Lords Sitting of 14 March 1890

SAT FIRST.
The Earl of Malmesbury, after the death of his uncle.
THE NEW EDUCATION CODE.

  QUESTIONS—OBSERVATION'S.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, seeing the Lord President of the Council in his place, I will ask him when we may expect to have the print of the New Education Code, which was laid on the Table of your Lordships' House on the 10th March, furnished to us?
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Viscount CRANBROOK): In answer to my noble Friend, I will state the circumstances which have prevented the Code being furnished in printed form as early as is usual. My noble Friend is aware that the late Secretary of the Education Department died suddenly, and some time must elapse before matters can be brought into the condition in which they would have been if he had lived. Had his death not occurred the printed Code would have been furnished earlier. No delay took place in the appointment of a successor, but that gentleman has necessarily had a great deal of business thrust upon him in taking up his predecessor's work, and his time has been very much occupied. I may add that a great misfortune also has happened to him. A few days ago his wife was taken from him suddenly, and he was obliged to be absent from his duties for necessarily a time. There has consequently been some delay in printing the New Code, though it is in a forward state. It is now in print to a great extent, but requires careful revision. Measures have been taken for the preparation of the Instructions to Inspectors, so that they also will be laid upon the Table, if not actually with the Code, not long afterwards. I believe before the House rises for the Easter Recess the Code will be in your Lordships' hands. I need hardly say that I will do my best to secure it.
  EARL BEAUCUAMP: Then may I ask whether the time for objecting will be extended?
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOK: Yes; the time will run from the presentation of the printed Code.

THE FORTIFICATIONS AT COLOMBO.

  QUESTIONS—OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD CHELMSFORD,in rising to draw attention to the incomplete condition of the fortifications at Colombo; and to ask the Under Secretary of State for War when the armament for the several batteries of that station, which have been ready to receive it for some considerable time, will be delivered to the Ceylon Government, said: My Lords, I have placed on the notice Paper the question which appears in my name, because when recently in the Island of Ceylon I found considerable dissatisfaction existing among the members of the Legislative Assembly at the action of the Government with regard to the arrangements for the fortification of Colombo, in laying the cost of the fortifications on the revenue of the island. I certainly consider that it is a little unfair upon the island, which I have no doubt your Lordships are aware is very poor, that this charge which is entirely for Imperial purposes should have been laid upon the revenue of Ceylon. I think the money would have been much better employed for the actual purposes of the island. All the members of the Legislative Assembly were extremely annoyed that after the fortifications had been built with the money raised from the revenue of the island, they could not receive an assurance from anyone that the guns would be provided for the different batteries which had been constructed at their expanse. Since placing notice of this question on the Paper I have seen by last night's Report that the Secretary of State for War has assured the other House that those guns will be provided during the current year, and I hope that assurance will be satisfactory to the members of the Legislative Assembly and the people in Ceylon, who are naturally a little impatient at the delay which has occurred. I wish to state that I have put this question on the Paper without any idea of imputing

  831
  blame to the present War Department for the non-provision of these guns. I am well aware that the lamentable delay in providing guns for the different coaling stations cannot be laid at the door of the present administration or of the former one, or even of the one before that; it must be referred back to the time when, unfortunately, those in power chose to ignore what all the military nations in Europe were doing, and neglected to keep pace with them in changing the ancient muzzle-loaders for modern breech-loading guns. They would not throw aside the old antiquated system which had been proved by all other Powers to be inadequate. With these remarks, I beg to ask the question which stands in my name.
  THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (Earl BROWNLOW): I think your Lordships will agree with me, and I am quite sure no one will more readily concur than Lord Chelmsford himself, that it would not be for the benefit of the Public Service if I were to enter into too much detail in answering the question which has been put to me by the noble and gallant Lord with regard either to the size, position, and character of the emplacements, or to the calibres of the guns, which are to be fitted to them. However, I am very glad to be able to inform the noble and gallant, Lord I am advised that of the emplacements, a considerable number are now absolutely finished, and in some of them the guns are mounted. Some, on the other hand, are not finished, but are in a forward state, and one battery, I believe, is not begun. The reason for that battery not having been commenced is that, as I dare say the noble and gallant Lord knows, it has been found to be in a very cramped and inconvenient position, and it has been determined to remove the battery. Delay has occurred in commencing the work for this reason, that funds had to be provided by the Colony; but as those funds have now been voted, the work will be proceeded with immediately. It is hardly necessary for me to remind your Lordships that the completion of emplacements and fitting them for the guns is now a very different matter from what it was in former days. In the old times, the necessary work could, be done almost in a few days, or at any rate in a very few weeks, and the guns could easily be mounted. But now
  832
  it is very different: the steel rails for the rollers of the modern breech loading guns have to be bolted with long rods through the concrete in which they are fixed; then cement has to be run round the rods and the whole affair has to remain at rest without being touched for six months, while the cement is hardening. Until that time at least has elapsed, the guns cannot be mounted. All those things necessarily take a very long time. Then, with regard to the guns themselves, I am happy to say that a very considerable number of them, constituting the heavy armament, have been despatched, and we have received news of their arrival. Some of them, indeed, are already mounted and some of them are being mounted. As regards the quick-firing guns which are intended to be sent to Colombo, they are already finished, and are at this moment awaiting shipment. We hope to get them off very soon. Another issue of heavy guns will, we hope, be made in May, and we hope to have all the other guns ready by the end of the year. To sum, up I may say that we hope to have the whole of the defences of Colombo finished by the end of the coming financial year.

