Thomas Allen Stayner deputy postmaster general--Restrictions
of general post office relaxed--Grievances of newspaper
publishers--Opinion of law officers of the crown that
postmaster general's stand is untenable--Consequences.
Owing to failing health, Sutherland retired from the service in 1827. He
was succeeded by his son-in-law, Thomas Allen Stayner, the last of the
deputies of the postmaster general of England, and in many respects the
most notable. Stayner was brought up in the post office, and at the time
of his appointment to the position of deputy postmaster general he was
in charge of the Quebec post office.
A man of unusual ability, Stayner gained the confidence of his superiors
in England, to a degree at no time enjoyed by his predecessors. What was
equally important, he managed to keep on good terms with the governments
of the two provinces.
When the houses of assembly in Upper and Lower Canada denounced the post
office as inefficient and unconstitutional, and proposed to take the
management of it into their own hands, the governors and legislative
councils in the two provinces took the side of Stayner, and while they
urged upon him and the postmaster general the expediency of meeting the
reasonable demands of the assemblies, they set their faces steadily
against any revolutionary propositions respecting the control of the
department.
This attitude was in a measure due to a change in the policy of the
postmaster general and his advisers in England. The earlier deputies
were held by so tight a rein, and their suggestions and recommendations
so little regarded, that they occupied a role scarcely more important
than that of being the hands and voice of a department, which, unpopular
at home on account of its illiberality, aroused general discontent in
Canada by adding to its administrative vices, an entire ignorance of the
situation with which it had to deal.
At the outset of his administration Stayner's powers were as much
restricted as were those of the deputies who preceded him. A few months
after his appointment, he opened a post office at Guelph. He assured the
postmaster general that he had not done so until he had satisfied
himself that the prospective revenue would more than meet the expense.
But he did not escape a warning and an intimation that the departmental
approval would depend on the financial results.
Shortly afterwards, Stayner established an additional courier on the
route between St. John and St. Andrews in New Brunswick, the point at
which the mails between the Maritime provinces and the United States
were exchanged. This action, though most desirable in the public
interest, brought down upon him a rebuke, and a reminder that the
postmaster general's sanction must be obtained in all possible cases,
before lines of communication were opened which were attended with
expense.
The circumstances of the country were making a continuance of this
repressive course impossible. Settlements were springing up too rapidly,
and the demands for postal facilities were becoming too insistent to
leave it possible to delay these demands until formal sanction was
obtained from England. In November 1829, Stayner informed the postmaster
general that, in Upper Canada, the lieutenant governor, the legislature,
the merchants, and indeed the whole population, were calling for
increased postal accommodation.
In the United States, Stayner pointed out, almost every town and village
had a daily mail, and this excited discontent with the comparative
infrequency of the Canadian service. He suggested that he be allowed to
expand the service, and to increase the frequency of the courier's
trips, wherever he was convinced that the ensuing augmentation of
correspondence would more than meet the additional expense.
Stayner had been so fortunate as to impress the postmaster general with
the fact that a very considerable discretion might safely be left with
him. Besides this, the postmaster general was under a growing sense of
the insecurity of the legal foundations of the post office in the
colonies. To Stayner's gratification he received a letter from the
postmaster general[211] enjoining him to make it his study to extend the
system of communication in all directions where the increase of
population and the formation of new towns and settlements seemed to
justify it.
This was a wise step. It gave the department a representative, zealous
in its interests, as intimately acquainted with local conditions as the
assemblies themselves, and thoroughly competent to undertake the
responsibility devolving upon him.
Stayner's commission placed New Brunswick as well as Upper and Lower
Canada, under his charge. But before the close of 1828 the service in
New Brunswick was transferred to the control of the deputy postmaster
general for Nova Scotia.[212] This change was made at the instance of
the deputy of Nova Scotia, who, being in England at the time, explained
to the postmaster general how much more closely New Brunswick was
associated with Nova Scotia than with Quebec, and pointed out that
orders from home affecting New Brunswick and requiring immediate
attention were delayed in that they had to pass from Halifax through New
Brunswick, and then return to New Brunswick. All the other branches of
the imperial service in New Brunswick had their local headquarters in
Halifax.
At the time Stayner was placed in charge of the postal service in the
Canadas, the system of communication was still simple enough to be
described in a few lines. There was a trunk line from Halifax, Nova
Scotia, to Niagara and Amherstburg on the western boundaries of Upper
Canada. The distances were to Niagara, one thousand three hundred and
fifty-six miles, and to Amherstburg, one thousand five hundred and
sixteen miles.
The frequency of the trips made by the mail couriers over the several
stretches of this long route varied considerably. Between Halifax and
Quebec, a courier travelled each way weekly. The section between Quebec
and Montreal, the most populous in the country, was covered by couriers,
who passed five times each way weekly between the two cities.
