HC Deb 22 May 1885 vol 298 cc1154-75

Order for Second Beading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Shaw Lefevre.)

MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCE,

who had the following Amendment on the Paper:— That, in order that sixpenny telegrams may become a reality and a great boon to large classes of the community now debarred from telegraphic communication by the heavy minimum charge of two shillings for a telegram and reply, it is absolutely necessary that, if any charge is made for addresses, it should be a fixed one, and not varying with the number of words, figures, or letters, and such charge should not exceed threepence, said, that many suggestions had been made in various quarters as to the best system for cheapening telegraphic communication, and estimates had been made of the loss which would be sustained by the Post Office if one or other method were adopted. Whatever might be the merits of the different propositions? which had been made, it was clear that the Bill before the House would not materially reduce the price of telegrams. In fact, it might suitably be called "a Bill to abbolish 1s. telegrams of 20 words and free addresses, and for establishing a new tariff by means of which 6d. telegrams would become impossible except to the favoured few." The Postmaster General had said that it was not fair to give people who chose to send long addresses an advantage over those who were more concise. That, however, was not a fair argument, as people had no control over the names of the streets in which they lived; and in large towns, and London particularly, addresses were necessarily longer than in the country. He had found, from a pretty extensive examination, that names and addresses on the average amounted to 12 words in each telegram. Thus, instead of telegraphing, as now, 20 words for 1s., it would only be possible to telegraph 12. In London great particularity of address was frequently required, as the same names of streets and squares were frequently repeated, and even in the same postal district. For example, "Gloucester Place, W.," was not sufficient, and it was necessary to add "Hyde Park" or "Portman Square," as the case might be, and thus in either case two words were added. The more humble the individual the longer the address, whilst for Barings, Rothschilds, and Goschens, "London" was sufficient address. Then there was some difficulty in deciding what was to be considered as one word. "Bedroom" was, he believed, reckoned as one, while "Sitting-room" was counted as two words. Under the Bill this difficulty would be greatly increased, and much waste of time and labour thereby involved. Why could not the Government show the same courage and enterprize which were manifested when the 1d. post was introduced? No doubt, officials always dreaded change. When the 1d. post was proposed, Lord Lichfield, then Postmaster General, declared the scheme impracticable; and a 4d. post was in- troduced, and proved a failure. Experience abundantly proved that, whenever methods of communication were made cheaper and more accessible, the increase of business done far more than compensated in the long run any loss which was at first incurred. The estimates of loss, also, were for the most part wholly inaccurate and misleading. There was no distinction observed between capital expenditure and revenue account, and it was clear that new wires and increased plant should be classed under the former and not under the latter head. Then no account was taken of the use of the telegraphs for official purposes generally. There were wires between all the Government Offices, and all the police stations in the country and in London, for which no royalty was paid. The 1d. post had been a marvellous success. The universal Is. telegram had also more than answered expectations. The Railway Companies, when first established, had no third-class carriages; and now, by the universal adoption of third-class trains, had so largely increased their revenues that the revenue from third-class passengers largely exceeded that from the first and second class combined. And there was no doubt that like results would follow a reduction in the cost of telegrams. In one respect, indeed, the acquisition of the telegraphs by the Government had increased the cost of telegrams, for previously there were 6d. telegrams. The increase of telegraphic business had been amazing. In 1871 the number of telegrams in the Provinces was 5,300,000, and in London, 2,900,000; in Scotland, about 1,000,000; and in Ireland, 606,000. But in 1883–4 the Provinces sent 15,000,000; London, 12,700,000; Scotland, 3,300,000; and Ireland, 2,000,000; making a total of 32,000,000, as against the 9,000,000 of 1871. The number was still increasing at the rate of about 2½ per cent per year. What he wished was that the addresses of sender and receiver should be charged a fixed sum of 3d., that five words should be another 3d., that five words more should be 3d. more, making 9d., and that the charge of 1s. for 20 words should remain as at present. In the hope that the Government would further consider the matter during the short Recess, he would refrain from moving his Amendment at present.

