CHAPTER III.

PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE.

I opened the year 1838 with a series of letters to Lord Lichfield, which were inserted in all the morning papers. These letters were written in the manner described below; and it may save trouble hereafter to remark that much else which has appeared under my name, together with not a little to be found in my minutes at the Treasury and at the Post Office, was produced in the same way. To me the device and elaboration of plans was incomparably easier than their exposition or advocacy; with my brother Arthur the case was the reverse; and this led me to the frequent employment of his pen. What neither of us could have effected separately, joint action made easy.

Our mode of proceeding was as follows: I having collected and arranged my facts and formed a skeleton of the proposed paper, we sat down together, my brother dictating and I writing, often, however, pausing to bring the language into more exact expression of my thoughts, or to mention, or at times to learn, some new idea that arose as we went on. Occasionally, however, when business pressed we worked apart; but in any case the whole paper so constructed underwent our joint revision, and we sometimes found that the thoughts with which we had started had, in the very attempt to express them, undergone such modification that we rejected all that had been done, and began our task afresh.

The letters to Lord Lichfield were written mainly in reply to his lordship’s speeches in Parliament, from which some passages have already been cited. From these letters I give one or two quotations:—

“In the series of letters which I shall take the liberty of addressing to your lordship, I hope I shall carefully maintain that respect for the claims, and consideration for the feelings of others, which, I trust, have marked all that I have hitherto written. Your lordship must be well aware that whoever enters on the task of innovation must expect some amount of ridicule or abuse aimed either at his plan or himself. Your lordship must feel that a person so circumstanced ought not to allow such a necessary consequence of his attempt either to deter him from his adopted course, or to provoke his retaliation.”

The following passage from the third letter is in reply to the announcement by Government that the _principle_ of stamped covers would be tried in the London District:—

“Should the trial of stamped covers on the plan now unfortunately contemplated issue in success, the world will indeed see a paradox,—an effect without a cause. Were such an experiment merely useless it might pass without comment; but its inevitable failure may produce no small mischief. An apparent trial of a plan may easily be confounded with a real one; and though I am sure nothing could be further from the intentions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, yet, had the aim been to throw unfair discredit on the plan, it would have been difficult to devise a better mode of proceeding.”

The following passage is from the last letter:—

“There is one remaining objection, which, as it can scarcely have been made seriously, needs but little remark. Your lordship objects that, on the required increase in the amount of correspondence, ‘the whole area on which the Post Office stands would not be large enough to receive the clerks and the letters.’ Without adverting to the means which I have distinctly pointed out for obviating any such inconvenience, I am sure that your lordship will not have much hesitation in deciding whether, in this great and commercial country, the size of the Post Office is to be regulated by the amount of correspondence, or the amount of correspondence by the size of the Post Office.”

About the time that the last of these letters appeared, an important movement, which had been already some weeks in preparation, took definite shape. Mr. Moffatt, afterwards M.P. for Southampton, had proposed to me the establishment of a “Mercantile Committee,” to collect evidence in favour of the plan. His proposal being gladly accepted, he went to work with such earnestness, that I soon found in him one of my most zealous, steady, and efficient supporters. Funds he raised with comparative ease, but the formation of a committee he found more difficult than he had expected. Now, however, February 5th, 1838, he wrote to inform me that he had at length prevailed upon Mr. Bates, of the House of Baring Brothers, to accept the office of chairman; and this point being secured, other good members were easily obtained. As soon as the committee was formed, I was invited to attend, in order to give such information as might seem desirable, and to answer such questions as any of the members might wish to propose.

Mr. Ashurst, father of the [late] solicitor to the Post Office, having been requested to act as solicitor to the committee, went promptly to work; and though by choice he acted gratuitously, he laboured with as much ardour as if important personal interests were involved in the issue. No less earnestness was shown by Mr. Henry Cole,[152] who had been engaged to aid in the work. He was the author of almost innumerable devices, by which, in his indefatigable ingenuity, he contrived to draw public attention to the proposed measure. He once passed through the Post Office, and afterwards exhibited in fac-simile to the public eye (the originals being previously shown in Parliament), two letters, so arranged as to display, in the clearest light, the absurdity of the existing rule of charge. Of these, one nearly as light as a feather, and almost small enough to require a pair of forceps for its handling, quite a letter for Lilliput, but containing an enclosure, bore double postage; while the other, weighing nearly an ounce, eight inches broad, and more than a foot long, when folded a very creditable letter for Brobdingnag, but all written on one sheet, had its postage single.