COUNTY COUNCILS ASSOCIATION EXPENSES BILL.—(No. 37.)

  THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading, read.
  LORD NORTON: My Lords, I beg to enter my protest against this Bill before it leaves your Lorships' House. It is a Bill to enable County Councils to subscribe to any association for the purpose of consultation and discussion on any matters relating to Local Government. A great many of your Lordships are on County Councils throughout the Kingdom, and I appeal to those noble Lords whether the County Councils have not already shown themselves only too prone to wander from their executive and administrative functions, and to enter upon unauthorised legislative disquisitions. In fact, the whole country is breaking up into fragmentary parliaments or assemblies for the purpose of talking ad populum, instead of acting in the plain service of the people. The very exact limit to the expenses of such talking, which this Bill proposes

  833
  is in itself an absurdity. It provides that the expenses of such consultations shall not exceed in the year in any county more than £31 10s.—a very arbitrary sum. It seems to me that the very fixing of such an average itself proves the unpractical and purposeless nature of the Bill. But it is proposed that this sum which will be a kind of County talking-rate, may take the form of an annual subscription to an association for the purpose, and for the reasonable expenses of representatives attending them. This seems to betray the electioneering cant of the day. We are already dissatisfied with the delegation of almost Parliamentary functions to the County Councils, and we want to add a still lower stratum of representative assessors to consult and debate with them. It may be said this is to cost only a small sum; but its smallness is the thin edge of the wedge, and larger sums will be hereafter subscribed by County Councils as debating societies. There is also an omission in the Bill; it does not provide for any expenses of deputations to wretched Ministers, particularly the Presidents of the Local Government Board, whose holidays will be bespoken by these consultative County Associations. I know it is useless for mo to take your Lordships' opinion upon the Third Reading, but I offer these remarks upon the Bill that it may not leave this House without a very solemn protest being made against it.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I cannot help thinking that my noble Friend who has just spoken is needlessly apprehensive, and that he is without sufficient ground for his apprehension, for this reason, that a similar association has been in operation for many years of the Municipal Councils of England and Wales, and that that association has met and consulted with great practical advantage to the work of the Municipal Councils. I cannot admit myself that the County Councils are likely to be inferior in wisdom or practical sense to the Municipal Councils; and unless they are we have experience from the actual operation of the Municipal Councils Association in the past that there is no danger in their consultation. There can only be danger if
  834
  the County Councils cannot be trusted to exhibit as much common sense and application, really, to their work as the Municipal Councils have displayed.
  Bill read 3ª (according to order), with the Amendments, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

LARCENY ACT, 1861, AMENDMENT (USE OF FIREARMS) BILL.—(No.18.)

  THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading, read.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWN: My Lords, there is an Amendment which I have to propose, but it is a very small one. It is for the purpose of restoring the Bill to the same condition in which it was when it left your Lordships' House last year. On the Third Reading, my late lamented Friend Lord FitzGerald proposed that Clause 61 of the Larceny Act should be added to those already in the Bill, and so render those persons who should be convicted under it liable to the penalties imposed by the Act. By some mistake that addition, which was consented to by your Lordships' House and passed, has not been printed with the Bill, and therefore has not appeared in the copies which have hitherto been placed before your Lordships. The 61st clause enacts that —
  "Whosoever shall steal any cheques, monies, or valuable securities from any dwelling-house, and shall by any means or threat put any one being so threatened in bodily fear, shall be deemed guilty of felony, and being convicted thereof shall be liable"
  and so on. My noble and learned Friend then stated, as well as I remember, that it was within his personal knowledge that cases had occurred of firearms being used under those circumstances, and that is an offence which certainly ought to be within the purview of the Act. I therefore, with the object of restoring the Bill to the condition in which it was when it left your Lordships' House, propose this Amendment.
  Amendment moved, in page 1, line 10, leave out the first ("and"), and after ("fifty-seven") insert ("and sixty-one"); Schedule, page 5, after paragraph 58 insert as a separate paragraph; (61.) [Here insert clause 61 of 24 and 25 Vict. c. 96].—(The Earl of Milltown.)
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Before we go to the Schedule, I want to ask my noble Friend, whether on the whole he does not think it expedient to pay a certain amount of regard to—what shall I say?—I may say, the sentiments of the Master of the Rolls, in view of the fact that probably elsewhere those sentiments will be more fully echoed than they are here. I think that the words "twice or thrice" in lines 23 and 24 might wisely be omitted. No doubt a great deal of the benefit to be derived from the Bill may be expected to proceed from the first whipping, the first application of the 50 strokes, and I do not think that the second or third whippings would be of sufficient advantage to justify my noble Friend in weighting his Bill with that which will adversely affect it elsewhere. I only suggest that as a matter of prudence.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWN: Of course I should desire to accept any suggestion coming from the Prime Minister, but I must point out that the words of the clause are not mine. The noble and learned Master of the Rolls was under a total misapprehension of the law upon the subject when he made his statement to this House. In laying down certain rules for the flogging of these misdemeanants, I was simply copying the words of the Act of Parliament for which my noble Friend now present is responsible, and which was passed in 1866 for the purpose of stopping the crime of robbery with violence usually called "garrotting." I have made no alteration in it whatever. It is just the same thing, and if I accept the Amendment of the noble Marquess the clause will be made altogether different to the Act from which it is taken and which it simply extends. However, if the noble Marquess, under the circumstances, still thinks it would be advisable to make a difference between the present Bill and the existing Act of Parliament, I shall of course adopt his suggestion. At the same time I do not anticipate any very great hostility in the other House, if only Her Majesty's Government will do something to enable it to come to a decision upon the Bill.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I cannot agree with the noble Earl that the proposal made by the noble Marquess would alter the existing law. No doubt in a single
  836
  Act it is provided that there should be or may be these repeated whippings administered. But we have now to consider, not the Act, but the application of the punishment of whipping for an altogether different series of offences, and unless the noble and learned Earl means to say that because in one Act this punishment has been awarded or rendered possible, it has become part of the British Constitution, and that in all other Acts into which it maybe thought advisable to introduce the punishment of whipping, it must be administered "once, twice, thrice," I confess I cannot understand his reasoning. We have now for the first time to award this punishment for a number of offences, and the question is whether in so awarding it we shall make the punishment once whipping, or inflict it once, twice, and thrice. We are not in the least concerned now with another Act, passed more than 20 years ago, which deals with another class of offences; and I cannot admit that when we are asked to begin afresh to extend this punishment of whipping, as proposed by this Bill, to the offences which are there dealt with, we are pledged to follow the same process in its infliction—that for all time we are to imitate the method thought right 20 years ago, even if we should think it right to flog at all.
  LORD NORTON: I think there would be considerable force in what has fallen from the noble and learned Lord if this Bill were upon a totally different subject and applied to a totally different kind of crime to that which is dealt with by the former Act, but it is simply because the crime dealt with by this Bill is of exactly the same character, only if anything worse in degree than the crime dealt with by what is called the "Garrotting Act," that there is a fair inference to be drawn from one Bill to the other that the two will be equally successful. The noble and learned Lord spoke as if corporal punishment were proposed to be applied to a totally new category of crime. That is not the case, for the subject-matter of this Bill is practically identical with that which is dealt with by the Act from which it is drawn. The Garrotting Act, which was so very successful, applied corporal punishment to people who murderously attacked for robbery in the dark. In one case the

