diff options
Diffstat (limited to '42983-h/42983-h.htm')
| -rw-r--r-- | 42983-h/42983-h.htm | 1421 |
1 files changed, 501 insertions, 920 deletions
diff --git a/42983-h/42983-h.htm b/42983-h/42983-h.htm index 144f9c2..04811a2 100644 --- a/42983-h/42983-h.htm +++ b/42983-h/42983-h.htm @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en"> <head> - <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=iso-8859-1" /> + <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=UTF-8" /> <meta http-equiv="Content-Style-Type" content="text/css" /> <title> The Project Gutenberg eBook of The History of the British Post Office, @@ -112,48 +112,7 @@ table { </style> </head> <body> - - -<pre> - -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) - - - - - - -</pre> - - +<div>*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 42983 ***</div> <p>Transcriber's Notes:</p> @@ -721,9 +680,9 @@ merchants.<a name="FNanchor_9_9" id="FNanchor_9_9"></a><a href="#Footnote_9_9" c <p>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 +1512 contains an order for the payment of £100 to Sir Brian for his use as Master of the Posts.<a name="FNanchor_10_10" id="FNanchor_10_10"></a><a href="#Footnote_10_10" class="fnanchor">[10]</a> As the King's appointed Postmaster, -he received a salary of £66 13<i>s.</i> 4<i>d.</i><a name="FNanchor_11_11" id="FNanchor_11_11"></a><a href="#Footnote_11_11" class="fnanchor">[11]</a> He named the postmen, or +he received a salary of £66 13<i>s.</i> 4<i>d.</i><a name="FNanchor_11_11" id="FNanchor_11_11"></a><a href="#Footnote_11_11" class="fnanchor">[11]</a> He named the postmen, or deputy postmasters as they were called later, and he was held responsible for the performance of their duties.<a name="FNanchor_12_12" id="FNanchor_12_12"></a><a href="#Footnote_12_12" class="fnanchor">[12]</a> All letters carried by the royal postmen were delivered to him, and after being sorted @@ -832,7 +791,7 @@ period of little advance in postal matters. The regular posts, and it <span class="pagenum"><a name="page8" id="page8">[8]</a></span>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 +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.<a name="FNanchor_33_33" id="FNanchor_33_33"></a><a href="#Footnote_33_33" class="fnanchor">[33]</a> Elizabeth is generally credited with being economical to the extreme of parsimony @@ -870,12 +829,12 @@ 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 +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.<a name="FNanchor_39_39" id="FNanchor_39_39"></a><a href="#Footnote_39_39" class="fnanchor">[39]</a> 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 +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.<a name="FNanchor_40_40" id="FNanchor_40_40"></a><a href="#Footnote_40_40" class="fnanchor">[40]</a> His object, however, seems to have been @@ -1017,8 +976,8 @@ 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<i>d.</i> 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 +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<i>d.</i> for a single and 4<i>d.</i> for a double letter, to Yorkshire and Northumberland 3<i>d.</i>, @@ -1043,7 +1002,7 @@ private letters must go to the state and not to the deputy postmasters.</p> <p>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 +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 @@ -1085,9 +1044,9 @@ operation.</p> <p>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.<a name="FNanchor_66_66" id="FNanchor_66_66"></a><a href="#Footnote_66_66" class="fnanchor">[66]</a> The Postmaster at Ferrybridge asserted -that he had paid Stanhope £200 and Witherings £35 and yet +man said that he offered £100 for a position but Witherings sold +it to another for £40.<a name="FNanchor_66_66" id="FNanchor_66_66"></a><a href="#Footnote_66_66" class="fnanchor">[66]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_67_67" id="FNanchor_67_67"></a><a href="#Footnote_67_67" class="fnanchor">[67]</a> The @@ -1116,7 +1075,7 @@ 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 +given him, but that he is said to be worth £800 a year in land and to have enriched himself from his position.<a name="FNanchor_73_73" id="FNanchor_73_73"></a><a href="#Footnote_73_73" class="fnanchor">[73]</a> 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 @@ -1145,7 +1104,7 @@ information had been received "of divers abuses and misdemeanours committed by Thomas Witherings."<a name="FNanchor_79_79" id="FNanchor_79_79"></a><a href="#Footnote_79_79" class="fnanchor">[79]</a> 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 +time he presented his bill for £1266, the arrears in his salary for nineteen years.<a name="FNanchor_80_80" id="FNanchor_80_80"></a><a href="#Footnote_80_80" class="fnanchor">[80]</a> 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 @@ -1293,8 +1252,8 @@ be re-committed to the Council,<a name="FNanchor_108_108" id="FNanchor_108_108"> 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 <span class="pagenum"><a name="page22" id="page22">[22]</a></span>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 +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:—</p> @@ -1318,8 +1277,8 @@ undue pressure, but from them there was no complaint of the withholding or reduction of wages until after Cromwell's death.<a name="FNanchor_110_110" id="FNanchor_110_110"></a><a href="#Footnote_110_110" class="fnanchor">[110]</a></p> <p>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 +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.<a name="FNanchor_111_111" id="FNanchor_111_111"></a><a href="#Footnote_111_111" class="fnanchor">[111]</a> In his orders to the postmasters, Manley <span class="pagenum"><a name="page23" id="page23">[23]</a></span>requested them to take particular care of government packets and @@ -1332,7 +1291,7 @@ act of Parliament, the first act dealing directly with postal affairs.<a name="F 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 +State, for £10,000 a year, the same amount which Manley had paid.<a name="FNanchor_114_114" id="FNanchor_114_114"></a><a href="#Footnote_114_114" class="fnanchor">[114]</a></p> <p>Shortly after Thurloe had been appointed Postmaster-General, @@ -1385,7 +1344,7 @@ decided that the present officials should remain in office until a settlement should be made.<a name="FNanchor_120_120" id="FNanchor_120_120"></a><a href="#Footnote_120_120" class="fnanchor">[120]</a></p> <p>Henry Bishop was appointed by royal patent Postmaster-General -of England for seven years at a rent of £21,500 a year. The +of England for seven years at a rent of £21,500 a year. The King agreed to persuade Parliament to pass an act<a name="FNanchor_121_121" id="FNanchor_121_121"></a><a href="#Footnote_121_121" class="fnanchor">[121]</a> 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 @@ -1397,7 +1356,7 @@ 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.<a name="FNanchor_122_122" id="FNanchor_122_122"></a><a href="#Footnote_122_122" class="fnanchor">[122]</a> Bishop's régime does not seem to have been +reasonable to them.<a name="FNanchor_122_122" id="FNanchor_122_122"></a><a href="#Footnote_122_122" class="fnanchor">[122]</a> 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 @@ -1410,15 +1369,15 @@ 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.<a name="FNanchor_123_123" id="FNanchor_123_123"></a><a href="#Footnote_123_123" class="fnanchor">[123]</a></p> -<p>In 1633, Bishop resigned his grant to Daniel O'Neale for £8000. -O'Neale offered £2000 and, in addition, promised £1000 a year, +<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_124_124" id="FNanchor_124_124"></a><a href="#Footnote_124_124" class="fnanchor">[124]</a> 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,<a name="FNanchor_125_125" id="FNanchor_125_125"></a><a href="#Footnote_125_125" class="fnanchor">[125]</a> with the exception of some £5000 which +been passed, settling the £21,500 post revenue upon the Duke of +York and his male heirs,<a name="FNanchor_125_125" id="FNanchor_125_125"></a><a href="#Footnote_125_125" class="fnanchor">[125]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_126_126" id="FNanchor_126_126"></a><a href="#Footnote_126_126" class="fnanchor">[126]</a></p> @@ -1466,7 +1425,7 @@ 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 +from £40 to £20 a year. In the London Office, the wages of the carriers and porters were also to be reduced.<a name="FNanchor_133_133" id="FNanchor_133_133"></a><a href="#Footnote_133_133" class="fnanchor">[133]</a></p> <p>At the close of the seventeenth century there were forty-nine @@ -1541,7 +1500,7 @@ or eight to the business centres.</p> 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 +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 @@ -1582,7 +1541,7 @@ yet equalled.</p> <p>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 +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.<a name="FNanchor_140_140" id="FNanchor_140_140"></a><a href="#Footnote_140_140" class="fnanchor">[140]</a> As long as it produced no surplus, Dockwra was left to do as he pleased, for the General Post was gaining indirectly from it. @@ -1591,7 +1550,7 @@ As soon as it began to pay, the Duke of York cast his eye on it. In the prerogative of His Royal Highness, and the Duke won the case. The Penny Post was incorporated in the General Post soon after.<a name="FNanchor_141_141" id="FNanchor_141_141"></a><a href="#Footnote_141_141" class="fnanchor">[141]</a> 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 +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 @@ -1682,11 +1641,11 @@ 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 +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.<a name="FNanchor_151_151" id="FNanchor_151_151"></a><a href="#Footnote_151_151" class="fnanchor">[151]</a></p> +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.<a name="FNanchor_151_151" id="FNanchor_151_151"></a><a href="#Footnote_151_151" class="fnanchor">[151]</a></p> <p>The business of the Post Office was rapidly increasing. The same decade that saw the establishment of the Board of Trade witnessed @@ -1793,14 +1752,14 @@ 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.<a name="FNanchor_159_159" id="FNanchor_159_159"></a><a href="#Footnote_159_159" class="fnanchor">[159]</a> 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 +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 +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 +£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 @@ -1834,7 +1793,7 @@ of his contract, since country and cross post letters interfered more or less with each other.<a name="FNanchor_164_164" id="FNanchor_164_164"></a><a href="#Footnote_164_164" class="fnanchor">[164]</a></p> <p>Allen died in 1769, being worth, according to current report, -£500,000. Lewins says that he made £12,000 a year from his farm. +£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.<a name="FNanchor_165_165" id="FNanchor_165_165"></a><a href="#Footnote_165_165" class="fnanchor">[165]</a></p> @@ -1842,7 +1801,7 @@ cross posts.<a name="FNanchor_165_165" id="FNanchor_165_165"></a><a href="#Footn <p>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. +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 @@ -1941,7 +1900,7 @@ 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 +£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 @@ -1976,21 +1935,21 @@ which Palmer had written him. Palmer was dismissed in 1792 with a pension.<a name="FNanchor_172_172" id="FNanchor_172_172"></a><a href="#Footnote_172_172" class="fnanchor">[172]</a></p> <p>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 +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 +influence, Palmer finally obtained £1500 a year and 2 per cent on +any increase in net revenue over £240,000 a year. Palmer objected <span class="pagenum"><a name="page42" id="page42">[42]</a></span> -to this on the ground that the old net revenue was only £150,000 a +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 +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 +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 @@ -2037,11 +1996,11 @@ money was to be paid. Lees himself denied this, but did not say who "A. B." was.