patriotism set by their fellow-countrymen | co-operation with the gentlemen who who went out and died in South Africa. control the "combine." I should They have sold, I was going to say, some like to say that in my judgment part of their country-no doubt to a friendly Power now, and one of our own blood. The more difficult the problem with which the Government find themselves confronted, the more attention they ought to give to it, with the view of doing something which may not only stop the alarm that is felt, but the disaster which I feel sure will come unless something is

done.

there is absolutely nothing dishonourable in anything that has been done. It has been suggested, or even stated, that it is unpatriotic. I maintain, and i know it, that the gentlemen principally connected with this combine on both sides of the Atlantic are gentlemen of the highest personal honour and integrity. It is unfortunate that the trade between the two sides of the Atlantic has become much more of an

*(6.28.) MR. DAVID MACIVER (Liverpool, Kirkdale): I happen to be the Mem- American than a British trade. I am old enough to remember when it ber for that particular part of Liverpool was difficult to get return cargoes from which includes the docks, where the the United States. A combination steamers belonging to the “ combine," and those that do not, load and discharge between American railways and Transatlantic steamers is not a new thing. their cargoes. I spent the best years of my life in the Liverpool management of the Thirty years ago I myself, with the Cunard steamships. I had eighteen general manager of the Boston and Albany years association with that company; but Railway, bought many thousands of tons I ought to tell the House that it is twenty- of Indian corn which belonged partly to seven years since I had any such associa- the railway company and partly to the tion. I have nothing to do today with Cunard Company, which brought it to any of the North American liners. I am this country. Those days are entirely speaking now entirely for myself, with changed. The American system of promy knowledge of the past; but I am tection under which they exclude our still a shipowner, and I know pretty well manufactures has every day lessened the what is going on. I find myself very importance of the trade from this country much in accord with what fell from the to the United States. Our worship of hon. Member for King's Lynn, so far as the Free Trade fetish has had the effect generalities are concerned; but when of enormously increasing the American. he came to particular instances, I control of the trade of this country. cannot help feeling that he has drawn We take enormous quantities of a good deal upon his imagination. I American produce which might perknow enough about the matter to know fectly well be got from our own that my hon. friend the Member for colonies and dependencies. This shipGloucester (Mr. Russell Rea) who spoke ping combine is is one of the messes on the other side came very near the in which our Free Trade system truth in the statements which he made. has landed us. I am one of those I think there is much more of co- who believe, with my hon. friend operation than of absorption. There the Member for the Exchange Diviare certainly companies which have sion of Liverpool, that the time has been absorbed, such as the Inman come when at the earliest opportunity and International Line, the Leyland the whole question of the present Line, the West India and Pacific Com- position of British mercantile shippany, the National Company, the Atlantic ping ought to be reconsidered. British Transport Company and several others. shipowners do not want not want bounties; These have been absorbed, there is no but they want a fair field and no favour, doubt about that. It is a matter of and I do not ask for more than this. public notoriety, and the story has been I should like to say one word on the told in the press, but there is no proof subsidies to armed cruisers. I do not whatever that the others have done agree with the view of my hon. friend anything more than make arrange- the Member for Gateshead, and still less ments for friendly co-operation, and I do I agree with the view of my hon. maintain perfectly reasonable business friend the Member for King's Lynn. I Colonel Pilkington.

am much more a believer in the view must come to. Unless we were prepared of the German Emperor. He knows to shut our ports against foreign ships, how to have subsidised cruisers and how or to subsidise our ships-a policy to retain them. We, with our system which, at all events, up till now no one of Free Trade run mad, do not retain the had advocated-what could we do but control of our merchant shipping as I look on and see the result accomplished. think we ought to do. The average But there was no need for the country shipowner who has no concern with to take panic. By the operations of armoured cruisers, and I am one of natural laws these combinations were them, does favour subsidies to ultimately bound to decay, and our his business competitors. It is quite shipping, which under the operation of a mistake to suppose that the average the same laws had become the greatest shipowner has any personal interest in see- in the world, would survive. Bounties ing cruisers subsidised. I am therefore not and subsidies were not now the power in speaking from the personal point of view; the shipping trade that they were. They but I think it is strongly the interest of had been tried by France and America this country, in every way it can, to for a long time, but English sailing ships encourage the building of fast steamers and to retain the control, as the German were in the past more numerous than Emperor retains the control, of them. I those of any other country, and since think on patrictic grounds it would be steamships had come the greatest mistake to go back on the English intelligence and energy had outpolicy of subsidising cruisers. We must stripped and left far behind all those countries who had tried to increase their retain them, and the country must give enough to make it worth while for the shipping by bounties and subsidies. great mail companies to build the right class of ships.

