FOOTNOTES:

FOOTNOTES:[190]In course of debate in assembly, December 16, 1825 (Report inColonial Advocate).[191]Journals, House of Assembly, March 1, 1820.[192]Can. Arch., Br. P.O. Transcripts, III.[193]Can. Arch., Br. P.O. Transcripts, III.[194]Ibid.[195]Can. Arch., Q. 278, p. 44.[196]Journals of Assembly, U.C., 1821.[197]Imperial Statutes, 9, Anne, c. 10.[198]Ibid., 41, Geo. III. c. 7.[199]Ibid., 18, Geo. III. c. 12.[200]Imperial Statutes, 14, Geo. III. c. 88.[201]Can. Arch., Q. 332, p. 95.[202]Freeling to S. R. Lushington, June 3, 1822(Can. Arch., Q. 162, p. 165).[203]Journals of Assembly, U.C.[204]House of Assembly, December 16, 1825 (Report of theColonial Advocate).[205]Can. Arch., Q. 340, p. 49[206]Freeling to Horton, July 25, 1826 (Can. Arch., Br. P.O. Transcripts, II.).[207]Afterwards Earl of Ripon: well remembered in Canada as Viscount Goderich.[208]October 3, 1826 (Can. Arch., Br. P.O. Transcripts, II.).[209]Can. Arch., Q. 180, p. 258.[210]Freeling to Goulborn, December 29, 1819.

[190]In course of debate in assembly, December 16, 1825 (Report inColonial Advocate).

[191]Journals, House of Assembly, March 1, 1820.

[192]Can. Arch., Br. P.O. Transcripts, III.

[193]Can. Arch., Br. P.O. Transcripts, III.

[194]Ibid.

[195]Can. Arch., Q. 278, p. 44.

[196]Journals of Assembly, U.C., 1821.

[197]Imperial Statutes, 9, Anne, c. 10.

[198]Ibid., 41, Geo. III. c. 7.

[199]Ibid., 18, Geo. III. c. 12.

[200]Imperial Statutes, 14, Geo. III. c. 88.

[201]Can. Arch., Q. 332, p. 95.

[202]Freeling to S. R. Lushington, June 3, 1822(Can. Arch., Q. 162, p. 165).

[203]Journals of Assembly, U.C.

[204]House of Assembly, December 16, 1825 (Report of theColonial Advocate).

[205]Can. Arch., Q. 340, p. 49

[206]Freeling to Horton, July 25, 1826 (Can. Arch., Br. P.O. Transcripts, II.).

[207]Afterwards Earl of Ripon: well remembered in Canada as Viscount Goderich.

[208]October 3, 1826 (Can. Arch., Br. P.O. Transcripts, II.).

[209]Can. Arch., Q. 180, p. 258.

[210]Freeling to Goulborn, December 29, 1819.

Thomas Allen Stayner deputy postmaster general—Restrictions of general post office relaxed—Grievances of newspaper publishers—Opinion of law officers of the crown that postmaster general's stand is untenable—Consequences.

Owing to failing health, Sutherland retired from the service in 1827. He was succeeded by his son-in-law, Thomas Allen Stayner, the last of the deputies of the postmaster general of England, and in many respects the most notable. Stayner was brought up in the post office, and at the time of his appointment to the position of deputy postmaster general he was in charge of the Quebec post office.

A man of unusual ability, Stayner gained the confidence of his superiors in England, to a degree at no time enjoyed by his predecessors. What was equally important, he managed to keep on good terms with the governments of the two provinces.

When the houses of assembly in Upper and Lower Canada denounced the post office as inefficient and unconstitutional, and proposed to take the management of it into their own hands, the governors and legislative councils in the two provinces took the side of Stayner, and while they urged upon him and the postmaster general the expediency of meeting the reasonable demands of the assemblies, they set their faces steadily against any revolutionary propositions respecting the control of the department.

This attitude was in a measure due to a change in the policy of the postmaster general and his advisers in England. The earlier deputies were held by so tight a rein, and their suggestions and recommendations so little regarded, that they occupied a rôle scarcely more important than that of being the hands and voice of a department, which, unpopular at home on account of its illiberality, aroused general discontent in Canada by adding to its administrative vices, an entire ignorance of the situation with which it had to deal.

At the outset of his administration Stayner's powers were as much restricted as were those of the deputies who preceded him. A few months after his appointment, he opened a post office at Guelph. He assured the postmaster general that he had not doneso until he had satisfied himself that the prospective revenue would more than meet the expense. But he did not escape a warning and an intimation that the departmental approval would depend on the financial results.

Shortly afterwards, Stayner established an additional courier on the route between St. John and St. Andrews in New Brunswick, the point at which the mails between the Maritime provinces and the United States were exchanged. This action, though most desirable in the public interest, brought down upon him a rebuke, and a reminder that the postmaster general's sanction must be obtained in all possible cases, before lines of communication were opened which were attended with expense.