Meanwhile the Parliamentary Committee, appointed on the motion of Mr. Wallace, began its sittings. Mr. Wallace, being appointed chairman, thenceforth concentrated his indefatigable efforts upon its work; and his labour during the whole session—his duties being by no means confined to the formal sittings—was most severe.

The committee sat no less than sixty-three days. They examined “the Postmaster-General, the secretaries and the solicitors of the three Post Offices of England, Ireland, and Scotland, and other officers of the Post Office department; obtained many important returns from the Post Office, most of which they directed to be prepared expressly for their use; and also examined the chairman, secretary, and solicitor of the Board of Stamps and Taxes, Mr. Rowland Hill, and eighty-three other witnesses, of various occupations, professions, and trades, from various parts of the kingdom; in the selection of which they were much assisted by an association of bankers and merchants in London, formed expressly to aid the committee in the prosecution of their inquiry.”[153] This association was the committee formed by Mr. Moffatt.

The committee wisely directed its attention chiefly to the question of inland postage, which indeed offered abundant matter for investigation.

In speaking of the evidence given before this committee, I follow not the order in which it was given, but the classification observed in the final Report; selecting, as the Report does, only those portions which bear most strongly on the questions to be resolved. My own evidence I shall in the main pass over, seeing that it was in substance almost identical with my pamphlet. My plan of “secondary distribution,”[154] however, I now thought it expedient to abandon, so far as regarded the existing range of post office operations, not from any doubt of its justice or intrinsic advantage, but with a view to simplify the great question before the committee.[155]

One question, of course, related to the varying rates of postage, which any one accustomed to present simplicity would find sufficiently perplexing. In Great Britain (for in Ireland it was somewhat different) the postage on a single letter delivered within eight miles of the office where it was posted was, as a general rule—consequent on a recent reduction—twopence, the lowest rate beyond that limit being fourpence. Beyond fifteen miles it became fivepence; after which it rose a penny at a time, but by irregular augmentation, to one shilling, the charge for three hundred miles; one penny more served for four hundred miles, and thenceforward augmentation went on at the same rate, each additional penny serving for another hundred miles. This plan of charge, with various complications arising out of it, produced remarkable anomalies.

As if this complexity were not quite enough, there was as a general rule an additional charge of a half-penny on a letter crossing the Scotch border; while letters to or from Ireland had to bear, in addition, packet rates, and rates for crossing the bridges over the Conway and the Menai; or, if they took the southern route, a rate chargeable at Milford.[156] Lastly, there was the rule already mentioned, by which a letter with the slightest enclosure incurred double postage, and with two enclosures triple; the postage, however, being regulated by weight whenever this reached an ounce, at which point the charge became quadruple; rising afterwards by a single postage for every additional quarter of an ounce.[157] Surely it is no wonder that Post Office officials, viewing prepayment in connection with such whimsical complexity, and probably thinking the connection indissoluble, should be hopeless of inducing the public to adopt the practice.

A second inquiry, which occupied much attention, referred to the number of chargeable letters then passing annually through the Office. The importance of this question, which no longer appears at first sight, was then so great that it was regarded as one of the main points at issue between the Post Office and myself.

Its importance arose thus. To estimate the increase in correspondence required for my purpose, it was obviously necessary to know the amount of loss per letter involved in the proposed reduction of postage; in other words, the difference between the proposed rate and the average of the rates actually paid, which average had therefore to be arrived at. This I placed at sixpence farthing, the Post Office authorities at a shilling. Actual knowledge, however, did not exist, and each party had resorted to calculation, dividing the gross revenue by the supposed number of letters. That number I then estimated at eighty-eight millions,[158] the Post Office authoritatively declared it to be only forty-two or forty-three millions;[159] hence the difference in our results as to the actual average of postage, and consequently as to the required increase in correspondence, which I fixed at five-and-a-quarter-fold, the Post Office at twelve-fold.

