking part in this Exhibition, by accepting the invitation in the terms and the spirit in which it was offered, I say they would not have been committing themselves to anything; but by refusing, they committed themselves and the country to a verdict upon an historical event which happened 100 years ago, which verdict distorts and misrepresents the real feeling of the country on this subject. I am sorry, Sir, that two of my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench on this side of the House are not present—my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. John Morley), who made his reputation by studying the subject I am discussing, and who, I am sure, would protest against the course adopted by the Government; and my right hon. Friend the Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow (Sir George Trevelyan), who is a historian who was not afraid to express his opinion and approval of the events which, 100 years afterwards, his friends in politics are afraid even to touch. But I hope there are some Liberal Members—there may be some Tory Members—who are willing and anxious to protest against the misrepresentation of Liberal feeling and public feeling in this country which has taken place through the action of the Government on this question. For myself, I can only say I feel so strongly that an act of discourtesy has been offered to the French Government, and that the feeling of Liberalism has been misrepresented—I feel so strongly on this, that if I can get anyone to go into the Lobby with me, I shall push this matter to a Division.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item A, Salaries, &c, be reduced by the sum of £100, part of the Salary of the Ambassador at Paris."—(Mr. E. Robertson.)

MR. BRYCE

Before the debate goes further, and my right hon. Friend (Sir James Fergusson) answers on the part of the Government, I wish to correct the entire misapprehension under which my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. E. Robertson) labours. He said just now that the late Government refused to participate in the Exhibition. The late Government did nothing of the kind. What we did was to ask a question, which I think was a very proper question; we asked what the Exhibition was to be, and the occasion of it. There was nothing in our question to convey any indication of what our attitude would be, and I can assure the Committee there was no resolution taken by Her Majesty's Government or the late Foreign Secretary. The question asked was —"What is the nature of the Exhibition to be; is it to be a celebration of the Revolution?" the answer given to that was, that it did not pretend to be a celebration of the Revolution of 1789; but that one of the reasons for choosing the year 1889 for the Exhibition was that that date coincided with the centenary year of the Revolution. So far as my own knowledge of the facts goes, I am inclined to believe that we might have taken part in the Exhibition; and the mere fact that it was to take place on the centenary of the Revolution of 1789 was no reason that we should not. It is not as if the French had wished to celebrate the centenary of 1793; the principles of 1789 are one thing, and the acts of 1793 are another; and there is nothing in the circumstances of 1789 that might not find perfect sympathy on this side of the Channel. There are many here who sympathize with the ideas and even the events of 1789; but, with our mixed feelings about the French Revolution, it would not have been advisable to go further. I do not, however, desire to join in the discussion generally; but I wished to explain that my hon. and learned Friend is mistaken in supposing there was any refusal to take part in the Exhibition given by the late Government.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN) (St. George's, Hanover Square)

Would my hon. and learned Friend state what was the object of the question put by the late Government to the Government of France? Was it put with a view of ascertaining whether the Government might join in the celebration of the Revolution of 1789; was it put with the view of stimulating the Government to join in the celebration, or was it merely a question of curiosity?

MR. BRYCE

My right hon. Friend is fond, as the Committee knows, of asking questions; but I should have thought the object was one that hardly required his keen intellect to discover. We asked the question to ascertain whether it was to be purely and simply a celebration of the Revolution of 1789, or merely whether the date fixed upon happened to coincide with the date of the Revolution. It was a natural wish on our part to know whether the Exhibi- tion was to be held for the purpose of commemorating the Revolution, which would have made it a distinctly political celebration, or whether it was primarily an industrial undertaking which happened to coincide in date with the centenary of the Revolution. There is all the difference in the world between the two things, and the answer of the French Government indicated that although one of the reasons for choosing the year 1889 was its coincidence with the centenary of 1789, the exhibition was not to be a political celebration.

SIR JAMES FERGUSSON

I should regret if anything said on this question should tend to accentuate the refusal of Her Majesty's Government to take part in the Centenary Exhibition of 1789. The hon. and learned Member for Dundee referred in terms to the invitation conveyed by the French Ambassador in London; but he did not read, I think, the precise words employed by M. Waddington in that invitation, the closing paragraph of which said— In the event of the Government of the Queen not being able to afford official participation, the French Government would receive with satisfaction the assurance of their unofficial support, and in giving all publicity to the documents relating to the Exhibition, and in guaranteeing British subjects all necessary facilities in regard to carriage and Customs' duties. There was nothing official or unofficial to commit the Government to any line of policy; but the French Government thought it very probable, from the communications which passed two years before, that the Government would not be inclined to take part in an Exhibition that had any direct reference to the Revolution. The Prime Minister replied, in terms studiously courteous, and calculated not to give any offence to the French Government, and which I am certain has not produced any. He says— With reference to my note of the 28th March, I have now the honour to inform your Excellency that Her Majesty's Government do not propose to avail themselves of the invitation which the French Government have been so good as to address to them, to take an official part in the International Exhibition which is to be held at Paris in 1889. In making this announcement, M. 1'Ambassadeur, I beg to assure you, and I have the honour to request that you will convey this assurance to the French Government, that Her Majesty's Government will be very happy to afford every facility to exhibitors who may be desirous of sending their goods, or of contributing in other respects to the proposed undertaking. Well, Sir, there is no ground for the allegation that there is any discourtesy or coldness to the French Government in that reply. My hon. and learned Friend says there was no peculiar political significance. Well, the French Government never made any concealment of the matter, for they say the year 1889— Was marked out as the close of a further period of 11 or 12 years which has elapsed between recent Exhibitions. It was still more clearly marked as coinciding with the centenary of a Hegirah dear to French patriotism. I have stated in this House, on the part of Her Majesty's Government, that they did not think it right to take part in a political celebration—no doubt industrial, but also distinctly political—upon which a difference of opinion must prevail in a foreign country. It may not matter whether the majority be one side or the other, it would be contrary to the habit and policy of the Government of this country to concern itself intimately with political affairs in a foreign country; and I am sure, upon reflection, that will be considered as a wise decision on, the part of the Government the Earl of Rosebery was a wise and judicious Foreign Minister, and the question asked by him was wise and prudent; and the Committee may see a continuity of policy in this matter. I hope the Committee, by no expressions, will accentuate the refusal that the Government thought it their duty to give. The dissent has given no offence on the other side of the Channel, and I hope not on this.

