Her Majesty's Mails Part 10

[111] "The first result of the scheme amply vindicated the policy of the new system, but it required progressive and striking evidence to exhaust all opposition."--_Ency. Brit._ Eighth Edition.

[112] Postmaster-General's _First Report_.

[113] Select Committee on the Post-Office, 1843.

[114] In the last month of high charges, of two and a half million letters pa.s.sing through the London Office, nearly two millions were unpaid, and few more than half a million paid. Twelve months afterwards, the proportion of paid to unpaid letters was entirely changed, the latter had run up to the enormous number of five and a half millions; the former had shrunk to about half a million.

[115] Select Committee on Postage, 1843, p. 93.

CHAPTER IX.

THE POST-OFFICE AND LETTER-OPENING.

It will be fresh in the memory of many readers, that the year 1844 revealed to the public certain usages of the Government, and a branch of post-office business--previously kept carefully in the dark--which went far to destroy the confidence of the nation in the sanct.i.ty of its correspondence. In the session of 1844, Mr. Thomas S. Duncombe presented a pet.i.tion from Mr. W. J. Linton, M. Mazzini, and two other persons residing at 47, Devons.h.i.+re Street, Queen's Square, complaining that their letters were regularly detained and opened at the Post-Office. The pet.i.tioners declared that they "considered such a practice, introducing the spy-system of foreign states, as repugnant to every principle of the British const.i.tution, and subversive of that public confidence which was so essential to a commercial country." The pet.i.tioners prayed for an inquiry, and Mr. Duncombe supported their prayer. Sir James Graham, then Home Secretary, got up in the House and stated that, as regarded three of the pet.i.tioners, their letters had not been detained; as for the case of M. Mazzini, a warrant had been obtained from the Home-Office to stop and open the correspondence of that person. He had the power by law and he had exercised it. "The authority," said Sir James, "was vested in the responsible Ministers of the Crown, and was intrusted to them for the public safety; and while Parliament placed its confidence in the individual exercising such a power, it was not for the public good to pry or inquire into the particular causes which called for the exercise thereof."[116] He hoped that the House would confide in his motives, and that they would not call upon him to answer any further inquiries. The speech of the Home Secretary added fuel to the flame. Had Sir James Graham entered more fully into the subject, and gone into the real state of the law, it is probable that the subject might have been allowed to drop. Not only was the slightest explanation of the principle adopted refused by the Home Secretary, but that refusal was given somewhat cavalierly. Public attention was thus roused; the most exaggerated rumours got abroad; it was openly stated by the press that a gigantic system of espionage had been established at St. Martin's-le-Grand, and now no mere general a.s.surances of its unreality could dispel the talk or stop newspaper extravagances. Sir James Graham was abused most unreasonably. There was hardly a public print or public speaker in the kingdom that did not heap insults or expressions of disgust on his name.

This state of things could not continue; accordingly, we find Lord Radnor, moving soon after in the House of Lords, for a return of all the warrants which had been issued for the detention of letters during a certain period, animadverting especially upon the alleged practice of general warrants to intercept all letters addressed to a certain person instead of there being issued a separate warrant in the case of each letter.[117] This mode of proceeding, as he truly said, if acted upon, was a flagrant violation of the words of the statute. Lord Campbell expressed the same views. Lord Brougham observed that the first statute conferring this power had been framed by Lord Somers. It had been continued ever since by various Acts, and had been exercised by Sir Robert Walpole, Lord Grenville, and Mr. Fox, as well as under the administrations of Lord Grey and Lord Melbourne. If Lord Campbell's construction of the Act were correct, the sooner they had a new one the better. Lord Denman was for putting an end to the power altogether. The return was granted, the Duke of Wellington approving the Home Secretary's conduct notwithstanding.

On the 24th of June, 1844, Mr. Duncombe again called the attention of the House of Commons to the subject, by presenting a pet.i.tion from Mr.

Charles Stolzman, a Polish refugee, complaining that his letters had been detained and opened. Mr. Duncombe contended that the Act of 1837 never meant to confer an authority upon a Minister of the Crown to search out the secrets of exiles resident in this country at the instance of foreign Governments, but was only designed to meet the case of domestic treason. "Mr. Stolzman was a friend of M. Mazzini," said Mr.

