HC Deb 30 July 1885 vol 300 cc554-77

Order for Committee read.

Motion made, and Question proposed. "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Shaw Lefevre.)

MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCE

said, it was of great importance to the trading community of the country that the Bill should be passed without delay. He was anxious that the sole benefit of 6d. telegrams should not fall altogether to the rich and powerful, but that small tradesmen and others should derive equal advantages there from. He must, however, be allowed to express his strong disapproval of any plan which would abolish free addresses. That would be a departure from the principle on which the telegraph system was established when it was taken up by the State. When the telegraph service was in the hands of different Companies there were different rates of charges for telegrams to different places—some telegrams costing only 6d., while others, such as telegrams to Ireland, were sent only at a minimum charge of 2s. The State resolved to buy up the telegraphs, and to have a uniform charge for telegrams to all parts of the Kingdom, allowing 20 words to be sent for 1s., and in all cases allowing addresses, whether long or short, to go free. It was now proposed to alter that system by counting in the words of the addresses as part of the telegram. That would be tantamount to inflicting a fine on long addresses; and, having regard to the fact that in London it was frequently very necessary to add the name of another street to define where the first-named street was, a charge for addresses would be especially hard on poor people in London. Thus, there were 37 High Streets in the Metropolis, and these had to be further described by the name of the district in which they were situated. He must be allowed to express his surprise that the Post Office authorities should say that the average address of telegrams numbered 10 words. He had compared the number of words in the addresses of letters which he had re- ceived from all parts of the Kingdom with the number of words in his own address; and he found that the smallest number of words in his own address was seven, doing away with any prefixes or affixes, and simply confining the address to the name and the direction. That he believed to be the average of the addresses of most hon. Members in the House; but, no doubt, there were a large number of addresses which reached eight, nine, and 10 words. He was convinced that many telegrams contained at least 14 words in the address, and the probability was that the average number was higher than 10. With regard to the step which was proposed to be taken in regard to the curtailment of addresses, he believed it to be a downward movement, and that it would be breaking up that principle of the uniform rate irrespective of distance or the number of words in an address, and breaking down the system which had been established at tire taking over of the telegraphs. He had proposed that there should be 6d., 9d., and 1s. charge for telegrams; but the Department was opposed to any system suggested by an outsider. He could not understand whether the Post Office wished to increase the service of telegrams among the mass of the people, or whether they simply wished to extend its use among those classes who at present used it. He believed that if they abolished free addresses much disappointment would be caused, believing, as he did, that the proposition of a free address was a good one. It had to be borne in mind that when it was said the Department would lose by continuing the system of free addresses the loss thus estimated was simply a speculative one. There could be no doubt that the telegraphic system was capable of extension in a manner which the Post Office authorities had not the slightest conception of; and therefore, in the interests of the Post Office and for the benefit of the great mass of the people, he would support the proposition that the addresses should be free. Personally, he was in favour of a tariff of four words, including free address, for 6d.; and he would be prepared to move an Amendment to that effect in Committee.

MR. J. G. HUBBARD

said, he was concerned to hear from his hon. Colleague in the representation of the City of London (Mr. Alderman Lawrence) views which, were exceedingly heretical with regard to political economy. His hon. Friend had stipulated for a fixed price—for what? Why, for a variable quantity, a course of procedure directly contrary to political economy. The right hon. Gentleman the late Postmaster General had made a proposition which he considered to be fair and reasonable, and clear and distinct in its operation. In this case, when they had a fixed price for a fixed quantity, no one could have any doubt as to the construction of his message. With regard to the desire which had been expressed to meet the wishes of the humbler classes, he must point out that telegrams were a luxury of the rich, and that the poorer classes only used them in circumstance of extreme emergency, when questions of economy could not be permitted to enter into their calculations. For instance, in the case of serious illness or urgent business the humbler classes might have recourse to the telegraph, but scarcely otherwise. They must look upon this as a question of the State conferring a great boon on the public; and, in that view, it ought not to be compelled to do its work at less than a fair equivalent. Therefore, inasmuch as the rates of postage for letters and parcels varied according to the weight of the missives, so it was equitable and right that the cost of telegrams should vary according to the length of the messages that were wired. The right hon. Gentleman the late Postmaster General had done all that could be done in the way of concession. The proposition of ½d. per word was perfectly definite and clear, and he hoped it would be carried into execution.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

said, he hoped that as no Amendment had been made to the Motion "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," the House would now allow the Bill to get into Committee.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 1 (Construction and citation of Acts) agreed to.

Clause 2 (Postmaster General to make regulations for conduct of business and to fix charges).

THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Lord JOHN MANNERS),

in rising to move the following Amendment:—In page 1, line 24, to leave out Sub-section (1), and insert— (1.) The charges for the transmission of written telegrams throughout the United Kingdom shall uniformly, and without regard to distance, be at a rate not exceeding sixpence for the first three words of each telegram, or for each telegram of less than three words, and not exceeding one halfpenny for each additional word. (2.) The names and addresses of the senders and receivers of written telegrams shall not be counted as part of the words for which payment shall be required, said: It will be necessary for me to occupy the attention of the Committee for a short time while I explain the objects I have in view in bringing forward this Amendment. I regret that the necessity which was imposed upon us by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Reading (Mr. Shaw Lefevre), in moving the second reading of this Bill on the very afternoon on which the House adjourned for the Easter holidays, rendered it impossible for me to raise the question involved in my Amendment at that stage of the measure. I would much rather have introduced it as a question affecting the principle of the Bill than have bad to propose it, as I am now compelled to do, in Committee. But the matter is one in which I have now no alternative; and, therefore, I have to ask the Committee to decide the point at issue between the right hon. Gentleman and myself at this stage. I shall endeavour to restrict what I have to say to the point immediately at issue, and that is the abolition or continuance of free addresses. In what has just fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Hubbard) I entirely agree. I object as strongly as he can do to the proposal to abolish free addresses, and I am about to ask the Committee to come to a decision upon that point. Both the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Reading and myself are under the same financial restriction in dealing with this question. The right hon. Gentleman told the House that he might have proposed a scheme of a more liberal character but for the necessity imposed on him by the Treasury of not exceeding the estimated loss of £180,000 a year, which is the anticipated effect of his proposal, and I may state that the Treasury have also imposed, and, I think, very wisely, the same restriction on myself; and I have therefore had so to arrange my scheme for obtaining for the public the great boon and privilege of free addresses, as not to exceed the estimated loss of £180,000. The experienced officers of the Department have assured me that the scheme I have now to propose will meet that Treasury requirement. Therefore, as regards the financial result, my scheme and that of the right hon. Gentleman opposite will stand on a footing of perfect equality, and the only thing the Committee will have to decide is the question of the respective merits of the two schemes. And here I may say that I wish the Committee to decide this question, not with reference to the effect of one scheme or the other on any one particular class, or upon certain classes of the community, but with respect to the interests of the general body of the telegraphing public. I agree with the worthy Alderman opposite (Mr. Alderman Lawrence) that we ought to extend our view a little further, and that we should not have regard merely to those individuals or classes who are at present in the habit of using the telegraphs, but that, as we are about to make a great change for the first time in 16 years in the general system of telegraphy, we ought to endeavour to arrange the charges so as to induce those classes who have not hitherto been in a position to avail themselves of the advantages of the telegraphic system to come in in the future. Now, I say that the scheme proposed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite will not fulfil these conditions. I admit that, with respect to certain important classes of the community, they might see their way to obtaining an advantage under that scheme. I admit, for instance, that the rich or well-to-do merchants, traders, stockbrokers, and so on, who have fixed, and, what is still more important, registered addresses, might be gainers by the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman. And, further, I admit that a class of whom I wish, as Postmaster General, to speak with every respect and consideration—the betting fraternity—might also gain advantage under that scheme. But my contention is that the State did not give £11,000,000 for the purpose of taking over the tele- graphs from private companies, in order that the influential class of merchants and traders, and still loss the betting fraternity, should be favoured at the expense of all the other classes of the community. That is the position I take in regard to this matter, and I hope the Committee will not be induced to give its sanction to any scheme which cannot be shown to be advantageous to all classes of Her Majesty's subjects. Now, in the first place, I have to point out that the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman opposite depends entirely on what I cannot but regard as an assumption—namely, that those who use the telegraph can conveniently and safely cut down the number of words in their addresses from an average of 11 to an average of five. That, I assert, is a pure assumption, and I am not disposed to think that because the extremely Cleveland ingenious officers of my Department have assumed that this great reduction can be safely effected in the number of words used in addresses, that, therefore, this saving could be safely or conveniently effected by the great body of the telegraphing public. If, when a person goes into a telegraphic office to send a message, he always had one of those experienced and highly skilful officers of the Telegraph Department at his elbow to say how many words he might safely excise from the addresses he wished to give, then I should admit the contention of the right hon. Gentleman; but as that is not the case, and as the great body of the telegraphing public will have