RAILWAYS AND THE POST OFFICE, CONTINUED.
We had written, in the previous chapter, all that relates to the Post
Office, in the belief that the relations between that department and
the railways had been, during recent years, of an amicable character.
We regret however to find that, in this respect, we have been mistaken.
The amicable relations exist, on the part of the Post Office, on the
surface only, no deeper. The same antagonistic spirit flourishes, at
all events in the minds of some of the officials, as resolutely as ever.
Our readers will perhaps remember that, on the 11th March, 1865, a
Royal Commission was issued, nominating the Duke of Devonshire, the
late Earl of Donoughmore, Lord Stanley, M.P., the Hon. E. F. Leverson
Gower, M.P., the Right Hon. Robert Lowe, M.P., Sir Rowland Hill,
Messrs. Roebuck, M.P., Dalglish, M.P., G. C. Glyn, M.P., Ayrton,
M.P., Colonel Douglas Dalton, R.E., Mr. E. T. Hamilton, and Mr. J. R.
McClean, C.E., to make various inquiries respecting railways.
On the 19th of December following, a new commission was issued in
substitution of the previous one, Mr. Monsell, M.P., being added to the
number of Commissioners. The Earl of Donoughmore died shortly after it
was issued; and, in consequence of Lord Stanley having become Secretary
of State for India, he did not act for more than a short time. The
report, dated the 7th of May, 1867, is therefore not signed by His
Lordship.
It will not be necessary to follow this report, or to refer to the
general recommendations contained in it. Some are very good, and would
no doubt be readily agreed to by most railway companies, if they were
to take the shape of legislative enactment. Others are impracticable
(such as that suggested for ensuring punctuality of trains), and like
impracticable notions and ideas at all times, they “fret their little
hour on the stage,” and then cease to be heard of afterwards.
The evidence taken is voluminous; some of it is of a very desultory
character, several of the witnesses having seized the occasion to vent
their own peculiar theories, and, _sicut eorum mos est_, to inculcate
the adoption of their specific or nostrum as the infallible remedy. The
appendices, notwithstanding the introduction of much matter that is
irrelevant for all large and practical purposes, contain a great deal
of useful information.
The great and main recommendation in the report is contained in the
74th clause; it is therefore given _in extenso_. “On the various
grounds we have mentioned, we cannot concur in the expediency of the
purchase of the railways by the State, and we are of opinion that it is
inexpedient at present to subvert the policy which has hitherto been
adopted, of leaving the construction and management of railways to the
free enterprise of the people, under such conditions as Parliament may
think fit to impose for the general welfare of the public.”
“As regards the purchase of Irish railways,” the Commissioners add, at
clause 80, “having come to the determination that it is inexpedient
that the railways should be purchased by the State, we consider there
is not sufficient reason for excepting Ireland from this general
conclusion; but, as it has been the established policy to assist Irish
railways and other public works in Ireland, we recommend that when
Parliament thinks fit to make advances to Irish railway companies, the
money should be lent for a fixed period of considerable length, so as
to enable the company to develop its resources before it is called on
for repayment.”
The Commissioners add, that these advances or loans should never be
made to Irish railway companies on condition that their rates and fares
should be reduced, that being a matter, the decision upon which should
rest exclusively with the executive of the company.
The two dissentients from the report were Mr. Monsell, M.P., and Sir
Rowland Hill. Mr. Monsell being of opinion that the Irish railways
should be purchased by the State, and to this extent agreeing with Sir
Rowland Hill, whose opinion is that the railways of the whole kingdom
should become, by purchase, the property of the nation.
Sir Rowland Hill gives various reasons in recommendation of this
suggestion, and summarises in his report, written, as we learn by its
first paragraph, “in a growing expectation of dissent,” his reasons
with the following language:—
“In short, experience has now shown that railways are essentially
monopolies; consequently they are, in my opinion, not suitable objects
for ordinary commercial enterprise, in which each party, while
striving for its own interests, generally contributes, perhaps in the
best possible way, to the interest of all. It seems to follow that
they cannot be advantageously left to independent companies, who, of
course, manage them with exclusive reference to their own interests,
but that they should be in the hands of those who will control the
management of them with a view to the interest of the country at
large, that is to say, in the hands of the Government.
“Proposing this, however, I do not mean to recommend that any
Government Board should take upon itself, in the gross, the duty now
performed by railway directors. For the direct management of the
lines, I propose to provide by leasing them out, in convenient groups,
to companies, partnerships, or individuals, as the case may be. An
opinion in favour of leasing the lines will be found in the evidence
given by Mr. Bidder before this Commission.
“What I recommend is, that either a department of Government should
be created, or the superintendence of railways committed to one
of the existing departments, and that the controlling power, thus
established, should act as a lessor, not only in granting leases, but
in fixing suitable terms and enforcing due observance of contract.”
As Sir Rowland Hill was the only person of the fifteen Commissioners
who subscribed to the doctrines advanced in the foregoing paragraph, it
will be an unnecessary occupation of time to comment upon them.
