TELEGRAPHS (TELEPHONIC COMMUNICATION , &c.) BILL.

HC Deb 25 July 1899 vol 75 cc303-63

As amended (by the Standing Committee), further considered.

Another Amendment made.

Another Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 24, after the word 'not,' to insert the words, 'within that area.'"—(Mr. Hanbury.)

Question proposed "That those words be there inserted."

CAPTAIN SINCLAIR (Forfarshire)

I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman what will be the effect of these words. It seems to me they are not necessary, and if they have any effect at all, it will be a nugatory effect. I do not see any reason for the limitation.

THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (MR. HANBURY,) Preston

This is the same point that was raised by the hon. Member last night, in answer to whom I said that although I

regretted that the company have the power of giving preferences under their existing license I do not think it would be fair under the present Bill to curtail the powers which they possess in the particular localities in which they operate.

MR. BUCHANAN (Aberdeenshire, E.)

This appears to be one of those clauses in which better terms are being given to the National Telephone Company than were given to it in the Committee upstairs. This is distinctly an Amendment in favour of the company, which has been in the habit in the past of refusing to supply a subscriber except under conditions such as allowing them to put up a post on his house and so forth. I say that is a monstrous power for any company to exercise, and the right hon. Gentlemen recognised that perfectly well, for in the sub-section upstairs he took it away, though he now proposes to water down the clause which the Committee upstairs agreed to, and he now says it shall now only be taken away in particular areas.

MR. CALDWELL (Lanark, Mid.)

I think this is a very important change, because the company may have customers outside a particular area, and outside that area you give the company unlimited powers as regards undue preferences.

MR. HANBURY

Perhaps it might save time if I explained why I put these words in. On looking into the Bill I had some doubts whether the words "gave any preference to any person whosoever" would include the preferences involved in the refusal to give service unless the applicant was willing, for instance, to allow the company to put a post on his house. The words "within the area" were put in so as to govern the preference in both cases.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 151; Noes, 27. (Division List, No. 297.)

AYES.
Abraham, William (Rhondda)	Barton, Dunbar Plunket	Burt, Thomas
Allen, Wm. (Newe.-und.-Lyme	Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull	Cameron, Sir C. (Glasgow)
Arrol, Sir William	Bethell, Commander	Cawley, Frederick
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John	Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.	Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.
Bailey, James (Walworth)	Bond, Edward	Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J.(Birm.
Baird, John George Alexander	Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-	Chamberlain, J. Austen (Wore.
Balcarres, Lord	Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John	Charrington, Spencer
Balfour. Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r	Bullard, Sir Harry	Clare, Octavius Leigh
Balfour, Rt. Hon. G.W. (Leeds	Burns, John	Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.
Coghill, Douglas Harry	Hoare, E. Brodie (Hampstead)	Parkes, Ebenezer
Cohen, Benjamin Louis	Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)	Pickard, Benjamin
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse	Holden, Sir Angus	Pilkington, R. (Lanes, Newton)
Colville, John	Hudson, George Bickersteth	Platt-Higgins, Frederick
Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)	Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Cook, C. W. Radcliffe (Heref'd)	Jenkins, Sir John Jones	Price, Robert John
Cox, Irwin Edw. Bain bridge	Johnston, William (Belfast)	Provand, Andrew Dryburgh
Curzon, Viscount	Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)	Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh	Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.	Purvis, Robert
Dalkeith, Earl of	King, Sir Henry Seymour	Pym, C. Guy
Dalrymple, Sir Charles	Knowles, Lees	Rickett, J Compton
Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham	Labouchere, Henry	Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson
Denny, Colonel	Lawrence, Sir E. Durning- (Corn	Robertson, Herbt. (Hackney)
Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.	Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool)	Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)
Donkin, Richard Sim	Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)	Seely, Charles Hilton
Doughty, George	Lea, Sir Thos. (Londonderry)	Seton-Karr, Henry
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie	Sharpe, William Edward T.
Doxford, William Theodore	Leng, Sir John	Skewes-Cox. Thomas
Duckworth, James	Llewellyn, Evan H. (Somerset)	Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)
Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart	Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.	Steadman, William Charles
Fardell, Sir T George	Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Liverpool)	Stone, Sir Benjamin
Fellowes, Hon. A. Edward	Lowe, Francis William	Strauss, Arthur
Fenwick, Charles	Loyd, Archie Kirkman	Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley
Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)	Macartney, W. G. Ellison	Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.
Finch, George H.	M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)	Thornton, Percy M.
Fisher, William Hayes	M'Crae, George	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Flannery, Sir Fortescue	M'Killop, James	Tritton, Charles Ernest
Flower, Ernest	Maddison, Fred	Usborne, Thomas
Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)	Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)	Valentia, Viscount
Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.	Middlemore, John T.	Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Garfit, William	Milton, Viscount	Williams, Col. R. (Dorset)
Gedge, Sydney	Milward, Colonel Victor	Williams, Joseph Powell- (Birm
Gibbs, Hn. A.G.H.(City of Lon.	Monk, Charles James	Willox, Sir John Archibald
Giles, Charles Tyrrell	Moon, Edward Robert Pacy	Wolehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath
Goddard, Daniel Ford	More, Robt.Jasper (Shropshire)	Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Huddersf.
Goldsworthy, Major-General	Morrell, George Herbert	Wrightson, Thomas
Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon	Morrison, Walter	Wylie, Alexander
Goulding, Edward Alfred	Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford	Young, Commander (Berks, E.)
Gourley, Sir Edw. Temperley	Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)
Gray, Ernest (West Ham)	Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.
Hamond, Sir Ch. (Newcastle)	Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)
Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.	Newdigate, Francis Alexander
Hatch, Ernest Fredk. George	Nicholson, William Graham
NOES.
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)	Holland, Wm. H. (York, W. R.	Power, Patrick Joseph
Billson, Alfred	Jameson, Major J. Eustace	Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn	Lewis, John Herbert	Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Caldwell, James	Lloyd-George, David	Williams, John Carvell (Notts)
Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)	Macaleese, Daniel	Wilson, H. J. (York, W. R.)
Dillon, John	Maden, John Henry	Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)
Donelan, Captain A.	Molloy, Bernard Charles	Yoxall, James Henry
Doogan, P. C.	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Captain Sinclair and Sir James Joicey.
Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)	Pickersgill, Edward Hare
Hedderwick, Thomas C. H.	Pirie, Duncan V.

Question put, and agreed to.

* MR. FAITHFUL BEGG (Glasgow, St. Rollox)

The object of my Amendment is to prevent the Postmaster-General from being able to fix a minimum rate. One of the objects of this Bill is to induce Competition, and if that is to be effected, and we are thereby to get cheap telephones, there should be no restriction as to the point below which the rates should fall. In particular I do not see why one of the parties to this bargain which has been made should be placed in a position to dictate to the others what the minimum rate should be. I do not know whether it is the intention of the Post Office to protect itself in the future from what occurred in the past, when it was beaten out of the field by the existing companies; but it seems to me that if the Post Office is willing to enter into the open competition which was recommended by the Committee, it should not be afraid of the consequences of it, and that its competitors should be allowed to reduce the rates as they please. I move this Amendment in order to give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity of explaining to the House the reason for putting the Postmaster-General in a position to prevent any of the competing companies reducing their rates below a given point.

Amendment proposed— In page 2. lines 29 and 30, to leave out the words 'or fall below the minimum rates."'—(Mr. Faithfull Begg.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to lie left out stand part of the Bill."

MR. COLVILLE (Lanark, N.E.)

I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not accept the Amendment. One effect of it will be that the company will reduce its rates temporarily to, practically, a vanishing point so as to destroy competition: and then, having destroyed competition, the rates will be raised at the pleasure of the company.

MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN (Kent, Tunbridge)

I join with my hon. friend opposite in hoping that the right hon. Gentleman will not accept this Amendment. It is simply designed to render competition by municipalities all over the country absolutely impossible. If the Amendment were carried the result would be that the National Telephone Company would be able, in certain localities when there is competition, to reduce the rates practically to nothing, with the result that they would drive out of competition every municipality or local company. It is clear to me, if we adopt this Amendment, competition such as was recommended by the Committee would be an absolute impossibility. As a member of the Committee I look forward to effective competition following from the carriage this Bill, and I therefore hope my right hon. friend will not accept this Amendment.

SIR J. JOICEY (Durham, Chester-le-Street)

I think this is a sample of the patchwork system which the Government are going to set up in the country in the matter of telephones. The whole basis of this Bill is to give competition; but Her Majesty's Government are so afraid of competition that they want to prevent any competing company which happens to be in a particular area from reducing its rates, and thus giving the locality a low-priced telephone system. I think the competition under this Bill is a perfect farce.

MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)

I would remind my hon. friend that what we object to is unfair, and not fair, competition. I would like to know from the right hon. Gentleman whether this provision of minimum rates will do away with the system of rebates, to which I have the strongest objection.

MR HANBURY

I believe that that would undoubtedly be the effect of the provision, and that is one of the reasons why I put in this minimum rate. In reply to my hon. friend the Member for St. Rollox, I have to say that the rates will vary in different localities. Another reason for introducing the minimum rate with regard to municipalities is that possibly the Post Office may, on the termination of the municipal licence, become the successor; that is to say, the Postmaster-General of the day may decide on nationalisation. In that case, it would not be in the interests of the taxpayer to take over a service which is worked on an unremunerative scale. Therefore, in the interests of the taxpayer, we have fixed a minimum charge, and, having done this in the case of the municipalities, we must put competing companies on the same terms. I cannot accept the Amendment.

MR. HANBURY

It is barely possible that, under the clause as it stands, it may be said that the Company is entitled to an extension of way-leaves, if the grant for the licence is continued later on. I therefore move an Amendment to the clause, to provide that such way-leaves shall continue for the period "specified in the new licence for the duration thereof."

Amendment suggested by Mr. HANBURY agreed to.

MR. BUCHANAN

The Amendment that I have to propose raises the specific question whether any extension is to be given to the licence of the National Telephone Company. That is really the root cause of my opposition to this Bill, and I believe it is the root cause of the opposition of many other members. Why do we object to any extension of the licence of the National Telephone Company? It is simply because the National Telephone Company, for a long period of years, have enjoyed very great privileges, together with a practical monopoly, and they have abused those privileges and that monopoly. They have not given anything like the facilities to the country for the development of telephonic communication that they ought to have done. They do not only not deserve well of the House and of the country, but they deserve ill of the House and of the country. I am sure all of us thought, at the earlier stages of the Bill, that there was one thing we could look forward to from the Secretary to the Treasury, and that was that he was going to be a strong bulwark on behalf of this House and the country against the National Telephone Company. Nobody could have spoken more strongly than the right hon Gentleman did, both in the Select Committee and in this House, against the methods of the National Telephone Company, and the way in which it had abused the privileges which it had so long enjoyed. In fact, the whole origin of this Bill is due to the fact that the National Telephone Company has not acted up to a spirit of fairness in regard to the licence it obtained. In a country like this, which is the richest in the world, and contains the largest commercial interests in the world, the telephone system might have been developed to a greater extent than in any other country. In this respect the National Telephone Company had the opportunity, a dozen years back, of making us an example to the world. Unfortunately, however, it has shown an example, not in a good sense, but in a bad sense. Nobody knows that better than the right hon. Gentleman, who has expressed himself most strongly on the subject. Yet, at the eleventh hour, in the Grand Committee, this Bill is substantially altered in the direction of favouring the National Telephone Company, by extending its licence, and benefitting it in a way which, I believe, its most ardent friends in the House and outside never for a moment expected. After the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, we thought that there was at any rate one redeeming feature in the Bill—one small drop of balm in Gilead—when we were told that the licence of the National Telephone Company was to come to an end in 1911. We should have then been free, either for nationalisation, or for the development of municipal enterprise, or for other forms of competition. Instead of that, however, we find a clause introduced in the Bill which will extend the period of the licence of the National Telephone Company for several years longer, practically postponing the development of telephonic communication for a generation. In taking that step, I think the right hon. Gentleman and the Government have taken a most reactionary step indeed.

