Sitting of 30 May 1912

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

DEATH OF HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF DENMARK.
The TREASURER of the HOUSEHOLD (Captain F. E. Guest)The TREASURER of the HOUSEHOLD (Captain F. E. Guest) reported His Majesty's Answer to the Address of the 15th day of this instant May as followeth:—
I return you my most sincere thanks for your loyal and dutiful Address, expressing sympathy with me in the great loss which I have sustained by the death of my beloved uncle, King Frederick of Denmark.
It affords me great comfort and gratification to receive this expression of your cordial feelings towards myself and the Royal Family, and to be reminded of the warm interest you lake in all that concerns them.
I will not fail to communicate to His Majesty King Christian your message of condolence with, him and the Royal Family and the Government and people of Denmark.
17th May, 1912.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—

Derwent Valley Water Bill [Lords].

Brighton Corporation Bill [Lords].

Hove Corporation Bill [Lords]

Stockport Corporation Bill [Lords].

Midland Railway (London, Tilbury, and Southend Railway Purchase) Bill [Lords].

Llanelly Rural District Water Bill [Lords].

1530

City of London (Various Powers) Bill [Lords].

Swanage Gas and Water Bill [Lords].

Stepney Borough Council (Spitalfields Market) Bill [Lords].

Price's Patent Candle Company Bill [Lords],

Great Central Railway Bill [Lords].

Australian Agricultural Company Bill [Lords].

Brighton and Hove General Cas Company Bill [Lords].

Christchurch Gas Bill [Lords].

Herne Bay Gas Bill [Lords].

Brodesworth and District Gas Bill [Lords].

London and North-Western Railway Bill [Lords].

Birkbeck Share and Debenture Trust Bill [Lords].

York United Gas Bill [Lords].

Wandsworth, Wimbledon, and Epsom District Gas Bill [Lords].

Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.

Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into not complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have not been complied with, namely:—
Bawtry and District Gas Bill [Lords].
Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
Provisional Order Bills (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with).—Mr. SPEAKER, laid upon the' Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the' First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:—
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill.
Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time To-morrow.
Church Stretton Urban District Water Bill,
Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
London United Tramways Bill,
Shipley Urban District Council Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.
Belfast Corporation Bill [Lords'],
As amended, considered; Amendments made; Bill to be read the third time.
Glasgow Boundaries Bill,
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Great Western Railway Bill,
As amended, considered; Amendments made; Bill to be read the third time.
Tendring Hundred Water and Gas Bill [Lords],
As amended, to be considered Tomorrow.
Lea Bridge District Gas Company Bill [Lords],
Maidenhead Gas Company Bill [Lords],
To be read a second time To-morrow.
Manchester Ship Canal Bill [Lords'],
Read a second time, and committed.
North Middlesex Gas Company Bill [Lords],
To be read a second time To-morrow.
North Ormesby, South Bank, Normanby, and Grangetown Railless Traction Bill [Lords],
Read a second time, and committed.
Southgate and District Gas Company Bill [Lords],
South Suburban Gas Bill [Lords],
West Riding of Yorkshire Asylums Bill [Lords],
To be read a second time To-morrow.
Ystradfellte Water Bill [Lords],
Read a second time, and committed.
Aberdeen Market Company Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],
Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
Glasgow and South-Western Railway Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],
Third Reading deferred till To-morrow.
Allan Glen's School Order Confirmation Bill,
Considered; to be read the third time To-morrow.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders-(No. 1) Bill,
As amended, considered; to be read the third time To-morrow.
Gas and Water Provisional Orders Bill (by Order),
As amended, considered; to be read the third time To-morrow.
Clyde Lighthouses Order Confirmation Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
Standing Orders,
Resolution reported from the Select Committee;
"That, in the case of the London Institution (Transfer) Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the Bill be permitted to proceed."
Resolution agreed to.

AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS (IRELAND).
Copy presented of Prices of Crops, Live Stock, and other Agricultural Products for the year 1911 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
Copies presented of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 4863, 4869, 4873, and 4877 to 4879 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
CHINA (No. 1, 1912).
Copy presented of Correspondence respecting the Affairs of China [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

NATIONAL DEBT.
Copy presented of Return showing (1) the Aggregate Gross Liabilities of the State as represented by the Nominal Funded Debt, Estimated Capital Liability in respect of Terminable Annuities, Unfunded Debt, and other Liabilities in respect of Debt, the Estimated Assets, and the Exchequer Balances at the close of each financial year from 1835–6 to 1911–12,

1533
both inclusive; and (2) the Gross and Net Expenditure charged annually during that period against the Public Revenue on account of the National Debt and other Payments connected with Capital Liabilities [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

MALTA.
Copy presented of Report of the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the Finances, Economic Position, and Judicial procedure of Malta [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
ROYAL OBSERVATORY (EDINBURGH).
Copy presented of Twenty-second Annual Report of the Astronomer Royal for Scotland [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
GERMANY (NAVAL LAW AMENDMENT).
Copy presented of Translation of Naval Law Amendment Bill [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
CIVIL SERVICE (ROYAL COMMISSION).
Copy presented of First Report of the Commissioners, with Appendix (Minutes of Evidence, 26th March to 19th April, 1912, with Appendices) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
SHOP HOURS ACT, 1904.
Copy presented of Order made by the Council of the county borough of Sunder-land, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, fixing the Hours of Closing for certain classes of Shops within the county borough [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (JOINT COMMITTEE) (REGULATIONS).
Copy presented of Provisional Regulations of the National Health Insurance Joint Committee as to the time for joining an Approved Society, dated 20th May, 1912 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 140.]
FOREIGN PARLIAMENTS.
Address "for Return showing the arrangements made by the Parliaments of France, Germany, and Italy, whereby, through the operation of Standing Committees appointed for the purpose, Members are kept in touch with the proceedings of the different Departments of State-other than the Foreign Department."—[Mr. Noel Buxton.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Baghdad Railway.
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Imperial Ottoman Government has acquainted His Majesty's Government with, its views as regards the construction of the Gulf section of the Baghdad Railway; and whether there is any information he could at present give the House on the subject?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Acland): As I have already stated, negotiations with the Turkish Government on this subject are in progress; but they involve a large number of complicated technical questions, and it would not be possible to make a statement at this stage.

  Opium Production (China).
  EARL of RONALDSHAYasked if the right hon. Gentleman has any reports showing that the production of opium is being carried on unchecked in certain provinces in China; and, if so, has he any information which he can give the House on the matter?
  Mr. ACLAND: Reports have been received that opium cultivation is proceeding in certain provinces of China, over which in the present circumstances the Chinese Government are unable to exercise any effective control. His Majesty's Government are, however, confident that with the full restoration of order the Chinese Government will take the necessary steps to ensure the enforcement of the suppression of the cultivation of opium throughout China.
  Sir J. D. REES: Do existing circumstances in China justify that confidence on behalf of His Majesty's Government?
  Mr. ACLAND: We should not be confident only under circumstances that justify our confidence.

  Miss Malecka (Sentence).
  EARL Of RONALDSHAYasked the Secretary of State for Foregn Affairs if Tie could say whether the sentence passed on Miss Malecka involves the deprivation of all civil rights, and, after the four years' penal servitude, exile to Siberia for life?
  Mr. KINGasked whether, in view of the fact that Miss Malecka was described both in the indictment and in the sentence as a British subject, it may be assumed that the Russian Government have abandoned their claim to treat her as a Russian subject?
  Mr. WHITEHOUSEasked (1) whether the right hon. Gentleman could now state what representations he has made to the Russian, Government with regard to the conviction and sentence of Miss Malecka; (2) whether he has obtained any Report from the British Consul at Warsaw to the health of Miss Malecka; (3) if he can state whether Miss Malecka has entered notice of appeal against her sentence; and (4) whether he has now received the Report from the British Consul at Warsaw on Miss Malecka's case?
  Mr. MORRELLasked whether the right hon. Gentleman has yet made full inquiries into the Report of the trial of Miss Malecka; and whether, in the event of his being satisfied that she cannot be proved to have been associated with any definite act of conspiracy or other criminal practice, he will make representations to the Russian Government on her behalf?
  Mr. WILESasked if the right hon. Gentleman can state where Miss Malecka is now confined?
  Dr. ADDISONasked whether Miss Malecka is permitted to receive letters and to see any of her friends; and whether she has yet been visited either by the British Consul or by any other person since her trial?
  Mr. KINGasked (1) whether the Report which he has received from Warsaw concerning Miss Malecka's trial includes a verbatim report of the proceedings or only an abstract of the evidence, addresses of counsel, and the judgment of, the Court; and (2) whether there has been received at
  1536
  the Foreign Office any petitions, letters, or other communications protesting against the conviction of Miss Malecka?
  Mr. DUNCAN MILLARasked whether the right hon. Gentleman can say when the sentence of hard labour on Miss Malecka will be enforced; and whether it will have to be served in a Siberian or a European prison?
  Mr. RONALD M'NEILLasked whether Miss Malecka has been sentenced by a Russian Court to undergo a period of penal servitude involving exile to Siberia for life; whether she was described as a British subject in the indictment on which she was tried; and whether he will make an immediate and energetic representation to the Russian Government with a view to obtaining the lady's pardon and release?
  Mr. NOEL BUXTONasked (1) whether the right hon. Gentleman has ascertained that the charge against Miss Malecka is one of association with Terrorists or of association with Socialists only; (2) whether he adheres to his original opinion that Miss Malecka is a British subject, and that the Foreign Office was justified in granting her the protection of a British passport, or whether he has adopted the Russian view that she is technically a Russian subject; and (3) whether the British Consul has visited Miss Malecka since the date of her conviction; and, if not, whether he has definitely obtained permission to do so?
  Mr. PONSONBYasked whether Miss Malecka has been refused permission by the Procuror Jigin to see her lawyer or the British Consul?
  Mr. ACLAND: I have been in communication with the Russian Government on this subject, who state that it is impossible for them to say anything until they have been able to student the record of the trial, and that Miss Malecka has a fortnight from the 17th May in which to decide whether to avail herself of any means of appeal. They further state that there is incontrovertible proof of her Russian nationality, that the Court had made a mistake in describing her otherwise, and that in consequence the Consul can only visit her privately on the same footing and in the same way as other private persons. I have telegraphed to the Consul to apply for permission to visit Miss Malecka unofficially. The Consul informs me that the despatch of the full

  1537
  report was delayed by consultation with Miss Malecka's counsel, but that full particulars of the trial were sent by post on Saturday; they will presumably be received to-day or to-morrow. But meanwhile I can give the following information on points of detail. I am informed by the Consul that her counsel, acting on her instructions, is preparing a petition to the Emperor; her health is good; she is at present in Warsaw female prison and has a separate room. Pending a reply to her petition the sentence will be in abeyance, and if carried out will be served in the same prison in Warsaw. At present friends can visit her and letters should be sent to her counsel. When the full report of the trial has been received the whole case will be carefully considered by His Majesty's Government. Till that has been done I cannot make any full statement. I shall be ready to give what further information I can on Wednesday.
  EARL of RONALDSHAY: Is the hon. Gentleman not in a position to give an answer to the particular question which I put on the Paper as to what this sentence involves?
  Mr. ACLAND: That is just one of the things we cannot say for certain until we have a full report of the trial.
  Sir J. D. REES: May I ask whether an agitation which presumes that the Russian Courts are unjust and oppressive can fail to prejudice Miss Malecka's case before the Court of Appeal?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter of opinion which His Majesty's Government cannot answer.
  Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: Will the hon. Gentleman be good enough to convey to the Foreign Secretary the very widespread interest which is taken in this case, not only in this country, but also in Ireland, and the fact that there is a strong desire that special and particular action should be taken by the Foreign Office in regard to this matter in order to prove whether it is worth anyone's while to be a British subject at all?
  Mr. ACLAND: I think the House may be fully assured that a very deep interest is taken in this matter, and the very full appreciation by the Foreign Secretary of the feeling in this country on the subject, and the fact that we have already made communications with the Russian Govern-
  1538
  ment on that point, verifies what I have said on that question.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Arising out of the reply, I desire to ask whether the petition to the Czar the Under-Secretary referred to is the same thing as a formal notice of appeal; and, if not, if a formal notice of appeal has been given by Miss Malecka or her counsel?
  Mr. ACLAND: No, Sir; we understand it was open to Miss Malecka to appeal on a point of law to a Committee of the Senate. It was also open to her to send a petition to the Czar, and we understand that she has elected to take the second course.
  Mr. MORRELL: May I ask whether the Foreign Office is going to admit the contention of the Russian Government that she is a Russian subject, or whether they will not rather insist that the Russian Government, if they have made a mistake, should now be bound by their own mistake?
  Mr. ACLAND: I think hon. Members who desire to ask questions with regard to the point of nationality had better wait till we reach the question of the hon. Member for North Somerset (Mr. King).
  Sir W. BYLES: As the report is expected to be received to-morrow and the House breaks up on Wednesday, can the hon. Gentleman promise a further statement before the holidays?
  Mr. ACLAND: I have already stated that the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs will be willing to give any further information, possibly on Wednesday.
  Mr. FALCONER: May I ask whether the lady in question has no right of appeal except on a point of law?
  Mr. ACLAND: I think I have made it clear that, so far as my information goes, she has a right of appeal to the Committee of the Senate on a point of law and a right of appeal to the Czar apart from any point of law.
  Mr. FALCONER: Am I to understand that, apart from the petition to the Czar, she has no right of appeal except on a question of law?
  Mr. ACLAND: As we understand it, as appeal only lies to a higher court on a question of law or of procedure arising out of the trial itself.
  Major AUSTRUTHER-GRAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House how long a reply to these petitions usually takes? It will not be unduly prolonged?
  Mr. ACLAND: I have no information on that point. All we know is that until the petition has been presented and a decision has been come to upon it, sentence will not take effect.
  Mr. RONALD M'NEILL: Can the hon. Gentleman give us any assurance, apart altogether from the legal aspects of the case, and assuming the appeal, if made, goes against the lady, His Majesty's Government will take any steps with a view to obtaining a free pardon from the Russian Emperor?
  Mr. ACLAND: The hon. Member's question is based on an assumption which I would rather not entertain.
  Mr. BUTCHER: May I ask whether any explanation has been offered as to how it came about the Russian Court made the mistake, if it be a mistake, of describing this lady as a British subject?
  Mr. ACLAND: I have no information on that point.
  Sir W. BYLESasked whether on several occasions the British Government has successfully intervened for the release of a British subject condemned in the Courts of a foreign Power?
  Mr. ACLAND: I have not referred to precedents, but I should think that the answer is probably in the affirmative.
  Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has considered the various occasions on which the Government of this country has intervened on behalf of British subjects condemned in foreign Courts for purely political offences or on charges involving no moral turpitude; and whether he has found any applicable to the circumstances of Miss Malecka?
  Mr. ACLAND: As regards the first part of the question, I would refer to the answer just given. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative. The question of Miss Malecka's nationality formed the subject of correspondence with the Russian Government last year, which can be laid before the House if desired.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Do I understand the hon. Gentleman to say that in
  1540
  the view of the Russian Government the Russian Court was mistaken as to the fact of her nationality?
  Mr. ACLAND: That was the effect of what I said in answer to the previous question.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: If the Court is mistaken on one question of fact may it not be mistaken in other facts, and1 ought there not to be an appeal?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman cannot answer that question.
  Mr. MORRELL: Is it not a fact that during the eighteen months she was in Warsaw she was living all the time under a British passport?
  Mr. ACLAND: Yes, naturally a person who under our law is, while in England, a British subject, would be granted a British, passport if she desired to visit a foreign country, but that does not exclude the-possibility that under the law of some other nation she might equally be the subject of that other nation when in that country.
  Mr. FRED HALL (Dulwich): May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether a foreigner under the circumstances would be granted a British passport stating clearly thereon the "holder is a British subject"?
  Mr. ACLAND: If she was a British subject in the eyes of the British law, she would be granted a British passport.
  Mr. FRED HALL (Dulwich): May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he or any Members of His Majesty's Government are of opinion that Miss Malecka was a British subject?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman cannot answer a question of that kind.
  Sir G. PARKER: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he will take it that it is the desire of the House that any correspondence which has passed between this country and the Russian Government should be laid on the Table?
  Mr. ACLAND: Certainly, the correspondence and papers are being now collected in order that they may be laid.
  Mr. T. E. HARVEY: Can they be laid before the House adjourns?
  Mr. ACLAND: It would probably not be possible to get all the papers in print and distributed before Wednesday, but, of course, I will see what can be done.
  Mr. MORRELL: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of laying the first part?
  Mr. ACLAND: I will see what can be done.

  Office of Works (Architectural Assistants).
  Mr. SNOWDENasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, if it is his intention to see his undertaking of 7th December last in this House, that the desires of all of the class termed architectural assistants should be ascertained with a view to placing them upon the established list, carried into effect?
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury): I beg to refer my hon. Friend to my reply of the 6th instant in answer to a similar question asked by him.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: May I ask the hon. Member if he is aware that the reply to which he refers me was no answer to my question at all?
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: I can only refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I did give.
  Mr. SNOWDENasked the hon. Gentleman whether up to and including the year 1903 the class termed architectural assistants, formerly senior draughtsmen, engaged in his Department, performed all the professional duties, and with the ability now expected, of the assistant architects, consisting of the charge of one or more contracts with the preparation of all the design and construction plans directly under the architects; or what class did perform these duties at this period, seeing that the total number of the class termed assistant architects numbered only eight, who were engaged in nearly every instance upon official routine, and that the amount of the architectural work in the Department was within 80 per cent, of the total amount at present, but that the total number now is forty-six; whether he is prepared to aver that the professional abilities exhibited in the exercise of these duties by the architectural assistants were not equal to those exhibited now by
  1542
  the class termed assistant architects; and why since that period numbers of junior draughtsmen have been established to take over these duties formerly satisfactorily performed, thus causing grave dissatisfaction to the architectural assistants?
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. In reply to the second part, the hon. Member is mistaken in his figures. There were thirty-one assistant architects in 1903. There are now forty-nine. Of temporary men there were about 120 in 1903, and there are about 216 now. As regards the third point, the architectural assistants have in the majority of cases had the opportunity of competing for permanent posts, and have either not availed themselves of it or have failed. As regards the last point, the establishment has since 1902 been recruited by competitive examination of members of the unestablished staff.
  Mr. SNOWDENasked the hon. Gentleman whether the titles of the two classes engaged in his Department, architectural assistants and assistant architects, are upon professional grounds one and the same; that the professional diplomas held by both classes are equally distributed, the number of associates and licentiates of the Royal Institution of British Architects in the architectural assistants' class being twenty out of a total of fifty and that of the assistant architect class eighteen out of a total of forty-six; whether the services rendered by both these classes are one and the same; and that both these classes are equally certificated, the one class holding the technical certificate of the Commissioners of the Board of Works and the other class that of the Commissioners of the Civil Service; and will he therefore see that the Civil Service rule of equal reward for equal class conditions is in this case observed by establishment and remuneration?
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: There are nineteen Associates of the Royal Institute of British Architects among the assistant architects, and eleven among the architectural assistants. There are also two Licentiates among the former and twelve among the latter. The Associates and Licentiates are, of course, not upon the same footing. The answer to the third question is in the negative, and to the fourth that the two certificates are not in, any way equivalent.
  Mr. SNOWDENasked the hon. Gentleman whether he will take the necessary steps to prevent the present established architects' staff, termed assistant architects, from being increased by the present method by members of the junior unestablished staff, termed draughtsmen, by examination or otherwise, until the services of every member of the present certificated senior unestablished staff, termed architectural assistants, has been fully utilised by establishment and remuneration as those in a similar professional position, classed as assistant architects?
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: The First Commissioner regrets that he is unable to give the undertaking required.
  Mr. SNOWDENasked the hon. Gentleman whether the designs and the necessary constructive documents constituting the basis of the building contracts formerly in the sole charge of the class termed architectural assistants directly under the chief of the branch is being now taken from them, thus reducing their position to a subordinate one, and handed over to a class junior to them in age and service and termed assistant architects of the second class; that the resulting friction occasioned by this action is hampering the progress of the work of the Department; and will he give instructions that the orginal express conditions of service in this and other respects of the architectural assistants be reverted to?
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: The points raised in this question are practically dealt with in my previous replies. The growth of work has rendered necessary the increase of the permanent staff in order to relieve the architects by devolving a certain amount of the work on the assistant architects. Mo instance of friction hampering the progress of the work of the Department has been brought to the notice of the First Commissioner, and no instructions are needed for any change in the current procedure.

  Serpentine, Hyde Park (London).
  Captain JESSELasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether his attention has been called to the recent death by drowning in the Serpentine; whether the accident that occurred was due to the tenacious mud at the bottom which prevented the body from rising; if so, whether he would con-
  1544
  sider the advisability of cleaning the Serpentine at the earliest possible moment; and could he state the date when last the Serpentine was cleaned?
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: The attention of the First Commissioner has been called to this accident, but there is no reason to think that the mud in the Serpentine had anything to do with the drowning. The Serpentine has only once been cleaned out, namely, in 1869. The cost of this operation is very large, and there seems to be no reason for another cleaning at present.
  Captain JESSEL: May I ask whether steps will be taken to make further inquiries?
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: No, Sir. When the hon. Member put his question down, a most careful inquiry was made from the bailiff and others connected with the Serpentine, and they came to the conclusion that there was no ground for supposing that the mud was responsible for the accident?
  Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKE: Is it not a fact that the turning out of the Serpentine in 1869 was due to a sad accident at the time?
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: I am afraid my memory does not carry me back to that time.

  Railways Bill.
  Mr. PETOasked the President of the Board of Trade when the Second Reading of the Railways Bill will be taken; whether he can promise that at least two days will be given for the Second Reading Debate; and whether he can let the deputation of traders, represented by the Mansion House Association, have his reply to the points raised before Whitsuntide in order that it may have adequate consideration before the date fixed for the Second Reading, in view of the importance of the trade questions involved?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): I am afraid that I cannot yet fix a date for the Second Reading of this Bill, but I hardly think that so much time as is suggested will be required for the Debate on the general principles of the measure. Ample opportunity would be given in Committee for the discussion of the clauses. I am considering carefully the points put before me by the

  1545
  deputation representing the Mansion House Association. I am seeing various interests concerned, and I am afraid, therefore, that I shall not be in a position to send a reply before Whitsuntide.
  Mr. PETO: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that there will be a reasonable interval, after we have received the reply—say, at least a fortnight—before the Second Reading is taken?
  Mr. BUXTON: I cannot say there will be a fortnight, but there will be sufficient time, for the associations to consider the reply.
  Mr. JOYCE: Will the right hon. Gentleman give attention to the opinions of the various Chambers of Commerce in the country with regard to this Bill—as to its probable effect on traders.
  Mr. BUXTON: I am going to see various Chambers of Commerce, and I hope to be able to show them the evil effects they fear may be the result of the Bill are not likely to be so great as they anticipate.

  Culmore (Londonderry) Ferry.
  Mr. CRUMLEYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the ferry boat at Culmore, Londonderry, carries a light at night, and, if so, since when; whether he will direct the Board's surveyor at Londonderry to make a report regarding the sort of light carried and the appliances by which the lights, if any used, are attached to the boats; how long are such appliances in use and lights carried; and whether he will take such steps as are necessary, having regard to the traffic on the River Foyle, to ensure public safety and to prevent disaster?
  Mr. BUXTON: Since my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary addressed his communication on this subject to the hon. Member, the Board of Trade have made further inquiries respecting this matter. They are now informed that although the ferryman has instructions from the Foyle and Bann Fishery Company to whom the ferry rights are leased to carry a light at night, he does not appear to do so, and that the manager of the company will take steps in future to ensure that the instructions are carried out.
  Mr. CRUMLEYasked whether the right of ferrying across the Foyle was granted by charter to the honourable the Irish
  1546
  Society under certain conditions; and, if so, whether these conditions are being fulfilled, and for how long have the honourable the Irish Society leased the ferry to the Foyle and Bann Fishery Company?
  Mr. BUXTON: I am informed by the honourable the Irish Society that a charter conferring these ferry rights was granted to them by James I. in the year 1613, and that it contained no conditions in regard to ferrying across the Foyle. I am further informed that the society gave a lease of the ferry to the Foyle and Bann. Fishery Company in 1873.

  Coal Mines (Minimum Wage) Act.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked whether the minimum wage fixed by Lord St. Aldwyn, acting as chairman of the Welsh District Board under the Coal Mines (Minimum Wage) Act, is 3s. per day plus any percentage which may be for the time being in force?
  Mr. BUXTON: It is not practicable to state the effect of an interim decision given in the course of proceedings held under the chairmanship of an independent arbitrator, which may involve many subsidiary questions and may be affected by rules and other circumstances which have not yet been the subject of discussion between the parties or considered either by the parties or the chairman.

  Blind Workers (Wages).
  Mr. CLYNESasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the dispute affecting blind workers at the Blind School of Industry, Bristol; whether the demand made is for a minimum of £1 for men and 13s. per week for women; whether his Department can take any step; to secure these rates; and whether he can advise that facilities should be given for the consideration during this Session of the Bill for the establishment of technical schools and workshops for the education and suitable employment at fair wages of the adult blind?
  Mr. BUXTON: The Industrial Commissioner's Department is aware of the dispute referred to by my hon. Friend, and so far as information has been received the demand of the workpeople is as stated in the question. It does not appear that the Department can usefully take any steps at the present time with a view to

  1547
  bringing about a settlement. With regard to the latter part of the question perhaps my hon. Friend will address a question to the Prime Minister as the matter is not one for the Board of Trade.

  Whitehaven Labour Exchange.
  Mr. THOMAS RICHARDSONasked the President of the Board of Trade, whether he is aware that the contractor for the adapting and re-fitting of premises in Whitehaven for a Labour Exchange does not pay the recognisel rate of wages to his joiners and does not abide by the agreed rules of the trade; and whether he will make inquiry into the matter with a view to securing compliance with the fair wages clause?
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: The First Commissioner has no reason to believe that the contractor engaged on the work at the Whitehaven Labour Exchange is not paying the recognised rates of wages to joiners, but immediate inquiries will be made. It is understood, however, that there is a general demand in the town for an increase in' the rates hitherto paid.

  Lords of Appeal as Arbitrators.
  Mr. WATTasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether Lords of Appeal are permitted by their appointments to act as arbitrators in cases of dispute; if so, can they, accept remuneration for such work; and is any Return got by his Department to show how many times they have so acted, and what sums have been paid them?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): I understand that there is nothing in the Letters Patent on which Lords of Appeal are appointed which would prevent them acting as arbitrators or accepting remuneration for such work. I have no information with regard to the latter part of the question.
  Mr. WATT: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether they do actually act; was there not a proposal last year to make fresh appointments of judges to cover the work of the Department?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I cannot say. I shall be glad to receive any information the hon. Gentleman can give me on the subject.

  Land Valuation.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether it is necessary, in stating objections to a provisional valuation under the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, to indicate what, in the opinion of the objector, the assessment figures ought to be, or whether, on the analogy of Rule 3 (2) and the Schedule of the Statutory Rules and Orders issued in 1910 in reference to Land Value Duties, it is sufficient to allege against such provisional valuation that the items are excessive or inadequate, as the case may be?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: An owner has under Section 27 (2) of the Act to state the ground of his objection and the amendment he desires. While the Commissioners reserve their right to reject a notice of objection to a provisional valuation on the ground that the amendment desired is not specifically stated, they have in the past accepted notices of the kind indicated in the question, where the progress of the valuation has not been thereby impeded.

  County of London (Lord Lieutenant).
  Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether a lord lieutenant will be appointed for the county of London; if so, when the appointment may be expected?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I regret that I cannot yet make any announcement as to the appointment, but I hope to be able to do so shortly.
  Mr. MARTIN: May I ask whether, pending the appointment of the lord lieutenant, the appointments of justices of the peace for the county of London are held up and the proceedings of the Committee, which sat some time ago, rendered nugatory?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I very much regret there is some delay in the matter, but I hope it will not last much longer.

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.

    DEFAULTING COUNTIES UNDER LAND PURCHASE ACTS.
    Mr. LEES SMITHasked the Prime Minister whether, under Section 18 of the Government of Ireland Bill, the Irish Government would have power, by deductions from Grants to defaulting counties

    1549
    (as the Treasury is entitled to do at present) or otherwise, to recoup itself for any deduction from the transferred sum on account of non-payment of annuities under the Land Purchase Acts?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The Irish Parliament will be in a position to make provision for this matter under their general powers.

    LABOURERS' COTTAGES (ADVANCES).
    Mr. LEES SMITHasked whether, under the Government of Ireland Bill, it is intended that advances to local authorities for building labourers' cottages shall continue to be made out of the Land Purchase Fund under the Labourers (Ireland) Acts, and Two and Three-quarters per Cent. Stock issued on that account as before; and, if so, whether the functions of the Land Commission in this respect are to be an Irish service or a reserved service?
    The PRIME MINISTER: It is intended that advances to local authorities for the provision of labourers' cottages shall continue to be made out of the Land Purchase Fund as heretofore; and the functions of the Land Commission in this matter will be a reserved service.

    IRISH SENATE.
    Mr. SANDYSasked whether, under the provisions of the Government of Ireland Bill, it is within the power of the Lord Lieutenant to nominate a cardinal or bishop of the Roman Catholic Church as a member of the Irish Senate?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The answer is in the affirmative.

    JOINT EXCHEQUER BOARD (SALARIES).
    Mr. SANDYSasked whether, under the provisions of the Government of Ireland Bill, the salaries of the two members of the Joint Exchequer Board, which are nominated by the Irish Treasury, will be defrayed from the Irish Exchequer?
    The PRIME MINISTER: If and so far as any special salaries are required, the answer is in the affirmative.

    IRISH BANKS.
    Mr. HORNERasked whether, in the event of the Government of Ireland Bill becoming law, the Irish Parliament will be able to enact that the notes of any specified bank or banks carrying on business in Ireland shall be legal tender to
    1550
    any particular amount or for any particular class of transaction or generally?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The answer is in the negative in view of Clause 2 (9).
    Mr. HORNERasked whether, in the event of the Government of Ireland Bill becoming law, the Irish Parliament will have power to enact that in order to effect a legal transfer in Ireland of Consols, or any other security, such transfer must be made through a particular Irish bank specified in such enactment?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The answer is in the negative unless the security is such that the transfer is a matter exclusively relating to Ireland. This would not be the case with Consols.
    Mr. HORNERasked whether, in the event of the Government of Ireland Bill becoming law, the Irish Parliament will have power to enact that any particular bank now in existence or hereafter created shall become the only bank in Ireland through which all or any of the transactions in which the Irish Government shall be financially interested must be carried on?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The answer is in the affirmative.
    Mr. HORNERasked whether, in the event of the Government of Ireland Bill becoming law, the Irish Parliament will have power to rescind, alter, or modify the laws under which banking companies in Ireland at present carry on business; whether it will have power to enact new laws dealing with banking; and whether it will have power to give to any present bank, or to one which may hereafter be established, the right to issue notes to any extent the Irish Parliament may determine?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The answer is in each case in the affirmative, subject to the provisions of Clause 2 (9).

    STAMP DUTIES.
    Mr. HORNERasked whether, in the event of the Government of Ireland Bill becoming law, the Irish Parliament, for the purpose of revenue or otherwise, will be able to enact that any scale of fees or Stamp Duties it may fix must be payable, upon the transfer of stocks, shares, and other securities in Ireland?
    The POSTMASTER - GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The answer is in the negative. I would refer the hon. Member to Clause 15 (1) (c) and the Second Schedule.

    TAXATION.
    Mr. BUTCHERasked (1) whether, in the event of the Government of Ireland Bill becoming law, it will be open to the Parliament of the United Kingdom to reduce or discontinue the existing Customs duties on tea, sugar, and tobacco, as regards the imports of those articles into Great Britain, while leaving unaltered the existing Customs duties on those articles when imported into Ireland; if so, whether, in view of the fact that such an arrangement will necessitate an examination of all goods imported into Ireland from Great Britain, whether as ships' cargo or as passengers' luggage or by parcel post, and the levying of the appropriate duty, the result will be to cause an increase in the cost of collection of such Customs duties; and whether such increased cost will fall exclusively on the Imperial Exchequer; and (2) whether, in the event of the Government of Ireland Bill becoming law, it will be open to the Parliament of the United Kingdom to reduce the Income Tax and Death Duties so far as respects the levy of those taxes in Great Gritain, while leaving unaltered those taxes so far as respects the levy of them in Ireland; and, if so, seeing that the result will be to cause difficulty and confusion as regards the levy of these taxes in Great Britain and Ireland, respectively, and an increase in the cost of collection of such taxes, whether such increased cost will fall exclusively on the Imperial Exchequer?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No change in the powers of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to reduce or discontinue taxes in Great Britain, while leaving unaltered the taxes in Ireland, will be made by the Government of Ireland Bill. Any increased cost of collection would fall on the Imperial Exchequer.
    Mr. BUTCHERasked (1) whether, in the event of the Government of Ireland Bill becoming law, the Irish Parliament will have power to impose an Irish Income Tax at any rate they choose by way of addition to the Imperial Income Tax; whether such Government will have power to impose such additional Irish Income Tax in respect of all property which is subject to the Imperial Income
    1552
    Tax, whether situate in Ireland or elsewhere; whether any distinction will be observed between the case of persons domiciled in Ireland and of persons not domiciled in Ireland; whether the whole proceeds of such additional Irish Income Tax, not exceeding one-tenth of the proceeds in Ireland of the Imperial Income Tax for the same period, will be paid to the Irish Exchequer, and the excess, if any, of the proceeds of such additional Irish Income Tax over and above such one-tenth will be payable to the Exchequer of the United Kingdom; and (2) whether, in the event of the Government of Ireland Bill becoming law, the Irish Parliament will have power to impose Irish Death Duties-at any rate they choose by way of addition to the Imperial Death Duties levied in respect of the property passing on the death of a deceased person; whether such Government will have power to impose such additional Irish Death Duties in respect of all property which is subject to the Imperial Death Duties, whether situate in Ireland or elsewhere; whether any distinction will be drawn between the case of persons who died, domiciled in Ireland and of persons who died domiciled elsewhere; and whether the whole proceeds of such additional Irish Death Duties, not exceeding one-tenth of the proceeds in Ireland of the Imperial Death Duties for the same period, will be payable to the Irish Exchequer, and the excess, if any, of the proceeds of such additional Irish Death Duties over and above such one-tenth will be payable to the Exchequer of the United Kingdom?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: In each case the answer to the first parts of the questions is in the affirmative. With regard to the second parts, property and income arising from property situated elsewhere than in Ireland would in certain cases be liable to pay Irish additions to Imperial Death Duties and Income Tax. The answer to the third part of the first question is that under certain circumstances a distinction might exist between the cases of persons resident and those non-resident in Ireland; to the third part of the second question the answer is that under certain circumstances a distinction might exist between the cases of persons who died domiciled and those who died not domiciled in Ireland. The answer to the-fourth part of each question is in the affirmative.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us the circumstances in which it would be possible to impose these additional duties on persons not domiciled in Ireland?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The case is exceedingly technical in detail. It would be impossible in the course of an answer to give special cases. That can be done in discussion on the Clause.
    Mr. BUTCHER: In regard to Income Tax, if a person not domiciled in Ireland has Irish railway securities, would it be competent for the Irish Parliament to impose an additional Income Tax on those securities?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I would rather discuss the matter on the Clause. Primâ facie I should say not.