  837
  garrotters broke the jaw of an old gentleman in getting his watch. This Bill would similarly deter from murderous burglary. For that class of crime this has teen found to be a deterrent punishment. Unless punishment is made deterrent you had better have no punishment at all; there is no use. On the Second Reading the noble Lord said this was retrograde legislation; but, in sequence of a series of like legislation, it is a step in advance. It is an application of precisely the same principle, not trenching on any new ground, not trespassing on anything experimental. There is no sense in comparing the whippings now inflicted with the floggings of a former age, and it is simply from the fact that in the olden times floggings were brutally excessive and therefore were abandoned, that the inference is drawn that the great and most needful resource of corporal punishment cannot be admittedly applied. As to the proposition which has come from the Prime Minister, I think the noble Earl who introduced the Bill is wise in accepting it; though I am to a certain extent sorry for it, because it will look as if this House had flinched from following the precedent which has already been successful, and the fact may be quoted in other places as showing that, after all, your Lordships have flinched from the full conviction upon which you, by large majorities last Session, passed the same Bill. The Prime Minister himself expressed an opinion that a considerable check was given to garrotting even before that Act passed. The mere threat of the Act operated to check the crime, and so I think the mere threat of this Act will be a check, and has already proved a check, to the use of firearms in burglary. I am sorry, therefore, that the effect of this Bill should be diminished in any respect at all. At the same time, I think the noble Earl was right in accepting the omission proposed.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWN: My Lords, I am not of a particularly bloodthirsty disposition, but I think it is necessary to award the necessary punishment to brutal burglars. My contention is that this punishment will deter them from putting a six-shooter in their pockets when they set out to commit burglaries, and I am
  838
  quite satisfied that many of the sacrifices of life which have occurred would have been avoided had this measure been in operation. As I am upon my legs I should like to refer for a moment to what was said by the Master of the Rolls.
  LORD HERSCHELL: This is a little out of order. The noble Earl has spoken upon the proposal of the Prime Minister. He can hardly reply in this way to what has been said by those who have spoken since.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWN": Then I beg leave to move that Amendment.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: With regard to line 25, may I take the opportunity of saying that I have no wish to flinch—a word which is perhaps more applicable to another person in these proceedings—from doing what I consider absolutely necessary, but I think it is not desirable to go further than. is absolutely necessary, and we may very well go by steps. Your Lordships may remember that the Master of the Rolls, in his speech, raised questions of a disagreeable anatomical character, which in the other House may possibly have some effect.
  Amendments agreed to.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWN: My Lords, in moving that the Bill be passed, I may perhaps now be allowed, notwithstanding the criticism of the noble and learned Lord, to say a few words with regard to the objection taken yesterday by the Master of the Rolls as to the 1st clause in the Schedule, which applies to cases of sacrilege. The noble Earl Kimberley made the same objection last year, on the ground that persons do not ordinarily live in churches and places of Divine worship, and therefore that nobody was likely to get hurt there by an armed burglar. I think that states the substance of the objection of the Master of the Rolls. But if I recollect rightly, a case occurred some time ago in which a Roman Catholic priest made a most plucky defence of his church against a burglar who was attempting to steal the communion plate, and though, the burglar was armed, the priest managed to frustrate his intentions. But a most remarkable case, which I recommend to the attention of the noble Earl, was a case which was tried at the Old Bailey, in, I think, the year 1884,

  839
  when a burglar named, I believe, Orrock, going on a predatory expedition, and having provided himself with a six-shooter, seeing a church apparently unprotected, proceeded to effect an entrance with the object of stealing the communion plate; but a policeman came upon the scene, and attempted to arrest Orrock, who thereupon pulled out his six-shooter and shot the policeman dead. Orrock was tried at the Old Bailey, before Mr. Justice Hawkins, convicted, sentenced to death, and executed. Thus two lives were lost, neither of which possibly would have been sacrificed had the provisions of my Bill been then the law of the land, for I think it probable that in that case the burglar when he placed the pistol in his pocket had no intention of using it for the deadly purpose which ho afterwards carried out, and had my Bill been in operation would have left it at home rather than run the risk of a flogging.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: The noble Lord has alluded to something I said last year. These are matters of opinion. He does not think that occurrence would have happened if this Bill had been the law of the land, but I think it would. That is, of course, a matter of opinion entirely. There are many other crimes committed where people have pistols and use them, and I do not see why this particular crime has been selected. As the noble Lord has mentioned one case, I will just mention another, which happened not very long ago in my own county. A man stole a horse, a police man attempted to arrest him, and he fired at the constable. As far as I can see, this penalty ought to have been applied to that man just as much as to a criminal committing a burglary. My objection to the Bill is simply this, that if you introduce the practice of whipping in this particular instance, I cannot see the slightest reason why you should not extend it to a vast number of other offences. I still maintain my opinion that it is a retrograde step, and one which is inconsistent with our whole system for long years past, during which we have had a considerable diminution of crime. I therefore see no reason at all for passing this Bill.
  Bill read 3ª (according to order); Amendments made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

TELEPHONE WIRES AND COMMUNICATIONS.