Duncombe, "and this was why his letters had been tampered with." After describing the way in which letters were opened, he concluded a most powerful speech by again moving for a committee of inquiry. He did not want to know Government secrets; he doubted if they were worth knowing; but he wanted inquiry into the practice of the Department, which he contended was unconst.i.tutional and contrary to law. Sir James Graham, without entering into any further explanation, except saying that the law had not been violated, and that if it had, the honourable member might prove it before a legal tribunal, objected strongly, and in almost a defiant manner, to any committee. Mr. Macaulay, Lord Howick, Mr.

Sheil, and Lord John Russell warmly supported the motion for an inquiry.

Sir Robert Peel, Lord Stanley, and Mr. Monckton Milnes opposed it, when it was rejected by a majority of forty-four. What party speeches failed in doing, the clamour and popular tumult outside at length accomplished.

Popular ridicule settled upon the subject; pencil and pen set to work upon it with a will. Newspapers were unusually, and sometimes unreasonably, free in their comments, and all kinds of stories about the Post-Office went the round of the press. Sir James Graham had to bear the brunt of the whole business; whereas the entire Cabinet, but especially Lord Aberdeen, the Foreign Secretary, ought equally to have shared the opprobrium. As it was, the bearing of the Home Secretary in the House of Commons was singularly unwise and unadroit. The subject had now come to be regarded as of too great public importance to be suffered to rest; besides, it was an attractive one for the Opposition side of the House. Mr. Duncombe renewed his motion towards the end of July in the same session. It was in a slightly altered form, inasmuch as he now moved for a select committee "to inquire into a department of Her Majesty's Post-Office commonly called 'the secret or inner office,' the duties and employment of the persons engaged therein, and the authority under which the functions of the said office were discharged." Mr.

Duncombe made some startling statements as to the mode and extent of the practice of letter-opening, all of which he declared he could prove if the committee was granted. The Government saw the necessity of giving way, in order that the public mind might be quieted. The Home Secretary now acknowledged, that since he was last questioned on the subject, the matter had a.s.sumed a very serious aspect, and he thought it was time that the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, should be told. Though he would have readily endured the obloquy cast upon him, even though it should crush him, rather than injure the public service; and though he had endured much, especially after the votes and speeches of the Opposition leaders--all men conversant with official duties--in favour of Mr. Duncombe's former motions, he now felt himself relieved from his late reserve, and felt bound to confess that he believed it to be impossible to maintain the power confided to him longer without a full inquiry. He would now not only consent to the committee, but would desire that it should make the fullest possible inquiry, and he would promise on his part, not only to state all he knew, but lend all the resources of his Department to attain that object. In accordance with this determination, he proposed that the Committee should be a secret one, invested with the amplest powers to commence the investigation at once, and should be composed of five usually voting against the Government, viz. Sir C. Lemon, Mr. Warburton, Mr. Strutt, Mr. Orde, and the O'Connor Don; and four who generally support them, viz. Lord Sandon (chairman), Mr. T. Baring, Sir W. Heathcote, and Mr. H. Drummond. "To this committee," said Sir James, "I gladly submit my personal honour and my official conduct, and I make my submission without fear." The committee was appointed after Mr. Wilson Patten's name had been subst.i.tuted for Mr. Drummond's, on account of the latter being a lawyer; and after an unsuccessful attempt to add Mr. Duncombe's name, which was rejected by 128 to 52. Its object was "to inquire into the state of the law with respect to the detaining of letters in the General Post-Office, and to the mode in which that power had been exercised, and that the Committee should have power to send for persons, papers, and records, and to report the result of their inquiry to the House." A Committee of the House of Lords was appointed at the same time. Sir James Graham's examination lasted four days, when he fulfilled his pledge to make a full and unreserved disclosure of all he knew. Almost all the members of that and former Governments were examined. Lord John Russell confessed to having done the same as Sir James Graham when he held the seals of the Home-Office, though he had not used the power so frequently. He also stated that he supported Mr. Duncombe in his previous motions for inquiry, because he thought it necessary that the public should have the information asked for. Lord Normanby had used the power in Ireland for detecting "low ribbonism, which could not be _ferretted out_ by other means." Lord Tankerville testified to the existence of a warrant signed by Mr. Fox in 1782, ordering the detention and opening of all letters addressed to foreign ministers; another, ordering that all the letters addressed to Lord George Gordon should be opened. Witnesses were also brought from the Post-Office. Mr. Duncombe, on being asked for a list of witnesses to prove his allegations, refused to hand in their names unless he were allowed to be present during the examination. This the Committee had no power to grant, and consequently he declined to proceed. Mr. Duncombe appealed to the House, but the decision of the Committee was confirmed.

