CHAPTER IX.
THE POST-OFFICE AND LETTER-OPENING.

It will be fresh in the memory of many readers, that the year 1844 revealed to the public certain usages of the Government, and a branch of post-office business—previously kept carefully in the dark—which went far to destroy the confidence of the nation in the sanctity of its correspondence. In the session of 1844, Mr. Thomas S. Duncombe presented a petition from Mr. W. J. Linton, M. Mazzini, and two other persons residing at 47, Devonshire Street, Queen's Square, complaining that their letters were regularly detained and opened at the Post-Office. The petitioners declared that they "considered such a practice, introducing the spy-system of foreign states, as repugnant to every principle of the British constitution, and subversive of that public confidence which was so essential to a commercial country." The petitioners prayed for an inquiry, and Mr. Duncombe supported their prayer. Sir James Graham, then Home Secretary, got up in the House and stated that, as regarded three of the petitioners, their letters had not been detained; as for the case of M. Mazzini, a warrant had been obtained from the Home-Office to stop and open the correspondence of that person. He had the power by law and he had exercised it. "The authority," said Sir James, "was vested in the responsible Ministers of the Crown, and was intrusted to them for the public safety; and while Parliament placed its confidence in the individual exercising such a power, it was not for the public good to pry or inquire into the particular causes which called for the exercise thereof."[116] He hoped that the House would confide in his motives, and that they would not call upon him to answer any further inquiries. The speech of the Home Secretary added fuel to the flame. Had Sir James Graham entered more fully into the subject, and gone into the real state of the law, it is probable that the subject might have been allowed to drop. Not only was the slightest explanation of the principle adopted refused by the Home Secretary, but that refusal was given somewhat cavalierly. Public attention was thus roused; the most exaggerated rumours got abroad; it was openly stated by the press that a gigantic system of espionage had been established at St. Martin's-le-Grand, and now no mere general assurances of its unreality could dispel the talk or stop newspaper extravagances. Sir James Graham was abused most unreasonably. There was hardly a public print or public speaker in the kingdom that did not heap insults or expressions of disgust on his name. This state of things could not continue; accordingly, we find Lord Radnor, moving soon after in the House of Lords, for a return of all the warrants which had been issued for the detention of letters during a certain period, animadverting especially upon the alleged practice of general warrants to intercept all letters addressed to a certain person instead of there being issued a separate warrant in the case of each letter.[117] This mode of proceeding, as he truly said, if acted upon, was a flagrant violation of the words of the statute. Lord Campbell expressed the same views. Lord Brougham observed that the first statute conferring this power had been framed by Lord Somers. It had been continued ever since by various Acts, and had been exercised by Sir Robert Walpole, Lord Grenville, and Mr. Fox, as well as under the administrations of Lord Grey and Lord Melbourne. If Lord Campbell's construction of the Act were correct, the sooner they had a new one the better. Lord Denman was for putting an end to the power altogether. The return was granted, the Duke of Wellington approving the Home Secretary's conduct notwithstanding.

On the 24th of June, 1844, Mr. Duncombe again called the attention of the House of Commons to the subject, by presenting a petition from Mr. Charles Stolzman, a Polish refugee, complaining that his letters had been detained and opened. Mr. Duncombe contended that the Act of 1837 never meant to confer an authority upon a Minister of the Crown to search out the secrets of exiles resident in this country at the instance of foreign Governments, but was only designed to meet the case of domestic treason. "Mr. Stolzman was a friend of M. Mazzini," said Mr. Duncombe, "and this was why his letters had been tampered with." After describing the way in which letters were opened, he concluded a most powerful speech by again moving for a committee of inquiry. He did not want to know Government secrets; he doubted if they were worth knowing; but he wanted inquiry into the practice of the Department, which he contended was unconstitutional and contrary to law. Sir James Graham, without entering into any further explanation, except saying that the law had not been violated, and that if it had, the honourable member might prove it before a legal tribunal, objected strongly, and in almost a defiant manner, to any committee. Mr. Macaulay, Lord Howick, Mr. Sheil, and Lord John Russell warmly supported the motion for an inquiry. Sir Robert Peel, Lord Stanley, and Mr. Monckton Milnes opposed it, when it was rejected by a majority of forty-four. What party speeches failed in doing, the clamour and popular tumult outside at length accomplished. Popular ridicule settled upon the subject; pencil and pen set to work upon it with a will. Newspapers were unusually, and sometimes unreasonably, free in their comments, and all kinds of stories about the Post-Office went the round of the press. Sir James Graham had to bear the brunt of the whole business; whereas the entire Cabinet, but especially Lord Aberdeen, the Foreign Secretary, ought equally to have shared the opprobrium. As it was, the bearing of the Home Secretary in the House of Commons was singularly unwise and unadroit. The subject had now come to be regarded as of too great public importance to be suffered to rest; besides, it was an attractive one for the Opposition side of the House. Mr. Duncombe renewed his motion towards the end of July in the same session. It was in a slightly altered form, inasmuch as he now moved for a select committee "to inquire into a department of Her Majesty's Post-Office commonly called 'the secret or inner office,' the duties and employment of the persons engaged therein, and the authority under which the functions of the said office were discharged." Mr. Duncombe made some startling statements as to the mode and extent of the practice of letter-opening, all of which he declared he could prove if the committee was granted. The Government saw the necessity of giving way, in order that the public mind might be quieted. The Home Secretary now acknowledged, that since he was last questioned on the subject, the matter had assumed a very serious aspect, and he thought it was time that the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, should be told. Though he would have readily endured the obloquy cast upon him, even though it should crush him, rather than injure the public service; and though he had endured much, especially after the votes and speeches of the Opposition leaders—all men conversant with official duties—in favour of Mr. Duncombe's former motions, he now felt himself relieved from his late reserve, and felt bound to confess that he believed it to be impossible to maintain the power confided to him longer without a full inquiry. He would now not only consent to the committee, but would desire that it should make the fullest possible inquiry, and he would promise on his part, not only to state all he knew, but lend all the resources of his Department to attain that object. In accordance with this determination, he proposed that the Committee should be a secret one, invested with the amplest powers to commence the investigation at once, and should be composed of five usually voting against the Government, viz. Sir C. Lemon, Mr. Warburton, Mr. Strutt, Mr. Orde, and the O'Connor Don; and four who generally support them, viz. Lord Sandon (chairman), Mr. T. Baring, Sir W. Heathcote, and Mr. H. Drummond. "To this committee," said Sir James, "I gladly submit my personal honour and my official conduct, and I make my submission without fear." The committee was appointed after Mr. Wilson Patten's name had been substituted for Mr. Drummond's, on account of the latter being a lawyer; and after an unsuccessful attempt to add Mr. Duncombe's name, which was rejected by 128 to 52. Its object was "to inquire into the state of the law with respect to the detaining of letters in the General Post-Office, and to the mode in which that power had been exercised, and that the Committee should have power to send for persons, papers, and records, and to report the result of their inquiry to the House." A Committee of the House of Lords was appointed at the same time. Sir James Graham's examination lasted four days, when he fulfilled his pledge to make a full and unreserved disclosure of all he knew. Almost all the members of that and former Governments were examined. Lord John Russell confessed to having done the same as Sir James Graham when he held the seals of the Home-Office, though he had not used the power so frequently. He also stated that he supported Mr. Duncombe in his previous motions for inquiry, because he thought it necessary that the public should have the information asked for. Lord Normanby had used the power in Ireland for detecting "low ribbonism, which could not be ferretted out by other means." Lord Tankerville testified to the existence of a warrant signed by Mr. Fox in 1782, ordering the detention and opening of all letters addressed to foreign ministers; another, ordering that all the letters addressed to Lord George Gordon should be opened. Witnesses were also brought from the Post-Office. Mr. Duncombe, on being asked for a list of witnesses to prove his allegations, refused to hand in their names unless he were allowed to be present during the examination. This the Committee had no power to grant, and consequently he declined to proceed. Mr. Duncombe appealed to the House, but the decision of the Committee was confirmed.

