Page:Item 8 1860.pdf/32

town from which he had removed. Strong presumptive testimony is thus afforded of the small amount of inconvenience caused by the existing arrangements, by our friend being necessitated to produce as a grievance such a stale example as this ten-year old ‘fact’. And now for ‘fact’ No 3 – the case of the gentleman at Eversfield place. If the letter referred to in this instance had been addressed to the particular house in which the gentleman was staying, it could not have failed to reach him; as - though your correspondent would seem to ignore the fact – there is a postman specially for that part of St. Leonards situated east of the Archway. It is evidently impossible, with arrangements ever so complete, and with officials ever so acute, to ferret out individuals staying perhaps only for a week or ten days in a place unless the address is clear and precise. So little inconvenience is felt, but rather so great are the advantages resulting from the present constitution of things that the inhabitants of Eversfield place are not the least of those who are strenuous advocates for our postal arrangements to remain as they are – and this, too, in the face of the extreme probability that in the event of their being one central office it will be either in Eversfield place itself or its immediate neighbourhood. As there does not seem to be anything more in Discontented’s letter deserving of notice I will dismiss both it and himself by expressing an opinion that if no more serious objections can be instanced than those he has advanced, far better would it be for our friend of the east to let the postal question alone. What would a change effect beyond flattering the overweening vanity of some few individuals invested with a little brief authority, but to curtail existing privileges, diminish general convenience and engender lasting discontent and illwill throughout the locality? But before closing my letter, I would ask why is it that recourse is had to such objectionable practices as that of wilfully mis directing a host of circulars for the purpose of swelling the returns asked for by the authorities in London? Again, why do the deputation appointed at a former Council meeting delay their solicited interview with the Postmaster General? We are not in the dark as to the reason of this delay. It is pretty generally understood in the west end that they are afraid of venturing into the presence of his lordship, constituted as the deputation is at present. An attempt, it is said, is to be made at the next Council meeting to get rid of Mr. Gausden, because he would represent matters as they really are. Is this fair play? What stronger testimony can we have of the conscious hollowness of the cry of the discontented minority? Your readers will appreciate -