that his hon and gallant Friend did not press for the Returns, and he hoped, therefore, that he would be satisfied with the explanation he had given.

SIR JOHN HAY said, he wished to say one word in explanation. It was far from his intention to cast any slur upon the present naval Commander in Chief in India. What he meant to say was, that it used to be the practice to appoint to that command only such persons as had served as flag officers, and that though the gallant Admiral had distinguished himself in China, he had not attained that position.

done away with by the Indian Govern- | same allowances as officers of correspondHe understood ment, the Admiralty should recommend ing rank in the army. any allowances in lieu of the batta money. Upon what principle was the Admiral serving upon that station to be paid very considerably more than the admirals on other stations? If on the ground of the cost of living, he would only say that that cost was very high at the Cape of Good Hope, where there was an Admiral, and also on the West India station; and he could scarcely think it right, therefore, that the Admiralty should select India as a favoured station, at which a higher rate of pay should be given than at others, without any sufficient reason. Such, at all events, was the principle on which the Admiralty proceeded in not proposing extra allowances for the naval officer in command in India and China. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had asked whether the Admiralty had found any inconvenicnce in getting officers to take the command in India and China in consequence of the reduction, and he was sorry that the hon. and gallant Gentleman, in referring to that point, had cast some reflection upon the Admiral who had recently taken command of the India and China station.

SIR JOHN HAY denied he had cast any reflection upon the gallant Admiral.

LORD CLARENCE PAGET, said he understood the hon. and gallant Gentleman to have said that he was not so distinguished an officer as others who had gone before him, and upon that point he must beg to differ with him. The gallant Admiral had greatly distinguished himself in China. [Sir JOHN HAY: Hear, hear!] With regard to the difficulty of finding officers to take the command in India, the station was one with respect to which there would always be some difficulty. It was not everybody who wished to go to so remote a quarter of the world, and one or two officers to whom it was intended to offer the command had declined to accept it on the score of health-possibly, also, because of reasons connected with their private affairs. Practically, however, there had been on the part of the Admiralty no difficulty in finding an officer to take the command on the China station, and it was not the character of the service for officers to make any difficulty in going anywhere they were ordered. It was impossible to continue the batta money to officers of the navy in India unless they had duties on shore; but if they were employed on shore, they would receive the

THE DIPLOMATIC SERVICE.

OBSERVATIONS.

MR. BAILLIE COCHRANE said, he rose to call the attention of the House to the Report of the Select Committee on the Diplomatic Service. All who had read that Report must, he thought, have been struck with the unanimity which prevailed among the witnesses who gave evidence before the Committee, and with the vast mass of valuable information which the Report contained. They must also have observed with pleasure the great interest which had been taken by all our Foreign Secretaries in the welfare of the diplomatic service. A Report having been made by the Select Committee, based upon the evidence of distinguished public men, he thought it was not out of place to ask the Government, before the close of the Session, whether they intended to carry out the suggestions embodied in the Report. It was remarkable, that while the expenditure of every other department of the public service had been increased one-third during the last thirty years, the expenditure of the diplomatic profession had been reduced by a very considerable amount. Although the Army Estimates had been increased by £4,000,000 within the last few years, only a very small addition had been made to the rank and file. The increased expense had been caused by the provision of additional comforts to the army, and the same remark applied to the navy. In the diplomatic service the case was far otherwise; for although the business had increased no less than sevenfold since 1830, at which date the number of despatches which passed through the Foreign Office was 10,000 per annum, whereas it was now something like 75,000, and although

ment as that was very bad; it was bitterly complained of, and he thought the House would agree with him that two months' leave of absence should be granted without any reduction of salary. The whole additional expense would not exceed £7,000 or £8,000 a year. He believed it was intended that there should be no unpaid attachés. A Vote of £2,300 would be presented to the House before the close of the Session, and he hoped it would be passed without opposition. Another point of importance was embodied in the sixth recommendation, which was

