Chapter 1

CHEAP POSTAGE

REMARKS AND STATISTICS

ON THE SUBJECT OF

CHEAP POSTAGE AND POSTAL REFORM

IN

GREAT BRITAIN AND THE UNITED STATES.

BY JOSHUA LEAVITT,

COR. SEC. OF THE CHEAP POSTAGE ASSOCIATION.

“The well-ordering of the Postes is a Matter of General Concernment, and of Great Advantage, as well for the preservation of Trade and Commerce as otherwise.”—Statute of Charles II.

Boston

Published for the Cheap Postage Association;

By Otis Claps, Treasurer,

No. 12, School Street.

1848

CONTENTS

PUBLISHING DIRECTION. CHEAP POSTAGE. APPENDIX. Footnotes

PUBLISHING DIRECTION.

Subjoined are the proceedings under which the following sheets were prepared and are now published:

“At a meeting of the _Board of Directors_ of the CHEAP POSTAGE ASSOCIATION, on the 31st of March, 1848, Dr. Howe, Dr. Webb, and Mr. Leavitt were appointed a Committee of Publication. And on motion of Dr. Samuel G. Howe, it was

“_Voted_, That the Publishing Committee be authorized to procure the compilation of a pamphlet on the subject of Cheap Postage and Postal Reform.

“At a meeting of the Board, on the 25th of April, 1848, Mr. Leavitt, the Corresponding Secretary, on behalf of the Publishing Committee, reported the copy of a pamphlet on the subject prescribed. And on motion of Mr. Moses Kimball, it was

“_Voted_, That the pamphlet be printed for general circulation, under the direction of the Publishing Committee.”

J. W. JAMES, _Chairman of the Board_.

CHARLES B. FAIRBANKS, _Recording Secretary_.

BOSTON, April 26, 1848.

BOSTON: PRINTED BY FREEMAN AND BOLLES, DEVONSHIRE STREET.

CHEAP POSTAGE.

For more than eight years, the people of Great Britain have enjoyed the blessing of Cheap Postage. A literary gentleman of England, in a letter to his friend in Boston, dated London, March 23, 1848, says—“Our Post Office Reform is our greatest measure for fifty years, not only political, but educational for the English mind and affections. If you had any experience of the exquisite convenience of the thing, your speech would wax eloquent to advocate it. With your increasing population, a similar measure must soon pay; and it will undoubtedly increase the welfare and _solidarité_ of the United States.”

Mr. Laing, a writer of eminence, said four years ago, “This measure will be the great historical distinction of the reign of Victoria I. Every mother in the kingdom, who has children earning their bread at a distance, lays her head upon her pillow at night with a feeling of gratitude for this blessing.”

An American gentleman, writing from London, in 1844, says, “It is hardly possible to overrate the value of this [cheap postage] in regard to the exertion of moral power. At a trifling expense one can carry on a correspondence with all parts of the kingdom. It saves time, facilitates business, and brings kindred minds in contact. How long will our enlightened government adhere to its absurd system?”

The London Committee, who got up a national testimonial for Mr. Rowland Hill, speak of cheap postage as “a measure which has opened the blessings of free correspondence to the teacher of religion, the man of science and literature, the merchant and trader, and the whole British nation, especially to the poorest and most defenceless portion of it—a measure which is _the greatest boon conferred in modern times on all the social interests of the civilized world_.”

The unspeakable benefits conferred by cheap postage upon the people, are equalled by its complete success as a governmental measure. The gross receipts of the British Post-office had remained about stationary for thirty years, ranging always in the neighborhood of two millions and a quarter sterling. In the year 1839, the last year of the old system, the gross income was £2,390,763. In the year 1847, under the new system, it was £1,978,293, that is, only £413,470 short of the receipts under the old system. A letter from Mr. Joseph Hume, M. P., to Dr. Thomas H. Webb, of Boston, dated London, March 3, 1848, says, “I am informed by the General Post-office, that the gross revenue this year will equal, it is expected, the gross amount of the postage in the year before the postage was reduced.” Mr. Hume also encloses a tabular statement of the increase of letters, together with a copy of the Parliamentary return, made the present year, showing the fiscal condition and continued success of the Post-office. He sends also, a copy of a note which he had just written to Mr. Bancroft, our Minister at the Court of St. James, as follows:

(COPY.)

Bry. Square, 2d March, 1848.

_My Dear Sir_,

I have the pleasure to send you the copy of a paper I have prepared, at the request of Mr. Webb, of Boston, to show the progress of increase of the number of letters by the post-office here, since the reduction of the postage, and I hope it may induce your government to adopt the same course.