Of course it would have been easy for the Post Office authorities to correct their calculation, before the appointment of the committee, by an actual counting of letters; nor have I ever learned why this corrective was not applied. I had indeed to thank the department for obligingly supplying me with a fact essential to my calculation, viz., the number of letters, general and local, delivered in London in one week; and had this fact been dealt with by the Post Office as I myself dealt with it (a process, however, pronounced incorrect by the office),[160] the same result, or nearly so, must have been arrived at by both parties; but, as already intimated, had the counting process been applied to the whole country, as was afterwards done on the requisition of the committee, the whole question would have been settled at once.

Before my examination, however, I had been enabled, by the civility of the Postmaster-General, to obtain further information, chiefly as to the number of letters delivered and postage collected in Birmingham; and this had led me so far to modify my former estimate, as to reduce it to seventy-nine and a-half, or, in round numbers, to eighty millions.[161] I may here add that yet further information, supplied on the requisition of the committee, enabling me to make yet further correction, I again reduced my estimate to seventy-eight millions.[162] By the same time, the Post Office, having abandoned the statement so confidently put forth, had raised the number to fifty-eight and a-quarter millions,[163] and this, after the counting mentioned above, it again advanced to seventy and a-quarter millions.[164] The committee, after very elaborate calculations made by Mr. Warburton, fixed it at seventy-seven and a-half millions,[165] that is, ten and a-half millions below my first rough estimate, made on very limited information, and thirty-five and a-half millions above the authoritative statement of the Postmaster-General, made with all means of correction at command. The committee’s conclusion as to the number of letters confirmed also my estimate as to the average single postage, viz., sixpence farthing.[166] It seems invidious, but I think it not superfluous, thus distinctly to report the result, since it may serve usefully to show, when other reforms are called for, in this or any other department, that official authority ought not imperiously to bear down conclusions arrived at by earnest, laborious, and careful investigation.

On the question as to the propriety of the existing rates, Colonel Maberly, the Secretary, and other witnesses from the Post Office, nearly all gave it as their opinion that these rates were too high, at once for the general interests of the public and also for those of the revenue. Indeed, Colonel Maberly believed that “every Postmaster-General had [so] thought them for many years.”[167] He did not, however, explain why this opinion, so generally entertained, had been so barren in result; and, indeed, when the Postmaster-General and the Secretary were interrogated by the committee as to any general or even specific abatements they might wish to recommend, no satisfactory reply could be obtained.

The committee received much evidence, both as to the extent to which the law was evaded by the irregular conveyance of letters, and as to the evils produced by suppression of correspondence where circumstances rendered such evasion difficult or impracticable. Thus Mr. Parker and other publishers reported that it was a common practice, in their trade, to write a number of letters for different individuals in the same district, all on one sheet; and that this, on first coming to hand, was cut up into its several parts, each being delivered either by hand or through the local posts.[168] Mr. Dillon, of the firm of Morrison, Dillon, and Co., reported a similar practice, in respect of money payments.[169] By other witnesses it was established that illicit correspondence was “carried on throughout the country, in systematic evasion of the law, if not in open violation of it, to an extent that could hardly have been imagined, and which it would be difficult to calculate;” this occurring “principally in the neighbourhood of large towns, and in populous manufacturing districts;” some carriers making it “their sole business to collect and distribute letters,” which they did “openly, without fear of the consequences; women and children” being “employed to collect the letters.”[170] Throughout one district the practice was “said to be universal, and was known to have been established there for nearly fifty years.”[171] “The average number of letters thus sent daily throughout the year by a house in the neighbourhood of Walsall exceeded fifty, and by that house more than a hundred and twenty had been sent in one day. Not one-fiftieth part of the letters from Walsall to the neighbouring towns was sent by post.”[172]

Mr. Cobden, as yet new to fame, but who had been deputed by the Chamber of Commerce at Manchester to give in evidence the results of its inquiries, reported thus—

“The extent to which evasion is there practised is incredible; five-sixths of the letters from Manchester to London do not pass through the Post Office.”[173]

Similar evidence was received from Glasgow.[174] Mr. Brewin, of Cirencester, reported that—

“The people in that town did not think of using the post for the conveyance of letters; he knew two carriers who carried four times as many letters as the mail did.”[175]

