The Project Gutenberg eBook of The History of the British Post Office
    
This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world 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. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.

Title: The History of the British Post Office

Author: Joseph Clarence Hemmeon

Release date: June 18, 2013 [eBook #42983]

Language: English

Credits: 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)


*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE HISTORY OF THE BRITISH POST OFFICE ***




Produced by Adrian Mastronardi, Eric Skeet, The Philatelic
Digital Library Project at http://www.tpdlp.net and the
Online Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net
(This file was produced from images generously made
available by The Internet Archive/Canadian Libraries)







Transcriber's Notes:

(1) Obvious spelling, punctuation, and typographical errors have been
corrected.

(2) Italic text is denoted by _underscores_.

(3) Table V in the Appendix has been split into two parts (Scotland and
Ireland), in view of its page width.

____________________________________________




THE HISTORY OF
THE BRITISH POST OFFICE

BY
J. C. HEMMEON, PH.D.

_PUBLISHED FROM THE INCOME OF THE
WILLIAM H. BALDWIN, JR., 1885, FUND_

[Illustration]

CAMBRIDGE
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
1912




COPYRIGHT, 1912, BY THE PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

_Published January 1912_




PREFACE


In justice to those principles which influenced the policy of the Post
Office before the introduction of penny postage, it is perhaps
unnecessary to call attention to the fact that no opinion as to their
desirability or otherwise is justifiable which does not take into
consideration the conditions and prejudices which then prevailed. Some
of the earlier writers on the Post Office have made the mistake of
condemning everything which has not satisfied the measure of their own
particular rule. If there is anything that the historical treatment of a
subject teaches the investigator it is an appreciation of the fact that
different conditions call for different methods of treatment. For
example, the introduction of cheap postage was possibly delayed too
long. But during the era of high postal rates a large net revenue was of
primary importance, nor were those conditions present which would have
made low rates a success.

The consideration of such debatable subjects as the telegraph system of
the Postal Department and the department's attitude toward the telephone
companies, as well as the intention of the Post Office to acquire the
business of the latter, must necessarily give rise to controversy.
Thanks to the magnificent net revenue obtained from letters in the
United Kingdom the department has been able to lose a good deal of money
by the extension of its activities into the realm of affairs not purely
postal. Possibly a _democratic_ type of government should, from the
financial point of view, interfere least in the direct management of
economic institutions, on account of the pressure which can easily be
brought to bear upon it for the extension of such institutions on other
than economic grounds. If non-economic principles are to be substituted
in justifying the initiation or increase of government ownership, a
popular form of government seems the least suitable for the presentation
of such as shall be fair to all concerned, not to mention the difficult
problem of dealing with those members of the civil service who do not
hesitate to make use of their political power to enforce their demands
upon the government.

In the treatment of a subject so complex as the history of the British
Post Office it is not easy to decide how far its presentation should be
strictly chronological or how far it should be mounted in "longitudinal
sections," exposing its most salient features. Both methods have their
advantages and their disadvantages. In order to obtain what is useful in
both, I have described chronologically in the first four chapters the
progress of the Post Office, while in the remaining chapters I have
examined separately some of the more important aspects of postal
development. But I am aware that by this compromise I have not entirely
escaped the dangers of abrupt transitions from subject to subject and of
the accumulation of dry details. I can only plead in extenuation, in the
first place the nature of my subject, an institution with a long and
varied history, characterized by the steady extension of its field of
activity, and in the second place my desire to make my study as thorough
as possible, even at the risk of some sacrifice of unity and interest of
treatment.

The material for this sketch has been obtained from the Harvard
University Library, the Boston Public Library, and the Canadian
Parliamentary Library. Work was also done in the Library of the British
Museum. I wish to acknowledge the help I have received from the advice
and criticism of Professor Gay, under whose supervision the larger part
of this history was prepared.

                                            J. C. HEMMEON.




                      CONTENTS


                      CHAPTER I

  THE POSTAL ESTABLISHMENT SUPPORTED DIRECTLY BY THE STATE--PRIOR
  TO 1635                                                                3


Methods of postal communication in vogue before the establishment of the
Post Office. The first Postmaster-General and his duties. Alternative
systems. The posts in Elizabeth's reign. Appointment of a Foreign
Postmaster-General. Rivalry between the two Postmasters-General.
Witherings as Foreign Postmaster-General.


CHAPTER II

  THE POSTAL ESTABLISHMENT A SOURCE OF REVENUE TO THE STATE--1635-1711  13

Condition of the postal establishment at the beginning of the
seventeenth century. Witherings' project adopted. Disturbance produced
in the Post Office by the struggle between the two Houses of Parliament.
Rival claimants for the office of Postmaster-General. The Civil War and
its effects upon the Post Office. The Post Office during the
Commonwealth. Farming of the Post Office. Complaints about the delivery
of letters after the Restoration. Condition of the postal establishment
at the close of the seventeenth century. Dockwra's London Penny Post.
Extension of the foreign postal service. Conditions in Ireland,
Scotland, and the American Colonies.


CHAPTER III

  THE POSTAL ESTABLISHMENT AN INSTRUMENT OF TAXATION--1711-1840         34

The Post Office Act of 1711. The Post Office as a whole ceases to be
farmed. Allen undertakes the farm of the bye and cross posts.
Improvements in postal communications during the first half of the
eighteenth century. Controversy over the delivery of letters.
Competition from post coaches. Establishment of mail coaches by Palmer.
Abuses in the Post Office and their reform. Opening and detention of
letters. Franking of newspapers in certain cases and other privileges
abolished. The Newspaper and Dead Letter Offices. Registration of
letters. Money Order Office. Changes in the London Penny Post.
Consolidation of different branches of the Post Office in London. Dublin
and Edinburgh Penny Posts. Question of Sunday posts. Conditions under
which mail coaches were supplied. Conveyance of mails by railways.
Condition of the postal establishment during the first half of the
nineteenth century. Irish Post Office and postal rates. Scotch Post
Office. Sir Rowland Hill's plan. Investigation of postal affairs by a
committee. Report of committee. Adoption of inland penny postage.


CHAPTER IV

  THE POSTAL ESTABLISHMENT AN INSTRUMENT OF POPULAR COMMUNICATION--SINCE
  1840                                                                  63

Reductions in rates of postage, inland, colonial and foreign; and
resultant increase in postal matter. Insurance and registration of
letters. Failure of attempt to introduce compulsory prepayment of
postage. Perforated postage stamps. Free and guaranteed delivery of
letters in rural districts. Express or special delivery of letters.
Newspaper postage rates. Book or Halfpenny Post. Pattern and Sample
Post. Use of postcards. Parcel Post. Question of "cash on delivery."
Postal notes. Their effect upon the number of money orders. Savings
banks. Assurance and annuity privileges. Reform in these offices by Mr.
Fawcett. Methods of conveyance of the mails. Condition of postal
employees. Sunday labour. Dissatisfaction of employees with committee of
1858. Mr. Fawcett's reforms in 1881 and 1882. Mr. Raikes' concessions in
1888, 1890, and 1891. Appointment of Tweedmouth Committee in 1895 gives
little satisfaction to the men. Appointment of a departmental committee.
Grievances of the men. Report of committee accepted only in part by the
Postmaster-General. Continued demand of the men for a select committee.
Concessions granted to the men by Mr. Buxton, the Postmaster-General.
Select committee appointed. Their report adopted by Mr. Buxton.
Continued dissatisfaction among the men.


CHAPTER V

  THE TRAVELLERS' POST AND POST HORSES                                  89

Horses provided by the postmasters. Complaints concerning the letting of
horses. Monopoly in letting horses granted to the postmasters. Reforms
during Witherings' administration. Fees charged. Postmasters' monopoly
abridged. Licences required and duties levied. These duties let out to
farm. Licences and fees re-adjusted.


CHAPTER VI

  ROADS AND SPEED                                                       97

Post roads in the sixteenth century. Speed at which mails were carried
in the sixteenth century. Abuses during first part of the seventeenth
century. New roads opened. Roads in Ireland and Scotland. First cross
post road established in 1698. Improvement in speed. Delays in
connection with Irish packet boats. Increased speed obtained from use of
railways.


CHAPTER VII

  SAILING PACKETS AND FOREIGN CONNECTIONS                              109

Establishment of first regular sailing packets. Sailing packets in the
seventeenth century. Difficulty with the Irish Office. Postal
communications with the continent during the sixteenth century.
Witherings improves the foreign service. Agreements with foreign
postmasters-general. Expressions of dissatisfaction. Treaties with
France. King William's interest in the Harwich sailing packets. Effect
of the war with France. Postal communications with France improved.
Dummer's West Indian packet boats. Other lines. Increase in number of
sailing packets. Steam packets introduced by the Post Office. They are
badly managed and prove a financial loss. Report against government
ownership of the steam packets. Ship letter money. Question of carriage
of goods. Trouble with custom's department adjusted. Methods of
furnishing supplies for the packet boats. Abuses in the sailing packet
service reformed. Expenses. Sailing packets transferred to the
Admiralty. Committee reports against principle of government ownership
of packet boats and payment of excessive sums to contractors.
Abandonment of principle of government ownership. General view of packet
services in existence at middle of the nineteenth century. Contracts
with steamship companies. Controversy with the companies. General view
of the packet service in 1907 with principles adopted in concluding
contracts. Expenses of sailing packets.


CHAPTER VIII

  RATES AND FINANCE                                                    135

Foreign rates, 1626. First inland rates, 1635. Rates prescribed by
Council of State, 1652. Rates collected by the Farmers of the Posts.
First rates established by act of Parliament, 1657. Slightly amended,
1660. Separate rates for Scotland, 1660. Scotch rates, 1695. Rates to
and within Jamaica. In American Colonies, 1698. Increased rates, inland,
colonial and foreign, 1711. Controversy over rates on enclosures. Slight
reductions in rates, 1765. Increases in 1784, 1796, 1801. In Ireland,
1803. For United Kingdom a further increase, 1805. Culminating point of
high rates, 1812. Changes in Irish rates, 1810, 1813, 1814. Rates on
"ships' letters," 1814. Irish rates to be collected in British currency,
1827. Reduction in rates between England and France, 1836. Consolidating
act of 1837. Rates by contractors' packet boats, 1837. Rates charged
according to weight in certain cases, 1839. Inland penny postage adopted
and basis of rate-charging changed to weight, 1840. Franking privilege,
1652. Abused. Attempt to curtail the use of franks only partially
successful. Curtailment so far as members of Parliament are concerned.
Estimated loss from franking. Enquiry into question of franking. Further
attempts to control the abuse prove fruitless. Extension of franking
privilege especially on newspapers. Abolition of franking privilege,
1840. Reductions in letter, newspaper, and book post rates. Re-directed
letter and registration fees. Inland parcel post established. Postcards
introduced. Concessions of 1884 and Jubilee concessions. Foreign and
colonial rates reduced. Reductions in money order and postal note rates.
Telegraph money order rates.

Finances of the Post Office before the seventeenth century. From
beginning of seventeenth century to Witherings' reforms. From 1635 to
1711. During the remainder of the eighteenth century. Finances of Scotch
and Irish Posts. Of the London Penny Post. From bye and cross post
letters. Finances of the Post Office from the beginning of the
nineteenth century to 1840. Since the introduction of inland penny
postage.


CHAPTER IX

  THE QUESTION OF MONOPOLY                                             189

Rival methods available for the conveyance of letters. Government's
monopolistic proclamation the result of an attempt to discover
treasonable correspondence. Competition diminishes under Witherings'
efficient management. House of Commons declares itself favourable to
competition. Changes its attitude when in control of the posts. Monopoly
of government enforced more rigorously. Carriers' posts largely
curtailed. London's illegal Half-penny Post. Attempts to evade the
payment of postage very numerous during the first half of the nineteenth
century. Different methods of evasion outlined.


CHAPTER X

  THE TELEGRAPH SYSTEM AS A BRANCH OF THE POSTAL DEPARTMENT            202

The telegraph companies under private management. Proposals for
government ownership and Mr. Scudamore's report. Conditions under which
the telegraph companies were acquired. Public telegraph business of the
railways. Cost of acquisition. Rates charged by the government.
Reduction in rates in 1885. Guarantee obligations reduced. Underground
lines constructed. Telegraphic relations with the continent. Position of
the government with reference to the wireless telegraph companies.
Attempts to place the government telegraphs on a paying basis do not
prove a success. Financial aspect of the question. Reasons given for the
lack of financial success.

CHAPTER XI

  THE POST OFFICE AND THE TELEPHONE COMPANIES                          219

Telephones introduced into England. Judicial decision in favour of the
department. Restricted licences granted the companies. Feeble attempt on
the part of the department to establish exchanges. Difficulties
encountered by the companies. Popular discontent with the policy of the
department leads to granting of unrestricted licences. Way-leave
difficulties restrict efficiency of the companies. Agreement with
National Telephone Company and acquisition of the trunk lines by the
department. Demand for competition from some municipalities leads to
granting of licences to a few cities and towns. The department itself
establishes a competing exchange in London. History of the exchanges
owned and operated by the municipalities. Struggle between the London
County Council and the company's exchange in London. Relation between
the company's and the department's London exchanges. Agreement with the
company for the purchase of its exchanges in 1911. Financial aspect of
the department's system.


CHAPTER XII

  CONCLUSION                                                           237


APPENDIX

      EXPENDITURE AND REVENUE TABLES                                   241

BIBLIOGRAPHY                                                           253

INDEX                                                                  259




TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS


  Acc. & P.           Accounts and Papers.
  A. P. C.            Acts of the Privy Council.
  Add.                Additional.
  Cal. B. P.          Calendar of Border Papers.
  Cal. S. P.          Calendar of State Papers. A. & W. I., Col., D.,
                      For., and Ire., added to Cal. S. P., indicate
                      respectively to the America and West Indies,
                      Colonial, Domestic, Foreign, and Ireland sections
                      of this series.
  Cal. T. B.          Calendar of Treasury Books.
  Cal. T. P.          Calendar of Treasury Papers.
  Cal. T. B. & P.     Calendar of Treasury Books and Papers.
  D. N. B.            Dictionary National Biography.
  Fin. Rep., 1797.    Finance Reports 1797-98.
  Hist. MSS. Com.     Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts.
  Jo. H. C.           Journals of the House of Commons.
  Jo. H. L.           Journals of the House of Lords.
  Joyce.              Joyce, H. The History of the Post Office to 1836.
  L. & P. Hen. VIII.  Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic,
                      Henry VIII.
  Parl. Deb.          Hansard, Parliamentary Debates.
  Parl. Papers.       Parliamentary Papers.
  P. & O. P. C.       Proceedings and Ordinances of the Privy Council.
  Rep. Commrs.        Reports from Commissioners.
  Rep. Com.           Reports from Committees.
  Rep. P. G.          Reports of the Postmasters-General.
  Scobell, Collect.   Scobell, H. A Collection of Acts and Ordinances
                      made in the Parliament held 3 Nov., 1640 to
                      17 Sept., 1656.




THE HISTORY OF THE BRITISH POST OFFICE




CHAPTER I

THE POSTAL ESTABLISHMENT SUPPORTED DIRECTLY BY THE STATE


The history of the British Post Office starts with the beginning of the
sixteenth century. Long before this, however, a system of communication
had been established both for the personal use of the King and for the
conveyance of official letters and documents. These continued to be the
principal functions of the royal posts until well on in the seventeenth
century.

Before the sixteenth century, postal communications were carried on by
royal messengers. These messengers either received stated wages or were
paid according to the length of the journeys they made. We find them
mentioned as early as the reign of King John under the name of _nuncii_
or _cursores_; and payments to them form a large item in the Household
and Wardrobe accounts of the King as early as these accounts exist.[1]
They travelled the whole of the journey themselves and delivered their
letters personally to the people to whom they were directed. A somewhat
different style of postal service, a precursor of the modern method, was
inaugurated by the fourth Edward. During the war with Scotland he found
himself in need of a speedier and better system of communication between
the seat of war and the seat of government. He accomplished this by
placing horses at intervals of twenty miles along the great road between
England and Scotland. By so doing his messengers were able to take up
fresh horses along the way and his despatches were carried at the rate
of a hundred miles a day.[2]

[1] _Rep. Com._, 1844, xiv, app., p. 21.

[2] _Notes and Queries_, 1st series, iii, p. 266.

From an early period private letters were conveyed by carriers and
travellers both within the kingdom and between it and the Continent. The
Paston letters,[3] containing the correspondence of the different
members of the Paston family, throw some light upon the manner in which
letters were conveyed during the latter half of the fifteenth century.
Judging from such references as we find in the letters themselves, they
were generally carried by a servant,[4] a messenger,[5] or a friend.[6]
The later letters of this series, written towards the close of the
fifteenth century, show that regular messengers and carriers, who
carried letters and parcels, travelled between London and Norwich and
other parts of Norfolk.[7] From the fourteenth century down, we have
instances of writs being issued to mayors, sheriffs, and bailiffs for
the apprehension and examination of travellers, who were suspected of
conveying treasonable correspondence between England and the
Continent.[8] For the most part these letters were carried by servants,
messengers, and merchants.[9]

[3] These letters were sent principally between London and different
places in Norfolk.

[4] _The Paston Letters_, ed. J. Gairdner, 1872, nos. 34, 305, 435, 609,
624, 663, 905.

[5] _Ibid._, nos. 540, 688, 723, 727.

[6] _Ibid._, nos. 656, 905.

[7] _Ibid._, nos. 688, 723, 745.

[8] _Rep. Com._, 1844, xiv, app., p. 96 (68).

[9] _Cely Papers_, ed. H. E. Malden, 1900, nos. 41, 72, 123, 124, 129,
132.

Sir Brian Tuke is the first English Postmaster-General of whom we have
any record. The King's "Book of Payments" for the year 1512 contains an
order for the payment of £100 to Sir Brian for his use as Master of the
Posts.[10] As the King's appointed Postmaster, he received a salary of
£66 13_s._ 4_d._[11] He named the postmen, or deputy postmasters as they
were called later, and he was held responsible for the performance of
their duties.[12] All letters carried by the royal postmen were
delivered to him, and after being sorted by him personally were carried
to their destination by the court messengers.[13] The wages of the
postmen varied from 1_s._ to 2_s._ a day according to the number of
horses provided, and they were paid by the Postmaster-General, who had
authority to make all payments to those regularly employed.[14] If
messages or letters were sent by special messengers, their payment
entailed additional expense upon the state and the use of such
messengers, when regular postmen were available, was strongly
discouraged.[15]

[10] _L. & P. Hen. VIII_, ii, pt. 2, p. 1454.

[11] _Rep. Com._ 1844, xiv, app., p. 21 (8).

[12] _Ibid._, 1844, xiv, app., p. 32 (7).

[13] _L. & P. Hen. VIII_, 1515-18, 64; _ibid._, 1526-28, 4359, 4406;
_ibid._, 1540-41, 540.

[14] _A. P. C._, 1542-47, p. 20.

[15] _L. & P. Hen. VIII_, 1535, p. 27.

In addition to his other duties Sir Brian was supposed to have a general
supervision over the horses used for the conveyance of letters and of
travellers riding on affairs of state. Of course on the regular roads
there were always horses in readiness, provided by the postmen. Where
there were no regular post roads, the townships were supposed to provide
the necessary horses, and it was part of the Postmaster-General's duties
to see that the townships were kept up to the mark.[16] It was largely
on account of the fact that the same horses were used for conveying
travellers and mails that the systems of postal and personal
communication were so closely interwoven as well in England as in
continental countries.[17]

[16] _Rep. Com._, 1844, xiv, app., p. 32 (7). _A. P. C._, 1542-47,
p. 20.

[17] A. de Rothschild, _Histoire de la poste aux lettres_, Paris, 1873,
pp. 95-97, 114-15.

The postmen along the old established routes and on the routes
temporarily established for some definite purpose received a fixed daily
wage. These men were called the ordinary posts.[18] If, however, letters
should arrive in Dover after the ordinary post had left for London, they
were generally sent on at once by a messenger hired for the occasion
only. He was called a special post and was paid only for the work which
he actually performed.[19] Those regular posts, who carried the royal
and state letters between London and the place where the Court might be,
were called "Court Posts."[20] During the sovereign's tours, posts were
always stationed between him and London to carry his and the state's
letters backward and forward. These were called extraordinary posts and
received regular wages while so employed.[21] In addition there were
always messengers employed to carry important despatches to foreign
sovereigns. These received no fixed wages, but were paid according to
the distance travelled and the expenses incurred on the road.[22]

[18] _L. & P. Hen. VIII_, xiii, 226; _A. P. C._, 1547-50, pp. 111, 278,
307, 319, 413.

[19] _L. & P. Hen. VIII_, x, 33, 136; xvi, 202, 236, 284; _P. & O. P.
C._, vii, p. 72; _A. P. C._, 1550-52, pp. 56, 79, 108, 225, 270, 298.

[20] _L. & P. Hen. VIII_, xvi, p. 540; _P. & O. P. C._, vii, p. 133; _A.
P. C._, 1558-70, p. 238.

[21] _L. & P. Hen. VIII_, xi, 726; _A. P. C._, 1547-50, p. 360; _ibid._,
1592, pp. 128, 150; _Cal. S. P. D._, 1547-80, pp. 599, 637, 677.

[22] _A.P.C._, 1558-70, pp. 39, 58, 111, 207, 216, 257, 258.

Apart from his regular duties as outlined above, the Postmaster-General
had little initiative power. He could not on his own responsibility
order new posts to be laid. Such decisions always originated with the
King or the Council and Tuke simply executed their orders.[23] Any
increase in the wages of the posts also required the consent of the King
or Council.[24]

[23] _L. & P. Hen. VII_, xvi, 540; _A.P.C._ 1556-58, pp. 248, 309.

[24] _A.P.C._, 1556-58, pp. 136, 188, 385. For instance, in 1557 the
Council issued orders to increase the wages of the London-Berwick posts
from 12_d._ to 16_d._ and eventually to 20_d._ a day; but as soon as
their work had again become normal, their wages were reduced to the old
rate.

During the sixteenth century there were three ways to send letters
between England and the Continent: by the Royal Post, the Foreigners'
Post, and the Merchant Adventurers' Post, apart from such opportunities
as occasional travellers and messengers offered. The Royal Posts were
presumed to carry only state letters, and consequently the conveyance of
a large part of the private letters fell to the other two. Owing to
industrial and later to religious motives there had been a large
emigration of foreigners from the Continent to England. Edward III had
induced many Flemings to leave their native country in the middle of the
fourteenth century.[25] Froude says, probably with exaggeration, that in
1527 there were 15,000 Flemings in London alone.[26] In the fifteenth
century many Italian artisans came over to reside but not to settle.[27]
They were a thrifty people, who did much to place the industrial life of
England on a better footing, and were probably more intelligent and
better educated than the majority of the English artisans among whom
they settled. It seems therefore only natural that they should seek to
establish a better system of communication between their adopted and
native countries. Their business relations with the cloth markets of the
continental cities made necessary a better and speedier postal system
than was afforded by the Royal Posts. In addition to this, it was only
by act of grace that private letters were carried by Tuke's postmen. In
the opening year of the sixteenth century, by permission of the state,
the foreign merchants in London established a system of posts of their
own between the English capital and the Continent. This was called the
"Foreign or Strangers' Post," and was managed by a Postmaster-General,
nominated by the Italians, Spanish, and Dutch and confirmed by the
Council.[28] These posts were used largely by the English merchants in
spite of considerable dissatisfaction on account of the poor service
afforded and on political grounds. Their grievances were detailed in a
petition to the Privy Council. They considered it unprecedented that so
important a service as the carriage of letters should be in the hands of
men who owed no allegiance to the King. Such a procedure was unheard of
in any of the continental countries. "What check could there be over
treasonable correspondence while the carriage of letters continued to be
in the hands of foreigners and most of them Dutchmen?" In addition they
were not treated so well as were their fellow merchants of foreign
allegiance. Their letters were often retained for several days at a
time, while all others were delivered as soon as they arrived. The
foreign ambassadors could not complain if a change were made, for most
of their correspondence was carried on by special messengers.[29] The
"Strangers' Post" seems to have come to an end after the Proclamation of
1591 was issued, forbidding any but the Royal Posts from carrying
letters to and from foreign countries.[30]

[25] W. Cunningham, _Growth of English Industry and Commerce_, 1896, i,
pp. 305-306.

[26] J. A. Froude, _History of England_, 1862, i, p. 127.

[27] Cunningham, i, p. 430.

[28] Stow, _London_, 1720, bk. v, p. 401. _Cal. S.P.D._, 1547-80, pp.
312, 321, 432. There was considerable rivalry between them concerning
those nominated for Postmaster-General. See _Cal. S.P.D._, 1547-80, pp.
312, 314.

[29] Stow, _London_, bk. v, p. 401.

[30] _Rep. Com._, 1844, xiv, app., p. 36 (14).

Sir Brian Tuke died in 1545 and was succeeded by Sir John Mason and Mr.
Paget, who acted as joint Postmasters-General. Mr. Paget was the
sleeping partner, and what little was done was by Mason.[31] They were
succeeded in 1568 by Thomas Randolph.[32] He was occasionally sent as
special ambassador to France and during his absence Gascoyne, a former
court post, performed his duties. From Sir Brian's death until the end
of Elizabeth's reign was a period of little advance in postal matters.
The regular posts, and it is with them that our chief interest lies,
appear to have fallen into disuse. The payments for special messengers
are much larger than they had been during Henry's reign. In 1549, a
warrant was issued empowering Sir John Mason to pay £400 to the special
messengers used during the summer. If anything was left, he was
instructed to use it in paying arrears due the ordinary posts.[33]
Elizabeth is generally credited with being economical to the extreme of
parsimony so far as state expenses were concerned. However this may be,
she is responsible for an order to discharge all the regular posts
unless they would serve for half of their old wages.[34] The postmen did
not receive their wages at all regularly. Randolph was accused by the
Governor of Berwick of withholding all of their first year's wages, of
receiving every year thereafter a percentage of their salaries, and of
demanding certain fees from them, all for his personal use. The Governor
considered that Randolph's extortions were largely the cause of the
general inefficiency in the posts,[35] but the accusation may have been
due to personal grudge. At any rate one measure of postal reform may be
credited to Randolph. In 1582, orders were issued to all the
London-Berwick posts to the following effect. Every post on the arrival
of letters to or from the Queen or Council was to fasten a label to the
packet. On this label he was to write the day and hour when the packet
came into his hands and he was to make the same entry in a book kept for
the purpose. He was also to keep two or three good horses in his stable
for the speedier conveyance of such packets.[36]

[31] _A. P. C._, 1542-47, p. 267; _Rep. Com._, 1844, xiv, app., p. 21
(8).

[32] _Ibid._, 1844, xiv, app., p. 21 (11).

[33] _A. P. C._, 1547-50, p. 360.

[34] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1547-80, p. 306.

[35] _Cal. B. P._, 1560-94, p. 299.

[36] _Cal. S. P. D._, _Add._, 1580-1625, pp. 75-76.

In 1590, John Lord Stanhope was appointed Postmaster-General by order of
the Queen. The office was given to him for his life and then was to go
to his son for his son's life.[37] Both the Stanhopes were men of
action, but they looked upon their position rather as a means of
enriching themselves than as a trust for the good of the state. They
proved a stumbling block to the advancement of better men and it was not
for sixty years that they were finally swept away to make room for men
of greater ability. In 1621, the elder Stanhope was succeeded by his son
Charles according to the terms of the original patent.[38] It had been
the custom for the Postmasters-General to demand fees and percentages
from their appointees. So lucrative were many of their positions from
the monopoly in letting horses and the receipts from private letters
that many applicants were willing to pay for appointments as deputy
postmasters. The ordinary payments when Lord Charles was at the head of
the posts amounted to 2s. in the pound as poundage and a fee of £2 from
each man. These payments were considered so exorbitant that the Council
ordered them to be reduced.[39] One, Hutchins, entered the lists as the
champion of the postmasters. He himself was one of them and acted as
their solicitor in the contest. Stanhope was glad to compound the case
by the payment of £30. Hutchins gave the Council so much trouble that
they gave orders that "turbulent Hutchins" should cease to act as the
postmasters' solicitor and leave them in peace.[40] His object, however,
seems to have been accomplished so far as Stanhope was concerned. The
struggle with the Paymasters of the Posts was not so successful, for,
supported by a report of the Treasurer, they continued to receive their
shilling in the pound.[41]

[37] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1581-90, p. 676; _Rep. Com._, 1844, xiv, app., p.
22 (13).

[38] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1619-23, pp. 238, 404.

[39] _Ibid._, pp. 568, 572. A postmaster's salary at this time was about
5_s._ a day. (_Ibid._, 1623-25, p. 130.)

[40] _Ibid._, 1623-25, pp. 117, 130, 153.

[41] _Ibid._, 1619-23, pp. 567-68.

By a Privy Council Proclamation issued in 1603, all posts receiving a
daily fee were required to have two leather bags, lined with "bayes" or
cotton, and the post himself was to sound a horn whenever he met any one
on the road or four times in every mile. The packet of letters was not
to be delayed more than fifteen minutes and was to be carried at a rate
of seven miles an hour in summer and five in winter. The time at which
it was delivered into a post's hands and the names and addresses of the
people by whom and to whom it was sent were to be entered in a book kept
for the purpose. All posts and their servants were exempted from being
"pressed" and from attendance at assizes, sessions, inquests, and
musters.[42]

[42] _Rep. Com._, 1844, xiv, app., p. 38 (18).

It is doubtful how far the postmasters were held responsible for the
delivery of letters to the persons to whom they were addressed. This did
not become a burning question, however, until after the recognition of
the fact that the letters of private individuals should receive as good
treatment at the hands of the postmen as the letters of the state
officials. Lord Stanhope in 1618 issued an order to the Justices of the
Peace in Southwark to aid the postmaster of that place in the delivery
of letters within six miles.[43] This was followed two years later by a
general order to establish two or three foot-posts in every parish for
the conveyance of letters.[44]

[43] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1611-18, p. 601.

[44] Hist. MSS. Com., _Rep._ 15, app., pt. 7, p. 63.

During the early part of the seventeenth century, Stanhope had employed
a foreigner, de Quester, as one of the King's posts "beyond seas." He
commended himself to the notice of his superiors by his promptitude in
dealing with the foreign letters.[45] In 1619 James appointed him
Postmaster-General for "foreign parts" and henceforth he was his own
master.[46] This was followed four years later by a formal proclamation,
confirming to de Quester and his son the position already granted to the
father.[47] He was to have the sole monopoly of carrying foreign letters
and was to appoint the necessary officials. All persons were formally
prohibited from entrenching upon the privileges granted him in 1619.
From this time until 1635, the foreign and inland posts were under
separate management and the accounts were kept separate until long after
the latter date. Stanhope was unwilling to submit to the curtailment of
his profits, which necessarily followed the appointment of de Quester.
There was much to be said for Stanhope's contention that the patent of
1623 was illegal for, ever since there had been a Postmaster-General,
his duties had extended to the foreign as well as to the inland office.
The question was referred to a committee, composed of the Lord
Chamberlain, one of the Secretaries of State and the Attorney-General,
who decided that Stanhope's patent extended only to the inland
office.[48] The whole question was finally brought before the Court of
King's Bench, which decided the case in favour of Stanhope.[49] This was
in 1625, but de Quester seems to have paid no attention to the decision
for it is certain that he continued to act as Foreign Postmaster until
1629[50] and in 1632 he resigned his patent to Frizell and Witherings.
It can be imagined what must have been the chaotic condition of the
foreign post while this struggle was going on. The Merchant Adventurers
established posts of their own between London and the Continent under
Billingsley. The Council issued the most perplexing orders. First they
forbade Billingsley from having anything to do with foreign letters.[51]
Then they decided that the Adventurers might establish posts of their
own and choose a Postmaster.[52] Then they extended the same privilege
to all merchants. Next this was withdrawn and the Adventurers were
allowed to send letters only to Antwerp, Delft and Hamburg or wherever
the staple of cloth might be.[53] These orders do not seem to have been
passed in full council for, in 1628, Secretary Coke in writing to
Secretary Conway said that "Billingsley, a broker by trade, strives to
draw over to the merchants that power over foreign letters which in all
states is a branch of royal authority. The merchant's purse has swayed
much in other matters but he has never heard that it encroached upon the
King's prerogative until now." He adds "I confess it troubleth me to see
the audacity of men in these times and especially that Billingsley." He
enclosed a copy of an order "made at a full Council and under the Broad
Seal," which in effect was a supersedeas of the place which de Quester
enjoyed.[54] When de Quester resigned in favour of Frizell and
Witherings, the resignation and new appointments were confirmed by the
King.[55] Of these men Witherings was far the abler. He had a plan in
view, which was eventually to place the foreign and inland systems on a
basis unchanged until the time of penny postage. In the meantime he had
to overcome the prejudices of the King and get rid of Frizell. In order
to raise money for the promotion of his plan, Witherings mortgaged his
place. Capital was obtained from the Earl of Arundel and others through
John Hall, who held the mortgage. The King heard of this and ordered
the office to be sequestered to his old servant de Quester and
commanded Hall to make over his interest to the same person.[56] There
were now three claimants for the place, Frizell, Witherings, and de
Quester. Frizell rushed off to Court, where he offered to pay off his
part of the mortgage and asked to have sole charge of the Foreign Post.
"Witherings," he said, "proposes to take charge of all packets of State
if he may have the office, but being a home-bred shopkeeper, without
languages, tainted of delinquency and in dislike with the foreign
correspondents, he is no fit person to carry a trust of such secrecy and
importance."[57] Coke knew better than this, however, and through his
influence Witherings, who had in the meantime paid off the mortgage and
satisfied Frizell's interest, was made sole Postmaster-General for
Foreign Parts.[58]

[45] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1629-31, pp. 71, 247.

[46] _Ibid._, 1625-26, p. 231.

[47] _Rep. Com._, 1844, xiv, app., p. 48 (26).

[48] _Ibid._, 1844, xiv, app., p. 49 (27); _Cal. S. P. D._, 1625-26, p.
478; Hist. MSS. Com., _Rep._ 12, app. 1, p. 295; _Cal. S. P. D._,
1627-28, p. 405.

[49] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1627-28, pp. 436, 591.

[50] _Ibid._, 1625-49, p. 332; 1628-29, pp. 46, 427, 558; 1631-33, p.
384.

[51] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1603-10, pp. 162, 397, 426, 491, 512, 521, 545,
576, 583, 588, 611.

[52] _Rep. Com._, 1844, xiv, app., p. 45 (23).

[53] _Ibid._, 1844, xiv, app., p. 45 (23).

[54] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1623-25, p. 131.

[55] _Ibid._, 1625-26, p. 30; _Rep. Com._, 1844, xiv, app., p. 48 (25).

[56] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1634-35, pp. 11, 38, 48, 389.

[57] _Ibid._, 1625-49, p. 489.

[58] _Ibid._, 1635-36, p. 32; 1634-35, p. 48.

With Witherings' advent a new period of English postal history begins.
His dominant idea was to make the posts self-supporting and no longer a
charge to the state. It had been established as a service for the royal
household and continued as an official necessity. The letters of private
individuals had been carried by its messengers but the state had derived
no revenue for their conveyance. The convenient activity of other
agencies for the carriage of private letters was not only tolerated but
officially recognized. The change to a revenue-paying basis tended
naturally to emphasize the monopolistic character of the government
service.[59]

[59] See chapter IX.




CHAPTER II

THE POSTAL ESTABLISHMENT A SOURCE OF REVENUE TO THE STATE

1633-1711


For some time there had been dissatisfaction with the services rendered
by the inland posts. It was said that letters would arrive sooner from
Spain and Italy than from remote parts of the kingdom of England.[60]
The only alternative was to send them by express and this was not only
expensive but was not looked upon with favour by the Postmaster-General.
The five great roads from London to Edinburgh, Holyhead, Bristol,
Plymouth, and Dover were in operation. From the Edinburgh Road there
were branches to York and Carlisle, from the Dover Road to Margate,
Gravesend, and Sandwich, and from the Plymouth Road to Falmouth, but the
posts were slow and the rates for private letters uncertain.[61] In
1633, a project was advanced for the new arrangement of the Post Office.
The plan was not entirely theoretical, for an attempt was made to show
that it would prove a financial success. There were about 512 market
towns in England. It was considered that each of these would send 50
letters a week to London and as many answers would be returned. At 4_d._
a day for each letter, this would amount to £426 a week. The charge for
conveyance was estimated at £37 a week, leaving a weekly profit of £389,
from which £1500 a year for the conveyance of state letters and
despatches must be deducted. Letters on the northern road were to pay
2_d._ for a single and 4_d._ for a double letter, to Yorkshire and
Northumberland 3_d._, and to Scotland 8_d._ a letter. The postmasters in
the country were not to take any charge for a letter except one penny
for carriage to the next market town.[62] It is probable that this
project originated with Witherings. At any rate it resembles closely the
plan which was introduced by him two years later. He had already
reformed the foreign post by appointing "stafetti" from London to Dover
and through France and they had proved so efficient as to disarm the
opposition even of the London merchants. His name is without doubt the
most distinguished in the annals of the British Post Office. Convinced
that the carriage of private letters must be placed upon a secure
footing, he laid the foundation for the system of postal rates and
regulations, which continued to the time of national penny postage. He
introduced the first legal provision for the carriage of private letters
at fixed rates, greatly increased the speed of the posts, and above all
made the Post Office a financial success. In order to do this he saw
that the proceeds from private letters must go to the state and not to
the deputy postmasters.

[60] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1580-1625, p. 360.

[61] _Ibid._, 1580-1625, p. 630.

[62] _Ibid._, 1625-26, p. 366. A single letter consisted of one sheet of
paper, a double letter of two, and a triple letter of three sheets.

His plan was entitled "A proposition for settling of Stafetti or pacquet
posts betwixt London and all parts of His Majesty's Dominions. The
profits to go to pay the postmasters, who now are paid by His Majesty at
a cost of £3400 per annum." A general office or counting house was to be
established in London for the reception of all letters coming to or
leaving the capital. Letters leaving London on each of the great roads
were to be enclosed in a leather "portmantle" and left at the post-towns
on the way. Letters for any of the towns off the great roads were to be
placed in smaller leather bags to be carried in the large portmantle.
These leather bags were to be left at the post-towns nearest the country
towns to which they were directed. They were then to be carried to their
destination by foot-posts to a distance of six or eight miles and for
each letter these foot-posts were to charge 2d., the same price that was
charged by the country carriers. At the same time that the foot-posts
delivered their letters, they were to collect letters to be sent to
London and carry them back to the post-town from which they had started
and there meet the portmantle on its way back from Edinburgh or Bristol
or wherever the terminus of the road might be. The speed of the posts
was to be at least 120 miles in twenty-four hours and they were to
travel day and night. He concludes his proposition by saying that no
harm would result to Stanhope by his plan "for neither Lord Stanhope nor
anie other, that ever enjoyed the Postmaster's place of England, had
any benefit of the carrying and re-carrying of the subjects'
letters."[63]

[63] _Rep. Com._, xiv, app., p. 55 (35). _Cal. S. P. D._, 1635, p. 166.
Letters were to be carried to and from important places at some distance
from the main roads by post-horses. See _Cal. S. P. D._, above.

The question now was, Who was to see that these reforms were carried
out? Stanhope was not the man for so important and revolutionary an
undertaking. Witherings alone, the author of the proposition, should
carry it into effect. Sir John Coke made no mistake in constituting
himself the friend of the postal reformer. Witherings was already
Foreign Postmaster-General and in 1635 he was charged with the
reformation of the inland office on the basis of his projected scheme.
In 1637 the inland and foreign offices were again united when he was
made Foreign and Inland Postmaster-General.[64] His experiment was tried
on the Northern Road first and was exceedingly successful. Letters were
sent to Edinburgh and answers returned in six days. On the Northern Road
bye-posts were established to Lincoln, Hull and other places.[65] Orders
were given to extend the same arrangement to the other great roads, and
by 1636 his reform was in full and profitable operation.

[64] _Rep. Com._, xiv, p. 5; app., p. 57 (36); _Cal. S. P. D._, 1635-36,
p. 32.

[65] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1635, p. 299.

Witherings still continued to sell the positions of the postmasters, if
we are to trust the complaints of non-successful applicants. One man
said that he offered £100 for a position but Witherings sold it to
another for £40.[66] The Postmaster at Ferrybridge asserted that he had
paid Stanhope £200 and Witherings £35 and yet now fears that he will be
ousted. Complaints of a reduction in wages were also made, and this was
a serious matter, since the postmasters no longer obtained anything from
private letters.[67] The old complaint, however, of failure to pay wages
at all is not heard under Witherings' administration. He was punctual in
his payments and held his employees to equally rigid account. Their
arrears were not excused.[68] An absentee postmaster, who hired
deputies to perform his duties, was dismissed.[69] His ambition to
establish a self-supporting postal system demanded rigid economy and
strict administration, and with the then prevailing laxity of
administrative methods, this was no mean achievement. From one
occasional practice of the Post Office, that of tampering with private
letters, he cannot perhaps wholly be absolved. It is hinted that he may
have been guilty of opening letters, but the suggestion follows that
this may have happened before they reached England, for the letters so
opened were from abroad.[70]

[66] _Ibid._, 1637, p. 527; _ibid._, 1636-37, p. 524.

[67] _Ibid._, 1638-39, p. 119.

[68] _Ibid._, 1637-38, pp. 52, 53, 394.

[69] _Cal. S.P.D._, 1637-38, p. 238.

[70] _Ibid._, 1640-41, p. 340. As early as 1639 persons were not allowed
to have letters back when once posted. (_Ibid._, 1639, p. 279.)

In June of 1637, Coke and Windebank, the two Secretaries of State, were
appointed Postmasters-General for their lives. The surviving one was to
surrender his office to the King, who would then grant it to the
Secretaries for the time being.[71] It does not appear that Witherings
was altogether dismissed from the service, for his name continued to
appear in connection with postal affairs.[72] Windebank later urged as
reasons for the withdrawal of Witherings' patent, that he was not a
sworn officer, that there was a suspicion that his patent had been
obtained surreptitiously, and that the continental postmasters disdained
to correspond with a man of his low birth. He concludes by saying that
something may be given him, but that he is said to be worth £800 a year
in land and to have enriched himself from his position.[73] At the time
of his removal, in June, 1637, the London merchants petitioned for his
continuance in office, as he had always given them satisfaction. When
they heard who had been appointed in his stead, like loyal and fearful
subjects, they hastened to add that they thought someone else was trying
for the position but they had no doubt that it would be managed best by
the Secretaries.[74] If they thought so they were mistaken, for the
commander of the English army against Scotland found that his letters
were opened,[75] the Lord High Admiral complained that his were
delayed,[76] and Windebank promised an unknown correspondent that the
delay in his letters should be seen to at once and Witherings was the
agent chosen for the investigation.[77] This, however, was not the
worst, for only a month after Witherings had been degraded, orders were
issued to the postmasters that no packets or letters were to be sent by
post but such as should be directed "For His Majesty's Special Affairs"
and were subscribed by certain officials connected with the
Government.[78] It is fair to add that this check on private
correspondence may have been a protective measure induced by the
unsettled state of the kingdom.

[71] _Ibid._, 1637, p. 255.

[72] _Ibid._, 1639, p. 279; _Rep. Com._, xiv, app., p. 58 (37).

[73] _Cal. S.P.D._, 1637-38, p. 51.

[74] _Ibid._, 1637-38, p. 52.

[75] _Ibid._, 1639, p. 295.

[76] _Ibid._, 1639-40, p. 116.

[77] Hist. MSS. Com., _Rep._ 12, app., pt. 2, p. 236.

[78] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1637, p. 338.

In 1640 both the inland and foreign offices were sequestered into the
hands of Philip Burlamachi, a wealthy London merchant who had lent money
to the king. No reasons were given except that information had been
received "of divers abuses and misdemeanours committed by Thomas
Witherings."[79] Stanhope, who had resigned his patent in 1637, now came
forward claiming that his resignation had been unfairly obtained by the
Council, and at the same time he presented his bill for £1266, the
arrears in his salary for nineteen years.[80] In reply to his demand it
was said that shortly before he resigned he had assigned his rights in
the Post Office to the Porters, father and son. The Attorney-General
gave his opinion that whatever rights Stanhope and the Porters had, they
certainly had no claim to the proceeds from the carriage of private
letters.[81] Stanhope had offered to enter an appearance in a suit
brought against him by the Porters but now he refused to do so.[82]
Windebank was also looking out for money due to him while Coke and he
were Postmasters-General.[83] The state had indeed entered upon
troublous times and it was every man for himself before it was too late.

[79] _Rep. Com._, 1844, xiv, app., p. 59 (39).

[80] _Ibid._, 1844, xiv, app., p. 22 (19); _Cal. S. P. D._, 1636-37, p.
534; _ibid._, 1637-38, p. 51.

[81] _Ibid._, 1636-37, p. 530.

[82] Hist. MSS. Com., _Rep._ 7, p. 154.

[83] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1640-41, p. 315.

As long as Witherings had enjoyed the King's favour, the House of
Commons had looked upon him with suspicion. They had ordered in 1640
"that a Sub-Committee of the Committee of Grievances should be made a
House Committee to consider abuses in the inland posts, to take into
consideration the rates for letters and packets together with the abuses
of Witherings and the rest of the postmasters."[84] As soon as
Witherings was finally dismissed, the Commons took him up and
resolutions were passed that the sequestration was illegal and ought to
be repealed, that the proclamation for ousting him from his position
ought not to be put into execution, and that he ought to be restored to
his old position and be paid the mean profits which had been received
since his nominal dismissal.[85] Protected by the authority of the House
of Commons, Witherings continued to act as Postmaster-General.[86]
Windebank, in Paris, was trying to collect evidence against him through
Frizell, who, he said, had been forced out of his position by Witherings
and Coke.[87] Coke himself was in disgrace and could do nothing.
Parliament was now supreme. Witherings was ordered to send to a
Committee of the Lords, acting with Sir Henry Vane, all letters coming
into or going out of the kingdom for examination and search. Frequent
orders to the same effect followed during the turbulent summer and
autumn of 1641.[88] Among other letters opened were those of the
Venetian Ambassador in England. He was so indignant that a Committee of
the Lords was sent to him to ask his pardon.[89] The two Houses of
Parliament united in condemning the sequestration to Burlamachi, but
Witherings, who had become tired of the strife, assigned his position to
the Earl of Warwick.[90] The Earl was supported by both Houses, but the
Lower House played a double part, for, while openly supporting Warwick,
they now secretly favoured Burlamachi, who had found an influential
friend in Edmund Prideaux, former chairman of the committee appointed to
investigate the condition of the posts and later Attorney-General under
the Commonwealth.[91] Prideaux was a strong Parliamentarian, but was
distrusted even by his own friends. But for the time being, as the
representative of the Commons, he was supported by them. The messenger
of the Upper House made oath that he had delivered the Commons'
resolution to Burlamachi, commanding him to hand over the Inland Letter
Office to Warwick, but James Hicks had presented an order at the place
appointed by Warwick for receiving letters, to deliver all letters to
Prideaux. Burlamachi on being summoned before the Lords for contempt
said that Prideaux had hired his house and now had charge of the mails.
The fight went merrily on. Two servants of Warwick seized the Holyhead
letters from Hicks, but were in turn stopped by five troopers, agents of
Prideaux, who took the letters from them by order of the House of
Commons. Prideaux also seized the Chester and Plymouth letters, one of
his servants calling out "that an order of the House of Commons ought to
be obeyed before an order of the House of Lords."[92] Hicks, who had
been arrested by order of the Lords, was liberated by the Commons as a
servant of a member of Parliament.[93] As between Lords and Commons,
there could be no doubt as to which side would carry the day, and by the
end of 1642 the Lower House was triumphant all along the line.
Understanding that discretion was the better part of valour, the Lords
freed Burlamachi and dropped the contest. Warwick now petitioned the
Lords again, setting forth that he was the legal successor and assignee
of Witherings. Stanhope put in a counter-petition to the effect that
Witherings never had any right to the position which Warwick now
claimed. The House of Lords felt its own weakness too much to interfere
directly, but ordered the whole matter to trial.[94] Besides Stanhope
and Warwick, the following put in claims before the Council of State:
Henry Robinson, through the Porters, to whom Stanhope had assigned; Sir
David Watkins in trust for Thomas Witherings, Jr., for the foreign
office; Moore and Jessop through Watkins and Walter Warde. Billingsley
also, the old Postmaster of the Merchant Adventurers, made a claim for
the foreign office.[95]

[84] _Jo. H. C._, 1640-42, p. 81.

[85] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1640-41, p. 453; _Jo. H. C._, ii, p. 500; _Rep.
Com._, 1844, xiv, app., p. 60 (40).

[86] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1640-41, p. 557.

[87] _Ibid._, 1640-41, p. 536.

[88] _Rep. Com._, 1844, xiv, app., p. 101 (74).

[89] _Ibid._, 1844, xiv, app., p. 101 (74).

[90] _Jo. H. C._, 1640-42, p. 722; _Jo. H. L._, 1642-43, p. 343.

[91] _Jo. H. C._, 1640-42, p. 500.

[92] _Rep. Com._, 1844, xiv, app., p. 10 (40); _Jo. H. C._, 1642-43, pp.
387, 388, 469, 470, 471, 473-74, 508, 512; _ibid._, 1640-42, p. 899.

[93] _Ibid._, 1640-42, p. 899.

[94] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1645-47, p. 461; _Rep. Com._, 1844, xiv, app., p.
68 (43); _Jo. H. L._, 1645-46, pp. 579, 588, 637.

[95] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1652-53, pp. 159, 367; _ibid._, 1653-54, pp. 21,
22, 297; _Rep. Com._, 1844, xiv, app., p. 69 (44); _Jo. H. C._, 1651-59,
p. 192.

The confusion in postal administration which naturally resulted from the
struggle among the rival claimants was increased by the Civil War. In
1643 the Royal Court was moved to Oxford. The Secretaries of State
acting as Postmasters-General sent James Hicks, the quondam servant of
Prideaux, to collect arrears from the postmasters due to the Letter
Office. In addition to collecting the money due, he was to require all
postmasters on the road to Coventry to convey to and from the Court all
letters and packets on His Majesty's service, to establish new stages,
to forward the names of those willing to supply horses and guides, and
to report those postmasters who were disobedient or disloyal.[96] During
the most desperate period of the royal cause Hicks acted as special
messenger for the King, and apparently had some exciting experiences in
carrying the letters of his royal master. He lived to enjoy his reward
when the second Charles had come to his own. Parliament, in the
meantime, was establishing its control over the posts and reorganizing
the service. In the early period of Parliamentary government, postal
affairs were as a rule looked after by what was known as the "Committee
of Both Kingdoms," and the orders which it issued were necessarily based
upon political conditions. Later the Postmaster-General acted under the
Council of State or under Cromwell himself. In 1644 the House of Commons
issued an order that protection should be granted to the postmasters
between London and Hull, to their servants, horses and goods.[97] The
fact that it was necessary to re-settle posts on the old established
London-Berwick road shows how demoralized conditions had been during the
conflict.[98] Many of the loyal postmasters were dismissed. Their
lukewarm conduct in supplying the messengers of the Commonwealth with
horses produced a reprimand from the Committee and a sharp warning from
Prideaux.[99] Posts were settled from London to Lyme Regis for better
communication with the southwestern counties. In 1644 Edmund Prideaux
was formally appointed Postmaster-General.[100] He was allowed to use as
his office part of the building occupied by the Committee of Accounts,
formerly the house of a London alderman.[101] As long as the war
continued it was necessary that a close watch should be kept over
letters passing by post. Many of the new postmasters were military men
and in addition others were appointed in each town under the heading of
"persons to give intelligence."[102] With the return of normal
conditions after 1649 Prideaux was ordered by the Council of State to
make arrangements for establishing posts all over England as in the
peaceful days before the war.[103] His report of the same year to the
Council of State indicates the successful fulfilment of his
instructions. He said that he had established a weekly conveyance of
letters to all parts of the Commonwealth and that with the receipts from
private letters he had paid all the postmasters except those on the
Dover road.[104]

[96] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1641-43, p. 501; _ibid._, 1644, pp. 6, 29.

[97] _Jo. H. C._, 1642-44, p. 426.

[98] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1644, p. 400.

[99] _Ibid._, 1644-45, p. 503; _ibid._, 1644, pp. 25, 144, 447.

[100] _Jo. H. C._, 1642-44, p. 477; _Rep. Com._, 1844, xiv, app., p. 67
(41).

[101] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1644, p. 477.

[102] _Ibid._, 1644-45, p. 170.

[103] _Ibid._, 1649-50, pp. 13, 147.

[104] _Jo. H. C._, 1648-51, p. 385.

For the safety of the Commonwealth it was often found necessary to
search the letters. Sometimes the posts were stopped and all the letters
examined. When this was done, it was by order of the Council of State,
which appointed certain officials to go through the correspondence.[105]
Sir Kenelm Digby, writing to Lord Conway from Calais, asks him to direct
his letters to that place, where they would find him, "if no curious
overseer of the packets at the post break them open for the
superscription's sake."[106] The Commonwealth did openly and is
consequently blamed for what had been done more or less secretly by the
Royal Government.

[105] _Ibid._, 1648-51, p. 126; _Cal. S. P. D._, 1649-50, pp. 56, 533,
535, 541; 1650, pp. 7, 223; 1651-52, p. 216.

[106] _Ibid._, 1649-50, p. 381.

In 1651 the first proposal for farming the Post Office was submitted to
the Council of State. The Council reported the question to Parliament
but there is no evidence as to their attitude on the question at that
time.[107] The next year Parliament ordered that the question of
management, whether by contract or otherwise, should be re-committed to
the Council,[108] and in 1653 it was decided that it would be better to
let the posts out to farm. Prideaux had been quietly dropped by the
Council after making, as it was reported, a large fortune. When we
remember that under his management there was an annual deficit of £600
besides the expenses of the Dover road and that in 1653 there was a net
revenue of £10,000, it seems probable that there is some truth in the
report. The conditions upon which the Post Office was farmed, were as
follows:--

The farmers must be men of stability and good credit and must be
selected from those contracting. Official letters and letters from and
to members of Parliament must be carried free. All postage rates must be
fixed by the Council and not changed without its consent. Finally all
postmasters should be approved by the Council and Lord Protector.[109]

[107] _Ibid._, 1651-52.

[108] _Ibid._, 1651-59, p. 192.

[109] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1652-53, p. 449. The following is a list of the
contractors, with the yearly amounts offered by each:

  Ben Andrews for Inland Office     £3600
  Ben Andrews for Foreign Office     3500
  Henry Robinson for both offices    8041
  Ben Andrews for both offices       9100
  John Goldsmith for both offices    8500
  Ralph Kendall for both offices    10103
  John Manley, with good security    8259
  Rich. Hicks                        9120
  Rich. Hill                         8160

          --_Cal. S. P. D._, 1652-53, p. 450.

The policy of the Commonwealth in letting the posts out to farm had much
in its favour. The evil usually resulting from farming is the temptation
and the opportunity it offers for extortion from the people. But in the
case of the posts no oppression was possible, for the farmer was limited
in his charge to the rate fixed by the Government. More than this,
private control over the post office business afforded what was most
needed at the time, greater economy and stricter supervision over the
deputy postmasters. It was upon the deputy postmasters alone that the
farming system might exercise undue pressure, but from them there was no
complaint of the withholding or reduction of wages until after
Cromwell's death.[110]

[110] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1658-59, p. 371.

John Manley was appointed "Farmer of the Posts" for two years at a
yearly rent of £10,000. There were at least four higher tenders than
his, and Manley contracted only for £8259. It was hinted that Manley and
the Council had come to a private agreement concerning the rent to be
paid.[111] In his orders to the postmasters, Manley requested them to
take particular care of government packets and to see that no one was
allowed to ride in post unless by special warrant. All letters should be
counted by them and the number certified in London. They were to keep a
sharp eye upon people, especially travellers, and report any discontent
or disaffection.[112] In 1654 Manley's title of Postmaster-General was
confirmed by act of Parliament, the first act dealing directly with
postal affairs.[113] He was unsuccessful in having his franchise
extended beyond the original two years, and by order of the Council of
State the management of the Posts was entrusted to Mr. Thurloe,
Secretary of State, for £10,000 a year, the same amount which Manley had
paid.[114]

[111] _Ibid._, 1653-54, pp. 27, 328.

[112] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1653-54, p. 328.

[113] Scobell's _Collect._, p. 358.

[114] _Rep. Com._, 1844, xiv, app., p. 71 (48); _Cal. S. P. D._, 1655,
p. 138.

Shortly after Thurloe had been appointed Postmaster-General, general
orders were issued by Cromwell to all the postmasters. He forbade them
to send by express any letters or packets except those sent by certain
officials on affairs of state, all others to await the regular time for
the departure of the mails. The old regulations for providing mail-bags,
registration of the time of reception, and the like were repeated. The
number of mails to and from London was increased from one to three a
week each way, and to ensure higher speed, each postmaster was to
provide a horse ready saddled and was not to detain the mail longer than
half an hour under any consideration. He was ordered to deliver all
letters in the country at or near his stage and was to collect the
postage marked on the letter unless it was postpaid. The money so
collected was to be returned to London every three months.[115]

[115] _Ibid._, 1655, pp. 285 f.

In 1657 the first act of Parliament was passed which fixed rates for the
conveyance of letters and established the system for the British
Islands. The preamble stated: "That whereas it hath been found by
experience that the writing and settling of one General Post Office ...
is the best means not only to maintain certain intercourse of trade and
commerce betwixt all the said places to the great benefit of the people
of these nations, but also to convey the public despatches and to
discover and prevent many dangerous and wicked designs, which have been
and are daily continued against the peace and welfare of this
Commonwealth," it is enacted that there shall be one General Post Office
called the Post Office of England, and one Postmaster-General nominated
and appointed by the Protector for life or for a term of years not
exceeding eleven.[116] In accordance with the terms of this act, Thurloe
was appointed by Cromwell and continued to act as Postmaster-General
until the downfall of the Commonwealth.[117]

[116] Scobell, _Collect._, pp. 511-13 (1656, c. 30).

[117] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1657-58, p. 81. In January of 1660 the Council
took the Post Office under its own control for a short time. _Jo. H.
C._, 1651-59, p. 81; _Cal. S. P. D._, 1659-60, p. 303.

After the Restoration most of the old claimants to the Post Office came
to the front again. Stanhope besieged King and Parliament for
restoration to his old place. He seems to have received some
compensation, which he deserved for his pertinacity if for nothing else.
The Porters were up in arms at once, for he had promised them to come to
no agreement until they were satisfied.[118] The two daughters of
Burlamachi pleaded for some mark of favour, on the ground that their
father had ruined himself for the late King. Frizell was still very much
alive, and a nephew of Witherings carried on the family feud.[119] In
the meantime James Hicks was employed by the Secretary of State to
ascertain how many of the old deputy postmasters were still eligible for
positions. He reported that many of them were dead and that many of
those who were applying for positions had been enemies of the King. For
the time being it was decided that the present officials should remain
in office until a settlement should be made.[120]

[118] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1660-61, p. 178; Hist. MSS. Com., _Rep._ 7, p.
109.

[119] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1660-61, pp. 93-100, 301.

[120] _Ibid._, 1660-61, pp. 37, 82.

Henry Bishop was appointed by royal patent Postmaster-General of England
for seven years at a rent of £21,500 a year. The King agreed to persuade
Parliament to pass an act[121] settling the rates and terms under which
Bishop was to exercise his duties. For the time being he was to charge
the same rates as those in the "pretended Act of 1657," to defray all
postal expenses and to carry free all public letters and letters of
members of Parliament during the present session. He agreed also to
allow the Secretaries to examine letters and not to change old routes or
set up new without their consent. He was to dismiss all officials whom
they should object to on reasonable grounds. If his income should be
lessened by war or plague or if this grant should prove ineffectual, the
Secretaries agreed to allow such abatement in his farm as should seem
reasonable to them.[122] Bishop's régime does not seem to have been
popular with the postmasters, for a petition in behalf of 300 of them,
representing themselves to be "all the postmasters in England, Scotland,
and Ireland," was presented to Parliament in protest against the
Postmaster-General's actions. They describe how Cromwell had let the
Post Office out to farm. They credit him with respecting their rights
and paying their wages. Lately, however, Bishop had been appointed
farmer, and unless they submitted to his orders, they were dismissed at
once. He had decreased their wages by more than one half, made them pay
for their places again, and demanded bonds from them that they should
not disclose any of these things.[123]

[121] The act of 1660 (12 Ch. II, c. 35) passed in pursuance of this
agreement added nothing of importance to the act of 1657, except on the
question of rates. See below, chapter VIII.

[122] _Rep. Com._, 1844, xiv, app., pp. 75, 76 (52, 53).

[123] Hist. MSS. Com., _Rep._, 7, p. 140.

In 1633, Bishop resigned his grant to Daniel O'Neale for £8000. O'Neale
offered £2000 and, in addition, promised £1000 a year, during the lease,
to Bennet, Secretary of State, if he would have the assignment
confirmed. He explained that this would not injure the Duke of York's
interest, who could expect no increase until the expiration of the
original contract, which still had four years and a quarter to run.[124]
This refers to an act of Parliament which had just been passed, settling
the £21,500 post revenue upon the Duke of York and his male heirs,[125]
with the exception of some £5000 which had been assigned by the King to
his mistresses and favourites. O'Neale having died before his lease
expired, his wife, the Countess of Chesterfield, performed his duties
until 1667.[126]

[124] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1663-64, p. 122; _Rep. Com._, 1844, xiv, app.,
pp. 86, 91 (60, 64).

[125] _Ibid._, 1844, xiv, app., p. 91 (64). Confirmed in 1685 (Hist.
MSS. Com., _Rep._, 11, app., 2, p. 315; 1 Jas. ii, c. 12).

[126] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1664-65, p. 376; 1666-67, p. 567.

According to the grant made to O'Neale in 1663 no postmaster nor any
other person except the one to whom it was directed or returned was to
open any letter unless ordered so to do by an express warrant from one
of the Secretaries of State. If any letter was overcharged, the excess
was to be returned to the person to whom it was directed. Nothing was
said about letters which were lost or stolen in the post. A certain John
Pawlett complained that of sixteen letters which he had posted not one
was ever delivered in London although the postage was prepaid.[127]
Letters not prepaid were stamped with the postage due in the London
Office when they were sent from London. Letters sent to London were
charged by the receiving postmaster in the country and the charge
verified at the London Office. An account was kept there of the amounts
due and the postmasters were debited with them, less the sum for letters
not delivered, which had also to be returned for verification.[128] All
this meant losses to the postal revenue, but compulsory prepayment would
have been impracticable at the time. The postmasters had nothing to gain
by retaining letters not prepaid, but by neglecting to forward prepaid
letters, they could keep the whole of the postage, for stamps were
unknown. An incentive to the delivery of letters was provided by the
penny payment which it was customary to give the postmasters for each
letter delivered, over and above the regular postage. The postmasters
were required to remit the postage collected to London every month and
give bonds for the performance of their duties.[129]

[127] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1664-65, p. 457. Although letters might be
prepaid, it was not compulsory that they should be, and the vast
majority were not.

[128] Joyce, p. 46.

[129] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1667, p. 80.

The postal service was very much demoralized by the plague in 1665 and
1666 and the great fire which followed. Hicks, the clerk, said that the
gains during this time would be very small. To prevent contagion the
building was so "fumed" that they could hardly see each other.[130] The
letters were aired over vinegar or in front of large fires and Hicks
remarks that had the pestilence been carried by letters they would have
been dead long ago. While the plague was still dangerous, the King's
letters were not allowed to pass through London.[131] After the fire
the headquarters of the Post-Office in London were removed to Gresham
College.

[130] _Ibid._, 1664-65, p. 51.

[131] Hist. MSS. Com., _Rep._, 12, app., pt. 7, pp. 14, 93; _Cal. S. P.
D._, 1665-66, p. 14. _Cal. S. P. D. Add._, 1600-70, p. 713.

When O'Neale's lease had expired in 1667, Lord Arlington, Secretary of
State, was appointed Postmaster-General.[132] The real head was Sir John
Bennet, with whom Hicks was entirely out of sympathy. He accused Bennet
of "scurviness" and condemned the changes initiated by him. These
changes were in the shape of reductions in wages. The postmasters'
salaries were to be reduced from £40 to £20 a year. In the London
Office, the wages of the carriers and porters were also to be
reduced.[133]

[132] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1665-66, p. 573.

[133] _Ibid._, 1667, p. 260.