:

(6.32.) MR. CHANNING (Northamptonshire, E.) I only wish to say on behalf of a good many Members on this side of the House who are interested in this question that they cannot accept the statement of the First Lord of the Treasury as in any way satisfactory or conclusive with regard to this matter, and that we shall claim on this side, and I have no doubt hon. Members on the other side will also, some opportunity for thoroughly discussing the economic and mercantile aspects of this great question.

MR. ALEXANDER CROSS (Glasgow, Camlachie) said he represented an important constituency and desired to say a few words in relation to the action taken by the First Lord of the Treasury. The right hon. Gentleman had told the House the only two possible aspects of the way in which he could deal with the question. What could he do more than he had promised to do? Was the Government to protect ships because it had protected corn? There was no occasion for the Government to interfere. The conclusion which the right hon. Gentleman had come to was that conclusion which every practical man

into existence

*SIR JAMES WOODHOUSE begged leave, with the permission of the House, to withdraw his Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

NEW BILLS.

PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS
(MARINERS' VOTES) BILL.

"To enable Officers and Seamen of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, and of the Mercantile Marine and Fishermen, to record their Votes when, by reason of their calling, they will be at Sea on the day of the Poll," presented by Sir Elliott Lees, under Standing Order 31; supported by Lord Charles Beresford, Sir John Colomb, Mr. Mildmay, Mr. Macdona, and Mr. William Allan; to be read a second time upon Friday, 9th May, and to be printed. [Bill 186.]

NATIONAL MONUMENTS IN
CHURCHES BILL.

"To prevent the removal of Monuments which have been erected in Cathedrals or Churches out of Public Moneys presented by Sir Elliott Lees, under in pursuance of a Vote by Parliament," Standing Order 31; supported by Sir W. Anson, Mr. Butcher, and Sir Robert Reid; to be read a second time upon Friday, 9th May, and to be printed. [Bill 187.]

anyone should have a power of that kind. At the same time, it was a great mistake to have the new Rule in the form in which it was, because inasmuch as under the proposal all private business had to be put down whether it could be taken or not, such a practice must inflict upon the agents and promoters and others interested unnecessary hardship in bringing them down to the House when their Bill could not come on. While recognising that as regards unopposed private business the new Rule was most convenient, he thought the arrangement for opposed private business required amendment. It left open the same conflict which existed now between private and public business, and important public matters would still have to be postponed to oppose private business.

*(7.0.) MR. BLAKE (Longford, S.) said the House had already substantially sealed the fate of private business and of resolutions in the hands of unofficial members in agreeing that they should be taken at the evening sittings of the House. What he would desire most of all to see would be a fixed day upon which opposed private

of a dinner table far away from the House? Was the Chairman of Ways and Means to put it down as the first order at nine, or would he put it down at ten and leave an unfortunate man who had public business to address an empty chamber, whilst all the Members of the House were dining elsewhere? He showed that by the proposed method of distributing private business over the four evening sittings of the week the time available for private Members would be seriously curtailed, an added element of uncertainty would be imparted to the debates, and the Chairman of Ways and Means would be placed in an invidious position by having the duty cast upon him of selecting the opposed private business to be put down for discussion. So far as it was a question of the Chairman of Ways and Means impartially determining, with due reference to the convenience of the promoters and the other matters which were entitled to consideration, the day and the hour at which private business should come on, that was one thing; he had the best knowledge that could be obtained as to the extent of the opposition and the probable length of the debate. But there was the further element of the impartial distribution of the business as between

