The Life of Sir Rowland Hill and the History of Penny Postage, Vol. 2 (of 2)

The following table exhibits the amount of debentures issued by the several companies enumerated, and the average rates of interest on such debentures, as shown by the last published accounts.[271] It also exhibits the sum which each company would save if the whole of their loans were raised at three and a quarter per cent., and the amount, according to the latest award, payable by the Post Office for postal service. A comparison of the two last items shows that if the Government advanced the whole of the loans, the companies in question would be considerable gainers, even though they carried the mails for nothing. Such an arrangement, however, is not contemplated, and the comparison is made merely with a view of showing the capabilities of the plan.

The companies have been selected, not with a view of exhibiting the results in a favourable light, but simply because they have a large postal service.

The annual payments for the railway postal service amount to about £400,000. The general adoption of the above plan would (the service remaining the same) reduce this amount probably to about £150,000. To obtain the concurrence of the companies it would be necessary, probably, for the Government to advance gradually, as the existing bonds fall due, about £30,000,000 in the aggregate, or rather less than two-fifths of the present amount of railway debentures. This advance, taking the saving of the companies at only one per cent. on the average, would reduce their expenses by £300,000. And as their receipts from the Post Office would be reduced, say by £250,000, the balance would give a direct gain to the companies of £50,000 per annum. But I am assured by gentlemen well informed on the subject, that the companies would also be benefited indirectly as regards the terms on which they would be enabled to raise the remainder of their loans.

The question naturally arises, why, seeing that a larger advance (say of £45,000,000 instead of £30,000,000) would probably suffice to relieve the Post Office of all payments for railway service, I have not proposed the larger amount? The reason is that I have not felt justified in asking Government to do more than is necessary to supply the defects of early legislation, by placing the Post Office in a position similar to that in which it would probably have stood, had its interests (and through it those of the public) received due attention from the legislature when railways were first established. It is unnecessary to add that, should Government feel disposed to extend the advances to railways beyond the limit I have proposed, the saving which would result from such extension might go to the further relief of the Post Office, or be carried direct to the credit of the general revenue of the state, as Government might determine. In arriving at this conclusion, I have not overlooked the importance of neutralising the unwillingness sometimes manifested by the companies now under agreement with the Post Office to afford additional service without additional pay. Against this inconvenience I consider the Post Office may be tolerably well secured by making the agreement terminable by the Government, without notice, in the event of the conditions not being fully performed by the company.

I may add that advances, such as those now suggested (except that they were unfortunately unaccompanied by any stipulations as to the postal service), have already been made to several of the Irish railway companies.

Should the above plan be adopted by Government, I have little doubt that almost every railway company would speedily avail itself of the advantages it affords; and, if so, while both parties would be saved the trouble, expense, delay, and uncertainty of arbitrations, the Postmaster-General would be enabled, more effectually even than by the proposed bill, to grant many important postal facilities earnestly desired by the public, which he is now obliged to withhold, a most acceptable boon would be conferred on the railway companies, and a large saving—estimated above at £250,000 a year—would be effected in the Post Office expenditure.

R. H.

6th January, 1857.

APPENDIX K.

[See p. 291.]

Minute relative to Panama Route to Australia.

The Postmaster-General.

1. In my minute of the 15th instant, on the subject of the Treasury Minute of the 11th (referred to your Lordship for report), I recommended that the consideration of that part of the Treasury Minute which relates to an additional postal service to Australia, by way of Panama, should be postponed, in order to admit of the immediate call for tenders for the continuance of the service by way of Suez.

2. Your Lordship and the Treasury having been pleased to adopt this recommendation, and the advertisements for tenders for the latter service having been issued, I now beg to submit my views on the proposed additional monthly service by way of Panama.

3. The question is divisible under two heads—

4. As regards the first of these questions, I need not remind your Lordship that the sea postage of all the correspondence with the Australian colonies, including New Zealand, falls very far short of the cost of even a single line of packets. Such cost under the late contract having been £185,000 a year, while the total sea postage cannot be estimated at more than about £50,000 a year.

5. Having regard to the enormous additional loss which would result from the establishment of a second line of packets, and bearing in mind that the dissatisfaction so strongly felt, both here and in Australia, is not as to the infrequency of communication so much as to its irregularity, I am of opinion that the wishes of the public, whether at home or in the colonies, would be more effectually met by doing all that is practicable to improve the existing monthly service than by doubling the frequency of communication.

