certainly follow; he would therefore, as at present, be obliged to make his round. But he would have no means of distinguishing the receipted from the unreceipted letters, (there is no difficulty in distinguishing the paid from the unpaid letters,) therefore he would be careful to deliver all.
It follows, then, that the proposed arrangements are superior to the present as a security against idleness on the part of the letter-carrier. It is needless to point out their superiority against his dishonesty: the collection of the postage is no security against the abstraction of a money letter if the contents exceed the postage.
In conclusion, I may observe, that the proposed payment in advance would effect a material reduction in the number of returned letters, and save the public the expenses attendant upon them. The returned, refused, mis-sent, and re-directed letters, and over-charges for the year 1835, cause a reduction on the gross revenue amounting to no less than £110,000.
Coleridge tells a story which shows how much the Post Office is open to fraud, in consequence of the option which now exists. The story is as follows.
"One day, when I had not a shilling which I could spare, I was passing by a cottage not far from Keswick, where a letter-carrier was demanding a shilling for a letter, which the woman of the house appeared unwilling to pay, and at last declined to take. I paid the postage; and when the man was out of sight, she told me that the letter was from her son, who took that means of letting her know that he was well: the letter was not to be paid for. It was then opened, and found to be blank!"[1]
This trick is so obvious a one that in all probability it is extensively practised.
- ↑ Letters, Conversations, and Recollections of S. T. Coleridge, vol. ii., p. 114.