to decide for themselves how many words it is necessary or expedient they should use in the addresses they give, they must, in the last resort, be the best and only judges of what is and what is not a safe and satisfactory address for the telegram required to be delivered, and whether it is one that will insure that the telegram shall be delivered, not only with certainty, but with speed. On this point I notice that the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Shaw Lefevre), in one of the speeches he made recommending his scheme to the House, mentioned the fact that in his Office he had failed to discover any record of a decided opinion on the part of his distinguished and lamented Predecessor on the subject. I confess that I am not very greatly surprised that the late Mr. Fawcett did not leave at the Post Office any record of what he thought on this subject. But if he left no such recorded opinion at the Post Office, he did express an opinion, and I think a very decided opinion, on the point in this House. I will, if the Committee will allow me, read the words used by Mr. Fawcett on that subject. Speaking on the 28th March, 1883, he said— There is no doubt much force in what the noble Lord (Lord John Manners) has stated, and that the abolition of free addresses would bear most heavily upon the poor. And here I must, in justice, interpose the remark that the theory of maintaining freedom of addresses has always been one that I have held upon the ground here stated, and that I entertained it quite as strongly when I was not Postmaster General as I do now, and so expressed myself when the hon. Member for the City of Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) moved his Amendment to the proposal of the late Government. Well, Mr. Fawcett went on to say— A well-known man's address is generally a short one, and in many cases would be simply the name of the town in which he lives; whereas a poor person's address would often have to name the court and the street in which he lived. It would be found that the poor person's address was often several words longer than rich persons'; and, therefore, to charge for the address at one halfpenny per word would undoubtedly press somewhat heavily upon the poor."—(3 Hansard, [277] 1011.) So far as I know—and I had several conversations with that lamented Gentleman after the debate just referred to—Mr. Fawcett never changed his opinion that the abolition of free addresses, or, at any rate, of the receiver's address, would be a great detriment to the poorer class who might be anxious to use the telegraph. I believe that Mr. Fawcett, as far as is known, retained that opinion to the last. But I would suggest that there are several classes who even already have expressed in public their opinions upon the matter. I have mentioned those classes who, in my belief, would gain by the abolition of free addresses; I should now like to put before the Committee a record of the views held by those persons who may be taken to represent a large class of the community, and who entertain a different opinion. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Heading is probably familiar with the recorded opinion of a very important constituent of his own—I allude to Mr. Sutton, the great seedsman. He is a gentleman who has, I believe, something like 70,000 customers belonging to a very important and influential class of the trading community, and he has expressed his opinion on the matter in the following terms. Writing to The Times upon the subject, Mr. Sutton said— A very considerable portion of our business transactions is carried on by wire, not with other houses of business, but with agriculturists throughout the length and breadth of the country. I have to-day had our books examined, and find we have 1,060 customers of the name of 'Smith,' of which no less than 323 are 'John Smith;' 465 'Jones,' 96 of whom are 'John Jones;' 450 'Browns,' 87 'John Brown;' other surnames, such as 'Williams' and 'Robinson,' joined to other Christian names such as 'Richard' or 'Robert,' showing a similar relative proportion of identical appellations. Under such circumstances, I think you will not be surprised that we should be of a different opinion to the Postmaster General as to the address of the sender, except in the most abbreviated form, being more surplusage. The name in such cases being of little use alone, the address of the sender is practically the only means by which he can be identified. A country resident's postal address seldom corresponds with, or even indicates, his nearest telegraph office. The postal address is often the only one with which we are acquainted, and as it would not be likely to occur to any one of the 323 'John Smiths' that we had another customer of the same name within 10 miles of him, any inducement such as that it is now proposed to hold out to him still further to curtail his address would make the identification of the actual sender of the telegram in question well nigh impossible. It thus appears to us that the system of charging for the address of the sender, leading, as it certainly must, to the omission of essential details, will be open to most serious objection. It may be said that Mr. Sutton somewhat exaggerates the inconvenience of the change suggested by the right hon. Gentleman opposite; but again I say that I think that people who use the telegraph are the best judges in matters of this sort. Mr. Sutton insists that the address of the sender, no less than that of the receiver, should remain free. There can be no doubt that, if free addresses are abolished, the public will in many cases, without much consideration, cut off words from their addresses; and the change will cause increased complaints, numerous delays, irritation, vexation, and agitation. They will, therefore, discard any attempt to curtail the addresses, but will continue them at what they believe to be the necessary length. Let me take another class whose claims ought not to be disregarded in the consideration of this question, and which is entirely opposed to the abolition of free addresses. Miss Anne Bromhead, the Lady Superintendent of the Institute for Nurses, Lincoln, a very well-known lady, has written to the editor of The Times, and what does she say?