  QUESTION—OBSERVATIONS.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: My Lords, the question which I have put down upon the Paper has really reference to a Motion which I had the honour to make in your Lordships' House last year, when I asked the question of the Prime Minister what the intentions of the Government were with regard to the development of the telephone in this country, and especially with regard to the action of the Post Office. Really the subject is one which is of very great interest at the present time, because we may say that the telephone as a system hardly exists yet in this country. There have been many causes which have produced difficulty in developing the telephone; but I may say, having myself some personal experience, having largely used the telephone, and having carried out a great many experiments with it, that a more valuable and useful invention has not been produced in this century. Its adoption, however, very much depends for general use upon its being more perfectly developed. I may say that if it were fully developed any of your Lordships might be sitting quietly waiting at your writing tables, and you could have beside you a little box into which you could talk to your friends living at different places all over London, and at much greater distances, thus saving the trouble of correspondence and of sending telegrams, because the telephone is a far preferable mode of communication to the use of either telegrams or of correspondence. In fact, so capable is it of complete development that by means of it you can talk to persons as easily between London and Brighton or between London and any others of the large towns in England, and be as plainly heard as your Lordships can hear me in this House at the present moment. I am quite sure that the public is in favour of my view, that is, that the telephone is one of those valuable inventions which we all ought to have complete and entire facilities in using. That, my Lords, must be my apology for pressing the matter again on the attention of your House. The moment has come when, in the words which I think were used by the Prime Minister

  841
  last year, it is necessary for us, and when, as I say, it behoves the Legislature to take some steps in the matter, and to consider the action that is to be taken by the Government in reference to it. The valuable patents of Bell and Edison, that is to say several of them, the main patents, expire, I believe, this year, and therefore it is necessary if anything is done that the Government should now either undertake to establish a telephone system in London, or that they should be willing to depute those powers which they possess to public companies who are willing to take up this work. In order to develop a telephone system in London a very large expenditure of capital would be required; I should say that no private company ought to start upon such a work which could not command, £1,000,000 sterling of capital. The expense of laying great main circuits round London, and the expense of establishing main stations and sub-stations, would be very great; the running expenses also would be very large, and I think it would certainly not be safe for a private company to undertake the work under a capital of, say, £1,000,000 sterling. Therefore, my Lords, the question arises whether Her Majesty's Government would be prepared to recommend that an expenditure to so large an amount should be incurred, and thereby, in fact, an organisation established which would be quite as important as that new branch of the Post Office, the Parcels Post, which was established a few years ago; that is to say, whether Her Majesty's Government are prepared to recommend that so large an addition as that should be made to the work of the Post Office or not. That, of course, is a matter for Her Majesty's Government to decide. When I ventured to bring this matter before your Lordships' House last year there were several points which I ventured to touch upon. One was the question of communication; that is to say, overhead wires; and the either was the question of administration. The noble Marquess rather suggested that I had somewhat mixed up two questions which wore entirely separate; but I would venture to point out to him that really the two questions are inseparably connected and combined; because, of course, a telephone system is impossible unless provision is made for wire communication and for
  842
  its administration. It is therefore absolutely necessary in developing the telephone, to provide for that. In 1885 a Committee of the House of Commons sat upon the whole question of telephones and telephone wires. That Committee heard the evidence of the Post Office officials; it also heard the evidence of the engineer to the Post Office, of the Chairman, solicitor, engineers, and officials of the United Telephone Company, and of the Chairmen of the various sub-Telephone Companies which then existed; and that Committee then came to a conclusion upon the matter and made a Report. If your Lordships will permit me to say a few words about this Committee and their Report, I think it will help to clear up the question in the public mind. The object of the Committee was to find out what were the difficulties which existed with regard to overhead wires, and with regard to establishing communications, and as to what facilities the Post Office might give, and could give, in the matter; and the curious fact was brought out that the law is in a state of very great confusion on the whole question. Now, with regard to the powers which the Postmaster General exercises; he exercises his powers under various Acts of Parliament which were passed between the years 1863 and 1878. He obtains a monopoly by the Act of 1869, and the Act of 1868 gives him further powers with regard to the railways. In a few words, the Postmaster General has, practically, sufficient powers for the purpose of running telegraphic communications. He can, by giving notice to the Highway Boards, lay underground tubes or erect posts for the purpose of carrying wires along the highways; he can also give notice to private individuals and proceed to erect wires over their houses provided he does not approach them within a certain distance, and provided that what is required to be done comes within the powers possessed by the Post Office. There was no complaint made before the Committee that the Post Office were short of powers to do their work. There fore we arrive at this fact: that if Her Majesty's Government are prepared to undertake the establishment of a telephone system themselves, the Postmaster General possesses all the powers necessary for the purpose of carrying out the

