I afterwards laid before the Committee a general statement of measures of improvement not yet effected, but which I had recommended while at the Treasury, several of them essential parts of my original plan.[7] In addition to these, I mentioned various other measures, suggested by experience, which I had been quite unable to bring forward for want of opportunity. I may so far anticipate as to say that nearly all the measures then spoken of under both headings were, after my return to office, carried successively into effect, and that their combined operation is the main cause of the present large amount of public convenience and fiscal benefit derived from the Post Office. After such an enumeration of measures, it was almost superfluous to repeat that "the adoption of my plan was extremely incomplete, its financial operations most injuriously interfered with, and its public benefits lamentably cramped." I next proceeded to examine the parliamentary return already referred to, more than once, as the "Fallacious Return," by which it was made to appear that the Post Office, instead of affording, as shown by the ordinary accounts, a net revenue of £600,000, caused a positive loss. It may well seem incredible that returns emanating from the same department should exhibit results so widely different, and the reader may naturally be curious as to the means by which the difference was produced. It was mainly this: At the time when penny postage was established, the packet service was, with little exception, charged to the Admiralty; whereas in this return the whole amount (£612,850) was charged against the Post Office.[8] The department on which the expense ought to fall, or the equitable division of the charge between the two, might be matter of question; but it is obvious that to make such a change without notification, and thereby exhibit, by a mere shuffling of items, results so impaired, was to lead the public into a very false inference as to the revenue arising from the Post Office under the new system as compared with the old. Indeed, the delusion so produced not only misled large numbers at the time, but, as already said, haunts some minds even to the present day. This, however, was not all; since the return also made a pretended division of the postage revenue under two heads, one consisting of the inland revenue, the other including the foreign and colonial revenue--a distinction which I showed to be made, not by actual examination of facts and just inference therefrom, but by mere estimate. I also showed that in this return the amount of foreign and colonial postage was greatly swollen at the expense of the inland revenue, the purpose obviously being to disparage the results of penny postage; and further that, despite the statements of Sir Robert Peel and Mr. Goulburn, the net revenue of the department was really £600,000 per annum,[9] a statement soon confirmed by the following admission of Colonel Maberly:--