6. As regards the second question, viz., as to the best route for the additional line of packets (should Government decide to establish one), the points for consideration appear to be mainly as to the ports to which the distances shall be reckoned, and the comparative length of route.

7. The advocates of the Panama route generally select Sydney as the right port; but this is manifestly unfair, inasmuch as, while by the Panama route it is the nearest of the continental Australian ports, by the Suez route it is the most distant. Neither can this port claim preference by amount of correspondence, since the enclosed statement of the correspondence between this country and the several Australian colonies, including New Zealand, shows that that of New South Wales is only 23 per cent. of the whole, while that of Victoria is as much as 58 per cent. The latter colony is also centrally situated, having Tasmania on the south, South Australia and Western Australia on the west, and New South Wales and New Zealand on the east. It is clear, therefore, that Melbourne is the port to which the distances should be reckoned.

8. It will, of course, be for the Admiralty to state exactly the comparative lengths of the two routes; but, from the best information I have been able to obtain, it appears that the distance to Melbourne is less by way of Gibraltar and Suez than by way of Panama, to the extent of about 1,500 nautical miles, making a difference, according to the average speed of the packets, of at least six days in favour of the Suez route.

9. Though the contrary has often been assumed, even Sydney is nearer by the Suez route than by the Panama route, and that to the extent of about 300 nautical miles; so that the only colony which would be brought nearer by the adoption of the Panama route is New Zealand, whose correspondence, however, amounts to only six per cent. of the whole.

10. The comparative absence of storms in the Pacific may, to some extent, counterbalance greater distance, but not, I presume, so far as to leave any doubt that the communication viâ Suez will remain the quickest—to Melbourne at least. This, however, is a point on which, no doubt, the Admiralty will report.

11. But, by the foregoing statement, the superiority of the Suez route is by no means fully shown, since, as respects the mails sent through France, the time is further shortened by four days and a-half:[272] while the Panama route admits of no such acceleration.

The real advantage, therefore, of the Suez route, when speed is important, cannot be estimated, as regards Melbourne, at less than ten days. And as the saving, viâ France, of course extends to all the Australian colonies, it may be doubted whether even New Zealand would be materially benefited by adopting the Panama route.

12. Again, by a slight sacrifice of time (not more, probably, than one or two days) the Suez route might be made to take in either Point de Galle or the Mauritius; thus in either case affording important postal facilities, not only to the colony so included, but also to this country and to the Australian colonies in their correspondence therewith. The Panama route affords no similar facilities.

13. But the Suez route has also an important pecuniary advantage over that by Panama. Our mails are conveyed across the Isthmus of Suez by the Egyptian Government, for a fixed annual payment, which amounts to not more than fourpence per pound weight; whereas the charge by the railway company for crossing the Isthmus of Panama is elevenpence per pound, in addition to which we have to pay the local government the exorbitant rate of one shilling an ounce for letters for the mere privilege of passing through their territory. These charges would add, say twopence, to the postage of each newspaper, and sixpence to the postage of each half-ounce letter. Or, should the quarter-ounce scale be applied, then threepence for each quarter-ounce letter, making a total charge of ninepence; so that there could be no cheap mail by this route, the letters viâ Panama being all charged as highly as those sent through France.

14. There is still another circumstance which should not be overlooked in a comparison between the two routes—at both ends of the Suez route the electric telegraph is being rapidly extended. It already reaches from England to Malta; and, even if not yet completed, is in rapid progress from Sydney viâ Melbourne to Adelaide. Already, therefore, as regards the transmission of news, the distance to and from Sydney by this route is reduced by one-fourth; and, supposing that at any future time the telegraph should be extended on the one side to Point de Galle, and on the other to King George’s Sound (neither, perhaps, an improbable event), that distance would be so greatly reduced that Sydney would be brought (by telegraph) within fifteen days of London.

15. The Panama route, as yet, possesses no similar advantage; and even if the difficulties of crossing the Atlantic be mastered, and the telegraph extended to Panama, there will yet remain the whole time occupied in crossing the Pacific—probably more than thirty days.

16. These several considerations appear to be conclusive as to the decided superiority of the route by Suez over that by Panama; and consequently, even if a monthly service be deemed insufficient, the additional packets should be placed on the Suez route.

17. Should similar views be adopted in the Australian colonies—as I expect they will when the facts of the case are understood—the several governments, excepting that of New Zealand, and perhaps that of New South Wales, will probably decline to provide their share of the cost of any service which may be attempted by way of Panama. It is very important, therefore, that, as indicated in the Treasury Minute, the concurrence of the colonies should be ascertained before any tender is finally accepted.