    COMMITTEE ON IRISH FINANCE.
    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the memorial signed by many Members of this House, he will now publish that portion of the evidence given before the Committee on Irish Finance in respect of which no pledge of secrecy was given or is now insisted upon?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have not received any such memorial as that referred to by the hon. Member.

    Special Reserve (Civil Servants).
    Sir WILLIAM BULLasked the Prime Minister whether the Commissioners of the Treasury have communicated to the War Department a wish to discourage Civil servants from joining the Special Reserve; and whether, in the event of the answer being in the negative, he will make a statement of Government policy in regard to Civil servants joining the Reserve Forces?
    The PRIME MINISTER: While facilities are afforded to Civil servants to join the Territorial Force, neither the War Office nor the Treasury consider it desirable that they should be encouraged to enter the Special Reserve, seeing that, as was explained in reply to a question by the hon. and gallant Member for East Down on 27th September, 1909, the conditions of service and training required in the Special Reserve cannot be adequately fulfilled by Civil servants with due regard to the exigencies of their Departments.

    County Magistrates.
    Sir CHARLES HENRYasked the Prime Minister how many times the Advisory Committee to deal with the selection of county magistrates has met; how many additional magistrates have been appointed by the Lord Chancellor; how many non-effective magistrates have been removed; and to what extent the admitted preponderance of one political party on the county benches in Shropsire has been dealt with since the Advisory Committee was set up?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am informed that meetings have been held by the Advisory Committee in Shropshire, but no recommendations have as yet been placed before the Lord Chancellor, and, therefore, no additional magistrates appointed. I understand that the Lord Chancellor expects shortly to receive the recommendations of the Committee.
    Sir C. HENRY: Can the right hon. Gentleman answer the question about the removal of non-effective magistrates?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid I have not got the information for that. I suppose the answer is in the negative.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: Is this the Committee where there was so much friction that one of the members died from it?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I must have notice of that question.
    Mr. WATT: Has the right hon. Gentleman received any representations that these committees are not of much use, because the chairmen are absolutely dictators?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir; I have no such information.

    Imperial Royal Commission (Alien Immigration).
    Mr. AMERYasked for what reason, and on whose initiative, the recommendation; contained in Resolution XXIV. of the Imperial Conference, 1911, to the effect that the question of securing more uniformity throughout the Empire in the law of alien immigration exclusion should be referred' to the Imperial Royal Commission, has been omitted from the terms of reference of that Commission as recently declared; and whether the assent of the Dominion Government was obtained to the omission?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The terms of reference which, as was stated by the Secretary of State for the Colonies in quoting them on 10th April, have received the concurrence of all the Governments concerned, do not exclude the consideration of immigration law, and it has always been agreed that the question should be considered by the Commission.

    Herring Industry (Inter-departmental Committee).
    Mr. FELLasked if the Inter-departmental Committee to be established will, an addition to the question of the three-mile limit, have referred to it also the question of trawling for herrings with small-mesh nets, which the bulk of the fishermen employed in the herring industry view with anxiety?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I will consider whether the question referred to by the hon. Member can with advantage be included in the terms of reference, which are not yet definitely settled?

    Canada and United States (Reciprocity Agreement).
    Mr. FRED HALL (Dulwich)asked the Prime Minister if he will arrange for all papers at, the disposal of the Government bearing upon the proposed trade reciprocity treatment between Canada and the United States of America to be printed for the use and information of the House?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer the hon. Member to the correspondence and other papers which have already been published on the subject, namely, Command Papers 5512, 5516, 5523, and 5537 of 1911.

    Board of Customs and Excise (Second Officers).
    Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether a circular was issued by the Board of Customs and Excise in November, 1910, inviting applications from senior assistants of Customs to serve as second officers for two years with an allowance of £10 per annum in each case in addition to salary; whether, seeing that the seven officers were actually in receipt of the £10 allowance from the date of their appointment to December, 1911, he will state why, in calculating the amount of back pay due to these officers under paragraph 171 of the Amalgamation Committee's Report, the Board of Customs and Excise reckoned
    1556
    the allowance already paid as ordinary salary and awarded a correspondingly less amount of back pay, thus abrogating in December, 1911, a stipulation definitely contracted for in November, 1910; and whether he will take steps to return to these officers the money deducted from their back pay, in view of the fact that they sacrificed their right of promotion for two years and were in consequence up to February, 1912, in receipt of a lower scale of leave and overtime pay than their juniors in the service, who had in the meantime been promoted?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The special duties which these officers performed as second officers at certain ports, and for which an allowance of £10 was granted in addition to their old scale of salary, are included in the general duties of the new grade of officer of Customs and Excise. The superior scale of salary applicable to the latter grade was—as a special indulgence—antedated to 1st April, 1909. As a necessary corollary, the £10 allowances were simultaneously abolished, but, each of the seven officers in question entered the new scale at a salary higher than his old salary and allowance combined.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    SEAMEN'S NATIONAL INSURANCE SOCIETY.
    Mr. WEDGWOODasked if the scheme for the constitution of a committee of management of the Seamen's National Insurance Society has yet been prepared; if so, whether it has been approved by the Insurance Commissioners; and whether, seeing that the National Insurance Act is to come into operation on 15th July next, any steps have been taken to appoint the committee of management?
    Mr. BUXTON: I have appointed a preliminary committee representing the various interests concerned to advise me with regard to the formation of the Seamen's National Insurance Society and the preparation of its rules, and the final settlement of the constitution of the committee of management will be deferred until that committee has reported.

    OVERSEERS AND FOREMEN.
    Lord NINIAN CRICHTON-STUARTasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state whether overseers and foremen receiving more than £160 per annum are within the provisions of the Insurance Act; and whether they come under the head of manual labour?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Such overseers or foremen would not be insured under Part I. of the National Insurance Act unless they were themselves employed by way of manual labour. The Noble Lord will find in the case of Osborne v. Jackson, 11 Q.B.D. 619, a decision bearing on this point.
    Mr. JOHN WARD: Will that apply to navvies who are at times engaged on the work? Will they be excluded if their wages happen to be over £160?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I think the definition in the Act is if they are employed on manual labour.
    Mr. BARNES: Is it necessary they should be employed on manual labour all the time?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I do not think I can discuss that by way of question and answer.

    OFFICIAL LECTURES.
    Mr. FELLasked if the lecturers who attend the classes of instruction for the National Insurance Act receive any pay whilst attending such classes until they are efficient; and if the expenses of these classes are included in the £25,000 spent in explaining the Act?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The answer to both parts of the question is in the affirmative.

    POST OFFICES (WOMEN CLEANERS).
    Mr. SNOWDENasked what is the position under the National Insurance Act of the women cleaners in the post offices of the United Kingdom?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: An Interdepartmental Committee is now considering the position of different classes of persons employed by the Crown under Part I. of the National Insurance Act, and I hope to issue a statement at an early date.

    DOMESTIC SERVANTS.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked whether, in the event of the formation of a domestic servants' health insurance society for England and Wales, it will be necessary, prior to its approval by the Commissioners, to state precisely in its rules or otherwise the nature and extent of the substituted alternative or additional benefits intended to meet the special requirements of this class of employed contributors based upon expert actuarial calculations, or whether the provision of such
    1558
    data can be deferred until after approval of the society?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Such a, society should apply for approval without waiting to frame a scheme for substituting benefits under Section 13 of the National Insurance Act. Schemes under this Section will be examined and confirmed after approval by the Society, and the exact nature and extent of the substituted benefits need not be inserted in the rules, or otherwise communicated to members, before approval. The schemes will be separately confirmed after examination, and inquiry have shown that they satisfy the requirements of the Act, namely, that the new benefits are actuarially equivalent to those for which they have been substituted, and that they are suitable to the members or classes of members affected.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Do I understand from that answer that it will be necessary in the case of such a society for the applicants to prove the actuarial justification for their becoming an approved society?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Any such society may become approved on the statement that it is prepared to offer such alternative benefits, and it will subsequently present for our consideration the tables on which it proposes to offer the benefits, and we will decide whether we regard them as actuarially sound or not.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Can-not the Government give some sample alternative benefits prepared by their own actuaries?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I answered that question two or three days ago.
    Mr. RONALD M'NEILL: Are there any such societies in course of formation?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I think there are such societies in course of formation.

    Telephone Service.
    Lord NINIAN CRICHTON-STUARTasked the Postmaster-General why his Department has raised the charge for the use of a telephone operator for private branch exchanges to £74 4s. per annum as against £45 10s. charged by the National Telephone Company?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I have no knowledge of the particular case mentioned in the question. The charges for operators supplied by the Post Office to

    1559
    work private branch exchanges are, however, necessarily higher than those imposed by the National Telephone Company in similar circumstances, owing to the higher rate of wages paid in the Post Office service. The operators are now entitled also to pensions, sick pay, and other privileges of established Civil servants. It is desirable that operators employed in private premises should be in the direct employment of the subscribers. Such operators can be trained in switchboard working, without charge, in the Post Office school and their working tested from time to time by travelling supervisors. As a rule, also, candidates can, if desired, be recommended for employment by subscribers.
    Lord N. CRICHTON-STUART: Can private owners of telephone exchanges apply to the Post Office to have their operators trained?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Yes, we shall be glad to train them, without charge, at Post Office schools.
    Sir J. D. REES: Do I understand that the transfer from the company to the Government implies a general rise in the cost of the service to the public?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: A general rise in the labour charge, certainly.
    Sir J. D. REES: I mean a general rise in the cost to users?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: So far as labour is concerned. On the other hand, there is a saving in interest and other charges.
    Sir J. D. REES: What are the net results?

    Post Office Contract (Fair-Wages Clause).
    Mr. BARNESasked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that the Motor Traction Company of Edinburgh do not pay the wages agreed upon or current in the Edinburgh district for overtime; and if he will take steps to get compliance, or cease to employ the company in the carrying of mails?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I have received a complaint that the overtime rates paid to certain workmen employed by the company to which the hon. Member refers infringe the Fair-Wages Clauses in the contracts, and I am inquiring into the matter.

    Post Office (Select Committee).
    Mr. CLYNESasked the Postmaster-General, whether, in view of the necessity for the employés to prepare their evidence for the Select Committee, he can give any indication as to when the revision in the Stores Department will be taken?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am not sure what information is desired. If the employés will let me know where their difficulty lies, I will endeavour to remove it.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES.
    Sir JOHN LONSDALEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty when he intends to present Supplementary Naval Estimates for men and money, which he intimated would be necessary in the event of the existing programmes of other naval Powers being increased?
    Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can state the date on which he will present the Supplementary Naval Estimates?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Churchill): These Estimates will be presented at the first convenient opportunity.

    GERMAN NAVY LAW.
    Mr. JOHN LYTTELTONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a full translation of the new German Navy Law recently introduced into the Reichstag?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir.

    SHIPS IN INDIAN WATERS.
    Mr. GODFREY COLLINSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can say the cost of His Majesty's ships in Indian waters, including interest on the original cost and depreciation of ships, for which a contribution is received annually from the Indian Government; and can he say the total contribution received from the Indian Government for the use of these ships?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The annual cost of His Majesty's East Indies squadron, allowing a charge for depreciation, is approximately £393,000, towards which India is contributing a lump sum of £100,000 per annum and the cost of two ships specially employed in connection with the suppression of the arms traffic in the Persian Gulf,

    1561
    estimated at £67,500, a total repayment at the rate of £167,600 per annum. A balance of £225,000 thus remains chargeable to Navy Votes for services rendered to India.

    SEAMEN'S PAY.
    Mr. FRED HALL (Dulwich)asked whether the pay of able seamen in the British Navy has only advanced from 1s. 7d. a day to 1s. 8d. a day since 1852; if certain requests have been received from the lower deck rating for improved pay, and, if so, what the cost of granting such requests would be; and if, as the men referred to are precluded by the Regulations from taking the usual action to draw attention to grievances, an opportunity will be given to the House to discuss the matter with the object of provision being made in the Estimates of the present year for the granting of an increase of pay to these men?
    Mr. HUNTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the fact that the pay of the able seaman in the Navy has only been raised 1d. a day during the last 50 years, and that he has now to serve twenty-two years for a pension instead of as formerly twenty years, and in view of the fact that the pay in the Army and still more the pay of other Government employés has been increased to a far greater extent in the last fifty years, he can see his way to grant a fair increase to the men in the Navy?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am giving careful attention to this question, which clearly deserves to be closely examined in relation to present conditions. But at the present time I have nothing to add to what I said when introducing the Navy Estimates.
    Mr. HUNT: Is it the fact that as the cost of living has increased so much of late years it is now impossible for a married able seaman to provide for his wife and children, and is he aware that in the American and Dominion Navies the wages are two or three times as much as in this country?
    Mr. HALL: Will the right hon. Gentleman bring some proposal before the House in reference to the matter in the very near future?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I think my answer fully covers the supplementary question. As to the question of the hon. Member (Mr. Hall) it should be addressed to the Prime Minister.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is there any truth in the statement that an inquiry is now going on at the Admiralty with regard to the payment of seamen?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I have seen no such statement, but I have said I am giving careful attention to the question, which deserves to be closely examined in relation to present conditions.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is there any inquiry going on at present at the Admiralty?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Nothing can be closely examined without something in the nature of an inquiry being pursued by individuals or by groups of individuals.
    Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: In this review of the matter will the right hon. Gentleman include the rates of pay?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: It would be very unsatisfactory to try to deal with this very important subject by question and answer. I have given an answer, which shows that we are examining the question in relation to modern conditions. I should not like to go beyond that at present.

    NAVAL PENSION (W. RUDGLEY).
    Mr. HUNTasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can now say if W. Rudgley, the sailor wounded in action and permanently injured thereby, is again to receive his pension of 1s. 1d. a day, which was stopped last October?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): Rudgley was resurveyed as recently as 23rd April last. He was then reported to be in employment, and to be materially able to contribute to his own support. In these circumstances I see no reason for reopening the case at the present time. As regards the general principles governing the award of pensions in such cases, I must refer the hon. Member to the replies which I gave him on 2nd April and 12th March.
    Mr. HUNT: Are we to understand that although this man is admittedly permanently injured, the Admiralty propose to treat him worse than a private employer?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Rudgley has just under seven years' service, and he received a gunshot wound at Tientsin in July, 1900. The Regulations do not, except in special circumstances, contemplate a continuing

    1563
    pension for life for a man with only short service. The nature of the injury and the man's capacity to contribute to his own support are the basis on which these pensions are considered.
    Mr. HUNT: If this man had been injured under a private employer would he not have come under the Workmen's Compensation Act?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes, but, as I have often stated, neither the soldier nor the sailor is under the Workmen's Compensation Act.

    Political Offenders (Prison Treatment).
    Dr. CHAPPLEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the divergent opinions as to the alleged danger, suffering, and degradation of the forcible feeding of prisoners, he will hold an inquiry into the prison treatment of political offenders?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): I do not think an inquiry is necessary. The law is clearly laid down in the case of Leigh v. Gladstone, and the process of forcible feeding is a matter of ordinary medical practice carried out daily in hundreds of cases in asylums, and in a smaller number of cases in hospitals, prisons, or private practice. There is no danger to life or health from the process of feeding by tube; where there is any danger it arises from the violent resistance sometimes offered by prisoners who have gone to prison while suffering from heart disease or broken down in health. Such cases are carefully observed by the medical officers, and where it has been really necessary I have authorised the prisoner's discharge.

    Employment of Children Act.
    Mr. EDMUND HARVEYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will say when the Leeds City Council first submitted its draft by-laws, under the Employment of Children Act, for approval of the Home Office; when was the last day appointed for receiving objections to the draft by-laws; and whether, in view of the admitted need for the regulation of the employment of children, he will expedite the confirmation of the by-laws?
    Mr. McKENNA: The draft of the bylaws was received on the 15th of April of
    1564
    last year, and after correspondence was provisionally approved on the 17th August. The by-laws were not, however, passed by the town council until the 6th of December, and were not submitted to me until the 6th of January, and the statutory requirements as to publication, prescribed by the Order of 11th November, 1903, were not completed until a week or two ago. A certain number of objections have already been received, which will require consideration; but I will do what I can to expedite a settlement of the matter.

    Cruelty to Horse (Conviction at Clerkenwell).
    Dr. ADDISONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the case of Mr. Withey, of 104, Clifton Street, Finsbury, who was sentenced at the Clerkenwell Police Court on 10th May to a month's imprisonment, without the option of a fine, for sending out a horse in an improper condition; and whether, in view of the fact that this man has always borne a good character, with a record of ten years' employment in, one situation, he will call for an account of the case with a view to a reconsideration of the sentence?
    Mr. McKENNA: My attention was called to the case, but I found no reason to justify interference with the sentence. The prisoner was responsible for working a horse when it was so lame and weak that it could hardly walk. The magistrate himself inspected the horse before he passed sentence.
    Dr. ADDISON: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire into the truth of the statement recently published in the Press that one constable alone has been responsible for more than 1,000 cases since 1904, and one veterinary inspector for 10,000 cases, and will he have a Report as to what percentage of the animals so examined have been condemned?
    Mr. McKENNA: Perhaps my hon. Friend will give me notice of the question.

    Sentences Mitigated and Remitted.
    Mr. FRED HALL (Dulwich)asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will furnish a Return of sentences mitigated or remitted during the two years ending 31st December, 1911, such Return to give the nature of the offences, the Court at which the person was convicted, the extent of the sentence, the

    1565
    maximum sentence which could be inflicted under the existing law, and the extent to which the sentence was mitigated?
    Mr. McKENNA: The Return asked for would be a difficult one to prepare, and I do not at present see that it would answer any useful purpose. The hon. Member will find at the end of the Annual Judicial (Criminal) Statistics information with regard to the remission of sentences, and if he will let me know the object for which he seeks to supplement the information so published, I will consider whether I can in any way meet his wishes.

    Royal Dockyards (Wages).
    Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH - COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the minimum wage for labourers at Deptford yard is 24s. a week and at Devonport 21s. a week, and that the cost of living and rent at the two places are practically the same; and whether he will consider the advisability of raising the wages of labourers in the Devonport dockyard, so as to place them on an equality with the labourers at Deptford?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The rates of pay given in the question are correct. I am not prepared to admit that at the present time the cost of living and rent at Deptford and in Devonport are practically the same. The question of the wages paid to labourers in the home dockyards was raised by the workmen at the recent hearing of petitions. The reply of the Board of Admiralty will be promulgated in due course.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has given me this reply on a former occasion and will he make inquiries and satisfy himself that what I have stated in the question is correct with regard to rent and cost of living?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I have nothing before me except the Board of Trade returns for 1905. That is seven years old. That is why I say I cannot at present admit the accuracy of this contention.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: When does the right hon. Gentleman expect that these answers will be given by the Board of Admiralty?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I said the other day I hope it will be in the next few weeks.

    Mr. Tom Mann (Mitigation of Sentence).
    Mr. LANSBURYasked the Attorney-General if he will state in how many cases, of prosecution for blasphemy and sedition counsel and solicitors have been employed to prosecute on behalf of the Crown; and the total cost to the Treasury of such, prosecutions?
    Mr. McKENNA: In the hon. Member's question I find no limit of time, but to the best of my information the last prosecution for the publication of a seditious libel conducted by the Director of Public Prosecutions was in 1909. No prosecution for blasphemy has been conducted by the Director. If the hon. Member still desires to know the cost of two prosecutions for the publication of seditious libels which occurred respectively in July and September, 1909, the figures can doubtless be obtained.
    Sir W. BYLES: Can the right hon. Gentleman hold out any prospect that these blasphemy laws can be absolutely and entirely wiped off the Statute Book?
    Mr. LANSBURYasked the Attorney-General if he is aware that many leaflets, pamphlets, and books written by the late Count Tolstoi are on public sale at many thousands of shops throughout the country; that millions of tracts are circulated each year; and that many of these publications contain denunciations of military life, and in some cases definite appeals to officers and soldiers not to obey orders when called upon to do so; and why no action is taken against both printers and publishers of this literature, seeing that Tom Mann, Guy Bowman, and others are being prosecuted and put in prison for publishing exactly the same kind of advice?
    Mr. McKENNA: I cannot undertake to read all the publications mentioned, but if my hon. Friend will call my attention to any particular passages I shall be pleased to answer his question.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the Home Secretary whether he is now in a position to make any statement concerning the case of Mr. Tom Mann; and whether he is prepared, under all the circumstances of the case, to recommend His Majesty to extend the Royal clemency to Mr. Mann, and order his immediate release on the grounds that the sentence is out of all proportion to the gravity of the alleged offence of which he was found guilty?
    Mr. McKENNA: On a careful examination of the notes in the Tom Mann case And after consultation with the Attorney-General, I have come to the conclusion that the object of the prosecution in connection with the publication of the "Open Letter to Soldiers" have now been attained. It has been made clear that all parties who make themselves responsible for such publication are guilty of a serious offence rendering them amenable to severe punishment. In the case of both Tom Man and Guy Bowman, the offence has been committed for the first time and in ignorance of its serious character. Now that the law has been established, I feel justified in recommending a mitigation of their sentences in view of the fact that this is the first breach by the defendants of the provisions of a Statute under which it has not been necessary to prosecute for a very considerable period of time. I have decided to advise His Majesty, in the case of Guy Bowman who has served nearly two months, to release him forthwith, and in the case of Tom Mann, to reduce the sentence to two months.
    Sir WILLIAM BYLES: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can see his way to release Mr. Tom Mann forthwith?
    Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir.
    Mr. CLYNES: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has any announcement to make as to the charges which have been made with reference to Unionist political leaders under somewhat similar circumstances?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the reply.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the Home Secretary whether Mr. Tom Mann is being treated as a first-class misdemeanant; and, if not, whether he will give instructions to the prison authorities that he be so treated?
    Mr. McKENNA: I have already made a statement as to the reduction of sentence, but I do not propose to take any action in regard to the class to which the prisoner is committed.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: May I ask whether this request is not following precedent, ancient and modern, with regard to political prisoners, and whether Tom Mann, who is a political offender, cannot be treated as a first-class misdemeanant?
    Mr. McKENNA: The definition of a political prisoner is not easy to make. I know that the hon. Member had a Bill on the subject, but I think he will find on examination that the precedents would not justify Mr. Mann in seeking this treatment as to political prisoners.
    Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has taken into account the fact that Dr. Jameson and other leaders in the raid in the Transvaal, which was, of course, a political offence, were treated as political prisoners and first-class misdemeanants, and whether, under these circumstances, he will at least put Tom Mann on the same footing as men who engaged in war and bloodshed?
    Mr. McKENNA: I am afraid there is no analogy at all.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Tom Mann is much more innocent.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is it not a fact that hon. Members below the Gangway brought all the facts given to-day to the notice of the Home Secretary some two months ago, and will he say why he did not then give the same answer as he has given to-day?
    Mr. McKENNA: I do not know to what matter the hon. Gentleman refers.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: To Tom Mann.
    Mr. McKENNA: The sentence in the case of Mr. Mann had not been given two months ago.

    London Traffic (Tramcars and Motor Omnibuses).
    Mr. FRED HALL (Dulwich)asked if the Home Office has power through the Commissioner of Police to restrict the routes taken by motor omnibuses; and, if so, whether this power is exercised; and whether the Home Office corrects in reports submitted to Parliament routes proposed for new tramways by the London County Council?
    Mr. McKENNA: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. With regard to the second part, it is not the function or the practice of the Home Office to "correct" routes for new tramways proposed by the London County Council or by any other tramway authority in the Metropolitan Police district, but it is the duty of the Department, on the advice of the Commissioner of Police, who is

    1569
    responsible for regulating street traffic, to bring to the notice of Parliament the probable effects of the proposals on the general traffic and on the safety and convenience of the public; and this is done in the Home Office Reports.

    Conviction for Trespass and Damage (North Beds and East Northants).
    Mr. FITZROYasked the Home Secretary whether he has received any application for the remittance of a fine of 5s. imposed by a bench of magistrates in North Beds upon a Sharnbrook teacher for trespass and damage, by whom the application was made, and, if so, with what result, and on what grounds; whether life attention has been drawn by the same person or persons to the two cases in East Northants, tried before a bench of magistrates at Welling-borough, on 4th April, 1912, in the first of which a youth aged sixteen was fined 15s. for stealing part of a dead fence value Is., the property of Mr. C. J. K. Woolston, and in the second case two little Welling-borough scholars, aged twelve and ten respectively, were, fined 7s. 6d. each for stealing part of a live and dead fence, value 2s., the property of the same gentleman; and whether he proposes to advise the remittance of the fines in these cases; if not, why not, and, if so, on what grounds?
    Mr. McKENNA: My attention was called by two Members of this House to the case mentioned in the first paragraph, and, after consulting the magistrates who heard the case, I was satisfied that the fine imposed might properly be remitted. Though the person charged had committed an offence against the law by picking willow-twigs that grew on private property, the offence seemed to me of so trivial a character as not to justify the infliction of a fine. I have not heard of, nor had any application in respect to the case referred to in the second paragraph. With regard to the case mentioned in the third paragraph, I would refer to the answer given in this House on the 29th ult. It was of a different character altogether from the Sharnbrook case, and afforded no ground for intervention on my part.

  SHOPS ACT.

    BOOT REPAIRING.
    Mr. JOWETTasked the Home Secretary whether he will say, and if he will publish the information for the guidance of the persons concerned in the matter, if
    1570
    a boot-repairing shop is a shop within the meaning of the Shops Act, 1911, and if the execution of repairs for a customer and charging for the same by a boot repairer who does not sell boots or keep a shop constitutes a sale within the meaning of the Act in question?
    Mr. McKENNA: I am advised that premises in which only the business of boot repairing is carried on, and no articles are sold, do not come within the Shops Act, 1912. Persons making inquiry of the Home Office on the point have already been so informed. Perhaps the present question and answer will be sufficient publication of the Home Office view on the point.

    LEEDS WATCH COMMITTEE.
    Mr. O'GRADYasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the Leeds watch committee have decided to take no action in enforcing the Shops Act for another three months; that the Act is in many cases being disregarded; and that the only inspector in the town, who was appointed under the 1903 Act, is absent from duty through illness, and that consequently there is no supervision at all; and whether he can take any action in the matter?
    Mr. McKENNA: I have no information on the subject, but I will make inquiry.

    School Accommodation, Dundry (Somerset).
    Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education whether he has inquired into the lack of present education facilities at Dundry, Somerset, and, if so, with what result; and whether, if school accommodation is not to be speedily opened in this parish, he will press for vehicles being supplied by the local education authority to take the children of Dundry to the nearest available schools?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Joseph Pease): I have made inquiries, and I understand that it is expected that the alterations to the school at Dundry will be completed by June 19th. I see no reason for adopting the course suggested in the last part of the question, and I am sure the hon. Member will not grudge the children the additional holiday for a few weeks which may be unavoidable as a result of the building operations at this school.

LOSS OF STEAMSHIP "TITANIC."

  LIFEBOATS ON EXCURSION STEAMERS.
  EARL Of RONALDSHAYasked the President of the Board of Trade what the requirements of the Board of Trade are as to the provision of lifeboats in excursion steamers, such as those running from Tilbury to Kent and East Coast ports?
  Mr. BUXTON: I assume that the question refers to excursion steamers to Harwich, Clacton, and Yarmouth, and to Margate, Ramsgate, and Dover; these vessels are required to carry at least two lifeboats under davits and other boats approved buoyant apparatus, and/or lifebelts sufficient with the lifeboats to keep afloat all on board, and at least four lifebuoys. As I have already stated in this House, I am in communication with the owners of excursion steamers with regard to the provision of boats and other life-saving appliances.
  Mr. HOGGEasked the number of pleasure steamers plying on the Firths of Forth and Clyde; and how many lifeboats they carry, on an average, per ratio of carrying capacity?
  Mr. BUXTON: A Return has been ordered by this House which will give information as to the boats and other life-saving appliances on all vessels holding a Board of Trade passenger certificate. I think the hon. Member will find that it includes the information with regard to the class of vessels referred to in his question.
  Mr. RUPERT GWYNNEasked whether the steamship "Mandingo," of the Elder-Dempster Line, has lately been inspected; whether it was purchased from a Belgian firm; what lifeboat accommodation is provided on board; whether he is aware that the vessel was three days overdue this year on a voyage to the Canaries; and, if so, if any inquiries have been made as to the cause of this delay?
  Mr. BUXTON: The vessel referred to by the hon. Member was formerly registered under the Belgian flag as the "Phillipeville" of Antwerp. She was transferred to the British register in September, 1906. She was last surveyed for a Board of Trade passenger certificate in July, 1911, and holds a foreign going passenger certificate, which expires in July, 1912. The following boats were on board when the vessel was surveyed (all under davits): Four A lifeboats of 1,842 cubic
  1572
  feet capacity, two D boats of 725 cubic feet capacity, which accommodate 255 persons, and so the number of the crew and passengers allowed by the certificate is 247. The Board of Trade have received no information as to any casualty having happened to the steamship "Mandingo."

  VESSELS IN DISTRESS AT SEA.
  Mr. SANDYSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider the advisability of introducing legislation to provide that the master of a British ship who wilfully or through negligence disregards appeals for assistance made by a vessel in distress at sea shall be liable to punishment or penalty for such disregard?
  Mr. BUXTON: I will consider whether it is necessary to amend the existing law with regard to this matter. I would point out, however, that although the Merchant Shipping Acts, do not make it a punishable offence not to render assistance when a vessel in distress appeals for it, the Maritime Conventions Act, 1911, Section 6, makes it a general duty to render assistance to persons in danger at sea.

SUPPLY.— [THIRD ALLOTTED DAY.]

