THE QUESTION OF MONOPOLY
The question of the state's monopoly and the opposing efforts of the
interlopers to break this monopoly resolves itself into a consideration
of the way in which private letters were carried, for the public letters
were entirely at the disposal of the state to be dealt with as it saw
fit. From the sixteenth century there were several ways in which private
letters might be conveyed. Within the kingdom they might be sent by the
common carriers, friends, special messengers, or the Royal Posts.
Letters sent abroad were carried by the Royal Posts, the Merchant
Adventurers' Posts, the Strangers' Posts, and the Merchants' Posts while
they lasted. The fact that private letters were conveyed by the Royal
Posts is generally expressed in rather indefinite terms or by references
to proclamations, but that they were actually so conveyed is entirely
beyond doubt.[731] In 1585 a certain Mr. Lewkenor informed Walsingham
that the post just landed had brought many letters directed to
merchants, besides those for the Court and Government. He asked whether
he might open those letters which were directed to suspected
merchants.[732] This reference is of course to letters coming from
abroad. The same holds true of inland letters, for in 1583 Randolph, the
Postmaster-General, wrote to Walsingham, enclosing the names of those
"who charge the posts with their private letters and commissions at a
penny the mile."[733]
[731] G. Roberts, _Social History of the Southern Counties of England_,
1856, p. 508; Joyce, p. 4.
[732] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1581-90, p. 131.
[733] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1581-90, p. 228; 1598-1601, p. 427; _Rep. Com._,
1844, xiv, 601, p. 4.
In 1591 the first proclamation affirming the government monopoly in the
foreign posts was issued. All persons except the Postmaster-General and
his deputies were forbidden "directly or indirectly to gather up,
receive, bring in or carry out of this realm any letters or packets,"
the only exceptions being in the case of the despatches of the
principal Secretaries of State, of Ambassadors, and others sufficiently
authorized. An appendix to the same proclamation commanded all mayors,
bailiffs, sheriffs, justices, etc., and especially all searchers to be
on the watch for men coming into or going out of the realm with packets
or letters. In this last part of the proclamation we can see why it was
thought necessary to restrict the carriage of letters to and from
foreign countries to the Royal Posts. It was done that the Government
might be able to discover any treasonable or seditious correspondence.
This did not always remain the object of the state in restricting
competition but was succeeded later by other and different motives. In
order that there might be no doubt about the whole question, the
Postmaster-General received word from the Council to inform the London
merchants, foreigners as well as British subjects and all others whom it
might concern, that they should no longer employ any others to carry
their letters than those legally appointed in accordance with the terms
of the proclamation.[734]
[734] _Rep. Com._, 1844, xiv, 601, p. 4; app., p. 36 (14).
In 1602 the first order concerning the despatch of private letters
within the kingdom was issued to the Royal Posts. "The Posts for the
Queen's immediate service"[735] were allowed to carry only state
despatches, directed by members of the council, the Postmaster-General
and certain officials. Such despatches when sent by the regular posts
were to be forwarded immediately. The letters of all other persons
allowed to write by post must wait for the regular departure of the
postmen. In the orders to the posts issued in 1609, the first article
reads as follows: "No pacquets or letters shall be sent by the Posts or
bind any Post to ride therewith but those on Our special affairs."[736]
The first part of this is certainly strong but it is modified by the
succeeding clause "nor bind any Post to ride therewith." Evidently he
might if he wished, and he would probably hesitate longer over a state
packet for the conveyance of which he was never assured of anything than
over a private letter for which he was certain of his pay.
[735] By "Posts for the Queen's immediate service" was probably meant
the special messengers attached to the Court.
[736] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1547-65, pp. 215-77; _Rep. Com._, 1844, xiv, 601,
app., p. 42 (20).
It was the custom after 1609 to follow the appointment of every new
Postmaster-General with a proclamation assigning him and his deputies
the sole privilege of carrying all letters and reading anathema upon all
interlopers.[737] Thus King James favoured Stanhope, his
Postmaster-General, with a grant of monopoly.[738] On de Quester's
appointment as Foreign Postmaster-General a proclamation was issued,
forbidding any but his agents from having anything to do with foreign
letters.[739] In spite of the improvements which he inaugurated, we find
him asking the King a few years later to renew his patent of monopoly
and his request was granted.[740] He was evidently suffering from
competition. But the Merchant Adventurers' Posts were not yet dead and
their Postmaster, Billingsley, abetted by the House of Commons,[741]
gave de Quester so much trouble that he was imprisoned by the Council's
order.[742]
[737] Letters carried by a friend or special messenger or a common
carrier were excepted.
