APPENDIX TO CHAPTER XVI.

GENERAL PROGRESS.

Having narrated the transfer of the Money Order Department to my superintendence, I now proceed to more general transactions, and for their description give the following letter to Mr. Baring:—

“General Post Office, January 24th, 1848.

“My dear Sir,—I think the enclosed will interest you. You will not fail to remark the effect of the do-nothing policy of 1842, and of all, except the latter part, of 1843. The great increase in subsequent years is owing mainly to the extension of the rural distribution, which goes on with such rapidity that in the last year we brought more than one thousand places within the range of the Post Office system. No one would now question the policy of the measure which you proposed, except, perhaps, on the ground that it did not go far enough.

“The increased facilities afforded of late years are proving far more profitable than even I had anticipated.

“The revenue of the past year will probably be about £2,220,000 gross, and £1,030,000 net. The gross revenue is as large as it was in 1834, and within 5 per cent. of what it was in 1837. The current year will probably give an amount equal to 1837, thus realising my anticipations of gross revenue. The net revenue will be about £200,000 less than I calculated; but in my opinion the expenses have been needlessly increased to that extent. The same gross revenue as in 1837 was, according to my calculation, to be the result of a five-fold increase of letters; it will have been brought about by a 4⅔-fold increase.

“Faithfully yours, “Rowland Hill.”

ENCLOSURE.

Estimate of the Number of Chargeable Letters delivered in the United Kingdom in each year from 1839 to 1847.[51]

Annual Increase

Per-centage

Year. Number of Number of reckoned on

Letters. Letters. the No. for

1839.

Millions. Millions. Per cent.

1839 76[52] . . . . . .

1840 169 93 123

1841 196½ 27½ 36

1842 208½ 12 16

1843 220½ 12 16

1844 242 21½ 28

1845 271 29½ 39

1846 299½ 28 37

1847 322 22½ 30

“January 28th.—Received a very gratifying note from Mr. Baring in reply to the above, in which, though not quite concurring in my comparison of net revenue, he says, ‘There is still a great store of undeveloped letter-writing in the country, and I am sanguine enough to believe your estimate as to number will be wrong by being much under the mark.’ He adds, with characteristic frankness, ‘What has surprised me most is the quiet way in which the people here take to the prepayment and stamping. I was always much afraid of that part of the plan, and am glad to find myself wrong.’”

The following are further extracts from Mr. Baring’s letter:—

“As I am writing to you I cannot help mentioning what was told me at Weymouth this year, which shows how, in trifles even, your scheme has been a benefit.

“I was at Weymouth when I was Chancellor of the Exchequer, and busy with you about the reduction [of postage], and used, with my children, to frequent a shell-shop and gossip with the shopkeeper—a man of some intelligence in his way. I was at Weymouth again this summer, and having gone to my shell friend, after a little talk, ‘Oh, Sir!’ he said, ‘I must tell you that the penny postage that you were busy about when you were here last has been a great benefit to me in my way, which you did not, I dare say, expect, and I am sure I did not. I now send my shells all over the country.’”

The following is a curious instance of a real advantage figuring as the reverse. While the year’s improvement did not equal my expectation, a return called for by Parliament was so given as to make it appear less than it really was, the progress in gross revenue being in effect understated by about £100,000. The following is the explanation of this anomaly:—By the system of prepayment the number of rejected letters had been so diminished that the deduction made on their account from the gross postage had been reduced by that sum, a fact suppressed in the return.[53] I pointed out the error to the Accountant-General, who at once admitted it, but explained that a corrective entry which he had made in the return had been removed thence by order.

BOOK POST.

The following entries relate to the Book Post:—

“January 28th.—Went to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to endeavour to remove his objections to the book post. He is afraid apparently of the railway interest, and dislikes the notion of entering into competition with carriers. I reminded him that we did not propose to avail ourselves of our monopoly [I should have said ‘to extend our monopoly to the conveyance of books’], but merely to serve the public better than it is now served; that no other system than that of the Post Office would reach the rural districts; and pointed out the moral and political importance of enlightening those districts, &c., &c. We had a stout battle, but in the end he gave up, suggesting, however, for my consideration, the expediency, in the first instance at least, of restricting each packet to a single volume.”

