advance is not complained of by the residents, not thought materially restrictive of correspondence. This fact is so decisive, that further argument may appear needless, but the importance of the subject makes me desirous to leave nothing belonging to it unexamined; I must therefore ask further indulgence of my reader.
For the purpose of forming an estimate of the extent to which the required payment in advance would affect the number of letters written, let us analyse the correspondence of the country, thus,—Letters may be primarily divided into letters which form part of a correspondence; and detached letters, i.e., letters to which no answer is returned.
The letters which form part of a correspondence may be sub-divided into—
- Those of which each party to the correspondence pays for one, and,
- Those of which one party to the correspondence pays for both.
The detached letters may be subdivided into—
- Those paid for by the writer, and,
- Those paid for by the receiver.
The first class, or that containing letters of correspondence, of which each pays for one, comprises probably five-sixths of the whole number of letters conveyed, and would be practically unaffected by the plan of invariable payment in advance; for it is obvious that so long as each party pays for one letter, it can be of no consequence whether he pays on the dispatch of his own, or on the receipt of his correspondent's.
As regards the second class, viz., the letters to which answers are given, but of which one party to the correspondence pays for both, the party paying may be the correspondent who writes first, or he who writes last. If the correspondent who writes first is desirous of paying the postage of both letters, he might easily accomplish this, under the proposed arrangements, by inclosing in his letter a stamped cover, to free the answerer; or if the other correspondent wished to pay for both letters, he might enclose a
