HC Deb 15 July 1915 vol 73 cc1115-25

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That a sum, not exceeding £289,917, be granted to His 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, 1916, for the Expenses in connection with His Majesty's Embassies, Missions, and Consular Establishments Abroad, and other Expenditure chargeable to the Consular Vote." [NOTE.—£465,000 has been voted on account.]

9.0 P.M.

Sir J. D. REES

There is a satisfactory decrease in this Vote, but when one looks through the Paper to see where the decrease chiefly occurs, it does not occur where I expected to find it—in the savings of Embassies of nations with which we are now at war, because full provision is made in such cases. It is stated that the savings, if there should be any, on that account, will be utilised to meet the cost of extra staff and other expenses, which so far as not met from the Diplomatic and Consular Services Vote, would be defrayed by the Vote of Credit. I do not quite understand what extra staff and other expenses will be incurred sufficient to counter-balance, say, a saving of £8,000 a year at Vienna, and £8,000 a year at Berlin. I should be glad of any explanation that could make clear what to me, at any rate, is not quite clear. Looking through the other items which go to make up this large decrease, I see the chief item in the decrease of £43,000 is the difference in respect of a refund to Indian Revenues in regard to Diplomatic and Consular Services in China, Persia, Turkey in Asia, and Siam. I do not quite know what has happened in those countries which allows of an expenditure of £40,000 less. I am not unaware of the existence of the arrangement referred to in the Estimates, which says: All additional expenditure in Persia since 1900 is shared equally. It is generally known that the expense of keeping up the handsome and hospitable Legation at Teheran is divided, but I take it there is no saving on that, and it is not likely that the expenses will be any different in 1915–16 from what they were in 1914–15. If the right hon. Gentleman would kindly explain, he may resolve the doubts of other Members besides myself. The only other point I wish to mention upon this Vote, although there is a great deal of matter which at another time might properly be considered, is the provision of £250 for opium traffic investigations in China. That, I see, is a repetition of a similar figure in 1914–15. Does that refer to the expenses of Sir Alexander Hosie, for instance, and is it proposed there should be a recurring Grant, if not in perpetuity, for a series of years in regard to these opium traffic investigations. For my part, I abhor these investigations, and think it would be better to let this matter drop; but I know there are other Members who think this is a thrice damnable drug which can have no use except to destroy the body and brain of those who use it.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

This is not the occasion for discussing the merits or demerits of opium.

Sir J. D. REES

I was not really arguing the point. It was only a passing reference. I wanted to point out that it is only from the point of view that there is to be a perpetual hostility displayed by this country to the use of a particular drug that this recurring Vote would be justified. I had no intention of being betrayed into discussing the opium question now, which I am aware would be grossly out of order. Would the Noble Lord kindly tell me whether this is a provision for some perpetual investigation to ascertain whether there are any backslidings on the part of the Chinese who are now supposed to have abandoned the use of this drug?

Mr. LYNCH

I will follow the example of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down by suppressing many of the points which I had intended to bring forward to night. In normal times there is a great deal to be said in regard to this Vote, because I think that the services rendered by the whole Diplomatic Corps abroad is extremely inefficient and inadequate. I speak with some amount of personal know ledge because I have lived for some years on the Continent of Europe. I have known ambassadors of every nation, and I have always found that with regard to the trend of public opinion on those matters which ought to be foremost in the view of ambassadors and Ministers abroad, an ordinary journalist is better informed and generally has a sounder judgment and a better opinion of the general trend of events than the ambassador. It so happens that I was a journalist myself, and looking back to that era, it always comes to me as one of the queer trades. A man has to use one perspective for his own opinions and another when he is presenting views to the public, and he has to carefully separate the two. Even abroad these ambassadors preserve a sort of insular exclusiveness which prevents them getting into real contact with the spirit and mind of the people amongst whom they live. I would like to point out in this respect the fact that the Diplomatic Service is not democratic. I have no doubt that to use the word "democratic" in regard to the Diplomatic Service is something like throwing a bomb to—

Sir J. D. REES

May I respectfully ask, Mr. Deputy-Chairman, whether the hon. Member is more in order in enlarging upon this question of our diplomatic representatives than I was in the passing reference I made to the opium question?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member is referring to the salaries of the officials of the Diplomatic Service, and he is in order on this Vote, whereas when the hon. Member for East Nottingham was referring to the opium question the Vote had no reference to that subject.

Sir J. D. REES

The item I was referring to was £250 for an officer engaged in opium investigations in China for this year, and it was upon that I hung my remarks.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

Whatever may have been the merits of my ruling on that occasion it is past, and I am now dealing with the Vote before the Chair.

