7. Frequent applications are made, it seems, for extra foreign and colonial mails, yet those existing are only kept up at a ruinous loss. Of the eight great lines of packet communication, only one pays its expenses and yields a profit. If the letters sent abroad were charged with the whole cost of the packets, the foreign agencies, and other incidental expenses, not only would all the sea-postage be swallowed up, but the mails would entail a loss of nearly four hundred thousand pounds a year. "We want," said a leading weekly commercial paper lately, "increased facilities for communication with our West Indian Colonies;" yet every letter now forwarded to those colonial possessions of ours costs one shilling over and above the postage charged! On each letter conveyed between this country and the Cape there is a dead loss of sixpence; to the West Coast of Africa, one shilling and sixpence. Everybody has heard of the New Galway line of packets for America, now suspended for the second time: every letter carried by these packets under their first contract was charged one, and cost the country six shillings; under the second attempt, each letter is said to have cost even more than six shillings! With the change of system and change of management, described briefly in speaking of the packet service, there can be no question that this state of things will not be allowed to continue. The principle of requiring the colonies themselves to pay a moiety of the cost of their service is a step in the right direction, and is, certainly, only just:[198] the colonies will not be taxed for the mother-country, as in one memorable instance in history, nor, as at present, will the mother-country be taxed unfairly for the colonies: there will then be equal interest in keeping down the expenditure, and in establishing rates of postage high enough to be remunerative.
8. The English Post-Office will compare favourably with that of any nation in the world. In no country are post-office privileges procured cheaper than with us. Like any other institution capable of endless growth, and which must grow and expand with the progressive influences of the times, it clearly is not perfect in every arrangement; but in answer to complaints of the hard, unyielding, and stringent rules which are said to bind the English Post-Office, it may not be out of place to institute a few comparisons, asking that some reference should be made to contemporary history. In England, coin was suffered for many years to pass in ordinary letters, to the temptation and seduction of many of the officers, and the practice grew from a thoughtless economy, in spite of all the appeals that were made to the contrary. At present coin is not allowed to pass through the post-office, except in registered letters: in France it has long been, and is now, a penal offence to transmit coin in letters.[199] At the time Sir Rowland Hill was urging his penny-postage scheme on the attention of the British Legislature, another European State (Piedmont, 1837) had the most stringent and severe regulations maintained in its Post-Office. The law punished any one posting a book or a newspaper opposed to the principles of the monarchy with from two to five years' hard labour; any one who might receive of such newspapers or books through the post without having delivered it into the hands of the authorities with two years' imprisonment; a reward of one hundred crowns was offered to any one giving information. These arbitrary and iniquitous laws are equalled and even surpassed, in European codes of still later date—witness Russia and, until quite recently, Austria.
9. The opinion is frequently expressed in conversation, and we have often met with such expressions of opinion in our daily and weekly press, to the effect that the Post-Office ought to give more accommodation to the public in many ways, and so disburse some, if not all, of its enormous profits. These profits are said to be absurdly large; that fifty per cent. is ten times the interest of money lent on decent security, and five times as much as would satisfy sanguine private speculators. This subject of Post-Office profits is made, de facto, the principal argument against what is called the Post-Office monopoly.
