diff options
| author | nfenwick <nfenwick@pglaf.org> | 2025-03-07 20:34:09 -0800 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | nfenwick <nfenwick@pglaf.org> | 2025-03-07 20:34:09 -0800 |
| commit | fe944a275437e20c32cdb78e84f4480e73f1b7fe (patch) | |
| tree | 8df82ac02bc406a95fc1166cde0545084cc9f82a /42983-8.txt | |
| parent | cc497d1a8205f7e8970b4d8257863a1f3a1743df (diff) | |
Diffstat (limited to '42983-8.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | 42983-8.txt | 11901 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 11901 deletions
diff --git a/42983-8.txt b/42983-8.txt deleted file mode 100644 index aebeb65..0000000 --- a/42983-8.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,11901 +0,0 @@ -The Project Gutenberg EBook of The History of the British Post Office, by -Joseph Clarence Hemmeon - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with -almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or -re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included -with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org - - -Title: The History of the British Post Office - -Author: Joseph Clarence Hemmeon - -Release Date: June 18, 2013 [EBook #42983] - -Language: English - -Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1 - -*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK HISTORY OF THE BRITISH POST OFFICE *** - - - - -Produced by Adrian Mastronardi, Eric Skeet, The Philatelic -Digital Library Project at http://www.tpdlp.net and the -Online Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net -(This file was produced from images generously made -available by The Internet Archive/Canadian Libraries) - - - - - - - -Transcriber's Notes: - -(1) Obvious spelling, punctuation, and typographical errors have been -corrected. - -(2) Italic text is denoted by _underscores_. - -(3) Table V in the Appendix has been split into two parts (Scotland and -Ireland), in view of its page width. - -____________________________________________ - - - - -THE HISTORY OF -THE BRITISH POST OFFICE - -BY -J. C. HEMMEON, PH.D. - -_PUBLISHED FROM THE INCOME OF THE -WILLIAM H. BALDWIN, JR., 1885, FUND_ - -[Illustration] - -CAMBRIDGE -HARVARD UNIVERSITY -1912 - - - - -COPYRIGHT, 1912, BY THE PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE - -ALL RIGHTS RESERVED - -_Published January 1912_ - - - - -PREFACE - - -In justice to those principles which influenced the policy of the Post -Office before the introduction of penny postage, it is perhaps -unnecessary to call attention to the fact that no opinion as to their -desirability or otherwise is justifiable which does not take into -consideration the conditions and prejudices which then prevailed. Some -of the earlier writers on the Post Office have made the mistake of -condemning everything which has not satisfied the measure of their own -particular rule. If there is anything that the historical treatment of a -subject teaches the investigator it is an appreciation of the fact that -different conditions call for different methods of treatment. For -example, the introduction of cheap postage was possibly delayed too -long. But during the era of high postal rates a large net revenue was of -primary importance, nor were those conditions present which would have -made low rates a success. - -The consideration of such debatable subjects as the telegraph system of -the Postal Department and the department's attitude toward the telephone -companies, as well as the intention of the Post Office to acquire the -business of the latter, must necessarily give rise to controversy. -Thanks to the magnificent net revenue obtained from letters in the -United Kingdom the department has been able to lose a good deal of money -by the extension of its activities into the realm of affairs not purely -postal. Possibly a _democratic_ type of government should, from the -financial point of view, interfere least in the direct management of -economic institutions, on account of the pressure which can easily be -brought to bear upon it for the extension of such institutions on other -than economic grounds. If non-economic principles are to be substituted -in justifying the initiation or increase of government ownership, a -popular form of government seems the least suitable for the presentation -of such as shall be fair to all concerned, not to mention the difficult -problem of dealing with those members of the civil service who do not -hesitate to make use of their political power to enforce their demands -upon the government. - -In the treatment of a subject so complex as the history of the British -Post Office it is not easy to decide how far its presentation should be -strictly chronological or how far it should be mounted in "longitudinal -sections," exposing its most salient features. Both methods have their -advantages and their disadvantages. In order to obtain what is useful in -both, I have described chronologically in the first four chapters the -progress of the Post Office, while in the remaining chapters I have -examined separately some of the more important aspects of postal -development. But I am aware that by this compromise I have not entirely -escaped the dangers of abrupt transitions from subject to subject and of -the accumulation of dry details. I can only plead in extenuation, in the -first place the nature of my subject, an institution with a long and -varied history, characterized by the steady extension of its field of -activity, and in the second place my desire to make my study as thorough -as possible, even at the risk of some sacrifice of unity and interest of -treatment. - -The material for this sketch has been obtained from the Harvard -University Library, the Boston Public Library, and the Canadian -Parliamentary Library. Work was also done in the Library of the British -Museum. I wish to acknowledge the help I have received from the advice -and criticism of Professor Gay, under whose supervision the larger part -of this history was prepared. - - J. C. HEMMEON. - - - - - CONTENTS - - - CHAPTER I - - THE POSTAL ESTABLISHMENT SUPPORTED DIRECTLY BY THE STATE--PRIOR - TO 1635 3 - - -Methods of postal communication in vogue before the establishment of the -Post Office. The first Postmaster-General and his duties. Alternative -systems. The posts in Elizabeth's reign. Appointment of a Foreign -Postmaster-General. Rivalry between the two Postmasters-General. -Witherings as Foreign Postmaster-General. - - -CHAPTER II - - THE POSTAL ESTABLISHMENT A SOURCE OF REVENUE TO THE STATE--1635-1711 13 - -Condition of the postal establishment at the beginning of the -seventeenth century. Witherings' project adopted. Disturbance produced -in the Post Office by the struggle between the two Houses of Parliament. -Rival claimants for the office of Postmaster-General. The Civil War and -its effects upon the Post Office. The Post Office during the -Commonwealth. Farming of the Post Office. Complaints about the delivery -of letters after the Restoration. Condition of the postal establishment -at the close of the seventeenth century. Dockwra's London Penny Post. -Extension of the foreign postal service. Conditions in Ireland, -Scotland, and the American Colonies. - - -CHAPTER III - - THE POSTAL ESTABLISHMENT AN INSTRUMENT OF TAXATION--1711-1840 34 - -The Post Office Act of 1711. The Post Office as a whole ceases to be -farmed. Allen undertakes the farm of the bye and cross posts. -Improvements in postal communications during the first half of the -eighteenth century. Controversy over the delivery of letters. -Competition from post coaches. Establishment of mail coaches by Palmer. -Abuses in the Post Office and their reform. Opening and detention of -letters. Franking of newspapers in certain cases and other privileges -abolished. The Newspaper and Dead Letter Offices. Registration of -letters. Money Order Office. Changes in the London Penny Post. -Consolidation of different branches of the Post Office in London. Dublin -and Edinburgh Penny Posts. Question of Sunday posts. Conditions under -which mail coaches were supplied. Conveyance of mails by railways. -Condition of the postal establishment during the first half of the -nineteenth century. Irish Post Office and postal rates. Scotch Post -Office. Sir Rowland Hill's plan. Investigation of postal affairs by a -committee. Report of committee. Adoption of inland penny postage. - - -CHAPTER IV - - THE POSTAL ESTABLISHMENT AN INSTRUMENT OF POPULAR COMMUNICATION--SINCE - 1840 63 - -Reductions in rates of postage, inland, colonial and foreign; and -resultant increase in postal matter. Insurance and registration of -letters. Failure of attempt to introduce compulsory prepayment of -postage. Perforated postage stamps. Free and guaranteed delivery of -letters in rural districts. Express or special delivery of letters. -Newspaper postage rates. Book or Halfpenny Post. Pattern and Sample -Post. Use of postcards. Parcel Post. Question of "cash on delivery." -Postal notes. Their effect upon the number of money orders. Savings -banks. Assurance and annuity privileges. Reform in these offices by Mr. -Fawcett. Methods of conveyance of the mails. Condition of postal -employees. Sunday labour. Dissatisfaction of employees with committee of -1858. Mr. Fawcett's reforms in 1881 and 1882. Mr. Raikes' concessions in -1888, 1890, and 1891. Appointment of Tweedmouth Committee in 1895 gives -little satisfaction to the men. Appointment of a departmental committee. -Grievances of the men. Report of committee accepted only in part by the -Postmaster-General. Continued demand of the men for a select committee. -Concessions granted to the men by Mr. Buxton, the Postmaster-General. -Select committee appointed. Their report adopted by Mr. Buxton. -Continued dissatisfaction among the men. - - -CHAPTER V - - THE TRAVELLERS' POST AND POST HORSES 89 - -Horses provided by the postmasters. Complaints concerning the letting of -horses. Monopoly in letting horses granted to the postmasters. Reforms -during Witherings' administration. Fees charged. Postmasters' monopoly -abridged. Licences required and duties levied. These duties let out to -farm. Licences and fees re-adjusted. - - -CHAPTER VI - - ROADS AND SPEED 97 - -Post roads in the sixteenth century. Speed at which mails were carried -in the sixteenth century. Abuses during first part of the seventeenth -century. New roads opened. Roads in Ireland and Scotland. First cross -post road established in 1698. Improvement in speed. Delays in -connection with Irish packet boats. Increased speed obtained from use of -railways. - - -CHAPTER VII - - SAILING PACKETS AND FOREIGN CONNECTIONS 109 - -Establishment of first regular sailing packets. Sailing packets in the -seventeenth century. Difficulty with the Irish Office. Postal -communications with the continent during the sixteenth century. -Witherings improves the foreign service. Agreements with foreign -postmasters-general. Expressions of dissatisfaction. Treaties with -France. King William's interest in the Harwich sailing packets. Effect -of the war with France. Postal communications with France improved. -Dummer's West Indian packet boats. Other lines. Increase in number of -sailing packets. Steam packets introduced by the Post Office. They are -badly managed and prove a financial loss. Report against government -ownership of the steam packets. Ship letter money. Question of carriage -of goods. Trouble with custom's department adjusted. Methods of -furnishing supplies for the packet boats. Abuses in the sailing packet -service reformed. Expenses. Sailing packets transferred to the -Admiralty. Committee reports against principle of government ownership -of packet boats and payment of excessive sums to contractors. -Abandonment of principle of government ownership. General view of packet -services in existence at middle of the nineteenth century. Contracts -with steamship companies. Controversy with the companies. General view -of the packet service in 1907 with principles adopted in concluding -contracts. Expenses of sailing packets. - - -CHAPTER VIII - - RATES AND FINANCE 135 - -Foreign rates, 1626. First inland rates, 1635. Rates prescribed by -Council of State, 1652. Rates collected by the Farmers of the Posts. -First rates established by act of Parliament, 1657. Slightly amended, -1660. Separate rates for Scotland, 1660. Scotch rates, 1695. Rates to -and within Jamaica. In American Colonies, 1698. Increased rates, inland, -colonial and foreign, 1711. Controversy over rates on enclosures. Slight -reductions in rates, 1765. Increases in 1784, 1796, 1801. In Ireland, -1803. For United Kingdom a further increase, 1805. Culminating point of -high rates, 1812. Changes in Irish rates, 1810, 1813, 1814. Rates on -"ships' letters," 1814. Irish rates to be collected in British currency, -1827. Reduction in rates between England and France, 1836. Consolidating -act of 1837. Rates by contractors' packet boats, 1837. Rates charged -according to weight in certain cases, 1839. Inland penny postage adopted -and basis of rate-charging changed to weight, 1840. Franking privilege, -1652. Abused. Attempt to curtail the use of franks only partially -successful. Curtailment so far as members of Parliament are concerned. -Estimated loss from franking. Enquiry into question of franking. Further -attempts to control the abuse prove fruitless. Extension of franking -privilege especially on newspapers. Abolition of franking privilege, -1840. Reductions in letter, newspaper, and book post rates. Re-directed -letter and registration fees. Inland parcel post established. Postcards -introduced. Concessions of 1884 and Jubilee concessions. Foreign and -colonial rates reduced. Reductions in money order and postal note rates. -Telegraph money order rates. - -Finances of the Post Office before the seventeenth century. From -beginning of seventeenth century to Witherings' reforms. From 1635 to -1711. During the remainder of the eighteenth century. Finances of Scotch -and Irish Posts. Of the London Penny Post. From bye and cross post -letters. Finances of the Post Office from the beginning of the -nineteenth century to 1840. Since the introduction of inland penny -postage. - - -CHAPTER IX - - THE QUESTION OF MONOPOLY 189 - -Rival methods available for the conveyance of letters. Government's -monopolistic proclamation the result of an attempt to discover -treasonable correspondence. Competition diminishes under Witherings' -efficient management. House of Commons declares itself favourable to -competition. Changes its attitude when in control of the posts. Monopoly -of government enforced more rigorously. Carriers' posts largely -curtailed. London's illegal Half-penny Post. Attempts to evade the -payment of postage very numerous during the first half of the nineteenth -century. Different methods of evasion outlined. - - -CHAPTER X - - THE TELEGRAPH SYSTEM AS A BRANCH OF THE POSTAL DEPARTMENT 202 - -The telegraph companies under private management. Proposals for -government ownership and Mr. Scudamore's report. Conditions under which -the telegraph companies were acquired. Public telegraph business of the -railways. Cost of acquisition. Rates charged by the government. -Reduction in rates in 1885. Guarantee obligations reduced. Underground -lines constructed. Telegraphic relations with the continent. Position of -the government with reference to the wireless telegraph companies. -Attempts to place the government telegraphs on a paying basis do not -prove a success. Financial aspect of the question. Reasons given for the -lack of financial success. - -CHAPTER XI - - THE POST OFFICE AND THE TELEPHONE COMPANIES 219 - -Telephones introduced into England. Judicial decision in favour of the -department. Restricted licences granted the companies. Feeble attempt on -the part of the department to establish exchanges. Difficulties -encountered by the companies. Popular discontent with the policy of the -department leads to granting of unrestricted licences. Way-leave -difficulties restrict efficiency of the companies. Agreement with -National Telephone Company and acquisition of the trunk lines by the -department. Demand for competition from some municipalities leads to -granting of licences to a few cities and towns. The department itself -establishes a competing exchange in London. History of the exchanges -owned and operated by the municipalities. Struggle between the London -County Council and the company's exchange in London. Relation between -the company's and the department's London exchanges. Agreement with the -company for the purchase of its exchanges in 1911. Financial aspect of -the department's system. - - -CHAPTER XII - - CONCLUSION 237 - - -APPENDIX - - EXPENDITURE AND REVENUE TABLES 241 - -BIBLIOGRAPHY 253 - -INDEX 259 - - - - -TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS - - - Acc. & P. Accounts and Papers. - A. P. C. Acts of the Privy Council. - Add. Additional. - Cal. B. P. Calendar of Border Papers. - Cal. S. P. Calendar of State Papers. A. & W. I., Col., D., - For., and Ire., added to Cal. S. P., indicate - respectively to the America and West Indies, - Colonial, Domestic, Foreign, and Ireland sections - of this series. - Cal. T. B. Calendar of Treasury Books. - Cal. T. P. Calendar of Treasury Papers. - Cal. T. B. & P. Calendar of Treasury Books and Papers. - D. N. B. Dictionary National Biography. - Fin. Rep., 1797. Finance Reports 1797-98. - Hist. MSS. Com. Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts. - Jo. H. C. Journals of the House of Commons. - Jo. H. L. Journals of the House of Lords. - Joyce. Joyce, H. The History of the Post Office to 1836. - L. & P. Hen. VIII. Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, - Henry VIII. - Parl. Deb. Hansard, Parliamentary Debates. - Parl. Papers. Parliamentary Papers. - P. & O. P. C. Proceedings and Ordinances of the Privy Council. - Rep. Commrs. Reports from Commissioners. - Rep. Com. Reports from Committees. - Rep. P. G. Reports of the Postmasters-General. - Scobell, Collect. Scobell, H. A Collection of Acts and Ordinances - made in the Parliament held 3 Nov., 1640 to - 17 Sept., 1656. - - - - -THE HISTORY OF THE BRITISH POST OFFICE - - - - -CHAPTER I - -THE POSTAL ESTABLISHMENT SUPPORTED DIRECTLY BY THE STATE - - -The history of the British Post Office starts with the beginning of the -sixteenth century. Long before this, however, a system of communication -had been established both for the personal use of the King and for the -conveyance of official letters and documents. These continued to be the -principal functions of the royal posts until well on in the seventeenth -century. - -Before the sixteenth century, postal communications were carried on by -royal messengers. These messengers either received stated wages or were -paid according to the length of the journeys they made. We find them -mentioned as early as the reign of King John under the name of _nuncii_ -or _cursores_; and payments to them form a large item in the Household -and Wardrobe accounts of the King as early as these accounts exist.[1] -They travelled the whole of the journey themselves and delivered their -letters personally to the people to whom they were directed. A somewhat -different style of postal service, a precursor of the modern method, was -inaugurated by the fourth Edward. During the war with Scotland he found -himself in need of a speedier and better system of communication between -the seat of war and the seat of government. He accomplished this by -placing horses at intervals of twenty miles along the great road between -England and Scotland. By so doing his messengers were able to take up -fresh horses along the way and his despatches were carried at the rate -of a hundred miles a day.[2] - -[1] _Rep. Com._, 1844, xiv, app., p. 21. - -[2] _Notes and Queries_, 1st series, iii, p. 266. - -From an early period private letters were conveyed by carriers and -travellers both within the kingdom and between it and the Continent. The -Paston letters,[3] containing the correspondence of the different -members of the Paston family, throw some light upon the manner in which -letters were conveyed during the latter half of the fifteenth century. -Judging from such references as we find in the letters themselves, they -were generally carried by a servant,[4] a messenger,[5] or a friend.[6] -The later letters of this series, written towards the close of the -fifteenth century, show that regular messengers and carriers, who -carried letters and parcels, travelled between London and Norwich and -other parts of Norfolk.[7] From the fourteenth century down, we have -instances of writs being issued to mayors, sheriffs, and bailiffs for -the apprehension and examination of travellers, who were suspected of -conveying treasonable correspondence between England and the -Continent.[8] For the most part these letters were carried by servants, -messengers, and merchants.[9] - -[3] These letters were sent principally between London and different -places in Norfolk. - -[4] _The Paston Letters_, ed. J. Gairdner, 1872, nos. 34, 305, 435, 609, -624, 663, 905. - -[5] _Ibid._, nos. 540, 688, 723, 727. - -[6] _Ibid._, nos. 656, 905. - -[7] _Ibid._, nos. 688, 723, 745. - -[8] _Rep. Com._, 1844, xiv, app., p. 96 (68). - -[9] _Cely Papers_, ed. H. E. Malden, 1900, nos. 41, 72, 123, 124, 129, -132. - -Sir Brian Tuke is the first English Postmaster-General of whom we have -any record. The King's "Book of Payments" for the year 1512 contains an -order for the payment of £100 to Sir Brian for his use as Master of the -Posts.[10] As the King's appointed Postmaster, he received a salary of -£66 13_s._ 4_d._[11] He named the postmen, or deputy postmasters as they -were called later, and he was held responsible for the performance of -their duties.[12] All letters carried by the royal postmen were -delivered to him, and after being sorted by him personally were carried -to their destination by the court messengers.[13] The wages of the -postmen varied from 1_s._ to 2_s._ a day according to the number of -horses provided, and they were paid by the Postmaster-General, who had -authority to make all payments to those regularly employed.[14] If -messages or letters were sent by special messengers, their payment -entailed additional expense upon the state and the use of such -messengers, when regular postmen were available, was strongly -discouraged.[15] - -[10] _L. & P. Hen. VIII_, ii, pt. 2, p. 1454. - -[11] _Rep. Com._ 1844, xiv, app., p. 21 (8). - -[12] _Ibid._, 1844, xiv, app., p. 32 (7). - -[13] _L. & P. Hen. VIII_, 1515-18, 64; _ibid._, 1526-28, 4359, 4406; -_ibid._, 1540-41, 540. - -[14] _A. P. C._, 1542-47, p. 20. - -[15] _L. & P. Hen. VIII_, 1535, p. 27. - -In addition to his other duties Sir Brian was supposed to have a general -supervision over the horses used for the conveyance of letters and of -travellers riding on affairs of state. Of course on the regular roads -there were always horses in readiness, provided by the postmen. Where -there were no regular post roads, the townships were supposed to provide -the necessary horses, and it was part of the Postmaster-General's duties -to see that the townships were kept up to the mark.[16] It was largely -on account of the fact that the same horses were used for conveying -travellers and mails that the systems of postal and personal -communication were so closely interwoven as well in England as in -continental countries.[17] - -[16] _Rep. Com._, 1844, xiv, app., p. 32 (7). _A. P. C._, 1542-47, -p. 20. - -[17] A. de Rothschild, _Histoire de la poste aux lettres_, Paris, 1873, -pp. 95-97, 114-15. - -The postmen along the old established routes and on the routes -temporarily established for some definite purpose received a fixed daily -wage. These men were called the ordinary posts.[18] If, however, letters -should arrive in Dover after the ordinary post had left for London, they -were generally sent on at once by a messenger hired for the occasion -only. He was called a special post and was paid only for the work which -he actually performed.[19] Those regular posts, who carried the royal -and state letters between London and the place where the Court might be, -were called "Court Posts."[20] During the sovereign's tours, posts were -always stationed between him and London to carry his and the state's -letters backward and forward. These were called extraordinary posts and -received regular wages while so employed.[21] In addition there were -always messengers employed to carry important despatches to foreign -sovereigns. These received no fixed wages, but were paid according to -the distance travelled and the expenses incurred on the road.[22] - -[18] _L. & P. Hen. VIII_, xiii, 226; _A. P. C._, 1547-50, pp. 111, 278, -307, 319, 413. - -[19] _L. & P. Hen. VIII_, x, 33, 136; xvi, 202, 236, 284; _P. & O. P. -C._, vii, p. 72; _A. P. C._, 1550-52, pp. 56, 79, 108, 225, 270, 298. - -[20] _L. & P. Hen. VIII_, xvi, p. 540; _P. & O. P. C._, vii, p. 133; _A. -P. C._, 1558-70, p. 238. - -[21] _L. & P. Hen. VIII_, xi, 726; _A. P. C._, 1547-50, p. 360; _ibid._, -1592, pp. 128, 150; _Cal. S. P. D._, 1547-80, pp. 599, 637, 677. - -[22] _A.P.C._, 1558-70, pp. 39, 58, 111, 207, 216, 257, 258. - -Apart from his regular duties as outlined above, the Postmaster-General -had little initiative power. He could not on his own responsibility -order new posts to be laid. Such decisions always originated with the -King or the Council and Tuke simply executed their orders.[23] Any -increase in the wages of the posts also required the consent of the King -or Council.[24] - -[23] _L. & P. Hen. VII_, xvi, 540; _A.P.C._ 1556-58, pp. 248, 309. - -[24] _A.P.C._, 1556-58, pp. 136, 188, 385. For instance, in 1557 the -Council issued orders to increase the wages of the London-Berwick posts -from 12_d._ to 16_d._ and eventually to 20_d._ a day; but as soon as -their work had again become normal, their wages were reduced to the old -rate. - -During the sixteenth century there were three ways to send letters -between England and the Continent: by the Royal Post, the Foreigners' -Post, and the Merchant Adventurers' Post, apart from such opportunities -as occasional travellers and messengers offered. The Royal Posts were -presumed to carry only state letters, and consequently the conveyance of -a large part of the private letters fell to the other two. Owing to -industrial and later to religious motives there had been a large -emigration of foreigners from the Continent to England. Edward III had -induced many Flemings to leave their native country in the middle of the -fourteenth century.[25] Froude says, probably with exaggeration, that in -1527 there were 15,000 Flemings in London alone.[26] In the fifteenth -century many Italian artisans came over to reside but not to settle.[27] -They were a thrifty people, who did much to place the industrial life of -England on a better footing, and were probably more intelligent and -better educated than the majority of the English artisans among whom -they settled. It seems therefore only natural that they should seek to -establish a better system of communication between their adopted and -native countries. Their business relations with the cloth markets of the -continental cities made necessary a better and speedier postal system -than was afforded by the Royal Posts. In addition to this, it was only -by act of grace that private letters were carried by Tuke's postmen. In -the opening year of the sixteenth century, by permission of the state, -the foreign merchants in London established a system of posts of their -own between the English capital and the Continent. This was called the -"Foreign or Strangers' Post," and was managed by a Postmaster-General, -nominated by the Italians, Spanish, and Dutch and confirmed by the -Council.[28] These posts were used largely by the English merchants in -spite of considerable dissatisfaction on account of the poor service -afforded and on political grounds. Their grievances were detailed in a -petition to the Privy Council. They considered it unprecedented that so -important a service as the carriage of letters should be in the hands of -men who owed no allegiance to the King. Such a procedure was unheard of -in any of the continental countries. "What check could there be over -treasonable correspondence while the carriage of letters continued to be -in the hands of foreigners and most of them Dutchmen?" In addition they -were not treated so well as were their fellow merchants of foreign -allegiance. Their letters were often retained for several days at a -time, while all others were delivered as soon as they arrived. The -foreign ambassadors could not complain if a change were made, for most -of their correspondence was carried on by special messengers.[29] The -"Strangers' Post" seems to have come to an end after the Proclamation of -1591 was issued, forbidding any but the Royal Posts from carrying -letters to and from foreign countries.[30] - -[25] W. Cunningham, _Growth of English Industry and Commerce_, 1896, i, -pp. 305-306. - -[26] J. A. Froude, _History of England_, 1862, i, p. 127. - -[27] Cunningham, i, p. 430. - -[28] Stow, _London_, 1720, bk. v, p. 401. _Cal. S.P.D._, 1547-80, pp. -312, 321, 432. There was considerable rivalry between them concerning -those nominated for Postmaster-General. See _Cal. S.P.D._, 1547-80, pp. -312, 314. - -[29] Stow, _London_, bk. v, p. 401. - -[30] _Rep. Com._, 1844, xiv, app., p. 36 (14). - -Sir Brian Tuke died in 1545 and was succeeded by Sir John Mason and Mr. -Paget, who acted as joint Postmasters-General. Mr. Paget was the -sleeping partner, and what little was done was by Mason.[31] They were -succeeded in 1568 by Thomas Randolph.[32] He was occasionally sent as -special ambassador to France and during his absence Gascoyne, a former -court post, performed his duties. From Sir Brian's death until the end -of Elizabeth's reign was a period of little advance in postal matters. -The regular posts, and it is with them that our chief interest lies, -appear to have fallen into disuse. The payments for special messengers -are much larger than they had been during Henry's reign. In 1549, a -warrant was issued empowering Sir John Mason to pay £400 to the special -messengers used during the summer. If anything was left, he was -instructed to use it in paying arrears due the ordinary posts.[33] -Elizabeth is generally credited with being economical to the extreme of -parsimony so far as state expenses were concerned. However this may be, -she is responsible for an order to discharge all the regular posts -unless they would serve for half of their old wages.[34] The postmen did -not receive their wages at all regularly. Randolph was accused by the -Governor of Berwick of withholding all of their first year's wages, of -receiving every year thereafter a percentage of their salaries, and of -demanding certain fees from them, all for his personal use. The Governor -considered that Randolph's extortions were largely the cause of the -general inefficiency in the posts,[35] but the accusation may have been -due to personal grudge. At any rate one measure of postal reform may be -credited to Randolph. In 1582, orders were issued to all the -London-Berwick posts to the following effect. Every post on the arrival -of letters to or from the Queen or Council was to fasten a label to the -packet. On this label he was to write the day and hour when the packet -came into his hands and he was to make the same entry in a book kept for -the purpose. He was also to keep two or three good horses in his stable -for the speedier conveyance of such packets.[36] - -[31] _A. P. C._, 1542-47, p. 267; _Rep. Com._, 1844, xiv, app., p. 21 -(8). - -[32] _Ibid._, 1844, xiv, app., p. 21 (11). - -[33] _A. P. C._, 1547-50, p. 360. - -[34] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1547-80, p. 306. - -[35] _Cal. B. P._, 1560-94, p. 299. - -[36] _Cal. S. P. D._, _Add._, 1580-1625, pp. 75-76. - -In 1590, John Lord Stanhope was appointed Postmaster-General by order of -the Queen. The office was given to him for his life and then was to go -to his son for his son's life.[37] Both the Stanhopes were men of -action, but they looked upon their position rather as a means of -enriching themselves than as a trust for the good of the state. They -proved a stumbling block to the advancement of better men and it was not -for sixty years that they were finally swept away to make room for men -of greater ability. In 1621, the elder Stanhope was succeeded by his son -Charles according to the terms of the original patent.[38] It had been -the custom for the Postmasters-General to demand fees and percentages -from their appointees. So lucrative were many of their positions from -the monopoly in letting horses and the receipts from private letters -that many applicants were willing to pay for appointments as deputy -postmasters. The ordinary payments when Lord Charles was at the head of -the posts amounted to 2s. in the pound as poundage and a fee of £2 from -each man. These payments were considered so exorbitant that the Council -ordered them to be reduced.[39] One, Hutchins, entered the lists as the -champion of the postmasters. He himself was one of them and acted as -their solicitor in the contest. Stanhope was glad to compound the case -by the payment of £30. Hutchins gave the Council so much trouble that -they gave orders that "turbulent Hutchins" should cease to act as the -postmasters' solicitor and leave them in peace.[40] His object, however, -seems to have been accomplished so far as Stanhope was concerned. The -struggle with the Paymasters of the Posts was not so successful, for, -supported by a report of the Treasurer, they continued to receive their -shilling in the pound.[41] - -[37] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1581-90, p. 676; _Rep. Com._, 1844, xiv, app., p. -22 (13). - -[38] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1619-23, pp. 238, 404. - -[39] _Ibid._, pp. 568, 572. A postmaster's salary at this time was about -5_s._ a day. (_Ibid._, 1623-25, p. 130.) - -[40] _Ibid._, 1623-25, pp. 117, 130, 153. - -[41] _Ibid._, 1619-23, pp. 567-68. - -By a Privy Council Proclamation issued in 1603, all posts receiving a -daily fee were required to have two leather bags, lined with "bayes" or -cotton, and the post himself was to sound a horn whenever he met any one -on the road or four times in every mile. The packet of letters was not -to be delayed more than fifteen minutes and was to be carried at a rate -of seven miles an hour in summer and five in winter. The time at which -it was delivered into a post's hands and the names and addresses of the -people by whom and to whom it was sent were to be entered in a book kept -for the purpose. All posts and their servants were exempted from being -"pressed" and from attendance at assizes, sessions, inquests, and -musters.[42] - -[42] _Rep. Com._, 1844, xiv, app., p. 38 (18). - -It is doubtful how far the postmasters were held responsible for the -delivery of letters to the persons to whom they were addressed. This did -not become a burning question, however, until after the recognition of -the fact that the letters of private individuals should receive as good -treatment at the hands of the postmen as the letters of the state -officials. Lord Stanhope in 1618 issued an order to the Justices of the -Peace in Southwark to aid the postmaster of that place in the delivery -of letters within six miles.[43] This was followed two years later by a -general order to establish two or three foot-posts in every parish for -the conveyance of letters.[44] - -[43] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1611-18, p. 601. - -[44] Hist. MSS. Com., _Rep._ 15, app., pt. 7, p. 63. - -During the early part of the seventeenth century, Stanhope had employed -a foreigner, de Quester, as one of the King's posts "beyond seas." He -commended himself to the notice of his superiors by his promptitude in -dealing with the foreign letters.[45] In 1619 James appointed him -Postmaster-General for "foreign parts" and henceforth he was his own -master.[46] This was followed four years later by a formal proclamation, -confirming to de Quester and his son the position already granted to the -father.[47] He was to have the sole monopoly of carrying foreign letters -and was to appoint the necessary officials. All persons were formally -prohibited from entrenching upon the privileges granted him in 1619. -From this time until 1635, the foreign and inland posts were under -separate management and the accounts were kept separate until long after -the latter date. Stanhope was unwilling to submit to the curtailment of -his profits, which necessarily followed the appointment of de Quester. -There was much to be said for Stanhope's contention that the patent of -1623 was illegal for, ever since there had been a Postmaster-General, -his duties had extended to the foreign as well as to the inland office. -The question was referred to a committee, composed of the Lord -Chamberlain, one of the Secretaries of State and the Attorney-General, -who decided that Stanhope's patent extended only to the inland -office.[48] The whole question was finally brought before the Court of -King's Bench, which decided the case in favour of Stanhope.[49] This was -in 1625, but de Quester seems to have paid no attention to the decision -for it is certain that he continued to act as Foreign Postmaster until -1629[50] and in 1632 he resigned his patent to Frizell and Witherings. -It can be imagined what must have been the chaotic condition of the -foreign post while this struggle was going on. The Merchant Adventurers -established posts of their own between London and the Continent under -Billingsley. The Council issued the most perplexing orders. First they -forbade Billingsley from having anything to do with foreign letters.[51] -Then they decided that the Adventurers might establish posts of their -own and choose a Postmaster.[52] Then they extended the same privilege -to all merchants. Next this was withdrawn and the Adventurers were -allowed to send letters only to Antwerp, Delft and Hamburg or wherever -the staple of cloth might be.[53] These orders do not seem to have been -passed in full council for, in 1628, Secretary Coke in writing to -Secretary Conway said that "Billingsley, a broker by trade, strives to -draw over to the merchants that power over foreign letters which in all -states is a branch of royal authority. The merchant's purse has swayed -much in other matters but he has never heard that it encroached upon the -King's prerogative until now." He adds "I confess it troubleth me to see -the audacity of men in these times and especially that Billingsley." He -enclosed a copy of an order "made at a full Council and under the Broad -Seal," which in effect was a supersedeas of the place which de Quester -enjoyed.[54] When de Quester resigned in favour of Frizell and -Witherings, the resignation and new appointments were confirmed by the -King.[55] Of these men Witherings was far the abler. He had a plan in -view, which was eventually to place the foreign and inland systems on a -basis unchanged until the time of penny postage. In the meantime he had -to overcome the prejudices of the King and get rid of Frizell. In order -to raise money for the promotion of his plan, Witherings mortgaged his -place. Capital was obtained from the Earl of Arundel and others through -John Hall, who held the mortgage. The King heard of this and ordered -the office to be sequestered to his old servant de Quester and -commanded Hall to make over his interest to the same person.[56] There -were now three claimants for the place, Frizell, Witherings, and de -Quester. Frizell rushed off to Court, where he offered to pay off his -part of the mortgage and asked to have sole charge of the Foreign Post. -"Witherings," he said, "proposes to take charge of all packets of State -if he may have the office, but being a home-bred shopkeeper, without -languages, tainted of delinquency and in dislike with the foreign -correspondents, he is no fit person to carry a trust of such secrecy and -importance."[57] Coke knew better than this, however, and through his -influence Witherings, who had in the meantime paid off the mortgage and -satisfied Frizell's interest, was made sole Postmaster-General for -Foreign Parts.[58] - -[45] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1629-31, pp. 71, 247. - -[46] _Ibid._, 1625-26, p. 231. - -[47] _Rep. Com._, 1844, xiv, app., p. 48 (26). - -[48] _Ibid._, 1844, xiv, app., p. 49 (27); _Cal. S. P. D._, 1625-26, p. -478; Hist. MSS. Com., _Rep._ 12, app. 1, p. 295; _Cal. S. P. D._, -1627-28, p. 405. - -[49] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1627-28, pp. 436, 591. - -[50] _Ibid._, 1625-49, p. 332; 1628-29, pp. 46, 427, 558; 1631-33, p. -384. - -[51] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1603-10, pp. 162, 397, 426, 491, 512, 521, 545, -576, 583, 588, 611. - -[52] _Rep. Com._, 1844, xiv, app., p. 45 (23). - -[53] _Ibid._, 1844, xiv, app., p. 45 (23). - -[54] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1623-25, p. 131. - -[55] _Ibid._, 1625-26, p. 30; _Rep. Com._, 1844, xiv, app., p. 48 (25). - -[56] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1634-35, pp. 11, 38, 48, 389. - -[57] _Ibid._, 1625-49, p. 489. - -[58] _Ibid._, 1635-36, p. 32; 1634-35, p. 48. - -With Witherings' advent a new period of English postal history begins. -His dominant idea was to make the posts self-supporting and no longer a -charge to the state. It had been established as a service for the royal -household and continued as an official necessity. The letters of private -individuals had been carried by its messengers but the state had derived -no revenue for their conveyance. The convenient activity of other -agencies for the carriage of private letters was not only tolerated but -officially recognized. The change to a revenue-paying basis tended -naturally to emphasize the monopolistic character of the government -service.[59] - -[59] See chapter IX. - - - - -CHAPTER II - -THE POSTAL ESTABLISHMENT A SOURCE OF REVENUE TO THE STATE - -1633-1711 - - -For some time there had been dissatisfaction with the services rendered -by the inland posts. It was said that letters would arrive sooner from -Spain and Italy than from remote parts of the kingdom of England.[60] -The only alternative was to send them by express and this was not only -expensive but was not looked upon with favour by the Postmaster-General. -The five great roads from London to Edinburgh, Holyhead, Bristol, -Plymouth, and Dover were in operation. From the Edinburgh Road there -were branches to York and Carlisle, from the Dover Road to Margate, -Gravesend, and Sandwich, and from the Plymouth Road to Falmouth, but the -posts were slow and the rates for private letters uncertain.[61] In -1633, a project was advanced for the new arrangement of the Post Office. -The plan was not entirely theoretical, for an attempt was made to show -that it would prove a financial success. There were about 512 market -towns in England. It was considered that each of these would send 50 -letters a week to London and as many answers would be returned. At 4_d._ -a day for each letter, this would amount to £426 a week. The charge for -conveyance was estimated at £37 a week, leaving a weekly profit of £389, -from which £1500 a year for the conveyance of state letters and -despatches must be deducted. Letters on the northern road were to pay -2_d._ for a single and 4_d._ for a double letter, to Yorkshire and -Northumberland 3_d._, and to Scotland 8_d._ a letter. The postmasters in -the country were not to take any charge for a letter except one penny -for carriage to the next market town.[62] It is probable that this -project originated with Witherings. At any rate it resembles closely the -plan which was introduced by him two years later. He had already -reformed the foreign post by appointing "stafetti" from London to Dover -and through France and they had proved so efficient as to disarm the -opposition even of the London merchants. His name is without doubt the -most distinguished in the annals of the British Post Office. Convinced -that the carriage of private letters must be placed upon a secure -footing, he laid the foundation for the system of postal rates and -regulations, which continued to the time of national penny postage. He -introduced the first legal provision for the carriage of private letters -at fixed rates, greatly increased the speed of the posts, and above all -made the Post Office a financial success. In order to do this he saw -that the proceeds from private letters must go to the state and not to -the deputy postmasters. - -[60] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1580-1625, p. 360. - -[61] _Ibid._, 1580-1625, p. 630. - -[62] _Ibid._, 1625-26, p. 366. A single letter consisted of one sheet of -paper, a double letter of two, and a triple letter of three sheets. - -His plan was entitled "A proposition for settling of Stafetti or pacquet -posts betwixt London and all parts of His Majesty's Dominions. The -profits to go to pay the postmasters, who now are paid by His Majesty at -a cost of £3400 per annum." A general office or counting house was to be -established in London for the reception of all letters coming to or -leaving the capital. Letters leaving London on each of the great roads -were to be enclosed in a leather "portmantle" and left at the post-towns -on the way. Letters for any of the towns off the great roads were to be -placed in smaller leather bags to be carried in the large portmantle. -These leather bags were to be left at the post-towns nearest the country -towns to which they were directed. They were then to be carried to their -destination by foot-posts to a distance of six or eight miles and for -each letter these foot-posts were to charge 2d., the same price that was -charged by the country carriers. At the same time that the foot-posts -delivered their letters, they were to collect letters to be sent to -London and carry them back to the post-town from which they had started -and there meet the portmantle on its way back from Edinburgh or Bristol -or wherever the terminus of the road might be. The speed of the posts -was to be at least 120 miles in twenty-four hours and they were to -travel day and night. He concludes his proposition by saying that no -harm would result to Stanhope by his plan "for neither Lord Stanhope nor -anie other, that ever enjoyed the Postmaster's place of England, had -any benefit of the carrying and re-carrying of the subjects' -letters."[63] - -[63] _Rep. Com._, xiv, app., p. 55 (35). _Cal. S. P. D._, 1635, p. 166. -Letters were to be carried to and from important places at some distance -from the main roads by post-horses. See _Cal. S. P. D._, above. - -The question now was, Who was to see that these reforms were carried -out? Stanhope was not the man for so important and revolutionary an -undertaking. Witherings alone, the author of the proposition, should -carry it into effect. Sir John Coke made no mistake in constituting -himself the friend of the postal reformer. Witherings was already -Foreign Postmaster-General and in 1635 he was charged with the -reformation of the inland office on the basis of his projected scheme. -In 1637 the inland and foreign offices were again united when he was -made Foreign and Inland Postmaster-General.[64] His experiment was tried -on the Northern Road first and was exceedingly successful. Letters were -sent to Edinburgh and answers returned in six days. On the Northern Road -bye-posts were established to Lincoln, Hull and other places.[65] Orders -were given to extend the same arrangement to the other great roads, and -by 1636 his reform was in full and profitable operation. - -[64] _Rep. Com._, xiv, p. 5; app., p. 57 (36); _Cal. S. P. D._, 1635-36, -p. 32. - -[65] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1635, p. 299. - -Witherings still continued to sell the positions of the postmasters, if -we are to trust the complaints of non-successful applicants. One man -said that he offered £100 for a position but Witherings sold it to -another for £40.[66] The Postmaster at Ferrybridge asserted that he had -paid Stanhope £200 and Witherings £35 and yet now fears that he will be -ousted. Complaints of a reduction in wages were also made, and this was -a serious matter, since the postmasters no longer obtained anything from -private letters.[67] The old complaint, however, of failure to pay wages -at all is not heard under Witherings' administration. He was punctual in -his payments and held his employees to equally rigid account. Their -arrears were not excused.[68] An absentee postmaster, who hired -deputies to perform his duties, was dismissed.[69] His ambition to -establish a self-supporting postal system demanded rigid economy and -strict administration, and with the then prevailing laxity of -administrative methods, this was no mean achievement. From one -occasional practice of the Post Office, that of tampering with private -letters, he cannot perhaps wholly be absolved. It is hinted that he may -have been guilty of opening letters, but the suggestion follows that -this may have happened before they reached England, for the letters so -opened were from abroad.[70] - -[66] _Ibid._, 1637, p. 527; _ibid._, 1636-37, p. 524. - -[67] _Ibid._, 1638-39, p. 119. - -[68] _Ibid._, 1637-38, pp. 52, 53, 394. - -[69] _Cal. S.P.D._, 1637-38, p. 238. - -[70] _Ibid._, 1640-41, p. 340. As early as 1639 persons were not allowed -to have letters back when once posted. (_Ibid._, 1639, p. 279.) - -In June of 1637, Coke and Windebank, the two Secretaries of State, were -appointed Postmasters-General for their lives. The surviving one was to -surrender his office to the King, who would then grant it to the -Secretaries for the time being.[71] It does not appear that Witherings -was altogether dismissed from the service, for his name continued to -appear in connection with postal affairs.[72] Windebank later urged as -reasons for the withdrawal of Witherings' patent, that he was not a -sworn officer, that there was a suspicion that his patent had been -obtained surreptitiously, and that the continental postmasters disdained -to correspond with a man of his low birth. He concludes by saying that -something may be given him, but that he is said to be worth £800 a year -in land and to have enriched himself from his position.[73] At the time -of his removal, in June, 1637, the London merchants petitioned for his -continuance in office, as he had always given them satisfaction. When -they heard who had been appointed in his stead, like loyal and fearful -subjects, they hastened to add that they thought someone else was trying -for the position but they had no doubt that it would be managed best by -the Secretaries.[74] If they thought so they were mistaken, for the -commander of the English army against Scotland found that his letters -were opened,[75] the Lord High Admiral complained that his were -delayed,[76] and Windebank promised an unknown correspondent that the -delay in his letters should be seen to at once and Witherings was the -agent chosen for the investigation.[77] This, however, was not the -worst, for only a month after Witherings had been degraded, orders were -issued to the postmasters that no packets or letters were to be sent by -post but such as should be directed "For His Majesty's Special Affairs" -and were subscribed by certain officials connected with the -Government.[78] It is fair to add that this check on private -correspondence may have been a protective measure induced by the -unsettled state of the kingdom. - -[71] _Ibid._, 1637, p. 255. - -[72] _Ibid._, 1639, p. 279; _Rep. Com._, xiv, app., p. 58 (37). - -[73] _Cal. S.P.D._, 1637-38, p. 51. - -[74] _Ibid._, 1637-38, p. 52. - -[75] _Ibid._, 1639, p. 295. - -[76] _Ibid._, 1639-40, p. 116. - -[77] Hist. MSS. Com., _Rep._ 12, app., pt. 2, p. 236. - -[78] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1637, p. 338. - -In 1640 both the inland and foreign offices were sequestered into the -hands of Philip Burlamachi, a wealthy London merchant who had lent money -to the king. No reasons were given except that information had been -received "of divers abuses and misdemeanours committed by Thomas -Witherings."[79] Stanhope, who had resigned his patent in 1637, now came -forward claiming that his resignation had been unfairly obtained by the -Council, and at the same time he presented his bill for £1266, the -arrears in his salary for nineteen years.[80] In reply to his demand it -was said that shortly before he resigned he had assigned his rights in -the Post Office to the Porters, father and son. The Attorney-General -gave his opinion that whatever rights Stanhope and the Porters had, they -certainly had no claim to the proceeds from the carriage of private -letters.[81] Stanhope had offered to enter an appearance in a suit -brought against him by the Porters but now he refused to do so.[82] -Windebank was also looking out for money due to him while Coke and he -were Postmasters-General.[83] The state had indeed entered upon -troublous times and it was every man for himself before it was too late. - -[79] _Rep. Com._, 1844, xiv, app., p. 59 (39). - -[80] _Ibid._, 1844, xiv, app., p. 22 (19); _Cal. S. P. D._, 1636-37, p. -534; _ibid._, 1637-38, p. 51. - -[81] _Ibid._, 1636-37, p. 530. - -[82] Hist. MSS. Com., _Rep._ 7, p. 154. - -[83] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1640-41, p. 315. - -As long as Witherings had enjoyed the King's favour, the House of -Commons had looked upon him with suspicion. They had ordered in 1640 -"that a Sub-Committee of the Committee of Grievances should be made a -House Committee to consider abuses in the inland posts, to take into -consideration the rates for letters and packets together with the abuses -of Witherings and the rest of the postmasters."[84] As soon as -Witherings was finally dismissed, the Commons took him up and -resolutions were passed that the sequestration was illegal and ought to -be repealed, that the proclamation for ousting him from his position -ought not to be put into execution, and that he ought to be restored to -his old position and be paid the mean profits which had been received -since his nominal dismissal.[85] Protected by the authority of the House -of Commons, Witherings continued to act as Postmaster-General.[86] -Windebank, in Paris, was trying to collect evidence against him through -Frizell, who, he said, had been forced out of his position by Witherings -and Coke.[87] Coke himself was in disgrace and could do nothing. -Parliament was now supreme. Witherings was ordered to send to a -Committee of the Lords, acting with Sir Henry Vane, all letters coming -into or going out of the kingdom for examination and search. Frequent -orders to the same effect followed during the turbulent summer and -autumn of 1641.[88] Among other letters opened were those of the -Venetian Ambassador in England. He was so indignant that a Committee of -the Lords was sent to him to ask his pardon.[89] The two Houses of -Parliament united in condemning the sequestration to Burlamachi, but -Witherings, who had become tired of the strife, assigned his position to -the Earl of Warwick.[90] The Earl was supported by both Houses, but the -Lower House played a double part, for, while openly supporting Warwick, -they now secretly favoured Burlamachi, who had found an influential -friend in Edmund Prideaux, former chairman of the committee appointed to -investigate the condition of the posts and later Attorney-General under -the Commonwealth.[91] Prideaux was a strong Parliamentarian, but was -distrusted even by his own friends. But for the time being, as the -representative of the Commons, he was supported by them. The messenger -of the Upper House made oath that he had delivered the Commons' -resolution to Burlamachi, commanding him to hand over the Inland Letter -Office to Warwick, but James Hicks had presented an order at the place -appointed by Warwick for receiving letters, to deliver all letters to -Prideaux. Burlamachi on being summoned before the Lords for contempt -said that Prideaux had hired his house and now had charge of the mails. -The fight went merrily on. Two servants of Warwick seized the Holyhead -letters from Hicks, but were in turn stopped by five troopers, agents of -Prideaux, who took the letters from them by order of the House of -Commons. Prideaux also seized the Chester and Plymouth letters, one of -his servants calling out "that an order of the House of Commons ought to -be obeyed before an order of the House of Lords."[92] Hicks, who had -been arrested by order of the Lords, was liberated by the Commons as a -servant of a member of Parliament.[93] As between Lords and Commons, -there could be no doubt as to which side would carry the day, and by the -end of 1642 the Lower House was triumphant all along the line. -Understanding that discretion was the better part of valour, the Lords -freed Burlamachi and dropped the contest. Warwick now petitioned the -Lords again, setting forth that he was the legal successor and assignee -of Witherings. Stanhope put in a counter-petition to the effect that -Witherings never had any right to the position which Warwick now -claimed. The House of Lords felt its own weakness too much to interfere -directly, but ordered the whole matter to trial.[94] Besides Stanhope -and Warwick, the following put in claims before the Council of State: -Henry Robinson, through the Porters, to whom Stanhope had assigned; Sir -David Watkins in trust for Thomas Witherings, Jr., for the foreign -office; Moore and Jessop through Watkins and Walter Warde. Billingsley -also, the old Postmaster of the Merchant Adventurers, made a claim for -the foreign office.[95] - -[84] _Jo. H. C._, 1640-42, p. 81. - -[85] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1640-41, p. 453; _Jo. H. C._, ii, p. 500; _Rep. -Com._, 1844, xiv, app., p. 60 (40). - -[86] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1640-41, p. 557. - -[87] _Ibid._, 1640-41, p. 536. - -[88] _Rep. Com._, 1844, xiv, app., p. 101 (74). - -[89] _Ibid._, 1844, xiv, app., p. 101 (74). - -[90] _Jo. H. C._, 1640-42, p. 722; _Jo. H. L._, 1642-43, p. 343. - -[91] _Jo. H. C._, 1640-42, p. 500. - -[92] _Rep. Com._, 1844, xiv, app., p. 10 (40); _Jo. H. C._, 1642-43, pp. -387, 388, 469, 470, 471, 473-74, 508, 512; _ibid._, 1640-42, p. 899. - -[93] _Ibid._, 1640-42, p. 899. - -[94] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1645-47, p. 461; _Rep. Com._, 1844, xiv, app., p. -68 (43); _Jo. H. L._, 1645-46, pp. 579, 588, 637. - -[95] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1652-53, pp. 159, 367; _ibid._, 1653-54, pp. 21, -22, 297; _Rep. Com._, 1844, xiv, app., p. 69 (44); _Jo. H. C._, 1651-59, -p. 192. - -The confusion in postal administration which naturally resulted from the -struggle among the rival claimants was increased by the Civil War. In -1643 the Royal Court was moved to Oxford. The Secretaries of State -acting as Postmasters-General sent James Hicks, the quondam servant of -Prideaux, to collect arrears from the postmasters due to the Letter -Office. In addition to collecting the money due, he was to require all -postmasters on the road to Coventry to convey to and from the Court all -letters and packets on His Majesty's service, to establish new stages, -to forward the names of those willing to supply horses and guides, and -to report those postmasters who were disobedient or disloyal.[96] During -the most desperate period of the royal cause Hicks acted as special -messenger for the King, and apparently had some exciting experiences in -carrying the letters of his royal master. He lived to enjoy his reward -when the second Charles had come to his own. Parliament, in the -meantime, was establishing its control over the posts and reorganizing -the service. In the early period of Parliamentary government, postal -affairs were as a rule looked after by what was known as the "Committee -of Both Kingdoms," and the orders which it issued were necessarily based -upon political conditions. Later the Postmaster-General acted under the -Council of State or under Cromwell himself. In 1644 the House of Commons -issued an order that protection should be granted to the postmasters -between London and Hull, to their servants, horses and goods.[97] The -fact that it was necessary to re-settle posts on the old established -London-Berwick road shows how demoralized conditions had been during the -conflict.[98] Many of the loyal postmasters were dismissed. Their -lukewarm conduct in supplying the messengers of the Commonwealth with -horses produced a reprimand from the Committee and a sharp warning from -Prideaux.[99] Posts were settled from London to Lyme Regis for better -communication with the southwestern counties. In 1644 Edmund Prideaux -was formally appointed Postmaster-General.[100] He was allowed to use as -his office part of the building occupied by the Committee of Accounts, -formerly the house of a London alderman.[101] As long as the war -continued it was necessary that a close watch should be kept over -letters passing by post. Many of the new postmasters were military men -and in addition others were appointed in each town under the heading of -"persons to give intelligence."[102] With the return of normal -conditions after 1649 Prideaux was ordered by the Council of State to -make arrangements for establishing posts all over England as in the -peaceful days before the war.[103] His report of the same year to the -Council of State indicates the successful fulfilment of his -instructions. He said that he had established a weekly conveyance of -letters to all parts of the Commonwealth and that with the receipts from -private letters he had paid all the postmasters except those on the -Dover road.[104] - -[96] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1641-43, p. 501; _ibid._, 1644, pp. 6, 29. - -[97] _Jo. H. C._, 1642-44, p. 426. - -[98] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1644, p. 400. - -[99] _Ibid._, 1644-45, p. 503; _ibid._, 1644, pp. 25, 144, 447. - -[100] _Jo. H. C._, 1642-44, p. 477; _Rep. Com._, 1844, xiv, app., p. 67 -(41). - -[101] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1644, p. 477. - -[102] _Ibid._, 1644-45, p. 170. - -[103] _Ibid._, 1649-50, pp. 13, 147. - -[104] _Jo. H. C._, 1648-51, p. 385. - -For the safety of the Commonwealth it was often found necessary to -search the letters. Sometimes the posts were stopped and all the letters -examined. When this was done, it was by order of the Council of State, -which appointed certain officials to go through the correspondence.[105] -Sir Kenelm Digby, writing to Lord Conway from Calais, asks him to direct -his letters to that place, where they would find him, "if no curious -overseer of the packets at the post break them open for the -superscription's sake."[106] The Commonwealth did openly and is -consequently blamed for what had been done more or less secretly by the -Royal Government. - -[105] _Ibid._, 1648-51, p. 126; _Cal. S. P. D._, 1649-50, pp. 56, 533, -535, 541; 1650, pp. 7, 223; 1651-52, p. 216. - -[106] _Ibid._, 1649-50, p. 381. - -In 1651 the first proposal for farming the Post Office was submitted to -the Council of State. The Council reported the question to Parliament -but there is no evidence as to their attitude on the question at that -time.[107] The next year Parliament ordered that the question of -management, whether by contract or otherwise, should be re-committed to -the Council,[108] and in 1653 it was decided that it would be better to -let the posts out to farm. Prideaux had been quietly dropped by the -Council after making, as it was reported, a large fortune. When we -remember that under his management there was an annual deficit of £600 -besides the expenses of the Dover road and that in 1653 there was a net -revenue of £10,000, it seems probable that there is some truth in the -report. The conditions upon which the Post Office was farmed, were as -follows:-- - -The farmers must be men of stability and good credit and must be -selected from those contracting. Official letters and letters from and -to members of Parliament must be carried free. All postage rates must be -fixed by the Council and not changed without its consent. Finally all -postmasters should be approved by the Council and Lord Protector.[109] - -[107] _Ibid._, 1651-52. - -[108] _Ibid._, 1651-59, p. 192. - -[109] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1652-53, p. 449. The following is a list of the -contractors, with the yearly amounts offered by each: - - Ben Andrews for Inland Office £3600 - Ben Andrews for Foreign Office 3500 - Henry Robinson for both offices 8041 - Ben Andrews for both offices 9100 - John Goldsmith for both offices 8500 - Ralph Kendall for both offices 10103 - John Manley, with good security 8259 - Rich. Hicks 9120 - Rich. Hill 8160 - - --_Cal. S. P. D._, 1652-53, p. 450. - -The policy of the Commonwealth in letting the posts out to farm had much -in its favour. The evil usually resulting from farming is the temptation -and the opportunity it offers for extortion from the people. But in the -case of the posts no oppression was possible, for the farmer was limited -in his charge to the rate fixed by the Government. More than this, -private control over the post office business afforded what was most -needed at the time, greater economy and stricter supervision over the -deputy postmasters. It was upon the deputy postmasters alone that the -farming system might exercise undue pressure, but from them there was no -complaint of the withholding or reduction of wages until after -Cromwell's death.[110] - -[110] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1658-59, p. 371. - -John Manley was appointed "Farmer of the Posts" for two years at a -yearly rent of £10,000. There were at least four higher tenders than -his, and Manley contracted only for £8259. It was hinted that Manley and -the Council had come to a private agreement concerning the rent to be -paid.[111] In his orders to the postmasters, Manley requested them to -take particular care of government packets and to see that no one was -allowed to ride in post unless by special warrant. All letters should be -counted by them and the number certified in London. They were to keep a -sharp eye upon people, especially travellers, and report any discontent -or disaffection.[112] In 1654 Manley's title of Postmaster-General was -confirmed by act of Parliament, the first act dealing directly with -postal affairs.[113] He was unsuccessful in having his franchise -extended beyond the original two years, and by order of the Council of -State the management of the Posts was entrusted to Mr. Thurloe, -Secretary of State, for £10,000 a year, the same amount which Manley had -paid.[114] - -[111] _Ibid._, 1653-54, pp. 27, 328. - -[112] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1653-54, p. 328. - -[113] Scobell's _Collect._, p. 358. - -[114] _Rep. Com._, 1844, xiv, app., p. 71 (48); _Cal. S. P. D._, 1655, -p. 138. - -Shortly after Thurloe had been appointed Postmaster-General, general -orders were issued by Cromwell to all the postmasters. He forbade them -to send by express any letters or packets except those sent by certain -officials on affairs of state, all others to await the regular time for -the departure of the mails. The old regulations for providing mail-bags, -registration of the time of reception, and the like were repeated. The -number of mails to and from London was increased from one to three a -week each way, and to ensure higher speed, each postmaster was to -provide a horse ready saddled and was not to detain the mail longer than -half an hour under any consideration. He was ordered to deliver all -letters in the country at or near his stage and was to collect the -postage marked on the letter unless it was postpaid. The money so -collected was to be returned to London every three months.[115] - -[115] _Ibid._, 1655, pp. 285 f. - -In 1657 the first act of Parliament was passed which fixed rates for the -conveyance of letters and established the system for the British -Islands. The preamble stated: "That whereas it hath been found by -experience that the writing and settling of one General Post Office ... -is the best means not only to maintain certain intercourse of trade and -commerce betwixt all the said places to the great benefit of the people -of these nations, but also to convey the public despatches and to -discover and prevent many dangerous and wicked designs, which have been -and are daily continued against the peace and welfare of this -Commonwealth," it is enacted that there shall be one General Post Office -called the Post Office of England, and one Postmaster-General nominated -and appointed by the Protector for life or for a term of years not -exceeding eleven.[116] In accordance with the terms of this act, Thurloe -was appointed by Cromwell and continued to act as Postmaster-General -until the downfall of the Commonwealth.[117] - -[116] Scobell, _Collect._, pp. 511-13 (1656, c. 30). - -[117] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1657-58, p. 81. In January of 1660 the Council -took the Post Office under its own control for a short time. _Jo. H. -C._, 1651-59, p. 81; _Cal. S. P. D._, 1659-60, p. 303. - -After the Restoration most of the old claimants to the Post Office came -to the front again. Stanhope besieged King and Parliament for -restoration to his old place. He seems to have received some -compensation, which he deserved for his pertinacity if for nothing else. -The Porters were up in arms at once, for he had promised them to come to -no agreement until they were satisfied.[118] The two daughters of -Burlamachi pleaded for some mark of favour, on the ground that their -father had ruined himself for the late King. Frizell was still very much -alive, and a nephew of Witherings carried on the family feud.[119] In -the meantime James Hicks was employed by the Secretary of State to -ascertain how many of the old deputy postmasters were still eligible for -positions. He reported that many of them were dead and that many of -those who were applying for positions had been enemies of the King. For -the time being it was decided that the present officials should remain -in office until a settlement should be made.[120] - -[118] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1660-61, p. 178; Hist. MSS. Com., _Rep._ 7, p. -109. - -[119] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1660-61, pp. 93-100, 301. - -[120] _Ibid._, 1660-61, pp. 37, 82. - -Henry Bishop was appointed by royal patent Postmaster-General of England -for seven years at a rent of £21,500 a year. The King agreed to persuade -Parliament to pass an act[121] settling the rates and terms under which -Bishop was to exercise his duties. For the time being he was to charge -the same rates as those in the "pretended Act of 1657," to defray all -postal expenses and to carry free all public letters and letters of -members of Parliament during the present session. He agreed also to -allow the Secretaries to examine letters and not to change old routes or -set up new without their consent. He was to dismiss all officials whom -they should object to on reasonable grounds. If his income should be -lessened by war or plague or if this grant should prove ineffectual, the -Secretaries agreed to allow such abatement in his farm as should seem -reasonable to them.[122] Bishop's régime does not seem to have been -popular with the postmasters, for a petition in behalf of 300 of them, -representing themselves to be "all the postmasters in England, Scotland, -and Ireland," was presented to Parliament in protest against the -Postmaster-General's actions. They describe how Cromwell had let the -Post Office out to farm. They credit him with respecting their rights -and paying their wages. Lately, however, Bishop had been appointed -farmer, and unless they submitted to his orders, they were dismissed at -once. He had decreased their wages by more than one half, made them pay -for their places again, and demanded bonds from them that they should -not disclose any of these things.[123] - -[121] The act of 1660 (12 Ch. II, c. 35) passed in pursuance of this -agreement added nothing of importance to the act of 1657, except on the -question of rates. See below, chapter VIII. - -[122] _Rep. Com._, 1844, xiv, app., pp. 75, 76 (52, 53). - -[123] Hist. MSS. Com., _Rep._, 7, p. 140. - -In 1633, Bishop resigned his grant to Daniel O'Neale for £8000. O'Neale -offered £2000 and, in addition, promised £1000 a year, during the lease, -to Bennet, Secretary of State, if he would have the assignment -confirmed. He explained that this would not injure the Duke of York's -interest, who could expect no increase until the expiration of the -original contract, which still had four years and a quarter to run.[124] -This refers to an act of Parliament which had just been passed, settling -the £21,500 post revenue upon the Duke of York and his male heirs,[125] -with the exception of some £5000 which had been assigned by the King to -his mistresses and favourites. O'Neale having died before his lease -expired, his wife, the Countess of Chesterfield, performed his duties -until 1667.[126] - -[124] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1663-64, p. 122; _Rep. Com._, 1844, xiv, app., -pp. 86, 91 (60, 64). - -[125] _Ibid._, 1844, xiv, app., p. 91 (64). Confirmed in 1685 (Hist. -MSS. Com., _Rep._, 11, app., 2, p. 315; 1 Jas. ii, c. 12). - -[126] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1664-65, p. 376; 1666-67, p. 567. - -According to the grant made to O'Neale in 1663 no postmaster nor any -other person except the one to whom it was directed or returned was to -open any letter unless ordered so to do by an express warrant from one -of the Secretaries of State. If any letter was overcharged, the excess -was to be returned to the person to whom it was directed. Nothing was -said about letters which were lost or stolen in the post. A certain John -Pawlett complained that of sixteen letters which he had posted not one -was ever delivered in London although the postage was prepaid.[127] -Letters not prepaid were stamped with the postage due in the London -Office when they were sent from London. Letters sent to London were -charged by the receiving postmaster in the country and the charge -verified at the London Office. An account was kept there of the amounts -due and the postmasters were debited with them, less the sum for letters -not delivered, which had also to be returned for verification.[128] All -this meant losses to the postal revenue, but compulsory prepayment would -have been impracticable at the time. The postmasters had nothing to gain -by retaining letters not prepaid, but by neglecting to forward prepaid -letters, they could keep the whole of the postage, for stamps were -unknown. An incentive to the delivery of letters was provided by the -penny payment which it was customary to give the postmasters for each -letter delivered, over and above the regular postage. The postmasters -were required to remit the postage collected to London every month and -give bonds for the performance of their duties.[129] - -[127] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1664-65, p. 457. Although letters might be -prepaid, it was not compulsory that they should be, and the vast -majority were not. - -[128] Joyce, p. 46. - -[129] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1667, p. 80. - -The postal service was very much demoralized by the plague in 1665 and -1666 and the great fire which followed. Hicks, the clerk, said that the -gains during this time would be very small. To prevent contagion the -building was so "fumed" that they could hardly see each other.[130] The -letters were aired over vinegar or in front of large fires and Hicks -remarks that had the pestilence been carried by letters they would have -been dead long ago. While the plague was still dangerous, the King's -letters were not allowed to pass through London.