The circumstances of the country were making a continuance of this repressive course impossible. Settlements were springing up too rapidly, and the demands for postal facilities were becoming too insistent to leave it possible to delay these demands until formal sanction was obtained from England. In November 1829, Stayner informed the postmaster general that, in Upper Canada, the lieutenant governor, the legislature, the merchants, and indeed the whole population, were calling for increased postal accommodation.

In the United States, Stayner pointed out, almost every town and village had a daily mail, and this excited discontent with the comparative infrequency of the Canadian service. He suggested that he be allowed to expand the service, and to increase the frequency of the courier's trips, wherever he was convinced that the ensuing augmentation of correspondence would more than meet the additional expense.

Stayner had been so fortunate as to impress the postmaster general with the fact that a very considerable discretion might safely be left with him. Besides this, the postmaster general was under a growing sense of the insecurity of the legal foundations of the post office in the colonies. To Stayner's gratification he received a letter from the postmaster general[211]enjoining him to make it his study to extend the system of communication in all directions where the increase of population and the formation of new towns and settlements seemed to justify it.

This was a wise step. It gave the department a representative, zealous in its interests, as intimately acquainted with local conditions as the assemblies themselves, and thoroughly competent to undertake the responsibility devolving upon him.

Stayner's commission placed New Brunswick as well as Upperand Lower Canada, under his charge. But before the close of 1828 the service in New Brunswick was transferred to the control of the deputy postmaster general for Nova Scotia.[212]This change was made at the instance of the deputy of Nova Scotia, who, being in England at the time, explained to the postmaster general how much more closely New Brunswick was associated with Nova Scotia than with Quebec, and pointed out that orders from home affecting New Brunswick and requiring immediate attention were delayed in that they had to pass from Halifax through New Brunswick, and then return to New Brunswick. All the other branches of the imperial service in New Brunswick had their local headquarters in Halifax.

At the time Stayner was placed in charge of the postal service in the Canadas, the system of communication was still simple enough to be described in a few lines. There was a trunk line from Halifax, Nova Scotia, to Niagara and Amherstburg on the western boundaries of Upper Canada. The distances were to Niagara, one thousand three hundred and fifty-six miles, and to Amherstburg, one thousand five hundred and sixteen miles.

The frequency of the trips made by the mail couriers over the several stretches of this long route varied considerably. Between Halifax and Quebec, a courier travelled each way weekly. The section between Quebec and Montreal, the most populous in the country, was covered by couriers, who passed five times each way weekly between the two cities.

From Montreal westward along the shores of the St. Lawrence and lake Ontario to Niagara and Amherstburg, there were semi-weekly trips. Running out from this trunk line there were six cross routes, four in Lower Canada, and two in Upper Canada. Two of these left the trunk line at Three Rivers—one running to Sorel, by way of Nicolet, with semi-weekly mails; and the other to Sherbrooke, Stanstead and other places in the eastern townships. There was a weekly service over this route.

Mails were carried up the Ottawa river from Montreal as far as Hull, and southward to St. Johns; in both cases twice weekly. In Upper Canada, the only cross routes were one from Cornwall to Hawkesbury, with weekly mails, and another from Brockville to Perth, with mails twice a week. From Perth there was a weekly courier to Richmond.

The two principal points of connection with the United States were at St. Johns, south of Montreal, and Queenston on theNiagara river. As early as 1828, the United States post office had a daily service by steamer on lake Champlain, which ran as far northward as St. Johns. In 1831, Stayner made a notable improvement in the mail service from Montreal to Niagara, increasing the frequency of the trips to five each week, and reducing the time of conveyance between the two points to six days.

The appointment of Stayner in no way diminished the energy with which the houses of assembly pursued their campaign against the administration of the post office. In March 1828, the assembly in Upper Canada named a committee consisting of Fothergill, Ingersoll, Matthews and Beardsley, to inquire into the state of the post office. Their report, which was made in 1829, did not disclose any new facts. Indeed, it would not seem that the assemblies, in the series of inquiries, which were ordered from year to year, thought so much of obtaining new light on the question as of keeping the public alive to the grievances, which they were made to appear to suffer.

The committee of 1829, after affirming the illegality of the existing system and declaring that the surplus revenue which was sent annually to Great Britain, was the result of starving the service, recommended the establishment of a provincial post office, subject to the legislatures. Post routes should be opened to every court house, and the charges on letters and newspapers conveyed by steamboats should not exceed twopence and one farthing each respectively.

