§
Resolution reported,
That it is expedient to authorise the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of such sums, not exceeding in the whole one million one hundred thousand pounds, as may be required for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to enable the Postmaster-General to construct, for the purposes of the Post Office, certain underground Railways and other works in London, and for purposes in connection with such Railways and works; and to authorise the Treasury, for the purpose of providing for the issue and repayment of such sums, to borrow money by means of Exchequer Bonds and terminable annuities for a term not exceeding thirty years, such annuities to be paid out of moneys annually provided by Parliament for the service of the Post Office and, if those moneys are insufficient, out of the Consolidated Fund.
§ Resolution read a second time.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEI beg to move to omit the words "one million," and to insert instead thereof the words "two hundred and fifty." The result of this, of course, will be——
§ Mr. BOOTHMay I point out that the hon. Member must surely omit the word "hundred," else it would be "two hundred and fifty hundred thousand pounds"?
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEI move that—to leave out the words "one million one hundred," and to insert instead thereof the words "two hundred and fifty" I am very much obliged to the hon. Member for so kindly not taking advantage of a technical slip in my speech, and I hope that I shall have an opportunity of repaying him in kind. The result of the Amendment is to authorise the Government to take only £250,000 for the purposes of this Bill. My object is to press the Government to give some information as to why they have departed from the usual process with regard to loans. In this Bill they propose to defray a very large expenditure of £1,100,000 by loan, but with regard to military and naval works they have steadily taken a contrary course. They have refused in these matters to allow expenditure to be paid for except by annual Estimates. That has been insisted on by no one more strongly than by the present Home Secretary when he was Secretary to the Treasury. I know it is said that one is revenue-producing expenditure and the other is not. Surely no valid distinction can be drawn on that ground, because though military and naval works are not revenue-producing, they are necessary expenditure for the national upkeep. When a gentleman in his business or in reference to his estate is called upon to make renewals of his plant or farm buildings, he would never think of paying for them out of his surplus income for the year. I put it to hon. Gentlemen opposite whether it would not be thought a want of common sense for him to do so? I know that some very conservative companies do pride themselves on the amount of surplus that they are able to put away in good years to meet depreciation and renewals, rather than to increase their dividends, but a private individual does not do so. When he is faced with heavy expenditure to repair buildings that are useless, or about to come down, he naturally borrows, or if he has capital, he pays for it on the spot, and in some cases he takes out what is called, though it does not apply to this case, a redemption sinking fund policy by which he pays off in a certain number of years.
That matter of common sense in private affairs ought to be extended to military and naval works, which are absolutely as necessary for the maintenance of the 1084 efficiency of the country as are the farm buildings for the proper maintenance of an estate. It is not whether these are means of making a profit or not. The point is that from time to time expenditure of that kind has to be made, and it is absurd to throw it upon the Estimates for particular years, but in this case the Government propose to admit, in the case of the Post Office, the argument which I advance in general. On what grounds do they admit it in the one case and refuse it in the other? I think it is rather hard on the Assistant Postmaster-General that he should have to deal in the absence of his chief with a matter of this magnitude, and, if the reply of the hon. Gentleman is unsatisfactory, I will make, all allowance for the unfortunate position in which he is placed. The Postmaster-General, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, endeavoured to show that this would be a profit-producing undertaking. His reasons were by no means convincing. He allowed for interest oh a loan at 3½ per cent. Is he sure that ho will be able to get a loan at 3½ per cent.? This Bill will take some time in passing through the Houses of Parliament, and in the present condition of the Money market, which may for all he knows grow worse—I believe that, as a rule, conditions tighten up towards the autumn—it is exceedingly probable that money will be dearer. He should take warning by what happened in the case of Irish Land Stock.