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 40, after the words last inserted, to insert the words, provided that no such licence shall extend beyond the year one thousand nine hundred and eleven."—(Mr. Buchanan.)

Question proposed, "That the words be there inserted."

* MR. COHEN (Islington, E.)

The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down said that the expectation of the whole House was, when this Bill was introduced, that the licence of the National Telephone Company was to terminate in 1911. I am unable to say, of course, what was the expectation of the hon. Gentleman opposite; but if he had done the Committee the honour of reading their Report, he would have seen that no such words are to be found in that document. The words in that Report are: It seems generally admitted to be desirable in the public interest that all licences should terminate in 1911. My right hon. friend, for reasons which, no doubt, he thought cogent, has come to the conclusion that it is desirable to give municipalities the privileges of telephonic communication and the conduct of telephonic traffic, and he has satisfied himself that municipalities could not undertake that arduous traffic without having a licence given to them for a period longer than 1911. I regret that municipalities are to have these privileges, but as soon as these privileges were given, it necessarily followed that my right hon. friend had to accord the same privileges to the National Telephone Company. I hold no brief for the National Telephone Company. I am as little interested in its prosperity as its adversity, but I do say that as soon as you give municipalities an extension of the licence, until 1925, you deprive yourself by that very act of terminating the licence of the National Telephone Company in that year. I am surprised that hon. Gentlemen opposite should seek to undermine a condition which I consider, and which I think the House will see, is absolutely vital to the whole structure of the Bill. Let me say also before I sit down that it is wrong to say that the responsibility for the failure of telephonic communication in this country—if there has been a failure—lies entirely at the doors of the National Telephone Company. The National Telephone Company were the pioneers of telephonic communication in this country, and it has had to carry on its business obstructed at times by the municipalities upon whom these privileges are about to be conferred, as was proved by the Government Commissioner in his Report of the Glasgow inquiry, and as has been repeatedly shown, also by the municipal authority in London, of which I have the honour to be a member. I hope therefore that the House will see that the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman opposite is inconsistent with the structure upon which this Bill is based.

* MR. PROVAND (Glasgow, Blackfriars)

It is not quite relevant to the Amendment before the House to refer to the last remarks which have fallen from the hon. Gentleman who has just resumed his seat; but he said that the Commissioner, when he made his examination at Glasgow, had stated that the municipalities there had obstructed the National Telephone Company. I can categorically deny that statement absolutely. They have not obstructed the National Telephone Company in the slightest degree. The general manager of the National Telephone Company himself said——

* MR. SPEAKER

Order, order! The hon. Gentleman has already denied the statement. He cannot continue to discuss the matter.

* MR. PROVAND

I said I did not think I was quite in order before I made the remark, and so, of course, I accept your ruling. But let me return to the Amendment which is before the House. It cannot be said that I am any friend to the National Telephone Company. I have opposed it ever since 1882, and I have continued to do so up to the present moment. But with regard to the particular Amendment before the House, I will give a practical illustration of how the principle works out. I will take the case of the City of Manchester, in which I have an office, and can therefore claim to be fairly cognisant of the facts. The National Telephone Company some year ago obtained permission from the municipality under an agreement with them to put wires under the streets subject to a six months' notice. The National Telephone Company took their wires off the tops of the houses——

* MR. SPEAKER

Order, order! The remarks of the bon. Member are hardly germane to the question under discussion., which is whether the National Telephone Company's licence shall cease in 1911, or be given a longer spell. The hon. Member cannot go into the whole history of the matter.

* MR. PROVAND

With all deference,. I was going to give an illustration to show how this clause as changed by the: Amendment would act unfairly towards any company at present licensed. I thought instead of discussing it in an abstract way it would be better to give an illustration of the reason which I believe dominates the mind of the Government, in making the Bill as it is, and one which would explain why I think the Amendment should be rejected. A company at present licensed has spent a great deal of money in laying its wires underground in Manchester. If the Bill were changed by this Amendment being accepted the municipality could give the company six. months' notice and bring their business to an end. It is impossible to put that company back into its former state, because it previously supplied a service by overhead plant where it has now an underground plant. In such cases it is reasonable that the Government should make the Bill as it is, and it would be unfair to existing companies where, in the language of the Bill, they have incurred material expenditure in laying, down underground wires in any place that they should not have a right to continue the service when any municipality or any company empowered by the municipality entered into competition with them in that particular area. For these reasons I must oppose the Amendment. I hope the Government will not accept it.

MR. COLVILLEL

I am bound to support the Amendment. It is within the knowledge of those who sat upon the Committee of last year that one of the large municipalities which applied for a. licence was willing to accept such a licence for a period equal to the unexpired term of the National Telephone Company's licence, the understanding being that, in accordance with the Report of the Select Committee, the plant should be taken over at the expiry of the licence. Therefore I do not think any hardship would be done by the Amendment. It is very well understood that the backward condition of telephoning in our country has been wholly due to the monopoly enjoyed by the existing company, and to grant any extension of its licence would be to discourage the competition which is so greatly needed to bring our country abreast of other countries in this matter.

MR. CAWLEY (Lancs., Prestwich)

I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not accept the Amendment, as it would practically kill the Bill. Glasgow, before the Select Committee, certainly did give us to understand what were the conditions they were prepared to establish a telephone system of their own. But they are in a very peculiar and a very different position from other municipalities. They have, so to speak, got their backs up; they are determined to have their own telephone system, come what will. Other municipalities may not care to run the risk. I contend that there are very few municipalities in England who would establish a telephone system, knowing that their licence must lapse in 1911, because, although the Committee did decide that the plant which was useful should be purchased, it was a very ambiguous decision, and not one that any real business man could build upon. A great many aspersions have been cast upon the National Telephone Company for the way in which they have worked their business. We must remember that the company is a joint stock company, formed to make profits, and they have carried out their object in the way they thought right. I do not blame them, but I blame the Post Office officials for being like wax in the hands of Mr. Forbes. If this licence is not extended beyond 1911 I maintain that no company or municipality will start fresh systems, and it would be a gross injustice for the National Telephone Company to be compelled to give up their system in 1911 when another rival company was allowed to go on for so many years longer.

CAPTAIN SINCLAIR

This is, if not the most important, the second important point we have discussed on this Bill. It may very fairly be urged that the retention of this provision is an essential portion of the right hon. Gentleman's scheme, but I must say that the admission made by one of his supporters, the hon. Member for Prestwich, fully justifies the view that these present proposals are a surrender to the National Telephone Company. It must be remembered that the Select Committee of last year was appointed to decide a single specific point, and not to conduct a general inquiry into the telephone question. The mover of the Amendment was perfectly correct when he said that the whole past attitude of the Government with regard to this question had been, without exception, against extending the licence beyond 1911. The Government have taken an absolutely new departure—a departure which will be ruinous towards telephone enterprise in the country, and one which runs directly counter to all evidence and experience and decisions of former Governments. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill admits that the present position of the company is a monstrous position, and yet he is going practically to re-instal them, and prolong their occupation of that position. No one can deny that the provision of this clause will enable the company to compete with municipal enterprise on better terms than they can at present. To ask the House to continue these privileges might almost be characterised by as strong language as that which the right hon Gentleman has applied to the position of this company, and I hope the House will carry the Amendment.

MR. HANBURY

The one object of the Select Committee of last year—which was practically an unanimous Committee—was to endeavour to find some means by which, if competition arose between the National Telephone Company and municipal authorities, that competition could be carried on on fair terms. The Committee balanced as carefully as possible the advantages possessed by the company on the one hand, in being already in possession of the field, and the advantage possessed by the municipalities, on the other hand, in having, for instance, underground wayleaves; and the whole of the Report went upon the principle that, if there was to be competition, it should be, as far as possible, on fair and equal terms. Surely it would be a most unequal competition to give long licences to municipalities unless the licence of the National Telephone Company was extended to a corresponding period. Starting from that fact, which was the basis of the whole Report of the Committee, in whose interest is it that this extension should take place? No doubt the Committee thought that municipalities would be willing to undertake licences even though those licences terminated in 1911, but we have discovered since then that 1911 is too short a period. ["No."] If it is not too short a period the municipalities themselves can say that their licences should not run beyond 1911, and in that case the licence of the National Telephone Company will not be extended. The whole matter is in the hands of the local authorities themselves. If they want short licences they can have them; if they want long licences they can have them. The hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire said we were giving fresh powers to the Postmaster-General to extend the licence of the National Telephone Company. The Postmaster-General has that power at the present moment. What we are doing really curtails that power, because we are here saying that the licence can only be extended at the choice of the local authorities themselves. It cannot be pressed too clearly on the House that these licences are only to be extended at the choice of the municipalities themselves, and then only in the localities where competition is instituted. I quite agree with everything which has been said as to the position of the National Telephone Company in the past. I do not retract one single word that I have ever uttered about the extravagant privileges which were granted to them; but in the future the company will be in a very different position. It will cease to be an unregulated monopoly; it will cease to be a monopoly at all. A large portion of the United Kingdom has been taken away from it, and even where it is to continue working—and certainly where this competition occurs—it will be brought strictly under control. Therefore I regard the National Telephone Company in the future pretty much as I should regard any other company. I have always said that looking to the backward state of the telephone industry in this country it was our duty rather to supplement the work of than to destroy the National Telephone Company. We want to have as wide a service as we possibly can, and I think a good deal of the criticism that has been directed against the extension of the licence of the company has been a criticism which has arisen out of a recollection of the past rather than with a view to the position of the company in the future. Wherever there is to be competition we have not only ensured that it should give a public service in the best sense of the word—that is, that it should serve everybody alike on equal terms, which it was not compelled to do before—but that it should come under control as to rates, and if the licence is to be extended for eight years there is to be a limitation also. I therefore think—although nobody has spoken more strongly than I have against the extension of the licence while the company held an unregulated monopoly—that now that it has ceased to be a monopoly and has come under control, the arguments against extending the licence are much less cogent than they were.

SIR J. JOICEY

In my judgment there is no satisfaction in the speech just delivered. If there was one thing more than another upon which former Governments and Committees have been unanimous it was that all licences for telephone services should terminate in 1911. The Committee which sat in 1892 distinctly refused to sanction any extension beyond 1911, and the Committee of last year was really prohibited from going into the question. It was never for a moment contemplated that the licence would be extended beyond 1911. My hon. friend below me stated that no municipality would undertake a telephone service under a licence expiring at that date. That was distinctly the reason why the Committee sanctioned the provision by which the Government would be enabled to buy the plant of municipalities and new companies in 1911. The Government are now going altogether beyond the recommendations of the Committee of last session. In my judgment this is a most vital proposition, because, as an advocate of nationalising the telephone system, I see clearly that it practically destroys all chances of nationalising the system in this country. If this opportunity of terminating the licences in 1911 is missed, there will never occur so favourable an opportunity of getting full possession of the telephone service. The difficulties which exist now, and which will exist in 1911, will exist with a tenfold greater degree in 1925. We have been told again and again that we want to break down this monopoly. By why has the National Telephone Company got a monopoly? Simply because the Post Office refused to grant licences to anybody else—which it has the power to do. It not only refused to license anybody else, but it encouraged the National Telephone Company to buy up any other company; and in deciding as to the extension of the licence of the National Telephone Company, I think we are justified in going into these matters. Why did not the Government destroy this monopoly before? Because they looked forward to the time when they would take over the system as a national system, and they knew if they increased the number of companies it would make such an arrangement very much more difficult, and that is the reason I certainly object to this extension of the licence beyond 1911. If we had an opportunity of putting this question before the country, the Government would not get the support of any large proportion of the population for the policy they are now pursuing. I admit there are difficulties in the situation, so far as the right hon. Gentleman is concerned, but he ought to face those difficulties in the way recommended by the Committee—namely, that the competition, if any, should be carried out by the Post Office.