The two chief witnesses upon whom Sir Rowland Hill relies are, his
brother, Mr. Frederick Hill, an Assistant Secretary of the Post Office,
and Mr. Edward J. Page, the Inspector-General of Mails. A considerable
portion of Sir Rowland’s plan is quoted as forming part of the evidence
of Mr. Hill, and we shall only say of that gentleman just at present,
although we shall have much to say to him presently, that if he had
even a tyro’s knowledge of the working of railways he would not have
put forward the string of the assumed “benefits” which he asserts will
be realised by his views being adopted.
To us, however, it appears very clearly, that if we lay aside all
arguments, reasoning, plans, and suggestions but one, we will come
to the real reason for Sir Rowland Hill recommending the purchase of
railways by the State. It is that the Post Office may thereby acquire
that complete control, and that complete mastery in respect of railways
which the rights of property can alone give it over them. Mr. Page aids
him by his evidence and assertions, in a manner that has compelled us
to state in the opening paragraph of this chapter, that the friendly
relations existing between the Post Office and the Railway, are, as
regards the department, on the surface only. In its heart (if the Post
Office have a heart) its feelings of rancour are just as uncompromising
as ever they were.
But let us state, in the first instance, what are the opinions of
the Royal Commissioners on the relations between the Post Office and
the Railways. They are contained in the following extract from their
report:—
“134. In connection with the passenger traffic we have to consider the
question of postal communication.
“On the continental railways, as we have observed, the Government has
conceded the lines to the companies on the condition that the mails
are to be carried free. On the railways of this country, Parliament
has reserved to the Post Office the right of requiring the railway
companies to carry the mails as the Postmaster-General may direct, but
has reserved to the railway companies the right to be paid for such
service at a rate to be fixed by arbitration. The Postmaster-General
is also at liberty to send a Post Office guard with a weight of mails
equal to the luggage of an ordinary passenger, at the fares charged
for such ordinary passenger, any extra weight being paid for according
to the ordinary rates of the company.
“The Post Office authorities complain that the price they have to pay,
under many of the arbitrations, for services rendered, is in excess of
what individuals pay for such services, and that if guards are sent in
charge of the mails as baggage, the railway companies insist that the
guard can only carry the baggage from one end of his journey to the
other, without intermediate receipt and delivery, and that, therefore,
when they desire to use the trains by sending a guard with mail bags,
without putting the trains under the statutory notice, the demands of
the railway companies are exorbitant. They also state that they cannot
require a company to run a train exclusively for their use, and that
the law is defective as to the speed they are entitled to require,
and as to the provision of apparatus for exchanging mail bags without
stopping.
“The railway companies, on the other hand, complain that whilst by law
the award should bind both parties for three years, the Post Office
practically possesses the power of at once putting an end to it, if
they consider it too high, by requiring some alteration of service,
which may be a mere nominal alteration, and thus the Post Office may
go on asking for fresh arbitrations until they get an award to their
liking. The Post Office authorities deny that there has been any
abuse of this power. The railway companies further complain that, by
means of the book and parcel post, the Post Office has entered into
competition with the railway companies for an important branch of
their traffic.
“The Post Office is anxious that a fixed tariff for the conveyance of
mails should be introduced into Acts of Parliament. The experience
which has been already acquired must, by this time, suffice to enable
a fair and remunerative tariff to be affixed to every service required
to be rendered by the ordinary trains of the company, and the only
reason why some fixed scale does not appear to have been adopted by
some general Act is, that the Post Office has never urged it upon the
consideration of Parliament on a satisfactory basis for legislation.
“It is quite clear, however, that at the present time legislative
interference in this question has either gone too far or not far
enough. If the Post Office had originally been left free to make its
bargains with railway companies, it would probably have obtained
greater facilities at lower rates than it now possesses, for the
railway companies largely benefit by postal communication, and the
feeling of the directors would obviously be to assist it; but the fact
of the service being compulsory, to some extent neutralises such a
feeling.
“We recommend, as the best course under existing circumstances, that
a general Act of Parliament be passed to define all those points
which have given rise to difficulties between the Postmaster-General
and the railway companies; but we do not deem it expedient to enter
into the details of the arrangements to be embodied in the Act. We
merely point out that these services may be classed under two heads,
viz.,—first, services analagous to services rendered to the public;
secondly, services in trains to be run at special hours to be fixed by
the Postmaster-General.
“The first class, viz.: services by trains when railway companies fix
the time of starting and stopping, may be grouped under the following
heads, viz.,—first, mails in charge of railway companies without
Post Office guards; second, mails in charge of guards on Post Office
responsibility; third, compartments, or one or more carriages.
“For this class of services a tariff might be fixed by a general Act.
And if the Postmaster-General were to enter into communication with
the railway companies, we see no reason to doubt that an equitable
scale for these services would be agreed upon.
“For the second class of services, viz.: where the Postmaster-General
fixes the time of starting or stopping, or requires an exclusive or
limited train, the question of the proper remuneration for the service
performed should still be left to arbitration.
“We have no evidence that the provisions of the Act which we have
quoted in a former part of our report, allowing the Postmaster-General
to override an award which is otherwise binding on a railway company,
have ever been abused by him. We think such a power necessary for the
public interests, and have not, therefore, suggested any alteration of
the law in this respect.
