CUNARD AGREEMENT. [MONEY]. (Hansard, 3 August 1904)

§ MR. BRYCE (Aberdeen, S.)
said the House had now arrived at a very important subject, which had two aspects of great interest. It was now halfpast one, and, if they took a discussion at this stage, it must necessarily give rise to a somewhat prolonged discussion. He therefore, suggested to the Government whether it would not be better to undertake, upon the terms of their being allowed to get this stage with very little debate, to give the House at some future stage of the Bill, a fair arid reasonable chance of discussing it.

§ THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,) Manchester, E.
said the right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that this was a Bill which for the first time embodied the policy of the Cunard Agreement, but it was merely a Bill for carrying out the deliberate Resolution the House of Commons passed last year, for simply finding the money to enable them to pay their just debts. He did not see that this was a matter which required a long debate, either at this stage or another.

§ MR. BRYCE
said he certainly understood from his Answer to a Question that the right hon. Gentleman had intended to give the House an opportunity for a full debate on the matter.

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said he was always glad, if he had the time at his disposal, to give them the opportunity of discussion, but he was not always aided in that desire by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. In the present case, as the House knew, the time available for finishing the business of the session in a reasonable period was not great, and it was impossible for them to upset their arrangements unless some strong reasons were shown, and in his opinion no strong reason had been shown. There was really no alternative at all as regarded this Vote unless the House was to show itself utterly unworthy of its traditions.

§ *MR. NORMAN (Wolverhampton, S.)
said it seemed to him particularly desirable that the matter should receive further consideration from the House, and he did not think he should be exaggerating if he said that he had never heard a more trivial reply than that of the Secretary to the Admiralty yesterday. His remarks consisted of two quotations from the speeches made some time ago by Members on the Opposition side of the House, both of them speaking entirely without official knowledge and authority. It was a very important question, involving great matters of policy and very large sums of money under different circumstances from those when the matter first claimed attention. It was then done somewhat suddenly. He had heard, and he thought correctly, the word "panic" applied to the legislation then passed. What was called the Atlantic Combine had come, from the 832 point of view of its promoters, to a disastrous conclusion, and therefore the measures which the Government thought fit to meet those circumstances no longer existed, and no longer had the justification they originally had. He remembered that the President of the Board of Trade on behalf of the Prime Minister said he would give an evening for this debate. It was true that some time was given last session but it was on 12th August, the very last day of the session. This might be fulfilling the letter of the promise, but he certainly did not think any hon. Member would say that it was fulfilling the promise in the spirit. He was sure that the Prime Minister was the last Member of the House anyone would suspect of sharp practices and he would appeal to him whether when he said that he was not able to give a day before Whitsuntide, although in the strict letter of Parliamentary law he was not legally compelled to give any time, they had not, like another class of persons to whom the Prime Minister had been very kind lately, a "reasonable expectation of renewal" of the debate. One other topic arose in connection with the matter, and it was that a new departure in steamship construction had arisen and had received the approval of some and the condemnation of experts. Since this very large sum other was proposed to be given by the Government in subsidising cruisers, the two vessels that were to be built and in respect of which the money was to be found were to be built on the turbine principle. This was a new departure, and, as far as he was aware, not a single syllable had been said in justification of this entirely novel and mechanical engineering procedure before this large sum of money was to be spent in this connection. For these reasons he ventured to support what his 833 right hon. friend had said and to express I the opinion that some explanation more than was given the previous night was needed to justify the Resolution.

§ SIR JAMES JOICEY (Durham, Chester-le-Street)
said this was an important question in which the whole shipping industry took an interest, and he did think there ought to be an opportunity given for a full debate when there could be a fuller House and when many absent Members who were deeply interested in it were present. He understood that the right hon. Gentleman had made it plain that there would be an opportunity given for discussing the matter, and he hoped he would do so. The Resolution referred to other provisions relating to certain agreements, but there had not been a word of explanation as to what these other provisions were.

§ MR. LOUGH (Islington, W.)
said that if the suggestion made were accepted, he would refrain from entering into the discussion in any way, but, if it were not, he could not refrain from saying a few words about it. On the last occasion he moved the rejection of the Resolution; and he thought it was a little too strong for the Government to ask them to accept the Bill without any opportunity of discussing it. A very remarkable thing happened about the debate on the last occasion. They pointed out that great new principles were raised in the suggestion, and the next morning The Times made the remarkable announcement that the acceptance of this Resolution practically meant the restoration of the Navigation Laws. There was protection with a vengeance. The thing was a very far-reaching proposal, and the agreement was one that they were bound to examine on every opportunity they got. 834 There was one aspect brought before his mind by the best authority he knew. He pointed out to him that in this agreement with this particular company the Government was taking a step in quite an opposite direction to that which they were told it would be wise for them to take. This shipping company did not trade with the Colonies; it traded exclusively with foreign countries, and the subsidy was to be given for trading with one of our greatest commercial rivals in the world. Surely if a great subsidy of this kind were to be given without any competition and without trying what other companies might do who were trading with our own Empire, it was a very strong step for the Government to take. He thought this aspect was one the House ought to consider.

§ MR. McKENNA (Monmouthshire, N.)
said that from the very first moment that he read the agreement he was satisfied that the House would never be given a reasonable opportunity for discussing it. Let hon. Members as business men look at the facts of the agreement. A company with a capital of £1,600,000 had £2,600,000 lent to it at the rate of 2¾ per cent., which he ventured to say was a rate they could not get in the open market. But this was not all. Not only did the company get this loan at 2¾ per cent, but it was to get a subsidy of £150,000 a year. The loan which had to be repaid in instalments and interest came to £165,000 and the subsidy the company received was £150,000, so that the net balance which the company had to pay to the British Exchequer was £15,000. We got £15,000 a year and advanced £2,600,000. What was the reason? It was to be found in one of those preliminary passages which 835 began "Whereas." "Whereas," it said, "His Majesty's Government is desirous that the company's business should be maintained under the British flag." Every other steamship company would have the right to come upon the Government and demand enormous loans at ridiculously easy rates to secure that their ships should run under the British flag. Was not the flag sufficient itself? Were they so ashamed of the British flag that they had to bribe companies in order to induce them to remain under it? Our shipping industry, which had kept pace with the whole shipping of the world, and which was as great as the whole shipping industry of the world, had grown up without any of these aids. Was it reasonable that the House should be hurried into incurring debts under conditions of national excitement on the last day of the session when discussion became impossible, and was it reasonable now to say that they must pay this debt? The company knew that the agreement was not valid until the Bill was passed, and the House did not surrender its freedom to subsequently reject the agreement when the Bill was introduced by the passing of the Resolution. We were not only debtors but creditors. Let the Government get their debts from the Transvaal. Let them make them pay, if we had to pay; we had far better claim. If ever there was a Bill on which the House ought to have an opportunity of expressing an opinion in full debate, he submitted it was on a Bill of this sort, under which a single company acquired a huge profit at the public expense.

§ THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,) Leeds, Central
said that the hon. Member for 836 West Islington had suggested that the proceedings might be shortened if the Government would undertake to put the Bill before the Treasury Bill on the next occasion. They would be prepared to accept that suggestion if it would have the effect of shortening the debate. They would undertake to bring on this Bill at its next stage at twelve o'clock, but it must be understood that it would be necessary to take the other Treasury Bill the same night.

§ MR. BRYCE
I presume it is part of the arrangement that the House will not be asked to go further to-night.

§ MR. GERALD BALFOUR
No.

§ MR. BRYCE
And it will be taken first at twelve o'clock?

§ MR. GERALD BALFOUR
Yes.