No inconsiderable part of the Committee's time was taken up in the production and examination of records, acts, and precedents bearing on the subject. The officers of the State Paper Office and other high Government functionaries produced records and State papers of great importance, from which we learn many interesting particulars of early postal history. At some risk of being charged with anachronism, we have thought it desirable to introduce these details in the order of the _subject_ under treatment.

James I. in establis.h.i.+ng a foreign post, was more anxious that Government secrets should not be disclosed to foreign countries, "which cannot be prevented if a promiscuous use of transmitting foreign letters and packets should be suffered," than that the post should be of use to traders and merchants. There was a motive for the jealous monopoly of postal communications; and if the proclamation from which the above is taken (Rymer's Foedera) is not clear on the subject, the following extract from a letter written by the one of James's secretaries to the other, Lord Conway, is sufficiently explicit: "Your Lords.h.i.+p best knoweth what account we shall be able to give in our place in Parliament of that which pa.s.seth by letters in and out of the land, if every man may convey letters as he chooseth." Sir John c.o.ke, the writer of the above, would seem to have got rid of the difficulty in a thorough manner, if we may believe an English letter-writer addressing a friend in Scotland, when he wrote, "I hear the posts are waylaid, and all letters taken from them and brought to Secretary c.o.ke."[118]

During the Commonwealth, of course, letter-opening was to be expected.

The very reason which Cromwell gave for establis.h.i.+ng the posts was, that they would be "the best means of discovering and preventing many wicked designs against the Commonwealth, intelligence whereof cannot well be communicated but by letter of escript." Foreign and home letters shared an equal fate. On one occasion, the Venetian amba.s.sador remonstrated openly that his letters had been delayed and read, and it was not denied. At the Restoration, a distinct clause in the "Post-Office Charter" provided that "no one, except under the immediate warrant of one of our princ.i.p.al Secretaries of State, shall presume to open any letters or pacquets not directed unto themselves."

Under the improved Act of Queen Anne, 1711, it is again stated that "no person or persons shall presume to open, detain, or delay any letter or letters, after the same is or shall be delivered into the General or other Post-Office, and before delivery to the persons to whom they are addressed, except by an express warrant in writing under the hand of one of the princ.i.p.al Secretaries of State for _every such opening_, detaining, or delaying." This Act was continued under all the Georges, and again agreed to in 1837, under 1 Vict. c. 32.

During the last century, the practice of granting warrants was exceedingly common; and they might be had on the most trivial pretences.

It was not the practice to record such warrants regularly in any official book,[119] and few are so recorded: we can only guess at their number from the frequent mention made of them in the State trials of the period, and in other incidental ways. In 1723, at Bishop Atterbury's trial, copies of his letters were produced and given in evidence against him. A clerk from the Post-Office certified to the fact that they had pa.s.sed through the post, and that he had seen them opened, read, and copied. Atterbury, as well he might, asked for the authority for this practice; and, especially, if the Secretary of State had directed that his letters should be interfered with? A majority in the House of Lords decided that the question need not be answered. It is pleasant to relate that twenty-nine peers recorded an indignant protest against this decision. One of them proposed to cross-examine the Rev. (!) Edward Willes, "one of His Majesty's Post-Office decipherers," but the majority going to a still greater length, resolved: "That it is the opinion of this House that it is not consistent with the public safety to ask the decipherers any questions which may tend to _discover the art or mystery of deciphering_."[120] Again, at the trial of Horne Tooke for high treason in 1795, a letter written to him by Mr. Joyce, a printer, was intercepted at the Post-Office, and was stated by the prisoner to be the immediate occasion of his apprehension. On his requiring its production, a duly certified copy was brought into Court by the Crown officers and given in evidence.

Twelve years after the trial of Bishop Atterbury, members of both Houses became alarmed for the safety of their correspondence, and succeeded in getting up an agitation on the subject. Several members of the House of Commons complained that their letters had been opened. Revelations were made at this time which remind us strongly of the episode of 1844, both discussions resulting in a parliamentary committee of inquiry. It was stated in the debate of 1735, that the liberty which the Act gave "could serve no purpose but to enable the idle clerks about the office to pry into the private affairs of every merchant and gentleman in the kingdom."[121] It transpired on this occasion that a regular organization existed, at enormous expense, for the examination of home and foreign correspondence. The Secretary of the Post-Office stated that the greater part of 45,000_l._ had been paid, without voucher of any kind, to Robert, Earl of Oxford, for defraying the expenses of this establishment. Among the princ.i.p.al annual expenses were the salaries of the chief decipherers[122] (Dr. Willes and his son), 1,000_l._; the second decipherer, 800_l._; the third, 500_l._; four clerks, 1,600_l._; doorkeeper, 50_l._; incidental charges, but princ.i.p.ally for seals, 100_l._ The result of the inquiry was, that the Committee condemned the practice, and the House declared that it was a breach of privilege on the part of the Government to use the power except in the exact manner described in the statute.

