surgeon, though it must have seemed to him doubtful whether this was not a mere excuse for absence.

(c) The Dismissal of Mr Staples (1825)

Apart from the salaries, notarial fees brought in little. Mr Mackenzie earned only £9, 16s. in notarial fees in a year, and it was doubtless for a similar reason that Mr Staples, the Consul for Acapulco, tried to supplement his regular income from other sources. But one condition of his acceptance was that he should absolutely renounce all trade.' On the 18th January 1824 he accepted this condition in a letter and took up his appointment. On the 22nd July a thunderbolt was launched. "It has been communicated to H.M. Government that, subsequent to that letter, you have entered into a contract for a loan to the Mexican Government. . . . It is not to be supposed that you embarked on this transaction without some view to benefits, justly the objects of a commercial man, but entirely unbecoming of H.M.'s Consul." So there was no further occasion for his services." 1 The sequel throws an even more interesting light on Canning's methods. Staples had married Lord Ormond's sister and was favoured by Canning's great friend, the Marquess Wellesley. Both influential noblemen solicited further employment for him in 1826. Canning inflexibly refused, informing Staples that his former conduct precluded' him [Canning] "from again recommending you to His Majesty for employment." 2

(d) The Castigation of Mr Watts (1826)

Other consuls in both worlds received lessons as to the difference between diplomatic and consular functions. Mr Watts, Consul at Cartagena de Colombia, wrote a letter to his Consul General at Bogota, complaining that comfortless place is the plenitude of dulness and insipidity." He was soon to be enlivened. For he had been maladroit

64

1 F.O. Mexico, 50/2. Planta to Staples, Oct. 10/23; July 22/24. Canning had avowed it as a principle that he would let no persons with consular appointments engage in trade, and appears to have removed others who did so. Vide his speech, July 5/25. Hans. Deb., N.S., xiii. 1485-7.

2 F.O. Argentine, 6/14. Canning to Staples, May 22/26.

·

enough to introduce by letter an Englishman to the Colombian Government, without mentioning the fact to the British Mission or Consul-General at Bogota, though he complacently informed the Secretary of State of his action by direct letter. Planta wrote to the Consul-General of Bogota enclosing a copy of his letter to Watts (8th July 1826). 'Mr Canning apprehends that this is the first time that a consul has taken upon himself not only to act exclusively upon his own impressions of a case brought before him without the knowledge of his Government but to report to the Secretary of State for his information, not the particulars of the case itself but merely the fact that he [the consul] highly approved of it. . . . But that you should think yourself authorised to address yourself directly to the Ministers of the State at one extremity of which you exercise a subordinate function (there being at the Capital of the said State a British Mission and ConsulGeneral) is a degree of irregularity and presumption which, I am directed by the Secretary of State to say, has incurred his severe displeasure. The circumstances you mention in extenuation of this act (or rather in your own view as an enhancement of its merit), namely, the intimate friendship' you say subsists between you and the Colombian Ministers to whom you address yourself, so far from extenuating your fault, makes it more inconvenient to the public service, and, unless checked, of more evil example. Your business as His Majesty's Consul is not one of private friendship but of public duty." 1 Mr Canning was very sorry to have to circulate this letter, as he had hitherto performed his duties well. In these rebukes, and actions, in spite of their sharpness, there is a sort of severe magnificence, which evinces a lofty conception of public duty.

6. CANNING'S FINANCIAL REFORMS IN THE
DIPLOMATIC SERVICE

(a) Tightening the Financial Reins

Canning was anxious that diplomats abroad should have the means of maintaining a proper state, but he took care

1 Correspondence in F.O. Colombia, 135/1. The phraseology of the letter is obviously that of Canning.

that such indulgences should not exceed proper limits. Thus he directed repairs and new furniture to be made to the Ambassador's house in Paris, for he thought it very well' that the Embassy in Paris should be "fitted up in as splendid a style as any house in London." But, owing to his intervention, the total expenses were reduced from £23,100 to £12,000. Again, services of plate and a picture of the King had formerly been given as personal perquisites to all Ambassadors. He directed that both should remain in the Embassy as a permanency. Granville's service of plate, as issued to him in 1825, consisted of 24 oval table dishes; 16 oval and 16 round dishes and covers; 4 tureens with royal crest; 48 soup dishes; 18 salt-cellars; 12 sauceboats ; 12 bed-chamber and 12 table candlesticks; 12 dozen dessert knives (6 dozen with silver blades); I coffee-pot; 4 teapots; 4 Grecian pattern ice-pails; 6 ice-spoons; a spoon 'to take out flies with.' In all, he received 14,051 ozs. 8 dwts. of silver. Inventories were to be kept, and everything was regulated with meticulous care. The Paris service was the most expensive and cost £8500, 15s. IId. Table services with Chapel services were provided at Paris, St Petersburg, Vienna, and The Hague; while at Madrid, Berlin, and Constantinople, Ambassadors were permitted plate but no Chapel service. Special missions, as for congratulating monarchs on their succession and the like, were always most expensive. Hence a peer, often a duke, was selected, who was lordly enough to pay his own expenses. The Duke of Northumberland, who went to Paris to the Coronation of Charles X., received a diamond sword worth £10,000 from the government as a present, to remain as an heirloom in his family. The gift was magnificent, but the bargain was advantageous for the government, for he had incurred expenses estimated at over four times that sum. And, as Canning explained to the House of Commons (17th March 1826), "It was not thought right that the public and the sovereign should be served entirely gratuitously."