MR. PULESTON

said, that the discussion of the question appeared to be proceeding on a wrong hypothesis. The Motion of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron), which he (Mr. Puleston) seconded, was discussed and carried two years ago, with the idea that we were to have 6d. telegrams just as we now had 1s. telegrams. The late Postmaster General told him, in conversation, that after the passing of the Resolution, the permanent officials of the Post Office and of the Treasury impressed him with their belief that the adoption of 6d. telegrams, pure and simple, would involve a loss. But the convenience of not having to count the words of an address was a very great one. If the present 1٭. telegrams were given up, the loss would be far greater than that which would follow the adoption of free addresses in cheaper telegrams. If the sender were given a pecuniary interest in the curtailment of the address, the insufficiency of addresses would occasion much greater trouble and cost to the Post Office than it would lose from free addresses. The public would be exposed to the risks of miscarriage. But they ought not to consider too minutely the loss or gain in one branch of the business of a great Department like the Post Office. He did not wish to oppose the Bill; but he hoped that the Postmaster General would see his way to considerably modify the present proposals. For some time past he had taken a note of the number of words in the address of every telegram that he had received or sent out, and he had been unable to arrive at the average given by the right hon. Gentleman. The experience of other people had been the same as his upon this matter. He felt sure that by passing the Bill in its present shape they would be depriving themselves of the 1s. telegram of 20 words. It necessarily followed that the telegraph under the new arrangement, as at present proposed, would be used less rather than more, and his contention was that the loss from that circumstance would be far greater than any loss that might be incurred by giving free addresses. He believed that the result of having a 6d. telegram with free addresses would, in the end, be far more profitable to the Post Office Department than anything like the system which was now proposed to be introduced by the Bill. If the measure passed in its present form, it would diminish rather than increase the business of the Telegraph Department, and instead of conferring a boon upon the public would absolutely prevent the development of the telegraph system.