[131] After the fire -the headquarters of the Post-Office in London were removed to Gresham -College. - -[130] _Ibid._, 1664-65, p. 51. - -[131] Hist. MSS. Com., _Rep._, 12, app., pt. 7, pp. 14, 93; _Cal. S. P. -D._, 1665-66, p. 14. _Cal. S. P. D. Add._, 1600-70, p. 713. - -When O'Neale's lease had expired in 1667, Lord Arlington, Secretary of -State, was appointed Postmaster-General.[132] The real head was Sir John -Bennet, with whom Hicks was entirely out of sympathy. He accused Bennet -of "scurviness" and condemned the changes initiated by him. These -changes were in the shape of reductions in wages. The postmasters' -salaries were to be reduced from £40 to £20 a year. In the London -Office, the wages of the carriers and porters were also to be -reduced.[133] - -[132] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1665-66, p. 573. - -[133] _Ibid._, 1667, p. 260. - -At the close of the seventeenth century there were forty-nine men -employed in the Inland Department of the Post Office in London. The -Postmaster-General, or Controller as he was sometimes called, was -nominally responsible for the whole management although the accountant -and treasurer were more or less independent. Then there were eight -clerks of the roads. They had charge of the mails coming and going on -the six great roads to Holyhead, Bristol, Plymouth, Edinburgh, Yarmouth, -and Dover. The old veteran Hicks had been at their head until his -resignation in 1670. The General Post Office building was in Lombard -Street.[134] Letters might be posted there or at the receiving stations -at Westminster, Charing Cross, Pall Mall, Covent Garden, and the Inns of -Court. From these stations, letters were despatched to the General -Office twice on mail nights. For this work thirty-two letter carriers -were employed, but they did not deliver letters as their namesakes now -do. The mails left London for all parts of the country on Tuesday, -Thursday, and Saturday late at night or early the next morning. On these -days all officials had to attend at 6 P.M. and were generally at work -all night. On Monday, Wednesday and Friday when the mails arrived from -all parts of England they had to be on hand at 4 or 5 A.M. The postage -to be paid was stamped on the letters by the clerks of the roads. In -addition three sorters and three window-men were employed. The -window-men were the officials who stood at the window to receive the -letters handed in and to collect postage when it was prepaid. Then -there were an alphabet-man, who posted the names of merchants for whom -letters had arrived, a sorter of paid letters, and a clerk of undertaxed -letters.[135] In the Foreign Office, there were a controller, two -sorters, an alphabet-man, and eight letter receivers, of whom two were -women. In addition the Foreign Office had a rebate man who saw that -overcharged letters were corrected. Both offices seem to have shared the -carriers in common.[136] - -[134] Stow, _London_, bk. ii, p. 163. - -[135] _Notes and Queries_, series 9, i, p. 122; Hist. MSS. Com., _Rep._, -15, app., pt. 2, p. 19; _Cal. S. P. D._, 1670, p. 578. - -[136] Hist. MSS. Com., _Rep._, 15, app., pt. 2, p. 19. - -Before 1680 there was no post between one part of London and another. A -Londoner having a letter for delivery had either to take it himself or -send it by a special messenger. The houses were not numbered and were -generally recognized by the signs they bore or their nearness to some -public building. Such was the condition in the metropolis when William -Dockwra organized his London Penny Post. On the first of April, 1680, -London found itself in possession of a postal system which in some -respects was superior to that of to-day. In the Penny Post Office as so -established there were employed a controller, an accountant, a receiver, -thirteen clerks in the six offices, and about a hundred messengers to -collect and deliver letters. The six offices were:-- - - The General Office in Star Court, Cornhill; - St. Paul's Office in Queen's Head Alley, Newgate Street; - Temple Office in Colchester Rents in Chancery Lane; - Westminster Office, St. Martin's Lane; - Southwark Office near St. Mary Overy's Church; - Hermitage Office in Swedeland Court, East Smithfield. - -There were in all about 179 places in London where letters might be -posted. Shops and coffee-houses were used for this purpose in addition -to the six offices, and in almost every street a table might be seen at -some door or shop-window bearing in large letters the sign "Penny Post -Letters and Parcels are taken in here." From these places letters were -collected every hour and taken to the six main receiving-houses. There -they were sorted and stamped by the thirteen clerks. The same messengers -carried them from the receiving-houses to the people to whom they were -addressed. There were four deliveries a day to most parts of the city -and six or eight to the business centres. - -The postage fee for all letters or parcels to be delivered within the -bills of mortality was one penny, payable in advance. The penny rate was -uniform for all letters and parcels up to one pound in weight, which was -the maximum allowed. Articles or money to the value of £10 might be sent -and the penny payment insured their safe delivery. There was a daily -delivery to places ten or fifteen miles from London and there was also a -daily collection for such places. The charge of one penny in such cases -paid only for conveyance to the post-house and an additional penny was -paid on delivery. From such places to London, however, only one penny -was demanded and there was no fee for delivery. The carriers in London -travelled on foot, but in some of the neighbouring towns they rode on -horseback.[137] - -[137] Stow, _London_, bk. v, pp. 403-04; Thos. DeLaune, _Present State -of London_, 1681, pp. 346-47; W. Thornbury, _Old and New London_, ii, p. -209; Noorthouck, _Hist. of London_, 1773, p. 252. Noorthouck is mistaken -in making Murray the promoter of the London Penny Post, although the -idea may have originated with him. - -Dockwra is credited with being the first to make use of post-marks. All -letters were stamped at the six principal receiving-offices with the -name of the receiving-office and the hour of their reception. For -instance, we have samples of letters post-marked thus: - -[Illustration] - -The first figure shows that they were Penny Post letters and that they -were prepaid. The "W" in the centre is the initial letter of the -receiving-office, Westminster. The second figure shows the hour of -arrival at the Westminster office, 9 A.M. The earliest instance of these -marks is on a letter dated Dec. 9, 1681, written by the Bishop of London -to the Lord Mayor.[138] - -[138] _Notes and Queries_, ser. 6, xi, p. 153; Hist. MSS. Com., _Rep._, -10, app. 4, pp. 125, 132; Joyce, p. 38. - -Whenever letters came from any part of the world by the General Post, -directed to persons in London or in any of the towns where the Penny -Post carriers went, they were handed over to these carriers to be -delivered. In the same way, letters directed to any part of the world -might be left at any of the receiving-offices of the Penny Post to be -carried by its messengers to the General Office. This must have -increased greatly the number of letters carried by the General Post. In -the case of letters arriving by the General and delivered by the Penny -Post, the postage was paid on delivery.[139] Over two hundred and thirty -years ago then, London had for a time a system of postal delivery not -only unrivalled until a short time ago, but in the matter of parcel -rates and insurance not yet equalled. - -[139] DeLaune, _Present State of London_, 1681, p. 345. - -What was Dockwra's reward for the boon which he had conferred? He -himself says that it had been undertaken at his sole charge and had cost -him £10,000. It had not paid for the first few months, and the friends -who had associated themselves with him fell away.[140] As long as it -produced no surplus, Dockwra was left to do as he pleased, for the -General Post was gaining indirectly from it. As soon as it began to pay, -the Duke of York cast his eye on it. In 1683 an action was brought -against Dockwra for infringing upon the prerogative of His Royal -Highness, and the Duke won the case. The Penny Post was incorporated in -the General Post soon after.[141] After William and Mary had come to the -throne, Dockwra was given a pension of £500 a year for seven years. At -the end of that time he was appointed manager of the Penny Post -Department of the General Post and his pension was continued for three -years longer. In 1700 he was dismissed, charged with "forbidding the -taking in of band-boxes (unless very small) and all parcels above one -pound in weight, with stopping parcels, and opening and detaining -letters."[142] Such was Dockwra's reward and such had been Witherings'. -He who would reform the Post Office must be prepared to take his -official life in his hands. - -[140] _Cal. B. P._, 1697-1702, xliv, 56. - -[141] Two men living in Limerick and Tipperary claimed in 1692 that they -had organized a Penny Post in Ireland (_Cal. S. P. D._, 1691-92, p. -449). In 1704 the Countess Dowager of Thanet petitioned to be allowed to -establish a Penny Post in Dublin, but nothing was done (_Cal. T. P._, -1702-07, lxxxix, 305). - -[142] _Cal. T. P._, 1697-1702, lxxi, 40; Charles Knight, _London_, 1842, -iii, p. 282. - -The transition between two reigns was usually a period of unrest and -disquietude, and the Revolution which resulted in the expulsion of James -was naturally accompanied by internal disorder. For a time the posts -suffered quite severely. The Irish and Scotch mails were robbed several -times and not even the "Black Box" escaped. This was the box in which -were carried the despatches between Scotland and the Secretaries of -State, the use of which was not discontinued until after the accession -of the new King and Queen. After 1693 each Secretary was to send and -receive his own despatches separately and all expenses were to be met -from the proceeds of the London-Berwick post.[143] Major Wildman had -been appointed to the oversight of the Post Office, but held office for -a few months only, being succeeded in 1691 by Cotton and Frankland. The -Postmasters-General were henceforth to act under the Lords of the -Treasury.[144] - -[143] Hist. MSS. Com., _Rep._, 12, app., pt. 7, p. 262; _Cal. S. P. D._, -1690-91, p. 50; Hist. MSS. Com., _Rep._,15, app., pt. 9, pp. 144, 180; -_Cal. T. P._, 1557-1696, p. 284. - -[144] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1689-90, pp. 59, 74; _Cal. T. P._, 1557-1696, p. -203. - -Important improvements in the frequency and extension of postal -communication were inaugurated under the management of Cotton and -Frankland. It was, however, for the extension of the foreign postal -service and for that to Ireland and the plantations that their -administration is most notable. - -On Monday and Thursday letters went to France, Italy, and Spain, on -Monday and Friday to the Netherlands, Germany, Sweden, and Denmark. On -Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday, mails left for all parts of England, -Scotland, and Ireland, and there was a daily post to Kent and the Downs. -Letters arrived in London from all parts of England, Scotland, and -Ireland on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, from Wales every Monday and -from Kent and the Downs every day. Besides the establishment of the -General Post in London, there were about 200 deputy postmasters employed -in England and Scotland.[145] The Irish Post was supervised from London -and during the Irish war its headquarters in Ireland were transferred -from Dublin to Belfast. It was directly managed by a Deputy -Postmaster-General, aided by ten or a dozen officials and clerks. The -net receipts were sent to England and the books were audited by a deputy -sent over by the Auditor-General of the English Post.[146] - -[145] Stow, _London_, bk. v, p. 401; DeLaune, _Present State of -England_, ed. 1690, p. 343. - -[146] _Cal. T. P._, 1557-1696, pp. 369, 461. - -The Scotch Post Office was not in so good condition as the Irish. The -time when every Scotchman could read and write was yet very far distant. -The only post road of any importance was from Edinburgh to Berwick and -this had been established by the English. For many years the vast -majority of letters travelling over this road were official despatches. -After the crowns of England and Scotland were united, it was necessary -for the English Government to keep in close touch with Scotland and -"Black Box" made frequent journeys between the two countries. The canny -people in the north had discovered a rich country to the south waiting -to be exploited, and the post horses between Edinburgh and London were -kept busy carrying the lean and hungry northern folk to the land of milk -and honey. Until 1695 the English and Scotch Post Offices had been -united under the English Postmaster-General with an Edinburgh deputy; -but by the Scotch act of 1695 the Post Office of Scotland was separated -from that of England. The terms of this act were much the same as those -of the English act of 1660, although the rates established were somewhat -higher. There was to be a Postmaster-General living in Edinburgh, who -was to have the monopoly of carrying all letters and packets where posts -were settled.[147] - -[147] _Acts of Parliament of Scotland_, ix., pp. 417-419 (5 Wm. III). - -The first proposal for a postal establishment in the American colonies -came from New England in 1638. The reason given was that a post office -was "so useful and absolutely necessary."[148] Nothing was done by the -home government until fifty years later when a proclamation was issued, -ordering letter offices to be settled in convenient places on the North -American continent. Rates were established for the continental colonies -and Jamaica.[149] In 1691, acting upon a report of the Governors of the -Post-Office, the Lords of Trade and Plantations granted a patent to -Thomas Neale to establish post offices in North America. About the same -time an act was passed by the Colony of Massachusetts appointing Andrew -Hamilton Postmaster-General. The Lords of Trade and Plantations called -attention to the fact that this act was not subject to the patent -granted to Neale. Matters were adjusted by Neale himself, who appointed -Hamilton his deputy in North America.[150] In 1699 a report was made by -Cotton and Frankland to the Lords of the Treasury based on a memorial -from Neale and Hamilton. The latter had established a regular weekly -post between Boston and New York and from New York to Newcastle in -Pennsylvania. The receipts had increased every year and now covered all -expenses except Hamilton's own salary, £200. Postmasters had been -appointed in New York and Philadelphia, Hamilton himself being in -Boston. The New York postmaster received a salary of £20 with an -additional £90 for carrying the mail half-way to Boston. The -Philadelphia postmaster was paid £10 a year.[151] - -[148] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1574-1660, p. 273. - -[149] Joyce, pp. 196, 300. - -[150] _Cal. S. P. Am. and W. I._, 1693-96, p. 637. - -[151] _Cal. T. P._, 1697-1702, lx, 77. - -The business of the Post Office was rapidly increasing. The same decade -that saw the establishment of the Board of Trade witnessed also the -organization of the Colonial Post. The expansion of English -commerce[152] necessarily reacted on communications both internal and -foreign, while the linking of the country posts with the general system -and the stimulus given by the London Penny Post showed itself in the -increased postal revenue.[153] The way was prepared for the great -expansion of the following century, an expansion turned to account as a -source of taxation. - -[152] Macpherson, _Annals of Commerce_, ii, 707. - -[153] See Appendix: Tables I, II. - - - - -CHAPTER III - -THE POSTAL ESTABLISHMENT AN INSTRUMENT OF TAXATION - -1711-1840 - - -The year 1711 is an important landmark in the history of the British -Post Office. England and Scotland had united not only under one king but -under one Parliament, the war with France made a larger revenue -necessary, the growth of the Colonies required better communication with -the mother country and each other, and it was highly expedient that -certain changes in the policy of the Post Office should receive -parliamentary sanction. The act of 1711 was intended to meet these -conditions. The English and Scotch Post Offices were united under one -Postmaster-General in London, where letters might be received from and -sent to all parts of Great Britain, Ireland, the colonies and foreign -countries. The postage rates were increased to meet the demand for a -larger revenue. In addition to the General Office in London, chief -letter offices were ordered to be set up in Edinburgh, Dublin, New York, -the West Indies, and other American colonies, and deputies were -appointed to take charge of them. - -One of the most important clauses of this act, by providing regulations -for the management of the London Penny Post, finally placed the seal of -the approval of Parliament upon a branch of the General Post, which had -existed for nearly thirty years by virtue of royal proclamations and -legal decisions alone. A penny rate was imposed upon all letters and -packets passing by the Penny Post in London, Westminster and Southwark -to be received and delivered within ten miles from the General Post -Office building. This would seem at first sight to be an improvement on -the old custom, by which a penny had carried only within the bills of -mortality; but as a matter of fact an extra penny was demanded on -letters delivered outside the bills and within the ten mile limit. -Protest was, however, made against this as being illegal, and it was -not until 1730 that the custom was sanctioned.[154] - -[154] In 1765 the maximum weight for articles passing wholly by the -Penny Post was lowered from 16 to 4 ounces (5 Geo. III, c. 25). - -One other provision of the new act remains to be mentioned. The last -section forbade any official connected with the Post Office from -meddling in politics.[155] The system of party government which had -begun to take form during William and Mary's reign, was developing. -Under Anne, the Whigs had been the war party, the expansionists, while -the Tories were anxious for peace. So different were their policies that -Marlborough had gone over to the Whigs. But the Queen and probably the -majority of the people were tired of war. Godolphin, the great -financier, had given way to Harley and the general election was -favourable to the Tories. Frankland had died before the act was passed, -but Cotton, who was a member of Parliament, preferred to keep his -position in the Post Office and accordingly accepted the Chiltern -Hundreds. A Mr. Evelyn was associated with him as Postmaster-General. - -[155] 9 Anne, c. 11. - -Shortly after his appointment the attention of the department was -directed to a weakness in administrative control which had already -resulted in considerable financial loss. The Postmasters-General had -always experienced considerable difficulty in collecting the postage on -bye and cross road letters.[156] Since these letters did not reach -London, no check was possible to ascertain whether the postmaster -transmitted to headquarters the full amount of the postage collected on -them. The difficulty had been met before 1711 by farming a large number -of the country post offices.[157] In 1711 the leases under which the -farmers had held office were cancelled and all the posts in the kingdom -came again under the direct oversight of the Postmasters-General. The -old farmers were made managers, with an allowance of 10 per cent from -the net proceeds of the posts under their control, and the deputy -postmasters were again paid directly by the state. The Government had -refused o appoint surveyors when the act of 1711 was drafted and for a -time these managers acted in that capacity.[158] The experiment was not -a success and the Postmasters-General were at their wits' end to know -what to do to save the revenue which was being diverted to the pockets -of the country postmasters. - -[156] A bye-letter was the name given to a letter carried over one of -the great roads but not passing to, from or through London. A cross post -letter passed not over the great roads, but over subsidiary or minor -roads. - -[157] Joyce, p. 136. - -[158] _Cal. T. P._, 1714-19, cxc, 26; ccvi, 29. - -The country was happily spared any new device on their part, for in 1721 -a man came forward with a proposal to take all the losses upon himself -or rather to prevent them entirely. This was Ralph Allen, whose name is -worth remembering, not as a reformer but as a good business man who came -to the rescue of the postal revenue at a rather critical time. He was -the son of an innkeeper at St. Blazey. At an early age we find him -living with his grandmother, the postmistress of St. Columb. He came -under the notice of one of the surveyors there on account of the -neatness with which he kept the accounts for his grandmother. When he -was old enough, he was appointed to a position in the Post Office at -Bath and in time was made postmaster there. Tradition has it that during -the insurrection of 1715 he informed the authorities that a wagon load -of arms was on its way from the West for the use of the rebels and that -this led to his preferment.[159] He offered to farm the cross and bye -posts throughout the kingdom. The net product from these posts amounted -to £4000 in 1719. Allen offered to pay half as much again and meet all -expenses. The offer was accepted, and in 1721 he was given the lease of -the cross and bye posts for a period of seven years. The rent was fixed -at £6000 a year in accordance with the agreement. For the first quarter, -the receipts exceeded expectations, but later the postmasters began to -relapse into their old ways. In addition, the contract was rather hard -on Allen, as £300 of the £4000 nominally received by the Post Office was -for letters not delivered and hence not paid for. After the third year, -matters began to improve and the receipts increased greatly. The -contract was renewed for terms of seven years, until Allen's death in -1769, and the rent was increased at each renewal.[160] - -[159] Joyce, p. 146. - -[160] _Cal. T. B. & P._, 1731-34, p. 539; W. Thornbury, _Old and New -London_, ii, p. 209; W. Lewins, _Her Majesty's Mails_, ed. 1865, pp. -104-12. - -How did he succeed when so many others had failed? In the first place -he introduced the use of post bills and every postmaster had to -distinguish on these bills the bye letters from all others. The voucher, -which he also introduced, seems to have been only an acknowledgment of -the amount to be collected by each postmaster. Besides this, Allen had a -most intimate knowledge of the various post towns in the kingdom, of -their importance and of the number of letters which might naturally be -expected to pass between them. He based his conclusions upon quite -obvious considerations. Between any two towns of much the same -importance he expected about the same correspondence, that it would not -vary much, and that the letters received and despatched would pretty -well equal each other.[161] - -[161] Joyce, pp. 155, 162. - -When Allen's contract was renewed in 1741 it was proposed that he should -be obliged to settle and support at his own charge posts six days a week -instead of the former tri-weekly posts between London, Cambridge, Lynn, -Norwich, and Yarmouth and from London to Bath, Bristol, Gloucester, and -intermediate towns. This was not done at once, but during the next few -years this proposition was put into effect.[162] In 1734, in addition to -his cross and bye post letters, Allen undertook to pay for the -improvements which he had made in the conveyance of country -letters.[163] He pointed out at the same time that there was some -opposition between the two parts of his contract, since country and -cross post letters interfered more or less with each other.[164] - -[162] _Cal. T. B. & P._, 1730-41, pp. 449-450. - -[163] Country letters were those sent through London. _Cal. T. B. & P._, -1739-41, p. 450. - -[164] _Cal. T. B. & P._, 1734-41, pp. 445, 450; W. Thornbury, _Old and -New London_, ii, p. 209. - -Allen died in 1769, being worth, according to current report, £500,000. -Lewins says that he made £12,000 a year from his farm. Probably both -statements are exaggerated, but it is certain that he accumulated a -respectable fortune while managing the bye and cross posts.[165] - -[165] He is the man to whom Pope alluded in the couplet, - -"Let humble Allen, with an honest shame, Do good by stealth and blush to -find it fame." - -Allen and the poet had a falling out just before the death of the -latter. In his will, Pope left his quondam friend £150 to pay a "few -little debts." Allen is said to have remarked that if Pope had added -another figure, it would have represented better the "few little debts." -W. Lewins, _Her Majesty's Mails_, pp. 104-12. - -There had been a considerable increase in the staff of the General -Office and many improvements introduced since 1711. At the head of the -office were two Commissioners called Postmasters-General, each with a -salary of £2000, assisted by a Secretary and four clerks. There were in -addition a Receiver-General, an Accountant-General, a Solicitor, a -Resident-Surveyor, and two inspectors of missent letters. In addition to -the Penny Post carriers, who were employed also by the General Post, -there were a Court Messenger and a carrier for the House of Commons. At -the General Office, letters were taxed and sorted by the "Clerks of the -Road" and their assistants and by seventeen sorters. The window-man and -alphabet-keeper received the money on prepaid letters and posted lists -of those for whom letters had arrived. Undertaxed letters from the -country were re-taxed by the "Clerks of the Road." Besides the -receiving-houses of the Penny Post where all letters might be posted, -there were thirty receiving-houses for the General Post. Letters were -conveyed from these to the central office by sixty-nine carriers.[166] - -[166] _Cal. T. B. & P._, 1742-45, pp. 102-235; Maitland, _Survey of -London_, p. 998; Noorthouck, _Hist. of London_, 1773, p. 658. - -Letters were sent every night to the principal South and Midland towns -of England. On Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday, there were mails for all -parts of England and Scotland and on Tuesday and Saturday for Ireland -and Wales. On Monday and Thursday, letters were sent to France, Spain, -and Italy, on Monday and Friday to Germany, Flanders, Sweden, and -Denmark, and on Tuesday and Friday to Holland. Letters arrived in London -every day from the South and Midland towns, on Monday, Wednesday, and -Friday, from all parts of England and Scotland, and on Monday and Friday -from Ireland and Wales.[167] It will be seen from this that the -improvements in postal communications, which had taken place since the -beginning of the century, had been confined to the South and Midland -towns of England and to foreign countries. - -[167] J. Latimer, _Annals of Bristol_, 1893, p. 235; _London and its -Environs_, 1761, v, pp. 209-222. - -With the foregoing enlargement of postal facilities an old grievance on -the part of the public began to assume an acute form. It had always been -a debated question as to how far the postmasters were responsible for -the delivery of letters. There was no general rule upon the question and -the practice varied in different parts of England. Although the towns on -the post roads were fairly well off as far as their letters were -concerned, it was different with those places which were neither on the -great roads nor on the bye-roads leading off from them. The mails for -such places were left at the nearest post towns and were conveyed to -their destination by carriers and messengers. Cotton and Frankland -stated that in addition to collecting the regular postage, they demanded -for this service an extra payment of 3_d._, 6_d._, and sometimes 12_d._ -It was proposed in 1699 that the delivery should be made by persons -appointed to collect as well as to deliver all letters and parcels. For -this they were allowed to take one penny or whatever the people wished -to give them.[168] In Sandwich the cross and bye post letters had always -been delivered free, although a fee was charged for the London letters. -The postmaster there decided to charge for all letters, and the -inhabitants of Sandwich protested. The case was carried to the courts -and the Post Office lost. Sandwich, however, was a place where there had -been a free delivery of part of the letters at least. The -Postmasters-General were very much disturbed at this decision and still -more disturbed lest the courts might decide for free delivery in other -post towns, which had always paid. They resolved to bring on a test -case. The town of Hungerford in Berkshire was chosen, as it could be -proved that the postmaster of that place had received a penny for each -letter delivered since the beginning of the century. The case came -before the Court of King's Bench, Lord Mansfield presiding, and the Post -Office lost again. This case was decided in 1774, and the next year the -"Liverpool Advertiser" records a complaint to the Postmasters-General -that there was only one letter carrier in Liverpool. The reply was that -only one carrier was maintained in any provincial town and that -Liverpool could expect no better treatment.[169] - -[168] _Cal. T. B._, 1697-1702, lxiv, 17; _ibid._, 1702-07, lxxxvi, 134. - -[169] E. Green, _Bibliotheca Somersetensis_, 1902, i, p. 108; Joyce, pp. -107-108; Latimer, _Annals of Bristol_, p. 416. - -At the same time that the Post Office received this adverse decision it -had begun to suffer severely from the illegal carriage of letters by the -post coaches. These post coaches were so called merely because they were -most numerous on the post roads. John Palmer, the proprietor of a -theatre in Bath, pointed out to the Postmasters-General that the coaches -were speedier and cheaper than the post boys who carried the mails on -horseback and proposed that he should be allowed to establish mail -coaches and thus save the postage on letters illegally carried by the -post coaches. His coaches were to be protected by a guard, presumably a -retired soldier, who was to be armed with two guns and to sit facing the -road in front of him. The driver was to carry pistols. No outside -passengers were to be carried, since they impeded the guard in -performing his duties. The speed was to be not less than eight or nine -miles an hour, twice as fast as the post boys travelled. In addition the -mails were to leave London at 8 P.M. instead of after midnight. The -coaches were all to leave London together and return together as far as -possible. To insure this they were not to wait for government letters -when the latter were delayed.[170] - -[170] _D. N. B._, xliii, p. 140; Knight, _London_, 1842, iii, p. 280. - -The first mail coach ran between London and Bristol in 1784. It was -furnished by contractors at a cost of 3_d._ a mile. This was the initial -cost, however, and by 1797, the rate had been reduced to a penny a mile -each way. In the early part of August, 1784, there was only one mail -coach. At the end of the same month, coaches went to Norwich, -Nottingham, Liverpool, and Manchester. During the next year they were -sent to Leeds, Gloucester, Swansea, Hereford, Milford, Worcester, -Birmingham, Shrewsbury, Holyhead, Exeter, Portsmouth, and other places. -In 1786 they ran between London and Edinburgh. In 1797 there were -forty-two mail coach routes established, connecting sixty of the most -important towns in the kingdom, as well as intermediate places. These -coaches travelled a total distance of 4110 miles and cost the Government -£12,416 a year, only half the sum paid for post horses and riders under -the old system. The coaches made daily journeys over nearly two thirds -of the total distance traversed and tri-weekly journeys over something -less than one third the total distance. The remainder travelled one, -two, four, and six times a week. The result of the establishment of -these mail coaches was summed up by a Parliamentary committee in the -following words: "They have lessened the chance of robbery, diminished -the need for special messengers and expresses, and now carry the letters -formerly sent by post coaches."[171] - -[171] _Parl. Papers_, 1812-13, _Rep. Com._, ii, pp. 4, 36, 37, 98; _Fin. -Rep._, 1797, no. 7, p. 114; _D. N. B._, xliii, p. 140. - -Palmer had been appointed Controller-General of the Post Office and had -chosen as his assistant a man by the name of Bonner. Palmer himself was -of a violent and headstrong disposition, and as ill-luck would have it, -Walsingham, one of the Postmasters-General, was as masterful as himself. -Palmer considered that his office was outside the scope of Walsingham's -authority, and although he failed in making his position absolutely free -from the control of the Postmasters-General, yet he heeded them as -little as possible. He organized a newspaper department without -consulting his superiors and paid no attention to them when an -explanation was asked. He stirred up the London merchants to complain -about the late delivery of their letters, a delay which he had probably -brought about intentionally. A mail coach had been ordered by Walsingham -to carry the King's private despatches while His Majesty was taking the -waters at Cheltenham. This was done without consulting Palmer, who was -so indignant that he persuaded the contractor to send in an enormous -bill for supplying the coach. All this came out through the treachery of -Bonner, who owed his advancement entirely to the friend whom he -betrayed. He went so far as to hand over to the Postmasters-General the -private letters which Palmer had written him. Palmer was dismissed in -1792 with a pension.[172] - -[172] _Fin. Rep._, 1797, no. 7, pp. 82-83; Joyce, pp. 251, 275. - -At the time of Palmer's appointment, a Treasury warrant had been issued -for the payment to him of £1500 a year and 2 per cent of the increase -from the Post Office revenue, but this warrant had been pronounced -illegal by the Attorney-General. Through Pitt's influence, Palmer -finally obtained £1500 a year and 2 per cent on any increase in net -revenue over £240,000 a year. Palmer objected to this on the ground -that the old net revenue was only £150,000 a year, but Pitt replied that -the increased rates of 1784 would produce at least £90,000. It is -improbable, however, that the new rates produced the increase estimated. -In 1797 Palmer presented a petition to the House of Commons, asking for -the arrears due him according to his method of estimating the increase -in net revenue, upon which his percentage was due. He said that before -his system was introduced the gross product of the Post Office was -decreasing at the rate of £13,000 a year. This was not true. He claimed -that the increase after 1784 was wholly due to his own reforms, taking -no account of the increased rates and the industrial expansion of -England. No action was taken by Parliament.[173] - -[173] _Fin. Rep._, 1797, no. 7, p. 127; _Jo. H. C._, 1796-97, p. 581. - -One of the arguments advanced by Palmer for the use of mail coaches was -their security against robbers. Previous to and during the rebellion of -1745 numerous attempts were made to rob the mails, and many of them were -successful. These robberies occurred principally at night. It was said -that the mails were carried by boys not always of the best character, -and that very often they were in league with the robbers. The -Postmasters-General asked for soldiers to patrol the roads where these -robberies were the most frequent. This was the method which Cromwell had -used to protect the mails. The request does not seem to have been -granted, but in 1765 the death penalty was imposed for robbing the mail -and for stealing a letter containing a bank note or bill. Any post boy -deserting the mail or allowing any one but the guard to ride on the -horse or carriage with the mails was liable to commitment to hard -labour.[174] Palmer's prediction was fulfilled by the comparative safety -with which the mails were carried after his coaches had come into use. - -[174] _Cal. T. B. & P._, 1739-41, p. 234; 5 Geo. III, c. 25. The Post -Office occasionally made good the loss of valuables from theft or -robbery, but as a rule refused to do so. _Cal. T. P._, 1729-30, p. 75; -_Cal. T. B. & P._, 1731-34, p. 74. - -Charles, Earl of Tankerville, and Lord Carteret had been the -Postmasters-General in 1782 and 1783. On the fall of Shelburne's -ministry in the latter year, Tankerville left the Post Office, but -Carteret still remained. So far these two men had worked together -fairly well, although Tankerville had a suspicion that his colleague -had been engaged in some doubtful transactions. In 1784, when Pitt -became Prime Minister, Tankerville was restored to his old office. In -the same year a transaction came under his notice which aroused his -suspicion. A Mr. Lees had been appointed Secretary of the Irish Post -Office. The man who had held this position was made agent of the Dover -packet boats, the old agent having been superannuated. The new agent -agreed to pay to his predecessor the full amount of the salary coming to -the place, while he himself was to be paid by Mr. Lees the total salary -coming to the Secretary in Ireland. So far there was nothing uncommon -about the arrangement. The unusual part of the agreement and the part -which attracted Tankerville's attention was Lees' promise to pay the -money to "A. B.," an unknown person, after the old agent's death. -Suspicion pointed to Carteret as the man to whom the money was to be -paid. Lees himself denied this, but did not say who "A. B." was.[175] - -[175] _Jo. H. C._, 1787, p. 800. - -In 1787 a Mr. Staunton, the postmaster of Islesworth, a position worth -£400 a year, was in addition appointed Controller and Resident Surveyor -of the Bye and Cross Posts, to which was attached a salary of £500, -coals and candles and a house. The First Lord of the Treasury proposed -that the house should not go with the office, and Carteret decided that -Staunton should receive an extra £100 a year in lieu of the house. -Tankerville refused to agree to this, and the contention became so warm -that the whole matter was referred to Pitt, who, rather than lose -Carteret's political support, dismissed Tankerville.[176] Tankerville at -once demanded an investigation, which was granted. The results showed -the Post Office to be in a deplorable state. Tankerville was completely -exonerated, but failed to obtain much sympathy on account of the -violence of his attack upon Pitt and Carteret. It came out in the -investigation that "A. B." was a foreigner named Treves, who had no -claim on the Post Office or any other department of the government -except that he was a friend of Carteret. Carteret himself knew the -condition of his appointment, but had done nothing except to express -himself displeased with the whole arrangement. A payment of £200 a year -had also been exacted from Mr. Dashwood, Postmaster-General of Jamaica, -as the condition of his appointment, and that too had gone to Treves. -The agent at Helvoetsluys had been allowed by Carteret to sell his -position to a man as incapable as himself. Staunton's office had been -abolished soon after his appointment, and he had been allowed to retire -at the age of forty years with a pension of £600 a year in the face of -the rule that officers of an advanced age and after long service were -allowed upon retirement to receive only two thirds of their -salaries.[177] - -[176] _Ibid._, 1787, p. 800. - -[177] _Jo. H. C._, 1787, p. 800. - -The Postmasters-General had received in 1783, in addition to their -salaries, over £900 for coals. They had also received £694 for candles -during two years and a half and £150 for tinware for the same period. -Tankerville had taken his share of these perquisites, but it is only -fair to add that Carteret's emoluments exceeded his by £213 for the -periods under consideration. It had become customary to receive a money -payment in place of a large part of their supplies. In 1782 the total -sum going to the officials of the General Office amounted to £28,431, of -which sum about £10,000 were placed under the heading of emoluments -other than salaries.[178] Of all the departments of the Post Office, the -Sailing Packet Service was the one most in need of reform. - -[178] _Fin. Rep._, 1797, no. 7, pp. 82-83; _Jo. H. C._, 1787, p 817. - -The light, which was then let in among the dark places of the Post -Office, had a most excellent effect. Acting on the report furnished by -the committee of the House, a new establishment was effected in 1793. -The reforms were approved by the Postmasters-General and carried out -under the direction of the Lords of the Treasury. The good work had been -begun in 1784 by Palmer. He had appointed additional clerks, letter -carriers, surveyors and messengers, had established new offices, and had -increased the inadequate pay of minor officials. This had entailed an -increase of £19,022 in expenses in the General and Penny Posts, but the -increase was justified by increased efficiency and by larger returns -from the conveyance of letters. Of the total increase, £11,451 had been -spent on the General Office and £7571 on the Penny Post, to which had -been added eighty-six more letter carriers for London and seventy-eight -more for the suburbs, as well as some supernumerary carriers.[179] The -reforms introduced in 1793 may be grouped under three heads: regulations -respecting fees and emoluments, abolition of some offices and an -increase in officers and clerks in others; regulation of official -business. The regulations respecting fees and emoluments were -necessarily negative in their character. The most important were as -follows: The postmasters were no longer to pay fees to the -Postmasters-General on the renewal of the bonds given by their -securities. The two per cent allowed to the Scotch Deputy -Postmaster-General on all remittances from Scotland was discontinued and -a compensation for life was granted instead. The fees for tinware were -abolished, and the pension to the New York agent was to cease. No postal -official was allowed to own shares in the sailing packets, and with a -few minor exceptions all salaries were henceforth to be in lieu of every -emolument or fee.[180] - -[179] _Fin. Rep._, 1797, no. 7, pp. 3, 66-83. - -[180] _Ibid._, no. 7, pp. 52-65. - -A number of sinecure and useless offices were abolished. The chief among -them were: Jamineau's perquisite office which had the monopoly of -selling newspapers to the "Clerks of the Roads," the Secretary's -position as agent for the packets, the Controller of the Bye and Cross -Posts, the Inspector of Dead Letters in the Bye Letter Office, the -Collector in the Bye Letter Office, the Secretary of the Foreign Office, -and the Controller of the Inland Office.[181] - -[181] _Ibid._, no. 7, pp. 52-65. - -The changes in business regulations were as follows: The -Postmasters-General were no longer to include legal charges, chaise -hire, and pensions under the head of dead letters. The -Postmasters-General's warrant must be entered previous to any money -being paid. The payment of debts must be enforced. The West India -accounts should be sent to the deputy there every quarter. The payments -to mail coach contractors must be made directly by warrant instead of -through the Controller-General. No change was made in the anomalous -position of the Accountant-General. He was supposed to be a check upon -the Receiver-General, but had to depend upon the Receiver-General's -books for verifying the remittances from the deputies.[182] - -[182] _Ibid._, no. 7, pp. 8, 52-65. - -The Englishman's belief in the sanctity of vested interests has usually -been too strong to permit any abridgment of rights or privileges without -compensation. Those postal officials who had been dismissed or whose -sinecure offices had been abolished were not to be turned entirely -adrift. Provision was made for pensioning most of them. Before the -reform the total sum paid by the Post Office in pensions was £1500. The -incumbrances dismissed were allowed £6101, and between 1793 and 1797 -£1475 more were added to the pension list. It was pointed out at the -time that it was far better to pension them off and leave them to die -than to continue them in service. In 1797 it was a relief to be able to -announce "that already £648 had been saved from dead and promoted -pensioners."[183] - -[183] _Fin. Rep._, no. 7, p. 130. - -The report of the committee which had been appointed at Tankerville's -suggestion is silent on the question of the opening and detention of -letters. It had been provided by the act of 1711 that no letters should -be opened or detained except under protection of an express warrant from -one of the Secretaries of State. The Royal Commission of 1844 reported -that from 1712 to 1798, the number of warrants so issued was 101, -excluding those which were well known or easily ascertained. The -Secretary of State for the Inland Department issued most of them. From -1798 to 1844, 372 warrants were issued, many of them being general -warrants and often for very trivial causes. At the trial of Bishop -Atterbury, the principal witnesses against him were Post Office clerks, -who had opened and copied letters to and from him, under warrant from -one of the Secretaries.[184] - -[184] _Rep. Com._, 1844, xiv, pp. 9-11; app., p. 105 (78); app., p. 107 -(79); app., p. 111 (83). - -In addition to this regular method for intercepting letters, a -particular department had been in existence for some time with no other -duties than to examine letters. Strictly speaking it had nothing to do -with the Post Office and was supported entirely from the "Secret Service -Fund." The truth about it came out in the examination of the conduct of -Sir Robert Walpole by the "Committee of Secrecy." From 1732 to 1742, -£45,675 had been spent upon this department. It had originated in 1718 -and the expenses for that year were only £446, but by 1742 they had -increased more than tenfold. The Secretary of the Post Office in giving -his evidence before the committee, said that this office received -instructions from the Secretaries of State and reported to them. The -working force consisted of a chief decipherer, assisted by his son and -three other decipherers, five clerks, the Controller of the Foreign -Office, a doorkeeper and a former alphabet keeper. Either considerable -business was transacted there or it was a retreat for useless -officials.[185] - -[185] _Rep. Com_., 1844, xiv, app., p. 112 (84); _Cal. T. B. & P_., -1742-45, p. 669. - -An account is given in Howell's "State Trials" of the trial of Hensey -and of the practice then in vogue for finding treasonable -correspondence. His letters were handed over for investigation to the -Secretary of State by a Post Office clerk. This clerk in giving his -evidence said that when war was declared against any nation, the -Postmasters-General issued orders at once to stop all suspected letters. -These orders were given to all the Post Office clerks and letter -carriers. Such instructions can only be justified as a war measure, for -the act of 1711 had provided that no letter should be detained or opened -unless by express warrant from one of the Secretaries of State for every -such detention or opening.[186] - -[186] _Rep. Com_., 1844, xiv, app., p. 112 (85); Howell, _State Trials_, -xix, col. 1369. This was in 1758. - -We find very few complaints about the opening of letters during the -second half of the eighteenth century. On the other hand it must be -confessed that letters were at times opened and searched merely to learn -the beliefs and plans of political opponents. It is difficult to -determine to how great an extent this practice was prevalent as there -seems little doubt that the complainants may occasionally have been -prompted by their own vanity to believe that their correspondence had -been tampered with.[187] In 1795, during the great war with France, the -Government ordered all letters directed to the United Provinces to be -detained. The question then was, what was to be done with them? None of -them seems to have been opened and the cause for their detention was -only to prevent any information being given to the enemy. Accordingly -by an act of Parliament passed in the same year, the Post Office was -empowered to return them to the writers.[188] - -[187] Joyce is of opinion that such practices were very common. So also -is May (T. E. May, _Constitutional History of England_, 1882, iii, pp. -44-49; D. B. Eaton, _Civil Service in Great Britain_, New York, 1880, p. -115). - -[188] 35 Geo. III, c. 62. - -Although the larger part of the fees and emoluments enjoyed by the -postal officials had been abolished in 1793, the proceeds from those -which were left continued to increase steadily. By far the most -lucrative was the privilege of franking newspapers, within the kingdom, -to the colonies, and to foreign countries. Ever since newspapers had -been printed, the "Clerks of the Roads" had been allowed to send them to -any part of the kingdom without paying postage. After 1763, when members -of Parliament were allowed the same privilege, every one felt at liberty -to make use of a member's frank for this purpose, and the Clerks -suffered accordingly. Newspapers to the Colonies were franked by the -Secretary of the Post Office and produced a revenue of £3700 in 1817, -all of which went to Sir Francis Freeling who was then Secretary. In -1825 the privilege of franking papers within the kingdom and to the -colonies was withdrawn, but compensation was granted to Sir -Francis.[189] This did not end the trouble, for the Clerks still acted -as newspaper venders. On account of their official position they were -able to post them until 8 P.M., while the regular newsvenders were -allowed to do so only until 5 P.M. at the Lombard Street Office and 6 -P.M. at the General Office or they must pay a special fee of a halfpenny -on each.[190] Mr. Hume, the member for Montrose, brought the case before -the House, and in 1834 all Post Office officials were forbidden to sell -newspapers. At the same time the officials in the Foreign Office lost -the right to frank papers to any foreign country.[191] - -[189] _Rep. Commrs._, 1829, xi, pp. 215-222. - -[190] London _Times_, 1829, Oct. 6, p. 2; _ibid._, 1832, March 14, p. 1. - -[191] _Parl. Deb._, 3d ser., xxiv, col. 875. - -The members of the Secretary's office had, since 1799 and 1801, issued -two official publications, which paid no postage. These were called the -"Packet List" and the "Shipping List." The first of these contained all -the intelligence received at the Post Office concerning the sailing -packets. The second contained information about private vessels, -furnished principally by "Lloyds." The Commissioners commented upon this -practice in very uncomplimentary language.[192] In addition, the -members of the Secretary's department received fees on the deputations -granted to new postmasters in England and Wales, upon commissions -granted to agents and postmasters abroad, upon private expresses to and -from London, and upon news supplied to the London press during a general -election.[193] In 1837 the fees on deputations and commissions were -abolished, private expresses were discontinued, the "Shipping List" was -discontinued, and the "Packet List" passed from the control of the Post -Office. The revenue from these fees in the Secretary's Office which were -still continued was to go henceforth to the general revenue.[194] - -[192] _Acc. & P._, 1817, pp. 4-16; _Rep. Commrs._, 1837, xxxiv, 8th rep. -app., nos. 12, 13, 14. - -[193] _Ibid._, 1837, xxxiv, 8th rep., app., no. 12. - -[194] _Acc. & P._, 1837-38, xlv, 265, p. 5. - -An extra charge of 6_d._ was demanded upon letters posted between 7 P.M. -and 8 P.M. This had been the rule since 1800, and the proceeds went -either to the Inland or Foreign Office. So also did the registration -fees on ships' letters. These fees were transferred to the general -revenue in 1837.[195] In 1827 the total amount received in fees, -emoluments, and gratuities by the officials in the London Office was -£23,100, by agents and country postmasters £16,500. Most of these were -either abolished or transferred to the general revenue in 1837.[196] - -[195] _Rep. Commrs._, 1837, xxxiv, 8th rep., app., no. 3. - -[196] _Rep. Commrs._, 1829, xi, p. 214. - -The distinguishing feature of the Post Office during the eighteenth -century was the extension of its service, which accompanied the -industrial expansion of the kingdom. The abuses which naturally flourish -during a prosperous period had been largely remedied by the reform of -1793. The nation's need for a larger revenue led not only to a great -increase in postage rates but also to stricter economy in the -organization of the Post Office. The London and Dublin Penny Posts were -reformed and extended, the work of the General and Penny Posts in London -was harmonized, the employees were increased, and the new departments -which had been established were reformed and consolidated. - -The Newspaper Office which had been illegally established by Palmer was -continued after his dismissal. Walsingham had objected to it on the -ground that Palmer had no right to appoint any officials without his -consent. Previously all newspapers had been forwarded to the postmasters -free of postage by the "Clerks of the Roads." Now that they might be -sent with the letters, they were brought in at the last moment still wet -from the press so that they defaced the writing on the letters sent in -the same bag.[197] In 1784 a Dead Letter Office was also established. -Previously, dead and missent letters had been handed to a clerk in the -General Office. During Allen's farm of the cross and bye post letters, -missent letters were no longer forwarded to London, but any postmaster, -into whose hands they came, was instructed to place them on the right -track.[198] Four years later a third office was instituted, a Money -Order Office. No order could be issued for more than five guineas and -the fee for that sum was 4_s._ 6_d._ It was started as a private -speculation by some of the postal officials and so remained until 1838 -when it was taken over by the General Post Office.[199] - -[197] _Parl. Papers_, 1812-13, _Rep. Com._, ii, p. 87. - -[198] _Fin. Rep._, 1797, no. 7, pp. 82-83. - -[199] W. Thornbury, _Old and New London_, ii, p. 212. - -The policy of the Post Office with reference to the registration of -letters containing valuables varied with the nature of the enclosure and -the manner in which it was sent. On ships' letters sent from England, -the registration fee was one guinea, and a receipt was given to the -person sending a registered letter. The fee for a letter coming into the -kingdom was only 5_s._[200] If bank notes were enclosed in a letter, it -received no special attention from the Post Office. If gold or silver -was sent in a letter marked "money letter," the postmaster placed it in -a separate envelope and made a special entry on the way bill, which was -repeated at every office it passed through. No special fee was charged -for the extra attention bestowed upon these letters until 1835 when the -Postmaster-General was allowed to charge a fee for their registration in -addition to the ordinary postage.[201] The Money Order Department, still -a private undertaking, had its fees reduced from 6_d._ to 3_d._ on sums -not exceeding £2 and from 18_d._ to 6_d._ on sums exceeding £2 but not -more than £5.[202] - -[200] _Rep. Commrs._, 1837, xxxiv, 8th rep., app., no. 3. - -[201] _London Times_, 1832, Apr. 27, p. 3; 5 and 6 Wm. IV, c. 25; 3 and -4 Vict., c. 96. - -[202] London _Times_, 1837, Jan. 26, p. 5; Dec. 13, p. 4; _Acc. & P._, -1841, xxvi, 221, no. 6. - -At the same time that the General Post was being reformed, a former -letter carrier by the name of Johnson was improving the Penny Post. The -six principal receiving-houses which Dockwra had instituted had been -reduced to five and were now still further reduced to two. The -subsidiary receiving-houses in the shops and coffee-houses were -increased and the number of letter carriers more than doubled. Six -regular deliveries for the city proper and three for the suburbs were -introduced. Before 1793 the deliveries in the city had not been made at -the same time, for the carriers had to go to one of the main -receiving-houses to get their letters. The deliveries were now made as -near the same time as possible all over the city and the delivery hours -were posted so that people might know when to expect the carriers and -thus act as a check upon them. Mounted messengers conveyed the letters -to those carriers who delivered in distant parts of the city.[203] - -[203] Joyce, p. 302; _Fin. Rep._, 1797, no. 7, p. 83. - -In 1794 an act was passed "to regulate the postage and conveyance of -letters by the carriage called the Penny Post." The rate for letters -posted in London, Westminster, Southwark and the suburbs for any place -within these places and their suburbs remained one penny. Letters sent -from these places to any place outside paid 2_d._ as before. Hitherto -letters sent from outside to London, Westminster, Southwark and the -suburbs had paid only one penny. This was raised by the act of 1794 to -2_d._ It was also provided that the postage for Penny Post letters need -not be paid in advance. This would increase the expense but the idea was -probably to secure greater safety in the delivery of letters. Finally, -the surplus revenue at the end of each quarter was to be considered part -of the revenue of the General Post.[204] - -[204] 34 Geo. III, c. 17. - -The changes introduced by Johnson and the act of 1794 were in the right -direction. This seems a reasonable conclusion not so much on account of -the increase in net product, which was not great, as on account of the -increase in gross product, showing that the number of letters and -parcels sent by the Penny Post had doubled. The financial condition of -the Penny Post before and after the reform is shown by the following -figures:-- - - _Average Yearly_ _Average Yearly_ _Average Yearly_ - _Gross Product_ _Expense_ _Net Product_ - - 1790-1794 £11,089 £5289 £6000 - 1795-1797 £26,283 £18,960 £7323[205] - -[205] _Parl. Papers_, 1812-13, _Rep. Com._, ii, p. 94. - -London was not the only place which could boast a Penny Post in 1793. -The system was extended in that year to Edinburgh, Manchester, Bristol, -and Birmingham, while Dublin had been so favoured since 1773. It is -almost unnecessary to add that in all these places, it was a pronounced -success from a financial and social point of view.[206] - -[206] Joyce, pp. 196, 300. - -In 1801 the London Penny Post which had lasted for 120 years was -practically swept out of existence, for 2_d._ was then charged where a -penny had formerly been the rate. An exception was made in the case of -letters passing first by the General Post, for on these the old rate -still held.[207] Four years later, the limits of the Twopenny Post, as -it was called, were restricted to the General Post Delivery and 3_d._ -was charged for letters crossing the bounds of this delivery. This was -called the Threepenny Post.[208] The effect of the increased rates and -the growth of population in the metropolis is shown by the increase in -gross receipts, which rose from £11,768 in 1703 to £96,089 in 1816 and -to £105,052 in 1823. During the same period, the number of letter -carriers was increased from 181 to 235, and nineteen officials were -added to the establishment.[209] - -[207] 41 Geo. III, c. 7. - -[208] 45 Geo. III, c. 11. - -[209] _Acc. & P._, 1817, pp. 15, 16; _Rep. Commrs._, 1829, xi, pp. 10, -136. - -Although the General, the Twopenny, and the Threepenny Posts, were all -under one management, no attempt was made to harmonize their methods of -procedure until 1831. Letters for the General Post were often entrusted -to the Twopenny Post but the receiving-houses of both Posts were -frequently established in the same street and close together. The -General Post had seventy receiving-houses in the city, the Twopenny Post -209, the Threepenny Post 200 more in the suburbs and adjoining country. -In addition there were 110 "bellmen" who collected letters from door to -door, ringing their bells as they went. They charged one penny for each -letter collected.[210] The General Post receiving-houses closed at 7 -P.M., the Twopenny receiving-houses at 8 P.M., but letters might be -posted at the Charing Cross Office until 8.30 and at the General Office -until 9 P.M.[211] At the beginning of the nineteenth century, there were -three deliveries, by the Inland, Foreign, and Twopenny Post carriers. -The limits of the Inland Post Delivery were very irregular and left out -a large part of the populous suburbs. The Foreign Post Delivery was also -very irregular and still more restricted in area. The Twopenny Post -Delivery included London, Westminster, Southwark and their suburbs, and -was the most extensive. Letters were delivered by the Threepenny Post -within an irregular area bounded on the inside by the Twopenny Delivery -and extending nearly twelve miles from the General Post Office. The -separate delivery of foreign letters was abolished first and all foreign -letters were delivered by the General Post carriers, and in 1831 the -deliveries of the General and Twopenny Posts were made co-extensive, -extending to a distance of three miles from the General Office at St. -Martin's-le-Grand. Three years later the Twopenny Post building in -Gerard Street was given up and all Twopenny Post letters henceforth were -sent to the General Post Office building to be sorted.[212] - -[210] _Rep. Commrs._, 1837, xxxiv, 9th rep., app., no. 1; _ibid._, 1829, -xi, pp. 310-311; _London Times_, 1825, Dec. 6, p. 2. - -[211] London _Times_, 1835, Jan. 24, p. 3. - -[212] _Rep. Commrs._, 1837, xxxiv, 9th rep., app., nos. 30, 63, 64. - -The regular collections of Twopenny Post letters were made at 8 A.M., 10 -A.M., 12 M. and 2, 5 and 8 P.M. Deliveries were made at the same hours -in the morning, at noon, and at 2, 4 and 7 o'clock in the afternoon. A -letter posted at or before 8 A.M. was sent for delivery at 10 A.M. and -so on. The letters collected were taken to the General Office by -horsemen to be sorted. Two sets of men were employed, one collecting -while the other delivered.[213] There was an additional "early delivery" -as it was called. The carriers on the way to their own "walks" -delivered letters to subscribers, who paid 5_s._ a quarter for the -accommodation thus afforded. The postage for letters so delivered was -not paid until the carriers called again on their regular delivery.[214] -In 1837 the times of the regular deliveries were changed to every second -hour from 8 A.M. to 8 P.M. and collections were made at the same -hours.[215] In the Threepenny Post limits, there were on an average -three deliveries a day but those towns which had a General Post delivery -received only two a day from the Threepenny Post. Letters were sent by -horsemen or mail carts for delivery. The same receiving-houses were used -for General and Threepenny Post letters.[216] - -[213] _Ibid._, 1837, xxxiv, 9th rep., app., no. 1; London _Times_, 1835, -Jan. 24, p. 3. - -[214] _Rep. Commrs._, 1829, xi, p. 50; _Parl. Deb._, 1st ser., xxxi, -col. 943; _Acc. & P._, 1826-27, xx, p. 397. - -[215] _Ibid._, 1837-38, xlv, 265, p. 6. - -[216] _Rep. Commrs._, 1837, xxxiv, 9th rep., app., no. 1. - -The Dublin Penny Post was remodelled in 1810. The deliveries, which had -been only two a day, were increased to four and then to six, additional -letter carriers were appointed and receiving-houses established. The -penny delivery extended to four miles around the city. There was a 2_d._ -rate for letters beyond the four mile radius.[217] Previous to 1835, the -boundary of the Edinburgh Penny Post was a circle with a radius of 1-3/8 -miles from the Register Office. Some Scotch mathematician must have been -consulted when in 1835 the boundary was made an ellipse with its foci a -furlong apart, the distance from each focus to the most remote part of -the circumference being 1-5/16 miles. Outside this ellipse, there was a -2_d._ rate. There had been three deliveries a day, raised in 1838 to -five.[218] - -[217] _Ibid._, 1829, xii, p. 73; 7 Wm. IV, and 1 Vict., c. 34. - -[218] _Rep. Com._, 1837-38, xx, 2d rep., app. E, no. 31. - -Before 1837 Penny Posts had also been established in Newcastle and -Glasgow.[219] - -[219] _Rep. Commrs._, 1837, xxxiv, 9th rep., app., no. 14. - -Since nearly all the mail coaches left London at 8 o'clock in the -evening, most of the letters arriving there in the morning for outside -places were not despatched until the same evening. It was pointed out by -the commissioners in the Report of 1837 that a large proportion of these -letters might be forwarded by the post coaches.[220] If they arrived on -Saturday morning they were not forwarded until Monday evening since -Sunday was not a mail day and mail coaches arriving on Sunday were -detained in the outskirts of the city.[221] The rumour that the Post -Office was considering the expedience of a Sunday Post brought forth a -flood of protests. Bankers, merchants, vestries, and religious societies -were represented by delegations and petitions to the Postmaster-General -and the House of Commons, praying that no change might be made.[222] -Sixteen hundred solicitors joined in the opposition. Lord Melbourne -informed the Bishop of London that the subject was not under -consideration, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer told Sir Robert -Inglis that the Government had no intention of opening the Post Office -on Sunday.[223] Derby had a Sunday delivery in 1839, but, on their own -request, many of the inhabitants were excluded from it.[224] - -[220] _Ibid._, 1837, xxxiv, 7th rep., p. 7, and app., nos. 46, 47, 48. - -[221] _Acc. & P._, 1837, l. 316. - -[222] _Ibid._, 1837, xlvi, 176. - -[223] _Parl. Deb._, 1st ser., xlvi, coll. 206, 332. - -[224] London _Times_, 1839, June 1, p. 7. - -For over forty years all the mail-coaches in England were provided by -one man, with whom a new contract was made every seven years. Before -1797 a penny a mile was paid each way but on the imposition of a tax on -carriages, the rate was raised to 1-1/2_d._, then to 1-3/4_d._, and -later to 2-1/8_d._ a mile. One contractor supplied the coaches, others -provided horses and drivers, but the guards were hired directly by the -Post Office. In Scotland and Ireland, coaches, horses, and drivers were -all provided by the same men. The number of miles a day covered by the -mail-coaches in 1827 was 7862 and the mileage allowance for that year -was £46,900. When the mails were exceptionally heavy, mail carts were -used, which cost somewhat more than the coaches, since they carried no -passengers. In 1836 the contract for the supply of coaches was thrown -open to public competition. By this move, the expenses dropped from -£61,009 a year to £53,191 although the total distance travelled per day -increased from 13,148 to 14,482 miles.[225] The mail-coaches were at a -disadvantage in competing with the post-coaches, since the former were -allowed to carry no more than four inside and two outside passengers -nor were they allowed to carry any luggage on the roof.[226] On the -other hand the mail-coaches in England paid no tolls until 1837.[227] -The 268 mail guards of the British coaches received £7577 in salaries in -1837, paid directly by the Post Office. Seven inspectors were also -employed at a fixed yearly salary and 15_s._ a day when travelling. They -superintended the coachmen and guards, investigated complaints, delays, -and accidents, and made preliminary agreements in contracting for -coaches.[228] The majority of the Irish coaches had paid tolls ever -since they had been introduced. Generally they were paid by the Post -Office at stated intervals. The total distance travelled by mail-coaches -in Ireland in 1829 was 2160 miles each day, by mail-carts 2533 miles. -The number of guards employed was eighty-five, receiving £2935 a year. -The Irish coaches were allowed to carry four outside passengers.[229] - -[225] _Parl. Papers_, 1811, _Rep. Com._, p. 9; _Rep. Commrs._, 1837, -xxxiv, 7th rep., apps. 5, 7, 26, p. 71; London _Times_, 1832, Apr. 27, -p. 2; _Acc. & P._, 1837-38, xlv, 265, p. 3: 265, p. 4; _Rep. Commrs._, -1829, xi, p. 294. - -[226] _Parl. Papers_, 1811, _Rep. Com._, pp. 10, 32, 50, 51. - -[227] _Ibid._, 1811, _Rep. Com._, p. 1; _Parl. Deb._, 1st ser., xix, -col. 683; Wm. IV and I Vict., c. 33. - -[228] _Rep. Commrs._, 1829, xi, p. 34; _ibid._, 1837, xxxiv, 7th rep., -app., nos. 30, 31. - -[229] _Parl. Papers_, 1811, _Rep. Com._, p. 1; 43 Geo. III, c. 28; _Rep. -Com._, 1831-32, xvii, pp. 336, 338, 339; _Rep. Commrs._, 1837, xxxiv, -7th rep., app., no. 31. - - -The first railway in England over which mails were carried was operated -between Manchester and Liverpool. In 1838 the Government paid the Grand -Junction Railway 5-7/8_d._ a single mile for the conveyance of its -mails. At the same time the average rate by the coaches was 2-1/8_d._ a -single mile. On the London and Birmingham Railway when a special Post -Office carriage was used, 7-1/2_d._ was paid. When the ordinary -mail-coach was carried on trucks the rate was 4-1/4_d._ When a regular -railway carriage was used, the rate was 2-1/2_d._ a mile for one third -of a carriage.[230] For the year ending 5th January, 1839, the Post -Office paid £105,107 for the conveyance of mails by coaches and £9883 to -the railways. For the next official year, the figures had risen to -£109,246 and £39,724.[231] - -[230] _Ibid._, 1837, xxxiv, 7th rep., app., nos. 12, 13. The first day -coach left London in 1837, connecting at Birmingham with the railway to -Hartford, Cheshire. (London _Times_, 1837, Sept. 5, p. 4; _Rep. Com._, -1837-38, xx, pts. 1 and 2, 2d rep., app. E, No. 48; pt. 1, p. 469, no. -17.) - -[231] _Acc. & P._, 1841, xxvi, 221, no. 5. - -The increased business of the Post Office made necessary a corresponding -increase in the employees and better arrangements for dealing with the -reception and despatch of letters. The number of persons employed in the -General Office in 1804 was 486. In 1814 there were 576. There were 563 -postmasters in England and over 3000 persons officially engaged in the -receipt and delivery of letters. Additional offices had also been -established. In 1813 a Returned Letter Office was organized for the -purpose of returning undelivered letters to the writers and collecting -the postage due. Previous to 1813, the practice had been to return only -such letters as appeared to contain money or were supposed to be -important enough to escape destruction. A Franking Department was -organized to inspect such letters as were sent free. The increased use -of private ships for conveying letters led to the establishment of a -Ship Letter Office.[232] - -[232] _Parl. Papers_, 1813-14, _Rep. Com._, p. 35; _Acc. & P._, 1817, -pp. 4-16; _Rep. Commrs._, 1829, xi, p. 137. - -The old Post Office building in Lombard Street was quite too small to -provide for the new offices and employees. The Inland Department -contained only 3140 superficial feet, half of which was occupied with -sorting tables, leaving only 1500 feet for 130 persons. In the Foreign -Department with thirty-five men, there were only 250 superficial feet -where they must perform their duties. The accommodations for receiving -letters were so inadequate that when a foreign mail was being made up, -the windows were crowded with an impatient and seething mob waiting for -their turn to post their letters. The condition of the Penny Post -Department was no better. In 1814 a committee of the House of Commons -reported that a new General Post Office building was absolutely -necessary. Objections were raised on account of the necessary expenses -involved and it was not until 1829 that the new Post Office in St. -Martin's-le-Grand was formally opened.[233] - -[233] _Parl. Papers_, 1813-14, _Rep. Com._, pp. 11-16. - -In 1784 Ireland was given much larger political powers than she had -previously enjoyed, and her Parliament was freed from the direct -tutelage of the English Privy Council. At the same time greater latitude -in postal matters was also granted. An Irish Postmaster-General was -appointed to reside in Dublin and to collect the postage on all letters -which did not pass beyond Ireland. The postage between the two countries -was to be collected on delivery, and then to be divided between the two -according to the distance travelled in each. All net receipts from the -Irish Office were ordered to be transmitted to London. The sailing -packets remained in the charge of the English Postmasters-General, but -£4000 a year was paid to the Irish Office for this privilege.[234] - -[234] 24 Geo. III, c. 6. - -After the separation of the Irish from the English Post Office, -different postage rates had been established for the two countries. The -division of authority thus established had caused endless difficulties. -Complaints about the delay or loss of letters crossing the Channel at -Kingstown, Howth, and Waterford were referred from one office to the -other. The Commissioners who inquired into the condition of the Dublin -Office found things in a deplorable condition. There were nearly as many -postal officials employed in Dublin as in London, although the number of -letters handled was not one fourth so great. In the secretary's office, -employing six persons, the fees amounted to £2648 a year, largely on -English and Irish newspapers. In the whole Dublin establishment they -averaged over £15,000 a year. The contracts for the supply and horsing -of the mail-coaches were supposed to be public but they were awarded by -favour. The Postmasters-General did not attend to business and were very -jealous of each other. The Commissioners recommended the amalgamation of -the English and Irish offices, and this was accomplished in 1831, the -Irish postage rates having been altered four years earlier to coincide -with the English rates.[235] - -[235] _Rep. Commrs._, 1829, xii, 253, pp. 7, 8, 15-84; _ibid._, 1837, -7th rep., app. nos. 22, 68; 7 and 8 Geo. IV, c. 21. - -Ireland was divided into eight postal divisions, according to the routes -of the mail-coaches. Mails left Dublin at 7 A.M. with an additional mail -for Cork at noon. They arrived in Dublin between 6 and 7 A.M. The most -important postal centres in addition to Dublin were Belfast, Cork, -Limerick, and the packet stations at Waterford and Donaghadee. The total -number of post towns in Ireland was 414. At the same time there were in -Great Britain 546 post towns.[236] A new post office building was -completed in Dublin in 1821 at a cost of £107,000.[237] - -[236] _Rep. Commrs._, 1829, xii, 253, pp. 7, 8; 1831-32, xvii, p. 325. - -[237] 48 Geo. III, c. 48; _Parl. Papers_, 1821, xix, 286. - -The Scotch Post Office had been amalgamated with the English Office in -1711, and Scotland was constituted one of the eighteen postal divisions -of Great Britain. The Scotch rates had been the same as the English -rates since that date, although an additional half-penny was paid on -Scotch letters to meet mail-coach tolls. In 1821 there were only eight -towns for which mails were made up. At the same time that a new building -for the use of the Post Office was being erected in Dublin, a contract -was signed for a new General Office building for Edinburgh to cost -£14,000.