<a name="FNanchor_175_175" id="FNanchor_175_175"></a><a href="#Footnote_175_175" class="fnanchor">[175]</a></p> <p>In 1787 a Mr. Staunton, the postmaster of Islesworth, a position -worth £400 a year, was in addition appointed Controller and Resident +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 +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 +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 @@ -2054,26 +2013,26 @@ 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 +displeased with the whole arrangement. A payment of £200 a year <span class="pagenum"><a name="page44" id="page44">[44]</a></span>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 +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.<a name="FNanchor_177_177" id="FNanchor_177_177"></a><a href="#Footnote_177_177" class="fnanchor">[177]</a></p> <p>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 +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 +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 +Office amounted to £28,431, of which sum about £10,000 were placed under the heading of emoluments other than salaries.<a name="FNanchor_178_178" id="FNanchor_178_178"></a><a href="#Footnote_178_178" class="fnanchor">[178]</a> Of all the departments of the Post Office, the Sailing Packet Service was the one most in need of reform.</p> @@ -2087,10 +2046,10 @@ 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 +£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 +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 <span class="pagenum"><a name="page45" id="page45">[45]</a></span>and seventy-eight more for the suburbs, as well as some supernumerary carriers.<a name="FNanchor_179_179" id="FNanchor_179_179"></a><a href="#Footnote_179_179" class="fnanchor">[179]</a> The reforms introduced in 1793 may be grouped @@ -2135,12 +2094,12 @@ 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 +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."<a name="FNanchor_183_183" id="FNanchor_183_183"></a><a href="#Footnote_183_183" class="fnanchor">[183]</a></p> +"that already £648 had been saved from dead and promoted pensioners."<a name="FNanchor_183_183" id="FNanchor_183_183"></a><a href="#Footnote_183_183" class="fnanchor">[183]</a></p> <p>The report of the committee which had been appointed at Tankerville's suggestion is silent on the question of the opening and detention @@ -2163,9 +2122,9 @@ 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 +of Secrecy." From 1732 to 1742, £45,675 had been spent upon this department. It had originated in 1718 and the expenses -<span class="pagenum">[47]</span>for that year were only £446, but by 1742 they had increased more +<span class="pagenum">[47]</span>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 @@ -2213,7 +2172,7 @@ 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 +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.<a name="FNanchor_189_189" id="FNanchor_189_189"></a><a href="#Footnote_189_189" class="fnanchor">[189]</a> @@ -2252,7 +2211,7 @@ 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.<a name="FNanchor_195_195" id="FNanchor_195_195"></a><a href="#Footnote_195_195" class="fnanchor">[195]</a> 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. +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.<a name="FNanchor_196_196" id="FNanchor_196_196"></a><a href="#Footnote_196_196" class="fnanchor">[196]</a></p> @@ -2302,8 +2261,8 @@ upon these letters until 1835 when the Postmaster-General was allowed to charge a fee for their registration in addition to the ordinary postage.<a name="FNanchor_201_201" id="FNanchor_201_201"></a><a href="#Footnote_201_201" class="fnanchor">[201]</a> The Money Order Department, still a private undertaking, had its fees reduced from 6<i>d.</i> to 3<i>d.</i> on sums not exceeding<span class="pagenum"><a name="page51" id="page51">[51]</a></span> -£2 and from 18<i>d.</i> to 6<i>d.</i> on sums exceeding £2 but not -more than £5.<a name="FNanchor_202_202" id="FNanchor_202_202"></a><a href="#Footnote_202_202" class="fnanchor">[202]</a></p> +£2 and from 18<i>d.</i> to 6<i>d.</i> on sums exceeding £2 but not +more than £5.<a name="FNanchor_202_202" id="FNanchor_202_202"></a><a href="#Footnote_202_202" class="fnanchor">[202]</a></p> <p>At the same time that the General Post was being reformed, a former letter carrier by the name of Johnson was improving the @@ -2351,14 +2310,14 @@ is shown by the following figures:—</p> <td class="center"><i>Average Yearly<br />Net Product</i></td> </tr><tr> <td class="left" style="width: 28%">1790-1794</td> -<td class="center">£11,089</td> -<td class="center">£5289</td> -<td class="center">£5800</td> +<td class="center">£11,089</td> +<td class="center">£5289</td> +<td class="center">£5800</td> </tr><tr> <td class="left">1795-1797</td> -<td class="center">£26,283</td> -<td class="center">£18,960</td> -<td class="center">£7323<a name="FNanchor_205_205" id="FNanchor_205_205"></a><a href="#Footnote_205_205" class="fnanchor">[205]</a><br /> +<td class="center">£26,283</td> +<td class="center">£18,960</td> +<td class="center">£7323<a name="FNanchor_205_205" id="FNanchor_205_205"></a><a href="#Footnote_205_205" class="fnanchor">[205]</a><br /> </td> </tr> </table> @@ -2379,8 +2338,8 @@ Post, as it was called, were restricted to the General Post Delivery and 3<i>d.</i> was charged for letters crossing the bounds of this delivery. This was called the Threepenny Post.<a name="FNanchor_208_208" id="FNanchor_208_208"></a><a href="#Footnote_208_208" class="fnanchor">[208]</a> 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 +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.<a name="FNanchor_209_209" id="FNanchor_209_209"></a><a href="#Footnote_209_209" class="fnanchor">[209]</a></p> @@ -2482,19 +2441,19 @@ 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 +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 +£61,009 a year to £53,191 although the total distance travelled per day increased from 13,148 to 14,482 miles.<a name="FNanchor_225_225" id="FNanchor_225_225"></a><a href="#Footnote_225_225" class="fnanchor">[225]</a> 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 <span class="pagenum"><a name="page56" id="page56">[56]</a></span>passengers nor were they allowed to carry any luggage on the roof.<a name="FNanchor_226_226" id="FNanchor_226_226"></a><a href="#Footnote_226_226" class="fnanchor">[226]</a> On the other hand the mail-coaches in England paid no tolls until 1837.<a name="FNanchor_227_227" id="FNanchor_227_227"></a><a href="#Footnote_227_227" class="fnanchor">[227]</a> The 268 mail guards of the British coaches -received £7577 in salaries in 1837, paid directly by the Post Office. +received £7577 in salaries in 1837, paid directly by the Post Office. Seven inspectors were also employed at a fixed yearly salary and 15<i>s.</i> a day when travelling. They superintended the coachmen and guards, investigated complaints, delays, and accidents, and made @@ -2503,7 +2462,7 @@ 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. +of guards employed was eighty-five, receiving £2935 a year. The Irish coaches were allowed to carry four outside passengers.<a name="FNanchor_229_229" id="FNanchor_229_229"></a><a href="#Footnote_229_229" class="fnanchor">[229]</a></p> <p>The first railway in England over which mails were carried was @@ -2515,9 +2474,9 @@ Railway when a special Post Office carriage was used, 7½<i>d.</i> was paid. When the ordinary mail-coach was carried on trucks the rate was 4-1/4<i>d.</i> When a regular railway carriage was used, the rate was ½<i>d.</i> a mile for one third of a carriage.<a name="FNanchor_230_230" id="FNanchor_230_230"></a><a href="#Footnote_230_230" class="fnanchor">[230]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_231_231" id="FNanchor_231_231"></a><a href="#Footnote_231_231" class="fnanchor">[231]</a></p> +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.<a name="FNanchor_231_231" id="FNanchor_231_231"></a><a href="#Footnote_231_231" class="fnanchor">[231]</a></p> <p>The increased business of the Post Office made necessary a corresponding increase in the employees and better arrangements for @@ -2561,7 +2520,7 @@ postage between the two countries was to be collected on delivery, <span class="pagenum">[58]</span>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 +in the charge of the English Postmasters-General, but £4000 a year was paid to the Irish Office for this privilege.<a name="FNanchor_234_234" id="FNanchor_234_234"></a><a href="#Footnote_234_234" class="fnanchor">[234]</a></p> <p>After the separation of the Irish from the English Post Office, @@ -2574,9 +2533,9 @@ 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 +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 +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 @@ -2592,7 +2551,7 @@ 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.<a name="FNanchor_236_236" id="FNanchor_236_236"></a><a href="#Footnote_236_236" class="fnanchor">[236]</a> A new post office building was completed in Dublin in 1821 -at a cost of £107,000.<a name="FNanchor_237_237" id="FNanchor_237_237"></a><a href="#Footnote_237_237" class="fnanchor">[237]</a></p> +at a cost of £107,000.<a name="FNanchor_237_237" id="FNanchor_237_237"></a><a href="#Footnote_237_237" class="fnanchor">[237]</a></p> <p><span class="pagenum"><a name="page59" id="page59">[59]</a></span></p> <p>The Scotch Post Office had been amalgamated with the English Office in 1711, and Scotland was constituted one of the eighteen @@ -2602,14 +2561,14 @@ 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.<a name="FNanchor_238_238" id="FNanchor_238_238"></a><a href="#Footnote_238_238" class="fnanchor">[238]</a></p> +Office building for Edinburgh to cost £14,000.<a name="FNanchor_238_238" id="FNanchor_238_238"></a><a href="#Footnote_238_238" class="fnanchor">[238]</a></p> <p>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 +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 @@ -2786,14 +2745,14 @@ from 1<i>s.</i> to 2<i>d.</i>, 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<i>d.</i> for the first £5 and an additional penny for each additional -£5 of insurance.<a name="FNanchor_267_267" id="FNanchor_267_267"></a><a href="#Footnote_267_267" class="fnanchor">[267]</a> 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 +the same time to £25 and in the following year to £50 by the payment +of 2<i>d.</i> for the first £5 and an additional penny for each additional +£5 of insurance.<a name="FNanchor_267_267" id="FNanchor_267_267"></a><a href="#Footnote_267_267" class="fnanchor">[267]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_268_268" id="FNanchor_268_268"></a><a href="#Footnote_268_268" class="fnanchor">[268]</a> The limit of compensation -is now £400 for inland registered correspondence as well as for +is now £400 for inland registered correspondence as well as for correspondence to many foreign countries and a few of the colonies.</p> <p>Among other postal reforms dear to Hill's heart had been the @@ -2954,10 +2913,10 @@ increase to 596 millions and the average for the postal year ending in March, 1901, was 732 millions.<a name="FNanchor_281_281" id="FNanchor_281_281"></a><a href="#Footnote_281_281" class="fnanchor">[281]</a> 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 +with the Letter Post in the following year but was reëstablished in 1887, the rates being a penny for the first four ounces and ½<i>d.</i> for each succeeding two ounces, but, when the Jubilee -letter rates were published, it lost its <i>raison d'être</i> and was abolished +letter rates were published, it lost its <i>raison d'être</i> and was abolished for inland purposes.<a name="FNanchor_282_282" id="FNanchor_282_282"></a><a href="#Footnote_282_282" class="fnanchor">[282]</a></p> <p>Post cards were introduced in 1870, being carried for ½<i>d.</i> each @@ -3044,7 +3003,7 @@ 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 +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 <span class="pagenum"><a name="page72" id="page72">[72]</a></span>state of issuing and paying a money order was about 3<i>d.</i> In order @@ -3056,7 +3015,7 @@ 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<i>d.