DR. CAMERON

said, his Resolution, two years ago, was in favour of the reduction of the minimum charge, and not in favour of any hard-and-fast line of 6d. or any other sum for telegrams. That was an important feature to bear in mind. As the Member at whose instance the Motion with regard to reduction of telegraph tariff was passed, he might naturally be supposed to be as much interested in securing a boon for the public as any Member of the House. When the Resolution had been proposed, it was but fair to say that Mr. Faweett had already explained his scheme of a ½d. a-word telegram, with a minimum charge of 6d., and had expressed his readiness to carry it into operation if the Treasury would give its assent. In moving his Resolution, he (Dr. Cameron) did not pretend to dictate as to what the Post Office should do, and framed the Resolution in the most general terms. After that Resolution was carried, communications went on between the Treasury and the Post Office, various proposals passed, and three main schemes were broached. The one was a ½d. a-word telegram, with a minimum charge of 6d., which was virtually that embodied in the present Bill. That, Mr. Faweett estimated, would involve a loss upon the telegraph revenues of £160,000 or £170,000, which could not be recouped before 12 months had passed. The second scheme was that of free address to the receiver and a reduced number of words, he thought, in the body of the telegram. That was calculated to involve a much more considerable loss, and required a longer time in order that the loss should be made good. The third scheme proposed was that both the addresses of the sender and receiver should be sent free, a limited number of words in the body of the telegram, and a minimum charge of 6d. in all cases; and that, of course, was calculated to involve upon the Treasury a still greater loss, and would require a much longer time to make good that loss. Now, he never concealed his belief that the figures on which these estimates were founded were rather gloomy. He was always of opinion that they were rather the figures of an official—a red-tape official—rather than that of an enterprizing man of business. Mr. Fawcett himself acknowledged that the estimate he quoted—especially that quoted on the occasion of the first debate—was that relating to the J2. a-word system pure and simple; and in his speech Mr. Fawcett admitted that the calculation had been designedly made in order that the interest of the Treasury should be protected. Mr. Fawcett, who was a great political economist, saw nothing adverse to business principles in writing off a large amount of the capital which had been wasted owing to the extravagance which had been unearthed in connection with the new telegraph system. On that and on other grounds the House were entitled to infer that the accounts as kept by the Treasury showed a less favourable state of revenue than they would have shown if they had been kept in accordance with strict business principles. Mr. Fawcett had proposed to write off a large portion of the capital account, and that would at once have the effect of showing a large percentage of profit on the capital. Then there was the mode of distributing the expense between the Postal and the Telegraph Departments. The custom was to charge a very large fraction, almost one-half, as against the Telegraph Department. He thought further that if alterations were made in other matters they should have a revenue apparently very much more satisfactory to show in connection with the postal telegraph system. That was the view of many hon. Members who had voted in support of his Motion in 1883. But they must remember that the Treasury must be guided by official estimates, and these estimates were made by postal officials with a Postmaster (Mr. Fawcett) at their head, who was most eager for improvements, and who even was considered rather extravagant in that direction. After Mr. Fawcett had heard of the recommendations and the arguments of the Committee which had been appointed to consider the subject, neither the Committee nor Mr. Fawcett had ever claimed that the Postal Telegraph Department should be conducted at a loss to the public, or that the country should be taxed in order that the senders of telegrams should have the benefit. The Department had already expended £500,000 in increasing the accommodation in the main system of telegraph wires. Now, after such large preparations and after a number of young telegraphists had been trained in order to undertake the additional work, it appeared to him that it would be a great pity if the proposal for a reduction of the price of telegrams were to fall through. It was not to be forgotten that this reform had been forced upon the Government by the House. The Government had shown themselves willing to fulfil their pledge as far as Mr. Fawcett had pledged them; but as he (Dr. Cameron) understood them, they were not prepared to go beyond that pledge. He understood that they were quite willing to consider amendments on matters of detail; but if the House determined to force on them free addresses, the Government would abandon the project altogether rather than face the loss which they believed would be incurred by such a change in their operations; and that the Treasury at least would not be unwilling to abandon the business which had been thus forced upon them, he thought, was shown by the fact that last year, after having spent large sums in increasing the telegraph plant on the main lines, they were only too willing to postpone its coming into operation for another nine months, even at the expense of the waste of the interest on the money which they had spent in increasing the plant. Therefore, it was fair for the House to infer that the Treasury were not over eager to incur anything beyond what they were strictly pledged to, and that if the House did not accept that the Treasury would not be very unwilling to be relieved of the whole thing. Now, the question the House had to consider was whether the subject proposed by the Postmaster General would really be a boon to the public or whether it would be so little of a boon that they had better reject it altogether. On that subject he entirely differed from the views that had been expressed by his hon. Friend. His hon. Friend had told them that he had taken careful note during several weeks lately of all the telegrams which he had seen, and that the inference he drew was that he would be a loser rather than a gainer under the system proposed by the Postmaster General. And he had also told them that some of his friends had done the same, and with the same result as the conclusion arrived at. And, therefore, judging by his own experience in this respect and that of his friends, his hon. Friend had told the House that he was inclined to question the averages quoted by the Postmaster General. Now, he (Dr. Cameron) should say that, for his own part, he felt more inclined to place reliance on the averages derived by the Postmaster General from the millions of telegrams to which he had access for the purpose of forming an opinion on this point than upon the conclusion drawn by his hon. Friend from the few weeks' experience of himself and his friends as quoted by him. Therefore, he (Dr. Cameron) wished to state that he was of opinion that the boon to the public would be real and substantial. They should consider the matter in the light of general averages, and not in the light of anomalies; nor should they ask themselves how the doing away with one or other anomaly among the many which at present disfigured the system would affect the Department, but bow on the whole it would affect the public. At the present moment it appeared that the average number of words sent in every message was 28, and the average cost of the message was 1s. 1d. Those 28 words consisted of 11 words of address and 17 in the body of the message. But in town addresses there must be numbers in the streets, and all numbers under 10 were counted as a single word; but if the address either of the sender or the receiver of the message contained two or more figures in the number, the result would be that if they counted under the new system the number as a single word, whether of one or two figures, the number of words in the address would be nine, so that they would thus find that nine words in the address and 17 in the message would be the present average, and these 26 words were transmitted at an average rate of 1s. 1d. They had thus 26 words for 1s. 1d., or ½d. a-word. What was proposed was ½d. a-word, and the sole difference, so far as the public was concerned, which they would thus inflict upon the public was that they would inflict an average charge of 1s., while they got the minimum charge reduced to 6d. At present everyone acknowledged that there were a great number of superfluous words put into addresses of telegrams. That was the case to a large extent not only in the address of the sender, but also in that of the receiver of the message; and I that that was so was shown in the experience of all countries—in the United States, in France, Belgium, Germany, &c. There were also a great number