MINISTRY OF COMMERCE.

HC Deb 03 March 1903 vol 118 cc1301-40

*MR HOULT (Cheshire, Wirral)

said the Resolution he proposed to move would, no doubt, in some quarters be considered antagonistic to the Board of Trade. So far as he was concerned he said unhesitatingly that the President of the Board of Trade had always shown a great regard for trade interests, and this motion was not intended in any way to be antagonistic; but anyone who knew the constitution of the Board of Trade knew that its constitution was hopelessly obsolete. As a great administrative Department of the State, it administered the Acts passed from time to time regulating shipping, railways, mines, factories, and a multitude of other things, and it carried out those duties with as little friction, and with as great regard to the interests involved, as it was possible for the officials to do. Speaking as a shipowner of thirty-rive years experience he had pleasure in stating that never in the whole of that period had the relations existing between the Board of Trade and that great industry been so cordial as they were now. But the Board of Trade was an administrative Board, and it was impossible for it as at present constituted to carry out the duties it was now expected to undertake with regard to trade and commerce. There was a very widespread feeling in the country that the interests of trade and commerce should be safeguarded and promoted in a manner which, so far, had not received the attention of the Government, and that the time had arrived when some new Department should be created, with a Minister at its head of high Cabinet rank.

As regarded the internal trade of the country, there were frequent complaints of high railway rates; that the canals were not made use of in the interests of trade in the way they ought to be; and that the Light Railways Acts had not been productive of the advantage to agriculture which was expected. All these matters were of the highest importance, and it seemed to him that something ought to be done to bring about a condition of things more favourable to the trade and commercial interests of the country. Whether the appointment of a Minister of Commerce would have that effect he did not know, but it was generally admitted that a great deal might he done in that direction. With regard to foreign trade, that was in the hands of three Departments. One was the Foreign Office—and the House would remember they had already had a debate upon a Treaty made between Russia and Persia. It was held by those who ought to know that that Treaty was likely to be extremely detrimental to British trade. But with a proper organisation that Treaty might have been heard of in its initial stages, and with a Minister of Commerce it was possible that such a Treaty, detrimental to our interests as this was, might have been guarded against. Another part of our foreign trade was controlled by the India Office, which might be expected to derive great assistance from a Minister of Commerce. Then there was the trade controlled by the Colonial Office. Foreign governments had their trade agents throughout the British Colonies, and those agents advised their Governments in all matters pertaining to the particular industries carried on in those countries. We had no such organisation, and our traders had to get information as to the wants of our colonies as best they could. Every other trading nation had Ministers of Commerce. The United States of America, it was true, until recently had no such Minister, but when the President in his message to Congress on December 3rd suggested that such a Minister should be appointed, so important was the matter considered that on the 13th of February following it was announced that a Minister of Commerce had been appointed. The annual meeting of the Associated Chambers of Commerce, which represented the commercial interests of this country, was now being held in London, and he saw from the agenda that resolutions had been pissed by the Chambers of Commerce of London, Liverpool, Halifax, Nottingham, Cardiff, Derby, Newcastle, Gateshead, and other places, to the effect that the overwhelming importance of the trade, commerce and shipping of the Empire demanded that the Minister in charge of the Department of the Government especially identified with these matters should be placed on the footing of a Secretary of State, in order to attract statesmen of the highest qualifications and of great experience in such matters. The Chambers of Commerce throughout the country were unanimously in favour of the appointment of such a Minister.

He called the attention of the House to recent paragraph in The Times dealing with the Uganda Railway. It was there pointed out that German and Italian traders were at work, but no mention was made of British traders, though England was opening up the country at great expense. What was the explanation of this? It was, he suggested, because trade agencies had informed their Governments in Europe that trade was to be done in that region, but we had no trade agents and it was possible for that reason that the British were not mentioned in the paragraph. He hoped the Government would see their way to grant what was a universal demand from the whole of the trading community of the country, and order the inquiry asked for in the Resolution with the object of making arrangements for the appointment of a Minister of Commerce. British traders did not want any exceptional privileges; they did not want bolstering up. They were made of the same material as that which enabled their forefathers to carry trade all over the world. If it had fair and equal treatment, he was perfectly satisfied that the commerce of the country would in the future occupy, if not the premier position, certainly a position of which none of them need be ashamed. It had been said that the people of this country were apathetic; but there was no apathy on the part of the traders of this country, and no apathy on the part of the great middle class, which was the backbone of the country. If there was apathy, it was apathy on the part of the Government. He would not apply that word to the present Government, but to past Governments. The present Government had a very great regard for the trading and commercial interests of the country; and he was satisfied that they would be reach' to do what was wise and just in the interests of trade and commerce.

*MR. D. A. THOMAS (Merthyr Tydvil)

said he was sure the President of the Board of Trade would need no assurance from him that, in seconding the Motion, he was not acting in a Party spirit, or with any hostility whatever to the Department over which, in his humble judgment, the right hon. Gentleman presided with singular ability. After an experience of fifteen years as a supplicant at the doors of various Departments, he had no hesitation in saying that, with the possible exception of the Local Government Board, ore received more intelligent consideration from the Board of Trade than from any other Department. As for the right hon. Gentleman himself, if he might say so without presumption, he thought the duties of the Board of Trade were congenial to him; and he brought to them very great industry and high intellectual qualifications. He said that in order to show his sincerity, and to show that in seconding the Motion he was not acting in hostility to the Board of Trade or to its President. The mover of the Motion rather emphasised that part of the Resolution which asked for the appointment of a Minister of Commerce. He would rather emphasise the latter part of the Resolution, which asked for an inquiry into the various Government Departments, because he fully recognised that before there could be any change there should be a full inquiry into all the Departments. They could not treat the Board of Trade and the Local Government Board in isolation and apart from other Departments. He wished to point out that they made no demand for a new Department. What they suggested was that a Ministry of Industry and Commerce should be substituted for the present Board of Trade. They did not ask for any additional member of the Cabinet, and they did not suggest or attempt to dictate to the Prime Minister what offices should he directly represented in the Cabinet. As a matter of fact, he thought that for thirty years the President of the Board of Trade had been invariably a member of the Cabinet, which in itself was a recognition—although an imperfect recognition—of the principle for which they were contending.