</i> but, as this aroused considerable opposition, the present rate of 2<i>d.</i> was soon after substituted, and in 1903 the maximum -sum transmissible was increased to £40 with a few accompanying +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. @@ -3066,7 +3025,7 @@ 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 +year the inland £40 limit was agreed upon with most foreign countries and some of the colonies.</p> <p>Inland money orders which started to decrease in amount in 1878-79 @@ -3081,14 +3040,14 @@ 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.<a name="FNanchor_294_294" id="FNanchor_294_294"></a><a href="#Footnote_294_294" class="fnanchor">[294]</a> The increase +£38,000,000 as compared with £29,000,000 in 1879.<a name="FNanchor_294_294" id="FNanchor_294_294"></a><a href="#Footnote_294_294" class="fnanchor">[294]</a> The increase in the number of postal notes has been enormous, although there <span class="pagenum"><a name="page73" id="page73">[73]</a></span>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 +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.<a name="FNanchor_295_295" id="FNanchor_295_295"></a><a href="#Footnote_295_295" class="fnanchor">[295]</a> On the other hand, while inland +value of nearly £41,000,000.<a name="FNanchor_295_295" id="FNanchor_295_295"></a><a href="#Footnote_295_295" class="fnanchor">[295]</a> On the other hand, while inland money orders were decreasing in number, colonial and foreign orders increased in general both in number and value.<a name="FNanchor_296_296" id="FNanchor_296_296"></a><a href="#Footnote_296_296" class="fnanchor">[296]</a></p> @@ -3110,42 +3069,42 @@ of the National Debt" for investment in government securities, and that interest on complete pounds at the rate of 2½ 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 +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, +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.<a name="FNanchor_298_298" id="FNanchor_298_298"></a><a href="#Footnote_298_298" class="fnanchor">[298]</a></p> <p>In 1880 the savings banks were made a medium for investing in government stock at a trifling expense varying from 9<i>d.</i> to 2<i>s.</i> 3<i>d.</i> <span class="pagenum"><a name="page74" id="page74">[74]</a></span>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 +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 +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 +of ordinary deposits above the limit of £200, unless instructions were given by the depositor to the contrary.</p> <p>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 +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 +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 +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 +£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.</p> @@ -3155,10 +3114,10 @@ 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 +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<span class="pagenum"><a name="page75" id="page75">[75]</a></span> -£100, and the annuity and insurance privileges were extended to all +the minimum was reduced to £1, the maximum increased to<span class="pagenum"><a name="page75" id="page75">[75]</a></span> +£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 @@ -3176,13 +3135,13 @@ 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 +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 +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 +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 @@ -3191,9 +3150,9 @@ 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.</p> -<p>In 1893 the annual limit of deposits was increased to £50 and, +<p>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 +over £200 were to be invested in Government Stock unless the depositor <span class="pagenum"><a name="page76" id="page76">[76]</a></span>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 @@ -3201,7 +3160,7 @@ sent by return of post at a cost of about 9<i>d.</i> or the warrant also might be telegraphed to him at a total cost of about 1<i>s.</i> 3<i>d.</i> 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 +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 @@ -3213,24 +3172,24 @@ of telegraphic withdrawals fell from 227,573 for the postal year 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<i>s.</i> in 1862 to £2 in 1881, but since this date it has -increased slowly but steadily and in 1901 it stood at £2 14<i>s.</i> 2<i>d.</i>, +from £3 6<i>s.</i> in 1862 to £2 in 1881, but since this date it has +increased slowly but steadily and in 1901 it stood at £2 14<i>s.</i> 2<i>d.</i>, 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 +of the year 1900 over £135,000,000 were on deposit in the Post Office savings banks.<a name="FNanchor_301_301" id="FNanchor_301_301"></a><a href="#Footnote_301_301" class="fnanchor">[301]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_302_302" id="FNanchor_302_302"></a><a href="#Footnote_302_302" class="fnanchor">[302]</a> So far as annuities are concerned, the immediate +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.<a name="FNanchor_302_302" id="FNanchor_302_302"></a><a href="#Footnote_302_302" class="fnanchor">[302]</a> 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 +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, +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 <span class="pagenum"><a name="page77" id="page77">[77]</a></span>life insurance policies have also been rather disappointing, having -increased from £10,967 in 1881 to £15,073 in 1891 and to £22,185 +increased from £10,967 in 1881 to £15,073 in 1891 and to £22,185 in 1900.<a name="FNanchor_303_303" id="FNanchor_303_303"></a><a href="#Footnote_303_303" class="fnanchor">[303]</a></p> <p>The increasing use of railway trains for the conveyance of the @@ -3280,15 +3239,15 @@ have proved to be more economical than horse vans when the load is heavy, the distance considerable, and greater speed desirable.<a name="FNanchor_308_308" id="FNanchor_308_308"></a><a href="#Footnote_308_308" class="fnanchor">[308]</a></p> <p>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 +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, +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.<a name="FNanchor_309_309" id="FNanchor_309_309"></a><a href="#Footnote_309_309" class="fnanchor">[309]</a></p> +included, being £365,000. In 1906 the total expenditure for the +"conveyance of the mails" was £1,821,541.<a name="FNanchor_309_309" id="FNanchor_309_309"></a><a href="#Footnote_309_309" class="fnanchor">[309]</a></p> <p>In common with the members of other branches of the civil service the postal employees, prior to 1855, were political appointees. @@ -3363,7 +3322,7 @@ for dissatisfaction among the servants of the Post Office: for carriers, 19<i>s.</i> a week advancing to 23<i>s.</i>; for sorters of the first class, 25<i>s.</i> to 30<i>s.</i>; of the second class, 32<i>s.</i> to 38<i>s.</i>; and of the third class, 40<i>s.</i> to 50<i>s.</i> "Carriers also obtain Christmas boxes averaging, so it -is said, £8 a year. In addition these wages are exclusive of uniform, +is said, £8 a year. In addition these wages are exclusive of uniform, of pension in old age, and of assistance for assurance."<a name="FNanchor_313_313" id="FNanchor_313_313"></a><a href="#Footnote_313_313" class="fnanchor">[313]</a></p> <p>The first thorough-going attempts to remedy the grievances of @@ -3371,21 +3330,21 @@ the Post Office employees were made in 1881 and 1882 by Mr. Fawcett in his capacity as Postmaster-General. His scheme for <span class="pagenum"><a name="page81" id="page81">[81]</a></span>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, +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 +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.<a name="FNanchor_314_314" id="FNanchor_314_314"></a><a href="#Footnote_314_314" class="fnanchor">[314]</a> 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 +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.<a name="FNanchor_315_315" id="FNanchor_315_315"></a><a href="#Footnote_315_315" class="fnanchor">[315]</a></p> +involve an increased annual expenditure of nearly £748,000.<a name="FNanchor_315_315" id="FNanchor_315_315"></a><a href="#Footnote_315_315" class="fnanchor">[315]</a></p> <p>A committee was appointed in 1895 to deal with the discontent which was only lessened, not silenced, by the efforts of Messrs. @@ -3415,8 +3374,8 @@ 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.<a name="FNanchor_316_316" id="FNanchor_316_316"></a><a href="#Footnote_316_316" class="fnanchor">[316]</a> The +were all adopted at an immediate estimated cost of £139,000 a +year and an ultimate cost, also estimated, of £275,000.<a name="FNanchor_316_316" id="FNanchor_316_316"></a><a href="#Footnote_316_316" class="fnanchor">[316]</a> 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, @@ -3441,8 +3400,8 @@ 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 <span class="pagenum"><a name="page83" id="page83">[83]</a></span>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 +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 @@ -3495,8 +3454,8 @@ 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.<a name="FNanchor_319_319" id="FNanchor_319_319"></a><a href="#Footnote_319_319" class="fnanchor">[319]</a></p> +estimated at £224,400 for 1905-06, the average in later years at +£372,300.<a name="FNanchor_319_319" id="FNanchor_319_319"></a><a href="#Footnote_319_319" class="fnanchor">[319]</a></p> <p>The Post Office employees who had asked for the appointment of a select committee were greatly dissatisfied with the personnel @@ -3513,7 +3472,7 @@ 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 <span class="pagenum"><a name="page85" id="page85">[85]</a></span>is no other employer who fixes his own prices or makes an annual -profit of £4,000,000 sterling." Delegates representing over 42,000 +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" <i>in toto</i> and the men prepared to take an active part against @@ -3829,7 +3788,7 @@ the owner.<a name="FNanchor_352_352" id="FNanchor_352_352"></a><a href="#Footnot 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 +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.<a name="FNanchor_353_353" id="FNanchor_353_353"></a><a href="#Footnote_353_353" class="fnanchor">[353]</a></p> @@ -3914,7 +3873,7 @@ at Chester.<a name="FNanchor_365_365" id="FNanchor_365_365"></a><a href="#Footno was ordered to appoint stages and postmen on this old route.<a name="FNanchor_366_366" id="FNanchor_366_366"></a><a href="#Footnote_366_366" class="fnanchor">[366]</a> 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 +of £20 to defray his expenses. The Rye-Dieppe posts were also reorganized, principally for the conveyance of letters to and from France.<a name="FNanchor_367_367" id="FNanchor_367_367"></a><a href="#Footnote_367_367" class="fnanchor">[367]</a> Bristol ranked next to London in size and importance, but it was not until 1580 that orders were given to horse and man @@ -3977,10 +3936,10 @@ nothing for over two years, another had received no wages for seven years,<a name="FNanchor_381_381" id="FNanchor_381_381"></a><a href="#Footnote_381_381" class="fnanchor">[381]</a> 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 +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."<a name="FNanchor_382_382" id="FNanchor_382_382"></a><a href="#Footnote_382_382" class="fnanchor">[382]</a> The Council did not grant -their petition, for two years later £25,000 were still due them.<a name="FNanchor_383_383" id="FNanchor_383_383"></a><a href="#Footnote_383_383" class="fnanchor">[383]</a></p> +their petition, for two years later £25,000 were still due them.<a name="FNanchor_383_383" id="FNanchor_383_383"></a><a href="#Footnote_383_383" class="fnanchor">[383]</a></p> <p>The Council of State gave directions in 1652 for roads to be manned between Dover and Portsmouth, Portsmouth and Salisbury, @@ -4096,7 +4055,7 @@ 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.<a name="FNanchor_400_400" id="FNanchor_400_400"></a><a href="#Footnote_400_400" class="fnanchor">[400]</a> 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 +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.