At the close of the seventeenth century there were forty-nine men
employed in the Inland Department of the Post Office in London. The
Postmaster-General, or Controller as he was sometimes called, was
nominally responsible for the whole management although the accountant
and treasurer were more or less independent. Then there were eight
clerks of the roads. They had charge of the mails coming and going on
the six great roads to Holyhead, Bristol, Plymouth, Edinburgh, Yarmouth,
and Dover. The old veteran Hicks had been at their head until his
resignation in 1670. The General Post Office building was in Lombard
Street.[134] Letters might be posted there or at the receiving stations
at Westminster, Charing Cross, Pall Mall, Covent Garden, and the Inns of
Court. From these stations, letters were despatched to the General
Office twice on mail nights. For this work thirty-two letter carriers
were employed, but they did not deliver letters as their namesakes now
do. The mails left London for all parts of the country on Tuesday,
Thursday, and Saturday late at night or early the next morning. On these
days all officials had to attend at 6 P.M. and were generally at work
all night. On Monday, Wednesday and Friday when the mails arrived from
all parts of England they had to be on hand at 4 or 5 A.M. The postage
to be paid was stamped on the letters by the clerks of the roads. In
addition three sorters and three window-men were employed. The
window-men were the officials who stood at the window to receive the
letters handed in and to collect postage when it was prepaid. Then
there were an alphabet-man, who posted the names of merchants for whom
letters had arrived, a sorter of paid letters, and a clerk of undertaxed
letters.[135] In the Foreign Office, there were a controller, two
sorters, an alphabet-man, and eight letter receivers, of whom two were
women. In addition the Foreign Office had a rebate man who saw that
overcharged letters were corrected. Both offices seem to have shared the
carriers in common.[136]

[134] Stow, _London_, bk. ii, p. 163.

[135] _Notes and Queries_, series 9, i, p. 122; Hist. MSS. Com., _Rep._,
15, app., pt. 2, p. 19; _Cal. S. P. D._, 1670, p. 578.

[136] Hist. MSS. Com., _Rep._, 15, app., pt. 2, p. 19.

Before 1680 there was no post between one part of London and another. A
Londoner having a letter for delivery had either to take it himself or
send it by a special messenger. The houses were not numbered and were
generally recognized by the signs they bore or their nearness to some
public building. Such was the condition in the metropolis when William
Dockwra organized his London Penny Post. On the first of April, 1680,
London found itself in possession of a postal system which in some
respects was superior to that of to-day. In the Penny Post Office as so
established there were employed a controller, an accountant, a receiver,
thirteen clerks in the six offices, and about a hundred messengers to
collect and deliver letters. The six offices were:--

  The General Office in Star Court, Cornhill;
  St. Paul's Office in Queen's Head Alley, Newgate Street;
  Temple Office in Colchester Rents in Chancery Lane;
  Westminster Office, St. Martin's Lane;
  Southwark Office near St. Mary Overy's Church;
  Hermitage Office in Swedeland Court, East Smithfield.

There were in all about 179 places in London where letters might be
posted. Shops and coffee-houses were used for this purpose in addition
to the six offices, and in almost every street a table might be seen at
some door or shop-window bearing in large letters the sign "Penny Post
Letters and Parcels are taken in here." From these places letters were
collected every hour and taken to the six main receiving-houses. There
they were sorted and stamped by the thirteen clerks. The same messengers
carried them from the receiving-houses to the people to whom they were
addressed. There were four deliveries a day to most parts of the city
and six or eight to the business centres.

The postage fee for all letters or parcels to be delivered within the
bills of mortality was one penny, payable in advance. The penny rate was
uniform for all letters and parcels up to one pound in weight, which was
the maximum allowed. Articles or money to the value of £10 might be sent
and the penny payment insured their safe delivery. There was a daily
delivery to places ten or fifteen miles from London and there was also a
daily collection for such places. The charge of one penny in such cases
paid only for conveyance to the post-house and an additional penny was
paid on delivery. From such places to London, however, only one penny
was demanded and there was no fee for delivery. The carriers in London
travelled on foot, but in some of the neighbouring towns they rode on
horseback.[137]

[137] Stow, _London_, bk. v, pp. 403-04; Thos. DeLaune, _Present State
of London_, 1681, pp. 346-47; W. Thornbury, _Old and New London_, ii, p.
209; Noorthouck, _Hist. of London_, 1773, p. 252. Noorthouck is mistaken
in making Murray the promoter of the London Penny Post, although the
idea may have originated with him.

Dockwra is credited with being the first to make use of post-marks. All
letters were stamped at the six principal receiving-offices with the
name of the receiving-office and the hour of their reception. For
instance, we have samples of letters post-marked thus:

[Illustration]

The first figure shows that they were Penny Post letters and that they
were prepaid. The "W" in the centre is the initial letter of the
receiving-office, Westminster. The second figure shows the hour of
arrival at the Westminster office, 9 A.M. The earliest instance of these
marks is on a letter dated Dec. 9, 1681, written by the Bishop of London
to the Lord Mayor.[138]

[138] _Notes and Queries_, ser. 6, xi, p. 153; Hist. MSS. Com., _Rep._,
10, app. 4, pp. 125, 132; Joyce, p. 38.

Whenever letters came from any part of the world by the General Post,
directed to persons in London or in any of the towns where the Penny
Post carriers went, they were handed over to these carriers to be
delivered. In the same way, letters directed to any part of the world
might be left at any of the receiving-offices of the Penny Post to be
carried by its messengers to the General Office. This must have
increased greatly the number of letters carried by the General Post. In
the case of letters arriving by the General and delivered by the Penny
Post, the postage was paid on delivery.[139] Over two hundred and thirty
years ago then, London had for a time a system of postal delivery not
only unrivalled until a short time ago, but in the matter of parcel
rates and insurance not yet equalled.

[139] DeLaune, _Present State of London_, 1681, p. 345.

What was Dockwra's reward for the boon which he had conferred? He
himself says that it had been undertaken at his sole charge and had cost
him £10,000. It had not paid for the first few months, and the friends
who had associated themselves with him fell away.[140] As long as it
produced no surplus, Dockwra was left to do as he pleased, for the
General Post was gaining indirectly from it. As soon as it began to pay,
the Duke of York cast his eye on it. In 1683 an action was brought
against Dockwra for infringing upon the prerogative of His Royal
Highness, and the Duke won the case. The Penny Post was incorporated in
the General Post soon after.[141] After William and Mary had come to the
throne, Dockwra was given a pension of £500 a year for seven years. At
the end of that time he was appointed manager of the Penny Post
Department of the General Post and his pension was continued for three
years longer. In 1700 he was dismissed, charged with "forbidding the
taking in of band-boxes (unless very small) and all parcels above one
pound in weight, with stopping parcels, and opening and detaining
letters."[142] Such was Dockwra's reward and such had been Witherings'.
He who would reform the Post Office must be prepared to take his
official life in his hands.

[140] _Cal. B. P._, 1697-1702, xliv, 56.

[141] Two men living in Limerick and Tipperary claimed in 1692 that they
had organized a Penny Post in Ireland (_Cal. S. P. D._, 1691-92, p.
449). In 1704 the Countess Dowager of Thanet petitioned to be allowed to
establish a Penny Post in Dublin, but nothing was done (_Cal. T. P._,
1702-07, lxxxix, 305).

[142] _Cal. T. P._, 1697-1702, lxxi, 40; Charles Knight, _London_, 1842,
iii, p. 282.

The transition between two reigns was usually a period of unrest and
disquietude, and the Revolution which resulted in the expulsion of James
was naturally accompanied by internal disorder. For a time the posts
suffered quite severely. The Irish and Scotch mails were robbed several
times and not even the "Black Box" escaped. This was the box in which
were carried the despatches between Scotland and the Secretaries of
State, the use of which was not discontinued until after the accession
of the new King and Queen. After 1693 each Secretary was to send and
receive his own despatches separately and all expenses were to be met
from the proceeds of the London-Berwick post.[143] Major Wildman had
been appointed to the oversight of the Post Office, but held office for
a few months only, being succeeded in 1691 by Cotton and Frankland. The
Postmasters-General were henceforth to act under the Lords of the
Treasury.[144]

[143] Hist. MSS. Com., _Rep._, 12, app., pt. 7, p. 262; _Cal. S. P. D._,
1690-91, p. 50; Hist. MSS. Com., _Rep._,15, app., pt. 9, pp. 144, 180;
_Cal. T. P._, 1557-1696, p. 284.

[144] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1689-90, pp. 59, 74; _Cal. T. P._, 1557-1696, p.
203.

Important improvements in the frequency and extension of postal
communication were inaugurated under the management of Cotton and
Frankland. It was, however, for the extension of the foreign postal
service and for that to Ireland and the plantations that their
administration is most notable.

On Monday and Thursday letters went to France, Italy, and Spain, on
Monday and Friday to the Netherlands, Germany, Sweden, and Denmark. On
Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday, mails left for all parts of England,
Scotland, and Ireland, and there was a daily post to Kent and the Downs.
Letters arrived in London from all parts of England, Scotland, and
Ireland on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, from Wales every Monday and
from Kent and the Downs every day. Besides the establishment of the
General Post in London, there were about 200 deputy postmasters employed
in England and Scotland.[145] The Irish Post was supervised from London
and during the Irish war its headquarters in Ireland were transferred
from Dublin to Belfast. It was directly managed by a Deputy
Postmaster-General, aided by ten or a dozen officials and clerks. The
net receipts were sent to England and the books were audited by a deputy
sent over by the Auditor-General of the English Post.[146]

[145] Stow, _London_, bk. v, p. 401; DeLaune, _Present State of
England_, ed. 1690, p. 343.

[146] _Cal. T. P._, 1557-1696, pp. 369, 461.

The Scotch Post Office was not in so good condition as the Irish. The
time when every Scotchman could read and write was yet very far distant.
The only post road of any importance was from Edinburgh to Berwick and
this had been established by the English. For many years the vast
majority of letters travelling over this road were official despatches.
After the crowns of England and Scotland were united, it was necessary
for the English Government to keep in close touch with Scotland and
"Black Box" made frequent journeys between the two countries. The canny
people in the north had discovered a rich country to the south waiting
to be exploited, and the post horses between Edinburgh and London were
kept busy carrying the lean and hungry northern folk to the land of milk
and honey. Until 1695 the English and Scotch Post Offices had been
united under the English Postmaster-General with an Edinburgh deputy;
but by the Scotch act of 1695 the Post Office of Scotland was separated
from that of England. The terms of this act were much the same as those
of the English act of 1660, although the rates established were somewhat
higher. There was to be a Postmaster-General living in Edinburgh, who
was to have the monopoly of carrying all letters and packets where posts
were settled.[147]

[147] _Acts of Parliament of Scotland_, ix., pp. 417-419 (5 Wm. III).

The first proposal for a postal establishment in the American colonies
came from New England in 1638. The reason given was that a post office
was "so useful and absolutely necessary."[148] Nothing was done by the
home government until fifty years later when a proclamation was issued,
ordering letter offices to be settled in convenient places on the North
American continent. Rates were established for the continental colonies
and Jamaica.[149] In 1691, acting upon a report of the Governors of the
Post-Office, the Lords of Trade and Plantations granted a patent to
Thomas Neale to establish post offices in North America. About the same
time an act was passed by the Colony of Massachusetts appointing Andrew
Hamilton Postmaster-General. The Lords of Trade and Plantations called
attention to the fact that this act was not subject to the patent
granted to Neale. Matters were adjusted by Neale himself, who appointed
Hamilton his deputy in North America.[150] In 1699 a report was made by
Cotton and Frankland to the Lords of the Treasury based on a memorial
from Neale and Hamilton. The latter had established a regular weekly
post between Boston and New York and from New York to Newcastle in
Pennsylvania. The receipts had increased every year and now covered all
expenses except Hamilton's own salary, £200. Postmasters had been
appointed in New York and Philadelphia, Hamilton himself being in
Boston. The New York postmaster received a salary of £20 with an
additional £90 for carrying the mail half-way to Boston. The
Philadelphia postmaster was paid £10 a year.[151]

[148] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1574-1660, p. 273.

[149] Joyce, pp. 196, 300.

[150] _Cal. S. P. Am. and W. I._, 1693-96, p. 637.

[151] _Cal. T. P._, 1697-1702, lx, 77.

The business of the Post Office was rapidly increasing. The same decade
that saw the establishment of the Board of Trade witnessed also the
organization of the Colonial Post. The expansion of English
commerce[152] necessarily reacted on communications both internal and
foreign, while the linking of the country posts with the general system
and the stimulus given by the London Penny Post showed itself in the
increased postal revenue.[153] The way was prepared for the great
expansion of the following century, an expansion turned to account as a
source of taxation.

[152] Macpherson, _Annals of Commerce_, ii, 707.

[153] See Appendix: Tables I, II.




CHAPTER III

THE POSTAL ESTABLISHMENT AN INSTRUMENT OF TAXATION

1711-1840


The year 1711 is an important landmark in the history of the British
Post Office. England and Scotland had united not only under one king but
under one Parliament, the war with France made a larger revenue
necessary, the growth of the Colonies required better communication with
the mother country and each other, and it was highly expedient that
certain changes in the policy of the Post Office should receive
parliamentary sanction. The act of 1711 was intended to meet these
conditions. The English and Scotch Post Offices were united under one
Postmaster-General in London, where letters might be received from and
sent to all parts of Great Britain, Ireland, the colonies and foreign
countries. The postage rates were increased to meet the demand for a
larger revenue. In addition to the General Office in London, chief
letter offices were ordered to be set up in Edinburgh, Dublin, New York,
the West Indies, and other American colonies, and deputies were
appointed to take charge of them.

One of the most important clauses of this act, by providing regulations
for the management of the London Penny Post, finally placed the seal of
the approval of Parliament upon a branch of the General Post, which had
existed for nearly thirty years by virtue of royal proclamations and
legal decisions alone. A penny rate was imposed upon all letters and
packets passing by the Penny Post in London, Westminster and Southwark
to be received and delivered within ten miles from the General Post
Office building. This would seem at first sight to be an improvement on
the old custom, by which a penny had carried only within the bills of
mortality; but as a matter of fact an extra penny was demanded on
letters delivered outside the bills and within the ten mile limit.
Protest was, however, made against this as being illegal, and it was
not until 1730 that the custom was sanctioned.[154]

[154] In 1765 the maximum weight for articles passing wholly by the
Penny Post was lowered from 16 to 4 ounces (5 Geo. III, c. 25).

One other provision of the new act remains to be mentioned. The last
section forbade any official connected with the Post Office from
meddling in politics.[155] The system of party government which had
begun to take form during William and Mary's reign, was developing.
Under Anne, the Whigs had been the war party, the expansionists, while
the Tories were anxious for peace. So different were their policies that
Marlborough had gone over to the Whigs. But the Queen and probably the
majority of the people were tired of war. Godolphin, the great
financier, had given way to Harley and the general election was
favourable to the Tories. Frankland had died before the act was passed,
but Cotton, who was a member of Parliament, preferred to keep his
position in the Post Office and accordingly accepted the Chiltern
Hundreds. A Mr. Evelyn was associated with him as Postmaster-General.

[155] 9 Anne, c. 11.

Shortly after his appointment the attention of the department was
directed to a weakness in administrative control which had already
resulted in considerable financial loss. The Postmasters-General had
always experienced considerable difficulty in collecting the postage on
bye and cross road letters.[156] Since these letters did not reach
London, no check was possible to ascertain whether the postmaster
transmitted to headquarters the full amount of the postage collected on
them. The difficulty had been met before 1711 by farming a large number
of the country post offices.[157] In 1711 the leases under which the
farmers had held office were cancelled and all the posts in the kingdom
came again under the direct oversight of the Postmasters-General. The
old farmers were made managers, with an allowance of 10 per cent from
the net proceeds of the posts under their control, and the deputy
postmasters were again paid directly by the state. The Government had
refused o appoint surveyors when the act of 1711 was drafted and for a
time these managers acted in that capacity.[158] The experiment was not
a success and the Postmasters-General were at their wits' end to know
what to do to save the revenue which was being diverted to the pockets
of the country postmasters.

[156] A bye-letter was the name given to a letter carried over one of
the great roads but not passing to, from or through London. A cross post
letter passed not over the great roads, but over subsidiary or minor
roads.

[157] Joyce, p. 136.

[158] _Cal. T. P._, 1714-19, cxc, 26; ccvi, 29.

The country was happily spared any new device on their part, for in 1721
a man came forward with a proposal to take all the losses upon himself
or rather to prevent them entirely. This was Ralph Allen, whose name is
worth remembering, not as a reformer but as a good business man who came
to the rescue of the postal revenue at a rather critical time. He was
the son of an innkeeper at St. Blazey. At an early age we find him
living with his grandmother, the postmistress of St. Columb. He came
under the notice of one of the surveyors there on account of the
neatness with which he kept the accounts for his grandmother. When he
was old enough, he was appointed to a position in the Post Office at
Bath and in time was made postmaster there. Tradition has it that during
the insurrection of 1715 he informed the authorities that a wagon load
of arms was on its way from the West for the use of the rebels and that
this led to his preferment.[159] He offered to farm the cross and bye
posts throughout the kingdom. The net product from these posts amounted
to £4000 in 1719. Allen offered to pay half as much again and meet all
expenses. The offer was accepted, and in 1721 he was given the lease of
the cross and bye posts for a period of seven years. The rent was fixed
at £6000 a year in accordance with the agreement. For the first quarter,
the receipts exceeded expectations, but later the postmasters began to
relapse into their old ways. In addition, the contract was rather hard
on Allen, as £300 of the £4000 nominally received by the Post Office was
for letters not delivered and hence not paid for. After the third year,
matters began to improve and the receipts increased greatly. The
contract was renewed for terms of seven years, until Allen's death in
1769, and the rent was increased at each renewal.[160]

[159] Joyce, p. 146.

[160] _Cal. T. B. & P._, 1731-34, p. 539; W. Thornbury, _Old and New
London_, ii, p. 209; W. Lewins, _Her Majesty's Mails_, ed. 1865, pp.
104-12.

How did he succeed when so many others had failed? In the first place
he introduced the use of post bills and every postmaster had to
distinguish on these bills the bye letters from all others. The voucher,
which he also introduced, seems to have been only an acknowledgment of
the amount to be collected by each postmaster. Besides this, Allen had a
most intimate knowledge of the various post towns in the kingdom, of
their importance and of the number of letters which might naturally be
expected to pass between them. He based his conclusions upon quite
obvious considerations. Between any two towns of much the same
importance he expected about the same correspondence, that it would not
vary much, and that the letters received and despatched would pretty
well equal each other.[161]

[161] Joyce, pp. 155, 162.

When Allen's contract was renewed in 1741 it was proposed that he should
be obliged to settle and support at his own charge posts six days a week
instead of the former tri-weekly posts between London, Cambridge, Lynn,
Norwich, and Yarmouth and from London to Bath, Bristol, Gloucester, and
intermediate towns. This was not done at once, but during the next few
years this proposition was put into effect.[162] In 1734, in addition to
his cross and bye post letters, Allen undertook to pay for the
improvements which he had made in the conveyance of country
letters.[163] He pointed out at the same time that there was some
opposition between the two parts of his contract, since country and
cross post letters interfered more or less with each other.[164]

[162] _Cal. T. B. & P._, 1730-41, pp. 449-450.

[163] Country letters were those sent through London. _Cal. T. B. & P._,
1739-41, p. 450.

[164] _Cal. T. B. & P._, 1734-41, pp. 445, 450; W. Thornbury, _Old and
New London_, ii, p. 209.

Allen died in 1769, being worth, according to current report, £500,000.
Lewins says that he made £12,000 a year from his farm. Probably both
statements are exaggerated, but it is certain that he accumulated a
respectable fortune while managing the bye and cross posts.[165]

[165] He is the man to whom Pope alluded in the couplet,

"Let humble Allen, with an honest shame, Do good by stealth and blush to
find it fame."

Allen and the poet had a falling out just before the death of the
latter. In his will, Pope left his quondam friend £150 to pay a "few
little debts." Allen is said to have remarked that if Pope had added
another figure, it would have represented better the "few little debts."
W. Lewins, _Her Majesty's Mails_, pp. 104-12.

There had been a considerable increase in the staff of the General
Office and many improvements introduced since 1711. At the head of the
office were two Commissioners called Postmasters-General, each with a
salary of £2000, assisted by a Secretary and four clerks. There were in
addition a Receiver-General, an Accountant-General, a Solicitor, a
Resident-Surveyor, and two inspectors of missent letters. In addition to
the Penny Post carriers, who were employed also by the General Post,
there were a Court Messenger and a carrier for the House of Commons. At
the General Office, letters were taxed and sorted by the "Clerks of the
Road" and their assistants and by seventeen sorters. The window-man and
alphabet-keeper received the money on prepaid letters and posted lists
of those for whom letters had arrived. Undertaxed letters from the
country were re-taxed by the "Clerks of the Road." Besides the
receiving-houses of the Penny Post where all letters might be posted,
there were thirty receiving-houses for the General Post. Letters were
conveyed from these to the central office by sixty-nine carriers.[166]

[166] _Cal. T. B. & P._, 1742-45, pp. 102-235; Maitland, _Survey of
London_, p. 998; Noorthouck, _Hist. of London_, 1773, p. 658.

Letters were sent every night to the principal South and Midland towns
of England. On Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday, there were mails for all
parts of England and Scotland and on Tuesday and Saturday for Ireland
and Wales. On Monday and Thursday, letters were sent to France, Spain,
and Italy, on Monday and Friday to Germany, Flanders, Sweden, and
Denmark, and on Tuesday and Friday to Holland. Letters arrived in London
every day from the South and Midland towns, on Monday, Wednesday, and
Friday, from all parts of England and Scotland, and on Monday and Friday
from Ireland and Wales.[167] It will be seen from this that the
improvements in postal communications, which had taken place since the
beginning of the century, had been confined to the South and Midland
towns of England and to foreign countries.

[167] J. Latimer, _Annals of Bristol_, 1893, p. 235; _London and its
Environs_, 1761, v, pp. 209-222.

With the foregoing enlargement of postal facilities an old grievance on
the part of the public began to assume an acute form. It had always been
a debated question as to how far the postmasters were responsible for
the delivery of letters. There was no general rule upon the question and
the practice varied in different parts of England. Although the towns on
the post roads were fairly well off as far as their letters were
concerned, it was different with those places which were neither on the
great roads nor on the bye-roads leading off from them. The mails for
such places were left at the nearest post towns and were conveyed to
their destination by carriers and messengers. Cotton and Frankland
stated that in addition to collecting the regular postage, they demanded
for this service an extra payment of 3_d._, 6_d._, and sometimes 12_d._
It was proposed in 1699 that the delivery should be made by persons
appointed to collect as well as to deliver all letters and parcels. For
this they were allowed to take one penny or whatever the people wished
to give them.[168] In Sandwich the cross and bye post letters had always
been delivered free, although a fee was charged for the London letters.
The postmaster there decided to charge for all letters, and the
inhabitants of Sandwich protested. The case was carried to the courts
and the Post Office lost. Sandwich, however, was a place where there had
been a free delivery of part of the letters at least. The
Postmasters-General were very much disturbed at this decision and still
more disturbed lest the courts might decide for free delivery in other
post towns, which had always paid. They resolved to bring on a test
case. The town of Hungerford in Berkshire was chosen, as it could be
proved that the postmaster of that place had received a penny for each
letter delivered since the beginning of the century. The case came
before the Court of King's Bench, Lord Mansfield presiding, and the Post
Office lost again. This case was decided in 1774, and the next year the
"Liverpool Advertiser" records a complaint to the Postmasters-General
that there was only one letter carrier in Liverpool. The reply was that
only one carrier was maintained in any provincial town and that
Liverpool could expect no better treatment.[169]

[168] _Cal. T. B._, 1697-1702, lxiv, 17; _ibid._, 1702-07, lxxxvi, 134.

[169] E. Green, _Bibliotheca Somersetensis_, 1902, i, p. 108; Joyce, pp.
107-108; Latimer, _Annals of Bristol_, p. 416.

At the same time that the Post Office received this adverse decision it
had begun to suffer severely from the illegal carriage of letters by the
post coaches. These post coaches were so called merely because they were
most numerous on the post roads. John Palmer, the proprietor of a
theatre in Bath, pointed out to the Postmasters-General that the coaches
were speedier and cheaper than the post boys who carried the mails on
horseback and proposed that he should be allowed to establish mail
coaches and thus save the postage on letters illegally carried by the
post coaches. His coaches were to be protected by a guard, presumably a
retired soldier, who was to be armed with two guns and to sit facing the
road in front of him. The driver was to carry pistols. No outside
passengers were to be carried, since they impeded the guard in
performing his duties. The speed was to be not less than eight or nine
miles an hour, twice as fast as the post boys travelled. In addition the
mails were to leave London at 8 P.M. instead of after midnight. The
coaches were all to leave London together and return together as far as
possible. To insure this they were not to wait for government letters
when the latter were delayed.[170]

[170] _D. N. B._, xliii, p. 140; Knight, _London_, 1842, iii, p. 280.

The first mail coach ran between London and Bristol in 1784. It was
furnished by contractors at a cost of 3_d._ a mile. This was the initial
cost, however, and by 1797, the rate had been reduced to a penny a mile
each way. In the early part of August, 1784, there was only one mail
coach. At the end of the same month, coaches went to Norwich,
Nottingham, Liverpool, and Manchester. During the next year they were
sent to Leeds, Gloucester, Swansea, Hereford, Milford, Worcester,
Birmingham, Shrewsbury, Holyhead, Exeter, Portsmouth, and other places.
In 1786 they ran between London and Edinburgh. In 1797 there were
forty-two mail coach routes established, connecting sixty of the most
important towns in the kingdom, as well as intermediate places. These
coaches travelled a total distance of 4110 miles and cost the Government
£12,416 a year, only half the sum paid for post horses and riders under
the old system. The coaches made daily journeys over nearly two thirds
of the total distance traversed and tri-weekly journeys over something
less than one third the total distance. The remainder travelled one,
two, four, and six times a week. The result of the establishment of
these mail coaches was summed up by a Parliamentary committee in the
following words: "They have lessened the chance of robbery, diminished
the need for special messengers and expresses, and now carry the letters
formerly sent by post coaches."[171]

[171] _Parl. Papers_, 1812-13, _Rep. Com._, ii, pp. 4, 36, 37, 98; _Fin.
Rep._, 1797, no. 7, p. 114; _D. N. B._, xliii, p. 140.

Palmer had been appointed Controller-General of the Post Office and had
chosen as his assistant a man by the name of Bonner. Palmer himself was
of a violent and headstrong disposition, and as ill-luck would have it,
Walsingham, one of the Postmasters-General, was as masterful as himself.
Palmer considered that his office was outside the scope of Walsingham's
authority, and although he failed in making his position absolutely free
from the control of the Postmasters-General, yet he heeded them as
little as possible. He organized a newspaper department without
consulting his superiors and paid no attention to them when an
explanation was asked. He stirred up the London merchants to complain
about the late delivery of their letters, a delay which he had probably
brought about intentionally. A mail coach had been ordered by Walsingham
to carry the King's private despatches while His Majesty was taking the
waters at Cheltenham. This was done without consulting Palmer, who was
so indignant that he persuaded the contractor to send in an enormous
bill for supplying the coach. All this came out through the treachery of
Bonner, who owed his advancement entirely to the friend whom he
betrayed. He went so far as to hand over to the Postmasters-General the
private letters which Palmer had written him. Palmer was dismissed in
1792 with a pension.[172]

[172] _Fin. Rep._, 1797, no. 7, pp. 82-83; Joyce, pp. 251, 275.

At the time of Palmer's appointment, a Treasury warrant had been issued
for the payment to him of £1500 a year and 2 per cent of the increase
from the Post Office revenue, but this warrant had been pronounced
illegal by the Attorney-General. Through Pitt's influence, Palmer
finally obtained £1500 a year and 2 per cent on any increase in net
revenue over £240,000 a year. Palmer objected to this on the ground
that the old net revenue was only £150,000 a year, but Pitt replied that
the increased rates of 1784 would produce at least £90,000. It is
improbable, however, that the new rates produced the increase estimated.
In 1797 Palmer presented a petition to the House of Commons, asking for
the arrears due him according to his method of estimating the increase
in net revenue, upon which his percentage was due. He said that before
his system was introduced the gross product of the Post Office was
decreasing at the rate of £13,000 a year. This was not true. He claimed
that the increase after 1784 was wholly due to his own reforms, taking
no account of the increased rates and the industrial expansion of
England. No action was taken by Parliament.[173]

[173] _Fin. Rep._, 1797, no. 7, p. 127; _Jo. H. C._, 1796-97, p. 581.

One of the arguments advanced by Palmer for the use of mail coaches was
their security against robbers. Previous to and during the rebellion of
1745 numerous attempts were made to rob the mails, and many of them were
successful. These robberies occurred principally at night. It was said
that the mails were carried by boys not always of the best character,
and that very often they were in league with the robbers. The
Postmasters-General asked for soldiers to patrol the roads where these
robberies were the most frequent. This was the method which Cromwell had
used to protect the mails. The request does not seem to have been
granted, but in 1765 the death penalty was imposed for robbing the mail
and for stealing a letter containing a bank note or bill. Any post boy
deserting the mail or allowing any one but the guard to ride on the
horse or carriage with the mails was liable to commitment to hard
labour.[174] Palmer's prediction was fulfilled by the comparative safety
with which the mails were carried after his coaches had come into use.

[174] _Cal. T. B. & P._, 1739-41, p. 234; 5 Geo. III, c. 25. The Post
Office occasionally made good the loss of valuables from theft or
robbery, but as a rule refused to do so. _Cal. T. P._, 1729-30, p. 75;
_Cal. T. B. & P._, 1731-34, p. 74.

Charles, Earl of Tankerville, and Lord Carteret had been the
Postmasters-General in 1782 and 1783. On the fall of Shelburne's
ministry in the latter year, Tankerville left the Post Office, but
Carteret still remained. So far these two men had worked together
fairly well, although Tankerville had a suspicion that his colleague
had been engaged in some doubtful transactions. In 1784, when Pitt
became Prime Minister, Tankerville was restored to his old office. In
the same year a transaction came under his notice which aroused his
suspicion. A Mr. Lees had been appointed Secretary of the Irish Post
Office. The man who had held this position was made agent of the Dover
packet boats, the old agent having been superannuated. The new agent
agreed to pay to his predecessor the full amount of the salary coming to
the place, while he himself was to be paid by Mr. Lees the total salary
coming to the Secretary in Ireland. So far there was nothing uncommon
about the arrangement. The unusual part of the agreement and the part
which attracted Tankerville's attention was Lees' promise to pay the
money to "A. B.," an unknown person, after the old agent's death.
Suspicion pointed to Carteret as the man to whom the money was to be
paid. Lees himself denied this, but did not say who "A. B." was.[175]

[175] _Jo. H. C._, 1787, p. 800.

In 1787 a Mr. Staunton, the postmaster of Islesworth, a position worth
£400 a year, was in addition appointed Controller and Resident Surveyor
of the Bye and Cross Posts, to which was attached a salary of £500,
coals and candles and a house. The First Lord of the Treasury proposed
that the house should not go with the office, and Carteret decided that
Staunton should receive an extra £100 a year in lieu of the house.
Tankerville refused to agree to this, and the contention became so warm
that the whole matter was referred to Pitt, who, rather than lose
Carteret's political support, dismissed Tankerville.[176] Tankerville at
once demanded an investigation, which was granted. The results showed
the Post Office to be in a deplorable state. Tankerville was completely
exonerated, but failed to obtain much sympathy on account of the
violence of his attack upon Pitt and Carteret. It came out in the
investigation that "A. B." was a foreigner named Treves, who had no
claim on the Post Office or any other department of the government
except that he was a friend of Carteret. Carteret himself knew the
condition of his appointment, but had done nothing except to express
himself displeased with the whole arrangement. A payment of £200 a year
had also been exacted from Mr. Dashwood, Postmaster-General of Jamaica,
as the condition of his appointment, and that too had gone to Treves.
The agent at Helvoetsluys had been allowed by Carteret to sell his
position to a man as incapable as himself. Staunton's office had been
abolished soon after his appointment, and he had been allowed to retire
at the age of forty years with a pension of £600 a year in the face of
the rule that officers of an advanced age and after long service were
allowed upon retirement to receive only two thirds of their
salaries.[177]

[176] _Ibid._, 1787, p. 800.

[177] _Jo. H. C._, 1787, p. 800.

The Postmasters-General had received in 1783, in addition to their
salaries, over £900 for coals. They had also received £694 for candles
during two years and a half and £150 for tinware for the same period.
Tankerville had taken his share of these perquisites, but it is only
fair to add that Carteret's emoluments exceeded his by £213 for the
periods under consideration. It had become customary to receive a money
payment in place of a large part of their supplies. In 1782 the total
sum going to the officials of the General Office amounted to £28,431, of
which sum about £10,000 were placed under the heading of emoluments
other than salaries.[178] Of all the departments of the Post Office, the
Sailing Packet Service was the one most in need of reform.

[178] _Fin. Rep._, 1797, no. 7, pp. 82-83; _Jo. H. C._, 1787, p 817.

The light, which was then let in among the dark places of the Post
Office, had a most excellent effect. Acting on the report furnished by
the committee of the House, a new establishment was effected in 1793.
The reforms were approved by the Postmasters-General and carried out
under the direction of the Lords of the Treasury. The good work had been
begun in 1784 by Palmer. He had appointed additional clerks, letter
carriers, surveyors and messengers, had established new offices, and had
increased the inadequate pay of minor officials. This had entailed an
increase of £19,022 in expenses in the General and Penny Posts, but the
increase was justified by increased efficiency and by larger returns
from the conveyance of letters. Of the total increase, £11,451 had been
spent on the General Office and £7571 on the Penny Post, to which had
been added eighty-six more letter carriers for London and seventy-eight
more for the suburbs, as well as some supernumerary carriers.[179] The
reforms introduced in 1793 may be grouped under three heads: regulations
respecting fees and emoluments, abolition of some offices and an
increase in officers and clerks in others; regulation of official
business. The regulations respecting fees and emoluments were
necessarily negative in their character. The most important were as
follows: The postmasters were no longer to pay fees to the
Postmasters-General on the renewal of the bonds given by their
securities. The two per cent allowed to the Scotch Deputy
Postmaster-General on all remittances from Scotland was discontinued and
a compensation for life was granted instead. The fees for tinware were
abolished, and the pension to the New York agent was to cease. No postal
official was allowed to own shares in the sailing packets, and with a
few minor exceptions all salaries were henceforth to be in lieu of every
emolument or fee.[180]

[179] _Fin. Rep._, 1797, no. 7, pp. 3, 66-83.

[180] _Ibid._, no. 7, pp. 52-65.

A number of sinecure and useless offices were abolished. The chief among
them were: Jamineau's perquisite office which had the monopoly of
selling newspapers to the "Clerks of the Roads," the Secretary's
position as agent for the packets, the Controller of the Bye and Cross
Posts, the Inspector of Dead Letters in the Bye Letter Office, the
Collector in the Bye Letter Office, the Secretary of the Foreign Office,
and the Controller of the Inland Office.[181]

[181] _Ibid._, no. 7, pp. 52-65.

The changes in business regulations were as follows: The
Postmasters-General were no longer to include legal charges, chaise
hire, and pensions under the head of dead letters. The
Postmasters-General's warrant must be entered previous to any money
being paid. The payment of debts must be enforced. The West India
accounts should be sent to the deputy there every quarter. The payments
to mail coach contractors must be made directly by warrant instead of
through the Controller-General. No change was made in the anomalous
position of the Accountant-General. He was supposed to be a check upon
the Receiver-General, but had to depend upon the Receiver-General's
books for verifying the remittances from the deputies.[182]

[182] _Ibid._, no. 7, pp. 8, 52-65.

The Englishman's belief in the sanctity of vested interests has usually
been too strong to permit any abridgment of rights or privileges without
compensation. Those postal officials who had been dismissed or whose
sinecure offices had been abolished were not to be turned entirely
adrift. Provision was made for pensioning most of them. Before the
reform the total sum paid by the Post Office in pensions was £1500. The
incumbrances dismissed were allowed £6101, and between 1793 and 1797
£1475 more were added to the pension list. It was pointed out at the
time that it was far better to pension them off and leave them to die
than to continue them in service. In 1797 it was a relief to be able to
announce "that already £648 had been saved from dead and promoted
pensioners."[183]

[183] _Fin. Rep._, no. 7, p. 130.

The report of the committee which had been appointed at Tankerville's
suggestion is silent on the question of the opening and detention of
letters. It had been provided by the act of 1711 that no letters should
be opened or detained except under protection of an express warrant from
one of the Secretaries of State. The Royal Commission of 1844 reported
that from 1712 to 1798, the number of warrants so issued was 101,
excluding those which were well known or easily ascertained. The
Secretary of State for the Inland Department issued most of them. From
1798 to 1844, 372 warrants were issued, many of them being general
warrants and often for very trivial causes. At the trial of Bishop
Atterbury, the principal witnesses against him were Post Office clerks,
who had opened and copied letters to and from him, under warrant from
one of the Secretaries.[184]

[184] _Rep. Com._, 1844, xiv, pp. 9-11; app., p. 105 (78); app., p. 107
(79); app., p. 111 (83).

In addition to this regular method for intercepting letters, a
particular department had been in existence for some time with no other
duties than to examine letters. Strictly speaking it had nothing to do
with the Post Office and was supported entirely from the "Secret Service
Fund." The truth about it came out in the examination of the conduct of
Sir Robert Walpole by the "Committee of Secrecy." From 1732 to 1742,
£45,675 had been spent upon this department. It had originated in 1718
and the expenses for that year were only £446, but by 1742 they had
increased more than tenfold. The Secretary of the Post Office in giving
his evidence before the committee, said that this office received
instructions from the Secretaries of State and reported to them. The
working force consisted of a chief decipherer, assisted by his son and
three other decipherers, five clerks, the Controller of the Foreign
Office, a doorkeeper and a former alphabet keeper. Either considerable
business was transacted there or it was a retreat for useless
officials.[185]

[185] _Rep. Com_., 1844, xiv, app., p. 112 (84); _Cal. T. B. & P_.,
1742-45, p. 669.

An account is given in Howell's "State Trials" of the trial of Hensey
and of the practice then in vogue for finding treasonable
correspondence. His letters were handed over for investigation to the
Secretary of State by a Post Office clerk. This clerk in giving his
evidence said that when war was declared against any nation, the
Postmasters-General issued orders at once to stop all suspected letters.
These orders were given to all the Post Office clerks and letter
carriers. Such instructions can only be justified as a war measure, for
the act of 1711 had provided that no letter should be detained or opened
unless by express warrant from one of the Secretaries of State for every
such detention or opening.[186]

[186] _Rep. Com_., 1844, xiv, app., p. 112 (85); Howell, _State Trials_,
xix, col. 1369. This was in 1758.

We find very few complaints about the opening of letters during the
second half of the eighteenth century. On the other hand it must be
confessed that letters were at times opened and searched merely to learn
the beliefs and plans of political opponents. It is difficult to
determine to how great an extent this practice was prevalent as there
seems little doubt that the complainants may occasionally have been
prompted by their own vanity to believe that their correspondence had
been tampered with.[187] In 1795, during the great war with France, the
Government ordered all letters directed to the United Provinces to be
detained. The question then was, what was to be done with them? None of
them seems to have been opened and the cause for their detention was
only to prevent any information being given to the enemy. Accordingly
by an act of Parliament passed in the same year, the Post Office was
empowered to return them to the writers.[188]

[187] Joyce is of opinion that such practices were very common. So also
is May (T. E. May, _Constitutional History of England_, 1882, iii, pp.
44-49; D. B. Eaton, _Civil Service in Great Britain_, New York, 1880, p.
115).

[188] 35 Geo. III, c. 62.

Although the larger part of the fees and emoluments enjoyed by the
postal officials had been abolished in 1793, the proceeds from those
which were left continued to increase steadily. By far the most
lucrative was the privilege of franking newspapers, within the kingdom,
to the colonies, and to foreign countries. Ever since newspapers had
been printed, the "Clerks of the Roads" had been allowed to send them to
any part of the kingdom without paying postage. After 1763, when members
of Parliament were allowed the same privilege, every one felt at liberty
to make use of a member's frank for this purpose, and the Clerks
suffered accordingly. Newspapers to the Colonies were franked by the
Secretary of the Post Office and produced a revenue of £3700 in 1817,
all of which went to Sir Francis Freeling who was then Secretary. In
1825 the privilege of franking papers within the kingdom and to the
colonies was withdrawn, but compensation was granted to Sir
Francis.[189] This did not end the trouble, for the Clerks still acted
as newspaper venders. On account of their official position they were
able to post them until 8 P.M., while the regular newsvenders were
allowed to do so only until 5 P.M. at the Lombard Street Office and 6
P.M. at the General Office or they must pay a special fee of a halfpenny
on each.[190] Mr. Hume, the member for Montrose, brought the case before
the House, and in 1834 all Post Office officials were forbidden to sell
newspapers. At the same time the officials in the Foreign Office lost
the right to frank papers to any foreign country.[191]

[189] _Rep. Commrs._, 1829, xi, pp. 215-222.

[190] London _Times_, 1829, Oct. 6, p. 2; _ibid._, 1832, March 14, p. 1.

[191] _Parl. Deb._, 3d ser., xxiv, col. 875.

The members of the Secretary's office had, since 1799 and 1801, issued
two official publications, which paid no postage. These were called the
"Packet List" and the "Shipping List." The first of these contained all
the intelligence received at the Post Office concerning the sailing
packets. The second contained information about private vessels,
furnished principally by "Lloyds." The Commissioners commented upon this
practice in very uncomplimentary language.[192] In addition, the
members of the Secretary's department received fees on the deputations
granted to new postmasters in England and Wales, upon commissions
granted to agents and postmasters abroad, upon private expresses to and
from London, and upon news supplied to the London press during a general
election.[193] In 1837 the fees on deputations and commissions were
abolished, private expresses were discontinued, the "Shipping List" was
discontinued, and the "Packet List" passed from the control of the Post
Office. The revenue from these fees in the Secretary's Office which were
still continued was to go henceforth to the general revenue.[194]

[192] _Acc. & P._, 1817, pp. 4-16; _Rep. Commrs._, 1837, xxxiv, 8th rep.
app., nos. 12, 13, 14.

[193] _Ibid._, 1837, xxxiv, 8th rep., app., no. 12.

[194] _Acc. & P._, 1837-38, xlv, 265, p. 5.

An extra charge of 6_d._ was demanded upon letters posted between 7 P.M.
and 8 P.M. This had been the rule since 1800, and the proceeds went
either to the Inland or Foreign Office. So also did the registration
fees on ships' letters. These fees were transferred to the general
revenue in 1837.[195] In 1827 the total amount received in fees,
emoluments, and gratuities by the officials in the London Office was
£23,100, by agents and country postmasters £16,500. Most of these were
either abolished or transferred to the general revenue in 1837.[196]

[195] _Rep. Commrs._, 1837, xxxiv, 8th rep., app., no. 3.

[196] _Rep. Commrs._, 1829, xi, p. 214.

The distinguishing feature of the Post Office during the eighteenth
century was the extension of its service, which accompanied the
industrial expansion of the kingdom. The abuses which naturally flourish
during a prosperous period had been largely remedied by the reform of
1793. The nation's need for a larger revenue led not only to a great
increase in postage rates but also to stricter economy in the
organization of the Post Office. The London and Dublin Penny Posts were
reformed and extended, the work of the General and Penny Posts in London
was harmonized, the employees were increased, and the new departments
which had been established were reformed and consolidated.

The Newspaper Office which had been illegally established by Palmer was
continued after his dismissal. Walsingham had objected to it on the
ground that Palmer had no right to appoint any officials without his
consent. Previously all newspapers had been forwarded to the postmasters
free of postage by the "Clerks of the Roads." Now that they might be
sent with the letters, they were brought in at the last moment still wet
from the press so that they defaced the writing on the letters sent in
the same bag.[197] In 1784 a Dead Letter Office was also established.
Previously, dead and missent letters had been handed to a clerk in the
General Office. During Allen's farm of the cross and bye post letters,
missent letters were no longer forwarded to London, but any postmaster,
into whose hands they came, was instructed to place them on the right
track.[198] Four years later a third office was instituted, a Money
Order Office. No order could be issued for more than five guineas and
the fee for that sum was 4_s._ 6_d._ It was started as a private
speculation by some of the postal officials and so remained until 1838
when it was taken over by the General Post Office.[199]

[197] _Parl. Papers_, 1812-13, _Rep. Com._, ii, p. 87.

[198] _Fin. Rep._, 1797, no. 7, pp. 82-83.

[199] W. Thornbury, _Old and New London_, ii, p. 212.

The policy of the Post Office with reference to the registration of
letters containing valuables varied with the nature of the enclosure and
the manner in which it was sent. On ships' letters sent from England,
the registration fee was one guinea, and a receipt was given to the
person sending a registered letter. The fee for a letter coming into the
kingdom was only 5_s._[200] If bank notes were enclosed in a letter, it
received no special attention from the Post Office. If gold or silver
was sent in a letter marked "money letter," the postmaster placed it in
a separate envelope and made a special entry on the way bill, which was
repeated at every office it passed through. No special fee was charged
for the extra attention bestowed upon these letters until 1835 when the
Postmaster-General was allowed to charge a fee for their registration in
addition to the ordinary postage.[201] The Money Order Department, still
a private undertaking, had its fees reduced from 6_d._ to 3_d._ on sums
not exceeding £2 and from 18_d._ to 6_d._ on sums exceeding £2 but not
more than £5.[202]

[200] _Rep. Commrs._, 1837, xxxiv, 8th rep., app., no. 3.

[201] _London Times_, 1832, Apr. 27, p. 3; 5 and 6 Wm. IV, c. 25; 3 and
4 Vict., c. 96.

[202] London _Times_, 1837, Jan. 26, p. 5; Dec. 13, p. 4; _Acc. & P._,
1841, xxvi, 221, no. 6.

At the same time that the General Post was being reformed, a former
letter carrier by the name of Johnson was improving the Penny Post. The
six principal receiving-houses which Dockwra had instituted had been
reduced to five and were now still further reduced to two. The
subsidiary receiving-houses in the shops and coffee-houses were
increased and the number of letter carriers more than doubled. Six
regular deliveries for the city proper and three for the suburbs were
introduced. Before 1793 the deliveries in the city had not been made at
the same time, for the carriers had to go to one of the main
receiving-houses to get their letters. The deliveries were now made as
near the same time as possible all over the city and the delivery hours
were posted so that people might know when to expect the carriers and
thus act as a check upon them. Mounted messengers conveyed the letters
to those carriers who delivered in distant parts of the city.[203]

[203] Joyce, p. 302; _Fin. Rep._, 1797, no. 7, p. 83.

In 1794 an act was passed "to regulate the postage and conveyance of
letters by the carriage called the Penny Post." The rate for letters
posted in London, Westminster, Southwark and the suburbs for any place
within these places and their suburbs remained one penny. Letters sent
from these places to any place outside paid 2_d._ as before. Hitherto
letters sent from outside to London, Westminster, Southwark and the
suburbs had paid only one penny. This was raised by the act of 1794 to
2_d._ It was also provided that the postage for Penny Post letters need
not be paid in advance. This would increase the expense but the idea was
probably to secure greater safety in the delivery of letters. Finally,
the surplus revenue at the end of each quarter was to be considered part
of the revenue of the General Post.[204]

[204] 34 Geo. III, c. 17.

The changes introduced by Johnson and the act of 1794 were in the right
direction. This seems a reasonable conclusion not so much on account of
the increase in net product, which was not great, as on account of the
increase in gross product, showing that the number of letters and
parcels sent by the Penny Post had doubled. The financial condition of
the Penny Post before and after the reform is shown by the following
figures:--

         _Average Yearly_  _Average Yearly_  _Average Yearly_
          _Gross Product_      _Expense_      _Net Product_

  1790-1794  £11,089             £5289            £6000
  1795-1797  £26,283           £18,960            £7323[205]

[205] _Parl. Papers_, 1812-13, _Rep. Com._, ii, p. 94.

London was not the only place which could boast a Penny Post in 1793.
The system was extended in that year to Edinburgh, Manchester, Bristol,
and Birmingham, while Dublin had been so favoured since 1773. It is
almost unnecessary to add that in all these places, it was a pronounced
success from a financial and social point of view.[206]

[206] Joyce, pp. 196, 300.

In 1801 the London Penny Post which had lasted for 120 years was
practically swept out of existence, for 2_d._ was then charged where a
penny had formerly been the rate. An exception was made in the case of
letters passing first by the General Post, for on these the old rate
still held.[207] Four years later, the limits of the Twopenny Post, as
it was called, were restricted to the General Post Delivery and 3_d._
was charged for letters crossing the bounds of this delivery. This was
called the Threepenny Post.[208] The effect of the increased rates and
the growth of population in the metropolis is shown by the increase in
gross receipts, which rose from £11,768 in 1703 to £96,089 in 1816 and
to £105,052 in 1823. During the same period, the number of letter
carriers was increased from 181 to 235, and nineteen officials were
added to the establishment.[209]

[207] 41 Geo. III, c. 7.

[208] 45 Geo. III, c. 11.

[209] _Acc. & P._, 1817, pp. 15, 16; _Rep. Commrs._, 1829, xi, pp. 10,
136.

Although the General, the Twopenny, and the Threepenny Posts, were all
under one management, no attempt was made to harmonize their methods of
procedure until 1831. Letters for the General Post were often entrusted
to the Twopenny Post but the receiving-houses of both Posts were
frequently established in the same street and close together. The
General Post had seventy receiving-houses in the city, the Twopenny Post
209, the Threepenny Post 200 more in the suburbs and adjoining country.
In addition there were 110 "bellmen" who collected letters from door to
door, ringing their bells as they went. They charged one penny for each
letter collected.[210] The General Post receiving-houses closed at 7
P.M., the Twopenny receiving-houses at 8 P.M., but letters might be
posted at the Charing Cross Office until 8.30 and at the General Office
until 9 P.M.[211] At the beginning of the nineteenth century, there were
three deliveries, by the Inland, Foreign, and Twopenny Post carriers.
The limits of the Inland Post Delivery were very irregular and left out
a large part of the populous suburbs. The Foreign Post Delivery was also
very irregular and still more restricted in area. The Twopenny Post
Delivery included London, Westminster, Southwark and their suburbs, and
was the most extensive. Letters were delivered by the Threepenny Post
within an irregular area bounded on the inside by the Twopenny Delivery
and extending nearly twelve miles from the General Post Office. The
separate delivery of foreign letters was abolished first and all foreign
letters were delivered by the General Post carriers, and in 1831 the
deliveries of the General and Twopenny Posts were made co-extensive,
extending to a distance of three miles from the General Office at St.
Martin's-le-Grand. Three years later the Twopenny Post building in
Gerard Street was given up and all Twopenny Post letters henceforth were
sent to the General Post Office building to be sorted.[212]

[210] _Rep. Commrs._, 1837, xxxiv, 9th rep., app., no. 1; _ibid._, 1829,
xi, pp. 310-311; _London Times_, 1825, Dec. 6, p. 2.

[211] London _Times_, 1835, Jan. 24, p. 3.

[212] _Rep. Commrs._, 1837, xxxiv, 9th rep., app., nos. 30, 63, 64.

The regular collections of Twopenny Post letters were made at 8 A.M., 10
A.M., 12 M. and 2, 5 and 8 P.M. Deliveries were made at the same hours
in the morning, at noon, and at 2, 4 and 7 o'clock in the afternoon. A
letter posted at or before 8 A.M. was sent for delivery at 10 A.M. and
so on. The letters collected were taken to the General Office by
horsemen to be sorted. Two sets of men were employed, one collecting
while the other delivered.[213] There was an additional "early delivery"
as it was called. The carriers on the way to their own "walks"
delivered letters to subscribers, who paid 5_s._ a quarter for the
accommodation thus afforded. The postage for letters so delivered was
not paid until the carriers called again on their regular delivery.[214]
In 1837 the times of the regular deliveries were changed to every second
hour from 8 A.M. to 8 P.M. and collections were made at the same
hours.[215] In the Threepenny Post limits, there were on an average
three deliveries a day but those towns which had a General Post delivery
received only two a day from the Threepenny Post. Letters were sent by
horsemen or mail carts for delivery. The same receiving-houses were used
for General and Threepenny Post letters.[216]

[213] _Ibid._, 1837, xxxiv, 9th rep., app., no. 1; London _Times_, 1835,
Jan. 24, p. 3.

[214] _Rep. Commrs._, 1829, xi, p. 50; _Parl. Deb._, 1st ser., xxxi,
col. 943; _Acc. & P._, 1826-27, xx, p. 397.

[215] _Ibid._, 1837-38, xlv, 265, p. 6.

[216] _Rep. Commrs._, 1837, xxxiv, 9th rep., app., no. 1.

The Dublin Penny Post was remodelled in 1810. The deliveries, which had
been only two a day, were increased to four and then to six, additional
letter carriers were appointed and receiving-houses established. The
penny delivery extended to four miles around the city. There was a 2_d._
rate for letters beyond the four mile radius.[217] Previous to 1835, the
boundary of the Edinburgh Penny Post was a circle with a radius of 1-3/8
miles from the Register Office. Some Scotch mathematician must have been
consulted when in 1835 the boundary was made an ellipse with its foci a
furlong apart, the distance from each focus to the most remote part of
the circumference being 1-5/16 miles. Outside this ellipse, there was a
2_d._ rate. There had been three deliveries a day, raised in 1838 to
five.[218]

[217] _Ibid._, 1829, xii, p. 73; 7 Wm. IV, and 1 Vict., c. 34.

[218] _Rep. Com._, 1837-38, xx, 2d rep., app. E, no. 31.

Before 1837 Penny Posts had also been established in Newcastle and
Glasgow.[219]

[219] _Rep. Commrs._, 1837, xxxiv, 9th rep., app., no. 14.

Since nearly all the mail coaches left London at 8 o'clock in the
evening, most of the letters arriving there in the morning for outside
places were not despatched until the same evening. It was pointed out by
the commissioners in the Report of 1837 that a large proportion of these
letters might be forwarded by the post coaches.[220] If they arrived on
Saturday morning they were not forwarded until Monday evening since
Sunday was not a mail day and mail coaches arriving on Sunday were
detained in the outskirts of the city.[221] The rumour that the Post
Office was considering the expedience of a Sunday Post brought forth a
flood of protests. Bankers, merchants, vestries, and religious societies
were represented by delegations and petitions to the Postmaster-General
and the House of Commons, praying that no change might be made.[222]
Sixteen hundred solicitors joined in the opposition. Lord Melbourne
informed the Bishop of London that the subject was not under
consideration, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer told Sir Robert
Inglis that the Government had no intention of opening the Post Office
on Sunday.[223] Derby had a Sunday delivery in 1839, but, on their own
request, many of the inhabitants were excluded from it.[224]

[220] _Ibid._, 1837, xxxiv, 7th rep., p. 7, and app., nos. 46, 47, 48.

[221] _Acc. & P._, 1837, l. 316.

[222] _Ibid._, 1837, xlvi, 176.

[223] _Parl. Deb._, 1st ser., xlvi, coll. 206, 332.

[224] London _Times_, 1839, June 1, p. 7.

For over forty years all the mail-coaches in England were provided by
one man, with whom a new contract was made every seven years. Before
1797 a penny a mile was paid each way but on the imposition of a tax on
carriages, the rate was raised to 1-1/2_d._, then to 1-3/4_d._, and
later to 2-1/8_d._ a mile. One contractor supplied the coaches, others
provided horses and drivers, but the guards were hired directly by the
Post Office. In Scotland and Ireland, coaches, horses, and drivers were
all provided by the same men. The number of miles a day covered by the
mail-coaches in 1827 was 7862 and the mileage allowance for that year
was £46,900. When the mails were exceptionally heavy, mail carts were
used, which cost somewhat more than the coaches, since they carried no
passengers. In 1836 the contract for the supply of coaches was thrown
open to public competition. By this move, the expenses dropped from
£61,009 a year to £53,191 although the total distance travelled per day
increased from 13,148 to 14,482 miles.[225] The mail-coaches were at a
disadvantage in competing with the post-coaches, since the former were
allowed to carry no more than four inside and two outside passengers
nor were they allowed to carry any luggage on the roof.[226] On the
other hand the mail-coaches in England paid no tolls until 1837.[227]
The 268 mail guards of the British coaches received £7577 in salaries in
1837, paid directly by the Post Office. Seven inspectors were also
employed at a fixed yearly salary and 15_s._ a day when travelling. They
superintended the coachmen and guards, investigated complaints, delays,
and accidents, and made preliminary agreements in contracting for
coaches.[228] The majority of the Irish coaches had paid tolls ever
since they had been introduced. Generally they were paid by the Post
Office at stated intervals. The total distance travelled by mail-coaches
in Ireland in 1829 was 2160 miles each day, by mail-carts 2533 miles.
The number of guards employed was eighty-five, receiving £2935 a year.
The Irish coaches were allowed to carry four outside passengers.[229]

[225] _Parl. Papers_, 1811, _Rep. Com._, p. 9; _Rep. Commrs._, 1837,
xxxiv, 7th rep., apps. 5, 7, 26, p. 71; London _Times_, 1832, Apr. 27,
p. 2; _Acc. & P._, 1837-38, xlv, 265, p. 3: 265, p. 4; _Rep. Commrs._,
1829, xi, p. 294.

[226] _Parl. Papers_, 1811, _Rep. Com._, pp. 10, 32, 50, 51.

[227] _Ibid._, 1811, _Rep. Com._, p. 1; _Parl. Deb._, 1st ser., xix,
col. 683; Wm. IV and I Vict., c. 33.

[228] _Rep. Commrs._, 1829, xi, p. 34; _ibid._, 1837, xxxiv, 7th rep.,
app., nos. 30, 31.

[229] _Parl. Papers_, 1811, _Rep. Com._, p. 1; 43 Geo. III, c. 28; _Rep.
Com._, 1831-32, xvii, pp. 336, 338, 339; _Rep. Commrs._, 1837, xxxiv,
7th rep., app., no. 31.


The first railway in England over which mails were carried was operated
between Manchester and Liverpool. In 1838 the Government paid the Grand
Junction Railway 5-7/8_d._ a single mile for the conveyance of its
mails. At the same time the average rate by the coaches was 2-1/8_d._ a
single mile. On the London and Birmingham Railway when a special Post
Office carriage was used, 7-1/2_d._ was paid. When the ordinary
mail-coach was carried on trucks the rate was 4-1/4_d._ When a regular
railway carriage was used, the rate was 2-1/2_d._ a mile for one third
of a carriage.[230] For the year ending 5th January, 1839, the Post
Office paid £105,107 for the conveyance of mails by coaches and £9883 to
the railways. For the next official year, the figures had risen to
£109,246 and £39,724.[231]

[230] _Ibid._, 1837, xxxiv, 7th rep., app., nos. 12, 13. The first day
coach left London in 1837, connecting at Birmingham with the railway to
Hartford, Cheshire. (London _Times_, 1837, Sept. 5, p. 4; _Rep. Com._,
1837-38, xx, pts. 1 and 2, 2d rep., app. E, No. 48; pt. 1, p. 469, no.
17.)

[231] _Acc. & P._, 1841, xxvi, 221, no. 5.

The increased business of the Post Office made necessary a corresponding
increase in the employees and better arrangements for dealing with the
reception and despatch of letters. The number of persons employed in the
General Office in 1804 was 486. In 1814 there were 576. There were 563
postmasters in England and over 3000 persons officially engaged in the
receipt and delivery of letters. Additional offices had also been
established. In 1813 a Returned Letter Office was organized for the
purpose of returning undelivered letters to the writers and collecting
the postage due. Previous to 1813, the practice had been to return only
such letters as appeared to contain money or were supposed to be
important enough to escape destruction. A Franking Department was
organized to inspect such letters as were sent free. The increased use
of private ships for conveying letters led to the establishment of a
Ship Letter Office.[232]

[232] _Parl. Papers_, 1813-14, _Rep. Com._, p. 35; _Acc. & P._, 1817,
pp. 4-16; _Rep. Commrs._, 1829, xi, p. 137.

The old Post Office building in Lombard Street was quite too small to
provide for the new offices and employees. The Inland Department
contained only 3140 superficial feet, half of which was occupied with
sorting tables, leaving only 1500 feet for 130 persons. In the Foreign
Department with thirty-five men, there were only 250 superficial feet
where they must perform their duties. The accommodations for receiving
letters were so inadequate that when a foreign mail was being made up,
the windows were crowded with an impatient and seething mob waiting for
their turn to post their letters. The condition of the Penny Post
Department was no better. In 1814 a committee of the House of Commons
reported that a new General Post Office building was absolutely
necessary. Objections were raised on account of the necessary expenses
involved and it was not until 1829 that the new Post Office in St.
Martin's-le-Grand was formally opened.[233]

[233] _Parl. Papers_, 1813-14, _Rep. Com._, pp. 11-16.

In 1784 Ireland was given much larger political powers than she had
previously enjoyed, and her Parliament was freed from the direct
tutelage of the English Privy Council. At the same time greater latitude
in postal matters was also granted. An Irish Postmaster-General was
appointed to reside in Dublin and to collect the postage on all letters
which did not pass beyond Ireland. The postage between the two countries
was to be collected on delivery, and then to be divided between the two
according to the distance travelled in each. All net receipts from the
Irish Office were ordered to be transmitted to London. The sailing
packets remained in the charge of the English Postmasters-General, but
£4000 a year was paid to the Irish Office for this privilege.[234]

[234] 24 Geo. III, c. 6.

After the separation of the Irish from the English Post Office,
different postage rates had been established for the two countries. The
division of authority thus established had caused endless difficulties.
Complaints about the delay or loss of letters crossing the Channel at
Kingstown, Howth, and Waterford were referred from one office to the
other. The Commissioners who inquired into the condition of the Dublin
Office found things in a deplorable condition. There were nearly as many
postal officials employed in Dublin as in London, although the number of
letters handled was not one fourth so great. In the secretary's office,
employing six persons, the fees amounted to £2648 a year, largely on
English and Irish newspapers. In the whole Dublin establishment they
averaged over £15,000 a year. The contracts for the supply and horsing
of the mail-coaches were supposed to be public but they were awarded by
favour. The Postmasters-General did not attend to business and were very
jealous of each other. The Commissioners recommended the amalgamation of
the English and Irish offices, and this was accomplished in 1831, the
Irish postage rates having been altered four years earlier to coincide
with the English rates.[235]

[235] _Rep. Commrs._, 1829, xii, 253, pp. 7, 8, 15-84; _ibid._, 1837,
7th rep., app. nos. 22, 68; 7 and 8 Geo. IV, c. 21.

Ireland was divided into eight postal divisions, according to the routes
of the mail-coaches. Mails left Dublin at 7 A.M. with an additional mail
for Cork at noon. They arrived in Dublin between 6 and 7 A.M. The most
important postal centres in addition to Dublin were Belfast, Cork,
Limerick, and the packet stations at Waterford and Donaghadee. The total
number of post towns in Ireland was 414. At the same time there were in
Great Britain 546 post towns.[236] A new post office building was
completed in Dublin in 1821 at a cost of £107,000.[237]

[236] _Rep. Commrs._, 1829, xii, 253, pp. 7, 8; 1831-32, xvii, p. 325.

[237] 48 Geo. III, c. 48; _Parl. Papers_, 1821, xix, 286.

The Scotch Post Office had been amalgamated with the English Office in
1711, and Scotland was constituted one of the eighteen postal divisions
of Great Britain. The Scotch rates had been the same as the English
rates since that date, although an additional half-penny was paid on
Scotch letters to meet mail-coach tolls. In 1821 there were only eight
towns for which mails were made up. At the same time that a new building
for the use of the Post Office was being erected in Dublin, a contract
was signed for a new General Office building for Edinburgh to cost
£14,000.[238]

[238] _Rep. Commrs._, 1829, xii, 353, p. 8; _Parl. Papers_, 1821, xxi,
423.

The rates established by the act of 1765 were still unchanged for the
colonial possessions of the United Kingdom. The American dominions had
been sadly depleted by the Revolutionary War but the postage revenue
from the loyal remnants had steadily increased. In 1838 the amount of
postage charged upon the colonial postmasters in America amounted to
£79,000. At one time Jamaica had been the most important American colony
from a postal point of view. Canada now took the lead, followed in order
of importance by Jamaica, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick. In 1834 it was
provided that, as soon as the North American Provinces passed postal
acts of their own and these acts were approved by the King, the colonial
rates of 1765 should cease and the net postal revenue of the North
American Provinces should be retained by them.[239]

[239] _Rep. Com._, 1837-38, xx, pts. 1 and 2, 2d rep., app. E, no. 42; 4
and 5 Wm. IV, c. 7.