The lieutenant governor, Sir John Colborne, though friendly to Stayner, and appreciative of his efforts to meet the demands of the public in Upper Canada, was not altogether satisfied with the system. He maintained that it was impossible for Stayner from his headquarters in Quebec to follow the rapid changes in the conditions of settlement in Upper Canada, and was of opinion that the remedy for the existing shortcomings of the post office in that province was to appoint an official of a rank equal, or nearly so, to that held by Stayner, and station him in Toronto.

Colborne, in communicating the view to the colonial office,[213]also requested that arrangements should be made for a regular interchange of correspondence between Upper Canada and Great Britain, by way of New York.

Freeling, the secretary of the post office, was quite willing to meet the views of the lieutenant governor, but was inclined to the view that the people on both sides of the Atlantic had alreadysettled the question their own way. He explained that there was a plan in full operation by which the correspondence between Liverpool and Upper Canada was conveyed across the ocean independently of the post office at twopence a letter, and that there was little likelihood that the public would seek the aid of the post office to have this conveyance done for them, and thereby become subject to charges four times as great.

The people of Liverpool, who had the largest correspondence with the United States, Freeling reminded Colborne, scarcely sent one letter per week by post, though thousands were sent outside the post office, by the same vessels as carried the mails for the post office. As for the appointment of a resident deputy in Upper Canada, Freeling thought there would be no objection to such an arrangement.

In this opinion Stayner by no means concurred. He could see no good reason for such an appointment. The postmaster general was more impressed with the representations on behalf of the province than Freeling thought desirable. Freeling reminded the postmaster general that his powers might not be equal to his desires. He observed that in the lieutenant governor's letter, a question was involved as to whether, and if so, to what extent, the revenues of the post office could be devoted to the general improvement of communications for the public advantage, and he conceived that this was a point of view from which the postmaster general was not empowered to regard the subject.

But the forces were gathering for an attack on the post office, which promised to be much more formidable than any which had preceded it. Until that time, the assailants of the system had been confined to what the official clique regarded as the radicals and republicans and grievance-mongers. In the houses of assembly the grievances of which they complained became the motive of highly effective speeches and resolutions, but the injuries they alleged really hurt nobody.

The rates of postage on letters were, according to present day standards, exorbitant. But they were no higher than those charged in England; and after all the post office was but little used by the masses of the people. It is doubtful if the post office were employed in 1830 any more freely than the telegraph is to-day. In their contention that it was a violation of constitutional guarantees to send the surplus post office revenue to England, the assemblies were undoubtedly correct, but loyal people bear many things of that kind easily.

At this time, however, the question was taken up by a body to whom the postage rates were a personal grievance, and who at the same time possessed the means of successful agitation. In the beginning of 1829, a number of newspaper publishers in Lower Canada approached the governor general, Sir James Kempt, with a request that they might be relieved of the payment of postage on the newspapers which they sent to subscribers.[214]They did not ask that the postage be remitted altogether. All they desired was that the postage should be collected from the subscribers and not from themselves. They also suggested that the charge might be fixed at one penny per copy.

Stayner declared that he had no power to enter into such an arrangement. The publishers thereupon changed their request, and asked that they might be put on the same footing as the newspaper publishers in England stood, and be thus entirely exempt from postage on their newspapers.

British publishers had enjoyed this concession since 1825, but as they still had to pay a heavy excise duty on the paper they used, they could not be regarded as free from public charges. In Canada there was no stamp duty on paper. This difference between their situation and that of their brethren in England was pointed out to the publishers, but the explanation failed to satisfy.

One of the publishers, who had some inkling of the fact that the newspaper postage did not go into the public revenue, but formed part of the emoluments of the deputy postmaster general, observed that with as much consistency a toll keeper might insist on farmers paying high charges to him, because they paid no tithes.

With the publishers awake to the fact that they had something to complain of, they made the most of their grievance. They were experts in this line of exploitation. They found that the newspaper charges, which they were convinced had no legal sanction, had been steadily advancing for forty years past. In 1790, a shilling a year was all that was charged as postage for each copy of a weekly newspaper. This rate was increased by degrees to one shilling and threepence, one shilling and eightpence, two shillings, two shillings and sixpence, until, in 1830, it had risen to four shillings a year on weekly papers, and to five shillings for papers published twice a week. The discontent of the publishers was not lessened by the knowledge that in the Maritime provinces, the yearly rate for weekly papers was two shillings and sixpence for each copy.

The agitation against the newspaper charges was set in motion by Robert Armour, proprietor of theMontreal Gazette. It had come to his knowledge that the sums collected from the publishers did not appear in the accounts of the postmasters with the department, and he suspected that in some way they were retained by Stayner, though on this point he had no certain information.

After Armour learned that the rates had been subjected to a continuous process of enhancement, he made diligent search for any warrant that might exist for the successive advances or indeed for the original charge. Finding none, he turned to the authorities for information. It was he who led the deputation to the governor general for relief in some form. When this step failed, Armour demanded of the deputy postmaster general his authority for the newspaper charges.

