Chapter XLII: Appendix: K

[See p. 291.]

_Minute relative to Panama Route to Australia._

_The Postmaster-General._

1. In my minute of the 15th instant, on the subject of the Treasury Minute of the 11th (referred to your Lordship for report), I recommended that the consideration of that part of the Treasury Minute which relates to an additional postal service to Australia, by way of Panama, should be postponed, in order to admit of the immediate call for tenders for the continuance of the service by way of Suez.

2. Your Lordship and the Treasury having been pleased to adopt this recommendation, and the advertisements for tenders for the latter service having been issued, I now beg to submit my views on the proposed additional monthly service by way of Panama.

3. The question is divisible under two heads--

1st. Whether it is necessary that the postal communication with
Australia should be more frequent than at present, viz., once a
month? and

2nd. If so, is the Panama route the best for the additional mails?

4. As regards the first of these questions, I need not remind your Lordship that the sea postage of all the correspondence with the Australian colonies, including New Zealand, falls very far short of the cost of even a single line of packets. Such cost under the late contract having been £185,000 a year, while the total sea postage cannot be estimated at more than about £50,000 a year.

5. Having regard to the enormous additional loss which would result from the establishment of a second line of packets, and bearing in mind that the dissatisfaction so strongly felt, both here and in Australia, is not as to the infrequency of communication so much as to its irregularity, I am of opinion that the wishes of the public, whether at home or in the colonies, would be more effectually met by doing all that is practicable to improve the existing monthly service than by doubling the frequency of communication.

6. As regards the second question, viz., as to the best route for the additional line of packets (should Government decide to establish one), the points for consideration appear to be mainly as to the ports to which the distances shall be reckoned, and the comparative length of route.

7. The advocates of the Panama route generally select Sydney as the right port; but this is manifestly unfair, inasmuch as, while by the Panama route it is the nearest of the continental Australian ports, by the Suez route it is the most distant. Neither can this port claim preference by amount of correspondence, since the enclosed statement of the correspondence between this country and the several Australian colonies, including New Zealand, shows that that of New South Wales is only 23 per cent. of the whole, while that of Victoria is as much as 58 per cent. The latter colony is also centrally situated, having Tasmania on the south, South Australia and Western Australia on the west, and New South Wales and New Zealand on the east. It is clear, therefore, that Melbourne is the port to which the distances should be reckoned.

8. It will, of course, be for the Admiralty to state exactly the comparative lengths of the two routes; but, from the best information I have been able to obtain, it appears that the distance to Melbourne is less by way of Gibraltar and Suez than by way of Panama, to the extent of about 1,500 nautical miles, making a difference, according to the average speed of the packets, of at least six days in favour of the Suez route.

9. Though the contrary has often been assumed, even Sydney is nearer by the Suez route than by the Panama route, and that to the extent of about 300 nautical miles; so that the only colony which would be brought nearer by the adoption of the Panama route is New Zealand, whose correspondence, however, amounts to only six per cent. of the whole.

10. The comparative absence of storms in the Pacific may, to some extent, counterbalance greater distance, but not, I presume, so far as to leave any doubt that the communication viâ Suez will remain the quickest--to Melbourne at least. This, however, is a point on which, no doubt, the Admiralty will report.

11. But, by the foregoing statement, the superiority of the Suez route is by no means fully shown, since, as respects the mails sent through France, the time is further shortened by four days and a-half:[272] while the Panama route admits of no such acceleration.

The real advantage, therefore, of the Suez route, when speed is important, cannot be estimated, as regards Melbourne, at less than ten days. And as the saving, _viâ_ France, of course extends to all the Australian colonies, it may be doubted whether even New Zealand would be materially benefited by adopting the Panama route.

12. Again, by a slight sacrifice of time (not more, probably, than one or two days) the Suez route might be made to take in either Point de Galle or the Mauritius; thus in either case affording important postal facilities, not only to the colony so included, but also to this country and to the Australian colonies in their correspondence therewith. The Panama route affords no similar facilities.

13. But the Suez route has also an important pecuniary advantage over that by Panama. Our mails are conveyed across the Isthmus of Suez by the Egyptian Government, for a fixed annual payment, which amounts to not more than fourpence per pound weight; whereas the charge by the railway company for crossing the Isthmus of Panama is elevenpence per pound, in addition to which we have to pay the local government the exorbitant rate of one shilling an ounce for letters for the mere privilege of passing through their territory. These charges would add, say twopence, to the postage of each newspaper, and sixpence to the postage of each half-ounce letter. Or, should the quarter-ounce scale be applied, then threepence for each quarter-ounce letter, making a total charge of ninepence; so that there could be no cheap mail by this route, the letters viâ Panama being all charged as highly as those sent through France.

14. There is still another circumstance which should not be overlooked in a comparison between the two routes--at both ends of the Suez route the electric telegraph is being rapidly extended. It already reaches from England to Malta; and, even if not yet completed, is in rapid progress from Sydney _viâ_ Melbourne to Adelaide. Already, therefore, as regards the transmission of news, the distance to and from Sydney by this route is reduced by one-fourth; and, supposing that at any future time the telegraph should be extended on the one side to Point de Galle, and on the other to King George's Sound (neither, perhaps, an improbable event), that distance would be so greatly reduced that Sydney would be brought (by telegraph) within fifteen days of London.

15. The Panama route, as yet, possesses no similar advantage; and even if the difficulties of crossing the Atlantic be mastered, and the telegraph extended to Panama, there will yet remain the whole time occupied in crossing the Pacific--probably more than thirty days.

16. These several considerations appear to be conclusive as to the decided superiority of the route by Suez over that by Panama; and consequently, even if a monthly service be deemed insufficient, the additional packets should be placed on the Suez route.

17. Should similar views be adopted in the Australian colonies--as I expect they will when the facts of the case are understood--the several governments, excepting that of New Zealand, and perhaps that of New South Wales, will probably decline to provide their share of the cost of any service which may be attempted by way of Panama. It is very important, therefore, that, as indicated in the Treasury Minute, the concurrence of the colonies should be ascertained before any tender is finally accepted.

18. But if, as fairness seems to require, it be made a condition of the tender that the total time from London to Melbourne, _viâ_ Panama, shall not exceed that which may be allowed _viâ_ France and Suez, then it may be doubted if any responsible parties will be found to undertake the contract.

19. In another minute, when submitting a letter from the Treasury on the subject of postal communication with British Columbia, I propose to consider the question (raised in that letter) as to the best mode of conducting the service on this side the Isthmus of Panama; but, as the effect on the Australian service would be much the same whether one of the two monthly lines now existing be employed (and that service is so direct that little would, I presume, be gained by adopting another route), or whether a new and independent service be established, I do not consider it necessary to trouble your Lordship on this point at present.

20. Should your Lordship concur in these views, I would suggest that a copy of this minute, accompanied by a letter from yourself, expressive of such concurrence, be forwarded to the Treasury.

(Signed) R. H.

27th September, 1858.

Approved.
(Signed) C.

29th September, 1858.