We have already, in other parts of this book, offered an opinion on steps which might be taken in the way of affording extra facilities to the public. A cheaper sea service and a halfpenny post for our towns are two of the most important and most practicable measures. Granted that our packet service ought to be kept up as at present, we have an invincible argument for universal free deliveries at home. When asked[200] if he thought it necessary that our Colonies should have greater postal facilities than they could pay for, Mr. Hamilton, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, answered that "a colony might reasonably complain if it was deprived of advantages of postal communication, simply because that postal communication might not be remunerative." Again, on the question of Post-Office revenue,[201] "I think the first charge upon that revenue is to supply reasonably all portions of Her Majesty's dominions with postal communication," which consideration, it seems to us, will apply equally at home and abroad. Still more important seems the plan of a halfpenny post for local letters, that is, for letters posted and delivered in the same town. Before the days of penny postage, we had penny posts in all the principal towns of the country. A halfpenny post, if only applied to our largest towns, where it would be certain to be remunerative,[202] would have the effect of materially lessening the weight of the argument that our present rate of charges is anomalous and unfair. But this would be by no means the most important result. Such posts would necessitate more frequent deliveries in provincial towns—the postmen to be paid accordingly as fully, and not as now, only partially, employed. On the other hand, it is quite clear that the Post-Office net revenue is a fair and honourable item on the credit side of the Government accounts, with which the public, except through their representatives in Parliament, have nothing whatever to do. The penny postage scheme was carried through Parliament in the confident expectation resolutely urged by the intrepid founder of that scheme, that all the benefits promised under it would result to the country, without any great relinquishment of Post-Office revenue, and that only for a term of years. Gradually, year by year, with enormous gain to the public convenience in innumerable ways, the revenue derivable from this branch of the service has risen beyond the highest standard of the past. Any relinquishment of the profits—which, by the way, staves off other taxes—depends on Parliament, and not on the Post-Office.[203]
10. Perhaps of all the prevalent misconceptions to which the public have been, and still are, liable, none is so unfounded as that the servants of the Post-Office are, as a body, ill-used and ill-paid. Without question, individual cases of hardship and inequality exist; but that there is anything inherently wrong in the system, or that that system is administered with harshness or partiality, or that there is in this Department more than the usual modicum of cases in which the legislation for the many presses heavily on the few, no one who will make himself acquainted with the subject in all its bearings can believe for a moment. Statements to a contrary effect have often appeared in the public newspapers; instead, however, of representing the feelings of the officers, they have much more frequently goaded them into discontent, no doubt, at times, against their better feeling and judgment. Two or three years ago, the Postmaster-General, in referring to these statements, dwelt upon the weight of responsibility resting with that part of the public press who, unthinkingly, and on an ex parte view of their case, indulged the martial sentiments of the men with encouragement to the utter abandonment of discipline and control. We incline to the belief that the time will come when, in the provinces for instance, more liberal allowances will be made to the lower grades of Post-Office officials; when the graphic description already given by the postman poet would, if uttered, be regarded as a libel on his class of officers. On the other hand, with regard to the same class of men in the metropolitan office, the more the question is calmly considered, the less reason is there for sympathy with the popular view. In 1860, the Times gave a dismal account of the sufferings of the London letter-carriers, whose cause it espoused more warmly than wisely. "Hard-worked and ill-paid," said the leading journal, "these men are all discontented and sullen; they are indifferent to the proper performance of their duties, and hold the threat of dismissal in utter disdain, feeling sure, as they say, that even stone-breaking on the road-side would not be harder labour and scarcely less remunerative." A short time after, the other side of the picture relating to these would-be stone-breakers was given, not by an anonymous writer in the Times, but by a Cabinet Minister. The report of the late Lord Elgin stated that "there need not be the least difficulty in procuring, at the present wages, honest, intelligent, and industrious young men, perfectly qualified for the office of letter-carrier: and, I may add, that in cases of dismissal—happily a rare occurrence, considering the number of men employed—the most strenuous efforts are made to obtain readmission to the service." Regarding the question in a practical common-sense light, there could be no manner of doubt as to which statement should carry most weight. Other organs of the press, however, either thought differently, or dispensed with the preliminary investigation which the Post-Office courts rather than discourages, and which inquiry it would only have been fair to make. Only last year an important commercial paper commented sympathisingly on "the loud and deep complainings of the London letter-carrier, of the grinding oppression to which they are subjected, and their ineffectual struggles to obtain redress;" and this opinion was echoed round by many smaller lights.
