§ I want to allude to only one other question—that of a State-owned Atlantic cable. I raised this question in connection with the Imperial Conference last year. At that Conference a resolution was carried to the effect that in the event of the cable rates not being reduced in the near future a conference should be held to consider the question of a State-owned cable. Since then certain reductions of cable rates have been made. They are, of course, a great advance. But they were urged on the Government of this country and the Dominions for many years before they came into force, and as a matter of fact they are very good business indeed from the cable companies point of view.
§ The trade of the cable companies across the Atlantic since these deferred rates came into force has increased very much. I saw it stated that it was 40 per cent. in America, but I do not know whether that figure is correct. There is no doubt whatever that the trade of these companies has increased. The arguments against a State-owned Atlantic cable, as put forward by the Postmaster-General at the Imperial Conference were, first, that there were thirteen cables across the Atlantic which landed in British territory; secondly, that it would cause a loss of £25,000 a year if such a cable were laid; and thirdly, that this cable would only carry the business of the Pacific 1193 cable, that is to say, it could not get the business in Canada and the United States, and must go on being a dead loss to this country of £25,000 a year for some time. Since the Imperial Conference the situation has changed, and I propose to point out to the Postmaster-General that some of those arguments are not now valid. In the first place, as regards the loss of £25,000, that was based upon an estimated load of 1,000,000 words a year across the Atlantic. I had figures from the right hon. Gentleman, in answer to a question I put the other day, which showed that since last year the Pacific cable has carried something like over 2,000,000 words, instead of the 1,300,000 words which were carried the year before last, so that there has been an increase of something like 800,000 words in the load of the Pacific cable alone. I ventured to point out then, in a supplementary question to the Postmaster-General, that as the Pacific cable business had increased to such a large extent, it must be obvious that the business across the Atlantic in connection with the Pacific cable business must also have increased. He did not agree with that remark at the time; but since then he has also given me the figures of the words which passed over the Pacific cable, which originated on this side of the Atlantic. I find that these total together, both coining to and going from the United Kingdom, 1,133,000. That was for eleven months only. If one adds 110,000, which was the average for eleven months, one finds that the amount of messages originating on this side of the Atlantic was something like 1,250,000, instead of 1,000,000 words. It must be obvious that, if we had a State-owned cable, nearly all those words would pass over the State-owned cable, and not over private cables. I suggest that since the Conference there has been an increase of about 250,000 words in the load over the Atlantic cable.
§ Another argument was that in Canada there would be no business, as the lines would be land lines through Canada, which were under the control of the telegraph companies, which were allied to the American cable companies across the Atlantic. That is quite true as regards the Canadian Pacific, and I believe the Canadian Northern; but there is the Grand Trunk Pacific, and the Grand Trunk also to a certain extent, which line is not at all bound to the American Telegraph Company or to the Western Union.
1194§ I was in Canada the other day, and I took the opportunity of going to the headquarters of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, and I made inquiries from Mr. Hayes, the manager, who is at present in this country, and who, I have no doubt, would give the same information to the Postmaster-General. I understand that the Grank Trunk Pacific is not only free from any obligation to the American Telephone and Telegraph Company and the Western Union, but is free to run a land line right across Canada, and would do so over this State-owned Atlantic cable; and that it is also free to deliver messages in all the main towns of Canada. When I raised the question the hon. Member for East St. Pancras (Mr. Martin) got up and in a supplementary question pointed out to the Postmaster-General that the Grand Trunk Pacific only ran to certain parts of Canada which were sparsely- populated. Although that question was designed to throw cold water on the question I put, the hon. Member could not explain that the Grand Trunk Pacific is going to be amalgamated with the Grand Trunk Railway, and that the whole system will be a complete transcontinental line, right away from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and, further, that there are branch lines actually surveyed, and in some cases being constructed, for the great towns in Canada; so that this line is quite ready to collect and deliver these messages, if an Atlantic cable is laid. Therefore, the argument that no business could be lone with the Atlantic cable in Canada is very much vitiated.
§ I do not wish to argue from a bitter point of view—it is merely a matter of argument—and I venture to put these things forward as a very strong argument for the laying of an Atlantic cable, as a great deal of business can be obtained for that cable in Canada. If a State cable were laid, it is obvious that the rates would be much lower than they are at present. The laying of a Pacific cable resulted in an enormous reduction of rates to Australia; and if a State Atlantic cable were laid, to complete the link between Australia and New Zealand we should have at once a very greatly decreased rate to Canada and the United States. Why should we be afraid of laying a State-owned Atlantic cable from the fear of interfering with private companies? When we consider that since the Imperial Conference last June all the British cables, five in number, went to 1195 the United States, and that four of the Anglo-American lines have passed under the control or been leased by one American Trust, how are we to know that that American Trust will not in future rearrange its rates to our disadvantage? The right hon. Gentleman will reply to that that there are two different companies in competition across the Atlantic, the Commercial Cable Company and the Western Union. That is quite true; but I am quite certain that the past history of United States business concerns does not give any confidence, to anyone who knows anything about them, to believe in the suggestion that no combination is at all likely to keep up the rates across the Atlantic.
§
The situation now is this: that the whole of these thirteen cables are in the hands of foreign companies, the Commercial Cable Company and the Western Union. That is a very serious matter indeed. Then we have the fact that New Zealand, Canada, and Australia are all very keen on getting their rates reduced for Press and commercial messages. That should weigh with the Postmaster-General and with the Government, and cause them to reconsider their decision not to lay a State-owned cable. Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman that this State-owned cable is not only advocated by New Zealand, and that the suggestion was brought forward by Australia at the Imperial Conference, but it is also backed up by the Empire Press Union, which is supported by the leading editors of journals, on both sides in politics, in nearly every part of the Empire. This is entirely a non-party matter, the consideration of which has been considerably altered by the developments which have taken place since the Imperial Conference. There are so many things in conection with this cable that have altered since the Conference that I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to call this subsidiary conference. I cabled, when I was in Canada, from Toronto to Sir Joseph Ward, who was Prime Minister of New Zealand, telling him what the Postmaster-General of Canada had said, and asking him whether New Zealand was still in favour of the Atlantic cable, and his reply was:—
New Zealand strongly favours laying State Atlantic cable.
I have since then had confirmation by letter, in which he also says:—
I am glad to surmise that this matter of a State-owned Atlantic cable is being pushed on.
