CHAPTER XVI_The History of the Post Office, from Its Establishment Down to 1836

THE BEGINNING OF THE END

1817-1836

We must now go back a few years. On the cessation of hostilities with

France the state of the finances occupied a large share of men's

thoughts, and among the plans for relieving the burden upon the taxpayer

none perhaps was more obvious than to abolish sinecures and useless

offices.

On the 16th of February 1817 Mr. Lambton, member for the county of

Durham, gave notice of motion for a return shewing the number of Boards

which had been held by the postmasters-general during the last twenty

years, and distinguishing the names of the places where such Boards had

been held and the persons by whom they were attended. The Post Office

was in a flutter. Just twenty years before, the Commissioners of Inquiry

into Public Offices had recommended, and the recommendation had been

approved by the House, that a Board should be held by the

postmasters-general at least once a week; and from that date to the

present not a single Board had been held. The position was no doubt

embarrassing, and not the less so because the postmasters-general, Lords

Chichester and Salisbury, were the one at Stanmer and the other at

Hatfield. Nothing could be done without the concurrence of both, and at

such distances, little as would be thought of them now, it was a tedious

process eighty years ago to arrive at a common understanding.

Freeling, who regarded it as little short of an outrage that the two

noble peers, his masters, should be thus called to account, appealed to

the Chancellor of the Exchequer to have the terms of the motion altered;

but Vansittart refused, and the return was granted and ordered to be

laid on the table of the House. Of course it was necessary to admit that

no Boards had been held; but the work of the Post Office, the return

went on to state, did not lend itself to Boards. Boards could be held

only at intervals, and the work of the Post Office was so continuous and

pressing that, without detriment to the public interests, it could not

be kept waiting for a single day. A daily transmission of papers to the

postmasters-general was, therefore, necessary; and by such means the

business was better conducted than it would be by any system of Boards.

Such was the substance of the return which was now laid before the

House. Eventually the matter was referred to a friendly Committee, and

the appointment of second postmaster-general escaped for a time.

But it was for a time only. In May 1822, on the motion of Lord Normanby,

an address to the throne was adopted in the following terms: "His

Majesty's faithful Commons, relying upon His Majesty's gracious

disposition expressed in answer to former addresses of that House to

concur in all such measures of economy as the exigencies of the time

require, and in such reductions in the civil department of the State as

may be consistent with due consideration for the public service, humbly

pray that His Majesty will be graciously pleased to give directions that

the office of one of the postmasters-general may be abolished and the

salary thereby saved to the revenue." It was Lord Salisbury, as the

junior of the two postmasters-general, that was affected by the

resolution of the House. Many men, incensed by such treatment, would

have thrown up their appointments in disgust. Lord Salisbury did nothing

of the kind. The very day he received official intimation that the

address had been acceded to by the King he gave directions that his

salary should be stopped;[91] but the appointment of postmaster-general

he retained, and to the duties of it he gave at least as much attention

as before. It was not until his death a year later that Lord Chichester

was appointed sole postmaster-general, and the Post Office received the

constitution under which it still remains.

[91] The official intimation was received at the Post Office on the 28th

of May. On the same day Lord Salisbury wrote to the receiver-general as

follows:--

GENERAL POST OFFICE, _May 28, 1822_.

SIR--I have received instructions from the Lords Commissioners of His

Majesty's Treasury to acquaint you that on the 5th of July next you are

to retain in your hands the salary of L2500 hitherto paid to me as joint

postmaster-general.--I am, etc., SALISBURY.

R. Willimott, Esq., Receiver-General.

Other economies followed. All periodical increases of salary were

suspended and salaries were for the first time made subject to abatement

in order to provide a superannuation fund.[92] The effect of these two

measures was to reduce the Post Office servants to a state of

destitution not very far short of that from which Pitt had rescued them

some thirty years before. It must not be thought, however, that

ministers imposed upon others conditions to which they were unwilling to

submit themselves. On the contrary, they procured an Order in Council to

be passed reducing their own salaries and those of all the great

officers of State by 10 per cent, and the reduction was to continue for

five years. The desire to be just and equal was present; the one thing

wanting was a due sense of the difference between superfluity and need.

[92] The sums abated were afterwards returned. It was not until 1834

that abatements towards superannuation were imposed by statute.

And now a blow which had long been impending fell. This was the transfer

from the Post Office to the Admiralty of the packets stationed at

Falmouth. The question had been discussed again and again during the

war; but how it came to be revived at this particular time is not very

clear. There had indeed been a mutiny among the seamen at Falmouth, and

the packets had been temporarily removed to Plymouth; but many years

had since elapsed, and now, so far as appeared, matters were perfectly

quiet. We only know that at the instance of Lord Liverpool a memorandum

was prepared by Lord Melville, the First Lord of the Admiralty, and that

after a sharp paper-warfare between him and Freeling the arguments in

favour of the change prevailed. At Falmouth thirty packets were

employed, nearly double the number at all the other stations put

together; and these thirty packets with their crews of 600 seamen, whose

deeds of daring had often shed lustre on the Post Office, were now made

over to another department. Freeling was in despair. This little fleet

had, next perhaps to the mail-coaches, been the object of his keenest

solicitude; and it gave him little consolation that the packets at the

other stations--at Dover and Harwich, at Weymouth, Milford, Holyhead,

and Portpatrick, were to remain under the charge of the Post Office.

Some little comfort, however, was at hand. Steam packets being beyond

the means of the captains to purchase, the Government provided them and

purchased the sailing packets, which they replaced, at a valuation. Thus

the Post Office became once more absolute owner of its own boats. This,

though by no means reconciling Freeling to the loss of the Falmouth

packets, was at all events some compensation. "The steam flotilla

belonging to the Post Office," he was able to write in 1827, "consists

of no less than nineteen vessels complete, to the aggregate amount of

4000 tons, with machinery equal on the whole to the power of 1540

horses."

Exaggerated opinions have been expressed as to the speed of the

mail-coaches during the first two decades of the present century. In

1821 few mail-coaches travelled as much as eight miles an hour, and only

one mail-coach attained to a speed of nine miles, and that for only part

of the journey. The exact rates of travelling are shewn in the following

table:--

1821.

+---------------+-------+---------+----------+----------+-------------+

| MAIL COACH | of | of | of |Travelling| Remarks. |

+---------------+-------+---------+----------+----------+-------------+

| | M. F.| | | M. | |

|Berwick | 341 6 | 8.0 P.M.| 6.15 P.M.| 7-13/16 | The rates of|

| Edinburgh | 59 4 | -- | 2.55 A.M.| 7-2/16 |include |

|Birmingham | 110 2 | 8.0 P.M.|10.0 A.M.| 7-13/16 |stoppages for|

|Bristol | 122 4 | " | " | 8-10/16 |change of |

| Manchester | 311 4 | " | 1.30 P.M.| 8-5/16 |not stoppages|

| Boroughbridge| 302 6 | " | 1.40 P.M.| 7-10/16 |ment and for |

| Glasgow | 103 2 | -- | 4.50 A.M.| 7-4/16 |business. |

|Chester | 191 0 | 8.0 P.M.|10.50 P.M.| 7-8/16 | |

| Holyhead | 88 0 | -- | 7.5 A.M.| 7-7/16 | |

|Dover | 73 4 | 8.0 P.M.| 6.45 A.M.| 7 | For a |

|Exeter | 176 2 | " | 7.40 P.M.| 7-11/16 |considerable |

|Exeter by Bath | 194 0 | " | 7.50 P.M.| 8-7/16 |part of the |

|Gloucester | 111 0 | " |10.0 A.M.| 8-3/16 |distance the |

|Holyhead | 264 6 | " | 6.50 A.M.| 7-15/16 |London and |

|Leeds | 196 0 | " |11.25 P.M.| 7-8/16 |Bristol |

|Liverpool | 207 4 | " |12.10 A.M.| 7-6/16 |coach |

| Ipswich | 114 4 | " |11.0 A.M.| 7-14/16 |the rate of |

| Yarmouth | 54 2 | -- |11.56 A.M.| 7-15/16 |hour. |

|Poole | 117 4 | 8.0 P.M.|11.20 A.M.| 7-14/16 | |

|Portsmouth | 72 6 | " | 6.45 A.M.| 7-1/16 | |

|Worcester | 114 4 | " |10.40 A.M.| 8-7/16 | |

+---------------+-------+---------+----------+----------+-------------+

It was not until some fourteen or fifteen years later, when the main

roads of the kingdom had passed under Telford's hands and vehicles of

lighter build had been introduced, that mail-coaches attained the speed

which is very commonly ascribed to an earlier period. In 1836 there were

in England 104 mail-coaches, all drawn by four horses. Of these the

fastest was the Liverpool and Preston coach, which travelled at the rate

of ten miles and five furlongs an hour; and the slowest was the coach

between Canterbury and Deal, which travelled at the rate of only six

miles an hour. The average speed of all the mail-coaches in 1836, namely

eight miles and seven furlongs an hour, was actually higher than the

highest speed attained by any one mail-coach in 1821. It should be

added that in 1821, as in 1836, the number of passengers by a mail-coach

was limited to four inside and four out. On some mail-coaches, indeed,

no more than three outside passengers were allowed.

But the mail-coach at the beginning of the present century did something

more than carry mails and passengers. It was the great disseminator of

news. In times of excitement men would stand waiting along the mail

roads and learn the latest intelligence as shouted to them from the tops

of the coaches. It may well be believed that this mode of communication

did not tend to either accuracy or completeness of statement. We cannot,

therefore, be surprised that on important occasions or occasions on

which false or inexact intelligence might lead to mischief recourse

should have been had to the expedient of printing hand-bills, and

sending them to the postmasters with instructions to distribute them in

their respective towns. The following are specimens of hand-bills which

were so distributed:--

LONDON, _February 10, 1817_.