SIR J. T. WOODHOUSE (Huddersfield)

This Amendment, undoubtedly, raises the most important question it is possible to raise on this proposal, and, friendly as I am to the Bill, I shall feel bound to vote for the Amendment. Perhaps the House does not quite appreciate what really is the meaning of the proposal of the Government to extend this licence. In the first place, it is not a general extension of the licence of the National Telephone Company, but an extension only in particular cases—cases in which competition will be set up by municipalities, or by new licences, with the consent of the municipalities, or cases where underground way-leaves have already been granted to the National Telephone Company. Reference has been made to Glasgow, but Glasgow will not come under the operation of this clause, because they have not granted underground way-leaves up to the present.

MR. HANBURY

But Glasgow will come under another portion of the Bill.

SIR J. T. WOODHOUSE

I am dealing with the clause which purposes to extend the licences only where underground way-leaves have been acquired by existing companies: that is as far as this clause goes. The question really under the consideration of the House is whether or not these licences should be extended. What are the reasons given for the extension? First, that the National Telephone Company will under this Clause come under control. In other words, under Sections (a) and (b) they are to cease to give favours or preferences in the future, as they have been at liberty to do, and in some cases have done, in the past; and they are to bring their charges under the control of the Postmaster-General as to maximum and as to minimum rates. I venture with great respect to say that precisely where this clause will bring these points into operation, municipalities at the present moment, by the agreements under which they have granted these way-leaves, have got the control. In every one of such agreements conditions have been imposed that no preferences should be given, and that the charges should come under control. That is one of the reasons why I cannot follow him upon this particular clause when he says the country is obtaining a concession. This is a most serious matter for the municipalities, for many of them have entered into an agreement for the granting of underground way-leaves upon the condition that they shall be terminated at the end of twelve months, and in many cases at the end of six months. Under this Bill the municipality gets nothing in exchange but the right to compete with its hands tied, and I cannot see that there is any justice in granting to the National Telephone Company this concession. When the National Telephone Company got this licence in 1884 it was granted with the distinct reservation that the Postmaster-General should allow other licences if he liked. I say there is no right on the part of the National Telephone Company to complain of the granting of new licences, and the concession made to the company will prejudice the municipalities and cause to be a permanent tenure what otherwise would have been a six months' tenure. I cannot follow the right hon. Gentleman in the concessions he has made to the National Telephone Company, and the truth is that they have been extorted from him by the strong, undue, and unfair pressure of certain Members of Parliament, who, like all other Members, are sent to this House to exercise their influence in the public interest, and not for private interest. I do not believe that the Secretary to the Treasury would have ever granted this concession but for the pressure put upon him by certain Members of Parliament. I have great admiration for the right hon. Gentleman, for he has done his utmost to protect the public interest, and if he had been supported, as he ought to have been, by the Government, I do not think we should have found that he would have made these concessions. Because I believe this proposal is opposed to the public interest, I shall vote for my hon. Friend's Amendment.

* MR. HEDDERWICK (Wick Burghs)

I can see no valid grounds for the great extension of the licence which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to give to the National Telephone Company. I agree with every word which has fallen from the hon. Member for Huddersfield, but I think the right hon. Gentleman advanced one or two arguments which the hon. Member for Huddersfield has not met. Last night the right hon. Gentleman stated, as one of the grounds for granting this extension, that he had obtained from the company a concession by which they undertook not to compete with the small municipalities within certain areas, and I think the right hon. Gentleman went the length of saying that he regarded that as a very valuable concession, and as a sufficient justification of the extension of the licence. Does he mean us to suppose that the National Telephone Company are so blind to their own interests as to have gone on for all these years without extending their company into those districts if there had been any profit to be made out of them? This company is paying interest upon a very large capital at the rate of something like 7 per cent.

* MR. FAITHFULL BEGG

No dividend of that amount is paid.

* MR. HEDDERWICK

It is paying a very handsome dividend I know, and, of course, the reason why the company have not pushed their operations into these sparsely populated districts is because they did not want to risk the dividends they earned in the large centres of population. There was another point which the right hon. Gentleman made. He said he regarded it as confiscation if he did not extend this licence in connection with the granting of licences to municipalities to whom he desired to give this power. The right hon. Gentleman laid strong emphasis upon this point.

MR. HANBURY

What I said was that the municipalities under this Bill would have a new inducement to terminate these way-leaves, and if they did, for the purpose of carrying on competition with the company, terminate these way-leaves, that would be practically confiscating the property of the National Telephone Company.

* MR. HEDDERWICK

I fail to see that there would be confiscation at all. The right hon. Gentleman tells us that the National Telephone Company has enjoyed extravagant privileges, and he has even said that if he had been in power when they were applied for he would not have consented to grant them. But surely that is a ground not for extending the privileges of the company but for terminating them. Under these circumstances—having considered the grounds which the right hon. Gentleman has stated for this extension, and seeing no confiscation in allowing the licence to run out at the time which was originally agreed upon—I am obliged to support the Amendment of my hon. friend.

* MR. FAITHFULL BEGG

I know it will probably be very unpopular in the presence of hon. Gentlemen opposite to say a word in favour of the National Telephone Company, but so much has been said adverse to that company that I hope I may be permitted to say a single word upon that subject. My right hon. friend has spoken of the privileges. granted to that company, and has expressed his opinion that those privileges should never have been granted. This carried me back to a very early period in the history of the Tele-phone Company. In the year 1879 I had an interest in the company, and I also had something to do with the management of its business. Then came the time when the company fought the question of a telephone being a telegraph, and a compromise was come to between the Government of the day and those who were, at that time, interested in telephone matters. It was seriously considered whether it would not be advisable to endeavour to appeal against that decision, but for some reason or other it was thought more prudent to accept the compromise which was offered by the Post Office authorities to those interested in the telephonic enterprise, and that is the genesis of the licence which is said to contain these extravagant privileges. Hon. Gentlemen who take part in this discussion and use information with regard to telephone matters which is of very recent date have no idea what were the difficulties which had to be encountered in the earlier stages of the telephonic enterprise. I can go back to the time when it was practically impossible to get money to put up telephones, and when it was almost impossible to get people to take the telephone at all. Until quite recently I had in my possession a letter written by the town clerk of the city of Edinburgh, in which he refused to permit the fire brigade to be joined on to the telephonic exchange free of charge. I have long since ceased to have any interest in telephones, for, when prices were a good deal higher than they are now, I sold out. I mention this for the purpose of pointing out that however extravagant these privileges may seem, they were not so extravagant at the time they were granted; but, on the contrary, I believe they were practically the minimum under which, capital could have been got together to develop this enterprise. Surely something must be allowed to those who were pioneers in this business. I would remind the House of the analogy in electric lighting, where, by an Act of Parliament, electric lighting was strangled for years. The difficulties which have now arisen were caused through the action of the Post Office; opportunities have been lost which might have been taken advantage of to completely alter the complexion of this enterprise; and we are suffering not so much from the extravagant privileges, but from the fact that, through incompetency or otherwise, full advantage was not taken of the opportunities offered. My right hon. friend does not by any means give anything away, for he gets a fair equivalent for the concessions he has made, and I hope he will carry his point.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon Boroughs)

Although the hon. Member opposite has disposed of his shares in the National Telephone Company, he seems still to take a kindly interest in that company, and no doubt the big profits he has made justify that feeling. I cannot, however, see that he has made out a case in favour of this extension of the licence. I admit that the pioneers are entitled to some sort of compensation, but I think they have done pretty well out of it. If all the shareholders had had the wisdom of the hon. Member for the St. Rollox division of Glasgow they would have cleared out long ago at a handsome profit. I do not think the National Telephone Company have much to complain of in this respect, because, as a rule, the fate of pioneers in most of our great enterprises is that they sell out and get no dividend at all. The National Telephone Company have been exceptionally lucky, and I do not think it is now open to the company to come here and ask for an extension of their licence. I should like to know what possible case there is for granting this extension. If the National Telephone Company had a monopoly granted to them by Parliament covering the expenditure which they have incurred, and if this Bill were to break that monopoly and give away some of their rights, I could understand them coming here and saying, "You are depriving us of some properly upon which we have expended large sums of money, and we now ask you to extend this privilege in order to recoup us for this expenditure." But nothing of the sort has happened, for the only thing that has happened is this: the Treasury issued a Minute in 1892 recognising competition against the existing company. There is no doubt that, at the present moment, any company may be formed in any part of London to compete with the National Telephone Company. This Bill does not deprive the company of any money, and why should they say, "You must extend our time"? In consideration for what? In consideration for certain privileges which are to be granted for the extending period. Those privileges are already enjoyed by the municipalities in every case. I hold in my hand an agreement between the National Telephone Company and the Hull Corporation, which provides that there shall be a scale of charges which are set forth in the schedule, and there is also a provision that whenever there is a reduction in price in any other part, the same reduction shall be extended to Hull. In addition to that, in another paragraph it is stated that no monopoly is to be conferred on the company, and the Corporation reserves full rights. Therefore it will be seen that these municipalities have already got these privileges conferred upon them in every case. Why should this company come to the House of Commons and say that "In consideration of something which you have already got, and of which you are in full possession, you must extend to us fourteen years of the licence we have already got"? I also object to this extension in the interests of the rural districts, which at the present moment are practically excluded from the benefit of our telephone system because it would not pay the company to go there. The company simply go to large towns, where they can make a profit. The right hon. Gentleman brings in a Bill to enable municipalities to set up systems for themselves. At the expiration of the licence granted to the Telephone Company what will be the position of things? In 1911 in the large towns, where the systems can run side by side, you will have an excellent telephone service at reduced charges, but you will have no extension of the service to rural districts at all. The object of the Government ought to be to reduce the value of this monopoly by competition, so that in the year 1911 we can go to the company and say, "The value of your property has been reduced to such a point, and we will buy you out at such a sum, and establish a system which will be really a national one." Under this Bill an extension of fourteen years will be given to the Telephone Company's contract, and the position of the company will be very much strengthened, for in case you want to buy them out they will then have got something to sell. There is no doubt that in the near future people will avail themselves more and more of the telephone. In Switzerland one person out of every 100 of the inhabitants is on the telephone, while in this country the proportion is only one in 650. The reason for this is that here you have a monopoly company, while in Switzerland they have a proper national system. I do appeal to the right hon. Gentleman not to destroy his own Bill by a concession which I do not believe he is himself really in favour of. The right hon. Gentleman himself stated that: The indirect influence which a big company can bring to bear, and is bringing to bear, is enormous, and it is difficult to see where public policy begins and private interests end. That is the only reason why this extension is granted at all, and I am positive that if the matter had been left to the right hon. Gentleman himself, he would never have granted those concessions. He has granted them because of pressure brought to bear upon him from this side of the House, and I think we should be really considering the views of the right hon. Gentleman in regard to this monopoly if we rejected this part of the Bill.

