LEAVE. FIRST READING. (Hansard, 1 April 1868)

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
, in moving for leave to introduce a Bill to enable Her Majesty's Postmaster General to acquire, work, and maintain Electric Telegraphs in the United Kingdom, said, he was sorry that he had not a more convenient opportunity to ask leave to introduce the Bill of which he had given notice; but the business of the last week had been so engrossing, that he had not been able to find a more convenient one. He was afraid that the time now at his disposal was so limited that he should not be able to detail to the House at any great length the scheme of the Government; but he would endeavour to give all the information 679 which he thought the House could expect. The Bill was to enable the Postmaster General to acquire, maintain, and work electric telegraphs. In this country they had been in the habit of leaving to private enterprise the administration of most of the internal affairs of the country; but there had always been one exception, and that had been with regard to postal communication. He believed it had been with the entire assent and approbation of the community that that postal communication had been a monopoly in the hands of the Government. He would submit to the House that telegraphic and postal communication might be considered as coming within the same category. Both provided means for communication between correspondents at a distance, and it was only in the mode of conveying that correspondence that there was any difference. He thought it would be admitted that that which had succeeded so well with regard to the conveyance of letters might be expected to succeed equally well with regard to telegraphic communication. He was not aware of any reason having been urged against monopoly in the one case that would not hold good as regarded the other. It might be asked, for what reason was the change proposed? First of all, he thought he should be able to show by statistics that this country was behind other countries with regard to telegraphic communication, and he would quote a few figures which would show that this was the case. Now, he would take two countries—Switzerland and Belgium. He took the proportion of telegrams to letters in those two countries, and in the United Kingdom, for the year 1860, and it appeared that we were very far behind Switzerland and Belgium with respect to the proportion of telegrams to letters. In that year there was in Belgium one telegram to 218 letters; in Switzerland there was one telegram to 84 letters; while in the United Kingdom there was one telegram to 296 letters. He went on to the year 1863, when in Belgium there was one telegram to 114 letters; in Switzerland, one telegram to 74 letters; while in the United Kingdom there was only one telegram to 197 letters. Coming down to 1866, he found that there was in Belgium one telegram to 37 letters; in Switzerland, one telegram to 69 letters; but in the United Kingdom there was only one telegram to 121 letters. The great increase in the proportion of telegrams to letters in Belgium, from one in 218 in the year 680 1860 to one in 114 in the year 1863, was traceable to the reduction of the tariff from 1½f. to 1f.; and the further increase to one in 37 in the year 1866 was due to the reduction of the charge from 1f. to half a franc. This, he thought, showed that we were suffering from too high a rate for telegraphic communications, and if we were equally favoured with those countries, the probability was that telegraphic communication would be largely increased. We in this country were more likely to use telegraphic communications, if within our reach, than they were in the countries he had named, and for this reason, that the United Kingdom being of a much greater extent, we should save more time by communicating by telegraph instead of by letter than they could in these small countries. He had shown, therefore, the backwardness of this country as regarded telegraphic communication, and he would now endeavour to show the House that the present system did not give satisfaction to the commercial world. Last year a deputation from the Associated Chambers of Commerce waited upon himself and the Postmaster General at the Treasury on this subject, and they presented a memorial, and also petitioned Parliament on it. They complained—first, of high rates; secondly, of vexatious delays; thirdly, of inaccurate rendering of messages; and fourthly, of the absence of telegraphic communication in whole districts. Now, with respect to rates—the rates for messages were as follow: In the United Kingdom, for 100 miles 1s. for twenty words; for over 100 miles and under 200 miles, 1s. 6d.; for over 200 miles, 2s.; and between Great Britain and Ireland, 4s. To show the relation of charges in foreign countries to those of the United Kingdom: France for a distance of 600 miles charges for twenty words 1s. 8d.—the charge in Great Britain was 2s.; in Prussia, for 500 miles the charge was 1s. 6d. against 2s. in England; in Belgium, for 160 miles, the charge was 5d., against 1s. 6d. in Great Britain; and Switzerland charged 5d. for 200 miles, against 1s. 6d. in Great Britain. He thought that under the present system of private telegraphic communication there was not much prospect of any great reduction of rates; because the companies now concerned in telegraphic business paid dividends to shareholders, and because the administration being divided between different companies—there being four companies, besides railway companies who sent messages—the 681 cost of administration must be greater than if it were in the hands of one body—namely, the State. He believed, therefore, that if the business of telegraphy were a monopoly of the Postmaster General he would be able to work at much lower rates, and at the same time to make the thing pay. The shortness of the time at his disposal obliged him to go at once to the provisions of the Bill he proposed to introduce. The Bill was not compulsory in its terms. It proposed to give the Post-master General power to put chase the undertaking of any telegraph company in the United Kingdom. But as it was obvious that if the Postmaster General were to acquire one or two undertakings he would be able injuriously to affect the other companies not so purchased, it was proposed that in the case of his purchasing one undertaking, any or all of the other companies concerned in conveying telegraphic messages should be able to compel him to purchase their undertakings at a price arranged by arbitration. Then with regard to the railway companies. There had been some difficulty with respect to them. There were, as they knew, some railway companies which either themselves or by means of lessees, worked the telegraphic wires for their own business, and also conveyed messages for the public; and it was thought that some of these companies might be unwilling to relinquish the use of their wires for their own railway purposes; while at the same time, if a Government competition were established, they would lose that profit which they now-acquired from conveying messages for the public. A provision had therefore been made in the Bill, that, in the case of railway companies having wires used for that joint purpose, they should be able to compel the Postmaster General to purchase their right to convey messages for the public, so that those companies would be left in the same position, as regarded profit and loss, as they were in under existing arrangements. He would say that that power to compel the Postmaster General to acquire those works was limited to a period of twelve months from the passing of the Act, or from the acquisition of the first undertaking, he forgot which.

§ MR. SPEAKER
here called the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the fact that it was a quarter to six o'clock.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
then moved that leave be given to introduce the Bill.

§ MR. MILNER GIBSON
rose to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Bill sought to give exclusive power.

§ MR. SPEAKER
here intimated that the time during which any discussion could be taken had passed.