MR. LABOUCHERE

I sincerely trust my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. E. Robertson) will divide. It is all very well to talk about accentuating the refusal; but I hope, even at this late period of the Session, the Committee will testify against such an announcement as that of the right hon. Gentleman, who has tried to throw a species of responsibility upon the Members of the late Government. My hon. Friend the Member for South Aberdeen (Mr. Bryce), as the exponent of the late Government, has stated that had the question been put fairly to the late Government, whether they would take part, officially or not, in the Exhibition, they would have assented to it.

MR. BRYCE

I did not say anything of the kind; I said that no decision had been arrived at, and that the time had not come, when the late Government quitted Office, at which it had become necessary to decide.

MR. LABOUCHERE

I say they would have assented to it, because they depended upon the support of the Radicals in this House, and they would not have had that support if they had not; and we know in the end they were ready to recognize the position of the Radicals. A Radical Government re-fuse to take part in celebrating the anniversary of one of the noblest deeds over done! It was a deed which I should have thought even the hon. Gentleman opposite the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr. De Lisle), would have recognized as one which was for the benefit of the whole human race. It is not a question of our recognizing as right everything that was done during the French Revolution; but a question of our recognizing that this was a great and advantageous deed for France itself. Why, even Louis XVI. regarded it himself as an advantageous deed, for entering Paris immediately afterwards, surrounded by his faithful Parisians, he went to the Hôtel de Ville, where he made a speech and congratulated the Parisians upon the taking of the Bastille—[An hon. MEMBER: He was forced.] That may be so; but still he did it. I am really surprised at the reason that has been given by the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. He said— "We will not take part in any political anniversary." The Jubilee was a political anniversary, the Coronation is a political event, and yet we know very well that Foreign, Governments, although they may be Republican, take part in political events that are in their very nature part and parcel of the system of Royalty. We may be Royalists or Republicans; that is not the question. In France there is a Republic, and yet the right hon. Gentleman says the Republic is approved of by all the Royalists of France. [Sir JAMES FERGUSSON: I did not.] You said the same thing. Do you mean to tell me there is a single person in France who does not approve of it? If there is, it is someone opposed to the system of government in that country; and, because there may be these loyal citizens, you think it your duty to say the British Government ought not to associate with them, and refuse to take part in any Exhibition, though it meets with the approval of Bonapartists and Royalists as well as Republicans. I hope my hon. and learned Friend will go to a Division; and if he does, I shall never have given a vote with more sincerity than I shall give on this occasion as a protest against the action of the Government.

SIR CHARLES DALRYMPLE (Ipswich)

The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Labouchere) recognizes in the Jubilee celebration an analogy, as I understand it, to the commemoration to be held in Paris in 1889. I am not aware that the Jubilee celebration was the commemoration of a revolution 50 years ago; and therefore I scarcely see where the analogy is. But I rose for the purpose of referring for a moment to the remark of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Robertson). I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the present Liberal Party are the degenerate successors of Mr. Fox. Would anyone have believed that the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen (Mr. Bryce) was in favour of accepting the invitation of the French Government? As I understood him, he said that the Earl of Rosebery only asked the date of the Exhibition. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer asked him the object of the inquiry about the date; but we did not derive any explanation of the Earl of Rosebery's inquiry. When the hon. Member for Northampton said that the hon. Member would have assented, the hon. Member for South Aberdeen rises and says—"I said nothing of the kind."

MR. BRYCE

I did not say that. I am unwilling to trouble the Committee again, but the hon. Baronet is entirely misstating what I said.

SIR CHARLES DALRYMPLE

Then why was it necessary to rise and correct the hon. Member for Northampton. The fact is, that the late Government did not intend to accept the invitation; but the hon. Gentleman has used the incident for the sake of chastising Her Majesty's present Advisers, though if they had remained in Office they would have done nothing different. For my part, I think it would be better if my right hon. Friend and Relative (Sir James Fergusson) forbore to answer the statements of hon. Gentlemen opposite, for then they would answer one another, as on this occasion, and so the subject might be settled.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 50; Noes 103: Majority 53.—(Div. List, No. 415.)

[12.30 A.M.]

Original Question again proposed.

MR. LABOUCHERE

I rise to put a question to the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and also to call attention to the manner in which the accounts under this Vote are presented to the Committee. I would ask the right hon. Baronet whether he considers it a good system that our Ambassadors or Ministers should be obliged to retire at 70 years of age. Some years ago, I called attention to this point. We have, in this House, instances of very eminent men of 70 and upwards, who take an effective part in political matters, and we have on the Bench eminent Judges of the same age. The rule to which I am calling attention was only established about 20 years ago, and the object of it was to create a flow of promotion. It was not held that a Minister was unfit to serve the public at the ago of 70; but it was thought desirable to retire him then in order to give promotion in the Service. But I have always thought that if a man is ready to serve his country, and can serve his country, he should not be retired so long as he is ready to do it, and can do it, for we know that the present system means an enlargement of the heavy pension list, of which we have to bear the charge. The right hon. Gentleman will bear me out when I say that there are, or have been, many eminent Gentlemen in Her Majesty's Diplomatic Service who may not now be, or may not have been, desirous to retire, and whose valuable services would have been, or would now be, lost to the country, if they had retired, or were now to retire, at the age of 70. It must be recollected that a person who has lived some time at a Court, and is a persona grata there, is, in respect of that circumstance, a better man for that particular post than anyone who can be sent to replace him. His retirement, therefore, operates injuriously, both to the taxpayer and to the Diplomatic Service, and I hope, therefore, we shall receive some assurance, not that the rule will be relaxed in this instance or in that, but that the rule will be abrogated altogether. There are one or two other points to which I wish to call attention. In the first place, I desire to call the attention of the Under Secretary, or, perhaps, I should rather say, the Secretary to the Treasury, to the extraordinary way in which these accounts are presented to the Committee. We have, as we all know, already had Votes for Queen's Messengers and couriers; but here is another Vote of £2,400 for Queen's Messengers—that is, couriers. As I understand it, this Vote is for the journeys of the Queen's Messengers back to this country. When a Queen's Messenger goes out, his expenses are placed on the Foreign Office Vote. But when he comes back, his expenses are placed on the Diplomatic Vote. Therefore, we never know what these gentlemen cost the country. There was a strong expression of opinion when the Foreign Office Vote was under consideration that the cost of the Queen's Messengers was excessive; but hon. Gentlemen did not then know that we should have another charge for their expenses in the Votes for the Diplomatic Service. Then there are charges for fuel and lights, for extra rent, and furniture, although we had other Votes for furniture, fuel, &c., some time ago. Why should not the Votes we are now asked to grant in respect of these items appear in the proper place? I do not say that there is not a reason for this charge for extra fuel and lights. All I say is, that all these charges should be massed together, so that we should know what the total amount is. Then, for telegrams there is a further charge of £12,000. There was the other day a lengthy discussion in Committee on the almost annual increase in the cost of telegrams; but it is shown by these Votes that we had not the whole Votes before us then. I suppose that the telegrams sent out by the Foreign Office are charged to the Foreign Office, and the telegrams received by the Foreign Office are charged to the Diplomatic Vote. But surely the charges in respect of both sets of telegrams should be put together. The Chancellor of the Exchequer will see how desirable this would be. To go no further, it would save one discussion. But we should know what is the total sum charged for telegrams. To say that one sum is charged for telegrams sent out, and another for telegrams received, is making a distinction without a difference. I would, therefore, ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will take steps to have these accounts submitted to the Committee in a better fashion; and, also, whether he can hold out any hope that the absurd rule as to retirement at 70 years of age will be abrogated as soon as possible?

