article, which has no doubt been brought under the notice of the Postmaster General, by the Duke of Marlborough on "The Future of Telephonic Communication." No one who has read that article could fail to come to the conclusion that it is absolutely necessary for the State to take over the telephonic system, and to introduce some system such as is in force in Melbourne, a city with only a third of a million of inhabitants. I trust that this will not be made a Party question, but will receive the support of the entire House, and I have pleasure in supporting the Resolution.

Amendment proposed,

To leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the Post Office system of granting licences to private telephone companies having resulted in the restriction of telephonic communication in this country and a costly and inefficient service, this House is of opinion that, alike in the interest of the postal telegraph and the telephone service, the telephonic monopoly possessed by the Post Office should be worked directly and in connection with the Postal Telegraph Department," Cameron,)

-instead thereof.

(Dr.

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

*(3.26.) SIR A. ROLLIT (Islington, S.): I agree most cordially with the hon. Gentleman (Mr. H. Heaton) in expressing regret that more general notice was not given of this Debate, for I am certain that there is no question in which the commercial community just now takes more interest than in that of telephonic communicaI have had the opportunity, as Chairman of the Council of the London Chambe of Commerce, of ascertaining the wishes of the business part of the community with regard to this matter, and I do not hesitate to say that the general feeling is that in the matter of telephonic communication we are much behind other countries. Experience has conclusively proved that the telephone is a great commercial advantage, and, in fact, that in these days commerce cannot be successfully carried on unless the system of communications is as perfect as it can possibly be made. Despatch is now one of the chief elements of profit, and unless commerce has Mr. Henniker Heaton

at its service the latest and best appliances of science it cannot be conducted advantageously or properly. I believe, with the first speaker (Dr. Cameron), that the telephones could have been very profitably bought some years ago, and that every year adds to the sum we shall have to pay for them. For my own part, I value at its full rate the advantages which this country has derived from private enterprise, but I think there is now some danger of estimating too highly the service of private enterprise and of underrating the power and organisation of the State. The principle of action which I venture to suggest on this point is that the State ought, as a general rule, to do for the community those things which it individuals themselves; and this princan do cheaper and better than the ciple is, in my opinion, applicable both in the State and in the Municipalities, not only to subjects of which it has primary necessity, in been largely adopted, but also to our system of communication and the like. And, as regards communications, it is should bring to the aid of the india matter of some urgency that the State viduals greater power than they can themselves apply. Then I think there can be no doubt of this, that other countries are taking every means to avail themselves of that power and organisation on the part of the community. Let us contrast for a moment the want of development of the telephone compared, in the hands of private companies, with what has been done by the State in regard to graphs, and even the telephone itself. I had an opportunity of experiencing the other day the great facility with which communication could take place from the London General Post Office with so distant a place as Marseilles. That is no longer an experiment; it is a most admirable success as between London and the south of France. I have also some experience of such matters in America, where numbers of towns practically become one, and where an admirable system of intercommunication exists. And judging of the application of the telephone in this country I have no hesitation in saying that when conducted by the Post

tele

Office it is decidedly better than in the case of the application by the chief private company. So far as I have had an opportunity of comparing their relative merits, I believe the system introduced by the State under the admirable direction of Mr. Preece has been attended with great practical advantages in this country. It may not be cheaper, but, whether due to a complete metallic circuit and so to the limitation of induction (as I think essential), or to other causes, it is certainly much better because more audible. That being so, I think we ought to persevere in the same direction. The great obstacle, possibly, to the development of the telephonic system may be the fact that it may be made to contribute too much to revenue, I think, in the case of the Post Office that has been carried too far, and that the commercial community has been practically and unduly taxed for the benefit of others, thereas the community ought not to be taxed for classe or classes for the community. In the event of acquiring the telephonic system, therefore the House should protest against the Treasury regarding the system mainly or chiefly for revenue purposes. What the country wants, if it is to keep pace with competing nations, is the best and the cheapest forms of inter-communication.

(3.35.) MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton): I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, and it seems to me to be essentially a question whether in this particular monopoly the State ought to impose conditions on private companies, or do the work itself. The hon. Gentleman opposite has elaborated a very interesting and valuable Socialistic view of the duties of the State. I very much agree with him, speaking generally; but on this particular subject I would point out that this is essentially a luxury for the rich. ("No, no.") Well, you say "No"; my hon. Friend says "No" behind me. It depends upon who my hon. Friend considers a rich man. There is no doubt that if telephonic communication is introduced into houses generally, it will be at a charge of at least £6 per house. (Dr. CAMERON: No, £4.) Well, £4. I will split the difference, and say £5. Anyhow, as a matter of fact, it

