Introduction 1 5 



while its rival, the National, was permitted to provide its sub- 

 scribers with the service. In Edinburgh, after long agitation, the 

 telephone exchange was joined to the telegraph office in 1888 or 

 1889, but childish regulations were made which greatly impaired 

 the usefulness of the service, it being permissible, under them, for 

 a man on one side of a street to have his telegrams telephoned to 

 him, while his opposite neighbour could not. There is no parallel 

 to such things on the Continent. 



It is true that the Post Office now proposes, under its agree- 

 ment with the National Telephone Company, to give facilities 

 more commensurate with foreign practice, which is distinctly news 

 to be rejoiced at ; but why has the community been forced to wait 

 fourteen years for them ? 



The charges scheduled in respect to the new services in 

 the agreement compare most unfavourably with those in vogue 

 elsewhere. Thirty words, if they can be telephoned and written 

 down by a possibly inexpert clerk in three minutes, are to cost 

 3^/. in a message intended for local delivery; but ten words 

 for 2d. without any time limit would be better. Few people 

 require to send thirty- word messages, and those who do may 

 without injustice be left to pay extra for them. No provision is 

 made for allowing the replies to such messages to be prepaid by 

 the senders, nor for the messenger who delivers them to bring 

 back the replies for immediate telephoning, which is a facility that 

 is enjoyed in several countries abroad. The foreign telephono- 

 grams operate both ways ; apparently the British message is to be 

 from the subscriber only. Then it is restricted to subscribers 

 only. In Denmark and Spain such messages, written down, may 

 be handed in at any public telephone station, telephoned by the 

 attendant to the central office, and thence delivered by messenger. 

 In Germany a ten-word message of this description costs 2d. ; in 

 Copenhagen 1-99^. ; while in Madrid one of twenty words can 

 be sent for \'<^2d. Is there any valid reason why the Londoners 

 or Glaswegians should be denied a parallel privilege, or why the 

 Post Office should discriminate against the general public in favour 

 of subscribers to a monopoly like the National Telephone Com- 

 pany ? Then the Post Office charge of 3^. is liable to be increased 

 by a terminal charge on the part of the company. This should 