Mr. LYNCH

I am trying to keep in order, and I am trying to suppress a number of fulminates which I intended to use on this occasion, but I will skim very lightly over the subject because my object is not to show any dislike to the diplomatic-representation, but rather to show how it can be greatly improved for the benefit of this country. One way in which I think better representation could be obtained would be by allowing a freer draft of democratic principles to enter into this most exclusive of all Government offices. I believe it is impossible for the ordinary attaché of an Embassy to be appointed unless he can show that he has a clear income of £400 a year apart from the appointment of his office. I do not know whether it is thought by the representatives of the Foreign Office that the possession of £400 a year ensures intelligence, tact or zeal, or devotion, or any of the other qualities which go to make up a good diplomatic representative. Is it that the possession of £400 a year was originally intended to mean something of an alliance with highly respectable families or what is known as good birth? Nowadays the possession of £400 a year is more likely to mean the possession of a father who has made money in soap or the sale of pickles, gorgeously advertised, rather than claiming any descent from our own nobility.

It is extremely invidious to put this petty bar of £400 a year to block the way of advance to a young man who might have every quality and talent which is necessary to make him a good diplomatic representative abroad. I will give one example of the kind of atmosphere which prevails in some of the embassies or diplomatic offices abroad, and how little they are in touch with the people amongst whom they live, or even with the subjects of British nationality. Some time ago I called at a British Embassy on absolutely official business. At that time I happened to be a Member of Parliament, and I duly sent up my card in order to find some representative who would give me certain necessary information which I was obliged to obtain at the Embassy. I was shown into a room almost without any kind of furniture except a chair and a table; in fact, it was such a room as might be used by an applicant for the typewriter's position or the second footman. After waiting in this room for an unconscionable time, the door was suddenly opened and there appeared before me an official who regarded me with a stony stare, standing bolt upright as if demanding, in a manner which was insulting more than any words could be, what I meant by coming there to disturb him. I was surprised by this unexpected treatment, but I stated my business. Without a word he turned on his heels and disappeared for ten minutes, after which he returned, gave me a most perfunctory reply, and disappeared again. I made a complaint, after due reflection, to his Ambassador, because I thought an incident like this might cause an extremely unpleasant feeling in the mind of any unfortunate British subject who might have occasion to pay a visit to that Embassy and who might have less means of defence than I have.

I had no sooner sent in my message to the Ambassador than, at a very short interval, there appeared before my very modest lodging a distinguished individual bearing a voluminous letter from the Ambassador himself couched in terms which were almost excessively polite and which, of course, I accepted. I relate this incident now because it is typical, and any man who has travelled and has had occasion to deal with diplomatic representatives abroad will know it is typical. Perhaps what rendered this whole incident more disagreeable to myself was that this gentleman who left me in this style had not the remotest idea that he was acting in any discourteous way. I suppose, after the receipt of my letter, which I endeavoured to make tingle with irony, and after he was hauled into the presence of his Ambassador and taxed with his manner of reception of a British subject, his first movement was that of complete and sincere astonishment to find that he was charged with any fault at all. It is by virtue of the manner in which they are selected and by virtue of the whole manner in which they live abroad as people whose first idea of the importance of their functions is not to serve their country, but to be a sort of superior set in any foreign town, entertaining exclusively one kind of subjects known as the ambassadorial set, and looking with a certain amount of contempt or stony indifference upon all the rest of the community in the British Colonies abroad; it is by the infiltration of their minds from their school days that they derive their idea of their superiority, and not from their intelligence or their zeal, or any tact that they may possess, because those matters do not seem to enter into their consideration at all. It was by virtue of his position that there was infiltrated into the man's whole system such a view of his functions and of the ordinary British subject that he thought he was receiving me in a manner which was due to me and himself and his position. What makes this small incident more remarkable is that you would find it impossible to parallel it in any Embassy of any foreign country in any capital of Europe. At one time I was friendly with all the Ambassadors of a certain great capital of Europe.

Sir F. BANBURY

Is it in order to go into all the personal reminiscences of the hon. Gentleman as to whether he was friendly or not with Ambassadors in various Courts of Europe? Could the Noble Lord who is in charge of the Vote in any way deal with the fact as to whether the hon. Gentleman was friendly or unfriendly with Ambassadors? I submit that it would be quite beyond the scope or power of any Minister, and that all these reminiscences are out of order.

Mr. LYNCH

Might I say that this is only a side reference.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

I cannot say that the remarks of the hon. Member are out, of order. I take them as being illustrative of his view that some portion, at any rate, of the Consular Service is not efficient. He himself referred to it as a very small incident. He has dealt with it at considerable length, and I would respectfully suggest to him that he might pass on—it is a matter for his own discretion or taste—to something of more importance.