As a commercial man, and as the representative of one of the largest industrial divisions in the country, and as a Member who had been returned almost entirely by the labour vote, he desired that the Department which had charge of the industry and commerce of the country should be represented by a Minister with the status of a principal (Secretary of State; and he contended that on grounds of sentiment, which, he admitted, largely entered into the matter, as well as of efficiency, and economy in the truest sense of the word, the President of the Board of Trade should be raised to the position of a principal Secretary of State. It was a very remarkable fact that nearly every foreign Government had a Minister of Commerce, and that this country, which really owed everything to its commercial pre-eminence, should not have a Minister of Commerce. He should like to sketch briefly the history of the Board of Trade. The first reference to a Committee of Commerce was in 1655, when Cromwell appointed his son Richard, with many lords of his Council, judges and gentlemen, and about twenty merchants of London, York, Newcastle, Yarmouth, Doverand other places, to meet and consider by what means the traffic and navigation of the Republic might be best promoted and regulated, and to report on the subject. That was in the nature of the inquiry which they were asking for to-day. In 1660 Charles II. appointed by patent a Council of Trade, and about a month afterwards he appointed a Council of Foreign Plantations. In 1672 the previous patents were re. voked and the two Councils were amalgamated as the Council for Trade and Foreign Plantations. This Council continued until 1782 when it was finally suppressed or abolished, but things did not appear to have gone on very well during the period of suppression, because a few years afterwards, in 1786, by Order in Council the Board of Trade was formed as at present constituted. It was appointed with the; full designation of "Lords of the Committee of Privy Council appointed by His Majesty for the consideration of matters relating to Trade and Foreign Plantations." Before that it had been merely a Council of Trade for consultative purposes, and it consisted of a number of members of the Government who were, he believed, paid for this specific purpose. He found from a work dealing with this subject that a writer in 1746 said— No distinct functions appear to have been assigned either by statute or Order in Council to the President or Vice-President: but in point of fact they are the only working members of the Hoard of Trade, and its business is performed by them without the interference of any of the numerous official personages who are upon the Committee of Privy Council, except only in respect of Colonial Acts referred to the Committee of Privy Council, as to which the Secretary of State for the Colonies gives his opinion in writing, as a member of the Committee, upon them, and that opinion is at once adopted as the opinion of the Committee, in all Acts which, although relating to the Colonies, do not relate to trade. That showed that even at that time it was a one-man board as it was to-day. He had no rooted objection to one-man boards. He had himself had some experience on the boards of public companies, and he always found the most efficient boards were those on which there was one active man and where the other directors merely registered his decisions. But still, that showed that the constitution of the Board of Trade had become obsolete, and in itself, without going further, quite proved the first part of the Resolution.

In order to show the House the degree and importance of the work that the Board of Trade did, he would read a list of the establishment which was formed in 1786 to carry out the work at that time. It consisted of: Two clerks of this Council attending by rotation: a clerk specially appointed for this particular service of this Committee; a law clerk; a chief and six other clerks and an extra clerk; three managers; an office-keeper; a necessary woman; and a door-keeper. But the consequence of the work which the board had to do had so much increased by 1826 that the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day (Fredrick Robinson) moved— That His Majesty be enabled to grant a salary of £5,000 a year to the President of the Board of Trade. The right hon. Gentleman told him yesterday that that Resolution had not been given effect to in the Act passed a few weeks later, because the majority was so small. It was only a majority of 11. He did not think that Hansard quite bore out the view expressed by the right hon. Gentleman. The President of the Board of Trade received a salary of £2,000, and he then held the sinecure office of treasurer to the Navy, to which was attached a salary of.£3,000. The real objection on the part of those who were opposed to the raising of the salary of the President of the Board of Trade was because it was still intended to retain this sinecure office of Treasurer to the Navy, an office once held by the Speaker of the House of Commons. The work of the Board at that time had so increased that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in moving the Resolution, said— He thought that a fit remuneration for the President would be £5,000 a year. The House would recollect that it was an office which in these times especially called for more labour, both of body and mind than any other now in existence. In 1832 the Statistical Department was added to the Board of Trade, and it had been found most useful to those business men who had the intelligence to make use of it. In 1840, the Railway Department was added In 1854, Messrs. Trevelyan and Stafford Northcote inquired into the conditions of the permanent and civil service with regard to the Board of Trade and made a Report, in which they said— There is probably no Department of the Government to whose functions so many and such important additions have recently been made as the Board of Trade. While, however, these additions have been of such a nature as almost entirely to change the character of the Department, its constitution has not as yet been revised with a view to the efficient discharge of its new duties. Originally designed for consultative purposes, it was organised in a very different manner from the executive offices, and the arrangements made for the transaction of its business have not been run or are suitable to the management of administrative details…. The public in the meantime has to bear a heavy charge for the establishment and maintenance of separate Departments which might be united in such a manner as to produce both greater economy and greater efficiency. The hon. Member, in moving the Resolution now before the House, had told them what the opinion of the Chambers of Commerce was to-day. He did not know whether the hon. Member was present that day during the discussion in what the Chancellor of the Exchequer once described as the Parliament of Commerce. It passed a Resolution, without a dissentient voice, praying the House of Commons to pass this Resolution in the form in which it stood on the Paper. The Chambers of Commerce had been agitating for years, and as far back as 1871 a deputation consisting of Members of this House, and representing the principal Chambers of Commerce of the country, waited upon Mr. Gladstone when he was Prime Minister. On 8th July 1879, no doubt largely at the instance of Chambers of Commerce, Mr. Sampson Lloyd moved— That it is desirable that those functions of the Executive Government which especially relate to commerce and agriculture should be administered by a distinct Department under the direction of a Principal Secretary of State, who shall be a Member of the Cabinet. The Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day opposed, but the motion was, nevertheless carried by 76 to 56, a majority of 20. On May 13th, 1881, with the assent of Mr. Gladstone, who was then Prime Minister, on going into Committee of Supply, Sir Massey Lopes carried without a division the following Motion— That it is desirable that the function of the Executive Government, which especially relates to agriculture and commerce should, as far as possible, be administered by a distinct Department, to be presided over by a responsible Minister of the Crown. But no effect whatever had been given to these Resolutions beyond the appointment of a Minister of Agriculture. The status of the Board of Trade had been in no way improved or increased.

The last time the matter came before the House was when Sir Stafford Northcote moved a Resolution similar in effect to the one proposed to-night. As he thought it had a bearing on the subject, he would read the opinion expressed then by the present Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman agreed to a certain extent— That possibly a survey of the whole multifarious work of the administrative Departments and a re-distribution of that work would he advisable…. I think my friend is not wrong in urging that if we had a blank sheet to deal with, and if we were not troubled by the history of the various Government Departments, and if we had to arrange the salaries of Ministers in proportion to their labours, there would not be the difference there is at present between, for instance, the Local Government Board and the Hoard of Trade and the older offices in the State, and I think it quite possible that the time may not be very far distant when the whole question will be reconsidered. It is evident that the position of the President of the Board of Trade cannot he dealt with in an isolated way, and that there must he a general survey of the whole work of the Government Departments and a general and uniform plan adopted in their treatment…. Members of the Cabinet are on an equality, and the weight of individual opinion depends on the individual and not on any extraneous or fortuitous circumstances…. On the general question I quite recognise that the growth of the great offices which have been referred to has produced a certain anomaly in our present system, and at no distant period that anomaly may be considered and, if possible, corrected. He saw the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his place, and he believed it was his intention to take part in the discussion. He hoped they were knocking at an open door in regard to this matter. He presumed that it was the question of cost which concerned the Chancellor of the Exchequer more than anything else, but he would point out that the cost of the inquiry could not be very large, and that was all they were asking for to-night. On the general question he thought it must be perfectly clear that, over a series of years, the more capable men in a Government would gravitate to the positions of higher status and salary, and that in the long run commerce and industry would be left to the less capable men. And what was of even more serious consideration was that the same argument applied to the permanent officials, whose salaries, though not proportionate to that of the chief, to some extent followed it. Those who gained high places in the civil service examinations would naturally select the vacancies in the better paid and more important departments, leaving industry and commerce to be content with the services of those possessing less brilliant qualifications. Such a possi- bility could not be in the interests of the country, and they should do all they could to avoid it. He hoped that the Government would see their way to accept the Motion with a sincere desire to give it full and immediate effect.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the constitution of the Board of Trade has become obsolete, and this House is of opinion that a Department presided over by a Minister of Commerce and Industry, having the status of a principal Secretary of State, should be substituted for the present office, to which should be entrusted all matters more particularly appertaining to commerce and industry, and to that end that an inquiry should be forthwith instituted with the view of re-arranging the duties and functions of existing Departments."—(Mr. Hoult.)

