Part 2

For the inland posts the financial arrangements of 1603 remained some thirty years undisturbed, and notwithstanding that the posts were used by travellers, and for the general conveyance of private letters, they remained a charge on the King's revenue. In 1633 the deficit was some [L]3,400, and in that year Witherings submitted a plan for the complete reorganization of the inland posts.[26] The new system, which applied only to the "post for the pacquet," was to be based on a definite scale of charges. Previously, there had been no regular system of charging letters carried for the public, and it is at this point that the modern Post Office emerges. Up to this time the conveyance of letters for private individuals, although it may have been a source of emolument to the postmasters and couriers, was not recognized by the State as part of the function of the service. Under the proposed system, a charge was to be made for every letter or packet, varying in accordance with the distance for which the letter or packet was conveyed, and its size. The latter was to be graduated for light letters according to the number of sheets, and for heavier letters and packets according to weight, starting from the ounce. Here, therefore, is to be seen at the inception of "postage" in the modern sense a definite distinction between the rate charged on the ordinary letter, the weight and bulk of which are in general insignificant, and that charged on the larger and heavier packets of deeds, or what not, which might be forwarded by post.

The reform of the posts on these lines was carried out by Witherings in October 1635, and constitutes a remarkable development of the Post Office system. The rates of charge were as follow:--

+--------+--------+-------- | | | | Single | Double | Per Distance of Transmission. | Letter.| Letter.| Ounce. | | | -----------------------------------+--------+--------+-------- | | | Not exceeding 80 miles | 2d. | 4d. | 6d. Exceeding 80 miles, not exceeding | | | 140 miles | 4d. | 8d. | 9d. Exceeding 140 miles | 6d. | 12d. | 12d. | | | -----------------------------------+--------+--------+--------

The great change of 1840 modified this system only at two points, viz. (1) uniformity of rate, that is, the elimination of the table of distances from the rate-table, and (2) the introduction of the method of charge according to weight for all letters and packets.

The monopoly of foreign letters was by this time well established, and the reason for its existence well defined. A further proclamation of the 11th February 1637-8 again declared this monopoly, and proceeded to declare a monopoly of letters between persons within the realm, the second monopoly being justified, not on the ground of necessity in order to guard the safety of the State, but on the ground that commerce and correspondence within the realm would benefit.[27] The real explanation of the new prohibition for inland letters was no doubt the fact that Witherings had been appointed Master of the Inland Letter Office for the purpose of bringing into operation his scheme for reorganizing the posts, and it was essential to the success of the scheme that he should have the sole right of carrying letters. There was, of course, the political reason of danger to the State from free and uncontrolled transmission of letters, but the feeling in that respect seems not to have been so strong regarding the inland letters as regarding the foreign letters. It developed later, however.[28]

In 1640 Witherings was displaced on some charge of maladministration, and the office was given to Philip Burlamachi, a merchant of the City of London. Witherings did not give up the office without a struggle. For two years he strove to retain it, but without much success; and in 1642 he assigned his patent to the Earl of Warwick, who continued the struggle. Burlamachi was backed by Edmund Prideaux, afterwards Attorney-General. Into the merits or progress of the contest it is unnecessary to enter. It will be sufficient to record that the Lords espoused the cause of the Earl of Warwick and the Commons that of Burlamachi; that the contest continued some two years; and that in the end the Lords gave way, and Burlamachi continued Master of the Posts.

The office fell vacant in 1644, and Parliament appointed Prideaux to the charge of the posts.[29] This task he entered upon with some seriousness, and with considerable success. He extended the service, but raised the minimum postage to 6d. From a report submitted by him to the Council of State in 1649, it appears that he had established "a weekly conveyance of letters into all parts of the nation," and that with the moneys received as postage he had been able to defray the whole cost of the postmasters of England with the exception of those on the Dover Road.[30] At the time of his appointment the posts involved a charge to the State of some [L]7,000 a year.[31] It might therefore be thought that for Prideaux to be able to carry on the system, to give a despatch of letters to all parts of the kingdom every week, and at the same time make the proceeds of postage cover the whole cost, except for the Dover Road, was a considerable achievement. The Commons were not, however, altogether satisfied. The long disputes between the various patentees, and their anxiety not to lose any part of the business of conveying letters, made it evident that there was a profit other than the salary paid by the King, notwithstanding that funds for the maintenance of the posts were drawn from the Exchequer year by year. The office of Master of the Posts was bought and sold. Witherings sold part of his wife's estate to the value of [L]105 a year in land to obtain the office. The deputy postmasters also bought their offices. And in 1642, by vote of both Houses, Burlamachi had been required to give an account of the _profits_ of the Letter Office. The Letter Office was in fact not on the simple basis of payment by the messengers to the Master of Posts of all receipts, payment by the Master of Posts from the receipts of the ordinary fixed wages of the deputy postmasters (together with the cost of special expresses) and of his own salary, and payment from the Exchequer of the balance necessary to complete such payment. The deputy postmasters took, and retained for their own use, the postage received on private letters, paying a percentage to the Master of the Posts; and they had also the monopoly, which was very lucrative, of letting horses to travellers riding post. In view of these profits they were prepared to purchase from the Master of the Posts the office of deputy postmaster, and sums received from that source, together with the percentage of the postage of private letters, constituted the emoluments of the Master of the Posts, additional to his salary. The Commons, being no doubt aware of this, concluded that there ought to be a net revenue from the Office, and required Prideaux to pay the sum of [L]5,000 a year.[32]