I am not aware of any reform, amongst the many reforms that I have promoted during the last forty years, that has had, and will have better results towards the improvement of this country, morally, socially and commercially.

I wish as much as possible that the communication by letters, newspapers and pamphlets, should pass between the United States and Great Britain as between Great Britain and Ireland, as the intercommunication of knowledge and kindly feelings must be the result, tending to the promotion of friendly intercourse, and to maintain peace, so desirable to all countries.

Any further information on this subject shall be freely and with pleasure supplied by, yours, sincerely,

(Signed) JOSEPH HUME.

His Excellency George Bancroft.

MR. HUME’S TABLE.

_Estimate of the number of chargeable Letters delivered in the United Kingdom in each year, from_ 1839 _to_ 1847.(1)

Year. Number of Letters. Annual Increase. Increase per cent. Millions. Millions. on the No. for 1839. 1839. 76(2) 1840. 169 93 123 1841. 196-½ 27-½ 36 1842. 208-½ 12 16 1843. 220-½ 12 16 1844. 242 21-½ 28 1845. 271-½ 29-½ 39 1846. 299-½ 28 37 1847. 322 22-½ 30

The most important of the tables contained in the parliamentary return will be given in the appendix, either entire, or so as to present the material results in their official form. The contents of that document have not, to my knowledge, been in any manner brought before the people of the United States.

It is humiliating to think, that while a system fraught with so many blessings has been so long in operation, and with such signal success as a financial measure, in a country with which our relations are so intimate, I should now begin to prepare the first pamphlet for publication, designed to give the American people full information on the subject; this publication being the first effort of the first regularly organized society, now just formed, for the purpose of securing the same blessings to the citizens of this republic, which the British Parliament enacted, after full investigation, nine years ago. If we look at the various political questions which have already in those eight years grown “obsolete,” after occupying the public mind and engrossed the cares of our statesmen, to the exclusion of the great subject of cheap postage, and consider their comparative importance, we shall be satisfied that it is now high time for a determined effort to satisfy the people of the United States with regard to the utility and practicability of cheap postage.

Prior to the year 1840 the postal systems of Great Britain and the United States were constructed on similar principles, and the rates of postage were nearly alike. Both were administered with a special view to the amount of money that could be realized from postage. In Great Britain, the surplus of receipts above the cost of administration was carried to the general treasury. In the United States, the surplus received in the North was employed in extending mail facilities to the scattered inhabitants of the South and West. In Great Britain, private mails and other facilities had kept the receipts stationary for twenty years, while the population of the country had increased thirty per cent., and the business and intelligence and wealth of the country in a much greater ratio. In the United States, there was a constant increase of postage, although by a less ratio than the increase of population, until the year 1843, when, through the establishment of private mails, the gross receipts actually fell off, and it became apparent that the old system had failed, and could never be reinvigorated so as to make the post-office support itself, without a change of system.

In Great Britain, the government, after full investigation, became satisfied that it was impossible to suppress the private mails except by under-bidding them, which they also ascertained that the government, by its facilities, could afford to do. They also became satisfied that no plan of partial reduction of postage could restore the energy of the system, but the only hope of ultimate success was in the immediate adoption of the lowest rate. And although the public debt presses so heavily as to put every administration to its utmost resources for revenue, they resolved to risk the whole net revenue then realized, equal to above a million and a half sterling, as the best thing that could be done. In the United States, the government, without extensive examination, resolved to do what the British government dared not attempt, that is, to put down the private mails by penal enactments. It also resolved to adopt a partial reduction of the rates of postage; and without regarding the mathematical demonstration of its futility, persevered in regarding distance as the basis of the rates of charge.

A few extracts from the Debates in Parliament, will show several of these points in a striking light:

The Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Francis Baring, on first introducing the bill, July 5, 1839, declared his conviction that the loss of revenue at the outset would be “very considerable indeed.” He said the committee had considered that “two pence postage could be introduced without any loss to the revenue,” but he differed from them, and found “the whole of the authorities conclusively bearing in favor of a penny postage.” And he “conscientiously believed that the public ran less risk of loss in adopting it.” Referring to the petitions of the people, he said, “The mass of them present the most extraordinary combination I ever saw, of representations to one purpose, from all classes, unswayed by any political motive whatever, from persons of all shades of opinion, political and religious, and from the commercial and trading communities in all parts of the kingdom.”

Mr. GOULBURN, then one of the leaders of the opposition, opposed so great a sacrifice of revenue, in the existing state of the country, but admitted that it would “ultimately increase the wealth and prosperity of the country.” And if the experiment was to be tried at all, “it would be best to make it to the extent proposed,” for “the whole evidence went to show that a postage of two pence would fail, but a penny might succeed.”

