§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Contract, dated the 28th day of September, 1907, between the Postmaster-General and the Alderney Steam Packet Company, Limited, for the conveyance of Mails between Alderney and Guernsey, Alderney and Cherbourg, and other places at which the Company's Mail-ships call (printed in Parliamentary Paper, No. 23, of Session 1908), be approved."—(Mr. Hobhouse.)
§ MR. MOONEYasked whether the piers at any of the places named in the Resolution were under the control of the Government, and if so, what charges they were making for the use of these piers. If a charge was being made, was it made by way of rent, was it so much per trip, or was it payment on the steamer's tonnage?
§ MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDthought the contract disclosed a most remarkable state of affairs. It showed that the Treasury, which he presumed was a body with no conscience, had availed itself of a certain expansion of trade, and, taking advantage of a poor little steamboat company, had succeeded—he would not use the word "bullying," if that was 1173 not Parliamentary—but had insisted upon its making a very much worse bargain than it had hitherto had. The position of the matter seemed to have been this. A bargain was made for carrying mails between the Channel Islands. It was an inter-island service, and the bargain was on the footing that each packet of mails was paid for. At the time the bargain was made a very small sum per annum accrued to the steamboat company in respect to the carrying of the mails, but the business increased, people taking to writing letters to an extent which had not been dreamed of, with the result that a very large amount indeed—an increase from £400 to no less than £1,086 a year—was paid to the company, on the existing basis. What did the Treasury do? Immediately they found this out they said to this little steamboat company: "We are not going to send any more mails by you; you are getting too much. You cannot take the mails at this rate." The result was that this company, which was a very small affair, and to whom the loss of this mail service would be a very serious matter indeed, were practically forced to come to an agreement under which they had lost the profits they were getting, and were now only going to receive £600 a year for taking the mails whatever size they might be. Whilst they could congratulate the Treasury and the Postmaster-General on having made an exceedingly beneficial bargain from their point of view, and from the point of view of the taxpayer, the whole transaction, he ventured to think, did not appear quite satisfactory to those who would like to see a service like that of the Post Office carried out with reasonable regard to the interests of those who had to serve it on a certain basis and at a certain rate of pay.
§ MR. HOBHOUSEthought he could dispose in a sentence of the suggestion of sweating against the Treasury, which had been made by the hon. Member who had just spoken, in reference to this company. If the hon. Member would study the Treasury Minute he would see that the contract was entered into without there being any competing line, and consequently the company had a monopoly. Therefore 1174 they could charge the Treasury almost any sum to which the Treasury would yield. They had in these circumstances agreed to the payment of £600 a year, and that sum, although a reduction on what was paid up to 31st March, 1907, was a slight increase upon what was paid in previous years. When a company accepted payment in that way and without any trouble, he thought it might be concluded that they were quite satisfied. With regard to the point which had been raised by the hon. Member for Newry, he had not been able to go closely into the question, as he did not expect it to be put to him; but so far as he had been able to ascertain, there were no piers for which the Government were paid rent. Therefore he did not think the question that the hon. Member had in his mind arose.
§ MR. MOONEYsaid the question he asked was whether any of the piers to which mail packets went were under the control of the Government, and whether in the harbours they had the free use of the the piers.
§ MR. HOBHOUSEsaid that as far as he could ascertain these piers were private property, and not the property of the Government.
§ MR. JOHN WARD (Stoke-on Trent)said he should not have risen but for the remarkable speech of the hon. Member for the West Derby division. He had been recently in one or two elections, and in his locker he had a leaflet which, after calling attention to the promises of the Liberal Government in regard to economy and reduction of expenditure, went on to state the reasons why the electors should not vote any longer for a Liberal Government. One reason was that expenditure had been increased during their term of office. That was a very desirable subject to discuss at elections, unquestionably; but let them imagine a leading member of the party who circulated a statement of this description calling attention to an increase of the expenditure of different Departments of the Government, standing up in his place and declaring, when the Government had succeeded in making a good bargain with a steam packet company, or any other company with 1175 which it did business, that they should be termed sweaters.
§ MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDI did not use the word "sweaters."
§ MR. JOHN WARDsaid that the hon. Gentleman had deplored that the Government insisted on the services of the country being conducted with greater economy than his own friends were able to exercise when in power. As the increase of expenditure under a Liberal Administration had formed such a feature at recent elections, he thought it well to call attention to the utterly contradictory position of the hon. Member for the West Derby division of Liverpool.
§ SIR F. BANBURYsaid the contract contained this clause—
In pursuance of the provisions contained in Statute 22, George III., cap. 45, no Member of the House of Commons shall be admitted to any share or part of this agreement or any benefit to arise therefrom contrary to the true intent and meaning of the said statute.He could find no similar clause in the West Indian Colonial Mail Service con tract, and on the face of it it seemed rather extraordinary that it should be necessary to put it in one and not in the other. He would like to know what the explanation was. If it was in one it should be in the other, unless there happened to be some Member of Parliament interested in it.
§ MR. HOBHOUSEsaid he was responsible to the House for the presentation of this contract. When they came to the next contract he would be perfectly willing to explain why the clause was omitted.