Produced by Simon Gardner, Adrian Mastronardi, The
Philatelic Digital Library Project at http://www.tpdlp.net
and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at
https://www.pgdp.net
Transcriber's Notes
This is a Plain Text version. It uses the 7-bit ASCII character set.
Accented characters are represented as follows:
['a] indicates the acute accent
[e'] indicates the grave accent
[^i] indicates the circumflex accent
[:u] indicates the umlaut
The following are used to represent special characters and marks:
[~d] [~r] [~n] indicates a tilde above d, r, n
[p=] indicates a line below p
[=o] [=co] [=xon] indicate an overline above 1, 2 or 3 characters
[^p] indicates an inverted breve above p
[oe] indicates an oe ligature
[L] indicates the pound (Sterling) sign
[S] indicates the Section symbol
Italic typeface in the original is indicated with _underscores_. Bold
typeface in the original is indicated by UPPER CASE. Small capital
typeface in the original is indicated by UPPER CASE.
There are a large number of footnotes. These have been grouped together
at end of each chapter or major section in which they are referenced.
There are numerous quotations from documents in German, French and
archaic English which use many abbreviations, variant spellings and
inconsistent spellings. These are retained, except where obvious typo
corrections are listed at the end of this document.
* * * * *
STUDIES IN ECONOMICS AND POLITICAL SCIENCE.
EDITED BY THE HON. W. PEMBER REEVES, PH.D., _Director of the London
School of Economics and Political Science._
No. 50 in the Series of Monographs by writers connected with the London
School of Economics and Political Science.
THE DEVELOPMENT OF RATES OF POSTAGE
* * * * *
THE DEVELOPMENT OF
RATES OF POSTAGE
AN HISTORICAL AND
ANALYTICAL STUDY
BY
A. D. SMITH, B.Sc. (ECON.)
OF THE SECRETARY'S OFFICE,
GENERAL POST OFFICE, LONDON
WITH AN INTRODUCTION BY
THE RIGHT HON. HERBERT SAMUEL, M.P.
POSTMASTER-GENERAL 1910-14 AND 1915-16
LONDON: GEORGE ALLEN & UNWIN LTD.
RUSKIN HOUSE 40 MUSEUM STREET, W.C. 1
[_Thesis approved for the Degree of Doctor of Science_ (Economics) _in
the University of London_]
_First published in 1917_
(_All rights reserved_)
PREFACE
This study, which was prepared primarily as a Research Studentship
Report for the University of London, is intended to be a contribution to
the history of rates of postage, and an attempt to ascertain the
principles, economic or otherwise, on which they are and have been
based.
The Postmaster-General accorded me permission to consult the official
records at the General Post Office, London, and through this courtesy I
have been enabled to include a detailed examination of the economic
aspect of the rates in the inland service in this country, and to place
in the Appendix copies of some original documents which have not before
been printed. Without this permission, which I desire here to
acknowledge, it would, indeed, scarcely have been possible to undertake
the inquiry. It must be made clear, however, that the work is of
entirely private character, and cannot be taken as in any way expressing
the views of the British Postal Administration.
In 1912, as the holder of the Mitchell Studentship in Economics at the
University of London, I visited Ottawa and Washington; in 1913 I visited
Paris and the International Bureau at Berne; and in 1914, Berlin. I am
much indebted to the various postal administrations visited, to whom, by
the courtesy of the Postmaster-General, I carried official letters of
introduction in addition to my letters from the University, for
facilities to consult official papers relating to the subject of
investigation, and for assistance from members of the staff with whom I
was brought into contact.
The work was all but completed at the outbreak of war, but publication
has been unavoidably delayed. The overpowering necessities created by
the war have caused Governments again to look to postage for increased
revenue. Penny postage itself has been in danger in the country of its
origin. Various war increases of postage have already been made, both
here and abroad, and brief particulars of the changes in the countries
dealt with have been included. Further proposals for increasing the
revenue from postage will possibly be made, and I am hopeful that these
pages, in which the course of postage is traced, may then be found of
service.
For the privilege of numerous facilities in connection with my work on
the rates in this country I am indebted to Mr. W. G. Gates,
Assistant-Secretary to the Post Office; and for assistance in my
inquiries abroad I am indebted to Dr. R. M. Coulter, C.M.G., Deputy
Postmaster-General, Ottawa, and Mr. William Smith, I.S.O., at the time
of my visit Secretary to the Canada Post Office; to Congressman the Hon.
David Lewis, of Maryland, and Mr. Joseph Stewart, Second Assistant
Postmaster-General, United States Post Office; to M. Vaill['e], of the
Secr['e]tariat Administratif, Ministry of Posts and Telegraphs, Paris; and
to M. Ruffy, Director of the International Bureau, Universal Postal
Union, Berne.
I am especially indebted to Professor Graham Wallas for valuable
suggestions and advice.
A. D. SMITH.
LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS,
1917.
