It has already been shown that a very important, indeed essential, part of my plan was uniformity of rate. To this various objections were raised, some of which would now seem frivolous enough. As an instance, I may mention the statement—
“That in certain cases extra rates are levied, and are applicable to the maintenance of certain roads and bridges, undertaken with a view to expedite the mails which travel over them.”[206]
An objection the more frivolous as the total amount of the rates thus levied was less than £8,000.
Some witnesses from the Post Office regarded the uniform rate as “unfair in principle.”[207] Dr. Lardner, while he regarded it as abstractedly unjust, yet thought it should be recommended on account of its simplicity. All the other witnesses were in its favour, provided the rate were as low as one penny; and nearly all considered a uniform rate preferable to a varying one, though the rate should somewhat exceed one penny.[208]
Mr. Jones Loyd observed that the—
“Justice of the uniform plan is perfectly obvious. You are not warranted in varying the charge to different individuals, except upon the ground that the cost of conveyance varies; so far as that varies the charge ought to vary; but it appears to me that that which consists of a tax upon individuals ought to have no reference to the place of their residence; it should either be equal, or, if it varies at all, it should be in proportion to their means of bearing the tax.”
Being asked whether, if a uniform rate of twopence were imposed on all letters, and if a person at Limerick got his letters for twopence, a person at Barnet would not soon find out that he ought to have his letters for a penny, Mr. Loyd answered:—
“If such be the fact, he would soon find it out, I presume; if it was not the fact, of course he would never find it out.”[209]
Mr. Dillon made the following remarkable statement:—
“To show how little the cost of transit sometimes enters into the price of goods, I may mention to the committee, in the way of illustration, that we buy goods in Manchester; they are conveyed to London; we sell them in London very often to dealers resident in Manchester, who again carry them back to the place from whence they came, and after the cost of two transits, they will have bought them of us cheaper than they themselves could have bought them in Manchester. In this instance, the cost of transit, as an element of price, has become absolutely destroyed by the force of capital and other arrangements.”[210]