599 
October 7, 1922—vol. 110 at p. 237 and p. 469). The 
situation actually created by the agreement between 
the Post Office and the British Broadcasting Company 
has been such that, almost from the very beginning, 
two important classes—the small manufacturer and 
salesman of wireless apparatus and the amateur 
experimenter—in the wireless field have felt them- 
selves seriously aggrieved by the policy adopted by 
the parties to the agreement in relation to wireless 
licences, owing to the deliberate attempt made to fetter 
their freedom of action, each in his own particular field. 
As regards the small manufacturer, it is argued that 
he has no real cause of complaint, since by subscribing 
but for a single one-pound share he can at once avail 
himself of all the benefits secured by the British 
Broadcasting Company from the Post Office under 
its concession. However, there is a not unnatural 
objection and disinclination on the part of small 
manufacturers to joi a combine in which their most 
powerful competitors have a preponderating influence 
and voice. 
or wrongly, that the inquisitorial powers which the 
British Broadcasting Company appears to have ac- 
quired under its articles of association may be, and 
are being, used to the detriment of the smaller share- 
holding companies: for example, a suspicion exists 
that the organisation of the Company is being made 
use of by the powerful shareholding companies, to 
some extent, as a sort of intelligence department for 
the purpose of obtaining information likely to be 
useful in connexion with the protection of their patent 
rights and interests. In all the circumstances, then, 
it would obviously be wrong for the Post Office to 
take any action with the view of compelling any 
British manufacturer to join the Broadcasting Company: 
in this view the present Postmaster-General has ex- 
pressed his concurrence. 
One of the chief arguments used in favour of broad- 
casting services being provided alone by a single 
company, and of the present rule that only apparatus 
bearing the “ B.B.C.” mark shall be used for broad- 
casting purposes, is that the British market is being 
flooded with wireless apparatus manufactured in 
countries with depreciated currencies ; and, therefore, 
without safeguards of the nature indicated here, the 
broadcasting industry would be destroyed. It may, 
of course, be of vital importance, as the British Broad- 
casting Company alleges to be the case, to protect 
from unfair foreign competition, at the present time, 
the industry in question. Should any protective 
measures be desirable, the proper method of dealing 
with this aspect of the situation is surely by the direct 
and open one of imposing on foreign telephone apparatus 
and parts an import duty to be collected in the ordinary 
NO. 2792, VOL. 11h] 
NATURE 
Further, an impression prevails, rightly | 

[May 5, 1923 
way by the Customs authorities, and not by the in- 
direct, clumsy, and, what must prove to be, ineffective 
method of attempting to prevent the use for a specific 
purpose, by means of ministerial regulations and 
articles of association of a trading company, of some 
particular material after its unrestricted importation. 
As regards the other class the rights of which appear 
to be seriously infringed under the broadcasting agree- 
ment, that is to say, the amateurs, a misapprehension 
seems to exist in the minds of some of the promoters 
of the British Broadcasting Company as to the nature 
of the bargain made by them with the Post Office. 
Owing to the great and rapid increase in the so-called 
“experimental licences” issued since the advent of 
broadcasting—the actual increase is from about 10,000 
in the summer of last year to 35,380 at the present 
date—the Company seems to have taken alarm at 
the construction placed by the Postmaster-General 
on the language of Section 2 (1) of the Wireless Tele- 
graphy Act, 1904 (4 Edw. 7, c. 24), which authorises 
the issue on special terms of a licence to an applicant 
who “proves to the satisfaction of the Postmaster- 
General that the sole object of obtaining the licence is 
to enable him to conduct experiments in wireless 
telegraphy.” Certain of the promoters of the Company 
appear to think that, in view of the terms and condi- 
tions of the agreement negotiated by them with the 
Post Office, they are to be the judges as to the meaning 
to be placed on the provisions of the Section of the Act 
referred to. They are inclined to put an exceedingly 
narrow construction on the language of the statute, 
and seem to claim that the issue of the “ experimental 
licence ”’—the rights of the Postmaster-General in 
relation to the granting of which are in no way 
abrogated or restricted under the Company’s broad- 
casting agreement—shall alone be to actual research 
students and those in a strictly analogous position: — 
that is to say, they wish to see the ordinary amateur 
deprived of his right to an “ experimental licence.” 
Owing to the attitude taken up by the British Broad- 
casting Company, the issue of licences other than those 
in respect of the listening-in sets bearing the “ B.B.C.”” 
mark has been suspended since January 1 last, and, 
in consequence, some 33,000 applications for “ ex- 
perimental licences” were waiting to be dealt with 
on April 19. 
When addressing the House of Commons on April — 
19, the Postmaster-General announced that, in the 
opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown, if he is satisfied — 
that the object of an applicant for a licence is. to 
experiment in wireless telegraphy, not only may he 
issue an “experimental licence” to him, but also he 
is bound to do so. Accordingly, he has referred the — 
outstanding applications in question to some expert — 
ee. 