The British Post Office was now to experience the most far reaching and
vital change since 1635. Sir Rowland Hill was the representative of the
movement, aided by Mr. Wallace, who, as a member of Parliament, was able
to exercise an important effect upon the proposed reform. The history of
the adoption of penny postage has been so well told by Hill himself that
only a bare story of its acceptance by Parliament is necessary here. A
committee was appointed to report upon the condition of the Post Office,
the attitude of postal officials and of the public towards the proposed
change, its effect upon the revenue, and finally to give their own
opinion. This committee examined the Postmaster-General,[240] the
Secretaries and Solicitors of the London, Dublin, and Edinburgh offices,
other officials in the Post Office, the Chairman, Secretary, and
Solicitor of the Board of Stamps and Taxes, Rowland Hill and
eighty-three other witnesses from different classes of people, and
obtained many reports from the Post Office. Hill presented his plan to
the Committee as follows:--

That inland letters should pay postage according to weight at the rate
of one penny for each half ounce.[241]

Such postage should be paid in advance by means of stamped papers or
covers.[242]

An option might be allowed for a time to pay a penny in advance or 2d.
on delivery.[243]

Day mails should be established on the important lines of
communication.[244]

[240] Since 1823 there had been only one Postmaster-General, as the dual
system was abolished in that year.

[241] _Rep. Com._, 1837-38, xx, pt. 1, 3d rep., 708, p. 3.

[242] _Ibid._, 1837-38, xx, pt. 1, p. 13; xx, questions 113, 128, 129,
548.

[243] _Ibid._, 1837-38, xx, pt. 1, p. 13; _ibid._, xx, qs. 113, 128,
129, 548.

[244] _Ibid._, 1837-38, xx, qs. 750-59, 890-92.

There should be a uniform rate of postage because the cost of
distributing letters consisted chiefly in the expenses for collecting
and delivering them.[245] The plan then in operation for letters not
exceeding one ounce in weight was to charge according to the number of
enclosures. This plan was uncertain because the number could not always
be ascertained, necessitated a close examination, and was evaded by
writing several letters on one sheet.[246]

[245] _Ibid._, 1837-38, xx, qs. 114, 11092-97; pt. 1, 3d rep., 708, p.
5; pts. 1 and 2, 2d rep., app. E, no. 58.

[246] _Ibid._, 1837-38, xx, qs. 3116, 4599, 8137, 9770; 3d rep., p. 44.

Payment on delivery made it necessary to keep two separate accounts
against each postmaster, one for unpaid letters posted in London, and
one for paid letters posted in the country. The postmasters had also to
keep accounts against each other. Payment in advance, if made
compulsory, would do away with half of these accounts and the use of
stamped covers or paper would do away with the other half.[247] In some
small places where the penny charge would not cover the cost of
delivery, Hill proposed that a small additional charge be made, either
in advance or on delivery, but he withdrew this suggestion later.[248]

[247] _Ibid._, 1837-38, xx, 3d rep., pp. 35, 38; qs. 113, 620, 621.

[248] _Ibid._, 1837-38, xx, pt. 1, pp. 48, 59, 424; pts. 1 and 2, 1st
rep., no. 25, p. 508.

The witnesses summoned to give their evidence before the committee
pointed out that a multitude of business transactions were not carried
on at all, or were carried on clandestinely, or were hampered by the
high postage rates. Bills for small amounts were not drawn,[249]
commercial travellers did not write until several orders could be sent
on one sheet of paper,[250] samples were not sent by post,[251]
communication between banks and their branches was restricted,[252]
statistical information was denied,[253] social correspondence
restricted especially among the poor,[254] working men were ignorant of
the rates of wages in other parts of the country,[255] and the high
postage was a bad means of raising revenue.[256] In order to estimate
the probable revenue after the change, it was necessary to know the
number of letters carried. Hill had come to the conclusion that the
total number was about 80,000,000 a year. The Secretary, Maberley,
considered that there were about 58,000,000. A return was called for by
the committee and Hill's estimate proved to be nearly correct.[257]

[249] _Rep. Com._, 1837-38, xx, qs. 6682, 7093.

[250] _Ibid._, q. 7668.

[251] _Ibid._, qs. 7671, 7721.

[252] _Ibid._, q. 10,059.

[253] _Ibid._, qs. 6951, 10,305.

[254] _Ibid._, qs. 2923, 5522-54, 5443-54, 6703, 7961.

[255] _Ibid._, qs. 7991, 9840-42.

[256] _Ibid._, qs. 8126, 8130 (Lord Ashburton).

[257] _Ibid._, pt. 1, pp. 9, 434; _ibid._, pt. 2, pp. 59, 658; app., p.
58; _ibid._, pts. 1 and 2, 3d rep., p. 19.

The committee reported that the Post Office "instead of being viewed as
an institution of ready and universal access, distributing equally to
all and with an open hand the blessings of commerce and civilization, is
regarded as an establishment too expensive to be made use of" (by large
classes of the community) "and as one with the employment of which they
endeavour to dispense by every means in their power." They were on less
solid ground when they proceeded to state that the idea of obtaining
revenue had been until lately only a minor consideration and that the
Post Office had primarily been established for the benefit of trade and
commerce.[258] Finally Hill's plan was approved, though only by the
casting vote of the chairman, Mr. Wallace.

[258] _Ibid._, 1837-38, xx, pt. 1, 3d rep., p. 10.

The House of Commons received the proposed change with favour. Over 300
petitions with 38,000 signatures were presented praying for its
adoption. The Duke of Richmond, a former Postmaster-General, thought
that it would be beneficial and that it was the only means of stopping
the illegal conveyance of letters.[259] Sir Robert Peel was of the
opinion that, with the prevailing deficits, it was an unfortunate
departure, and he feared that prepaid letters would not be
delivered.[260] But the Treasury was given power to lower rates and in
1840 a treasury warrant was issued, imposing postage rates between the
colonies and between foreign countries through Great Britain according
to weight and distance.[261] Stamped covers were issued for the use of
members of Parliament, and in 1840 an act was passed establishing penny
postage for the United Kingdom, permitting the use of stamped paper or
covers, and imposing rates on foreign and colonial letters according to
weight and distance conveyed.[262]

[259] _Rep. Com._, 1837-38, xx, 2d rep., app., p. 3; _Parl. Deb._, 3d
series, xlvii, col. 1231.

[260] _Ibid._, 3d series, xlvii, coll. 278-84, 293.

[261] _Acc. & P._, 1841, xxvi, p. 53; 1839, xlvi, p. 568.

[262] _Parl. Deb._, 3d series, li, col. 227; 3 and 4 Vict., c. 96.

The complete change thus produced in the policy of the Post Office is
vividly set forth by the old Secretary, Sir Francis Freeling. "Cheap
postage"--he writes, "What is this men are talking about? Can it be that
all my life I have been in error? If I, then others--others whose
behests I have been bound to obey. To make the Post Office revenue as
productive as possible was long ago impressed upon me by successive
ministers as a duty which I was under a solemn obligation to discharge.
And not only long ago. Is it not within the last six months that the
present Chancellor of the Exchequer[263] has charged me not to let the
present revenue go down? What! You, Freeling, brought up and educated as
you have been, are you going to lend yourself to these extravagant
schemes? You with your four-horse mail coaches too! Where else in the
world does the merchant or the manufacturer have the materials of his
trade carried for him gratuitously or at so low a rate as to leave no
margin of profit?"[264]

[263] The Rt. Hon. Thomas Spring Rice.

[264] Joyce, pp. 427-28.




CHAPTER IV

THE POSTAL ESTABLISHMENT AN INSTRUMENT OF POPULAR COMMUNICATION


With the inauguration of inland penny postage the Postal Establishment
ceased to exist primarily as a tax-collecting agency, and, although
maintained as a whole upon a paying basis, certain of its recent
experiments have, from a financial point of view, been far from
successful. On the other hand, the simultaneous unification and
reduction of rates, together with various other changes which have been
adopted since 1840, have resulted in lessening appreciably the expenses
of management.

The postage on inland letters was reduced in 1865, 1871, 1884, and again
in 1897. In 1839, the last year of high postal rates, the total number
of letters, including franks, delivered in the United Kingdom, was
somewhat in excess of eighty-two millions. This number was rather more
than doubled in the following year. During the ensuing ten years the
figures were again doubled, the total in 1850 being 347 millions. For
the five-year period 1866-70, following the reduction in postage of
1865, the average yearly number delivered was 800 millions. In 1875 this
increased to a little over 1000 millions; in the postal year 1880-81 to
1176 millions, in 1890-91 to 1705 millions, and in 1900-01 to 2323
millions.[265] So far as colonial letters were concerned, a marked
reduction in rates was granted soon after inland penny postage was
obtained, the reduction being extended to the larger part of the
Empire.[266] Further reductions followed until, in 1898, a penny half
ounce rate was established for most of the colonies, and all were
included in 1905. As on a previous occasion, the United States was the
first foreign country with which an agreement was made to adopt this low
rate, and its advantages have been enhanced still further by an
increase in the initial weight from half an ounce to an ounce. During
the sixties, treaties were entered into with the most important European
countries for lower postage rates, and, in 1874, at the first meeting of
the Postal Union, a uniform rate for prepaid letters of 2-1/2_d._ a half
ounce was agreed to. Reductions also followed for other postal matter.
In 1891 a universal foreign letter rate of 2-1/2_d._ was announced so
far as the United Kingdom was concerned, with the exception of those
countries where a lower rate already prevailed, and a further reduction
followed in 1907 by increasing the initial weight from half an ounce to
an ounce in the case of all foreign and colonial letters, the charge on
foreign letters for each unit after the first being reduced at the same
time from 2-1/2_d._ to 1-1/2_d._

[265] _Rep. P. G._, 1855, p. 65; 1881, app., p. 11; 1891, app., p. 16;
1901, app., p. 25.

[266] Colonial legislatures were given the power in 1849 to establish
posts of their own and to fix the inland postal rates (12 and 13 Vict.,
c. 26).

After 1840 the registration fee was reduced by a series of gradations
from 1_s._ to 2_d._, and the compulsory registration of all letters
containing coin was enforced. In 1891 the separate system of insurance
was abolished, and registration was extended for the first time to
inland parcels. The limit of compensation was increased at the same time
to £25 and in the following year to £50 by the payment of 2_d._ for the
first £5 and an additional penny for each additional £5 of
insurance.[267] Seven years later the amount of compensation payable was
increased to £120 and the fee payable was lowered for all sums over £15.
Arrangements were also made by which letters addressed to certain
colonies and foreign countries might be insured to the same maximum
amount.[268] The limit of compensation is now £400 for inland registered
correspondence as well as for correspondence to many foreign countries
and a few of the colonies.

[267] _Rep. P. G._, 1892, p. 7.

[268] _Ibid._, 1899, pp. 4, 6-7.

Among other postal reforms dear to Hill's heart had been the compulsory
payment of postage by means of stamps. He pointed out that this would
greatly simplify the keeping of accounts by the department and increase
the net revenue. The proposition was, however, too unpopular to secure
approval. Nevertheless in 1847 the Postmaster-General secured
parliamentary authority to abolish or restrict payment in money and
require stamps to be used, but the experiment proved so unpopular that
it was eventually abandoned.[269] The use of perforated stamps, an
invention of Mr. Archer, was in 1852 recommended by a committee
appointed to report on the question.[270] Finally, in 1904, the law
forbidding the use of embossed or impressed stamps cut out of envelopes,
postcards, letter cards, wrappers, and telegraph forms was
repealed.[271]

[269] 10 and 11 Vict., c. 85; _Rep. Com._, 1852, xv, 386, p. 150; _Rep.
P. G._, 1859, p. 25.

[270] _Rep. Com._, 1852, xv, 386, pp. iii-iv.

[271] 4 Edw. VII, c. 14.

From 1808 to 1840 the rural districts as a rule obtained their postal
matter by a special payment on their part to messengers for its
conveyance from the nearest town, sometimes aided by a bonus from the
revenue, or by means of the "fifth-clause" posts,[272] or by the penny
posts which were constantly increasing in number and were occasionally
established under guarantee. In 1838 there were fifty-two "fifth-clause"
posts in England and Wales, and 1922 villages in the United Kingdom were
served by penny posts. In 1843 the government of Sir Robert Peel laid
down the following principle: "All places the letters for which exceed
one hundred per week should be entitled to a receiving office and a free
delivery of letters." A "delivery" here meant a daily delivery, and the
boundary of the free delivery was to be determined by the
Postmaster-General. The principle enunciated above was followed until
1850, and during that period the increase in the number of free and
guaranteed rural deliveries was very great. At the close of this period
it was decided that in future the determining rule should be based upon
the probability of financial success. A post was held to pay its way
whenever its cost was covered by a halfpenny on each letter delivered,
but, since it was held that the number of letters would be doubled by
free delivery, double the number arriving before its establishment might
be assumed to arrive afterward. The post might be bi-weekly, tri-weekly,
or weekly. This rule was to a certain extent made retroactive, but no
post established under the rule of 1843 was stopped so long as the cost
was covered by calculating delivered letters at a penny each. It was
decided in 1853 that a post less frequent than once a day might be
increased in frequency whenever the cost would be covered by a revenue
estimated on the basis of three farthings for each letter, and in
treating an application for a second daily post this amount was to be
reduced to one farthing. The experiment was tried of delivering letters
at every house in a few selected places but did not prove a success. It
was stated that at the end of this revision, 93 per cent of all postal
packets were delivered. In 1860 the rule was laid down that new posts
should be set up only when the cost would be covered by half a penny on
each letter actually arriving, the old rule having been found to be too
liberal. Two years later it was stated by the Post Office that only 6
per cent of the total postal packages were undelivered. In 1882 the
question of extending the rural posts was considered by Mr. Fawcett, the
then Postmaster-General, who decided that credit should be given for
revenue by increasing the halfpenny to 6/10_d._ for each letter, and in
the next year the existing rule as to a second daily delivery was made
more liberal. In 1890, for places hitherto unserved, the rate per letter
for estimating revenue was increased to three farthings, for each parcel
the rate was fixed at 1-1/2_d._, and in the following year rural
sanitary authorities in England and Wales were authorized to guarantee
posts. In Scotland the district committee or the county council, where
the counties were not divided, was given the same power in 1892. In the
same year the rule was laid down that a second service in the day might
be given provided that its cost did not exceed half a penny a letter and
a penny a parcel and in addition that the total cost of night and day
mail services should not exceed the revenue from the whole
correspondence at half a penny per letter and a penny per parcel. It was
estimated in 1892 that about thirty-two and a half millions of letters
were undelivered, but the work of extending the rural posts went on
gradually until in 1897 it was announced that provision would be made as
soon as possible for delivery to every house in the United Kingdom. In
1900 the Postmaster-General was able to report that house to house
delivery had been completed in England and almost completed in Scotland
and Ireland.[273]

[272] Established by agreements between the Postmaster-General and the
inhabitants of small towns and villages.

[273] _Rep. P. G._, 1898, pp. 32-39; 1860, pp. 9 f.; 1864, p. 15.

In addition to the ordinary delivery at regular intervals there was a
growing demand for a more rapid service on extraordinary occasions as
well as a desire for a special messenger service when the use of the
Post Office as a medium meant an undesirable loss of time. In 1886 a
private company started to supply messengers for postal services. After
some trouble with the Post Office, a licence was granted them in 1891 in
return for which they agreed to pay a percentage of their gross receipts
to the department and observe certain conditions with reference to the
delivery of letters.[274] An express delivery service was also
established by the Post Office, the fee in addition to the ordinary
postage being 2_d._ for the first mile, 3_d._ for the second and beyond
that, and where no public conveyances existed, 1_s._ a mile or actual
cab-fare. In the case of letters delivered locally the ordinary postage
was abrogated soon after and a charge of 1-1/2_d._ per pound for parcels
exceeding one pound in weight was imposed, but this charge was later
lowered to a penny per pound with a maximum payment of 1_s._ and the
maximum limit of weight was increased from 15 to 20 pounds where the
messenger could travel by public conveyance. The initial charge for the
first mile of 2_d._, and 3_d._ for each succeeding mile, for each parcel
was made a uniform charge of 3_d._ per mile, and the fixed charge of
2_d._ for each parcel beyond the first was reduced to a penny where
several packets were tendered by the same sender for delivery by the
same messenger. In the case of several packages delivered at the same
address the charge was lowered to 3_d._ plus an additional penny for
every ten packages or part thereof, later changed to a weight fee of
3_d._ on each packet or bundle of packets weighing more than one
pound.[275] Rural postmen were also allowed to receive letters and
parcels from the public at any point in their walks and deliver them
without passing them through a post office, having first canceled the
stamps.[276] An agreement was also made with the railways to carry
single letters left in the booking office for 2_d._ each. These letters
may be taken to the booking office by messenger and delivered by a
messenger at the end of their journey or posted there.[277] The express
delivery service was also extended to such foreign countries as would
agree to it, including nearly all of Western Europe, part of South
America, and the far East. In every case the primary fee in England is
_3d._, the foreign charges varying with local conditions. Express
letters from abroad are delivered free within one mile from the Post
Office. Beyond that the distance charge is 3_d._ a mile for one parcel,
with a penny for each additional parcel delivered to the same person.
The Postmaster-General reported that the establishment of this service
was not only much appreciated by the people, but was self-supporting and
even profitable to the state. During the ten year period ending March
31, 1901, the number of express delivery services in the United Kingdom
increased from 108,000 to 804,000.[278]

[274] Their extended licence will expire in 1922 (_Rep. P. G._, 1901, p.
2).

[275] _Parl. Deb._, 3d series, cccli, col. 1751; _Rep. P. G._, 1901, p.
2; 1892, p. 7; 1891, pp. 4 f.; 1893, p. 7; 1894, p. 6; 1899, pp. 2, 3.

[276] _Ibid._, 1894, p. 5.

[277] _Ibid._, 1891, p. 5.

[278] _Rep. P. G._, 1893, p. 10; 1897, p. 3; 1901, app., p. 28.

The impressed stamp to which newspapers were subject until 1855 enabled
them to pass free by post. After this stamp ceased to be compulsory,
newspapers which bore it passed free from other postage until 1870--when
the halfpenny rate was established--and were known as "free"[279] as
distinguished from "chargeable" newspapers. Of the former there were
carried by post in 1856 over 53 millions, of the latter, including book
packets, 20 millions. In 1875 the number of newspapers delivered in the
United Kingdom had increased to 121 millions. For the five year period
ending March 31, 1881, the average yearly number had increased to a
little over 129 millions, for the next five years to something over 142
millions. During the period ending March 31, 1891, they had increased to
155 millions, there being an actual decrease in one year. In the period
following there was an average yearly increase of only three millions
and the ensuing five years ending March 31, 1901, showed a decrease of
about one million.[280]

[279] Free newspapers also included those coming from abroad on which no
charge was made in the United Kingdom.

[280] _Rep. P. G._, 1896, p. 2; 1859, pp. 28 f.; 1881, app., p. 12;
1891, app., p. 17; 1901, app., p. 27.

The book post, instituted in 1848, had its rates reduced in 1855 and
again in 1870 to a halfpenny for the initial two ounces and an
additional 1/2_d._ for each succeeding two ounces. In 1892 its scope was
greatly enlarged and the expression Halfpenny Post, which is now its
official name, better illustrates its cosmopolitan character for it now
includes all printed documents of a conventional, formal, or impersonal
character. From 1872 to 1875 the number of articles carried by the
Halfpenny or Book Post increased from 114 millions to 158 millions. The
yearly average during the next five years was 204 millions; during the
following five, 305 millions and for the five year period ending March
31, 1891, they had increased to 418 millions. During the next five years
there was a still greater average increase to 596 millions and the
average for the postal year ending in March, 1901, was 732
millions.[281] The rates for the Inland Pattern and Sample Post,
established in 1863, were assimilated with those of the Book Post in
1870. It was abolished or rather incorporated with the Letter Post in
the following year but was reëstablished in 1887, the rates being a
penny for the first four ounces and 1/2_d._ for each succeeding two
ounces, but, when the Jubilee letter rates were published, it lost its
_raison d'être_ and was abolished for inland purposes.[282]

[281] _Rep. P. G._, 1896, p. 2; 1903, p. 5; 1904, p. 5; 1881, app., p.
12; 1891, app., p. 17; 1901, app., p. 27.

[282] _Ibid._, 1864, p. 29; 1896, p. 2; _Acct. & P._, 1871, xxxvii (pp.
1-2).

Post cards were introduced in 1870, being carried for 1/2_d._ each
prepaid, 2_d._ when payment was made on delivery.[283] In addition to
the stamp a charge was made to cover the cost of the material in the
card itself. Somewhat later reply post cards were issued for the inland
service and arrangements were made for the use of international reply
post cards. In 1894, private post cards, to which a halfpenny stamp was
affixed, were allowed to pass by post. The resulting enormous
growth[284] in their number showed that the privilege was appreciated.
In less than five years they were estimated to form 5 per cent of the
total number passing through the post.[285] Shortly after, the
prohibition of any writing save the address on the face of a post card
was withdrawn and it was provided that the address side of all mail
matter might be used for purposes of correspondence provided that it did
not obscure the address, encroach upon the stamp, or prove in any way
inconvenient. Formerly, so far as mail matter other than post cards was
concerned, the right half of the face side was reserved for the
address.[286] During the four five-year periods from 1881 to the year
ending 31st March, 1901, the average numbers of post cards delivered
yearly in the United Kingdom were about 108 millions, 152 millions, 272
millions, and 379 millions.[287]

[283] Charge on unpaid inland post cards reduced to 1_d._ each in 1896.

[284] They increased from 248 millions for the postal year 1893-94 to
312 millions during the ensuing year.

[285] _Rep. P. G._, 1896, p. 2; 1882, p. 4; 1895, p. 18; 1900, p. 1.

[286] _Rep. P. G._, 1897, p. 5.

[287] _Ibid._, 1881, app., p. 12; 1891, app., p. 17; 1901, app., p. 27.

It had not been usual for England to lag behind the continent in the
adoption of new postal ideas. Such was the case, however, with reference
to the adoption of the convenient post card and the no less useful
parcel post. In 1880 the question of the establishment of an
international parcel post was discussed in Paris and an agreement was
reached for the transmission throughout nearly the whole of Europe of
parcels not exceeding three kilogrammes in weight. It was impossible for
Great Britain to sign, as she had no inland parcel post at the time and
found it difficult to establish one as an agreement with the railways
was necessary. A movement was at once begun for one and it was started
three years later. The first despatch of foreign and colonial parcels
took place in 1885, and at the beginning of the following year
arrangements were completed for the exchange of parcels with
twenty-seven different countries, including some of the colonies, India,
and Egypt. An agreement was concluded in 1904 with the United States for
the interchange of parcels by post at the rate of 2_s._ for each and the
maximum is two kilogrammes. These cannot be insured and customs' duties
must be paid by the recipient. The previously existing agreement for
parcels weighing as much as eleven pounds each, providing for insurance
and the prepayment of customs' duties, continues to be carried on by the
American Express Company.[288] Since the establishment of the inland
parcel post the question of collecting the value of the parcels on
delivery, if the sender and the recipient so desire, has often been
raised. Owing to the opposition of retail dealers, it has not yet been
adopted although in operation in India and nearly all important foreign
countries. In the words of the Postmaster-General--"In these
circumstances I am by no means satisfied, so far as my enquiries have
gone, that the apprehensions expressed by retail traders in this country
afford sufficient cause for withholding a convenience from the community
at large."[289]

[288] _Ibid._, 1881, p. 4; 1885, p. 4; 1886, p. 5; 1895, p. 21; 1905, p.
7; _The Economist_, 1881, Nov. 5, p. 1369; 1882, July 29, p. 939.

[289] _Rep. P. G._, 1904, pp. 4-5.

The various changes and improvements adopted by the Post Office since
1840, in addition to those already named, are so numerous that only the
most important can be considered here. Among others the amalgamation of
the London District Post with the General Post in 1854 deserves
attention. In the following year it was ordered that letters should be
sorted in each of the ten postal districts into which London was divided
instead of being taken to the General Office at St. Martin's-le-Grand as
had been customary, thus materially lessening the expenses of sorting
and facilitating their delivery.[290]

[290] _Ibid._, 1855, p. 12; 1856, p. 9; 1860, p. 8.

In 1840 there were but 4028 post offices in the Kingdom; in 1854,
9973.[291] Road letter boxes were introduced in 1858 and the public
receptacles for the receipt of letters numbered 13,370 in 1859 as
compared with 4518 before the establishment of penny postage.[292] In
1829 the total number of persons in England employed in Post Office
business numbered only 5000. Twenty-five years later for the United
Kingdom over 21,000 were so employed; in 1880 over 47,000, of whom,
however, more than 11,000 were engaged wholly in telegraph duties. By
1890 these had increased to nearly 118,000 and by 1900 to 173,000 of
whom 35,000 were females.[293]

[291] _Ibid._, 1855, p. 21.

[292] _Ibid._, 1855-59.

[293] _Rep. Commrs._, 1829, ii, p. 137; _Rep. P. G._, 1855, p. 20; 1881,
app., p. 16; 1891, app., pp. 34-35; 1901, app., p. 50.

The money order business which originated as a private speculation in
1791 was the result of an attempt to check the frequent theft of letters
containing money. In 1838, shortly after its acquisition from the
proprietors, the rates were reduced and the number of money orders
transmitted increased from 188,000 in 1839 to 587,000 in 1840 and to
1,500,000 in 1842. From the latter date until 1879 the increase both in
the number and in the value of money orders transmitted was steady,
aided by the increase in 1862 from £5 to £10 of the maximum
transmissible sum and by the reduction in rates in 1871. The penny rate
of that year for orders to the value of ten shillings was a mistake, for
the actual cost to the state of issuing and paying a money order was
about 3_d._ In order to meet this difficulty a simpler form of order was
issued in 1881 with an initial rate as low as half a penny, the cost of
which to the Post Office was much less than that of the old kind of
order. These postal notes, as they were called, were issued for new
denominations in 1884 and 1905 and the rates on some of them were
diminished. The lowest rate for a money order was for a few months fixed
at 3_d._ but, as this aroused considerable opposition, the present rate
of 2_d._ was soon after substituted, and in 1903 the maximum sum
transmissible was increased to £40 with a few accompanying changes in
rates. In 1889 an opportunity was given in the case of a few towns for
sending telegraphic money orders and during the ensuing three years the
privileged area was greatly extended. In 1897 the expenses were
considerably reduced. In 1858 arrangements were made for the exchange of
money orders with Canada and by 1862 similar agreements were decided
upon with most of the other colonies, but foreign countries were not
included until somewhat later and in 1880 colonial and foreign rates
were harmonized. Rates were reduced in 1883, 1896, and 1903, and in the
last year the inland £40 limit was agreed upon with most foreign
countries and some of the colonies.

Inland money orders which started to decrease in amount in 1878-79
steadily continued their downward course until 1891-92, when there was a
slight recovery for a few years, but since 1903-04 the number has
somewhat diminished. During the postal year ending in March, 1907, the
number of inland money orders transmitted was nearly eleven millions as
compared with nearly nineteen millions for the year ending March, 1879.
This decrease in numbers is largely due to the lowering of the
registration fee for letters, the introduction of postal notes, and the
use of other means for transmitting small sums of money. The total value
of inland money orders also began to diminish in 1879, but began to
recover in 1886, and has since increased quite uniformly, being in 1907
nearly £38,000,000 as compared with £29,000,000 in 1879.[294] The
increase in the number of postal notes has been enormous, although there
was an apparent falling off in the years 1903 and 1904 due to the
increased number of denominations offered for sale. For the first
complete postal year after their authorization the number issued was
nearly four and a half millions of the value of £2,000,000, and for the
postal year 1906-07 the number was 102,000,000 of the value of nearly
£41,000,000.[295] On the other hand, while inland money orders were
decreasing in number, colonial and foreign orders increased in general
both in number and value.[296]

[294] _Rep. P. G._, 1896, pp. 28-32; 1897, pp. 10-11; 1881, app., p. 37;
1891, app., p. 53; 1901, app., p. 69; 1907, p. 74.

[295] _Rep. P. G._, 1891, app., p. 59; 1901, app., p. 77; 1907, p. 84.

[296] _Ibid._, 1891, app., pp. 52-53; 1892, p. 12.

The establishment of Post Office savings banks is naturally closely
connected with the money order department since both of these departures
from a purely postal character were adopted at about the same time, for
much the same reasons, and were opposed on the ground of their
infringement upon the banking prerogative. In 1859 the efforts of Mr.
Sikes of Huddersfield to bring a Post Office Savings Bank into being
were supported by Mr. Gladstone, Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Sir
Rowland Hill, the then Secretary of the Post Office, and two years later
it was established by Parliamentary sanction.[297] The main features of
the system were that deposits could be withdrawn not later than ten days
after demand; that accounts should be kept at London alone, all money
being remitted to and from headquarters; that the total amount deposited
should be handed over to the "Commissioners for the Reduction of the
National Debt" for investment in government securities, and that
interest on complete pounds at the rate of 2-1/2 per cent should be
allowed to depositors. As the interests of the poorer classes were made
the primary object in establishing the banks, deposits were limited in
the case of individuals to £30 a year and £150 in all, later increased
to £50 a year and £200 in all, but Friendly Societies were allowed to
deposit without limit and Provident and Charitable Societies might
deposit within limits of £100 a year and £300 in all or, with the
consent of the Commissioners, beyond these limits.[298]

[297] 24 Vict., c. 14.

[298] _Rep. P. G._, 1897, app., pp. 32-36.

In 1880 the savings banks were made a medium for investing in government
stock at a trifling expense varying from 9_d._ to 2_s._ 3_d._ and with
the privilege of having dividends collected free from further charge.
These special advantages were confined to investments from £10 to £100
in value, the latter being the maximum sum in any one year, and the
investments themselves might be sums especially deposited or transferred
from a depositor's account. In 1887 the minimum amount of stock
purchasable was reduced to 1s., and anyone who had purchased stock
through a savings bank might have it transferred to his own name in the
Bank of England. In 1893 the limits of investment were raised from £100
to £200 in one year, from £300 to £500 in all, and the Post Office was
empowered to invest in stock any accumulations of ordinary deposits
above the limit of £200, unless instructions were given by the depositor
to the contrary.

An act was passed in 1864 enabling the Postmaster-General to insure the
lives of individuals between the ages of fourteen and sixty for amounts
varying from £20 to £100. He might also grant annuities, immediate or
deferred, to any one of ten years of age or upward for sums between £4
and £50. The act came into operation in certain towns of England and
Wales in the following year, and the system remained unaltered until
1884. During this period of nineteen years, 7064 policies of insurance
were effected, representing a yearly average of 372 policies amounting
to an average of £79 each. The contracts for immediate annuities
numbered 13,402 or an average of 705 a year and there were 978 contracts
for deferred annuities. The value of immediate annuities granted was
£187,117 and of deferred £19,938, but a part of the latter never came
into payment as the purchasers were relieved from their bargains upon
their own representation.

A new system associated with Mr. Fawcett's name was prescribed in 1882.
Its merit consisted in linking the annuity and insurance business with
the Savings Bank Department so that payments for annuities and insurance
are made through deposits in the savings banks. It was further provided
that for persons between the ages of fourteen and sixty-five the limits
of insurance should be from £5 to £100 and that sums of money might be
insured payable at the age of sixty or at the expiration of a term of
years. For annuities the minimum was reduced to £1, the maximum
increased to £100, and the annuity and insurance privileges were
extended to all places having savings banks. Owing to the necessary
preparation of tables the new regulations did not actually come into
operation until 1884. The growth of life insurance and annuity business
was slow as compared with the rapid growth of the savings deposits.
Intended, however, primarily for the poor, it has not been without
success, especially as the premiums charged are lower than those of
insurance companies or industrial societies.[299]

[299] _Rep. P. G._, 1897, app., pp. 32-38. The insurance and annuity
business of the Post Office has been described by the _Economist_ as a
practical failure because of the government's refusal to solicit
business (_Economist_ 1881, Nov. 5, p. 1369).

In addition to joining the insurance and annuity business with the
savings banks operations, Mr. Fawcett was responsible for a rapid
increase in the number of branch saving offices in villages, for the
special attention paid to "navvies" and workmen at their places of
employment, and above all for the arrangement for making small deposits
by slips of postage stamps. In 1887 by act of Parliament the
Postmaster-General was empowered to offer facilities for the transfer of
money from one account to another and for the easier disposal of the
funds of deceased depositors. In 1891 the maximum permissible deposits
of one person were increased from £150 to £200 inclusive of interest.
The annual limit remained at £30 but it was provided that, irrespective
of that limit, depositors might replace the amount of any one withdrawal
made in the same year. Where principal and interest together exceeded
£200, the interest was henceforth to cease on the excess alone, whereas
previously it had ceased entirely when it had brought an account to
£200. The next development arose from the Free Education Act of 1891 in
order to make it easier for children and parents to save the school
pence which they no longer had to pay. Special stamp slips were prepared
to be sold to children, and clerks attended the schools with these
slips. About 1400 schools adopted the scheme at once and three years
later the number had risen to 3000, but the movement seemed by 1895 to
have spent its force.

In 1893 the annual limit of deposits was increased to £50 and, as we
have already seen in another connection, any accumulations over £200
were to be invested in Government Stock unless the depositor gave
instructions to the contrary. In the same year arrangements were made
for the withdrawal of deposits by telegram. A depositor might telegraph
for his money and have his warrant sent by return of post at a cost of
about 9_d._ or the warrant also might be telegraphed to him at a total
cost of about 1_s._ 3_d._ In 1905 a rule was introduced by which a
depositor, on presentation of his pass-book at any post office doing
savings bank business, may withdraw on demand not more than £1. This
obviates the expense of telegraphing and, that it was appreciated, is
shown by the fact that during the first six months after the privilege
was extended there were nearly two millions of "withdrawals on demand,"
forming nearly one half of the total number. As a result the number of
telegraphic withdrawals fell from 227,573 for the postal year 1904-05 to
180,996 for the year 1905-06.[300]

[300] _Rep. P. G._, 1897, app., pp. 32-36; 1906, pp. 12-13; 56 and 57
Vict., c. 59.

There has been a steady and pronounced growth in savings bank business
since its establishment. This growth has shown itself in the increased
number of banks, of deposits, and of the total amounts deposited. The
average amount of each deposit has varied somewhat from £3 6_s._ in 1862
to £2 in 1881, but since this date it has increased slowly but steadily
and in 1901 it stood at £2 14_s._ 2_d._, which is about the average
yearly amount since 1862. At the end of the year 1900 over £135,000,000
were on deposit in the Post Office savings banks.[301] The increase in
amounts invested in government stock has not been by any means so
pronounced but there has been an increase. In 1881 we find that nearly
£700,000 were so invested, in 1891 nearly £1,000,000, and in 1900 a
little over £1,000,000.[302] So far as annuities are concerned, the
immediate seem to be considerably more popular than the deferred. The
purchase money receipts for the former were £184,000 in 1881, £296,000
in 1891, and have since increased more rapidly to £728,000 in 1900, with
an actual decrease, however, for the four preceding years. The receipts
for the purchase of deferred annuities amounted to £5243 in 1881,
£12,578 in 1891 and £14,283 in 1900, also a decrease since 1896. The
amounts received as premiums for life insurance policies have also been
rather disappointing, having increased from £10,967 in 1881 to £15,073
in 1891 and to £22,185 in 1900.[303]

[301] _Ibid._, 1881, app., pp. 32-33; 1891, app., p. 46; 1901, p. 60;
1907, p. 67.

[302] _Ibid._, 1891, app., p. 47; 1901, app., p. 62.

[303] _Rep. P. G._, 1891, app., p. 48; 1901, app., p. 63.

The increasing use of railway trains for the conveyance of the mails has
presented new and difficult problems with reference to the authority of
the Postmaster-General over mail trains and reasonable payments to the
railway companies. So far as the method for ascertaining the rate of
payment was concerned, a difficulty arose as to whether the Post Office
should pay any part of the tolls as distinguished from operating
expenses. Major Harness, a Post Office official, stated that in
discussing this question with Robert Stephenson in the case of the
London and Birmingham Railway it had been agreed that tollage should not
be paid but only the out-of-pocket expenses, this being in conformity
with the principles adopted in paying for mail coaches. The question of
tollage was not mentioned by the Railway Mails Act (10 and 11 Vict., c.
85), but Major Harness, in his evidence before a parliamentary
committee, stated that he, as an arbitrator, estimated the tollage
payable by the Post Office by finding out how much each ton, if the road
were fully occupied, should contribute to return 10 per cent upon the
share capital and 5 per cent on the bonds, the Post Office to pay its
proportion according to the weight of mail matter carried. The cost of
locomotive power was also taken into count and the carriage
accommodation was paid for on the basis of what the railways charged
each other.[304] In addition to these items the committee recommended
that the expenses for station accommodation, the additional cost of the
working staff, and interference with ordinary traffic should also be
taken into account.[305] In the event of a failure on the part of the
Post Office and a railway company to come to an agreement as to the
amount payable, each of the parties nominated an arbitrator whose first
duty was to select an umpire. Each arbitrator was required to present
his case in writing to the umpire and to attend in person if required.
The umpire was supposed to give his decision within twenty-eight days
after the receipt of the cases.[306] In 1893 it was provided by act of
Parliament that when any dispute arose between the Post Office and a
railway, the question should be taken to the Railway and Canal
Commission for settlement instead of being left to arbitration.[307] The
Postmaster-General has also been authorized to make use of tramways for
transporting the mails, and in 1897 the experiment was made of using
motor vans for the same purpose. A few years later the
Postmaster-General expressed himself as "doubtful whether a thoroughly
reliable motor vehicle suitable for Post Office work has yet been
found." However, in 1906-07 about thirty-five mail services were
performed by motors, the work being undertaken by contractors who
provide the vans and employ the drivers. They have proved to be more
economical than horse vans when the load is heavy, the distance
considerable, and greater speed desirable.[308]

[304] _Rep. Com._, 1854, xi, 411, pp. 370-371.

[305] _Ibid._, 411, p. 14.

[306] _Rep. Com._, 411, p. 280; 1 and 2 Vict., c. 98.

[307] 56 and 57 Vict., c. 38.

[308] 56 and 57 Vict., c. 38; _Rep. P. G._, 1898, pp. 9 f.; 1907, p. 3.

The expenditure for the conveyance of mails by the railways for the year
ending 5th January, 1838, amounted to only £1743. In 1840 this had
increased to £52,860, in 1850 to £230,079, in 1860 to £490,223, in 1870
to £587,296, in 1880 to £701,070 and in 1890 to £905,968. By 1896 the
million mark had been reached and after that year all the expenses for
the conveyance of the mails are grouped together. For the following year
this total was £1,453,517, the payment for mail coaches in the preceding
year, which are here included, being £365,000. In 1906 the total
expenditure for the "conveyance of the mails" was £1,821,541.[309]

[309] _Parl. Papers_, 1852-53, xcv, p. 3; _Rep. P. G._, 1861, p. 20;
1872, pp. 26-27; 1884, p. 56; 1893, p. 78; 1896, p. 86; 1906, p. 92.

In common with the members of other branches of the civil service the
postal employees, prior to 1855, were political appointees. The
appointment of a patronage secretary had relieved members of Parliament
from the odium incurred as a result of this reprehensible method of
manning the service, but it is doubtful whether any improvement in the
personnel of the force actually resulted or was even anticipated. With
the adoption between 1855 and 1870 of the principle that fitness should
be tested by competitive examinations, the vast majority of the members
of the postal establishment came under its influence. At the same time
the postmasters of small rural communities, where the postal revenue was
insignificant,[310] still continued to be nominated by the local member.
In 1896 this power was abridged, but members still continued to exercise
a limited right of recommendation. Finally in 1907 the
Postmaster-General announced that, though due weight should continue to
be given to the opinions of members in the case of the appointment of
these rural postmasters, such recommendations should be based on
personal knowledge and should carry no more weight than the opinion of
any other competent person.[311]

[310] Less than £120 in England, less than £100 in Scotland and Ireland.

[311] D. B. Eaton, _Civil Service in Great Britain_, New York, 1880, pp.
75, 307, 308; _Parl. Deb._, 3d ser., ccxxxix, col. 211; cclv, col. 1575;
_ibid._, 4th ser., clix, col. 397; clxx, col. 641.

No question which has arisen in the internal management of the Post
Office has presented more difficult problems for solution than that of
the condition of the postal employees with reference to hours of labour,
promotion, and remuneration. The first complaints which attract our
attention during the period under discussion came rather from outside
the service as a protest against Sunday labour in the Post Office, but
the fact that many of the postal servants were deprived of their holiday
and often needlessly so deprived was a real grievance advanced by the
employees themselves. It had been the policy of the Post Office for some
time not to grant any application for the withdrawal of a Sunday post if
there were any dissentients to the application. In 1850 all Sunday
delivery was abolished for a time, but this hardly met the approval even
of the strict Sabbatarians, and the rule was promulgated the same year
that no post should be withdrawn or curtailed except upon the
application of the receivers of six sevenths of the letters so affected.
Of the rural posts in the United Kingdom at that time more than half did
no work on Sunday and about half of the remainder had their walks
curtailed, while in certain cases a substitute was provided on alternate
Sundays. A committee reporting on the question in 1871 advised that it
should be made easier to discontinue a Sunday delivery by requiring that
a Sunday rural post should be taken off if the receivers of two thirds
of the letters desired it, that no delivery in the country should be
granted except upon the demand of the receivers of the same proportion
of letters, and that the principle of providing substitutes on alternate
Sundays should be more generally adopted. This report was favourably
received and its recommendations adopted in the early seventies. In
London and many of the provincial towns there is no ordinary Sunday
delivery, and so little advantage is taken of the opportunity for
express delivery on Sundays that there is presumably no strong demand
for a regular Sunday delivery. Various measures advocated for the relief
of the town carriers were also adopted.[312]

[312] _Acct. & P._, 1872, xxxvi, 337, pp. 1-2; _Rep. Commrs._, 1872,
xviii [c. 485], pp. 1-5; _Rep. P. G._, 1872, p. 6; _Parl. Deb._, 4th
ser., xciv, coll. 1358-60, 1364-65.

In 1858 an attempt was made by the Post Office employees, led by the
letter carriers, to secure higher wages and to obtain a remedy for
certain other grievances advanced by them. Sir George Bower asked for a
select committee of enquiry in their behalf but this was refused by the
Chancellor of the Exchequer. He agreed, however, to the appointment of a
committee composed of Post Office and Treasury officials, but their
personnel was so repugnant to the employees that they refused to give
evidence, and as a result of this and other difficulties four of their
leaders were suspended. The protest on the part of the men was not
entirely unproductive, for in the end the Postmaster-General granted
them a slight increase in their wages. At the same time he referred to
the following rates of wages in support of his contention that there was
no good ground for dissatisfaction among the servants of the Post
Office: for carriers, 19_s._ a week advancing to 23_s._; for sorters of
the first class, 25_s._ to 30_s._; of the second class, 32_s._ to
38_s._; and of the third class, 40_s._ to 50_s._ "Carriers also obtain
Christmas boxes averaging, so it is said, £8 a year. In addition these
wages are exclusive of uniform, of pension in old age, and of assistance
for assurance."[313]

[313] _Rep. P. G._, 1859, pp. 40-43; _Parl. Deb._, 3d ser., clix, coll.
211-214; clxviii, coll. 675-82.

The first thorough-going attempts to remedy the grievances of the Post
Office employees were made in 1881 and 1882 by Mr. Fawcett in his
capacity as Postmaster-General. His scheme for improving the pay and
position of the sorters, sorting clerks, telegraphists, postmen, lobby
officers, and porters resulted in a mean annual cost to the Post Office
of £320,000. In 1888, 1890, and 1891, under the supervision of Mr.
Raikes, improvements were made in the condition of the chief clerks and
other supervising officers, the sorting clerks and telegraphists in the
provinces, the telegraphists, counter-men and sorters in London, and the
sorters in Dublin and Edinburgh at an additional yearly expense of
£281,000. While the representatives of the London postmen were in
process of examination, some of them went out on strike. They were
severely punished, some 450 men being dismissed in one morning, and a
committee was appointed to enquire into the complaints of the London and
provincial postmen.[314] In the same month that the strike took place
Mr. Raikes announced increases in the pay of the postmen involving an
additional yearly payment of £125,000. The revisions so announced from
1881 to 1894 have been estimated to involve an increased annual
expenditure of nearly £748,000.[315]

[314] _Rep. P. G._, 1895, pp. 9-11; 1891, p. 3; _Parl. Deb._, 3d ser.,
cccxviii, coll. 537, 1549; cccxlix, col. 213.

[315] _Rep. P. G._, 1895, pp. 9-11.

A committee was appointed in 1895 to deal with the discontent which was
only lessened, not silenced, by the efforts of Messrs. Fawcett and
Raikes. This was composed of Lord Tweedmouth, Sir F. Mowatt, Mr. Spencer
Walpole, and Mr. Llewellyn Smith, and the compromise which they proposed
was known as the "Tweedmouth Settlement" which apparently gave little
satisfaction at the time and less thereafter. It resulted in a higher
average rate of payment, but dissatisfaction was felt because the pay
for some services was less than before. The basis of the report was "the
abolition of classification whereby each man was allowed to proceed by
annual increments to the maximum pay of a combined class, subject only
to an efficiency-bar which he may not pass without a certificate of good
conduct and ability, together with the abolition of allowances for
special services." Differences in pay according to the volume of
business in particular localities were left untouched, and this was the
cause of much complaint. Special inducements in the shape of double
increments were offered to the staff on the postal and telegraph sides
to learn each other's work in order to lighten the strain which might
otherwise fall on a particular branch. Overtime, Sunday and bank-holiday
pay were assimilated throughout the service, and efforts were made to
reduce the hardship resulting from "split" work, so called from the fact
that the working day of many of the men was divided by an interval when
there was nothing to do. The higher officials were acquitted of
favouritism in the matter of promotion and of "unfairness and undue
severity in awarding punishments and in enforcing discipline." The
general charges of overcrowding the post offices and leaving them in an
unsanitary condition were also rejected. The changes proposed were all
adopted at an immediate estimated cost of £139,000 a year and an
ultimate cost, also estimated, of £275,000.[316] The Tweedmouth
Commission in its turn was soon followed by a departmental committee,
composed of the Duke of Norfolk, then Postmaster-General, and Mr.
Hanbury, the Secretary of the Treasury, then acting as the
representative of the Post Office in the House of Commons. The postal
employees demanded that their grievances should be laid before a select
committee composed of members of the House of Commons, and motions to
that effect were introduced year after year only to meet the
Government's disapproval. The most important demands of the men turned
upon the questions of full civil rights, complete recognition of their
unions, the employment of men who were not members of the civil service,
and the old difficulty of wages and hours. So far as the question of
full civil rights was concerned, the Post Office employees had been
granted the franchise in 1874, but were required not to take an active
part in aiding or opposing candidates for election, by serving on
committees or otherwise making themselves unduly conspicuous in
elections. The men demanded that these restrictions should be withdrawn.
In the second place, the Postmaster-General refused to receive
deputations from those employees not directly interested in the question
at stake, refused to recognize officials who were not also employees of
the Department, and exercised more or less control over the meetings of
employees. Finally, in addition to the general demand for higher wages
due to the higher cost of living, the telegraphists contended that they
had been deceived by the promise of a maximum salary of £190 a year,
whereas they actually received only £160. Mr. A. Chamberlain opposed the
appointment of a select committee of members of the House of Commons
because of the pressure likely to be brought upon them and because of
their unfitness to decide upon the question at issue. He agreed,
however, after consultation with various members of Parliament and the
men themselves, that a committee of enquiry might reasonably be granted,
composed of business men not in the Civil Service and not members of the
House of Commons.[317]

[316] _Rep. P. G._, 1897, pp. 27 f.

[317] _Parl. Deb._, 4th ser., viii, col. 673; xxix, col. 117; lxxxii,
coll. 199 f.; xciv, coll. 1357 f.; cvi, coll. 660-683, 715, 747; cxxi,
coll. 1021-64; cxlviii, coll. 1367-69, 1382.

In accordance with this promise the so-called "Bradford Committee" was
appointed to report on "the scales of pay received by the undermentioned
classes of established civil servants and whether, having regard to the
conditions of their employment and to the rates current in other
occupations, ... the remuneration is adequate." In the meantime Mr.
Chamberlain retired, but his successor, Lord Stanley, asked that the
enquiry be continued. The members of this committee, interpreting their
instructions very loosely, extended their report to include their own
recommendations as to changes in pay, and refrained entirely from making
any comparison between the wages of postal servants and those in other
employments, on the ground that such information was easily accessible
from the statistics published by the Board of Trade. They added that it
was difficult to make any comparison between a national and a private
service, for payment according to results and dismissal at the will of
the employer are inapplicable under the state. There was also a pension
fund in the service, the present value of which it is difficult to
estimate. In their own words, "It appears to us that the adequacy of the
terms now obtaining may be tested by the numbers and character of those
who offer, by the capacity they show on trial, and finally by their
contentment." They agreed that there was no lack of suitable candidates
and no complaints as to capacity, but there was widespread discontent.
Finally the committee recommended the grading of the service as a whole,
taking into consideration the differences in cost of living as between
London and other cities and between these cities and smaller towns and
an increase in pay of the man at an age to marry, irrespective of years
of service. "They" (the above recommendations) "obviously do not concede
all that has been asked for, but they go as far as we think justifiable
in meeting the demands of the staff and we trust it will do much to
promote that contentment which is so essential to hearty service."[318]
From an examination of the evidence presented by the Committee and a
comparison of present scales of pay in the Post Office with those
current in other employments, the Postmaster-General concluded that
there was no reason for increasing the maximum wages payable, but there
seemed to be ground for modifying and improving the scales in some
respects. The special increase at the age of twenty-five was granted.
The maximum was increased in London and the larger towns on account of
the higher cost of living and at the same time wages in the smaller
towns were advanced. The postmen also, both in London and the provinces,
were granted higher wages, and all payments to the members of the force
were in the future to be made weekly. The additional cost entailed by
these changes was estimated at £224,400 for 1905-06, the average in
later years at £372,300.[319]

[318] _Rep. Commrs._, 1904, xxxiii, 171, pp. 5-26.

[319] _Acc. & P._, 1905, xliv, 98, pp. 3-6; _Parl. Deb._, 4th ser.,
cxlviii, col. 1363.

The Post Office employees who had asked for the appointment of a select
committee were greatly dissatisfied with the personnel of the "Bradford
Committee." This dissatisfaction on their part was increased by the fact
that the recommendations of the committee were to a great extent
disregarded by Lord Stanley on the ground that the members had not
reported upon the question laid before them, but had instead proposed a
complete reorganization of the whole of the service. He was willing to
grant some increase in pay but there were certain recommendations of the
committee which he refused to accept. He himself was of the opinion that
the average wages of the employees were in excess of those of men doing
similar work under competitive conditions, but the postmen objected to a
comparison of their wages with those of employees in the open labour
market on the ground "that there is no other employer who fixes his own
prices or makes an annual profit of £4,000,000 sterling." Delegates
representing over 42,000 members of various postal associations
protested strongly against Lord Stanley's refusal to adopt the findings
of the "Bradford Committee" _in toto_ and the men prepared to take an
active part against the Government in the approaching election. Appeals
were sent out by the men from which Lord Stanley quoted as follows in
the House: "Two thirds at least of one political party are in great fear
of losing their seats. The swing of the pendulum is against them and any
member who receives forty or fifty of such letters will under present
circumstances have to consider very seriously whether on this question
he can afford to go into the wrong lobby. This is taking advantage of
the political situation."[320] The Postmaster-General's unpopularity
with his employees was not diminished by his reference to these appeals
as "nothing more or less than blackmail." He himself was of the opinion
that there should be some organization outside of politics to which such
questions should be referred.[321]

[320] In connection with such appeals both sides of the House as
represented by their leaders had in 1892 advised that members should pay
no attention to them (_Parl. Deb._, 4th ser., v, coll. 1123 f.).

[321] _Parl. Deb._, 4th ser., cxxxix, coll. 1633-34; cxlviii, coll.
1350, 1357-61, 1365; the London _Times_, 1904, Oct. 11, p. 4; Oct. 18,
p. 4; Oct. 22, p. 10; 1905, Jan. 16, p. 7; Apr. 7, p. 11.

Shortly after the Liberals had come into power, a Post Office circular
was issued granting to the secretaries of the branches of the various
postal organizations the right to make representations to the
Postmaster-General relating to the service and affecting the class of
which the branch of an association was representative. In matters solely
affecting an individual the appeal had to come from the individual
himself. This was followed by a full recognition of the postal unions by
the new Postmaster-General, Mr. Buxton, with the rights of combination
and representation through the representatives of different classes.
These conclusions were commented upon most favourably at the annual
meeting of the "Postmen's Federation."[322] The representatives present
were glad to see that "the old martinet system was fast breaking down."
[323] But the greatest triumph of the men was to follow in the
appointment of a select committee composed of members of the House of
Commons with full powers to investigate the conditions of employment of
the postal employees and make such recommendations, based upon their
investigation, as might seem suitable. Nine members were appointed for
this purpose, two of their number being members of the Labour Party, and
Mr. Hobhouse was chosen as chairman. Their report is very voluminous and
treats minutely all the questions concerning which the postal employees
had expressed so much dissatisfaction. The most important of these are
connected with the civil rights of the men, their wages, hours of
labour, and the conditions of their employment. The demand for full
civil rights was supported by four members on the ground that the
position of the postal employees is not in many respects "comparable to
that of the Civil Service as a whole," but the point was lost for the
men by the vote of the chairman. Some departments asked for a reduction
in the age of voluntary retirement from sixty to fifty and of compulsory
retirement from sixty-five to sixty, but these changes were not
recommended by the committee. The question of extending part of their
pensions to the widows and children of deceased employees was referred
to a plebiscite of the employees themselves. So far as incapacitated
officials were concerned, it was pointed out that the "Workmen's
Compensation Act" of 1906 had been extended to them. Night work had been
limited to the time from 10 P.M. to 6 A.M., seven hours of night work
counting as eight hours of day work. The committee asked that night duty
be from 8 P.M. to 6 A.M., the ratio of the relative value to remain
unchanged. Some servants asked for a forty-two hour week, especially in
the case of those who had "split" work to do, and for a half holiday
each week. The committee thought that the forty-eight hour week should
remain unchanged but that a half holiday might be granted where "the
exigencies of the service demand." They also recommended that
compensation should be allowed where free medical attendance was not
granted. There was a general protest from postmen, telegraphists, and
sorters against the employment of casual and auxiliary labour on the
ground that it dealt a blow at thorough work and trade unionism. The
Department replied that it was necessary in the case of especially busy
holiday periods and where "split" attendance was unavoidable. The
committee contented themselves by asking that casuals who have full work
elsewhere should not be employed. The claim on the part of the employees
that promotion should be contingent on "seniority, good conduct and
ability," in the order named was not accepted by the committee, whose
members contended that ability, as at present, should count for most. So
far as wages themselves were concerned, a general increase was approved
by the committee, and it also, commenting unfavourably on the complexity
and number of existing classes, recommended a reduction in their number
and greater regularity and simplicity in grading them. [324]

[322] The Postmen's Federation was established in 1891 and a journal,
the _Postman's Gazette_, representing their views, was started in the
following year (_Postman's Gazette_, May 28, 1892; _Post Office
Circular_, no. 1702).

[323] _Parl. Deb._, 4th ser., cliv, col. 202; clix, col. 396; clxxiv,
col. 387; the London _Times_, 1906, June 9, p. 9.

[324] _Parl. Deb._, 4th ser., cliii, coll. 323-38, 354-58; _Rep. Com._,
1907, 266.

The recommendations of the "Hobhouse Committee" have proved, in many
respects, unsatisfactory to the postal employees who have not hesitated
to express their condemnation of what they consider the sins both of
commission and omission of the members. In the words of the delegates
from the branches of the "Postmen's Federation" meeting in London: "We
express our deep disappointment with the report of the Select Committee
for the following reasons": the "cowardice" of the committee in
recommending the continuance of the system of Christmas boxes; the
failure in many cases to increase the minimum and maximum rates of
wages; the mistaken method of grading towns for wages; the failure to
grant full civil rights and the granting of so much power to the
permanent officials. The Conference of Postal Clerks in turn expressed
their dissatisfaction with the findings of the committee. The "Irish
Postal and Telegraph Guardian" considered that the "report had
intensified discontent" and commented on the fact that large increases
in salaries to highly paid classes had been recommended without any
agitation on their part while the lower grades got practically nothing,
this in direct opposition to opinions expressed both by Mr. Buxton and
Mr. Ward, a member of the committee. Deputations were appointed to
discuss with the Postmaster-General those findings of the committee
which were unsatisfactory, but Mr. Buxton refused to grant a re-trial of
the controverted points although he agreed to listen to the plea of
those employees whose case had not been presented before the committee.
[325]

[325] _Parl. Deb._, 4th ser., clxxxiv, coll. 1058-59, 1061-66, 1080;
cxcii, coll. 1175, 1173; the London _Times_, 1907, Aug. 19, p. 17; Aug.
20, p. 2; Oct. 16, p. 12.

Mr. Buxton explained his position with reference to the recommendations
of the committee in a speech delivered in the House. He knew that in the
case of the Tweedmouth and Bradford committees the men stated beforehand
that they would not be bound by the decisions reached, but on the other
hand had asked for a Parliamentary committee as the only solution of the
difficulty. Broadly speaking, he was of the opinion that the findings of
the committee should be binding, and he understood that the men would
agree to accept them. There were, however, certain points of the report
on which nearly every section of the staff asked for a re-trial, but
this he was compelled to refuse. The most important recommendations of
the committee which were adopted by Mr. Buxton are: an increase in the
case of each employee to the minimum or "age pay" of his class; the
extension of the "technical increment" beyond the ordinary maximum pay,
after a searching examination; the reduction in London of the four
"wage" zones to three; a reduction in the number of classes in the
provinces, with wages based on volume of work and cost of living in the
order named; a reduction after the first five years from five to four
years in the period necessary to obtain good conduct stripes; an
increase in the pay of women; a reduction in the amount of auxiliary
labour employed; night labour to be reckoned from 8 instead of 10 P.M.;
overtime to be watched and checked; unsanitary conditions in the Post
Office buildings to be remedied; and wages increased in the engineering
branch.[326]

[326] _Parl. Deb._, 4th ser., clxxxiv, coll. 1058-70; cxcii, coll.
1120-21. It has been estimated that the recommendations adopted by the
Postmaster-General will entail upon the country an additional cost of
about £600,000, rising to £1,000,000 (_Parl. Deb._, 4th ser., cxcii,
col. 1156).




CHAPTER V

THE TRAVELLERS' POST AND POST HORSES


The duty of providing horses for conveying letters and for the use of
travellers on affairs of state was enforced from the beginning of the
sixteenth century by orders and warrants issued by the
Postmaster-General and the Privy Council to mayors, sheriffs,
constables, and other officials.[327] Where ordinary posts were laid,
the postmen themselves were supposed to have horses ready. Such at least
was the understanding, not, however, invariably realized. In 1533 we
find the Postmaster-General complaining that, except between London and
Dover, there were never any horses provided over the whole kingdom.[328]
A few years later when the London-Berwick posts became an established
fact each postman had to provide one horse, always to be ready to carry
either the mails or a chance traveller on affairs of state. In 1542,
since, owing to trouble with Scotland, the number of letters and
travellers between that country and London had become much more
numerous, each postman was required to have in readiness three horses
instead of one, and it was partly for this reason that their pay was
increased at the same time.[329] The fee for the use of these horses was
fixed at a penny a horse for every mile travelled. Generally this fee
was named in the warrant empowering the traveller to take up
horses.[330] When the sum was not definitely named, it was required that
it should be reasonable.[331] It seems to have been the custom of the
members of the Council to grant these warrants quite indiscriminately.
To remedy this, it was provided in 1566 that in future no warrant should
be granted to any person, who was not actually travelling upon state
affairs.[332] Twelve years later we find the people of Grantham
petitioning the Council against the taking-up of horses to ride post.
They said that the practice had increased so much that it had become
intolerable.[333] The demand for horses had become so great that 2_d._ a
mile was asked for each horse and complaint was made that travellers and
messengers refused to pay the increased charge.[334] It is improbable
that the state was successful in preventing the use of the postmasters'
horses by private individuals, and it is more improbable still that the
postmasters themselves objected to hiring their horses to those who
travelled on their own affairs. Warrants issued by the Council nearly
always fixed the price which should be paid. Now such prices, like wages
when fixed by employers, are likely to be lower than demand and supply
warrant. On the other hand, as between the postmasters and the ordinary
travellers, the question of charge was adjusted by agreement.

[327] Hist. MSS. Com. _Rep._, 14, app., pt. 8, p. 35; _P. & O. P. C._,
vii, p. 350.

[328] _Rep. Com._, 1844, xiv, app., p. 32 (7).

[329] _L. & P. Hen. VIII_, xvii (1542), p. 484.

[330] _A. P. C._, 1542-47, pp. 164, 333, 465, 469, 527; 1547-50, p. 505.

[331] _Ibid._, 1550-52, p. 452; 1542-47, p. 384.

[332] _Ibid._, 1558-70, p. 326.

[333] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1547-80, p. 612.

[334] _Ibid._, 1547-80, p. 362.

When the postmasters themselves were too poor to obtain horses at their
own expense, they were sometimes aided by the town or county. In
Norfolk, for instance, each one of three postmasters was provided with a
certain sum out of the treasury of the city of Norwich to be lent
without interest. They were also paid so much a year out of money levied
on the people of Norwich, one half on the innkeepers and tipplers and
one half on the other inhabitants. No man was to take up post horses in
Norwich unless licensed by warrants from the Queen, the Council, the
Duke of Norfolk, or the Mayor of Norwich. No one was to ride a horse
farther than twelve or fourteen miles at a stretch, and he was to pay
2_d._ each mile and 6_d._ to his guide to lead back the horses. No horse
was to carry any cloak bag over ten pounds in weight.[335]

[335] F. Blomefield, _Norfolk_, 1806, iii, p. 294.

If more horses were demanded from the postmaster than he himself had in
his stable, he might seize them from his neighbours but the full amount
paid was to go to the owners. The date of the commission empowering
horses to be used, the name of the person using them, and the date when
the horses were demanded were to be entered in a book, kept for the
purpose.[336]

[336] _A. P. C._, 1571-75, p. 181.

Complaints from the postmasters concerning the abuses of travellers
were frequent. The London-Berwick posts in a petition to the Council
stated that on account of the great number riding over that road many of
their horses were injured or spoiled and were not paid for, while the
constables, whose duty it was to see that horses were provided, were
often ill-treated. Accordingly by a proclamation issued in 1578, it was
provided that no commission to ride in post should be issued unless it
was first moved at a council meeting or ordered by the Secretary for
causes properly relating to Her Majesty's service.[337] This was
followed in 1582 by a still more stringent proclamation, forbidding any
person to use a commission more than once unless otherwise specified.
The pay of 2_d._ a mile for each horse was to be in advance as was also
the "guide's groat" and, if the payment was not so advanced, the
postmaster might refuse to supply horses.[338] Occasionally we find
people objecting to having their horses taken when the postmaster had
not sufficient of his own. Complaints like these were generally followed
by an order to the offending postmaster to provide himself with more
horses.[339]

[337] _A. P. C._, 1577-78, p. 219. A particularly violent man roused the
ire of the Mayor of Guildford, who wrote to Walsingham asking for
damages to a gelding killed by a Mr. Wynckfeld, riding post from
Guildford to Kingston. The gelding stumbled and fell on the road and
Wynckfeld thrust his dagger into him, beat the guide and threatened to
kill the constables on his return (_Cal. S. P. D._, ii, p. 529).

[338] _A. P. C._, 1577-78, p. 219.

[339] _Ibid._, 1588-89, p. 206.

The travellers, however, were not the only people who were at fault. The
owners of the horses were often offenders and can hardly be blamed for
rendering as difficult as possible the enforcement of the obnoxious
proclamations, which they were ordered to obey. If they had to supply
horses, they must do so, but there was nothing to prevent them from
offering clumsy plough horses or venerable specimens no longer capable
of drawing a plough. The constables were more apt to sympathize with the
owners, who were their neighbours, than with the travellers.
Consequently it is not surprising that complaints were loud and deep
over the pieces of horseflesh, whose angular outlines must have
presented a sorry seat for the Queen's messengers.[340]

[340] _Ibid._, 1577-78, p. 62; 1580-81, p. 203.

