Unfortunately, in coming for the first time close to any department one always has to learn abuses:-- "_January 8th, 1848._[47]--It is distressing to find that forgeries and other frauds connected with money orders are frequent.... I have already had to deal with six or eight cases of this kind." The subjoined is a striking instance of the economy that may be produced in large operations by even a small change. I found that although the old money-order forms were supplied at a very low rate (about ten for a penny), yet, by reducing the size, I could save about £700 per annum; and this notwithstanding an improvement in the form, which the Comptroller of the Stationery Office alleged would involve an _additional_ expense of nearly £1500 a-year. To remove this objection, however, I had to resort to a mechanical device derived from former experience in constructing my printing machine.[48] This saving was soon afterwards followed by a larger one, consequent on reduction in the size of the "letter of advice" and the abolition of what were called duplicate advices. Both these economical measures had the collateral advantage of diminishing labour in the chief office, while the total annual saving in stationery alone, even on the consumption at that time, was thus raised to about £2500.[49] Not less important was it to obtain prompt and complete accounts. One desideratum was a complete registration of papers, the necessity for which happened to be exemplified in the midst of my arrangements on the subject by the discovery, in the desk of the late chief clerk at a town in Yorkshire, of more than forty unanswered letters from the chief office, some of them already six months old. Money-order accounts in the London office, too, I found in great disorder; arrears so long as, in the opinion of the head of the department, would require for bringing them up a force of thirty-five men for four years; in other words, an outlay of at least £10,000, with a doubt whether even then the outstanding money orders could be correctly ascertained. To avoid so great an outlay, I suggested an Act of Parliament protecting the department, after due notice, from _legal_ claims on orders issued before 1847. This course was in the end adopted, though the practice was still to discharge any claim which appeared to be just; nor do I remember that the restriction ever led to complaint. At the same time there was prospect of great economy:-- "_February 16th, 1848._--Jackson now thinks that other improvements now in progress will enable the Money Order Office to undertake all the additional work likely to arise in the next two or three years, including the extension of the system throughout England and Wales, without any increased force. If so, the effective saving will be enormous." It may be added that this expectation was confirmed by the event.