  843
  work. But a curious point arises. Your Lordships are no doubt aware of the fact that when the litigation took place with regard to these matters, and the Post Office Authorities won their suit, licencss were then given by the Post Office Authorities to the United Telephone Company. They gave a licence to the United Telephone Company as a company to make communications for use between individuals and through their Telephone Exchanges, but they gave no running powers. The consequence was that the United Telephone Company, or as they call themselves now, the National Telephone Company, were in the position of any other private individual. They had no powers to break up roads such as were possessed by the Postmaster General, but they had to run their wires as best they could. They had to go and ask the permission of householders to put up their wires. They might or might not get that permission; and when they did get permission, they had to run their wires in and out in every sort of way for the purpose of making communications, and householders had the right even to pull down those wires if they annoyed or troubled them in any way. There is no question, therefore, that the system, such as it was, could hardly have been developed unless very huge powers had been conceded to a company. Now, the question is, would the Government, if not themselves prepared to take up this work, be prepared to recommend that the Postmaster General should concede powers to a company sufficient to enable them to do the work? There was a suit called the Walworth suit, in which the parish authorities tried to stop the United Telephone Company from running wires across the roads. That case was decided against the parish authorities, and it was held, that inasmuch as the roadways are only the property of the public for the purpose of traffic, the public have no right either to the soil under the roads—that is to say, no underground right, nor have they any right overhead—that is to say, towards the sky, except so far as regards anything which may impede the public traffic; and it was held by the Court of Appeal that any individual may run a wire across a roadway, provided it be placed at a sufficient height so as not to
  844
  impede the traffic. The consequence is that by that lapse of the Legislature, the Telephone Company have been able to get across roads and streets, though, curious to say, the Postmaster General has not those powers, because the Postmaster General can only act within the four corners of the Act of Parliament under which he derives his powers. Your Lordships will see, therefore, there is a confusion in this sense, that as there is no proper law regulating the right of crossing roads, private individuals and companies can act as they choose; whereas the Postmaster General is bound in a way that the companies or private individuals are not. It came out very strongly before the Committee that that was looked upon as a very great blot in the matter, and one which should undoubtedly be speedily remedied. Now, my Lords, the next question which arises is this. I will not trouble your Lordships by reading any portions of the Report, because I know that the matter is one in regard to which, in order to explain it clearly, one would have to go rather fully into it; and I think it is best to state the matter simply in a few words. With regard to the Report, this question occurs: Are Her Majesty's Government satisfied that the information we at present possess was sufficiently brought out by the Report of this Committee; or is it, in their opinion, advisable that a Committee of your Lordships' House should be appointed in order to inquire still further into the questions, first, as to the running of overhead wires, and secondly, what would be the best course to adopt with regard to the Post Office undertaking the telephoning of London? If the noble Marquess and the Government are of opinion that a Committee is not necessary, it might be possible to come to a still more speedy decision in the matter, because undoubtedly the information which this Report contains is, one may say, almost exhaustive as far as the present state of the law goes; and I do not think it has much changed since that period. There are various points which are necessary to be considered. In the first place, undoubtedly, the telephone, to be of any service, should be cheap. At the present time it costs £20 a year to each subscriber; consequently, the development it has assumed is perfectly contemptible in comparison with what it