  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1912–13.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

  POST OFFICE.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £13,808,950, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1913, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Post Office, including Telegraphs and Telephones." [£10,000,000 has been voted on account.]
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The Estimates which I have to ask the Committee to sanction this year show a large increase of expenditure by the Post Office, as compared with the preceding twelve months. This increase has been partly due to the normal growth of the work which arises as the consequence of our expanding population and growing commerce, and partly due also-to the fact that this year's Estimates

  1573
  provide for a full twelvemonth's expenditure upon the National Telephone Company's system which has now been transferred to the State. Last year's Estimates included only a quarter of a year's expenditure on that service. The consequence is that the Estimates which the Committee are asked to sanction show an increase over last year of no less than £3,079,000. On the other side of the account we are in the fortunate position of being able to budget for an increase of revenue of the Post Office of £3,475,000. The profits, therefore, will show a considerable increase on last year's profits. To the sum included in the Post Office Vote itself there must be added each year certain sums which are spent by other Departments on allied services—the Office of Works on buildings of Post Offices, the Stationery Department on printing, the Treasury on rates paid on Post Office buildings—which total each year about £1,000,000. On the other side of the account must be included payments made by Departments to us for services which are rendered. The net profit of the working of the Post Office during the last two years and this year, will be as follows:—For 1910–11, the Post Office returned to the Exchequer a sum of £4,242,000; for 1911–12, the profit was increased to £4,365,000, and we anticipate that in this financial year it will be £4,816,000. In earning this profit for the benefit of the Exchequer, I must confess that the Post Office receives very little assistance from this House. We, of course, are ready and willing to undertake expenditure, if that expenditure is likely to be remunerative directly or indirectly, or if it is needed in order to secure a proper standard of living for our employés. I am one of those who regard indiscriminate economy as almost, though not quite, as bad as indiscriminate expenditure, but if I were to accept all the suggestions made inside the House of Commons and outside it, for additional services and added remuneration, the existing Post Office profit would melt like snow in the sun. [HON. MEMBERS: "Quite right,"] And the Chancellor of the Exchequer would find it necessary to provide the sum of £4,800,000 which now comes to him from the Post Office either by adding twopence to the Income Tax, which would be the amount needed, or fourpence to the Tea Duty, or imposing some fresh burden of taxation upon one class of the community or
  1574
  another. There was a distinguished Parliamentarian of a by-gone day, who said of the House of Commons, "If a Minister wishes to earn certain applause from the House let him deplore the increase in national expenditure and emphasise the necessity of husbanding the nation's resources, but if a Minister wishes to court certain defeat, let him propose any particular economy." I have had an analysis made of the suggestions made by lion. Members in last year's Debate on the Post Office Estimates. I find that they were nineteen in number, and every one of them involved an increase in the Post Office expenditure. I shall be interested to observe in the course of today's Debate how many suggestions will be made for diminishing that national expenditure which the House of Commons is always ready and properly ready to deplore, and how many suggestions will be made on the other hand for adding to the expenditure of this Department.
  During the past year the postal side of the Department's work, which, of course, was its original business, and is still its most important, shows a continual growth. The growth in London is so great that we are contemplating making a tube railway of our own running East and West in order to carry the mails and parcels which we consider will be a remunerative investment as the expenditure upon it will be far more than met by the savings of existing expenditure. The Committee may be interested to know the result of reducing the price of postcards to their face value, for it is a subject which caused some agitation at the time and a number of hon. Members opposite criticised my action and defended the interests of the stationery trade, who prophesied, as all trades do whenever their interests are touched, certain and immediate ruin. The consequence is that the number of postcards, so far as I can estimate, sold by the trade and privately manufactured, has fallen by 2 per cent., from 753,000,000 to 738,000,000 per annum, a diminution which will be very soon recouped. On the other hand, the sale of official cards has increased from 85,000,000 to 105,000,000, and I trust that that increase will continue. In consequence of selling the little books of stamps, with which hon. Members are acquainted, at their full value, without deduction—that is to say a 2s. book of stamps will contain 2s. in stamps instead of 1s. 11½d. worth as they used to—the sale of those books has gone up from

  1575
  1,000,000 a year to 3,000,000. I much regret that considerable delay has occurred in issuing the higher denominations of the Georgian postage stamps. I should explain that in this matter the Postmaster-General has exceedingly limited control over the manufacture and issue of postage stamps; he has no control except over the design, which has to be submitted for his approval. The statutory authority which controls the manufacture and issue of postage stamps and ordinary revenue stamps is the Board of Inland Revenue. Recent experience has shown that considerable inconvenience arises from the Post Office not having the direct control and responsibility for the issue of postage stamps. The Government therefore inserted a Clause in last year's Finance Bill enabling a transfer to be effected from the Board of Inland Revenue to the Post Office.
  That Clause was passed by this House, and although I cannot speak with authority it is possible that this innocent and subordinate Clause in the Finance Bill may be responsible for that Bill not having been certified by Mr. Speaker to be a Money Bill within the meaning of the terms of the Parliament Act. A Departmental Committee is now sitting to make arrangements for the transfer of the issue and control of stamps from the Board of Inland Revenue to the Post Office. Delay has occurred through the necessity of providing better plates for the penny and halfpenny stamps, and having to re-engrave the head, which at first was not very satisfactory, and further delay has occurred through the pressure upon the Department concerned due to the issue of new stamps for the purposes of the National Insurance Act; but I have every reason to hope that the Board of Inland Revenue will be able to obtain from the Mint the necessary plates and that we shall have the prints of some of the new higher denominations within the next few weeks. I have arranged with them also for the sale of stamps in rolls in order to facilitate the use of stamping machines, which firms with a large posting business are likely to find very useful, as I understand they save labour and also are a safeguard against the possibility of theft. These rolls of stamps will shortly be placed on sale, containing a thousand or five hundred penny or halfpenny stamps, and a small charge will be made for the cost of manufacture. The whole matter is in the
  1576
  hands of the Board of Inland Revenue, but it will be transferred with the rest of the control of the stamp arrangements under the new proposal. The gumming was at first defective, but that is now remedied, and we have received practically no complaints with regard to the gumming of the new issue, of stamps, and there are no complaints of the perforations, which have been improved. Within the next few weeks also we hope to effect the reduction, which I promised the House some time ago, in the postage rates for parcels sent abroad. Many details have had to be worked out and some negotiations undertaken which prevented these rates being reduced, except in the case of the United States, with regard to which I was able to effect a considerable reduction in the cost of parcel rates shortly before Christmas.
  4.0 P.M.
  The telegraph business of the Post Office has received a very great deal of attention during the last year, and many improvements in organisation have been effected both in the Central Telegraph Office and throughout the country. The use of high-speed apparatus has been greatly extended, and there is every reason to think that the telegraphic service has been much improved during the last year, and the complaints of delay which some time ago came from the Press and other customers of the Post Office are no longer received. I propose to effect very shortly two reforms in the telegraph service which I trust the Committee will approve of; one is of considerable importance, and the other of minor importance. A short time ago, as an experiment, I introduced a system of what are called in the United States "night lettergrams"—that is to say, telegrams at very cheap rates which are dispatched during the hours of the night when the telegraph wires are not busy and the staff on duty are only partially employed, and which are delivered next morning as part of the morning postal delivery. These telegrams can be handled at a very low cost, because they are what we may call a sort of by-product of the telegraph system. The plant and staff may be employed at a time when they are not otherwise engaged, and the cost of delivery is practically nil. The charge made for the experimental service between London on the one hand, and Aberdeen and Belfast on the other, places chosen on account of their

  1577
  distance from London, is three words for a halfpenny, with a minimum charge of 6d. for thirty-six words; in other words, the telegrams go at one-third the ordinary rate. This experiment has been successful. It has been found that although the telegrams have not been very numerous—there have been 500 within the last three months—they are to a great extent new traffic which has been attracted to the Post Office by these additional facilities. I believe that the service, if widely extended and generally known, would be found to be a convenience to the public and a source of additional revenue to the Post Office. Therefore, I propose, on and after the 1st June, to extend it generally throughout the country to offices where night staffs are employed. It must be understood that these very cheap telegraph rates cannot be extended to places where night staffs are not employed in the ordinary course of our telegraph business.
  The other and smaller reform which I desire to effect will remove what has long been a source of irritation to members of the public. The reply-paid telegraph forms are available only during a period of two months, and if the careless recipient allows the two months to pass, and then takes the telegraph form to the Post Office, he finds to his annoyance that it is rejected by the clerk at the counter. Although this period of two months is as generous an allowance as is given in any ether country, and although it was considered necessary for the prevention of the possibility of fraud, I thought it advisable, having found the means to secure an adequate check, to extend the period of the validity of these forms from two months to twelve months. In these days there are many telephone subscribers who are accustomed to dictate their telegrams through the telephone. Such persons, when they receive reply-paid telegraph forms, will not know what to do with them, but they may use them by presenting them to the Post Office in payment, or part payment, of small accounts sent to them from time to time for telephone fees of one kind or another. I shall be able shortly to announce detailed regulations for enabling telegrams to be sent to the telephone addresses of subscribers; that is to say, to enable telephone numbers to be used as telegraphic addresses. There have been some complaints of delay, especially from my hon. Friends who represent the islands of Scotland, in regard to repairing cables which are interrupted in the seas round
  1578
  our coast. The Post Office has two cable ships—one of them is somewhat antiquated, about forty years old—and I have included in this year's Estimate a sum for the provision of a new cable ship. Tenders will shortly be invited for the construction of this ship, and when this is provided it will enable repairs to be effected far more promptly than hitherto. There is another branch of the Post Office activities which is of the greatest importance—the maintenance of an adequate and cheap system of telegraphic communications between these islands and other parts of the world, and particularly between the Mother-country and the outlying Dominions of the Empire.
  This country has by far the largest commerce of any country in the world in proportion to its population. It is an Empire that consists of dominions more widely scattered over the globe than has been the case of any Empire known in history, and speedy and cheap communications, over and under the seas are as important to us from the commercial and strategical point of view as is adequate defence upon the seas. I am glad to be able to tell the Committee that the large reductions in telegraph rates lately effected have been widely used, These rates have been mainly for what are called deferred telegrams—telegrams in plain language, or Press telegrams, which are not of an urgent character, which can be delayed without detriment to their utility, and which can be handled by the Cable Company at those times of the day when their cables are not fully employed. During the first three months of this year over the Atlantic cables, of Press messages nearly 20 per cent, were sent at the deferred rate, so that the Press is making active use of the new rate. Out of 1,408,000 words sent over the Atlantic cables, Eastward and Westward, by the Press 255,000 words were sent at the deferred rate. Of ordinary telegrams, sent at the half-rate, 520,000 words were sent; and of what are called cable letters 677,000 words were sent over the Atlantic cables, so that a total of 1,197,000 words of non-urgent plain language messages were cabled over the Atlantic during those three months again, a proportion of about 20 per cent, of the whole traffic, which consists of 6,716,000 words over the Pacific cable, one-half of the whole Press traffic is being sent at the deferred rate. On routes other than the-North Atlantic 14,300 deferred telegrams, in plain language were sent at the half-rate, comprising 170,000 words.
  Sir GEORGE DOUGHTY: How has it affected the ordinary service? Has it been reduced, or is this an extra portion of business?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: These are not Government cables. The figures are supplied by the companies, and do not enable an exact statistical comparison to be made, but I understand that the managers of the cable companies are of opinion that a considerable part of it is new traffic, but it is impossible to say precisely how much. The reduction of rates has certainly stimulated the growth of traffic. Some hon. Members opposite, on the occasion of a recent Debate, complained that the Government had not paid adequate attention to the resolutions passed by the Imperial Conference. Three specific resolutions were passed relating to the Post Office and its administration. One dealt with the question of the reduction of cable rates, and I told the Conference of the reductions which I anticipated would take place, and they were satisfied with them, and the reductions have since been effected. The second resolution was as to Imperial wireless telegraphy, which we now have in hand. The only specific resolution passed by the Imperial Conference dealing with postal or telegraphic matters which has not been carried into effect is one which depends for its application upon the action not of this Government, but of the Governments of Australia and Canada. It is that a system of Imperial postal orders initiated by my Department, and which is in successful operation in New Zealand, South Africa, India, and the Crown Colonies, as well as in this country, should be extended also to Australia and Canada in order to provide a useful facility for transmitting small sums between various parts of the Empire. The Imperial Conference passed that resolution with the sanction of the Prime Ministers of Australia and Canada, but I much regret to say that the Australian and Canadian Government still do not see their way to adopt this useful system of interchange of postal orders. I say so much in answer to the criticism made with regard to the resolutions passed by the Imperial Conference. The more I consider the proposals, made in this House and elsewhere, for a State-owned Atlantic cable the more I am convinced it would be an unwise policy for the Government to adopt, and the House to sanction. It is not the case
  1580
  as has been stated in various quarters that while in opposition I was one of the advocates of such a proposal. That statement has been based on a misunderstanding of some words used by my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Sir G. Parker) in a recent Debate. I have never advocated a State-owned Atlantic cable. That is a proposal which the Postmaster-General of Canada in a recent Debate in the Canadian Parliament himself declared was unnecessary. It is a proposal which whenever it has been fully discussed has always been rejected. It was proposed in the Imperial Conference and after a full discussion the resolution was withdrawn. It was discussed recently by the Association of Chambers of Commerce in this country, and after the objections, financial and others, had been stated by my hon. Friend the Member for Hawick Burghs on my behalf, that resolution was withdrawn also.
  Mr. CROFT: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that he is satisfied with the present rates?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No; none of us are satisfied with the present rates. We should like to see the rate reduced, and I am gradually getting control of the rates through the landing licences as those landing licences are renewed. But the reduction of rates is one thing, and the spending of half a million on terms which I am convinced would be unremunerative in all the circumstances is a very different proposal. I trust the Committee will not press for this unnecessary and unremunerative expenditure of public money. But it is not only cheapness which is needed in our cable communications, for the commercial community attaches as much weight to speed in cabling as to cheapness. We have been enabled to effect during the last year several improvements in the cable service between this country and the Continent. A new cable is proposed to be laid between here and Germany which we trust may improve the telegraph service with Germany and other parts of the Continent. I am contemplating a new departure in our Continental cable service which I should like to explain to the House. The International Telegraph Convention, which we and all the other great countries have signed, makes provision for the establishment of a special rate for urgent telegrams at three times the ordinary rate, which may be

  1581
  prepaid and may be given priority over other telegrams. All the countries on the Continent have adopted this system, and we are the only European country which has not yet adopted it. I think it is unsuited for our inland service, because we aim at giving a no-delay service to all telegrams, and there will be considerable danger if we charge the higher rate for urgent telegrams, of slowing down the ordinary service. But I have had many representations from organisations representing the commercial community and the business community, from Stock Exchanges and so forth, that they would welcome the opportunity of being allowed to communicate with the Continent at express speed, if I may use the term, on the payment of a higher rate. Our business men are at a disadvantage compared with their competitors on the Continent, because the Continental firms are able to enjoy the benefit of this priority on the Continental lines by payment of the triple rate, while our business men, even though they be willing to pay, cannot enjoy that priority. Although their telegrams may be sent with all speed over our lines and cables, as soon as they reach the Continental telegraph system and are on their way to Berlin or Vienna or Rome, or wherever it may be, they have to take their place with the slow traffic, and cannot have the precedence which their Continental competitors are able to enjoy.
  Therefore, I am considering the introduction of a system of urgent telegrams at triple rates between this country and the Continent of Europe, but I am anxious not to move in advance of public opinion, and before introducing the scheme I would prefer to await the expressions of the views of Members of this House, of Chambers of Commerce, of the Stock Exchanges, and other bodies which are directly interested in the matter. I had hoped before this to have been able to effect a reduction of 50 per cent, in the telephone charges for conversations between England and France. A reduction such as that would necessarily bring an immediate and large increase in traffic. Before doing so, it is necessary to lay new cables and provide communication with those cables. The British cable was laid some time ago. It is of an improved type, and provides greater facilities for hearing between London and Paris. The French cable, which was also to be laid, has been completed some few months ago, but the land lines
  1582
  for joining that cable with Paris have not yet been completed. When I was in Paris last October I urged upon my colleague, M. Chaumet, the necessity of providing those land lines as soon as possible, and when he was in London recently, and we were very glad to welcome him here, the matter was again urged upon his attention. As soon as those land lines are provided between the landing place of the cable and Paris, I shall be able to effect a 50 per cent, reduction on the telephone charges between this country and Paris. Active steps are being taken to extend telephonic communication to Switzerland, Holland, and to parts of Germany. It-may take some little time before those extensions become effective. The engineering problems are not easy to solve, but there is every reason to hope that at no very distant date we shall be able to speak, and speak distinctly, to correspondents in Berlin, and other distant cities.
  Communication by wireless telegraphy has also received much attention from the public and also from the Department during the last year. The disaster to the "Titanic," which has brought bereavement to so many hundreds of homes, has caused loss to the Post Office also. Two of our sorting clerks, Mr. Jago Smith and Mr. Williamson went down in the "Titanic," and the accounts which have been received show that during their last hours, with their three American colleagues, they were doing their best to secure the safety of the mails in case succour should come. Their conduct was worthy of the best traditions of the British Civil Service. The question whether wireless installations should be made compulsory on ships, and how far continuous attention to the receivers can be secured, is at this moment engaging the closest attention of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and myself. The matter of course lies chiefly in his province; he takes the closest personal interest in it, but the Post Office is also concerned, because those equipments are held on licences from the Postmaster-General, and those licences can impose conditions upon the use of the apparatus. It is likely that this and other matters will be considered by the International Conference on Wireless Telegraphy which will meet in London next month. The wireless coast service round these islands which, as the House knows, is in the hands of the Post Office, has been greatly improved during the last few months. Its

  1583
  revenue shows a steady expansion; it gives a day and night service round the whole of our coasts, and is in constant touch with the coast communication service which has been extended by the Post Office at a cost of £75,000 all round our coasts, for the purpose mainly of life saving.
  The Imperial Wireless Scheme, as the House has been informed, has made much progress. In March, 1910, the Marconi Company made application for licences for eighteen stations in various parts of the Empire which were to be erected and worked by them, but on full consideration the Government thought it advisable, in view especially of the great strategic importance of those stations, that they should be State-owned. The Committee of Imperial Defence was consulted on the matter, and they were of the same view. Last year at the Imperial Conference a resolution was moved by Sir Joseph Ward, on behalf of New Zealand, in favour of the establishment of a State-owned chain of wireless stations in various parts of the Empire, and, on behalf of the Home Government, I supported that resolution, and it was carried unanimously. Prior to that the matter had already engaged the attention of the Government, but subsequently to the meeting of the Imperial Conference a Commitee was formed, over which I had the honour to preside, which included also other representatives of the Post Office, and representatives of the India Office, the Colonial Office, the Treasury, the Admiralty, the War Office, and the High Commissioners of Australia, South Africa, and New Zealand. That Committee made exhaustive inquiry into the conditions of the problem, with the assistance of experts who were members of the Committee, and gave the closest examination to the proposals of the Marconi Company, and also considered other possible systems of wireless telegraphy. After prolonged negotiations with the Marconi Company a preliminary agreement was signed some weeks ago accepting their tender for the erection of stations to be purchased and worked by the Government, and subject, of course, to the approval of Parliament. It is proposed in the first instance six stations shall be erected, the first in England, the second and third on sites which are not yet definitely decided, but which may perhaps be in Egypt and in British East Africa, and at all events in two places on the road to India. [An HON. MEMBER: "Whereabouts in England?"] That
  1584
  is not definitely decided. The fourth station will be in India, and the fifth at Singapore. The Australian Government have decided to erect their own station, which is not part of this contract, for communicating with the others. The sixth station will be erected within the territories of the South Africa, Union. Other stations are contemplated, in future, but no definite provision is made with regard to them. We think it advisable to proceed cautiously at first to see how far those first stations will fulfil our expectations.
  Mr. HOLT: Do you know where the stations in Australia will be placed?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No, that also is not decided. The Marconi Company give a guarantee that the stations will be adequate to cover the long distances involved, 2,000 miles, and more in some cases. They guarantee also a speed of twenty words per minute, duplex, that is to say, the stations will be able to send messages in one direction, and simultaneously to receive message; from two directions. They also guarantee a speed of fifty words per minute by automatic apparatus simplex, after allowing for repetitions, and the service is to be continuous day and night. The contract also provides for duplicate engines in case of breakdown. There are many other provisions in the contract with regard to patents and royalties and so forth, but the whole of them will be submitted to the House formally before long, as soon as the details of the contract and specifications have been completed.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what the cost will be?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The cost in round figures per station, excluding sites and buildings, will be £60,000. There are also provisions with regard to a royalty of 10 per cent, on the gross receipts during a certain period and that we may have the use of the present and all future Marconi inventions and apparatus.
  Major ARCHER-SHEE: Is that for each station?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Yes. The Indian Government will pay for the station in India. The other stations will be paid for by the Imperial Government and the revenue derived from those stations will accrue of course to the Government which owns the station.
  Mr. AMERY: Will the Imperial Government own the South Africa station?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No, the South African Government will own their own station. I was thinking of the chain between here and Australia.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: Is there any guarantee as to the time of transmission on the chain?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No. Of course wireless telegraphy like other telegraphy is practically instantaneous, and the method and rate of transmission must depend on the actual working of the station by the operators, and the way in which the traffic is handled. The contractors will supply the stations, but they will not be really responsible for this; it will be the administration which will be concerned with the working of them. The whole of these matters may perhaps be more usefully discussed, though I do not deprecate discussion to-day, when all the facts are in black and white before the House, as they must be before the approval of the House is obtained for the contract.
  The chief event of the year, of course, from the point of view of the Post Office has been the transfer of the National Telephone Company's system to the State. On 1st Janauary over half a million telephones and all the equipment which belongs to them were transferred to the Government, and that has involved a vast expansion of work and responsibility on the Department. Some suggestions have been made that the Post Office ought to learn more than it has learned from foreign experience in the matter of telephones. I believe we are guilty of no dereliction of duty in that regard. So far as the United States is concerned leading officers of my Department have made prolonged and careful study of the United States telephone system in 1893, in 1899, in 1905, in 1910, and in 1911; in fact almost all the chief administrators of the Department concerned in telephony have visited and studied the American system. I have now two engineers with travelling scholarships living in the United States for the purpose of studying the methods, manufacture and use of telephonic plant. Last year officers visited Sweden, Denmark, Holland, and Germany. The late chief engineer of the Post Office, who found himself, for reasons of health unable to continue the very heavy duties of his office, has not
  1586
  retired from the Department, but is now engaged on the Continent in making a prolonged study for some months of the Swedish and other systems of telephony. One outcome of those studies has been the introduction of the system of automatic exchanges into England. Two days ago the first British automatic exchange was opened at Epsom, another will shortly be opened at Caterham, and a third in the central offices of the Post Office. Other large automatic exchanges are in contemplation at other places. The introduction of the new system can necessarily only be gradual, and the staff have no reason to fear that any of them will be displaced by their duties being absorbed by mechanical appliances.
  The purchase price of the company's plant, as the House knows, has not yet been determined. As contemplated by the Agreement of 1905 and the Telephone Transfer Act of last year the matter is the subject of arbitration before the Railway and Canal Commission. The proceedings will begin on 10th June, and the Committee may rely that every effort will be made, by the employment of the best legal and expert advisers to assist the Commission, to arrive at a figure which, while equitable to the company, shall not be unjust to the State. In the meantime there can be no change in the rates charged for telephones, except in regard to certain telephones which were supplied by the company on preferential terms below their ordinary rates in consideration of the grant of way leaves and other reasons. These cannot be continued, because a Government Department is precluded by Statute and by legal decisions from giving favour or preference to anyone. With that exception, all the previous charges have been left as they were until we know how much we have to pay for the plant. It will then be necessary to revise the rates, which now in many cases are unequal. When the Post Office has been able to ascertain what it has to pay for the company's plant, it will be able to frame a new tariff, but that tariff will not be brought into operation unless it is generally acceptable—it is perhaps too optimistic to hope that it will be generally acceptable, whatever it is—until an inquiry has been held either by a Committee of this House or by some outside Committee representing the interests concerned. However careful the preparations may have been for so vast a change as that which was effected on 1st January, it could hardly be expected to take place without

  1587
  some difficulty. The company very naturally during the last few years of their licence had been unwilling to make any capital outlay which was not of a necessary character. It is true that a good deal of plant was provided at the cost of the Post Office. In the year 1911–12 the Post Office spent out of capital on the London telephone system alone a sum of £530,000. Still, when the company's system was transferred to us we found that its existing equipment was very heavily loaded. There was very little room indeed for the expansion, which is proceeding with extreme rapidity. It was necessary to provide in London—this had been partly foreseen, and it was recognised hat it would be necessary—several new exchanges. Two were opened soon after the transfer—the Avenue Exchange and the Victoria Exchange. It was necessary to provide those immediately, because the company's system in those districts was out of date and the leases of their premises were expiring.
  But the transfer to new exchanges worked on a different system caused some trouble at the time, particularly in regard to the service of those subscribers who had private switchboards. Frequently the private operators were not able to adapt themselves to the requirements of the new system, and a good deal of interruption to the service was caused on that account. While the staff wore doing their best to Cope with these difficulties there came early in January, a few days after the transfer, a severe snowstorm, which broke down a considerable proportion of the overhead telephone wires which we had just taken over from the company, and a large part of the engineering staff had immediately to be concentrated on the repairs of the broken communications. In the provinces outside London little disturbance has been caused to the telephone service by the transfer; but in London I should not be candid with the Committee if I denied that the service has for a time fallen below the high standard which we should desire to see it attain. The officers of my Department fully recognise this. They are by no means wrapped up in an atmosphere of official optimism and complacency, and all grades of the staff are now and have been for some time doing their utmost to remedy the defects of the telephone service.
  As I know that this matter will be debated to-day, perhaps the Committee will
  1588
  allow me to tell them the steps that are now being taken to remedy such defects as exist. The operators have all been emphatically told that in all cases they must repeat distinctly the numbers which are given them by the subscribers. That is one of the best means of avoiding the annoyance caused by wrong numbers being connected. The operators have also been told that under no circumstances must they give the engaged signal until they are quite sure that the number asked for is in fact engaged. New methods are being devised for recording against the operators at fault such irregularities as they may commit. I should mention to the Committee that for every eight operators in a telephone exchange there is one supervisor continually moving behind them watching the service and detecting any irregularities or cases of neglect which may occur. There is also at the Controller's Office, at the central office, a staff continually engaged without the knowledge of the operators, in observing and timing calls at all the different exchanges in London. We have found through that test that the speed of the service is really good. During the last four months, since 1st January, over 30,000 calls have been observed and timed in this way without the knowledge of the operators. The average time of answering a call is 4.8 seconds, less than five seconds, which I think will be recognised as an exceedingly good speed. The average time of making the connection asked for is 28.7 seconds, or less than half a minute, which also I think is very satisfactory. I wish the maximum were the same as the average. That, unfortunately, cannot be secured, but these average speeds may be regarded as not by any means unsatisfactory. It is necessary that not only the operators should use the plant intelligently and carefully, but that the subscribers should do the same. We have a considerable staff at work instructing the operators at private switchboards on subscribers' premises in the best way of operating their own switchboards. That is resulting in a very great improvement in the service.
  I propose to issue very shortly a circular to the subscribers to the London telephone service impressing upon them also the necessity of giving distinctly the number of the telephone they desire to call up, because very frequently the wrong numbers which are given and which cause so much annoyance are the fault of the subscriber himself in not clearly enunciating the number he wishes. Further, I propose

  1589
  to inform subscribers of the methods of making complaints when complaints are necessary, because it is only by the cooperation of the public in making complaints where complaints are justified that the controllers of the service can detect such faults and irregularities as occur and remedy the deficiencies that may be revealed. I am glad to say that during the last few weeks the complaints received with regard to the London service have been very rapidly diminishing, and I feel quite confident that the staff will be able to overcome the difficulties that we have experienced, and will raise the service to the high standard which public opinion rightly demands. We are now adding to the London telephone service new telephone subscribers at the rate of about a hundred a day. In order to cope with this expansion it is necessary to provide a large number of new exchanges, which are being built, and extensions of our own and the ex-company's exchanges. In the provinces during the last year new telephone exchanges have been added at the rate of three a week, or 156 during the course of the year. There has been a capital expenditure of £339,000. I am glad to have been able to extend the telephone service to several districts in Ireland, where it was very greatly desired. The system of cheap farmers' telephones, which I outlined to the House last year, did not at first meet with success, because the conditions were found to be unduly restrictive. But I felt sure that these cheap party line telephones would be found in this country, as they have been found elsewhere, to meet a real need. I therefore revised the conditions, and the new conditions have proved to be suitable to the case. Some hundreds of agreements are now being signed with farmers and other residents in rural districts for the extension to them of cheap party-line telephones. The contract officers of the Department are busily at work securing new subscribers on these terms. The President of the Board of Agriculture is assisting through his Department, and representatives of the Board will attend agricultural shows and other gatherings of farmers this year in order to secure support for this new system of telephonic communication.
  I think the capacity of the Post Office to deal with telephones can best be judged by its handling of the trunk telephone system. When the trunk telephones were taken over in 1896, they cost £460,000.
  1590
  Since then we have spent £5,000,000 on extending trunk wires and equipment. The extension has proved to be remunerative, although the rates charged here for trunk calls are between one-half and one-fourth of those charged in the United States. Last year there were 33,000,000 conversations over the telephone trunk wires, leading to a State revenue of £855,000, an increase of 11 per cent. both in use and revenue on the previous year. Last year we spent £260,000 in the development of the trunk system. This year I am proposing to spend nearly £1,000,000 on the trunk system, including a large underground programme. Altogether, in the coming financial year, on the London telephone service, on the provincial telephone service, and on the trunk service, I am proposing to spend out of capital £2,600,000, in addition to the purchase price to be paid to the company, and I feel sure that both traffic and revenue will respond to this increased expenditure.
  Sir F. BANBURY: How will it affect telegraph revenue?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The telegraph revenue is stationary, but in any case I do not think we ought to hold back telephone development with any idea of protecting the telegraph revenue. I shall be exceedingly glad if Members of this House and the public outside will cooperate with the Department in making the telephone service as closely adapted to the needs of the community as it can be made. Some time ago I publicly invited chambers of commerce and other bodies to form local committees to get into touch with the local officers of the Post Office, who have large powers in this matter, in order to see that the special needs and requirements of localities were met by the telephone service. Unfortunately that invitation, although it was generally approved, has not yet been acted upon in any district, but I hope that before long it will be. A voluntary Committee was formed in this House, under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Falmouth (Mr. Goldman). I hoped I should be able to get, and I still hope to receive, useful suggestions from Members of that Committee. I at once gave the Committee a cordial invitation to visit any of the Post Office telephone exchanges and to study the working of those exchanges. I offered that the head of the telephone service in this country should attend a meeting of the Committee, and make a

  1591
  statement as to the Post Office methods and plans, and answer any questions that might be addressed to him. Neither of these invitations, I regret to say, have been availed of. I think that is somewhat unfortunate, because I feel sure that their criticism, which I should welcome, would be more useful if the Committee had made itself more closely acquainted with what is being done by the Post Office. But I must hurry to the conclusion of my statement. The year has also been marked by the Jubilee of the Post Office Savings Bank, and has been well signalised by an increase in the sums credited to depositors of no less than £7,600,000 during the year. This is the greatest increase during the last fourteen years. The Jubilee has also been celebrated by the conversion of the deficit which has existed in the Post Office Savings Bank account for many years past into a surplus, which is partly due to the better yield of our investments—the silver lining to the cloud of the fall in the price of Consols—and partly due, I think I may claim, to good administration. The hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) may be interested to know that investments in Government stocks of small amounts through the Post Office increased last year by one and three-quarter millions, and no less than £25,000,000 of Government securities are now held in small amounts by the public throughout the country through the agency of the Savings Bank.
  The Savings Bank is perhaps in closer touch with the life of the people than any other branch of the Post Office or any Government Department. The coal strike was reflected in a diminution to the extent of a quarter of a million in the deposits that might have been anticipated by the Post Office. Through the correspondence of the Comptroller of the Savings Bank one gets from time to time many sidelights on the human nature of depositors. One depositor had closed his account. Nevertheless, after the account was closed, he appealed to the Comptroller to send him back his Savings Bank account book, for, he said, it cheered him in his poverty to Fee how much his deposit once had been. Recently a claim was received by a depositor against the Department, which read:—"Although a Welshman and a veteran Radical, I am respectably connected, and well-known for my integrity." Not long ago a claim was made by a woman for a
  1592
  sum which stood in the name of her son, who had died. She was asked to fill up the necessary form. One of the questions was as to whether or not she had a husband living. She filled up this space by saying: "Living, but insignificant." So that from time to time the Post Office in its routine business is cheered by little flashes of humour communicated to it through the Savings Bank. The home safes which were issued in the course of the year have been welcomed by the public. About 25,000 have already been issued. I think they are assured of a steady sale.
  Many improvements have been made during the year in the organisation of the Department. When a member of the public posts a letter or sends a telegram, he knows with fair certainty that it will arrive at its destination, but he very seldom thinks of the infinite complexity of the machinery which enables that to be accomplished. Year by year we do our best to improve the vast organisation of the Department. In order to avoid delay in dealing with correspondence sent to the Department, I have adopted a scheme of decentralisation which enables many matters to be dealt with by local officers which were previously dealt with at headquarters. The Factories Department has often been a source of question and Debate in this House. Frequently the men employed have complained that they were working on short time, and there have been discharges owing to slackness of work. I appointed a Departmental Committee, presided by my hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General, which made thorough inquiries into this branch of Post Office organisation. They reported. That Report has been adopted, and the factories are now devoting themselves entirely to repairs, and have been placed under the control of the Stores Department. I think the men in question will be now able to secure far more regular employment than they had previously.
  The staff now numbers over 230,000. Great numbers of questions year by year need attention, but no doubt to-day the-Debate will be devoted less than usual to questions of the staff, because the House has appointed a Select Committee to review the decisions of the Hobhouse Committee and to enter into many matters which the many branches of the staff desire to receive attention. That Committee, under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Holt), has taken upon itself an arduous but a most

  1593
  useful task. When the Hobhouse Committee reported there was some friction within the Department owing to differences in the interpretation of various of the paragraphs of that Committee's report. I am anxious that no friction should occur after this Committee has reported. I shall propose, if substantial differences of opinion arise between the Department on the one hand, and the associations of the staff on the other, as to the proper interpretation of the Committee's report, that, as nearly as possible, the same Committee should be re-appointed in the subsequent Session, with a reference limited to the interpretation of such paragraphs of its report as may have gieven rise to disagreement. I do not know whether it is a proof of the better spirit that now prevails between the staff and the head of the Department, but I find one of the associations engaged in advocating a higher salary for the Postmaster-General. The proposal is one which I have observed with much gratification, but in the interests of economy I must sternly resist it. However, I confess that during the recent coal strike I had some feeling of regret that the perquisites which were enjoyed by my predecessors in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, of "free coals, candles, and tinware," are no longer enjoyed by the Postmaster-General.
  The Post Office is not, after all, such a bad employer of labour. I think that is evidenced by the improvement in the condition of the Telephone Company's employés who have been transferred to the Post Office. It is rare that we have the opportunity of making an exact comparison between the conditions in State employment and the conditions in similar outside employment. We have that opportunity in this case. The employés of the National Telephone Company numbered 19,000. On transfer to the Post Office they enjoy the same conditions of Post Office servants of the same grade doing the same work. The consequence has been that in wages alone that staff are now receiving £175,000 per year more than they received from the company. Owing to the shortening of the hours of work, too, and the increase of holidays granted, I have had to employ a larger staff, involving an increase in the wage bill of £32,000 per year. The pension rights granted to the company's employés involve an increase to the extent of £201,000 per year when the pensions mature. So that
  1594
  altogether these 19,000 telephone employés will receive from the State in money or in money's worth £408,000 per year, a sum of over £20 per person, or 8s. per week. Many improvements in detail have been effected in the conditions of employment of the various branches of the Post Office staff, with the co-operation, and sometimes on the suggestion, of the heads of the Post Office Department. I should like to take this opportunity of emphatically declaring that I find that the able men who are at the head of the Post Office in the Civil Service are always most ready to welcome proposals for the improvement of the conditions of the staff, and indeed are themselves continually initiating improvements. The Committee for dealing with telegraphists' cramp, presided over by my hon. Friend the Member for Hawick Burghs (Sir John Barran) has lately reported. Their recommendations are being adopted by the Department. I trust they will result in a diminution of that painful disease.
  The solution of the boy messenger problem is rapidly proceeding. In 1909–10 we had at the age of sixteen to dismiss 4,470 boys. New schemes have been adopted enabling that number to be reduced in 1910–11 to 3,628, and last year to 1,207. I hope that next year the number will be reduced to 400, and that at no very long interval the boy messenger problem will be altogether solved. It has been necessary to stop open competition for a number of classes in the Post Office and to limit the competitors to boy messengers in order to secure for them opportunities for employment, but we are sure that in giving a better assurance of permanent employment we shall get a good class of boys to enter the Post Office service. The Juvenile Advisory Committees throughout the country are advising us in our selection of boy messengers on entry, and we shall take every step to secure that the educational standard of the service shall in no way be lowered by the cessation of the open competition. I have established also with the assistance of the Education Department a system of compulsory evening educational classes for the boy messenger class. The Committee will see that the year has been one of strenuous activity. The transfer of the Telephone Company's system with all that it involves in the way of the amalgamation of staff, the preparation of the inventory and the preparation for the arbitration proceedings alone have imposed upon

  1595
  the Department a very heavy burden. In addition to that, we have had many problems to deal with arising from the passage of the National Insurance Act, both as to its effect upon our own staff and also as to the co-operation of the Post Office in the work of the administration of the Act. Several Departmental Committees have been continually at work throughout the year; and I feel sure that the Committee will allow me to express their appreciation and thanks for the unsparing labour of the officers of my Department to maintain the efficiency and to develop the activities and usefulness of this great Department of the State.
  Mr. GOLDMAN: I beg to move "That Subhead A (Salary of the Postmaster-General) be reduced by £100."
  5.0 P.M.
  After the very important, very businesslike, and very frank speech to which we have just listened, it may appear somewhat ungenerous that I should move the reduction of the Postmaster-General's salary. I take the first opportunity of saying, as he has addressed remarks to the Committee, of acknowledging in the fullest manner the courtesy he had shown in asking the Committee on telephones to cooperate with him in the work he has undertaken. After consultation it was decided not to have a meeting in view of the fact that the attendance would be very small. In proposing this reduction I also wish to assure the right hon. Gentleman that I am not moving it in a spirit of parsimony. Indeed, paradoxical though it may appear, I would for more reasons than one favour an increase in the salary of the Postmaster-General, which he said he sternly resists. I do so, because I believe that his salary is that which forms the high-water mark from which the salaries of the other officials drain downwards. I believe it does not necessarily follow that it is good economy and may not be remunerative to lay down the maximum now laid down by the Post Office. I make these remarks and I refer to the Postmaster-General's salary largely from the point of view of comparison with a salary received by some of the officials under him. Let me compare, for instance, the salary of the third Secretary or the Engineer-in-Chief, who has great technical work to perform, must show great business devolving upon him. I think it is quite capacity, and has great responsibilities plain and clear that you are not command-
  1596
  ing the best men at such salary, for the simple reason that the best men cannot be attracted by such remuneration as you offer, or else, if you do succeed in attracting the best type, they are attracted by the magnetism of the State Department, and you are paying these men salaries, not at a maximum, but at a minimum rate, and not a rate which estimates their true value and their full value. These men are therefore suffering under an injustice, and are receiving underpayment and are denied the stimulus and encouragement that should be shown to those who are working and acting at the primary nerve centre of a great commercial community. It may be held that salary alone does not attract a man of ability unless it be accompanied with wide discretionary powers, and that a man of initiative may not be so necessary in the Post Office service. That cannot equally apply to the telephone service, whose success and development depend upon alert commercial ingenuity, and, above all, an initiative, and these requirements necessitate a man with a keen intellect and with discretionary powers, which must be given to persons in charge of the telephone system in this country.
  Having dealt with that point of view and stated that you require the best man that you can obtain, I would like to address myself for a few moments to that portion of the right hon. Gentleman's speech which referred to the transfer of the telephone system. The Committee will remember that the Postmaster-General told us that the transfer was effected on the 1st January this year, but he knew a long time ahead that this change was to be effected, and I think every precautionary measure should have been taken so that when the change was effected nothing should interfere with the continuity of the working of the system. We know what happened on the 1st January. Any man of business experience which have made sure in the first instance that the organisation he was taking over was working satisfactorily and he would not have made any change in that organisation until he was satisfied he could safely make such change. The consideration that should have entered into the subject in my opinion was this: whether the plant that was in use was in normal condition at the time being and whether any change should be made to impair the working machinery of the organisation unless and until this change could be effected without the slightest disturbance.