§ In view of the fact that all the cables connecting us with the rest of the Empire across the Atlantic are at present owned by foreign companies, that the amount of traffic going over the Pacific cable has increased enormously in the last two years from 1,300,000 words to over 2,000,000 words; that there is a railway company now in course of construction, which will be completed very soon, across Canada, which could take these messages in Canada, and even if that failed that the Railway Commission in Canada has complete control over telegraphs, and, therefore, could also make arrangements that the other companies would be compelled to collect and deliver messages over the State cable; and in view of the fact that it only cost £500,000 to lay this cable, which, after all, is only the price of an unarmoured cruiser, and when one considers that that cost is not to be borne by the Mother-country only, but is to be borne by New Zealand, Australia, Canada, and the Mother-country, I say that the cost is ridiculously small, and that the arguments for it are exceedingly strong. I would beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman why the Government have not taken steps to call the subsidiary conference which was promised at the Imperial Conference last year?
§ Mr. AMERYI think the hon. Member (Mr. Croft) has done a really useful service in drawing attention to the neglect on the part of the Government of their administrative responsibilities in promoting the organisation of the Empire. I know the Speaker has ruled that we are not to discuss legislative questions to-day, and I fully admit that a discussion of the details or character of a preferential tariff would not be in order, but I submit that the administrative action of the Government in refusing to allow the Imperial Commission which they promised at the last Conference even to inquire into the question does justify us in dealing, at any rate, with the most general aspects of it. After all, while the actual execution of the work of Imperial organisation in detail will involve legislation here and in other parts of the British Empire, our complaint is not the absence or defect of this or that law, but of the general attitude of passivity, reluctance, and inaction on the part of the Government, not only towards the proposals for Preference, but towards any and every proposal which seems calculated to foster and strengthen the unity of the Empire. Let me take, for instance, 1197 the question of this Commission itself. It was understood that the Commissioners would be appointed immediately after the Conference. The Conference took place many months since. We gather from the Government that nothing is happening, but that they are still waiting for the names of some Commissioners. Apparently they consider it the duty of the Dominions to press forward the Commission, and not their duty to get the matter into working order. Again, on this question of cables, it is clear, not only as regards New Zealand, but as regards Canada, that it is we in this country who are lagging behind, and surely if hon. Gentlemen opposite are so strongly opposed to the one particular method of unifying the Empire which we believe in have they not an even greater responsibility in pressing forward other alternative remedies which are not in conflict with any shibboleth? There was a very important Debate in the House of Commons at Ottawa on 29th February, in which it was clear that both the Opposition, as represented by Mr. Lemieux, the late Postmaster-General, and the Government, as represented by the present Postmaster-General, are in favour of much more active work in connection with the Atlantic cable service than the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Herbert Samuel). May I quote a few words from the speech of the present Postmaster-General, Mr. Pelletier:—
We desire to trade with the Mother-country, and in order to carry on that trade with facility we must have cable communication at the cheapest cost possible. Of course, the day may come—and the day will come—when the Mother-country will have some kind of reciprocal relations with the Colony.He added that that was not the business of the Department, but he made it quite clear that he, as well as Mr. Lemieux, was in favour of an active line on this question of the Atlantic cable, and he also made it clear in an extract which he read from the letters of the right hon. Gentleman that it is this country, as represented by the present Government, which is not playing up. He said:—I do not wish to say anything in criticism of the Postmaster-General of England, but I am bound to give the facts to the House.He ended by saying:—I repeat my expression of regret at the attitude taken up by Mr. Samuel.I think we can only in this House repeat our expression of regret. Surely Gentlemen of every shade of thought will admit that, both from the point of view of trade and of strategy, anything which can 1198 facilitate communication does enormously strengthen trade and strengthens our defensive position. The same applies to cables and to the question of the All-Red Route. That was brought forward five years ago as an alternative and met with a very cool reception from the present Government. During all this time not a single step, as far as we have ever been able to ascertain, has been taken by the Government even to inquire seriously into the advantages and the possibilities of a really fast steamship service between this country and Canada, and between Canada and the Imperial possessions in the Pacific. Surely, while we are withdrawing our Navy more and more from the Pacific and from the Mediterranean and concentrating in home waters, it is all the more urgent that we should be in the most rapid communication with the outlying parts of the Empire and that we should have fast steamers which would serve either for the carriage of troops or which might in emergency act as cruisers for the protection of our mercantile trade. Again, the question of the Suez Canal was brought forward more than once at recent Conferences. The opening of the Panama Canal is going seriously to shift the world's trade, and at our expense, unless we take means to counteract it. We have got a great interest, as a Government, in the Suez Canal. An immense volume of trade going to the rest of the Empire passes through there and is handicapped by heavy tolls. Surely it will not be against the principles of the right hon. Gentlemen opposite to listen to the representations made by the Australasian Colonies on more than one occasion and see if something cannot be done either to reduce or else to repay in part or in whole the Suez Canal dues to British ships.Again, the whole question of Preference in the Crown Colonies is not a question of legislation at all, but of the administrative action of the Government. It has been suggested by an hon. Member that from the financial point of view it would be unworkable. Is he aware that there are several Crown Colonies at this moment where a preferential system is at work, namely, the Protectorates in South Africa, which have the same preferential system in operation as the self-governing Dominion of the Union? Has he also forgotten the fact that a Commission appointed by this Government have expressed themselves in 1199 favour of such a preferential arrangement as between the West Indies and Canada. Surely we have here a very strong case indeed for blaming this Government—the right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench—for administrative neglect towards these great Imperial problems. Our objections are, I venture to submit, brought forward at an opportune time, because we hold, at any rate, on this side of the House—and I think that really our views are shared by many hon. Members on the other side of the House, who do not agree with us generally—that in the long run you can only solve the great problems with which you are faced—the problem of defence, and the problem of social unrest—by some measure for the greater organisation of this Empire.