From Montreal westward along the shores of the St. Lawrence and lake
Ontario to Niagara and Amherstburg, there were semi-weekly trips.
Running out from this trunk line there were six cross routes, four in
Lower Canada, and two in Upper Canada. Two of these left the trunk line
at Three Rivers--one running to Sorel, by way of Nicolet, with
semi-weekly mails; and the other to Sherbrooke, Stanstead and other
places in the eastern townships. There was a weekly service over this
route.
Mails were carried up the Ottawa river from Montreal as far as Hull, and
southward to St. Johns; in both cases twice weekly. In Upper Canada, the
only cross routes were one from Cornwall to Hawkesbury, with weekly
mails, and another from Brockville to Perth, with mails twice a week.
From Perth there was a weekly courier to Richmond.
The two principal points of connection with the United States were at
St. Johns, south of Montreal, and Queenston on the Niagara river. As
early as 1828, the United States post office had a daily service by
steamer on lake Champlain, which ran as far northward as St. Johns. In
1831, Stayner made a notable improvement in the mail service from
Montreal to Niagara, increasing the frequency of the trips to five each
week, and reducing the time of conveyance between the two points to six
days.
The appointment of Stayner in no way diminished the energy with which
the houses of assembly pursued their campaign against the administration
of the post office. In March 1828, the assembly in Upper Canada named a
committee consisting of Fothergill, Ingersoll, Matthews and Beardsley,
to inquire into the state of the post office. Their report, which was
made in 1829, did not disclose any new facts. Indeed, it would not seem
that the assemblies, in the series of inquiries, which were ordered from
year to year, thought so much of obtaining new light on the question as
of keeping the public alive to the grievances, which they were made to
appear to suffer.
The committee of 1829, after affirming the illegality of the existing
system and declaring that the surplus revenue which was sent annually to
Great Britain, was the result of starving the service, recommended the
establishment of a provincial post office, subject to the legislatures.
Post routes should be opened to every court house, and the charges on
letters and newspapers conveyed by steamboats should not exceed twopence
and one farthing each respectively.
The lieutenant governor, Sir John Colborne, though friendly to Stayner,
and appreciative of his efforts to meet the demands of the public in
Upper Canada, was not altogether satisfied with the system. He
maintained that it was impossible for Stayner from his headquarters in
Quebec to follow the rapid changes in the conditions of settlement in
Upper Canada, and was of opinion that the remedy for the existing
shortcomings of the post office in that province was to appoint an
official of a rank equal, or nearly so, to that held by Stayner, and
station him in Toronto.
Colborne, in communicating the view to the colonial office,[213] also
requested that arrangements should be made for a regular interchange of
correspondence between Upper Canada and Great Britain, by way of New
York.
Freeling, the secretary of the post office, was quite willing to meet
the views of the lieutenant governor, but was inclined to the view that
the people on both sides of the Atlantic had already settled the
question their own way. He explained that there was a plan in full
operation by which the correspondence between Liverpool and Upper Canada
was conveyed across the ocean independently of the post office at
twopence a letter, and that there was little likelihood that the public
would seek the aid of the post office to have this conveyance done for
them, and thereby become subject to charges four times as great.
The people of Liverpool, who had the largest correspondence with the
United States, Freeling reminded Colborne, scarcely sent one letter per
week by post, though thousands were sent outside the post office, by the
same vessels as carried the mails for the post office. As for the
appointment of a resident deputy in Upper Canada, Freeling thought there
would be no objection to such an arrangement.
In this opinion Stayner by no means concurred. He could see no good
reason for such an appointment. The postmaster general was more
impressed with the representations on behalf of the province than
Freeling thought desirable. Freeling reminded the postmaster general
that his powers might not be equal to his desires. He observed that in
the lieutenant governor's letter, a question was involved as to whether,
and if so, to what extent, the revenues of the post office could be
devoted to the general improvement of communications for the public
advantage, and he conceived that this was a point of view from which the
postmaster general was not empowered to regard the subject.
But the forces were gathering for an attack on the post office, which
promised to be much more formidable than any which had preceded it.
Until that time, the assailants of the system had been confined to what
the official clique regarded as the radicals and republicans and
grievance-mongers. In the houses of assembly the grievances of which
they complained became the motive of highly effective speeches and
resolutions, but the injuries they alleged really hurt nobody.
The rates of postage on letters were, according to present day
standards, exorbitant. But they were no higher than those charged in
England; and after all the post office was but little used by the masses
of the people. It is doubtful if the post office were employed in 1830
any more freely than the telegraph is to-day. In their contention that
it was a violation of constitutional guarantees to send the surplus post
office revenue to England, the assemblies were undoubtedly correct, but
loyal people bear many things of that kind easily.