The statement in the morning papers that several persons have been

arrested by warrants from the Secretary of State is true.

The meeting was held this morning at Spa Fields; but the arrests

which have taken place and the precautions adopted by Government

caused everything to end peaceably and the town is perfectly quiet.

* * * * *

_17th November 1818._

Her Majesty the Queen expired at one o'clock this day.

* * * * *

The following hand-bill sent to the different ports where vessels from

Jamaica were likely to arrive is interesting in so far as it shews the

exceptional facilities which, even seventy or eighty years ago, the Post

Office possessed for making inquiries:--

GENERAL POST OFFICE, _February 10th, 1821_.

Mr. Freeling requests the postmaster to make inquiries of the

master of any ship arriving from Jamaica into the state of the Duke

of Manchester's health, and inform him of the result by the first

post.

Of the reason of this solicitude we are not aware.

Police notices, notices giving particulars of crimes which had been

committed and offering rewards for the apprehension of the criminals,

were similarly dealt with. These, like the hand-bills of which specimens

have been given, were sent from Lombard Street under cover to the

postmasters with instructions to circulate them in their respective

towns. The propriety of this proceeding is not free from doubt. Of

course, every department of the State is interested in the detection and

punishment of crime; and yet it may be a question whether by taking an

active part in the distribution of these documents the Post Office was

not to some extent identifying itself with a class of business from

which, for obvious reasons, it had better hold itself aloof.

While changes were taking place in other directions, the regulations for

the transmission of newspapers through the post remained as they had

been at the beginning of the century. Within the United Kingdom

newspapers could not pass free except under the frank of either members

of Parliament or of the clerks of the roads. To the Continent of Europe

and to the colonies they could pass only at the letter rate of postage

unless they were franked, in the case of the Continent, by the

comptroller or clerks of the foreign department, and, in the case of the

colonies, by Freeling. This privilege of franking was to the Post Office

servants who possessed it a source of considerable profit. Freeling's

share alone amounted to nearly L3000 a year; but he, unlike his

subordinates, claimed to frank not newspapers alone but the _Edinburgh_

and _Quarterly Reviews_ and other publications of a like nature.

The West India merchants had long writhed under this exaction, and now

at their instance Joseph Hume, the member for Montrose, brought the

matter under the notice of the House of Commons. The practice had only

to be made known in order to secure condemnation. A bill was brought in

and passed extinguishing the privilege so far as the colonies were

concerned, empowering the Treasury to grant compensation for the loss of

it, and providing for the transmission of newspapers at easy rates.

These rates were, from the United Kingdom to the colonies, 1-1/2d. and,

from the colonies to the United Kingdom, 3d. for each newspaper, the

reason for the difference of charge being that the paper would bear a

stamp-duty in one direction and not in the other.

In the case of newspapers for the Continent the franking privilege

remained untouched. It may seem strange that this should have been so;

indeed, not more than two or three years had elapsed before members of

Parliament were expressing surprise that the Act which had taken away

the privilege in respect to one class of newspapers had not taken it

away also in respect to the other. But the explanation, we think, is

simple. Some nine or ten years before it had been rumoured that in the

case of all Post Office servants the franking privilege was to be

abolished, and those who would have been injured by its abolition

proceeded to shew cause why in their own case an exception should be

made. Only by those who franked to the Continent were even plausible

reasons given; and there can be little doubt that, at all events to some

extent, the same reasons operated now. These were that over a great part

of the Continent, except for the arrangements made by the Post Office

servants in Lombard Street, English newspapers could not circulate at

all or could circulate only under most onerous conditions. In France

their circulation was prohibited. To Holland they could not be sent

unless ordered by some postmaster there. In Germany and Sweden, unless

so ordered, they could not pass through the post except at the letter

rate of postage. In Portugal the letter rate of postage was always

charged. In Russia, besides being charged 7s. 6d. apiece, they were

generally delayed and not seldom suppressed altogether. These obstacles

had been overcome by the private arrangements made from Lombard Street,

and, if these should be disallowed, the transmission of newspapers to

the Continent, instead of being facilitated, would be rendered more

difficult and costly. Thus in 1816 argued those who were interested in

the maintenance of the privilege, and we can well understand that in

1825 much the same considerations prevailed.

The same Act of Parliament which imposed upon newspapers to the colonies

a postage of 1-1/2d. allowed newspapers within the United Kingdom to

pass through the post free from any postage at all. This was the effect

of the Act, but it was accomplished in a roundabout manner. By a statute

passed early in the century[93] a member of Parliament was required, in

order to send his newspapers free, to sign his name on the outside in

his own handwriting, and, in order to receive them free, to have them

addressed to some place of which he had given previous notice in writing

at the Post Office. By the present statute these provisions were

repealed. A newspaper, to be exempt from postage, need no longer bear

the signature of a member of Parliament and need no longer be addressed

to a place of which previous notice had been given. In other words,

newspapers might pass through the post free; and as a consequence the

franking privilege possessed by the clerks of the roads was at an end.

[93] 42 George III. cap. lxiii. sec. 10.

This, it might naturally be supposed, was a signal epoch in the history

of the Post Office. As a matter of fact, it was nothing of the kind. For

many years past the law had been disregarded. It had indeed been

insisted upon that a newspaper, in order to pass free, must bear a

member's name, without which the full letter rate of postage would be

charged; but by whom the name was written, whether it was written at all

or only printed, and whether the use of it had been authorised, had long

ceased to be considered material. So well was this understood that some

of the largest news-vendors in the kingdom adopted a member's name

without the slightest reference to the member himself, and had it

printed on their newspaper-covers.

This laxity in the case of newspapers may appear all the more

extraordinary in view of the stringency which was observed in other

matters. The Chelsea pensioners had by statute enjoyed the privilege of

sending and receiving letters at low rates of postage. Freeling never

rested until the statute was repealed. At the close of hostilities with

France letters which had been detained in Paris since the war broke out

in 1803 were forwarded to London, and the merchants urged that they

might be delivered free. The Treasury were in favour of granting the

request; but Freeling energetically opposed it. The delivery of such

letters free, he insisted, would be a plain breach of the law. On a

dissolution of Parliament those who had been members lost their

privilege in the matter of franking; and yet it might be supposed that a

short period of grace would have been allowed, a period sufficient to

admit of letters which were already in the post being delivered free.

Nothing of the kind. These letters were surprised in course of transit

and charged with postage.[94]

[94] This is the circular which was issued to postmasters on the

occasion of a dissolution:--

"The Parliament is dissolved. The franks of this evening are necessarily

charged with postage, and you will immediately charge all letters and

packets excepting the letters franked by such public officers as are by

law at all times exempted from postage. Full instructions will be sent

to-morrow."

Lord Salisbury when at the Post Office contrasted the stringency of

later years with the laxity which prevailed in his early manhood. "In

the year 1778," he wrote, "and in many succeeding ones while I took the

field with the militia it was the constant practice to write on all

regimental papers the words, 'On His Majesty's service,' which insured a

free delivery; but in process of time the Post Office became rather

stricter and more attentive, and then such a superscription was charged

except when addressed to peers and members of Parliament, and I have

frequently paid for such letters overweight without getting any

redress."

When such strictness was observed in other matters, one can only wonder

at the liberties which were allowed to be taken with newspapers, and it

appears all the more strange because the very act which in the case of

newspapers was countenanced and encouraged was in the case of letters a

highly penal offence. Was it not for forging a single frank, the frank

of Sir William Garrow, that the clerical impostor, Halloran, was in 1818

sentenced to seven years' transportation? The plain truth would seem to

be that vested interests were so deeply involved in the matter of

newspapers that there was on the part of the Post Office the utmost

indisposition to make them the subject of legislative enactment; and

yet, without some concessions to the news-vendors, it would have been

impossible to resist the pressure which would have been brought to bear.

This, we doubt not, is the true explanation; and it will account for

much that is otherwise dark and obscure. It will explain why that which

was regarded as a heinous offence in the case of letters was sanctioned

and encouraged in the case of newspapers; why, enormously as the

circulation of newspapers within the United Kingdom increased during the

first quarter of the present century, we look in vain for any

legislative enactment regulating the conditions under which, except when

sent or received by members of Parliament, they might pass through the

post; and why in 1825, when at length they had conceded to them the

right to pass free, the concession was enacted in an indirect and

circuitous manner.

So far, therefore, as inland newspapers were concerned, the practical

effect of the statute which now passed was little more than to make law

correspond with usage. During many years newspapers had been passing

through the post, as they were to pass for the future, free. The only

difference was that, in order to secure exemption, it was no longer

necessary to go through the farce of either writing or printing the name

of some member of Parliament on the outside of the cover. The clerks of

the roads were unaffected by the statute. The advantage which these

officers had at one time derived from their franking privilege had

already been lost to them through the action of the Post Office in

evading the law; and we can well believe that even so they considered

themselves fortunate in being permitted to escape with their

newspaper-business. This business, long after they had begun to compete

with the news-vendors on equal terms, was of large dimensions. During

the year 1829, out of 11,862,706 newspapers despatched from London into

the country, 1,207,794 or more than one-tenth of the whole number were

despatched by the clerks of the roads.

But it was not only in respect to newspapers that the House of Commons

began about this time to manifest in the proceedings of the Post Office

an interest such as it had never taken before. Committee after Committee

was appointed to report upon the communications of the country, upon

roads, mail-coaches, and steam packets; but without any definite result.

Obviously the House was not satisfied with things as they were, and yet

did not well see how to improve them. Only one man appears to have had a

clear perception of what he wanted, and to have been possessed of the

requisite ability to carry his object. This was Sir Henry Parnell,

chairman of the Select Committee on the Holyhead Road, a Committee the

title of which only inadequately denotes either its scope or importance.