Let us, after all, consider this question of social unrest with which we have been brought into such close and painful contact during the past few weeks. I do not wish to discuss the particular question of coal mines, but I would say that I do feel some dislike at the way in which the pressure of one powerful organised section of the workers led to agile deference on the part of the House of Commons in the matter of legislation, whereas the question as it affects millions of people outside is still waiting for some action to meet their needs. Here we have in this small country a large population and a total volume of production inadequate to supply that population with a reasonable real wage. I put some questions to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade the other day, and from the replies it is clear that the net output of our industries amounts to just over £700,000,000, and the gross output to £1,700,000,000. Out of that £700,000,000 before the workers receive any remuneration whatever you have to take profits, the cost of management, interest, rent, rates, taxes, depreciation, replacement of machinery, insurance, and advertisement. I tried to ascertain from the hon. Member what proportion of the whole these items might amount to. He was unable to give an answer, but I consulted various business men, and they say that the minimum to cover all these different items would be 20 per cent. on the gross output, that is to say, £352,000,000. Subtract that from £712,000,000, which is the net output, and you have barely £360,000,000 left to furnish wages to 7,000,000 workers—in other words, barely 1200 an average of £1 a week for the workers of this country. Unless you increase the total production of the country, you cannot increase the real remuneration of the workers, and you cannot really cope with the problem of industrial unrest. I say that, side by side with any efforts made to deal directly with the grievances of the workers, the Government ought to have been more vigilant and active in trying to bring about the business organisation of the Empire, by which alone they can really increase the total production of this country, and thereby the total remuneration given to the workers of this country.
If I may compare the figures I have mentioned with those of the United States, I would point out that there you have among 10,000,000 workers a net output in the same industries of some £1,700,000,000—in other words, you have £170 per head per year as against £100 per head of the workers in this country, and the proportion between these figures is very close to the comparison between the real wages in the two countries, because, after all, real wages and production are the same thing. The workers live on what they produce. I know that hon. Members opposite say that the United States are a new and vast country, and that they have illimitable resources of raw material which we have not got in this crowded old country here; but our answer is, that if the United States are a new and vast country, the British Empire is newer and vaster, and that if we are a crowded and old industrial country here, it is also true that the Eastern States of the American nation, such as Massachusetts and New York, are as old, industrially, as Lancashire or Yorkshire. The reason why the conditions are different there is that the old States on the Atlantic seaboard are part of one great business organisation, so that every new development in the farthest part of the United States, and every new development in the Philippines and Porto Rico, enures to the benefit of those working under those conditions. All we are arguing for, and all we press this Government to do, is as an Administration to consider whether we cannot improve the conditions of the workers of this country by linking up their willing hands to the boundless resources that exist in other parts of the Empire. I know that objections are urged that you would be increasing the cost of living and 1201 reducing the real wage. There are really two different questions. There is the question of the price to the consumer here, which is of vital importance to us in this country, and the question to the farmer in Canada or Australia, which is not what price the consumer here pays but what profit he gets.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Maclean)It seems to me that the hon. Gentleman is actually trenching on the work to be done by the Commission, and that does not arise on this Debate.
§ Mr. AMERYAt the beginning Mr. Speaker ruled that any reference to preferential legislation would be out of order, but I understand that he did allow that the question of Colonial Preference in quite general terms could be discussed. We are dealing with the Executive inaction of the Government in not even inquiring into this matter. They have refused to allow Preference with the other parts of the Empire to be inquired into.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERIt is quite in order for the hon. Member to deal generally with the question, but the work of the Commission must, of course, be left to the Commission. I must ask the hon. Member to confine his remarks to what was referred to in the early portion of the Debate, namely, the question of administration. Beyond that I cannot allow him to go.
Sir GILBERT PARKERMay I ask your ruling on the point whether it would not be permissible for my hon. Friend or any other Member to refer to the Reference to the Commission and to the subjects which they will be expected to inquire into and discuss?
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERI will deal with the point when it arises.
§ 2.0 P.M.
§ Mr. AMERYI do not wish to pursue that particular argument, but I think we can say that the general question of the business organisation of the Empire is vitally connected with the question of our social conditions in this country. A particular remedy may or may not involve legislation, and in deference to your ruling I will not touch on particular remedies, but I do think that it ought to be a matter of common agreement on all sides of this House to promote the business organisation of the Empire. To bring together the Empire in trade development in every part is a matter which is of the very first interest to every social reformer, because it 1202 gives him the groundwork of an efficient production, on which alone the superstructure of further social reform can be based. If an Imperial organisation is of the first interest to social reformers in this country, it is of no less interest to those who are concerned with the great problem of defence. We have listened within the last few days to the Naval Estimates. On every side of the House there was acquiescence, a sombre acquiescence in some parts, as to the absolute necessity of paying these enormous sums for the maintenance of our security and of our trade. The Chancellor of the Exchequer indicated only yesterday that even further sums may be required this year. How much further is this going to go on? How much longer are we in this country, with only £700,000,000 net production, to bear Naval and Military Estimates which swell out our Budgets to something like £200,000,000? It is appalling to contemplate a tax of £200,000,000 on a net production of £700,000,000 and a gross production of £1,700,000,000. Yet every side of the House has come to the conclusion that there is no good in protesting against these armaments as long as the general situation of the world is what it is to-day. If we cannot devolve the burdens from our shoulders, cannot we do something to broaden the shoulders which have to bear them? Cannot we call a new world of Empire into being to redress the balance of the old world in which we are being weighed down? Ought we not to welcome every proposal, however much it may conflict with our natural prejudices, which would endeavour to make it easier for the Dominions to help us in bearing this burden of defence? We know that they are willing. We know, on the other hand, that they are still in the stage of development, and that their surplus wealth is limited. We also know that in many ways the full extent of their interest in the Empire has not been brought home to them. Here again surely every measure which brings Canadians into closer contact with Englishmen, makes them understand the requirements of the Empire more, makes them more willing to play a part in the defence of the Empire. Every measure which increases the volume of trade between Canada and England, increases the direct interest of Canada in the sea supremacy of the Empire. Again, every measure, whatever it may be, which increases the volume of goods bought by this country from Canada adds to the population 1203 and economic resources of Canada and adds to her power of contributing to the defence of the Empire. To these considerations we appeal. We ask you to consider the bearing of Imperial unity upon the narrower problems that we have to confront here at home, and if the Government are not prepared to introduce the legislation which we desire on this side of the House, at any rate we do feel that they might do a great deal more in other directions which they have not done, and might at least in their administrative action show a greater activity, a greater readiness to act, and a greater measure of sympathy for Imperial proposals than they have shown in the past.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELPerhaps it would be convenient if at this juncture I said a few words with respect to the specific question affecting my Department which has been raised during the discussion to-day: the question of cable rates with special reference to the advisability of the construction of a State-owned Atlantic cable. The Government, of course, do not differ in any degree from hon. Members who have raised this question as to the importance to the Empire—the political, strategic, and commercial importance of cheap and rapid means of communication. They are indeed quite essential to the maintenance of the unity of the Empire, and to the drawing of its parts closer together. If our Empire had still to rely for its communication upon sailing ships, it is very doubtful whether its unity would have been so long maintained. If it had to rely only on the steamer, its continued existence would have been perhaps difficult. It is the cable which, more than any other one thing perhaps has contributed to the closer Imperial unity which now exists, and in which all parties in this House rejoice. For my part, so sensible have I been of these facts that since I have held the office of Postmaster-General I have been continually at work with a view to securing the reductions in the cable rates, and I am very happy to think that I have been successful in several directions in effecting those reductions. But before I refer to them I might point to the fact, which has not been mentioned in the discussion to-day, that more important than any reductions in the particular rates to the commercial community at large, has been a change which was 1204 effected at the last International Telegraph Conference. At that conference the use of artificial code words was sanctioned. The result of that has been that a single word sent in code across the cable is now able to contain within itself four, five, six, and sometimes as many as seven or eight ordinary words. The commercial community has derived more advantage from that change than from any reduction in rates, even as great as those that have been suggested here to-day. With regard to rates themselves, I may point out as regards the rates for code traffic that although per word the cost may seem great in effect it is not really at present very expensive. The rate of a shilling a word across the Atlantic is in practice to the commercial community a rate of not, on an average, more than about twopence or threepence per word of plain-language telegrams, and similarly the two shilling code rate to Australia is in practice a rate of perhaps fourpence or sixpence a word for plain-word telegrams. Where the rates press heavily is in respect of plain-language social telegrams, as they are usually called. With regard to them a very large proportion are not of an urgent character; they are communications which cannot wait to be sent as letters, but they are not urgent from the point of view of minutes or even of hours. Therefore I have concentrated my attention on endeavouring to induce the cable company to give reductions in plain-language telegrams which are not of an urgent character, and reductions of very large amounts.