  845
  might soon become. I see by a book of the Telephone Company's, which I have here, there are only 11,104 subscribers, as far as I can make out; therefore, your Lordships will see that it really is not worth while, in the opinion of many people, to pay this charge of £20 a year. Most of those people who use it are stockbrokers, merchants, and people in business. No doubt, a broker in the City finds it very useful to be able to telephone to his bankers; but to us at the West-End of London, who could likewise use the telephone for our business purposes as well as for our pleasure, that may be considered too high a charge, and we do not feel sufficient temptation to use it and pay £20 a year for that privilege. That is because there has been no development of the system. For that purpose I think we cannot do without the overhead wires. That was brought out fully in the Report. Surely there can be no objection to them. It is a very small wire that is used for this purpose, weighing about 21bs. to the 100 yards, fine copper wire. There is no danger in running these lines of fine copper wire overhead, and it is simply a question whether we should not, under proper regulations, allow the running of these wires in that way. There is no doubt that you cannot so run them unless you have power to take them over the premises of private individuals (always provided that you do not do them any injury) without their consent. The Postmaster General has that power, though if an owner can prove damage the wire has to be removed. But without that power to enable wires to be run over roofs we cannot have a telephone system in London. There is only one other point which I should like to mention before my question is replied to, and that is, that if the Post Office are going to take up this matter and create a Department for this purpose, the question of power really does not signify; but if there is to be any question of deputing these powers to public companies, two things will have to be considered: first, whether the Postmaster General has the right without going to Parliament to concede the powers he at present possesses to a public company— for at present the Postmaster General has not conceded any of his power; he simply gives
  846
  a licence to the company to carry on the work; and as that cannot develop the system, the first question is, whether the Postmaster General is prepared, in case the Post Office Authorities do not themselves take up the work, to concede his powers; and, secondly, can he concede them without a Special Act of Parliament? That is a very important question. Then there is also the question whether, if this work is to be given to any public company, it is to be made the subject of competition. If so, there must be some limit to the competition, otherwise you will have numerous lines running side by side. If you are only going to give the power to two companies, well and good; but if you are going to give it to three or more it will not do. Even if you are going to have two companies, you will have one person who is a member of one company and another person who is a member of another company desiring to communicate. There will be no communication between the Exchanges of those two companies, and therefore a man who may want to talk to a person who is subscriber of another company will be unable to do so because that person belongs to a different company. Therefore, your Lordships will see that it is necessary there should not be more than two companies, at any rate, on that ground alone. Then, again, you must have overhead wires, and you must consider what the result will be in that respect. In the City of New York, where for many years they allowed this overhead system to go on unimpeded and unchecked, there were sometimes as many as 300 or 400 wires of various kinds—electric, telephone, and telegraph wires running together overhead. Some of them would, perhaps, be dead, and at last they got into such inextricable difficulty with them altogether—there was so much confusion among the various wires and pipes, that they did not know which of them were dead and which were alive. There were live and dead telegraph wires as well as telephone and electric lighting wires; and the end of it all was that the whole thing had to be taken down and put up anew. If you are not careful to prevent it yon will have the same thing with regard to the telephone; and if more than two companies were to start this work, we

  847
  should get into a state of hopeless and inextricable confusion. I wish, therefore, to ask Her Majesty's Government, in case they do not propose themselves to undertake this work, whether they would propose to put it up to the competition of more than one company, or whether they would give it to one alone? No doubt, if you give this right to a public company, the operations of that public company will largely interfere with the receipts of the Telegraph Department of the Post Office, but I am sure your Lordships will not think that it would be right for a great invention which would be useful to us all to be burked or stopped in its development because it would interfere with the receipts of a venture which the Government bought and took over many years ago. Large profits, are undoubtedly, to be obtained from working a telephone system. The present Telephone Company began by running up their shares in the market to the amount of 300 per cent; that is to say, the £5 shares went up to very nearly £15, and the shares in the sub-companies also went up considerably. Not long ago they combined together and amalgamated their stock. They took their stock at its market value, as they called it, they called that new capital, and they issued it in the form of new shares. That is to say, they practically watered the capital of that company to the extent of the boom that had been given to it; so that that large amount was practically coming out of the profits of the business. I say, therefore, that as the profits of this business are very large, the Government would be justified in charging a very high royalty in reference to conceding the powers which the Postmaster General possesses; and, on the other hand, they might keep under their own control the main trunk lines between the large towns, so that the Exchanges would have to use the Government lines whenever they wished to communicate between the different Exchanges and different systems. Then, undoubtedly, with regard to the municipal telegraph receipts, the telephone will interfere with the telegraph. It is much easier to make a telephonic communication than it is to send a telegraphic message. It is infinitely more convenient to communicate by
  848
  telephone than by telegram, because you can get an answer at the same time, so that no doubt the telegraph receipts will be interfered with; but the Government will protect itself in that respect by the royalty it will charge. My Lords, my questions are:—First, whether Her Majesty's Government consider it would be advisable to appoint a Committee to inquire into the question of running overhead wires, and also into the question whether it is advisable that the Post Office should itself adopt and carry out the working of this general telephone system; and, secondly, whether Her Majesty's Government would be prepared, if they decide not to take up the working of it themselves, to grant to public companies the rights which the Postmaster General now possesses; and, thirdly, whether they would refrain from giving those rights to more than, say, two companies, owing to the great state of confusion which would arise there from. I think, my Lords, that covers all the questions I wish to ask, and I have only now to thank your Lordships for the patience you have shown in listening to these remarks.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD of TRADE (LORD BALFOUR of BURLEIGH): My Lords, as I have the honour to represent the Post Office in this House, your Lordships will allow me to answer the questions which have been put by the noble Duke. At the outset, I say at once that I am sure your Lordships will all agree in the great importance of the subject which the noble Duke has brought before the House, and I am sure we shall be equally unanimous in our desire that no undue obstacle should be put in the way of the development of telephonic communication in this country for the convenience of the public in any way by which that development can be reasonably brought about. The noble Duke referred to the discussion which took place last year in this House upon a kindred subject. The questions which he then brought forward were somewhat different, involving as they did questions regarding overhead electric lighting wires and other matters of that nature, as well as a certain scheme of amalgamation which occupied a considerable part of the speech he then made. Tour Lordships may recollect that in the Motion last year the concluding part of