By a Privy Council proclamation issued in 1603, all posts receiving a
daily fee were required to keep at least two horses apiece. So far as
the letting of horses was concerned, they had up to this time been
subject to competition from other people, who had horses to hire. They
were now granted the prior right to provide horses for travellers and it
was only in case of their supply being inadequate that horses might be
procured elsewhere. The hire as usual was to be paid in advance and was
fixed at 2-1/2_d._ a mile, together with the guide's fee for those
riding on commission and was to be settled by agreement for all others.
No heavier burden than thirty pounds in excess of the rider's weight was
to be carried by each horse.[341]

[341] _Rep. Com._, 1844, xiv, app., pp. 38, 39, 40 (18).

It is in connection with the monopolistic restriction of 1603 that
Macaulay says that the state must have reaped a large reward from the
prior right of the postmasters to hire horses to travellers.[342] Mr.
Joyce has pointed out that the proceeds went to the postmasters and not
to the state, but he has given no good reason for dissenting from
Macaulay's opinion. Without doubt Joyce is correct, as is shown by a
complaint from the postmasters on the Western Road that they had been
injured by an interloper who supplied travellers with horses.[343] In
1779, the state made an attempt to obtain something from the postmasters
by requiring them to take out a licence for the hiring of horses and to
pay a percentage for their receipts to the government.[344] Indirectly,
however, the state did reap some benefit from the revenue from post
horses, for if the postmasters had received nothing from their horses or
from the conveyance of private letters, it would have been necessary to
pay their salaries much more promptly than was the custom. As early as
the latter part of the sixteenth century, we find complaints from the
London-Dover posts that they had received nothing on their salaries for
a whole year.[345] This was nothing to later complaints and proves that
an impecunious government was enabled to act the bad debtor by the fact
that other forms of revenue were available for the postmasters.

[342] Macaulay, _Hist. of England_, 1849, i, p. 387.

[343] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1629-31, p. 193.

[344] 19 Geo. III, c. 51.

[345] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1581-90, p. 131.

In 1609 the rate for each horse was raised from 2-1/2_d._ to 3_d._ a
mile, and an attempt was made to enforce the postmasters' monopoly more
strictly.[346] No horse was to be ridden beyond the initial stage unless
with the consent of the postmaster concerned. The postmasters complained
that they were held responsible for supplying horses, and yet, when it
was necessary to obtain them from the surrounding country, they were
resisted by the owners or were supplied with inefficient animals.[347]
The complaints of the public were more to the purpose. According to them
there were some who were being called upon constantly for horses while
others escaped all demands. The postmasters often accepted bribes from
owners of horses on condition that they should not be troubled.[348] At
times the horses, after being seized, were not used but were kept in the
stables of the postmasters, and their owners charged the expense of
maintaining them.

[346] _Rep. Com._, 1844, xiv, app., p. 42 (20).

[347] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1619-23, p. 517.

[348] _Ibid._, 1619-23, p. 86; 1635, p. 18; 1631-33, p. 257.

At the establishment of Witherings' plan in 1635, the postmasters on all
the roads in England were required to have as many horses ready as were
necessary for the carriage of letters and the accommodation of
travellers. The rate for each horse was lowered from 3_d._ to 2-1/2_d._
or 5_d._ for two horses and a guide.[349] Before 1635, the post enjoyed
no priority over the traveller in being provided with horses, and if all
the horses happened to be in use when the mail arrived, it had to wait.
Now it was provided that on the day when the mail was expected, enough
horses should be kept in the stable to ensure its prompt
transmission.[350] In 1637, after Witherings' dismissal, the fee for the
hire of a horse was raised again to 3_d._ at which rate it continued
until 1657, when it was lowered to 2-1/2_d._ by the Commonwealth
Government. So much trouble had been caused by the seizure of horses
from owners unwilling to part with them that it was provided by the act
of 1657 that no one might take or seize horses for service without the
consent of the owner, but no one save the Postmaster-General and his
deputies might hire horses to persons riding in post with or without
commission.[351] At the Restoration in 1660, the old rate of 3_d._ a
mile for each horse was re-imposed together with a 4_d._ fee to the
guide for each stage. If the postmaster was unable to furnish horses
within half an hour, they might be obtained elsewhere, but always with
the consent of the owner.[352]

[349] _Ibid._, 1635, p. 299.

[350] _Rep. Com._, 1844, xiv, app., p. 57 (36); _Cal. S. P. D._, 1637,
p. 338.

[351] Scobell, _Collect._, 1656, c. 30.

[352] 12 Ch. II, c. 35.

The sole right to supply horses was continued to the Postmasters-General
and their deputies by the famous act of 1711. The rate per horse and the
guide's fee remained at the figure imposed by the act of 1660. If the
postmaster did not supply the horses demanded within half an hour, he
was liable to a fine of £5 and the horses might be obtained from any one
who would consent to hire them. The maximum burden for one horse over
and above the rider's weight was eighty pounds.[353]

[353] 9 Anne, c. 11.

The postmasters enjoyed the monopoly of letting horses to travellers
until the middle of the eighteenth century. But the industrial growth of
England and the improvement in the roads had produced such an increase
in the number of travellers that the postmasters were unable to supply
the demand. The use of carriages had become more common, enabling people
to travel who could not proceed on horseback, and this had still further
increased the demand for horses. It was plain that something must be
done and some more extensive source of supply drawn upon than that
furnished under the old system. The postmen had heard some of the
rumours in the air that a change was about to be made, and they
forwarded a petition to the House of Commons, protesting against the
contemplated change as an infringement upon their old monopoly. They
said "that if the amendment should pass into a law as it is now drawn,
it would not only tend to the great damage and loss of the petitioners,
but also the prejudice of His Majesty's revenue."[354] The amendment did
pass, however, declaring that in future any one might furnish chaises
and calashes with horses and that people letting chaises might supply
horses for them at the same time.[355]

[354] _Jo. H. C._, 1745-50, p. 830.

[355] 22 Geo. II, c. 25.

In 1779, when the Treasury was sadly in need of money, an act was
passed, requiring all persons letting horses to take out licences. In
addition, duties were levied on all horses and carriages hired for the
purpose of travelling post.[356] In the following year this act was
superseded by a stricter and more comprehensive one. It was provided by
the new act that every person letting horses to travel should pay five
shillings a year for a licence. In addition one penny a mile should be
paid for every horse, or, if the distance was not known, 1_s._ 6_d._ a
day, such duties to be paid by the person hiring the horses to the
postmaster or other person who provided them, to be by him handed over
to the Treasury. At the time of payment the postmaster was to give the
traveller a ticket, which must be shown to the toll keepers on the road.
If he had no ticket to show, the toll keeper was ordered not to allow
him to pass.[357] Five years later the duty to be collected was raised
to 1-1/2_d._ a mile for each horse or 1_s._ 9_d._ a day.[358] In 1787,
permission was given to let these duties out to farm, because so many
difficulties had been experienced in their collection.[359] The whole
theory of these duties was illogical, for it was to every one's interest
to evade them, and direct supervision was impossible. In 1808 another
act for farming the post-horse duties was passed, modifying somewhat the
provisions of the previous act. The tax was to extend to horses used in
travelling, when hired by the mile or stage and when hired for a period
of time less than twenty-eight days for drawing carriages used in
travelling post. Persons licenced to let horses were required to have
their names and places of abode painted on their post carriages if they
provided these also. The carriages must have numbers painted on them so
as to distinguish them easily.[360] In 1823 all previous acts relating
to licences and fees for keeping horses for hire were repealed, and a
complete system of rates was substituted. Every postmaster or other
person keeping horses to hire for riding by post must pay an annual
licence of five shillings and additional duties calculated according to
distance or time. The Treasury was given authority to let these duties
to farm.[361]

[356] 19 Geo. III, c. 51.

[357] 20 Geo. III, c. 51.

[358] 25 Geo. III, c. 51.

[359] 27 Geo. III, c. 26.

[360] 48 Geo. III, c. 98.

[361] 4 Geo. IV, c. 62:--

For every horse let to hire by the mile at the ordinary rate, 1-1/2_d._

For no greater distance than eight miles, one fifth part of the sum
charged or 1_s._ 9_d._

For no greater distance than eight miles and when the horse or horses
shall not bring back any person nor deviate from the regular road,
1_s._

For every horse let for a period less than twenty-eight successive days
and not let according to the terms given above, one fifth part of the
sum charged or 2s. 6d. for each day not exceeding three days and 1_s._
9_d._ for each day exceeding three days but not exceeding thirteen days
and 1_s._ 3_d._ for each day exceeding thirteen but not exceeding
twenty-eight days.

For every horse let for twenty-eight successive days or for a longer
period, one fifth of the sum charged or 2_s._ 6_d._ for each day not
exceeding three and 1_s._ 9_d._ for each day exceeding three days but
not exceeding thirteen days and 1_s._ 3_d._ for each day exceeding
thirteen and less than twenty-one days.




CHAPTER VI

ROADS AND SPEED


Sir Brian Tuke, writing in 1533, said that the only roads in the kingdom
over which letters were regularly conveyed were from London to Dover and
London to Berwick.[362] The road to Berwick had been in use in 1509[363]
but had evidently been discontinued, for Sir Brian says in his letter
that postmen were appointed to it in the year that he wrote. Regular
posts were established between London and Portsmouth when the fleet was
there and discontinued as soon as it left, so that it can hardly be
included among the regular roads.[364] Between 1580 and the accession of
James I, there was a distinct revival in postal affairs within and
without the kingdom. The posts on the London-Holyhead road had been
discharged for some time and Irish letters were conveyed to London by
the postmaster at Chester.[365] In 1581 Gascoyne, the acting
Postmaster-General, was ordered to appoint stages and postmen on this
old route.[366] A letter patent was issued, calling upon all Her
Majesty's officers to assist him in so doing, and a warrant was signed
for the payment of £20 to defray his expenses. The Rye-Dieppe posts were
also reorganized, principally for the conveyance of letters to and from
France.[367] Bristol ranked next to London in size and importance, but
it was not until 1580 that orders were given to horse and man the road
between the two cities,[368] and only in the following decade were posts
also laid from London to Exeter and somewhat later from Exeter to
Plymouth.[369] This illustrates as well as anything the fact that the
early English postal system was mainly political in its aims. The great
post roads were important from a political rather than an economic
standpoint. It was necessary to keep in close touch with Scotland
because the Scotch would always stand watching. The wild Irish needed a
strong hand and it was expedient that English statesmen should be well
acquainted with things Irish. The post to and from the continent was
quite as necessary to keep them informed of French and Spanish politics.

[362] _Rep. Com._, 1844, xiv, app., p. 32 (7).

[363] _L.& P. Hen. VIII_, vii, pt. 2, p. 1444.

[364] _A. P. C._, 1556-58, pp. 249-309.

[365] _Ibid._, 1571, 75, p. 201; _Cal. S. P. D._, 1547-80, p. 265.

[366] _Cal. S. P. Ire._, 1574-85, p. 176; _A. P. C._, 1580-81, p. 131.

[367] Hist. MSS. Com., _Rep._, 13, app., pt. 4, p. 89.

[368] _A. P. C._, 1580-81, p. 211.

[369] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1581-90, p. 712; _Rep. Com._, 1844, xiv, app., p.
43 (21).

In conveying letters the postman who started with them did not, on the
regular roads, proceed through to the place where they were directed,
but carried them only over his stage to the next postman. By this method
a fair rate of speed should have been maintained, for the horses' path
in the middle of the road was as a rule not so bad as seriously to
impede travelling.[370] Nevertheless complaints about the tardiness of
the post are numerous. Lisle, the Warden of the Marches, said that
letters from London were nearly five days in reaching him at
Alnwick.[371] Nine days from London to Carlisle was considered too slow
but it often took that long, notwithstanding that the letters were
marked twice "for life, for life."[372] The Earl of Sussex complained to
Cecil that they never arrived in York under three days. He expected too
much, however, for three days from London to York was considered good
speed.[373] According to a post label made out in 1589, the distance
from Berwick to Huntingdon was accomplished in ninety-one hours. By the
mileage tables then published, the distance was 203 miles, giving an
average speed of only a little over two miles an hour. It is only fair
to add that the real distance was 282 miles, and this would raise the
speed to about three miles an hour.[374] The distance from Dover to
London was covered in twelve hours, from Plymouth to Hartford Bridge in
forty-four hours, from Portsmouth to Farnham in five hours, from
Weymouth to Staines via Sherborne in five days, but this must have been
exceptionally long.[375]

[370] Hist. MSS. Com., _Rep._, 14, app., pt. 8, p. 35.

[371] _L. & P. Hen. VIII_, 1543, p. 4.

[372] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1547-65, p. 360.

[373] _Ibid._, 1566-79, p. 109.

[374] _Ibid._, 1580-1625, p. 278.

[375] Hist. MSS. Com., _Hatfield House_, pt. 7, pp. 174, 168, 332, 358.

Orders were given to the postmen in 1603 that they should not delay the
mails more than fifteen minutes at each stage and that they should
travel at the rate of seven miles an hour in summer and five in
winter.[376] This was an ideal but seldom realized. Complaints continued
to come in pretty constantly during the first thirty-five years of the
seventeenth century.[377] Secretary Conway wrote to Secretary Coke that
the posts must be punished for their tardiness.[378] Even those from
London to Dover were reprimanded and they had hitherto given the best
satisfaction. The postmaster at Dover was threatened with imprisonment
unless he mended his ways.[379] Letters were either not delivered at all
or were needlessly delayed on the road. Some of the postmasters, who
held lucrative positions, were themselves absentees and their work was
performed by their agents, who were often incompetent, and this sort of
thing was connived at by the Postmaster-General, from whom their
positions were bought. The postmen themselves acknowledged their
tardiness but said that they were able to do no better, since they had
received no wages for several years.[380] One had been paid nothing for
over two years,[6] another had received no wages for seven years,[381]
and finally in 1628 a petition was presented to the Privy Council from
"all the posts in England, being in number ninety-nine poor men." This
petition prays for their arrears, due since 1621, the amount unpaid
being £22,626, "notwithstanding the great charge they are at in the
keeping of many servants and horses to do His Majesty's service."[382]
The Council did not grant their petition, for two years later £25,000
were still due them.[383]

[376] _Rep. Com._, 1844, xiv, app., pp. 38-40 (28).

[377] Six days from London to Holyrood House (_Cal. S. P. D._, 1611-18,
p. 44). Five hours from Sittingbourne to Canterbury (12 miles) (_ibid._,
1619-23, p. 610). Nine hours from Sittingbourne to Dover (_ibid._,
1625-26, p. 256).

[378] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1619-23, p. 564.

[379] _Ibid._, 1625-26, pp. 43, 168.

[380] _Ibid._, 1627-28, p. 307.

[381] _Ibid._, 1623-25, p. 141; 1627-28, p. 307.

[382] _Ibid._, 1628-29, p. 184.

[383] _Ibid._, 1629-31, p. 379.

The Council of State gave directions in 1652 for roads to be manned
between Dover and Portsmouth, Portsmouth and Salisbury, London and
Yarmouth, and London and Carlisle through Lancaster.[384] Hitherto,
Carlisle had to depend upon a branch post from the great North Road.
Dover and Portsmouth had no direct connection nor had Bristol and
Exeter, but letters between these places passed through London. These
orders formed part of the directions given to the farmer of the posts in
the following year.[385] Cromwell seems to have recognized the
impracticability of enforcing the speed limit ordered by Elizabeth in
the case of the ordinary mails. He issued orders that in future only
public despatches or letters from and to certain high officials should
be sent by express, and such despatches and letters must be carried at a
speed of seven miles an hour from the first of April to the thirtieth of
September, and five miles an hour the rest of the year.[386]

[384] _Ibid._, 1652-53, p. 312.

[385] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1652-53, p. 449.

[386] _Ibid._, 1655, pp. 285-86.

Toward the close of the seventeenth century, more attention was directed
to the slowness of the posts and the delays along the road. The average
speed on the great roads varied from three to four miles an hour,
anything below three miles generally calling for reproof. For instance,
the posts on the Portsmouth road were reprimanded for travelling only
twenty-two miles in ten hours.[387] It was said that it took the
Yarmouth mail sixty-six hours to travel less than one hundred miles. The
post labels were an important check upon the postmaster's carelessness.
Each postmaster was supposed to mark the time that he received the mail
on a label attached to it for that purpose. In this way no postmaster
marked the speed that his own postboy made and each was a check upon his
neighbour.[388] Lord Arlington gave orders in 1666 for this practice to
be enforced more strictly. In addition to marking the time of arrival,
the time of departure was also to be added.[389] A year later a further
improvement was made by the use of printed labels, containing also
directions as to speed. The names of the post towns through which the
mail must pass were also added, and blanks were left for the postmasters
to fill in the hours of arrival and departure.[390]

[387] _Ibid._, 1661-62, p. 385.

[388] _Ibid._, 1665-66, p. 19.

[389] _Ibid._, 1666-67, p. 384.

[390] _Ibid._, 1667-68, p. 116. From copies of these labels made out in
1666 and 1667 we know exactly how long it took to convey the mails
between London and the important cities of the kingdom although the time
varied more or less at different trips and different seasons.

      _Between_                    _Hours_
   London and Yarmouth         From 29 to 32
              Plymouth              50    58
              York                  39    42
              Chester               30    56
              Bristol               25    30
              Gloucester            20    26
              Portsmouth            15    23
              Edinburgh             73   103*
              Newcastle             57    81
              Manchester            32    48
              Preston               47    58
              Dover                 19    22
              Southampton           18    23
  (_Cal. S. P. D._, 1667-68, pp. 117, 118, 120,
  121; 1666-67, pp. 388, 389.)

               * Reproved for slowness.

It was often difficult to tell the relative position of places in
England from the post towns. The Post Office had for its own use a
table of places along the great roads,[391] and from the middle of the
seventeenth century, private individuals began to publish road maps. On
these maps, the post towns are marked by a castle with a flag flying
from it. Some of them are quite artistically done and represent on a
large scale every important road in England with the places where branch
roads leave them. One map has each road outlined on a long scroll, and
it gives the rivers, brooks, bridges, elevations, villages, post towns,
forests, and branch roads throughout the whole distance.[392] In 1668,
Hicks, in writing to Arlington's secretary, advised him not to have a
new map of the post roads printed, fearing the great changes that might
thereby be produced in the Post Office. He says: "When Parliament sees
how all the branches lie and most of them carried on at the charge of
those in the country concerned, they will try to have them carried
through by the Postmaster-General, which will be very chargeable."[393]

[391] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1673-75, p. 494.

[392] John Ogilby, _Itinerarium Angliae_, 1675.

[393] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1667-68, p. 543.

At the close of the seventeenth century, the five great roads to
Edinburgh, Holyhead, Bristol, Plymouth, and Dover remained practically
unchanged. The Plymouth road had been continued to Falmouth and the
Northern Road now passed through York. The greatest changes noticeable
are in the Southern and Eastern counties. In the South, nearly all the
coast towns were now connected with the Falmouth road, and the post ran
to the extreme southwest of Cornwall. Portsmouth had a direct service
from London through Arundel and Chichester. There were branches from the
Falmouth road to several towns in Dorset and Somerset, but as a rule the
country between the two great roads to the West was poorly supplied. A
new road of considerable importance ran from Maidenhead on the Bristol
road through Abingdon, Gloucester, Cardiff, and Swansea to Milford,
where there was a packet boat for Ireland. From this road there were a
few unimportant branches to the North.

In the Northeast, the post road to Edinburgh now passed through York to
Northallerton. From York there was a branch to Scarborough and Whitby. A
new road left the Edinburgh road at Royston, about forty miles from
London, and passed along the coast nearly parallel to the great road,
through Newmarket, Lynn, Boston, and Hull to Bridlington. Another branch
left Newmarket for Norwich and the seacoast towns of northern Norfolk.
An important road left London for Yarmouth, with branches to the coast
towns of Suffolk. One new road ran through the midland counties, leaving
the Holyhead road about thirty miles from London and passing through
Sheffield, Manchester, and Preston to Carlisle. Derby was supplied by an
east and west road from Grimsby to Manchester. Liverpool had a post road
to Manchester. In 1683, provision was made for an extension of the post
roads by an order issued to the Postmaster-General to set up posts
between the market towns and the nearest post towns. These were called
bye-posts. It was to them that Hicks had objected as leading to
increased expense. At the same time orders were given for a map to be
printed, showing where all these bye-posts were situated so that people
might know where to address their letters.[394]

[394] _Rep. Com._, 1844, xiv, app., p. 91 (64).

In Ireland, there were three main post roads, running from Dublin
through Ulster, Munster, and Connaught.[395] There were practically no
post roads worthy of the name in Scotland. That part of the great North
Road beyond the Tweed was English rather than Scotch. Between Edinburgh
and Glasgow there was a foot-post. The mail was also carried between
Glasgow and Portpatrick.[396] In 1699, the length of the roads in
America over which the mails passed was 700 miles. These roads connected
the principal towns along the Atlantic coast.[397]

[395] Joyce, p. 53.

[396] _Cal. T. B. & P._, 1739-41, p. 240; _Rep. Com._, 1844, xiv, app.,
p. 94 (67); _Acts of the Parl. of Scotland_, ix, p. 417 (5 Wm. III).

[397] _Cal. T. P._, 1697-1702, p. 280.

In 1696, the Postmaster-General reported favourably on the establishment
of a cross post road between Bristol and Exeter.[398] The report was
approved, and two years later Bristol and Exeter had direct postal
communication. Colonial and foreign letters for Bristol, after their
arrival in Falmouth, still went via London.[399] Towns adjacent to
Bristol and Exeter, which might have been connected with the cross post,
remained separated. For example, the post went from London through
Cirencester to Wotton-under-Edge, which was within fourteen miles of
Bristol, yet letters from Cirencester to Exeter went via London.[400]
The Exeter-Bristol cross post proved a success. After it had been in
operation three years, it produced over £350 net profits a year. The use
of cross posts was advocated as leading to the conveyance of a larger
number of letters, and private individuals started to establish
them.[401] In 1700, the post road from Exeter to Bristol was continued
to Chester through Worcester and Shrewsbury.[402] Three years later, a
direct road was ordered between Exeter and Truro, but it seems to have
been discontinued after one year's trial.[403]

[398] _Ibid._, 1657-96, p. 55.

[399] Latimer, _Annals of Bristol_, p. 488.

[400] _Cal. T. P._, 1697-1702, pp. 21-22.

[401] _Ibid._, 1697-1702, p. 56.

[402] _Ibid._, 1702-07, p. 26.

[403] _Ibid._, 1702-07, p. 134.

The post roads throughout the kingdom had not been measured correctly. A
mile on the London-Edinburgh road was fully ten furlongs. This had
resulted in a decreased revenue from post horses and often unjustifiable
reprimands for slowness. By a provision in the act of 1711, it was
ordered that all the post roads in the kingdom should be measured. This
was to be done by officials appointed by the Postmaster-General and the
measurements left in the general offices in London, Edinburgh, and
Dublin.[404]

[404] 9 Anne, c. 11.

As the seventeenth century had seen the extension of roads in the
southern and eastern counties of England, so the eighteenth century was
marked by the establishment of posts in those parts of the kingdom most
affected by the industrial revolution. The country about Birmingham,
Kidderminster, and Worcester was to share in the better postal
facilities offered by the mail coaches. Lancashire and the West Riding
of York were not debarred from the use of Palmer's innovation. This was
especially the case in Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, Halifax, and
Leeds, for where industrial expansion paved the way, the coaches were
sure to follow.

At the beginning of the nineteenth century the roads in Ireland were
attracting considerable attention, and it was the slow speed made by the
mail carts there which was a primary cause in producing any improvement.
The Postmasters-General were directed to cause surveys to be made and
maps drawn of those roads in Ireland over which the mail passed. The
roads were to be levelled so that the ascent or descent should be no
more than one foot in thirty-five wherever this was practicable, the
expense to be borne by the county or barony.[405] This was in 1805, and
the next year the Grand Jury was given the power to call for another
survey, and the surveyor whom they appointed was to decide as to the
necessity for a change in the direction of the road. Copies of all Grand
Jury presentments were to be made to the Postmasters-General.[406] In
1813 the Grand Juries were empowered to present for damages accruing to
owners and occupiers of land, such damages to be raised by the county
and advanced from the consolidated fund.[407]

[405] 45 Geo. III, c. 43.

[406] 46 Geo. III, c. 134.

[407] 53 Geo. III, c. 146.

After 1817, the Postmasters-General were able to report a considerable
acceleration in the speed at which the mails were carried. This was
owing largely to the introduction of a lighter and more improved type of
mail coach, and after 1821 the use of steam packet boats in the case of
the transportation of the Irish and continental mails. Letters leaving
London at 8 P.M. on Tuesday for Ireland had not been delivered in Dublin
until 10 A.M. on Friday. In 1817 they arrived on Thursday in time for
delivery on that day.[408] In 1828, the coaches travelled from London to
Holyhead, a distance of 261 miles, in twenty-nine hours and seventeen
minutes. Four years later the time had been reduced to twenty-eight
hours.[409] By the introduction of one of the patent mail coaches on the
Yarmouth road, the inhabitants of that town were enabled to answer their
letters a day earlier. The coach left London at the usual time (8 P.M.),
arriving in Yarmouth at 11.40 A.M., returning at 3 P.M. on the same
day.[410] The mails to Manchester and Liverpool travelled at the rate of
nine miles an hour over the greater part of the road.[411] The average
speed varied from eight to nine miles an hour. To give the exact
figures, the highest speed attained in England was ten miles and five
furlongs an hour, the slowest six miles, and the average eight miles and
seven furlongs.[412] In Ireland the highest speed attained by the mail
coaches was nine miles and one furlong an hour, the slowest speed six
miles and seven furlongs, and the average eight miles and two
furlongs.[413] Mail carts drawn by two horses were also used largely in
Ireland for the conveyance of the mails, and by these the speed was not
so great. The highest speed made by them was seven miles and five
furlongs an hour, the slowest five miles and one furlong, and the
average six miles and three furlongs.[414] In Scotland the highest
speed was ten miles and four furlongs an hour, the slowest seven miles,
and the average eight miles and two furlongs.[415]

[408] London _Times_, 1817, Aug. 28, p. 2.

[409] _Rep. Commrs_., 1830, xiv, p. 347; 1831-32, xvii, p. 7.

[410] London _Times_, 1819, July 17, p. 2. Yarmouth is distant from
London 124 miles.

[411] _Ibid._, 1821, Aug. 23, p. 3.

[412] _Acc. & P._, 1836, xlv, 364, pp. 2 f. The following times are
given in _Rep. Commrs._, 1830, xiv:--
  p. 348 London to Liverpool     22 hrs. 7 min., distance 202 miles
  p. 349 London to Bristol       13     14                122
  p. 350 Bristol to Milford      19     38                149
  p. 351 London to Carlisle      34      7                311 (via Leeds)
  p. 352 Carlisle to Portpatrick 11     32                 85
  p. 353 Bristol to Birmingham   10     29                 87

[413] _Acc. & P._, 1836, xlv, 364, p. 4. The following times are given
in _Rep. Commrs._, 1830 xiv:--
  p. 354 Dublin via Cashell to Cork 22 hrs.        distance 126 miles
  p. 355 Cork to Waterford          12 hrs. 4 min.,          72
  p. 356 Dublin to Belfast          13     15                80
  p. 356 Donaghadee to Belfast       2     24                14

[414] _Acc. & P._, 1836, xlv, 364, p. 7.

[415] _Ibid._, 1836, xlv, 364, p. 5.

The mails which left London at 8 P.M. arrived in Holyhead at 12.6 A.M.
on the next day but one. The packet left Holyhead twenty-five minutes
later for Howth. The packet left Howth at 4 P.M. for Holyhead, and the
mails for London left Holyhead at 12.15 A.M. The passage across the
Irish Sea took from five to eight hours. The London coach arrived in
Milford at 5.27 A.M., travelling at a rate of eight miles an hour, and
twenty-five minutes after its arrival, the packet left for Dunmore.
Another left Dunmore with the mails at 12 P.M., and the coach left
Milford for London at 7.30 P.M.[416] The London mail coach arrived at
Portpatrick at 10.27 P.M., fifty hours and twenty-seven minutes from
London. The packet did not leave Portpatrick until 6.10 A.M., after the
arrival of the Glasgow mail, which left Glasgow at 4.45 P.M., arriving
at 5.6 A.M. The packet left Donaghadee at noon, and the mail left
Portpatrick at 4 P.M., arriving in Glasgow at 6 A.M. Ordinarily the
passage across took four hours. The London mail coach arrived in
Liverpool at 6 P.M., twenty-two hours from London, and left at 10.30
P.M. Packets sailed from Liverpool and Kingstown at 5 P.M. and 5.15
P.M., the time for crossing being about fourteen hours. No London
letters went via Liverpool until 1841.[417]

[416] _Rep. Commrs._, 1831-32, xvii, pp. 7, 373-74.

[417] _Ibid._, 1831-32, xvii, pp. 373-74.

The method used to ensure a rapid transmission of the mails by the
coaches was as follows: Time bills were issued to the guards of the
different coaches. On these bills were printed the speed that should be
made from stage to stage, and it was the guard's duty to fill in the
time made by the coach on which he rode. Penalties were inflicted for
any mistakes which he might make or any failure on his part to leave the
bill in the office at the end of his route. On some of the time bills it
was set forth that a fine of one shilling was payable by the proprietor
for each minute that the coach was late and he might recover it from the
guard or coachman if the delay was due to the negligence of either of
them. The coachmen were ordered to make up any time lost on the road
and to report the horse keepers if they were at fault.[418]

[418] _Rep. Commrs._, 1837, xxxiv, 7th rep., app., nos. 40-45.

The chief cause for delay was the lack of close connection between the
mail coaches and the packets to and from Ireland. In 1837 the London
mail arrived in Holyhead at 11 P.M., but the packet did not leave for
Kingstown until 8 A.M., a change having been made in the time of
sailing.[419] Letters from England were detained in Dublin eleven hours
before their departure for the rest of the island.[420] More than one
third of the Irish letters for England left Kingstown by the day packet
at 9 A.M., remaining in Holyhead from 3 P.M. to 4 A.M., with the
exception of the letters for Chester and Manchester, which were
forwarded by a special coach.[421]

[419] _Ibid._, 1837, xxxiv, 7th rep., app., no. 11. The packet leaving
Holyhead at 6.30 P.M. carried letters from Birmingham, brought by the
coach from that place, but took no London letters (_Acc. & P._, 1841,
ix, p. 9).

[420] _Rep. Commrs._, 1831-32, xvii, p. 325.

[421] _Ibid._, 1837, xxxiv, 7th rep., app., no. 11.

The packets from Liverpool started shortly before the arrival of the
London mail. The Commissioners proposed that they should be detained
until it had arrived, but this was not done until ten years later.[422]
The packets at Portpatrick always waited for the mails from Glasgow, and
as these were nearly always late, letters from Carlisle and Northern
England were necessarily detained.[423] The station at Milford had
always given the most trouble. From a financial point of view it was the
least satisfactory, and English letters for the south of Ireland often
went through Holyhead. The packet left Waterford[424] for Milford at 12
P.M., arriving in Milford about noon, but the mail did not leave for
London until 7.30 P.M.[425] English letters for Ireland via Milford were
detained from ten to thirteen hours in Waterford.[426]

[422] _Ibid._, 1831-32, xvii, pp. 5-9; _Acc. & P._, 1841, xix.

[423] _Rep. Commrs._, 1831-32, xvii, pp. 5-9.

[424] Sometimes the packet left Dunmore. See _Rep. Commrs._, 1831-32,
xvii, pp. 373-4.

[425] _Ibid._, 1831-32, xvii, pp. 5-9, 373-74.

[426] _Ibid._, p. 325.

Before the introduction of Penny Postage, the use of railways had only
started. In 1837, it was objected that the railways could never be of
much use in this respect because they could not travel at night for
fear of accidents. In answer to this objection it was pointed out that
trains between Liverpool and Manchester and Leeds and Selby found no
difficulty in that respect.[427] In 1837, mails were carried between
Manchester and Liverpool at a rate of twenty miles an hour, and these
trains left both Liverpool and Manchester as late as 5 P.M.[428] The
Postmaster-General was given authority by Parliament to require any
railway to carry mails either by ordinary or special train and to
regulate the speed to the maximum of the fastest passenger train, as
well as to control places, times and duration of stoppage and the times
of arrival, provided that such regulations were reasonable. He might
require the exclusive use of a carriage, if necessary, provided either
by the railway or himself as seemed better to himself. In 1844 he was
allowed to order a speed not in excess of twenty-seven miles an hour but
he complained that he was unable to enforce his regulations although the
speed was increasing. In 1855 a parliamentary committee reported in
favour of a deduction of payment for irregularity on the part of the
railways and the fining of the Post Office for irregularity in dealing
with mail to be entrusted to the railways, the amounts of such
deductions and fines to be a matter of contract, and in addition it was
advised that the Postmaster-General's demands with reference to speed
should be certified by the Railway Department of the Board of Trade to
be consistent with safety. In conformity with this resolution, the
Postmaster-General proposed to pay a bonus to the railways when their
trains were on time and to exact a penalty from either the railway or
the Post Office whichever were the offender, but the proposition was, as
a rule, not very favourably received by the railways.[429]

[427] _Rep. Com._, 1837-38, xx, pt. 1, p. 469, no. 17.

[428] _Rep. Commrs._, 1837, xxxiv, 7th rep., app., no. 13.

[429] 1 and 2 Vict., c. 98; 7 and 8 Vict., c. 85; _Rep. Com._, 1854, xi,
411, p. xiii; _Rep. P. G._, 1857, p. 7.




CHAPTER VII

SAILING PACKETS AND FOREIGN CONNECTIONS


The Irish mail service was the first to boast a regular sailing
packet.[430] The postal expenditure for the year 1598 included £130 for
a bark to carry letters and despatches between Holyhead and Dublin, and
an additional vessel was hired occasionally for the same purpose.[431]
At the beginning of the seventeenth century, Queen Elizabeth ordered
packets to be established at Milford Haven and Falmouth to ply between
England and Ireland. This order was probably temporary, being intended
to furnish a means of communication only during Essex's expedition.[432]
In 1649 the port of departure for the Irish packets was changed from
Holyhead to Portinllain in Carnarvon and at the same time the land
stages were altered to meet the new conditions.[433] Prideaux reported
the same year that the cost of these packets averaged £600 a year.[434]

[430] _Cal. S. P. Ire._, 1574-85, p. 401.

[431] _Rep. Com._, 1844, xiv, app., p. 37 (15).

[432] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1598-1601, p. 107.

[433] _Ibid._, 1648-49, p. 210.

[434] _Jo. H. C._, 1648-51, p. 385.

In 1653 the Council of State gave orders for the revival of the old
packet service between Milford and Waterford. At the same time Chester
was substituted for Portinllain as the point of departure on the English
side, and mails were carried weekly between the two countries by the
Milford and Chester Packets.[435] The establishment of these boats was
made one of the conditions under which the post was farmed in the same
year.[436] The situation of Holyhead, however, was so much in its favour
that in 1693 a contract was signed for the conveyance of the mails
between Holyhead and Dublin. Mr. Vickers, the contractor, agreed to
maintain three packet boats for this purpose for £450 a year. He also
undertook to provide two boats for the mail service between Portpatrick
and Donaghadee. When the Scotch was separated from the English Post
Office in 1695, three packet boats came under the control of
Scotland.[437] Upon the separation of the British and Irish Posts in
1784, it was provided that each office should receive its own proportion
of the inland postage collected on letters passing between the two
countries. The packet service between the two countries continued to be
managed by the English Postmaster-General, to whom all receipts were
forwarded. In return for this they were required to pay to the Irish
Office a sum not exceeding £4000 a year. This was to be the rule until
Ireland had established packet boats of her own.[438]

[435] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1644, pp. 6, 29; 1641-43, p. 501.

[436] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1652-53, pp. 312, 449.

[437] _Cal. T. P._, 1557-1696, p. 308.

[438] 24 Geo. III, c. 6.

The Irish Post Office, before the Act of Union, had employed boats
called wherries for the despatch of special messengers and expresses to
England. In the course of time they lost their special character and,
after 1801, were used to carry passengers and goods in opposition to the
Holyhead packets. In 1813, Lees, the Secretary of the Irish Office,
informed the London Office that these wherries would henceforth be
employed to carry the Irish mails to Holyhead. This was actually done
for six weeks and the regular packets arrived on the English side
without the mail, which was brought by boats that, as a rule, did not
arrive until after the coach had left for London. Lees may have been
obstinate and ill advised but there was no doubt that he was acting
entirely within his rights. The question then arose, should the Irish
Office receive that part of the £4000 due them while the Holyhead
packets did not carry the mails? The Postmaster-General decided that
they should, much to Freeling's disgust. Lees had obtained his object,
for two years later Parliament passed an act increasing the amount
payable to the Irish Office to £8000 a year.[439]

[439] Joyce, pp. 380-83; 55 Geo. III, c. 145.

Shortly after the Restoration, two packet boats were employed between
Deal and the Downs. They carried letters to and from the ships of the
merchant marine and the Royal Navy lying there. They also collected
letters from vessels arriving from foreign ports and brought them to the
shore whence they were transmitted by the General Post.[440] By an act
passed in 1767 the Isle of Man was for the first time supplied with a
postal service. A packet boat was to run between Whitehaven and the
Port of Douglas in the island.[441] In 1828 sixteen packet boats were
employed in carrying mails between the coast towns and to and from the
outlying islands of the United Kingdom. All of these boats were hired by
the Post Office, except those from Weymouth to Jersey and Guernsey.[442]

[440] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1667-68, pp. 248, 249; Joyce, p. 46.

[441] 7 Geo. III, c. 50.

[442] _Rep. Commrs._, 1830, xiv, app., nos. 78, 80.

Early in the sixteenth century Dover was the port of departure and
arrival for letters to and from the continent, and Calais was the
distributing point on the other side, although the royal mail was
occasionally conveyed between Rye and Dieppe.[443] From Calais the
letters were carried to their destination by the English messengers to
whom they were entrusted. They took up post horses along the way, paying
for them as they proceeded, and often grumbling at the excessive charges
which were demanded.[444] Letters from abroad directed to England were
usually carried as far as Calais by foreign messengers. The foreign
Postmaster-General would then send his bill to the English
Postmaster-General for expenses so incurred.[445] Regular sailing
packets were not used to carry the mails between Dover and Calais during
the sixteenth century, but merchant vessels were employed by the Post
Office.

[443] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1581-90, p. 485.

[444] _Cal. S. P. For._, 1553-58, pp. 239, 341.

[445] _Cal. S P. D._, 1580-1625, p. 188; 1581-90, p. 84; _L. & P. Hen.
VIII_, i, 3639.

Witherings' appointment as Foreign Postmaster-General in 1632 was made
the occasion for a report to Sir John Coke on the foreign postal
service. The immediate cause of the report was the fact that mails had
not arrived from Germany, the Hague and Brussels. The fault was laid
upon the messengers, who were accused of "minding their own peddling
traffic more than the service of the state or the merchants, omitting
many packages, sometimes staying for the vending of their own
commodities, many times through neglect or lying in tippling houses."
The report goes on to express confidence in Witherings and in his plan
for the reform of the foreign post.[446] In 1631, thirteen messengers
were employed to carry letters to the continent: three for France; six
for Germany, Italy and the Netherlands; and four, who travelled to Paris
and other parts of France on special occasions.[447] The service which
they gave was inadequate and slow, and in 1633 the foreign post, at
Witherings' suggestion, was ordered to be conducted on the following
principles. Packet posts were to be appointed at suitable stages to run
day and night without stopping. This was the plan which was commented
upon favourably in the report to Sir John Coke. The Foreign
Postmaster-General was to take the oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy, to
have an office in London, and to give notice at what time the public
were to bring in their letters for despatch to the continent. A register
was also to be kept, in which should be enrolled the names of all
persons bringing letters, together with the names of those to whom they
were addressed. The letters themselves were placed in a packet and
locked and sealed with the Foreign Postmaster-General's seal. Letters
from abroad for ambassadors residing in England and for the Government
were to be delivered at once, after which a table of all other letters
was to be set up for every one to see and demand his own.[448]

[446] Hist. MSS. Com., _Rep._, 12, app., pt. 1, p. 478.

[447] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1631-33, p. 242; Hist. MSS. Com., _Rep._, 12,
app., pt. 2, p. 103.

[448] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1631-33, p. 522.

Witherings attempted next to come to some agreement with the postal
officials of foreign countries about the despatch of letters. In Calais
he met the Countess Taxis, secretary of the Postmaster of Ghent, and she
agreed to settle stages between Antwerp and Calais. Witherings himself
established stages between London and Dover. There had always been
trouble with the boatmen who conveyed the mail between Dover and Calais.
Witherings reported that he had found a man, who for 40s. would wait for
the packet and depart with it at once, carrying nothing else. The
messengers hitherto employed between Antwerp and Calais were
dismissed.[449] The arrangement in France for the carriage of letters to
and from England was decidedly unique. Witherings obtained the
permission of the French ambassador to settle stages in France
himself.[450]

[449] Hist. MSS. Com., _Rep._, 12, app., pt. 2, p. 6.

[450] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1634-35, p. 193.

In 1644, King Charles, from his headquarters at Oxford, ordered sailing
packets to be established at Weymouth to ply between that town and
Cherbourg. This was done ostensibly for the accommodation of the
merchants in the southwest of England. James Hicks was ordered to live
in Weymouth for the purpose of exercising a general oversight over all
letters going or coming by these packets. All dues must be paid before
they were allowed to depart and the masters were accountable to him for
passage money. Postage was charged on all letters going to or coming
from any part of England except those on His Majesty's service. No
letters were to be sent from those parts of England in the hands of the
rebels.[451]

[451] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1644, pp. 6, 29.

Until 1638, Flanders was the only country with which England had come to
an agreement concerning the mutual exchange of the correspondence of
each. In that year, a similar agreement was concluded with de Nouveau,
the French Postmaster-General. All letters between England and France
were henceforth to pass through Dover, Calais, Boulogne, Abbeville, and
Amiens. Both the French and English kings ratified this agreement, and
all others were prohibited by them from infringing upon the monopolies
enjoyed by the two Postmasters-General.[452] On special occasions, of
course, both the French and English kings sent special messengers but
they were not used so often as before.[453] In 1640, the Governor of the
Merchant Adventurers was asked to give his opinion upon the question of
foreign correspondence concerning which there was considerable
dissatisfaction, especially in the case of letters sent to Flanders and
Holland. The Governor in his reply said that complaints had hitherto
been restrained because of the connection of the state with the foreign
post. He added that some time before a letter had come from the Court of
their company at Rotterdam, complaining about the overcharging of the
Company's letters. He did not care to investigate the question alone but
proposed that it be entrusted to a committee composed of two members
from each of the great companies, the Merchant Adventurers, the Turkish,
the Eastland, and the French.[454] After the Restoration, matters were
adjusted with de Nouveau and provision was made for the transmission of
letters to England twice a week.[455] At the same time an attempt was
made to reach an understanding with the burgomaster of Amsterdam and the
Dutch ambassador for the conveyance of English letters to Germany, the
East, and Italy through Holland. Bishop, the English Postmaster-General,
was accused of accepting money for making this bargain and the proposed
agreement did not materialize.[456] In 1665, Frizell was sent abroad to
talk over postal connections with de Nouveau and the Flemish
Postmaster-General, de Taxis, between whom difficulties had arisen. De
Taxis was reminded that letters from Holland for England passing through
Flanders were not treated in accordance with the agreement made between
England and Flanders.[457] The old contract was continued, for in 1693 a
bill was presented to the English Post Office by the next in order of
the House of Thurn and Taxis, referring to the former agreement. £2711
was then due to the Flemish Postmaster-General and, as the bill was
presented in the form of a petition signed by the Prince of the House
and his brothers and sisters, there was probably some difficulty
experienced in collecting it.[458] The Dutch were not satisfied with
receiving letters through Flanders, and in 1667 we find the
Postmaster-General of Holland in Harwich, arranging for a direct service
with England, which was established in the following year.[459] Letters
to and from Holland might go via Calais through France and Flanders, or
by sailing packet to Nieuport and thence through Flanders, or directly
from Harwich to Helvoetsluys. The mail for Holland left London every
Tuesday and Thursday night. The route was along the Yarmouth road as far
as Colchester and then directly to Harwich. The Harwich boats were
stopped for a short time in 1672,[460] but after William's accession
they were in such constant service that it was necessary to hire extra
boats.[461] Orders were often given to delay them until the arrival of
an express from the King and on other occasions they were hurried off
before their regular time for departure.[462]

[452] _Rep. Com._, 1844, xiv, app., p. 58 (37).

[453] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1639-40, p. 457.

[454] _Ibid._, 1640, p. 163.

[455] _Ibid._, 1660-61, p. 82.

[456] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1661-62, p. 56.

[457] _Ibid._, 1664-65, p. 489.

[458] _Ibid._, 1693, p. 57.

[459] _Ibid._, 1667, p. 440.

[460] _Ibid._, 1667-68, p. 428; 1672, p. 189.

[461] _Ibid._, 1690-91, p. 119.

[462] _Ibid._, 1690-91, p. 552.

It was agreed by a contract signed by the French and English
Postmasters-General in 1698 that the mails, as soon as they arrived in
Dover from Calais or in Calais from Dover, should be forwarded by
"express" to London and Paris respectively. This was done in England,
but in France the foreign mail continued to be sent at the regular time
of departure and, as there was only one mail a day, English letters
might have to remain in Calais for nearly twenty-four hours, if the
packet from Dover happened to be late. Cotton and Frankland remonstrated
but Mr. Pajot, the French Postmaster-General, returned no answer. The
English Postmasters-General had agreed to pay about £2500 a year to Mr.
Pajot for the conveyance of English letters through France. One or two
instalments were paid before the war broke out.[463] Nothing further was
done until after the Treaty of Utrecht, when a commission was sent to
France to negotiate a new postal agreement. Pajot refused to accept a
lump sum and declared that each letter passing through France must pay
the ordinary postage according to the French rates. Objection was taken
to this as the French rates were higher than the English, but objections
were of no avail. Pajot, who carried matters with a high hand, gained
his point. By the act of 1711, the postage for a single letter through
France to Italy was 15_d._, and by the terms of the new treaty with
France, 21 sous would have to be paid by the English Postmasters-General
for the conveyance of a letter through France.[464]

[463] Joyce, p. 77.

[464] _Ibid._, p. 139.

The withdrawal of the sailing packets between England and France in 1689
had interrupted postal communication between England and Spain, since
the regular route lay through Calais. Accordingly, packet boats were
hired to ply between Falmouth and the Groyne.[465] After the Methuen
treaty had been signed and while England and France were struggling in
the Spanish Netherlands, it was proposed to replace the old boats
between Falmouth and Lisbon by new. In 1703 a weekly packet service,
supplied by four boats, was established between England and
Portugal.[466]

[465] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1691-92, p. 97.

[466] _Cal. T. P._, 1702-07, p. 94.

At the end of the war, Cotton and Frankland contracted with Mr. Macky to
furnish five boats to carry the mails between England, France, and
Flanders for three years. In 1701, the contract was extended to five
years for £1400 a year. Macky was to provide boats and men but not
provisions and equipment. In case war broke out, the contract would
become void at once. War did break out the next year,[467] and during
the war the packet boats from Harwich to Holland were kept very busy.
They had been large boats, well manned and formidable enough to take
care of themselves in an emergency. They seem even to have become the
aggressors at times. William, himself, as was natural, felt a warm
interest in them. A stranger in a strange land, misunderstood and
personally unpopular, they were the link between him and his home. He
thought that speedier boats should be built and that when pursued they
should attempt to escape rather than stand up to their pursuers. The
government had four narrow, low boats built for purposes of speed. The
sailors complained that the new boats were so low in the water that they
were constantly being swept by the waves and they themselves were
drenched all the time. There is no doubt that William's move was in the
right direction, and the men were placated by an increase in their
wages. This could be done the more easily since the new boats were
smaller than the old and carried fewer men.[468]

[467] _Ibid._, 1702-07, p. 145.

[468] Joyce, pp. 75, 76. Mr. Vanderpoel, postmaster at the Brill, was
appointed by the king to take charge of all letters and despatches sent
by or to their Majesties by the Harwich boats (_Cal. S. P. D._, 1691-92,
p. 404; _Cal. T. P._, 1702-07, pp. 19, 33).

At the time of the War of the Austrian Succession, the Dover packets
were supplied by a man named Pybus. He agreed to carry mails,
passengers, and expresses from Dover to Calais and Ostend. If he could
not reach the latter place by sea he was to land the mails and have them
forwarded overland. He was to receive as pay the fares of all
passengers, but so many officers and soldiers had to be transported free
that he was paid what the Treasury considered that he lost by them.[469]
A position in one of the packets was so dangerous in time of war that a
fund was provided for the widows and children of the killed and for the
support of the wounded. This was met by deducting 10_d._ a month from
the pay of each seaman.[470]

[469] _Cal. T. B. & P._, 1742-45, p.509.

[470] _Cal. T. P._, 1708-14, p. 3.

In 1803, as a war measure, packets were established between Falmouth,
Gibraltar, and Malta.[471] It was understood that the regular service to
Portugal should be discontinued at the same time. In 1812 during
Wellington's campaign in Portugal and Spain, the Post Office announced
that sailing packets would be despatched to Corunna every
fortnight.[472] From Corunna they proceeded to Lisbon before returning
to Falmouth. There was some complaint from the mercantile interests on
account of the stop at Corunna, since the merchants were more interested
in the Lisbon markets than in keeping up communication with Wellington's
army.[473]

[471] 43 Geo. III, c. 73.

[472] London _Times_, 1812, Aug. 31, p. 2.

[473] _Ibid._, 1813, Aug. 22, p. 2.

By the end of 1813, Napoleon had lost control over Europe. The Dutch had
freed themselves from French domination. On November 26th a Dutch mail
was made up at the Post Office and despatched for Harwich. The regular
packet boats were reëstablished and were ordered to land the mails at
Scheveningen, a small fishing town three miles from the Hague.[474]
Following Napoleon's expulsion to Elba, postal communications with
France were resumed. Mails were despatched from Dover four times a week,
on Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday, leaving London at 11 P.M.
on Tuesday and Friday and at 7 P.M. on Wednesday and Thursday.[475]
Thirteen sailing vessels were stationed at Harwich in 1828, all of them
hired permanently. Nine sailed between Harwich and Helvoetsluys, four
between Harwich and Gothenburg.[476]

[474] _Ibid._, 1813, Nov. 29, p. 3.

[475] _Rep. Commrs._, 1829, xi, p. 232; _Acc. & P._, 1817, p. 11; London
_Times_, 1814, April 18, p. 3.

[476] _Rep. Commrs._, 1830, xiv, app., no. 78.

The London merchants in 1837 complained that no mails were made up in
Paris for London on Wednesday and Thursday. The mails from Spain, Italy,
and Switzerland arrived in Paris on Tuesday and Friday, and Tuesday's
mails were not despatched until Friday. An arrangement was asked for by
which a daily post might be established between Paris and London. They
pointed out that there was a daily post from Paris to Calais, a daily
packet service and a daily post from Dover to London.[477] English
letters for France arrived in Dover daily at 5 A.M., except on Wednesday
and Saturday, were despatched to Calais at once and left Calais at noon
for Boulogne and Paris. On post nights,[478] letters did not leave
London until midnight, arrived in Dover at 10 A.M., and were often not
in time for the Paris mail, which left Calais at noon.[479] The two
packets between Dover and Ostend carried the mails four times a
week.[480] By virtue of a treaty with Belgium, these packets conveyed
letters both ways and the Belgium Government paid £1000 a year as its
part of the expenses. The Dover-Calais boats on the other hand carried
letters only to Calais, and not from Calais to Dover.[481] Letters from
Belgium to Dover went first to London and this held true of any letters
from Belgium to England via Dover.[482]

[477] London _Times_, 1830, May 21, p. 3.

[478] Post nights were probably on Wednesday and Saturday nights.

[479] London _Times_, 1837, Jan. 14, p. 7.

[480] _Rep. Commrs._, 1836, xxviii, 6th rep., p. 5.

[481] _Ibid._, 1836, xxviii, 6th rep., p. 5.

[482] _Ibid._, 1836, xxviii, 6th rep., p. 7.

It was provided in 1835 that, after the Postmaster-General had entered
into an agreement with any foreign state to collect and account for the
British postage on letters sent from the United Kingdom to any such
state, it should be optional for a person sending such a letter to pay
the whole amount of postage in advance or to pay the British postage
only, as had hitherto been the custom, or to pay neither. The entire
postage on letters from abroad might also be paid in one sum and the
part due the foreign state was then handed over by the English
Postmaster-General.[483] In the following year such a treaty was
concluded with France, the English colonies also being included in the
arrangement. It was agreed that each country should account to the other
according to the method of reckoning postage of the country to which the
payment was made, a settlement to be concluded every three months.[484]

[483] 5 and 6 Wm. IV., c. 25.

[484] London _Times_, 1836, June 20, p. 5. In accounting to France for
letters sent there postpaid, England agreed to consider as a single
letter any enclosure or enclosures weighing not more than a quarter of
an ounce, according to the French method.

At the beginning of the eighteenth century William Dummer entered into a
contract to supply packet boats for use between England and the West
Indies. For this service Dummer provided five boats, each one of 150
tons and carrying 50 men. Each was to make three round trips a year,
thus giving fifteen sailings every twelve months from both England and
the West Indies.[485] These boats were to make Falmouth their home port,
but they often kept on to Plymouth, probably because it was a better
place to dispose of their smuggled goods.[486] Poor Dummer was
exceedingly unfortunate with his West India boats. The first one to sail
was captured on her maiden trip. The receipts did not come up to his
expectations. He had supposed that to double the receipts he had only
to double the rates, but like other men before and after him he had to
learn the effect of higher rates on correspondence.[487] In 1706 he
wrote that it was a losing contract,[488] and in the same year the
Government released him from the agreement and paid him for two of his
lost packets.[489] From a total of fourteen boats provided for the
packet service, he had lost nine. The Postmasters-General recommended
that for the future the packets should leave and arrive at Bideford,
which was less exposed to the enemies' privateers than either Falmouth
or Plymouth.[490]

[485] _Cal. T. P._, 1702-07, p. 64.

[486] _Ibid._, p.57.

[487] Joyce, pp. 79, 81.

[488] _Cal. T. P._, 1702-07, p. 105.

[489] _Ibid._, 1702-07, p. 29.

[490] _Ibid._, 1708-14, p. 45.

After Dummer's failure, no attempt was made by the Post Office to revive
the service until 1745. In that year the Postmasters-General reported to
the Treasury in favour of regular packets between Falmouth and some port
in the West Indies. The report was agreed to, and orders were given for
two new boats to be supplied and for the two boats between Lisbon and
Gibraltar to be transferred there.[491] The agent at Falmouth was
ordered to see that each boat sailed with its full complement of men, as
the captains were accustomed to discharge some of the crew just before
sailing and pocket their wages. He was also to make sure that each of
the boats sailing from Falmouth for Lisbon, the West Indies, or North
America was British built and navigated by British seamen. He must keep
a journal, in which should be entered the time that he received and
delivered mails and expresses, how the wind and tide served, when the
boats arrived and departed, and any delay in sailing which might occur.
The captains were ordered to make returns after each voyage of the
number of men on board. The crew while on shore should receive their
accustomed wages and "victuals" and, if any were discharged, a return
was to be made of such discharge, the money due them being turned over
to the pension fund. It had become customary for the captains not to pay
the men while they were on shore and to retain the money owing them.
Finally the agent was to see that the packet boats proceeded to the
Roads the day before the mail was expected from London.[492] Packets had
already been employed to convey mails to and from Madeira and
Brazil[493] and within the next few years others were hired to ply
between Falmouth, Buenos Ayres,[494] Colombia, Mexico, San Domingo, and
Cuba, and between the British West Indies, Colombia, and Mexico.[495]

[491] _Cal. T. B. and P._, 1742-45, pp. 705, 707.

[492] _Jo. H. C._, 1787, pp. 816, 817.

[493] 48 Geo. III, c. 116.

[494] 5 Geo. IV, c. 10.

[495] 6 Geo. IV, c. 44.

In 1815, the Postmaster-General was given permission by Act of
Parliament to establish sailing packets between the United Kingdom, the
Cape of Good Hope, Mauritius, and that part of the East Indies embraced
within the charter of the East India Company. Packet rates were also
charged for letters carried by war vessels and by vessels of the
company, but in the former case the consent of the Lords of the
Admiralty for the use of their ships had first to be obtained. Letters
to and from China must go by vessels of the company and no others. With
the consent of the Commissioners of the Treasury or any three of them,
the Postmaster-General might allow the regular sailing packets to import
and export all goods, which might legally be imported or exported, but
in the case of tea, only enough for the use of those on board should be
carried.[496]

[496] 55 Geo. III, c. 153.

When Cotton and Frankland were appointed Postmasters-General in 1691,
the following sailing packets were in commission.[497]

                      {Flanders, 2 boats.
  Between England and {Holland,  3
                      {Ireland,  3
  Between Scotland and Ireland,  2
  At Deal for the Downs,[498]    2

In 1689, the King had ordered the boats between Dover and Calais to be
discontinued until further notice. This was done "on account of the late
discovery of treasonable designs against the Government" and the war
with France. His Majesty "preferred that all interchange of letters with
France should cease."[499]

[497] Letters were sent to the colonies by private vessels. The method
used for sending letters to America was as follows. Masters of vessels
bound for America used to hang up a bag in the coffee-houses, in which
letters were placed. A fee of one penny was charged for a single letter
and 2_d._ for a double letter or parcel in excess of a single letter
(_Cal. T. P._, 1697-1702, p. 77).

[498] Thos. DeLaune, _Present State of London_, 1681, p. 343.

[499] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1689-90, p. 301.

In 1744, the sailing packets of Great Britain and Ireland, excluding
those employed in the domestic service, were as follows: four boats
between Falmouth and Lisbon, four on the Harwich station, six between
Dover and Calais or Ostend, two between Gibraltar and Lisbon, and two on
the Minorca station. The use of sailing packets to Gibraltar and Minorca
was made necessary by the war. From twenty to twenty-six additional men
were added to each of the eighteen packets as a protection against the
enemy, and the total additional yearly charge was £7045.[500] This is
one of the items which made postal expenses run so high in time of war,
to say nothing of the packets captured by the enemy. The three boats
between Dover and Calais were sent to Harwich, Helvoetsluys, and Ostend
for the time being.[501]

[500] _Cal. T. B. and P._, 1742-45, p. 518.

[501] _Ibid._, 1742-45, p. 523.

The practice of the Post Office until 1821 had been to contract for the
supply of packet boats, paying only a nominal sum for their hire and
allowing the contractors to have the receipts from passengers. In 1818 a
private company established steamboats between Holyhead and Dublin, and
the public preferred these to the sailing packets. The number of
passengers by the government packets fell off nearly one half. Something
had to be done at once, for, as the receipts from fares decreased, the
contractors clamoured for higher pay. The steamboat company offered to
carry the mails for £4 a trip and later for nothing, but the Post Office
determined to have steam packets of its own.[502] Two, built by Boulton
and Watt, under the inspection of the Navy Board, were placed on the
Holyhead station in 1821, and these, as well as those introduced later
on the other stations, were the property of the Crown.[503]

[502] _Rep. Commrs._, 1830, xiv, p. 7.

[503] _Parl. Papers_, 1822, vi, 417, pp. 117 f.

The fares by the steam packets at Holyhead were fixed at the same rates
as those charged by the company's boats and these fares were somewhat
higher than those formerly charged by the sailing packets. For instance,
the fee for a cabin passenger had been one guinea, for a horse one
guinea, and for a coach three guineas. These were now raised to £1
5_s._, £1 10_s._, and £3 5_s._ respectively. The new rates, which were
so fixed in order not to expose the company to undue competition, had
not been long enforced before the Select Committee on Irish
Communications reported against them, and the Post Office reduced them
to the old figures.[504]

[504] Joyce, pp. 384-85. In a debate in the House on the Holyhead rates,
Parnell said that they limited the use of the steamboats to the rich
(_Parl. Deb._, 3d ser., x, coll. 684-85).

In 1822 steam packets were placed on the Dover station, in 1824 they
were introduced at Milford, in 1826 at Liverpool and Portpatrick, and in
1827 at Weymouth.[505] At Liverpool also a private company had offered
to carry the mails but the offer was refused. This refusal, as well as
the refusal to accept the Holyhead Company's offer, was condemned in a
report of the Commissioners.[506] The new Liverpool packets ran from
Liverpool to Kingstown, the Holyhead packets from Holyhead to Kingstown
and Howth.[507] In 1828 the steam packets owned by the Crown numbered
eighteen. They were distributed as follows: four at Liverpool, two of
300, one of 301 and one of 327 tons, all of 140 horse power; six at
Holyhead, varying from 230 to 237 tons, all of 80 horse power; four at
Milford, varying from 189 to 237 tons, all of 80 horse power; two at
Portpatrick of 130 tons and 40 horse power; and two at Dover of 110 tons
and 50 horse power.[508] Two years later, three steam packets were added
to the Weymouth station.[509] In 1836, the Post Office had in use
twenty-six steam packets, one having been added at Liverpool, three at
Dover, and an extra one was kept for contingencies.[510]

[505] _Acc. & P._, 1834, xlix, pp. 1, 156.

[506] _Rep. Commrs._, 1830, pp. 22, 36, 40.

[507] _Acc. & P._, 1826-27, xx, p. 6.

[508] _Rep. Commrs._, 1830, xiv, app., no. 78.

[509] _Ibid._, 1830, xiv, p. 72.

[510] _Ibid._, 1836, xxviii, 6th rep., app., p. 28.

With the exception of the Dover service for a few years, the steam
packets were always a financial loss to the Post Office. The total
disbursements for the Holyhead, Liverpool, Milford, and Portpatrick
stations from 1821 to 1829 were £681,648, the receipts for the same
period being only £250,999.[511] From 1832 to 1837 the disbursements for
all the steam packets were £396,669, receipts £180,167.[512] The Milford
boats were the least productive of any. From 1824 to 1836, the
expenditure for that station was £220,986, the receipts only £26,592.
The Commissioners had pointed out that not only was the practice of
building and owning its own boats a mistake on the part of the Post
Office, but they were very badly managed. For example, the stores for
the Holyhead station were obtained from the postmaster at Liverpool, who
invariably charged too much for them.[513] At Portpatrick the goods were
supplied and the accounts checked in a very irregular manner.[514] At
Dover the supplies were ordered by the mates, engineers, etc., as they
were needed and the bills paid by the Post Office. There was no control
over these officers, the accounts were not examined, and the bills were
not certified by the commanders. There was no proof that the goods were
even delivered. The agent, who forwarded the bills, was not a seaman nor
had he any knowledge of ships' stores.[515] At Weymouth, where there
were three steam packets for Jersey and Guernsey, conditions were
better. The agent was a practical seaman, the demands for supplies were
examined by him before being granted, and were signed by him, by the
commander, and by the engineers or whoever needed them. The
Commissioners also protested against sending the Weymouth boats so far
for repairs as Holyhead, which was the regular repair station of the
Post Office. Apart from the steam packets stationed at Holyhead,
Liverpool, Milford, Portpatrick, Weymouth, and Dover, all the other
packets employed by the Post Office were hired permanently or
temporarily.[516]

[511] _Acc. & P._, 1834, xlix, p. 1; _Rep. Commrs._, 1831-32, xvii, pp.
358-60.

[512] _Acc. & P._, xlvi, 281.

[513] _Rep. Commrs._, 1836, xxviii, pp. 14-16.

[514] _Ibid._, 1836, xxviii, 6th rep., p. 18.

[515] _Ibid._, 1836, xxviii, 6th rep., p. 6.

[516] _Ibid._, 1836, xxviii, 6th rep., p. 8.