At this time, however, the question was taken up by a body to whom the
postage rates were a personal grievance, and who at the same time
possessed the means of successful agitation. In the beginning of 1829, a
number of newspaper publishers in Lower Canada approached the governor
general, Sir James Kempt, with a request that they might be relieved of
the payment of postage on the newspapers which they sent to
subscribers.[214] They did not ask that the postage be remitted
altogether. All they desired was that the postage should be collected
from the subscribers and not from themselves. They also suggested that
the charge might be fixed at one penny per copy.
Stayner declared that he had no power to enter into such an arrangement.
The publishers thereupon changed their request, and asked that they
might be put on the same footing as the newspaper publishers in England
stood, and be thus entirely exempt from postage on their newspapers.
British publishers had enjoyed this concession since 1825, but as they
still had to pay a heavy excise duty on the paper they used, they could
not be regarded as free from public charges. In Canada there was no
stamp duty on paper. This difference between their situation and that of
their brethren in England was pointed out to the publishers, but the
explanation failed to satisfy.
One of the publishers, who had some inkling of the fact that the
newspaper postage did not go into the public revenue, but formed part of
the emoluments of the deputy postmaster general, observed that with as
much consistency a toll keeper might insist on farmers paying high
charges to him, because they paid no tithes.
With the publishers awake to the fact that they had something to
complain of, they made the most of their grievance. They were experts in
this line of exploitation. They found that the newspaper charges, which
they were convinced had no legal sanction, had been steadily advancing
for forty years past. In 1790, a shilling a year was all that was
charged as postage for each copy of a weekly newspaper. This rate was
increased by degrees to one shilling and threepence, one shilling and
eightpence, two shillings, two shillings and sixpence, until, in 1830,
it had risen to four shillings a year on weekly papers, and to five
shillings for papers published twice a week. The discontent of the
publishers was not lessened by the knowledge that in the Maritime
provinces, the yearly rate for weekly papers was two shillings and
sixpence for each copy.
The agitation against the newspaper charges was set in motion by Robert
Armour, proprietor of the _Montreal Gazette_. It had come to his
knowledge that the sums collected from the publishers did not appear in
the accounts of the postmasters with the department, and he suspected
that in some way they were retained by Stayner, though on this point he
had no certain information.
After Armour learned that the rates had been subjected to a continuous
process of enhancement, he made diligent search for any warrant that
might exist for the successive advances or indeed for the original
charge. Finding none, he turned to the authorities for information. It
was he who led the deputation to the governor general for relief in some
form. When this step failed, Armour demanded of the deputy postmaster
general his authority for the newspaper charges.
Getting no answer from that quarter, Armour endeavoured to bring matters
to an issue by refusing to pay the postage on the copies of his paper
which he posted in Montreal. The postmaster declined to accept the
papers without the postage, and Armour appealed to the postmaster
general in London. In due time the reply from the department was
received, and while it offered no immediate relief, it put Armour in
possession of some exclusive information, which, as a newspaper man, he
must have considered valuable.
Freeling, the secretary, informed Armour that the postmaster of Montreal
had failed in his duty, in refusing to transmit the newspapers simply
because the postage was not paid. The postmaster should have sent the
newspapers forward, and since the postage demanded by Stayner was not
paid, it fell upon the postmasters of the offices to which the papers
were directed to collect the postage, at the same rates as were charged
on letters.
As each paper was under this ruling chargeable with the rate which was
due on four letters, it may well be imagined that no publisher would
offer to pay the post office for the distribution of his papers by that
means. On these conditions, the postage on each copy sent from Montreal
to any of the post offices on the island of Montreal, to St. Johns or to
the nearer settlements in Upper Canada would be thirty-two cents. Each
copy sent to Three Rivers or to any points between sixty and one hundred
miles from Montreal would cost the subscribers forty-eight cents.
It is needless to pursue the charges into districts where the copies
were sent over one hundred miles. Freeling went on to explain that, as
the post office act had no provision for the conveyance of newspapers,
the postmaster general, in order to accommodate the publishers permitted
the deputy postmaster general to make private arrangements with them for
the transmission of their newspapers. By ancient and authorized custom,
the deputy postmaster general was allowed to treat the receipts from
this source as his own perquisite. This information with the comments
thereon greatly enlivened many issues of the _Gazette_.
Freeling was denounced as a sinecurist, who permitted impositions in the
colonies which he dared not make at home. Armour announced that he would
carry the matter into the legislature, and, if necessary, into the
courts. He had no desire to escape the payment of postage. All he
demanded was the establishment of an equitable rate, placed on a legal
basis. His idea was that the postmasters who handled the newspapers
should be paid from five to ten per cent. of their cost. The rates
charged by Stayner amounted to from twenty to twenty-five per cent. of
the subscription price. Armour would resist Stayner's claim to be a
sleeping partner in his business, who, contributing neither capital nor
talent, dictated what his share of the revenue should be.