  1597
  The right hon. Gentleman very frankly conveyed to the House that there was much confusion on the taking over of the transfer, and dislocation due to the two exchanges, one at Westminster and the other the Avenue Exchange. These two exchanges were transferred at the same time, and early in the year the question arose as to whether it would not have been better to continue with the organisation and with the plant until preparations were made so that nothing might interfere or impair the work. I think we are entitled to ask the Postmaster-General whether he has taken such precautionary measures as will in future prevent the recurrence of these disturbances. I make these remarks because in the past there have been no less than seventeen transfers of similar exchanges in London, and they have been accompanied without anything like the disturbance or trouble that occurred in this instance, and indeed if we looked at the United States we see that the whole system of New York was transferred in two years, and we are told that that took place without causing any disturbance to the transferred. I should also like to point out that so far as I can gather there was no compulsion to change. In answer to a question I raised, the right hon. Gentleman conveyed to me that the transfers were necessary, because the equipment was not of a modern type and that the lease of the premises were about to expire. So far as the model type is concerned, it seems to be unnecessary to affect a change, but it did take place because the old exchange is worked on the magnetic needle. As regards the premises, I might point out that so far as I have been able to understand, there was no necessity to evacuate them when it was decided to do so. The lease of the Avenue Exchange only expires in 1923, although the option was to be declared early in January. So far as these premises are concerned the Post Office is still in possession of them, and so far as the Westminster Exchange is concerned, I am told that the owner of these premises actually approached the Post Office and asked them whether they desired to continue them or not.
  I am putting these instances forward not in any spirit of antagonism to the right hon. Gentleman. I recognise he is as anxious as I am, perhaps more so, to develop this system and make it highly efficient. I only make these points because it shows this organisation is not as
  1598
  businesslike as it might be. The Postmaster-General also told us that a good deal of leeway had to be made up. Again I would like to remind the House that this-was known as far back as five years ago, when the telephone agreement was entered into. That agreement specifically stipulated that no provisions are made for the requirements of the service after 1911. That being so, one naturally asks to what extent has the Post Office met the necessary requirements for improvements taking place immediately after the transfer to the State, and what foresight was shown to meet the necessary requirements, because it stands to reason that when a company is under sentence of death it is not going out of its way to spend vast sums of money on plant and machinery only to be taken at scrap valuation. The Postmaster-General told us what was done in the case of London. Let me remind the Committee that what he was doing then was only as a competitor, for he was then in competition with the National Telephone Company. I ask how much the Department spent in anticipation of the requirements which would fall due in other parts of the country in view of the extent to which the whole system has been starved by the National Telephone Company. I am informed it has spent not more than £50,000 for that period or in anticipation of the growing service and the service that should have been developed. Take the case of the United States. One of those companies have spent 20,000,000 dollars last year on engineering alone, and they are now making preparations for plans by which they are to spend 100,000,000 dollars in anticipation. In my opinion the Post Office utterly failed to display the necessary foresight of increased expansion.
  If we only consult the figures of the National Telephone Company we see how little they were spending on the future development of their service. In 1907 the National Telephone Company spent £1,129,000 in anticipation of future requirements. Gradually this sum was decreased. In 1909 they spent £568,000, in 1910, £421,000, and last year they only spent £361,000. What is the result? The result is that there must be a great congestion of traffic which you do find in the Exchanges. The Victoria Exchange is congested, so we hear is the Gerrard Exchange. I believe the Postmaster-General is under some promise to give an Auxiliary

  1599
  Exchange to London in the direction of the British Museum or that neighbourhood but has not fulfilled his promise.
  As an instance of the backwardness in the development of the telephone system in this country, let me give an illustration. Some very interesting figures are given in the Annual Report of the United States American Telephone Company just published. Here is a table showing the distribution of communication in Europe, England, and the United States. It is shown that in the United States 58 per cent, of the communication is on the lines of the telephone; in Europe 25.9 per cent, and in England only 15.5 per cent. First-class mail matters consume in America only 40 per cent., while in England they consume 82 per cent.; telegrams only.4 per cent, in the United States and 1.9 per cent, in England, while telephone conversations show 58.7 in America and 15.5 in this country. In other words, Europe has 50 per cent, more communications over the telephone than England, and the United States four times as much, which shows how backward this system is in a country which has always been known as a great business community. I will now leave the question of these two Exchanges and deal with the general dissatisfaction of the service which has manifested itself in so many directions during the last few months. I will deal in particular with the trunk lines. I was very pleased indeed to hear that the Post-moster-General intends to spend a considerable amount of money on increasing that service. No doubt that service has been suffering from an insufficient number of junction lines. The right hon. Gentleman stated with some pride that the charge for trunk fees in this country was considerably lower than in the United States. Against that I should like to point out that the charge for the trunk system in this country is very much higher than the trunk system in Germany. You can telephone in Germany a distance of 300 miles for one shilling, and for the same distance in this country it costs 2s. 6d. Although the system may be more expensive in this country than in Germany, I do not believe that people mind spending more money if the system is satisfactory, but they object to paying these high rates for an unsatisfactory system, because no one can be satisfied when they have to wait half an hour or even an hour before they can get a connection.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The hon. Member has quoted the German rates for the slow service. For the quick service they have to pay a much higher price in Germany.
  Mr. GOLDMAN: The book I have here states that the rates for one hundred to five hundred kilometres are one mark.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: There is a quick rate and a slow one in Germany.
  Mr. GOLDMAN: I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman means by the quick and the slow rate. I know if you want to get a very urgent message through you have to pay a higher rate. I am only speaking of the ordinary system, and under that system the payment is one shilling for 300 miles as against 2s. 6d. in this country. I also raised by a question in this House the inadvisability of the interrupted service in this country, and I asked the Postmaster-General whether he would discontinue in future this service, and adopt the system which was universally applied by the National Telephone Company, that is to give a continuous service day and night on all occasions to anybody wishing to be put in touch with anybody on the telephone. The reply which the right hon. Gentleman gave was that—
  "Wherever our exchanges are similar in character to those of the Company, there will be a similar service, but there are one or two villages with only one or two subscribers where it is not possible to give, without an extra charge, an all night service."
  I should like to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman considers Truro a village for these particular services. In Truro the telephone office closes at nine o'clock at night, and the office at Liskeard is open from 4 a.m. to 9.45 p.m. At Middlesbrough it is always open except on Sundays, when it is closed during the hours of 12.30 p.m. to 4.30 p.m. and 6.30 to midnight The same applies to Stockton-on-Tees and other towns. The company gave continuous services to villages in such places as Rownham, Aylesford, Crosshills, Waterlooville, and Wollaston. There you have villages with only a few subscribers installed by the National Telephone Company giving an all-night service. The question of areas has also been raised, and this is a question which has been occupying the attention of the Associated Chambers of Commerce for a very considerable time, and they have urged the doing away with the area system in this country. If the area system had been introduced for any particular business

  1601
  object there might be some reason for continuing that particular system, but it was only introduced because there were two owners of telephones in this country, and the two had to be kept apart. Seeing that those two ownerships have now been merged into one, there seems to be no reason for continuing this particular system, which inflicts a great hardship upon many people living close to each other, because they have to pay higher fees the moment they want to speak across the imaginary boundary line.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I do not quite understand what the hon. Member proposes with regard to areas. Does he mean that the whole country should be one area?
  Mr. GOLDMAN: What I mean is that every man should pay according to the distance he is talking. If a man wants to speak from London to Glasgow he has to pay for that distance, but there are other cases in which a great hardship arises. Take, for example, Barnet, in the Metropolitan area, and Potter's Bar, in the Hertford area. There is a distance of three miles between these exchanges, and in the case of a call from Barnet the subscriber has to go viâ London to Ware and then to Potter's Bar, a distance of forty-three miles, and this costs 3d. for the trunk, in addition to local fees, and probably takes about thirty minutes. This is in consequence of having to pay junction calls on account of this area system; and if the Postmaster-General can see his way to do away with this system it would not materially interfere with the Post Office revenue, and it would preserve the idea that a man should only pay for what he receives. Perhaps the most controversial point in connection with telephones is that which refers to rates. This question has also been the subject of much discussion. The Postmaster-General will remember that only last year he received a big deputation from over one hundred municipalities in England urging him to deal with this question of the rates. I admit that this rate is an extremely difficult and controversial subject, because half the subscribers are on the unlimited service and half are not. I know it would be difficult to induce those having the advantages of an unlimited service to forego those advantages and-pay for the amount of calls they are having.
  Again, this question brooks of no delay. The Postmaster-General told us that he
  1602
  cannot decide on fixing a tariff of rates unless and until a settlement has taken place with the National Telephone Company. I cannot see how the question of the settlement of any disputed amount between the National Telephone Company and the State can affect the question of the rates. I will explain what I mean. At present the Government know what their telephones cost, and they also know the amount of the anticipated claim that has been settled between the Post Office and the company. Whether the amount still to be paid is ten millions or one million more or less can, in my opinion, have no bearing whatever on the question of rates, because the rates must depend on your future development. If you are going to have a considerable development in this country and a large outlay of capital, much depends on what you are going to do in future. Let us assume that the telephone system costs you nothing. That would not induce you to say you would have very low rates, because you have to provide for future plant, and that is how the question of the rates has to be settled. Another question I should like to raise is the cost of the administration of the service conducted by the Post Office as compared with the same service conducted by the National Telephone Company. A very interesting paper appeared a little while ago by Mr. Harold Begbie. It was read before the Chambers of Commerce, and in it he shows that the percentage of working expenses to gross revenue of the National Telephone Company was 58 per cent. In other words, the net annual revenue and capital expenditure in the case of the National Telephone Company was 8.9 per cent., whilst in the case of the Post Office the ratio of working expenses to gross revenue was 74 per cent, and the net annual revenue, as compared with capital expenditure, is only 3.5 per cent. I think the House and the country is entitled to know why we have this relatively high cost in conducting the Post Office telephones as compared with the National Telephone Company.
  Sir F. BANBURY: They increased wages by £500,000 a year.
  Mr. GOLDMAN: The hon. Baronet says it may be due to the question of wages. I have no objection to increasing the amount of wages provided you get a more efficient service for it. If you get the efficiency you will get an extension of business, and your general revenue will be increased. Let me point out the results in connection with

  1603
  the National Telephone Company. During the existence of this company they contributed no less than £3,500,000 to the Post Office revenue. They paid a regular dividend averaging about 6 per cent., and then they had a watered capital of one million; they accumulated £3,500,000 in their reserve fund, and they had to acquire their finance at a higher rate of interest than the Post Office. The National Telephone Company were in the regular habit of paying dividends. Compare this result with the financial administration of the Post Office. According to the figures issued in the Annual Report, instead of there being a surplus there is actually a loss. I should like to refer the right hon. Gentleman to the figures for 1911. The commercial accounts show a net deficiency of £41,830 on the year's working of the telephones. That raises the whole question of the accounts. I asked on one occasion whether it would not be possible to present the accounts in a more commercial form, which the ordinary business man could understand. It is extremely difficult to see from these figures the details of the working of the organisation. On one page the Report shows a deficiency of £41,000, and on another page it shows a surplus. The surplus is largely wiped out by paying off Treasury advances that have been made. That again raises a very important issue, because it has a very important bearing upon the whole question of the rates. The accounts as presented show these peculiar features. Take the accounts for the year ending March, 1911. There is the item "rents, rates, fuel, and light," and below it says:—
  "No rent is charged in respect of premises owned by the Post Office and used for the purposes of the telephone business."
  In other words, you have not charged the telephone system a sufficient amount for the use and hire of the premises it occupies. Again, you have got the item "renewal of plant, salaries, wages, and incidental expenses, £184,000." Does that cover more than mere replacement? If it does, the excess amount should be put to capital account, and to that extent the revenue should be increased. The most important feature is the question of the terminable annuities. The Postmaster-General, in one of the earlier Reports, gives the depreciation of the plant, and estimates the life of the plant at thirty-four years. On the other hand, the advances obtained by terminable annuities are for periods of twelve,
  1604
  fourteen, seventeen, and twenty years. The revenue of the telephone system is being used to wipe off as rapidly as possible these terminable annuities, while the Postmaster-General in his Report himself states that the life of the plant should be estimated at thirty-four years. You are therefore paying for posterity.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Would the hon. Member give me the reference to the thirty-four years?
  Mr. GOLDMAN: The Report for 1905, issued in 1906. If the average life of the plant is estimated at thirty-four years, why should you distribute the repayment of the annuities over fourteen years only? You are using a large portion of your revenue to meet capital charges, and to that extent you are injuring the subscribers, because if you spread the repayment over a greater number of years you would be able to improve the whole service. Finally, I should like to say a few words with regard to the automatic system. I am sure everybody in the House appreciates the attempts which have been made by the Post Office to make experiments in connection with the automatic system which is being introduced on a fairly large scale in the United States and on a particularly large scale in Germany. I happened to visit one of the big exchanges in Munich quite recently, and I have a letter from the Postmaster-Stegman who says:—
  "The initial cost is greater than that of the manual system, but this is compensated for by the great savings that are achieved. According to our experience faults and defects in the automatic system are in no way more difficult to remedy than in the manual system. We can maintain as much control in the automatic system as in the manual. We can, for instance, cut off connections between persons if one or the other has not paid his subscriptions due. The Munich installation is a long way beyond the experimental stage. We have two central exchanges with 4,000 connections and 5,200 telephones, and further exchange of 2,000 is about available. Our subscribers on the automatic certainly prefer the new to the old system. The process of rapid connection transpires without a hitch. The only trouble we experienced in the beginning was between the automatic and manual exchanges."
  I observe that the tests now being made in this country are not in self-contained areas. The test of whether a system works satisfactorily or not lies in the satisfaction it gives to the subscribers. If, instead of taking Epsom, which is connected with London, you had taken Hastings, a self-contained area, the test would have been made without the difficulties which arise at Epsom. The majority of the calls at Epsom are not within a self-contained area, but with London, and you come into touch with the manual system. It is

  1605
  therefore impossible, or extremely difficult to really ascertain whether the automatic system is successful in working, because it so largely depends upon contact with the manual system. I would also like to say one word with regard to the many interruptions that take place. If I originate a call I am rung up soon afterwards by the second exchange and asked what call I want. The explanation must be that the first operator is not attentive. The second operator finds she cannot get in touch with the first operator, and she switches back to the originator of the call and asks him what call he requires. That shows greater attention is wanted on the part of the operators. There is also the question of the flash signals. Under the instructions of the National Telephone Company, if you finish a call and want a second call, or if you do not get a satisfactory answer, all you have to do is to give a flash signal with your instrument, moving it up and down and causing flashes in the exchange. According to the latest instructions, all you are required to do is simply to put the ear drum on to the receiver and then ring up again. That is the information the operator has, and she naturally acts on that particular system, while you still have the instructions of the National Telephone Company giving a totally different system. There are no instructions in the National Telephone Company's book telling you what to do with the magneto system. You still have it largely employed in England, and you have it in London, and I think an explanation ought to be provided how to use the system. We are far ahead of other countries in the matter of the transportation of goods, and I do not see why we should not be so in the matter of the transportation of thought. It conduces to make life much more amenable, and it helps largely in business, and for these reasons I hope the telephone system will be developed on the largest possible scale with due regard to maintaining it as a business enterprise.
  Mr. WILES: I am sure every Member will congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the very brilliant success which he has been able to show in his statement this afternoon. The year's working of the Post Office has been one of great activity. I am sorry we cannot congratulate the Postmaster-General on having an increase in his salary. I have always failed to see why the Postmaster-General should have a smaller salary than other Ministers who seem to have much less work falling
  1606
  upon their shoulders. I must, however, say that I am disappointed with the statement of the right hon. Gentleman in that he has foreshadowed no great postal reform for the coming year. Last year he had the amalgamation of the telephone service, and he foreshadowed many other reforms; but from his speech I am afraid that he has not much to tell us about the coming year. It is perfectly true he is going to give us ten months reply-paid telegrams. I think that reform has been long overdue. Then he said something about speeding up cablegrams to the Colonies. He also told us that people who desire to send cables to the Continent will be able to pay an additional fee and get them sent through more rapidly. I do not quite see as a commercial man what advantage that is going to be. It means everybody will pay the higher fee in order to get their cables through quickly and that the fee for cabling is therefore going to be raised. I had hoped we were going to have some announcement with regard to a penny postage to France after the conference that we saw took place the other day between the Postmaster-General and the French Postmaster-General. I believe they had some little difference of opinion as to what it would cost. The French Postmaster-General said it would cost £100,000 or something like that.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It was not the French Postmaster-General.
  Mr. WILES: The French representative, anyhow, said the cost would be £100,000, but the Postmaster-General said it would be £300,000. It seems to me, having regard to the tremendous value it would be in the expansion of our commerce, we could easily afford it. I do not know whether it would be £300,000 for us to pay or whether we should lose £150,000 and the French Treasury £150,000.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: We should lose £300,000.
  Mr. WILES: Having regard to the great financial balance which the Postmaster-General has, I am sorry he has not to-day been able to foreshadow for this year penny postage to France. I had quite hoped when I read of his conversation with the Ambassador from France in the papers that something was leaking out which we were going to be told about today. I notice that in his Report he states that the penny post to the United States means 8,000,000 more letters going

  1607
  through, and I hope that, seeing during his term of office he has done so much and has been so energetic, the right hon. Gentleman will study the question of a European post and will be able to induce other countries in Europe to adopt a system which must be of great value to themselves as well as to us.
  He has not told us anything about stamps. Last year he informed us that he was introducing the sale of stamps in rolls. Cannot he give us some statistics as to the number of people who have bought stamps in rolls, and the number of rolls sold? I think I may congratulate him on the better sticking capacity of his stamps, but, having regard to the number of postage stamps that will have to be issued for the insurance premium, I would suggest that he might introduce some special stamp with a pleasing aroma which the ladies might use for affixing stamps to the cards of their domestics. With reference to the books of stamps which the Postmaster-General began to issue last year, I should like to hear what has been the result and what proportion of the stamps sold are disposed of in these 2s. books. Last year it was suggested that advertisements should be placed in these books in order to pay the cost of issuing them. When I bought a 2s. book of stamps to-day I found that the stamps were smothered in advertisements, and I begin to suspect that the right hon. Gentleman, I am rather afraid at my instigation, is trying to make money out of the advertisements which are put into these stamp books. It seems to me rather a pity that these books do not advertise postal information. We are told nothing therein of the advantages to the family of the Home Savings Bank. We are not informed how cheaply the telephone can be laid on. We are not told anything about the parcels post. Perhaps it will be agreed that so long as the cost of these books is paid, so long as they involve no expenditure to the Post Office, it would be well that they should be utilised for the dissemination of such information as I have indicated. I would press upon the right hon. Gentleman one other innovation. The books are now only issued in a 2s. form. Why not have 1s. books? Indeed. I would suggest that we should have 1s., 2s. 6d., 5s. and at intervals up to 20s. I am sure they would be very popular. It would save a great deal of work in the offices to issue
  1608
  stamps in this convenient manner. I hope the right hon. Gentleman in his reply will hold out some prospect of a change in this direction.
  The hon. Member who last spoke made a great many complaints about the telephone service. I do not think he quite realised the great difficulty there is in taking over his service from a private body in a large place like London. He quoted other places—smaller places—where the service had been taken over and where the complaints had been smaller. But although there has been a good deal of suffering in this respect, although there has been a good deal to put up with, I feel sure it was largely due to the conditions under which the work was taken over, and I hope that the Postmaster-General next year will be able to report that under his system the work is being done more easily and more successfully than in the past. There has no doubt been a great deal of delay on the trunk calls. I know that that is a difficult service; it was thought that by the junction with the National Telephone Company some of the difficulties of the trunk service would be done away with. Take the case of the service to Ireland. We constantly saw notices on the Baltic Exchange of delay, and they were more frequent in the case of Ireland than in the case of any other part. It may have been due to the lack of sufficient cable, but I would ask the right hon. Gentleman cannot he see his way to have something done to lessen these delays.
  We have heard a good deal in the speech of the Postmaster-General last year as to the advantage which was going to accrue from farmers' telephones. It seemed to me that the proposal which he made was an excellent one, that the arrangement to provide facilities for bringing farmers into touch with their friends and with the commercial community would be quickly taken advantage of and to a very large extent. But I came across two farmers the other day who were living in an area in which they had been trying to link up. I asked them how long ago they applied and they told me it was six weeks ago. I suggested that that was a reasonable time, but what they complained was that they had not even had an acknowledgment of their application from the Department. I am quite willing to supply the right hon. Gentleman with their names and addresses. What I wish to urge is that this is a service which was put forward as one which would be of great advantage to

  1609
  farmers, it would be as well if facilities were given to agriculturists so that they might take advantage of it. I wish to say one word with reference to the telephone operator. I notice that in some small towns the Postmaster-General is trying to make arrangements for an all-night service. Of course that means adjusting the service. I understand that officials of the Post Office have written to certain employés asking them on what terms they would agree to become all-night attendants. That seems a rather extraordinary procedure. It looks as if the Postmaster-General were putting these jobs up to a sort of Dutch auction, and I think, if he will consider the matter, he will agree that it was hardly the proper way for the State to deal with such a question.
  Next, I wish to ask with reference to the case of the female assistant clerks. There was an announcement by the Post Office in December, 1911, of the introduction of lower grade clerks to supersede women clerks in the Money Order Departments. The Postmaster-General was asked if he would hold over that scheme in view of the early appointment of a Select Committee, and it was urged that the recommendations of the Hobhouse Committee were being set aside by the institution of a cheaper grade of plant. When the question was asked in the House last February, the suggestion was thrown out that nothing would be done until this Select Committee had reported on the matter. But I understand that something like thirty new appointments in the new grade were made on 29th April last, that thirty women sorters had already been transferred, and that arrangements had been made for the transfer of forty more. The Postmaster-General told the House of Commons that women clerks would not be called upon to do higher work than that which was justified by the scale of pay recommended by the Hobhouse Committee, but, notwithstanding this statement, eleven higher duties in the Money Order Department have been handed over to clerks of a lower grade. I hope the Postmaster-General will be good enough to hold his hand in this matter until the clerks have had an opportunity of putting their case before the Select Committee which is now sitting.
  There is only one other matter on which I propose to detain the Committee, and that is with regard to those officers who lost their lives on the "Titanic." I am
  1610
  sure everybody will admire the courage with which these officers dealt with the mail bags at the time the vessel was sinking, and I want to know what compensation is to be given to their relatives. I understand that the United States Government has already made a monetary grant to the wives and children of the three American operators who lost their lives, and I would make an earnest appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to give a special allowance to his own employés. I do not know whether or not they were married men, but I do think that the relatives should be compensated in some way for the serious loss they have sustained.
  6.0 P.M.
  Sir G. DOUGHTY: lam sure the Committee are very much indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for the very lucid speech he delivered this afternoon, and the valuable contribution on all matters affecting the postal service he has given to the country as a whole. It must be very gratifying to him to be the head of a great Department in a cycle of prosperity, and to be able to report year by year that his Department is not only commercially, but financially, a very great success. He has told us today that in the coming year he anticipates an increase of £450,000 in the profit of that Department, and that he anticipates that it will be not less than £4,830,000 to the good for the benefit of the revenue of the State. That is a very agreeable statement to make from the standpoint of a right hon. Gentleman who is at the head of that Department, but I am not certain that I look upon it with any great favour. A State Department should not be run with a view to making large profits for the State, which is not making for greater efficiency in every section of the Department. There is one thing the right hon. Gentleman will not be able to plead before the House. So far as the postal services are concerned, with such a credit balance as this, there ought to be no labour unrest in the very near future. I think, seeing that the profit is so large, that the public have a right to ask that the Department will do much more for them in certain directions, such as providing better facilities for post offices in various parts of the country. They should be the property of the Post Office entirely, rather than merely rented buildings, where people have to do their post office work among bacon and other goods that are sold.
  There is one question which has for a long while exercised the minds of many

  1611
  postal reformers, and to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. I cannot for the life of me understand why the Postmaster-General is opposed to establishing a penny postal service with France. It is a small matter when we look at the whole of the great business of the British Post Office and its work. Year after year this desire for a universal penny postal service with France has been pressed upon this House. We know from what has taken place recently, that the French postal authorities would be exceedingly pleased to enter into arrangements with the right hon. Gentleman for discussing the question, and I understood from a speech of the French Ambassador the other day that he would be very glad to co-operate with a view to the establishment of a penny postage between the two countries. This is a matter affecting 80,000,000 people. If we can carry mails 11,000 miles and distribute them in our Dominions and throughout the United States for a penny, surely we ought to be in a position to carry and distribute them 200 miles away in France for a penny. There appears to be some discrepancy in the statements as to what the loss would be, and I would like the Postmaster-General to kindly clear this matter up. I understand that in 1909, when this question was under discussion, the loss was estimated to be from £80,000 to £100,000. The right hon. Gentleman is reported to have said the other night that the loss would be £300,000.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: You cannot in my opinion have penny postage with France alone. If other countries on the Continent near at hand ask us to have the same arrangements with them as we have with France, I doubt if you could for long resist such a request. If you had penny postage not only with France, but with other neighbours that would involve us in a loss of £300,000.
  Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: What would be the loss on penny postage with France?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: A little over £100,000.
  Sir G. DOUGHTY: I do not see why, if we were to extend the penny postage service to France, that should necessarily involve us in a loss, unless we chose to extend it to Holland and to Germany. Surely we are masters of our own house and have a right to do what we please in
  1612
  matters of this kind. I am quite willing to take the right hon. Gentleman on his own figure of £300,000. Why should not a rich country like this, with its enormous revenue, grant a concession of this kind, which would be an enormous advantage not only to people in France, but to people in Germany and Holland also. Let us have a penny postage service with all these countries if they are desirous of having it and are willing to reciprocate. As to the suggested loss of £300,000, everyone knows from past experience that so soon as you extend the penny postage service to any country you greatly multiply the mail, consequently it would not be a great distance of time before you overtook the whole amount of the loss.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL indicated dissent.
  Sir G. DOUGHTY: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. Suppose we did lose for three or four years £150,000 or £200,000 a year, I should like to know whether in the £300,000 the right hon. Gentleman included any calculation as to what profit he would get from these foreign services. I think that, if you take into account the profit from those services you will lose nothing like £300,000. Even granting that you will lose that sum, if the Department are afraid of their revenue suffering through carrying out a great reform of this kind, then let the Department establish a loan account, say for twenty-one years, and debit all the loss that occurs for two or three years, and credit it with the profits on the services, and I venture to say you will hardly know that you have established a great reform. Why, one should have to say that to the British Government, which makes £4,800,000 from this very Department, seems to me rather surprising. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider what he has said on this question. He has a great opportunity of bestowing a great boon upon millions of people which will be enormously appreciated, and I am sure he will do a public service for which the commercial interests of Great Britain, as well as those of France and Germany, will thank him very much. The right hon. Gentleman has said something on the cable question. I regret one of the remarks which he made—that is, if he means that he does not desire to see State-owned cables connecting the British Empire. I understood him to suggest that he was against what is known as the "All-Red" cable between

