was made" in reducing the flash-point, and also stated (Select Committee of May 20, 1896):

66

"It seems to me that the logical outcome of Sir Frederick Abel's work ought to have been to declare that the 100° Fahr. in force in the 1871 Act must be fulfilled by a proper close test, by testing the thing which it was desired to test in the proper way-that is, as Sir Frederick Abel had done it. I cannot think how Sir Frederick Abel dropped from 100° Fahr. to 73°."

The mistake then made remains.

THE CONQUEST OF THE OIL KINGS.

In 1891 an effort was made to pass a Bill for the better storage of petroleum. It did not pass, and I only allude to it to illustrate once more the success of the oil trade over Parliament, and in this case the influence of the Standard Oil Trust. The Bill was prompted by complaints from public authorities. The Home Office caused several inquiries to be made, and it is noticeable that they were carried on in conjunction with the trade. When the late Sir Vivian Majendie made inquiries in the provinces, on the Continent, or in America, he was always accompanied by the representative of the trade. As the object of this Bill was to impose restrictions on the trade, this close association was not advisable, but it had always been the policy of the Home Office to consult the trade in these matters. During their tours the two were mainly occupied with systems of storage; they did not touch on the equally important points-the quality and safety of the oil itself. The Home Office could not, however, overlook petroleumlamp accidents, and in 1890 Professor Abel-again in company with the representative of the trade (for it is curious how little confidence. these Government officials had in their own judgment)-investigated the subject of lamp accidents. They arrived at the following conclusion, which had "no intelligent meaning " to Professor Attfield:

"It follows that safety in the use of mineral oil is not to be acquired simply by the employment of oils of comparatively high flashing-point or low volatility, and that the use of such oils may even, in some cases, give rise to dangers which are small, if not entirely absent, with oils of comparatively low flashing-point."

According to this theory the lower the flashing-point, or, in other words, the worse the oil, the greater the safety. The result of all these joint experiences, visits, and consultations was the Bill of 1891 for improving the storage of petroleum and regulating its sale.

By this time the Standard Oil Trust had obtained a secure footing in England; it practically controlled the trade. The Bill, which had been drawn up obviously with the intention of satisfying the trade, was promptly opposed. It might have suited the English oil dealers;

it was too much for the American Oil Kings, who also saw in it an opportunity of doing a pretended service to the trade and of consolidating their own power. The way this Bill was disposed of illustrates how a little bogus agitation, favoured by the supineness of members of Parliament, can stop useful legislation. The scheme was simple and effective. A letter was sent by the Petroleum Defence Association, behind which lurked the American monopolists, to oil merchants calling on them to stop the mischievous Bill which menaced their interests, and obligingly sending a form of letter to members of Parliament which would reveal the electoral nterests at stake. The oil merchants were asked to condemn a Bill about which they knew nothing and to sign their names to statements which they could not support. Members of Parliament were inundated with letters. They were informed that the Bill was an unwarrantable attack" on trade interests-which it was not; that it would lay "additional burdens on the ratepayers-which it would not; and would "bear heavily" on the working classes-whom it did not affect. There was a subtle irony in calling on members to protect "the working classes while the real interests involved were those of the Oil Kings. The members of Parliament accepted the manufactured agitation as a spontaneous outburst of national feeling. The organisers of the scheme must have been delighted to see how eagerly the legislators snapped up the bait, for before many days sixty notices were drawn up against the Bill, which settled its fate. After all, there was nothing in the Bill to alarm the trade. When representative oil dealers were examined before the Select Committee in 1897 a series of questions, embodying the provisions of the Bill, were put to them, and they were bound to admit that the new regulations proposed were reasonable.

The disposal of the Bill in the summary fashion above described suited the Oil Kings admirably, as by their arrangement with the Scotch oil dealers at the time the flash-point question was not raised. "The reason," said Mr. John Young, manager of the Linlithgow Oil Company, before the Select Committee (July 27, 1894), "why in 1891 there was no word of the flash-point was that the American people had come to terms. I think," he added, "it is right that I should be perfectly frank, and say that there was an understanding with the petroleum people with whom we were acting that the question of flash-point should not at that time be raised." The methods which had proved so effectual in America were introduced into this country, and the Standard Oil Trust succeeded in making the Scotch oil producers combine among themselves to keep up prices, and also to come to an understanding that the "flash-point should not be raised." Without some "understanding" it would have been obviously in the interest of the Scotch oil manufacturers to agitate for a higher test, as

their oil has never less than a flash-point of 100°, and, as the only home producers concerned, they would have been listened to.

The next move on the part of the agents of the American monopoly was to secure as much as possible of the wholesale trade in this country. The monopolist does not believe in middlemen, and likes to supply as many retail dealers as it is possible. How far it has succeeded in stamping out the wholesale trade it is impossible to say, but it had, at any rate, captured a considerable share of it, and "tied up" a large number of retail dealers. As it had come to a working arrangement with the importers of Russian oil, it found its position in England pleasant and profitable. And just when everything had been comfortably arranged the flash-point was raised before the Committee in 1896, which disturbed the equanimity of the Oil Kings and increased their activity.

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE FLASH-POINT.