Further evidence, equally weighty and equally striking, came in from other quarters.[176] Various devices, now doubtless forgotten through disuse, were then in constant requisition; thus letters for travellers and others in the trade were habitually enclosed in the parcels sent by the great London booksellers to their customers in the provinces; similar use was made of warehousemen’s bales and parcels, and of boxes and trunks forwarded by carriers; as also of what were termed “free packets,” containing the patterns and correspondence of manufacturers, which the coach proprietors carried free of charge, except fourpence for booking. In the neighbourhood of Glasgow recourse was had to “weavers’ bags,” that is, bags containing work for the weavers, which the manufacturers forwarded to some neighbouring town, and of “family boxes”—farmers having sons at the University forwarding to them once or twice a week boxes containing provisions, and the neighbours making a Post Office of the farmer’s house.[177]

Colonel Maberly, however, did not attach much value to all this evidence, knowing “from long experience, when he was in Parliament, that merchants and interested parties are very apt to overstate their case,” and his view was supported by some of his subordinates, though strongly contradicted by others, especially by the late solicitor to the General Post Office, Mr. Peacock, who “apprehends the illegal conveyance of letters to be carried to a very great extent at the present moment, and has no doubt that persons of respectability in the higher, as well as the humbler walks of life, are in the habit of sending letters by illegal conveyance to a great extent.”[178] The same general opinion was strongly expressed by the solicitor to the Irish Post Office who represented even the drivers and guards of the mail-coaches as constantly engaged in the illegal traffic.

In relation to letters going abroad, the following is the summary of the evidence:—

“The evasion of the postage on letters sent from different parts of the United Kingdom to the out-ports, for the purpose of being put on board of ships bound to foreign parts, especially to the United States of America, is yet more remarkable than the evasion of the inland postage. It is thoroughly known to the Post Office authorities; but the practice appears to be winked at. Colonel Maberly speaks of that practice as one known, and almost recognised.”[179]

The following curious fact was stated by a witness from Liverpool, Mr. Maury, president of the “American Chamber of Commerce.” When arrangements had been completed for the establishment of regular steam navigation between that town and New York, the postmaster, expecting to have a large despatch of letters to provide for, was careful to furnish himself with a bag of ample dimensions, but, “to his astonishment, received only five letters in all,” though “by the first steamer at least ten thousand letters were in fact sent, all in one bag, which was opened at the office of the consignee of the ship. Mr. Maury himself sent at least two hundred letters by that ship, which went free.”[180]

These extraordinary statements were strongly supported by the evidence of Mr. Lawrence, Assistant Secretary to the London Office, who “states that, from what the Post Office have learnt, the American packet, which leaves London every ten days, carries 4,000 letters, each voyage, which do not pass through the Post Office; that he is aware of the existence in London of receiving-houses for letters, to be forwarded otherwise than by the Post; the Jerusalem Coffee-house, for instance, receives letters for the East Indies; the North and South American Coffee-house, for South America, the United States, and British America; that almost every ship-broker in London has a bag hanging up for letters to be forwarded by the ship to which he is broker; and that the number of letters for North America so collected for several ships in the office of one ship-broker have been enough to load a cab.”

In short, the committee came “to the conclusion that, with regard to large classes of the community, those principally to whom it is a matter of necessity to correspond on matters of business, and to whom, also, it is a matter of importance to save the expense of postage, the Post Office, instead of being viewed as it ought to be, and would be, under a wise administration of it, as an institution of ready and universal access, distributing equally to all, and with an open hand, the blessing of commerce and civilization, is regarded by them as an establishment too expensive to be made use of, and as one with the employment of which they endeavour to dispense by every means in their power.”[181]

They also became convinced that if it were possible, by increased rigour, to put a stop to the illicit transmission of letters, a vast diminution must take place in the number of letters written; and that the suppression of correspondence already caused by high rates would be greatly magnified. One witness had “made a calculation some time ago among the poor manufacturers, and found that, when one of them in full work could earn forty shillings a week, he would receive, on an average, thirty orders, which, at fourpence a piece, if they went through the Post Office, would be twenty-five per cent. on his earnings.”[182]