CONTENTS
PAGE
PREFACE v
INTRODUCTION xi
I. THE RATE FOR LETTERS--
Letter Post in England 1
Letter Post in Canada 37
Letter Post in the United States of America 59
Letter Post in France 78
Letter Post in Germany 97
II. THE RATE FOR NEWSPAPERS--
Newspaper Post in England 111
Newspaper Post in Canada 136
Newspaper Post (Second-class Mail) in the United States of America 148
Newspaper Post in France 164
Newspaper Post in Germany 173
III. THE RATE FOR PARCELS--
Parcel Post in England 183
Parcel Post in the United States of America 191
Parcel Post in France 204
Parcel Post in Germany 209
IV. MINOR RATES--
(i) Book Post 220
(ii) Samples 229
(iii) Commercial Papers 238
(iv) Postcards 241
(v) Rate for Printed Matter for the Blind 244
(vi) Minor Rates in the United States and Canada 244
V. LOCAL RATES 247
VI. INTERNATIONAL RATES--
(i) International Letter Post 263
(ii) International Parcel Post 277
VII. AN ANALYSIS OF COST--
Method 283
Cost 289
VIII. CONCLUSION 312
APPENDIX A--
I. RATES OF INLAND LETTER POSTAGE CHARGED IN ENGLAND, 1635-1915 336
II. FOREIGN RATES IN THE BRITISH SERVICE 340
III. THE THURN AND TAXIS POSTS IN GERMANY 349
IV. PARCEL POST IN CANADA 355
V. THE SUPPLEMENTAL SERVICES 357
VI. POST OFFICE REVENUE 358
VII. GRAPHS 368
APPENDIX B--
DOCUMENTS AND EXTRACTS ILLUSTRATING ASPECTS
OF POSTAL HISTORY--
(i) Ancient Posts 374
(ii) Nuncii and Cursores 377
(iii) Witherings' Scheme for the Reform of the Posts in England, 1635 378
(iv) The Monopoly and the General Farm of the Posts 380
(v) The English Post Office in 1681 384
(vi) The Cross Posts 388
(vii) The Early Posts in North America 391
(viii) The Clerks of the Road and the Transmission of Newspapers 403
APPENDIX C--
LIST OF AUTHORITIES 412
INDEX 425
INTRODUCTION
This book contains a collection of facts and an examination of
principles which will be of value to all students of the subject with
which it deals. It is more comprehensive than any book on rates of
postage yet published in the English language, or, I believe, in any
other. It is careful and unbiased, and although here and there some of
the author's conclusions may not meet with unanimous acceptance, they
cannot fail to stimulate useful discussion on a matter which is far more
important than is often realized.
The whole of our social organization has come to depend in large degree
upon the post. Commerce, in all its departments, relies upon it. All the
variety of associations which are, in their wide expansion, distinctive
of modern civilization and necessary to its life and energy--employers'
associations, trade unions, co-operative societies, friendly societies,
religious bodies, political and propagandist organizations of every
kind, local, national, and international--the whole nervous system of
the modern State, depends upon the quick transmission of information and
ideas; it would never have reached and could not maintain its present
development without cheap, reliable, and speedy means of communication.
The indirect effects of changes--even small changes--in the postal
system are often extensive and almost incalculable.
Where the State itself conducts an industry there is always a risk that
commercial considerations and fiscal considerations will not be
sufficiently distinguished. Charges may be fixed at a higher point than
is warranted by the cost of the services rendered. The surplus goes to
the national revenue. It is a tax, but a concealed tax, and in the case
of postal rates it is one of the worst kinds of tax, a tax on
communications. On the other hand, charges may be fixed at a lower
point than will cover the cost of the service. The deficit is a subsidy,
but a concealed subsidy. The halfpenny postage rate for bulky
newspapers, for example, or the extension of telegraph offices to rural
districts, may be socially useful, but they are unremunerative. The loss
that they involve to the Exchequer may be justifiable, but if so it
should be deliberately incurred. It should not be hidden in the profit
that is made on the letter post. Without a scientific examination into
the actual cost of each part of the postal and telegraphic service, and
into the precise relation of revenue to cost, the charges may include,
haphazard, an excess which is nothing but pure taxation, the expenditure
may include an addition which is nothing but pure subsidy, and neither
the administrator nor the taxpayer may be aware of the fact.
It is therefore one of the essential duties of the Post Office to make
such examinations, and of students or critics of postal affairs to check
or to supplement them. Mr. A. D. Smith has made a useful contribution to
the application, in this sphere, of the methods of science to the
conduct of industry; and since the postal service is the most
international of all forms of social activity, it may be expected that
his contribution will be of value, and will have its influence, far
beyond the limits of our own country.
HERBERT SAMUEL.