18. But if, as fairness seems to require, it be made a condition of the tender that the total time from London to Melbourne, viâ Panama, shall not exceed that which may be allowed viâ France and Suez, then it may be doubted if any responsible parties will be found to undertake the contract.

19. In another minute, when submitting a letter from the Treasury on the subject of postal communication with British Columbia, I propose to consider the question (raised in that letter) as to the best mode of conducting the service on this side the Isthmus of Panama; but, as the effect on the Australian service would be much the same whether one of the two monthly lines now existing be employed (and that service is so direct that little would, I presume, be gained by adopting another route), or whether a new and independent service be established, I do not consider it necessary to trouble your Lordship on this point at present.

20. Should your Lordship concur in these views, I would suggest that a copy of this minute, accompanied by a letter from yourself, expressive of such concurrence, be forwarded to the Treasury.

(Signed) R. H.

27th September, 1858.

Approved.
(Signed)  C.

29th September, 1858.

APPENDIX L.

[See p. 293.]

Letter to Lord Canning, Governor-General of India.

October 24th, 1857.

Dear Lord Canning,—I hope it may do some little to relieve your Lordship’s anxiety to learn that Government has adopted a plan of mine for giving to Calcutta and Madras four mails a month, to and from England, instead of two.

The plan is fully described in the enclosed copy of a minute; but, to save you the trouble of reference, I beg to say that the principle of the measure is as follows:—Leaving the Calcutta, Madras, and China mails, whether viâ Southampton or Marseilles, unaltered, I despatch the Bombay mail from hence, viâ Marseilles, about a week (a quarter of a month) after the despatch of the Calcutta mail by that route; and arrange the despatch from Bombay of the return mail, so that it may reach London, viâ Marseilles, also about a week after the arrival of the Calcutta mail by that route.

Under this arrangement, the despatch across the peninsula, between Calcutta and Bombay, being fitted, in each direction, to the Bombay line of packets, will afford to Calcutta two good mails, each way, per month, viâ Bombay, in addition to the two per month she now has by her own packets; and, as to cross the peninsula requires about a week, the arrivals, as well as the departures, will be at nearly equal intervals, i.e., one per week, or rather quarter of a month.

Madras will enjoy a similar advantage.

Bombay will not benefit by the change (except by electric telegraph to and from Madras). On the contrary, she will be somewhat injured in respect of her slow mails, which must be conveyed between Southampton and Malta or Alexandria, by the Calcutta, or by the Australian packets, whichever will serve best, there to await the arrival of the Bombay packets; but, as the payment of an additional postage of threepence will not only avoid this delay, but will save several days, as compared with the existing state of things, I attach little importance to the objection.

As the plan involves comparatively little additional service, the Peninsula and Oriental Company have undertaken it for a further payment of £16,000 a year. I cannot, as yet, say when the change will be made.

I beg your Lordship will not think of replying to this letter. If the plan prove acceptable to you, a word to that effect from your private secretary will be welcome, more especially if he can add that your health, and that of Lady Canning,—to whom I beg to be most respectfully remembered—have not greatly suffered from the terrible anxieties to which you must have been exposed.

Under the trying circumstances to which I have alluded, I venture to think that your Lordship will not consider it obtrusive if I assure you that you have the earnest sympathy of every one at the Post Office—of every one at least who had the honour of knowing you—a sympathy accompanied, however, by the most entire conviction that under your able and energetic administration all that is possible to restore order and to prevent future outbreak will be accomplished.

In our small way we have done our best to expedite the arrival of the Indian mails. The last was conveyed from Paris to London, viâ Boulogne and Folkestone, all circumstances being favourable, in eight and a-half hours.

I have, &c.,
(Signed) Rowland Hill.

The Right Hon.
Viscount Canning
&c. &c. &c.

APPENDIX M.

[See p. 347.]

Proposed Reduction in the Postage on Newspapers and other
Printed Matter.

Of the importance of distributing our cheap and excellent newspapers and other periodicals and serials over the whole face of the country there can be but one opinion amongst enlightened men. The aim of this memorandum is to show to what extent, and by what means, this great end can be attained, without undue sacrifice of other equally great interests.