a large additional number of gentlemen expenditure. The House might not, perhad entered the profession, the number haps be aware that Ambassadors and of attachés being now one-third greater Ministers were the only public servants than it used to be, yet the expenditure who were not allowed even one month's of the service had been reduced to a much leave of absence without a deduction larger extent than was ever contemplated from their salaries. Such an arrangeby Parliament. In 1825 the expenditure upon the diplomatic service exceeded £300,000 a year; in 1830 it was £230,000; but now it was no more than about £180,000. The profits of the profession had been diminished, while the cost of living in all the European capitals had been nearly doubled, and while, at the same time, the business had been enormously increased. If the expenditure could have been reduced with justice to the gentlemen who had entered the service, nobody would have a word to say against the arrangement; but when every witness examined before the Select Committee declared that those gentlemen were very insufficiently paid, and that justice was not done to them, it became the duty of the House of Commons to give its attention to the subject, and take care that it did not countenance the continuance of an unwise economy. The Select Committee had made seven recommendations, the first of which related to the examination of attachés. Upon that subject a good deal of evidence was taken, and all the witnesses agreed in thinking that the system of examination should not be pressed too far. Mr. Elliot stated that a man accustomed to good society was the person best fitted for the diplomatic service. The Earl of Clarendon declared that many qualities were required which could not be tested by an examination. Sir Andrew Buchanan made a remark of the same kind, while Earl Russell admitted that there were great practical inconveniences in the examination of attachés. It was essential, of course, that no incompetent person should be appoint-as ed, but the Civil Service Commissioners should not be allowed to interfere too much with candidates. The next three recommendations of the Select Committee bore simply upon the regulations of the Foreign Office, and he would not trouble the House with any remarks on them. But then came a very important suggestion

"That the present regulations with regard to leave of absence of Ambassadors and Ministers appear to press upon them with undue severity, and that the attention of the Secretary of State may be advantageously directed to the subject." That recommendation involved a certain

"That, whenever it is practicable and fit, a residence for a term of years should be secured for the British Embassy or Mission, the rent and repairs to be defrayed at the public expense." He thought that a deduction should be made from the salary of an Ambassador or Minister for house rent; but it was most important that there should be a fixed residence in every capital, in order that the representatives of Her Majesty abroad might not be put to unnecessary expense. The French system in this respect was much better than our own. The last suggestion of the Select Committee was

be directed to the salaries and allowances of the "That the attention of the Secretary of State larger missions, with the view of considering whether they are adequate to meet greatly increased expenditure of living at the principal European capitals."

Upon that point the evidence was strong, unanimous, and conclusive. Lord Stratford de Redcliffe was asked

Do you consider the efficiency of the service has suffered from its not being so profitable as a career, or as not presenting so good an opening other professions ?"

He replied

I cannot undertake to say, as far as my experience has gone, that it has so suffered; there is, generally such a spirit among the gentlemen employed that they would rather make sacrifices suffer; but it is hardly fair to leave an opening for such sacrifices. To speak from conjecture, I should presume that adequate remuneration, and the prospect of high eventual prizes, would obtain for the public a greater command of talent. I think that the appointments should be sufficient for the due performance of the duties, and that any individual employed in the diplomatic service of Her Majesty's Government should be placed on terms of society with the native gentlemen ;

out of their own means than allow the service to

period annually to the heads of missions, without deduction from their salaries. He did not quite agree with his hon. Friend, that when the head of a mission was on leave he should have his full pay, because much of his official income was expended in entertaining, and that could not go on while he was away. What the Foreign Office proposed as a reasonable compromise was, that during an annual leave of absence-and it was highly important that heads of departments should occasionally come to England, and thus have opportunities of communicating

not thought in the present state of things advisable to come down to the House of Commons and ask a considerable addition to the Estimates in order to give effect to all those recommendations. What the hon. Gentleman had stated was quite correct that while all other branches of the public service had enormously increased, the expenditure of the Foreign Office had remained stationary for thirty years. A certain sum placed on the Consolidated Fund-namely, £180,000-was still applied to the diplomatic service, and out of that sum from £7,000 to £10,000 had been annually returned to the Exche-personally with the Foreign Office and quer. In 1831, when the new system was introduced, the annual amount voted for the diplomatic service was about £200,000; and his conviction was, that if annual sums had been asked of the House, instead of the amount being fixed upon the Consolidated Fund, it would have increased with the other branches of the public expenditure. He would state very shortly what Government were prepared to do. The first recommendation was that two sets of examinations-one on being appointed an unpaid attaché, and the other when made a paid attaché shall not be obligatory. These examinations had been found extremely inconvenient, especially when gentlemen were serving at distant posts. It was proposed to leave it to the option of an attaché to undergo one examination on entering the service. The next recommendation was, that after a probationary period of four years' service unpaid attachés should be promoted to become paid attachés. There were instances of young gentlemen having served eleven years without any pay. He thought, as a rule, public servants should be paid, and he had been in favour of all attachés being paid. It was, however, finally agreed that after four years they should be paid. That recommendation the Foreign Office was prepared to carry out, and a supplementary Estimate of £2,800 would be asked for that purpose. The next recommendation was, that commissions as secretaries should be given to attachés on their first appointment to be paid attachés. The object was, that when those gentlemen received pay, they should also receive a commission, which would give them a claim for a pension from that day forward; and that recommendation they also hoped to carry out. The fifth recommendation was, that leave of absence should be given for a certain