Armour could write well, and his onslaught caused Stayner much
uneasiness. In a letter to the postmaster general[215] he attributed it
to some neglect or indignity, which Armour fancied he suffered at the
hands of a former deputy postmaster general, while, he stated, other
newspapers were recognizing with gratitude Stayner's efforts to satisfy
the reasonable demands of the public.
Every side of Stayner's work was vigorously attacked in the _Gazette_.
Complaints were made of a lack of necessary mail routes, and of an
insufficiency of service on existing routes. It was charged also that
Stayner's attention was confined to the older and more thickly settled
districts, which yielded the largest revenues. But, according to
Stayner, Armour's silence could have been purchased by a share of the
official printing which Stayner declined to give him. Whatever grounds
Stayner had for making the insinuation, there can be no question as to
the energy with which Armour bent himself to the task of exposing the
methods of the post office. When his papers were held in the Montreal
post office on account of his refusal to prepay the postage, he entered
actions for large amounts against Stayner.
These failed, as the courts declined to deal with the cases. He then
addressed himself to the legislature. In the beginning of 1831, Armour
and a number of other publishers presented a petition to the house of
assembly of Lower Canada, setting forth the high rates they had to pay
as postage for the transmission of their newspapers, and the impropriety
of Stayner's practice in appropriating the proceeds; and asking that
they might be put on an equal footing with the publishers in Great
Britain.
The petition was handed over to a committee of the house, who proceeded
to investigate the facts. In this they were only moderately successful,
as the only person who was in a position to give them the information
they desired, declined to answer the interrogatories put to him.[216]
Stayner, in reply to inquiries as to the financial condition of the post
office and the disposition of the surplus revenues, pleaded that he was
employed by a branch of the imperial government, which in none of its
instructions had recognized the right of the assembly to institute the
inquiries being made. To answer the questions put to him by the
committee might lead to disclosures, which would involve him with his
superior officers until he had received specific instructions from them
on the point.
But though little was learned from Stayner, the committee had obtained
some useful information from inquiries made in the British house of
commons by Joseph Hume. It appeared that the large sum of L36,000 had
been received by the British treasury as surplus revenue for the years
1825 and 1826.
Stayner endeavoured to lessen the importance of this fact by declaring
that more than half the amount was postage paid by the army, which was
not properly chargeable with postage at all. The committee declined to
accept this view; and while perfectly friendly to Stayner, and admitting
that he had effected some considerable improvements, they were persuaded
that the service was far from being what the people had a right to
expect.
Looking outwards from Quebec, the committee observed that there was no
postal service whatever in the counties of Montmorency and Saguenay,
which embraced the earliest settlements in the country. On the south
shore of the St. Lawrence, and along the Etchemin and Chaudiere rivers,
there was a wide stretch of well-settled country entirely lacking the
means of communication with the capital, though but a short distance
from it.
From Quebec eastward to the New Brunswick boundary there were over
100,000 people, and the only postal accommodation for this great extent
of territory was afforded by seven post offices lying along the line of
the post route between Quebec and Halifax. The peninsula of Gaspe, with
a line of fishing settlements all along the coast, had but two mails
each year.
The committee regretted particularly the situation as regards the
conveyance of newspapers. The post office was under no legal obligation
to carry them except as letters, and yet there was no other means
available for their circulation. If the law had not conferred on the
post office a monopoly of carrying letters, the publishers would have a
resource. They might establish a transportation system, and meet their
expenses by carrying letters as well as newspapers.
The secrecy with which the affairs of the post office were surrounded
was much deprecated by the committee, as giving ground for speculation
and suspicion that could not fail to do harm to the institution. If,
under the present system of imperial control, an adequate service were
rendered, there would have been no just grounds for complaint.
But if the interests of the province were not regarded, the people were
entitled to object to their being limited to a means of conveyance which
did not meet their requirements, and to assume that the revenue arising
from the service was not properly applied. The committee in conclusion
expressed their confidence in the good will of both the postmaster
general and his deputy in Canada, and their belief that their complaint
had only to be laid before the governor general to secure favourable
consideration.
Before concluding to withhold from the house of assembly, the
information it sought, Stayner with characteristic prudence had enlisted
the support of the governor general, who coincided with him in his view
as to the impropriety of his submitting to the questioning of the house
regarding the affairs of a branch of the imperial service. When he laid
the course he had pursued before the postmaster general, Stayner also
gained his approval for the zeal and sagacity he had shown.
But Armour persisted in his attacks in the _Gazette_, and in the two
sessions which followed managed to alienate from Stayner a large measure
of the good will of the house of assembly. Stayner's determination to
withhold information from the assembly was a source of irritation. The
facts which had come to their knowledge through questions in the house
of commons at Westminster, the ungracious admissions which the
possession of these facts enabled the house to extort from Stayner, and
his specious and unconvincing defence of his perquisites, all combined
to change the house from an attitude of friendliness to one of
criticism and even hostility.