The most important evidence submitted to the Committee revolved round the vital point of what should be the degree of volatility of a safe oil. How the oil should be stored, and in what kind of lamps it should be burned, are, according to the evidence of independent witnesses, minor things compared with the essential element the flash-point. So long as the oil is dangerous in itself, it is a fatuous policy to try and secure safety by better storage or improved lamps. The best of lamps may become dangerous with low-flash oil, while a faulty lamp may be comparatively harmless if safe oil is used. Everything, therefore, turns round the flash-point. At present, as stated above, 73° Fahr. is the limit which the law requires, although it is far from being the limit which safety demands. In other words, the law regards as safe, and leaves free from all restrictions and regulations, oil which, when heated to 73°, gives off a vapour which flashes when brought into contact with, or near to, a light. The lower the flash-point of the oil the more readily will it emit vapour, and the easier will it be to flash or ignite. When a lamp is overturned, it is the vapour which ignites first and carries the flame to the oil. Should the oil commonly in use reach a temperature of 80° Fahr. in a lamp, and the vapour which it gives off reach the flame, there may be an explosion. Were the oil refined so that it would not flash until a temperature of over 100° Fahr. were reached, fires resulting from lamp accidents would be very much reduced, if they did not entirely disappear. The main point at issue, therefore, was whether the present law permitting oil to be sold which flashes at 73° Fahr. ensured safety and should remain. That is the point which Parliament will have to settle.

The first scientific authority who gave evidence in 1896 on this subject was Lord Kelvin, whose experience with oils dates from 1858.

This eminent scientist stated that the "petroleum light, as it has been used under the official test from 1871, is an exceedingly dangerous illuminant," and his evidence may be summarised as follows:

Sir Frederick Abel made a "great mistake" in lowering the flashpoint. "The logical outcome" of his work ought to have been a close test of 100°.

The flash-point should be raised to 130° open, which is equivalent to 108 close test.

No lamp accidents have been reported with the flash-point of oil over 110°.

No improvement in lamps will ensure safety unless the flash-point is raised.

The sale of petroleum which flashes at less than 103° should be prohibited.

"I think," he said, "that the accidents which have been reported are amply sufficient to justify prohibitive legislation.” And again:

"The principle of safety is, that oil should never in a lamp reach the temperature of the close test flashing-point. I advise the Committee to fix a flash-point which shall be higher than oil is likely to reach under ordinary conditions of ordinary use."

This weighty evidence in favour of reform, coming from one of the highest scientific authorities in the country, will not be without its influence on members of Parliament. Sir Henry Roscoe went before the Committee, not only as one of the leading chemists in the country, but as one who had also been a member of the Committee when it met in 1894, and had carried out experiments with the object of supporting his evidence. His evidence went to show the dangerous character of much of the American oil which is in general use. From his experiments, he said, he concluded "that the flash-point of 73° Fahr. is too low, and that it should be raised to 100° or 105°." If this were done, he was convinced that accidents, if they did not altogether disappear, would be greatly diminished. This increase in the flash-point "will not," he said, "materially diminish the quality of oil imported, or materially alter the price."

Dr. Stevenson McAdam, for the Corporation of Edinburgh, and Professor Attfield, on behalf of the Glasgow Corporation, were equally convinced that safety could only be found in raising the flash-point. Professor Ramsay upheld the same conclusion. Professor Mendeleef,

of St. Petersburg, was able to tell the Committee, on behalf of the Russian Government, that the test of 83° Fahr. in that country was too low, and that it should be raised to 100°. Professor Kast, of Karlsruhe, said that the experts in Germany all agreed that the flashpoint should be raised, although they differed as to what extent. In Germany the test point is fixed at 70° Fahr., and it was frequently

stated that lamp accidents were fewer in Germany than in this country. No evidence was given in support of the statement, but, in any case, the official flash-point is of less importance in Germany, where all oil is under regulations.

The appearance of these influential witnesses and the introduction of the flash-point problem caused trepidation in the camp of the American Oil Kings. As the American plan of buying up the Committee was not practicable, the Oil Kings resorted to other means. They secured the services of experts. And they were very successful. They began with eminent professors who had won their reputation in other fields of science, and finished off with a director of the Standard Oil Company-a most suitable climax. If the verdict was to go by the number of witnesses and the weight of the evidence, the Standard Oil Trust was not going to run any risks. No matter from where the witnesses on behalf of the public came, the monopolist was able to get one from the same place. Public interests had been supported by a professor from Karlsruhe; from Karlsruhe was brought another witness to contradict him. The Russian Government had sent a witness; another Russian expert from the oil regions was pitted against him. The Anglo-American Company, the English branch of the Trust, which has only one English shareholder the secretary— also brought a witness from Zurich and an expert from New York, reputed the greatest authority on petroleum in America. In estimating the value of the expert evidence submitted to the Committee, we are entitled to consider the interests which the experts represented as well as their standing in the scientific world. The Standard Oil Trust could bring up hundreds of experts who would support a system which corresponded with its interests, but one witness who served no interest and received no fees was worth a battalion of paid experts. I am not arguing against paid experts. They have their professional reputation to maintain as well as their fees to earn, and if their scientific experience and conscientious search for the truth leads them. to the side where money is, all the better for them. When, however, they give different views in this capacity from what they have given when watching public interests, we are entitled to point out the inconsistency and to criticise them.

Some of the arguments used against raising the flash-point may be cited. Professor Dewar went so far as to suggest that "Scotch oil of 110° flash is more liable than ordinary American oil of 75° flash-point to produce an explosive atmosphere in the lamp "a statement which was unsupported by facts, and which the evidence of actual experiment completely upsets. Dr. Dewar admitted that it would be necessary to regulate lamps were the flash-point raised to 100°, but he thought such an increase would have “a very serious bearing on the cost of the article."