— Sir, will you allow me to add my protest to that of Messrs. Sutton and Sons against the doctrine of the Postmaster General, that 'the name and address of the sender of a telegram are, except in the most abbreviated form, mere surplusage?' I am quite sure that those who have the management of institutions for sending out trained nurses—of which there are now, happily, a large number throughout the Kingdom—would be very far from agreeing with him. A large part of our business is conducted by telegrams from quite unknown senders, generally requiring answers by telegraph; and any inducement to curtail the information given in the addresses would be productive of the greatest trouble, and often of serious delay. I should think that these are cases which ought specially to commend themselves to the favourable consideration of the Committee. I cannot imagine any class of cases to which the House of Commons should pay more attention than those connected with the sending of medical relief and assistance to patients. Miss Bromhead does not stand alone. Only the other day a Petition was presented by my hon. Friend the Member for the University of Glasgow (Mr. J. A. Campbell) from the Faculty of Physicians of that city, which in the strongest terms contends that the freedom of addresses should be maintained. This is a copy of the Petition presented by the Faculty of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow— That your Petitioners, as representing the largo body of the Medical Profession in the West of Scotland, and having also numerous licentiates practising in other parts of the United Kingdom, are deeply interested in any measure tending to cheapen and afford increased facilities for telegraphic communication. That a Bill is at present depending in your Honourable House, intituled 'A Bill to amend the Telegraph Acts, 1863 to 1868.' Your Petitioners approve the provisions of the said Bill so far as providing for increased facilities in the transmission of telegrams by Her Majesty's Post Office Department, aad tending to a lessened charge therefor. Your Memorialists would respectfully, however, point out that by the enactment of the provision contained in Subsection (1) of Clause 2 of said Bill that 'the names and addresses of the sender and addressee of the telegram' shall be counted as part of the message, the practical reduction in the existing charge for telegrams will be greatly minimized. They would further respectfully submit that it is in the interest of the Postal Telegraph Service that the name and address of the person to whom the telegram is sent shall be full and distinct, so as to save time and trouble in the ascertainment of the proper person to whom it is deliverable. Your Petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that the Proviso to Sub section 1 of Clause 2 of the said Bill be not enacted, but that the names and addresses of the sender and addressee of the telegram be as heretofore allowed free of charge, and that the said Bill with this and such other Amendments as to your Honourable House may seem meet may pass into law. That is the representation made by the Medical Faculty of the West of Scotland. I have also a letter from an eminent physician, whose opinion, I am sure, the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) will be disposed to regard with the greatest respect. Professor Gairdner, of Glasgow, writes to the following effect:— My experience as a physician leads me to believe that very considerable inconvenience will result to the Medical Profession and to their patients from the introduction of cheap telegrams unless the rule in operation at present that the addresses go free can be maintained. Merchants, lawyers, and others have their noted correspondents, and rarely communicate hurriedly with previously unknown persons; to them, therefore, this view of the case does not so readily occur. But medical practitioners are liable to be summoned at any time to the assistance of persons of whose mere existence they have never before heard, and cases may easily occur where a message of the greatest possible emergency may be transmitted without forethought as to the embarrassments arising from an imperfect address. In such cases the omission of even one or two words, either from undue economy, or from the habit acquired of using an unduly short form of address for telegraphic purposes, may cause the recipient of a telegram a very great deal of trouble. I will not trouble the Committee by reading the whole of the letter; but I think the passages I have read will show that nothing can be stronger than the view of Professor Gairdner upon the subject. I am afraid that I may be wearying the Committee by reciting these opinions, and I will only refer to one more class to whom the abolition of free addresses would cause great inconvenience, and those are the officers, non-commissioned officers, and soldiers in Her Majesty's Service. I cannot conceive any class which deserves greater assistance on the part of the House of Commons than the soldiers who serve the Queen. We have all been thrilled with the accounts of their noble endurance, of the hardships they have gone through, and of the courage they have displayed in Egypt and in other countries. I have asked for information at Aldershot and the Curragh, in order to see what use is made of the present freedom of address. Some hon. Gentlemen say that one word would be sufficient for the address of the sender, and four words for the address of the receiver; and if people will not accommodate themselves to that system, then so much the worse for them. I do not take that view of the matter. What do the Committee think is the average length of the messages sent from three camps, 1,263 in number, during the last 12 months? The average is 16 words. Will anybody tell me that those soldiers, who found it necessary to send these long addresses, will be able in future to condense them to four words? I do not for one single moment believe it to be possible. Let us consider what a soldier has to do in order to identify himself. He has to send not only his own name, but the name