of superfluous words introduced into the body of the messages themselves. For his own part, he made it a matter of principle to cram into a message every word he possibly could; and it was not an uncommon thing for some people to fill up their telegrams with some such, patriotic sentiments as "Britannia rules the waves," or "Britons never will be slaves," &c, in order to secure their getting their full money's worth. Now, it appeared to him that the Post Office was amply justified in saying that under the proposed system the price of telegrams would be reduced from Is. to 8d., with a curtailment of redundancies; and, at any rate, if it should be contended that those sending 20-word messages would be losers, the senders of messages of other numbers of words would be found to be gainers. Under the system now proposed by the Postmaster General he believed that on the average the public would have a great and substantial gain as compared with the existing arrangements. In no other country but this did the system of free addresses prevail; and even in this country the old Telegraph Companies restricted the number of words in addresses. The Cable Companies also charged by the word and for every word in the address. Much had been said in connection with that subject, and of the poor man's case. Well, he should say with regard to the poor man that it was fair that in discussing that argument that they must remember that the telegraph was not a necessity of life, and therefore there was no reason why the community at large should be taxed that the poor man might receive his telegrams at cost price. But, as a matter of fact, the poor man made very little use of the telegraph. The Postmaster General had told them that out of 20,000 telegrams which were examined, only 150 or 160 were found to have been sent by the working classes; and of that number there were only about a score which could not have been easily sent at the proposed 6d. rate. The messages of the working classes were generally very short, being sent to tell relations about a sickness or a death, and they rarely filled up 20 words in their telegrams. Much criticism had been published on the proposed system, and imaginary cases had been put forward to show that the addresses of poor people were necessarily so lengthy that that class would not profit by the new scale if the addresses were charged for; but an analysis of such cases proved that those persons could really obtain the advantage of the 6d. rate, or might send a number of extra words, and still pay considerably less for their telegrams than was now charged under the Is. rate. Whether the extra word raised the price of the telegram to 7d., 8d., 9d., 10d., or 10d., the sender would gain by the reduction of the 1s. scale. The Post Office, under the proposed scheme, made an important concession. It was obliged with every message to send certain service words, such as the name of the office at which the message was handed in, the number of words which the message contained, and the hour at which it was handed in, &c, and the amount of this work was the same whether the message was long or short. To his mind a uniform word rate of ½d. per word, without distinction between the address and the body of the message, was much preferable to and far more elastic than any proposal to give an unlimited number of words for the address at the expense of curtailing the words of the body of the message. As to the Amendment of the noble Lord (Lord John Manners), he should say that it appeared to him to have come with a very bad grace from him, because when the noble Lord was Postmaster General they had a Committee appointed to inquire into the postal telegraph system, of which Committee he (Dr. Cameron) was a Member, and acted as the advocate of the public as against the Post Office and the Treasury. The Post Office Department recommended that the charge upon telegrams should be increased in order to increase the postal revenue, and that for that purpose every telegram handed in between 8 at night and 8 in the morning should be charged 6d. extra, and that every telegram handed in on a Sunday should be charged 6d. extra, and that every one handed in at a railway station should be charged 3d. extra. He had to contend with very strong opposition on the part of the Post Office Department in resisting these charges. His object was to secure cheapness of telegraph service compatible with the improvement and efficiency of the service for the public. The only assistance the Committee received from officials of the Department was from Colonel (then Major) Webber, C.E., and the Postmaster of Glasgow (Mr. R. Hobson), and so little disposed were the Department to place any information at the disposal of the Committee, or otherwise assist them in any way in their investigation, that they wrote to Mr. Hobson reprimanding him for having given information to the Committee. The Committee, however, in reply, passed a Resolution stating that the letter written by the Secretary of the Department to Mr. R. Hobson was calculated to impede the investigation of the Committee. That Resolution was carried by 10 to 2 in the Committee. The result of the Committee's investigation was already known to the House, and he had been able to get them to adopt unanimously the principle that the true method of making the telegraph system at once cheap and remunerative was not by curtailing the facilities offered to the public or by increasing the charges, but by increasing the facililites and, at the proper time, diminishing the charges. This was really a question for independent Members, such as had supported, his Motion on a former occasion, and enabled him to carry it even in the teeth of the two Front Benches. For those reasons he should support the scheme as being a very substantial and the most substantial boon they were likely to get at present. When it went into Committee he should endeavour to secure some improvements—and he thought those facilities which it offered might be improved without in the smallest degree departing from the principle, and at a merely nominal expense. The Postmaster General proposed, for example, that after the minimum was reached an extra 1d. should be charged for each extra word or two words. But that was not the plan proposed by his Predecessor, the late Mr. Fawcett. He proposed the plan of a uniform ½d. per word, and a ½d. was not an unknown coin in connection with this matter. On the question of figures, why, he asked, not adopt the system followed in international messages and count groups of five figures and less than five figures as a single word? To adopt such a course would prove of great convenience in many cases, and would also be in the direction of assimilating the Inland and the International Departments of the Postal Telegraph Service. Another very important improvement he wished to suggest was that in large towns the Post Office should codify the streets. It would be an easy matter in the Metropolis, for instance, to have a code signal for every street. The practice was already followed in regard to telegraph stations, the names of which wore never spelt out fully in the course of telegraphing by the Department. The system being found a convenient and practicable one in regard to telegraph stations, he maintained that it would be equally easy to apply the system to the nomenclature of streets. It would be possible to take every street, court, lane, crescent, or terrace in the Metropolis, and by the permutations of three or four letters or figures reduce the names to a code; and there was not the smallest reason why that code should not be published in The Postal Guide, so that a person who wished to send a message to a particular address would only have to refer to the code, and write down a few letters, thus enabling the address to be got over the wire as one word. Another improvement he begged to suggest was the cheap registration of addresses. At present anyone could register his address for telegraph purposes for 21s. a-year; but there was no valid reason why a man should not be able to register his address for 2s. 6d. or 5s. per annum. By sending that with the name of the town, three words would suffice for the necessities of the address, leaving the other nine words for the body of that message. Thus, by a system of increments of a ½d. per word instead of a 1d., by the codification of streets in large towns, by a cheap system of registration of addresses, without any departure from the general lines of the Bill, at a merely nominal expense, with an increased security against any miscarriage of telegrams, with the advantage of assimilating the Inland and International branches of our Postal Telegraph System, he believed that a great boon would be afforded to the telegraphing public by the plan proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, and that, too, on a principle compatible with the sound economic rule of payment for work done. It would not be appreciably inferior to the fancy modification suggested of the present system, the adoption of which he believed the Postmaster General was convinced would be fatal to the proposed scheme.