With respect to the allegations made as to the cheaper conveyance of such matter in other countries, it is important to remark that no argument can be safely drawn from them, even when they are found literally correct, without careful examination into all the appertaining circumstances.[273]

And here it may be observed, that forty years ago our own journals, though laden with heavy duties, viz., the stamp duty and those on advertisements and paper, were constantly spoken of as carried free. An anomaly the more remarkable because if addressed anywhere beyond the narrow limits of what was termed the “free delivery,” every newspaper bore a postal charge. It scarcely need be said that to the “freedom” of those earlier days, no one, least of all the applicants in this case, would wish to return.[274]

It must, therefore, be inquired as respect the countries referred to—

1st. Whether the postage be in addition to a stamp duty.

2nd. Whether the post office undertakes house-to-house delivery, and that free of charge.

3rd. What are the restrictions as to weight, as to writing or other marks, and as to time and place of posting. Whether, in short, the cheap transmission be not made under regulations which would not be tolerated here.

4th. Whether the governments concerned have not either the free use of the railways for the conveyance of mails, or at least their use on very much lower terms than are conceded here.

5th. Whether lowness of postage on printed matter be not obtained at the cost of high postage on letters.

6th. What in the countries referred to is the fiscal result of the postal system? whether, as here, the production of a large net revenue (whose diminution would have to be made good by some other impost); whether, as in various other countries, a bare self-support, or, as in the United States, a deficiency to be supplied from the general taxation.

7th. Whether, in fine, there be not some circumstance, or set of circumstances, which vitiates the example.

It is at least highly probable that when the various examples held up have been subjected to the proposed scrutiny, their validity will shrink into very small dimensions.

Without, however, laying too much stress either way on foreign example, it is manifestly important to consider the present question in relation to other home interests; in recognising the claims of newspapers we must not forget those of letters; the less so as the former are already by far the more favoured class of the two, the allowance of weight of a newspaper being eight-fold that of a letter. It must be borne in mind, therefore, that in case of any surplus in revenue, equality, if not priority of claim, whether for increased weight, increased facilities, or other advantage, may be fairly set up in favour of letters; further, that this claim is prodigiously strengthened by the fact that it is to letters alone (almost exclusively to home letters) that the Post Office is indebted for its net revenue.

Returning, however, for the moment to the separate question of newspapers, it must be remarked that any lowering of that unit of charge which has hitherto been strictly maintained is open to so many objections as to demand that the change, if made, should be made with extreme caution.

1st. The postal conveyance of printed matter—especially of newspapers, since these admit of no delay—is, even at the present rates, under existing circumstances, unremunerative, a fact which becomes very intelligible when the eight-fold allowance of weight is considered, and which of itself overthrows the expectation held out by some that the fiscal loss by reduction would be compensated by increase in the number of packets sent.

2nd. The proposed reduction, if made simply, would inevitably lead to increased demands on the part of the railway companies, and that upon two grounds, (a) augmented weight of the mails, and (b) alleged interference with their parcel traffic. All this will be found to have followed the reduction to the present rates.

3rd. The temptation to use printed matter as a cover, or fraudulent substitute for written letters, which even now is unduly strong, would, without safeguards far beyond any yet known, be enormously strengthened.

4th. As the power of mechanically exchanging bags en route is, as mentioned by the Postmaster-General in the House of Commons, but limited, augmentation in weight may, by rendering stoppage necessary, retard the progress of the mails.

Under the first of the above heads it must be added that the sound commercial principle on which the Post Office should be conducted—the full establishment of which was kept steadily in view, and towards which a nearer and nearer approach was made so long as I held the office of secretary—is that each part of the business should be at least self-supporting; every deviation from this principle not only producing direct injury to fiscal results, but becoming prolific as an example. Further, that deviation as respects printed matter is the more objectionable because, as the Post Office has there no monopoly of conveyance, the inevitable result is to saddle it with whatever has to be conveyed at a loss, while aught that is profitable is sure to pass into other hands.

In relation to the third head, that concerning temptation to fraud, it may be remarked that, if the change can be so made as to render fraud under its operation impracticable, objection on this score will of course be removed; and, further, that if the modification necessary for securing this can be made at the same time to reduce labour at the Post Office as regards this special duty, ground for reduction in charge may be established.

Thus then we come to a consideration of means; and, first, it is assumed that the application under review relates only to the primary distribution of newspapers, &c., viz., that from the hands of the publishers or of the vendors; and it is for that alone that just provision seems practicable or is here attempted.

Now it is well known that such distribution in towns, as now performed by news vendors themselves, is very inexpensive, partly because the cost of railway conveyance is less to them than to the Post Office, partly because the delivery is generally performed by boys, but mainly because the newspapers are not individually addressed, each copy of a particular paper serving as well for one individual as another. The first and perhaps only desideratum, therefore, is a means for performing the same duty, viz., the distribution of papers not individually addressed at small cost in the rural districts.