MR. LABOUCHERE

The best proof 'that the House ought to object to the alterations which have been made in this Bill is that we know perfectly well that they are the result of "lobbying." After this agreement had been come to, the National Telephone Company apparently considered itself perfectly satisfied, because all opposition on the part of the supporters of the Telephone Company appears to have disappeared. If these alterations are of so much benefit that the company withdraw all opposition, that in itself I consider a ground for supporting the Amendment. I do not understand the right hon. Gentleman when he says it is unfair and unjust not to give the National Telephone Company a continuation of its licence until 1925 if we give a licence to the municipalities. What has one got to do with the other? The National Telephone Company does not lose in any sort of way if the municipality continues its licence after 1911, up to which time the company would receive its dividend. If the company ceased in 1911, as it ought to do, it would cease to get its dividend, while the municipality would; go on obtaining its dividend. The company has been in existence ever since 1874, and in 1911 it will have had a licence for 26 years; and yet we are told that if municipalities get a licence for 25 years we must continue the company's licence for an additional 14 years. The right hon. Gentleman says we get a quid pro quo for the few concessions we make, but the only practical quid pro quo which I can see is that what was before an unregulated company will now be a regulated company. For my part I would prefer that the municipalities did not obtain greater power when the company's licence ceased in 1911, rather than that the company should go on till 1925. What we all desire, or should desire, is the nationalisation of the telephones, and if you continue this licence to the company you will not be able to get nationalisation until 1925, unless you are prepared to pay an enormous sum to the company for it. Even suppose you give the municipalities a licence till 1925, it is infinitely easier to deal with municipalities than with the company. A municipality is elected by the ratepayers, and the people would take care to keep down the rates for telephones, and they will always, or almost always, be ready to hand over their system to the Government. Under those circumstances I do think that it is the very greatest pity to introduce this new arrangement into the Bill. We ought to stand firm by 1911, and under no circumstances in any Bill whatever, or under any considerations whatever, to extend this company's powers any longer than 1911.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR (Liverpool, Scotland)

This is a very remarkable Debate in many respects. Except for the very timid and tentative support given to these proposals by the hon. Baronet the Member for Bridgeton, the right hon. the Secretary to the Treasury stands alone in their defence. ["No."] Well, perhaps, I ought also to except the hon. Member for East Islington, whose interests are always in favour of the capitalists. The right hon. Gentleman, who introduced this Bill amid the chorus of applause from every section of the House and every Member of the House, except the Members who represent the Telephone Company, stands alone to-night, with the exception of the two hon. Members to whom I have referred, in defence, not of his own position, not of the position which in his heart and conscience I believe he would be inclined to take up, but in the defence of the position which has been forced upon him. There is something a little more than the interest of the Bill at stake to-night; and that is the position of the House of Commons, and specially the position of the House of Commons when dealing with large, influential, and far-reaching monopolies. What is the pressure to which the right hon. Gentleman is yielding? I do not believe it is his own conviction. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman is as convinced as when he introduced the Bill that this monopoly ought to get a shortshrift; but instead of that he has given it a new lease of life of fourteen years. The right hon. Gentleman says that in return they have got maximum and minimum rates; but that privilege is already secured in connection with the municipalities, so that that is no concession at all. The right hon. Gentleman, in introducing the Bill, made a speech which was the most scathing denunciation of this monopoly imaginable. I almost pitied my hon. friend the Member for Huddersfield, and I hope he was not in the House when the right hon. Gentleman was pronouncing this indictment upon the company. I am not bound,' said Mr. Forbes, 'by a mere written agreement, such as binds ordinary men of business: the moral law alone is the thing for me.' From that point of view, went on the right hon. Gentleman, he enlarged with a certain suave satisfaction (I am not responsible for the rather rancorous tone of these observations) on the great moral obligation of the assumed partnership between himself and the Post Office, and the mutual delights which follow from a system of brotherly co-operation. Then there was something about Arcadia. On another occasion the right hon. Gentleman said: I am sure that the House is not prepared to grant fresh powers to the company which is already endowed with very large powers beyond those afforded to any other company. And the way the right hon. Gentlemen fulfils these words is to extend the operations of the company from 1911 to 1925. It is said that if we do not accept the views of the right hon. Gentleman the Bill will be lost. But I would rather see the Bill lost than that this monopoly should be continued till 1925, and the telephone system of this country remain a laggard and a disgrace in comparison with the systems in other countries.

* MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN

It has been said that my right hon. friend stands alone in supporting the extension of the licence to the National Telephone Company. I do not think I can be charged with being a friend of the company. I have consistently supported my right hon. friend in his efforts to break down the monopoly of that company; but I must say in fairness to the company, and in the hope of obtaining a fair and genuinecompetition, I support him also in the extension of the licence. The Select Committee said that there should be competition, but competition on equal terms, and that if the licence of the National Company terminated in 1911, the licence of the municipalities should not extend beyond that term. In the interest of the municipalities themselves, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury proposes that the licences of municipalities should go on from 1911 to 1925, and it therefore follows on the principle of fairness and equity that the licence of the National Company should be extended to the same term.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

A municipality is not a private trading corporation.

* MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN

No, but it was held that it would be only fair that the same privilege should be extended to the National Company as was given to the municipality. The hon. Gentleman says that the licence of the company is to be extended for twenty-five years, but it is absolutely at the will of the Corporation to determine how long the company's licence should run. If the corporation say that they are content to embark their money in a licence terminable at the end of 1912, the National Company's licence would terminate in 1912; but if they choose to go on till 1925 the company's licence would also go on to that year. The hon. Member opposite talks about the extension of the monopoly of the company. I would be the last person to vote an extension of the licence if it were to perpetuate a monopoly. But the licence of the company is only to be extended in places where it ceases to be a monopoly, and where there is competition. The right hon. Gentleman, I admit, is giving a certain advantage in those particular areas to the company; but what is he getting in return from the company?

AN HON. MEMBER

Nothing.

* MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN

He is getting a very great deal. First of all he secures the extinction of the monopoly in those areas in which the licence is extended.

AN HON. MEMBER

There never was one.

* MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN

In theory there never was one, but in practice there was. At all events, you are giving the municipalities for the first time powers by a general enabling Act to get rid of that monoply. In the next place, you get rid of the unregulated character of the company in these areas. And in the third place, you are getting intercommunication. The last concession is, in itself, of much greater value than any advantage that has been given to the company, because, if the municipalities are to start a telephone system on anything like fair terms, intercommunication is absolutely essential.

MR. MOULTON (Cornwall, Launceston)

Nothing has impressed me so much with the mischief of passing Bills of this important nature, by the methods of Grand Committees, as the way in which hon. Members of great ability have got up, both yesterday and to-day, and put before this House arguments which, if they had a week or two to think about them, they would be ashamed to associate with their names. These arguments are put forward with the greatest sincerity, but it shows to me that neither this House, nor still less the public, have had any time to weigh the consequences of this most momentous change in our telephonic system. I propose to deal very shortly with this particular point, that by this Bill those corporations I that have entered into contracts with the National Telephone Company in regard to way-leaves, have these contracts forcibly prolonged, until the end of whatever licence the company chooses to ask for. What I say is, that everything that is given to the Company is regarded as absolutely sacred—you must not confiscate one fraction of the property of the company—butwhen it comes to the property of the municipality, you may confiscate it if you like. What was the position of the company, and of the municipalities? The company accepted the pioneer licence for thirty years, with the power of the Post Office to compete with them by means of public money, and also of granting licences to other people. At first the Post Office refused to grant licences to municipalities. Why? Because competition was dangerous, and inconvenient. Then we find that the Post Office became convinced that competition was right; but instead of using their power of granting competition, which they had reserved to themselves, they said they would never grant it to the municipalities unless this contract, which was freely made with the National Telephone Company, is extended for as many years as the licences given to the municipalities. What right have the Government to use their power of refusing to grant licences in the interests of the National Company? What spell has been thrown on the Government? How is it that, when they are convinced competition is good, they will not allow that good competition, unless the municipalities sacrifice valuable rights, and hand them over to the National Company? We are told it is not fair that we should give a licence to the municipalities unless we give a licence to the National Company. But the National Company is not a new company; it has had thirty years of privileged working, and the municipalities are coming in to try a new undertaking. Are you going to say that the new undertaking shall not receive a licence without prolonging all the licences you have given in the past to those who have profited by them? How have we dealt with the tramways and with the electric light? Is it to be said that you are not to grant a licence to an electric light company which comes fresh into an area, without extending the licence of all those who have had licences in the area before? If that is going to be done, then all the licences are going to be perpetual. What is the meaning of talking about treating all people alike, when the National Company is treated in this exceptional manner, by having a licence for thirty years, and then being given a further extension? Nothing is more plain than that the licence dies in 1911, and what right has the Government to prolong it, merely because the right of giving a licence to another company in the same area, which was reserved, is acted upon by the Government? To talk about treating them all alike is drawing a red herring across the trail. I want to show how the public interest is unprotected by this Bill. I will take two cases—one the case of a place where there is no competition under the present law, and the other the case of a place where there is no competition under the law as proposed by this Bill. Suppose you take such a place as Glasgow, or one not so eager to get a licence, such as Cambridge. Suppose the National Telephone Company misbehaved themselves in Cambridge, and refused to give a proper service, the Post Office has it in its hand to punish them for that. They can grant a rival licence, and the fear of that has kept the National Telephone Company in order, and would keep it in order in the future. But now, let this law be passed, and what position is the National Telephone Company in? Necessarily, the more badly it behaves, the more it drives the public to seek a competitor, the more certainly it improves its property, because it gets a prolongation of its licence. There was some power of keeping them in order with the threat of competition. Now the threat of opposition, instead of being a threat, is exactly the opposite. You cannot introduce competition, if this Bill is passed, without immensely strengthening the position of the National Telephone Company. Let a licence be granted to the municipality of Cambridge for twenty-five years—because it is said that without a twenty-five years' licence no municipality would accept the privilege—and what is the consequence? The National Telephone Company, even if it behaves well, will insist that every one of its subscribers should agree not to go to another company for the next ten years, and they may impose on their subscribers any terms they choose. You have taken away the one power that the Post Office had, though it was most disgracefully slow to use it, of keeping the company in order, and you make a grant of competition a gift to the company instead of a threat. How is the public protected against this? In no way. According to this Bill any terms that the company choose to impose on the public, in the districts where there is competition, or where there is not competition, are legal, with one exception—that if there is competition they may enforce those terms on everybody, and if there is not competition they can please themselves on which of their customers they can enforce their terms. The Secretary to the Treasury said that the licence of the National Telephone Company gave them powers far wider than ought to have been granted to a private company. If you read this clause, you see that with one exception—that of not permitting personal preference—it leaves the powers of the National Telephone Company exactly the same as in the original licence, which the right hon. Gentleman admits is to be prolonged for twenty-five, fifty, or one hundred years, or just as long as the municipalities choose to struggle against them. The concessions are most delusive. One of these concessions is that they give up districts that are not occupied. Now in every one of these districts the Post Office could give a licence to whatever body would take it up, and if the National Telephone Company would not take up a licence before, is it likely that it would take it up afterwards? The country, therefore, could secure that concession without asking the National Telephone Company. The next alleged concession is that the company should not use undue preferences and apply to one terms which they would not apply to others. All I can say is that if they attempted to do that they would stultify themselves, because they repudiated the idea that they ever treated people unequally. Suppose that that is so, it makes that concession a nullity. This Bill gives the right for the company to treat people unequally. What is the other concession? It is simply this, that they won't charge more or less than the new companies—a thing which we might very well leave to competition to settle. In return for these three very illusory concessions, we are going to allow the National Telephone Company to go on for the next fifty years.

MR. HANBURY

Fifty years!

MR. MOULTON

I know what I am saying. You have only got to read the Bill to see that what I am saying is correct.

MR. HANBURY

The hon. Member was not in the House when I stated that the Bill has been altered in that respect.