The Post Office was at no time entirely dependent upon its regular
sailing packets for the carriage of the mails. The merchant marine of
England had been increasing with her growing commerce, and provision was
made in the acts of 1657 and 1660 for the carriages of letters by
private vessels. By the latter of these acts the conveyance of letters
to foreign countries had been restricted to English ships under a
penalty of £100 for every offence. It was decided in 1671, on the
occasion of the wreck of one of the regular Irish packets, that it would
be better to use a Dutch-built ship on account of its being much more
seaworthy in the choppy swell of the Irish sea. Accordingly an
order-in-council was issued, allowing a vessel built in Holland to be
used, and providing for its naturalization.[517] By the act of 1660,
letters arriving in private vessels were to be given to the postmaster
at the port of arrival so that they might be forwarded to London to be
despatched to their destination after being charged with the postage
due. Masters of vessels were offered no inducement to deliver the
letters to the postmaster nor was any liability incurred by neglecting
to do so. The post farmers, however, agreed to pay a penny for every
letter delivered by a captain on his arrival. This was the origin of
ship letter money.[518]

[517] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1671, p. 203. In 1793, owing to a scarcity of
English vessels and as a war measure, permission was given to send
English letters to Spain and Portugal by means of Spanish ships (33 Geo.
III, c. 60).

[518] Joyce, p. 73.

No attempt had ever been made to collect postage on letters conveyed by
private ships except for the distance which such letters might be
carried by the regular posts within the kingdom.[519] In 1799 an act was
passed under the following title: "An Act for the more sure conveyance
of ship letters and for granting to His Majesty certain rates of postage
thereon." The Postmasters-General were given authority by this act to
forward letters and packages by other vessels than the sailing packets.
On letters brought in by such vessels, 4_d._ was to be charged for a
single letter and so in proportion. This was to be in addition to the
inland postage and 2_d._ was to be paid to the master for every letter
handed over by him to the Post Office. The net revenue so arising was to
be paid into the Exchequer. No postage was charged on letters carried
out of the kingdom by private vessels[520] until 1832, when permission
was given to charge packet rates. It was forbidden to send letters by
these ships except through the Post Office unless such letters concerned
only the goods on board.[521] In 1835 that part of the act of 1711
forbidding letters to be sent out of the kingdom except in British ships
was repealed.[522]

[519] It is true that by the act of 1711, a penny was to be charged for
every ship letter; but this was to go to the master of the ship.

[520] 39 Geo. III, c. 76.

[521] 2 Wm. IV, c. 15.

[522] 5 and 6 Wm. IV, c. 25.

The sailing packets were ordinarily allowed to carry passengers and
freight, for which fixed rates were charged. In case of trouble with
any foreign power, the masters were generally forbidden to allow their
packets to be used as passenger boats.[523] During King William's war,
the Harwich-Helvoetsluys packets carried recruits free to the scene of
activities.[524] They had also been guilty of bringing dutiable goods
into the country and paying no duty on them. This made the customs
officials indignant, especially as the Post Office authorities would not
allow them to search the packets on their arrival. By an act passed in
1662, no ship, vessel, or boat ordinarily employed for the carriage of
letters was allowed to import or export any goods, unless permission had
been given by the customs officials, under a penalty of £100 to be paid
by the master of the offending packet boat.[525] It had been agreed
between Dummer and the Post Office that he should carry no more than
five tons of merchandise outward bound nor more than ten tons when
homeward bound. The Commissioners of the Customs in 1708 advised the
Lord High Treasurer that if he gave licences to the packet boats to
carry goods[526] it would be necessary to comply with the law and
subject the boats to searchers, rules, and penalties as the merchantmen
were. They proposed that the agreement made with Dummer be applied to
all the packets. They pointed out that if this were done, all friction
between the customs and Post Office might be avoided.[527] In 1732, the
difficulty assumed a new form over the question as to the carriage of
dutiable goods by mail. Diamonds had recently been discovered in Brazil
and they were exported to England via Spain. It had also become
customary to send fine laces by post. We, who have become used to
intolerant customs' regulations, can hardly appreciate the indignation
aroused by the desire of the customs' authorities to search the mails.
It was the rule at that time for the Controller of the Foreign Office to
lay a tax of 1 per cent upon packages which he thought had lace or
diamonds in them. The customs officials seized twenty-one parcels of
diamonds in a mail bag, coming from Lisbon in the packet _Hanover_. The
Postmasters-General were very indignant and wrote to the Treasury that
they "would not have it left to a customs' house officer to break open
the King's mail, which has never been done before."[528] Evidently the
customs officials had exceeded their authority and the matter was
compromised by the appointment of a sub-controller of the Foreign Post
Office to act under the authority of the Customs Commissioners and
receive the duties on diamonds and other jewels and precious stones
imported in the packet boats.[529] In a report of the
Postmasters-General somewhat earlier, we are informed of a payment of
£1087 made by them to the Receiver-General of the Customs. This amount
covered four fifths of the gross duty on diamonds and laces, which had
come by the sailing packets during four years, one fifth having been
deducted for postage.[530]

[523] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1650, p. 540.

[524] _Ibid._, 1691-92, pp. 29, 137.

[525] 13 and 14 Chas. II, c. 11.

[526] Goods were not supposed to be carried unless such a licence had
been obtained. Some Jews, coming from Calais on the packet boat, had
brought a few spectacles with them, on the sale of which they said that
their support depended. The spectacles were confiscated (_Cal. T. B. and
P._, 1739-41, p. 61).

[527] _Cal. T. P._, 1708-14, p. 74.

[528] _Cal. T. B. & P._, 1731-34, p. 223.

[529] _Ibid._, 1731-34, p. 242.

[530] _Ibid._, 1731-34, p. 234.

By a section of the act of 1784, letters or packages from abroad
suspected of containing dutiable articles were to be taken by the
postmaster to a Justice of the Peace. He was to take an oath that he
suspected that dutiable goods were contained in the letter or packet. In
the presence of the justice he was then to cut a slit two inches long in
the parcel to permit examination of the contents. If his suspicions
seemed to be confirmed he might slit the cover entirely open and if
anything dutiable were found it must be destroyed. The letter was then
forwarded to the Commissioner of the Customs in order that proceedings
might be taken against those implicated. If nothing was found, the
letter was to be sent to the person to whom it was addressed, under the
magistrate's cover, with no extra charge for postage.[531]

[531] 24 Geo. III, session 2, c. 37.

In one respect, the packet stations in England were conducted on
divergent principles. The supplies for the Harwich packets were advanced
directly by the Government through the Postmaster-General. When the War
of the Austrian Succession broke out, a treasury warrant was issued for
the supply of military stores and eight additional men for each of the
Harwich boats.[532] At Falmouth, the agent supplied all necessaries.
Neither plan was entirely free from objection. When the agent acted as
victualler he naturally tried to make as much as possible out of his
contract, and there were frequent complaints from the men on the
Falmouth boats concerning the quality and quantity of the food. At
Harwich, the drawbacks of the other method, under which the Post Office
did its own victualling, were quite as marked. No bill for provisions
represented what they had actually cost. A percentage was habitually
added to the actual cost and this percentage went into the pockets of
those by whom the goods had been ordered.[533]

[532] _Cal. T. B. & P._, 1742-45, p. 55.

[533] Joyce, pp. 95 f.

The postal abuses which came to light in 1787 were more flagrant in
connection with the packet service than in any other department of the
Post Office. The Secretary himself was not only a large owner in the
boats, but as agent he received 2-1/2 per cent of the gross total
expenditure. From 1770 to 1787, this had amounted to £1,038,133, from
which he had received over £25,000. Besides this, his salary amounted to
£1000 a year and there was an annuity of £100 attached to his office. He
had become too old to perform his duties, but instead of being
superannuated another person was appointed to assist him.[534]

[534] _Fin. Rep._, 1797, no. 7, p. 5.

The Sailors' Pension Fund was grossly mismanaged. Each sailor's monthly
contribution had been raised from 10_d._ to 2_s._ and then 3_s._ After
twenty years' service, the man who had kept up his payments was entitled
to receive £4 or £5 a year. The names of dead people were retained on
the list of pensioners, fictitious names were added, and there seems no
doubt that the agent retained the money ostensibly paid out in their
names.[535] The agent at Falmouth had a salary of £230 a year and £160
in perquisites, £100 of which were paid to the former agent's widow. The
late agent had received £430 a year in perquisites in addition to the
regular £390 less £40 for a clerk and an assistant postmaster, making
£780 in all, certainly a comfortable salary for a packet agent at that
time. The £430 was made up by an involuntary contribution of five
guineas from each of the captains of the twenty-two packet boats and the
wages of one man from each boat. The latter sum was obtained by
dismissing the men, whose wages still continued to be paid--to the
agent. Smuggling had become by no means uncommon among the Falmouth
boats, the carriage of the mails being considered of secondary
importance. They often arrived when least expected, or they might not
arrive for days at a time, although the wind and weather were
favourable.[536]

[535] _Jo. H. C._, 1787, p. 116.

[536] _Jo. H. C._, 1787, pp. 815-16.

Fares for passengers were not always collected, but a moderate payment
to the captains would ensure a passage as they were allowed to carry
their friends free and the payment readily secured the privilege
desired. The agents also profited by the sale of passes.[537] There were
more boats on the Falmouth station than necessary, and, although they
ranged in size from 150 to 300 tons, the same number of men were
employed on each. The Secretary of the Post Office, from whose report
these facts about the packets are derived, proposed that three or four
of the boats should be taken off, thus effecting a saving of £6000 or
£8000. In case it should be considered expedient to employ regular
packet boats to Quebec and Halifax, N. S., they might be placed on those
stations. No deductions were made for the hire of boats when they were
unemployed, either when being repaired or when under seizure for
smuggling.[538]

[537] _Ibid._, 1787, pp. 815-16. Anthony Todd, Secretary of the Post
Office, writing to Charles Cox in Harwich said that "several persons
going from Helvoetsluys to Harwich, who are well able to pay full fare,
have given money for half, free and poor passes, and larger sums have
been taken for passes than are allowed by the Postmaster-General" (_Jo.
H. C._, 1787, p. 805).

[538] _Ibid._, 1787, p. 205.

The result of these exposures was a series of reforms started in 1793.
By 1797 the Post Office was able to report that orders had been issued
forbidding any official to own a sailing packet or have a share in any
of them. Orders were given to pay the sailors regularly throughout the
whole year. The 2-1/2 per cent on all expenditure, formerly paid to the
Secretary, was abolished. Finally all salaries were henceforth to be in
lieu of every emolument.[539]

[539] _Fin. Rep._, 1797, no. 7, pp. 52-65.

In 1793, the expenses for packet boats amounted to £45,666 a year. This
was reduced in the following year to £36,940, but from 1795 expenses
began to increase, owing to losses during the war and the necessity for
placing the boats on a war footing.[540] In time of peace, a Falmouth
packet of 179 tons carried twenty-one men, including officers, at a
total expenditure for men, interest, insurance, and wear and tear, of
£1681.[541] In time of war, she carried twenty-eight men, all of whom
were paid higher wages, and other expenses were also higher, bringing
the total expenses for each packet to £2112 a year.[542] For a packet of
seventy tons the expenses during peace and war were respectively £536
and £862.[543] It is not surprising then that the cost for all the
packet boats had risen in 1796 to £77,599. The Falmouth boats were
responsible for £60,444 of this, the rest being divided amongst the
Dover, Harwich, Donaghadee, Milford, Weymouth, and Holyhead packets and
the West India schooners.[544] The salaries paid to the agents in 1796
amounted to £3412. They were stationed at Lisbon, Falmouth, Yarmouth
(instead of Harwich and Dover), Weymouth, Jamaica, Halifax, N. S., and
Quebec. In Lisbon and the colonial towns, the agents acted also as
postmasters.[545]

[540] _Ibid._, no. 7, p. 131.

[541] _Fin. Rep._, no. 7, p. 119.

[542] _Ibid._, no. 7, p. 118.

[543] _Ibid._, no. 7, pp. 122-23.

[544] _Ibid._, no. 7, p. 117.

[545] _Ibid._, no. 7, p. 116.

In 1827, all the packets sailing out of Falmouth were transferred to the
Admiralty, in spite of Freeling's protest. The question had been
discussed again and again during the war with France but why it was
decided upon at this particular time is not clear. At the time of
transfer, thirty packets were employed at Falmouth, carrying mails to
and from Lisbon, Brazil, Buenos Ayres, the Mediterranean, America, the
Leeward Isles, Jamaica, Colombia, and Mexico. In 1828, the number of
packets at Falmouth had increased to thirty-eight brigs of war and
sailing vessels and in 1833 to forty-one.[546]

[546] _Rep. Commrs._, 1830, xiv, app., no. 78; _Acc. & P._, 1834, xlix,
p. 3; Joyce, pp. 398-99.

The Admiralty had exceedingly bad luck with the Falmouth boats for the
first seven years. During that time seven of them were lost; four were
wrecked, one was supposed to have been burned, one was smashed to pieces
by icebergs, and one was captured by pirates off Rio Janeiro.[547]

[547] _Acc. & P._, 1834, xlix, p. 49. Three of the boats wrecked were on
their way to or from Halifax, N. S.

In 1837, the charge of all the packets and the powers and authorities
then existing in the Postmaster-General under any contract for the
conveyance of mails were transferred to the Admiralty by act of
Parliament.[548] The Post Office was still to retain the discretionary
power of regulating the time of departure of the packets and of
receiving the reports of the agents when the mail was delayed.[549] In
the same year, but by a later act, the Postmaster-General was authorized
to contract for the conveyance of letters by private ships between any
places whatever, but such ships must be British. The rates were to be
the same as the packet rates, but the owners, charterers, and consignees
of vessels inward bound were allowed to receive letters free to the
weight of six ounces, or twenty ounces in the case of vessels coming
from Ceylon, the East Indies, and the Cape of Good Hope.[550] For every
letter retained by the captain or any other person there was a penalty
of £10. The captain was also liable to a penalty for refusing to take
the letter bags, even when no contract had been signed.[551]

[548] 7 Wm. IV and I Vict., c. 3.

[549] _Acc. & P._, 1837-38, xlv, pp. 1, 2.

[550] 7 Wm. IV and I Vict., c. 34.

[551] 7 Wm. IV and I Vict., c. 36.

The control of the packets by the Admiralty after 1837 failed to produce
the results anticipated. The power of authorizing contracts for the
conveyance of the mails by water was actually vested in the Lords of the
Treasury upon consultation with the Postmaster-General, the Colonial
Secretary, and the Lords of the Admiralty with reference to the postal,
colonial, or nautical questions involved, but as a matter of fact these
officials did not always work in harmony. The mails continued to be
carried by private vessels or war vessels not under contract, by packets
belonging to the Crown, and by vessels under contract. Before the use of
steam vessels the Government was able as a rule to make contracts for a
short period and at comparatively little cost. Between England and the
neighbouring countries (Ireland, France, and Belgium), government steam
packets were employed. For the longer voyages it was considered
advisable to induce commercial companies to build steam vessels by
offering large subsidies for long periods. In 1853, a Parliamentary
Committee reported in condemnation of the further use of
government-owned packets on account of their expense and also of the
payments to the owners of contract vessels in excess of the actual cost
of mail carriage. They pointed out, however, that exceptions might very
well be made when for political or social reasons it seemed necessary to
carry mails to places where commercial vessels did not go, or went very
irregularly, or where high speed was desirable.[552] This report, in so
far as it condemned the use of government-owned packets and the
excessive subsidies paid to contractors, repeated the findings of an
earlier committee published in 1849, which had in addition advised that
the rule should be observed of calling for tenders in the most public
way possible.[553] In 1852, the only service performed by the government
packets was that between Dover, Calais, and Ostend. On the French
service the night mails between Dover and Calais were conveyed by
British packets and the day mails by French. Between Dover and Ostend
there was a daily service, thrice a week by British, four times by
Belgian packets. Of the six boats employed by the Admiralty, four were
kept fully manned and two were spare steamers. The receipts did not
equal the gross expenses.[554] Again in 1860, the year in which the
control of the packets was transferred to the Post Office, we find a
third Parliamentary committee repeating the recommendations of its
predecessors so far as the subsidy question was concerned. Nothing was
said about the government steamers, for in the meantime the principle of
packet ownership had been abandoned.[555]

[552] _Rep. Com._, 1860, xiv; _Acc. & P._, 1852-53, xcv, 1660, pp. 1-7.

[553] _Rep. Com._, 1849, xii, p. iii.

[554] _Acc. & P._, 1852-53, xcv, 1660, p. 37.

[555] _Rep. Com._, 1860, xiv, p. 17; 23 Vict., c. 46; _Parl. Deb._, 3d
ser., clxi, col. 830; cxciv, col. 1281; cxcvii, col. 1818.

A general review of the packet services existing at the middle of the
nineteenth century affords a very good example of the relative
importance of these different systems of communication and of the
principles on which the payment of subsidies was based. The inland
packet service of the United Kingdom included, among others, the lines
between Holyhead and Kingstown, Liverpool and the Isle of Man, Aberdeen
and Lerwick, Southampton and the Channel Isles. This formed a necessary
part of the inland postal service, and no attempt was made to meet
expenses by levying a sea-transit postage. In the case of the Isle of
Man the postage collected covered the cost of the packets and of the
land establishment of the Post Office in the island. The expenses of the
Shetland packets by themselves exceeded the postage collected, and the
Orkney postal expenses were also greater than the revenue.

The second class consisted of the packets plying between England and the
colonies or between the colonies themselves, and included the lines to
India, Australia, the Cape, the West Indies, and British North America.
This class was and is by far the most important. Three-fourths of the
whole annual subsidies paid by the Government for the packet service
were paid to three great companies, the Peninsular and Oriental, the
Royal Mail, and the Cunard Company. The first of these connected England
with India and the Orient, the second with the West Indian colonies, and
the third with the North American Provinces. The great cost involved in
subsidizing these companies was excused on the ground of absolute
necessity for a regular and rapid mail service between the mother
country and her colonies. Of the lines furnishing communications with
foreign countries, several were connected with and subsidiary to the
colonial service, as the continuation of the Cunard line to the United
States. The service to China was the most remunerative part of the
system undertaken by the Peninsular and Oriental boats, and the same may
be said of the foreign service of the Royal Mail Company. From a
commercial point of view the Continental packets were perhaps the most
important of all.[556]

[556] _Acc. & P._, 1852-53, xcv, 1660, pp. 37-43.

The first contract with an individual steamship company was made in 1840
with the famous Cunard Company providing for the conveyance of mails
between Great Britain, the United States, and Canada. In accordance with
the recommendations of various committees, attempts were made later to
place the Atlantic packet service upon a firmer financial basis so far
as the loss to the Post Office was concerned. In 1868, the contract with
the Cunard Company, which had been renewed at various times under
somewhat different conditions, came to an end. The Conservative
Government which was just going out arranged for two services a week
with the Cunard Company for £70,000, and one a week with the Inman
Company for £35,000. There was considerable opposition to the agreement
among the Liberal majority of the new Parliament, but it could not of
course be repudiated. This contract came to an end in 1876, and a
circular was addressed to the various steamship companies informing them
that the government would hereafter send the American mails by the most
efficient ships, payment to be made at the rate of 2_s._ 4_d._ a pound
for letters and 2_d._ a pound for other mail matter, those being the
rates fixed by the Postal Union Treaty and adopted by the American
Government. The Inman and White Star Companies refused at first to have
anything to do with the new system of payment, but eventually they fell
into line. The system was in operation for a year at a cost of £28,000
in place of the old charge of £105,000. The Cunard, Inman, and White
Star Companies then demanded double the previous rates on the ground
that they were conducting the service at a loss, and an agreement with
the Government was concluded for the payment of 4_s._ a pound for
letters and 4_d._ for newspapers, etc. At the same time the old
monopolistic conditions were virtually reëstablished, for rival
steamship lines were excluded from the agreement.[557]

[557] _Parl. Deb._, 3d ser., ccxxxviii, coll., 1633-36.

In 1886, the agreement with the Cunard, Inman, and White Star Lines came
to an end. The Cunard and White Star Companies then made an offer
precluding the use of the fast boats of other lines, but this was
declined. Eventually an agreement was reached at a reduced cost, which
gave the Post Office the right to send letters so directed by any other
ships than those of the White Star or Cunard Companies. The amounts to
be paid were measured by the actual weight of mail matter carried.[558]
The payments to the Peninsular and Oriental Company were based at first
entirely upon mileage covered, and reductions were made if the packets
fell below a minimum speed agreed upon. This method was later changed to
a payment based upon the amount of mail carried, and the subsidy was
substantially reduced.[559]

[558] 3_s._ a lb. for letters; 1_s._ 8_d._ when carried by other lines
(_Rep. Com._, 1860, xiv, p. 5; 1868-69, vi, pp. iii-v; _Rep. P. G._,
1887, pp. 4-5; _Acc. & P._, 1887, xlix, 34, pp. 3-4; _Parl. Deb._, 4th
ser., cxxii, coll. 385-401).

[559] _Acc. & P._, 1852-53, xcv, 1660, p. 59; 1887, xlix, 34, p. 7;
_Rep. P. G._, 1907, pp. 5-6.

A general review of the packet service in 1907 shows us that most of
the contracts for the home packets are terminable on six months' notice,
a few only on twelve months' notice. The Holyhead and Kingstown service
is exceptional, not being terminable until 1917, or on twelve months'
notice after 31st March, 1916. This is by far the most important of any
of the home systems and costs £100,000, to be reduced to £80,000 in
1917. The contract for the conveyance of mails between Dover and Calais
is terminable on twelve months' notice and cost £25,000 for the postal
year 1906-07. The payments for the use of the other boats between the
United Kingdom and Europe are comparatively small, amounting in 1906-07
to £3780 only, and all these contracts are terminable on six months'
notice. The contracts for the conveyance of the mails to the two
Americas are as a rule terminable on six or twelve months' notice, but
an exception has been made in the case of the Cunard Company with whom
and under peculiar circumstances a twenty years' agreement was made in
1902. In 1906-07 the cost of the conveyance of the mails between the
United Kingdom and North and South America was £198,488. The African
contracts are all terminable on three, six, or twelve months' notice,
and amounted in 1906-07 to £32,988. The carriage of the mails to India,
Australasia, and China for the year ending 31st March, 1907, cost
£402,162, but this has since been diminished by a reduction in the
subsidies to the Peninsular and Oriental Company and the Canadian
Pacific Railway Company.[560]

[560] _Rep. P. G._, 1907, pp. 5-6, 52-53.

The total expenditure for packet boats increased enormously after 1840,
and this increase in cost kept down the net revenue of the Post Office
for many years after the introduction of penny postage. In 1830, the
packet expenses amounted only to £108,305, in 1846, to £723,604, and in
1860, to £869,952. They reached the maximum point of £1,056,798 in 1869,
and from that time until 1890, when they were £665,375, there has been
on the whole a gradual diminution. During the year ending 31st March,
1892, they reached the sum of £701,081, for the postal year 1900-01 they
were £764,804, and during the year 1905-06 they had diminished to
£687,109.[561]

[561] _Rep. Commrs._, 1830, xiv, app., p. 376; 1847, lxii, pp. 5-6;
_Rep. P. G._, 1868, p. 28; 1875, p. 39; 1901, app., p. 82; 1907, p. 95.




CHAPTER VIII

RATES AND FINANCE


After de Quester had been appointed Foreign Postmaster-General, he
published, in 1626, an incomplete set of rates from and to various
places on the continent. His charges for "packets," and by packets he
meant letters or parcels carried by a special messenger, were as
follows:--

  To the Hague £7.
  To Brussels or Paris £10.
  To Vienna £60.

The ordinary rates were:--

  To or from any of the above places 30_s._
  To or from any part of Germany 6_s._
  From Venice for a single letter 9_d._[562]
  From Venice for any letter over a single letter 2_s._ 8_d._
  From Leghorn and Florence for a single letter 1_s._
  From Leghorn and Florence over a single letter 3_s._an ounce.[563]

This system of rates, although crude, marks a distinct era in postal
progress. It forms the foundation of the plan which was perfected a few
years later by Witherings. De Quester also published a statement of the
days of departure of the regular posts with foreign letters.[564] In the
trial between Stanhope and de Quester over the question of who should be
Foreign Postmaster-General, it came out in the evidence that Stanhope
had been accustomed to receive 8_d._ for every letter to Hamburg,
Amsterdam, and Antwerp.[565] This charge was rather in the nature of a
perquisite than a legal rate and serves partly to explain why Stanhope
was so anxious to retain the monopoly of the foreign post.

[562] The rate from Venice had been _16d._ By a single letter is meant
one piece of paper.

[563] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1625-26, p. 523.

[564] _Ibid._, 1628-29, p. 538.

[565] _Rep. Com._, 1844, xiv, app., p. 48 (25).

Witherings' rates for domestic postage, as fixed by Royal Proclamation
in 1635, were as follows for a single letter:--

                                _d._
  Under 80 miles                  2
  Between 80 and 140 miles        4
  Over 140 miles                  6
  On the Borders and in Scotland  8
  In Ireland                      9

If there were more than one sheet of paper, postage must be paid
according to the above rate for every separate sheet or enclosure. For
instance, a letter or packet composed of two sheets was called a double
letter and paid 4_d._ for any distance under 80 miles. A letter of three
sheets was called a triple letter and paid 6_d._ if conveyed under 80
miles, and so in proportion.[566] In 1638, the rules concerning the
imposition of rates were changed slightly. The rates themselves remained
the same for single and double letters. Letters above double letters
were to be charged according to weight as follows:--

  Under 80 miles           6_d._ an ounce.
  From 80 to 140 miles     9_d._
  Above 140 miles         12_d._
  For Ireland              6_d._ if over two ounces.[567]

This expedient must have been adopted from the difficulty in discovering
the number of enclosures when there were more than two. It is impossible
to say how long these rates continued, probably not later than
Witherings' régime. During Prideaux' management the maximum postage on a
single letter was 6_d._, reduced later to 3_d._[568]

[566] _Rep. Com._, 1844, xiv, app., p. 57 (36).

[567] _Rep. Com._, 1844, xiv, app., p. 58 (37).

[568] Joyce, p. 29.

The Council of State gave orders in 1652 for the imposition of the
following rates for a single letter:--

                                        _d._
  Within 100 miles from London           2
  To remoter parts of England and Wales  3
  To Scotland                            4
  To Ireland                             6[569]

Whether these rates were actually collected is questionable. The
postage which the farmers of the Posts were allowed to collect in the
following year was fixed by the Council of State for single letters as
follows:--

                               _d._
  Under 80 miles from London    2
  Above 80 miles from London    3
  To Scotland                   4
  To Ireland                    6

These rates are in effect lower than those of Witherings, for he had
inserted a 3_d._ rate for letters delivered between 80 and 140 miles
from London, had charged 4_d._ for all letters going farther than 140
miles, and had charged 8_d._ and 9_d._ for letters to Scotland and
Ireland respectively. They were a little higher than those of 1652, for
by them 2_d._ had carried a letter 100 miles.[570]

[569] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1651-52, p. 507.

[570] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1652-53, p. 449.

In 1657, the first act of Parliament was passed, fixing rates for
letters and establishing the system for England, Ireland, and Scotland.
The domestic rates were:--

                                        _For a_      _Double_   _Per_
                                    _single letter_  _letter_  _ounce_

             {Within 80 miles from London  2_d._.       4_d._     8_d._
  In England {Above 80 miles from London   3            6        12
              To or from Scotland          4            8        18
              To or from Ireland           6           12        24
  In Ireland {Within 40 miles from Dublin  2            4         8
             {Above 40 miles from Dublin   4            8        12

The foreign rates were:--

                                         _For a_      _Double_   _Per_
                                     _single letter_  _letter_  _ounce_
   To Leghorn, Genoa, Florence, Lyons,
   Marseilles, Aleppo, Constantinople      12_d._      24_d._    45_d._
   To St. Malo, Morlaix, Nieuhaven          6          12        18
   To Bordeaux, Rochelle, Nantes,
     Bayonne, Cadiz, Madrid                 9          18        24
   To Hamburg, Frankfort, and Cologne       8          16        24
   To Dantzic, Leipsic, Lubeck,
     Stockholm, Copenhagen, Elsinore,
     Konigsburg                            12          24        48[571]

[571] Scobell, _Collect._, pt. ii, pp. 511-13. Inland letters containing
more than two enclosures but weighing less than an ounce were charged
according to the number of enclosures.

These rates are considerably lower than those of Witherings and are
essentially the same as those of 1653, except that the postage is fixed
for letters to and from the continent. No provision is made for letters
to and from any other part of the world but Europe. Since the government
had not established any postal communication with Asia, Africa, or the
Americas, it would have been unfair to demand postage on letters
conveyed by merchant vessels to and from those places.[572]

[572] Scobell, _Collect._, pt. ii, pp. 511-13.

The act of 1660 is generally referred to as bringing the Post Office
under Parliamentary control and as the basis of the modern system. This
is probably due to the fact that the act of 1657 was passed by a
Commonwealth Parliament and signed by Cromwell. Whether its authors
lacked the power to give it validity, they did not lack the brains to
pass an excellent act, and although the Royalists saw fit, after the
Restoration, to dub it the pretended act of 1657, they could not improve
it and had the sense to leave it largely untouched. The first act had
imposed rates from or to any place to or from London as a centre. It had
been taken for granted that all letters passed to, from, or through the
capital, and to all intents and purposes this was so. It was possible,
however, for letters, technically called bye-letters, to stop short of
London, and it was to provide for these that postage was to be reckoned
from any place where a letter might be posted.

Scotland was no longer a part of England after the Restoration, so that
by the act of 1660 rates were given to and from Berwick and for single
letters were a penny less than they had been to Scotland under the
earlier act. From Berwick the rate, within a radius of forty miles, was
2_d._ for a single letter, and over forty miles, 4_d._ As far as foreign
postage was concerned, letters to the northern coast towns of Italy paid
3_d._ less than the old rate for a single letter. Other rates remained
the same. Alternative routes were sometimes offered. For instance,
letters might be sent directly to northern Italy or they might go via
Lyons, but in the latter case they cost 3_d._ more. Again, there were
many more continental towns to which letters might be sent and from
which they might be received. Letters for Germany via Hamburg had to be
postpaid as far as that city. The same was true of letters to southern
France via Paris and of letters to northern Italy via Lyons. The highest
rate paid for a single letter was 1_s._ to northern Italy, Turkey, and
central and northern Germany. Merchants' accounts not exceeding one
sheet of paper, bills of exchange, invoices and bills of lading, were to
pay nothing over the charge of the letter in which they might be
enclosed. The same rule was to hold for the covers of letters sent to
Turkey via Marseilles. All inland letters were to be paid for at the
place where they were delivered unless the sender wished to pay in
advance.[573]

[573] 12 Chas. II, c. 35.

When the Scotch was separated from the English Post Office in 1695,
rates were imposed by the Parliament of Scotland as follows:

                              _For a single letter_
  To Berwick                           2_s._[574]
  Within 50 miles from Edinburgh       2
  From 50 to 100 miles from Edinburgh  3
  Above 100 miles from Edinburgh       4

Packages of papers were to pass as triple letters.[575] In 1701, when
the Scotch Post was let out to farm, the English Postmasters-General
advised that the farmers should be obliged to pay at Berwick the postage
on English and foreign letters for Scotland, and an order in accordance
with this advice was signed by the King. It was the custom to change the
farmers every three years, which may have produced a larger revenue but
was certainly not calculated to increase the efficiency of the office.
The English Postmasters-General had great difficulty in collecting at
Berwick the postage due them, and it is doubtful whether a large part
was ever paid. The frequent changes in the farmers must have been an
excellent means of allowing them to escape their debts to the
English.[576]

[574] One shilling Scotch was equal to one penny English.

[575] Wm. III, 1st parl., 5th session (Scotland), c. 31.

[576] _Cal. T. P._, 1697-1702, 48; 1702-1707, 101.

It has been customary to point to the postage rates of 1660 as lower
than any before the nineteenth century. This is true in a general way,
but one limitation to the statement is generally overlooked. Before 1696
all posts ran to or from London, and it was not until well on in the
eighteenth century that the system of cross posts was introduced.
Bristol and Exeter are less than eighty miles apart, but a letter from
Bristol to Exeter went to London first and from there to Exeter,
travelling about 300 miles to reach a town eighty miles distant. Now by
the act of 1660, the rate for distances above 80 miles was 3_d._ Thus
the letter paid 3_d._ from Bristol to London and 3_d._ more from London
to Exeter, 6_d._ in all. If there had been a direct post from Bristol to
Exeter, and there was not until 1698, the postage would have been 2_d._
only. The possibility of such an anomaly as this must be kept in mind in
considering the low rates of the seventeenth century.

In James the Second's reign, a Post Office had been established in
Jamaica, and rates of postage had been settled not only in the island
itself but between it and the mother country. This was a new departure,
since at that time there were no packet boats to the West Indies. The
rate between England and Jamaica was 6_d._ for a single letter, 1_s._
for a double letter, and 2_s._ an ounce. As the Crown was not at the
expense of maintaining means of transport, this was a pure tax.[577] In
1704, the postage on a single letter from the West Indies was raised to
7-1/2_d._, for a double letter 15_d._, but Dummer's packets were then in
operation.[578]

[577] Joyce, p. 78.

[578] _Cal. T. P._, 1702-07, 46.


                            _Single letter_ _Double letter_ _Per ounce_
  Rates to the islands were       9_d._         18_d._         32_d._
  In 1705 increased to           15             30             72
  Rates from the islands in 1705 18             36             72
                         --Stow's _London_, bk. v, p.400.

In 1698, a system of posts had been established in the American colonies
between the largest towns on the Atlantic coast. All that is known about
the rates is that the charge for the conveyance of a letter between
Boston and New York was 1_s._ and the post went weekly between those
places.[579] Hamilton, the deputy manager, proposed that letters from
England should be sent in sealed bags entrusted to the masters of ships.
The bags were to be handed over to the postmaster of the port where the
ship first touched and the captain was to receive a penny for each
letter. He advised that the following rates should be adopted:--

Not exceeding 80 miles from New York            6_d._
From 80 to 150 miles from New York              9
To and from Boston and New York, 300 miles     12
                       Jersey, 370 miles       18
                       Philadelphia, 390 miles 20
                       Annapolis, 550 miles    36
                       Jamestown, 680 miles    42
          New York and Annapolis, 250 miles    24
                       Jamestown, 380 miles
(with many dangerous places to cross by ferry) 30

These rates were said to be too high and were not adopted, "it being
found that cheap postage greatly encourages letter writing, as is shown
by the reduction in England from 6_d._ to 3_d._"[580]

[579] Joyce, p. 111.

[580] Joyce, p. 113; _Cal. T. P._, 1697-1702, 77.

The preamble to the act of 1711 offered as an explanation of an increase
in rates the necessity for money for the war and the prevention of
private competition in carrying letters. It is plain that higher rates
will, up to a certain point, increase proceeds, though not
proportionately, but how increased rates can decrease competition is
more difficult to explain. Witherings had found that the cheaper he made
postage, the less fear was there from interlopers. It is possible that
the framers of the bill had intended to use part of the increase in
revenue for the support of searchers, but no such provision is contained
in the act itself.[581] On the ground that a large revenue was
necessary, no fault can be found with the increase. It is probably true
that in course of time lower rates would have increased the product more
than higher, but war and its demands wait for no man. The people who
could write and who needed to write were in a small minority then, and
their number could not for a long time be influenced by lower rates.
What was needed at once was money and the only way to raise it by means
of the Post Office was the one adopted.

[581] Joyce, p. 128.

The rates for single letters within England and between England and
Edinburgh were increased by a penny for a single letter; for double
letters and parcels in proportion. To Dublin the charge remained the
same, and the rates within Ireland were not changed. In the act of 1660,
the postage on letters delivered in Scotland had been reckoned from
Berwick. Edinburgh was now made the centre and the rates were as
follows:--

                              _For a single letter_  _Per ounce_
From Edinburgh within Scotland        _d._               _d._
  Not exceeding 50 miles               2                  8
  Above 50 and not exceeding 80 miles  3                 12
  Above 80 miles                       4                 16[582]

[582] Double letters were charged twice as much as single letters.

The rates within Scotland were lower than those within England and
Ireland. Scotland had a 2_d._ rate for distances not exceeding fifty
miles. England had no rate under 3_d._, except for the Penny Post.
Ireland, too, had a 2_d._ rate for distances not exceeding forty miles,
but for distances from forty to eighty miles and over, the rate for
Irish letters was 4_d._, while in England the rate was only 3_d._ for
distances not exceeding eighty miles. The distances which letters
travelled within Scotland were shorter than in England and Ireland. As a
rule the different rates for the three countries varied with their
wealth and consequent ability to pay, the least being required from
poverty-stricken Scotland. The new rates as compared with the old were
for a single letter:[583]--

                    _For England_
                                          1660      1711
  Not exceeding 80 miles                   2_d._     3_d._
  Above 80 miles                           3         4
  Between London and Edinburgh             5         6
  Between London and Dublin                6         6

                  _Within Ireland_

  Not exceeding 40 miles from Dublin       2_d._     2_d._
  Above 40 miles from Dublin               4         4

       _Within Scotland (Scotch Act, 1695)_

  Not exceeding 50 miles from Edinburgh    2_d._     2_d._
  From 50 to 80 miles from Edinburgh                 3
  From 50 to 100 miles from Edinburgh      3
  Above 80 miles from Edinburgh                      4
  Above 100 miles from Edinburgh           4

[583] When the rates for single letters only are given it is understood
that double and triple letters paid two and three times as much
respectively. Letters weighing an ounce or more paid a single letter
rate for each quarter of an ounce.

The act of 1660 imposed rates on letters in Scotland from Berwick as a
centre. By that act rates had been fixed for distances not exceeding 40
miles and for distances over forty miles from Berwick, being 2_d._ and
4_d._ for single letters for the respective distances, so that by the
act of 1711, the Scotch rates were lower than they had been in 1660 and
slightly higher than those of 1695. When forty miles was made the lowest
distance according to which rates were levied, it was thought and
intended that 2_d._, the rate for that distance, would pay for a single
letter from Berwick to Edinburgh. As a matter of fact, the distance
between the two places was fifty miles, so that the Scotch Act had
estimated it better.

In the rates as given above, an exception is made in the case of letters
directed on board ship or brought by it. For such letters one penny was
charged in addition to the rates already given. This extra penny was
charged because the postmaster in the place where the ship first touched
was required to pay the master of the vessel one penny for every letter
received. Foreign letters collected or delivered at any place between
London and the port of departure or arrival of the ship for which they
were destined or by which they had come, must pay the same rate as if
they had left or arrived in London.

As far as foreign post rates were concerned they were all from 1_d._ to
3_d._ higher than they had been by the act of 1660. The lowest foreign
rate for a single letter, 10_d._, was paid between London and France,
and London and the Spanish Netherlands. To Germany and Northwestern
Europe, through the Spanish Netherlands, the rate was 12_d._, to Italy
or Sicily the same way 12_d._, postpaid to Antwerp, or 15_d._ via Lyons.
The same rates held for letters passing through the United Provinces. To
Spain or Portugal via the Spanish Netherlands or the United Provinces or
France, postpaid to Bayonne, the rate was 18_d._ for a single letter,
and the same price held when letters were conveyed directly by sailing
packets.

By the same act of 1711 rates were for the first time established
between England and her colonies and within the colonies themselves. The
postage for a single letter from London to any of the West India Islands
was 18_d._, to New York 12_d._, and the same from those places to
London. Between the West Indies and New York the rate was 4_d._ In the
colonies on the mainland, the chief letter offices were at New York,
Perth Amboy, New London, Philadelphia, Bridlington, Newport, Portsmouth,
Boston, Annapolis, Salem, Ipswich, Piscataway, Williamstown, and
Charleston. The postage was 4_d._ to and from any of these places to a
distance not exceeding sixty miles and 6_d._ for any distance between
sixty and 100 miles. Between New York, Perth Amboy, and Bridlington, the
rate was 6_d._; between New York, New London, and Philadelphia 9_d._;
between New York, Newport, Portsmouth, and Boston 12_d._; between New
York, Salem, Ipswich, Piscataway, and Williamstown 15_d._; between New
York and Charleston 18_d._; the Post Office was to pay nothing for
crossing ferries.

There had always been trouble in collecting the rates on bye and cross
post letters. These letters did not pass through London and hence the
officials at the General Post Office had no check on the money due. By a
clause in the act, the postmasters were ordered under a penalty to
account for the receipts from all these letters. The postage on letters
which did not pass to, through, or from London was fixed according to
the inland charges, varying with the distances travelled. Finally, the
postage on all inland letters was to be paid on delivery unless the
sender wished to pay in advance, or in the case of the Penny Post, or
unless such letters should be directed on board any ship or vessel or to
any person in the army.

From the receipts from postage, £700 a week was to be paid into the
Exchequer for the purpose of carrying on the war. The Accountant-General
was to keep account of all money raised, the receipts themselves going
directly to the Receiver-General and being paid into the Exchequer by
him. One third of the surplus over and above the weekly payment of £700
and £111,461 (the amount of the gross receipts of the duties arising by
virtue of the act of 1660) were to be disposed of by Parliament. In
making this provision, Joyce thinks that the Chancellor of the Exchequer
confused gross and net product.[584] As a matter of fact there was no
such surplus as was anticipated by the Chancellor, but it does not
follow that he made the mistake of which he was accused by Cornwallis
and Craggs, an accusation in which Joyce evidently concurs. He erred
simply in supposing that expenses would remain the same.[585]

[584] Joyce, p. 145.

[585] 9 Anne, c. 11.

The act of 1711 in prescribing the rate of postage for the carriage of
"every single letter or piece of paper" enacted that a "double letter
should pay twice that rate." The merchants contended that a double
letter was composed of two sheets of paper if they weighed less than an
ounce and their reasoning was logical. They argued from this that a
letter enclosing a pattern or patterns, if it weighed less than one
ounce, should pay only as a single letter. Actions were brought against
the postmasters by the merchants for charging more than they considered
was warranted and the merchants won every case. The lawyers also
threatened legal proceedings for the charge of writs when enclosed in
letters. The Postmasters-General hastened to Parliament for relief. The
merchants heard of this, and petitions were sent to the House of Commons
from "clothiers, dealers in cloth, silk, and other manufactured goods,"
asking that when samples were enclosed in a single letter the rate
should remain the same provided that such letter and sample did not
exceed half an ounce in weight.[586] Their efforts were fruitless. The
following provisions were inserted in a tobacco bill then before
Parliament and passed in 1753: "that every writ etc. enclosed in a
letter was to pay as a distinct letter and that a letter with one or
more patterns enclosed and not exceeding one ounce in weight was to pay
as a double letter."[587] As a matter of fact all the rates collected
after 1743 by virtue of the act of 1711 were illegal, for the act itself
had died a natural death in the former year by that clause which
provided for the revival of the rates of 1660 at the end of thirty-two
years.

[586] _Jo. H. C._, 1745-50, pp. 751-2.

[587] 26 Geo. III, c. 13, secs. 7, 8.

A postal act was passed in 1765, slightly changing the home, colonial,
and foreign rates. The cession of territory in North America had made
necessary a more comprehensive scheme of postage rates there. The
conclusion of the Seven Years' War had made it possible to offer a
slight reduction in postage. In Great Britain the following rates were
published for short distances for a single letter:--

For Great Britain--not exceeding one post stage           1_d._
For England alone--over one and not exceeding two stages  2_d._

The rates for all other distances remained unchanged. A stage, as a
rule, varied from ten to twelve miles in length, so that every post town
in England could now boast a modified form of penny postage, with the
exception in most cases of delivery facilities.

The changes in colonial rates were generally in the shape of
substituting general for special rules. The rate from any part of the
British American Dominions to any other part was fixed at 4_d._ for a
single letter when conveyed by sea. The act of 1711 had given the
postage from and to specially named places. This method had become
inapplicable with the growth in population among the old and the
increase in new possessions. The rate for a single letter from any chief
post office in the British American Dominions to a distance not
exceeding sixty miles, or for any distance not exceeding sixty miles
from any post office from which letters did not pass through a chief
post office, was placed at 4_d._, from sixty to 100 miles 6_d._, from
100 to 200 miles 8_d._, for each additional hundred miles 2_d._ The
effect of this act was to continue the same rates for inland postage in
British America, while rates were provided for distances over 100 miles.
The postage between England and the American colonies remained at 12_d._
for a single letter. In the case of the West Indies, there was a
decrease of 6_d._ A clause of the act provided that the postage on
letters sent out of England might be demanded in advance.[588]

[588] 5 Geo. III, c. 25. The principle of payment in advance was not
popular. A man in England writing to his brother in Virginia in 1764
says, "Very often of late I have been so foolish, I should say
unfortunate previously to pay for the letters coming to you.... To my
great concern I have been since assured that such letters never go
forward but are immediately thrown aside and neglected. I believe I
wrote to you three or four times this last winter by this method and am
since informed of this their fate. You may form a great guess of the
truth of it by or by not receiving them" (_Notes and Queries_, 4th ser.,
xii, p. 125).

Postage rates were increased steadily from 1784 for twenty-eight years,
culminating in the year 1812 with the highest rates that England has
ever seen. Every available means to raise the revenue necessary to
maintain her supremacy was resorted to, and the Post Office was
compelled to bear its share of the burden. In 1784 another penny was
added to the rates for single letters and additional rates for double
and triple letters in proportion.[589] Three years later an act was
passed, fixing the postage for the conveyance of a single letter by
sailing packet from Milford Haven to Waterford at 6_d._ over and above
all other rates. It was provided by the same act that the rates between
London and Ireland via Milford should not exceed the rates via
Holyhead.[590]

[589] 24 Geo. III, sess. 2, c. 37.

[590] 27 Geo. III, c. 9. In 1767 a rate of 2_d._ for a single letter was
established between Whitehaven (Cumberland) and the Port of Douglas
(Isle of Man) (7 Geo. III, c. 50).

In 1796 the rates for letters conveyed within England and Wales,
Berwick, to and from Portugal, and to and from the British possessions
in America, as established by the acts of 1711, 1765, and 1784, were
repealed and the following substituted for a single letter:--

        _Within England, Wales and Berwick._
                                                           _d._
  Not exceeding 15 miles from place where letter is posted  3
  From 15 to 30 miles, etc.                                 4
       30    60                                             5
       60    100                                            6
       100   150                                            7
  Over 150 miles, etc.                                      8

         _Within Scotland._

  In addition to rates in force                             1

The old system of reckoning by stages was thus abolished, probably on
account of the uncertainty as to the length of any particular stage and
the variations and changes which were being constantly made. This change
was made for England and Wales only, and the old system of reckoning by
stages was still retained in Scotland. Letters from and to the colonies
had formerly paid no postage over the regular shilling rate for a single
letter and proportionately for other letters. Now they were to pay the
full inland rate in addition. A single letter from the West Indies would
now pay the shilling packet rate plus the rate from Falmouth to London,
1_s._ 8_d._ in all. The same rates and the same rule held for letters to
and from Portugal. A single letter from Lisbon had formerly paid 1_s._
6_d._ on delivery in London. It would now pay 1_s._ 8_d._

This act was not to affect letters to and from non-commissioned
officers, privates, and seamen while in active service, who were allowed
to send and receive letters for one penny each, payable in advance. The
revenue arising from the new and the unrepealed rates was to be paid to
the Receiver-General and be by him carried to the Consolidated Fund. The
increase from the additional postage was estimated at £40,000 a year and
was to be used to pay the interest on loans contracted the preceding
year.[591]

[591] 37 Geo. III, c. 18.

When sailing packets were established between Weymouth and the islands
of Jersey and Guernsey, the packet rates and the rates between the
islands themselves were fixed at 2_d._ for a single letter. Permission
was also given to establish postal routes in the islands, and to charge
the same postage for the conveyance of letters as in England. The
surplus was to go to the General Office and all postal laws then in
force in England were to be deemed applicable to the two islands.[592]

[592] 33 Geo. III, c. 60.

By the same act which gave the Postmasters-General authority to forward
letters by vessels other than the regular sailing packets, rates were
fixed for the carriage of such letters. For every single letter brought
into the kingdom by these vessels, 4_d._ was to be charged. The
Postmasters-General might order such rates to be payable in advance or
on delivery. This was in addition to the inland postage, and for every
letter handed over to the Post Office, the captain was to receive 2_d._
The revenue arising from this act was payable to the Exchequer.[593]

[593] 39 Geo. III, c. 76.

In 1801 the Post Office was called upon again to make a further
contribution to the Exchequer to help meet the interest on new loans.
The following were the new rates for a single letter:--

     _Within Great Britain by the General Post_
                                                   _d._
  Not exceeding 15 measured miles                   3
  Above 15 but not exceeding 30 measured miles      4
        30                   50                     5
        50                   80                     6
        80                  120                     7
       120                  170                     8
       170                  230                     9
       230                  300                    10
                                                                 _d._
  For every 100 miles above 300 miles an additional rate of       1
  Where the distance above 300 miles did not amount to 100 miles
  an additional rate of                                           1
  Where the distance above 300 miles exceeded 100 miles and for
  every excess of distance over 100 miles an additional rate of   1

By the act of 1796 a uniform rate of 8_d._ for a single letter had been
paid for distances over 150 miles. The new act not only imposed extra
rates for all distances over 150 miles but it decreased the distances
above 30 miles for which the old postage would have paid. For instance,
a 6_d._ rate had carried a single letter 100 miles, a 7_d._ rate 150
miles. They now carried only 80 and 120 miles respectively.

On letters to and from places abroad, "not being within His Majesty's
Dominions," an additional rate of 4_d._ for a single letter was
imposed.[594] In London, where a penny had been charged for the
conveyance of letters by the Penny Post, 2_d._ was now charged. An
additional rate of 2_d._ for a single letter was imposed upon letters
passing between Great Britain and Ireland via Holyhead or Milford. The
Postmasters-General were given authority to convey letters to and from
places which were not post towns for such sums for extra service as
might be agreed upon. Merchants' accounts and bills of exchange which,
when sent out of the kingdom or conveyed into it, had not formerly been
charged postage over the letters in which they were enclosed, were now
to be rated as letters.[595]

[594] When the temporary peace of Amiens was concluded in 1802, the
rates for single letters from London to France were reduced to 10d.,
from London to the Batavian Republic to 12_d._ (42 Geo. II, c. 101).

[595] 41 Geo. III, c. 7.

In 1803, the following rates were imposed within Ireland for a single
letter:--

                                 _d. (Irish)_[596]
    Not exceeding 15 Irish miles  2
    From 15 to 30 Irish miles     3
         30    50                 4
         50    80                 5
    Exceeding 80 Irish miles      6

The postage on letters arriving in Ireland for the distance travelled
outside Ireland was ordered to be collected by the Irish
Postmaster-General and forwarded to London. An additional penny was
imposed upon Dublin Penny Post letters crossing the circular road
around Dublin.[597]

[596] The Irish penny was of the same value as the English penny.

[597] 43 Geo. III, c. 28.

In 1805, for the third time within ten years, the Exchequer fell back
upon the Post Office for an increase of revenue estimated at
£230,000.[598] There were added to the rates as already
prescribed--1_d._ for a single letter, 2_d._ for a double letter, 3_d._
for a triple letter, and 4_d._ for a letter weighing as much as one
ounce, for all letters conveyed by the Post in Great Britain or between
Great Britain and Ireland. The postage on a single letter from London to
Brighton was thus raised from 6_d._ to 7_d._, from London to Liverpool
from 9_d._ to 10_d._, and from London to Edinburgh from 12_d._ to 13_d._
Twopenny Post letters paid 3_d._ if sent beyond the General Post
Delivery limits, while newspapers paid 1_d._ On every letter passing
between Great Britain and a foreign country 2_d._ more was to be paid.
An additional penny was charged for every single letter between Great
Britain and the British American Dominions via Portugal, and between
Great Britain, the Isle of Man and Jersey and Guernsey.[599] In the same
year the Irish rates were also increased by the imposition of an
additional penny upon each single letter with corresponding changes in
the postage on double and triple letters. The Dublin Penny Post was left
untouched, its boundaries being defined as contained within a circle of
four miles radius, with the General Post Office building as the centre.
Every letter from any ship within Irish waters was charged a penny in
addition to the increased rates.[600]

[598] _Parl. Deb._, 1st ser., iii, col. 550.

[599] 45 Geo. III, c. 11.

[600] 45 Geo. III, c. 21.

Still the demand was for more money to help replenish an exhausted
treasury. An additional penny was added for the conveyance of a single
letter more than twenty miles beyond the place where the letter was
posted within Great Britain and between Great Britain and Ireland. For
the conveyance of a single letter between Great Britain and any of the
colonies or to any foreign country an additional 2_d._ was required.
These additional rates did not apply to letters to and from Jersey or
Guernsey, or to and from any non-commissioned officer, soldier, or
sailor.[601] Samples weighing no more than one ounce were to pay 2_d._
if enclosed in a letter, if not enclosed, 1_d._ As this is the highest
point to which postage rates in England have ever attained, it may be
interesting to give the rates resulting from this act in tabular form as
far as the postage for inland single letters was concerned.[602]

                                        _d._
    Not exceeding 15 miles               4
    Above 15 but not exceeding 20 miles  5
          20                   30        6
          30                   50        7
          50                   80        8
          80                  120        9
         120                  170       10
         170                  230       11
         230                  300       12
         300                  400       13
         400                  500       14
         500                  600       15
         600                  700       16
         700 miles                      17

[601] Single letters written by or to non-commissioned officers,
privates, and seamen must be on their own business, and if sent by them
must bear their own signatures and the signature of their superior
officer with the name of their regiment or ship (46 Geo. III, c. 92).

[602] 52 Geo. III, c. 88.

In 1806, the rate for a single letter between Falmouth and Gibraltar was
fixed at 21_d._, between Falmouth and Malta 25_d._, between Gibraltar
and Malta 6_d._ (46 Geo. III, c. 73).

In 1808, the rate for a single letter between Falmouth and Madeira was
fixed at 18_d._, between Falmouth and Brazil 29_d._ (48 Geo. III, c.
116).

In 1810, an additional penny (Irish) was added to the rates then in
force in Ireland, with the exception of the penny rate on the Dublin
Penny Post Letters.[603] Three years later the rates and distances for
Ireland were changed again. As compared with the old rates they were as
follows, both tables being in Irish miles and Irish currency and for
single letters only:--


[603] 50 Geo. III, c. 74.

        1810                _d._      1813              _d._
    Not exceeding 15 miles   4    Not exceeding 10 miles 2
    From 15 to 30 miles      5    From 10 to 20 miles    3
         30    50            6         20    30          4
         50    80            7         30    40          5
    Exceeding 80 miles       8         40    50          6
                                       50    60          7
                                       60    80          8
                                       80   100          9
                                 Over 100 miles         10

The rates of 1813 were lower for distances not exceeding forty miles,
higher for distances over eighty miles. On the whole there was little
change, but the later rates were probably more easily borne as they were
lower for short distances.[604] The next year the rates and distances
for Ireland were changed again, the result being an increase both for
short and for long distances. The results are shown in the following
table in Irish miles and Irish currency and for a single letter:[605]--

    Not exceeding 7 miles               2_d._
    Over 7 and not exceeding 15 miles   3
        15                   25         4
        25                   35         5
        35                   45         6
        45                   55         7
        55                   65         8
        65                   95         9
        95                  125        10
       125                  150        11
       150                  200        12
       200                  250        13
       250                  300        14
    For every 100 miles over 300 miles  1

[604] 53 Geo. III, c. 58.

[605] 54 Geo. III, c. 119.

In 1813 an additional half-penny was demanded on all Scotch letters
"because the mail coaches now paid toll in that country." So at least a
correspondent to the _Times_ says (London _Times_, 1813, June 21, p. 3).

In 1814 the postage on a single letter brought into the kingdom by
ships other than the regular packets was raised from 4_d._ to 6_d._ in
addition to the regular inland rates. The rate for letters sent out of
the kingdom by these vessels was fixed at one third the regular packet
rates.[606] An exception was made in the case of letters carried by war
vessels or by vessels of the East India Company to and from the Cape of
Good Hope, Mauritius, and that part of the East Indies embraced in the
charter of the company. The rates by these vessels were to be the same
as the regular packet rates, 42_d._ for a single letter between those
places and England, and 21_d._ for a single letter between the places
themselves. Newspapers were charged 3_d._ an ounce between England, the
Cape, Mauritius, and the East Indies. The rate for a single letter
conveyed in private vessels not employed by the Post Office to carry
mails was 14_d._ from England to the Cape or the East Indies, and 8_d._
from the Cape or the East Indies to England. The company was allowed to
collect rates on letters within its own territory in India, but the
Postmasters-General of England might at any time establish post offices
in any such territory. The company was to be paid for the use of its
ships in conveying letters.[607]

[606] 54 Geo. III, c. 169. Enacted for Ireland the following year (55
Geo. III, c. 103).

[607] 55 Geo. III, c. 153. This act, although repealed for Great Britain
by 59 Geo. III, c. 111, still remained in force in Ireland (5 and 6 Wm.
IV, c. 25).

By the Ship Letter Act of 1814, no letters were to be sent by private
ships except such as had been brought to the Post Office to be charged.
The directors of the East India Company had protested against this
section of the act. It is true that they were allowed to send and
receive letters by the ships of their own company, but in India there
was a small army of officials in their service whose letters had
hitherto gone free. For that matter it had been the custom for the
company to carry for nothing all letters and papers which were placed in
the letter box at the East India House.[608] Petitions were presented
against an attempt on the part of the Post Office to charge postage on
letters to and from India when conveyed by private vessels.[609] The
company refused to allow its vessels to be used as packet boats or even
to carry letters at all. It was in consequence of all this opposition
that the act of 1815 was passed, giving more favourable treatment to
letters to and from India. By this act no person sending a letter to
India was compelled to have it charged at the Post Office and the
masters were compelled to carry letters if the Postmasters-General
ordered them. The company now withdrew all opposition and even refused
to accept any payment for the use of their vessels in conveying
letters.[610] Notwithstanding the favourable exception made in the case
of letters to and from the East Indies, there was still discontent over
the high rates charged by the Post Office for the conveyance of letters
by the regular packet boats and by private vessels, when carrying
letters entrusted to the Post Office.[611] In 1819 the sea postage on
any letter or package not exceeding three ounces in weight from Ceylon,
Mauritius, the Cape, and the East Indies was placed at 4_d._ If it
exceeded three ounces in weight, it was charged 12_d._ an ounce. The sea
postage on letters and packages to Ceylon, etc., not exceeding three
ounces in weight, was placed at 2_d._ If the weight was more than three
ounces, the charge was 12_d._ an ounce. The postage on letters and
packages from England was payable in advance. Newspapers were charged a
penny an ounce.[612]

[608] London _Times_, 1814, Oct. 8, p. 3; 1815, Jan. 19, p. 3.

[609] _Parl. Deb._, 1st ser., xxx, col. 766; xxxi, col. 220.

[610] Joyce, p. 363.

[611] The _Calcutta Monthly_ complained that the new rates had rendered
correspondence less frequent. "The so-called packet boats are often two
or three months slower than private vessels" (London _Times_, 1818, Oct.
30, p. 3).

[612] 59 Geo. III, c. 111; London _Times_, 1820, Jan. 24, p. 3.

By an act passed in 1827 it was provided that henceforth all rates for
letters conveyed within Ireland should be collected in British currency.
The rates themselves and the distances remained the same as had been
provided by the act of 1814. The postage collected on letters between
the two kingdoms was henceforth to be retained in the country where it
was collected. The rates for letters passing between the two kingdoms
were assimilated with the rates prescribed for Great Britain by the act
of 1812. In addition to the land rates, 2d. was required for the sea
passage to and from Holyhead and Milford and to this 2_d._ more was
added for the use of the Conway and Menai Bridges.[613] Between
Portpatrick and Donaghadee the postage was 4_d._ for a single letter,
between Liverpool and any Irish port 8_d._, but no letter sent via
Liverpool paid a higher rate than if sent via Holyhead.[614] An
additional halfpenny was also demanded on every single letter passing
between Milford Haven and Waterford, to pay for improvements.[615]

[613] 7 and 8 Geo. IV, c. 21. The postage between Liverpool and Dublin
for a single letter was 13_d._, made up as follows:--

    Inland postage to Holyhead    9_d._
    For the Conway Bridge         1_d._
     "   "  Menai    "            1_d._
     Sea postage                  2_d._
                                 -----
                                 13_d._

In 1820, the sea rate between Portpatrick and Donaghadee had been raised
by 2_d._ for a single letter, between Liverpool and the Port of Douglas
by 4_d._ (1 Geo. IV, c. 89; 3 Geo. IV, c. 105).

[614] 7 and 8 Geo. IV, c. 21; 1 and 2 Geo. IV, c. 35, secs. 19-20; 6
Geo. IV, c. 28.

[615] 6 and 7 Wm. IV, c. 5.

In 1836, England and France signed a postal treaty by which the rates on
letters between the United Kingdom and France or between any other
country and the United Kingdom through France were materially
reduced.[616] On such letters the method of reckoning postage differed
from the English rule and was as follows: One sheet of paper not
exceeding an ounce in weight and every letter not exceeding one quarter
of an ounce were single letters. Every letter with one enclosure only
and not exceeding an ounce in weight was a double letter. Every letter
containing more than one enclosure and not exceeding half an ounce was a
double letter. If it exceeded half an ounce but not an ounce in weight,
it was a triple letter. If it exceeded an ounce, it paid as four single
letters and for every quarter of an ounce above one ounce it paid an
additional single letter rate.[617] The sender of a letter from Great
Britain to France had the option of prepaying the whole postage, British
and foreign, or the British alone, or neither.[618]

[616] _Acc. & P._, 1837, l. 106. Rates on foreign letters before, and
after the French treaty:--

_Between England and_   _Before_ _After_

France                    14_d._  10_d._
Italy        }
Turkey       }            23      19
Ionian Isles }
Spain                     26      19
   by packet              26      26
Portugal via France       26      19
   by packet              30      30
Germany via France        20      14
Switzerland               20      14
Holland                   16      16
Belgium                   16      16
Russia  }
Prussia }
Norway  }                 20      20
Sweden  }

_Between England and_   _Before_ _After_

Denmark }
Germany }                 20_d._  20_d._
Gibraltar                 34      34
Malta        }
Ionian Isles }
Greece       }            38      38
Egypt        }
Brazil                    42      42
Buenos Ayres              42      41
Madeira                   31      31
Mexico   }
Havana   }                36      27
Colombia }
San Domingo               26      27
United States }
and foreign   }           26      26
West Indies   }

[617] This followed to a certain extent the French system of charging
postage, which depended more upon weight and less upon the number of
enclosures than the English method.

[618] 7 Wm. IV and 1 Vict., c. 34.

In 1837, an act of Parliament was passed, consolidating previous acts
for the regulation of postage rates within Great Britain and Ireland,
between Great Britain and Ireland, and between the United Kingdom and
the colonies and foreign countries. The rates within Great Britain
remained the same as those established by the act of 1812, including the
additional half penny on letters conveyed by mail coaches in Scotland.
In Ireland the rates existing since 1814 still held and between Great
Britain and Ireland the rates established by 7 and 8 Geo. IV, c. 21.

The rates for letters between the United Kingdom and foreign countries
through France and those conveyed directly between the United Kingdom
and France remained the same as had been agreed upon by the Treaty of
1836. Some of the more important of the other rates were as follows:--

To Italy, Sicily, Venetian Lombardy, Malta, the Ionian Islands, Greece,
Turkey, the Levant, the Archipelago, Syria, and Egypt through Belgium,
Holland, or Germany, 20_d._ for a single letter. Between the United
Kingdom and Portugal, 19_d._ for a single letter.

                                                         _Single letter_
To or from Gibraltar                                           23_d._
To or from Malta, the Ionian Islands, Greece, Syria, and Egypt 27_d._
Between Gibraltar (not having been first conveyed there from
the United Kingdom) and Malta, the Ionian Islands, Greece,
Syria, or Egypt[619]                                            8_d._
Between the United Kingdom and Madeira                         20_d._
Between the United Kingdom and the West Indies, Colombia,
and Mexico                                                     25_d._
Between the United Kingdom and Brazil                          31_d._
Between the United Kingdom and Buenos Ayres                    29_d._
Between the United Kingdom and San Domingo                     15_d._
Between the British West Indies and Colombia or Mexico         12_d._

[619] In 1838, it was enacted that the postage on a single letter (not
from the United Kingdom or going there) between any two Mediterranean
ports or from a Mediterranean port to the East Indies should be 6_d._
via the Red Sea or Persian Gulf. The Gibraltar rate remained the same (1
and 2 Vict., c. 97).

Letters between the United Kingdom and Germany, Belgium, Holland,
Switzerland, Spain, Sweden, and Norway were charged in addition the same
postage as if they had been sent from or to London. Letters from and to
France paid no additional postage. All letters to and from
non-commissioned officers, privates and seamen while in actual service
were still carried for one penny each, payable in advance, but letters
sent by them from Ceylon, the East Indies, Mauritius, and the Cape were
charged an additional 2_d._ payable by the receiver.[620]

[620] 7 Wm. IV and 1 Vict., c. 34.