While, however, illicit correspondence was found thus prevalent, there was abundant and striking evidence to show that “high rates of postage deter the public to a vast extent from writing letters and sending communications which otherwise they would write or send;” that “even those who have the means of evasion within their reach reduce their correspondence greatly below the standard which, under other circumstances, they would think expedient;” that “suppression of correspondence on matters of business takes the place of evasion in proportion as the transactions to be announced or performed are moderate in amount, and the condition in life of the parties is humble.”[183]

Were it not too tedious to enumerate even the heads under which suppression was deposed to, the reader, accustomed to the present state of things, would be astonished at the extent and variety to which movements would be restricted by a return to the old rates. Some few instances are all that can be noted. Who would now divine that high rates of postage could have any relation to the prevalence of small-pox? And yet it was found that “Practitioners and others in the country do not apply for lymph, in the degree they otherwise would do, to the institutions formed in London for the spread of vaccination, for fear of postage.”

Again: “Sixpence,” says Mr. Brewin, “is a third of a poor man’s daily income; if a gentleman, whose fortune is a thousand pounds a year, or three pounds a day, had to pay one-third of his daily income, that is, a sovereign, for a letter, how often would he write letters of friendship?” ... “The people do not think of using the Post Office; it is barred against them by the very high charge.”[184] “Mr. G. Henson, a working hosier from Nottingham, had given his wife instructions not to take letters in unless they came from particular persons; it would take half his income were he to pay postage.”[185]

The following statement, showing at once the desire and the inability of the poor to correspond, is taken from the evidence of Mr. Emery, Deputy-Lieutenant for Somersetshire, and a Commissioner of Taxes:—

“A person in my parish of the name of Rosser had a letter from a grand-daughter in London, and she could not take up the letter for want of the means. She was a pauper, receiving two-and-sixpence a week.... She told the Post Office keeper that she must wait until she had received the money from the relieving officer; she could never spare enough; and at last a lady gave her a shilling to get the letter, but the letter had been returned to London by the Post Office mistress. She never had the letter since. It came from her grand-daughter, who is in service in London.”[186]

Struck by this statement, Mr. Emery made further inquiries. The following statement he received from the postmaster of Banwell:—

“My father kept the Post Office many years; he is lately dead; he used to trust poor people very often with letters; they generally could not pay the whole charge. He told me, indeed I know, he did lose many pounds by letting poor people have their letters. We sometimes return them to London in consequence of the inability of the persons to whom they are addressed raising the postage. We frequently keep them for weeks; and, where we know the parties, let them have them, taking the chance of getting our money. One poor woman once offered my sister a silver spoon, to keep until she could raise the money; my sister did not take the spoon, and the woman came with the amount in a day or two and took up the letter. It came from her husband, who was confined for debt in prison; she had six children, and was very badly off.”[187]

The following was reported by the postmaster of Congresbury:—

“The price of a letter is a great tax on poor people. I sent one, charged eightpence, to a poor labouring man about a week ago; it came from his daughter. He first refused taking it, saying it would take a loaf of bread from his other children; but, after hesitating a little time, he paid the money, and opened the letter. I seldom return letters of this kind to Bristol, because I let the poor people have them, and take the chance of being paid; sometimes I lose the postage, but generally the poor people pay me by degrees.”[188]

The postmaster of Yatton stated as follows:—

“I have had a letter waiting lately from the husband of a poor woman, who is at work in Wales; the charge was ninepence; it lay many days, in consequence of her not being able to pay the postage. I at last trusted her with it.”[189]

Mr. Cobden stated:—

“We have fifty thousand in Manchester who are Irish, or the immediate descendants of Irish; and all the large towns in the neighbourhood contain a great many Irish, or the descendants of Irish, who are almost as much precluded, as though they lived in New South Wales, from all correspondence or communication with their relatives in Ireland.”[190]

As the postage between Manchester and most parts of Ireland was then about double the present postage (1869) from any part of England or Ireland to Australia, the separation between the Irish in Lancashire and their countrymen at home must then have been, postally considered, not only as great, but about twice as great as is now that between the Irish at home and their friends at the Antipodes.

