DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR BUILDINGS.—(Class I.)—VOTE 7. (Hansard, 3 April 1913)

§ Sir J. D. REES
It is satisfactory that these Estimates show a total decrease of over £11,000. The Committee will no doubt be glad of that, although there is a feeling in every quarter that it is most desirable that our representatives abroad should not only be well housed but, if possible, better housed than anybody else. Although there is an impression abroad that members of our Diplomatic Service live lives of great comfort and luxury, and although it may be true to some extent that they live lives of comfort in the great European capitals, the majority of them live by no means in those circumstances, but really under conditions which call for good housing as an absolute necessity for their existence if they are to do the work they have to do and discharge their highly important duties. I see that there is an item 660 of new works at Cettinje; £3,700 for the current year, following upon a somewhat similar Vote last year. That would appear to be a very high expenditure at a place like this. Although it is called a capital of a kingdom, it is no more than mountain village, the whole kingdom containing fewer inhabitants than Nottingham. That is a charge which should be rather nicely scrutinised, although it is a fashion to make much of Montenegro. I think a very modest house would very well suffice for our representative there, although, as he is a friend of mine, I should like him to have the best house possible. I understand from the hon. Gentleman that where there is a sum provided for 1912–13 and nothing is shown in the columns to the left of it, we may take it that everything has been finished. For instance, is nothing in contemplation for Therapia?

Mr. BENN
It is either completed or abandoned.

§ Sir J. D. REES
Then I understand that the expense we are incurring in Constantinople and Therapia will show a considerable decrease?

Mr. BENN
It will do.

§ Sir J. D. REES
That is a clear case where the taxpayer should benefit by the altered conditions, upon which it is undesirable to dwell. There is a sum of £7,000 provided for the new Legation House at Sofia. No proper objection can be taken to that. The capital of the greatly enlarged Bulgaria will be of such a character that we should maintain, as far as possible, a suitable dwelling-house for our representative, although for the present he will continue to be a Minister. In regard to Stockholm, I do not understand why there should be a provision for £5,000 for this year, and why a further provision of £8,600 will be necessary. I should like to know. It always occurred to me that there was not very much need for much to be done at Stockholm, but it is a long time since I have been there, and I dare say circumstances have altered. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell us why there is this large provision for this capital. When we get to Pekin there is a provision of £5,500 for various items, including ice-making plant. I do not suppose the ice-making plant represents a very large proportion of the £5,500. It is probably like the 100 pounds for winding a clock which would lead one to suppose that 10,000 pounds had been required for the Clock Tower. I 661 presume it is a very small item, but I do not understand why this ice-making plant was required seeing that ice is a drug in the market at Pekin. There is no place in the world where ice is less wanted.

Mr. BENN
That is only one out of five services which are covered by the Vote.

§ Sir J. D. REES
So I understand. But it is a pity to put it down, because it gives an impression of somewhat unnecessary expenditure which no doubt does not really apply. But I do not quite know why there is so much expenditure required at Pekin. There is a total of nearly £20,000, the Estimate for £13,000 having been revised into one for £19,000, £12,000 being spent in the current year up to March, and a further provision being made of £5,500. It seems a great deal seeing that for many years past the Minister and the staff at Pekin have been housed in a very fine building, surrounded with a high wall, and have been apparently in possession of most of those comforts which I am sure the House would wish them to have. At any rate, I do not quite understand from this Estimate what this is, although I am familiar with the ground. Similarly there is £5,000 more provided for a house for a Chinese secretary and commercial attaché, also at Pekin. That is a part of a total Estimate of £8,000. This brings up the total expenditure at Pekin, including £1,500 for sanitary alterations in the present year, to £12,000, which seems to be rather much, and I should like to know something about it if the hon. Gentleman can give us the information. Then, Shanghai, £140. I do not quite know why baths are wanted at the Consular Gaol.

Mr. BENN
They are not exactly baths, they are ablution houses for the prisoners. It is desirable that they should be washed.