*SIR CHARLES DILKE (Gloucester shire, Forest of Dean)

rose to move as an Amendment to the Motion to leave out all after "that," and insert "with a view to administrative efficiency, this House calls on His Majesty's Government to. undertake a redistribution of duties between the various Government Departments concerned, with due regard to the interests of labour." The mover of the proposal before the House was, he thought, a little unkind to His Majesty's Government. It was not for him to defend the Government against the attacks of one of their own supporters, but the Motion was prefaced by these words— To call attention to the many disabilities to which our commerce and trade are subjected under the present Administration. How could the hon. Member get out of that statement, but he would leave the Government to deal with their own supporter.

*MR. HOULT

It is not the Government I complain of, it is. the administration of the office.

*SIR CHARLES DILKE

said he was sorry to hear the seconder suggest in his admirable speech, with the greater part of which he entirely agreed, that the lower salaries of certain Departments prevent them from having the service of the best men. No one who knew the Government Departments all round could contend that men like the late Lord Farrer, Sir Francis Hopwood, or Sir Hugh Owen, were inferior in any respect to the men in the other Departments of the State. The mover of the Motion had made no attempt to prove his case, or to show how the present Administration had broken down. He was not concerned to deny that the constitution of the Board of Trade, and indeed many of their offices, was in some degree obsolete and deserving of inquiry, yet he thought that any Member who brought a matter of this sort before the House ought to make some more serious attempt to show where the Department had broken down. The only examples the hon. Member had given to the House at all were that the railway charges were too high, and that we needed more agents in all parts of the world. "More, agents" was a question of how much the country was going to pay; and as to railway charges, that was not so much the weakness of the Government Department as the weakness of the House of Commons, which, in the face of railway interests allowed the rates to be so high.

So far as he could gather from the horn Member who moved the Motion, what he desired was rather a change of name than anything else. But he did make one incautious admission that seemed inconsistent with the remainder of his speech. He said in one sentence that he desired to see the creation of an additional Department. Both the mover and the seconder said that the head of the Commercial Department of this country ought to be a man of high official rank, equal to a Secretary of State. In comparing this country with other countries, the right hon. Baronet maintained that we had about four times as many Ministers as any other country in the world; and when the House was asked to place more Ministers in Cabinet rank the hon. Member must remember that the size which Cabinets had reached was responsible for many of the weaknesses which Governments here had shown. The desired change in the Board of Trade could not stand alone, and there was some reason to fear that these general changes might lead to an increase in the total number of Ministers; therefore, this matter became material. There was a heresy which ran through a great deal of the argument in. favour of the original Motion, namely, that the influence of a Minister in the Cabinet depended upon the size of his salary. Mr. Gladstone was once Vice-President of the Board of Trade, and exercised enormous influence when he held that minor office. Hon. Members would remember the influence exercised by the present Colonial Secretary in connection with Irish affairs when President of the Board of Trade and not directly connected with Irish administration. Who could contend for a moment that in Mr. Gladstone's fourth administration the influence of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Montrose Burghs was limited by the fact that he was not a principal Secretary of State? That argument would not bear investigation. Not only was this matter, as the seconder of the Motion had admitted, bound up with the constitution of several other Departments of the State, but the argument which the hon. Gentleman had used, and in which he concurred in regard to the position of the clerks and the equality of the civil servants, extended to the majority of the other Departments of the State.

It was impossible, if once this question was raised, to abstain from placing the head of the Navy of this country in the rank of a Secretary of State, or the head of the Education Department. Scottish feeling would also compel them to raise the position of the head of the Scotch Department. He agreed with the argument of the seconder of the Motion that when once they touched this question at all they would have to make all the clerks in the offices of State equal. The present distinction was one which could not be defended. They should have to establish the principle of the absolute equality in salary and status of all the clerks in all the offices of State, with the doubtful exception, perhaps, of those superior persons the Foreign Office clerks, who, in the course of their business, were expected to dine out more, and to dance at more balls than any other officers of State. Not only had we larger Cabinets than those which guided the destinies of any other Parliament, but we had infinitely more paid Ministers than any other country. We had in this House forty paid Members, and while hon. Gentlemen opposite refused payment to ordinary Members, and condemned the payment of the Members of the Irish Party, or of poor men of ability who desired the chance of obtaining the free suffrages of the people, they seemed to have for their ideal that every Member of their party should be a Secretary of State. He asserted that the Cabinet in this country was nearly three times as numerous as any other Cabinet in the world, and that the paid Ministers in the two Houses of Parliament were five times more numerous than in the Parliament of any other people. Of course many changes had been made in the Government offices.

The seconder of the Motion had alluded to two Ministries which had been created by Resolution of this House, including the Department of Agriculture. Now it had always been known that that Minister had not a great amount of work to do, and in consequence of the deficiency of work they were told that on the 1st of April the Department of Ichthyology was to be transferred from the Board of Trade to the Ministry of Agriculture. To show how little considered hitherto many of those small changes had been, he might say that the superintendence of fisheries had been transferred not very long ago from the Home Office to the Board of Trade, because the foreshores of the coast had been transferred to that Department. The only connection which he could imagine there was between ichthyology and agriculture was that in some of the counties on the east coast sprats were used as a manure for the land. The ichthyologists would be like the settlers in some new country whose chickens held up their legs whenever they heard a waggon coming along. Then there was an Agricultural Department in Ireland of which his friend Mr. Plunkett, unfortunately not a Member of this House, was the head, and there was the Scottish Department which had been created in recent times. A large number of new Ministers had been proposed from time to time, but fortunately had not yet been adopted. In his own time he remembered that a Resolution of the House of Commons had been carried in favour of the creation of a Ministry of Justice, but nothing had been done. There had also been proposals for the creation of a Ministry of Health apart from the Local Government Board, and of a Ministry of Merchant Shipping and Seamen, and of a Ministry of Labour.

