THE DISPUTE ABOUT MAIL CONTRACTS.
TIBERALS who have scoffed at Lord Randolph Churchill in his character of Grand Educator of the Conservative Party, and have predicted his speedy rejection by the party he
seeks to transform, have forgotten one important element in the calculation. They have made no allowance for the force of emulation. They have argued as though Lord Randolph Churchill's missionary labours would always remain unshared, as though to the end no darts but his would be aimed at the dull, inert mass of Conservatism. Already, if they have kept their eyes open, they must have detected their mistake. Already they must have seen that a character and an enter- prise such as Lord Randolph Churchill's beget imitators on every side. Already the Postmaster-General and the Financial Secretary of the Treasury are following close at his heels, and the arguments which proved so useful a little while back in justification of the decision not to support the renewal of the London coal-dues, have been employed with equal courage by Mr. Raikes and Mr. Jackson in defence of the decision not to renew the American mail contracts with the Cunard and White Star Companies.
The Ministerial speeches of Saturday and Tuesday last rather suggest that there is a good defence for what the Government have done, than actually constitute one. They deal with some of the reasons urged in favour of making no change in the contracts, but they leave others untouched. A great deal of the soreness which the transaction has caused is probably due to the fact that the authors of it are Con- servatives. Mr. MacIver, for example, classes it among those administrative mistakes which are the ruin of Governments, because they "tend to destroy public confidence, and pave the way to disaster. British mail-carrying by foreign steamers subsidised by a foreign State will not," he says, "be satis- factory to her Majesty's loyal subjects in Great Britain and Ireland." It is true that the employment of this subsidised line is only for one steamer out of three. On Tuesdays and Saturdays the mails will be carried by the Inman and the Guion Com- panies, which leaves only Thursdays for this terrible "British mail-carrying by foreign steamers subsidised by a foreign State." But what her Majesty's loyal subjects will be shocked at, if they come up to Mr. MacIver's opinion of them, is the error of principle, not the error of fact. They see English Companies robbed for the benefit of the stranger, and they sorrowfully compare the action of foreign Governments, which actually subsidise their subjects to enable them to drive Englishmen out of the market, with the action of thp English Government, which uses the services of these very foreigners to get its work done more cheaply than Englishmen will consent to do it. The first reflection that occurs to us on reading Mr. Maciver's letter is that we have heard something like this before. Our memory travels back to the time when the English sugar-refiners were making a very similar complaint. They were injured, they said, not by honest foreign competition, but by a foreign competition which could not exist if it were not subsidised. So it is in this case. The North German Lloyd Company can carry English letters cheaply because it is secured against loss by the money paid to it by the German Government. Being so secured, it can carry English letters at almost any price that the Government like to offer. The answer to this is precisely the answer that used to be given to the sugar-refiners. It is a question in the one case between the producer and the public, and in the other case between the carrier and the public. What Mr. Maciver asks is what the sugar-refiners asked, that the English public should be prevented from getting its goads or its services in the cheapest market. British sugar cannot be made so cheaply as foreign sugar ; British steamers cannot carry letters so cheaply as foreign steamers. Therefore, say the sugar-refiners and Mr. MacIver, the English public should be prevented from using foreign sugar or foreign steamers by the institution of an adequate system of Protection to native industry. 'Not at all,' Mr. MacIver will probably say ; 'I do not ask for Protection against fair competition, any more than the sugar-refiners asked for it. My grievance is that these steamers are subsidised.' But the answer to this is, again, the answer formerly given to the sugar-refiners. If a foreign Government chooses to tax its own subjects for the benefit of the British consumer, why should the English Government interfere ? You say that you do not object to fair competition,—that is, to the supply of foreign goods to the English consumer at a lower rate than he could get them from the English producer. But what does it matter to the English producer how it comes about that these foreign goods can be sold in this country at a lower rate than he can sell them at Why should he look behind the curtain to see how this greater cheapness is obtained ? And if he does look behind the curtain, and sees that it is obtained by a subsidy from a foreign Government, in what respect is he the worse ? The only person who on Free-trade principles has any right to complain is the foreign taxpayer, out of whose pocket the subsidy comes. Of course, on purely Protectionist principles, the English producer has a right to complain ; but then, we do not understand Mr. MacIver to take his stand on purely Protectionist principles. It is not British mail-carrying by foreign steamers that he objects to, but British mail-carrying by foreign steamers subsidised by a foreign State. In the sugar case there was, moreover, a legi- timate objection which does not hold in this. It was said with some justice that a normal industry of some importance was seriously disturbed as a consequence of bounties which might be taken off at any time, and leave the public without the advantage either of the natural industry, or of its arti- ficial equivalent. In the present case, it is not likely that the utilisation of this German subsidy to our letter-carrying, would seriously disturb the production of British steamships fitted for the purpose.
But when all this has been said, there remain two objections which neither Mr. Raikes nor Mr. Jackson has yet met. We do not say this by way of blame, because the proper place for a Minister to defend himself is Parliament, so that it is only incidentally and by the way that the case for either the Post Office or the Treasury has yet been stated. In these incidental statements, some facts of great importance have been brought out,—such as the saving of £25,000 a year. But nothing has been said as to the incon- venience of short contracts which can be rapidly transferred from Company to Company, or about the uses to which British steamers can, and foreign steamers cannot, be turned in time of war. No doubt short contracts have their merits. They allow the Government to be constantly on the look-out for the fastest steamers, and for every change in the conditions of competition. It is said, however, on the other side, that longer contracts induce the Companies to build vessels of greater size and power than they would otherwise be inclined to build, and also to spend money on the provision of facilities for the more rapid shipment and landing of letters. These are important considerations, and they ought not to be left out of sight in weighing short contracts against long. We shall be surprised, however, if, with the great passenger traffic that now goes on between England and America, it needs the prospect of a Post Office contract to make the great Steamship Companies build vessels of great size and power. We are confirmed in this impression by the fact that two steamers belonging to a Company which has not hitherto been employed by the Post Office are among the swiftest that cross the Atlantic. As to the provision of facilities for the shipment and landing of letters, this seems to be most naturally and conveniently the business of the Post Office authorities, as they are thus left free to make contracts of any length that snits them, without, on the one hand, crippling the work of the depart- ment by the loss of proper facilities, or, on the other hand, making unduly long agreements in order to recoup a Company for providing proper facilities. As regards the adaptation of the steamers to purposes of war, the Admiralty ought un- doubtedly to have a paramount voice in the determination of the question. If by paying somewhat more for the carriage of an ocean postage we can command a fleet of vessels specially suited for prompt conversion into troopships or fast cruisers, it may be a real economy. But until the Government have made their defence in Parliament, we do not know that this advan- tage may not be equally well secured in other ways, or that the purchase of ships, when they are wanted, may not be a cheaper method of obtaining them ; and until this uncertainty is cleared up, condemnation of Mr. Raikes's action is, to say the least, premature.
Previous page