I
THE RATE FOR LETTERS
LETTER POST IN ENGLAND
In England the postal service, as an organized means for the carrying of
the King's despatches, dates back some four hundred years, and as a
recognized arrangement for the carrying of letters for the public, some
three hundred years. Before the establishment of a regular system of
posts, provision had been made for carrying the King's despatches by
special messengers, called _nuncii_ or _cursores_, attached to the royal
household.[1] Their function was naturally one of importance, and, from
early times, large sums were expended in their maintenance. They were
employed on the private and confidential business of the Crown and of
members of the royal household, and on affairs of State, both in England
and abroad, although their function was primarily to serve the
convenience of the King.
This was a system for the conveyance of official despatches only.[2] No
public provision was made for the conveyance of letters for private
individuals. Such letters were conveyed by servants, by special
messengers, or by the common carriers,[3] and there is evidence of the
existence of a considerable private correspondence in the frequent issue
of writs during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries ordering
supervision of the traffic in private letters, the uninterrupted
transmission of which was a source of much anxiety to the Crown from
fear of the fomenting of sinister and treasonable plots against
itself.[4]
The establishment of the _nuncii_ or _cursores_ developed into a regular
system. On certain lines of road relay stages were set up, at which the
messengers might without delay obtain a change of horses, a system first
set up by Edward IV in 1482, during the war with Scotland.[5] Such relay
messengers were called "posts," a word borrowed from the French.[6] The
term was also applied to the line of route, and the expression "post,"
or "line of posts," was used to denote a route along which, at certain
stages, post-horses were kept in readiness for the use of the King's
messengers. Travelling in this way the messengers were able to cover a
hundred miles a day. The establishment of lines of regular posts became
a feature of the administrative system, and a special officer of the
royal household was appointed to control them.
The first recorded Master of the Posts was Brian Tuke, who held the
office in 1512. The posts, like the establishment of special messengers,
were maintained solely at the cost of the King. The master received a
salary from the King (which in a patent issued in 1545 is given as [L]66
13s. 4d. a year), and also the amount of his expenses incurred in
providing for the carrying of letters. The regular postmasters received
a daily wage from the King. On lines along which no regular post had
been established, but along which it might on occasion be necessary to
send special messengers, the townships were obliged to furnish horses
for the service of the messengers. Remarks in contemporary papers
suggest that no payment was made in such cases, but that horses were
supplied gratis for the King's service.[7] There is no record of the
early days of Tuke's tenure of the office of Master of the Posts; but in
1533 Thomas Cromwell complained to Tuke concerning the condition of the
posts, and the great default in the conveyance of letters.[8]
The posts were in many cases established on account of some special
circumstance, and were of a temporary character. The first regular
post--that established in 1482 during the war with Scotland--was, of
course, temporary; but at much later dates, when "ordinarie," or
permanent, posts had been established, such as the post from London to
Berwick and that from London to Beaumaris, it was still usual to
establish "extra ordinarie" posts "in divers places of the Realme" as
occasion might from time to time require, as, for example, during the
periods of the sovereign's progresses.[9]
The early posts had a second function, not less in importance than that
of providing for the conveyance of the sovereign's despatches, and
despatches sent on affairs of State viz. the provision of means by which
persons actually travelling on the business of the sovereign, though not
bearing despatches, might do so with facility. This second function,
the travelling post, continued until the eighteenth century. It is a
function which is essentially akin to the provision of a means of
intercommunication by means of letters. In many parts of the United
Kingdom, and also in other countries, the means provided for the
conveyance of the mail are still largely used by persons desiring to
travel.[10]
The use of the post-horses by ordinary travellers commenced at an early
period. In 1553, when the posts had been in existence only some fifty or
sixty years, a rate of a penny a mile for persons riding post was fixed
by statute.[11]
Great abuses grew up round the travelling post, or "thorough post," as
it was called.[12] Riders in post frequently failed to pay a reasonable
sum for the hire of horses; and since King's messengers, although
paying no fixed rates, obtained better accommodation than others, riders
in post travelling on their own affairs made no scruple to represent
themselves as travelling on public service. Orders directed against
these abuses were issued in 1603. Riders in post on the King's affairs,
with a special commission signed either by one of the Principal
Secretaries of State, by six at least of the Privy Council, or by the
Master of the Posts, were to pay at the rate of 2-1/2d. a mile for a
horse. All others riding post about their own affairs were to make their
own terms with the postmaster, and to pay in advance.[13] The net result
was that for all persons riding with the special commission a fixed rate
was payable in place of uncertain rates as hitherto, and the postmasters
were protected from being imposed upon by persons riding post on their
private business. Without the special commission it was useless to
pretend to be travelling on the King's affairs. By this proclamation the
postmasters were also given the exclusive right of letting horses to
travellers.[14] The wages of the postmasters in respect of the "post for
the pacquet" were a fixed sum per day, and a certain number of horses
had to be kept in readiness, in proportion to the amount of the wages
paid. As regards the service for the State, the system of posts was
therefore on a complete and definite financial basis. The rates for the
thorough post, although not in any way rates of postage in the modern
sense, were the first rates applied to the service of the posts (the pay
of the postmasters for the packet post being merely wages per diem), and
it was to them that the term "postage" was first applied. These rates
were in fact the original "postage."