No inconsiderable part of the Committee's time was taken up in the production and examination of records, acts, and precedents bearing on the subject. The officers of the State Paper Office and other high Government functionaries produced records and State papers of great importance, from which we learn many interesting particulars of early postal history. At some risk of being charged with anachronism, we have thought it desirable to introduce these details in the order of the subject under treatment.

James I. in establishing a foreign post, was more anxious that Government secrets should not be disclosed to foreign countries, "which cannot be prevented if a promiscuous use of transmitting foreign letters and packets should be suffered," than that the post should be of use to traders and merchants. There was a motive for the jealous monopoly of postal communications; and if the proclamation from which the above is taken (Rymer's Fœdera) is not clear on the subject, the following extract from a letter written by the one of James's secretaries to the other, Lord Conway, is sufficiently explicit: "Your Lordship best knoweth what account we shall be able to give in our place in Parliament of that which passeth by letters in and out of the land, if every man may convey letters as he chooseth." Sir John Coke, the writer of the above, would seem to have got rid of the difficulty in a thorough manner, if we may believe an English letter-writer addressing a friend in Scotland, when he wrote, "I hear the posts are waylaid, and all letters taken from them and brought to Secretary Coke."[118]

During the Commonwealth, of course, letter-opening was to be expected. The very reason which Cromwell gave for establishing the posts was, that they would be "the best means of discovering and preventing many wicked designs against the Commonwealth, intelligence whereof cannot well be communicated but by letter of escript." Foreign and home letters shared an equal fate. On one occasion, the Venetian ambassador remonstrated openly that his letters had been delayed and read, and it was not denied. At the Restoration, a distinct clause in the "Post-Office Charter" provided that "no one, except under the immediate warrant of one of our principal Secretaries of State, shall presume to open any letters or pacquets not directed unto themselves."

Under the improved Act of Queen Anne, 1711, it is again stated that "no person or persons shall presume to open, detain, or delay any letter or letters, after the same is or shall be delivered into the General or other Post-Office, and before delivery to the persons to whom they are addressed, except by an express warrant in writing under the hand of one of the principal Secretaries of State for every such opening, detaining, or delaying." This Act was continued under all the Georges, and again agreed to in 1837, under 1 Vict. c. 32.

During the last century, the practice of granting warrants was exceedingly common; and they might be had on the most trivial pretences. It was not the practice to record such warrants regularly in any official book,[119] and few are so recorded: we can only guess at their number from the frequent mention made of them in the State trials of the period, and in other incidental ways. In 1723, at Bishop Atterbury's trial, copies of his letters were produced and given in evidence against him. A clerk from the Post-Office certified to the fact that they had passed through the post, and that he had seen them opened, read, and copied. Atterbury, as well he might, asked for the authority for this practice; and, especially, if the Secretary of State had directed that his letters should be interfered with? A majority in the House of Lords decided that the question need not be answered. It is pleasant to relate that twenty-nine peers recorded an indignant protest against this decision. One of them proposed to cross-examine the Rev. (!) Edward Willes, "one of His Majesty's Post-Office decipherers," but the majority going to a still greater length, resolved: "That it is the opinion of this House that it is not consistent with the public safety to ask the decipherers any questions which may tend to discover the art or mystery of deciphering."[120] Again, at the trial of Horne Tooke for high treason in 1795, a letter written to him by Mr. Joyce, a printer, was intercepted at the Post-Office, and was stated by the prisoner to be the immediate occasion of his apprehension. On his requiring its production, a duly certified copy was brought into Court by the Crown officers and given in evidence.

