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 £10,000 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 easily be 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 a consul-general—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 £27,241 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 plural 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 metropolis. In 1792 the total charge of our diplomatic and consular establishments, including pensions, amounted to £113,927; in 1829, the same establishments cost £366,000; and the charge of the consular department alone was £121,820, being nearly £8,000 more than the charge of both establishments just before the French revolutionary war. We shall conclude the chapter with subjoining a few documents abstracted from parliamentary papers, which will illustrate and authenticate our previous exposition, and show the present state of this branch of the national expenditure.

These salaries and allowances for rent are exclusive of charges for outfit, journeys out, postage, and other incidental expenses, which swell to a considerable amount the civil contingencies of the year. After three, four, or seven years service, it has been usual to grant retiring pensions to foreign ministers of £2000 or £1500 a-year; but from a letter of Lord Palmerston’s, dated August 31, 1831, it appears ministers have determined to act on the following resolutions of Sir H. Parnell’s finance committee of 1828:—“1. That no person whatever shall be entitled to receive a diplomatic pension until the expiration of fifteen years from the date of his first commission, nor unless he shall have actually served ten years. 2. That no person shall be entitled to a pension of the first class (£2,000 a-year), unless he shall have actually served three years as ambassador at some foreign court. 3. That pensions to envoys and ministers plenipotentiary at the greater courts shall not exceed 1500 a-year, and shall not be granted until after five years’ residence in that capacity at a foreign court. 4. That pensions to envoys and ministers plenipotentiary at other courts, and to ministers, shall not exceed £1000 a-year after a similar period of residence. 5. And last, that pensions in the remaining class shall not exceed £800 a-year under the same conditions as to time of residence.”—Parliamentary Paper, No. 337, Sess. 1831.