At this time of doubt as to who might be my new official superior, and what the position I might hold with him, I perused with great satisfaction an important document just issued:—
“December 28th.—The Report on the East Indian Post Office contains, among other matters, the following testimony in favour of uniformity of rate. It is curious to contrast the evidence of the officials there and here on the question, especially when the greater distances and inferior means of conveyance in our Indian Empire are considered.
“‘34. Uniformity of postage, without reference to distance, is recommended by its simplicity, by its fairness, and by the facilities it gives for the introduction of other improvements into the department. Combined with a low rate of charge, it forms the conspicuous and chief benefit, which the monopoly of the carriage of letters enables the Government to confer upon the whole body of its subjects, by almost annihilating distance, and placing it within the power of every individual to communicate freely with all parts of the empire. It makes the Post Office what, under any other system, it can never be—the unrestricted means of diffusing knowledge, extending commerce, and promoting in every way the social and intellectual improvement of the people. It is no longer an experiment, having been introduced with eminent success into the United Kingdom, as well as into the United States of America, France, Spain, and Russia. It is advocated by every officer of experience connected with the department in India, and by every individual who has been consulted in the course of this inquiry, and it has already been recommended by three out of the four subordinate Governments.’”
I may add that the recommendation of the Commission was soon afterwards carried into effect; so that, with the exception of some outlying portions, a low uniform rate of postage was established over the length and breadth of our vast Indian Empire.
[CHAPTER XXII.]
LORD CANNING. (1853-1854.)
The doubt as to the new Postmaster-General was soon satisfactorily cleared by the appointment of Lord Canning. Though it was not until a fortnight later that I had an opportunity of forming a direct opinion of our new chief, I had heard enough to make me very hopeful as to my future relations with him. Meantime, I had the satisfaction to find that I had lost no ground at the Treasury, Mr. Wilson, the new secretary, having written to ask for my advice and opinion on the several cases awaiting decision.
“January 14th.—My interview with Lord Canning was satisfactory. . . . I intended to have abstained at this, my first interview, from all allusions to the disagreeables of my position; but he entered himself on the subject, and, in the course of a long conversation, I told him of the expectations, still unfulfilled, held out by Sir Charles Wood and Lord Clanricarde; of my successful administration of the Money Order Office; of the division of duties, which had gradually grown up under Lord Clanricarde; and of the new arrangements made by Lord Hardwicke, &c. I found that . . . as was the case with Lord Hardwicke when he entered office, he had been led to believe that I and Frederic did nothing but manage the Money Order Office. At the close of an hour and a-half’s conversation, Lord C. expressed a desire that Lord Hardwicke’s arrangements should be observed till he (Lord C.) was more familiar with the business of the office, when he would revise them.”