Advertisement

Nationalization

  • Simone Fari
Chapter

Abstract

1865 marked the second turning point in the telegraph communications market with the abolition of the flat charge and public opinion building up in favour of nationalization as the only way to redress an inefficient and costly telegraph service. The following year Frank Ives Scudamore drew up for the Post Office a first official plan for the Government’s acquisition of British telegraph network. Then in early 1868 the Bill was presented in Parliament and approved with only a few minor amendments. The next year a second Telegraph Bill was discussed, with the aim of establishing a government monopoly and the indemnity for the telegraph companies. As of 1 January 1870 the British network was Government-run, as in all European states. The surprising speed with which the project was realized was due basically to two facts. Firstly, customer dissatisfaction was by then well entrenched and rising rapidly with the strengthening of the oligopoly. Secondly, the opposition of the telegraph companies and the railroads gave way at once, as they were all open to financial negotiations.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 2.
    The only exception was Andrew Wynter, “The Electric Telegraph”, Quarterly Review, 95, June, 1854, pp. 150–151. Nevertheless, there was no follow-up to this proposal; it remained an isolated case.Google Scholar
  2. 17.
    Charles R. Perry, The Victorian Post Office. The Growth of a Bureaucracy, Woolbridge, The Royal Historical Society-The Boydell Press, 1992.Google Scholar
  3. 18.
    Nicholas C. Edsall, Richard Cobden Independent Radical, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 21.
    Charles R. Perry, “Frank Ives Scudamore and the Post Office Telegraphs”, Albion: A Quarterly Journal Concerned with British Studies, 12/4, 1980, pp. 350–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 29.
    Samuel Edward Finer, The Life and Times of Sir Edwin Chadwick, London, Methuen, 1952;Google Scholar
  6. 29.
    Anthony Brundage, England’s “Prussian Minister”: Edwin Chadwick and the Politics of Government Growth, 1832–1854, University Park, Pennsylvania State University Press, 1988.Google Scholar
  7. 50.
    Alf Peacock, “George Leeman and York Politics 1833–1880”, in C.H. Feinstein (ed.), York, 1831–1981: 150 Years of Scientific Endeavour and Social Change, York, William Sessions Limited, 1981, pp. 234–254.Google Scholar
  8. 55.
    Arthur D. Elliot, The Life of George Joachim Goschen, First Viscount Goschen, 1831–1907, London, Longmans Green, 1911;Google Scholar
  9. 55.
    Thomas J. Spinner, George Joachim Goschen: The Transformation of a Victorian Liberal, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1973.Google Scholar
  10. 91.
    Hugo Richard Meyer, The British State Telegraphs. A Study of the Problem of a Large Body of Civil Servants in a Democracy, New York, The Macmillan Company, 1907.Google Scholar
  11. 93.
    Paul Johnson, Making the Market. Victorian Origins of Corporate Capitalism, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2010, pp. 25–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 94.
    John Stuart, Mill, Principles of Political Economy, Vol. II, Boston, Charles C. Little & James Brown, 1848, pp. 537–557.Google Scholar
  13. 104.
    Patrice Durand Barthez, Union Internationale des Télécommunications, Thèse pour le doctorat en droit, Université de Paris I Pantheon Sorbonne Sciences Economiques Sciences Humaines-Sciences Juridiques, 1979.Google Scholar
  14. 105.
    Simone Fari, Gabriele Balbi, Giuseppe Richeri, “European Multilateralism” (1848 1865): A Telegraphic Idea? Paper presented at the 6th Plenary Conference of Tensions of Europe, Paris, September 1921, 2013.Google Scholar
  15. 109.
    Gabriele Balbi, Simone Fari, Spartaco Calvo, Giuseppe Richeri, “Swiss Specialties: Switzerland’s Role in the Genesis of the Telegraph Union, 1855–1875”, Journal of European Integration History, 19 (2), 2013, pp. 207–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 110.
    Simone Fari, The Formative Years of the Telegraph Union, Cambridge, Cambridge Scholar Publishing, 2015.Google Scholar
  17. 111.
    Daniel Headrick, The Invisible Weapon. Telecommunications and International Politics 1851–1945, New York, Oxford University Press, 1991, pp. 20–24.Google Scholar
  18. 112.
    Robert Boyce, “S ubmarine Cables as a Factor in Britain’s Ascendancy”, in Michael North (ed.), Kommunikationsrevolutionen. Die neunen Medien des 16. und 19. Jahrhunderts, Köln-Weimar-Wein, Böhlau Verlag, 1995, pp. 81–100.Google Scholar
  19. 113.
    Peter J. Hugill, Global Communications since 1844. Geopolitics and Technology, Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999, pp. 25–52.Google Scholar
  20. 115.
    Paul M. Kennedy, “Imperial Cable Communications and Strategy, 1870–1914”, The English Historical Review, 86/104, October, 1971, pp. 728–752.Google Scholar
  21. 116.
    Colin Hampsted, “The Early Years of Oceanic Telegraphy: Technology, Science and Politics”, IEE Proceedings, 136/A6, 1989, pp. 297–305.Google Scholar
  22. 117.
    Simone Müller, “The Transatlantic Telegraphs and the Class of 1866 — The Formative Years of Transnational Networks in Telegraphic Space, 1858–1884–89”, Historical Social Research, 35/1, 2010, pp. 237–259.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Simone Fari 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Simone Fari
    • 1
  1. 1.University of GranadaSpain

Personalised recommendations