[238] - -[238] _Rep. Commrs._, 1829, xii, 353, p. 8; _Parl. Papers_, 1821, xxi, -423. - -The rates established by the act of 1765 were still unchanged for the -colonial possessions of the United Kingdom. The American dominions had -been sadly depleted by the Revolutionary War but the postage revenue -from the loyal remnants had steadily increased. In 1838 the amount of -postage charged upon the colonial postmasters in America amounted to -£79,000. At one time Jamaica had been the most important American colony -from a postal point of view. Canada now took the lead, followed in order -of importance by Jamaica, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick. In 1834 it was -provided that, as soon as the North American Provinces passed postal -acts of their own and these acts were approved by the King, the colonial -rates of 1765 should cease and the net postal revenue of the North -American Provinces should be retained by them.[239] - -[239] _Rep. Com._, 1837-38, xx, pts. 1 and 2, 2d rep., app. E, no. 42; 4 -and 5 Wm. IV, c. 7. - -The British Post Office was now to experience the most far reaching and -vital change since 1635. Sir Rowland Hill was the representative of the -movement, aided by Mr. Wallace, who, as a member of Parliament, was able -to exercise an important effect upon the proposed reform. The history of -the adoption of penny postage has been so well told by Hill himself that -only a bare story of its acceptance by Parliament is necessary here. A -committee was appointed to report upon the condition of the Post Office, -the attitude of postal officials and of the public towards the proposed -change, its effect upon the revenue, and finally to give their own -opinion. This committee examined the Postmaster-General,[240] the -Secretaries and Solicitors of the London, Dublin, and Edinburgh offices, -other officials in the Post Office, the Chairman, Secretary, and -Solicitor of the Board of Stamps and Taxes, Rowland Hill and -eighty-three other witnesses from different classes of people, and -obtained many reports from the Post Office. Hill presented his plan to -the Committee as follows:-- - -That inland letters should pay postage according to weight at the rate -of one penny for each half ounce.[241] - -Such postage should be paid in advance by means of stamped papers or -covers.[242] - -An option might be allowed for a time to pay a penny in advance or 2d. -on delivery.[243] - -Day mails should be established on the important lines of -communication.[244] - -[240] Since 1823 there had been only one Postmaster-General, as the dual -system was abolished in that year. - -[241] _Rep. Com._, 1837-38, xx, pt. 1, 3d rep., 708, p. 3. - -[242] _Ibid._, 1837-38, xx, pt. 1, p. 13; xx, questions 113, 128, 129, -548. - -[243] _Ibid._, 1837-38, xx, pt. 1, p. 13; _ibid._, xx, qs. 113, 128, -129, 548. - -[244] _Ibid._, 1837-38, xx, qs. 750-59, 890-92. - -There should be a uniform rate of postage because the cost of -distributing letters consisted chiefly in the expenses for collecting -and delivering them.[245] The plan then in operation for letters not -exceeding one ounce in weight was to charge according to the number of -enclosures. This plan was uncertain because the number could not always -be ascertained, necessitated a close examination, and was evaded by -writing several letters on one sheet.[246] - -[245] _Ibid._, 1837-38, xx, qs. 114, 11092-97; pt. 1, 3d rep., 708, p. -5; pts. 1 and 2, 2d rep., app. E, no. 58. - -[246] _Ibid._, 1837-38, xx, qs. 3116, 4599, 8137, 9770; 3d rep., p. 44. - -Payment on delivery made it necessary to keep two separate accounts -against each postmaster, one for unpaid letters posted in London, and -one for paid letters posted in the country. The postmasters had also to -keep accounts against each other. Payment in advance, if made -compulsory, would do away with half of these accounts and the use of -stamped covers or paper would do away with the other half.[247] In some -small places where the penny charge would not cover the cost of -delivery, Hill proposed that a small additional charge be made, either -in advance or on delivery, but he withdrew this suggestion later.[248] - -[247] _Ibid._, 1837-38, xx, 3d rep., pp. 35, 38; qs. 113, 620, 621. - -[248] _Ibid._, 1837-38, xx, pt. 1, pp. 48, 59, 424; pts. 1 and 2, 1st -rep., no. 25, p. 508. - -The witnesses summoned to give their evidence before the committee -pointed out that a multitude of business transactions were not carried -on at all, or were carried on clandestinely, or were hampered by the -high postage rates. Bills for small amounts were not drawn,[249] -commercial travellers did not write until several orders could be sent -on one sheet of paper,[250] samples were not sent by post,[251] -communication between banks and their branches was restricted,[252] -statistical information was denied,[253] social correspondence -restricted especially among the poor,[254] working men were ignorant of -the rates of wages in other parts of the country,[255] and the high -postage was a bad means of raising revenue.[256] In order to estimate -the probable revenue after the change, it was necessary to know the -number of letters carried. Hill had come to the conclusion that the -total number was about 80,000,000 a year. The Secretary, Maberley, -considered that there were about 58,000,000. A return was called for by -the committee and Hill's estimate proved to be nearly correct.[257] - -[249] _Rep. Com._, 1837-38, xx, qs. 6682, 7093. - -[250] _Ibid._, q. 7668. - -[251] _Ibid._, qs. 7671, 7721. - -[252] _Ibid._, q. 10,059. - -[253] _Ibid._, qs. 6951, 10,305. - -[254] _Ibid._, qs. 2923, 5522-54, 5443-54, 6703, 7961. - -[255] _Ibid._, qs. 7991, 9840-42. - -[256] _Ibid._, qs. 8126, 8130 (Lord Ashburton). - -[257] _Ibid._, pt. 1, pp. 9, 434; _ibid._, pt. 2, pp. 59, 658; app., p. -58; _ibid._, pts. 1 and 2, 3d rep., p. 19. - -The committee reported that the Post Office "instead of being viewed as -an institution of ready and universal access, distributing equally to -all and with an open hand the blessings of commerce and civilization, is -regarded as an establishment too expensive to be made use of" (by large -classes of the community) "and as one with the employment of which they -endeavour to dispense by every means in their power." They were on less -solid ground when they proceeded to state that the idea of obtaining -revenue had been until lately only a minor consideration and that the -Post Office had primarily been established for the benefit of trade and -commerce.[258] Finally Hill's plan was approved, though only by the -casting vote of the chairman, Mr. Wallace. - -[258] _Ibid._, 1837-38, xx, pt. 1, 3d rep., p. 10. - -The House of Commons received the proposed change with favour. Over 300 -petitions with 38,000 signatures were presented praying for its -adoption. The Duke of Richmond, a former Postmaster-General, thought -that it would be beneficial and that it was the only means of stopping -the illegal conveyance of letters.[259] Sir Robert Peel was of the -opinion that, with the prevailing deficits, it was an unfortunate -departure, and he feared that prepaid letters would not be -delivered.[260] But the Treasury was given power to lower rates and in -1840 a treasury warrant was issued, imposing postage rates between the -colonies and between foreign countries through Great Britain according -to weight and distance.[261] Stamped covers were issued for the use of -members of Parliament, and in 1840 an act was passed establishing penny -postage for the United Kingdom, permitting the use of stamped paper or -covers, and imposing rates on foreign and colonial letters according to -weight and distance conveyed.[262] - -[259] _Rep. Com._, 1837-38, xx, 2d rep., app., p. 3; _Parl. Deb._, 3d -series, xlvii, col. 1231. - -[260] _Ibid._, 3d series, xlvii, coll. 278-84, 293. - -[261] _Acc. & P._, 1841, xxvi, p. 53; 1839, xlvi, p. 568. - -[262] _Parl. Deb._, 3d series, li, col. 227; 3 and 4 Vict., c. 96. - -The complete change thus produced in the policy of the Post Office is -vividly set forth by the old Secretary, Sir Francis Freeling. "Cheap -postage"--he writes, "What is this men are talking about? Can it be that -all my life I have been in error? If I, then others--others whose -behests I have been bound to obey. To make the Post Office revenue as -productive as possible was long ago impressed upon me by successive -ministers as a duty which I was under a solemn obligation to discharge. -And not only long ago. Is it not within the last six months that the -present Chancellor of the Exchequer[263] has charged me not to let the -present revenue go down? What! You, Freeling, brought up and educated as -you have been, are you going to lend yourself to these extravagant -schemes? You with your four-horse mail coaches too! Where else in the -world does the merchant or the manufacturer have the materials of his -trade carried for him gratuitously or at so low a rate as to leave no -margin of profit?"[264] - -[263] The Rt. Hon. Thomas Spring Rice. - -[264] Joyce, pp. 427-28. - - - - -CHAPTER IV - -THE POSTAL ESTABLISHMENT AN INSTRUMENT OF POPULAR COMMUNICATION - - -With the inauguration of inland penny postage the Postal Establishment -ceased to exist primarily as a tax-collecting agency, and, although -maintained as a whole upon a paying basis, certain of its recent -experiments have, from a financial point of view, been far from -successful. On the other hand, the simultaneous unification and -reduction of rates, together with various other changes which have been -adopted since 1840, have resulted in lessening appreciably the expenses -of management. - -The postage on inland letters was reduced in 1865, 1871, 1884, and again -in 1897. In 1839, the last year of high postal rates, the total number -of letters, including franks, delivered in the United Kingdom, was -somewhat in excess of eighty-two millions. This number was rather more -than doubled in the following year. During the ensuing ten years the -figures were again doubled, the total in 1850 being 347 millions. For -the five-year period 1866-70, following the reduction in postage of -1865, the average yearly number delivered was 800 millions. In 1875 this -increased to a little over 1000 millions; in the postal year 1880-81 to -1176 millions, in 1890-91 to 1705 millions, and in 1900-01 to 2323 -millions.[265] So far as colonial letters were concerned, a marked -reduction in rates was granted soon after inland penny postage was -obtained, the reduction being extended to the larger part of the -Empire.[266] Further reductions followed until, in 1898, a penny half -ounce rate was established for most of the colonies, and all were -included in 1905. As on a previous occasion, the United States was the -first foreign country with which an agreement was made to adopt this low -rate, and its advantages have been enhanced still further by an -increase in the initial weight from half an ounce to an ounce. During -the sixties, treaties were entered into with the most important European -countries for lower postage rates, and, in 1874, at the first meeting of -the Postal Union, a uniform rate for prepaid letters of 2-1/2_d._ a half -ounce was agreed to. Reductions also followed for other postal matter. -In 1891 a universal foreign letter rate of 2-1/2_d._ was announced so -far as the United Kingdom was concerned, with the exception of those -countries where a lower rate already prevailed, and a further reduction -followed in 1907 by increasing the initial weight from half an ounce to -an ounce in the case of all foreign and colonial letters, the charge on -foreign letters for each unit after the first being reduced at the same -time from 2-1/2_d._ to 1-1/2_d._ - -[265] _Rep. P. G._, 1855, p. 65; 1881, app., p. 11; 1891, app., p. 16; -1901, app., p. 25. - -[266] Colonial legislatures were given the power in 1849 to establish -posts of their own and to fix the inland postal rates (12 and 13 Vict., -c. 26). - -After 1840 the registration fee was reduced by a series of gradations -from 1_s._ to 2_d._, and the compulsory registration of all letters -containing coin was enforced. In 1891 the separate system of insurance -was abolished, and registration was extended for the first time to -inland parcels. The limit of compensation was increased at the same time -to £25 and in the following year to £50 by the payment of 2_d._ for the -first £5 and an additional penny for each additional £5 of -insurance.[267] Seven years later the amount of compensation payable was -increased to £120 and the fee payable was lowered for all sums over £15. -Arrangements were also made by which letters addressed to certain -colonies and foreign countries might be insured to the same maximum -amount.[268] The limit of compensation is now £400 for inland registered -correspondence as well as for correspondence to many foreign countries -and a few of the colonies. - -[267] _Rep. P. G._, 1892, p. 7. - -[268] _Ibid._, 1899, pp. 4, 6-7. - -Among other postal reforms dear to Hill's heart had been the compulsory -payment of postage by means of stamps. He pointed out that this would -greatly simplify the keeping of accounts by the department and increase -the net revenue. The proposition was, however, too unpopular to secure -approval. Nevertheless in 1847 the Postmaster-General secured -parliamentary authority to abolish or restrict payment in money and -require stamps to be used, but the experiment proved so unpopular that -it was eventually abandoned.[269] The use of perforated stamps, an -invention of Mr. Archer, was in 1852 recommended by a committee -appointed to report on the question.[270] Finally, in 1904, the law -forbidding the use of embossed or impressed stamps cut out of envelopes, -postcards, letter cards, wrappers, and telegraph forms was -repealed.[271] - -[269] 10 and 11 Vict., c. 85; _Rep. Com._, 1852, xv, 386, p. 150; _Rep. -P. G._, 1859, p. 25. - -[270] _Rep. Com._, 1852, xv, 386, pp. iii-iv. - -[271] 4 Edw. VII, c. 14. - -From 1808 to 1840 the rural districts as a rule obtained their postal -matter by a special payment on their part to messengers for its -conveyance from the nearest town, sometimes aided by a bonus from the -revenue, or by means of the "fifth-clause" posts,[272] or by the penny -posts which were constantly increasing in number and were occasionally -established under guarantee. In 1838 there were fifty-two "fifth-clause" -posts in England and Wales, and 1922 villages in the United Kingdom were -served by penny posts. In 1843 the government of Sir Robert Peel laid -down the following principle: "All places the letters for which exceed -one hundred per week should be entitled to a receiving office and a free -delivery of letters." A "delivery" here meant a daily delivery, and the -boundary of the free delivery was to be determined by the -Postmaster-General. The principle enunciated above was followed until -1850, and during that period the increase in the number of free and -guaranteed rural deliveries was very great. At the close of this period -it was decided that in future the determining rule should be based upon -the probability of financial success. A post was held to pay its way -whenever its cost was covered by a halfpenny on each letter delivered, -but, since it was held that the number of letters would be doubled by -free delivery, double the number arriving before its establishment might -be assumed to arrive afterward. The post might be bi-weekly, tri-weekly, -or weekly. This rule was to a certain extent made retroactive, but no -post established under the rule of 1843 was stopped so long as the cost -was covered by calculating delivered letters at a penny each. It was -decided in 1853 that a post less frequent than once a day might be -increased in frequency whenever the cost would be covered by a revenue -estimated on the basis of three farthings for each letter, and in -treating an application for a second daily post this amount was to be -reduced to one farthing. The experiment was tried of delivering letters -at every house in a few selected places but did not prove a success. It -was stated that at the end of this revision, 93 per cent of all postal -packets were delivered. In 1860 the rule was laid down that new posts -should be set up only when the cost would be covered by half a penny on -each letter actually arriving, the old rule having been found to be too -liberal. Two years later it was stated by the Post Office that only 6 -per cent of the total postal packages were undelivered. In 1882 the -question of extending the rural posts was considered by Mr. Fawcett, the -then Postmaster-General, who decided that credit should be given for -revenue by increasing the halfpenny to 6/10_d._ for each letter, and in -the next year the existing rule as to a second daily delivery was made -more liberal. In 1890, for places hitherto unserved, the rate per letter -for estimating revenue was increased to three farthings, for each parcel -the rate was fixed at 1-1/2_d._, and in the following year rural -sanitary authorities in England and Wales were authorized to guarantee -posts. In Scotland the district committee or the county council, where -the counties were not divided, was given the same power in 1892. In the -same year the rule was laid down that a second service in the day might -be given provided that its cost did not exceed half a penny a letter and -a penny a parcel and in addition that the total cost of night and day -mail services should not exceed the revenue from the whole -correspondence at half a penny per letter and a penny per parcel. It was -estimated in 1892 that about thirty-two and a half millions of letters -were undelivered, but the work of extending the rural posts went on -gradually until in 1897 it was announced that provision would be made as -soon as possible for delivery to every house in the United Kingdom. In -1900 the Postmaster-General was able to report that house to house -delivery had been completed in England and almost completed in Scotland -and Ireland.[273] - -[272] Established by agreements between the Postmaster-General and the -inhabitants of small towns and villages. - -[273] _Rep. P. G._, 1898, pp. 32-39; 1860, pp. 9 f.; 1864, p. 15. - -In addition to the ordinary delivery at regular intervals there was a -growing demand for a more rapid service on extraordinary occasions as -well as a desire for a special messenger service when the use of the -Post Office as a medium meant an undesirable loss of time. In 1886 a -private company started to supply messengers for postal services. After -some trouble with the Post Office, a licence was granted them in 1891 in -return for which they agreed to pay a percentage of their gross receipts -to the department and observe certain conditions with reference to the -delivery of letters.[274] An express delivery service was also -established by the Post Office, the fee in addition to the ordinary -postage being 2_d._ for the first mile, 3_d._ for the second and beyond -that, and where no public conveyances existed, 1_s._ a mile or actual -cab-fare. In the case of letters delivered locally the ordinary postage -was abrogated soon after and a charge of 1-1/2_d._ per pound for parcels -exceeding one pound in weight was imposed, but this charge was later -lowered to a penny per pound with a maximum payment of 1_s._ and the -maximum limit of weight was increased from 15 to 20 pounds where the -messenger could travel by public conveyance. The initial charge for the -first mile of 2_d._, and 3_d._ for each succeeding mile, for each parcel -was made a uniform charge of 3_d._ per mile, and the fixed charge of -2_d._ for each parcel beyond the first was reduced to a penny where -several packets were tendered by the same sender for delivery by the -same messenger. In the case of several packages delivered at the same -address the charge was lowered to 3_d._ plus an additional penny for -every ten packages or part thereof, later changed to a weight fee of -3_d._ on each packet or bundle of packets weighing more than one -pound.[275] Rural postmen were also allowed to receive letters and -parcels from the public at any point in their walks and deliver them -without passing them through a post office, having first canceled the -stamps.[276] An agreement was also made with the railways to carry -single letters left in the booking office for 2_d._ each. These letters -may be taken to the booking office by messenger and delivered by a -messenger at the end of their journey or posted there.[277] The express -delivery service was also extended to such foreign countries as would -agree to it, including nearly all of Western Europe, part of South -America, and the far East. In every case the primary fee in England is -_3d._, the foreign charges varying with local conditions. Express -letters from abroad are delivered free within one mile from the Post -Office. Beyond that the distance charge is 3_d._ a mile for one parcel, -with a penny for each additional parcel delivered to the same person. -The Postmaster-General reported that the establishment of this service -was not only much appreciated by the people, but was self-supporting and -even profitable to the state. During the ten year period ending March -31, 1901, the number of express delivery services in the United Kingdom -increased from 108,000 to 804,000.[278] - -[274] Their extended licence will expire in 1922 (_Rep. P. G._, 1901, p. -2). - -[275] _Parl. Deb._, 3d series, cccli, col. 1751; _Rep. P. G._, 1901, p. -2; 1892, p. 7; 1891, pp. 4 f.; 1893, p. 7; 1894, p. 6; 1899, pp. 2, 3. - -[276] _Ibid._, 1894, p. 5. - -[277] _Ibid._, 1891, p. 5. - -[278] _Rep. P. G._, 1893, p. 10; 1897, p. 3; 1901, app., p. 28. - -The impressed stamp to which newspapers were subject until 1855 enabled -them to pass free by post. After this stamp ceased to be compulsory, -newspapers which bore it passed free from other postage until 1870--when -the halfpenny rate was established--and were known as "free"[279] as -distinguished from "chargeable" newspapers. Of the former there were -carried by post in 1856 over 53 millions, of the latter, including book -packets, 20 millions. In 1875 the number of newspapers delivered in the -United Kingdom had increased to 121 millions. For the five year period -ending March 31, 1881, the average yearly number had increased to a -little over 129 millions, for the next five years to something over 142 -millions. During the period ending March 31, 1891, they had increased to -155 millions, there being an actual decrease in one year. In the period -following there was an average yearly increase of only three millions -and the ensuing five years ending March 31, 1901, showed a decrease of -about one million.[280] - -[279] Free newspapers also included those coming from abroad on which no -charge was made in the United Kingdom. - -[280] _Rep. P. G._, 1896, p. 2; 1859, pp. 28 f.; 1881, app., p. 12; -1891, app., p. 17; 1901, app., p. 27. - -The book post, instituted in 1848, had its rates reduced in 1855 and -again in 1870 to a halfpenny for the initial two ounces and an -additional 1/2_d._ for each succeeding two ounces. In 1892 its scope was -greatly enlarged and the expression Halfpenny Post, which is now its -official name, better illustrates its cosmopolitan character for it now -includes all printed documents of a conventional, formal, or impersonal -character. From 1872 to 1875 the number of articles carried by the -Halfpenny or Book Post increased from 114 millions to 158 millions. The -yearly average during the next five years was 204 millions; during the -following five, 305 millions and for the five year period ending March -31, 1891, they had increased to 418 millions. During the next five years -there was a still greater average increase to 596 millions and the -average for the postal year ending in March, 1901, was 732 -millions.[281] The rates for the Inland Pattern and Sample Post, -established in 1863, were assimilated with those of the Book Post in -1870. It was abolished or rather incorporated with the Letter Post in -the following year but was reëstablished in 1887, the rates being a -penny for the first four ounces and 1/2_d._ for each succeeding two -ounces, but, when the Jubilee letter rates were published, it lost its -_raison d'être_ and was abolished for inland purposes.[282] - -[281] _Rep. P. G._, 1896, p. 2; 1903, p. 5; 1904, p. 5; 1881, app., p. -12; 1891, app., p. 17; 1901, app., p. 27. - -[282] _Ibid._, 1864, p. 29; 1896, p. 2; _Acct. & P._, 1871, xxxvii (pp. -1-2). - -Post cards were introduced in 1870, being carried for 1/2_d._ each -prepaid, 2_d._ when payment was made on delivery.[283] In addition to -the stamp a charge was made to cover the cost of the material in the -card itself. Somewhat later reply post cards were issued for the inland -service and arrangements were made for the use of international reply -post cards. In 1894, private post cards, to which a halfpenny stamp was -affixed, were allowed to pass by post. The resulting enormous -growth[284] in their number showed that the privilege was appreciated. -In less than five years they were estimated to form 5 per cent of the -total number passing through the post.[285] Shortly after, the -prohibition of any writing save the address on the face of a post card -was withdrawn and it was provided that the address side of all mail -matter might be used for purposes of correspondence provided that it did -not obscure the address, encroach upon the stamp, or prove in any way -inconvenient. Formerly, so far as mail matter other than post cards was -concerned, the right half of the face side was reserved for the -address.[286] During the four five-year periods from 1881 to the year -ending 31st March, 1901, the average numbers of post cards delivered -yearly in the United Kingdom were about 108 millions, 152 millions, 272 -millions, and 379 millions.[287] - -[283] Charge on unpaid inland post cards reduced to 1_d._ each in 1896. - -[284] They increased from 248 millions for the postal year 1893-94 to -312 millions during the ensuing year. - -[285] _Rep. P. G._, 1896, p. 2; 1882, p. 4; 1895, p. 18; 1900, p. 1. - -[286] _Rep. P. G._, 1897, p. 5. - -[287] _Ibid._, 1881, app., p. 12; 1891, app., p. 17; 1901, app., p. 27. - -It had not been usual for England to lag behind the continent in the -adoption of new postal ideas. Such was the case, however, with reference -to the adoption of the convenient post card and the no less useful -parcel post. In 1880 the question of the establishment of an -international parcel post was discussed in Paris and an agreement was -reached for the transmission throughout nearly the whole of Europe of -parcels not exceeding three kilogrammes in weight. It was impossible for -Great Britain to sign, as she had no inland parcel post at the time and -found it difficult to establish one as an agreement with the railways -was necessary. A movement was at once begun for one and it was started -three years later. The first despatch of foreign and colonial parcels -took place in 1885, and at the beginning of the following year -arrangements were completed for the exchange of parcels with -twenty-seven different countries, including some of the colonies, India, -and Egypt. An agreement was concluded in 1904 with the United States for -the interchange of parcels by post at the rate of 2_s._ for each and the -maximum is two kilogrammes. These cannot be insured and customs' duties -must be paid by the recipient. The previously existing agreement for -parcels weighing as much as eleven pounds each, providing for insurance -and the prepayment of customs' duties, continues to be carried on by the -American Express Company.[288] Since the establishment of the inland -parcel post the question of collecting the value of the parcels on -delivery, if the sender and the recipient so desire, has often been -raised. Owing to the opposition of retail dealers, it has not yet been -adopted although in operation in India and nearly all important foreign -countries. In the words of the Postmaster-General--"In these -circumstances I am by no means satisfied, so far as my enquiries have -gone, that the apprehensions expressed by retail traders in this country -afford sufficient cause for withholding a convenience from the community -at large."[289] - -[288] _Ibid._, 1881, p. 4; 1885, p. 4; 1886, p. 5; 1895, p. 21; 1905, p. -7; _The Economist_, 1881, Nov. 5, p. 1369; 1882, July 29, p. 939. - -[289] _Rep. P. G._, 1904, pp. 4-5. - -The various changes and improvements adopted by the Post Office since -1840, in addition to those already named, are so numerous that only the -most important can be considered here. Among others the amalgamation of -the London District Post with the General Post in 1854 deserves -attention. In the following year it was ordered that letters should be -sorted in each of the ten postal districts into which London was divided -instead of being taken to the General Office at St. Martin's-le-Grand as -had been customary, thus materially lessening the expenses of sorting -and facilitating their delivery.[290] - -[290] _Ibid._, 1855, p. 12; 1856, p. 9; 1860, p. 8. - -In 1840 there were but 4028 post offices in the Kingdom; in 1854, -9973.[291] Road letter boxes were introduced in 1858 and the public -receptacles for the receipt of letters numbered 13,370 in 1859 as -compared with 4518 before the establishment of penny postage.[292] In -1829 the total number of persons in England employed in Post Office -business numbered only 5000. Twenty-five years later for the United -Kingdom over 21,000 were so employed; in 1880 over 47,000, of whom, -however, more than 11,000 were engaged wholly in telegraph duties. By -1890 these had increased to nearly 118,000 and by 1900 to 173,000 of -whom 35,000 were females.[293] - -[291] _Ibid._, 1855, p. 21. - -[292] _Ibid._, 1855-59. - -[293] _Rep. Commrs._, 1829, ii, p. 137; _Rep. P. G._, 1855, p. 20; 1881, -app., p. 16; 1891, app., pp. 34-35; 1901, app., p. 50. - -The money order business which originated as a private speculation in -1791 was the result of an attempt to check the frequent theft of letters -containing money. In 1838, shortly after its acquisition from the -proprietors, the rates were reduced and the number of money orders -transmitted increased from 188,000 in 1839 to 587,000 in 1840 and to -1,500,000 in 1842. From the latter date until 1879 the increase both in -the number and in the value of money orders transmitted was steady, -aided by the increase in 1862 from £5 to £10 of the maximum -transmissible sum and by the reduction in rates in 1871. The penny rate -of that year for orders to the value of ten shillings was a mistake, for -the actual cost to the state of issuing and paying a money order was -about 3_d._ In order to meet this difficulty a simpler form of order was -issued in 1881 with an initial rate as low as half a penny, the cost of -which to the Post Office was much less than that of the old kind of -order. These postal notes, as they were called, were issued for new -denominations in 1884 and 1905 and the rates on some of them were -diminished. The lowest rate for a money order was for a few months fixed -at 3_d._ but, as this aroused considerable opposition, the present rate -of 2_d._ was soon after substituted, and in 1903 the maximum sum -transmissible was increased to £40 with a few accompanying changes in -rates. In 1889 an opportunity was given in the case of a few towns for -sending telegraphic money orders and during the ensuing three years the -privileged area was greatly extended. In 1897 the expenses were -considerably reduced. In 1858 arrangements were made for the exchange of -money orders with Canada and by 1862 similar agreements were decided -upon with most of the other colonies, but foreign countries were not -included until somewhat later and in 1880 colonial and foreign rates -were harmonized. Rates were reduced in 1883, 1896, and 1903, and in the -last year the inland £40 limit was agreed upon with most foreign -countries and some of the colonies. - -Inland money orders which started to decrease in amount in 1878-79 -steadily continued their downward course until 1891-92, when there was a -slight recovery for a few years, but since 1903-04 the number has -somewhat diminished. During the postal year ending in March, 1907, the -number of inland money orders transmitted was nearly eleven millions as -compared with nearly nineteen millions for the year ending March, 1879. -This decrease in numbers is largely due to the lowering of the -registration fee for letters, the introduction of postal notes, and the -use of other means for transmitting small sums of money. The total value -of inland money orders also began to diminish in 1879, but began to -recover in 1886, and has since increased quite uniformly, being in 1907 -nearly £38,000,000 as compared with £29,000,000 in 1879.[294] The -increase in the number of postal notes has been enormous, although there -was an apparent falling off in the years 1903 and 1904 due to the -increased number of denominations offered for sale. For the first -complete postal year after their authorization the number issued was -nearly four and a half millions of the value of £2,000,000, and for the -postal year 1906-07 the number was 102,000,000 of the value of nearly -£41,000,000.[295] On the other hand, while inland money orders were -decreasing in number, colonial and foreign orders increased in general -both in number and value.[296] - -[294] _Rep. P. G._, 1896, pp. 28-32; 1897, pp. 10-11; 1881, app., p. 37; -1891, app., p. 53; 1901, app., p. 69; 1907, p. 74. - -[295] _Rep. P. G._, 1891, app., p. 59; 1901, app., p. 77; 1907, p. 84. - -[296] _Ibid._, 1891, app., pp. 52-53; 1892, p. 12. - -The establishment of Post Office savings banks is naturally closely -connected with the money order department since both of these departures -from a purely postal character were adopted at about the same time, for -much the same reasons, and were opposed on the ground of their -infringement upon the banking prerogative. In 1859 the efforts of Mr. -Sikes of Huddersfield to bring a Post Office Savings Bank into being -were supported by Mr. Gladstone, Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Sir -Rowland Hill, the then Secretary of the Post Office, and two years later -it was established by Parliamentary sanction.[297] The main features of -the system were that deposits could be withdrawn not later than ten days -after demand; that accounts should be kept at London alone, all money -being remitted to and from headquarters; that the total amount deposited -should be handed over to the "Commissioners for the Reduction of the -National Debt" for investment in government securities, and that -interest on complete pounds at the rate of 2-1/2 per cent should be -allowed to depositors. As the interests of the poorer classes were made -the primary object in establishing the banks, deposits were limited in -the case of individuals to £30 a year and £150 in all, later increased -to £50 a year and £200 in all, but Friendly Societies were allowed to -deposit without limit and Provident and Charitable Societies might -deposit within limits of £100 a year and £300 in all or, with the -consent of the Commissioners, beyond these limits.[298] - -[297] 24 Vict., c. 14. - -[298] _Rep. P. G._, 1897, app., pp. 32-36. - -In 1880 the savings banks were made a medium for investing in government -stock at a trifling expense varying from 9_d._ to 2_s._ 3_d._ and with -the privilege of having dividends collected free from further charge. -These special advantages were confined to investments from £10 to £100 -in value, the latter being the maximum sum in any one year, and the -investments themselves might be sums especially deposited or transferred -from a depositor's account. In 1887 the minimum amount of stock -purchasable was reduced to 1s., and anyone who had purchased stock -through a savings bank might have it transferred to his own name in the -Bank of England. In 1893 the limits of investment were raised from £100 -to £200 in one year, from £300 to £500 in all, and the Post Office was -empowered to invest in stock any accumulations of ordinary deposits -above the limit of £200, unless instructions were given by the depositor -to the contrary. - -An act was passed in 1864 enabling the Postmaster-General to insure the -lives of individuals between the ages of fourteen and sixty for amounts -varying from £20 to £100. He might also grant annuities, immediate or -deferred, to any one of ten years of age or upward for sums between £4 -and £50. The act came into operation in certain towns of England and -Wales in the following year, and the system remained unaltered until -1884. During this period of nineteen years, 7064 policies of insurance -were effected, representing a yearly average of 372 policies amounting -to an average of £79 each. The contracts for immediate annuities -numbered 13,402 or an average of 705 a year and there were 978 contracts -for deferred annuities. The value of immediate annuities granted was -£187,117 and of deferred £19,938, but a part of the latter never came -into payment as the purchasers were relieved from their bargains upon -their own representation. - -A new system associated with Mr. Fawcett's name was prescribed in 1882. -Its merit consisted in linking the annuity and insurance business with -the Savings Bank Department so that payments for annuities and insurance -are made through deposits in the savings banks. It was further provided -that for persons between the ages of fourteen and sixty-five the limits -of insurance should be from £5 to £100 and that sums of money might be -insured payable at the age of sixty or at the expiration of a term of -years. For annuities the minimum was reduced to £1, the maximum -increased to £100, and the annuity and insurance privileges were -extended to all places having savings banks. Owing to the necessary -preparation of tables the new regulations did not actually come into -operation until 1884. The growth of life insurance and annuity business -was slow as compared with the rapid growth of the savings deposits. -Intended, however, primarily for the poor, it has not been without -success, especially as the premiums charged are lower than those of -insurance companies or industrial societies.[299] - -[299] _Rep. P. G._, 1897, app., pp. 32-38. The insurance and annuity -business of the Post Office has been described by the _Economist_ as a -practical failure because of the government's refusal to solicit -business (_Economist_ 1881, Nov. 5, p. 1369). - -In addition to joining the insurance and annuity business with the -savings banks operations, Mr. Fawcett was responsible for a rapid -increase in the number of branch saving offices in villages, for the -special attention paid to "navvies" and workmen at their places of -employment, and above all for the arrangement for making small deposits -by slips of postage stamps. In 1887 by act of Parliament the -Postmaster-General was empowered to offer facilities for the transfer of -money from one account to another and for the easier disposal of the -funds of deceased depositors. In 1891 the maximum permissible deposits -of one person were increased from £150 to £200 inclusive of interest. -The annual limit remained at £30 but it was provided that, irrespective -of that limit, depositors might replace the amount of any one withdrawal -made in the same year. Where principal and interest together exceeded -£200, the interest was henceforth to cease on the excess alone, whereas -previously it had ceased entirely when it had brought an account to -£200. The next development arose from the Free Education Act of 1891 in -order to make it easier for children and parents to save the school -pence which they no longer had to pay. Special stamp slips were prepared -to be sold to children, and clerks attended the schools with these -slips. About 1400 schools adopted the scheme at once and three years -later the number had risen to 3000, but the movement seemed by 1895 to -have spent its force. - -In 1893 the annual limit of deposits was increased to £50 and, as we -have already seen in another connection, any accumulations over £200 -were to be invested in Government Stock unless the depositor gave -instructions to the contrary. In the same year arrangements were made -for the withdrawal of deposits by telegram. A depositor might telegraph -for his money and have his warrant sent by return of post at a cost of -about 9_d._ or the warrant also might be telegraphed to him at a total -cost of about 1_s._ 3_d._ In 1905 a rule was introduced by which a -depositor, on presentation of his pass-book at any post office doing -savings bank business, may withdraw on demand not more than £1. This -obviates the expense of telegraphing and, that it was appreciated, is -shown by the fact that during the first six months after the privilege -was extended there were nearly two millions of "withdrawals on demand," -forming nearly one half of the total number. As a result the number of -telegraphic withdrawals fell from 227,573 for the postal year 1904-05 to -180,996 for the year 1905-06.[300] - -[300] _Rep. P. G._, 1897, app., pp. 32-36; 1906, pp. 12-13; 56 and 57 -Vict., c. 59. - -There has been a steady and pronounced growth in savings bank business -since its establishment. This growth has shown itself in the increased -number of banks, of deposits, and of the total amounts deposited. The -average amount of each deposit has varied somewhat from £3 6_s._ in 1862 -to £2 in 1881, but since this date it has increased slowly but steadily -and in 1901 it stood at £2 14_s._ 2_d._, which is about the average -yearly amount since 1862. At the end of the year 1900 over £135,000,000 -were on deposit in the Post Office savings banks.[301] The increase in -amounts invested in government stock has not been by any means so -pronounced but there has been an increase. In 1881 we find that nearly -£700,000 were so invested, in 1891 nearly £1,000,000, and in 1900 a -little over £1,000,000.[302] So far as annuities are concerned, the -immediate seem to be considerably more popular than the deferred. The -purchase money receipts for the former were £184,000 in 1881, £296,000 -in 1891, and have since increased more rapidly to £728,000 in 1900, with -an actual decrease, however, for the four preceding years. The receipts -for the purchase of deferred annuities amounted to £5243 in 1881, -£12,578 in 1891 and £14,283 in 1900, also a decrease since 1896. The -amounts received as premiums for life insurance policies have also been -rather disappointing, having increased from £10,967 in 1881 to £15,073 -in 1891 and to £22,185 in 1900.[303] - -[301] _Ibid._, 1881, app., pp. 32-33; 1891, app., p. 46; 1901, p. 60; -1907, p. 67. - -[302] _Ibid._, 1891, app., p. 47; 1901, app., p. 62. - -[303] _Rep. P. G._, 1891, app., p. 48; 1901, app., p. 63. - -The increasing use of railway trains for the conveyance of the mails has -presented new and difficult problems with reference to the authority of -the Postmaster-General over mail trains and reasonable payments to the -railway companies. So far as the method for ascertaining the rate of -payment was concerned, a difficulty arose as to whether the Post Office -should pay any part of the tolls as distinguished from operating -expenses. Major Harness, a Post Office official, stated that in -discussing this question with Robert Stephenson in the case of the -London and Birmingham Railway it had been agreed that tollage should not -be paid but only the out-of-pocket expenses, this being in conformity -with the principles adopted in paying for mail coaches. The question of -tollage was not mentioned by the Railway Mails Act (10 and 11 Vict., c. -85), but Major Harness, in his evidence before a parliamentary -committee, stated that he, as an arbitrator, estimated the tollage -payable by the Post Office by finding out how much each ton, if the road -were fully occupied, should contribute to return 10 per cent upon the -share capital and 5 per cent on the bonds, the Post Office to pay its -proportion according to the weight of mail matter carried. The cost of -locomotive power was also taken into count and the carriage -accommodation was paid for on the basis of what the railways charged -each other.[304] In addition to these items the committee recommended -that the expenses for station accommodation, the additional cost of the -working staff, and interference with ordinary traffic should also be -taken into account.[305] In the event of a failure on the part of the -Post Office and a railway company to come to an agreement as to the -amount payable, each of the parties nominated an arbitrator whose first -duty was to select an umpire. Each arbitrator was required to present -his case in writing to the umpire and to attend in person if required. -The umpire was supposed to give his decision within twenty-eight days -after the receipt of the cases.[306] In 1893 it was provided by act of -Parliament that when any dispute arose between the Post Office and a -railway, the question should be taken to the Railway and Canal -Commission for settlement instead of being left to arbitration.[307] The -Postmaster-General has also been authorized to make use of tramways for -transporting the mails, and in 1897 the experiment was made of using -motor vans for the same purpose. A few years later the -Postmaster-General expressed himself as "doubtful whether a thoroughly -reliable motor vehicle suitable for Post Office work has yet been -found." However, in 1906-07 about thirty-five mail services were -performed by motors, the work being undertaken by contractors who -provide the vans and employ the drivers. They have proved to be more -economical than horse vans when the load is heavy, the distance -considerable, and greater speed desirable.[308] - -[304] _Rep. Com._, 1854, xi, 411, pp. 370-371. - -[305] _Ibid._, 411, p. 14. - -[306] _Rep. Com._, 411, p. 280; 1 and 2 Vict., c. 98. - -[307] 56 and 57 Vict., c. 38. - -[308] 56 and 57 Vict., c. 38; _Rep. P. G._, 1898, pp. 9 f.; 1907, p. 3. - -The expenditure for the conveyance of mails by the railways for the year -ending 5th January, 1838, amounted to only £1743. In 1840 this had -increased to £52,860, in 1850 to £230,079, in 1860 to £490,223, in 1870 -to £587,296, in 1880 to £701,070 and in 1890 to £905,968. By 1896 the -million mark had been reached and after that year all the expenses for -the conveyance of the mails are grouped together. For the following year -this total was £1,453,517, the payment for mail coaches in the preceding -year, which are here included, being £365,000. In 1906 the total -expenditure for the "conveyance of the mails" was £1,821,541.[309] - -[309] _Parl. Papers_, 1852-53, xcv, p. 3; _Rep. P. G._, 1861, p. 20; -1872, pp. 26-27; 1884, p. 56; 1893, p. 78; 1896, p. 86; 1906, p. 92. - -In common with the members of other branches of the civil service the -postal employees, prior to 1855, were political appointees. The -appointment of a patronage secretary had relieved members of Parliament -from the odium incurred as a result of this reprehensible method of -manning the service, but it is doubtful whether any improvement in the -personnel of the force actually resulted or was even anticipated. With -the adoption between 1855 and 1870 of the principle that fitness should -be tested by competitive examinations, the vast majority of the members -of the postal establishment came under its influence. At the same time -the postmasters of small rural communities, where the postal revenue was -insignificant,[310] still continued to be nominated by the local member. -In 1896 this power was abridged, but members still continued to exercise -a limited right of recommendation. Finally in 1907 the -Postmaster-General announced that, though due weight should continue to -be given to the opinions of members in the case of the appointment of -these rural postmasters, such recommendations should be based on -personal knowledge and should carry no more weight than the opinion of -any other competent person.[311] - -[310] Less than £120 in England, less than £100 in Scotland and Ireland. - -[311] D. B. Eaton, _Civil Service in Great Britain_, New York, 1880, pp. -75, 307, 308; _Parl. Deb._, 3d ser., ccxxxix, col. 211; cclv, col. 1575; -_ibid._, 4th ser., clix, col. 397; clxx, col. 641. - -No question which has arisen in the internal management of the Post -Office has presented more difficult problems for solution than that of -the condition of the postal employees with reference to hours of labour, -promotion, and remuneration. The first complaints which attract our -attention during the period under discussion came rather from outside -the service as a protest against Sunday labour in the Post Office, but -the fact that many of the postal servants were deprived of their holiday -and often needlessly so deprived was a real grievance advanced by the -employees themselves. It had been the policy of the Post Office for some -time not to grant any application for the withdrawal of a Sunday post if -there were any dissentients to the application. In 1850 all Sunday -delivery was abolished for a time, but this hardly met the approval even -of the strict Sabbatarians, and the rule was promulgated the same year -that no post should be withdrawn or curtailed except upon the -application of the receivers of six sevenths of the letters so affected. -Of the rural posts in the United Kingdom at that time more than half did -no work on Sunday and about half of the remainder had their walks -curtailed, while in certain cases a substitute was provided on alternate -Sundays. A committee reporting on the question in 1871 advised that it -should be made easier to discontinue a Sunday delivery by requiring that -a Sunday rural post should be taken off if the receivers of two thirds -of the letters desired it, that no delivery in the country should be -granted except upon the demand of the receivers of the same proportion -of letters, and that the principle of providing substitutes on alternate -Sundays should be more generally adopted. This report was favourably -received and its recommendations adopted in the early seventies. In -London and many of the provincial towns there is no ordinary Sunday -delivery, and so little advantage is taken of the opportunity for -express delivery on Sundays that there is presumably no strong demand -for a regular Sunday delivery. Various measures advocated for the relief -of the town carriers were also adopted.[312] - -[312] _Acct. & P._, 1872, xxxvi, 337, pp. 1-2; _Rep. Commrs._, 1872, -xviii [c. 485], pp. 1-5; _Rep. P. G._, 1872, p. 6; _Parl. Deb._, 4th -ser., xciv, coll. 1358-60, 1364-65. - -In 1858 an attempt was made by the Post Office employees, led by the -letter carriers, to secure higher wages and to obtain a remedy for -certain other grievances advanced by them. Sir George Bower asked for a -select committee of enquiry in their behalf but this was refused by the -Chancellor of the Exchequer. He agreed, however, to the appointment of a -committee composed of Post Office and Treasury officials, but their -personnel was so repugnant to the employees that they refused to give -evidence, and as a result of this and other difficulties four of their -leaders were suspended. The protest on the part of the men was not -entirely unproductive, for in the end the Postmaster-General granted -them a slight increase in their wages. At the same time he referred to -the following rates of wages in support of his contention that there was -no good ground for dissatisfaction among the servants of the Post -Office: for carriers, 19_s._ a week advancing to 23_s._; for sorters of -the first class, 25_s._ to 30_s._; of the second class, 32_s._ to -38_s._; and of the third class, 40_s._ to 50_s._ "Carriers also obtain -Christmas boxes averaging, so it is said, £8 a year. In addition these -wages are exclusive of uniform, of pension in old age, and of assistance -for assurance."[313] - -[313] _Rep. P. G._, 1859, pp. 40-43; _Parl. Deb._, 3d ser., clix, coll. -211-214; clxviii, coll. 675-82. - -The first thorough-going attempts to remedy the grievances of the Post -Office employees were made in 1881 and 1882 by Mr. Fawcett in his -capacity as Postmaster-General. His scheme for improving the pay and -position of the sorters, sorting clerks, telegraphists, postmen, lobby -officers, and porters resulted in a mean annual cost to the Post Office -of £320,000. In 1888, 1890, and 1891, under the supervision of Mr. -Raikes, improvements were made in the condition of the chief clerks and -other supervising officers, the sorting clerks and telegraphists in the -provinces, the telegraphists, counter-men and sorters in London, and the -sorters in Dublin and Edinburgh at an additional yearly expense of -£281,000. While the representatives of the London postmen were in -process of examination, some of them went out on strike. They were -severely punished, some 450 men being dismissed in one morning, and a -committee was appointed to enquire into the complaints of the London and -provincial postmen.[314] In the same month that the strike took place -Mr. Raikes announced increases in the pay of the postmen involving an -additional yearly payment of £125,000. The revisions so announced from -1881 to 1894 have been estimated to involve an increased annual -expenditure of nearly £748,000.[315] - -[314] _Rep. P. G._, 1895, pp. 9-11; 1891, p. 3; _Parl. Deb._, 3d ser., -cccxviii, coll. 537, 1549; cccxlix, col. 213. - -[315] _Rep. P. G._, 1895, pp. 9-11. - -A committee was appointed in 1895 to deal with the discontent which was -only lessened, not silenced, by the efforts of Messrs. Fawcett and -Raikes. This was composed of Lord Tweedmouth, Sir F. Mowatt, Mr. Spencer -Walpole, and Mr. Llewellyn Smith, and the compromise which they proposed -was known as the "Tweedmouth Settlement" which apparently gave little -satisfaction at the time and less thereafter. It resulted in a higher -average rate of payment, but dissatisfaction was felt because the pay -for some services was less than before. The basis of the report was "the -abolition of classification whereby each man was allowed to proceed by -annual increments to the maximum pay of a combined class, subject only -to an efficiency-bar which he may not pass without a certificate of good -conduct and ability, together with the abolition of allowances for -special services." Differences in pay according to the volume of -business in particular localities were left untouched, and this was the -cause of much complaint. Special inducements in the shape of double -increments were offered to the staff on the postal and telegraph sides -to learn each other's work in order to lighten the strain which might -otherwise fall on a particular branch. Overtime, Sunday and bank-holiday -pay were assimilated throughout the service, and efforts were made to -reduce the hardship resulting from "split" work, so called from the fact -that the working day of many of the men was divided by an interval when -there was nothing to do. The higher officials were acquitted of -favouritism in the matter of promotion and of "unfairness and undue -severity in awarding punishments and in enforcing discipline." The -general charges of overcrowding the post offices and leaving them in an -unsanitary condition were also rejected. The changes proposed were all -adopted at an immediate estimated cost of £139,000 a year and an -ultimate cost, also estimated, of £275,000.[316] The Tweedmouth -Commission in its turn was soon followed by a departmental committee, -composed of the Duke of Norfolk, then Postmaster-General, and Mr. -Hanbury, the Secretary of the Treasury, then acting as the -representative of the Post Office in the House of Commons. The postal -employees demanded that their grievances should be laid before a select -committee composed of members of the House of Commons, and motions to -that effect were introduced year after year only to meet the -Government's disapproval. The most important demands of the men turned -upon the questions of full civil rights, complete recognition of their -unions, the employment of men who were not members of the civil service, -and the old difficulty of wages and hours. So far as the question of -full civil rights was concerned, the Post Office employees had been -granted the franchise in 1874, but were required not to take an active -part in aiding or opposing candidates for election, by serving on -committees or otherwise making themselves unduly conspicuous in -elections. The men demanded that these restrictions should be withdrawn. -In the second place, the Postmaster-General refused to receive -deputations from those employees not directly interested in the question -at stake, refused to recognize officials who were not also employees of -the Department, and exercised more or less control over the meetings of -employees. Finally, in addition to the general demand for higher wages -due to the higher cost of living, the telegraphists contended that they -had been deceived by the promise of a maximum salary of £190 a year, -whereas they actually received only £160. Mr. A. Chamberlain opposed the -appointment of a select committee of members of the House of Commons -because of the pressure likely to be brought upon them and because of -their unfitness to decide upon the question at issue. He agreed, -however, after consultation with various members of Parliament and the -men themselves, that a committee of enquiry might reasonably be granted, -composed of business men not in the Civil Service and not members of the -House of Commons.[317] - -[316] _Rep. P. G._, 1897, pp. 27 f. - -[317] _Parl. Deb._, 4th ser., viii, col. 673; xxix, col. 117; lxxxii, -coll. 199 f.; xciv, coll. 1357 f.; cvi, coll. 660-683, 715, 747; cxxi, -coll. 1021-64; cxlviii, coll. 1367-69, 1382. - -In accordance with this promise the so-called "Bradford Committee" was -appointed to report on "the scales of pay received by the undermentioned -classes of established civil servants and whether, having regard to the -conditions of their employment and to the rates current in other -occupations, ... the remuneration is adequate." In the meantime Mr. -Chamberlain retired, but his successor, Lord Stanley, asked that the -enquiry be continued. The members of this committee, interpreting their -instructions very loosely, extended their report to include their own -recommendations as to changes in pay, and refrained entirely from making -any comparison between the wages of postal servants and those in other -employments, on the ground that such information was easily accessible -from the statistics published by the Board of Trade. They added that it -was difficult to make any comparison between a national and a private -service, for payment according to results and dismissal at the will of -the employer are inapplicable under the state. There was also a pension -fund in the service, the present value of which it is difficult to -estimate. In their own words, "It appears to us that the adequacy of the -terms now obtaining may be tested by the numbers and character of those -who offer, by the capacity they show on trial, and finally by their -contentment." They agreed that there was no lack of suitable candidates -and no complaints as to capacity, but there was widespread discontent. -Finally the committee recommended the grading of the service as a whole, -taking into consideration the differences in cost of living as between -London and other cities and between these cities and smaller towns and -an increase in pay of the man at an age to marry, irrespective of years -of service. "They" (the above recommendations) "obviously do not concede -all that has been asked for, but they go as far as we think justifiable -in meeting the demands of the staff and we trust it will do much to -promote that contentment which is so essential to hearty service."[318] -From an examination of the evidence presented by the Committee and a -comparison of present scales of pay in the Post Office with those -current in other employments, the Postmaster-General concluded that -there was no reason for increasing the maximum wages payable, but there -seemed to be ground for modifying and improving the scales in some -respects. The special increase at the age of twenty-five was granted. -The maximum was increased in London and the larger towns on account of -the higher cost of living and at the same time wages in the smaller -towns were advanced. The postmen also, both in London and the provinces, -were granted higher wages, and all payments to the members of the force -were in the future to be made weekly. The additional cost entailed by -these changes was estimated at £224,400 for 1905-06, the average in -later years at £372,300.[319] - -[318] _Rep. Commrs._, 1904, xxxiii, 171, pp. 5-26. - -[319] _Acc. & P._, 1905, xliv, 98, pp. 3-6; _Parl. Deb._, 4th ser., -cxlviii, col. 1363. - -The Post Office employees who had asked for the appointment of a select -committee were greatly dissatisfied with the personnel of the "Bradford -Committee." This dissatisfaction on their part was increased by the fact -that the recommendations of the committee were to a great extent -disregarded by Lord Stanley on the ground that the members had not -reported upon the question laid before them, but had instead proposed a -complete reorganization of the whole of the service. He was willing to -grant some increase in pay but there were certain recommendations of the -committee which he refused to accept. He himself was of the opinion that -the average wages of the employees were in excess of those of men doing -similar work under competitive conditions, but the postmen objected to a -comparison of their wages with those of employees in the open labour -market on the ground "that there is no other employer who fixes his own -prices or makes an annual profit of £4,000,000 sterling." Delegates -representing over 42,000 members of various postal associations -protested strongly against Lord Stanley's refusal to adopt the findings -of the "Bradford Committee" _in toto_ and the men prepared to take an -active part against the Government in the approaching election. Appeals -were sent out by the men from which Lord Stanley quoted as follows in -the House: "Two thirds at least of one political party are in great fear -of losing their seats. The swing of the pendulum is against them and any -member who receives forty or fifty of such letters will under present -circumstances have to consider very seriously whether on this question -he can afford to go into the wrong lobby. This is taking advantage of -the political situation."[320] The Postmaster-General's unpopularity -with his employees was not diminished by his reference to these appeals -as "nothing more or less than blackmail." He himself was of the opinion -that there should be some organization outside of politics to which such -questions should be referred.[321] - -[320] In connection with such appeals both sides of the House as -represented by their leaders had in 1892 advised that members should pay -no attention to them (_Parl. Deb._, 4th ser., v, coll. 1123 f.). - -[321] _Parl. Deb._, 4th ser., cxxxix, coll. 1633-34; cxlviii, coll. -1350, 1357-61, 1365; the London _Times_, 1904, Oct. 11, p. 4; Oct. 18, -p. 4; Oct. 22, p. 10; 1905, Jan. 16, p. 7; Apr. 7, p. 11. - -Shortly after the Liberals had come into power, a Post Office circular -was issued granting to the secretaries of the branches of the various -postal organizations the right to make representations to the -Postmaster-General relating to the service and affecting the class of -which the branch of an association was representative. In matters solely -affecting an individual the appeal had to come from the individual -himself. This was followed by a full recognition of the postal unions by -the new Postmaster-General, Mr. Buxton, with the rights of combination -and representation through the representatives of different classes. -These conclusions were commented upon most favourably at the annual -meeting of the "Postmen's Federation."[322] The representatives present -were glad to see that "the old martinet system was fast breaking down." -[323] But the greatest triumph of the men was to follow in the -appointment of a select committee composed of members of the House of -Commons with full powers to investigate the conditions of employment of -the postal employees and make such recommendations, based upon their -investigation, as might seem suitable. Nine members were appointed for -this purpose, two of their number being members of the Labour Party, and -Mr. Hobhouse was chosen as chairman. Their report is very voluminous and -treats minutely all the questions concerning which the postal employees -had expressed so much dissatisfaction. The most important of these are -connected with the civil rights of the men, their wages, hours of -labour, and the conditions of their employment. The demand for full -civil rights was supported by four members on the ground that the -position of the postal employees is not in many respects "comparable to -that of the Civil Service as a whole," but the point was lost for the -men by the vote of the chairman. Some departments asked for a reduction -in the age of voluntary retirement from sixty to fifty and of compulsory -retirement from sixty-five to sixty, but these changes were not -recommended by the committee. The question of extending part of their -pensions to the widows and children of deceased employees was referred -to a plebiscite of the employees themselves. So far as incapacitated -officials were concerned, it was pointed out that the "Workmen's -Compensation Act" of 1906 had been extended to them. Night work had been -limited to the time from 10 P.M. to 6 A.M., seven hours of night work -counting as eight hours of day work. The committee asked that night duty -be from 8 P.M. to 6 A.M., the ratio of the relative value to remain -unchanged. Some servants asked for a forty-two hour week, especially in -the case of those who had "split" work to do, and for a half holiday -each week. The committee thought that the forty-eight hour week should -remain unchanged but that a half holiday might be granted where "the -exigencies of the service demand." They also recommended that -compensation should be allowed where free medical attendance was not -granted. There was a general protest from postmen, telegraphists, and -sorters against the employment of casual and auxiliary labour on the -ground that it dealt a blow at thorough work and trade unionism. The -Department replied that it was necessary in the case of especially busy -holiday periods and where "split" attendance was unavoidable. The -committee contented themselves by asking that casuals who have full work -elsewhere should not be employed. The claim on the part of the employees -that promotion should be contingent on "seniority, good conduct and -ability," in the order named was not accepted by the committee, whose -members contended that ability, as at present, should count for most. So -far as wages themselves were concerned, a general increase was approved -by the committee, and it also, commenting unfavourably on the complexity -and number of existing classes, recommended a reduction in their number -and greater regularity and simplicity in grading them. [324] - -[322] The Postmen's Federation was established in 1891 and a journal, -the _Postman's Gazette_, representing their views, was started in the -following year (_Postman's Gazette_, May 28, 1892; _Post Office -Circular_, no. 1702). - -[323] _Parl. Deb._, 4th ser., cliv, col. 202; clix, col. 396; clxxiv, -col. 387; the London _Times_, 1906, June 9, p. 9. - -[324] _Parl. Deb._, 4th ser., cliii, coll. 323-38, 354-58; _Rep. Com._, -1907, 266. - -The recommendations of the "Hobhouse Committee" have proved, in many -respects, unsatisfactory to the postal employees who have not hesitated -to express their condemnation of what they consider the sins both of -commission and omission of the members. In the words of the delegates -from the branches of the "Postmen's Federation" meeting in London: "We -express our deep disappointment with the report of the Select Committee -for the following reasons": the "cowardice" of the committee in -recommending the continuance of the system of Christmas boxes; the -failure in many cases to increase the minimum and maximum rates of -wages; the mistaken method of grading towns for wages; the failure to -grant full civil rights and the granting of so much power to the -permanent officials. The Conference of Postal Clerks in turn expressed -their dissatisfaction with the findings of the committee. The "Irish -Postal and Telegraph Guardian" considered that the "report had -intensified discontent" and commented on the fact that large increases -in salaries to highly paid classes had been recommended without any -agitation on their part while the lower grades got practically nothing, -this in direct opposition to opinions expressed both by Mr. Buxton and -Mr. Ward, a member of the committee. Deputations were appointed to -discuss with the Postmaster-General those findings of the committee -which were unsatisfactory, but Mr. Buxton refused to grant a re-trial of -the controverted points although he agreed to listen to the plea of -those employees whose case had not been presented before the committee. -[325] - -[325] _Parl. Deb._, 4th ser., clxxxiv, coll. 1058-59, 1061-66, 1080; -cxcii, coll. 1175, 1173; the London _Times_, 1907, Aug. 19, p. 17; Aug. -20, p. 2; Oct. 16, p. 12. - -Mr. Buxton explained his position with reference to the recommendations -of the committee in a speech delivered in the House. He knew that in the -case of the Tweedmouth and Bradford committees the men stated beforehand -that they would not be bound by the decisions reached, but on the other -hand had asked for a Parliamentary committee as the only solution of the -difficulty. Broadly speaking, he was of the opinion that the findings of -the committee should be binding, and he understood that the men would -agree to accept them. There were, however, certain points of the report -on which nearly every section of the staff asked for a re-trial, but -this he was compelled to refuse. The most important recommendations of -the committee which were adopted by Mr. Buxton are: an increase in the -case of each employee to the minimum or "age pay" of his class; the -extension of the "technical increment" beyond the ordinary maximum pay, -after a searching examination; the reduction in London of the four -"wage" zones to three; a reduction in the number of classes in the -provinces, with wages based on volume of work and cost of living in the -order named; a reduction after the first five years from five to four -years in the period necessary to obtain good conduct stripes; an -increase in the pay of women; a reduction in the amount of auxiliary -labour employed; night labour to be reckoned from 8 instead of 10 P.M.; -overtime to be watched and checked; unsanitary conditions in the Post -Office buildings to be remedied; and wages increased in the engineering -branch.[326] - -[326] _Parl. Deb._, 4th ser., clxxxiv, coll. 1058-70; cxcii, coll. -1120-21. It has been estimated that the recommendations adopted by the -Postmaster-General will entail upon the country an additional cost of -about £600,000, rising to £1,000,000 (_Parl. Deb._, 4th ser., cxcii, -col. 1156). - - - - -CHAPTER V - -THE TRAVELLERS' POST AND POST HORSES - - -The duty of providing horses for conveying letters and for the use of -travellers on affairs of state was enforced from the beginning of the -sixteenth century by orders and warrants issued by the -Postmaster-General and the Privy Council to mayors, sheriffs, -constables, and other officials.[327] Where ordinary posts were laid, -the postmen themselves were supposed to have horses ready. Such at least -was the understanding, not, however, invariably realized. In 1533 we -find the Postmaster-General complaining that, except between London and -Dover, there were never any horses provided over the whole kingdom.[328] -A few years later when the London-Berwick posts became an established -fact each postman had to provide one horse, always to be ready to carry -either the mails or a chance traveller on affairs of state. In 1542, -since, owing to trouble with Scotland, the number of letters and -travellers between that country and London had become much more -numerous, each postman was required to have in readiness three horses -instead of one, and it was partly for this reason that their pay was -increased at the same time.[329] The fee for the use of these horses was -fixed at a penny a horse for every mile travelled. Generally this fee -was named in the warrant empowering the traveller to take up -horses.[330] When the sum was not definitely named, it was required that -it should be reasonable.[331] It seems to have been the custom of the -members of the Council to grant these warrants quite indiscriminately. -To remedy this, it was provided in 1566 that in future no warrant should -be granted to any person, who was not actually travelling upon state -affairs.[332] Twelve years later we find the people of Grantham -petitioning the Council against the taking-up of horses to ride post. -They said that the practice had increased so much that it had become -intolerable.[333] The demand for horses had become so great that 2_d._ a -mile was asked for each horse and complaint was made that travellers and -messengers refused to pay the increased charge.[334] It is improbable -that the state was successful in preventing the use of the postmasters' -horses by private individuals, and it is more improbable still that the -postmasters themselves objected to hiring their horses to those who -travelled on their own affairs. Warrants issued by the Council nearly -always fixed the price which should be paid. Now such prices, like wages -when fixed by employers, are likely to be lower than demand and supply -warrant. On the other hand, as between the postmasters and the ordinary -travellers, the question of charge was adjusted by agreement. - -[327] Hist. MSS. Com. _Rep._, 14, app., pt. 8, p. 35; _P. & O. P. C._, -vii, p. 350. - -[328] _Rep. Com._, 1844, xiv, app., p. 32 (7). - -[329] _L. & P. Hen. VIII_, xvii (1542), p. 484. - -[330] _A. P. C._, 1542-47, pp. 164, 333, 465, 469, 527; 1547-50, p. 505. - -[331] _Ibid._, 1550-52, p. 452; 1542-47, p. 384. - -[332] _Ibid._, 1558-70, p. 326. - -[333] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1547-80, p. 612. - -[334] _Ibid._, 1547-80, p. 362. - -When the postmasters themselves were too poor to obtain horses at their -own expense, they were sometimes aided by the town or county. In -Norfolk, for instance, each one of three postmasters was provided with a -certain sum out of the treasury of the city of Norwich to be lent -without interest. They were also paid so much a year out of money levied -on the people of Norwich, one half on the innkeepers and tipplers and -one half on the other inhabitants. No man was to take up post horses in -Norwich unless licensed by warrants from the Queen, the Council, the -Duke of Norfolk, or the Mayor of Norwich. No one was to ride a horse -farther than twelve or fourteen miles at a stretch, and he was to pay -2_d._ each mile and 6_d._ to his guide to lead back the horses. No horse -was to carry any cloak bag over ten pounds in weight.[335] - -[335] F. Blomefield, _Norfolk_, 1806, iii, p. 294. - -If more horses were demanded from the postmaster than he himself had in -his stable, he might seize them from his neighbours but the full amount -paid was to go to the owners. The date of the commission empowering -horses to be used, the name of the person using them, and the date when -the horses were demanded were to be entered in a book, kept for the -purpose.[336] - -[336] _A. P. C._, 1571-75, p. 181. - -Complaints from the postmasters concerning the abuses of travellers -were frequent. The London-Berwick posts in a petition to the Council -stated that on account of the great number riding over that road many of -their horses were injured or spoiled and were not paid for, while the -constables, whose duty it was to see that horses were provided, were -often ill-treated. Accordingly by a proclamation issued in 1578, it was -provided that no commission to ride in post should be issued unless it -was first moved at a council meeting or ordered by the Secretary for -causes properly relating to Her Majesty's service.