“Journal, January 29th.—Had some conversation with the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to future proceedings. He is becoming uneasy, like myself, at the extravagant and heedless demands (apparently) of the Post Office for increased force.
“March 27th.—The Postmaster-General having made a second application for two additional clerks in the Accountant-General’s Office, and two more in the Accountant for Ireland’s Office, and intimated that a further addition will probably be required in Edinburgh, all on account of the quarterly returns ordered some time back, I wrote to Court [the London Accountant-General] to request he would call upon me on the subject, to bring copies of the forms they have sent out, &c., in order that I may judge what additional strength is really necessary.”
Mr. Court, calling as requested, though not till eleven days afterwards, I found that the demand for increased force was made in exclusive reference to these quarterly returns, which were entirely needless, as monthly returns, answering every purpose, were already received on the same subject. Mr. Court acknowledged this, but added that they had been ordered by Colonel Maberly. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, to whom I applied on the subject, informed me next day that Colonel Maberly and Mr. Court would adopt any plan for making these returns that I might suggest in writing. I had only to advise that they should not be made at all.
“May 12th.—The Postmaster-General having applied for what I considered a very extravagant establishment for the money-order office in Dublin, I drew a minute calling for information as to the whole amount of [money-order] poundage collected in Ireland, &c.; when it appeared, as I expected, that such amount fell short of the minimum cost of the proposed establishment in Dublin alone. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, on my recommendation, has cut down the salaries considerably.
“May 25th.—Managed to get about a quarter of an hour with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in which eight or ten cases were decided; in several instances the Postmaster-General’s application for increased expenses in different offices being disallowed.”
The vigilance I had now so long exercised in relation to Post Office accounts was by no means allowed to abate. The following curious instance shows that even when Post Office and Stamp Office worked together the resulting accounts might remain open to question:—
“Journal, April 1st.—In going over the proof sheets of that part of the annual finance accounts which relates to the Post Office, I was led to suspect from their appearance that the proceeds of postage stamps sold by the Stamp Office in Ireland had been carried to the credit of the British, instead of the Irish, Post Office. Went to the Stamp Office to inquire. Mr. Pressly was confident that so gross a mistake could not have been made, but on inquiry it appeared that my suspicions were well-founded. The consequence of the mistake is that the British revenue appears to be about £15,000 more, and the Irish revenue £15,000 less, than it really was. Mr. Charles Crafer, who arranges the financial accounts in the Treasury, thinks the account cannot now be altered, but he will append an explanatory note. It is strange that the Irish [Post] Office should have been satisfied with such a subtraction from their revenue, the more so because it makes up the greater part of the apparent deficit; the expenses in Ireland having exceeded the revenue, according to the account, by about £21,000, though really by £6,000 only. The Stamp Office will make arrangements for preventing such a mistake in future.”
In connection with the subject of stamps, it should be mentioned that in the course of this year Mr. Pressly, secretary to the Stamp Office, having observed that some of the provincial postmasters were also sub-distributors of stamps for general purposes, suggested the expediency of making such union the general arrangement. This suggestion I reported to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was inclined to act upon it to some extent. At Mr. Pressly’s request, I wrote a minute on the subject, which was adopted by the Treasury; but the suggestion, owing probably to the change of Government which took place shortly afterwards, was not carried into effect. After long lying dormant it was revived in the year 1863 in a Parliamentary Committee presided over by Mr. Horsfall, before which I gave evidence in favour of the measure, but the Committee reported against it. My opinion, however, still is that the vast organization of the Post Office might be advantageously employed at least for the distribution of all such stamps as are in frequent demand.
In the following transaction the Post Office alone was responsible:—
“Journal, May 19th.—Wrote two or three scolding minutes. There have been several instances lately of great inaccuracy on the part of one or two of the surveyors, who, in applying for authority to increase the expenses at certain provincial offices, have been guilty of, to say the least, very careless misrepresentations. In the instance of the Cheltenham Office, the surveyor deducted £100 from the gross annual income of the postmaster for house rent, whereas it afterwards appeared that the office is supplied rent free by the inhabitants. This and many other inaccuracies almost equally glaring have come before the Treasury unnoticed by the Post Office.”