Lords Sitting of 19 July 1904

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
  Report from, That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Saddleworth and Springhead Tramways Bill ought to be dispensed with, and the Bill allowed to proceed.
  Read, and agreed to.
  Rotherham Corporation Bill. The Lord BALFOUR informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn; the orders made on Tuesday last and yesterday discharged, and Bill committed.
  Clyde Navigation (Works) Bill. Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, the opposition thereto having been withdrawn; read, and ordered to lie on the Table. The orders made on the 28th and 30th of June last discharged, and Bill committed.
  London County Council (General Powers) Bill; Loch Leven Water Power Bill. Moved, That the order made on the 14th day of March last, That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall he read a second time after the 16th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bills be now read 2a; agreed to. Bills read 2a accordingly and committed. The Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
  Lytham Improvement Bill. Read 3a, with the Amendments; further Amendments made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
  Caledonian Railway Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.]; Glasgow and South-Western Railway Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.]; Govan Corporation Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.]; Canal Rates and Charges (Regents Canal) Order Confirmation Bill [H.L]; Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill [H.L] Returned from the Commons agreed to.
  Leith Corporation Tramways Order Confirmation Bill. Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
  Carlisle Corporation Bill; Leyton Urban District Council Bill; Selby Urban District Council Bill; London County Council (General Powers) Bill; Loch Leven Water Power Bill. Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Vivian be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Marquess Camden; read, and agreed to.
  London County Council (General Powers) Bill; Loch Leven Water Power Bill. Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Five Lords appointed a Select Committee on the Carlisle Corporation Bill and other Bills do form the Select Committee for the consideration of the London County Council (General Powers) Bill and the Loch Leven Water Power Bill; read, and agreed to. All petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the petitioners praying to be heard by counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also counsel for the Bills.
  Glasgow Corporation (Tramways, etc.) Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.]. Read 3a (according to order). Amendments made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
  Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill. Amendments reported (according to order), and Bills to be read 3a on Thursday next.
  Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill; Local Government Provisional Order (No. 4) Bill. Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
  Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 8) Bill. Brought from the Commons; Read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 153.)

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.

  LOCH LEVEN WATER POWER BILL.
  THE ACTING CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH):My Lords, with regard to the Motion standing in my name, to dispense with the Order made on 14th March to the effect that no private Bill brought from the House of Commons should be read a second time after 16th June, I beg to say that I have examined the case for this suspension in regard to these two Bills, and I have come to the conclusion that it is fair that this indulgence should be given, as the delay has not occurred in either case through the fault of the promoters.
  Moved, "That the order made on the 14th clay of March last, That no private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after the 16th day of June next,' be dispensed with, and that the Bills be now read 2a."—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  On Question, agreed to. Bills Read 2a accordingly and committed: the Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Regulations for evening schools, technical institutions, and schools of art and art classes (from 1st August, 1904, to 31st July, 1905).

  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  No. 3223. Turkey (Palestine).
  No. 3224. Turkey (Erzeroum).

  AFRICA.
  No. 9 (1904). Return of concessions in the East Africa and Uganda Protectorates (in continuation of Africa, No. 7 (1903)); No. 10. (1904). Memorandum on the state of the African Protectorates administered under the Foreign Office; Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.
  PUBLIC HEALTH BILL [H.L.]
  Reported from the Standing Committee without Amendment; and to be read 3a on Thursday next.
  RAILWAYS (PRIVATE SIDINGS) BILL.
  Reported from the Standing Committee without further Amendment. The Report of the Amendment made in Committee of the Whole House to be received on Thursday next.
  REGISTRATION OF CLUBS (IRELAND) BILL.
    DEAN FOREST BILL.
    Reported from the Standing Committee with a further Amendment to each Bill; The Report of the Amendments made in Committee of the Whole House, and by the Standing Committee, to be received on Thursday next.