Parnell, presuming on the authority which this position gave him, and

convinced no doubt of the feasibility of his scheme of improvement,

adopted towards the Post Office an air of superiority which was

peculiarly galling to Freeling, who for the first time in his life found

himself dictated to in respect to matters in which he had hitherto been

regarded as supreme. The effect of this Committee was not only to keep

the Post Office busily employed in the preparation of returns but to put

it on the defensive.

Another inquiry which was going on contemporaneously contributed to the

same result. Early in the reign of George the Fourth a Commission had

been appointed to inquire into the state of the revenue, and this

Commission, which began with the Post Office in 1823, did not report the

result of its labours until 1829. Meanwhile the Post Office, which was

practically on its trial, put forward as few proposals as possible; and

even from those that were put forward the Treasury withheld assent on

the pretext that the Commission had not yet reported. Hence followed

the somewhat curious result that the very period during which the House

of Commons began to manifest an interest in the Post Office was on the

part of the Post Office itself a period of more than ordinary inaction.

And yet the period in question, though not remarkable for Post Office

progress, is by no means an uninteresting one if only because within its

limits the old and the new are brought together in striking contrast. In

1818 the express office in the Haymarket is closed, an office which had

been established in 1797 for the purpose of facilitating the receipt and

despatch of Government expresses. In 1821 gas, or oil-gas as it was then

called, is introduced into the Post Office, and at once asserts its

superiority over oil in point not only of illuminating power but of

cheapness as well. In 1822 the Post Office, by virtue of a warrant under

the royal sign-manual, is cleared of its irrecoverable debts. These have

been accumulating during a period of 137 years--since 1685, when the

Post Office was first taken out of farm, and now amount to L62,141.

About the same time Thomas Gray, writing from Brussels, advocates the

introduction of steam engines on iron railways and predicts that, once

established, they will absorb the carrying trade of the kingdom and

displace mail-coaches. In 1823 Brunel, who has already achieved

distinction, offers his services in the construction of a steam engine

which shall prove as efficient and as safe at sea as when employed on

land. The brilliant engineer receives no encouragement, and Gray

receives not even the courtesy of an answer. In the same year passes

away at Tunbridge Wells, James Sprange, the courtly old postmaster, who

up to the date of his last illness might be seen pacing the Pantiles

scrupulously dressed in the costume of the reign of George the Second,

even to the long ruffles. In 1825 Glasgow is pleading, and pleading in

vain, for a Post Office which shall not be kept at a shop. In 1828 the

Roman Catholic peers are once more protesting against the outrage which

precludes them, on the score of their religion, from exercising the

privilege of franking. In 1829 Waghorn is vainly striving to induce the

Post Office to co-operate in facilitating communication with the East.

The inferiority of sailing vessels to vessels propelled by steam has now

been conclusively established, and steam packets are being placed on

every station. Not the Holyhead Road alone but all the great roads of

the kingdom have passed under Telford's hands and are beginning to

assume the condition in which we see them to-day. And all this while

postage remains at the ridiculously high level at which it was fixed in

1812. To Windsor the charge on a single letter is still 6d., to

Birmingham 9d., and to Liverpool 11d. Letters are still held up to a

strong light to see whether they contain an enclosure or not, and are to

be charged as single or as double. The first general delivery in St.

James' Square is not begun before twelve o'clock in the day or finished

much before one. Offices for the receipt of general post letters are

still kept separate and distinct from those for the receipt of letters

for the twopenny post. By the twopenny post the postage is not

necessarily 2d., but, according as it is a twopenny post letter, a

general post letter, or a foreign letter, may be 3d., 2d., or nothing.

On a letter for abroad the fee for registration is still one guinea.[95]

An additional penny is still charged upon every letter that crosses the

Conway or the Menai Bridge. Two hundred and seventy-five post towns

still remain without a free delivery, and--what proves a constant source

of contention between the Post Office and the inhabitants--even in those

towns in which the letters are delivered free, the limits of the free

delivery are not defined.

[95] Since 1814 receipts had been given for registered letters. In that

year Mr. H. M. Raikes, of 4 Portman Square, represented that he

frequently sent valuable parcels of diamonds between this country and

Holland, and that these parcels he insured, but that, to be certain of

recovering his insurance should any casualty happen, "the London

merchant ought to have some proof in his possession of his having

delivered such a packet into the charge of the Post Office." If, he

added, the clerks would give a receipt, the merchant would gladly give

them for their trouble an additional guinea. The suggestion to charge a

second guinea was not adopted; but from that time a receipt had been

given for a registered letter in the following form:--

FOREIGN POST OFFICE.

LONDON 181

It is hereby certified that ......... has registered at this office a

sealed packet said to contain .......... addressed to ...............

which will be forwarded to ............. by the mail of this evening;

but for its safe conveyance this office is not responsible.

(_Signature_) ....................

Twenty years before, the office in Gerrard Street, the headquarters of

the twopenny post in Westminster, had been enlarged. Of this office,

which ranked next in importance to the General Post Office in Lombard

Street, the postmasters-general wrote in 1809--not, surely, without a

touch of exaggeration: "The sorting office, where fourteen persons are

generally employed at a time and nearly one-half of which is occupied by

tables, is only seventeen feet long by thirteen wide"; and, again, "The

letter-carriers' office, in which fifty persons are employed at a time

and one-fourth of which is occupied by tables, is but eighteen feet by

sixteen." Such were the conditions under which, until lately, the Post

Office servants had been accustomed to work; and now on a site rich in

historical associations is rapidly approaching completion a stately

edifice which not only provides ample and even lavish accommodation for

the present, but will, it is confidently predicted, suffice for all

time.

The new Post Office in St. Martin's-le-Grand was opened on the 23rd of

September 1829. Little more than sixty years have since elapsed, and the

building has been shorn of its chief attraction, the central hall, and

has otherwise been so altered internally that even the accomplished

architect, were he to revisit us, would probably fail to recognise his

own handiwork. Of the old Post Office in Lombard Street, with its courts

and its alleys and its interesting associations, not a fragment remains.

Part of the site was retained for Post Office purposes, and is now

occupied by what is known as the Lombard Street Branch Office; part was

thrown into the street then forming, and to be called after the King,

King William Street; and the remainder was sold, and has long been

covered with banks and counting-houses.

It were much to be wished, if only for his own reputation and peace of

mind, that Freeling had now retired. Full of years, recently created a

baronet, of ample means, and enjoying the confidence of the Government

as probably civil servant had never enjoyed it before, he could not have

selected a better moment for relinquishing the duties of his arduous

post. But a man who has been accustomed to exercise power is seldom

willing to give it up. And in Freeling's case we suspect there was an

additional reason. Of the large income which he derived from the Post

Office, exceeding L4000 a year, considerably more than two-thirds was

compensation for the loss of the franking privilege; and this

compensation, according to a well-understood rule, was not to count for

pension. As the fees which had been received for the exercise of the

privilege must have ceased on retirement, so the compensation was to

cease also.

That Freeling would have received a special pension is beyond doubt; but

even a special pension, with the utmost goodwill on the part of the

Government, could not have approached the amount of his official income.

And of this Freeling must have been well aware, for grumblings were

already to be heard. The Commissioners of Revenue Inquiry, indeed, had

gone so far as to question his right to receive any fees at all, and,

even assuming such right to exist, had impugned the conduct of the

Government in fixing the amount of his compensation at close upon L3000

a year.

The removal into the new building was celebrated by two important steps

in advance. Two branch offices were opened, one at Charing Cross and the

other in Oxford Street, where letters were received without a fee until

half-past six o'clock in the evening. Up to this time, except in Lombard

Street, no office for the receipt of letters had been kept open later

than five o'clock. A still more important step was the earlier delivery

of letters in the morning. This was accomplished within the city by the

employment of additional letter-carriers, and in the more distant parts

by conveying the men to their walks in vehicles. A whole hour was thus

gained. In the west end of London the delivery had not been completed

until between twelve and one o'clock. It was now to be completed, except

on Mondays, when the greater number of letters caused delay, between

eleven and twelve.

It will be convenient here to notice, though not strictly in

chronological order, a third step in advance which took place about a

year later, a step regarded as of little moment at the time, and yet one

which, in view of subsequent events, was of the highest importance. On

the 11th of November 1830 the first mail was sent by railway, this being

the mail between Liverpool and Manchester. Except as the opening of a

new era, the fact would hardly deserve to be recorded, for many years

had yet to pass before railways became sufficiently general to afford to

the Post Office any sensible relief. Meanwhile the roofs of the

mail-coaches groaned under the weight of the mails. Time had been when

no mail was allowed to be put on the roof or elsewhere than in the

mail-box; but, as the correspondence increased, the Post Office was

forced to countenance a practice of which it highly disapproved. What,

except for the railways, would have happened on the introduction of

penny postage is a question into which, happily, we need not inquire.

The new Post Office had not been long occupied before the Government

changed hands, and Earl Grey came into power with the Duke of Richmond

as postmaster-general. It is not often that a change of Government

affects the proceedings of the Post Office. One postmaster-general may

be more active than another, or he may take a more lively and personal

interest in the questions with which he has to deal; but there must,

from the nature of the case, be a continuity of policy which can seldom

be broken. Nor was there in this respect any exception to rule in the

present instance. And yet the peer who now assumed the direction of the

Post Office adopted a mode of procedure so different from that of his

immediate predecessors that it is impossible to pass over the occasion

in silence.

Richmond on his appointment as postmaster-general declined to receive

any salary; and having formed this determination on the ground that the

office was notoriously a sinecure, he straightway proceeded to shew that

a sinecure was the very thing which in his hands the office was not to

be. He devoted himself heart and soul to his new duties. Early and late,

at his private residence as well as the Post Office, he was in constant

and personal communication with officers of all classes from the highest

to the lowest. Nothing like it had been seen since the days of

Walsingham. He frequented the sorting office, saw for himself how the

work was done, and with many a kindly word encouraged the men to do

their best. With his own hands he on one occasion opened a bag for the

colonial office, and, in confirmation of the suspicion which had

prompted the act, found it full of letters for bankers, army agents, and

others, representing postage to the amount of L60.