<a name="FNanchor_401_401" id="FNanchor_401_401"></a><a href="#Footnote_401_401" class="fnanchor">[401]</a> In 1700, the post road from Exeter to Bristol @@ -4278,7 +4237,7 @@ railways.<a name="FNanchor_429_429" id="FNanchor_429_429"></a><a href="#Footnote <p>The Irish mail service was the first to boast a regular sailing -packet.<a name="FNanchor_430_430" id="FNanchor_430_430"></a><a href="#Footnote_430_430" class="fnanchor">[430]</a> The postal expenditure for the year 1598 included £130 +packet.<a name="FNanchor_430_430" id="FNanchor_430_430"></a><a href="#Footnote_430_430" class="fnanchor">[430]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_431_431" id="FNanchor_431_431"></a><a href="#Footnote_431_431" class="fnanchor">[431]</a> At the beginning of the seventeenth century, @@ -4289,7 +4248,7 @@ of communication only during Essex's expedition.<a name="FNanchor_432_432" id="F 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.<a name="FNanchor_433_433" id="FNanchor_433_433"></a><a href="#Footnote_433_433" class="fnanchor">[433]</a> Prideaux reported the -same year that the cost of these packets averaged £600 a year.<a name="FNanchor_434_434" id="FNanchor_434_434"></a><a href="#Footnote_434_434" class="fnanchor">[434]</a></p> +same year that the cost of these packets averaged £600 a year.<a name="FNanchor_434_434" id="FNanchor_434_434"></a><a href="#Footnote_434_434" class="fnanchor">[434]</a></p> <p>In 1653 the Council of State gave orders for the revival of the old packet service between Milford and Waterford. At the same time @@ -4301,7 +4260,7 @@ was farmed in the same year.<a name="FNanchor_436_436" id="FNanchor_436_436"></a 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 +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 <span class="pagenum"><a name="page110" id="page110">[110]</a></span>1695, three packet boats came under the control of Scotland.<a name="FNanchor_437_437" id="FNanchor_437_437"></a><a href="#Footnote_437_437" class="fnanchor">[437]</a> Upon @@ -4311,7 +4270,7 @@ 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 +Office a sum not exceeding £4000 a year. This was to be the rule until Ireland had established packet boats of her own.<a name="FNanchor_438_438" id="FNanchor_438_438"></a><a href="#Footnote_438_438" class="fnanchor">[438]</a></p> <p>The Irish Post Office, before the Act of Union, had employed @@ -4327,11 +4286,11 @@ 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 +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.<a name="FNanchor_439_439" id="FNanchor_439_439"></a><a href="#Footnote_439_439" class="fnanchor">[439]</a></p> +payable to the Irish Office to £8000 a year.<a name="FNanchor_439_439" id="FNanchor_439_439"></a><a href="#Footnote_439_439" class="fnanchor">[439]</a></p> <p>Shortly after the Restoration, two packet boats were employed between Deal and the Downs. They carried letters to and from @@ -4456,7 +4415,7 @@ England passing through Flanders were not treated in accordance with the agreement made between England and Flanders.<a name="FNanchor_457_457" id="FNanchor_457_457"></a><a href="#Footnote_457_457" class="fnanchor">[457]</a> 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 +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 @@ -4486,7 +4445,7 @@ 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 +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.<a name="FNanchor_463_463" id="FNanchor_463_463"></a><a href="#Footnote_463_463" class="fnanchor">[463]</a> Nothing further was done until after the Treaty of Utrecht, when a commission was @@ -4514,7 +4473,7 @@ boats, was established between England and Portugal.<a name="FNanchor_466_466" i <p>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 +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,<a name="FNanchor_467_467" id="FNanchor_467_467"></a><a href="#Footnote_467_467" class="fnanchor">[467]</a> and during the war the packet boats from @@ -4561,7 +4520,7 @@ than in keeping up communication with Wellington's army.<a name="FNanchor_473_47 <p>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 +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.<a name="FNanchor_474_474" id="FNanchor_474_474"></a><a href="#Footnote_474_474" class="fnanchor">[474]</a> Following Napoleon's expulsion to Elba, postal communications with France were resumed. @@ -4587,7 +4546,7 @@ London until midnight, arrived in Dover at 10 <span class="smcap">A.M.</span>, a not in time for the Paris mail, which left Calais at noon.<a name="FNanchor_479_479" id="FNanchor_479_479"></a><a href="#Footnote_479_479" class="fnanchor">[479]</a> The two <span class="pagenum"><a name="page118" id="page118">[118]</a></span>packets between Dover and Ostend carried the mails four times a week.<a name="FNanchor_480_480" id="FNanchor_480_480"></a><a href="#Footnote_480_480" class="fnanchor">[480]</a> By virtue of a treaty with Belgium, these packets conveyed -letters both ways and the Belgium Government paid £1000 a year +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.<a name="FNanchor_481_481" id="FNanchor_481_481"></a><a href="#Footnote_481_481" class="fnanchor">[481]</a> Letters from Belgium to Dover went first to London and this held @@ -4715,7 +4674,7 @@ 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.<a name="FNanchor_500_500" id="FNanchor_500_500"></a><a href="#Footnote_500_500" class="fnanchor">[500]</a> This is one of the items +total additional yearly charge was £7045.<a name="FNanchor_500_500" id="FNanchor_500_500"></a><a href="#Footnote_500_500" class="fnanchor">[500]</a> 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 @@ -4730,7 +4689,7 @@ 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 +£4 a trip and later for nothing, but the Post Office determined to have steam packets of its own.<a name="FNanchor_502_502" id="FNanchor_502_502"></a><a href="#Footnote_502_502" class="fnanchor">[502]</a> 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 @@ -4741,7 +4700,7 @@ 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<i>s.</i>, £1 10<i>s.</i>, and £3 5<i>s.</i> respectively. +guineas. These were now raised to £1 5<i>s.</i>, £1 10<i>s.</i>, and £3 5<i>s.</i> respectively. The new rates, which were so fixed in order not to expose the company to undue competition, had not been long<span class="pagenum">[122]</span> enforced before the Select Committee on Irish Communications @@ -4770,12 +4729,12 @@ at Liverpool, three at Dover, and an extra one was kept for contingencies.<a nam <p>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.<a name="FNanchor_511_511" id="FNanchor_511_511"></a><a href="#Footnote_511_511" class="fnanchor">[511]</a> From 1832 to 1837 the -disbursements for all the steam packets were £396,669, receipts -£180,167.<a name="FNanchor_512_512" id="FNanchor_512_512"></a><a href="#Footnote_512_512" class="fnanchor">[512]</a> The Milford boats were the least productive of any. -From 1824 to 1836, the expenditure for that station was £220,986, -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page123" id="page123">[123]</a></span>the receipts only £26,592. The Commissioners had pointed out +Portpatrick stations from 1821 to 1829 were £681,648, the receipts +for the same period being only £250,999.<a name="FNanchor_511_511" id="FNanchor_511_511"></a><a href="#Footnote_511_511" class="fnanchor">[511]</a> From 1832 to 1837 the +disbursements for all the steam packets were £396,669, receipts +£180,167.<a name="FNanchor_512_512" id="FNanchor_512_512"></a><a href="#Footnote_512_512" class="fnanchor">[512]</a> The Milford boats were the least productive of any. +From 1824 to 1836, the expenditure for that station was £220,986, +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page123" id="page123">[123]</a></span>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 @@ -4805,7 +4764,7 @@ 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 +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 @@ -4853,7 +4812,7 @@ 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 +the customs officials, under a penalty of £100 to be paid by the master of the offending packet boat.<a name="FNanchor_525_525" id="FNanchor_525_525"></a><a href="#Footnote_525_525" class="fnanchor">[525]</a> 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 @@ -4884,7 +4843,7 @@ 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.<a name="FNanchor_529_529" id="FNanchor_529_529"></a><a href="#Footnote_529_529" class="fnanchor">[529]</a> In a report of the Postmasters-General somewhat -earlier, we are informed of a payment of £1087 made by them +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 @@ -4925,9 +4884,9 @@ pockets of those by whom the goods had been ordered.<a name="FNanchor_533_533" i 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 2½per 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 +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.<a name="FNanchor_534_534" id="FNanchor_534_534"></a><a href="#Footnote_534_534" class="fnanchor">[534]</a></p> @@ -4935,16 +4894,16 @@ to assist him.<a name="FNanchor_534_534" id="FNanchor_534_534"></a><a href="#Foo <p>The Sailors' Pension Fund was grossly mismanaged. Each sailor's monthly contribution had been raised from 10<i>d.</i> to 2<i>s.</i> and then 3<i>s.</i> After twenty years' service, the man who had kept up his -payments was entitled to receive £4 or £5 a year. The names of +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.<a name="FNanchor_535_535" id="FNanchor_535_535"></a><a href="#Footnote_535_535" class="fnanchor">[535]</a> The agent at Falmouth -had a salary of £230 a year and £160 in perquisites, £100 of which +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 +£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 +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 @@ -4963,7 +4922,7 @@ 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 +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, @@ -4977,23 +4936,23 @@ throughout the whole year. The 2½ per cent on all expenditure, formerly paid to the Secretary, was abolished. Finally all salaries were henceforth to be in lieu of every emolument.<a name="FNanchor_539_539" id="FNanchor_539_539"></a><a href="#Footnote_539_539" class="fnanchor">[539]</a></p> -<p>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 +<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_540_540" id="FNanchor_540_540"></a><a href="#Footnote_540_540" class="fnanchor">[540]</a> In time of <span class="pagenum"><a name="page129" id="page129">[129]</a></span>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.<a name="FNanchor_541_541" id="FNanchor_541_541"></a><a href="#Footnote_541_541" class="fnanchor">[541]</a> In time of war, she carried twenty-eight +and wear and tear, of £1681.<a name="FNanchor_541_541" id="FNanchor_541_541"></a><a href="#Footnote_541_541" class="fnanchor">[541]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_542_542" id="FNanchor_542_542"></a><a href="#Footnote_542_542" class="fnanchor">[542]</a> For a packet of seventy tons the expenses during -peace and war were respectively £536 and £862.<a name="FNanchor_543_543" id="FNanchor_543_543"></a><a href="#Footnote_543_543" class="fnanchor">[543]</a> It is not surprising +£2112 a year.<a name="FNanchor_542_542" id="FNanchor_542_542"></a><a href="#Footnote_542_542" class="fnanchor">[542]</a> For a packet of seventy tons the expenses during +peace and war were respectively £536 and £862.<a name="FNanchor_543_543" id="FNanchor_543_543"></a><a href="#Footnote_543_543" class="fnanchor">[543]</a> 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, +£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.<a name="FNanchor_544_544" id="FNanchor_544_544"></a><a href="#Footnote_544_544" class="fnanchor">[544]</a> The salaries paid to the agents in 1796 amounted to -£3412. They were stationed at Lisbon, Falmouth, Yarmouth (instead +£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.<a name="FNanchor_545_545" id="FNanchor_545_545"></a><a href="#Footnote_545_545" class="fnanchor">[545]</a></p> @@ -5028,7 +4987,7 @@ 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.