Whether any real improvement took place may best be judged by the following circ.u.mstances. Walpole, who doubtless carried his prerogative in those matters beyond any two Secretaries of State we could mention, lent his ear to both public and private applications alike, issuing warrants even to further cases of private tyranny. In the Report of the Secret Committee, p. 12, we find that a warrant is granted, in 1741, for what purpose may be judged by the following: "At the request of A, a warrant is issued to permit A's eldest son to open and inspect any letters which A's youngest son might write to two females, one of which that youngest son had imprudently married." And this inquisitorial spirit beginning with the highest, descended even to the lowest cla.s.s of officials. A writer in the _Encyclopaedia Britannica_, vol. xviii. p. 405 (quoting from the _State Trials_, vol. xviii. p. 1369), tells us, in relation to this subject, that so little attention was paid to the requirements of the Act of Queen Anne, or the Committee of the House of Commons just referred to, the very bellmen took to scrutinizing the letters given them for their bags. One of those functionaries was examined at the trial of Dr. Hensey in 1758, and deposed as follows: "When I have got all my letters together I carry them home and sort them. In sorting them I observed that the letters I received of Dr.

Hensey were generally directed abroad and to foreigners; and I, knowing the Doctor to be a Roman Catholic, advised the examining-clerk at the office to inspect his letters." This witness, in answer to the questions, "How came you to know Dr. Hensey to be a Roman Catholic?" and "What had you to do with his religion?" clinched his evidence thus: "We letter-carriers and postmen have great opportunities to know the characters and dispositions of gentlemen, from their servants, connexions, and correspondents. But, to be plain, if I once learn that a person who lives a genteel life is a Roman Catholic, I immediately look upon him as one who, by education and principle, is an inveterate enemy to my King and country."

At the beginning of the present century an improvement was carried out.

It was seen that the indiscriminate issue of the warrants was stimulated and fostered by the fact that no account was kept of them. As a means of placing a necessary check upon the officers, Lord Spencer, then Home Secretary, introduced the custom in 1806, of recording the dates of all warrants granted, and the purposes for which they were issued. Since the year 1822, the whole of the warrants themselves have been preserved at the Home Office. In comparing the number of warrants issued by different Home Secretaries during the present century, we find that Sir James Graham enjoys the unenviable notoriety of having granted the greatest number, though the fact is partly explained by the commotion which the Chartists made in the north of England, 1842-3.

The revelations made in the two Committees with reference to foreign correspondence, especially that of foreign Ministers accredited at the English Court, were very remarkable, and not likely to induce confidence in our postal arrangements on the part of other powers. It was shown that in times of war whole foreign mails had been known to have been detained, and the letters almost individually examined. The Lords'

Committee went so far as to say it was clear, "that it had been for a long period of time and under successive administrations, up to the present time, an established practice that the foreign correspondence of foreign Ministers pa.s.sing through the General Post-Office should be sent to a department of the Foreign Office, before the forwarding of such correspondence, according to the address." What the feelings of foreign Governments were at this revelation may well be imagined. They would know, of course, that the English Government, hundreds of years ago, had not scrupled to lay violent hands on the letters of their representatives, if by any possibility they could get hold of them. When Wolsey, for example, wanted possession of the letters of the amba.s.sadors of Charles V. he went to work very openly, having ordered "a watche should be made" in and about London, and all persons going _en route_ to the Continent to be questioned and searched. "One riding towards Brayneford," says an early record, "when examyned by the watche, answered so closely, that upon suspicion thereof, they searched hym, and found secretly hyd aboute hym a pacquet of letters in French." In the reign of Queen Mary, Gardiner ordered that the messengers of Noailles, the French amba.s.sador, should be taken and searched in much the same manner.[123] Notwithstanding this, they would scarcely be prepared for the information that later Governments, with less to fear, had preferred more secret measures, establis.h.i.+ng a system of espionage which was certainly not in accordance with the English character, or likely to subserve the interests of peace in Europe. That the arrangement with regard to foreign mails was unlawful, may be judged by the prompt action which was taken in the matter. "Since June, 1844, the Postmaster-General," so runs the Lords' Report two months later, "having had his attention called to the fact, that there was no sufficient authority for this practice, has discontinued it altogether."

