Extra expenses of the Commission in couriers, journeys, illuminations, and subscriptions, from May 1825 to January 1826...... £1,980 19 1 For expenses of Mr. Thompson, in his journeys on his Majesty's special service from Mexico to Guatemala, in his residence at Guatemala, and his journey thence to London, from May to October 1825 Expenses of his Majesty's Commission in Mexico, from January Expenses of Mr. Morier's journey home from Mexico to London, .... 1,607 17 7 1,506 3 1 755 4 1 150 0 0 1,033 6 8 Salary to Mr. Ward, for one year, from January 5, 1826, to January 5, 1827 Allowance, as Chargé d'Affaires, of £5 a-day, for one year, from Allowance for house-rent for one year, from January 5, 1826, to Extraordinary expenses of the mission, including salary of at- For Mr. Pakenham's outfit, on proceeding to Mexico as Secretary of Legation, in December 1826 ..... To cover his extra expenses on entering upon the situation of his A quarter's salary as Secretary of Legation, to January 5, 1827 For the conveyance, by Captain Baldwin, from Philadelphia, of Expense of Mr. Robertson in forwarding despatches from his Allowance for house-rent at £300 a-year, from January 5, 1827, to April 18, 1827... Reimbursement of the extraordinary expenses of the mission, salary of attachés, couriers, and postage, from January 5, 1827, to April 18, 1827.... Reimbursement, in August 1827, of the excess of the expense of his journey home, beyond the salary due during the voyage and journey... COLUMBIAN MISSION. For the expenses of Mr. COCKBURN, envoy extraordinary, in outfit and equipage, in December 1825, on his appointment to his mission 300 0 0 2,472 18 2 175 0 0 825 0 0 175 0 0 28 12 0 5 5 0 4 15 10 1,000 0 0 515 0 0 85 14 0 732 7 0 191 13 4 3,000 0 0 Salary to Mr. Cockburn at £6,000 a-year, from January 5, to 3,123 14 2 Allowance of £600 a-year for house rent, from January 5, 1827 to 312 7 5 .... Reimbursement of the expenses of postage, for the quarter, to To complete Mr. Cockburn's allowances, from the day on which Towards the expenses of Mr. CHAD, Envoy Extraordinary, in Allowance of one-half of his salary as Envoy to Columbia, du- Allowance to Chargé d'Affaires, at £5 a-day, for one year, from Allowance for house-rent for one year, from January 5, 1828, Reimbursement of the extraordinary expenses of the mission, in couriers, postage, and salary of attachés, for one year, from January 1828, to January 1829 Salary to Colonel Campbell for one year, from January 5, 1829, Allowance as Chargé d'Affaires, at £5 a-day, for one year, from To reimburse to him the extraordinary expenses of the mission, Salary, at £5000 a-year, from September 1, 1829, to January 5, 1830 Allowance for house-rent, at £500 a-year, from September 1, 1829, to January 5, 1830 CONSULAR ESTABLISHMENTS. These form minor diplomatic appointments, ostensibly established, to watch over the interests of commerce, assist and facilitate the transactions of merchants in foreign parts. The duties being light, and the remuneration considerable, they form a favourite branch of ministerial patronage, and situations therein are mostly obtained by individuals connected with the aristocracy or possessing parliamentary influence. At present the chief objections to the consular establishments are their superfluous number-the expenses they entail on the country in extravagant salaries, pensions, and superannuations--and the unfitness of many persons forced into the situation from the operation of the influence to which we have adverted. In the United States of America, for example, we have eight consuls, besides consuls-general, enjoying salaries of £800 a year. Both in America and Europe, the office of consul-general is unnecessary; at all events such a functionary might be dispensed with, where we had a regular ambassador and his staff at an enormous charge. Where, for instance, can be the utility or necessity of having a consul-general in Paris? We have an ambassador there, with a salary of £12,100 a year, a secretary of the embassy, and many other individuals attached to the legation in that city; and amongst them, no doubt, a fit individual might be easily found to do the duty at a salary of £500 per annum, for discharging which the present consul-general receives £1200. At Naples we have a consul-general, with £1200 a year, when the whole trade of the kingdom, with all the ports in the world, does not exceed £1,000,000 per annum. But then the climate of Naples is salubrious, and it is sometimes convenient to have a sinecure retreat there for an indolent official, or satiated epicure of the "higher orders." The consul-general, at Washington, has a salary of £1600 a year. This appears wholly indefensible. In dear countries there is some necessity for high salaries to meet the increased expenditure; but, in cheap countries, like America, there can be no pretext for an exorbitant allowance. £1600 a year is equal to the salary of the chief justice of the United States, and this amount is paid to an officer who, in fact, has nothing to do. A change of questionable utility was introduced in 1825, in the mode of remunerating consuls; in lieu of payment by fees, fixed salaries were substituted: but, under some pretext or other, fees still continue to be exacted, and the charges altogether imposed by these functionaries on commerce are very considerable. The money paid to the consuls of Columbia alone amounts to a charge of four per cent. on the traffic carried on between the two countries. The whole amount of our exports and imports to South America is about eleven millions; and our consular and diplomatic establishments in these states cost £60,521, the former £27,421 and the latter £33,100. In the trade with some states these expenses are particularly exorbitant. For instance, the consular and diplomatic per centage on our trade with Mexico is £1:0:7, on that with Guatemala £10:17:2; our exports and imports to the former amounting to £731,000, the diplomatic cost to £4,400, and the consular expense to £3000; while our trade to Guatemala amounts only to £13,813, and the consular expense is £1500. There is no necessity for these charges, which result solely from negligence and abuse in the foreign department, from extravagant salaries, from the appointment of consuls to places where none are required, and from the double and treble appointments of consuls, vice-consuls, and consuls-general, when a single individual would be amply sufficient for the discharge of official duty. The little duty these gentlemen discharge may be inferred from the fact that many hold other situations, apparently requiring their entire personal attention, while others hold the appointment of consul, in America, or distant parts of Europe, and reside, constantly, in the The metropolis. Some of the more glaring abuses in this department, especially those relating to the appointments to the New States of America, were brought before the House of Commons last Session. speech of Sir James Graham on the subject, from which we subjoin an extract, is well deserving attention. "He would begin with the case of Mr. Ricketts, the Consul at Peru, to show the great cost to the public of the system of non-residence, growing partly out of the regulation of fixed salaries and no fees. Mr. Ricketts went to his post in 1825, and passed that year in preparations, and in his voyage out, and he received, for outfit and salary that year, the sum £3855. In 1826, being at his post, he received for salary £2500; for house rent, £510; for a clerk, £250; for extras, £503; making, in the year 1826, the sum of £3763. In 1827 he was on his voyage home, having left his post early in April, and that year he received £2812. His honourable friend was very testy about any charges being adverted to previously to the year 1828; but his honourable friend should recollect that most of the members now on the Treasury Benches are all His Majesty's Ministers. Though they might disclaim the expenses of that period, all formed a part of Mr. Canning's administration. But, passing from the year previous to 1828, he came to that year, and 1829, and these two years Mr. Ricketts was in England, and received £1600 a-year. These gentlemen, therefore, had been, under Lord Aberdeen's government, allowed to spend two years in England doing nothing, at this large salary; he had passed one year in his voyage out and home, he had been the rest of his time at his post, and for that period, not quite two years, he had received the sum of £13,600. What he charged as the most flagrant part of the case was, the two years he had been in England at £1600 a-year, and for these two years the present Foreign Minister was wholly responsible. He then came to the case of Mr. Nugent, who was one of those whose services were not accurately stated in the return, as he might possibly make a mistake. This gentleman went in 1825 to Chili, and received, the first year, £3050. In 1826 he was at his post, and received £2500. In 1827, as early as June, or he believed he must now say, as the return was not correct, in June 1828, he returned to England, and received his £2500. His honourable friend described the two years, 1828 and 1829, as years of economy. These two years constituted the golden reign of the Earl of Aberdeen-they were the economical age not deserving of those sarcasms which his honourable friend charged him with using, and entreated him to abandon in bringing forward his motion. His honourable friend had stated that, henceforth, the Consuls, when away from their posts, were to have only half their salaries, but that had not yet been the case, as he had already stated with regard to the Consul of Peru, who had received his salary of £1600 during the two years he had been in England; and it had not been the case with the Consul of Chili, who had received his salary under similar circumstances, one of whom had received in four years, the sum of £13,600, and the other had received £13,050. The next case he would mention was that of Mr. Mackenzie, who, in 1826, w a appointed Consul to Hayti. He received £500 for his outfit, £1500 for his salary, and £215 for his voyage out, in all £2215. In 1826, he was at his post, and received £2710; but he begged to call the particular attention of the House to the year 1827. He received in that year, his salary, £1500; for a journey into the interior of the island, he charged £1290; his house rent and extras amounted to £1070. The honourable baronet mentioned another sum of £147, and for his voyage to England, £192, making a total of £4179.* In 1828 he was in England, and in 1828, when England was under the economic administration of Lord Aberdeen, he received his salary of £1125. He was little more than one year at his post, and for that he received a sum of upwards of £8000. He then came to the case of Mr. Schenley, who was one of those whose services were mis-stated in the Return. He begged to call the attention of the House to Mr. Schenley in particular. This gentleman had been sent as Vice-Consul to Guatemala. In 1825 he received, for his outfit, £300, and for his salary £700; but he did not go, if he understood the Return correctly, that year. He went out in 1826. He was at Guatemala that year and in 1827, and received his salary, of £700; but before the end of 1827 he left Guatemala; and The following Bill of Charges, transcribed from the Parliamentary Return, of the Expenses of the Consulate, at Hayti, for the year 1827, will more correctly and fully illustrate the argument of Sir James: Charles Mackenzie, Consul General, Salary for one year, from .... January 5, 1827, to January 5, 1828 .... Banker's commission... Expenses of his journey from Hayti to ... In reimbursement of expenses for relief of Total for 1827. |