SIR JAMES FERGUSSON

As regards the retirement of Ambassadors and Ministers, I apprehend everyone intrusted with the responsible position of Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs must be guided in each case by a regard to the public interests. There are men who can remain and do good service to their country after passing 70 years of age. There are, however, others who require to retire, from, impaired health, or the effect of climate, when they arrive at that age. I believe every Foreign Minister would desire to retain the services of men who are valuable to their country as long as possible. There is nothing now to prevent an Ambassador who has passed 70 years of age from remaining at his post for a longer period; but I do not think it possible for anyone in my place to make any other statement on this point than that each case must be decided according to circumstances, and to the interests of the Public Service. As to the arrangement of the Estimates, I am sure that every Foreign Secretary has for many years recognized it as desirable that the Committee should understand the accounts. I do not believe that there is the slightest desire to withhold from the Committee information on the subject. I shall be ready to confer with the Secretary to the Treasury, and see whether this Vote cannot be arranged differently in another year. It is now in the form in which it has every year come before the Committee. If there is any particular item on which any Gentleman requires information I shall be glad to give it to the best of my ability.

MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)

I should like to ask the Government, before proceeding to a Vote, if they have considered the propriety of introducing public competition as a condition of entrance into the Diplomatic Service. This question has agitated the minds of other Ministries; but the pre- sent Ministers are so superior to all others that it would be well to know if they have turned their attention to it. I cannot imagine any argument in favour of open competition in other branches of the Public Service which would not hold equally good in respect to the Diplomatic Service. Open competition might even be of greater importance and value in regard to the Diplomatic Service than to any other. In the first place, the Diplomatic Service requires, from those who go into it, some knowledge of foreign languages; and, owing to the unfortunate system of education in our public schools, there is only a small proportion of young men who have any conversational knowledge of foreign languages. The adoption of public competition as a means of entrance into the Diplomatic Service would ensure an improvement in our system of education as regards the knowledge of foreign languages. But there is another reason why I would urge the desirability of adopting public examination as a means of entrance into the Diplomatic Service. It is this —that a great deal of the favouritism and patronage that prevails now would be done away with, and that this would tend to purify the tone and spirit of our system of diplomacy. I do not wish to make any aspersions on the present members of the Diplomatic Service; but I must say that I share the feeling of the reformers of the present day, that that which the Psalmist said of all men is peculiarly applicable to them —that they do not tell the truth. The whole system of diplomacy is, in fact, a skilful arrangement for trying to take advantage of our neighbours. I am in favour of seeing all diplomacy carried on in the light of day and in au above-board fashion. I think that this would be best done, or would be more likely to be done, if you commence at the beginning by admitting those who have to take part in the diplomacy of the country into the Diplomatic Service by open competition. I look for my own part with great distrust upon all the arrangements of our Diplomatic Service. I think that half the difficulties by which we are constantly surrounded and half the wars into which we are constantly plunged would be avoided if nine out of ten diplomatists were done away with. There are all sorts of per- sons—Chargé d'Affaires, secretaries, attachés, and officials of all kinds—connected with the Diplomatic Service who are, I believe, in most cases quite unnecessary. We have a Consular Service, and from what information I have been able to gain I believe that the Consuls do most of the work, and are of most assistance to Her Majesty's subjects when they fall into difficulties or into misfortune abroad. Of course, we want a certain number of representatives abroad; but I believe that like other Departments of the Public Service the Diplomatic Service is greatly over-paid and over-manned. But be that as it may, I desire to express my protest against the whole system as it is now carried on, under the firm conviction that as diplomacy now prevails, it leads to international difficulties; and that it would be far better that instead of having all our international affairs carried on in the dark as at present, and only having any information vouchsafed to the Representatives of the people six or 12 months after date, when it is impossible to combat the evil of diplomacy —it would, I say, be much better to have direct communication between one Government and another, or between the Representatives of the people in one country and those in another, so that we may know at the time how matters stand. If there is nothing to be ashamed of, then I say that secrecy is out of place. If you are only trying to outwit your neighbours and get some small advantage over them, I think the less a nation like this has to do with such diplomacy the better. Under all these circumstances, I think it would be well that our whole system of diplomacy should be altered, and, at all events, if we have diplomatists, that they should be admitted into the Service by open competition.

MR. LABOUCHERE

I also think it would be better to alter the whole system of our diplomatic arrangements. The Americans get their work done twice as well as we do for one-third of the money we spend. I do not think it is necessary to send Ambassadors or Ministers with large salaries and with large staffs to all the places where they are now sent. I think you might often send a Chargé d' Affaires or a Consul General who would receive £1,000 or £2,000 a-year, and who would not be expected to entertain or spend money as your present Ambassadors do. You must not suppose that the Minister gets the money that is paid to him. He has to spend it on entertainments. The only Embassy in which a man can save money is Constantinople. One of the greatest evils of the present system is that it renders it impossible to have open competition for entrance into the Diplomatic Service. The third secretary to an Embassy receives £150 a-year, and he is sent to a capital of Europe, where it is impossible for him to live amongst those with whom he associates, and is expected to associate, without spending £600 or £700 a-year. It would be sheer cruelty to send a gentle man who had passed a public examination to a post in an European capital, and call upon him to live amongst those with whom he would have to associate on £150 a-year. Therefore, one evil of the present system is, that it is impossible under it to have an open competitive examination for entrance into the Diplomatic Service. My hon. Friend who has just sat down (Mr. Conybeare) says that our diplomatic servants do not tell the truth, and he urges that as a reason for having a competitive examination. Well, is the competitive examination to be in lying? Is the greatest liar to be sent out as a diplomatist? There may be secrecy in diplomacy, but the individual men tell the truth. It is generally the Ministers in this country who do not tell the truth. The truthful despatch comes home; but that despatch is concealed, and I think it is unfair to throw the responsibility for lying on the diplomatists when the want of truth—and I speak from experience—generally lies with the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.