Yet hard as he laboured, the Duke's repugnance to receive remuneration

for his services could not be overcome. Learning that his salary

remained undrawn, the Treasury addressed to him a letter of gentle

remonstrance. To this letter he returned no reply. Fourteen months later

the Treasury wrote again. To gratuitous service there were, in their

Lordships' opinion, serious objections. The Lord Privy Seal had declined

to receive the salary annexed to his office, and a Select Committee of

the House of Commons had expressed disapproval of the step as being

inconsistent with the wishes and the dignity of the country. Could that

be right on the part of the postmaster-general which had been held to be

wrong in the case of the Lord Privy Seal? Richmond now yielded, feeling

that it would be indelicate, if not disrespectful to the House, to force

gratuitous service where he was authoritatively informed gratuitous

service would not be welcome; but while yielding he managed to draw as

little of the arrears of salary as possible. His appointment as

postmaster-general bore date the 14th of December 1830, and the views

of the Committee were for the first time made known to him at the end of

April. The end of April, he was pleased to say, was an inconvenient time

to begin. It was a broken quarter. He would, in deference to the opinion

of the Committee, draw salary from the 5th of July but not before.

Richmond had been only a short time at the Post Office when he had a

most invidious task to perform. This was the carrying out of the

arrangements consequent upon the consolidation of the Irish Post Office

with the Post Office of Great Britain. The state of things arising from

the maintenance within the United Kingdom of two independent Post

Offices had long been felt to be intolerable. Until four or five years

before, not only had the rates of postage in Ireland been different from

those in England, but on a letter passing from one part of the kingdom

to another both the English and the Irish rates had been charged. This

had now been altered,[96] but the inconvenience of the dual control

remained. A letter from Ireland might have miscarried or been delayed.

The postmaster-general of England could not answer for its course except

on this side of the Channel, and for further particulars the complainant

had to be referred to Dublin. The English packets were timed to arrive

in Ireland at a particular hour; but on the goodwill of the authorities

in Dublin it depended whether the Irish posts corresponded or whether,

as had not been unknown to be the case, their times were perversely

fixed so as to keep the English mails waiting.

[96] 7 and 8 George IV. cap. xxi.

Nor was this all. The Revenue Inquiry Commissioners had recently

reported upon the Irish Post Office, and the evidence, on which their

report was based, revealed the existence of scandalous abuses such as no

Government could suffer to continue. For nearly fifty years the Irish

Post Office had been independent of the Post Office of Great Britain,

and it was now determined that this independence should cease. In 1831

an Act was passed incorporating the two Post Offices into one, and

Richmond's patent as postmaster-general of Great Britain had hardly

been completed before another passed constituting him postmaster-general

of the United Kingdom.

Upon Richmond as postmaster-general of Ireland as well as England and

Scotland it now devolved to sweep out the Augean stable; and his stern

sense of duty peculiarly qualified him for the task. Rosse and O'Neill

had ceased to be postmasters-general of Ireland upon the Act of

incorporation passing. Lees, their secretary, was removed from Dublin to

Edinburgh. Only those who had performed their duties in person were

retained. All others were summarily dismissed and pensions were refused

to them. In the result the Irish establishment was reduced in point of

numbers by one-half, and in point of cost by nearly L10,000 a year; and

this after the salaries of those who were retained had been increased

all round.

One important function had yet to be performed. This was to audit the

Irish accounts, which had not been audited for fourteen years, and were

known to be in a state of the utmost confusion. The receiver-general,

who carried on the private business of banker and money-lender, had

recently died, and speculation was high as to what further scandals the

audit would reveal. All preparations had been made, and the persons

selected for the task were on the point of starting for Dublin when

intelligence reached London that the receiver-general's bond was not

forthcoming. It had, shortly after his death, been surrendered under an

instruction from Lees which, like the instruction which conferred upon

his brother a valuable appointment, purported to have been given at a

Board at which were present "the earls." The earls, as a matter of fact,

had not been present and had never been consulted on the point. As it

was felt that in the absence of the bond an audit would be of little

use, the Government abandoned their intention, and the Irish Post Office

accounts from 1817 to 1831 remain unaudited to the present day.

Lord Althorp was at this time Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the

position which he assumed towards the Post Office was probably unique.

Ordinarily, between the Treasury and the Post Office there is a certain

amount of antagonism which, deplorable as it may be, is not difficult to

understand. The Post Office wants to spend money; the Treasury wants to

save it. The Post Office knows by experience that it must sow before it

can reap; the Treasury, while ready enough to reap, has a rooted

aversion to sowing, and resolutely shuts its eyes to the fact that

between the two processes there is a direct and necessary connection.

All this was reversed in Althorp's time. Often, during his tenure of

office, might be witnessed the strange spectacle of a Chancellor of the

Exchequer urging the Post Office to adopt some improvement, and the Post

Office attempting to frighten him with the bogey of cost.

The first matter on which Althorp brought his authority to bear was the

boundary of the general post delivery. The limits of this delivery were

irregular and capricious in the extreme. Of two streets, possibly

adjoining streets, one might receive its general post letters for the

general post rate alone, while the other, though at no greater distance

from St. Martin's-le-Grand, had to pay the twopenny rate as well.

The question now forced itself into prominence. Belgrave Square had been

laid out, and the houses were being occupied as fast as they could be

built. Those of the occupiers who were members of Parliament found to

their chagrin that every letter they received cost them 2d., for the

franking privilege did not clear the twopenny post; and, of course, by

those who were not members of Parliament, 2d. had to be paid in addition

to any other postage to which their letters might be liable. Althorp

insisted that the general post limits should be not only extended but

fixed on some definite principle. But what was the principle to be?

Contiguity of building? This was held to be impracticable. A line drawn

on such a basis would extend beyond Brentford on the west to Hampstead

and Highgate on the north, and beyond Clapham on the south. A line drawn

according to parishes would be little better. The parish of St.

Pancras, which nearly touched Holborn in its southern extremity,

extended as far as Finchley in the north, and the parish of Lambeth

reached nearly to Croydon.

Another course would be to draw a circle of which the Post Office should

be the centre, and let all letters within this circle be delivered free;

but even with a radius of no more than three miles, the additional cost

would be L25,000 a year. This was an outlay which the Post Office could

not recommend, and, if it were incurred, the Government must take the

responsibility. Althorp was not to be daunted, and after April 1831 the

general post limits extended for a distance of three miles from St.

Martin's-le-Grand. A little later, the threepenny post was extended to a

radius of twelve miles. This, boon as it was considered to be sixty

years ago, was shorter by some miles than the radius of the penny post

when Queen Anne ascended the throne.

Althorp was hardly less determined on the subject of the packets. It had

been a matter of principle with Freeling, that to all places beyond the

sea to which there was regular communication the Post Office should

carry its own mails. That they should be carried in vessels belonging to

private persons, however respectable these persons might be, appeared to

him to be unworthy of the English Government, and on this ground many an

advantageous offer had been refused.

Althorp held a different opinion, and an opportunity soon offered of

carrying his own view into effect. From Harwich the mails to Holland and

to Hamburg were still carried by sailing packet, and the merchants of

London, regarding this as an anachronism, urged that the sailing packets

might be replaced by steam packets. The request was not unreasonable,

but, unwilling that the Government should be at the cost of substituting

one description of packet for the other, Althorp directed that the

service should be put up to public competition. Here we see the first

application of a principle which in the result has furnished us with a

fleet of packets such as no other country in the world can produce. The

tender of the General Steam Navigation Company was accepted, though

saddled with the condition that its vessels should start from the

Thames. This was a death-blow to Harwich. The sailing packets for Sweden

were, indeed, still retained there; but in little more than eighteen

months the Swedish Government contracted for the mails to be forwarded

from Hull, and Harwich as a packet station was closed.

But of all the changes which Althorp introduced perhaps the most

important, and certainly the one which excited most opposition at the

Post Office, was the abolition of the newspaper privilege. The number of

newspapers sent by post from London into the country had, within the

last fifty or sixty years, increased enormously. In 1764 they averaged

3160 a day, in 1790 the daily average was 12,600, and in 1830 it had

risen to 41,412. The rate of increase, moreover, was advancing. In 1829

the total number of such newspapers was 11,862,000, and in 1830

12,962,000; and more than one-tenth part of the whole number was

supplied by the clerks of the roads.

The news-vendors now took the matter up in earnest. A general meeting

was held to protest against the Post Office servants being any longer

allowed to compete with the private dealers, and a petition to the same

effect was presented to Parliament. This called forth a vigorous

rejoinder from Freeling, and it is interesting to note by what arguments

he defended his position. So far, he said, from the news-vendors having

any ground of complaint against the Post Office servants, it is the Post

Office servants who have reason to complain of the news-vendors. For

their own interest and advantage a few persons engaged in a trade of

modern creation are endeavouring by clamour to deprive others of the

remains of an old and long-established privilege, which they exercise

not only under the sanction of immemorial usage, but by the direct

authority of Acts of Parliament. It is not as though the public were

interested in the question. The public have absolutely no interest in

it, except indeed to this extent--that, if what remains of the

privilege be withdrawn, they will be asked to compensate those whose

incomes are reduced in consequence, and to provide higher salaries for

their successors; and this "for the sole purpose of transferring their

authorised official remuneration to the pockets of a few individuals

who, having been admitted to a participation in what was originally an

exclusive privilege, have now thought proper to set up a claim to the

whole."

Such were Freeling's arguments, but Althorp was not convinced by them.

By his direction the privilege was withdrawn as from the 5th of April

1834, and those whose incomes suffered were handsomely compensated. Thus

ended a practice which had existed from the first establishment of the

Post Office, and which, while the Post Office was still in its infancy,

may perhaps have had this to justify it--that except for the franking

privilege possessed by the clerks of the roads the provinces would

probably have had to go without even the few copies of newspapers which

at that time found their way there.