The number of regular posts was in early times quite small.[15] In order
to provide a means of reaching other parts of the kingdom with some
degree of facility, the municipalities were required to maintain, or at
least provide when required, post-horses for the use of the King's
messengers.[16] Some municipalities made definite provision of horses:
Leicester, for example, maintained "certen poste-horses" (four in
number) for the service of the Prince; but if horses were not provided
voluntarily, the magistrates and constables were authorized to seize
them for the King's service wherever they could be found.[17] Many of
the posts continued for a long period to be of a temporary nature. Even
in the seventeenth century some which it might be thought would have
been important at any time, were regarded as extraordinary posts, and
were discontinued with the disappearance of the special circumstances on
account of which they had been established.[18]
A third function became attached to the posts, viz. the transmission of
private letters. As it is impossible to say at what date the posts began
to be used by ordinary travellers, so it is impossible to say at what
date they were first used for the conveyance of letters other than those
on the affairs of the King or of the State. The universities and
municipalities provided services for the carriage of their own
letters;[19] but from a very early period the posts were also made use
of for the conveyance of unofficial letters. The Master of the Posts
received no direct profit from the carrying of such letters,[20] but the
price paid to him for the office of Deputy Postmaster was probably
thereby increased.[21]
A Proclamation of 26th April 1591 prohibited the conveyance of letters
to or from countries beyond the seas by any person other than the
ordinary posts and messengers; and referred to previous similar
prohibitions. The object of this prohibition, which foreshadowed the
monopoly of the carriage of all letters, whether for places within the
realm or to or from foreign countries, was alleged to be the redress of
disorders among the posts in general, and particularly to prevent
inconveniences both to the royal service and the lawful trade of honest
merchants.[22] A Proclamation of 1609 repeated this prohibition.[23]
In 1626 a legal struggle was in progress between Matthew de Quester and
Lord Stanhope, both of whom claimed to hold a King's Patent conferring
the right to carry foreign letters.[24] This litigation led to laxity
and omission in the conduct of the foreign service, so that merchants
trading abroad were put to great inconvenience. In consequence, in
November of that year, the King granted the Merchant Companies
permission to arrange for the conveyance of their foreign letters by
their own messengers. The high authorities were disturbed by the grant
of this permission,[25] and in October 1627 it was revoked "upon
weightie reasons of State." Only the Merchant Adventurers were still
permitted to use their own messengers, and they and all other merchants
were required in times of war and danger to the State to acquaint the
Secretaries of State from time to time with what letters they forwarded
abroad.
The foreign post continued in an unsatisfactory state, and a
reorganization in accordance with a proposition submitted by the Master
of the Foreign Posts, Thomas Witherings, was notified in orders issued
on the 28th January 1633. In consequence of complaints, both of
Ministers of State and merchants, it was decided to send no more letters
by the carriers, who came and went at pleasure, but, in conformity with
other nations, to erect "stafetti," or packet posts, at fit stages, to
run day and night without ceasing. Under this new system the Foreign
Postmaster of England undertook, with the consent of the foreign
Governments, to provide "stafetti" for the conveyance of foreign letters
on the Continent, e.g. he arranged the "stafetti" between Calais and
Antwerp.
For the inland posts the financial arrangements of 1603 remained some
thirty years undisturbed, and notwithstanding that the posts were used
by travellers, and for the general conveyance of private letters, they
remained a charge on the King's revenue. In 1633 the deficit was some
[L]3,400, and in that year Witherings submitted a plan for the complete
reorganization of the inland posts.[26] The new system, which applied
only to the "post for the pacquet," was to be based on a definite scale
of charges. Previously, there had been no regular system of charging
letters carried for the public, and it is at this point that the modern
Post Office emerges. Up to this time the conveyance of letters for
private individuals, although it may have been a source of emolument to
the postmasters and couriers, was not recognized by the State as part of
the function of the service. Under the proposed system, a charge was to
be made for every letter or packet, varying in accordance with the
distance for which the letter or packet was conveyed, and its size. The
latter was to be graduated for light letters according to the number of
sheets, and for heavier letters and packets according to weight,
starting from the ounce. Here, therefore, is to be seen at the inception
of "postage" in the modern sense a definite distinction between the rate
charged on the ordinary letter, the weight and bulk of which are in
general insignificant, and that charged on the larger and heavier
packets of deeds, or what not, which might be forwarded by post.
The reform of the posts on these lines was carried out by Witherings in
October 1635, and constitutes a remarkable development of the Post
Office system. The rates of charge were as follow:--
-----------------------------------+--------+--------+--------
| | |
| Single | Double | Per
Distance of Transmission. | Letter.| Letter.| Ounce.
| | |
-----------------------------------+--------+--------+--------
| | |
Not exceeding 80 miles | 2d. | 4d. | 6d.