<a name="FNanchor_550_550" id="FNanchor_550_550"></a><a href="#Footnote_550_550" class="fnanchor">[550]</a> For every letter retained by the captain or -any other person there was a penalty of £10. The captain was also +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.<a name="FNanchor_551_551" id="FNanchor_551_551"></a><a href="#Footnote_551_551" class="fnanchor">[551]</a></p> @@ -5121,8 +5080,8 @@ 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 +with the Cunard Company for £70,000, and one a week with the +Inman Company for £35,000. There was considerable opposition <span class="pagenum"><a name="page133" id="page133">[133]</a></span>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 @@ -5133,13 +5092,13 @@ 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 +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<i>s.</i> a pound for letters and 4<i>d.</i> for newspapers, etc. At the same -time the old monopolistic conditions were virtually reëstablished, +time the old monopolistic conditions were virtually reëstablished, for rival steamship lines were excluded from the agreement.<a name="FNanchor_557_557" id="FNanchor_557_557"></a><a href="#Footnote_557_557" class="fnanchor">[557]</a></p> <p>In 1886, the agreement with the Cunard, Inman, and White @@ -5162,36 +5121,36 @@ 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 +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 +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 +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 +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 +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 +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.<a name="FNanchor_560_560" id="FNanchor_560_560"></a><a href="#Footnote_560_560" class="fnanchor">[560]</a></p> <p>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. +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.<a name="FNanchor_561_561" id="FNanchor_561_561"></a><a href="#Footnote_561_561" class="fnanchor">[561]</a></p> +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.<a name="FNanchor_561_561" id="FNanchor_561_561"></a><a href="#Footnote_561_561" class="fnanchor">[561]</a></p> <p><span class="pagenum"><a name="page135" id="page135">[135]</a></span></p> @@ -5209,9 +5168,9 @@ by packets he meant letters or parcels carried by a special messenger, were as follows:—</p> <p style="margin-left: 2em"> -To the Hague £7.<br /> -To Brussels or Paris £10.<br /> -To Vienna £60.<br /> +To the Hague £7.<br /> +To Brussels or Paris £10.<br /> +To Vienna £60.<br /> </p> <p>The ordinary rates were:—</p> @@ -5293,7 +5252,7 @@ as follows:—</p> <p>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 +not later than Witherings' régime. During Prideaux' management the maximum postage on a single letter was 6<i>d.</i>, reduced later to 3<i>d.</i><a name="FNanchor_568_568" id="FNanchor_568_568"></a><a href="#Footnote_568_568" class="fnanchor">[568]</a></p> @@ -5828,12 +5787,12 @@ 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.</p> -<p>From the receipts from postage, £700 a week was to be paid +<p>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 +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 @@ -5987,7 +5946,7 @@ officers, privates, and seamen while in active service, who were allowed 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 +was estimated at £40,000 a year and was to be used to pay the interest on loans contracted the preceding year.<a name="FNanchor_591_591" id="FNanchor_591_591"></a><a href="#Footnote_591_591" class="fnanchor">[591]</a></p> <p>When sailing packets were established between Weymouth and @@ -6153,7 +6112,7 @@ around Dublin.<a name="FNanchor_597_597" id="FNanchor_597_597"></a><a href="#Foo <p>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.<a name="FNanchor_598_598" id="FNanchor_598_598"></a><a href="#Footnote_598_598" class="fnanchor">[598]</a> There were added to the rates as already prescribed—1<i>d.</i> +£230,000.<a name="FNanchor_598_598" id="FNanchor_598_598"></a><a href="#Footnote_598_598" class="fnanchor">[598]</a> There were added to the rates as already prescribed—1<i>d.</i> for a single letter, 2<i>d.</i> for a double letter, 3<i>d.</i> for a triple letter, and 4<i>d.</i> for a letter weighing as much as one ounce, for all letters conveyed by the Post in Great Britain or between Great Britain @@ -6875,8 +6834,8 @@ 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.<a name="FNanchor_634_634" id="FNanchor_634_634"></a><a href="#Footnote_634_634" class="fnanchor">[634]</a> According to the Surveyor's -report, the loss from the ministers' franks in 1717 was £8270 and -from the members' franks £17,470.<a name="FNanchor_635_635" id="FNanchor_635_635"></a><a href="#Footnote_635_635" class="fnanchor">[635]</a> The loss from franking was +report, the loss from the ministers' franks in 1717 was £8270 and +from the members' franks £17,470.<a name="FNanchor_635_635" id="FNanchor_635_635"></a><a href="#Footnote_635_635" class="fnanchor">[635]</a> 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 @@ -6892,8 +6851,8 @@ years:—</p> <td class="center">1719</td> </tr><tr> <td class="left">Gross Produce from Letters</td> -<td class="right">£14,592</td> -<td class="right">£19,522</td> +<td class="right">£14,592</td> +<td class="right">£19,522</td> </tr><tr> <td class="left">Charge of Management and Members' Letters</td> <td class="right">11,526</td> @@ -6909,8 +6868,8 @@ years:—</p> <p>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 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 @@ -6937,13 +6896,13 @@ franking were:—</p> <table style="width: 70%;" border="0" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="1" summary="Franking averages"> <tr> <td style="text-align: right">1716-19</td> -<td style="text-align: right" >£17,460</td> +<td style="text-align: right" >£17,460</td> <td style="width: 35%"></td> <td style="text-align: right">1725-29</td> <td style="text-align: right">32,364</td> </tr><tr> <td style="text-align: right">1720-24</td> -<td style="text-align: right" >£23,726</td> +<td style="text-align: right" >£23,726</td> <td style="width: 35%"></td> <td style="text-align: right">1730-33</td> <td style="text-align: right">36,864</td> @@ -7038,9 +6997,9 @@ privilege was first given for the week ending March 13, 1764.</p> <td style="text-align: center"><i>States'</i></td> <td style="text-align: center"><i>Post Office Clerks'</i></td> </tr><tr> -<td style="text-align: center"><i>£</i>465</td> -<td style="text-align: center"><i>£</i>310</td> -<td style="text-align: center"><i>£</i>1055</td> +<td style="text-align: center"><i>£</i>465</td> +<td style="text-align: center"><i>£</i>310</td> +<td style="text-align: center"><i>£</i>1055</td> </tr> </table> @@ -7052,16 +7011,16 @@ 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 +and state officials to produce £40,000 if they had been taxed at the ordinary rates.<a name="FNanchor_646_646" id="FNanchor_646_646"></a><a href="#Footnote_646_646" class="fnanchor">[646]</a> 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 +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 +This would give a loss of £30,000 on newspapers, and £110,000 on letters.<a name="FNanchor_647_647" id="FNanchor_647_647"></a><a href="#Footnote_647_647" class="fnanchor">[647]</a></p> <p>Returns were also submitted, showing the gross amount of the @@ -7080,7 +7039,7 @@ 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 +£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, @@ -7090,9 +7049,9 @@ an imposition upon the Post Office.</p> <p>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 +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 +yearly average of £2249. These general results held good for every individual odd or even year for the period for which returns were given.<a name="FNanchor_649_649" id="FNanchor_649_649"></a><a href="#Footnote_649_649" class="fnanchor">[649]</a></p> @@ -7124,7 +7083,7 @@ 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 +was made good to them by an addition of £1000 a year to their salaries.<a name="FNanchor_655_655" id="FNanchor_655_655"></a><a href="#Footnote_655_655" class="fnanchor">[655]</a></p> <p>In 1795, the members of Parliament made another attempt to @@ -7320,7 +7279,7 @@ 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 +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.<a name="FNanchor_679_679" id="FNanchor_679_679"></a><a href="#Footnote_679_679" class="fnanchor">[679]</a> An additional charge for re-directed letters was made when the re-direction necessitated a change from the original @@ -7333,7 +7292,7 @@ to foreign rates as well.<a name="FNanchor_680_680" id="FNanchor_680_680"></a><a 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<i>s.</i> to 1<i>s.</i> for the second and third and 5<i>s.</i> for +was reduced from £1 1<i>s.</i> to 1<i>s.</i> for the second and third and 5<i>s.</i> for subsequent years.<a name="FNanchor_681_681" id="FNanchor_681_681"></a><a href="#Footnote_681_681" class="fnanchor">[681]</a></p> <p>With an increase in the number of valuable articles carried by @@ -7347,7 +7306,7 @@ 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 +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 @@ -7444,19 +7403,19 @@ to 1½<i>d.</i><a name="FNanchor_694_694" id="FNanchor_694_694"></a><a href= <p>Shortly after acquiring the money order business from the managing proprietors, the Post Office reduced the rates of commission -to 3<i>d.</i> for orders not exceeding £2 in value, and 6<i>d.</i> for orders above -£2 but not over £5, the latter sum being at that time the maximum. +to 3<i>d.</i> for orders not exceeding £2 in value, and 6<i>d.</i> 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<i>d.</i> when not in excess of £7, and 12<i>d.</i> between -<span class="pagenum">[177]</span>£7 and £10. On the first day of May, 1871, a further reduction +following rates: 9<i>d.</i> when not in excess of £7, and 12<i>d.</i> between +<span class="pagenum">[177]</span>£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<i>s.</i>, a penny; between 10<i>s.</i> and £1, 2<i>d.</i>; between £1 -and £2, 3<i>d.</i>, and an additional penny for each additional pound to -the £10 limit. It was found, however, that the low rate of a penny +sums under 10<i>s.</i>, a penny; between 10<i>s.</i> and £1, 2<i>d.</i>; between £1 +and £2, 3<i>d.</i>, 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<i>s.</i> was increased to 2<i>d.</i>, for orders between 10<i>s.</i> and £1 to +under 10<i>s.</i> was increased to 2<i>d.</i>, for orders between 10<i>s.</i> and £1 to 3<i>d.</i>, and in 1881 the following rates were announced for postal notes: a halfpenny for notes of the value of 1<i>s.</i> and 1<i>s.</i> 6<i>d.</i>; a penny for notes of the value of 2<i>s.</i> 6<i>d.</i>, 5<i>s.</i> and 7<i>s.</i>, 6<i>d.</i> and 2<i>d.</i> for notes costing @@ -7479,23 +7438,23 @@ to a halfpenny, and on postal orders for 11<i>s.</i> to 15<i>s.</i> inclusive fr <td class="center"><i>d.</i></td> </tr><tr> <td style="width: 70%" class="right">On sums not exceeding </td> -<td style="width: 7%" class="center">£1</td> +<td style="width: 7%" class="center">£1</td> <td style="width: 23%" class="center">2</td> </tr><tr> <td></td> -<td class="center">£2</td> +<td class="center">£2</td> <td class="center">3</td> </tr><tr> <td></td> -<td class="center">£4</td> +<td class="center">£4</td> <td class="center">4</td> </tr><tr> <td></td> -<td class="center">£7</td> +<td class="center">£7</td> <td class="center">5</td> </tr><tr> <td></td> -<td class="center">£10</td> +<td class="center">£10</td> <td class="center">6</td> </tr> @@ -7511,11 +7470,11 @@ to a halfpenny, and on postal orders for 11<i>s.</i> to 15<i>s.</i> inclusive fr <td class="center"><i>d.</i></td> </tr><tr> <td style="width: 70%;" class="right">For an order not exceeding </td> -<td style="width: 7%;" class="center">£3</td> +<td style="width: 7%;" class="center">£3</td> <td style="width: 23%;" class="center">3</td> </tr><tr> -<td style="width: 70%;" class="right">Over £3 but not exceeding </td> -<td class="center">£10</td> +<td style="width: 70%;" class="right">Over £3 but not exceeding </td> +<td class="center">£10</td> <td class="center">4</td> </tr> @@ -7533,22 +7492,22 @@ year to the following:<span class="pagenum">[178]</span>—</p> <td class="right"><i>d.