In 1834 Earl Grey was succeeded by Viscount Melbourne; and one of the first acts of the new Government was to appoint another Commission of Inquiry into the Post Office, with directions to ascertain and report how it was that the recommendations of the former Commission had not been carried out. These recommendations were now set down one by one, and the Post Office was called upon to explain, opposite to each, whether any and, if so, what steps had been taken to give effect to it. One or two of them had indeed been adopted—such, for instance, as the recommendation that Post Office servants should cease to deal in newspapers—but only under compulsion. Others affecting the internal administration of the Post Office were certainly not feasible. But there remained not a few which, while excellent in themselves, had been discarded on the merest pretext.
The Commissioners had recommended that the "early," that is the preferential, delivery of letters should be discontinued. The Post Office replied that it was impossible. The Commissioners had recommended that, instead of the receiving houses for general post letters being separate and distinct from those for the letters of the twopenny post, every receiving house should take in letters of both kinds. The Post Office replied that the existing arrangement was the best adapted not only to the convenience of the public but to the business of the department. The Commissioners had recommended that the letter-carriers, instead of being separated into general post, twopenny post, and foreign letter-carriers, should all form one corps and deliver letters of every description. The Post Office replied—a reply all the more extraordinary inasmuch as the very arrangement which the Commissioners recommended was already in force both in Edinburgh and Dublin—that "it would be productive of the greatest confusion and delay."
The last of the recommendations to which we shall refer was that "the total charge upon all letters should be expressed in one taxation." The Post Office replied that it was "not possible for country postmasters to knowthe precise line of demarcation between the general post and twopenny post deliveries." In other words, no postmaster could know what, in the case of letters for London—and, it might have been added, for any other town than his own—the proper charge should be. This was no pretext. It was, on the contrary, perfectly true; and perhaps no more striking testimony could be afforded to the unsoundness of the system then in vogue.
It is impossible to conceive that on Freeling's part there can have been anything in the shape of contumacy, still less of defiance; but we are by no means sure that the House of Commons did not incline to that view. Be that as it may, however, the Post Office was in bad odour, and an unfortunate series of incidents which occurred about this time little tended to remove the unfavourable impression which the unwillingness to carry out the Commissioners' recommendations had created. The House, at the instance of the Select Committee on Steam Navigation, had called for a return of the casualties which within a given period had happened to the Irish packets. The return furnished by the Post Office omitted two accidents in which one of the members of the Committee had himself assisted; and the Committee forthwith ordered the attendance of a witness from the Post Office to explain the omission. Another return contained obvious errors, and was sent back to the Post Office to be corrected.
But the two returns which excited most comment referred to the mileage allowance received by the mail-coach contractors, and to the Money Order Office. As regards the mileage allowance the only reply vouchsafed by the Post Office was that it "has not the means of furnishing any account of the amount paid." The return as regards the Money Order Office was still more unfortunate. The ground on which this office had been condemned by the Revenue Inquiry Commissioners was that it was carried on for the benefit of individuals, and yet in so far as its correspondence was exempt from postage, at the expense of the revenue. Several years had since passed, and theHouse, not doubting that the abuse had been corrected, called for a return shewing the amount of postage derived from letters containing money orders, and to what purpose it was applied. "The Money Order Office"—thus ran the return which the Post Office furnished—" is a private establishment, and the business is carried on by private capital under the sanction of the postmaster-general; but as no accounts connected in any degree with it are kept at the Post Office, no return can be made by the postmaster-general to the order of the House of Commons." The House was highly incensed, and ordered that, both as regards the Money Order Office and the mileage allowance, proper returns should be rendered at once.
The energy of the new Commission had now nearly brought the Post Office into trouble. The contract for the supply of mail-coaches was in the hands of Mr. Vidler of Millbank, who had held it for more than forty years, and little had been done during this period to improve the construction of the vehicles he supplied. Designed after the pattern in vogue at the end of the last century, they were, as compared with the stage-coaches, not only heavy and unsightly but inferior both in point of speed and accommodation. Moreover, the charge made for them, namely, 2-1/2d. a mile in England and 2d. a mile in Scotland, was considered to be high; and the Commissioners, altogether dissatisfied with the manner in which the contract had been performed, arranged with the Government not only that the service should be put up to public tender, but that Vidler should be excluded from the competition. This decision was arrived at in July 1835, and the contract expired on the 5th of January following. To invite tenders would occupy time, and, after that mail-coaches would have to be built sufficient in number to supply the whole of England and Scotland. A period of five or six months was obviously not enough for the purpose, and overtures were made to Vidler to continue his contract for half a year longer. Vidler, incensed at the treatment he had received, flatly refused. Not a day, not an hour,beyond the stipulated time would he extend his contract, and on the 5th of January 1836 all the mail-coaches in Great Britain would be withdrawn from the roads.
