Commons Sitting of 16 July 1913

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Coventry Corporation Bill,
Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Manchester Ship Canal Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Metropolitan District Railway Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Gomm Heirlooms Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Read a second time, and committed.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill,
Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Dunfermline Corporation Water Order Confirmation Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 15) Bill,
As amended, considered; to be read the third time To-morrow.
Education Board Provisional Order Confirmation (London, No. 2) Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Read a second time, and committed.
Gas and Water Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Friday.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill,
Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.
Edinburgh Corporation Bill [Lords],
Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee (Section B); Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Railway Bills (Group 4),
Mr. SOAMES reported from the Committee on Group 4 of Railway Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Wednesday next, at half-past Eleven of the clock.
Report to lie upon the Table.
Private Bills (Group G),
Colonel BATHURST reported from the Committee on Group G of Private Bills; That, at the meeting of the Committee this day, a message was received from Mr. Samuel Samuel, one of the members of the said Committee, stating that he was unable, on account of urgent private business, to attend the Committee this day.
Report to lie upon the Table.
Divorce Bills,
Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Lords to request that their Lordships will be pleased to communciate to this House copies of the Minutes of Evidence and Proceedings, together with Documents deposited, in the case of McBride's Divorce Bill [Lords].
Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Select Committee on Divorce Bills that they do hear Counsel and examine Witnesses for McBride's Divorce Bill [Lords], and also that they do hear Counsel and examine Witnesses against the Bill if the parties concerned think fit to be heard by Counsel and produce Witnesses.—[The Lord Advocate.]
Message from The Lords,
That they have agreed to,—
Amendments to—
United District Gas Bill [Lords],
Port Talbot. Railway and Docks Bill [Lords],
Greenock Port and Harbours Bill [Lords,
Leeds Corporation Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

TRADE EEPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
Copies presented of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 5163 and 5167 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
MINES (COAL MINES ACT, 1911).
Copy presented of General Regulations, dated 10th July, 1913, made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, under the Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
BOARD OF EDUCATION.
Copy presented of Statistics of Public Education in England and Wales. Part I. Educational Statistics, 1911–12 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
LUNACY (IRELAND).
Copy presented of Sixty-second Report of the Inspectors of Lunatics in Ireland for the year 1912, with Appendices [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

IRISH MILK SUPPLY.
Copy presented of Second Report of the Viceregal Commission, 1911 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Appendix to the Second Report of the Viceregal Commission, 1911 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

SAVINGS BANK INSURANCES (ADDITIONAL TABLES).
Copy presented of Insurance Tables and of Statement of the Rules observed in their construction [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
Copy presented of Provisional Special Order, dated 14th July, 1913, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee and the Insurance Commissioners, acting jointly, entitled the National Health Insurance (Special Employers' Custom) Provisional Order, 1913 (No. 2) [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 203.]
Copy presented of Provisional Special Order, dated 11th July, 1913, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee, the Insurance Commissioners, the Irish Insurance Commissioners, and the Welsh Insurance Commissioners, acting jointly, entitled the National Health Insurance (Special Customs) Provisional Order, 1913 (No 2) [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 204.]
Copy presented of the National Health Insurance (Special Employers' Custom) (Scotland) Provisional Order, 1913 (No. 1), dated 15th July, 1913, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee and the Scottish Insurance Commissioners, acting jointly [by Act]; to lie upon the, Table, and to be printed. [No. 205.]
Copy presented of the National Health Insurance (Subsidiary Employments) Provisional Order (Scotland), 1913 (No. 1), dated 15th July, 1913, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee and the Scottish Insurance Commissioners, acting jointly [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 206.]
Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House:—Account showing the nature, and amount of the securities held by the Commissioners for the reduction of the National Debt at 31st March, 1913 as investments for moneys, forming part of the Unemployment Fund, paid over to them by the Board of Trade under Section 92 (3) of The National Insurance Act, 1911 [by Act].

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  ROYAL NAVY.

    OIL FUEL.
    Mr. GEORGE TERRELLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Royal Commission presided over by Lord Fisher on the use of oil fuel for the Navy have yet presented an Interim Report, and, if so, when it will be available for the use of Members?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Churchill): As I informed the Noble Lord the Member for Portsmouth on the 10th February last, the inquiry throughout is strictly confidential.
    Mr. G. TERRELL: May I ask if the Commission has reported?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The inquiry is strictly confidential and I must not trench upon that character which it possesses, but I do not think I do so when I state that there have been several interviews.
    Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not a fact that the House ordered the Royal Commission to report as to the use of oil fuel in the Navy, and whether it is not the constitutional right of the House to receive the Report of its own Royal Commission? Further, has there ever been a Royal Commission ordered by the House which has not reported to the House?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: That is a constitutional question which I am not prepared, without notice, to debate. There can be no question as to the Report of the Commission being made public, nor as to the evidence taken before it.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: May I refer to you, Mr. Speaker, on the question whether, when the House orders a Royal Commission to report, the House has the right to receive the Report?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot conceive of the House ordering a Royal Commission. A Royal Commission is ordered by His Majesty, and He does not take orders from the House. As to the House receiving the Report, I should have to consider the nature of the particular Commission, as in this case I do not bear in mind at the present moment the particulars.
    Mr. G. TERRELLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of first-class battleships and cruisers built or building for the Navy which are designed to use oil fuel only; and what will be their total monthly consumption of oil when in full commission?
    Lord C. BERESFORDasked the number of battleships, cruisers, torpedo craft, and fleet auxiliaries, in their different classes, built or building for the Navy, which are designed to use oil fuel only; and what will be their total monthly consumption of oil when in full commission?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: It is my intention to deal as fully as their confidential character permits with the important questions connected with the use of oil fuel for the naval service when I make my statement on Vote 8. I cannot promise to go into precise details of consumption.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware that the coal consumption of the Navy is public property, and why should not the oil consumption?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: These are matters on which the opinion of those responsible for the maintenance of the Navy must be allowed to prevail. There are special reasons connected with oil which differentiate it from questions connected with the coal supply.
    Mr. FREDERICK HALL (Dulwich): Will the right hon. Gentleman issue a statement to the House as to the questions we are able to ask, and to which we are likely to get replies, considering that generally the reply we get from the First Lord of the Admiralty is that the information asked is confidential?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I do my utmost to supply all the information in my power without detriment to the national public interest, and in that respect I can only claim such support as the House will give me. If the House is not satisfied with the amount of information given by a Minister, or thinks that the argument of confidence is being abused, the House has the remedy entirely in its own hands.
    Lord C. BERESFORDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will lay upon the Table of the House the contracts for supplying the Navy with oil fuel?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The answer is in the negative. I know of no reason which would justify me in departing from the usual long established practice which the House has repeatedly approved where the supplies of important munitions of war are concerned. Subject to this qualification, I hope to make a general statement on the subject of oil fuel when Vote 8 is under consideration.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: Will the right hon. Gentleman say anything about the contracts in his remarks to-morrow?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No There is no reason which would justify me in departing from the usual long established practice of which the House has repeatedly approved that the details of these contracts should not be made public.
    Sir GEORGE YOUNGER: Will the right hon. Gentleman name the firms which have got the contracts?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No. I shall not.

    ARMOURED SHIPS.
    Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked whether all the German armoured ships of the 1911–12 programme have now been launched; how many British armoured vessels of the corresponding programme are still on the stocks; and when it is expected that the last of these will be launched?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The reply as regards German ships is Yes. As regards British ships, the two dockyard vessels, "Iron Duke" and "Marlborough," were launched in October last. The three contract ships, "Benbow," "Delhi," and "Tiger," have not yet been launched, but it is anticipated that the first will be launched in September and the two last-named in October of this year.
    Mr. MIDDLEMORE: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain the extraordinary delay in launching these vessels which were placed on the Estimates twenty-eight months ago?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I regret the delay. Every step that the Admiralty can take to accelerate the completion of these vessels has been and will be taken.
    Mr. LEE: Does the right hon. Gentleman anticipate that the date of the completion will be very materially delayed, and, if so, to what extent?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No. In regard to the "Delhi" in particular the date of the launch must not be taken as indicating the date of completion. She will be launched very heavy indeed. I cannot give a date as to the "Tiger."
    Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked how many armoured ships, cruisers, and destroyers have been completed for the British and German navies, respectively, from the 1st January, 1911, to the present time?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The figures asked for are as follows:—
    Great Britain: Nine battleships, four battle cruisers, ten light cruisers, fifty-one destroyers.
    Germany: Seven battleships, four battle cruisers, seven light cruisers, forty destroyers.
    The British figures do not include vessels belonging to the Royal Australian Navy.

    SHIPS ON FOREIGN STATIONS.
    Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked how many British ships of 5,000 tons displacement or over are now in full commission on foreign stations?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: There are twelve such ships now abroad, of which three are only temporarily abroad. On the other hand there are two not included which have only returned to England temporarily for manœuvres. I might mention that the standard of tonnage selected just excludes three more ships of the Town Class now serving abroad.
    Mr. MIDDLEMORE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in 1904 we had thirty-five of these ships on foreign stations, and can he explain the difference?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am very much aware of it. I hope to be able to increase somewhat the number of vessels which we maintain on foreign stations. I shall perhaps next year have a proposal to make in that respect. The reason of the concentration of the Fleet is perfectly well known.

    MEDITERRANEAN FLEET.
    Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked whether Italy and Austria will, by the end of the year, possess five completed ships of the "Dreadnought" type, apart from the three ships of the "Radetzky" class, mounting in all sixty-two 12-inch, twenty-four 6-inch, and fifty-six 4.7-inch guns; and, if so, how British interests will be adequately represented in the Mediterranean by four battle-cruisers mounting in all thirty-two 12-inch and sixty-four 4-inch guns?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I have nothing at present to add to the very full statement I made to Parliament on the subject of the Mediterranean during the discussion of Vote 8 last year.

    PURCHASE OF DISCHARGE (H.M.S. "WARRIOR.")
    Mr. RONALD M`NEILLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that Mr. Thomas Machin, residing at Eastry, Kent, recently requested permission to purchase the discharge from the Navy of his son, Roland Machin, A.B., a youth of twenty years of age, serving on H.M.S. "Warrior," on the ground that a favourable opening for his son in his trade as a mechanic was at his disposal which it would be greatly to his disadvantage to

    1223
    lose; whether this request was refused by the Admiralty and, if so, on what grounds; and, seeing that it will discourage recruiting for the Navy if it is generally understood that advantage cannot be taken by seamen of favourable opportunities to pass into civil employment when willing to purchase their discharge, whether he will reconsider the case of Roland Machin if his father is still anxious to purchase his discharge from the Navy?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The circumstances in which the discharge was refused are as stated. Discharge by purchase is only restricted in so far as the requirements of the naval service demand. In the recent case the man is a trained seaman, and has completed little over two years' man's service out of a twelve year engagement. It is regretted that his services cannot be spared.
    Mr. M`NEILL: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that it is very bad policy, in the interests of the Navy, to hold out to the population that remunerative employment in civil life should be foregone by young men?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I did not do anything of the sort. These men cost the country money for training, and must give some return for it.
    Mr. M`NEILL: Is the charge or fee for purchasing the discharge not calculated as the equivalent for the service rendered?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: No. I cannot say that. Payment of a fee does not entitle him to discharge.

    MANŒUVRES (GREAT BRITAIN AND GERMANY).
    Mr. HUNTasked why in the coming Naval Manœuvres Great Britain is have twenty-five battleships and the enemy only sixteen, when, on his own showing, next year Germany will have twenty-one ships of the "Dreadnought" type ready for immediate war at her selected moment, whilst Britain will only have eighteen ships of the "Dreadnought" type in Home waters immediately ready for war at her average moment to defend us against invasion and conquest; and what, therefore, are these manœuvres to prove or show?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: In accordance with custom, the opposing sides in the coming Naval Manœuvres will be "Blue" and
    1224
    "Red," imaginary countries with imaginary territory and imaginary objects, and I would deprecate the hon. Member's attempt to add a further element of imagination. But, in any case, as I said yesterday, I cannot on behalf of the Admiralty contribute to such a, discussion.
    Mr. HUNT: Does the right hon. Gentleman dispute that the statements in the question are shown to be the case according to his own statement in this House, and, if not, can he explain further?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No, I cannot.
    Mr. HUNT: Can he say whether the statements are true or not?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I have not given them the detailed examination to enable me to do so, because they were not relevant to the answer that I was giving to the question. If I were giving an answer on that point., I should like to have an opportunity of consulting that record.

    ENGINEER-LIEUTENANTS.
    Mr. BARNESasked why there are only twenty-two engineer-lieutenants promoted from the engine-room artificer ranks, although a promise was made in 1903 that there should be thirty on a much smaller establishment; and whether vacancies have recently been filled by cadets after six months' engine-room service?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Twenty-five lieutenants promoted from chief artificer-engineer are at present borne. This is the proper number according to the promise made in March, 1903, that promotions would be made in such a manner that the number of engineer-lieutenants thus advanced should not exceed 4 per cent. of the total number of chief artificer-engineers and artificer-engineers up to a total of thirty. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

  AIRCRAFT.

    ROYAL FLYING CORPS.
    Mr. BARNESasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that his undertaking that the engine-room artificers of the Royal Flying Corps should be paid a wage of from 6s. to 9s. per day has not been carried out; and if he will cause inquiry to be made into the matter with a view to increase of pay from 6s., according to length of service and proficiency?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The majority of engine-room artificers who have been graded in the Royal Flying Corps are now in receipt of pay at the rate of 9s. a day. Some were graded at this rate on qualifying. In some other cases advancement from the 6s. to the 9s. rate, which depends upon service and proficiency, has been allowed. Men under instruction, but not yet graded in the corps, retain their naval rates of pay with an allowance of 1s. a day.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEasked if the Secretary for War will state what progress has been made in departmentalising aeronautics at the War Office; and, if a new Department is erected, who will be appointed director, and will he be provided with an adequate staff?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): In view of the increasing importance of this branch of the Army, I am now in communication with the Treasury with regard to the establishment of a separate Department of the War Office to administer the Army Air Service. The head of this new Department will be Brigadier-General Henderson, who is a certificated pilot, as Director-General, and he will have direct control over all parts of this service.
    Major HOPE: Will the amount be kept separate in the Estimates?
    Colonel SEELY: That is another question. I will endeavour to see that as far as possible it is made quite clear what, sum s spent.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Will the right hon. Gentleman also keep the suns actually expended on aviation quite separate from barrack construction and the purchase of land?
    Colonel SEELY: I hope as far as possible to make plain in the Estimates how much has been spent.

    AERIAL NAVIGATION ORDERS.
    Mr. HUNTasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of the effect of the restrictions imposed upon British airmen in preventing them from flying over their own country on the aircraft industry in this country and seriously injuring our chance of recovering our neglected power in the air; and if he will consider the desirability of giving certificates to practised British and Irish airmen to fly over the United Kingdom?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME OFFICE (Mr. McKenna): The Aerial Navigation Orders, to which the hon. Member refers, were made in the interest of national safety. The prohibited areas were carefully chosen by the Admiralty and War Office and cover only an extremely small portion of the United Kingdom, the whole of the remainder being free to all British airmen. Subject to the requirements of the Admiralty and War Office, I am anxious so to administer the Orders as to guard the interests of the aircraft industry; and a proposal made a few days ago by the Royal Aero Club, which resembles the suggestion in the last part of the question, will be carefully considered by the, Departments concerned.
    Mr. HUNT: Is it not a fact that these regulations have given great trouble to British airmen? Will the right hon. Gentleman say what is the objection to giving well-known airmen leave to fly over their own country?
    Mr. McKENNA: It has been quite clearly explained that it is desirable in the public interest that airmen should not fly over particular parts of the country. Those parts are a very small portion of the whole of the country, and the refusal to allow airmen to fly over the given areas does not really in the smallest degree affect the industry.

    Witwatersrand (Native Labour).
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the substance of the agreement which has been entered into between the Portuguese Minister of the Colonies and the Witwatersrand Native Labour Association relating to the recruitment of natives in the province of Mozambique?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): It is difficult to state the substance of a document dealing with a number of matters of administrative detail, but the agreement among other matters touches on medical fitness of natives, permits for recruiters, passports, wages, including a system of deferred pay and the period of service, which was fixed at eighteen months. In this latter point the agreement has been held by the Union Government to contravene the Convention of 1909. If the hon. Member desires further information I will place a copy of the agreement in the Library.

    Portuguese Slave Trade.
    Mr. CHANCELLORasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that on the 17th February last King Lewanika, of Barotseland, summoned his people together in order to warn them against trading in slaves with the Portuguese over the border; whether Mr. M'Kinnon, the resident magistrate, held an inquiry and supported King Lewanika in a public speech; and whether the attention of the Foreign Office has been drawn to the revelations made during Mr. M'Kinnon's inquiry I
    Mr. HARCOURT: I have not yet received a report, but I am in communication with the High Commissioner on the subject.

    Colonial Service (Officers).
    Mr. F. HALLasked when the regulation of the Colonial service which prohibits all salaried public officers, whether or not their whole time is at the disposal of the Government, from speculating in the shares of or being connected with any company, occupation, or undertaking which might bring their private interests into real or apparent conflict with their public duties, or in any way influence them in the discharge of their duties, was made; whether the regulation arose out of any specific case of impropriety; and if any case has arisen in which it was necessary to put the regulation into force?
    Mr. HARCOURT: The original regulations on the subject go back many years. The Colonial regulations are subjected to revision from time to time, but the one, to which the hon. Member refers, has not been materially altered since the year 1903, when it was introduced to render the older regulation more definite and precise. I am not aware of the circumstances in which the regulation was originally promulgated, and I could not say without an exhaustive search in what cases (if any) action has been taken under it. The regulation is well known to all officers in the Colonial service and is generally, I believe, loyally observed by them.
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this regulation did not apply to the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies when Lord Selborne held that position?
    Mr. HARCOURT: No. The Under-Secretary is not in the Colonial service.

    South Africa (Strike of Miners).
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked if the Secretary for the Colonies will state what is the expectation of life for machine men engaged in the mines of the Witwatersrand?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I regret that I have not the information necessary to reply to my hon. Friend's question.
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked if the Secretary for the Colonies can state how many Kaffirs have died during the past ten years during or immediately subsequent to their employment in or about the mines of the Witwatersrand; and the number that have been killed by accidents and that have been maimed whilst employed
    Mr. HARCOURT: No, Sir, I have not the information which would enable me to answer this question, but I will see if it is possible to obtain it.
    Mr. MARTINasked the Prime Minister if he will give an opportunity for the discussion of the Motion standing in the name of the hon. Member for East St. Pancras, urging the immediate recall of the troops now in South Africa? ["That, in the opinion of this House, all the Regular soldiers now stationed in South Africa should be at once brought Home, in view of the fact that they have recently been used by the South African Government in connection with the strike,on the Rand, thus indirectly making the Home Government responsible for the Policy of the South African Government with regard to the relations between capital and labour."]
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Prime Minister if his attention has been drawn to the fact that Mr. Speaker, on the 7th and 8th July, refused to admit a Motion for the Adjournment of the House, proposed to be moved by the Member for Hanley, on the grounds that if the hon. Member wished to Move a Vote of Censure on Lord Gladstone that the proper course for the hon. Member to pursue would be to put down a Vote of Censure under the ordinary forms and rules of the House and can he state how this ruling affects the reply which the Prime Minister gave to the Member for Merthyr Tydvil on 14th July, when he stated that time could not be granted for the Motion of Censure standing in the hon. Member's name, but that the issue involved could be raised on the Estimates?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): The Government fully recognises that the House should have an opportunity of discussing the employment of Imperial troops in connection with the recent troubles in South Africa. But such a discussion could riot be carried on under satisfactory conditions in the absence of full and authentic information as to the facts. We understand that a dispatch from Lord Gladstone is now on its way, and as soon as it arrives it will be laid on the Table. I should not like to make any definite statement for the moment as to the best manner or occasion for raising the discussion. I should have thought it might have been done most conveniently either on the War or Colonial Office Vote. I believe the statement in Question 51, as to the Speaker's ruling, is substantially correct, although I understand that he gave other grounds also for refusing the Motion for Adjournment.
    Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether the statement in this morning's newspapers that the Government of South Africa are instituting a thorough inquiry into all these incidents is true or not?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No; I only saw what was in the paper.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: May I ask if it is to be taken from the right hon. Gentleman's reply that occasion will be given for a discussion in this House after the receipt of the dispatch?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Certainly.

    Trinidad,
    Mr. POINTERasked whether the attention of the Secretary for the Colonies has been drawn to the discussion in the Trinidad Legislative Council on the subject of granting municipal powers to Port-of-Spain, which took place on 25th June; whether, having directed the council to decide this question, he is now prepared to adopt its decision and direct that steps be taken forthwith to create an elective council in the manner it suggests?
    Mr. HARCOURT: The report of the discussion in the Trinidad Legislative Council has not yet reached me.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    TERRITORIAL REVIEW, HYDE PARK.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for War if he will state the
    1230
    numbers of the establishment of the London Territorials; and what numbers actually paraded before His Majesty the King at the recent review?
    Colonel SEELY: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to my reply to questions on this subject put yesterday by the hon. and gallant Members for Midlothian and East Antrim.

    4TH BATTALION ROYAL IRISH FUSILIERS (CONSECRATING THE COLOULTS).
    Mr. RONALD M'NEILLasked if the Secretary for War's attention has been called to the circumstances under which the ceremony of consecrating the new Colours of the 4th battalion (Princess Victoria's) Royal Irish Fusiliers, which had been arranged for the 22nd of June, when the battalion was at Finner Camp, Ballyshannon, was postponed sine die; whether he is aware that, according to custom when a regiment consists partly of Protestants and partly of Roman Catholics, the Protestant and Roman Catholic Bishops of Clogher were both invited by the commanding officer to officiate at the ceremony, but that the Roman Catholic bishop refused to countenance the ceremony or to permit any of his clergy to do so, on the ground that the participation of the Protestant Bishop would be a desecration; whether no Roman Catholic prelate less intolerant than the Bishop of Clogher is to be found in Ireland to take part in consecrating the Colours; and, if not, whether this bishop's conduct is to be allowed to deprive the regiment of a ceremony valued alike by officers and men?
    Colonel SEELY: I am aware of the circumstances referred to by the hon. Member. Where religious susceptibilities are concerned, difficulties must sometimes arise in the case of regiments composed of men of different faiths, but I am hopeful that in this and other cases where such difficulties may occur, means may be found of removing them. Possibly the adoption of procedure on the lines of that followed on the occasion of the recent consecration of the Colours of the Irish Guards may provide a solution.

    WEST INDIA REGIMENT.
    Mr. RONALD M'NEILLasked the Secretary for War whether he is aware that the disbandment of the 3rd battalion of the West India Regiment, and the reduction of the other two battalions by half a battalion each, has caused a block of promotion in the regiment; whether the

    1231
    War Office, in order to remedy this state of things, has offered the majors and senior captains in the regiment immediate retirement on £200 per annum; whether he is aware that having regard to the fact that these officers would in the ordinary course have been retired on £300 per annum at the age of forty-eight, or on £420 per annum in the case of those promoted to a battalion command, the War Office by the present offer is attempting to sacrifice the senior regimental officers for the benefit of their juniors; and whether he will undertake that the officers in question shall receive either such pension or such other employment as will place them in as good a position as they would have enjoyed if the reduction in the strength of the regiment and the consequent block of promotion had not taken place?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Harold Baker): I am aware of the conditions existing in this regiment and of the offer made. It is made in the interests of the regiment as a whole, at considerable cost to the public; but there is no compulsion and each officer is the judge of his own prospects. It is not possible to give the undertaking suggested in the question.
    Mr. M'NEILL: Is it not the fact that if the offer is not accepted these officers may be compulsorily retired at the age of forty-five, and is not that practical compulsion? If they accept the offer will they not be in a very much worse position than they are now?
    Mr. BAKER: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken, it is not at the age of forty-five or 48, but 50; and these officers enjoy every advantage which they enjoyed before, besides an additional advantage which they receive.

    HORSE AND FIELD ARTILLERY.
    Mr. HUNTasked the Secretary for War whether he can say how many Regular batteries of Horse and Field Artillery will be left in this country if the Expeditionary Force has to be suddenly sent abroad; and how many of these will have their full number of trained personnel and horses ready for immediate use?
    Colonel SEELY: It is not considered expedient to publish any information concerning details of mobilisation arrangements.

    IMPERIAL YEOMANRY.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEasked the Secretary of State for War whether the manner of carrying the rifle now in force for the Imperial Yeomanry is to be changed?
    Colonel SEELY: The Army Council decided that whenever a new rifle is issued the question shall be reconsidered.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Is it the intention in the meanwhile to alter the method of carrying the rifle in the Yeomanry?
    Colonel SEELY: No, Sir.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: How are they, on mobilisation, going to use the sword, when the rifle is slung on the right arm?
    Colonel SEELY: All that has been taken into consideration.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Is not the whole of the training in peace time wrong for war?
    Colonel SEELY: No, Sir.

    ROYAL ARMY CLOTHING FACTORY.
    Mr. F. HALLasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if any reduction has recently been proposed in the wages earned by women workers at the Royal Army Clothing Factory, Pimlico; it so, the nature of such proposed reduction; and whether the alteration affects any persons who have been employed for ten years or more?
    Mr. HAROLD BAKER: Certain changes by way of increase and of reduction were proposed. After full consideration, it has been decided to maintain the increases and to withdraw all the deductions proposed.
    Mr. F. HALL: Was a reduction proposed in the wages of any of them, as asked in the question?
    Mr. BAKER: I said that certain changes by way of increase and reduction were proposed.
    Mr. F. HALL: Is that a proof of the way in which the War Office show themselves ideal employers?
    Mr. BAKER: I think it is an extremely good illustration, for after very careful investigation it was decided not to make a reduction.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    FREE COTTAGE AND POTATO GROUND.
    Mr. HUNTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the statement of the Insurance Commissioners in Memorandum 168/X, that a free cottage and potato ground are only to be calculated at 1s. a week; whether he is aware that in most parts of the country a free cottage and potato ground is worth 2s. a week, and that there is usually a garden as well; is he aware that the Commissioners in the same Paper calculate the work done by a horseman on a Sunday as a full day's work, whereas Is. is the usual allowance for Sunday work in the country; and will he have the calculations of the Commissioners as to the amount paid per day corrected?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): The figure to which the hon. Member refers is given merely by way of illustration and was not intended to represent the average value. The value of a free cottage and potato ground is a question of fact to be determined on the merits of the particular case. As regards the second part of the question the Commissioners have decided that where services are performed on six full days in the week and some service is ordinarily required on Sunday, the worker receiving a weekly wage, the total remuneration must be divided by seven to ascertain the remuneration for a working day for the purposes of Schedule II. The precise money value of the services rendered on the Sunday is immaterial, provided that some service has ordinarily to be rendered on that day.
    Mr. HUNT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the statements in the question are laid down in the Memorandum as rules by which farmers are to be guided arid that anybody who lives in the country knows that a free cottage and potato ground is worth far more than a shilling a week?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The value of the cottage and potato ground is decided in each case.
    Mr. HUNT: If the right hon. Gentleman will look at the Memorandum he will see that what I say is correct, and is he aware that farmers in the country are much disturbed about the matter?

    AMENDIN BILL.
    Dr. CHAPPLEasked the Prime Minister whether he has received a communication from the president of the Royal Faculty of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow, asking that the aid of the Royal Medical and Surgical Corporations should be sought in order to so modify the National Insurance Act (1911) Amendment Bill that efficient medical and surgical treatment may be assured to insured persons; whether he accepts this as evidence of the goodwill of the medical profession in Scotland towards the National Insurance Act; and whether he proposes to accede to the request?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have received the communication to which my hon. Friend refers. The Amending Bill only deals with medical benefit under the Act to a very limited extent, but the Government will, of course, be happy to receive any representations from the bodies in question.

    STAMPS.
    Mr. F. HALLasked the Postmaster-General whether he has considered the application from Members from all parts of the House for the issue of insurance stamps in book form as in the case of ½d. and 1d. stamps; if so, whether he will state whether he is prepared to grant the request; and, if so, when they will be issued to the public?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to a question on this subject by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland on Monday last.

    SANATORIUM BENEFIT.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the President of the Local Government Board if in several of the first annual reports of the county tuberculosis officers lately issued, attention is drawn to the evil effects both to tuberculous patients and member of their families of the neglect of such patients after their discharge from a sanatorium; and whether, seeing that there is admittedly in these cases a gap for which the National Insurance Act makes no provision, and which may result in physical recidivism as well as additional expenditure on the part of county insurance committees, the Government propose, either in the National Insurance Act (1911)

    1235
    Amendment Bill, now before the House, or through the Board's administration, to remedy this defect?
    Mr. BURNS: The reports which have been at present received by the Local Government Board make no special reference to the point, but the value of aftercare of patients who have received treatment in sanatoria is generally well recognised, and in the view of the Department it should form an important part of the work of the dispensaries which are now being established. I have brought this view to the notice of local authorities.

    Death Duties.
    Mr. BARNESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has received any applications, as in terms of Section 56 of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, from persons liable to pay Estate Duty offering to pay the same by transfer of land; if so, how many, and what area and value of land has been thus transferred to the Crown; and if any such application has come, or is likely to come, from the heirs of the late Duke of Sutherland, or if the Treasury has any means of acquiring part of the Sutherland estate in payment of Death Duty and on the basis of the valuation upon which rates and taxes have been levied upon it?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): Fifty-seven applications of the nature referred to by my hon. Friend have been received and have been dealt with in the manner stated in reply to questions asked in this House on the 22nd and 30th October last. In pursuance of the arrangements by which the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, as representing the Crown, do not themselves accept land, but act as intermediaries for its transfer to some other public Department or authority who might desire to purchase it, 4 acres 2 roods.2 poles of land, valued at £193 10s., have been transferred to the Somerset County Council. No application under the Section has yet been received from the heirs of the late Duke of Sutherland, and it is not known whether any such application will be made. If, however, any is received, the Commissioners will communicate with the public Departments or authorities for whose purposes the land may seem to be suitable.

    Land Valuation.
    Mr. ROYDSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the increase in the number of houses under and over £20 annual value in the year 1911–12, namely 93,535, is, with the exception of the previous year, 1910–11, the lowest on record for fifteen years?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The answer is in the affirmative. I may, however, add that in 1911–12 the increase in the number of houses under £20 in value was above the average for the last fifteen years, and that the increase on all houses in 1911–12 was approximately double the figure for the previous year. Figures for 1912–13 are not yet available, but judging from the returns furnished to the Board of Trade with regard to the estimated cost of building for which local authorities pass plans, there should be a further increase in that year, and an even greater increase during the current year.
    Mr. ROYDS: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the Inland Revenue Returns show a deficiency of 29,000 houses for 1911–12 as compared with the average of fifteen preceding years?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The houses under £20 value are above the average of the preceding fifteen years.
    Mr. ROYDS: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the real position as regards increase in number of houses can, owing to transfer from one class to another, only be ascertained by grouping the two classes together?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Gentleman is emphasising one class, and surely I am entitled to call attention to another!
    Mr. RAFFAN: Has not the money demanded from local rates increased in amount during the last twenty years, and was it not much higher last year than in the preceding year; and in view of the erection of houses for the working classes—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better put his question in writing.
    Mr. ROYDSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will, having regard to the Referee's decisions in the Chells Farm and Norton Malreward cases as regards agricultural land and the Deptford (site value deductions) case affecting

    1237
    the valuation of urban lands, give instructions to the Valuation Department to issue no further provisional valuations pending the settlement of these points, and in the meanwhile to direct their efforts to reducing the heavy arrears in the Estate Duty Department and the 350,000 outstanding cases awaiting occasional valuations?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It is not proposed to suspend the service of provisional valuations on account of the decisions to which the hon. Membre refers, which do not involve the abandonment in any particular of the basis on which valuations are at present conducted, unless and until they are absolutely confirmed by the Courts to which appeal is to be made. Estate Duty valuations are already being dealt with as speedily as possible, and I may remind the hon. Member that the ultimate decisions in the cases to which he alludes would bear upon occasion valuations as well as on the original valuations concurrently with which they are normally made.
    Mr. ROYDS: Is it not the fact that the decision in the two agricultural test cases affects the basis of valuation of seven-eighths of the land of the country?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The moment the Court decides, of course we will abide by its decision; but we cannot accept the decision of the Referee on a point of law affecting other valuations.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman continuing to make these valuations upon the basis which has been declared illegal by the Referee?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is inaccurate. In that particular case there has been a decision, but the decision applies only to that particular case, whereas the decision of the Court is a declaration of what the law is, and so we shall certainly abide by that.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Why is this treated as a test case if it only governs one particular case?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Of course it is going to be treated as a test case. That is why we are awaiting the decision in the case when it goes to a Court of Law.
    Mr. ROYDS: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall call attention to this question on the Motion for Adjournment to-night.
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will obtain official Reports regarding the rating and taxing of land values from the Canadian municipalities and provincial Governments that have adopted the principle?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I understand that Papers relating to the rating and taxing of land values in British Columbia and Alberta were placed in the Library of the House in 1911 and 1912. The Canadian Government will be asked to supply similar Reports for other provinces if my hon. Friend will specify the provinces in respect of which they are desired.

    Swine Fever.
    Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture the amounts of public money paid in respect of compensation and administration in connection with swine fever in the financial years 1907–8 and 1912–13, respectively?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): The net cost of compensation after deduction of salvage in cases of swine fever amounted to £15,723 in the year 1907–8, and to £46,975 in the year 1912–13. The cost of administration amounted to £53,834 in the year 1907–8, and to £66,333 in the year 1912–13.

    Export of Cattle.
    Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he has been in communication with any, and, if any, what cattle-importing countries with a view to their accepting as free from contagious disease cattle which have passed the British Government test to be applied at the Government cattle-testing station at Pirbright, and with what result; and whether such countries, or any of them, have expressed a preference for the testing of cattle intended for export by their own agents in this country?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The cattle-testing station at Pirbrigfht is intended to be used for two purposes only, namely, the testing of animals with tuberculin prior to export, and immunisation against certain tropical and sub-tropical diseases. I have been in communication, both officially and unofficially, with representatives of those countries which at present protect themselves by prescribing quarantine and other conditions against the importation of

    1239
    animals suffering from tuberculosis; they have for the most part shown a ready disposition to consider the withdrawal or modification of the existing restrictions in the case of animals accompanied by a certificate from the Board, but they are naturally not prepared to commit themselves to a definite promise until the arrangements for conducting the test are complete and can be inspected by them. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what are the sub-tropical diseases to which he refers?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I should like to have notice of that, but certainly red-water fever above all others.

    Westminster Hall.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the First. Commissioner of Works, whether he can give the House any information regarding the repairs in progress to the roof of Westminster Hall, and whether the roof of the building is in danger?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury): The First Commissioner regrets that he is not yet in a position to give the House any definite information as to what repairs may be necessary to the roof of Westminster Hall. The examination is proceeding, and a complete survey is being made, but no repairs have yet been undertaken. The roof is not in immediate danger.