SIR JAMES FERGUSSON

The question of open competition as a means of admission to the Diplomatic Service has often been the subject of discussion in this House. When it was last discussed it was stated that limited competition had been admitted as regarded the Foreign Office, and Lord Beacons-field said that it might be extended to the Diplomatic Service. Now, at present, every vacancy that occurs, either in the Foreign Office or in the Diplomatic Service, is open to competition between gentlemen nominated by the Secretary of State. It has been always contended by those who are responsible for the conduct of foreign affairs, that it is desirable that the Secretary of State should exercise some power of selection. The interests committed to the Diplomatic Service are very great, and it is in the highest degree desirable that those who are entrusted with the responsibilities of that Service should be in the highest degree trustworthy. It is necessary that candidates for admission to the Diplomatic Service should come up to a high standard, as the members of that Service occupy a very high position, and the standard required for entrance into the Foreign Office, or into the Diplomatic Service, is very high. At the last competition which took place for admission to the Foreign Office, the second competitor was a man who had taken the highest honours, and several of the highest prizes at his University. Let it be remembered that it is a thing unknown that any secret has ever escaped from the Foreign Office, and it cannot be denied by anyone that there are always secrets in the Foreign Office, the divulging of which might be very injurious to the interests of this country. The hon. Member for the Camborne Division of Cornwall said that the Foreign Service of this country had nothing to do; but it has every day to send out messages or despatches to every part of the world. The commercial affairs alone which are taken care of at the Foreign Office are very important. There are hardly any days when scores of letters are not sent to the Foreign Office by commercial firms or by those engaged in commercial affairs which are of importance. The agents of this country abroad have to exert themselves in procurieg information and in conducting business of the highest importance to commercial firms in this country, and gentlemen display zeal and energy in these affairs, Our efforts are not always successful; but, at least, I can testify to the great zeal displayed by those who represent this country abroad. It is, indeed, said that a lower class of agents would serve the country as well as those who are now employed. But I do not think so. It must be recollected that we have to compete with men of the highest class—I do not mean of the highest birth—in the Public Service of their respective nations. Our interests are not, as we know, inferior to theirs. And if we were not capable of holding our own in diplomacy, the interests of this country would suffer. It is, I think, unworthy of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Conybeare) to say that diplomacy means insincerity. It does not mean, anything of the kind. It means nothing more than bargaining. A mercantile firm cannot, and would not, be said to be insincere, because it looked after its own interests. And our national interests must be maintained as earnestly as those of any mercantile firm.

DR. TANNER (Cork Co., Mid)

The right hon. Baronet let the cat out of the bag when he said that we should not be able to hold our own in diplomacy, unless the men employed in our Diplomatic Service were taken from a certain class. ["No, no!"] Yes; he said so in the first instance, though he afterwards modified his remark. And practically what he said was true. That was, that the major portion of these diplomatic agents are scions of aristocratic houses, genteel paupers, who are supplied with salaries in connection with these diplomatic posts. I should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman who talked of the high standard that young men admitted to the Diplomatic Service have to pass, would give us some individual instances. He was naturally proud and overjoyed to give one instance of one young man out of a great number having obtained University honours. But what about the rest? One man does not make a standard, and the hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that the major part of these young men stationed at Berlin, Dresden—[A laugh, and "No one is stationed there!"]—an hon. Member says that no one is stationed at Dresden. But if he will look at this Vote he will see that there is a Secretary of legation and Charge d' Affaires at the Court of Saxony, with a salary of £750. I have the distinguished honour of knowing several of these diplomatists, and I can assure you that some of these men go to Germany without any knowledge of German—that they go there, in point of fact, to learn the language, in order to qualify themselves for posts elsewhere. [Renewed laughter.] I am delighted that hon. Gentlemen opposite are pleased. But let me say that it is absolutely necessary that you should not laugh until you are certain what you are laugh- ing at. At the present time, it is absolutely necessary that the members of the Diplomatic Service should understand German. Germany is much the greatest country in the world at the present time, and accordingly it is absolutely essential to the Diplomatic Service that the German language should be studied. And yet I have known two men—one at Vienna, and the other attached to the establishment at Dresden — neither of whom knew German when they went out. Ex uno disce omnes; and you will see that it is the same all round in connection with these establishments that you have in connection with the various Courts of Europe. I am not here to throw obloquy on the holders of important posts; but what I should like to know is this. Is it not true, as I maintain, that in this country the major portion of young educated men are not drawn from the aristocratic classes, but from the upper and lower middle classes? In consequence of their obtaining a good commercial education, and understanding languages, they would be greatly hotter men for these diplomatic posts than those unfortunate young creatures who are sent over there to try and qualify themselves in some way, so as to save themselves from being a burthen, an incubus, and an infliction on their families. They are thrown on the nation to save their aristocratic parents. Everyone who knows these Embassies will bear me out in saying that the men there are unsuitable, while you have the power to supply them with proper and suitable men—men whom the nation would be proud of—instead of jobbing away these posts to men who are thoroughly and absolutely unsuitable. The hon. Member for Northampton (Sir. Labouchere) took the hon. Member for the Camborne Division of Cornwall (Mr. Conybeare) to task for speaking of diplomatists as people who are in the habit of saying what is not true. But is not the Member for Northampton aware that when an examination was made some years ago, it was found impossible to distinguish between the skull of a first-class thief and the skull of a first-class diplomatist? I merely make that remark, as some attention has been devoted to this question of suitable diplomatists. This much I would certainly say, that if you want to have your foreign affairs managed in a better way than they are at present, it will not be done merely by sticking to precedents. I quite endorse what the right hon. Baronet (Sir James Fergusson) said just now, that there are no secrets to divulge. Most of these men are gentlemen, and as gentlemen they do not divulge secrets. But we want something more than fine gentlemen in our Diplomatic Service. We want men who will be able to carry oh the Diplomatic Service in the way the Russian Diplomatic Service is carried on. It is much better than that of this country, and is supposed to be of the first order in the world. The reason is, that they take a great deal more care over their diplomatic appointments than we do, and not merely in regard to the larger Courts, but in the smaller ones. It is at these smaller stations that your great questions arise. What do we see even now in Bulgaria, that very small State? You have there a burning question, which may at any moment precipitate a war, not only between one or two, but between three or four great nations. These questions ought to have a great deal more attention than has hitherto been devoted to them. I must apologize for inflicting any rude or ill-digested remarks upon the Committee at this hour in the morning, and I sincerely hope that, sooner or later, the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury will come nobly forward and put the clôture upon this bad and evil system which has hitherto been productive of disgrace to this country.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN) (St. George's, Hanover Square)

On this subject, the Committee might be interested to know what were my own experiences when I had the honour of serving Her Majesty at Constantinople. Then we had six gentlemen connected with the Embassy; one of them knew seven languages, four of them knew four languages perfectly, and the other three. There was not a single one of these young men who was not a match for any foreign diplomatist at Constantinople, and most of them were superior.