MR. ALDERMAN COTTON

said, he thought that the rejection of free addresses on the part of the Postmaster General took away all the good that would otherwise arise from the reduction of the Is. telegram. The codification of addresses, taking into account the millions of messages sent, was too much to undertake successfully. This was not a question as to the convenience and profit of the State; it was a question of the immense convenience to the general public, financially as well as commercially. Viewed from a domestic point of view, the services which the telegraph rendered to the people at large were very important, and any impediment placed in the way of telegraphing ought not to be tolerated for a moment by the Postmaster General. He understood that when the Resolution on this subject was carried in that House, the intention was to introduce the 6d. message pure and simple. Further, when the Telegraph Companies were first started the entire charge for the message was 6d. The increased charge to 1s. arose in consequence of a storm which destroyed considerable lengths of the wires; but it was always promised that when the Companies were recouped then the 6d. charge was to be restored; but pending that time the Government went into treaty for the purchase of the telegraphs and took them over upon the 1s. charge—hence its continuance. But now the Government insisted that the addresses should be paid for, and this resolve, he maintained, was wrong. The Government should accept in its entirety the Resolution which was passed two years ago, allow free addresses, and reduce the charge to 6d. for 10 words. By doing so they would save an incalculable amount of work to the Post Office officials, would prevent many blunders from being committed, and would confer a great and desirable boon on the public.

MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD

said, he thought the country was very much indebted to the Postmaster General for his scheme, though he admitted the commercial community had been somewhat slow in expressing their appreciation of its value. This remark, however, did not apply to the Manchester Chamber of Commerce; and he desired to bring under the notice of the Postmaster General two suggestions of that body—first, that five consecutive figures should be counted as one word; and secondly, that it should be optional for the sender to include his name and address in the message.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

