قراءة كتاب The Development of Rates of Postage: An Historical and Analytical Study

تنويه: تعرض هنا نبذة من اول ١٠ صفحات فقط من الكتاب الالكتروني، لقراءة الكتاب كاملا اضغط على الزر “اشتر الآن"

‏اللغة: English
The Development of Rates of Postage: An Historical and Analytical Study

The Development of Rates of Postage: An Historical and Analytical Study

تقييمك:
0
No votes yet
دار النشر: Project Gutenberg
الصفحة رقم: 7

Witherings, who by some strange chance seems never to have been altogether ousted from his offices, but to have retained that of Master of the Foreign Post, died in 1651, and there were numerous claimants for the succession to the office. The Council of State invited all persons with claims to submit them, and in reporting on the claims, suggested the farming of the Inland and Foreign Letter Offices. The question was put to the House of Commons that the whole business be "recommitted to the Council of State to take into consideration and present their opinions to the Parliament how the same may be managed for the best service of the State and ease of the people." The addition of the words "by contract or otherwise" was suggested, and accepted by the House.[33] The question was considered by a Committee, who, having found much difficulty in dealing with the numerous claims in respect of the Foreign and Inland Letter Offices, decided on the 7th November 1651, probably as a way out of the difficulty, to recommend that the offices should be let to farm. The matter was not hurriedly disposed of. On

the 7th May 1653,[34] resolutions were passed by the House of Commons asserting the State monopoly of the carriage of letters, and directing the Committee appointed to consider the posts to fix rates for private letters, to obtain tenders from persons for farming the carrying of letters, and to recommend what annual sum in their opinion the State should require in case it were thought well to let the posts to farm.

On the 30th June 1653 the Inland and Foreign Letter Offices were let to John Manley at a rent of £10,000 a year,[35] and thus was instituted the system of farming, which continued until 1677 as regards the main posts, and until the late eighteenth century as regards the bye posts. The rent continuously increased. Shortly after the Restoration it was raised to £21,500 a year, and in 1667 to £43,000 a year.

The rate for a single letter, which had been raised by Prideaux to 6d., was in 1655 or 1656 reduced to 3d., owing to the efforts and competition of Clement Oxenbridge and others, who established and maintained rival services for the carriage of letters. These "interlopers" received scant consideration from Prideaux, and the services which they had established were suppressed.[36] In 1657 an Ordinance of the Commonwealth Parliament further reduced the rate to 2d. for a single letter sent for distances under 80 miles, and 3d. for distances over 80 miles. The rates were not, however, as low

as would appear at first sight. There is the difference in the value of money to be allowed for; and there is the further consideration that postage was not charged according to the direct distance. All the post roads converged on London, and there were no cross posts. All letters from towns on one post road for towns on another post road must therefore pass through London, and all letters passing through London were subjected to an additional rate of postage;[37] that is to say, they were charged the appropriate rate in respect of the distance to London, and then, in addition, the appropriate rate in respect of the distance from London to destination.

The Ordinance of 1657 placed the Post Office system for the first time on a statutory basis.[38] The objects for which such an Office was required were given as three in number: first, to maintain certain intercourse of trade and commerce; secondly, to convey public despatches; and thirdly, to discover and prevent many dangerous and wicked designs against the peace and welfare of the Commonwealth. In 1660 an Act of Parliament was passed, dealing with the Post Office.[39] Essentially it was the Ordinance of 1657, passed as an Act to give it legal validity under the changed order of things. The clauses relating to the use of the Post Office as a means of detecting plots against the State were included in a modified form, and this function was by no means lost sight of.[40] During the excitement caused by the Popish Plot it was freely exercised.

The general farm of the posts was abolished in 1677, and the administration of the Office undertaken by the Government, except in the case of the smaller branch posts, in regard to which the practice of farming was even extended in the early years of the eighteenth century.[41]

The revenue yielded by the Office continued to expand. In 1694 it had reached £60,000; and when, for various reasons, but chiefly to provide for the control of the Post Office in Scotland, which had been brought under the English authorities by the Act of Union, a new Post Office Act became necessary, the Ministers, involved in a protracted war, seized the opportunity to obtain an increased revenue from the Office. Under William III this had been thought of.[42]

The Act of 1711,[43] which remained for over fifty years the principal Act relating to the Post Office, was to be an instrument of taxation. For some fifty years the Post Office had been yielding a revenue, constant and increasing, but nevertheless more or less fortuitous. Its functions had always been defined as primarily to provide for the transmission of letters, for the benefit of commerce, and for the safety and security of the kingdom, by bringing all letters into "one Post Office settled and established in this Kingdom," and conducted immediately under the eye of the King's Government. The amount paid for the farm had increased with the passing of the years, in measure with the increase of the business of the Office—not by any change in the scale of charges, which remained as fixed in 1660. Now, however, the Office was made a financial instrument, the proceeds of which were to be regulated by manipulation of the rates of charge. The results of the Act of 1711 did not fulfil the anticipations of its

Pages