DR. TANNER

But will the Chancellor of the Exchequer tell us how long these gentlemen had been in the Diplomatic Service, and whether any had served elsewhere before they went to Constantinople? We all know that Constantinople is one of the greatest dip- lomatic centres. I should like an answer to that question.

MR. BRYCE (Aberdeen, S.)

The only reason why I have not risen to confirm what was said by the right hon. Baronet (Sir James Fergusson) was that I thought the Committee was anxious to dispose of this Vote; and after the exhaustive discussion which has taken place I trust that the Vote will now be passed. I should, however, like to confirm, from the short experience I had at the Foreign Office, what has been said of the ability and the competency of our young diplomatists. They are quite as good as we could get by open examination. We have a great many exceedingly clever and well educated men. The only fault I have to find with the system at present is that they are not put soon enough to work that calls out their capacities. They are competent for something far better than the mere copying and deciphering of despatches, which is what most of the younger men have alone to do. They are men of large knowledge of languages, and often of considerable natural gifts. I think that, taking it all in all, our Diplomatic Service is one in which we may, as a nation, feel satisfaction.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

(10.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £84,125, 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 1888, for the Expense of the Consular Establishments Abroad, and for other Expenditure chargeable on the Consular Vote.

MR. HUNTER (Aberdeen, N.)

I beg to move, Sir, that you do now report Progress. I understand that it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government that a Bill, the Technical Instruction (Scotland) Bill, which is put down for to-night, should be proceeded with. As the First Lord of the Treasury is very well aware, the Scotch Votes are put down for 12 o'clock to-morrow, and it is not desirable, therefore, that the proceedings of the Committee of Supply should be further prolonged. I would ask the Government if they intend to take that Bill to-night?

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH) (Strand, Westminster)

It is not intended to pro- ceed with the Technical Instruction (Scotland) Bill to-night, and I therefore hope the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his Motion to report Progress.

MR. E. ROBERTSON (Dundee)

Will the right hon. Gentleman say what the order for Scotch Business will be tomorrow?

MR. W. H. SMITH

I am afraid I should not be in Order in saying anything about it on the present occasion.

DR. TANNER (Cork Co., Mid)

I should like to support what was said——

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order! There is no Motion before the Committee.

DR. TANNER

It has not been withdrawn.

THE CHAIRMAN

It has not been put from the Chair.

COLONEL NOLAN (Galway, N.)

Then I will move it, Sir, and for very much the same reason. How many hours sleep does the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury intend us to have? We have to be here to-morrow at 12 o'clock to assist the Government in discussing these Estimates, and I should like to know how many hours in bed he expects us to have? We have been here since 4 o'clock, and it is now after 1. It used to be very unusual to vote away the money of the country after half-past 12. [An hon. MEMBER: Oh!] Yes; that used to be the old rule of the House of Commons, and I should like to know the intention of the Government?

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Colonel Nolan.)

MR. W. H. SMITH

The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Nolan) is an old Member of this House, and he knows very well that towards the end of a Session it is customary to sit till 2 or half-past 2 o'clock in Committee of Supply—[Colonel NOLAN: It is an innovation.] I have been in the House as long as the hon. and gallant Gentleman has, and I have sat on the Opposition Benches for a very long time, and I have thought it my duty to assist Parliament in the discharge of its duty. Now, Sir, I must appeal to the Committee to proceed. It is only 10 minutes past 1, and it is not unreasonable, after the small amount of work that has been done this evening, to ask the Committee to proceed a little longer with the Business.

COLONEL NOLAN

But how many hours sleep does the First Lord of the Treasury think we ought to have?

MR. W. H. SMITH

I will venture to say this, that the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Nolan) has many more hours sleep than any Member of Her Majesty's Government. This is not the proper way of treating a grave question, and I trust that, having a sense of our position, we shall endeavour to conduct ourselves as Members of Parliament, and not occupy time in this contentious and unseemly manner. I would appeal to the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Nolan) not to proceed with this Motion, but to allow the Committee at once to go on with its work.

MR. CONYBEARE

I would also appeal to my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Nolan) not to press this Motion. I think that in the generosity of our hearts we might fairly assist the Government in getting two or three more Votes before we conclude our Business this evening. I am very sorry to hear that the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury does not get so much sleep as he desires. I thought last night that, after having relieved his mind by his protest, and allowed the House to adjourn at half-past 2 o'clock, he would have had enough sleep.

DR. TANNER

I think the time has come when some limit ought to be placed upon the hours at which these Estimates should be discussed. I would call the attention of the First Lord of the Treasury to the fact that there are several things unblocked on the Notice Paper. The Charity Commissioners Officers Bill stands for third reading. Also lower down, the 29th Order, is the Licensed Promises (Earlier Closing) (Scotland) Bill. That is a subject which will not pass without debate. And if the right hon. Gentleman is really in earnest, if he really means serious business, why should he not now report Progress, and let the Fourth Order be debated. Of course, it is a late period of the Session; but, for my own part, although I suffer very considerable inconvenience by being away from home and attending Parliament here, I should only be too glad to give the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury every assistance in my power by stopping here a few days longer. I do not mind missing the grouse shooting and passing a few extra days here; and I think what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. The right hon. Gentleman can let the Pandora wait a little while longer, and then I maintain we can finish the Business of the House in a satisfactory way—not in a hurried way, not in a way which is detrimental to the interests of the nation, and detrimental to the health of the Members of this House, but in a way satisfactory to the right hon. Gentleman, to the Government, and to this House.