Getting no answer from that quarter, Armour endeavoured to bring matters to an issue by refusing to pay the postage on the copies of his paper which he posted in Montreal. The postmaster declined to accept the papers without the postage, and Armour appealed to the postmaster general in London. In due time the reply from the department was received, and while it offered no immediate relief, it put Armour in possession of some exclusive information, which, as a newspaper man, he must have considered valuable.

Freeling, the secretary, informed Armour that the postmaster of Montreal had failed in his duty, in refusing to transmit the newspapers simply because the postage was not paid. The postmaster should have sent the newspapers forward, and since the postage demanded by Stayner was not paid, it fell upon the postmasters of the offices to which the papers were directed to collect the postage, at the same rates as were charged on letters.

As each paper was under this ruling chargeable with the rate which was due on four letters, it may well be imagined that no publisher would offer to pay the post office for the distribution of his papers by that means. On these conditions, the postage on each copy sent from Montreal to any of the post offices on the island of Montreal, to St. Johns or to the nearer settlements in Upper Canada would be thirty-two cents. Each copy sent to Three Rivers or to any points between sixty and one hundred miles from Montreal would cost the subscribers forty-eight cents.

It is needless to pursue the charges into districts where the copies were sent over one hundred miles. Freeling went on to explain that, as the post office act had no provision for the conveyanceof newspapers, the postmaster general, in order to accommodate the publishers permitted the deputy postmaster general to make private arrangements with them for the transmission of their newspapers. By ancient and authorized custom, the deputy postmaster general was allowed to treat the receipts from this source as his own perquisite. This information with the comments thereon greatly enlivened many issues of theGazette.

Freeling was denounced as a sinecurist, who permitted impositions in the colonies which he dared not make at home. Armour announced that he would carry the matter into the legislature, and, if necessary, into the courts. He had no desire to escape the payment of postage. All he demanded was the establishment of an equitable rate, placed on a legal basis. His idea was that the postmasters who handled the newspapers should be paid from five to ten per cent. of their cost. The rates charged by Stayner amounted to from twenty to twenty-five per cent. of the subscription price. Armour would resist Stayner's claim to be a sleeping partner in his business, who, contributing neither capital nor talent, dictated what his share of the revenue should be.

Armour could write well, and his onslaught caused Stayner much uneasiness. In a letter to the postmaster general[215]he attributed it to some neglect or indignity, which Armour fancied he suffered at the hands of a former deputy postmaster general, while, he stated, other newspapers were recognizing with gratitude Stayner's efforts to satisfy the reasonable demands of the public.

Every side of Stayner's work was vigorously attacked in theGazette. Complaints were made of a lack of necessary mail routes, and of an insufficiency of service on existing routes. It was charged also that Stayner's attention was confined to the older and more thickly settled districts, which yielded the largest revenues. But, according to Stayner, Armour's silence could have been purchased by a share of the official printing which Stayner declined to give him. Whatever grounds Stayner had for making the insinuation, there can be no question as to the energy with which Armour bent himself to the task of exposing the methods of the post office. When his papers were held in the Montreal post office on account of his refusal to prepay the postage, he entered actions for large amounts against Stayner.

These failed, as the courts declined to deal with the cases. He then addressed himself to the legislature. In the beginning of 1831, Armour and a number of other publishers presented a petitionto the house of assembly of Lower Canada, setting forth the high rates they had to pay as postage for the transmission of their newspapers, and the impropriety of Stayner's practice in appropriating the proceeds; and asking that they might be put on an equal footing with the publishers in Great Britain.

The petition was handed over to a committee of the house, who proceeded to investigate the facts. In this they were only moderately successful, as the only person who was in a position to give them the information they desired, declined to answer the interrogatories put to him.[216]

Stayner, in reply to inquiries as to the financial condition of the post office and the disposition of the surplus revenues, pleaded that he was employed by a branch of the imperial government, which in none of its instructions had recognized the right of the assembly to institute the inquiries being made. To answer the questions put to him by the committee might lead to disclosures, which would involve him with his superior officers until he had received specific instructions from them on the point.

But though little was learned from Stayner, the committee had obtained some useful information from inquiries made in the British house of commons by Joseph Hume. It appeared that the large sum of £36,000 had been received by the British treasury as surplus revenue for the years 1825 and 1826.

Stayner endeavoured to lessen the importance of this fact by declaring that more than half the amount was postage paid by the army, which was not properly chargeable with postage at all. The committee declined to accept this view; and while perfectly friendly to Stayner, and admitting that he had effected some considerable improvements, they were persuaded that the service was far from being what the people had a right to expect.

Looking outwards from Quebec, the committee observed that there was no postal service whatever in the counties of Montmorency and Saguenay, which embraced the earliest settlements in the country. On the south shore of the St. Lawrence, and along the Etchemin and Chaudiere rivers, there was a wide stretch of well-settled country entirely lacking the means of communication with the capital, though but a short distance from it.