    THE NEW ARMY SCHEME.
    VISCOUNT HARDINGE: My Lords, I rise to ask whether His Majesty's Government will give facilities, if necessary, for further discussion on the new Army scheme before the conclusion of the present session. I am aware that the noble Lord opposite, Lord Burghclere, proposes on Thursday next to call attention to the Memorandum issued by the Secretary of State. I venture to think that most of your Lordships will agree with me that until the noble Earl the Under-Secretary of State for War has explained to us more fully the details of the scheme it would be useless for any of us to discuss it. I have, therefore, been deputed by several other military Members of your Lordships' House to ask His Majesty's Government if they can see their way to granting this request by fixing a day later on, before the end of the session, so that we may be able to discuss this most important subject.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): My Lords, I confess that when I saw my noble friend's Notice on the Paper I was a little puzzled as to its precise significance, and I am not quite sure that the explanation he has given us has entirely removed the obscurity which clings to it. We are, I understand, on Thurday next, to have a debate initiated by the noble Lord on the Front Bench opposite, Lord Burghclere, upon the scheme of Army reform which has been put forward by the Secretary of State for War, and I imagine that the debate,

    389
    which no doubt will be a prolonged one, will give considerable opportunity to any noble Lords who desire to offer criticisms upon my right hon. friend's proposals. But supposing that the outcome of that debate did not prove sufficient for my noble friend's purpose, I take it that there is nothing in the rules of your Lordships' House which would prevent him on any subsequent day from initiating a discussion upon any particular points with regard to which he required further information. Your Lordships' time is not so fully taken up that that is impossible, nor are the rules of the House so inelastic as to preclude a succession of military debates. Indeed, on former occasions we have often had many debates on the same project of Army reform. I think, therefore, my noble friend may rest assured that nothing is likely to happen which will prevent him and his friends from bringing before the House any matters connected with the Secretary of State's scheme which they may desire to discuss.
    EARL SPENCER:My Lords, as I heard in conversation last night a good deal on this subject, I should like to say a few words. I quite agree with what the noble Marquess has just said. On Thursday my noble friend beside me will introduce the subject by calling attention to the very useful Memorandum issued by the Secretary of State for War with regard to the reorganisation of the Army. We do not know at present how far that will lead us. I hope that we shall elicit a very full explanation on this matter from the noble Earl the Under-Secretary of State for War, and, no doubt, from the noble Marquess himself; but, until we sea how far the debate extends, it is exceedingly difficult for His Majesty's Government to say whether any further discussion will be necessary. If, however, the noble Viscount opposite finds that there are particular questions not answered, or particular points that ought to be further discussed, it will be within his power to raise those questions later on. I must say I agree with what the noble Marquess the Foreign Minister has s aid, that until we see how the debate to be initiated on Thursday proceeds it is impossible to say whether another day
    390
    will be necessary, and if it should prove necessary the noble Viscount or any other noble Lord is perfectly entitled to again raise the question.

    THE PARLIAMENTARY SESSION.
    LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I rise to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in accordance with the undertaking given on the 22nd of February last, he has taken any steps to consult the Prime Minister with reference to carrying into effect the Resolution adopted by this House last year, respecting the duration of the Parliamentary Session. The Question which I have placed on the Paper has been prompted by an invitation, expressed in almost pathetic terms, which I have received from my noble friend the Leader of your Lordships' House, inviting me, and, I presume, everybody on these Benches, to come here in August and assist him in passing the Licensing Bill, and intimating at the same time that if we fail to attend certain unfortunate consequences may ensue.
    I do not wish to say anything ill-natured, but I cannot help respectfully pointing out that if unfortunate consequences do result, it will be entirely due to the action of the Government; for, so far as I can see, there was no earthly reason why the Licensing Bill should not have been introduced in this House. The opposition to the Bill in your Lordships' House would have been, to put it mildly, quite as effective as the opposition in another place. The Bill might conceivably have been much improved, and, if it had gone down to the other House it is equally conceivable that those measures which have been taken in order to abbreviate its progress might have been rendered unnecessary. I ought to add that the only two Cabinet Ministers to whom I have made this suggestion admitted that it would have been more practicable if the Bill had been introduced in your Lordships' House, but those Ministers are not Members of this House. That is, I admit, merely a hypothesis, and I only want to discuss facts.
    The fact we have got to face is that this highly contentious measure does not appear in this House until the concluding