After the transference of the packet boats to the Admiralty in 1837, the
Postmaster-General was authorized to charge regular packet rates for the
conveyance of letters by such ships as he had contracted with for such
conveyance. He might also forward letters by any ships and collect the
following rates for each single letter:--

  When the letter was posted in the place from which
  the ship sailed except when sailing between Great
  Britain and Ireland                                  8_d._
  If posted anywhere else in the United Kingdom       12_d._
  Between Great Britain and Ireland in addition to
  inland rates                                         8_d._
  For a single letter coming into the United Kingdom
  except from Ceylon, the East Indies, Mauritius, and
  the Cape in addition to inland rates                 8_d._
  For letters from Ceylon, the East Indies, Mauritius,
  and the Cape in addition to inland rates--
      If not exceeding 3 ounces in weight              4_d._
      If exceeding 3 ounces in weight                 12_d._ an oz.
  For letters delivered to the Post Office to be sent
  to Ceylon, the East Indies, Mauritius, and the Cape
  in addition to all inland rates--
      If not exceeding 3 ounces in weight              2_d._
      If exceeding 3 ounces in weight                 12_d._ an oz.[621]

[621] 7 Wm. IV and I Vict., c. 34.

The end of high postage rates was now at hand. In 1839, the Treasury was
empowered to change the rating according to the weight of the letter or
package,[622] and they proceeded to do so in the case of letters from
one country to another passing through the United Kingdom, between any
two colonies, between any South American ports, and between such ports
and Madeira and the Canaries.[623] Parliament followed up the good work
in 1840 by enacting that in future all letters, packages, etc. should be
charged by weight alone, according to the following scheme:--

On every letter or package, etc.--
Not exceeding 1/2 ounce in weight, one rate of postage.
Exceeding 1/2 ounce but not exceeding 1 ounce,  2 rates of postage.
          1    "     "   "    "       2 ounces, 4   "   "    "
          2  ounces  "   "    "       3  "      6   "   "    "
          3    "     "   "    "       4  "      8   "   "    "

For every ounce above four ounces, two additional rates of postage, and
for every fraction of an ounce above four ounces as for one additional
ounce. No letter or package exceeding one pound in weight was to be sent
through the Post Office except petitions and addresses to the Queen, or
to either House of Parliament, or in such cases as the Treasury Lords
might order by warrant.[624]


[622] 2 and 3 Vict., c. 52.

[623] _Acc. & P._, 1841, xxvi, 53, pp. 1-7.

[624] Additional exceptions were made later in the case of 1. Reissuable
country bank notes delivered at the General Post Office in London. 2.
Deeds, legal proceedings and papers. 3. Letters to and from places
beyond the seas. 4. Letters to and from any government office or
department (or to and from any person having the franking privilege by
virtue of his office). _Acc. & P._ 1841, xxvi, 53, p. 4.

On all letters not exceeding a half-ounce in weight transmitted by the
Post between places in the United Kingdom (not being letters sent to or
from places beyond the seas, or posted in any post town to be delivered
within that town) there was charged a uniform rate of one penny. For all
letters exceeding a half-ounce in weight, additional rates were charged
according to the foregoing scheme, each additional rate for letters
exceeding one ounce in weight being fixed at 2_d._[625]

[625] Double rates were charged when the postage was paid on delivery.

The rates for colonial letters were also adjusted according to weight as
follows: Between any place in the United Kingdom and any port in the
colonies and India (except when passing through France) for a letter not
exceeding half an ounce in weight, 1_s._ Between any of the colonies
through the United Kingdom, 2_s._ If such letters exceeded half an ounce
in weight, they were charged additional rates according to the table
already given, the rate for a letter not exceeding half an ounce being
taken as the basis.

The rates for letters to and from foreign countries were much the same
as they had been before the passage of this act, except that instead of
the initial charge being made for a single letter, it was now reckoned
for a letter not exceeding half an ounce in weight. The rates for
letters to and from France were graded according to the distance they
were carried in England, the lowest rate for a letter not more than half
an ounce in weight being 3_d._ to Dover or the port of arrival, the
highest rate being 10_d._ to any place distant more than fifty miles
from Dover.[626]

[626] 3 and 4 Vict., c. 96.

The franking privilege may reasonably be considered in connection with
the history of postal rates, nor should its effect in reducing the
revenue of the Post Office be neglected. The Council of State gave
orders in 1652 that all public packets, letters of members of
Parliament, of the Council, of officers in the public service, and of
any persons acting in a public capacity should be carried free. This is
the first record that we have concerning the free carriage of members'
letters, a privilege which later gave so much trouble and was so much
abused.[627] The next year the Post Office farmers agreed to carry free
all letters to and from members of Parliament provided that letters
written by such members as were not known by their seals should be
endorsed, "These are for the service of the Commonwealth," and signed by
the members themselves or their clerks.[628] Nothing was said in the act
of 1660 about the conveyance of the letters of members of Parliament and
they were carried free only by act of grace. The House of Commons had
passed a clause of the bill providing for the free conveyance of the
letters of members of their own House. This had exasperated the Lords,
who, since they could not amend the clause so as to extend the privilege
to themselves, had dropped it.[629] In 1693, the attention of Cotton and
Frankland was called to the manner in which franking was being abused.
Men claimed the right to frank letters to whom the Postmasters-General
denied it, and members of Parliament were accused of bad faith in the
exercise of their privilege. The custom had arisen of enclosing private
letters in the packet of official letters. A warrant was issued in 1693
to the effect that in future no letters were to go free except those on
the King's affairs, and the only persons to send or receive them free
were the two principal Secretaries of State, the Secretary for Scotland,
the Secretary in Holland, the Earl of Portland, and members of
Parliament, the latter only during the session, and for forty days
before and after, and for inland letters alone. Each member was to write
his name in a book with his seal so that no one might be able to
counterfeit his signature.[630]

[627] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1651-52, p. 507.

[628] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1652-53, p. 449.

[629] _Parliamentary History of England_, iv (1660-88), col. 163.

[630] _Cal. T. P._, 1557-1696, p. 281.

We learn from Hicks' letters that it was customary for clerks in the
Post Office at London to send gazettes to their correspondents in the
country free of charge. These gazettes or news letters were supplied by
the Treasury and, as 2_d._ or 3_d._ apiece was paid for them by the
recipients, the privilege was greatly esteemed.[631] The Deputy
Postmaster-General wished to abolish the privilege, but Hicks himself,
who was one of the favoured officials, was quite indignant at the
suggestion.[632] The principle was bad, but as the receipts for gazettes
formed a necessary part of the clerks' salaries, Hicks cannot be blamed
for protesting against abolition without compensation. James II
expressed a desire that the practice should be discontinued, but when it
was shown to him that the salaries of the clerks must be raised if his
wishes were obeyed, his proposition was promptly withdrawn.[633]

[631] _Cal. T. B. & P._, 1731-34, pp. 208, 210, 218, 268.

[632] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1667, p. 248.

[633] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1666-67, p.386.

The abuses of the privilege of franking were very pronounced during the
eighteenth century. The system of patronage which the members of
Parliament then exercised made them reluctant to offend any of their
constituents, who might entrench upon their peculiar privileges.
Members' names were forged to letters and they made no complaint.
Letters from the country were sent to them to be re-addressed under
their own signatures. The Postmasters-General admonished them more than
once, but, as a rule, the members disclaimed all knowledge of abuses.
Men were so bold as to order letters to be sent under a member's name to
coffee-houses, where they presented themselves and demanded the letters
so addressed. In 1715, on receiving renewed complaints from the
Postmasters-General, it was ordered by the House that henceforth no
member should frank a letter unless the address were written entirely in
his own hand. This was expected to prevent members from franking letters
sent to them by friends. It was also ordered that no letter addressed to
a member should pass free unless such member was actually residing at
the place to which the letter was addressed. In the third place, no
member was to frank a newspaper unless it was entirely in print. This
was to prevent the franking of long written communications passing as
newspapers, for the members of Parliament in sending and receiving
letters free were restricted to such as did not exceed two ounces in
weight, but they were not so restricted in the case of newspapers.[634]
According to the Surveyor's report, the loss from the ministers' franks
in 1717 was £8270 and from the members' franks £17,470.[635] The loss
from franking was proportionately much greater in Ireland than in
England. In 1718 the Irish Parliament sat only three months, in 1719
nine months, and in Ireland as in England, members of Parliament
received and sent their letters free only during the session and forty
days before and after it. The following is part of the report submitted
by the Postmasters-General to the Lords of the Treasury for these two
years:--

                                                 1718       1719
  Gross Produce from Letters                   £14,592    £19,522
  Charge of Management and Members' Letters     11,526     18,768
  Net Produce from Letters[636]                  3,066        754

Under the charges of management is included the charge for carrying
members' letters as reckoned proportionately to the charge for the
letters which paid, together with the actual charge for the pay letters.
The net produce during the three months' session was £3006, during the
nine months' session only £753. In 1734 the old orders about the maximum
weight of two ounces and the requirement for the whole superscription to
be in the member's own writing were repeated in a royal proclamation. In
addition it was ordered that any letters sent under cover to any member
of Parliament or high official of state, to be forwarded by him, should
be sent to the General Post Office to be taxed.[637] It could hardly be
expected that this order would be obeyed, for there was no method of
enforcing it.

[634] _Jo. H. C._, 1714-18, p. 303.

[635] _Cal. T. P._, 1714-19, p. 287.

[636] _Cal. T. P._, 1720-28, p. 77.

[637] _Jo. H. C._, 1732-37, p. 393.

In 1735, the House of Commons instituted an enquiry into the whole
question of franking and summoned various Post Office officials before
them to give evidence. An estimate was laid before them of the amount
lost each year by carrying franked letters. This estimate was obtained
by weighing the franked letters at intervals during the session of
Parliament, and comparing their weight with the weight of the letters
which paid postage. As the total revenue from the latter was known, the
amount which was lost on the former was guessed. The House expressed
very little confidence in the estimated amounts, and certainly it was a
rough way of attaining the object aimed at, but perhaps they were
prejudiced from the strength of the case against them.[638] Expressed in
yearly averages, the amounts by which the revenue was reduced by
franking were:--

  1716-19    £17,460
  1720-24     23,726
  1725-29     32,364
  1730-33     36,864

[638] _Ibid._, 1732-37.

The system of ascertaining forged franks and of discovering enclosures
was as follows: a Supervisor of the Franks charged all letters, franked
by a member's name, coming from any place, when he knew that the member
was not there. Very often by holding them in front of a candle, he could
see enclosures inside directed to other people. If he was in doubt he
generally charged the letter, for if it should pay, all well and good,
and if he had made a mistake, the amount was refunded to the member. The
Supervisor had noticed that the number of franked letters had increased
with every session of Parliament, and some of the ex-members also
attempted to frank letters. The evidence of the Supervisor, especially
his description of the manner in which he attempted to discover
enclosures, was exceedingly distasteful to the House. The members
themselves were to blame for many of the abuses attendant upon the
system, and yet they contended that they were the unwilling victims of
others. A resolution was adopted that it was an infringement upon the
privileges of the knights, citizens, and burgesses chosen to represent
the people of Great Britain in Parliament, for any postmaster, his
deputies or agents to open or look into any letter addressed to or
signed by a member of Parliament, unless empowered so to do by a warrant
issued by one of the Secretaries of State. In addition no postmaster or
his deputies should delay or detain any letter directed to or by any
member unless there should be good reason to suppose that the frank was
a counterfeit.[639]

[639] _Jo. H. C._, 1732-37, p. 476.

The restrictions adopted to curtail the abuse of the franking privilege
had but little effect. A regular business sprang up for selling
counterfeit franks. The House of Lords ordered one person accused of
selling them to come before the bar of the House for examination, but he
failed to present himself.[640] Another confessed before the Upper House
that he had counterfeited one of the Lords' names on certain covers of
letters showed to him and had then sold them. He expressed sorrow for
the offence, which necessity had driven him to commit. He was sent to
Newgate.[641] The abuses of the franking system were so patent[642]
that Allen was told that he might withdraw from his contract to farm the
bye and cross post letters on three months' notice being given.[643]

[640] _Jo. H. L._, 1736-41, p. 259.

[641] _Ibid._, p. 529.

[642] One man in five months counterfeited 14,400 franks of members of
Parliament. Counterfeits of names of 27 members were shown. A regular
trade in buying and selling them had sprung up (_Jo. H. C._, 1761-64, p.
998). Several Lords certified that their names had been counterfeited.
Lord Dacre's name had been counterfeited 504 times (_Jo. H. L._,
1760-64, p. 534).

[643] _Cal. T. B. & P._, 1739-41, p. 450.

The revenue from the Post Office was surrendered by the Crown at the
beginning of George the Third's reign in exchange for a Civil List from
the Aggregate Fund as it was then called.[644] While the Post Office
remained in the hands of the King, it was only by special grant on his
part that the members of Parliament had been allowed to send and receive
letters free. Accordingly in 1763, an act was passed for the purpose of
giving parliamentary sanction to the privilege. This act repeated the
principal points in the King's proclamation and in the Parliament's
previous resolutions on the subject. All letters or packets sent to or
by the King, the ministers and the higher Post Office officials were to
go free. The ministers might appoint others to frank their letters,
whose names must be forwarded to the Postmaster-General. Those sending
letters free must sign their names on the outside and themselves write
the address. No letters to or from any member of Parliament should go
free unless they were sent during the session or within forty days
before or after, and the whole superscription must be in the member's
own hand or directed to him at his usual place of residence or at the
House. All letters in excess of two ounces in weight must pay postage.
Printed votes, proceedings in Parliament, and newspapers should go free
when sent to a member or signed on the outside by him, provided they
were sent without covers or with covers open at the ends. The privileges
of franking votes, proceedings in Parliament, and newspapers, were
continued to the clerks in the Post Office and in the Secretaries of
State's offices. The Postmasters-General and their deputies were given
authority to search newspapers which had no covers or covers open at the
ends and to charge them if there were writing or enclosures in them.
Finally, any person who counterfeited a member's name on any letter or
package for the purpose of avoiding the payment of postage, was guilty
of felony and liable to transportation for seven years.[645]

[644] Joyce, p. 189.

[645] 4 Geo. III, c. 24.

The year following the passing of this act, the House of Commons called
for returns relating to the franking system. Besides the members of
Parliament, the ministers, and the Post Office officials, to whom the
franking privilege had been granted by the King's warrant and by the
late act, almost all who were in any way connected with the Government
claimed the right to send or receive letters free, even to the Deputy
Serjeant-at-Arms. The amount which newspapers would have paid if there
had been no franking privilege was first given for the week ending March
13, 1764.

  _Members'_       _States'_     _Post Office Clerks'_
     £465            £310                 £1055

These amounts were obtained by weighing the newspapers and, as this was
the manner in which they would have been rated, the results may be
considered as fairly correct. The idea being to estimate the loss from
members' and states' franks only, the franking by Post Office clerks
does not enter into the following calculation. It was judged from the
figures given above that the Post Office carried free every year enough
newspapers franked by members and state officials to produce £40,000 if
they had been taxed at the ordinary rates.[646] An attempt to arrive at
the same result in another way was also made. The sum total which would
have been paid on all members' and ministers' letters, newspapers, and
parcels arriving at or departing from London in 1763 was £140,000. Of
this amount £85,000 would have been paid on all mail leaving London, and
£55,000 on all mail arriving in London. The difference in favour of the
outgoing mail was judged to be due to the newspapers, all of which were
printed in London and sent to the country. This would give a loss of
£30,000 on newspapers, and £110,000 on letters.[647]

[646] _Jo. H. C._, 1761-64, pp. 1000-1001.

[647] _Ibid._, p. 999.

Returns were also submitted, showing the gross amount of the inland
postage for Great Britain and Ireland, including the amount which the
franked letters and papers would have paid if they had all been charged,
the actual gross product and the difference between the two. This
difference would, of course, be the estimated charge on all the free
matter. These figures are given from 1715 to 1763. Roughly speaking, in
fifty years franked letters and papers increased 700 per cent while pay
letters increased only 50 per cent. In 1715 one fifth as many free
letters and newspapers as those which paid went through the mail. In
1763 there were eleven twelfths as many free letters and papers.[648] It
will be seen that the assumption is that the postage which this free
matter might have paid represented the loss suffered by the Post Office.
Now this is not so, because it did not cost the Post Office so much to
convey letters and papers as the ordinary rates would have paid them. In
the second place the Postal authorities considered the £140,000 as so
much actually lost, whereas if charges had been enforced on the free
matter, a much smaller amount would have been sent. This is entirely
apart from the rough and ready manner in which the figures were
obtained. Enough was shown, however, to prove that the franking system
was a burden to the country and an imposition upon the Post Office.

[648] _Jo. H. C._, p. 999.

In Ireland, Parliament met as a rule only during the even years or if it
met every year, the sessions in the odd years were very short. For the
five even years from 1753 to 1762, the expenses averaged for each year
£3306 over the receipts, while during the five odd years, the receipts
were greater than the expenditures by a yearly average of £2249. These
general results held good for every individual odd or even year for the
period for which returns were given.[649]

[649] _Ibid._, 1761-64, p. 1001.

Attempts continued to be made by members of the House of Commons to
diminish the abuses arising from franking. There had been some
misunderstanding as to whether they were entitled to have ship's letters
delivered free to them. Of course they were exempt from the inland
postage on such letters, but for every letter brought into the country
by vessels other than packets, the master was paid one penny and this
penny was collected from the person to whom the letter was delivered.
The members finally agreed to pay the extra penny.[650]

[650] _Ibid._, 1780-82, p. 537.

Acts were now introduced to enable the Commander-in-Chief, the
Adjutant-General, and the Controller of Accounts of the Royal forces to
receive and send letters free. Both bills passed.[651] It is some
consolation that the Lord Chancellor and Judges failed to obtain the
franking privilege although a bill was introduced in the Commons in
their behalf.[652]

[651] 22 Geo. III, c. 70; 23 Geo. III, c. 69.

[652] _Jo. H. C._, 1790-91, p. 468.

It was enacted in 1784 that a member must write on his free letters not
only his name and address but also the name of the post town from which
they were to be sent and the day of the month and the year when they
were posted.[653] The object of this restriction could be easily evaded
by enclosing postdated letters to their constituents but, after the
passage of this resolution, a considerable decrease resulted in the
number of free letters to and from members.[654] When the Irish was
separated from the English Post Office, the privilege of franking
newspapers to Ireland was taken away and a rate of one penny a newspaper
was imposed, payable in advance. This meant a loss to the clerks in the
Secretaries' offices but this was made good to them by an addition of
£1000 a year to their salaries.[655]

[653] _Ibid._, 1784-85, p. 383. The Lords also agreed to this resolution
(ibid., p.411; 24 Geo. III, sess. 2, c. 37).

[654] For the years 1783 and 1784, the number of free letters arriving
in London, exclusive of the state's letters, averaged over 800,000 a
year and those sent from London averaged over 1,000,000. In 1785, they
had fallen to 514,000 and 713,000 respectively (_Parl. Papers_, 1812-13,
_Rep. Com._, ii, 222, p. 95).

[655] 24 Geo. III, c. 6; _Jo. H. C._, 1795-96, p. 588.

In 1795, the members of Parliament made another attempt to limit their
own as well as the free writing proclivities of others. The maximum
weight of a free letter to or from a member was lowered from two ounces
to one. No letter directed by a member should go free unless the member
so directing it should be within twenty miles of the place where it was
posted either on the day on which it was posted or the day before. No
member should send more than ten or receive more than fifteen free
letters a day. Votes and proceedings in Parliament when addressed to or
by members of Parliament were exempted from the provisions of this
Act.[656]

[656] 35 Geo. III, c. 53. After 1786 the number of franked letters had
gradually increased until checked by this act. In 1795 the number of
franked letters delivered in London was 1,045,000, the number sent from
London 1,195,000. In 1796, the inward and outward free letters amounted
to 737,000 and 787,000 respectively. In 1797 the numbers were 696,000
and 721,000. These restricting acts of 1784 and 1795 had a more
important effect than Joyce leads us to suppose (_Parl. Papers_,
1812-13, _Rep. Com._, ii, 222, p. 95).

The restrictions upon the franking privilege enjoyed by members of
Parliament were re-enacted in 1802 with some additions. The number of
free letters which a member might receive and send in one day having
been limited to twenty-five, it was decided that these twenty-five so
excepted from the payment of postage should be those on which the
charges were the highest, provided that none of them exceeded an ounce
in weight. The high officials of state, the clerks of Parliament,
certain clerks of the Commons and Lords, the Treasurer and Paymaster of
the Navy, the Lord Chancellor, certain officials in Ireland, and two
persons appointed by the Postmaster-General of Ireland were allowed to
send letters free.[657] The members and clerks of both Houses were
allowed to send newspapers free provided that they were enclosed in
covers open at both ends. The same rule held for votes and proceedings
in Parliament.[658] The same franking privileges were extended to Irish
officials.[659]

[657] Those officials in the General Post Office who had no franking
privilege were reimbursed the amount of postage paid by them on inland
single letters (_Rep. Commrs._, 1837, xxxiv, 8th rep., app., no. 2).

[658] 42 Geo. III, c. 63.

[659] 43 Geo. III, c. 28.

From 1806 to 1819 there was a large extension of the franking privilege
to various officials. During that time sixteen statutes and parts of
statutes were enacted in behalf of various persons from the Lord High
Chancellor to the Controller of the Barrack's Department and the
Commissioners of the parliamentary grant for building churches. Sir
Robert Buxton, a member of Parliament, thought that it would be well for
his fellow members to give up their privilege in order to help the
finances of the country. Windham disagreed on the ground that it kept up
communications between a member and his constituents and encouraged
literary correspondence which would otherwise decline. Pitt justified
it, in that it enabled members to carry on the important business of
their constituents and did not result in much loss to the state.[660]

[660] _Parl. Deb._, 1st ser., iii, col. 570. The following are a few of
the statutes enacted which extended franking: 46 Geo. III, c. 61; 50
Geo. III, c. 65, sec. 19; c. 66; 51 Geo. III, c. 16, sec. 17; 52 Geo.
III, c. 132, sec. 16; c. 146, sec. 11; 53 Geo. III, c. 13; 54 Geo. III,
c. 169; 55 Geo. III, c. 1, sec. 10; c. 60, secs. 41-42; 56 Geo. III, c.
98, sec. 24.

It had always been customary to charge letter rates for the conveyance
of newspapers to foreign countries and to the colonies. Members of
Parliament, however, had the privilege of franking newspapers within the
United Kingdom, the clerks of the Foreign Office franked them to foreign
countries, and the Secretary of the Post Office franked them to the
colonies. In 1825 it was enacted that members need no longer sign their
names to newspapers franked by them, or give notice of the names of the
places to which they intended to send them.[661] This virtually provided
for the free transmission of newspapers within the United Kingdom. At
the same time it was provided that the rate for newspapers, votes and
parliamentary proceedings should be 1-1/2_d._ each to the colonies,
payable in advance. Newspapers from the colonies were charged 3_d._
each, payable on delivery. Such newspapers must be posted on the day of
publication, must contain no writing, and must be enclosed in covers
open at both ends.[662] Two years later the charge for votes and
parliamentary proceedings to and from the colonies was fixed at
1-1/2_d._ an ounce. Newspapers brought from the colonies by private
vessels were to be charged 3_d._ each, the same as the packet rate,[663]
but in 1835 colonial newspapers by private vessels were allowed to come
in for a penny each, and the same rate was charged for English
newspapers sent to the colonies by private vessels. By the same act the
postage on newspapers passing between the United Kingdom and any foreign
country which charged no inland rate for their conveyance was fixed at a
penny each. If an inland rate was charged, the postage was to be 2_d._
for each newspaper plus the foreign rate.[664]

[661] 6 Geo. IV, c. 68, sec. 10.

[662] 6 Geo. IV, c. 68; London _Times_, 1825, June 11, p. 3; July 29, p.
2.

[663] 7 and 8 Geo. IV, c. 21.

[664] 5 and 6 Wm. IV, c. 25. Before the passage of this act newspapers
passed free by the packets and posts to and from Hamburg, Bremen, and
Cuxhaven (London _Times_, 1834, Oct. 30, p. 2).

During the following year, all the regulations concerning the conveyance
of newspapers, votes, and proceedings in Parliament etc. were embodied
in one act. Within the United Kingdom all newspapers which had paid the
stamp duty were to go free except those which were sent through the
Twopenny Post and delivered by it, not having passed by the General
Post, and except those posted and delivered within the same town. In
both of these cases one penny was charged. To and from the colonies no
rate was demanded when newspapers were sent by the regular packets. If
sent by private vessels one penny was payable, which went to the master.
The rate to and from foreign countries was fixed at 2_d._ for each
paper, but if a foreign state agreed to charge no postage on English
newspapers, no postage should be charged on the newspapers of such
foreign state, when brought to England by the packet boats. If brought
by private vessels, a penny was payable for each paper, to go to the
master. All newspapers, in order to receive the advantage of these low
rates or to go free, had to be posted within seven days after
publication and to contain no writing except the name and address of the
person to whom they were to be sent. In addition the newspaper must have
no cover or one open at both ends.[665]

[665] 6 and 7 Wm. IV, c. 25.

The following additions and changes in the regulations for the carriage
of newspapers were made in 1837. One penny was to be paid for their
conveyance by private vessels between different parts of the United
Kingdom. Between the colonies and foreign countries through the United
Kingdom, newspapers should go free if conveyed by the packets and should
pay a penny each if conveyed by private vessels. Parliamentary
proceedings conveyed between the colonies and the United Kingdom, if
sent by packet boats and not exceeding one ounce in weight, were charged
1-1/2_d._ each. When in excess of one ounce they paid 1-1/2_d._ for each
additional ounce. Pamphlets, magazines and other periodical publications
for the colonies, if not exceeding six ounces in weight, paid 12_d._
when carried by the packets. For every additional ounce, 3_d._ was
charged. Bankers' re-issuable notes were carried at one quarter the
regular postage.[666] Patterns, with no writing enclosed and not
exceeding one ounce in weight, paid a single letter rate.[667] Any
newspaper which had been posted in violation of any regulation for the
conveyance of newspapers was charged three times the regular letter
postage.[668]

[666] In Great Britain re-issuable notes of country banks paid in London
were conveyed by the post to the issuing bank at one quarter the regular
rates for letters, but parcels of notes had to exceed six ounces in
weight and contain no other matter (5 Geo. IV, c. 20).

[667] 7 Wm. IV and 1 Vict., c. 34.

[668] 7 Wm. IV. and 1 Vict., c. 36.

Franking and the privilege of sending and receiving letters free from
postage did not at any time extend to letters liable to foreign postage
except in the case of public despatches to and from the Secretaries of
State and British Ambassadors.[669] The owners, charterers and
consignees of vessels inward bound were allowed to receive letters free
from sea postage to the maximum of six ounces for each man, but in the
case of ships coming from the East Indies, Ceylon, Mauritius, and the
Cape, the maximum was twenty ounces.[670] Within the kingdom, writs for
the election of members of the House of Commons and for those Scotch and
Irish peers who were elected, were allowed to go free.[671] All persons
who were allowed to frank letters within the Kingdom were grouped in ten
classes. Members of Parliament were placed in the first class and their
letters were subject to the old restrictions as to number,[672]
superscription, name of post town, date, and place of residence. They
might also receive petitions free, provided that each did not exceed six
ounces in weight. They might send free printed votes and proceedings in
Parliament.

[669] 5 and 6 Wm. IV, c. 25.

[670] 7 Wm. IV and 1 Vict., c. 34. Maximum increased to thirty ounces by
7 Wm. IV and 1 Vict., c. 25.

[671] 53 Geo. III, c. 89; 7 Wm. IV and 1 Vict., c. 32.

[672] Wallace, the postal reformer, declared that other members had been
in the habit of receiving more than fifteen free letters in a day and
that, too, with Freeling's consent (_Parl. Deb._, 3d series, xxiv, col.
1001).

Officials of both Houses of Parliament were in the second class. They
were subject to the same restrictions as the first class, except that
the number of their letters was not limited and each letter might weigh
two ounces.

The third class was composed of members of the Treasury Department and
the Postmaster-General and his secretaries. Their franking privilege was
unlimited as to the weight and number of letters nor were they required
to insert the name of the post town or the date.

The fourth class, composed of heads of departments, might send and
receive letters with no limit as to number or weight.

The fifth class, the Lord Chancellor of Ireland and the Irish
Surveyors, had unlimited franking rights within Ireland. All the letters
of these five classes were subject to the following restrictions with
the exception of the third class. The whole superscription of the
letters sent must be in the hand of the privileged person, with his name
and the name of the post town from which the letters were sent together
with the date, and on that date or the day before, the writer must be
within twenty miles of the place where the letters were posted.

The other five classes were made up of subordinate members of
departments, clerks, secretaries etc. when writing or receiving letters
on official business. Every such letter had to be superscribed with the
name of the office and the seal and name of the writer.[673]

[673] 7 Wm. IV. and 1 Vict., c. 35.

It appeared from a report of a committee appointed to investigate postal
affairs that the total number of franks had increased from 3,039,000 in
1810 to 4,142,000 in 1820; 4,792,000 in 1830 and 5,270,000 in 1837. Of
these, members of the two Houses were responsible for 2,028,000;
2,726,000; 2,814,000 and 3,084,000 at the above dates respectively.[674]
In concluding their report the Committee recommended the abolition of
Parliamentary franking.[675] This advice was followed and improved upon
two years later when franking and the privilege of sending or receiving
letters free were abolished, except in the case of petitions to the
Queen or Parliament not exceeding 32 ounces in weight.[676]

[674] _Rep. Com._, 1837-38, xx, 2d rep., app., p. 109.

[675] _Ibid._, xx, 3d rep., p. 62.

[676] 3 and 4 Vict., c. 96. Recent attempts by certain members of
Parliament to revive the franking privilege have fortunately been
unsuccessful (_Parl. Deb._, 4th ser., lxxxi, col. 1407; civ, col. 360).

No further reduction in inland postage rates was adopted until the net
revenue of the Post Office had pretty well recovered from the blow
received by the adoption of penny postage.[677] Such reduction was
finally granted in 1865, applying only to letters weighing more than one
ounce each, the increases in weight being graduated by half ounces with
a penny for each additional half ounce instead of 2_d._ for each
additional ounce as before. Corresponding reductions were made at the
same time in the book post and the pattern and sample post, and were
made applicable to correspondence with British North America and the
British possessions in Europe.[678] In 1870, when the impressed
newspaper stamp was finally abolished, the rate on prepaid newspapers
was reduced to a halfpenny each whether sent singly or in packages, but
no package was to be charged higher than the book post rate. Unpaid
newspapers were charged a penny for each two ounces or fraction thereof.
The book post rate was reduced at the same time to a halfpenny for each
two ounces or fraction thereof. The rate for patterns and samples, which
had formerly been 2_d._ for the initial four ounces, was altered to the
existing book post rate with a maximum of twelve ounces only. In 1871
the inland letter rate was fixed at a penny for the initial ounce, a
halfpenny for the next ounce and for each additional two ounces, and the
sample and pattern post was incorporated with the inland letter post. A
separate sample and pattern post was reëstablished in 1887, only to be
incorporated for a second time with the letter post ten years
later.[679] An additional charge for re-directed letters was made when
the re-direction necessitated a change from the original delivery, but
the charge was such only as they would be liable to if prepaid. An
exception was made in the case of letters re-directed to sailors or
soldiers, no additional charge being then made, provided that the rate
was not a foreign one. This privilege was later extended to commissioned
officers and the exemption extended to foreign rates as well.[680] In
1891 all charges for the re-direction of letters were abolished,
followed three years later by a like abolition in the case of all other
postal matter, and in 1900 the charge for notice of removal and
re-direction after the first year was reduced from £1 1_s._ to 1_s._ for
the second and third and 5_s._ for subsequent years.[681]

[677] But in 1861 the registration fee was reduced from 6_d._ to 4_d._
and a double fee charged for compulsory registration (_Rep. P. G._,
1862, pp. 9-10).

[678] _Rep. P. G._, 1866, p. 12.

[679] _Ibid._, 1870, pp. 3-5; 1897, p. 5; 1896, p. 2; 1898, pp. 1-2.

[680] 3 and 4 Vict., c. 96; 10 and 11 Vict., c. 85; 23 and 24 Vict., c.
65.

[681] _Rep. P. G._, 1892, p. 8; 1894, p.2; 1895, p. 4; 1901, p. 4.

With an increase in the number of valuable articles carried by post and
better arrangements for their safe keeping, it was found possible to
reduce the registration fee from 11_d._ to 6_d._, then to 4_d._ and
eventually to 2_d._ At the time of the first reduction, a rule was
issued for the compulsory registration by the Post Office of all letters
unquestionably containing coin, for the sake of letter carriers and
others rather than the protection of the public. The Post Office did not
at the time of the first reduction hold itself responsible for the full
value of the contents of a lost registered letter but was accustomed to
remunerate the sender where the contents were proved, were of moderate
amount, and the fault clearly lay with the Post Office. In 1878 it
agreed to make good up to £2 the value of the contents of any registered
letter which it lost, stipulating in the case of money that it had been
sent securely and in one of its own envelopes. Compulsory registration
by the Post Office was also extended to include uncrossed cheques and
postal orders to which the name of the payee had not been appended.[682]

[682] _Rep._ P. G., 1862, pp. 9-10; 1879, p. 13; 1897, p. 5.

An inland parcel post was not established in England until 1883. An
initial rate of 3_d._ was imposed for the first pound, increasing by
increments of 3_d._ to 1_s._ for the seventh pound. Later the maximum
weight was increased to 11 pounds, the maximum charge to 1_s._ 6_d._ In
1905 a further reduction followed on parcels weighing more than four
pounds.[683]

[683] _Ibid._, 1896, p. 3; 1882, p. 3; 1906, p. 1.

The use of postcards was first permitted in England in 1870, a charge of
a halfpenny a dozen being made in addition to the stamp. In 1875 this
additional charge was increased to a penny a dozen for thin cards, 2_d._
for stout cards. In 1899 these prices were reduced to a penny for ten
stout cards, a halfpenny for ten thin ones, and the latter began rapidly
to displace the former. Private post cards were first allowed to pass
through the post in 1894 for a halfpenny each, and two years later the
charge on unpaid inland post cards was reduced from 2_d._ to a
penny.[684] At the same time that the use of post cards was allowed, a
half penny post was introduced for certain classes of formal printed
documents.[685]

[684] _Ibid._, 1896, p. 2; 1889, p. 2; 1897, p. 5; 1895, p. 18.

[685] _Ibid._, 1903, p. 5.

In 1884 the scale of postage applicable to inland letters between two
and twelve ounces in weight was continued without limit. The resulting
rates were as follows: for the first ounce, one penny; for two ounces,
1-1/2_d._; for all greater weights, a halfpenny for every two ounces
plus an initial penny. On the occasion of the sixtieth anniversary of
the late Queen's accession to the throne, further decreases were
announced in the postage on inland letters. The weight carried by the
initial penny was extended from one to four ounces, the postage for
heavier letters increasing as before at the rate of a halfpenny for each
additional two ounces.[686]

[686] _Rep. P. G._, 1885, p. 14; 1898, pp. 1-2.

The decrease in postage for inland matter was accompanied by lower rates
for colonial and foreign letters. Although the proposal of the Marquis
of Clanricarde to establish a definite shilling[687] rate for all
colonial letters was not immediately adopted, it was not long before
even lower rates were accepted. The Marquis' plan was communicated to
the Treasury Lords in 1850 purely on Imperial grounds, "to strengthen
the ties between the colonies and the mother country." Rates other than
those on letters were even then far from excessive. Newspapers, for
instance, often passed free or they were charged a penny each either in
England or the colony, but not in both. Parliamentary proceedings paid
but one penny, sometimes 2_d._ per quarter-pound, books 6_d._ per
half-pound. A few years later a 6_d._ letter rate was adopted for all
parts of the Empire except India, the Cape, Mauritius, and Van Diemen's
Land. In 1857 the 6_d._ rate per half-ounce was extended to all the
colonies and in 1868 to the United States. In the following year this
rate was lowered to 3_d._ for letters to the United States, Canada and
Prince Edward Island.[688] In 1890 this rate in the case of most of the
colonies, and some foreign countries, was still further reduced to
2-1/2_d._, partly no doubt on account of the crusade which Mr. Heaton
had undertaken for penny postage within the Empire.[689] In 1898 his
penny aspirations were realized for all the important colonies with the
exception of the Australasian and South African, and in 1905 these too
fell into line and were joined by Egypt and the Soudan.[690] In 1907,
the experiment was tried of charging the comparatively nominal sum of
one penny a pound on British newspapers, magazines, and trade journals
for Canada, duly registered for the purpose, when sent by direct
Canadian packet. This rate is less than the cost but the loss is
diminished by the fact that the Dominion Government relieves the British
Post Office of the whole cost of ocean transit by the Canadian
subsidized lines.[691]

[687] Even at this time (1850) the shilling rate was the rule.

[688] _Acc. & P._, 1852-53, xcv., 204, pp. 2-3; _Rep. P. G._, 1855, pp.
36-37; 1858, p. 20; _Rep. Com._, 1868-69, vi, p. iv; _Rep. P. G._, 1871,
app., p. 29; 1870, pp. 6-7.

[689] _Ibid._, 1891, p. 6; app., p. 39.

[690] _Ibid._, 1899, p. 7; 1906, p. 1.

[691] _Rep. P. G._, 1907, pp. 4-5.

In 1863 arrangements were made with the principal European countries for
a marked reduction in letter postage rates. With France a rate of 8_d._
or 10_d._ for a quarter of an ounce, according to the country in which
the postage was paid, had existed. This was reduced to 4_d._ payable in
either country. With Italy and Spain the existing rates of 1_s._ 1_d._
and 10_d._ respectively for a quarter of an ounce were reduced to 6_d._
The Belgian sixpenny half-ounce rate was made 4_d._, and with the German
Postal Union the rate was reduced from 8_d._ to 6_d._ for a half-ounce
letter. In general these were prepaid rates.[692] The first Postal Union
meeting at Berne in 1874 reduced still further the old rates and
simplified the rules for the settlement of postal payments between the
subscribing nations. A uniform rate for prepaid letters of 2-1/2_d._ the
half ounce was agreed to, 5_d._ for an unpaid letter. Post cards were
charged at half the rate of a prepaid letter, newspapers a penny for
four ounces, printed papers (other than newspapers), books, legal and
commercial documents, and samples of merchandise a penny for two
ounces.[693] In 1891 the uniform letter rate existing among those
countries in Europe which were members of the Postal Union was extended,
so far as the United Kingdom was concerned, to all parts of the globe.
On the first of October, 1907, a further reduction was made when the
unit of weight for outward foreign and colonial letters was raised from
half an ounce to an ounce, and the charge on foreign letters for each
unit after the first was reduced from 2-1/2_d._ to 1-1/2_d._[694]

[692] _Ibid._, 1864, p. 21; 1859, pp. 19-20.

[693] _Ibid._, 1875, p. 13.

[694] _Ibid._, 1892, p. 8; 1906, pp. 1-2.

Shortly after acquiring the money order business from the managing
proprietors, the Post Office reduced the rates of commission to 3_d._
for orders not exceeding £2 in value, and 6_d._ for orders above £2 but
not over £5, the latter sum being at that time the maximum. In 1862 the
issue of orders for larger sums was allowed at the following rates:
9_d._ when not in excess of £7, and 12_d._ between £7 and £10. On the
first day of May, 1871, a further reduction was made and the following
scale of charges announced: for sums under 10_s._, a penny; between
10_s._ and £1, 2_d._; between £1 and £2, 3_d._, and an additional penny
for each additional pound to the £10 limit. It was found, however, that
the low rate of a penny for small orders did not pay, and a decision was
reached to raise the rate for these small orders and provide a cheaper
means for their remittance by post. In pursuance of this policy the rate
for orders under 10_s._ was increased to 2_d._, for orders between
10_s._ and £1 to 3_d._, and in 1881 the following rates were announced
for postal notes: a halfpenny for notes of the value of 1_s._ and 1_s._
6_d._; a penny for notes of the value of 2_s._ 6_d._, 5_s._ and 7_s._,
6_d._ and 2_d._ for notes costing 10_s._, 12_s._ 6_d._, 15_s._, 17_s._
6_d._, and 20_s._ In 1884 a new series of postal orders was issued, the
12_s._ 6_d._ and 17_s._ 6_d._ notes being dropped and new notes issued
of the value of 2_s._, 3_s._, 3_s._ 6_d._, 4_s._, 4_s._ 6_d._, 10_s._
6_d._ for a penny each and the rate on the 15_s._ and 20_s._ notes was
reduced to 1-1/2_d._ In 1903 still others were introduced with the
result that a postal order may now be obtained for every complete 6_d._
from 6_d._ to 20_s._ and for 21_s._ and broken sums to the value of
5_d._ may be made up by affixing postage stamps. Finally, in 1905, the
poundage on postal notes for 2_s._ and 2_s._ 6_d._ was reduced from
1_d._ to a halfpenny, and on postal orders for 11_s._ to 15_s._
inclusive from 1-1/2_d._ to 1_d._ In 1886 the money order rates were
reduced as follows:--
                                _d._
  On sums not exceeding £1       2
                        £2       3
                        £4       4
                        £7       5
                       £10       6

These rates were in their turn altered as follows on February 1, 1897:--
                                  _d._
  For an order not exceeding £3    3
  Over £3 but not exceeding £10    4

Upon the representation of the Friendly Societies, which send a good
many small orders, these rates were changed in May of the same year to
the following:--
                                             _d._

  For an order not exceeding £1               2
               exceeding £1 but not over £3   3
               exceeding £3 but not over £10  4

And finally in 1903 the maximum amount of a money order was raised from
£10 to £40 and the following rates established:[695]--
                                           _d._
  For sums not exceeding £1                 2
  For sums above £1 but not exceeding £3    3
                 £3                   £10   4
                 £10                  £20   6
                 £20                  £30   8
                 £30                  £40  10

In addition to the reductions in rates which have been outlined above,
other changes have been made which have resulted in certain cases in a
saving to the transmitter of a money order. The charge for correcting or
altering the name of the remitter or payee of an inland order has been
reduced to the fixed sum of a penny. The fee payable for stopping
payment of an inland order was fixed at 4_d._, and this was made to
cover the issue of a new order if the request was made at the time of
stopping payment. A penny stamp need no longer be affixed to a money
order when payment is deferred and payment may be deferred for any
period not exceeding ten days.[696]

[695] _Rep. P. G._, 1896, pp. 26-32; 1897, pp. 10-11; 1904, pp. 11-12;
1906, p. 1.

[696] _Ibid._, 1897, pp. 10-11.

The issue of telegraph money orders, commenced in 1889 as an experiment,
was in 1892 extended to all money order offices which were also
telegraph offices. The limit imposed was £10, the rates being
                                _d._
  On orders not exceeding £1     4
                          £2     6
                          £4     8
                          £7    10
                          £10   12

There was an additional charge of at least 9_d._ for the official
telegram, authorizing payment, which was sent in duplicate. When several
orders were sent at the same time and the total amount did not exceed
£50, only one official telegram was sent and paid for. The above rates
were lowered in 1897 to 4_d._ for sums not in excess of £3, and 6_d._
for sums from £3 to £10 with a minimum charge of 6_d._ for the official
telegram of advice.[697] At the present time inland telegraph money
orders may be issued for the same amounts as ordinary inland money
orders and at the same rates, plus a fee of 2_d._ and the cost of the
official telegram.

[697] _Rep. P. G._, 1896, pp. 30-32.

During the Crimean War, the Army Post Office was authorized to issue
money orders at inland rates and the system was extended to Gibraltar
and Malta. In 1858 a proposition advanced by Canada for the interchange
of money orders was favourably received by the Home Government, and in
the following year provision was made for their issue between the United
Kingdom and Canada at four times the inland rates, to a limit of £5. In
1862 the system was extended to all the colonies, the rates being the
same as those already agreed upon with Canada except in the case of
Gibraltar and Malta where they were three times the inland rates, and
the maximum was increased to £10. In 1868 a money order convention was
concluded with Switzerland, the rates being the same as those for inland
orders, and in 1869 a similar agreement was made with Belgium, but in
1871 the rates for both countries were increased to three times the
inland rates upon the same terms as those prevailing with other parts of
Europe. In 1880 colonial rates were reduced to the same level, and in
1883 the following changes were adopted:
                                _d._
  On orders not exceeding £2     6
                          £5    12
                          £7    18
                          £10   24

These were superseded in 1896 by the following rates:--
                               _d._
  On orders not exceeding £2    6
                          £6    12
                          £10   18

By 1903 most foreign countries and some of the colonies had agreed to a
further reduction of rates and to a £40 limit. In 1905 the poundage on
foreign money orders not exceeding £1 in value was diminished from 4_d._
to 3_d._[698]

[698] _Rep. P. G._, 1896, pp. 28-30; 1897, pp. 10-11; 1904, p. 11; 1906,
p. 1.

There is no record of the yearly expenses of the Government for the
maintenance of the posts until the accession of James I.[699] There are
many instances of the issue of warrants for the payment of the posts but
it is not known how long a period they were intended to cover.[700]
There was no systematic financial method in dealing with this phase of
the postal question. The postmen remained unpaid for years at a time.
After sufficient clamour, part of the arrears would be met, but it is
impossible to say how much of the sum paid was for current expenses and
how much for old debts.[701] It might be supposed from the fact that
they received fixed daily wages that some idea might be obtained of the
cost of management. But their wages often remained unpaid and the number
of postmen varied, as new routes were manned or old routes discontinued,
so that any figures for the period before the seventeenth century would
be mere guesses.

[699] _Rep. Com._, 1844, xiv, app., p. 48 (25).

[700] _L. & P. Hen. VIII_, ii, pp. 1444-51-53-57-58-60-62-63-66-72; _A.
P. C._, 1547-50, pp. 111, 278, 307, 319, 413; 1552-54, pp. 74, 137, 402.

[701] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1623-25, pp. 55, 285; 1628-29, p. 184; 1629-31,
pp. 379, 440.

Until 1626[702] our knowledge of the finances of the Post Office is
concerned with expenses only, for there was no product, gross or net,
for the state. In 1603, the cost of the posts was £4150 a year.[703]
This was the year of James the First's accession, and to this is
probably due the fact that payment was made for an entire year. Then
there comes a break of several years' duration. In 1621, arrears for the
half year ending March 31, 1619, were paid. They amounted to £917. For
the next two years the yearly expenses averaged £2984. The total
expenses for the financial year ending in March, 1621, were £3404. All
the posts to Berwick received 92_s._ a day, to Dover 17_s._ 6_d._, to
Holyhead 36_s._ 8_d._ and £130 a year for a sailing packet, to Plymouth
25_s._ a day. The wages for each postmaster varied from 1_s._ 8_d._ to
4_s._ 4_d._ a day. In addition there was an expenditure of £50 for
extraordinary posts and 5_s._ a day to the paymaster.[704] In 1625, the
ordinary expenses were about £4300 a year.[705] It is disappointing not
to be able to make any more definite statements concerning the financial
operations of the Post Office before 1635, but the unbusinesslike system
under which it was conducted must take the blame.

[702] The proceeds from de Quester's rates, which went into effect from
this year, may possibly have gone to the Post Office. After Witherings'
rates were announced in 1635, they certainly did.

[703] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1603-10, p. 9.

[704] _Rep. Com._, 1844, xiv, app., p. 43 (21).

[705] Hist. MSS. Com., _Rep._, 12, app., pt. 4, p. 472.

Our ideas of the financial operations of the Post Office from 1635 to
1711 are somewhat clearer than during the preceding period. We know that
Witherings' aim was to make the system self-supporting. It had probably
not entered into his head that it might ever be anything more. After the
sequestration of the position of Postmaster-General to Burlamachi, he
was called upon to render an account of the financial proceedings of the
Post Office during the short period that he was in charge.[706] He
reported that from August 4, 1640, to December 25, 1641, the receipts
had been £8363 and the expenditure £4867. £1400 of the balance had been
paid to the Secretary of State and "of the remaining £2000, those that
keep the office are to be considered for their pains and attendance."
This is rather vague but the report shows that the Post Office was
self-supporting only six years after Witherings' reforms had been
adopted.[707] Prideaux reported at an early period in his régime that,
with the exception of the Dover road and the Holyhead packet, the posts
paid for themselves.[708] After the Post Office was farmed, there can be
no doubt as to the total net revenue, but it is impossible to say how
much the farmer made over and above the amount of his farm or how large
his expenses were. Manley paid the state £10,000 a year and is said to
have made £14,000 during the six years that he farmed the Posts.[709] In
1659 the rent was raised to £14,000[710] a year, and in 1660 there was a
further advance to £21,500.[711] Of this £21,500 the Duke of York
received £16,117 and the rest was spent largely in paying pensions and
for a few minor expenses such as the payment of the Court
Postmaster.[712] By the act of 1663, the net Post Office revenue was
settled upon the Duke of York and his male heirs, with the exception of
about £5000 a year, that being the amount of the pension charges on the
revenue.[713] Certain deductions were made from the sum total of rent
due, on account of the loss to the farmer from the activity of the
interlopers, and the deficit was ordered to be made up from some other
branch of the royal revenue.[714]

[706] _Cal. T. P._, 1697-1702, p. 289.

[707] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1641-43, p. 213.

[708] _Jo. H. C._, 1648-51, p. 385.

[709] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1653-54, p. 365.

[710] Hist. MSS. Com., _Rep._, 15, app., pt. 1, p. 97.

[711] _Rep. Com._, 1844, xiv, app., p. 76 (53).

[712] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1661-62, pp. 122, 245.

[713] 15 Chas. II, c. 14.

[714] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1663-64, p. 598.

After James II took his involuntary departure from England, his
pecuniary interest in the Post Office ceased. In 1690, an act of
Parliament was passed, making the receipts from the Post Office payable
into the Exchequer. They were to be used among other things to pay the
interest on £250,000 borrowed to carry on the war.[715] From 1690 to
1710, the gross receipts rose from about £70,000 to £90,000 a year, no
consideration being taken of the ups and downs caused by the French
wars.[716] Complaint was made by the Lords that a large part of the
postal revenue was wasted in paying pensions.[717] The Duchess of
Cleveland received £4700 a year and William's Dutch General, the Duke of
Schomberg, £4000 a year. Poor William Dockwra, the only one of the lot
who had ever done anything for the Post Office, was at the end of the
list with only £500 a year, terminable in 1697.[718] The sum total of
money payable in pensions from the post revenue in 1695 was £21,200. The
packet boats at the same time cost £13,000, and but £10,000 was spent
for salaries and wages. The net revenue in 1694 was £59,972, the gross
being about £88,000.[719]

[715] Hist. MSS. Com., _Rep._, 13, app., pt. 5, p. 81.

[716] Hist. MSS. Com., _Rep._, 13, app., pt. 5, p. 362.

[717] Hist. MSS. Com., _Rep._, 13, app., pt. 5, p. 406.

[718] Hist. MSS. Com., _House of Lords_, i, pp. 84-87.

[719] _Rep. Com._, 1844, xiv, app., p. 93 (66).

During the eighteenth century the postal revenue still continued to be
burdened with the pensions of favourites, deserving and undeserving.
Queen Anne asked Parliament to settle £5000 a year upon the Duke of
Marlborough and his heirs. The House of Commons replied that they very
much regretted that they could not do so for the Post Office was
already paying too much in pensions. Probably the real reason for their
refusal was the fact that the Duke and the war party were becoming
unpopular. However, the Queen granted him the pension for her own life
as she had a legal right to do. In 1713, the total amount of pensions
payable from the postal revenue was £22,120. Before the act of 1711 was
passed, the Scotch Office had paid £210 to each of the Universities of
Edinburgh and Glasgow. This continued to be granted after the two
Offices were united.[720]

[720] _Cal. T. P._, 1708-14, p. 20.

Our knowledge of the financial operations of the Post Office during the
eighteenth century is much more extensive than during the seventeenth,
owing to the reports made by the Post Office officials to the
Parliamentary committees, appointed to enquire into abuses. The reports
are all signed by the Accountant-General or his deputy, and are
therefore as trustworthy as anything which can be obtained. They show
that during the first half of the century, or more explicitly from 1717
to 1754, there was a very small annual increase in gross product, with
an actual decrease in net product, and of course an increase in
expenditure. In round numbers the average yearly gross product for the
years 1725-29 was £179,000, the net product for the same period being
£98,000 and the expenses of management £81,000. For the five years from
1750 to 1754, the average annual gross product was £207,000, net product
£97,000, and expenses £110,000. It is not surprising that there was no
increase worthy of the name in the gross product, for the period under
consideration was a time of stagnation, an intermediate stage just
before the dawn of the industrial revolution. The actual decrease in net
product or, what amounts to the same thing, the increase in expenses of
management, is due largely to the abuse of the franking privilege, the
large amounts received in fees and emoluments, the extraordinary way in
which the packet service was mismanaged, and the losses and increased
expense due to war. Enough has been said about all but the last of these
causes. The Post Office suffered most during war from increased expenses
and direct losses in connection with the sailing packets. The placing of
these upon a war footing involved considerable increased cost. In the
second place, extra boats were used for political purposes in addition
to those regularly employed, and it was customary for the Post Office to
make good to the owners all damages inflicted by the enemy. From 1725 to
1739, the expenses of the Post Office averaged £80,000 or £90,000 a
year. Then came the War of the Austrian Succession, when the expenses
averaged £105,000 per year from 1745 to 1749. The five following years
being a period of peace, the average annual expenses were £110,000,
while the Seven Years' War brought them up to £147,000. It may be
thought that expenses should become normal again when war has ceased,
but it has generally proved to be the rule that although peace brings a
decrease, yet the expenditure does not fall quite so low as before the
war.

From 1755 to the end of the century there is a marked rise both in gross
and net receipts and a comparative diminution in expenses. The gross
average annual product from 1755 to 1759 was £228,000, from 1790 to 1794
it was £602,000. For the five years from 1755 to 1759 the average yearly
net product was £81,000, from 1790 to 1794 it was £375,000, while
expenses had risen for the same periods only from £147,000 to £227,000.
The following table shows the average yearly increase or decrease in
gross product, expenses, and net products for the six five-year periods
from 1765 to 1794. The increases or decreases are given in the form of
percentages, each five-year period being compared with the preceding
period.[721]

            _Gross product_       _Expenses_       _Net product_
 1765-69      17% increase        22% decrease      76% increase
 1770-74      11     "            27  increase      unchanged
 1775-79      12     "            30     "               "
 1780-84      19     "            37     "               "
 1785-89[722] 21     "            21  decrease      90% increase
 1790-94      24     "            14  increase      30%    "

[721] For the gross product, net product, and expenses for each year,
see Appendix, pp. 243, 244, 245, Tables I, II.

[722] Rates were increased in 1784.

The net product from both the Scotch and Irish Posts was remitted to
England. These receipts did not amount to much as compared with those
from the English Post. Earl Temple, Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, in
writing to Grenville in 1784, said that the Irish post "had never paid
£8000 a year clear of expenses."[723] In 1796, the gross product was
£26,949 and the expenses of management £8718. Of the net product, £6651
were retained, being placed to the credit of Great Britain for returned
and missent letters and for the £4000 which the Irish Post was entitled
to receive in lieu of the receipts from the Holyhead packet boats. The
remaining £11,579 were sent to the general Post Office. The Scotch Posts
did considerably better. The gross product in 1796 was £69,338, the
expenses of management £14,346, for returned letters £1206, and the net
product sent to the General Office was £54,265.

[723] Hist. MSS. Com., _Dropmore_, i, p. 179.

The time had long since passed when the London-Dover road was the most
important in the kingdom and when the receipts from foreign exceeded
those from inland letters. As late as 1653, when contracts were called
for from those wishing to farm the posts, the amount offered in one
instance was almost as great for the foreign as for the inland post. The
average annual gross product from the foreign post for the period
1785-89 was £61,431, the expenses £32,169 and the net product £29,262.
For the period from 1790 to 1794 there was a small increase to £65,497
for gross product, £34,277 for expenses, and £31,200 for net
product.[724]

[724] _Parl. Papers_, 1812-13, _Rep. Com._, ii, 222, p. 93.

The receipts from the London Penny Post were never an important factor
in postal finance but it had always paid for itself and given a
reasonable surplus. Its importance was due more to its social value in
affording a cheaper letter rate and a speedier postal service than the
General Post. The average yearly gross product from 1785-94 was £10,508,
expenses £5177, and net product £5331. After Johnson had improved it so
much, it produced a yearly average gross product from 1795 to 1797 of
£26,283. Expenses averaged £18,960 and net product £7323.

In the seventeenth century the receipts from bye and cross post letters
amounted to very little. So little was expected from them that no
provision was made for checking the postage on them. It was taken for
granted that all letters would pass to, from, or through London. In 1720
they brought in only £3700. Allen had done much to increase the
revenue, but it was not until the last part of the eighteenth century
that the increase was at all marked. From 1780 to 1784, the average
annual gross product was £77,911, expenses £12,346 and net product
£65,565. From 1785 to 1789, these had increased respectively to
£104,817, £11,589, and £93,228, and from 1790 to 1794 to £140,974,
£15,030, and £125,944. The small expense for these letters is explained
by the fact that the separate department for bye and cross post letters
was debited with only a portion of the total cost, the larger part being
carried by the general establishment.[725]

[725] _Parl. Papers_, 1812-13, _Rep. Com._, ii, 222, p. 91.

The financial history of the Post Office from the beginning of the
nineteenth century to 1838 is a rather depressing record.[726] From 1805
until 1820 both the gross and net receipts had increased steadily
although not rapidly, but for the remainder of the period the revenue
was practically stationary. During the five-year periods, 1820-24 and
1830-34, there had been a decrease in gross receipts, and during the
latter of these periods the net receipts had been kept a little ahead of
the five-year period 1815-19 only by a decrease in expenditure.

[726] See Appendix, p. 246, Table III; p. 247, Table IV.

The annual gross receipts from Scotland had increased from £117,108
during the period 1800-04 to £204,481 during the period 1830-34, the
annual net receipts for the same periods being £98,156 and £149,752. The
relatively large increase in expenses from £18,952 to £54,729 had been
due largely to the payment of mail coach tolls after 1814, amounting to
something under £20,000 a year.[727] Ireland started with a smaller
gross revenue, £92,745 a year during the period 1800-04, but a larger
annual expenditure £64,368,[728] and comparatively small net receipts of
£28,377. Gross receipts, expenses, and net receipts had increased slowly
throughout the first thirty-four years of the nineteenth century with
the exception of the period 1820-24. For the five years from 1830 to
1834 inclusive they amounted to £244,098, £108,898, and £135,200
respectively.[729]

[727] See Appendix, p. 248, Table V.

[728] Ireland had paid for mail coach tolls from the first and this
partly explains the relatively high expenditure.

[729] See Appendix, p. 248, Table V.

The increases in rates in 1801, 1805, and 1812 had not produced the
desired and expected results. The increase in 1801 had been estimated to
produce £150,000 but results showed that this estimate was too large by
£35,000. In 1805, the additional penny had resulted in an increase of
only £136,000, inclusive of any natural increase of revenue, although it
had been estimated to produce £230,000. The third increase in rates in
1812 proved even less productive. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said
that he expected it to produce £200,000. As a matter of fact the revenue
increased only £77,892 in amount. The fact of the matter was that rates
were already so high that an increase only led to greater efforts to
evade the payment of postage. As a system of taxation the Post Office
had become rigid. It could yield no more with postage as high as it had
been forced by the acts of 1801 and 1805. But, considered primarily as a
taxing medium, and it had been considered as such for 200 years, it
could hardly be called a failure. We flatter ourselves that our idea of
the Post Office is broader in its scope and more utilitarian in its
object but we have the good fortune to live several generations after
1840. What England demanded was revenue and still more revenue, and a
postal system which could produce £70 net for every £100 collected had
some excuse for its existence.

Rowland Hill has pointed out that from 1815 to 1835 the population had
increased from 19,552,000 to 25,605,000 while the net revenue from the
Post Office had remained practically stationary. He said nothing,
however, about the industrial depression of the country during that
period nor of the political and economic crisis through which England
was passing. He referred to the great increase in the postal revenue of
the United States during the same period; on the one hand, a nation with
immense natural resources and a population doubling itself every
generation, and on the other hand, a people inhabiting two small
islands, making heroic efforts to recover from a most burdensome war.

With the introduction of penny postage the gross revenue of the Post
Office fell from £2,390,763 in 1840 to £1,359,466 in 1841, and did not
fully recover from the decreased postage rates for twelve years. The
cost of management, on the other hand, increased only from £756,999 in
1840 to £858,677 in 1841. But the financial loss is shown most plainly
in the falling off in net revenue from £1,633,764 to £500,789. If we
exclude packet expenses, and such was the practice until 1858, the net
revenue did not again reach the maximum figure of high postage days
until 1862. Including packet expenses we find that the net revenue did
not fully recover until the early seventies. The average yearly gross
revenue for the period from 1841-45 was £1,658,214, expenditure
£1,001,405, and the net revenue £656,809. These all increased steadily
and on the whole proportionately until 1860, the average yearly figures
for the preceding five years being £3,135,587, £1,785,911, and
£1,349,676. In 1858 the packet expenses are included under cost of
management and their enormous increase from the beginning of the century
sadly depleted the net revenue. It seems more advisable, however, not to
include them until 1860 when the packets passed from the control of the
Admiralty to that of the Post Office. The average gross revenue for the
years 1861 to 1865 was £4,016,750, expenditure (including packets)
£3,013,389, and net revenue £1,003,341. During the next quarter of a
century these increased to £6,326,141, £4,019,423, and £2,306,718
respectively, exclusive of telegraph receipts and expenditures. For the
five years ending 31st March, 1906, the average gross revenue was
£15,926,905, expenditure £11,156,292, and net revenue £4,770,613.[730]

[730] See Appendix, pp. 249, 250, 251, Table VI; p. 252, Table VII.




CHAPTER IX

THE QUESTION OF MONOPOLY


The question of the state's monopoly and the opposing efforts of the
interlopers to break this monopoly resolves itself into a consideration
of the way in which private letters were carried, for the public letters
were entirely at the disposal of the state to be dealt with as it saw
fit. From the sixteenth century there were several ways in which private
letters might be conveyed. Within the kingdom they might be sent by the
common carriers, friends, special messengers, or the Royal Posts.
Letters sent abroad were carried by the Royal Posts, the Merchant
Adventurers' Posts, the Strangers' Posts, and the Merchants' Posts while
they lasted. The fact that private letters were conveyed by the Royal
Posts is generally expressed in rather indefinite terms or by references
to proclamations, but that they were actually so conveyed is entirely
beyond doubt.[731] In 1585 a certain Mr. Lewkenor informed Walsingham
that the post just landed had brought many letters directed to
merchants, besides those for the Court and Government. He asked whether
he might open those letters which were directed to suspected
merchants.[732] This reference is of course to letters coming from
abroad. The same holds true of inland letters, for in 1583 Randolph, the
Postmaster-General, wrote to Walsingham, enclosing the names of those
"who charge the posts with their private letters and commissions at a
penny the mile."[733]

[731] G. Roberts, _Social History of the Southern Counties of England_,
1856, p. 508; Joyce, p. 4.

[732] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1581-90, p. 131.

[733] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1581-90, p. 228; 1598-1601, p. 427; _Rep. Com._,
1844, xiv, 601, p. 4.

In 1591 the first proclamation affirming the government monopoly in the
foreign posts was issued. All persons except the Postmaster-General and
his deputies were forbidden "directly or indirectly to gather up,
receive, bring in or carry out of this realm any letters or packets,"
the only exceptions being in the case of the despatches of the
principal Secretaries of State, of Ambassadors, and others sufficiently
authorized. An appendix to the same proclamation commanded all mayors,
bailiffs, sheriffs, justices, etc., and especially all searchers to be
on the watch for men coming into or going out of the realm with packets
or letters. In this last part of the proclamation we can see why it was
thought necessary to restrict the carriage of letters to and from
foreign countries to the Royal Posts. It was done that the Government
might be able to discover any treasonable or seditious correspondence.
This did not always remain the object of the state in restricting
competition but was succeeded later by other and different motives. In
order that there might be no doubt about the whole question, the
Postmaster-General received word from the Council to inform the London
merchants, foreigners as well as British subjects and all others whom it
might concern, that they should no longer employ any others to carry
their letters than those legally appointed in accordance with the terms
of the proclamation.[734]

[734] _Rep. Com._, 1844, xiv, 601, p. 4; app., p. 36 (14).