[337] This was -followed in 1582 by a still more stringent proclamation, forbidding any -person to use a commission more than once unless otherwise specified. -The pay of 2_d._ a mile for each horse was to be in advance as was also -the "guide's groat" and, if the payment was not so advanced, the -postmaster might refuse to supply horses.[338] Occasionally we find -people objecting to having their horses taken when the postmaster had -not sufficient of his own. Complaints like these were generally followed -by an order to the offending postmaster to provide himself with more -horses.[339] - -[337] _A. P. C._, 1577-78, p. 219. A particularly violent man roused the -ire of the Mayor of Guildford, who wrote to Walsingham asking for -damages to a gelding killed by a Mr. Wynckfeld, riding post from -Guildford to Kingston. The gelding stumbled and fell on the road and -Wynckfeld thrust his dagger into him, beat the guide and threatened to -kill the constables on his return (_Cal. S. P. D._, ii, p. 529). - -[338] _A. P. C._, 1577-78, p. 219. - -[339] _Ibid._, 1588-89, p. 206. - -The travellers, however, were not the only people who were at fault. The -owners of the horses were often offenders and can hardly be blamed for -rendering as difficult as possible the enforcement of the obnoxious -proclamations, which they were ordered to obey. If they had to supply -horses, they must do so, but there was nothing to prevent them from -offering clumsy plough horses or venerable specimens no longer capable -of drawing a plough. The constables were more apt to sympathize with the -owners, who were their neighbours, than with the travellers. -Consequently it is not surprising that complaints were loud and deep -over the pieces of horseflesh, whose angular outlines must have -presented a sorry seat for the Queen's messengers.[340] - -[340] _Ibid._, 1577-78, p. 62; 1580-81, p. 203. - -By a Privy Council proclamation issued in 1603, all posts receiving a -daily fee were required to keep at least two horses apiece. So far as -the letting of horses was concerned, they had up to this time been -subject to competition from other people, who had horses to hire. They -were now granted the prior right to provide horses for travellers and it -was only in case of their supply being inadequate that horses might be -procured elsewhere. The hire as usual was to be paid in advance and was -fixed at 2-1/2_d._ a mile, together with the guide's fee for those -riding on commission and was to be settled by agreement for all others. -No heavier burden than thirty pounds in excess of the rider's weight was -to be carried by each horse.[341] - -[341] _Rep. Com._, 1844, xiv, app., pp. 38, 39, 40 (18). - -It is in connection with the monopolistic restriction of 1603 that -Macaulay says that the state must have reaped a large reward from the -prior right of the postmasters to hire horses to travellers.[342] Mr. -Joyce has pointed out that the proceeds went to the postmasters and not -to the state, but he has given no good reason for dissenting from -Macaulay's opinion. Without doubt Joyce is correct, as is shown by a -complaint from the postmasters on the Western Road that they had been -injured by an interloper who supplied travellers with horses.[343] In -1779, the state made an attempt to obtain something from the postmasters -by requiring them to take out a licence for the hiring of horses and to -pay a percentage for their receipts to the government.[344] Indirectly, -however, the state did reap some benefit from the revenue from post -horses, for if the postmasters had received nothing from their horses or -from the conveyance of private letters, it would have been necessary to -pay their salaries much more promptly than was the custom. As early as -the latter part of the sixteenth century, we find complaints from the -London-Dover posts that they had received nothing on their salaries for -a whole year.[345] This was nothing to later complaints and proves that -an impecunious government was enabled to act the bad debtor by the fact -that other forms of revenue were available for the postmasters. - -[342] Macaulay, _Hist. of England_, 1849, i, p. 387. - -[343] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1629-31, p. 193. - -[344] 19 Geo. III, c. 51. - -[345] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1581-90, p. 131. - -In 1609 the rate for each horse was raised from 2-1/2_d._ to 3_d._ a -mile, and an attempt was made to enforce the postmasters' monopoly more -strictly.[346] No horse was to be ridden beyond the initial stage unless -with the consent of the postmaster concerned. The postmasters complained -that they were held responsible for supplying horses, and yet, when it -was necessary to obtain them from the surrounding country, they were -resisted by the owners or were supplied with inefficient animals.[347] -The complaints of the public were more to the purpose. According to them -there were some who were being called upon constantly for horses while -others escaped all demands. The postmasters often accepted bribes from -owners of horses on condition that they should not be troubled.[348] At -times the horses, after being seized, were not used but were kept in the -stables of the postmasters, and their owners charged the expense of -maintaining them. - -[346] _Rep. Com._, 1844, xiv, app., p. 42 (20). - -[347] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1619-23, p. 517. - -[348] _Ibid._, 1619-23, p. 86; 1635, p. 18; 1631-33, p. 257. - -At the establishment of Witherings' plan in 1635, the postmasters on all -the roads in England were required to have as many horses ready as were -necessary for the carriage of letters and the accommodation of -travellers. The rate for each horse was lowered from 3_d._ to 2-1/2_d._ -or 5_d._ for two horses and a guide.[349] Before 1635, the post enjoyed -no priority over the traveller in being provided with horses, and if all -the horses happened to be in use when the mail arrived, it had to wait. -Now it was provided that on the day when the mail was expected, enough -horses should be kept in the stable to ensure its prompt -transmission.[350] In 1637, after Witherings' dismissal, the fee for the -hire of a horse was raised again to 3_d._ at which rate it continued -until 1657, when it was lowered to 2-1/2_d._ by the Commonwealth -Government. So much trouble had been caused by the seizure of horses -from owners unwilling to part with them that it was provided by the act -of 1657 that no one might take or seize horses for service without the -consent of the owner, but no one save the Postmaster-General and his -deputies might hire horses to persons riding in post with or without -commission.[351] At the Restoration in 1660, the old rate of 3_d._ a -mile for each horse was re-imposed together with a 4_d._ fee to the -guide for each stage. If the postmaster was unable to furnish horses -within half an hour, they might be obtained elsewhere, but always with -the consent of the owner.[352] - -[349] _Ibid._, 1635, p. 299. - -[350] _Rep. Com._, 1844, xiv, app., p. 57 (36); _Cal. S. P. D._, 1637, -p. 338. - -[351] Scobell, _Collect._, 1656, c. 30. - -[352] 12 Ch. II, c. 35. - -The sole right to supply horses was continued to the Postmasters-General -and their deputies by the famous act of 1711. The rate per horse and the -guide's fee remained at the figure imposed by the act of 1660. If the -postmaster did not supply the horses demanded within half an hour, he -was liable to a fine of £5 and the horses might be obtained from any one -who would consent to hire them. The maximum burden for one horse over -and above the rider's weight was eighty pounds.[353] - -[353] 9 Anne, c. 11. - -The postmasters enjoyed the monopoly of letting horses to travellers -until the middle of the eighteenth century. But the industrial growth of -England and the improvement in the roads had produced such an increase -in the number of travellers that the postmasters were unable to supply -the demand. The use of carriages had become more common, enabling people -to travel who could not proceed on horseback, and this had still further -increased the demand for horses. It was plain that something must be -done and some more extensive source of supply drawn upon than that -furnished under the old system. The postmen had heard some of the -rumours in the air that a change was about to be made, and they -forwarded a petition to the House of Commons, protesting against the -contemplated change as an infringement upon their old monopoly. They -said "that if the amendment should pass into a law as it is now drawn, -it would not only tend to the great damage and loss of the petitioners, -but also the prejudice of His Majesty's revenue."[354] The amendment did -pass, however, declaring that in future any one might furnish chaises -and calashes with horses and that people letting chaises might supply -horses for them at the same time.[355] - -[354] _Jo. H. C._, 1745-50, p. 830. - -[355] 22 Geo. II, c. 25. - -In 1779, when the Treasury was sadly in need of money, an act was -passed, requiring all persons letting horses to take out licences. In -addition, duties were levied on all horses and carriages hired for the -purpose of travelling post.[356] In the following year this act was -superseded by a stricter and more comprehensive one. It was provided by -the new act that every person letting horses to travel should pay five -shillings a year for a licence. In addition one penny a mile should be -paid for every horse, or, if the distance was not known, 1_s._ 6_d._ a -day, such duties to be paid by the person hiring the horses to the -postmaster or other person who provided them, to be by him handed over -to the Treasury. At the time of payment the postmaster was to give the -traveller a ticket, which must be shown to the toll keepers on the road. -If he had no ticket to show, the toll keeper was ordered not to allow -him to pass.[357] Five years later the duty to be collected was raised -to 1-1/2_d._ a mile for each horse or 1_s._ 9_d._ a day.[358] In 1787, -permission was given to let these duties out to farm, because so many -difficulties had been experienced in their collection.[359] The whole -theory of these duties was illogical, for it was to every one's interest -to evade them, and direct supervision was impossible. In 1808 another -act for farming the post-horse duties was passed, modifying somewhat the -provisions of the previous act. The tax was to extend to horses used in -travelling, when hired by the mile or stage and when hired for a period -of time less than twenty-eight days for drawing carriages used in -travelling post. Persons licenced to let horses were required to have -their names and places of abode painted on their post carriages if they -provided these also. The carriages must have numbers painted on them so -as to distinguish them easily.[360] In 1823 all previous acts relating -to licences and fees for keeping horses for hire were repealed, and a -complete system of rates was substituted. Every postmaster or other -person keeping horses to hire for riding by post must pay an annual -licence of five shillings and additional duties calculated according to -distance or time. The Treasury was given authority to let these duties -to farm.[361] - -[356] 19 Geo. III, c. 51. - -[357] 20 Geo. III, c. 51. - -[358] 25 Geo. III, c. 51. - -[359] 27 Geo. III, c. 26. - -[360] 48 Geo. III, c. 98. - -[361] 4 Geo. IV, c. 62:-- - -For every horse let to hire by the mile at the ordinary rate, 1-1/2_d._ - -For no greater distance than eight miles, one fifth part of the sum -charged or 1_s._ 9_d._ - -For no greater distance than eight miles and when the horse or horses -shall not bring back any person nor deviate from the regular road, -1_s._ - -For every horse let for a period less than twenty-eight successive days -and not let according to the terms given above, one fifth part of the -sum charged or 2s. 6d. for each day not exceeding three days and 1_s._ -9_d._ for each day exceeding three days but not exceeding thirteen days -and 1_s._ 3_d._ for each day exceeding thirteen but not exceeding -twenty-eight days. - -For every horse let for twenty-eight successive days or for a longer -period, one fifth of the sum charged or 2_s._ 6_d._ for each day not -exceeding three and 1_s._ 9_d._ for each day exceeding three days but -not exceeding thirteen days and 1_s._ 3_d._ for each day exceeding -thirteen and less than twenty-one days. - - - - -CHAPTER VI - -ROADS AND SPEED - - -Sir Brian Tuke, writing in 1533, said that the only roads in the kingdom -over which letters were regularly conveyed were from London to Dover and -London to Berwick.[362] The road to Berwick had been in use in 1509[363] -but had evidently been discontinued, for Sir Brian says in his letter -that postmen were appointed to it in the year that he wrote. Regular -posts were established between London and Portsmouth when the fleet was -there and discontinued as soon as it left, so that it can hardly be -included among the regular roads.[364] Between 1580 and the accession of -James I, there was a distinct revival in postal affairs within and -without the kingdom. The posts on the London-Holyhead road had been -discharged for some time and Irish letters were conveyed to London by -the postmaster at Chester.[365] In 1581 Gascoyne, the acting -Postmaster-General, was ordered to appoint stages and postmen on this -old route.[366] A letter patent was issued, calling upon all Her -Majesty's officers to assist him in so doing, and a warrant was signed -for the payment of £20 to defray his expenses. The Rye-Dieppe posts were -also reorganized, principally for the conveyance of letters to and from -France.[367] Bristol ranked next to London in size and importance, but -it was not until 1580 that orders were given to horse and man the road -between the two cities,[368] and only in the following decade were posts -also laid from London to Exeter and somewhat later from Exeter to -Plymouth.[369] This illustrates as well as anything the fact that the -early English postal system was mainly political in its aims. The great -post roads were important from a political rather than an economic -standpoint. It was necessary to keep in close touch with Scotland -because the Scotch would always stand watching. The wild Irish needed a -strong hand and it was expedient that English statesmen should be well -acquainted with things Irish. The post to and from the continent was -quite as necessary to keep them informed of French and Spanish politics. - -[362] _Rep. Com._, 1844, xiv, app., p. 32 (7). - -[363] _L.& P. Hen. VIII_, vii, pt. 2, p. 1444. - -[364] _A. P. C._, 1556-58, pp. 249-309. - -[365] _Ibid._, 1571, 75, p. 201; _Cal. S. P. D._, 1547-80, p. 265. - -[366] _Cal. S. P. Ire._, 1574-85, p. 176; _A. P. C._, 1580-81, p. 131. - -[367] Hist. MSS. Com., _Rep._, 13, app., pt. 4, p. 89. - -[368] _A. P. C._, 1580-81, p. 211. - -[369] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1581-90, p. 712; _Rep. Com._, 1844, xiv, app., p. -43 (21). - -In conveying letters the postman who started with them did not, on the -regular roads, proceed through to the place where they were directed, -but carried them only over his stage to the next postman. By this method -a fair rate of speed should have been maintained, for the horses' path -in the middle of the road was as a rule not so bad as seriously to -impede travelling.[370] Nevertheless complaints about the tardiness of -the post are numerous. Lisle, the Warden of the Marches, said that -letters from London were nearly five days in reaching him at -Alnwick.[371] Nine days from London to Carlisle was considered too slow -but it often took that long, notwithstanding that the letters were -marked twice "for life, for life."[372] The Earl of Sussex complained to -Cecil that they never arrived in York under three days. He expected too -much, however, for three days from London to York was considered good -speed.[373] According to a post label made out in 1589, the distance -from Berwick to Huntingdon was accomplished in ninety-one hours. By the -mileage tables then published, the distance was 203 miles, giving an -average speed of only a little over two miles an hour. It is only fair -to add that the real distance was 282 miles, and this would raise the -speed to about three miles an hour.[374] The distance from Dover to -London was covered in twelve hours, from Plymouth to Hartford Bridge in -forty-four hours, from Portsmouth to Farnham in five hours, from -Weymouth to Staines via Sherborne in five days, but this must have been -exceptionally long.[375] - -[370] Hist. MSS. Com., _Rep._, 14, app., pt. 8, p. 35. - -[371] _L. & P. Hen. VIII_, 1543, p. 4. - -[372] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1547-65, p. 360. - -[373] _Ibid._, 1566-79, p. 109. - -[374] _Ibid._, 1580-1625, p. 278. - -[375] Hist. MSS. Com., _Hatfield House_, pt. 7, pp. 174, 168, 332, 358. - -Orders were given to the postmen in 1603 that they should not delay the -mails more than fifteen minutes at each stage and that they should -travel at the rate of seven miles an hour in summer and five in -winter.[376] This was an ideal but seldom realized. Complaints continued -to come in pretty constantly during the first thirty-five years of the -seventeenth century.[377] Secretary Conway wrote to Secretary Coke that -the posts must be punished for their tardiness.[378] Even those from -London to Dover were reprimanded and they had hitherto given the best -satisfaction. The postmaster at Dover was threatened with imprisonment -unless he mended his ways.[379] Letters were either not delivered at all -or were needlessly delayed on the road. Some of the postmasters, who -held lucrative positions, were themselves absentees and their work was -performed by their agents, who were often incompetent, and this sort of -thing was connived at by the Postmaster-General, from whom their -positions were bought. The postmen themselves acknowledged their -tardiness but said that they were able to do no better, since they had -received no wages for several years.[380] One had been paid nothing for -over two years,[6] another had received no wages for seven years,[381] -and finally in 1628 a petition was presented to the Privy Council from -"all the posts in England, being in number ninety-nine poor men." This -petition prays for their arrears, due since 1621, the amount unpaid -being £22,626, "notwithstanding the great charge they are at in the -keeping of many servants and horses to do His Majesty's service."[382] -The Council did not grant their petition, for two years later £25,000 -were still due them.[383] - -[376] _Rep. Com._, 1844, xiv, app., pp. 38-40 (28). - -[377] Six days from London to Holyrood House (_Cal. S. P. D._, 1611-18, -p. 44). Five hours from Sittingbourne to Canterbury (12 miles) (_ibid._, -1619-23, p. 610). Nine hours from Sittingbourne to Dover (_ibid._, -1625-26, p. 256). - -[378] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1619-23, p. 564. - -[379] _Ibid._, 1625-26, pp. 43, 168. - -[380] _Ibid._, 1627-28, p. 307. - -[381] _Ibid._, 1623-25, p. 141; 1627-28, p. 307. - -[382] _Ibid._, 1628-29, p. 184. - -[383] _Ibid._, 1629-31, p. 379. - -The Council of State gave directions in 1652 for roads to be manned -between Dover and Portsmouth, Portsmouth and Salisbury, London and -Yarmouth, and London and Carlisle through Lancaster.[384] Hitherto, -Carlisle had to depend upon a branch post from the great North Road. -Dover and Portsmouth had no direct connection nor had Bristol and -Exeter, but letters between these places passed through London. These -orders formed part of the directions given to the farmer of the posts in -the following year.[385] Cromwell seems to have recognized the -impracticability of enforcing the speed limit ordered by Elizabeth in -the case of the ordinary mails. He issued orders that in future only -public despatches or letters from and to certain high officials should -be sent by express, and such despatches and letters must be carried at a -speed of seven miles an hour from the first of April to the thirtieth of -September, and five miles an hour the rest of the year.[386] - -[384] _Ibid._, 1652-53, p. 312. - -[385] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1652-53, p. 449. - -[386] _Ibid._, 1655, pp. 285-86. - -Toward the close of the seventeenth century, more attention was directed -to the slowness of the posts and the delays along the road. The average -speed on the great roads varied from three to four miles an hour, -anything below three miles generally calling for reproof. For instance, -the posts on the Portsmouth road were reprimanded for travelling only -twenty-two miles in ten hours.[387] It was said that it took the -Yarmouth mail sixty-six hours to travel less than one hundred miles. The -post labels were an important check upon the postmaster's carelessness. -Each postmaster was supposed to mark the time that he received the mail -on a label attached to it for that purpose. In this way no postmaster -marked the speed that his own postboy made and each was a check upon his -neighbour.[388] Lord Arlington gave orders in 1666 for this practice to -be enforced more strictly. In addition to marking the time of arrival, -the time of departure was also to be added.[389] A year later a further -improvement was made by the use of printed labels, containing also -directions as to speed. The names of the post towns through which the -mail must pass were also added, and blanks were left for the postmasters -to fill in the hours of arrival and departure.[390] - -[387] _Ibid._, 1661-62, p. 385. - -[388] _Ibid._, 1665-66, p. 19. - -[389] _Ibid._, 1666-67, p. 384. - -[390] _Ibid._, 1667-68, p. 116. From copies of these labels made out in -1666 and 1667 we know exactly how long it took to convey the mails -between London and the important cities of the kingdom although the time -varied more or less at different trips and different seasons. - - _Between_ _Hours_ - London and Yarmouth From 29 to 32 - Plymouth 50 58 - York 39 42 - Chester 30 56 - Bristol 25 30 - Gloucester 20 26 - Portsmouth 15 23 - Edinburgh 73 103* - Newcastle 57 81 - Manchester 32 48 - Preston 47 58 - Dover 19 22 - Southampton 18 23 - (_Cal. S. P. D._, 1667-68, pp. 117, 118, 120, - 121; 1666-67, pp. 388, 389.) - - * Reproved for slowness. - -It was often difficult to tell the relative position of places in -England from the post towns. The Post Office had for its own use a -table of places along the great roads,[391] and from the middle of the -seventeenth century, private individuals began to publish road maps. On -these maps, the post towns are marked by a castle with a flag flying -from it. Some of them are quite artistically done and represent on a -large scale every important road in England with the places where branch -roads leave them. One map has each road outlined on a long scroll, and -it gives the rivers, brooks, bridges, elevations, villages, post towns, -forests, and branch roads throughout the whole distance.[392] In 1668, -Hicks, in writing to Arlington's secretary, advised him not to have a -new map of the post roads printed, fearing the great changes that might -thereby be produced in the Post Office. He says: "When Parliament sees -how all the branches lie and most of them carried on at the charge of -those in the country concerned, they will try to have them carried -through by the Postmaster-General, which will be very chargeable."[393] - -[391] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1673-75, p. 494. - -[392] John Ogilby, _Itinerarium Angliae_, 1675. - -[393] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1667-68, p. 543. - -At the close of the seventeenth century, the five great roads to -Edinburgh, Holyhead, Bristol, Plymouth, and Dover remained practically -unchanged. The Plymouth road had been continued to Falmouth and the -Northern Road now passed through York. The greatest changes noticeable -are in the Southern and Eastern counties. In the South, nearly all the -coast towns were now connected with the Falmouth road, and the post ran -to the extreme southwest of Cornwall. Portsmouth had a direct service -from London through Arundel and Chichester. There were branches from the -Falmouth road to several towns in Dorset and Somerset, but as a rule the -country between the two great roads to the West was poorly supplied. A -new road of considerable importance ran from Maidenhead on the Bristol -road through Abingdon, Gloucester, Cardiff, and Swansea to Milford, -where there was a packet boat for Ireland. From this road there were a -few unimportant branches to the North. - -In the Northeast, the post road to Edinburgh now passed through York to -Northallerton. From York there was a branch to Scarborough and Whitby. A -new road left the Edinburgh road at Royston, about forty miles from -London, and passed along the coast nearly parallel to the great road, -through Newmarket, Lynn, Boston, and Hull to Bridlington. Another branch -left Newmarket for Norwich and the seacoast towns of northern Norfolk. -An important road left London for Yarmouth, with branches to the coast -towns of Suffolk. One new road ran through the midland counties, leaving -the Holyhead road about thirty miles from London and passing through -Sheffield, Manchester, and Preston to Carlisle. Derby was supplied by an -east and west road from Grimsby to Manchester. Liverpool had a post road -to Manchester. In 1683, provision was made for an extension of the post -roads by an order issued to the Postmaster-General to set up posts -between the market towns and the nearest post towns. These were called -bye-posts. It was to them that Hicks had objected as leading to -increased expense. At the same time orders were given for a map to be -printed, showing where all these bye-posts were situated so that people -might know where to address their letters.[394] - -[394] _Rep. Com._, 1844, xiv, app., p. 91 (64). - -In Ireland, there were three main post roads, running from Dublin -through Ulster, Munster, and Connaught.[395] There were practically no -post roads worthy of the name in Scotland. That part of the great North -Road beyond the Tweed was English rather than Scotch. Between Edinburgh -and Glasgow there was a foot-post. The mail was also carried between -Glasgow and Portpatrick.[396] In 1699, the length of the roads in -America over which the mails passed was 700 miles. These roads connected -the principal towns along the Atlantic coast.[397] - -[395] Joyce, p. 53. - -[396] _Cal. T. B. & P._, 1739-41, p. 240; _Rep. Com._, 1844, xiv, app., -p. 94 (67); _Acts of the Parl. of Scotland_, ix, p. 417 (5 Wm. III). - -[397] _Cal. T. P._, 1697-1702, p. 280. - -In 1696, the Postmaster-General reported favourably on the establishment -of a cross post road between Bristol and Exeter.[398] The report was -approved, and two years later Bristol and Exeter had direct postal -communication. Colonial and foreign letters for Bristol, after their -arrival in Falmouth, still went via London.[399] Towns adjacent to -Bristol and Exeter, which might have been connected with the cross post, -remained separated. For example, the post went from London through -Cirencester to Wotton-under-Edge, which was within fourteen miles of -Bristol, yet letters from Cirencester to Exeter went via London.[400] -The Exeter-Bristol cross post proved a success. After it had been in -operation three years, it produced over £350 net profits a year. The use -of cross posts was advocated as leading to the conveyance of a larger -number of letters, and private individuals started to establish -them.[401] In 1700, the post road from Exeter to Bristol was continued -to Chester through Worcester and Shrewsbury.[402] Three years later, a -direct road was ordered between Exeter and Truro, but it seems to have -been discontinued after one year's trial.[403] - -[398] _Ibid._, 1657-96, p. 55. - -[399] Latimer, _Annals of Bristol_, p. 488. - -[400] _Cal. T. P._, 1697-1702, pp. 21-22. - -[401] _Ibid._, 1697-1702, p. 56. - -[402] _Ibid._, 1702-07, p. 26. - -[403] _Ibid._, 1702-07, p. 134. - -The post roads throughout the kingdom had not been measured correctly. A -mile on the London-Edinburgh road was fully ten furlongs. This had -resulted in a decreased revenue from post horses and often unjustifiable -reprimands for slowness. By a provision in the act of 1711, it was -ordered that all the post roads in the kingdom should be measured. This -was to be done by officials appointed by the Postmaster-General and the -measurements left in the general offices in London, Edinburgh, and -Dublin.[404] - -[404] 9 Anne, c. 11. - -As the seventeenth century had seen the extension of roads in the -southern and eastern counties of England, so the eighteenth century was -marked by the establishment of posts in those parts of the kingdom most -affected by the industrial revolution. The country about Birmingham, -Kidderminster, and Worcester was to share in the better postal -facilities offered by the mail coaches. Lancashire and the West Riding -of York were not debarred from the use of Palmer's innovation. This was -especially the case in Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, Halifax, and -Leeds, for where industrial expansion paved the way, the coaches were -sure to follow. - -At the beginning of the nineteenth century the roads in Ireland were -attracting considerable attention, and it was the slow speed made by the -mail carts there which was a primary cause in producing any improvement. -The Postmasters-General were directed to cause surveys to be made and -maps drawn of those roads in Ireland over which the mail passed. The -roads were to be levelled so that the ascent or descent should be no -more than one foot in thirty-five wherever this was practicable, the -expense to be borne by the county or barony.[405] This was in 1805, and -the next year the Grand Jury was given the power to call for another -survey, and the surveyor whom they appointed was to decide as to the -necessity for a change in the direction of the road. Copies of all Grand -Jury presentments were to be made to the Postmasters-General.[406] In -1813 the Grand Juries were empowered to present for damages accruing to -owners and occupiers of land, such damages to be raised by the county -and advanced from the consolidated fund.[407] - -[405] 45 Geo. III, c. 43. - -[406] 46 Geo. III, c. 134. - -[407] 53 Geo. III, c. 146. - -After 1817, the Postmasters-General were able to report a considerable -acceleration in the speed at which the mails were carried. This was -owing largely to the introduction of a lighter and more improved type of -mail coach, and after 1821 the use of steam packet boats in the case of -the transportation of the Irish and continental mails. Letters leaving -London at 8 P.M. on Tuesday for Ireland had not been delivered in Dublin -until 10 A.M. on Friday. In 1817 they arrived on Thursday in time for -delivery on that day.[408] In 1828, the coaches travelled from London to -Holyhead, a distance of 261 miles, in twenty-nine hours and seventeen -minutes. Four years later the time had been reduced to twenty-eight -hours.[409] By the introduction of one of the patent mail coaches on the -Yarmouth road, the inhabitants of that town were enabled to answer their -letters a day earlier. The coach left London at the usual time (8 P.M.), -arriving in Yarmouth at 11.40 A.M., returning at 3 P.M. on the same -day.[410] The mails to Manchester and Liverpool travelled at the rate of -nine miles an hour over the greater part of the road.[411] The average -speed varied from eight to nine miles an hour. To give the exact -figures, the highest speed attained in England was ten miles and five -furlongs an hour, the slowest six miles, and the average eight miles and -seven furlongs.[412] In Ireland the highest speed attained by the mail -coaches was nine miles and one furlong an hour, the slowest speed six -miles and seven furlongs, and the average eight miles and two -furlongs.[413] Mail carts drawn by two horses were also used largely in -Ireland for the conveyance of the mails, and by these the speed was not -so great. The highest speed made by them was seven miles and five -furlongs an hour, the slowest five miles and one furlong, and the -average six miles and three furlongs.[414] In Scotland the highest -speed was ten miles and four furlongs an hour, the slowest seven miles, -and the average eight miles and two furlongs.[415] - -[408] London _Times_, 1817, Aug. 28, p. 2. - -[409] _Rep. Commrs_., 1830, xiv, p. 347; 1831-32, xvii, p. 7. - -[410] London _Times_, 1819, July 17, p. 2. Yarmouth is distant from -London 124 miles. - -[411] _Ibid._, 1821, Aug. 23, p. 3. - -[412] _Acc. & P._, 1836, xlv, 364, pp. 2 f. The following times are -given in _Rep. Commrs._, 1830, xiv:-- - p. 348 London to Liverpool 22 hrs. 7 min., distance 202 miles - p. 349 London to Bristol 13 14 122 - p. 350 Bristol to Milford 19 38 149 - p. 351 London to Carlisle 34 7 311 (via Leeds) - p. 352 Carlisle to Portpatrick 11 32 85 - p. 353 Bristol to Birmingham 10 29 87 - -[413] _Acc. & P._, 1836, xlv, 364, p. 4. The following times are given -in _Rep. Commrs._, 1830 xiv:-- - p. 354 Dublin via Cashell to Cork 22 hrs. distance 126 miles - p. 355 Cork to Waterford 12 hrs. 4 min., 72 - p. 356 Dublin to Belfast 13 15 80 - p. 356 Donaghadee to Belfast 2 24 14 - -[414] _Acc. & P._, 1836, xlv, 364, p. 7. - -[415] _Ibid._, 1836, xlv, 364, p. 5. - -The mails which left London at 8 P.M. arrived in Holyhead at 12.6 A.M. -on the next day but one. The packet left Holyhead twenty-five minutes -later for Howth. The packet left Howth at 4 P.M. for Holyhead, and the -mails for London left Holyhead at 12.15 A.M. The passage across the -Irish Sea took from five to eight hours. The London coach arrived in -Milford at 5.27 A.M., travelling at a rate of eight miles an hour, and -twenty-five minutes after its arrival, the packet left for Dunmore. -Another left Dunmore with the mails at 12 P.M., and the coach left -Milford for London at 7.30 P.M.[416] The London mail coach arrived at -Portpatrick at 10.27 P.M., fifty hours and twenty-seven minutes from -London. The packet did not leave Portpatrick until 6.10 A.M., after the -arrival of the Glasgow mail, which left Glasgow at 4.45 P.M., arriving -at 5.6 A.M. The packet left Donaghadee at noon, and the mail left -Portpatrick at 4 P.M., arriving in Glasgow at 6 A.M. Ordinarily the -passage across took four hours. The London mail coach arrived in -Liverpool at 6 P.M., twenty-two hours from London, and left at 10.30 -P.M. Packets sailed from Liverpool and Kingstown at 5 P.M. and 5.15 -P.M., the time for crossing being about fourteen hours. No London -letters went via Liverpool until 1841.[417] - -[416] _Rep. Commrs._, 1831-32, xvii, pp. 7, 373-74. - -[417] _Ibid._, 1831-32, xvii, pp. 373-74. - -The method used to ensure a rapid transmission of the mails by the -coaches was as follows: Time bills were issued to the guards of the -different coaches. On these bills were printed the speed that should be -made from stage to stage, and it was the guard's duty to fill in the -time made by the coach on which he rode. Penalties were inflicted for -any mistakes which he might make or any failure on his part to leave the -bill in the office at the end of his route. On some of the time bills it -was set forth that a fine of one shilling was payable by the proprietor -for each minute that the coach was late and he might recover it from the -guard or coachman if the delay was due to the negligence of either of -them. The coachmen were ordered to make up any time lost on the road -and to report the horse keepers if they were at fault.[418] - -[418] _Rep. Commrs._, 1837, xxxiv, 7th rep., app., nos. 40-45. - -The chief cause for delay was the lack of close connection between the -mail coaches and the packets to and from Ireland. In 1837 the London -mail arrived in Holyhead at 11 P.M., but the packet did not leave for -Kingstown until 8 A.M., a change having been made in the time of -sailing.[419] Letters from England were detained in Dublin eleven hours -before their departure for the rest of the island.[420] More than one -third of the Irish letters for England left Kingstown by the day packet -at 9 A.M., remaining in Holyhead from 3 P.M. to 4 A.M., with the -exception of the letters for Chester and Manchester, which were -forwarded by a special coach.[421] - -[419] _Ibid._, 1837, xxxiv, 7th rep., app., no. 11. The packet leaving -Holyhead at 6.30 P.M. carried letters from Birmingham, brought by the -coach from that place, but took no London letters (_Acc. & P._, 1841, -ix, p. 9). - -[420] _Rep. Commrs._, 1831-32, xvii, p. 325. - -[421] _Ibid._, 1837, xxxiv, 7th rep., app., no. 11. - -The packets from Liverpool started shortly before the arrival of the -London mail. The Commissioners proposed that they should be detained -until it had arrived, but this was not done until ten years later.[422] -The packets at Portpatrick always waited for the mails from Glasgow, and -as these were nearly always late, letters from Carlisle and Northern -England were necessarily detained.[423] The station at Milford had -always given the most trouble. From a financial point of view it was the -least satisfactory, and English letters for the south of Ireland often -went through Holyhead. The packet left Waterford[424] for Milford at 12 -P.M., arriving in Milford about noon, but the mail did not leave for -London until 7.30 P.M.[425] English letters for Ireland via Milford were -detained from ten to thirteen hours in Waterford.[426] - -[422] _Ibid._, 1831-32, xvii, pp. 5-9; _Acc. & P._, 1841, xix. - -[423] _Rep. Commrs._, 1831-32, xvii, pp. 5-9. - -[424] Sometimes the packet left Dunmore. See _Rep. Commrs._, 1831-32, -xvii, pp. 373-4. - -[425] _Ibid._, 1831-32, xvii, pp. 5-9, 373-74. - -[426] _Ibid._, p. 325. - -Before the introduction of Penny Postage, the use of railways had only -started. In 1837, it was objected that the railways could never be of -much use in this respect because they could not travel at night for -fear of accidents. In answer to this objection it was pointed out that -trains between Liverpool and Manchester and Leeds and Selby found no -difficulty in that respect.[427] In 1837, mails were carried between -Manchester and Liverpool at a rate of twenty miles an hour, and these -trains left both Liverpool and Manchester as late as 5 P.M.[428] The -Postmaster-General was given authority by Parliament to require any -railway to carry mails either by ordinary or special train and to -regulate the speed to the maximum of the fastest passenger train, as -well as to control places, times and duration of stoppage and the times -of arrival, provided that such regulations were reasonable. He might -require the exclusive use of a carriage, if necessary, provided either -by the railway or himself as seemed better to himself. In 1844 he was -allowed to order a speed not in excess of twenty-seven miles an hour but -he complained that he was unable to enforce his regulations although the -speed was increasing. In 1855 a parliamentary committee reported in -favour of a deduction of payment for irregularity on the part of the -railways and the fining of the Post Office for irregularity in dealing -with mail to be entrusted to the railways, the amounts of such -deductions and fines to be a matter of contract, and in addition it was -advised that the Postmaster-General's demands with reference to speed -should be certified by the Railway Department of the Board of Trade to -be consistent with safety. In conformity with this resolution, the -Postmaster-General proposed to pay a bonus to the railways when their -trains were on time and to exact a penalty from either the railway or -the Post Office whichever were the offender, but the proposition was, as -a rule, not very favourably received by the railways.[429] - -[427] _Rep. Com._, 1837-38, xx, pt. 1, p. 469, no. 17. - -[428] _Rep. Commrs._, 1837, xxxiv, 7th rep., app., no. 13. - -[429] 1 and 2 Vict., c. 98; 7 and 8 Vict., c. 85; _Rep. Com._, 1854, xi, -411, p. xiii; _Rep. P. G._, 1857, p. 7. - - - - -CHAPTER VII - -SAILING PACKETS AND FOREIGN CONNECTIONS - - -The Irish mail service was the first to boast a regular sailing -packet.[430] The postal expenditure for the year 1598 included £130 for -a bark to carry letters and despatches between Holyhead and Dublin, and -an additional vessel was hired occasionally for the same purpose.[431] -At the beginning of the seventeenth century, Queen Elizabeth ordered -packets to be established at Milford Haven and Falmouth to ply between -England and Ireland. This order was probably temporary, being intended -to furnish a means of communication only during Essex's expedition.[432] -In 1649 the port of departure for the Irish packets was changed from -Holyhead to Portinllain in Carnarvon and at the same time the land -stages were altered to meet the new conditions.[433] Prideaux reported -the same year that the cost of these packets averaged £600 a year.[434] - -[430] _Cal. S. P. Ire._, 1574-85, p. 401. - -[431] _Rep. Com._, 1844, xiv, app., p. 37 (15). - -[432] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1598-1601, p. 107. - -[433] _Ibid._, 1648-49, p. 210. - -[434] _Jo. H. C._, 1648-51, p. 385. - -In 1653 the Council of State gave orders for the revival of the old -packet service between Milford and Waterford. At the same time Chester -was substituted for Portinllain as the point of departure on the English -side, and mails were carried weekly between the two countries by the -Milford and Chester Packets.[435] The establishment of these boats was -made one of the conditions under which the post was farmed in the same -year.[436] The situation of Holyhead, however, was so much in its favour -that in 1693 a contract was signed for the conveyance of the mails -between Holyhead and Dublin. Mr. Vickers, the contractor, agreed to -maintain three packet boats for this purpose for £450 a year. He also -undertook to provide two boats for the mail service between Portpatrick -and Donaghadee. When the Scotch was separated from the English Post -Office in 1695, three packet boats came under the control of -Scotland.[437] Upon the separation of the British and Irish Posts in -1784, it was provided that each office should receive its own proportion -of the inland postage collected on letters passing between the two -countries. The packet service between the two countries continued to be -managed by the English Postmaster-General, to whom all receipts were -forwarded. In return for this they were required to pay to the Irish -Office a sum not exceeding £4000 a year. This was to be the rule until -Ireland had established packet boats of her own.[438] - -[435] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1644, pp. 6, 29; 1641-43, p. 501. - -[436] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1652-53, pp. 312, 449. - -[437] _Cal. T. P._, 1557-1696, p. 308. - -[438] 24 Geo. III, c. 6. - -The Irish Post Office, before the Act of Union, had employed boats -called wherries for the despatch of special messengers and expresses to -England. In the course of time they lost their special character and, -after 1801, were used to carry passengers and goods in opposition to the -Holyhead packets. In 1813, Lees, the Secretary of the Irish Office, -informed the London Office that these wherries would henceforth be -employed to carry the Irish mails to Holyhead. This was actually done -for six weeks and the regular packets arrived on the English side -without the mail, which was brought by boats that, as a rule, did not -arrive until after the coach had left for London. Lees may have been -obstinate and ill advised but there was no doubt that he was acting -entirely within his rights. The question then arose, should the Irish -Office receive that part of the £4000 due them while the Holyhead -packets did not carry the mails? The Postmaster-General decided that -they should, much to Freeling's disgust. Lees had obtained his object, -for two years later Parliament passed an act increasing the amount -payable to the Irish Office to £8000 a year.[439] - -[439] Joyce, pp. 380-83; 55 Geo. III, c. 145. - -Shortly after the Restoration, two packet boats were employed between -Deal and the Downs. They carried letters to and from the ships of the -merchant marine and the Royal Navy lying there. They also collected -letters from vessels arriving from foreign ports and brought them to the -shore whence they were transmitted by the General Post.[440] By an act -passed in 1767 the Isle of Man was for the first time supplied with a -postal service. A packet boat was to run between Whitehaven and the -Port of Douglas in the island.[441] In 1828 sixteen packet boats were -employed in carrying mails between the coast towns and to and from the -outlying islands of the United Kingdom. All of these boats were hired by -the Post Office, except those from Weymouth to Jersey and Guernsey.[442] - -[440] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1667-68, pp. 248, 249; Joyce, p. 46. - -[441] 7 Geo. III, c. 50. - -[442] _Rep. Commrs._, 1830, xiv, app., nos. 78, 80. - -Early in the sixteenth century Dover was the port of departure and -arrival for letters to and from the continent, and Calais was the -distributing point on the other side, although the royal mail was -occasionally conveyed between Rye and Dieppe.[443] From Calais the -letters were carried to their destination by the English messengers to -whom they were entrusted. They took up post horses along the way, paying -for them as they proceeded, and often grumbling at the excessive charges -which were demanded.[444] Letters from abroad directed to England were -usually carried as far as Calais by foreign messengers. The foreign -Postmaster-General would then send his bill to the English -Postmaster-General for expenses so incurred.[445] Regular sailing -packets were not used to carry the mails between Dover and Calais during -the sixteenth century, but merchant vessels were employed by the Post -Office. - -[443] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1581-90, p. 485. - -[444] _Cal. S. P. For._, 1553-58, pp. 239, 341. - -[445] _Cal. S P. D._, 1580-1625, p. 188; 1581-90, p. 84; _L. & P. Hen. -VIII_, i, 3639. - -Witherings' appointment as Foreign Postmaster-General in 1632 was made -the occasion for a report to Sir John Coke on the foreign postal -service. The immediate cause of the report was the fact that mails had -not arrived from Germany, the Hague and Brussels. The fault was laid -upon the messengers, who were accused of "minding their own peddling -traffic more than the service of the state or the merchants, omitting -many packages, sometimes staying for the vending of their own -commodities, many times through neglect or lying in tippling houses." -The report goes on to express confidence in Witherings and in his plan -for the reform of the foreign post.[446] In 1631, thirteen messengers -were employed to carry letters to the continent: three for France; six -for Germany, Italy and the Netherlands; and four, who travelled to Paris -and other parts of France on special occasions.[447] The service which -they gave was inadequate and slow, and in 1633 the foreign post, at -Witherings' suggestion, was ordered to be conducted on the following -principles. Packet posts were to be appointed at suitable stages to run -day and night without stopping. This was the plan which was commented -upon favourably in the report to Sir John Coke. The Foreign -Postmaster-General was to take the oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy, to -have an office in London, and to give notice at what time the public -were to bring in their letters for despatch to the continent. A register -was also to be kept, in which should be enrolled the names of all -persons bringing letters, together with the names of those to whom they -were addressed. The letters themselves were placed in a packet and -locked and sealed with the Foreign Postmaster-General's seal. Letters -from abroad for ambassadors residing in England and for the Government -were to be delivered at once, after which a table of all other letters -was to be set up for every one to see and demand his own.[448] - -[446] Hist. MSS. Com., _Rep._, 12, app., pt. 1, p. 478. - -[447] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1631-33, p. 242; Hist. MSS. Com., _Rep._, 12, -app., pt. 2, p. 103. - -[448] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1631-33, p. 522. - -Witherings attempted next to come to some agreement with the postal -officials of foreign countries about the despatch of letters. In Calais -he met the Countess Taxis, secretary of the Postmaster of Ghent, and she -agreed to settle stages between Antwerp and Calais. Witherings himself -established stages between London and Dover. There had always been -trouble with the boatmen who conveyed the mail between Dover and Calais. -Witherings reported that he had found a man, who for 40s. would wait for -the packet and depart with it at once, carrying nothing else. The -messengers hitherto employed between Antwerp and Calais were -dismissed.[449] The arrangement in France for the carriage of letters to -and from England was decidedly unique. Witherings obtained the -permission of the French ambassador to settle stages in France -himself.[450] - -[449] Hist. MSS. Com., _Rep._, 12, app., pt. 2, p. 6. - -[450] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1634-35, p. 193. - -In 1644, King Charles, from his headquarters at Oxford, ordered sailing -packets to be established at Weymouth to ply between that town and -Cherbourg. This was done ostensibly for the accommodation of the -merchants in the southwest of England. James Hicks was ordered to live -in Weymouth for the purpose of exercising a general oversight over all -letters going or coming by these packets. All dues must be paid before -they were allowed to depart and the masters were accountable to him for -passage money. Postage was charged on all letters going to or coming -from any part of England except those on His Majesty's service. No -letters were to be sent from those parts of England in the hands of the -rebels.[451] - -[451] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1644, pp. 6, 29. - -Until 1638, Flanders was the only country with which England had come to -an agreement concerning the mutual exchange of the correspondence of -each. In that year, a similar agreement was concluded with de Nouveau, -the French Postmaster-General. All letters between England and France -were henceforth to pass through Dover, Calais, Boulogne, Abbeville, and -Amiens. Both the French and English kings ratified this agreement, and -all others were prohibited by them from infringing upon the monopolies -enjoyed by the two Postmasters-General.[452] On special occasions, of -course, both the French and English kings sent special messengers but -they were not used so often as before.[453] In 1640, the Governor of the -Merchant Adventurers was asked to give his opinion upon the question of -foreign correspondence concerning which there was considerable -dissatisfaction, especially in the case of letters sent to Flanders and -Holland. The Governor in his reply said that complaints had hitherto -been restrained because of the connection of the state with the foreign -post. He added that some time before a letter had come from the Court of -their company at Rotterdam, complaining about the overcharging of the -Company's letters. He did not care to investigate the question alone but -proposed that it be entrusted to a committee composed of two members -from each of the great companies, the Merchant Adventurers, the Turkish, -the Eastland, and the French.[454] After the Restoration, matters were -adjusted with de Nouveau and provision was made for the transmission of -letters to England twice a week.[455] At the same time an attempt was -made to reach an understanding with the burgomaster of Amsterdam and the -Dutch ambassador for the conveyance of English letters to Germany, the -East, and Italy through Holland. Bishop, the English Postmaster-General, -was accused of accepting money for making this bargain and the proposed -agreement did not materialize.[456] In 1665, Frizell was sent abroad to -talk over postal connections with de Nouveau and the Flemish -Postmaster-General, de Taxis, between whom difficulties had arisen. De -Taxis was reminded that letters from Holland for England passing through -Flanders were not treated in accordance with the agreement made between -England and Flanders.[457] The old contract was continued, for in 1693 a -bill was presented to the English Post Office by the next in order of -the House of Thurn and Taxis, referring to the former agreement. £2711 -was then due to the Flemish Postmaster-General and, as the bill was -presented in the form of a petition signed by the Prince of the House -and his brothers and sisters, there was probably some difficulty -experienced in collecting it.[458] The Dutch were not satisfied with -receiving letters through Flanders, and in 1667 we find the -Postmaster-General of Holland in Harwich, arranging for a direct service -with England, which was established in the following year.[459] Letters -to and from Holland might go via Calais through France and Flanders, or -by sailing packet to Nieuport and thence through Flanders, or directly -from Harwich to Helvoetsluys. The mail for Holland left London every -Tuesday and Thursday night. The route was along the Yarmouth road as far -as Colchester and then directly to Harwich. The Harwich boats were -stopped for a short time in 1672,[460] but after William's accession -they were in such constant service that it was necessary to hire extra -boats.[461] Orders were often given to delay them until the arrival of -an express from the King and on other occasions they were hurried off -before their regular time for departure.[462] - -[452] _Rep. Com._, 1844, xiv, app., p. 58 (37). - -[453] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1639-40, p. 457. - -[454] _Ibid._, 1640, p. 163. - -[455] _Ibid._, 1660-61, p. 82. - -[456] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1661-62, p. 56. - -[457] _Ibid._, 1664-65, p. 489. - -[458] _Ibid._, 1693, p. 57. - -[459] _Ibid._, 1667, p. 440. - -[460] _Ibid._, 1667-68, p. 428; 1672, p. 189. - -[461] _Ibid._, 1690-91, p. 119. - -[462] _Ibid._, 1690-91, p. 552. - -It was agreed by a contract signed by the French and English -Postmasters-General in 1698 that the mails, as soon as they arrived in -Dover from Calais or in Calais from Dover, should be forwarded by -"express" to London and Paris respectively. This was done in England, -but in France the foreign mail continued to be sent at the regular time -of departure and, as there was only one mail a day, English letters -might have to remain in Calais for nearly twenty-four hours, if the -packet from Dover happened to be late. Cotton and Frankland remonstrated -but Mr. Pajot, the French Postmaster-General, returned no answer. The -English Postmasters-General had agreed to pay about £2500 a year to Mr. -Pajot for the conveyance of English letters through France. One or two -instalments were paid before the war broke out.[463] Nothing further was -done until after the Treaty of Utrecht, when a commission was sent to -France to negotiate a new postal agreement. Pajot refused to accept a -lump sum and declared that each letter passing through France must pay -the ordinary postage according to the French rates. Objection was taken -to this as the French rates were higher than the English, but objections -were of no avail. Pajot, who carried matters with a high hand, gained -his point. By the act of 1711, the postage for a single letter through -France to Italy was 15_d._, and by the terms of the new treaty with -France, 21 sous would have to be paid by the English Postmasters-General -for the conveyance of a letter through France.[464] - -[463] Joyce, p. 77. - -[464] _Ibid._, p. 139. - -The withdrawal of the sailing packets between England and France in 1689 -had interrupted postal communication between England and Spain, since -the regular route lay through Calais. Accordingly, packet boats were -hired to ply between Falmouth and the Groyne.[465] After the Methuen -treaty had been signed and while England and France were struggling in -the Spanish Netherlands, it was proposed to replace the old boats -between Falmouth and Lisbon by new. In 1703 a weekly packet service, -supplied by four boats, was established between England and -Portugal.[466] - -[465] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1691-92, p. 97. - -[466] _Cal. T. P._, 1702-07, p. 94. - -At the end of the war, Cotton and Frankland contracted with Mr. Macky to -furnish five boats to carry the mails between England, France, and -Flanders for three years. In 1701, the contract was extended to five -years for £1400 a year. Macky was to provide boats and men but not -provisions and equipment. In case war broke out, the contract would -become void at once. War did break out the next year,[467] and during -the war the packet boats from Harwich to Holland were kept very busy. -They had been large boats, well manned and formidable enough to take -care of themselves in an emergency. They seem even to have become the -aggressors at times. William, himself, as was natural, felt a warm -interest in them. A stranger in a strange land, misunderstood and -personally unpopular, they were the link between him and his home. He -thought that speedier boats should be built and that when pursued they -should attempt to escape rather than stand up to their pursuers. The -government had four narrow, low boats built for purposes of speed. The -sailors complained that the new boats were so low in the water that they -were constantly being swept by the waves and they themselves were -drenched all the time. There is no doubt that William's move was in the -right direction, and the men were placated by an increase in their -wages. This could be done the more easily since the new boats were -smaller than the old and carried fewer men.[468] - -[467] _Ibid._, 1702-07, p. 145. - -[468] Joyce, pp. 75, 76. Mr. Vanderpoel, postmaster at the Brill, was -appointed by the king to take charge of all letters and despatches sent -by or to their Majesties by the Harwich boats (_Cal. S. P. D._, 1691-92, -p. 404; _Cal. T. P._, 1702-07, pp. 19, 33). - -At the time of the War of the Austrian Succession, the Dover packets -were supplied by a man named Pybus. He agreed to carry mails, -passengers, and expresses from Dover to Calais and Ostend. If he could -not reach the latter place by sea he was to land the mails and have them -forwarded overland. He was to receive as pay the fares of all -passengers, but so many officers and soldiers had to be transported free -that he was paid what the Treasury considered that he lost by them.[469] -A position in one of the packets was so dangerous in time of war that a -fund was provided for the widows and children of the killed and for the -support of the wounded. This was met by deducting 10_d._ a month from -the pay of each seaman.[470] - -[469] _Cal. T. B. & P._, 1742-45, p.509. - -[470] _Cal. T. P._, 1708-14, p. 3. - -In 1803, as a war measure, packets were established between Falmouth, -Gibraltar, and Malta.[471] It was understood that the regular service to -Portugal should be discontinued at the same time. In 1812 during -Wellington's campaign in Portugal and Spain, the Post Office announced -that sailing packets would be despatched to Corunna every -fortnight.[472] From Corunna they proceeded to Lisbon before returning -to Falmouth. There was some complaint from the mercantile interests on -account of the stop at Corunna, since the merchants were more interested -in the Lisbon markets than in keeping up communication with Wellington's -army.[473] - -[471] 43 Geo. III, c. 73. - -[472] London _Times_, 1812, Aug. 31, p. 2. - -[473] _Ibid._, 1813, Aug. 22, p. 2. - -By the end of 1813, Napoleon had lost control over Europe. The Dutch had -freed themselves from French domination. On November 26th a Dutch mail -was made up at the Post Office and despatched for Harwich. The regular -packet boats were reëstablished and were ordered to land the mails at -Scheveningen, a small fishing town three miles from the Hague.[474] -Following Napoleon's expulsion to Elba, postal communications with -France were resumed. Mails were despatched from Dover four times a week, -on Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday, leaving London at 11 P.M. -on Tuesday and Friday and at 7 P.M. on Wednesday and Thursday.[475] -Thirteen sailing vessels were stationed at Harwich in 1828, all of them -hired permanently. Nine sailed between Harwich and Helvoetsluys, four -between Harwich and Gothenburg.[476] - -[474] _Ibid._, 1813, Nov. 29, p. 3. - -[475] _Rep. Commrs._, 1829, xi, p. 232; _Acc. & P._, 1817, p. 11; London -_Times_, 1814, April 18, p. 3. - -[476] _Rep. Commrs._, 1830, xiv, app., no. 78. - -The London merchants in 1837 complained that no mails were made up in -Paris for London on Wednesday and Thursday. The mails from Spain, Italy, -and Switzerland arrived in Paris on Tuesday and Friday, and Tuesday's -mails were not despatched until Friday. An arrangement was asked for by -which a daily post might be established between Paris and London. They -pointed out that there was a daily post from Paris to Calais, a daily -packet service and a daily post from Dover to London.[477] English -letters for France arrived in Dover daily at 5 A.M., except on Wednesday -and Saturday, were despatched to Calais at once and left Calais at noon -for Boulogne and Paris. On post nights,[478] letters did not leave -London until midnight, arrived in Dover at 10 A.M., and were often not -in time for the Paris mail, which left Calais at noon.[479] The two -packets between Dover and Ostend carried the mails four times a -week.[480] By virtue of a treaty with Belgium, these packets conveyed -letters both ways and the Belgium Government paid £1000 a year as its -part of the expenses. The Dover-Calais boats on the other hand carried -letters only to Calais, and not from Calais to Dover.[481] Letters from -Belgium to Dover went first to London and this held true of any letters -from Belgium to England via Dover.[482] - -[477] London _Times_, 1830, May 21, p. 3. - -[478] Post nights were probably on Wednesday and Saturday nights. - -[479] London _Times_, 1837, Jan. 14, p. 7. - -[480] _Rep. Commrs._, 1836, xxviii, 6th rep., p. 5. - -[481] _Ibid._, 1836, xxviii, 6th rep., p. 5. - -[482] _Ibid._, 1836, xxviii, 6th rep., p. 7. - -It was provided in 1835 that, after the Postmaster-General had entered -into an agreement with any foreign state to collect and account for the -British postage on letters sent from the United Kingdom to any such -state, it should be optional for a person sending such a letter to pay -the whole amount of postage in advance or to pay the British postage -only, as had hitherto been the custom, or to pay neither. The entire -postage on letters from abroad might also be paid in one sum and the -part due the foreign state was then handed over by the English -Postmaster-General.[483] In the following year such a treaty was -concluded with France, the English colonies also being included in the -arrangement. It was agreed that each country should account to the other -according to the method of reckoning postage of the country to which the -payment was made, a settlement to be concluded every three months.[484] - -[483] 5 and 6 Wm. IV., c. 25. - -[484] London _Times_, 1836, June 20, p. 5. In accounting to France for -letters sent there postpaid, England agreed to consider as a single -letter any enclosure or enclosures weighing not more than a quarter of -an ounce, according to the French method. - -At the beginning of the eighteenth century William Dummer entered into a -contract to supply packet boats for use between England and the West -Indies. For this service Dummer provided five boats, each one of 150 -tons and carrying 50 men. Each was to make three round trips a year, -thus giving fifteen sailings every twelve months from both England and -the West Indies.[485] These boats were to make Falmouth their home port, -but they often kept on to Plymouth, probably because it was a better -place to dispose of their smuggled goods.[486] Poor Dummer was -exceedingly unfortunate with his West India boats. The first one to sail -was captured on her maiden trip. The receipts did not come up to his -expectations. He had supposed that to double the receipts he had only -to double the rates, but like other men before and after him he had to -learn the effect of higher rates on correspondence.[487] In 1706 he -wrote that it was a losing contract,[488] and in the same year the -Government released him from the agreement and paid him for two of his -lost packets.[489] From a total of fourteen boats provided for the -packet service, he had lost nine. The Postmasters-General recommended -that for the future the packets should leave and arrive at Bideford, -which was less exposed to the enemies' privateers than either Falmouth -or Plymouth.[490] - -[485] _Cal. T. P._, 1702-07, p. 64. - -[486] _Ibid._, p.57. - -[487] Joyce, pp. 79, 81. - -[488] _Cal. T. P._, 1702-07, p. 105. - -[489] _Ibid._, 1702-07, p. 29. - -[490] _Ibid._, 1708-14, p. 45. - -After Dummer's failure, no attempt was made by the Post Office to revive -the service until 1745. In that year the Postmasters-General reported to -the Treasury in favour of regular packets between Falmouth and some port -in the West Indies. The report was agreed to, and orders were given for -two new boats to be supplied and for the two boats between Lisbon and -Gibraltar to be transferred there.[491] The agent at Falmouth was -ordered to see that each boat sailed with its full complement of men, as -the captains were accustomed to discharge some of the crew just before -sailing and pocket their wages. He was also to make sure that each of -the boats sailing from Falmouth for Lisbon, the West Indies, or North -America was British built and navigated by British seamen. He must keep -a journal, in which should be entered the time that he received and -delivered mails and expresses, how the wind and tide served, when the -boats arrived and departed, and any delay in sailing which might occur. -The captains were ordered to make returns after each voyage of the -number of men on board. The crew while on shore should receive their -accustomed wages and "victuals" and, if any were discharged, a return -was to be made of such discharge, the money due them being turned over -to the pension fund. It had become customary for the captains not to pay -the men while they were on shore and to retain the money owing them. -Finally the agent was to see that the packet boats proceeded to the -Roads the day before the mail was expected from London.[492] Packets had -already been employed to convey mails to and from Madeira and -Brazil[493] and within the next few years others were hired to ply -between Falmouth, Buenos Ayres,[494] Colombia, Mexico, San Domingo, and -Cuba, and between the British West Indies, Colombia, and Mexico.[495] - -[491] _Cal. T. B. and P._, 1742-45, pp. 705, 707. - -[492] _Jo. H. C._, 1787, pp. 816, 817. - -[493] 48 Geo. III, c. 116. - -[494] 5 Geo. IV, c. 10. - -[495] 6 Geo. IV, c. 44. - -In 1815, the Postmaster-General was given permission by Act of -Parliament to establish sailing packets between the United Kingdom, the -Cape of Good Hope, Mauritius, and that part of the East Indies embraced -within the charter of the East India Company. Packet rates were also -charged for letters carried by war vessels and by vessels of the -company, but in the former case the consent of the Lords of the -Admiralty for the use of their ships had first to be obtained. Letters -to and from China must go by vessels of the company and no others. With -the consent of the Commissioners of the Treasury or any three of them, -the Postmaster-General might allow the regular sailing packets to import -and export all goods, which might legally be imported or exported, but -in the case of tea, only enough for the use of those on board should be -carried.[496] - -[496] 55 Geo. III, c. 153. - -When Cotton and Frankland were appointed Postmasters-General in 1691, -the following sailing packets were in commission.[497] - - {Flanders, 2 boats. - Between England and {Holland, 3 - {Ireland, 3 - Between Scotland and Ireland, 2 - At Deal for the Downs,[498] 2 - -In 1689, the King had ordered the boats between Dover and Calais to be -discontinued until further notice. This was done "on account of the late -discovery of treasonable designs against the Government" and the war -with France. His Majesty "preferred that all interchange of letters with -France should cease."[499] - -[497] Letters were sent to the colonies by private vessels. The method -used for sending letters to America was as follows. Masters of vessels -bound for America used to hang up a bag in the coffee-houses, in which -letters were placed. A fee of one penny was charged for a single letter -and 2_d._ for a double letter or parcel in excess of a single letter -(_Cal. T. P._, 1697-1702, p. 77). - -[498] Thos. DeLaune, _Present State of London_, 1681, p. 343. - -[499] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1689-90, p. 301. - -In 1744, the sailing packets of Great Britain and Ireland, excluding -those employed in the domestic service, were as follows: four boats -between Falmouth and Lisbon, four on the Harwich station, six between -Dover and Calais or Ostend, two between Gibraltar and Lisbon, and two on -the Minorca station. The use of sailing packets to Gibraltar and Minorca -was made necessary by the war. From twenty to twenty-six additional men -were added to each of the eighteen packets as a protection against the -enemy, and the total additional yearly charge was £7045.[500] This is -one of the items which made postal expenses run so high in time of war, -to say nothing of the packets captured by the enemy. The three boats -between Dover and Calais were sent to Harwich, Helvoetsluys, and Ostend -for the time being.[501] - -[500] _Cal. T. B. and P._, 1742-45, p. 518. - -[501] _Ibid._, 1742-45, p. 523. - -The practice of the Post Office until 1821 had been to contract for the -supply of packet boats, paying only a nominal sum for their hire and -allowing the contractors to have the receipts from passengers. In 1818 a -private company established steamboats between Holyhead and Dublin, and -the public preferred these to the sailing packets. The number of -passengers by the government packets fell off nearly one half. Something -had to be done at once, for, as the receipts from fares decreased, the -contractors clamoured for higher pay. The steamboat company offered to -carry the mails for £4 a trip and later for nothing, but the Post Office -determined to have steam packets of its own.[502] Two, built by Boulton -and Watt, under the inspection of the Navy Board, were placed on the -Holyhead station in 1821, and these, as well as those introduced later -on the other stations, were the property of the Crown.[503] - -[502] _Rep. Commrs._, 1830, xiv, p. 7. - -[503] _Parl. Papers_, 1822, vi, 417, pp. 117 f. - -The fares by the steam packets at Holyhead were fixed at the same rates -as those charged by the company's boats and these fares were somewhat -higher than those formerly charged by the sailing packets. For instance, -the fee for a cabin passenger had been one guinea, for a horse one -guinea, and for a coach three guineas. These were now raised to £1 -5_s._, £1 10_s._, and £3 5_s._ respectively. The new rates, which were -so fixed in order not to expose the company to undue competition, had -not been long enforced before the Select Committee on Irish -Communications reported against them, and the Post Office reduced them -to the old figures.[504] - -[504] Joyce, pp. 384-85. In a debate in the House on the Holyhead rates, -Parnell said that they limited the use of the steamboats to the rich -(_Parl. Deb._, 3d ser., x, coll. 684-85). - -In 1822 steam packets were placed on the Dover station, in 1824 they -were introduced at Milford, in 1826 at Liverpool and Portpatrick, and in -1827 at Weymouth.[505] At Liverpool also a private company had offered -to carry the mails but the offer was refused. This refusal, as well as -the refusal to accept the Holyhead Company's offer, was condemned in a -report of the Commissioners.[506] The new Liverpool packets ran from -Liverpool to Kingstown, the Holyhead packets from Holyhead to Kingstown -and Howth.[507] In 1828 the steam packets owned by the Crown numbered -eighteen. They were distributed as follows: four at Liverpool, two of -300, one of 301 and one of 327 tons, all of 140 horse power; six at -Holyhead, varying from 230 to 237 tons, all of 80 horse power; four at -Milford, varying from 189 to 237 tons, all of 80 horse power; two at -Portpatrick of 130 tons and 40 horse power; and two at Dover of 110 tons -and 50 horse power.[508] Two years later, three steam packets were added -to the Weymouth station.[509] In 1836, the Post Office had in use -twenty-six steam packets, one having been added at Liverpool, three at -Dover, and an extra one was kept for contingencies.[510] - -[505] _Acc. & P._, 1834, xlix, pp. 1, 156. - -[506] _Rep. Commrs._, 1830, pp. 22, 36, 40. - -[507] _Acc. & P._, 1826-27, xx, p. 6. - -[508] _Rep. Commrs._, 1830, xiv, app., no. 78. - -[509] _Ibid._, 1830, xiv, p. 72. - -[510] _Ibid._, 1836, xxviii, 6th rep., app., p. 28. - -With the exception of the Dover service for a few years, the steam -packets were always a financial loss to the Post Office. The total -disbursements for the Holyhead, Liverpool, Milford, and Portpatrick -stations from 1821 to 1829 were £681,648, the receipts for the same -period being only £250,999.[511] From 1832 to 1837 the disbursements for -all the steam packets were £396,669, receipts £180,167.[512] The Milford -boats were the least productive of any. From 1824 to 1836, the -expenditure for that station was £220,986, the receipts only £26,592. -The Commissioners had pointed out that not only was the practice of -building and owning its own boats a mistake on the part of the Post -Office, but they were very badly managed. For example, the stores for -the Holyhead station were obtained from the postmaster at Liverpool, who -invariably charged too much for them.[513] At Portpatrick the goods were -supplied and the accounts checked in a very irregular manner.[514] At -Dover the supplies were ordered by the mates, engineers, etc., as they -were needed and the bills paid by the Post Office. There was no control -over these officers, the accounts were not examined, and the bills were -not certified by the commanders. There was no proof that the goods were -even delivered. The agent, who forwarded the bills, was not a seaman nor -had he any knowledge of ships' stores.[515] At Weymouth, where there -were three steam packets for Jersey and Guernsey, conditions were -better. The agent was a practical seaman, the demands for supplies were -examined by him before being granted, and were signed by him, by the -commander, and by the engineers or whoever needed them. The -Commissioners also protested against sending the Weymouth boats so far -for repairs as Holyhead, which was the regular repair station of the -Post Office. Apart from the steam packets stationed at Holyhead, -Liverpool, Milford, Portpatrick, Weymouth, and Dover, all the other -packets employed by the Post Office were hired permanently or -temporarily.