The Sun.
London, England, 1863-03-27 00:00:00

RAMSGATE HARBOUR.

In reply to Sir E. DERING,
Mr. GIBSON said the Ramsgate harbour accounts for
1862 were ready, and would be produced.
EXPENSES OF DIPLOMATIC SERVICE.

Mr. DODSON rose to call attention to the charges for
the diplomatic service; and to move that, in the opinion
of this house, all sums required to defray the expenses of
the diplomatic service ought to be voted annually by Par-
liament, and that estimates of all such sums ought
to be aubmitted in a form that will admit of their effectual
supervision and control by this house. On looking over the
fragmentary estimates for the diplomatic service, as they
were laid before the house, it was impossible for any hon.
member to answer the following questions—What was the
cost of the diplomatic service ? How was the money given ?
and, What value was given for the money ? They were not
in that condition as regarded the army and navy ; as the
whole cost of these services was included in the estimates
submitted to Parliament. Previous to 1830 a portion of the
expense of the diplomatic service was paid out of the civil
list, and another portion was included in the estimates ; and
the same rule was observed with regard to the consular ser-
vice. In the year 1831 the matter was referred to a select
committee, who recommended that the expense of the diplo-
mati3 service should be defrayed out of the Consolidated
Fund ; at the same time the committee recommended that
certain extra expenses should be paid out of the votes of the
house. By degrees other extras crept in, such as charges for
houses, repairs, and finally salaries, until, in 1862, it was
found they had returned to the abuses of 1831. According
to the present arrangement, the house had no check over
the expenditure, and it was in the power of the Foreign Se-
cretary to transform consuls into diplomatic agents, and
diplomatic agents into consuls. This was a dangerouspower
to place in the hands of the Foreign Secretary for the time
being. 1 he hon. member then referred to the charges d'af-
faires for Venezuela, Texas, and Equador, and observed
that changes of this kind had occurred in these three places.
If the whole cost of the diplomatic service were annually
voted, the house would have a greater hold on the service,
and exercise a more direct influence on foreign politics,