Twelve years after the trial of Bishop Atterbury, members of both Houses became alarmed for the safety of their correspondence, and succeeded in getting up an agitation on the subject. Several members of the House of Commons complained that their letters had been opened. Revelations were made at this time which remind us strongly of the episode of 1844, both discussions resulting in a parliamentary committee of inquiry. It was stated in the debate of 1735, that the liberty which the Act gave "could serve no purpose but to enable the idle clerks about the office to pry into the private affairs of every merchant and gentleman in the kingdom."[121] It transpired on this occasion that a regular organization existed, at enormous expense, for the examination of home and foreign correspondence. The Secretary of the Post-Office stated that the greater part of 45,000l. had been paid, without voucher of any kind, to Robert, Earl of Oxford, for defraying the expenses of this establishment. Among the principal annual expenses were the salaries of the chief decipherers[122] (Dr. Willes and his son), 1,000l.; the second decipherer, 800l.; the third, 500l.; four clerks, 1,600l.; doorkeeper, 50l.; incidental charges, but principally for seals, 100l. The result of the inquiry was, that the Committee condemned the practice, and the House declared that it was a breach of privilege on the part of the Government to use the power except in the exact manner described in the statute.

Whether any real improvement took place may best be judged by the following circumstances. Walpole, who doubtless carried his prerogative in those matters beyond any two Secretaries of State we could mention, lent his ear to both public and private applications alike, issuing warrants even to further cases of private tyranny. In the Report of the Secret Committee, p. 12, we find that a warrant is granted, in 1741, for what purpose may be judged by the following: "At the request of A, a warrant is issued to permit A's eldest son to open and inspect any letters which A's youngest son might write to two females, one of which that youngest son had imprudently married." And this inquisitorial spirit beginning with the highest, descended even to the lowest class of officials. A writer in the Encyclopædia Britannica, vol. xviii. p. 405 (quoting from the State Trials, vol. xviii. p. 1369), tells us, in relation to this subject, that so little attention was paid to the requirements of the Act of Queen Anne, or the Committee of the House of Commons just referred to, the very bellmen took to scrutinizing the letters given them for their bags. One of those functionaries was examined at the trial of Dr. Hensey in 1758, and deposed as follows: "When I have got all my letters together I carry them home and sort them. In sorting them I observed that the letters I received of Dr. Hensey were generally directed abroad and to foreigners; and I, knowing the Doctor to be a Roman Catholic, advised the examining-clerk at the office to inspect his letters." This witness, in answer to the questions, "How came you to know Dr. Hensey to be a Roman Catholic?" and "What had you to do with his religion?" clinched his evidence thus: "We letter-carriers and postmen have great opportunities to know the characters and dispositions of gentlemen, from their servants, connexions, and correspondents. But, to be plain, if I once learn that a person who lives a genteel life is a Roman Catholic, I immediately look upon him as one who, by education and principle, is an inveterate enemy to my King and country."

At the beginning of the present century an improvement was carried out. It was seen that the indiscriminate issue of the warrants was stimulated and fostered by the fact that no account was kept of them. As a means of placing a necessary check upon the officers, Lord Spencer, then Home Secretary, introduced the custom in 1806, of recording the dates of all warrants granted, and the purposes for which they were issued. Since the year 1822, the whole of the warrants themselves have been preserved at the Home Office. In comparing the number of warrants issued by different Home Secretaries during the present century, we find that Sir James Graham enjoys the unenviable notoriety of having granted the greatest number, though the fact is partly explained by the commotion which the Chartists made in the north of England, 1842-3.

The revelations made in the two Committees with reference to foreign correspondence, especially that of foreign Ministers accredited at the English Court, were very remarkable, and not likely to induce confidence in our postal arrangements on the part of other powers. It was shown that in times of war whole foreign mails had been known to have been detained, and the letters almost individually examined. The Lords' Committee went so far as to say it was clear, "that it had been for a long period of time and under successive administrations, up to the present time, an established practice that the foreign correspondence of foreign Ministers passing through the General Post-Office should be sent to a department of the Foreign Office, before the forwarding of such correspondence, according to the address." What the feelings of foreign Governments were at this revelation may well be imagined. They would know, of course, that the English Government, hundreds of years ago, had not scrupled to lay violent hands on the letters of their representatives, if by any possibility they could get hold of them. When Wolsey, for example, wanted possession of the letters of the ambassadors of Charles V. he went to work very openly, having ordered "a watche should be made" in and about London, and all persons going en route to the Continent to be questioned and searched. "One riding towards Brayneford," says an early record, "when examyned by the watche, answered so closely, that upon suspicion thereof, they searched hym, and found secretly hyd aboute hym a pacquet of letters in French." In the reign of Queen Mary, Gardiner ordered that the messengers of Noailles, the French ambassador, should be taken and searched in much the same manner.[123] Notwithstanding this, they would scarcely be prepared for the information that later Governments, with less to fear, had preferred more secret measures, establishing a system of espionage which was certainly not in accordance with the English character, or likely to subserve the interests of peace in Europe. That the arrangement with regard to foreign mails was unlawful, may be judged by the prompt action which was taken in the matter. "Since June, 1844, the Postmaster-General," so runs the Lords' Report two months later, "having had his attention called to the fact, that there was no sufficient authority for this practice, has discontinued it altogether."

