قراءة كتاب The Life of Sir Rowland Hill, Vol. II (of 2) and the History of Penny Postage
تنويه: تعرض هنا نبذة من اول ١٠ صفحات فقط من الكتاب الالكتروني، لقراءة الكتاب كاملا اضغط على الزر “اشتر الآن"
The Life of Sir Rowland Hill, Vol. II (of 2) and the History of Penny Postage
href="@public@vhost@g@gutenberg@html@files@46498@[email protected]#Footnote_8_8" class="fnanchor pginternal pginternal pginternal" tag="{http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml}a">[8] The department on which the expense ought to fall, or the equitable division of the charge between the two, might be matter of question; but it is obvious that to make such a change without notification, and thereby exhibit, by a mere shuffling of items, results so impaired, was to lead the public into a very false inference as to the revenue arising from the Post Office under the new system as compared with the old. Indeed, the delusion so produced not only misled large numbers at the time, but, as already said, haunts some minds even to the present day.
This, however, was not all; since the return also made a pretended division of the postage revenue under two heads, one consisting of the inland revenue, the other including the foreign and colonial revenue—a distinction which I showed to be made, not by actual examination of facts and just inference therefrom, but by mere estimate. I also showed that in this return the amount of foreign and colonial postage was greatly swollen at the expense of the inland revenue, the purpose obviously being to disparage the results of penny postage; and further that, despite the statements of Sir Robert Peel and Mr. Goulburn, the net revenue of the department was really £600,000 per annum,[9] a statement soon confirmed by the following admission of Colonel Maberly:—
“As I have stated over and over again, looking at it as regards the Post Office revenue now, as compared with what the Post Office revenue was before the penny post, the surplus of income over expenditure is somewhere about £600,000.” [10]
After disposing of the “fallacious return”—fallacious to the extent of £600,000 per annum—I proceeded to the proof of the different allegations of my petition.
I described a serious error lately made in a treaty with France—an error the more vexatious as being the result of needless meddling.
Extract from my evidence:—
“The next and last case under this head [Economy] is the new postal treaty with France, which, however excellent in its general objects and effects, is, in consequence of important errors in the details, operating very unfavourably on our portion of the revenue derived from the united postage, French and English, on letters between the two countries. Our scale of postage, as the Committee will bear in mind, ascends by half-ounces up to one ounce, and then by ounces. The French scale, on the other hand, ascends by quarter-ounces. Several important results flow from this distinction. As every letter, in regard to a portion of its postage, is under the quarter-ounce scale, the great majority of letters will be just within the quarter-ounce; such letters, therefore, though liable to a French rate of 20d. per ounce, and a British rate of only 10d. per ounce, would be charged 10d. each, viz., 5d. British and 5d. French—the whole being collected sometimes by the one Post Office, sometimes by the other. Under the old system each Government would retain its own 5d., and hand over the second 5d. to the other Government. The English Post Office, however, in order to relieve itself of the trouble of accounting for the letters numeratim, proposed a clause by which each Government would have accounted to the other for the whole mail at once, according to its weight in bulk. I pointed out to the Treasury how unfairly towards our own Government the proposed stipulation would operate, and the proposal of the Post Office was consequently rejected. It appears, however, by the treaty that it was subsequently revived, with a slight modification, which no doubt was thought would obviate the evil, but which only slightly mitigates it. Under the treaty, we are to pay in respect of a mail, the postage of which is collected in England, 20d. an ounce to the French for their share of the postage; whereas on a mail the postage of which is to be collected in France, we are only to receive 12d. per ounce. Applying this rule to the great majority, which, as before said, are just under the quarter ounce, the ultimate effect is, that of our 5d., when the postage is collected in France, the French hand over to us only 3d., retaining 2d. of our 5d., in addition to their own 5d.; whereas, when we collect the postage, we hand over to the French the whole of their 5d., retaining our own 5d. without any addition. Upon certain small classes of letters the arrangement would be in favour of the English, but to a very slight extent even upon such classes; and, on the general balance the disadvantage is to an annual amount probably of some thousands of pounds.” [11]
Upon the importance of additional facilities there was the less need that I should repeat in my pamphlet what I had advanced before the Committee, because of the ample recognition given to such importance, in general terms, by Colonel Maberly, in his evidence:—
“The Post Office has always held the opinion, and I believe they are right, that facilities judiciously applied will enormously increase the correspondence; and I have sometimes myself pushed this doctrine to a length that may be considered almost absurd, that facilities increase correspondence almost more than reduction of the rate.” [12]
On the question, however, of what had been done towards that increase of facilities recognised as so important, I dealt with one or two of the most prominent points. Thus, under the head, “Security of Correspondence,” I referred to my evidence on the subject of registration; feeling it the more necessary to enlarge upon this point because of the exaggerated views put forth in his evidence by Colonel Maberly as to the insecurity then existing—views expressed in such phrases as “The department has become thoroughly demoralized”; [13] there has been “enormous plunder and robbery”; [14] “the plunder is terrific”; [15] and, by way of climax, “a letter posted with money in it might as well be thrown down in the street as put into the Post Office.”