LEGISLATION AND LITIGATION
1764-1782
Brighter days were in store for the Post Office, but not yet. Meanwhile
the clouds grew darker and darker. During the twenty years that followed
Allen's death, partly as the result of ill-considered legislation and
still more through the incompetence and helplessness of its rulers, the
Post Office sank to a depth which, in England, probably no other public
institution, or at all events none that still exists, has ever reached.
In 1764 and 1765 two Acts of Parliament were passed, one having for its
object to prevent the abuses of franking, and the other to improve the
posts. It would be hardly too much to say that both of these Acts had an
exactly opposite effect to that which was intended. The first, far from
preventing the abuses of franking, largely extended them; and the second
imposed a deplorable restriction, a restriction for which any little
advantages conferred at the same time afforded very inadequate
compensation.
Under the Act of 1765, to take the later one first, the postage rates
were reduced for short distances. Since 1711 the charge for carrying a
single letter had been 3d. for eighty miles or under. Now it was to be
1d. for one stage and 2d. for two stages. For longer distances the
charge was to remain unaltered. The speed of the post was raised from
five to six miles an hour. Power was given to the postmasters-general to
erect penny Post Offices in country towns; and--a provision which we
have pronounced deplorable--the weight to be carried by the penny post
was restricted to four ounces. Compensation for losses by the penny post
had long ceased to be given.[55]
[55] _The Present State of Great Britain and Ireland_, published in
1742, states that at that time compensation was still given for losses
sustained in the penny post. The words are: "If a parcel happen to
miscarry, the value thereof is to be made good by the office, provided
the things were securely inclosed and fast sealed up under the
impression of some remarkable seal." This is an error; and that an error
should be made on the point serves to confirm the view that little was
known of the Post Office and its doings even 150 years ago. That
compensation was not at that time given for losses is beyond all
question. It happens that in that very year, 1742, a Mr. Vavasour
appealed to Whitehall to grant him compensation for the loss of bank
notes to the amount of L20 which had been stolen from a letter in its
transit through the post; and the postmasters-general, after stating
that no precedent existed for granting compensation, implored the
Treasury not to create one. "All persons," they write under date the 4th
of August 1742, "that for their own convenience send notes or bills of
value by the post inclosed in letters do so at their own risque without
any foundation that we know of for recovery of this office in case they
should be stolen or lost by robbery or other accidents. And this we take
to be not only reasonable but just in all construction of law." Again,
in 1778 an action for compensation was brought against the Post Office,
and Lord Mansfield, after delivering the unanimous opinion of the Court
of King's Bench that the postmasters-general were not responsible for
losses sustained in their department, proceeded to observe that no
similar action had been brought since the year 1699. Giles Jacob, in his
_Law Dictionary_, published in the last century, gives this account of
the matter: "It was determined so long ago as 13 Will. III., in the case
of _Lane_ v. _Cotton_, by three judges of the Court of King's Bench,
though contrary to Lord Chief Justice Holt's opinion, that no action
could be maintained against the postmasters-general for the loss of
bills or articles sent in letters by the post."
Such was the end of Dockwra's post as Dockwra had established it. With
that eminent man it had been an object of the first importance that the
penny post should carry up to one pound in weight; and now the weight
was to be reduced to four ounces. And why? Because the penny post was
little used for packets and parcels above four ounces? Exactly the
contrary. It was because packets and parcels above four ounces were
being largely sent by the penny post that the limit of weight was to be
reduced.[56] These missives had been found a little inconvenient to
manipulate and it was resolved, therefore, to exclude them. Such was the
wretched policy of the time. Even in matters vitally affecting their own
interests the public had as yet no voice and their wishes were not
considered. On account of some trifling inconvenience, which a very
little amount of ingenuity would have sufficed to overcome, the
inhabitants of London and its suburbs were now deprived of accommodation
which they had enjoyed uninterruptedly for eighty-five years.
[56] The reason for the provision was thus given in the preamble:
"Whereas many heavy and bulky packets and parcels are now sent and
conveyed by such carriage which by their bulk and weight greatly retard
the speedy delivery thereof...."--5 Geo. III. cap. xxv. sec. 14.
