During the war this idea of imperial self-sufficiency became an accepted principle, and coupled with it was the desire to restrict the activities of the enemy countries and to promote the interests of the Allies during the period immediately after the war. Thus the imperial war conference, held in London in the spring of 1917, recommended concerted action with regard to "the control of natural resources available within the Empire, especially those that are of an essential character for necessary national purposes, whether in peace or in war," and declared that "the time has arrived when all possible encouragement should be given to the development of imperial resources, and especially to making the Empire independent of other countries in respect of food supplies, raw materials, and essential industries."

In the case of the raw materials used in the textile trades a committee of the Board of Trade, in a report dated May 22, 1917, recommended that steps be taken to promote the production of cotton, flax, and silk within the Empire, and suggested that "the British Empire might be and can be made practically self-sufficing with regard to cotton." It also proposed that the practical monopoly of the Empire over the supply of wool be utilized "as a means of bargaining or otherwise." The meaning of this phrase can be understood when read in connection with the recommendation that the similar advantage in the control of the jute supply could be made the means of "enforcing favorable commercial treaties."

In 1918 the Indian cotton committee, representative of Lancashire and Indian interests, made an inquiry into the question of production of cotton of a longer staple and of better quality than the present output. Its report, however, gave no promise of the production of any large commercial quantity suitable for Lancashire spinners within the next decade.

The outlook, therefore, is not encouraging, for the findings of the committee were counter to the belief recently expressed in Manchester that "it is to India that we must look for any large addition, within a reasonable time, to our supplies of cotton, of a grade equal to the American." In the Sudan prospects are more favorable, and Parliament has passed a measure guaranteeing a £6,000,000 loan, to be used principally for a great irrigation scheme to develop cotton-growing lands near the confluence of the Blue and White Niles.

On December 3, 1917, the (Lord Balfour of Burleigh) Committee on Commercial and Industrial Policy after the War presented its final report, in which the subject is further discussed:

*

The war has directed public attention to the extent to which the United Kingdom and the British Empire as a whole are dependent upon foreign countries * * for a number of raw materials which are not produced at all, or are produced on a scale altogether incommensurate with our requirements, within the British Empire. Conspicuous examples of such materials produced on an appreciable scale, but nevertheless to an insufficient extent, are iron ore, antimony, bauxite, copper, graphite, lead, rock phosphate, petroleum, cotton, flax, hemp, sugar, wood and timber, and tobacco. Examples of materials not produced at all within the Empire are maize, silk, potash, borax, cryolite, quicksilver, nitrate of soda, sulphur, bismuth, cinchona (quinine), ipecacuanha, iodine, coca (cocaine). * * * Although the list of commodities given above is a lengthy one, it is not exhaustive and might be considerably increased. It is not suggested that all of them are of equal importance, and any attempt to make the Empire self-supporting in respect of them all would probably be both

impracticable and economically unsound. Some selective policy will be necessary, which shall have regard to relative importance, whether industrial or military, and to the sources of supply and the likelihood of their disturbance in times of war.

This committee has received a great deal of public attention on account of its advocacy of the policy of imperial preference. In its report, however, it admitted the small likelihood of this principle being adopted with respect to raw materials to any great extent:

It is obvious that any tariff which is to be used to any considerable extent as a means of reciprocating the preferential treatment accorded by the British self-governing Dominions to the mother country, and as the basis for a scheme of interimperial preference, could not be limited to manufactured or semimanufactured commodities, but would have to be extended to a wide range of * * * Where * * foodstuffs and possibly even raw materials. * the British Empire supplies or becomes able to supply to the United Kingdom materials for industry which have advanced beyond the most elementary stage—as, for example, refined metals-which are also supplied by foreign countries, we think the advisability might well be considered of imposing some small duty on the imports from foreign countries whilst leaving the imports from the British Empire free. * * * The range of imported materials in respect of which such a policy of preference could be applied is, however, not likely to be considerable in the near future.

In general it may be safely predicted that whatever may be the ultimate decision in the matter of imperial preference, the free importation of the materials of manufacture will continue so long as they are in their natural and unworked state. As to the semifabricated materials, opinions differ as the interests of the various industries differ, and the final outcome can not now be predicted.

153854°-20- -2

POWER.

ELECTRICITY.

NEED FOR CHEAP ELECTRICITY SUPPLY.

That the industrial prosperity of Great Britain is largely dependent on cheap energy for driving machinery is accepted as axiomatic; and it has been demonstrated by experience that the most efficient means of applying that power to industry is the electric motor. "It is scarcely possible to exaggerate the national importance of the problem of a technically sound system of electrical supply, because it is essentially one with the industrial development of the country, which largely depends upon increasing the net output per head of the workers employed in the industries in which power can be used." This statement, from the report of the Electric Power Supply Subcommittee of the Coal Conservation Committee, is supported by other official bodies that have considered the subject. In the factories established during the war for the production of munitions, 95 per cent of the machinery was driven by means of electricity, and the rapid expansion of such factories was only rendered possible by its aid. Indeed, one committee has said: "It is not too much to declare that the war has demonstrated the safety of the Empire to be dependent on the employment of electricity. The output of munitions in the great industrial areas could not possibly have attained anything like its present scale had not an enormous aggregate horsepower of electrical energy been available for the supply of power and light. The emergency has proved the electrical industry to be a 'key industry.""

RECENT OFFICIAL INQUIRIES.