MR. MOULTON

I have seen the proposed alterations, and the matter is very much as it was before. It entirely depends on the will of the Post Office, which is less under the control of this House than an Act of this House—it depends entirely upon the will of those who manage the Post Office for the time being what the length of the licence will be and what the terms. I strongly object to this House giving to any member of the Government, or to any Department of the Government, the power of giving a licence which will redound to the advantage of the National Telephone Company, after my experience of the National Telephone Company in this House during the last three years. We have only one thing to do; we have got to conserve the rights of the people. The people conceded to the company clearly and distinctly a pioneer licence of great value. We ought not to extend that which we have given, because if we do we will be making a free gift to this company. This company is not an unsuccessful one, struggling with difficulties. Nothing of the kind; it is a most profitable company, and we have no right, now that it has ceased to be a pioneer company, to make a gift of this concession to the company, or to any other company in the world. Our business is to increase the efficiency of the telephone system. We can do that by creating competition by means of the municipalities, and it is idle to assert that we can do that by increasing the powers of those who compete with the municipalities. We ought to leave the period of the licence of the National Telephone Company unchanged, and we ought liberally to give the municipalities that power which, as representing the public, they have a right to have of managing their own telephone system.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 62; Noes 146. (Division List, No. 9

AYES.
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Finch, George H.	Middlemore, John Throgmorton
Arrol, Sir William	Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne	Milward, Colonel Victor
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John	Fisher, William Hayes	Monk, Charles James
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy	FitzWygram, General Sir F.	Moon, Edward Robert Pacy
Baird, John George Alexander	Fletcher, Sir Henry	Morrell, George Herbert
Balcarres, Lord	Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)	Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A.J. (Manch'r	Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)	Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)
Balfour, Rt. Hon. G.W. (Leeds)	Garfit, William	Newdigate, Francis Alexander
Banbury, Frederick George	Gedge, Sydney	Nicholson, William Graham
Barton, Dunbar Plunket	Gibbs,Hn A.G.H.(CityofLond	Parkes. Ebenezer
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M.H.(Brist'l	Gibbs, Hn. Vieary (St. Albans)	Platt-Higgins, Frederick
Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull	Giles, Charles Tyrrell	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Bethell, Commander	Goldsworthy, Major-General	Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.	Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon	Purvis, Robert
Bigwood, James	Gosehen, Rt. Hn. G. J (StGe'rg's)	Pym, C. Guy
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-	Goschen, George J. (Sussex)	Rentoul, James Alexander
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John	Goalding, Edward Alfred	Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.
Bullard, Sir Harry	Greville, Hon. Ronald	Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson.
Butcher, John George	Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robt. Wm.	Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Cameron, Sir Chas. (Glasgow)	Hare, Thomas Leigh	Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)
Carson, Rt. Hon. Edward	Heremon-Hodge, Robt. Trotter	seely, Charles Hilton
Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lanes.)	Hudson, George Bickersteth	Seton-Karr. Henry
Cavendish. V. C. W. (Derbyshire	Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick	Sharpe, William Edward T.
Cawley, Frederick	Jessel, Captain Herbt. Merton	Smith, J. Parker (Lanarks.)
Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)	Johnston, William (Belfast)	Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)	Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)	Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)
Chaloner, Capt. R. G. W.	Kemp, George	Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.)	Keswick. William	Talbot, Lord E. (Chiehester)
Chamberlain, J. A.(Worcester)	King, Sir Henry Seymour	Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd U.)
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry	Lawrence, Sir E Durning- (Corn.	Thornton, Percy M.
Charrington, Spencer	Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)	Tomlinson, Wm. E. Murray
Cochrane, Hon. Thos H. A. E.	Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)	Valentia, Viscount
Coghill, Douglas Harry	Lea, Sir T. (Londonderry)	"Warde, Lieut.-Col. C. E. (Kent)
Cohen, Benjamin Louis	Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie	"Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse	Llewellyn, E. H. (Somerset)	Willox, Sir John Archibald
Cooke,C. W.Radcliffe(Heref'd)	Lockwood, Lieut.-Colonel A.R.	Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath
Cox, Irwin E. Bainbridge	Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine	Wrightson, Thomas
Cranborne, Viscount	Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Liverp'l)	Wylie, Alexander
Curzon, Viscount	Lowther, Rt Hn J W (Cumb'land	Wyndham-Quit, Major W. H.
Dalkeith, Earl of	Loyd. Archie Kirkman	Wyvill, Marmaduke D' Arcy
Dalrymple, Sir Charles	Lucas-Shadwell, William	Young, Commander (Berks, E.)
Denny, Colonel	Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred
Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph	Macartney, W. G. Ellison
Doughty, George	Macdona, John Cumming
Douglas, Kt. Hon. A. Akers-	M'Arthur, C. (Liverpool)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Fardell, Sir T. George	M'Killop, James	Sir William Walrond and
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Ed.	Malcolm, Ian	Mr. Anstruther.
NOES.
Abraham, William (Rhondda)	Davitt, Michael	Joicey, Sir James
Allen, W. (New.-under-Lyme)	Dewar, Arthur	Jones, W. (Carnarvonshire)
Asher, Alexander	Dillon. John	Labouehere, Henry
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.	Doogan, P. C.	Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)
Billson, Alfred	Duckworth, James	Lough, Thomas
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn	Emmott, Alfred	Macaleese, Daniel
Caldwell, James	Goddard. Daniel Ford	M'Crae, George
Channing, Francis Allston	Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-	Maddison, Fred
Clark, Dr. G. B. (Caithness-sh.)	Healy. Timothy M. (N.Louth)	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Colville, John	Horniman, Frederick John	Palmer, G. W. (Reading)
Pirie, Duncan V.	Steadman, William Charles	Williams, J. Carvell (Notts.)
Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)	Strachey, Edward	Wilson, John (Govan)
Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)	Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)	Woodhouse,Sir J. T.(Hudderf'd
Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)	Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Soames, Arthur Wellesley	Trevelyan, Charles Philips	Mr. Lloyd-George and Mr. Moulton.
Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.	Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 40, to leave out the words from the word 'but,' to the end of sub-section (1), of Clause 3, in order to insert the words 'subject as aforesaid on the terms and conditions specified in the agreement (including any provisions thereof for determination on breach of covenant), unless varied by any subsequent agreement with the local authority.'"—(Mr.Hanbury.)

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill,"put, and negatived.

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted"

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

I have an Amendment to the Amendment, in line 2, after the word "conditions" to leave out all the words, with the view of inserting "that shall be agreed upon between the existing company and any local authority." The effect of that would be that whenever the licence is extended it would be extended upon terms which shall be agreed upon between the company and the local authority. The clause, as it at present stands, gives the power to the Post Office arbitrarily to extend the licence of the company, whereas the agreement was entered into upon the assumption that the licence was to terminate in 1911. I submit to the House, that when a licence is to be extended for another fourteen years, the municipal corporation, as representing the ratepayers, has a right to take into account the changed conditions and to impose fresh conditions. What might happen in the meantime in regard to fresh patents, no one can tell; and surely, when a new licence is to be issued, the Post Office is not the only body that ought to be consulted as to the terms. The municipal corporation ought also to be consulted as to the conditions under which the licence should be extended. As a matter of fact, the way-leaves are only granted for twelve months, and the clause as it stands takes that twelve months away and puts in, without the leave of the municipal corporation, fourteen years.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words from the word "conditions," to the end of the proposed Amendment, in order to add the words "that shall be agreed upon between the existing company and the local authority."—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out to the word 'unless,' stand part of the proposed Amendment."

MR. HANBURY

The Amendment of the hon. Member would simply defeat the whole purpose of the clause, which is to prevent a municipality from using these fresh powers to confiscate the property of the National Telephone Company which they had acquired. Having taken down the overhead wires in order to give a more effective service, and having laid wires in the streets, the company have a perfect right to keep these up for the convenience of the residents. I cannot consent to a confiscation of that kind. It is quite clear that if the municipalities are to have the power to prescribe the terms upon which way-leaves are to be continued, of course it would give them the power to discontinue the way-leaves altogether.

MR. MOULTON

This use of the word "confiscation" is rather humorous. The municipality has made arrangements with the National Telephone Company, whereby the company has certain terminable way-leaves. The municipality has perfect power, at present, to give notice to terminate these way-leaves. And yet it is said to be confiscation because you do not take away this power which you have solemnly bargained they have. Suppose one municipality has agreed to give a way-leave for a lump sum. That lump sum was made small because the municipality had the power of terminating the way-leave. But by this clause you extend the term of the way-leave for 14 years without any compensation. Suppose, again, that another municipality has granted a way-leave on the terms of an annual rent, then, if you extend the powers, the annual rent goes on. It seems to me that the word "unfairness" does not strike the mind of any member of the Government unless it is unfair to the National Telephone Company. If we were to propose any regulation to deal with the National Telephone Company comparable to this clause, we should be denounced as confiscators of the property of the Company. But the Government do not take the trouble to inquire as to whether they are dealing

equally and equitably with the Municipalities and the National Telephone company.

Question put

The House divided:—Ayes, 135; Notes, 45. (Division List, No.299.)

SIR J. T. WOODHOUSE

I beg to move that, in line 4 of the Amendment, the word "unless" be omitted, with the view of inserting, "except in so far as may be." What the Government propose to do is to maintain the terms and conditions of the agreement which at present exist between the local authority and the National Telephone Company, unless varied by subsequent agreement. I want to limit the variation and to maintain the right of the local authority as against the National Telephone Company.

MR. T.P. O'CONNOR

Does that mean that the agreement will still stand, in spite of the new enactment that is passed?

* MR. SPEAKER

That does not arise on this Amendment.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

It was stated by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, that some of the municipalities in the country had the right of determining, on six months' notice, their agreement with the National Telephone Company as to way-leaves. I desire to know whether that right is taken away by this clause or not.

MR. HANBURY

It is taken away.

Proposed Amendment amended, by leaving out the word "unless," and inserting the words "except so far as they may be."—(Sir James Woodhouse.)

Words, as amended, inserted.

Another Amendment proposed— In page 3, line 2, after the words last inserted, to insert the words, '(2) Where an existing company is at the passing of this Act under a licence from the Postmaster-General supplying public telephonic communication in any exchange area, a licence to provide a system of public telephonic communication within the same area, or any part thereof, shall not be granted by the Postmaster-General to any person or body other than the council of a borough or urban district, unless it is shown to the satisfaction of the Postmaster-General that the application for the licence is approved by the council of every borough or urban district, any part of which is situate within the area specified in the application.'"—(Mr. Hanbury.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. BUCHANAN

I think this is a new sub-section, and that we ought to have some explanation of its object.

MR. HANBURY

This is practically the sub-section moved by the hon. Member for Hoxton in the Grand Committee. The Treasury Minute of 1892 states that no licence should be granted to a new company, except with the consent of the authorities of the area concerned. This sub-section is to prevent bogus companies being started. Any company in future will not be regarded as bona fide unless it secures the consent of the local authorities.

SIR J. JOICEY

I must confess this appears a peculiar sub-section to put into the Bill. At present the Post Office has complete control over the granting of licences, and, in using that power, must exercise some supervision. It is now proposed to hand that power over to the local authorities, and I cannot understand what has induced the Government to take that course. I am bound to say I will not support this sub-clause, and I shall feel it my duty to vote against it.

* MR. FAITHFULLBEGG

This addition to the clause has been put in in order to stereotype the provision which was incorporated in the Treasury Minute of 1892. That is the genesis of this proposal, and the right hon. Gentleman is only carrying out a pledge that he gave upstairs.

MR. MOULTON

This clause is one of the many indications that this Bill has been drawn up in favour of the National Telephone Company. It is stated to be for the purpose of preventing bogus companies, but it should apply generally or not at all. This ties the hands of the Post Office, if there is an existing company, and leaves them free if there is not. I quite approve of the municipality having an influential voice as to whether new companies should come into their area or not, but it is the public interest that ought to be protected and not the interest of the existing company. The National Telephone Company, which can manage us, has only to induce a local authority to oppose the granting of a licence to a competing company, and it can keep it out. Therefore the Amendment is for the purpose of protecting the existing company.

SIR J. T. WOODHOUSE

I beg to move that "each" be substituted for "every" before "borough" in the last line but one of the Amendment, and that the words after "district" in the same line to the end of the section be omitted,

and that the following words be in serted: Within which it is proposed by application to establish a telephone exchange.

The object is to make the proposal of the Government perfectly clear.

Amendment amended by leaving out the word "every," and inserting the word "each"; by leaving out the words "any part of," and inserting the word "within"; and by leaving out from the word "which," to the end, and inserting the words "it is proposed by the application to establish a telephonic exchange."—(Sir James Woodhouse.)

Question put, "That the words, as amended, be there inserted."

The House divided:—Ayes, 138; Noes, 27. (Division List, No. 300.)