    391
    days of July, and cannot be seriously debated until August. I have not a lengthy experience in this House, but my experience, such as it is, is that the debating of Bills in August is more or less a farce, and this year it will be undoubtedly a farce, because it is perfectly clear that with the amount of time left at our disposal no Amendments of any importance can possibly be accepted. The Prime Minister may have some indefinite ideas upon certain subjects, but, at all events, he is very definitely convinced that Parliament ought to rise in the middle of August. I observed in The Times yesterday—and I have always found The Times a very accurate prophet so far as the Parliamentary policy of the Government is concerned—that the Prime Minister is due on August 17th to deliver an address to the British Association at Cambridge, and as in addressing so august a body as the British Association even the Prime Minister must take considerable time in which to prepare his speech, the writer deduced from these facts that the termination of the session cannot be later than 15th August.
    From the statement made just now by my noble friend the Leader of the House, one might suppose that we had ample time at our disposal. He airily suggested that any noble Lords who wished to discuss the new Army scheme or anything else would find plenty of time in which to do so before we adjourn. To me it appears that the sands in the Parliamentary hour-glass are running out very fast. There is not so very much time left. I have ascertained that there are still thirty-nine Government Bills to come up from the House of Commons, and thirteen Government Bills have gone down from this House to the House of Commons, none of which appear to have made any progress so far. Therefore, the generous margin of time to which my noble friend refers does not appear to me to exist. I presume that, in addition to these long-delayed and, no doubt, highly important matters, the military Lords will want a day or two in which to discuss the Army scheme; I gather that noble Lords on the opposite Benches are going to impeach the Leader of the House and the noble Earl the First
    392
    Lord of the Admiralty with their temerity in joining Mr. Chamberlain's association, for which. I suppose, a day or two will be required; and I presume, also, there will be various questions connected with the Foreign Office and the Colonial Office which it will be necessary to debate before we adjourn.
    All this is bad enough, but I would ask you to think how very much worse the situation would have been if a large portion of the Parliamentary cargo had not been already discharged. Almost every contentious measure, with the exception of one, has been already dropped. What, I ask, would be our position if we had still got, in addition to the measures I have indicated, to discuss such contentious Bills as the Aliens Bill, the Port of London Bill, and measures of that kind? If we liked being treated in this sort of way, if we made no objection, and if the silly, hoary superstition, which I confess I hoped I had exploded myself, that the House of Commons consists of hunting men, induced noble Lords to remain contentedly here in August, there would be nothing to be said; but, as a matter of fact, we have made our protest against the present system. I do not know why I should be modest about it. It was at my instigation that we passed a Motion last session, by a large majority, in which we expressed not merely our disapproval of sitting here in August, but our conviction that Parliament ought to rise at the beginning of July.
    I need hardly remind your Lordships that although I was temporarily successful in getting this Resolution adopted, no steps of any kind have ever been taken to carry it out. I have occasionally reminded my noble friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that he is bound to take some notice of a Resolution passed by this House, and perhaps this afternoon I shall succeed in eliciting some information from him. After all, the noble Marquess is the strongest critic of the present arrangement, and it is only necessary for me to quote his words to show how emphatically all sensible persons must condemn the present system. The noble Marquess, in replying to me on 23rd February of this year, said—
    "I am bound to say it seems to me almost a scandal that year after year important matters