In 1602 the first order concerning the despatch of private letters
within the kingdom was issued to the Royal Posts. "The Posts for the
Queen's immediate service"[735] were allowed to carry only state
despatches, directed by members of the council, the Postmaster-General
and certain officials. Such despatches when sent by the regular posts
were to be forwarded immediately. The letters of all other persons
allowed to write by post must wait for the regular departure of the
postmen. In the orders to the posts issued in 1609, the first article
reads as follows: "No pacquets or letters shall be sent by the Posts or
bind any Post to ride therewith but those on Our special affairs."[736]
The first part of this is certainly strong but it is modified by the
succeeding clause "nor bind any Post to ride therewith." Evidently he
might if he wished, and he would probably hesitate longer over a state
packet for the conveyance of which he was never assured of anything than
over a private letter for which he was certain of his pay.

[735] By "Posts for the Queen's immediate service" was probably meant
the special messengers attached to the Court.

[736] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1547-65, pp. 215-77; _Rep. Com._, 1844, xiv, 601,
app., p. 42 (20).

It was the custom after 1609 to follow the appointment of every new
Postmaster-General with a proclamation assigning him and his deputies
the sole privilege of carrying all letters and reading anathema upon all
interlopers.[737] Thus King James favoured Stanhope, his
Postmaster-General, with a grant of monopoly.[738] On de Quester's
appointment as Foreign Postmaster-General a proclamation was issued,
forbidding any but his agents from having anything to do with foreign
letters.[739] In spite of the improvements which he inaugurated, we find
him asking the King a few years later to renew his patent of monopoly
and his request was granted.[740] He was evidently suffering from
competition. But the Merchant Adventurers' Posts were not yet dead and
their Postmaster, Billingsley, abetted by the House of Commons,[741]
gave de Quester so much trouble that he was imprisoned by the Council's
order.[742]

[737] Letters carried by a friend or special messenger or a common
carrier were excepted.

[738] _Rep. Com._, 1844, xiv, 601, app., p. 42 (20).

[739] _Ibid._, 1591-94, p. 401.

[740] _Ibid._, 1627-28, pp. 511-22.

[741] The House had already shown its interest in postal affairs by
summoning postmasters before the Committee of Grievances in 1624 (_Jo.
H. C._, 1547-1628, pp. 689-774).

[742] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1628-29, p. 177.

In the meantime the postmen on the London-Plymouth road had petitioned
the Council that they alone should carry the letters and despatches of
the merchants over their road. They said they had so improved the
service between London and Plymouth that letters were now despatched
between the two cities in three days and an answer might be received
within one week from the time of first writing. Their complaint was
against a certain Samuel Jude, who had undertaken the conveyance of the
London merchants' letters. Jude himself acknowledged this, but said that
he had never meddled with the "through" post by which he meant the
travellers' post.[743]

[743] _Ibid._, 1625-49, p. 367; 1629-31, p. 200.

So long as the Royal Posts did not give satisfaction, competition was
inevitable. Under Witherings they had improved so much that what
competition there was, received no support from the London merchants. In
1633 they addressed a petition to the King, praying that he would
protect Witherings from some strangers in London, who had set up posts
of their own. They pointed out how he, acting with some foreign
postmasters, had set up packet posts, travelling day and night. By means
of these, letters were conveyed between London and Antwerp in three
days, while the messengers needed from eight to fourteen days to travel
the same distance.[744] The common carriers were giving trouble in the
despatch of inland letters at the same time that competition in the
foreign posts was attracting attention.[745] It was their custom to send
their carts on ahead while they lingered to collect letters. After the
collection they hastened on, leaving their carts behind, and delivered
the letters on the way. It was provided that no carrier should stay
longer than eight hours in a place after his cart had left it, or arrive
in any place eight hours ahead of it.[746] As long as their speed was
governed by that of their lumbering carts over the wretched roads, no
fear was felt that their competition would prove troublesome.

[744] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1633-34, p. 39.

[745] _Ibid._, 1637-38, pp. 22, 171, 177, 183.

[746] _Ibid._, 1637-38, p. 193; _Rep. Com._, 1844, xiv, 601, app., p. 58
(37).

With the growing strength of Parliament, more and more opposition was
made to the grants of monopoly and their enforcement. In 1642 the House
of Commons passed a resolution "affirming that the taking of the letters
from the several carriers and the several restraints and imprisonments
of Grover, Chapman, Cotton, and Mackerill are against the law." The
House proceeded to state that these several persons should have
reparation and damages from Coke, Windebank, and Witherings.[747] Four
years later a report was made by Justices Pheasant and Rolls on
Witherings' patent.[748] They held that the clause of restraint in the
grant to Witherings was void.[749] This decision was quite in accordance
with the views of Parliament when they opposed the King and all his
works. But after Parliament had obtained control of the Posts, "the
President and Governors of the Poor of the City of London" proposed to
the Common Council that the City should establish a postal system in
order to raise money for the relief of the poor in London. A committee
was appointed to inform Warwick, Prideaux, and Witherings of their
intention. At the same time an attempt to lay a petition before
Parliament on the question failed. Counsel's advice was sought and
obtained in favour of the undertaking and in 1650 the Committee received
orders to settle the stages. At the end of six weeks they had
established postal communications with Scotland and other places.
Complaint was made to Parliament, and the Commons passed a resolution
"that the office of Postmaster, inland and foreign, is and ought to be
in the sole power and disposal of the Parliament." The same year the
city posts were suppressed.[750]

[747] _Jo. H. C._, 1640-42, p. 722.

[748] These were the same judges who had decided in favour of Stanhope's
patent in Stanhope _v._ Witherings.

[749] _Rep. Com._, 1844, xiv, 601, app., p. 67 (42).

[750] Chas. Knight, _London_, 1842, iii, p. 276; R. R. Sharpe, _London
and the Kingdom_, 1894, pp. 322-23.

Oxenbridge and his friends who had set up posts of their own gave
Prideaux and Manley the hardest fight that any Postmaster-General ever
had to encounter from interlopers. Joyce says that Oxenbridge had acted
as Prideaux' deputy.[751] If this is so, he was soon up in arms against
his superior. In accordance with the judicial decision that the clause
in Witherings' patent giving him a monopoly of the carriage of letters
was void, Oxenbridge, Blackwall, Thomson, and Malyn had undertaken the
private conveyance of letters and had set up posts of their own.
Prideaux had charged 6_d._ for each letter and had organized weekly
posts from and to London. Oxenbridge charged only 3_d._ and his posts
went from and to London three times a week. Prideaux then did the same
and set up posters announcing that the interlopers' posts would be
stopped. His agents assaulted Oxenbridge's servants and killed one of
them. He also stopped his rival's mails on Sundays but allowed his own
to proceed as on other days. In addition to his regular tri-weekly
mails, Oxenbridge provided packet boats for Ireland and intended to
settle stages between London and Yarmouth and the other places named by
the Council of State.[752] To proceed in Oxenbridge's own words:
"Suddenly contracts were called for. We offered £9100 a year through Ben
Andrews, £800 more than was offered by Manley, yet Colonel Rich allowed
Manley to take advantage of an offer made by Kendall then absent and not
privy to it for £10,000 a year. Consideration had been offered by
Council, but Manley had broken into our offices, taken letters, and had
forbidden us from having anything to do with the post." An order of the
Council of State, bearing the same date as the grant to Manley, was sent
to Oxenbridge and his friends, informing them that Manley had been given
the sole right to the inland and foreign letter offices.[753] This did
not end the controversy, for six months later we find Oxenbridge and
Thomson complaining that a monopoly in carrying letters had been given
to Manley. They claimed that all who wished should be allowed to carry
letters at the ordinary rates.[754]

[751] Joyce, p. 29.

[752] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1653-54, pp. 22-24, 372. See p. 33, note.

[753] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1652-53, p. 456.

[754] _Ibid._, 1653-54, p. 372.

Of all the interlopers up to the middle of the seventeenth century,
Oxenbridge had proved himself by far the ablest. From the point of view
of the legal decision of 1646 and the position of Parliament before
1640, his position was unassailable. With the present policy of the Post
Office in view, his actions will probably be condemned by the majority.
But in 1650 conditions were entirely different. Before 1635 the state
had either tacitly allowed the carriage of private letters to the profit
of the postmen or had officially taken over such carriage; but in this
case it was largely for the purpose of keeping in touch with the plots
of the times. For 200 years after 1635 the idea was to make money from
the conveyance of private letters. The effects of Oxenbridge's efforts
were certainly beneficial if we are to believe his own story. Prideaux
had been forced to cut his rates in half in order to meet competition.
The credit for this must lie with the interloper rather than with the
monopolist.

At the same time that Oxenbridge was giving so much trouble, letters
were being carried by private hands in Bury, Dover, and Norwich. The
offenders were summoned before the council for contempt and severely
reprimanded.[755] Petitions came from Thetford and Norwich complaining
that their messenger had been summoned to present himself before the
Council within twenty-four hours and had to travel 100 miles within that
time, an impossibility in the opinion of the petitioners.[756] As late
as 1635, Prideaux, the Attorney-General, gave his opinion that
Parliament's monopolistic resolution of that year affected only the
office of Postmaster-General and not the carrying of letters.[757]
Perhaps this was only a bit of spite on his part after Manley had
succeeded to his old position.

[755] _Ibid._, 1653-54, p. 177.

[756] _Ibid._, 1653-54, p. 25.

[757] _Ibid._, 1652-53, pp. 109-110.

The usual monopolistic powers, hitherto granted by proclamation, were
embodied in the first act of Parliament, establishing the postal system
for England, Ireland, and Scotland in 1657. The Postmaster-General was
given the sole power to take up, carry and convey all letters and
packets from and to all parts of the Commonwealth and to any place
beyond the seas where he might establish posts. He alone was to employ
foot posts, horse posts, and packet boats. Some exceptions were made to
these general rules. Letters were allowed to be conveyed by carriers so
long as they were carried in their carts or on their pack-horses. The
other exceptions were in the case of letters of advice sent by merchants
in their ships and proceeding no farther than the ships themselves, and
also in the case of a letter sent by a special messenger on the affairs
of the sender, and in the case of a letter sent by a friend. Penalties
were attached for disobedience to this part of the act, one half of the
fine to go to the informer.[758] The same provisions were enacted almost
word for word in the act of 1660, with the addition that letters might
be carried by any one between any place and the nearest post road for
delivery to the postman.[759]

[758] Scobell, _Collect._, pt. ii, pp. 511-13.

[759] 12 Ch. II, c. 35.

After the restoration and for some months before the act of 1660 was
passed, Bishop had acted as farmer of the posts. In the absence of any
law on the subject, the King's proclamation granting a monopoly[760] to
Bishop was freely disregarded.[761] Competing posts to and from London
sprang up, lessening the receipts which he would otherwise have obtained
from the carriage of letters. It was calculated that during the three
months before these interlopers could be suppressed Bishop lost £500
through them, and orders were given to allow him an abatement in his
rent to that amount.[762]

[760] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1660-61, p. 475.

[761] In 1659 a book was published by John Hill, entitled _A Penny
Post--A vindication of the Liberty of every Englishman in carrying
merchants' and other men's letters against any restraints of farmers of
such employments_ (_Notes and Queries_, 6th ser., xi, p. 37).

[762] _Rep. Com._, 1844, xiv, 601, app., p. 82 (57).

In 1663 a certain Thomas Ibson attempted to come to an agreement with
the postmasters on the Holyhead road. He wished to have the privilege
of horsing travellers and made an offer to the postmasters to take
charge of the post houses if they would allow him to proceed. He told
them that they should make an attempt to have their salaries restored to
their old value by Bishop, who had raised so much from them by fines and
lowering their salaries. The Postmaster-General told his deputies that
if they dared to treat with the "would-be" interloper he would dismiss
them, and the whole thing fell through.[763] At the same time a warrant
was issued by the Council to mayors and other officials to search for
and apprehend all persons carrying letters for hire, without licence
from the Postmaster-General.[764] Nevertheless interloping did not
cease, as is shown by the complaints from the postmasters.[765]

[763] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1663-64, pp. 8, 18.

[764] _Ibid._, 1663-64, p. 145.

[765] _Ibid._, 1663-64, p. 402.

In the proclamation following the appointment of O'Neale as
Postmaster-General in 1663, it was ordered that no one should dare to
detain or open a letter not addressed to himself unless under a warrant
from one of the Secretaries of State. An exception was made in the case
of letters carried by unauthorized persons. Such letters should be
seized and sent to the Privy Council. In later proclamations it was
provided that they might be sent also to one of the Secretaries of State
in order that the persons sending or conveying them might be
punished.[766]

[766] _Rep. Com._, 1844, xiv, 601, app., p. 88 (61).

After Lord Arlington's appointment as Postmaster-General, he addressed a
petition to the Duke of York complaining "that carriers, proprietors of
stage coaches and others take upon themselves to collect letters to an
incredible number and on some stages double what the post brings." On
account of this he pointed out to His Royal Highness that a considerable
part of his revenue was lost. This was quite true since the Post Office
had ceased to be farmed and the whole net revenue went to the Duke.[767]
This was followed the same year by a proclamation forbidding any one to
collect or carry letters without the authority of the
Postmasters-General. Carriers were forbidden to convey any letters which
were not on matters relating to goods in their carts. Shipmasters must
carry no letters beyond the first stage after their arrival in England
with the exception of the letters of merchants and owners. Searchers
were appointed to see that the proclamation was enforced.[768] It was
even proposed to suppress all hackney coaches, the principal reason
given being that they decreased the value of the Duke's monopoly by
carrying multitudes of letters.[769]

[767] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1668-69, p. 285.

[768] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1668-69, p. 376.

[769] _Ibid._, 1672-73, p. 64.

It is a curious and interesting fact that for a short time London had a
Half Penny Post, established in 1708 by a Mr. Povey in opposition to the
regular Penny Post. The idea was much the same as that of Dockwra's
although Povey seems to have been a far more belligerent individual than
his forerunner in the work. The Postmasters-General tried to come to
some compromise with him but he would not listen to them. Finally legal
action was brought against him, based on the monopoly granted by the act
of 1660. Povey lost the suit and his project fell through.[770] His was
the last attempt to organize a regular system of competing posts. During
the remainder of the eighteenth century, improvements in postal
communications disarmed much of the former opposition. Considerable
damage was received from the superior speed with which letters might be
sent by coaches but, after they were adopted by the Post Office, matters
naturally adjusted themselves. Private vessels continued to convey
letters which had not paid the rates prescribed in such cases by the act
of 1711, but this breach of the law was tolerated by the Post
Office.[771]

[770] Knight, _London_, 1842, iii, p. 282; Joyce, pp. 121-23.

[771] Joyce, p. 329.

Before the nineteenth century, opposition to the government monopoly had
taken the form of competing systems of communication, started primarily
for the sake of making money and at the same time vindicating the
principle of competition. During the first forty years of the nineteenth
century there was no opposition to the Post Office as a monopoly. The
widespread dissatisfaction was due to the exorbitant rates of postage
and this dissatisfaction expressed itself in attempts to evade these
rates but, with the exception of individual messengers and carriers,
there was no competing system of postal communication established.
Opposition took the form of evasion of postage payments by legal and
illegal means. The various exceptions to the government monopoly
continued unchanged[772] until still further modified in 1837. The
additional modifications were in the case of commissions and returns,
affidavits, writs and legal proceedings, and letters sent out of the
United Kingdom by private vessels.[773] The penalty for infringing upon
the postal monopoly was placed at £5 for every offence or £100 a week if
the offence was continued.[774]

[772] 9 Anne, c. 10; 42 Geo. III, c. 81; 46 Geo. III, c. 92; 53 Geo.
III, c. 58; 5 Geo. IV, c. 20.

[773] 7 Wm. IV and 1 Vict., c. 33.

[774] 7 Wm. IV and 1 Vict., c. 36.

During the official postal year from July 1831 to July 1832, there were
133 successful prosecutions for illegally sending and conveying letters.
The fines collected amounted to £1635, the costs paid by defendants to
£1085. The prosecutions were generally for a few letters only and the
great majority of the cases were brought in Manchester. In the case of
forty-one additional actions, the Postmaster-General did not enforce the
penalties, certain explanations having been given.[775] Rowland Hill
thought that the conveyance of letters by private and unauthorized
people was very widespread and the Solicitor of the Post Office agreed
with him.[776]

[775] _Acc. & P._, 1834, xlix, 19, pp. 2-7.

[776] _Rep. Com._, 1837-38, xx, pt. 1, pp. 17, 23.

The reports of the Committee appointed to enquire into the condition of
the Post Office and to hear the opinions of officials and the public
concerning the introduction of Penny Postage disclosed an amazing state
of affairs. The opinion that evasion of postage was more or less general
had been held by the public for some time as well as by a few of the
Post Office officials[777] but, after the evidence upon the question was
published, there was no longer any doubt that the views of the public
were correct. Some difficulty had been anticipated that men who had
violated the law of the land would prefer not to confess their misdeeds
before a Parliamentary Committee. They were accordingly assured that any
evidence given would not be used against them, and the names of some
were expressed by letters only, when the reports were published.

[777] _Ibid._, 1837-38, xx, questions 234, 2883, 4692, 10870-74; rep. 1,
app., pp. 427, 431, 433; rep. 2, p. 32.

The means by which postage rates were evaded may be conveniently grouped
under two main heads, legal and illegal. The most common methods of
evading postage in whole or in part by legal means were:--

By the use of Parliamentary and Official franks.[778]
By enclosing invoices and other communications in goods.[779]
By the use of codes and signals expressed by sending
particular newspapers or, when something in the nature
of news or reports was to be communicated to many, an
advertisement or report was printed in a newspaper and
the newspapers were sent.[780]
By means of a letter or package sent to a mercantile house
with many letters on one sheet of paper for other people.
These were delivered by messengers. Money was sometimes
sent in the same way.[781]

[778] _Rep. Com._, 1837-38, xx, qs. 3452, 3754-56, 4330-33, 4152, 6059,
6204, 6971, 8051, 9122-30, 10481, 5486-92-95, 4934-45, 5536, 3953,
6174-87. By this means Dr. Dionysius Lardner sent and received the
greater part of an extensive literary correspondence (qs. 5487-96).

[779] _Ibid._, 1837-38, xx, qs. 3206-07, 3368-69, 3516-45, 3872, 4080,
4116-17, 4906, 5434, 6895, 7740, 7742-50, 7242-48.

[780] _Ibid._, 1837-38, xx, qs. 3923, 6683, 7419-23.

[781] _Ibid._, qs. 3212-13, 3924-28, 3377-81, 3879-82, 4504, 6928,
7867-82, 5613-18, 4074, 4873-90, 3520, 7327.

Many factors in Ireland had circulars printed, which went free, as
newspapers. Their correspondents were distinguished by numbers and
opposite the numbers were printed the communications for each particular
person.[782]

[782] _Ibid._, rep. 1, 9, p. 427.

The majority of letters which paid no postage or only partial postage
were sent illegally, most of them by carriers. "A. B." said that in 1836
his mercantile house sent 2068 letters by post and 5861 by other means,
principally by carriers, for one penny each.[783] "C. D." testified that
carriers called once or twice a day at his house and that they received
from 100 to 150 letters a week from him. Sometimes the carriers
delivered the letters on foot, sometimes they went by coach.[784] "E.
F.'s" letters were carried by newsmen, who distributed the local
newspaper.[785] "G. H.," a carrier from Scotland, said that there were
six others working with him and that they delivered about 700 letters
and parcels a day, for which they received 1_d._ or 2_d._ each.[786]
Letters were also illegally conveyed:--

By "free-packets," containing the patterns and correspondence of
merchants, which the coachmen carried free except for the booking fee of
4_d._[787]

In warehousemen's bales and parcels.[788]

In weavers' bags, especially near Glasgow. These were bags containing
work for the weavers, sent by and returned to the manufacturers.[789]

By "family-boxes." Students at college in Glasgow and Edinburgh were
accustomed to receive boxes of provisions, etc., from home. The
neighbours made use of them to carry letters.[790]

By coachmen, guards, travellers and private individuals.[791]

By vans, railways, stage-coaches, steamboats, and every conceivable
means.[792]

By writing in newspapers, sometimes with invisible ink or by enclosing
accounts or letters in them.[793]

[783] _Ibid._, qs. 2265, 2279.

[784] _Ibid._, 1837-38, xx, qs. 2697, 2699, 2703.

[785] _Ibid._, qs. 4229.

[786] _Ibid._, qs. 5125-26. In Walsall not 1-50 part of the letters sent
to and from neighbouring places went by post (qs. 5681-5789).

[787] _Rep. Com._, 1837-38, xx, qs. 4195-96, 4205.

[788] _Ibid._, qs. 3550, 4065, 4194, 6947.

[789] _Ibid._, qs. 5257-59.

[790] _Ibid._, qs. 5265.

[791] _Ibid._, qs. 6716, 10371.

[792] _Ibid._, qs. 6514.

[793] _Ibid._, qs. 497, 3008, 5525-26, 5329, 5186-88, 5983, 8962,
10,021; app. to part 2, p. 34.

About half of the letters and parcels sent to the seaports for
transmission to foreign parts by private ships did not go through the
Post Office,[794] and this practice was more or less winked at by the
authorities.[795] The letters from Liverpool for the United States
numbered 122,000 a year, but only 69,000 of these passed through the
Post Office.[796]

[794] _Ibid._, pt. 1, pp. 195-99, 204-30, 346, 351, 431.

[795] _Ibid._, pt. 1, pp. 195-99.

[796] _Ibid._, pt. 1, p. 364.

Since the Post Office has adopted the policy of charging low uniform
rates of postage there has been no concerted attempt to infringe upon
its monopoly. The dissatisfied do not now attempt to establish competing
posts nor to evade the payment of the legal rates. Any pressure which
may be brought to remedy real or supposed grievances takes the form of
an attempt to influence the department itself. It is true that a private
messenger service was established for the delivery of letters, but the
promoters of that service seem to have been unaware of the fact that
they were acting in violation of the law, and a satisfactory agreement
with the department was soon concluded. As a matter of fact, it is a
question whether succeeding governments have not been too subservient
in granting the demands of certain sections of the people, notably in
connection with the telegraph and telephone systems and the question of
guarantees. The position of a government which has abandoned the
principle that any extension of services or change in postal policy
shall be based upon present or anticipated financial success must
necessarily be a difficult one.




CHAPTER X

THE TELEGRAPH SYSTEM AS A BRANCH OF THE POSTAL DEPARTMENT


Previous to the acquisition of the telegraphs by the state, the
different telegraphic companies carried on their business in comparative
harmony, a harmony which was occasionally disturbed by the entrance into
the field of competition of new claimants for the confidence of the
public. By far the most important of these companies in 1855 were the
Electric and International, and the British and Irish Magnetic,
controlling between them about 8500 miles of line and having 600
stations open to the public. During the succeeding ten years, by the
growth of the old companies and an increase in the number of the new,
the number of miles of line increased to 16,000, of telegraph stations
to 2040. The number of public messages sent in 1855 was a little more
than one million, in 1860 nearly two millions, and in 1865 over four
millions and a half. The rates for a message of twenty words varied from
1_s._ for a distance under fifty miles, plus 1_s._ for each additional
fifty miles, to 4_s._ for a distance over 150 miles and 5_s._ to Dublin,
including free delivery within half a mile from the telegraph
office.[797]

In 1860 a competing company, the London District Telegraph Company,
started operations in the Metropolitan District, and offered a low rate
of 6_d._ a message. In the following year a far more dangerous rival,
the United Kingdom Telegraph Company, announced that henceforth it would
charge a uniform shilling rate irrespective of distance. Four years
later both of these companies fell into line, forced according to some
by the unfair tactics of their competitors, according to others by the
utter impossibility of making both ends meet, while charging a uniform
rate irrespective of distance. The tariff agreed to in 1865 was as
follows:--[797] _Acc. & P._, 1867-68, xli, 202, pp. 43, 73, 74.

 For a distance not exceeding 100 miles   1_s._
                from 100 to 200 miles     1_s._ 6_d._
                beyond 200 miles          2_s._
 Between Great Britain and Ireland   from 3_s._ to 6_s._

In some cases these rates applied only to wires of a single company,
and, where a message was transmitted over the wires of two or more
companies, an additional charge was made. Special rates were offered for
press messages, the news being supplied by the agency of the
intelligence department of the telegraph companies.[798]

[798] _Acc. & P._, 1867-68, xli, 202, pp. 87-88, 126; _Rep. Com._,
1867-68, xi, 435, pp. 31, 68.

The earliest proposal for government ownership of the telegraphs seems
to have originated with Thomas Allan, the same Allan who was later
instrumental in establishing the United Kingdom Telegraph Company. In
1854 he submitted arguments to the government through Sir Rowland Hill
in favour of the change, arguments which met with the approval of Lord
Stanley, the President of the Board of Trade, and Mr. Ricardo, formerly
Chairman of the International Electric Telegraph Company, and ex-member
for Stoke. Two years later Mr. Barnes, an official in the Post Office
Department, submitted to my Lords a plan "for the establishment in
connection with the Post Office of a comprehensive scheme of electric
telegraphs throughout the kingdom." In 1866, Lord Stanley, as
Postmaster-General, in a letter to the Lords of the Treasury called
their attention to the fact that the question of the propriety of the
assumption by the government of the telegraphic systems of the Kingdom
had been revived in the previous year by the Edinburgh Chamber of
Commerce, and still more recently the proposition had been embodied in a
petition from the Association of Chambers of Commerce of the United
Kingdom. As he himself had for many years been in favour of such a
change and found his opinion shared by more than one important body of
public men, he directed Mr. Scudamore[799] to report whether, in his
opinion, the telegraphs could be successfully operated by the Post
Office, whether such operation would result in any advantages to the
public over the present system by means of private companies, and
whether it would entail upon the department any large expenditure beyond
the purchase of existing rights.[800]

[799] Receiver and Accountant-General of the Post-Office.

[800] _Rep. Com._, 1867-68, xi, 435, p. 108; _Acc. & P._, 1867-68, xli,
202, p. 7.

The report presented by Mr. Scudamore was strongly in favour of the
control of the telegraphs by the Post Office, and is especially
interesting in furnishing an abstract of the evils which the people
considered that the companies were inflicting upon them. The most
important of these evils, real or imaginary, were as follows:--

Exorbitant charges and a resulting failure to expand on the part of the
system.

Delay and inaccuracy in the transmission of messages.

Failure to serve many important towns and communities.

Inconvenient situation, in many places, of the telegraph office, it
being often at a considerable distance from the business centre of the
town, especially when in the railway station.

Inconveniently short periods that offices are open in many places.

Wasteful competition between the companies.

The strongest argument against the existing condition was rather a
result of competition than private ownership. In the more populous
centres the companies very often had their telegraph offices at a very
short distance from each other, being so situated as to compete for the
public patronage, while other and more outlying portions of the town
were quite unserved. The latter were thus made to suffer in order that
favoured portions might enjoy the somewhat doubtful boon of competition.
In order to show the failure to extend telegraphic facilities, Mr.
Scudamore compiled a list of towns in England and Wales having an
individual population of two thousand or more. In his own words "So far
as telegraphic accommodation is concerned, while thirty per cent of the
whole number of places named ... are well served, forty per cent are
indifferently served, twelve per cent badly served, and eighteen per
cent, having an aggregate population of more than half a million
persons, not served at all." By combining the telegraphic business with
the postal service, there seemed every reason to suppose that its
advantages could be more widely extended, the hours of attendance
increased, charges reduced, and facilities given for the transmission of
money orders by telegraph.

Mr. Scudamore proposed to open telegraph offices in all places which had
a population of 2000 and upwards and which already had money-order
offices. All other post offices were empowered to receive telegrams,
which were to be sent by post to the nearest telegraph office for
transmission. The charge was to be made uniform at 1_s._ for twenty
words and 6_d._ for each additional ten words, or part thereof. He
judged that the whole of the property and rights of the telegraph
companies might be purchased for a sum within £2,400,000, and £100,000
more would have to be spent in the extension of the service. His
estimate for gross annual product was £676,000; annual charge, £81,250;
working expenses, £456,000; surplus, £138,750.[801] Finally, his reply
to Lord Stanley's question was in effect that the telegraph system might
be beneficially worked by the Post Office, that there would be
advantages thus obtained over any system of private ownership, and that
the Post Office would have to bear no expense not amply covered by the
revenue.[802] In fairness to Mr. Scudamore, it should be remembered that
his original low estimate of the probable cost of the telegraph
companies did not include Reuter's and other important companies. In
addition, the strict monopoly conferred in 1869, with the necessary
accompaniment of the purchase of all inland telegraph companies,
entirely upset his original estimates. Finally, the decision to include
the public telegraph business of the railways and the excessive price
paid to the railway and telegraph companies should not be forgotten in
contrasting the estimated price with that eventually paid for the
acquisition of the telegraph systems in the United Kingdom.[803] Mr.
Grimston, the Chairman of the Electric and International Telegraph
Company, contended that the extension of telegraphic facilities to any
considerable number of small towns and villages would involve a loss to
the state by greatly increasing working expenses, that village
postmasters and postmistresses were totally unable to work the
telegraphs, and that consolidation could be effected more advantageously
by the companies themselves.[804]

[801] In another place his estimate for gross revenue was £608,000;
annual charge £105,000 on a purchase price of £3,000,000 with expenses
for improvement; working expenses £425,000, and surplus £77,750 (_Acc. &
P._, 1867-68, xli, 202, pp. 145-47).

[802] _Ibid._, pp. 7-39.

[803] _Parl. Deb._, 3d ser., ccxxviii, col. 215; cxcii, coll. 747-751.

[804] _Acc. & P._, 1867-68, xli, 202, p. 131.

In 1868, the Postmaster-General was given authority by act of Parliament
to purchase the undertakings of the telegraph companies and also the
interests of the railways in the conveyance of public messages, together
with a perpetual way-leave for telegraphic purposes over the properties
of the railway companies. Any telegraph company, with the authority of
two thirds of the votes of its shareholders, was empowered to sell to
the Postmaster-General all or any portion of its undertaking. When the
Postmaster-General had acquired the property of any telegraph company,
he must also, upon the request of any other company, purchase its
undertaking, this privilege being extended also to the railways so far
as telegraphs operated by them for transmitting public messages were
concerned. The price paid for the Electric and International, the
British and Irish Magnetic, and the United Kingdom Telegraph Companies
was fixed at twenty years' purchase of their net profits for the year
ending 30th June, 1868. In the case of the United Kingdom Telegraph
Company additional sums were to be paid for the Hughes type-printing
patent, for the estimated aggregate value of its ordinary share capital
as determined by its highest quotation on any day between the 1st and
25th days of June, 1868, for compensation for the loss of prospective
profits on its ordinary shares, and any sum that might be determined as
loss for its attempt to establish a uniform shilling rate. Every officer
or clerk of the companies who had been in receipt of a salary for not
less than five years or of remuneration amounting to not less than £50 a
year for not less than seven years, if he received no offer from the
Postmaster-General of an appointment in the telegraphic department of
the Post Office equal in the opinion of an arbitrator to his former
position, was entitled to receive an annuity equal to two thirds of his
annual emolument if he had been in service twenty years, such annuity to
be diminished by one twentieth for every year less than twenty. Those
entering the service of the Postmaster-General were entitled to count
their past continuous years of service with the companies as years in
the service of the Crown.

For the most part all the telegraph apparatus belonging to the railway
companies and all belonging to the telegraph companies on the railway
lines necessary for the private business of the railways were handed
over to the railways by the Postmaster-General free of charge. He was
given the use, from telegraph stations not on the railway lines, of all
the wires of the telegraph companies on the lines employed exclusively
in the public telegraph business. The railways might affix wires to the
posts of the Postmaster-General on the line, and in like manner he might
require the railways to affix wires to their own posts for the use of
the Post Office or erect new posts and wires. Finally the railways were
required to act as agents of the Postmaster-General, if required, for
receiving and transmitting messages. The railways as a rule succeeded in
driving a very sharp bargain with the Government for the purchase of
their interests in the public telegraph business. The price paid was
twenty years' purchase of the net receipts from public telegrams
reckoned for the year ending 30th June, 1868, plus twenty times the
increase in net receipts for the three preceding years or for such
shorter period as the business of transmitting public telegrams had been
undertaken. In addition, compensation was made for the rents, etc.,
payable to the railways by the telegraph companies, for the unexpired
period of their respective agreements, for the right of way obtained by
the Postmaster-General over the lands of the railways, for the loss of
power on the part of the railways to grant way-leaves, for the value of
the railways' reversionary interests (if any) in the transmission of
public messages on the expiration of the agreements with the telegraph
companies, and for any loss the railways might suffer in working their
telegraph business as a separate concern. Finally the Postmaster-General
was required to convey free of charge to any part of the United Kingdom
all messages of the railways relating to their own private
business.[805] The act empowering the Postmaster-General to purchase the
undertakings of the telegraph companies did not confer upon the Post
Office a monopoly in the transmission of telegrams, Mr. Scudamore
himself declaring that such a monopoly was neither desirable nor did the
Post Office wish it. The second act, however, declared that no
telegraphic messages, except those sent from or to any place outside of
the United Kingdom, should be transmitted by any telegraphic company for
gain unless the company was in existence on the 22d of June, 1869, and
was not for the time being acquired by the Postmaster-General, who
should be required to purchase its undertaking upon demand.[806]

[805] 31 and 32 Vict., c. 110.

[806] 32 and 33 Vict., c. 75.

Mr. Scudamore's original estimate of the cost of acquisition of the
telegraphs fell far short of the final expenditure; although it must be
remembered that, when he proposed £2,500,000 as sufficient, he did not
anticipate items of expense which later vastly increased the cost.
Before the committee which reported in 1868 he advanced his original
estimate to £6,000,000, and in the following year to £6,750,000, of
which he considered about two thirds to be of the nature of good-will.
The telegraph companies when first approached asked for twenty-five
years' purchase of their prospective profits, and the Government offered
to buy at the highest price realized on the Stock Exchange up to the
25th of May, with an addition of from 10 to 15 per cent for compulsory
sale. The cost of the leading companies, based upon twenty years'
purchase of the net profits for the year ending 30th June, 1868, was as
follows: For the Electric and International, £2,933,826; for the British
and Irish Magnetic, £1,243,536; for Reuter's, £726,000; for the United
Kingdom Electric, £562,000; and for the Universal Private, £184,421,--a
total of £5,650,047. Separate bargains followed with many smaller
companies. The acts of 1868 and 1869 granted £8,000,000, for the purpose
of purchasing the undertakings of the companies and the interests of the
railways; £6,640,000 were spent in purchases, and £1,560,000 in renewals
and extensions between 1868 and 1872.[807] The claims for compensation
on the part of some of the railways were very excessive. The Lancashire
and Yorkshire Railway asked for £1,129,814, with interest, and £1 per
wire per mile a year for all wires erected upon its right of way by or
for the Post Office. By the terms of the award they obtained £169,197
and 1_s._ per mile per wire. The Great Eastern Railway presented a claim
for £412,608, with interest, and £1 per mile per wire. Their claim was
reduced to £73,315 and an annual payment of £200 for way-leave. In all,
the capital sum of £10,880,571 was expended by the Government,
necessitating an annual interest payment of £326,417, charged, not on
the Post Office vote, but on the Consolidated Fund.[808]

[807] _Rep. Com._, 1867-68, xi, 435, p. 162; 1868-69, vi, 348, p. 11;
1867-68, xi, 435, p. 217; 1873, xxxix, 316, pp. 762-64; 1873, vii, 290,
p. 95; _Parl. Deb._, 3d ser., cxcii, coll. 747-751, 1303-04. According
to figures furnished by Mr. Fowler in a speech in the House of Commons
in 1868, the value of the capital and the debentures of the Electric and
International at that time was £1,240,000 while the capital value of the
British and Irish Magnetic was £534,000; of Reuter's Company, £266,000;
of the United Kingdom Electric, £350,000, and of the London and
Provincial, £65,000 (_Parl. Deb._ 3d ser., cxcv, coll. 747-751).

[808] _Rep. P. G._, 1876, p. 10; _ibid._, 1883, p. 9.

When the Post Office acquired the telegraphs, a uniform rate was
introduced of 1_s._ for twenty words or part thereof and 3_d._ for each
additional five words or part thereof, exclusive of the names and
addresses of sender and receiver, which were transmitted free. Delivery
was free within a radius of one mile from the terminal telegraphic
office, or within the limit of the town postal delivery when it
contained a head office and the postal delivery extended more than a
mile from it. Beyond the above limits the charge did not exceed 6_d._
per double mile or part thereof. When special delivery was not required
beyond the free delivery, the message was sent free by the next ordinary
postal delivery. The newspapers succeeded in having incorporated within
the act a clause prohibiting a higher charge for press messages than
1_s._ for every one hundred words transmitted between 6 P.M. and 9 A.M.,
or 1_s._ for every seventy-five words between 9 A.M. and 6 P.M. when
sent to a single address, the charge for the transmission of the same
telegram to each additional address to be not greater than 2_d._[809] On
the day of transfer the Post Office was able to open about a thousand
postal telegraph offices and nineteen hundred offices at railway
stations where the railways dealt with the public messages as agents of
the Postmaster-General. On the 31st of March, 1872, the system comprised
more than five thousand offices (including nineteen hundred at railway
stations), twenty-two thousand miles of line, with an aggregate of
eighty-three thousand miles of wire, and more than six thousand
instruments. A decided increase in the number of messages was the
result. During the first year after the transfer there were nearly ten
millions of messages, the second year twelve millions, and the third
year fifteen millions, or more than double the number transmitted in
1869. The period from 1872 to the adoption of a sixpenny tariff in 1885
was one of steady progress. The number of new offices opened was not
numerous, the increase having been only one thousand, but the
improvements in existing connections were marked and the number of
messages transmitted had increased to thirty-three millions. The new
tariff rate was 6_d._ for twelve words or less, with a halfpenny for
each additional word, but the old system of free addresses was
abolished. Under the old tariff each figure was charged at a single
rate. Under the new schedule five figures were counted as one word. A
large proportion of telegrams were brought within the minimum sixpenny
rate, while the average charge, which had been 1_s._ 1_d._ in 1885, was
reduced to 8_d._ in 1886. The number of messages increased from
thirty-three millions in 1884-85 to fifty millions in 1886-87. Four
cables between France and England and one between France and the Jersey
Isles were purchased by the governments of the two countries, two by the
Belgian and English governments, two between Holland and England, and
one between Germany and England, by the governments of the countries
interested.[810]

[809] 31 and 32 Vict., c. 110.

Following the adoption of a uniform sixpenny rate the department has
granted other facilities to the public, which, though popular enough,
have undoubtedly tended to place the working of the telegraphs upon a
less secure financial basis. In 1889, the issue of telegraphic money
orders was begun as an experiment, and in the same year was extended to
all head and branch post offices in the United Kingdom.[811] Two years
later the Post Office ceased to require the repayment of the capital
outlay on telegraph extensions made under guarantee, and the rural
sanitary authorities were empowered to defray the cost of such
extensions in places within their districts.[812] For the six preceding
years the average annual number of guaranteed telegraph offices was
seventy-seven, and during the next five years the average annual number
increased to 167. As part of the Jubilee concessions in 1897, the
guarantors were required to pay only one half of the deficiency, with
the result that during the following two years the average annual number
of guaranteed telegraphic offices increased to 290. At the same time the
free delivery limit was extended to three miles and a reduction was
granted in the porterage charges beyond that distance. Finally, in 1905,
the guarantee was reduced to one third of the loss incurred, the
delivery charge being fixed at 3_d._ a mile for the distance beyond the
three-mile limit, instead of the distance from the office of
delivery.[813]

[810] _Rep. P. G._, 1895, app., pp. 33-35; 1889, p. 13.

[811] _Ibid._, 1890, p. 7.

[812] _Rep. P. G._, 1892, p. 20; 54 and 55 Vict., c. 46.

[813] _Rep. P. G._, 1900, p. 15; 1898, p. 19; 1906, pp. 1, 15.

In 1896, the main routes from London having become crowded, especially
by the telephone trunk lines, the principle of underground lines between
the most important centres was sanctioned by the department. London and
Birmingham were first connected, and the line was ultimately extended
through Stafford to Warrington, where it joined existing underground
wires between Manchester, Liverpool, and Chester. By 1905, underground
wires were laid as far north as Glasgow through Carlisle, to be extended
later to Edinburgh. At Manchester a junction was effected with a line
passing through Bradford to Leeds. During the same year underground
lines were completed from London to Chatham and from London westward
toward Bristol, with the intention of extending it into Cornwall in
order to secure communication with the Atlantic and Mediterranean
cables.[814]

[814] _Ibid._, 1900, p. 15; 1902, p. 13; 1905, app., p. 99; 1906, p. 16.

In 1875, England joined the other important European powers in a
telegraphic agreement which went into effect in January of the following
year. By this agreement each of the contracting parties agreed to devote
special wires to international service, government telegrams to have
precedence in transmission and to be forwarded in code if desired.
Private telegrams could also be sent in code between those countries
which allowed them, and the signatory powers agreed to pass them in
transit, but each country reserved to itself the privilege of stopping
any private telegram. For the purpose of making charges, any country
might be divided into not more than two zones, and each of the signatory
powers owed to the others an account of charges collected.[815] So far
as foreign telegrams were concerned, the use of manufactured expressions
in place of real words gave rise to considerable trouble in view of the
fact that such combinations were difficult to transmit. In 1879, the
languages which might be used for code words were reduced by common
consent to English, French, German, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch,
and Latin. At the same time the use of proper names as code words was
prohibited. This did not remove the evil, as the roots of words in one
language with terminations in another were used. An official vocabulary
was compiled by the International Telegraph Bureau, to become obligatory
in 1898, but its publication in 1894 aroused considerable opposition, as
many of the words were dangerously alike, and in 1896 the decision of
the Paris Conference of 1890, by which the official vocabulary was to
become compulsory for European telegrams in 1898, was rescinded. It was
also decided that an enlarged vocabulary should be published by the
International Bureau, but, owing to the action of the English delegates,
the official vocabulary was not made compulsory at the meeting of the
International Telegraph Conference in 1903, although artificial words
were allowed if pronounceable in accordance with the usages of any one
of the eight languages from which the ordinary code words might be
selected. It was also decided to admit letter cipher at the rate of five
letters to a word, and several countries agreed to lower their charges
for the transmission of extra-European telegrams, the English delegates
contending that the rates for such telegrams should be made the same as
the rates for European telegrams.[816] In 1878, negotiations with the
German and Netherland Telegraph Administrations resulted in a charge of
4_d._ a word being fixed as the rate between the United Kingdom and
Germany and 3_d._ a word between the United Kingdom and the Netherlands.

[815] _Acc. & P._, 1876, lxxxiv [c. 1418], pp. 116-119.

[816] _Rep. P. G._, 1904, pp. 15-22.

In 1885, the following reductions in rates were announced:--

    To Russia  from 9_d._ to     6-1/2_d._ a word.
       Spain        6_d._        4-1/2_d._
       Italy        5_d._        4-1/2_d._
       India        4_s._7_d._   4_s._

to be followed six years later by still greater reductions:--

    To Austria  from 4-1/2_d._ to    3_d._ a word.
       Hungary       4-1/2_d._       3_d._
       Italy         4-1/2_d._       3_d._
       Russia        6-1/2_d._       5-1/2_d._
       Portugal      5-1/2_d._       4-1/2_d._
       Sweden        5_d._           4_d._
       Spain         4-1/2_d._       4_d._
       Canary Isles  1_s._7-1/2_d._ 10_d._

the minimum charge for a telegram being 10_d._ in all cases. The
transmission of foreign money orders by telegraph was inaugurated in
1898 by the opening of an exchange with Germany and its extension
shortly afterward to the other important European countries.[817]

[817] _Rep. P. G._, 1897, pp. 40-42; 1879, p. 21; 1886, p. 10; 1892, p.
19; 1900, p. 10.

In 1892, an attempt was made, curiously suggestive of Marconi's
discovery, to transmit telegraph messages without a direct wire. The
experiment was conducted between the island of Flat Holm in the Bristol
Channel and the mainland, a distance of three miles. A wire was erected
on the mainland parallel with one on the island, and, by means of strong
vibratory currents sent through the former, signals were transmitted and
messages exchanged. Three years later and before the practical value of
the Flat Holm experiment had been substantiated, Mr. Marconi arrived in
England to submit his plans to the Post Office. A private wire from
Poldhu to Falmouth was provided for him on the usual rental terms, and
it was announced that the Post Office would act as his agent for
collecting messages to be transmitted by wireless telegraphy when he had
proved the feasibility of his project. At the international congress on
wireless telegraphy held in Berlin in 1903 it was recommended that shore
stations equipped with wireless apparatus should be bound to exchange
messages with ships at sea without regard to the system of wireless
telegraphy employed by the latter, that the rate of charge for the shore
station should be subject to the approval of the state where it was
situated, the rate of the ship to the approval of the state whose flag
it carried, and that the working of wireless stations should be
regulated so as to interfere with other stations as little as possible.
In order to enable the Government to carry out the decision of the
congress and to place wireless telegraphy under its control for
strategic purposes, an act was passed in 1904 making it illegal to
instal or work wireless telegraphic apparatus in the United Kingdom or
on board a British ship in territorial waters without the licence of the
Postmaster-General. The act was to be operative for two years only, but
before its expiration, was extended until the 31st of December, 1909,
before which it might again be renewed. Arrangements were also made for
the collection and delivery of the telegrams of the Marconi Company by
the post offices throughout the country. The company charges its usual
rate, 6_d._. a word, and the Post Office in addition charges the
ordinary inland rate.[818] The international agreement providing for
compulsory communication between shore stations and ships was signed in
1906 in spite of the protests of the Marconi Company, Sir Edward
Sassoon, and others, who contended that the agreement was unfair to the
company and a mistake on the part of the Kingdom, "which was thus giving
up advantages obtained by the possession of the best system of wireless
telegraphy in the world." The majority of the countries represented were
also in favour of compulsory communication between ship and ship, but
this was successfully negatived by Great Britain and Japan. In 1908, Mr.
Buxton was able to announce in the House that the relations between the
Post Office and the Marconi Company "are now of the most friendly kind,"
and that they have accepted and adopted the principle of
intercommunication. In the preceding year two experimental stations were
started by the Government which will enable the department to extend
its operations quite independently of the companies.[819]

[818] _Rep. P. G._, 1893, pp. 19-22; 1903, pp. 15-18; 1905, pp. 16-18; 4
Edw. VII, c. 24; 6 Edw. VII, c. 13.

[819] _Parl. Deb._, 4th ser., clxxix, coll. 841-858; cxcii, col. 1116,
London _Times_, 1906, Nov. 5, p. 5; 1907, July 1, p. 14.

From a financial point of view, government ownership and control of the
telegraphs in the United Kingdom has not been a success. In addition,
the Telegraph Department, for some time previous to 1874, had been
drawing upon the balance in the possession of the Post Office, a balance
which was required to be invested for other purposes and whose
expenditure for the use of the telegraphs had not been authorized by
Parliament. Mr. Goldsmid, in introducing a motion for the appointment of
a committee of enquiry, alluded to this error on the part of the
department, to the excessive price paid for the telegraphs, and
complained that the telegraph system was not being operated on a paying
basis. His motion was withdrawn, but an agreement was reached with the
department by the appointment of a committee, with Mr. Playfair as
chairman, "to inquire into the organization and financial system of the
Telegraph Department of the Post Office." The committee in their report
commented unfavourably upon the unnecessarily large force, the cumbrous
organization, and the far from economical management of some of the
divisions of the department, advised that an attempt be made to remedy
these faults, and that press messages be charged a minimum rate of 1_s._
each, and not at the rate of 1_s._ for each seventy-five or one hundred
words obtained by adding together separate messages requiring separate
transmission. This suggestion with reference to press messages was
adopted, promises were made at the same time to diminish the force, and
a scheme was submitted for the reorganization of the department.[820]

[820] _Parl. Deb._, 3d ser., ccxxviii, coll. 172 f.; _Rep. Com._, 1876,
xiii, 357, pp. i-xiii, 147, 240.

The number of telegrams for the year ending 31st March, 1887, the year
following the sixpenny reduction, was 50,243,639; for the year 1891-92
it had increased to 69,685,480. In 1896-97 the number was 79,423,556 and
in 1899-1900 the total was 90,415,123. During the next three years there
was a reduction, followed in 1902-03 by an increase to 92,471,000.
Since 1902-03 the number has again fallen off, the figures for 1906-07
being only 89,493,000.[821] It is rather difficult to make definite
statements about the telegraph finances on account of the lack of
uniformity in presenting the accounts since 1870. Under gross revenue is
now included the value of services done for other departments, but this
was not always the rule. The expenditure of other departments for the
telegraph service may or may not be included under ordinary telegraphic
expenditure. Net revenue may also be increased or a deficit changed to a
surplus by deducting the expenditure for sites, buildings, and
extensions from ordinary expenditure. Finally, the interest on capital
is not charged on the Telegraph Vote, and so is not included under
expenditure. In 1871, 1880, and 1881 there seem to have been surpluses
over all expenditure, including interest on capital. Excluding interest
from expenditure, the net revenue decreased from £303,457 in 1871 to
£59,732 in 1875, when the pensions to officials of the telegraph
companies were first charged to the Telegraph Vote. With an increased
net revenue of £245,116 in 1876, following the report of the committee
of investigation, the department did very well from a financial point of
view, until 1884, when the net revenue fell to £51,255, and in 1887
there was a deficit of £84,078, due to the fact that expenses were
increasing at a greater rate than receipts. The sixpenny reduction seems
to have made but little change in the financial situation, the gross
revenue increasing from £1,755,118 in 1884-85 to £1,855,686 in 1886-87,
the expenditure for the same years being £1,731,040 and £1,939,734. The
net revenue began to recover in 1888-89, and averaged about £150,000 a
year during the four years ending March 31, 1892. During the fiscal
years 1894 and 1895 there were deficits, then a slight recovery from
1896 to 1900 and a succession of deficits from 1901 to 1905. The
interest on stock, £214,500 in 1870, increased steadily to £326,417 in
1880, at which figure it remained until 1889, when a reduction in the
rate of interest from 3 per cent to 2-3/4 per cent lowered the amount
payable to £299,216. In 1903, there was a further reduction to
£278,483.[822]

[821] _Rep. P. G._, 1891, app., p. 40; 1901, app., p. 57; 1907, app., p.
61.

[822] _Ibid._, 1881, app., p. 53; 1891, app., p. 66; 1901, app., p. 83;
1905, app., p. 99.

The financial loss experienced by the Government in operating the
telegraphs has naturally produced considerable interest in this phase of
the question. Mr. Blackwood, the Financial Secretary of the Post Office,
in his evidence before the committee, considered that the financial
control and oversight of the department were inadequate and that the
department was over-manned. On the other hand, he was of the opinion
that many expenses were met by revenue expenditure which should have
been charged to capital. Mr. Baines, the Surveyor-General, among other
causes of the financial deficiency, called attention to the shorter
hours and longer annual leave of the telegraph staff as government
employees, the higher standard of efficiency established by the Post
Office, and the prevalence of much overtime work as a result of the
maintenance by the companies, just before the transfer, of an inadequate
staff.[823] The fact that the yearly increase in messages continued to
diminish after 1879 is commented on by the Postmaster-General in 1884 as
due to the stagnation of trade, the competition of the telephones, and
the rapidity of the letter post. Mr. Raikes called attention to the
large number of telegrams on the business of the railways which were
transmitted for nothing. By an agreement with several of the railway
companies to send, as a right instead of a privilege, a fixed number of
messages containing a fixed number of words, this increase was checked.
In 1892, the following comment is found in the Postmaster-General's
Report: "This stagnation of business, viewed in connection with an
increased cost in working expenses, is a matter for serious
consideration, and necessarily directs attention to that part of the
business which is conducted at a loss," the reference being to the
increased number of press messages transmitted at a nominal charge. When
in 1868 the newspaper proprietors succeeded in obtaining the insertion
in the Telegraph Act of special rates for the transmission of press
messages, no condition was laid down that copies, in order that they
might be sent at the very low charges there enumerated, should be
transmitted to the same place as the original telegram. The newspapers
combined to receive messages from news associations in identical terms,
and, by dividing the cost, obtained a rate equal on the average to 4-1/2
_d._ per hundred words. Under the arrangements adopted for the
transmission of news messages the number of words so sent did not
necessitate a corresponding amount of work, but it is an interesting
fact that in 1895 the number of words dealt with for the press formed
two fifths of the total number. In that year the loss on these telegrams
was estimated at about £300,000 a year. The high price paid as purchase
money is another of the factors to be considered, only in so far,
however, as the Telegraphic Department has failed to meet the interest
on the debt so incurred. The telegraph companies were very liberally
treated, and in certain cases excessive prices were undoubtedly paid.
Probably the most important reason for the financial failure of the
telegraphs under government ownership and control has been the influence
of forces productive of good in themselves, but quite different from
those which had previously been dominant when the telegraphs were under
private control and during the early years of government management. The
effect of these forces is clearly seen in the reduction of the tariff in
1885, the extension of facilities under inadequate guarantee, and the
increase in the pay of the staff.[824] Mr. Buxton is of the opinion that
the worst feature of the postal business is the telegraph service. "It
has never been profitable and now the telephone system has so largely
taken its place that the revenue is falling off," while the "Economist"
considers that "it is obvious that both in the Savings Bank and the
Telegraph branches reforms are urgently needed in order to place matters
on a sound financial basis."[825]

[823] Between 1870, when the telegraphs were taken over by the state,
and 1873, the number of employees was more than doubled, although,
during the same period, the number of messages--not including news
messages--increased only from ten to fifteen millions (_Rep. Com._,
1876, xiii, 357, pp. 18, 90, 232, 240).

[824] _Rep. P. G._, 1895, pp. 37-38.

The proportion of the amount spent on salaries and wages which in 1881,
before Mr. Fawcett's revision, stood at about 55 per cent, increased, as
a result of that revision and Mr. Raikes' revision in 1890, to about 65
per cent.

[825] _Parl. Deb._, 4th ser., clix, col. 389; _Economist_, Sept. 21,
1907, p. 1576.




CHAPTER XI

THE POST OFFICE AND THE TELEPHONE COMPANIES


The first telephone brought to England by Lord Kelvin in 1876 was a very
crude instrument, useful only for experimental purposes and of interest
only as a forecast of later development. In the following year two Post
Office officials introduced some machines which had been presented to
them by the American inventor Bell, and although not very efficient,
they were of some commercial use. The Post Office made arrangements with
the agents of the inventor for the purpose of supplying its private wire
renters with these machines if they should wish to make use of them.
With the invention of the microphone in 1878, and its application to the
telephone, a thoroughly practical method of transmitting speech was at
last introduced. In the same year a company was formed to acquire and
work the Bell patents. They endeavoured to come to an agreement with the
Post Office by which the latter might obtain telephones at cost price,
and would in return facilitate the operations of the company, but the
negotiations came to nothing. There was then no suggestion of an
exchange system, and the company proposed merely to supply telephones
and wires to private individuals. In 1879, the Edison Telephone Company
of London was established, an announcement having been made in the
autumn of 1878 that it was proposed to establish exchanges. An attempt
was made to amend the Telegraph Act so as to confer specifically upon
the department monopolistic control over telephonic communication, but
the amendment failed to receive the sanction of the House of Commons.
The Postmaster-General then filed information against both companies, on
the ground that the transmission of messages by telephone was an
infringement of the telegraphic monopoly. In the summer of 1880 the two
companies amalgamated as the United Telephone Company, and in December
judgment was given by the High Court of Justice in favour of the Post
Office.[826]

[826] _Rep. Com._, 1895, xiii, 350, pp. 1-6; _Law Reports, Queen's Bench
Division_, vi, p. 244; _Parl. Deb._, 3d ser., cclxxxviii, col. 1053.

In April of 1881 the Postmaster-General granted the United Telephone
Company a licence to establish and operate a telephone system within a
five-mile radius in London, the central point to be chosen by the
company. On the other hand the company agreed to pay a royalty of 10 per
cent of its gross receipts and to accept the judgment of the High Court.
Licences were also granted to establish telephone exchanges in the
provincial towns within a radius of one or two miles, all the licences
to expire in 1911. The Postmaster-General reserved the right to
establish exchanges for the department and the option of purchasing the
works of the licencees in 1890 or at seven-year intervals from 1890, six
months' notice having first been given. The policy of the United
Telephone Company was to confine its own operations to London and to
allow patent apparatus to be used in other parts of the country by
subsidiary companies, leaving them free to negotiate with the Post
Office for provincial licences.

The telephone policy of the Post Office from 1880 to 1884 consisted in
the granting of licences to the companies in restricted areas, so that
the telegraph revenue might suffer from competition as little as
possible, and the establishment by the department of exchanges in
certain places not as a rule served by the companies. Owing to the
refusal of the Government to solicit business, their exchanges did not
prove a success. The department itself would probably have preferred to
take over the whole telephone business in 1880, but this policy met with
no favour from the Lords of the Treasury, who were of the opinion "that
the state, as regards all functions which are not by their nature
exclusively its own, should at most be ready to supplement, not
endeavour to supersede private enterprise, and that a rough but not
inaccurate test of the legitimacy of its procedure is not to act in
anticipation of possible demands." The operation by the government of
the unimportant exchanges possessed by them was sanctioned by their
Lordships, "on the understanding that its object is by the establishment
of a telephonic system to a limited extent by the Post Office to enable
your department to negotiate with the telephone companies in a
satisfactory manner for licences." The London and Globe Company was
given a licence in 1882 to establish exchanges in London, but they were
entirely dependent upon the United Company for instruments, so that
there was no real competition. The department proceeded to issue
licences for the establishment of competing systems in places where
there were already government exchanges. From 1880 to 1884 the
Postmaster-General granted twenty-three licences, and some twenty-seven
towns, with 1141 subscribers, were served by the department. The policy
of the Post Office during these years, as thus outlined, was far from
satisfactory to the public, due largely to the desire to protect the
telegraph revenue, and the failure to appreciate the possibilities which
the new system of communication was capable of offering. The companies,
restricted as they were to local areas, could not offer any means for
communication between these areas, since special permission had to be
obtained for the erection of trunk lines. The Government offered to
provide these on condition that a direct payment of £10 a mile per
double wire and one half the revenue over that sum should be paid for
their use, but this offer the companies naturally refused to consider.
The Lancashire and Cheshire Company proposed to fix their trunk-line
charges so low as to pay expenses only, but they were informed by the
Government that they must charge 10s. a mile annual rental. In addition,
they were not allowed to charge less than 1_s._ at their call offices,
the then prevailing fee for a telegram. A few trunk lines, it is true,
were constructed by the Government and rented to the companies, but they
were quite insufficient to satisfy the demand. In London, the United
Telephone Company was not allowed to extend its system beyond the
five-mile radius without special permission and the payment of an
increased royalty. In addition, the companies had no way-leave powers,
but had to depend upon the good will of householders to fly their wires
from house-top to house-top, with the result that in London there was a
ridiculously large number of exchanges. Finally the companies were
restricted to connecting subscribers with the exchange or their place of
business, and, although messages could be telephoned for further
transmission by the telegraphs, there was not that close connection
between the telephonic and telegraphic systems which might eventually
have led to the mutual advantage of each. Moreover, in 1882, the
Government announced that they would grant no more licences unless the
subsidiary companies agreed to sell to them all the instruments they
wished, the intention probably being for the Government to supply
instruments to companies which would establish exchanges in real
competition with the United Telephone Company. Since the subsidiary
companies could not supply these instruments without the consent of the
parent company, the only result was still further to restrict telephonic
development.[827]

[827] _Rep. P. G._, 1883, p. 6; 1885, p. 9; 1886, p. 10; _Rep. Com._,
1898, xii, 383, pp. 3, 57; 1895, xiii, 350, pp. 1-6; _Parl. Deb._, 3d
ser., cclxxii, col. 712; cclxxxviii, coll. 1056-57, 1060-61; cclxxxix,
coll. 82.

In 1884, the prevailing public discontent in connection with the
Government's treatment of the situation manifested itself in the press
and in the House of Commons. The Post Office was accused of practising a
policy of strangulation toward the companies, and the
Postmaster-General, Mr. Fawcett, acknowledged that there was some truth
in the charge. He advised the Treasury that the companies' areas of
operation should be unlimited, and that their operations should be
confined to the transmission of oral communications. The restricted
licences were withdrawn and new, unrestricted licences granted,
terminable in 1911 with the same qualifications with reference to
royalties and government purchase that were inserted in the old
licences. Nominally the result produced free competition, but actually
competition was impossible until the expiration of the fundamental
patents in 1892. The year before their expiration, the companies
succeeded in getting control of the situation by an amalgamation of the
United Telephone Company with its licencees under the name of the
National Telephone Company. Mr. Dickinson, Deputy Chairman of the London
County Council, stated that the nominal capital of the United Telephone
Company, £900,000 (with an actual capital expenditure in 1887 within the
Metropolitan District of £228,180) was taken over by the National
Telephone Company at a cost of £1,484,375, and the Duke of Marlborough
said in the House of Lords that of the £3,250,000 capital of the new
company over £2,000,000 was "water." Mr. Raikes, the Postmaster-General,
who was in favour of competition, wrote to the United Company,
disapproving of the whole transaction. With the expiration of the
patent rights, the New Telephone Company was resuscitated, with the Duke
of Marlborough as chairman, an agreement having been concluded with the
Telephone Subscribers' Protective Association for a twelve guineas'
service in London, but it in turn was absorbed by the National Company,
much to the disgust of the members of the Association. So far as
way-leave rights were concerned the position of the companies remained
in a very unsatisfactory condition. A committee of the House of Commons
advised that certain way-leave rights should be granted, but nothing was
accomplished, although a bill was introduced in the House of Commons in
1885 to enable the companies to erect posts without the consent of the
road authorities.[828]

[828] _Rep. Com._, 1884-85, xii, p. 63; 1892, xvii, 278, sess. 1, pp.
3-5; 1895, xiii, 350, pp. 1-6, 92, 188-93; 1898, xii, 383, p. 12; _Parl.
Deb._, 3d ser., cclxxxviii, coll. 1052 f.; cccxxxvi, col. 1809;
cccxxxvii, col. 1435; cccxlvi, col. 908.

Mr. Forbes, the chairman of the National Telephone Company, said to the
Committee of 1892: "I am prepared to concede that the telephone company
which conducts about 93 or 94 per cent of the whole telephonic business
of the country conducts a great deal of it monstrously badly, but it is
not their fault, it is the fault of Parliament"; and again in referring
to the lack of way-leave power: "Take London for instance; London is
very badly served, but why is it very badly served? Because everything
depends upon the caprice of the individual." As a result of the
complaints that the telephone system was giving an inadequate service
because of the high rates on an inflated capital, because the utility of
the telephones was impaired in that they could not be used in connection
with the telegraph and postal services, and because of the lack of
powers to erect poles in the streets or to lay underground wires or to
connect their exchanges by trunk lines, the Government announced a
change of policy in 1892.[829] This change was set forth in a Treasury
Minute of the 23d of May, 1892, and in two memoranda of agreement of the
same year to which the National and the New Companies were respectively
parties, the arrangements being sanctioned by Parliament in the
Telegraph acts of 1892 and 1896. So far as it affected the National
Company the arrangement was embodied in detail in an agreement dated the
25th of March, 1896, no similar agreement being made with the New
Company because that company went into liquidation in 1892, and in 1896
surrendered its licence. By the agreement of 1896 the National Telephone
Company surrendered its previous licence except for certain definite
districts called "Exchange Areas," a large number of which were
specified in the agreement. These areas were as a rule coterminous with
the urban districts, but comprised in addition certain areas made up of
two or more urban districts together with the intervening country. Power
was reserved to the Postmaster-General to specify other exchange areas,
the understanding being, both with regard to areas already specified and
those to be specified, that industrial areas of wide extent should be
recognized in cases where there were no considerable towns forming
centres of business, that neighbouring towns intimately connected in
their business relations should be placed in the same area, and that
small towns and villages should also be so grouped when each by itself
would not pay. Outside these areas the Postmaster-General alone was
entitled to carry on telephone business, no more licences being granted
for the whole Kingdom, and for any particular town only with the
approval of the corporation or municipal authority. Call offices for the
use of the public were to be opened at the company's exchanges and
connected with the post offices in order that exchange subscribers might
telephone over the trunk lines to exchange subscribers in other towns.
Where intercommunication took place between the systems of the company
and the Post Office, a terminal charge on the part of the receiving
system was allowed. Telephonic messages could be sent to the post
offices for transmission as telegrams and delivery as such or for
delivery as letters. Express messengers could also be sent for by
telephone, and telegrams received at the post offices might be
transmitted by telephone.