The Government of that day, not acting on their own responsibility, but on the advice of the best technical advisers of the day, Treasury permanent servants, made what has, unfortunately, turned out to be a great miscalculation as to the price at which Irish Land Stock could be issued. Surely it is rather sanguine of the Postmaster-General, in the present instance, to calculate on being able to raise money at 3½ per cent.! When the last Consolidated Fund Bill, or the one before that was before the House, I took exception to the powers then taken to borrow at the rate of 5 per cent., because I thought that sum excessive and very unlikely to be necessary, but I was told that a margin ought to be allowed so that in case the Government found it necessary to raise money at 5 per cent. by ordinary Treasury Bills they should have power to do so. If that is admitted in the case of Treasury Bills, I do not quite understand why the Postmaster-General calculates that he will be able, by means of Exchequer Bonds 1085 and terminable annuities for a term not exceeding thirty years, to raise a loan at 3½ per cent. Then he makes other Estimates as to cost and working expenses, but he gives no authority for them. I would especially urge that surely these are matters which ought to be threshed out in Committee, and, if the Committee approved of the proposal, then a short Loan Bill ought to be brought in. I do not think it is quite fair to take loan powers and authorising powers in the same Bill, because the House cannot have an opportunity of really judging whether the loan powers are justified until the Hybrid Committee, to which this is to be sent, have reported. I admit that it would take a little longer, but it is not fair to the House to give—I will not say a blank cheque—this power to spend the large sum of £1,100,000 before the House has been properly informed on the technical side. What is the present position of the Bill? It is to be sent to a Hybrid Committee, three to be appointed by the Committee of Selection and two by the House. I do not remember to have seen that the appointment of two Members by the House has taken place. It is rather necessary that a point of this kind should not be overlooked. Where it is a question of Select Committees, like the Select Committee on procedure, the names are scrutinised very carefully, as will be seen by the number of Amendments on the Order Paper in reference to the Select Committee on procedure. The matter is rather important, because the whole point of committing this Bill to a Hybrid Committee, in regard to those Members to be appointed by the House, is that the names proposed may be closely scanned. When you consider the large powers this Committee will have——
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe discussion of that matter is relevant to the Motion for the appointment of the members, not to this Resolution.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEI will only say that it is not right that this Resolution should be passed until the Committee has been appointed and the two members to be nominated by the House have been approved. I submit, further, that it is not necessary that it should be set up before the Committee has been formed, and then we would know to whom the powers to be given' to this Committee are to be entrusted. I very greatly regret the absence of the hon. and learned Member for East St. Pancras (Mr. Martin), who 1086 made himself an expert on the Bill, and I am quite sure that nothing but some more urgent engagement can have kept him away. I see indications that the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme is taking an interest in this Bill, and I am sure he will see that, on every ground of public finance and utility, it is not right to give these large powers to raise and spend large sums of money until the Committee has been appointed. It is just in this sort of way that the national revenue is frittered away—half a million here and a million on objects which, sometimes, are not of great public use; and this is just the sort of question which does require the vigilant attention of private Members on both sides, if expenditure of the national funds is to be properly scrutinised.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODI beg to second the Amendment.
I do so for different reasons from those which the hon. Gentleman brought forward. It seems to me that the present time is the most undesirable for raising large sums of money on the Money market. It is a notorious fact that during the last two months there have been a series of attempts at flotations on the Money market in London and elsewhere which have lamentably failed. The underwriters have been left over and over again with 80 per cent., 90 per cent., and even 95 per cent. balances on their hands. That the British Government should now go into a depleted Money market and demand £1,140,000 for new work of this sort seems to me most unfortunate and most undesirable. When we find loan after loan not taken up by the public but left to the underwriters, we know perfectly well that there may be at any moment a very big collapse on the Stock Exchange which might affect the trade of the whole world. I do think that it is very undesirable that the British Government should go into the market borrowing money in this way. The suggestion is made that an expenditure like this should come out of the current account, or out of revenue, as the expenditure occurs. That would certainly be preferable. I think things have got worse during the last month or two, and since this Bill was discussed before. The tightness of the Money market has increased, and every argument that could have been used before against borrowing money in this way for a bureaucratic Department, the Post Office, top spend, can now be adduced with infinitely 1087 greater strength against the undesirability of the British Government going on to the Money market. There is another reason why this Amendment should be supported. When the great Budget of 1909 came before the House there was introduced a scheme of Road Boards and Development Grants, and money was voted to be expended on those objects. One of the main arguments in favour of those purposes, and particularly supported by the Labour party, was that the money might be spent in times of bad trade in order to equalise to a certain extent employment between good times and bad times. There was not very much in that argument; after all, merely taking money out of one pocket and putting it into the other does not create trade. Here the Post Office ask to spend £1,100,000 just at the time when materials are at their highest price, just at the time when unemployment is less, and just at the time when it will be of least benefit to the working classes and to the trade of the country. I think the Government should take these things into account when contemplating a large expenditure of this sort. A large part of this million and a quarter will be spent on labour in tunnelling, and at any rate it would be well to wait for a few months to see whether any slackness of trade comes along, when this expenditure would be of some use to the general public and the country.