It may appear strange that, while Althorp was thus applying his sturdy

common sense to the affairs of the Post Office, no steps were taken to

correct what most needed correction--the exorbitant rates of postage.

Our own belief is that in a very short time, had the Government of which

he was a member remained in office, a reduction would have been made,

and that it was to this result that he and Richmond, who worked hand in

hand together, were preparing the way. As to Richmond's views on the

matter there can be little doubt. Under previous Governments the Post

Office had been accustomed in exceptional cases to appeal to the

Chancellor of the Exchequer to mitigate the severity of its own rates by

the exercise of a dispensing power; but Richmond set his face against

the practice, insisting that the law should be obeyed until it was

altered; and, after being released from the trammels of office, he was

one of the first to propose an alteration.

But if such were indeed Althorp and Richmond's intention, we cannot

regret that it was not carried into effect. The illustrious man who

gave us penny postage had not yet directed his attention to the subject;

and, as he tells us himself, it was with him a matter of long and

careful consideration whether he should devote his energies to the

reform of the Post Office or to the improvement of the printing machine.

If in 1834 only a moderate reduction had been made in the extortionate

rates of postage which were then in force, Rowland Hill might not have

embarked upon his plan, and, even if he had done so, that plan might

have failed to evoke from the public sufficient support to overcome

opposition in high quarters. In proportion to the extent of the evil did

men welcome the remedy.

Meanwhile, although the demand for cheap postage had not yet taken

shape, profound dissatisfaction existed with the conduct of the Post

Office. This, under the reformed Parliament, was perhaps to be expected

in any case; but there were special circumstances which contributed to

the result. Nearly five years had elapsed since the Royal Commission of

Inquiry had reported upon the Post Office, and nothing had since been

done to carry its recommendations into effect.

It is not difficult to understand this inaction. In Freeling's view the

Post Office had been brought to a pitch of perfection such as it had

never reached before, and he regarded it as little short of sacrilege

that a body of outside novices should presume to lay its hands upon the

sacred ark which he had now for more than a generation been moulding

into form. Of the change of opinion which the labours of the Commission

had wrought he appears to have been utterly unconscious. Hitherto the

Post Office had been regarded as a marvellous mystery, which none but

experts could understand. This mystery had now been invaded, and men

were beginning to wonder, not, as in the past, at the things which the

Post Office was able to do, but how it was that these things were not

done better.

The Commission had also brought to light the existence of abuses, and

these on one pretext or another had remained uncorrected. We will give a

single instance. The Money Order Office had been established in 1792

with the object of facilitating the transmission of small sums from one

part of the country to the other by means of orders drawn on the

different postmasters. The plan was excellent and deserved success. The

only objection to it was that the enterprise was a private one,

undertaken by a few Post Office servants for their own benefit, and that

to make it remunerative to the projectors required from the authorities

an amount of favour which they had no right to bestow. Originally there

had been no limit to the amount for which a money order might be

drawn;[97] but long before 1829, in order to prevent interference with

the banking interest, the limit had been fixed at L5:5s.; and the

commission chargeable was at the rate of 8d. in the L1 on the sum

remitted. Of this amount 3d. went to the postmaster who issued the

order, 3d. to the postmaster who paid it, and the residue to the

proprietors.[98]

[97] At the outset in 1792 the limit had indeed been fixed at L5:5s.;

but even in the first year this limit was largely exceeded. During the

three months ending the 10th of October 1800, 697 money orders were

issued, viz. 220 in London and 477 in the country, representing an

aggregate amount of L8863, or at the rate of more than L12 apiece.

[98] Among the records of the Post Office is still preserved a money

order drawn by one postmaster upon another at the beginning of the

century. A facsimile of it is given in the Appendix.

Seeing that the postage on a single letter between two towns no farther

apart than London and Bristol was at this time 10d., it will be obvious

that in respect to orders for small sums the enterprise would have been

conducted at a loss unless the correspondence on money order business

had been exempt from postage. And such indeed was the case. All letters

passing from London to the country were impressed with the official

stamp, and those passing from the country to London were enclosed in

printed covers addressed to the secretary, and bearing, immediately

below the secretary's name, that of the proprietors, "Stow and Company."

For correspondence between themselves on money order business the

postmasters were supplied with franks sent down from London in blank.

Strongly as the Commission of Inquiry had animadverted on this abuse,

nothing had been done to correct it, and the franking privilege was, for

money order purposes, being as freely used as ever.

The returns which the House of Commons called for about this time, and

the returns which the Post Office furnished, shew, more forcibly perhaps

than anything else, in what direction men's minds were tending, and how

hollow was the foundation on which a part of the Post Office system

rested. More than sixty years had elapsed since the Law Courts decided

that inhabitants of post towns were entitled to a gratuitous delivery of

their letters. The House now inquired at how many post towns a charge on

delivery was still being made, and by what authority. The return

furnished by the Post Office shewed the number of towns to be

eighty-nine, and after giving as the authority for the charge

"immemorial usage," went on to state that "the payment is not compulsory

if the parties choose to object."

It was still the practice to hold up to a strong lamplight every letter

that passed through the post in order to see whether it was a single or

a double one; and the House called upon the Post Office to state by what

authority this was done. The Post Office, having no authority to adduce,

returned an evasive reply. The House next called for the number of

persons who had been prosecuted in the course of the year for the

illegal conveyance of letters. The Post Office return shewed that on

this ground, during the last twelve months, as many as 341 prosecutions

had taken place, many of them involving a large, and some of them a very

large, number of persons, and that the cases were still more numerous in

which, in order to avoid prosecution, the transgressors had submitted to

fines. And how had the revenue been prospering meanwhile? A return

called for by the House in April 1834 answers the question. During the

last ten years, despite the increase of population, the net Post Office

revenue had actually declined. In 1824 the receipts were L2,055,000

gross and L1,438,000 net, as against L1,391,000 net and L2,062,000 gross

in 1833.

In 1834 Earl Grey was succeeded by Viscount Melbourne; and one of the

first acts of the new Government was to appoint another Commission of

Inquiry into the Post Office, with directions to ascertain and report

how it was that the recommendations of the former Commission had not

been carried out. These recommendations were now set down one by one,

and the Post Office was called upon to explain, opposite to each,

whether any and, if so, what steps had been taken to give effect to it.

One or two of them had indeed been adopted--such, for instance, as the

recommendation that Post Office servants should cease to deal in

newspapers--but only under compulsion. Others affecting the internal

administration of the Post Office were certainly not feasible. But there

remained not a few which, while excellent in themselves, had been

discarded on the merest pretext.

The Commissioners had recommended that the "early," that is the

preferential, delivery of letters should be discontinued. The Post

Office replied that it was impossible. The Commissioners had recommended

that, instead of the receiving houses for general post letters being

separate and distinct from those for the letters of the twopenny post,

every receiving house should take in letters of both kinds. The Post

Office replied that the existing arrangement was the best adapted not

only to the convenience of the public but to the business of the

department. The Commissioners had recommended that the letter-carriers,

instead of being separated into general post, twopenny post, and foreign

letter-carriers, should all form one corps and deliver letters of every

description. The Post Office replied--a reply all the more extraordinary

inasmuch as the very arrangement which the Commissioners recommended was

already in force both in Edinburgh and Dublin--that "it would be

productive of the greatest confusion and delay."

The last of the recommendations to which we shall refer was that "the

total charge upon all letters should be expressed in one taxation." The

Post Office replied that it was "not possible for country postmasters to

know the precise line of demarcation between the general post and

twopenny post deliveries." In other words, no postmaster could know

what, in the case of letters for London--and, it might have been added,

for any other town than his own--the proper charge should be. This was

no pretext. It was, on the contrary, perfectly true; and perhaps no more

striking testimony could be afforded to the unsoundness of the system

then in vogue.

It is impossible to conceive that on Freeling's part there can have been

anything in the shape of contumacy, still less of defiance; but we are

by no means sure that the House of Commons did not incline to that view.

Be that as it may, however, the Post Office was in bad odour, and an

unfortunate series of incidents which occurred about this time little

tended to remove the unfavourable impression which the unwillingness to

carry out the Commissioners' recommendations had created. The House, at

the instance of the Select Committee on Steam Navigation, had called for

a return of the casualties which within a given period had happened to

the Irish packets. The return furnished by the Post Office omitted two

accidents in which one of the members of the Committee had himself

assisted; and the Committee forthwith ordered the attendance of a

witness from the Post Office to explain the omission. Another return

contained obvious errors, and was sent back to the Post Office to be

corrected.

But the two returns which excited most comment referred to the mileage

allowance received by the mail-coach contractors, and to the Money Order

Office. As regards the mileage allowance the only reply vouchsafed by

the Post Office was that it "has not the means of furnishing any account

of the amount paid." The return as regards the Money Order Office was

still more unfortunate. The ground on which this office had been

condemned by the Revenue Inquiry Commissioners was that it was carried

on for the benefit of individuals, and yet in so far as its

correspondence was exempt from postage, at the expense of the revenue.

Several years had since passed, and the House, not doubting that the

abuse had been corrected, called for a return shewing the amount of

postage derived from letters containing money orders, and to what

purpose it was applied. "The Money Order Office"--thus ran the return

which the Post Office furnished--" is a private establishment, and the

business is carried on by private capital under the sanction of the

postmaster-general; but as no accounts connected in any degree with it

are kept at the Post Office, no return can be made by the

postmaster-general to the order of the House of Commons." The House was

highly incensed, and ordered that, both as regards the Money Order

Office and the mileage allowance, proper returns should be rendered at

once.

