I am sure that the Committee will appreciate that my hon. Friend never intended to embarrass the Postmaster-General, but I may at least try to clear up some of the difficulties which have been raised. The original scheme was introduced by the Government of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith). That scheme had two objects. The first claim made was that the motor traffic had not developed then as it has to-day, and that there was considerable delay in dealing with the mails under the old system of horse traffic, and the idea of a tube railway was suggested not only to expedite the traffic but to relieve congestion, so far as London was concerned. It is true, as my right hon. Friend said, that there was not one particular scheme but that there was a number of schemes. That was the original intention of the Government. That scheme was proceeded with and in 1921 the tunnelling was completed. In October, 1920, tenders were invited for electrical equipment, but as the cost under the lowest tender was found to be so high, in relation to the pre-War estimates, it was decided to wait for a more favourable opportunity. In other words, though nearly a million pounds had already been spent, the full scheme could not be made operative, because it was felt that the original estimate would be exceeded so much owing to the situation caused by the War.

In October 1921, the matter was again considered in the light of the fall in cost which had already taken place. Again the Cabinet decided that the estimates were too high, and that the matter should stand over. That was the second time the Cabinet considered the scheme after the tunnelling had been completed. In the autumn of 1923—that is only five months ago—the Cabinet again considered the question, and authorised the Postmaster-General to proceed immediately with the work. The estimate of my right hon. Friend, therefore, is not an estimate for which we are responsible at all, but it is to give effect to a considered Cabinet decision of five months ago to render useful the expenditure of £1,000,000 which will be useless until we spend another £500,000. In other words my right hon. Friend is merely defending the expenditure of £500,000, previously sanctioned by the late Cabinet, which is necessary to make remunerative the £1,000,000 already expended. That is the short history of the case, and I would put it to the Committee that my right hon. Friend is hardly called upon to make any excuse for the existing situation.

Another question put was as to the intention of His Majesty's Government with regard to the further schemes which were contemplated, because even when this is expended and this scheme is finished there is a number of other, tubes apparently foreshadowed. On that point the Government have come to no decision. With regard to the further point which has been raised, if this expenditure could be met out of revenue it ought not to be for the House of Commons to complain. I cannot conceive why there should be criticism of a proposal to meet expenditure out of revenue if it can be so met. It is far better to cut your cloth according to your measure. My right hon. Friend should not be criticised for a proposal which is rather a virtue than a fault. I have desired to make the position clear, because I think it unfair that my right hon. Friend should be asked to defend something for which he is not responsible and should be criticised by those who are responsible for it.