    Imperial Wireless Chain.
    Mr. TOUCHEasked the Postmaster-General whether the Universal Radio Syndicate, Limited, proposed to demonstrate to the Advisory Committee appointed by him the capacity of the Poulsen system for communication over the distances required by the Imperial chain; whether such proposal was abandoned because the Advisory Committee suggested a demonstration between the Eiffel Tower, Paris, and Arlington, Virginia, and undertook to obtain the use of the French and American Government stations for the purpose of such demonstration; and whether the Universal Radio Syndicate accepted the suggestion, but the Advisory Committee failed to obtain the use of such stations and took no steps
    1240
    either to witness the demonstration as proposed by the Universal Radio Syndicate, Limited, or to inspect the working of the Poulsen commercial service between San Francisco and Honolulu, a distance of 2,396 miles?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I understand that the syndicate wrote to the secretary of the Advisory Committee, on the 7th March, saying that they hoped to obtain the use of Eiffel Tower for the purpose of a demonstration of their system to Arlington. On the 15th March they wrote again saying that unexpected difficulties had arisen as to the use of the Eiffel Tower, and suggesting that if any member of the Committee proposed to visit the United States, he might travel in a vessel sailing on the 1st April for New York, on which it was expected that signals from Lyngby would be received up to a, distance of 2,000 miles. It was impracticable to adopt the latter suggestion as no member of the Committee was going to America, but the Committee, in order to assist the syndicate as much as possible, requested the Foreign Office to approach the French Government on the subject of the use of the Eiffel Tower, with the result that the permission of that Government was notified to the Committee on the 29th March. The syndicate were immediately informed of this, but practical difficulties subsequently arose—i.e., want of space in the underground power chamber at the Eiffel Tower, refusal by the municipal council to allow temporary buildings, etc.—which prevented the demonstration being given. Early in April the Committee witnessed a trial of the Poulsen system between Denmark and this country, and, it is understood, tested some of the apparatus which was to have been used at the Eiffel Tower. No one tendered to the Committee any evidence as to the working of the Poulsen system between San Francisco and Honolulu. Indeed, as indicated in Paragraph 19 of the Report of the Committee, the syndicate appeared to have no knowledge of such working, and do not appear to have suggested that the Committee should make any investigation of the American Poulsen stations.
    Mr. W. GUINNESS: May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman is aware that a service between San Francisco and Honolulu, a distance of 2,400 geographical miles, is now working both day and night?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I received the day before yesterday a telegram from

    1241
    the British Consul-General at San Francisco which informs me the company are not yet able to conduct any daylight service at all.
    Mr. MOONEY: May I ask is it not the fact that the president of the American Poulsen Company stated that the patents which enabled them to work between Honolulu and San Francisco had never been under the control, and would not come under the control, of the Universal Radio Syndicate, Limited?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I understand that the Poulsen Syndicate in this country are not in possession of the patents which are used in the American Poulsen service.
    Mr. TOUCHE: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that there is an arrangement for the mutual working of any improvements in either of the companies' systems of patents?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No, Sir, I was not aware of that.
    Mr. F. HALLasked the Postmaster-General the grounds on which his expert advisers have come to the conclusion that no firm that would enter into competition with the Marconi Company could be relied on to erect stations of a satisfactory character in connection with the Imperial wireless chain; and whether he will give the longest recorded distances over which wireless messages have been sent between stations erected specially for that purpose, mentioning the name of the system which has carried out such transmission?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: With respect to the first part of the question I would refer the hon. Member to my replies to questions by the hon. Member for West Hampshire and the hon. Member for Newcastle-on-Tyne on Thursday last. As regards the second part of the question, all scientific opinion is definite in the view that no importance can be attached to the occasional transmission of messages over great distances, and that no test is of value other than the regular and intelligible transmission of messages. I would remind the hon. Member that it took six years of continuous work after Mr. Marconi had transmitted wireless signals across the Atlantic before he was successful in establishing a continuous and reliable service.
    Mr. F. HALL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the promoters of the
    1242
    Goldsehmidt system have for many months past been endeavouring to perfect their apparatus? Under these circumstances will he carefully consider the desirability of having a demonstration before he gives the contract to the Marconi Company?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I believe that the Goldschmidt system is a very promising system, but it is purely in the experimental stage at, present.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why Tariff Reformers are so anxious to give a contract to a foreign company?
    Mr. WEIGALLasked the Postmaster-General whether each Marconi station requires the erection of twelve masts at a cost of £33,000 for masts alone per station; and whether the Goldschmidt system involves the erection of one mast only per station, and a saving on masts alone of over £12,000 per station?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The cost of the masts proposed by the Marconi Company for stations of the Imperial chain would be approximately as stated in the question. I am not aware what the cost of a mast on the Goldschmidt system would be. But I understand that the Goldschmidt mast would be much higher—a disadvantage to which the Advisory Committee referred in paragraph 29 of their Report. According to descriptions in the Press in addition to one very high mast there are about thirty-six standards or low masts and three brick towers of considerable height. A further disadvantage is that the Goldschmidt aerial does not appear to be directional.
    Mr. WEIGALLasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the Marconi system requires a tuning variation of 20 per cent. as compared with a tuning variation of.05 per cent. in the Goldschmidt system; and, seeing that this advantage in the Goldschmidt system permits an increased number of independent coincident messages, a correspondingly increased difficulty in the tuning-up of receivers for the tapping of messages, and the virtual secrecy therefore of the messages sent, whether he will consider the advisability of the adoption of the Goldschmidt system?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: My technical advisers do not endorse the statements in the question. I have already informed the English representatives of the Goldschmidt

    1243
    system that I shall be very glad to consider the employment of that system for the later stations of the Imperial chain if proof is forthcoming within the next few months that it is more efficient or more economical than the Marconi system.
    Mr. W. GUINNESS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Goldschmidt system is in a position to transmit messages very much more rapidly than by the spark system, and therefore a great deal of efficiency would be sacrificed if you had two sorts of stations—one working at high speed, and the other at low speed?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No. My information is not to that effect.
    Mr. W. GUINNESSasked the Postmaster-General whether the erection of stations under the Goldschmidt system means a considerable saving in cost on the Marconi system in generators, condensers, and transformers; and whether the company working the Goldschmidt system has declared its ability to give a satisfactory demonstration over nearly 4,000 miles, and to make a complete tender for the working of the Imperial chain (including creation of stations)?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I have no information to the effect stated in the first part of the question. With respect to the second part I would refer the hon. Member to my previous answers on this subject.
    Mr. W. GUINNESS: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the right hon. Gentleman's reply and of the impossibility of ratifying any alternative tender, unless steps are taken at once to allow such tenders to be sent in, I beg to give notice that at the end of the Questions I shall ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House.
    Mr. RUPERT GWYNNEasked the Postmaster-General what advantages, if any, other than the possibility of the privilege of first selection of wave-length, will accrue to the nation which first completes the building of its national wireless stations?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The first corner, in addition to having the choice of wave-lengths, will be free to select sites without considering questions of interference with contiguous stations, will be at an advantage in attracting commercial traffic, and, above all, will be equipped
    1244
    against the risk of war when other nations are not.
    Mr. R. GWYNNE: Does the right hon. Gentleman think these considerations are sufficient to rush into a contract, after what has transpired, without waiting a few weeks further in order to inquire into other systems?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The last reason alone is sufficient in the interests of the Empire for not consenting to any unnecessary postponement. I would point out that it is now two years since the Committee of Imperial Defence urged this matter.
    Mr. R. GWYNNEasked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the fact that the undamped waves used in certain systems of wireless telegraphy will greatly lessen the risk of interference and confusion in the transmission and reception of messages, he will take steps to ensure that the Imperial service is given every opportunity of securing the right of availing itself in any contract which may be made of such systems?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The point is fully provided for in the proposed contract for the stations of the Imperial chain.
    Mr. R. GWYNNEasked the Postmaster-General whether he will consider the advisability, in making a contract for the Imperial wireless service, of securing an alternative tender enabling the Government to purchase outright the use of the patents and equipment, thus obviating the payment of royalties and encouraging future development and invention?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The point was considered, but it was evident that a payment outright for the use of patents would be less advantageous than an annual royalty, which may be discontinued at any time if the use of the patents be dispensed with.
    Mr. GWYNNE: Is it not a fact that when the Marconi system was installed in the Navy a definite price was paid for the use of the patents?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The hon. Member is misinformed. The Admiralty are still making payments of some thousands a year to the Marconi Company for the use of their apparatus.
    Mr. KELLAWAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the offer of the

    1245
    Poulsen Syndicate still remains open to supply Members of this House with questions to put to Ministers?
    Mr. W. GUINNESSasked the Postmaster-General whether he will invite tenders from other companies besides the Marconi Company for the Imperial wireless chain, subject to the condition that the contractors for any system which may be provisionally accepted must before 10th August by practical demonstration satisfy the Post Office of their ability to carry out the requirements of the service as specified by the Post Office when inviting tenders, in order that the most advantageous tender which has duly fulfilled this condition may be approved by the House of Commons during the present Session?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: If I were to adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member it would be impossible to lay the completed contract on the Table of the House in time to admit of its ratification during the present Session. Such ratification of the completed contract being necessary under the Standing Orders, the course suggested by the hon. Member would involve the delay of the whole matter until next year, and I am not prepared to adopt it.
    Mr. W. GUINNESS: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why it is impossible to accept a tender provisionally immediately, subject to satisfactory tests being carried out when he sends his expert over to report?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I really cannot postpone the matter until the 10th August, when the House is to rise a few days after that date, on the chance of this experiment with the Goldschmidt system being successful. In any case, an experiment of one day would not be sufficient. It is necessary that it should be continued for a reasonable time to see if the wireless communication can be effected through the atmospheric disturbances, which are the chief drawback to any system.
    Mr. W. GUINNESS: Is there any reason why the House should not meet in the autumn?
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Would not the right hon. Gentleman refer all these complicated matters to the Special Commissioner of the "Outlook"?
    Mr. G. TERRELL: Will there be an opportunity of discussing the matter before the ratification of the contract?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I hope that Papers will be laid in a few days. The actual date on which the Debate shall take place is a matter upon which the hon. Member should address my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

    Government of Ireland Bill (Sir E. Carson's Speech in Belfast).
    Mr. MARTINasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to a speech made in Belfast on 12th July by the right hon. Member for Dublin University, in which he said that the Government knew perfectly well that they could not rely to-morrow on the Army to shoot down the loyalists of Ulster; whether the Government intend to prosecute the right hon. Member in question under the Statute of Edward III. as to incitements to crime; and, if not, how the Government distinguish this utterance from the statement pointing out that the Government could not rely on the troops to shoot down striking working men for which an editor and two printers were sent to gaol under the said Statute?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot without fuller information as to the exact language used and its context, express any opinion as to whether the Statute of Edward III. applies to the case. I understand that the persons referred to in the last paragraph were not prosecuted under the Statute of Edward III., but under a Statute of 1797.

    Industrial and Provident Societies (Amendment) Bill.
    Sir WALTER ESSEXasked the Prime Minister whether he has been able to fix a date whereon he proposes to proceed with the Industrial and Provident Societies (Amendment) Bill?
    Dr. CHAPPLEasked whether it is proposed to proceed with the Industrial and Provident Societies (Amendment) Bill this Session?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I must refer to the replies which I gave to questions as regards this Bill on Monday last. It is not yet possible to fix a date.
    Dr. CHAPPLE: Is it the intention of the Government to proceed with it?
    The PRIME MINISTER: We hope so. It is a matter for negotiation.
    Sir G. PARKER: May I ask if the Government have succeeded in composing

    1247
    the differences between the various interests, and have the expectation of passing the Bill?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Those negotiations are now going forward.

    Vaccination Officers.
    Mr. PETOasked the Prime Minister whether he has received a copy of a resolution passed at a special general meeting of the National Vaccination Officers' Association on 2nd July last, with regard to the way in which the Local Government Board have treated the case of the vaccination officer of the Kingston union, also a letter, dated the 7th July last, from the vaccination officer to the Kingston union with regard to the way in which his case had been treated; whether his special attention has been drawn to pages 17 to 27 of the statement of case on behalf of vaccination officers issued by the said association and dated 27th April last, a copy of which was sent to him at the time of publication and duly acknowledged; and, if so, in view of the way in which the cases referred to in the said statement of case, together with the case of the vaccination officer for the Kingston union, have been dealt with by the Local Government Board, he will reconsider his decision that no action on his part is necessary?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have received both the resolution and the letter referred to. The whole question has been very carefully considered, but I would point out that the matter is entirely within the administrative jurisdiction of the Local Government Board.

    Marconi Shares (Purchase by Post Office Official).
    Mr. F. HALLasked the Postmaster-General if the reduction in rank of Mr. Taylor, the Post Office official who purchased a small number of Marconi shares, was made by him on the advice of the head of Mr. Taylor's department or the secretary to the Post Office; and if he will state in how many cases since he has held the position of Postmaster-General he has taken action on his own initative in staff disciplinary matters?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The responsibility for disciplinary action in my Department rests with me, and I am not prepared, in this or in any other case, to state the advice tendered to me by officers.

    Motor Postal Service.
    Mr. CLYNESasked the Postmaster-General whether an extended motor van service comes into operation in the Manchester postal district on 1st August; and whether he can take steps to ensure that the present horse van drivers shall be made efficient for motor service and be continued in their employment with the various contractors?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The reply to the first part of the hon. Member's question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part I have obtained from the contractors for the motor service an assurance that they will do all that they can in this direction.

    Metropolitan Police.
    Mr. TOUCHEasked the Home Secretary if he can say in what year the tailors employed in the Store Department of the Metropolitan police, who recently received increases of pay, received the previous increase; and what sum per day for each worker the recently received increase amounts to?
    Mr. McKENNA: The pay of one tailor was increased in 1901 on appointment as foreman; that of the other tailors in 1879. The extra allowance of two shillings a week recently granted to three tailors works out at fourpence a day for the working week of six days.
    Mr. TOUCHEasked the Home Secretary whether any of the present technical clerks who have served for several years in the receiver's department of the Metropolitan Police are receiving smaller salaries than that at which a son of the late second surveyor was recently appointed an additional technical clerk?
    Mr. McKENNA: There is one such clerk who, after service in a temporary capacity for two years and nine months, was appointed to the permanent staff last month at the commencing salary (£115) of the authorised scale.
    Mr. TOUCHEasked the Home Secretary if a technical clerk who had been employed for two years in the receiver's department of the Metropolitan Police has recently resigned under written protest; if so, will he state the reason advanced for the resignation; was he asked by the receiver and surveyor to withdraw his resignation, with an indication that his salary would be increased;

    1249
    has another clerk resigned this month owing to discontent with the methods of appointment and promotion; and will he state the basis on which promotion is given in the surveyor's office?
    Mr. McKENNA: A temporary technical clerk has resigned as stated; his reason for resigning was not very clearly stated, but appears to have been dissatisfied at being refused a permanent appointment on the staff. He was not asked to withdraw his resignation. The only member of the surveyor's staff who has resigned this month is a temporary shorthand writer and typist at 28s. a week, who has been employed for less than four months and has now obtained a better position elsewhere. The promotion of men on the permanent staff depends on merit and seniority; appointments to that staff 'are made either from the temporary staff or from outside the Department as the needs of the service require.

    Obstructing Tram-Driver (Conviction at Oxford).
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Home Secretary if he has reconsidered the case of Walter Harold Franklin, who was sentenced to a fine of £10 and costs at Oxford last April for obstructing a tram-driver; and if he has been able to advise a remission of some part of the fine and costs?
    Mr. McKENNA: I am glad to say that the defendant, having paid a substantial part of the fine by weekly instalments, I have felt able, on the recommendation of the justices, to advise the remission of the remainder of the penalty.

    Crediton Sewerage Scheme.
    Mr. CHANCELLORasked the President of the Local Government Board whether the Crediton Urban District Council have submitted to the Local Government Board a scheme of sewerage disposal which will involve a cost of £16,000; whether this includes a payment of £8,500 for 61 acres of land, although only 5 acres are necessary to carry out the scheme; whether the engineer was the nominee of the lord of the manor and no independent expert advice was obtained, although a cheaper scheme was submitted, which was not properly discussed; whether the dearer scheme was strongly opposed on the urban district council and adopted only by the casting vote of the chairman; and whether the Local Govern-
    1250
    ment Board will refuse to sanction a scheme which will involve a heavy burden on the ratepayers of this town of 3,600 inhabitants, in which a penny rate produces only £43, without giving advantages at all commensurate with the cost?
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): The scheme is under consideration by the Local Government Board, and I am not at present in a position to give a final decision.

    Poor Law Children (Village Communities).
    Mr. ALDENasked the President of the Local Government Board what village communities for Poor Law children are already in existence; and what is the cost per child in each community?
    Mr. BURNS: If by "village communities" my hon. Friend means grouped cottage homes, the answer, is that there are some forty-three unions having homes of this character with five or more cottages. I will send my hon. Friend some information as to cost.

    Vaccination.
    Mr. ALBERT SMITHasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he is prepared to issue orders to the officers of the Government lymph establishment for the exclusive manufacture of vaccine of all-English origin, and derived only from the cow-pox disease, as contemplated by law, seeing he has no precise information as to the origin of the vaccines cultivated by his Department, and that most, if not all, the vaccines obtained from the Continent are derived from small-pox matter, and consequently contravene Section 32 of the Vaccination Act, 1867?
    Mr. BURNS: I am advised that it is not necessary to make any change in the practice which is now followed.
    Mr. GEORGE ROBERTSasked the President of the Local Goevrnment Board whether he is aware that in the United States it is usual to perform vaccination with one mark only; and whether, in view of the fact that the official statistics show that the mortality from small-pox, as well as the case-fatality rate, have been much lower in the United States than in this country during recent years, he is prepared to consider the desirability of permitting one-mark vaccination by public vaccinators under his jurisdiction?
    Mr. BURNS: I am not aware that in the United States it is usual to perform vaccination with one mark only, nor does my information enable me to confirm the statement contained in the second part of the question. Having regard to the findings of the Royal Commission on Vaccination in regard to this point, I do not propose to alter the present practice.

    Cornish Miners (Phthisis).
    Mr. OUTH WA ITEasked the President of the Local Government Board if he will secure reports from the medical officers of health of those districts in,Cornwall to which miners return after employment in the mines of the Witwatersrand with regard to the prevalence of phthisis amongst those men?
    Mr. BURNS: I quite agree that it is important to obtain information on this question, and I am about to communicate with the authorities concerned. The county council of Cornwall have appointed a tuberculosis officer, and are actively engaged in providing a sytem of dispensaries, sanatoria, and hospitals for the county for dealing with persons suffering from tuberculosis.

    Elementary Schools.
    Lord NINIAN CRICHTON-STUARTasked the President of the Board of Education whether the teachers at Llansannor and Llanharry school have yet been paid their full salaries and arrears since the school has been reopened?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. J. A. Pease): From a communication which the Board received on Friday from the local education authority, I understand that the salaries were paid from the 9th December (the date of the reopening of the school) to the 28th February last, but that, owing to fresh difficulties having arisen between the managers and the authority, the salaries since the latter date have not been paid by the authority.
    Lord N. CRICHTON-STUART: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what are the fresh difficulties that have arisen?
    Mr. PEASE: From communications which I have received, I understand that in the opinion of the education authority the teachers do not possess the necessary educational qualification, but I will look into the whole matter.
    Lord N. CRICHTON-STUART: Is it the education authority that is dissatisfied or the secretary of the education authority?
    Mr. PEASE: The education authority.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that general dissatisfaction exists with the present system of education in so far as concerns its results in regard to handwriting and arithmetic; and whether the Government will consider the propriety of improving tuition in these and in other essential respects, rather than of making alterations which will add to the burdens of the already overburdened payers of taxes and rates?
    Mr. PEASE: I do not think there is evidence of such general dissatisfaction as the hon. Member suggests, at all events, on the part of persons who are really qualified to judge of the work of schools as a whole and of the progress which education has made in the last twenty years. I am fully aware of the importance of these subjects, but an improved system of education cannot be secured without adequate expenditure by the taxpayer or the ratepayer.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Education if he is aware that the attractiveness of the monitorship system in elementary schools as a preparation for the teaching profession lies in the small monetary allowance made both to the headmaster and to the monitor; and whether, in view of the increasing shortage of candidates for teacherships in the elementary schools and the reluctance of parents to permit their children to expend time in receiving a secondary school education, even where such is available at no great distance from their homes, he will, in interpreting Article 28 of the Regulations for the Preliminary Education of the Elementary School Teachers for 1909, as amended by Circular 821, permit the above system to continue in cases where the headmaster is competent and where the intending teacher would not otherwise seek to enter the teaching profession?
    Mr. PEASE: I am not aware how far monitors are attracted by any payment made by the local education authority, and how far by a desire to become teachers. The Regulations of the Code with regard to the employment of

    1253
    monitors remain unaltered. The importance of the part taken by the head teacher of the elementary school in the education and training of intending teachers is specialy recogised in the new scheme of Grants in respect of pupil teachers in country districts. With regard to age, the new Regulations allow recognition to begin at fourteen, but do not require that the pupil teacher shall be employed in, or receive instruction in, teaching during the first year of his recognition.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Does the right hon. Gentleman admit that the student-teacher system is not producing elementary school teachers?
    Mr. PEASE: I cannot answer a question of that kind off hand; it is rather a complicated subject.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Education whether the Board sanction and encourage the practice of sending reports upon the work of children in elementary schools to their parents at least once a year; to what extent this practice prevails; and whether it is extending?
    Mr. PEASE: The practice to which the hon. Member refers does not require the sanction of the Board, and they have no information which would enable them to state to what extent it prevails, or whether it is extending.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Is the practice encouraged by the Board of Education?
    Mr. PEASE: Yes, it is a practice that we encourage that the parents should have information in regard to the education given to their children in the schools, but the matter is purely within the discretion of the local education authority.

    EDUCATION BILL.
    Sir WILLIAM ANSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education a question, of which I have given him private notice: Whether the official communication which appeared in the "Times" newspaper on Tuesday is accurate in representing the intention of the Government to introduce, in the course of next week, an Education Bill of one Clause, concerned with the grant of financial assistance to necessitous local authorities; whether he can state the day on which the Bill will be introduced; and whether the Bill will afford an opportunity for discussing the
    1254
    educational policy of the Government as sketched in the speeches of the Lord Chancellor and Lord Crewe?
    Mr. PEASE: I intend to introduce next week, possibly on Tuesday, a one-Clause measure which will overcome certain technical difficulties to enable me to give this year some limited financial assistance to local education authorities. I believe that it is the practice to allow a Minister, when introducing a Bill, some latitude, and I propose to outline certain aspects of the educational policy of the Government. It is, I think, also usual that any matter referred to by a Minister on such an occasion may be subsequently discussed by other Members of the House.
    Mr. P. ALDEN: Will the financial assistance be in respect of this or next year?
    Mr. PEASE: I said I hoped to be able to give some this year. It is with a view to enable me to do so that I propose to introduce the Bill.
    Sir PHILIP MAGNUS: Will adequate time be given for a discussion of the statement that is to be given as to the policy of the Government?
    Mr. PEASE: I hope so.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: Is there anything in this year's Estimates that will enable the right hon. Gentleman to give an increased Grant-in-Aid to any of the schools this year?
    Mr. PEASE: I think the right hon. Gentleman had better wait until I introduce the Bill, when I will make it quite plain.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  IMPERIAL WIRELESS CHAIN.

    MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT.
    Mr. W. GUINNESS: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, in order to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the refusal of the Postmaster-General to allow any other company besides the Marconi Company to tender for the erection of the Imperial Wireless Chain.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds asks leave to strove the Adjournment of the House, in order to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the refusal of the Postmaster-General to allow any other company besides the Marconi Company to tender for the erection of the Imperial Wireless Chain. Has the hon. Member the sanction of the House?
    The pleasure of the House having been signified, the Motion stood over, under Standing Order No. 10, until a quarter past Eight o'clock this evening.

    NEW MEMBER SWORN.
    Sir Alexander Henderson, Baronet, for the Borough of St. George, Hanover Square.
BILL PRESENTED.
  POOR LAW OFFICERS' SUPERANUATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  "To provide for Superannuation Allowances to Poor Law Officers and servants in Scotland, and for contributions towards such allowances by such officers and servants; and to make other relative provisions." Presented by Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR; supported by Sir John McCallum, Mr. Scott Dickson, Mr. Barnes, Mr. MacCallum Scott, Mr. Scanlan, Mr. Godfrey Collins, and Mr. Dundas White; to be read a second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 262.]

SUPPLY.—FOURTEENTH ALLOTTED DAY.
Considered in the Committee.
[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1913–14.— [Progress.]

  BOARD OF TRADE.—(Class II—VOTE 8.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £236,390, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1914, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Committee of Privy Council for Trade and Subordinate Departments." [Note.—£140,000 has been voted on account.]
  Mr. PETO: I beg to move, That Subhead A (Salary of the President of the Board of Trade) be reduced by £100."
  In moving this Amendment, I should like first to make it clear to the Committee that the members of the merchant service and particularly the officers are very conscious of the fact that the President of the Board of Trade gives them a most painstaking hearing to the large number of old-standing grievances brought to his notice on questions relating to the various subjects, such as deck loads, accommodation for officers and men on board ship, hospital accommodation, and above all, the question of the new sight test, but at the same time they cannot say they think that these questions have had the careful consideration of the members of the Board of Trade The present condition of affairs with regard to the merchant shipping service is extremely unsatisfactory, and very little real progress has been made. Before I go into these questions with regard to the merchant service, there is one other matter with which I should like to deal, otherwise I wish to concentrate the attention of the Committee this afternoon upon question of the merchant service. I should like to refer very briefly to a matter which I understand from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade is not under his direct control, but rather under the direct control of the Treasury. I refer to the administration of the Merchandise Marks Act, 1887, and especially to the importation into this country of a large number of fancy boxes manufactured abroad. The Committee will bear in mind that the box trade in this country has been placed under the Trade Boards

  1273
  Act, and the Board awards the wages to be paid in this country to those engaged in that industry, and those wages are now regulated under a Parliamentary authority. Therefore, it would seem to me, that that trade is entitled to the protection which is afforded by the Merchandise Marks Act, and should be so treated as required by the Trade Boards Act. I understand, on the contrary, that an Order has been issued to make the importation of boxes, some not only of considerable value but of nearly as great value as their contents, to be brought into this country without any certificate of origin. I only ask the President of the Board of Trade to take this matter into his consideration and bring what influence he can to bear upon the Treasury, keeping in mind that these imported boxes compete with British trade, which has to pay rates of wages regulated under the Trade Boards Act.
  I now come to deal, first of all, with the question of what is known as the new sight test which has been imposed upon officers of the merchant service whenever they stand for any fresh examination, and, of course, before they get their first certificate, and right up to the time when they get their extra master's certificate. The results, so far as they are known, of this new sight test on the employment of a very large number of men in the merchant service can only be regarded as disastrous. The new colour test came into operation upon 1st April last, and before the month of April had expired, I was informed, in answer to a question put to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, that there were seven or eight cases of officers who failed to pass the new sight test. It is estimated that the new sight test will make a difference to a very large percentage of men getting on. As every certificate comes up the Board of Trade are taking the course, under Section 471 of the Merchandise Marks Act, which deals with the question of incompetency of officers, of applying this test, and calling upon those who fail to pass the sight test to surrender certificates they previously held. This is a question affecting the whole career of these men, and it is of the utmost importance that we should inquire into the origin and reason for the stiffening up of the sight tests, and whether they are really necessary for the protection of merchant shipping and whether they are practicable. With regard to the origin of the new test, it is curious that the Board of Trade did not
  1274
  move on their own volition. Pressure was brought to bear upon them by the Union Steam Shipping Company of New Zealand, which proposed fresh and more drastic tests for its officers. The officers very naturally replied, "What is good enough for the Board of Trade in England ought to be good enough for the Union Steamship Company, New Zealand." The question was brought up again at the Shipping Conference, and the Board of Trade first objected, but ultimately agreed to the appointment of a Committee to consider the question of tests. I am not going into the question of the scientific qualifications of this Committee. I only say that there were on the Committee a very large number of scientific gentlemen, and that it did include one representative of the shipowners, Sir Norman Hill. It contained no representative of the shipmasters or officers who were liable to be tried, if not for their lives, at all events as to their future careers, which is nearly the same thing to them. When the Committee reported on this question, the representative of the shipping interest put in a special reservation in the Report which shows that he by no means agreed with what they proposed, and that there is still a question for the Board of Trade. Sir Norman Hills says:—
  "If, after full consideration, the Board of Trade adhere to the new standard as necessary for the safety, then the shipowners, and in particular those who are dependent upon the support of the travelling public, will be compelled to enforce it upon the officers now in their service whether they believe in it or not; and in that event, if the Board of Trade's estimates are accepted, many officers now holding certificates will be displaced, although it has been demonstrated that they are as regards their sight competent men."
  Let me say, although the. Board of Trade had scientific experts upon this Committee, I make this broad statement that scientific opinion in this country is sharply divided as to whether the tests are practical or necessary. On the 1st May, this year, the following resolutions were passed by the "Ophthalmological Society"
  "We, the undersigned, are of opinion that the sight tests of the Board of Trade are not satisfactory, for the following rasons:—

  1. The types in the form vision test submitted should be printed on a smooth flat surface, preferably of white porcelain, and not on a roll of canvas which has to be held down by the examiner.

  2. The wool test for colour-blindness is not an efficient test.

  3. Any lantern used for testing for colour-blindness should have means for regulating the luminosity of the lights shown."

  This was signed by thirty-two members of the society. Therefore, I only need to point out to the Committee that, as far as scientific opinion, upon which I am not

  1275
  qualified to give any verdict myself, is concerned it is sharply divided, and is by no means entirely or even mainly favourable to the position taken up by the Board of Trade. As to the real risk to the public, the first thing I would call attention to is that the late chief of the Marine Department of the Board of Trade informed the Committee that the Board were not aware of any casualty which could be traced to defective vision, and Sir Norman Hill, an experienced shipowner, pointed out that there were about 300,000 voyages made per annum in British vessels, and over a period of twenty years during which the old sight tests had been enforced 6,000,000 voyages had been accomplished without a single case of casualty which could be attributed to a defective sight. This misguided activity on the part of the Board of Trade is in sharp contrast to the want of activity of the Board of Trade in many other matters. Upon this question I want to summon to my side some expert authority among practical seamen, and I will quote Commander Wilson Barker, who commands the training ship "Worcester." He says:—
  4.0 P.M.
  "The examination of the eyesight of youths should be in the hands of oculist physicians, and they could determine at once whether it would be safe for a young man to embark on the career. After that the practical examination, as you suggest, might be taken up."
  I think it is not too much to say that as a matter of principle we might consider, in view of the enormous importance of the career of these men to them and their family, that they should at least have the same right as anybody else who find themselves in the same position in this country, and that is that they should have practical consideration of their case and that they should not be condemned on account of some expert evidence which in many cases is absolutely unpractical. I have asked the President of the Board of Trade questions on this subject in the House, and I have been told by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade that the cases in which officers have failed in tie sight-test examination were not officers holding certificates. I find that in every ease the Board of Trade have taken the course to which I have referred, and I would like to read a short paragraph from a letter written to one of these men who failed in the month of April last to pass the new sight test. It is signed by W. F. Marwood, of the Board of Trade Marine Department. It is as follows:—
  "In this connection I am to point out that nude Section 471 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, if the
  1276
  Board have reason to believe that a certificated officer is unfit to discharge his duties, they may order an inquiry into his competency to hold his certificate. Before taking any action under the provisions of this Section the Board would be glad to know whether you are prepared, as an alternative, voluntarily to surrender the certificate of competency as first mat e (steamships) which you hold."
  After reading the Act I think that the Board of Trade, in taking that very drastic action, are stretching if not breaking their legal powers, and, at any rate, I would ask, in view of the fact that the Board of Trade are entitled to order an inquiry, that such an inquiry should be held, and that there should be a practical test of these men tinder sea-going conditions conducted by competent officers in the marine service, or any other seafarers who may be appointed for that purpose by the Board of Trade. Then I think the merchant service would have a very great deal more confidence in the result. As to the present test which is responsible for most of the trouble, it consists of the exhibition from a lantern on a screen of two tiny points of light, one red and one green, which, to any person of ordinary vision, look like pin points. These points are scientifically worked about to represent ship's lights at a distance of one mile. I am told by practical seamen that they represent nothing of the kind. One of them has written to me as follows:—
  "It bears no resemblance whatever to the light of the ship at one mile distant, although it plight come within the category of a light fire miles distant."
  It is a test which no seafarer is called upon to look at or observe at sea at all It is an attempt to combine two things at once, namely, acuteness of vision with the question of colour-blindness. I feel very strongly about this matter because I have been through the test myself. I know that I am not colour-blind, and I could satisfy the examiners on every other point, but I could not distinguish the red and green lights when they were dodged about because I could hardly see them, and it is not fair to say that that is anything like the reflection of a ship's lights which may vary according to the dampness of the atmosphere. I can give to the Committee a number of practical cases, but I will only mention one of an officer who went up for his examination under the old test on the 31st March, and having passed successfully he decided to sit for the extra master's certificate on the 14th April, but under the new sight test he was ignominiously "ploughed," and was told he would have to surrender all his previous certificates. That one