</i></td> </tr><tr> <td class="right">For an order </td> -<td class="left">not exceeding £1</td> +<td class="left">not exceeding £1</td> <td class="center">2</td> </tr><tr> <td></td> -<td class="left">exceeding £1 but not over £3 </td> +<td class="left">exceeding £1 but not over £3 </td> <td class="center">3</td> </tr><tr> <td></td> -<td class="left">exceeding £3 but not over £10 </td> +<td class="left">exceeding £3 but not over £10 </td> <td class="center">4</td> </tr> </table> <p>And finally in 1903 the maximum amount of a money order was -raised from £10 to £40 and the following rates established:<a name="FNanchor_695_695" id="FNanchor_695_695"></a><a href="#Footnote_695_695" class="fnanchor">[695]</a>—</p> +raised from £10 to £40 and the following rates established:<a name="FNanchor_695_695" id="FNanchor_695_695"></a><a href="#Footnote_695_695" class="fnanchor">[695]</a>—</p> <table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" summary="1903 rates"> <tr> @@ -7558,38 +7517,38 @@ raised from £10 to £40 and the following rates established:<a name="FNanchor_695 <td></td> <td class="right" style="width: 20%;"><i>d.</i></td> </tr><tr> -<td class="left" colspan="3">For sums not exceeding £1</td> +<td class="left" colspan="3">For sums not exceeding £1</td> <td></td> <td class="right">2</td> </tr><tr> <td class="left">For sums above </td> -<td class="left">£1</td> +<td class="left">£1</td> <td class="left">but not exceeding </td> -<td class="left">£3</td> +<td class="left">£3</td> <td class="right">3</td> </tr><tr> <td></td> -<td class="left">£3</td> +<td class="left">£3</td> <td></td> -<td class="left">£10</td> +<td class="left">£10</td> <td class="right">4</td> </tr><tr> <td></td> -<td class="left">£10</td> +<td class="left">£10</td> <td></td> -<td class="left">£20</td> +<td class="left">£20</td> <td class="right">6</td> </tr><tr> <td></td> -<td class="left">£20</td> +<td class="left">£20</td> <td></td> -<td class="left">£30</td> +<td class="left">£30</td> <td class="right">8</td> </tr><tr> <td></td> -<td class="left">£23</td> +<td class="left">£23</td> <td></td> -<td class="left">£40</td> +<td class="left">£40</td> <td class="right">10</td> </tr> </table> @@ -7608,7 +7567,7 @@ ten days.<a name="FNanchor_696_696" id="FNanchor_696_696"></a><a href="#Footnote <p>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 +were also telegraph offices. The limit imposed was £10, the rates being</p> <table style="border: 0; padding: 0;" summary="1892 telegraphed p.o.'s"> @@ -7618,23 +7577,23 @@ being</p> <td style="width: 17%; text-align: right;"> <i>d.</i></td> </tr><tr> <td style="width: 66%; text-align: left;">On orders not exceeding</td> -<td style="width: 17%; text-align: right;">£1</td> +<td style="width: 17%; text-align: right;">£1</td> <td style="width: 17%; text-align: right;">4</td> </tr><tr> <td></td> -<td style="text-align: right;">£2</td> +<td style="text-align: right;">£2</td> <td style="text-align: right;">6</td> </tr><tr> <td></td> -<td style="text-align: right;">£4</td> +<td style="text-align: right;">£4</td> <td style="text-align: right;">8</td> </tr><tr> <td></td> -<td style="text-align: right;">£7</td> +<td style="text-align: right;">£7</td> <td style="text-align: right;">10</td> </tr><tr> <td></td> -<td style="text-align: right;">£10</td> +<td style="text-align: right;">£10</td> <td style="text-align: right;">12</td> </tr> </table> @@ -7643,9 +7602,9 @@ being</p> <p>There was an additional charge of at least 9<i>d.</i> for the official telegram, authorizing payment, which was sent in duplicate. When several orders were sent at the same time and the total amount -<span class="pagenum">[179]</span>did not exceed £50, only one official telegram was sent and paid +<span class="pagenum">[179]</span>did not exceed £50, only one official telegram was sent and paid for. The above rates were lowered in 1897 to 4<i>d.</i> for sums not in -excess of £3, and 6<i>d.</i> for sums from £3 to £10 with a minimum +excess of £3, and 6<i>d.</i> for sums from £3 to £10 with a minimum charge of 6<i>d.</i> for the official telegram of advice.<a name="FNanchor_697_697" id="FNanchor_697_697"></a><a href="#Footnote_697_697" class="fnanchor">[697]</a> 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, @@ -7657,11 +7616,11 @@ 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 +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 +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 @@ -7676,19 +7635,19 @@ to the same level, and in 1883 the following changes were adopted:</p> <td class="left"><i>d.</i></td> </tr><tr> <td class="right" style="width: 20%">On orders not exceeding </td> -<td class="left" style="width: 5%">£2</td> +<td class="left" style="width: 5%">£2</td> <td class="left" style="width: 10%">6</td> </tr><tr> <td></td> -<td>£5</td> +<td>£5</td> <td class="left">12</td> </tr><tr> <td></td> -<td>£7</td> +<td>£7</td> <td class="left">18</td> </tr><tr> <td></td> -<td>£10</td> +<td>£10</td> <td class="left">24</td> </tr> </table> @@ -7703,23 +7662,23 @@ to the same level, and in 1883 the following changes were adopted:</p> <td class="left"><i>d.</i></td> </tr><tr> <td class="right" style="width: 20%;">On orders not exceeding </td> -<td class="left" style="width: 5%;">£2</td> +<td class="left" style="width: 5%;">£2</td> <td class="left" style="width: 10%;">6</td> </tr><tr> <td></td> -<td>£6</td> +<td>£6</td> <td class="left">12</td> </tr><tr> <td></td> -<td>£10</td> +<td>£10</td> <td class="left">18</td> </tr> </table> <p>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 -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page180" id="page180">[180]</a></span>the poundage on foreign money orders not exceeding £1 in value +agreed to a further reduction of rates and to a £40 limit. In 1905 +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page180" id="page180">[180]</a></span>the poundage on foreign money orders not exceeding £1 in value was diminished from 4<i>d.</i> to 3<i>d.</i><a name="FNanchor_698_698" id="FNanchor_698_698"></a><a href="#Footnote_698_698" class="fnanchor">[698]</a></p> <p>There is no record of the yearly expenses of the Government for @@ -7740,19 +7699,19 @@ guesses.</p> <p>Until 1626<a name="FNanchor_702_702" id="FNanchor_702_702"></a><a href="#Footnote_702_702" class="fnanchor">[702]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_703_703" id="FNanchor_703_703"></a><a href="#Footnote_703_703" class="fnanchor">[703]</a> +net, for the state. In 1603, the cost of the posts was £4150 a year.<a name="FNanchor_703_703" id="FNanchor_703_703"></a><a href="#Footnote_703_703" class="fnanchor">[703]</a> 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<i>s.</i> -a day, to Dover 17<i>s.</i> 6<i>d.</i>, to Holyhead 36<i>s.</i> 8<i>d.</i> and £130 a year for a +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<i>s.</i> +a day, to Dover 17<i>s.</i> 6<i>d.</i>, to Holyhead 36<i>s.</i> 8<i>d.</i> and £130 a year for a sailing packet, to Plymouth 25<i>s.</i> a day. The wages for each postmaster <span class="pagenum">[181]</span>varied from 1<i>s.</i> 8<i>d.</i> to 4<i>s.</i> 4<i>d.</i> a day. In addition there was -an expenditure of £50 for extraordinary posts and 5<i>s.</i> a day to the -paymaster.<a name="FNanchor_704_704" id="FNanchor_704_704"></a><a href="#Footnote_704_704" class="fnanchor">[704]</a> In 1625, the ordinary expenses were about £4300 a +an expenditure of £50 for extraordinary posts and 5<i>s.</i> a day to the +paymaster.<a name="FNanchor_704_704" id="FNanchor_704_704"></a><a href="#Footnote_704_704" class="fnanchor">[704]</a> In 1625, the ordinary expenses were about £4300 a year.<a name="FNanchor_705_705" id="FNanchor_705_705"></a><a href="#Footnote_705_705" class="fnanchor">[705]</a> 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 @@ -7766,26 +7725,26 @@ 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.<a name="FNanchor_706_706" id="FNanchor_706_706"></a><a href="#Footnote_706_706" class="fnanchor">[706]</a> 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 +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.<a name="FNanchor_707_707" id="FNanchor_707_707"></a><a href="#Footnote_707_707" class="fnanchor">[707]</a> Prideaux reported at an early period in his régime that, +adopted.<a name="FNanchor_707_707" id="FNanchor_707_707"></a><a href="#Footnote_707_707" class="fnanchor">[707]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_708_708" id="FNanchor_708_708"></a><a href="#Footnote_708_708" class="fnanchor">[708]</a> 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 +£10,000 a year and is said to have made £14,000 during the six years that he farmed the Posts.<a name="FNanchor_709_709" id="FNanchor_709_709"></a><a href="#Footnote_709_709" class="fnanchor">[709]</a> In 1659 the rent was raised to -£14,000<a name="FNanchor_710_710" id="FNanchor_710_710"></a><a href="#Footnote_710_710" class="fnanchor">[710]</a> a year, and in 1660 there was a further advance to -£21,500.<a name="FNanchor_711_711" id="FNanchor_711_711"></a><a href="#Footnote_711_711" class="fnanchor">[711]</a> Of this £21,500 the Duke of York received £16,117 and +£14,000<a name="FNanchor_710_710" id="FNanchor_710_710"></a><a href="#Footnote_710_710" class="fnanchor">[710]</a> a year, and in 1660 there was a further advance to +£21,500.<a name="FNanchor_711_711" id="FNanchor_711_711"></a><a href="#Footnote_711_711" class="fnanchor">[711]</a> 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 <span class="pagenum">[182]</span>expenses such as the payment of the Court Postmaster.<a name="FNanchor_712_712" id="FNanchor_712_712"></a><a href="#Footnote_712_712" class="fnanchor">[712]</a> 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 +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.<a name="FNanchor_713_713" id="FNanchor_713_713"></a><a href="#Footnote_713_713" class="fnanchor">[713]</a> 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, @@ -7796,24 +7755,24 @@ branch of the royal revenue.<a name="FNanchor_714_714" id="FNanchor_714_714"></a 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 +things to pay the interest on £250,000 borrowed to carry on the war.<a name="FNanchor_715_715" id="FNanchor_715_715"></a><a href="#Footnote_715_715" class="fnanchor">[715]</a> From 1690 to 1710, the gross receipts rose from about -£70,000 to £90,000 a year, no consideration being taken of the ups +£70,000 to £90,000 a year, no consideration being taken of the ups and downs caused by the French wars.<a name="FNanchor_716_716" id="FNanchor_716_716"></a><a href="#Footnote_716_716" class="fnanchor">[716]</a> Complaint was made by the Lords that a large part of the postal revenue was wasted in paying -pensions.<a name="FNanchor_717_717" id="FNanchor_717_717"></a><a href="#Footnote_717_717" class="fnanchor">[717]</a> The Duchess of Cleveland received £4700 a year -and William's Dutch General, the Duke of Schomberg, £4000 a +pensions.<a name="FNanchor_717_717" id="FNanchor_717_717"></a><a href="#Footnote_717_717" class="fnanchor">[717]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_718_718" id="FNanchor_718_718"></a><a href="#Footnote_718_718" class="fnanchor">[718]</a> 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 +only £500 a year, terminable in 1697.<a name="FNanchor_718_718" id="FNanchor_718_718"></a><a href="#Footnote_718_718" class="fnanchor">[718]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_719_719" id="FNanchor_719_719"></a><a href="#Footnote_719_719" class="fnanchor">[719]</a></p> +£59,972, the gross being about £88,000.<a name="FNanchor_719_719" id="FNanchor_719_719"></a><a href="#Footnote_719_719" class="fnanchor">[719]</a></p> <p>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 +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 <span class="pagenum">[183]</span>so for the Post Office was already paying too much in pensions. @@ -7821,8 +7780,8 @@ 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 +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.<a name="FNanchor_720_720" id="FNanchor_720_720"></a><a href="#Footnote_720_720" class="fnanchor">[720]</a></p> @@ -7837,10 +7796,10 @@ 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 +£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 @@ -7857,11 +7816,11 @@ of these upon a war footing involved considerable increased cost. 