[516] - -[511] _Acc. & P._, 1834, xlix, p. 1; _Rep. Commrs._, 1831-32, xvii, pp. -358-60. - -[512] _Acc. & P._, xlvi, 281. - -[513] _Rep. Commrs._, 1836, xxviii, pp. 14-16. - -[514] _Ibid._, 1836, xxviii, 6th rep., p. 18. - -[515] _Ibid._, 1836, xxviii, 6th rep., p. 6. - -[516] _Ibid._, 1836, xxviii, 6th rep., p. 8. - -The Post Office was at no time entirely dependent upon its regular -sailing packets for the carriage of the mails. The merchant marine of -England had been increasing with her growing commerce, and provision was -made in the acts of 1657 and 1660 for the carriages of letters by -private vessels. By the latter of these acts the conveyance of letters -to foreign countries had been restricted to English ships under a -penalty of £100 for every offence. It was decided in 1671, on the -occasion of the wreck of one of the regular Irish packets, that it would -be better to use a Dutch-built ship on account of its being much more -seaworthy in the choppy swell of the Irish sea. Accordingly an -order-in-council was issued, allowing a vessel built in Holland to be -used, and providing for its naturalization.[517] By the act of 1660, -letters arriving in private vessels were to be given to the postmaster -at the port of arrival so that they might be forwarded to London to be -despatched to their destination after being charged with the postage -due. Masters of vessels were offered no inducement to deliver the -letters to the postmaster nor was any liability incurred by neglecting -to do so. The post farmers, however, agreed to pay a penny for every -letter delivered by a captain on his arrival. This was the origin of -ship letter money.[518] - -[517] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1671, p. 203. In 1793, owing to a scarcity of -English vessels and as a war measure, permission was given to send -English letters to Spain and Portugal by means of Spanish ships (33 Geo. -III, c. 60). - -[518] Joyce, p. 73. - -No attempt had ever been made to collect postage on letters conveyed by -private ships except for the distance which such letters might be -carried by the regular posts within the kingdom.[519] In 1799 an act was -passed under the following title: "An Act for the more sure conveyance -of ship letters and for granting to His Majesty certain rates of postage -thereon." The Postmasters-General were given authority by this act to -forward letters and packages by other vessels than the sailing packets. -On letters brought in by such vessels, 4_d._ was to be charged for a -single letter and so in proportion. This was to be in addition to the -inland postage and 2_d._ was to be paid to the master for every letter -handed over by him to the Post Office. The net revenue so arising was to -be paid into the Exchequer. No postage was charged on letters carried -out of the kingdom by private vessels[520] until 1832, when permission -was given to charge packet rates. It was forbidden to send letters by -these ships except through the Post Office unless such letters concerned -only the goods on board.[521] In 1835 that part of the act of 1711 -forbidding letters to be sent out of the kingdom except in British ships -was repealed.[522] - -[519] It is true that by the act of 1711, a penny was to be charged for -every ship letter; but this was to go to the master of the ship. - -[520] 39 Geo. III, c. 76. - -[521] 2 Wm. IV, c. 15. - -[522] 5 and 6 Wm. IV, c. 25. - -The sailing packets were ordinarily allowed to carry passengers and -freight, for which fixed rates were charged. In case of trouble with -any foreign power, the masters were generally forbidden to allow their -packets to be used as passenger boats.[523] During King William's war, -the Harwich-Helvoetsluys packets carried recruits free to the scene of -activities.[524] They had also been guilty of bringing dutiable goods -into the country and paying no duty on them. This made the customs -officials indignant, especially as the Post Office authorities would not -allow them to search the packets on their arrival. By an act passed in -1662, no ship, vessel, or boat ordinarily employed for the carriage of -letters was allowed to import or export any goods, unless permission had -been given by the customs officials, under a penalty of £100 to be paid -by the master of the offending packet boat.[525] It had been agreed -between Dummer and the Post Office that he should carry no more than -five tons of merchandise outward bound nor more than ten tons when -homeward bound. The Commissioners of the Customs in 1708 advised the -Lord High Treasurer that if he gave licences to the packet boats to -carry goods[526] it would be necessary to comply with the law and -subject the boats to searchers, rules, and penalties as the merchantmen -were. They proposed that the agreement made with Dummer be applied to -all the packets. They pointed out that if this were done, all friction -between the customs and Post Office might be avoided.[527] In 1732, the -difficulty assumed a new form over the question as to the carriage of -dutiable goods by mail. Diamonds had recently been discovered in Brazil -and they were exported to England via Spain. It had also become -customary to send fine laces by post. We, who have become used to -intolerant customs' regulations, can hardly appreciate the indignation -aroused by the desire of the customs' authorities to search the mails. -It was the rule at that time for the Controller of the Foreign Office to -lay a tax of 1 per cent upon packages which he thought had lace or -diamonds in them. The customs officials seized twenty-one parcels of -diamonds in a mail bag, coming from Lisbon in the packet _Hanover_. The -Postmasters-General were very indignant and wrote to the Treasury that -they "would not have it left to a customs' house officer to break open -the King's mail, which has never been done before."[528] Evidently the -customs officials had exceeded their authority and the matter was -compromised by the appointment of a sub-controller of the Foreign Post -Office to act under the authority of the Customs Commissioners and -receive the duties on diamonds and other jewels and precious stones -imported in the packet boats.[529] In a report of the -Postmasters-General somewhat earlier, we are informed of a payment of -£1087 made by them to the Receiver-General of the Customs. This amount -covered four fifths of the gross duty on diamonds and laces, which had -come by the sailing packets during four years, one fifth having been -deducted for postage.[530] - -[523] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1650, p. 540. - -[524] _Ibid._, 1691-92, pp. 29, 137. - -[525] 13 and 14 Chas. II, c. 11. - -[526] Goods were not supposed to be carried unless such a licence had -been obtained. Some Jews, coming from Calais on the packet boat, had -brought a few spectacles with them, on the sale of which they said that -their support depended. The spectacles were confiscated (_Cal. T. B. and -P._, 1739-41, p. 61). - -[527] _Cal. T. P._, 1708-14, p. 74. - -[528] _Cal. T. B. & P._, 1731-34, p. 223. - -[529] _Ibid._, 1731-34, p. 242. - -[530] _Ibid._, 1731-34, p. 234. - -By a section of the act of 1784, letters or packages from abroad -suspected of containing dutiable articles were to be taken by the -postmaster to a Justice of the Peace. He was to take an oath that he -suspected that dutiable goods were contained in the letter or packet. In -the presence of the justice he was then to cut a slit two inches long in -the parcel to permit examination of the contents. If his suspicions -seemed to be confirmed he might slit the cover entirely open and if -anything dutiable were found it must be destroyed. The letter was then -forwarded to the Commissioner of the Customs in order that proceedings -might be taken against those implicated. If nothing was found, the -letter was to be sent to the person to whom it was addressed, under the -magistrate's cover, with no extra charge for postage.[531] - -[531] 24 Geo. III, session 2, c. 37. - -In one respect, the packet stations in England were conducted on -divergent principles. The supplies for the Harwich packets were advanced -directly by the Government through the Postmaster-General. When the War -of the Austrian Succession broke out, a treasury warrant was issued for -the supply of military stores and eight additional men for each of the -Harwich boats.[532] At Falmouth, the agent supplied all necessaries. -Neither plan was entirely free from objection. When the agent acted as -victualler he naturally tried to make as much as possible out of his -contract, and there were frequent complaints from the men on the -Falmouth boats concerning the quality and quantity of the food. At -Harwich, the drawbacks of the other method, under which the Post Office -did its own victualling, were quite as marked. No bill for provisions -represented what they had actually cost. A percentage was habitually -added to the actual cost and this percentage went into the pockets of -those by whom the goods had been ordered.[533] - -[532] _Cal. T. B. & P._, 1742-45, p. 55. - -[533] Joyce, pp. 95 f. - -The postal abuses which came to light in 1787 were more flagrant in -connection with the packet service than in any other department of the -Post Office. The Secretary himself was not only a large owner in the -boats, but as agent he received 2-1/2 per cent of the gross total -expenditure. From 1770 to 1787, this had amounted to £1,038,133, from -which he had received over £25,000. Besides this, his salary amounted to -£1000 a year and there was an annuity of £100 attached to his office. He -had become too old to perform his duties, but instead of being -superannuated another person was appointed to assist him.[534] - -[534] _Fin. Rep._, 1797, no. 7, p. 5. - -The Sailors' Pension Fund was grossly mismanaged. Each sailor's monthly -contribution had been raised from 10_d._ to 2_s._ and then 3_s._ After -twenty years' service, the man who had kept up his payments was entitled -to receive £4 or £5 a year. The names of dead people were retained on -the list of pensioners, fictitious names were added, and there seems no -doubt that the agent retained the money ostensibly paid out in their -names.[535] The agent at Falmouth had a salary of £230 a year and £160 -in perquisites, £100 of which were paid to the former agent's widow. The -late agent had received £430 a year in perquisites in addition to the -regular £390 less £40 for a clerk and an assistant postmaster, making -£780 in all, certainly a comfortable salary for a packet agent at that -time. The £430 was made up by an involuntary contribution of five -guineas from each of the captains of the twenty-two packet boats and the -wages of one man from each boat. The latter sum was obtained by -dismissing the men, whose wages still continued to be paid--to the -agent. Smuggling had become by no means uncommon among the Falmouth -boats, the carriage of the mails being considered of secondary -importance. They often arrived when least expected, or they might not -arrive for days at a time, although the wind and weather were -favourable.[536] - -[535] _Jo. H. C._, 1787, p. 116. - -[536] _Jo. H. C._, 1787, pp. 815-16. - -Fares for passengers were not always collected, but a moderate payment -to the captains would ensure a passage as they were allowed to carry -their friends free and the payment readily secured the privilege -desired. The agents also profited by the sale of passes.[537] There were -more boats on the Falmouth station than necessary, and, although they -ranged in size from 150 to 300 tons, the same number of men were -employed on each. The Secretary of the Post Office, from whose report -these facts about the packets are derived, proposed that three or four -of the boats should be taken off, thus effecting a saving of £6000 or -£8000. In case it should be considered expedient to employ regular -packet boats to Quebec and Halifax, N. S., they might be placed on those -stations. No deductions were made for the hire of boats when they were -unemployed, either when being repaired or when under seizure for -smuggling.[538] - -[537] _Ibid._, 1787, pp. 815-16. Anthony Todd, Secretary of the Post -Office, writing to Charles Cox in Harwich said that "several persons -going from Helvoetsluys to Harwich, who are well able to pay full fare, -have given money for half, free and poor passes, and larger sums have -been taken for passes than are allowed by the Postmaster-General" (_Jo. -H. C._, 1787, p. 805). - -[538] _Ibid._, 1787, p. 205. - -The result of these exposures was a series of reforms started in 1793. -By 1797 the Post Office was able to report that orders had been issued -forbidding any official to own a sailing packet or have a share in any -of them. Orders were given to pay the sailors regularly throughout the -whole year. The 2-1/2 per cent on all expenditure, formerly paid to the -Secretary, was abolished. Finally all salaries were henceforth to be in -lieu of every emolument.[539] - -[539] _Fin. Rep._, 1797, no. 7, pp. 52-65. - -In 1793, the expenses for packet boats amounted to £45,666 a year. This -was reduced in the following year to £36,940, but from 1795 expenses -began to increase, owing to losses during the war and the necessity for -placing the boats on a war footing.[540] In time of peace, a Falmouth -packet of 179 tons carried twenty-one men, including officers, at a -total expenditure for men, interest, insurance, and wear and tear, of -£1681.[541] In time of war, she carried twenty-eight men, all of whom -were paid higher wages, and other expenses were also higher, bringing -the total expenses for each packet to £2112 a year.[542] For a packet of -seventy tons the expenses during peace and war were respectively £536 -and £862.[543] It is not surprising then that the cost for all the -packet boats had risen in 1796 to £77,599. The Falmouth boats were -responsible for £60,444 of this, the rest being divided amongst the -Dover, Harwich, Donaghadee, Milford, Weymouth, and Holyhead packets and -the West India schooners.[544] The salaries paid to the agents in 1796 -amounted to £3412. They were stationed at Lisbon, Falmouth, Yarmouth -(instead of Harwich and Dover), Weymouth, Jamaica, Halifax, N. S., and -Quebec. In Lisbon and the colonial towns, the agents acted also as -postmasters.[545] - -[540] _Ibid._, no. 7, p. 131. - -[541] _Fin. Rep._, no. 7, p. 119. - -[542] _Ibid._, no. 7, p. 118. - -[543] _Ibid._, no. 7, pp. 122-23. - -[544] _Ibid._, no. 7, p. 117. - -[545] _Ibid._, no. 7, p. 116. - -In 1827, all the packets sailing out of Falmouth were transferred to the -Admiralty, in spite of Freeling's protest. The question had been -discussed again and again during the war with France but why it was -decided upon at this particular time is not clear. At the time of -transfer, thirty packets were employed at Falmouth, carrying mails to -and from Lisbon, Brazil, Buenos Ayres, the Mediterranean, America, the -Leeward Isles, Jamaica, Colombia, and Mexico. In 1828, the number of -packets at Falmouth had increased to thirty-eight brigs of war and -sailing vessels and in 1833 to forty-one.[546] - -[546] _Rep. Commrs._, 1830, xiv, app., no. 78; _Acc. & P._, 1834, xlix, -p. 3; Joyce, pp. 398-99. - -The Admiralty had exceedingly bad luck with the Falmouth boats for the -first seven years. During that time seven of them were lost; four were -wrecked, one was supposed to have been burned, one was smashed to pieces -by icebergs, and one was captured by pirates off Rio Janeiro.[547] - -[547] _Acc. & P._, 1834, xlix, p. 49. Three of the boats wrecked were on -their way to or from Halifax, N. S. - -In 1837, the charge of all the packets and the powers and authorities -then existing in the Postmaster-General under any contract for the -conveyance of mails were transferred to the Admiralty by act of -Parliament.[548] The Post Office was still to retain the discretionary -power of regulating the time of departure of the packets and of -receiving the reports of the agents when the mail was delayed.[549] In -the same year, but by a later act, the Postmaster-General was authorized -to contract for the conveyance of letters by private ships between any -places whatever, but such ships must be British. The rates were to be -the same as the packet rates, but the owners, charterers, and consignees -of vessels inward bound were allowed to receive letters free to the -weight of six ounces, or twenty ounces in the case of vessels coming -from Ceylon, the East Indies, and the Cape of Good Hope.[550] For every -letter retained by the captain or any other person there was a penalty -of £10. The captain was also liable to a penalty for refusing to take -the letter bags, even when no contract had been signed.[551] - -[548] 7 Wm. IV and I Vict., c. 3. - -[549] _Acc. & P._, 1837-38, xlv, pp. 1, 2. - -[550] 7 Wm. IV and I Vict., c. 34. - -[551] 7 Wm. IV and I Vict., c. 36. - -The control of the packets by the Admiralty after 1837 failed to produce -the results anticipated. The power of authorizing contracts for the -conveyance of the mails by water was actually vested in the Lords of the -Treasury upon consultation with the Postmaster-General, the Colonial -Secretary, and the Lords of the Admiralty with reference to the postal, -colonial, or nautical questions involved, but as a matter of fact these -officials did not always work in harmony. The mails continued to be -carried by private vessels or war vessels not under contract, by packets -belonging to the Crown, and by vessels under contract. Before the use of -steam vessels the Government was able as a rule to make contracts for a -short period and at comparatively little cost. Between England and the -neighbouring countries (Ireland, France, and Belgium), government steam -packets were employed. For the longer voyages it was considered -advisable to induce commercial companies to build steam vessels by -offering large subsidies for long periods. In 1853, a Parliamentary -Committee reported in condemnation of the further use of -government-owned packets on account of their expense and also of the -payments to the owners of contract vessels in excess of the actual cost -of mail carriage. They pointed out, however, that exceptions might very -well be made when for political or social reasons it seemed necessary to -carry mails to places where commercial vessels did not go, or went very -irregularly, or where high speed was desirable.[552] This report, in so -far as it condemned the use of government-owned packets and the -excessive subsidies paid to contractors, repeated the findings of an -earlier committee published in 1849, which had in addition advised that -the rule should be observed of calling for tenders in the most public -way possible.[553] In 1852, the only service performed by the government -packets was that between Dover, Calais, and Ostend. On the French -service the night mails between Dover and Calais were conveyed by -British packets and the day mails by French. Between Dover and Ostend -there was a daily service, thrice a week by British, four times by -Belgian packets. Of the six boats employed by the Admiralty, four were -kept fully manned and two were spare steamers. The receipts did not -equal the gross expenses.[554] Again in 1860, the year in which the -control of the packets was transferred to the Post Office, we find a -third Parliamentary committee repeating the recommendations of its -predecessors so far as the subsidy question was concerned. Nothing was -said about the government steamers, for in the meantime the principle of -packet ownership had been abandoned.[555] - -[552] _Rep. Com._, 1860, xiv; _Acc. & P._, 1852-53, xcv, 1660, pp. 1-7. - -[553] _Rep. Com._, 1849, xii, p. iii. - -[554] _Acc. & P._, 1852-53, xcv, 1660, p. 37. - -[555] _Rep. Com._, 1860, xiv, p. 17; 23 Vict., c. 46; _Parl. Deb._, 3d -ser., clxi, col. 830; cxciv, col. 1281; cxcvii, col. 1818. - -A general review of the packet services existing at the middle of the -nineteenth century affords a very good example of the relative -importance of these different systems of communication and of the -principles on which the payment of subsidies was based. The inland -packet service of the United Kingdom included, among others, the lines -between Holyhead and Kingstown, Liverpool and the Isle of Man, Aberdeen -and Lerwick, Southampton and the Channel Isles. This formed a necessary -part of the inland postal service, and no attempt was made to meet -expenses by levying a sea-transit postage. In the case of the Isle of -Man the postage collected covered the cost of the packets and of the -land establishment of the Post Office in the island. The expenses of the -Shetland packets by themselves exceeded the postage collected, and the -Orkney postal expenses were also greater than the revenue. - -The second class consisted of the packets plying between England and the -colonies or between the colonies themselves, and included the lines to -India, Australia, the Cape, the West Indies, and British North America. -This class was and is by far the most important. Three-fourths of the -whole annual subsidies paid by the Government for the packet service -were paid to three great companies, the Peninsular and Oriental, the -Royal Mail, and the Cunard Company. The first of these connected England -with India and the Orient, the second with the West Indian colonies, and -the third with the North American Provinces. The great cost involved in -subsidizing these companies was excused on the ground of absolute -necessity for a regular and rapid mail service between the mother -country and her colonies. Of the lines furnishing communications with -foreign countries, several were connected with and subsidiary to the -colonial service, as the continuation of the Cunard line to the United -States. The service to China was the most remunerative part of the -system undertaken by the Peninsular and Oriental boats, and the same may -be said of the foreign service of the Royal Mail Company. From a -commercial point of view the Continental packets were perhaps the most -important of all.[556] - -[556] _Acc. & P._, 1852-53, xcv, 1660, pp. 37-43. - -The first contract with an individual steamship company was made in 1840 -with the famous Cunard Company providing for the conveyance of mails -between Great Britain, the United States, and Canada. In accordance with -the recommendations of various committees, attempts were made later to -place the Atlantic packet service upon a firmer financial basis so far -as the loss to the Post Office was concerned. In 1868, the contract with -the Cunard Company, which had been renewed at various times under -somewhat different conditions, came to an end. The Conservative -Government which was just going out arranged for two services a week -with the Cunard Company for £70,000, and one a week with the Inman -Company for £35,000. There was considerable opposition to the agreement -among the Liberal majority of the new Parliament, but it could not of -course be repudiated. This contract came to an end in 1876, and a -circular was addressed to the various steamship companies informing them -that the government would hereafter send the American mails by the most -efficient ships, payment to be made at the rate of 2_s._ 4_d._ a pound -for letters and 2_d._ a pound for other mail matter, those being the -rates fixed by the Postal Union Treaty and adopted by the American -Government. The Inman and White Star Companies refused at first to have -anything to do with the new system of payment, but eventually they fell -into line. The system was in operation for a year at a cost of £28,000 -in place of the old charge of £105,000. The Cunard, Inman, and White -Star Companies then demanded double the previous rates on the ground -that they were conducting the service at a loss, and an agreement with -the Government was concluded for the payment of 4_s._ a pound for -letters and 4_d._ for newspapers, etc. At the same time the old -monopolistic conditions were virtually reëstablished, for rival -steamship lines were excluded from the agreement.[557] - -[557] _Parl. Deb._, 3d ser., ccxxxviii, coll., 1633-36. - -In 1886, the agreement with the Cunard, Inman, and White Star Lines came -to an end. The Cunard and White Star Companies then made an offer -precluding the use of the fast boats of other lines, but this was -declined. Eventually an agreement was reached at a reduced cost, which -gave the Post Office the right to send letters so directed by any other -ships than those of the White Star or Cunard Companies. The amounts to -be paid were measured by the actual weight of mail matter carried.[558] -The payments to the Peninsular and Oriental Company were based at first -entirely upon mileage covered, and reductions were made if the packets -fell below a minimum speed agreed upon. This method was later changed to -a payment based upon the amount of mail carried, and the subsidy was -substantially reduced.[559] - -[558] 3_s._ a lb. for letters; 1_s._ 8_d._ when carried by other lines -(_Rep. Com._, 1860, xiv, p. 5; 1868-69, vi, pp. iii-v; _Rep. P. G._, -1887, pp. 4-5; _Acc. & P._, 1887, xlix, 34, pp. 3-4; _Parl. Deb._, 4th -ser., cxxii, coll. 385-401). - -[559] _Acc. & P._, 1852-53, xcv, 1660, p. 59; 1887, xlix, 34, p. 7; -_Rep. P. G._, 1907, pp. 5-6. - -A general review of the packet service in 1907 shows us that most of -the contracts for the home packets are terminable on six months' notice, -a few only on twelve months' notice. The Holyhead and Kingstown service -is exceptional, not being terminable until 1917, or on twelve months' -notice after 31st March, 1916. This is by far the most important of any -of the home systems and costs £100,000, to be reduced to £80,000 in -1917. The contract for the conveyance of mails between Dover and Calais -is terminable on twelve months' notice and cost £25,000 for the postal -year 1906-07. The payments for the use of the other boats between the -United Kingdom and Europe are comparatively small, amounting in 1906-07 -to £3780 only, and all these contracts are terminable on six months' -notice. The contracts for the conveyance of the mails to the two -Americas are as a rule terminable on six or twelve months' notice, but -an exception has been made in the case of the Cunard Company with whom -and under peculiar circumstances a twenty years' agreement was made in -1902. In 1906-07 the cost of the conveyance of the mails between the -United Kingdom and North and South America was £198,488. The African -contracts are all terminable on three, six, or twelve months' notice, -and amounted in 1906-07 to £32,988. The carriage of the mails to India, -Australasia, and China for the year ending 31st March, 1907, cost -£402,162, but this has since been diminished by a reduction in the -subsidies to the Peninsular and Oriental Company and the Canadian -Pacific Railway Company.[560] - -[560] _Rep. P. G._, 1907, pp. 5-6, 52-53. - -The total expenditure for packet boats increased enormously after 1840, -and this increase in cost kept down the net revenue of the Post Office -for many years after the introduction of penny postage. In 1830, the -packet expenses amounted only to £108,305, in 1846, to £723,604, and in -1860, to £869,952. They reached the maximum point of £1,056,798 in 1869, -and from that time until 1890, when they were £665,375, there has been -on the whole a gradual diminution. During the year ending 31st March, -1892, they reached the sum of £701,081, for the postal year 1900-01 they -were £764,804, and during the year 1905-06 they had diminished to -£687,109.[561] - -[561] _Rep. Commrs._, 1830, xiv, app., p. 376; 1847, lxii, pp. 5-6; -_Rep. P. G._, 1868, p. 28; 1875, p. 39; 1901, app., p. 82; 1907, p. 95. - - - - -CHAPTER VIII - -RATES AND FINANCE - - -After de Quester had been appointed Foreign Postmaster-General, he -published, in 1626, an incomplete set of rates from and to various -places on the continent. His charges for "packets," and by packets he -meant letters or parcels carried by a special messenger, were as -follows:-- - - To the Hague £7. - To Brussels or Paris £10. - To Vienna £60. - -The ordinary rates were:-- - - To or from any of the above places 30_s._ - To or from any part of Germany 6_s._ - From Venice for a single letter 9_d._[562] - From Venice for any letter over a single letter 2_s._ 8_d._ - From Leghorn and Florence for a single letter 1_s._ - From Leghorn and Florence over a single letter 3_s._an ounce.[563] - -This system of rates, although crude, marks a distinct era in postal -progress. It forms the foundation of the plan which was perfected a few -years later by Witherings. De Quester also published a statement of the -days of departure of the regular posts with foreign letters.[564] In the -trial between Stanhope and de Quester over the question of who should be -Foreign Postmaster-General, it came out in the evidence that Stanhope -had been accustomed to receive 8_d._ for every letter to Hamburg, -Amsterdam, and Antwerp.[565] This charge was rather in the nature of a -perquisite than a legal rate and serves partly to explain why Stanhope -was so anxious to retain the monopoly of the foreign post. - -[562] The rate from Venice had been _16d._ By a single letter is meant -one piece of paper. - -[563] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1625-26, p. 523. - -[564] _Ibid._, 1628-29, p. 538. - -[565] _Rep. Com._, 1844, xiv, app., p. 48 (25). - -Witherings' rates for domestic postage, as fixed by Royal Proclamation -in 1635, were as follows for a single letter:-- - - _d._ - Under 80 miles 2 - Between 80 and 140 miles 4 - Over 140 miles 6 - On the Borders and in Scotland 8 - In Ireland 9 - -If there were more than one sheet of paper, postage must be paid -according to the above rate for every separate sheet or enclosure. For -instance, a letter or packet composed of two sheets was called a double -letter and paid 4_d._ for any distance under 80 miles. A letter of three -sheets was called a triple letter and paid 6_d._ if conveyed under 80 -miles, and so in proportion.[566] In 1638, the rules concerning the -imposition of rates were changed slightly. The rates themselves remained -the same for single and double letters. Letters above double letters -were to be charged according to weight as follows:-- - - Under 80 miles 6_d._ an ounce. - From 80 to 140 miles 9_d._ - Above 140 miles 12_d._ - For Ireland 6_d._ if over two ounces.[567] - -This expedient must have been adopted from the difficulty in discovering -the number of enclosures when there were more than two. It is impossible -to say how long these rates continued, probably not later than -Witherings' régime. During Prideaux' management the maximum postage on a -single letter was 6_d._, reduced later to 3_d._[568] - -[566] _Rep. Com._, 1844, xiv, app., p. 57 (36). - -[567] _Rep. Com._, 1844, xiv, app., p. 58 (37). - -[568] Joyce, p. 29. - -The Council of State gave orders in 1652 for the imposition of the -following rates for a single letter:-- - - _d._ - Within 100 miles from London 2 - To remoter parts of England and Wales 3 - To Scotland 4 - To Ireland 6[569] - -Whether these rates were actually collected is questionable. The -postage which the farmers of the Posts were allowed to collect in the -following year was fixed by the Council of State for single letters as -follows:-- - - _d._ - Under 80 miles from London 2 - Above 80 miles from London 3 - To Scotland 4 - To Ireland 6 - -These rates are in effect lower than those of Witherings, for he had -inserted a 3_d._ rate for letters delivered between 80 and 140 miles -from London, had charged 4_d._ for all letters going farther than 140 -miles, and had charged 8_d._ and 9_d._ for letters to Scotland and -Ireland respectively. They were a little higher than those of 1652, for -by them 2_d._ had carried a letter 100 miles.[570] - -[569] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1651-52, p. 507. - -[570] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1652-53, p. 449. - -In 1657, the first act of Parliament was passed, fixing rates for -letters and establishing the system for England, Ireland, and Scotland. -The domestic rates were:-- - - _For a_ _Double_ _Per_ - _single letter_ _letter_ _ounce_ - - {Within 80 miles from London 2_d._. 4_d._ 8_d._ - In England {Above 80 miles from London 3 6 12 - To or from Scotland 4 8 18 - To or from Ireland 6 12 24 - In Ireland {Within 40 miles from Dublin 2 4 8 - {Above 40 miles from Dublin 4 8 12 - -The foreign rates were:-- - - _For a_ _Double_ _Per_ - _single letter_ _letter_ _ounce_ - To Leghorn, Genoa, Florence, Lyons, - Marseilles, Aleppo, Constantinople 12_d._ 24_d._ 45_d._ - To St. Malo, Morlaix, Nieuhaven 6 12 18 - To Bordeaux, Rochelle, Nantes, - Bayonne, Cadiz, Madrid 9 18 24 - To Hamburg, Frankfort, and Cologne 8 16 24 - To Dantzic, Leipsic, Lubeck, - Stockholm, Copenhagen, Elsinore, - Konigsburg 12 24 48[571] - -[571] Scobell, _Collect._, pt. ii, pp. 511-13. Inland letters containing -more than two enclosures but weighing less than an ounce were charged -according to the number of enclosures. - -These rates are considerably lower than those of Witherings and are -essentially the same as those of 1653, except that the postage is fixed -for letters to and from the continent. No provision is made for letters -to and from any other part of the world but Europe. Since the government -had not established any postal communication with Asia, Africa, or the -Americas, it would have been unfair to demand postage on letters -conveyed by merchant vessels to and from those places.[572] - -[572] Scobell, _Collect._, pt. ii, pp. 511-13. - -The act of 1660 is generally referred to as bringing the Post Office -under Parliamentary control and as the basis of the modern system. This -is probably due to the fact that the act of 1657 was passed by a -Commonwealth Parliament and signed by Cromwell. Whether its authors -lacked the power to give it validity, they did not lack the brains to -pass an excellent act, and although the Royalists saw fit, after the -Restoration, to dub it the pretended act of 1657, they could not improve -it and had the sense to leave it largely untouched. The first act had -imposed rates from or to any place to or from London as a centre. It had -been taken for granted that all letters passed to, from, or through the -capital, and to all intents and purposes this was so. It was possible, -however, for letters, technically called bye-letters, to stop short of -London, and it was to provide for these that postage was to be reckoned -from any place where a letter might be posted. - -Scotland was no longer a part of England after the Restoration, so that -by the act of 1660 rates were given to and from Berwick and for single -letters were a penny less than they had been to Scotland under the -earlier act. From Berwick the rate, within a radius of forty miles, was -2_d._ for a single letter, and over forty miles, 4_d._ As far as foreign -postage was concerned, letters to the northern coast towns of Italy paid -3_d._ less than the old rate for a single letter. Other rates remained -the same. Alternative routes were sometimes offered. For instance, -letters might be sent directly to northern Italy or they might go via -Lyons, but in the latter case they cost 3_d._ more. Again, there were -many more continental towns to which letters might be sent and from -which they might be received. Letters for Germany via Hamburg had to be -postpaid as far as that city. The same was true of letters to southern -France via Paris and of letters to northern Italy via Lyons. The highest -rate paid for a single letter was 1_s._ to northern Italy, Turkey, and -central and northern Germany. Merchants' accounts not exceeding one -sheet of paper, bills of exchange, invoices and bills of lading, were to -pay nothing over the charge of the letter in which they might be -enclosed. The same rule was to hold for the covers of letters sent to -Turkey via Marseilles. All inland letters were to be paid for at the -place where they were delivered unless the sender wished to pay in -advance.[573] - -[573] 12 Chas. II, c. 35. - -When the Scotch was separated from the English Post Office in 1695, -rates were imposed by the Parliament of Scotland as follows: - - _For a single letter_ - To Berwick 2_s._[574] - Within 50 miles from Edinburgh 2 - From 50 to 100 miles from Edinburgh 3 - Above 100 miles from Edinburgh 4 - -Packages of papers were to pass as triple letters.[575] In 1701, when -the Scotch Post was let out to farm, the English Postmasters-General -advised that the farmers should be obliged to pay at Berwick the postage -on English and foreign letters for Scotland, and an order in accordance -with this advice was signed by the King. It was the custom to change the -farmers every three years, which may have produced a larger revenue but -was certainly not calculated to increase the efficiency of the office. -The English Postmasters-General had great difficulty in collecting at -Berwick the postage due them, and it is doubtful whether a large part -was ever paid. The frequent changes in the farmers must have been an -excellent means of allowing them to escape their debts to the -English.[576] - -[574] One shilling Scotch was equal to one penny English. - -[575] Wm. III, 1st parl., 5th session (Scotland), c. 31. - -[576] _Cal. T. P._, 1697-1702, 48; 1702-1707, 101. - -It has been customary to point to the postage rates of 1660 as lower -than any before the nineteenth century. This is true in a general way, -but one limitation to the statement is generally overlooked. Before 1696 -all posts ran to or from London, and it was not until well on in the -eighteenth century that the system of cross posts was introduced. -Bristol and Exeter are less than eighty miles apart, but a letter from -Bristol to Exeter went to London first and from there to Exeter, -travelling about 300 miles to reach a town eighty miles distant. Now by -the act of 1660, the rate for distances above 80 miles was 3_d._ Thus -the letter paid 3_d._ from Bristol to London and 3_d._ more from London -to Exeter, 6_d._ in all. If there had been a direct post from Bristol to -Exeter, and there was not until 1698, the postage would have been 2_d._ -only. The possibility of such an anomaly as this must be kept in mind in -considering the low rates of the seventeenth century. - -In James the Second's reign, a Post Office had been established in -Jamaica, and rates of postage had been settled not only in the island -itself but between it and the mother country. This was a new departure, -since at that time there were no packet boats to the West Indies. The -rate between England and Jamaica was 6_d._ for a single letter, 1_s._ -for a double letter, and 2_s._ an ounce. As the Crown was not at the -expense of maintaining means of transport, this was a pure tax.[577] In -1704, the postage on a single letter from the West Indies was raised to -7-1/2_d._, for a double letter 15_d._, but Dummer's packets were then in -operation.[578] - -[577] Joyce, p. 78. - -[578] _Cal. T. P._, 1702-07, 46. - - - _Single letter_ _Double letter_ _Per ounce_ - Rates to the islands were 9_d._ 18_d._ 32_d._ - In 1705 increased to 15 30 72 - Rates from the islands in 1705 18 36 72 - --Stow's _London_, bk. v, p.400. - -In 1698, a system of posts had been established in the American colonies -between the largest towns on the Atlantic coast. All that is known about -the rates is that the charge for the conveyance of a letter between -Boston and New York was 1_s._ and the post went weekly between those -places.[579] Hamilton, the deputy manager, proposed that letters from -England should be sent in sealed bags entrusted to the masters of ships. -The bags were to be handed over to the postmaster of the port where the -ship first touched and the captain was to receive a penny for each -letter. He advised that the following rates should be adopted:-- - -Not exceeding 80 miles from New York 6_d._ -From 80 to 150 miles from New York 9 -To and from Boston and New York, 300 miles 12 - Jersey, 370 miles 18 - Philadelphia, 390 miles 20 - Annapolis, 550 miles 36 - Jamestown, 680 miles 42 - New York and Annapolis, 250 miles 24 - Jamestown, 380 miles -(with many dangerous places to cross by ferry) 30 - -These rates were said to be too high and were not adopted, "it being -found that cheap postage greatly encourages letter writing, as is shown -by the reduction in England from 6_d._ to 3_d._"[580] - -[579] Joyce, p. 111. - -[580] Joyce, p. 113; _Cal. T. P._, 1697-1702, 77. - -The preamble to the act of 1711 offered as an explanation of an increase -in rates the necessity for money for the war and the prevention of -private competition in carrying letters. It is plain that higher rates -will, up to a certain point, increase proceeds, though not -proportionately, but how increased rates can decrease competition is -more difficult to explain. Witherings had found that the cheaper he made -postage, the less fear was there from interlopers. It is possible that -the framers of the bill had intended to use part of the increase in -revenue for the support of searchers, but no such provision is contained -in the act itself.[581] On the ground that a large revenue was -necessary, no fault can be found with the increase. It is probably true -that in course of time lower rates would have increased the product more -than higher, but war and its demands wait for no man. The people who -could write and who needed to write were in a small minority then, and -their number could not for a long time be influenced by lower rates. -What was needed at once was money and the only way to raise it by means -of the Post Office was the one adopted. - -[581] Joyce, p. 128. - -The rates for single letters within England and between England and -Edinburgh were increased by a penny for a single letter; for double -letters and parcels in proportion. To Dublin the charge remained the -same, and the rates within Ireland were not changed. In the act of 1660, -the postage on letters delivered in Scotland had been reckoned from -Berwick. Edinburgh was now made the centre and the rates were as -follows:-- - - _For a single letter_ _Per ounce_ -From Edinburgh within Scotland _d._ _d._ - Not exceeding 50 miles 2 8 - Above 50 and not exceeding 80 miles 3 12 - Above 80 miles 4 16[582] - -[582] Double letters were charged twice as much as single letters. - -The rates within Scotland were lower than those within England and -Ireland. Scotland had a 2_d._ rate for distances not exceeding fifty -miles. England had no rate under 3_d._, except for the Penny Post. -Ireland, too, had a 2_d._ rate for distances not exceeding forty miles, -but for distances from forty to eighty miles and over, the rate for -Irish letters was 4_d._, while in England the rate was only 3_d._ for -distances not exceeding eighty miles. The distances which letters -travelled within Scotland were shorter than in England and Ireland. As a -rule the different rates for the three countries varied with their -wealth and consequent ability to pay, the least being required from -poverty-stricken Scotland. The new rates as compared with the old were -for a single letter:[583]-- - - _For England_ - 1660 1711 - Not exceeding 80 miles 2_d._ 3_d._ - Above 80 miles 3 4 - Between London and Edinburgh 5 6 - Between London and Dublin 6 6 - - _Within Ireland_ - - Not exceeding 40 miles from Dublin 2_d._ 2_d._ - Above 40 miles from Dublin 4 4 - - _Within Scotland (Scotch Act, 1695)_ - - Not exceeding 50 miles from Edinburgh 2_d._ 2_d._ - From 50 to 80 miles from Edinburgh 3 - From 50 to 100 miles from Edinburgh 3 - Above 80 miles from Edinburgh 4 - Above 100 miles from Edinburgh 4 - -[583] When the rates for single letters only are given it is understood -that double and triple letters paid two and three times as much -respectively. Letters weighing an ounce or more paid a single letter -rate for each quarter of an ounce. - -The act of 1660 imposed rates on letters in Scotland from Berwick as a -centre. By that act rates had been fixed for distances not exceeding 40 -miles and for distances over forty miles from Berwick, being 2_d._ and -4_d._ for single letters for the respective distances, so that by the -act of 1711, the Scotch rates were lower than they had been in 1660 and -slightly higher than those of 1695. When forty miles was made the lowest -distance according to which rates were levied, it was thought and -intended that 2_d._, the rate for that distance, would pay for a single -letter from Berwick to Edinburgh. As a matter of fact, the distance -between the two places was fifty miles, so that the Scotch Act had -estimated it better. - -In the rates as given above, an exception is made in the case of letters -directed on board ship or brought by it. For such letters one penny was -charged in addition to the rates already given. This extra penny was -charged because the postmaster in the place where the ship first touched -was required to pay the master of the vessel one penny for every letter -received. Foreign letters collected or delivered at any place between -London and the port of departure or arrival of the ship for which they -were destined or by which they had come, must pay the same rate as if -they had left or arrived in London. - -As far as foreign post rates were concerned they were all from 1_d._ to -3_d._ higher than they had been by the act of 1660. The lowest foreign -rate for a single letter, 10_d._, was paid between London and France, -and London and the Spanish Netherlands. To Germany and Northwestern -Europe, through the Spanish Netherlands, the rate was 12_d._, to Italy -or Sicily the same way 12_d._, postpaid to Antwerp, or 15_d._ via Lyons. -The same rates held for letters passing through the United Provinces. To -Spain or Portugal via the Spanish Netherlands or the United Provinces or -France, postpaid to Bayonne, the rate was 18_d._ for a single letter, -and the same price held when letters were conveyed directly by sailing -packets. - -By the same act of 1711 rates were for the first time established -between England and her colonies and within the colonies themselves. The -postage for a single letter from London to any of the West India Islands -was 18_d._, to New York 12_d._, and the same from those places to -London. Between the West Indies and New York the rate was 4_d._ In the -colonies on the mainland, the chief letter offices were at New York, -Perth Amboy, New London, Philadelphia, Bridlington, Newport, Portsmouth, -Boston, Annapolis, Salem, Ipswich, Piscataway, Williamstown, and -Charleston. The postage was 4_d._ to and from any of these places to a -distance not exceeding sixty miles and 6_d._ for any distance between -sixty and 100 miles. Between New York, Perth Amboy, and Bridlington, the -rate was 6_d._; between New York, New London, and Philadelphia 9_d._; -between New York, Newport, Portsmouth, and Boston 12_d._; between New -York, Salem, Ipswich, Piscataway, and Williamstown 15_d._; between New -York and Charleston 18_d._; the Post Office was to pay nothing for -crossing ferries. - -There had always been trouble in collecting the rates on bye and cross -post letters. These letters did not pass through London and hence the -officials at the General Post Office had no check on the money due. By a -clause in the act, the postmasters were ordered under a penalty to -account for the receipts from all these letters. The postage on letters -which did not pass to, through, or from London was fixed according to -the inland charges, varying with the distances travelled. Finally, the -postage on all inland letters was to be paid on delivery unless the -sender wished to pay in advance, or in the case of the Penny Post, or -unless such letters should be directed on board any ship or vessel or to -any person in the army. - -From the receipts from postage, £700 a week was to be paid into the -Exchequer for the purpose of carrying on the war. The Accountant-General -was to keep account of all money raised, the receipts themselves going -directly to the Receiver-General and being paid into the Exchequer by -him. One third of the surplus over and above the weekly payment of £700 -and £111,461 (the amount of the gross receipts of the duties arising by -virtue of the act of 1660) were to be disposed of by Parliament. In -making this provision, Joyce thinks that the Chancellor of the Exchequer -confused gross and net product.[584] As a matter of fact there was no -such surplus as was anticipated by the Chancellor, but it does not -follow that he made the mistake of which he was accused by Cornwallis -and Craggs, an accusation in which Joyce evidently concurs. He erred -simply in supposing that expenses would remain the same.[585] - -[584] Joyce, p. 145. - -[585] 9 Anne, c. 11. - -The act of 1711 in prescribing the rate of postage for the carriage of -"every single letter or piece of paper" enacted that a "double letter -should pay twice that rate." The merchants contended that a double -letter was composed of two sheets of paper if they weighed less than an -ounce and their reasoning was logical. They argued from this that a -letter enclosing a pattern or patterns, if it weighed less than one -ounce, should pay only as a single letter. Actions were brought against -the postmasters by the merchants for charging more than they considered -was warranted and the merchants won every case. The lawyers also -threatened legal proceedings for the charge of writs when enclosed in -letters. The Postmasters-General hastened to Parliament for relief. The -merchants heard of this, and petitions were sent to the House of Commons -from "clothiers, dealers in cloth, silk, and other manufactured goods," -asking that when samples were enclosed in a single letter the rate -should remain the same provided that such letter and sample did not -exceed half an ounce in weight.[586] Their efforts were fruitless. The -following provisions were inserted in a tobacco bill then before -Parliament and passed in 1753: "that every writ etc. enclosed in a -letter was to pay as a distinct letter and that a letter with one or -more patterns enclosed and not exceeding one ounce in weight was to pay -as a double letter."[587] As a matter of fact all the rates collected -after 1743 by virtue of the act of 1711 were illegal, for the act itself -had died a natural death in the former year by that clause which -provided for the revival of the rates of 1660 at the end of thirty-two -years. - -[586] _Jo. H. C._, 1745-50, pp. 751-2. - -[587] 26 Geo. III, c. 13, secs. 7, 8. - -A postal act was passed in 1765, slightly changing the home, colonial, -and foreign rates. The cession of territory in North America had made -necessary a more comprehensive scheme of postage rates there. The -conclusion of the Seven Years' War had made it possible to offer a -slight reduction in postage. In Great Britain the following rates were -published for short distances for a single letter:-- - -For Great Britain--not exceeding one post stage 1_d._ -For England alone--over one and not exceeding two stages 2_d._ - -The rates for all other distances remained unchanged. A stage, as a -rule, varied from ten to twelve miles in length, so that every post town -in England could now boast a modified form of penny postage, with the -exception in most cases of delivery facilities. - -The changes in colonial rates were generally in the shape of -substituting general for special rules. The rate from any part of the -British American Dominions to any other part was fixed at 4_d._ for a -single letter when conveyed by sea. The act of 1711 had given the -postage from and to specially named places. This method had become -inapplicable with the growth in population among the old and the -increase in new possessions. The rate for a single letter from any chief -post office in the British American Dominions to a distance not -exceeding sixty miles, or for any distance not exceeding sixty miles -from any post office from which letters did not pass through a chief -post office, was placed at 4_d._, from sixty to 100 miles 6_d._, from -100 to 200 miles 8_d._, for each additional hundred miles 2_d._ The -effect of this act was to continue the same rates for inland postage in -British America, while rates were provided for distances over 100 miles. -The postage between England and the American colonies remained at 12_d._ -for a single letter. In the case of the West Indies, there was a -decrease of 6_d._ A clause of the act provided that the postage on -letters sent out of England might be demanded in advance.[588] - -[588] 5 Geo. III, c. 25. The principle of payment in advance was not -popular. A man in England writing to his brother in Virginia in 1764 -says, "Very often of late I have been so foolish, I should say -unfortunate previously to pay for the letters coming to you.... To my -great concern I have been since assured that such letters never go -forward but are immediately thrown aside and neglected. I believe I -wrote to you three or four times this last winter by this method and am -since informed of this their fate. You may form a great guess of the -truth of it by or by not receiving them" (_Notes and Queries_, 4th ser., -xii, p. 125). - -Postage rates were increased steadily from 1784 for twenty-eight years, -culminating in the year 1812 with the highest rates that England has -ever seen. Every available means to raise the revenue necessary to -maintain her supremacy was resorted to, and the Post Office was -compelled to bear its share of the burden. In 1784 another penny was -added to the rates for single letters and additional rates for double -and triple letters in proportion.[589] Three years later an act was -passed, fixing the postage for the conveyance of a single letter by -sailing packet from Milford Haven to Waterford at 6_d._ over and above -all other rates. It was provided by the same act that the rates between -London and Ireland via Milford should not exceed the rates via -Holyhead.[590] - -[589] 24 Geo. III, sess. 2, c. 37. - -[590] 27 Geo. III, c. 9. In 1767 a rate of 2_d._ for a single letter was -established between Whitehaven (Cumberland) and the Port of Douglas -(Isle of Man) (7 Geo. III, c. 50). - -In 1796 the rates for letters conveyed within England and Wales, -Berwick, to and from Portugal, and to and from the British possessions -in America, as established by the acts of 1711, 1765, and 1784, were -repealed and the following substituted for a single letter:-- - - _Within England, Wales and Berwick._ - _d._ - Not exceeding 15 miles from place where letter is posted 3 - From 15 to 30 miles, etc. 4 - 30 60 5 - 60 100 6 - 100 150 7 - Over 150 miles, etc. 8 - - _Within Scotland._ - - In addition to rates in force 1 - -The old system of reckoning by stages was thus abolished, probably on -account of the uncertainty as to the length of any particular stage and -the variations and changes which were being constantly made. This change -was made for England and Wales only, and the old system of reckoning by -stages was still retained in Scotland. Letters from and to the colonies -had formerly paid no postage over the regular shilling rate for a single -letter and proportionately for other letters. Now they were to pay the -full inland rate in addition. A single letter from the West Indies would -now pay the shilling packet rate plus the rate from Falmouth to London, -1_s._ 8_d._ in all. The same rates and the same rule held for letters to -and from Portugal. A single letter from Lisbon had formerly paid 1_s._ -6_d._ on delivery in London. It would now pay 1_s._ 8_d._ - -This act was not to affect letters to and from non-commissioned -officers, privates, and seamen while in active service, who were allowed -to send and receive letters for one penny each, payable in advance. The -revenue arising from the new and the unrepealed rates was to be paid to -the Receiver-General and be by him carried to the Consolidated Fund. The -increase from the additional postage was estimated at £40,000 a year and -was to be used to pay the interest on loans contracted the preceding -year.[591] - -[591] 37 Geo. III, c. 18. - -When sailing packets were established between Weymouth and the islands -of Jersey and Guernsey, the packet rates and the rates between the -islands themselves were fixed at 2_d._ for a single letter. Permission -was also given to establish postal routes in the islands, and to charge -the same postage for the conveyance of letters as in England. The -surplus was to go to the General Office and all postal laws then in -force in England were to be deemed applicable to the two islands.[592] - -[592] 33 Geo. III, c. 60. - -By the same act which gave the Postmasters-General authority to forward -letters by vessels other than the regular sailing packets, rates were -fixed for the carriage of such letters. For every single letter brought -into the kingdom by these vessels, 4_d._ was to be charged. The -Postmasters-General might order such rates to be payable in advance or -on delivery. This was in addition to the inland postage, and for every -letter handed over to the Post Office, the captain was to receive 2_d._ -The revenue arising from this act was payable to the Exchequer.[593] - -[593] 39 Geo. III, c. 76. - -In 1801 the Post Office was called upon again to make a further -contribution to the Exchequer to help meet the interest on new loans. -The following were the new rates for a single letter:-- - - _Within Great Britain by the General Post_ - _d._ - Not exceeding 15 measured miles 3 - Above 15 but not exceeding 30 measured miles 4 - 30 50 5 - 50 80 6 - 80 120 7 - 120 170 8 - 170 230 9 - 230 300 10 - _d._ - For every 100 miles above 300 miles an additional rate of 1 - Where the distance above 300 miles did not amount to 100 miles - an additional rate of 1 - Where the distance above 300 miles exceeded 100 miles and for - every excess of distance over 100 miles an additional rate of 1 - -By the act of 1796 a uniform rate of 8_d._ for a single letter had been -paid for distances over 150 miles. The new act not only imposed extra -rates for all distances over 150 miles but it decreased the distances -above 30 miles for which the old postage would have paid. For instance, -a 6_d._ rate had carried a single letter 100 miles, a 7_d._ rate 150 -miles. They now carried only 80 and 120 miles respectively. - -On letters to and from places abroad, "not being within His Majesty's -Dominions," an additional rate of 4_d._ for a single letter was -imposed.[594] In London, where a penny had been charged for the -conveyance of letters by the Penny Post, 2_d._ was now charged. An -additional rate of 2_d._ for a single letter was imposed upon letters -passing between Great Britain and Ireland via Holyhead or Milford. The -Postmasters-General were given authority to convey letters to and from -places which were not post towns for such sums for extra service as -might be agreed upon. Merchants' accounts and bills of exchange which, -when sent out of the kingdom or conveyed into it, had not formerly been -charged postage over the letters in which they were enclosed, were now -to be rated as letters.[595] - -[594] When the temporary peace of Amiens was concluded in 1802, the -rates for single letters from London to France were reduced to 10d., -from London to the Batavian Republic to 12_d._ (42 Geo. II, c. 101). - -[595] 41 Geo. III, c. 7. - -In 1803, the following rates were imposed within Ireland for a single -letter:-- - - _d. (Irish)_[596] - Not exceeding 15 Irish miles 2 - From 15 to 30 Irish miles 3 - 30 50 4 - 50 80 5 - Exceeding 80 Irish miles 6 - -The postage on letters arriving in Ireland for the distance travelled -outside Ireland was ordered to be collected by the Irish -Postmaster-General and forwarded to London. An additional penny was -imposed upon Dublin Penny Post letters crossing the circular road -around Dublin.[597] - -[596] The Irish penny was of the same value as the English penny. - -[597] 43 Geo. III, c. 28. - -In 1805, for the third time within ten years, the Exchequer fell back -upon the Post Office for an increase of revenue estimated at -£230,000.[598] There were added to the rates as already -prescribed--1_d._ for a single letter, 2_d._ for a double letter, 3_d._ -for a triple letter, and 4_d._ for a letter weighing as much as one -ounce, for all letters conveyed by the Post in Great Britain or between -Great Britain and Ireland. The postage on a single letter from London to -Brighton was thus raised from 6_d._ to 7_d._, from London to Liverpool -from 9_d._ to 10_d._, and from London to Edinburgh from 12_d._ to 13_d._ -Twopenny Post letters paid 3_d._ if sent beyond the General Post -Delivery limits, while newspapers paid 1_d._ On every letter passing -between Great Britain and a foreign country 2_d._ more was to be paid. -An additional penny was charged for every single letter between Great -Britain and the British American Dominions via Portugal, and between -Great Britain, the Isle of Man and Jersey and Guernsey.[599] In the same -year the Irish rates were also increased by the imposition of an -additional penny upon each single letter with corresponding changes in -the postage on double and triple letters. The Dublin Penny Post was left -untouched, its boundaries being defined as contained within a circle of -four miles radius, with the General Post Office building as the centre. -Every letter from any ship within Irish waters was charged a penny in -addition to the increased rates.[600] - -[598] _Parl. Deb._, 1st ser., iii, col. 550. - -[599] 45 Geo. III, c. 11. - -[600] 45 Geo. III, c. 21. - -Still the demand was for more money to help replenish an exhausted -treasury. An additional penny was added for the conveyance of a single -letter more than twenty miles beyond the place where the letter was -posted within Great Britain and between Great Britain and Ireland. For -the conveyance of a single letter between Great Britain and any of the -colonies or to any foreign country an additional 2_d._ was required. -These additional rates did not apply to letters to and from Jersey or -Guernsey, or to and from any non-commissioned officer, soldier, or -sailor.[601] Samples weighing no more than one ounce were to pay 2_d._ -if enclosed in a letter, if not enclosed, 1_d._ As this is the highest -point to which postage rates in England have ever attained, it may be -interesting to give the rates resulting from this act in tabular form as -far as the postage for inland single letters was concerned.[602] - - _d._ - Not exceeding 15 miles 4 - Above 15 but not exceeding 20 miles 5 - 20 30 6 - 30 50 7 - 50 80 8 - 80 120 9 - 120 170 10 - 170 230 11 - 230 300 12 - 300 400 13 - 400 500 14 - 500 600 15 - 600 700 16 - 700 miles 17 - -[601] Single letters written by or to non-commissioned officers, -privates, and seamen must be on their own business, and if sent by them -must bear their own signatures and the signature of their superior -officer with the name of their regiment or ship (46 Geo. III, c. 92). - -[602] 52 Geo. III, c. 88. - -In 1806, the rate for a single letter between Falmouth and Gibraltar was -fixed at 21_d._, between Falmouth and Malta 25_d._, between Gibraltar -and Malta 6_d._ (46 Geo. III, c. 73). - -In 1808, the rate for a single letter between Falmouth and Madeira was -fixed at 18_d._, between Falmouth and Brazil 29_d._ (48 Geo. III, c. -116). - -In 1810, an additional penny (Irish) was added to the rates then in -force in Ireland, with the exception of the penny rate on the Dublin -Penny Post Letters.[603] Three years later the rates and distances for -Ireland were changed again. As compared with the old rates they were as -follows, both tables being in Irish miles and Irish currency and for -single letters only:-- - - -[603] 50 Geo. III, c. 74. - - 1810 _d._ 1813 _d._ - Not exceeding 15 miles 4 Not exceeding 10 miles 2 - From 15 to 30 miles 5 From 10 to 20 miles 3 - 30 50 6 20 30 4 - 50 80 7 30 40 5 - Exceeding 80 miles 8 40 50 6 - 50 60 7 - 60 80 8 - 80 100 9 - Over 100 miles 10 - -The rates of 1813 were lower for distances not exceeding forty miles, -higher for distances over eighty miles. On the whole there was little -change, but the later rates were probably more easily borne as they were -lower for short distances.[604] The next year the rates and distances -for Ireland were changed again, the result being an increase both for -short and for long distances. The results are shown in the following -table in Irish miles and Irish currency and for a single letter:[605]-- - - Not exceeding 7 miles 2_d._ - Over 7 and not exceeding 15 miles 3 - 15 25 4 - 25 35 5 - 35 45 6 - 45 55 7 - 55 65 8 - 65 95 9 - 95 125 10 - 125 150 11 - 150 200 12 - 200 250 13 - 250 300 14 - For every 100 miles over 300 miles 1 - -[604] 53 Geo. III, c. 58. - -[605] 54 Geo. III, c. 119. - -In 1813 an additional half-penny was demanded on all Scotch letters -"because the mail coaches now paid toll in that country." So at least a -correspondent to the _Times_ says (London _Times_, 1813, June 21, p. 3). - -In 1814 the postage on a single letter brought into the kingdom by -ships other than the regular packets was raised from 4_d._ to 6_d._ in -addition to the regular inland rates. The rate for letters sent out of -the kingdom by these vessels was fixed at one third the regular packet -rates.[606] An exception was made in the case of letters carried by war -vessels or by vessels of the East India Company to and from the Cape of -Good Hope, Mauritius, and that part of the East Indies embraced in the -charter of the company. The rates by these vessels were to be the same -as the regular packet rates, 42_d._ for a single letter between those -places and England, and 21_d._ for a single letter between the places -themselves. Newspapers were charged 3_d._ an ounce between England, the -Cape, Mauritius, and the East Indies. The rate for a single letter -conveyed in private vessels not employed by the Post Office to carry -mails was 14_d._ from England to the Cape or the East Indies, and 8_d._ -from the Cape or the East Indies to England. The company was allowed to -collect rates on letters within its own territory in India, but the -Postmasters-General of England might at any time establish post offices -in any such territory. The company was to be paid for the use of its -ships in conveying letters.[607] - -[606] 54 Geo. III, c. 169. Enacted for Ireland the following year (55 -Geo. III, c. 103). - -[607] 55 Geo. III, c. 153. This act, although repealed for Great Britain -by 59 Geo. III, c. 111, still remained in force in Ireland (5 and 6 Wm. -IV, c. 25). - -By the Ship Letter Act of 1814, no letters were to be sent by private -ships except such as had been brought to the Post Office to be charged. -The directors of the East India Company had protested against this -section of the act. It is true that they were allowed to send and -receive letters by the ships of their own company, but in India there -was a small army of officials in their service whose letters had -hitherto gone free. For that matter it had been the custom for the -company to carry for nothing all letters and papers which were placed in -the letter box at the East India House.[608] Petitions were presented -against an attempt on the part of the Post Office to charge postage on -letters to and from India when conveyed by private vessels.[609] The -company refused to allow its vessels to be used as packet boats or even -to carry letters at all. It was in consequence of all this opposition -that the act of 1815 was passed, giving more favourable treatment to -letters to and from India. By this act no person sending a letter to -India was compelled to have it charged at the Post Office and the -masters were compelled to carry letters if the Postmasters-General -ordered them. The company now withdrew all opposition and even refused -to accept any payment for the use of their vessels in conveying -letters.[610] Notwithstanding the favourable exception made in the case -of letters to and from the East Indies, there was still discontent over -the high rates charged by the Post Office for the conveyance of letters -by the regular packet boats and by private vessels, when carrying -letters entrusted to the Post Office.[611] In 1819 the sea postage on -any letter or package not exceeding three ounces in weight from Ceylon, -Mauritius, the Cape, and the East Indies was placed at 4_d._ If it -exceeded three ounces in weight, it was charged 12_d._ an ounce. The sea -postage on letters and packages to Ceylon, etc., not exceeding three -ounces in weight, was placed at 2_d._ If the weight was more than three -ounces, the charge was 12_d._ an ounce. The postage on letters and -packages from England was payable in advance. Newspapers were charged a -penny an ounce.[612] - -[608] London _Times_, 1814, Oct. 8, p. 3; 1815, Jan. 19, p. 3. - -[609] _Parl. Deb._, 1st ser., xxx, col. 766; xxxi, col. 220. - -[610] Joyce, p. 363. - -[611] The _Calcutta Monthly_ complained that the new rates had rendered -correspondence less frequent. "The so-called packet boats are often two -or three months slower than private vessels" (London _Times_, 1818, Oct. -30, p. 3). - -[612] 59 Geo. III, c. 111; London _Times_, 1820, Jan. 24, p. 3. - -By an act passed in 1827 it was provided that henceforth all rates for -letters conveyed within Ireland should be collected in British currency. -The rates themselves and the distances remained the same as had been -provided by the act of 1814. The postage collected on letters between -the two kingdoms was henceforth to be retained in the country where it -was collected. The rates for letters passing between the two kingdoms -were assimilated with the rates prescribed for Great Britain by the act -of 1812. In addition to the land rates, 2d. was required for the sea -passage to and from Holyhead and Milford and to this 2_d._ more was -added for the use of the Conway and Menai Bridges.[613] Between -Portpatrick and Donaghadee the postage was 4_d._ for a single letter, -between Liverpool and any Irish port 8_d._, but no letter sent via -Liverpool paid a higher rate than if sent via Holyhead.[614] An -additional halfpenny was also demanded on every single letter passing -between Milford Haven and Waterford, to pay for improvements.[615] - -[613] 7 and 8 Geo. IV, c. 21. The postage between Liverpool and Dublin -for a single letter was 13_d._, made up as follows:-- - - Inland postage to Holyhead 9_d._ - For the Conway Bridge 1_d._ - " " Menai " 1_d._ - Sea postage 2_d._ - ----- - 13_d._ - -In 1820, the sea rate between Portpatrick and Donaghadee had been raised -by 2_d._ for a single letter, between Liverpool and the Port of Douglas -by 4_d._ (1 Geo. IV, c. 89; 3 Geo. IV, c. 105). - -[614] 7 and 8 Geo. IV, c. 21; 1 and 2 Geo. IV, c. 35, secs. 19-20; 6 -Geo. IV, c. 28. - -[615] 6 and 7 Wm. IV, c. 5. - -In 1836, England and France signed a postal treaty by which the rates on -letters between the United Kingdom and France or between any other -country and the United Kingdom through France were materially -reduced.[616] On such letters the method of reckoning postage differed -from the English rule and was as follows: One sheet of paper not -exceeding an ounce in weight and every letter not exceeding one quarter -of an ounce were single letters. Every letter with one enclosure only -and not exceeding an ounce in weight was a double letter. Every letter -containing more than one enclosure and not exceeding half an ounce was a -double letter. If it exceeded half an ounce but not an ounce in weight, -it was a triple letter. If it exceeded an ounce, it paid as four single -letters and for every quarter of an ounce above one ounce it paid an -additional single letter rate.[617] The sender of a letter from Great -Britain to France had the option of prepaying the whole postage, British -and foreign, or the British alone, or neither.[618] - -[616] _Acc. & P._, 1837, l. 106. Rates on foreign letters before, and -after the French treaty:-- - -_Between England and_ _Before_ _After_ - -France 14_d._ 10_d._ -Italy } -Turkey } 23 19 -Ionian Isles } -Spain 26 19 - by packet 26 26 -Portugal via France 26 19 - by packet 30 30 -Germany via France 20 14 -Switzerland 20 14 -Holland 16 16 -Belgium 16 16 -Russia } -Prussia } -Norway } 20 20 -Sweden } - -_Between England and_ _Before_ _After_ - -Denmark } -Germany } 20_d._ 20_d._ -Gibraltar 34 34 -Malta } -Ionian Isles } -Greece } 38 38 -Egypt } -Brazil 42 42 -Buenos Ayres 42 41 -Madeira 31 31 -Mexico } -Havana } 36 27 -Colombia } -San Domingo 26 27 -United States } -and foreign } 26 26 -West Indies } - -[617] This followed to a certain extent the French system of charging -postage, which depended more upon weight and less upon the number of -enclosures than the English method. - -[618] 7 Wm. IV and 1 Vict., c. 34. - -In 1837, an act of Parliament was passed, consolidating previous acts -for the regulation of postage rates within Great Britain and Ireland, -between Great Britain and Ireland, and between the United Kingdom and -the colonies and foreign countries. The rates within Great Britain -remained the same as those established by the act of 1812, including the -additional half penny on letters conveyed by mail coaches in Scotland. -In Ireland the rates existing since 1814 still held and between Great -Britain and Ireland the rates established by 7 and 8 Geo. IV, c. 21. - -The rates for letters between the United Kingdom and foreign countries -through France and those conveyed directly between the United Kingdom -and France remained the same as had been agreed upon by the Treaty of -1836. Some of the more important of the other rates were as follows:-- - -To Italy, Sicily, Venetian Lombardy, Malta, the Ionian Islands, Greece, -Turkey, the Levant, the Archipelago, Syria, and Egypt through Belgium, -Holland, or Germany, 20_d._ for a single letter. Between the United -Kingdom and Portugal, 19_d._ for a single letter. - - _Single letter_ -To or from Gibraltar 23_d._ -To or from Malta, the Ionian Islands, Greece, Syria, and Egypt 27_d._ -Between Gibraltar (not having been first conveyed there from -the United Kingdom) and Malta, the Ionian Islands, Greece, -Syria, or Egypt[619] 8_d._ -Between the United Kingdom and Madeira 20_d._ -Between the United Kingdom and the West Indies, Colombia, -and Mexico 25_d._ -Between the United Kingdom and Brazil 31_d._ -Between the United Kingdom and Buenos Ayres 29_d._ -Between the United Kingdom and San Domingo 15_d._ -Between the British West Indies and Colombia or Mexico 12_d._ - -[619] In 1838, it was enacted that the postage on a single letter (not -from the United Kingdom or going there) between any two Mediterranean -ports or from a Mediterranean port to the East Indies should be 6_d._ -via the Red Sea or Persian Gulf. The Gibraltar rate remained the same (1 -and 2 Vict., c. 97). - -Letters between the United Kingdom and Germany, Belgium, Holland, -Switzerland, Spain, Sweden, and Norway were charged in addition the same -postage as if they had been sent from or to London. Letters from and to -France paid no additional postage. All letters to and from -non-commissioned officers, privates and seamen while in actual service -were still carried for one penny each, payable in advance, but letters -sent by them from Ceylon, the East Indies, Mauritius, and the Cape were -charged an additional 2_d._ payable by the receiver.[620] - -[620] 7 Wm. IV and 1 Vict., c. 34. - -After the transference of the packet boats to the Admiralty in 1837, the -Postmaster-General was authorized to charge regular packet rates for the -conveyance of letters by such ships as he had contracted with for such -conveyance. He might also forward letters by any ships and collect the -following rates for each single letter:-- - - When the letter was posted in the place from which - the ship sailed except when sailing between Great - Britain and Ireland 8_d._ - If posted anywhere else in the United Kingdom 12_d._ - Between Great Britain and Ireland in addition to - inland rates 8_d._ - For a single letter coming into the United Kingdom - except from Ceylon, the East Indies, Mauritius, and - the Cape in addition to inland rates 8_d._ - For letters from Ceylon, the East Indies, Mauritius, - and the Cape in addition to inland rates-- - If not exceeding 3 ounces in weight 4_d._ - If exceeding 3 ounces in weight 12_d._ an oz. - For letters delivered to the Post Office to be sent - to Ceylon, the East Indies, Mauritius, and the Cape - in addition to all inland rates-- - If not exceeding 3 ounces in weight 2_d._ - If exceeding 3 ounces in weight 12_d._ an oz.