AYES.
Anson, Sir Wm. Reynell	Doughty, George	Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Liverpool)
Arrol, Sir William	Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Lough, Thomas
Asher, Alexander	Duckworth, James	Lowther, Rt Hn J W (Cumb'land
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John	Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.	Lloyd, Archie Kirkman
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy	Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. Hart	Lucas-Shadwell, William
Baird, John Geo. Alexander	Fardell, Sir T. George	Macartney, W. G. Ellison
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r	Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Ed.	Macdona, John Cumming
Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W.(Leeds	Finch, George H.	M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)
Banbury, Frederick George	Finlay, Sir R. Bannatyne	M'Crae, George
Barton, Dunbar Plunket	Fisher, William Hayes	M'Killop, James
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M.H. (Bristol	FitzWygram, General Sir F.	Maddison, Fred.
Beckett, Ernest William	Fletcher, Sir Henry	Malcolm, Ian
Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull	Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)	Middlemore, J. Throgmorton
Bethell, Commander	Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)	Milward, Colonel Victor
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.	Garfit, William	Monk, (Charles James
Bigwood, James	Gedge, Sydney	Morrell, George Herbert
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-	Goldsworthy, Major-General	Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John	Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon	Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)
Bullard, Sir Harry	Goschen, Rt Hn G. J (St George's	Newdigate, Francis Alexander
Butcher, John George	Goschen, G. J. (Sussex)	Nicholson, William Graham
Cameron, Sir Charles (Glasgow	Goulding, Edward Alfred	Palmer, George W. (Reading)
Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lanes.)	Greville, Hon. Ronald	Parkes, Ebenezer
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbys.)	Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert W.	Provand, Andrew Dryburgh
Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)	Hare, Thomas Leigh	Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)	Hermon-Hodge, R. Trotter	Purvis, Robert
Chaloner, Capt. R. G. W.	Hudson, George Bickersteth	Pym, C. Guy
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm	Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick	Rentoul, James Alexander
Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r	Jessel, Captain H. Merton	Ridley,Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry	Johnston, William (Belfast)	Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson
Charrington, Spencer	Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)	Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Cochrane, Hn. Thos. H. A. E.	Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)	Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)
Coghill, Douglas Harry	Kemp, George	Seely, Charles Hilton
Cohen, Benjamin Louis	Keswick, William	Sharpe, William Edward T.
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse	King, Sir Henry Seymour	Smith, James Parker (Lanarks
Cooke, C. W. Radcliffe (Heref'd)	Labouchere, Henry	Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)
Cox, Irwin Edw. Bainbridge	Lawrence, Sir E. D.-(Cornw'll	Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)
Cranborne, Viscount	Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)	Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)
Curzon, Viscount	Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Dalkeith, Earl of	Lea, Sir Thomas (Londonderry	Talbot, Rt Hn. J. G. (Oxf'dUniv.
Dalrymple, Sir Charles	Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie	Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.)
Denny, Colonel	Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.	Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray
Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph	Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Valentia, Viscount	Wodehouse, Rt. Hn E. R. (Bath)	Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy
Warde, Lieut. -Col. C. E. (Kent)	Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Hud'stield	Young, Commander (Berks, E.)
Whittaker, Thomas Palmer	Wrightson, Thomas	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Williams, John Carvell (Notts)	Wylie, Alexander	Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.
Willox, Sir John Archibald	Wyudham-Quin, Major W. H.
NOES.
Abraham, William (Rhondda)	Dewar, Arthur	Pirie, Duncan V.
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.	Dillon, John	Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)
Billson, Alfred	Doogan, P. C.	Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn	Goddard, Daniel Ford	Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)
Caldwell, James	Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-	Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.
Cawley, Frederick	Horniman, Frederick John	Strachey, Edward
Channing, Francis Allston	Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)	Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Clark, Dr.G. B.(Caithmess-sh)	Lloyd-George, David	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Colville, John	Macaleese, Daniel	Sir James Joicey and Mr. Moulton.
Davitt. Michael	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Question put and agreed to.

CAPTAIN SINCLAIR

The Amendment which I wish to move is to add at the end the following words: Provided always that all licences issued or extended after the passing of this Act shall be subject to the provisions of any general Act relating to telephonic communication. It is perfectly clear that, although the National Telephone Company will emerge from this discussion under certain restrictions and regulations, it is in reality much more strongly entrenched in its present privileges than ever. The object of my Amendment is to apply the limitations and regulations which, in the public interest, have been applied to other trading concerns. Railway enterprises are subject to the general regulation of railways, and it is the same with electric lighting and other industrial concerns, and I think a similar provision ought to apply to the particular branch of industry we are dealing with at the present time

MR. HANBURY

I am not aware there are any general Acts.

CAPTAIN SINCLAIR

I am referring to future Acts.

* MR. SPEAKER

We cannot deal with future Acts of Parliament. The Amendment is not in order,

MR. BUCHANAN

I appeal to the First Lord of the Treasury as to whether the time has not arrived when we might adjourn this discussion. Hon. Gentlemen will not deny that this is a very important measure and that it is a different Bill from the measure which was considered in Committee. The new clauses undoubtedly involve very important principles.

* MR. SPEAKER

Is the hon. Gentleman going to move the adjournment of the Debate?

MR. BUCHANAN

Yes, Sir, I meant to conclude with that motion.

* MR. SPEAKER

I cannot accept the motion for the adjournment at this hour.

MR. BUCHANAN

Then, Sir, I will move the omission of Sub-section 2. This sub-section seeks to justify the statement made this evening by the right hon. Gentleman that we are taking away from the sphere of operations of the Telephone Company a large part of the United Kingdom. I venture to submit that in reality we are doing-nothing of the kind. The National Telephone Company has enjoyed for man years a general licence to go where it pleased, and it has gone into the profitable parts of the country, leaving alone those parts which are not profitable, and I therefore do not believe that we will substantially hinder the company.

Amendment proposed— In page 3, line 3, to leave out Sub-section (2), of Clause 3."—(Mr. Buchanan.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out to the word 'without,' in line 3, stand part of the Bill.'"

MR. HANBURY

I really believe that the hon. Member must be a friend of the National Telephone Company. Although he may throw doubt on some of the concessions we have got from the Telephone Company, there can be no doubt that this is an important one. I cannot suppose the hon. Member brought forward this motion merely for the purpose of obstructing the Bill, and therefore it must be a bonâ fide Amendment, which is in the interest of no one except the Telephone Company.

SIR J. JOICEY

I protest against the accusation the right hon. Gentleman has made against my hon. friend, and I appeal to the House as to whether it is deserved. The right hon. Gentleman is so full of the Telephone Company that he thinks no one takes an interest in this Bill except the company and its friends. We have been told over and over again that this Bill has been brought forward in the interests of competition, but this clause would practically prohibit competition. It means that there shall be no competition in any area except where competition now exists. From what I have seen, I believe that the National Telephone Company is just as good a competitor as any other licensee of the Post Office.

Other Amendments made.

* MR.FAITHFULL BEGG

The object of this Amendment is to provide that any district which is withdrawn from the license of the Telephone Company shall be provided with an efficient telephone service. Whether these districts be profitable districts or not, I think we should have an assurance that they will be provided with a telephone service by the Post Office, or in some other way. If the right hon. Gentleman will give me an undertaking that these districts will be provided for then my amendment will be unnecessary. The National Telephone Company have set up exchanges in the most profitable parts of the country, and have neglected the districts where the population is sparse and the towns are small. What is wanted is a guarantee that these districts which are unable to provide for themselves will be given telephonic communication.

Another Amendment proposed— In page 3, line 7, after the word 'exchange,' to insert the words, 'Provided always that such consent shall not be withheld unless, within two years from the date of the passing of this Act, an effective exchange shall have been established within such area by the Postmaster-General, or by a local authority, or by a new company acting under a licence from the Postmaster-General.'"—(Mr. Faithfull Begg.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. HANBURY

I think my hon. friend is mistaken in thinking that thinly populated districts are less profitable than thickly populated districts. The experience of foreign countries is to the contrary, and there is no reason why competition should not be started in these areas. With regard to the period of two years which my hon. friend proposes in order to guard against the starting of bogus companies, that has been already provided for, by the fact that the Postmaster General is not likely to grant a licence to any company not of a bonâ fide character, and the locality will also have considerable control over the matter.

CAPTAIN SINCLAIR

In my opinion there is some confusion on the point. It is quite clear that in a crowded centre where the company get subscribers beyond a certain number, the exchange becomes a very costly matter; but the National Telephone Company knows its business, and it is because certain districts are not profitable that it has left them alone. If the Government had not taken steps to extend the licence of the company beyond 1911, we should in eleven years have all the power in our own hands.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CAPT. SINCLAIR

I beg to move to omit Sub-section 3 of Clause 3. Really this is one of the most important clauses in the Bill. We had a long discussion this evening on the first sub-section of this clause, and the House will remember that there was great opposition to the proposal contained in it. The proposal now before us is even a greater violation of the principle which should govern telephonic legislation. The Government now propose to enact that where a municipality obtains legal rights and lays out money for the purpose of establishing a telephone system, the licence of the National. Telephone Company for that area shall be extended if the licence of the municipality runs beyond 1911. This part of the clause which I desire to omit gives precisely the same privileges to the National Telephone Company in cases where they have not secured way-leave rights, and have no right whatever to a concession. I cannot see how this can be justified. The right hon. Gentleman himself is the strongest witness we can call in support of the statement that this is an entirely new departure in the telephone legislation of this country, and I do hope that the House will realise that its effect will be merely to strengthen the position of the National Telephone Company. Hon. Members interested in this Bill are obliged by the rules of the House to carry on the discussion under great disadvantages, but, in spite of these disadvantages, I hope the House will realise how very important this Amendment is.

Amendment proposed— In page 3, line 8, to leave out the words of Sub-section 3 of Clause 3."—(Captain Sinclair.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'Where' stand part of the Bill."

MR. BUCHANAN

This sub-section is distinctly in favour of the National Telephone Company, because it proposes to extend its licence beyond 1911, not only in districts where it has secured way-leaves, but in the other cases set out in the sub-section. This is a most important question, and is the cause of all the opposition to the Bill, and will be the cause of opposition throughout the length and breadth of the land if the Bill becames law. The right hon. Gentleman has given way to the pressure exercised by the National Telephone Company, and has been obliged to extend a privilege which he himself said only a short time ago ought not to be granted. He himself told us that one of the greatest securities the country had for the development of telephonic communication was that the licence of the National Telephone Company would cease in 1911. We had hoped that we would have been in a position to establish a really national system, but that hope is now postponed for a generation. I think the Government have sacrificed the in- terests of the public to the interests of the company, with the result that we cannot have a proper national system in this country for a quarter of a century.

MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)

I entirely agree as to the extreme inconvenience of the manner in which we are compelled to discuss this Bill. It is a striking example of the steady and rapid degradation of Parliamentary procedure. I remember a few years ago the present Leader of the House laying down in an eloquent and powerful speech the principle on which these Bills ought to be dealt with.

MR. SPEAKER

Order, order! The hon. Member's remarks are not relevant to the question before the House.

MR. DILLON

I will not pursue the subject, Sir. I was merely about to point out that we are debating what is practically a new Bill, which has not passed through Committee, and which is of enormous importance. This sub-section is undoubtedly a surrender on the part of the Government to one of the most persistent and powerful systems of lobbying I have ever witnessed during the eighteen years I have been in this House. Not content with confronting every Member in the Lobby, it has infested every part of the House with its influence, and this clause is one of its chief results. I have great admiration for the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman struggled against tremendous influences to emancipate the telephone interests of this country, but the result only confirms me in the opinion I formed very early in these discussions, that the best and cheapest way to deal with such a monopoly is to buy it out as soon as possible. My conviction is that every year added to the life of a company adds to the price you will have to pay to purchase it, and the more it will be able to secure from the community. We were led to believe that the principle would be used to whittle down the property of the National Telephone Company, and that when its licence expired the company could be extinguished at less cost. I venture to say that when the company is eventually bought out the public will have to pay four times the price for it that it could be purchased for now, and the public will look back with longing eyes on the amount for which they could have bought out the company. Nobody desires to confiscate the property of the company, but the Post Office ought to exercise its right to purchase it at a reasonable price, which would honestly repay the outlay of the shareholders. We are now asked to part with that right, and the result will be to establish a practical monopoly, and ultimately I venture to say that the public will be compelled to meet the company on its own terms. Just as at present we are being asked to pay£860,000 to the Niger Company for a charter which contains a clause empowering the Government to revoke it, so by-and-by there will be another transference of public money to the telephone company for rights conferred on it by Act of Parliament.