In 1764 franking became for the first time the subject of Parliamentary
enactment. To send and receive letters free of postage had been a
privilege enjoyed by members of the two Houses of Parliament from the
first establishment of the Post Office; but whereas it had hitherto been
a concession granted by the Crown, it was now to be a right conferred by
statute. The reason will be obvious. The revenue of the Post Office had
recently been surrendered to the public during the life of the
Sovereign, in exchange for a Civil List charged upon the Consolidated,
or, as it was then called, the Aggregate Fund; and the Crown, having
dispossessed itself of all property in the Post Office, was no longer
competent to remit postage without the authority of Parliament. The Act
which was now passed was designed to correct the abuses which experience
had shewn to exist. The limits of weight and of time remained as before;
that is to say, only letters not exceeding the weight of two ounces were
to be franked, and these only during the session of Parliament and for
forty days before and after. In other respects the conditions were
slightly altered. Hitherto it had been enough, in the case of letters
sent by a member, that he should sign his name on the outside; for the
future not only was the outside to bear his signature, but the whole of
the address was to be in his own handwriting. In the case of letters
addressed to a member, none were to be exempt from postage unless
directed to the place of his usual residence or to the place where he
was actually residing, or, of course, to the House of Parliament. It had
been hoped that these alterations of practice would check the abuses of
franking. Vain expectation! No sooner had the concession been converted
into a right than what little scruples existed before appear to have
vanished, and franks were scattered broadcast over the country. Before
eight years were over, the number of franks passing through the London
office alone had nearly doubled, the postage from which they carried
exemption being in 1765, the first year after the change, L34,734, and
in 1772, L65,053; and this, be it observed, was no mere estimate, but
the actual result as ascertained by the careful examination of each
letter.
Another effect of the change of practice was to embroil the Post Office.
The Post Office, in its efforts to protect itself against imposition,
would charge letters when addressed to a member at a place where he was
supposed not to be; and hence constant disputes and altercations.
Members, again, who were bankers or were engaged in trade insisted that
letters addressed to them at their counting-houses, even though they did
not reside there, should pass free. On these the Post Office claimed
postage, and the members refused to pay it.
But it was in Ireland that the rage for franking broke out into the
wildest excesses. In 1773 an inspector of franks was sent to several
towns on the cross and bye roads, in order that he might ascertain and
report to the postmasters-general the extent to which the abuse had
grown. This officer visited nine towns altogether, and was absent from
Dublin for sixty-three days, being at the rate of seven days at each
town. At Waterford, during his stay there, 588 letters passed through
the local Post Office purporting to be franked. The franks on only 354
of these were genuine; the rest were counterfeit. At Kilkenny there were
425 counterfeit franks to 510 that were genuine. At Clonmel, 526
counterfeit and 509 genuine. At Gowran, 212 counterfeit and 195
genuine; and so with the remaining towns. Altogether the number of
letters with counterfeit franks was nearly as large as the number with
genuine franks, and far exceeded all the other letters combined. However
clear might be the evidence of fraud, and however conclusively it might
be brought home to particular persons, it was of no use attempting to
prosecute. Hear what Mr. Lees says on this point. Mr. Lees was Secretary
to the Post Office in Ireland, and he had, under direction from Lord
North, received instructions to take proceedings against a firm of
solicitors in Londonderry who had been sending letters under forged
franks. "A prosecution," wrote Mr. Lees, "will not be of the slightest
avail. It has been tried over and over again, and, in the face of the
clearest evidence, without success." "There is scarcely a magistrate to
be found in Ireland who will take examinations on the Post Office laws;
and certainly in no instance has this office prevailed in getting the
bills of indictment found by a Grand Jury. This being so universally
known, counterfeiting franks is drawn into such general practice that I
believe there are very few merchants or attorneys' clerks throughout the
kingdom who do not counterfeit in the name of one member or other. Nay,
if I classed with them almost every little pretty Miss capable of
joining her letters, I should not exaggerate the abuse." "As I have
observed," he wrote further on in the same letter, "in every town of
consequence throughout the kingdom the members resident, under their
address, cover the correspondence of the principal merchants.... The
postage arising on counterfeit covers alone amounts to more than a third
of the revenue of this office."
