While, however, illicit correspondence was found thus prevalent, there was abundant and striking evidence to show that “high rates of postage deter the public to a vast extent from writing letters and sending communications which otherwise they would write or send;” that “even those who have the means of evasion within their reach reduce their correspondence greatly below the standard which, under other circumstances, they would think expedient;” that “suppression of correspondence on matters of business takes the place of evasion in proportion as the transactions to be announced or performed are moderate in amount, and the condition in life of the parties is humble.”[183] Were it not too tedious to enumerate even the heads under which suppression was deposed to, the reader, accustomed to the present state of things, would be astonished at the extent and variety to which movements would be restricted by a return to the old rates. Some few instances are all that can be noted. Who would now divine that high rates of postage could have any relation to the prevalence of small-pox? And yet it was found that “Practitioners and others in the country do not apply for lymph, in the degree they otherwise would do, to the institutions formed in London for the spread of vaccination, for fear of postage.” Again: “Sixpence,” says Mr. Brewin, “is a third of a poor man’s daily income; if a gentleman, whose fortune is a thousand pounds a year, or three pounds a day, had to pay one-third of his daily income, that is, a sovereign, for a letter, how often would he write letters of friendship?” ... “The people do not think of using the Post Office; it is barred against them by the very high charge.”[184] “Mr. G. Henson, a working hosier from Nottingham, had given his wife instructions not to take letters in unless they came from particular persons; it would take half his income were he to pay postage.”[185] The following statement, showing at once the desire and the inability of the poor to correspond, is taken from the evidence of Mr. Emery, Deputy-Lieutenant for Somersetshire, and a Commissioner of Taxes:— “A person in my parish of the name of Rosser had a letter from a grand-daughter in London, and she could not take up the letter for want of the means. She was a pauper, receiving two-and-sixpence a week.... She told the Post Office keeper that she must wait until she had received the money from the relieving officer; she could never spare enough; and at last a lady gave her a shilling to get the letter, but the letter had been returned to London by the Post Office mistress. She never had the letter since. It came from her grand-daughter, who is in service in London.”[186] Struck by this statement, Mr. Emery made further inquiries. The following statement he received from the postmaster of Banwell:—