of the regiment and of the company to which he belongs, as well as his number. And to whom are these telegrams sent? Soldiers' messages are usually sent to relatives in an obscure station of life, living probably in tenement houses, or small back streets, or courts in the large towns of this country and in the Metropolis. The address, therefore, is necessarily long; and to tell a soldier to cut down addresses which now average 16 words to four or five, or to require him to pay for it, is not, I contend, a proper and legitimate mode of reforming the existing system of telegraphic communication. I do entreat the Committee to reflect very seriously before they inflict so onerous a duty upon these people. In the same manner the messages sent to soldiers by their relatives require a large amount of description in order to identify them, and the claims of that class ought not to be overlooked. It is very difficult to cut down addresses with any degree of safety, and if any hon. Member doubts that let him try to do so with his own telegrams. There are many hon. Members who have had considerable experience in sending telegrams, and I would ask them, with their superior education and status, with the knowledge possessed of that status by the Telegraph Department, how they could reasonably cut down the address, as a general rule, upon every telegram they send to five I words? I trust hon. Members will not vote for the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman opposite until they have tried this experiment, both in regard to sending and receiving. The right hon. Gentleman complains of the cost of this system of free addresses, which has been in operation for 16 years. Who else complains? Does anybody complain? I have heard no complaint by anyone outside the Department, though, no doubt, the officers of the Department think that the addresses are unnecessarily long, and that they impose unnecessary trouble and expense upon the Department. But I say that no complaint whatever as to addresses has come from the public outside, and the right hon. Gentleman bases his argument upon that. That being so, the question comes to this—is the Department created for the public, or the public for the Department? The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the foreign system, basing his arguments on the allegation that a charge for addresses prevails in nearly all foreign countries. It is said that foreign countries are a-head of us; but, as Englishmen, there are other things in which we are much a-head of foreign countries, and I claim that in giving free addresses we are a-head of, and not behind, foreign countries. Does any hon. Gentleman who has had experience of sending telegrams when abroad think that the method of charging for addresses is more convenient? My opinion, I confess, is to the contrary, and I regard it as a retrograde and a reactionary movement. How would the question of the addresses affect the people in many parts of Ireland, of; Scotland, and especially in the Principality of Wales, where the same surnames are largely repeated in certain districts of the country? It is quite clear that unless there is a full, clear, and distinct address you could not distinguish one Jones, or Williams, or Macdonoly, or Daly from another, and great uncertainty would arise in the delivery of telegrams. Reference has been made to the number of streets of the same name in this Metropolis. Now, that is a very important consideration. I have had a Return drawn up of the number of streets of the same name in the Metropolis, and how many Albert Terraces are there? 61. How many Albert Villas? 54. Then there are 42 Albert Places; 34 Albert Roads; 34 Albert Cottages; 38 Avenue Roads; 60 Cambridge Terraces; 75 Charles Streets; 59 Church Streets—showing the great hold of the Established Church; 60 Cross Streets; 52 Elizabeth Places; 49 George Streets; 87 High Streets; 44 Hope Cottages; 64 John Streets; 43 King Streets; 58 Park Places; 65 Park Terraces; 70 Park Villas; 79 Prospect Places; 89 Rose Cottages; 60 Victoria Cottages; 66 Victoria Terraces; 54 William Streets, and so on throughout a very long list. I think I have said enough to show the necessity for the exercise of very great caution indeed before we proceed to abolish free addresses, under which I take leave to say that the telegraph system has extended in the most satisfactory and astonishing way, against which I believe there is no complaint or protest upon the part of the public, and no demand for the abolition of so easy, so convenient, and so satisfactory a system. There is one further consideration which I would entreat the Committee to reflect upon. It is this—that if we now, on this very specious calculation, abolish free addresses, we shall never get them back again. On the other hand, if the Committee is pleased to adopt the alternative scheme I suggest, there is nothing which would prevent its further application in the granting of more words for 6d. than I now propose, if more favourable estimates are hereafter realized than those which the admittedly clever officers of the Department anticipate. If the sanguine views of the hon. Member for Glasgow are correct, and if the telegraph revenue should improve, nothing would be easier than to allow five or six words for 6d. with free addresses, the maintenance of which would add to the contentment and satisfaction of the great mass of the telegraphing community of the country. Put if you once abolish free addresses you may whistle for them afterwards. I have nothing further to say. I have felt it only right to express my views, entertaining, as I do, strong opinions on the subject. I will not detain the Committee further; but I will ask them to vote for the maintenance of the system of free addresses, in order to concede a 6d. telegram even if there be a complaint in the first instance that we give only a few words in the body of the telegram. There is very great elasticity in my scheme, because you can add words for every halfpenny; and, at any rate, it would work well until the anticipations of the hon. Member for Glasgow are fully and completely realized. I beg to move the Amendment of which I have given Notice.

Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 24, to leave out sub-section (1), in order to insert the words—"(1.) The charges for the transmission of written telegrams throughout the United Kingdom shall uniformly, and without regard to distance, be at a rate not exceeding sixpence for the first three words of each telegram, or for each telegram of less than three words, and not exceeding one halfpenny for each additional word; (2.) The names and addresses of the senders and receivers of written telegrams shall not be counted as part of the words for which payment shall be required,"—(Lord John Manners,) —instead thereof.

Question Proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

The course pursued by the noble Lord opposite (Lord John Manners) with reference to the Bill now before the House has been entirely satisfactory to me, and I have to thank him for the consideration he has shown both to the Bill and to myself. Holding, as the noble Lord does, so strong an opinion on the subject of free addresses, and objecting so strongly to the abolition of them, it was not to be expected that he would adopt the Bill in toto. I think, therefore, that the noble Lord has taken an extremely wise course in leaving the conduct of the Bill in my hands, and in proposing an alternative tariff to the scheme which is contained in the Bill. The noble Lord has admitted that my financial propositions are sound and fair. The Committee will recollect that on introducing the Bill I stated that in the very critical state of the finances of the telegraphic services, in my opinion, and in that of the Treasury, it was not possible to incur a greater loss than was proposed by the Bill, and which is estimated at £180,000. The noble Lord is now in a responsible position. He is responsible for the finances of the Department, and subject to the control of the Treasury; he finds himself under precisely the same rigid limits with regard to finance which I did. He has admitted that I was cor- rect in my estimate, and he feels himself unable to propose to the Committee any alternative plan which would impose upon the Department a greater burden than I propose. Therefore, the two alternative plans, so far as the Department is concerned, are identical; and all the Committee has to consider is, whether the alternative of the noble Lord, or the scheme contained in the Bill, will be most convenient for the public. The noble Lord will, perhaps, excuse me for saying that the speech he has delivered to-night must have been prepared for delivery upon the second reading of the Bill. While objecting to the abolition of free addresses, the noble Lord has abstained from saying much in favour of his own proposal, and he has not quoted a single authority in support of it. I should like to know if any one of the persons he has quoted, either lady superintendent, physicians, or private traders, have really had under consideration the alternative scheme of the noble Lord? Can he produce a single authority, either in his own Department or outside of it, who will say that the alternative proposed by him is a satisfactory solution of the difficulty? I venture to maintain that there is not in the Department itself, throughout the whole telegraphic service, a single individual who will say that the proposal made by the noble Lord is satisfactory, or who will deny that it would lead to great dissatisfaction on the part of the public, and give rise to new agitation. I shall not follow the noble Lord in the precise line he has taken. What I propose to do is to compare the two alternatives before the Committee, which are admitted to have the same financial results. It will then be for the Committee to consider which is the better one. The noble Lord proposes to retain free addresses, and to charge 6d. for three words. My proposal is to give 12 words for 6d., abolishing free addresses, and rising by 1d. for every additional two words; but I am quite prepared to accept the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for. Glasgow (Dr. Cameron), and substitute ½d. per word. Therefore, from 6d. upwards, the tariff of the two schemes would be practically the same. The only question is, what it is to be given for 6d.—three words, with a free address, or 12 words with- out. The calculation I received from the permanent officers of the Department was that, if free addresses were abolished, five words, on the average, would be required for the address, and seven would remain for the contents of the message. Therefore, my seven words would compare favourably with the three words of the noble Lord. The noble Lord meets this by saying that the number of words required for a free address is altogether unknown. That I deny; I have had an investigation made of a large number of telegrams, which show that the addresses could be reduced, if necessary, to five words or four, and even to three; but that the average would be five words. That, of course, is subject to the concession made to the hon. Member for Glasgow, that figures up to five in number should be counted as one word, and that the name of the sender need not be transmitted. I repeat again, that the result of a very long investigation of telegrams showed conclusively that the average in future would be live words, and not 11, as is now the case. The Committee can hardly be aware of the great waste which now takes place in telegraphing addresses, and the large number of unnecessary words used in addresses. This waste cripples the energies of the Staff of the Department, causes delay in the transmission of telegrams, and entails a large cost on the Department. I should like to give the Committee two or three illustrations of the waste of words used in telegrams. I called upon the officer of the Department to give me some examples of wasted and superfluous addresses. He produced three cases. The first was that of a milliner at Dover who used 32 words in describing her address. The next was that of a noble Earl who had gained some advantage upon a Bill in Parliament, and in telegraphing the result of his success to a Justice of the Peace in a distant county he used 46 words in describing his own address and that of his friend. The third instance was from a person who ought to have known better; in point of fact, it was the late Postmaster General—myself. I had telegraphed from the House of Commons to the head of the Telegraph Department, informing him that this Bill would not come on, and I used 11 words for the two addresses, It was pointed out to me that three would have been amply sufficient, and probably if I had had to pay for the addresses I should have saved eight of them, or otherwise 4d., and should have confined myself to the three alone that were necessary. I would undertake to say that, having gone through a considerable number of telegrams, there is not one of them which does not contain waste and superfluous verbiage in the shape of addresses. I have, therefore, come to the conclusion that it is absolutely necessary, in the interest of the senders of telegrams themselves, to impose some limit in order to prevent the transmission of superfluous and unnecessary words, and I think that the only way of doing this is to give the senders of telegrams an interest in curtailing their addresses. According to the view of the Department, the average number of unnecessary words used in telegrams is six. If, in future, there are six unnecessary words in every telegram, and if they are multiplied by 30,000,000, the number of telegrams which it is expected will be despatched annually when this Bill becomes law, they would amount to 23 per cent of all the words sent over the wires by the Post Office. It follows, then, that if 23 per cent of the words telegraphed through the Post Office are useless and unnecessary, the very lowest estimate I can make of the cost of telegraphing these useless and unnecessary words is £250,000 a-year. Is it not worth while to make some effort, even at the sacrifice of convenience to some classes of the community, for the purpose of saving so large a sum as £250,000 annually, which would otherwise be paid, not by the Department, as the noble Lord appears to think, but by the senders of telegrams? That is the real proposition before us. The noble Lord proposes, in his alternative scheme, to give free addresses and three words for 6d. Why does the noble Lord limit himself to three words? It is on account of the great