§ Sir J. D. REES
That puts the thing on a different footing. If it was hot and cold water baths for every prisoner, I should have rather shied at facing the expenditure. I did not quite understand about the Clock Tower. Then we came to the ice-making plant, and now we come to the baths for coolies in the Consular Gaol. If the least important item was not mentioned it would not give rise to any misunderstanding, and there would be no occasion for the enemy to blaspheme, not that I call myself an enemy or that the other is a description of my remarks. Then as regards maintenance and repairs, this looks at first sight a very large 662 sum—£33,600, following upon £36,700 last year. That is a recurring figure. There again I think the casual examiner of these Estimates would be rather apt to fall into the error of thinking that these large amounts were not needed because of the somewhat unfortunate selection of examples given in the note, setting forth the reason for which it is required. For instance, you have State room and furniture and maintenance of plate, £150; supply of furniture, £4,700, and so on, whereas really what this expenditure goes for is the upkeep of all our Legations and Embassies abroad, and is by no means an excessive figure. On the point of the maintenance of plate, £150, I should like to have some information. There was a time when our Ambassadors abroad used to be provided with magnificent plate out of public funds. I have seen some of these services. They were afterwards the perquisite of the Ambassadors, and they can be seen in various country houses in England. All that has been given up. I do not think anyone gets an allowance of plate. Where the plate belongs to the Ambassador, and where servants whom he himself pays keep the plate, what is the necessity for this item? If you take the Embassies and Legations upon which this sum of £33,652 will be spent in the current year, they include houses at Berlin, Constantinople, Paris, Rome, and so on, until I come to St. Petersburg. The house in St. Petersburg is not a whole house but half of another house. It is a half of the Soltikoff's Palace. It is a very fine house, but I do not understand why a proportion of the money is spent upon this Embassy. It is rather surprising that we have never had a house of our own in St. Petersburg on which these repairs could be spent, and it may possibly be that the British taxpayer is contributing to keep up the town house of Prince Soltikoff, in the other half in which either he or his tenant actually lives. Has it ever been under consideration to provide an Embassy at St. Petersburg, and is not this really rather an expensive way of housing our Ambassador?
There is an item here which struck me as requiring notice. What is the new Consular house at Lorenzo Marques? Lorenzo Marques may in time to come be a very important port but at present it is an extremely small place and, owing to various reasons, there is not very much trade. What is the house to be provided there? Are we building a house there 663 for a Consul? I should like to know, as it is quite likely that the chief business there will be done in a neighbouring village and in a different direction. Are we committing ourselves to build a house at Lorenzo Marques when it is quite likely that our own Consular officer will probably dwell hereafter at some point further to the west of Lorenzo Marques, where there is deeper water and better harbourage, and where probably the greater part of the business in future will be carried on. May I refer to the cemeteries? I do not see here amongst these cemeteries the cemetery in the Crimea. Of course it is on Russian soil, but does not the country provide something for the upkeep of the cemetery there? I think it does. I went there from Sebastopol, and I was certainly under the impression that we had a caretaker who looked after the graves of our soldiers who fell in the Crimea. Will the hon. Gentleman let me know when he is good enough to reply? As to Korea, I am at a loss to know what cemeteries we have to provide for keeping up. It is only twenty years ago that any Englishmen were in Korea at all, and there have been very few there since. There was only one these when I visited the country, and he was the Consul. The points I have raised are not unimportant from the point of view of expenditure, for all these amounts make up a great amount.

Mr. BENN
With regard to expenditure, whether you rent a place here or buy a place there, the matter must be left to the decision of the officers who know the circumstances. At St. Petersburg we continue to rent premises, but whether we rent or buy is a matter which involves local knowledge, and these things have to be surveyed in a general way. I do not think the hon. Gentleman will expect me to justify individual proceedings in the various capitals to which he has drawn attention. There is a decrease of £11,000 on this Vote. I do not know whether it is altogether wise to decrease the Vote. I do not think the hon. Gentleman will charge us with being extravagant in this matter. As regards cemeteries, of course he would be the last to wish that any place in which our fellow countrymen are buried abroad should fall into a state of decay. We maintain these cemeteries at a cost of £948. In the Crimea we spend £333 a year. There is a small cemetery in Korea where we spend altogether only 664 £10 a year. As to the other cemeteries, I am sure the hon. Gentleman would not wish that, in order to snake such a trifling economy, we should not provide for them properly.