    393
    of business should be crowded before us in the dying moments of the session, when we are all of us more or less exhausted"—
    I do not pretend to be exhausted myself, but I have not the least doubt the noble Marquess is—
    "and when it is quite impossible for this House either to consider, as it should consider, the Amendments which may have been introduced in any measure in the other House of Parliament during the later stages of its progress, or even those Amendments put upon the Paper by Members of your Lordships' House. The result, I am afraid, is that a great deal of our legislative work is very badly done."
    In that observation I entirely concur, and I do not think I need add anything to the statement made by the noble Marquess. I will conclude, therefore, by asking the noble Marquess what steps he has taken in order to induce the Prime Minister to bring about a different state of things, and I would appeal to all those noble Lords who desire to retain such rights and privileges as we still possess not to cease agitating on this question until we get the change we all desire.
    THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, my noble friend has done me the honour of quoting at length from some observations which I addressed to the House in February last, and I am bound to say that to those observations I desire to adhere. I still think it is most unfortunate that important measures so often come up to this House at a period of the session when it is not possible for your Lordships to do justice to them or to your powers of criticism and examination. That, no doubt, applies with great force to the Licensing Bill, which I presume is not likely to reach your Lordships until some time next week. But it does nor rest entirely with us to discover a remedy for this condition of things, and in the course of the interesting debates which we have had on this subject, it has, I think, been universally admitted that unless the other House of Parliament could be persuaded to see eye to eye with us upon this subject, there was no prospect of obtaining an alteration in our procedure. In compliance with my noble friend's desire, I called the attention of the Prime Minister to the Resolution of this House, of last year, and also to the discussion which took place this year. I understand from
    394
    my right hon. friend that he does not see any prospect of a change of the kind which my noble friend desires being agreed to by the House of Commons.
    LORD NEWTON: Shame!
    THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: There are, I understand, difficulties, the nature of which my noble friend, who has been in the House of Commons, is better able to appreciate than I am, connected with the conditions under which the financial business of Parliament—
    LORD NEWTON: Quite imaginary.
    THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Under which the financial business of Parliament is transacted, and I also gather from the Prime Minister that it is his impression that if this House were to meet in the month of November it would probably end in our sitting continuously until the month of July following. There are, moreover, two objections raised to the proposal of my noble friend, and, I think raised by persons who have a special right to be heard upon this subject. One of them is that an autumn session would very greatly interfere with the conduct of public business in the offices and departments of the State. All of those who have held office know that the autumn months are those in which the greater part of the business of the coming session is prepared, without those interruptions which are inseparable from a session of Parliament. That is an objection which is strongly felt in many quarters, and which will, I have no doubt, alway be pressed; and then there is, besides, the other objection, namely, that if we have an autumn session there is always a chance that we shall have not only the autumn session, with all its inconveniences, but also a summer session not much shorter than the session which at present is usual. Those two objections prevail widely, and I think my noble friend will have to educate public opinion a good deal more before he succeeds in entirely overcoming them. At any rate, as I said at first, the question is one which concerns both Houses of Parliament, and I certainly have seen no signs of a disposition on the part of the other House

    395
    to share the view which is so strongly entertained and so eloquently urged by my noble friend.

    FREIGHTS TO SOUTH AFRICA.
    EARL GREYrose to move for a Return showing the quantities and description of manufactured goods exported from New York to South Africa during the two years ending 30th June, 1904, and the freight charged; also the freight charged on similar goods exported from the United Kingdom to South Africa. He said: My Lords, I do not think that any apology is required from me for again endeavouring to draw the attention of your Lordships' House to the great and growing injury caused to British trade by the action of British steamship companies in giving preferential rates to American shippers trading with South Africa. Although New York is over 600 miles further from South African ports than are the ports of the United Kingdom, the British steamship companies are carrying American cargoes to-day, and have done for some time past, at less than half the rates charged on similar articles consigned to South Africa from ports in the United Kingdom with the obvious result that trade which, under fair and equal conditions, would belong to the United Kingdom is being actually driven to America.
    The noble Duke the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies remarked last week that it was difficult to make any accurate comparison between American and English freights, because the classification was different. It is true that the British steamship companies, for some reason best known to themselves, classify goods from America under three heads, and goods which they ship from England under five heads. I do not understand why the Conference lines should not establish identical classification for British and American goods, as recommended by Mr. Henry Birchenough; but I understand still less why anyone who is in earnest in an endeavour to arrive at the truth cannot ascertain the rates charged on similar articles consigned to South Africa from American and British ports.
    396
    I have in my hand the manifest of a steamer which sailed for South Africa from New York last May. This manifest contains the description and quantities of the cargo carried and the freight charged. It is a confidential document, and I am not permitted to quote the name of the steamer, but I am permitted to hand the manifest to my noble friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, and I have no doubt he will diligently examine it. The noble Duke will see, on referring to it, the freight charged on manufactured goods from New York, and he will be able to ascertain, as I have ascertained, the class in which each article is placed in the English classification, and the freight charged from England. Such a procedure will show that the freight charge to Port Elizabeth is at the rate of 15s. per ton on nearly all articles from New York, and at rates varying from 22s. 6d. to 42s. 6d. per ton on similar articles from England. For example, 15s. is the rate on glass from New York, whilst the rate on glass from England is 31s. 3d., or 42s. 6d. if the glass is plate glass, in which case it comes under the rate charged for all articles in Class 1. Churns, horseshoes, brooms, hardware, ploughs, and agricultural implements are all charged 15s. per ton from New York, whilst 31s. 3d. per ton, or more than double, is charged from England. Leather, bicycles, and boots, which are all charged at the rate of 15s. a ton from New York, are charged at the rate of 42s. 6d. from England; and barbed wire, which goes at the rate of 15s. per ton from New York, is charged 22s. 6d. per ton from England.
    This great disparity in freights has been the subject of anxious inquiry by various Chambers of Commerce in this country. The Birmingham Chamber of Commerce, in their report this month, point out the rates charged on articles manufactured in their district. They call attention to the fact that whilst the English rate to Cape Town and Algoa Bay on iron bedsteads, bolts and nuts, iron chains, general hardware, tinware, and tools is 31s. 3d. per ton, the American rates to Cape Town and Algoa Bay are only 15s.; and the same class of goods going from English ports to Natal and East London have to pay a rate of