The Commons' Committee reported that the letter-opening warrants might be divided into two classes—(1) Those issued in furtherance of criminal justice, usually for the purpose of affording some clue to the hiding-place of an offender, or to the mode or place of concealment of property. (2) Those issued for the purpose of discovering the designs of persons known or suspected to be engaged in proceedings dangerous to the State, or deeply involving British interests, from being carried on in the United Kingdom. In the case of both classes of warrants, the mode of proceeding was nearly similar. The first were issued on the application of the law-officers; the principal Secretary of State himself determined when to issue the latter. No record was kept of the grounds on which the second class of warrants were issued. "The letters which have been detained and opened are," according to the Committee,[124] "unless retained by special order, as sometimes happens in criminal cases, closed and re-sealed without affixing any mark to indicate that they have been so detained and opened, and are forwarded by post according to their respective superscriptions." They then classed the warrants issued during the present century in the following way:—For thefts, murders, and frauds, 162; for treason and sedition, 77; foreign correspondence, 20; prisoners of war, 13; miscellaneous, 11; and for uncertain purposes, 89. Undoubtedly, with one class of letters, the Government were only performing a duty in applying the law as laid down in 1 Vict. c. 33. The information obtained by the warrants to find the locale of Chartist disaffection was described by the Committee as most valuable and useful to the Government. While the whole history of the transaction in question grates unpleasantly on English ears, there can be no doubt that in other cases—such as frauds on the banks and revenue, forgeries, murders, &c.—the power was used impartially to the advantage of individuals and the benefit of the State. Whether, however, the discoveries and the benefits were so many as to counterbalance the odium of countenancing what was so like a public crime, and which violated public confidence in the Post-Office, or whether the issue of a few warrants annually, in proportion to the 40,000 committals[125] which took place yearly at that time, could by any means be called an efficient instrument of police, are vastly different questions. With regard to the general question of letter-opening, the issue was altogether vague and uncertain. Though the practical end of the inquiry was, no doubt, gained, and warrants may almost be said to have ceased, still the Committees recommended Parliament to decide that the power and prerogative of opening letters, under certain given circumstances, should not be abrogated. They argued that, if the right of the Secretary of State was denied, it would be equivalent to advertising to every criminal conspirator against the public peace, that he might employ the Post-Office with impunity.[126] It was decided, in consequence of this finding, that the law should remain unaltered.

Mr. Duncombe was not satisfied. In the next session he attempted to revive the subject by calling the attention of the House to what he termed the evasive and unsatisfactory character of the report of the Secret Committee, and moving the appointment of a Select Committee to investigate the whole subject over again; but he met with little success. Sir J. Graham, Sir. R. Peel, Viscount Sandon, Mr. Warburton, Mr. Ward, and Lord John Manners, spoke against his motion, which he then withdrew. Upon this, Lord Howick tried to carry a resolution for the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the case of Mr. Duncombe's letters only. Mr. Disraeli seconded the motion, desiring not to have the Government censured, but to see the practice condemned. Mr. Roebuck believed that the country would not be content until the invidious power intrusted to the Secretary of State respecting letter-opening was absolutely abolished. Lord John Russell spoke against the motion, which was negatived by 240 to 145 members.[127] A few days later Mr. Duncombe renewed his attack in another form, moving that Colonel Maberly, Secretary to the Post-Office, should attend at the bar and produce certain books connected with his office. The Home Secretary resisted the motion, grounding his objection on the reports of the Committees and the necessities of the public service. Lord John Russell and a great number of the Liberal party concurring in this view, the motion was again rejected by 188 to 113.[128] For some weeks the subject was not again noticed in Parliament, and probably would have dropped; but it was a theme on which the Press could not be induced to be silent. Fresh events occurring in Italy, owing, it was said, to the past action of the English Government at the Post-Office, Mr. Sheil gave notice of a resolution, which he moved on the 1st of April, 1845, expressing regret that Government had opened the letters of M. Mazzini, thus frustrating the political movement in Italy. Few members, however, showed any desire to prolong a desultory debate, and thirty-eight only were found willing to affirm Mr. Sheil's proposition. Mr. Wakley, a day or two afterwards, tried to revive the same discussion, but a motion which he made was negatived by three to one. On the 8th of April, 1845, Mr. Duncombe, while intimating his desire to waive personal questions, and disclaiming all party feeling, moved for leave to bring in a Bill "to secure the inviolability of letters passing through the Post-Office." He was at war with the system, not with the Government. Let the Government approach the subject in a fair and not in a party spirit. All the Ministers, however, and the chiefs of the Liberal party, again stoutly resisted any change in the law; and this long controversy was finally set at rest by an adverse decision of 161 to 78.

The English people, it must be added, all along objected less to the power which the Government possessed in the exertion of their discretion, than to the manner in which that power was exercised. Mr. Duncombe's statements during the earlier stages of the discussions, relating to the "secret office"—never denied—could not be forgotten by the public when they intrusted their letters to the custody of the Post-Office. The revelations in question caused a perfect paroxysm of national anger, because it was felt, throughout the length and breadth of the land, that such arrangements were repugnant to every feeling of Englishmen. Had the officers of the Government broken open letters in the same way as, under certain circumstances, the law allows the sheriff's officers to break open houses and writing-desks, there might still have been complainings, but these complainings would neither have been so loud nor yet so justifiable.[129] There was something in the melting apparatus, in the tobacco-pipe, in the forged plaster of paris seals, in the official letter-picker, and in the place where, and manner how, he did his work, utterly disgusting to John Bull, and most unsuitable to the atmosphere of England. The law, it is true, remains unaltered, but it is believed to be virtually a dead letter.

CHAPTER X.
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE POST-OFFICE.

From the year 1844 to the present time the progress of the Post-Office institution has been great and unexampled. Among Mr. Hill's minor proposals were those for the institution of day-mails, the establishment of rural posts, and the extension of free deliveries. The period between the passing of the Penny Postage Act and the year 1850 saw these useful suggestions carried out to an extent which proved highly beneficial to the public. With regard to the day-mails, Mr. Hill proposed that on the morning of each day, as well as evenings, mails should leave London after certain country and continental mails had arrived, by which means letters, instead of remaining nearly twenty-four hours in London, might be at once forwarded to their addresses, and two mails per diem be thus given to most English towns. The Earl of Lichfield would seem to have seen the useful and practicable nature of these proposals, for, being Postmaster-General at the time, he did not wait to adopt them till the passing of the Act of 1839. As early as 1838 one or two day-mails were established, running out of London. Before 1850 we find the list included those of Dover, Southampton, Bristol, Birmingham, and Cambridge. These day-mails are now established on every considerable line of railway in the kingdom. London, in 1864, possesses not only day-mails on all the lines running from the metropolis, but one to Ireland, and two by different routes into Scotland. Further, a great number of railways in the United Kingdom have stipulated to take mails by any passenger-train.