cost of the superfluous words sent in the addresses. He is necessarily limited to three words of the text, because he does not like to interfere with free addresses. If the noble Lord could reduce these superfluous words and add them to the text and message, he would be able to give more words for 6d. Three words in the text are insufficient for almost any message, and I have come to the conclusion that not one message in 40 would be sent for 6d. under the noble Lord's tariff. Inasmuch as there would be the same inducement under the noble Lord's tariff as there would be under mine to cut down the words in the text as much as possible, I have come to the conclusion that under the noble Lord's tariff the senders of telegrams would have to pay in every case for four additional words. The transmission of those four additional words, if multiplied by 30,000,000, would cost £260,000, which almost exactly meets the cost of telegraphing superfluous words in the addresses. Therefore, I believe my contention is right, that the charge of £260,000 a-year caused by telegraphing superfluous and unnecessary words, in the shape of addresses, will fall on the senders of telegrams, who will have to pay for it by telegraphing four additional words. Allow me to make a comparison between the two tariffs. Under the noble Lord's tariff, according to the best calculation I have been able to make, certainly not one telegram in 40 would be sent for 6d. The average cost to the sender of telegrams, in consequence of the necessity of sending four extra words in the text, would be 2d. Therefore, every telegram sent under the noble Lord's tariff would cost 2d. more than the average telegram sent under mine. Under my tariff it is calculated that 40 per cent of the telegrams would be sent for 6d.; whereas under the tariff of the noble Lord only one telegram in 40 would be sent for 6d. This is not an assumption, but is founded on a careful investigation of a large number of telegrams. The Committee will recollect that when I introduced the Bill I met the argument that the tariff was likely to fall hardly upon the working classes by the statement that I had obtained as many telegrams as I could which had been sent by working men. It was rather difficult to collect them; but I succeeded in collecting about 157 telegrams sent by working men. I had them examined and compressed within reasonable limits, and it was found that by compressing them, not in a very scientific manner as the noble Lord appears to think, but in a reasonable manner, 71 of those telegrams could be sent for 6d., and that the average charge for each of the 157 telegrams would be 7½d. I have lately applied to the same telegrams, compressed in the way I have described, the noble Lord's tariff, and the result was that not 71, but only four could be sent for 6d., and that the average charge on the whole of the 157 telegrams would be 1½d. more than under the tariff of this Bill. I wish, then, to ask the noble Lord when he pleads the cause of the working man, which of the two tariffs the working man would prefer? Would he prefer the one under which only four out of 157 could be sent for 6d., or the tariff under which 71 out of 157 could be sent for 6d.? I should like to take the opinion of the working men themselves as to which of the two tariffs on the whole they would think the best. I venture to say that the tariff of the noble Lord in this respect is not to be compared with mine. It appears to me, therefore, that the tariff introduced by the noble Lord can be in no sense called a 6d. telegram. The telegrams that would be sent under it for 6d. are so few in number that, practically, it cannot be called a 6d. telegram; but although there would be a large number over 6d. under the tariff of the Bill, still the number sent for 6d. would be very considerable, and therefore would be a great boon to people who make use of the telegraphs. The noble Lord has quoted various classes of people who object to the tariff of the Bill, and amongst others he has mentioned a very important firm from the town which I have the honour to represent—Messrs. Sutton, of Beading. No doubt, Messrs. Sutton have written to the newspapers objecting to the tariff I have proposed; but I have reason to believe that if the whole of their telegrams could be examined at the Post Office, I should be able to give a complete answer to the statements which have been made. I asked for permission to peruse their telegrams for that purpose, promising not to make use of the contents; but Messrs. Sutton have not had the fairness to allow the examinations to be made. I will not trouble the Committee by referring to the arguments the noble Lord used m reference to the cases of noncommissioned officers and soldiers. I apprehend that it is not very often that a non-commissioned officer or a private in the Army makes use of the telegraph service at all, nor do I pretend to say that there may not, in some cases, be an inequality in the waste arising from the nature of the address; but I would ask the House to consider what is the difference between the cases mentioned by the noble Lord of streets in London where it is necessary to give the name of a second street in order to define the address accurately. Two words would cover all the difference. Even conceding an extra two words, and comparing the tariff of the noble Lord with my own, I believe that mine would be a better one for the public than that of the noble Lord. After all, there is bound to be a certain inequality in the addresses. A very large number of addresses would require only three words; others would require four; but the average. I believe, would be five. And with this average there cannot be a question that the tariff of the Bill would be much more favourable by comparison than that of the noble Lord. Let me point out to the Committee, assuming I am right in regard to the average number of words contained in the address, what the difference is between the tariff of the noble Lord and my own. In all cases where the addresses are under nine words the sender of a telegram would be better off under my tariff than under that of the noble Lord. By the noble Lord's scheme a message of 15 words would cost 1s.; whereas under my tariff, assuming the average number of words in the address tube five, 19 words in the text of the message would only cost 1s. Therefore, on all these points my tariff compares favourably with that of the noble Lord, and from whatever point of view the Committee look at the question I think they will come to the conclusion that the tariff of the noble is an unsatisfactory one, and that the tariff proposed in the Bill is a far better one for the public. I will not detain the Committee any longer upon this question; but there is one other point I wish to call attention to if the noble Lord will give me his attention. It is a point to which I know the officers of the Department attach very great importance; and it is that, if only three words are conceded in the text, there is very great danger that the senders of messages will use part of the address as a code. I have heard from a merchant of Glasgow that already addresses are occasionally employed in that way, for the purpose of saving money in the body of the message itself. To some extent, I am told, that is already done, and the permanent officers of the Department have every reason to believe that the practice would extend. I am quite sure that the Department has informed the noble Lord that considerable danger will arise if the tariff he proposes be adopted. Putting all things together and taking a broad view of the case, I will conclude by summing up what I consider to be the superior advantages of my scheme over that of the noble Lord. By the noble Lord's tariff only three words are conceded; secondly, every sender of a telegram would be required to pay for four extra words as compared with the tariff in the Bill; thirdly, the average charge for each message would be from 1½d. to 2d. more than under the Bill; and, lastly, no less than £250,000 a-year would be expended by the senders of telegrams in useless addresses. That sum of £250,000 would have to be paid by the public in consequence of the limited number of words allowed in the text. On the other hand, the tariff I have introduced in the Bill is a very simple one, and the Department would be saved, the cost of telegraphing 23 per cent of useless words and addresses.