Mr. LAYARD said what the hon. member stated was I
to a certain extent true, namely, that the manner in
which the cost of the diplomatic service was paid, was
in theory at variance with the manner in which other
branches of the public service were paid. But the system
hitherto worked well. He would oppose the motion on
two grounds. What the hon. member proposed was objec-
tionable on the score of economy, and the efficiency of the
public service. What were the real facts of the case ? In the
year 1825 no less than £300,000 were paid for the service ;
but in the year 1830 the expense was reduced to £230,000 ;
the pay of attaches, however, was included in the vote ex-
traordinary, and not in the vote for the diplomatic service.
In the year 1832 a gross sum of £lBO,OOO was fixed as the
annual expense of the diplomatic, service, and that sum
was to include not only the charge for foreign missions, bat
also the pensions of ministers and of others in the diploma-
tic service entitled to receive them. His hon, friend stated
that although the sum annually voted was £lBO,OOO, yet
that en going through the several charges the gross expense
amounted to £360,000; but his hon. friend had mixed up
two things which should be kept distinct, namely the con-
sular and the diplomatic services. For the latter alone the
sum of £lBO,OOO was fixed ; but his hon, friend stated that the
superannuation grants in page 6 were included in the pen-
sions given to diplomatic officers. Such was not the case. As
regarded the complaints of his hon. friend that consuls
were sometimes turned into diplomatic agents, and vice
versa, the thing occurred in this way, that in the absence of
the diplomatic agent of a particular station, the consul-
general of the place became for the time being diplomatic
agert ; yet, though he discharged both functions, he was
paid as a consular officer. So far from extravagance, the
Foreign Office had, by strict economy, been able to hand
over annually, and to carry from £7,000 to £16,000 out of
the £lBO,OOO a year allowed into the Consolidated Fund
for the diplomatic service. He objected to the proposed
change, believing that if the charges were annually sub-
mitted to Parliament they would increase in the same pro-
portion as the other branches of the public service. Almost
every ambassador, even under the present system, com-
plained that he had to spend annually more money in the
necessary discharge of the duties of his office than what he
received in salary from the Government. The present am-
bassadors were as able, intelligent, and independent a body
of men as any branch of the public service, but he thought
the annual discussion of their salaries in that house would
be most fatal to the efficiency of the service. They were
now, in most instances, independent of political changes in
this country, and discharged their duties most efficiently,
independent of any political party. The proposed change,
he thought, would destroy that independent existence, and
be equally subversive of the discipline and efficiency of the
service. Allusion had been made to China and Japan, but
the house should remember that we had entered into exten-
sive relations with those countries; the Foreign-office had
had in consequence to organise a large diplomatic and con-
sular• staff for those parts of the world. It was impossible
to meet that increased expense out of the £lBO,OOO, and
Parliament had to vote the expenses in committee of sup-
ply. The increase in the diplomatic and consular service
was forced on the Foreign-office in proportion to the exten-
sion of our commerce. The charges for couriers, telegra-
phic messages, &c., were extraordinary expenses, and were
never i ntended to be paid out of the £lBO,OOO.
Mr. AYR CON regretted the motion had not been an-
swered by a responsible Minister of the Crown, feeling cer-
tain that if it had better reasons for rejecting it would have
been urged than those put forward by the Under-Secretary
of State for Foreign Affairs.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
all his prejudices and prepossessions were in favour of the
motion with regard to the extent of the jurisdiction of that
house on the details of expenditure. Nine years ago, when
he held the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer, he pro-
posed a measure for removing a large number of the charges
from the Consolidated Fund, and of transferring them to
the annual estimates. In doing that it was necessary to take
a comprehensive view of the matter, and to consider each
question by itself. The views of the Government of that
day were not opposed by the house ; and with regard to the
arrangement for paying the salaries out of the £lBO,OOO, he
thought it possible that some advantage might result from
its reconsideration. That, however, was not the question
before the house. His hon. friend the member for Sussex
had stated that all the sums required for the diplomatic ser-
vice ought to be voted by Parliament. To that there were
objections, both in principle and practice. It had been the
opinion of the Legislature—and he thought justly so—that
it was important to maintain the diplomatic service in as
high a state as possible, and to treat the officers analogous
to the judges of the land in not making their salaries de-
pendent on a fluctuating vote of that house. He thought
that was a sound opinion, and he concurred in what had
had been said by the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs,
that the tendency of the change proposed would be injurious
to the discipline of the service. Regarding the question in
connection with the interests of the Treasury, he preferred
the present arrangement to the one proposed. Much cor-
respondence bad passed between the Foreign-office and the
Treasury relative to these appointments, and he was bound
to say that in all cases where the Foreign-office had made
demands on the Treasury for an increase of the public
charge, they had been invariably supported by a reference
to demands made in that house, and the reports of commit-
tees. (Hear.) The Foreign-office had, however, greatly
reduced those charges, and was still doing so. With re-
gard to the statement of the hon. member for Truro, he
begged to say the hon. gentleman was in error in supposing
there had been any great increase in the cost of the diplo-
matic service, and he doubted if there had been any increase
corresponding with the increase in the civil departments of
the Government generally. Much of the increase had been
in connection with consular charges, which were subject to
-the votes of that house, and which must necessarily depend
in a considerable degree on the demands of our growing
commerce. He hoped the house would negative the motion
of the hon. member for Sussex.

Lord H. VANE supported tho views of the Chancellor
of tho Exchequer.
Idr. A. KINNAIRD opposed the resolution cn economic
coubid erations.

Mr. S. BOOTH supported the amendment and con-
tended that it was evident, from the arguments used by
Ministers themselves, that a fresh arrangement of the
diplomatic service must be organised.
The house divided.
For the amendment
Against it
Majority for going into committee
of supply 7l
THE CASE OF COLONEL DUDLEY CARLETON.

Mr, H. SEYMOUR called attention to the case of
Colonel Dudley Carleton and other officers of the Guards,
with the view of having certain alleged injustice in the
matter of promotion done them by the army warrant of
October, 1854, redressed. That gallant officer served in
the Crimea, and, in consequence of the number of deaths
in his regiment, his promotion was somewhat rapid. He
at'ained the rank of lieutenant-colonel in 1854, but
when ho subsequently succeeded to the full rank of
colonel, ho found that the operation of the warrant of
1854, combined with the warrant of 1858, had been to pass
over his head 200 lieutenant-colonels who were his juniors.
The hon. member urged that this was an injustice, and
should be at once redressed.

Sir G. C. LEWIS admitted the hardship under which
the officer in question laboured, but held that any attempt
to redress it by an ex post-facto rule would load to still
greater difficulty and inconvenience.
General LINDSAY regretted the decision at which the