Of the desire of the poor to correspond, Mr. Emery gave further evidence, stating:—

“That the poor near Bristol have signed a petition to Parliament for the reduction of the postage. He never saw greater enthusiasm in any public thing that was ever got up in the shape of a petition; they seemed all to enter into the thing as fully, and with as much feeling as it was possible, as a boon or godsend to them, that they should be able to correspond with, their distant friends.”[191]

Much evidence was also given as to the extent of moral evil caused by the suppression of correspondence. On this point Mr. Henson speaks again:—

“When a man goes on the tramp, he must either take his family with him, perhaps one child in arms, or else the wife must be left behind; and the misery I have known them to be in, from not knowing what has become of the husband, because they could not hear from him, has been extreme. Perhaps the man, receiving only sixpence, has never had the means, upon the whole line, of paying tenpence for a letter to let his wife know where he was.”[192]

Mr. Dunlop believed that—

“One of the worst parts of the present system of heavy postage is, that it gradually estranges an absentee from his home and family, and tends to engender a neglect of the ties of blood, in fact, to encourage a selfish spirit; at the same time he has known very affecting instances of families in extreme poverty making a sacrifice to obtain a letter from the Post Office.”[193]

Mr. Brankston said:—

“I have seen much of the evils resulting from the want of communication between parents and their children among the young persons in our establishment; I find the want of communication with their parents by letter has led, in some instances, to vice and profligacy which might have been otherwise prevented.”[194]

It was also shown that one effect of suppression of correspondence was to keep working-men ignorant of the state of wages in different parts of the country, so that they did not know where labour was in demand. Thus Mr. Brewin said:—

“We often see poor men travelling the country for work, and sometimes they come back, and it appears they have been in a wrong direction; if the postage were low they would write first, and know whether they were likely to succeed.”[195]

Mr. Henson stated as follows:—

“The Shoemakers’ Society at Nottingham tell me that 350 persons have come there for relief.... Very few of those persons would have gone upon tramp if they could have sent circular letters to a number of the largest towns in England at a penny to receive information whether a job could be got or not.”[196]

It may be observed that one of the main facts now urged in favour of Trades Unions is, that they collect and circulate the very information here spoken of as so much wanting.

There was evidence to show that the difficulty of communication aggravated—

“The remarkable pertinacity of the poor to continue in their own parish, rather than remove to another where their condition would be bettered.”[197]

It was also stated that—

“The consequence of the high rates, in preventing the working-classes from having intercourse by letter, is, that those who learned at school to write a copy have lost their ability to do so.”[198]

Mr. Henson adds that—

“There are many persons, who, when he first knew them wrote an excellent hand, but now, from their scarcely ever practising, they write very badly: one of these persons is so much out of the habit of writing that he would as soon do a day’s work, he says, as write a letter: they are so much out of the habit of writing that they lose the art altogether.”[199]

Mr. Davidson, of Glasgow, thought—

“That additional opportunities of correspondence would lead the industrious classes, the working-classes, to pay more attention to the education of their children than they do now, and that it would have a highly beneficial effect, both upon their moral and intellectual character.”[200]

So strong was the sense entertained by some of the witnesses of the evils inflicted on society by imposing a tax upon postage that they expressed their doubts whether it were a fit subject for taxation at all. Mr. Samuel Jones Loyd (now Lord Overstone), said:—

“I think if there be any one subject which ought not to have been selected as a subject of taxation it is that of intercommunication by post; and I would even go a step further, and say, that if there be any one thing which the Government ought, consistently with its great duties to the public, to do gratuitously, it is the carriage of letters. We build national galleries, and furnish them with pictures; we propose to create public walks, for the air and health and exercise of the community, at the general cost of the country. I do not think that either of those, useful and valuable as they are to the community, and fit as they are for Government to sanction, are more conducive to the moral and social advancement of the community than the facility of intercourse by post. I therefore greatly regret that the post was ever taken as a field for taxation, and should be very glad to find that, consistently with the general interests of the revenue, which the Government has to watch over, they can effect any reduction in the total amount so received, or any reduction in the charges, without diminishing the total amount.”[201]

Mr. (afterwards Sir William) Brown, and also Lord Ashburton, strongly supported this opinion, the latter saying:—

“The communication of letters by persons living at a distance is the same as a communication by word of mouth between persons living in the same town. You might as well tax words spoken upon the Royal Exchange, as the communications of various persons living in Manchester, Liverpool, and London. You cannot do it without checking very essentially the disposition to communicate.”[202]