MR. GRAY

said, that however much the country and the Committee had to congratulate themselves on other accounts on the change of Government, he thought it would be unfortunate if the scheme of the Government were carried out in its entirety. The granting of free addresses was not for the purpose of restricting the service of the public, but for increasing it. He infinitely preferred the plan of the late to that of the present Postmaster General. The Committee were called upon to decide upon the proposition of the late Government, which the noble Lord opposed when it was introduced, on the ground that it did not give the people sufficient facilities, and yet the scheme now proposed by the noble Lord himself would give them less. Between the two propositions the Committee were called upon to decide whether they ought to have the number of words proposed by the late Postmaster General without free addresses, or the limited number of words proposed by the noble Lord with free addresses. His (Mr. Gray's) opinion was that they should have the number of words given by the late Postmaster General, together with the free addresses proposed by the noble Lord when he was untrammelled by the cares of Office. He was inclined to think that, if the Department were more carefully managed, a message of 12 words and free addresses might be given for 6d. without incurring any loss at all to the Revenue. He thought he was in a position to give an instance, for the consideration of the Committee, to show how expensively the entire Department was worked. When the telegraphs were taken over by the State in 1870, an arrangement was in existence with regard to Press messages. The old Telegraph Companies were in the habit of supplying the Press with news at a certain rate. The Telegraph Companies collected the news themselves and transmitted it to the newspapers at a fixed annual sum, which was estimated to cost, upon a number of words transmitted, about 4d. or 4½d. per 100 words. After a careful investigation, it was decided that about one-half of that cost was incurred in the collection of news, and the other half was due to the transmission of news. Of course, it was impossible for the Government Department to undertake the collection of news; and, therefore, when the Government came into possession of the wires, they entered into an arrangement with the representatives of the Press of the United Kingdom, by which Press messages were to be sent at the rate of 2½d. per 100 words. He believed the Department asserted that the Press service now involved a loss to the country of something like £150,000 or £200,000 a-year. As one who was connected with and deeply interested in the Press, he failed to see why the Government should subsidize the Press of the United Kingdom to the extent of £200,000 a-year; and if it were the fact that the Press service cost the country so much money, he did not see why the late Postmaster General and the present Postmaster General should have avoided that subject, and not dealt with the question of Press rates. It would have been easy to say that the Press were receiving from the Government more than they were entitled to; and if it were found that the Government were carrying on a Press system at an unremunerative rate, Parliament might be asked to revise the tariff. He therefore asked the noble Lord to tell the Committee whether that was the fact or not. The officials of the Department alleged that the Department was now under a heavy loss arising from the transmission of Press messages. The reason why he alluded to that point was not that he had any strong desire to see the charge for Press messages increased, but to point out that if the old Telegraph Companies found it remunerative to send Press messages at the rate of 2d. for 100 words, the Committee ought to be told why the Government were unable to do the same without incurring an enormous loss. If it were really the fact, it was quite evident that the cost of the service under Government management had been enormously increased. If the profit which the Telegraph Companies were able to make had been converted into a loss of £200,000 a-year to the Government, it was only fair and reasonable to conclude that the Telegraph Service under the control of the Post Office was carried on at an extravagant rate. If that were so, they had arrived at the real cause why a telegraphic service equal to the Continental service could not be given to the public of this country. What cost 2d. on the Continent cost 4d. in this country. He entertained a strong opinion that a service for which 1s. was now charged could be carried on properly for 6d., and he certainly thought that the present 1s. telegram, with free addresses, might be sent for 6d. if the Department were worked as economically as the old Companies performed the same service for the benefit of their shareholders, seeing that the old Companies were able to conduct the service and realize a considerable profit from it. He had no doubt that the proposal of the noble Lord would be much less advantageous to the public than that which was at present contained in the Bill. Without intending any disrespect towards the noble Lord, he could only suppose that it was simply a desire to be consistent which made the noble Lord now propose free addresses at the expense of the message itself. The present proposition was absolutely ludicrous. What the public wanted was free ad- dresses and an adequate number of words in the message itself. He trusted that before the Committee ceased its labours, the question he had put to the Government in reference to Press messages would receive elucidation. It was quite evident that if a Service which was originally carried on at a profit, now involved a loss of £200,000 a-year, there must be something radically wrong with regard to it, and that it must be carried on at an extravagant cost.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH)

The Government could certainly not agree to give, as the hon. Member suggests, a larger number of words and free addresses. I must repeat the words of my Predecessor in the Office I have now the honour to hold, that we cannot impose upon the Treasury a larger burden than it is now called upon to bear. The choice lies between the scheme of the late Postmaster General and that of my noble Friend, and the Government are prepared to carry out whichever of those alternative proposals the Committee prefer. More than that I cannot say; and I can now only appeal to the Committee, considering the hour at which we have arrived, to go to a division at once.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 62; Noes 108: Majority 46.—(Div. List, No. 256.)

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

said, that in pursuance of the arrangement which had been entered into, he would now move to report Progress.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Shaw Lefevre.)

THE POSTMASTER GENERAL

said, that after the result of the division he did not propose to move any further Amendments.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Remaining Clauses agreed to.

House resumed.

Bill reported, without Amendment, to be read the third time To-morrow.