“Another branch of traffic carried on in passenger trains, is the
conveyance of parcels. The railway companies complain that the
Post Office abstracts from them a large portion of this class of
traffic, by means of the parcel post. The Post Office contend that
the necessity for extending the parcel post has arisen from the
inefficient way in which the railway companies have performed the
parcel service; and the services which the Post Office under its Acts
of Parliament is entitled to perform, seem to be limited to printed
and written matter, and patterns.
“We think that there is a plain and obvious distinction between the
service rendered by the Post Office in the conveyance of letters and
printed matter, and that rendered by railway companies in conveyance
of parcels. The Postmaster-General not only enjoys by law an exclusive
monopoly of the conveyance of all letters, but he is also entirely
protected from all responsibility for any default in the service which
the Post Office undertakes to render to the public, and correspondents
are left to rely, in the last resort, on the protection of the severe
penal laws against the servants of the Post Office.
“We do not think it would be possible to apply this principle to the
conveyance of parcels throughout the country.
“There is this further consideration, that the weight of letters
received and delivered in each separate packet is exceedingly small,
both in weight and bulk, as compared with the bulk and weight of
railway parcels, which extend up to 112 lbs., and require, therefore a
different organisation for receipt, delivery, and forwarding.
“So long as a railway company is paid a reasonable rate for the
transmission of mails, they have no reason to complain of the
extension of Post Office service.
“The expense lies in the collection and delivery, and it is quite
competent to railway companies to organise a system of collection and
delivery, and to compete with the Post Office by carrying parcels on
the same terms.
“It is, moreover, to be remarked, that railway companies are not bound
to carry parcels, nor is there any tariff for parcels, fixing charges
for collection and delivery, in Acts of Parliament. The public is,
therefore, at their mercy. We consider that a separate tariff should
be laid down and published to govern the conveyance as distinguished
from the collection and delivery of parcels, so as to enable the rates
of charge to be kept down by the free action of individuals acting as
carriers by railway.
“It is, however, apparent that the parcel service so far as
interchange is concerned, can never be efficiently performed for the
public until railway companies co-operate through the clearing house,
to improve their arrangements for parcel traffic. Looking at the
extent to which the railway system has now reached, we consider that
the time has arrived when railway companies should combine to devise
some rapid and efficient system for the delivery of parcels. We do
not feel called upon to suggest the precise manner in which this may
be carried into effect; but the employment of a uniform system of
adhesive labels for parcels, somewhat similar to that now in use on
some of the northern lines for the conveyance of newspapers, is one of
the most obvious methods for facilitating payment and accounting. If
the railway companies do not combine voluntarily, it may be necessary
at some future time for Parliament to interfere to make the obligation
to carry parcels compulsory, at a rate to be prescribed by law.
“On the companies effecting such an arrangement, we recommend that a
general Act should be passed limiting their liability for each parcel
to a certain amount, unless a greater value be declared and paid for,
according to a settled scale, at the time of transmission, and that
such further provisions should be made as may be found necessary to
enable the companies to carry out their arrangements.”
It will thus be seen that ten of the Royal Commissioners—the members
of the Commission who would not be likely to be influenced by what may
be called a departmental view of the subject—whilst stating the case
both for and against the railway companies, as well as for and against
the Post Office, limit their recommendation to the passing of a general
Act to define the points which have given rise to difficulties; to
which, at page 59 of their report, they add that “in cases where the
Postmaster-General fixes the time of starting or stopping, or requires
an exclusive or limited train, the question of the proper remuneration
for the service should still be left to arbitration.”
And the Commissioners, whilst very clearly denying the expediency of
the Post Office becoming carriers of railway parcels, some of which
“extend up to 112 lbs., and require therefore a different organisation
for receipt, delivery, and forwarding,” confine themselves to
recommending railways to “combine for devising some rapid and efficient
system for the delivery of parcels.”
A correct view certainly. We are now desirous of offering some remarks
upon the part of the recommendations of the Royal Commissioners which
refers to a tariff being fixed by a general Act for the various classes
of services required of railways by the Post Office. It would, we are
convinced, be impossible to pass an Act of this class that would be
of the slightest practical value, because the circumstances of every
railway company, certainly of every district of country through which
a railway passes, are of constant variance. We need not go farther
for evidence of this fact, than in the successive annual reports of
Postmasters-General. Until 1862 each of them contained statements of
the railway, horse, and foot mileage employed by the Post Office, and
each item was subdivided into maximum, average, and minimum, not only
for the United Kingdom, but for each component part of it. As may be
imagined, the difference between maximum price and minimum on railways,
were not only very striking, but they are also equally striking for
the two other means of locomotion, especially so for foot messengers;
these last varied—no doubt still continue to vary—from a farthing a
mile (not enough we should have thought to pay for sole, to say nothing
of upper-shoe-leather) to sixpence a mile. To this let be added what
any person who reads Post Office documents will see constantly quoted,
that before the opening of the railway from Carlisle to Glasgow, the
proprietors of the coach that carried the mail between these two
places, _paid_ £200 a year for the privilege. It was because there was
then a violent, and as it turned out to be, destructive competition on
the road, but at the time it lasted, the Post Office was paying as high
as, if we recollect correctly, 1s. 3d. a double mile for mail coach
conveyance in another part of the country.
The Commissioners recommend arbitration in case of difference, when the
Post Office requires an exclusive or limited train, and it seems that
the extension of the principle to all matters of negotiation, when the
parties cannot agree, affords the best means of arriving at a just and
equitable solution. Arbitration, however, with the railways has always
been the _bête noire_ of the department.