Exceeding 80 miles, not exceeding | | |
140 miles | 4d. | 8d. | 9d.
Exceeding 140 miles | 6d. | 12d. | 12d.
| | |
-----------------------------------+--------+--------+--------
The great change of 1840 modified this system only at two points, viz.
(1) uniformity of rate, that is, the elimination of the table of
distances from the rate-table, and (2) the introduction of the method of
charge according to weight for all letters and packets.
The monopoly of foreign letters was by this time well established, and
the reason for its existence well defined. A further proclamation of the
11th February 1637-8 again declared this monopoly, and proceeded to
declare a monopoly of letters between persons within the realm, the
second monopoly being justified, not on the ground of necessity in
order to guard the safety of the State, but on the ground that commerce
and correspondence within the realm would benefit.[27] The real
explanation of the new prohibition for inland letters was no doubt the
fact that Witherings had been appointed Master of the Inland Letter
Office for the purpose of bringing into operation his scheme for
reorganizing the posts, and it was essential to the success of the
scheme that he should have the sole right of carrying letters. There
was, of course, the political reason of danger to the State from free
and uncontrolled transmission of letters, but the feeling in that
respect seems not to have been so strong regarding the inland letters as
regarding the foreign letters. It developed later, however.[28]
In 1640 Witherings was displaced on some charge of maladministration,
and the office was given to Philip Burlamachi, a merchant of the City of
London. Witherings did not give up the office without a struggle. For
two years he strove to retain it, but without much success; and in 1642
he assigned his patent to the Earl of Warwick, who continued the
struggle. Burlamachi was backed by Edmund Prideaux, afterwards
Attorney-General. Into the merits or progress of the contest it is
unnecessary to enter. It will be sufficient to record that the Lords
espoused the cause of the Earl of Warwick and the Commons that of
Burlamachi; that the contest continued some two years; and that in the
end the Lords gave way, and Burlamachi continued Master of the Posts.
The office fell vacant in 1644, and Parliament appointed Prideaux to the
charge of the posts.[29] This task he entered upon with some
seriousness, and with considerable success. He extended the service, but
raised the minimum postage to 6d. From a report submitted by him to the
Council of State in 1649, it appears that he had established "a weekly
conveyance of letters into all parts of the nation," and that with the
moneys received as postage he had been able to defray the whole cost of
the postmasters of England with the exception of those on the Dover
Road.[30] At the time of his appointment the posts involved a charge to
the State of some [L]7,000 a year.[31] It might therefore be thought that
for Prideaux to be able to carry on the system, to give a despatch of
letters to all parts of the kingdom every week, and at the same time
make the proceeds of postage cover the whole cost, except for the Dover
Road, was a considerable achievement. The Commons were not, however,
altogether satisfied. The long disputes between the various patentees,
and their anxiety not to lose any part of the business of conveying
letters, made it evident that there was a profit other than the salary
paid by the King, notwithstanding that funds for the maintenance of the
posts were drawn from the Exchequer year by year. The office of Master
of the Posts was bought and sold. Witherings sold part of his wife's
estate to the value of [L]105 a year in land to obtain the office. The
deputy postmasters also bought their offices. And in 1642, by vote of
both Houses, Burlamachi had been required to give an account of the
_profits_ of the Letter Office. The Letter Office was in fact not on
the simple basis of payment by the messengers to the Master of Posts of
all receipts, payment by the Master of Posts from the receipts of the
ordinary fixed wages of the deputy postmasters (together with the cost
of special expresses) and of his own salary, and payment from the
Exchequer of the balance necessary to complete such payment. The deputy
postmasters took, and retained for their own use, the postage received
on private letters, paying a percentage to the Master of the Posts; and
they had also the monopoly, which was very lucrative, of letting horses
to travellers riding post. In view of these profits they were prepared
to purchase from the Master of the Posts the office of deputy
postmaster, and sums received from that source, together with the
percentage of the postage of private letters, constituted the emoluments
of the Master of the Posts, additional to his salary. The Commons, being
no doubt aware of this, concluded that there ought to be a net revenue
from the Office, and required Prideaux to pay the sum of [L]5,000 a
year.[32]
Witherings, who by some strange chance seems never to have been
altogether ousted from his offices, but to have retained that of Master
of the Foreign Post, died in 1651, and there were numerous claimants for
the succession to the office. The Council of State invited all persons
with claims to submit them, and in reporting on the claims, suggested
the farming of the Inland and Foreign Letter Offices. The question was
put to the House of Commons that the whole business be "recommitted to
the Council of State to take into consideration and present their
opinions to the Parliament how the same may be managed for the best
service of the State and ease of the people." The addition of the words
"by contract or otherwise" was suggested, and accepted by the House.[33]
The question was considered by a Committee, who, having found much
difficulty in dealing with the numerous claims in respect of the Foreign
and Inland Letter Offices, decided on the 7th November 1651, probably as
a way out of the difficulty, to recommend that the offices should be let
to farm. The matter was not hurriedly disposed of. On the 7th May
1653,[34] resolutions were passed by the House of Commons asserting the
State monopoly of the carriage of letters, and directing the Committee
appointed to consider the posts to fix rates for private letters, to
obtain tenders from persons for farming the carrying of letters, and to
recommend what annual sum in their opinion the State should require in
case it were thought well to let the posts to farm.