[738] _Rep. Com._, 1844, xiv, 601, app., p. 42 (20).
[739] _Ibid._, 1591-94, p. 401.
[740] _Ibid._, 1627-28, pp. 511-22.
[741] The House had already shown its interest in postal affairs by
summoning postmasters before the Committee of Grievances in 1624 (_Jo.
H. C._, 1547-1628, pp. 689-774).
[742] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1628-29, p. 177.
In the meantime the postmen on the London-Plymouth road had petitioned
the Council that they alone should carry the letters and despatches of
the merchants over their road. They said they had so improved the
service between London and Plymouth that letters were now despatched
between the two cities in three days and an answer might be received
within one week from the time of first writing. Their complaint was
against a certain Samuel Jude, who had undertaken the conveyance of the
London merchants' letters. Jude himself acknowledged this, but said that
he had never meddled with the "through" post by which he meant the
travellers' post.[743]
[743] _Ibid._, 1625-49, p. 367; 1629-31, p. 200.
So long as the Royal Posts did not give satisfaction, competition was
inevitable. Under Witherings they had improved so much that what
competition there was, received no support from the London merchants. In
1633 they addressed a petition to the King, praying that he would
protect Witherings from some strangers in London, who had set up posts
of their own. They pointed out how he, acting with some foreign
postmasters, had set up packet posts, travelling day and night. By means
of these, letters were conveyed between London and Antwerp in three
days, while the messengers needed from eight to fourteen days to travel
the same distance.[744] The common carriers were giving trouble in the
despatch of inland letters at the same time that competition in the
foreign posts was attracting attention.[745] It was their custom to send
their carts on ahead while they lingered to collect letters. After the
collection they hastened on, leaving their carts behind, and delivered
the letters on the way. It was provided that no carrier should stay
longer than eight hours in a place after his cart had left it, or arrive
in any place eight hours ahead of it.[746] As long as their speed was
governed by that of their lumbering carts over the wretched roads, no
fear was felt that their competition would prove troublesome.
[744] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1633-34, p. 39.
[745] _Ibid._, 1637-38, pp. 22, 171, 177, 183.
[746] _Ibid._, 1637-38, p. 193; _Rep. Com._, 1844, xiv, 601, app., p. 58
(37).
With the growing strength of Parliament, more and more opposition was
made to the grants of monopoly and their enforcement. In 1642 the House
of Commons passed a resolution "affirming that the taking of the letters
from the several carriers and the several restraints and imprisonments
of Grover, Chapman, Cotton, and Mackerill are against the law." The
House proceeded to state that these several persons should have
reparation and damages from Coke, Windebank, and Witherings.[747] Four
years later a report was made by Justices Pheasant and Rolls on
Witherings' patent.[748] They held that the clause of restraint in the
grant to Witherings was void.[749] This decision was quite in accordance
with the views of Parliament when they opposed the King and all his
works. But after Parliament had obtained control of the Posts, "the
President and Governors of the Poor of the City of London" proposed to
the Common Council that the City should establish a postal system in
order to raise money for the relief of the poor in London. A committee
was appointed to inform Warwick, Prideaux, and Witherings of their
intention. At the same time an attempt to lay a petition before
Parliament on the question failed. Counsel's advice was sought and
obtained in favour of the undertaking and in 1650 the Committee received
orders to settle the stages. At the end of six weeks they had
established postal communications with Scotland and other places.
Complaint was made to Parliament, and the Commons passed a resolution
"that the office of Postmaster, inland and foreign, is and ought to be
in the sole power and disposal of the Parliament." The same year the
city posts were suppressed.[750]
[747] _Jo. H. C._, 1640-42, p. 722.
[748] These were the same judges who had decided in favour of Stanhope's
patent in Stanhope _v._ Witherings.
[749] _Rep. Com._, 1844, xiv, 601, app., p. 67 (42).
[750] Chas. Knight, _London_, 1842, iii, p. 276; R. R. Sharpe, _London
and the Kingdom_, 1894, pp. 322-23.