MR. MOULTON

It is a curious commentary on the fashion of putting two companies on equal terms to say, according to this clause, that if the National Telephone Company has its licence extended because a licence has been granted to a new company, that extension will

not be on the terms given to the new company, but on the extravagantly liberal terms on which the original licence was granted to the National Company.

MR. HANBURY

The hon. Member is entirely mistaken; it will not be on the old terms, but on the new terms.

MR. MOULTON

I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. It is perfectly true that these two things called concessions will be inserted in the extended licence, but otherwise the provisions of the original licence of the National Company will remain in force. The consequence is that one company will be under the control of the Post Office, and the National Company will be practically without control. And that is called putting them on equal terms!

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 108; Noes, 38. (Division List, No. 301.)

AYES
Arrol, Sir William	Fardell, Sir T. George	Milward, Colonel Victor
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John	Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.	Monk, Charles James
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy	Finch, George H.	Morrell, George Herbert
Baird, John George Alexander	Finlay, Sir Robt. Bannatyne	Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r)	Fisher, William Hayes	Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute)
Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds)	Fitz Wygram, General Sir F.	Newdigate, Francis Alexander
Banbury, Frederick George	Fletcher, Sir Henry	Nicholson, William Graham
Barton, Dunbar Plunket	Foster, Col. W. H. (Lancaster)	Parkes, Ebenezer
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Brist'l)	Gedge, Sydney	Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
Beckett, Ernest William	Goldsworthy, Major-General	Purvis, Robert
Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull	Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.	Pym, C. Guy
Bethell, Commannder	Goschen, Rt Hn G J (St. George's	Rentoul, James Alexander
Bigwood, James	Goschen, George J. (Sussex)	Ridley, Rt. Hon Sir Matthew W.
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-	Goulding, Edward Alfred	Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John	Greville, Hon. Ronald	Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Bullard, Sir Harry	Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Rbt. Wm.	Russell T. W. (Tyrone)
Butcher, John George	Hare, Thomas Leigh	Seely, Charles Hilton
Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)	Hudson, George Bickersteth	Sharpe, William Edward T.
Cavendish, V. C. W. (D'rbyshire	Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick	Smith, J. Parker (Lanarks.)
Cawley, Frederick	Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton	Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk
Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, E.)	Johnston, William (Belfast)	Stanley, Edw. J. (Somerset)
Chamberlain Rt. Hon. J.(Birm.	Kemp, George	Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)	Keswick, William	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry	Lawrence, Sir E Durning-(Corn	Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray
Charrington, Spencer	Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool)	Valentia, Viscount
Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.	Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)	Warde, Lt.-Col, C. E. (Kent)
Cohen, Benjamin Louis	Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie	Willox, Sir John Archibald
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse	Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.	Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath)
Cooke, C. W. R. (Hereford)	Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine	Wrightson, Thomas
Curzon, Viscount	Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Liverpool	Wylie, Alexander
Dalkeith, Earl of	Lowther, Rt. Hon. J. W (Cumb.	Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.
Denny, Colonel	Loyd, Archie Kirkman	Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy
Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph	Lucas-Shadwell, William	Young, Commander (Berks, E.)
Doughty, George	Macartney, W. G. Ellison
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Macdona, John Cumming	TELLEES FOR THE AYES—
Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.	M'Killop, James	Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther
Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. H.	Middlemore, J. Throgmo ton.
NOES.
Abraham, William (Rhondda)	Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.	Provand, Andrew Dryburgh
Asher, Alexander	Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-	Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.	Healy, Timothy M. (N.Louth)	Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)
Billson, Alfred	Horniman, Frederick John	Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn	Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)	Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Caldwell, James	Labouchere, Henry	Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)
Channing, Francis Allston	Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Clark, Dr. G. B. (Caithness-sh.)	Lough, Thomas	Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Colville, John	Macaleese, Daniel	Williams, John C. (Notts.)
Dewar, Arthur	M'Crae, George	Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Hudders.
Dillon, John	Moulton, John Fletcher
Doogan, P. C.	O'Connor T. P. (Liverpool)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Duckworth, James	Palmer, George W. (Reading)	Captain Sinclair and Sir James Joicey.
Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)	Pirie, Duncan V.

DR. CLARK

On behalf of the hon. Member for East Edinburgh, I beg to move, in Clause 3, page 3, line 8, to leave out "a local authority, or." I want to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to accept this Amendment. I think the Government have been very fair so far as the first portion of the clause is concerned, that where the National Company has spent a large amount of money on way-leaves, we ought to give them time to get it back. I think any new company ought not to have a special privilege any more than the National Telephone Company, but when you are dealing with a local authority it is an entirely different matter. If any corporation spend their money on a telephone system, the profits will go to the citizens. I am against a monopoly either to the National Telephone Company or to a new company. I am only in favour of a monopoly to the State or municipality, where the citizens get the benefit of the profits.

Amendment proposed— In page 3, line 8, to leave out the words 'a local authority or.'"—(Dr. Clark.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'a local authority or' stand part of the Bill."

MR. HANBURY

I am glad that the hon. Member admits that when a new company gets a licence, it is perfectly fair and legitimate that the licence of the National Company should be extended. I can see no distinction between the competition of a new company and that of the local authority, except that the competition of the local authority may be more vigorous. In resisting the Amendment I am following the suggestion of the Select Committee.

MR. LABOUCHERE

We are not absolutely the slaves of the Select Committee. We respect the Committee very much, but surely we are not to be put out every minute by the statement that the Select Committee did this or that. I think the distinction which my hon. friend has drawn between the local authority and a company is a fair and legitimate one. The company competes only for the benefit of its own shareholders, whereas the municipality represents the public, and carries on the business for the public. We have very great difficulty in knowing how to vote. I observe that the front bench on this side of the House is empty. We are as sheep without one single shepherd. I am certain that a great many hon. Gentlemen take a deep interest in this matter. I would like, for instance, to know what the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton thinks of it. I hope my right hon. friend will really consider this Amendment, which I think a fair one.

MR. DILLON

The right hon. Gentleman referred to the finding of the Select Committee for this provision in the Bill. But this provision was put in in the Grand Committee, and was not suggested by the Select Committee. It is a very fair position to take up, that if a new company is allowed to compete, the two companies ought to be put in the same position. My objection is not to the facilities being given to the National Company as opposed to a new company, but as opposed to the municipality or the State. It is an extraordinary position for the right hon. Gentleman to take up, to say that the same protection should be given to the National Company as against a municipality, as against a new company. He goes even further, and says that the competition of a municipality would be stronger than that of a, new company. But the competition of the municipality is a competition of the people for their own sake. Therefore, to put upon the same footing the competition of the municipality, which represents the ratepayers, and the competition of a new company, which seeks dividends for its shareholders, is, in my opinion, perfectly preposterous. I trust the Amendment will be pushed to a Division.

MR. COLVILLE

There is another substantial reason why this Amendment

should be accepted, and that is that many municipalities decline absolutely to grant way-leaves to the National Telephone Company.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

I would like to ask the Government how long they intend to sit. It is now half-past one, and I would suggest that after the Division the discussion should be adjourned.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 103; Noes, 33. (Division List, No. 302.)

AYES.
Arrol, Sir William	Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William H.	Middlemore, J. Throgmorton
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John	Fardell, Sir T. George	Milward, Colonel Victor
Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy	Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.	Morrell, George Herbert
Baird, John George Alexander	Finch, George H.	Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r)	Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne	Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)
Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds)	Fisher, William Hayes	Newdigate, Francis Alexander
Barton, Dunbar Plunkett	Fletcher, Sir Henry	Nicholson, William Graham
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M H.-(Bristol	Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)	Parkes, Ebenezer
Beckett, Ernest William	Foster Harry S. (Suffolk)	Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
Bethell, Ferdinand Faithfull	Gedge, Sydney	Purvis, Robert
Bethell, Commander	Goldsworthy, Major-General	Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.
Big wood, James	Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon	Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chs. Thomson
Boscawen, Arthur Griflith-	Goschen, Rt. Hn. G. J. (St.Geo's)	Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John	Goschen, George J. (Sussex)	Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)
Bullard, Sir Harry	Goulding, Edward Alfred	Seely, Charles Hilton
Butcher, John George	Greville, Hon. Ronald	Sharpe, William Edward T.
Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lanes.)	Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert W.	Smith, Jamesparker (Lanarks)
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.)	Hare, Thomas Leigh	Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)
Cawley, Frederick	Hudson, George Biekersteth	Stanley, Edw. J. (Somerset)
Cecil Evelyn (Hertford East)	Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick	Stanley, Lord (Lancs)
Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.	Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J.(Birm.)	Johnston William (Belfast)	Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray
Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r.)	Kemp, George
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry	Keswick, William	Valentia, Viscount
Charrington, Spencer	Lawrence, Sir EDurning-(Corn.	Warde, Lieut. -Col. C. E. (Kent)
Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.	Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool)	Willox, Sir John Archibald
Cohen, Benjamin Louis	Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)	Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath)
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse	Loigh-Bennett, Henry Currie	Wriglitson, Thomas
Cooke, C. W. Radcliffe (Heref'd	Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.	Wylie, Alexander
Curzon, Viscount	Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine	Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.
Dalkeith, Earl of	Long. Rt. Hon. Walter (Liverp'l	Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy
Denny, Colonel	Loyd, Archie Kirkman	Young, Commander (Berks, E.)
Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph	Lucas-Shadwell, William
Doughty, George	Macartney, W. G. Ellison	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Macdona, John Cumming	Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.
Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.	M'Killop. James

NOES.
Abraham, William (Rhondda)	Healy, Timothy M. (N. Louth)	Shaw, Chas. Edw. (Stafford)
Asher, Alexander	Horniman, Frederick John	Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)
Billson, Alfred	Joicey, Sir James	Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn	Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)	Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Caldwell, James	Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)	Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)
Channing, Francis Allston	Macaleese, Daniel	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Colville John	M'Crae, George	Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Dewar, Arthur	Moulton, John Fletcher	Williams, John Carvell (Notts.
Dillon, John	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)	Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Hudd'rsf'd
Doogan, P. C.	Palmer, George W. (Reading)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Duckworth, James	Pirie, Duncan V.	Dr. Clark and Mr. Labouchere.
Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-	Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

Other Amendments made.

Another Amendment proposed— In page 3, line 19, to leave out the words from the word 'exceed' to the end of paragraph (c), and insert the words 'the maximum rates and (where the company are empowered to lay underground wires) shall not fall below the minimum rates authorised in that behalf by the Postmaster-General within the area specified in the new licences."—(Mr. Hanbury.)

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

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

I have not moved the adjournment of the discussion until a substantial Amendment has been reached, which will take another hour's Debate. I beg to move that the discussion be now adjourned.

Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. T. P. O'Connor.)

SIR J. JOICEY

I beg to support the motion. This Bill has really been discussed amid great difficulties, because there have been so many new clauses, and I think it is very much in the interest of the Government that they should accept the adjournment.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,) Manchester, E.

I trust the hon. Gentleman will not press his motion. We are now within measurable distance of the conclusion of our labours on this Bill, and I think it would be in the interest of the whole House, in the interest of the remaining business of the session, and in the interest, let me add, of an early holiday, that we should finish the Bill at this sitting.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 27; Noes, 108. (Division List, No. 303.)