This suggestion was adopted. The difficulties being thus removed, the book post was at length established, the necessary warrant appearing in the Gazette of February 11th. At first any writing whatsoever found in a posted book made it subject to letter charge, but this absolute restriction was soon found to be inconvenient, especially to collectors of old books. Professor De Morgan, I remember, found it a little hard that a bar to the use of the book post should arise from the mere fact that a useful volume contained some such inscription as the following:—

The rule was accordingly made less stringent; writing, however, being still restricted to a single page. In the course of years it became allowable to write anything whatever, save only a letter, and, with the same restriction, to send any matter, even if written throughout.

I am sorry to remark, however, that meantime advantage was taken of the new facility for frequent attempt at evasion of postage; letters, small articles of dress, &c., being slipped in between the leaves of the books, and, ungallant as the statement may appear, I am bound to mention that the chief offenders in this way were ladies. Sometimes the means resorted to evinced no small pains and ingenuity, exercised for the mere purpose of saving a few pence. Thus, in one instance which I remember, a hole had been excavated in the thickness of an old book—leaving not only the binding, but several leaves above and below, uninjured, and in this hole was concealed a watch. And here I may remark that, with every desire to give the public all possible facilities, we were often deterred from so doing by the tricks and evasions which too frequently followed any relaxation of our rules; evasions which, even when detected, and when clearly opposed to the spirit and intention of the regulation, were sometimes defended—and owing to the unwillingness of Government departments to risk defeat in a court of justice, successfully defended—on the ground that there was no infraction of the letter of the regulation. The conscientious part of the public—happily, so far as my experience shows, the great majority—is little aware how much it suffers from unscrupulous conduct such as this.

ECONOMIC MEASURES.

While thus carrying forward extensive and important improvements in the single department placed under my exclusive superintendence, and while instituting the book-post system, I found myself, by want of necessary power, debarred from those more general improvements which constituted important features in my plan as laid before Parliament. I had nevertheless abundance of less profitable, though not unprofitable, occupation in work mostly of a routine character. Here I had steadily to resist such tendency to unnecessary increase in expenditure as seemed likely, if unchecked, to render all my economical arrangements nugatory. I had, at the same time, to seek every opportunity of retrieving false steps made previously to my appointment;[54] some of which were still producing serious waste. Of course, many of the savings effected either way were, individually, of small amount, yet not only were they important in their total, but also the care thus exercised tended to introduce that spirit of economy without which no department can produce its best effects.

Scales of Salaries.

Sound economy, I need not say, requires that salaries should be regulated by fixed principles; and as early as January 31st of this year I had suggested to the Postmaster-General that it would be well for the Treasury to appoint commissioners who should establish scales of salaries equally applicable to all the revenue departments, so as at once to remove mutual jealousy and to prevent unreasonable claims in one department from arising out of unreasonable concession in another. Such a Commission was actually appointed about five years afterwards, and its proceedings will be mentioned in their proper place.

Former Prodigality.

One past proceeding, strongly exemplifying the necessity for a regulating principle, is set forth in the following extract from my Journal. Rectification was an affair of great difficulty:—

“May 27th.—In preparing for my minute on the mail guards I have been obliged to read the papers on the subject for the last eleven years. They show that a scale of wages about two-thirds of that now in use was proposed by the officers of the department, and recommended by Colonel Maberly; also that much lower wages (21s. per week) had been paid for seven years to the guards on the Manchester and Liverpool Railway, and that they were satisfied therewith; that the Postmaster-General, in opposition to the advice of his officers, proposed to the Treasury a scale nearly the same, but slightly higher than that now established, and then appointed a large number of new guards; that, owing to a blunder of ——’s [instead of the change being limited to guards on railway, who got no fees from passengers], the option was offered to all the guards then in the service to be placed on this scale, as he admits, without authority from the Treasury; that the Irish guards [who all worked on mail-coaches], without exception, accepted the offer; thus adding at once more than £5,000 a year to the expenses; that an attempt was then made (in effect unsuccessfully) to withdraw the offer, and that in the course of a few years the expenses in mail guards were advanced from £10,513 in 1836, to £28,627 in 1841; that my minute on the subject, written at the Treasury in 1842, calling for explanations and suspending further advance meanwhile, was sent to the Postmaster-General in August of that year, and remained unanswered till September, 1845, and that in the meantime the Post Office was frequently pressing the Treasury to remove the suspension. . . . Towards the end of 1845 the Treasury took off the suspension, and the arrears (about £2,000) were paid. The Committee of Investigation, in 1843, called for a copy of my minute, and of the proceedings consequent thereon, but it was delayed under various pretexts, and was eventually withheld altogether.”

