[105] “Eighteenth Report of the Commissioners of Revenue Enquiry,” p. 4.
[106] I applied for permission to see the working of the London office, but was met by a polite refusal.
[107] “Post Office Reform,” second edition, p. 10.
[108] “Post Office Reform,” second edition, p. 16.
[109] Ibid.
[110] When at length I obtained precise information, I found that in taking care not to make my estimate too low I had made it considerably too high; and I think the history of this rectification too curious and characteristic to be omitted. Two years later, the Parliamentary Committee appointed to consider my plan ordered, at my suggestion, a return on the subject; when, to my surprise and amusement, the report of the Post Office gave as the cost of this mail the exact sum estimated by me, viz., £5. Struck with the coincidence, the more so as I had intentionally allowed for possible omission, I suggested the call for a return in detail; and, this being given, brought down the cost to £4 8s. 7¾d. In the return, however, I discovered an error, viz., that the charge for guards’ wages was that for the double journey instead of the single; and when this point was adjusted, in a third return, the cost sank to £3 19s. 7¾d. When explanation of the anomaly was asked for, it was acknowledged by the Post Office authorities that my estimate had been adopted wholesale.—Appendix to Second Report of Select Committee on Postage, 1838, pp. 257-259.
[111] “Post Office Reform,” second edition, p. 18.
[112] “Post Office Reform,” second edition, p. 12.
[113] Returns, 1830, Nos. 293 and 478.
[114] “Post Office Reform,” second edition, p. 55.