Her Majesty's Mails

The Post-Office was now ripe for a sweeping change. Mr. Wallace, the member for Greenock, had frequently called the attention of the House of Commons to the desirability of a thorough reform in the Post-Office system. We find him moving at different times for Post-Office returns. For instance, in August, 1833, Mr. Wallace[77] brought forward a subject which, he said, "involved a charge of the most serious nature against the Post-Office--viz. that the Postmaster-General, or some person acting under his direction, with the view of discovering a fraud upon its revenue, has been guilty of a felony in the opening of letters." He moved on this occasion for a return of all and every instruction, bye-law, or authority, under which postmasters are instructed and authorized, or have assumed a right, to open, unfold, apply strong lamp-light to, or use any of them, or any other means whatever, for ascertaining or reading what may be contained in words or in figures in any letter, of any size or description, being fastened with a wafer or wax, or even if totally unfastened by either. At the same time he moved for a return of all Post-Office prosecutions,[78] especially for the expenses of a recent case at Stafford. In reply, the Post-Office answered in a parliamentary paper that no such instruction had ever been issued from the General Post-Office. Every person in the Post-Office was required to take the oath prescribed by the Act of 9 Queen Anne, c. 10. It was added, that "whenever it is noticed that a letter has been put into the post unfastened, it is invariably sealed with the official seal for security." In reply to the other return, the Post-Office were forced to admit that the cost of prosecuting a woman and a female child at the suit of the Post-Office at the late Stafford Assizes exceeded three hundred and twenty pounds.