From Quebec eastward to the New Brunswick boundary there were over 100,000 people, and the only postal accommodation for this great extent of territory was afforded by seven post offices lying along the line of the post route betweenQuebec and Halifax. The peninsula of Gaspe, with a line of fishing settlements all along the coast, had but two mails each year.

The committee regretted particularly the situation as regards the conveyance of newspapers. The post office was under no legal obligation to carry them except as letters, and yet there was no other means available for their circulation. If the law had not conferred on the post office a monopoly of carrying letters, the publishers would have a resource. They might establish a transportation system, and meet their expenses by carrying letters as well as newspapers.

The secrecy with which the affairs of the post office were surrounded was much deprecated by the committee, as giving ground for speculation and suspicion that could not fail to do harm to the institution. If, under the present system of imperial control, an adequate service were rendered, there would have been no just grounds for complaint.

But if the interests of the province were not regarded, the people were entitled to object to their being limited to a means of conveyance which did not meet their requirements, and to assume that the revenue arising from the service was not properly applied. The committee in conclusion expressed their confidence in the good will of both the postmaster general and his deputy in Canada, and their belief that their complaint had only to be laid before the governor general to secure favourable consideration.

Before concluding to withhold from the house of assembly, the information it sought, Stayner with characteristic prudence had enlisted the support of the governor general, who coincided with him in his view as to the impropriety of his submitting to the questioning of the house regarding the affairs of a branch of the imperial service. When he laid the course he had pursued before the postmaster general, Stayner also gained his approval for the zeal and sagacity he had shown.

But Armour persisted in his attacks in theGazette, and in the two sessions which followed managed to alienate from Stayner a large measure of the good will of the house of assembly. Stayner's determination to withhold information from the assembly was a source of irritation. The facts which had come to their knowledge through questions in the house of commons at Westminster, the ungracious admissions which the possession of these facts enabled the house to extort from Stayner, and his specious and unconvincing defence of his perquisites, all combined to changethe house from an attitude of friendliness to one of criticism and even hostility.

The house no longer rested in the belief that, to obtain satisfaction, all that was necessary was to lay their grievances before the department. In 1832, it denounced the methods of the department, and presented an address to the governor general praying that the home government might place the post office under the control of the legislature.[217]

In the session of 1833, the pertinacious Armour again appeared before the assembly. He had no new facts to present, but managed to sustain the interest of the house in the facts already before it.

The assembly on this occasion set forth its views at greater length. In an address to the king,[218]it represented that the post office should not be a means of raising a revenue greater than was needed to enable it to establish offices wherever they might be required; that if the rates were higher than was necessary for that purpose they should be lowered; and that any surplus revenue should be at the disposition of the legislature for the improvement of communications by post throughout the country; also, that newspapers should pass through the post office in Lower Canada, free of postage.

In the assembly in Upper Canada the post office was also vigorously assailed. There was general agreement on the proposition that the existing arrangements were not satisfactory, but on the point of remedy opinions differed sharply. The reformers, of whom Dr. Duncombe was the spokesman, adopting the argument of the Baldwin committee of 1821, insisted that the post office had no legal basis in Upper Canada.

Duncombe and his associates held that it was a violation of the constitution to send any surplus revenue to Great Britain, and that it was the obvious duty of the legislature to pass an act, taking to itself the control of the provincial post office. They believed that the revenues from the service would amply suffice to cover all its expenses, but if it should turn out that such was not the case, they were prepared to meet the deficiency from the general revenues of the province.

The government party, on the other hand, always ready to fight for things as they were, did not accept the argument of the Baldwin committee. They held that the post office was an institution necessary to commerce, and, as such, it was not placed by the acts of 1778 and 1791 under the jurisdiction of the provinciallegislature. They did not believe that the provincial post office furnished a revenue sufficient to cover the expenses, but if it should be shown that they were wrong, and that the post office yielded a surplus, they were convinced that the imperial government had no desire to retain the surplus for its own purposes.

Colborne, the lieutenant governor, was in general agreement with the government party. But he believed that, having regard to the great distances between Quebec, and the rapidly rising settlements in the remoter parts of Upper Canada, an administrator, having his headquarters at Quebec could never understand the necessities of the new districts, and that it was indispensable that there should be stationed at Toronto an officer with powers nearly, if not quite, equal to those of the deputy postmaster general at Quebec.

In the sessions of 1832 and 1833, the subject was warmly debated.[219]The views of the reformers were presented by Duncombe and Bidwell. They were opposed by the attorney general (Henry John Boulton), the solicitor general (Christopher Hagerman), and Burwell, who was postmaster at Port Burwell.