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 +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 +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 @@ -7869,11 +7828,11 @@ low as before the war.</p> <p>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 +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 @@ -7926,17 +7885,17 @@ five-year period being compared with the preceding period. 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 -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page185" id="page185">[185]</a></span>Irish post "had never paid £8000 a year clear of expenses."<a name="FNanchor_723_723" id="FNanchor_723_723"></a><a href="#Footnote_723_723" class="fnanchor">[723]</a> In -1796, the gross product was £26,949 and the expenses of management -£8718. Of the net product, £6651 were retained, being +<span class="pagenum"><a name="page185" id="page185">[185]</a></span>Irish post "had never paid £8000 a year clear of expenses."<a name="FNanchor_723_723" id="FNanchor_723_723"></a><a href="#Footnote_723_723" class="fnanchor">[723]</a> 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 +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 +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.</p> +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.</p> <p>The time had long since passed when the London-Dover road was the most important in the kingdom and when the receipts from @@ -7944,32 +7903,32 @@ 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.<a name="FNanchor_724_724" id="FNanchor_724_724"></a><a href="#Footnote_724_724" class="fnanchor">[724]</a></p> +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.<a name="FNanchor_724_724" id="FNanchor_724_724"></a><a href="#Footnote_724_724" class="fnanchor">[724]</a></p> <p>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.</p> +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.</p> <p>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 +through London. In 1720 they brought in only £3700. Allen had <span class="pagenum"><a name="page186" id="page186">[186]</a></span>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 +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 @@ -7986,30 +7945,30 @@ a little ahead of the five-year period 1815-19 only by a decrease in expenditure.</p> <p>The annual gross receipts from Scotland had increased from -£117,108 during the period 1800-04 to £204,481 during the period +£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 +£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.<a name="FNanchor_727_727" id="FNanchor_727_727"></a><a href="#Footnote_727_727" class="fnanchor">[727]</a> Ireland started with a smaller gross revenue, -£92,745 a year during the period 1800-04, but a larger annual -expenditure £64,368,<a name="FNanchor_728_728" id="FNanchor_728_728"></a><a href="#Footnote_728_728" class="fnanchor">[728]</a> and comparatively small net receipts of -£28,377. Gross receipts, expenses, and net receipts had increased +£20,000 a year.<a name="FNanchor_727_727" id="FNanchor_727_727"></a><a href="#Footnote_727_727" class="fnanchor">[727]</a> Ireland started with a smaller gross revenue, +£92,745 a year during the period 1800-04, but a larger annual +expenditure £64,368,<a name="FNanchor_728_728" id="FNanchor_728_728"></a><a href="#Footnote_728_728" class="fnanchor">[728]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_729_729" id="FNanchor_729_729"></a><a href="#Footnote_729_729" class="fnanchor">[729]</a></p> +from 1830 to 1834 inclusive they amounted to £244,098, £108,898, +and £135,200 respectively.<a name="FNanchor_729_729" id="FNanchor_729_729"></a><a href="#Footnote_729_729" class="fnanchor">[729]</a></p> <p><span class="pagenum"><a name="page187" id="page187">[187]</a></span></p> <p>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 +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 +£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 +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 @@ -8020,7 +7979,7 @@ 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 +produce £70 net for every £100 collected had some excuse for its existence.</p> <p>Rowland Hill has pointed out that from 1815 to 1835 the population @@ -8036,32 +7995,32 @@ hand, a people inhabiting two small islands, making heroic efforts to recover from a most burdensome war.</p> <p>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 +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<span class="pagenum">[188]</span> -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 +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 +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 +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 +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.<a name="FNanchor_730_730" id="FNanchor_730_730"></a><a href="#Footnote_730_730" class="fnanchor">[730]</a></p> +1906, the average gross revenue was £15,926,905, expenditure +£11,156,292, and net revenue £4,770,613.<a name="FNanchor_730_730" id="FNanchor_730_730"></a><a href="#Footnote_730_730" class="fnanchor">[730]</a></p> <p><span class="pagenum"><a name="page189" id="page189">[189]</a></span></p> @@ -8230,10 +8189,10 @@ 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.<a name="FNanchor_752_752" id="FNanchor_752_752"></a><a href="#Footnote_752_752" class="fnanchor">[752]</a> 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, +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 +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 <span class="pagenum">[194]</span>having anything to do with the post." An order of the Council of @@ -8302,7 +8261,7 @@ monopoly<a name="FNanchor_760_760" id="FNanchor_760_760"></a><a href="#Footnote_ 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 +be suppressed Bishop lost £500 through them, and orders were given to allow him an abatement in his rent to that amount.<a name="FNanchor_762_762" id="FNanchor_762_762"></a><a href="#Footnote_762_762" class="fnanchor">[762]</a></p> <p>In 1663 a certain Thomas Ibson attempted to come to an agreement @@ -8384,13 +8343,13 @@ means. The various exceptions to the government monopoly continued 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.<a name="FNanchor_773_773" id="FNanchor_773_773"></a><a href="#Footnote_773_773" class="fnanchor">[773]</a> The penalty for infringing -upon the postal monopoly was placed at £5 for every offence or -£100 a week if the offence was continued.<a name="FNanchor_774_774" id="FNanchor_774_774"></a><a href="#Footnote_774_774" class="fnanchor">[774]</a></p> +upon the postal monopoly was placed at £5 for every offence or +£100 a week if the offence was continued.<a name="FNanchor_774_774" id="FNanchor_774_774"></a><a href="#Footnote_774_774" class="fnanchor">[774]</a></p> <p>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. 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 @@ -8640,10 +8599,10 @@ telegraph office for transmission. The charge was to be made uniform at 1<i>s.</i> for twenty words and 6<i>d.</i> 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 +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.<a name="FNanchor_801_801" id="FNanchor_801_801"></a><a href="#Footnote_801_801" class="fnanchor">[801]</a> Finally, his reply to Lord Stanley's +was £676,000; annual charge, £81,250; working expenses, £456,000; +surplus, £138,750.<a name="FNanchor_801_801" id="FNanchor_801_801"></a><a href="#Footnote_801_801" class="fnanchor">[801]</a> 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 @@ -8692,7 +8651,7 @@ 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, +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 @@ -8748,11 +8707,11 @@ should be required to purchase its undertaking upon demand.<a name="FNanchor_806 <p>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, +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 +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 @@ -8760,25 +8719,25 @@ 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 +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 +£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.<a name="FNanchor_807_807" id="FNanchor_807_807"></a><a href="#Footnote_807_807" class="fnanchor">[807]</a> The claims for compensation on the part of some <span class="pagenum"><a name="page209" id="page209">[209]</a></span>of the railways were very excessive. The Lancashire and Yorkshire -Railway asked for £1,129,814, with interest, and £1 per wire per +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 +the Post Office. By the terms of the award they obtained £169,197 and 1<i>s.</i> 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 +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 +£326,417, charged, not on the Post Office vote, but on the Consolidated Fund.<a name="FNanchor_808_808" id="FNanchor_808_808"></a><a href="#Footnote_808_808" class="fnanchor">[808]</a></p> <p>When the Post Office acquired the telegraphs, a uniform rate was @@ -9038,26 +8997,26 @@ 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 +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, +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 +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. +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, +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 +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.<a name="FNanchor_822_822" id="FNanchor_822_822"></a><a href="#Footnote_822_822" class="fnanchor">[822]</a></p> +to 2-3/4 per cent lowered the amount payable to £299,216. In 1903, +there was a further reduction to £278,483.<a name="FNanchor_822_822" id="FNanchor_822_822"></a><a href="#Footnote_822_822" class="fnanchor">[822]</a></p> <p><span class="pagenum"><a name="page217" id="page217">[217]</a></span></p> <p>The financial loss experienced by the Government in operating the telegraphs has naturally produced considerable interest in this @@ -9100,7 +9059,7 @@ 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 +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 @@ -9213,7 +9172,7 @@ 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 +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 @@ -9264,11 +9223,11 @@ 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 +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 +£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 <span class="pagenum"><a name="page223" id="page223">[223]</a></span>whole transaction. With the expiration of the patent rights, the @@ -9349,7 +9308,7 @@ 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 +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 @@ -9419,18 +9378,18 @@ 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. +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<i>s.</i> +etc., the rate was £10 for a first connection and £8 10<i>s.</i> 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<i>s.</i> for each additional half-mile, with reductions +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<i>s.</i> for each additional half-mile, with reductions for extra connections. For small outlying and isolated -towns the half-mile rate was £6 10<i>s.</i>, one mile £8, and £2 10<i>s.</i> for +towns the half-mile rate was £6 10<i>s.</i>, one mile £8, and £2 10<i>s.</i> for every additional half-mile.<a name="FNanchor_832_832" id="FNanchor_832_832"></a><a href="#Footnote_832_832" class="fnanchor">[832]</a></p> <p>In 1898, another committee was appointed with Mr. Hanbury @@ -9475,7 +9434,7 @@ 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 +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 @@ -9510,7 +9469,7 @@ 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 +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 @@ -9546,13 +9505,13 @@ 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 +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 +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, @@ -9720,14 +9679,14 @@ of December, 1911.