  1277
  case could be multiplied by at least a dozen others which I have already sent to the President of the Board of Trade, and consequently I will not trouble the Committee with the details of them. I only wish to ask that in this matter we should have a practical test in every case where an officer has not passed under the new sight test before a man is deprived of his living. I think that is not too much to ask, and, in addition, I would like the President of the Board of Trade to go into the whole question of these different sight tests from a practical point of view. What good are they going to do? I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider these points before the 1st January next, when the new and more drastic test for acuteness of vision is to come into operation. If the President of the Board of Trade will do this he will meet the demands of a very proper agitation on behalf of the officers of the marine service. I would point out that this is not a question in which only the officers of the marine service are interested, because there has been a deputation of shipowners who feel equally strong on this subject, and the pilots are equally concerned about the matter. In this case you have a consensus of opinion against the new test, and it is not a case of the masters against the men, but the whole of them are against what they call a wholly unwarranted scientific experiment which is being conducted at their expense.
  Another point I wish to raise is in regard to the provision of ships' hospitals in our ordinary cargo vessels. I think some place ought to be set apart for the members of the crew who may be stricken with an infectious disease, and this is necessary for the protection of the officers and other members of the crew, as well as for the afflicted persons, who ought to have a reasonable chance of recovery. A Departmental Committee on Drug Scales on board ship made a recommendation in January, 1912, on this question. I asked a question upon it about six months afterwards, and I was informed that in ten cases only had any ship been fitted up with a hospital for the crew. I would like to know how many more have been fitted up in the meanwhile, and whether the Board of Trade are not able to do something snore practical on this subject than merely adopting pious resolutions that such a thing is desirable if it can be arranged. In this matter, as in a great many other matters, we are entirely behind every other country. If you go over the
  1278
  up-to-date marine ships belonging to the German Mercantile Marine or of any other foreign country which owns any mercantile marine worthy of the name, you will find that there is a far larger percentage of those vessels fitted up with hospital accommodation for the members of the crew than is the case in our own Merchant Service. On the analogous question of accommodation on board ship generally the Merchant Shipping Act of 1906 requires that 72 cubic feet space should be allotted to each seaman, and even that was an increase over what had been considered necessary before that time. I would like to mention that on shore 400 cubic feet is considered the proper thing, and it appears to me that this allotment of 72 cubic feet is based upon the misguided notion that somehow or other life at sea is an open-air life. Anybody who has been even a cross-Channel journey knows that there is no spot in the whole world where people can suffer so intensely from want of air and ventilation as on hoard ship, particularly on a rough night. The whole question seems to have been regarded from a wholly impracticable point of view. It is not a question of how much cubic air space each man should have, but it is more a question of the ventilation, whether the arrangements for the accommodation are reasonable, scientific, sanitary, and proper. We have no practical supervision whatever, and nothing is done except one of the junior surveyors of the Board of Trade makes an inspection of the ship in regard to the accommodation to be allotted to the seamen, and if it works out at 72 cubic feet apiece the matter is passed quite regardless of any other consideration. Yesterday the Port of London Sanitary Authority issued a report which I think is worthy of the attention of this Committee. The sanitary officer reports:—
  "I must again repeat that the conditions under which seamen live on board vessels are extremely favourable to the spread of infection and the development of this disease."
  That is under the heading of tuberculosis. The Report continues:—
  "The occupants of the seamen's quarters on board many ships may be described as 'troglodytes,' for indeed many of these places are verily similar to caves, constructed of air-tight materials, dark, overcrowded in a hygienic sense, and ventilated (?) by an iron pipe which is generally blocked up, thus only allowing fresh air to enter by the doors. The following example, which was met with during the year, will indicate the possible danger which may arise from persons on board suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis."
  That is exactly what takes place. The medical officers of the Board of Trade number five, and they are allotted to the

  1279
  ports of London, Liverpool, and Southampton, and consequently they have no time to make inspections at any other ports. Their whole time for inspecting is taken up with the inspection of emigrant ships with the exception of occasional visits to cargo vessels. There are only five of them, and they have to see whether the contents of the drug chests are in order and according to the scale. I have had letters from various officers on this question, and one of them calls particular attention to a vessel of the German Australian Line, between which and the ship in which he was sailing he draws a very marked contrast. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is creditable to us, as the country owning the first Merchant Service in the world, to have it reported with absolute authenticity that in all these respects which I have mentioned we are far behind every other modern nation. Next to the accommodation on board ship—indeed, I do not know whether it is not really more important still—is the question of the officers' hours. Of course, it is of very great importance that both officers and men should have reasonable comfort—they do not ask for luxury or anything of that kind—and healthy conditions when they are off work, but how about when they are at work? In case the President of the Board of Trade might be inclined to think that this question is one entirely for legislation, I would point out that in March, 1899, the Marine Department of the Board of Trade issued instructions as to procedure under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1897, and Items 2 and 3 are as follows:—
  "2. Foreign-going steamships of over 2,500 tons gross s of more than 320 feet in length should have, independently of the roaster and two mates, not less than eight efficient deck hands.
  3. Foreign-going-steamships of over 5,500 tons gross, or of Inure than 420 feet in length should have, independently of the master and two mates, not less than ten efficient deck hands."
  The gross tonnage is taken in both cases, and that is the proper measure of the size of the ship. Although the Board specified that there should be two more efficient deck hands in a ship of 5.500 gross tonnage than in a ship of 2,500 gross tonnage, they specified that the master and two mates were sufficient in both cases. The result of that is the two-watch system, under which practically all our cargo-carrying trade is carried on. I should like particularly to quote one case to the Committee. It is the case of an officer on the South American
  1280
  coasting trade. He sends the complete register for the twelve months, showing the hours worked. That register shows that in the entire year he was on duty for 6,141½ hours, which works out at an average of 511 hours per month, or seventeen hours per day. That is the average for the entire twelve months, including Sundays. When we hear of an agitation on shore for an eight hours day and so forth, I think it is very remarkable that the Board of Trade, who are active in looking after the regulation of wages, hours, and things of that kind on shore, have paid absolutely no attention to the recommendations of the Committee which sat specially to consider this subject, and they have done nothing practicable to limit this tremendous amount of overwork. It is not only work at sea. The officer's work is not ended when the ship gets into port. I have a case of an officer who speaks of his experience at Calcutta. In three successive weeks he worked nineteen hours one Sunday, seventeen hours the next, and nineteen hours on the third Sunday. It is not likely we can get an adequate supply of officers for the merchant service—and the Navy depends, and ought to depend still more, upon the merchant service being properly officered—while this state of things exists.
  Some time ago the Board of Trade did suggest, some recognition of Sunday-work in pay, but the shipowners said that a maritime wage was well understood to mean seven days a week, and nothing whatever has been done. Here again, I would call attention to the fact that in the United States they have just passed regulations of the very kind for which we are asking, ensuring that on vessels above a certain size there should be three officers carried besides the master. The same thing is true of Australia. It is not creditable to us to be lagging behind and doing nothing to bring our regulations up to the mark. The Report of the Departmental Committee, which sat on the question of manning, stated definitely that a ship was not to be considered in a seaworthy condition unless it was so officered that the officers had a reasonable time for rest before they took up their duties on the bridge. That is not possible or practicable in the present circumstances. The present system means work all day long. In India, for instance, an officer is at work when the ship is in port all day under the burning sun. At six o'clock or sun-down the vessel weighs anchor and

  1281
  goes on to the next port, and the same officer takes up his watch on the bridge. That is the common case in all these trading vessels, and it ought to be stopped, and stopped at once, certainly before the President of the Board of Trade takes any steps in the direction of stiffening up the sight test. I will only just mention the question of the surveying staff. There is an increase in the Estimates this year for nautical and marine and engineer surveyors, but that increase, considering the volume of our shipping trade, is wholly inadequate, and a great deal of it is simply with a view to looking after or superintending the provision of life-saving apparatus. That is very important, and I can quite understand what it is that has at last managed to move the Board of Trade to do something in that direction, but we do not want to have to wait until there are more shipping casualities such 'as the foundering of the "Titanic" before the Board of Trade can 'be induced to move to ensure an adequate staff to meet the ordinary contingencies of seafaring life.
  The question of alien officers on British ships is one which undoubtedly requires regulation at once. The number of alien officers may not seem very great. We have sixty-three alien masters and mates on sailing ships, and sixty-two alien masters and 272 alien officers on steamships, but I say that under present conditions there ought to be none. Whatever may be necessary with regard to the crew, it would be perfectly simple to make it an absolute condition of flying the British flag that the ship should be adequately officered, and officered by British subjects. The Admiralty have recently, and I think very properly, taken steps to use our merchant fleet as the eyes of the Navy. They have issued a form to steamship owners asking them to communicate with their captains and to arrange that in time of war information should be given as to the character of every vessel which is sighted. That may be of enormous importance, but, considering that when the Pilotage Bill was before the House, it was felt necessary to give special powers to the Admiralty to preclude alien officers who hold the pilot certificate from certain pilotage districts, surely it is equally necessary that the Board of Trade should collaborate with the Admiralty in this matter of alien masters. Pilotage into port is not the only thing of importance in the time of a naval war. It is clearly of importance that the Navy should have
  1282
  immediate information of foreign vessels sighted in certain waters. Such information at once communicated by the right people might be the means of saving us from naval disaster or at any rate of putting us in a very much better position than if we had not the information. It is not safe or wise or in accordance with the course taken by the Government under the Pilotage Bill that we should any longer allow the flying of the British flag by vessels with alien masters and officers.
  I have given particulars to the right hon. Gentleman especially of vessels trading in the Mediterranean. In one case there was not a single person of English nationality on board. The ownership was more than suspect, and the officering and manning of the vessel left no possible doubt in anyone's mind. It was to all intents and purposes a foreign vessel, but it was kept on the British register probably for the purpose of carrying on a trade which a vessel belonging to a, possible enemy Power would not be able to carry on. There is the case of the Khedivial line of steamers carrying British mails and enormous numbers of passengers. There are nineteen vessels of that line, and there are only ten officers of British nationality altogether. It is simply a question of pay and nothing else. They will not pay the standard rate for British officers, and they therefore have men whose names show the nationality to which they belong. I do not know whether I called the attention of the President of the Board of Trade to the case of the steamship "Calvados," which went ashore in March last, and in which there was great loss of life. The life-saving apparatus was absolutely inadequate, and the Court made the strongest statement to the Board of Trade. I should like to read a line or two of the finding of the Court:—
  "The Court desired specially to direct the attention of the Board of Trade to the want of certificated officers on board a ship flying the British flag, and to the fact that the Court was unable to deal with masters or mates of foreign nationality, owing to ex-territorial jurisdiction in this country. They also desired to direct the attention of the Board of Trade to the insufficiency of the means of saving life existing on board."
  That is the case of the ss. "Calvados," the inquiry into which was held on 10th and 11th March last. A number of the passengers and crew were frozen to death, and a great many others were drowned. Then there is the question of the load line, and the deeper immersion of British ships. That was altered in 1906. I understand that there is a Committee now sitting and taking evidence on the question before our

  1283
  representatives meet the representatives of foreign Powers to try and get some general and uniform maritime law with regard to these matters. I would only there again refer to the fact that there is no representative on 'that Committee of the shipmasters and officers which are and must undoubtedly be the only people who have practical experience of what this change in the deeper immersion of heavily laden vessels means. They are people very likely who, in many cases, have been in the same ship both before and after the alteration, and have made many voyages under both conditions, and they therefore can speak with authority on the effect of the change. What is more important, they can weigh and measure up the value of the evidence given. There is a good deal of difficulty in inducing ship's officers to give evidence. I understand that one officer has already given evidence, and that three or four more are prepared to do so as long as their names are not published by the Committee. I would urge the President, of the Board of Trade not to proceed in this matter on the line of levelling down, but to try and get other countries to come to an international agreement on an important matter of this kind, and to have the load line levelled up to our standard. It is not desirable that he should make a concession to shipowners to enable them to make a little more money, because of certain conditions which they consider unfavourable in other respects.
  The next question, although a comparatively small one, constitutes a real and grave injustice to the officers who are concerned, when there is any casualty on a ship on which they may be, and the grievance is in connection with the question of costs of Board of Trade inquiries and of Board of Trade appeals. I would like to give the right hon. Gentleman two illustrations which occurred this year. In one case a vessel went ashore in St. Lawrence, and in the other case she went ashore in the Straits of Newfoundland. In both cases an inquiry was held in Canada. In both cases the master was found to blame. In the first case he had been on duty fifteen hours, and was unwell. There was a qualified pilot on board at the time. The master was so unwell that he had to go into hospital on arrival in Canada. The Court, however, found that he should not have left the bridge. Over here the decision was reversed. I do not propose to go into the merits of the finding of the Court in Canada. All I need say is that
  1284
  the master's certificate was suspended for a period of three months, and before the appeal was heard in this country, an appeal which entirely exonerated him from all blame, five months had elapsed. He had, therefore, been without a certificate not only for the period of three months, which was the penalty imposed by the Court in Quebec, but for two months in addition. He was allowed no costs. Ho got no contribution of any kind towards his costs, even in respect of those incurred in connection with the appeal in this country. As a general practice, it appears-to me the judges or those who conduct these inquiries are very much disposed to grant costs. It has not been the practice of the Board of Trade to give any costs in these cases. They are invariably refused.
  I would ask the President of the Board of Trade to consider this question. It may be that the Lord Chancellor framed the Shipping Casualties Rules of 1895, but he did so on the advice of the Board of Trade, and in view of the raison d'étre of these inquiries, I think it is wholly unreasonable, seeing that an officer is not so much put upon his trial as that the inquiry is held for the protection of shipping and of the public, so that the whole facts may be investigated, and it may be found out what is the true cause of the casualty—I say it is very unreasonable that, where an officer is exonerated from all blame, he should not have his costs. It should be a matter of course with the Board of Trade, as representing the public in this matter, to take upon itself the entire costs of the inquiries. But there has been no initiative on the part of the Board of Trade in this direction. Frequently recommendations have been made to the Board of Trade by persons holding an inquiry, but no action has ever been taken. This is a very small matter from the point of view of the Board of Trade, but hon. Members should consider what a very serious thing it is to an officer of a ship to which a casualty has happened, for which he is in no way to blame, and in connection with which in some cases his conduct may have been not only exemplary but heroic, that he should, in spite of losing his employment for a time, and perhaps of altogether losing his engagement, be called upon to pay heavy costs. If it were not for the protection of the Imperial Merchant Service Guild, that man might be ruined by the expense of the inquiry in which he makes good his, own character.

  1285
  Next I come to the question of the deck-load. Here, again, I believe it is very desirable that we should approach the subject from the international point of view. I am not going to recommend any Amendment in the law, because that would be out of order. But I would like to tell the Committee exactly why I do not take that course. The question of deck-loads of timber is dealt with in the Merchant Shipping Act, in Section 451, and the effect of that Section, which is in operation at the present time, is that between the 31st October and the 6th April it is unlawful for any vessel, whether foreign or British, to unload timber deck-loads in any port of the United Kingdom. There are certain reservations in regard to making specially fast or slow voyages which might bring the vessel within the prescribed time, but the general effect is as I have described. There is nothing, however, to prevent a British vessel carrying a deck-load of timber going to a Continental port to unload it there, and then coming across here to unload the rest of her cargo. Consequently this Section, instead of being a protection for British shipping, handicaps British trade. It effects no other purpose whatever.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member appears to be recommending legislation.
  Mr. PETO: No; I was explaining why I did not think that any Amendment in legislation could possibly be effective. I ask the Board of Trade to take immediate steps to inquire as to what has been the result of the working of the law as it now stands, and to hold that inquiry with a view to summoning an international conference, so that the law may be made uniform. I want the right hon. Gentleman to take executive action. I do not ask him to proceed with any proposal to amend the law of this country, because I conceive that no Amendment dealing solely with British shipping and applying to British ports will meet the difficulty. I also ask him to consider the question as regards other kinds of deck-loads. There are many vessels trading from such ports as Harwich to Continental ports which carry a great deal of bulky deck cargo, such as threshing machines, locomotive engines, furniture vans, and motor cars. These vessels were never designed for such a purpose at all and I invite the President of the Board of Trade to consider whether it would not
  1286
  be a reasonable exercise of his powers that he should say that shipowners who desire to go in for this particular form of trade should take some steps to comply with Board of Trade Regulations, which do not exist at present, but which ought to be framed, in the direction of prescribing the design of the vessel, so that it should have some portion of the deck which, while open to the sky, might be a suitable place for such cargo without interference with or impeding the navigation of the ship. Some such arrangement could easily be made for the kind of cargo which cannot easily be put below hatches.
  It seems amazing, seeing that the deck is designed for the working of the ship and not for the carrying of such cargo, that such multifarious articles should be placed upon it, and it would be well—indeed, it should be a part of the duty of the Board of Trade to exercise some kind of supervision as to the design of vessels intended to carry that kind of traffic. I believe, if some such course was adopted, the most bulky kinds of cargo could be carried without any trouble and with the greatest safety. I would be the last person to wish to put any difficulty in the way of manufacturers of this country exporting locomotives and other heavy articles to foreign countries. But without creating any such difficulties, I say it would be perfectly easy to regulate the designs of vessels intended for this kind of trade in such a way as to ensure that these things shall be safely carried. They are not safely carried at present. The President of the Board of Trade recently got out a Return of casualties in the last six or seven years, in which the Courts found that the carrying of deck cargo of various sorts was directly responsible for the casualty. I went through that list, and I found at least thirty cases in which that was the principal cause of the disaster, which in many cases had led to great loss of life. Very often these cargoes carried on deck are so carried because of their greasy nature. They consist of lard, fats, or oils, which may be liable to damage other cargo if put below. There can be nothing more disastrous to the navigation of a ship in times of storm than to have a lot of greasy deck cargo break adrift, rendering it impossible to stand on any part of the deck. It may well be imagined that there have been cases where people have, in consequence, fallen and broken a limb, or have been washed overboard, simply through the carrying of such

  1287
  cargo. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to turn his attention to this matter, not with a view to the Amendment of the Merchant Shipping Act, but with the object of putting forward reasonable regulations for the carrying of deck cargoes of this miscellaneous type. I would ask him to take steps at the earliest possible moment to get into touch with the mercantile marine of different countries with a view to coming to some uniform arrangement. Considering how up to date everything connected with the merchant shipping of Germany is, I do not think he will find any opposition on the part of Germany to falling into line with any reasonable recommendation that may be arranged internationally. I apologise to the Committee for delaying it so long, but these are such important questions and it is so very seldom that matters affecting the Merchant Service can be raised in this House, that that must be my excuse for speaking at this length. We have to recollect, too, that the people who are most concerned in these questions have very little, if any, opportunity of voting for the return of a Member to this House. They are, to all practical intents and purposes, deprived of the franchise, and, therefore, it is the more incumbent on Members of this House, and on the Board of Trade in particular, to give attention, and careful attention, not only to these questions, but to give practicable consideration to any suggestions that can be brought forward.
  Mr. CATHCART WASON: I am sure that while the hon. Member who has just spoken will not expect me to vote for this reduction, he will accept my sincere sympathy in many of the observations he has made. There is one point upon which I wish respectfully to say a few words. It came under my attention last year during a voyage abroad, when I was very seriously tackled by the captain of the ship, as excellently good a fellow as ever trod deck, with regard to the cause of casualties and loss of life at sea, casualties and losses for which he declared the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, when President of the Board of Trade, was responsible by raising the load line in the Merchant Shipping Act of 1906. We were very good friends at that time, and I pointed out to him that I had the greatest admiration for the then President of the Board of Trade, as I have for the present one, and that no such action on his part was taken. I could not persuade him he was wrong, and, naturally, he
  1288
  could not persuade me that I was wrong. Directly I got home I went to the late Sir Walter Howell, whose death, I am sure, we all deplore, and asked him for particulars. He furnished me with them and they showed that there was not a tittle of truth in the allegation made against my right hon. Friend. I am, therefore, surprised to notice that, rather under the protection of the society of which the hon. Member who has just sat down is a member and of which I am also a member, a statement has been issued which I am sure they will be the first to withdraw once their attention is called to it. It says:—
  "It is generally understood that this extraordinary step [of raising the load line] was taken to act as a 'sop to British shipowners in order to facilitate the passing of the Merchant. Shipping Act of 1906, which placed certain additional obligations upon them in respect to the provisioning of ships' crews, and to other matters which shipowners considered were inimical to their interests."
  I hope the hon. Member will obtain an absolute and unconditional withdrawal of that statement, for there is not a single word of truth in it from beginning to end. The late President of the Board of Trade had no more to do with the raising of the load line than the hon. Member who has just spoken. I am particularly anxious to bring this matter forward at the present moment, because I have just received the following resolution, which is going broadcast all over the country, and is having its effect on men's minds and men's votes and giving a very dangerous impression of what took place. It says:—
  "This meeting of the Lerwick Branch of the British Socialist party expresses its strong indignation at the raising of the load line on British ships by Mr. Lloyd George and the Board of Trade, by which several British vessels and the lives of British seamen have been lost, and the lives of many more seriously endangered. This action by administrative Order has undone the good work accomplished by the noble Samuel Plimsoll forty years ago. This meeting calls upon the Government at once to revert to the old Plimsoll line and thus put an end to this deliberate drowning of British seamen in order that ships may carry more cargo for the greater profit of their owners."
  The matter is one of such grave and serious importance that I thought, if I did not have an opportunity of dealing with it before, I would do so in this Debate. Can anyone imagine a more gross allegation made against an individual than that made against the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Here we are face to face with deliberate accusations. There is not one tittle of evidence in support of that statement against the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If they had taken the trouble to inquire into the facts, they would have found that the Plimsoll Act—all honour to the late Mr. Samuel.

  1289
  Plimsoll for the efforts he made to do something for British seamen—merely gave power to an owner to put a mark on his ship, by which mark he was bound till the vessel returned from her voyage. So far as I can gather from the sources at the disposal of a private Member, I learn that the expert Committee which was appointed in 1885 inquired very closely into this matter, and they reported that it was possible to fix tables of freeboard and load lines for various classes of ships. That was done. The Board of Trade and Lloyd's Registry used those tables for five years on the voluntary application of owners, and they remained in force until 1890. The Act of 1894 gave power to the 'Board of Trade to revise these tables from time to time. That has been done. As modern improvements took place in the building of ships, and science and skill were brought into play, the conditions were greatly modified; consequently the tables were modified from time to time. The last modification, which was a purely administrative Act, and had nothing whatever to do with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, took place in 1896. We have been assured that there have been a large number of lives lost since that date.
  We have no reason to doubt the figures in the table which has been submitted to us, which shows exactly the contrary state of affairs. It shows that for the last six years prior to the revision of the load line tables the number of vessels lost was 307; the percentage of vessels lost to vessels employed was 47, or 1 in 212; the total net tonnage lost was 158,146, the percentage of net tonnage lost to net tonnage employed was.28 or 1 in 358; the total number of crew lost was 2,092, and the percentage of crew lost to men employed was 15 or 1 in 662. For the six years subsequent to the revision of the load line tables the number of vessels lost was 240; the percentage of vessels lost to vessels employed.40 or 1 in 250; the total net tonnage lost, 151,219; the percentage of net tonnage lost to net tonnage employed,.24 or 1 in 424; the total number of crew lost, 1,940; and the percentage of crew lost to men employed.13 or 1 in 756. The number of masters and seamen washed overboard from deck by heavy seas during the five years ending 30th June, 1906, was 320, and the number during the six years ended the 30th June, 1912, was 274. These figures show a considerable diminution in the number of casualties, and prove conclusively that the statements which have been issued by the
  1290
  British Socialist party are entirely erroneous. I think I have made the point quite clear as to what exactly took place, and I hope my statement will satisfy both my hon. Friend, who represents the Merchant Shipping Guild, for which I have a great respect, and will also satisfy my Constituents.
  There is one further point I desire to press upon the President of the Board of Trade. When the Merchant Shipping Act was going through this House in 1906, I specially directed the attention of the then President of the Board of Trade to the fact that where vessels carried boats there was no supervision in regard to exercising the boats at sea. I was so far successful in eliciting the sympathies of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he went out of his way to obtain an amendment of the law in that respect, which now makes it compulsory to have the boats periodically overhauled and tested in port. I understand that has been completely satisfactory. I want my right hon. Friend to apply that same law to the state of affairs which exist when a vessel leaves this country clearing for South America, or even for the Mediterranean. What happens is that although the vessel is cleared here with its proper equipment for passengers and crew and a proper supply of boats, when it gets to other ports, what are called cluck passengers are taken on board in large numbers, and all the provision for boats is rendered absolutely useless. You may have good accommodation for 500 passengers and the crew, but there is no provision for the deck passengers. If the President would, as I believe he can, issue regulations or instructions under which these deck passengers should be duly reported, it would materially lessen the danger. The suggestion made by the hon. Member (Mr. Peto), that the President should take into his counsel and put on this Departmental Committee representatives of the Merchant Shipping Guild is a very admirable one. I cannot see that it would do any harm, and it would bring practical experience to bear. Practical experience is worth something in this world. Your scientists may go wrong occasionally, and such a step as that suggested would give confidence to the mercantile marine of this country, of which none of us can speak in too high terms of praise. I cordially support what the hon. Member said as to the long hours of officers, and upon the question of hospital ships.
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: There is one very interesting point in the speech of the hon. Member who has just sat down. He is determined, if he can, to induce the Committee to believe that the President of the Board of Trade is not responsible for the acts of this Department. That is a new theory. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, as he told us, has been blamed as President of the Board of Trade with regard to the load line. The hon. Member has given us a very fine example of party loyalty, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as the late President of the Board of Trade, must feel that strength comes from the Orkneys and reinforcement from the Shetlands to sustain him in this difficult moment. The lion. Member said that the present President of the Board of Trade, and the ex-President of the Board of Trade, are not responsible for the acts of their Department. I should like to hear the opinion of the permanent officials of those who administer the Department under the President of the Board of Trade, and of those who draft the administrative Orders with regard to that matter.
  Mr. CATHCART WASON: It was an administrative Order which the President could not possibly refuse.
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: I understand the hon. Member to say that when the Department undertakes to alter an administrative Order which has the effect of producing, as the hon. Member has shown, a great alteration in the working of the Merchant Shipping Acts and in the load line for British vessels, that the President of the Board of Trade is not responsible. I should like to ask the present President of the Board of Trade if he is prepared to shift the responsibility for administrative Orders upon his permanent and subordinate officials?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): I never have.
  5.0 P.M.
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: I do not think he has. Therefore, I need not dwell longer on that point, but it is quite clear that the hon. Member, in the enthusiasm of his loyalty to his party and to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, has advanced some new theory regarding the administration of Departments. The questions I intended to raise I shall not raise, because, happily, they have been settled. The President of the Board of Trade has a way of cutting the ground
  1292
  from under the feet of his foes by consideration of not merely plausible but just claims made by Members of this House in the interests of their constituents. I have no doubt the President of the Board of-Trade and his Department see how wise and just and fair some Members of the Opposition can be in their claims, and therefore meet them. I only rise for the purpose of supporting some of the statements made by the hon. Member (Mr. Peto). I remember with very great satisfaction that when the 1906 Merchant Shipping Act was passed the then President of the Board of Trade accepted an Amendment from me, which, if I remember aright, seemed to me to double the accommodation for seamen on board ship. That was very satisfactory to me and very satisfactory to Members of the Labour party and others on the Committee, but we raised the question, then, not only of accommodation but of adequate sanitary conditions and ventilation. I really cannot speak with any kind of certainty about them, but I have had complaints from sailors and others in my Constituency, and if it is true that the accommodation which was promised under the Act of 1906 is only accommodation in regard to space and does not include adequate ventilation and adequate sanitary conditions in connection with cubic square, the spirit of the Act is not being carried out, and I ant quite certain the President of the Board of Trade could have no desire not to compel the spirit of the Act to be carried out because with difficulty that, Clause and other correlated Clauses were passed in 1906, and having accomplished that, no President of the Board of Trade could desire to see the spirit of the Act unfulfilled, and any attempt on his part by administrative functions to compel the carrying out of the Act in the matter of ventilation and sanitary accommodation as well as cubic space would receive the support of everyone in the House.
  I hope the President of the Board of Trade will be able to assure us that he has made intimate inquiry on this point and that his information justifies him in saying that my hon. Friend is wrong. I hope my hon. Friend is wrong, but, if he is right, it is an extremely serious matter, and I know my hon. Friend has many sources of information which are undoubtedly authentic sources and authoritative sources, and therefore the President of the Board of Trade must, I think, take my hon. Friend's statement as state-

  1293
  ments of great gravity and treat them with the consideration which they undoubtedly deserve. My hon. Friend also referred to hospital accommodation. That was one of the things also that we discussed in the Debates upstairs in 1906, and they are all related—cubic space, sanitary accommodation, and appliances and ventilation—and in these days on the smallest ship there should be practically perfect ventilation, because you have electricity now. Electricity can be generated on the smallest ship, and there is no earthly reason why any portion of a ship should be ill-ventilated. Therefore, I think we are entitled, and we should ask the President of the Board of Trade whether this hospital accommodation, which is absolutely necessary and which with the 'increasing size of ships can easily be adjusted to the necessities of ship board, and the necessary ventilation and sanitary appliances are going to be secured or are at present secured to the sailors on our ships.
  There is another point which my hon. Friend brought up, and that is the employment of alien shipmasters in our merchant service. The President of the Board of Trade may have some ground for complaint. He may say that when this Bill was on upstairs this question ought to have been adequately dealt with. I think all of us who were on that Committee are somewhat to blame for not pushing this question as they pushed the question of the alien pilots. I must take my share of that responsibility, but there are difficulties in the case. It would be a very dangerous and difficult thing for the Government, if it had the power, to say that no alien shipmaster should be employed on British ships or on ships which fly the British flag. It would raise very serious international questions. For instance, we have got steamship lines between the United States and this country which fly the British flag behind which is British money, but behind which also is American money, and they are practically American liners. In the same way with the cross-channel traffic. It would be an exceedingly difficult thing for the Government to insist that there should be no alien shipmasters upon lines of that sort. My hon. Friend mentioned a line running from Smyrna and the Asia Minor ports to Alexandria and also Constantinople. There, again, it is a very serious question. I have thought much of it, and I always find great difficulty. It
  1294
  would be a very hard thing for this Government to prevent the Egyptian Government, who, naturally, want to do as well as they can by their Egyptian citizens, from becoming officers on ships that fly the British flag. It is a situation that I do not see the way out of at a moment's notice, nor do I see a way out of the situation which would be created were we to say that none but British officers should be employed on those lines of steamers running between the United States and this country, but my hon. Friend has shown the way out. He has said that under the Pilotage Act the question of alien pilots was raised, and the President of the Board of Trade had great difficulty, which, however, he surmounted, because it was an international question as this is an international question, of great gravity. He was able to secure that the Admiralty should be the final arbiter in regard to the employment of alien pilots. That, I think, was a very wise arrangement securing the national interests, but also preventing international difficulties. This, undoubtedly, is a grievance. I think there is as much danger in having alien shipmasters working our waters as alien pilots, and, if it were possible, the President of the Board of Trade ought to possess himself of the same powers as he secured under the Pilotage Act lately passed in this House. I am saying this with no little sense of the gravity of the situation, because I understand how great are the difficulties of the Department over which the right hon. Gentleman rules, but I am absolutely certain that when there is a question so grave to our national interests as this is every attempt should be made by the Government to alter the conditions in some way—if not by legislation by such agreement as the President of the Board of Trade might be able to make. I beg the President of the Board of Trade to consider very carefully the situation which he says exists, and to deal with it not with the idea of getting rid of a Parliamentary difficulty, but of doing a real national duty.
  Mr. MUNRO-FERGUSON: Very interesting points have been touched on in the course of the Debate, and I agree on several of them with those who have spoken. I agree especially that in respect to the training, the accommodation and the hours of the officers of the mercantile marine, we find a good deal of material for consideration. I think, just as a good deal has been done for the

  1295
  welfare of the seamen in the mercantile marine, something more may have to be done yet—I think a good deal has to be done on some lines, at any rate, or in some classes of ships—with respect to officers. Especially, I think, although something has been done for the training, a good deal more will have to be done yet before we reach the ideal of the manning being more composed of British subjects and the officering being entirely composed of British subjects. But what I rose particularly to ask about was whether my right hon. Friend has anything to state in regard to taking any action in the direction of mediation in regard to the trade disputes at Leith. He could not have a better correspondent than the Provost of Leith, and I have no desire to take part in any correspondence which may be going on, but I have formed my own opinion for what it is worth, and my own opinion is that it would be desirable to have conciliation, and that, if that course commends itself to the Department, I do not think conciliation can be undertaken too quickly with a view of bringing about harmony between the parties engaged in the dispute. There is a tendency to take the view that, as the dispute has begun, it may as well be fought out, but it is not only those who are actively concerned in the dispute who are suffering. The whole of the industrial population of one of the most important districts in the country is concerned. No doubt in this House a strike in London excites more interest than a strike in Scotland, but I hope that in the Department, no matter where a dispute takes place, an equally serious view is taken of the consequences of a dispute of this kind. For my part, I think disputes are apt sometimes to get overlooked by the Department. I hope that will not be so in the case I have brought before my right hon. Friend as the representative of that community. I think any local effort made so far for arbitration or conciliation has been conducted under the best possible auspices, and therefore it is not until local and voluntary effort fails that. I would wish the Department to take action in the interest of conciliation.
  Mr. BUXTON: Perhaps I may be allowed to reply to my hon. Friend now. I am in correspondence with those who have full knowledge of the matter, and one of my officers has gone down to Leith to make such inquiries as are advisable. I assure him that we are giving the matter
  1296
  the most earnest attention, and I would rather not make a statement in regard to it except to say that we are in touch with the Provost who is, we believe, one of the best persons to communicate with.
  Mr. JOYCE: My hon. Friend travelled over a wide field in his speech this evening. I think it is one of the most practical speeches I have listened to in this House. I do not intend to go through all the matters he dealt with in such a masterly way, but there are one or two points to which I wish to refer very shortly. The question of the load line has come up in this House on several occasions since the Act of 1906 became law. Members seem always to be confused about it. My recollection is very clear as to what led up to the passing of the provisions in that measure with respect to the load line. Very hard words have been said with regard to the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was then President of the Board of Trade, by the seafaring community as to the change in the load line. I do not think he has deserved all that has been said by the people who speak so strongly. I think the men whose action led to the passing of that Act should bear their fair portion of what is said on the subject. I have stated more than once in this House that the present Leader of the Opposition was Chairman of the Committee who went into this matter after the House of Commons rose in 1905. It was in the fall of that year the Committee sat. How the Committee was composed I do not know, but certainly it was not composed of practical seafaring men who would have to face the dangers of the sea. I believe my suspicion is well founded that the shipowning community of this country had a good deal to do with the formation of that Committee. In their Report the Committee advised the Government to bring in a Bill to change the load line. I presume that that Bill was on the stocks when the General Election took place in January, 1906, and immediately the Liberal Government came into power they were faced with the fact that they had to get the Merchant Shipping Bill through. Some Members who were in the House at that time fought the question of changing the load line. I think I spoke several times myself on it. However, the load line was changed, and British shipowners benefited to the extent of about a million tons per annum by it. That has gone on since, and it. is not satisfactory to the men who have to go on the ships.