The energy of the new Commission had now nearly brought the Post Office

into trouble. The contract for the supply of mail-coaches was in the

hands of Mr. Vidler of Millbank, who had held it for more than forty

years, and little had been done during this period to improve the

construction of the vehicles he supplied. Designed after the pattern in

vogue at the end of the last century, they were, as compared with the

stage-coaches, not only heavy and unsightly but inferior both in point

of speed and accommodation. Moreover, the charge made for them, namely,

2-1/2d. a mile in England and 2d. a mile in Scotland, was considered to

be high; and the Commissioners, altogether dissatisfied with the manner

in which the contract had been performed, arranged with the Government

not only that the service should be put up to public tender, but that

Vidler should be excluded from the competition. This decision was

arrived at in July 1835, and the contract expired on the 5th of January

following. To invite tenders would occupy time, and, after that

mail-coaches would have to be built sufficient in number to supply the

whole of England and Scotland. A period of five or six months was

obviously not enough for the purpose, and overtures were made to Vidler

to continue his contract for half a year longer. Vidler, incensed at the

treatment he had received, flatly refused. Not a day, not an hour,

beyond the stipulated time would he extend his contract, and on the 5th

of January 1836 all the mail-coaches in Great Britain would be withdrawn

from the roads.

A man less loyal than Freeling or endued with less generous instincts

might have felt a twinge of satisfaction at this result of interference

with what he considered his own domain. But such emotion, if indeed he

felt it, was not suffered to appear. With a difficulty to overcome, some

of his old energy returned, and when the 5th of January arrived there

was not a road in the kingdom from Wick to Penzance on which a new

mail-coach was not running.

It was now that the mail-coaches reached their prime. Eight or nine

miles an hour had hitherto been their highest speed, and now, with

vehicles of lighter build, the speed was advanced to ten miles an hour

and even more. Truth compels us to add that while the fastest mail-coach

on the road, the coach between Liverpool and Preston, travelled at the

rate of ten miles and five furlongs an hour, a private coach

accomplished within the hour rather more than eleven miles. This was the

coach between Edinburgh and Aberdeen, of which Captain Barclay of Ury

was the proprietor. Besides coachman and guard it carried fifteen

passengers, namely, four inside and eleven outside, while a mail-coach

carried four in and four out or eight altogether. Nor would Captain

Barclay admit that, in order to attain this high rate of speed, recourse

need be had to anything like furious driving. Nothing more, he

maintained, was necessary than to keep the horses at a "swinging trot."

Freeling's success in averting a breakdown with the mail-coaches did

little or nothing to arrest the tide which had set in against him. After

exercising an influence such as probably no civil servant had exercised

before, he found himself discredited and the object of vehement and not

over-scrupulous attack. Of the ministers under whose orders he had acted

not a few had passed away, and none were in a position to share his

responsibility, while their successors only knew him as identified with

a system which had become unpopular. Owing to an unusually rapid

succession of postmasters-general,[99] he was without even the solace

and support which a chief of some years' standing might have given him.

Single-handed, the old man had maintained a gallant defence; but his

spirit was now broken. In the midst of his exertions to prevent any

interruption of travelling facilities the House of Commons had called

for a return which was calculated to wound him deeply. This return

implied not only that he had been guilty of gross mismanagement, but

that his salary was higher than he was entitled to receive, that he was

drawing unauthorised emoluments, and that the Post Office was made

subordinate to his personal interests.

[99] Five within a single year. The Duke of Richmond ceased to be

postmaster-general in July 1834; and he was followed by Lord Conyngham,

Lord Maryborough, Lord Conyngham a second time, and Lord Lichfield, the

last of whom was appointed in May 1835.

To the outside world Freeling maintained much the same demeanour as

before, and few would have suspected the weight that pressed at his

heart; but in the solitude of his study he was an altered man. There he

brooded over the past and contrasted it with the present. Notes jotted

down haphazard on official papers that chanced to be on his table reveal

the inner workings of his mind. We know few sadder records. He recalls

the time when Governments consulted him and he stood high in favour with

the public. He cannot forget how, in the course of debate in the House

of Commons, his own proficiency and devotion to duty were urged as

reasons for not retaining the second appointment of postmaster. In the

recollection of those happy days he endeavours to find consolation for

the calumny and detraction of the present. He repudiates as unfounded

the charge that he has long ceased to consult the interests of the

public, and affirms that in this cause he has of late years laboured

even more abundantly than he did of old.

Then there is a break, after which he takes up his pen again. "Cheap

postage,"--to this effect he writes. "What is this men are talking

about? Can it be that all my life I have been in error? If I, then

others--others whose behests I have been bound to obey. To make the Post

Office revenue as productive as possible was long ago impressed upon me

by successive ministers as a duty which I was under a solemn obligation

to discharge. And not only long ago. Is it not within the last six

months that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer[100] has charged me

not to let the revenue go down? What! You, Freeling, brought up and

educated as you have been, are you going to lend yourself to these

extravagant schemes? You, with your four-horse mail-coaches too. Where

else in the world does the merchant or manufacturer have the materials

of his trade carried for him gratuitously or at so low a rate as to

leave no margin of profit?"

[100] The Right Hon. Thomas Spring Rice.

Here the manuscript abruptly ends. It is dated the 24th of June 1836.

Within sixteen days from that date Francis Freeling was no more.

* * * * *

We have done. From 1836 downwards the story of the Post Office is told,

far better than we could tell it, in the Autobiography of Sir Rowland

Hill and the reports which, since 1854, the department has issued

annually. The story of the preceding period is less well known, if

indeed it be known at all. To tell the earlier story--to trace the Post

Office from its humble beginnings down to the time when the illustrious

reformer took it in hand--this has been the extent of our object, and no

one perhaps is more conscious than ourselves how imperfectly it has been

accomplished.

APPENDIX

SUCCESSION OF POSTMASTERS-GENERAL FROM 1660 TO 1836

From 1660 to 1667 the Post Office was in farm, the farmers being--

1660 to 1663.

Henry Bishopp. Rent, L21,500.

Bishopp surrendered his patent, which was for seven years, in 1663.

1663 to 1667.

(Being residue of Bishopp's term.)

Daniel O'Neile. Rent, L21,500.

1667 to 1685.

Henry, Earl of Arlington.

Rent for later part of the term, L43,000.

Office managed, at first, by Sir John Bennet, Lord Arlington's

brother, and afterwards by Colonel Roger Whitley.

1685 to 1689.

Lawrence Hyde, Earl of Rochester.

(For part of the time Lord Treasurer.)[101]

Office managed by Philip Frowde, Esq., under the title of Governor.

[101] The concentration of the offices of Lord Treasurer and

Postmaster-General in one person served to facilitate the transaction of

Post Office business in a manner which those who have had experience of

the present system will not be slow to understand. Take, for instance,

the question of increasing a Post Office servant's salary. At the

present time the Postmaster-General may be thoroughly convinced himself

that an increase is called for, but--what is a very different matter--he

has also to convince the Treasury. In 1686 the Postmaster-General's own

conviction was enough. The following will serve as an illustration.

Thomas Cale, Postmaster of Bristol, applies for an increase of salary,

and Frowde, the Governor, satisfies Rochester that an increase will be

proper. Forthwith issues a document, of which the operative part is as

follows:--"You are therefore of opinion that the said salary (L50) is

very small considering the expense the petitioner is att, and his

extraordinary trouble, Bristoll being a greate Citty, but you say that

you doe not think all the things he setts downe in the aforesaid accompt

ought to be allowed him, the example being of very ill consequence, for

(as you informe me) you doe not allow either candles, packthread, wax,

ink, penns or paper to any of the Postmasters, nor office-rent, nor

returnes of mony, you are therefore of opinion that tenn pounds per

annum to his former salary of L50 will be a reasonable allowance, and

the petitioner will be therewith satisfied, these are therefore to pray

and require you" to raise his salary from L50 to L60 accordingly.

ROCHESTER.

WHITEHALL TREASURY CHAMBERS, _Dec. 13, 1686_.

July 1689 to March 1690.

Colonel John Wildman.

1690 to 1708.

Sir Robert Cotton, Knight, and

Sir Thomas Frankland, Bart.

1708 to 1715.

Sir Thomas Frankland, Bart., and

Sir John Evelyn, Bart.

1715 to 1721.

Charles, Lord Cornwallis, and

James Craggs, Esq.

1721 to 1725.

Edward Carteret, Esq., and

Galfridus Walpole, Esq.

1725 to 1732.

Edward Carteret, Esq., and

Edward Harrison, Esq.

Christmas 1732.

Edward Carteret alone to Midsummer 1733.

1733 to 1739.

Edward Carteret, Esq., and

Thomas, Lord Lovell, afterwards Earl of Leicester.

1739 to 1744.

Thomas, Lord Lovell, and

Sir John Eyles, Bart.

1744 to 1745.

Thomas, Earl of Leicester (sometime Lord Lovell) alone.

1745 to 1758.

Thomas, Earl of Leicester, and

Sir Everard Fawkener, Knight.

1758 to 1759.

Thomas, Earl of Leicester, alone.

June 2, 1759 to November 27, 1762.

William, Earl of Bessborough, and

Hon. Robert Hampden.

November 27, 1762 to September 23, 1763.

John, Earl of Egmont, and

Hon. Robert Hampden.

September 23, 1763 to July 19, 1765.

Thomas, Lord Hyde, and

Hon. Robert Hampden.

July 19, 1765 to December 29, 1766.

William, Earl of Bessborough, and

Thomas, Lord Grantham.

December 29, 1766 to April 26, 1768.

Wills, Earl of Hillsborough, and

Francis, Lord Le Despencer.

April 26, 1768 to January 16, 1771.

John, Earl of Sandwich, and

Francis, Lord Le Despencer.

January 16, 1771 to December 11, 1781.

Francis, Lord Le Despencer, and

Right Hon. Henry Frederick Thynne, afterwards Carteret.

December 11, 1781 to January 24, 1782.

Right Hon. Henry Frederick Carteret (sometime Thynne) alone.