will cost about £40 to connect any particular house with the telephone. You have got to pay interest on that; besides that, you have to pay for the expenditure of the central office-the people employed on the thing—and I think if anybody calculates it, he will see that I am not very far wrong in saying that the minimum cost in cities like London would certainly be over £5 for the privilege of being connected with the telephone. Therefore, I should not say that this is essentially a poor man's question, and I should rather say that it is a question for not a very rich man like my hon. Friend behind me, but for that man who has certainly a larger amount of wealth than the mass of the community. I remember talking to the late Mr. Fawcett when he was Postmaster General upon this very question, and at that time I urged him to take the patents up at the expense of the State, because I thought the telephone would compete in private hands with the telegraphs and injuriously affect the Revenue. The difficulty then was this: the patents were not in the hands of the original patentee, the patents had. got into the hands of the promoters o companies and such like persons. It, would, consequently, involve a charge of an immense sum of money for these patents more than they were worth, considering that the patents would be out after the lapse of about 14 years. That was the reason why Mr. Fawcett did not take up the cables. I remember putting the matter to the late Mr. Raikes when he was Postmaster General, and he pointed out to me that he himself personally was in favour of taking over the whole thing, but he said the Treasury were not in favour of it, looking at the very great expenditure. The expenditure would be very great indeed. It would amount to about £8,000,000, and certainly it is a matter seriously to be considered, not whether this would add to the Revenue but whether this would pay its expenditure, before we undertake it. Now, my hon. Friend behind me has complained of the essential monopolies involved in the present system of licences; but, as I understand the Government plan, that is not intended. As a matter of fact, I believe that almost all the persons who have

an extent as that with which I am connected, with the hindrances and the disadvantages with which it has had to contend, and the utter absence of any power of communication from place to place, and having to do all its business on sufferance. The hon. Member for the College Division of Glasgow has talked about "costly and inefficient service." I should like to state that over 160,000,000 messages have been transmitted at the cost of under d. a message over the wires of the National Telephone Company, which, with the answers incidental, and which, Sir, you know as "arising out of," represent nearer 200,000,000. On the question that the trunk wires are inefficient I may state that on one day we sent 40,000 messages between Liverpool and Manchester districts. One more instance to show that we are not so inefficient in Leicester, Her Majesty's Post Office Telephone had 130 subscribers in July, 1890, when the Company's Office was opened. The Government Office has now only 100, while the National Company have 275, and yet our subscribers have not the same privileges of those of Her Majesty's Post Office. I cannot understand how it is that in a free country like this the licences of the Government are not entitled to the same privileges as the Government subscribers themselves. In spite, however, of this dead weight, the Company has made marvellous way in all parts of the country. I will also say that if it had the requisite and proper powers it has the means, it has the intelligence, and it has the staff, to meet the requirements of its subscribers in London also; and it would be perfectly able to do the work if the Postmaster General would delegate to it those powers for which it contends. I trust it will not be considered that I am holding a brief for the National Company; and that the House will excuse me for desiring to show that it has made very considerable progress, and done much towards the cheapening of communication in this country.

(3.56.) MR. CUNINGHAM E GRAHAM (Lanark, N.W.): Both the hon. Member for Northampton and the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down have failed to show us any reason

why the telephonic system should not be taken over by the State. I do not regard the acquisition of it by the State as a mere commercial act. I believe it would be more to the benefit of the community if it were worked by the State than by private companies. Let me take the case of the Small Arms Factory at Enfield. I hold that it would have been impossible, had that factory been in the hands of a private company, to have attracted so much attention to what has occurred there, and to have obtained such favourable answers from Ministers with regard to it. I deplore the loss of the profits which might have been made had the State taken over the railway system of the country. Telephone communication will undoubtedly progress in the same ratio as the railways have progressed, and it will be another source of regret if the profits which will arise from it are enjoyed by private companies instead of by the community at large. There was one statement which fell from the hon. Member for the College Division of Glasgow, from which I must entirely dissociate myself. If there is one profession in the world which requires the services of a skilled operator it is that which is connected with the telephone. Personally, I have never been able to understand what anyone says to me through it, and I doubt whether those who have been the recipients of my confidences by its means have made out what I have said myself. Therefore, I take it that the telephonic trade is a highly skilled trade. I hope that the House will adopt the Resolution of the hon. Member for the College Division of Glasgow.

(4.3.) MR. ESSLEMONT (Aberdeen, E.): It has been stated that the telephonic communication in London would have been more satisfactory had the Company had sufficient powers to work upon. I quite believe that that is true; but I say that no Government can wisely give to a private company the powers that are necessary to conduct an undertaking of this kind. Private rights are so large that no company could be permitted to make profit out of a concession made to the public. The whole benefit of the concession ought to be in the hands of