  1297
  I have met scores of officers and seamen who have come across the Atlantic from North American and South American ports, and they have told me that in ordinary bad weather—not in extraordinary bad weather—owing to the change in the lead line, and having to take 400, 500 or 600 tons of cargo more on their ships than before the load line was changed, their ships looked like half-tide rocks. I think something should be done in this matter. The plea put forward in those days was that the British shipowner should be put on as fair a footing as the foreigner. I would not like to see the British shipowner put on the same footing as the foreigner if it means danger. I wish to see something done similar to what was done in the case of alien officers. We did our best during the passing of the Pilotage Bill to save pilots from the incursion of alien pilots. We did not get as much as I should have wished, but still we got a little. This question of the load line should get full and grave consideration from the Board of Trade. Ships of the old class—I do not say ships of the newer class would be as bad—which were built to carry a certain amount of cargo with due regard to the convenience and safety of the men who have to go on the ships should never have been allowed to have the load line changed. Until something reasonable is done, you will have these grievances existing, and they will be spoken of in this House and outside. I have tried to put before the House my view of the matter. I rose to speak of sight tests. The sight tests of the Board of Trade are getting more severe every year.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. J. M. Robertson)indicated dissent.
  Mr. JOYCE: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but I know something about this matter. I was present at the Conference of Pilots held two years ago. They are men of practical knowledge who know what they are talking about.
  Mr. ROBERTSON: The tests are not changed every year.
  Mr. JOYCE: You caught me up very quickly on a word. Great alterations have been made in a very short terms of years. I have been on the Merchant Shipping Advisory Committee for many years, and I have heard this question debated there also. It is all very well for the Parlia-
  1298
  mentary Secretary to the Board of Trade to shake his head. If the tests have not been changed and made more severe, why is it that the merchant shipping service have taken up this question? Why are the pilots taking it up and demanding practical tests instead of the tests made now which no practical and experienced man cares a button about? You are brought to Kensington and examined by men, who may be very clever in their way, but I do not think that they know very much about ships. There are two very tiny holes on a screen, and a green light and a red light are placed behind these holes. I think he would be a man of extraordinary eyesight who could not be confused by such a test as that. I have fairly good eyesight myself, and I am quite certain that if I had to undergo that test, I would fail; but if I were put on board a ship, I would not fail to detect the lights in a reasonable time. The Board of Trade should do away with the tests they have now and have proper practical tests.
  The tests should be made with lights at night-time and on the ground that the men have to go on. Bring your men down to a seaport and test them with lights at a proper distance, and then if a man fails, he knows that he has done so because his eyesight is not good enough. Take him into a room and toss a dozen skeins of wool before him, and the man may get excited at the time of the examination. It is easy Ito make a mistake, and, if he does so, he is pulled up by the examiners. It is easy to plough a man on these tests. What the Board of Trade should do—this suggestion is not brought forward in a party spirit at all—is to abolish the tests which are carried out by these gentlemen and to have proper practical tests made at a suitable time and place by practical men. I have heard the pilots complain of the present system, and they passed a resolution unanimously at a meeting held last month at South Shields, where the question was debated for four hours. I wish the President of the Board of Trade or the Parliamentary Secretary had been present to hear what these men said about the tests. The pilots have to go through severer-tests than masters and mates. They are tested at some ports every year, and at other ports every two years. The tests are getting more and more stringent, and they are carried out in the way I have described. Men who have done their work well for years will be caught napping on these little points, and if they fail they will lose their occupation. I would appeal

  1299
  to the President of the Board of Trade to take up this question in a practical manner. If he does so, he will allay the feeling of discontent that has arisen among pilots and others concerned at the various ports throughout the Kingdom.
  Mr. HILLS: I wish to say a few words about the working of the Labour Exchanges and especially with regard to the problem of casual labour. I would congratulate the Board of Trade—
  Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS: Do I understand that we can raise the question of Labour Exchanges on this Vote?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): That comes under Vote 7.
  Mr. DENMAN: Is it not possible on the salary of the President of the Board of Trade to raise any subject for which he is responsible, and would not that include Labour Exchanges?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: No, that is not so; otherwise there would be no object in putting down separate Votes on different subjects.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: The question which I wish to raise is very important to the people of Glasgow, and especially so on the eve of the Glasgow Fair holiday, when so many of the people will go on excursions down the Firth of Clyde. I refer to the failure of the Board of Trade to enforce its own regulations, as to the exhibition of lights by small yachts and vessels anchored in the Firth and the lochs. I may call attention to a collision which occurred in the Holy Loch last year, when one of the Caledonian Steam Packet Company's vessels, the "Marchioness of Breadalbane," ran down a small yacht which was anchored at night without exhibiting any light. The case came before the Glasgow Sheriffs Court on the 20th June. It was admitted in evidence that this small yacht, contrary to the Regulations of the Board of Trade, had exhibited no light. Nevertheless damages to the extent of £45 were awarded against the steamer. That particular case is at present under appeal, and I have got nothing to say as regards the merits. I am concerned only with the fact that the small yacht had exhibited no light, which fact, it so happened, was not material to the decision in the case. Since that judgment was given this practice of failing to observe the regulations has enormously
  1300
  increased, and small boats and yachts are anchored in the Firth and in the lochs by night without exhibiting any light. On several occasions I have questioned the President of the Board of Trade as to whether it was the intention of his Board to enforce these regulations, and I have been unable to get a definite answer from him. I was told that he is refraining from corning to a decision in the matter until the appeal which has been taken has been decided.
  I fail altogether to understand what is the question of fact or of law which has got to be decided which can affect his decision. Is he awaiting a decision as to the validity of the regulations or on sonic question of fact? Surely no question which can arise on this appeal ought to affect his decision on the simple question whether he intends to enforce these regulations or not, so long as the regulations remain nominally in force The danger to shipping is considerable. These yachts do not anchor merely in the shallow water or in unfrequented bays, as has been suggested. They anchor out in the Firth, sometimes in the tracks of steamers, and I have been informed by the captain of one steamer that on one evening on September last he was three times held up by small yachts anchored without a light, and he only escaped running them down by a few feet. You can well imagine on a dark night what a source of anxiety this must be to those who are responsible for navigating these vessels, and what a nervous shock it must give when they come within a few feet of a disaster of this kind, not merely that they may run the risk of damages, which happened to have been awarded in this case, but also that they may run the risk of loss of life! I may call attention to the injustice which has been inflicted upon owners of steamships and steamship companies. After the "Titanic" disaster very onerous and heavy responsibilities were imposed upon the shipping companies in the shape of new regulations for securing the safety of life at sea. The decks are cumbered with floating deck seats, with life-belts, and life-boats, and the deck space is taken up.=I make no complaint about that. These regulations are very desirable and necessary, but they are regulations the object of which is to mitigate and lessen the results of disaster. It is well that these regulations should be enforced; but why should you not enforce also the regulations which are aimed at preventing

  1301
  disaster altogether? If you enforce the regulations which are imposed upon the owners of steamships, why should you not also enforce the regulations on the owners of small boats and yachts which anchor in the Firth? This question is causing the greatest anxiety among all captains and owners of steamships which are navigating the Firth just now when we are on the eve of the Fair Week. I raised this in the form of questions last year before the Glasgow Fair holidays commenced. I raise it again now. There will be hundreds of thousands of passengers going down the river, the steamers will be crowded to their utmost capacity, there are many evening cruises, and it is quite possible that some small vessel may be run down and that the shell of the steamer may be pierced. What would be the result of an accident of that kind upon those crowded steamers during a season like this? I appeal to the President of the Board of Trade to give immediate consideration to this question, even before this appeal has been heard, and come to some decision as to whether ho is going to enforce these regulations or not. If the regulations are to be modified, let us know the conditions under which they are to be modified, and, if they are not to be enforced, let us know the conditions under which they are not to be enforced. Let us know the persons and the vessels which are going to be exempt, but do not let us remain in this state of uncertainty.
  Mr. SHIRLEY BENN: There are one or two points in connection with alien captains to which I wish to refer. I may be told that the President of the Board of Trade has strong views on the subject and agrees with me, but that he has not got the power to deal with it. I should, however, like to suggest one or two methods by which he could take action. There is nothing more dangerous to our commerce than having foreign captains on British vessels. There is no telling in case of a war what wrongful communication British ships officered by foreigners might not make to our naval authorities. They are allowed, where they have pilotage certificates, to bring their vessels into British ports, although, fortunately, under the new Pilotage Act, they are not now allowed to bring their ships into the 'Thames, the Harwich, the Humber, or the Grimsby Pilot districts. But if the Board of Trade would take counsel with the Admiralty and arrange that no foreigner should in any circumstances, whether he had a
  1302
  certificate as a British master or a pilotage certificate, be allowed to navigate any ship into a British harbour. I believe that it would be an extremely good thing, not only for this country, but for our pilotage and our commerce. More dangerous even than this is the permission given to employ captains with alien certificates on British ships which do not came to our home ports. British law is supposed to be supreme on every British ship, but the man who executes it is frequently not a Britisher. I had a case a good many years ago, in Mobile, Alabama, where a British steamer came in and the captain signed on a new crew. I asked him for his certificate. He said, "I have not got to show you my certificate; I am not an Englishman, I am a foreigner." I said, "I have got your paper and your ship will not leave this port until I either see your certificate or get instructions from a higher authority than I am." He said, "This matter was tried out in New Orleans and the Consul there was told that it is not necessary for him to see my certificate. He could not endorse it and he could not cancel it." For a day I held the ship, when I got instructions to let the captain go without my seeing the certificate. The crew had been signed on at the British Consulate, and the captain was not subject to British law.
  I should like to suggest to the President of the Board of Trade that he should issue a regulation that no Consular officer should ever give up the papers of a British steamer until he had seen the certificate of the captain and satisfied himself that the captain was a fit and proper person to command a British vessel. I would go further and say, that we ought not to allow any foreigner ever to raise a British flag on a British vessel, and that every captain of a British vessel should have to enter on the ship a larger number of British sailors than of foreigners. There is one other point in connection with the steamer "Calvados" to which my hon. Friend the Member for Devises referred a short time ago. That vessel, which was lost, sailed from Constantinople with a Greek who had a. Turkish certificate, with a chief officer who was a purser, and a boatswain who was a second officer. They had a crew of fourteen hands and 120 passengers on board, with boat accommodation for only forty. The Board of Trade had an inquiry which was held on 10th and 11th March, and I should like to ask the President if he intends to take any steps against the British owner of that

  1303
  vessel for having failed to provide the necessary boats. It seems to me that something should be done in the matter. I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will give very great consideration to this question of foreign captains commanding our British vessels and coming into our British ports, and that he will, if he finds it possible, take whatever steps he can to prevent these British steamers, officered by foreigners, from using the British Consular offices.
  Mr. BUTCHER: I wish to emphasise some of the points in relation to the mercantile marine which has been raised by my hon. Friend beside me. The first is the question of alien masters and officers in command of British ships. It really does seem an abuse in itself that British ships, enjoying the privileges of British law and registration at a British port, should be in the position that the master and every officer on board may be an alien. That is, according to the present state of the law, possible. In the case just referred to, that of the "Calvados," she was officered by aliens, and met with this disaster. Apparently questions were asked, but there was no help for it., according to the present law, so I am told. Not only is it an abuse in itself that this should be so, but it is a danger, especially in war time. We know that in war time confidential information has to be given to the masters of British ships, and it hardly needs any comment to show what the position would be if the masters who get that confidential information were foreigners who could give it to our enemies. I do hope that is a matter which the President of the Board of Trade will take into consideration and deal with. Then there is the question of the manning of British ships by foreigners. Cases have been referred to in this House, in which British ships have been manned entirely by foreigners, not a single man of British extraction being on board any of them. Surely that cannot be right. The President of the Board of Trade was asked a question about it in the House not very long ago, and he gave an answer from which I gather that he is entirely in sympathy with the view that some restriction should be placed on the manning of British ships entirely by foreigners. My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Peto) referred to the case of a ship which went out manned entirely by foreigners, and he
  1304
  asked the President of the Board of Trade the following question:—
  "Will the right hon. Gentleman take some steps to, put a atop to this national scandal of ships being allowed to fly the British flag officered and manned entirely by aliens?"
  The President of the Board of Trade replied:—
  "This raises a very large legal question. I am somewhat in sympathy with the hon. Member's views, but do not think it can be raised alone in reference to this question."
  I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give some practical proof of his sympathy in this matter. Another question is that relating to deck-loads of timber on coasting steamers, with all the dangers attendant upon that practice. The Merchant Shipping Act provides that, in the winter months from October to April, timber shall not be put on the deck of a ship which arrives at a British port. I believe the way in which that is evaded is that the ships load abroad with timber on deck in the winter months; they go to a foreign port, and there discharge the deck-load and bring the rest of the cargo into a British port. I think that is a perfectly scandalous evasion of our law. I think it is quite possible, if a complete remedy cannot be obtained, to have some form of international agreement, and that is a. matter which I would strongly urge the President of the Board of Trade to take up, and see if he cannot get other civilised Powers of the world—who after all, are interested in the safety of their own sailors as we are interested in the safety of our sailors—to arrive at some agreement on this subject. The last question to which I wish to refer is one which affects men who are brought before the Court of Inquiry by the Board of Trade, and who are often found perfectly guiltless of everything laid to their charge, but yet have to pay very large costs for defending themselves. That is a matter of administration which is in the hands of the President of the Board of Trade, and he could effect an alteration, which is much needed, without any legislation at all. Let me give an illustration of what I mean. There have been cases of which I have details here.
  There was the case of a vessel, which met with an accident as to which there was an inquiry in February last. The chief officer was exonerated from blame, but he had to-defend himself at very considerable cost, and when he applied under the regulations, as he was entitled to do, that the Board of Trade should pay the costs, the Board opposed the application, and the judge

  1305
  refused to make an order, but intimated his opinion, with the full concurrence of his assessors, that the Board of Trade in those circumstances should in future make an allowance in respect of the costs. There was another case of precisely similar character in April of this year. May I point out to the Committee that under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, Section 466, there is an express provision that the Board of Trade may, if they think fit, pay the costs of any formal investigation into shipping casualties. That is supplemented by an Order of the Chancellor under the Shipping Casualties (Rules) Act, 1895, by which the judge who hears the case may order the costs and expenses or any part thereof to be paid by the Board of Trade, or by any other party. I put it to the President that this power, which is given to his Department to pay these costs should be exercised in proper cases. I believe it is never exercised now. Surely it is a very grave prospect for these men who are not millionaires, and who are engaged in our merchant shipping, to be brought before the Court of Inquiry, where, if condemned, they would lose their livelihood, or, if they be entirely exonerated from blame, they will have to pay the costs. I submit that it is only right that the Board of Trade, as representing the public interest, should pay those costs in proper cases. It may be said that if the Board of Trade pay the costs of an innocent man, the man who is found guilty should pay the costs. I do not think that is a real answer. If a man is found guilty by the Court of some offence in the navigation of his ship he loses his livelihood, and surely that is sufficient punishment without asking him to pay costs. I hope the President of the Board of Trade will take this matter into consideration. It is one entirely within his competence to deal with, without any legislation, and I urge upon him in the interests of these men, to whose courage and devotion the public of this country owe so much, to exercise the powers which he possesses.
  Mr. JOWETT: I want to refer to a matter on which questions have been addressed to the President of the Board of Trade, with a view to eliciting the facts with respect to the loss of life before the alteration of the load line and since the alteration. The answers to the questions which were addressed to the right hon. Gentleman seemed almost invariably to show that the change that has been made
  1306
  under the Act of 1894 in the Freeboard Regulations have actually resulted in a saving of life rather than anything else. It is one of the features which are common to Departments that in answering questions they fail to make known the whole of the facts, and the result is often to mislead as it has been in this case, and I want to complain most seriously to the Board of Trade not only of their misleading replies to the questions, but their dilatoriness in this matter. It has been brought to my attention that the figures given by the Board in regard to the alteration of the load line did not take into account the few years during which the transition from the old regulations to the new was being made. It must of necessity have taken two or three years before the change was sufficiently completed to make definite and clear comparisons. With the object, therefore, of definitely ascertaining how the alterations have operated, one confines one's attention to three years before the transition began, leaving a gap for the transition, and then taking a further three years after the change had been made, and I wanted to ascertain what the effect had been under those circumstances. I asked a question, which will be found in Volume 43, columns 869 and 870 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, as to what was the total tonnage which had been lost during the three years beginning with]902–3 and ending with 1904–5, because in order to deal with the matter fairly to count by tonnage is absolutely necessary. Originally the replies given stated the number' of vessels, but the only true criterion is not the number of vessels at all, but their tonnage. In the three years that I have mentioned, ending 1904–5, the total tonnage lost—in cases of foundering and of missing—was 67,466 tons. Leaving the period between 1905–8 as the transition period, when the new Regulations were being applied, and taking the next three years, which do not include the "Titanic" disaster, 1908–9 to 1910–11, the tonnage lost, so far from being less, was more—namely, 17,529, in place of 67,456. With regard to lives, taking the same years, 1902–3 to 1904–5, under the old Regulations the total lives lost from founderings and missings was 933, and in 1908–9 to 1910–11 the total was 1,208.
  Mr. BUXTON (was understood to say): Does that include passengers?
  Mr. JOWETT: The right hon. Gentleman will be able to tell. He did not

  1307
  specify in his reply. It includes such passengers as were on those vessels. What I know is this, that I asked definitely, and I took it for granted, that the right hon. Gentleman, in his reply, only gave the numbers relating to the changes under the load line regulation.
  Mr. BUXTONmade some observations which were inaudible.
  Mr. JOWETT: I cannot reply to that. I cannot say whether they are divided or not. It seems to be taken for granted by the President and the permanent officials that it is something very clever indeed if there is no increase in the loss of life, but, as a matter of fact, the changes which the shipping world has undergone for the last ten or fifteen years are such that there should be a continual decrease in the loss of life. Practically during that period sailing vessels have almost disappeared, and steam vessels are far safer. I am not a seafaring man, but still everybody knows that by the mere change from sailing vessels to steam there should have been a revolution, absolutely a revolution, in the conditions with regard to loss of life at sea from shipwrecks. Then, again, there is wireless telegraphy, and so far from these things having the influence they ought to have, the change in the load line regulations has not only deprived seafaring men of all the advantage that modern conditions should have given to them in regard to additional safety, but it has actually added new dangers. The right hon. Gentleman has appointed a Committee to give advice to the delegates who are to take part in the International Conference on the load line, but he has rigorously excluded from that Committee seafaring men, on the plea that it is a highly technical matter of calculating and computing; but, really, is not the man who is best able to judge the man who has found that his vessel would not answer the helm because it was overloaded? From the information I can get it is a most common experience for masters of vessels to come into port, especially in rough weather nowadays, cursing the alteration because they realise that the boat is not manageable and had lost its buoyancy. The inquiry into the loss of the "North Briton" ought alone to be enough to alarm the Board of Trade and to make them consult seafaring men who could tell them by practical experience what the change has meant to them.
  1308
  At a late inquiry into the question why twenty-one or twenty-three lives were lost, the stipendiary deliberately stated that the lives had been sacrified for the sake of 120 tons of cargo. It is a scandal that the work and efforts of Plimsoll should be undone with a stroke of the pen behind the backs of the representatives of the seamen. The blood of those who have perished is on the head of those who are responsible for maintaining the altered load line. They have to answer for it, and when the stipendiary at the inquiry said that the sacrifice of those lives was due to 120 tons of cargo, that ought to have brought it home to the right hon. Gentleman and made him that he could not sleep in his bed until the mistake and the horrible grievous blunder had been rectified.
  Major WHITE: In rising to support the-Amendment, which is similar to the one which stands in my name, I wish to assure the right hon. Gentleman that it is in no way actuated with a spirit of hostility to him, nor with any desire to deduct part of the pittance he now enjoys for the hard work he has done. Such a. process, however, is necessary to draw attention to some grievances, one of which has been touched upon very well, both by the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Peto) and the' hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Joyce), and that is with regard to the eyesight test. What I would impress upon the Committee is this, that both officers and shipowners, all of whom practically unanimously object to the new test, are desirous that there should be the fullest tests which are necessary to ensure safety of life at sea. What they do ask is that those tests should be fair tests, and, above all, practical tests under service conditions. I think I might say that it seems rather unjust that a man of fifty years of age should have to go through exactly the same eyesight test as, say, a young man of twenty-one or twenty-two years of age, and for this reason: The captain has to pass a much higher navigation examination and to have higher qualifications, which is quite right, but you cannot expect a man of fifty years of age to have quite the same good eyesight in many cases as the younger man. Surely the captain is responsible for the navigation of the ship. He should be the brains of the ship and the eyesight may well be supplied by the younger officers. There seems to be no necessity for any alteration at all in the sight test.

  1309
  Sir Walter Howell, who was chief of the Marine Department of the Board of Trade, said that he knew of no casualty either among officers or the look-out arising from defective vision. That, I think, extended over a period of nearly twenty years, during which the old eyesight test had been in operation. It was stated before the Departmental Committee and is in the Report, that the Liverpool Steamship. Owners' Association knew of no casualty arising from defective eyesight. The new tests have met with an almost universal chorus of condemnation, and the event has proved, as I believe was found also by the Union 'Steamship Company of New Zealand, who were perhaps the first to ask for more severe tests, that some of the most efficient officers have failed in those tests.
  The unfairness of the test is shown by the fact that nearly 50 per cent. of those rejected passed on appeal. It is especially unfair to those officers who have been some time in the service and who have rendered efficient service, to find themselves after many years liable to be turned out of their employment and by what they consider a purely arbitrary test. My hon. Friend quoted the case of one officer with regard to an extra master's certificate, and I should just like to quote another. This gentleman went up for his master's certificate last December, and he passed in both colour and form vision, but unfortunately he showed keenness, a quality apparently to be deprecated, and wished to obtain the extra master's certificate. He again presented himself for examination on 4th April and failed in the new lantern test. The other gentleman to whom my hon. Friend alluded, I believe, failed ultimately on appeal. There are scores and scores of officers who have suffered in greater or lesser degree by these new sight tests. The Board of Trade examiner at Hull gave evidence that out of 565 candidates, who were able to pass the old form of vision test, no fewer than 101 failed under the new test. I would ask the Committee to realise what this means not only to officers now in the service, but, even more, what it may mean to the future of the officering of our mercantile marine, because you are not likely to encourage men to go in. for this occupation if they feel, having performed their duties at sea in an efficient manner for a good many years, they may be suddenly called upon to go through another examination and turned out of their employment.
  1310
  I wish to deal very shortly with regard to the form vision test. A leading expert, Dr. Fergus, put it very well. He said a man was told to pick out letters of a certain size, on canvas, at a distance of sixteen feet, and that many men who might fail to do this might be extraordinarily efficient in picking out lights and objects at sea at great distances. After all, the object of a sailor's sight at sea ought to be to pick out lights and objects at distance, and not necessarily to be able to distinguish letters of a certain size at a distance of sixteen feet. Even there the process employed is very unsatisfactory. The letters are placed on canvas, which is very liable to curl up, so that it has to be held in position by the examiner, who holds it at, the bottom. The result is that the canvas very often becomes concave or convex, and when concave it is very liable to give an astigmatic effect. This absurdity is produced, that a man with a defect of eyesight may be able to read the types better than a man with normal vision. If this test is used the letters ought certainly to be on some flat surface, preferably of white porcelain, and the light, instead of coming from any direction, should be thrown directly on the letters themselves. It is complained that even in London the lighting is defective If that is the case in London, it can be imagined that the lighting is not likely to be any better at smaller places in the provinces. Another complaint is that the daylight necessarily varies, and, therefore, different men are not examined under similar or equal conditions. These tests are already pretty severe, but on the 1st of January, or at any rate, at the beginning of next year, they are to he made still more severe, because each eye is to be tried separately. I do not imagine that anyone uses only one eye at sea, unless, like Lord Nelson, he has lost the sight of one eye. Sir Norman Hill, a great authority, himself made the reservation in the Report of the Departmental Committee that he wished to allow candidates to qualify by passing their tests in the manner in which they keep their watches, that is to say, with both eyes open. That is a most thoroughly common sense and practical suggestion. With regard to the lantern test, the chief complaints are that there is no means of regulating the luminosity of the light, and that there are only two colours and white shown, so that the man who is being examined knows that it must be one of those three.
  Mr. BUXTON: What is the complaint with regard to the luminosity?
  Major WHITE: There is no means of regulating the luminosity.
  Mr. BUXTON: What effect does that have?
  Major WHITE: It does not make it such a practical test.
  Mr. BUXTONmade an observation which was inaudible.
  Major WHITE: I do not say that it is more difficult for one man than another, but if you want a really practical test, there ought to be some system of regulating the luminosity of the light. The pinhead test seems to be perhaps the most unfair of all. I am informed by those who have been a good deal at sea that no light ever viewed from the bridge at however great a distance will appear so small, or that, at any rate, it would require to be at a distance of over three miles to appear the size of a pin's head. With regard to the lantern test it has been suggested, in order to make it more practical, that there should be some system of representing mist or other similar weather conditions. The wool test, according to the report of those who have been examined, appears to be worse than before. Men maintain that no one, except perhaps a salesman of some big shop, such as Gorringe's, beloved of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would be able to match the various skeins of wool shown. A man is told to pick out all the green wools in one case and all the blue wools in another. It is very difficult in the case of a bluey-green for a man to know whether blue or green predominates, 'and if a man could not decide that he would be liable to fail. Moreover, there are numerous colours absent which should be present. These are the main points complained of in regard to the wool test. Without detaining the Committee further, I would merely remind them that 10,000 signatures of officers have been obtained to the petition of protest. It is not only officers, shipowners, and pilots who object to these tests, but a very large proportion of pathological experts as well. My hon. Friend mentioned a meeting at which thirty oculists said that the tests were not satisfactory. I hope that for the sake of justice to the officers now serving, and for the sake of the future recruiting of officers for the mercantile marine, the right hon. Gentleman will do something, that he will
  1312
  suspend the new test and appoint another and an unbiassed Committee of experts to go into the whole question, with a view to devising a test which shall be fair and practical under service conditions.
  Mr. WING: The Board of Trade is regarded more and more by the working classes as a great protective force. This applies especially to the seafaring population. I wish 'to call special attention to a matter not yet touched upon in this Debate, namely, the care of our fishermen in Icelandic waters. The difference between the care exercised by British authorities and that exercised by French and German authorities is very remarkable. In the North Atlantic and also in the Arctic Ocean surrounding Iceland the French have already two vessels, which are not only for protective purposes but act as hospitals, together with two hospitals on Vestmann's Island and on the mainland. We are the largest fishers in Icelandic waters. I suppose we have more trawlers there than the combined fleets of all other peoples. In the months of January and February the fishermen are trawling on the south side of the island, where there is an uninterrupted coast of some 250 miles without a single harbour. That is a portion of Iceland where wrecks are exceedingly numerous, and where men, having been thrown over by the big surf and the banks created by the wash of the sea, if they are fortunate enough to climb up the cliffs, find themselves in a position of exceeding difficulty, inasmuch as they are faced by the largest glacier in Europe, together with numerous streams, with no guidance as to which direction to take. The result is that a man, if he escapes from the sea, only finds himself in danger of perishing on shore. The Germans were the first people to take any steps for the protection and help of the fishermen on that coast. Through their Consul they erected a refuge which has been exceedingly useful, and now the trade, together with the Powers of Europe, and I believe the Board of Trade have something to do with it, are erecting another refuge at another dangerous point. The authorities of Iceland, too, are increasing the number of lights along the coast. What I want to ask the President of the Board of Trade is that, bearing in mind this numerous body of men, comprising some of the bravest men in the service of mankind, he should take into consideration the provision of ships along the south coast for protective

  1313=purposes and of hospitals on land, on Vestmann's Island or on the mainland. At the present time, if any fishermen are taken ill, they become inmates of the French Hospital, which, I am proud to say, has always been open to them.
  In addition to that, I want to call attention to an impression abroad respecting the Plimsoll mark. There never really was a Plimsoll mark. It was really an arrangement the same as the present mark. Mr. Plimsoll in my presence repudiated the mark which is very often alluded to as his mark. Its proper name is said to be the Norwood mark. Mr. Charles Morgan Norwood, at that time a very large shipowner and a representative of the City of Hull, was on the Committee, and the mark was a compromise between what Mr. Plimsoll desired and what the shipowners would grant. There is a very unpleasant feeling in the minds of the working classes with regard to the alteration of that mark. Even men who have no contact whatever with the sea, miners and men in other industries, feel that their brethren who go down to the sea are not being fairly treated, and that their lives are being unduly endangered. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take into consideration this unpleasant feeling that men's lives are being needlessly sacrificed. It is made all the sadder because they believe that at the back of it there is some question of profits on the part of shipowners. I would ask shipowners themselves to take some part in endeavouring to destroy this impression, which, after all, is a very sad one. I believe that the hon. Member for West Bradford (Mr. Jowett) was voicing the feelings of a, large majority of the working classes in the remarks which he made on this particular matter. Another serious question to which I wish to call attention has reference to the men whose lives are sacrificed on steam trawlers, who, because they are supposed to have shares in the ship, are outside the Workmen's Compensation Act. `The result is that while workers such as deck and engine room hands, come under that Act, the skipper and the mate are outside it. Last winter was a very serious one in regard to loss of life round the coast, and charity Droved that it is not sufficient to meet the needs of those dependent on the people who are sacrificed. I wish to ask the President of the Board of Trade to move for legislation, so that all those who go down to the sea in ships shall be included.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member cannot deal with legislation in Committee of Supply.
  Mr. WING: I am exceedingly obliged to you for allowing me to say so much on that matter.
  Mr. HAROLD SMITH: If I ask the Committee to turn away from the vital matters which they have been considering, it is not because I do not realise their great importance to the mercantile marine. I respectfully suggest to the President of the Board of Trade that almost every other point which has been raised this afternoon is a point of great importance for the Department in which he is in command, and opens up opportunity for action. I pass, with the permission of the Committee, from that subject to another. I would ask the Committee for a moment to leave decks and the merchant service and to enter the bakehouses of London. I rise to make no attack upon the Board of Trade. I rise rather with the object of asking the sympathy of the Board of Trade in respect to a subject which, I think, is of great importance, and in order that those in this House who really do take an interest in matters of social reform may have their attention called, however inadequately, to what I conceive to be a very scandalous and very disgraceful state of affairs. The history of the London bakers has been a somewhat unfortunate one. They have been suffering from grievances and working under conditions which have existed for many years, and conditions and grievances which have not been in any way remedied for many years, and in respect of which attempts have been made on several occasions to arrive at some sort of satisfactory settlement. Each time those attempts have been made they have unfortunately broken down. I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will bear me out when I say that though those grievances have been entered into during several years past, it has never been possible to amend them. I would ask the Committee to accept from me the statement that the men in the bakehouses of London work, in many respects, under-conditions which are very disgraceful.
  Their hours of labour are much too long. Their remuneration is much too small. The conditions of many of our bakehouses, and the conditions under which these men labour, are, I think, very discreditable to the State. The attempts which have been made to arrive at an agreement have all

  1315
  broken down. They have all broken down for one reason, and for one reason only. That reason is that always—I think I am right in saying always—those who signed the agreement on behalf of the Master Bakers' Protection Society were unable to control their own fellows. We find that employers cheerfully and periodically come forward and accept the proposals which, may be the Board of Trade, or it may be someone else have arranged, and sign agreements which say in effect that the hours of these men are too long, their remuneration is too small, and the conditions under which many of them work are disgraceful; therefore the employers agree to these evils being remedied. All that happens. The employers bind their fellow members, and thereafter find that they are unable to force their opinion on the great majority of their own people. The Committee will perhaps remember that a third or fourth attempt was made in the early part of this year, I think early in March, to avert what was really a very serious threatened strike. The matter will be fresh in the minds of the Committee. Hon. Members read with great alarm the prospect of a strike of the London bakers, which would have had the effect and consequence of very serious injury to the poorest of the people in the London districts. Under these circumstances, I believe the House of Commons at the time would have done anything to have averted such a disaster. Fortunately, the action on their part never became necessary, because, owing to the good advice of the President of the Board of Trade, his comptroller-general, Mr. Barnes, intervened, and once more, on the eve of the strike, five days before the strike was to commence, called together both parties. Thus he was able, fortunately, to arrive at a settlement which the Committee will remember averted the strike.
  That is only history repeating itself. That is either the third or fourth time that the men have come to terms with tile masters. Here, again, history repeats itself. The men are no better off than they were, for the masters have been utterly unable to keep the agreement which they entered into. That agreement, I must remind the Committee again, was one which was signed by the President and secretary of the Master Bakers' Protection Society. That is the state of affairs at the present time. I would ask the
  1316
  Committee to regard the position of affairs as very serious. It does seem to me that, having regard to the utter breakdown of these agreements which have been made so often, made under the auspices and with the great assistance of the Board of Trade, and having regard to, the many grievances of the men, that it is time that something was done. Something might be done by the President of the Board of Trade to avoid what certainly, in my view, may develop into a very serious situation. The employers who have abided by the agreement are, of course, the larger people, but they only employ a comparatively small number of men. I believe I am right in saying that all the larger employers who are still abiding to the agreement arrived at only employ 1,800 men, whereas it is computed that there are no less than 10,000 operative bakers in London. I give the Committee those figures. I can vouch for them as being entirely accurate. The Committee will see that the agreement arrived at in last March has been an utter failure. Those masters who are abiding by it have to face the unfair competition of the smaller employers, who employ their men under conditions which, I think, this country ought not to tolerate. I need not enlarge upon the undesirability of having the food of the people, and particularly the food of the poorer people, produced under circumstances such as are certainly in evidence in many of our bakehouses. I need not enlarge upon the undesirability of having that food produced by men who are being paid the wage of the sweater, and who are working hours which are a disgrace.
  Just one point more before I sit down. A week or two ago I put a question to the President of the Board of Trade. I drew his attention to the fact that the last agreement had broken down, and asked him to say whether lie would receive a deputation of the men to submit to him a statement as to wages, conditions, and so on, in order that he might, at any rate, consider their application to bring their trade within the Schedule of the Trade Boards Act, 1909. The President of the Board of Trade drew my attention to the fact that there is at present before the House a Provisional Order Bill, which I think has obtained its Second Reading, in which there are four trades added to the existing Schedule, and the suggestion is that it will be impossible to add a further-trade at the present stage. But I am in