It was one of the complaints of the reformers that there were in the house of assembly a number of postmasters who voted not according to their own convictions, but according to the orders of Stayner.

As the result of the discussion, it was resolved to present an address to the king, asking that an annual statement of the revenue and expenditure of the department be laid before the legislature; that newspapers should be distributed throughout the province free of postage; that the correspondence of the members of the legislature should pass free during sessions; and finally, that in the event of a surplus being obtained, the postage rates should be reduced, or that the surplus should be devoted to the improvement of the roads.

Stayner, in sending to the postmaster general, copies of the addresses from Upper and Lower Canada, expressed his gratification that the assemblies in both provinces appeared to have dropped the idea of independent provincial establishments, and gave it as his opinion that the legislatures would look for nothing further than such reasonable modifications of existing laws and regulations as the imperial government might determine.

That some changes were necessary Stayner was quite convinced.The postage on newspapers, for instance, could not long remain in its present position, as regards either the amount of the charges or the mode in which the revenue therefrom was disposed of. As for the request of the legislatures that newspapers should be distributed by the post office free of charge, there seemed no sound reason why this should be done. A moderate rate should be fixed, and some arrangement made for the disposal of the revenue from this source. The present plan aroused dissatisfaction, and indeed the amount collected was fast becoming too large to be appropriated in the existing manner.

The postmaster general expressed his satisfaction with Stayner's report, and indeed it appeared at that moment to be of more than usual consequence to him that the colonies should be well affected towards the post office.

It will be remembered that when the Baldwin report reached England in 1821, the postmaster general was sufficiently impressed with the cogency of the argument against the legal standing of the British post office in the colonies, to call for the opinion of the law officers upon it. When the case was prepared by the solicitor for the post office, it was still more impressive, and the postmaster general thought better of his desire to have a definite opinion upon it, as it appeared more than probable that the opinion might be against the post office. He accordingly directed that the papers should be put away, and they lay undisturbed for eleven years.

But the repeated remonstrances of the colonial assemblies, joined to the rising dissatisfaction with the general political conditions in Upper and Lower Canada, made it desirable to remove any real grievances which might be found to exist in the control and management of the postal system.

The first step taken in this direction was to ascertain whether there was any foundation for the contention of the assemblies that the whole system rested on an illegal basis, and that the revenues collected by the post office in the colonies were taken in violation of the fundamental principle governing the relations between the mother country and the colonies.

The case was accordingly submitted to the attorney general and the solicitor general in 1832; and on the 5th of November of that year a decision was given, upholding the colonial contentions on all points.[220]

The questions upon which the opinions of the law officerswere required were (first) whether the power to establish posts, and the exclusive right to the conveyance of letters given by the acts of 1711 and 1765, had the force of law in the Canadas, and (second) whether the postage received for the inland conveyance of letters within those provinces ought to be paid into the exchequer and applied as part of the revenue of the United Kingdom, or whether it ought to be devoted to the use of the province in which it is raised.

The law officers gave the case the attention its importance called for. It appeared, they stated, to involve practical considerations of the highest political importance, bringing directly into question the principle of the declaratory act of 1778, respecting internal taxation of the colonies by the mother country.

Their opinion was that the rates of internal postage could not be considered as within the exception of duties imposed for the regulation of commerce, but that if they could be so considered, they would by the terms of that act be at the disposal of the province, instead of constituting a part of the revenues appropriated for the general purposes of the empire.

It had been contended, as a question of law, that since the act of 1765, by which the colonial rates were finally determined, was in operation at the time of the declaratory act of 1788, it had not been annulled by the latter act, the language of which was, not that rates then existing should be no longer levied, but that after the passing of the act of 1778, no tax or duty should be levied. But the law officers had no great confidence in the argument. In their own words they were of opinion that "it would not be safe to agitate the question as a question of law with the colony, and if it could be so discussed, it would not succeed, and that it could not be enforced."

The opinion of the law officers could not have been unexpected, but it gave the postmaster general much concern. In a note appended to the decision, he accepted the opinion of the law officers as conclusive. The department, he said, was beaten off its first position, and his view was that a plan should be drawn up by which the post office should relinquish to the provinces any surplus revenue after the expenses were paid, and permit an account of the receipts and expenditures to be laid on the tables of the legislatures. While forced to concede this much the postmaster general was convinced that the appointment of the officers of the department should remain with the crown. Otherwise he foresaw the ruin of the colonies, so far as correspondence wasconcerned; for the postmaster general and legislature of Upper Canada would be at perpetual strife with the postmaster general and legislature of Lower Canada. However, he concluded that before taking any step in the matter he would consult Goderich, the colonial secretary.

It was not until the following March that the postmaster general saw Goderich respecting the post office. The interview was quite satisfactory. The colonial secretary agreed to the propositions. Legislation would be necessary, and to that end Stayner was called to London to give his assistance.