The importance of the subject from the point of view of reconstruction has been recognized by several branches of the Government. In April, 1916, the Board of Trade appointed a Committee on the Electrical Trades, which reported on April 18, 1917. In July, 1916, the Coal Conservation Subcommittee of the first Reconstruction Committee appointed a Subcommittee on Electric Power Supply, which reported on April 17, 1917. Before these reports had been submitted, the Board of Trade appointed an Electric Power Supply Committee which reported on April 29, 1918. The report of this committee was referred by the Minister of Reconstruction to the Committee of Chairmen of his Advisory Council, which reported on October 14, 1918.

On May 8, 1919, "a bill to amend the law with respect to the supply of electricity was introduced in the House of Commons as a Government measure. This bill was based, with certain modifications, upon the report of the Electric Power Supply Committee, but the modifications had no reference to the findings of the Committee of Chairmen, which seem to have failed to receive the Government's

approval. It is perhaps worth noting that the Government's bill was criticized in the House of Commons by the chairman of the Electric Power Supply Committee, but this criticism had reference only to matters of detail.

DEFECTS OF PRESENT SYSTEM.

The present system is generally admitted to be unsatisfactory. There are about 600 bodies in Great Britain that supply current to the public. That this number is excessive, is indicated by the small area of the territory to be served; it is proven conclusively by the fact that the average generating capacity of these plants is 5,000 horsepower, or "about one-fourth of the capacity of one single generating machine of economical size and about one-thirtieth of the size of what may be considered as an economical power station unit." These undertakings are of various classes-local authority (whether a corporation or district council), electric lighting company, power company, tramway company, and railway power station-more than half falling within the first classification. There is also a large number of manufacturing establishments, collieries, etc., that operate plants for the generation of their own power.

Considered as a whole, perhaps the most striking characteristic of the country's electric system is lack of uniformity. Even adjacent undertakings have established works "differing not only in type of plants and mains, but also in pressures and frequencies." The situation in London may be cited as an example. "There are seven railway and tramway systems which generate electricity for the purposes of traction at differing frequencies-one at 50, two at 333, and four at 25-thus rendering exchange of electricity between them impracticable except at the great expense involved in converting it. Again, there are in the area of Greater London 70 authorities that supply electricity to the public, and own some 70 generating stations, with 50 different types of system, 10 different frequencies, and 24 different voltages." This excess of individualism, contrary to the stock argument, has not made for efficiency; and one committee has gone so far as to declare that "with one or two exceptions, there are practically no modern electric power generating plants in the country," and again that "existing generating plants are uneconomical and ought to be scrapped."

One of the most conspicuous wastes is in coal consumption. It has been estimated that on the basis of the present use of power there is an annual coal waste of 55,000,000 tons, equivalent to 15,000,000 horsepower used continuously throughout the year. The total loss from all causes has been estimated at no less than £100,000,000 a year.

The chief reason for this situation, all are agreed, is the fact that existing legislation and the administrative procedure thereunder have been formulated in a parochial spirit and without regard to national considerations. In other words, there has been an unfortunate lack of foresight. Other contributing causes have been the opposition of gas and electric lighting companies, the mistaken reluctance of manufacturers and railway companies to be dependent upon outside sources for anything that they could produce themselves, and the restrictions imposed in the interest of local authorities. The remedy

lies in a reversal of policy, and particularly in a recognition of the established fact "that a municipal or local government area is not necessarily, and in fact is rarely, the most economical area of power supply."

REFORM PROPOSALS.

There has been a remarkable unanimity in the proposals that electrical experts have put forth to attain the desired results. Of first importance is the establishment of larger units for the generation of power. On this point the recommendations submitted by the subcommittee on electric power supply are as follows:

It is essential that the present inefficient system of over 600 districts should be superseded by a comprehensive system in which Great Britain is divided into some 16 districts, in each of which there should be one authority dealing with all the generation and main distribution.

Centers, or sites, suitable for electric generating purposes should at once be chosen on important waterways as the future main centers of supply for each of the districts into which the country is to be divided.

The sites so chosen should be as large as possible, having in view the land available in suitable localities, and should have ample water and transport facilities. Land is required not only for the power stations themselveswhich for the sake of security and safety would have to be suitably subdivided (that is, they would not be contained all in one building)—but for the processes involved in the extraction of by-products from the coal before it is used for the production of power, where such extraction is found to be justified. It is also required for the development of electrochemical processes, which may be most conveniently carried on in close proximity to the power plant. This condition entails the sites being chosen outside, not inside, towns.

Plans should be prepared for the construction immediately after the war on these sites of the first installment of large superpower plants capable, first, of supplying, through a comprehensive electric-power distribution system which must also be arranged for, the existing demands of the community; and, secondly, of supplying electrical energy at the lowest possible price for new processes and manufactures.

Such plants would be designed so that, as methods are perfected for extracting by-products from fuel, before using it for the purpose of the production of electric power, the by-product plant can be combined with the power plant. Each site should be laid out with this in view, and with a view to the unrestricted extensions of the plant as required.

Power available from surplus gas or waste heat should be turned into electrical energy on the spot in local plants which would feed into the main distribution system. As regards waste coal-that is, coal which it does not pay at present to bring to the surface-this could, where transport was the ruling consideration, also be used on the spot.

The possibility of effecting fuel economy through the introduction of carbonization and gasification processes was considered by this subcommittee and also by the Carbonization Subcommittee, the joint opinion being that it "was still an open question and that pending further research on all the issues involved, the only practical course to follow in the planning of 'superpower stations' was to leave room in the original layout for the introduction of carbonization or gasification plant, should it be subsequently proved that it would be feasible technically and economically to do so."

Further research is promised by the Fuel Research Board, which has disclosed in advance that it realizes "that it is possible that the net result of the particular inquiry may be to show that, purely as a means of cheapening the cost of electric power, the use of carbonization methods has not much to commend it, but that certain incidental advantages will justify its use in particular cases."