As to this particular proposal dealing with the Board of Trade, he should like to ask the House to consider a little more closely the argument of the mover of the Resolution. That hon. Gentleman alluded to the Commercial Department of the Foreign Office, and apparently he desired to shift that Department from the Foreign Office and place it in the new Ministry of Commerce. The value of that Department of the Foreign Office had long been disputed, but there was so much to be said on both sides of the question that he would pass the topic by. There had no doubt been a certain amount of discontent with the Board of Trade, probably unjust, among the commercial classes. He thought that that discontent had been caused by what he would call purely mechanical causes. The Board of Trade was divided into many Departments, most of them housed in different buildings, in different parts of the town. When some of them were Members of the Committee, presided over by the Home Secretary, on the re-housing of the Departments of State, one of the Departments which claimed to be placed under a single roof was the Board of Trade, but for some mysterious reason the Board of Trade alone was the Department knocked out of that scheme. The mechanical difficulty to which he had referred undoubtedly caused some friction, and led to some temporary unpopularity of the Board of Trade. There were a number of gentlemen who wished to see the creation of a Ministry of Commerce with a Secretary of State at its head in whom they could have confidence. He had a little suspicion of that desire, and there was something to be said on the other side. He gathered from the Resolution on the Paper, and from the speech of the mover, but not from the speech of the seconder, that those who framed the Resolution wished to bring all matters connected with commerce and industry into the new Ministry; but that would include all matters re- lating to the administration of the Factory Laws and of the Coal Mines and Metalliferous Mines Acts. Undoubtedly these were covered by the words of the Resolution, although he was glad to hear that that view was repudiated by the hon. Gentleman above the Gangway. He submitted that the House ought not to carry a Resolution containing those words without probing the matter to the bottom. He did not think they could deal efficiently with this question without considering in one sense or another the position in which the Labour Laws were to stand to the new Ministry of Commerce.

Allusion had been made to the examples set up by foreign countries where there was a Ministry of Commerce and Industry; and special reference had been made to France and Germany, which had highly developed factory legislation. It must be remembered by those who desired to see a great commercial magnate at the head of the Ministry of Commerce that labour had a claim equal to that of capital to direct the Department. In France, which was the most highly developed country in this respect, the Minister of Commerce was equally the Minister of Industry. What was the consequence? The most distinguished Minister of Commerce and Industry which that country had had was not a great commercial magnate, not what was called "a safe man" but a Socialist, M. Millerand, and there was the remarkable fact that the Chancellor of the German Empire, speaking in the name of the German Emperor himself said His Imperial Majesty approved of M. Millerand's policy, and hoped to be able to find a man like him for Germany. He appealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, representing as he had done until very recently, with distinction the Department concerned with the laws relating to factories and workshops and mines, he would be satisfied that the administration of these laws should pass, without very careful inquiry, into the hands of a mere Ministry of Commerce.

At the present time a great deal of work was thrown on the Board of Trade in connection with the administration of Labour Laws. But there was also conciliation work which might develop by and by into compulsory arbitration. Undoubtedly the man the commercial classes and the Chambers of Commerce desired to have at the head of the new Ministry would not be exactly the type of man whom the labouring classes would choose in such a case as the Penrhyn dispute. Then the President of the Board of Trade was the sweet little cherub who sat up aloft to take care of merchant seamen. He had also the protection of railway servants. In addition to that there was the Labour Department of the Board of Trade itself which was mainly statistical. And there was the function of the Board of Trade, which was repeatedly referred to in the Fair Wage Committee, of advising all other Departments, especially those of the Army and Navy, upon questions of wages. They could not, therefore, on behalf of labour consent for a moment to pass this Resolution without thinking out all these questions, and without seeing exactly where they were going. He could not but think that the result of trying to make the Board of Trade a more purely commercial Department must be to force these questions out of the Board of Trade, or the Labour Department of the Board of Trade, into the Home Office, and if that were done, the Home Office would become virtually a Ministry of Labour and Police. The Local Government Board, which year by year had become more and more the legatee of the Home Office, would also be affected, and would have to deal with such questions as the housing of the working classes in London, now at the Home Office.

In common with the seconder of the Resolution, he thought that the Government would have to oppose the Motion. He agreed with the seconder of the Resolution on two large points, although these were not struck at in the terms of the Resolution. They ought to equalise the salaries and the positions of the clerks in the Government Departments. He did not attach so much importance to the salaries of the heads of the Government Departments. Mr. Gladstone used to argue that there were numerous advantages in the variety of the salaries of the heads of the Departments. He also agreed with the mover of the Resolution in a point which, though not perhaps material, was of importance from a sentimental view, viz., that there was an advantage in getting rid of the cumbrous form of Boards which were not real Boards. In making a change of name they might seem to substitute real personal responsibility for an imaginary collective responsibility. Of course those Boards never met; they never had met, and they were carried on deliberately as a sham. If they considered the great difficulties of treating this question from the point of view of capital on one hand, and labour on the other, it was clear that the Resolution, as it stood on the Paper, could not be adopted, and that it was for the Government, which alone could deal with the subject with due responsibility and full knowledge of facts, to deal with the whole question and themselves make a proposal to the House of Commons.

Amendment proposed— To leave out from the word 'That,' to the end of the Question, and add the words ' with a view to administrative efficiency, this House calls on His Majesty's Government to undertake a redistribution of duties between the various Government Departments concerned, with due regard to the interests of labour.' (Sir Charles Dilke.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

SIR ALBERT ROLLIT (Islington, S.)

I do not want to refer so much to what has been desired by Chambers of Commerce so frequently, and I would rather say that I think there is a prevalent general feeling that the commerce and industry of this country are not only matters of paramount importance, but that they deserve a great deal more consideration and attention than they have hitherto received. That, I think, is the general feeling, and it is believed, I think with some force, that if a Minister of Commerce possessing the higher official status which must ensure his presence in the Cabinet at all times—if a Minister of that class is appointed, those interests will necessarily command more constant observation and attention than has been the case in the past. I would also say that the same observations apply to the Department. If there be a Department, as in agriculture and education, specially devoted to the commerce and industry of the country, I think a lever will be brought to bear upon commercial questions, which has, to some extent, hitherto been wanting, I would add that all this would carry with it proper responsibility on the part of the Minister and the Department, occupying a very prominent position, would be amenable from that position to this House. In that way I think we shall get what is desired, namely, a real Intelligence Department for commerce and industry in this country—constantly observant, not aggressive, but, at the same time, desirous of rendering all possible help to traders in all parts of the world, and capable of giving attention to those commercial and industrial problems which are most complex and pressing, and which lie at the root of the prosperity of the nations of the world.

As to the history of the Board of Trade, it has been spoken of as obsolete, but I venture to call it an anachronism and a fiction, because there is no Board, and if we analyse the composition of the Board it appears ridiculous. The present Board includes the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Speaker of the House of Commons, and what is still more singular, the Speaker of the Irish House of Commons. While we speak of the Board as possessing this character, it is a singular historical circumstance that archbishops have not only intervened in matters of education but within 100 years an Archbishop of Canterbury has attended the Board of Trade to emphasise the importance of protecting the trade of Manchester, which points to the obsolete character of the Board and of such an intervention. The fact remains that, while agriculture and education and other Departments have all been formed, the greatest commercial nation of the world has not a Department of Commerce in the broadest and most practical sense, and that is a defect, as we think, in the constitution of our commercial system which we are anxious to amend. Of course, upon a matter of this sort, my right hon. friend opposite speaks with the highest authority. I am not going to say that the Resolution proposes anything exactly as one would wish it, and I should myself take exception to some portion of it.

Anything of this sort, of course, must be preceded by the fullest inquiry, and all the Resolution proposes, and all we ask, is that the time has come when this inquiry should be held.

We quite admit the relevancy of all these industrial and other problems which my right hon. friend has referred to. While the opinion of Chambers of Commerce and of the commercial world is practically unanimous, they are sufficiently practical people to see that a great change of this sort cannot be made without taking into account the many questions involved, and they ask for a tribunal which shall look at all sides of the question. With regard to what my right hon. friend has said, I may say that what I think we do require is a better allocation of the duties of Ministers. What we have done for education we want to do for commerce—we want more reorganisation, more co-ordination, and less overlapping of duties, and a greater concentration of the commercial work of the Department.

