After disposing of the “fallacious return”—fallacious to the extent of £600,000 per annum—I proceeded to the proof of the different allegations of my petition.
I described a serious error lately made in a treaty with France—an error the more vexatious as being the result of needless meddling.
Extract from my evidence:—
“The next and last case under this head [Economy] is the new postal treaty with France, which, however excellent in its general objects and effects, is, in consequence of important errors in the details, operating very unfavourably on our portion of the revenue derived from the united postage, French and English, on letters between the two countries. Our scale of postage, as the Committee will bear in mind, ascends by half-ounces up to one ounce, and then by ounces. The French scale, on the other hand, ascends by quarter-ounces. Several important results flow from this distinction. As every letter, in regard to a portion of its postage, is under the quarter-ounce scale, the great majority of letters will be just within the quarter-ounce; such letters, therefore, though liable to a French rate of 20d. per ounce, and a British rate of only 10d. per ounce, would be charged 10d. each, viz., 5d. British and 5d. French—the whole being collected sometimes by the one Post Office, sometimes by the other. Under the old system each Government would retain its own 5d., and hand over the second 5d. to the other Government. The English Post Office, however, in order to relieve itself of the trouble of accounting for the letters numeratim, proposed a clause by which each Government would have accounted to the other for the whole mail at once, according to its weight in bulk. I pointed out to the Treasury how unfairly towards our own Government the proposed stipulation would operate, and the proposal of the Post Office was consequently rejected. It appears, however, by the treaty that it was subsequently revived, with a slight modification, which no doubt was thought would obviate the evil, but which only slightly mitigates it. Under the treaty, we are to pay in respect of a mail, the postage of which is collected in England, 20d. an ounce to the French for their share of the postage; whereas on a mail the postage of which is to be collected in France, we are only to receive 12d. per ounce. Applying this rule to the great majority, which, as before said, are just under the quarter ounce, the ultimate effect is, that of our 5d., when the postage is collected in France, the French hand over to us only 3d., retaining 2d. of our 5d., in addition to their own 5d.; whereas, when we collect the postage, we hand over to the French the whole of their 5d., retaining our own 5d. without any addition. Upon certain small classes of letters the arrangement would be in favour of the English, but to a very slight extent even upon such classes; and, on the general balance the disadvantage is to an annual amount probably of some thousands of pounds.” [11]
Upon the importance of additional facilities there was the less need that I should repeat in my pamphlet what I had advanced before the Committee, because of the ample recognition given to such importance, in general terms, by Colonel Maberly, in his evidence:—
“The Post Office has always held the opinion, and I believe they are right, that facilities judiciously applied will enormously increase the correspondence; and I have sometimes myself pushed this doctrine to a length that may be considered almost absurd, that facilities increase correspondence almost more than reduction of the rate.” [12]
On the question, however, of what had been done towards that increase of facilities recognised as so important, I dealt with one or two of the most prominent points. Thus, under the head, “Security of Correspondence,” I referred to my evidence on the subject of registration; feeling it the more necessary to enlarge upon this point because of the exaggerated views put forth in his evidence by Colonel Maberly as to the insecurity then existing—views expressed in such phrases as “The department has become thoroughly demoralized”; [13] there has been “enormous plunder and robbery”; [14] “the plunder is terrific”; [15] and, by way of climax, “a letter posted with money in it might as well be thrown down in the street as put into the Post Office.” [16]
After I had explained to the Committee the difficulties to be encountered in the travelling-office—where “how the duty is to be performed” the Postmaster-General had declared himself “altogether at a loss to imagine,” adding that “if the number of registered letters should increase largely this office must be abolished”—a return was ordered by the Committee, in which, when received, the danger to the public service certainly stood forth in a ludicrous light; since it appeared that the number of registered letters then to be dealt with in the travelling-office, during its whole journey from London to Preston, averaged only six each trip!
For the purpose of refuting my statement, that little or nothing had yet been done in the way of increased facilities to the public, an attempt was made to extort from me an admission that there had been a great number of additional deliveries within the previous twelve months in different parts of the kingdom. The mode taken was to inquire if I were aware of large augmentations in particular towns selected by the querist (Mr. Estcott), who said that he spoke from his own knowledge, and to lead the Committee to infer, from my inability to reply off-hand to such questions, that I must be ignorant on the general subject; the whole was made up of parts, and if I could not speak to these, how could I be informed as to that?[17] In the interval, however, between my two interrogations on this subject, I produced evidence flatly contradicting, so far as related to two out of the three towns named, the allegations so distinctly implied in the questions of the hon. member.[18]