[621] - -[621] 7 Wm. IV and I Vict., c. 34. - -The end of high postage rates was now at hand. In 1839, the Treasury was -empowered to change the rating according to the weight of the letter or -package,[622] and they proceeded to do so in the case of letters from -one country to another passing through the United Kingdom, between any -two colonies, between any South American ports, and between such ports -and Madeira and the Canaries.[623] Parliament followed up the good work -in 1840 by enacting that in future all letters, packages, etc. should be -charged by weight alone, according to the following scheme:-- - -On every letter or package, etc.-- -Not exceeding 1/2 ounce in weight, one rate of postage. -Exceeding 1/2 ounce but not exceeding 1 ounce, 2 rates of postage. - 1 " " " " 2 ounces, 4 " " " - 2 ounces " " " 3 " 6 " " " - 3 " " " " 4 " 8 " " " - -For every ounce above four ounces, two additional rates of postage, and -for every fraction of an ounce above four ounces as for one additional -ounce. No letter or package exceeding one pound in weight was to be sent -through the Post Office except petitions and addresses to the Queen, or -to either House of Parliament, or in such cases as the Treasury Lords -might order by warrant.[624] - - -[622] 2 and 3 Vict., c. 52. - -[623] _Acc. & P._, 1841, xxvi, 53, pp. 1-7. - -[624] Additional exceptions were made later in the case of 1. Reissuable -country bank notes delivered at the General Post Office in London. 2. -Deeds, legal proceedings and papers. 3. Letters to and from places -beyond the seas. 4. Letters to and from any government office or -department (or to and from any person having the franking privilege by -virtue of his office). _Acc. & P._ 1841, xxvi, 53, p. 4. - -On all letters not exceeding a half-ounce in weight transmitted by the -Post between places in the United Kingdom (not being letters sent to or -from places beyond the seas, or posted in any post town to be delivered -within that town) there was charged a uniform rate of one penny. For all -letters exceeding a half-ounce in weight, additional rates were charged -according to the foregoing scheme, each additional rate for letters -exceeding one ounce in weight being fixed at 2_d._[625] - -[625] Double rates were charged when the postage was paid on delivery. - -The rates for colonial letters were also adjusted according to weight as -follows: Between any place in the United Kingdom and any port in the -colonies and India (except when passing through France) for a letter not -exceeding half an ounce in weight, 1_s._ Between any of the colonies -through the United Kingdom, 2_s._ If such letters exceeded half an ounce -in weight, they were charged additional rates according to the table -already given, the rate for a letter not exceeding half an ounce being -taken as the basis. - -The rates for letters to and from foreign countries were much the same -as they had been before the passage of this act, except that instead of -the initial charge being made for a single letter, it was now reckoned -for a letter not exceeding half an ounce in weight. The rates for -letters to and from France were graded according to the distance they -were carried in England, the lowest rate for a letter not more than half -an ounce in weight being 3_d._ to Dover or the port of arrival, the -highest rate being 10_d._ to any place distant more than fifty miles -from Dover.[626] - -[626] 3 and 4 Vict., c. 96. - -The franking privilege may reasonably be considered in connection with -the history of postal rates, nor should its effect in reducing the -revenue of the Post Office be neglected. The Council of State gave -orders in 1652 that all public packets, letters of members of -Parliament, of the Council, of officers in the public service, and of -any persons acting in a public capacity should be carried free. This is -the first record that we have concerning the free carriage of members' -letters, a privilege which later gave so much trouble and was so much -abused.[627] The next year the Post Office farmers agreed to carry free -all letters to and from members of Parliament provided that letters -written by such members as were not known by their seals should be -endorsed, "These are for the service of the Commonwealth," and signed by -the members themselves or their clerks.[628] Nothing was said in the act -of 1660 about the conveyance of the letters of members of Parliament and -they were carried free only by act of grace. The House of Commons had -passed a clause of the bill providing for the free conveyance of the -letters of members of their own House. This had exasperated the Lords, -who, since they could not amend the clause so as to extend the privilege -to themselves, had dropped it.[629] In 1693, the attention of Cotton and -Frankland was called to the manner in which franking was being abused. -Men claimed the right to frank letters to whom the Postmasters-General -denied it, and members of Parliament were accused of bad faith in the -exercise of their privilege. The custom had arisen of enclosing private -letters in the packet of official letters. A warrant was issued in 1693 -to the effect that in future no letters were to go free except those on -the King's affairs, and the only persons to send or receive them free -were the two principal Secretaries of State, the Secretary for Scotland, -the Secretary in Holland, the Earl of Portland, and members of -Parliament, the latter only during the session, and for forty days -before and after, and for inland letters alone. Each member was to write -his name in a book with his seal so that no one might be able to -counterfeit his signature.[630] - -[627] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1651-52, p. 507. - -[628] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1652-53, p. 449. - -[629] _Parliamentary History of England_, iv (1660-88), col. 163. - -[630] _Cal. T. P._, 1557-1696, p. 281. - -We learn from Hicks' letters that it was customary for clerks in the -Post Office at London to send gazettes to their correspondents in the -country free of charge. These gazettes or news letters were supplied by -the Treasury and, as 2_d._ or 3_d._ apiece was paid for them by the -recipients, the privilege was greatly esteemed.[631] The Deputy -Postmaster-General wished to abolish the privilege, but Hicks himself, -who was one of the favoured officials, was quite indignant at the -suggestion.[632] The principle was bad, but as the receipts for gazettes -formed a necessary part of the clerks' salaries, Hicks cannot be blamed -for protesting against abolition without compensation. James II -expressed a desire that the practice should be discontinued, but when it -was shown to him that the salaries of the clerks must be raised if his -wishes were obeyed, his proposition was promptly withdrawn.[633] - -[631] _Cal. T. B. & P._, 1731-34, pp. 208, 210, 218, 268. - -[632] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1667, p. 248. - -[633] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1666-67, p.386. - -The abuses of the privilege of franking were very pronounced during the -eighteenth century. The system of patronage which the members of -Parliament then exercised made them reluctant to offend any of their -constituents, who might entrench upon their peculiar privileges. -Members' names were forged to letters and they made no complaint. -Letters from the country were sent to them to be re-addressed under -their own signatures. The Postmasters-General admonished them more than -once, but, as a rule, the members disclaimed all knowledge of abuses. -Men were so bold as to order letters to be sent under a member's name to -coffee-houses, where they presented themselves and demanded the letters -so addressed. In 1715, on receiving renewed complaints from the -Postmasters-General, it was ordered by the House that henceforth no -member should frank a letter unless the address were written entirely in -his own hand. This was expected to prevent members from franking letters -sent to them by friends. It was also ordered that no letter addressed to -a member should pass free unless such member was actually residing at -the place to which the letter was addressed. In the third place, no -member was to frank a newspaper unless it was entirely in print. This -was to prevent the franking of long written communications passing as -newspapers, for the members of Parliament in sending and receiving -letters free were restricted to such as did not exceed two ounces in -weight, but they were not so restricted in the case of newspapers.[634] -According to the Surveyor's report, the loss from the ministers' franks -in 1717 was £8270 and from the members' franks £17,470.[635] The loss -from franking was proportionately much greater in Ireland than in -England. In 1718 the Irish Parliament sat only three months, in 1719 -nine months, and in Ireland as in England, members of Parliament -received and sent their letters free only during the session and forty -days before and after it. The following is part of the report submitted -by the Postmasters-General to the Lords of the Treasury for these two -years:-- - - 1718 1719 - Gross Produce from Letters £14,592 £19,522 - Charge of Management and Members' Letters 11,526 18,768 - Net Produce from Letters[636] 3,066 754 - -Under the charges of management is included the charge for carrying -members' letters as reckoned proportionately to the charge for the -letters which paid, together with the actual charge for the pay letters. -The net produce during the three months' session was £3006, during the -nine months' session only £753. In 1734 the old orders about the maximum -weight of two ounces and the requirement for the whole superscription to -be in the member's own writing were repeated in a royal proclamation. In -addition it was ordered that any letters sent under cover to any member -of Parliament or high official of state, to be forwarded by him, should -be sent to the General Post Office to be taxed.[637] It could hardly be -expected that this order would be obeyed, for there was no method of -enforcing it. - -[634] _Jo. H. C._, 1714-18, p. 303. - -[635] _Cal. T. P._, 1714-19, p. 287. - -[636] _Cal. T. P._, 1720-28, p. 77. - -[637] _Jo. H. C._, 1732-37, p. 393. - -In 1735, the House of Commons instituted an enquiry into the whole -question of franking and summoned various Post Office officials before -them to give evidence. An estimate was laid before them of the amount -lost each year by carrying franked letters. This estimate was obtained -by weighing the franked letters at intervals during the session of -Parliament, and comparing their weight with the weight of the letters -which paid postage. As the total revenue from the latter was known, the -amount which was lost on the former was guessed. The House expressed -very little confidence in the estimated amounts, and certainly it was a -rough way of attaining the object aimed at, but perhaps they were -prejudiced from the strength of the case against them.[638] Expressed in -yearly averages, the amounts by which the revenue was reduced by -franking were:-- - - 1716-19 £17,460 - 1720-24 23,726 - 1725-29 32,364 - 1730-33 36,864 - -[638] _Ibid._, 1732-37. - -The system of ascertaining forged franks and of discovering enclosures -was as follows: a Supervisor of the Franks charged all letters, franked -by a member's name, coming from any place, when he knew that the member -was not there. Very often by holding them in front of a candle, he could -see enclosures inside directed to other people. If he was in doubt he -generally charged the letter, for if it should pay, all well and good, -and if he had made a mistake, the amount was refunded to the member. The -Supervisor had noticed that the number of franked letters had increased -with every session of Parliament, and some of the ex-members also -attempted to frank letters. The evidence of the Supervisor, especially -his description of the manner in which he attempted to discover -enclosures, was exceedingly distasteful to the House. The members -themselves were to blame for many of the abuses attendant upon the -system, and yet they contended that they were the unwilling victims of -others. A resolution was adopted that it was an infringement upon the -privileges of the knights, citizens, and burgesses chosen to represent -the people of Great Britain in Parliament, for any postmaster, his -deputies or agents to open or look into any letter addressed to or -signed by a member of Parliament, unless empowered so to do by a warrant -issued by one of the Secretaries of State. In addition no postmaster or -his deputies should delay or detain any letter directed to or by any -member unless there should be good reason to suppose that the frank was -a counterfeit.[639] - -[639] _Jo. H. C._, 1732-37, p. 476. - -The restrictions adopted to curtail the abuse of the franking privilege -had but little effect. A regular business sprang up for selling -counterfeit franks. The House of Lords ordered one person accused of -selling them to come before the bar of the House for examination, but he -failed to present himself.[640] Another confessed before the Upper House -that he had counterfeited one of the Lords' names on certain covers of -letters showed to him and had then sold them. He expressed sorrow for -the offence, which necessity had driven him to commit. He was sent to -Newgate.[641] The abuses of the franking system were so patent[642] -that Allen was told that he might withdraw from his contract to farm the -bye and cross post letters on three months' notice being given.[643] - -[640] _Jo. H. L._, 1736-41, p. 259. - -[641] _Ibid._, p. 529. - -[642] One man in five months counterfeited 14,400 franks of members of -Parliament. Counterfeits of names of 27 members were shown. A regular -trade in buying and selling them had sprung up (_Jo. H. C._, 1761-64, p. -998). Several Lords certified that their names had been counterfeited. -Lord Dacre's name had been counterfeited 504 times (_Jo. H. L._, -1760-64, p. 534). - -[643] _Cal. T. B. & P._, 1739-41, p. 450. - -The revenue from the Post Office was surrendered by the Crown at the -beginning of George the Third's reign in exchange for a Civil List from -the Aggregate Fund as it was then called.[644] While the Post Office -remained in the hands of the King, it was only by special grant on his -part that the members of Parliament had been allowed to send and receive -letters free. Accordingly in 1763, an act was passed for the purpose of -giving parliamentary sanction to the privilege. This act repeated the -principal points in the King's proclamation and in the Parliament's -previous resolutions on the subject. All letters or packets sent to or -by the King, the ministers and the higher Post Office officials were to -go free. The ministers might appoint others to frank their letters, -whose names must be forwarded to the Postmaster-General. Those sending -letters free must sign their names on the outside and themselves write -the address. No letters to or from any member of Parliament should go -free unless they were sent during the session or within forty days -before or after, and the whole superscription must be in the member's -own hand or directed to him at his usual place of residence or at the -House. All letters in excess of two ounces in weight must pay postage. -Printed votes, proceedings in Parliament, and newspapers should go free -when sent to a member or signed on the outside by him, provided they -were sent without covers or with covers open at the ends. The privileges -of franking votes, proceedings in Parliament, and newspapers, were -continued to the clerks in the Post Office and in the Secretaries of -State's offices. The Postmasters-General and their deputies were given -authority to search newspapers which had no covers or covers open at the -ends and to charge them if there were writing or enclosures in them. -Finally, any person who counterfeited a member's name on any letter or -package for the purpose of avoiding the payment of postage, was guilty -of felony and liable to transportation for seven years.[645] - -[644] Joyce, p. 189. - -[645] 4 Geo. III, c. 24. - -The year following the passing of this act, the House of Commons called -for returns relating to the franking system. Besides the members of -Parliament, the ministers, and the Post Office officials, to whom the -franking privilege had been granted by the King's warrant and by the -late act, almost all who were in any way connected with the Government -claimed the right to send or receive letters free, even to the Deputy -Serjeant-at-Arms. The amount which newspapers would have paid if there -had been no franking privilege was first given for the week ending March -13, 1764. - - _Members'_ _States'_ _Post Office Clerks'_ - £465 £310 £1055 - -These amounts were obtained by weighing the newspapers and, as this was -the manner in which they would have been rated, the results may be -considered as fairly correct. The idea being to estimate the loss from -members' and states' franks only, the franking by Post Office clerks -does not enter into the following calculation. It was judged from the -figures given above that the Post Office carried free every year enough -newspapers franked by members and state officials to produce £40,000 if -they had been taxed at the ordinary rates.[646] An attempt to arrive at -the same result in another way was also made. The sum total which would -have been paid on all members' and ministers' letters, newspapers, and -parcels arriving at or departing from London in 1763 was £140,000. Of -this amount £85,000 would have been paid on all mail leaving London, and -£55,000 on all mail arriving in London. The difference in favour of the -outgoing mail was judged to be due to the newspapers, all of which were -printed in London and sent to the country. This would give a loss of -£30,000 on newspapers, and £110,000 on letters.[647] - -[646] _Jo. H. C._, 1761-64, pp. 1000-1001. - -[647] _Ibid._, p. 999. - -Returns were also submitted, showing the gross amount of the inland -postage for Great Britain and Ireland, including the amount which the -franked letters and papers would have paid if they had all been charged, -the actual gross product and the difference between the two. This -difference would, of course, be the estimated charge on all the free -matter. These figures are given from 1715 to 1763. Roughly speaking, in -fifty years franked letters and papers increased 700 per cent while pay -letters increased only 50 per cent. In 1715 one fifth as many free -letters and newspapers as those which paid went through the mail. In -1763 there were eleven twelfths as many free letters and papers.[648] It -will be seen that the assumption is that the postage which this free -matter might have paid represented the loss suffered by the Post Office. -Now this is not so, because it did not cost the Post Office so much to -convey letters and papers as the ordinary rates would have paid them. In -the second place the Postal authorities considered the £140,000 as so -much actually lost, whereas if charges had been enforced on the free -matter, a much smaller amount would have been sent. This is entirely -apart from the rough and ready manner in which the figures were -obtained. Enough was shown, however, to prove that the franking system -was a burden to the country and an imposition upon the Post Office. - -[648] _Jo. H. C._, p. 999. - -In Ireland, Parliament met as a rule only during the even years or if it -met every year, the sessions in the odd years were very short. For the -five even years from 1753 to 1762, the expenses averaged for each year -£3306 over the receipts, while during the five odd years, the receipts -were greater than the expenditures by a yearly average of £2249. These -general results held good for every individual odd or even year for the -period for which returns were given.[649] - -[649] _Ibid._, 1761-64, p. 1001. - -Attempts continued to be made by members of the House of Commons to -diminish the abuses arising from franking. There had been some -misunderstanding as to whether they were entitled to have ship's letters -delivered free to them. Of course they were exempt from the inland -postage on such letters, but for every letter brought into the country -by vessels other than packets, the master was paid one penny and this -penny was collected from the person to whom the letter was delivered. -The members finally agreed to pay the extra penny.[650] - -[650] _Ibid._, 1780-82, p. 537. - -Acts were now introduced to enable the Commander-in-Chief, the -Adjutant-General, and the Controller of Accounts of the Royal forces to -receive and send letters free. Both bills passed.[651] It is some -consolation that the Lord Chancellor and Judges failed to obtain the -franking privilege although a bill was introduced in the Commons in -their behalf.[652] - -[651] 22 Geo. III, c. 70; 23 Geo. III, c. 69. - -[652] _Jo. H. C._, 1790-91, p. 468. - -It was enacted in 1784 that a member must write on his free letters not -only his name and address but also the name of the post town from which -they were to be sent and the day of the month and the year when they -were posted.[653] The object of this restriction could be easily evaded -by enclosing postdated letters to their constituents but, after the -passage of this resolution, a considerable decrease resulted in the -number of free letters to and from members.[654] When the Irish was -separated from the English Post Office, the privilege of franking -newspapers to Ireland was taken away and a rate of one penny a newspaper -was imposed, payable in advance. This meant a loss to the clerks in the -Secretaries' offices but this was made good to them by an addition of -£1000 a year to their salaries.[655] - -[653] _Ibid._, 1784-85, p. 383. The Lords also agreed to this resolution -(ibid., p.411; 24 Geo. III, sess. 2, c. 37). - -[654] For the years 1783 and 1784, the number of free letters arriving -in London, exclusive of the state's letters, averaged over 800,000 a -year and those sent from London averaged over 1,000,000. In 1785, they -had fallen to 514,000 and 713,000 respectively (_Parl. Papers_, 1812-13, -_Rep. Com._, ii, 222, p. 95). - -[655] 24 Geo. III, c. 6; _Jo. H. C._, 1795-96, p. 588. - -In 1795, the members of Parliament made another attempt to limit their -own as well as the free writing proclivities of others. The maximum -weight of a free letter to or from a member was lowered from two ounces -to one. No letter directed by a member should go free unless the member -so directing it should be within twenty miles of the place where it was -posted either on the day on which it was posted or the day before. No -member should send more than ten or receive more than fifteen free -letters a day. Votes and proceedings in Parliament when addressed to or -by members of Parliament were exempted from the provisions of this -Act.[656] - -[656] 35 Geo. III, c. 53. After 1786 the number of franked letters had -gradually increased until checked by this act. In 1795 the number of -franked letters delivered in London was 1,045,000, the number sent from -London 1,195,000. In 1796, the inward and outward free letters amounted -to 737,000 and 787,000 respectively. In 1797 the numbers were 696,000 -and 721,000. These restricting acts of 1784 and 1795 had a more -important effect than Joyce leads us to suppose (_Parl. Papers_, -1812-13, _Rep. Com._, ii, 222, p. 95). - -The restrictions upon the franking privilege enjoyed by members of -Parliament were re-enacted in 1802 with some additions. The number of -free letters which a member might receive and send in one day having -been limited to twenty-five, it was decided that these twenty-five so -excepted from the payment of postage should be those on which the -charges were the highest, provided that none of them exceeded an ounce -in weight. The high officials of state, the clerks of Parliament, -certain clerks of the Commons and Lords, the Treasurer and Paymaster of -the Navy, the Lord Chancellor, certain officials in Ireland, and two -persons appointed by the Postmaster-General of Ireland were allowed to -send letters free.[657] The members and clerks of both Houses were -allowed to send newspapers free provided that they were enclosed in -covers open at both ends. The same rule held for votes and proceedings -in Parliament.[658] The same franking privileges were extended to Irish -officials.[659] - -[657] Those officials in the General Post Office who had no franking -privilege were reimbursed the amount of postage paid by them on inland -single letters (_Rep. Commrs._, 1837, xxxiv, 8th rep., app., no. 2). - -[658] 42 Geo. III, c. 63. - -[659] 43 Geo. III, c. 28. - -From 1806 to 1819 there was a large extension of the franking privilege -to various officials. During that time sixteen statutes and parts of -statutes were enacted in behalf of various persons from the Lord High -Chancellor to the Controller of the Barrack's Department and the -Commissioners of the parliamentary grant for building churches. Sir -Robert Buxton, a member of Parliament, thought that it would be well for -his fellow members to give up their privilege in order to help the -finances of the country. Windham disagreed on the ground that it kept up -communications between a member and his constituents and encouraged -literary correspondence which would otherwise decline. Pitt justified -it, in that it enabled members to carry on the important business of -their constituents and did not result in much loss to the state.[660] - -[660] _Parl. Deb._, 1st ser., iii, col. 570. The following are a few of -the statutes enacted which extended franking: 46 Geo. III, c. 61; 50 -Geo. III, c. 65, sec. 19; c. 66; 51 Geo. III, c. 16, sec. 17; 52 Geo. -III, c. 132, sec. 16; c. 146, sec. 11; 53 Geo. III, c. 13; 54 Geo. III, -c. 169; 55 Geo. III, c. 1, sec. 10; c. 60, secs. 41-42; 56 Geo. III, c. -98, sec. 24. - -It had always been customary to charge letter rates for the conveyance -of newspapers to foreign countries and to the colonies. Members of -Parliament, however, had the privilege of franking newspapers within the -United Kingdom, the clerks of the Foreign Office franked them to foreign -countries, and the Secretary of the Post Office franked them to the -colonies. In 1825 it was enacted that members need no longer sign their -names to newspapers franked by them, or give notice of the names of the -places to which they intended to send them.[661] This virtually provided -for the free transmission of newspapers within the United Kingdom. At -the same time it was provided that the rate for newspapers, votes and -parliamentary proceedings should be 1-1/2_d._ each to the colonies, -payable in advance. Newspapers from the colonies were charged 3_d._ -each, payable on delivery. Such newspapers must be posted on the day of -publication, must contain no writing, and must be enclosed in covers -open at both ends.[662] Two years later the charge for votes and -parliamentary proceedings to and from the colonies was fixed at -1-1/2_d._ an ounce. Newspapers brought from the colonies by private -vessels were to be charged 3_d._ each, the same as the packet rate,[663] -but in 1835 colonial newspapers by private vessels were allowed to come -in for a penny each, and the same rate was charged for English -newspapers sent to the colonies by private vessels. By the same act the -postage on newspapers passing between the United Kingdom and any foreign -country which charged no inland rate for their conveyance was fixed at a -penny each. If an inland rate was charged, the postage was to be 2_d._ -for each newspaper plus the foreign rate.[664] - -[661] 6 Geo. IV, c. 68, sec. 10. - -[662] 6 Geo. IV, c. 68; London _Times_, 1825, June 11, p. 3; July 29, p. -2. - -[663] 7 and 8 Geo. IV, c. 21. - -[664] 5 and 6 Wm. IV, c. 25. Before the passage of this act newspapers -passed free by the packets and posts to and from Hamburg, Bremen, and -Cuxhaven (London _Times_, 1834, Oct. 30, p. 2). - -During the following year, all the regulations concerning the conveyance -of newspapers, votes, and proceedings in Parliament etc. were embodied -in one act. Within the United Kingdom all newspapers which had paid the -stamp duty were to go free except those which were sent through the -Twopenny Post and delivered by it, not having passed by the General -Post, and except those posted and delivered within the same town. In -both of these cases one penny was charged. To and from the colonies no -rate was demanded when newspapers were sent by the regular packets. If -sent by private vessels one penny was payable, which went to the master. -The rate to and from foreign countries was fixed at 2_d._ for each -paper, but if a foreign state agreed to charge no postage on English -newspapers, no postage should be charged on the newspapers of such -foreign state, when brought to England by the packet boats. If brought -by private vessels, a penny was payable for each paper, to go to the -master. All newspapers, in order to receive the advantage of these low -rates or to go free, had to be posted within seven days after -publication and to contain no writing except the name and address of the -person to whom they were to be sent. In addition the newspaper must have -no cover or one open at both ends.[665] - -[665] 6 and 7 Wm. IV, c. 25. - -The following additions and changes in the regulations for the carriage -of newspapers were made in 1837. One penny was to be paid for their -conveyance by private vessels between different parts of the United -Kingdom. Between the colonies and foreign countries through the United -Kingdom, newspapers should go free if conveyed by the packets and should -pay a penny each if conveyed by private vessels. Parliamentary -proceedings conveyed between the colonies and the United Kingdom, if -sent by packet boats and not exceeding one ounce in weight, were charged -1-1/2_d._ each. When in excess of one ounce they paid 1-1/2_d._ for each -additional ounce. Pamphlets, magazines and other periodical publications -for the colonies, if not exceeding six ounces in weight, paid 12_d._ -when carried by the packets. For every additional ounce, 3_d._ was -charged. Bankers' re-issuable notes were carried at one quarter the -regular postage.[666] Patterns, with no writing enclosed and not -exceeding one ounce in weight, paid a single letter rate.[667] Any -newspaper which had been posted in violation of any regulation for the -conveyance of newspapers was charged three times the regular letter -postage.[668] - -[666] In Great Britain re-issuable notes of country banks paid in London -were conveyed by the post to the issuing bank at one quarter the regular -rates for letters, but parcels of notes had to exceed six ounces in -weight and contain no other matter (5 Geo. IV, c. 20). - -[667] 7 Wm. IV and 1 Vict., c. 34. - -[668] 7 Wm. IV. and 1 Vict., c. 36. - -Franking and the privilege of sending and receiving letters free from -postage did not at any time extend to letters liable to foreign postage -except in the case of public despatches to and from the Secretaries of -State and British Ambassadors.[669] The owners, charterers and -consignees of vessels inward bound were allowed to receive letters free -from sea postage to the maximum of six ounces for each man, but in the -case of ships coming from the East Indies, Ceylon, Mauritius, and the -Cape, the maximum was twenty ounces.[670] Within the kingdom, writs for -the election of members of the House of Commons and for those Scotch and -Irish peers who were elected, were allowed to go free.[671] All persons -who were allowed to frank letters within the Kingdom were grouped in ten -classes. Members of Parliament were placed in the first class and their -letters were subject to the old restrictions as to number,[672] -superscription, name of post town, date, and place of residence. They -might also receive petitions free, provided that each did not exceed six -ounces in weight. They might send free printed votes and proceedings in -Parliament. - -[669] 5 and 6 Wm. IV, c. 25. - -[670] 7 Wm. IV and 1 Vict., c. 34. Maximum increased to thirty ounces by -7 Wm. IV and 1 Vict., c. 25. - -[671] 53 Geo. III, c. 89; 7 Wm. IV and 1 Vict., c. 32. - -[672] Wallace, the postal reformer, declared that other members had been -in the habit of receiving more than fifteen free letters in a day and -that, too, with Freeling's consent (_Parl. Deb._, 3d series, xxiv, col. -1001). - -Officials of both Houses of Parliament were in the second class. They -were subject to the same restrictions as the first class, except that -the number of their letters was not limited and each letter might weigh -two ounces. - -The third class was composed of members of the Treasury Department and -the Postmaster-General and his secretaries. Their franking privilege was -unlimited as to the weight and number of letters nor were they required -to insert the name of the post town or the date. - -The fourth class, composed of heads of departments, might send and -receive letters with no limit as to number or weight. - -The fifth class, the Lord Chancellor of Ireland and the Irish -Surveyors, had unlimited franking rights within Ireland. All the letters -of these five classes were subject to the following restrictions with -the exception of the third class. The whole superscription of the -letters sent must be in the hand of the privileged person, with his name -and the name of the post town from which the letters were sent together -with the date, and on that date or the day before, the writer must be -within twenty miles of the place where the letters were posted. - -The other five classes were made up of subordinate members of -departments, clerks, secretaries etc. when writing or receiving letters -on official business. Every such letter had to be superscribed with the -name of the office and the seal and name of the writer.[673] - -[673] 7 Wm. IV. and 1 Vict., c. 35. - -It appeared from a report of a committee appointed to investigate postal -affairs that the total number of franks had increased from 3,039,000 in -1810 to 4,142,000 in 1820; 4,792,000 in 1830 and 5,270,000 in 1837. Of -these, members of the two Houses were responsible for 2,028,000; -2,726,000; 2,814,000 and 3,084,000 at the above dates respectively.[674] -In concluding their report the Committee recommended the abolition of -Parliamentary franking.[675] This advice was followed and improved upon -two years later when franking and the privilege of sending or receiving -letters free were abolished, except in the case of petitions to the -Queen or Parliament not exceeding 32 ounces in weight.[676] - -[674] _Rep. Com._, 1837-38, xx, 2d rep., app., p. 109. - -[675] _Ibid._, xx, 3d rep., p. 62. - -[676] 3 and 4 Vict., c. 96. Recent attempts by certain members of -Parliament to revive the franking privilege have fortunately been -unsuccessful (_Parl. Deb._, 4th ser., lxxxi, col. 1407; civ, col. 360). - -No further reduction in inland postage rates was adopted until the net -revenue of the Post Office had pretty well recovered from the blow -received by the adoption of penny postage.[677] Such reduction was -finally granted in 1865, applying only to letters weighing more than one -ounce each, the increases in weight being graduated by half ounces with -a penny for each additional half ounce instead of 2_d._ for each -additional ounce as before. Corresponding reductions were made at the -same time in the book post and the pattern and sample post, and were -made applicable to correspondence with British North America and the -British possessions in Europe.[678] In 1870, when the impressed -newspaper stamp was finally abolished, the rate on prepaid newspapers -was reduced to a halfpenny each whether sent singly or in packages, but -no package was to be charged higher than the book post rate. Unpaid -newspapers were charged a penny for each two ounces or fraction thereof. -The book post rate was reduced at the same time to a halfpenny for each -two ounces or fraction thereof. The rate for patterns and samples, which -had formerly been 2_d._ for the initial four ounces, was altered to the -existing book post rate with a maximum of twelve ounces only. In 1871 -the inland letter rate was fixed at a penny for the initial ounce, a -halfpenny for the next ounce and for each additional two ounces, and the -sample and pattern post was incorporated with the inland letter post. A -separate sample and pattern post was reëstablished in 1887, only to be -incorporated for a second time with the letter post ten years -later.[679] An additional charge for re-directed letters was made when -the re-direction necessitated a change from the original delivery, but -the charge was such only as they would be liable to if prepaid. An -exception was made in the case of letters re-directed to sailors or -soldiers, no additional charge being then made, provided that the rate -was not a foreign one. This privilege was later extended to commissioned -officers and the exemption extended to foreign rates as well.[680] In -1891 all charges for the re-direction of letters were abolished, -followed three years later by a like abolition in the case of all other -postal matter, and in 1900 the charge for notice of removal and -re-direction after the first year was reduced from £1 1_s._ to 1_s._ for -the second and third and 5_s._ for subsequent years.[681] - -[677] But in 1861 the registration fee was reduced from 6_d._ to 4_d._ -and a double fee charged for compulsory registration (_Rep. P. G._, -1862, pp. 9-10). - -[678] _Rep. P. G._, 1866, p. 12. - -[679] _Ibid._, 1870, pp. 3-5; 1897, p. 5; 1896, p. 2; 1898, pp. 1-2. - -[680] 3 and 4 Vict., c. 96; 10 and 11 Vict., c. 85; 23 and 24 Vict., c. -65. - -[681] _Rep. P. G._, 1892, p. 8; 1894, p.2; 1895, p. 4; 1901, p. 4. - -With an increase in the number of valuable articles carried by post and -better arrangements for their safe keeping, it was found possible to -reduce the registration fee from 11_d._ to 6_d._, then to 4_d._ and -eventually to 2_d._ At the time of the first reduction, a rule was -issued for the compulsory registration by the Post Office of all letters -unquestionably containing coin, for the sake of letter carriers and -others rather than the protection of the public. The Post Office did not -at the time of the first reduction hold itself responsible for the full -value of the contents of a lost registered letter but was accustomed to -remunerate the sender where the contents were proved, were of moderate -amount, and the fault clearly lay with the Post Office. In 1878 it -agreed to make good up to £2 the value of the contents of any registered -letter which it lost, stipulating in the case of money that it had been -sent securely and in one of its own envelopes. Compulsory registration -by the Post Office was also extended to include uncrossed cheques and -postal orders to which the name of the payee had not been appended.[682] - -[682] _Rep._ P. G., 1862, pp. 9-10; 1879, p. 13; 1897, p. 5. - -An inland parcel post was not established in England until 1883. An -initial rate of 3_d._ was imposed for the first pound, increasing by -increments of 3_d._ to 1_s._ for the seventh pound. Later the maximum -weight was increased to 11 pounds, the maximum charge to 1_s._ 6_d._ In -1905 a further reduction followed on parcels weighing more than four -pounds.[683] - -[683] _Ibid._, 1896, p. 3; 1882, p. 3; 1906, p. 1. - -The use of postcards was first permitted in England in 1870, a charge of -a halfpenny a dozen being made in addition to the stamp. In 1875 this -additional charge was increased to a penny a dozen for thin cards, 2_d._ -for stout cards. In 1899 these prices were reduced to a penny for ten -stout cards, a halfpenny for ten thin ones, and the latter began rapidly -to displace the former. Private post cards were first allowed to pass -through the post in 1894 for a halfpenny each, and two years later the -charge on unpaid inland post cards was reduced from 2_d._ to a -penny.[684] At the same time that the use of post cards was allowed, a -half penny post was introduced for certain classes of formal printed -documents.[685] - -[684] _Ibid._, 1896, p. 2; 1889, p. 2; 1897, p. 5; 1895, p. 18. - -[685] _Ibid._, 1903, p. 5. - -In 1884 the scale of postage applicable to inland letters between two -and twelve ounces in weight was continued without limit. The resulting -rates were as follows: for the first ounce, one penny; for two ounces, -1-1/2_d._; for all greater weights, a halfpenny for every two ounces -plus an initial penny. On the occasion of the sixtieth anniversary of -the late Queen's accession to the throne, further decreases were -announced in the postage on inland letters. The weight carried by the -initial penny was extended from one to four ounces, the postage for -heavier letters increasing as before at the rate of a halfpenny for each -additional two ounces.[686] - -[686] _Rep. P. G._, 1885, p. 14; 1898, pp. 1-2. - -The decrease in postage for inland matter was accompanied by lower rates -for colonial and foreign letters. Although the proposal of the Marquis -of Clanricarde to establish a definite shilling[687] rate for all -colonial letters was not immediately adopted, it was not long before -even lower rates were accepted. The Marquis' plan was communicated to -the Treasury Lords in 1850 purely on Imperial grounds, "to strengthen -the ties between the colonies and the mother country." Rates other than -those on letters were even then far from excessive. Newspapers, for -instance, often passed free or they were charged a penny each either in -England or the colony, but not in both. Parliamentary proceedings paid -but one penny, sometimes 2_d._ per quarter-pound, books 6_d._ per -half-pound. A few years later a 6_d._ letter rate was adopted for all -parts of the Empire except India, the Cape, Mauritius, and Van Diemen's -Land. In 1857 the 6_d._ rate per half-ounce was extended to all the -colonies and in 1868 to the United States. In the following year this -rate was lowered to 3_d._ for letters to the United States, Canada and -Prince Edward Island.[688] In 1890 this rate in the case of most of the -colonies, and some foreign countries, was still further reduced to -2-1/2_d._, partly no doubt on account of the crusade which Mr. Heaton -had undertaken for penny postage within the Empire.[689] In 1898 his -penny aspirations were realized for all the important colonies with the -exception of the Australasian and South African, and in 1905 these too -fell into line and were joined by Egypt and the Soudan.[690] In 1907, -the experiment was tried of charging the comparatively nominal sum of -one penny a pound on British newspapers, magazines, and trade journals -for Canada, duly registered for the purpose, when sent by direct -Canadian packet. This rate is less than the cost but the loss is -diminished by the fact that the Dominion Government relieves the British -Post Office of the whole cost of ocean transit by the Canadian -subsidized lines.[691] - -[687] Even at this time (1850) the shilling rate was the rule. - -[688] _Acc. & P._, 1852-53, xcv., 204, pp. 2-3; _Rep. P. G._, 1855, pp. -36-37; 1858, p. 20; _Rep. Com._, 1868-69, vi, p. iv; _Rep. P. G._, 1871, -app., p. 29; 1870, pp. 6-7. - -[689] _Ibid._, 1891, p. 6; app., p. 39. - -[690] _Ibid._, 1899, p. 7; 1906, p. 1. - -[691] _Rep. P. G._, 1907, pp. 4-5. - -In 1863 arrangements were made with the principal European countries for -a marked reduction in letter postage rates. With France a rate of 8_d._ -or 10_d._ for a quarter of an ounce, according to the country in which -the postage was paid, had existed. This was reduced to 4_d._ payable in -either country. With Italy and Spain the existing rates of 1_s._ 1_d._ -and 10_d._ respectively for a quarter of an ounce were reduced to 6_d._ -The Belgian sixpenny half-ounce rate was made 4_d._, and with the German -Postal Union the rate was reduced from 8_d._ to 6_d._ for a half-ounce -letter. In general these were prepaid rates.[692] The first Postal Union -meeting at Berne in 1874 reduced still further the old rates and -simplified the rules for the settlement of postal payments between the -subscribing nations. A uniform rate for prepaid letters of 2-1/2_d._ the -half ounce was agreed to, 5_d._ for an unpaid letter. Post cards were -charged at half the rate of a prepaid letter, newspapers a penny for -four ounces, printed papers (other than newspapers), books, legal and -commercial documents, and samples of merchandise a penny for two -ounces.[693] In 1891 the uniform letter rate existing among those -countries in Europe which were members of the Postal Union was extended, -so far as the United Kingdom was concerned, to all parts of the globe. -On the first of October, 1907, a further reduction was made when the -unit of weight for outward foreign and colonial letters was raised from -half an ounce to an ounce, and the charge on foreign letters for each -unit after the first was reduced from 2-1/2_d._ to 1-1/2_d._[694] - -[692] _Ibid._, 1864, p. 21; 1859, pp. 19-20. - -[693] _Ibid._, 1875, p. 13. - -[694] _Ibid._, 1892, p. 8; 1906, pp. 1-2. - -Shortly after acquiring the money order business from the managing -proprietors, the Post Office reduced the rates of commission to 3_d._ -for orders not exceeding £2 in value, and 6_d._ for orders above £2 but -not over £5, the latter sum being at that time the maximum. In 1862 the -issue of orders for larger sums was allowed at the following rates: -9_d._ when not in excess of £7, and 12_d._ between £7 and £10. On the -first day of May, 1871, a further reduction was made and the following -scale of charges announced: for sums under 10_s._, a penny; between -10_s._ and £1, 2_d._; between £1 and £2, 3_d._, and an additional penny -for each additional pound to the £10 limit. It was found, however, that -the low rate of a penny for small orders did not pay, and a decision was -reached to raise the rate for these small orders and provide a cheaper -means for their remittance by post. In pursuance of this policy the rate -for orders under 10_s._ was increased to 2_d._, for orders between -10_s._ and £1 to 3_d._, and in 1881 the following rates were announced -for postal notes: a halfpenny for notes of the value of 1_s._ and 1_s._ -6_d._; a penny for notes of the value of 2_s._ 6_d._, 5_s._ and 7_s._, -6_d._ and 2_d._ for notes costing 10_s._, 12_s._ 6_d._, 15_s._, 17_s._ -6_d._, and 20_s._ In 1884 a new series of postal orders was issued, the -12_s._ 6_d._ and 17_s._ 6_d._ notes being dropped and new notes issued -of the value of 2_s._, 3_s._, 3_s._ 6_d._, 4_s._, 4_s._ 6_d._, 10_s._ -6_d._ for a penny each and the rate on the 15_s._ and 20_s._ notes was -reduced to 1-1/2_d._ In 1903 still others were introduced with the -result that a postal order may now be obtained for every complete 6_d._ -from 6_d._ to 20_s._ and for 21_s._ and broken sums to the value of -5_d._ may be made up by affixing postage stamps. Finally, in 1905, the -poundage on postal notes for 2_s._ and 2_s._ 6_d._ was reduced from -1_d._ to a halfpenny, and on postal orders for 11_s._ to 15_s._ -inclusive from 1-1/2_d._ to 1_d._ In 1886 the money order rates were -reduced as follows:-- - _d._ - On sums not exceeding £1 2 - £2 3 - £4 4 - £7 5 - £10 6 - -These rates were in their turn altered as follows on February 1, 1897:-- - _d._ - For an order not exceeding £3 3 - Over £3 but not exceeding £10 4 - -Upon the representation of the Friendly Societies, which send a good -many small orders, these rates were changed in May of the same year to -the following:-- - _d._ - - For an order not exceeding £1 2 - exceeding £1 but not over £3 3 - exceeding £3 but not over £10 4 - -And finally in 1903 the maximum amount of a money order was raised from -£10 to £40 and the following rates established:[695]-- - _d._ - For sums not exceeding £1 2 - For sums above £1 but not exceeding £3 3 - £3 £10 4 - £10 £20 6 - £20 £30 8 - £30 £40 10 - -In addition to the reductions in rates which have been outlined above, -other changes have been made which have resulted in certain cases in a -saving to the transmitter of a money order. The charge for correcting or -altering the name of the remitter or payee of an inland order has been -reduced to the fixed sum of a penny. The fee payable for stopping -payment of an inland order was fixed at 4_d._, and this was made to -cover the issue of a new order if the request was made at the time of -stopping payment. A penny stamp need no longer be affixed to a money -order when payment is deferred and payment may be deferred for any -period not exceeding ten days.[696] - -[695] _Rep. P. G._, 1896, pp. 26-32; 1897, pp. 10-11; 1904, pp. 11-12; -1906, p. 1. - -[696] _Ibid._, 1897, pp. 10-11. - -The issue of telegraph money orders, commenced in 1889 as an experiment, -was in 1892 extended to all money order offices which were also -telegraph offices. The limit imposed was £10, the rates being - _d._ - On orders not exceeding £1 4 - £2 6 - £4 8 - £7 10 - £10 12 - -There was an additional charge of at least 9_d._ for the official -telegram, authorizing payment, which was sent in duplicate. When several -orders were sent at the same time and the total amount did not exceed -£50, only one official telegram was sent and paid for. The above rates -were lowered in 1897 to 4_d._ for sums not in excess of £3, and 6_d._ -for sums from £3 to £10 with a minimum charge of 6_d._ for the official -telegram of advice.[697] At the present time inland telegraph money -orders may be issued for the same amounts as ordinary inland money -orders and at the same rates, plus a fee of 2_d._ and the cost of the -official telegram. - -[697] _Rep. P. G._, 1896, pp. 30-32. - -During the Crimean War, the Army Post Office was authorized to issue -money orders at inland rates and the system was extended to Gibraltar -and Malta. In 1858 a proposition advanced by Canada for the interchange -of money orders was favourably received by the Home Government, and in -the following year provision was made for their issue between the United -Kingdom and Canada at four times the inland rates, to a limit of £5. In -1862 the system was extended to all the colonies, the rates being the -same as those already agreed upon with Canada except in the case of -Gibraltar and Malta where they were three times the inland rates, and -the maximum was increased to £10. In 1868 a money order convention was -concluded with Switzerland, the rates being the same as those for inland -orders, and in 1869 a similar agreement was made with Belgium, but in -1871 the rates for both countries were increased to three times the -inland rates upon the same terms as those prevailing with other parts of -Europe. In 1880 colonial rates were reduced to the same level, and in -1883 the following changes were adopted: - _d._ - On orders not exceeding £2 6 - £5 12 - £7 18 - £10 24 - -These were superseded in 1896 by the following rates:-- - _d._ - On orders not exceeding £2 6 - £6 12 - £10 18 - -By 1903 most foreign countries and some of the colonies had agreed to a -further reduction of rates and to a £40 limit. In 1905 the poundage on -foreign money orders not exceeding £1 in value was diminished from 4_d._ -to 3_d._[698] - -[698] _Rep. P. G._, 1896, pp. 28-30; 1897, pp. 10-11; 1904, p. 11; 1906, -p. 1. - -There is no record of the yearly expenses of the Government for the -maintenance of the posts until the accession of James I.[699] There are -many instances of the issue of warrants for the payment of the posts but -it is not known how long a period they were intended to cover.[700] -There was no systematic financial method in dealing with this phase of -the postal question. The postmen remained unpaid for years at a time. -After sufficient clamour, part of the arrears would be met, but it is -impossible to say how much of the sum paid was for current expenses and -how much for old debts.[701] It might be supposed from the fact that -they received fixed daily wages that some idea might be obtained of the -cost of management. But their wages often remained unpaid and the number -of postmen varied, as new routes were manned or old routes discontinued, -so that any figures for the period before the seventeenth century would -be mere guesses. - -[699] _Rep. Com._, 1844, xiv, app., p. 48 (25). - -[700] _L. & P. Hen. VIII_, ii, pp. 1444-51-53-57-58-60-62-63-66-72; _A. -P. C._, 1547-50, pp. 111, 278, 307, 319, 413; 1552-54, pp. 74, 137, 402. - -[701] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1623-25, pp. 55, 285; 1628-29, p. 184; 1629-31, -pp. 379, 440. - -Until 1626[702] our knowledge of the finances of the Post Office is -concerned with expenses only, for there was no product, gross or net, -for the state. In 1603, the cost of the posts was £4150 a year.[703] -This was the year of James the First's accession, and to this is -probably due the fact that payment was made for an entire year. Then -there comes a break of several years' duration. In 1621, arrears for the -half year ending March 31, 1619, were paid. They amounted to £917. For -the next two years the yearly expenses averaged £2984. The total -expenses for the financial year ending in March, 1621, were £3404. All -the posts to Berwick received 92_s._ a day, to Dover 17_s._ 6_d._, to -Holyhead 36_s._ 8_d._ and £130 a year for a sailing packet, to Plymouth -25_s._ a day. The wages for each postmaster varied from 1_s._ 8_d._ to -4_s._ 4_d._ a day. In addition there was an expenditure of £50 for -extraordinary posts and 5_s._ a day to the paymaster.[704] In 1625, the -ordinary expenses were about £4300 a year.[705] It is disappointing not -to be able to make any more definite statements concerning the financial -operations of the Post Office before 1635, but the unbusinesslike system -under which it was conducted must take the blame. - -[702] The proceeds from de Quester's rates, which went into effect from -this year, may possibly have gone to the Post Office. After Witherings' -rates were announced in 1635, they certainly did. - -[703] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1603-10, p. 9. - -[704] _Rep. Com._, 1844, xiv, app., p. 43 (21). - -[705] Hist. MSS. Com., _Rep._, 12, app., pt. 4, p. 472. - -Our ideas of the financial operations of the Post Office from 1635 to -1711 are somewhat clearer than during the preceding period. We know that -Witherings' aim was to make the system self-supporting. It had probably -not entered into his head that it might ever be anything more. After the -sequestration of the position of Postmaster-General to Burlamachi, he -was called upon to render an account of the financial proceedings of the -Post Office during the short period that he was in charge.[706] He -reported that from August 4, 1640, to December 25, 1641, the receipts -had been £8363 and the expenditure £4867. £1400 of the balance had been -paid to the Secretary of State and "of the remaining £2000, those that -keep the office are to be considered for their pains and attendance." -This is rather vague but the report shows that the Post Office was -self-supporting only six years after Witherings' reforms had been -adopted.[707] Prideaux reported at an early period in his régime that, -with the exception of the Dover road and the Holyhead packet, the posts -paid for themselves.[708] After the Post Office was farmed, there can be -no doubt as to the total net revenue, but it is impossible to say how -much the farmer made over and above the amount of his farm or how large -his expenses were. Manley paid the state £10,000 a year and is said to -have made £14,000 during the six years that he farmed the Posts.[709] In -1659 the rent was raised to £14,000[710] a year, and in 1660 there was a -further advance to £21,500.[711] Of this £21,500 the Duke of York -received £16,117 and the rest was spent largely in paying pensions and -for a few minor expenses such as the payment of the Court -Postmaster.[712] By the act of 1663, the net Post Office revenue was -settled upon the Duke of York and his male heirs, with the exception of -about £5000 a year, that being the amount of the pension charges on the -revenue.[713] Certain deductions were made from the sum total of rent -due, on account of the loss to the farmer from the activity of the -interlopers, and the deficit was ordered to be made up from some other -branch of the royal revenue.[714] - -[706] _Cal. T. P._, 1697-1702, p. 289. - -[707] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1641-43, p. 213. - -[708] _Jo. H. C._, 1648-51, p. 385. - -[709] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1653-54, p. 365. - -[710] Hist. MSS. Com., _Rep._, 15, app., pt. 1, p. 97. - -[711] _Rep. Com._, 1844, xiv, app., p. 76 (53). - -[712] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1661-62, pp. 122, 245. - -[713] 15 Chas. II, c. 14. - -[714] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1663-64, p. 598. - -After James II took his involuntary departure from England, his -pecuniary interest in the Post Office ceased. In 1690, an act of -Parliament was passed, making the receipts from the Post Office payable -into the Exchequer. They were to be used among other things to pay the -interest on £250,000 borrowed to carry on the war.[715] From 1690 to -1710, the gross receipts rose from about £70,000 to £90,000 a year, no -consideration being taken of the ups and downs caused by the French -wars.[716] Complaint was made by the Lords that a large part of the -postal revenue was wasted in paying pensions.[717] The Duchess of -Cleveland received £4700 a year and William's Dutch General, the Duke of -Schomberg, £4000 a year. Poor William Dockwra, the only one of the lot -who had ever done anything for the Post Office, was at the end of the -list with only £500 a year, terminable in 1697.[718] The sum total of -money payable in pensions from the post revenue in 1695 was £21,200. The -packet boats at the same time cost £13,000, and but £10,000 was spent -for salaries and wages. The net revenue in 1694 was £59,972, the gross -being about £88,000.[719] - -[715] Hist. MSS. Com., _Rep._, 13, app., pt. 5, p. 81. - -[716] Hist. MSS. Com., _Rep._, 13, app., pt. 5, p. 362. - -[717] Hist. MSS. Com., _Rep._, 13, app., pt. 5, p. 406. - -[718] Hist. MSS. Com., _House of Lords_, i, pp. 84-87. - -[719] _Rep. Com._, 1844, xiv, app., p. 93 (66). - -During the eighteenth century the postal revenue still continued to be -burdened with the pensions of favourites, deserving and undeserving. -Queen Anne asked Parliament to settle £5000 a year upon the Duke of -Marlborough and his heirs. The House of Commons replied that they very -much regretted that they could not do so for the Post Office was -already paying too much in pensions. Probably the real reason for their -refusal was the fact that the Duke and the war party were becoming -unpopular. However, the Queen granted him the pension for her own life -as she had a legal right to do. In 1713, the total amount of pensions -payable from the postal revenue was £22,120. Before the act of 1711 was -passed, the Scotch Office had paid £210 to each of the Universities of -Edinburgh and Glasgow. This continued to be granted after the two -Offices were united.[720] - -[720] _Cal. T. P._, 1708-14, p. 20. - -Our knowledge of the financial operations of the Post Office during the -eighteenth century is much more extensive than during the seventeenth, -owing to the reports made by the Post Office officials to the -Parliamentary committees, appointed to enquire into abuses. The reports -are all signed by the Accountant-General or his deputy, and are -therefore as trustworthy as anything which can be obtained. They show -that during the first half of the century, or more explicitly from 1717 -to 1754, there was a very small annual increase in gross product, with -an actual decrease in net product, and of course an increase in -expenditure. In round numbers the average yearly gross product for the -years 1725-29 was £179,000, the net product for the same period being -£98,000 and the expenses of management £81,000. For the five years from -1750 to 1754, the average annual gross product was £207,000, net product -£97,000, and expenses £110,000. It is not surprising that there was no -increase worthy of the name in the gross product, for the period under -consideration was a time of stagnation, an intermediate stage just -before the dawn of the industrial revolution. The actual decrease in net -product or, what amounts to the same thing, the increase in expenses of -management, is due largely to the abuse of the franking privilege, the -large amounts received in fees and emoluments, the extraordinary way in -which the packet service was mismanaged, and the losses and increased -expense due to war. Enough has been said about all but the last of these -causes. The Post Office suffered most during war from increased expenses -and direct losses in connection with the sailing packets. The placing of -these upon a war footing involved considerable increased cost. In the -second place, extra boats were used for political purposes in addition -to those regularly employed, and it was customary for the Post Office to -make good to the owners all damages inflicted by the enemy. From 1725 to -1739, the expenses of the Post Office averaged £80,000 or £90,000 a -year. Then came the War of the Austrian Succession, when the expenses -averaged £105,000 per year from 1745 to 1749. The five following years -being a period of peace, the average annual expenses were £110,000, -while the Seven Years' War brought them up to £147,000. It may be -thought that expenses should become normal again when war has ceased, -but it has generally proved to be the rule that although peace brings a -decrease, yet the expenditure does not fall quite so low as before the -war. - -From 1755 to the end of the century there is a marked rise both in gross -and net receipts and a comparative diminution in expenses. The gross -average annual product from 1755 to 1759 was £228,000, from 1790 to 1794 -it was £602,000. For the five years from 1755 to 1759 the average yearly -net product was £81,000, from 1790 to 1794 it was £375,000, while -expenses had risen for the same periods only from £147,000 to £227,000. -The following table shows the average yearly increase or decrease in -gross product, expenses, and net products for the six five-year periods -from 1765 to 1794. The increases or decreases are given in the form of -percentages, each five-year period being compared with the preceding -period.[721] - - _Gross product_ _Expenses_ _Net product_ - 1765-69 17% increase 22% decrease 76% increase - 1770-74 11 " 27 increase unchanged - 1775-79 12 " 30 " " - 1780-84 19 " 37 " " - 1785-89[722] 21 " 21 decrease 90% increase - 1790-94 24 " 14 increase 30% " - -[721] For the gross product, net product, and expenses for each year, -see Appendix, pp. 243, 244, 245, Tables I, II. - -[722] Rates were increased in 1784. - -The net product from both the Scotch and Irish Posts was remitted to -England. These receipts did not amount to much as compared with those -from the English Post. Earl Temple, Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, in -writing to Grenville in 1784, said that the Irish post "had never paid -£8000 a year clear of expenses."[723] In 1796, the gross product was -£26,949 and the expenses of management £8718. Of the net product, £6651 -were retained, being placed to the credit of Great Britain for returned -and missent letters and for the £4000 which the Irish Post was entitled -to receive in lieu of the receipts from the Holyhead packet boats. The -remaining £11,579 were sent to the general Post Office. The Scotch Posts -did considerably better. The gross product in 1796 was £69,338, the -expenses of management £14,346, for returned letters £1206, and the net -product sent to the General Office was £54,265. - -[723] Hist. MSS. Com., _Dropmore_, i, p. 179. - -The time had long since passed when the London-Dover road was the most -important in the kingdom and when the receipts from foreign exceeded -those from inland letters. As late as 1653, when contracts were called -for from those wishing to farm the posts, the amount offered in one -instance was almost as great for the foreign as for the inland post. The -average annual gross product from the foreign post for the period -1785-89 was £61,431, the expenses £32,169 and the net product £29,262. -For the period from 1790 to 1794 there was a small increase to £65,497 -for gross product, £34,277 for expenses, and £31,200 for net -product.[724] - -[724] _Parl. Papers_, 1812-13, _Rep. Com._, ii, 222, p. 93. - -The receipts from the London Penny Post were never an important factor -in postal finance but it had always paid for itself and given a -reasonable surplus. Its importance was due more to its social value in -affording a cheaper letter rate and a speedier postal service than the -General Post. The average yearly gross product from 1785-94 was £10,508, -expenses £5177, and net product £5331. After Johnson had improved it so -much, it produced a yearly average gross product from 1795 to 1797 of -£26,283. Expenses averaged £18,960 and net product £7323. - -In the seventeenth century the receipts from bye and cross post letters -amounted to very little. So little was expected from them that no -provision was made for checking the postage on them. It was taken for -granted that all letters would pass to, from, or through London. In 1720 -they brought in only £3700. Allen had done much to increase the -revenue, but it was not until the last part of the eighteenth century -that the increase was at all marked. From 1780 to 1784, the average -annual gross product was £77,911, expenses £12,346 and net product -£65,565. From 1785 to 1789, these had increased respectively to -£104,817, £11,589, and £93,228, and from 1790 to 1794 to £140,974, -£15,030, and £125,944. The small expense for these letters is explained -by the fact that the separate department for bye and cross post letters -was debited with only a portion of the total cost, the larger part being -carried by the general establishment.[725] - -[725] _Parl. Papers_, 1812-13, _Rep. Com._, ii, 222, p. 91. - -The financial history of the Post Office from the beginning of the -nineteenth century to 1838 is a rather depressing record.[726] From 1805 -until 1820 both the gross and net receipts had increased steadily -although not rapidly, but for the remainder of the period the revenue -was practically stationary. During the five-year periods, 1820-24 and -1830-34, there had been a decrease in gross receipts, and during the -latter of these periods the net receipts had been kept a little ahead of -the five-year period 1815-19 only by a decrease in expenditure. - -[726] See Appendix, p. 246, Table III; p. 247, Table IV. - -The annual gross receipts from Scotland had increased from £117,108 -during the period 1800-04 to £204,481 during the period 1830-34, the -annual net receipts for the same periods being £98,156 and £149,752. The -relatively large increase in expenses from £18,952 to £54,729 had been -due largely to the payment of mail coach tolls after 1814, amounting to -something under £20,000 a year.[727] Ireland started with a smaller -gross revenue, £92,745 a year during the period 1800-04, but a larger -annual expenditure £64,368,[728] and comparatively small net receipts of -£28,377. Gross receipts, expenses, and net receipts had increased slowly -throughout the first thirty-four years of the nineteenth century with -the exception of the period 1820-24. For the five years from 1830 to -1834 inclusive they amounted to £244,098, £108,898, and £135,200 -respectively.[729] - -[727] See Appendix, p. 248, Table V. - -[728] Ireland had paid for mail coach tolls from the first and this -partly explains the relatively high expenditure. - -[729] See Appendix, p. 248, Table V. - -The increases in rates in 1801, 1805, and 1812 had not produced the -desired and expected results. The increase in 1801 had been estimated to -produce £150,000 but results showed that this estimate was too large by -£35,000. In 1805, the additional penny had resulted in an increase of -only £136,000, inclusive of any natural increase of revenue, although it -had been estimated to produce £230,000. The third increase in rates in -1812 proved even less productive. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said -that he expected it to produce £200,000. As a matter of fact the revenue -increased only £77,892 in amount. The fact of the matter was that rates -were already so high that an increase only led to greater efforts to -evade the payment of postage. As a system of taxation the Post Office -had become rigid. It could yield no more with postage as high as it had -been forced by the acts of 1801 and 1805. But, considered primarily as a -taxing medium, and it had been considered as such for 200 years, it -could hardly be called a failure. We flatter ourselves that our idea of -the Post Office is broader in its scope and more utilitarian in its -object but we have the good fortune to live several generations after -1840. What England demanded was revenue and still more revenue, and a -postal system which could produce £70 net for every £100 collected had -some excuse for its existence. - -Rowland Hill has pointed out that from 1815 to 1835 the population had -increased from 19,552,000 to 25,605,000 while the net revenue from the -Post Office had remained practically stationary. He said nothing, -however, about the industrial depression of the country during that -period nor of the political and economic crisis through which England -was passing. He referred to the great increase in the postal revenue of -the United States during the same period; on the one hand, a nation with -immense natural resources and a population doubling itself every -generation, and on the other hand, a people inhabiting two small -islands, making heroic efforts to recover from a most burdensome war. - -With the introduction of penny postage the gross revenue of the Post -Office fell from £2,390,763 in 1840 to £1,359,466 in 1841, and did not -fully recover from the decreased postage rates for twelve years. The -cost of management, on the other hand, increased only from £756,999 in -1840 to £858,677 in 1841. But the financial loss is shown most plainly -in the falling off in net revenue from £1,633,764 to £500,789. If we -exclude packet expenses, and such was the practice until 1858, the net -revenue did not again reach the maximum figure of high postage days -until 1862. Including packet expenses we find that the net revenue did -not fully recover until the early seventies. The average yearly gross -revenue for the period from 1841-45 was £1,658,214, expenditure -£1,001,405, and the net revenue £656,809. These all increased steadily -and on the whole proportionately until 1860, the average yearly figures -for the preceding five years being £3,135,587, £1,785,911, and -£1,349,676. In 1858 the packet expenses are included under cost of -management and their enormous increase from the beginning of the century -sadly depleted the net revenue. It seems more advisable, however, not to -include them until 1860 when the packets passed from the control of the -Admiralty to that of the Post Office. The average gross revenue for the -years 1861 to 1865 was £4,016,750, expenditure (including packets) -£3,013,389, and net revenue £1,003,341. During the next quarter of a -century these increased to £6,326,141, £4,019,423, and £2,306,718 -respectively, exclusive of telegraph receipts and expenditures. For the -five years ending 31st March, 1906, the average gross revenue was -£15,926,905, expenditure £11,156,292, and net revenue £4,770,613.[730] - -[730] See Appendix, pp. 249, 250, 251, Table VI; p. 252, Table VII. - - - - -CHAPTER IX - -THE QUESTION OF MONOPOLY - - -The question of the state's monopoly and the opposing efforts of the -interlopers to break this monopoly resolves itself into a consideration -of the way in which private letters were carried, for the public letters -were entirely at the disposal of the state to be dealt with as it saw -fit. From the sixteenth century there were several ways in which private -letters might be conveyed. Within the kingdom they might be sent by the -common carriers, friends, special messengers, or the Royal Posts. -Letters sent abroad were carried by the Royal Posts, the Merchant -Adventurers' Posts, the Strangers' Posts, and the Merchants' Posts while -they lasted. The fact that private letters were conveyed by the Royal -Posts is generally expressed in rather indefinite terms or by references -to proclamations, but that they were actually so conveyed is entirely -beyond doubt.[731] In 1585 a certain Mr. Lewkenor informed Walsingham -that the post just landed had brought many letters directed to -merchants, besides those for the Court and Government. He asked whether -he might open those letters which were directed to suspected -merchants.[732] This reference is of course to letters coming from -abroad. The same holds true of inland letters, for in 1583 Randolph, the -Postmaster-General, wrote to Walsingham, enclosing the names of those -"who charge the posts with their private letters and commissions at a -penny the mile."[733] - -[731] G. Roberts, _Social History of the Southern Counties of England_, -1856, p. 508; Joyce, p. 4. - -[732] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1581-90, p. 131. - -[733] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1581-90, p. 228; 1598-1601, p. 427; _Rep. Com._, -1844, xiv, 601, p. 4. - -In 1591 the first proclamation affirming the government monopoly in the -foreign posts was issued. All persons except the Postmaster-General and -his deputies were forbidden "directly or indirectly to gather up, -receive, bring in or carry out of this realm any letters or packets," -the only exceptions being in the case of the despatches of the -principal Secretaries of State, of Ambassadors, and others sufficiently -authorized. An appendix to the same proclamation commanded all mayors, -bailiffs, sheriffs, justices, etc., and especially all searchers to be -on the watch for men coming into or going out of the realm with packets -or letters. In this last part of the proclamation we can see why it was -thought necessary to restrict the carriage of letters to and from -foreign countries to the Royal Posts. It was done that the Government -might be able to discover any treasonable or seditious correspondence. -This did not always remain the object of the state in restricting -competition but was succeeded later by other and different motives. In -order that there might be no doubt about the whole question, the -Postmaster-General received word from the Council to inform the London -merchants, foreigners as well as British subjects and all others whom it -might concern, that they should no longer employ any others to carry -their letters than those legally appointed in accordance with the terms -of the proclamation.[734] - -[734] _Rep. Com._, 1844, xiv, 601, p. 4; app., p. 36 (14). - -In 1602 the first order concerning the despatch of private letters -within the kingdom was issued to the Royal Posts. "The Posts for the -Queen's immediate service"[735] were allowed to carry only state -despatches, directed by members of the council, the Postmaster-General -and certain officials. Such despatches when sent by the regular posts -were to be forwarded immediately. The letters of all other persons -allowed to write by post must wait for the regular departure of the -postmen. In the orders to the posts issued in 1609, the first article -reads as follows: "No pacquets or letters shall be sent by the Posts or -bind any Post to ride therewith but those on Our special affairs."