Sir J. D. REES

Will it be in order, following upon this, for another hon. Member to give his experiences of a totally different character with our representatives in Europe, Asia, Africa, and America?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

Certainly.

Mr. LYNCH

I was passing on to another subject. The reason I had for introducing my own reminiscences was not to include myself in the picture at all, but to give a ground for the opinion which I have formed, and which, of course, is perfectly legitimate. If the service were entirely democratised, there would be no loss whatever either to British prestige or to the efficiency in carrying out these functions. I had a conversation with a distinguished representative of a foreign Government, who had served in the Diplomatic Service for something like thirty years, and I asked him what was his opinion on this point He told me that when he looked back on his whole career and asked himself who were the most efficient representatives of any Power he had ever seen, he could recollect two. One, he said, was the representative of the Swiss Republic, who was not only a poor man in the Diplomatic Service, but was a poor man even as an ordinary citizen. He never attended functions, or large dinners, or spent money in that lavish way which is an excuse for paying large salaries to Ambassadors, but by virtue of the soundness of his judgment he obtained such a position of ascendancy in Paris that he was often consulted in a private way by the most powerful representatives even of all the Governments of Europe.

He said that the second whom he recollected was a representative of the United States who was also not only a poor man, but a man who had personal dislike of all State functions and all kinds of display whatever, and who never attended any diplomatic dinners, except those which were completely obligatory. He, again, by his sheer force of character, by the soundness of his judgment, and by that peculiar faculty of sympathy which the other system does nothing whatever to foster, obtained such a position of ascendancy that he was consulted even in the most severe crisis of the country in which he was living, not merely on affairs which concerned his own Government, but also on affairs which concerned intimately the relations of the country in which he lived with other Governments. He was asked to give his opinion, not as an Ambassador or as a diplomatic representative, but simply as a friend. I hope that the representatives of the Labour party will take this matter up, perhaps on a more auspicious occasion, and demand that there shall be no kind of restricted preserves, I will not say for the science of nobility—that is not in question at all—but for the science of parents who possess £400 a year, and that this Diplomatic Service shall be thrown open.

Sir F. BANBURY

I submit that it requires legislation if you are going to alter the rules by which people are elected or chosen for the Diplomatic Service, and that it is quite out of order in Committee of Supply.

Mr. KING

May I point out that this subject has often been raised on the Foreign Office Vote in previous years, and has been replied to by the Foreign Secretary.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

As far as I am aware—I may be wrong, of course—the change indicated would not require legislation, but I would suggest to the hon. Member that his personal reminiscences have now been addressed to the Committee for some time, and that he might pass from his illustrations to some more practical point.

Mr. LYNCH

I entirely sacrificed the speech which I had prepared for this occasion, because I thought the moment was hardly auspicious for it, but if I had spoken in the manner I had intended I would have done so with more force. I wish once more to insist on the necessity of democratising this service, and I hope that, on a future occasion when I raise this point, as I intend to do, some Members of the Labour party will back me up. More than a hundred years ago a certain French despot said to his soldiers, "Every soldier in my Army carries a marshal's baton in his knapsack." I want in this country to secure that no service shall be preserved for any privileged class: that entry to it shall depend on ability, energy, and intelligence, and that the son of the poorest man in the land may, if fitted, rise to any position—even in the Diplomatic Service. It should not matter be he son of duke or son of dustman. If he has the intelligence, energy and ability he should be able to aspire to render service to be country in whatever sphere he may choose. I am certain that that would be an enormous gain not only to the individual but to the general temper of the nation, and also to the direct function of representation abroad as redounding to the material benefit of the country itself.

Mr. L. JONES

I rise to ask a question as to the form of these Estimates in regard to enemy countries. I see that the full amount is taken for our Embassies at Berlin, Vienna, and Constantinople, and there is also included the full charges for our Consular Services in the three countries with which we are at war. We are, therefore, asked to vote a sum which, reckoned roughly, amounts to about £53,000, which cannot possibly be spent in the way allocated in the Estimates. I want to know what is the motive of the Government in taking the Estimates in this form? What is being done about the Ambassadors and their staffs who were representing us in those different capitals before the War broke out? I understand from, the footnote that they are being employed helping in other work which arises out of the War, but that does not apply in any degree to consuls in these foreign countries, and I really do not know why the Government have not taken the opportunity of reducing the Estimate. The cost of the Consular Service alone is over £20,000, and I cannot see any motive in this House voting to-night £50,000 or £60,000 which is not going to be spent in the way put down in the Estimates. I hope the Noble Lord will give some explanation of this, because the net result is that the Government will have in its hand, if this Vote is passed, a sum of £50,000 which it can spend at its own discretion. It is not the habit of the House to give a Government, however great the confidence felt in it, sums of money to dispose of just as it chooses.

