Another evil of ignoring the difference in principle of a public monopoly and a private monopoly has been the practice of applying to public monopolies the practice which all private monopolies endeavour to achieve (and properly so as their sole object is profit), namely, to put down all possible competition. If the principle I advocate, namely, that the =sole object of a public monopoly is the benefit of the community=, then if some improvement in the service, the subject of such monopoly, shall be invented, which is proved to be practicable, the public should have the benefit of such improvement, and, =instead of a prohibition of such private enterprise every encouragement should be given= to it. In our Navy, when new inventions are found which increase its efficiency, no time or money is lost in adopting them, even at the expense of discarding comparatively modern men-of-war or appliances. The risk to the nation of not doing so is too great to allow considerations of expense to stand in the way. But what has happened in the case of so important a commercial matter as the Telephone? The Post Office are authorised by Act of Parliament to forbid any competition, a provision evidently enacted under the impression that a public monopoly must have Statutory protection against competition, which a private monopoly always seeks to obtain, but has to pay for. Having this monopoly, and having purchased the telegraphs, the Post Office from the first regarded telephones with the utmost jealousy, because it seemed likely to interfere with its “Profits”! Lord Avebury quotes from “The Times” of 13th June, 1884, as follows:--[10] “… the action of the Post Office has been so directed as to throw every possible difficulty in the way of the development of the telephone, and of its constant employment by the public. We say advisedly, ‘every possible difficulty,’ because the regulations under which licences have been granted to the telephone companies are in many respects as completely prohibitory as an absolute refusal of them.” “… the effects of this claim are nearly as disastrous to the Country as to the inventors and owners of the instruments.”