We are living at a time when inventions, particularly in the matter of communication, are going through a crisis. The telephone has just recently been taken over by the Government, and the beginning of telephone development has hardly been reached. In a very short time we may find the telephone taking the place of the Post Office, and the ordinary Post Office may become a thing of the past. We do not want, at such a moment as this, just when our system of communication is undergoing this enormous change, to be involved in an expenditure of a million and a quarter of money for some Post Office work, which, by the time it is completed, may be absolutely out of date and useless. I remember that some years ago the Post Office made an underground tunnel. It was intended to develop a pneumatic tube service to Euston. That tunnel was made, and I believe I am right in saying it was never used. It was forgotten for fifty years until an antiquary discovered that an underground tube still existed 1088 from the Post Office to Euston. That is an example of the way in which public Departments, controlled by an irresponsible bureaucracy, do their work. We do not want to have more examples of that sort in the country. In the Post Office you have, I dare say, a better trained bureaucracy and more skilled, and I think the Postmaster-General has got very fine control over his Department, and a control which I would recommend other Members of the Cabinet to try and secure over their Departments. But even in that Department you find this mistake made fifty years ago of the construction of this tunnel, which proved useless. As soon as you have a million and a quarter given to that Department you may find very extravagant schemes adopted and very extravagant methods of carrying out the work. Everybody knows that every Government Department likes to get as much money as they can, and when they get it they spend it very often on too elaborate offices and schemes. We do not want to see that even in the Post Office. Therefore for the reasons that it is the worst possible time for raising money, and that employment is good and large expenditure of Government money on new works is not desirable, and that we are going through a great change in the means of communication, the telephone taking the place of the electric telegraph, and possibly wireless taking the place of the telephone; and, finally, because it is not right to give any bureaucracy, however well managed, the expenditure of a million of money, for all those reasons I would urge the House to accept the Amendment, and thereby apply a brake to the expenditure which is ever growing, and which we know now needs checking and prevention for the future benefit of the country.
§ Mr. ROBERT HARCOURTI do think there is apparent inconsistency in the remarks of the hon. Member for Central Sheffield (Mr. James Hope) with regard to the question of a loan, when we remember the attitude adopted on a loan for military and naval affairs. I rile for the purpose of reiterating a grievance which I feel in common with some other Members. Though my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General persisted and somewhat vigorously, in his refusal to grant quite a modest capital sum for the purpose of extending underground telegraphs in Scotland, he is now coming to Parliament for £1,100,000, with, I believe, a margin of £150,000 for these works in 1089 London. I should hesitate to go the length of supporting the very sweeping Amendment which has been moved by the hon. Member opposite, though I did record my vote against the Government upon a previous stage of this Bill, but I hope even at this late hour my right hon. Friend will be able in his reply to hold out some hope to hon. Members for Scotland that while he is expending this very large sum of money on London, he will give a sum of money to spend in the interests of the great commercial community of Dundee and of the East of Scotland, who in my opinion have made out a strong case for what they ask.
§ Mr. BOOTHIn the previous discussion on this Bill and on the Money Resolution there was a plan which was passed about the House, I think by the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Peto), and I presume it was snore or less official. It seemed to show that there may be a larger expenditure than the present Vote, and I want some assurance on that point. The scheme at present authorises a loan of £1,100,000 and solely concerns the north side of the river, but on that plan there was a projected development of this system of underground railway which would go underneath the river to the south side. I would ask the Post Office whether they intend to come forward next year and claim for a subsequent loan and expenditure as the necessary completion of the scheme now before the House? If that is so, I think they should he candid with the House and give us the larger figures. There were lines on that plan which indicated that the railway would some time be conveyed under Westminster Abbey and under this House to the south side of the river. It seems to me quite unnecessary to tunnel under historic buildings of this description. If that is the intention of the Post Office, they should now indicate what the full cost is to be. I am only asking for information, but we are too familiar with the position taken up by Government Departments in this kind of piecemeal programme. I cannot think for a moment that the south side will consider this satisfactory. The hon. Member the Assistant Postmaster-General represents a Division on the south side, and it would be a natural thing for him to come forward with a complete scheme. I therefore ask that the House should be frankly told whether this development to the south side is an integral part of the scheme, and what is the total amount of money which will be required?
§ The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Captain Norton)Owing to the very full way in which my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General dealt with this question in all its aspects on the last occasion when the matter was before the House, it is not necessary for me to deal with it at any great length. With reference to what was said by the hon. Member for Central Sheffield as to a loan, I would point out that if we wished to deal with it by means of a loan, there would probably be no difficulty in getting a loan from the National Debt Commissioners, but, as it is a Revenue Department, and as under this arrangement great saving is made, there is no necessity for a loan.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEDoes the hon. Gentleman mean to say that it is competent to switch off part of the profits of the Post Office to apply to a development of this kind and not let the whole of it go into the Exchequer and into the Sinking Fund?
§ 4.0 P.M.