Now the need of individual addresses may be superseded in the country by use of the means found available in towns: in other words, if lists similar to those which doubtless guide the boys in the town delivery be put into the hands of the Post Office rural messengers, the latter will be able to perform the duty of distribution with as little difficulty as the former.

Supposing this plan to be adopted, it becomes practicable to save labour in the Post Office to a much greater extent than at first sight appears.

At present, newspapers posted for rural districts have to be assorted from a mass of papers for all parts of the United Kingdom, and, indeed, of the world. Such as are for a distance have to undergo a like operation at one or more offices on their way to that where, by a final assortment, they are arranged according to the walks of the several messengers. Lastly, of course, each paper has to be delivered according to its particular address.

Now, upon the proposed plan, the publishers or the news vendors of the metropolis, or other centre, instead of folding, addressing, and posting the journals intended for the rural districts, would, as is now done to a great extent—naturally send them in bulk, in the parcels containing journals for the post towns; an arrangement which would relieve the Post Office, not only of the first assortment, but also of the duty of conveyance; thereby avoiding at once increased difficulty as to exchange of bags, and also interference or quasi interference, with parcel-traffic, unless in the acceptable way of augmentation; and the provincial news vendors, on receiving these parcels, would, while themselves dealing with the journals intended for town-delivery, and for such of the rural districts as they might prefer to serve, convey the remainder, still unfolded and unaddressed, to the local post office (which they would have previously supplied with corresponding lists, variable, say once a month), thus superseding the intermediate assortments; and, lastly, the postmasters would only have to arrange the journals, by number and kind, according to the rounds of the messengers; thus reducing the trouble of even the final assortment to a minimum.

Still further to lessen trouble to the Post Office, as likewise for just security, it would be well to require that payment for the month should be made in advance, viz., on delivery of the lists. It would also be necessary to rule that the sum to be so paid should in no case be below a certain amount.

And thus, by an actual reduction in Post Office labour, unattended with any counterbalancing disadvantage, the desired reduction in postage would be warranted.

It is obvious that papers thus dealt with would present no temptation to fraud, since the absence of particular address would altogether prevent their being used as substitutes for letters.

On the plan set forth above, if taken as a whole, I think it would be safe and justifiable to reduce the charge for what I have called the primary distribution of newspapers, &c., to one halfpenny the four ounces, that is to say to one-half the present rate.

Security against fraud generally, it may be pointed out, would be immeasurably increased if the proposed boon were accompanied with the entire abolition of the impressed stamp, the use of which, besides maintaining a constant temptation to dishonesty, demands, on the part of the Post Office and the public, the observance of a highly complicated set of rules, involving so much trouble that they are constantly violated with impunity.

This change, however, would have to be accompanied with the issue of a three-halfpenny adhesive stamp[275] (a measure actually contemplated some years ago) to supply the place of the impressed stamp of the same value now used by newspapers which, like the Times or Illustrated London News occasionally range in weight between four and six ounces. The use of the new stamp might very properly be extended to all other printed matter of like weight.

Before touching on further possibilities as respects newspapers, I return to the subject of letters, in relation to which much additional improvement is desirable. This might be arranged under the following heads:—

Now beneficial concessions in the case both of letters and newspapers would be greatly facilitated by the establishment of more equitable and more equable arrangements than the present between the Post Office and the railway companies. Opportunity for this is likely soon to arise through inevitable demand for the extension to railway traffic of that abolition of tax on locomotion which is now imminent in respect of other modes of conveyance, a concession which may fairly be accompanied with the legal enactment of the tariff of charges, and other modifications in the laws affecting the Post Office proposed in paragraphs 23 and 24 of my Report on Railways, dated 7th May, 1867, which forms part of the Report of the Royal Commission on Railways laid before Parliament in the same year.

Perhaps, also, means may be devised for such further improvement of the apparatus used in exchanging bags as to remove the present objection to increased weight.

Supposing these two important advantages to be secured, the Post Office would then be able, without injustice to other interests, to receive the newspapers (of course still in bulk and unaddressed, though assorted according to districts and accompanied with respective lists) directly from the metropolitan or other central publishers or vendors, and to forward them, without further intervention, to their ultimate destination; thus, in effect, reducing still further the charge for their distribution throughout the country.

