HC Deb 13 August 1913 vol 56 cc2503-5
59. Mr. GIBBS

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in regard to the Panama Exhibition at San Francisco, if the conditions of foreign participation are altered by the authorities in the direction of securing for the United Kingdom a single collective national exhibit, he will reconsider his decision not to give his official support to the exhibition?

Mr. ACLAND

As I pointed out yesterday, the fact that national exhibits are to be scattered in different buildings and not shown together as a collective national exhibit is only one of the reasons which appeared to make participation inexpedient. I would refer the hon. Gentleman to my remarks of yesterday in Debate, and to the answer of my right hon. Friend as reported in the Parliamentary Debates of the 5th instant, which fully explain the commercial and economic reasons which induced His Majesty's Government to come to the decision they did. The circumstances do not appear to have altered since then.

60. Mr. JOHN O'CONNOR

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any correspondence has passed between him and the promoters of the San Francisco Exhibition as to the representation of Great Britain, its manufactures, and arts and crafts at the same; and, if so, will he publish such before the rising of the House?

Mr. BUXTON

Beyond the transmission of documents and a letter on the subject of the protection of unpatented inventions and designs no correspondence has taken place between myself and the promoters of the San Francisco Exhibition. In May, 1912, a special Commission, presided over by Mr. John Hays Hammond, visited London to expain the scope of the exhibition, and the further information which the Board of Trade required as to the conditions upon which foreign nations were invited to participate was obtained in San Francisco by an officer of the Exhibitions Branch of the Board of Trade sent for that purpose from this country.

Mr. JOHN O'CONNOR

Was it in the right hon. Gentleman's Department. that the estimate of £250,000 as the probable cost of a British section was arrived at?

Mr. BUXTON

An officer of the Department went out there to inquire on the spot in regard to the question of expenditure, and' came to the conclusion, after careful consideration, that to make anything in the nature of an effective exhibit —and unless effective it would be useless —the cost would be at least £250,000.

Mr. JOHN O'CONNOR

Had this officer any experience of either the Chicago or the St. Louis Exposition, and was he aware that at Chicago the British section was run at a cost of £00,000?

Mr. BUXTON

He made the best inquiries he could, and that was the cone elusion he came to, and on examination of the figures I think he was probably correct.

Dr. CHAPPLE

In forming this estimate was consideration given to the fact that the canal would be opened quite a year before the exhibition is opened, and that all goods would be sent by water transit?

Mr. BUXTON

I think that was taken into consideration.

Mr. JOHN O'CONNOR

Has the matter gone so far that it could not be remedied, and that these exhibits might be collected all under one building, as in other expositions, and can he say whether this decision on the part. of a Free Trade Government not to take part in this exposition is a proper return to make to the United States for reduction in its tariffs

Mr. ACLAND

I can only say that the regulation in regard to the scattering of the exhibits seems to be perfectly in accordance with the regulations of the exhibition authorities, and that it is only one of the reasons which induced the Government to think that the very large expenditure of £250,000 would not be justified. With regard to the last part of the question, the tariff is not yet reduced.

Dr. CHAPPLE

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the German Union of Merchants is changing its mind upon the matter and has come round to the view that Germany should be represented, and if in that case it would not be necessary for us to further our own trade and commerce by being represented there?

Mr. ACLAND

I do not think that even that fact will induce the Government to go back on their decision that it is not justifiable to expend £250,000, which is two and a half times greater than that which the Congress of the United States is going to expend.

Dr. CHAPPLE

How is that sum made up? Have they taken into consideration land transport or sea', transport?

Mr. SPEAKER

The hon. Member should give notice of that question.