§ Captain NORTONNo, certainly not. The House apparently fails to realise that the main object of this scheme is to bring about economies in our working expenses. The working expenses in connection with the transference of mails throughout the Metropolis are very large indeed; they are constantly increasing, and are likely to continue to increase. Owing to the fact that we have to use mechanically-driven instead of horse-drawn vehicles, the expenditure a few years hence will be something enormous as compared with the present. The hon. Member made a reference to the appointment of the Committee, of which three Members are to be appointed by the Committee of Selection and two by this House. The two Members were nominated by the House on the 17th inst., and I believe that the Committee has already sat. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood) raised the objection that we were bringing in this measure at the wrong time. My right hon. Friend has taken the highest expert opinion on the subject, and he is quite satisfied that there will be no danger or difficulty whatever in obtaining the money at the present time.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODWill it not make the Money market "tighter" than it is at the present time, and thereby cause difficulty to other people?
§ Captain NORTONThat is riot a matter for the consideration of the Post Office. 1091 As long as the Postmaster-General obtains the money, that is sufficient. The tube to Euston, to which the hon. Member referred, had nothing whatever to do with the Post Office, but was constructed, I believe, by some private company. The hon. Member objected that we spend money too readily; yet every day in this House the complaint is that we do not spend money sufficiently freely. That was the point of the recent speech of the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. R. Harcourt), who wishes a large expenditure to be made in connection with placing underground the telegraph and telephone lines to the North of Scotland. That would be a sheer expenditure without any corresponding revenue, whereas under the scheme now proposed we shall effect a distinct saving in expenditure. The hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) asked whether there was to be a still larger expenditure in the future than that mentioned in the present proposal. He referred to a plan which had been circulated to the House showing further tubes crossing to the south side of the river. That plan was in no sense official, and there is no intention at the present moment of doing anything more than the present Bill proposes. But that does not in any way bind my right hon. Friend with reference to the future. If, as we expect, this system of transferring mails results in a very large economy indeed, the probability is that years hence some successor of my right hon. Friend may introduce a system dealing with the southern portion of the Metropolis. I have now dealt with the various points raised, and I hope the House will agree to the Resolution.
§ Mr. RAWLINSONIf my hon. Friend goes to a Division I shall certainly surport him. A more unbusinesslike speech than that just delivered it has seldom been my pleasure to hear. The hon. Member says that the House of Commons should pay no attention to the state of the Money market, providing the Post Office can get its own particular loan. That is a very strong statement, seeing that the House of Commons is supposed to consider the welfare of the nation at large as well as that of a particular Department. Moreover, it is frequently urged by Members of the Labour Benches that the Government when contemplating large works ought to take into account the state of the labour market. We are asked to sanction 1092 a loan of over a million pounds in connection with a purely experimental scheme of underground railways in London. I read the speech of the Postmaster-General very carefully, and I notice that he suggested that great saving would be effected. In all these prospectuses very tempting prospects are held forth. The question of upkeep, however, was hardly dealt with at all in that speech. Most private underground railways are involved in large sums for upkeep which cannot possibly be foreseen. I submit that it is not fair to the House that they should have this Financial Resolution put before them at the present time. The desirability of this scheme of underground railways run by a bureaucracy in London—which seems to me to be a wild-cat scheme—has been referred to a Committee, and I submit that this Resolution should not come before the House until the Committee has reported. There are underground railways at the present time in London dealing with this particular district, and as far as I am aware the Post Office makes no use of them at all. I dare say there may be very good reasons. It is a bad principle to grant big borrowing powers to a Government Department in the manner here proposed. I shall support the Amendment of my hon. Friend, and if the Government require more than £250,000 they can come to the House again.
§ Mr. CHARLES ROBERTSWould the Postmaster-General tell us what is the real necessity for passing this Resolution now? Is it, not a fact that unless this Resolution is passed the Committee cannot get to work? If that is the case, I think it is desirable that we should pass the Resolution at this stage, and to that extent the hon. Member's point fails.
§ Mr. RAWLINSONThe Government would have £250,000, and if they required more they could come again.
§ Mr. C. ROBERTSThat is surely a very unbusinesslike method of proceeding. I am not objecting to the Committee looking into the matter. On the contrary, I think it requires very careful consideration. I can quite understand that there are reasons why the existing railways should not be used, but the experience of the building of railways by Government Departments is not very promising. The only instance I can recall is that of the Uganda Railway, where a Government 1093 Department spent at least twice as much as a contractor would have done it for. I do not doubt the business ability of my right hon. Friend; at the same time I think the Committee should look into the matter very carefully. I am quite prepared to be guided by them, and if the Committee are satisfied with the business aspects of the scheme I shall have nothing further to say. In any case, the present Amendment is technically quite absurd. If the proposal is objected to, the Resolution should be rejected altogether. But subject to the investigation of the Committee, I think that now is the time to pass the Resolution.