COLONEL NOLAN

I am going to withdraw my Motion, and I am not going to enter into an argument with the First Lord of the Treasury as to the comparative amount of rest enjoyed by independent Members of this House and Members of the Government. I maintain, however, that it is not reasonable to keep us here for nine or 10 hours, and then only to give six or seven hours repose before coming here again at 12 o'clock to-morrow. I hope that at the end of another half-hour or so the Government will consent to report Progress.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question again proposed.

MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)

If there are arguments against examinations for the Diplomatic Service, there are none against it in the case of the Consular Service. Indeed, it ought not to be called a Service at all. Its members are, as everybody knows, pitch-forked into it without having had any education for it. I am perfectly aware that there is a slight examination at the present time; but it really amounts to nothing at all. I agree with what was said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that our Diplomatic Service will compare favourably with that of any other country; but I do not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or anybody else, will say that our Consular Service does compare favourably with the Consular Service of other countries. I think the French system is infinitely superior to our own. In France they have a regular Consular Service, a man rising regularly from the bottom to the top of the ladder up to Consuls of the first class. We have none of that here. We have a gentleman, who is taken probably because he is the friend of a Minister, or some other reason of that sort, and he is put into the Consular Service, after passing a slight examination. The pay, too, is perfectly arbitrary. I take the page of the Estimates I have open before me. The Consul at Rio Janeiro gets £1,000 a-year, and allowances £800 a-year; and the Consul at Copenhagan £500, and allowances £200. It is a mere matter of haphazard how these Consuls are paid. I agree with the Government that unless you make a radical change in the whole system you could not have any sort of competitive examination in the Diplomatic Service. But you might have it in the Consular Service. You might have a general competition for clerkships in Consulates, and, when there, the men would learn their business. I have always thought that we have made a great mistake in our Consular Service. I think, as a rule, we pay higher than any other country, and we do not under our system get as good Consuls as the other Powers do; whilst, at the same time, from the mere fact that the Consuls are appointed by patronage, you do not get young men into the Service, who will learn their business, but men at almost any age. I do not think there is such a thing as a ready-made Consul, and I hope the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs will say that the Foreign Office will look into this matter, and see whether some alteration cannot be proposed.

THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON (Manchester, N.E.)

Of course, the hon. Member (Mr. Labouchere) can hardly expect that I should, on the spur of the moment, make a promise which would involve a considerable change in a very important branch of the Service. But I may say this—that there has been of late years a distinct change made in a certain class of Consular appointments. I allude to the Consuls in the East. There is now a competitive examination with the view of filling up all appointments in the East, the Levant, Asia Minor, and so forth from a class of student interpreters. I need not say that I attach weight to what the hon. Member (Mr. Labouchere) has said; but I cannot make any pledge myself.

MR. BRYCE (Aberdeen, S.)

Whilst I agree in thinking, with my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), that some amount of reorganization might be desirable in our Consular Service, I should like to bear testimony to the very great ability, industry, and zeal of a great many of our Consuls. There are a large number of men who, though they have not been appointed in any competitive way, have nevertheless shown the greatest aptitude for the work, and the greatest intelligence in helping on our commercial interests. They produce reports which I believe to be better than those of the Consuls of any other country, and in most cases they have more to do than the Consuls of any other country, owing to the much larger commercial interests of England as compared with other nations. More attention has been given of late to drawing up Reports which shall be of interest and value to the trading community; and although we may desire to see changes made in this and that part of the system, I think we ought all recognize the great services the Consuls are now rendering to British commerce.

SIR RICHARD TEMPLE (Worcestershire, Evesham)

I will not detain the Committee long, as the hour is late. But I feel bound to say one word on behalf of men who are serving their country abroad, and who are not here to answer for themselves. In the course of my foreign experience I have known a great many of these Consuls—in Palestine, in Syria, in Asia Minor, in Greece, in Turkey, in Russia (both Odessa and St. Petersburg), in Denmark, Sweden, and Norway, in New York, and in California. In every one of these places I have found the Consuls in every way worthy of the British Service. Whether they are appointed by competitive examination or not, whether they are as well organized in a regular service as they might be, or not, I know that they work well for the good of their country; and, further, I submit that anybody who cares to study the various Consular Reports which are annually submitted by our Consuls abroad, will find them monuments of knowledge, industry, and perspicacity.

COLONEL NOLAN (Galway, N.)

Yes, Sir. Granting that they are competent men—admitting all that for the sake of argument; still, if you had these appointments filled, by competitive examination they would be open to everybody. If you make it a case of patronage, and suppose you get good men, still you limit it to the few. Some of the posts are extremely well paid, and would attract a large number of candidates. I do not admit, either, that men appointed by favouritism are likely to be so competent as those appointed after competitive examination.

DR. TANNER (Cork Co., Mid)

I should like some explanation as to allowances under this Vote. Now, there are a good many places abroad where you have a lot of English people residing—places like Mentone and Cannes, for instance. You have got a Vice Consul at both of those places, and they only get a very small sum for allowances. But, on the other hand, at a place like Rouen, where there is not at all the same number of English people resident, there is a very large salary given to the Consul. Now, Rouen is not a seaport town. It is a long way up the Seine; and I should like some explanation of the discrepancy in payment at the various places. I would also call attention to this Vote for Reunion—£1,000 a-year is paid for that. It is an out-of-the-way place, and not a commercial centre at all. How is it? Is it in order to combat French interests in that part of the world? If that is done, can we wonder that the French people are rather angry at our diplomatic interferences? I should like some explanation on these points from the right hon. Baronet (Sir James Fergusson).

SIR JAMES FERGUSSON

As a rule, Consuls are appointed where we have a large mercantile interest at stake. Rouen is a most important port, and a very large amount of work devolves upon our Consul there, which is increased owing to the troublesome restrictions at French ports. There is no port where there is more need of an intelligent Consul than at Rouen. In many places where British, trade is of much less importance there are unpaid officials—Vice Consuls who receive no pay, but a certain amount of fees. Formerly, the Consular officers were allowed to take fees, but that gave rise to irregularities; and, besides, it is contrary to the practice of this country that officers should be paid by fees. Accordingly, during the last year or two, these fees have been commuted for a fixed allowance. Hon. Members, if they look at the Vote, will see that a very considerable gain has accrued to the Ex- chequer by the fees being brought into the account, instead of the officers receiving them.

DR. TANNER

Is that all the remuneration these Consuls receive?

SIR JAMES FERGUSSON

They now pay these fees into the Exchequer, and they receive allowances in lieu of them.

DR. TANNER

The right hon. Baronet has not answered my question about Reunion.