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 [L]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 [L]21,500 a year, and in 1667 to [L]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 [L]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 framers. Provision had been made for the disposal of that increase of revenue which was looked for: "the full, clear, and entire Weekly Sum of Seven Hundred Pounds of Lawful Money of _Great Britain_" was to be paid out of the revenues of the Post Office "towards the Establishment of a good, sure, and lasting Fund, in order to raise a present Supply of Money for carrying on the War and other her Majesty's most necessary Occasions."[44] This [L]700 was to be paid entirely from the proceeds of the increase in the rates. The existing revenue of [L]111,461 a year was to be disposed of as theretofore. All pensions and charges on the revenue were to continue, and were to have preference over the payment of [L]700 a week. Of the surplus over and above the [L]111,461 a year and the [L]700 a week, one-third part was to be at the disposal of Parliament, the rest to be paid into the Exchequer with the [L]111,461.

But the increase of revenue was so small that some of these provisions remained for many years inoperative. The increase of rate was found burdensome. Merchants resorted to every available means of avoiding the additional expense.[45] A large clandestine traffic in letters grew up. The very postboys were found carrying letters outside the mail for what fees they could obtain. In 1710 the net revenue had been [L]66,822. In 1721 it was [L]99,784, an increase of [L]32,962. After the deduction, therefore, of the [L]700 a week (or [L]36,400 a year), the payment of which had preference over all other payments chargeable on the Post Office revenue, excepting only the expenses of management, the actual net revenue of the Post Office available for the purposes prescribed by the Act was in 1721, [L]63,384, or less than the revenue of 1710 by [L]3,438. The Act provided that one-third of the surplus of the yield of postage over and above the sum of [L]147,861 ([L]111,461 plus the [L]700 a week) should be at the disposal of Parliament for the use of the public; but although the gross revenue had exceeded that sum, there was no surplus for the use of the public, the explanation being that the sum mentioned in the Act, viz. [L]111,461, was the amount of gross revenue, which could only serve as a basis provided the cost of management remained stationary. As a matter of fact, the cost so greatly increased that the net revenue was not sufficient to provide the sum of [L]700 a week and also a revenue equal to that obtained before 1711. As Mr. Joyce has pointed out, the Treasury had confounded gross and net revenue.[46]

The essentially fiscal character of the rates of 1711 is evidenced by a provision of the Act that from and after the 1st June 1743 the rates charged under the previous Acts were to be restored.[47] But after 1743, although they were without legal sanction, the rates of 1711 continued in operation, and by an Act of 1763 they were made perpetual.[48]

The fifty years following the Act of the 9th of Anne were uneventful.[49] The chief development was in connection with the cross posts; a development which, although not having direct reference to the question of the rates of postage, was yet of importance. At the commencement of the eighteenth century the main system of the Post Office still centred on London. All the main post routes radiated from London, and the great bulk of the letters passing by post were either for or from London, or passed through London. But there were, of course, numbers of letters which were not sent to London at all: letters between two towns on a post road, or letters between towns on different post roads, which could be sent direct and not by way of London. These letters were known as bye letters and cross post letters.[50] Since they were not handled in London, the authorities had not the same means of checking their numbers, and the postmasters' accounts of postage in respect of them, as could be applied in London, and grave irregularities arose. The revenue was continually defrauded by the failure of the postmasters to bring to account the postage on such letters. No record was made in respect of many of them, and their transmission became so notoriously unsafe that illicit means of conveyance were constantly resorted to. The matter was already so serious that a special clause was included in the Act of the 9th of Anne, providing that for the suppression of the abuse any postmaster found guilty of embezzling the postage of bye or way letters should forfeit [L]5 for every letter and [L]100 for every week during which he continued the practice.[51] Even this penal clause was insufficient to check the abuse, as owing to the unsatisfactory method of dealing with bye and way letters there was small risk of detection in fraud.