The Commons' Committee reported that the letter-opening warrants might be divided into two cla.s.ses--(1) Those issued in furtherance of criminal justice, usually for the purpose of affording some clue to the hiding-place of an offender, or to the mode or place of concealment of property. (2) Those issued for the purpose of discovering the designs of persons known or suspected to be engaged in proceedings dangerous to the State, or deeply involving British interests, from being carried on in the United Kingdom. In the case of both cla.s.ses of warrants, the mode of proceeding was nearly similar. The first were issued on the application of the law-officers; the princ.i.p.al Secretary of State himself determined when to issue the latter. No record was kept of the grounds on which the second cla.s.s of warrants were issued. "The letters which have been detained and opened are," according to the Committee,[124] "unless retained by special order, as sometimes happens in criminal cases, closed and re-sealed _without affixing any mark to indicate that they have been so detained and opened_, and are forwarded by post according to their respective superscriptions." They then cla.s.sed the warrants issued during the present century in the following way:--For thefts, murders, and frauds, 162; for treason and sedition, 77; foreign correspondence, 20; prisoners of war, 13; miscellaneous, 11; and for uncertain purposes, 89. Undoubtedly, with one cla.s.s of letters, the Government were only performing a duty in applying the law as laid down in 1 Vict. c. 33. The information obtained by the warrants to find the _locale_ of Chartist disaffection was described by the Committee as most valuable and useful to the Government. While the whole history of the transaction in question grates unpleasantly on English ears, there can be no doubt that in other cases--such as frauds on the banks and revenue, forgeries, murders, &c.--the power was used impartially to the advantage of individuals and the benefit of the State. Whether, however, the discoveries and the benefits were so many as to counterbalance the odium of countenancing what was so like a public crime, and which violated public confidence in the Post-Office, or whether the issue of a few warrants annually, in proportion to the 40,000 committals[125] which took place yearly at that time, could by any means be called an efficient instrument of police, are vastly different questions. With regard to the general question of letter-opening, the issue was altogether vague and uncertain. Though the _practical_ end of the inquiry was, no doubt, gained, and warrants may almost be said to have ceased, still the Committees recommended Parliament to decide that the power and prerogative of opening letters, under certain given circ.u.mstances, should _not_ be abrogated. They argued that, if the _right_ of the Secretary of State was denied, it would be equivalent to advertising to every criminal conspirator against the public peace, that he might employ the Post-Office with impunity.[126] It was decided, in consequence of this finding, that the law should remain unaltered.

Mr. Duncombe was not satisfied. In the next session he attempted to revive the subject by calling the attention of the House to what he termed the evasive and unsatisfactory character of the report of the Secret Committee, and moving the appointment of a Select Committee to investigate the whole subject over again; but he met with little success. Sir J. Graham, Sir. R. Peel, Viscount Sandon, Mr. Warburton, Mr. Ward, and Lord John Manners, spoke against his motion, which he then withdrew. Upon this, Lord Howick tried to carry a resolution for the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the case of Mr. Duncombe's letters only. Mr. Disraeli seconded the motion, desiring not to have the Government censured, but to see the practice condemned. Mr. Roebuck believed that the country would not be content until the invidious power intrusted to the Secretary of State respecting letter-opening was absolutely abolished. Lord John Russell spoke against the motion, which was negatived by 240 to 145 members.[127] A few days later Mr. Duncombe renewed his attack in another form, moving that Colonel Maberly, Secretary to the Post-Office, should attend at the bar and produce certain books connected with his office. The Home Secretary resisted the motion, grounding his objection on the reports of the Committees and the necessities of the public service. Lord John Russell and a great number of the Liberal party concurring in this view, the motion was again rejected by 188 to 113.[128] For some weeks the subject was not again noticed in Parliament, and probably would have dropped; but it was a theme on which the Press could not be induced to be silent. Fresh events occurring in Italy, owing, it was said, to the past action of the English Government at the Post-Office, Mr. Sheil gave notice of a resolution, which he moved on the 1st of April, 1845, expressing regret that Government had opened the letters of M. Mazzini, thus frustrating the political movement in Italy. Few members, however, showed any desire to prolong a desultory debate, and thirty-eight only were found willing to affirm Mr. Sheil's proposition. Mr. Wakley, a day or two afterwards, tried to revive the same discussion, but a motion which he made was negatived by three to one. On the 8th of April, 1845, Mr. Duncombe, while intimating his desire to waive personal questions, and disclaiming all party feeling, moved for leave to bring in a Bill "to secure the inviolability of letters pa.s.sing through the Post-Office." He was at war with the system, not with the Government. Let the Government approach the subject in a fair and not in a party spirit. All the Ministers, however, and the chiefs of the Liberal party, again stoutly resisted any change in the law; and this long controversy was finally set at rest by an adverse decision of 161 to 78.