Under the terms of the Franking Act newspapers were to go free which
should bear a member's signature on the outside or which should be
directed to a member at any place of which he had given notice in
writing to the postmasters-general. This provision seriously affected
the Post Office, though in a different way from the liberties which were
being taken with letters. From the first establishment of the Post
Office the six clerks of the roads had enjoyed the privilege of
franking newspapers, and the emoluments derived from this source,
originally insignificant, had been continually increasing. In 1764 they
were certainly not less than L8000 a year, and may have been more. The
Franking Act sapped this source of emolument. No sooner had that Act
passed than the members served the Post Office with notice of the places
to which they wished newspapers to be directed. These places did not in
the first instance extend beyond the member's own residence and the
residences of his constituents and friends; but after a while no such
moderation was observed. The booksellers and printers, or news-agents as
they would now be called, soon recognised the advantage it would be to
them if they could get their customers' addresses put on the Post Office
Register, and they experienced little difficulty in finding members who
were ready to do them this service. There were four who were noted for
their complaisance. These were Sir Robert Bernard, member for
Westminster; Brass Crosby, member for Honiton and alderman for the City
of London; Richard Whitworth, member for Stafford; and Richard
Hiver.[57] These four members in little more than eighteen months served
upon the Post Office no less than 744 separate notices. Altogether, at
the close of the year 1772, there were 2024 such notices registered in
Lombard Street, of which 765 were on behalf of constituents and friends,
and 1259 on behalf of printers and booksellers.
[57] For what constituency Richard Hiver sat we have been unable to
discover. His name does not appear in the return of members of
Parliament presented to the House of Commons in 1878.
As the natural result the clerks of the roads found their emoluments
rapidly dwindling. Heretofore they had been, virtually, the great
news-agents of the kingdom. Enjoying, in common with a few clerks at
Whitehall, the exclusive privilege of sending newspapers through the
post free, they had been exposed to little, if any, competition; but now
that in the matter of postage the terms were equal, the advantage was
all on the side of the private dealer. The private dealer procured his
newspapers in the open market, whereas the clerks of the roads were
required to procure them from a particular officer designated by the
postmasters-general; and this officer was authorised not only to charge
for the newspapers he supplied 1-1/2d. a dozen more than he gave for
them, but to retain as his own perquisite one out of every twenty-five
copies.
It may seem of little moment that, as the result of legislation, six
persons more or less should find themselves in reduced circumstances.
Such an event, unhappily, is not so rare as to call for special remark.
But there was a good deal more than this in the present case. The
profits which the clerks of the roads derived from the sale of
newspapers had never been devoted to the exclusive use of the
recipients. On the contrary, they were to a large extent common
property. Out of these profits pensions were provided for Post Office
servants who were past work; and from the same source inadequate
salaries were raised to something like a decent maintenance. In
additional salaries to brother officers and in pensions to officers who
had retired, the clerks of the roads had in 1764 contributed as much as
L6600; and even now, reduced as their profits were, they were
contributing a little over L2000. They were, in effect, the mainstay of
the establishment, and the falling off of their emoluments was being
watched by the postmasters-general, hardly less than by those who were
more immediately interested, with the gravest concern.
Nor was it calculated to reconcile the Post Office servants to the
deprivations which they were already beginning to suffer that the
members of other public offices, who had lost from the same cause as the
clerks of the roads, but to a much less extent, had received
compensation in full. The clerks in the offices of the Principal
Secretaries of State, like the clerks of the roads, had been privileged
to frank both letters and newspapers. By the Act of 1764 the privilege
had, as regards letters, been taken away in both cases; and in both
cases, as regards newspapers, it remained. Yet to the clerks in the
offices of the Principal Secretaries of State was secured, by special
Act of Parliament, compensation to the amount of L1500 a year, while the
clerks of the roads received nothing; and, as though to add to the
aggravation, this sum of L1500 a year was to be paid by the Post Office.
In Dublin the same difficulties were being experienced as in London and
from the same cause. Emoluments were falling off and obligations could
not be met. Among these obligations, however, there was one which was
peculiar to Dublin. Before 1764 the clerks at the castle, like the
clerks of the roads, had enjoyed the privilege of franking newspapers,
and the exercise of this privilege by the two bodies simultaneously had
been attended with so much friction that advantage had been taken of the
passing of the Franking Act to effect a compromise. In consideration of
the sum of L350 a year to be paid by the clerks of the roads the clerks
at the castle undertook to abandon their privilege absolutely. A deed to
this effect was prepared, and, in order that nothing might be wanting to
give it formality, it was signed by the Earl of Northumberland, the Lord
Lieutenant, on behalf of the castle, and by Lord Clermont, the Deputy
Postmaster-General of Ireland, on behalf of the Post Office. Whence was
the sum of L350 to come when the emoluments should be gone? Was a price
to continue to be paid for the surrender of a privilege which had ceased
to be of value? The Attorney-General for Ireland advised that the clerks
of the roads were still liable to the last farthing of their salaries;
and the clerks at the castle refused to abate one jot of their claim.