Mr. Hill also contemplated the establishment of rural posts in every village. In 1840, the number of village post-offices was about 3,000. At that time nothing but "guarantee posts"—by means of which parties in the country might obtain additional accommodation on their consenting to bear the whole additional expense—were granted to new localities. Mr. Hill urged upon the Post-Office authorities the abandonment of this plan, and the gradual establishment of ordinary post-offices. He calculated that an annual outlay of 70,000l. would suffice to give 600 additional daily posts to neglected districts, and he pledged his word that the outlay would be remunerative. There are now more than 8,000 additional rural post-offices, the erection of which has done all for the public and the Post-Office revenue that Mr. Hill anticipated.

The extension of free deliveries, also strongly urged by Mr. Hill, has progressed fairly from that time to this. Round each provincial town there used to be drawn a cordon, letters, &c. for places beyond which had either to be brought by private messenger, or were charged an extra sum on delivery as a gratuity to the postmaster. From year to year new places have been included in these free deliveries; soon the most remote and inaccessible parts of our country—the nooks and crannies of our land—will enjoy nearly equal privileges with our large towns, more rural messengers being appointed as this work approaches completion.

In 1848, the advantages of a book-post were granted to the country. By the new rate, a single volume might be sent to any part of the United Kingdom at the uniform rate of sixpence per pound. The privileges of this book-post were gradually extended to the colonies. The railway companies, at the time and subsequently, complained loudly that the Post-Office, by establishing the book-post, had entered into an unfair competition with them. This competition was described as very injurious, on account of the low rates at which books and book-packets were conveyed. It was answered, however—and in this answer the country very generally agreed—that the railway companies had no legal or equitable right to the monopoly of parcel-traffic; and if they had, the exceptions taken in the case of the book-post were only to books and printed matter intimately connected with objects such as the diffusion of knowledge and the promotion of education—matters with which the Post-Office was now most immediately concerned. The facts, however, were, that very few indeed of the packets sent by the book-post were such as had been previously sent by railway. The Post-Office, by offering its vast machinery for the transmission of such articles, especially to remote districts, gave facilities which had never before been offered, and which caused books and documents to pass through the Post-Office which otherwise, had no book-post existed, would not have been sent through any other channel. A Select Committee, which sat in 1854, on the conveyance of mails by railway, took evidence on this point, and in their report stated it as their opinion, that a large proportion of the packets sent would not have been so forwarded but for the facilities offered by the Post-Office in their distribution.

Any loss, however, which the railways might experience in this respect was more than counterbalanced when the Executive abolished the compulsory impressed stamp on newspapers, this arrangement giving rise to a conveyance of newspaper-parcels by railway-trains to an enormous extent, and proportionately lessening the work and profits of the Post-Office.

The year 1849 is principally remarkable for the agitation which existed with respect to Sunday labour at the General Post-Office. Previous to this year no work was allowed in the London establishment, but now an arrangement was proposed to receive the mails as on other days, officers attending, though not during the period of Divine service, to assort and dispose of the letters received. Public meetings were held in London and many of the principal towns to protest against any increase of the Post-Office work. Public opinion in the metropolis was pretty unanimous against any change; in the provinces it was more divided. The authorities gave way before the force of opinion, and the London office has remained closed ever since on the first day of the week. In the country different arrangements are made. In Scotland, and in one or two English towns, no letter-delivery takes place from house to house, a short time only being allowed for the public to apply for their letters at the post-office windows. In the majority of English towns the early morning delivery only is made. The day-mails, as a rule, do not run on Sundays. The post-offices in the major part of our English and Scotch villages are entirely closed on Sundays.

Wires having been laid down to St. Martin's-le-Grand from the different railway stations, telegraph messages were first used to expedite post-office business on the 31st of August, 1849. All important matters, such as bag or registered letter irregularities, requiring prompt notice, are made known or explained through the medium of the electric telegraph.

Commissioners were appointed from about this year to secure the services of railways on the most equitable terms, and to arbitrate for that purpose between the Post-Office and the railway companies. The Committee, on the conveyance of mails by railways, suggested this course. On the debate which followed the report of the Committee to which we have before alluded, Sir Robert Peel frankly acknowledged "the enormous error" into which he, and the House generally "had fallen when the railroad bills were under discussion. They ought to have foreseen," said he, "when these bills were before them, that they were in fact establishing a monopoly, a monopoly in respect to which there could be no future condition. They ought to have foreseen that, if the railroads were successful, other modes of internal communication would almost necessarily fall into disuse, and they ought, therefore, to have stipulated—as it would have been perfectly just and easy for them to have done—that certain public services should be performed at a reasonable rate." However, as this had not been done, Parliament could only fall back upon its inherent right to say on what terms such services should be provided from time to time; for which purpose they could not do better than employ arbitration, as it was the same course pursued when the companies disputed with the owners of property the value of land compulsorily taken for railway works. Sir James Graham[130] moved a declaratory clause on the occasion, that arbitrators should take into consideration the cost of the construction of the particular lines in awarding the sums for different services. Mr. Labouchere, the Vice-President of the Board of Trade, speaking for the Government, wished the arbitrators to be wholly free, but he gave a pledge on behalf of the Post-Office that no attempt would be made to exclude the cost of construction from the consideration of the arbitrators. With this assurance, the Opposition expressed themselves satisfied.