[736] -The first part of this is certainly strong but it is modified by the -succeeding clause "nor bind any Post to ride therewith." Evidently he -might if he wished, and he would probably hesitate longer over a state -packet for the conveyance of which he was never assured of anything than -over a private letter for which he was certain of his pay. - -[735] By "Posts for the Queen's immediate service" was probably meant -the special messengers attached to the Court. - -[736] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1547-65, pp. 215-77; _Rep. Com._, 1844, xiv, 601, -app., p. 42 (20). - -It was the custom after 1609 to follow the appointment of every new -Postmaster-General with a proclamation assigning him and his deputies -the sole privilege of carrying all letters and reading anathema upon all -interlopers.[737] Thus King James favoured Stanhope, his -Postmaster-General, with a grant of monopoly.[738] On de Quester's -appointment as Foreign Postmaster-General a proclamation was issued, -forbidding any but his agents from having anything to do with foreign -letters.[739] In spite of the improvements which he inaugurated, we find -him asking the King a few years later to renew his patent of monopoly -and his request was granted.[740] He was evidently suffering from -competition. But the Merchant Adventurers' Posts were not yet dead and -their Postmaster, Billingsley, abetted by the House of Commons,[741] -gave de Quester so much trouble that he was imprisoned by the Council's -order.[742] - -[737] Letters carried by a friend or special messenger or a common -carrier were excepted. - -[738] _Rep. Com._, 1844, xiv, 601, app., p. 42 (20). - -[739] _Ibid._, 1591-94, p. 401. - -[740] _Ibid._, 1627-28, pp. 511-22. - -[741] The House had already shown its interest in postal affairs by -summoning postmasters before the Committee of Grievances in 1624 (_Jo. -H. C._, 1547-1628, pp. 689-774). - -[742] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1628-29, p. 177. - -In the meantime the postmen on the London-Plymouth road had petitioned -the Council that they alone should carry the letters and despatches of -the merchants over their road. They said they had so improved the -service between London and Plymouth that letters were now despatched -between the two cities in three days and an answer might be received -within one week from the time of first writing. Their complaint was -against a certain Samuel Jude, who had undertaken the conveyance of the -London merchants' letters. Jude himself acknowledged this, but said that -he had never meddled with the "through" post by which he meant the -travellers' post.[743] - -[743] _Ibid._, 1625-49, p. 367; 1629-31, p. 200. - -So long as the Royal Posts did not give satisfaction, competition was -inevitable. Under Witherings they had improved so much that what -competition there was, received no support from the London merchants. In -1633 they addressed a petition to the King, praying that he would -protect Witherings from some strangers in London, who had set up posts -of their own. They pointed out how he, acting with some foreign -postmasters, had set up packet posts, travelling day and night. By means -of these, letters were conveyed between London and Antwerp in three -days, while the messengers needed from eight to fourteen days to travel -the same distance.[744] The common carriers were giving trouble in the -despatch of inland letters at the same time that competition in the -foreign posts was attracting attention.[745] It was their custom to send -their carts on ahead while they lingered to collect letters. After the -collection they hastened on, leaving their carts behind, and delivered -the letters on the way. It was provided that no carrier should stay -longer than eight hours in a place after his cart had left it, or arrive -in any place eight hours ahead of it.[746] As long as their speed was -governed by that of their lumbering carts over the wretched roads, no -fear was felt that their competition would prove troublesome. - -[744] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1633-34, p. 39. - -[745] _Ibid._, 1637-38, pp. 22, 171, 177, 183. - -[746] _Ibid._, 1637-38, p. 193; _Rep. Com._, 1844, xiv, 601, app., p. 58 -(37). - -With the growing strength of Parliament, more and more opposition was -made to the grants of monopoly and their enforcement. In 1642 the House -of Commons passed a resolution "affirming that the taking of the letters -from the several carriers and the several restraints and imprisonments -of Grover, Chapman, Cotton, and Mackerill are against the law." The -House proceeded to state that these several persons should have -reparation and damages from Coke, Windebank, and Witherings.[747] Four -years later a report was made by Justices Pheasant and Rolls on -Witherings' patent.[748] They held that the clause of restraint in the -grant to Witherings was void.[749] This decision was quite in accordance -with the views of Parliament when they opposed the King and all his -works. But after Parliament had obtained control of the Posts, "the -President and Governors of the Poor of the City of London" proposed to -the Common Council that the City should establish a postal system in -order to raise money for the relief of the poor in London. A committee -was appointed to inform Warwick, Prideaux, and Witherings of their -intention. At the same time an attempt to lay a petition before -Parliament on the question failed. Counsel's advice was sought and -obtained in favour of the undertaking and in 1650 the Committee received -orders to settle the stages. At the end of six weeks they had -established postal communications with Scotland and other places. -Complaint was made to Parliament, and the Commons passed a resolution -"that the office of Postmaster, inland and foreign, is and ought to be -in the sole power and disposal of the Parliament." The same year the -city posts were suppressed.[750] - -[747] _Jo. H. C._, 1640-42, p. 722. - -[748] These were the same judges who had decided in favour of Stanhope's -patent in Stanhope _v._ Witherings. - -[749] _Rep. Com._, 1844, xiv, 601, app., p. 67 (42). - -[750] Chas. Knight, _London_, 1842, iii, p. 276; R. R. Sharpe, _London -and the Kingdom_, 1894, pp. 322-23. - -Oxenbridge and his friends who had set up posts of their own gave -Prideaux and Manley the hardest fight that any Postmaster-General ever -had to encounter from interlopers. Joyce says that Oxenbridge had acted -as Prideaux' deputy.[751] If this is so, he was soon up in arms against -his superior. In accordance with the judicial decision that the clause -in Witherings' patent giving him a monopoly of the carriage of letters -was void, Oxenbridge, Blackwall, Thomson, and Malyn had undertaken the -private conveyance of letters and had set up posts of their own. -Prideaux had charged 6_d._ for each letter and had organized weekly -posts from and to London. Oxenbridge charged only 3_d._ and his posts -went from and to London three times a week. Prideaux then did the same -and set up posters announcing that the interlopers' posts would be -stopped. His agents assaulted Oxenbridge's servants and killed one of -them. He also stopped his rival's mails on Sundays but allowed his own -to proceed as on other days. In addition to his regular tri-weekly -mails, Oxenbridge provided packet boats for Ireland and intended to -settle stages between London and Yarmouth and the other places named by -the Council of State.[752] To proceed in Oxenbridge's own words: -"Suddenly contracts were called for. We offered £9100 a year through Ben -Andrews, £800 more than was offered by Manley, yet Colonel Rich allowed -Manley to take advantage of an offer made by Kendall then absent and not -privy to it for £10,000 a year. Consideration had been offered by -Council, but Manley had broken into our offices, taken letters, and had -forbidden us from having anything to do with the post." An order of the -Council of State, bearing the same date as the grant to Manley, was sent -to Oxenbridge and his friends, informing them that Manley had been given -the sole right to the inland and foreign letter offices.[753] This did -not end the controversy, for six months later we find Oxenbridge and -Thomson complaining that a monopoly in carrying letters had been given -to Manley. They claimed that all who wished should be allowed to carry -letters at the ordinary rates.[754] - -[751] Joyce, p. 29. - -[752] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1653-54, pp. 22-24, 372. See p. 33, note. - -[753] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1652-53, p. 456. - -[754] _Ibid._, 1653-54, p. 372. - -Of all the interlopers up to the middle of the seventeenth century, -Oxenbridge had proved himself by far the ablest. From the point of view -of the legal decision of 1646 and the position of Parliament before -1640, his position was unassailable. With the present policy of the Post -Office in view, his actions will probably be condemned by the majority. -But in 1650 conditions were entirely different. Before 1635 the state -had either tacitly allowed the carriage of private letters to the profit -of the postmen or had officially taken over such carriage; but in this -case it was largely for the purpose of keeping in touch with the plots -of the times. For 200 years after 1635 the idea was to make money from -the conveyance of private letters. The effects of Oxenbridge's efforts -were certainly beneficial if we are to believe his own story. Prideaux -had been forced to cut his rates in half in order to meet competition. -The credit for this must lie with the interloper rather than with the -monopolist. - -At the same time that Oxenbridge was giving so much trouble, letters -were being carried by private hands in Bury, Dover, and Norwich. The -offenders were summoned before the council for contempt and severely -reprimanded.[755] Petitions came from Thetford and Norwich complaining -that their messenger had been summoned to present himself before the -Council within twenty-four hours and had to travel 100 miles within that -time, an impossibility in the opinion of the petitioners.[756] As late -as 1635, Prideaux, the Attorney-General, gave his opinion that -Parliament's monopolistic resolution of that year affected only the -office of Postmaster-General and not the carrying of letters.[757] -Perhaps this was only a bit of spite on his part after Manley had -succeeded to his old position. - -[755] _Ibid._, 1653-54, p. 177. - -[756] _Ibid._, 1653-54, p. 25. - -[757] _Ibid._, 1652-53, pp. 109-110. - -The usual monopolistic powers, hitherto granted by proclamation, were -embodied in the first act of Parliament, establishing the postal system -for England, Ireland, and Scotland in 1657. The Postmaster-General was -given the sole power to take up, carry and convey all letters and -packets from and to all parts of the Commonwealth and to any place -beyond the seas where he might establish posts. He alone was to employ -foot posts, horse posts, and packet boats. Some exceptions were made to -these general rules. Letters were allowed to be conveyed by carriers so -long as they were carried in their carts or on their pack-horses. The -other exceptions were in the case of letters of advice sent by merchants -in their ships and proceeding no farther than the ships themselves, and -also in the case of a letter sent by a special messenger on the affairs -of the sender, and in the case of a letter sent by a friend. Penalties -were attached for disobedience to this part of the act, one half of the -fine to go to the informer.[758] The same provisions were enacted almost -word for word in the act of 1660, with the addition that letters might -be carried by any one between any place and the nearest post road for -delivery to the postman.[759] - -[758] Scobell, _Collect._, pt. ii, pp. 511-13. - -[759] 12 Ch. II, c. 35. - -After the restoration and for some months before the act of 1660 was -passed, Bishop had acted as farmer of the posts. In the absence of any -law on the subject, the King's proclamation granting a monopoly[760] to -Bishop was freely disregarded.[761] Competing posts to and from London -sprang up, lessening the receipts which he would otherwise have obtained -from the carriage of letters. It was calculated that during the three -months before these interlopers could be suppressed Bishop lost £500 -through them, and orders were given to allow him an abatement in his -rent to that amount.[762] - -[760] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1660-61, p. 475. - -[761] In 1659 a book was published by John Hill, entitled _A Penny -Post--A vindication of the Liberty of every Englishman in carrying -merchants' and other men's letters against any restraints of farmers of -such employments_ (_Notes and Queries_, 6th ser., xi, p. 37). - -[762] _Rep. Com._, 1844, xiv, 601, app., p. 82 (57). - -In 1663 a certain Thomas Ibson attempted to come to an agreement with -the postmasters on the Holyhead road. He wished to have the privilege -of horsing travellers and made an offer to the postmasters to take -charge of the post houses if they would allow him to proceed. He told -them that they should make an attempt to have their salaries restored to -their old value by Bishop, who had raised so much from them by fines and -lowering their salaries. The Postmaster-General told his deputies that -if they dared to treat with the "would-be" interloper he would dismiss -them, and the whole thing fell through.[763] At the same time a warrant -was issued by the Council to mayors and other officials to search for -and apprehend all persons carrying letters for hire, without licence -from the Postmaster-General.[764] Nevertheless interloping did not -cease, as is shown by the complaints from the postmasters.[765] - -[763] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1663-64, pp. 8, 18. - -[764] _Ibid._, 1663-64, p. 145. - -[765] _Ibid._, 1663-64, p. 402. - -In the proclamation following the appointment of O'Neale as -Postmaster-General in 1663, it was ordered that no one should dare to -detain or open a letter not addressed to himself unless under a warrant -from one of the Secretaries of State. An exception was made in the case -of letters carried by unauthorized persons. Such letters should be -seized and sent to the Privy Council. In later proclamations it was -provided that they might be sent also to one of the Secretaries of State -in order that the persons sending or conveying them might be -punished.[766] - -[766] _Rep. Com._, 1844, xiv, 601, app., p. 88 (61). - -After Lord Arlington's appointment as Postmaster-General, he addressed a -petition to the Duke of York complaining "that carriers, proprietors of -stage coaches and others take upon themselves to collect letters to an -incredible number and on some stages double what the post brings." On -account of this he pointed out to His Royal Highness that a considerable -part of his revenue was lost. This was quite true since the Post Office -had ceased to be farmed and the whole net revenue went to the Duke.[767] -This was followed the same year by a proclamation forbidding any one to -collect or carry letters without the authority of the -Postmasters-General. Carriers were forbidden to convey any letters which -were not on matters relating to goods in their carts. Shipmasters must -carry no letters beyond the first stage after their arrival in England -with the exception of the letters of merchants and owners. Searchers -were appointed to see that the proclamation was enforced.[768] It was -even proposed to suppress all hackney coaches, the principal reason -given being that they decreased the value of the Duke's monopoly by -carrying multitudes of letters.[769] - -[767] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1668-69, p. 285. - -[768] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1668-69, p. 376. - -[769] _Ibid._, 1672-73, p. 64. - -It is a curious and interesting fact that for a short time London had a -Half Penny Post, established in 1708 by a Mr. Povey in opposition to the -regular Penny Post. The idea was much the same as that of Dockwra's -although Povey seems to have been a far more belligerent individual than -his forerunner in the work. The Postmasters-General tried to come to -some compromise with him but he would not listen to them. Finally legal -action was brought against him, based on the monopoly granted by the act -of 1660. Povey lost the suit and his project fell through.[770] His was -the last attempt to organize a regular system of competing posts. During -the remainder of the eighteenth century, improvements in postal -communications disarmed much of the former opposition. Considerable -damage was received from the superior speed with which letters might be -sent by coaches but, after they were adopted by the Post Office, matters -naturally adjusted themselves. Private vessels continued to convey -letters which had not paid the rates prescribed in such cases by the act -of 1711, but this breach of the law was tolerated by the Post -Office.[771] - -[770] Knight, _London_, 1842, iii, p. 282; Joyce, pp. 121-23. - -[771] Joyce, p. 329. - -Before the nineteenth century, opposition to the government monopoly had -taken the form of competing systems of communication, started primarily -for the sake of making money and at the same time vindicating the -principle of competition. During the first forty years of the nineteenth -century there was no opposition to the Post Office as a monopoly. The -widespread dissatisfaction was due to the exorbitant rates of postage -and this dissatisfaction expressed itself in attempts to evade these -rates but, with the exception of individual messengers and carriers, -there was no competing system of postal communication established. -Opposition took the form of evasion of postage payments by legal and -illegal means. The various exceptions to the government monopoly -continued unchanged[772] until still further modified in 1837. The -additional modifications were in the case of commissions and returns, -affidavits, writs and legal proceedings, and letters sent out of the -United Kingdom by private vessels.[773] The penalty for infringing upon -the postal monopoly was placed at £5 for every offence or £100 a week if -the offence was continued.[774] - -[772] 9 Anne, c. 10; 42 Geo. III, c. 81; 46 Geo. III, c. 92; 53 Geo. -III, c. 58; 5 Geo. IV, c. 20. - -[773] 7 Wm. IV and 1 Vict., c. 33. - -[774] 7 Wm. IV and 1 Vict., c. 36. - -During the official postal year from July 1831 to July 1832, there were -133 successful prosecutions for illegally sending and conveying letters. -The fines collected amounted to £1635, the costs paid by defendants to -£1085. The prosecutions were generally for a few letters only and the -great majority of the cases were brought in Manchester. In the case of -forty-one additional actions, the Postmaster-General did not enforce the -penalties, certain explanations having been given.[775] Rowland Hill -thought that the conveyance of letters by private and unauthorized -people was very widespread and the Solicitor of the Post Office agreed -with him.[776] - -[775] _Acc. & P._, 1834, xlix, 19, pp. 2-7. - -[776] _Rep. Com._, 1837-38, xx, pt. 1, pp. 17, 23. - -The reports of the Committee appointed to enquire into the condition of -the Post Office and to hear the opinions of officials and the public -concerning the introduction of Penny Postage disclosed an amazing state -of affairs. The opinion that evasion of postage was more or less general -had been held by the public for some time as well as by a few of the -Post Office officials[777] but, after the evidence upon the question was -published, there was no longer any doubt that the views of the public -were correct. Some difficulty had been anticipated that men who had -violated the law of the land would prefer not to confess their misdeeds -before a Parliamentary Committee. They were accordingly assured that any -evidence given would not be used against them, and the names of some -were expressed by letters only, when the reports were published. - -[777] _Ibid._, 1837-38, xx, questions 234, 2883, 4692, 10870-74; rep. 1, -app., pp. 427, 431, 433; rep. 2, p. 32. - -The means by which postage rates were evaded may be conveniently grouped -under two main heads, legal and illegal. The most common methods of -evading postage in whole or in part by legal means were:-- - -By the use of Parliamentary and Official franks.[778] -By enclosing invoices and other communications in goods.[779] -By the use of codes and signals expressed by sending -particular newspapers or, when something in the nature -of news or reports was to be communicated to many, an -advertisement or report was printed in a newspaper and -the newspapers were sent.[780] -By means of a letter or package sent to a mercantile house -with many letters on one sheet of paper for other people. -These were delivered by messengers. Money was sometimes -sent in the same way.[781] - -[778] _Rep. Com._, 1837-38, xx, qs. 3452, 3754-56, 4330-33, 4152, 6059, -6204, 6971, 8051, 9122-30, 10481, 5486-92-95, 4934-45, 5536, 3953, -6174-87. By this means Dr. Dionysius Lardner sent and received the -greater part of an extensive literary correspondence (qs. 5487-96). - -[779] _Ibid._, 1837-38, xx, qs. 3206-07, 3368-69, 3516-45, 3872, 4080, -4116-17, 4906, 5434, 6895, 7740, 7742-50, 7242-48. - -[780] _Ibid._, 1837-38, xx, qs. 3923, 6683, 7419-23. - -[781] _Ibid._, qs. 3212-13, 3924-28, 3377-81, 3879-82, 4504, 6928, -7867-82, 5613-18, 4074, 4873-90, 3520, 7327. - -Many factors in Ireland had circulars printed, which went free, as -newspapers. Their correspondents were distinguished by numbers and -opposite the numbers were printed the communications for each particular -person.[782] - -[782] _Ibid._, rep. 1, 9, p. 427. - -The majority of letters which paid no postage or only partial postage -were sent illegally, most of them by carriers. "A. B." said that in 1836 -his mercantile house sent 2068 letters by post and 5861 by other means, -principally by carriers, for one penny each.[783] "C. D." testified that -carriers called once or twice a day at his house and that they received -from 100 to 150 letters a week from him. Sometimes the carriers -delivered the letters on foot, sometimes they went by coach.[784] "E. -F.'s" letters were carried by newsmen, who distributed the local -newspaper.[785] "G. H.," a carrier from Scotland, said that there were -six others working with him and that they delivered about 700 letters -and parcels a day, for which they received 1_d._ or 2_d._ each.[786] -Letters were also illegally conveyed:-- - -By "free-packets," containing the patterns and correspondence of -merchants, which the coachmen carried free except for the booking fee of -4_d._[787] - -In warehousemen's bales and parcels.[788] - -In weavers' bags, especially near Glasgow. These were bags containing -work for the weavers, sent by and returned to the manufacturers.[789] - -By "family-boxes." Students at college in Glasgow and Edinburgh were -accustomed to receive boxes of provisions, etc., from home. The -neighbours made use of them to carry letters.[790] - -By coachmen, guards, travellers and private individuals.[791] - -By vans, railways, stage-coaches, steamboats, and every conceivable -means.[792] - -By writing in newspapers, sometimes with invisible ink or by enclosing -accounts or letters in them.[793] - -[783] _Ibid._, qs. 2265, 2279. - -[784] _Ibid._, 1837-38, xx, qs. 2697, 2699, 2703. - -[785] _Ibid._, qs. 4229. - -[786] _Ibid._, qs. 5125-26. In Walsall not 1-50 part of the letters sent -to and from neighbouring places went by post (qs. 5681-5789). - -[787] _Rep. Com._, 1837-38, xx, qs. 4195-96, 4205. - -[788] _Ibid._, qs. 3550, 4065, 4194, 6947. - -[789] _Ibid._, qs. 5257-59. - -[790] _Ibid._, qs. 5265. - -[791] _Ibid._, qs. 6716, 10371. - -[792] _Ibid._, qs. 6514. - -[793] _Ibid._, qs. 497, 3008, 5525-26, 5329, 5186-88, 5983, 8962, -10,021; app. to part 2, p. 34. - -About half of the letters and parcels sent to the seaports for -transmission to foreign parts by private ships did not go through the -Post Office,[794] and this practice was more or less winked at by the -authorities.[795] The letters from Liverpool for the United States -numbered 122,000 a year, but only 69,000 of these passed through the -Post Office.[796] - -[794] _Ibid._, pt. 1, pp. 195-99, 204-30, 346, 351, 431. - -[795] _Ibid._, pt. 1, pp. 195-99. - -[796] _Ibid._, pt. 1, p. 364. - -Since the Post Office has adopted the policy of charging low uniform -rates of postage there has been no concerted attempt to infringe upon -its monopoly. The dissatisfied do not now attempt to establish competing -posts nor to evade the payment of the legal rates. Any pressure which -may be brought to remedy real or supposed grievances takes the form of -an attempt to influence the department itself. It is true that a private -messenger service was established for the delivery of letters, but the -promoters of that service seem to have been unaware of the fact that -they were acting in violation of the law, and a satisfactory agreement -with the department was soon concluded. As a matter of fact, it is a -question whether succeeding governments have not been too subservient -in granting the demands of certain sections of the people, notably in -connection with the telegraph and telephone systems and the question of -guarantees. The position of a government which has abandoned the -principle that any extension of services or change in postal policy -shall be based upon present or anticipated financial success must -necessarily be a difficult one. - - - - -CHAPTER X - -THE TELEGRAPH SYSTEM AS A BRANCH OF THE POSTAL DEPARTMENT - - -Previous to the acquisition of the telegraphs by the state, the -different telegraphic companies carried on their business in comparative -harmony, a harmony which was occasionally disturbed by the entrance into -the field of competition of new claimants for the confidence of the -public. By far the most important of these companies in 1855 were the -Electric and International, and the British and Irish Magnetic, -controlling between them about 8500 miles of line and having 600 -stations open to the public. During the succeeding ten years, by the -growth of the old companies and an increase in the number of the new, -the number of miles of line increased to 16,000, of telegraph stations -to 2040. The number of public messages sent in 1855 was a little more -than one million, in 1860 nearly two millions, and in 1865 over four -millions and a half. The rates for a message of twenty words varied from -1_s._ for a distance under fifty miles, plus 1_s._ for each additional -fifty miles, to 4_s._ for a distance over 150 miles and 5_s._ to Dublin, -including free delivery within half a mile from the telegraph -office.[797] - -In 1860 a competing company, the London District Telegraph Company, -started operations in the Metropolitan District, and offered a low rate -of 6_d._ a message. In the following year a far more dangerous rival, -the United Kingdom Telegraph Company, announced that henceforth it would -charge a uniform shilling rate irrespective of distance. Four years -later both of these companies fell into line, forced according to some -by the unfair tactics of their competitors, according to others by the -utter impossibility of making both ends meet, while charging a uniform -rate irrespective of distance. The tariff agreed to in 1865 was as -follows:--[797] _Acc. & P._, 1867-68, xli, 202, pp. 43, 73, 74. - - For a distance not exceeding 100 miles 1_s._ - from 100 to 200 miles 1_s._ 6_d._ - beyond 200 miles 2_s._ - Between Great Britain and Ireland from 3_s._ to 6_s._ - -In some cases these rates applied only to wires of a single company, -and, where a message was transmitted over the wires of two or more -companies, an additional charge was made. Special rates were offered for -press messages, the news being supplied by the agency of the -intelligence department of the telegraph companies.[798] - -[798] _Acc. & P._, 1867-68, xli, 202, pp. 87-88, 126; _Rep. Com._, -1867-68, xi, 435, pp. 31, 68. - -The earliest proposal for government ownership of the telegraphs seems -to have originated with Thomas Allan, the same Allan who was later -instrumental in establishing the United Kingdom Telegraph Company. In -1854 he submitted arguments to the government through Sir Rowland Hill -in favour of the change, arguments which met with the approval of Lord -Stanley, the President of the Board of Trade, and Mr. Ricardo, formerly -Chairman of the International Electric Telegraph Company, and ex-member -for Stoke. Two years later Mr. Barnes, an official in the Post Office -Department, submitted to my Lords a plan "for the establishment in -connection with the Post Office of a comprehensive scheme of electric -telegraphs throughout the kingdom." In 1866, Lord Stanley, as -Postmaster-General, in a letter to the Lords of the Treasury called -their attention to the fact that the question of the propriety of the -assumption by the government of the telegraphic systems of the Kingdom -had been revived in the previous year by the Edinburgh Chamber of -Commerce, and still more recently the proposition had been embodied in a -petition from the Association of Chambers of Commerce of the United -Kingdom. As he himself had for many years been in favour of such a -change and found his opinion shared by more than one important body of -public men, he directed Mr. Scudamore[799] to report whether, in his -opinion, the telegraphs could be successfully operated by the Post -Office, whether such operation would result in any advantages to the -public over the present system by means of private companies, and -whether it would entail upon the department any large expenditure beyond -the purchase of existing rights.[800] - -[799] Receiver and Accountant-General of the Post-Office. - -[800] _Rep. Com._, 1867-68, xi, 435, p. 108; _Acc. & P._, 1867-68, xli, -202, p. 7. - -The report presented by Mr. Scudamore was strongly in favour of the -control of the telegraphs by the Post Office, and is especially -interesting in furnishing an abstract of the evils which the people -considered that the companies were inflicting upon them. The most -important of these evils, real or imaginary, were as follows:-- - -Exorbitant charges and a resulting failure to expand on the part of the -system. - -Delay and inaccuracy in the transmission of messages. - -Failure to serve many important towns and communities. - -Inconvenient situation, in many places, of the telegraph office, it -being often at a considerable distance from the business centre of the -town, especially when in the railway station. - -Inconveniently short periods that offices are open in many places. - -Wasteful competition between the companies. - -The strongest argument against the existing condition was rather a -result of competition than private ownership. In the more populous -centres the companies very often had their telegraph offices at a very -short distance from each other, being so situated as to compete for the -public patronage, while other and more outlying portions of the town -were quite unserved. The latter were thus made to suffer in order that -favoured portions might enjoy the somewhat doubtful boon of competition. -In order to show the failure to extend telegraphic facilities, Mr. -Scudamore compiled a list of towns in England and Wales having an -individual population of two thousand or more. In his own words "So far -as telegraphic accommodation is concerned, while thirty per cent of the -whole number of places named ... are well served, forty per cent are -indifferently served, twelve per cent badly served, and eighteen per -cent, having an aggregate population of more than half a million -persons, not served at all." By combining the telegraphic business with -the postal service, there seemed every reason to suppose that its -advantages could be more widely extended, the hours of attendance -increased, charges reduced, and facilities given for the transmission of -money orders by telegraph. - -Mr. Scudamore proposed to open telegraph offices in all places which had -a population of 2000 and upwards and which already had money-order -offices. All other post offices were empowered to receive telegrams, -which were to be sent by post to the nearest telegraph office for -transmission. The charge was to be made uniform at 1_s._ for twenty -words and 6_d._ for each additional ten words, or part thereof. He -judged that the whole of the property and rights of the telegraph -companies might be purchased for a sum within £2,400,000, and £100,000 -more would have to be spent in the extension of the service. His -estimate for gross annual product was £676,000; annual charge, £81,250; -working expenses, £456,000; surplus, £138,750.[801] Finally, his reply -to Lord Stanley's question was in effect that the telegraph system might -be beneficially worked by the Post Office, that there would be -advantages thus obtained over any system of private ownership, and that -the Post Office would have to bear no expense not amply covered by the -revenue.[802] In fairness to Mr. Scudamore, it should be remembered that -his original low estimate of the probable cost of the telegraph -companies did not include Reuter's and other important companies. In -addition, the strict monopoly conferred in 1869, with the necessary -accompaniment of the purchase of all inland telegraph companies, -entirely upset his original estimates. Finally, the decision to include -the public telegraph business of the railways and the excessive price -paid to the railway and telegraph companies should not be forgotten in -contrasting the estimated price with that eventually paid for the -acquisition of the telegraph systems in the United Kingdom.[803] Mr. -Grimston, the Chairman of the Electric and International Telegraph -Company, contended that the extension of telegraphic facilities to any -considerable number of small towns and villages would involve a loss to -the state by greatly increasing working expenses, that village -postmasters and postmistresses were totally unable to work the -telegraphs, and that consolidation could be effected more advantageously -by the companies themselves.[804] - -[801] In another place his estimate for gross revenue was £608,000; -annual charge £105,000 on a purchase price of £3,000,000 with expenses -for improvement; working expenses £425,000, and surplus £77,750 (_Acc. & -P._, 1867-68, xli, 202, pp. 145-47). - -[802] _Ibid._, pp. 7-39. - -[803] _Parl. Deb._, 3d ser., ccxxviii, col. 215; cxcii, coll. 747-751. - -[804] _Acc. & P._, 1867-68, xli, 202, p. 131. - -In 1868, the Postmaster-General was given authority by act of Parliament -to purchase the undertakings of the telegraph companies and also the -interests of the railways in the conveyance of public messages, together -with a perpetual way-leave for telegraphic purposes over the properties -of the railway companies. Any telegraph company, with the authority of -two thirds of the votes of its shareholders, was empowered to sell to -the Postmaster-General all or any portion of its undertaking. When the -Postmaster-General had acquired the property of any telegraph company, -he must also, upon the request of any other company, purchase its -undertaking, this privilege being extended also to the railways so far -as telegraphs operated by them for transmitting public messages were -concerned. The price paid for the Electric and International, the -British and Irish Magnetic, and the United Kingdom Telegraph Companies -was fixed at twenty years' purchase of their net profits for the year -ending 30th June, 1868. In the case of the United Kingdom Telegraph -Company additional sums were to be paid for the Hughes type-printing -patent, for the estimated aggregate value of its ordinary share capital -as determined by its highest quotation on any day between the 1st and -25th days of June, 1868, for compensation for the loss of prospective -profits on its ordinary shares, and any sum that might be determined as -loss for its attempt to establish a uniform shilling rate. Every officer -or clerk of the companies who had been in receipt of a salary for not -less than five years or of remuneration amounting to not less than £50 a -year for not less than seven years, if he received no offer from the -Postmaster-General of an appointment in the telegraphic department of -the Post Office equal in the opinion of an arbitrator to his former -position, was entitled to receive an annuity equal to two thirds of his -annual emolument if he had been in service twenty years, such annuity to -be diminished by one twentieth for every year less than twenty. Those -entering the service of the Postmaster-General were entitled to count -their past continuous years of service with the companies as years in -the service of the Crown. - -For the most part all the telegraph apparatus belonging to the railway -companies and all belonging to the telegraph companies on the railway -lines necessary for the private business of the railways were handed -over to the railways by the Postmaster-General free of charge. He was -given the use, from telegraph stations not on the railway lines, of all -the wires of the telegraph companies on the lines employed exclusively -in the public telegraph business. The railways might affix wires to the -posts of the Postmaster-General on the line, and in like manner he might -require the railways to affix wires to their own posts for the use of -the Post Office or erect new posts and wires. Finally the railways were -required to act as agents of the Postmaster-General, if required, for -receiving and transmitting messages. The railways as a rule succeeded in -driving a very sharp bargain with the Government for the purchase of -their interests in the public telegraph business. The price paid was -twenty years' purchase of the net receipts from public telegrams -reckoned for the year ending 30th June, 1868, plus twenty times the -increase in net receipts for the three preceding years or for such -shorter period as the business of transmitting public telegrams had been -undertaken. In addition, compensation was made for the rents, etc., -payable to the railways by the telegraph companies, for the unexpired -period of their respective agreements, for the right of way obtained by -the Postmaster-General over the lands of the railways, for the loss of -power on the part of the railways to grant way-leaves, for the value of -the railways' reversionary interests (if any) in the transmission of -public messages on the expiration of the agreements with the telegraph -companies, and for any loss the railways might suffer in working their -telegraph business as a separate concern. Finally the Postmaster-General -was required to convey free of charge to any part of the United Kingdom -all messages of the railways relating to their own private -business.[805] The act empowering the Postmaster-General to purchase the -undertakings of the telegraph companies did not confer upon the Post -Office a monopoly in the transmission of telegrams, Mr. Scudamore -himself declaring that such a monopoly was neither desirable nor did the -Post Office wish it. The second act, however, declared that no -telegraphic messages, except those sent from or to any place outside of -the United Kingdom, should be transmitted by any telegraphic company for -gain unless the company was in existence on the 22d of June, 1869, and -was not for the time being acquired by the Postmaster-General, who -should be required to purchase its undertaking upon demand.[806] - -[805] 31 and 32 Vict., c. 110. - -[806] 32 and 33 Vict., c. 75. - -Mr. Scudamore's original estimate of the cost of acquisition of the -telegraphs fell far short of the final expenditure; although it must be -remembered that, when he proposed £2,500,000 as sufficient, he did not -anticipate items of expense which later vastly increased the cost. -Before the committee which reported in 1868 he advanced his original -estimate to £6,000,000, and in the following year to £6,750,000, of -which he considered about two thirds to be of the nature of good-will. -The telegraph companies when first approached asked for twenty-five -years' purchase of their prospective profits, and the Government offered -to buy at the highest price realized on the Stock Exchange up to the -25th of May, with an addition of from 10 to 15 per cent for compulsory -sale. The cost of the leading companies, based upon twenty years' -purchase of the net profits for the year ending 30th June, 1868, was as -follows: For the Electric and International, £2,933,826; for the British -and Irish Magnetic, £1,243,536; for Reuter's, £726,000; for the United -Kingdom Electric, £562,000; and for the Universal Private, £184,421,--a -total of £5,650,047. Separate bargains followed with many smaller -companies. The acts of 1868 and 1869 granted £8,000,000, for the purpose -of purchasing the undertakings of the companies and the interests of the -railways; £6,640,000 were spent in purchases, and £1,560,000 in renewals -and extensions between 1868 and 1872.[807] The claims for compensation -on the part of some of the railways were very excessive. The Lancashire -and Yorkshire Railway asked for £1,129,814, with interest, and £1 per -wire per mile a year for all wires erected upon its right of way by or -for the Post Office. By the terms of the award they obtained £169,197 -and 1_s._ per mile per wire. The Great Eastern Railway presented a claim -for £412,608, with interest, and £1 per mile per wire. Their claim was -reduced to £73,315 and an annual payment of £200 for way-leave. In all, -the capital sum of £10,880,571 was expended by the Government, -necessitating an annual interest payment of £326,417, charged, not on -the Post Office vote, but on the Consolidated Fund.[808] - -[807] _Rep. Com._, 1867-68, xi, 435, p. 162; 1868-69, vi, 348, p. 11; -1867-68, xi, 435, p. 217; 1873, xxxix, 316, pp. 762-64; 1873, vii, 290, -p. 95; _Parl. Deb._, 3d ser., cxcii, coll. 747-751, 1303-04. According -to figures furnished by Mr. Fowler in a speech in the House of Commons -in 1868, the value of the capital and the debentures of the Electric and -International at that time was £1,240,000 while the capital value of the -British and Irish Magnetic was £534,000; of Reuter's Company, £266,000; -of the United Kingdom Electric, £350,000, and of the London and -Provincial, £65,000 (_Parl. Deb._ 3d ser., cxcv, coll. 747-751). - -[808] _Rep. P. G._, 1876, p. 10; _ibid._, 1883, p. 9. - -When the Post Office acquired the telegraphs, a uniform rate was -introduced of 1_s._ for twenty words or part thereof and 3_d._ for each -additional five words or part thereof, exclusive of the names and -addresses of sender and receiver, which were transmitted free. Delivery -was free within a radius of one mile from the terminal telegraphic -office, or within the limit of the town postal delivery when it -contained a head office and the postal delivery extended more than a -mile from it. Beyond the above limits the charge did not exceed 6_d._ -per double mile or part thereof. When special delivery was not required -beyond the free delivery, the message was sent free by the next ordinary -postal delivery. The newspapers succeeded in having incorporated within -the act a clause prohibiting a higher charge for press messages than -1_s._ for every one hundred words transmitted between 6 P.M. and 9 A.M., -or 1_s._ for every seventy-five words between 9 A.M. and 6 P.M. when -sent to a single address, the charge for the transmission of the same -telegram to each additional address to be not greater than 2_d._[809] On -the day of transfer the Post Office was able to open about a thousand -postal telegraph offices and nineteen hundred offices at railway -stations where the railways dealt with the public messages as agents of -the Postmaster-General. On the 31st of March, 1872, the system comprised -more than five thousand offices (including nineteen hundred at railway -stations), twenty-two thousand miles of line, with an aggregate of -eighty-three thousand miles of wire, and more than six thousand -instruments. A decided increase in the number of messages was the -result. During the first year after the transfer there were nearly ten -millions of messages, the second year twelve millions, and the third -year fifteen millions, or more than double the number transmitted in -1869. The period from 1872 to the adoption of a sixpenny tariff in 1885 -was one of steady progress. The number of new offices opened was not -numerous, the increase having been only one thousand, but the -improvements in existing connections were marked and the number of -messages transmitted had increased to thirty-three millions. The new -tariff rate was 6_d._ for twelve words or less, with a halfpenny for -each additional word, but the old system of free addresses was -abolished. Under the old tariff each figure was charged at a single -rate. Under the new schedule five figures were counted as one word. A -large proportion of telegrams were brought within the minimum sixpenny -rate, while the average charge, which had been 1_s._ 1_d._ in 1885, was -reduced to 8_d._ in 1886. The number of messages increased from -thirty-three millions in 1884-85 to fifty millions in 1886-87. Four -cables between France and England and one between France and the Jersey -Isles were purchased by the governments of the two countries, two by the -Belgian and English governments, two between Holland and England, and -one between Germany and England, by the governments of the countries -interested.[810] - -[809] 31 and 32 Vict., c. 110. - -Following the adoption of a uniform sixpenny rate the department has -granted other facilities to the public, which, though popular enough, -have undoubtedly tended to place the working of the telegraphs upon a -less secure financial basis. In 1889, the issue of telegraphic money -orders was begun as an experiment, and in the same year was extended to -all head and branch post offices in the United Kingdom.[811] Two years -later the Post Office ceased to require the repayment of the capital -outlay on telegraph extensions made under guarantee, and the rural -sanitary authorities were empowered to defray the cost of such -extensions in places within their districts.[812] For the six preceding -years the average annual number of guaranteed telegraph offices was -seventy-seven, and during the next five years the average annual number -increased to 167. As part of the Jubilee concessions in 1897, the -guarantors were required to pay only one half of the deficiency, with -the result that during the following two years the average annual number -of guaranteed telegraphic offices increased to 290. At the same time the -free delivery limit was extended to three miles and a reduction was -granted in the porterage charges beyond that distance. Finally, in 1905, -the guarantee was reduced to one third of the loss incurred, the -delivery charge being fixed at 3_d._ a mile for the distance beyond the -three-mile limit, instead of the distance from the office of -delivery.[813] - -[810] _Rep. P. G._, 1895, app., pp. 33-35; 1889, p. 13. - -[811] _Ibid._, 1890, p. 7. - -[812] _Rep. P. G._, 1892, p. 20; 54 and 55 Vict., c. 46. - -[813] _Rep. P. G._, 1900, p. 15; 1898, p. 19; 1906, pp. 1, 15. - -In 1896, the main routes from London having become crowded, especially -by the telephone trunk lines, the principle of underground lines between -the most important centres was sanctioned by the department. London and -Birmingham were first connected, and the line was ultimately extended -through Stafford to Warrington, where it joined existing underground -wires between Manchester, Liverpool, and Chester. By 1905, underground -wires were laid as far north as Glasgow through Carlisle, to be extended -later to Edinburgh. At Manchester a junction was effected with a line -passing through Bradford to Leeds. During the same year underground -lines were completed from London to Chatham and from London westward -toward Bristol, with the intention of extending it into Cornwall in -order to secure communication with the Atlantic and Mediterranean -cables.[814] - -[814] _Ibid._, 1900, p. 15; 1902, p. 13; 1905, app., p. 99; 1906, p. 16. - -In 1875, England joined the other important European powers in a -telegraphic agreement which went into effect in January of the following -year. By this agreement each of the contracting parties agreed to devote -special wires to international service, government telegrams to have -precedence in transmission and to be forwarded in code if desired. -Private telegrams could also be sent in code between those countries -which allowed them, and the signatory powers agreed to pass them in -transit, but each country reserved to itself the privilege of stopping -any private telegram. For the purpose of making charges, any country -might be divided into not more than two zones, and each of the signatory -powers owed to the others an account of charges collected.[815] So far -as foreign telegrams were concerned, the use of manufactured expressions -in place of real words gave rise to considerable trouble in view of the -fact that such combinations were difficult to transmit. In 1879, the -languages which might be used for code words were reduced by common -consent to English, French, German, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, -and Latin. At the same time the use of proper names as code words was -prohibited. This did not remove the evil, as the roots of words in one -language with terminations in another were used. An official vocabulary -was compiled by the International Telegraph Bureau, to become obligatory -in 1898, but its publication in 1894 aroused considerable opposition, as -many of the words were dangerously alike, and in 1896 the decision of -the Paris Conference of 1890, by which the official vocabulary was to -become compulsory for European telegrams in 1898, was rescinded. It was -also decided that an enlarged vocabulary should be published by the -International Bureau, but, owing to the action of the English delegates, -the official vocabulary was not made compulsory at the meeting of the -International Telegraph Conference in 1903, although artificial words -were allowed if pronounceable in accordance with the usages of any one -of the eight languages from which the ordinary code words might be -selected. It was also decided to admit letter cipher at the rate of five -letters to a word, and several countries agreed to lower their charges -for the transmission of extra-European telegrams, the English delegates -contending that the rates for such telegrams should be made the same as -the rates for European telegrams.[816] In 1878, negotiations with the -German and Netherland Telegraph Administrations resulted in a charge of -4_d._ a word being fixed as the rate between the United Kingdom and -Germany and 3_d._ a word between the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. - -[815] _Acc. & P._, 1876, lxxxiv [c. 1418], pp. 116-119. - -[816] _Rep. P. G._, 1904, pp. 15-22. - -In 1885, the following reductions in rates were announced:-- - - To Russia from 9_d._ to 6-1/2_d._ a word. - Spain 6_d._ 4-1/2_d._ - Italy 5_d._ 4-1/2_d._ - India 4_s._7_d._ 4_s._ - -to be followed six years later by still greater reductions:-- - - To Austria from 4-1/2_d._ to 3_d._ a word. - Hungary 4-1/2_d._ 3_d._ - Italy 4-1/2_d._ 3_d._ - Russia 6-1/2_d._ 5-1/2_d._ - Portugal 5-1/2_d._ 4-1/2_d._ - Sweden 5_d._ 4_d._ - Spain 4-1/2_d._ 4_d._ - Canary Isles 1_s._7-1/2_d._ 10_d._ - -the minimum charge for a telegram being 10_d._ in all cases. The -transmission of foreign money orders by telegraph was inaugurated in -1898 by the opening of an exchange with Germany and its extension -shortly afterward to the other important European countries.[817] - -[817] _Rep. P. G._, 1897, pp. 40-42; 1879, p. 21; 1886, p. 10; 1892, p. -19; 1900, p. 10. - -In 1892, an attempt was made, curiously suggestive of Marconi's -discovery, to transmit telegraph messages without a direct wire. The -experiment was conducted between the island of Flat Holm in the Bristol -Channel and the mainland, a distance of three miles. A wire was erected -on the mainland parallel with one on the island, and, by means of strong -vibratory currents sent through the former, signals were transmitted and -messages exchanged. Three years later and before the practical value of -the Flat Holm experiment had been substantiated, Mr. Marconi arrived in -England to submit his plans to the Post Office. A private wire from -Poldhu to Falmouth was provided for him on the usual rental terms, and -it was announced that the Post Office would act as his agent for -collecting messages to be transmitted by wireless telegraphy when he had -proved the feasibility of his project. At the international congress on -wireless telegraphy held in Berlin in 1903 it was recommended that shore -stations equipped with wireless apparatus should be bound to exchange -messages with ships at sea without regard to the system of wireless -telegraphy employed by the latter, that the rate of charge for the shore -station should be subject to the approval of the state where it was -situated, the rate of the ship to the approval of the state whose flag -it carried, and that the working of wireless stations should be -regulated so as to interfere with other stations as little as possible. -In order to enable the Government to carry out the decision of the -congress and to place wireless telegraphy under its control for -strategic purposes, an act was passed in 1904 making it illegal to -instal or work wireless telegraphic apparatus in the United Kingdom or -on board a British ship in territorial waters without the licence of the -Postmaster-General. The act was to be operative for two years only, but -before its expiration, was extended until the 31st of December, 1909, -before which it might again be renewed. Arrangements were also made for -the collection and delivery of the telegrams of the Marconi Company by -the post offices throughout the country. The company charges its usual -rate, 6_d._. a word, and the Post Office in addition charges the -ordinary inland rate.[818] The international agreement providing for -compulsory communication between shore stations and ships was signed in -1906 in spite of the protests of the Marconi Company, Sir Edward -Sassoon, and others, who contended that the agreement was unfair to the -company and a mistake on the part of the Kingdom, "which was thus giving -up advantages obtained by the possession of the best system of wireless -telegraphy in the world." The majority of the countries represented were -also in favour of compulsory communication between ship and ship, but -this was successfully negatived by Great Britain and Japan. In 1908, Mr. -Buxton was able to announce in the House that the relations between the -Post Office and the Marconi Company "are now of the most friendly kind," -and that they have accepted and adopted the principle of -intercommunication. In the preceding year two experimental stations were -started by the Government which will enable the department to extend -its operations quite independently of the companies.[819] - -[818] _Rep. P. G._, 1893, pp. 19-22; 1903, pp. 15-18; 1905, pp. 16-18; 4 -Edw. VII, c. 24; 6 Edw. VII, c. 13. - -[819] _Parl. Deb._, 4th ser., clxxix, coll. 841-858; cxcii, col. 1116, -London _Times_, 1906, Nov. 5, p. 5; 1907, July 1, p. 14. - -From a financial point of view, government ownership and control of the -telegraphs in the United Kingdom has not been a success. In addition, -the Telegraph Department, for some time previous to 1874, had been -drawing upon the balance in the possession of the Post Office, a balance -which was required to be invested for other purposes and whose -expenditure for the use of the telegraphs had not been authorized by -Parliament. Mr. Goldsmid, in introducing a motion for the appointment of -a committee of enquiry, alluded to this error on the part of the -department, to the excessive price paid for the telegraphs, and -complained that the telegraph system was not being operated on a paying -basis. His motion was withdrawn, but an agreement was reached with the -department by the appointment of a committee, with Mr. Playfair as -chairman, "to inquire into the organization and financial system of the -Telegraph Department of the Post Office." The committee in their report -commented unfavourably upon the unnecessarily large force, the cumbrous -organization, and the far from economical management of some of the -divisions of the department, advised that an attempt be made to remedy -these faults, and that press messages be charged a minimum rate of 1_s._ -each, and not at the rate of 1_s._ for each seventy-five or one hundred -words obtained by adding together separate messages requiring separate -transmission. This suggestion with reference to press messages was -adopted, promises were made at the same time to diminish the force, and -a scheme was submitted for the reorganization of the department.[820] - -[820] _Parl. Deb._, 3d ser., ccxxviii, coll. 172 f.; _Rep. Com._, 1876, -xiii, 357, pp. i-xiii, 147, 240. - -The number of telegrams for the year ending 31st March, 1887, the year -following the sixpenny reduction, was 50,243,639; for the year 1891-92 -it had increased to 69,685,480. In 1896-97 the number was 79,423,556 and -in 1899-1900 the total was 90,415,123. During the next three years there -was a reduction, followed in 1902-03 by an increase to 92,471,000. -Since 1902-03 the number has again fallen off, the figures for 1906-07 -being only 89,493,000.[821] It is rather difficult to make definite -statements about the telegraph finances on account of the lack of -uniformity in presenting the accounts since 1870. Under gross revenue is -now included the value of services done for other departments, but this -was not always the rule. The expenditure of other departments for the -telegraph service may or may not be included under ordinary telegraphic -expenditure. Net revenue may also be increased or a deficit changed to a -surplus by deducting the expenditure for sites, buildings, and -extensions from ordinary expenditure. Finally, the interest on capital -is not charged on the Telegraph Vote, and so is not included under -expenditure. In 1871, 1880, and 1881 there seem to have been surpluses -over all expenditure, including interest on capital. Excluding interest -from expenditure, the net revenue decreased from £303,457 in 1871 to -£59,732 in 1875, when the pensions to officials of the telegraph -companies were first charged to the Telegraph Vote. With an increased -net revenue of £245,116 in 1876, following the report of the committee -of investigation, the department did very well from a financial point of -view, until 1884, when the net revenue fell to £51,255, and in 1887 -there was a deficit of £84,078, due to the fact that expenses were -increasing at a greater rate than receipts. The sixpenny reduction seems -to have made but little change in the financial situation, the gross -revenue increasing from £1,755,118 in 1884-85 to £1,855,686 in 1886-87, -the expenditure for the same years being £1,731,040 and £1,939,734. The -net revenue began to recover in 1888-89, and averaged about £150,000 a -year during the four years ending March 31, 1892. During the fiscal -years 1894 and 1895 there were deficits, then a slight recovery from -1896 to 1900 and a succession of deficits from 1901 to 1905. The -interest on stock, £214,500 in 1870, increased steadily to £326,417 in -1880, at which figure it remained until 1889, when a reduction in the -rate of interest from 3 per cent to 2-3/4 per cent lowered the amount -payable to £299,216. In 1903, there was a further reduction to -£278,483.[822] - -[821] _Rep. P. G._, 1891, app., p. 40; 1901, app., p. 57; 1907, app., p. -61. - -[822] _Ibid._, 1881, app., p. 53; 1891, app., p. 66; 1901, app., p. 83; -1905, app., p. 99. - -The financial loss experienced by the Government in operating the -telegraphs has naturally produced considerable interest in this phase of -the question. Mr. Blackwood, the Financial Secretary of the Post Office, -in his evidence before the committee, considered that the financial -control and oversight of the department were inadequate and that the -department was over-manned. On the other hand, he was of the opinion -that many expenses were met by revenue expenditure which should have -been charged to capital. Mr. Baines, the Surveyor-General, among other -causes of the financial deficiency, called attention to the shorter -hours and longer annual leave of the telegraph staff as government -employees, the higher standard of efficiency established by the Post -Office, and the prevalence of much overtime work as a result of the -maintenance by the companies, just before the transfer, of an inadequate -staff.[823] The fact that the yearly increase in messages continued to -diminish after 1879 is commented on by the Postmaster-General in 1884 as -due to the stagnation of trade, the competition of the telephones, and -the rapidity of the letter post. Mr. Raikes called attention to the -large number of telegrams on the business of the railways which were -transmitted for nothing. By an agreement with several of the railway -companies to send, as a right instead of a privilege, a fixed number of -messages containing a fixed number of words, this increase was checked. -In 1892, the following comment is found in the Postmaster-General's -Report: "This stagnation of business, viewed in connection with an -increased cost in working expenses, is a matter for serious -consideration, and necessarily directs attention to that part of the -business which is conducted at a loss," the reference being to the -increased number of press messages transmitted at a nominal charge. When -in 1868 the newspaper proprietors succeeded in obtaining the insertion -in the Telegraph Act of special rates for the transmission of press -messages, no condition was laid down that copies, in order that they -might be sent at the very low charges there enumerated, should be -transmitted to the same place as the original telegram. The newspapers -combined to receive messages from news associations in identical terms, -and, by dividing the cost, obtained a rate equal on the average to 4-1/2 -_d._ per hundred words. Under the arrangements adopted for the -transmission of news messages the number of words so sent did not -necessitate a corresponding amount of work, but it is an interesting -fact that in 1895 the number of words dealt with for the press formed -two fifths of the total number. In that year the loss on these telegrams -was estimated at about £300,000 a year. The high price paid as purchase -money is another of the factors to be considered, only in so far, -however, as the Telegraphic Department has failed to meet the interest -on the debt so incurred. The telegraph companies were very liberally -treated, and in certain cases excessive prices were undoubtedly paid. -Probably the most important reason for the financial failure of the -telegraphs under government ownership and control has been the influence -of forces productive of good in themselves, but quite different from -those which had previously been dominant when the telegraphs were under -private control and during the early years of government management. The -effect of these forces is clearly seen in the reduction of the tariff in -1885, the extension of facilities under inadequate guarantee, and the -increase in the pay of the staff.[824] Mr. Buxton is of the opinion that -the worst feature of the postal business is the telegraph service. "It -has never been profitable and now the telephone system has so largely -taken its place that the revenue is falling off," while the "Economist" -considers that "it is obvious that both in the Savings Bank and the -Telegraph branches reforms are urgently needed in order to place matters -on a sound financial basis."[825] - -[823] Between 1870, when the telegraphs were taken over by the state, -and 1873, the number of employees was more than doubled, although, -during the same period, the number of messages--not including news -messages--increased only from ten to fifteen millions (_Rep. Com._, -1876, xiii, 357, pp. 18, 90, 232, 240). - -[824] _Rep. P. G._, 1895, pp. 37-38. - -The proportion of the amount spent on salaries and wages which in 1881, -before Mr. Fawcett's revision, stood at about 55 per cent, increased, as -a result of that revision and Mr. Raikes' revision in 1890, to about 65 -per cent. - -[825] _Parl. Deb._, 4th ser., clix, col. 389; _Economist_, Sept. 21, -1907, p. 1576. - - - - -CHAPTER XI - -THE POST OFFICE AND THE TELEPHONE COMPANIES - - -The first telephone brought to England by Lord Kelvin in 1876 was a very -crude instrument, useful only for experimental purposes and of interest -only as a forecast of later development. In the following year two Post -Office officials introduced some machines which had been presented to -them by the American inventor Bell, and although not very efficient, -they were of some commercial use. The Post Office made arrangements with -the agents of the inventor for the purpose of supplying its private wire -renters with these machines if they should wish to make use of them. -With the invention of the microphone in 1878, and its application to the -telephone, a thoroughly practical method of transmitting speech was at -last introduced. In the same year a company was formed to acquire and -work the Bell patents. They endeavoured to come to an agreement with the -Post Office by which the latter might obtain telephones at cost price, -and would in return facilitate the operations of the company, but the -negotiations came to nothing. There was then no suggestion of an -exchange system, and the company proposed merely to supply telephones -and wires to private individuals. In 1879, the Edison Telephone Company -of London was established, an announcement having been made in the -autumn of 1878 that it was proposed to establish exchanges. An attempt -was made to amend the Telegraph Act so as to confer specifically upon -the department monopolistic control over telephonic communication, but -the amendment failed to receive the sanction of the House of Commons. -The Postmaster-General then filed information against both companies, on -the ground that the transmission of messages by telephone was an -infringement of the telegraphic monopoly. In the summer of 1880 the two -companies amalgamated as the United Telephone Company, and in December -judgment was given by the High Court of Justice in favour of the Post -Office.[826] - -[826] _Rep. Com._, 1895, xiii, 350, pp. 1-6; _Law Reports, Queen's Bench -Division_, vi, p. 244; _Parl. Deb._, 3d ser., cclxxxviii, col. 1053. - -In April of 1881 the Postmaster-General granted the United Telephone -Company a licence to establish and operate a telephone system within a -five-mile radius in London, the central point to be chosen by the -company. On the other hand the company agreed to pay a royalty of 10 per -cent of its gross receipts and to accept the judgment of the High Court. -Licences were also granted to establish telephone exchanges in the -provincial towns within a radius of one or two miles, all the licences -to expire in 1911. The Postmaster-General reserved the right to -establish exchanges for the department and the option of purchasing the -works of the licencees in 1890 or at seven-year intervals from 1890, six -months' notice having first been given. The policy of the United -Telephone Company was to confine its own operations to London and to -allow patent apparatus to be used in other parts of the country by -subsidiary companies, leaving them free to negotiate with the Post -Office for provincial licences. - -The telephone policy of the Post Office from 1880 to 1884 consisted in -the granting of licences to the companies in restricted areas, so that -the telegraph revenue might suffer from competition as little as -possible, and the establishment by the department of exchanges in -certain places not as a rule served by the companies. Owing to the -refusal of the Government to solicit business, their exchanges did not -prove a success. The department itself would probably have preferred to -take over the whole telephone business in 1880, but this policy met with -no favour from the Lords of the Treasury, who were of the opinion "that -the state, as regards all functions which are not by their nature -exclusively its own, should at most be ready to supplement, not -endeavour to supersede private enterprise, and that a rough but not -inaccurate test of the legitimacy of its procedure is not to act in -anticipation of possible demands." The operation by the government of -the unimportant exchanges possessed by them was sanctioned by their -Lordships, "on the understanding that its object is by the establishment -of a telephonic system to a limited extent by the Post Office to enable -your department to negotiate with the telephone companies in a -satisfactory manner for licences." The London and Globe Company was -given a licence in 1882 to establish exchanges in London, but they were -entirely dependent upon the United Company for instruments, so that -there was no real competition. The department proceeded to issue -licences for the establishment of competing systems in places where -there were already government exchanges. From 1880 to 1884 the -Postmaster-General granted twenty-three licences, and some twenty-seven -towns, with 1141 subscribers, were served by the department. The policy -of the Post Office during these years, as thus outlined, was far from -satisfactory to the public, due largely to the desire to protect the -telegraph revenue, and the failure to appreciate the possibilities which -the new system of communication was capable of offering. The companies, -restricted as they were to local areas, could not offer any means for -communication between these areas, since special permission had to be -obtained for the erection of trunk lines. The Government offered to -provide these on condition that a direct payment of £10 a mile per -double wire and one half the revenue over that sum should be paid for -their use, but this offer the companies naturally refused to consider. -The Lancashire and Cheshire Company proposed to fix their trunk-line -charges so low as to pay expenses only, but they were informed by the -Government that they must charge 10s. a mile annual rental. In addition, -they were not allowed to charge less than 1_s._ at their call offices, -the then prevailing fee for a telegram. A few trunk lines, it is true, -were constructed by the Government and rented to the companies, but they -were quite insufficient to satisfy the demand. In London, the United -Telephone Company was not allowed to extend its system beyond the -five-mile radius without special permission and the payment of an -increased royalty. In addition, the companies had no way-leave powers, -but had to depend upon the good will of householders to fly their wires -from house-top to house-top, with the result that in London there was a -ridiculously large number of exchanges. Finally the companies were -restricted to connecting subscribers with the exchange or their place of -business, and, although messages could be telephoned for further -transmission by the telegraphs, there was not that close connection -between the telephonic and telegraphic systems which might eventually -have led to the mutual advantage of each. Moreover, in 1882, the -Government announced that they would grant no more licences unless the -subsidiary companies agreed to sell to them all the instruments they -wished, the intention probably being for the Government to supply -instruments to companies which would establish exchanges in real -competition with the United Telephone Company. Since the subsidiary -companies could not supply these instruments without the consent of the -parent company, the only result was still further to restrict telephonic -development.[827] - -[827] _Rep. P. G._, 1883, p. 6; 1885, p. 9; 1886, p. 10; _Rep. Com._, -1898, xii, 383, pp. 3, 57; 1895, xiii, 350, pp. 1-6; _Parl. Deb._, 3d -ser., cclxxii, col. 712; cclxxxviii, coll. 1056-57, 1060-61; cclxxxix, -coll. 82. - -In 1884, the prevailing public discontent in connection with the -Government's treatment of the situation manifested itself in the press -and in the House of Commons. The Post Office was accused of practising a -policy of strangulation toward the companies, and the -Postmaster-General, Mr. Fawcett, acknowledged that there was some truth -in the charge. He advised the Treasury that the companies' areas of -operation should be unlimited, and that their operations should be -confined to the transmission of oral communications. The restricted -licences were withdrawn and new, unrestricted licences granted, -terminable in 1911 with the same qualifications with reference to -royalties and government purchase that were inserted in the old -licences. Nominally the result produced free competition, but actually -competition was impossible until the expiration of the fundamental -patents in 1892. The year before their expiration, the companies -succeeded in getting control of the situation by an amalgamation of the -United Telephone Company with its licencees under the name of the -National Telephone Company. Mr. Dickinson, Deputy Chairman of the London -County Council, stated that the nominal capital of the United Telephone -Company, £900,000 (with an actual capital expenditure in 1887 within the -Metropolitan District of £228,180) was taken over by the National -Telephone Company at a cost of £1,484,375, and the Duke of Marlborough -said in the House of Lords that of the £3,250,000 capital of the new -company over £2,000,000 was "water." Mr. Raikes, the Postmaster-General, -who was in favour of competition, wrote to the United Company, -disapproving of the whole transaction. With the expiration of the -patent rights, the New Telephone Company was resuscitated, with the Duke -of Marlborough as chairman, an agreement having been concluded with the -Telephone Subscribers' Protective Association for a twelve guineas' -service in London, but it in turn was absorbed by the National Company, -much to the disgust of the members of the Association. So far as -way-leave rights were concerned the position of the companies remained -in a very unsatisfactory condition. A committee of the House of Commons -advised that certain way-leave rights should be granted, but nothing was -accomplished, although a bill was introduced in the House of Commons in -1885 to enable the companies to erect posts without the consent of the -road authorities.[828] - -[828] _Rep. Com._, 1884-85, xii, p. 63; 1892, xvii, 278, sess. 1, pp. -3-5; 1895, xiii, 350, pp. 1-6, 92, 188-93; 1898, xii, 383, p. 12; _Parl. -Deb._, 3d ser., cclxxxviii, coll. 1052 f.; cccxxxvi, col. 1809; -cccxxxvii, col. 1435; cccxlvi, col. 908. - -Mr. Forbes, the chairman of the National Telephone Company, said to the -Committee of 1892: "I am prepared to concede that the telephone company -which conducts about 93 or 94 per cent of the whole telephonic business -of the country conducts a great deal of it monstrously badly, but it is -not their fault, it is the fault of Parliament"; and again in referring -to the lack of way-leave power: "Take London for instance; London is -very badly served, but why is it very badly served? Because everything -depends upon the caprice of the individual." As a result of the -complaints that the telephone system was giving an inadequate service -because of the high rates on an inflated capital, because the utility of -the telephones was impaired in that they could not be used in connection -with the telegraph and postal services, and because of the lack of -powers to erect poles in the streets or to lay underground wires or to -connect their exchanges by trunk lines, the Government announced a -change of policy in 1892.