business should be the first order, but that could not be done now unless they took the time of private Members on Friday, which Government and private Members' time, was too great a cost to pay. The Leader and, although he was perfectly willing to of the House had emphasized the fact trust the Chairman of Ways and Means to that it was intolerable that important discharge the duty honestly, the House public business should be interfered were bound, when they placed that official in such an invidious position, for his own with, and the cream of the day taken at the will of promoters of private security as well as for the security of the Bills and a less effective Parliamentary House, to give a direction as to the prinday procured in consequence; but all ciple upon which the distribution should these difficulties were exaggerated by the be made. The House ought to state its conditions in which the House now found intention that the business should be itself, and the decision which it had already reached, which left no other chance whatever for private business. Because all these difficulties were felt when the House met at three and had all day to discuss important public and opposed private business. Now, the latter was relegated to the three hours evening sit. ting, and if it was a trouble and worry in the past when there was a whole day to work in, what would it be in the future with only three hours for both public and private business ? It was obvious that the invasion of private or public business would be infinitely more serious. Again, what chance had any private Bill which came on at nine o'clock, with the attractions

distributed impartially, with reference
to time, between the four evening
sittings, so that as near as possible as
much time should be taken from the
Members sittings, proportionately to the
Government sittings as from the private
number of sittings of each class, and
that statement of intention ought to ap-
pear in the Standing Order.
that view that he had placed on the Paper
an Amendment which in due course he
should move. He believed the working of
the proposals of the Government would
demonstrate in a very marked manner

that a

It was with

mistaken method had been adopted in dividing up the time of the House, but, it having been decided that

there should be two sittings, and that him except by a deliberate Vote of the no private business should be taken House, he was now to be relegated to at the morning sitting, all that remained whatever position chance might deterwas to secure an equal and impartial mine, and his Motion would have to distribution of the opposed private come on whenever the Chairman of business, in point of time, amongst Committees, in his discretion, might the evening sittings.

(7.10.) MR. CHAPLIN (Lincolnshire, Sleaford) thought he had a reasonable ground of complaint at the position this question was assuming. Earlier in the afternoon an arrangement was suggested to the effect that the Rules should be proceeded with that afternoon and concluded by dinner-time on Friday. An appeal was then made to hon. Members on that side of the House, who had taken an active part in the discussion of the Rules, as to whether they would concur in the proposed arrangement. He immediately pointed out that a Motion in which he was deeply interested, and which he had pledged himself to many hon. Members to bring forward, had secured first place private Members' time on the

in

following day.

*MR. SPEAKER: The remarks of the right hon. Gentleman are hardly relevant to the Question before the House.

MR. CHAPLIN said it was necessary that he should explain why he felt himself to be entirely absolved from any bargain which had been entered into.

*MR. SPEAKER: I did not intend to prevent the right hon. Gentleman making a personal explanation with regard to what took place earlier in the day.

decide. He had also another ground of complaint. The arrangement was proposed by the acting Leader of the Opposition. Under the arrangement seven or eight hours were left in which to conclude the discussion of the Rules. But hardly had the arrangement been suggested before one of the right hon. Gentleman's own followers rose and moved the adjournment of the House, with the result that nearly three out of those seven or eight hours had been lost. He did not blame the Government for that, but he did consider, on the two grounds he had named, he was fully within his right in considering himself absolved from any undertaking that had been entered into. As to the Rule itself, he understood the Leader of the House to say that opposed Private Business should be fairly divided between the different evening sittings. But that was entirely in conflict with the expectations which had been held out to them so far as private Members' evenings were concerned. In the course of the debates his right hon. friend had admitted that the petition of private Members would, in theory, be incomparably less favour. able under the new Rules than under the old, but that in practice they would have the great advantage that once the Rules were pa sed they would have the rights therein proposed and they would not be interfered with.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR said the right hon. Gentleman had entirely misunderstood his statement. What he had always said was that in his belief the Government would not be obliged to come down to the House and claim private Members' nights in the future as they had been in the past; but he had never suggested that he could arrange private business so that it should not interfere with private Private Members' time. On the contrary, in

MR. CHAPLIN (continuing) said that he then stated that if he was assured that he would not be prevented going on with his Motion at the earliest opportunity, he would not dream of standing in the way of a general arrangement. To that his right hon. friend replied that he would be able to go on with the Motion on Monday or Tuesday evening But it now appeared that he stood in a totally different position. Members were no longer to have any right to decide when their Motions his opening statement he clearly exshould come on, but, having secured plained that that must occasionally a place which could not be taken from occur.

Mr. Blake.