    397
    40s. and 38s. 9d., whilst the rates are only 17s. 6d. from New York. Therefore, in regard to all these classes of manufactured articles, the American manufacturer has the great advantage of being able to secure the transit of his goods at less than half the freight which has to be paid by the manufacturer sending goods from this country.
    I do not think my noble friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies can have been aware of this difference when this subject was last debated in your Lordships' House, or otherwise he would not have cast doubt upon the suggestion of the noble Earl, Lord Portsmouth, that this difference in rate provided any ground for legitimate complaint. It was impossible for the noble Duke to deny that there had been a considerable increase in the total value of exports from New York to British South Africa. The figures I have obtained from the Board of Trade prove that. I find that the total value of exports (domestic and foreign) from New York to British South Africa for the year ended 30th June, 1901, was £2,498,397, and for the year ended 30th June,1903, £4,732,517; in other words, in two years the export trade from New York to South Africa has increased twofold. The noble Duke suggested that this might be a great advantage to the consumer in South Africa. He assumed that the increase was mainly in foodstuffs and did not consist of articles which could be sent from this country; but this manifest, which I will hand to the noble Duke, will show that a very large number of manufactured goods do find their way from New York to South African ports.
    In order to verify the returns in the case of one steamer. I have obtained the Customs return, showing the value of the articles exported from New York to South Africa in another steamer, which sailed from New York last month. I hope I shall not be told by His Majesty's Government that it is impossible to obtain these figures. I have obtained them with little trouble, and I therefore assume that His Majesty's Government, with the powers that they command, can also obtain them. I find from this return that out of the total value of cargo shipped by this steamer, amounting to £85,930,
    398
    almost one-third, namely £26,415, represented American manufactured goods. I will not go through the complete list, but the goods comprised furniture, windmills and parts, pumping machinery, barbed wire, etc., paint, oil, nails, curtains, table covers, clocks, candles, agricultural implements, ironmongery, household utensils, tools, etc. I may be informed that the bulk is not large, but His Majesty Government will discover, on looking into this matter, that the proportion of general merchandise to food stuffs in cargoes shipped from New York to South Africa is steadily increasing. I am not able on this occasion to quote figures to establish that point, but His Majesty's Government will be easily able to ascertain the truth of the statement I make.
    Now, what is the result of these preferential rates given to American shippers over British manufacturers? As might be expected, the result is to give a great stimulus to American trade, and the American manufacturer under the advantage which he enjoys has been able to introduce into the South African market American manufactures which would not otherwise have found their way there, at least for some considerable time. A difference in freight of over fifteen shillings a ton is naturally quite enough to determine the destination of many orders. My noble friend the Under-Secretary of State said last week that Americans are very clever traders. I hope he will ponder over that statement. I am informed that the Steel Trust—as we all know, a most enterprising corporation—is endeavouring to capture the whole of the iron and steel trade to Brazil. They have approached steamship companies with the request that they may be granted a rate half-a-crown a ton below that charged on iron and steel products coming from Germany and England, and it is their belief that if they can get that advantage they will be able to capture the whole of the iron and steel trade of the Brazils. Now, if an advantage of half-a-crown is sufficient to divert trade from England to America, it is a fortiori obvious that a difference of 15s. a ton in favour of the American manufacturer must tend to kill our own industries.