Those efforts, I am happy to say, have been successful. They have not been small reductions as the hon. Member for Christchurch suggested. They have been reductions of 50 per cent., and whereas a year ago it cost 1s. a word to send any kind of telegram, except Press telegrams, across the Atlantic, now any plain-language telegram of a non-urgent character can be sent at 6d. a word. The rates to Australia have been reduced from 3s. to 1s. 6d., and now, throughout the world, this class of telegram can be sent at a reduction of 50 per cent. on the previous rate. Further than that, one of the great groups of American companies has given even larger reductions in respect of telegrams of a certain length which are dispatched at night, and others which are dispatched during the week-end—reductions even exceeding 50 per cent., and these new facilities have been largely 1205 made between this country and Canada, and between this country and the United States. Similar considerations apply to Press telegrams. Many of them are not of an urgent character, for the reason that delay would not really affect their use; and here, also, I have secured reductions throughout the Empire of 50 per cent. or more in deferred Press rates. The rate to Canada, instead of 5d. is now 2½d.; the rate to Australia and New Zealand, by the Pacific route, instead of 9d. is now 4½d.; and the rate to South Africa, instead of 9d. is now 3½d. It may be said that it is essential that the Press should have their news hot and without any delay of any kind before any part of it is transmitted. That is not the view of the Press itself.
I have been able to obtain figures from the Pacific Cable Board, and I find that during the month of February—the latest figures that I have received—the Press have sent more telegrams to Australia at the deferred rate of 4½d. than were sent at the urgent rate of 9d., so that this facility was used to the extent of nearly 30,000 words during the month, and the ordinary Press telegrams were about 1,000 words fewer. The exact figures are 28,913 words deferred, and 28,095 words ordinary. With a view to improving the strategic communications of the Empire, and also to enable Press rates to be reduced, I have entered into arrangements, as the House is aware, with the Marconi Company for the erection of a chain of wireless stations to connect this country with India, Australia, and New Zealand at a total cost of over half a million pounds, which, we believe, will be of importance from a naval and military point of view, but which will also, we anticipate, enable the rates to be reduced for wireless telegrams, and at the same time will not be unremunerative to the Governments which are partners in this enterprise. It is a plan which will place the British Empire far in advance of any country in the world respecting wireless telegraphy. Hon Members opposite are in favour of a specific which would achieve more than this, and their specific is to construct a State-owned cable between this country and Canada. Let me say, in the first place, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that when I raised a point of Order on this matter, I only did so for the sake of information, and I was in no degree desirous of preventing discussion on the subject. On the contrary, I welcome this opportunity of making to the House a somewhat fuller, though I 1206 hope still brief statement, than I have been able to do previously in answer to questions. There are two reasons which hon. Members opposite give for their proposal of a particular cable across the Atlantic.
The first is the strategical reason. The hon. Member for Christchurch, who raised this discussion, said that it was a danger to the Empire that our cable should go across the Atlantic and should be in the hands of American companies, and that there was a risk of our strategic secrets, that was his phrase, being made known to other countries through this circumstance. How are our secrets to be made known? Does the hon. Gentleman really imagine that Admiralty telegrams are sent in plain language? Has he got in his mind's eye a telegram from the Admiralty to the commander of the Fleet on some Canadian station, that war is imminent and that the Fleet should concentrate at such-and-such a point? Does he really suppose some employé of the American company will be a[...]le to hand this over to some American newspaper, or to some person who is adverse to our interests?
§ Major ARCHER-SHEEI am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but I would call his attention to the fact that no cipher code is a secret at the present time, and that it is known to all leading telegraph experts that practically every single code can be deciphered if the message is of sufficient volume.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELIf the message is of sufficient volume. I should be sorry to think that our Admiralty communications which are sent throughout the world in cipher could be deciphered by foreign governments that may be interested in their contents. However that may be, as a matter of fact, all these cables, controlled as they are by foreign companies, land on British territory on the other side of the Atlantic, and if we were engaged in any hostility with a foreign country on the other side of the Atlantic, which, of course, is in the highest degree improbable, there is no doubt that emergency measures would have to be taken for the protection of our communications. But I believe the contingency is so remote that it is not one to which the Government need attach any importance.