§ Mr. FELLI support the Amendment in the full expectation that this request for £1,100,000 is only the beginning of the money that will be required in the course of the next few years. My knowledge of London is not sufficient to tell where all these railways are going to run. Maps have been supplied, but we are now told that those maps were only suggestions, and that the railways therein shown may not be constructed. That is a very curious suggestion. On those plans there were tubes suggested going not only under this building but under Westminster Abbey. We know the difficulties that have arisen in regard to St. Paul's Cathedral, and we have read the reports of engineers stating that tubes are liable to affect the stability of structures over them or in the neighbourhood. Therefore a proposal of this kind should be considered very carefully indeed. We ought to go slowly in the matter. This proposal is purely an experiment. If it is successful I believe that, instead of one million, several million pounds will be required. As to the period of the loan, the Post Office is a great profitable business, and whether when it undertakes a large outlay of this kind it should write it off in thirty years or in a shorter period is a matter for consideration. The scheme may turn out successful or it may not. Twenty years hence such a tube may be obsolete; we may be travelling by the air instead of underground; and then for another ten years we should be paying instalments without any return. If enough money were granted to enable the Committee to start their work, that would be quite sufficient. More than £250,000 will not be spent this year. The Government can come again for further money next year, when we shall know more about the subject than we do at the present time.
§ The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel)The matter has been very carefully considered by a Departmental Committee. I have consulted one of the greatest experts in the country on the subject of tube railways, and it will be further closely considered by a Committee of this House which has already been appointed. I think the hon. Member who has just spoken may be sure that nothing will be rashly undertaken. There is no proposal whatever for running any railway under Westminster Abbey or under the Houses of Parliament. The maps which he says contain merely suggestions, are some maps which have been issued, I do not know quite by whom, showing the mere outline of possible future extensions. Those extensions are not included in this Bill. The maps which have been prepared in connection with this Bill show precisely the route where the railway will run, and are not mere suggestions, but indicate in the closest detail the precise location of the railway. Notices have been served on the property owners affected. The hon. Member is mistaken in supposing that this is a mere vague scheme which has been worked out in detail. The suggestions mentioned by my hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General, referred to possible future extensions in years to come which, if they are made, must of course be sanctioned by Parliament in a separate measure, and will then be laid before the House. Two or three points have been raised to which I will briefly refer. It has been suggested that the Money market might be inconvenienced by being suddenly called upon to find an additional million for the Post Office. The money will not be spent all at once, but gradually spent, and in all probability—I am not pledging myself to this—but in all probability it will be obtained, as Departmental loans very often are, from the National Debt Commissioners, from the money in their hands. The National Debt Commissioners have very large sums in hand in connection with Savings Bank deposits, which are available for use by Government Departments on ordinary commercial terms. Instead of our going to the Money market with annuities or Exchequer bonds, or whatever the security may be, those annuities or Exchequer bonds will be lodged with the National Debt Commissioners, and they will supply month by month and from time to time whatever sums are needed in this connection. The Committee which has 1095 been appointed cannot complete its work, and cannot proceed far with its work without the authorisation we asked for here.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPECould the Committee not make an interim Report as to the general desirability of the scheme, and leave the House to say whether the scheme shall or shall not be financed?
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELI doubt whether it can. I will inquire. I am told it is necessary for the Committee to have this Resolution. Of course, the Committee might possibly hear objections from the property owners, and spend some weeks possibly, and hold a number of sittings in anticipation of the Financial Resolution. But I think it would be most unfair to the hon. Members who have been selected by the House and by the Committee of Selection to serve on that Committee, to subject them to the trouble, if perchance, after they have completed their work the House will not sanction the expenditure. To sanction a quarter of a million is quite useless. It is as though we were going to lay a cable between England and France, and the House were to say: "We will give you half the money that is required for the cable." It is no good making half this railway. The railway is intended to connect the East and the West. It will be a great waste of money to do it in a partial fashion—to attempt to limit in the direction and in the manner proposed by the Amendment before the House the expenditure which is required.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEHow much does the right hon. Gentleman expect to spend out of the £1,100,000 in the current financial year?