    399
    I would point out to His Majesty's Government that we have had ample warning of this danger. There was a most interesting Report by Mr. Benjamin Morgan, who was appointed Special Commissioner to report on the engineering trades of South Africa. Mr. Morgan went out in 1902, and, in the Report which he presented, he stated—
    "If certain goods can be obtained in England, America, and Germany at even prices any difference in freight would settle where the order would go. The difference in freight charges alone was practically a profit. Store merchants everywhere looked through their stock sheets and completed their stocks with American goods, particulary in hardware lines and agricultural machinery. I was informed that one merchant ordered 1,000 stoves, another 3,000 ploughs, and so on, as a result of this difference in freight."
    In another portion of his Report Mr. Morgan said—
    "The difference prevailing in freights from New York and London respectively to South Africa was the cause of a number of large orders going to America every year."
    He quoted a typical instance given to him by one of the largest firms of engineers and machinery merchants in South Africa.
    "A short time ago a certain firm invited tenders for 700 tons of steel. Our tender was second. The American firm who secured the order paid 15s. a ton less in freight than we This was more than the difference between our prices."
    The warning given by Mr. Morgan was confirmed the following year by Mr. Birchenough, who, with the view of enabling the British public to understand what effect the preferential rates to the American shipper had on British trade, pointed out in his Report, dated August last year, that the Scotch "Dover" stove was 2s. 6d. to 3s. cheaper than the American stove free on board, but landed in South Africa the American stove became the cheaper of the two. About five stoves go to the ton, and Mr. Birchenough pointed out that the freight from Great Britain was 32s. 6d. per ton, or, say, 6s. 6d. per stove, whilst the freight from New York was 10s. per ton. or 2s. per stove. The difference against the Scotch stove was, therefore, 4s. 6d., which made its landed cost in South Africa from 1s. to 1s. 6d. higher than that of the American stove, in spite of its lower free-on-board cost of from 2s. 6d. to 3s.
    400
    Mr. Birchenough said that so long as the 10s. rate lasted merchants were tempted not only to fill up their stocks of heavy articles, such as agricultural implements, fencing wire, machinery, etc., but to make up cargoes with any articles which seemed likely to sell. Mr. Birch-enough summed up the whole situation in these words—
    "No single circumstance has proved so favourable to the rapid growth of American trade with South Africa as these low freights, and we owe them to the action of British shipping companies."
    I hope, my Lords, that I have established the fact that there is an important difference to the advantage of the American shipper, and that that preference does tend to affect most injuriously the interests of British traders.
    In the Yorkshire Post last week I found an advertisement of the Prince Line, which has regular sailings from New York to South Africa. There are quoted the prices charged from New York—viz., to Cape Town and Port Elizabeth, 15s.; East London and Durban, 17s. 6d.; and Delagoa Bay, 22s. 6d., and the advertisement goes on to say—
    "As most of the Prince Line South African steamers proceed from the United Kingdom to New York to load for South Africa, they are prepared to carry, in steamers thus proceeding, a limited quantity of cargo at above rates from the United Kingdom to South Africa, via New York, without transhipment."
    That shows that under the present rates operating from New York British shipowners wishing to do trade with South Africa find it profitable to cross the Atlantic and then take a journey which is longer by 600 miles than the journey from British ports to South Africa. It is to the advantage of British shippers to send their goods viâ New York to South Africa, although it is a distance of 600 miles further.
    The Chambers of Commerce are beginning to inquire seriously into the position, and I hope His Majesty's Government will not put us off with statements that it is difficult to obtain these figures, but that they will seriously consider the position, with a view to suing how far they can protect British industry, which ought to be their first care. The cause of this injurious preference which the American shipowners enjoy is the additional 10 per