Let me for the moment ask, what is the wonderful medley with which the Board of Trade deals? It deals with shipping and with fisheries, and why the fisheries should be transplanted into the Board of Agriculture is one of the questions which, I think, will have to be inquired into. The Board of Trade also has to look after the harbours, labour and industrial arbitrations, railways, electric lighting, and many other matters, and yet the status of the President of the Board of Trade is distinctly inferior to that of a Secretary of State. We think that if these duties are so various, so exacting, and so responsible in these days amid the rivalries of commerce, that status becomes an important question, and a Minister of Commerce for this country should have the highest status that can be given to him in comparison with other Ministers. Let me direct attention for a moment to the extraordinary complexity of the duties, the commercial duties even, which are pressed upon the Board of Trade at the present time. Practically the Board of Trade is restricted to internal commerce, and yet our foreign over-sea commerce, of the value of something like £1,000,000,000 a year, is practically in the hands of some other Department. Surely we must view our trade as a whole, for the complement of our home and foreign trade are the complement of each other, and no true view of the commercial position of the country can be taken unless both are viewed from a similar standpoint. Therefore, I say there should be some allocation of the duties of foreign commerce through our Consuls.

As my right hon. friend has said, we have often had this matter before us, but nevertheless, it is a great anomaly that you should have the Board of Trade or Commerce as at present constituted, and that all the over sea work should be done by another Department. I have the honour to be a member of the Commercial Intelligence Department of the Board of Trade, and there I see the complexity of the distribution of our commercial intelligence. We have there represented the Board of Trade and the Foreign Office, which plays an important part owing to its consular and other duties. The India Office and the Colonial Office are also represented, and I venture to say that if our Consular work was under the direction of a distinctly Commercial and Trade Department we should very quickly have a great alteration in many of the Consular reports, some of which are excellent, but the tone of nearly all of them would be materially altered. If we compare the work of our Consuls with the commercial reports furnished by the representatives of the United States and the rapidity with which they produce special and interim reports, we should find that our Consuls are not within the bounds of comparison, and if you had a Department of Commerce the whole tone of those reports would be altered and you would have a commercial aspect given to your Consular reports. Again, with regard to the appointment of Consuls, I think the same change would manifest itself. Instead of being of a more diplomatic character I think those representing us would be more commercial, and though I quite agree with the demand for a commercial head, that is a personal question which it is unnecessary to discuss and many of those who have not been commercial men have admirably ad- ministered the trade affairs of this country. I venture to say that the alteration I suggest would give a commercial aspect to a commercial question, and would give us a more true representation of the commercial feeling of the country.

This is not, I submit, a mere question of names, for I believe it to have a much more vital significance. I think that it is not a question of a new Ministry either, but it is rather the increase of some duties of the Minister of Commerce or the President of the Board of Trade, and a very considerable limitation of the duties of other Ministers. It is more a matter of the allocation of duties, and it is a very good thing for re-organisation, and for these reasons I venture to think there is real ground for the inquiries which, I hope, may precede the change. My right hon. friend has taxed my hon. friends who have previously spoken, with rather exceeding the true state of things with regard to other countries. I very respectfully venture to differ from my right hon. friend. In Germany there is a distinct Ministry of Commerce, though I admit it is included under the fourth Department of the Home Office. Nevertheless it is a distinctly commercial headship. There is also a Ministry of Commerce in Prussia. If any one doubts that our great commercial rival, Germany, has not organised her commercial departments, both of the State and also of her voluntary associations, on a very different basis to that which we have adopted in this country—if any one supposes that for a moment, they are vastly mistaken. I know that in relation to many trade matters, the German Emperor himself has acted as his own commercial Minister in America, showing that His Majesty takes the greatest interest in the commercial development of Germany. I submit that in France there is a distinct Ministry of Commerce. It is quite true that in France some questions are otherwise dealt with, but the trade organisation there is adapted in the highest degree—although it is not always successful—to bring official action into touch with trade matters, and sometimes this action is very successful.

In the case of the United States my hon. friend has quite correctly stated that a similar suggestion to this was only made very recently, but practically it was at once carried out, and in the United States the organisation for trade purposes and the assistance given by the Government is manifest in almost every Department. Let us take the instance of one of our colonies which some of us have recently visited. There the commercial development is almost beyond belief—I am referring to Canada. In almost every moderate sized town in Canada there are what they call Boards of Trade, and it is the one country which has especially a Ministry of Commerce devoted solely to the purpose of always promoting in every form the commercial development of the country. We want to put that great vital force behind the commerce of our own country; that force should be omnipresent, not interfering, always available and constantly helping the trader in new fields and markets. We fully recognise that there must be commercial development entirely independent of the Government; this is the very mainspring of a great commerce, but when other nations are helping their people, and Ministries of Commerce devoting large funds, great organisations, and the highest ministerial ability to the help of their traders, then I say we want something behind the people of this country to do the. same thing. We respectfully submit to the House that whatever may be thought of the Resolution there is something underlying this question which needs alteration, and certainly organisation, and an inquiry may present to the House the means of making a great reform and a new departure in the interests of the commerce of our country.

*MR. BELL (Derby)

said the Resolution which had been moved by the hon. Member and the Amendment which had been moved by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean were both proposals which he was inclined to support. The Motion asked for an inquiry to be held with a view of distributing the work amongst the various Departments of the Board of Trade, and the Amendment asked that there should be a re-distribution of the work amongst the various Government Departments. He thought there were several reasons which might be advanced in support of the Amendment, and he for one felt that there were some things at any rate in connection with the Board of Trade Department that might very reasonably be transferred to other Departments. He referred more particularly to the legislation introduced during recent years giving the Board of Trade additional work on the same lines as the work administered by the Home Office, and it would then practically resolve itself into a question of what would the Minister be called at the head of the Board of Trade. It seemed to him to be a question more of a title or name than of anything else. Whether the right hon. Gentleman who now presided over the Board of Trade should hold the office of Minister of Commerce, or whether some other gentleman would replace him was a question to be hereafter decided. Without assuming for a moment that the same right hon. Gentleman would not retain the position at the Board of Trade, or whether he would be called the President of the Board of Trade or the Minister of Commerce, he believed the right hon. Gentleman who now held that position was quite competent and able to do the work under either title. Of course the question of the salary of the President of the Board of Trade, if he were called the Minister of Commerce, was to his mind a very small matter indeed. He could scarcely believe that there was any one Member of that House who would, even under the present circumstances, and with his present title, object to the salary of the President of the Board of Trade being raised to a proper sum. He held that the President of the Board of Trade was under paid as compared with the Ministers of other Departments, and one of the things which had rather occurred to him as being unfair was, that when they had to raise some question about the administration of the Board of Trade they were obliged to move a reduction of his salary in order to bring about a discussion, instead of moving that his salary be raised.

He had on many occasions felt that he should like to get more work out of the Board of Trade, and in order to bring that before the House he thought it was a very wrong way of going about it to have to move that the right hon.

