Mr. Davidson, of Glasgow, thought—
“That additional opportunities of correspondence would lead the industrious classes, the working-classes, to pay more attention to the education of their children than they do now, and that it would have a highly beneficial effect, both upon their moral and intellectual character.”[200]
So strong was the sense entertained by some of the witnesses of the evils inflicted on society by imposing a tax upon postage that they expressed their doubts whether it were a fit subject for taxation at all. Mr. Samuel Jones Loyd (now Lord Overstone), said:—
“I think if there be any one subject which ought not to have been selected as a subject of taxation it is that of intercommunication by post; and I would even go a step further, and say, that if there be any one thing which the Government ought, consistently with its great duties to the public, to do gratuitously, it is the carriage of letters. We build national galleries, and furnish them with pictures; we propose to create public walks, for the air and health and exercise of the community, at the general cost of the country. I do not think that either of those, useful and valuable as they are to the community, and fit as they are for Government to sanction, are more conducive to the moral and social advancement of the community than the facility of intercourse by post. I therefore greatly regret that the post was ever taken as a field for taxation, and should be very glad to find that, consistently with the general interests of the revenue, which the Government has to watch over, they can effect any reduction in the total amount so received, or any reduction in the charges, without diminishing the total amount.”[201]
Mr. (afterwards Sir William) Brown, and also Lord Ashburton, strongly supported this opinion, the latter saying:—
“The communication of letters by persons living at a distance is the same as a communication by word of mouth between persons living in the same town. You might as well tax words spoken upon the Royal Exchange, as the communications of various persons living in Manchester, Liverpool, and London. You cannot do it without checking very essentially the disposition to communicate.”[202]
I pause here in my narrative to bar an inference that might very naturally be drawn from my citing the above passages, viz., that in my opinion even the present rates constitute a tax, and may therefore be wisely and justly abandoned in favour of lower ones, or indeed of absolutely free conveyance. Certainly, if it could be shown that some other corporation could and would manage the whole correspondence, with all its numerous and extensive rootlets and ramifications, on lower terms than the Government, and this without any sacrifice in speed or certainty, then the difference between such lower rates and the present might fairly be termed a tax; but I am not aware that such capability has yet been conceived, still less seriously maintained; and indeed I cannot but believe that, taking the duty as a whole, the Post Office, so long as it is well managed, is likely to do the work on better terms than any rival institution.
Another opinion erroneously attributed to me, and connected with the above, is, that so long as the department thrives as a whole, its funds may justly be applied to maintain special services which do not repay their own cost; whereas, from the first, I have held that every division of the service should be at least self-supporting,[203] though I allowed that, for the sake of simplicity, extensions might be made where there was no immediate expectation of absolute profit.[204] All beyond this I have always regarded as contrary to the true principles of free trade, as swerving into the unsound and dangerous practice of protection. Whenever, therefore, it is thought that the net revenue from the Post Office is too high for the interests of the public, I would advise the application of the surplus to the multiplication of facilities in those districts in which, through the extent of their correspondence, such revenue is produced.
To return to the evidence. With regard to the amount of reduction that it would be expedient to make, the witnesses generally, whether from the Post Office or otherwise, were of opinion that it must be large; illicit conveyance having become too firmly established to be effectually dealt with by any moderate change. The Secretary indeed was of opinion—
“That to whatever extent the postage is reduced, those who have hitherto evaded it will continue to evade it, since it cannot be reduced to that price that smugglers will not compete with the Post Office, at an immense profit.”[205]