he apertures closed by means of perforated zinc.

Even in these days of primary and secondary education, people have still
a very elementary knowledge of matters relating to the Postal and
Telegraph Services, in which everyone is vitally concerned. Recently, an
intelligent servant who had received a Board School education was sent
with a telegram to a Telegraph Office, and told to pay for a reply.
Having paid for the reply, she expected to get one there and then, and
it was only with very great reluctance that she was induced to leave the
Telegraph Office without a reply to convey back to the person who
entrusted her with the commission.

A complainant to the Post Office expressed himself thus:--"Jan. 1st,
1904. Dear Sir,--Your Postman on 28th by the First post In the morning,
With a newspaper,) My Sister Was at the back at the time Getting Sum
cole In. He could not Stop a few Minets; but nock So hard That he brock
a New Nocker on the door and then run off, we not Seen Him Since,) I.
think he Ought to bye Nother Nocker. Ther to much that boy Game with Sum
them The paper after came With Nother postman, He was on a bike wot
Broke the Nocker and Off at once and left the Peces on the door Step,
The postman got a Cast In his eye.) I. Should Not think he wood want us
to pay for a Nother Why dont him coum as A Man and pay for one Sir. I.
Must conclued with Best regurds to you, Yours Truley, F.H.G."

Travellers from North and East to the West of England and _vice versa_
are aware that the Bristol Joint Great Western and Midland station is a
busy railway centre. At a recent Christmas season, there was much remark
on the part of the railway passengers with respect to the platforms
being blocked up with barrows containing mails and the large stack of
parcel baskets to be met with at every point. Said one traveller, "It's
all blooming Post Office on the platform and no room for travellers to
get about." Said another, "The late arrival of the train was all due to
that 'parcel post.'"

A sub-postmaster in the Bristol district was called to account for
employing on the delivery of letters a boy of fourteen years of age,
instead of a person of sixteen years of age or upwards. He nominated
another person, who, he stated, was of proper age, being over 16 years
old. A year or two afterwards a question of discipline arose about this
individual, and it then transpired that he was 68 years of age--rather
too old to commence life in His Ma