I pause here in my narrative to bar an inference that might very naturally be drawn from my citing the above passages, viz., that in my opinion even the present rates constitute a tax, and may therefore be wisely and justly abandoned in favour of lower ones, or indeed of absolutely free conveyance. Certainly, if it could be shown that some other corporation could and would manage the whole correspondence, with all its numerous and extensive rootlets and ramifications, on lower terms than the Government, and this without any sacrifice in speed or certainty, then the difference between such lower rates and the present might fairly be termed a tax; but I am not aware that such capability has yet been conceived, still less seriously maintained; and indeed I cannot but believe that, taking the duty as a whole, the Post Office, so long as it is well managed, is likely to do the work on better terms than any rival institution.

Another opinion erroneously attributed to me, and connected with the above, is, that so long as the department thrives as a whole, its funds may justly be applied to maintain special services which do not repay their own cost; whereas, from the first, I have held that every division of the service should be at least self-supporting,[203] though I allowed that, for the sake of simplicity, extensions might be made where there was no immediate expectation of absolute profit.[204] All beyond this I have always regarded as contrary to the true principles of free trade, as swerving into the unsound and dangerous practice of protection. Whenever, therefore, it is thought that the net revenue from the Post Office is too high for the interests of the public, I would advise the application of the surplus to the multiplication of facilities in those districts in which, through the extent of their correspondence, such revenue is produced.

To return to the evidence. With regard to the amount of reduction that it would be expedient to make, the witnesses generally, whether from the Post Office or otherwise, were of opinion that it must be large; illicit conveyance having become too firmly established to be effectually dealt with by any moderate change. The Secretary indeed was of opinion—

“That to whatever extent the postage is reduced, those who have hitherto evaded it will continue to evade it, since it cannot be reduced to that price that smugglers will not compete with the Post Office, at an immense profit.”[205]

It has already been shown that a very important, indeed essential, part of my plan was uniformity of rate. To this various objections were raised, some of which would now seem frivolous enough. As an instance, I may mention the statement—

“That in certain cases extra rates are levied, and are applicable to the maintenance of certain roads and bridges, undertaken with a view to expedite the mails which travel over them.”[206]

An objection the more frivolous as the total amount of the rates thus levied was less than £8,000.

Some witnesses from the Post Office regarded the uniform rate as “unfair in principle.”[207] Dr. Lardner, while he regarded it as abstractedly unjust, yet thought it should be recommended on account of its simplicity. All the other witnesses were in its favour, provided the rate were as low as one penny; and nearly all considered a uniform rate preferable to a varying one, though the rate should somewhat exceed one penny.[208]

Mr. Jones Loyd observed that the—

“Justice of the uniform plan is perfectly obvious. You are not warranted in varying the charge to different individuals, except upon the ground that the cost of conveyance varies; so far as that varies the charge ought to vary; but it appears to me that that which consists of a tax upon individuals ought to have no reference to the place of their residence; it should either be equal, or, if it varies at all, it should be in proportion to their means of bearing the tax.”

Being asked whether, if a uniform rate of twopence were imposed on all letters, and if a person at Limerick got his letters for twopence, a person at Barnet would not soon find out that he ought to have his letters for a penny, Mr. Loyd answered:—

“If such be the fact, he would soon find it out, I presume; if it was not the fact, of course he would never find it out.”[209]

Mr. Dillon made the following remarkable statement:—

“To show how little the cost of transit sometimes enters into the price of goods, I may mention to the committee, in the way of illustration, that we buy goods in Manchester; they are conveyed to London; we sell them in London very often to dealers resident in Manchester, who again carry them back to the place from whence they came, and after the cost of two transits, they will have bought them of us cheaper than they themselves could have bought them in Manchester. In this instance, the cost of transit, as an element of price, has become absolutely destroyed by the force of capital and other arrangements.”[210]

Colonel Maberly would like a uniform rate of postage, but did not think it practicable. “Any arrangements which, in the great details of Post Office matters, introduce simplicity, he looks upon as a great improvement.”[211] Most of the other Post Office authorities liked the idea of a uniform rate, as “it would very much facilitate all the operations of the Post Office.”[212]

