For the purpose of refuting my statement, that little or nothing had yet been done in the way of increased facilities to the public, an attempt was made to extort from me an admission that there had been a great number of additional deliveries within the previous twelve months in different parts of the kingdom. The mode taken was to inquire if I were aware of large augmentations in particular towns selected by the querist (Mr. Estcott), who said that he spoke from his own knowledge, and to lead the Committee to infer, from my inability to reply off-hand to such questions, that I must be ignorant on the general subject; the whole was made up of parts, and if I could not speak to these, how could I be informed as to that?[17] In the interval, however, between my two interrogations on this subject, I produced evidence flatly contradicting, so far as related to two out of the three towns named, the allegations so distinctly implied in the questions of the hon. member.[18] Such are a few of the matters selected for my pamphlet, out of the many dealt with in my evidence relative to past proceedings. The next point of consideration was the probability of the completion of my plan. I again quote from my pamphlet, premising that in the previous passage I had referred to the importance which I had always attached to the plan as a whole, and to the Duke of Wellington's emphatic recognition of such importance:-- "As regards probabilities, it is a curious fact that, from the institution of the Post Office to the present time, no important improvement has had its origin in that establishment.[19] The town-posts originated with a Mr. Dockwra,[20] shortly before the Restoration; the cross-posts with Mr. Allen, about the middle of last century; and the substitution of mail-coaches for horse and foot posts was, as is well known, the work of Mr. Palmer some thirty years later. It is remarkable that the cases of Dockwra and Palmer bear a considerable resemblance to my own. The opposition to the introduction, and, what is more extraordinary, to the working-out and even the continuance of Palmer's plan, is too well known to be dwelt on here; but both these remarkable men saw their plans adopted, were themselves engaged to work them out, and subsequently, on the complaint of the Post Office, were turned adrift by the Treasury."[21] I may remark here that though the three reformers--Dockwra, Palmer, and I--were all alike in the fact of dismissal, a subsequent distinction must be observed. Mr. Dockwra, I fear, never received any recompense for his valuable improvement; Mr. Palmer was allowed a pension of £3,000 per annum, an amount much below that promised him in the case of success--obtaining, however, after many years delay, a parliamentary grant of £50,000; I alone was so far favoured as to be recalled to aid in the completion of my plan.