circumstances it is not surprising to read of things existing within the last hundred years which to-day could have no place in our national existence. Lord Cockburn, in the Memorials of his Time, gives the following instance. "I knew a case, several years after 1800," says he, "where the seat-holders of a town church applied to Government, which was the patron, for the promotion of the second clergyman, who had been giving great satisfaction for many years, and now, on the death of the first minister, it was wished that he should get the vacant place. The answer, written by a Member of the Cabinet, was that the single fact of the people having interfered so far as to express a wish was conclusive against what they desired; and another appointment was instantly made." Going back a little more than a hundred years, the following are specimens of the abuses then in full vigour. They are referred to in Trevelyan's Early History of Charles James Fox, the period in question being about 1750-60: "One nobleman had eight thousand a year in sinecures, and the colonelcies of three regiments. Another, an Auditor of the Exchequer, inside which he never looked, had £8000 in years of peace, and £20,000 in years of war. A third, with nothing to recommend him except his outward graces, bowed and whispered himself into four great employments, from which thirteen to fourteen hundred British guineas flowed month by month into the lap of his Parisian mistress."... "George Selwyn, who returned two members, and had something to say in the election of a third, was at one and the same time Surveyor-General of Crown Lands, which he never surveyed, Registrar in Chancery at Barbadoes, which he never visited, and Surveyor of the Meltings and Clerk of the Irons in the Mint, where he showed himself once a week in order to eat a dinner which he ordered, but for which the nation paid."

The shameful waste of the public money in the shape of hereditary pensions was still in vigour within the period we are dealing with; one small party in the State "calling the tune," and the great mass of the people, practically unrepresented, being left "to pay the piper." During the reign of George III., who occupied the throne from 1760 to 1820, the following hereditary pensions were granted:—To Trustees for the use of William Penn, and his heirs and descendants for ever, in consideration of his meritorious services and family losses from the American war £4000. To Lord Rodney, and every the heirs-male to whom the title of Lord Rodney shall descend, £2000. To Earl Morley and John Campbell, Esq., and their heirs and assignees for ever, upon trust for the representatives of Jeffrey Earl Amherst, £3000. To Viscount Exmouth and the heirs-male to whom the title shall descend £2000. To Earl Nelson and the heirs-male to whom the title of Earl Nelson shall descend, with power of settling jointures out of the annuity, at no time exceeding £3000 a year, £5000. In addition to this pension of £5000, Parliament also granted to trustees on behalf of Earl Nelson a sum of £90,000 for the purchase of an estate and mansion-house to be settled and entailed to the same persons as the annuity of £5000.

Within the Post Office too very strange things happened in connection with money paid to certain persons supposed to be in its service. Here is a case, in the form of a remonstrance, referring to the period close upon the end of last century, which explains itself. "Mr. Bushe observes that the Government wished to reward his father, Gervas Parker Bushe (who was one of the Commissioners), for his services, and particularly for having increased the revenue £20,000 per annum; but that he preferred a place for his son to any emolument for himself, in consequence of which he was appointed Resident Surveyor. He expressed his astonishment to find in the Patent (which he never looked into before) that it is there mentioned 'during good behaviour,' and not for life, upon which condition alone his father would have accepted it. He adds that it was given to him as totally and absolutely a sinecure, and that his appointment took place at so early a period of life that it would be impossible for him to do any duty."

Again, the following evidence was given before a Commission on oath in 1791, by Mr. Johnson, a letter-carrier in London: "He receives at present a salary as a letter-carrier of 14s. per week, making £36, 19s. per annum; he likewise receives certain perquisites, arising from such pence as are collected in the evening by letters delivered to him after the Receiving Houses are shut, amounting in 1784 to £38, 11s., also from acknowledgments from the public for sending letters by another letter-carrier not immediately within his walk, amounting in the same year to £5. He likewise receives in Christmas boxes £20,—the above sums, making together £100, was the whole of his receipts of every kind whatever by virtue of his office in 1784 (312 candles and a limited allowance of stationery excepted), out of which he pays a person for executing his duty as a letter-carrier, at the rate of 8s. a week, being £20, 16s. per annum, and retains the remainder for his own use entirely."

In a report made by a Commission which inquired into the state of the Post Office in 1788, the following statement appears respecting abuses existing in the department; and in reflecting upon that period the Post Office servants of to-day might almost entertain feelings of regret that they did not live in the happy days of feasts, coals, and candles. Here is the statement of the Commissioners: "The custom of giving certain annual feasts to the officers and clerks of this office (London) at the public expense ought to be abolished; as also what is called the feast and drink money; and, as the Inland Office now shuts at an early hour, the allowances of lodging money to some of the officers, and of apartments to others, ought to be discontinued." But of all allowances, those of coals and candles are the most enormous; for, besides those consumed in the official apartments, there are allowed to sundry officers for their private use in town or country above three hundred chaldrons of coals, and twenty thousand pounds of candles, which several of them commute with the tradesmen for money or other articles; the amount of the sums paid for these two articles in the year 1784 was £4418, 4s. 1d.

In the year 1792 a payment was being made of £26 a year to a Mrs. Collier, who was servant to the Bye and Cross Road Office in the London Post Office; but she did not do the work herself. She employed a servant to whom she paid £6, putting £20 into her own pocket.

What a splendid field this would have been for the Comptroller and Auditor General, and for questioners in the Houses of Parliament!

An abuse that had its origin no doubt in the fact that the nation was not represented at large,[1] but by Members of Parliament who were returned by a very limited class, and who could not understand or reflect the views of the masses, was that of the franking privilege.

The privilege of franking letters enjoyed by Members of Parliament was a sad burden upon the Revenue of the Post Office, and it continued in vigour down to the establishment of the Penny Post. Some idea of the magnitude of this arrangement, which would now be called a gross abuse, will be gathered from the state of things