  1613
  Canada and Great Britain. [SIR F. BANBURY: "Hear, hear."] The hon. Baronet only said "Hear, hear," because the right hon. Gentleman says it means spending £500,000. I do not say that that particular scheme should be carried out, but I do say that the policy of this country and the policy of the cable department of the Post Office should be in the long run to establish a universal system of cables throughout the whole of the British Dominions, at from a penny to twopence or threepence per word for a considerable number of words. It may seem impossible to do it, but it seemed impossible, at one time of day, that we should ever have a penny postal service. It is just as possible, within the next ten years if this question were faced prudently by men who would consider the matter from the public standpoint alone, to have a cable service which should apply to Australia, Africa, Canada, and India, at a reasonable rate. As to the remarks the right hon. Gentleman made with respect to the day-letter cable service and the night cable service, I think it most remarkable that in one year there should have been such an enormous amount of business done on these two services. I do not think I can give the right hon. Gentleman much credit for this business of the day-letter cable service. I think the people who have benefited are the cable companies. They have benefited enormously. The change which was made by the Government, and which is good as far as it goes, has put into their pockets thousands of pounds of revenue. They have no more cable to find, or people to find. Only one-third of the cable service with Australia, Canada, and Africa is in daily use. If you get a chart you will find that only about one-third of the cables is fully employed during the twenty-four hours, and they have been able, by the arrangements we have made to put upon the other portion of their cable, the night cable, hundreds of thousands of extra words, and draw a very handsome revenue. I submit that the Government ought to watch these matters carefully in the public interest and not in the cable owners' interest, because if ever we are to have a cheap cable service between our Dominions and this country, it will only be by first of all establishing the night use of the cables. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to take these questions into consideration carefully, and to press them home upon the cable companies. We ought to be able on the forty-eight hours
  1614
  cable with Canada or the United States to send at least twenty words for 2s. I am certain it would pay well to-day if they were to adopt that principle, especially as we know that the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Grand Trunk services will be open to distribute telegrams all over Canada.
  While you have established a day letter cable service with Canada you have done nothing to help Australia. Australia today has to pay 1s. 6d. per word. That is over the night cable. I think that is a scandal to which this House ought at once to take steps to put an end. Why should we not have a day letter cable service with Australia, say at 6d. per word or twenty words for 10s. That would be a great reform, which would link together our people in that vast Dominion so far away. It would be of great service to them, and a great source of strength, and it would be a great blessing to many of the poorer-people who live there, who occasionally want to communicate with their friends and relatives at home, but who cannot do so in less than six weeks. It might be done by such an arrangement as I have referred to. The points I have raised with regard to cable questions are very important matters. They affect very many millions of people, and I would urge upon the Postmaster-General that he should not allow himself to be too easily moved by these cable companies, and that he should not commit his Department to anything so far as they are concerned unless he gets from them his pound of flesh. People who know anything about the history of the cable companies for the past twenty years are well aware how the public have been served by them. No reduction has been made except through pressure from the Post Office Department, and unless the Post Office Department will continue to press them we shall have very little change for the good for some years to come. Such has been the success of the effort which they were induced to take last year, and such is the return, the extra money and the advantage they have got that now is the time to go to them and say, "You could establish a penny telegraph night service on the day letter principle with Canada for thirty words for half-a-crown," and you could, in my judgment, meet the Australian people as well as the African people by a day letter service for a very much reduced price.
  I listened with very great interest to the right hon. Gentleman's statement respecting the telephone service. I know it is very

  1615
  bad, and it requires very great changes before it might be called decently comparable with either the United States or Canada; but I am not prepared to blame the right hon. Gentleman yet for this. We must be reasonable, and remember that he only took it over on 1st January, and he must have a fair time to look into such a great question, as that undoubtedly is. I am only desirous that this new work which has come to this Department shall be treated on business lines entirely. I hope it will not be mixed up with telegraphic work at all. This great business should be run as a separate business, with business men at the head of it, and the State should have the best advantage for the money that the subscribers pay. Last year the Telephone Company paid £330,000 in royalties. Those royalties went to swell the revenue of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but it comes out of the pockets of those who use the telephone, and has been coming out of their pockets all these years. If we are to have a better and a cheaper telephone service—and the telephone service will never be popular until you make it cheaper—it will only be by using all the income from the telephone service for the benefit of those who contribute very largely and for the staff which has to work it. That is a very important matter, and I am certain that if the Department starts with that object in view, namely, of giving the very best service possible to the public at the cheapest possible price, the telephone service will be a very great blessing, and we shall have, instead of 650,000 telephones, some millions of telephones before very long. In the United States they have over eight million telephones in constant use, and they can do it on the very best lines owing to their long experience and their method of working. As this is a new department, the Postmaster-General has the right to have time to look round and see where it can be reformed, but I should like him to understand that we shall certainly in the future, when the Vote comes up again, inquire carefully into the whole system of telephones, and we shall endeavour to complain, if complaint is possible, in regard to its general working.
  Mr. WARDLE: I should like to support the last speaker in the view that it would be very greatly to the interest of the Post Office, and certainly of the people of the various countries, if the rate of postage to the Continent could be reduced at the
  1616
  earliest possible moment. I am quite sure his contention is perfectly sound that business will come back to the Post Office in such an increased way as to make up for any loss which might be incurred at the outset. But I rose principally to make some remarks with regard to the question of the female assistant clerks. As a member of the Hobhouse Committee, I think, if we leave out of account the question of the telephone service for a moment, the attempt to introduce, in place of women clerks, the new grade of female assistant clerks was distinctly opposed to that Committee's recommendation, and not only so but the Post Office should not have lent itself to the creation of a new-grade under such circumstances. With regard to the telephone part of it, even there I am not convinced by the answers which have been given to various questions that there was any necessity whatever to create this new grade in the telephone service. One of the replies from the Postmaster-General suggests that one reason for the creation of this new class is that they desire to put girl clerks in the same position that the boy messenger problem has got into. They are compelled to absorb girl clerks within two years in the service, and, therefore, there will be too many girl clerks for the vacancies amongst the women clerks. Here, at any rate, that excuse does not apply, for in this particular instance they could have swallowed up the girl clerks they were creating because here is a great expansion in the National Telephone Service which would have found outlets for them. I am strongly of opinion that when a Committee of this House has decided that certain grades are to receive certain salaries it is going behind the back of the Committee and the House to create a new grade at a lower rate of pay than the previous one was assigned.
  I have a much stronger objection to the new regulations with regard to these female assistant clerks. I strongly deprecate on the part of the Post Office any increase in the hours of labour of any class or of any grade. I think eight hours a day for women in the Post Office service, in an office, is too long, and that the 42-hour week should certainly be observed. In most offices, even where men are employed, the 42-hour week is the regular custom. There is scarcely an office in London—a bank or insurance office, or an office of any large kind, even a railway office, where forty-two hours a week is not the standard set for clerks. Therefore, to

  1617
  make that standard forty-eight for women in the Post Office is a thing which we ought not to permit. I strongly deprecate that they should have a nominal 48-hour week, even though the Postmaster-General says they only work, as a rule, forty-five, but though they only work forty-five they can be called upon at any time to work forty-eight, and that is far too long for females to be employed either in the telephone service or in the Money Order Department. I also strongly deprecate that in bringing in this new grade there should have been an attempt to alter the amount of holidays. To reduce the time from three weeks to fourteen days in the early period and from a month to twenty-one days after five years' service is not altogether creditable to the Post Office. The Postmaster-General has come down to-day with a glowing statement of the increased profits of this Department and it seems to me that to deal with these women in this fashion is one of the meanest forms of economy I have ever seen applied to any great public Department, and I hope that, as it is only a matter of a very few thousands of pounds he will reconsider the whole question and not attempt to put his economy into practice simply with regard to this most defenceless class in his employment.
  I want to make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the question of trade union recognition. The Postmaster-General and his predecessor have undoubtedly taken large steps forward in this matter, but I will ask them to carry it a little further. I do not think there can be any real reason why, if the trade unions are recognised, they should not be recognised completely and fully. There are two points on which I wish to make a suggestion. One is that when requisitions are made from the trade union to the Postal Department, they should be dealt with a little more promptly than they are at present. The delay that has taken place in regard to many of the representations which have been made has been very great indeed and, while I do not want to say it is all due to red tape, I want to press upon the Postmaster-General that it would conduce very much to more harmonious relations if a more prompt reply were sent to these representations. The Postmaster-General knows very well that when you are dealing with representations from the men the question of the spirit in which you deal with them is practically everything, and I think if a little more
  1618
  cordiality were thrown into the relationship, a little more friendliness established and less of the red tape which, whatever me may say, binds large State Departments, if more of the human and less of the official were brought into it, there would be a great improvement in the relationship between the employés and the Post Office. I cannot quite understand the reason for complaints which have been made with regard to the great change that took place on 1st January, the taking over of the telephones. That that change has been brought about with so little disturbance is really a great tribute to the Post Office, and while I should like to see, as I hope all hon. Members would like to see, the telephone service increased by leaps and bounds, and I should like to see it become a much more used institution than it is, I think we must give credit to the Postmaster-General and his Department for having managed to make the transfer with so little friction and complaint. I only hope that they will press on with the work and will make the National Telephone system as great a success as the national service with regard to the Post Office has been, and then I am quite sure before long we shall want to have a few more national services as well.
  Mr. CROFT: I also gave notice of an Amendment to reduce the Vote for the Postmaster-General's salary by £100. I did so for no party reason, but solely on Imperial grounds with respect to the desirability of a British Atlantic cable. I regret to say that the Postmaster-General today rather emphatically declared himself more convinced than ever against a British Atlantic cable, although he did not give any good reasons for his growing belief in that direction. I think I may say that those interested in this question, despite any arguments yet advanced by the Postmaster-General, are more than, ever convinced that an Atlantic cable is desirable between this country and Canada to join up the Pacific cable to Australasia. It is an extraordinary fact that almost every citizen of the overseas dominions one is brought into contact with holds this same view, and I would suggest, with the greatest respect, that the Postmaster-General would do well to consider the view so frequently expressed, not by members of one party or another or by the Press of one party, but by practically the united Press of the Empire in regard to this question. The Postmaster-

  1619
  General has laid down certain reasons why he does not think an Atlantic cable is necessary. We have before now pointed out in this House that, in our opinion, without a British Atlantic cable there is a great danger that for strategic reasons, as also for trade reasons, we may suffer in consequence of our cable arrangements being entirely in the hands of a foreign company. We cannot overlook the fact that we can only communicate through the United States with Canada, and that messages going in that way may become known. It is no use saying that strategic secrets are safe. I believe there is no expert who will hold that view. It is well known to most people that, provided a sufficient number of words are passing, any cipher yet invented can be discovered. I think that is a bad reason for the Postmaster-General to put forward.
  The right hon. Gentleman says there is another reason why there is no fear from the strategic point of view, and that is because the cables land on British territory. I think when that reason is examined it cannot be described as at all sound. You cannot when there are strained relations or when the question of neutrality comes in seize the stations, and seize the American operators. This would immediately be an act of war. We all hope that such a situation will never occur, but supposing there were strained relations between this country and the United States, how are we going to communicate with Canada? It is strange that this matter should be placed in the hands practically of a monopoly to which the Postmaster-General has given his blessing. The mere fact that he could obtain control of the landing stations in time of war has little to do with the matter. It is obvious that the Postmaster-General has not another staff on the spot with which the means of communication could be maintained, and we should find our cable communications absolutely disturbed. Again we have been told by the Postmaster-General that we cannot do anything in the matter because the existing cable companies control the land lines in Canada. I venture to think that that is not an argument to which any weight can be given. I believe the Dominion Government have absolute power to alter that state of affairs under the Railway Commission. I think also the House will agree it is hardly complimentary to various Postmasters-General who have held office
  1620
  in Canada, and to the Dominion, to suggest, when they have been pressing all the time that that cable could be carried across Canada, that all those brilliant Statesmen in the Dominions have been advising us to go upon a wild goose chase. I do not think that is any reason to prevent all this coming about.
  I now come to what is the chief question of all, and that is, the cost. I believe it is estimated it would cost £500,000. Mr. Charles Bright and others have arrived at a figure about that amount. I think I am right in saying that the wireless system is going to cost £500,000 or more, with very uncertain results. I am not sure that the Postmaster-General still upholds his view as to the wireless system. Here we have what is an experiment and an immediate expenditure of an enormous sum of money for an arrangement binding for many years when we could have a cable, knowing what its powers are, for a similar sum of money at a small annual cost. It is extraordinary that we should be told that we must not look so much to the question of cables, because there; are various new inventions. I would point out the German Government evidently think it is vital for their trade interests to have ample cable communication. We find that while a British Atlantic cable would have a total annual cost of hardly more than £25,000 a year, only a portion of which this country would pay, because the Dominions have already been coming to an arrangement, Germany pays in support of two lines £85,500 until 1944, and £75,000 towards the German Dutch cable for the next twenty years. It is evident therefore that our keenest trade rivals think that cables must be encouraged, and that they are the best means of establishing greater trade between great communities. I believe France and Italy are of the same opinion, and are doing everything they can to encourage their cable arrangements. We all admit the Postmaster-General's business qualities, and yet he cannot continue the control of the telegraph system covering Great Britain and Ireland. Is it he alone of all the Postmasters-General in the world who is on the right lines on this subject? I think the mere fact that every other country is still maintaining that cable communication is a desirable thing to encourage should make him pause before banishing for ever the idea that a British Atlantic cable, which is so much asked for, should not be provided.

  1621
  When we remember the vast amount of internal commerce resulting from the development of our telegraph system, surely we must think that the best means of developing trade overseas is to develop cable communication with Canada. Surely we must see that the only way to hold our great trade position in Canada is by increasing our facilities for communication, especially when we know the extraordinary facilities which exist for cheap communication between the Dominion and the United States owing to cheap telegraphy. That must drive us to the conclusion that it is desirable in the interests of our trade and our workers that we should adopt this policy. I believe the Dominions will share the cost of the upkeep of such a cable. I believe, on the basis of the Pacific cable, it is probable we should find our share would not come to more than £10,000 a year. Cheap cable communication will bring trade and wages to this country, to the exclusion of other countries, if we adopt this policy. When we remember what a vast change has been brought about by the reduction of cable rates, and how greater business has resulted, surely we must see that it is in the interest of business of this country that there should be a State Atlantic cable in competition with what is practically an American monopoly in order to keep the price down. I think it would be an immense advantage to the trading community if we could, by laying a State cable, bring down to a cheap rate the whole of the Atlantic cable lines, and even if it were not a paying concern we should get back an enormous amount of trade compared with what we would lose in the cost of the cable.
  I will not deal with the wireless question, except by saying it does appear, after recent events, it is absurd to suggest that it can take all the responsibility of the strategic arrangements of the British Empire. We might just as well stop building "Dreadnoughts" because we believe that there might some day be battleships in the air as cut off our cable communications and put all our money into the wireless system. This is a non-party question. It is purely a business question. I would call attention to the resolutions of the Press Union Conferences. We find there a consensus of opinion among the Pressmen of the Empire that it is desirable there should be a better understanding between the various parts of the Empire, and that any-
  1622
  thing we can do in that direction must tend to cement the union of the British Empire. The most ardent Free Trader will, I think, agree with that. I think it is desirable to do everything in our power to advance this most desirable end. When it is remembered that the Canadian coast is now nearer to Great Britain than Newfoundland is to Vancouver, there is no reason why we should not act quickly in this respect. The whole of British Imperialists have pressed for an Atlantic cable with the view of linking up with Australasia, and everybody will admit that while reduced rates have been of certain advantage, they are not enough. I believe the best way to bring down the rates that at present exist would be to have an independent State line in order to cause competition. There is nothing so bad in a case of this kind as to have no competition. The present system does amount to this, that competition is for the time being ended, and, therefore, I think it is all the more desirable to have an Atlantic cable. The Prime Minister has paid a tribute to the usefulness of Imperial cables, and I do not believe there is any weakening in the Imperial feeling with regard to this system. It is interesting to note what the previous Postmaster-General in Canada (Mr. Lemieux) said on the 29th February, when a Motion on the subject was introduced, declaring—
  "that in the opinion of this House steps should be taken by the Postmaster-General with a view to obtaining a further reduction in cable rates between Canada and Great Britain."
  Speaking on that Motion, he said he considered that the present reductions were absolutely insufficient, and he claimed that the cable rate could to-day at least revert to 6d. a word, and that for Press messages the rate could be reduced to 3d. a word. Mr. Lemieux went on to point out that the present reductions were of little advantage to Canadian users of the cables. He was followed by the present Postmaster-General (Mr. Pelletier)—and I think the Postmaster-General in this House rather tries to persuade us that the Postmaster-General in Canada is of his view—but I do not think this is so. I think that the Postmaster-General in Canada, if he could get a very great reduction in rates, would be then of opinion that an Atlantic cable was not necessary; but I do not think that the Postmaster-General has correctly understood his views. I would remind the House that in that same Debate Monsieur Pelletier said:—
  "I have no very great encouragement to give the country to-night as to a reduction in cable rates. I do

  1623
  not wish to say anything in criticism of the Postmaster-General in England, but I am bound to give the facts to this House. I am in almost constant correspondence with the Right Hon. Mr. Samuel, and I regret to say that he feels that we should not go any further at present in the direction indicated in the correspondence, repeat my expression of regret at the attitude taken by Mr. Samuel."
  Then, later on, he says:—
  "I trust that the Postmaster-General in England will before long be able to see eye to eye with us in this matter. We desire, as I have said, to trade with the Mother-country. In order to carry on that trade with facility, we must have cable communication at the cheapest cost possible. We want the Government of England and its Postmaster-General to help the trade of this country. I see no reason why there should not be one cable owned by a company of British subjects."
  It is clear that the present Postmaster-General in Canada is not satisfied with the reductions. When we come to figure out the cost of what a British Atlantic cable would be, when we have heard the millions which the Postmaster-General told us this afternoon he has been spending, if we really value that great trade with the Dominion of Canada, and wish to hold it, we should consider this question a little more deeply. The First Lord of the Admiralty during the last day or two made a non-party speech appealing to the Dominion for co-operation with the Fleet. That means many millions in the future, and I believe that the Dominions would readily undertake that great duty; but I am sure, when we hear in this country the suggestion to the Dominions that they should provide the money for battleships, when we see that this question would only come to a paltry £10,000 a year, or something of that kind, and that the laying down of the State cable would only cost half the cost of an armoured cruiser, then I say that if we are going to do our part to encourage Imperial union it is our duty to do what we can in this direction.
  Mr. GODFREY COLLINS: I trust that the Postmaster-General will not lay down the cable which has been referred to until he is satisfied that he can do so on an economic basis. I desire to draw the attention of the Postmaster-General to three points on his estimate. The first is the misleading profit shown by the Post Office. The second is the large and growing loss on the telegraph service; and the third is the danger that the telephone service may show a loss to the public in future years; According to the House of Commons Paper No. 96, the profit on the Post Office is £5,153,000. Naturally, the House and the public think that is the true profit; but when we come to analyse these figures more closely, we
  1624
  find that the Post Office do not charge themselves with the cost of works and buildings, amounting to £569,000, nor with rates and taxes, amounting to £126,000, nor even with stationery and printing, amounting to £196,000. In other words, the profit is a fictitious profit to the extent of 20 per cent., and the figures which I have mentioned include these and other charges amounting to £890,000. So therefore the profit made was positively some 20 per cent, less than the statement issued by the Postmaster-General led us to anticipate. One very obvious advantage in placing these accounts on a proper basis is that it would then be more easy to resist demands from any portion of the House if the profit is not so large as the House anticipated. The second point to which I wish to draw attention is the large and growing loss on the telegraph service. The Postmaster-General in reply to a question the other day stated that the loss on the telegraph service during the past ten years has amounted to the sum of £10,000,000. Reading through the Debates for the last few years and listening to the speakers this afternoon I notice that this loss had hardly been referred to by a single speaker.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I did last year.
  Mr. G. COLLINS: I hope that the hon. Baronet will support me in the suggestion which I am going to make to raise rates and so wipe out this loss. No doubt it is pleasant for Members to press claims on the Postmaster-General and pleasant for the Postmaster-General to refer to concessions made to the public, but in this House we should bear in mind that we have to consider the interests of the taxpayer who has to find £1,186,000 to wipe out the loss on the telegraph service. On page 9 of his Annual Statement the Postmaster-General refers to the absence of capital account, and goes on to state that a complete account cannot be furnished. It seems to me that the Postmaster-General should take stock of his financial position so as to reveal to the House and the public his true position by examining in what way the money has been spent on the telegraph service, for that by that means we will be forearmed and forewarned in future. The total revenue from the telegraph service was £3,164,000. If we have to wipe out the loss charges would have to be increased by from 33 per cent, to 50 per cent. There are two points in connection with the

  1625
  charges made for telegraph service. The first is the low rates charged for Press telegrams. At present the Press can send 100 words between 6 p.m. and 9 a.m. for a shilling, and they can send duplicate messages at a cost of something like 2d. for every hundred words. As far back as the eighties a Committee investigated these charges, and reported some thirty years ago that the' Press rates for telegrams involved a loss to the Treasury of some £300,000 a year. What that loss is to-day I do not know. I have endeavoured to elicit from the Postmaster-General certain figures which might have enabled me to argue this case before him this afternoon, but I understand that the figures which he gave me were found to be not quite correct, and therefore it is impossible for me to follow this further. But I fall back upon the Report of this Committee, and it seems to me that it really is a public scandal that the money of the taxpayer should be spent so as to allow the Press to pay for their telegrams a long way below cost price. It is an abuse of the public service. No doubt increased charges would be unpopular, but I think that the Postmaster-General may take consolation from the fact that the Press generally are opposed to us on this side of the House, and it makes very little difference to us as a political party.
  Probably that is the reason why it excites so little interest, but I cannot help thinking that if the true position of the charges for telegrams were placed fairly and fully before the Press they would see the justice of raising rates and so placing the burden upon the proper shoulders. The loss is a growing one. To-day, according to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, 43 per cent, of the revenue is raised by indirect taxation. The total loss to the State through telegraph service amounts to £1,185,000, and therefore the indirect taxpayers are paying £450,000 per year in taxes to allow the shareholders of newspaper companies to have larger profits. I trust that the Postmaster-General will investigate this matter, and I appeal for the support of the House in asking him to place these charges on a sound basis. We have now the State having the monopoly of sending messages whether along the telegraph or the telephone wires. I trust that the Postmaster-General will so arrange his rates that in whatever way the public, or any section of the public, send their messages no burden will fall upon the general body of taxpayers. The other
  1626
  portion of the telegraph service mostly consists of the sixpenny telegram. Here, again, I am afraid my suggestion will not meet with any support, but I may remind hon. Members that the public will pay sixpence and a copper just as readily as sixpence. It is just because I am a Scotchman that I am taking exception to the State losing the money on the telegraph, service. The policy of the Post Office, according to the Postmaster-General, is efficiency combined with economy, but I think that the true policy of the Post Office should be efficiency combined with economy, including a profit to the State, and when you have the Post Office services at present bringing in a profit of £4,000,000 a year to the State, you admit the principle that these services should be carried on not only in the interests of the public, but in the interest of the revenue of the State as well. I hope that the Postmaster-General will endeavour to find out some method whereby the loss of the Telegraph service could be wiped out in future. There is a growing demand, and a right demand, for better conditions of Post Office service. This can only be met if the charges are placed on a satisfactory and business basis, so that these sixpenny telegrams and the Press messages will not continue to be carried below cost price.
  7.0 P.M.
  Another point is the taking over of the telephone service. When the State took over the telegraphs service forty years ago they little thought that there would be a loss of a million sterling a year through the taking over of the telegraphs. Perhaps now that the State has taken over the telephone service, unless the Postmaster-General is very careful in fixing his rates, the telephone service may land the State in a heavy deficit in future. He told us this afternoon that the trunk lines are to show a sound and handsome profit. It is very difficult from the meagre information supplied in the Annual Report to investigate the true position of the trunk lines correctly. From the figures I have prepared, so far as I can judge, the trunk lines are really being run at a loss, and not at a profit. The Postmaster-General shakes his head. If he will allow me to say so, the reason why I make that statement is this: I have allowed 6 per cent. of depreciation on the capital account spent on the trunk lines—I do not know if that is right or not—but it seems to me to be a moderate depreciation to allow. If

  1627
  you allow 6 per cent. depreciation it shows on the working of the trunk lines an actual loss. I think I am correct in saying, as I have already said, that unless particular care is taken in fixing the rates to start with, there may be a large and a growing loss in future. I think the State has a right to expect, when it is investing a large sum of money on the telegraph or telephone service, a small profit on the capital invested in those undertakings. Instead of a loss on the telephone service—I make it a small loss—there should be a large and growing profit in the place of losses. I fear the House does not thoroughly appreciate that the loss on these services has to be found by the indirect taxpayers; in other words, it is a shifting of the burden from one pocket to another. I hope the Postmaster-General will excuse a young Member for criticising his Estimates, and I trust that he will endeavour to cut his loss in some way or other, either by raising the rates or by some other method, and so put the telegraph and telephone services on a sound and satisfactory basis in future.
  Major ARCHER-SHEE: I heartily agree with the remarks of the hon. Member who has just sat down. He made a very interesting speech, and I think that this question of the telegraph rates is one that certainly ought to be borne in mind by the Postmaster-General when he refuses to spend £10,000 a year to help us to establish a State-owned Atlantic cable. If he is going to follow up the suggestion of the hon. Member, and if he does alter the rates at all, I suggest that he should make the rates for telegrams and letters to Scotland more expensive than they are at present, and let us, at any rate, continue at the old rates. As regards the questions of cable communication and Imperial wireless communication, which were mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman in his speech, I would like to point out that these subjects were brought first of all before the Imperial Conference, and then before the Associated Chambers of Commerce the other day. As regards the Imperial Conference, the Prime Ministers concerned agreed to his proposal under pressure, that the resolutions which they brought forward should be altered, and that a subsidiary conference should be held, unless considerable reductions were carried out in the cable rates. The Postmaster-General says that those reductions have been carried out, and he would lead
  1628
  us to suppose that the Dominions are satisfied with the reductions. I find no trace of that satisfaction in Canada. In both the discussions at Ottawa there was a very strong feeling, and the Postmaster-General in Canada has shown most clearly that he is not satisfied with the present reductions. On the last occasion when this question was raised, I quoted the statement of Sir Joseph Ward, in which he said that New Zealand was strongly in favour of a State-owned Atlantic cable, and, further, I have a letter in which he said that he was glad to hear that the question of a State-owned Atlantic cable was being pushed on.
  The Postmaster-General thinks that a State-owned cable is not necessary, either from the strategic or from the commercial point of view. From the strategic point of view, he says that we could take possession of the cable in the event of war. He mentioned that especially in answer to a criticism that we might possibly be involved in war with the United States. War with the United States, as we all agree, is a very unlikely event, but it is not impossbile. Certain unpleasant relations with the United States are quite likely to happen within the next few years as they have done in the past. In 1895 we were on the verge of war with the United States. The people of this country did not realise that, but anyone who knows America knows that at that time there was an intense war feeling over the question of Venezuela, and if it had not been diplomatically treated there was certainly a very dangerous situation. Such a situation might arise again, and if war was ever declared we should have to carry on very delicate negotiations and conversations with Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. It certainly would not be a pleasant situation to find that all the cables which connected us with those countries, with the exception of the Eastern cable—that all the cables running through Canada, at any rate, were under the control of two American companies. We have no control over the operators, and the whole of the cable communication is in private hands. From the strategic point of view, I cannot see that any comparison at all can be made between the advantage of having a State-owned cable, which would be under the control of the two Governments of Canada and England, and the thirteen cables at present in existence, which are controlled by different companies.
  The Pacific cable was laid by the four Governments of Canada, Australia, New

  1629
  Zealand, and England for the purpose of connecting those Dominions with us and of cheapening the rates. The rates have been made cheaper, and the only link that is missing is the Atlantic link. The rates that are paid to the Atlantic Company are very far in excess of the rates which are charged by the Pacific Cable Company, and that shows very clearly, if the Atlantic cable were laid, the rates would probably go down for cable messages across the Atlantic. The Postmaster-General says that the loss of £25,000 a year is too great, and therefore this cable cannot be laid. If that £25,000 were divided between the four Governments, our share of it would be only about £10,000 a year. At the very time that the Postmaster-General states that we are losing over £1,000,000 a year on telegraphic rates in this country, we are actually spending in subsidies to telegraph companies and cable companies all over the world nearly £50,000 a year. We are spending £28,000 a year for the cable between Zanzibar. Seychelles, and Mauritius, and that goes on until 1913. We are spending £4,000 a year for the Eastern and South African cable, £4,500 for the Ascension and Sierra Leone, £4,000 for the Wei-hai-Wei, and £8,000 for the Bermuda to Jamaica line;—about £50,000 a year that is being spent by the Treasury of this country to pay for small cables between outlying portions of the Empire. I am not criticising in the very least these facts, but I simply mention them to show how weak is the argument used by the Postmaster-General when he says that we cannot afford £10,000 a year for what is really the main artery of Imperial communication—a cable across the Atlantic Ocean. The other matter which is mentioned by the Postmaster-General is the Imperial wireless scheme. I do not want to go into that very deeply, because I believe we are to have an opportunity to Debate it later on. Personally, I think everybody is in favour of an Interimperial wireless scheme being established.
  I suggest that when the Postmaster-General brings forward as an argument for not having a State-owned Atlantic cable, that the strategic requirements of the Empire will be served best by having a wireless scheme running to the East over five or six stations, I think we have a right to look more closely into that scheme and see whether the military requirements of the Empire can possibly be served by it. I suggest that in time of crisis this chain of wireless stations will be of very little use indeed. The first station is at
  1630
  Cyprus, and the direct line from Cyprus I passes over two countries of the Triple Alliance. The other day in a supplementary question which I put on this subject I was under the strong compulsion of the Speaker's eye, and I could not develop it at any length, and the right hon. Gentleman said it was a matter of argument. I would like, if the right hon. Gentleman could find time this evening to give an answer to this particular question. The line of Cyprus passes through Germany, Austria, and Turkey, and back by Belgium. We saw only the other day, in the "Titanic" tragedy, that the wireless message sent from the "Carpathia" and to the "Carpathia" by ships and shore stations were immensely interfered with by a very large number of wireless stations. The United States ships "Salem" and "Chester," the two cruisers, communicated with the "Carpathia," and they reported to Washington that shore stations and other vessels continually interrupted the Government ships and high-power shore stations in their efforts to obtain news from the "Carpathia" for themselves. If low-power stations and ship stations which are also of low power can interfere with the high-power stations in the United States, is it not more likely that high-power stations on the Continent could very easily interfere with one of the high-power stations which was going to communicate with Cyprus. All they have to do is to get the same wave - level, and by that means, if they so desire, make-communication most difficult. I suggest that were we on the verge of war with some Continental nation to-day, their high-power stations would use every endeavour to confuse and prevent our communication with Cyprus. There is another way also in which it might be dangerous from a strategic point of view.
  Every message sent from our high-power station in England to Cyprus could be read by every low-power station on the Continent, and by the high - power stations as well, while if you sent code and cipher messages by cable, the messages could only be given away by the action of some traitor amongst the small staff at either end of the cable. In the case of wireless telegraphy, you are giving your code message to the world, and everybody can read it. The right, hon. Gentleman pins his faith as to secrecy on codes and the secrecy of ciphers. He said so in answer to a question I asked him the other day. As

  1631
  regards codes, it has been stated, and I believe it is the fact, that during the American-Spanish war, the Key West cable was kept open for the express purpose of reading the code messages which were being sent over that cable to Havanna. They derived a lot of information from that, as they were able to read the code. Then, again, the more messages that are read by the enemy or hostile Lands, the more likely it is that your code will be de-coded, which increases the danger by a hundredfold. Ciphers, too, can be very easily deciphered. I can give the right hon. Gentleman an experience which I vouch for from personal knowledge. In South Africa, during the war, a column of about 3,000 men received a cipher message from Lord Kitchener, towards the end of the war, ordering them to march to a certain place; and this column, which had been away from the line for a considerable time, was not in possession of the key word of that cipher which was altered every month for the whole of South Africa. Three staff officers put their heads together, and in three-quarters of an hour worked out the cipher and deciphered that message. That shows how dangerous it is to rely solely or even principally on ciphers. Surely in this case on which vital interests and the prestige of the whole Empire might depend, we ought to take the utmost pains and every means to keep our communications secret between the different Governments and the Empire. The best way in which you can do that is by a cable across the Atlantic. I cannot regard the argument as to a loss of £10,000 per year to this country as a serious one. After all, it must be a diminshing loss. The Pacific Cable did better business by £11,000 last year than it did the year before, and it is getting better every year with less loss to the public. An Atlantic cable would be exactly the same, and as trade developed the loss would get less and less. Even if the loss were £25,000 on the four Governments, of which our share would be about £10,000, I maintain that that is not an argument against laying it in view of the fact that we are spending nearly £50,000 on other subsidies at the present time, and that this is the most important part of the whole Imperial system.
  Mr. HASTINGS DUNCAN: I desire to call the attention of the Committee away for a moment from high Imperial policy to a question which affects
  1632
  our constituencies, it seems to me, very nearly. I have had some communication with the Postmaster-General in regard to the site for a new post office in my Constituency. The question of the post office at Ilkley was brought forward quite unexpectedly, without the knowledge of the district council. When they heard of the site that was proposed they called a town meeting, which at once, and almost unanimously, objected to the site chosen as a proper site. I had the honour of bringing the matter before the Postmaster-General, and, while he was quite willing to receive all representations, he found himself in the position that he was not able to alter the decision. The matter had come before the Treasury, and he found himself unable to alter it.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It was not the Treasury, but it was that we had accepted the site and entered into an agreement.
  Mr. H. DUNCAN: I understood that it had been brought before the Treasury. It appears to me that it is a very great mistake on a question of this kind that the opinion of the locality should never be considered at all. The question of this site was sprung on the town, and when it was brought before the town it was universally condemned. Everybody knows that the Post Office is taking more and more a large position in the social life of our towns. It is not merely a question of the collection and distribution of letters; it is now the centre of the Post Office system with the Post Office Savings Bank, and it is the place where old people have to go to receive their old age pensions, and it is the place where we shall all have to go to get stamps to carry out the purposes of the Insurance Act. More and more, therefore, it seems to me to be desirable that the question of a post office site should be one that should be brought before the local authorities in order to be considered. It is quite easy to get a cheap site for a post office if you take any out-of-the-way place, but while recommending and encouraging economy, as we shall all do, in the administration of this public service, I think the question of public interests and public suitability should be the first matter to be considered. That raises the other and much larger question, which I think this Committee would do well to consider, and that is whether in our small towns it is a right policy that the post office should not be owned by the Post Office at all, but should merely be a rented