Mr. Frederick Hill, having informed the Commissioners that he
anticipates (“anticipations” to which Sir Rowland Hill says, “I
concur”) “greater securities against accidents, and _also_, against
assaults and robberies on railways (_query_, in railway trains?),
by the establishment of a uniform system of signals (!), and by
clauses in the leases imposing penalties for unpunctuality and other
irregularities (what?), and requiring that means should always be
provided for enabling passengers to communicate readily with the
guard,” winds up the list of “benefits” which the nation is to obtain
from purchase as follows:—“Additional facilities for the conveyance of
the mails, with a consequent increase in the number of posts, and in
the celerity of communication, and the removal of the chief difficulty
in the establishment of a parcels post.”
If the reader will please to refer _ante_ to page 106, he will see
the number of postal services there are daily only between London
and other post towns. Their name is legion, and we are indebted for
the information given upon this subject exclusively to Post Office
documents. In Liverpool,[49] there are either six or seven collections
a day for Manchester,[50] and a like, or very nearly a like number at
Manchester for Liverpool and intermediate towns, so that, for postal
purposes, Liverpool and Manchester are practically the same town. And
so it is with the great net-work of towns in the north of England, as
well as with towns in every other part of the country, north, south,
east, or west. We confess to the weakness that if we are in a country
town or village, we cannot pass the post office without having a look
at the notice in the window, telling for what places and at what hours
mails are made up and despatched, and from what places and at what
hours mails arrive for delivery: we are therefore in the position of
being able to state that despatches and deliveries are innumerable
in the vicinity of railways; away from them, the collections and
deliveries are at most twice a day, frequently not more than once.
“Celerity of communication.” If Mr. Hill will refer to page 58 of the
Royal Commissioners’ Report, he will see that the average speed of
the quickest trains in England (those by which the great mails are
conveyed) is 36½ miles an hour; the average for similar trains in
France is 31 miles, and in other states of Europe it varies from a
minimum of 20 to a maximum of 30. The speed of our fastest trains is
stated at page 109, _et seq._
We must also request Mr. Hill to refer to the whole series of
Postmaster-Generals’ Reports. Every one of them contains paragraphs
under the heading “Accelerations,” but in the tenth, eleventh, and
twelfth, there are no less than seven and a-half pages devoted
exclusively to this one subject. In the Tenth Report (undated, but
bearing internal evidence of its being intended for the year 1862),
it is stated, “a statement of all the accelerations which have been
effected within the last ten years, or even a list of all the places
in the United Kingdom which have now an earlier arrival, or a later
despatch of letters than were afforded to them in 1854, would show
conclusively that the Post Office has, during that period, laboured
strenuously and successfully to meet the demands of the public. But
such statements would be confusing from the multiplicity of their
details.” The Postmaster-General therefore confines himself to
alluding “to the acceleration of the Scotch mails, which took place
in 1859; to that of the Irish mails, which took place in 1860; and to
that of the French mails which also took place in the year 1860.”
These accelerations are so great, and bear so importantly upon the
correspondence of the whole kingdom, not only _inter se_, but with the
whole continent of Europe, that each is very completely and elaborately
described. In the report for 1864, the Postmaster-General, in addition
to mentioning several important accelerations, refers, in a triumphant
tone, to the advantages which have been gained to the public by the
adoption of railways for conveyance of mails in various districts both
of Scotland and Ireland; and in the report for 1865, equal satisfaction
is expressed, because most important accelerations were made in the
speed of all the main postal trains throughout Ireland. This part of
the report concludes as follows. “Contracts for the general use of all
ordinary trains were entered into with the Great Southern and Western,
the Dublin and Drogheda, and the Dublin and Belfast Railway Companies;
and the contract with the Ulster Railway Company was extended. It was
chiefly by means of these contracts that the improvements effected in
the mail service in Ireland during 1865, were greater than they had
been in any previous year for a considerable time past.”
The foregoing is the language used in the three latest annual reports
of the department, the last of which was written about the time that
Mr. Hill must have been submitting to the Royal Commissioners his
reasons why the nation would benefit by the purchase of the railways.
And here let us mention a belief which exists in the Office, that for
several years previous to the present year, the Postmaster-General’s
Reports have been drafted by Mr. Hill. This belief, however, cannot be
correct, as it is not to be supposed that Mr. Hill would blow hot and
cold, and write white and black at one and the same time.
“Celerity of communication” (to again quote Mr. Hill’s words), “can
only take place by increased celerity of trains.” We believe that in
the present state of our knowledge we have acquired on railways in
this country, the maximum that can be accomplished consistent with
safety; and we say in all seriousness, that if Mr. Hill be not content
with it, and that the Postal Department insist upon higher speed, he
ought, in order to be consistent, also to insist upon being placed on
the fore-buffer of the engine, and thus to substitute himself for the
director, about whom the late Sydney Smith wrote so pleasantly some
years ago. If a Postmaster-General were also required to travel in
mail trains, Mr. Darby Griffiths would, we should suppose, no longer
experience (at all events in the House of Lords) the fatal difficulties
which led to the rejection some four years back, of his Bill to revive
for Members of the House of Commons the right of holding the office
of Postmaster-General. Nay, it is very probable that the most serious
opposition would be found in the House, upon which, on the previous
occasion, he was so anxious to confer the privilege.