A man less loyal than Freeling or endued with less generous instincts might have felt a twinge of satisfaction at this result of interference with what he considered his own domain. But such emotion, if indeed he felt it, was not suffered to appear. With a difficulty to overcome, some of his old energy returned, and when the 5th of January arrived there was not a road in the kingdom from Wick to Penzance on which a new mail-coach was not running.
It was now that the mail-coaches reached their prime. Eight or nine miles an hour had hitherto been their highest speed, and now, with vehicles of lighter build, the speed was advanced to ten miles an hour and even more. Truth compels us to add that while the fastest mail-coach on the road, the coach between Liverpool and Preston, travelled at the rate of ten miles and five furlongs an hour, a private coach accomplished within the hour rather more than eleven miles. This was the coach between Edinburgh and Aberdeen, of which Captain Barclay of Ury was the proprietor. Besides coachman and guard it carried fifteen passengers, namely, four inside and eleven outside, while a mail-coach carried four in and four out or eight altogether. Nor would Captain Barclay admit that, in order to attain this high rate of speed, recourse need be had to anything like furious driving. Nothing more, he maintained, was necessary than to keep the horses at a "swinging trot."
Freeling's success in averting a breakdown with the mail-coaches did little or nothing to arrest the tide which had set in against him. After exercising an influence such as probably no civil servant had exercised before, he found himself discredited and the object of vehement and not over-scrupulous attack. Of the ministers under whose orders he had acted not a few had passed away, and none were in a position to share his responsibility, while their successors only knew him as identified with a system whichhad become unpopular. Owing to an unusually rapid succession of postmasters-general,[99]he was without even the solace and support which a chief of some years' standing might have given him. Single-handed, the old man had maintained a gallant defence; but his spirit was now broken. In the midst of his exertions to prevent any interruption of travelling facilities the House of Commons had called for a return which was calculated to wound him deeply. This return implied not only that he had been guilty of gross mismanagement, but that his salary was higher than he was entitled to receive, that he was drawing unauthorised emoluments, and that the Post Office was made subordinate to his personal interests.
To the outside world Freeling maintained much the same demeanour as before, and few would have suspected the weight that pressed at his heart; but in the solitude of his study he was an altered man. There he brooded over the past and contrasted it with the present. Notes jotted down haphazard on official papers that chanced to be on his table reveal the inner workings of his mind. We know few sadder records. He recalls the time when Governments consulted him and he stood high in favour with the public. He cannot forget how, in the course of debate in the House of Commons, his own proficiency and devotion to duty were urged as reasons for not retaining the second appointment of postmaster. In the recollection of those happy days he endeavours to find consolation for the calumny and detraction of the present. He repudiates as unfounded the charge that he has long ceased to consult the interests of the public, and affirms that in this cause he has of late years laboured even more abundantly than he did of old.
Then there is a break, after which he takes up his pen again. "Cheap postage,"—to this effect he writes. "What is this men are talking about? Can it be that all my lifeI have been in error? If I, then others—others whose behests I have been bound to obey. To make the Post Office revenue as productive as possible was long ago impressed upon me by successive ministers as a duty which I was under a solemn obligation to discharge. And not only long ago. Is it not within the last six months that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer[100]has charged me not to let the revenue go down? What! You, Freeling, brought up and educated as you have been, are you going to lend yourself to these extravagant schemes? You, with your four-horse mail-coaches too. Where else in the world does the merchant or manufacturer have the materials of his trade carried for him gratuitously or at so low a rate as to leave no margin of profit?"
Here the manuscript abruptly ends. It is dated the 24th of June 1836. Within sixteen days from that date Francis Freeling was no more.
