It has often been alleged that dishonesty in Post Office servants arises from insufficiency in their salaries. A better explanation would be found in the fact that under a system of patronage[94] men are too often admitted into the service without sufficient inquiry as to character, and are retained there after their conduct has furnished such ground for suspicion as would lead to their being discarded from any well-conducted private establishment. And here it should be pointed out that the evils inherent in the system are often greatly aggravated by injudicious interference from the public, who regard such dismissals as a punishment which ought not to be inflicted without formal proof of some positive offence. "_February 11th, 1850._--Some months ago I caused ----, an Inland Office clerk, employed at the Charing Cross office in money-order business as extra clerk, to be removed therefrom under circumstances which raised a strong suspicion against his honesty. As there was no absolute proof of fraud, the proceeding was viewed as a harsh one, and the man was still continued as an Inland Office clerk, and very imprudently employed in the registration duties. He has now been detected in stealing five or six remittances from the deputy post-masters, amounting in all to about £200." _A Worthy Promotion._ I had the misfortune in this period to lose one of my best officers; but happily my loss was his gain. "_December 31st, 1850._--To-morrow Godby succeeds to the vacant appointment of chief clerk in Colonel Maberly's office. I shall be sorry to lose him from the Money Order Department, but it would have been the height of injustice to oppose his promotion." _My Son's Appointment._ This year (1850) my only son was nominated by the Postmaster-General to a junior clerkship in the Secretary's Department. _"Household Words" and "Quarterly Review."_ There appeared in the course of the next year (1851), two interesting articles on postal proceedings. The first a lively description from the pen of Mr. Charles Dickens, published in the first number of "Household Words;" the second a much longer and more elaborate treatise, though scarcely less amusing, from the pen of Sir Francis Head, published in the "Quarterly Review;" an ample amends for the attack in the same publication ten years before. With both gentlemen I had pleasing intercourse on the occasion, particularly so with the latter, who, requiring more extensive information, and taking great pains to get a correct notion of the leading principles of the whole system, necessarily passed more time in my company. His conversation I found as amusing as his writings.