  1633
  building. I think the hon. Member for Grimsby casually referred to that, and said that it was appropriate that some of the large surplus should be devoted to the provision of publicly owned post offices. I cannot think, as a business man, that it is wise that we should merely rent buildings of this kind. If a man is going to lay out a sum of money in the purchase of a site and in the erection of a building with special facilities for post office work, it is very evident he must require a substantial amount of interest. It appears to me that it would be far better that a great public service like the Post Office should, at any rate, in the smaller towns, buy sites in proper positions which would suit the convenience of the public, and I think it would be a much more satisfactory and economical way of dealing with the matter.
  Mr. AMERY: I wish to endorse the appeal which has been made to the Postmaster-General by several of my hon. Friends to reconsider the decision he has so far given on this question of the construction of an Atlantic cable. The amount he mentioned is surely infinitesimal when we consider the vital importance of the results to the Empire as a whole. After all the very first essentials of strategic success and of naval success is to have an efficient system of communication under your exclusive control. Wireless telegraphy is very valuable in many ways I readily admit, and I am glad to find the Postmaster-General is taking the steps he has mentioned, but it is not exclusive, and the messages can be collected by all the world. As my hon. Friend (Major Archer-Shee) pointed out just now in a most interesting instance a code is not sufficient protection. I should like to cap that incident by another instance from the South African war. The day after the Boer forces surrendered I was discussing the length of their resistance with General Smuts, and he informed me that one of the things that helped them most was the fact that they habitually tapped our telegraph wires and decoded our messages. He said that it did not take more than three or four hours or their telegraphists to find them out It is perfectly obvious a code is not sufficient protection in time of war. In another sense wireless is not exclusive because the recipient of a wireless message cannot tell who he is receiving from. If an opponent is in possession of our code he may be in the position to mislead our troops or our officials or our ships, which would be most dangerous. The only
  1634
  secure system is to have a cable both ends of which you will control and the personnel of which you will control. I do not think anybody would for a moment tolerate the position of having the cable between England and Ireland owned by a German company. Yet exactly the same applies to the Imperial situation. The Postmaster-General said that in an emergency or in time of war we could seize the cable. That is quite true, but from the point of view of Imperial strategy the most critical moment is not after war has broken out, but in the weeks that precede it. That I know from my own experience of the weeks preceding the South African War. Suppose the American Government imposed a censorship upon our messages and ordered that every message should be sent to Washington, could we interfere? If we did we would be precipitating the very danger we wished to avoid.
  It is just in times of good relations and of peace that you protect yourself against something which it is impossible to avoid if you let matters drift to the very eve of war. The same thing applies to being at war with another foreign country, and if our relations were not altogether satisfactory with the United States. In that case we might suspect that our messages were being sent through the United States to our opponents, and yet if we took any action it might enormously increase the danger of driving the United States on to the side of our enemy. I do think that a State-owned cable is a vital point of strategy, not only with regard to Canada, but also with regard to the West Indies, which are entirely cut off by a foreign cable system, and which are going to be of ever-increasing strategic importance. There is also the general question of strengthening our Imperial relations. In a speech which the right hon. Gentleman, the Postmaster-General, made during the Easter Adjournment, he said that the cable service had done more than anything else to cement Imperial Unity. Every conference, the Press Conference, the Imperial Conference, and the Chambers of Commerce, have been pressing for this cable just as they pressed for years for the Pacific cable. I admit that the Postmaster-General has secured reductions in rates, but I consider that those reductions do not go far enough. That he has secured them is, I think, because of the threat of the Atlantic cable hanging over their heads. In 1890 the rate to Australia was 9s. 6d. When the Pacific cable

  1635
  became a live project that rate was reduced to 4s. 11d. to stop the Pacific cable, and when the Pacific cable was carried out the rate came down to 3s. I suggest that if you carry out the proposal as suggested you will bring down the whole of the Atlantic rates. I may point out that whereas the Australian rates have come down from 9s. 6d. to 3s. since 1890 there has been no reduction in the shilling rate to Canada and the United States. The Postmaster-General has referred to the deferred Press rate, a very valuable concession; but while there is a 4½d. deferred Press rate to Australia, there is still a 2½d. rate to Canada. There is a 2½d. rate for the three thousand miles across the Atlantic, and another 2d. for the three thousand miles across the Continent and the nearly eight thousand miles beyond. If you can carry the message eleven thousand miles for 2d. I think you might do the remaining three thousand miles for 1d. Another point is, that as long as you have this cable service in American hands, even if you do get further reductions, they will not be preferential reductions. These companies are interested in the American, not the Canadian traffic. They will certainly not give a preference to Canadian trade as against American trade. But that is the one form of preference upon which every Government in the Empire is united. The principle has been conceded by every party. We have had Imperial penny postage, and we have had preference in cable rates. But I may say in passing that I would not associate myself with my hon. Friend who presses for a penny rate to France. I am against a penny rate to any foreign country unless the rate to other parts of the Empire can be lowered below a penny.
  I wish to say a word on the question of the actual loss that would be involved in the proposed cable. At the outside it would be £10,000; and that is on the basis of the Postmaster-General's argument that the only traffic that this line would carry is the traffic for the Pacific cable, of 1,250,000 words per year. I am perfectly certain that the reduction of rates on this side of the Atlantic would largely increase the actual traffic to Australia. I may point out that against the one and a quarter million words from here to Australia there are a whole million across the Pacific from Canada. Surely that is relatively an extremely high proportion, and it is due simply to the low rate
  1636
  between Canada and Australia. It has caused the Press service between Australia and Canada to-day to be relatively much better than the service of English news. I am convinced that on Pacific cablegrams alone you would get a largely increased return. The Postmaster-General has given more than one instance this afternoon, especially in connection with the trunk telephones, showing how a bold policy brings its fruits in a large revenue. I think it would be the same in this cable question. But that is not the only thing. We have to-day an extraordinarily costly cable service to the West Indies. We have to pay 3s. to Jamaica as against 1s. 8d. to Cuba, and 1s. 3d. to Alabama as against 7s. to British Guiana. The proposed cable could be used as a means of cheapening the cable rates to the West Indies, thereby adding extra traffic to the line, and also conferring immense benefit on those Colonies which are seriously handicapped as compared with their competitors on the American Continent and in the Southern States. As to the actual traffic in Canada itself, the Postmaster-General suggests that because the Canadian Pacific and the North-Western Company are bound to the Western Union we could get no traffic worth speaking of in Canada itself. My hon. Friend has already reminded him that the Canadian Railway Commission would have the right to interfere with the Canadian Pacific or the North-Western Company if they ventured to discriminate against messages sent over the all-British cable. Apart from that, the Canadian Government own 7,000 miles of telegraph wires on the Inter-colonial and other railways. The Grand Trunk and the Canadian Northern, together with the Inter-colonial railway, cover, or will shortly cover, every single town in Canada of more than 10,000 people. As far as Press messages and commercial messages are concerned, the Canadian Northern and Grand Trunk, with its affiliated lines and the Government Inter-colonial railways, cover the whole of Canada.
  These really are the main points with regard to the business argument. I am confident that, as a business proposition, from the Canadian traffic, the West Indian traffic, and the increase of Australian1 traffic, the scheme would more than pay its way. But even if it cost £200,000 a year, I should still believe it was well worth doing. If, however, the Postmaster-General considers that even a problematical risk of £10,000

  1637
  a year is too great a risk to run, I should like to make a concrete proposal to him. He knows very well that Lord Selborne's Committee, on the strength of whose Report the Pacific cable was carried out—and carried out in spite of objections on the part of the postal authorities of exactly the same character as those now raised, such as over-estimated cost, the difficulty of laying the line, and the need for duplication, which duplication has never been wanted, because the line has never broken down, for a single day—laid aside a very large amount of money out of the yield of that cable, not only for replacing the cable itself for deterioration, but also for duplication, for the subsequent laying of a new cable. I believe that more than a quarter of a million, something like £300,000, has already been accumulated for laying a second Pacific cable to Australia. I suggest that the wireless scheme which the right hon. Gentleman is carrying out to West Australia might be a useful duplicate in case of emergency in the event of the Pacific cable or the Eastern Telegraph Company's cable failing, and that the right hon. Gentleman should approach the other Governments who take part in the Pacific Cable Board with a view to utilising the reserve of £250,000 or more, now accumulated for duplicating the Pacific cable, in order to complete the all British line to Australia across the Atlantic. There you have more than half the cost in a single item. I do not believe that the other Governments would demur to that use of the money, especially in view of what the right hon. Gentleman is so actively doing in the matter of wireless telegraphy. That would reduce the money to be found for the Atlantic cable to a quarter of a million or less, and it would reduce the possible loss to the Post Office of this country to £4,000 or £5,000—an insignificant sum compared with the loss already involved in the telegraph service, and the subsidies given to other telegraph lines, and the immense Imperial importance of securing an imperially controlled cable service right across the world.
  Mr. PIKE PEASE: I am reluctant to turn from Imperial topics to local affairs, but I wish to bring before the Postmaster-General a question concerning the members of the United Kingdom Postal Clerks Association at Darlington. I have had considerable correspondence with the right hon. Gentleman in reference to the
  1638
  matter, but although he always treats with great courtesy every representation put before him, I am sorry to say he has not given entire satisfaction. The complaints which my Constituents make are comparatively simple, and are in reference to the work done by sorting clerks and postmen. They say that when about one and a quarter years ago they sent a petition to the Postmaster-General in reference to their grievances it was a year or more before it was acknowledged. I am told that this is a mistake, but they are not aware of any acknowledgment having been received. Their grievances are chiefly in reference to the Hobhouse Committee's report, the recommendations of which they say have not been carried out. I think it is quite plain that, in regard to certain pay for certain work performed, by transferring work to lower paid clerks, the findings of the Committee have been ignored. The right hon. Gentleman has written me several letters in regard to the matter. On 5th February he wrote:—
  "Owing to the numerous inquiries which have been necessary in this connection, it has not yet been possible to give a definite reply to the memorial, but I hope to be in a position shortly to lay proposals before the Treasury for an increased staff which will admit of the duties being performed by the proper officials."
  But up to the present no arrangements have been made to satisfy my constituents in this matter, and they press very much for an alteration in their work. In the preface to the circular sent out by the Postmaster-General it is stated that the recommendations of the Parliamentary Committee must be regarded as an award of a fully accredited impartial tribunal. Under the circumstances I would press him on this occasion to see if he cannot possibly do something to help those who are anxious to give their best services to the State. We often hear nowadays about the nationalisation of industries, but our experience in connection with the Post Office and the telephone service do not lead me to desire the nationalisation of industries, because whilst very great attention is given to their needs, there are more complaints from the Post Office and telephone services than from any other class in the State. I have not gone into detail, as the right hon. Gentleman is well aware of the points which have been put before him. The only other matter to which I wish to refer is in regard to advertisements of alcoholic liquors in the telephone book. It is really rather a small matter. I am very strongly in favour of temperance on all occasions, but it is scarcely possible to

  1639
  think that any man will drink any the less because these advertisements do not appear in a circular or book of this kind. I hope therefore the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider his decision in this matter.
  Major GUEST: I wish to bring to the attention of the Postmaster-General a question affecting a small class of men included in the engineering staff of the Post Office. They are called relay clerks; they number about thirty-one, and they are employed in the different cable offices in the transmitting stations round the Kingdom. These men originally joined the commercial branch of the telegraph department, but in connection with the reorganisation in 1903 their promotion in that branch was stopped. Ever since that time they have been trying to get back to the old scale of promotion. The scheme eventually brought in was that they should take their promotion in the commercial branch of the telegraph department, instead of in the engineering branch. This meant a considerable loss of status, and also a reduction in their financial prospects, because in the engineering branch the salaries ranged from a maximum of £700 a year down to about £230. The scheme put forward by the Post Office was not felt by the men to be an adequate return or an adequate settlement of the question. In fact no man who was over forty years of age was going to be allowed to be promoted in the engineering branch. As the majority of these men were over forty years of age that settlement did not satisfy them. A new scheme was brought in by the Post Office, which was to take effect on the 1st April this year. The men asked permission to send a deputation to the Postmaster-General, which the Postmaster-General allowed them to do. He was not able apparently to see his way to produce a better scheme in regard to their promotion. I would ask the Postmaster-General when he replies to give some indication of what he proposes to do for these men. Their promotion was stopped eight years ago. They have been agitating under this grievance ever since. This question of how far their promotion is to be settled is still undecided; though I recognise that the Postmaster-General is making efforts to settle this question to the satisfaction of both the men and his own Department. I shall be glad if he will tell us that an early settlement will be arrived at, and give us some indication as to the view he will take in regard to the matters I have put forward.
  Mr. NEWMAN: I should like to say a, few words on the position of the Post Office factories. They were alluded to only briefly—far too briefly I think—by the Postmaster-General, considering the importance of the subject. I quite admit that dealing with a Department which employs many thousands of men, and has an annual revenue of £23,000,000, the position of these factories is perhaps a small item. At the same time their position is of vital interest at the present moment to Government factories up and down the Kingdom. At Woolwich there are thousands of men; at Enfield there are hundreds. The Government factories to which I refer are not employing more than 700 men, I think really nearer 500; still as I say, there is a vital principle involved. To put the matter quite shortly, the Post Office have two departments, so I understand from the Postmaster-General, and from this Report which I hold in my hand, and they have determined to cease altogether to figure as producers or manufacturers. They are no longer going to manufacture the goods they require. I dare say the Committee know there are two Post Office factories, one situated at Holloway, and the other at Mount Pleasant, in Rosebery Avenue and Farringdon Road. The minimum establishment was fixed in 1906. They employ now something about 600 men. They are divided into two distinct departments, and rightly so, the Stores Department and the Manufacturing Department. As the result of a Departmental Committee which investigated and reported, all constructive work is to be abandoned. Certain repair work is to be undertaken at Holloway, with an extended depot at Birmingham; while there are subsidiary repair depots at Dublin and Edinbugh. Mount Pleasant itself, as I understand it, is to be abandoned. As a result of this abandonment of manufacturing at Mount Pleasant thousands of pounds worth of machinery will have to be scrapped. I do not suppose that many Members of this Committee have read this Departmental Committee's Report on the factories, or have noted the recommendations of the Committee. But if there is any hon. Gentleman here who is of a Socialist way of thinking this Report ought to make him weep. It is a confession of utter failure by a great Government Department—failure to compete against private effort on remotely successful terms. It will lead, or has led, to dismissal of hands, the lowering of wages, short time,

  1641
  and general discontent. Last Session we had a Debate on the complaints that were raised by men employed in the Post Office factories. May I just take a few points considered in this Report. The Committee dealing with the value of Mount Pleasant and other factories state:—
  "In general during recent years the successes of the factories in competition have been partial and intermittent, while the cases of non-success have been Furious and frequent. In broad outline, it is clear that their lack of success is due partly to the fact that it was not found possible to reduce the indirect expenditure parri Passu with the shrinkage in the number of hands employed, and partly to the fact that outside prices have shown marked reductions, notably as regards woodwork, and as regards telephone instruments (for the construction of which large factories have recently been established in this country)."
  The manufacturing side of Mount Pleasant has been burdened by this indirect expenditure. All sorts of salaries and charges not properly part of the manufacturing department have been put on. The result, of course, has been that it has been absolutely unable to tender successfully against private firms in anything like fair competition. The result is that constructive work has to cease. If Mount Pleasant Post Office is abandoned as regards constructive work it obviously involves a great many real dangers. First of all you have the danger that a ring of manufacturers will get together and combine to put up prices as against the Post Office. We have heard of the armour ring in connection with the Navy. We have heard of other rings as against Government Departments. Another point: There will be no adequate practical staff left to conduct official examinations or draw up specifications for tenders. As regards tenders, the Report to which I have alluded makes a rather interesting suggestion. It says:—
  "There is a section of the Engineer-in-Chief's office solely concerned with questions of design; experimental construction is carried on in the factories under the instructions of the designs sections; and, when necessary, a number of firms are invited to submit patterns, and the best features of each design are embodied in a specification to which all the firms are invited to tender. Moreover, the incentive to outside manufacturers to improve designs is very real, since their success may depend upon their securing an improvement not possessed by a rival firm."
  I do not know that that is altogether playing cricket. What does that suggestion mean? It means that outside firms are invited by the Post Office to submit tenders for certain things. The best points are taken from them, and put together, and the combined tender sent out for other firms to tender for. Surely it is not absolutely fair to take designs from firms—to steal them—and to use them to get a good tender from other firms! There
  1642
  is another point which I have already alluded to, valuable machinery will have to be scrapped; machinery estimated in this Report at something like £12,000 worth. These factories, too, it must not be forgotten, meant that a certain number of boys, youths, and young men, after they had ceased their work as boys in the Post Office, could be drafted into them and provided with a livelihood for the rest of their lives. This is one way, one open door, out of those blind-alley employments of which a good deal has been said in this House recently. This door will be closed if these factories are done away with. Against all this what are the advantages? Against all the disadvantages I have enumerated, there is set the advantage of saving the paltry sum of £12,000 a year! The Post Office is making a huge profit yearly. We might keep these factories going and our hands employed. Why should there be these heavy indirect charges, which amount to something like 15 per cent.? Why does not the Postmaster-General turn over a new leaf, and before absolutely abandoning Mount Pleasant take away these charges which rightly should belong to the stores department and not to the manufacturing department, and become a model employer of labour with a model factory, model conditions of labour, and model men?
  8.0 P.M.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: When the Postmaster-General addressed the House exactly a year ago in a very interesting speech, the most interesting announcements that he made was that he intended to make provision for what he described as rural party-line telephones; for giving to farmers similar telephones to those provided in the United States. I think the House must have been rather surprised that he has not made any definite state-men this afternoon as to the success of this new departure. I, for one, should like to ask him whether any progress has been made amongst the farming community with regard to these new party-line telephones. When the right hon. Gentleman made his announcement on this subject a year ago he mentioned that there would have to be a minimum of five subscribers in order for such a system to be inaugurated in any country district. He did not qualify—so far as I can discover from the report of his speech, and I have refreshed my memory on it—in any way the announcement that that would be the only important condition subject to which this system would be provided. Since

  1643
  that date, on the 11th March in this year, in a reply that the right hon. Gentleman gave to the hon. Member for West Cumberland, he announced that the scheme had been somewhat altered. He told the House that he had the authority of the Treasury for a revised scheme of party-line telephones, under which there was to be not less than three subscribers, in lieu of the minimum of five, that he had previously mentioned. In every case—I think he went on to say in answer to a supplementary question—there would have to be at least three subscribers to a mile of route before the terms of £3 per subscriber could be enjoyed by any one subscriber. He also announced at the same time—and this is the main burden of my grievance—that no potential subscriber would enjoy this benefit if he happened to live within half a mile of an existing exchange. I may perhaps remind the right hon. Gentleman and also the Committee that in certain purely rural districts—I do not know a better example than my own Constituency in South Wiltshire, which embraces a very large part of Salisbury Plain—a large majority of the farmers live in or near villages. They have very large farms composed to a large extent of poor down-land. In such districts it means that this new revised condition rules out the possibility of installing such a system as this for the benefit of the farmer. The right hon. Gentleman rather surprised me last week when I put a question upon this subject by informing me that these telephones were now intended, and were intended a year ago, to be for the benefit of the dwellers in agricultural districts generally, and not specifically for the benefit of the farmers. In the United States and Canada the farmers who make use of these telephones are the same clase of farmers as those who have most need in this country to use them, especially in connection with farmers' co-operative stores, largely existing at the present time in every part of the country, and to which naturally they want from time to time to give their orders. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman means to make this only a rural telephonic service, but I am quite sure that in revising the conditions he has not improved upon the scheme he announced last year. He is not going to establish this system in many parts of purely rural England. I have been
  1644
  in the last twelve months to a considerable number of farmers' gatherings, at which this question has been the chief subject of discussion, and in everyone of these, and particularly in the last few weeks since they have had the opportunity of studying the revised conditions in the localities, there has been a very strong feeling amongst those concerned that the new conditions are not such as they can avail themselves of in large numbers. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw the half-mile limit, which rules out a very large number of farmers who would otherwise take advantage of this scheme. It is difficult to see why a farmer who lives within half a mile should have to pay £7 or £10 for the use of a telephone, whereas his neighbour, who lives another half-mile away, is able to get off, if he joins with others, for £3, and to have the full benefit of the telephoneic system. I do not think that is an equitable system, and I do not feel that it is an acceptable or practical system for farmers.
  I would ask the right hon. Gentleman also if he could not do something to meet a very old grievance to the farming community, and this applies particularly to the smallholders, of which I am glad to see there are so many more now than in the past. This grievance is felt by those who produce small agricultural produce, and who desire to send it in small quantities to their consumers—I refer to the parcel post system under which it is necessary to pay 4d. for the initial pound. There are a large number of persons who produce and send away small quantities of butter or cream, and this applies very largely to what is vulgarly called Devonshire cream (but which I prefer to call scald cream, because it is not confined to Devonshire) and it applies to fruit and vegetables to a small extent, and some cheeses. These are articles sold by the pound, and there is a large trade by direct supply to the provincial towns as well as to London. Many of the producers of these articles would like to send them direct to consumers if the terms, were favourable, and they were in a position to have to pay no more than 4d. for the actual pound of produce, but because the article has to be wrapped up in paper or put into a cardboard box they have to pay more than the amount chargeable upon the actual weight of the produce they supply. This is a very genuine grievance brought to the attention of the Post Office more than once,

  1645
  and if the right hon. Gentleman who is genuinely interested, as I believe he is, in the small agricultural producer would make some concession which would increase this business to the agricultural producer or the horticultural producer it would be of great advantage. I forgot to mention honey. A very large amount of honey is sent from Scotland, the New Forest, and elsewhere, in quantities of a pound at a time, to those who enjoy these luxuries in the towns.
  There is one other matter to which I desire to refer, and that is the possibility of providing some system by which the value of agricultural produce sent by parcel post is collected by the postal officials from the recipient of the parcel. I own that it is a system entirely strange to this country, but it exists all over France, and would be an enormous advantage to the agricultural community in this country. I believe in such cases declaration is made by the consignor at the Post Office as to the value of the article and some evidence is adduced to the Post Office, of the existence of a contract between the producer and the consumer. It works admirably in France, and I see no reason why it should not be introduced into this country. If it was introduced it would be of great advantage not only to the small producers, but also to the large producers, who want a full margin of profit on the article they produce, instead of its going into the hands of the middleman, whose tendency is to retain so much of the profit, thereby rendering agricultural industry in this country sometimes extremely unprofitable.
  Mr. MORTON: I should like, in the first place, to say that I entirely agree with what was said by an hon. Gentleman opposite earlier in the evening, namely, that we ought not to carry on the Post Office business simply for the purpose of making money out of it. Our first object, and our main object, ought to be to efficiently supply the wants of the people in every way. I should like to join with those who desire that we should have a penny post established, especially with France and a great many other countries. I understand the right hon. Gentleman said to-day that what he called a loss of £300,000 would be involved not in connection with France alone, but Germany, Belgium, and other countries are also entitled to this concession. I never believe we lose at all on the penny postage. I know that was the opinion of Sir John Henniker Heaton when he was
  1646
  amongst us carrying on the great work of postal reform to which he devoted himself so ably. If you take the gross receipts of the Post Office for the last ten or eleven years, and the net receipts, you will find they have increased every year, and that penny postage, so far as we have adopted it with our Colonies and with the United States, has been carried on at a profit and not at a loss. I have not the slightest doubt if we could induce the Post Office to arrange for a penny postal system with France and the other countries mentioned it would be no loss to us at all, even in money, and in many other ways we should find it to the advantage of the people both as regards business and social arrangements, and it would promote good will and friendship amongst the nations. I should have been very pleased if the right hon. Gentleman could have announced to us today that he was going to do something in that direction. I do not know how it may be at the present moment, but we do know that a few years back the French Government were quite willing to enter into negotiation and to carry out penny postage if we were agreed. We were not able, unfortunately, to get the Postmaster-General or the Government to agree to it then, and I think it is time now that something was done, and I hope this House, without regard to party, will insist upon the Government doing something in this direction.
  A good deal has been said about telephones. I do not want to criticise the Government in regard to telephones, because we know they have not yet completed the purchase, and have had hardly time to take over this business, and we hope that things will be better in the future. There is no doubt that there is a good many complaints as to the service, and as to the way in which the accounts are made up and as to the prices charged. One cannot press that too much now, because the Postmaster - General has announced it will probably take this year to complete the transfer of the telephone service from the National Telephone Company, and I understand that there is to be a Committee of this House appointed to consider the whole question. I am aware personally that in London there is a considerable demand that there should be reduced prices, and I am also aware that it is the intention of the local authorities, representing six or seven millions of people in the London telephone area, to meet and consider this question. We have

  1647
  put off these conferences with the local authorities of London at the present time, after the statement of the Postmaster-General that he cannot very well consider anything about prices until he knows exactly what he is to pay for taking over the system.
  I want to impress upon the Postmaster-General that we have not forgotten that, and that we have only postponed the conferences until the proper time has arrived, and until a Committee has been appointed which the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned. I want to mention a particular telephone applied for, namely, that there shall be a trunk telephone from Tain, in Ross-shire, to Wigan, in Caithness. I understand from information received that the Postmaster-General has so far refused to carry out this. I have written to the Postmaster-General on the matter, and I want to ask him if he will not reconsider the question. It has been brought to my attention. I do not know whether it has been brought to the attention of other hon. Members representing Scotland before it was sent to the Postmaster-General and refused by him. What I want to ask is that the right hon. Gentleman should consider the matter, because it appears to me that Ross-shire, Sutherlandshire, and Caithness are concerned.
  And, it being a Quarter-past Eight of the clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, under Standing Order No. 8, further proceeding was postponed without Question put.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  STAFFORDSHIRE POTTERIES WATER BILL.
  [Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Maclean) in the Chair.]
  Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill, as amended, be now considered."
  Mr. POINTER: I beg to Move, as an Amendment, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of Question, to add the words "upon this day six months."
  I wish to indicate briefly why I put down this Amendment. The Staffordshire
  1648
  Water Company have in previous Sessions promoted Bills very similar to the one now under consideration. There are very few points of difference between the earlier Bills and the present one; the chief difference, I think, consists in an effort to-extend the operation of the Bill over one or two fresh areas, coupled with the fact that the local authority itself has changed, and therefore different considerations have arisen from those which we had to consider before. I am not going into the history of the negotiations at all. It would be sufficient for me to say that efforts have been made by the corporation to get the company to meet them upon certain points. There are certain outstanding points upon which satisfaction has not yet been given. For instance, the enlarged corporation, which hon. Members will remember consists of an amalgamation of several of the smaller boroughs, want certain concessions made in consequence of the character of their corporation. Under the old order each locality was dealt with separately and the larger corporation, known as the Stoke Corporation, desired to be dealt with as a corporate body in the matter of charges rather than as before, each district being taken separately and separate charges being made.
  There is the question of a Purchase Clause which has been considered, but which I shall show has been dropped for certain reasons, and there are a number of smaller points dealing with the conditions under which the company undertake to supply water to the locality. I think it was on 21st March the council, by a very small majority agreed to an agreement drawn up between the corporation on the one hand and the company on the other. Efforts have been made to get certain concessions, but the company responded very meagrely to the demand made, and they gave just one or two concessions of a very minor character indeed. The agreement drawn up to embody these concessions was passed on 21st March. That, I think, was passed by a majority of seven votes. I forget the exact numbers voting, but since then the council itself has turned round and quite a number of those who previously supported the company against the corporation now have turned over and are supporting the corporation side of the question. That may be looked upon in this House as very unusual, and a very undesirable proceeding for a council to take up a certain attitude and then later on change that attitude and

  1649
  come to this House and ask us to change also. As I understand it, the reason they have changed is that a number of them rightly or wrongly, have come to the conclusion that the information that was given to them at the time they voted on 21st March was not correct, and that generally they were misled upon certain points, and at a recent meeting held a month ago, by a majority, this time not of seven, but of twenty-seven, the previous decision was reversed and the council decided to ask that the necessary arrangements should be made in order that the Bill might be put back so that they might reconsider their decision and make what representations they thought were desirable.
  I see that the Chairman of Ways and Means is in his place, as he was on the Second Reading, and if my memory serves me right, he replied to the remarks made by myself and the hon. Member for Stoke by saying that all we had said was of no effect because the council itself appeared satisfied, and therefore we had no standing. He said it was idle for us to presume to oppose this Bill if the council who are directly interested are not offering opposition. We all felt that that was rather an unanswerable case, but it appears that the Chairman of Ways and Means was not quite accurate, or at least he was accurate, but circumstances have altered since which have changed the position as regards the opinions he expressed at that time. The corporation itself is now seeking to offer opposition, and it is because of the changed attitude of the council, brought about it is alleged—I have no means of deciding whether the allegation is well founded or not—because they were misinformed by the Mayor of Stoke, who took upon himself to give certain undertakings for the company, and then the council felt bound to ratify what the mayor in his official capacity, without real authority, had undertaken on their behalf. I think under the changed circumstances it is well that this House should consider whether it is going to affirm its former position or offer reasonable facilities to the Stoke council under the changed conditions to try and get some redress and some concessions, and the type of concessions that are desired will be found by hon. Members if they will look at the Clauses which the hon. Member for Stoke desires to add to the Bill.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: I beg to second the Amendment.
  1650
  I wish to supplement the observations of the hon. Member for the Attercliffe Division (Mr. Pointer), and if I am allowed some little latitude, it is quite possible we shall be able to avoid considerable discussion. It is quite true that the original attitude of the Stoke-on-Trent council was one of opposition to this Bill. Even after the concessions had been granted by the company at a meeting of the council, it was moved by the mayor himself—who seems to have taken a very prominent part with regard to acceptance of this agreement—that these concessions be considered ample and sufficient for the purposes of the corporation. In spite of the fact that it was the mayor and in spite of his position, an amendment was moved by Councillor Brookhouse, seconded by Councillor Whittingham, "That the concessions offered were totally inadequate, and cannot be accepted by the Committee." Except for the fact that the council at its full meeting decided to leave out the word "totally," that was the policy of the council right up to quite recently. Unfortunately, or fortunately, as the case may be, the council at a very small meeting and by a very small majority, I think either two, three, or four, decided that this offer of the water company should be accepted. Practically the moment that was decided an agitation began in the opposite direction in favour of the petition against the Bill being proceeded with. Meanwhile, according to the discussion which took place at the Stoke council meeting the other day, the mayor and town clerk had put the seal of the corporation to the agreement between them and the water company, and, though the council from the discussion and vote which took place was clearly most anxious to proceed with the petition, the mayor ruled that it was utterly incompetent for the council to alter their decision, the agreement having been sealed and acted upon. Therefore, unless the council have means at their disposal of completely altering and reversing the decision and ruling of the mayor, that will remain the position of affairs.
  The question we have to consider is whether we should take action independent of the corporation. We have, of course, the authority and the power to do so if we choose to take the initiative; and, of course, the decision of the Committee and the corporation would be swept aside if we thought there was the occasion to take such action. I do not think I could ask the House, as a representative of Stoke-on-Trent, to take such a drastic course as

  1651
  that, but, in view of the important considerations still outstanding, I do ask that the position of the corporation of Stoke-on-Trent should be preserved to them, and that even now they should be entitled to appear before the second branch of the legislature when the Bill goes before the other House, if it is possible to do so, and if the procedure allows. On the last occasion I drew attention to one peculiar fact in the position of affairs. I enumerated the great towns of the country where no extra charge was made for sanitary accommodation in the shape of w.c.'s in houses below a certain value, and that seems to be the general law of the country. Gradually, as these companies come forward for new powers, those old rights are being swept away, and as a result of this tax upon w.c.'s in cottages under £8, or upon cottages of £6 rateable value, 70 per cent. of the total dwellings of the whole place served by the company, as admitted by their own engineer, have no sanitary accommodation at all. If the Corporation had taken the trouble to have appeared before the Committee and the Committee had heard the facts, I do not think that would have been passed; but, as the Bill came before the Committee as an unopposed measure, naturally the Committee could not undertake business of that kind and alter the Bill, especially after the Corporation themselves had made the agreemnt.
  There are other things connected with the petition and the discussions which have taken place which are equally important. The question of treating the corporation as one borough ought to have been conceded without the slightest hostility by the water company themselves, for the simple reason that where there used to be five bodies there is now only one corporation. The water company, however, still insist upon their rights of declaring them five separate authorities, and charging them as five separate consumers. They are, as a consequence, able to get out of the ratepayers for sanitary and other purposes some £400 or £500 a year to which they would not be entitled if the district was treated as one authority as it really is. One would naturally have thought there would have been no haggling about things of that sort by a wealthy company paying big dividends upon their share capital, one of the wealthiest corporations of its kind in the country. If the corporation had taken the proper course and had
  1652
  appeared before the Committee, these things would have been rectified. I want to know—and this will decide entirely my own course relating to this matter—whether, supposing the Corporation of Stoke-on-Trent finally decide, in spite of the ruling of the mayor, that they will present and go forward with their petition in the House of Lords, if this Bill goes to the Lords, they have the right to petition in the House of Lords, or whether it is to be taken as a fact that their having withdrawn their petition here they are also practically in the position of having withdrawn their petition in the House of Lords? If I am satisfied on that point, and it is still within the power of the corporation to appear by counsel if they wish to do so, and to be represented with their petition before the second branch of the Legislature, then, of course, I do not wish to press the matter further because this thing is in their hand, and if the interests of the locality and the ratepayers have not been properly protected and looked after, the responsibility falls upon the council and not upon this House. If I am satisfied on that point, I shall certainly advise a certain course relating to the Motion now before the House.
  The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Mr. J. H. Whitley): I do not think it will be necessary to remind the House of the previous proceedings en this Bill at any length. We had a discussion when it came up for its Second Reading. I stated then the position to the House, and the Motion against the Second Reading was withdrawn, and the Bill went upstairs to a Committee. It has now been considered by the Committee, and comes back to the House for consideration. There was a petition from the Corporation of Stoke-on-Trent—in fact, there were several petitions from other authorities, but the petition of the Corporation of Stoke was perhaps the chief one. That was withdrawn on certain terms, and the Corporation did not therefore appear before the Committee of the House of Commons. The concessions which were offered by the promoters of the Bill and the terms on which opposition was withdrawn were three in number. One was inserted by the Committee in the Bill, namely, that the reserve fund should be reduced from £60,000 to £30,000, but this was not inserted in the Bill by the Committee, because the agreement was that it should be inserted if requested by the corporation, and the promoters informed me that they

  1653
  are perfectly willing to insert it should the Corporation signify their desire that it should be done. The real point upon which the hon. Member has moved the rejection of the Bill is that the attitude of the Stoke Corporation has changed since the Bill came before them. I have taken the trouble to consult the authorities of the House on the question whether or not it is possible for the Stoke Corporation to renew its objection to the Bill as originally presented to this House, and I am informed by the highest authority that they have undoubtedly a right to petition against the Bill in the other House. I am aware there have been certain allegations as to whether the agreement which has been referred to had been arrived at regularly or irregularly, but that is a matter for the Stoke Corporation themselves to deal with. I hope I have been able to satisfy the hon. Member.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: I should like to know whether it would be possible for the Chairman of Ways and Means to make such an arrangement with regard to the further stages of this Bill as will overcome the difficulties which I have indicated?
  Mr. WHITLEY: I have taken the trouble to inquire, and I understand that the earliest day will be the 18th June, which gives at the very least four clear weeks before the council need come to a decision as to future proceedings.
  Mr. POINTER: In the circumstances, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be read the third time.