Oxenbridge and his friends who had set up posts of their own gave
Prideaux and Manley the hardest fight that any Postmaster-General ever
had to encounter from interlopers. Joyce says that Oxenbridge had acted
as Prideaux' deputy.[751] If this is so, he was soon up in arms against
his superior. In accordance with the judicial decision that the clause
in Witherings' patent giving him a monopoly of the carriage of letters
was void, Oxenbridge, Blackwall, Thomson, and Malyn had undertaken the
private conveyance of letters and had set up posts of their own.
Prideaux had charged 6_d._ for each letter and had organized weekly
posts from and to London. Oxenbridge charged only 3_d._ and his posts
went from and to London three times a week. Prideaux then did the same
and set up posters announcing that the interlopers' posts would be
stopped. His agents assaulted Oxenbridge's servants and killed one of
them. He also stopped his rival's mails on Sundays but allowed his own
to proceed as on other days. In addition to his regular tri-weekly
mails, Oxenbridge provided packet boats for Ireland and intended to
settle stages between London and Yarmouth and the other places named by
the Council of State.[752] To proceed in Oxenbridge's own words:
"Suddenly contracts were called for. We offered £9100 a year through Ben
Andrews, £800 more than was offered by Manley, yet Colonel Rich allowed
Manley to take advantage of an offer made by Kendall then absent and not
privy to it for £10,000 a year. Consideration had been offered by
Council, but Manley had broken into our offices, taken letters, and had
forbidden us from having anything to do with the post." An order of the
Council of State, bearing the same date as the grant to Manley, was sent
to Oxenbridge and his friends, informing them that Manley had been given
the sole right to the inland and foreign letter offices.[753] This did
not end the controversy, for six months later we find Oxenbridge and
Thomson complaining that a monopoly in carrying letters had been given
to Manley. They claimed that all who wished should be allowed to carry
letters at the ordinary rates.[754]
[751] Joyce, p. 29.
[752] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1653-54, pp. 22-24, 372. See p. 33, note.
[753] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1652-53, p. 456.
[754] _Ibid._, 1653-54, p. 372.
Of all the interlopers up to the middle of the seventeenth century,
Oxenbridge had proved himself by far the ablest. From the point of view
of the legal decision of 1646 and the position of Parliament before
1640, his position was unassailable. With the present policy of the Post
Office in view, his actions will probably be condemned by the majority.
But in 1650 conditions were entirely different. Before 1635 the state
had either tacitly allowed the carriage of private letters to the profit
of the postmen or had officially taken over such carriage; but in this
case it was largely for the purpose of keeping in touch with the plots
of the times. For 200 years after 1635 the idea was to make money from
the conveyance of private letters. The effects of Oxenbridge's efforts
were certainly beneficial if we are to believe his own story. Prideaux
had been forced to cut his rates in half in order to meet competition.
The credit for this must lie with the interloper rather than with the
monopolist.
At the same time that Oxenbridge was giving so much trouble, letters
were being carried by private hands in Bury, Dover, and Norwich. The
offenders were summoned before the council for contempt and severely
reprimanded.[755] Petitions came from Thetford and Norwich complaining
that their messenger had been summoned to present himself before the
Council within twenty-four hours and had to travel 100 miles within that
time, an impossibility in the opinion of the petitioners.[756] As late
as 1635, Prideaux, the Attorney-General, gave his opinion that
Parliament's monopolistic resolution of that year affected only the
office of Postmaster-General and not the carrying of letters.[757]
Perhaps this was only a bit of spite on his part after Manley had
succeeded to his old position.
[755] _Ibid._, 1653-54, p. 177.
[756] _Ibid._, 1653-54, p. 25.
[757] _Ibid._, 1652-53, pp. 109-110.
The usual monopolistic powers, hitherto granted by proclamation, were
embodied in the first act of Parliament, establishing the postal system
for England, Ireland, and Scotland in 1657. The Postmaster-General was
given the sole power to take up, carry and convey all letters and
packets from and to all parts of the Commonwealth and to any place
beyond the seas where he might establish posts. He alone was to employ
foot posts, horse posts, and packet boats. Some exceptions were made to
these general rules. Letters were allowed to be conveyed by carriers so
long as they were carried in their carts or on their pack-horses. The
other exceptions were in the case of letters of advice sent by merchants
in their ships and proceeding no farther than the ships themselves, and
also in the case of a letter sent by a special messenger on the affairs
of the sender, and in the case of a letter sent by a friend. Penalties
were attached for disobedience to this part of the act, one half of the
fine to go to the informer.[758] The same provisions were enacted almost
word for word in the act of 1660, with the addition that letters might
be carried by any one between any place and the nearest post road for
delivery to the postman.[759]
[758] Scobell, _Collect._, pt. ii, pp. 511-13.