<a name="FNanchor_840_840" id="FNanchor_840_840"></a><a href=" <p>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 +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 +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 @@ -9799,7 +9758,7 @@ 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.</p> +created, and better coöperation in the work which they performed.</p> <p>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 @@ -9872,9 +9831,9 @@ OF THE UNITED KINGDOM<br />FROM MARCH 25, 1723 TO APRIL 5, 1797</p> <td class="right" style="width: 22%"><i>Net Product</i></td> </tr><tr> <td> </td> -<td class="right">£ </td> -<td class="right">£ </td> -<td class="right">£ </td> +<td class="right">£ </td> +<td class="right">£ </td> +<td class="right">£ </td> </tr><tr> <td class="right">March 25, 1724</td> <td class="right">178,071</td> @@ -10271,9 +10230,9 @@ OF THE UNITED KINGDOM<br />FROM 1725 TO 1794</p> <td class="right" style="width: 24%"><i>Net Product</i></td> </tr><tr> <td> </td> -<td class="right">£ </td> -<td class="right">£ </td> -<td class="right">£ </td> +<td class="right">£ </td> +<td class="right">£ </td> +<td class="right">£ </td> </tr><tr> <td>1725-29</td> <td class="right">179,725</td> @@ -10371,10 +10330,10 @@ FROM JANUARY 5, 1804 TO JANUARY 5, 1838</p> <td class="right" style="width: 20%"><i>Loss on Returned Letters</i><a name="FNanchor_843_843" id="FNanchor_843_843"></a><a href="#Footnote_843_843" class="fnanchor">[843]</a></td> </tr><tr> <td> </td> -<td class="right">£ </td> -<td class="right">£ </td> -<td class="right">£ </td> -<td class="right">£ </td> +<td class="right">£ </td> +<td class="right">£ </td> +<td class="right">£ </td> +<td class="right">£ </td> </tr><tr> <td class="right">Jan. 5, 1804</td> <td class="right">1,429,429</td> @@ -10613,11 +10572,11 @@ OF THE UNITED KINGDOM FROM 1805 TO 1838 <td class="right" style="width: 17%"><i>Actual Gross Product</i></td> </tr><tr> <td> </td> -<td class="right">£ </td> -<td class="right">£ </td> -<td class="right">£ </td> -<td class="right">£ </td> -<td class="right">£ </td> +<td class="right">£ </td> +<td class="right">£ </td> +<td class="right">£ </td> +<td class="right">£ </td> +<td class="right">£ </td> </tr><tr> <td class="right">1805-09</td> <td class="right">1,656,963</td> @@ -10684,9 +10643,9 @@ OF THE UNITED KINGDOM FROM 1805 TO 1838 <td class="right" style="width: 20%"><i>Net Product</i></td> </tr><tr> <td class="center" style="width: 20%"> </td> -<td class="right">£ </td> -<td class="right">£ </td> -<td class="right">£ </td> +<td class="right">£ </td> +<td class="right">£ </td> +<td class="right">£ </td> </tr><tr> <td class="center" style="width: 20%">1800-04</td> <td class="right" style="width: 20%">117,108</td> @@ -10738,9 +10697,9 @@ OF THE UNITED KINGDOM FROM 1805 TO 1838 <table class="center" border="0" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" summary="table IV ire" style="width: 80%; line-height: 10pt"> <tr> <td class="center" style="width: 20%"> </td> -<td class="right">£ </td> -<td class="right">£ </td> -<td class="right">£ </td> +<td class="right">£ </td> +<td class="right">£ </td> +<td class="right">£ </td> </tr><tr> <td class="center" style="width: 20%">1800-04</td> <td class="right" style="width: 20%">92,745</td> @@ -10806,9 +10765,9 @@ POST OFFICE FOR SCOTLAND AND IRELAND FROM 1800 TO 1837</p> <td class="right" style="width: 20%"><i>Net Product</i></td> </tr><tr> <td class="right" style="width: 20%"><i> Jan. 5</i></td> -<td class="right">£ </td> -<td class="right">£ </td> -<td class="right">£ </td> +<td class="right">£ </td> +<td class="right">£ </td> +<td class="right">£ </td> </tr><tr> <td class="right" style="width: 20%">1800</td> <td class="right" style="width: 20%">100,651</td> @@ -11018,9 +10977,9 @@ POST OFFICE FOR SCOTLAND AND IRELAND FROM 1800 TO 1837</p> <td class="right" style="width: 20%"><i>Net Product</i></td> </tr><tr> <td class="right" style="width: 20%"><i> Jan. 5</i></td> -<td class="right">£ </td> -<td class="right">£ </td> -<td class="right">£ </td> +<td class="right">£ </td> +<td class="right">£ </td> +<td class="right">£ </td> </tr><tr> <td class="right" style="width: 20%">1800</td> <td class="right" style="width: 20%">84,040</td> @@ -11232,9 +11191,9 @@ OF THE UNITED KINGDOM,<br />NOT INCLUDING TELEGRAPHS,<br />FROM 1838 TO 1907</p> <td class="right" style="width: 20%"><i>Net Revenue</i></td> </tr><tr> <td> </td> -<td class="right">£ </td> -<td class="right">£ </td> -<td class="right">£ </td> +<td class="right">£ </td> +<td class="right">£ </td> +<td class="right">£ </td> </tr><tr> <td class="right">Jan. 5, 1838</td> <td class="right">2,339,737</td> @@ -11608,9 +11567,9 @@ OF POST OFFICE FOR THE UNITED KINGDOM NOT INCLUDING TELEGRAPHS FROM 1841 TO 1906 <td class="right" style="width: 25%"><i>Net Revenue</i></td> </tr><tr> <td> </td> -<td class="right">£ </td> -<td class="right">£ </td> -<td class="right">£ </td> +<td class="right">£ </td> +<td class="right">£ </td> +<td class="right">£ </td> </tr><tr> <td class="right">1841-45</td> <td class="right">1,658,214</td> @@ -11815,7 +11774,7 @@ Memoranda of the Cely Family, Merchants of the Staple, A. D. 1475-88.</i> in Past Centuries.</i> 1856.</p> <p>Rothschild, Arthur de. <i>Histoire de la Poste aux Lettres, depuis ses Origines -les plus Anciennes jusqu'à nos Jours.</i> 2d ed., Paris, 1873.</p> +les plus Anciennes jusqu'à nos Jours.</i> 2d ed., Paris, 1873.</p> <p>Sharpe, R. R. <i>London and the Kingdom.</i> 3 vols., 1894-95.</p> @@ -12670,7 +12629,7 @@ The following is a list of the contractors, with the yearly amounts offered by e </p> <table border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="3" summary="contractors"> -<tr><td>Ben Andrews for Inland Office</td><td class="right">£3600</td></tr> +<tr><td>Ben Andrews for Inland Office</td><td class="right">£3600</td></tr> <tr><td>Ben Andrews for Foreign Office</td><td class="right">3500</td></tr> <tr><td>Henry Robinson for both offices</td><td class="right">8041</td></tr> <tr><td>Ben Andrews for both offices</td><td class="right">9100</td></tr> @@ -12824,7 +12783,7 @@ ii, p. 209.</p></div> </p><p> 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 +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, <i>Her Majesty's Mails</i>, pp. 104-12.</p></div> @@ -13155,7 +13114,7 @@ government's refusal to solicit business (<i>Economist</i> 1881, Nov. 5, p. 1369 <div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_309_309" id="Footnote_309_309"></a><a href="#FNanchor_309_309"><span class="label">[309]</span></a> <i>Parl. Papers</i>, 1852-53, xcv, p. 3; <i>Rep. P. G.</i>, 1861, p. 20; 1872, pp. 26-27; 1884, p. 56; 1893, p. 78; 1896, p. 86; 1906, p. 92.</p></div> -<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_310_310" id="Footnote_310_310"></a><a href="#FNanchor_310_310"><span class="label">[310]</span></a> Less than £120 in England, less than £100 in Scotland and Ireland.</p></div> +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_310_310" id="Footnote_310_310"></a><a href="#FNanchor_310_310"><span class="label">[310]</span></a> Less than £120 in England, less than £100 in Scotland and Ireland.</p></div> <div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_311_311" id="Footnote_311_311"></a><a href="#FNanchor_311_311"><span class="label">[311]</span></a> D. B. Eaton, <i>Civil Service in Great Britain</i>, New York, 1880, pp. 75, 307, 308; <i>Parl. Deb.</i>, 3d ser., ccxxxix, col. 211; cclv, col. 1575; <i>ibid.</i>, 4th ser., clix, col. 397; @@ -13203,7 +13162,7 @@ the London <i>Times</i>, 1907, Aug. 19, p. 17; Aug. 20, p. 2; Oct. 16, p. 12.</p <div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_326_326" id="Footnote_326_326"></a><a href="#FNanchor_326_326"><span class="label">[326]</span></a> <i>Parl. Deb.</i>, 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 (<i>Parl. +upon the country an additional cost of about £600,000, rising to £1,000,000 (<i>Parl. Deb.</i>, 4th ser., cxcii, col. 1156).</p></div> <div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_327_327" id="Footnote_327_327"></a><a href="#FNanchor_327_327"><span class="label">[327]</span></a> Hist. MSS. Com. <i>Rep.</i>, 14, app., pt. 8, p. 35; <i>P. & O. P. C.</i>, vii, p. 350.</p></div> @@ -14688,9 +14647,9 @@ p. 34.</p></div> <div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_800_800" id="Footnote_800_800"></a><a href="#FNanchor_800_800"><span class="label">[800]</span></a> <i>Rep. Com.</i>, 1867-68, xi, 435, p. 108; <i>Acc. & P.</i>, 1867-68, xli, 202, p. 7.</p></div> -<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_801_801" id="Footnote_801_801"></a><a href="#FNanchor_801_801"><span class="label">[801]</span></a> 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 (<i>Acc. & P.</i>, 1867-68, xli, 202, pp. 145-47).</p></div> +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_801_801" id="Footnote_801_801"></a><a href="#FNanchor_801_801"><span class="label">[801]</span></a> 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 (<i>Acc. & P.</i>, 1867-68, xli, 202, pp. 145-47).</p></div> <div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_802_802" id="Footnote_802_802"></a><a href="#FNanchor_802_802"><span class="label">[802]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, pp. 7-39.</p></div> @@ -14707,9 +14666,9 @@ expenses £425,000, and surplus £77,750 (<i>Acc. & P.</i>, 1867-68, xli, 202, 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 (<i>Parl. Deb.</i> 3d ser., cxcv, coll. +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 (<i>Parl. Deb.</i> 3d ser., cxcv, coll. 747-751).</p></div> <div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_808_808" id="Footnote_808_808"></a><a href="#FNanchor_808_808"><span class="label">[808]</span></a> <i>Rep. P. G.</i>, 1876, p. 10; <i>ibid.</i>, 1883, p. 9.</p></div> @@ -14808,7 +14767,7 @@ those [the principal] towns" (<i>Parl. Deb.</i>, 3d ser., cccxix, col. 664).</p> <div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_843_843" id="Footnote_843_843"></a><a href="#FNanchor_843_843"><span class="label">[843]</span></a> <i>Reports from Com.</i>, 1837-38, xx, pt. r. p. 509. Before 1797, the loss on returned letters seems to have been included in the Charges of Management.</p></div> -<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_844_844" id="Footnote_844_844"></a><a href="#FNanchor_844_844"><span class="label">[844]</span></a> First payment of tolls amounting from £16,000 to £20,000 a year. 2d <i>Rep.</i>, app. no. 39, <i>Rep. +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_844_844" id="Footnote_844_844"></a><a href="#FNanchor_844_844"><span class="label">[844]</span></a> First payment of tolls amounting from £16,000 to £20,000 a year. 2d <i>Rep.</i>, app. no. 39, <i>Rep. Com.</i>, 1837-38, xx.</p></div> <div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_845_845" id="Footnote_845_845"></a><a href="#FNanchor_845_845"><span class="label">[845]</span></a> Three quarters only. 1st <i>Rep.</i>, app. no. 28.</p></div> @@ -14816,7 +14775,7 @@ Com.</i>, 1837-38, xx.</p></div> <div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_846_846" id="Footnote_846_846"></a><a href="#FNanchor_846_846"><span class="label">[846]</span></a> 1st <i>Rep. P. G.</i>, 1855, p. 68. 20th <i>Rep. P. G.</i>, 1874, app., p. 46.</p></div> -<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_847_847" id="Footnote_847_847"></a><a href="#FNanchor_847_847"><span class="label">[847]</span></a> Expenditure for sailing packets in 1858 was £935,883.</p></div> +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_847_847" id="Footnote_847_847"></a><a href="#FNanchor_847_847"><span class="label">[847]</span></a> Expenditure for sailing packets in 1858 was £935,883.</p></div> <div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_848_848" id="Footnote_848_848"></a><a href="#FNanchor_848_848"><span class="label">[848]</span></a> Postage ceased to be charged on government departments early in 1868.</p></div> @@ -14841,384 +14800,6 @@ nor does expenditure include cost of packet service until 1861.</p></div> <!-- end of div starting at Footnotes heading --> - - - - - - - -<pre> - - - - - -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-h.htm or 42983-h.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. - - -</pre> - +<div>*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 42983 ***</div> </body> </html> |