In 1855, the Postmaster-General, the late Lord Canning, commenced the practice of furnishing the Lords of the Treasury, and through them the public, with annual reports on the Post-Office. These reports, which have been continued up to the present time, show the progress of the Department from year to year, and present to the general reader, as well as to the statistician, a vast mass of interesting information. Compared with the reports of the Committee of Revenue Inquiry or of the Commissioners of Post-Office Inquiry, they are lucid and interesting in their nature. Though constructed on the same plan and little varied from year to year, they are much above the ordinary run of official documents. Lord Canning, in recommending the adoption of the plan, gave as one reason among many, that the Post-Office service was constantly expanding and improving, but that information respecting postal matters, especially postal changes, was not easily accessible. This information, he believed, could be given without any inconvenience, whilst many misapprehensions, and possibly complaints, might be avoided. The public might thus see what the Post-Office was about; learn their duty towards the Department, and find out—what half the people did not then and perhaps do not even yet understand—what were the benefits and privileges to which they were justly entitled at its hands.

The Duke of Argyll succeeded Lord Canning in the management of the Post-Office in 1855, and his years of office are distinguished by many most important improvements and reforms. One important change consisted in the amalgamation of the two corps of London letter-carriers, effected soon after the installation of the Duke of Argyll at the Post-Office. The two classes of "General Post" and "London District" letter-carriers were perhaps best known before 1855, by the former wearing a red, and the latter a blue, uniform. The object of this amalgamation, for which Mr. Hill had been sedulously striving from the period of penny postage, was to avoid the waste of time, trouble, and expense consequent on two different men going over the same ground to distribute two classes of letters which might, without any real difficulty, be delivered together. The greatest objection in the Post-Office itself to completing the change, arose from the different status of the two bodies of men, the one class being paid at a much higher rate of wages and with better prospects than the other class. This difficulty was at length surmounted, when the benefits of this minor reform became clearly apparent in earlier and more regular deliveries of letters. Inside the Post-Office the work was made much more easy and simple, and the gross inequality existing between two bodies of public servants whose duties were almost identical, was done away.[131]

Still more important was the division of London into ten postal districts, carried out during the year 1856. The immense magnitude of the metropolis necessitated this scheme; it having been found impossible to overcome the obstacles to a more speedy transmission of letters within and around London, or properly to manage without some change, the ever increasing amount of Post-Office business. Under the new arrangements, each district was to be treated in many respects as a separate town, district post-offices to be erected in each of them. Thus, instead of all district post-letters being carried from the receiving houses to the chief office at St. Martin's-le-Grand, there to be sorted and re-distributed, the letters must now be sent to the principal office of the district in which they were posted; sorted there; and distributed from that office according to their address. The time and trouble saved by this arrangement is, as was expected, enormous. Under the old system, a letter from Cavendish Square to Grosvenor Square went to the General Post-Office, was sorted, and then sent back to the latter place, travelling a distance of four or five miles: whereas, at present, with hourly deliveries, it is almost immediately sent from one place to the other.[132] An important part of the new scheme was, that London should be considered in the principal provincial post-offices as ten different towns, each with its own centre of operations, and that the letters should be assorted and despatched on this principle. Country letters would be delivered straightway—without any intermediate sorting—to that particular part of London for which they were destined; whilst the sorters there having the necessary local knowledge, would distribute them immediately into the postmen's walks. With respect to the smaller provincial towns, it was provided that their London correspondence should be sorted into districts on the railway during the journey to the metropolis. Thus, on the arrival of the different mails at the several railway termini, the letters would not be sent as formerly to the General Post-Office, but direct to each district office, in bags prepared in the course of the journey. It was a long time before this new and important plan was thoroughly carried out in all its details; but now that it is in working order, the result is very marked in the earlier delivery of letters, and in the time and labour saved in the various processes. In fact, all the anticipated benefits have flowed from the adoption of the measure.

In the same year a reduction was made in the rates for book-packets. The arrangement made at this time, which exists at present, charges one penny for every four ounces of printed matter; a book weighing one pound being charged fourpence. A condition annexed was, that every such packet should be open at the ends or sides, and if closed against inspection, should be liable to be charged at the unpaid letter rate of postage. This penalty was soon found to be unreasonably heavy and vexatious, and was therefore reduced to an additional charge of sixpence only. At the present time, the conditions under which such packets may be sent through the post are the same, but the fines inflicted for infringements are still further reduced.

In 1857, a new regulation provided that a book-packet might consist of any number of sheets, which might be either printed or written, provided there was nothing in it of the nature of a letter. If anything of the sort should be found in the packet on examination, it was to be taken out and forwarded separately as a letter, and charged twopence as a fine in addition to the postage at the letter rate. The packet might consist of books, manuscripts, maps, prints with rollers, or any literary or artistic matter, if not more than two feet wide, long, or deep.

In the same year, the letter-rate to all the British Colonies (which were not previously under the lower rates) was reduced to the uniform one of sixpence for each half-ounce, payable in advance. The privileges of the English book-post were also extended to the Colonies; the rate at which books &c. might be sent being threepence for every four ounces. Exceptions were made in respect to the following places, viz.—Ascension Island, East Indies, Hong Kong, Australia, New Zealand, and the Gold Coast, to which places the rate charged was fourpence for four ounces, the weight being restricted to three pounds.

Another important improvement was made when, about the same time, the postage on letters conveyed by private ship between this country and all parts of the world, was reduced to a uniform rate of sixpence the half-ounce.

Nor were these reforms the only results of the wise rule of the Duke of Argyll. Through his exertions, a postal convention was concluded with France, resulting not only in a considerable reduction of postage on letters passing between the two countries, but in the lowering of the rate to all European countries, letters for which went by way of France. An attempt was made to arrange a postal convention with the United States during the year 1857, but like so many previous ones, it came to nothing.

The Duke of Argyll is also favourably remembered in the metropolitan offices, for having granted—to the major establishment at any rate—the boon of a Saturday half-holiday.