We have done. From 1836 downwards the story of the Post Office is told, far better than we could tell it, in the Autobiography of Sir Rowland Hill and the reports which, since 1854, the department has issued annually. The story of the preceding period is less well known, if indeed it be known at all. To tell the earlier story—to trace the Post Office from its humble beginnings down to the time when the illustrious reformer took it in hand—this has been the extent of our object, and no one perhaps is more conscious than ourselves how imperfectly it has been accomplished.
From 1660 to 1667 the Post Office was in farm, the farmers being—
1660 to 1663.Henry Bishopp. Rent, £21,500.
Bishopp surrendered his patent, which was for seven years, in 1663.
1663 to 1667.(Being residue of Bishopp's term.)Daniel O'Neile. Rent, £21,500.1667 to 1685.Henry, Earl of Arlington.Rent for later part of the term, £43,000.
Office managed, at first, by Sir John Bennet, Lord Arlington'sbrother, and afterwards by Colonel Roger Whitley.
1685 to 1689.Lawrence Hyde, Earl of Rochester.(For part of the time Lord Treasurer.)[101]
Office managed by Philip Frowde, Esq., under the title of Governor.
July 1689 to March 1690.Colonel John Wildman.1690 to 1708.Sir Robert Cotton, Knight, andSir Thomas Frankland, Bart.1708 to 1715.Sir Thomas Frankland, Bart., andSir John Evelyn, Bart.1715 to 1721.Charles, Lord Cornwallis, andJames Craggs, Esq.1721 to 1725.Edward Carteret, Esq., andGalfridus Walpole, Esq.1725 to 1732.Edward Carteret, Esq., andEdward Harrison, Esq.Christmas 1732.Edward Carteret alone to Midsummer 1733.1733 to 1739.Edward Carteret, Esq., andThomas, Lord Lovell, afterwards Earl of Leicester.1739 to 1744.Thomas, Lord Lovell, andSir John Eyles, Bart.1744 to 1745.Thomas, Earl of Leicester (sometime Lord Lovell) alone.1745 to 1758.Thomas, Earl of Leicester, andSir Everard Fawkener, Knight.1758 to 1759.Thomas, Earl of Leicester, alone.June 2, 1759 to November 27, 1762.William, Earl of Bessborough, andHon. Robert Hampden.November 27, 1762 to September 23, 1763.John, Earl of Egmont, andHon. Robert Hampden.September 23, 1763 to July 19, 1765.Thomas, Lord Hyde, andHon. Robert Hampden.July 19, 1765 to December 29, 1766.William, Earl of Bessborough, andThomas, Lord Grantham.December 29, 1766 to April 26, 1768.Wills, Earl of Hillsborough, andFrancis, Lord Le Despencer.April 26, 1768 to January 16, 1771.John, Earl of Sandwich, andFrancis, Lord Le Despencer.January 16, 1771 to December 11, 1781.Francis, Lord Le Despencer, andRight Hon. Henry Frederick Thynne, afterwards Carteret.December 11, 1781 to January 24, 1782.Right Hon. Henry Frederick Carteret (sometime Thynne) alone.January 24 to April 25, 1782.William, Viscount Barrington, andRight Hon. Henry Frederick Carteret.April 25, 1782 to May 1, 1783.Charles, Earl of Tankerville, andRight Hon. Henry Frederick Carteret.May 1, 1783 to January 7, 1784.Thomas, Lord Foley, andRight Hon. Henry Frederick Carteret.January 7, 1784 to September 19, 1786.Charles, Earl of Tankerville, andRight Hon. Henry Frederick Carteret. (Created Baron Carteret,January 29, 1784.)September 19 to December 10, 1786.Thomas, Earl of Clarendon, andHenry Frederick, Lord Carteret.December 10, 1786 to July 6, 1787.Henry Frederick, Lord Carteret, alone.July 6, 1787 to September 19, 1789.Henry Frederick, Lord Carteret, andThomas, Lord Walsingham.September 19, 1789 to March 13, 1790.Thomas, Lord Walsingham, andJohn, Earl of Westmorland.March 13, 1790 to July 28, 1794.Thomas, Lord Walsingham, andPhilip, Earl of Chesterfield.July 28, 1794 to March 1, 1798.Philip, Earl of Chesterfield, andGeorge, Earl of Leicester.March 1, 1798 to February 27, 1799.George, Earl of Leicester, andWilliam, Lord Auckland.February 27, 1799 to March 31, 1801.William, Lord Auckland, andGeorge, Lord Gower.March 31, 1801 to July 19, 1804.William, Lord Auckland, andLord Charles Spencer.July 19, 1804 to February 20, 1806.Lord Charles Spencer andJames, Duke of Montrose.February 20, 1806 to May 5, 1807.Robert, Earl of Buckinghamshire, andJohn Joshua, Earl of Carysfort.May 5, 1807 to June 6, 1814.John, Earl of Sandwich, andThomas, Earl of Chichester.June 6 to September 30, 1814.Thomas, Earl of Chichester, alone.September 30, 1814 to April 6, 1816.Thomas, Earl of Chichester, andRichard, Earl of Clancarty.April 6, 1816 to June 13, 1823.Thomas, Earl of Chichester, andJames, Marquess of Salisbury.
