§ MR. M'EWAN (Edinburgh, Central)asked the Postmaster General, If his refusal to grant a licence to the Pro- 1349 prietors of the Writing Telegraph is indicative of a resolution to depart from the position taken up by the Government, as defined by Sir Henry James (then Attorney General) on the 29th of November, 1880, in the case of the "Attorney General v. the Edison Telephone Company (and others)," now United Telephone Company (specially reported for The Telegraphic Journal, 15th December, see vol. 8, page 425), as follows:—
There is no desire on the part of the Crown to check invention. I most emphatically disclaim that inventors and Companies will always be dealt with in a liberal spirit, if they consent to become licencees of the Crown;and further, in the same case, the Attorney General said (see Engineering, vol. 30, page 514)—The Government has no wish whatever to stop energy for increased knowledge in telegraphy. The sole object of the Crown on the present occasion being to obtain an order for a compulsory licence upon all persons who should use the telephone;and if that action did not arise in consequence of the Telephone Company having refused to become licencees; whether his attention has been called to the statement of the Attorney General, on his application to two Judges of the High Court on the 11th of April, 1881, to vary the decree (see Telegraphic Journal, vol. 9, page 149)—The litigation has now come to an end. When once the claim of the Crown to the monopoly was admitted, they would be ready, in the interests of the public, to grant licences, so that there might be no impediment in the way of the active carrying on of the telephonic communication;whether, seeing that the proprietors of the Writing Telegraph only ask to become licencees of the Crown, he will state on what grounds they are refused to use their telegraph system; and, has he discretionary power to alter the principle on which Government has declared its intention to deal with inventors and Companies, as in the Edison case?
§ THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES) (Cambridge University)In reply to the hon. Member, I have to say that the declaration which his Question gives in the first person is not a quotation from the report in The Telegraphic Journal of December 15, 1880. That report is a condensed account of the proceedings, and is given in a narrative form in the third person. The 1350 report in Engineering is also a mere condensed account. I can cite nothing in the shorthand writer's notes which conveys such an impression as the hon. Member has received. I may further say that the then Postmaster General did not, on the judgment being given in his favour, immediately concede a general licence even to those who were parties to the case before the Court. He freely exercised his discretion, refusing a licence here, and granting a licence there. I have, on a previous occasion, stated to the hon. Member that the Government has never assumed the position of granting indiscriminately a licence to every inventor of a new form of apparatus. I have also informed him that if there is a substantial demand for the establishment of exchanges to be worked by the instruments of the Writing Telegraph Company, I think it preferable that they should be in the hands of the Post Office, the instruments being supplied by the proprietors on terms to be arranged. To both these statements I still adhere.