As reduction in labour, not only to the Post Office but also to senders, will obviously attend every reduction in number of packets, perhaps two or more publishers or vendors may, under either of the above arrangements, send combined packets, lists, &c., a course which will not in any way impede or modify distribution.

The operation of the plans recommended in this paper would, I believe, open the way to additional advantages which it would now be premature to mention.

Rowland Hill.

June 12, 1869.

APPENDIX N.

[See p. 394.]

Letter to the Lords of the Treasury—Superannuation Grant.

Hampstead, 17th March, 1864.

My Lords,—The Postmaster-General, as requested by your Lordships, has done me the favour to furnish me with a copy of your minute of 11th instant, granting me a special superannuation allowance on retiring from my office as Secretary to the Post Office, and conveying to me the very favourable opinion, which your Lordships are pleased to express, of the manner in which I have discharged my duties.

It cannot be necessary to assure your Lordships of the deep gratification with which I have received so handsome and elaborate a recognition of my services. I have only to beg that you will be pleased to accept my most respectful thanks.

In a document so highly complimentary, I hesitate to notice what would appear to be an admission, inadvertently made, to the effect that the adoption of the uniform penny postage was urged by others before the development of my plans. This, I assure your Lordships, is an error; and, as uniformity of rate constitutes the main feature of my plan, I am naturally anxious to place before you the real facts of the case. I trust, therefore, you will pardon me if I request attention to the enclosed memorandum on the subject.

I need scarcely add that, should the expectations of my medical friends, of improved health from rest, be realised, and any occasion arise in which it may appear to your Lordships that my assistance or advice in further postal improvements may be of advantage, I shall feel honoured by being permitted to place them at your disposal.

I have, &c.,
Rowland Hill.

The Right Hon.
The Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Treasury,
&c., &c., &c.

Memorandum.

A low and uniform rate of postage forms the most essential feature of my plan of postal reform, and I have no hesitation in stating that its conception originated wholly with myself. To guard against future error I ask permission to place on record a brief statement of facts.

The principle of uniformity of rate, now that it has been in successful operation for nearly a quarter of a century, appears, perhaps, simple and obvious; but so far from its having been, as it is sometimes supposed, the happy thought of a moment, it was the result of most laborious investigation on my part. Indeed, a slight consideration will show that its conception necessarily involved a previous discovery—viz., that the cost per letter of mere transit within the limits of the United Kingdom was practically inappreciable, or, at least, that it was not dependent mainly on distance; being, in fact, quite as much dependent on the number of letters contained in the particular mail as on the distance that mail was carried. Indeed, it was shown, from careful investigation, that the cost of mere conveyance, even for so great a distance as from London to Edinburgh, was only the thirty-sixth part of a penny per letter. From this and other facts, it followed that a uniform rate was more just than one varying according to distance. The convenience of uniformity was obvious.

I may add that when I first entered on the investigations preparatory to the construction of my plan, I myself had no conception of the practicability of a uniform rate, and that the discovery referred to above was as startling to myself as it proved when announced to the public at large.

A reference to my original pamphlet—a copy of which is, I presume, still in your Lordships’ possession—or to my evidence before the Select Committee of 1838, appointed to inquire into the practicability of my plans, will show the various steps by which I arrived at the conclusion that a uniform penny rate was at once just and practicable.

There is but one other person, so far as I am aware, to whom the suggestion of a uniform penny rate has, with even the slightest plausibility, ever been assigned—I refer to the late Mr. Wallace, formerly Member for Greenock, and Chairman of the Select Committee on Postage in 1838; but though Mr. Wallace frequently urged, among other useful reforms, a great reduction in the postal charges, I can say from personal knowledge that he had no idea whatever of a uniform rate until after the publication of my pamphlet. Indeed, this sufficiently appears from his speech in Parliament in July, 1836, the last occasion on which, before the publication of my pamphlet, he referred to the rates of postage. The following is an extract from “Hansard” (Vol. xxxv., 3rd series, p. 422):—

              *               *               *               *               *               *

“At the same time the rates of postage ought to be reduced. It would be proper not to charge more than 3d. for any letter sent a distance of 50 miles; for 100 miles, 4d.; 200 miles, 6d.; and the highest rate of postage ought not to be more than 8d. or 9d. at most.”

              *               *               *               *               *               *

Further evidence upon this point is also in my possession, which can be submitted, should it be deemed necessary.

Rowland Hill.

Hampstead, 17th March, 1864.

FINIS.

THOS. DE LA RUE AND CO. PRINTERS. BUNHILL ROW LONDON.

INDEX