On the 30th June 1653 the Inland and Foreign Letter Offices were let to
John Manley at a rent of [L]10,000 a year,[35] and thus was instituted the
system of farming, which continued until 1677 as regards the main posts,
and until the late eighteenth century as regards the bye posts. The rent
continuously increased. Shortly after the Restoration it was raised to
[L]21,500 a year, and in 1667 to [L]43,000 a year.
The rate for a single letter, which had been raised by Prideaux to 6d.,
was in 1655 or 1656 reduced to 3d., owing to the efforts and competition
of Clement Oxenbridge and others, who established and maintained rival
services for the carriage of letters. These "interlopers" received scant
consideration from Prideaux, and the services which they had established
were suppressed.[36] In 1657 an Ordinance of the Commonwealth Parliament
further reduced the rate to 2d. for a single letter sent for distances
under 80 miles, and 3d. for distances over 80 miles. The rates were not,
however, as low as would appear at first sight. There is the difference
in the value of money to be allowed for; and there is the further
consideration that postage was not charged according to the direct
distance. All the post roads converged on London, and there were no
cross posts. All letters from towns on one post road for towns on
another post road must therefore pass through London, and all letters
passing through London were subjected to an additional rate of
postage;[37] that is to say, they were charged the appropriate rate in
respect of the distance to London, and then, in addition, the
appropriate rate in respect of the distance from London to destination.
The Ordinance of 1657 placed the Post Office system for the first time
on a statutory basis.[38] The objects for which such an Office was
required were given as three in number: first, to maintain certain
intercourse of trade and commerce; secondly, to convey public
despatches; and thirdly, to discover and prevent many dangerous and
wicked designs against the peace and welfare of the Commonwealth. In
1660 an Act of Parliament was passed, dealing with the Post Office.[39]
Essentially it was the Ordinance of 1657, passed as an Act to give it
legal validity under the changed order of things. The clauses relating
to the use of the Post Office as a means of detecting plots against the
State were included in a modified form, and this function was by no
means lost sight of.[40] During the excitement caused by the Popish Plot
it was freely exercised.
The general farm of the posts was abolished in 1677, and the
administration of the Office undertaken by the Government, except in the
case of the smaller branch posts, in regard to which the practice of
farming was even extended in the early years of the eighteenth
century.[41]
The revenue yielded by the Office continued to expand. In 1694 it had
reached [L]60,000; and when, for various reasons, but chiefly to provide
for the control of the Post Office in Scotland, which had been brought
under the English authorities by the Act of Union, a new Post Office Act
became necessary, the Ministers, involved in a protracted war, seized
the opportunity to obtain an increased revenue from the Office. Under
William III this had been thought of.[42]
The Act of 1711,[43] which remained for over fifty years the principal
Act relating to the Post Office, was to be an instrument of taxation.
For some fifty years the Post Office had been yielding a revenue,
constant and increasing, but nevertheless more or less fortuitous. Its
functions had always been defined as primarily to provide for the
transmission of letters, for the benefit of commerce, and for the safety
and security of the kingdom, by bringing all letters into "one Post
Office settled and established in this Kingdom," and conducted
immediately under the eye of the King's Government. The amount paid for
the farm had increased with the passing of the years, in measure with
the increase of the business of the Office--not by any change in the
scale of charges, which remained as fixed in 1660. Now, however, the
Office was made a financial instrument, the proceeds of which were to be
regulated by manipulation of the rates of charge. The results of the Act
of 1711 did not fulfil the anticipations of its framers. Provision had
been made for the disposal of that increase of revenue which was looked
for: "the full, clear, and entire Weekly Sum of Seven Hundred Pounds of
Lawful Money of _Great Britain_" was to be paid out of the revenues of
the Post Office "towards the Establishment of a good, sure, and lasting
Fund, in order to raise a present Supply of Money for carrying on the
War and other her Majesty's most necessary Occasions."[44] This [L]700 was
to be paid entirely from the proceeds of the increase in the rates. The
existing revenue of [L]111,461 a year was to be disposed of as
theretofore. All pensions and charges on the revenue were to continue,
and were to have preference over the payment of [L]700 a week. Of the
surplus over and above the [L]111,461 a year and the [L]700 a week,
one-third part was to be at the disposal of Parliament, the rest to be
paid into the Exchequer with the [L]111,461.