Since Lord Salisbury's death on the 13th of June 1823, no second Postmaster-General has been appointed.
June 13, 1823 to July 4, 1826.Thomas, Earl of Chichester.July 4, 1826 to September 17, 1827.Lord Frederick Montague.September 17, 1827 to December 14, 1830.William, Duke of Manchester.December 14, 1830 to July 5, 1834.Charles, Duke of Richmond.
By his first patent, dated the 14th of December 1830, the Duke was appointed Postmaster-General of Great Britain; and by a second patent, dated the 14th of April 1831, he was appointed Postmaster-General of Great Britain and Ireland.
July 5 to December 31, 1834.Francis Nathaniel, Marquess Conyngham.December 31, 1834 to May 8, 1835.William, Lord Maryborough.May 8 to May 30, 1835.Francis Nathaniel, Marquess Conyngham.May 30, 1835, to September 15, 1841.Thomas William, Earl of Lichfield.
The appointment of Secretary was created by Treasury Warrantdated the 20th of June 1694.1694 to 1700.Name uncertain; but probably Willboyl.
[In 1694 the Postmasters-General urge the creation of the appointment of Secretary; in 1697 they speak of "having sent our Secretary down to Worcester"; and in October 1701, when reporting on a paper which had been referred to them as far back as June 1699, they explain that "by the death of our late Secretary y^e paper has been mislaid and but very lately recovered." That there was a Secretary during this period is, therefore, beyond doubt.
During the same period the Post Office letter books are written in a handwriting as peculiar as it is good; and in the same handwriting, of the identity of which there can be no question, there is in the Frankland-Blaithwaite correspondence, until lately in the possession of Sir Thomas Phillipps, a letter from the General Post Office dated the 27th of May 1697, and docketed thus, the docket having obviously been written at the time of receipt:—"From Mr. Willboyl, Commissioner of the Post Office." Now, Commissioner of the Post Office he certainly was not, there being at that time no such appointment; but it is probable that he was Secretary, and that with this official title, which had been only recently given, Blaithwaite was not acquainted.]
1700 to 1714.Benjamin Waterhouse.1714 to 1715.Henry Weston.1715 to 1721.James Craggs.1721 to (about) 1730.Joseph Godman.(About) 1730 to 1737.W. Rouse.1737 to 1738.Thomas Robinson.September 1738 to July 1742.John David Barbutt.July 1742 to December 1762.George Shelvocke.December 1762 to July 1765.Anthony Todd.July 1765 to January 1768.Henry Potts.January 1768 to June 1798.Anthony Todd (again).June 1798 to July 1836.Francis Freeling.
Before.FACSIMILES of FRANKS written before and after 1784, when the obligation to date was imposed.Before.The Duke of Grafton, First Lord of the Treasury from 1766 to 1770, commonly called Junius Grafton from the attacks made upon him by Junius.
After.After.The Earl of Sandwich, nicknamed by the satirists of the period Jemmy Twitcher. "See Jemmy Twitcher shambles—stop, stop, thief"—an allusion to his shambling gait.Lord Sandwich was postmaster-general from 1768 to 1771, and afterwards First Lord of the Admiralty.
Paid Money Order 1802.FACSIMILE of a PAID MONEY ORDER of the year 1802.