NOVEMBER 13, 1913] 
NATURE 321 
pared alone to issue licences, at the present time, 
_ for the installation of apparatus for the reception 
of wireless time signals. Since the commence- 
ment of the present year the postal authorities 
nection with the issue of ordinary licences for a 
wireless installation; a protest has been raised in 
some quarters to this charge, and the legality of 
the action of the authorities has been doubted. 
However, as the postal authorities have explained 
that the fee is charged to recoup the expenses in- 
curred in connection with the registration of 
licences, no serious objection can, it is thought, 
be raised on a question of principle to this charge, 
although at first sight it seems difficult to justify 
so large a fee as 11. 1s., in respect of what is, toa 
great extent, merely routine clerical work. 
The correspondence to which reference has been 
made raises, however, quite another question. 
_ The inauguration of the International Time Ser- 
vice on July 1 last has placed at the disposal of 
watch and clock makers, as well as the members 
of the public generally, a means of ascertaining 
correct time, which involves only a relatively small 
outlay on a simple wireless receiving set of 
apparatus. Before such apparatus may be in- 
stalled for use it is, of course, necessary to obtain 
a licence from the Postmaster-General. Quite re- 
cently applications have been submitted for the 
necessary licence for such purposes, and in reply 
thereto the postal authorities have notified the 
applicants that the introduction of an annual 
royalty charge of 2]. 2s. is in contemplation in 
respect of such installations, and, in consequence, 
(briefly speaking) licences can alone be issued, 
provided that applicants make a deposit of 3]. 3s. 
dor 21. 2s. if the fee of 11. 1s. already referred to 
has been paid) pending the settlement of the 
question. 
No indication is given in the correspondence 
under review of the source from which the postal 
authorities claim to derive the power to levy the 
said annual royalty. As is well known, the powers 
of control in respect of wireless telegraphy vested 
‘in the Postmaster-General are derived wholly 
from the Wireless Telegraphy Act of 1904; and, 
therefore, since the postal authorities are at the 
present time laying down a condition precedent to 
the grant of a licence, it seems fair to presume 
that the provisions of the Act of 1904 referred to 
are relied upon in justification of the demands now 
being made. It is not surprising in the circum- 
stances that considerable resentment should have 
B been aroused in relation to what can only be con- 
: sidered as an extremely arbitrary attitude on the 
_ part of the postal authorities in this matter. 
It is evident that the question raised by Mr. 
or. Hope-Jones has a two-fold importance. In the 
first place, it raises a question of constitutional 
usage, and in the second place that of the con- 
_ ditions under which the development of our indus- 
ie generally is to be permitted to take place 
under bureaucratic rule. From the constitutional 
_ aspect, the real point at issue seems to be whether 
rr it is competent for a Government Department to 
NO. 2298, VOL. 92] 
have commenced to charge a fee of 11. 1s. in con-’ 
exercise a power of imposing taxes on the public 
generally, or an industry in particular, without 
express parliamentary authority. In the time of 
the Tudors and the Stuarts, the Crown did cer- 
tainly attempt to exercise a power of independent 
legislation, in virtue of asserted prerogative by 
licence and dispensation, or by proclamation and 
ordinance. The fruit of such action was to give 
| birth to collisions in the courts of law, with the 
ultimate result that, after violent struggles, the 
principle was clearly established that the Crown 
may not legislate or impose, save with the con- 
sent of Parliament; and so far as we are aware 
this principle remains in force at the present 
day. 
The provisions of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 
of 1904 appear to leave no doubt, on the face of 
it, as to the intentions of the legislature i in framing 
this measure; and it is evident that no power was, 
in express terms, conferred on the Postmaster- 
General, or his advisers, to impose anything in 
the, nature of a tax or other annual charge. If 
the postal authorities, therefore, persist in their 
present attitude, it will become necessary to test 
the legality of their action before the established 
tribunals of the country. 
On investigating the actual merits of the case, 
quite apart from the constitutional aspects of the 
situation, we feel that the attitude of the postal 
| authorities in this matter is one requiring con- 
demnation as being entirely opposed to the wise 
and generous principles which have guided public 
policy in matters affecting monopolies from very 
early times right up to the present day. The fact 
that the monopoly in telegraphs is vested in the 
State does not appear to afford a good reason for 
departing from the great principle that it is the 
duty of a Government to stimulate new industries 
and not to injure them. It was the recognition 
of the importance of this principle which in Tudor 
times established for us the commercial supremacy 
we have been enjoying for many centuries past. 
The fact that the postal authorities themselves 
have not established any system of wireless time 
signals of which the public may avail themselves, 
either openly or surreptitiously, seems in itself to 
afford sufficient grounds for the argument that no 
justification exists for the contemplated royalty 
charge in respect of wireless time signal installa- 
tions. But another serious reason for offering 
resistance to the proposal lies in the possibility 
that Government Departments may easily extend 
the application of the principle on which the postal 
authorities appear to be acting, to the great pre- 
judice of the public interest, if it is submitted to 
without protest at the present time. We are 
strongly of the opinion that the postal authorities 
are acting contrary to justice and common right, 
and that they are attempting to impose an unpro- 
fitable charge, calculated to do wrong to the 
liberty and trade of the subject. We hope, there- 
fore, that strenuous onnosition will be offered to 
the imposition of the proposed tax by all who are 
concerned with either the scientific or applied 
aspects of wireless telegraphy. 