  1317
  hopes—while I quite appreciate the present difficulty—that when the President of the Board of Trade makes his reply we shall at any rate hear from him that there is some hope that the Government may see their way to do something. I would suggest to him that this is a trade which might well be included in the Schedule, and one which does very much require his close attention. The President in his reply to me suggested that I, and those on whose behalf I spoke, might wait until the Industrial Council had reported on the subject of enforcing industrial agreements. I have not been as long in this House as many other hon. Members who are listening to me, but I am afraid that that reply is cold comfort to the men who are suffering from these grievances. We do not know when the Report of the Industrial Council will be submitted to the House. Further than that, we do not know when the House is likely to act upon the Report and when we may expect some sort of legislation. It is very vague, and very much in the air.
  While I appreciate the attention which the President of the Board of Trade has given to this matter, I rise rather with the idea of asking him to give us, if possible, some sort of assurance that the Board of Trade really means to do something. With great respect to him, I do not think it is sufficient to ask us merely to wait and to do nothing until the Industrial Council has reported. I shall be glad if we can get some sort of assurance from him as to when we are likely to receive that Report, whether it will be soon, and when and whether we are likely to have the opportunity of discussing it, and, if necessary, bringing in some immediate legislation in order that we may render it impossible for agreements which have been solemnly arrived at by both parties to be broken whenever one party chooses to break them. I would only ask the President of the Board of Trade to bear this in mind, that a bread strike, which in March was averted, will not bear a policy of drift. As certainly as we are sitting here to-day, so certainly will there be another strike upon us if a policy of drift is persisted in. What, then, will be the position of the President of the Board of Trade? What, then, will be the position of the House of Commons if for another time on the eve of a disastrous and tragic strike the representative of the House of Commons has to go to these men and ask them again to meet the masters and enter into another agreement, which, of course, they know will
  1318
  eventuate as have previous agreements? In these circumstances, I suggest that the President of the Board of Trade, in face of a threatened strike, will be powerless. The House of Commons will be powerless. It is because I do not want to see that situation arise that I would ask the President of the Board of Trade to deal with the question now, and to give those interested some sort of encouragement, some sort of sympathy, to show that the Board of Trade appreciate the urgency of the matter, so that on the eve of a strike there may be no panic measures required to be taken. I ask for some sort of sympathy in the need for reform on behalf of the men who live and work under the conditions I have depicted.
  Mr. LEACH: The Committee will hardly expect that I rise to support the proposition made by the hon. Member for Devizes. I have no desire whatever to reduce the salary of the President of the Board of Trade. I would rather support an increase of his salary, so that it might be more on a level with other of the salaries paid in the other Departments. Nor have I any grievance to air or any complaint to make. But for some time past I have received a considerable number of letters from my Division containing resolutions passed at various public meetings, making strong statements respecting the conduct of the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he was President of the Board of Trade, and charging him with altering the load line on British ships, to which reference has been made by two or three speakers. I only want to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can say something to-day before the Committee and the country as to the facts of the case, and to state to us, if he will, what has been the result of the moving of that load line. The hon. Gentleman who was sitting behind me called attention a little while ago to the large number of deck passengers taken on ships in the Mediterranean and along the Syrian coast. I myself on many occasions have seen far more deck passengers on ships—and if I am not mistaken, some of them flying the British flag—than could be accommodated below deck—first, second, and third class passengers. I should be glad if the President of the Board of Trade would say anything upon these two points: first, the effect upon the load line, arid, secondly, the larger number of deck passengers taken on board vessels on the Mediterranean and Syrian coast.
  Mr. LEWIS HASLAM: I listened with great interest to the speeches made as to the condition of steamers and merchant vessels. I especially desire to emphasise the great importance of a proper system of ventilation on board ships. I know, from my own experience, that the ventilation of the men's quarters, even in large British ships, is nothing less than abominable. I cannot help speaking upon this important point, because we know that the absence of proper ventilation has very bad effect upon the men's health and produces many diseases and especially tuberculosis. The hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Peto) said that there were only seventy-two cubic feet of space per man. I think it is now 120 cubic feet per man. But I would point out that the question of cubic space has very little to do with ventilation on vessels. The real question is whether there is adequate change of air. I know whether the quarters are in the fore part of the ship or the fo'c'stle, the portholes must be kept closed during the whole voyage, because of the wash when the ship is going through the water, and I think the only other means of ventilation are merely the doors of the cabin. I advocated in the last speech I made on this question that forced ventilation should be considered in connection with the ventilation of ships.' Of course, by forced ventilation I mean a system of forcing the air into the quarters, instead of allowing it to find its way in by what we may call natural means. This system is very much used for similar kind of quarters on land and there is no good reason that I can understand why it should not obtain on board ship. I also think where there are a large number of men employed, there ought to be some means of allowing them to bathe. There are no baths, and it is impossible for them to get hot water if they desire to bathe. One hon. Member called attention to the fact that on a great number of German ships the conditions of the men are very much better than in those of this country, and, not only is cleanliness better looked after, but all the sanitary conditions are better. I do not wish to go more deeply into this question, but I say that a change is necessary and is very desirable, and I feel certain that the President of the Board of Trade is doing what he can to get information with a view to doing something in these matters. There is another point to which I would like to call attention.
  1320
  Whenever there is any infraction of the Merchant Shipping Act on the part of a master of a vessel in any part of the world, I understand that his name alone appears in the indictment that comes up before the Court. It appears to me it would be a very beneficial fact that the name of the responsible charterer or owner, as well as the responsible master of the ship, should appear in the indictment. I also think—but in this I speak without very great knowledge—it would be a good thing if there was a notice prominently put up indicating exactly what the rules are with regard to improper loading. I understand that is not done at present, and there are no indications to show when the rules are contravened, and, of course, hon. Members can understand it is very difficult for seamen to give evidence for fear of being victimised. There is one other subject I desire to bring before the President of the Board of Trade, and I am sure it is one in which the Committee will feel interested. Can he give us some information as to the recent working of the Trades Boards. There has been an increase of nearly £2,000 a year in salary in the last year, and I think it would be interesting if the right hon. Gentleman made a statement upon that subject.
  Mr. BIGLAND: The matter to which I desire to call attention is one with regard to the control of the Patent Office, and although it is the irony of this House to have to move for a reduction of the salary of a particular official in order to raise certain questions, I, personally, have no desire to see the salary of the present Comptroller-General of the Patent Office reduced. In fact, the plea I put before the Committee is that the expenditure on that office might be increased, and increased in one or two directions. The first increase I should like to see, would be an increase of staff to examine all patents when they come before that office. I have had something to do with patents in the last forty years, not that I ever took out one myself, but I have had to do with the advancing or the loaning of the money to finance patents, and I have found that patents granted by the English Patent Office seem to be less secure than those granted in other countries. I congratulate the Department to this extent, that there has been a very great improvement in the length to which research is carried when a new patent is asked for. I know that is a fact, and I sincerely trust they may increase their staff in order to increase their

  1321
  efficiency, because when one goes to get a patent now the first question is not "Have you got an English patent?" but "Have you got a German or a United States patent?" I may give one instance to the Committee of the care exercised in the German Patent Office before they issue patents. This was a matter that came under my own cognisance, where the Patent Office in Germany quite failed to understand the limits of the application made, and they insisted upon the person who applied should bring over his appliances in order to explain to them in the German office the full nature of his application before they granted it. Most inventors are poor men, and unless, when they get a patent, they get something that cannot be easily attacked, they are unable to obtain the value of their invention.
  7.0 P.M.
  I plead for a great number of men who, having received what they consider to be a document of the greatest security, find, when it is attacked in the Courts of Law, it is of little value and that the patent they own is easily upset. I believe that the office should exercise great care, and should establish the greatest scrutiny before patents are granted. I believe also the right hon. Gentleman might extend the efficiency of his staff in this way, that when the Government of England gives a man a patent, of which he has a right for fourteen years to make use, they should not be content with the piece of paper which they give a man containing some sort of a guarantee, but they should defend it if the patent was attacked. When the Government issued the patent, after having made the fullest research, they should give to the holder of that patent some sort of assurance that if the patent was attacked they would defend it. It seems to me it would be a very great advance to have a Court of their own officials and the higher members of their staff, that a case of dispute as to contravention of a new patent should come up before them, and that they should settle the question of right with an appeal to a higher Court. Men who hold patents are almost afraid to defend them because of the enormous expenses, and I do believe that the establishment of such an office would be a very great advance, and for this reason: During the last thirty or forty years an enormous number of new inventions have brought the Patent Office into touch with many thousands and thousands
  1322
  of people. From the invention of the motor car and its subsidiary industries an enormous number of men are asking for patents without exactly knowing the position in which they are in. I plead that they should be more thoroughly safeguarded than they are to-day. I do not see why it should not be possible to negotiate with the Patent Office in France and Germany and the United States to have something like a joint issue in each, when they know that a patent is to be applied for in these great countries, and perhaps that it should be refused in England and granted in Germany, or refused in France and granted in the United States. In such circumstances, men who spent years and years in great inventions would have them safeguarded more than they are to-day. We are all delighted with the foresight shown in the preparation of the Patent Act, and many of us thought it was going to develop into a very great and useful weapon in this country, but we were sorry to know that a serious leak took place in the investigation of that Act, and I would like to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he could explain the meaning of the word in Section 15, Sub-section (2), with regard to power which is now given to have a foreign patent cancelled if the patentee does not work that patent for this country, unless the patentee provides that the patented article or process is manufactured or carried on to an adequate extent in the United Kingdom. There is great heart-burning in many of the industrial centres of which I have personal knowledge as to what this word means, and I ask, is it necessary in the carrying out of a foreign patent in this country that the man who owns the patent, say, in France and patents it in the United Kingdom must make half of what he sells in the United Kingdom, or may he make a quarter in the United Kingdom, and ship over from France three-quarters, or may he go down to one-tenth? What is the meaning of the phrase "adequate extension"? If the President of the Board of Trade would enlighten the Committee on that point, I am sure the whole of those in the country who have to do with patents would be greatly relieved. There is a feeling that this leakage in the Act ought to be stopped, and I should be exceedingly pleased if the right hon. Gentleman will take it into consideration—not to legislate, but to see whether he can, as

  1323
  the head of that Department, give such a reading to that Clause that those who are in business and handling goods may really know the meaning of those words. I trust that by an act of administration, and not by an Act of Parliament, the right hon. Gentleman may give a ruling as to what is meant by those words, and if he does, we who are carrying on industries under the patent laws will then have some guidance as to the meaning of the Act.
  The other points that might be raised with regard to the patent laws,are not such as I can touch upon here to-night, but I shall be glad if the right hon. Gentleman can give us some assurance that he will, if possible, engage more men. I see that he has 196 assistant examiners commencing with a salary of £150 and working up to £450. We know that for these appointments a very wide and extensive education is necessary, because they have to read an enormous number of scientific text books, and all this is necessary for any man who is going to examine into the question whether a patent has already been foreshadowed by some other person. I am told that in other countries they not only examine previous patents, but all the text books bearing on the matter in question, and all that extra care and oversight which is considered necessary before any patent is issued in this country should be extended. When a man receives a patent from the British Government he thinks he has got an unassailable document, but when he gets into the court of law he often finds that it is immediately upset by something he knew nothing whatever about, and which the officials at the Patent Office knew nothing about. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman might establish a Court of his own permanent officials to hear evidence with regard to the infringement of patents which might be given some authority in ordinary cases. I think an enormous number of minor cases might be settled by an appeal to the officials who often know more about the matters at issue than the judges in the Court.
  Mr. BUXTON: Perhaps I may be allowed at the outset to express my gratitude for the manner in which the criticisms of my Department have been made. When we have a discussion of this sort dealing with a large number of interesting questions, hon. Members express their views fully and frankly, and very often it is of great
  1324
  assistance to the Minister in charge of the Department in the discharge of his duty, and therefore I am grateful for the Debate we have had so far. The Debate has ranged over a considerable number of subjects, but it has dealt chiefly with questions affecting the Marine Department of the Board of Trade. I should like to make a few observations before I come to the matters which have been chiefly discussed this afternoon about the work of the Trade Boards and the extensions we are going to make. I think it is a matter of interest to the public outside, and it may possibly be of interest to the Committee to hear a few words with regard to that subject. As the Committee are well aware at the present time there are four trades which were originally brought under the operation of the Trade Boards Act. They are the box trade, the chain trade, the lace finishing trade, and some portions of the tailoring trade, and they represent about 200,000 persons, the bulk of whom are women workers.
  As regards the operations of the Trade Boards, hon. Members know the object of bringing in these and other trades. The object was to secure a minimum wage for the persons who were underpaid in order to improve their position, and the Act makes wages below the minimum rate illegal without prejudicing higher rates. The experience we have gained during two years' working in some of the trades and some months in other trades, and the success which has so far attended the work of the Trade Boards has enabled us to propose the inclusion of five other trades—namely, the confectionery and food preserving trade, the shirt-making trade, the linen and cotton embroidery trade, hollowware making (including tin boxes and canisters), and the calendaring and ironing in steam laundries. The Bill dealing with these trades, I am glad to say, has received a Second Reading, and has been referred to a Committee. The Committee have met and they have informed us that they have had to strike the calendaring and steam laundry trade out of the Bill. I understand they have done so, not because they thought in any sense that the Board of Trade was not fully justified in including it in the Bill, nor because they were hostile to its inclusion, but it was due to a question of definition in reference to steam laundries as to whether the word "steam" was not too restricted and would not include all "power," electric and hand laundries, and, therefore, our definition would not work

  1325
  satisfactorily. Therefore, they had to consider the question of altering that word, and they came to the conclusion that if they altered the word to bring in a certain number of laundries, it might be thought that they were outside the Act, and that the persons affected ought not to be put into that position. Under these circumstances, for the time being, the committee decided that steam laundries should be excluded from the conditions of the Bill, and in view of the close of the Session, it is quite clear that we must acquiesce in this. I give the laundries due notice, however, that in no way has our view been altered as to the advisability of including them in the Bill.
  As regards the other four trades I have mentioned, we have no opposition from them at all. In the first instance, we had representations and opposition from all of them, but when they came to talk it over with us, and discuss the matter from a practical, point of view, and when we pointed out the experience we had gained from the working of the Act in regard to other trades, they all readily acquiesced in the extension of the Act to them, and therefore we have had no difficulty in regard to that matter.
  Of course, our experience has not yet been very great in regard to the working of the Act, but I think I may say that as far as we are able to judge, we are able to say that the Trade Boards Act passed by this House has been a success, and that we may now safely extend it to other trades as well. The best test of that is, I think, that while in the first instance employers were somewhat nervous and hostile, and especially some of the best employers, not only do they now acquiesce in the working of the Act, but I may say that the different employers are satisfied with the position in which they are placed 'under the Act. I think it is worth observing that if we had proceeded with the laundry case, we could have put into the witness box in our favour representative employers in other trades which have been brought under the provisions of the Act. Two objects were to be obtained by the Act. One was to improve the conditions of the work-people themselves, and the other was to protect the better class of employers from undercutting by the worst class of employers. The protection afforded against this cut-throat competition has been of very great significance and a great advantage. So far as our experience goes, we may also safely say that the improved conditions
  1326
  anticipated from the Act have been largely fulfilled, and I am glad to say that the various disadvantages prophesied at the time of the passing of the Act have not obtained. I have already mentioned the advantage of good employers being relieved of competition by the undercutting of the worst employers. This has been a great advantage to both sides, because it has brought about organisation on the part of the employers, and it has given an opportunity for the first time of organisation amongst the employés. One of the reasons for the miserable wages which used to be paid was that the work-people were unable to co-operate with each other through want of organisation.
  I think I can also say that the prophecies of disasters and dislocation of trades have not taken place, and these difficulties have been met by better methods of organisation and by adjustment to the new condition. As regards the employés, undoubtedly their wages are considerably higher than the lowest wages they were earning before the Act. It is not easy to give the actual figures, and it is very difficult to make a proper comparison, but I can safely say that the advantage to the employés has been very considerable owing to the working of, the Act. It was said at first that after this Act had come into operation, many employés would at once be thrown cut of work, and we were told that it is better to be sweated than to starve. I think the answer to that argument was that as a matter of fact, the sort of wages the work-people were getting in some trades at that time meant a continual state of starvation, and it is better that that state of things should come to an end than that it should he allowed to continue. I am now able to say that these people are neither sweated nor starved. As regards the older people and the less efficient with whom some sympathy was expressed, I am glad to say that an arrangement has been come to with regard to piece work, and as far as. we can judge up to the present there has been no hardship to them, and they have been able to work under proper conditions under the Trade Boards Act. I am glad to think that the time has come to extend the operation of this Act to another 150,000 or so persons, and, if that has the success I feel sure it will, we shall feel still more justified in the future in extending the operations of this beneficent Act to other industries.
  The Debate has been almost entirely taken up with questions connected with

  1327
  the Board of Trade Marine Department. Perhaps the Committee will allow me to take their minds back to about a year ago, when the Board of Trade came in for some considerable comment with regard to alleged neglect in reference to life-saving apparatus and matters of that sort. I would ask the Committee therefore to allow me, before dealing with the specific points raised, to say shortly what we have done at the Board of Trade in the last year in regard to these various matters. If we were to blame before, I hope that the Committee will feel that after all we have endeavoured to meet our past deficiency by our present action. I am not going to admit that the Board of Trade was in the wrong. It would be too much to expect from the President of the Board, though I quite agree that. he ought to take the fullest possible responsibility for everything that is done in his Department. The Committee will remember that the matters arising out of the disaster to the "Titanic" were referred to a Court, consisting of Lord Mersey, with assessors to assist him. Lord Mersey's Commission went into the whole case and issued a very interesting report which was published as a Parliamentary Paper. He made twenty-four recommendations in reference to the safety of life at sea on ocean going steamers, and they are printed in his report. Three of these recommendations referred to watertight compartments and bulkheads. I had, some considerable time before the report was published, appointed (indeed I was in process at the time of the disaster of appointing) a very strong Committee to go into the whole question of bulkheads. It is quite clear that until that Committee reports, and they are making most exhaustive inquiry and calculations, it is impossible to deal with these three points raised by Lord Mersey. Two other recommendations also depend upon what the Report of that Committee may be. Four recommendations—those with regard to look-out men, the police system, going to the relief of vessels in distress, and moderate speed in the presence of ice—were intended to be dealt with by the shipowners. We have drawn the serious attention of the shipowners to these matters, and I am sure that they are taking them into account.
  That leaves fifteen recommendations which were more or less for the Board of Trade to examine. One of them, the question of compulsory protective fenders, was
  1328
  referred specifically to an expert Committee, presided over by Professor Biles, and the Committee recommended that it should not be made compulsory. We have not, therefore, made it compulsory. There are obvious advantages and disadvantages on both sides of the question with regard to these protective fenders. Another question, that of the greater continuity of service for seamen, is also one on which there is very great difference of opinion, both among the shipowners and among the men themselves. It is one which I have had the opportunity of discussing with them, but at present there is no agreement in regard to the matter between the interests concerned, and, therefore, so far as that goes, I have not taken any definite action, though I am prepared to do anything that I can if it is thought well on the part of both parties.
  Other recommendations dealt With the revision of the statutory rules for safety appliances; the provision of lifeboats; or equivalent for all on board; the number of boats to be based on the numbers carried and not on the tonnage; the staff of surveyors to be increased; stricter inspection of foreign-going passenger vessels; inspection of boats to be more searching; the question of motor boats; the equipment of boats; the better training of boys, and other matters—every one of these we have already carried out. A scheme for the efficient working of boats has been prepared in consultation with the Advisory Committee and has been communicated to the shipowners, and has, I think I may say, been adopted by them. We have a scheme before the Treasury for testing the efficiency of boat hands, and we are also discussing the matter internationally. Practically, therefore, all the proposals, with one exception to which I will refer, namely wireless, of the Mersey Commission have already been carried out by the Board of Trade, so far as it has been practicable to carry them out. Obviously some we cannot carry out until we have obtained the Report of the Bulkhead Committee.
  In addition to those recommendations there are three other matters in regard to which we have taken spontaneous action, and I think that our action will commend itself to the Committee.
  Sir G. PARKER: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it will be voluntary on the part of the shipowners to adopt

  1329
  the scheme he has under consideration for boat drill and the training of hands on board ship or whether the Board of Trade will impose it?
  Mr. BUXTON: A scheme has been suggested to the shipowners, after consultation with the Advisory Committee; they have accepted it, and I feel confident that they will carry it out. We have no power at present to enforce it, but I need hardly say that if it were necessary to obtain powers to enforce it we should not hesitate to ask for them. Lord Mersey's Court dealt with ocean-going steamers, but we have extended the life-saving apparatus to the whole trade, to cross-channel passenger ships, excursion steamers, and so on. I think we have, without putting any undue burden upon them, and without restricting the operations of these excursion steamers and cross-channel steamers, been able to provide very effectively and efficiently for the safety of the lives of the passengers on board.
  Then, secondly, we, as the House knows, in co-operation with the shipowners, chartered a ship, the "Scotia," in order to enable the movements of ice to be observed. The ship has done very good service already, and I hope that in the future we shall be able to co-operate with some other countries in connection with this matter.
  Further, speaking broadly, the Marine Department itself has been reorganised and the staff overhauled. We have been adding to it for the purpose of carrying out the additional responsibilities throw e upon us. The hon. Gentleman who moved the reduction referred to that question and said that the twenty-eight surveyors of various sorts who had been added were not adequate for the purpose. If and when we consider we require further additional staff, I need hardly say that we shall certainly add to our existing numbers.
  There is one question to which I will refer, but in regard to which I regret that I have not been able yet to take definite action, and that is the question of wireless telegraphy. I have had a Bill prepared for some considerable time past, and the only reason for delay is that this is a matter which has already been dealt with by the Radio Telegraphic International Convention, and it is obviously a question which, if it is to be dealt with effectively and properly, ought to be dealt with internationally. It is one of the questions which, I hope, will
  1330
  be considered in a friendly spirit when the International Conference takes place, and I hope that it will take place this autumn. I, therefore, on the whole, came to the conclusion that it would be wiser to delay its passage through this House until we can obtain more or less of an agreement with regard to it. I am glad to say that delay is of less importance than it would otherwise be, because it is common knowledge that a compulsory Bill will be introduced and many passenger ships are being increasingly fitted with wireless stations. I find that last year, from July, 1912, to July, 1913, the number of ships provided with wireless communication has increased from 457 to 710 an increase of no less than 55 per cent.
  Various members have pointed to the advantage of International agreement with regard to questions affecting shipping. I am anxious, if we can, to obtain in regard to most of these matters to which I have referred, and others, International agreement. I am quite certain that our example—and in most of these matters, I am glad to think, that we are ahead of other nations—is followed by others, and we are thus appreciably able to raise the standard.
  I said just now that the International Conference in regard to life-saving at sea will meet in the autumn, possibly in November. It may be said that it ought to have met earlier. The reason for the delay is a very simple one, and, I think, a very good one. The principal nations—I am speaking of France, Germany, America, and ourselves, who are the principal nations concerned—have all been examining very carefully the various matters concerned, and that takes time. It is very important, when you have an international conference, that it should meet after the various countries concerned have had a full opportunity of examining the questions they are to discuss. They then meet, with their various propositions and with full information, and are able to arrive at a much more practicable result than they otherwise could do. We have had the advantage of some preliminary discussions with Germany and France, and to some extent with the United States, and I hope that we shall have some more with the last before the conference, to see how far we can clear the ground and how far we have a common basis of action. I am glad to think that these discussions have shown, there is every hope that we may be able to arrive at satisfactory conclusions.

  1331
  I have mentioned all these matters at some length to the Committee because I think I can claim a not bad record in reference to the action we have taken in regard to these questions affecting the mercantile marine. I can safely say that I myself, and the heads of my Department have given without stint their time and attention to all these matters. I say, frankly, that last year when attacks were made on the Board of Trade, and aspersions were cast upon my officials and upon myself for lack of sympathy and for timidity for not at once doing this, that, or the other. I felt those aspersions very deeply indeed. There was no want of sympathy at that time; and I think I may claim that it took greater courage to resist than to give way to panic pressure; it showed a truer sense of proportion to decline to be driven to premature action in the form of ill-considered measures. I hope the House will feel satisfied that, in regard to all these matters, we have given the utmost possible attention, so that they may stand the strain of experience and time. I hope hon. Members will feel satisfied that we have done something towards increasing the safety of life at sea and to securing better conditions of service in the mercantile marine. When one has held an office such as that I have the honour to fill, one likes to feel that he has done something in this direction.
  That brings me to some of the questions which have been raised by hon. Members, because we have not stopped at the various matters affected by the recommendations of the Mersey Report. We have taken steps regarding other matters affecting life and safety at sea in which progress has already been made. The hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Peto), in the observations with which he began his speech, said that, as far as the Board of Trade was concerned, we had met the representations of the Merchant Service Guild in a frank and friendly way. I can assure him that I am very much indebted to that Guild, and to other Associations that bring these matters to my notice. I do not say I can always agree with their views or carry out what they propose. Like everybody else in this world, they think there is nothing like leather. But the head of a Department like the Board of Trade has to look at matters all round and from different points of view, and, sometimes, those points of view may conflict with particular associations or
  1332
  with individuals. But I can assure the non. Member I have endeavoured to deal with these matters in a friendly spirit, and, as he has admitted, I have discussed them with a desire to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion.
  Various questions have been raised, but the one of the greatest interest is that of the load line. I have seen the resolutions which have been circulated broadcast throughout the country. They contain an attack on the Chancellor of the Exchequer and on others. With regard to that point, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Joyce), no question of party arises, because, so far as this alteration is concerned, it was begun, and would have been concluded, under the late Government, but that it so happened that in the interval of examination, and before a definite conclusion could be come to, there was a change of Government. Therefore, the person nominally responsible was the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But I wish the House to understand that it was not a case of gratuitous action on the part of the Board of Trade. It was action in conformity with an obligation put upon the Board by Parliament to consider from time to time, in connection with certain Bodies, the question of the load line, and the alteration I need hardly say was based on the fact, well known to all interested, that in the interval following the time when the load line was previously fixed, the building of ships had improved and the vessels had become stronger and more seaworthy. That was the sole reason for the alteration in the load line. There never was an idea that the load line at no time was to be altered. That was not Mr. Plimsoll's idea. It was deemed quite possible that an alteration might be advantageously made from time to time. When the change was made it was believed that the alterations, such as they were, were alterations which were justified by the circumstances. I am not going to deal with the attacks which have been made in these Resolutions. I do not think anyone can believe that either the Chancellor of the Exchequer or myself, or anybody in our position, is going deliberately to take action which must result in the drowning of a lot of people. Persons who think that are not worth answering.
  I quite agree with another point which was raised by the hon. Member for West Bradford (Mr. Jowett), that there is in this matter at the present moment an uneasy feeling. I however anticipate this

  1333
  feeling and will take action. It did strike me that, having had six years' experience of the load line, the time had come, especially in view of the International Conference which is about to take place, that it would be an advantageous thing to have a further inquiry into this matter, and to see how far this or any other alteration might be made. I thought it would be well to take the whole thing into account, and to see how the matter stands, and I am very glad that that should be done, because, as I have said, there is a certain uneasy feeling in the minds of some persons that the alteration in the load line has, in a sense, led to a larger number of casualties. The hon. Member quoted some answers which I had given him with regard to this matter. I asked lira to believe, and I think he will agree with me when I state, in the first place, that, as far as the Board of Trade is concerned, in this matter it has nothing to conceal. Its only desire is to arrive at the truth. It is rather hard that the hon. Member should have suggested that the Board of Trade was trying, or that I myself was trying, in these replies to conceal something. We have nothing to conceal. We do not desire to conceal anything, and we have in every case given him all the information he has asked for. With regard to the questions affecting tonnage and statistics generally, there may be a difference of opinion. I think we have given him more than he asked for, and I really would ask him to reconsider his opinion on that, point, and to give us the benefit of the doubt.
  I may also add that I attach very little importance to statistics alone in matters of this sort. Statistics can be made to prove almost anything. I have never relied upon them by themselves, but as far as they went, it did appear to me that they showed that the reduction of the freeboard had not had the effect of increasing the number of casualties. I do not want, however, to argue that point.
  I want the matter fully inquired into, and that was why I appointed a Committee—a suitable Committee as I think—for the purpose of conducting the investigation. I am quite certain it will go perfectly impartially into this question, with the sole desire to arrive at the truth. My hon. Friend says he has knowledge of those with experience who can give evidence. The Committee, I am sure, will be extremely indebted to him or to anyone who will come forward and give them, con-
  1334
  fidentially if they like, such evidence as they have in their possession. I desire to thank the hon. Member, and through him the Merchant Service Guild, for their disinterested efforts in this matter. Wt do not ask them to come forward with actual proof to show that certain ships went down in consequence of the alteration in the load line. I am sure I am speaking the mind of the Committee when I say they are not asking anything of that sort. But the Committee will be extremely obliged for suggestions and evidence, good, bad or indifferent, which it may be desired to put forward. It is not a question of a man getting into the witness-box and being cross-examined. What the Committee want is anything that will throw any light on this matter, and perhaps my two hon. Friends who have referred to this question will be good enough to look at it from that point of view, and see how far they can produce evidence in regard to this matter. That is the position in regard to the question of the load line.
  The next point is the question of deck-loads, which has been referred to by more than one speaker. This is a question to which I have been giving most careful consideration. It was brought to my attention very lucidly by a deputation introduced by the hon. Member for Devizes, and it is undoubtedly a, matter which ought to be dealt with. It is difficult to deal with it. I have no doubt in my mind that the figures show that these excessive deck-loads in the winter have led to a considerable number of casualties. It certainly is an anomaly, and nobody can deny it, that a particular ship should take on board an excessive deck-load in the United States, should cross the Atlantic, the most dangerous part of the passage, should unload its excessive deck-load at a Continental port, and then come on to a British port to discharge the rest of its cargo. We have no means of checking that. We cannot deal with it if it has unloaded the excessive deck-load at a foreign port. As the hon. Gentleman said, that is a matter which must be dealt with internationally. It is no use penalising our own trade unless we can effectively stop the danger. It has not been fund possible so far to persuade other countries to accept our view, but I am somewhat sanguine in the matter. We are doing our best, and will continue to do our best, in that direction. I think a good feature at the present moment is this, that the underwriters and shipowners here and

  1335
  in foreign countries, and others interested in the matter are moving in order to bring about a common agreement. So long as all are put on the same terms, they will be very glad to get rid of this additional danger. I can assure the House, therefore, that, so far as my Department is concerned, we shall do our very level best to bring this evil to an end, and, if we cannot do it internationally, we shall endeavour to do it in some other way.
  Mr. PETO: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he thinks anything can be done in the matter of general deck cargoes?
  Mr. BUXTON: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. I had a note of it but overlooked it. It is a question of deck-loads other than timber loads. Timber loads are undoubtedly the most dangerous. The statistics go to show that. I quite agree there are other deck-loads which are either too heavy, or are of a particular character or are not properly stowed, and therefore become dangerous. It is a matter into which I am looking to see how far, either by regulation or in some other way, deck-loads which are dangerous shall be regulated. I come to another point which has exercised the minds of a considerable number of speakers—that is the question of sight tests. The hon. Member who made the most violent attack is not here, and that always make it difficult when one is answering. I should like to ask hon. Members who have raised this point what is their exact position. In 1910 I appointed a Committee to examine the question of sight tests, because it was thought that the existing test, the wool test, was not altogether satisfactory. That view is confirmed by a memorial of the association, read by the hon. Member, which said that it was totally ineffective. It was quite clear that some step ought to be taken to see how far the tests could be made effective, and what would be the best method of carrying them out. The question I put to the hon. Member who raised this point is, What does he actually want? Does he say there shall be no test in regard to form vision and colour vision? Does he say that there is to be no responsibility for the safety not only of the man himself but of the passengers and crew, and no protection against the man, whether he is colour blind or his sight is so bad that he cannot
  1336
  distinguish one light from another? I do not think he goes so far as that. Therefore the whole question becomes one of degree, and of the best method of having a test. The wool test was, on the whole, shown to be unreliable, and has now been modified in a way which has made it more effective.
  The hon. Gentleman said that he was informed that the old sight test was much easier than the new one. I have gone through both tests, and while I passed the new test with comparative ease, I very nearly had my certificate taken away over the old test; therefore, I do not at all agree with my hon. Friend that the old test is more simple than the new one. At all events, whether it is so or not, it is in the nature of a primary test, and in addition to it you must have something to check any idiosyncrasies of the wool test. Everybody agrees that if you are to have a second test, it should be in the form of a lantern test. The Committee recommended one form of lantern. Other inventors have other forms of lanterns. When one deals with a particular invention, we know that there are people who say that theirs is the one and only, and that everybody else's is a poor adaptation of their own, or is totally ineffective. That is the position of the question at the present time. It would not be fair for me to give a personal opinion as to the qualifications of the two lanterns which are in question in this matter. All I can say is that so far as our view and the view of the Committee goes, the particular lantern we are utilising—I do not say it is the best lantern—seems, for our purposes, to be, on the whole, the best. I have examined it carefully; I have seen candidates on appeal being tested by it; I myself, and my hon. Friend have been tested by it, and the whole of the heads of my Department have been tested by it, and it is amusing to see how they come out. I think that when the hon. Member for Devizes was tested he somewhat failed in colour vision.
  Mr. PETO: It is not a question of colour vision. My point was that the points of light were so minute that that part of the colour test is useless.
  Mr. JOYCE: That is the whole point.
  Mr. BUXTON: My hon. Friend said that the new tests had been a disaster. My real answer to the criticisms that have been made in somewhat exaggerated language—I am speaking of the colour tests, not of the form vision tests—is that we are

  1337
  all agreed that you must have some test. Even the hon. Member for Limerick will agree with that.
  Mr. JOYCE: Hear, hear!
  Mr. BUXTON: I thought so. The new test has been in operation for four months, from 1st April to 8th July. There have been 2,865 candidates, including officers and men. Putting aside the candidates still on appeal, no less than 2,714 passed, and only 151 failed, so that no less than 94.7 passed and only 5.3 failed.
  We give every opportunity of appeal in regard to the colour test. One hon. Member proposed that where an officer failed he should have a practical test. The Court can always give him that practical test, which saves him from any injustice in regard to this matter. As regards the colour test, I have looked into it very carefully, and I do not think there is much of a grievance, but I am still examining it further to see how far there may be some substance in it.
  There was a question with regard to the form vision test. The Committee recommended a considerable increase in the standard. That is a matter which my hon. Friend and myself are most carefully examining with a view to seeing whether the proposals of the Committee are excessive. If they appear to be so, we shall not hesitate to reduce them. I hope it will be possible to announce a decision shortly, but I can assure the House that I am giving personal care and consideration to it, with a view to ascertaining how far the complaints are justified.
  Mr. PETO: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that before taking away any officer's certificate he will see he has a practical test?
  Mr. BUXTON: I have said that if he goes to a Court, the Court may order a practical test. I think that is a considerable security for the officer.
  Mr. JOYCE: Pilots have to pass tests every twelve months or two years. Could these tests be made practical tests in the various ports where these men have to pass the examination? They are upon a different plane from the masters and mates, who, when they get a certificate, are clear for all time, while the pilot has to pass a test every twelve months or two years. If they object to a test by these small points of light, an artificial test as
  1338
  I call it, will the right hon. Gentleman give them a practical test under the conditions in which they work?
  Mr. BUXTON: That is another point.
  Mr. JOYCE: Will you give it consideration?
  Mr. BUXTON: It does not arise now, and I cannot give any undertaking. My point about the officer is that if he does not pass his original test, and fails to appeal, he then loses his certificate, or has an opportunity of going to the Court. If the Court, for good reasons, say he should be allowed to go through a practical test, we should not oppose such a proposal. A pilot is in a different position, and I should like to consider further the point my hon. Friend has put, but. what I have said in regard to the one must not be taken to apply automatically in regard to the other.
  The hon. Member for Devizes raised the question of the long hours which, unfortunately, many officers have to work, and also the question of the number of certificated officers in various ships. As he knows, we have a Bill before the House of Lords under which we are going to compel home-trade ships of a certain tonnage to have certificated officers, and I hope we shall have the support of Members on both sides in carrying that Bill into law. When the Merchant Shipping Bill is introduced, and undoubtedly next Session such a Bill will have to be introduced for several purposes, I certainly propose to include some provision as to the number of mates and engineers required in foreign-going ships. I cannot say more upon the subject at present, because it is a matter for legislation. It very much affects the question of hours.
  Another point mentioned was that of alien officers. The hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir Gilbert Parker) expressed some doubt as to haw far action should be taken. What some Members have asked for is that we should prohibit altogether any alien officers from being masters or mates on British ships. There are great difficulties, and international difficulties, in connection with that question. I should have thought that so far as the merchant service is concerned, there is probably a considerably larger number of British mates and masters on foreign ships than foreign masters and mates on British ships. If the question was raised from the point of view of the merchant service, I think that, on the whole, they will not