said, this discussion was probably only a rehearsal of the debate that would arise on the Amendment of the noble Lord opposite (Lord John Manners); and he, therefore, hoped hon. Gentlemen would excuse him if he did not now reply to all the points that had been raised. He did not understand the hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Alderman Cotton) to be opposed to the principle of the Bill, but only to propose an alternative plan. When in Committee he should be happy to consider fully any Amendments that might be brought forward, provided they did not involve a greater burden on the Telegraph Department than the plan laid down in the Bill. It had been urged that the Post Office and the Telegraph Department should be considered as one, and that the profits of the one might very fairly be applied to cover the loss on the other—that any loss in the Telegraphic Department ought to be recouped by the profits from letters. That was a proposition which could not and never for a moment had been entertained by that House. Since the purchase of the telegraphs it had been well understood that the Telegraph Department should be treated by itself, and that, as far as possible, it should be made self-supporting; and it had always been considered that the tariff should be such as would allow the operations to be carried on at a profit such as to pay a reasonable rate of interest on the purchase money paid for the acquirement of the telegraphs. He thought that a sound principle, and was not prepared to depart from it. It would not be right or fair that the general public should be taxed in order that a small part of the community should be able to send their telegrams at a price less than the cost price. He, therefore, could not accept any proposition that would involve a heavy loss. It must be remembered that the Telegraph Service was not now in so flourishing a condition as it was two years ago. Owing to the increase of remuneration paid to employés, and also to the competition with the telephone, there had been a great reduction in the profits of the Telegraph Service. Taking the most favourable view of the account the profits had fallen from £450,000 to at the outside £250,000 a-year, and out of this £250,000 there remained to be paid the interest on the £11,000,000 which was paid for the purchase of the telegraphs, and this reduced the interest to a very low rate. The plan that he now proposed had been carefully worked out by experts in the Post Office, and it was calculated that, allowing for an increase of 30 per cent in the number of messages sent, there would during the first year be a reduction of the Telegraph Department profits by about £180,000, and this would reduce the profits to £70,000 a-year, which was a very small margin of profit on a business of such magnitude, and some further reductions probably would have to be made. The reduction of the price of telegrams from Is. to 6d. really involved a much larger financial risk than most persons supposed. There were certain expenses connected with telegrams which were incurred whatever the length of the telegram—such as the receipt of the telegram over the counter and its delivery within the radius. It had been estimated that the average necessary cost for these purposes of each telegram, irrespective of its length, was 2½d., and that left the sum available for the cost of telegraphing out of the amount charged now and to be charged under this Bill at 9½d. and 3½d. respectively; and, therefore, the proposed reduction was really about one-third. Every telegram was accompanied by certain official words, eight in number, necessary for the purposes of information to the Department. The average length of addresses had been found to be 11 words, and therefore the average length of an ordinary message under present circumstances was 39 words—the message 20 words, the address 11, and the official words eight. The Bill proposed to reduce the number of words to 20—namely, 12 words in the message and address, and the eight official words; the length of the message, therefore, would be reduced from39 words to20 words, or one-half, while the price was being reduced from 9½d. to 3½d. It was accordingly necessary that there should be some economy of work. It was well known that there was an enormous waste of words in the sending of telegrams, and an amount of useless labour was thus thrown on the Department. A large number of telegrams had been carefully examined, and it was found that the number of superfluous words amounted to about 25 or 30 per cent; and a large proportion of the superfluous words occurred, it was found, in the addresses. These, on an average, now consisted of 11 words, and it was the opinion of competent persons that the address, as a rule, need not occupy more than five words. A saving of six words could thus be effected in each telegram, which, multiplied by 32,000,000, which they had calculated would be the number of telegrams under the new system, resulted suited in this—that the amount saved by the non-transmission of 192,000,000 of useless words would be at least £200,000 a-year. He quite admitted that free addresses had some convenience; but, on the other hand, they were a very expensive luxury, as they cost the Service £200,000 a-year. He had observed in the newspapers various alternative suggestions to his proposal. They all resulted in loss to the Department. The hon. Member for the City of London who last spoke proposed that a free address and 10 words should be given for 6d. He had had the cost of that calculated. It showed that, assuming an increase in the number of telegrams sent in consequence of the reduced tariff to the extent of 30 per cent, the loss to the Service would be £560,000 per year. This was not the worst part of the case, for a tariff of that kind would enormously stimulate business, and would greatly increase the working expenses. They believed that it would be impossible to send free addresses and 10 words for 6d. without in a short time, by reason of the enormous increase of business, incurring a much greater loss than £560,000 a-year to the Department.

MR. J. G. HUBBARD

inquired whether the right hon. Gentleman calculated the loss to the Department by rule of three?