But we are anticipating. In 1767 the statute-book received an addition
which, though differing widely both in intention and effect from the
Franking Act and the Postage Act, cannot be allowed to pass unnoticed.
This was an Act for the better paving, lighting, and regulating the
streets of London, a first step in fact towards converting the London
of Hogarth into the London of to-day. The mere preamble[58] of the Act
brings home to us, hardly less vividly than Hogarth's pencil, the
intolerable inconveniences under which our forefathers were content to
live; but what concerns us at the present moment is that one section
provided not only that the names of the streets should be put up but
that the houses should be numbered. This numbering of houses quickly
spread, and, although unnoticed by the Post Office at the time, was
destined very materially to assist its future operations. As a
consequence, too, and at no long interval, arose a new industry, namely
the compilation of Directories--a thing that was impossible before--and
hence the Post Office derived still further assistance.
[58] "Whereas the several streets, lanes, squares, yards, courts,
alleys, passages and places within the city of London and the liberties
thereof are in general ill-paved and cleansed and not duly enlightened,
and are also greatly obstructed by posts and annoyed by signs, spouts,
and gutters projecting into and over the same, whereby and by sundry
other encroachments and annoyances they are rendered incommodious and in
some parts dangerous not only to the inhabitants but to all others
passing through the same or resorting thereto...."
About this time considerable improvements took place both in the Scotch
and Irish posts. Between London and Edinburgh communication had been
only thrice a week. In 1765 it was increased in frequency to five days a
week, and posts on six days a week were at the same time established
between Edinburgh and the chief towns of Scotland. The result was an
immediate increase of revenue which much more than covered the increase
of expense. Two or three years later the course of post between London
and Dublin came under review. By virtue of an arrangement, which the
fact of the communication being only thrice a week goes but a short way
to explain, letters from England to Ireland were kept lying two whole
days in the London Office and, similarly, letters from Ireland to
England were kept lying two whole days in the Dublin Office. The packet
which was due in Dublin on Saturday night rarely arrived before Sunday,
and, unless it did so, the letters from England for the interior of
Ireland did not leave Dublin until Wednesday morning. Nor was this all.
The number of packets was extremely limited, and, owing to their
constant employment by Government as express boats, it frequently
happened that two and sometimes three and even four mails were sent by
the same packet. In 1767 this was altered. Additional packet boats were
placed on the station, and the post between London and Dublin and
between Dublin and Belfast in one direction and Cork in another was
increased in frequency from three to six days a week.
Between London and the chief provincial towns in England Allen had, as
we have seen, established posts six days a week instead of three; but it
was not until 1769, or nearly five years after Allen's death, that
within the metropolis arrangements were made to correspond. Meanwhile
the offices for the receipt of general post letters were kept open and
the bellmen went about ringing their bells on only three nights of the
week, namely Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays, and on the other three
nights, except at the General Post Office, letters could not be posted
gratuitously. On the nights of Monday, Wednesday, and Friday a receiver
if called upon to take in letters was entitled to charge a fee of 1d.
apiece, and this fee he retained as his own perquisite. Beginning with
1769 the receiving offices were kept open and the bellmen rang their
bells on every night of the week, Sundays excepted.
An event or rather a series of events now took place, the result of
which was largely to alter the character of the Post Office and to
extend its usefulness. Recent legislation had done little for the public
convenience. It had indeed provided that Penny Post Offices might be
established out of London, and advantage had been taken of the provision
in one single instance. In Dublin a Penny Post Office had been opened on
the 10th of October 1773, or seventy years after the Countess of Thanet
desired to open one and was refused permission at the last moment. But
in other respects legislation had accomplished little beyond promoting
the very abuses it was designed to prevent, and impairing the utility
of Dockwra's post. Litigation was now to have its turn; and it is
interesting to note the result.
The machinery for the dispersion of letters remained much as it had been
since the first establishment of the Post Office. In London, in
Edinburgh, and in Dublin there was, as there is now, a body of men whose
duty it was to deliver from house to house; but with these three
exceptions there was not, 120 years ago, a single town in the kingdom
which could boast of its own letter-carrier. The postmaster was the sole
Post Office agent in the place; it was he who delivered the letters if
they were delivered at all; and for this service he was left to charge
pretty much as he pleased. The public had grown tired of this state of
things and strenuous efforts were now made to alter it.
