The plan I proposed, which was upon the whole more convenient for the public than the existing arrangement, involved a saving of about £5,000 a year, and it was with much satisfaction that five months later I learnt that it had received the approbation of the Postmaster-General. How I was unexpectedly prevented from myself carrying this important project into effect will be shown a few pages later.
A curious incident occurred which, however small in itself, showed how far the Office was competent to deal correctly with questions of economy. On the Glasgow and Ayr Railway the practice had been to place the bags under the care of the railway guard; a service for which the company received £40 a year. A Report came to the Treasury from the Postmaster-General, showing that he had superseded this service by the appointment of a mail guard, and taking credit to himself for economy so effected by the discontinuance of such payment; the self-gratulation being made in the apparent forgetfulness that the mail guard’s salary would be somewhere about double the sum saved.
One form of extravagant expenditure on railway conveyance was in occupation of superfluous space:—
“August 2nd, 1842.—In one instance, to which I have called attention, namely, the day mail between York and Normanton, the maximum weight of the bags being only two quarters twenty-four pounds, two compartments of a second-class carriage are occupied by the Post Office, that is to say, sixteen passengers are displaced to make room for what is about equivalent to the luggage of one. Recommended a thorough investigation of the subject.”
In consequence of this discovery, the Post Office was directed to report upon the state of all the railway lines in respect of space occupied. The Report, however, had not been received when my services came to an end.
Another form of waste arose from inaccuracy as to the length of railway used by the Post Office on particular lines, the award, according to a common practice, fixing not a gross sum, but a mileage rate; thus, after much dunning for information, I found the Post Office so overpaying one company by as much as, £400 a year, though the true distance was stated both in its official notices to the Company and in its own time bills. What was more remarkable was that the Post Office, after I had pointed out the error, persisted in maintaining that the amount was correct.
My serious attention was also drawn to the Money-Order Department, in relation to which I drew a long minute, suggesting means for simplifying the accounts, and thus effecting a great saving in the cost of management. Sir George Clerk appeared to be much struck with the facts of the case; but, considering it too important for his decision, said he would consult the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It so happened that the necessity for decided measures was demonstrated by the discovery of an alarming fraud at a provincial office. The postmaster had absconded owing the revenue more than £2,200, of which only £1,000 was covered by sureties. It was fortunate that his flight had not been taken a year earlier, when his debt was much larger, varying from £3,000 to £5,000. Even as it was, but for energetic measures taken by the Post Office, the loss would have been greater. I pointed out to Sir George Clerk that about £250,000 appeared to be in the hands of the several postmasters, and that other losses must be expected. He concurred in this view, and said that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would speak to the Postmaster-General on the subject. Nevertheless my minute[315] was set aside, a mere temporary arrangement being substituted.
It may be convenient to remark here that the money-order accounts with the several postmasters, which were then made up and transmitted to the Central Office for audit but once a quarter, are now made up and audited every day; and that no such fraud, at least to any serious amount, has occurred since 1847, in which year I subjected the Money-Order Office to a thorough revision.
In reference to the serious case reported above, I have great pleasure in mentioning that the son of the defaulter, moved only by filial obligation, eventually made good the whole loss.
I return now to the notification made to me by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on November 5th, 1841,[316] a notification already spoken of as fraught with serious consequences. He informed me that the Postmaster-General had proposed to establish a compulsory registration of money letters, with a shilling fee to be charged to the receiver, when not paid by the sender. I pointed out the impracticability of the plan, and showed how the same end might be obtained by unobjectionable means. It was arranged that I should see the Postmaster-General, and prepare a Report on the subject. Had my own plan of registration been adopted, the complaints on which the Postmaster-General’s recommendation was based could scarcely have arisen:—