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELVery little, but this is not voted money, as the hon. Member knows; it is an authorisation for a loan, and therefore, the limitation of the present financial year does not apply. The hon. Member for Cambridge University suggested that possibly we might use the existing tube railways. We are indeed, an unbusinesslike Department, he says, to come forward and ask Parliament to sanction a loan of over £1,000,000 in order to make a new tube railway, when there is such a splendid network of these railways underground in London already, if they would do. But I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman has spoken without having given much thought to the subject, and what it would mean for the present tube railways to carry the mails from 1096 the Eastern District Office in White-chapel to Paddington Station, the extreme point to which the railway will run. It would mean, first of all, loading the mails into a van at the Eastern District Office, and of conveying them in charge of a man to the Bank Station, or to Liverpool Street Station. Then it would mean sending a man down the lift with them to load the mails into the tube carriages. There would be the unloading them again at Paddington Station, and loading them up again on a trolley and carrying them to the train.
§ Mr. RAWLINSONThere are through trains from the Great Western Railway running right along to the Metropolitan Railway and right into the City.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELIt would mean loading and unloading between the post offices and the stations and loading and unloading between the stations and post offices. There is no underground railway that touches the General Post Office in King Edward Street, or the Mount Pleasant Office which are the centres for sorting. Any such arrangement would mean an increase of the present expenditure, and complication and delay which it is really impossible to contemplate. The new railway will reach from office to office. There will be lifts from the sorting tables where the letters are being dealt with to the stations on the new underground railways. There will be lifts at the other end where the letters will be automatically transferred, and at the railway termini, where they will be sent by train. It will mean enormous economy in time and labour. It will accelerate the mails. It will relieve the London traffic, and will enable the work to be more economically done in the offices because there will be an even flow of work instead of as now the work coming in spurts, as large vans unload their burdens. I trust, therefore, that the House will allow this measure now to proceed. I venture respectfully to suggest that the House ought to be ready to encourage a Department which shows some enterprise, is willing to adopt new ideas, and which is looking about for means to facilitate its business, and to effect economies in the future, rather than to throw cold water upon schemes which have been carefully thought out, and which I can recommend to the House in the best interests of the service.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI shall certainly support the Amendment of my hon. Friend. I 1097 am not at all sure that I have been converted by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who tells us that we ought to encourage his Department to enter into new works and to spend money to facilitate the operations of that Department. I am not sure that that is a very good point. My contention is that the Department ought not to show enterprise and to spend money on new works against the interests of the taxpayer. Take this particular case. It is proposed to spend £1,100,000 to construct certain underground railways. The Postmaster-General has given a very clear account of how this is going to be made, and of the processes involved in the collection and forwarding of the letters. All this may be very true; but the point that interests me as a taxpayer is whether the mails could not be conveyed as efficiently, or more efficiently, by motor omnibus overground, instead of going to a very large expenditure by making railways underground. I understand the railways, when made, are not going to carry a guard or a driver, but are going to be run automatically. I am not sufficient of an engineer to be able to say whether that is possible or not. I, of course, accept the Postmaster-General's statement that he has gone into this matter with those who are experts upon the subject. My experience of engineers is that when they go into a new enterprise of this sort as soon as it is started it is found that they have omitted something, and that very large sums of money have to be spent in addition to the original estimate before the enterprise is completed satisfactorily.
I am very much afraid in a new enterprise of this sort it will be found that this system does not work well. Having spent £1,100,000, we shall be asked to spend a considerable amount more to render the system efficient, and it will then be said that anybody who is desirous of economy should not object to further sums being spent to make the system efficient seeing that we have already spent £1,100,000 on starting the service, and that that money will be sacrificed if we refuse to spend a further £300,000 or £400,000. An hon. Friend near to me interrupts to ask whether I think the money can be raised at 3½ per cent. I should almost think it could at the present time. It is rather a narrow margin. Rut if we are raising money for other purposes it is doubtful whether we should be able to get it at that rate of interest. I am sorry that I did not hear the speech of my hon. Friend 1098 who moved the Amendment. I do not know whether the intention is to make a small experimental part of the railway, nut costing so much money—a small portion of the line, and then see whether or not it is desirable to go on. That may be all right; though if I were Postmaster-General, I think I should be content in endeavouring to develop motor traction above ground, which is developing very rapidly. I spend a considerable amount of time in the streets, and I notice every day that there are more omnibuses in the streets, and more motor-buses put on for the purpose of carrying goods. There were very few a few years ago. These goods motors have increased very largely. I was nearly run over to-day by one of the motor vans of the Post Office.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Baronet's arguments deal more with the Bill, which has passed its Second Reading.
§ Sir F. BANBURYMy arguments were directed, or meant to be directed, in support of the Amendment of my hon. Friend. I was endeavouring to show that it would be better to spend this money, not on making the railway proposed, but on motor traction which can be——
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe Amendment proposes to spend a quarter of a million upon a railway; to make a portion of it.