Before quoting in full the recommendations of Sir Rowland Hill, as
regards railways and the Post Office, it is desirable to draw attention
to the fact, somewhat remarkable, that the only persons upon whom Sir
Rowland Hill relies for proving his case as regards the Post Office,
are his Brother, Mr. Edward J. Page, and our esteemed friend Mr.
Charles Hutton Gregory, C.E., who is “the arbitrator (should not the
word be ‘referee’?) for the Post Office.” It certainly appears strange,
that official testimony of a somewhat more independent character
should not have been produced. Assuming that the Duke of Montrose had
not acquired sufficient knowledge of the working of the system, there
is Lord Stanley of Alderley. His Lordship was Post-master-General
for six years, and only retired upon the present Government coming
into office eighteen months ago. Mr. Tilley, the Chief Secretary, has
been connected with the department for a great many years, so has
Mr. Scudamore, admittedly the most distinguished man in the service.
The evidence of several of the district surveyors would have been
valuable; but not one of them was called to corroborate, or to add to
the testimony of Messrs. Hill, Page, and Gregory, the spirit of which
testimony is manifest, even in the Index of Evidence, as published in
the Appendix.
Sir Rowland Hill proceeds thus:—
“On reference to the evidence of Mr. Frederic Hill,
Assistant-Secretary to the Post Office, Mr. Edward Page, the
Inspector-General of Mails, and Mr. Gregory, C.E., the Arbitrator
for the Post Office, it will be seen that the laws regulating the
relations between the railways and the Post Office are, at present in
a state unsatisfactory to both parties; the dissonance necessarily
producing inconvenience to the public, owing to the restrictions which
it places on the use of trains for conveying mails, and the consequent
impediments to the extension of postal facilities.
“I concur with Mr. Frederic Hill, in recommending that, as fast as
lines become national property, clauses be inserted in the respective
leases, entitling the Post Office to such use of the lines as may be
necessary for its purposes, and that at specified rates of charge;
such rates being so arranged as to remunerate the lessees and afford
them a moderate profit—say 25 per cent. on the bare additional cost of
the service.
“As regards lines remaining in the hands of the present companies,
it appears advisable that whenever railway companies come before
Parliament for fresh powers, advantage be taken of the opportunity
thus offered, by requiring the companies to perform the postal service
at specified rates regulated on fixed principles, and providing for
all ordinary contingencies; any existing contracts which may have a
fixed term to run being allowed to continue in force until they shall
be terminated in the ordinary course, under the conditions for that
purpose provided in each contract. The rates should be considerably
higher than those recommended for insertion in the leases.
“As regards the use of such trains as may be run by the companies for
their own purposes, I concur with Mr. Page and Mr. Gregory in opinion,
that the rate of charge to the Post Office should be based upon the
rate of charge which the companies make to the public for similar
services; due allowance being made to the Post Office for the extent
and regularity of its custom, and for its performing the duties of
collection and delivery.
“As regards trains specially ordered and controlled by the Post
Office, I am of opinion, that excepting a few very peculiar cases, the
payment for the service should also be according to a fixed scale;
and this I think should be so regulated, as at once to cover the
additional expense to which the company may be put by the Post Office
requirement (after fair deductions for any use of the train made by
the Company itself), and to yield on the sums thus ascertained the
ordinary 100 per cent. required for interest of capital, &c., and
profit.
“This, I propose, not as a perfect plan, but as more convenient, and
even more equitable, than the plan now in use.
“The following tariff is based on the above principle, and is
accordingly recommended for adoption, as regards railways _not_
belonging to the State.
“Tariff of rates to be paid for the conveyance of mails by trains
under fixed notice:
“First. Trains exclusively employed by the Post Office.
On the On the
Narrow Gauge. Broad Gauge.
Per Mile. Per Mile.
“For a train (consisting of an engine
and the usual break van) and one
separate carriage for the mails 2s. 4d. 2s. 6d.
“For every additional separate carriage
(the number and distance to be run by each
being varied from time to time according
to the exigencies of the service), an
additional rate of 0s. 3d. 0s. 4½d.
“In cases where the distance between the stations—between which the
mail train is required by the Post Office to run—is less than fifty
miles, the distance to be paid for shall be increased by one-fourth
part of the difference between the actual distance and fifty miles.
“In all cases where a mail train is required to run in only one
direction, the mileage to be paid for shall be assumed to be greater
by 50 per cent. than the distance actually ordered to be run; and,
again, where the distance so augmented shall still be less than fifty
miles, the payment shall be further increased in accordance with the
rule laid down in the preceding paragraph.
“When mail trains are run during the night (_i.e._, between 10 p.m.
and 6 a.m.), an addition shall be made to the mileage charge payable
by the Post Office for the distance actually required to be run, such
addition being determined by dividing the sum of 6d. among all the
trains run in the night, whether Post Office trains or not.
“Second. Trains not exclusively employed by the Post Office.