What, however, are the facts? The rate of wages of the lowest class of letter-carriers in London ranges from 18s. to 25s. a week. Each man (who must necessarily begin under 21 years of age) commences at the former sum, and steadily advances at the rate of a shilling more each year, till he attains the maximum of 25s. This is for the lowest class, be it remembered: but besides the chances of rising into a higher class of carrier, he has the prospect, realized by many in the course of two or three years, of being promoted to the higher grade of sorter. If, as some have been, he be appointed to the corps of travelling sorters, he will nearly double his income at a bound. But not to dwell on chances of promotion, the letter-carrier, in addition to his wages, is allowed to receive Christmas-boxes; and many thus receive, as the public must know well, most substantial additions to their income. He is supplied with two suits of clothes, one for summer, and the other for winter wear. If ill, he has medical attendance and medicine gratis. When unfitted for work, he may retire upon a pension for which he has not now to pay a farthing; and during service, if he insure his life for the benefit of his family, the Post-Office will assist him to pay his premiums, by allowing him 20 per cent. on all his payments. Every year he is allowed a fortnight's holiday, without any deduction from his pay; many spare hours each day he may devote to other pursuits, for if, when at work at the office, his hours of duty exceed eight hours daily, he is at full liberty to ask for investigation and redress. In short, a London letter-carrier is in as good a position, relatively, as many skilled artisans, without, as regards his pay, being subject to any of the contingencies of weather, trade, and misfortune, which make the wages of other workmen occasionally so precarious, and without having had to go through any expensive apprenticeship or preparation for his calling, as in the case of most of the numerous handicrafts of life.[204]
Finally, it cannot truly be said that the Post-Office institution is not moving with the age, but is as it used to be, intrenched in the traditions of the past. Different from other departments, with their undeviatingly narrow routine, the Post-Office is managed with that enlightened policy which openly invites suggestion and criticism; nay, it goes further, and offers rewards to persons, either in its employ or otherwise, who may devise any plan for accelerating its business. Post-Office work is of such a nature that the Post-Office establishment admits of constant improvement as well as constant expansion. The authorities publicly intimate that they will be glad to receive clear and correct information respecting any faulty arrangements, promising that such information shall have the best attention of the practical officers of the department. At the same time, they take the opportunity to urge upon John Bull the practice of patience, reminding him of what he is often inclined to forget, that changes in machinery so extensive and delicate must be made carefully, and only after the most mature thought and fullest investigation. "The Post-Office," says Mr. Mathew D. Hill, the respected Recorder of Birmingham,[205] "no longer assumes to be perfect, and its conductors have renounced their claims to infallibility. Suggested improvements, if they can sustain the indispensable test of rigid scrutiny, are welcomed, and not, as of old, frowned away. The Department acts under the conviction that to thrive it must keep ahead of all rivals; that it must discard the confidence heretofore placed in legal prohibitions, and seek its continuance of prosperity only by deserving it."
FOOTNOTES:
[196] In this category we suppose the reviewer placed the following letter addressed to the Secretary of the Post-Office, from Lord Cranworth when Lord Chancellor. We adduce it here, on the contrary, as a specimen of a handsome and manly apology: "Sir,—Complaints were made early last month, that a letter posted by Mr. Anderson, of Lincoln's Inn, and addressed to me, had never reached its destination.... You caused inquiry to be made.... I feel it a duty to you, Sir, and the Post-Office authorities, to say that I have just found the missing letter, which has been accidentally buried under a heap of other papers. I have only to regret the trouble which my oversight thus caused, and to take the earliest opportunity of absolving all persons, except myself, of blame in the matter. I have, &c. &c. Cranworth." Somewhat similar to the above case, occurring only last year, we may refer to the circumstance, probably in the memory of most of our readers, when, among a batch of complainants whose letters The Times admitted to its columns, was one from the late Mr. John Gough Nicholls, the eminent littérateur, who grieved bitterly that a letter sent through the post to him had not arrived at his address. From a manly apology which he made to the Post-Office authorities a few days afterwards, also given in The Times, it appeared that the reason why he never received the letter was, that it had not been sent through the Post-Office, as it ought to have been, but was delivered by a private messenger at another house in the street.
[197] We do not mention this latter circumstance, be it understood, to discourage the use of slits or letter-boxes in private doors. An occurrence of the above kind must be exceedingly rare, whilst nothing so much helps the prompt delivery of letters as such an arrangement.