The house no longer rested in the belief that, to obtain satisfaction,
all that was necessary was to lay their grievances before the
department. In 1832, it denounced the methods of the department, and
presented an address to the governor general praying that the home
government might place the post office under the control of the
legislature.[217]
In the session of 1833, the pertinacious Armour again appeared before
the assembly. He had no new facts to present, but managed to sustain the
interest of the house in the facts already before it.
The assembly on this occasion set forth its views at greater length. In
an address to the king,[218] it represented that the post office should
not be a means of raising a revenue greater than was needed to enable it
to establish offices wherever they might be required; that if the rates
were higher than was necessary for that purpose they should be lowered;
and that any surplus revenue should be at the disposition of the
legislature for the improvement of communications by post throughout the
country; also, that newspapers should pass through the post office in
Lower Canada, free of postage.
In the assembly in Upper Canada the post office was also vigorously
assailed. There was general agreement on the proposition that the
existing arrangements were not satisfactory, but on the point of remedy
opinions differed sharply. The reformers, of whom Dr. Duncombe was the
spokesman, adopting the argument of the Baldwin committee of 1821,
insisted that the post office had no legal basis in Upper Canada.
Duncombe and his associates held that it was a violation of the
constitution to send any surplus revenue to Great Britain, and that it
was the obvious duty of the legislature to pass an act, taking to itself
the control of the provincial post office. They believed that the
revenues from the service would amply suffice to cover all its expenses,
but if it should turn out that such was not the case, they were prepared
to meet the deficiency from the general revenues of the province.
The government party, on the other hand, always ready to fight for
things as they were, did not accept the argument of the Baldwin
committee. They held that the post office was an institution necessary
to commerce, and, as such, it was not placed by the acts of 1778 and
1791 under the jurisdiction of the provincial legislature. They did not
believe that the provincial post office furnished a revenue sufficient
to cover the expenses, but if it should be shown that they were wrong,
and that the post office yielded a surplus, they were convinced that the
imperial government had no desire to retain the surplus for its own
purposes.
Colborne, the lieutenant governor, was in general agreement with the
government party. But he believed that, having regard to the great
distances between Quebec, and the rapidly rising settlements in the
remoter parts of Upper Canada, an administrator, having his headquarters
at Quebec could never understand the necessities of the new districts,
and that it was indispensable that there should be stationed at Toronto
an officer with powers nearly, if not quite, equal to those of the
deputy postmaster general at Quebec.
In the sessions of 1832 and 1833, the subject was warmly debated.[219]
The views of the reformers were presented by Duncombe and Bidwell. They
were opposed by the attorney general (Henry John Boulton), the solicitor
general (Christopher Hagerman), and Burwell, who was postmaster at Port
Burwell.
It was one of the complaints of the reformers that there were in the
house of assembly a number of postmasters who voted not according to
their own convictions, but according to the orders of Stayner.
As the result of the discussion, it was resolved to present an address
to the king, asking that an annual statement of the revenue and
expenditure of the department be laid before the legislature; that
newspapers should be distributed throughout the province free of
postage; that the correspondence of the members of the legislature
should pass free during sessions; and finally, that in the event of a
surplus being obtained, the postage rates should be reduced, or that the
surplus should be devoted to the improvement of the roads.
Stayner, in sending to the postmaster general, copies of the addresses
from Upper and Lower Canada, expressed his gratification that the
assemblies in both provinces appeared to have dropped the idea of
independent provincial establishments, and gave it as his opinion that
the legislatures would look for nothing further than such reasonable
modifications of existing laws and regulations as the imperial
government might determine.
That some changes were necessary Stayner was quite convinced. The
postage on newspapers, for instance, could not long remain in its
present position, as regards either the amount of the charges or the
mode in which the revenue therefrom was disposed of. As for the request
of the legislatures that newspapers should be distributed by the post
office free of charge, there seemed no sound reason why this should be
done. A moderate rate should be fixed, and some arrangement made for the
disposal of the revenue from this source. The present plan aroused
dissatisfaction, and indeed the amount collected was fast becoming too
large to be appropriated in the existing manner.
The postmaster general expressed his satisfaction with Stayner's report,
and indeed it appeared at that moment to be of more than usual
consequence to him that the colonies should be well affected towards the
post office.
It will be remembered that when the Baldwin report reached England in
1821, the postmaster general was sufficiently impressed with the cogency
of the argument against the legal standing of the British post office in
the colonies, to call for the opinion of the law officers upon it. When
the case was prepared by the solicitor for the post office, it was still
more impressive, and the postmaster general thought better of his desire
to have a definite opinion upon it, as it appeared more than probable
that the opinion might be against the post office. He accordingly
directed that the papers should be put away, and they lay undisturbed
for eleven years.