“From the rate which would be chargeable against the Post Office if
the train consisted only of the carriage or carriages required by
the Post Office as above, a deduction to be made for every carriage
of whatever description ran in the train for other than Post Office
purposes (the company having a right, as above, of varying the number
of such carriages), at the rate of 4d. per mile on the narrow gauge,
and 6d. per mile on the broad gauge; provided, however, that the rate
remaining to be paid by the Post Office shall in no case be less than
the rate which would be payable for the use of an ordinary train under
the tariff hereinafter prescribed.
“That in the event of any company satisfying the Board of Trade, or
other Government Board yet to be appointed (as suggested in this
report), that owing to circumstances not herein provided for, it has a
claim to additional payment, the same shall be made.
“Tariff of rates for the conveyance of mails by ordinary trains:
“First. Where the Post Office requires a prescribed amount of space,
and employs its own guard to exchange bags, &c.
On the On the
Narrow Gauge. Broad Gauge.
Per Mile. Per Mile.
“For the exclusive use of one compartment
of a carriage, second or any inferior
class, at the option of the Post Office 2d. 2d.
“For ditto of two compartments 4d. 4d.
“For ditto of three compartments 6d. 6d.
“For ditto of four compartments — 8d.
“For whole carriage 8d. 10d.
“And for any additional carriage or portion of a carriage, at the same
rates.
“Second. When the Post Office does not require a prescribed amount of
space and the mails are exchanged by the train guard.
“For every 112 lbs. ordinary maximum aggregate weight of mails½d. per
mile; any portion of 112 lbs. being considered as 112 lbs.
“In the event of the Post Office requiring a carriage or carriages
exceeding the ordinary dimensions (by which term “ordinary dimensions”
is meant carriages whose interior horizontal sectional area does
not exceed, in the case of the narrow gauge, 150 square feet, and
in the ease of the broad gauge 225 square feet), the Company shall
have a right to call upon the Board of Trade to increase the charge
for such carriage or carriages by an addition to the tariff rates
proportionate to the increased size of the carriage or carriages; and
on the other hand, should the Company, for its own purpose, run one or
more carriages exceeding the ordinary dimensions, as above, in any
mail train, not devoted exclusively to the Post Office, then the Post
Office shall have a right to call upon the Board of Trade to determine
in like manner the increased amount of deduction in respect to such
larger carriages.
“The compensation for insufficient notice of the abandonment by the
Post Office of a mail train under notice, shall be one-fourth part of
the full payment for the difference between the actual notice and the
required notice of six months.
“The other difficulties pointed out in Mr. E. J. Page’s evidence, seem
to indicate that the law with respect to the mail service on railways
also requires alteration or extension in the following particulars,
viz.:—
“First. The Post Office should have the power of _requiring_ railway
companies, _by legal notice_, when necessary, to run mails to be
employed exclusively in the conveyance of mails and officers of the
Post Office.
“Second. The right of a mail guard or other Post Office servant,
when travelling and paying his fare as a passenger, to exchange bags
at intermediate stations without additional charge, provided the
aggregate weight of mail does not at any time exceed that allowed to a
passenger of the same class, should be made clear.
“Third. The right of the Post Office to require for a mail guard or
other Post Office servant, a monthly, quarterly, or annual or other
periodical ticket, at the same charge as is made to the public for the
same distance and for the same period, should be made clear.
“Fourth. The mode of calculating the rate of travelling of a mail
train, making allowance for the difference between the stops of the
company’s fastest train, and those of the mail train required by the
Post Office, should be clearly defined.
“Fifth. The right of the Post Office to insist upon the erection
and use of the mail-bag exchanging apparatus at the cost of the
department, should be made clear.
“In another portion of his evidence, Mr. Edward J. Page dwells on
the practicability and importance of establishing a small parcel
post at an uniform rate of charge: pointing out, at the same time,
the peculiar facilities and advantages for this purpose, which are
afforded by the organisation and machinery of the Post Office; so
superior in their operation and extent to any possessed by railway
companies.
“It appears highly desirable that, as fast as railways become national
property, provision should be made in the leases for giving effect to
these views; and in the meantime, fully believing that the plan would
prove beneficial to railway interests as well as to the public, it is
hoped that arrangements for the purpose may be made (as suggested by
Mr. Edward Page), for attaining the same end, with the concurrence of
existing companies.”
The recommendations of Sir Rowland Hill, as regards the Post Office
and the railways, although drawn up with such elaborate and dogmatic
precision, have not the slightest chance of ever being adopted; but as
it is so unceasingly asserted and repeated, on Post Office authority,
that railways are more costly to the department than the old road
conveyances, and that it is a great hardship on the Post Office that it
cannot get mails conveyed by ordinary trains, except at unreasonable
rates, it is desirable to make an addition to what has been said in
previous pages, on both these questions.
We must ask permission to go as far back as the year 1838. In that
year, as we learn by a return laid before the Committee of the House
of Commons which sat on Postal Reform, and which was presided over by
the late Mr. Robert Wallis, M.P. for Glasgow, that the daily mileage
of mail coaches in 1838 was 24,613, and the payments for this mileage
were £84,103, being an average of 2¼d. per single mile. And we learn
also, by an article that appeared in _Fraser’s Magazine_ of September,
1862, written, as we understand, by Mr. M. D. Hill, Recorder of
Birmingham, from information evidently supplied from official sources,
that the weight of the letters carried throughout the kingdom in 1838,
was 750 tons. We find likewise, by returns furnished to Mr. Wallis’s
Committee, that letters formed 7 per cent. of the total weight of
mails, consequently the weight of mails for the whole year 1838, was
10,500 tons. The latest dated Postmaster-General’s Report, which
contains details of postal mileage is that of the 30th of April, 1863.