January 24 to April 25, 1782.

William, Viscount Barrington, and

Right Hon. Henry Frederick Carteret.

April 25, 1782 to May 1, 1783.

Charles, Earl of Tankerville, and

Right Hon. Henry Frederick Carteret.

May 1, 1783 to January 7, 1784.

Thomas, Lord Foley, and

Right Hon. Henry Frederick Carteret.

January 7, 1784 to September 19, 1786.

Charles, Earl of Tankerville, and

Right Hon. Henry Frederick Carteret. (Created Baron Carteret,

January 29, 1784.)

September 19 to December 10, 1786.

Thomas, Earl of Clarendon, and

Henry Frederick, Lord Carteret.

December 10, 1786 to July 6, 1787.

Henry Frederick, Lord Carteret, alone.

July 6, 1787 to September 19, 1789.

Henry Frederick, Lord Carteret, and

Thomas, Lord Walsingham.

September 19, 1789 to March 13, 1790.

Thomas, Lord Walsingham, and

John, Earl of Westmorland.

March 13, 1790 to July 28, 1794.

Thomas, Lord Walsingham, and

Philip, Earl of Chesterfield.

July 28, 1794 to March 1, 1798.

Philip, Earl of Chesterfield, and

George, Earl of Leicester.

March 1, 1798 to February 27, 1799.

George, Earl of Leicester, and

William, Lord Auckland.

February 27, 1799 to March 31, 1801.

William, Lord Auckland, and

George, Lord Gower.

March 31, 1801 to July 19, 1804.

William, Lord Auckland, and

Lord Charles Spencer.

July 19, 1804 to February 20, 1806.

Lord Charles Spencer and

James, Duke of Montrose.

February 20, 1806 to May 5, 1807.

Robert, Earl of Buckinghamshire, and

John Joshua, Earl of Carysfort.

May 5, 1807 to June 6, 1814.

John, Earl of Sandwich, and

Thomas, Earl of Chichester.

June 6 to September 30, 1814.

Thomas, Earl of Chichester, alone.

September 30, 1814 to April 6, 1816.

Thomas, Earl of Chichester, and

Richard, Earl of Clancarty.

April 6, 1816 to June 13, 1823.

Thomas, Earl of Chichester, and

James, Marquess of Salisbury.

Since Lord Salisbury's death on the 13th of June 1823, no second

Postmaster-General has been appointed.

June 13, 1823 to July 4, 1826.

Thomas, Earl of Chichester.

July 4, 1826 to September 17, 1827.

Lord Frederick Montague.

September 17, 1827 to December 14, 1830.

William, Duke of Manchester.

December 14, 1830 to July 5, 1834.

Charles, Duke of Richmond.

By his first patent, dated the 14th of December 1830, the Duke was

appointed Postmaster-General of Great Britain; and by a second patent,

dated the 14th of April 1831, he was appointed Postmaster-General of

Great Britain and Ireland.

July 5 to December 31, 1834.

Francis Nathaniel, Marquess Conyngham.

December 31, 1834 to May 8, 1835.

William, Lord Maryborough.

May 8 to May 30, 1835.

Francis Nathaniel, Marquess Conyngham.

May 30, 1835, to September 15, 1841.

Thomas William, Earl of Lichfield.

SUCCESSION OF SECRETARIES TO THE POST OFFICE DOWN TO 1836.

The appointment of Secretary was created by Treasury Warrant

dated the 20th of June 1694.

1694 to 1700.

Name uncertain; but probably Willboyl.

[In 1694 the Postmasters-General urge the creation of the appointment of

Secretary; in 1697 they speak of "having sent our Secretary down to

Worcester"; and in October 1701, when reporting on a paper which had

been referred to them as far back as June 1699, they explain that "by

the death of our late Secretary y^e paper has been mislaid and but very

lately recovered." That there was a Secretary during this period is,

therefore, beyond doubt.

During the same period the Post Office letter books are written in a

handwriting as peculiar as it is good; and in the same handwriting, of

the identity of which there can be no question, there is in the

Frankland-Blaithwaite correspondence, until lately in the possession of

Sir Thomas Phillipps, a letter from the General Post Office dated the

27th of May 1697, and docketed thus, the docket having obviously been

written at the time of receipt:--"From Mr. Willboyl, Commissioner of the

Post Office." Now, Commissioner of the Post Office he certainly was not,

there being at that time no such appointment; but it is probable that he

was Secretary, and that with this official title, which had been only

recently given, Blaithwaite was not acquainted.]

1700 to 1714.

Benjamin Waterhouse.

1714 to 1715.

Henry Weston.

1715 to 1721.

James Craggs.

1721 to (about) 1730.

Joseph Godman.

(About) 1730 to 1737.

W. Rouse.

1737 to 1738.

Thomas Robinson.

September 1738 to July 1742.

John David Barbutt.

July 1742 to December 1762.

George Shelvocke.

December 1762 to July 1765.

Anthony Todd.

July 1765 to January 1768.

Henry Potts.

January 1768 to June 1798.

Anthony Todd (again).

June 1798 to July 1836.

Francis Freeling.

[Illustration: FACSIMILES OF FRANKS written before and after 1784, when

the obligation to date was imposed.

_Before._

The Duke of Grafton, First Lord of the Treasury from 1766 to 1770,

commonly called Junius Grafton from the attacks made upon him by

Junius.]

[Illustration: _After._

The Earl of Sandwich, nicknamed by the satirists of the period Jemmy

Twitcher. "See Jemmy Twitcher shambles--stop, stop, thief"--an allusion

to his shambling gait.

Lord Sandwich was postmaster-general from 1768 to 1771, and afterwards

First Lord of the Admiralty.]

[Illustration: FACSIMILE OF A PAID MONEY ORDER of the year 1802.]

INDEX

Abdy, Sir Robert, 38

Abercorn, James, Earl of, his unreasonable complaint, 153

Absenteeism, in England, 231;

in Ireland, 371

Alien Office, assists the Post Office in procuring foreign newspapers,

347

Allen, Ralph, postmaster of Bath, takes in farm the bye and cross-post

letters, 147;

conditions of his contract, 147;

success of his enterprise, 148;

is thwarted by the postmasters, 149;

his contract renewed, 150;

nature of his plan and his special qualifications for carrying it into

effect, 155;

his local knowledge, 157;

his difficulties with the postmasters, 157 _seq._;

as a means of check lays down certain propositions, 161;

instances of imposition practised by postmasters, 163;

by post-boys, 164;

by carriers and others concerned in the illegal conveyance of letters,

165;

the liberality of his arrangements, 166;

his course of procedure contrasted with that of the

postmasters-general, 168;

pays higher rent and increases the frequency of the post every seven

years when his contract is renewed, 169;

his injunction about the use of expresses, 182;

his death, 185;

his character, 186;

is an object of jealousy to Palmer, 230

Alphabet, 374;

ingenious one in use at Belfast, 375

Althorp, John Charles, Viscount, urges on Post Office improvements, 415;

fixes the limits of the general post delivery, 416;

throws the packet service open to public competition, 417;

abolishes the newspaper privilege enjoyed by the clerks of the roads,

418;

contemplates apparently a reduction of postage, 419

America, posts set up in, 110;

first postmaster of New York, 111;

and of Virginia and Maryland, 111;

establishment of what was virtually a penny post between England and

America, 113;

American posts become self-supporting, 116;

postmasters ejected from their offices, 207

Amsterdam, practice at, on arrival of the mails, 174

Anne, Queen, treatment of letters for, when in residence at Newmarket, 98

_Antelope_ packet, Captain Curtis, gallant action with privateer, 321

Apertures, introduction of, on the outside of post offices, 180

Argyll, John, Duke of, 64

Arlington, Henry Bennet, Earl of, appointed postmaster-general, 34

Armit, secretary to the Post Office in Ireland, displaced by Lees, 221

Ashburnham manuscripts, 20

Ashurst, Mr. Justice, his judgment touching the free delivery of

letters, 200

Aston, Mr. Justice, his judgment touching the free delivery of letters,

200

Attorneys, their provisional resolution to withhold postage on writs,

178;

hold appointments in the Dublin Post Office, 371

Auckland, William Lord, postmaster-general, his pleasantries, 333

Auditors of the imprests, 256 _note_

Austria, liberties taken with post-horses by travellers in, 5 _note_

Aylsham, Norfolk, post established to in 1733, 167

Baker, Sir George, physician to George the Third, 252

Bank of England notes, robbery of, from mail evokes important legal

decision, 183;

origin of cutting bank notes when sent by post, 206;

contemplated reduction of postage on letters containing second halves

of bank notes, 298

Bankers' franks, meaning of term, 315 _note_

Barbutt, John David, secretary to the Post Office, 185

Barclay, Captain, of Ury, high speed of his coach, 426

Barclay's plot, expresses sent on discovery of, 63

Barham, Edmund, packet agent at Dover, terms of his agreement with

Walcot, secretary to the Post Office in Ireland, 222

Barlow, clerk in the secretary's office, modifies the practice of the

Dead Letter Office, 308

Barnstaple, private post set up to Exeter in 1633, 17

Bath asserts its right to a free delivery, 198;

right admitted and letter-carrier appointed, 202;

slowness of post between Bath and London, 208;

amount of toll between the same towns, 210;

Post Office Establishment at Bath and amount of the postmaster's salary

in 1792, 292

Beccaria, Bonesana, his essay on Crimes and Punishments, 245

Belfast, ingenious "alphabet" in use at, 375;

peculiar usage of delivery, 375

Belgrave Square, included in the limits of the general post delivery, 416

Bell, Colonel, comptroller of the Inland Office, particulars of charge

against, 185 _note_

Bells, letters collected by ringing of, introduction of system, 121;

and its termination, 123 _note_;

bellmen in England and in Ireland paid on different principle, 367

(196, 221, 257)

