Treasury Chambers, Oct. 10, 1797.

My Lords—The Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury having had under their consideration a Report of the Select Committee of the House of Commons on Finance in the last session of Parliament respecting this office, I am commanded by their Lordships to acquaint you that they have determined that the practice of receiving New Year's gifts by any person in this department shall be discontinued, and that your Lordships may not send them as heretofore.—I am, my Lords, etc.,

George Rose.

The Post Office to the Treasury.


General Post Office, Jan. 13, 1798.

My Lords—We beg leave to acknowledge the receipt of Mr. Rose's letter of the 10th of October acquainting us of your Lordships' determination that the practice of receiving New Year's gifts by any person in your department must be discontinued, to which we shall pay proper attention.

It is necessary to state to your Lordships that Mr. Rose's letter, although dated the 10th of October 1797, was not brought to this office until the 1st of January 1798; but it was received in due time to enable us to attend to the purport of it.—We are, my Lords, etc.,

Chesterfield.
Leicester.

It is needless to add that hitherto these New Year's gifts had been despatched from the Post Office on the evening of the 31st of December.

Nine years had now passed since the Royal Commissioners had reported upon the condition of the public offices; and four years had passed since the Report had seen the light. Pitt had been deliberate enough in approving the recommendations; but having done so, he had no intention that they should remain inoperative. And yet he had little confidence that such would not be the case unless some external influence were brought to bear. Accordingly recourse was had to an expedient which might perhaps with advantage be sometimes adopted at the present day. At Pitt's instigation a Special Committee of the House of Commons was appointed to ascertain and report how far the recommendations of the Royal Commissioners had been carried into effect.

The Post Office, on the whole, came well out of the ordeal. Abuses had been corrected; useless offices had been abolished; and men were no longer drawing salaries for duties which they did not perform. There was, however, one notable exception. Todd, the secretary, had during many years ceased to do any work; yet he had not ceased to draw his full salary; neither had he ceased to retain his shares in at least one of the Post Office packets. The Committee denounced his conduct in terms which far exceeded the ordinary bounds of parliamentary usage. Their language indeed, as applied to a man of more than eighty years of age, might even be pronounced to be cruel. And yet scathing as the censure was, it fell upon callous ears. With a tenacity worthy of a better cause the old man still clung to his place and his shares. The postmasters-general now brought pressure to bear. As regards the shares, which Todd had held unknown to his masters, they insisted upon his selling them; but his place of secretary they were either unwilling or unable to wrest from his grasp.

Death at length put an end to the scandal. In June 1798 Todd yielded up at once his life and his office; and Francis Freeling, according to a long-standing promise, became Secretary to the Post Office in his stead.

CHAPTER XIV

FRANCIS FREELING
1798-1817

The name of Francis Freeling has been placed at the head of this chapter, not because, in devising new means of correspondence or extending means that already existed, he is to be classed with the distinguished men who preceded him—with Palmer and Allen, with Dockwra and Witherings—but because for more than a generation he exercised a paramount influence in Post Office matters, and during this long period whatever was done affecting the communications of the country was done upon his advice.