But the repeated remonstrances of the colonial assemblies, joined to the
rising dissatisfaction with the general political conditions in Upper
and Lower Canada, made it desirable to remove any real grievances which
might be found to exist in the control and management of the postal
system.
The first step taken in this direction was to ascertain whether there
was any foundation for the contention of the assemblies that the whole
system rested on an illegal basis, and that the revenues collected by
the post office in the colonies were taken in violation of the
fundamental principle governing the relations between the mother country
and the colonies.
The case was accordingly submitted to the attorney general and the
solicitor general in 1832; and on the 5th of November of that year a
decision was given, upholding the colonial contentions on all
points.[220]
The questions upon which the opinions of the law officers were required
were (first) whether the power to establish posts, and the exclusive
right to the conveyance of letters given by the acts of 1711 and 1765,
had the force of law in the Canadas, and (second) whether the postage
received for the inland conveyance of letters within those provinces
ought to be paid into the exchequer and applied as part of the revenue
of the United Kingdom, or whether it ought to be devoted to the use of
the province in which it is raised.
The law officers gave the case the attention its importance called for.
It appeared, they stated, to involve practical considerations of the
highest political importance, bringing directly into question the
principle of the declaratory act of 1778, respecting internal taxation
of the colonies by the mother country.
Their opinion was that the rates of internal postage could not be
considered as within the exception of duties imposed for the regulation
of commerce, but that if they could be so considered, they would by the
terms of that act be at the disposal of the province, instead of
constituting a part of the revenues appropriated for the general
purposes of the empire.
It had been contended, as a question of law, that since the act of 1765,
by which the colonial rates were finally determined, was in operation at
the time of the declaratory act of 1788, it had not been annulled by the
latter act, the language of which was, not that rates then existing
should be no longer levied, but that after the passing of the act of
1778, no tax or duty should be levied. But the law officers had no great
confidence in the argument. In their own words they were of opinion that
"it would not be safe to agitate the question as a question of law with
the colony, and if it could be so discussed, it would not succeed, and
that it could not be enforced."
The opinion of the law officers could not have been unexpected, but it
gave the postmaster general much concern. In a note appended to the
decision, he accepted the opinion of the law officers as conclusive. The
department, he said, was beaten off its first position, and his view was
that a plan should be drawn up by which the post office should
relinquish to the provinces any surplus revenue after the expenses were
paid, and permit an account of the receipts and expenditures to be laid
on the tables of the legislatures. While forced to concede this much the
postmaster general was convinced that the appointment of the officers of
the department should remain with the crown. Otherwise he foresaw the
ruin of the colonies, so far as correspondence was concerned; for the
postmaster general and legislature of Upper Canada would be at perpetual
strife with the postmaster general and legislature of Lower Canada.
However, he concluded that before taking any step in the matter he would
consult Goderich, the colonial secretary.
It was not until the following March that the postmaster general saw
Goderich respecting the post office. The interview was quite
satisfactory. The colonial secretary agreed to the propositions.
Legislation would be necessary, and to that end Stayner was called to
London to give his assistance.
At this time the government received assurances from an unexpected
source that the plan settled upon would be satisfactory to the Canadian
people. William Lyon Mackenzie, and Denis Benjamin Viger, representing
as they maintained, the body of the public in the two provinces, visited
England for the purpose of laying before the government the grievances
of the Canadian people.
On reaching London, Mackenzie and Viger wrote to the secretary of the
post office, requesting an interview with the postmaster general. The
request was refused on the ground that the postmaster general did not
feel authorized to communicate with any person but the colonial
secretary on colonial matters. The delegates then addressed themselves
to Goderich, who cordially invited them to lay their case before him.
Mackenzie, thus encouraged, prepared a statement, which, though long and
detailed, was studiously moderate in tone.[221] On all other points of
colonial policy, Mackenzie declared, people would be found to differ,
but as regards the post office there was absolute unanimity. There must
be a change. Stayner himself admitted that the arrangements were
imperfect.
The colonial governments were in favour of separate establishments, but
Mackenzie was of Stayner's opinion that such would be impracticable. His
own belief was that the only feasible scheme would be to bring all the
colonies of British North America under one deputy postmaster general,
who should be responsible to the postmaster general of England.
Mackenzie apparently would be quite satisfied to see the office of
deputy postmaster general vested in Stayner, whom he described as a
persevering, active officer.
The other suggestions of Mackenzie were in line with the more
conservative recommendations of the colonial assemblies. On one
subject, however, he expressed himself strongly. He said the packet
service between the Canadian provinces and the mother country was so
indifferent that it went far to convince Canadians that Great Britain
desired as little correspondence with Canada as possible.
