THE POST OFFICE OF FIFTY YEARS AGO.
beneath the surface, my Lords are persuaded that the methods of communication by letter which are now in action have produced for the mass of the population social and moral benefits which might well have thrown even these brilliant results into the shade.
As respects purely fiscal interests, advantages so great as those which have been recited were, of course, not to be obtained without some effort or sacrifice. But the receipts on account of postal service, which on the first adoption of the change were reduced by above a million sterling, have now more than recovered themselves, and if computed on the same basis as under the old system, the gross sum realised is about £3,870,000, instead of £2,346,000, and the net about £1,790,000, in lieu of £1,660,000; at the same time, contraband in letters may be stated to have ceased, and instead of a stationary revenue, such as that derived from letters between 1815 and 1835, the State has one which is steadily and even rapidly progressive.
My Lords do not forget that it has been by the powerful agency of the railway system that these results have been rendered practicable. Neither do they enter into the question, as foreign to the occasion, what honour may be due to those who, before the development of the plans of Sir Rowland Hill, urged the adoption of the uniform penny postage.[1] Nor are they insensible to the fact that the co-operation of many able public servants has been essential to the work performed. But after all justice has been done to others. Sir Rowland Hill is beyond doubt the person to whom it was given to surmount every kind of obstacle, and to bring what had been theretofore matter of speculation into the world of practice, without whom the country would not have enjoyed the boon, or would only have enjoyed it at a later date, and to whom, accordingly, its enjoyment may justly be deemed due.
Nor is it in this country alone that are to be perceived the happy fruits of his labours; the recognition of his- ↑ For correction of this error, see Sir R. Hill's reply subjoined.
32
