CHAPTER XV
Reversal of attitude of British government on post office control—Instructions to Lord Elgin—Provincial postal conference—Control of post office relinquished to colonies.
The ministry formed by Lord John Russell, which took office on July 6, 1846, gave its immediate attention to the condition of the post office in the North American colonies, and a few weeks after taking office, Lord Clanricarde, the postmaster general, laid a proposition before the treasury[284] which had for its object the severance of the relations between the colonial system and the general post office and the withdrawal of the latter from all responsibility respecting the service in the provinces.
The reversal of policy in this case was as remarkable for suddenness as that which, in the same year, had brought about the abolition of the Corn Laws. As late as June 9, the secretary of the post office submitted a proposition from Stayner for a substantial reduction in the rates, with many doubts as to the propriety of accepting it. He pointed out that it would involve, at least temporarily, so great a shrinkage in the revenues, that the treasury would be faced with alternatives almost equally distasteful, but one of which it would be obliged to adopt. The treasury must be prepared either to take on itself the deficits certain to arise, or must call upon the colonial legislatures to meet them.
While the treasury was deliberating, a new postmaster general supervened, who was quite prepared to face the idea of colonial postal systems over which he ceased to have control. With the insistent petitions from Canada and New Brunswick before him, he came to the conclusion that the time had arrived when it was no longer expedient for the general post office to continue responsibility for postal systems, which had to subserve interests understood only by those whom they concerned. With certain safeguards, he had no fear for the impairment of imperial interests.
The course of reasoning by which Clanricarde reached the conclusions he communicated to the treasury were as follows: The unanimity of the demands of the colonial legislatures left no doubt that the postage rates must undergo a very considerable reduction; and there was equally little doubt that the consequences of this reduction would be a diminution of revenue so considerable that a large deficit would be inevitable. New Brunswick, the new postmaster general recalled, had undertaken to make good its portion of the deficiency, and there was every probability that the other provinces would assume the same obligation.
In these deficiencies, however, in spite of the utmost good will on the part of the provinces, lay the seeds of certain trouble. The principle governing the establishment of a postal system, and its expansion to meet local requirements, was fundamentally different in a new country from the principle by which they were guided at home. In a new country a postal system was expected to afford the means of extending civilization, and to advance with equal step with settlement, whereas in a long settled country, the postal system followed in the train of civilization.
The consequence of this difference is naturally a frequent clashing of opinion between the authorities at home and the public in the colonies. Disputes were constantly arising as to the extent of the accommodation to be given to new settlements, the amount of the salaries to be paid to officials, and above all as to the principle upon which new and expensive posts should be established.
As to this last point, the general post office had just disposed of an application, which threw a strong light on the different elements, which had sometimes to be taken into consideration in dealing with questions of extensions of the system in a country like Canada.[285]
Sir George Simpson, the deputy governor of the Hudson Bay Company, represented that the company had a post at Sault Ste. Marie, for which postal accommodation was desirable. The post office having but one test to apply was disposed to reject the application on account of the insufficiency of the prospective revenue to cover the cost of the service.