First, that the number of letters passing through the post would be greatly increased by the disuse of franks and abandonment of illicit conveyance; by the breaking up of one long letter into several shorter ones, by the use of the post for the distribution of circulars and the issue of many circulars hitherto withheld; and, lastly, by an enormous enlargement of the class of letter-writers. Further, that supposing the public, according to its practice in other cases, only to expend as much in postage as before, the loss to the net revenue would be but small; and again, that such loss, even if large, would be more than compensated by the powerful stimulus given by low postage to the productive power of the country, and the consequent increase of revenue in other departments. Finally, that while the risk to Post Office revenue was comparatively small and the chance of eventual gain not inconsiderable, and while the beneficial effect on the general revenue was little less than certain, the adoption of my plan would certainly confer a most important, manifest, and acceptable benefit on the country.[122] It is now high time to speak of one whose valuable services in the cause of Post Office reform are, I fear, but insufficiently remembered at the present day, but who, nevertheless, was in the field more than two years before I began my investigations, and who, while unconsciously preparing the way for my proceedings, procured, by persevering efforts, some immediate changes of considerable value. This was the late Mr. Wallace, who, having been elected to the first reformed Parliament for the new borough of Greenock, began, in 1833, a course of bold criticism on the proceedings of the Post Office, which, though received at first, perhaps because of some over-earnestness, with unmerited ridicule, gradually succeeded in obtaining attention in Parliament, and even in some degree from the public.