Letter-Boxes.

One means of economising the time of the letter-carriers, which I had contemplated from the first, was to induce the public to provide themselves with letter-boxes to the doors of their houses; and I now suggested to the Postmaster-General the expediency of addressing a circular on the subject, in his name, to the inhabitants of London. I proposed that it should give information as to the cost of change, and offer Post Office assistance in case of difficulty. At the time the Postmaster-General concurred in all this, but for some months nothing was done.

“March 29th.—The P.M.G. has sent me a private note stating his apprehension that the circular as to letter-boxes, &c., will be ridiculed, and proposing to leave out all information as to prices, &c. As he had previously sanctioned the circular, I suppose some one must have excited these apprehensions. To me it appears ridiculous to issue a circular without giving the information which every one naturally desires; but of course it must be altered.”

Letter-boxes, however, have become frequent, though far from being so general as both economy and public convenience require. Neither the Postmaster-General nor I imagined that the circular, limited as it was, could give offence to any one. Nevertheless, it produced some angry letters,—among others, one from the late Marquis of Londonderry, who indignantly demanded whether the Postmaster-General actually expected that he should cut a slit in his mahogany door!

MINOR IMPROVEMENT.

Railway Notices.

The following minor improvement may perhaps be worth mentioning, as being, if not particularly beneficial to the department, at least very economical to that large portion of the public which is interested in railway extension. Railway notices were at that time served personally on landholders and occupiers by the solicitors of the companies, at the rate of one guinea for each notice. The Speaker of the House of Commons (now Lord Eversley) sent his private secretary, Mr. (now Sir Erskine) May,[55] to confer with me on the expediency of having the notices in question served by means of registered letters. To this there was a very serious obstacle in the fact of the delivery not extending to every house, so that I had to devise means by which this difficulty might be overcome. At the end of four months, however, and in fair time for the notices of the season, a plan which Mr. May and I jointly concocted having received the sanction of Government, the proposed regulations were issued; the effect being to reduce the expense of serving a notice from one guinea to sixpence. I had, in due time, the satisfaction to learn that the plan, as adopted, worked smoothly, though it certainly appeared that some solicitors were in no special haste to avail themselves of the new facility.

“February 20th, 1849.—Met at my brother Matthew’s house, Mr. Brooks, the Home Missionary at Birmingham, a very intelligent, active and benevolent man. He tells me that penny postage is producing excellent effects as regards the poor, inducing large numbers, even among the adults, to learn to write, and that their correspondence is increased, he thinks, a hundred-fold. He thinks requiring prepayment by stamps (the postmasters being obliged to sell even a single stamp) will not interfere with the correspondence of the poor, who are rather proud of sticking the Queen’s head on their letters.”

FOREIGN EXTENSION.

I must now speak of the progress made during the year in the extension of postal reform to foreign countries, as also changes in our relations therewith.

United States.

“February 10th, 1848.—The Postmaster-General explained to me the position of the postal treaty with the United States. Whatever may have been our conduct at first, I think we are right now, and the United States Government wrong. Bancroft, the United States minister, had consented to an arrangement of perfect reciprocity, viz., on each letter either way twopence to each government for inland rate, and tenpence to the Government owning the packet, when the United States Government refused its ratification; and yet, owing to the absurd secrecy observed on such occasions [by our official rule], the English, as well as the American papers, throw all the blame on our Government. Proposed to the Postmaster-General that I should see Thornley, Brown, and some other M.P.’s interested in the matter, who had applied to me on the subject, and let them know how matters stand—to which he assented, and I arranged to meet them to-morrow morning.”

I must observe that such hasty conclusions in the press, and consequently in the public, are not so infrequent as could be wished; the Post Office, and perhaps other departments of Government, being frequently blamed for defects and anomalies which they have no power to supply or remove. I must confess it has appeared to me that we Englishmen have a singular disposition, where the question lies between our neighbours and ourselves, to lay the blame, if possible, on ourselves.