The crusade began in the little town of Sandwich in Kent. It had been
the practice of the postmaster there, at some former time, to deliver
free the letters arriving by the bye and cross posts, and on the
delivery of the London letters to charge a fee as his own perquisite. In
1772 a fee was being charged on the delivery of all letters. This charge
the inhabitants now determined to contest. The case came on for trial in
the Court of King's Bench and was decided against the postmaster, the
Court being of opinion that wherever the usage had been to deliver free,
there the usage should be adhered to. The postmasters-general were very
uneasy. Out of the 440 post towns of the kingdom there were known to be
not less than seventy-six which were in the same case as Sandwich and to
which the decision of the Court must apply, towns where letters had at
one time been delivered free and where they were so no longer; and not a
day passed without bringing fresh and unexpected additions to the list.
At Birmingham and at Ipswich, for instance, where a charge was now being
made for delivery, old inhabitants could remember how forty or fifty
years before letters had been delivered free. Was the Crown to be at the
expense of letter-carriers at all of these towns, or were the
postmasters, who were already complaining of the inadequacy of their
remuneration, to forego their perquisites and make a house-to-house
delivery as part of their duty?
The question was still under consideration when the town of Ipswich
commenced an action. The point raised in this case was whether on the
delivery of letters addressed to the inhabitants of the town the
postmaster could legally demand any sum over and above the postage, and,
if so, whether in the event of the demand being refused he could oblige
the inhabitants to fetch their letters. Again the decision, this time by
the Court of Common Pleas, was in favour of the public and against the
Post Office. The postmasters-general were more than uneasy now. No
sooner had the decision in the Ipswich case become known than town after
town where letters had never yet been delivered free demanded a free
delivery and threatened the postmasters-general with actions in the
event of their demand being refused. Bath and Gloucester did more than
threaten. They, like Ipswich, proceeded to trial; and again, for the
third and fourth time, the decision was against the Post Office.
Thurlow was at this time Attorney-General. He held a strong opinion that
in order to comply with the statute it was enough to deliver letters at
the Post Office of the town to which they were addressed, and that there
was no obligation to deliver them at the houses of the inhabitants.
Still clinging to the belief that the decisions of the Courts must have
proceeded more or less on the usage of delivery, he now determined to
try the question in the case of a town where the usage had been for no
delivery to be made without payment. The town of Hungerford in Berkshire
was selected for the purpose. There, it could be proved, ever since the
beginning of the century, letters had not been delivered except on
payment of a fee of 1d. apiece.
The case came on before the Court of King's Bench in Michaelmas term
1774. Lord Mansfield, the Lord Chief Justice, was the first to deliver
judgment. He was surprised, he said, the several Acts being so ambiguous
and the usage so contradictory, that the Post Office had not applied to
Parliament to explain the matter. That was the view of the Court when,
in the other cases, it avoided the general question. He never liked to
avoid general questions, for to decide them tended to prevent further
litigation; but an important question of this kind, arising out of Acts
that had "not yet spoke," and, whichever way it might be decided,
involving more or less inconvenience, was essentially one for
Parliament. And in the Bath case there were grounds on which the general
question could, without impropriety, be avoided. There the postmaster
when delivering a letter had demanded a certain sum as a duty. Now, a
duty it certainly was not. If on the delivery of a letter Parliament had
intended to impose a duty, it would have fixed the amount and made it
part of the Post Office revenue; and not have left every postmaster free
to fix what amount he pleased or might prevail upon people to give. And
what a monstrous inconvenience it would be if every one had to go to the
Post Office to fetch his own letters! How could the Court have laid down
such a proposition as that? The thing was impossible. And it must be
remembered that there could be no middlemen--men between the inhabitants
and the postmaster--who for gain could set up an office to distribute
the letters, because by law the postmaster could not deliver them except
to the persons to whom they were addressed. These were the
considerations which in the Bath ease induced him to avoid the general
question, and he had been glad to feel able to do so, never doubting
that the postmasters-general would apply to Parliament for a
determination; but this, unfortunately, they had not done. Then there
was the Gloucester case. He remembered it well. There the question was
not whether there should be a free delivery, for at Gloucester letters
had always been delivered free, but whether certain houses should fall
within the limits of that delivery. All that the Court then decided was
that in the case of these houses, forming as they unquestionably did a
part of what was known as the town of Gloucester, the Post Office could
not depart from its own practice. But the present case was different.