[829] This change was set forth in a Treasury -Minute of the 23d of May, 1892, and in two memoranda of agreement of the -same year to which the National and the New Companies were respectively -parties, the arrangements being sanctioned by Parliament in the -Telegraph acts of 1892 and 1896. So far as it affected the National -Company the arrangement was embodied in detail in an agreement dated the -25th of March, 1896, no similar agreement being made with the New -Company because that company went into liquidation in 1892, and in 1896 -surrendered its licence. By the agreement of 1896 the National Telephone -Company surrendered its previous licence except for certain definite -districts called "Exchange Areas," a large number of which were -specified in the agreement. These areas were as a rule coterminous with -the urban districts, but comprised in addition certain areas made up of -two or more urban districts together with the intervening country. Power -was reserved to the Postmaster-General to specify other exchange areas, -the understanding being, both with regard to areas already specified and -those to be specified, that industrial areas of wide extent should be -recognized in cases where there were no considerable towns forming -centres of business, that neighbouring towns intimately connected in -their business relations should be placed in the same area, and that -small towns and villages should also be so grouped when each by itself -would not pay. Outside these areas the Postmaster-General alone was -entitled to carry on telephone business, no more licences being granted -for the whole Kingdom, and for any particular town only with the -approval of the corporation or municipal authority. Call offices for the -use of the public were to be opened at the company's exchanges and -connected with the post offices in order that exchange subscribers might -telephone over the trunk lines to exchange subscribers in other towns. -Where intercommunication took place between the systems of the company -and the Post Office, a terminal charge on the part of the receiving -system was allowed. Telephonic messages could be sent to the post -offices for transmission as telegrams and delivery as such or for -delivery as letters. Express messengers could also be sent for by -telephone, and telegrams received at the post offices might be -transmitted by telephone. - -[829] Only five years before, Mr. Raikes, the Postmaster-General, said -in the House of Commons: "I am inclined to think that it is extremely -doubtful whether there would be much public advantage in establishing -telephonic communication generally between those [the principal] towns" -(_Parl. Deb._, 3d ser., cccxix, col. 664). - -The Postmaster-General was authorized to grant to the company all such -powers of executing works within its exchange areas (other than works -under, over, or along any railway or canal) as were conferred upon him -by the Telegraph acts of 1863, 1878, and Section 2 of the act of 1892. -If required by the company, he must provide underground wires between -different exchanges in the same exchange area, and must allow the -company to conclude agreements with railway and canal companies over -whose property he had exclusive right of way. In exchange for these -privileges the company agreed to sell its trunk lines to the -Postmaster-General, their value being fixed at a later date at £459,114, -which amount was paid to the company on the 4th of April, 1895, the -length of trunk line taken over being 2651 miles having 29,000 miles of -wire. In order to remove a serious handicap to the success of competing -companies, the trunk lines were henceforth to be controlled and extended -by the Post Office, the company to receive five per cent of any gross -charges for trunk-line tolls which it might collect as an agent of the -Post Office. The rates charged by the Post Office for trunk-line -conversations in 1896 were, for distances of 125 miles and under, the -same as those previously charged by the company, and were lower than the -old rates for distances in excess of 125 miles.[830] - -[830] _Rep. Com._, 1892, xvii, 278, sess. 1, pp. 17-18; 1895, xiii, 350, -pp. 8, 34; _Rep. P. G._, 1896, pp. 16, 17; _Rep. Com._, 1898, xii, 383, -pp. 35-37, 40; 1905, vii, 271, pp. 233-235; 55 and 56 Vict., c. 59, 59 -and 60 Vict., c. 40; _Parl. Deb._, 4th ser., iii, coll. 168, 186, 196. - -In the mean time there was evidence of considerable opposition to the -practical monopoly of the company within the exchange areas. A motion -introduced in the House of Commons by Doctor Cameron, member of -Parliament for Glasgow, in favour of government purchase of the -telephones, received considerable support, but was rejected by the -Government on the ground that the resulting increase in the number of -civil servants, not paid at market wages and constantly trying to bring -pressure to bear on members, was too serious an evil to receive the -sanction of the Government.[831] The claim was also made by some of the -towns and by Glasgow in particular that the municipalities should be -allowed to install their own telephone systems in opposition to those of -the company. A select committee was appointed to consider this demand on -the question of "whether the provision made for telephone service in -local areas is adequate, and whether it is advisable to grant licences -to local authorities or otherwise," but, owing to the dissolution of -Parliament, the committee did not present a report. Considerable -evidence was heard, however, and the committee recommended that another -committee should be appointed during the next session to consider and -report upon the evidence already taken and, if necessary, take more -evidence. The witnesses examined were as a rule of the opinion that the -telephones should be taken over by the state; but there was a difference -of opinion as to whether municipal licences should be granted. -Dissatisfaction with existing conditions seemed to be widespread. The -Glasgow Corporation expressed disgust with the service of the company on -account of the difficulty of getting into communication with -subscribers, frequent interruptions and noises, and the chance of being -overheard by a third party, the first complaint being due in their -opinion to inadequate exchange accommodations, the second and third to -the one-wire system. The corporation was accused on the other hand of -attempting to dislocate the company's system by refusing them permission -to lay underground wires, while the overhead wires were unfavourably -affected by the electric tramway currents. The Deputy Town Clerk of -Liverpool was in favour of government telephones, but opposed municipal -licences on the ground that they would increase the expense of -telephoning between a municipal exchange and one belonging to the -company. The London County Council advised that severe restrictions -should be laid upon the company by imposing maximum rates, etc., or that -the state should take over the company's system or that the municipality -should do so. Questions were sent to subscribers in London by the County -Council, by the company, and by the Commissioner of Sewers, asking for -their opinion on the service rendered by the company there. As may be -imagined, the replies sent to the County Council and the Commissioner -were on the whole unfavourable to the company, while those sent to the -company were generally favourable to them. It was shown that the number -of subscribers in English and Scotch cities was fewer than in most -continental cities, and that, comparing the population of the United -Kingdom with that of the United States, the number of subscribers in -the former should be about 145,000 instead of about 50,000; but nothing -was said of the superior postal and telegraphic facilities of the United -Kingdom as compared with the majority of foreign countries, facilities -which would naturally reduce the demand for a comparatively new and in -many cases unpopular method of communication. The rate of the company in -the Metropolitan area for a business connection was £20 for a yearly -agreement, with substantial reductions for second and additional -connections, and £12 for private houses. On a five years' agreement the -rates were £17 and £10 respectively. The rate in Paris at the same time -was £16. For the provincial cities in England, such as Manchester, -Liverpool, etc., the rate was £10 for a first connection and £8 10_s._ -for second and additional connections, and for the large towns, such as -Norwich, Chester, Exeter, etc., £8 within half a mile of the exchange, -£9 within three quarters of a mile, £10 within one mile, and an -additional £2 10_s._ for each additional half-mile, with reductions for -extra connections. For small outlying and isolated towns the half-mile -rate was £6 10_s._, one mile £8, and £2 10_s._ for every additional -half-mile.[832] - -[831] _Ibid._, 4th ser., iii, coll. 166 f. - -[832] _Rep. Com._, 1895, xiii, 350, pp. iii, 25-27, 60-62, 87, 90-91, -163, 176, 221, 223, 275, 281-82, 321-22; _Parl. Deb._, 4th ser., xxxi, -coll. 207 f.; xlviii, coll. 463-66. - -In 1898, another committee was appointed with Mr. Hanbury as chairman, -"to enquire and report whether the telephone service was calculated to -become of such general benefit as to justify its being undertaken by -municipal and other authorities, regard being had to local finance." The -committee were of the opinion that the existing telephone system was not -of general benefit either in the kingdom at large or in those portions -where exchanges existed, that it could hardly be of benefit so long as -monopolistic conditions existed, and that it was capable of becoming -much more useful if worked solely or mainly with a view to the public -interest. They condemned the flat rate subscription charge of the -company as of benefit only to the wealthier commercial classes in -English cities. They commented unfavourably upon the fact that in the -London area there were only 237 call offices open to non-subscribers, -and that as a rule messages could not be sent from them to subscribers -except when the sender and recipient were in the same postal district -or town, when the message might be delivered. They were of the opinion -that the telephones were far more useful in other countries where the -conditions were not so favourable. Conditions, they thought, were -unlikely to improve under the present management. The company must pay -dividends on an inflated capital; its licence would expire in 1911, and -the Government was hardly likely to pay the company at that date for -goodwill. In addition, there were no restrictions on charges, the -company had a motive for limiting its subscribers, as expenses increased -proportionately with an increase in their number, and the question of -way-leaves was a source of great difficulty. Finally, they declared in -favour of competition by the municipalities and the Post Office as -tending to reduce rates, extend the system, and, if the Government -should eventually purchase the telephones, give alternative systems to -choose from. The Government adopted the committee's report, and, in a -Treasury Minute of the 8th of May, 1899, laid down the principles upon -which licences should be granted by the Postmaster-General to the -municipalities, and announced that in London the Postmaster-General -would himself establish an exchange system.[833] - -[833] _Rep. Com._, 1898, xii, 383, pp. iii-xiii. - -In accordance with the finding of the committee and the resulting -Treasury Minute, an act was passed in 1899, conferring upon the boroughs -and borough districts to which the Postmaster-General might grant -licences the right to borrow money upon the security of the rates for -the erection and management of telephone systems. A loan of £2,000,000 -was authorized for the use of the department itself in establishing -telephone competition with the company in London. The act also defined -the relations between the company and the municipalities (or other new -licencees) in the event of competition. If the telephone company would -agree to abandon the power of discriminating between subscribers and -would consent to limit their charges within the maxima and minima -prescribed by the Postmaster-General, the latter was to extend any -way-leave rights already possessed for the period of the licence granted -to the competing municipality or new licencee. - -If the new licence were extended beyond 1911, the company's licence -would be likewise extended, but if their licence were extended for as -much as eight years beyond 1911, the company were bound, at the request -of the licencee and under certain conditions, to grant interchange of -communication within the area. The new licences would be granted only to -local authorities or companies approved by them, and the National -Company was prohibited from opening exchanges in any area in which they -had not, before the passing of the act, established an effective -exchange. The effect of the act was to limit competition to the -municipalities, to confine the National Company to those towns and areas -they were already serving, and to throw upon the Postmaster-General the -duty of serving other parts of the country.[834] - -[834] 62 and 63 Vict., c. 38. - -The form of the licences for municipalities, among other conditions, -contained provisions designed to secure for the public an efficient and -cheap service. It was provided that the plant should be constructed in -accordance with specifications prepared by the Postmaster-General, no -preferential treatment should be allowed to any subscriber, the charges -made should be within certain specified limits, neither the licence nor -any part of the plant of the licencee should be assigned to or -amalgamated with the business of any other licencee, and that the -licence might be terminated if an exchange system were not established -within two years. The provisions of the agreement of 1896 which secured -coöperation between the Post Office and the National Company and -combined the telephone with the telegraph and postal services were also -introduced into the municipal licences. The municipalities were bound to -give intercommunication between their exchanges and any established by -the Postmaster-General, and terminal charges for trunk-wire -communications between the exchange subscribers of any other system and -those of the local authority were forbidden. About sixty local -authorities made enquiries with a view to taking out licences, but only -thirteen licences were accepted. That of Tunbridge Wells was surrendered -in 1903, owing to an agreement arrived at between the National Telephone -Company and the corporation, the municipal telephones not having proved -a success.[835] In the case of seven others the licences were -surrendered or cancelled. The following corporations held licences in -1905:-- - Hull licence terminating 31st December, 1911 - Glasgow 1913 - Swansea 1920 - Brighton 30th April, 1926 - Portsmouth 1926 - -[835] _Parl. Deb._, 4th ser., cxxiv, coll. 781-82; cxv, col. 841; cxvi, -coll. 915-17. - -In all the above cases except Hull, the National Telephone Company had -agreed to forego the granting of special favours to subscribers, had -established intercommunication, and their licence was accordingly -extended in those places to the dates of termination of the corporation -licences. In Glasgow the National Telephone Company made several -applications for permission to lay underground wires, but the -corporation refused the concession on any terms. In spite of this -advantage and the inability of the company to meet the low unlimited -user rate of the corporation telephones on account of agreements with -subscribers in other towns, the corporation found it advisable to sell -its plant to the Post Office in 1906 for £305,000 at a capital loss of -between £12,000 and £15,000. Brighton followed suit a little later for -the sum of £49,000, at a loss of £2450. Swansea experienced considerable -difficulty in borrowing money to extend its system on account of the -refusal of the Local Government Board to grant the necessary borrowing -powers. The Post Office offered £22,000 for a plant which had cost -£27,173. This offer was refused by the corporation, and an agreement was -concluded with the National Telephone Company in 1907 for the sale of -the plant at a price sufficient to repay the whole capital. Offers were -also made to Hull and Portsmouth by the department, but were refused, as -they were not sufficiently high to cover expenditure.[836] - -[836] _Parl. Deb._, 4th ser., lxxxii, coll. 168-186; cliv, coll. -1067-68; clxiv, col. 87; London _Times_, 1906, July 6, p. 10; 1907, Jan. -3, p. 8; Feb. 9, p. 3; Mar. 22, p. 4. - -As a rule the local authorities offered an initial flat rate lower than -that paid by the company's subscribers in competing centres, but most -of the other rates of the corporation authorities were somewhat higher. -The service offered by the public telephones was not so satisfactory as -had been hoped, and the more numerous connections open to the company's -subscribers formed an initial advantage which it was difficult to -overcome. On the other hand, the corporations often had the advantage of -underground connections which were denied to the company, but the -relatively small number of the subscribers of the corporation -telephones, the high cost of underground connections, the clumsy service -offered in many cases, and the ability of the company to offer lower -rates in competitive areas proved too much for most of the corporations -which were granted licences.[837] - -[837] _Rep. Com._, 1905, vii, 271, pp. 10, 76, 79, 233-235. - -In the meantime the National Telephone Company had been experiencing -considerable difficulty in getting permission to lay underground wires -in London. In 1892, the Telegraph act of that year authorized the -Postmaster-General to grant to his licencees the same way-leave powers -which he enjoyed, subject to the conditions that the licencees should -not exercise such powers in London without the consent of the County -Council, nor in any urban district outside London without the consent of -the urban authority, nor elsewhere without the consent of the County -Council. In pursuance of this authority the Postmaster-General, in the -agreement of the 25th of March, 1896, undertook, at the request of the -company, to authorize them to exercise his way-leave powers in any -exchange area. The company did not apply for the exercise of such -authority in London, but an attempt was made by them to obtain the -consent of the London County Council to allow their wires to be placed -underground, and the work proceeded with the permission of the local -road authorities in London. Negotiations with the council were -fruitless, largely on account of the price asked for way-leave and the -demand for lower rates. The Postmaster-General was advised that it was -his duty to see that the act of 1892 was enforced, and the resulting -correspondence with the company having failed of any satisfactory -result, an information in the name of the Attorney-General was filed -against the company, asking for a declaration that they were not -entitled to proceed with their underground works in London without the -authority of the Postmaster-General and the consent of the County -Council. An order to that effect was made on the 24th of July, 1900. -This seemed a favourable opportunity for the Postmaster-General to -secure from the company certain concessions with reference to their -London exchange system as well as privileges for the subscribers of the -postal exchanges which had been established in London and an agreement -with reference to the purchase in 1911 by the Post Office of the -company's London exchanges. These concessions and privileges were -finally embodied in an agreement made on the 18th of November, 1901, by -which the Postmaster-General agreed to furnish such underground wires on -the demand of the company as he might think reasonable and likely to be -useful to the Post Office later, as well as underground wires connecting -the exchanges of the Post Office with those of the company. When the -subscribers of the London Postal Exchanges exceeded 10,000 in number, -the company agreed to pay half of the rent of the latter wires. No -terminal charges were payable for a message passing over these wires, or -for a message over the trunk lines between the subscribers of the Post -Office in London and those outside London, or between subscribers of the -company in London and those outside London. In addition, the -Postmaster-General promised to afford to the company's subscribers in -London all such facilities with reference to postal, telegraphic, and -telephonic communications as he granted to Post Office London -subscribers and upon the same terms and conditions. He also agreed to -consider all applications from the company for way-leaves on railways -and canals where he enjoyed such rights, and the company promised to -establish telephone communications without favour or preference. A -decision was also reached fixing equal rates for the postal and -company's subscribers in London, based primarily on the number of -messages sent with an unmeasured rate lower than that previously in -force, no revision to be made without six months' notice being given. -Finally it was agreed that in 1911 or before--if the company's licence -should have been previously revoked--the Postmaster-General should buy -and the company should sell at its fair market value all such plant as -should then be in use by the company in London and be suitable for the -Post Office at that date. None of the plant was to be considered -suitable unless installed with the written consent of the -Postmaster-General, the question of suitability to be decided by -arbitration if necessary.[838] The local authorities protested in vain -against the agreement, their contention being that the committee of -investigation had advised competition, whereas the government had on the -other hand succeeded only in making very unsatisfactory terms with the -company.[839] - -[838] _Acc. & P._, 1902, lv, 25, pp. 4-10; _Rep. Com._, 1905, vii, 271, -pp. 1-3, 53-54, 233-235; _Parl. Deb._, 4th ser., lxxxii, coll. 183; ci, -coll. 1002-03; cxxxii, coll. 422. - -[839] _Ibid._, 4th ser., ci, coll. 976-993. - -In 1905, the Postmaster-General and the National Telephone Company -concluded an agreement for the purchase of the company's provincial -plant based upon much the same principles which had governed the London -agreement. The question of purchase in the provinces was complicated by -the fact that in some towns there were competing municipal telephones, a -resulting duplication of plant, and an extension of the licence period -beyond 1911. By the terms of the agreement, the Postmaster-General on -the 31st of December, 1911, shall buy and the National Telephone Company -shall sell (_a_) "all the plant, land, and buildings of the company -brought into use with the sanction of the Postmaster-General and in use -on the 31st of December, 1911, for the purpose of the telephonic -business of the Company, (_b_) any licensed business of the company in -towns where there are municipal exchanges and where the licence extends -beyond 1911, (_c_) the private wire business of the company (for which -no licence is required) in use after the 31st of December, 1911, with -buildings, plant, etc., (_d._) all stores and buildings suitable for use -in accordance with specifications contained in the agreement, (_e_) all -spare plant and works under construction if suitable for the telephonic -business of the Post Office." The plant, land, and buildings were deemed -to be brought into use with the sanction of the Postmaster-General if -they were in use or being brought into use at the date of the agreement; -in the case of plant to be installed, if constructed in accordance with -specifications contained in the agreement and of land and buildings, if -acquired or constructed with the consent of the Postmaster-General. With -reference to plant not constructed in accordance with the -specifications, and plant and buildings of any kind in competitive -areas, the Postmaster-General reserved the right to object to buy such -plant or buildings, the question of suitability in competitive areas to -be settled by arbitration. The value to be paid for the company's -undertaking, not in the competitive areas and not being private wire -business, shall be the value on the date of purchase exclusive of any -allowance for past or future profits or any consideration for compulsory -sale or any other consideration. The value in competitive areas is to be -determined by agreement, regard being had to net profits and to the -circumstances and conditions under which the company would carry on such -business after the date of sale. The value of the private wire business -(apart from the plant, land, and buildings used therein) is to be three -years purchase of the net profits on the average of the three years -ending 31st of December, 1911. Any other property or assets of the -company may be purchased by the Postmaster-General, the price to be -determined by arbitration, if necessary, and, after the date of sale, -the telegraphic business of the company will be carried on (whether by -the company or the Postmaster-General) at the expense and for the -benefit of the Postmaster-General. In the meantime the company agreed to -maintain its plant in good and efficient working order, not to show -favour or preference among its subscribers, to accept minimum and -maximum rates, to allow intercommunication without terminal charges -between their and the Post Office subscribers in the same area, and not -to collect terminal charges for messages sent over the trunk lines -between subscribers of the company and those of the Post Office. The -Postmaster-General agreed to extend to subscribers of the company all -such telegraphic and postal facilities as his own subscribers enjoyed, -and to undertake underground works for the company elsewhere than in -London under the same conditions as in London. An agreement was also -reached that similar rates should be charged where the -Postmaster-General and the company maintained competing systems. As a -result, measured rates were, as a rule, substituted for the old flat -rates, much to the indignation of various Chambers of Commerce in the -Kingdom. In the case of complaint as to inefficient service, if the -charge is held to be proved before a person appointed by the Board of -Trade, and if it is not the result of a refusal to grant way-leaves, the -Postmaster-General may require the company to remedy conditions in the -particular area concerned or may call upon them to sell the inefficient -system to him. In the first case if there is no improvement or if the -second alternative has been adopted, the Postmaster-General may require -immediate sale under the same terms that would have held if it had not -taken place until the 31st of December, 1911.[840] - -[840] _Acc. & P._, 1905, xliv, 16, pp. 3-23; _Rep. Com._, 1905, vii, -271, pp. iii-xi. - -The income received by the Post Office for the fiscal year 1906-07 from -the London and provincial exchanges and trunk-line business was -£908,246, working expenses, £456,459, balance for depreciation, -interest, etc., £451,787, leaving a balance of £19,061 over and above an -estimated amount of £432,726 for depreciation and interest at three per -cent on the capital expenditure. The London exchange, with a gross -income of £330,512, showed a surplus of £25,586 over and above -depreciation fund and interest on capital expenditure, the provincial -exchanges a deficit of £15,758, and the trunk lines a surplus of £9333. -The number of subscribers to the Post Office provincial exchanges -(excluding Glasgow and Brighton) was 10,010. Including the Glasgow -subscribers (11,103) and the Brighton subscribers (1542), the total was -22,655. Arrangements were then being made for local intercommunication -between subscribers of these exchanges and those of the company in the -same places. Hull and Portsmouth were the only towns maintaining -municipal telephonic systems in 1907, Hull having 2128 telephones in use -and Portsmouth 2553. The number of telephones in the London Post Office -telephone service was 41,236, including 425 public call offices. The -agreement of 1905, providing for similar rates in the provinces between -exchanges of the Post Office and those of the company, was followed -after considerable discussion by the announcement of the adoption of a -new scale in May, 1906. The rates are now based on the principle of a -measured service under which each subscriber pays according to the -quality and quantity of the service desired. He may contract for any -number of calls from four hundred upward, and he may share a line with -another subscriber at a reduced rate, or he may rent a line for his own -exclusive use.[841] - -[841] _Rep. P. G._, 1905, app., pp. 90-92; 1907, pp. 21-23, 93. - - - - -CHAPTER XII - -CONCLUSION - - -The important points in the history of the British Post Office are -necessarily somewhat obscured by the great mass of less important -characteristics which accompanied its development. Organized at the -beginning of the sixteenth century as a means for the conveyance of -state letters, its messengers, by tacit consent, were allowed to carry -the letters of private individuals. The advantage so afforded for the -control of seditious correspondence led to the monopolistic -proclamations of the closing years of the sixteenth and the opening -years of the seventeenth century. Before 1635 the state obtained no -direct revenue for the conveyance of private letters. The messengers or -postmen who were supposed to be paid by the state, derived the larger -part of their income from the postage on these letters and from letting -horses to travellers. - -The object in retaining for the Royal Posts the sole right to carry the -letters of private individuals assumed a new form in the seventeenth -century. Witherings showed that by diverting the postage on private -letters from the postmen to the state the Post Office might be made -self-supporting. Legal rates were imposed, letters were carried at a -much higher speed, and the system of packet posts was extended over the -great roads of England. The supervision of private correspondence became -a matter of only secondary importance. The struggle between the King and -Parliament resulted in securing popular control over the posts of the -kingdom. At the same time, during the political unrest, competing -systems of posts were repressed with difficulty. The inability of -government officials to meet the increasing needs of a growing -metropolis led to the establishment of a Penny Post in London by -Dockwra, a private individual. - -The first part of the eighteenth century saw the extension of a postal -system in the colonies and an attempt on the part of the Post Office to -obtain the postage on letters passing over the cross-roads of England. -The increase in England's colonial possessions and her growing trade -with foreign countries produced a corresponding growth in the packet -service. The last part of the century saw the establishment of Palmer's -mail coaches in order to meet competition from the post coaches. The -great increase in revenue which accompanied the industrial revolution -led to corruption among the postal officials, resulting in the reform of -1793. The period of rapid growth had passed, and the close of the -eighteenth century was a period of consolidation for the new offices -which had been created, and better coöperation in the work which they -performed. - -The first forty years of the last century saw the Post Office at its -best as an instrument of taxation. But this very fact drew attention to -the lack of other and more important objects. Rates had been forced so -high that people resorted to legal and illegal means to evade paying -them. The feeling was growing that a tax upon correspondence was not -only a poor method of raising money but that its ulterior effect in -restricting letter writing was producing undesirable results upon the -people of England industrially and socially. A great mistake had been -made by the Post Office in acquiring steam packets. They suffered -severely from private competing lines and were always a loss to the -Government. A partial remedy was attained by the transfer of all the -packets to the Admiralty. Eventually the popular cause, championed by -Hill and Wallace, forced itself upon the attention of the Government. A -Parliamentary committee, after listening to the evidence of -representative witnesses, declared itself in favour of low and uniform -rates of postage for the United Kingdom, the result being the adoption -of inland Penny Postage in 1840. - -Among the numerous changes which have characterized the development of -the Post Office since 1840 are the successive reductions in rates; the -transfer of the packet boats from the Admiralty, followed by the -resolution of the Government to revert to the old principle of depending -upon private enterprise for the sea carriage of the mails; the extension -in the use of the railways as a medium of conveyance; the establishment -of a parcel post; and the decision of the government to provide banking -and assurance facilities for the thrifty person of small means. But the -greatest departure in the field of the department's activities has been -the acquisition of the telegraphic system of the Kingdom. Misled by -their advisers as to the capital cost and induced by popular pressure to -abandon strictly business methods of administration and extension, the -telegraphic experiments of the department have not been a financial -success. Not only has this been the case, but, in their efforts to -protect the revenue, successive Governments have hindered the -development of telephonic communication. At this late date we can safely -assume that in 1870 the department should either have granted the -telephone companies far greater powers or should themselves have assumed -the burden of providing an adequate system of telephonic communication. -In 1911, the property and franchises of the telephone companies will -pass to the control of the Government, thus vastly increasing the work -of the department if, as seems probable, the Government should assume -direct management, and greatly enlarging the number of dissatisfied -members of that part of the civil service under the control of the Post -Office. - - - - - APPENDIX - - EXPENDITURE AND REVENUE TABLES - - TABLE I - - - GROSS PRODUCT, EXPENDITURE, AND NET PRODUCT OF THE POST OFFICE OF THE - UNITED KINGDOM FROM MARCH 25, 1723 TO APRIL 5, 1797 - - _Year ending_ _Gross Product_ _Expenses_ _Net Product_ - £ £ £ - March 25, 1724 178,071 81,732 96,339 - 25 175,274 75,407 99,867 - 26 178,065 83,253 94,812 - 27 182,184 81,295 100,889 - 28 183,915 79,250 104,665 - 29 179,189 86,882 92,307 - 30 178,817 84,027 94,790 - 31 171,412 79,243 92,169 - 32 176,714 84,678 92,036 - 33 171,283 79,137 92,146 - 34 176,334 84,633 91,701 - 35 182,171 83,541 98,630 - 36 188,210 90,589 97,621 - 37 182,490 85,402 97,088 - 38 186,578 93,914 92,664 - 39 183,747 85,497 97,250 - 40 194,197 103,532 90,085 - 42 197,721 110,137 87,584 - 43 190,626 102,185 88,441 - 44 194,461 109,347 85,114 - 45 194,607 108,852 85,755 - 46 201,460 120,570 80,890 - 47 209,028 123,086 85,942 - 48 217,453 138,701 78,752 - 49 212,801 124,478 88,323 - 50 207,490 110,093 97,397 - 51 203,748 104,633 99,115 - 52 207,092 109,371 97,721 - April 5, 53 206,666 108,518 98,148 - 54 214,300 116,935 97,365 - 55 210,663 108,648 102,015 - 56 238,445 144,203 94,242 - 57 242,478 162,629 79,849 - 58 222,075 148,346 73,729 - 59 229,879 143,784 86,095 - 60 230,146 146,643 83,493 - 61 240,497 153,808 86,689 - 62 233,722 155,927 77,795 - 63 238,999 141,166 97,833 - 64 225,326 109,134 116,182 - 65 262,496 104,925 157,571 - 66 265,427 103,484 161,943 - 67 275,230 113,286 161,944 - 68 278,253 112,470 165,783 - 69 284,914 120,154 164,760 - 70 285,050 128,988 156,062 - 71 292,782 137,239 155,543 - 72 309,997 144,394 165,503 - 73 310,126 142,940 167,176 - 74 313,032 148,965 164,077 - 75 321,943 148,755 173,188 - 76 318,418 150,936 167,482 - 77 329,921 171,346 158,575 - 78 347,128 209,124 137,994 - 79 372,817 233,569 139,248 - 80 387,092 250,683 136,409 - 81 417,634 263,477 154,157 - 82 393,235 275,910 117,325 - 83 398,624 238,999 159,625 - 84 420,101 223,588 196,513 - 85 463,753 202,344 261,409 - 86 471,176 185,201 285,975 - 87 474,347 195,748 278,599 - 88 509,131 212,151 296,980 - 89 514,538 195,928 318,610 - 90 533,198 202,019 331,179 - 91 575,079 219,080 355,999 - 92 585,432 218,473 366,959 - 93 627,592 236,084 391,508 - 94 691,268 260,606 430,662 - 95 705,319 295,822 409,497 - 96 657,541 191,084 466,457 - 97 691,616 178,266 513,350[842] - -[842] _Parl. Papers_, 1812-13, _Reports from Committees_, ii, pp. -60-61. - - - TABLE II - - AVERAGE YEARLY GROSS PRODUCT, EXPENDITURE AND NET PRODUCT OF THE POST - OFFICE OF THE UNITED KINGDOM FROM 1725 TO 1794 - - _Gross Product_ _Expenses_ _Net Product_ - £ £ £ - 1725-29 179,725 81,217 98,508 - 1730-34 174,912 82,344 92,568 - 1735-39 184,639 87,989 96,650 - 1740-44 193,682 105,304 88,378 - 1745-49 207,069 123,137 83,932 - 1750-54 207,859 109,910 97,949 - 1755-59 228,708 147,522 81,186 - 1760-64 233,738 141,340 92,398 - 1765-69 273,264 110,864 162,400 - 1770-74 302,197 140,525 161,672 - 1775-79 338,045 182,766 155,279 - 1780-84 403,337 251,331 152,006 - 1785-89 486,587 198,273 288,314 - 1790-94 602,514 227,033 375,481 - - - TABLE III - - GROSS PRODUCT, EXPENDITURE, AND NET PRODUCT OF THE POST OFFICE OF THE - UNITED KINGDOM, INCLUDING THE TWOPENNY POST, FROM JANUARY 5, 1804 TO - JANUARY 5, 1838 - - - _Year_ _Gross_ _Net_ _Loss on_ - _ending_ _Product_ _Expenses_ _Product_ _Returned_ - £ £ £ _Letters_[843] - Jan. 5, 1804 1,429,429 416,767 956,21 56,450 - 5 1,466,271 420,395 983,363 62,513 - 6 1,648,523 457,686 1,119,429 71,408 - 7 1,718,187 456,968 1,185,659 75,560 - 8 1,711,980 468,531 1,167,425 76,024 - 9 1,739,855 489,469 1,173,062 77,324 - 10 1,855,746 519,359 1,260,822 75,565 - 11 1,987,404 546,460 1,365,251 75,693 - 12 1,960,510 540,397 1,344,109 76,004 - 13 2,078,879 576,885 1,422,001 79,993 - 14 2,209,213 616,564 1,506,064 86,585 - 15 2,372,429 675,548 1,598,295 98,586 - 16 2,418,741 704,639 1,619,196 94,906 - 17 2,280,209 649,129 1,537,505 93,575 - 18 2,186,621 665,354 1,433,871 87,396 - 19 2,240,553 683,680 1,467,533 89,340 - 20 2,191,562 586,193 1,522,640 82,729 - 21 2,172,875 611,187 1,465,605 96,083 - 22 2,122,965 645,241 1,393,465 84,259 - 23 2,128,926 620,977 1,428,352 79,597 - 24 2,154,294 596,336 1,475,167 82,791 - 25 2,255,238 628,829 1,540,022 86,387 - 26 2,367,567 636,353 1,632,267 98,947 - 27 2,392,271 706,640 1,589,672 95,869 - 28 2,278,411 706,192 1,484,164 88,095 - 29 2,287,961 663,775 1,544,224 79,962 - 30 2,265,481 675,319 1,509,347 80,815 - 31 2,301,431 694,254 1,517,951 89,226 - 32 2,321,310 658,325 1,569,038 93,947 - 33 2,277,274 643,464 1,531,828 101,982 - 34 2,294,910 636,756 1,553,425 104,729 - 35 2,319,979 696,387 1,513,052 110,540 - 36 2,353,340 678,836 1,564,458 110,046 - 37 2,461,806 704,768 1,645,835 111,203 - 38 2,462,269 698,632 1,641,106 122,531 - -[843] _Reports from Com._, 1837-38, xx, pt. r. p. 509. Before 1797, the -loss on returned letters seems to have been included in the Charges of -Management. - - - TABLE IV - - AVERAGE YEARLY GROSS PRODUCT, EXPENDITURE, AND NET PRODUCT, ETC., OF THE - POST OFFICE OF THE UNITED KINGDOM FROM 1805 TO 1838 - - - _Gross Product_ _Expenses_ _Net Product_ _Loss on_ _Actual_ - _Returned_ _Gross_ - _Letters_ _Product_ - £ £ £ £ £ - 1805-09 1,656,963 458,610 1,125,787 72,566 1,584,397 - 1810-14 2,018,350 559,933 1,379,649 78,768 1,939,582 - 1815-19 2,299,710 675,670 1,531,280 92,760 2,206,950 - 1820-24 2,154,124 611,987 1,457,045 85,092 2,069,032 - 1825-29 2,316,289 668,358 1,558,079 89,852 2,226,437 - 1830-34 2,292,081 661,623 1,536,318 94,140 2,197,941 - 1835-38 2,399,348 694,656 1,591,112 113,580 2,285,768 - - SCOTLAND - - _Gross Product_ _Expenses_ _Net Product_ - £ £ £ - 1800-04 117,108 18,952 98,156 - 1805-09 148,816 23,981 124,835 - 1810-14 182,259 29,153 153,106 - 1815-19 191,812 40,736 151,076 - 1820-24 185,235 46,351 138,884 - 1825-29 205,599 49,485 156,114 - 1830-34 204,481 54,729 149,752 - 1835-37 216,191 59,553 156,638 - - IRELAND - - £ £ £ - 1800-04 92,745 64,368 28,377 - 1805-09 150,845 90,922 59,923 - 1810-14 192,969 115,019 77,950 - 1815-19 210,159 124,149 86,010 - 1820-24 190,431 119,200 71,231 - 1825-29 214,165 115,875 98,290 - 1830-34 244,098 108,898 135,200 - 1835-37 247,068 114,093 132,975 - - - TABLE V - - GROSS PRODUCT, EXPENDITURE, AND NET PRODUCT OF THE POST OFFICE FOR - SCOTLAND AND IRELAND FROM 1800 TO 1837 - - _Scotland_ - - _Year ending_ _Gross_ _Expenses_ _Net_ - _Jan. 5_ _Product_ _Product_ - £ £ £ - 1800 100,651 16,896 83,755 - 01 113,126 18,020 95,105 - 02 121,700 18,692 103,007 - 03 124,809 20,581 104,228 - 04 125,257 20,562 104,694 - 05 137,479 21,175 116,303 - 06 146,148 22,465 123,682 - 07 151,696 23,358 128,338 - 08 152,453 27,496 124,956 - 09 156,305 25,412 130,892 - 10 168,098 26,543 141,555 - 11 169,082 24,853 144,229 - 12 178,896 26,260 152,636 - 13 191,857 26,248 165,609 - 14 203,366 [844]41,814 161,551 - 15 201,992 40,950 161,042 - 16 193,727 40,570 153,157 - 17 185,417 41,181 144,236 - 18 189,690 39,756 149,934 - 19 188,236 41,225 147,011 - 20 184,512 43,106 141,405 - 21 179,403 47,078 132,324 - 22 184,014 47,302 136,711 - 23 184,164 47,515 136,649 - 24 194,085 46,755 147,330 - 25 205,988 49,066 156,921 - 26 214,271 50,113 164,158 - 27 203,137 49,378 153,759 - 28 203,305 51,393 151,911 - 29 201,298 47,476 153,822 - 30 202,754 50,999 151,754 - 31 204,593 55,434 149,159 - 32 206,594 54,601 151,992 - 33 203,324 54,875 148,448 - 34 205,144 57,738 147,406 - 35 209,069 59,306 149,762 - 36 218,748 59,408 159,339 - 37 220,758 59,945 160,813 - - - _Ireland_ - - _Year ending_ _Gross_ _Expenses_ _Net_ - _Jan. 5_ _Product_ _Product_ - £ £ £ - 1800 84,040 59,216 24,824 - 01 [845]66,030 48,656 17,376 - 02 102,293 70,489 31,806 - 03 102,518 66,008 36,510 - 04 108,844 77,471 31,373 - 05 118,429 79,448 38,981 - 06 146,682 93,651 53,031 - 07 149,857 90,940 58,917 - 08 158,749 91,200 67,549 - 09 180,510 99,371 81,139 - 10 180,670 110,064 70,606 - 11 195,531 117,639 77,892 - 12 189,963 118,344 71,619 - 13 195,458 112,938 82,520 - 14 203,226 116,113 87,113 - 15 212,562 121,371 91,191 - 16 225,000 132,331 92,669 - 17 212,269 126,476 85,793 - 18 203,456 123,186 80,270 - 19 197,510 117,384 80,126 - 20 197,677 123,060 74,617 - 21 192,511 127,494 65,017 - 22 187,120 118,932 68,188 - 23 186,024 112,778 73,246 - 24 188,826 113,739 75,087 - 25 199,602 118,698 80,904 - 26 207,177 113,539 93,638 - 27 207,757 117,564 90,193 - 28 216,232 116,836 99,396 - 29 239,559 112,740 126,819 - 30 241,063 111,955 129,108 - 31 247,711 117,622 130,089 - 32 256,976 102,654 154,322 - 33 242,671 107,127 135,544 - 34 232,071 105,145 126,926 - 35 240,471 109,973 130,498 - 36 245,664 112,045 123,619 - 37 255,070 120,261 134,809 - -[844] First payment of tolls amounting from £16,000 to £20,000 a year. -2d _Rep._, app. no. 39, _Rep. Com._, 1837-38, xx. - -[845] Three quarters only. 1st _Rep._, app. no. 28. - - - TABLE VI - - GROSS REVENUE, EXPENDITURE, AND NET REVENUE OF THE POST OFFICE OF THE - UNITED KINGDOM, NOT INCLUDING TELEGRAPHS, FROM 1838 TO 1907. - - - _Year ending_ _Gross Revenue_ _Expenditure_ _Net Revenue_ - £ £ £ - Jan. 5, 1838 2,339,737 687,313 1,652,424 - 1839 2,346,278 686,768 1,659,509 - 1840 2,390,763 756,999 1,633,764 - 1841 1,359,466 858,677 500,789 - 1842 1,499,418 938,168 561,249 - 1843 1,578,145 977,504 600,641 - 1844 1,620,867 980,650 640,217 - 1845 1,705,067 985,110 719,957 - 1846 1,887,576 1,125,594 761,982 - 1847 1,963,857 1,138,745 825,112 - 1848 2,181,016 1,196,520 984,496 - 1849 2,143,679 1,403,250 740,429 - 1850 2,165,349 1,324,562 840,789 - 1851 2,264,684 1,460,785 803,898 - 1852 2,422,168 1,304,163 1,118,004 - 1853 2,434,326 1,343,907 1,090,419 - 1854 2,574,407 1,400,679 1,173,727 - Dec. 31, 1854 2,701,862 1,506,556 1,195,306 - 1855 2,716,420 1,651,364 1,065,056 - 1856 2,867,954 1,660,229 1,207,725 - 1857[846] 3,035,713 1,720,815 1,314,898 - 1858[847] 3,241,535 1,953,283 1,288,252 - 1859 3,461,924 1,952,432 1,509,492 - 1860 3,531,165 1,953,234 1,577,931 - 1861 3,665,128 3,154,527 510,601 - 1862 3,764,004 2,926,551 837,453 - 1863 3,999,455 2,956,486 1,042,969 - 1864 4,231,558 3,078,297 1,153,261 - 1865 4,423,608 2,941,086 1,482,522 - 1866 4,599,667 3,201,681 1,397,986 - 1867 4,668,214 3,246,850 1,421,364 - 1868[848] 4,683,646 3,266,724 1,416,922 - 1869 4,764,575 3,459,227 1,305,348 - 1870[849] 4,929,475 3,435,865 1,493,610 - 1871 4,900,454 3,610,700 1,289,754 - 1872 5,208,922 3,684,946 1,523,976 - 1873 5,348,040 3,792,679 1,555,361 - 1874 5,751,600 3,915,213 1,836,387 - Mar. 21, 1875 5,815,032 3,920,891 1,894,141 - 1876-77[850] 6,017,072 4,070,006 1,947,066 - 1877-78 6,047,312 3,990,620 2,056,692 - 1878-79 6,274,450 3,840,076 2,434,374 - 1879-80 6,558,445 4,060,758 2,497,687 - 1880-81[851] 6,733,427 4,135,659 2,597,768 - 1881-82 7,024,600 4,286,596 2,741,004 - 1882-83 7,300,960 4,545,398 2,755,562 - 1883-84 7,764,855 5,154,829 2,610,026 - 1884-85 7,906,406 5,317,213 2,589,193 - 1885-86 8,170,604 5,486,724 2,683,880 - 1886-87 8,471,198 5,880,141 2,591,057 - 1887-88 8,705,337 5,933,820 2,771,517 - 1888-89 9,102,776 6,062,902 3,039,874 - 1889-90 9,474,774 6,266,263 3,208,511 - 1890-91[852] 9,851,078 6,687,089 3,163,989 - 1891-92 10,451,998[853] 7,192,487 3,259,511 - 1892-93 10,600,149 7,507,645 3,092,504 - 1893-94 10,734,885 7,759,712 2,975,173 - 1894-95 11,025,460 7,955,344 3,070,116 - 1895-96 11,759,945 8,086,272 3,673,673 - 1896-87 12,146,935 8,246,356 3,900,579 - 1897-98 12,420,376 8,683,317 3,737,059 - 1898-99 13,049,317 9,190,006 3,859,311 - 1899-1900 13,394,335 9,683,999 3,710,336 - 1900-01[854] 13,995,470 10,064,903 3,930,567 - 1901-02 14,465,870 10,465,101 4,000,769 - 1902-03 15,005,262 10,819,938 4,185,324 - 1903-04 15,824,394 11,201,122 4,623,272 - 1904-05 16,274,978 11,446,279 4,828,699 - 1905-06 17,064,023 11,849,012 5,215,011 - Est'm'd 1906-07[855] 17,361,042 12,289,787 5,071,255 - -[846] 1st _Rep. P. G._, 1855, p. 68. 20th _Rep. P. G._, 1874, app., p. -46. - -[847] Expenditure for sailing packets in 1858 was £935,883. - -[848] Postage ceased to be charged on government departments early in -1868. - -[849] 10th _Rep. P. G._, 1864, pp. 32-38; 18th _Rep. P. G._, 1872, pp. -26-27. Until 1858 revenue does not include revenue from impressed -newspaper stamps nor does expenditure include cost of packet service -until 1861. - -[850] In 1876 the beginning of the financial year of the Post Office was -changed from 1st January to 1st April. - -[851] 27th _Rep. P. G._, 1881, app., p. 52. - -[852] 37th _Rep. P. G._, 1891, app., p. 64. - -[853] Including estimated value of services to other departments from -1891-1892 on. - -[854] 47th _Rep. P. G._, 1901, app., p. 82. - -[855] 53d _Rep. P. G._, 1907, p. 95. - - - TABLE VII - - AVERAGE YEARLY GROSS REVENUE, EXPENDITURE, AND NET REVENUE OF POST - OFFICE FOR THE UNITED KINGDOM NOT INCLUDING TELEGRAPHS FROM 1841 TO - 1906. - - - _Gross Revenue_ _Expenditure_ _Net Revenue_ - £ £ £ - 1841-45 1,658,214 1,001,405 656,809 - 1846-50 2,143,717 1,304,772 838,944 - 1851-55 2,569,836 1,441,334 1,128,502 - 1856-60 3,135,587 1,785,911 1,349,676 - 1861-65 4,016,750 3,013,389 1,003,341 - 1866-70 4,729,155 3,322,069 1,407,086 - 1871-75 5,404,809 3,784,886 1,619,923 - 1876-81 6,326,141 4,019,423 2,306,718 - 1881-86 7,634,085 4,958,152 2,675,933 - 1886-91 9,121,032 6,166,043 2,954,989 - 1891-96 10,914,487 7,701,292 3,213,195 - 1896-1901 13,001,286 9,174,516 3,826,770 - 1901-1906 15,926,905 11,156,292 4,770,613 - - - - - BIBLIOGRAPHY - - -This list does not contain a complete record of all the authorities -consulted. It merely brings together, with a fuller statement of title, -the more important references scattered through the footnotes. Unless it -is otherwise stated, London is to be understood as the place of -publication for the English books here cited. - - - PRINTED RECORDS--PARLIAMENTARY DOCUMENTS--REPORTS - - - _Acts of Parliament._ - - _Acts of the Parliament of Scotland._ 12 vols., 1814-75. - - _Acts of the Privy Council of England._ New Series, ed. J. R. Dasent. - 32 vols., 1890-1907. - - _Calendar of Border Papers._ - - _Calendar of State Papers, America and West Indies._ _Do.,_ _Colonial._ - _Do.,_ _Domestic._ _Do.,_ _Foreign._ _Do.,_ _Ireland._ - - _Calendar of Treasury Books._ - - _Calendar of Treasury Books and Papers._ - - _Calendar of Treasury Papers._ - - _Finance Reports, 1797-98._ - - Hansard. _The Parliamentary Debates._ 422 vols., 1803-91. 41 vols., to - 1820; "New Series," 25 vols., to 1830; Third Series, 356 vols., to - 1891. The work has been continued under other management since 1891, - as _Parliamentary Debates_, Fourth and Fifth Series. - - Howell, T. J. _A Complete Collection of State Trials_ [to 1820]. 34 - vols., 1816-28. - - _Journals of the House of Commons._ - - _Journals of the House of Lords._ - - _Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, of the Reign of Henry VIII._ - - [Cobbett, William.] _The Parliamentary History of England, from the - Earliest Period to the Year 1803._ 36 vols., 1806-20. - - _Parliamentary Papers._ Since 1831 the volumes for each year have been - arranged regularly in four series, as follows:-- - - 1. _Bills Public._ - 2. _Reports from Committees._ - 3. _Reports from Commissioners._ - 4. _Accounts and Papers._ - - The volumes are ordinarily quoted, under each year, according to their - consecutive numbering; but each series is also numbered separately. - - _Proceedings and Ordinances of the Privy Council of England._ Ed. Sir - Harris Nicholas. 7 vols., 1834-37. - - _Reports of the Postmasters-General on the Post Office._ Beginning - with 1854-55. These may be quoted either according to their - consecutive numbering, or by years: 1st report = 1855; - 51st report = 1905, etc. - - Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts. _Reports._ - - Scobell, Henry. _A Collection of Acts and Ordinances made in the - Parliament held 3 Nov. 1640 to 17 Sept. 1656._ 1658. - - - OTHER BOOKS - - Blomefield, F., and Parkin, C. _An Essay towards a Topographical - History of the County of Norfolk._ 2d ed., 11 vols., 1805-10. - - Cunningham, W. _The Growth of English Industry and Commerce in Modern - Times._ 3 vols., Cambridge, 1896-1903. - - De Laune, Thomas. _Angliae Metropolis: or, the Present State of - London._ 1681. - - _Dictionary of National Biography._ - - Eaton, D. B. _Civil Service in Great Britain._ New York, 1880. - - Froude, J. A. _A History of England from the Fall of Wolsey to the - Death of Elizabeth._ 12 vols., New York, 1870. - - Gairdner, J., _editor_. _The Paston Letters._ 3 vols., 1872-75. - - Green, E. _Bibliotheca Somersetensis._ 3 vols., Taunton, 1902. - - Joyce, H. _The History of the Post Office from its Establishment down - to 1836._ 1893. - - Knight, Charles. _London._. 6 vols., 1841-44. - - Latimer, John. _The Annals of Bristol in the XVIIIth Century._ - Bristol, 1893. - - Lewins, William. _Her Majesty's Mails._ 2d ed., 1865. - - _London and its Environs described._ 6 vols., 1761. - - Macaulay, T. B. _History of England from the Accession of James II._ 4 - vols., 1849-56. - - Macpherson, David. _Annals of Commerce, Manufactures, Fisheries, and - Navigation._ 4 vols., London and Edinburgh, 1805. - - Maitland, William. _The History and Survey of London._ 2 vols., 1760. - - Malden, H. E. _The Cely Papers: Selections from the Correspondence and - Memoranda of the Cely Family, Merchants of the Staple, A. D. 1475-88._ - 1900. - - May, T. E. _Constitutional History of England._ 1882. - - Noorthouck, John. _A New History of London._ 1773. - - Ogilby, John. _Itinerarium Angliae._ 1675. - - Roberts, George. _The Social History of the Southern Counties of - England in Past Centuries._ 1856. - - Rothschild, Arthur de. _Histoire de la Poste aux Lettres, depuis ses - Origines les plus Anciennes jusqu'à nos Jours._ 2d ed., Paris, 1873. - - Sharpe, R. R. _London and the Kingdom._ 3 vols., 1894-95. - - Stow, John (1525-1605). _A Survey of the Cities of London and - Westminster, improved and enlarged by John Strype._ 2 vols., 1720. - - Thornbury, W., and Walford, E. _Old and New London._ 6 vols. [1873-78.] - - - PERIODICALS - - - _The Economist._ - - _The London Times._ - - _Notes and Queries._ - -With reference to the foregoing bibliography, the "Letters and Papers of -Henry VIII" and the "Calendar of State Papers" have formed the basis of -this sketch of the British Post Office during the sixteenth and -seventeenth centuries, with many references to the papers of private -individuals and institutions collected by the Royal Commission on -Historical Manuscripts. The "Proceedings and Ordinances and the Acts of -the Privy Council" contain important orders issued to the -Postmaster-General or the postmen during the sixteenth century as well -as complaints from the postmen and the public. From the beginning of the -eighteenth century the chief sources of information are the historical -summaries appended to the "Reports of Committees and Commissioners" -compiled during the first half of the nineteenth century. Of these, the -"Report of 1844" is the most important. The "Journals of the Lords and -Commons" throw some light upon the history, purpose, and intent of the -various acts of Parliament dealing with rates and finance. "The -Financial Report of 1797," various returns submitted to the House of -Commons, and the reports contained in the "Accounts and Papers" for the -first part of the nineteenth century are chiefly concerned with the -financial side of the history of the British Post Office. Since 1840 the -most important sources of information are the yearly reports of the -Postmasters-General, dating from 1854, and the voluminous reports of -committees appointed to investigate debated points in the organization -and policy of the Post Office as well as to advise upon matters which -had produced friction between the department and its employees. - -Of the secondary works there is little to be said. The only one from -which any important information has been obtained is Joyce's "History of -the British Post Office to 1836." This book contains a great deal of -valuable matter arranged in rather a haphazard fashion and with no -references. Writing as a Post Office official at the end of the -nineteenth century, Joyce hardly appreciated the conditions which his -predecessors had to meet. In Stow's "London" are found some interesting -facts about the London Penny Post, in Blomefield's "Norfolk" early -postal conditions in Norwich are described. The other books of the same -description contain only incidental references to minor points of Post -Office development. - - - - - INDEX - - - Abuses in the Post Office, 42-46, 127, 128. - - Allen, Ralph, 36, 37, 37 note. - - American colonies, Post Office in, 32, 33, 59. - - American Express Company, 70. - - Annuities, 74. _See also_ Savings Bank Department. - - Arlington, Lord, 27. - - Arundel, Earl of, 11. - - Assurance facilities, 74. _See also_ Savings Bank Department. - - - Bennett, Sir John, 27. - - Billingsley, 11, 19. - - Bishop, Henry, 24, 25. - - Book Post, 68, 173. _See also_ Halfpenny Post and Rates, Book Post. - - Bower, Sir George, 80. - - Bradford Committee, 84, 85. - - British and Inland Magnetic Telegraph Company, 202, 206, 208. - - Burlamachi, Philip, 17, 18. - - Buxton, Sydney, 85, 87, 88. - - Bye-letters, 35 note. - - Bye-posts, 36, 39, 144; - receipts from, 185, 186. - - - Canadian Pacific Railway Company, 134. - - Carteret, Lord, 42. - - Cash on delivery, 70, 71. - - Chamberlain, A., 83. - - Chesterfield, Countess of, 25. - - Clerks of the road, 38, 50. - - Coaches. _See_ Mail Coaches and Post Coaches. - - Coke, Sir John, 11, 12, 15, 16, 18, 111, 112. - - Competition in carrying letters, 191-197. - - Competitive examinations, 78. - - Compulsory prepayment. _See_ Prepayment of rates. - - Cotton and Frankland, 31, 115. - - Cromwell, orders to the postmasters, 23. - - Cross-posts, 140, 144. _See also_ Bye-posts. - - Cross-post letters, 35 note, 36. _See also_ Post-roads, Cross-posts. - - Cunard Steamship Company, 132, 133, 134. - - Customs duties, 125. - - - Dead Letter Office, 50. - - Delivery of letters, 9, 38, 39; - rural, 65, 66; - express or special, 67, 68. - - Departmental committee, 82. - - De Nouveau, 114. - - De Quester, 10, 12, 135. - - De Taxis, 112, 114. - - Dockwra, William, 28, 30. - - Double letter, 13 note. - - Dublin Penny Post, 30 note, 54, 150. - - - Edinburgh Penny Post, 54. - - Edison Telephone Company, 219. - - Electric and International Telegraph Company, 202, 205, 206, 208. - - Embossed stamps. _See_ Stamps. - - Employees, postal, appointment brought under civil service - examination, 78, 79; - report of Bradford committee, 84, 85; - of departmental committee, 82; - of Hobhouse committee, 86-88; - civil rights, 82; - postal unions, 85; - wages, 80, 83; - Tweedmouth settlement, 81, 82; - strike, 81; - grievances, 80, 82, 83; - increase in wages, 81, 82. - - Evasion of rates, 197-201. _See also_ Monopoly, attempts to break. - - Express delivery. _See_ Delivery of letters. - - - Farmers of the Post Office, 21, 22, 36, 37. - - Fawcett, Henry, 74, 75, 80, 81. - - Fees, 9, 15, 45, 49. - - Fifth-clause Posts, 65. - - Finances of Post Office, 180-188. - - Foreign connections: Belgium, 111; - France, 111, 113, 114, 115, 117, 118, 120; - Germany, 111; - Holland, 111, 114; - Italy, 111, 115; - United States and the colonies, 120 note; - stages settled on the continent, 112. - _See also_ Rates and Sailing Packets. - - Foreigners' Post, 6, 7. - - Franking, 159-172; - by members of Parliament, 25; - of newspapers, 48. - - Franking department, 57. - - Frankland. _See_ Cotton and Frankland. - - Freeling, Sir Francis, 52. - - Frizell, 11, 18, 24. - - - Grimston, 205. - - - Halfpenny Post, 68, 69, 197. - - Hall, John, 11. - - Hamilton, Andrew, 33. - - Hanbury, 82. - - Hicks, James, 19, 20, 24, 26, 27, 112. - - Hill, Sir Rowland, 59-61, 187. - - Hobhouse committee, 86-88. - - - Inman Steamship Company, 132, 133. - - Insurance facilities, 74. _See also_ Savings Bank Department. - - Ireland, Post Office in, 31, 57. _See also_ Post-roads, Rates, - and Sailing Packets, Ireland. - - - Letters, number of, 63. - - London and Globe Telephone Company, 220. - - London District Post, 71. - - London District Telegraph Company, 202. - - London Penny Post, 28-30, 34, 35 note, 51, 52; - receipts from, 185. - _See_ Twopenny post. - - - Mail coaches, 40, 41, 55, 104, 105. - - Manley, John, 22, 23. - - Marconi Company, 213, 214. - - Mason, Sir John, 7, 8. - - Merchant Adventurers' Post, 6, 11. - - Messengers, 3, 5, 67. - - Money Order Office, 50, 71. - - Money orders, 176-180; - number of, 71-73. - _See also_ Rates, money orders. - - Monopoly, attempts to break, 191-197; - in carriage of letters and packets, 189-191, 195, 196. - _See also_ Telegraphs, monopoly. - - Mowatt, Sir F., 81. - - - National Telephone Company, 222-224, 229, 231, 233. - - Neale, Thomas, 33. - - Newspaper Office, 49. - - Newspapers, chargeable and free, 68; - franking of, 48; - impressed stamps on, 68; - number of, 68. - _See also_ Rates, newspapers. - - New Telephone Company, 223. - - Norfolk, Duke of, 82. - - - O'Neale, Daniel, 25. - - Opening and detaining letters, 16, 18, 21, 26, 46-48, 196. - - - Packet list, 48. - - Packets. _See_ Sailing Packets. - - Paget, 7. - - Palmer, John, 40-42, 44. - - Parcel Post, 70, 174. _See also_ Rates, Parcel Post. - - Patronage, 78, 79. - - Pattern and Sample Post, 69. _See also_ Rates, patterns. - - Peninsular and Oriental Steamship Company, 132. - - Penny Post. _See_ London Penny Post. - - Penny Postage, 59-62, 158-160. - - Pensions, sailors', 127. - - Pitt, William, 43. - - Plague, 26. - - Political patronage. _See_ Patronage. - - Postal establishment, in seventeenth century, 27; - in eighteenth, 38, 44; - in nineteenth, 57. - - Postcards, 174; - number of, 69, 69 note; - use of, 69. - _See also_ Rates, postcards. - - Post coaches, 40. - - Post horses, 5, 8; - fee for their use, 89, 90, 92; - licences and taxes, 94, 95, 95 note; - monopoly in letting, 92, 94; - number to be kept, 92, 93; - supply of, 89, 90. - - Postmarks, 29. - - Postmen's Federation, 85 note. - - Post offices, number of, 71. - - Post-roads, 13; - cross posts, 103; - in sixteenth century, 97, 101; - in seventeenth century, 99; - maps, 101; - re-measured, 103, 104; - in north of England, 102, 104; - in south, 102; - in Ireland, 102, 104; - in Scotland, 103. - - Prepayment of rates; - compulsory prepayment inadvisable, 26, 26 note; - unpopularity of, 64. - - Prideaux, Edmund, 18-21, 136. - - - Raikes, 81. - - Railways, 107, 108; - amounts paid for conveyance of mails, 56, 78; - authority of Postmaster-General over, 77; - principles involved in estimating tollage for conveyance of mails, 77. - - Randolph, Thomas, 7, 8. - - Rates, for letters, 13, 23, 62-64; - by weight, 157; - re-directed, 173; - ships' letters, 143, 148, 153. - - In England, 136, 137, 141, 142, 145-148, 150, 151, 158; - Ireland, 136, 137, 141, 142, 146, 151, 152, 158; - Scotland, 136-139, 141-143, 145-148, 150, 151, 158; - United Kingdom, 159, 172, 174. - - To Austria, 135, 149, 150; - Belgium, 135, 143, 149, 150, 155 note, 157, 176; - Cape of Good Hope, 153, 154; - Channel Isles, 148, 150; - Denmark, 137, 143, 149, 150, 155 note; - East Indies, 153, 154; - Egypt, 155 note, 156; - France, 135, 137, 143, 149, 149 note, 150, 155, 155 note, 176; - Germany, 135, 137, 143, 149, 150, 155 note, 157; - Gibraltar, 155 note; - Greece, 155 note, 156; - Holland, 135, 143, 149, 150, 155 note, 157; - Italy, 115, 135, 137, 143, 149, 150, 155 note, 156, 176; - Malta, 155 note; - Mauritius, 153, 154; - Mexico, 155 note, 157; - Norway, 155 note, 157; - Portugal, 143, 147, 149, 150, 155 note; - Russia, 155 note; - South America, 155 note, 157; - Spain, 137, 143, 149, 150, 155 note, 157, 176; - Sweden, 137, 143, 149, 150, 155 note, 157; - Switzerland, 155 note, 157; - Syria, 156; - Turkey, 137, 149, 150, 155 note, 156; - North American colonies, 143, 146, 147; - United States, 155 note, 175. - - In North American colonies, 140, 141, 144, 146; - West Indies, 140, 140 note, 143, 146. - - To the colonies, 159, 175; - to foreign countries, 159, 176. - - Book Post, 173; - money orders, 71, 72, 176 _et seq._; - newspapers, 153, 154, 173, 175, 176; - Parcel Post, 174; - patterns, samples, and writs, 145, 173; - postcards, 174, 176. - - Registered letters, 50, 64, 173, 174. - - Returned Letter Office, 57. - - Roads. _See_ Post-roads. - - Royal Mail Steamship Company, 132. - - Royal Post, 3, 6. - - - Sailing Packets, abuses in connection with, 127 _et seq._; - British and foreign vessels, 123; - cost of, 128, 134; - customs difficulties, 125; - number of, 120, 121; - ownership transferred to Admiralty, 129, 130; - steamships, 121-123, 131; - subsidies for, 130, 131-134; - use of private ships, 120 note, 123, 124. - - To Cape of Good Hope, 120; - Deal and the Downs, 110; - East Indies, 120; - France, 111, 115, 116; - Gibraltar, 116; - Holland, 115-117; - Ireland, 109, 110, 121; - Malta, 116; - Isle of Man, 110; - Mauritius, 120; - Mexico, 120; - Portugal, 115; - Scotland, 109-110; - South America, 120; - West Indies, 118 _et seq._ - - St. Martin's-le-Grand, 57. - - Sample Post. _See_ Pattern and Sample Post. - - Savings Bank Department, 73, 76; - annuity and assurance facilities, 74-77; - criticism by "Economist," 75 note. - - Scotland, Post Office in, 31, 32, 34, 59. _See also_ Post-roads, - Rates, and Sailing Packets, Scotland. - - Scudamore, 203-205, 208. - - Shipping list, 48, 49. - - Single letters, 13 note. - - Smith, Llewellyn, 81. - - Special delivery. _See_ Delivery. - - Speed, 14; - in sixteenth century, 98; - in seventeenth century, 98, 99, 100 note; - in nineteenth century, 104, 105, 105 note, 106; - by use of railways, 107, 108; - delays and attempts to remedy them, 100; - delays between England and Ireland, 107; - means for securing speed, 106. - - Stamps, 65, 68. - - Stanhope, Charles, 8, 17, 24. - - Stanhope, Lord John, 8, 10, 135. - - Stanley, Lord, 83-85, 203. - - Steamships. _See_ Sailing Packets, Steamships. - - Strangers' Post. _See_ Foreigners' Post. - - Sunday posts, 55, 79, 80. - - - Tankerville, Earl of, 42-44. - - Telegraphs, cost to Government of, 205, 206, 208, 209; - finances, 216, 218; - government ownership proposed, 203-205; - international agreement, 211-214; - messages sent, 202, 215; - monopoly, 207-208; - press messages, 209, 217; - private companies, 202, 203; - railway interests in, 206, 207, 209; - rates, 202, 203, 209, 210, 213; - relations with Marconi Company, 213, 214; - underground lines, 211. - - Telephones, call offices, 224, 227; - exchange areas, 224; - finances, 236; - government, 220, 221, 225, 228; - inter-communication, 224, 229, 232, 234; - licences, 220-222, 224; - municipal, 226, 228-230, 235; - purchase agreement, 232 _et seq._; - rates, 227, 230, 232, 234, 235; - trunk lines, 221, 225; - underground wires, 231, 232, 234; - way-leave powers, 221, 223, 224, 232, 235. - - Threepenny Post, 52-54. - - Thurloe, 23, 24. - - Travellers' Post, 89; - abuses by postmasters, 93; - by travellers, 91, 91 note; - trials of travellers, 91. - - Triple letters, 13 note. - - Tuke, Sir Brian, 4-7. - - Tweedmouth, Lord, 81. - - Tweedmouth settlement, 81, 82. - - Twopenny Post, 52-54, 149. - - - Unions. _See_ Employees, Postal Unions. - - United Kingdom Telegraph Company, 203, 206, 208. - - United Telephone Company, 220, 222. - - Universal Private Telegraph Company, 208. - - - Wages, 4, 6 note; - arrears in, 8, 25, 92, 99. - _See also_ Employees. - - Walpole, Spencer, 81. - - Ward, 87. - - Warwick, Earl of, 18, 19. - - White Star Steamship Company, 133. - - Windebank, 16, 17. - - Witherings, Thomas, 11, 13-19, 24, 111, 112, 135, 137, 138. - - - York, Duke of, 25, 30. - - - - - The Riverside Press - PRINTED BY H. O. HOUGHTON & CO. - CAMBRIDGE, MASS. - U. S. A. - - - - - - -End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of The History of the British Post Office, by -Joseph Clarence Hemmeon - -*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK HISTORY OF THE BRITISH POST OFFICE *** - -***** This file should be named 42983-8.txt or 42983-8.zip ***** -This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: - http://www.gutenberg.org/4/2/9/8/42983/ - -Produced by Adrian Mastronardi, Eric Skeet, The Philatelic -Digital Library Project at http://www.tpdlp.net and the -Online Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net -(This file was produced from images generously made -available by The Internet Archive/Canadian Libraries) - - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions -will be renamed. - -Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no -one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation -(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without -permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, -set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to -copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to -protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project -Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you -charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you -do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the -rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose -such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and -research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do -practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is -subject to the trademark license, especially commercial -redistribution. - - - -*** START: FULL LICENSE *** - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project -Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at - www.gutenberg.org/license. - - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy -all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession. -If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the -terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or -entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement -and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic -works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation" -or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the -collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an -individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are -located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from -copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative -works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg -are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project -Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by -freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of -this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with -the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by -keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project -Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in -a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check -the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement -before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or -creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project -Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning -the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United -States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate -access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently -whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, -copied or distributed: - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with -almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or -re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included -with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived -from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is -posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied -and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees -or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work -with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the -work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 -through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the -Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or -1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional -terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked -to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the -permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any -word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or -distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than -"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version -posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org), -you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a -copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon -request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other -form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided -that - -- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is - owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he - has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the - Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments - must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you - prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax - returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and - sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the - address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to - the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation." - -- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or - destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium - and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of - Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any - money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days - of receipt of the work. - -- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set -forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from -both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael -Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the -Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm -collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic -works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain -"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or -corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual -property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a -computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by -your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with -your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with -the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a -refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity -providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to -receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy -is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further -opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO OTHER -WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO -WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. -If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the -law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be -interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by -the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any -provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance -with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, -promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, -harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, -that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do -or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm -work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any -Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause. - - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers -including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists -because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from -people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations. -To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation -and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 -and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org - - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive -Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent -permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S. -Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered -throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at 809 -North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email -contact links and up to date contact information can be found at the -Foundation's web site and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact - -For additional contact information: - Dr. Gregory B. Newby - Chief Executive and Director - gbnewby@pglaf.org - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide -spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To -SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any -particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. -To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate - - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic -works. - -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm -concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared -with anyone. For forty years, he produced and distributed Project -Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. -unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily -keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. - -Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility: - - www.gutenberg.org - -This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. |