§ Mr. CROFTI did not wish to insinuate that there was any possibility of war; I was only referring to the undesirability of 1207 having any strategic secret going to different parts of the Empire, even with the neutrality of the United States. It is not a question of war with the United States.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELThe hon. Member, I think, spoke, first, as to whether we were at war with some European country, and, secondly, whether the sending of a cipher telegram which could be deciphered by an employé of an American company, who might communicate with the European Power if we were at war. Really such a contingency is so remote that I do not think this House should make any costly provision to meet it. The second reason which is advanced as a ground for laying a State-owned cable across the Atlantic is that it would enable us to reduce the rates. That is, of course, the prime motive for this proposal. In the first place, I adhere to the position which I took up at the Imperial Conference that a State-owned cable across the Atlantic would undoubtedly be run at a loss. The reasons are these: It remains the fact that it could obtain no constant and certain volume of Canadian business, for the reason that the land lines in Canada are not the property of the Canadian companies, but belong to groups of companies which are in close connection and alliance with the cable companies; and if the cable companies were to be subjected to a rate-cutting competition by the State it is certain that the allied companies which controlled the land lines of Canada would not give facilities to the cablegrams which passed across the State-owned cable, and would not assist the Post Office in this country to undercut the companies with which they are in alliance. But the hon. Member says there is one company which is not so tied, the Grand Trunk Lines of Canada, and they have communications with several of the chief towns of Canada. The facilities that would be offered by that company and by the companies with which it is allied would, I am sure, be quite inadequate to furnish a general service throughout the Dominion of Canada. The Post Office of this country could not possibly put itself in the position of offering to the business community of England facilities for communication by a State-owned cable only to certain towns in Canada. We could not put up a notice in the Post Office to the effect that communications could only be sent to those towns in Canada, and that anyone who wished to connect with any other town must go 1208 to some private company with which we are in competition. That is not a position in which we could place ourselves. The fact remains that we could not get land connections in Canada to such an extent as to secure that we should be able to enter into competition with the other companies in the large volume of Canadian business, nor could we send across from this side any large volume of business, even if we could get those connections, because we have an old standing agreement with the Anglo-American Company, which was entered into by the Government at the time when the telegraphs were taken over by the State, and which provides that all unordered traffic—that is, traffic which is not directed to a particular line—shall be sent by the lines of the Anglo-American Company.
§ Major ARCHER-SHEEmade an observation which was inaudible.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELThat would be a very strong step indeed.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELI believe there is no specific provision for determining it at any particular date, but it might have to be considered how far it would be legitimate to deprive the company of facilities which they were given years-ago, and which were originally given as an inducement for capitalists to come forward and to lay any Atlantic cable at all in days when the enterprise was exceedingly speculative. The Pacific cable traffic would be assured to such a new company. That traffic would amount to something between a million and a million and a quarter words, while the average loading of the existing Atlantic cables is two and a half million words or upwards. In other words, if the State-owned cable was to rely only on the Pacific cable traffic, it would do half as much business as any of the existing cables, which are loaded only to the extent of half their capacity. The average loading—that is, the average traffic—of the Atlantic cable is two and a half million words per year, while their capacity is somewhere between five and five and a half million. The cost of an Atlantic cable would be about half a million pounds if you laid only one, but these cables are liable to interruption, and if there were interruption in that one Government cable we should have to depend on the kindness and good will of 1209 the companies with which we were in active competition to carry out traffic during that time. Of course interruptions do occur to all cables from time to time. My advisers assure me on the best estimate they can form, and it is an estimate by no means weighted against the proposal, but what they regard as fair and proper, that the annual cost of the maintenance and working of such a cable, including sinking fund and interest charges, would be about £50,000 per year, and the probable revenue would be about £25,000 per year. That estimate was made a little while ago and perhaps now it might be increased somewhat. Therefore there would most certainly be a loss on this cable, so we estimate, approaching 50 per cent. of the expenditure upon it. In this House we are continually appealed to by hon. Members opposite to limit our State expenditure. Whenever questions of taxation are raised we have urgent appeals for national economy and for the limitation of expenditure generally.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELI know hon. Members may urge that this is necessary State expenditure, but the fact remains that I do not think that during the two years I have been Postmaster-General I have received a single suggestion from any Member of the Opposition side of the House, or indeed from any quarter of the House, which has not involved in greater or less degree an increase of national expenditure, or which has not involved a loss of some economy which I have been trying to effect. Hero, at all events, the Government can see no reason for incurring what they regard as a certain loss in order to achieve results which can be achieved without any risk of loss at all. Perhaps I may be wrong in regard to the period of the Anglo-American Agreement. I am informed it is thought that it may expire in the year 1928. Therefore I am very glad to assure hon. Members that we shall not be bound for all time, but 1928 is far enough away to prevent us acting now with a view to the reductions that may be effected at that time.
The hon. Member for Central Finsbury (Major Archer-Shee) said that we have got now the whole of the Atlantic traffic in the control of two groups of companies, and that, though it was true that those two groups are now engaged in active competition, that at any time they might 1210 combine, and, having combined, they might rearrange their rates to our disadvantage, to use his own phrase. He has completely left out of account the measure which I have recently taken which secures Government control of cable rates, and which is the greatest advance in this matter, I venture to say, which has been made by any Administration for very many years past. Almost all the landing licences of the Atlantic cable companies have come up for renewal within the last year or two, all of them except that, I think, of the Direct United States Company, which has only one line to the States. I refused to renew any of them except with the insertion of a clause to the effect that the Government here, the Postmaster-General, is to have the right to call on those companies to reduce their rates. The companies are given an appeal to the Railway and Canal Commission to protect them against any unreasonable demand that might be made upon them. The hon. Members who have dealt with this question have made no reference whatever to this most important step, a step which makes it quite impossible for any combination of Atlantic cable companies to raise their rates to the disadvantage of the community. When the combination was effected and when the American group took over the lines of the Anglo-American Company and the United States Company, this matter became one of urgent importance, and I regarded, with a certain measure of equanimity, the possibility of combination between the various interests; because I had secured absolute Government control over rates which would render it quite impossible for any trust to be formed to raise rates against the interests of the commercial community and the rest of the nation.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELThey last for varying periods of years, but the control of rates is not at the moment of renewal, but is a continuing control; and at any time during the currency of the licence it may be, if necessary and if found advisable, put into operation. I am not proposing to put this control into immediate operation, in view of the fact that the companies have voluntarily made such very large reductions in their rates quite recently. But after we have had some little time in which the effect of those reductions can be observed the question will 1211 come up for consideration whether the present rates for Press telegrams and urgent messages should not require to be revised under the powers which are now conferred upon the Postmaster-General in this country.