But the increase of revenue was so small that some of these provisions
remained for many years inoperative. The increase of rate was found
burdensome. Merchants resorted to every available means of avoiding the
additional expense.[45] A large clandestine traffic in letters grew up.
The very postboys were found carrying letters outside the mail for what
fees they could obtain. In 1710 the net revenue had been [L]66,822. In
1721 it was [L]99,784, an increase of [L]32,962. After the deduction,
therefore, of the [L]700 a week (or [L]36,400 a year), the payment of which
had preference over all other payments chargeable on the Post Office
revenue, excepting only the expenses of management, the actual net
revenue of the Post Office available for the purposes prescribed by the
Act was in 1721, [L]63,384, or less than the revenue of 1710 by [L]3,438.
The Act provided that one-third of the surplus of the yield of postage
over and above the sum of [L]147,861 ([L]111,461 plus the [L]700 a week)
should be at the disposal of Parliament for the use of the public; but
although the gross revenue had exceeded that sum, there was no surplus
for the use of the public, the explanation being that the sum mentioned
in the Act, viz. [L]111,461, was the amount of gross revenue, which could
only serve as a basis provided the cost of management remained
stationary. As a matter of fact, the cost so greatly increased that the
net revenue was not sufficient to provide the sum of [L]700 a week and
also a revenue equal to that obtained before 1711. As Mr. Joyce has
pointed out, the Treasury had confounded gross and net revenue.[46]
The essentially fiscal character of the rates of 1711 is evidenced by a
provision of the Act that from and after the 1st June 1743 the rates
charged under the previous Acts were to be restored.[47] But after 1743,
although they were without legal sanction, the rates of 1711 continued
in operation, and by an Act of 1763 they were made perpetual.[48]
The fifty years following the Act of the 9th of Anne were
uneventful.[49] The chief development was in connection with the cross
posts; a development which, although not having direct reference to the
question of the rates of postage, was yet of importance. At the
commencement of the eighteenth century the main system of the Post
Office still centred on London. All the main post routes radiated from
London, and the great bulk of the letters passing by post were either
for or from London, or passed through London. But there were, of course,
numbers of letters which were not sent to London at all: letters between
two towns on a post road, or letters between towns on different post
roads, which could be sent direct and not by way of London. These
letters were known as bye letters and cross post letters.[50] Since they
were not handled in London, the authorities had not the same means of
checking their numbers, and the postmasters' accounts of postage in
respect of them, as could be applied in London, and grave irregularities
arose. The revenue was continually defrauded by the failure of the
postmasters to bring to account the postage on such letters. No record
was made in respect of many of them, and their transmission became so
notoriously unsafe that illicit means of conveyance were constantly
resorted to. The matter was already so serious that a special clause was
included in the Act of the 9th of Anne, providing that for the
suppression of the abuse any postmaster found guilty of embezzling the
postage of bye or way letters should forfeit [L]5 for every letter and
[L]100 for every week during which he continued the practice.[51] Even
this penal clause was insufficient to check the abuse, as owing to the
unsatisfactory method of dealing with bye and way letters there was
small risk of detection in fraud.
In 1719 Ralph Allen, then postmaster of Bath, proposed to the
Postmasters-General that the management of the bye and cross post
letters should be leased to him for a term of years, and offered a rent
one and a half times as great as the revenue from the letters at that
time. The offer was accepted, and the lease, which in the first instance
was for seven years, was renewed from time to time. Allen, whose
discovery was merely that of a method of check on the receipts of the
postmasters from the bye and cross letters, was able to pay the rent
agreed upon, largely to suppress the illicit transmission of the
letters, and to make a handsome profit.[52] The chief importance of
Allen's work lies, however, not so much in the fact of his rendering the
bye and cross post letters subject to effective check, as in the fact
that in order to retain his lease he, on each occasion of renewal,
undertook the provision of additional facilities. By this means a daily
post was gradually extended to almost all the post routes.[53]
In 1765 the inland rates for short distances were reduced, and a new
standard of charge was introduced. Hitherto, all charges had been
regulated on a mileage basis. For short distances they were now based on
the number of post stages. For one post stage the rate was made 1d. for
a single letter, for a double letter 2d., for a treble letter 3d., and
for every ounce 4d.; for two post stages, 2d., and in proportion for
double, treble, and ounce letters.[54] The financial result of the
change was unsatisfactory.[55]
Up to this period the mails were carried by postboys riding horse.