Here the contention was that in the town of Hungerford there was not a
single house at which the Post Office was required to deliver letters
without being paid for it. Practically, no doubt, it was the Bath case
over again; but the Court could not well avoid the general question a
second time. The Post Office, in effect, sought to impose a duty; and
this, he said it emphatically, the Post Office had not the power to do
without the authority of Parliament, which authority had not been given.
His mind was perfectly clear that within the limits of a post-town the
Post Office was bound to deliver free; but how far these limits should
extend was a question upon which he did not feel called upon to express
an opinion.
The other judges were equally emphatic. The Post Office had urged in
support of its contention that it sometimes happened--as, for instance,
at Hartford Bridge---that the stage or post-house was a single house
with no other houses near. There, at all events, as soon as it had
deposited the letters at the post house, the Post Office had discharged
its duty. And if there, it was asked, why not elsewhere? If, said Mr.
Justice Aston, the post house was a single house with no other houses
near, the question did not arise; but, in the case, of towns, surely it
would not be contended that each individual inhabitant was to resort to
the post house every day in order to inquire whether there was a letter
for him or not. To demand this penny within the limits of a post town,
said Mr. Justice Willes, was contrary to the whole tenor and spirit of
the Acts of Parliament; and where the post town was a small one like
Hungerford, the demand was far more unreasonable than it would be in the
case of London and Westminster. Yet in London and Westminster letters
were delivered free. He should pay more regard to the usage of the city
of London than to that of fifty such towns as Hungerford. Mr. Justice
Ashurst was of opinion that even to usage too much importance might be
attached. If it were really the case that at Hungerford, ever since the
passing of the Act of Anne, a man living next door to the Post Office
had had to pay over and above the postage 1d. for every letter he
received, this in his opinion was a bad usage, an usage for which the
Act afforded no justification, and the sooner it was laid aside the
better.
The decision of the Court burst upon the postmasters-general like a
thunderbolt. They had been assured that it would certainly be in the
opposite direction; and now, to their dismay, they found themselves face
to face with the prospect of, what they called, an universal delivery.
What was to be done? The Post Office would be ruined. Of course the
Attorney-General would advise an appeal to the House of Lords. As a
matter of fact the Attorney-General advised nothing of the sort.
Thurlow's private opinion continued to be what it had always been, that
the Post Office was not bound to deliver letters beyond the stage or
post house. He even went so far as to admit that, if once the Act were
construed to require more than that, he knew of no manner of
construction that would entitle the postmasters-general to refuse to
carry letters into every hole and corner of the kingdom. Still, as two
Courts had decided against the Post Office, he regarded it as useless to
appeal to the House of Lords, where, no doubt, the opinion of the same
judges would be taken and acted on. Then, inquired the postmasters-general,
might not a writ of error be brought with a view to hang up the judgment
of the Court of King's Bench until the matter should be settled by
Parliament. "No," replied Thurlow, "I do not approve a writ of error
being brought by an office of revenue avowedly to suspend a question."
Thus ended a controversy which in one form or another had extended over
a period of more than two years. The postmasters-general urged indeed
that Parliament should be asked to avert what they regarded as little
short of a catastrophe; but the recommendation was not adopted, and the
decision of the Court was left to take effect.
We have dwelt upon this matter at some length, because it was, in
effect, a turning-point in the history of the Post Office. The
enterprising spirit of the small towns, the independence of the judges,
and the conspicuous fairness of the Attorney-General, make up no doubt a
combination which it is pleasing to contemplate; and yet, if this were
all, a shorter notice would have sufficed. It is because the Post Office
was now to assume a new character, the character in which it is known to
us at the present time, that we have thought it best not to omit any
important particular. And how great the change was to be a moment's
consideration will shew. Cotton and Frankland had, early in the century,
done what little they could to make the Post Office popular. They had
lost no opportunity of advocating cheap postage; they had lived among
the merchants, and, as far as duty would allow, had consulted their
wishes; and within the limits assigned to them had spared no efforts to
promote the public convenience. But since then a different spirit had
prevailed. By Cotton and Frankland's successors much had been done in
restraint of correspondence and nothing, or next to nothing, in
promotion of it. The Post Office had become, insensibly perhaps, but
none the less surely, a mere tax-gatherer, and, like other
tax-gatherers, its policy had been to exact as much and to give as
little as possible. All this was now to be altered. An appeal had been
made to the Courts; and the Courts in the most deliberate and solemn
manner had affirmed this principle--a principle now so universally
recognised and acted on as to excite our wonder that it should ever have
been otherwise--that the Post Office was to wait upon the people, and
not the people upon the Post Office.
