It would appear, therefore, that the question was rather one of “charge” than of superior facilities. The Post Office chooses to undersell the railways, availing itself of the facilities railways afford it for the purpose of so doing. The public always buy in the cheapest market. They send their books by post, because the post takes them cheaper than the railways took them. And I told you, in my Address, why the Post Office is able to do this. The Post Office insists on the right of travelling over the railways at a fixed cost per mile; and, as I have just observed, without paying anything additional whatever for book parcels. The railways have to pay, not only expenses, but interest on capital; and it is to be expected therefore, that they cannot compete, in respect to this traffic, with a public department which contributes to neither. But how far this use of the railways for the purpose of the Post Office, and to the detriment of the railways is equitable, or proper, is another question. The Post Office itself seems to feel that it is not quite equitable or proper, for the Postmaster-General, in the body of the Report, treats the question solely on the ground that “a benefit” is conferred on the railway companies by this abstraction of their traffic, and that, even if that is not the case, the companies are compensated by the transference to the luggage vans of the newspapers previously carried by the mails. I think it is in “Gil Blas” that the gentleman who takes the canon’s purse, is made to prove that the abstraction was a “benefit” to his soul’s health, and would keep him free from many of the pomps and vanities of this wicked world. Upon the same principle, I suppose it is intended to be argued, that the abstraction of their traffic is a benefit to the railway companies. But, with regard to the second part of the argument, I deny that the railways are “compensated” for their loss by the transference to their vans, of the newspapers which the Post Office used to carry for nothing, and which it is admitted the officers would be “only too glad to see removed from the Post Office altogether.”[156] The stamp duty, you will remember, never was a postal duty under the old system; it went into the accounts of another branch of the revenue. The Post Office consequently never benefited, but, on the contrary, was only taxed for the performance of its duty as the carrier of newspapers. Latterly, this duty became so onerous, that the Post Office felt itself almost incompetent to its due performance. To save itself the trouble and expense of receiving all the papers, at the last moment, at the Post Office, it was in the habit of sending its own vans to the offices of the great news publishers, and carrying their papers in bulk to Euston Square, where an office was assigned to the Post Office for newspaper purposes. The change effected by the removal of the stamp might have been taken advantage of as a