SIR JAMES FERGUSSON

That is one of the most important Consulates possible. A very large trade is done at Reunion, and all the foreign countries are represented there. British merchants have such a large amount of the trade of the place in their hands that it is highly necessary that we should have a thoroughly competent officer there. Moreover, I would remind the Committee of the immediate neighbourhood of the British Colony of the Mauritius. I trust these explanations will be satisfactory, and that the Committee will now allow the Vote to pass.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

(11.) £8,400, to complete the sum for Slave Trade Services.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR (Donegal, E.)

I desire to ask the Minister in charge of this Vote to state whether there is any, and what, guarantee that these liberated Africans do not, after awhile, fall again into the hands of the slave traders. With an amount of £5 a-head the liberated slaves are handed over to certain missionary societies, the Church Society, and the University Missions, by the Consul at Zanzibar. A great number of slaves come into the hands of the British authorities on that part of the African Coast, and some of them appear to be kept for a time by these missionary societies; but is it within the knowledge of British officials what becomes of these Africans when they pass from the hands of these missionaries? Is it true that while many of them are kept nominally at the expense of the Exchequer in a condition very little distinguishable from slavery itself, that others fall again into the hands of slave dealers, and the same thing is repeated?

THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON) (Manchester, N.E.)

I can speak from personal knowledge of the East Coast of Africa. When I was Governor of Bombay, I made it my business to inquire what became of the slaves captured from the dhows, and I satisfied myself that the British officials took pains to see that they were placed in voluntary service with those who were willing to employ them. Care was taken that they were not detained against their will; and I do know, for I noted several instances, that these people make useful servants, and that they are quite as much their own masters as any who have never been taken from their homes. I am not able to say how it is with regard to the West Coast; I am not able to say that some may not have fallen again into the hands of the slave-traders when released; but I should be surprised if the results on the West Coast are different from those on the East.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

Is it not a very small portion that find their way to Aden?

THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON) (Leeds, N.)

The charge of £5 referred to is a payment to the Societies who take charge of these people. There are three Societies—the Church Mission, the University Mission, and the French Catholic Mission, and I believe there is a competition between these Societies—[Mr. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: No doubt.] This is. I believe, by far the most economical, humane, and useful method of securing that these liberated slaves are taken care of. The £5 is only paid to the Society when the slave is handed over to its care.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

Can the hon. Gentleman tell us the number of slaves liberated, the number handed over to the Societies during the last three years, and the number they have on hand? It is perfectly true there is a competition for these £5 notes, of which the Society gets one with each slave; but the point is what is done with the slave, what becomes of him after the society has obtained £5 on his account?

MR. JACKSON

I am not prepared to say what becomes of the balance of them. I think the Government has discharged its duty when it hands over the liberated slaves to responsible societies like these.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

Responsible to whom?

MR. JACKSON

I mean responsible in the sense that they are Societies whose business it is to look after these poor creatures, and I think we may rely on their work being properly done. I have a record of the number handed over to each society since 1884.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

Those who are handed over to the towns, does the Government watch what becomes of them?

SIR JAMES FERGUSSON

I know that the managers of certain asylums find employment for them. This is done to a considerable extent by the Roman Catholic brethren at Aden. There is a large demand for labour at Aden.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

Yes; I admit the Aden part.

SIR JAMES FERGUSSON

Well, if at times there is any superfluity of labour at Aden, then it naturally flows on to Bombay, where there is any amount of employment at well-paid rates. I have no doubt the steamers from Aden to Bombay carry a great number of these Africans.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

If the Government would institute some system by which the liberated Africans could be transported to Bombay and employment found there for them I see no objection; but I do see an objection to a system that allows the payment of £5 a-head and then you lose sight of them, and it is doubtful what becomes of them.

DR. CLARK (Caithness)

Perhaps the Secretary to the Treasury can explain why there is an increase of 50 per cent in the tonnage and bounties under Sub-head A?

MR. JACKSON

For years the number of slaves captured fell off very much. This tonnage is paid under an Act of Parliament according to the captures. The year before last the Vote was reduced to £2,000; but it was found not sufficient and had to be raised to £4,000, and last year, I believe I am correct in saying, I had to bring in a Supplementary Estimate for £2,000 to make up the amount. We have, therefore, this year raised the amount to £6,000.

COLONEL NOLAN

I would for a moment ask attention to the amount— £7,950—paid as a subsidy for the steam service between Aden and Zanzibar. How many liberated Africans are carried by this Service? I should like to have some details as to the item, which I do not object to; but I think it requires watching. This Vote is, I think, obtained under a mistake rather. There used to be a great outcry about the suppression of the Slave Trade, and it was all very well to undertake the duty on the West Coast; but the time is now come, I think, when this suppression should be carried out by joint international arrangement. It would cost us less; and I do not know that it is peculiarly our business to interfere with an Arabian institution by suppressing the Slave Trade on the African Coast. I do not, however, wish to raise a long debate. I only say that this item of £7,950 for steamers requires watching.

MR. JACKSON

This subsidy is paid partly for postal services, party to encourage a trade route, and partly to assist in the suppression of the Slave Trade. The contract was originally for £10,000, and expired in 1882. It was a question whether it was necessary to renew it; but it was renewed for six months, and subsequently the House reduced the amount to that at which it now stands. As I have said, it answers the purpose of securing a regular trade communication; it provides a mail service; and it is an additional service to assist in the suppression of the Slave Trade.

COLONEL NOLAN

This is a very interesting piece of information we have been supplied with. This is not merely a service of steamers to assist in the suppression of the Slave Trade; but, incidentally, it is a subsidy voted for carrying mails, but not included in the Post Office Vote, and we also learn that it is a subsidy to stimulate and assist the trade between these places, Zanzibar and Aden. Now, this last, as a matter of general policy, I do not disapprove of; but why it should be an exceptional policy in reference to Zanzibar and Aden I do not perceive. I have always been met with arguments in opposition to such a policy when I suggested a subsidy for a line of steamers between Galway and New York; but it seems the trade between Zanzibar and Aden has more claim on the consideration of the Government than that between Galway and New York.

DR. TANNER

One item here deserves a certain amount of attention, the allowances under Sub-head I of £5 a-head to Missionary Societies.

MR. JACKSON

That is what we have been discussing.

