IMPERIAL WIRELESS CHAIN.

HC Deb 16 July 1913 vol 55 cc1342-92

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. 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 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 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 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 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- 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 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 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- 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 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 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- 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 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 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 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 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, "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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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?

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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- 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 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- 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- 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 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 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 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 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 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 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- 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 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.