But perhaps his Grace laboured most arduously to bring about a more satisfactory relation between the railway companies and the Post-Office. Since the advent of cheap postage, nothing had so much impeded the progressive development of the Post-Office, as the adverse attitude of the companies who must convey the mails, now that all other modes of conveyance had been virtually superseded by the power of steam. Although the Postmaster-General failed in this instance, he is none the less entitled to the gratitude of the country for his well-meant attempt to repair the mistake which the Executive originally made in not carefully providing for the public service. Few could say that the existing law was, and is, not defective. The gain to the Post-Office through railways is certainly enormous: besides the advantage of increased speed, they make it possible to get through the sorting and the carrying of the mails at the same time. But here the gain ends; and the cost for the service really done is heavy beyond all proportion. The cost of carrying mails by coaches averaged twopence farthing a mile; the average cost under railways is tenpence a mile, some railways charging nearly five shillings per mile for the service they render. The cost of running a train may be reckoned, in most cases, at fifteen pence per mile; and thus the Post-Office, for the use of a fraction of a train, may be said constantly to be paying at the rate of from sixty to three hundred per cent. in excess of the whole cost of running! The Postmaster-General stated that the terms upon which one railway company would undertake postal service was totally disproportionate to those of a neighbouring company. On the other hand, all the companies were alike dissatisfied, however dissimilar the contracts, or the terms imposed and agreed to.[133] Moreover, it was declared next to impossible to secure regularity and punctuality in the conveyance of mails, and to agree to amicable arbitration for the services which were done, until the Legislature should lay down reasonable laws, binding all the companies alike. A Bill was introduced into the House of Lords regulating the arrangements between the Post-Office and the different companies. Though it was carefully prepared, it was strongly opposed by the railway interest in Parliament. The opposition was all the more unreasonable, inasmuch as many of its clauses sought to remove objections to the existing law which railway companies had frequently complained of. As far as the Post-Office was concerned, it seems to have been the extent of the wish of the authorities that the question of remuneration might be based on the actual cost of running the trains, making due allowance, on the one hand, for the benefits accruing to the companies from their connexion with the mail service, and adding, on the other hand, compensation for any special extra expenses to which the companies might be subjected by the requirements of that service, together with a full allowance for profit.[134] The Bill also provided for the more extensive employment of ordinary passenger trains,—not, however, to the supercession of the regular mail-trains—for the exclusive employment of certain trains for postal purposes, for penalties, &c. The measure had been brought in late in the session, and was eventually withdrawn. The Bill itself, with its twenty-one clauses, forms part of the Appendix to the Postmaster-General's fourth report; and as the basis of arrangements between the two interests is still unsettled and uncertain, the Duke of Argyll there commends it to the careful attention of the public, as well as to the fair consideration of the railway authorities themselves.

In 1858, on the accession of Lord Derby to power, Lord Colchester was appointed to the Post-Office without a seat in the Cabinet. Improvements continued during his short administration, both as regards inland, foreign, and colonial postages; but nothing calls for special mention here except an attempt on the part of the Post-Office to render the payment of inland letters compulsory. The plan cannot be said to have had a fair trial. Its benefits and advantages were not clearly apparent, except to those who were acquainted with the machinery of the Post-Office. While, without doubt, the principles upon which it was based were sound, the objections to the arrangement lay on the surface, and were such as could not be overcome except by the exercise of great patience on the part of the public: the measure pressed heavily on certain interests: a great portion of the less thoughtful organs of the public press manifested considerable repugnance to it, and, in consequence, the Postmaster-General was led to recommend to the Treasury the withdrawal of the order after the expiration of a few weeks of partial trial. As pointed out by Mr. Hill at the time, compulsory prepayment of letters was a part of the original plan of penny postage; it was one of the recommendations which he made having for their object the simplification of accounts, and the more speedy delivery of letters. The Secretary of the Post-Office in urging a fair trial of the measure,[135] argued that after the lapse of a few months it would be productive of good even to letter-writers, not to speak of the saving of time, trouble, and expense to the Department. He very truly added that there were no difficulties attributable to the new rule which might not be surmounted by a little care or ingenuity. As it was, the public preferred an immediate termination of the experiment to the possible and problematical advantages that might arise from its continuance; and in this instance the country was indulged by an early return to the old plan.

In the following year, Lord Colchester was succeeded by the late Earl of Elgin as Postmaster-General, with a seat in Lord Palmerston's Cabinet. When Lord Elgin was sent on the special mission to the East in 1860, the Duke of Argyll held the joint offices of Lord Privy Seal and Postmaster-General until a permanent successor was appointed in the person of Lord Stanley of Alderley, who now (March, 1864) holds the office.

In 1859, the Money-order Office in London, and the money-order system generally, were remodelled. By a process meant to simplify the accounts, and other judicious alterations, a saving of 4,000l. a-year was effected, while the public were benefited by some concessions that had been much desired, such as the granting of money-orders up to the amount of 10l. instead of 5l. The money-order system was likewise extended to the colonies, the first connexion of the kind having been opened with Canada and our European possessions of Gibraltar and Malta. It has subsequently been extended to the principal British colonies, including the whole of Australia.

Important improvements were also made in the department charged with the transmission of mails. Several accelerations—in one case a most important one—were made in the speed of the principal mail-trains; the number of travelling post-offices was increased; the construction of the whole of them was improved; and the apparatus-machinery, attached to the carriages for the exchange of mail-bags at those stations where the mail-trains do not stop, was called more and more into requisition.