§ Sir F. BANBURYWell, yes. But I am sure it would be better if we did not spend any of it upon this particular proposal. Anyhow, it would be better to see whether or not, before this proposal is carried, an experimental line would be a success. My hon. Friend tells me that there are about sixteen different railways to be laid down. I therefore gather that the making of one railway will not interfere with the rest of them, and that an experimental railway could be made which, if it works successfully, will suggest that the proposal of the Postmaster-General is justified. I hope the Labour party, some of whom are with us in the House this afternoon, and who object to expenditure, will support us in this Amendment——
§ Mr. W. THORNEExpenditure on armaments!
§ Sir F. BANBURYOnly on armaments! I understood they objected to expenditure —but I will not go into that now, and I am sorry the hon. Gentleman endeavoured to seduce me from my path. I presume it is no use to appeal to the Postmaster- 1099 General, and ask him to accept this Amendment, but you never can tell what may happen until you try, and, therefore, I earnestly ask the hon. Gentleman to accept the proposal of my hon. Friend.
§ Question put, "That the words pro posed to be left out stand part of the Question."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 287; Noes, 87.
1101| Division No. 119.] | AYES. | 4.31 p.m. |
| Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour) | Donelan, Captain A. | Leach, Charles |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Doris, William | Levy, Sir Maurice |
| Adamson, William | Duffy, William J. | Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert |
| Addison, Dr. Christopher | Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley) | Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas |
| Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. | Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich) |
| Agnew, Sir George William | Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid) | Lundon, Thomas |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) | Lyell, Charles Henry |
| Alden, Percy | Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) | Lynch, A. A. |
| Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire) | Essex, Sir Richard Walter | Macdonald, J. R. (Lelcester) |
| Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud) | Esslemont, George Birnie | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) |
| Arnold, Sydney | Falconer, J. | McGhee, Richard |
| Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry | Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles | Maclean, Donald |
| Baker, H. T. (Accrington) | Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson | Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. |
| Baker, Joseph Allan (Finsbury, E.) | Ffrench, Peter | MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South) |
| Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple) | Field, William | MacVeagh, Jeremiah |
| Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset) | Fitzgibbon, John | M'Callum, Sir John M. |
| Barnes, G. N. | Flavin, Michael Joseph | M'Kean, John |
| Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.) | France, Gerald Ashburner | McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald |
| Barton, W. | Gladstone, W. G. C. | M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs., Spalding) |
| Beale, Sir William Phipson | Glanville, Harold James | M'Micking, Major Gilbert |
| Beck, Arthur Cecil | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Marks, Sir George Croydon |
| Bann, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth) | Goldstone, Frank | Mason, David M. (Coventry) |
| Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets. St. George) | Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough) | Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G. |
| Bentham, G. J. | Greig, Colonel J. W. | Meagher, Michael |
| Bethell, Sir J. H. | Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward | Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Griffith, Ellis Jones | Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix) |
| Black, Arthur W. | Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke) | Menzies, Sir Walter |
| Boland, John Plus | Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) | Middlebrook, William |
| Booth, Frederick Handel | Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) | Millar, James Duncan |
| Bowerman, Charles W. | Hackett, John | Molloy, Michael |
| Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North) | Hancock, John George | Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred |
| Brace, William | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale) | Money, L. G. Chiozza |
| Brady, Patrick Joseph | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Mooney, John J. |
| Brocklehurst, William B. | Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire) | Morgan, George Hay |
| Brunner, John F. L. | Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West) | Morrell, Philip |
| Bryce, John Annan | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas |
| Burke, E. Haviland- | Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry | Muldoon, John |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Hayden, John Patrick | Munro, R. |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Hayward, Evan | Murphy, Martin J. |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar) | Hazleton, Richard | Murray, Captain Hon. A. C. |
| Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North) | Healy, Maurice (Cork) | Nannett[...], Joseph P. |
| Bytes, Sir William Pollard | Helme, Sir Norval Watson | Neilson, Francis |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Hemmerde, Edward George | Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster) |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich) | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Nolan, Joseph |
| Chancellor, H. G. | Henry, Sir Charles | Norman, Sir Henry |
| Chapple, Dr. William Allen | Higham, John Sharp | Norton, Captain Cecil W. |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. | Hinds, John | Nugent, Sir Walter Richard |
| Clancy, John Joseph | Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. | Nuttall, Harry |
| Clough, William | Holmes, Daniel Turner | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) |
| Clynes, John R. | Holt, Richard Durning | O'Doherty, Philip |
| Collins, G. P. (Greenock) | Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich) | O'Dowd, John |
| Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth) | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | O'Grady, James |
| Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J. | Hughes, Spencer Leigh | O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.) |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus | O'Malley, William |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh) | O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) |
| Cotton, William Francis | Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea) | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. |
| Cowan, W. H. | Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil) | O'Shee, James John |
| Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth) | O'Sullivan, Timothy |
| Crooks, William | Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East) | Palmer, Godfrey Mark |