  1339
  benefit, but rather suffer from such action, because if we took it, other nations would do so as well. It is not really a matter of such great importance as some hon. Members seem to think, because I find that during the last five years, since the last Merchant Shipping Act was passed, the number of foreign mates, masters and engineers has considerably diminished.
  Mr. SHIRLEY BENN: What other nations admit British captains?
  8.0 P.M.
  Mr. BUXTON: I cannot say, offhand. I will look it up. At all events, the figures I want to give are really an answer to all these complaints. Taking the whole of the British Register througout the world there are at present 7,995 masters, of whom only eighty-seven are aliens—a percentage of just over 1 per cent. I really think, under these circumstances, it would be rather a large thing to ask that we should undertake a difficult international question for such a small percentage as that.
  The hon. Member (Mr. Peto) and the hon. Member (Mr. Haslam) raised a point which I consider of very great importance, namely, the question of what is commonly called crew space. Of course, in the Act of 1906 the space was considerably increased—from 72 to 120 cubic feet for new ships. I am glad to think there has been a steady improvement in the conditions under which they serve. The hon. Member (Mr. Peto) quoted from one of the sanitary officers and gave very alarming figures in regard to what the doctor alleges is the state of consumption among the lower ratings in consequence of their housing conditions. I should like to give some figures in reply to that, because it is a very alarming statement, and there is no foundation in fact whatever for it. In the last ten years the average of consumption among firemen, seamen, trimmers, stewards, and so on, has been in itself very considerably reduced, and as compared with males over fifteen the present rate of consumption is only 325 as against 1.87, that is to say, the disease is no less than five times as frequent on shore as on board. I do not say the present conditions are satisfactory. I have been giving the matter very considerable care, and we have now issued revised Instructions, after consideration and consultation with the medical officers of the Local Government Board, to `whom I desire to express my indebtedness for the
  1340
  way in which they have given us assistance and advice. I fully hope that local sanitary officers will work in harmony and accord with our officers in these various ports, and I am sure that these new regulations carry out very largely the suggestions made in various quarters, and I am certain they will mean a real considerable step forward in regard to sanitary conditions and crew spaces on board. In addition to that, 'we intend to have more frequent inspection of crew spaces.
  Mr. PETO: More medical officers?
  Mr. BUXTON: The hon. Gentleman seems to think that is best done by medical officers. I can assure him it is not so. It is not a question of medical knowledge-but of hygiene. Definite standards are laid down in regard to lighting, ventilation and sanitary conditions, and the officers have to see that they are complied with, and under the new regulations things will be more stringent than they were before. It is a question of fact and not of opinion, and their training and practical knowledge of these matters makes them much' more useful people to deal with this class of questions than medical officers, and in addition we get much greater uniformity. I can assure the hon. Gentleman it is a matter to which very careful consideration has been given, and I am sure we are making a very considerable step in the right direction, and it is a matter which we shall continue to observe very carefully, in order to keep as far as we can up, to date in regard to it.
  The hon. Member (Mr. Cathcart Wason) raised the point of carriage of deck passengers on board. I do not know to what particular line he was referring, and so far as it may be a line which does not commence its voyage in Great Britain, we have not at present, without further legislation, the control which I should be glad to have. But so far as it does commence its voyages in the United Kingdom, we have brought to the knowledge of the various shipping companies that they must comply, if they are going to do this, with the life-saving appliance provisions which are now statutory. The hon. Member (Mr. Shirley Benn) spoke about a particular case of a wreck, and wanted to know whether we were going to prosecute. The particular inquiry took place abroad. We-arc considering the question of whether if is advisable to prosecute, and whether we have enough evidence to enable us to do so successfully, because we know it is

  1341
  better not to prosecute at all than to have an unsuccessful prosecution.
  I desire to thank hon. Members for the way in which these matters have been discussed, and to assure them—I am sure they do not require the assurance—that in reference to these matters of safety at sea we must have regard to the liberty of action of shipbuilders and shipowners, so as to avoid diminishing their sense of responsibility or in any way hampering or discouraging enterprise or improvement. I am glad to think that as regards our life-saving appliances and other rules of that sort, we are assisting and in no way interfering with improvements and inventions, and we shall keep actively upon our mind the object of improving the safety of our ships at sea and also, as far as we can, of improving the position both of the officers and the men.
  Mr. GEORGE TERRELL: I am sure on this side of the House we are all very much indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for the very conciliatory manner in which he has dealt with the various points of criticism which have been directed against his Department, and in particular against his administration of the Department. But there are many matters which he has touched upon, and though his tone is conciliatory, yet I am sorry to say the conclusions which he has arrived at are hardly satisfactory, and the explanations which he has given are hardly as sufficient or as full as we should desire. He commenced by dealing with the boat question, which is always a burning question, because so much has already been said about it in the House. The point in which most people are interested is how these new regulations of boats for all are going to be successfully applied to the old ships. That is a point which was raised when we had the "Titanic" Debate. It is the most important question of all, because unquestionably new ships can be built to carry any number of beats, but if you are going to apply the rule of piling a lot of boats on all vessels you increase the top-hamper and you fly from one danger to another, which is probably very much greater than the evil of want of boats. I hoped the right hon. Gentleman would have dealt with this point and explained exactly what the Board of Trade proposed to do in this matter.
  Mr. BUXTON: I did not deal with it because no one had raised it. We dis-
  1342
  cussed it before and, as far as I know, the rules which are now the operating rules, were subject to considerable discussion and consideration by the shipowners and those concerned. I had many interviews with them, and I understood they accepted the rules as practical rules which they were able themselves to enforce.
  Mr. G. TERRELL: Of course the whole point was not raised in the earlier part of the Debate, but the right hon. Gentleman volunteered certain information, and I hoped he would have made his explanation on the point a little more full and definite. He referred to the load line and to suggestions which have been made that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was responsible for the alterations in the load line during the time he was President of the Board of Trade. But the explanations, such as they are, that this was a matter which was under the consideration of the previous Government, and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer succeeded to, half finished negotiations and simply carried them out, does not relieve him as head of his Department from full responsibility. Surely he ought to have looked into the matter and investigated it. There is not the slightest doubt that amongst seafaring folk there is a strong belief that this raising of the water line has contributed to the numerous disasters which have occurred, and the consequent loss of life. One has only to stand on the Admiralty Pier at Dover when there is a strong Westerly wind, which I have done, and see the tramp steamers loaded up almost to their decks plunging through the head seas down the Channel, to realise what the condition of those vessels must be, not only loaded with internal cargo, but frequently loaded up with deck cargo.
  It being a Quarter-past Eight of the clock, and leave having been given to move the Adjournment of the House under-Standing Order No. 10, further proceeding was postponed without Question put.

  IMPERIAL WIRELESS CHAIN.
  Mr. WATER GUINNESS: I beg to move, "That this House do now adjourn." I submit this Motion in order to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the refusal of the Postmaster-General to allow any other company than the Marconi Company to tender for the erection of the Imperial.

  1343
  wireless chain. The urgency of this matter is due to the necessity, acknowledged on the two sides of the House, of getting the wireless chain authorised at the earliest possible moment, and, if possible, during the current Session. If we were to wait, however, to discuss this matter when the new amended contract with the Marconi Company is brought forward, there would be no opportunity of inviting further tenders in time to get the decision ratified by the House during the current Session. There is, however, still time to get these Alternative tenders, and to accept the lowest tender, subject to a satisfactory test being carried out by the successful tenderer during the first week in August. If that were done, it would be possible to ratify the lowest tender for a system which has carried out the test before the House rises for the recess. The Postmaster-General has, of course, moved to a certain extent from the position which he adopted last year. He has now expressed his willingness to reconsider the matter as to the last three stations if a case can be made out by another system. Well, to have two different systems would be a very great inconvenience. The guaranteed speed of the Marconi system, according to the right hon. Gentleman's recent statement, is only seventy-five words per minute, and it is stated that other systems are capable of running at a very much higher speed, probably up to 200 words per minute. The report of the right hon. Gentleman's Advisory Committee in paragraph 22 says:—
  "We may add that both the Poulsen are and the Goldschmidt machine are admirably adapted for high speed transmission."
  It is very generally known that the spark system has reached its highest limit of speed, and, therefore, it does not improve the case to say that after you have built the first three stations you will reopen the matter, because it would be a great inconvenience and would lead to considerable inefficiency if you began to send a message at seventy-five words per minute and were not able to take advantage of the greater efficiency of the stations further on down the line, which might be able to use automatic transmission at the rate of 100 or 200 words per minute. I think the burden of proof against the advisability of competition in this matter should rest with the Postmaster-General. Obviously, competition may be expected to bring about considerable savings in the Estimates, and I am sure those who are opposed to this
  1344
  contract are quite prepared to show in this case that there is special ground for competition. The absence of competition was no doubt the cause of the very remarkable provisions which were embodied in the agreement which was before the House last year. If we had competition, even although the Marconi Company were again successful, very likely the most objectionable of those provisions would be waived. I do not, of course, propose on this occasion to discuss the details of the Marconi Contract. It is enough for my purpose if I am able to show that it is on certain grounds open to very grave criticism. It is quite easy to conceive other arrangements more to the advantage of the Imperial wireless chain and the electrical industry in this country. I must, of course, for this purpose show a primâ facie case that other systems are capable of performing the work, and I hope, if that case is made out, as I think it will be made out this evening, the right hon. Gentleman will allow those other systems to have a fair trial, which is not inconsistent with the passing of the contract in the present Session. The outstanding feature which makes the Marconi Contract undesirable is the 10 per cent. royalty. That is a proposal which the right hon. Gentleman himself has admitted to be very onerous. When the right hon. Gentleman made his announcement as to the new contract on the 4th of this month he stated that his wishes—
  "have not been met in one of the most important particulars, the question of the 10 per cent. royalty. The company made it plain that they would prefer to have no contract than to give up that provision, although I proposed various alternatives."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 4th July, 1913, col. 2433.]
  The objection to this 10 per cent. royalty is obvious. There is no incentive to the contractor to put up an improved system from the point of view of economy. Of course, theoretically the right hon. Gentleman is in a position to discard the whole of the Marconi Contract, but he does not escape the 10 per cent. royalty unless he discards every one of the Marconi patents. It is generally the case that where any industry lays down expensive plant it continues to use that plant even when there is something more efficient available rather than face the expenditure necessary to replace it. If the Marconi plant was to be replaced by the Goldschmidt plant, for instance, it would mean the scrapping of everything except the steam engine, and I think that is a penalty it is not likely the Post Office would be ready to adopt. They would rather go on with

  1345
  the inefficient system than face that very large additional expenditure. A very strong objection to this 10 per cent. royalty is to be found in the Report of the Advisory Committee. They point out that very probably an efficient system would find it necessary to combine the appliances used by various patentees and various companies. In paragraph 31 they state:—
  "Having regard to these facts it is, in our opinion, undesirable that in constructing and equipping the stations of the Imperial chain, the Post. Office should be pledged to the continued use of any apparatus now used in any so-called system, or he subject to any penalty by way of continued royalties or otherwise for the d sure of any apparatus which may be installed in the first instance."
  The Post Office are subject to a penalty "by way of continued royalties or otherwise" under this agreement for disused apparatus, because the right hon. Gentleman has failed to obtain a reduction in the royalty proportionate to any reduction which may take place in the use of Marconi patented plant.
  Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: I desire to ask you, Mr. Speaker, for the convenience of Members generally, whether on this occasion the hon. Gentleman and others are entitled to discuss in detail the merits of the contract, and whether, if the hon. Gentleman discusses the details of this particular contract, it is open to other Members to dead with it also, or whether it is not more correct to say that the object of this Adjournment Debate is rather to show why there should be competitive tenders asked for, and not to deal with this special contract.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The discussion of the contract will, of course, come before the House between to-night and the time of the Adjournment, but the detail of the contract cannot properly now be discussed. The question is whether others besides the Marconi Company should be able to tender. That was the proposal on which the hon. Gentleman obtained the assent of the House for his Motion.
  Mr. GUINNESS: I quite appreciate your ruling. I will not pursue the details of the Marconi contract because I have made my point. It is not an ideal contract and is not so favourable to the Government as to make alternative tenders undesirable. That was the point which I wished to make, and I think I have said quite enough, from my point of view, to establish that it is desirable to get a contract from some other contractor free
  1346
  from this undesirable system of royalties on the gross receipts. And I believe that such a contract can be obtained, because, according to the evidence given before the Marconi Committee, the Poulsen Company had made a proposal to the technical Committee at the Imperial Wireless Conference under which they were prepared to erect the stations and accept a lump payment of £6,000 per station for their payment. I understand that the Goldschmidt system is equally prepared to accept a lump payment and not to insist upon royalties. Of course that would mean an enormous saving.
  Mr. BOOTH: The hon. Member used the name Poulsen Company. Does he define what he means by the Poulsen Company?
  Mr. GUINNESS: The owner of the Poulsen rights is in this country—the Universal Radio. I could give the hon. Member the reference. Of course, the Poulsen proposal would cause a very great saving. It is estimated that the receipts of the Imperial wireless chain, if they are to compete with the cable companies at all, will amount to at least £1,000,000 a year.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Who estimates that?
  Mr. GUINNESS: That estimate was put before the Marconi Committee.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: By whom?
  Mr. GUINNESS: I will give the ground which I think justifies it. The competing cable companies have a gross revenue of £1,750,000 a year, and if the wireless chain is really to compete with the cable company it is not unreasonable to think that they will have a revenue of at least £1,000,000. The Marconi royalties will amount in that way to £100,000 a year, and very naturally the Marconi Company, as the right hon. Gentleman pathetically says, attach great importance to this royalty. Very naturally they would like, if they can, to get £100,000 a year for eighteen years, but I think it desirable-that the Poulsen Syndicate should, at any rate, have an opportunity of tendering, if, instead of our having to pay £100,000 a. year, it is possible in that way to get a lump sum of £36,000 down to cover the whole of their patent rights. Apart from the royalty, there is very strong ground for believing that alternative tenders would prove very much lower. Sir

  1347
  Alexander King, in his evidence before the Committee, admitted, in answer to Queston 586, that the Poulsen Syndicate were prepared to erect the stations at a saving of £29,000 per station—that is to say £164,000 on the whole set. I cannot find any definite figure for the Goldschmidt system, but I understand that the saving on masts alone of each station would amount to £12,000, and in addition to that there would be a large saving on generators, condensers, and transformers. The question arises whether these companies are in a position to carry out the contract. Both of them assert that they are. The right hon. Gentleman has produced no evidence in this House to show that they are not. Up to now he has given them no reasonable chance, anyhow within the last few months, to carry out their tests before his experts, and in connection with this the right hon. Gentleman's answers to questions has been very misleading. He stated, in answer to a question on the 14th:—
  "The representatives of the Goldschmidt system accepted the invitation of the Parker Committee to demonstrate the working of their system, but only over a distance of 382 nautical miles, between Hanover and Slough. Members of the Committee were in attendance at Hanover, and engineers were sent to Slough to watch the tests, but the demonstrators did not succeed in transmitting any intelligible communication of any kind."
  The right hon. Gentleman is labouring under a misapprehension, because what took place was that the Committee visited Hanover and were told by the Goldschmidt people that they were not in a position at that moment—I think it was on the 7th of March—to give a demonstration to Slough. They had not tuned up their apparatus, they had had no preliminary tests whatever, they showed their machines working, and they never expected their message to get through to the other end.
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): They asked the Post Office engineer to go to Slough.
  Mr. GUINNESS: Anyhow they made it quite clear at Hanover, understand, that they had not tuned up, that they had had no preliminary tests, and that it was not their intention to give any test at all on that day. The right hon. Gentleman was strictly correct in saying that they did not get through to Slough that day, but he suppressed the fact that three weeks afterwards the secretary to the Advisory Committee (Mr. Rayner) visited Han-
  1348
  over again—I am not sure whether he went to Hanover or to Slough; it is quite immaterial whether he was at Slough or at Hanover; anyhow Hanover and Slough were visited—he saw the test carried out, he saw the messages transmitted at the rate of sixty words per minute, and no doubt, if the right hon. Gentleman wishes, he can see the certified photographic record of those words passing at sixty words a minute in the same way as I have. The Goldschmidt Company have expressed their willingness to show the capacity of their system from Hanover to America, and I think there is very little doubt, if one reads the Report of the Advisory Committee, that they are now able to carry out what the Advisory Committee foresaw. The Advisory Committee anticipated that they would soon get communication across the Atlantic.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I should like to say that my Department were not informed of that test. I was not informed of it.
  Mr. GUINNESS: Is not your Department aware that Mr. Rayner saw sixty words a minute transmitted?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I have just made inquiries. They say they do not know of it.
  Mr. GUINNESS: The right hon. Gentleman will find that on the 29th of March in the presence of Mr. Rayner sixty words a minute were transmitted.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: He is not a member of my Department.
  Mr. GUINNESS: I think that the right hon. Gentleman can be satisfied that that is so, because presumably unless the Advisory Committee had some evidence on the subject., they would not have said in paragraph 22:—
  "We may add that both the Poulsen are and the Goldschmidt machine are admirably adapted for high speed transmission. Though we have not seen a transmission by either at a higher speed than in the case of the Poulsen are seventy, and in the case of the Goldschmidt machine sixty words per minute we have no doubt that these speeds could he increased."
  It is quite clear that the Advisory Committee was referring to the test that was carried out in the presence of their secretary, Mr. Rayner.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I do not dispute that, but I think I ought to say that my Department was not aware of it, and I was not informed of it.
  Mr. GUINNESS: I do not suggest that the right hon. Gentleman was aware of it. I can only point out that the right hon. Gentleman is labouring under a misapprehension. On page 20 of the Advisory Committee's Report, they say:—
  "Similarly with regard to the Goldschmidt system it is no doubt successful over short distances, and the only thing required to make it practicable over long distances is a machine of the necessary power. When the Goldschmidt station, near Hanover, to the corresponding station on the other side of the Atlantic are complete and in working order, we expect that communication will he established by the use, either alone or in conjunction with improved receiving apparatus of the Goldschmidt machine which we inspected at the station near Hanover, and which seas admirable both in design and workmanship."
  That machine will be in a position at the end of this month to send messages across the Atlantic.
  Mr. BOOTH: Where is it?
  Mr. GUINNESS: I understand they got communication with Tuckerton, a distance of 3,600 miles, very successfully, and they have asked to give a test; they are prepared to give a test in. the first week in August. This machine with which the communication was made was quite efficient and satisfactory in every way. It is having certain improvements added, and being brought up-to-date with another machine which is more up to date, and which the original machine is going to reduplicate. It is now being installed and will be ready to give a demonstration on the 28th of this month. In view of the fact that communication was only first obtained during the present month, I do not think it is unreasonable that the company should ask to be allowed to delay their demonstration until the first week in August. I understand they are perfectly ready to put in a tender, subject to the provision that the matter is to drop if they have not carried out this step with the efficiency which the right hon. Gentleman demands, in the first week of August. I cannot see how it could hurt the right hon. Gentleman to accept that proposal. In the case of the Poulsen Company, which is the alternative scheme there is even stronger evidence that it is in a position to send it messages. The technical Sub-Committee on an Imperial Chainless System reported at the beginning of last year that they were satisfied with the Poulsen system as a sound one, and that it is fully capable of being made to do this work.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The hon. Member ought to quote the whole Report. They reported that it was not safe to use it at the present time.
  Mr. GUINNESS: I would gladly quote it, but I must apologise if my remarks are longer than I intended. Sir Alexander King was being examined by the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord Robert Cecil). The Noble Lord said:—
  "The first question was: 'To consider whether the fact already known as to the Poulsen System really justifies the assumption that the system would be capable of communicating over the distances required by the Imperial scheme,' and the answer is: 'Yes.' The real objections to recommending the adoption of the Poulsen System outright at the present moment are as follows: (a) It is thought that the completion of the chain would take longer, as the Poulsen Company do not at present possess a staff adequate for this work. (b) We have seen the Poulsen Company working satisfactorily at 600 miles. We know that they can work at high speed at 900 miles, but we are not satisfied that they have at present either the men or the experience to design a station to work at 2,000 miles at high speed. (c) On the other hand, we are satisfied that the system is a sound one and that it is fully capable of being made to do this work; also, it is considered that neither of the objections (a) or (b) is insurmountable, if the advice, assistance, and co-operation of the Government technical experts could be counted on, and their services spared for this work. Is that right?—That is right."
  Then the question is asked:—
  "That is a report signed by Commander Groves, Mr. Madge, and Lieutenant Raymond Fitz Maurice, of the Admiralty; Major Boys, of the War Office; Captain Loring, and Mr. Taylor, of the Post. Office?—Yes."
  They are practical experts in wireless telegraphy, and they are the Government experts. That shows that. I am not making an unfair quotation when I say that the system was a sound one, and since then that system is now in a position to demonstrate its capacity. The right hon. Gentleman, in answering questions about the Poulsen system, also appeared to be suffering under insufficient knowledge as to what had taken place. I asked him whether a day and night, service was being carried out between San Francisco and Honolulu. He said it was not. I have made inquiries since, and I have received a letter which the right hon. Gentleman has not seen, and which was written by an eminent expert of the American Poulsen Company in London yesterday, and that letter states:—
  "Since 28th July, 1912, a nightly Press service of from 1,500 to 2,500 words, together with a considerable number of regular commercial messages, has been rigidly maintained with Poulsen generators of 30 kw. capacity installed at both stations. These generators also suffice to give daylight communication except during periods of disturbance. With a 100 kw. Poulsen generator, installed 4th June, 1913, a reliable and continuous daylight communication was instituted with an input of 50 kw., which was increased to 85 kw., to disprove the statement often made that it is impossible to build are generators of large power and high efficiency. Work is regularly carried on every day with 65 kw., and a demonstration can be readily arranged to prove the above statement."
  What the right hon. Gentleman may have had in mind is that at present it is only at San Francisco that a station of large power has been installed, and they can

  1351
  only send their messages one way in the daytime at present. If they can send it one way, it is only a matter of time to get an installation at the other end, and then it will be possible to send messages the other way. It was stated this afternoon, that the English Paulsen Company are not in a position to use all the American patents. That is clearly shown to be untrue. I do not know if the hon. Member has got the evidence, but I am not going to waste the time of the House by reading it unless it be thought necessary. If they look at questions 11732 and 11735. they will find it distinctly stated by the British company, who, I understand, had entered into an agreement, that they were entitled to use all the improvements installed of the Poulsen system in America.
  Mr. BOOTH: That was denied by the American company.
  Mr. MOONEY: The witness in answer to a question by me on page 149, denied that the English Company had any right whatever to any of the improvements effected by the American Company, and stated that in his opinion the English company could not work unless they employed the American patents.
  Mr. GUINNESS: The hon. Member is perhaps not aware of the fact that though the English company have got. a right to use any patent used in America, the American company has not the corresponding right to use any English patent; and that was put in specially by the British company so as to protect any rights in patents which they might use, which were thought desirable to be kept secret if they obtained the contract of the Imperial wireless chain. The hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) asked this question of Mr. Eggar:—
  "Then under this scheme the English syndicate which you are forming will get the benefit of all American improvements?—Yes."
  I believe there is no doubt whatever, that is the arrangement between the two companies, and, in view of the fact that the American engineer only yesterday wrote from the offices of the English company offering any facility in the power of the American company, what reason is there to believe that there is anything but the most friendly arrangements between the two?
  Mr. MOONEY: That is not borne out by the president of the American company.
  Mr. GUINNESS: The president of the American company—
  Mr. MOONEY: Ought to know his business.
  Mr. GUINNESS: And the president of the English company ought to know his. At any rate the contract was put in, and it was not criticised at the time when Mr. Eggar was in the chair. The reason that a special test has not been given by the Poulsen Company is due to causes quite outside their own control. They offered a test to the Advisory Committee between Denmark and their station, but I under-stand that the Advisory Committee preferred a test to the Eiffel Tower. On 8th April, the Advisory Committee for-warded to the syndicate a letter from the Foreign Office stating:—
  "I am directed by the Secretary, Sir Edward Grey, to state that His Majesty's Minister at Paris has been informed by the French Minister for Foreign Affairs that the authorisation desired by the Universal Radio Syndicate for the use of the Eiffel Tower has been granted."
  The Poulsen Company sent over a hundred kilowat machine and all apparatus, and it is not their fault that so far they have not been allowed to make use of the Eiffel Tower. It was not a test which they pro-posed, but it was agreed to on the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman's Advisory Committee. [An HON. MEMBER: "No, no."] It was anyhow stated in that letter from the Foreign Secretary that arrangements had been made.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: At their request.
  Mr. GUINNESS: At whose instance?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I gave all the facts in answer to a question to-day. I understand that the Poulsen Syndicate first approached the Foreign Office with a view to getting their assistance to secure the use of their Eiffel Tower. The matter was not in my hands.
  Mr. GUINNESS: I understand that the proposal to use the Eiffel Tower really came from the Advisory Committee, but there is nothing in the point. The real point is that it is not the fault of the Poulsen Company that the Eiffel Tower test has not been carried out. The right hon. Gentleman is in an ample position, if he chooses to take advantage of it, to satisfy himself by means of other tests since then. The Canadian Government has passed an agreement under which the Poulsen Company hope to be in communication across the Atlantic from Canada to

  1353
  Ireland in the month of October, although they only got the agreement passed in June. There is also the report by Mr. Austin, the head scientific adviser of the United States Wireless Service. It is unfortunate that the right hon. Gentleman has not seen it. He stated, in answer to a question, that he had not had the advantage of looking at it. That report was published in the "Journal of the Washington Academy of Science." I think in view of, no doubt, his inevitable ignorance of some of these details, there is a strong ground for him to reopen this question and allow those companies to give a demonstration. Perhaps as the right hon. Gentleman has not seen this report of Mr. Austin, the head scientific adviser of the United States Wireless Service, I had better read the important part of it:—
  "The receiving apparatus was then placed on the United Stales steamship 'Arkansas' and taken to Colon, 1,800 nautical miles from Arlington. During the two days available for observation at Colon the receiving apparatus was taken to the naval radiotelegraphic station. During these two days the are signals were heard at each schedule both day and night., while the spark signals were heard only at night. Thee observations indicated that at 1,800 miles the continuous waves show a smaller degree of absorption than the damped waves. Au additional series of observations has been made during the recent voyage of the 'Salem' to Gibraltar and return. Here it was found, in verification of the Colon experiments, that for distances over 1,400 miles the are as received in the day-lime was equal to or somewhat better than the spark, notwithstanding the fact that the spark radiation current at Arlington was considerably more than twice as great as the corresponding are content. Messages were con-tin 'mushy received with both are and spark in the daytime up to 2,100 miles. Several times day signals were heard at greater distances, the are being uniformly holder. The night signals were heard all the way to Gibraltar."
  I think that Report from the head scientific adviser of the United States Wireless Service is very strong evidence indeed, and that fact that it has not been before the right hon. Gentleman is, I think, ground for him to reopen the whole question. Of course it was suggested by the right hon. Gentleman that probably those companies would not be in the position to find the staff for the working of the chain. I believe this difficulty of a staff has been greatly exaggerated. The number of engineers in a Goldschmidt station is only three or four, I mean of the highly skilled engineers. The erection work could quite easily be carried out by any firm which contracts for these steel erections. I believe also that there is no ground for believing that a contract with one of those other companies would cause any additional delay. As I have pointed out the Poulsen Company, which only got an agreement in Canada in June, believe they will be work-
  1354
  ing their system with Ireland in October, and they are prepared to guarantee to put through their work in nine months. I think there is an overwhelming case to give all these other systems a chance of making their claims good, and they have not been heard up to the present rime. That hearing is demanded alike in the interests of the wireless chain and in the interests of the electrical industry.
  If this agreement goes through as it stands, it will absolutely kill all competition, and discourage all progress in wireless telegraphy in this country. The Government will not be able to take fresh inventions as those fresh inventions would involve fresh royalties which would not in the ordinary course involve any savings of royalties payable to the Marconi Company, which will have to go on. The Post Office, if they have a Marconi system installed, will almost certainly be unwilling to change. We have seen how unwilling they are to give a hearing to those other companies at the present time, and we may judge that they will be even more unwilling when they have got a very large financial interest in keeping the Marconi Company rather than another. The right hon. Gentleman is willing to consider the last three stations, but I think, unless he is oblivious to the recent developments in the wireless industry, he must go further, and provided it does not involve the delay of the matter beyond the end of this Session, give the opportunity of those other companies to put in these tenders subject to tests being carried out in the first week in August. If his faith in the Marconi system is so great, surely it must be equal to the strain of allowing that system to compete with alternative tenders. I believe that without involving any delay and without preventing the ratification of the agreement in the present Session, he could disarm all criticism by giving a fair test to other systems and an equal opportunity of success to all those which prove themselves equal by the beginning of August to carrying on an efficient service.
  Major ARCHER-SHEE: I rise to second the Motion of my hon. Friend.
  In the first place, the ostensible object of giving this contract now to the Marconi Company is to avoid delay. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that the matter is very urgent. Everybody admits the urgency of the Imperial wireless scheme. But that urgency does not, in my opinion, warrant the handing over to the

  1355
  Marconi Company of this contract. One of the principal reasons against so doing is that the buildings have not been set up at all. Sites have been selected for the Imperial wireless stations, but the buildings have not yet been erected. If a certain amount of delay is required in order to be quite certain that we shall have the best system, surely it would be better to get on with the buildings at once, aid then by the time they were finished, which would be at least six months and perhaps nine months, the Post Office might have found that other systems, such as the Poulsen and Goldschmidt, are superior to the Marconi system. I have dealt with the question of buildings first, because I think it shows that there need be no loss of time in the eventual completion of the Imperial wireless scheme by first of all getting on with the buildings and fitting in the installation afterwards. In the old Marconi Agreement it is laid down that every such installation shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Postmaster-General in all respects within twelve calendar months from the date on which the Postmaster-General shall have notified to the company in writing that the site has been acquired and the foundation and the buildings completed, and has requested the company to provide the installation in pursuance of the agreement. So that the installation is not to be put in by the Marconi Company until they have been informed in writing by the Postmaster-General that the buildings and the foundations have been completed, and he has asked them to furnish the installation. Surely that shows that until these buildings are erected there need be no violent hurry in picking the installation which is to be installed as soon as they are finished.
  9.0 P.M.
  There is the question whether it is necessary to hand over the building of these stations to the Marconi Company. The Postmaster-General may say, as I believe he does, that as the Marconi Company are going to have the contract they must erect the buildings. But the Marconi Company are only middlemen in the erection of the buildings. The buildings themselves would not be peculiar to the Marconi or any other system. There must be accommodation for the staff, engine houses, fire houses, dynamo houses, store houses, and so on, which would be required for any and every system. The Marconi system requires
  1356
  twice the area and twice the power of either of the two competing systems. Therefore, if these buildings were erected now suitable for the Marconi system, and some of their installation was eventually decided upon, they would be equally suitable for the installation selected. Therefore why not go ahead with the buildings, and the installation of the system, which could be selected in the next six months, could be fixed by the Technical Committee. It must be remembered that the Advisory Committee were given only three months in which to report, but even in those three months they stated that they had found that both the Poulsen and the Goldschmidt systems were, in their opinion, capable of doing this work, but they were not then working. The right hon. Gentleman, in quoting the statement of the Committee that the Marconi system was the only system at present working commercially over that distance, entirely ignores the fact that since that Advisory Committee reported the United States Government have picked the Poulsen system from seven other competing systems after tests—not theoretical, but practical—from Arlington station, and have given them the contract for the Panama station.
  Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: Could the hon. Gentleman mention the names of the other seven systems?
  Major ARCHER-SHEE: I do not know the names of the seven other systems, but I have been told by the chief engineer of the American Poulsen system this evening that that was the case, and as he is the man with whom the American Government have made the contract, I think we may take his word. He is in the House at the present time.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Is it to be a Government-owned station at Panama?
  Major ARCHER-SHEE: The Poulsen Company are to have the contract, but I do not know whether it is to be Government-owned or not. It is the important station on the Panama Canal—the most important station on the whole of the American system. The Poulsen Company have been given that contract since the Advisory Committee reported. It is very important that the House should recognise that this is a development since and not before the Report of the Advisory Committee. The Advisory Committee stated in their Report that they were in-

  1357
  formed that important experiments were being carried on in the United States from Arlington, but that they had not the Report. That, Report of Dr. Austen, which my hon. Friend has quoted, has since been rendered to the United States Government, and upon it they have given the contract. Not only have they given the contract, but they have tested the system over 1,800 nautical miles. The House should remember that the distance which the Marconi Company are working across the Atlantic is not 2,300 nautical miles, but only 1,972 nautical miles. Statute miles and nautical miles have been repeatedly mixed up in evidence. The Marconi Company are always spoken of as carrying out their communication over a distance of 2,300 miles. Those are statute miles, and not nautical miles. The American Government sent the Poulsen system down to Colon, and after testing it there over a distance of 1,800 nautical miles, they decided that if any system could be used in that extremely difficult tropical region—and the tropics are known to be very difficult for all wireless systems—the Poulsen was the only present system which they would touch. They went further, and they said that the continuous wave system was, in their opinion, the only system which could be used, and that the spark system was not equal to it.
  I think in view of their long tests between Arlington and Gibraltar, and between Arlington and Colon that the value of the Poulsen system has been proved beyond a shadow of dispute. In addition to that let the House remember that it was with a very small power that the Poulsen Company carried out their communication from Arlington. It was with only a 30 kilowatt station. They are going now to use a 100 kilowatt station for the Panama station. Even with a 30 kilowatt station they were able to go over this very long distance between Arlington and Gibraltar. In addition to that they have been working every night commercially between Honolulu and San Francisco. Their system is very small, but it operates very simply, and is much cheaper than the Marconi system. It requires about half the power, as was stated in the report of Dr. Austin, as my right hon. Friend said. It required only about half the power to send signals from Gibraltar. With the spark system which they used, the others could not get their signals through with double the power. I think that shows that the Poulsen Company is one that, at any rate, ought not to be
  1358
  disposed of, and their system ought not to be disposed of in the way suggested; and if we really definitely intended not to make this a party matter—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"]—yes, I say it is certainly not a party matter. I never treated the merits of it as a party matter. I do not care about speculations or investments. I am talking of the merits of the system. This is a non-party matter, or it ought to be. I believe, as a matter of fact, it is. I am quite sure that nearly everybody in the House is keen that we should have the very best system possible; that therefore we ought to take the greatest care to see that we get the best system when we start. In addition to the American Contract, there has been another contract given to the Poulsen Company, and that is by the Canadian Government. The Canadian Government have given this contract for their stations across the Atlantic. At least they have approved of their starting them, and have given them a subsidy.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It is not the case that the Canadian Government have given a subsidy.
  Major ARCHER-SHEE: I thought they have given them some sort of subsidy, £15,000 a year. I may be mistaken. At any rate the matter has had to pass the Canadian Houses of Parliament, and the establishment of ordinary wireless stations does not have to come within their purview.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Certain Amendments have had to be made in the patent law of Canada.
  Major ARCHER-SHEE: That is not the only point. The Canadian Government have made an agreement with the Poulsen Company, and they are going to have certain message rates. It is going through the Canadian House of Commons, and, therefore, it is a Government agreement. I mean it is a Government approved scheme.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Yes, but they will not be Government stations.
  Major ARCHER-SHEE: I will not split hairs. As a matter of fact, it has been approved by the Canadian Government. They will not have the Marconi system; that is the point. Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that the Canadian Government do not know very well what the Marconi system can do? Both they and the American Government have for