DR. TANNER

It has been referred to, but not in the manner I look at it. This is an allowance of £5 a-head upon every slave handed over to the Church Mission and the Universities Mission by our Consul at Zanzibar. Well, it is not so very long ago that this country objected to the Christianizing of heathen nations being carried on at the expense of the State. I am not going to say a word against the Church Missionary Society; but I certainly think it is scarcely right that money should be collected and paid over by the State to one particular denomination. ["Oh, oh!"] I am only stating what is fair, square, and above-board, and I really cannot see my way to let this item pass in an ordinary way without, at any rate, putting in my protest against it. I know something of the results of the work of these Societies from the remarks of men practically acquainted with the people, notably one gentleman whose name I will not mention, a member of my own family. He told me—we do not speak together now, Sir, since I have been Boycotted—[Laughter]—but in years past, when he happened to be in Her Majesty's Service, he told me that if he wanted a servant when he happened to be in Africa, give him a good honest heathen, and that practically when they become converted, when they are handed over to the Church Missionary Society, they become the greatest thieves possible. [Cries of "Divide!"] I merely make that remark in quite a casual way; but, possibly, many hon. Members— perhaps the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir James Fergusson) could from practical experience support what I say, that the process of Christianizing — this putting in the heathen at one end of the machine and turning him out a Christian—is not always satisfactory. [Cries of "Divide!" and "Order!"] That is what the money is being paid for. ["No, no!"] My remarks are from what I have imbibed from people who have had practical experience. [Cries of "Divide!"] If hon. Members will interrupt me, all that remains for me to do is to move the reduction of the Vote by the amount of these bounties.

Vote agreed to

(12.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £1,505, 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 1888, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Three Representatives of Her Majesty's Government on the Council of Administration of the Suez Canal Company.

COLONEL NOLAN (Galway, N)

May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to tell us what interest we are now getting for our £4,000,000 shares in the Suez Canal Company? That was the amount, I think, of the investment by Mr. Disraeli's Government, and it was thought to be a good bargain. I do not know whether it is now considered such.

DR. TANNER (Cork Co., Mid)

Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that question, Sir, I beg to move that you do report Progress. I make that Motion because it appears to be impossible to obtain from the Government any expression of opinion on matters as to which we desire information. Besides this the hour is late, and we have to meet again early today. Of course, the Government are interested in getting money for Supply; but this is specifically a Tory Vote from its origin, and I ask the Government are they afraid of defending the position they took up? Will they allow Progress to be reported, and permit this discussion at a time when they cannot sit there refusing to answer questions? [Cries of "Order!"] I say it without fear. [Cries of" Order!"] I must call on the Committee to assist me in forwarding the Motion I now formally move.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Dr. Tanner.)

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH) (Strand, Westminster)

Replying, in the first instance, to the question asked by the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Nolan), I have to say that the interest now paid on the Suez Canal Shares is the same as in the first instance—£200,000 a-year.

DR. TANNER

I rise to a point of Order. I moved to report Progress. Is the right hon. Gentleman in Order in answering a question, and not addressing himself to what is actually before the Committee?

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order! The First Lord of the Treasury.

MR. W. H. SMITH

Complaint is made that Ministers have not answered questions; but there is no ground for that complaint. Every question that has been properly addressed to a Minister has been answered fully. It is not consistent with what is due to the Committee to give any answer whatever to trivial statements that certainly are not creditable to those who make them.

MR. EDWARD HARRINGTON (Kerry, W.)

I am sorry my hon. and gallant Friend has incurred the rebuke.

MR. W. H. SMITH

I made no allusion to the hon. and gallant Member for North Galway. I answered his question. The hon. Member for West Kerry was not in the House when the speech to which I did refer was made.

DR. TANNER

Of course, I must take the right hon. Gentleman's remarks as applying to myself, and I receive them as they deserve to be received.

MR. EDWARD HARRINGTON

It is very inconvenient that these personal incidents should occur. Let me say that I was in the House, though the right hon. Gentleman did not observe me. I thought, however, that the right hon. Gentleman applied the expression "frivolous," to the question of my hon. and gallant Friend, and I regret I made the mistake. Passing by these personal references, I really think the Motion might now be accepted at this hour. My hon. Friend the Member for the Camborne Division of Cornwall, who moved in favour of ceasing Business at this hour, seems desirous of proceeding. I do not wish to intervene, but to say that, considering all the circumstances, I think the Motion is reasonable. At any rate, we might fairly test the feeling of the Committee by a Division, making, of course, duo allowance for the majority of the Government. I take the opportunity of protesting against Business being proceeded with now, when the few Members present show indications of sleep, physical or mental.

DR. CLARK

Let me suggest that we should take no more debatable Votes, but proceed with Votes to which no discussion attaches. Such are, I believe, No. 4 and No. 7. These are not contentious, and, those being finished, we might close Committee for to-night.

MR. W. H. SMITH

Yes; I will agree to that.

DR. TANNER

I only happen to be a very young Member of the House, of which the right hon. Gentleman is the Leader, and upon whom falls the duty of maintaining the dignity of his position. But, Sir, he has gratuitously insulted me to-night. [Cries of "Order!"] Yes; and it is in accord with the spirit that a short time ago led him to move my suspension from the House.

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order! I may warn the hon. Member that there is a power to deal with undue repetition.

DR. TANNER

Quite so, Mr. Courtney.

THE CHAIRMAN

Does the hon. Member withdraw his Motion?

DR. TANNER

No, Sir.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

The Motion, it appears to me, is a perfectly reasonable one. Still, it seems to be more and more accepted that, towards the end of the Session, the Committee must sit to no matter what hour, and vote the public money without reasonable discussion and explanation. It seems to me it is the duty of Members to attend until the work they have to do is properly despatched. If they object to sitting here late in the Session, if they chafe at delay that keeps the Committee sitting through the month of August, then they have no business to be Members of Parliament at all. Men who undertake the duties ought to be capable of discharging them. But I maintain it is not a reasonable manner of discharging Business to sit here from 2 to 3 o'clock voting away large sums of money, while half the Members present do not hide the fact that they are more prepared for sleep than debate.

MR. EDWARD HARRINGTON

My hon. Friend (Dr. Tanner) says he shall persist in this Motion, because it is a personal matter. I do not think it is a personal matter. I certainly intended to support the Motion to report Progress at this hour of the morning, because I think that we have done enough work but if my hon. Friend persists in making this a personal matter between himself and the First Lord of the Treasury I certainly shall vote against him.

THE CHAIRMAN

Will the hon. Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner) name a second Teller?

DR. TANNER

Yes; Mr. Pyne.

THE CHAIRMAN

Does the hon. Member consent to act as second Teller?

MR. PYNE (Waterford, W.)

He does.

Question put, and negatived.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

(13.) £21,300, to complete the sum for Subsidies to Telegraph Companies.

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.

Committee to sit again To-morrow.