[759] 12 Ch. II, c. 35.
After the restoration and for some months before the act of 1660 was
passed, Bishop had acted as farmer of the posts. In the absence of any
law on the subject, the King's proclamation granting a monopoly[760] to
Bishop was freely disregarded.[761] Competing posts to and from London
sprang up, lessening the receipts which he would otherwise have obtained
from the carriage of letters. It was calculated that during the three
months before these interlopers could be suppressed Bishop lost £500
through them, and orders were given to allow him an abatement in his
rent to that amount.[762]
[760] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1660-61, p. 475.
[761] In 1659 a book was published by John Hill, entitled _A Penny
Post--A vindication of the Liberty of every Englishman in carrying
merchants' and other men's letters against any restraints of farmers of
such employments_ (_Notes and Queries_, 6th ser., xi, p. 37).
[762] _Rep. Com._, 1844, xiv, 601, app., p. 82 (57).
In 1663 a certain Thomas Ibson attempted to come to an agreement with
the postmasters on the Holyhead road. He wished to have the privilege
of horsing travellers and made an offer to the postmasters to take
charge of the post houses if they would allow him to proceed. He told
them that they should make an attempt to have their salaries restored to
their old value by Bishop, who had raised so much from them by fines and
lowering their salaries. The Postmaster-General told his deputies that
if they dared to treat with the "would-be" interloper he would dismiss
them, and the whole thing fell through.[763] At the same time a warrant
was issued by the Council to mayors and other officials to search for
and apprehend all persons carrying letters for hire, without licence
from the Postmaster-General.[764] Nevertheless interloping did not
cease, as is shown by the complaints from the postmasters.[765]
[763] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1663-64, pp. 8, 18.
[764] _Ibid._, 1663-64, p. 145.
[765] _Ibid._, 1663-64, p. 402.
In the proclamation following the appointment of O'Neale as
Postmaster-General in 1663, it was ordered that no one should dare to
detain or open a letter not addressed to himself unless under a warrant
from one of the Secretaries of State. An exception was made in the case
of letters carried by unauthorized persons. Such letters should be
seized and sent to the Privy Council. In later proclamations it was
provided that they might be sent also to one of the Secretaries of State
in order that the persons sending or conveying them might be
punished.[766]
[766] _Rep. Com._, 1844, xiv, 601, app., p. 88 (61).
After Lord Arlington's appointment as Postmaster-General, he addressed a
petition to the Duke of York complaining "that carriers, proprietors of
stage coaches and others take upon themselves to collect letters to an
incredible number and on some stages double what the post brings." On
account of this he pointed out to His Royal Highness that a considerable
part of his revenue was lost. This was quite true since the Post Office
had ceased to be farmed and the whole net revenue went to the Duke.[767]
This was followed the same year by a proclamation forbidding any one to
collect or carry letters without the authority of the
Postmasters-General. Carriers were forbidden to convey any letters which
were not on matters relating to goods in their carts. Shipmasters must
carry no letters beyond the first stage after their arrival in England
with the exception of the letters of merchants and owners. Searchers
were appointed to see that the proclamation was enforced.[768] It was
even proposed to suppress all hackney coaches, the principal reason
given being that they decreased the value of the Duke's monopoly by
carrying multitudes of letters.[769]
[767] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1668-69, p. 285.
[768] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1668-69, p. 376.
[769] _Ibid._, 1672-73, p. 64.