It specifies that the mails travelled daily 49,782 miles by railway in
1862, at an average charge for the whole kingdom of 6¾d. per mile. In
the same year “mails were conveyed by mail coaches, omnibuses, mail
carts, &c., exclusive of conveyance of mail bags from one part of a
town to another,” 33,371 miles each day, at an average cost of 2½d. a
mile.
In 1866, the railway postal mileage, according to the evidence and
statements furnished to the Royal Commissioners on Railways, was 60,000
miles a day, or, with deductions for greatly diminished mileage on
Sundays, Good Friday, and Christmas Day, about 18,780,000 miles per
annum. The total amounts paid to railway companies by the Post Office
was £570,502, or about 7½d. per single mile. The total weight of mails
carried by railways is certainly not less than 110,000 tons, so that,
whilst the payments to railway companies in 1866 were about seven
times as much as they were to mail coaches in 1838, the weight of
mails carried is nearly ten and a-half times as great. But the rate of
speed has been _quadrupled_ in the course of a few years. In the olden
time, increase of speed of even _half a mile an hour_, always added
considerably to mileage cost, but by railways, the old ten miles an
hour are converted into forty, with much diminished cost,—weight for
weight carried.
And, again, as regards the constantly reiterated Post Office grievance,
that it is impossible to despatch mails by ordinary trains, except at a
higher rate than is charged for the conveyance of ordinary parcels of
similar weights, and that the department is in consequence deprived of
the opportunity of sending mails as frequently as they otherwise would
despatch them. This however, as has already been shown, is a grievance,
almost imaginary, inasmuch as successive Postmaster-General’s Reports
show (see _ante_ page 106) that contracts have been entered into with
almost every railway company—beyond all doubt with all the leading
companies—by which the right of sending mails by any train, whether
passenger or goods, it may choose to select from, has been acquired
by the Post Office. In fact, out of 12,000 miles of railway which
the department sends mails over, it has, as we believe, this right
or privilege over 11,000 of them. But all doubt on the matter can
be removed by a return on the subject being laid before either House
during the next session of Parliament.
But even supposing the Post Office had not the power it in reality
possesses, of sending mail bags by whatever trains it pleases, let
us consider for a moment upon what ground either of right or of
equity, the department can claim the privilege of sending its mail
bags at the same rates as the general public pays for its parcels,
for the same distances. This question must be dealt with in two
portions: transmission of mail bags with a Post Office mail guard,
and transmission in charge of the guard of the railway. As regards
the first. Why, in the first place, is the Post Office to have the
privilege of sending a passenger in the shako and red coat of a mail
guard, at a second-class fare, who is to have, free, the usual amount
of luggage (not personal luggage, be it remembered) allowed to a
passenger? This luggage, let it also be remembered, the mail guard is
to have the right of taking along with himself into the compartment in
which he is to travel, instead of its being deposited in the luggage
van. There would, probably, not be any objection offered to this
arrangement if the guard were to remain quietly and peaceably in the
compartment with his luggage beside him, until the end of his journey.
But this is not what is required or expected. As the train stops at
each station, the guard is to get out of his compartment and then to
hand certain portions of his mail bags to another servant of the Post
Office who is on the platform waiting the arrival of the train. This
person is to receive the bags handed to him by the mail guard, and
this latter is to receive fresh mail bags, and then to return to his
compartment. The same process is to be repeated on the platform of
every station at which the train may stop, and during the running
of the train between station and station, the mail bags are to be
continuously sorted and arranged, so as to ensure correct delivery
throughout the entire journey. It is not the space of one second class
passenger, but that of eight or ten, that would be required. Yet it is
persistently contended that the proper remuneration for this service,
conveyance, business, or whatever may be its appropriate name, is to be
the single fare of a second class passenger—and no doubt, if the mail
guard could travel within the limits of a return ticket, his employers
would consider that that is the amount he should pay for the double
journey—not a farthing beyond it.
But if the services of the mail guard are to be dispensed with, and
the duties just described are to be performed by a Company’s guard,
the Post Office considers that the ordinary parcels rate from end
to end is what should be paid—nothing for intermediate changes and
shiftings, for the coming in of new mail bags and the going out of old
ones. Yet the Post Office itself considers that all these parcels are
entitled to special attention and consideration, for before a railway
servant is entrusted with the charge of them he takes an oath or makes
a declaration—the same, we believe, as is taken by Post Office mail
guards; and in order that they may be considered Post Office servants
_pro hac vice_, they receive, if we recollect rightly, a gratuity of a
few shillings per annum. If this be not so, it does not, in reality,
affect the man’s responsibility: it is the oath or declaration that
binds, not the gratuity.
It is impossible for any reasonable, unblassed, or practical man of
business to assert that the railway companies would not be entitled
to a somewhat higher rate of remuneration than second class fare, if
bags are in charge of a mail guard, or that the rate for _one_ from
end-to-end parcel, is the proper figure for mail bags placed in charge
of a Company’s servant, to be worked by him as if he were a mail guard.