SUPPLY.

  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1912–13.
  Postponed proceeding resumed on Question proposed on consideration of Question, "That a sum, not exceeding £13,808,950, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1913, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Post Office, including Telegraphs and Telephones."[£10,000,000 has been voted on account.]
  Which Question was, "That Sub-head A (Salary of the Postmaster-General) be reduced by £100."
  Question again proposed. Debate resumed.
  Mr. MORTON: I have a few remarks to make with regard to trunk telephones, and I trust that every consideration will be given to this matter as far as it affects the North of Scotland. I should like to see postal affairs in Scotland dealt with on a quite independent basis. We shall be told that we Scottish Members have not much courage, and that if we adopted a different attitude we should be much more likely to secure our ends. Some time ago, when the present Prime Minister was Chancellor of the Exchequer, I think it was in 1906, a promise was made that there should be a delivery in every district to the extent of at least three deliveries per week. Now in Sutherlandshire, with which I am particularly associated, there are many places in which we have only one or two deliveries a week, and I should like to claim that the promise to which I have referred should be fulfilled. I think, at any rate, in the North of Scotland, we ought to have at least three deliveries per week. With regard to the delivery telegrams, we were told that they had to have a guarantee of at least two - thirds the cost. So far as Sutherlandshire is concerned, the exception is all the other way, and therefore we ought to have a further allowance. We especially ask for a telephone in the neighbourhood of Rosehall. It is of great importance to the people there to have a telephone, especially if they want a doctor. For some years I have been demanding that something should be done. The Postmaster-General refused to guarantee any of the loss, and he insisted that the local people should guarantee the whole loss of fourteen years. Last year we got a little further, because the Postmaster-General, or the Assistant Postmaster-General, said that he had applied to the Treasury, and that it was the Treasury that was to blame. The Treasury Bench is here to-night, but not the Treasury, and so far as the Treasury is concerned I shall have to take some other opportunity of dealing with the matter. I admit that the Postmaster-General did say that he had been to the Treasury, and that they had refused to find the money. Prior to that Postmaster-Generals have always implied, if not said,

  1655
  that they in these matters were the Treasury. There is no reason why we should not get these reforms in Scoland.
  Within the last few weeks I got an answer from the Postmaster-General as to the revenue and expenditure of several departments in Scotland. I find that, after allowing for a deficiency of £52,000 in the telegraph service, the estimated profit of the present year is £449,000. Therefore it cannot be said that the Post Office Department has not got the money. There is the money waiting to be spent, and it ought not to be used for other purposes than Post Office and telegraph reforms if we want them. There is no question about their being wanted. I hope the Assistant Postmaster-General, who has now arrived, will try to give me some satisfaction with regard to the postal reforms that are wanted in Sutherlandshire especially. I am sorry to say that in the United States and in Canada they do more in the direction of benefiting the people than we do in this country. I noticed in a speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the Canadian Government some twelve months ago that he stated—and I hope our Post Office Department will take this to heart—that the more reforms and improvements they gave to the people of Canada, the better the Department paid. The same thing, I am quite sure, is true with regard to the British Post Office, if we could only get them to see things in that light. It is an unfortunate fact that all reforms down to the present time have had to be forced upon the Postal Department. No man did more in forcing these things forward than Sir J. Henniker Heaton, and I am sorry we have lost him. They did not like him at all on that account. I hope the Post Office Department will try to do something in the directions I have indicated for the people generally. I have shown that in Scotland there is plenty of money, and although in some parts of the country the Post Office does not pay, there is a balance to the good of nearly £500,000, and my demand is that that money should be used in improving the postal service in Scotland. I wish to refer to the depopulation that is going on in Scotland. That depopulation is largely occurring through the neglect of the Government to do their duty towards Scotland. I am not speaking in a political sense. The Government appear to think that all Scotland has to do is to find seats for them when they cannot get
  1656
  them anywhere else. The late Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, in 1905, told the people of the country that we should colonise our own country. The first thing they do in the Colonies is to carry out postal reforms. I should like to see a little attention paid to our own country instead of many millions being spent in looking after the blacks 11,000 or 12,000 miles away. I hope the Government will give us another night besides this to consider these postal questions, which are intimately connected with the business and welfare of the country generally. These discussions are the only means we have of forcing improvements upon the Government, and we ought to have rather more than less opportunities of discussion. All of us are most anxious to do the best we can for our country and our people, and I therefore hope that the Scottish Members, along with myself, will demand what is our right, namely, that in future we shall have more attention from the Government, and especially from the Post Office Department than we have ever had before.
  Sir JOHN SPEAR: It was my intention to urge upon the Postmaster-General the desirability of developing his proposal with reference to telephonic communication in the rural districts, but the case was so fully put by the hon. Member for the Wilton Division (Mr. C. Bathurst) that I will content myself with endorsing the appeal he made and his contentions, which, I think, were of the greatest value. There is a great deal in the suggestion that greater facilities should be given for sending agricultural produce by parcel post. I know it is a difficult question, and that the collection of parcels is a somewhat serious undertaking, but I cannot help thinking that it would contribute something to check that rural depopulation which the hon. Member who spoke last complained existed in Scotland. We who live in this country know that a similar evil exists here, and by giving facilities for sending small parcels of agricultural produce to provincial towns and the bigger centres through the Post Office I am satisfied it will be good for the rural districts. I think it could be worked by the Post Office without any serious loss of revenue. I want to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to tell us what arrangements he proposes to make with reference to recouping the local spending authorities for the loss of revenue which they sustain through no longer receiving the rates paid by the National Telephone Company.

  1657
  That company has in many localities contributed a considerable sum through the rates towards the cost of the local services, and it would be a very serious matter for the localities if, through a change of ownership of the telephone system, they were deprived of that source of revenue. I should be glad if he would tell us how he proposes to hand over to the local authorities a contribution in place of that which they have lost. I feel sure his sense of fairness will compel him to hand over a sum of money equivalent to that which they have hitherto received. I hope in coming to a decision he will not be content merely to hand over a commuted sum on the present earnings from the rates of the company, but that he will rearrange the sum that he proposes to pay over according to the increased earnings of the telephone service. I press this point because local bodies have suffered very severely and feel a little anxious about the action of the Government on a matter of this kind, because the Government commuted the carriage and motor licences on the earnings of three years ago and returned to the public spending bodies a sum of money not at all equivalent to the earnings of those licences in the present day. Having regard to the great increase of the rates and the increased cost of the maintenance of roads and education and police and other matters we appeal to the right hon. Gentleman that these contributions shall be not only commensurate with the sum paid to-day, but that for any increase in the development of the system there shall be an increased contribution to these local bodies. It is only fair that such consideration should be shown.
  9.0 P.M.
  May I say how much I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's system of securing that there is a greater possibility and probability of telegraph boys being continued in the service. I have many time noticed promising lads induced to enter the service and, after a few years, dismissed. They have missed the opportunity of learning a trade and have started on a very agreeable occupation to find after a few years that they have been thrown on the streets. That has been disastrous to the lads and injurious to the system altogether. I am glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman has arranged that the greater part of these lads shall be continued in the service of the Post Office. I would ask his consideration to a somewhat similar difficulty that arises with reference to men
  1658
  who are temporarily engaged in the rural districts as assistant postmen. I am fully aware that when they are engaged they sign a document acknowledging that they are liable to be dismissed at any time, but it often happens that after faithfully carrying out their duties for eight, ten, or even twelve years, they receive an intimation that their services are no longer required. They have incapacitated themselves from the ordinary methods of earning a livelihood, and it is a most painful position for these men to find themselves, very often on reaching an age of something like forty-five or fifty years, thrown out of employment. Following up the wise principle which the right hon. Gentleman has shown with reference to telegraph boys, I hope he will do his utmost to see that those men who have proved their fitness for their work shall have every possible opportunity of being engaged as established men. I know it is most important that we should do what we can to find work for men discharged from the Army, but I am quite sure that these men who have acted as postmen for six or eight years, have an equal claim on the consideration of the authorities, and that an effort should be made to continue them in the service where possible. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman has done what he can to meet the complaints of the employés in the Post Office, but there are still men who are underpaid, and I am sure he will consider their case in a spirit of justice and with a determination to remove every possible grievance. We owe a deep debt of gratitude to the postal service of the country. It is marvellous to find the work done so thoroughly well as it is. It is a remunerative service, and I am sure the whole country side desires that the men who carry out this work with such great efficiency should be well remunerated for their service.
  With reference to old age pensions, I believe that Department of the Post Office system has been well done, but in the rural districts there are some old age pensioners who live three or four miles from the post office, and when they are infirm they cannot get to the post office. Could the right hon. Gentleman arrange, in those specific cases only, that the pensions might be delivered by post? Precautions would have to be taken, and there would have to be a definite appeal from the infirm pensioner, and it would have to be examined to see that it wag reasonable.

  1659
  Could the right hon. Gentleman devise some plan whereby the postman could deliver the pension to him in his home? It would be a great convenience, and if due precautions were taken I do think it would be incapable of any abuse.
  I wish to mention another point, although I am not sure whether the Postmaster-General will be able to meet the difficulty. We are deluged with appeals from the moneylending fraternity through the Post Office. They offer on misleading terms to lend money. I do not know whether it would be possible to detect that imposture, which is working awful mischief among young people by pretending to lend money on most favourable terms. It gives an opportunity for the ruin of a young man or girl, as the case may be. If the Postmaster-General could devise a scheme whereby that miserable traffic could be prevented through the Post Office, I think it would be of great service to the public. I know how difficult it would be to deal with it, because some of the appeals come in the shape of invitations to "At homes." It is working great evil in the community, but whether it is a matter for the Post Office or for some other Department I hope the Government will consider the advisability of putting a stop to the miserable traffic. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman when he replies to say in what way—for I am sure he desires to be just—he would suggest that the local authorities should not be deprived of the reasonable contributions towards the upkeep of the service in their districts, because they lose the rates they have hitherto had from the telephone service. I shall be glad if the right hon. Gentleman can show that the local spending authorities shall lose nothing in consequence of the transfer of the telephone service to the State, and that they will receive from the Government a contribution towards the expenses they have incurred at least equal to that which they received from the rates paid when the telephone service was in the hands of a company.
  Mr. C. E. PRICE: I wish to know whether the Postmaster-General can state how far underground telegraph communication has been extended in Scotland. Some time ago there was trouble in connection with this matter with the Edinburgh Corporation, but that has now been overcome. That was the excuse given for the delay in extending the system. I should like to ask how far north it has
  1660
  been extended. As everybody knows, when there is a severe snowstorm in the North of Scotland the telegraphic system often gets put out of gear with the result that little or no communication can take place with some of the outlying districts. Therefore, we are anxious to see the underground system extended as far north as possible. One reason, I understand, why the Post Office is not going forward more quickly in this matter is that the telegraph service is not paying. I am told that one of the reasons is, not that the ordinary telegraph service is not paying, but rather that the low charges for Press telegrams make it a non-paying concern. I do not know if that is the case, but that is the explanation given in some quarters for the loss which takes place. I have been in communication with the right hon. Gentleman as a result of letters which I received on the question of promotions in the Edinburgh office. I should be glad if he would make a statement that no favouritism has been shown in the promotions which have taken place there, because there has been a good deal of unrest among some of the staff on account of what they believe to be the favouritism shown in some departments, and also because for some time promotions have been delayed in order to economise. Whether the complaints are justified or not I cannot say, but if the Postmaster-General will state that the charge of favouritism is one that cannot be maintained, I shall be very glad indeed. Complaints have been made with regard to the delay in providing offices. That matter has been pressed upon me, but I recognise that the Post Office has to be carried on as a business concern. I should like to take this opportunity of thanking the right hon. Gentleman for the prompt attention he has given to matters with respect to which I have communicated with him privately.
  Mr. HUNT: I think an unanswerable case has been made out for an all-British cable with all the countries of the Empire overseas, I have been told that the real reason for the opposition is that some of the big people in this country have got money in the present cables, and that they are afraid their shares will go down if they have to compete with another cable. I put that matter quite frankly and plainly to the right hon. Gentleman, and I venture to hope that he will look into it, for we certainly ought not to be prevented

  1661
  from having a British cable because certain people are afraid they may lose a certain amount of money through competition.
  Another matter to which I wish to refer is the mail service of Benbecula, about which I have questioned the Postmaster-General on different occasions. May I say that there is contempt and disgust among the people of Benbecula at the way they have been treated by the Postmaster-General. They consider that the people of Barra, Skye, and Lewis have succeeded in getting what they want by violent agitation, and I am not surprised that they are beginning to think that the only way with the present Government is to take the same measures, although they would regret it very much. The right hon. Gentleman should consult and be guided by the Admiralty, who have surveyed Peter's Port, instead of always consulting Messrs. McBrayne, who have, of course, a monopoly, and of whom the Post Office are afraid, because the Department does not know who else they can get to carry their mails. Surely there are plenty of other people who might be got to do it, and a great Service like the Post Office ought not to be dominated by a single steamship company like Messrs. McBrayne. This question has been for a long time before the Department, and the people are now getting tired. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman could learn from the Admiralty that there is no difficulty in delivering mails and taking them off at Peter's Port, at all events in the summer. The mail steamers go within two or three miles of Peter's Port. I think this really ought to be done at once. Take the case of Barra. It is about the same size as Benbecula. About £30,000 was spent in Barra lately on such things as small holdings. Why is Benbecula to have nothing at all? The least that might be done is to let the mail be delivered in the summer months. Messrs. McBrayne's boats are very old and very slow, and not sufficiently seaworthy in many cases to go out in really rough weather. The right hon. Gentleman said the other night that they could not call at this port because it might make them late for the mail, but with anything like reasonably modern boats there would be no difficulty whatever. I do not know why these people alone of all the North-Western Islands should suffer. They supply something like a hundred men to the Army and Navy every year, and nothing is done for them while Barra, for which so much has been
  1662
  done, supplies hardly any men at all. The mail boats go within about three miles of Peter's port when going to the other places, so that they would only have to call there. Of course, this may be a little more expensive, but the right hon. Gentleman has told us how much more he is getting out of the Post Office. My connection with the North of Scotland is mostly from having served them up there, and I had hoped that the hon. Member for that Division (Sir J. A. Dewar) would be here to-night to back me up. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman considered these poor people. They have always been quiet respectable people, but if they had kicked up a row no doubt the right hon. Gentleman would have taken more notice of their grievances.
  Mr. J. ALLEN BAKER: I feel it my duty to make some criticisms with regard to the telephone service and to read an extract from the letter which I have received from a firm in my own division. Before doing so I wish to express my very warm appreciation of the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman in introducing the subject this afternoon. Everyone who heard him must appreciate the enormous work which he has in hand and the many improvements that have been carried out. The hon. Member for Sutherland (Mr. Morton) criticised the Postal service and made comparisons with the United States and Canada. I think in regard both to the postal and telegraph service there is absolutely no comparison. We are far ahead of them. But when it comes to the telephone I do think there is probably cause for criticism. If we take a Prairie Province in the North-West you will find that for one-fourth of the money paid here a complete and unlimited service is given. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether we could not have such a system as prevails in the province of Alberta, where the entire province has a provincial service with automatic connections of the most complete character, the cost of which is only about one-fourth or one-third of the amount charged in this country. The letter from which I am about to read an extract will give the right hon. Gentleman a concrete case in refernce to installations and the complaints made as to inefficiency. In doing so I recognise the enormous difficulties which attended the taking over of the National Telephone service and the many improvements that had to be made, and that great allowance

  1663
  should be made on that account. But as this letter from a firm of contractors to His Majesty's Government gives a concrete case, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will look carefully into the matter. They say:—
  "At the beginning of March last we gave the Post Office instructions to transfer the private telephone existing between this address (Finsbury-square) and Burdett and Tenter-street South, Whitechapel, from this address to Burdett-road, Stepney. The order was acknowledged, but the work not being put in hand we wrote them and they sent a representative to say that the form used, though supplied by the department, was an out of date form, and we must fill up another, which we did. Hearing nothing in a week or two, we again communicated with the department, and it was stated that the matter had been overlooked, and would be put in hand at once. We left it a week or two longer, and ascertained that the work had not been started, but had an absolute guarantee that the work would be finished by the end of the week. Nothing further was done in the matter. We again took it up and received in response a circular acknowledging our communication, but nothing more was done until the department's inspector called upon us and stated that everything was now in readiness, and the work would be completed immediately. A fortnight ago four workmen called at Burdett Wharf and informed our works foreman that we might think ourselves lucky if we had a telephone in a couple of months' time."
  This is the letter which has come to me and to which I wish to direct the attention of the right hon. Gentleman. They add:—
  "On one day last week on no less than four consecutive occasions our connection was interrupted."
  I have no doubt that the matter will be carefully considered by the Department, and I thought it might be of some service if the right hon. Gentleman had a concrete case of the difficulties and delays which occur.
  The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Captain Norton): In days gone by I suffered so often from the verbosity of hon. Members speaking from this bench that I shall endeavour to confine my remarks as much as possible. But it is almost impossible for me to cover the whole of the ground, and if there are any points of importance with which I fail to deal they will be dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General a little later in the Debate. The hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Goldman) made some complimentary remarks about my right hon. Friend, and expressed the desire that his salary might be raised. I am very grateful to the hon. Member, because I am in hope that if the Postmaster-General has his salary raised, that mine will be raised correspondingly. As regards the fact that we do not secure in the Service the very best people, personally I think that is a reflection upon the staff of the Post Office which is by no
  1664
  means justified; because a large number of men enter the public service who certainly cannot be bought by money, and whom no salary would induce to do better work than the work which they already do. The hon. Member called attention to the changes that have taken place in connection with the telephone system. The only changes which were made were changes absolutely necessary, and the work was certainly not impaired in consequence of them. It should be remembered that in dealing with London we are dealing with the largest telephonic area in the world; we are dealing with some six millions of inhabitants, whereas no other city in the world has anything like that number to serve. The hon. Member referred to the case of the Avenue and Westminster Exchanges being still under our control. It is quite true that they are still under our control, but we are rapidly dismantling them, and all that remains to be done is to remove the two standards on the roofs of the two buildings. He asked how much has been spent by us outside London in anticipation in connection with the transfer from the company. The reply is that we gave them all they asked for; we gave them large sums in anticipation; we gave them £50,000 for spare plant, and their staff were thoroughly employed. It would have been impossible for them to have done anything more, owing to the fact that their staff were engaged in taking stock of that plant and handing it over to us. We provided them with no less that 217,000 miles of wire. The hon. Gentleman referred to Germany.
  Our information goes to show that the service in Germany is slower, and that the short distance calls are not nearly so good as here. He spoke of the amount of interest paid on the undertaking, but the should be recollected that the telephone company had the pick of the market, and they only put their system into all the large and profitable places. Further, the hon. Gentleman referred to the automatic system being tested at different places. It is being tested at the General Post Office West. With reference to the Exchanges at Truro and Middlesbrough not being open all night, he is in error; they are open all night. My hon. Friend the Member for South Islington (Mr. Thomas Wiles) referred to the penny postage with France. As regards that question, my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General will deal with it specially. He also referred to rolls of stamps. These rolls of stamps are about

  1665
  to be issued, and my right hon. Friend has authorised me to say that the expense of these rolls, which is thought by some persons to be somewhat excessive, is a matter which he will look into, and, if possible, endeavour to see whether he will be able to make some slight reduction. I am glad to be able to state to my hon. Friend the Member for South Islington that the stamp books, in which he took so great an interest, and in connection with which he has furnished us with some very useful suggestions, have turned out a success. Whereas formerly we issued some 1,000,000 per annum, we now issue 3,000,000. As regards books containing 5s. worth of stamps, that matter is also under consideration. He made complaint with reference to the state of telegraphy between England and Ireland, and wondered why Ireland was in such a bad way. It has been due to the fact that there has been recently an immense amount of traffic between the Stock Exchanges of Dublin and Belfast and the Stock Exchange in London. The question of a new cable wire, I may add, is under consideration. The hon. Member for Grimsby (Sir G. Doughty) spoke mainly on two matters, namely, the question of the French postage and the question of cable communication. With both those matters my right hon. Friend will deal.
  The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Croft), who also dealt with the question of the cables, seemed to ignore altogether the fact that wireless telegraphy is about to play a very great part in future. I will not enter into that matter, which will be dealt with by my right hon. Friend, further than to say that a good deal was stated about warlike operations; but, in the event of war, as those who have studied military matters know, cables are likely to be cut or tapped, and really it will be impossible to provide a cable which will be absolutely, if I may use the term, warproof. The hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Wardle) also dealt with the matters of penny postage to France, and the question of female assistant clerks. With reference to the question of the hours of labour of female clerks, that is a matter which my right hon. Friend will consider. As to the question of trade union recognition, I would point out that the number of memorials has more than quadrupled since the recognition. In regard to delay in dealing with the matter of the Fair-Wages Clause, I can assure my hon. Friend that at least half a dozen cases of this kind came before me personally,
  1666
  and not a moment was lost. In every instance which was brought to my notice that the company was infringing, or was thought to be infringing, the Fair-Wages Clause, I immediately sent inspectors to investigate the case and to obtain information first hand. I can assure the hon. Member we have done all in our power to see that the Fair-Wages Clause is properly carried out. The Member for Greenock (Mr. G. P. Collins) spoke of the immense loss on the telegraph service, and at the same time he wished to have greater facilities; in other words, my hon. Friend wished to have his cake and eat it. In regard to Press telegrams, they cost £205,000 a year, but I would point out that if the Press telegrams are charged, as it were, upon the funds of the Post Office, they are also of great value to the public. We have been indirectly giving facilities to the public, which is perfectly justifiable.
  The hon. Member hoped we should not be as unfortunate in connection with telephones as we were with telegraphs. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will take note of that, for "once bitten twice shy." But I may say that the only way you can make the telephones more productive than the telegraph would be by raising the rates. It is quite clear that a large number of members of the Committee desire that the rates should be reduced. They cannot have it both ways, and our duty will be to hold the balance. The hon. Member for Central Finsbury (Major Archer-Shee) also raised the question of cables and the possible tapping of wireless telegraphy. Our Naval Department have special codes and special methods of their own, and I doubt very much whether it would be possible to tap the high power stations and to interpret them in the easy manner in which the hon. Gentleman suggested it could be done. It is very difficult to decode wireless messages. The hon. Member for the Otley Division of Yorkshire (Mr. Hastings Duncan) suggested that we should take local bodies into our confidence when we are about to buy land for the purpose of erecting post office buildings. From past experience we know that when by some accident it is discovered that we are seeking to buy property for the purpose of erecting post office buildings we not infrequently have to give up a site fixed upon and seek another, because when it is known that the Government is about to buy the price is always raised. A Departmental Committee is about to sit to consider the question whether it would pay the Department

  1667
  better to buy or to lease, because it not infrequently happens that it is not possible to adapt the existing building to our new requirements. That constantly occurs where there is a great growth of population. The hon. Member for South Birmingham (Mr. Amery) also dealt with the cable question. The hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Pike Pease) drew attention to the question of sorting clerks and telegraphists. I do not think the hon. Gentleman made it quite clear what his case was, but I think it must have been that sorting clerks and telegraphists are called upon to do what they consider to be postmen's work and vice versa.
  I was chairman of a Committee which dealt with this question of sorting, which is a very burning question as between the postman and the sorting clerks. It has been the custom in a considerable number of offices throughout the country for postmen to do what sorting clerks and telegraphists consider their proper work. What is known as primary sorting has been the custom at many offices, but at certain offices it has been the custom to do a little more than that. We went very carefully into the question, and our decisions will come up before what, I presume, will be known as the Holt Committee which is now sitting on postal questions, when some definite decision will be come to on all points in connection both with primary and secondary sorting. The hon. Member for Enfield (Mr. Newman) drew attention to the question of the factories. I was also chairman of that particular Committee. We decided to bring the factories under the stores department for the reason that we found small departments invariably did not attract the best men, since if a man got into a very small department there was no outlet for him. We also found that it was imperatively necessary to abolish construction, but the hon. Member was under a misapprehension when he thought that there were going to be any dismissals. We shall now, with the development of the telephone system, require practically the whole of the staff which were formerly required for construction to carry out repair work. He referred to the danger of "rings." We carefully considered that question in our Report, and from all the evidence that was laid before us we could see that there was no danger whatever of "rings," more especially as we have retained in our service all the best and highly finished mechanics, who act as
  1668
  examiners, and would in every instance be able to protect us against any possibility of those "rings" taking advantage of our position.
  One of the main reasons why we did away with construction was that we were unable as a Government Department to carry on that factory on a business basis. As hon. Members will know, we could not dismiss men in large numbers, nor could we employ female labour or boy labour in the same way as private employers are able to do. It would have been very unfair on our part if we did not give a certain share of constructional work to outside factories, more especially as we encouraged the development of those factories in order to bring to this country as much as possible of the industry of making telephone plant. With regard to the factory at Mount Pleasant, being done away with, I may say that the men are about to be transferred to the Holloway factories, and to be employed there on repairs. Moreover, we require the space of Mount Pleasant for other purposes, because the postal service is constantly developing, and there are certain portions of it which it is imperatively necessary should be close to headquarters. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutherland (Mr. Morton) spoke of the extension of the trunk line to Wick. I should be delighted to extend both the telephone and the telegraph services over the whole of my hon. Friend's constituency, but the cost of extending the trunk line to Wick would be something like £6,000, and coupled with that would be many hundreds of pounds per year to maintain it. As regards the question of extension to Elphin, that is a district where the number of inhabitants is, I think, 160. I am well aware that if it was extended further on there are certain hotels, and that during a certain portion of the year there might be some business done, but really the expense would be so great that even were we to recommend it many times over I feel perfectly confident that the Treasury would not sanction our plan. There were also the questions of rural lines and parcels post, with both of which my right hon. Friend will deal. With reference to the suggestion that the State should continue to pay rates for telephone wires just as the private company which preceded it did, I can only say that my right hon. Friend is not likely to renounce his statutory powers, and he is not prepared under any circumstances to do what was suggested.
  Sir J. SPEAR: What I suggested was that a sum of money equivalent to the rates should be paid in lieu of the rates.
  Captain NORTON: Equivalent to the rates that have been paid. That is going to be done. But that is another question. I thought the hon. Member referred to future rates.
  Mr. MORTON: As I understand, you are paying the same rates as the old company paid, but that is only a temporary arrangement.
  Captain NORTON: We shall continue to pay what the company formerly paid.
  Sir J. SPEAR: My suggestion was that the right hon. Gentleman should not consider himself absolved from liability by paying on the present basis, but that in regard to future developments there should be an increased contribution.
  Captain NORTON: That is exactly what I stated originally, my right hon. Friend is not prepared to do. The hon. Member also suggested that we should consider the case of the auxiliary postmen, and in the same breath he gave us credit for behaving as we ought to behave towards the boys. The two things are incompatible, inasmuch as there are 17,000 auxiliaries, and only 1,300 vacancies for established postmen annually. It is not in our power to do what he suggests, because a previous Government decided—very rightly and properly I think, as they did it on my suggestion—that ex-sailors and ex-soldiers should be given one-half of those vacancies. It is therefore quite impossible for us to do more than we are doing for the auxiliary postmen. In special instances when an auxiliary has been a long time in the service, and there is not an ex-naval or ex-military man forthcoming, we sometimes give the post to an auxiliary. I may point out, however, that the auxiliary postmen know perfectly well when they undertake the work that they do so without hope of promotion. Furthermore, they are given to understand that they must have other work to do, and that they are only, as it were, part-time servants. The hon. Member's suggestion with regard to pensioners is a very valuable one. My right hon. Friend entirely sympathises with it, and will, if possible, carry it out. As regards money-lending circulars, we have had the question under consideration over and over again. But money-lending is not illegal,
  1670
  and we have no power to open letters broadcast for the purpose suggested. I should be glad if the hon. Member would make some suggestion. I entirely sympathise with him, but I do not see how we can remove the grievance of which he complains. The hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Price) asked how far we were extending the underground line in Scotland. It has been extended to Glasgow and Edinburgh, but as the cost is something like £l,500 a mile we have to be very chary of extending it at that rate.
  Mr. PRICE: I think there was a promise to extend it further north, but there was some difficulty between the postal authorities and the Edinburgh Corporation. I understood that when that difficulty was removed the line would be extended further north.
  Captain NORTON: My right hon. Friend assures me that there was no promise of the kind. With regard to promotion by selection, I have had considerable experience. Promotion by selection usually means that the best man in the opinion of his superiors is selected, but that every man who is not selected considers that he has been treated unjustly, and that it is a case of favouritism. As regards delay in filling up offices, I am very surprised to hear that there has been any. Delay very seldom occurs, except the delay that is necessary to sift the cases thoroughly and to avoid the favouritism of which complaint is made. The hon. Member for East Finsbury (Mr. J. A. Baker) referred in a very complimentary way to our postal and telegraph arrangements. I am very grateful for his statement, because I have frequently declared outside the House that there is no country in the world which from the point of view of the postal and telegraph service can compare with ours. I am glad that someone who has had experience in America and other parts of the world should bear me out. It is a fact that in America the telephone, especially in the Prairie Provinces, is very much developed. That is partly in consequence of the introduction there of the automatic and semi-automatic systems. We are now testing those systems here, and so far as we can judge they are likely shortly to be considerably developed.
  Sir F. BANBURY: The Postmaster-General stated this afternoon that there was no easier way of raising a cheer in the House of Commons than by promising to

  1671
  effect economy, but that when a Minister came down to a concrete case and proposed that a certain economy should be effected, immediately he had the whole House against him. I do not think any truer words have even been spoken. I have listened to almost the whole of this Debate, and, with the exception of the very statesmanlike speech of the hon. Member for Greenock (Mr. G. Collins), every single speech was asking the right hon. Gentleman not to economise but to spend more money. One hon. Member said that the Postmaster-General ought to construct a cable to Canada. When he gets the cable to Canada it is to be with the object of reducing the charges made by the cable in existence which are in private hands. It is the first time I have ever heard on this side of the House a policy advocated which in effect means—if it means anything—that the money of the State is to be spent in destroying private enterprise. That is a most extraordinary policy to be advocated. Look at what would happen. The right hon. Gentleman having made this cable is immediately to lower the rate and compel some other cable company in competition to lower their rates. Where then would the profit of the State be? The State would be carrying on the undertaking at a loss. Consequently—and Members of the Labour party will excuse me for endeavouring to take an interest in the particular class which they claim to represent—I do think that in this case it would be very hard on the working classes to be asked to contribute out of indirect taxation in order that some rich man might be able to send a telegram more cheaply to Canada. Even on that ground alone, I trust the right hon. Gentleman will not accede to that request.
  10.0 P.M.
  Another of my right hon. Friends said that £300,000 a year for penny postage to Trance—what did it matter? I should have thought that that was exactly why it did matter. If my hon. Friend had come forward and said the taxation was very low, the expenditure of the country was very low, and therefore we could afford to spend a little money on this particular thing, perhaps I might have been with him. But when we are spending £180,000,000 a year to come forward and to say, "Oh. £300,000 a year does not matter," is, I say, the very worst view that you could take of the situation, and is less likely than anything else I know to inculcate habits of economy in hon.
  1672
  Gentlemen opposite. I originally came down to vote for the reduction of the salary of the Postmaster-General, but the arguments of my hon. Friends on this side have turned me into one of his supporters. But I have one little fault to find with him, and that is with regard to the administration of the telephones. In my Constituency there are a very large number of telephones used. My Constituency embraces a most intelligent and long-suffering body of men, yet they have inundated me with letters of complaint about the telephones. I do not complain of the way in which the right hon. Gentleman, the Postmaster-General has received my complaint. He has received them most courteously. Certain excuses have been made by the right hon. Gentleman which appear to amount to this: The right hon. Gentleman took over the system of the Telephone Company on 1st January. Some seem to consider that because we have taken them over that it naturally means that the system under the State is, going to work worse than under the Company, because, prior to the right hon. Gentleman taking over the system I believe there were very few complaints of the working of the system. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh."] Well, that is my impression. I have a telephone in my private house. Before the right hon. Gentleman took it over it was not a very great nuisance. At the present time it is a very considerable nuisance. I gather that the experience of my friends in the City is much the same as mine. I do not quite see why, when the State with all its resources has taken over the telephone system for some four or five months, that the system should be so bad. I suppose the explanation is that the State can never manage things so well as they are managed by private enterprise. That is a very strong argument against having cables all over the world under the management of the State. I am really surprised that hon. Members on this side who complain about the management of the telephones should come down here and ask the State to extend its operations still further afield. My own idea is that the State—I do not blame it because there are various considerations which must arise—has a difficult task. There are the customers or consumers, who expect to get things done for nothing, so long as they belong to the State; there are employés who, immediately a thing belongs to the State, expect their wages to be