with the leading men in this country, and of making themselves acquainted with the state of public feeling at home-a certain sum should be deducted from their pay, which would go to increase the salary of the chargé d'affaires in their absence. The sixth recommendation was as to providing houses for the principal missions. That, no doubt, would be a very great benefit to our diplomatic servants; but again they were met by a question of expense. As the hon. Gentleman opposite had observed, diplomatic officers were often appointed to missions without any certainty as to how long they would remain there, and frequently incurred expenses in hiring and fitting up their houses, which were made useless by their removal very shortly afterwards. At Naples, for instance, Mr. Elliot had gone to some expense in furnishing his house, and immediately afterwards the mission was abolished: he had to return to this country, and had suffered considerable pecuniary loss. The seventh recommendation was with regard to the increase of salaries. No doubt the cost of living, not only throughout Europe, but throughout the whole world, had increased of late much more than hon. Gentlemen would, perhaps, believe without reading through the returns made to the Foreign Office. Everywhere, almost, the cost of living had increased by one-third, and in some cases by one-half. Here, again, they were met by the question of expense. But if, under more favourable circumstances, the House of Commons could be inclined to take into consideration the case of public servants who performed their duties so well, nobody would be more delighted than himself. Still it was a question more for the Chancellor of the Exchequer than for the Foreign Office. He concurred entirely in all that had been

said as to the merits of the diplomatic year they had £18,700 for payments in service. There was no country which connection with our diplomatic relations was so adequately served in that depart- in China, besides £4,000 for travelling ment at so little cost as England; and if a expenses. time should come when an increase in the salaries of the diplomatic servants could be proposed, no one would rejoice more than he should.

MR. W. WILLIAMS said, he rose to protest against any increase in the expenditure of the country. Only a few evenings previously there was a discussion in that House on the public charges, and it was then agreed on all sides that the expenditure ought to be reduced. Yet the Foreign Office were ready to increase the burdens of the people, and, as he believed, without any just reason. When the Committee was moved for, he (Mr. Williams) stated, that unless very great care was taken, the result would be to increase the public expenditure; and so it had proved from what had just been stated on the part of the Government. He contended that the diplomatic service was, as a rule, rather overpaid than underpaid. The Ambassador at Paris had a salary of £10,000 a year, with house rent, provided for him, and frequent demands on the country for furniture and other such expenses, and yet he said that his salary was insufficient. Certainly he could not spend that amount on anything connected with the duties of his office. It could only be in entertaining distinguished personages from his own country, and that was a purpose for which the people of this country ought not to be taxed. He was not surprised at the Government sanctioning increased expenditure in the department, because, of course, it would give them increased patronage. If they assented to increase the salaries and allowances of the diplomatic service, they would soon be again asked to augment them further. He hoped, therefore, the question would not be entertained. MR. DODSON said, he was sorry to hear his hon. Friend the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs intimate that he should have been prepared to adopt the Resolution of the hon. Member opposite, if he thought the House would endure it. The hon. Gentleman opposite spoke in terms of compassion of the diplomatic service having only the sum of £180,000 a year spent upon its members; but, besides £10,000 secret service money, he (Mr. Dodson) found scattered up and down the Estimates all sorts of expenses for the diplomatic service. In the Estimates of that

Altogether, the cost of the service was not £180,000, but £340,000. The Report of the Select Committee on the diplomatic service was based on a string of seven resolutions, six of which recommended an increased expenditure, not as a means to an end, but as an end in itself. If the House was not careful how it sanctioned such demands, the Secretary of State, who was then limited to an expenditure of £180,000 on diplomatic salaries, would be constantly pressed to appoint more paid attachés, while, on the other hand, the House would be constantly pressed for more supplementary Votes to pay them. One of the resolutions of the Committee had reference to the stoppage of salaries of ministers when absent from their posts, in reference to which he believed some alteration had already been made. But this was a matter in the hands of the Foreign Secretary, who could distribute the £180,000 as he pleased. Another of the resolutions recommended that embassy houses should be provided in the different European capitals for the Ministers. The unfortunate precedents of Paris and Constantinople ought to act as a warning to them against adopting any such rule. Our embassy house at the latter of those two capitals was to have cost £40,000, but it actually cost £90,000; from £2,000 to £3,000 a year more was required to keep it in repair; and, after all, it was one of the worst structures in Europe. Much had been said about the increased cost of living on the Continent, but the reduced charges for travelling, postage, telegraphic communication, and other things, in some degree compensated for such extra expense. A diplomatic career was a highly honourable one, which men were anxious to enter not for the sake of pecuniary emolument only, but for the position it gave them, and the prospect it opened to them of rising to posts of great dignity and importance in Europe. The Select Committee was composed of a majority of men who were then either in office or had been in office, and who might naturally have had a bias in favour of officials. The Chairman of the Committee-the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Monckton Milnes) proposed an elaborate Report framed with a view to make the diplomatic service more strictly professional. That end was to be attained