It is a curious and interesting fact that for a short time London had a
Half Penny Post, established in 1708 by a Mr. Povey in opposition to the
regular Penny Post. The idea was much the same as that of Dockwra's
although Povey seems to have been a far more belligerent individual than
his forerunner in the work. The Postmasters-General tried to come to
some compromise with him but he would not listen to them. Finally legal
action was brought against him, based on the monopoly granted by the act
of 1660. Povey lost the suit and his project fell through.[770] His was
the last attempt to organize a regular system of competing posts. During
the remainder of the eighteenth century, improvements in postal
communications disarmed much of the former opposition. Considerable
damage was received from the superior speed with which letters might be
sent by coaches but, after they were adopted by the Post Office, matters
naturally adjusted themselves. Private vessels continued to convey
letters which had not paid the rates prescribed in such cases by the act
of 1711, but this breach of the law was tolerated by the Post
Office.[771]
[770] Knight, _London_, 1842, iii, p. 282; Joyce, pp. 121-23.
[771] Joyce, p. 329.
Before the nineteenth century, opposition to the government monopoly had
taken the form of competing systems of communication, started primarily
for the sake of making money and at the same time vindicating the
principle of competition. During the first forty years of the nineteenth
century there was no opposition to the Post Office as a monopoly. The
widespread dissatisfaction was due to the exorbitant rates of postage
and this dissatisfaction expressed itself in attempts to evade these
rates but, with the exception of individual messengers and carriers,
there was no competing system of postal communication established.
Opposition took the form of evasion of postage payments by legal and
illegal means. The various exceptions to the government monopoly
continued unchanged[772] until still further modified in 1837. The
additional modifications were in the case of commissions and returns,
affidavits, writs and legal proceedings, and letters sent out of the
United Kingdom by private vessels.[773] The penalty for infringing upon
the postal monopoly was placed at £5 for every offence or £100 a week if
the offence was continued.[774]
[772] 9 Anne, c. 10; 42 Geo. III, c. 81; 46 Geo. III, c. 92; 53 Geo.
III, c. 58; 5 Geo. IV, c. 20.
[773] 7 Wm. IV and 1 Vict., c. 33.
[774] 7 Wm. IV and 1 Vict., c. 36.
During the official postal year from July 1831 to July 1832, there were
133 successful prosecutions for illegally sending and conveying letters.
The fines collected amounted to £1635, the costs paid by defendants to
£1085. The prosecutions were generally for a few letters only and the
great majority of the cases were brought in Manchester. In the case of
forty-one additional actions, the Postmaster-General did not enforce the
penalties, certain explanations having been given.[775] Rowland Hill
thought that the conveyance of letters by private and unauthorized
people was very widespread and the Solicitor of the Post Office agreed
with him.[776]
[775] _Acc. & P._, 1834, xlix, 19, pp. 2-7.
[776] _Rep. Com._, 1837-38, xx, pt. 1, pp. 17, 23.
The reports of the Committee appointed to enquire into the condition of
the Post Office and to hear the opinions of officials and the public
concerning the introduction of Penny Postage disclosed an amazing state
of affairs. The opinion that evasion of postage was more or less general
had been held by the public for some time as well as by a few of the
Post Office officials[777] but, after the evidence upon the question was
published, there was no longer any doubt that the views of the public
were correct. Some difficulty had been anticipated that men who had
violated the law of the land would prefer not to confess their misdeeds
before a Parliamentary Committee. They were accordingly assured that any
evidence given would not be used against them, and the names of some
were expressed by letters only, when the reports were published.
[777] _Ibid._, 1837-38, xx, questions 234, 2883, 4692, 10870-74; rep. 1,
app., pp. 427, 431, 433; rep. 2, p. 32.
The means by which postage rates were evaded may be conveniently grouped
under two main heads, legal and illegal. The most common methods of
evading postage in whole or in part by legal means were:--
By the use of Parliamentary and Official franks.[778]
By enclosing invoices and other communications in goods.[779]
By the use of codes and signals expressed by sending
particular newspapers or, when something in the nature
of news or reports was to be communicated to many, an
advertisement or report was printed in a newspaper and
the newspapers were sent.[780]
By means of a letter or package sent to a mercantile house
with many letters on one sheet of paper for other people.
These were delivered by messengers. Money was sometimes
sent in the same way.[781]
[778] _Rep. Com._, 1837-38, xx, qs. 3452, 3754-56, 4330-33, 4152, 6059,
6204, 6971, 8051, 9122-30, 10481, 5486-92-95, 4934-45, 5536, 3953,
6174-87. By this means Dr. Dionysius Lardner sent and received the
greater part of an extensive literary correspondence (qs. 5487-96).