Let me point out, lastly, what has been the fate of this proposal for a State-owned Atlantic cable on almost every occasion when it has been recently discussed and when the powerful arguments against it have been fairly and adequately stated. The proposal was first made to the Imperial Conference. There was on the agenda paper a specific resolution, in the name of the Governments of Australia and New Zealand, asking the Conference to decide in favour of a State-owned Atlantic cable. When the Conference had heard and was fully seized of the risks and disadvantages of this proposal, and was made aware of the alternative steps that might be taken without a State-owned Atlantic cable, the resolution was withdrawn, and a resolution, which I myself moved, and which has been referred to to-day, was substituted for it. That resolution provided that if considerable reductions in Atlantic cable rates were not made, the question should be again considered. What was meant by "considerable reductions"? I stated clearly to the Conference precisely what reductions were contemplated. The report does not refer to the Press telegram reduction, because that, at the time, was confidential. I stated quite clearly to the Conference what were the reductions that I was endeavouring to procure, and it was on my statement, followed by my resolution, the terms of which were based upon my statement, the original resolution was withdrawn. The Conference was fully aware that the considerable reductions referred to in the resolution were the reductions which I was then endeavouring to secure, and which have since, in fact, been effected.
§ Major ARCHER-SHEEAt the same time is it not the fact that neither Canada nor New Zealand is satisfied with those reductions?
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELI am happy to think that our Dominion Governments are not yet in such a state of atrophy that they are likely to be satisfied with any reductions, and that in all parts of the Empire, whatever is received, we shall be glad to have more. Neither I nor the 1212 Colonial Secretary has had any intimation from the Dominions asking us to call the subsidiary conference referred to in the resolution, and, in view of the fact that the reductions contemplated at the time the resolution was moved have been since in fact effected, I am sure that the Dominions are not likely to make any such proposal. The matter was brought up in the Canadian House of Commons on 29th February last. Hon Members opposite have suggested that the Canadian Postmaster-General is in favour of their proposal. He has been quoted as a supporter of their plans and as a critic of my objections. The case is not so. The Canadian Postmaster - General indeed regrets that further reductions than those already made are not yet in contemplation, and very naturally so. Why should he not desire continuous and always increasing reductions in the cable rates? But so far as the State-owned Atlantic cable is concerned, these are his words in the Canadian House of Commons:—
I do not think it will be necessary to have a State-owned cable. There are many heavy drains on the public Treasury of Canada. In this young country we have to expend a great deal of money to keep pace with the progress of the times, so that if we can dispense with the expenditure on a State-owned cable the money thus saved can very well be applied elsewhere.So that Mr. Pelletier, the Canadian Postmaster-General, himself has declared that his view is the same as my own, and that a State-owned cable is unnecessary. In view of these circumstances, I do not see how hon. Members opposite can say that we are lagging behind Canada in this matter. Next, a proposal was made a few days ago at a meeting of the Associated Chambers of Commerce of this county, when a resolution calling upon the Government to lay a State-owned cable was proposed for their acceptance. My hon. Friend the Member for the Hawick Burghs (Sir J. Barran) was good enough at my request to attend the Conference and to state the objections to the proposal. The objections in themselves were so cogent, and they were stated by my hon. Friend with such force, that there again the resolution was withdrawn, and the Conference passed no resolution on the lines suggested. In view of all these circumstances, and in view of the fact also that wireless telegraphy is making great progress and has undoubtedly a great future, I think this House would be in the highest degree ill-advised to press upon the Government this large capital expenditure and considerable contingent annual liability, 1213 when the result which we all desire, namely, the reduction of cable rates, has already been in large degree achieved, and can be in future achieved in yet a larger degree by other methods which do not involve this expenditure and these risks.
Sir GILBERT PARKERWhile listening to the Postmaster-General, my mind went back to the days when he and I and others were engaged in doing what my hon. Friends have been doing to-day. I could almost hear the echoes of the voices of old Postmaster-Generals in his own. It seems to me that he who has proved himself in some things a very progressive Postmaster - General, is being overwhelmed by the accumulations of the old traditions which have prevented Postmaster-Generals in the past from doing what he and I believed was their duty. The Postmaster's statement and excuse were able, as most of his statements and his excuses are. The Government are past masters in making excuses. They have the ability to make them, and the inclination. But I think the case is not wholly sound regarding a State-owned cable. One reason given was that the Canadian Government would be placed in this difficulty, namely, that not owning the land lines, those land lines might in fact hold up the Government and this country in regard to their State-owned cable. But is it not the case that the Railway Commission of Canada has control of that matter as well as of the railway rates, and that therefore that particular reason falls to the ground. The question is really whether this Government is willing, because of the reasons in favour of it, to establish a State-owned cable, and whether Canada is willing to do the same. Would the Government be willing to establish a State-owned cable if Canada, in connection with New Zealand and Australia, agreed that it was a good thing to do? They did agree it was a good thing to do, and they pressed it on the Government. Why did they withdraw the Resolution? We know perfectly well why.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELCanada did not propose it.
Sir GILBERT PARKERBut Canada supported it in principle. Why was it withdrawn? Because of the promises made by the Postmaster-General. The right hon. Gentleman made promises and gave pledges, or what were equivalent to pledges. He is satisfied with what has 1214 been produced. But that the question was-raised in the Parliament of the Dominion of Canada is in itself evidence that the Members of that Parliament are not satisfied. How can they be? The right hon. Gentleman speaks of the enormous reductions that have been made. I am not an authority upon the details of this business, but I will ask the right hon. Gentleman to remember the circular issued by the Empire Press Union in January last, which has no doubt come into his hands, and in which, not the newspapers belonging to the party to which I belong, but the newspapers representing his party, like the "Daily Chronicle," and others, have stated authoritatively that these reductions—I regret if it is so—are not adequate, and do not meet the case. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me why it is that an urgent Press message to Australia costs 9d., and that the Pacific Cable Board is given 3d. for carrying it from Montreal to Australian ports, whereas the cable companies of the Atlantic get 5d. for carrying the message 3,000 miles the other representing 10,000 miles?