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

said, that the figures he had quoted were from calculations made by the officials of the Department. The loss from the hon. Member's suggestion would be so great, therefore, that a tariff of that kind was altogether out of the question. The suggestion of the hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Puleston), that there should be a free address and six words for 6d., it had been calculated, would cause aloss of £110,000 a-year more than the proposal submitted. The tariff proposed by the hon. Member for the City of London who spoke first, that a free address and five words should be allowed for 6d., would result, as far as he could make out, although it was somewhat difficult to state the actual cost, in a loss of £ 100,000 a-year more than his proposal. He thought, therefore, that the House would be of opinion with him that these various suggestions were all out of the question without inflicting heavy loss upon the Department, and therefore upon the Public Revenue. The tariff which was proposed under their Bill was a word rate of a 1d. for two words or ½d. a-word, with a minimum of 12 words for ½d. It was calculated that five words would on the average be used for the address, and seven would remain for the message. That was the opinion formed from a careful examination of the existing telegrams by officials of the Department. They could not but think that there was a good deal of misunderstanding upon the subject of addresses. The belief had been expressed by the officials that the sender's address would in future average only one word. In support of that view they had before them the experience of foreign telegrams and also telegrams to France and Germany. It was found that foreign telegrams sent to this country in a large majority of cases contained no address at all of the sender. The message itself, no doubt, would show clearly to the receiver from whom it came. A large proportion of the foreign telegrams had only one word to indicate the sender. It was believed that in future, if the proposal of the Bill were adopted, senders would in a very large proportion of cases indicate themselves by one word, and in very few cases would it be necessary to use more than one word. If it were necessary for the sender of the telegram to give a full description of his address, that was information that ought to be contained in the text of the message and ought to be paid for. The hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold) had quoted the unanimous Resolution of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce approving the Bill, and he had asked that in future the suggestion of the Chamber should be adopted—namely, that five numbers should be counted as one word, and that it should not be necessary to insert the sender's name in the address. He was in a position to answer both those questions in the affirmative, and they would in future be the rule. As regarded the name of the town from which the message was sent, it was not necessary to put it in the address, because it was always sent for official purposes, and there was no necessity that the sender should put it in as one of the words of the message. Neither was it obligatory on the sender to give his own name in the address, and in a large proportion of cases it would not be necessary for him to do so. While he believed that on an average one word would indicate the sender, a careful examination of telegrams led to the belief that the receiver would be indicated on an average by four words. A large proportion of the foreign telegrams sent into this country contained only three, and in some cases four, words of address. No great hardship would result if an extra word or two had to be inserted in an address, as the rate would be two words for 1d. The objections which had been raised to this proposal rested mainly on two points. In the first place, it was said that the abolition of free addresses would lead to uncertainty and to extra labour on the Department; and secondly, it was said that it would be a hardship on certain classes of persons. As to the first point, the officials in the Department did not think that any extra difficulty would be thrown on them, judging by the large experience they had had of foreign telegrams, and also by the fact that, although the addresses in those telegrams were shortened, little confusion or trouble had resulted. There was also the experience of foreign countries to guide them, where a word-rate prevailed. In Germany there was no free address, and it was found that addresses averaged only four words; again in France a word-rate only existed and no difficulty was found with respect to the address. The other objection, that this proposal would press hardly on certain classes of people in this country, was one into which he wont at some length in introducing the Bill. With some difficulty he had obtained a number of telegrams sent by working people, and although it appeared that their addresses averaged somewhat longer than those of other telegrams, it was found that the messages as a rule were very short and simple, and that about 60 per cent would admit of curtailments of the addresses, and could be sent for 6d. without any trouble or difficulty being occasioned. It had been pointed out that the proposed tariff did not compare favourably with the present tariff at the rate of 1s. By the present tariff 20 words wore allowed for 1s., with a free address, whereas under this proposal 24 words would be allowed for 1s., with no free address. But the higher they went in the tariff the more favourable it appeared; and, moreover, it should be recollected that between 6d. and 1s. there were several grades. It was assumed that there would be only the 6d. and Is. rate, and nothing between; but that was not the case, and any number of words between 12 and 24 would be inserted in the message at 1d. for two words. They believed that a very large proportion of the messages sent—about 30 or 40 per cent—would be at the 6d. rate. But they also thought that a very large proportion would be sent the cost of which would be between 6d. and 1s. They thought that under the proposed tariff not more than one telegram out of 10 would be sent at the Is. rate. Before resuming his seat he wished to say that to his knowledge no important commercial body had petitioned against the Bill, while, on the other hand, the Associated Chambers of Commerce and the Chambers of Commerce of Manchester and Glasgow and of other large towns, had spoken of the tariff proposed as one very favourable to the working classes. He trusted that the House would not reject the boon that he was able to offer to the country. He should be perfectly ready to consider in Committee any alternative tariff that might be suggested which would not impose a greater burden on the finances of the Department; but he should not be able to agree to any tariff which would have that effect, for such a tariff could not be established without infringing on the principles that the Telegraphic Service should be independent of the Postal Service, and that it should be conducted so as to return some profit on the amount invested by the State.