  1359
  years known what the Marconi Company can do, and they also know very well what they cannot do! That is why they both have given this agreement to a rival system. Both the Canadian agreement with the Poulsen Company and the American agreement with the Poulsen Company have been granted since the Advisory Committee reported. I think that is a very strong point in favour of the Poulsen Company. As regards the Goldschmidt system, which has long-distance communication, that is one which has not been so long established, so that I will only say that I believe from everything one hears from the scientific people that this system is one of great promise. At present it does not do the work. I am asking for delay to have the best system. I am not asking that we should necessarily freeze out the Marconi Company. My argument is that if the buildings can be set up, the installations put into the stations, and the stations fixed during the next six months, that during that time the Goldschmidt Company are prepared to give their test. If they fail in their test, well and good. But at any rate the Poulsen Company have proved beyond a shadow of doubt that they are working commercially between Honolulu and San Francisco. The contract was given by the American Government after actual test. The American Government have known the Marconi system for years, and the American Government have given this system priority over all the others. These are very grave facts. Surely as the American Government have carried out these tests practically—which we have not done—we have not tested any other system but the Marconi system—that ought to be taken into account!
  As regards the Marconi Company, the main objection that I have is the question of royalty—the question of establishing a monopoly. I know it would not be in order to go at any length into that question, but I do want to say a word or two upon that matter. My hon. Friend said just now that it possibly might mean a 10 per cent. royalty, and that that was a gift to the Marconi Company of £100,000. That was disputed by the Postmaster-general. A statement appeared in the "Evening Standard" of 26th October, 1911, which was evidently inspired by the Marconi Company—at least it would hardly have been inspired by their rivals—and this statement estimated the receipts from the royalties at £60,000 per year. In
  1360
  view of the fact, as he stated, that the telegraphic receipts of the cable companies, the Eastern Telegraph Company, and the other companies running East over the area covered by this agreement were nearly £2,000, 000, surely it is not unreasonable to suppose that, at any rate, something like £800,000 would be given to the Imperial wireless scheme. If a 10 per cent. royalty was granted, that would be £80,000. That means a very large increase on the messages of the public. It increases the cost of communication between the different parts of the Empire. That is very serious. Everything which tends to increase the cost of communication between the different parts of the Empire is doing away with the good of the Imperial wireless scheme. We want to keep as cheap as possible the communication between all parts of the Empire, and, therefore, we ought to have no royalty at all, but a lump sum payment for the system.
  The question of monopoly comes in, because if the Marconi Company ought to be given this contract, the contract for all these five stations, they will undoubtedly be in a very good position. They will be able to pass on the Imperial wireless messages, and they will undoubtedly be passed on to America by the Marconi Company. The right hon. Gentleman said that no arrangement has been made to that effect. I know that. But if a person sends a message, we will say, from India to England, by the Imperial wireless scheme, is it likely if it has to be forwarded to America, that that message will be forwarded to America by cable or by a rival system? Is it not much more likely to be handed on from the Marconi wireless station in England to the Marconi Company and then be sent by them to America? The question of monopoly is further very serious in many other ways, because it prevents other companies from getting the capital which is necessary for them if they are to develop their inventions. Certainly that would be the effect. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I do not know what hon. Gentlemen opposite are cheering for. If they mean to insinuate, as I have heard some hon. Members below the Gangway insinuate the other day, while I was asking questions, that I had any interest in the Poulsen Company, I can assure them, if they would like to repeat that statement outside the House, they shall have a writ within forty-eight hours. They will not have to wait a fortnight as the "Matin" did for their writ—
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The hon. and gallant Gentleman ought not to say that. The writ was issued immediately.
  Major ARCHER-SHEE: The writ was issued on the 27th of February—
  Mr. SPEAKER: That has really nothing to do with the question before the House.
  Major ARCHER-SHEE: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I was led away by the interruptions of hon. Members opposite.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I must point out to hon. Members that constant conversation and criticism really tends to prevent Debate. Hon. Members ought not to keep up a running fire; they might give the hon. Member a chance.
  Major ARCHER-SHEE: I was alluding to the question that if one company is given a monopoly it prevents other companies from getting any sort of financial assistance in order to develop their inventions. I think that is obvious to everyone, no matter what view he may take of the Poulsen system. There is no doubt about it that if the Marconi Company gets this contract, they will be in possession of a monopoly. The right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General or, rather, the Government, were warned by their own Advisory Committee at the Board of Trade last year, in regard to this question of providing wireless on ships, that it would not be right to insist upon the provision of wireless upon merchant ships until there was a free market. Yet we find the Government of the day doing everything they can to throw it into the hands of the Marconi Company. I think before this monopoly is established some further consideration should be given to the matter. There is only one other point, and that is the question of establishing experimental stations: that was the recommendation of the special Advisory Committee appointed by the right hon. Gentleman. Now why cannot a first station be completed as an experimental station in England? A station can be run up very quickly, because it is not necessary to go to the Marconi Company to do it. There are any amount of contractors in England who could build plenty of wireless stations. In the case of the Poulsen Company, in their Transatlantic system, they are doing this and giving the work out to different contractors, the buildings to Messrs. Humphreys and so on. I made inquiries upon the point, and they show that stations can be run up quickly if the
  1362
  contracts are given out to different contractors. I cannot understand why the Members of the Labour party And other hon. Members opposite, who are always talking about trusts and are always against monopoly, want to see this company put in a position of undoubted monoply in the wireless field. It seems to me that if we established experimental stations it would be possible to test several systems in the same way that the American Government have done, and while the buildings and the stations are being erected, further consideration could be given to this matter, and, if the Poulsen or the Goldschmidt is proved to be better and is proved to require only half the power and to be very much cheaper and much more efficient in tropical regions, and that is one of the reasons it was adopted by the American Government, then, when the House reassembles, we should be in a position to decide to whom the contract should be given. But to throw the thing at the head of the Marconi Company simply because they were the first to work commercial wireless telegraphy is to seriously impair the efficiency of our Imperial communication.
  Mr. J. J. MOONEY: As I understand this Motion it is a Vote of Censure upon the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General, because in carrying out certain duties which were thought necessary for the safety and commercial development of the British Empire, he has not issued tenders for this contract. I regret to say I am one of those Members of the House who probably have a more intimate acquaintance with this subject than the majority of Members. I only rise to state how the subject strikes me. The contract which the right hon. Gentleman was asked to make was a contract for a series of stations in certain parts of the globe establishing communication over certain distances. The right hon. Gentleman before he entered into the contract had to look about him and to inquire and to see who was capable of doing the work. Three companies emerged, the Marconi, the Poulsen, and the Goldschmidt. The Goldschmidt Company came before the Postmaster-General and before the Committee of this House, and they said, "We have a very good system, a cheap system, and an efficient system." They were met by the inquiry, "Have you done the work?" and they said, "No." "When do you hope to do" they were asked, and they said, "We cannot tell you." But they told us,

  1363
  "We believe in our system, and if you give us the contract we will give you a guarantee, and the work shall be done." The Poulsen Company said, "We are prepared to tender for the contract. We have a very good system; we can send messages several thousands of miles, and we have sent them thousands of miles at night." They were asked, "Have you sent messages by day and night over the distance necessary to complete this chain?" They said, "No; but we hope to do it. We have not done it yet." When the Postmaster-General entered into this contract, there were very much more than commercial matters to be considered.
  Some of the most important evidence given before the Commitee was, I regret to say, given in private. It was the evidence of those charged with the military and naval defences of the Empire. I think in a way it is a great pity that the Post master-General and the Admiralty and the War Office cannot see fit to make public the evidence given by certain of their advisers. I think it would show how the Imperial party of this House is standing in the way of the naval and military advisers of the country for the protection of the Empire. I do go as far as to say this: That every expert, commercial, naval and military, who appeared before that Committee told us of the urgency of this contract. We have heard a great deal about the Poulson Company from the hon. gallant Gentleman who has just sat down, and from the hon. Member who moved this Motion. The Poulsen Company are always ready to do this work, and they are always on the eve of success. They always say that they have sent these messages or that they will send them. Talk about a daylight service! When you have only sent messages between 6.0 and 7.30, are you entitled to talk of a continuous daylight service? The president of the American Poulsen System told us that he had established communications between Honolulu and San Francisco. He was asked if he had established communication during a period of twenty-four hours, and he admitted that he had done nothing of the kind. He stated that he had established communication between Honolulu and San Francisco over and over again, but when we got the British Consul to inquire we found that he had done nothing of the kind, for he had only got messages through up to ten o'clock in the morning, and after that he could not do it. That is not the continuous twenty-four
  1364
  hours' service which is necessary for the chain.
  The Poulsen Company told us they would establish new stations, put in better equipment, and in a few months' time, they said, if you will only wait, we will give you the service you want. That sounds reasonable, but may I point out to the House that I came across a letter in a mass of correspondence from the Poulsen Company to the Post Office, placed before the Committee offering all these advantages, saying that they had not quite succeeded yet, but in a couple of months they would be able to give us everything we wanted and that letter was dated 1907? Therefore, in.1907, the Poulsen Company were promising to do in a few months what seven years after they have not been able to do. They say that the Marconi Company has done a good deal, but we can do better if we get the contract. If you give us the contract we will go to the public, form a company, and get the capital. Another point is that there is no Poulsen Company in England. There is what is called the Universal Radio Syndicate, and they are trying to form a company, and they hold certain patents from the American Poulsen Company. Mr. Eggar, the solicitor to the Poulsen Company, was asked had the English syndicate any right to any one of the patents introduced in America, and would it be possible for the English company to work with those patents at their disposal, and his answer was that the English company had no right to the American patents, and if they wanted to use them for a wireless chain they would have to come to him and buy them. Therefore it was not the American company which was offering to tender, but a company which had not got the patents. The hon. Member for St. Albans (Sir H. Carlile) has stated that the English company possessed those patents, but I prefer to get my facts from the head of the company, who knows more about the question than the hon. Member who moved the Adjournment of the House.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: If the hon. Member will look at the evidence given by Mr. Eggar, he will see that he was at conflict with Mr. Beach Thompson. He will find what I say borne out by Question 12135, which was put by the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth).
  Mr. MOONEY: I myself on two separate occasions pressed Mr. Beach Thompson as to the exact rights of the Universal Radio Syndicate, and he never

  1365
  wavered from the point that he was bound to communicate his patents and improvements to the Danish company, but not to any assignee of that company. There is only one other point I should like to mention about the Poulsen Company, and it is that the longest distances they have worked by day and by night continuously for twenty-four hours in 950 miles. That is sworn to by the managing director of the company arid not by any party group interested in the company. The offer of the Poulsen Company comes to this: That you are to build power-houses without knowing the sort of engines you are going to erect in them. That seems an absurd proposition. If I was going to build a power-house I should want to know what the engine is for, and what amount of space I should have to provide for it. If I am going to enter into a contract which I am told is very urgent and three people come forward and say they are prepared to do it for so and so, the only question I should put to each of them is: "Have you done the work, can you do the work, and what guarantee are you able to give me that you will do it to my satisfaction?" One of the three says, "I have already done the work and I can give you every guarantee. I have done the work for a considerable number of years, and I do not want to be paid until I have put up the stations to your specifications." The other two people asking for the contract say, "We have not done the work yet, but we have a very good machine which we think will do the work and we will sell it to you for a lump sum, but you must take the risk whether it will do the work or hot." I would rather make the contract with the gentleman who only wanted 10 per cent. down than buy a machine that might not be able after all to perform the work. Therefore, I think the Postmaster-General is perfectly right in entering into this contract with the company who has done the work, and therefore I shall vote against this Motion.
  Mr. AMERY: I do not wish to follow in detail the points raised by the hon. Member who has just sat down. Whatever criticisms he may make of the evidence of Mr. Beach Thompson are, after all, immaterial to the fact that the Select Committee of Experts made a very strong recommendation in favour of that particular company. Without going beyond the bounds of this Debate, I would just like to say, speaking for myself, and I think I may say that I speak for a good
  1366
  many hon. Members on this side of the House, that I am not in favour of giving the erection of these stations to any 'private company, but I am strongly in favour of preserving the whole matter in the hands of the Government itself, and of securing all the strategical advantages of getting together at the earliest moment the most efficient and highly skilled staff which is capable of dealing with wireless telegraphy. But, if this matter is to be given to a private company, then I do suggest that there are very strong reasons in favour of open public competition. There always are, and there should be, very strong reasons indeed in any case for rejecting the principle of open competition. After all, the issue of open tenders does not commit the Government, it never commits the Government, necessarily to accepting the cheapest tender. A satisfactory test of power to do the work, either by actual demonstration of business, or such a demonstration as shall convince scientific experts that the distance can be accomplished can always be made a condition, and, if tenders had been issued in June, 1911, asking any company, who tendered to give evidence of their power to demonstrate over the required distance, no company could possibly have complained if its tender had been rejected for want of demonstration.
  Those are general reasons, but there are also very particular reasons in connection with this matter of an Imperial wireless chain. In the first place, the whole subject of wireless telegraphy is in a state of transition. The condition of wireless telegraphy to-day is not what it was when the Advisory Committee reported at the end of April, and it certainly is not what it was when the Post Office were negotiating With the Marconi Company two years ago. Let us put the case in its simplest element. You have, on the one hand, a system which has undoubtedly been first in the field, and which has shown great enterprise, of which it has every reason to be proud. It has demonstrated working successfully over the distances required for the Imperial chain for some considerable time past. You have, on the other hand, systems which, on the face of them, and in the opinion of the experts, do promise great advantages in respect of rapidity of transmission, of freedom of interference by climatic conditions, of freedom from telegraphic interference, of more effective secrecy, and of smaller stations, which can

  1367
  be more easily defended, and which also offer an infinitely cheaper tender than the Marconi Company. When you remember that it is £34,000, or, with royalties, £39,000, against £60,000, with a royalty which may run to £10,000 a year per station, it is obvious that the Government ought, if there is any possibility of the cheaper system being capable of doing the work, consider that system very carefully. It seems to me that on those grounds there was a very strong case for open tenders two years ago. There is an infinitely stronger case to-day, because systems which had given no proof even three months ago have given proof now, not in the opinion of Mr. Beach Thompson, but to the satisfaction of the chief expert of the United States Government. Even if the question of urgency is important, as I think up to a certain point it is important, what is there to prevent the Government to-day, when the matter is very public, saying that tenders would only be open for a fortnight, and that tests must be given, say, by the end of the first week in August to the satisfaction of the Advisory Committee? If tenders pass the Advisory Committee as regards the capacity of companies to do the work, well, then the Post Office and the House of Commons, after rejection of such companies as cannot prove their capacity, can decide between the remaining companies on the grounds of cheapness and various other legal and commercial considerations which have to be taken into account.
  There is another, and I think a far graver reason than those I have mentioned already, why this matter should be open to public tender, and that is the whole past history of this contract. After all, we must not be deluded by technicalities. This is the same contract upon which the Select Committee were appointed to inquire and report. It is, subject to certain amendments, the same contract in substance and character; it is the same in its main features. That contract and the manner in which it was concluded aroused the gravest doubt on the part of all who had followed this question, not only on this side, but also on the other side of the House. As the result of those doubts and of the earnest appeal made by the supporters of the right hon. Gentleman, he promised this House a Committee of Inquiry, which should fully go into the manner in which that contract was
  1368
  negotiated and into the merits of that contract itself, and, because a few amendments have been made in that contract, the Committee which he appointed decided, presumably not against his wishes—
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL:I had nothing whatever to do with it.
  Mr. AMERY: Very well; they decided without any protest from him—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why should he protest?"]—to refuse the duty which the House of Commons put upon them, and refused to, let the House of Commons know—
  Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: I rise to a point of Order. May I ask you, with great respect, whether the hon. Gentleman is in order in going into the question of the action of the Committee in not continuing its 'sittings, and, if so, whether I and other Members will be entitled to discuss. That question?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think that is what the hon. Member was doing. I understood the point of the hon. Member to be that it was very desirable, seeing the history of the last Marconi Contract, and what happened with regard to the investigation into it, that any future contract should be made in the most open way possible. That is what I gathered was the point of the hon. Member.
  Mr. W. REDMOND: May I ask you whether the hon. Gentleman is in order in this Debate in arguing as to the correctness or otherwise of the action of the Committee in discontinuing its sittings? That is what I want to know.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think that would be relevant, but the hon. Member is entitled to point out that the Committee came to an end before all its members were agreed to bring it to an end. That is what I understand to be his point. He is pointing out that the Committee came to a sudden end, that the investigations were not carried so far as the hon. Member himself desired that they should be, and that in those circumstances it is desirable that in any future contract the matter should be open to public competition.
  Mr. KELLAWAY: Will it be in order for other members of the Committee to follow up the same line of argument?
  Mr. SPEAKER: Certainly, as long as they are relevant.
  Mr. AMERY: The point I wish to make is not the particular correctness or incorrectness of the attitude of the Committee, but that this contract, save for sundry amendments, is the contract on which the House was promised the advantage of a Report of a Select Committee. It is in the unfortunate position of having had no Report, and the ordinary Member is certainly not in a position to go through some 20,000 questions and answers, nor has he had the advantage of seeing or hearing the witnesses, or of reading all those documents, which, for some reason or other, the Postmaster-General will insist on keeping confidential, though there is not one of them, except for a sentence here and there, which ought not to be published. I say that, as there is no Report, it is at any rate within the competence of an individual Member of that Committee to insist that the whole history of the way in which this contract in its original form was negotiated and completed make it utterly impossible that the matter should be carried through without resort to public competition. I venture to say, in conclusion, that I, at any rate, after months on that Committee, have arrived at the opinion that the right hon. Gentleman and his Department, in the negotiation of this contract, have shown incompetence, partiality, and disingenuousness.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I do not see the relevance of that. I am bound to say I do not think that that argument is relevant to the matter we are now discussing.
  Mr. AMERY: The only point I wish to make is that the case for open competition, Which would be strong in any event if it were a new contract, is infinitely stronger by reason of the manner in which this particular contract has been dealt with in the past. I submit that if anything is relevant to this Motion to-night, it is that. I want, if I may, to give three separate instances to support my contentions that there have been incompetence, partiality, and—
  Mr. SPEAKER: I have already intimated that, in my judgment, that is not relevant.
  Mr. AMERY: Then I will not pursue that point any further. I will only say that if this matter is carried through without the House of Commons having the advantage of an authoritative report on the negotiations for the completion of this contract,
  1370
  and without the advantage of open tendering, then the carrying through of this agreement will be nothing less than a public scandal.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: I venture to submit to the House that in this connection there is something more to consider than even the proceedings of the Marconi Committee. We have also to consider the history of wireless telegraphy, because tonight we are asked to decide a very simple question of business, and that is, what ought we to do, as businesslike people, in the situation in which we find ourselves in regard to constructing an Imperial wireless chain? We have heard several so-called systems of wireless telegraphy referred to. We have heard of the Poulsen system. Is this a new system? One would imagine, from the references made by the hon. and gallant Member for Finsbury (Major Archer-Shee), who poses as an expert on the subject—
  Major ARCHER-SHEE: Nothing of the sort.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: The hon. Gentleman says he is not an expert. Well, I understand the experts are elsewhere in the House in order to advise the hon. and gallant Member and his supporters. [An HON. MEMBER: "So are yours."] Let hon. Members of this House, who desire to act wisely to-night, refer to the proceedings of another Select Committee, that of 1907, which considered this question, and they will find this, that Poulsen was flourishing in that year, and not only was he flourishing but he could produce English experts very much in his favour—so much in his favour that what sort of proposition did they commit themselves to? I will ask this House carefully to consider this. These experts assured a Select Committee of the House of Commons that if only wireless telegraphy for the world were freed from monopoly, if only they would ratify the Berlin Convention, if only Poulsen got his chance, what would happen in the course of a few years would be that Marconi would be swept from the sea, and that Poulsen would reign supreme in the wireless world. Look at these figures. In 1907 there were about 100 ships equipped with Marconi telegraphy and four with Poulsen's system. In 1911–12, the last year for which figures are available, there were 800 ships equipped with Marconi telegraphy and not a single ship carrying Poulsen's, in spite of the fact that the

  1371
  whole subject has been free from what was then called, even in those days, the Marconi monopoly.
  Major ARCHER-SHEE: And it is still so called. It was called that by the Advisory Committee last year.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: The hon. and gallant Member has had his turn, as he has already been reminded, and he has also had several other turns on other occasions, when I have neither interrupted him nor taken part in the Debate. As the thing stands to-day Marconi is triumphant. In what sense? "By virtue of his monopoly," says the hon. and gallant Member. Of course it is. It is by virtue of certain patents which are the reward of invention. We often discuss matters of property in this House. What sort of property is a patent? It runs a very short life—only fourteen years, with perhaps a renewal of seven years and seven years more. Need we grudge a clever man a monopoly for fourteen years? I ask the hon. and gallant Member to look at it from that point of view, and to consider whether the very facts I have ventured to submit to the House do not show that the monopoly is one of merit if it exists at all. What is the matter with the Poulsen system? Any non-technical man can easily understand what is the matter with it by simply going out into the street and looking at the flickering of an are electric light. It is difficult to regulate and control. So is the Poulsen system, and that is what has been the matter with it from 1907 down to the present day. That is why evidence could not be produced to demonstrate to the Advisory Committee that it could successfully work over long distances. The hon. and gallant Gentleman says that the American Government has thrown its flag over the Poulsen system and has thrown Marconi overboard. That statement was rather less than true. I do not accuse the hon. and gallant Member of endeavouring to mislead the House, but at the present time Marconi is doing work for the American Government. If the hon. and gallant Member knew that, he should not have made the statement. If he did not know it, he is ill-informed. It is curious when you get scientific terms used in politics to what strange purposes they are applied. Take the phrase "continuous waves," does the hon. and gallant Gentleman consider that the Poulsen system is a system of continuous waves?
  1372
  If so, let me refer him to the work of Professor Fleming, in which it is shown that, they are not continuous waves. Let me also refer him to the Report of the Advisory Committee. He will find in paragraph 26 these words:—
  "The only continuous high frequency generator we have yet seen tried with success over long distances is the Marconi continuous high frequency machine."
  That did successfully demonstrate the working of continuous waves. There is another method—the Goldschmidt method. What is the truth about that? So far it has not been shown, in the words of Mr. Marconi himself, that it has a high frequency wave capable of working continuously for twenty-four hours. We have a vague Report about the transmission of a signal over thousands of miles. It is probably true, but there is all the difference in the world between the transmission of a signal across the Atlantic over thousands of miles and the establishment of a businesslike system, capable of continuous working by night and by day, and therefore fulfilling the requirements thrust upon my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General. If I am well informed, the Goldschmidt transmission has been the transmission of a single word. I do not know whether that is true. I am told it is. Perhaps hon. Gentlemen opposite are in possession of evidence on this point, and can tell us what is the truth as to communications being established over 3,000 odd miles. Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman tell us? Can the hon. Gentleman who spoke last tell us? Why this ignorance? [An HON. MEMBER: "They are prepared to show it, and to give a test."] They are prepared to give a test! They are not prepared to do the work, but prepared to give a test. That test they may be able to improve upon this year or next year. Marconi may be able to improve upon it himself, or Poulsen, or some other gentleman may be able to improve upon himself. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Yes, that is the whole point. Therefore, so far as those arguments are good, they hold good not only with regard to the Marconi system but any system.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: Hear, hear.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: The Noble Lord agrees, and I am very glad that he does. He ought to be in perfect agreement, not only with myself, but with the Postmaster-General for a reason which surely is patent. The reason is this: We are in a position to-night in which we

  1373
  know that certain system or a certain technical method, or a combination of technical methods, has been successful in its working, that it has great accomplishments to its credit, and that it has quite independently of Government help, established a commercial system and a successful commercial system. We have got the opportunity of availing ourselves of all the work and of all the experience of that company. The Postmaster-General proposes to avail himself of that experience and of that work. He does not propose to do more than that, because he proposes to enter into a contract—I do not know whether I am right in going so far as this, but I think I must go so far as this in order to be relevant to the discussion, but I will submit to your ruling, Sir—the Postmaster-General proposes to leave himself free to adopt the Poulsen system, if at last it does what it has always said it was going to do.
  Mr. W. REDMOND: Or any other system.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: He proposes to leave himself equally free in regard to any other system, and he can throw Marconi overboard, but he need not throw all the plant overboard, for reasons pointed out by the Advisory Committee. If hon. Members will turn to paragraph 8, they will see at the end of the paragraph it is stated that—
  "by far the major proportion of the buildings and plant could with minor modifications be used equally well with any high-frequency generator or other patented device."
  The Postmaster-General leaves himself free to throw Marconi and his system, if you like to call it so, overboard, but, after doing so, he has still the advantage of the plant erected by experts, plant which would not be wasted, but which could be used in connection with any other system which shows itself capable of doing better work than the Marconi system. That is the businesslike position in which we find ourselves. Perhaps I may conclude these very brief observations with a simple illustration used by Mr. Marconi himself. He said, "Of course, people make isolated successes, but there are people who have also crossed the Atlantic in an open boat; but I think that if any Member of the Committee wanted to cross the Atlantic, he would choose to go in the 'Mauretania.'" That is our position to-night. The Postmaster-General proposes to use the good ship he has built. Find him a better ship, and he will use it. It is
  1374
  for the House to decide whether that is a businesslike proposition. I assert that it is.
  10.0 P.M.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: The hon. Member who has just spoken seems to me—I say it with all respect—so entirely to have missed the point of the matter now before the House, that I venture to make a very few observations in the hope that I may be able to explain to him and to the House that the position he attributes to my hon. Friends is not the one that they take up. The hon. Member asked, very forcibly, if the Marconi system was better than the Poulsen system or the Goldschmidt system. I think it is quite possible. I really do not know. I do not feel in the least competent to form an opinion as to whether the Goldschmidt system or the Poulsen system or the Marconi system is the best—indeed, if I may venture to be auto-biographical for one moment, it was at my suggestion that the question was referred to a committee of experts to advise the Committee when we thought at the time that we were going to discharge the duty laid upon us by the House of Commons and report as to the desirability of the contract set before us. We did not feel capable of deciding between the various systems. I do not feel capable now. The whole question, and the only question, as you, Sir, have been good enough to point out is, ought the Government to give this contract to the Marconi Company without competition, or ought they to call for competitive tenders. That is the whole point; there is nothing else in it. My hon. Friend the Member for South Birmingham (Mr. Amery) has pointed out the desirability, generally speaking, of competitive tenders. Surely that does not require argument. The whole of our business is normally carried on by competitive tender, and everybody agrees that the Government ought not to employ private contractors and give the great advantage of a great contract to anybody except as the result of competitive tender, unless there are absolutely overwhelming reasons compelling the Government to do so. Therefore, the question is, are there such overwhelming reasons in this case? The hon. Member said, "Oh, but the Government do not propose to give anything like a monopoly to the Marconi Company. They do not propose to give them any advantage. They propose to keep themselves quite free." The hon. Member is, of course, entirely

  1375
  mistaken. In the first place, they do propose, and this is the whole point, to give them the contract for the first two stations, which is a very large matter.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The first three stations.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. They give the contract for the first three stations to the Marconi Company without competition. That means a capital expenditure of some £200,000, which, after all, is something. But that is not the only thing. They propose to agree, as I understand the right hon. Gentleman, to the old and vicious plan of a 10 per cent. royalty so long as any Marconi patent is being used. I have not seen the new contract, and I may be mistaken, as I am only able to judge by what I have been able to understand from the right hon. Gentleman's answers, which I have read. Observe what that means. It means that so long as any single patent of the Marconi Company is being used in any of the stations, the whole 10 per cent. royalty is due, not in respect to the whole chain, as to which there was some doubt in the original contract, but in respect to that station. That seems to me to be a serious matter. If I may venture to remind the hon. Member of the Report of the Advisory Committee—I am not able to put my finger on the paragraph at the moment—they expressly say that there ought not to be any fetter by way of a continuous royalty. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is paragraph 31.]
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: This point is rather important. As I understand the Noble Lord, he contends that so long as any patent of the Marconi Company was existent they might claim 10 per cent., that is, supposing the Post Office use the patent. But if the patent used is important it ought to be paid for. If on the other hand it is an unimportant patent, most clearly it would not be essential to the system, and his hands would be free. I did not present that to the House, because I desired to be brief and to give the effect fairly.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I do not agree with the argument that the hon. Member has just put before the House. It is perfectly true that the royalty is only payable if the Marconi patent is used, and I know quite well the argument used as long
  1376
  ago as 11th October—the dilemma that if it was an essential patent the royalty ought to go on being paid, and if it was an unessential patent they should get rid of it. But it may well be that they can only get rid of it by going to very considerable expense. It may mean the reconstruction of the whole of the stations.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: It could not.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: No one can tell, and it is for that reason, undoubtedly, that the Advisory Committee made use of this language:—
  "Having regard to these facts it is, in our opinion, undesirable that in constructing and equipping the stations of the Imperial chain the Post Office should be pledged to the continued use of any apparatus now used in any so-called system or be subject to any penalty by way of continued royalties or otherwise for the disuse of any apparatus which may be installed in the first instance."
  I may misunderstand the Advisory Committee, but it appears to me that that can only refer to the provision which was before them in the contract, namely, that the 10 per cent. royalty should be payable so long as any single patent was being used of the Marconi system. The Marconi system consists of a very large number of patents. I think I recollect it being said in some of the reports which were before the Committee that as many as a hundred patents now belonged to the Marconi Company, and were used by them, and that it was a mistake to speak of a single Marconi patent or a single master patent. They were all important, and it was the combination of these patents which made the Marconi system, and which made and make it so valuable and important a system. That is the effect of the evidence which Mr. Marconi himself gave before the Committee; therefore, there is ground for saying that if this contract, as outlined by the Postmaster-General, is included it will not only be a contract entered into without competition, but, it 'will be in its form such as will hinder—I do not say absolutely prevent—free competition afterwards. The Treasury themselves protested against, this payment of 10 per cent. royalty as an undesirable provision. Therefore, I am not saying anything which is startling or improper. What is the overwhelming case for excluding competition? As far as we have heard it at present it is twofold. It is that these companies have not been able to do the 'work and that there is great urgency to carry out the Imperial chain. I quite admit the urgency. In the first Interim Report we admitted it unanimously. I do

  1377
  not dispute it. Urgency is a great matter, but it is also a great matter to get the best system, and I think, having waited unfortuntely these months and months before adopting any definite system, it would be a pity if for the sake of a few weeks we were to cut ourselves off from having the best system that is available. I think, therefore, as far 'as urgency is concerned, the argument that we ought to give another fortnight or three weeks is really not misplaced. Then it is said that no other company can do the work. I do not know how that is. Hon. Members opposite think the whole Unionist party are in the confidence of the Goldschmidt and the Poulsen Companies. I certainly am not. I know very little about the Poulsen Company and nothing whatever about the Goldschmidt Company. The Committee never heard a word from the Goldschmidt Company. They did not even know what they claimed to be.
  Mr. BOOTH: The expert Committee.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: That may be true. I am merely saying that as a matter of fact the Marconi Committee had no evidence at all.
  Mr. W. REDMOND: The Committee at the commencement of the proceedings invited evidence from all quarters, but the 'Goldschmidt Company tendered no evidence whatever.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL:I think the hon. Member is mistaken.
  Sir A. SPICER: The Goldschmidt Company were perfectly prepared to come and give evidence, but before we arrived at bearing their evidence we had transferred the matter to the Technical and Advisory Committee.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: The hon. Gentleman is as accurate as he always was in the conduct of the proceedings of that Committee. The effect of it is that we Aid not in fact have that evidence. That is the whole point. In my, judgment the Expert Committee's evidence is perfectly dear, that nothing could be done to prevent the free adoption of any of the schemes. I should have said that was the whole basis of the recommendations of the Expert Committee. They speak very highly of the Goldschmidt system. They do not say they have carried out the tests, I quite agree, but they speak very highly, and the whole question now is not
  1378
  whether we should recommend Goldschmidt or Poulsen or Marconi, but whether we should give these three companies, and any others who may come forward, the opportunity of tendering and being considered by the Government. This is a case of all others when we should be very careful not to do anything which would even have the appearance of favouring the Marconi Company. Any readers of that evidence will, I am sure, agree that it is not a case in which a point should be strained in favour of the Marconi Company, in view of all the evidence and all the transactions which have taken place. The point is not whether we shall have the Paulsen or the Goldschmidt or the Marconi system, but whether we shall give all three companies a fair chance of tendering, even at the risk of delaying the wireless chain for a few more weeks.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am very glad of the opportunity which this Debate furnishes of laying before the House for its consideration the very definite opinions on the matter now under discussion from expert authorities whose views, I am sure, all Members of the House will respect, and also of stating some facts which cannot conveniently be given in answer to questions across the floor. It is very desirable that the House should know these things before we come to discuss the contract itself. I am only sorry that the hon. Member who moved this Motion has couched it in terms so restricted that it is not possible for me to deal with another very important aspect of this case, namely, the question whether it is desirable that instead of having any contract at all with any company, the Government should erect the stations themselves. That, of course, is a very important aspect of the case, and if I do not deal with it, it is only because, under the rules of Order, it is impossible for me on the Motion before the House to do so. We are confined to the question whether we should invite tenders from other companies in competition with the Marconi Company. Before I go further, let me remind the House of one or two conditions of this problem. The construction of long range wireless stations is not an easy thing. Under ordinary circumstances, a Government contract should be open to public competition, and at first sight it would appear that the proper step to take would be to invite tenders for any form of Government work, and if it were a case of wireless stations communicating over comparatively short