How can we be quite satisfied with these admirable arrangements, which the right hon. Gentleman, I know, has done his best to secure? That they are satisfactory he must first get evidence to prove from the newspapers of this country and the commercial people of this country, and from the newspapers and the commercial people of Canada. It is for him to get evidence from them, for his statement to-day is not wholly sound. I do not believe it is wholly sound. That Monsieur Pelletier, the Postmaster-General of Canada, said it is not necessary to build this State-aided cable is no reply. He did not say, "I do not believe in it." He said what the right hon. Gentleman was glad to hear him say, that from the evidence at his disposal he thought it was unnecessary now to build that cable, because of other urgent expenditure. The right hon. Gentleman does not wish to build it, I presume, because of the question of expense. He certainly would not consider it inadvisable to have a State-aided cable to keep our strategic secrets on our own wires. He does not oppose it in principle. He judges it from the point of expediency and expenditure. Well, then, will the right hon. Gentleman tell me why in his own Department he gives the Canadian Pacific Railway large sums, as a representative of his Department told me in this House, independent of the postal services 1215 rendered by that railway, and as the President of the Board of Education said, for Imperial purposes? Why does his own Department, as an established principle, pay money for Imperial purposes and not for direct services rendered? There is 135,000 dollars lost per year to this country—lost on paper—because of the non-establishment of this State-aided cable.
The right hon. Gentleman himself knows that we were told by two late Postmasters-General, in response to deputations which he and I attended, that money would be lost, and that therefore they could not establish cheaper postal rates. His reply and mine was that we ought to do it for Imperial purposes. That is what we are asking for to-day. That a State-aided cable would be a good thing for the Empire is undoubted. That it would not pay at first is very likely, as the reduction of the postage on newspapers did not pay at first—I do not know whether it is paying now. Notwithstanding that the right hon. Gentleman comes to this House and makes his defence on Imperial grounds. He does not wish to burden his Government with the expense of £25,000 per year, which would only be the initial expense, in order to establish a much greater thing, because it would protect the Admiralty and the Government in time of peace and war from the invasion of their secrets by other Governments, besides establishing better commercial communication with our own overseas Dominions. The right hon. Gentleman said that he could not see how it would very much benefit merchants on this side of the Atlantic. What about merchants on the other side? Trade does not always run one way. It runs both ways. Does anyone venture to say that if Canada with the United Kingdom established a State-aided cable, with control of their own land lines, as they could have by having control over their rates, that commerce would not be advantaged by it? You would be able, then, to secure a reduction in rates without this continual—not negotiation alone, but threatening—because I hope that the right hon. Gentleman has used the "big stick" occasionally in regard to these cable rates. It is possible, too, for this House always to abrogate any agreement for national purposes. It is not necessary in the case of the Anglo-American Company's Agreement, because it will, I understand, end in 1928. Meanwhile the right hon. Gentleman has the power in his hands, and would have power if 1216 that agreement were not going to end in 1928 to denounce it, and to secure better terms for the traders of this country and the traders of the overseas Dominions. I pass from that subject for the moment to another more strictly concerned with the Secretary of State for the Colonies. I do not see on the face of the right hon. Gentleman to-day that look—I will not call it superciliousness—in regard to great trade questions which affect the Empire that I saw last year when I ventured in a very few words to refer to closer trade relations and the proposed preference. The right hon. Gentleman gave the party to which I belong his own views, and did his fellow Members the honour to say that they had "trotted out the old nag for an airing." I could not congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the choice of his epithets on that ocasion or upon the humour that underlay his speech. He has heard to-day, however, the same kind of statement or speech that I would have made in a far more expansive form, and certainly in a form which everyone who listened must commend, because at any rate, whether the right hon. Gentleman agrees or disagrees to the policy which we advocate, he and his colleagues in the Government—
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERThe hon. Member is trenching upon a subject which has been twice ruled out of order.
Sir GILBERT PARKERI was not going to pursue the subject, but I believe that the Under-Secretary of the Board of Trade is going to reply upon the question.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERIf the Under-Secretary to the Board of Trade dealt with that point he would be out of order.
Sir GILBERT PARKERWell, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I was only going to say what I did say to lead up to a point upon which I think I shall find that I am inorder—
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERThe hon. Member has no need to deal with a subject which is out of order in order to lead up to his point.
Sir GILBERT PARKERI was going to say nothing further than to give my reasons for having touched upon the point. I was coming to this point—the appointment of the Commission which the Government is about to appoint to inquire into the trade resources of this Empire. And my reason for raising it was the 1217 answer given to a Member of this House on the other side yesterday by the Colonial Secretary to this effect, that the Reference did not include India or the Crown Colonies. The reason I raise that point is this, that it is an Executive act, and I think it is a mistake if the Government have settled upon that course, because I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman how that Commission can possibly fulfil the duties which will be placed upon its shoulders if there is not, within the scope of its inquiry, not alone the oversea Dominions, which have responsible Government, tout also the Crown Colonies so closely associated to those Dominions. For instance, the Government appointed a Commission to inquire into the trade of the West Indies and Canada. They did not exclude from the terms of Reference of that Commission any fiscal question. That Commission reported, and, in dealing with the resources of the Colonies and the relations of these West Indian Colonies with Canada, they had regard to the fiscal relation. In appointing this Commission it was quite certain that those who represented the oversea Dominions at the last Conference desired that the whole question not only of the resources but of the relations between the different Colonies and their resources, should be raised, because Sir Wilfrid Laurier, in his speech, used these words:—
By way of illustration, I may say here that our relations in Canada with our brothers in Australia are not as satisfactory as they ought to be. We have been trying to get a mutual preference treatment, but we have not been able to do so; and I strongly hope such a Commission as I have indicated will be able to come to the end which we have not reached up to the present time.It is quite clear the then Prime Minister of Canada had in his mind that in appointing a Commission this Government should exclude no subject that affected the commercial relations of the Dominions with this country, and, what is just as important, the commercial relations and development of the resources of the oversea Dominions with each other. If we are going to have an inquiry into the resources of the oversea Dominions, we must make inquiry also into the use to be made of these resources and the development of the profit to be got from these resources. How can you have useful judgment or a Report from a Commission appointed which is told it must not make any inquiry into the resources of the different oversea Dominions, have no regard to what use these resources can be put, and how inter-trading among the oversea 1218 Dominions can be advanced by any executive means of any Government and of all Governments? The fact is that the right hon. Gentleman himself, with his usual ability and suavity, was able to gain his end in that Conference and to secure a resolution, the final words of which I believe would make that Commission absolutely powerless to make any Report of value to this country or to the Empire at large if it was rigidly followed in the letter and was not liberally interpreted in the spirit. Here are the words:—And by what means, consistent with the existing policy of each Power, the trade of each Power with the other may be improved and extended?If the right hon. Gentleman had said that, having regard to the fiscal independence of each portion of this Empire inquiry might be made by that Commission as to whether between these portions of these Colonies which have similar fiscal policies the Report might be made—if they would make a Report upon the policy of these oversea Dominions that have similar fiscal policies, I should be satisfied, because they cannot deal with that unless they deal with the possibility of our changing our policy and what might be the result if all the oversea Dominions with similar policies were to come to an understanding in the development of their resources with the Mother-country as to closer commercial relations on the principle of preference, which the Government has apparently excluded from its reference to this Commission. That was the point I wished to raise, and I trust the right hon. Gentleman will see from the trend of public events how much fairer it would really be to raise the whole question, and if he is sure of his ground he will not hesitate to do so and make the reference to this Commission so wide as that these questions can be included. Finally, I want to say a word in reference to the question raised by my hon. Friends in regard to the Crown Colonies and Trade Commissioners. I think it is a mistake for the right hon. Gentleman not to encourage the appointment of Trade Commissioners in the Colonies and the appointment of Trade Commissioners from this country to our Colonies. Why should these authorities concerned with great resources and immensely great possibilities, as the previous development of the West Indies show, be excluded from developing their trade with this country by a lack of these facilities which in our larger way we find necessary for the development of our trade with foreign countries. We have 1219 got to begin somewhere. We ought not to take from the policy of our Crown Colonies a system of advantage which this Government has used in connection with foreign countries and with our oversea Dominions that have responsible governments. I think the somewhat cavalier way in which the right hon. Gentleman treated the question yesterday was hardly in keeping with the traditions of the office he holds, and holds with great dignity, from the period when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham entered upon his duties at the Colonial Office. I think the responsibility and the action he took, when Colonial Secretary, in advising the Crown Colonies to appoint Trade Commissioners on a very similar extent to the appointment of Trade Commissioners by this country to the Colonies, would produce results quite as good as my hon. Friends presented to this House to-day. I hope the Colonial Secretary will realise that I have spoken with perfectly consistent views, because in the years I have been in this House, dating back from a time before he entered it, I have advocated this policy in season and out of season.