MR. J. G. HUBBARD

said, there were certain public commercial operations which passed from the hands of individuals to the State, because in the course of time it had been found that such operations could be carried on with greater advantage to the country if placed in the hands of the Government of the day. Such an undertaking was the great enterprize now carried on by the Post Office in connection with the electric telegraph. When the State originally undertook the management of the Telegraph Service it made what was apparently an exceedingly bad bargain. The receipts of the Service, however, improved to such an extent that two years ago the surplus revenue amounted to 3 per cent on the £10,000,000 which had been invested. That, to his mind, was a most weighty fact. As to the Resolution which was the origin of the proposed change in the price of telegrams, and which he regarded as undesirable and ill-timed, it was the duty of the House to take care that in carrying it out there should be no great sacrifice of the finances of the State. Bearing that in mind, he saw nothing in the Bill to prevent him from giving his absolute adhesion to the plan of the Postmaster General. With regard to the system of free addresses, he feared that was a part of the scheme which would be abused, although he was quite aware that at the present time, under existing regulations, the telegraph, as a means of communication, was abused, especially by anxious mothers and enthusiastic lovers, who telegraphed to each other two or three times a-day. There would, however, in his opinion, be no hardship caused by the limitations which it was proposed to place on addresses. The system would discourage surplusage in diction and would foster the art of concise writing, which was a very valuable acquirement.

MR. RUSTON

said, he hold that the Government in the Bill which had been introduced had loyally adhered to the spirit of the Resolutions passed in a former Session. As to the principles enunciated that day by the Postmaster General, they were perfectly sound. An instance of the way in which the custom of free addresses might be abused had recently come under his notice. A telegram was sent to him in which the addresses occupied 20 words, and eight of the words in the sender's address ought certainly to have been placed in the body of the message. He strongly approved the proposal of the hon. Member for Salford that four or five figures should be included in the body of the message as one word. This change, if agreed to, would be an immense boon.

MR. WARTON

said, that the proposal of the Postmaster General was clogged with such restrictions as not to give in reality the 6d. telegram which it professed to give. It was better for the Government to say they had made a great mistake in promising to allow 6d. telegrams than try to keep the promise to the ear and break it to the hope. All sorts of dangerous telegrams might be sent under the scheme without any means of identifying the sender.

MR. BIGGAR

expressed the opinion that the result of abolishing free addresses would be to press hardly upon small dealers and generally upon the working people of the country.

MR. TOMLINSON

remarked, that it was his firm belief, founded upon observation not so much in London as in the Provinces, that the telephone would come in time more and more in competition with the telegraph. At all events, so far as commercial telegrams were concerned, there could be no doubt that the telegraph would give place to the telephone, and possibly the large increase which was expected in the telegraph business might not result.

MR. DEASY

said, that he desired to make a few observations on this Bill as representing a constituency which, in his opinion, would be largely benefited by its provisions. He believed the Bill would be a great advantage to districts like the South of Ireland, which wore a considerable distance from the great centres of industry and consumption. It took a very long time for letters to reach the South of Ireland, and in consequence many of the business people there had frequently to have recourse to the use of the telegraph, and in this way telegrams formed a very large item in their annual expenditure. This item of expenditure would, in his opinion, be very materially reduced by the action of the Bill now before the House. It would be of especial advantage to persons engaged in the butter trade and in the other large businesses carried on in the South of Ireland. At present these people were able easily to confine their messages to a dozen words or so, and the only hardship it would inflict would be on those persons who tried to get value for their money by using up all the 20 words, and who made the addresses as long as possible. If these people still desired to send long messages, let them do so at their own expense, but let not business people be expected to pay dearly for short messages for the benefit of such people. Considering that the measure would be a great advantage to his constituents, and would lead to the development of the industry and trade of Ireland, he trusted that the Government would press forward the Bill and pass it into law before the end of the present Session.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday 4th June.