of Hastings ought to see the inconvenience of any such change in the present arrangements. I am, sir, very truly yours. J.G.”
“St. Leonards-on-Sea, Nov. 21st, 1860.
“Discontented” was the next correspondent of the News on the Postal Question, and his letter was intended as a counterblast to the previous one by J. G.; but so inapplicable were his assumed “facts” to the case in dispute that anyone with the least acquaintance with the general rules of the Post Office must have seen at once the weakness of that writer’s advocacy of change. His letter to the News was, however, quickly met by
Another from J. G. to the same journal as follows:-
“Sir, - Lest your discontented correspondent should imagine, with that modesty which, it would appear, is one of his characteristics, that he has virtually settled the postal question by his startling array of facts, I beg once more a little space in your columns. He evidently looks upon his letter as a crushing reply to the few remarks I ventured to trouble you with last week. I do not think, however, on examination that his somewhat laboured effusion will effect the mischief he anticipates. I would observe at the outset that ‘Discontented’ has been wholly oblivious of the arguments adduced in my former letter as to the desirableness of retaining the two existing offices. The fact that with respect to the great bulk of the correspondence, viz. that received by the morning mail no delay whatsoever takes place in the delivery; the satisfaction with the existing arrangements repeatedly expressed by those whose interests are involved; the peace of the borough and the mutual goodwill which ought to exist between the two towns; the inconvenient situation of the wished-for central office, and the evils consequent therefrom, are passed over entirely. And now I will examine his ‘facts’. The first in order is that about twelve months since six letters were posted in different places addressed to well-known persons in the two towns, those names in the St. Leonards delivery being addressed Hastings, and those in the Hastings delivery being directed to St. Leonards, &c. Is there not something very suspicious in the fact that the whole of those names in the St. Leonards delivery were addressed Hastings, those in the Hastings delivery being directed St. Leonards? It would hardly seem possible that six letters could at the same time be posted in different places, thus wrongly addressed to well-known persons by accident. And I am strengthened in this view of Discontented’s first fact by knowing that within the last few weeks over a hundred circulars passed by the same post through the St. Leonards office thus addressed. Of course, I am to believe that this was by accident, and not to assist in swelling the numbers in the recent return of mis-directed letters! Your correspondent travels a long way back for his second ‘fact’. The tradesman he alludes to, he says has been in business about ten years; the letter in question followed him from a neighbouring -