Gentleman's salary be reduced in order to get more work out of him. He should be very sorry to know that there was anyone amongst the class whom he represented who would be against even the terms of this Resolution, and no man, be he a commercial man or a labourer, would put anything in the way of increasing the commerce or trade of this country. If they could assist and foster that trade and commerce in any way, it was the duty of them all to do everything they could in that direction. He had listened with very much attention to what was said by the hon. Member for Islington. He had received communications from the Board of Trade on many occasions, and they had always commenced by saying "I am requested by the Board of Trade to say so and so." Now he understood that Mr. Speaker was one of the members of the Board of Trade, it might perhaps be an advantage in the future to those whom he represented and for whom he sometimes required some attention, that he might perhaps be able to induce Mr. Speaker, as one of the Members of the Board, to use his influence in that direction. He supposed that the Archbishop of Canterbury did not give very much attention to the work of the Board of Trade, and he would not be within his reach for this purpose so much as Mr. Speaker. However, the time had undoubtedly arrived when something should be done in this direction, and he had been asked by the Chambers of Commerce in the borough he had the honour to represent to give his support to this Motion, and he had risen for the purpose of saying these few words in regard to this Resolution. At the same time he should like, if possible, to support the Amendment which, he thought, was equally agreeable to those who supported the Motion.

MR. RANDLES (Cumberland, Cockermouth)

said it was of the greatest importance that they should have their various Departments in good order, but unless they had their commercial position maintained and secured, the increased population and the vastly increased charges which they as a nation were undertaking, would have but little foundation on which to rest. He thought when the Associated Chambers of Commerce that day gave attention to this subject, they were dealing with the question with all the emphasis which they could place upon it, and this question would receive emphasis from a corresponding body of persons representing the labouring or the working classes, had they also been assembled in congress, because he believed that the, interests of the working classes were now being fully recognised by them as being bound up with our commercial and industrial prosperity, and it would be the case that greater attention would be paid to questions of this kind by the electorate in the future than had been the case hitherto. He thought that the time had come when some inquiry should be instituted to find out whether they, as a commercial nation, were properly represented, without having a commercial Department, with authority to deal, not only with questions of electric lighting and things of that kind, but also with wider commercial interests in which they were all so much engaged. He thought they ought to have a Department which would give particular attention to securing foreign trade. Upon this point he might instance the tin plate trade of America. When the United States Government made up its mind that the trade should be transferred from South Wales to the United States they set to work to secure the transfer, and one of the Departments was charged with that particular duty.

Again, if a foreign Government like Russia determined to capture a particular market, say, for instance, the Persian, it at once laid itself out to do so, and appointed persons whose business it was to give effect to its policy. But in this country we had nothing corresponding to that, and the meaning of the Resolution was that we should have a Commander-in-Chief of commerce, who would keep in close touch with all commercial questions and would see, when any particular interest required backing up by the Government, that it received the necessary support. How that was to be accomplished was merely a matter of detail. What they wanted to secure was that the Government should take the matter in hand and institute an inquiry as to the best way of dealing with it. They wanted to concentrate the authority in the hands of a responsible Minister. He had no doubt that the President of the Board of Trade would hesitate to ask for an increase of staff and of salary, but it certainly was desirable that the responsibility should be placed on his shoulders, and that he should be given sufficient power and authority to enable him to carry out effectually the policy when once decided upon. If they gave him that power and called him, say, the Minister of Commerce and Industry, he might very well be assisted by representatives from each of the Departments concerned—the India, Colonial, and Foreign Offices—who should keep him informed on commercial matters in which they were interested and advise him as to what was desirable to be done. By doing so we should be able to maintain our supremacy as a commercial nation.

We must not continue to rely on arrangements which served generations ago. It was comparatively easy when we were a manufacturing and industrial nation, as distinguished from agricultural countries, to maintain our supremacy in trade, All we then wanted was cheap labour Now, however, we were seeking, not so much cheap labour as more highly skilled labour. It was necessary also that we should have an efficient Intelligence Department, to which we could apply in case of difficulty. Such a difficulty, for instance, had arisen in regard to shipping matters. It was a noteworthy fact that a vast proportion of the iron and steel sent into India was despatched from continental ports and not from this country; yet India was our natural market, and it might be fairly asked why it was that we did not supply it. The reason might be found in the fact that owing to the action of shipping rings it cost from 2s. 6d to 5s. per ton more to ship this material from Liverpool than it did from Antwerp, and he believed that if we had a Minister of Commerce he would be able to deal with questions of that sort in an authoritative manner. He hoped and believed the Government would consent to take the action indicated in the Motion in the interests of our trade and commerce, and that they would direct an inquiry with a view to such a redistribution of responsibility as would render the office of real commercial advantage to the people of this country.

MR. BRYCE (Aberdeen, S)

There are a number of difficult questions involved in this Motion which are not always sufficiently distinguished in the debates that take place upon this subject. There are questions of name and of substance. There is the question of redistributing the work done by different Departments, and of adding responsibilities to the Minister charged with looking after commercial matters. I will first deal with the question of the change in the name of the Department. It really does not make the slightest difference what you call it. The rose will not smell any sweeter in consequence. The Board of Trade is practically the Ministry of Commerce. The Minister is solely responsible and is entirely independent. There is nothing obsolete in the constitution of the Department. It has a number of most efficient permanent and Parliamentary secretaries, and if there are not sufficient heads of Departments, it is for the President to represent to the Treasury the necessity for increasing the number, and of having more salaries and more men. It is quite true that, owing to an historical accident, the President of the Board of Trade has never become a Secretary of State. Sixty years ago, when Mr. Gladstone was at the Board of Trade, it had practically nothing to do but to watch tariffs, and to advise the Government of the day in regard thereto. All the work the Board of Trade now does has been practically added by statute during the last sixty or seventy years. The duties of the Department are now extremely multifarious and heavy. I suppose there is no Department of the State which has to undertake so many different kinds of work. The Board of Trade is required to look after railways, shipping, fishery and harbour works, labour, electric lighting, tramways, bankruptcy, tariffs, and weights and measures; and when I point out also that it has to deal with industrial and commercial statistics, I do not think I hare even then exhausted the list of its duties.

It is obvious, if you look at the work from the point of view of its importance, that the holder of the office is well entitled to be raised to the status of a Secretary of State. We had a debate on this subject five years ago, when Sir Henry Northcote, now the Governor-General of Bombay, brought forward a Motion upon it. On that occasion there was a general consensus of opinion that a good case was made out for putting the President of the Board of Trade on a level with Secretaries of State or the First Lord of the Admiralty. But that is not the most important part of the question. I do not think a Minister of Commerce would be able to do much more for commerce than the President of the Board of Trade now does. I do not think he would have any more influence in this House. These things depend, not on the office, but on personality, and on the amount of ability, energy, and activity put into the work. Still, considering the important part that commerce plays in our national life, it may well be said that the Minister of Commerce ought to hold as high a position as a Secretary of State.