At this time the government received assurances from an unexpected source that the plan settled upon would be satisfactory to the Canadian people. William Lyon Mackenzie, and Denis Benjamin Viger, representing as they maintained, the body of the public in the two provinces, visited England for the purpose of laying before the government the grievances of the Canadian people.

On reaching London, Mackenzie and Viger wrote to the secretary of the post office, requesting an interview with the postmaster general. The request was refused on the ground that the postmaster general did not feel authorized to communicate with any person but the colonial secretary on colonial matters. The delegates then addressed themselves to Goderich, who cordially invited them to lay their case before him.

Mackenzie, thus encouraged, prepared a statement, which, though long and detailed, was studiously moderate in tone.[221]On all other points of colonial policy, Mackenzie declared, people would be found to differ, but as regards the post office there was absolute unanimity. There must be a change. Stayner himself admitted that the arrangements were imperfect.

The colonial governments were in favour of separate establishments, but Mackenzie was of Stayner's opinion that such would be impracticable. His own belief was that the only feasible scheme would be to bring all the colonies of British North America under one deputy postmaster general, who should be responsible to the postmaster general of England. Mackenzie apparently would be quite satisfied to see the office of deputy postmaster general vested in Stayner, whom he described as a persevering, active officer.

The other suggestions of Mackenzie were in line with the more conservative recommendations of the colonial assemblies. Onone subject, however, he expressed himself strongly. He said the packet service between the Canadian provinces and the mother country was so indifferent that it went far to convince Canadians that Great Britain desired as little correspondence with Canada as possible.

As an instance of the inferiority of the packet service, Mackenzie told Goderich that he had shortly before received a letter by the Halifax packet, which was sixty-five days on the way, and which cost five shillings and fourpence-halfpenny for postage, and another by way of New York, which was only thirty-four days in coming, and cost only one shilling and fourpence-halfpenny. The announcement of the arrival of the English mail by the Halifax packet was scarcely heeded, whereas no sooner was it known that the Liverpool mail had arrived from New York than the Montreal post office was crowded. Mackenzie's statement on this point was fully confirmed by Stayner on his arrival in London in June.

Stayner, when informed of the opinion of the law officers, was not disposed to acquiesce in it as readily as the postmaster general had done. Colonial lawyers, always more imperial and more conservative than the Eldons and Lyndhursts in London, had assured him that the necessity of imperial control of the colonial post office was the strongest reason for believing that parliament never intended to divest itself of the power by the act of 1778. The conviction of the necessity of imperial control was held by all persons qualified to have an opinion, and, Stayner declared, by the legislatures themselves.

The firm belief of Stayner was that, if the imperial parliament failed to legislate on the present critical situation then they must give up all idea of ever having the question settled. The several colonies could never be brought to concur in their views on this or any other subject. They knew this, and did not ask to have the matter submitted to their own legislation.

Stayner certainly overstated the reluctance of the legislatures to deal with the question of the provincial post office. But, as his opinion had the support of so ultra a radical as Mackenzie, the postmaster general could not be blamed for accepting, and, as far as possible, acting upon it.

There was, however, a difficulty. Indeed, the way back into right courses seemed beset with difficulties. The postmaster general was quite willing to furnish the legislatures with annual statements of the revenue and expenditure, to leave with the colonies all surplus revenues, and to satisfy all the reasonabledesires of the provinces. But by what steps should he proceed, to legalize the course he proposed?

If the necessary legislation could be enacted by the imperial parliament, all would be well. With a free hand, he would have no trouble in satisfying all the interests concerned. But if the bills had to originate with the provincial legislatures, the postmaster general would despair of bringing the matter to a successful conclusion, as he was convinced that the requisite action on the part of the several provincial legislatures would never be taken. The postmaster general again turned to the law officers. It was essential that they be consulted on the question.

The points on which opinion was desired were two. The first was whether, without any further authority of parliament, the surplus of any postal revenue raised within the colonies under the act of 1765, could be appropriated and applied under the direction of the respective legislatures for the use of the province in which such surplus might arise.

The second was whether it would be competent for the British parliament to fix a new set of rates for the colonies, or whether the acts of 1778 and 1791 made it necessary that the authority for such rates should proceed from the respective colonial legislatures.

Both of these questions were answered adversely to the hopes of the postmaster general.[222]The law officers had no doubt that the act of 1778 was applicable to the Canadas, and that, if objections were raised in the provinces to the payment of postages fixed by the British parliament, whether by the act of 1765 or by an act to be thereafter passed, the legality of the charges could not be maintained, nor could payment of them be enforced in the absence of authority from the legislature of the province concerned.