Mr. WALLACE declared it “one of the greatest boons that could be conferred on the human race,” and he begged that, as “England had the honor of the invention,” they might not “lose the honor of being the first to execute” a plan, which he pronounced “essentially necessary to the comforts of the human race.”

Sir ROBERT PEEL, then at the head of the opposition, found much fault with the financial plans of Mr. Baring, but he “would not say one word in disparagement of the plans of Mr. Hill;” and if he wanted popularity, “he would at once give way to the public feeling in favor of the great moral and social advantages” of the plan, “the great stimulus it would afford to industry and commercial enterprise,” and “the boon it presented to the lower classes.”

Mr. O’CONNELL thought it would be “one of the most valuable legislative reliefs that had ever been given to the people.” It was “impossible to exaggerate its benefits.” And even if it would not pay the expense of the post-office, he held that “_government ought to make a sacrifice for the purpose of facilitating communication_.”

_July_ 12, the debate was resumed.

Mr. POULETTE THOMPSON showed the impossibility of making a correct estimate of the loss of revenue that would accrue. One witness before the committee stated that there would be no deficiency; another said it would be small; while Lord Ashburton declared that it would amount to a sacrifice of the whole revenue of the post-office.

Mr. WARBURTON denied that the post-office had ever been regarded as a mere matter of revenue; the primary object of its institution was to contribute to the convenience of the people; its advantages ought to be accessible to the whole community, and not be made a matter of taxation at all.

VISCOUNT SANDON, of the opposition, said he had long been of the opinion that the post-office was not a proper source of revenue, but it “ought to be employed in stimulating other sources of revenue.”

_July_ 22, another discussion came on.

Sir ROBERT PEEL admitted that “great social and commercial advantages will arise from the change, independent of financial considerations.”

_August_ 5, the bill was taken up by the peers.

VISCOUNT MELBOURN, in opening the debate, dwelt upon the extraordinary extent of the contraband conveyance of letters, as the effect of high postage, and said this made it necessary to protect both the revenue and the morals of the people by so great a reduction. The means of evasion were so organized, and resort to them was so easy, and had even become a habit, that persons would, for a very small profit, follow the contraband trade of conveying letters. It was therefore clearly necessary to make the reduction to such an extent as would ensure the stopping of the contraband trade.

The DUKE OF WELLINGTON admitted “the expediency, and indeed the necessity” of the proposed change. He thought Mr. Hill’s plan “the one most likely to succeed.” He found fault with the financial plans of the administration, but for the sake of the reform of the post-office, he said, “I shall, although with great reluctance, vote for the bill, and I earnestly recommend your lordships to do the same.” His customary mode of expressing his opinions.

LORD ASHBURTON expected the cost of the department, under the new system, would amount to a million sterling, which must be made up out of several pence before you could touch one farthing of the present income of a million and six hundred pounds. There could be no doubt that the country at large would derive an immense benefit, the consumption of paper would be increased considerably, and it was most probable the number of letters would be at least doubled. It appeared to him a tax upon communication between distant parties was, _of all taxes, the __ most objectionable_. At one time he had been of the opinion that the uniform charge of postage should be two pence, but _he found the mass of evidence so strongly in favor of one penny_, that he concluded the ministers were right in coming down to that rate.

The EARL OF LICHFIELD, Postmaster-General, said the leading idea of Mr. Rowland Hill’s book seemed to be “the fancy that he had hit upon a scheme for recovering the two millions of revenue which he thought had been lost by the high rates of postage.” His own opinion was, that the recovery of the revenue was totally impossible. He therefore supported the measure on entirely different grounds from those on which Mr. Hill placed it. In neither house had it been brought forward on the ground that the revenue would be the gainer. He assented to it on the simple ground that THE DEMAND FOR IT WAS UNIVERSAL. So obnoxious was the tax upon letters, that he was entitled to say that “the people had declared their _readiness to submit to any impost_ that might be substituted in its stead.”