It might be supposed that the decision of the Courts would have been
immediately followed by the appointment of letter-carriers throughout
the country, or else by additions to the salaries of the postmasters in
consideration of their undertaking to make a house-to-house delivery
gratuitously. Such, however, was not the case. At the towns which had
taken a foremost part in the fray--at Hungerford and Sandwich, at Bath,
Ipswich, and Birmingham--as well indeed as at other towns which were
spirited enough to assert their rights, letter-carriers were no doubt
appointed; but there was no sudden and general alteration of practice.
On the contrary, the obedience which the Post Office yielded to the law
as laid down by the Courts was a tardy and grudging obedience. As much
as ten or eleven years later we find the postmasters-general
acknowledging indeed the obligation under which they lay to appoint
letter-carriers at any towns that might demand it, and yet taking credit
to themselves that, as a matter of fact, no such appointments had been
made except where the inhabitants had refused to continue the accustomed
recompense for delivery.
The Courts of Law were at this time the best friends of the people. No
sooner had they decided that every town which possessed a Post Office of
its own was entitled to a gratuitous delivery at the door than a
somewhat similar question came before them in connection with the penny
post. For every letter delivered by the penny post the inhabitants of
Old Street, St. Luke's, of St. Leonard's, Shoreditch, of Bethnal Green,
and Spitalfields were required to pay an additional penny, that is a
penny over and above the one which had been paid on posting; and this
they had long regarded as an imposition. According to Dockwra's plan the
second or delivery penny was to be confined to Islington, Hackney,
Newington Butts, and South Lambeth, which in his day formed separate
towns; but in course of time, as buildings extended, the Post Office
appears to have exacted the same charge at intermediate places. Jones, a
wealthy distiller of Old Street, now determined to try the question.
Again the decision of the Courts was against the Post Office, and not
only in Old Street, but in Shoreditch, Bethnal Green, and Spitalfields
the additional penny had to be abandoned.
While these proceedings were taking place before the Courts, the Post
Office had forced upon it a step which, even in those days of
indifference, cannot have been taken without a pang. This was the
dismissal of its most distinguished servant or rather of its only
servant with any claim to distinction, and that of the highest. We refer
to Benjamin Franklin. This eminent man had been appointed postmaster of
Philadelphia in 1737, and after being employed in several positions of
trust, had been promoted to be one of the joint postmasters-general of
America in 1753. He had recently been sent to England with the object of
averting war between the mother country and her transatlantic colonies,
and, his mission having failed, he was now dismissed. The letter in
which the decision was announced was as follows:--
To DOCTOR FRANKLIN.
GENERAL POST OFFICE, _Jan. 31, 1774_.
SIR--I have received the commands of His Majesty's
postmasters-general to signify to you that they find it necessary
to dismiss you from being any longer their deputy for America. You
will therefore cause your accounts to be made up as soon as you can
conveniently.--I am, sir, your most humble servant,
ANTHONY TODD,
_Secretary_.
Curt as this communication was, it was perhaps the best of which the
circumstances admitted. Indeed, we are by no means sure that the terms
of it were not arranged with Franklin himself. He was in London at the
time. His relations with the Post Office had always been of the most
cordial character. He did not, after receiving the letter, cease to
visit Lombard Street; and before his return to America he wrote to the
Post Office intimating that he would cheerfully become security for his
colleague, who, as a consequence of his own dismissal, had to enter into
fresh bond. At all events, whether Franklin had any hand in the
preparation of the letter or not, the less said the better would seem to
have been the opinion of the writer; just as a desire to let bygones be
bygones is plainly shewn in the first letter which passed after
correspondence was resumed. This letter is a curiosity in its way. It is
dated the 25th of June 1783, and, ignoring all that had happened during
the preceding seven years, begins as follows:--
To DOCTOR FRANKLIN at PARIS.
GENERAL POST OFFICE, _June 25, 1783_.
DEAR SIR--I must confess I have taken a long time to acknowledge
the last letter you were pleased to write me the 24th of March 1776
from New York. I am happy, however, to learn from my nephew, Mr.