One more point on the subject of postal conveyance by railway. It shall
be the last.
The Post Office discharges three functions in connection with letters
and other postal documents. They are, collection, transmission, and
delivery. The first and last are performed by Post Office servants;
transmission, except for certain portions of foot rural transport, is
invariably by contract. It is transmission alone that makes a letter
of value as a means of intercommunication between persons residing,
or situated, more or less distantly from one another. If, as traders,
we purchased a ton of letter paper, its price would probably be about
£62, or say 7d. a pound; and supposing it came some 80 to 100 miles,
its cost would be increased by another twenty shillings, a sixty-second
of the first cost of the article. Convert this pound, or this ton of
paper into a ton of written letters, and, if we take each chargeable
letter at a third of an ounce (the Post Office considers each to weigh
a little more than a quarter of an ounce, but for the purposes of this
calculation they are taken at the higher figure), a pound of letters,
with a postage[51] stamp on each letter, becomes worth four shillings
to the Post Office, instead of sevenpence as a pound of paper; and, by
the same process, a ton becomes changed from £63 to £448.
The total cost of the Post Office service for 1865 was £2,941,086; the
net revenue, £1,482,522, a little over 50 per cent.; consequently, a
ton of letters, by no act of the Post Office, except by its monopoly,
which recent criminal proceedings show that it is determined to
interpret rigidly, is worth £225 net to it. According to the ideas of
Messrs. Hill (2), Page, and Gregory, the railway should carry the ton
of paper, converted into letters, at a high rate of speed, and with
numerous conditions of a penal character, at the same scale of payment,
or, if possible, at a lower, than the price which was charged for the
original ton of paper sent by ordinary goods train, at slow speed, and
without any special conditions attached to its conveyance.
The railway companies are willing to carry letters and other postal
matter at a rate not bearing any proportion or ratio whatever to the
profit which the monopoly gets the benefit of by their conveyance, but
at a fair and equitable scale of remuneration, which scale shall be
decided, in case of difference, by two impartial men (Mr. Gregory, do
you come _quite_ within that definition?), and if they disagree, by an
umpire who, at all events, is expected to be impartial.
But, before we conclude, we must again ask on what grounds, other
than the hollow ones of pretence, can the Post Office claim special
exemptions, as regards payments, as well as special rights and
privileges, without adequate remuneration for them? Neither the
Post Office nor any other department of the State assisted railways
during their inception, or during their construction; on the contrary,
whenever they had the chance of raising their hands against or
making exorbitant demands upon railways, they never failed to do so.
Innumerable instances in proof could be cited, but one only must
suffice “in this connection,” as our American cousins would say.
When, in 1855, the Bill for the improved “passenger and _postal_
communication between London and Dublin,” was in progress through
the House of Commons, the late Mr. Wilson, then Secretary of the
Treasury, gave notice of the introduction of clauses to exempt the
Post Office from payment for this improved service. It was only on
the strongly expressed determination of the promoters of the Bill,
that if these clauses were persevered in, it would be withdrawn, that
they were abandoned. Mr. Wilson excused himself—for he felt excuse
was necessary—on the plea that he was forced to give notice of their
proposed introduction, at the instance of the Post Office, and that he
remonstrated, in vain, against them.
It is quite right, it is absolutely necessary in the interests of
the community at large, that, inasmuch as railways are the public
highways of the land, the right of postal transmission upon them shall
be secured in the most complete, prompt, and absolute manner that law
can enforce. There must be no doubt or hesitation upon this point;
but that limit passed, the postal department is, notwithstanding
that its officials are of “Her Majesty’s service,” nothing more
than, as a whole, an extremely well-organised, efficient _trading_
establishment, protected, as a monopoly, by many Acts of Parliament.
The railways have never shown themselves otherwise than ready, it might
rather be said anxious, to serve the Post Office; but in this land
of trade and commerce, their managers look for proper remuneration
for services rendered. No more is asked, and no more is expected.
The law and practice have very wisely instituted a distinction
between the manner in which ocean and railway mail contracts shall
be entered into. Because the ocean highway is open to all, tenders
for conveyance upon it are invited from all; on the other hand, with
railways it has been very properly decided that they shall convey
the mails, whether they like to do so or not; but the same law that
has enacted this compulsion, has also prescribed the manner by which
a just and reasonable remuneration shall, in case of difference, be
obtained. Others than the lawfully-constituted monopolists of St.
Martin’s-le-Grand would long since have been satisfied. Unhappily,
however, Alecto, Tisiphone, and Megæra[52] have lashed them into
_furor_. Cannot the _crème? de la crème_ of the gods, the uppermost
crust of society in Cælestia, invent or discover a Townsend’s
Sarsaparilla to purify their bloods; a Soothing Syrup—a Dalby’s
Carminative—a Balm of Gilead that can assuage their anguish? Or, if
the gods fail, might not a dose or two of Holloway’s Ointment, taken
internally, be tried? In former days, the Earl of Aldborough, then
in the flesh, but now, alas, only of “glorious, pious,” and pillular
memory, was wont to testify of it, as a wonderful remedy in _the cure
of ulcers_.