The English people, it must be added, all along objected less to the _power_ which the Government possessed in the exertion of their discretion, than to the _manner_ in which that power was exercised. Mr.

Duncombe's statements during the earlier stages of the discussions, relating to the "secret office"--never denied--could not be forgotten by the public when they intrusted their letters to the custody of the Post-Office. The revelations in question caused a perfect paroxysm of national anger, because it was felt, throughout the length and breadth of the land, that such arrangements were repugnant to every feeling of Englishmen. Had the officers of the Government broken open letters in the same way as, under certain circ.u.mstances, the law allows the sheriff's officers to break open houses and writing-desks, there might still have been complainings, but these complainings would neither have been so loud nor yet so justifiable.[129] There was something in the melting apparatus, in the tobacco-pipe, in the forged plaster of paris seals, in the official letter-picker, and in the place where, and manner how, he did his work, utterly disgusting to John Bull, and most unsuitable to the atmosphere of England. The law, it is true, remains unaltered, but it is believed to be virtually a dead letter.

FOOTNOTES:

[116] Hansard, 1844.

[117] _Ibid._

[118] Lang's _Historical Summary of the Post-Office in Scotland_.

Postmaster-General's _Third Report_.

[119] Report of Secret Committee, 1844, p. 9.

[120] _Lords' Journal_, xxii. pp. 183-6.

[121] _Commons' Journal_, vol. xxii. p. 462.

[122] The place was not only lucrative, but in the path of promotion. We find that, for the proper performance of these very unclerical duties, the Rev. Dr. was first rewarded with the Deanery of Lincoln and afterwards with the Bishopric of St. David's.

[123] Froude.

[124] Report of Secret Committee, 1844, pp. 14-17.

[125] Report of the Secret Committee, 1844, pp. 14-17.

[126] _Ibid._ Commons' Committee.

[127] Hansard, 1844-5.

[128] _Ibid._

[129] Among many expressions of opinion to which the inquiry on the subject gave rise, we find the following characteristic effusion from Thomas Carlyle: "It is a question vital to us that sealed letters in an English post-office be, as we all fancied they were, respected as things sacred; that opening of men's letters, a practice near of kin to picking men's pockets, and to other still viler and far fataler forms of scoundrelism, be not resorted to in England, except in cases of the very last extremity. When some new Gunpowder Plot may be in the wind, some double-dyed high treason, or imminent national wreck not avoidable otherwise, then let us open letters; not till then. To all Austrian Kaisers and such like, in their time of trouble, let us answer, as our fathers from of old have answered--Not by such means is help here for you."

CHAPTER X.

THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE POST-OFFICE.

From the year 1844 to the present time the progress of the Post-Office inst.i.tution has been great and unexampled. Among Mr. Hill's minor proposals were those for the inst.i.tution of day-mails, the establishment of rural posts, and the extension of free deliveries. The period between the pa.s.sing of the Penny Postage Act and the year 1850 saw these useful suggestions carried out to an extent which proved highly beneficial to the public. With regard to the day-mails, Mr. Hill proposed that on the _morning_ of each day, as well as evenings, mails should leave London after certain country and continental mails had arrived, by which means letters, instead of remaining nearly twenty-four hours in London, might be at once forwarded to their addresses, and two mails per diem be thus given to most English towns. The Earl of Lichfield would seem to have seen the useful and practicable nature of these proposals, for, being Postmaster-General at the time, he did not wait to adopt them till the pa.s.sing of the Act of 1839. As early as 1838 one or two day-mails were established, running out of London. Before 1850 we find the list included those of Dover, Southampton, Bristol, Birmingham, and Cambridge. These day-mails are now established on every considerable line of railway in the kingdom. London, in 1864, possesses not only day-mails on all the lines running from the metropolis, but one to Ireland, and two by different routes into Scotland. Further, a great number of railways in the United Kingdom have stipulated to take mails by any pa.s.senger-train.