As an instance of the inferiority of the packet service, Mackenzie told
Goderich that he had shortly before received a letter by the Halifax
packet, which was sixty-five days on the way, and which cost five
shillings and fourpence-halfpenny for postage, and another by way of New
York, which was only thirty-four days in coming, and cost only one
shilling and fourpence-halfpenny. The announcement of the arrival of the
English mail by the Halifax packet was scarcely heeded, whereas no
sooner was it known that the Liverpool mail had arrived from New York
than the Montreal post office was crowded. Mackenzie's statement on this
point was fully confirmed by Stayner on his arrival in London in June.
Stayner, when informed of the opinion of the law officers, was not
disposed to acquiesce in it as readily as the postmaster general had
done. Colonial lawyers, always more imperial and more conservative than
the Eldons and Lyndhursts in London, had assured him that the necessity
of imperial control of the colonial post office was the strongest reason
for believing that parliament never intended to divest itself of the
power by the act of 1778. The conviction of the necessity of imperial
control was held by all persons qualified to have an opinion, and,
Stayner declared, by the legislatures themselves.
The firm belief of Stayner was that, if the imperial parliament failed
to legislate on the present critical situation then they must give up
all idea of ever having the question settled. The several colonies could
never be brought to concur in their views on this or any other subject.
They knew this, and did not ask to have the matter submitted to their
own legislation.
Stayner certainly overstated the reluctance of the legislatures to deal
with the question of the provincial post office. But, as his opinion had
the support of so ultra a radical as Mackenzie, the postmaster general
could not be blamed for accepting, and, as far as possible, acting upon
it.
There was, however, a difficulty. Indeed, the way back into right
courses seemed beset with difficulties. The postmaster general was quite
willing to furnish the legislatures with annual statements of the
revenue and expenditure, to leave with the colonies all surplus
revenues, and to satisfy all the reasonable desires of the provinces.
But by what steps should he proceed, to legalize the course he proposed?
If the necessary legislation could be enacted by the imperial
parliament, all would be well. With a free hand, he would have no
trouble in satisfying all the interests concerned. But if the bills had
to originate with the provincial legislatures, the postmaster general
would despair of bringing the matter to a successful conclusion, as he
was convinced that the requisite action on the part of the several
provincial legislatures would never be taken. The postmaster general
again turned to the law officers. It was essential that they be
consulted on the question.
The points on which opinion was desired were two. The first was whether,
without any further authority of parliament, the surplus of any postal
revenue raised within the colonies under the act of 1765, could be
appropriated and applied under the direction of the respective
legislatures for the use of the province in which such surplus might
arise.
The second was whether it would be competent for the British parliament
to fix a new set of rates for the colonies, or whether the acts of 1778
and 1791 made it necessary that the authority for such rates should
proceed from the respective colonial legislatures.
Both of these questions were answered adversely to the hopes of the
postmaster general.[222] The law officers had no doubt that the act of
1778 was applicable to the Canadas, and that, if objections were raised
in the provinces to the payment of postages fixed by the British
parliament, whether by the act of 1765 or by an act to be thereafter
passed, the legality of the charges could not be maintained, nor could
payment of them be enforced in the absence of authority from the
legislature of the province concerned.
The proper procedure to be followed, in the opinion of the law officers,
was for the British parliament to repeal the act of 1765, and leave it
to the provinces to establish a new set of rates. The law officers were
aware of the difficulties which would arise, if after the act of 1765
had been repealed, the colonial legislatures failed to agree on a scheme
of rates or on the necessary arrangements for a uniform postal system
throughout the provinces. In such a case, there would be a period in
which there would be not even the semblance of legal authority for the
postal service within the colonies.
After a further interchange of correspondence between the postmaster
general and the law officers, it was decided to introduce into the
imperial parliament a bill repealing the act of 1765, but making the
operation of the bill contingent upon suitable legislation being adopted
by the legislatures of the several provinces. In order to facilitate the
passage of identical legislation by each of the legislatures, a draft
act was prepared by the solicitor of the general post office, and a copy
was sent to the lieutenant governor in each of the provinces for
submission to his legislature.
The act of the imperial parliament was passed and received the king's
assent on the 26th of March, 1834.[223] It contained but two clauses.
The first provided for the repeal of the imperial act of 1765, so far as
that act authorized the collection of postage in the colonies, but
stipulated that it should not become operative until acceptable
legislation had been adopted in the several provinces, authorizing the
collection of postage and making suitable arrangements for a postal
service throughout the provinces.
The second clause stipulated that, in the event of the revenues from the
colonial post offices exceeding the expenditures, the surplus should no
longer be sent to London to form part of the revenues of the United
Kingdom, but should be divided among the several colonies in the
proportion of their gross revenues.
