FREE DELIVERY.
Free delivery was rapidly extending throughout the United Kingdom. At the present day (1868) the work is so far advanced that to many readers the very term “free delivery” must have lost its significance. Formerly, to every office there were limits, sometimes narrow ones, beyond which delivery was either not made at all, or made only at an additional charge, generally of one penny per letter, an arrangement nowise interfered with by the simple establishment of penny postage. During the period now under consideration, however, in addition to much previously done, this immunity was extended to several thousand places, without counting a widening of range or other improvement at places where it already existed in an imperfect state. In short, by the end of this period free delivery was extended so far as to include ninety-three per cent. of the whole correspondence.[123]
LONDON DELIVERY.
While due attention was thus paid to the provinces, the department did not neglect the interests of London, whose population is one-tenth, and whose correspondence is even one-fourth of that of the United Kingdom. Much as had already been done in accelerating the delivery of letters coming into the district, we saw that additional improvements might be made to carry this acceleration still further. As early as January, 1856, a hope was expressed, in the Report on the previous year, that the first delivery of the day throughout the metropolis might eventually be completed by nine a.m.,[124] instead of eleven, or even later. To effect this, however, and no less to obtain rapid intercommunication between the different parts of the metropolis, required changes so complicated, that their details could not be set forth without wearying the reader. At the same time, the greatest caution and foresight were required to prevent derangement in transition; and this, combined with other difficulties, greatly delayed the completion of the plan. Briefly stated, the changes involved were as follows; and I may remark that they are almost identical with those proposed in my evidence before the Post Office Commissioners in 1837, already mentioned in this narrative. We had to unite the two corps of letter-carriers (the impracticability of which, under divided authority, had so long delayed the whole measure[125]); to rearrange their “walks”; to divide London into districts, each to be treated in some respects as a separate town; to procure suitable buildings for district offices, or, failing this, to erect such buildings, first obtaining proper sites (no easy matter); to adopt a new plan of sorting at the chief office; and lastly, to provide for the sorting of mails according to the new districts before reaching London.[126] That everything might be done with the utmost circumspection, I nominated a committee of officers to consider the details involved in the necessary changes, which committee made a very elaborate and able Report.[127] In about three years from the first positive movement the district system, though still imperfect, was in some sort established throughout. The beneficial effect had already distinctly appeared in the augmented rate of increase in the number of district letters; the annual increment rising from somewhat less than a million and a half to somewhat more than six millions and a quarter.[128] Early delivery, meantime, so far advanced as to bring the completion of the first round of the day nearly to the point aimed at, viz., 9 a.m.[129] The number of deliveries, too, was raised to ten, and communication within the whole suburban district rendered much more frequent and rapid.[130] These improvements had received some aid from the public in the multiplication of street-door boxes,[131] and yet more in the use in addresses of initial letters indicating districts,[132] while the Metropolitan Board of Works also had somewhat amended the nomenclature of streets and the numbering of houses;[133] but on all three points very much remained then, and, I must add, remains still, to be done.
Shortly afterwards a similar system was applied to Liverpool, by which means not only the deliveries were much improved, but the cost of erecting a new chief office was avoided.[134]
RAILWAY SERVICE.
Acceleration of Mails.
While these important improvements were going forward within the London district, measures were also in steady progress for improved communication with all parts of the United Kingdom, partly by the extended use of day mails, partly by an acceleration of speed, and partly by measures for securing greater punctuality. For the further attainment of the latter object, attempts were again made to induce the companies to enter into engagements by which they and the Post Office should be mutually bound to penalties in case of unpunctuality, coupled with rewards to the companies (though, of course, not to the Post Office) for punctual performance.[135] In the year 1855 one company, viz., the North British, accepted this proposal, and the beneficial effect soon showed itself, the instances of irregularity being brought down in one half year from a hundred and twelve to nine, while the company received within the same time £400 in the way of reward.[136] Notwithstanding this result, however, the Post Office never succeeded in inducing the railway companies generally to agree to the adoption of the plan.
After awhile, nevertheless, we prevailed on the companies conveying the night mail between London and Edinburgh to limit the ordinary traffic of the mail trains, and at the same time to effect a material acceleration.[137] Mainly by these means, the interval between London, on the one hand, and Edinburgh and Glasgow on the other—previously reduced from time to time—was brought down to less than eleven hours; and this, with other aids, enabled the department to deliver the letters at these important cities before business hours in the morning, and to despatch the return mails after business hours in the evening. To effect this improvement we had to make an additional payment of about £15,000 a year to the railway companies alone; but the benefit was so great to Edinburgh and Glasgow—indeed to the whole of Scotland—that we did not grudge the outlay.