In 1719 Ralph Allen, then postmaster of Bath, proposed to the Postmasters-General that the management of the bye and cross post letters should be leased to him for a term of years, and offered a rent one and a half times as great as the revenue from the letters at that time. The offer was accepted, and the lease, which in the first instance was for seven years, was renewed from time to time. Allen, whose discovery was merely that of a method of check on the receipts of the postmasters from the bye and cross letters, was able to pay the rent agreed upon, largely to suppress the illicit transmission of the letters, and to make a handsome profit.[52] The chief importance of Allen's work lies, however, not so much in the fact of his rendering the bye and cross post letters subject to effective check, as in the fact that in order to retain his lease he, on each occasion of renewal, undertook the provision of additional facilities. By this means a daily post was gradually extended to almost all the post routes.[53]

In 1765 the inland rates for short distances were reduced, and a new standard of charge was introduced. Hitherto, all charges had been regulated on a mileage basis. For short distances they were now based on the number of post stages. For one post stage the rate was made 1d. for a single letter, for a double letter 2d., for a treble letter 3d., and for every ounce 4d.; for two post stages, 2d., and in proportion for double, treble, and ounce letters.[54] The financial result of the change was unsatisfactory.[55]

Up to this period the mails were carried by postboys riding horse. Notwithstanding that on all the chief roads stage-coaches were running more expeditiously than the post-horses, the Post Office kept to the old way. The superiority of the stage-coaches as means for the conveyance of letters was noticed by Mr. John Palmer, proprietor of the theatre of Bath,[56] who was so greatly impressed with the fact that he devised a complete and definite plan for the establishment of a system of mail conveyance by coach. The cost of the riding post (boy and horse) was 3d. a mile, and Palmer estimated that the change could be carried out without involving any increase of cost, especially if, as he proposed, the coaches carrying the mails should be exempted from toll. The proposal was severely criticized by the district surveyors of the Post Office, who reported on it.[57] At the Treasury, however, the proposal met with a more favourable reception. Pitt called a conference on the 21st June 1784, and after hearing the explanations of Palmer and the criticisms of the representatives of the Post Office, decided that the plan should be given a trial. Accordingly, on the 2nd August 1784 the first mail-coach ran. The experiment, which was conducted on the Bath Road, proved successful, and the plan was rapidly extended throughout the kingdom. The first coach cost 3d. a mile, the same rate as the riding post; but ultimately the coaches proved to be cheaper than the horse posts. In 1797 the rate was no more than a penny a mile.[58]

Almost simultaneously with the introduction of mail-coaches there was an increase in the rates of postage, made solely with a view to increased revenue.[59] The alteration was more or less fortuitous. In his Budget of 1784 Pitt had proposed a tax on coals which had not been well received, and the increased postage was substituted. Palmer is said to have claimed the credit of suggesting the substitution.[60] If so, his faith in his plan was abundantly justified. Notwithstanding the handicap of increased rates, it was an unqualified success, and the effect on the revenue was immediate and considerable.

At about this time several horse and cross post mails had been molested, and it was desired, in response to a considerable public agitation, to establish mail-coaches on the minor posts. This would have involved heavy cost, and as an alternative Freeling (Secretary to the Post Office, afterwards Sir Francis) suggested that only responsible persons should be employed--at this time the post riders, in fact as well as name, were in many instances mere boys--and that the riders should be armed. In order to obtain funds to meet the cost of this scheme, the rates of postage were again increased in 1797.[61] A further increase was made in 1801 in order to-provide an additional contribution of [L]150,000 a year to the Exchequer.[62] The new rates were elaborate and complicated, comprising no less than thirteen rates for each class of letter, according to the distance of transmission. Another increase followed in 1805, when the Post Office was called upon to provide an additional [L]230,000 a year.[63] This time the increase was made in a very simple manner, viz. by increasing the rates of 1801 in every case by 1d. for a single letter, 2d. for a double letter, 3d. for a treble letter, and 4d. per ounce.

All these increases, made with the avowed intention of increasing revenue, were successful in their main object. The net revenue, which in 1796 was [L]466,457, had risen in 1804 to [L]956,212, and in 1806 reached the sum of [L]1,119,429. The fiscal results seemed, therefore, to justify the Government in turning again and again to the Post Office when they were hard pushed to find revenue. This must be the justification of the further increase of 1812.[64] The rates then established were the highest ever charged in England. The net revenue rose slightly after their establishment, but never increased materially. These rates continued in operation until 1839, when they were completely swept away, and new rates based on principles fundamentally different were established.