Under the Earl of Elgin, the British Post-Office endeavoured to form conventions with foreign countries, the object in all cases being the increase of postal facilities. In the case of Spain and Portugal, the authorities seem to have been successful, and partially so with the German Postal Union. An attempt to renew negotiations with the United States calls for mention here. The advocates of ocean penny postage (of which so much was heard some years previously—not only a desirable, but a practicable scheme) may thus obtain some idea of the difficulty of coming to any reasonable arrangement between the two countries. We have already stated that a former Postmaster-General urged upon the Government of the United States the necessity of reduction in the rates of postage of letters circulating from one country to the other, but was unsuccessful at the time.[136] In 1859, the Postmaster-General of the United States (Mr. Holt) communicated to the English Department his concurrence in the principle of a reduction in the postage of British letters from twenty-four to twelve cents, providing that England would give America the lion's share of the proposed postage! The United States' Government would agree to the change provided the new rate be apportioned as follows, viz.:—

The Earl of Elgin objected to this proposal as not equitable. He argued, with perfect truth and fairness, that each country ought to be remunerated according to the value of the service it rendered, and that, whether the inland service was considered (where the three items of collection, conveyance,[137] and delivery must be taken into account), or the sea service (undoubtedly better worked and regulated with us than in America), this country had a fair claim to a larger share of postage than the United States. As, however, an unrestricted intercourse between the two countries was far more important than a nice adjustment in the revision of the postage, the English Postmaster-General would only press for equality, and proposed the following division:—

In the event of the American Government not being prepared to agree, Lord Elgin proposed that a disinterested third party should be called in, to whom the whole matter might be amicably referred. To this communication no answer whatever was returned, and the English Department had to wait until the next report of the United States Post-Office was published, in order to ascertain how the proposals had been received. It was found that Mr. Holt here complained that a reasonable offer that he had made to England had been declined there, "and for reasons so unsatisfactory, that for the present no disposition is felt to pursue the matter further." It is sincerely to be regretted that this great improvement, which would have been gladly hailed by thousands on both sides of the Atlantic, should have been so arrested, and especially that the United States' Government should have been deaf to the proposition to send the matter to arbitrament. Unquestionably, the present results, as well as the responsibility of future exertion, lies at the door of the United States; and it is to be hoped that, in justice to the thousands whom the Americans have eagerly invited to populate their country—not to mention other considerations—they will soon renew their efforts to obtain the boon of a sixpenny postage, and be prepared to meet the mother-country on reasonable grounds with equal terms.

The postal service with Ireland being considered deficient, so much so, that frequent mention was made of the subject in the House of Commons, a new and special service was brought into operation on the 1st of October, 1860. Night and day mail-trains have, on and from that date, been run specially from Euston Square Station to Holyhead, and special mail-steamers employed, at enormous expense, to cross the Channel. Letter-sorting is carried on not only in the trains, but on board the packets; nearly all the Post-Office work, including the preparation of the letters for immediate delivery at London and Dublin respectively, being accomplished on the journey between London and Dublin, and vice versâ—a journey which is now accomplished in about twelve hours. By means of this new service, a great saving of time is also effected on the arrival and departure of most of the American and Canadian mails. It cannot but be interesting to the reader who may have followed us as we have endeavoured to trace the progress of post communication in this country, to know how much is really possible under the improved facilities of our own day. A better instance could not be afforded than that occurring at the beginning of the year 1862, when the important news on which depended peace or war was hourly expected from the United States. Before the packet was due, the Inspector-General of Mails took steps to expedite the new Irish mail service, to the greatest possible extent, in its passage from Queenstown to London, and the result is so clearly and accurately given in the Times of the 8th of January, 1862, that we cannot do better than quote the account entire:—

"The arrangements for expressing the American mails throughout from Queenstown to London, which we described as being so successfully executed with the mails brought by the Africa last week, have been repeated with still more satisfactory results in the case of the mails brought by the Europa. These results are so exceptional that we record them in detail. The Europa arrived off Queenstown, about five miles from the pier, at 9 P.M. on Monday night. Her mails and the despatches from Lord Lyons were placed on board the small tender in waiting, and arrived at the Queenstown Pier at 10.5 P.M., at which point they were transferred to an express steamboat for conveyance by river to Cork. Leaving Queenstown Pier at 10.10 P.M., they arrived alongside the quay at Cork at 11.15 P.M. and thirteen minutes afterwards the special train left the Cork station for Dublin, accomplishing the journey to Dublin (166 miles) in four hours and three minutes, i. e. at a speed of about 41 miles an hour, including stoppage. The transmission through the streets between the railway termini in Dublin and by special train to Kingstown occupied only thirty-six minutes, and in four minutes more the special mail-boat Ulster was on her way to Holyhead. The distance across the Irish Channel, about sixty-six statute miles, was performed by the Ulster, against a contrary tide and heavy sea, in three hours and forty-seven minutes, giving a speed of about seventeen and a half miles an hour. The special train, which had been in waiting for about forty-eight hours, left the Holyhead Station at 8.13 A.M., and it was from this point that the most remarkable part of this rapid express commenced. The run from Holyhead to Stafford, 130½ miles, occupied only 145 minutes, being at the rate of no less than fifty-four miles an hour; and although so high a speed was judiciously not attempted over the more crowded portion of the line from Stafford to London, the whole distance from Holyhead to Euston, 264 miles, was performed by the London and North-Western Company in exactly five hours, or at a speed of about 52⅔ miles an hour, a speed unparalleled over so long a line, crowded with ordinary traffic. The entire distance from Queenstown Pier to Euston Square, about 515 miles, was thus traversed in fifteen hours and three minutes, or at an average speed of about thirty-four and a quarter miles an hour, including all delays necessary for the several transfers of the mails from boat to railway, or vice versâ.... By means of the invention for supplying the tender with water from a trough in transitu, the engine was enabled to run its first stage of 130½ miles, from Holyhead to Stafford, without stopping."

During the session of 1860-1, an Act was passed through Parliament for the establishment of Post-Office Savings' Banks on a plan proposed by Mr. Sykes, of Huddersfield.

In order to encourage the registration of letters containing coin or valuable articles, the registration fee was reduced, in 1862, from 6d. to 4d. each letter. At the same time, the plan of compulsory registration of letters was revived, and applied to all letters passing through the London Office which contained, or were supposed to contain, coin. Last year the plan was found to have been so successful in its results, that it was extended to all inland letters. The public may judge of the benefits and blessings of this proscriptive measure—to the officers of the Post-Office at any rate—when we state that the convictions for letter-stealing, since the plan was fully adopted, have been reduced more than ninety per cent.