In 1836, Sir Francis Freeling, the Secretary of the Post-Office, died, when his place was filled by Lieutenant-Colonel Maberly. The latter gentleman, who was an entire stranger to the department, was introduced into the Post-Office by the Treasury for the purpose, as it was stated, of zealously carrying out the reforms which another commission of inquiry had just recommended.[75] On the premature fall of Sir Robert Peel's first Cabinet, early in the previous year, the Earl of Lichfield had succeeded to the office of Postmaster-General under Lord Melbourne. The two new officers set to work in earnest, and succeeded in inaugurating many important reforms. They got the Money-order Office transferred, as we have already seen, from private hands to the General Establishment; they began the system of registering valuable letters; and, taking advantage of one of Mr. Hill's suggestions, they started a number of day-mails to the provinces. Towards the close of 1836, the stamp duty on newspapers was reduced from about threepence-farthing net to one penny, a reduction which led to an enormous increase in the number of newspapers passing through the Post-Office.
Though all these improvements were being carried out, and in many respects the Post-Office was showing signs of progression, the authorities still clung with a most unreasonable tenacity to the accustomed rates of postage, and of necessity to all the evils which followed in the train of an erroneous fiscal principle. Contrary to all experience in any other department, the Government obstinately refused to listen for a moment to any plan for the reduction of postage rates, or, what is still more remarkable, even to the alleviation of burdens caused directly by the official arrangements of the period. For example, Colonel Maberly had no sooner learnt the business of his office, than he saw very clearly an anomaly which pressed heavily in some cases, and was felt in all. He at once made a proposition to the Treasury that letters should be charged in all cases according to the exact distance between the places where a letter was posted and where delivered, and not according to the distance through which the Post-Office, for purposes of its own, might choose to send such letters. It may serve to show the extent to which this strange and anomalous practice was carried, if we state that the estimated reduction in the postal revenue, had Colonel Maberly's suggestion been acted upon, was given at no less than 80,000l. annually! The Lords of the Treasury promptly refused the concession.
In 1837 the average general postage was estimated at 9½d. per letter; exclusive of foreign letters, it was still as high as 8¾d. In the reign of Queen Anne the postage of a letter between London and Edinburgh was less than half as much as the amount charged at the accession of Queen Victoria, with macadamized roads, and even with steam. Notwithstanding the heavy rates, or let us say, on account of these rates, the net proceeds of the gigantic monopoly of the Post-Office remained stationary for nearly twenty years. In 1815, the revenue derivable from the Post-Office was estimated at one and a half millions sterling. In 1836, the increase on this amount had only been between three and four thousand pounds, though the population of the country had increased immensely; knowledge was more diffused, and trade and commerce had extended in every direction. Had the Post-Office revenue increased, for instance, in the same ratio as population, we should have found the proceeds to have been increased by half a million sterling; or at the ratio of increase of stage-coach travelling, it must have been two millions sterling.
The high rates, while they failed to increase the Post-Office revenue, undoubtedly led to the evasion of the postage altogether. Illicit modes of conveyance were got up and patronised by some of the principal merchants in the kingdom. Penal laws were set at defiance, and the number of contraband letters became enormous. Some carriers were doing as large a business as the Post-Office itself. On one occasion the agents of the Post-Office made a seizure, about this time, of eleven hundred such letters, which were found in a single bag in the warehouse of certain eminent London carriers. The head of the firm hastened to seek an interview with the Postmaster-General, and proffered instant payment of 500l. by way of composition for the penalties incurred, and if proceedings against the firm might not be instituted. The money was taken, and the letters were all passed through the Post-Office the same night.[76] For one case which was detected, however, a hundred were never made known. The evasion of the Post-Office charges extended so far and so wide that the officials began to declare that any attempt to stop the smuggling, or even to check it, was as good as hopeless. Prosecutions for the illicit conveyance of letters had, in fact, ceased long before the misdemeanours themselves.
The Post-Office was now ripe for a sweeping change. Mr. Wallace, the member for Greenock, had frequently called the attention of the House of Commons to the desirability of a thorough reform in the Post-Office system. We find him moving at different times for Post-Office returns. For instance, in August, 1833, Mr. Wallace[77] brought forward a subject which, he said, "involved a charge of the most serious nature against the Post-Office—viz. that the Postmaster-General, or some person acting under his direction, with the view of discovering a fraud upon its revenue, has been guilty of a felony in the opening of letters." He moved on this occasion for a return of all and every instruction, bye-law, or authority, under which postmasters are instructed and authorized, or have assumed a right, to open, unfold, apply strong lamp-light to, or use any of them, or any other means whatever, for ascertaining or reading what may be contained in words or in figures in any letter, of any size or description, being fastened with a wafer or wax, or even if totally unfastened by either. At the same time he moved for a return of all Post-Office prosecutions,[78] especially for the expenses of a recent case at Stafford. In reply, the Post-Office answered in a parliamentary paper that no such instruction had ever been issued from the General Post-Office. Every person in the Post-Office was required to take the oath prescribed by the Act of 9 Queen Anne, c. 10. It was added, that "whenever it is noticed that a letter has been put into the post unfastened, it is invariably sealed with the official seal for security." In reply to the other return, the Post-Office were forced to admit that the cost of prosecuting a woman and a female child at the suit of the Post-Office at the late Stafford Assizes exceeded three hundred and twenty pounds.
There can be no question that Mr. Wallace's frequent motions[79] for Post-Office papers, returns, statistics, detailed accounts of receipt and expenditure, &c., were the means of drawing special attention to the Post-Office, and that they were of incalculable service to the progress of reform and the coming reformer. Mr. Wallace seems to have been exceedingly honest and straightforward, though he was somewhat blunt and outspoken. He succeeded in gaining the attention of the mercantile community, though the Government honoured him with just as much consideration as he was entitled to from his position, and no more.[80] In estimating properly the penny-post system, and the labours of those who inaugurated the reform, the share Mr. Wallace had in it should by no means be lost sight of.
FOOTNOTES:
[70] These items are exclusive of those relating to colonial money-orders.
[71] The Government can grant a release to any ship fixed for this service. It will be remembered by many readers that after the Peterhoff was taken by Admiral Wilkes of the United States' navy, February, 1863, the proprietors of the vessel, who had other ships on the same line (with all of which the Post-Office sent ship-letters), asked the Government for the protection of a mail-officer. On the principle of choosing the least of two evils, and rather than take such a decisive step, which might lead to troubles with the United States' Government, Earl Russell relieved the Sea Queen from the obligation to carry the usual mail-bag to Matamoras.
[72] The Duke of Richmond, though opposed to the Reform Bill, was a member of Lord Grey's Cabinet. Indefatigable in the service of the department over which he was placed from 1830 to 1834, he refused at first to accept of any remuneration of the nature of salary. In compliance, it is stated, with the strong representation of the Treasury Lords, as to the objectionable nature of the principle of gratuitous services by public officers, "which must involve in many cases the sacrifice of private fortune to official station," His Grace consented to draw his salary from that time only.