The UNDER-SECRETARY Of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord Robert Cecil)

There is a great deal of force in criticism which has fallen from the hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division, but if he will allow me to say so, it is, after all, rather a formal matter, and I do not think as much money is being asked for as will actually be required for the service. The increased work caused by the War is very large indeed. The hon. Member will easily understand that I cannot give him the exact number of extra clerks engaged, but I know it is extremely large, and as stated in this footnote:— Any saving arising from the War, as in the case of ambassadors who are placed on a reduced rate of pay while unemployed, is being utilised to meet the cost of the extra staff and other expenses, which, so far as not met from the Diplomatic and Consular Services Vote, will be defrayed from the Vote of Credit. I have no doubt that more money will be required than will be obtained from this actual Vote. The hon. Member is probably aware that several of those who were representing this country abroad are now engaged in connection with the new Department which has come into existence since the War began, and, in other cases, they are no doubt drawing reduced pay.

Sir J. D. REES

Is the extra staff mentioned in the footnote in the Foreign Office in London?

Lord ROBERT CECIL

Yes, I happen to know there is a very large extra staff in the Foreign Office in London. I would not like to say there is no extra staff elsewhere. With regard to the observations made by the hon. Member for West Clare (Mr. Lynch), I think he occupied some half hour of the time of the Committee in explaining that he had been very badly received by one of the representatives of His Majesty abroad. I am sorry to hear it. But it is possible that that representative of His Majesty would give a somewhat different account to the one presented by the hon. Member. As to his general attack on the Diplomatic Service I can only say, if he wishes to have it more democratic—and I am far from disagreeing in general principle with that aspiration—you must pay them more highly, and in these days of economy I do not think this is a particularly desirable moment at which to introduce a proposal of that kind.

As to their competence, the hon. Member complains that they are not such good collectors of news as journalists. I should think it extremely likely, because they are not journalists. It is their duty to represent the interests of this country at foreign Courts and not to collect news. Their true function is the successful negotiation of treaties and arrangements, and the protection of the interests of the nation of which they are the ambassadors, and I can only say, while it is quite possible that there are defects in the service, its-reputation on the whole among the best instructed of our foreign critics is that the service is almost diabolically clever. If hon. Members will be good enough to read the columns in German and other Continental organs, I think it will be-found that there are constant references to the extraordinarily cute diplomacy of this country. Personally, I think that the 'praise is a little overdone, but undoubtedly our Diplomatic Service is extremely competent, and its success is largely due to the fact that it does not attempt to practice the smarter forms of diplomacy, but rather relies on painstaking work, which is really much more effective. As to the criticisms of detail which my hon. Friend the Member for East Nottingham (Sir J. D. Rees) has raised, I have incidentally dealt with one of them. I was out of the-Chamber when the hon. Member began his speech, and he will no doubt tell me if I am wrong, but I think one of them was in reference to page 5— Refund to Indian revenues in respect of Diplomatic and Consular Services in China, Persia, Turkey in Asia., and Siam. I do not quite know what the hon. Member's objection is. I understand that since-1900 the Foreign Office and the Indian Government have shared equally the cost of the services in Persia, and that since 1904 it has been necessary to repay to the Indian Exchequer a portion or the whole amount, I am not quite sure which, of the amount which was received from them. That is, of course, a matter of account, and this item is to provide for that repayment. That is what I understand it to mean.

Sir J. D. REES

I am very much obliged. I have no doubt that is quite right, but it is a complete change in the arrangement in regard to the expenses of the Persian Legation. Is the division between Persia and India to continue, or is it now solely due to expenses incurred by India on account of the War?

Lord ROBERT CECIL

I am quite free to admit that I am not an expert in this matter at present. As I understand it, this system has been in operation for several years. That is the way I read the note at the bottom of the page.

Sir J. D. REES

This is the first year.

Lord ROBERT CECIL

It may be that there is a difference in amount — indeed there is, because the Grant is smaller this year than last. I have no doubt that that is due to the War. You would obviously expect that during the War, because there would be fewer Diplomatic Services to keep alive in Persia, and therefore less would be spent there—at least I should imagine so. At any rate, that is the best explanation I can give at the moment. As to the other item of £250 for Opium Traffic Investigations in China, I say quite frankly I have not the least idea to what that item refers. I imagine it is some investigations in connection with the opium traffic, which, as the hon. Member is well aware, have been going on for many years past, and which are not yet quite complete. Whether it will be necessary to have the Grant next year for similar investigations it is impossble for me to prophesy. If the hon. Member had gven me notice that he desired special information about that particular item, I would have taken care to be furnished with it, but coming without any notice, I am afraid I cannot give him any better explanation.

Question put, and agreed to.