  1673
  raised, and object to have any superintendent or foreman hurrying them up. Therefore these two subjects alone are quite sufficient to show that it is quite impossible to manage economically or efficiently any service of the State. I do not think it is necessary for me to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, because, as I have said before, he has been extremely courteous in receiving the complaints made by my constituents in the City. I have not forwarded them all to him. Some of the writers have been so extremely angry that I thought perhaps it would not be advisable to forward their complaints on, and I have kept their anger to myself. But I trust the right hon. Gentleman will do his best to remedy those inconveniences which undoubtedly exist at the present time. The right hon. Gentleman says he is going to run a tube railway. That rather filled me with dismay when I heard it, but I presume he only means a small sort of tube down which parcels are shot, and that of course is not a very serious affair. I trust the venture will be a successful one.
  There are a few items I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman one or two questions about. He had a, very old ship, forty years old. I see (p. 54) there is placed to one side for the purchase of a new ship, £65,000. That, I suppose, is to replace the old ship. I see that there has been a considerable increase in the redemption of advances under the Telegraphs Act. That is an extremely good thing. I do not agree with my hon. Friend below the Gangway who suggested that the Postmaster-General was paying off capital too quickly. If he is paying off capital quickly it is a very good thing, and I wish the Chancellor of the Exchequer would bear his example in mind when he is disposing of the £6,500,000 about which there has been considerable discussion lately. As to the telegraphs, there is undoubtedly a very large loss upon them. I interposed a question when the Postmaster-General was speaking earlier in the day, which I think was a little misunderstood. I did not mean for a moment to suggest that he should not do his best to develop the telephone system now that he has got it. But I did mean to say that in developing the telephone system he must remember that he will—at least it is more than probable—further increase the loss on the telegraphs. Therefore, the telephone system must be developed or carried out with the knowledge that there will be a further loss on the telegraphs.
  1674
  Both of these systems are the property of the State, and the loss on the telegraphs should be made up by the profit on the telephones. That is one of the disadvantages of the State taking over these undertakings. If the telephones were the property of a private company and events happened that something superseded them they would have to take the rough with the smooth. When a thing of this sort is the property of the State upon which the State has spent large sums of money, and some new invention renders it of less value, then the State in the interest of the taxpayer must see if it cannot out of the new invention put something by to make up for the loss.
  I do not think that there is anything further except a question of accounting which occurs upon page 56 of the Estimate. There is a sum of £900,000 there which was apparently paid by other Departments, and ought to go to the Post Office. I think the right hon. Gentleman said that that was so shown, but it would be simpler if the whole of the accounts of the Post Office were made out on one page, and that this was included. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will explain that later. The only other question is in reference to a little correspondence which I had with the right hon. Gentleman upon the condition of the Post Office horses. He replied to the criticisms in my letter, and told me that there was no doubt some fault was to be found with their condition at the present moment, but he gave me some reasons. I have not had a reply to my last letter yet, but I do not want really to question now if the right hon. Gentleman will give me a promise to bear the matter in mind. No one in this House would wish to see His Majesty's mails drawn by horses in a bad condition, and there is no question but that was so during the last few months. That is all I have to say, except this: I presume when the right hon. Gentleman said there was an increase in profit of half a million that was after deducting the loss on business. He said that it was a net profit, which I presume was after allowing for interest on capital advanced to the Telephone Company and loss on the telegraph system. If the House goes to a Division I shall be compelled to vote for a reduction on the right hon. Gentleman's salary on account of the failure of the telephonic system, but in so doing I must say that I have sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman, because I think he has been unfairly attacked by speakers on

  1675
  all sides of the House, as far as I understood it, for economy, which I think in these days is so very necessary.
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: I do not rise to continue the Debate upon the telephone system, but I should like to say, as one of the many sufferers, that I do not agree with my hon. Friend beside me, who said that the trouble began with the taking over of the National Telephone system by the Government. I wished for years before that took place that I had the gift of Balaam, because the service has been as bad and perhaps worse than any other in the world. I am in the position of having supported the right hon. Gentleman often because I believe sincerely that he has instituted and carried out reforms in the Post Office. But that reform has not been carried out in the telephone system is evident to everybody who has suffered as I have from morning until night, having a good deal of business to do over the telephone wires. There has been nothing said to-day in criticism of the telephone system which is not abundantly justified, because if you go to the utmost corners of the world you will find a better system in existence than is to be found in this country, and particularly in London.
  I rose for another purpose, and I feel sure that I shall have the support of the right hon. Gentleman. He will remember that some years ago I, and others on this side, interested ourselves in the case of the retrenched Civil servants in South Africa. It was a struggle, as we thought then to get the Government to take up the case of the retrenched Civil servants. I am happy to think since that the Colonial Office and the Post Office and other Departments have absorbed some of those retrenched Civil servants from the Transvaal and the Orange River Colony. At present there is a considerable number of them employed at the Post Office, but at wages which are not a living wage. Some of them have no pension from the Governments that employed them, and they are now earning below a living wage. Letters have come to me from many parts of the country in which it is pleaded, as I think very fairly, that their case should be considered by the Select Committee now sitting. If these men are doing good service for the State, even though they were taken on out of compassion originally, and if they are not supernumeraries, and if they are regularly doing the regular work of the Post Office, then I think it is beneath the
  1676
  dignity of the Department the right hon. Gentleman so worthily represents in this, House that these men should be employed at wages given to boys and girls in the postal service. I do not say that that is the case with all of them, but it is the case with a number of them. I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has considered the case of these men, and whether he has received communications from them, and whether the Select Committee inquiring will not take into consideration the case of these men who entered upon Civil service in South Africa with the full belief that they would be continuously employed They were retrenched from that service and they were thrown upon the world-Many of them never got any employment at all, but such of them as are employed by the General Post Office, grateful as they are for that employment, feel that after a number of years of service there ought to be some revision, and that their case should now be revised by the Select Committee. I sincerely hope that the right hon. Gentleman who has done so much for the postal service, though not for the telephone service, will not turn a deaf ear to this appeal for humanity and fair play.
  Mr. PETO: I want to remind the right hon. Gentleman of two or three points with regard to rural telephones, which I raised about a year ago. I really want to know whether it is the intention of the Post Office to make these rural telephones a success. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman there are two or three absolutely essential conditions if they are to be a real success and are to be taken up in the country. I want to put before him the real wish of farmers, great and small throughout the country. The first is, that the area of these rural districts in every case should include the nearest market town in which the farmers do their business, and that that town should be included in the group system for rural telephones. The second is that in every case the area should include the nearest efficient fire brigade station, and as a corollary to that, that by one means or another every subscriber should be able during the whole twenty four hours of the day and night to communicate with the fire brigade station. In these rural areas as a rule there is only the ordinary rural post office, and no arrangement whatever is made to get switched through to the fire brigade station once that post office closes. All our farmers realise fully that if the telephone is to be of any real use to

  1677
  them they must be able to communicate with the fire brigade station just as well, if their ricks catch fire at 8.5 p.m. or after that hour, as if they catch fire at 7.55 p.m. The third condition is that if these rural areas are to be of any use it is necessary that every subscriber should be in communication with a town where there is a competent doctor and a veterinary surgeon. Every one of these points are absolutely essential to a successful rural telephone system. This difficulty will not be met unless for a definite and small annual payment some reasonable facilities which subscribers have a right to demand are given, putting them in communication with their market town, their fire station, their doctor, and their veterinary surgeon. They do not want to use the telephone for gossiping with their next-door neighbour. If they want to do that they can go across the street. They want it for the purposes of their business, and unless you introduce a system on those lines, I do not believe it will take in this or any other country. With regard to the telephones in the City, there are a great many cases where a very large aggregation of people, live practically under one telephone number. I may mention a concrete case of a particular spot within a few minutes' walk of this House, namely, St. James' Court, where there are 250 people living, and they have only one telephone number unless each of them chooses to pay £1 1s. a year, not for telephone communication, but for the privilege of having their name inscribed in a book.
  I have been in business all my life, and have never been very strongly forced into the advertising business, but I have never heard of any business run on the opposite principle that so tries to hide its light under a bushel that it makes it impossible for its customers to come to it. That is the position of the right hon. Gentleman. I got an answer when I wrote about this matter, and I was told this very high charge for the privilege of insertion in this priceless volume was made to prevent business people inserting the same name fifty times over for advertising purposes Ever since I played the game of cross questions and crooked answers I have never had such an experience as that. I was endeavouring to point out that every name in that book meant so many calls, and if you are doing away with the flat-rate system and going to charge a general rate per call, obviously it is to the advantage of the telephone system that when people
  1678
  look for a name in the book it should be there, and therefore I should have thought you would have made it as easy as possible in order to get as many names in as you can, because every one of them might mean three, four, five, or six calls per day, which would mean so much money in the coffers of the Post Office. This is no question of an advertisement at all, but simply a question of charging one block of tenants £260 for the privilege of putting their names in the book to pour revenue into the pockets of the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. KING: I wish to assure the Postmaster-General that the Post Office telephone system is very much appreciated in the country, where we now have an opportunity of getting telephones such as we never had before. In fact, in that part of the country in which I reside we have the telephone system at last, but so long as the National Telephone Company went on there was no prospect of getting any telephonic communication. I have no hesitation in saying that for the country as a whole the acquisition of the telephone system, and its development by the Post Office, is a very great benefit. It may be modified for a time by the inconvenience of the change, which, of course, arises most of all in London; but for the country at large the advent of one system, and that the Post Office, I am sure is a very great benefit. I want to give a little advice, if I may, to the Postmaster-General in the way of what seems to me a fertile suggestion in connection with the cheapening of the postal rate to France and the Continent. He spoke of it as if the only alternative was either the present 2½d. postage for letters to France or a penny postage. Why is it not possible to reduce the postage gradually from 2½d. to 1d. through the various stages of 2d. and 1½d.? It seems to me if some such method were adopted, we should lose probably so little in the first year that it would be more than made up the next, and that would prepare the way to reducing the rate by stages until we get it down to one penny. In my opinion, and I believe it will be the opinion of most practical business men, it is not merely an object to reduce the postage rate to France, but to those civilised countries which are not far distant, and with which we have the greatest amount of postal traffic. I hope we shall, at any rate, reduce the postage to Germany as much and as soon as we reduce it to France. There is a good deal

  1679
  really of political feeling behind these proposals. I do not mean to say there are political objects and preferences expressed or felt by the Postmaster-General in this connection; but I am perfectly sure that a political object would be observed and brought to light by some persons who saw we were reducing the postage to France before we were giving the same facilities or opportunities in connection with the postage to Germany. It seems to be probable, therefore, we shall not get a reduced postage to France, at any rate a penny rate, for some time to come, and I trust the Postmaster-General will take up the idea of reducing the postage to other countries, perhaps to a less extent than from 2½d. to 1d., so that by creating a sort of competition between foreign countries as to which will be the first in the field to reduce their postage along with us by mutual concessions we may make advances upon this most desirable line. There is one other point upon which I wish to say a word and that is the new postage stamp. The Postmaster-General told us a year ago he had a most beautiful design for postage stamps above the value of ½d. and 1d. But samples of these designs have not yet reached the Tea Room. I think it is hardly creditable to our country that this delay should have taken place. It may be there has been so much pressure in the printing of stamps that there is adequate reason for the delay, but I trust the Postmaster-General will give a promise that we shall promptly have the new stamps of higher value.
  Mr. NIELD: I want to call the attention of the Postmaster-General to a system prevailing at Mount Pleasant with regard to tenders. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman can have any real justification in relation to the matter as to which I have been in correspondence with him. I am alluding to an answer given in this House by the right hon. Gentleman regarding the cancellation of contracts made by the Telephone Company which surely should be binding on their successors. There was a quibble in the High Courts of Justice some years ago, and an injunction was obtained against the Telephone Company to prevent them infringing the Postmaster-General's right under the Telegraph Act. But telephone poles and wires have been put along the towpath of the Lea Conservancy in return for a definite rental, and now we are told that, acting on the decision of the Court, the
  1680
  Postmaster-General is claiming to exercise a right with reference to telephone poles that will put him on the same basis as the company. The revenue which has been derivable from this particular wayleave granted by the Conservancy, is reduced by one-half, if not more, by the contention put forward by the Department. I submit to the Committee that that is not creditable to a public Department. An agreement, when taken over, should be observed, and if the agreement is fair as between two bodies, one a public body and the other a quasi public body, it having been arrived at for the benefit of the public, I submit that the Department ought to continue it, instead of sheltering themselves behind a decision many years old, given upon a totally different point and for a totally different reason.
  Mr. ESSEX: Is it a year to year agreement?
  Mr. NIELD: The agreements are made for a term of years. It is true they are determinable, but no notice has been given to determine them. I sincerely hope that the Postmaster-General will not consider these remarks are made other than in pursuance of my public duty as a member of a public body, who feel very deeply the position taken up by the Departmental officials, and that he will endeavour to do justice without recourse to the position in which, for other purposes, the telephones have been put.
  Mr. BAIRD: I wish to say a few words about the telephones in London. I think the transfer of the telephones to the Government has been a proof of the calamity of pushing upon the Government the control of a monopoly upon which the comfort of the public depends. After a considerable experience of telephones in a great many countries, I have no hesitation in saying that there is nothing, even in Abyssinia, half as bad as the telephone service in London to-day. If any one has been in Abyssinia and can prove that the service is worse there than here, I am willing to sit down. I guarantee there is nothing in the world approaching the farce of the present service. I will give a few instances. This is a matter which affects Home Rule essentially, a subject with which the right hon. Gentleman has concerned himself to the detriment of the business of his own Department. There is no doubt that at the present moment the

  1681
  telephone service, so far from assisting Home Rule, or conducing to the happiness of the home, is a curse to anyone who has a telephone. If you ring up a number you are, three times out of four, given a different number. You go home at a late hour from this House, and, perhaps, sit reading. About one o'clock you are rung up. You reply, and you find nobody wants you, and that they have rung up the wrong number. When the telephone was controlled by a public company there would have been a public outcry and a demand that this company, which was exercising a monopoly vitally concerning the public comfort, should be efficiently controlled by the Government. You made them hand it over. What has happened? It is run on lines that are absolutely disgraceful. I believe this Motion is for the reduction of the salary of the right hon. Gentleman. I trust he will not think I am in any way offensive, but, so far from reducing his salary, I should be in favour of taking it away altogether, and putting someone in his place who could run the telephone service efficiently. It is an extremely important service. The other day I was called up at twenty minutes to nine o'clock. I went to the telephone, but could get no answer. I asked what number had called, but they did not know. Eventually I got on to the number which I thought had called, and found it had called me, but I was told it was engaged. I then got into a taxi and went to the house, arriving there a quarter of an hour later, to find the gentleman who had been endeavouring to get through to me for twenty minutes, still trying to get to me, I having been told that he was engaged, and he having been told that I was engaged. It sounds farcical, but after all, when this is run by a Government Department which makes it possible for anyone to obtain redress by dealing with some other firm in the same line of business, it becomes a very serious thing for the country, and I hope hon. Members below the Gangway, who are so anxious to nationalise every kind of monopoly, will take the lesson to heart. I will refrain from multiplying instances of the extreme inefficiency of the Department, but when, in answer to a question, the right hon. Gentleman announced, as an extenuating circumstance, that the Government had installed something like 300 new telephones since they had taken the thing over, the thought passed through my mind, "Poor wretches, who are going to be added to the existing number of subscribers!"
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: A hundred a day.
  Mr. BAIRD: That makes it worse still. That makes 350,000 a year. Great Scott! That is turning this Government monopoly into a regular torture. Since the days of the Spanish Inquisition nothing has been attempted equal to it. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will find some time between wrestling with the finance of the Home Rule Bill and his endeavour to negotiate cheaper postage with the countries with which we are on friendly terms—both of them important jobs, the latter more than the former—to devote his attention to the humdrum but necessary business of putting the telephone service on a businesslike and proper footing. It was fairly good before, though not as good as in a great many other less important countries, but now it is perfectly intolerable, and I trust the right hon. Gentleman will see his way before he goes into grandiose schemes of telephone extension, to persuade the people under his orders to be able to work the telephones they at present have.
  The hon. Member (Mr. King) trusted that the Government would not stop at a reduction of postal rates between this country and France, but that there would be a cheapening all round with other countries. That comes very badly from hon. Gentleman on that side of the House. They are introducing a federal system by bits, they are disestablishing the Church by bits, and they might just as well do a good thing by bits, and, if they can enable us to have a cheap postal service with one particular country, let us have the advantage of having it, without awaiting the issue of other negotiations.
  Mr. KING: The hon. Member has misinterpreted what I said. I said the negotiations with various countries might be taken up simultaneously.
  Mr. BAIRD: I do not think I misinterpreted the hon. Member, but, as I understand the negotiations with France are in a satisfactory position. I trust they will be brought to fruition without delay. This question of the telephone service wants serious attention. It is a perfect disgrace to civilisation, and certainly a disgrace to the Department.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I feel sure that those who are connected with the National Telephone Company have never

  1683
  realised how great their virtues have been until they have passed from the scene. De mortuis nil nisi bonum, and nothing but good is spoken of the National Telephone Company now that no one any longer has cause to complain of any defects in its service. The extreme exaggeration of the criticisms to which we have just listened—
  Mr. BAIRD: That is absolutely wrong. I have not exaggerated one single word. It is unjustifiable to accuse me of exaggeration when I have stated absolutely what occurred.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The hon. Member, among other things, said three out of four numbers asked for were wrongly connected. If the hon. Member's experience is confirmed by any other Member I shall be very greatly surprised. There is no use introducing heat or controversy into the matter. I will only repeat that the hon. Gentleman's criticisms, although I have no doubt they have some foundation, which I have already admitted and which I am anxious to remove by improving the service, are of themselves of the most exaggerated type.
  Mr. BAIRD: I deny it.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: With respect to the speech of the hon. Member for Falmouth (Mr. Goldman), who opened the discussion, I have to say that some of his points have been dealt with by my hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General. The hon. Member urged that the present system of delimitation of areas is inconvenient, and has become obsolete through the amalgamation of the company's system with that of the Post Office. I agree to a great extent with the hon. Member, and we are considering how best to redefine the boundaries of the exchange areas. I believe that we shall have to proceed on the basis of distance, and that existing boundaries should be reconsidered. The hon. Member for Wiltshire also raised the question of areas. The distribution of areas which the Department contemplate will, to a large extent I think, meet his views. We shall endeavour to have a natural centre in each district. I am not sure that an exchange district should include in all cases a fire brigade station, because if a farmer's rick or house was on fire the owner would not grudge to pay the twopence, or whatever was the amount for a call to the fire brigade if there were no fire brigade
  1684
  station in the exchange centre. We ought to place the exchanges where they will be most useful, and to say that they should never be situated except in towns where there are fire brigades would mean that many exchanges, which might have been opened in villages, would not be opened at all, and the extension of the telephone system would be hampered.
  I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman opposite that it is of great importance that a day and night service should be given wherever possible. The Post Office is largely extending its continuous services in the rural districts. With respect to the criticisms in regard to the thirty-four years' life of the plant, the figure quoted was arrived at a good many years ago at the time when the Post Office telephone installation consisted to a considerable extent, so far as capital expenditure is concerned, of underground conduits, which are very durable and have a long life, and that very much raised the average life of the whole of the plant. That figure is not now admitted by the Department, and, as a matter of fact the period of the life of the plant corresponds very closely with the period of repayment of capital expenditure. The hon. Member for Ealing raised a legal question. It is by no means a legal quibble which enables the telephone to be considered in the same light as the telegraph. On that legal decision of many years ago rests the whole of the Postmaster-General's monopoly with regard to the telephone, the licence granted to the Telephone Company, and the royalty they paid. Telephone wires have been treated on the same footing as telegraph wires for many years past; indeed, ever since the Post Office had telephones at all. It is quite impossible to treat future telephone wires with regard to way leaves on a different footing from the general telegraph system of the Post Office. The hon. Member for Wiltshire asked some questions with regard to rural party service lines and inquired to what extent the system has been adopted. Several hundred agreements are now being negotiated, and the number is increasing rapidly of farmers and others in rural districts who are prepared to take the telephone on the very low terms now offered. The offer is limited necessarily to exclude the first half-mile from the exchange, because you cannot distinguish in effect between a farmer and any other rural resident. Though these are called farmers' telephones that is only a nickname

  1685
  they are intended to be used by rural residents generally, who are willing to use a party-line service, and if you gave the right to use these telephones to farmers within a radius of half a mile of the exchange you could hardly refuse it to other persons within the radius, and the consequence would be that there would be no exchange nucleus. These party lines do not pay of themselves. It would be impossible to open an exchange merely to supply these party lines to farmers, the reason being that they allow no profit of any sort. They merely pay for themselves, but yield nothing for the staff and general expenses of the exchange. It is therefore necessary to have a certain number of subscribers at ordinary rates. You must have a nucleus before the exchange can be opened. A farmer living within a half mile can send a messenger or go to the village where the exchange is situate. We supply these telephones at very cheap rates for farmers who are living in isolation, and who need the benefit of them. The hon. Member also raised the question of the parcel post, and the inclusion of the weight of the wrapper in the weight of the parcel. There again you cannot discriminate what you do in the case of butter and fruit from what you do in the case of other parcels. That would mean in effect raising the postage weight permissible for 3d. from 11b. to 1¼lb. The 3d. rate already is barely remunerative, and a general extension of the weight allowed has been considered to be unjustified. If we are able to cheapen the carriage of parcels then possibly we might consider in future some revision in the direction of reductions for parcels.
  This Debate has been remarkable for two speeches, that of my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Mr. J. Collins), and that of the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury). Never before during the years in which I have been listening to Debates on the Post Office Estimates have I heard a speech advocating economy in any shape or form. The hon. Member's speech was unique, until rendered no longer unique by the speech of the hon. Member for the City of London. It is refreshing to find from some representatives some regard for the taxpayer. The hon. Member for Greenock criticised the form in which the Post Office Estimates are presented on the ground that they did not include the services rendered by other Departments to the Post Office. The reason why they are not
  1686
  included is that they are not borne on the Post Office Vote. The Office of Works Vote bears the cost of Post Office buildings; the Stationery Vote bears the cost of Post Office printing; the Treasury Vote bears the cost of rates on Post Office buildings. These items must necessarily be included for Parliamentary purposes in the Votes of those several Departments, but in the commercial accounts of the Post Office, in the Postmaster-General's Annual Report, allowance is made for this fact, and that is all set out, though perhaps in too small type, at page 56 of the Post Office Estimates. I will consider whether we might not modify the type. On the other hand, the Post Office renders services to other Departments, and takes credit for those services in its commercial accounts to the extent of between £400,000 and £500,000 a year. In the figures I gave the House to-day in introducing the Estimates I made allowance for all these things. I stated the actual profit to the State of the Post Office business after making allowance in that way for services rendered by other Departments to the Post Office, the charges for such falling on their Votes, and, on the other hand, for the services rendered by the Post Office to other Departments.
  The hon. Member and others following him spoke of the loss incurred on the telegraph service. The reasons for that are several. In the first place a very large sum was paid forty years ago to the telegraph companies for their equipment and plant, a matter which I hope will not recur when we pay for the Telephone Company's plant. It is the case that Press privileges are very remunerative to them, although they are very unremunerative to the State, costing the Post Office £205,000 a year. But those are statutory conditions which are not within my power to alter. The opposition of the Press was mitigated at the time of the transfer of the telegraph companies' plant to the State in 1870, by conferring upon them by the State of certain rights which they now enjoy, and to which I must necessarily submit. The sixpenny telegrams which were pressed upon the Post Office by the House of Commons a good many years ago are not remunerative. We have made many extensions into the rural districts, and we deliberately did that for the sake of adding to the amenities of those districts. Some years ago there was a large Post Office surplus, and it was deliberately decided to spend some

  1687
  portion of that surplus in extending the telegraph service into the rural districts, and that loss, intentionally made, now contributes to the loss of a million a year. Lastly, the advent of the telephone system has eaten up a large amount of business of the telegraph service—short distance messages—leaving to the telegraph service the long distance messages which are not of a remunerative character. These are the reasons that account for the loss on the telegraph service.
  I dealt earlier to-day with the question of a State-owned Atlantic cable, and I also dealt with it on the occasion of the Easter Adjournment. Hon. Members who have spoken to-day used arguments which have not brought conviction to my mind. If we were presently engaged in war, a State-owned cable would not be more immune than any other cable from being cut. On the contrary, in all probability the very first thing would be that the enemy would cut the cable because it was a Government cable and laid very largely for strategic purposes. In the second place, from what I have been able to learn, I by no means agree that the British Government cyphers are so easily deciphered as has been represented. They are not based on keywords, or anything that could be easily guessed. So far as the commercial aspect of the question is concerned, hon. Members have indicated that the loss to be borne is very inconsiderable—some £10,000 a year—and in the next breath they advocate that the first thing the State-owned Atlantic cable should do would be to reduce the rates, thereby largely decreasing its revenue, unless it attracted an equivalent amount of traffic. A reduction of the rates must increase the initial loss which would certainly fall upon a State-owned Atlantic cable. True, we have given subsidies in other parts of the world; true we have shared the expense, with other Governments, of the Pacific cable, but in those cases there were no cables at all, and if the Government had not come forward at last to establish those services, no telegraphic communication would have been possible in those cases. I look forward to obtaining some result from a control of the rates charged, and to get some reduction without any investment of the capital of the State, or any annual loss.
  As to Anglo-French Penny Postage, I have dealt with that question frequently
  1688
  in this House, and I have not time to deal with it fully now, except to say that the position in France is much the same as here. The French Government realise, as we realise, that you cannot establish a penny postage rate between the two countries only, and they see quite well that if they had penny postage with England it is necessary to extend it to Belgium, Switzerland, Germany, Italy, and Spain, the neighbours who adjoin to their frontiers. The hon. Member for North Somerset (Mr. King) suggested that there would be more hope of a speedy advance in this direction if hon. Members would advocate a slighter reduction in the first instance, perhaps a postage rate of l½d. M. Chaumet, the French Postmaster-General, who was in London a few days ago, made a similar suggestion. Perhaps hon. Members would consider that, and it may be the prospect of persuading the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be better if there were some more moderate proposal of reduction, at all events in the first instance. There are a number of other questions that have been raised. Assistant women clerks have been discussed often, and I am afraid I have not time to add anything. I will only say that no addition has been made to the number of assistant women clerks in contradiction to the pledge which I gave. None have been appointed in substitution for women clerks or for doing work which has been previously regarded as work of women clerks. I will certainly give further consideration to the question of eight, hours. As to the question of retrenched Civil servants from the Transvaal, a difficulty arises from the fact of the starting pay which being fixed by the Hobhouse Committee as being suitable for persons of the age of twenty-one. These, of course, are men much older than twenty-one. To give them special pay would involve raising the whole question of the pay of ex-soldiers and sailors, and, as that raises a very large question indeed, I am obliged to refer it to the Select Committee.
  Sir G. PARKER: The Select Committee will consider it?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The Select Committee will go into this matter, and I hope they will be able to effect some solution. I am much obliged to the House for the favourable reception which has been given to the Estimates.
  Sir W. BYLES: I for one cannot agree that the Post Office is right in making a profit of four or five millions per year. The right hon. Gentleman says if they did not make that profit that they would have to put a duty on tea or increase the Income Tax. I do not see why those of us who use the Post Office should pay in order to give the tea drinker his tea more
  cheaply, or save the Income Tax payer from the weight of taxation which properly ought to fall upon him.
  Question put, "That a sum not exceeding £13,808,850 be granted for the said Service."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 45; Noes, 139.

  Division No. 90.]

  AYES.

  [10.58 p.m.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Aitken, Sir William Max

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Rees, Sir J. D.

  Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

  Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.)

  Royds, Edmund

  Baird, J. L.

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks)

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)

  Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Sykes, Mark (Hull Central)

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilton)

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Bigland, Alfred

  Hunt, Rowland

  Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Burn, Col. C. R.

  Macmaster, Donald

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

  Cave, George

  Newman, John R. P.

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Goldman and Sir George Doughty.

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Nield, Herbert

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Goldstone, Frank

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  O'Grady, James

  Agnew, Sir George

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

  Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

  Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Armitage, Robert

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Hardie, J. Keir

  Pointer, Joseph

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick)

  Hayward, Evan

  Radford, George Heynes

  Beale, W. P.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Higham, John Sharp

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shileds)

  Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts, St. George)

  Hinds, John

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Boland, John Plus

  Hogge, James Myles

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Brace, William

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Brunner, J. F. L.

  Hughes, S. L.

  Roch, Walter F.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  John, Edward Thomas

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Rowlands, James

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

  Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Joyce, Michael

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Keating, M.

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  King, J. (Somerset, N.)

  Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Shortt, Edward

  Chapple, Dr. W. A.

  Lansbury, George

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Clough, William

  Lawson, S. W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Ciltheroe)

  Clynes, J. R.

  Leach, Charles

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Tennant, Harold John

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

  Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

  Crooks, William

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth))

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Warner, Sir T. C. T.

  Dawes, James A.

  McKenns, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Watt, Henry A.

  De Forest, Baron

  M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)

  Webb, H.

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Doris, William

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Mooney, John J.

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Munro, Robert

  Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Falconer, James

  Nolan, Joseph

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Norman, Sir Henry

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  Furness, Stephen

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  And, it being after Eleven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair, to make his Report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow (Tuesday).

LONDON INSTITUTION (TRANSFER) [MONEY].
Committee to consider of authorising the payment of a sum, out of moneys provided by Parliament, in pursuance of any Act of the present Session to provide for the transfer to the Commissioners of Works of certain property of the London Institution for the purposes of a School of Oriental Studies, and for the dissolution of the Institution, and for purposes in connection therewith (King's Recommendation signified), To-morrow.—[Mr. Joseph Pease.]
Adjourned at Thirteen minutes after Eleven o'clock.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
  LECTURERS.
  LECTURERS.
  INQUIRIES BY EMPLOYEES.
  INQUIRIES BY EMPLOYEES.
  NURSES IN PRIVATE PRACTICE.
  NURSES IN PRIVATE PRACTICE.
  County of Middlesex (Exchequer Contribution).
  County of Middlesex (Exchequer Contribution).
  Budget Surplus, 1911–12.
  Budget Surplus, 1911–12.
  School Teachers' Pension (Ireland).
  School Teachers' Pension (Ireland).
  House of Commons (Payment of Members)
  House of Commons (Payment of Members)
  Minerals Duty.
  Minerals Duty.
  Housing Miners (Loans).
  Housing Miners (Loans).
  Irish Land Stock.
  Irish Land Stock.
  Estate Duty.
  Estate Duty.
  Fee Simple (Substituted Value).
  Fee Simple (Substituted Value).
  Admiralty and Outports Clerical federation.
  Admiralty and Outports Clerical federation.
  Fire Brigade Officers.
  Fire Brigade Officers.
  Consol Stocks.
  Consol Stocks.
  Customs Officials.
  Customs Officials.
  Road Improvement Fund.
  Road Improvement Fund.
  Junior Grades in Customs and Excise.
  Junior Grades in Customs and Excise.
  Superannuation Schemes.
  Superannuation Schemes.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Boycotting and Intimidation (Cavan).
  Boycotting and Intimidation (Cavan).
  Dublin Corporation (Accounts).
  Dublin Corporation (Accounts).
  Congested Districts Board (Castlerea).
  Congested Districts Board (Castlerea).
  Disturbance at an Auction (Armagh).
  Disturbance at an Auction (Armagh).
  Gaelic-Speaking People (Ireland).
  Gaelic-Speaking People (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Reinstatement of Evicted Tenants (Ireland).
  Reinstatement of Evicted Tenants (Ireland).
  Congested Estates, County Tipperary.
  Congested Estates, County Tipperary.
  Civil Servants (Ireland).
  Civil Servants (Ireland).
  Police Charges (England and Ireland).
  Police Charges (England and Ireland).
ROYAL NAVY.
  FLEET MOVEMENTS.
  FLEET MOVEMENTS.
  Malta and Gibraltar Garrisons.
  Malta and Gibraltar Garrisons.
  Army Ordnance Corps.
  Army Ordnance Corps.
TERRITORIAL FORCE.
  SIR JOHN FRENCH.
  SIR JOHN FRENCH.
  Medical Treatment of Children.
  Medical Treatment of Children.
  Elementary School Teachers Superannuation Act (Amendment) Bill.
  Elementary School Teachers Superannuation Act (Amendment) Bill.
SHOPS ACT.
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL.
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL.
  Suffragist Prisoners (Birmingham),
  Suffragist Prisoners (Birmingham),
  Normanton Cemetery.
  Normanton Cemetery.
  British Trade with Canada.
  British Trade with Canada.
  Punjabhai Someshwar Bhatt.
  Punjabhai Someshwar Bhatt.
  Anand Sikh Marriage Bill.
  Anand Sikh Marriage Bill.
  State Liabilities.
  State Liabilities.
  Bethnal Green Guardians (Outdoor Relief),
  Bethnal Green Guardians (Outdoor Relief),
  Merthyr Board of Guardians.
  Merthyr Board of Guardians.
  Production of Silver.
  Production of Silver.