as to make the post-office support itself,
without a change of system.

In Great Britain, the government, after full investigation, became
satisfied that it was impossible to suppress the private mails except by
under-bidding them, which they also ascertained that the government, by
its facilities, could afford to do. They also became satisfied that no
plan of partial reduction of postage could restore the energy of the
system, but the only hope of ultimate success was in the immediate
adoption of the lowest rate. And although the public debt presses so
heavily as to put every administration to its utmost resources for
revenue, they resolved to risk the whole net revenue then realized, equal
to above a million and a half sterling, as the best thing that could be
done. In the United States, the government, without extensive examination,
resolved to do what the British government dared not attempt, that is, to
put down the private mails by penal enactments. It also resolved to adopt
a partial reduction of the rates of postage; and without regarding the
mathematical demonstration of its futility, persevered in regarding
distance as the basis of the rates of charge.

A few extracts from the Debates in Parliament, will show several of these
points in a striking light:

The Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Francis Baring, on first
introducing the bill, July 5, 1839, declared his conviction that
the loss of revenue at the outset would be "very considerable
indeed." He said the committee had considered that "two pence
postage could be introduced without any loss to the revenue," but
he differed from them, and found "the whole of the authorities
conclusively bearing in favor of a penny postage." And he
"conscientiously believed that the public ran less risk of loss in
adopting it." Referring to the petitions of the people, he said,
"The mass of them present the most extraordinary combination I
ever saw, of representations to one purpose, from all classes,
unswayed by any political motive whatever, from persons of all
shades of opinion, political and religious, and from the
commercial and trading communities in all parts of the kingdom."

Mr. GOULBURN, then one of the leaders of the opposition, opposed
so great a sacrifice of revenue, in the existing state of the
country, but admitted that it would "ultimately increase the
wealth and prosperity of the