The draft bill, prepared by the solicitor of the general post office,
provided for a complete postal system in each of the provinces.[224]
Under this bill, the postmaster general at St. Martin's-le-Grand was to
be the head of each provincial system, and the appointment of a deputy
postmaster general in each province, who should reside in the province
and manage the system therein, was to be in his hands.
The postage rates were to be the same in the several provinces; and in
the case of correspondence between the provinces, the charge for postage
was to be fixed in accordance with the entire distance the articles were
carried, without regard to provincial boundary lines.
It will be seen that if the provincial legislatures adopted the bills
framed in London for them, there would be no change whatever in the
practical working of the colonial system. The postmaster general in
London would, as theretofore, control the arrangements, and the charges
were fixed, regardless of provincial boundaries. As the imperial act
stipulated that any surplus which should arise from the system should be
distributed among the colonies, so the proposed provincial bills
provided for the contingency of a deficit in its operations.
Each provincial bill empowered the postmaster general to demand from the
legislature the amount, which it was agreed that the province should be
held responsible for, to make up the deficit. Upper and Lower Canada
were to bind themselves to pay in such a case up to L2000 from each
province. Nova Scotia was to pay up to L1200; New Brunswick up to L600;
and Prince Edward Island up to L200.
In anticipation of the adoption of the bills by the several
legislatures, the postmaster general appointed an accountant, who should
have general charge of the financial transactions of all the colonies.
He was to be established at Quebec. His position in relation to the
deputy postmaster general of Lower Canada was somewhat peculiar. While,
in general, he was subordinate to the deputy postmaster general, in all
matters touching the accounts, he was independent of the deputy, and
responsible only to the postmaster general in London.
There were also appointed two travelling surveyors or inspectors in the
Canadas, one of whom was stationed at Quebec, and the other at Toronto.
Nothing could have been more necessary for the proper administration of
the service, and for the expansion of the system to meet the
requirements of the new settlements. It was impossible for Stayner to
give personal attention to the duty of supervising postmasters, or to
inquiries into the merits of the numerous applications from all parts of
the country for new post offices.
The necessity for assistance in this direction was impressed on Stayner
by a number of robberies which took place on the grand route between
Montreal and Toronto--episodes in post office economy which he was
helpless to investigate.
Two of these robberies have incidents connected with them, which are
deserving of mention. In February 1835, on a stormy night, the mail bag
dropped off the courier's sleigh somewhere in the neighbourhood of
Prescott, and it could not be found. As the contents of the bag included
banknotes to the value of from L10,000 to L12,000, a reward of L200 was
offered for the conviction of the thief and the recovery of the money.
Within half an hour after the placard was on view in Prescott, a man who
heard it read, exclaimed excitedly: "I know all about it, I have the
bag at home." It turned out that this man had found the bag, rifled it,
and used part of the money, and, carried away with the prospect of the
large reward, had actually informed on himself.
The other case is noteworthy on account of the energy displayed by the
loser of a valuable letter, in pursuing and securing the conviction of
the thief. The letter, which contained L200, was posted in Toronto, and
addressed to a gentleman living near L'Original. As the department,
owing to the lack of effective aid, was limited in its efforts to
advertising the loss in the newspapers and by placards, the loser of the
letter took the inquiries into his own hands.
He spent nearly a year in his investigations, travelling up and down the
country between Montreal and Toronto, and in the state of New York,
covering a distance of upwards of two thousand one hundred miles. It is
satisfactory to be able to say that he managed to locate and secure the
arrest and conviction of the thief. So well had he done his work, that
the deputy postmaster general adjudged him to be entitled to the L50
reward offered by the department.
FOOTNOTES:
[211] Freeling to Stayner, August 7, 1830.
[212] Freeling to Stayner, September 25, 1828.
[213] _Can. Arch._, Br. P.O. Transcripts, II.
[214] _Can. Arch._, Br. P.O. Transcripts, III.
[215] _Can. Arch._, Br. P.O. Transcripts, III.
[216] _Journals of Assembly_, L.C., 1831, App. F.F.
[217] _Journals of Assembly_, L.C., 1831-1832, p. 415.
[218] _Ibid._, 1832-1833, p. 561.
[219] _Report, Journals of Assembly_, 1831-1832, App. 201. Address to
king, _Journals_, 1832-1833, p. 137.
[220] _Can. Arch._, Br. P.O. Transcripts, IV.
[221] _Can. Arch._, Q. 380, p. 417.
[222] November 27, 1833, _Can. Arch._, Br. P.O. Transcripts, IV.
[223] _Imperial Statutes_, 4, William IV. c. 7.
[224] The bill for Upper Canada is printed in App. 8 to the _Journals of
the Assembly_ for 1835. Those submitted to the other provinces were
identical except as to the maximum to be contributed by the province in
the event of a financial deficit.