It is hereby certified that .................... has registered at this office a
sealed packet said to contain .................... addressed to ....................
which will be forwarded to .................... by the mail of this evening;
but for its safe conveyance this office is not responsible.
(Signature) ....................
[96] 7 and 8 George IV. cap. xxi.
[97] At the outset in 1792 the limit had indeed been fixed at £5:5s.; but even in the first year this limit was largely exceeded. During the three months ending the 10th of October 1800, 697 money orders were issued, viz. 220 in London and 477 in the country, representing an aggregate amount of £8863, or at the rate of more than £12 apiece.
[98] Among the records of the Post Office is still preserved a money order drawn by one postmaster upon another at the beginning of the century. A facsimile of it is given in the Appendix. [see facsimile]
[99] Five within a single year. The Duke of Richmond ceased to be postmaster-general in July 1834; and he was followed by Lord Conyngham, Lord Maryborough, Lord Conyngham a second time, and Lord Lichfield, the last of whom was appointed in May 1835.
[100] The Right Hon. Thomas Spring Rice.
[101] The concentration of the offices of Lord Treasurer and Postmaster-General in one person served to facilitate the transaction of Post Office business in a manner which those who have had experience of the present system will not be slow to understand. Take, for instance, the question of increasing a Post Office servant's salary. At the present time the Postmaster-General may be thoroughly convinced himself that an increase is called for, but—what is a very different matter—he has also to convince the Treasury. In 1686 the Postmaster-General's own conviction was enough. The following will serve as an illustration. Thomas Cale, Postmaster of Bristol, applies for an increase of salary, and Frowde, the Governor, satisfies Rochester that an increase will be proper. Forthwith issues a document, of which the operative part is as follows:—"You are therefore of opinion that the said salary (£50) is very small considering the expense the petitioner is att, and his extraordinary trouble, Bristoll being a greate Citty, but you say that you doe not think all the things he setts downe in the aforesaid accompt ought to be allowed him, the example being of very ill consequence, for (as you informe me) you doe not allow either candles, packthread, wax, ink, penns or paper to any of the Postmasters, nor office-rent, nor returnes of mony, you are therefore of opinion that tenn pounds per annum to his former salary of £50 will be a reasonable allowance, and the petitioner will be therewith satisfied, these are therefore to pray and require you" to raise his salary from £50 to £60 accordingly.
Rochester.
Whitehall Treasury Chambers, Dec. 13, 1686.