Bernard, Sir Robert, 192

Besant's patent coaches, 282

Bethnal Green, a second penny on penny post letters improperly charged

at, 203

Bianconi, Charles, his enterprise, 376

Bigg, Stephen, his enterprise as a farmer of the posts, 60

Billingsley, Henry, a broker, carries letters of foreign merchants, 13;

and is consigned to prison, 14

Bills of exchange and of lading to and from foreign parts exempt from

postage until 1801, exemption then withdrawn, 331

Birmingham, one of many towns in which a free delivery of letters had

ceased, 197;

free delivery restored and letter-carrier appointed, 202;

salary of postmaster in 1792, 293;

penny post opened at, 300

Bishopp, Henry, farmer of the posts, 33, 34

"Black-box"; the box in which the correspondence of the Secretary of

State for Scotland was carried, 53

Blaithwaite, William, Secretary of War, remonstrated with on his abuse

of the franking privilege, 132

Blome's _Britannia_, 35

Bonnor, Charles, deputy comptroller-general of the Post Office, his

conduct in the matter of the king's coach, 252;

delays replies to the postmaster-general's inquiries, 264;

practises deception, 264;

his base ingratitude, 274;

is suspended by Palmer, 275;

suspension removed by the postmasters-general, 276;

his treachery, 278, 279;

receives the reward of infamy, 280

Boulton and Watt build the first steamboats used by the Post Office, 384

Bourne, Frederick, clerk in the foreign department of the Post Office;

suggests the establishment of a Ship Letter Office, 328

Bournemouth, mode of receiving its letters in 1854, 293 _note_

Bowen, passenger by packet; brings news of the victory at Oudenarde, 105

Boyle, Henry, Secretary of State, charges the packet agent at Harwich

with receiving a bribe, 89

Bracken, Henry, author of _The Gentleman's Pocket Farrier_, his device

to obtain exemption from postage, 161

Braithwaite, Daniel, clerk to the postmasters-general, his honesty of

purpose, 244

Brighton, salary of the postmaster of, in 1792, 293

Brill, The, 73, 83, 88

Bristol, course of post between Bristol and Exeter in 1660, 29;

and in 1696, 57;

salary of the postmaster of, in 1690, 50;

and in 1792, 293;

first mail-coach starts from Bristol, 213;

penny post opened there, 300;

revision of postmaster's salary in 1686, Appendix, _note_

Brown, sub-agent of packets at Ostend, his clandestine letter, 106

Brunel, Sir Marc Isambard, offers to construct a steam engine for the

Post Office packets, 408

Buckingham, George Villiers, Duke of, letter endorsed by, in 1627, 20

Buckingham, George Villiers, Duke of, son of the preceding, tedious

course of letter addressed to, in 1666, 34.

Buckingham, George Grenville Nugent Temple, Marquis of, Lord Lieutenant

of Ireland, deprecates reduction of packet establishment at

Holyhead, 248

Burlamachi, Philip, is appointed Master of the Posts, 21;

his title contested, 21;

is consigned to prison, 22

Bye-letters, probable meaning of the term in Queen Elizabeth's

reign, 4;

its certain meaning in 1690 and after, 52, 147;

postage upon bye-letters intercepted, 52, 53, 134 _note_;

Bye-Letter Office, 308

Bye-nights, 46

Byng, Sir George, 102, 104

Cadogan, Brigadier-General, packet detained for, 87

Camden, John Jeffreys, Earl, promotes Palmer's plan, 212;

gives to Pitt Palmer's version of his differences with the

postmasters-general, 274

Candles, inordinate supply of, to Post Office servants, 231

Canning, George, charges the Post Office with forestalling his

intelligence, 347

Carlisle, salary of postmaster of, in 1792, 293

Carriers allowed to carry letters under restrictions, 19;

restrictions more clearly defined, 129

Carteret, Edward, postmaster-general from 1721 to 1739. _See_

Postmasters-General, Part IV.

Carteret, Henry Frederick, Lord, postmaster-general from January 1771

to September 1789. _See_ Postmasters-General, Parts V. and VI.

Carts, first employment of, in London for bringing letters to the

General Post Office, 316

Castello, a prisoner on board packet, 88

Chalmers, George, his suggestions, 256;

excites Palmer's jealousy, 259

Channel Islands without an official post in 1792, 294;

official post provided, 312;

rates of postage, 314

Charing Cross, opening of branch office at, 411

Charlemont, Lord, his misunderstanding as to packet charges, 86

Charles, Archduke, 78, 86

Chelsea pensioners, their privilege of sending and receiving letters at

low rates of postage withdrawn, 404

Chenal, captain of packet, rebuked by the postmasters-general, 94 _note_

Chepstow, the inhabitants of, though under no obligation, continue to pay

pence on the delivery of their letters, 293

Chester, in 1720 the only town outside London with two Post Offices, 151;

salary of postmaster in 1792, 293

Chesterfield, Philip, Earl of, postmaster-general from March 1790 to

March 1798. _See_ Postmasters-General, Part VII.

Chichester, Thomas, Earl of, postmaster-general from May 1807 to July

1826. _See_ Postmasters-General, Part VIII.

Christmas boxes, intercepted, 232

Clancarty, Richard, Earl of, postmaster-general of Ireland from 1807 to

1809; and of England from September 1814 to April 1816. [This

latter appointment he did not take up.] His decision of character,

instance of, 368;

advocates facilities of communication between England and Ireland, 389

Clarendon, Thomas, Earl of, postmaster-general from September to December

1786, 229, 242

Clerks of the roads, their duties, 47;

their salaries, 49;

are allowed to frank newspapers, 49;

their franking privilege invaded, 191;

mischief resulting from a reduction of their emoluments, 193;

their financial troubles, 206, 250;

extent of their newspaper business after newspapers become exempt from

postage, 407

Clermont, William Henry, Earl of, deputy postmaster-general of Ireland,

194

Clies, Francis, captain of packet, his audacious smuggling, 90;

his attention to religious observances, 90;

strikes his colours, 94

Coals supplied to Post Office servants in profligate profusion, 231

Cobbett, William, inveighs against the early or preferential delivery,

342;

and against the treatment of foreign newspapers, 343

Coke, Sir John, his indignant protest against the claim of the foreign

merchants to have a post of their own, 12

Colours, special colours assigned to the Post Office boat employed in

the Pool, 74;

the colours of the packets altered at the Union with Scotland, 117

Comer, postmaster of Tunbridge Wells in 1725, 153

Common Council of London, The, sets up a post of their own to Scotland,

Compensation for losses by the penny post, 38;

when ceased to be given, 188

Conspiracies against the State, to check these the original object of the

Post Office monopoly, 7;

danger chiefly apprehended from the Continent, 9;

Coke's opinion on the subject, 13;

the same opinion expressed in the Act of 1657, 28

Constables, the duty of, in certain cases, to seize horses for the

service of the posts, 3, 6

Convention posts, establishment of, 332;

their failure and the reason, 350;

are gradually absorbed, 352

Conway Bridge, additional rate of postage on letters passing over, 395

Conyngham, Francis Nathaniel, Marquess of, postmaster-general from July

1834 to January 1835, and again from May 8 to May 30, 1835, 427

_note_

Cornwall, its posts improved in 1704, 62

Cornwallis, Charles, Lord, postmaster-general from 1715 to 1721. _See_

Postmasters-General, Part III.

Cotton, Sir Robert, postmaster-general from 1690 to 1708. _See_

Postmasters-General, Part I.

Counsel in Post Office cases required to give receipts for their fees,

324

Country letter, meaning of term, 147

_Courier_ newspaper, sum paid by the, for early intelligence from the

Post Office, 345

Couriers originally employed to carry letters on affairs of State, 2

Court, The, at one time the centre of all the posts, 3;

a trace of the old state of things to be found in an existing statute,

Court letters, definition of, in 1706, 83 _note_;

mails detained for the Court letters, 211;

these letters, unlike others, delivered the moment they arrived, 347

Court-post, his duties, 99;

duties performed by deputy, 231

Coventry, Sir Thomas, Attorney-General, afterwards Lord Keeper, holds De

Quester's appointment to be valid, 11;

cajoles Stanhope into surrendering his patent, 23

Craggs, James, postmaster-general from 1715 to 1721. _See_

Postmasters-General, Part III.

Crichton, Doctor, refuses to pay his fare by packet, 86

Cromwell, Thomas, Brian Tuke's letter to, on the paucity of the posts, 1

Crosby, Brass, 192

Cross-posts, first post of the kind set up, 57;

cross-post letters, definition of the term, 147

Croydon, postmistress of, Auckland's pleasantry on her marriage for the

third time, 334

Culverden, captain of packet boat, engages in smuggling, 89

Culvert, member of Parliament, expostulated with as to the irregular use

of his frank, 141 _note_

Curtis, Alderman, 274, 275

Customs, Commissioners of, lodge a complaint against the captain of the

_Expedition_ packet, 90;

represent that smuggling is carried on by packet from Ostend, 103;

take proceedings against some of the Harwich packets, 237;

are charged by the postmasters-general with unhandsome conduct, 238;

seize the Dover mail-coach, 271

Dacre, Lord, superscription on Protector Somerset's letter addressed to,

Dartmouth, William, Lord, his attention called to the late arrival at the

Post Office of the Court letters, 211

Dashwood, Francis, postmaster-general of Jamaica, exaction from, as a

condition of his appointment, 226

Davy, Mrs., her account of the condition of Penzance before 1784, 291

Day, John, sent from London in 1733 to establish a post at Aylsham in

Norfolk, his instructions, 167

Dead letters, treatment of, a source of perplexity to Allen, 158;

irregular payments claimed under cover of, 236;

Dead Letter Office, 307;

returned letters charged with postage, 360

Decypherer, the chief, 171

De Joncourt, express clerk, 373

The History of the Post Office, from Its Establishment Down to 1836 · 第 17 / 18 章