§ The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt)I rise only to deal with two points alluded to in this Debate. We have been excluded by the ruling of the Chair from discussing the question of an Imperial Preference, and I leave all questions of trade organisation to be dealt with by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade. There are two points with which I wish to deal. First of all there is the point raised by the hon. Member for South Birmingham, who suggested that I or the Government have done practically nothing to carry out the decisions or the wishes of the Imperial Conference which met last year. That really is not the case. It was said at the time that the Conference had been an inefficient one. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's Hanover Square (Mr. Lyttelton) suggested that there had been what he called an atmosphere of bland inaction. Well, if there was an atmosphere of bland inaction during the Conference there has been an atmosphere of great activity since it closed. We were able to get a unanimous assent to the Declaration of London which was nullified by action elsewhere at a subsequent date. We were able to renew 1220 and revise the Japanese Treaty with the assent and approval of every one of the Dominions represented, and on many other matters since the Conference closed we have been able to take effective action. A Copyright Bill, an Imperial Act, has been passed, and it is hoped and believed the Dominions will follow suit with a similar action. That action does not lie with us, but we have taken the initial step.
On the matter of patents, New Zealand has already followed the English law in an Act passed since the Conference, and that was one of the matters discussed upon that occasion. One of the Resolutions was an expression of a desire that there should be uniformity in the law of compensation for accidents, and New Zealand and South Australia in consequence of the discussions at the Conference passed Acts on that matter last year. There has also been passed an Australian Seamen's Compensation Act in the autumn of last year. Another Resolution which was the subject of discussion was that of international exhibitions. This is regarded as a matter of great importance by many of the States and many of the Dominions, and they have been asked by the Home Government to nominate representatives to a Conference on this subject. The Appeal Court is another matter in which great interest is felt by Canadians and Australians. We had a very full discussion on this matter, in which the Lord Chancellor and Lord Haldane took part, and at the request of the Dominion representatives we agreed to strengthen the Appeal Court and specially to strengthen the Privy Council by the appointment of two additional Law Lords who had been appointed not for British but for Dominion and Colonial purposes. The Bill was introduced last year, but there was great pressure of time and some objections, and it had to be withdrawn, but it will be reintroduced this year, and I shall make a personal appeal to the House to pass that Bill for the strengthening of the Courts to which the Dominions attach great importance.
3.0 P.M.
At the same time dissatisfaction was expressed by some of the Dominions in regard to the long-standing practice of the Privy Council in which a recommendation is made to His Majesty which does not take the form of a judgment. They were never able to understand the reason for a dissent which one member of the Privy Council may have given in the course of the proceedings. I have arranged for a 1221 new Order in Council to be issued, almost immediately, as soon as I have settled the actual terms in consultation with the Dominions, giving leave for the publication of the dissenting judgment in all cases applying to the Dominions. Naturalisation was another matter which was discussed at the Imperial Conference upon which we have already drafted a Bill on the recommendations which were then made, and we have sent it out to the Dominions for their consideration. We have received some suggestions, and that Bill will be introduced into the Imperial Parliament this Session. On the question of cheaper cable rates I need not dwell, because that has been explained by my right hon. Friend. I think he also mentioned what has been done in regard to wireless telegraphy. It is a remarkable advance in the eight or nine months since the Conference closed to be able to say that we are now covering three-quarters of the world by an Imperial system of telegraphy. We have a service from London to Egypt, from Egypt to Aden, from Aden to Bombay, from Bombay to Singapore. Northward, in the future, to Hong Kong, and southward, in the almost immediate future, to Australia, which is working its own station. Australia put up a circle of separate wireless telegraphic stations round its own coast to communicate with two stations in New Zealand, from which there will probably be wireless communication to Fiji. We intend to have wireless communication from Aden to some point in the Union of South Africa, possibly Pretoria; and if the resources of science will not allow that to be done, we may decide to make an intermediate at Nairobi.
There was a request made to the Imperial Government at the Conference to assist the Dominions to obtain a revision of some of the treaties made in the old days which include the Dominions of which they themselves would like to be relieved. These negotiations have been going on with several countries for some time, and we have already succeeded in our endeavours to release the Dominions from treaties with Mexico and Sweden. There was another question, that of the mutual enforcement of the judgments of superior Courts and commercial arbitration awards. We are prepared to legislate on that subject in the direction desired by the Dominions. We have asked for the observations of the individual Australian States. There are 1222 twelve definite and separate actions taken by this Government since the close of the Conference in June only last year which have either been actually carried cut or are in process of being completed now to meet the requirements put forward by the Dominions.