The proof is thus complete, that the British system was actually adopted with sole reference to its general benefits, and the will of the people, and not at all in the expectation of realizing, in any moderate time, as much revenue as was derived from the old postage. The revenue question was discarded, from a paramount regard to the public good, which demanded the cheap postage, even if it should be necessary to impose a new tax for its support. The extravagant expectations of some of the over-sanguine friends of the new system, were expressly disclaimed, and the government justified themselves on these other considerations entirely—considerations which have been most abundantly realized. It will be easy to show that the benefits and blessings anticipated from the actual enjoyment of cheap postage, have fully equalled the most sanguine expectations of the friends of the measure, and have far exceeded in public utility, the pittance of income to the treasury, which used to be wrung out by the tax upon letters. The same examination will also show, that there is no substantial reason, either in the system itself, or in any peculiarity of our circumstances, why the same system is not equally practicable and equally applicable here, nor why we should not realize at least as great benefits as the people of Great Britain, from cheap postage.

Mr. Rowland Hill published his scheme in a pamphlet, in 1837. In 1838, it had attracted so much notice, that between three and four hundred petitions in its favor were presented to Parliament, and the government consented to a select committee to collect and report information on the subject. This committee sat sixty-three days, examined the Postmaster-General and his secretaries and solicitors, elicited many important tabular returns, and took the testimony of about ninety other individuals, of a great variety of stations and occupations. They also entered into many minute and elaborate calculations, which give to their results the value of mathematical demonstration. Their report, with the accompanying documents, fills three folio volumes of the Parliamentary Papers for 1838. Its investigations were so thorough, its deductions so cautious and candid, and its accumulations of evidence so overwhelming that they left nothing to be done, but to adopt the new system entire.

In this country, no such pains were taken to collect facts, no means were used to spread before the people the facts and mathematical calculations and irrefragable arguments of the parliamentary committee; little study was bestowed on the subject even by our legislators but with a prejudged conclusion that the reasonings and facts applicable to Great Britain could not apply here, on account of the length of our routes and the sparseness of our population, a partial reduction was resolved upon, which retained the complication and the cumbersome machinery of the old system, while affording only a small portion of the benefits of the new.

The effect has been, that while the British system has gone on gathering favor and strength, the American system, after less than three years’ trial, has already grown old, the private mails are reviving, the ingenuity of men of business is taxed to evade postage, and a growing conviction already shows itself, that the half-way reduction is a failure, and it is time to make another change. That is to say, the partial reduction has failed to meet the wishes of the people, or the wants of the public interest, or the duty of the government in discharging the trust imposed by the constitution. Indeed, there ought not to be a great deal of labor required to prove that there is only one right way, and that the right way is the best way, and that it is better to adopt a scientifically constructed machine, which has been proved to be perfect in all its parts, than a clumsy contrivance, the working principle of which is contradicted by mathematical demonstration. I propose to present several of the main principles involved in the reduction of postage, illustrated by facts drawn from the parliamentary papers, and from other authentic sources.

I. _Reduction of Price tends to increase of Consumption._

Our own partial reform in postage proves this. In a report of the committee on post-offices and post-roads, made to the House of Representatives, May 15, 1844, it is said,

“Events are in progress of fatal tendency to the Post-office Department, and its decay has commenced. Unless arrested by vigorous legislation, it must soon cease to be a self-sustaining institution, and either be cast on the treasury for support, or suffered to decline from year to year, till the system has become incompetent and useless. The last annual report of the Postmaster-General shows that, notwithstanding the heavy retrenchments he had made, the expenditures of the department, for the year ending June 30th, 1843, exceeded its income by the sum of $78,788. The decline of its revenue during that year was $250,321; and the investigations made into the operations of the current year, indicate a further and an increasing decline, at the rate of about $300,000 a year. Why this loss of revenue, when the general business and prosperity of the country is reviving, and its correspondence is on the increase?”

The report of the Senate Committee at the same session, made Feb. 22, 1844, says that “the cause of this great falling off, in a season of reviving prosperity in the trade, business and general prosperity of the country, cannot be regarded as transient, but, on the contrary, is shown to be deep and corroding. The cause is the dissatisfaction felt generally through the country, but most strongly in the densely peopled regions to with the rates of postage now established by law, and the frequent resort to various means of evading its payment.”

The result was the passage of the act, now in force, by which the postage was reduced one half, to begin on the first day of July, 1845. The last annual report of the Postmaster-General gives the result. He says:

“It is gratifying to find that, within so short a period after the great reduction of the rates of postage, the revenues of the department have increased much beyond the expectation of the friends of the cheap postage system, while the expenditures, for the same time, have diminished more than half a million of dollars annually, and that the department is in a condition to support itself, without further aid from the treasury.”

The number of chargeable letters passed through the mails in 1843, was stated in the Report at 24,267,552, yielding the sum of $3,525,268. The number for the year ending June 30, 1847, was 52,173,480, yielding $3,188,957. Thus the reduction of price one half, has in two years more than doubled the consumption, and already yields nearly an equal product.