But let us come to what is really a most important question, and it is the question of the readjustment of the work done in these Departments, Three different suggestions have been made. One, put forward by the mover of the Amendment, was that part of the work now discharged by the Board of Trade should be transferred to the Home Office; a second was that part of the work now done by the Foreign Office should, in future, be entrusted to the Board of Trade; and a third was that a new Minister should be created. With regard to the suggestion that matters relating to labour should go to the Home Office, I see two difficulties in the way of that course being adopted. In the first place, the Home Office is; already heavily worked; it has quite as much work as one Minister can very well discharge. The second difficulty is this, (hat much of the work which would be carried over under that suggestion would be concerned with railway servants and merchant seamen. The Board of Trade has a great deal to do with railway matters. It has to deal with the question of rates; it has to look after the inspection of railroads: and it has to hold inquiries into accidents: and if you are going to transfer to another body the duty of dealing with such questions as the hours of labour, I think it is likely to lead to much confusion and trouble. The same argument applies to merchant shipping. It would still he necessary to leave many matters affecting merchant shipping in the hands of the Board of Trade, and it would be very inconvenient to carry over to the Home Office that part of the duty which relates to the protection of sailors. I think, therefore, on the balance of consideration, it will probably be found better to keep these two departments of labour work with the Board of Trade. Let me say, however, that my experience at the Board of Trade was that there was no serious practical difficulty arising from the fact that some of these labour duties were not in its hands. I know that was the opinion of my right hon. friend the late Home Secretary. We frequently had occasion to consult and discuss, we endeavoured to agree to work on the same lines and principles, and, as I say, no practical difficulty was caused by the fact that part of the work was in his hands and part in mine.

I now come to another point. The hon. Member for South Islington has suggested that certain work which is done under the direction of the Foreign Office should he transferred to the Board of Trade. In that case, surely, it would be necessary to transfer to the same Department the appointment of Consuls. These Consuls have very often to discharge diplomatic duties, and it would be most inconvenient that duties of such a nature, which are part of the settled policy of this country, should be carried out under the direction of any Department except that which is generally responsible for diplomatic work—viz. the Foreign Office. I should like to say, however, that the Foreign Office is very much to be blamed for not taking more pains to secure the appointment of men with commercial knowledge and skill to the office of Consul. Occasions have frequently arisen in which appointments to these Consular posts have been made without any regard being had to the commercial work to be performed. It is suggested that we should create a new Ministry of Labour, and I can quite understand that being asked for. But there are great objections to increasing more than is absolutely necessary the number of Departments, because one of the first results of such an increase is that those who are interested in a new Department demand that the holder of it shall have a seat in the Cabinet. I recollect what occurred with regard to the Scottish Office in 1884-5. We then appointed a Secretary for Scotland, and the very first thing that was asked for was that he should have a seat in the Cabinet. Another objection to these increases of Departments is that we do not get Cabinet Government in the old sense of the word when a Cabinet becomes too large. I hope, therefore, the House will pause before it presses for the creation of more offices than are absolutely necessary.

I come lastly to a question which is really in the minds of most hon. Members who have supported this Motion, and is certainly in the minds of the Chambers of Commerce, and that is the idea that the Government should do more for commerce than it does at present. There is but one opinion as to the importance of the interests of trade being carefully looked after by a Government Department, but I think it is doubtful whether a Minister of Commerce could do more for commerce than is now being done by the Board of Trade' I would ask hon. Members what it is they think the Government can do for commerce which it does not now do? I am persuaded that no Government would refuse to do anything for commerce which commercial men want. But will hon. Gentlemen tell us what they do want? I have heard one practical illustration given this evening. The hon. Member who last spoke pointed out what was done by the Government of the United States when they determined to domesticate the; inplate industry. But when they did; hat they had no Minister of Commerce. What was done was done, not by a Minister of Commerce, but by the action of a Committee of Congress, and it was accomplished by imposing practically prohibitive tariffs on tinplates imported from this country. If the hon. Member wishes that to be done let him say so. That, however, is a question of policy which has nothing whatever to do with the establishment of a Ministry of Commerce.

MR. RANDLES

The point I wished to make was that the Government which dealt with that question did succeed in obtaining certain commercial results. I did not say whether the methods adopted were right or wrong. I only pointed out that the Government charged itself with the duty, and I want our Government to charge itself with like duties. I leave it to say how it will accomplish the object we have in view.

MR. BRYCE

It was not an improvement in the sense of administration; it was the Legislature, and this Legislature could, if it pleased, impose a particular trade duty on some foreign product, and perhaps succeed in domesticating that product in this country. But that is not a matter for the Government; it is a matter for the Legislature. What is really wanted by the hon. Member, and by many commercial men who urge this new policy, is legislation; that is to say, they want new powers conferred on the Board of Trade. It would be possible for this House to give the Board of Trade further powers for dealing with railway rates. Why is that not done? Because the House has felt that the railway dividends are not so large as to bear diminution, and also because the railway interest is so very strong. It is not due to any laxity on the part of the Board of Trade; in most cases what is wanted is legislation. The hon. Member for South Islington says we ought to do all we can to help our merchants by collecting and diffusing information. Something has been lately done in that direction by the creation of an Intelligence Department, and I hope that more will be done. No President of the Board of Trade or Minister of Commerce would deserve to hold his position if he did not give his constant and cordial attention to any practical suggestions of this kind, either from Chambers of Commerce or from individual traders.

SIR ALBERT ROLLIT

said the work of the Intelligence Department was on a very small scale, both pecuniarily and otherwise.

MR. BRYCE

But it is a step in the right direction, and no doubt my right hon. friend will be glad to develop it. I believe it may be more fully developed by making fuller use of the Consuls, and by sending out commercial Attaches, travellers or visitors to report on industries in foreign countries and the openings for British trade. That is being done already, and it will be done on a still larger scale. If the House or the Chambers of Commerce wish for more to be done in this direction it is for them to particularise their wishes, instead of making general complaints with which it is difficult to deal. I entirely agree with the spirit of the Motion, but should have thought an inquiry by a Committee was not needed—that it would have been perfectly possible for the Government themselves, having the materials at their disposal, to make the necessary inquiry and prepare a scheme.

If the Government think an inquiry by a Committee will be more complete, or will give more satisfaction, I do not think there will be any difference of opinion in the House on the point. In one way or another it is clear that the House desires to see the Board of Trade receive the full status of a Secretaryship of State, and an inquiry made as to whether any redistribution of duties can usefully be effected. I hope therefore the Government will be able to give an answer, at any rate favourable in spirit, to the request which has been addressed to them.

*MR. LOUIS SINCLAIR (Essex, Romford)

said the general feeling was that the Board of Trade had imposed upon it a herculean task in having to deal with the commerce of this country. In the course of the debate, however, remarks had been made which would not further the desired improvement. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Forest of Dean had seemed to imply that because improvement was required in all Departments one Department in particular should not be dealt with.

*SIR CHARLES DILKE

I said that this Department could not be dealt with, for reasons which I gave, without involving changes in one, if not two, others.