AYES.
Abraham, William (Rhondda)	Duckworth, James	Pirie, Duncan V.
Asher, Alexander	Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-	Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)
Billson, Alfred	Healy, Timothy M. (N. Louth)	Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfarsh.
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn	Horniman, Frederick John	Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Caldwell, James	Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)	Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan E.)
Channing, Francis Allston	Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)	Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Clark, Dr. G. B. (Caithness-sh.)	Macaleese, Daniel	Williams, John Carvell (Notts'
Colville, John	M'Crae, George	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Dillon, John	Moulton, John Fletcher	Mr. T. P. O'Connor and Sir James Joicey.
Doogan, P. C.	Palmer, George Wm. (Reading)
NOES.
Arrol, Sir William	Cohen, Benjamin Louis	Goulding, Edward Alfred
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John	Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse	Greville, Hon. Ronald
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy	Cooke, C. W. R. (Hereford)	Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robt. W.
Baird, John George Alexander	Curzon, Viscount	Hare, Thomas Leig
Balfour, Rt Hon A J (Manch'r)	Dalkeith, Earl of	Hudson, George Bickersteth
Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds)	Denny, Colonel	Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick
Barton, Dunbar Plunket	Dewar, Arthur	Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton
Beach, Rt Hon Sir M H- (Bristol)	Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph	Johnston, William (Belfast)
Beckett, Ernest William	Doughty, George	Kemp, George
Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull	Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Keswick, William
Bethell, Commander	Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.	Lawrence, Sir E Durning- (Corn
Bigwood, James	Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir WilliamHart	Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool)
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-	Fardell, SirT. George	Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John	Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edwd.	Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie
Bullard, Sir Harry	Finch, George H.	Lockwood, Lieut. -Col. A. R.
Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lanes.)	Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne	Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.)	Fisher, William Hayes	Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverpool
Cawley, Frederick	Fletcher, Sir Henry	Loyd, Archie Kirkman
Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)	Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)	Lucas-Shadwell, William
Chaloner, Captain R. G W.	Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)	Macartney, W. G. Ellison
Chamberlain Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.	Gedge, Sydney	Macdona, John Cumming
Chamberlain, J Austen (Worc'r	Goldsworthy, Major-General	M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry	Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon	M'Killop, James
Charrington, Spencer	Goschen, Rt Hn G J. (St.George's	Middlemore, J. Throgmorton
Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.	Goschen, George J. (Sussex)	Milward, Colonel Victor
Morrell, George Herbert	Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)	Warde, Lt.-Col. C. E. (Kent)
Morton, A. H. A (Deptford)	Seely, Charles Hilton	Willox, Sir John Archibald
Murray, Ht. Hon. A. G. (Bute)	Sharpe, William Edward T.	Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath
Newdigate, Francis Alexander	Smith, James P. (Lanarks.)	Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd
Nicholson, William Graham	Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.	Wrightson, Thomas
Parkes, Ebenezer	Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)	Wylie, Alexander
Provand, Andrew Dryburgh	Stanley, Edward J. (Somerset)	Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.
Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward	Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)	Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy
Purvis, Robert	Talbot, Lord E. Chichester	Young, Commander(Berks, E.)
Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir Matt. W.	Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson	Trevelyan, Charles Philips	Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.
Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)	Valentia, Viscount

Original Question again proposed.

* MR. PROVAND

I would ask the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill to reconsider the terms of this proposal. It allows the existing company to make its rate as high as it pleases, which permits a very great latitude to the company. The terms are different with regard to the low rates which may be fixed by the Postmaster-General. I think we should have some limitation with regard to the minimum rates, and not allow the Telephone Company to compete unfairly with the local authority, or another company. Why should not the power of making the rates too low be taken away from the company? It has been stated by the right hon. Gentleman, again and again, that competition should be fair; but competition cannot be fair if one company is allowed to make the rates so low as to practically prevent competition at all. I am not much concerned about Glasgow and Edinburgh, I am speaking in the interests of the smaller local authorities, which have not a large amount of capital at their back. It is impossible that any small local authority could maintain competition against the National Company if the company said, "If you make your rate £4, we will make ours £3;and if you make your rats £3, we will make ours £2." The local authorities have to get the money on the security of the rates, and the ratepayer, might say, "You must not compete with the company, because we do not want to risk losing our money."

MR. HANBURY

I think the hon. Gentleman will see that a distinction must be drawn where way-leaves have been granted, and where they have been refused. As a matter of fact, if the Telephone Company so unduly abused its rights as to make competition impossible, it would be quite within the power of the Postmaster-General to intervene.

Question put, and negatived.

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

SIR J. T. WOODHOUSE

It has been decided by the Court of Appeal, in the case of Glasgow, that local authorities are compelled to give to the telephones the rights which the Post Office have. This is an alteration very different from what the right hon. Gentleman explained to the Grand Committee.

MR. HANBURY

The words are an improvement on the words in the original Bill, and my hon. friend is mistaken in supposing that the decision to which he refers can possibly apply to the Amendment.

MR. MOULTON

I do not think the right hon. gentleman can understand the point raised by the hon. Member. The point is, that where the company is empowered to lay underground wires, the minimum rate shall not fall below the minimum rates authorised by the Post Office.

MR. HANBURY

I am quite prepared to insert after the word "empowered" the words "by agreement with the local authority."

MR. COLVILLE

If the company can lower its rate to any extent, no corporation can compete against it.

MR. HANBURY

The minimum rate must extend over the whole exchange area. Take the case of Glasgow and Govan. These are in the same exchange area: one has way-leaves and the other has not. If the Glasgow Corporation applied for licences even over their own area, Govan would have the right to have the minimum rate fixed, and it would apply just as well to Govan as to Glasgow.

MR. COLVILLE

In the event of Glasgow declining to grant rights to open streets it is expressly provided that the National Telephone Company shall have the right to an unlimited extent to accept licences at unremunerative rates in order to cut down competition.

Proposed Amendment amended, by inserting after the word "empowered" the words "by agreement with the local authority."

Words, as amended, inserted.

Another Amendment made.

Amendment proposed in Page 3, line 24, to leave out the words from the word 'period' to the word 'but' in line 25, in order to insert the words, 'specified in the

new licence of the local authority or new company for the duration of such new licence.'"—(Mr. Hanbury.)

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill,"put and negatived.

Question proposed—"That those words be there inserted."

MR. MOULTON

I understand that these words have been proposed in order to meet the danger that this clause would apply to original licences. I am quite sure these words have been chosen for the purposes of meeting the danger, but I do not think it will do so. If the right hon. Gentleman considers the point he will see that the clause will cover every licence.

MR. HANBURY

I have acted under legal advice in the matter, and my advice is that in every case of extension a period of twenty years will be specified.

Question put.

The House divided: Ayes, 101; Noes, 25.—(Division List No. 304).

AYES.
Arrol, Sir William	Finch, George H.	Morrell, George Herbert
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John	Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne	Morton, Arthur H A (Deptford)
Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitz Roy	Fisher, William Hayes	Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute)
Baird, John George Alexander	Fletcher, Sir Henry	Newdigate, Francis Alexander
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Man.)	Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)	Nicholson, William Graham
Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds	Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)	Parkes, Ebenezer
Barton, Dunbar Plunket	Gedge, Sydney
Beach, Rt. Hon. Sir M.H. (Bris.)	Goldsworthy, Major-General	Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edw.
Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull	Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon	Purvis, Robert
Bethell, Commander	Goschen, Rt. Hn. G. J. (St.Geo's	Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir Matthew W
Bigwood, James	Goschen, George J. (Sussex)	Ritchie, Rt Hon. Chas. Thomson
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-	Gouldirig, Edward Alfred	Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John	Greville. Hon. Ronald	Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)
Bullard, Sir Harry	Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.	Seely, Charles Hilton
Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lanes.)	Hare, Thomas Leigh	Sharpe, William Edward T.
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.)	Hudson, George Bickersteth	Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)
Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)	Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick	Stanley, Edward J. (Somerset)
Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.	Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton	Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon J. (Birm.	Johnston, William (Belfast)	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)	Kemp, George	Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry	Keswick, William	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Charrington, Spencer	Lawrence, Sir E Durning- (Corn.	Valentia, Viscount
Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.	Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)	Warde, Lieut. Col. C. E. (Kent)
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse	Leigh- Bennett, Henry Currie	Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath
Cooke, C. W. R. (Hereford)	Look wood, Lieut. -Col. A. R.	Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd
Curzon, Viscount	Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine	Wrightson, Thomas
Dalkeith, Earl of	Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverp'l)	Wylie, Alexander
Denny, Colonel	Loyd, Archie Kirkman	Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.
Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph	Lucas-Shadwell, William	Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcv
Doughty, George	Macartney. W. G. Ellison	Young, Commander (Berks, E.)
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Macdona, John Cumming
Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.	M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)
Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Hart	M'Killop, James	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Fardell, Sir T. George	Middlemore, J. Throgmorton	Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward	Milward, Colonel Victor
NOES
Abraham, William (Rhondda)	Horniman, Frederick John	Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfarsh.)
Asher, Alexander	Joicey, Sir James	Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Billson, Alfred	Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.	Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan E.)
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn	Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)
Caldwell, James	Macaleese, Daniel	Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Clark, Dr. G. B. (Caithness-sh.)	M'Crae, George	Williams, John Carvell (Notts.
Doogan, P. C.	Palmer, George Wm. (Reading)
Duckworth, James	Pirie, Duncan V.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-	Provand, Andrew Dryburgh	Mr. Moulton and Mr. Colville.
Healy, Timothy M. (N. Louth)	Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Bill read a second time and committed for to-morrow.

Other Amendments made.

Amendment proposed:— In page 3, line 27, at end, to add—'(5) If the licence of an existing company is, under the provisions of this section, extended in respect of any exchange area for a period of not less than eight years beyond the term existing at the passing of this Act, the company shall, at the request of any other licensee of the Postmaster-General providing public telephonic communication in the whole or any part of that exchange area, and under such circumstances and on such terms and conditions as may, within six months from the passing of this Act, be prescribed by an order of the Postmaster-General, made with the approval of the Treasury, afford all proper facilities for the transmission of telephonic messages between persons using the system of the company (either in the whole or in part of the exchange area, as the Postmaster-General may prescribe) and persons using the system of such other licensee, provided that the licensee so requiring inter-communication shall in any such case afford similar facilities. (6) For the purposes of this section the expression "exchange area" means an exchange area as defined by any agreement made by an existing company with the Postmaster-General before the passing of this Act.'"—(Mr. Hanbury.)

Question proposed—"That those words be there added."

MR. BUCHANAN

The clause moved by the right hon. Gentleman relates to inter-communication with the various authorities, and is in substitution for the clause on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Huddersfield. As I understand it, it does not seem so general as that of the hon. Member. There are several limitations on intercommunication which I hope the right hon. Gentleman will explain.

MR. HANBURY

It is only where there is a bona fide extension of the licence that the concession of inter-communication is granted. When the subscribers to a corporation exchange are equal to one-half of the subscribers of the company, then there is to be absolutely free, communication between the two exchanges, without the payment of a penny. That is a considerable concession on the part of the National Company. But even where the corporation subscribers are only a fourth in number of those of the National Company they can get inter-communication at the cost of a penny.

SIR J. JOICEY

I think this is a most valuable concession made by the National Company in exchange for the concessions they have got. It will practically solve many of the difficulties that exist where there are several systems in the same area.

* MR FAITHFULL BEGG

The object of the new clause I now beg to move is to provide that a new licence when granted shall be put in effective operation. Provisional orders have been granted for electric lighting in 1890 and 1891, which have not been made use of yet. I think my right hon. friend will see that this is a reasonable provision, and that where licences are granted they should not be allowed to be bottled up.

Amendment proposed— In page 3, line 27, after the word 'force' to insert the words,—'It shall be a condition of every licence granted to a local authority or to a new company after the passing of this Act, that such local authority or such new company shall, within two years from the date of the granting of such licence, open and maintain an effective exchange; within the area included in such licence, otherwise the said licence shall be cancelled and shall absolutely cease and determine, and no compensation shall be payable to such local authority or such new company in respect of such cancellation."—(Mr. Faithfull Begg.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. HANBURY

I think my hon. friend may be satisfied that no licence will be granted to any company or corporation unless there is an absolute assurance that there is a considerable number of subscribers.

* MR. FAITHFULL BEGG

With the leave of the House I beg to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment by leave withdrawn.

Bill to be read the third time to-morrow.

MR. BUCHANAN

Will the Bill be reprinted?

MR. HANBURY

No; it will not be reprinted.