THIRD READING. (Hansard, 21 March 1861)

§ LORD LYVEDEN
said, that a perusal of the evidence on the subject of the contract with the company had removed his objection to the wording of this Bill. He hoped, however, that Her Majesty's Government were prepared to say, through his noble Friend the Postmaster General, that they would not enter into any future engagement of a similar character with this or any other company without notice to Parliament, and that they would not incur any expense, either in attempting to recover the cable or setting this company on its legs again, without giving Parliament an opportunity of expressing its opinion on such proceeding.

THE EARL OF CAITHNESS
said, he did not wish to prolong discussion on this subject, but still he wished to bring shortly under the notice of their Lordships the great danger incurred in giving guarantees to companies of so precarious a nature as electric telegraph companies, especially when connected with submarine operations. As a director of an electric telegraph company he could speak on the subject to his cost, and the cost of the company with which he was connected. It was thought that the wire when covered with a coating of gutta percha was quite safe, but experience showed that the cable was very destructible. He held a statement of the 152 late Mr. Robert Stephenson in his hand, in which he said— I have no doubt the experience which we have now acquired with regard to the durability of marine cables is very unfavourable, that is, as regards their present form and shape; but with greater lightness and less gravity I have no doubt that submarine cables will eventually be extended over a large portion of the world. The vitality of the cable is the great question. Some are worn out and decay in five or six years, some endure for ten years, and some extend to twelve, fourteen, or fifteen years. He thought it unwise, therefore, to guarantee for fifty years such a company as the Red Sea Company, unless that Company was also bound to keep the line in good and effective working order. He certainly should have desired a large guarantee for his own line, because when the works were stopped, and there were no outgoings, the company would have nothing to do but to receive and pocket their money. There was a great difference in the cost of overland and submarine telegraph lines. The cost of construction for an overland telegraph was £30 per mile, of a submarine telegraph £300, and of an underground one £120. The cost of maintaining an overland telegraph was £8 per mile, and of a submarine telegraph £25. But the matter was still worse when there was a bad cable, and consequently no profits. He thought that the Government ought not to enter into a guarantee without at least requiring a counter guarantee for the maintenance of the cable in effective order.

§ LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY
said, he had already explained to their Lordships what the object of the present Bill was—that was, simply to correct an omission in the original contract. The conditions of the contract as between the Government and Company would remain exactly as before. He could assure his noble Friend (Lord Lyveden) that Her Majesty's Government had learnt a lesson from the unfortunate case of this Red Sea Telegraph, and that they would not give any guarantee to any future company for the construction of any electric lines without previously submitting it to Parliament, and letting the public have a full knowledge of all the circumstances. As to the submarine telegraphs, there were so many difficulties connected with their construction that it was clear we had not yet arrived at satisfactory information on the subject.