throughout the entire journey. It is not the space of one second class passenger, but that of eight or ten, that would be required. Yet it is persistently contended that the proper remuneration for this service, conveyance, business, or whatever may be its appropriate name, is to be the single fare of a second class passenger—and no doubt, if the mail guard could travel within the limits of a return ticket, his employers would consider that that is the amount he should pay for the double journey—not a farthing beyond it. But if the services of the mail guard are to be dispensed with, and the duties just described are to be performed by a Company’s guard, the Post Office considers that the ordinary parcels rate from end to end is what should be paid—nothing for intermediate changes and shiftings, for the coming in of new mail bags and the going out of old ones. Yet the Post Office itself considers that all these parcels are entitled to special attention and consideration, for before a railway servant is entrusted with the charge of them he takes an oath or makes a declaration—the same, we believe, as is taken by Post Office mail guards; and in order that they may be considered Post Office servants _pro hac vice_, they receive, if we recollect rightly, a gratuity of a few shillings per annum. If this be not so, it does not, in reality, affect the man’s responsibility: it is the oath or declaration that binds, not the gratuity. It is impossible for any reasonable, unblassed, or practical man of business to assert that the railway companies would not be entitled to a somewhat higher rate of remuneration than second class fare, if bags are in charge of a mail guard, or that the rate for _one_ from end-to-end parcel, is the proper figure for mail bags placed in charge of a Company’s servant, to be worked by him as if he were a mail guard. One more point on the subject of postal conveyance by railway. It shall be the last.