  849
  the Motion which he then made for the appointment of a Select Committee foreshadowed and bore some resemblance to the main part of the Motion on the Paper this evening; and, as to that, the noble Marquess at the head of the Government intimated that he did not think it was a desirable subject of inquiry. Now, my Lords, I have to repeat that expression of opinion, and for what I venture to think at the present time is even a stronger reason. As the noble Duke has said, some patents of great importance will expire at the end of the present year, and I am authorised to say that the relations of the Post Office with, the Telephone Companies are at present under the consideration of the Government. Your Lordships will observe that these are matters involving large questions of private right, and, therefore, it is not very desirable that at this stage they should form the subject of investigation by a Committee. It is, therefore, better that the more usual and proper course should be followed, which would be for the Government to make up its mind with regard to what proposals should be made in these matters, that it should then communicate them to Parliament; and that Parliament should express its opinion upon them. Therefore, I hope that, as regards the latter part of the Motion, the noble Duke will not press his request for an inquiry by a Committee of this House. With regard to the first part of the question, there are, of course, not absolutely the same objections to the inquiry; but, under the circumstances which I have mentioned, and considering the fact that it was inquired into by a Committee of the other House so lately as 1885, I venture to express in a general way the opinion that it is undesirable to re-open the matter at the present time. I am far from saying that the whole question was thoroughly threshed out by that Committee; and undoubtedly, as the noble Duke has said, confusion exists in regard to the exact state of the law in the matter, so that if the noble Duke presses for a Committee of inquiry, and will put the exact terms of the Motion and reference on the Paper, I think we may promise to give the matter the most careful consideration; but, at the same time, unless he has good reasons for pressing for it at the present time, I think it is
  850
  undesirable that the matter should be gone into during the present Session.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: My Lords, with regard to the point as to the difference between the Motion of last year and the present one, I wish to avoid bringing in any question as to the electric lighting wires, because that is rather a question for the Board of Trade authorities, and it comes to a large extent under their functions. With regard to the appointment of a Committee of your Lordships' House, until Her Majesty's Government have expressed their intention with regard to the action of the Post Office Authorities, I quite understand that it would be undesirable to inquire into the development of the telephone itself. But with regard to the question of giving power for running over-head wires, I think your Lordships have got complete information in the Report of the House of Commons Committee. The point I would press on Her Majesty's Government is that it is very desirable that Her Majesty's Government should intimate to the public the line of conduct they mean to adopt as soon as possible, and that we should also know, when they do inform us of it, what they propose to do in regard to taking up the work, whether they mean to give these powers to public companies, and the conditions under which those powers should be given. I, therefore, withdraw the Motion as it stands, and leave it to Her Majesty's Government at some future date, which I hope will not be very late in the Session, to state their intention upon the subject.

COMMITTEE OF SELECTION FOR STANDING COMMITTEES.
Report from, That the Committee have discharged the Earl of Minto from the Standing Committee for Bills relating to Law, &c.; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
House adjourned at half-past Five o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.