Notwithstanding that on all the chief roads stage-coaches were running
more expeditiously than the post-horses, the Post Office kept to the old
way. The superiority of the stage-coaches as means for the conveyance of
letters was noticed by Mr. John Palmer, proprietor of the theatre of
Bath,[56] who was so greatly impressed with the fact that he devised a
complete and definite plan for the establishment of a system of mail
conveyance by coach. The cost of the riding post (boy and horse) was 3d.
a mile, and Palmer estimated that the change could be carried out
without involving any increase of cost, especially if, as he proposed,
the coaches carrying the mails should be exempted from toll. The
proposal was severely criticized by the district surveyors of the Post
Office, who reported on it.[57] At the Treasury, however, the proposal
met with a more favourable reception. Pitt called a conference on the
21st June 1784, and after hearing the explanations of Palmer and the
criticisms of the representatives of the Post Office, decided that the
plan should be given a trial. Accordingly, on the 2nd August 1784 the
first mail-coach ran. The experiment, which was conducted on the Bath
Road, proved successful, and the plan was rapidly extended throughout
the kingdom. The first coach cost 3d. a mile, the same rate as the
riding post; but ultimately the coaches proved to be cheaper than the
horse posts. In 1797 the rate was no more than a penny a mile.[58]
Almost simultaneously with the introduction of mail-coaches there was an
increase in the rates of postage, made solely with a view to increased
revenue.[59] The alteration was more or less fortuitous. In his Budget
of 1784 Pitt had proposed a tax on coals which had not been well
received, and the increased postage was substituted. Palmer is said to
have claimed the credit of suggesting the substitution.[60] If so, his
faith in his plan was abundantly justified. Notwithstanding the handicap
of increased rates, it was an unqualified success, and the effect on
the revenue was immediate and considerable.
At about this time several horse and cross post mails had been molested,
and it was desired, in response to a considerable public agitation, to
establish mail-coaches on the minor posts. This would have involved
heavy cost, and as an alternative Freeling (Secretary to the Post
Office, afterwards Sir Francis) suggested that only responsible persons
should be employed--at this time the post riders, in fact as well as
name, were in many instances mere boys--and that the riders should be
armed. In order to obtain funds to meet the cost of this scheme, the
rates of postage were again increased in 1797.[61] A further increase
was made in 1801 in order to-provide an additional contribution of
[L]150,000 a year to the Exchequer.[62] The new rates were elaborate and
complicated, comprising no less than thirteen rates for each class of
letter, according to the distance of transmission. Another increase
followed in 1805, when the Post Office was called upon to provide an
additional [L]230,000 a year.[63] This time the increase was made in a
very simple manner, viz. by increasing the rates of 1801 in every case
by 1d. for a single letter, 2d. for a double letter, 3d. for a treble
letter, and 4d. per ounce.
All these increases, made with the avowed intention of increasing
revenue, were successful in their main object. The net revenue, which in
1796 was [L]466,457, had risen in 1804 to [L]956,212, and in 1806 reached
the sum of [L]1,119,429. The fiscal results seemed, therefore, to justify
the Government in turning again and again to the Post Office when they
were hard pushed to find revenue. This must be the justification of the
further increase of 1812.[64] The rates then established were the
highest ever charged in England. The net revenue rose slightly after
their establishment, but never increased materially. These rates
continued in operation until 1839, when they were completely swept away,
and new rates based on principles fundamentally different were
established.
This was the system, due to Sir Rowland Hill, of uniform rates,
irrespective of distance of transmission, first introduced in the United
Kingdom in 1839, and since adopted throughout the civilized world, not
only for inland services, but for the international service.[65] The
story of the conception, advocacy, and adoption of uniform postage is
fully told by Sir Rowland Hill in his _History of Penny Postage_,[66]
and need be only briefly dealt with here. The plan itself is described
in the famous pamphlet, _Post Office Reform: Its Importance and
Practicability_, which was issued by Sir Rowland Hill in 1837.
The reform was directly related to the great reform movement in England
of the second quarter of the nineteenth century, and is a brilliant
example of the application of the deductive method in politics. Sir
Rowland Hill was a member of a Radical family, remarkable even in those
days for its zeal for reform. It was the ambition of all members of the
family to aid as far as possible the great movement; and all the
brothers interested themselves in the study of social and economic
questions, with a view to reform and improvement.[67] In the year 1835
there was a large surplus of revenue, and the brothers speculated on the
direction in which reduction of taxation might best be made.[68] Sir
Rowland Hill examined carefully the results of the financial reforms
which had been introduced in recent years, and found that the effect on
the revenue of reductions in the rate of tax showed very considerable
variations. While in some cases, as, for example, leather and soap, a
reduction of the duty by one-half had reduced the revenue by one-third,
a similar reduction of the duty on coffee had increased the revenue by
one-half. From this Sir Rowland Hill concluded that it was of the utmost
importance to select carefully the taxes to be reduced, and he cast
about for some guiding principle in the light of which the most suitable
tax for reduction might be discovered. This principle he deduced to be
as follows, viz. that the tax which most called for reduction was that
which had failed most to keep pace with the increasing numbers and
prosperity of the nation.[69] Tested in this way, the tax on letters
proved unsatisfactory. While in most other departments of the revenue
the preceding twenty years had been years of expansion and progress--as
might be anticipated during a period of peace following great and
exhausting wars--in the case of the Post Office the period had been one
of stagnation.