    401
    cent. levied by the Conference lines on goods from this country, which is remitted if the shipper has not shipped any cargo by competing lines in the interval. The rebate system and its accompanying penalties are illegal in the United States, and I ask the House to consider whether this is not the secret of the whole position. The American Government regard this system which operates so injuriously to the British trader as a direct restraint of trade, and the result of their legislative action has been to make it impossible for the rebate system to be established on goods shipped from New York to South Africa. I believe that to be the cause of the preference.
    Now, what is the result of the preference? The result certainly is to send to America trade which properly belongs, under fair and equal conditions, to this country. I do not think it matters so much to the manufacturer. He can, if he likes, set up his works in the United States, in order that he may enjoy the advantage of cheaper freights; but the British workman is put out of employment and has a legitimate cause of complaint against His Majesty's Government. The noble Duke, at the close of his speech the other day, pointed out that the question of getting a better rate for the public was entirely outside the province of the Crown Agents. It was, he said, a matter which the Government alone could undertake or examine, and it was very doubtful whether it would be wise for His Majesty's Government to do so. South Africa has given us a 25 per cent. preference on our goods, and I believe the Government are to blame for allowing this rebate system to continue on the export of goods from England, with the result that we lose the whole benefit of that 25 per cent. preference, and are driving trade to America which ought to belong to England.
    The Natal and Cape Governments, so we are informed by the noble Duke, have convened a conference to look into this question of rates. They will, however, look into it from the point of view of the consumer. The noble Duke said—
    "Until we know what the result of the conference is, until we are informed of the wishes and views of the people of South Africa themselves upon this subject, it would be premature
    402
    for His Majesty's Government to offer any opinion upon such a difficult and complicated matter."
    I say it is the duty of His Majesty's Government to look after the interests of British workmen and British manufacturers. There is a remedy which I have often been told is impossible for His Majesty's Government to apply, but I contend that it is within the power of the Government to effect a combination of shippers. There ought to be very little difficulty, if His Majesty's Government would co-operate with the Administrations in Natal, the Transvaal, the Orange River Colony, Cape Colony, and Rhodesiain forming an independent shipping combination, which would enable them to secure, not only for themselves, but for the public, the advantage of the cheap rates which American shippers now enjoy from New York and other American ports. I beg to move the Motion standing in my name.
    Moved, "For a Return showing the quantities and description of manufactured goods exported from New York to South Africa during the two years ending 30th June, 1904, and the freight charged; also the freight charged on similar goods exported from the United Kingdom to South Africa."—(Earl, Grey.)
    Lofty WOLVERTON: MY Lords, in answer to my noble friend, I have to state that the Board of Trade can give the quantities of the principal classes of manufactured goods exported from the United States of America to South Africa in the years mentioned, but I regret to say that the Department have no official figures dealing with the freights asked for in the Motion, and I fear that a Return of the exports without the freight figures would be of little service to the noble Lord. As the noble Lord is aware, freights are not fixed within maximum powers as rates are fixed for the carriage of goods by railway. They vary with the circumstances of the trade, and are difficult of ascertainment. I shall, however, be happy to discuss with the noble Lord the question whether any figures can be supplied for the purposes of the Return which would be useful to him.
    EARL GREY:I understand the noble Lord to say that he can give official figures showing the value of the exports?
    LORD WOLVERTON: Yes.
    EARL GREY: Perhaps he will give us a Return to that effect.
    LORD WOLVERTON: Yes; I can promise that; but I cannot give official freights.
    EARL GREY: Although the (noble Lord cannot give us all the official freights, it must surely be within the power of the Government to obtain from shipping companies the rates that have been charged.
    LORD WOLVERTON: The Board of Trade are unable to give official figures as regards freights. They might be misleading.
    EARL GREY: I accept the noble Lord's kind invitation to talk the matter over with him; but if the result of our conversation does not convince me that the Government are in earnest in putting an end to the pernicious practice which is driving trade from this country to America, I hope I may have the opportunity of taking such further action as the rules of the House allow.
    THE EARL of ROSEBERY: Are we to understand that it is impossible for the Board of Trade to obtain these figures? I should have thought there would have been no special difficulty in doing so; and, as an illustration of the new policy of maintaining the Empire by differential tariffs, it would have been rather instructive.
    THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I understood my noble friend to say that there were no official figures available of the kind the noble Earl desired, and, the noble Earl's counter suggestion was that figures might be obtained from private sources. That suggestion I understood the noble Lord who represents the Board of Trade to be unable to accept on the spur of the moment, but
    404
    he indicated his desire to confer with the noble Earl and to meet his views as far as possible.
    Motion, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
    House adjourned at twenty minutes past Five o'clock, to Thursday next, a quarter past Four o'clock.