Your obedient faithful servant, EDWARD J. PAGE, _Inspector-General of Mails._ To ROWLAND HILL, Esq., &c. &c. &c. APPENDIX, No. 2. REPLY OF ROBERT STEPHENSON, ESQ., M.P., PRESIDENT OF THE INSTITUTION OF CIVIL ENGINEERS, TO OBSERVATIONS IN THE SECOND REPORT OF THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL. DELIVERED AT THE MEETING OF MAY 20TH, 1856. GENTLEMEN, You will no doubt remember, that on taking this chair for the first time after election to it, I addressed you, according to the custom of the President of the Institution, upon matters of interest connected with civil engineering. The special points to which I directed your attention, were connected with the rise and progress of the railway system in this country; and amongst other matters referred to, were the facilities afforded by railways to the Post Office, which were described “as of the highest public consequence.” In enumerating those facilities, I observed that speed might, at first sight, appear to be the greatest item in the catalogue. But I said, “it may be doubted if it is the most important”:—“What is really of the greatest value to the Post Office, is the facility afforded of carrying bulk.” And then I went on to state that, “without railway facilities, it was not too much to say, that the excellent plans of Mr. Rowland Hill for the reduction of the rates of postage, could not have been carried out to their full extent,” and to give a variety of reasons in support of that position. I had hoped that throughout the section of the Paper in which this subject was considered, I had guarded myself very carefully against the slightest appearance of impugning the merit of Mr. Hill’s plan, or its influence for good upon the British people, as no one can appreciate more thoroughly than I do the value of the penny postage system, and the boon it confers upon the public. It has been, therefore, with regret that I have seen in the “Second Report of the Postmaster-General on the Post Office,” dated the 30th January 1856, observations upon the Railway companies of England and upon my own statement, which appear to misconstrue the object of my remarks.