  1379
  distances, that would, of course be done. That is, in these days, not a very difficult task, and it is also the case that occasionally, from time to time, wireless stations have been able under some circumstances to transmit signals over remarkably long distances, and particularly is it the case—it may not be known to hon. Members who have not studied the matter—that at night time, for some reason which is not fully understood, the efficiency of almost all wireless systems and stations is between two and three times what it is in the day time. The light rays interfere to a certain extent with the rays used for wireless telegraphy. But to maintain regular and constant day and night communication over great distances of 2,000 miles and upwards, which is required for our purpose, with no other means of communication except the ether is an achievement most marvellous in its results—perhaps the most marvellous of modern physical science—but it is an achievement most difficult in its accomplishment. My Department has had long experience in these matters. As long ago as 1906, Professor Fessenden, a distinguished inventor, obtained a licence from my predecessor to erect an experimental station in Scotland for Transatlantic communication. He succeeded in transmitting signals across the Atlantic by night, but he never succeeded in transmitting them by day. After a time the station was blown down, and the experiments were abandoned. In 1907, the Paulsen Company, which was then at work, sent their representative, Mr. Simpson, to the Post Office, and in an interview with one of the officials he said:—
  "The company had absolutely no doubt of being able to establish a thoroughly satisfactory service to America. He said while the Marconi Company had talked of sending 900 words an hour across the Atlantic the Radiotelegraphic Company would be able to get up a speed of 100 words a minute by automatic signalling. They had already devised a thoroughly satisfactory receiver which could work at this speed and they hoped shortly to be able to bring out an equally satisfactory transmitter. The company's experiments in wireless telephony in Germany had also been very successful. They had successfully covered a distance of about thirty-five miles, and they hoped that they would be able to introduce the system into England."
  From that day to this, the Poulsen Company have established no Transatlantic communication at all, and we have heard nothing further of their wireless telephony. A few months ago I was very strongly pressed to adopt the Poulsen system for the purpose of this wireless chain on the ground that they had effectively established day and night communi-
  1380
  cation over a distance of more than 2,000 miles between San Francisco and Honolulu. I sent officers of the Post Office and the Admiralty across, and we found that they had only established communication by night. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds very readily accepts all statements that reach him so long as they are not in favour of the Government proposals. He told us that the company have now established a daylight service. On the 11th July, which is not very long ago, the Foreign Office at my request telegraphed to His Majesty's Consul-General at San Francisco, as follows:—
  "Telegraph whether Paulsen Company have advertised wireless service to Honolulu by day or whether it is in operation."
  The reply came on 12th July:—
  "Your telegram of 11th July. The answer is 'No.' The noncompletion of the Honolulu end is causing delay the company state."
  Although the company claim to be able to transmit at a remarkably high speed by automatic apparatus, when my officer and' the officer of the Admiralty were in San Francisco and investigated the matter they found that the automatic high speed apparatus was not in use at all to Honolulu. I have had a communication to-day from the engineer of the company, and he does not say that they are now using the automatic apparatus, and I have not heard from any other quarter that they are doing so. With respect to the tests of the Goldschmidt system made by the Advisory Committee, as to which the hon. Member who moved the Motion made some remarks, this evening I have been in communication, since he spoke, with the secretary of the Committee. The tests were not carried out under my auspices, but under those of Lord Parker's Committee, the Technical Committee, and I am told" that the facts are these: The first test of the Goldschmidt system was from Havre to Slough. The Committee was at Slough, and the test was successful, messages being transmitted at the rate of thirty words a minute. Then the Committee went to Hanover, and the attempt to transmit to Slough was a failure. Three weeks later Mr. Rayner, the secretary of the Committee, went to Hanover, and Sir Alexander Kennedy and Mr. Swinburne, two members of the Committee were at Slough, and the attempt to transmit to Slough was an equal failure. Next day, when Mr. Burrow, of the Post Office, was at Slough, the, Members of the Committee having left, the attempt to transmit was equally a

  1381
  failure. Those were the whole of the tests. I am told that the Committee did see the machine working at the rate of sixty words a minute, but that was a workshop experiment, and there was no transmission of messages. The messages were transmitted into the air or the ether, but they were not received anywhere.
  Although I have to state these facts I do not wish it to be thought that I consider or am advised that the Poulsen and Goldschmidt systems are other than perfectly genuine systems of wireless telegraphy, the outcome of the brains of exceedingly ingenious inventors, assisted by competent engineers, and that both of them are systems of considerable promise. Both of them have certain advantages over and certain disadvantages compared with the Marconi system, but they are undoubtedly genuine and promising systems. But there is all the difference in the world between promising experiments and proved capacity.
  There is a second consideration which I should like to put before the House. The point of chief importance is not that we should save a thousand pounds here or there, but that we should possess stations of the maximum efficiency. We are told that others may be cheaper, but we are engaging in a very considerable expenditure of money, and it is essential that these stations, if possible, should be made to pay their way. That is the object we have in view. I only hope, if it were possible, that they will earn the gigantic revenues which are prophesied by hon. Members who have spoken to-night. We, however, do not anticipate anything nearly so large as is represented. Our hopes are of a modest character. But still, if the revenue is half what is suggested, those stations we hope may be able to pay their way. If they are to pay their way they must be able to transmit messages in a manner which is acceptable to the commercial community. If they are to compete with the cables, they must be of the highest possible efficiency. We cannot go to merchants or others who desire to send messages half across the world by the 'wireless chain and say, "We are very sorry the station is working slowly now. The station at Nairobi is out of order, and it is not possible to take your messages for a day or two." We should immediately lose any prospect of securing the business connection which we have in view. We must have as great assurance as we can obtain that we will achieve regular work-
  1382
  ing; otherwise the whole system would be a costly failure. There must be some risk, but our duty is to take every precaution we can; and when we are told that other stations may be cheaper, I have to ask what kind of stations they will be. For instance, the Marconi stations are all duplex—that is to say, they will be able to send and receive messages simultaneously, and will be able to carry twice the traffic of a simplex station. I wonder if the figures quoted by hon. Members are for simplex or duplex stations. So far as the Marconi Company is concerned, it is the only one working the duplex system, and any comparison of prices without distinguishing between simplex and duplex stations, is entirely out of the question. The machinery is duplicated. All the engines and so forth are to be duplicated, so that if one breaks down another can be immediately brought into operation. Do those lower estimates provide for duplicate power plants. It will 'be readily seen that you may run up a station very cheaply, but in three, four, or five years, especially in a tropical climate, it would be found that your money had been ill-expended, and that it would have been far more economical to pay more and get a really good equipment. It has been said that the Goldschmidt system has only one mast, while the Marconi system requires about thirty. But hon. Members have not mentioned that the Goldschmidt mast at Hanover is to be no less than 800 feet high, about 100 feet lower than the Eiffel Tower; and you may imagine the danger and difficulty of such a construction, and also the difficulty of maintaining in storms and so forth a mast of that gigantic magnitude. All these things must be taken into account, and we must not merely regard bare figures when put against one another in juxtaposition.
  The various experts who attended the Committee which advised me in the matter so long ago as August 1911, informed me that the Marconi company alone could be relied upon and it was decided at the meeting of the Committee not to invite tenders. Time went by, and if the situation had changed in the interval when we were discussing matters, at the end of last year, or the beginning of this year, and if in the meantime some rival company had meanwhile shown itself to be more capable or as capable of doing the, work, I should unhesitatingly have changed my course and come to the House frankly and said so, and put that company into competi-

  1383
  tion with the Marconi Company for this purpose. But the situation did not change, and in my view has not changed until this day. The Select Committee of the House of Commons which considered the whole question asked in January of this year for the appointment of a committee of experts to consider these very questions of the merits of the rival systems which the House to-night has under review. I appointed such a Committee, and I do not think there is any Member in any quarter of the House, whatever his views may be on this subject, who would state that that Committee was not absolutely impartial and the most competent that could possibly be desired. It was presided over by a very distinguished judge, who had previously had some knowledge of this question, and, if I may respectfully say so, whose capacity for a task of this kind is universally admitted to be beyond challenge. After a full investigation lasting three months of these very systems, the Marconi, Poulsen, Goldschmidt, Galetti system is now emerging above the horizon; the Committee reported thus on that question—and I am not now going into the point whether the Government or contractors should build, as that is excluded from to-night's Debate by the rules of the House and the terms of the Motion—but on this very question the Committee reported in these specific terms:—
  "Tire report, therefore, that according to our investigation, the Marconi system is at present the only system of which it can he said with any certainty that it is capable of fulfilling the requirements of the Im2erial chain."
  The Noble Lord who has just spoken, suggested that the Committee spoke so favourably of the Goldschmidt system, and of others that really in effect their report indicated that we ought to ask for tenders from those other companies.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: No. I do not think the Advisory Committee had that point under consideration. They were not asked to advise on that, but I am not sure it would not have been a good thing if they were. What they did say was that the Government should be left perfectly free to adopt any system.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Yes, afterwards, and so they are. The Report was published on 1st June. I will come to the question in a moment whether anything has happened since the 1st June to invalidate this Report.
  Mr. AMERY: It was 30th April.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The hon. Member is correct. It was circulated, I think, on 1st May. Suppose on 1st May I had said, "We will now call for tenders from the Poulsen Company, the Gold-schmidt Company, and the Marconi Company," and supposing an hon. Member had got up in the House and said, "How could you call for tenders from those companies when this authoritative Advisory Committee has only yesterday reported that the only system which can be relied on with any certainty to fulfil the work of the chain is the Marconi system?" What answer should I have had suppose they had quoted and had tendered lower, and, having adopted their tender, the system had not worked? What would have been my defence when they pointed to Lord Parker, Mr. Duddell, and the other Members of the Committee, and their very specific and clear opinion that the Marconi system at that time was the only one which could be relied on with certainty? We are now at 16th July, and the question is whether, during the two and a-half months that have intervened, anything has occurred to alter the decision then arrived at. I desire to quote to the House four opinions which I have received to-day, so that I do not think that anyone can say they are out of date, two from authorities in the Government service and two from authorities outside. The first is my own chief technical adviser, the engineer-in-chief of the Post Office, who has charge of the whole of the engineering staff of the Post Office. He is a man of great engineering distinction and has to supervise the working of all the wireless stations which surround our coasts, and he sends me this minute, dated to-day, 16th July:—
  "The Postmaster-General: So far as I am acquainted with the progress which has recently been made with the Poulsen and Goldschmidt systems, such progress is not sufficient to lead me to consider that reliance can be placed on either of them such as to justify an invitation in either case to tender now, or within the next few weeks, for the erection and equipment of the proposed Imperial wireless stations."
  The second opinion is from the Inspector of Wireless Telegraphy, Captain Loring, who was attached to the Admiralty and is now attached to the Post Office with the special duty of keeping an expert watch on the development of wireless telegraphy throughout the world, and of advising the Department on this subject. His opinion is as follows:—
  "It is not desirable in my opinion to invite tenders from either the Goldschmidt or Poulsen companies

  1385
  fur the stations of the Imperial chain at the present moment. In fact my experience is opposed to such a course because (1) temporary or occasional communication is a very different thing from continuous commercial working; (2) we have no evidence whatever to show that either of these companies can carry out continuous commercial working with their particular apparatus; (3) neither the Poulsen are nor the Goldschmidt alternator has been proved for long distance communication ideation continuously; (4) I am strongly opposed to the employment of a very high mast such as that used by the Goldschmidt Company at Hanover; (5) I doubt if either company has a staff available for so large an undertaking; (6) I think we shall be able to deal with more traffic under the Marconi proposals than if we simply rely on the high speed automatic proposals of the Goldschmidt and Poulsen companies."
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: Is this the same Captain Loring who told us that he was not a technical officer under the Postmaster-General?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: He is not a technical officer in the very strict sense that he is not a member of the engineering profession. But he is the Inspector of Wireless Telegraphy. He was not appointed by myself. He is undoubtedly one of the most reliable men in the Government service on this particular matter, and I personally attach the greatest importance to his opinion. The third opinion is from an outside engineer of the highest distinction—Mr. Duddell—who is now President of the Institute of Electrical Engineers, who was one of the members of Lord Parker's Advisory Committee, and who, in addition to many other engineering achievements, has himself invented singing arc, which is the basis of the Poulsen system. He has appeared in patent cases in opposition to the Marconi Company, and I am perfectly certain that he is an absolutely impartial man, certainly not in the least degree biassed in favour of that company or any other. Indeed, his colleagues on the Advisory Committee Lord—Parker, Sir Alexander Kennedy, Mr. Swinburne, and Dr. Glazebrook, the head of the National Physical Laboratory—all advised me, if I wanted an expert as consulting engineer on this matter, to have the advantage of Mr. Duddell's assistance. I am glad to say that I am enlisting his assistance to advise the Department on the working out of this system, to make experiments, and for other purposes, and generally to keep a watch on the development of the Imperial wireless system. Mr. Duddell writes me to-day:—
  "On the ground that the provision of an efficient wireless chain is a matter of the utmost urgency, I feel certain that it would not he advisable to employ either the Poulsen or the Goldschmidt systems at the present time. I have seen nothing in the recent reports of the
  1386
  transmission of signals across the Atlantic by the Goldschmidt system or the tests by Dr. Austin which in any way modifies the views I held when I signed the Report of the Advisory Committee. If six months delay did not matter it might be worth while considering inviting the Goldschmidt people to give a demonstration and then submit a tender."
  I apologise for detaining the House, but, after all, these opinions are, of course, much more important than any I could express on my own authority. The last opinion I quote is from Lord Parker himself, to whom I wrote a letter which I shall print with other papers, but which it is not necessary to read to-night. Lord Parker is not an expert engineer, but he had full opportunity of going into these matters when he was Chairman of the Committee, and he gave the closest personal attention to very detail. I ought to add that Mr. Duddell asked me to state that he was expressing his personal opinion, and that he had not consulted the other Members of the Committee. He asked me to make that clear. The first part of Lord Parker's letter deals with a somewhat different point from that which we are now on, but perhaps I had better, 'by leave of Mr. Speaker and the House, read the whole,
  "Dear Mr. Samuel,—f have not consulted the other members of the Advisory Committee, but I will endeavour to answer your three questions. (1) The Advisory Committee were of opinion that if the erection of the stations were a matter of urgency, it would be better for the Government to utilise the experience of the Marconi Company than to carry out the work themselves, more especially if in any contract with the Marconi Company they could reserve full freedom to adopt at any time any other system. The Marconi Company, with their staff of engineers and their knowledge of practical detail, could no doubt erect the stations and get them into working order in a shorter time than could be done if the Government had to form a special engineering staff, and make their own plans and specifications for the purpose. (2) The Committee did not consider that the adoption of any system, other than the Marconi system, was a practical proposition, having regard to the evidence before them. The tests of the Poulsen system, which they saw in the course of their investigations, were certainly not such as to justify them in reporting that suck system could prudently be adopted for the purpose of long distance wireless telegraphy. (3) I am not surprised to hear that the Goldschmidt Company have succeeded in establishing communication between Hanover and Tuckerton. But it is one thing to establish such communication and quite another to maintain it day and night without interruption on a commercial scale. A demonstration extending over some weeks at least would he necessary before it could be said with any certainty that the Goldschmidt system was equal to or better thou the Marconi system for the proposals which the Government have in view. Perhaps I may be allowed to add that the suggestion of inviting tenders for the stations of the Imperial (Main appears to me to be based on a misconception. The real questions are, first: What system it is desirable to adopt, and, secondly, by whom the work is to be carried out. It seems quite clear that no firm would tender for the erection of stations according to a systems other than its own. If each firm tendered for the erection of the stations according to its own systems, the result could have no bearing on the question which system it was desirable

  1387
  to adopt, unless it were assumed that all systems were of equal merit, and this can hardly be assumed under present circumstances. If the Government intend to act upon the report of the Advisory Committee, they will erect at any rate their first two stations according to the Marconi system, and unless they carry out the work themselves, the only alternative would appear to be the employment for that purpose of the Marconi Company.-I am, yours sincerely,
  PARKER OF WADDINGTON."
  Those are authorities to whom Members in all quarters of the House will pay attention, and who will carry far more weight than any of the hon. Members who have spoken to-night, or even the gentlemen whose opinions they have quoted.
  Mr. IAN MALCOLM: Will the right hon. Gentleman circulate those letters?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Certainly. For my own part, I am not an expert, and make no pretence whatever to be an expert. I think that nothing is more dangerous than for a Minister to assume a knowledge that he does not possess, and on a highly technical matter of this kind to put forward any personal opinions whatsoever. It is only a little less dangerous when Members of Parliament and journalists, because they have learned a smattering of the language of this science, and are able in their speeches and letters to use such words as "arc" and "spark," "receiver" and "coherer," and "undamped waves," to assume an authority to instruct those who are better informed, which really they are not entitled to claim. For my part I have never, from the beginning, acted in this matter on my own opinion. If there are any who say that I have personally, for one reason or another, shown favour to the Marconi Company as against other companies, well—let them say! I shall not stop to answer, and certainly nothing would induce me to change a course which I know to be right in the public interest, merely in order to shield myself from attacks of that kind. If I were to take the advice, given in defiance of these expert authorities and of all the opinions, I have read to the House, tendered to me this evening, I have no doubt I could secure plenty of guarantees from several companies that they would be able to perform with absolute perfection everything that was desired, and to do so far better than the Marconi Company. Many people would be willing to guarantee and lay down a large financial deposit in earnest of their guarantee, knowing that they could go to the city and raise money on account of the definite contract
  1388
  with the Government, and recover it again and again and again. What I am anxious to secure is stations that will work, and, if as I say, after all this had taken place, it was found that the stations were not capable of carrying out the work for which they were designed how could I defend myself in this House or in the country in the face of the advice I had received from my advisers and others. It would be no answer to say I was unable to resist the cogent arguments and appeals of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. W. Guinness), or the hon. and gallant Member for Central Finsbury (Major Archer-Shee).
  If there had indeed been no case of urgency the whole matter would have been on a different footing. Every hon. Member who spoke from the benches opposite frankly and fully admitted that there is urgency. The hon. Member (Major Archer-Shee) said why not begin with your buildings; they would take months to erect, and meanwhile you could reconsider the whole question as to which system to adopt. You cannot put up your buildings until you determine on your site. It is a matter of immense importance, and it is made a condition of the contract that the Marconi Company shall not be paid a single sixpence until they have not merely begun their stations, but until they have completed their stations and shown that they can work. They will then be paid two-thirds of the money, they having lodged security with me. After six months working, or it may be a longer period, and after a proper period of testing and working they will get their final completion certificate and will be paid their money. But the Marconi Company naturally will not give a guarantee of that kind unless they have some voice in the selection of the site. What would be my position if after the stations had been erected the Marconi Company were to say the site was not suitable; there was not sufficient water in the soil, the aspect was wrong, there were mountains in the way, and that was the reason that they could not effect communication. You must get the co-operation of the company before building in the selection of the site. It is impossible to buy the sites and erect the buildings and decide about the system you are to have afterwards. In May, 1911, as I told the House on previous occasions, the Sub-Committee of the

  1389
  Committee of Imperial Defence appointed to consider these important matters reported that the erection of these stations was urgent in the strategic interests of the Empire. The Imperial Conference in June of that year also reported in favour of their erection. Then I proceeded to negotiate as speedily as I could. As a good many departments were concerned and much correspondence had to take place Committees were appointed; many meetings were held, and it was not until July, 1912, that the first contract was signed. 'Then we had the Parliamentary Committee, a further long delay, and in January, 1913, the Select Committee, of which the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord Robert Cecil) was a member, passed upon his Motion a Report, of which these are the first words:—
  "The Committee have heard a number of witnesses from Government. Departments and have arrived at the conclusion that it is a matter of urgency that a chain of Imperial wireless stations should be established."
  That was last January. Six months have passed, and not a sod has yet been turned. Now I suggest to the House that it is surely time to make an end. As the Minister who is responsible to this House and the country for the erection of these stations, responsible not only to this House, but also to the Governments of India, Egypt, and South Africa, all of whom are co-operating with us in this matter, I do urge upon the House that this scheme, essential to the strategic interests of the Empire, and most desirable in its commercial interests, should no longer be allowed to be the shuttle-cock of party politics.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The concluding observation of the Postmaster-General was at once unnecessary and unjust, and considering hew little time there is left for anybody to reply to him—the right hon. Gentleman did not rise to reply until we were nearing the conclusion of the Debate—I think he might have refrained from an observation of that character. I shall say no more about that subject, and I shall be content to leave the matter to the judgment of my countrymen outside. I only want to say a few words on the problem which is presented to us to-night. It is, I think, one of extraordinary difficulty. I have not myself taken any part even of the smallest kind in any of the discussions that have taken place on this subject. I have not read the statement of the case of any company
  1390
  which has competed for, or attempted to compete, for the contract which the Government have at their disposal and I come to the matter, I hope, with an ordinary share of common sense, but with no pretensions to any technical skill or technical knowledge. Listening to the Debate under those conditions, what is the conclusion forced upon my mind? I admit the importance of the opinions quoted by the right hon. Gentleman, but I think, if the right hon. Gentleman has proved anything, he has proved too much. He has proved that whatever terms the Marconi Company chose to ask him he had got to take them. The whole force of his argument is that "the matter brooks no delay; the Marconi Company is the only one with which I can make a contract at this moment, and therefore it must be made with them, and on terms they desire." As an observer from the outside, I venture to say that the fault which has vitiated the negotiations on the Post Office side from the beginning to the end of this matter is that they did not realise that they were the masters of the Marconi Company, instead of the Marconi Company being their masters. They had the right to use any Marconi patents they liked, and if they had not come to an agreement the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary to the Treasury, with aLaw Officer to advise them would have been all that was necessary to decide what was the proper remuneration to be paid to the company for the patents they used.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL:In the United Kingdom.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Surely it means other parts of the Empire?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: That would have to be a separate adjudication.
  M. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: What an interruption! [Interruption.] I have only got five minutes, and I think it is not too much to ask hon. Members that I should be allowed to use it to the best of my ability. I say that the mistake of the Post Office was not to realise that they commanded the position in the last resort. Do not think when I say that, I wanted them to treat the Marconi Company or any other company ungenerously. I say frankly that I do not like the management of the Marconi Company. I do not like what I have heard of it. I do not like what I saw of it—it was a different management then at the time I was Post-

  1391
  master-General, and, in saying that, I must add that I do not mean to reflect for one moment on Mr. Marconi himself. He behaved to me, when I was Postmaster-General, with perfect frankness, and gave me, I think with fulness, all the information which I asked from him. I am speaking for myself, and I say that I do not like the management of that company. I do not think that it is a company in whose hands we ought to place ourselves unreservedly. I think that all that has passed, and that is within the knowledge of the House, as my Noble Friend the Member for Hitchin (Lord Robert Cecil) said, would make any of us rather reluctant than otherwise to give a contract to the management of that company under
  present circumstances unless we were obliged. Then I say, Are we obliged? And is the contract in other ways desirable It does not fulfil the condition laid down by Lord Parker. It does not leave the Government free, without final penalty, to reject any part of the Marconi system and adopt any other system. The company have taken advantage of the inquiry to revise their tender, and I must say that their claim for an increased price over their former price is an impudent claim to which the Government ought not to have listened. With all these things in our minds, the last thing we should do is to give this contract to this company on these terms unless we are obliged, and sooner than make this contract in haste and repent at leisure. I would prefer to delay a little longer. If delay is out of the question, then I say let us make no contract at all; let the Postmaster-General and the Government undertake the work themselves. The right hon. Gentleman read a portion of paragraph 24—
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I was not allowed to discuss it.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman might have read the sentence as he quoted a part of it.
  "We report, therefore—"
  he read—
  "that, according to our investigations, the Marconi system is at present the only one of which it can be said with any certainty that it is capable of fulfilling the requirement's of the Imperial chain,"
  A comma turned into a full-stop by the Postmaster-General!
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I must protest. The right hon. Gentleman is now
  going into the other question as to whether
  1392
  the Government or the company should erect the stations.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Report goes on:—
  " But this must not be taken to imply that in our opinion the Marconi Company must necessarily be employed as contractors for all the work required for the Imperial chain. Indeed, in some respects we think it might be better for the Government themselves to undertake the construction of the stations."
  [HON. MEMBERS: "Read on."] I have read enough to correct the misapprehension. I say that you cannot read the succeeding paragraphs of this Committee's Report without seeing that the Committee expect great developments within a very short time and that they do not believe the Marconi system or any other existing system is the best system to be had.
  It being Eleven o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed without Question put.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  EAST HAM CORPORATION BILL (by Order).
  Consideration, as amended, deferred till Wednesday next, at a quarter-past Eight of the clock.
  OXFORD UNIVERSITY (ST. EDMUND HALL AND GATCOMBE RECTORY) BILL [Lords] (by Order),
  Third Reading deferred till To-morrow.
SUPPLY.

  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1913–14.
  Considered in Committee.
  Postponed Proceeding resumed on Question proposed on consideration of Question, "That a sum, not exceeding £236,390, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1914, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Committee of Privy Council for Trade and Subordinate Departments." [Note.—,£140,006 has been voted on account.]
  Question again proposed, "That Item A (Salaries, Wages, and Allowances) be reduced by £100."—[Mr. Pete.]
  It being after Eleven o'clock, and objection being taken to further Proceeding,

  1393
  the Chairman left the chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee to report Progress; to sit again to-morrow (Thursday).
  The remaining Orders were read and postponed.

HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS (MEDICAL SERVICE) GRANT.
Committee to consider of making provision out of moneys to be provided by Parliament for a special Grant for the purpose of improving medical service in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland and for other purposes connected therewith.—(King's Recommendation signified).—[Mr. Gulland.]

LAND VALUATION.
Mr. GULLAND: I beg to move, "That this House do now adjourn."
Mr. ROYDS: This afternoon I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the Referee's decisions in two test cases regarding agricultural land—the Chells Farm and the Norton Malreward cases—and the Deptford case, respecting urban land, he would be willing to advise the Valuation Department to postpone the issue of further provisional valuations until the basis of valuation was settled, and to devote their energies to wiping off the arrears in the Estate Duty Department and in respect of the 350,000 occasional valuations which have yet to be made. The Chancellor of the Exchequer replied in the negative. What is the position? Let us take the case of agricultural land first. The Referees in these cases were Mr. Drew and Mr. Daniel Watney, two of the most eminent valuers and surveyors in the country. Those gentlemen decided that in their opinion in these cases the method of valuation of agricultural land, as pursued by the Valuation Department, was wrong in its entirety. The effect of the decisions was that all the valuations of agricultural land made up to the present time were founded upon a wrong basis. I believe that the agricultural land of this country comprises at least seven-eighths of the total land of the United Kingdom—I suppose some 60,000,000 or 70,000,000 acres of land. The Chancellor of the Exchequer stated last week or the week before that
1394
about 4,500,000 provisional valuations had been served.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): That included urban land.
Mr. ROYDS: I take it that about one third of the provisional valuations of the land of the country have been, served, but I do not think anything like one-third of the agricultural land of the country has yet been valued. The figures do not refer to acres, but to the number of provisional valuations. A large number of the provisional valuations have not yet been made final. What is the effect of decisions of the referees in the agricultural cases? They' alter the whole of the figures, not only of the total value, but of the two. site values, the full site value and the assessable site value. They materially alter the total value. They fix the total value upon a different basis altogether from that fixed by the Government valuers, and they have brought down the two site values by 50 per cent. The reason they brought down these site values was because they found the Government valuers had been including in site value a very large proportion of the owners and tenants' improvements. In the case of the Norton Malreward valuation they brought down the site value to less than half what it had been originally fixed by the provisional valuation.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: What are the figures given by the owner?
Mr. ROYDS: I quite admit that the valuations were not brought down to the figures of the owner, but the answer to that is perfectly obvious, because the valuers, in making their valuation, said specifically that they had included in the site value, notwithstanding the large deductions which they had made, a large proportion of improvements which were obviously owners' improvements, and had those improvements not been included, the site value, in my opinion, would have been brought down to an insignificant figure, very much the figure at which the owner-placed it. That is the position in both cases. I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer this afternoon, as these two decisions had been given to the effect that the whole basis of agricultural valuation was wrong, if he would defer the serving of any further provisional valuations of agricultural land until the basis of

1395
valuation had been fixed, because I cannot see what is the use of any valuation in regard to which the basis on which it is to be made is not fixed and the views expressed by the Referee and those adopted by the Government valuers are as wide apart as the poles. Is there any urgency for this valuation of agricultural land being pressed forward Primâ facie none of this agricultural land is the subject of any of the three taxes imposed on land under the Finance Act of 1909–10. But supposing it could be made liable to any of those three taxes, what is the position? Increment Value Duty which, I think, is the only tax under which agricultural land could possibly come, is only estimated to yield £20,000 this year, not only from agricultural, but from urban land. There cannot be very much urgency in that regard. I dismiss Reversion Duty because it is not affected by the valuation at all. No valuation is needed for the purpose of Reversion Duty. The total estimate of the yield from all three duties for the year, taking the year by itself, is £205,000, of which Reversion Duty represents £100,000, so that the only sum left in respect to which this valuation applies is the paltry sum of £105,000.
I am sure the right hon. Gentleman has come to the conclusion that it does not pay to tax crossing sweepers with Increment Duty or nursing homes or poor spinsters or even builders' profits. That tax I consider has gone or ought to have gone. It yields nothing, and the right hon. Gentleman knows it. Nor do the Undeveloped Land Duties. He has found in regard to them that it does not pay to tax undeveloped land. Instead of houses springing up, building development is arrested in consequence-of this tax. That is the position. I have stated these facts to show that even if these taxes did apply to agricultural land—which the right hon. Gentleman says they do not—they are so paltry and so insignificant that they cannot enter into consideration in the question which we have before us. To what further use can this valuation be possibly put? The right hon. Gentleman suggested it might be exceedingly useful for the purpose of local rating and taxation, but he added that it would be grossly unfair and improper for the valuation of agricultural land under the methods adopted by the Valuation Department to be used for the purpose of rating and taxation. He stated that perfectly clearly, and I under-
1396
stood him to say that it was his intention in the Revenue Bill, which we have not yet seen but which we have been promised for a considerable time, to introduce Clauses which would revise the method of valuation of agricultural land so that the owners' improvements should be left out and that that land should be valued on the same basis as urban land is now valued. The position is this: Agricultural valuation is not needed for the purposes of the taxes imposed by the Finance Act, and they cannot be used, according to the view of the right hon. Gentleman himself, for the purposes of any future taxation unless and until the whole methods of the valuation of agricultural land are altered and the owners' improvements are excluded. That is the state of affairs at the present time. My suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman is that under those circumstances he should defer any further valuation of agricultural land unless and until the basis of valuation is settled by Parliament. I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is his intention to introduce in the Revenue Bill provisions to the effect that all owners' and tenants' improvements of agricultural land shall be excluded from those site values? My question this afternoon also extended to urban land, because under the Deptford decision, which was a decision also of the Referee, certain deductions were directed to be made and allowed by him. That decision has been totally disregarded just as in the case of agricultural land, and valuations have been made as if the decision of the Referee had never been given. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman this perfectly plain question: I would ask him to state whether it is or is not the fact that there is any urgency in regard to these agricultural, or, indeed, urban valuations, whether the sum of money which he estimates to receive from his taxes, gives him any anxiety whatever—the total is £105,000—and then whether, if he desires, as I hope he really does, to have a true valuation of the land, he is not willing to defer the service of any further provisional valuations until a basis has been fixed by this House of Commons, which will enable the valuers to arrive at the true and not a false value.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Member has spoken temperately and genially, and I have no complaint to make at all, though these points have been put before. The only complaints I have are these two. The hon. Member raised the question of

1397
the valuation of agricultural land, yield of all these taxes, and the question of local rating in reference to agricultural land, and he left me about seven or eight minutes, in which to reply. I am afraid that in the very short time at my disposal, I cannot possibly do justice to the very important questions which he raised. The other complaint I make is that, while he raised all these questions he did not raise the question of which he gave me notice—that he would raise the issue of tenant right, and the effect of tenant right.
Mr. ROYDS: I never mentioned tenant right.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It was raised in the question put to me, but not mentioned now; that is the complaint I make, that the hon. Member gives notice of it and then raises about half a dozen other issues.
Mr. ROYDS: I must correct the right hon. Gentleman. My question this afternoon never mentioned the question of tenant right at all. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to reply to the questions which I have put to him now.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think that the hon. Gentleman must have forgotten the question in respect to which he gave me notice, which was as to the decisions that were given in what were known as the test cases in reference to tenant right.
Mr. ROYDS: It was not.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Perhaps the lion. Gentleman will allow me to continue. He will also bear in mind that there were supplementary questions which were put in reference to exactly the same decisions and the whole point was whether the decisions which were given in respect to tenant right did not affect the whole of the agricultural valuation, and whether it was fair to accept those decisions. Those are questions which were put to me both by the hon. Gentleman and the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford, and I understood that that was the question to be raised.
Mr. PRETYMAN: I do not want to dispute it at all. The question was raised as to the decisions in reference to tenant right. That is not the sole point of view that was raised in the question this afternoon. That was a minor point.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE:It is not a minor point.
Mr. ROYDS: May I explain that—
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have only got five minutes, and I will give the whole of it to the hon. Member if he prefers it. I understood that the whole question was with reference to the test cases as to tenant right. If the hon. Gentleman prefers altering the form of the question I have no objection. I should like to say this with regard to tenant right that it makes no difference to the valuation, and I should be prepared to prove that if the hon. Gentleman persists in the question of which he gave me notice. To come to the question which he raised this evening, he wanted to know whether we were prepared to hang up the whole of the agricultural valuation until we had made an amendment which would enable us to deduct the improvements in respect of drains and other tenants' and landlords' improvements upon the property. I do not think it is necessary to do that at all. I think it would not be fair to set up this as the basis of local rating until this amendment has been accomplished. I have said so on behalf of the Government, and not only on behalf of myself. I am not prepared to rate agricultural land upon the present basis until these deductions have been made. I can assure hon. Gentlemen that when we produce our Revenue Bill they will find that I have inserted provisions with a view of carrying that pledge into operation. I hope that when he sees it, probably on Monday or Tuesday next at the very latest, he will be satisfied with the provision or Clause I have inserted.
Sir G. YOUNGER: We are satisfied with your own Clause as to the Scotch Land Values.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am very glad to hear that from the hon. Baronet. Upon that matter I consulted a landowner this afternoon, and he assured me he had made a careful valuation of the whole property, after making various deductions. I examined the valuation, and passed it over to the officials of the Inland Revenue to subject it to a more careful scrutiny. Here we have a test case not conducted by ourselves, but by a very able and intelligent landowner, who takes an interest in these matters. That valuation which he has been taking will be of the greatest importance and assistance to us in achieving the results which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has in his mind. At any rate, I

1399
can assure him that there is no intention on our part of utilising the present figures—I will not say the present basis—without making a deduction in respect of improvements effected by landlords and tenants on their property.
Mr. WE IGALL: How are you to arrive at the occupier's interest, which is a varying one every year?
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I agree, but as a matter of fact we do not include that in our valuation at the present moment. That is a matter which is in issue; that is a matter upon which we are pleading. The Referees are not men who are competent to give a final decision on the point of law, and I think they would be the last persons in the world to claim that they were. We cannot accept the decision of the Referee upon a matter which is the interpretation of an Act of Parliament. I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that they are the very last men in the world to contend
1400
that we ought to do so. In saying that we are not impugning the position and authority of Mr. Drew and Mr. Watney. I agree with what everybody has said about them. They are very able and very experienced men, and they are very honourable and very upright men. They take the greatest possible trouble to arrive at a fair decision, but we must receive the opinion of our Judges of the High Court upon the interpretation of an Act of Parliament. I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that we shall take all those questions into account when we come to arrive at our final valuation of agricultural values. As he knows very well, our main idea is first of all to ascertain what the building value of the land was with a view to establishing our claim—
It being Half-past Eleven of the clock, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at Half after Eleven o'clock.