The proper procedure to be followed, in the opinion of the law officers, was for the British parliament to repeal the act of 1765, and leave it to the provinces to establish a new set of rates. The law officers were aware of the difficulties which would arise, if after the act of 1765 had been repealed, the colonial legislatures failed to agree on a scheme of rates or on the necessary arrangements for a uniform postal system throughout the provinces. In such a case, there would be a period in which there would be not even the semblance of legal authority for the postal service within the colonies.

After a further interchange of correspondence between thepostmaster general and the law officers, it was decided to introduce into the imperial parliament a bill repealing the act of 1765, but making the operation of the bill contingent upon suitable legislation being adopted by the legislatures of the several provinces. In order to facilitate the passage of identical legislation by each of the legislatures, a draft act was prepared by the solicitor of the general post office, and a copy was sent to the lieutenant governor in each of the provinces for submission to his legislature.

The act of the imperial parliament was passed and received the king's assent on the 26th of March, 1834.[223]It contained but two clauses. The first provided for the repeal of the imperial act of 1765, so far as that act authorized the collection of postage in the colonies, but stipulated that it should not become operative until acceptable legislation had been adopted in the several provinces, authorizing the collection of postage and making suitable arrangements for a postal service throughout the provinces.

The second clause stipulated that, in the event of the revenues from the colonial post offices exceeding the expenditures, the surplus should no longer be sent to London to form part of the revenues of the United Kingdom, but should be divided among the several colonies in the proportion of their gross revenues.

The draft bill, prepared by the solicitor of the general post office, provided for a complete postal system in each of the provinces.[224]Under this bill, the postmaster general at St. Martin's-le-Grand was to be the head of each provincial system, and the appointment of a deputy postmaster general in each province, who should reside in the province and manage the system therein, was to be in his hands.

The postage rates were to be the same in the several provinces; and in the case of correspondence between the provinces, the charge for postage was to be fixed in accordance with the entire distance the articles were carried, without regard to provincial boundary lines.

It will be seen that if the provincial legislatures adopted the bills framed in London for them, there would be no change whatever in the practical working of the colonial system. The postmaster general in London would, as theretofore, control the arrangements, and the charges were fixed, regardless of provincial boundaries.As the imperial act stipulated that any surplus which should arise from the system should be distributed among the colonies, so the proposed provincial bills provided for the contingency of a deficit in its operations.

Each provincial bill empowered the postmaster general to demand from the legislature the amount, which it was agreed that the province should be held responsible for, to make up the deficit. Upper and Lower Canada were to bind themselves to pay in such a case up to £2000 from each province. Nova Scotia was to pay up to £1200; New Brunswick up to £600; and Prince Edward Island up to £200.

In anticipation of the adoption of the bills by the several legislatures, the postmaster general appointed an accountant, who should have general charge of the financial transactions of all the colonies. He was to be established at Quebec. His position in relation to the deputy postmaster general of Lower Canada was somewhat peculiar. While, in general, he was subordinate to the deputy postmaster general, in all matters touching the accounts, he was independent of the deputy, and responsible only to the postmaster general in London.

There were also appointed two travelling surveyors or inspectors in the Canadas, one of whom was stationed at Quebec, and the other at Toronto. Nothing could have been more necessary for the proper administration of the service, and for the expansion of the system to meet the requirements of the new settlements. It was impossible for Stayner to give personal attention to the duty of supervising postmasters, or to inquiries into the merits of the numerous applications from all parts of the country for new post offices.

The necessity for assistance in this direction was impressed on Stayner by a number of robberies which took place on the grand route between Montreal and Toronto—episodes in post office economy which he was helpless to investigate.

Two of these robberies have incidents connected with them, which are deserving of mention. In February 1835, on a stormy night, the mail bag dropped off the courier's sleigh somewhere in the neighbourhood of Prescott, and it could not be found. As the contents of the bag included banknotes to the value of from £10,000 to £12,000, a reward of £200 was offered for the conviction of the thief and the recovery of the money.

Within half an hour after the placard was on view in Prescott, a man who heard it read, exclaimed excitedly: "I know all aboutit, I have the bag at home." It turned out that this man had found the bag, rifled it, and used part of the money, and, carried away with the prospect of the large reward, had actually informed on himself.

The other case is noteworthy on account of the energy displayed by the loser of a valuable letter, in pursuing and securing the conviction of the thief. The letter, which contained £200, was posted in Toronto, and addressed to a gentleman living near L'Original. As the department, owing to the lack of effective aid, was limited in its efforts to advertising the loss in the newspapers and by placards, the loser of the letter took the inquiries into his own hands.

He spent nearly a year in his investigations, travelling up and down the country between Montreal and Toronto, and in the state of New York, covering a distance of upwards of two thousand one hundred miles. It is satisfactory to be able to say that he managed to locate and secure the arrest and conviction of the thief. So well had he done his work, that the deputy postmaster general adjudged him to be entitled to the £50 reward offered by the department.

Back to Index Next