[779] _Ibid._, 1837-38, xx, qs. 3206-07, 3368-69, 3516-45, 3872, 4080,
4116-17, 4906, 5434, 6895, 7740, 7742-50, 7242-48.
[780] _Ibid._, 1837-38, xx, qs. 3923, 6683, 7419-23.
[781] _Ibid._, qs. 3212-13, 3924-28, 3377-81, 3879-82, 4504, 6928,
7867-82, 5613-18, 4074, 4873-90, 3520, 7327.
Many factors in Ireland had circulars printed, which went free, as
newspapers. Their correspondents were distinguished by numbers and
opposite the numbers were printed the communications for each particular
person.[782]
[782] _Ibid._, rep. 1, 9, p. 427.
The majority of letters which paid no postage or only partial postage
were sent illegally, most of them by carriers. "A. B." said that in 1836
his mercantile house sent 2068 letters by post and 5861 by other means,
principally by carriers, for one penny each.[783] "C. D." testified that
carriers called once or twice a day at his house and that they received
from 100 to 150 letters a week from him. Sometimes the carriers
delivered the letters on foot, sometimes they went by coach.[784] "E.
F.'s" letters were carried by newsmen, who distributed the local
newspaper.[785] "G. H.," a carrier from Scotland, said that there were
six others working with him and that they delivered about 700 letters
and parcels a day, for which they received 1_d._ or 2_d._ each.[786]
Letters were also illegally conveyed:--
By "free-packets," containing the patterns and correspondence of
merchants, which the coachmen carried free except for the booking fee of
4_d._[787]
In warehousemen's bales and parcels.[788]
In weavers' bags, especially near Glasgow. These were bags containing
work for the weavers, sent by and returned to the manufacturers.[789]
By "family-boxes." Students at college in Glasgow and Edinburgh were
accustomed to receive boxes of provisions, etc., from home. The
neighbours made use of them to carry letters.[790]
By coachmen, guards, travellers and private individuals.[791]
By vans, railways, stage-coaches, steamboats, and every conceivable
means.[792]
By writing in newspapers, sometimes with invisible ink or by enclosing
accounts or letters in them.[793]
[783] _Ibid._, qs. 2265, 2279.
[784] _Ibid._, 1837-38, xx, qs. 2697, 2699, 2703.
[785] _Ibid._, qs. 4229.
[786] _Ibid._, qs. 5125-26. In Walsall not 1-50 part of the letters sent
to and from neighbouring places went by post (qs. 5681-5789).
[787] _Rep. Com._, 1837-38, xx, qs. 4195-96, 4205.
[788] _Ibid._, qs. 3550, 4065, 4194, 6947.
[789] _Ibid._, qs. 5257-59.
[790] _Ibid._, qs. 5265.
[791] _Ibid._, qs. 6716, 10371.
[792] _Ibid._, qs. 6514.
[793] _Ibid._, qs. 497, 3008, 5525-26, 5329, 5186-88, 5983, 8962,
10,021; app. to part 2, p. 34.
About half of the letters and parcels sent to the seaports for
transmission to foreign parts by private ships did not go through the
Post Office,[794] and this practice was more or less winked at by the
authorities.[795] The letters from Liverpool for the United States
numbered 122,000 a year, but only 69,000 of these passed through the
Post Office.[796]
[794] _Ibid._, pt. 1, pp. 195-99, 204-30, 346, 351, 431.
[795] _Ibid._, pt. 1, pp. 195-99.
[796] _Ibid._, pt. 1, p. 364.
Since the Post Office has adopted the policy of charging low uniform
rates of postage there has been no concerted attempt to infringe upon
its monopoly. The dissatisfied do not now attempt to establish competing
posts nor to evade the payment of the legal rates. Any pressure which
may be brought to remedy real or supposed grievances takes the form of
an attempt to influence the department itself. It is true that a private
messenger service was established for the delivery of letters, but the
promoters of that service seem to have been unaware of the fact that
they were acting in violation of the law, and a satisfactory agreement
with the department was soon concluded. As a matter of fact, it is a
question whether succeeding governments have not been too subservient
in granting the demands of certain sections of the people, notably in
connection with the telegraph and telephone systems and the question of
guarantees. The position of a government which has abandoned the
principle that any extension of services or change in postal policy
shall be based upon present or anticipated financial success must
necessarily be a difficult one.