“April 15th.—Mr. James Lee of New York came with an introduction from Mr. Rathbone of Liverpool. Mr. Lee is intimate with the President, and is anxious to assist in effecting amicable arrangements as to the postal communication between this country and the United States. He admits the abstract fairness of our proposals, but contends that we ought to modify them because, owing to the angry feeling on the part of the people in the United States, the Government there cannot concur therein. This struck me as a strange admission of weakness. I suggested an arrangement which, though equally favourable to us, would not encounter the prejudices of the American people; at the same time carefully guarding myself against its being supposed that I was empowered to negotiate. He caught eagerly at the suggestion: said that he should go immediately to the American minister to consult him thereon, and then see me again. Mr. Lee entirely confirms the statement of mine, on which much doubt has been thrown, namely, that the United States Post Office has no provision for the delivery of letters, and consequently that, notwithstanding their greater distances, they have no claim to a higher inland rate than ourselves.”

Meantime, progress was making in the United States towards such measures as, by bringing their home postal system into accordance with our own, would obviously facilitate international accommodation. An association was formed at New York apparently for procuring the adoption of my plan in all its points, and the President (Mr. Polk), in his message to Congress, recommended that the variable rate, established about three years before, should be reduced to a uniform rate of twopence-halfpenny; the same to be prepaid. This I could not but regard as a very complete acknowledgment of the fairness and convenience of uniformity, considering the vast extent of the United States, and that the measure followed a trial of two rates. An entry in my Journal records that the treaty between the two countries was settled. The terms, indeed, seemed to me unduly advantageous to America, but, under all the circumstances, I approved of the concession.

France.

Good progress was making also in France; the Revolution, so disastrous in many respects, having at least removed from his office the chief opponent of postal reform, M. Dubost. On June 21st I learnt from M. Grasset, my former correspondent, that he had laid before a committee of the National Assembly, with my friend M. St. Priest as president, a proposal for a low uniform rate, payable by means of stamps. Unfortunately he did not propose to make any distinction of charge between letters prepaid and post-paid. On this modification which he had made in my plan my correspondent prided himself as the simplest system in the world. I could not but acknowledge, however, that, even in spite of his modification, the proposed change would be a vast improvement on the actual rates. The Report of the committee, drawn up by “Citizen St. Priest,” recommended a considerable reduction in the charge for postage.

“August 26th.—The Times of this morning states that the bill for the establishment of the twopenny rate passed the National Assembly on the 24th.”

By this Act money prepayment was forbidden, but as nothing was gained by prepayment in stamps, the inducement to use stamps seemed but weak, so that the economy involved therein was likely to be but small. Experience showed the error, and the post-paid rate was afterwards increased, I think, as with us, to a double amount. My friend M. Piron obligingly sent me a sheet of the new French postage stamps, the image on which was a female head, symbolical of the French Republic. The confusion of the revolutionary period seemed to be whimsically exemplified in the fact that, of the three hundred heads on the sheet, several were inverted. This packet I received just before the close of the year. A few days later I have the following entry:—

“January 13th, 1849.—M. Thayer, the present head of the Post Office in France, called, as he said, to see the father of their improved Post Office system; he is new to his duties, and therefore not very familiar with details, but he seems hopeful. He proposes to exchange papers connected with the departments. He walked with crutches, having been shot in the foot in attacking barricades in June.”

M. Thayer, I may remark, informed me that he was of English extraction, referring me, for confirmation of his statement, to Thayer Street, Manchester Square.

Belgium.

Belgium, too, was in movement; and in a minute prepared in reply to an application from the Government of that country, I was able to show how accurately the results of penny postage had agreed with my anticipations. Six months later, viz., in December, 1848, I received a copy of the Government Bill, which proposed to reduce the various postage rates to a uniform charge of twopence; retaining, however, the lower rate of one penny for local letters. It appeared that the whole number of letters was but nine millions, or about one-ninth part of that delivered in the London district, the population of which is about half of that of Belgium. The people of Brussels were pressing for a penny rate.

When the question came before the Belgian Parliament, the Lower House, rejecting the rate proposed by Government, adopted our own rates; these, however, being rejected by the Upper House in favour of a twopenny rate, the king, upon learning that this modification was producing great and general dissatisfaction, proposed a compromise, which was accepted. By his a penny was fixed as the rate for moderate distances, the rate beyond being twopence. Stamps were to be used, and a penny to be added in all cases where the letter was not prepaid.