House of mons： February 18； 1903。
Dear Mr。 Haggard； — I should have answered some days — or weeks — ago； but I have been in munication with the P。M。G。； Henniker Heaton； and others on the subject you have done so much to bring to the front。 So far from opposing the principle of your suggestion I am heartily in favour of it； and I am doing what I can to see it carried into practice。 My criticisms are criticisms of detail。 I do not think the scheme can be limited to agriculture or even to rural districts。 It must apply all round。 Nor is it practicable to pete for long distances with the Railway panies。 The coaches of the P。O。 run to distances of 50 miles round London； and at present it costs the P。O。 less to send parcels by that way than by rail。 But the arrangement with the Railway panies as to parcels expires very shortly now； and it remains to be seen whether they cannot be made to carry them very much cheaper in the future。 The weak point of the P。O。 service as regards the country districts is that it distributes the parcels sent from the towns to almost every house free； but does not do so much for collection as it does for distribution。 The result is that the flow of traffic is all in one direction。 A farm…house or cottage a mile or a mile and a half from a P。O。 can readily receive parcels from London； but to despatch one to London involves a walk of a mile or a mile and a half。
So again the limit of 11 lbs。 is satisfactory to a town producer or a tradesman； but it is not at all what the small farmer wants。
Knowing how keen your interest in these questions is and what good you have done already； I hope we shall be able to work side by side on this and many other points。
Yours sincerely；
R。 W。 Hanbury。
Of my answer there is a copy extant； from which I quote：
Ditching House； Norfolk：
February 19； 1903。
Dear Mr。 Hanbury； — It is with great pleasure that I have read your kind letter and learn from it that this Post is really to receive your support。 Under these circumstances （although of course there will be endless difficulties and obstacles to overe） I see no reason why it should not pass into the realm of acplished fact。 If so I am sure that ing generations will bless your name as the Minister who brought about a great and beneficent reform in our economic conditions and gave back some of its prosperity to the land。 For it would — directly or indirectly — do these things。
I agree the Post could not be limited： all trades and persons must share its benefits。 I think “Goods Post” would be the best name。
I believe the Railway panies would e in on reasonable terms for long distances。 The General Manager G。E。R。 told me straight out （after I had shown him what the thing really meant） that they would be glad to do so。
I agree that a collecting system is absolutely essential。 Motors make this easy。 It （the Goods Post） might be bined with some “contre remboursement” or pay…on delivery plan。 But most of the stuff should go doubtless to co…operative agencies who would sell it on the markets； crediting each producer with his share。
Believe me； sincerely yours；
H。 Rider Haggard。
P。S。 — I am convinced the reason that the idea of an Agricultural Post is not received with enthusiasm in every agricultural quarter （the town papers seem all to be much in favour of it） is that the farmers and their scribes believe that if it were conceded the concession would be used as an argument against their getting Protection on food…stuffs！
That is why so many of them oppose or belittle every useful reform： “it might stop their getting Protection。” Therefore they never will unite to demand palliatives； but prefer to hanker after the unattainable！
Subsequently I had a most satisfactory interview with this Minister in his private room at the House of mons； from which I emerged full of hope that the matter was really in a way of being put through。
A little later Mr。 Hanbury died suddenly； and nothing more has been heard of the Goods Post from that day to this。28 To my mind he was a great loss to the country； as in him departed a man open to new ideas； one； too； animated by a sincere desire to advance the cause of agriculture。
27 A Cash on Delivery postal service has at last been instituted。 — Ed。
Nearly two years later I received the following letter from the late Lord Onslow； who in his turn had bee Minister of Agriculture。
Clandon Park； Guildford：
November 13 ＇1904＇。
Dear Sir； — I have read with much interest not only your book on Rural England； but your speeches and letters to the Press on rural subjects； and I thoroughly appreciate how much you have done to educate public opinion on rural matters。
I know； too； that in your opinion the Government have shown themselves supine in dealing with these questions。
Difficulties there are which perhaps are not within your knowledge； but there are two primary ones which take the heart out of any official reformer。 One is the absolute impossibility of getting more than one or two important measures through the House of mons in any Session； and then only by the use of the Closure； while measures to which only one single member is opposed cannot be brought on。
The other is the state of the national Exchequer and the falling off in the power of the Government to borrow at the low rates of former times。
I am in accord with you in much that you hold； but it is only possible for the Board of Agriculture to act where neither legislation nor expenditure is necessary。
I expect to be in London most of next week and the week after； and if you should chance to be ing to town； I should much like to discuss some of these subjects with you。
I am； yours faithfully；
Onslow。
Here is my answer to this letter：
Ditchingham House； Norfolk：
November 15； 1904。
Dear Lord Onslow； — I thank you very much for your letter。 。 。 。 Believe me； my Lord； I quite appreciate the difficulties you mention。 At the same time I am so enormously impressed with the vital importance of the questions involved that I think every effort should be made to educate public opinion until it consents to sweep away those difficulties and give a fair trial to reasonable reforms。 It is my sense of the supreme necessity of these reforms that has induced a humble person like myself to write big books； take long journeys； make speeches； indite letters to newspapers； etc。 — all gratis work； of course — in the intervals of getting my livelihood by other means。 But as you wish to see me I will not trouble you with a long letter on all these matters。
Believe me；
Very truly yours；
H。 Rider Haggard。
To the Rt。 Hon。 the Earl of Onslow。
In due course I had a long talk with Lord Onslow at his private house； during which he kindly but firmly pressed out of me all the information I had to give as regards small holdings and other matters。 In the end he asked me what I thought had best be done。 I replied that it would be well to begin by making a thorough inquiry into all the circumstances of the whole business。 He agreed； and we parted； nor did I ever meet him again except once at a public dinner。
Subsequently he appointed a mittee to investigate small holdings； on which he did not offer me a seat。 Nor； to the best of my recollection； was I even asked to give evidence。
Thus did I keep “pegging away” on Nelson’s principle that it is “dogged as does it。” Having no official position； of course I could only work from the outside； but I am sure that I missed no opportunity within my reach。 Thus； to take an example almost at hazard； I find the copy of a letter written in some acerbity of spirit to Captain Kennedy； who was the Conservative agent for the Eastern Counties； in reply to an informal invitation to me to contest the Wisbech Division。
These exertions I continued down to the time of the fall of the Conservative Government； which I implored to do something in the direction of extending small holdings； if only for the sake of their own political skin。 Needless to say； they took no notice。 The only answers that ever reached me were to the effect that they were not going to “window…dress。” Of course the reasons for this attitude are to be found in Lord Onslow’s letter oreover； I did not confine my endeavours to prominent members of the Conservative party； of whom I had begun to despair。 This is shown by a letter which I addressed to Mr。 Asquith； the present Prime Minister； who at that time； of course； was in Opposition； a propos of some speech he had made。 Almost was I； never much of a party politician； driven to the Pauline attitude of being all things to all men if by any means I might e slight acquaintance。 I remember Lord James of Hereford； whom I knew fairly well； introducing him to me one day when I was lunching at the Athenaeum； on which occasion they both expounded to me the reasons of their strong dislike of Protection。 Here is the letter：
Ditchingham House； Norfolk：
March 19； 1903。
My dear Sir； — I have read your speech reported yesterday； and in consequence I am venturing to ask your acceptance of the copy of my recently published work “Rural England” which I send herewith。 I hope that you may find time to glance at the book； and especially at the chapter headed “Conclusions。” Most thoroughly do I agree with what y