*MR. LOUIS SINCLAIR

contended that improvement was necessary in this particular Department above all others, and if an inquiry could be instituted for the purpose of setting our House in order it would do a great amount of good. The time allocated to the debate was so limited that it was impossible to go into the details of the case for the Motion; all that could he done was merely to glance at the disabilities under which this country suffered. Only recently the Patent Laws had been readjusted, while bankruptcy legislation was still as defective as it could be. Bankrupts were on the increase, and many bankruptcies resulted in greater riches to the bankrupt. That our mercantile marine was slipping away from us was shown by the recent purchase of the Leyland Line and the creation of the Morgan Combine. With a view to showing the disabilities under which the home producer suffered by the advantages given to exporters from other countries, the hon. Member quoted railway and shipping rates, from which it appeared that goods could be carried from New York to Sydney for 15s. per ton, while from Liverpool in the same vessels the rate was 40s. per ton. As to the Irish railway rates, if a man wished to send a piano inland it was often better for him to send it first to New York or Liverpool, and have it re-shipped from there.

Our Consuls abroad ought to be the ears and eyes of Great Britain, but they were nothing of the kind. This was partly due to the fact that a very large proportion of them were foreigners, while their rate of pay came out at £19 per head, which was not sufficient to secure reliable information. Our commercial attache at Paris had to report not only on Paris but on the whole of France, with Belgium and Switzerland thrown in. Similarly the commercial attache at Berlin had to deal with Germany, Sweden, Holland, and Norway; while the one at Vienna was responsible for Hungary, Austria, Greece, and Italy. If this country desired to know what was going on abroad the number of commercial attaches and agents would have to be increased. The Patent Laws had recently been improved, but he found that out of £196,000 taken in fees no less than £100,000 profit was made, whereas in America out of £246,000 only £20,000 profit was made, the balance being used to protect the inventors and put them on a bettor footing. It was not his view that a new Department should be created. Whether the Chief of the Department was called the President of the Board of Trade or Minister of Commerce was immaterial. What was wanted was an inquiry to see what could be done to improve the work connected with the commerce of the country. At present trade was hampered, and our commerce was fast disappearing. Other countries were securing our trade, not only in neutral markets but in our colonies. He hoped, therefore, the Government would grant the inquiry, so that the country might see that the questions of commercial adminstration were receiving attention, and that they might hope for a reform at an early date.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. RITCHIE,) Croydon

I do not propose to speak at any length, but before the debate closes the House will expect to hear in what light the Government view this proposal, and the action they are prepared to take in the matter. This is by no means a new matter; it has been constantly before the House of Commons. Year after year Motions of a similar character have been passed by Chambers of Commerce, and I think there can be no doubt whatever that commercial and public feeling generally tends very distinctly in the direction suggested by the Resolution. But while there is this general feeling that the status of the Board of Trade ought to be raised, I am afraid that too great expectations are being indulged in as to the results such a change would carry with it. No doubt the Board of Trade as at present constituted cannot well be defended on ordinary business lines. It was constituted a great many years ago, when the trade of this country was much less than at present; and while, on the whole, it has no doubt performed exceedingly well the work for which it was called into being, no one would contemplate for a moment instituting a Department of this kind to take charge of the industry and trade of the country if they did not find it to their hand. But although it is an anomaly, and in some respects an absurdity, as at present constituted, I do not think the efficiency of the Board of Trade for its work is at all impaired by the fact that it is a Board and not a Secretaryship of State. The President of the Board of Trade is a responsible Minister, and just as much responsible to Parliament for the work done by the Board of Trade as any other Minister whose Department is differently constituted. I think that there is a great deal to be said for reforming the constitution of the Board of Trade in the way desired; but, as I have said, I rather fear that undue expectations are entertained as to what the result of such a reform will be. Hon. Gentlemen seem to think that shipping rings will at once be abolished, that railway rates will be at once reduced to a proper level, and that the Consular Service will be at once remodelled in the way the commercial community desire. All these things are just as capable of reform under the existing state of things as they would be under a reformed Board of Trade called a Ministry of Commerce. As the right hon. Member for Aberdeen has said, these are matters which Parliament ought to take in hand if we are to have any great reform in regard to them. They must be done by legislative and not by departmental action.

I should like to say a word with reference to the Consular service, to which many hon. Members referred. I do not know whether it is known to the House that a Committee is at present sitting in order to see whether reforms cannot be made in the manner of appointing Consuls, with a view to obtaining the services of men who are more familiar with commercial matters than many of our present Consuls are. Of course we must not lose sight of the fact that our Consuls perform two different kinds of duties. They have to attend to commercial matters, and their services must always be available with regard to diplomatic matters; and when it is suggested that this matter ought to be taken out of the hands of the Foreign Office and placed entirely in the hands of the Board of Trade I venture to think that an arrangement of that kind would seriously hamper the diplomatic duties of our Consuls, and I am rather afraid that the advantage which the commercial community think would be derived by the appointment of Consuls by the Board of Trade would be very dearly purchased. It is not my purpose to enter minutely into the various matters which have been discussed; but we cannot shut our eyes to the fact that public feeling has grown, and is growing, in connection with this matter; and although the mere change from the President of the Board of Trade to a Minister holding the status of a Secretary of State would not in itself do as much as some people imagine, yet one cannot disguise from oneself that there is a belief, I think a well founded belief, that the influence of a Minister who occupies the position of a Secretary of State would be greater than that of the Minister who occupied the position of ['resident of the Board of Trade. I do not share that view; but I am quite certain that there is a feeling of that kind which we cannot ignore.

We cannot, however, accept the Motion before the House, because it starts with the assumption that there is to be a Minister of Commerce and Industry, having the status of a principal Secretary of State. That is a matter which ought to be embraced in the inquiry. There is no doubt whatever, that there is considerable overlapping of work; and it is only right and proper that in considering this matter we should consider the redistribution of the work with a view to more effectual administration. 'I agree with a great deal that was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the, Forest of Dean. I think it would be a, great mistake to proceed as drastically as some people desire; but there is no doubt that the manner in which the work is distributed between the various Departments is one which might well undergo some change. But in considering that matter, it is quite impossible to confine our attention wholly So the Board of Trade. It is quite true that of late years the Board of Trade has had enormous responsibilities put upon it. So it is with the Local Government Board. For many years, there has hardly been a session in which some important extra duties have not been put upon the Local Government Board. The growth of its staff has been very great, and for a large number of purposes it has now become the Ministry of the Interior. Therefore, in considering the status of the Board of Trade, we must also consider the status of the Local Government Board; and in considering the distribution of work and also the position of the Ministers responsible, both at the Board of Trade and the Local Government Board, I agree that we should also consider the position of the staffs.

I can speak from experience that the duties of the staff's at the Board of Trade and the Local Government Board are most admirably performed. I have now been in a considerable number of offices, and I can say with conviction and with absolute truth that no Departments of the State possess more highly trained and efficient officers that the Local Government Board and the Board of Trade. Therefore, in considering the position of these two offices, we must also consider the position of their officials. We are then agreed that there should be an inquiry, but I do not commit myself as to the nature of the inquiry. I do not think it desirable that it should be referred to a Committee of the House of Commons, as the Government ought to take some considerable responsibility in the matter and not devolve it on a Committee of the House. If the House will accept my undertaking that an inquiry shall be instituted both into the position of these Departments and into the distribution of their work, I am prepared to give it; and I will consider with my colleagues what the nature of the tribunal should be. In these circumstances, I hope that the movers of the Resolution and the Amendment will not press their Motions.

*MR. HOULT

said that after the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, he would ask leave to withdraw his Motion.

*SIR CHARLES DILKE

said he also desired to withdraw his Motion.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.