[829] Only five years before, Mr. Raikes, the Postmaster-General, said
in the House of Commons: "I am inclined to think that it is extremely
doubtful whether there would be much public advantage in establishing
telephonic communication generally between those [the principal] towns"
(_Parl. Deb._, 3d ser., cccxix, col. 664).

The Postmaster-General was authorized to grant to the company all such
powers of executing works within its exchange areas (other than works
under, over, or along any railway or canal) as were conferred upon him
by the Telegraph acts of 1863, 1878, and Section 2 of the act of 1892.
If required by the company, he must provide underground wires between
different exchanges in the same exchange area, and must allow the
company to conclude agreements with railway and canal companies over
whose property he had exclusive right of way. In exchange for these
privileges the company agreed to sell its trunk lines to the
Postmaster-General, their value being fixed at a later date at £459,114,
which amount was paid to the company on the 4th of April, 1895, the
length of trunk line taken over being 2651 miles having 29,000 miles of
wire. In order to remove a serious handicap to the success of competing
companies, the trunk lines were henceforth to be controlled and extended
by the Post Office, the company to receive five per cent of any gross
charges for trunk-line tolls which it might collect as an agent of the
Post Office. The rates charged by the Post Office for trunk-line
conversations in 1896 were, for distances of 125 miles and under, the
same as those previously charged by the company, and were lower than the
old rates for distances in excess of 125 miles.[830]

[830] _Rep. Com._, 1892, xvii, 278, sess. 1, pp. 17-18; 1895, xiii, 350,
pp. 8, 34; _Rep. P. G._, 1896, pp. 16, 17; _Rep. Com._, 1898, xii, 383,
pp. 35-37, 40; 1905, vii, 271, pp. 233-235; 55 and 56 Vict., c. 59, 59
and 60 Vict., c. 40; _Parl. Deb._, 4th ser., iii, coll. 168, 186, 196.

In the mean time there was evidence of considerable opposition to the
practical monopoly of the company within the exchange areas. A motion
introduced in the House of Commons by Doctor Cameron, member of
Parliament for Glasgow, in favour of government purchase of the
telephones, received considerable support, but was rejected by the
Government on the ground that the resulting increase in the number of
civil servants, not paid at market wages and constantly trying to bring
pressure to bear on members, was too serious an evil to receive the
sanction of the Government.[831] The claim was also made by some of the
towns and by Glasgow in particular that the municipalities should be
allowed to install their own telephone systems in opposition to those of
the company. A select committee was appointed to consider this demand on
the question of "whether the provision made for telephone service in
local areas is adequate, and whether it is advisable to grant licences
to local authorities or otherwise," but, owing to the dissolution of
Parliament, the committee did not present a report. Considerable
evidence was heard, however, and the committee recommended that another
committee should be appointed during the next session to consider and
report upon the evidence already taken and, if necessary, take more
evidence. The witnesses examined were as a rule of the opinion that the
telephones should be taken over by the state; but there was a difference
of opinion as to whether municipal licences should be granted.
Dissatisfaction with existing conditions seemed to be widespread. The
Glasgow Corporation expressed disgust with the service of the company on
account of the difficulty of getting into communication with
subscribers, frequent interruptions and noises, and the chance of being
overheard by a third party, the first complaint being due in their
opinion to inadequate exchange accommodations, the second and third to
the one-wire system. The corporation was accused on the other hand of
attempting to dislocate the company's system by refusing them permission
to lay underground wires, while the overhead wires were unfavourably
affected by the electric tramway currents. The Deputy Town Clerk of
Liverpool was in favour of government telephones, but opposed municipal
licences on the ground that they would increase the expense of
telephoning between a municipal exchange and one belonging to the
company. The London County Council advised that severe restrictions
should be laid upon the company by imposing maximum rates, etc., or that
the state should take over the company's system or that the municipality
should do so. Questions were sent to subscribers in London by the County
Council, by the company, and by the Commissioner of Sewers, asking for
their opinion on the service rendered by the company there. As may be
imagined, the replies sent to the County Council and the Commissioner
were on the whole unfavourable to the company, while those sent to the
company were generally favourable to them. It was shown that the number
of subscribers in English and Scotch cities was fewer than in most
continental cities, and that, comparing the population of the United
Kingdom with that of the United States, the number of subscribers in
the former should be about 145,000 instead of about 50,000; but nothing
was said of the superior postal and telegraphic facilities of the United
Kingdom as compared with the majority of foreign countries, facilities
which would naturally reduce the demand for a comparatively new and in
many cases unpopular method of communication. The rate of the company in
the Metropolitan area for a business connection was £20 for a yearly
agreement, with substantial reductions for second and additional
connections, and £12 for private houses. On a five years' agreement the
rates were £17 and £10 respectively. The rate in Paris at the same time
was £16. For the provincial cities in England, such as Manchester,
Liverpool, etc., the rate was £10 for a first connection and £8 10_s._
for second and additional connections, and for the large towns, such as
Norwich, Chester, Exeter, etc., £8 within half a mile of the exchange,
£9 within three quarters of a mile, £10 within one mile, and an
additional £2 10_s._ for each additional half-mile, with reductions for
extra connections. For small outlying and isolated towns the half-mile
rate was £6 10_s._, one mile £8, and £2 10_s._ for every additional
half-mile.[832]

[831] _Ibid._, 4th ser., iii, coll. 166 f.

[832] _Rep. Com._, 1895, xiii, 350, pp. iii, 25-27, 60-62, 87, 90-91,
163, 176, 221, 223, 275, 281-82, 321-22; _Parl. Deb._, 4th ser., xxxi,
coll. 207 f.; xlviii, coll. 463-66.

In 1898, another committee was appointed with Mr. Hanbury as chairman,
"to enquire and report whether the telephone service was calculated to
become of such general benefit as to justify its being undertaken by
municipal and other authorities, regard being had to local finance." The
committee were of the opinion that the existing telephone system was not
of general benefit either in the kingdom at large or in those portions
where exchanges existed, that it could hardly be of benefit so long as
monopolistic conditions existed, and that it was capable of becoming
much more useful if worked solely or mainly with a view to the public
interest. They condemned the flat rate subscription charge of the
company as of benefit only to the wealthier commercial classes in
English cities. They commented unfavourably upon the fact that in the
London area there were only 237 call offices open to non-subscribers,
and that as a rule messages could not be sent from them to subscribers
except when the sender and recipient were in the same postal district
or town, when the message might be delivered. They were of the opinion
that the telephones were far more useful in other countries where the
conditions were not so favourable. Conditions, they thought, were
unlikely to improve under the present management. The company must pay
dividends on an inflated capital; its licence would expire in 1911, and
the Government was hardly likely to pay the company at that date for
goodwill. In addition, there were no restrictions on charges, the
company had a motive for limiting its subscribers, as expenses increased
proportionately with an increase in their number, and the question of
way-leaves was a source of great difficulty. Finally, they declared in
favour of competition by the municipalities and the Post Office as
tending to reduce rates, extend the system, and, if the Government
should eventually purchase the telephones, give alternative systems to
choose from. The Government adopted the committee's report, and, in a
Treasury Minute of the 8th of May, 1899, laid down the principles upon
which licences should be granted by the Postmaster-General to the
municipalities, and announced that in London the Postmaster-General
would himself establish an exchange system.[833]

[833] _Rep. Com._, 1898, xii, 383, pp. iii-xiii.

In accordance with the finding of the committee and the resulting
Treasury Minute, an act was passed in 1899, conferring upon the boroughs
and borough districts to which the Postmaster-General might grant
licences the right to borrow money upon the security of the rates for
the erection and management of telephone systems. A loan of £2,000,000
was authorized for the use of the department itself in establishing
telephone competition with the company in London. The act also defined
the relations between the company and the municipalities (or other new
licencees) in the event of competition. If the telephone company would
agree to abandon the power of discriminating between subscribers and
would consent to limit their charges within the maxima and minima
prescribed by the Postmaster-General, the latter was to extend any
way-leave rights already possessed for the period of the licence granted
to the competing municipality or new licencee.

If the new licence were extended beyond 1911, the company's licence
would be likewise extended, but if their licence were extended for as
much as eight years beyond 1911, the company were bound, at the request
of the licencee and under certain conditions, to grant interchange of
communication within the area. The new licences would be granted only to
local authorities or companies approved by them, and the National
Company was prohibited from opening exchanges in any area in which they
had not, before the passing of the act, established an effective
exchange. The effect of the act was to limit competition to the
municipalities, to confine the National Company to those towns and areas
they were already serving, and to throw upon the Postmaster-General the
duty of serving other parts of the country.[834]

[834] 62 and 63 Vict., c. 38.

The form of the licences for municipalities, among other conditions,
contained provisions designed to secure for the public an efficient and
cheap service. It was provided that the plant should be constructed in
accordance with specifications prepared by the Postmaster-General, no
preferential treatment should be allowed to any subscriber, the charges
made should be within certain specified limits, neither the licence nor
any part of the plant of the licencee should be assigned to or
amalgamated with the business of any other licencee, and that the
licence might be terminated if an exchange system were not established
within two years. The provisions of the agreement of 1896 which secured
coöperation between the Post Office and the National Company and
combined the telephone with the telegraph and postal services were also
introduced into the municipal licences. The municipalities were bound to
give intercommunication between their exchanges and any established by
the Postmaster-General, and terminal charges for trunk-wire
communications between the exchange subscribers of any other system and
those of the local authority were forbidden. About sixty local
authorities made enquiries with a view to taking out licences, but only
thirteen licences were accepted. That of Tunbridge Wells was surrendered
in 1903, owing to an agreement arrived at between the National Telephone
Company and the corporation, the municipal telephones not having proved
a success.[835] In the case of seven others the licences were
surrendered or cancelled. The following corporations held licences in
1905:--
  Hull licence terminating 31st December, 1911
  Glasgow                                 1913
  Swansea                                 1920
  Brighton                 30th April,    1926
  Portsmouth                              1926

[835] _Parl. Deb._, 4th ser., cxxiv, coll. 781-82; cxv, col. 841; cxvi,
coll. 915-17.

In all the above cases except Hull, the National Telephone Company had
agreed to forego the granting of special favours to subscribers, had
established intercommunication, and their licence was accordingly
extended in those places to the dates of termination of the corporation
licences. In Glasgow the National Telephone Company made several
applications for permission to lay underground wires, but the
corporation refused the concession on any terms. In spite of this
advantage and the inability of the company to meet the low unlimited
user rate of the corporation telephones on account of agreements with
subscribers in other towns, the corporation found it advisable to sell
its plant to the Post Office in 1906 for £305,000 at a capital loss of
between £12,000 and £15,000. Brighton followed suit a little later for
the sum of £49,000, at a loss of £2450. Swansea experienced considerable
difficulty in borrowing money to extend its system on account of the
refusal of the Local Government Board to grant the necessary borrowing
powers. The Post Office offered £22,000 for a plant which had cost
£27,173. This offer was refused by the corporation, and an agreement was
concluded with the National Telephone Company in 1907 for the sale of
the plant at a price sufficient to repay the whole capital. Offers were
also made to Hull and Portsmouth by the department, but were refused, as
they were not sufficiently high to cover expenditure.[836]

[836] _Parl. Deb._, 4th ser., lxxxii, coll. 168-186; cliv, coll.
1067-68; clxiv, col. 87; London _Times_, 1906, July 6, p. 10; 1907, Jan.
3, p. 8; Feb. 9, p. 3; Mar. 22, p. 4.

As a rule the local authorities offered an initial flat rate lower than
that paid by the company's subscribers in competing centres, but most
of the other rates of the corporation authorities were somewhat higher.
The service offered by the public telephones was not so satisfactory as
had been hoped, and the more numerous connections open to the company's
subscribers formed an initial advantage which it was difficult to
overcome. On the other hand, the corporations often had the advantage of
underground connections which were denied to the company, but the
relatively small number of the subscribers of the corporation
telephones, the high cost of underground connections, the clumsy service
offered in many cases, and the ability of the company to offer lower
rates in competitive areas proved too much for most of the corporations
which were granted licences.[837]

[837] _Rep. Com._, 1905, vii, 271, pp. 10, 76, 79, 233-235.

In the meantime the National Telephone Company had been experiencing
considerable difficulty in getting permission to lay underground wires
in London. In 1892, the Telegraph act of that year authorized the
Postmaster-General to grant to his licencees the same way-leave powers
which he enjoyed, subject to the conditions that the licencees should
not exercise such powers in London without the consent of the County
Council, nor in any urban district outside London without the consent of
the urban authority, nor elsewhere without the consent of the County
Council. In pursuance of this authority the Postmaster-General, in the
agreement of the 25th of March, 1896, undertook, at the request of the
company, to authorize them to exercise his way-leave powers in any
exchange area. The company did not apply for the exercise of such
authority in London, but an attempt was made by them to obtain the
consent of the London County Council to allow their wires to be placed
underground, and the work proceeded with the permission of the local
road authorities in London. Negotiations with the council were
fruitless, largely on account of the price asked for way-leave and the
demand for lower rates. The Postmaster-General was advised that it was
his duty to see that the act of 1892 was enforced, and the resulting
correspondence with the company having failed of any satisfactory
result, an information in the name of the Attorney-General was filed
against the company, asking for a declaration that they were not
entitled to proceed with their underground works in London without the
authority of the Postmaster-General and the consent of the County
Council. An order to that effect was made on the 24th of July, 1900.
This seemed a favourable opportunity for the Postmaster-General to
secure from the company certain concessions with reference to their
London exchange system as well as privileges for the subscribers of the
postal exchanges which had been established in London and an agreement
with reference to the purchase in 1911 by the Post Office of the
company's London exchanges. These concessions and privileges were
finally embodied in an agreement made on the 18th of November, 1901, by
which the Postmaster-General agreed to furnish such underground wires on
the demand of the company as he might think reasonable and likely to be
useful to the Post Office later, as well as underground wires connecting
the exchanges of the Post Office with those of the company. When the
subscribers of the London Postal Exchanges exceeded 10,000 in number,
the company agreed to pay half of the rent of the latter wires. No
terminal charges were payable for a message passing over these wires, or
for a message over the trunk lines between the subscribers of the Post
Office in London and those outside London, or between subscribers of the
company in London and those outside London. In addition, the
Postmaster-General promised to afford to the company's subscribers in
London all such facilities with reference to postal, telegraphic, and
telephonic communications as he granted to Post Office London
subscribers and upon the same terms and conditions. He also agreed to
consider all applications from the company for way-leaves on railways
and canals where he enjoyed such rights, and the company promised to
establish telephone communications without favour or preference. A
decision was also reached fixing equal rates for the postal and
company's subscribers in London, based primarily on the number of
messages sent with an unmeasured rate lower than that previously in
force, no revision to be made without six months' notice being given.
Finally it was agreed that in 1911 or before--if the company's licence
should have been previously revoked--the Postmaster-General should buy
and the company should sell at its fair market value all such plant as
should then be in use by the company in London and be suitable for the
Post Office at that date. None of the plant was to be considered
suitable unless installed with the written consent of the
Postmaster-General, the question of suitability to be decided by
arbitration if necessary.[838] The local authorities protested in vain
against the agreement, their contention being that the committee of
investigation had advised competition, whereas the government had on the
other hand succeeded only in making very unsatisfactory terms with the
company.[839]

[838] _Acc. & P._, 1902, lv, 25, pp. 4-10; _Rep. Com._, 1905, vii, 271,
pp. 1-3, 53-54, 233-235; _Parl. Deb._, 4th ser., lxxxii, coll. 183; ci,
coll. 1002-03; cxxxii, coll. 422.

[839] _Ibid._, 4th ser., ci, coll. 976-993.

In 1905, the Postmaster-General and the National Telephone Company
concluded an agreement for the purchase of the company's provincial
plant based upon much the same principles which had governed the London
agreement. The question of purchase in the provinces was complicated by
the fact that in some towns there were competing municipal telephones, a
resulting duplication of plant, and an extension of the licence period
beyond 1911. By the terms of the agreement, the Postmaster-General on
the 31st of December, 1911, shall buy and the National Telephone Company
shall sell (_a_) "all the plant, land, and buildings of the company
brought into use with the sanction of the Postmaster-General and in use
on the 31st of December, 1911, for the purpose of the telephonic
business of the Company, (_b_) any licensed business of the company in
towns where there are municipal exchanges and where the licence extends
beyond 1911, (_c_) the private wire business of the company (for which
no licence is required) in use after the 31st of December, 1911, with
buildings, plant, etc., (_d._) all stores and buildings suitable for use
in accordance with specifications contained in the agreement, (_e_) all
spare plant and works under construction if suitable for the telephonic
business of the Post Office." The plant, land, and buildings were deemed
to be brought into use with the sanction of the Postmaster-General if
they were in use or being brought into use at the date of the agreement;
in the case of plant to be installed, if constructed in accordance with
specifications contained in the agreement and of land and buildings, if
acquired or constructed with the consent of the Postmaster-General. With
reference to plant not constructed in accordance with the
specifications, and plant and buildings of any kind in competitive
areas, the Postmaster-General reserved the right to object to buy such
plant or buildings, the question of suitability in competitive areas to
be settled by arbitration. The value to be paid for the company's
undertaking, not in the competitive areas and not being private wire
business, shall be the value on the date of purchase exclusive of any
allowance for past or future profits or any consideration for compulsory
sale or any other consideration. The value in competitive areas is to be
determined by agreement, regard being had to net profits and to the
circumstances and conditions under which the company would carry on such
business after the date of sale. The value of the private wire business
(apart from the plant, land, and buildings used therein) is to be three
years purchase of the net profits on the average of the three years
ending 31st of December, 1911. Any other property or assets of the
company may be purchased by the Postmaster-General, the price to be
determined by arbitration, if necessary, and, after the date of sale,
the telegraphic business of the company will be carried on (whether by
the company or the Postmaster-General) at the expense and for the
benefit of the Postmaster-General. In the meantime the company agreed to
maintain its plant in good and efficient working order, not to show
favour or preference among its subscribers, to accept minimum and
maximum rates, to allow intercommunication without terminal charges
between their and the Post Office subscribers in the same area, and not
to collect terminal charges for messages sent over the trunk lines
between subscribers of the company and those of the Post Office. The
Postmaster-General agreed to extend to subscribers of the company all
such telegraphic and postal facilities as his own subscribers enjoyed,
and to undertake underground works for the company elsewhere than in
London under the same conditions as in London. An agreement was also
reached that similar rates should be charged where the
Postmaster-General and the company maintained competing systems. As a
result, measured rates were, as a rule, substituted for the old flat
rates, much to the indignation of various Chambers of Commerce in the
Kingdom. In the case of complaint as to inefficient service, if the
charge is held to be proved before a person appointed by the Board of
Trade, and if it is not the result of a refusal to grant way-leaves, the
Postmaster-General may require the company to remedy conditions in the
particular area concerned or may call upon them to sell the inefficient
system to him. In the first case if there is no improvement or if the
second alternative has been adopted, the Postmaster-General may require
immediate sale under the same terms that would have held if it had not
taken place until the 31st of December, 1911.[840]

[840] _Acc. & P._, 1905, xliv, 16, pp. 3-23; _Rep. Com._, 1905, vii,
271, pp. iii-xi.

The income received by the Post Office for the fiscal year 1906-07 from
the London and provincial exchanges and trunk-line business was
£908,246, working expenses, £456,459, balance for depreciation,
interest, etc., £451,787, leaving a balance of £19,061 over and above an
estimated amount of £432,726 for depreciation and interest at three per
cent on the capital expenditure. The London exchange, with a gross
income of £330,512, showed a surplus of £25,586 over and above
depreciation fund and interest on capital expenditure, the provincial
exchanges a deficit of £15,758, and the trunk lines a surplus of £9333.
The number of subscribers to the Post Office provincial exchanges
(excluding Glasgow and Brighton) was 10,010. Including the Glasgow
subscribers (11,103) and the Brighton subscribers (1542), the total was
22,655. Arrangements were then being made for local intercommunication
between subscribers of these exchanges and those of the company in the
same places. Hull and Portsmouth were the only towns maintaining
municipal telephonic systems in 1907, Hull having 2128 telephones in use
and Portsmouth 2553. The number of telephones in the London Post Office
telephone service was 41,236, including 425 public call offices. The
agreement of 1905, providing for similar rates in the provinces between
exchanges of the Post Office and those of the company, was followed
after considerable discussion by the announcement of the adoption of a
new scale in May, 1906. The rates are now based on the principle of a
measured service under which each subscriber pays according to the
quality and quantity of the service desired. He may contract for any
number of calls from four hundred upward, and he may share a line with
another subscriber at a reduced rate, or he may rent a line for his own
exclusive use.[841]

[841] _Rep. P. G._, 1905, app., pp. 90-92; 1907, pp. 21-23, 93.




CHAPTER XII

CONCLUSION


The important points in the history of the British Post Office are
necessarily somewhat obscured by the great mass of less important
characteristics which accompanied its development. Organized at the
beginning of the sixteenth century as a means for the conveyance of
state letters, its messengers, by tacit consent, were allowed to carry
the letters of private individuals. The advantage so afforded for the
control of seditious correspondence led to the monopolistic
proclamations of the closing years of the sixteenth and the opening
years of the seventeenth century. Before 1635 the state obtained no
direct revenue for the conveyance of private letters. The messengers or
postmen who were supposed to be paid by the state, derived the larger
part of their income from the postage on these letters and from letting
horses to travellers.

The object in retaining for the Royal Posts the sole right to carry the
letters of private individuals assumed a new form in the seventeenth
century. Witherings showed that by diverting the postage on private
letters from the postmen to the state the Post Office might be made
self-supporting. Legal rates were imposed, letters were carried at a
much higher speed, and the system of packet posts was extended over the
great roads of England. The supervision of private correspondence became
a matter of only secondary importance. The struggle between the King and
Parliament resulted in securing popular control over the posts of the
kingdom. At the same time, during the political unrest, competing
systems of posts were repressed with difficulty. The inability of
government officials to meet the increasing needs of a growing
metropolis led to the establishment of a Penny Post in London by
Dockwra, a private individual.

The first part of the eighteenth century saw the extension of a postal
system in the colonies and an attempt on the part of the Post Office to
obtain the postage on letters passing over the cross-roads of England.
The increase in England's colonial possessions and her growing trade
with foreign countries produced a corresponding growth in the packet
service. The last part of the century saw the establishment of Palmer's
mail coaches in order to meet competition from the post coaches. The
great increase in revenue which accompanied the industrial revolution
led to corruption among the postal officials, resulting in the reform of
1793. The period of rapid growth had passed, and the close of the
eighteenth century was a period of consolidation for the new offices
which had been created, and better coöperation in the work which they
performed.

The first forty years of the last century saw the Post Office at its
best as an instrument of taxation. But this very fact drew attention to
the lack of other and more important objects. Rates had been forced so
high that people resorted to legal and illegal means to evade paying
them. The feeling was growing that a tax upon correspondence was not
only a poor method of raising money but that its ulterior effect in
restricting letter writing was producing undesirable results upon the
people of England industrially and socially. A great mistake had been
made by the Post Office in acquiring steam packets. They suffered
severely from private competing lines and were always a loss to the
Government. A partial remedy was attained by the transfer of all the
packets to the Admiralty. Eventually the popular cause, championed by
Hill and Wallace, forced itself upon the attention of the Government. A
Parliamentary committee, after listening to the evidence of
representative witnesses, declared itself in favour of low and uniform
rates of postage for the United Kingdom, the result being the adoption
of inland Penny Postage in 1840.

Among the numerous changes which have characterized the development of
the Post Office since 1840 are the successive reductions in rates; the
transfer of the packet boats from the Admiralty, followed by the
resolution of the Government to revert to the old principle of depending
upon private enterprise for the sea carriage of the mails; the extension
in the use of the railways as a medium of conveyance; the establishment
of a parcel post; and the decision of the government to provide banking
and assurance facilities for the thrifty person of small means. But the
greatest departure in the field of the department's activities has been
the acquisition of the telegraphic system of the Kingdom. Misled by
their advisers as to the capital cost and induced by popular pressure to
abandon strictly business methods of administration and extension, the
telegraphic experiments of the department have not been a financial
success. Not only has this been the case, but, in their efforts to
protect the revenue, successive Governments have hindered the
development of telephonic communication. At this late date we can safely
assume that in 1870 the department should either have granted the
telephone companies far greater powers or should themselves have assumed
the burden of providing an adequate system of telephonic communication.
In 1911, the property and franchises of the telephone companies will
pass to the control of the Government, thus vastly increasing the work
of the department if, as seems probable, the Government should assume
direct management, and greatly enlarging the number of dissatisfied
members of that part of the civil service under the control of the Post
Office.




                     APPENDIX

         EXPENDITURE AND REVENUE TABLES

                      TABLE I


  GROSS PRODUCT, EXPENDITURE, AND NET PRODUCT OF THE POST OFFICE OF THE
         UNITED KINGDOM FROM MARCH 25, 1723 TO APRIL 5, 1797

  _Year ending_ _Gross Product_      _Expenses_     _Net Product_
                       £                 £                £
  March 25, 1724    178,071            81,732           96,339
              25    175,274            75,407           99,867
              26    178,065            83,253           94,812
              27    182,184            81,295          100,889
              28    183,915            79,250          104,665
              29    179,189            86,882           92,307
              30    178,817            84,027           94,790
              31    171,412            79,243           92,169
              32    176,714            84,678           92,036
              33    171,283            79,137           92,146
              34    176,334            84,633           91,701
              35    182,171            83,541           98,630
              36    188,210            90,589           97,621
              37    182,490            85,402           97,088
              38    186,578            93,914           92,664
              39    183,747            85,497           97,250
              40    194,197           103,532           90,085
              42    197,721           110,137           87,584
              43    190,626           102,185           88,441
              44    194,461           109,347           85,114
              45    194,607           108,852           85,755
              46    201,460           120,570           80,890
              47    209,028           123,086           85,942
              48    217,453           138,701           78,752
              49    212,801           124,478           88,323
              50    207,490           110,093           97,397
              51    203,748           104,633           99,115
              52    207,092           109,371           97,721
     April 5, 53    206,666           108,518           98,148
              54    214,300           116,935           97,365
              55    210,663           108,648          102,015
              56    238,445           144,203           94,242
              57    242,478           162,629           79,849
              58    222,075           148,346           73,729
              59    229,879           143,784           86,095
              60    230,146           146,643           83,493
              61    240,497           153,808           86,689
              62    233,722           155,927           77,795
              63    238,999           141,166           97,833
              64    225,326           109,134          116,182
              65    262,496           104,925          157,571
              66    265,427           103,484          161,943
              67    275,230           113,286          161,944
              68    278,253           112,470          165,783
              69    284,914           120,154          164,760
              70    285,050           128,988          156,062
              71    292,782           137,239          155,543
              72    309,997           144,394          165,503
              73    310,126           142,940          167,176
              74    313,032           148,965          164,077
              75    321,943           148,755          173,188
              76    318,418           150,936          167,482
              77    329,921           171,346          158,575
              78    347,128           209,124          137,994
              79    372,817           233,569          139,248
              80    387,092           250,683          136,409
              81    417,634           263,477          154,157
              82    393,235           275,910          117,325
              83    398,624           238,999          159,625
              84    420,101           223,588          196,513
              85    463,753           202,344          261,409
              86    471,176           185,201          285,975
              87    474,347           195,748          278,599
              88    509,131           212,151          296,980
              89    514,538           195,928          318,610
              90    533,198           202,019          331,179
              91    575,079           219,080          355,999
              92    585,432           218,473          366,959
              93    627,592           236,084          391,508
              94    691,268           260,606          430,662
              95    705,319           295,822          409,497
              96    657,541           191,084          466,457
              97    691,616           178,266          513,350[842]

[842] _Parl. Papers_, 1812-13, _Reports from Committees_, ii, pp.
60-61.


                         TABLE II

  AVERAGE YEARLY GROSS PRODUCT, EXPENDITURE AND NET PRODUCT OF THE POST
         OFFICE OF THE UNITED KINGDOM FROM 1725 TO 1794

          _Gross Product_   _Expenses_     _Net Product_
                 £              £               £
  1725-29     179,725         81,217          98,508
  1730-34     174,912         82,344          92,568
  1735-39     184,639         87,989          96,650
  1740-44     193,682        105,304          88,378
  1745-49     207,069        123,137          83,932
  1750-54     207,859        109,910          97,949
  1755-59     228,708        147,522          81,186
  1760-64     233,738        141,340          92,398
  1765-69     273,264        110,864         162,400
  1770-74     302,197        140,525         161,672
  1775-79     338,045        182,766         155,279
  1780-84     403,337        251,331         152,006
  1785-89     486,587        198,273         288,314
  1790-94     602,514        227,033         375,481


                         TABLE III

  GROSS PRODUCT, EXPENDITURE, AND NET PRODUCT OF THE POST OFFICE OF THE
  UNITED KINGDOM, INCLUDING THE TWOPENNY POST, FROM JANUARY 5, 1804 TO
  JANUARY 5, 1838


   _Year_           _Gross_                 _Net_     _Loss on_
  _ending_         _Product_  _Expenses_  _Product_  _Returned_
                        £         £             £     _Letters_[843]
  Jan. 5, 1804     1,429,429   416,767       956,21     56,450
             5     1,466,271   420,395       983,363    62,513
             6     1,648,523   457,686     1,119,429    71,408
             7     1,718,187   456,968     1,185,659    75,560
             8     1,711,980   468,531     1,167,425    76,024
             9     1,739,855   489,469     1,173,062    77,324
            10     1,855,746   519,359     1,260,822    75,565
            11     1,987,404   546,460     1,365,251    75,693
            12     1,960,510   540,397     1,344,109    76,004
            13     2,078,879   576,885     1,422,001    79,993
            14     2,209,213   616,564     1,506,064    86,585
            15     2,372,429   675,548     1,598,295    98,586
            16     2,418,741   704,639     1,619,196    94,906
            17     2,280,209   649,129     1,537,505    93,575
            18     2,186,621   665,354     1,433,871    87,396
            19     2,240,553   683,680     1,467,533    89,340
            20     2,191,562   586,193     1,522,640    82,729
            21     2,172,875   611,187     1,465,605    96,083
            22     2,122,965   645,241     1,393,465    84,259
            23     2,128,926   620,977     1,428,352    79,597
            24     2,154,294   596,336     1,475,167    82,791
            25     2,255,238   628,829     1,540,022    86,387
            26     2,367,567   636,353     1,632,267    98,947
            27     2,392,271   706,640     1,589,672    95,869
            28     2,278,411   706,192     1,484,164    88,095
            29     2,287,961   663,775     1,544,224    79,962
            30     2,265,481   675,319     1,509,347    80,815
            31     2,301,431   694,254     1,517,951    89,226
            32     2,321,310   658,325     1,569,038    93,947
            33     2,277,274   643,464     1,531,828   101,982
            34     2,294,910   636,756     1,553,425   104,729
            35     2,319,979   696,387     1,513,052   110,540
            36     2,353,340   678,836     1,564,458   110,046
            37     2,461,806   704,768     1,645,835   111,203
            38     2,462,269   698,632     1,641,106   122,531

[843] _Reports from Com._, 1837-38, xx, pt. r. p. 509. Before 1797, the
loss on returned letters seems to have been included in the Charges of
Management.


                                   TABLE IV

  AVERAGE YEARLY GROSS PRODUCT, EXPENDITURE, AND NET PRODUCT, ETC., OF THE
          POST OFFICE OF THE UNITED KINGDOM FROM 1805 TO 1838


          _Gross Product_ _Expenses_ _Net Product_ _Loss on_  _Actual_
                                                  _Returned_  _Gross_
                                                   _Letters_  _Product_
                 £            £            £           £           £
  1805-09    1,656,963      458,610    1,125,787      72,566   1,584,397
  1810-14    2,018,350      559,933    1,379,649      78,768   1,939,582
  1815-19    2,299,710      675,670    1,531,280      92,760   2,206,950
  1820-24    2,154,124      611,987    1,457,045      85,092   2,069,032
  1825-29    2,316,289      668,358    1,558,079      89,852   2,226,437
  1830-34    2,292,081      661,623    1,536,318      94,140   2,197,941
  1835-38    2,399,348      694,656    1,591,112     113,580   2,285,768

                           SCOTLAND

           _Gross Product_ _Expenses_  _Net Product_
                  £            £             £
  1800-04      117,108       18,952        98,156
  1805-09      148,816       23,981       124,835
  1810-14      182,259       29,153       153,106
  1815-19      191,812       40,736       151,076
  1820-24      185,235       46,351       138,884
  1825-29      205,599       49,485       156,114
  1830-34      204,481       54,729       149,752
  1835-37      216,191       59,553       156,638

                           IRELAND

                  £            £             £
  1800-04       92,745       64,368        28,377
  1805-09      150,845       90,922        59,923
  1810-14      192,969      115,019        77,950
  1815-19      210,159      124,149        86,010
  1820-24      190,431      119,200        71,231
  1825-29      214,165      115,875        98,290
  1830-34      244,098      108,898       135,200
  1835-37      247,068      114,093       132,975


                        TABLE V

  GROSS PRODUCT, EXPENDITURE, AND NET PRODUCT OF THE POST OFFICE FOR
               SCOTLAND AND IRELAND FROM 1800 TO 1837

                       _Scotland_

  _Year ending_ _Gross_   _Expenses_   _Net_
   _Jan. 5_    _Product_             _Product_
                   £          £          £
  1800          100,651     16,896     83,755
    01          113,126     18,020     95,105
    02          121,700     18,692    103,007
    03          124,809     20,581    104,228
    04          125,257     20,562    104,694
    05          137,479     21,175    116,303
    06          146,148     22,465    123,682
    07          151,696     23,358    128,338
    08          152,453     27,496    124,956
    09          156,305     25,412    130,892
    10          168,098     26,543    141,555
    11          169,082     24,853    144,229
    12          178,896     26,260    152,636
    13          191,857     26,248    165,609
    14          203,366 [844]41,814   161,551
    15          201,992     40,950    161,042
    16          193,727     40,570    153,157
    17          185,417     41,181    144,236
    18          189,690     39,756    149,934
    19          188,236     41,225    147,011
    20          184,512     43,106    141,405
    21          179,403     47,078    132,324
    22          184,014     47,302    136,711
    23          184,164     47,515    136,649
    24          194,085     46,755    147,330
    25          205,988     49,066    156,921
    26          214,271     50,113    164,158
    27          203,137     49,378    153,759
    28          203,305     51,393    151,911
    29          201,298     47,476    153,822
    30          202,754     50,999    151,754
    31          204,593     55,434    149,159
    32          206,594     54,601    151,992
    33          203,324     54,875    148,448
    34          205,144     57,738    147,406
    35          209,069     59,306    149,762
    36          218,748     59,408    159,339
    37          220,758     59,945    160,813


                  _Ireland_

  _Year ending_  _Gross_  _Expenses_   _Net_
   _Jan. 5_     _Product_            _Product_
                   £          £          £
  1800           84,040     59,216     24,824
    01      [845]66,030     48,656     17,376
    02          102,293     70,489     31,806
    03          102,518     66,008     36,510
    04          108,844     77,471     31,373
    05          118,429     79,448     38,981
    06          146,682     93,651     53,031
    07          149,857     90,940     58,917
    08          158,749     91,200     67,549
    09          180,510     99,371     81,139
    10          180,670    110,064     70,606
    11          195,531    117,639     77,892
    12          189,963    118,344     71,619
    13          195,458    112,938     82,520
    14          203,226    116,113     87,113
    15          212,562    121,371     91,191
    16          225,000    132,331     92,669
    17          212,269    126,476     85,793
    18          203,456    123,186     80,270
    19          197,510    117,384     80,126
    20          197,677    123,060     74,617
    21          192,511    127,494     65,017
    22          187,120    118,932     68,188
    23          186,024    112,778     73,246
    24          188,826    113,739     75,087
    25          199,602    118,698     80,904
    26          207,177    113,539     93,638
    27          207,757    117,564     90,193
    28          216,232    116,836     99,396
    29          239,559    112,740    126,819
    30          241,063    111,955    129,108
    31          247,711    117,622    130,089
    32          256,976    102,654    154,322
    33          242,671    107,127    135,544
    34          232,071    105,145    126,926
    35          240,471    109,973    130,498
    36          245,664    112,045    123,619
    37          255,070    120,261    134,809

[844] First payment of tolls amounting from £16,000 to £20,000 a year.
2d _Rep._, app. no. 39, _Rep. Com._, 1837-38, xx.

[845] Three quarters only. 1st _Rep._, app. no. 28.


                            TABLE VI

  GROSS REVENUE, EXPENDITURE, AND NET REVENUE OF THE POST OFFICE OF THE
     UNITED KINGDOM, NOT INCLUDING TELEGRAPHS, FROM 1838 TO 1907.


     _Year ending_      _Gross Revenue_    _Expenditure_    _Net Revenue_
                               £                 £                  £
   Jan. 5,  1838           2,339,737          687,313          1,652,424
            1839           2,346,278          686,768          1,659,509
            1840           2,390,763          756,999          1,633,764
            1841           1,359,466          858,677            500,789
            1842           1,499,418          938,168            561,249
            1843           1,578,145          977,504            600,641
            1844           1,620,867          980,650            640,217
            1845           1,705,067          985,110            719,957
            1846           1,887,576        1,125,594            761,982
            1847           1,963,857        1,138,745            825,112
            1848           2,181,016        1,196,520            984,496
            1849           2,143,679        1,403,250            740,429
            1850           2,165,349        1,324,562            840,789
            1851           2,264,684        1,460,785            803,898
            1852           2,422,168        1,304,163          1,118,004
            1853           2,434,326        1,343,907          1,090,419
            1854           2,574,407        1,400,679          1,173,727
   Dec. 31, 1854           2,701,862        1,506,556          1,195,306
            1855           2,716,420        1,651,364          1,065,056
            1856           2,867,954        1,660,229          1,207,725
            1857[846]      3,035,713        1,720,815          1,314,898
            1858[847]      3,241,535        1,953,283          1,288,252
            1859           3,461,924        1,952,432          1,509,492
            1860           3,531,165        1,953,234          1,577,931
            1861           3,665,128        3,154,527            510,601
            1862           3,764,004        2,926,551            837,453
            1863           3,999,455        2,956,486          1,042,969
            1864           4,231,558        3,078,297          1,153,261
            1865           4,423,608        2,941,086          1,482,522
            1866           4,599,667        3,201,681          1,397,986
            1867           4,668,214        3,246,850          1,421,364
            1868[848]      4,683,646        3,266,724          1,416,922
            1869           4,764,575        3,459,227          1,305,348
            1870[849]      4,929,475        3,435,865          1,493,610
            1871           4,900,454        3,610,700          1,289,754
            1872           5,208,922        3,684,946          1,523,976
            1873           5,348,040        3,792,679          1,555,361
            1874           5,751,600        3,915,213          1,836,387
   Mar. 21, 1875           5,815,032        3,920,891          1,894,141
            1876-77[850]   6,017,072        4,070,006          1,947,066
            1877-78        6,047,312        3,990,620          2,056,692
            1878-79        6,274,450        3,840,076          2,434,374
            1879-80        6,558,445        4,060,758          2,497,687
            1880-81[851]   6,733,427        4,135,659          2,597,768
            1881-82        7,024,600        4,286,596          2,741,004
            1882-83        7,300,960        4,545,398          2,755,562
            1883-84        7,764,855        5,154,829          2,610,026
            1884-85        7,906,406        5,317,213          2,589,193
            1885-86        8,170,604        5,486,724          2,683,880
            1886-87        8,471,198        5,880,141          2,591,057
            1887-88        8,705,337        5,933,820          2,771,517
            1888-89        9,102,776        6,062,902          3,039,874
            1889-90        9,474,774        6,266,263          3,208,511
            1890-91[852]   9,851,078        6,687,089          3,163,989
            1891-92       10,451,998[853]   7,192,487          3,259,511
            1892-93       10,600,149        7,507,645          3,092,504
            1893-94       10,734,885        7,759,712          2,975,173
            1894-95       11,025,460        7,955,344          3,070,116
            1895-96       11,759,945        8,086,272          3,673,673
            1896-87       12,146,935        8,246,356          3,900,579
            1897-98       12,420,376        8,683,317          3,737,059
            1898-99       13,049,317        9,190,006          3,859,311
            1899-1900     13,394,335        9,683,999          3,710,336
            1900-01[854]  13,995,470       10,064,903          3,930,567
            1901-02       14,465,870       10,465,101          4,000,769
            1902-03       15,005,262       10,819,938          4,185,324
            1903-04       15,824,394       11,201,122          4,623,272
            1904-05       16,274,978       11,446,279          4,828,699
            1905-06       17,064,023       11,849,012          5,215,011
   Est'm'd  1906-07[855]  17,361,042       12,289,787          5,071,255

[846] 1st _Rep. P. G._, 1855, p. 68. 20th _Rep. P. G._, 1874, app., p.
46.

[847] Expenditure for sailing packets in 1858 was £935,883.

[848] Postage ceased to be charged on government departments early in
1868.

[849] 10th _Rep. P. G._, 1864, pp. 32-38; 18th _Rep. P. G._, 1872, pp.
26-27. Until 1858 revenue does not include revenue from impressed
newspaper stamps nor does expenditure include cost of packet service
until 1861.

[850] In 1876 the beginning of the financial year of the Post Office was
changed from 1st January to 1st April.

[851] 27th _Rep. P. G._, 1881, app., p. 52.

[852] 37th _Rep. P. G._, 1891, app., p. 64.

[853] Including estimated value of services to other departments from
1891-1892 on.

[854] 47th _Rep. P. G._, 1901, app., p. 82.

[855] 53d _Rep. P. G._, 1907, p. 95.


                      TABLE VII

   AVERAGE YEARLY GROSS REVENUE, EXPENDITURE, AND NET REVENUE OF POST
   OFFICE FOR THE UNITED KINGDOM NOT INCLUDING TELEGRAPHS FROM 1841 TO
   1906.


           _Gross Revenue_  _Expenditure_  _Net Revenue_
                    £               £            £
   1841-45     1,658,214      1,001,405       656,809
   1846-50     2,143,717      1,304,772       838,944
   1851-55     2,569,836      1,441,334     1,128,502
   1856-60     3,135,587      1,785,911     1,349,676
   1861-65     4,016,750      3,013,389     1,003,341
   1866-70     4,729,155      3,322,069     1,407,086
   1871-75     5,404,809      3,784,886     1,619,923
   1876-81     6,326,141      4,019,423     2,306,718
   1881-86     7,634,085      4,958,152     2,675,933
   1886-91     9,121,032      6,166,043     2,954,989
   1891-96    10,914,487      7,701,292     3,213,195
   1896-1901  13,001,286      9,174,516     3,826,770
   1901-1906  15,926,905     11,156,292     4,770,613




                       BIBLIOGRAPHY


This list does not contain a complete record of all the authorities
consulted. It merely brings together, with a fuller statement of title,
the more important references scattered through the footnotes. Unless it
is otherwise stated, London is to be understood as the place of
publication for the English books here cited.


       PRINTED RECORDS--PARLIAMENTARY DOCUMENTS--REPORTS


  _Acts of Parliament._

  _Acts of the Parliament of Scotland._ 12 vols., 1814-75.

  _Acts of the Privy Council of England._ New Series, ed. J. R. Dasent.
  32 vols., 1890-1907.

  _Calendar of Border Papers._

  _Calendar of State Papers, America and West Indies._ _Do.,_ _Colonial._
  _Do.,_ _Domestic._ _Do.,_ _Foreign._ _Do.,_ _Ireland._

  _Calendar of Treasury Books._

  _Calendar of Treasury Books and Papers._

  _Calendar of Treasury Papers._

  _Finance Reports, 1797-98._

  Hansard. _The Parliamentary Debates._ 422 vols., 1803-91. 41 vols., to
  1820; "New Series," 25 vols., to 1830; Third Series, 356 vols., to
  1891. The work has been continued under other management since 1891,
  as _Parliamentary Debates_, Fourth and Fifth Series.

  Howell, T. J. _A Complete Collection of State Trials_ [to 1820]. 34
  vols., 1816-28.

  _Journals of the House of Commons._

  _Journals of the House of Lords._

  _Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, of the Reign of Henry VIII._

  [Cobbett, William.] _The Parliamentary History of England, from the
  Earliest Period to the Year 1803._ 36 vols., 1806-20.

  _Parliamentary Papers._ Since 1831 the volumes for each year have been
  arranged regularly in four series, as follows:--

  1. _Bills Public._
  2. _Reports from Committees._
  3. _Reports from Commissioners._
  4. _Accounts and Papers._

  The volumes are ordinarily quoted, under each year, according to their
  consecutive numbering; but each series is also numbered separately.

  _Proceedings and Ordinances of the Privy Council of England._ Ed. Sir
  Harris Nicholas. 7 vols., 1834-37.

  _Reports of the Postmasters-General on the Post Office._ Beginning
  with 1854-55. These may be quoted either according to their
  consecutive numbering, or by years: 1st report = 1855;
  51st report = 1905, etc.

  Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts. _Reports._

  Scobell, Henry. _A Collection of Acts and Ordinances made in the
  Parliament held 3 Nov. 1640 to 17 Sept. 1656._ 1658.


                          OTHER BOOKS

  Blomefield, F., and Parkin, C. _An Essay towards a Topographical
  History of the County of Norfolk._ 2d ed., 11 vols., 1805-10.

  Cunningham, W. _The Growth of English Industry and Commerce in Modern
  Times._ 3 vols., Cambridge, 1896-1903.

  De Laune, Thomas. _Angliae Metropolis: or, the Present State of
  London._ 1681.

  _Dictionary of National Biography._

  Eaton, D. B. _Civil Service in Great Britain._ New York, 1880.

  Froude, J. A. _A History of England from the Fall of Wolsey to the
  Death of Elizabeth._ 12 vols., New York, 1870.

  Gairdner, J., _editor_. _The Paston Letters._ 3 vols., 1872-75.

  Green, E. _Bibliotheca Somersetensis._ 3 vols., Taunton, 1902.

  Joyce, H. _The History of the Post Office from its Establishment down
  to 1836._ 1893.

  Knight, Charles. _London._. 6 vols., 1841-44.

  Latimer, John. _The Annals of Bristol in the XVIIIth Century._
  Bristol, 1893.

  Lewins, William. _Her Majesty's Mails._ 2d ed., 1865.

  _London and its Environs described._ 6 vols., 1761.

  Macaulay, T. B. _History of England from the Accession of James II._ 4
  vols., 1849-56.

  Macpherson, David. _Annals of Commerce, Manufactures, Fisheries, and
  Navigation._ 4 vols., London and Edinburgh, 1805.

  Maitland, William. _The History and Survey of London._ 2 vols., 1760.

  Malden, H. E. _The Cely Papers: Selections from the Correspondence and
  Memoranda of the Cely Family, Merchants of the Staple, A. D. 1475-88._
  1900.

  May, T. E. _Constitutional History of England._ 1882.

  Noorthouck, John. _A New History of London._ 1773.

  Ogilby, John. _Itinerarium Angliae._ 1675.

  Roberts, George. _The Social History of the Southern Counties of
  England in Past Centuries._ 1856.

  Rothschild, Arthur de. _Histoire de la Poste aux Lettres, depuis ses
  Origines les plus Anciennes jusqu'à nos Jours._ 2d ed., Paris, 1873.

  Sharpe, R. R. _London and the Kingdom._ 3 vols., 1894-95.

  Stow, John (1525-1605). _A Survey of the Cities of London and
  Westminster, improved and enlarged by John Strype._ 2 vols., 1720.

  Thornbury, W., and Walford, E. _Old and New London._ 6 vols. [1873-78.]


                            PERIODICALS


  _The Economist._

  _The London Times._

  _Notes and Queries._

With reference to the foregoing bibliography, the "Letters and Papers of
Henry VIII" and the "Calendar of State Papers" have formed the basis of
this sketch of the British Post Office during the sixteenth and
seventeenth centuries, with many references to the papers of private
individuals and institutions collected by the Royal Commission on
Historical Manuscripts. The "Proceedings and Ordinances and the Acts of
the Privy Council" contain important orders issued to the
Postmaster-General or the postmen during the sixteenth century as well
as complaints from the postmen and the public. From the beginning of the
eighteenth century the chief sources of information are the historical
summaries appended to the "Reports of Committees and Commissioners"
compiled during the first half of the nineteenth century. Of these, the
"Report of 1844" is the most important. The "Journals of the Lords and
Commons" throw some light upon the history, purpose, and intent of the
various acts of Parliament dealing with rates and finance. "The
Financial Report of 1797," various returns submitted to the House of
Commons, and the reports contained in the "Accounts and Papers" for the
first part of the nineteenth century are chiefly concerned with the
financial side of the history of the British Post Office. Since 1840 the
most important sources of information are the yearly reports of the
Postmasters-General, dating from 1854, and the voluminous reports of
committees appointed to investigate debated points in the organization
and policy of the Post Office as well as to advise upon matters which
had produced friction between the department and its employees.

Of the secondary works there is little to be said. The only one from
which any important information has been obtained is Joyce's "History of
the British Post Office to 1836." This book contains a great deal of
valuable matter arranged in rather a haphazard fashion and with no
references. Writing as a Post Office official at the end of the
nineteenth century, Joyce hardly appreciated the conditions which his
predecessors had to meet. In Stow's "London" are found some interesting
facts about the London Penny Post, in Blomefield's "Norfolk" early
postal conditions in Norwich are described. The other books of the same
description contain only incidental references to minor points of Post
Office development.




                             INDEX


  Abuses in the Post Office, 42-46, 127, 128.

  Allen, Ralph, 36, 37, 37 note.

  American colonies, Post Office in, 32, 33, 59.

  American Express Company, 70.

  Annuities, 74. _See also_ Savings Bank Department.

  Arlington, Lord, 27.

  Arundel, Earl of, 11.

  Assurance facilities, 74. _See also_ Savings Bank Department.


  Bennett, Sir John, 27.

  Billingsley, 11, 19.

  Bishop, Henry, 24, 25.

  Book Post, 68, 173. _See also_ Halfpenny Post and Rates, Book Post.

  Bower, Sir George, 80.

  Bradford Committee, 84, 85.

  British and Inland Magnetic Telegraph Company, 202, 206, 208.

  Burlamachi, Philip, 17, 18.

  Buxton, Sydney, 85, 87, 88.

  Bye-letters, 35 note.

  Bye-posts, 36, 39, 144;
    receipts from, 185, 186.


  Canadian Pacific Railway Company, 134.

  Carteret, Lord, 42.

  Cash on delivery, 70, 71.

  Chamberlain, A., 83.

  Chesterfield, Countess of, 25.

  Clerks of the road, 38, 50.

  Coaches. _See_ Mail Coaches and Post Coaches.

  Coke, Sir John, 11, 12, 15, 16, 18, 111, 112.

  Competition in carrying letters, 191-197.

  Competitive examinations, 78.

  Compulsory prepayment. _See_ Prepayment of rates.

  Cotton and Frankland, 31, 115.

  Cromwell, orders to the postmasters, 23.

  Cross-posts, 140, 144. _See also_ Bye-posts.

  Cross-post letters, 35 note, 36. _See also_ Post-roads, Cross-posts.

  Cunard Steamship Company, 132, 133, 134.

  Customs duties, 125.


  Dead Letter Office, 50.

  Delivery of letters, 9, 38, 39;
    rural, 65, 66;
    express or special, 67, 68.

  Departmental committee, 82.

  De Nouveau, 114.

  De Quester, 10, 12, 135.

  De Taxis, 112, 114.

  Dockwra, William, 28, 30.

  Double letter, 13 note.

  Dublin Penny Post, 30 note, 54, 150.


  Edinburgh Penny Post, 54.

  Edison Telephone Company, 219.

  Electric and International Telegraph Company, 202, 205, 206, 208.

  Embossed stamps. _See_ Stamps.

  Employees, postal, appointment brought under civil service
      examination, 78, 79;
    report of Bradford committee, 84, 85;
    of departmental committee, 82;
    of Hobhouse committee, 86-88;
    civil rights, 82;
    postal unions, 85;
    wages, 80, 83;
    Tweedmouth settlement, 81, 82;
    strike, 81;
    grievances, 80, 82, 83;
    increase in wages, 81, 82.

  Evasion of rates, 197-201. _See also_ Monopoly, attempts to break.

  Express delivery. _See_ Delivery of letters.


  Farmers of the Post Office, 21, 22, 36, 37.

  Fawcett, Henry, 74, 75, 80, 81.

  Fees, 9, 15, 45, 49.

  Fifth-clause Posts, 65.

  Finances of Post Office, 180-188.

  Foreign connections: Belgium, 111;
    France, 111, 113, 114, 115, 117, 118, 120;
    Germany, 111;
    Holland, 111, 114;
    Italy, 111, 115;
    United States and the colonies, 120 note;
    stages settled on the continent, 112.
    _See also_ Rates and Sailing Packets.

  Foreigners' Post, 6, 7.

  Franking, 159-172;
    by members of Parliament, 25;
    of newspapers, 48.

  Franking department, 57.

  Frankland. _See_ Cotton and Frankland.

  Freeling, Sir Francis, 52.

  Frizell, 11, 18, 24.


  Grimston, 205.


  Halfpenny Post, 68, 69, 197.

  Hall, John, 11.

  Hamilton, Andrew, 33.

  Hanbury, 82.

  Hicks, James, 19, 20, 24, 26, 27, 112.

  Hill, Sir Rowland, 59-61, 187.

  Hobhouse committee, 86-88.


  Inman Steamship Company, 132, 133.

  Insurance facilities, 74. _See also_ Savings Bank Department.

  Ireland, Post Office in, 31, 57. _See also_ Post-roads, Rates,
    and Sailing Packets, Ireland.


  Letters, number of, 63.

  London and Globe Telephone Company, 220.

  London District Post, 71.

  London District Telegraph Company, 202.

  London Penny Post, 28-30, 34, 35 note, 51, 52;
    receipts from, 185.
    _See_ Twopenny post.


  Mail coaches, 40, 41, 55, 104, 105.

  Manley, John, 22, 23.

  Marconi Company, 213, 214.

  Mason, Sir John, 7, 8.

  Merchant Adventurers' Post, 6, 11.

  Messengers, 3, 5, 67.

  Money Order Office, 50, 71.

  Money orders, 176-180;
    number of, 71-73.
    _See also_ Rates, money orders.

  Monopoly, attempts to break, 191-197;
    in carriage of letters and packets, 189-191, 195, 196.
    _See also_ Telegraphs, monopoly.

  Mowatt, Sir F., 81.


  National Telephone Company, 222-224, 229, 231, 233.

  Neale, Thomas, 33.

  Newspaper Office, 49.

  Newspapers, chargeable and free, 68;
    franking of, 48;
    impressed stamps on, 68;
    number of, 68.
    _See also_ Rates, newspapers.

  New Telephone Company, 223.

  Norfolk, Duke of, 82.


  O'Neale, Daniel, 25.

  Opening and detaining letters, 16, 18, 21, 26, 46-48, 196.


  Packet list, 48.

  Packets. _See_ Sailing Packets.

  Paget, 7.

  Palmer, John, 40-42, 44.

  Parcel Post, 70, 174. _See also_ Rates, Parcel Post.

  Patronage, 78, 79.

  Pattern and Sample Post, 69. _See also_ Rates, patterns.

  Peninsular and Oriental Steamship Company, 132.

  Penny Post. _See_ London Penny Post.

  Penny Postage, 59-62, 158-160.

  Pensions, sailors', 127.

  Pitt, William, 43.

  Plague, 26.

  Political patronage. _See_ Patronage.

  Postal establishment, in seventeenth century, 27;
    in eighteenth, 38, 44;
    in nineteenth, 57.

  Postcards, 174;
    number of, 69, 69 note;
    use of, 69.
    _See also_ Rates, postcards.

  Post coaches, 40.

  Post horses, 5, 8;
    fee for their use, 89, 90, 92;
    licences and taxes, 94, 95, 95 note;
    monopoly in letting, 92, 94;
    number to be kept, 92, 93;
    supply of, 89, 90.

  Postmarks, 29.

  Postmen's Federation, 85 note.

  Post offices, number of, 71.

  Post-roads, 13;
    cross posts, 103;
    in sixteenth century, 97, 101;
    in seventeenth century, 99;
    maps, 101;
    re-measured, 103, 104;
    in north of England, 102, 104;
    in south, 102;
    in Ireland, 102, 104;
    in Scotland, 103.

  Prepayment of rates;
    compulsory prepayment inadvisable, 26, 26 note;
    unpopularity of, 64.

  Prideaux, Edmund, 18-21, 136.


  Raikes, 81.

  Railways, 107, 108;
    amounts paid for conveyance of mails, 56, 78;
    authority of Postmaster-General over, 77;
    principles involved in estimating tollage for conveyance of mails, 77.

  Randolph, Thomas, 7, 8.

  Rates, for letters, 13, 23, 62-64;
    by weight, 157;
    re-directed, 173;
    ships' letters, 143, 148, 153.

    In England, 136, 137, 141, 142, 145-148, 150, 151, 158;
    Ireland, 136, 137, 141, 142, 146, 151, 152, 158;
    Scotland, 136-139, 141-143, 145-148, 150, 151, 158;
    United Kingdom, 159, 172, 174.

    To Austria, 135, 149, 150;
    Belgium, 135, 143, 149, 150, 155 note, 157, 176;
    Cape of Good Hope, 153, 154;
    Channel Isles, 148, 150;
    Denmark, 137, 143, 149, 150, 155 note;
    East Indies, 153, 154;
    Egypt, 155 note, 156;
    France, 135, 137, 143, 149, 149 note, 150, 155, 155 note, 176;
    Germany, 135, 137, 143, 149, 150, 155 note, 157;
    Gibraltar, 155 note;
    Greece, 155 note, 156;
    Holland, 135, 143, 149, 150, 155 note, 157;
    Italy, 115, 135, 137, 143, 149, 150, 155 note, 156, 176;
    Malta, 155 note;
    Mauritius, 153, 154;
    Mexico, 155 note, 157;
    Norway, 155 note, 157;
    Portugal, 143, 147, 149, 150, 155 note;
    Russia, 155 note;
    South America, 155 note, 157;
    Spain, 137, 143, 149, 150, 155 note, 157, 176;
    Sweden, 137, 143, 149, 150, 155 note, 157;
    Switzerland, 155 note, 157;
    Syria, 156;
    Turkey, 137, 149, 150, 155 note, 156;
    North American colonies, 143, 146, 147;
    United States, 155 note, 175.

    In North American colonies, 140, 141, 144, 146;
    West Indies, 140, 140 note, 143, 146.

    To the colonies, 159, 175;
    to foreign countries, 159, 176.

    Book Post, 173;
    money orders, 71, 72, 176 _et seq._;
    newspapers, 153, 154, 173, 175, 176;
    Parcel Post, 174;
    patterns, samples, and writs, 145, 173;
    postcards, 174, 176.

  Registered letters, 50, 64, 173, 174.

  Returned Letter Office, 57.

  Roads. _See_ Post-roads.

  Royal Mail Steamship Company, 132.

  Royal Post, 3, 6.


  Sailing Packets, abuses in connection with, 127 _et seq._;
    British and foreign vessels, 123;
    cost of, 128, 134;
    customs difficulties, 125;
    number of, 120, 121;
    ownership transferred to Admiralty, 129, 130;
    steamships, 121-123, 131;
    subsidies for, 130, 131-134;
    use of private ships, 120 note, 123, 124.

    To Cape of Good Hope, 120;
    Deal and the Downs, 110;
    East Indies, 120;
    France, 111, 115, 116;
    Gibraltar, 116;
    Holland, 115-117;
    Ireland, 109, 110, 121;
    Malta, 116;
    Isle of Man, 110;
    Mauritius, 120;
    Mexico, 120;
    Portugal, 115;
    Scotland, 109-110;
    South America, 120;
    West Indies, 118 _et seq._

  St. Martin's-le-Grand, 57.

  Sample Post. _See_ Pattern and Sample Post.

  Savings Bank Department, 73, 76;
    annuity and assurance facilities, 74-77;
    criticism by "Economist," 75 note.

  Scotland, Post Office in, 31, 32, 34, 59. _See also_ Post-roads,
    Rates, and Sailing Packets, Scotland.

  Scudamore, 203-205, 208.

  Shipping list, 48, 49.

  Single letters, 13 note.

  Smith, Llewellyn, 81.

  Special delivery. _See_ Delivery.

  Speed, 14;
    in sixteenth century, 98;
    in seventeenth century, 98, 99, 100 note;
    in nineteenth century, 104, 105, 105 note, 106;
    by use of railways, 107, 108;
    delays and attempts to remedy them, 100;
    delays between England and Ireland, 107;
    means for securing speed, 106.

  Stamps, 65, 68.

  Stanhope, Charles, 8, 17, 24.

  Stanhope, Lord John, 8, 10, 135.

  Stanley, Lord, 83-85, 203.

  Steamships. _See_ Sailing Packets, Steamships.

  Strangers' Post. _See_ Foreigners' Post.

  Sunday posts, 55, 79, 80.


  Tankerville, Earl of, 42-44.

  Telegraphs, cost to Government of, 205, 206, 208, 209;
    finances, 216, 218;
    government ownership proposed, 203-205;
    international agreement, 211-214;
    messages sent, 202, 215;
    monopoly, 207-208;
    press messages, 209, 217;
    private companies, 202, 203;
    railway interests in, 206, 207, 209;
    rates, 202, 203, 209, 210, 213;
    relations with Marconi Company, 213, 214;
    underground lines, 211.

  Telephones, call offices, 224, 227;
    exchange areas, 224;
    finances, 236;
    government, 220, 221, 225, 228;
    inter-communication, 224, 229, 232, 234;
    licences, 220-222, 224;
    municipal, 226, 228-230, 235;
    purchase agreement, 232 _et seq._;
    rates, 227, 230, 232, 234, 235;
    trunk lines, 221, 225;
    underground wires, 231, 232, 234;
    way-leave powers, 221, 223, 224, 232, 235.

  Threepenny Post, 52-54.

  Thurloe, 23, 24.

  Travellers' Post, 89;
    abuses by postmasters, 93;
    by travellers, 91, 91 note;
    trials of travellers, 91.

  Triple letters, 13 note.

  Tuke, Sir Brian, 4-7.

  Tweedmouth, Lord, 81.

  Tweedmouth settlement, 81, 82.

  Twopenny Post, 52-54, 149.


  Unions. _See_ Employees, Postal Unions.

  United Kingdom Telegraph Company, 203, 206, 208.

  United Telephone Company, 220, 222.

  Universal Private Telegraph Company, 208.


  Wages, 4, 6 note;
    arrears in, 8, 25, 92, 99.
    _See also_ Employees.

  Walpole, Spencer, 81.

  Ward, 87.

  Warwick, Earl of, 18, 19.

  White Star Steamship Company, 133.

  Windebank, 16, 17.

  Witherings, Thomas, 11, 13-19, 24, 111, 112, 135, 137, 138.


  York, Duke of, 25, 30.




  The Riverside Press
  PRINTED BY H. O. HOUGHTON & CO.
  CAMBRIDGE, MASS.
  U. S. A.








*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE HISTORY OF THE BRITISH POST OFFICE ***


    

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will
be renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright
law 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™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™
concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark,
and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following
the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use
of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very
easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation
of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project
Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may
do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected
by U.S. copyright law. 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™ 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™ License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works

1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
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™ electronic works in your
possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
Project Gutenberg™ 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™ 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™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this
agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™
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™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual
works in the collection are in the public domain in the United
States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law 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™ mission of promoting
free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™
works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the
Project Gutenberg™ 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™ 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™ work. The Foundation makes no
representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any
country other than 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™ License must appear
prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ 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 in the United States and most
    other parts of the world 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. If you
    are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws
    of the country where you are located before using this eBook.
  
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is
derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (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™
trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ 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™ 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™
License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™.

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™ 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™ work in a format
other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official
version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website
(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™ 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™ 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™ electronic works
provided that:

    • You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
        the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method
        you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed
        to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ 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™
        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™
        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™ works.
    

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than
are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing
from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of
the Project Gutenberg™ 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
works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project
Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™
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™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
Gutenberg™ 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™ electronic works in
accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the
production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™
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™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or
additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any
Defect you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™

Project Gutenberg™ 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™’s
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ 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™ 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 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 website
and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact

Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation

Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread
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™ electronic works

Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be
freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of
volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright 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 website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.

This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,
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.