Castlereagh had initiated various important reforms by a committee in 1816, but there had been much waste of public money, as always in war periods, and the improvement was slow. The whole system was revised with the utmost care by Canning in person in 1825. He had in fact put most

of the reforms into practice before that date. The house rents had been reduced below the level of 1815-6. Then Sir Charles Stuart was informed that Great Britain "cannot allow reimbursement of sums for interest on advance of money, brokerage and commission, salaries are nett." 1 The principle was established definitely in 1825. Other means were taken to prevent ministers from carrying off perquisites. Castlereagh's foolish brother-the new Marquis of Londonderryseems to have been the last Ambassador who carried off a service of plate as well as a picture of the King. He succeeded also in passing an inordinate quantity of wine through the Customs free of duty-no less than 2 tuns or 504 gallons. When some hesitation was shown at permitting it, he made furious protests, but was informed that his wine was passed only as a special indulgence,' and Canning laid down as an allowance never to be departed from' in future, "I tun to Ambassadors and half a tun to Ministers and Envoys.

11 2

Pensions to ex-diplomats amounted to £52,000 a year at this time, and were another item which was carefully scrutinised. Under the circumstances it was ill-advised of Londonderry to apply for one. Canning very wisely handed on his petition to the Prime Minister, "not wishing to take upon himself the responsibility of deciding on such an application, or of setting a value on the services of the noble marquis." Liverpool, at first, disregarded the application; but, on its renewal, sent the papers back to Canning endorsed, 'This is too bad.' 3 The sentiment must have appealed to Canning. During thirty-four years of public service he received some £60,000; while during ten years of diplomatic service Londonderry had received £160,000!

Though he was well aware that his two representatives at

1 F.O. France, 146/56. Planta to C. Stuart, Oct. 28/23. Planta's letter to Secretary of the Treasury, Sept. 18/25.

2 F.O. France, 161/56, to Stuart, Aug. 4/23. correspondence in B.M. Ripon MSS., iii. 1821-8.

There is an amusing
Robinson to London-

derry, July 18/23, in which the latter is convicted of all sorts of blunders and told he had had every consideration.'

3 June 26/27. Hans. Deb., N.S., xvii. 1404–5. Tom Moore wrote on this : "I doubt if e'en Griffinhoofe could

(Though Griffin's a comical lad)

Invent any joke half as good

As that precious one this is too bad!

Paris had to supplement their official incomes from their private purse, Canning never hesitated to reprove them for unnecessary expenditure of public money.1 Thus, Sir Charles Stuart was brought to book for having allowed his house expenses to go unreported and unpaid for a year and a half. In 1826 Lord Granville learnt of "Mr Canning's regret that he spent 1120 francs more on stationery than last quarter." It was, however, Mr Ward in Mexico who incurred the most Olympian of rebukes when he subscribed $1000 (about £250) to alleviating calamities and epidemics in Mexico. He was informed that "Mr Canning considers the sum extraordinarily large. He must again and again urge upon you the absolute necessity of economy in expenditure. You are not to consider it as either incumbent on you or as expedient to take every opportunity of purchasing the good will of the People among whom you are placed by ostentatious liberality. You are to recollect that your example will be pleaded against all future Ministers of His Majesty in Mexico and that largesses on such a scale would soon exhaust any allowance likely to be made to an established mission." Further, he deducted from his submitted expenses $500 for half a year's salary to Dr Wilson; $328 for plate purchased; and $51 for a pencil-case. Mr Ward did not learn much from this lesson, for in the next quarter he was informed that there was 'so extraordinary a difference' between his expenses and those of the British Minister in Colombia, where every article of consumption and demand' is, 'so far as is known, of equal price.' By this standard his stable charges and servants' wages were about double, his house-rent yearly triple, and his housekeeping more than quadruple, those of Colombia.2 In ordinary circumstances in South America, as Canning explained to an amused House of Commons (17th March 1826), it was difficult to fix a scale of prices "in a country in which a man might buy a horse for a dollar which would cost him 2 guineas to get shod." Where comparisons were possible, however, it will be seen that economy was rigidly enforced. Canning was the first to consider the hardship due to slowness of promotion among those persons abroad, like secretaries 1 Vide his remarks, Mar. 21/25. Hans. Deb., N.S., xii. 1093. F.O. Mexico, 50/19. Planta to Ward, Feb. 14, 15, June 8/26.