“We think that there is a plain and obvious distinction between the service rendered by the Post Office in the conveyance of letters and printed matter, and that rendered by railway companies in conveyance of parcels. The Postmaster-General not only enjoys by law an exclusive monopoly of the conveyance of all letters, but he is also entirely protected from all responsibility for any default in the service which the Post Office undertakes to render to the public, and correspondents are left to rely, in the last resort, on the protection of the severe penal laws against the servants of the Post Office. “We do not think it would be possible to apply this principle to the conveyance of parcels throughout the country. “There is this further consideration, that the weight of letters received and delivered in each separate packet is exceedingly small, both in weight and bulk, as compared with the bulk and weight of railway parcels, which extend up to 112 lbs., and require, therefore a different organisation for receipt, delivery, and forwarding. “So long as a railway company is paid a reasonable rate for the transmission of mails, they have no reason to complain of the extension of Post Office service. “The expense lies in the collection and delivery, and it is quite competent to railway companies to organise a system of collection and delivery, and to compete with the Post Office by carrying parcels on the same terms. “It is, moreover, to be remarked, that railway companies are not bound to carry parcels, nor is there any tariff for parcels, fixing charges for collection and delivery, in Acts of Parliament. The public is, therefore, at their mercy. We consider that a separate tariff should be laid down and published to govern the conveyance as distinguished from the collection and delivery of parcels, so as to enable the rates of charge to be kept down by the free action of individuals acting as carriers by railway.