George Maddison, that you enjoy good health, and that as the French
were about to establish five packet boats at L'Orient, Port Louis,
for the purpose of a monthly correspondence between that port and
New York, you were desirous of knowing the intentions of England on
that subject....--I am, dear sir, with the greatest truth and
respect, your most obedient and most humble servant,
ANTHONY TODD.
In 1780, as part of a Licensing Act, the monopoly of letting post-horses
which the Post Office had enjoyed uninterruptedly since 1603 was taken
away. It is curious to note that a measure which 177 years before had
been deemed essential to the maintenance of the posts was now withdrawn
without, so far as we are aware, exciting a murmur; and, by a strange
coincidence, at the very time the measure was being withdrawn in the
United Kingdom, the deputy postmaster-general of Canada, who had
recently arrived in London, was urging upon the Government a similar
expedient as an indispensable condition without which the "maitres de
poste" between Quebec and Montreal would be constrained to throw up
their appointments. Such is the difference between a new institution and
an institution that is well established.
It should here be remarked that with the extinction of this monopoly
passed away one of the original functions of the postmasters-general.
Hitherto, lightly as the responsibility had rested upon them for the
last hundred years or more, they had been masters of the travelling-post
as well as the letter-post. For the future they were to be masters of
the letter-post alone.
Little remains to be told of the eighteen years of which this chapter
treats. In 1782, in consequence of a hint dropped by the Lord Chief
Justice in the course of a trial, the Post Office did an eminently
useful thing. It issued an advertisement counselling the public when
sending bank notes by post to cut them into two parts and to send one
part by one post and another by another. The counsel was adopted, and in
an incredibly short space of time the practice became general. In the
same year the Post Office servants were disfranchised. By an Act passed
in the reign of Queen Anne they were forbidden either to persuade or to
dissuade others in the matter of voting; and now they were forbidden to
vote themselves. The only point of interest connected with the two Acts
is perhaps their termination. While the later Act was repealed in 1868,
the earlier one was not repealed until 1874; and meanwhile the
postmaster-general sat in the House of Commons and offered himself for
election. Little, probably, did he think that for every vote he
solicited he rendered himself not only liable to a penalty of L100 but
"incapable of ever bearing or executing any office or place of trust
whatsoever under Her Majesty, her heirs, or successors."
The internal condition of the Post Office during the last few years of
Lord North's administration was simply deplorable. The profits from the
sale of newspapers kept growing less and less. The clerks of the roads,
after paying the salaries and pensions which formed the first charge on
their receipts, had left for themselves the merest pittance. These men,
to whom an appeal for help had never been made in vain, were now in sore
need of help themselves. The prospect was alarming, for if the clerks of
the roads should fail to meet their engagements they would drag down
with them a not inconsiderable part of the establishment. It was in
1778, when apprehension was highest, that the Commissioners of Land Tax
for the city of London made a new assessment, and suddenly, without a
note of warning, every Post Office servant in the metropolis found
himself assessed to the land tax to the amount of 4s. in the pound. Not
even the letter-carriers or maid-servants were excepted. At this time
and during the two or three following years a general bankruptcy was
imminent. Eventually the abatements were remitted and the salaries and
pensions which had been charged to the clerks of the roads were in part
transferred to the State; but not before many of the Post Office
servants had compounded with their creditors and all had endured the
severest privations.
Meanwhile the postmasters from America, ejected from their offices, had
been flocking to this country and pleading for pensions on the English
establishment. The packets were meeting with a series of disasters so
far beyond the experience of former wars as to excite the most hostile
comment. During the seven years ending August 1782 no less than
thirty-seven were captured by the enemy. Of these four belonged to the
Post Office, and sums for that time prodigious were expended to replace
them. The others were owned by the captains who commanded them, and the
owners received as compensation for their loss the sum of L85,000. Even
the fabric of the buildings partook of the general decay. In Edinburgh
the Post Office had had to be abandoned at a moment's notice, the arch
which supported the main part of the structure having given way. In
Dublin the roof had fallen in. In both Dublin and Edinburgh new Post
Offices were being erected at heavy expense; while in London search was
being made for new premises on the plea that those in Lombard Street
were insufficient for present requirements.
To crown all, ugly rumours were afloat, rumours imputing corruption in
the highest quarters. The postmasters-general were indeed to be pitied.
The Post Office in more senses than one was falling about their ears.