In alluding to the advantages which have been conferred by railways, Mr. Stephenson is unfortunate in putting forward as an illustration, the cheap transmission of the printed proceedings of Parliament. Under the old postal system, and during the existence of mail coaches, Parliamentary reports and proceedings _were conveyed by post free of all charges_. On the introduction of penny postage, a postal charge for their conveyance was imposed, and this charge has continued up to the present day. Referring to the relations between the Post Office and railway companies as to the remuneration for mail service, I should observe, that under the old mail-coach system, the Post Office was protected from undue demands for the transmission of its mails along the public highways of the kingdom by means of _competition_. The principle of free trade in locomotion operated as a safeguard against extravagant charges. Coach proprietors, who had established themselves on any road, were prevented from taking advantage of their occupation of the line to levy unreasonable charges for either passengers or mails, by a wholesome fear of opposition. The result was, that by constantly offering its contracts to public competition, the Post Office insured the performance of its service on terms which afforded only a fair and moderate profit to the contracting parties. The introduction of railways practically destroyed competition, and placed large monopolies in the hands of a few private companies; but, to compensate for this, Parliament took the precaution of insuring moderate charges for passenger conveyance, by special provision in each Railway Act. Strange to say, a similar provision as regards the remuneration for Post Office service was omitted, and it was deemed sufficient to specify that the remuneration should be “reasonable;” a most indefinite term, and one which has given rise to infinite variety of opinion. It is true that, failing an amicable settlement, provision is made for a reference to arbitration; but, in the absence of any general principles to guide the arbitrators or umpire in their judgment of what is or is not reasonable, the question resolves itself into one of individual opinion, and the consequence has been that the most conflicting decisions have been arrived at in cases which, if not identical, have been so nearly alike as to render it impossible to reconcile the strange variation in the rates awarded. Without, however, dwelling upon the uncertainty of arbitration, which is by no means its least objectionable feature, it can readily be shown that this mode of determining payments has led to results very different from those implied by Mr. Stephenson, who states that for trains put on to suit the Post Office service, very little remuneration is allowed beyond the absolute outlay which the service entails, and that the Post Office insists on the right of travelling at the mere actual cost.