Again, however, perceiving that though simple distance did not justify increase of rate, yet such increase might be required by remoteness from the great highways of traffic, I thought that probably general uniformity might be more easily secured by sacrificing universality; and hence arose my conception, now doubtless generally forgotten, of a practical distinction between primary and secondary distribution. By primary distribution, I meant the transmission of letters, &c., from post town to post town throughout the United Kingdom, and the delivery within the post towns; and by secondary distribution, that distribution which proceeds from each post town, as a centre, to places of inferior importance;[112] my plan being that within the range of primary distribution there should be a uniform rate of one penny, retaining an additional charge for secondary distribution (to be collected on delivery), unless, indeed, any district so served might choose to take the cost of such distribution upon itself.
Of the equity of such a distinction it is needless to speak, since the difference of charge would have proceeded from a difference in actual expense; of its feasibility it is enough to say that it was to a considerable extent in actual use, the common practice being, on the arrival of a letter at any post town, for delivery beyond a certain range, to charge an additional penny. In one instance at least the existing difference was yet greater, the additional charge in the London district being as high as twopence. In some towns in each of the three kingdoms the secondary principle was carried so far as to impose a special charge, generally of a penny, on all letters not fetched from the office by the receiver;[113] a practice continued, I believe, for some time even after the establishment of penny postage. The only remaining question was whether, supposing this distinction to be set aside, the advantage of absolute uniformity would compensate for the injustice involved in establishing equality of charge with inequality of expense.
At the same time, wishing to give primary distribution its greatest possible range, and to make the rates even on secondary distribution as low as could fairly be done, I proposed that the whole weight of taxation should be thrown on the primary distribution, which was to include every place which could be reached without absolute loss to the revenue, and that each department of the secondary distribution should just defray its own expenses.[114] On this plan I hoped that, under economical management, every important village would be able to obtain at least one delivery per day, and the importance of such extension will be strikingly manifest when the reader is reminded that at the period in question there were, even in England proper, districts as large as the county of Middlesex in which the postman never set foot.
Upon looking back to this question as it then stood, I am inclined to think that the early abandonment of this distinction (made for reasons that will appear hereafter) was on several accounts unfortunate; one serious consequence being a great aggravation of the immediate loss to the revenue, but a far more important one its effect in retarding that extension of postal facilities of which I have yet to speak, and which was so important both to public convenience and fiscal recovery. As the additional charge would have repaid the cost of extension, the most ostensible as well as the most valid objection thereto, would have been removed; and that development might have been rapid which was, in fact, lamentably slow. Doubtless the distinction would have been but temporary, save, perhaps, in those remote places where there is now no delivery at all; elsewhere, secondary distribution would have gradually yielded to primary.[115]
One important circumstance on which I relied for increase in the number of post letters was the extent to which, under the stimulus of high rates, contraband conveyance was carried. Of this I have already made some little mention, but there was a systematic evasion of the law that far outstripped anything that could be done by merely private hands. I had learnt, for instance, that the carriers plying between Birmingham and the neighbouring towns, to the distance of twelve or thirteen miles, were in the constant habit of conveying letters, which they delivered at one penny each (justifying so far my proposed reduction); and a highly respectable merchant and manufacturer of that town gave it me as his opinion that the number of letters so distributed very greatly exceeded the number distributed in the same district by the Post Office.[116] It was also well known that vast numbers were every day forwarded by carriers and coach proprietors. Of course, discoveries sometimes occurred, and penalties were levied, but the traffic was so openly carried on that the risk could not have been great—an occasional seizure doing little more than show the extent of the practice, which, indeed, was not likely to be suppressed so long as it was sanctioned by the moral sense of the public; in face of which the Post Office itself could not levy its full penalties. Thus, in the year 1833, though one of the fines incurred was as high as £1,000, the highest amount actually paid was only £160.[117] Such a seizure had lately been made, bringing to light in a carrier’s warehouse one bag containing no less than 1,100 letters.[118] Independently, however, of positive evidence, it was clear that “the vast extent to which the trade of the country had increased during the previous twenty years” (viz., those immediately following the close of the great war with France and the second war with the United States) “must have been attended by a proportionate increase in the amount of mercantile correspondence, while the spread of education and increase of population during the same period must have greatly augmented the correspondence of all kinds.”[119]
Now it was easy to foresee (though, as will afterwards appear, the very probability was then not merely questioned, but denied) that the proposed reduction to one penny would cause all, or nearly all, this correspondence to pass through the Post Office, which, by its superior organisation and command of means, would render private competition on equal terms altogether futile.
I have already remarked on the encouragement afforded by the increased sale of various articles after the reduction of the duties thereon; but perceiving that such reduction could tend to increased sale only by its effect on price, and that the chief element of price is cost, over which legislation has no control, I was naturally led to expect that here, where the reduction would be directly and fully in the price itself, the consequent increase of custom would be very much greater.[120]
As a means of giving some indication of the results to be looked for, I took two or three articles, of which, from whatever cause, the price had fallen, and observed how far cheapening had been followed by increase in consumption. Thus, the price of soap having fallen by one-eighth, the consumption had increased by one-third; in tea, a reduction of one-sixth had increased consumption by almost a half; in coffee, a gradual reduction of one-fourth (occurring during the previous thirteen years) had been accompanied by an increase in consumption amounting to three-fold;—while in cotton goods, a similar reduction of one-half, spread over about twenty years, had been accompanied by a corresponding increase of no less than fourfold.
Thus, it appeared that reduction in price, even if it does not increase the total expenditure on the article affected, seldom, if ever, permanently lowers its amount.[121]
Hence it followed that, even supposing the postage to be reduced to the low rate contemplated, the public would probably continue to expend as much in postage as before; and that thus the gross revenue would be sustained. According to my calculation, this implied an increase in the number of letters posted to the amount of between five- and six-fold.