| Crumley, Patrick | Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe) | Parker, James (Halifax) |
| Cullinan, John | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Parry, Thomas H. |
| Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy) | Jowett, Frederick William | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) |
| Davies, E. William (Eifion) | Joyce, Michael | Pearce, William (Limehouse) |
| Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) | Keating, Matthew | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Kellaway, Frederick George | Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham) |
| Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire) | Kelly, Edward | Philipps, Colonel Ivor (Southampton) |
| Dawes, James Arthur | Kennedy, Vincent Paul | Phillips, John (Longford, S.) |
| Delany, William | Kilbride, Denis | Pointer, Joseph |
| Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas | Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S.Molton) | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. |
| Devlin, Joseph | Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) | Price. C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) |
| Dewar, Sir J. A. | Lardner, James C. R. | Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham) |
| Dickinson, W. H. | Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West) | Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) |
| Dillon, John | Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th) | Primrose, Hon. Neil James |
| Pringle, William M. R. | Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees) | Waring, Walter |
| Radford, G. H. | Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton) | Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay |
| Raffan, Peter Wilson | Seely, Rt. Hon. Colonel J. E. B. | Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) |
| Raphael, Sir Herbert H. | Sheehy, David | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Rea. Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields) | Sherwell, Arthur James | Webb, H. |
| Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) | Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook | White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston) |
| Reddy, Michael | Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe) | White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.) |
| Redmond, John E. (Waterford) | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Redmond, William (Clare, E.) | Soames, Arthur Wellesley | Whitehouse, John Howard |
| Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.) | Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert | Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P. |
| Rendall, Atheistan | Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West) | Whyte, A. F. (Perth) |
| Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven) | Sutherland, John E. | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Sutton, John E. | Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen) |
| Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) | Taylor, John W. (Durham) | Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough) |
| Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs) | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) | Williamson, Sir Archibald |
| Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) | Thorne, William (West Ham) | Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.) |
| Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) | Toulmin, Sir George | Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.) |
| Robinson, Sidney | Trevelyan, Charles Philips | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) | Verney, Sir Harry | Winfrey, Richard |
| Roche, Augustine (Louth) | Wadsworth, J. | Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow) |
| Roe, Sir Thomas | Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince) | Yoxall, Sir James Henry |
| Rowntree, Arnold | Walton, Sir Joseph | |
| Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter | Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland. |
| Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) | Wardie, George J. | |
| NOES. | ||
| Agg-Gardner, James Tynte | Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead) | Mount, William Arthur |
| Amery, L. C. M. S. | Forster, Henry William | Orde-Powl[...]ett, Hon. W. G. A. |
| Anstruther-Gray, Major William | Gardner, Ernest | Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William |
| Ashley, Wilfrid W. | Gastrell, Major W. H. | Paget, Almeric Hugh |
| Baird, J. L. | Gibbs, G. A. | Peel, Lieut-Colonel R. F. |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Goldsmith, Frank | Pryce-Jones, Colonel E. |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton) | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester) | Grant, J. A. | Ronaldshay, Earl of |
| Barnston, Harry | Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.) | Royds, Edmund |
| Barrie, H. T. | Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbounre) | Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood) |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Haddock, George Bahr | Sanders, Robert Arthur |
| Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish- | Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight) | Sandys, G. J. |
| Blair, Reginald | Hardy, Rt, Hon. Laurence | Spear, Sir John Ward |
| Boyton, James | Harris, Henry Percy | Stanler, Beville |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon) | Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston) |
| Burgoyne, A. H. | Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.) | Starkey, John R. |
| Burn, Colonel C. R. | Hibbert, Sir Henry F. | Steel-Maitland, A. D. |
| Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.) | Hickman, Colonel T. E. | Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford) |
| Campion, W. R. | Hogge, James Myles | Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central) |
| Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred | Hope, Harry (Bute) | Talbot, Lord E. |
| Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University) | Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. | Tryon, Captain George Clement |
| Courthope, George Lloyd | Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East) | Valentia, Viscount |
| Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe) | Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury) | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| Dixon, C. H. | Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury) | Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Ripon) |
| Duncannon, Viscount | Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey) | Wood, John (Stalybridge) |
| Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M. | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lieut-Colonel A. R. | Worthington-Evans, I[...]. |
| Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.) | Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee | Younger, Sir George |
| Falle, Bertram Godfray | M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A. | |
| Fell, Arthur | M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. |
| Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A. | Mallaby-Deeley, Harry | James Hope and Mr. Rawlinson. |
Question put, and agreed to.