The feasibility of payment in advance, now the almost universal practice, was the subject of much inquiry. Most of the witnesses from the Post Office recognised the advantage of the arrangement, though some of them doubted its practicability. Part of this difficulty, it must be admitted, was, in some sort, of my own creating; for, perceiving that the costly system of accounting rendered necessary by payment on delivery could never be entirely set aside unless prepayment became universal, my first notion had been to make this compulsory; and though, to smooth the difficulties, I recommended that in the outset an option should be allowed,—that, namely, which exists at present,—I certainly looked upon this as but a temporary expedient, and both desired and expected that the period of probation might be short. Doubtless it was a mistake, though a very natural one, so to clog my plan; my aim, however, was not to establish a pleasing symmetry, but to attain an important practical end.

The Postmaster-General and the Secretary were both of opinion that the public would not like prepayment. Being called on to reply to objections on this point, I showed that the question for the public to determine was between prepayment at a low rate and post-payment at a high rate; and I ventured to predict that, when so considered, the objection to prepayment would speedily die away; the more so as the difference proposed to be made between the two modes of payment, viz., that between one penny and twopence, was not adopted “as an artificial means of enforcing prepayment,” but arose “out of the greater economy to the Post Office of the one arrangement as compared with the other.” Nearly twenty other witnesses were examined on the same point, all supporting my view, some going so far as to advise that compulsory prepayment should be established at once; and, indeed, the ease with which prepayment became the general, nay almost universal, custom, must make it seem wonderful that its adoption should ever have been considered as presenting serious difficulties.

Supposing prepayment to be resolved on, the question remained as to the mode in which such payment could be most conveniently and safely made; and this inquiry of course brought the use of stamps into full discussion. It must be remembered that in proposing by this plan to supersede the multitudinous accounts then kept in the department, my object had been not merely to save expense, but to prevent loss through negligence or by fraud. In relation to this, the committee found important evidence in the Eighteenth Report of the Commissioners of Revenue Enquiry, as appears by the following extracts given in the report of the committee:—

“Upon the taxation of letters in the evening there is no check.

“The species of control which is exercised over the deputy postmasters is little more than nominal.”

Upon this unsatisfactory state of things it appeared by the evidence of the Accountant-General of the Post Office that very little improvement had been made since the issue of the Commissioners’ Report.

Another matter of anxiety relative to the use of stamps was the risk of their forgery; and on this point Mr. John Wood, the Chairman of the Board of Stamps and Taxes, together with other officers of the department, was examined at considerable length. Mr. Wood wished to superadd to the use of stamps that of some paper of peculiar manufacture, forgery being more difficult when it requires the combined talents of the engraver, the printer, and the paper-maker. Specimens of such a paper had been laid before the committee by Mr. Dickinson, and such a paper, with lines of thread or silk stretched through it, Mr. Wood regarded as the best preventive of forgery he had ever seen. I scarcely need say that this is the paper which was subsequently used in the stamped envelope, though its use was afterwards abandoned as unnecessary.

The Post Office opinions as to the use of stamps for the purpose of prepayment were, on the whole, favourable; though the Secretary was of opinion that, as regards time, labour, and expenditure at the General Post Office, the saving would not be so great as “Mr. Hill in his pamphlet seemed to think it would.”[213] He enumerated nine classes of letters to which he thought stamps would be inapplicable.

The task of replying to these objections was easy, on some points ludicrously so; thus solemn reference was made to the class of letters which, not having found the party addressed, had been returned through the Dead Letter Office to the sender. The additional postage so caused could not be prepaid in stamps. Of course not, but luckily no such postage had ever been charged.[214]

Another class of letters presenting a difficulty (here I am careful to quote the exact words) “would be half-ounce letters weighing an ounce or above.” I could not but admit that letters exhibiting so remarkable a peculiarity might present difficulties with which I was not prepared to deal.[215]

“The ninth class,” said the Secretary, “is packets improperly sent through the Post Office. You may send anything now if you pay the postage.”

What could be more obvious than the answer? I gave it as follows: “The fact is, you may send anything now, whether you pay the postage or not.”[216]

But the Secretary continued, “The committee is aware that there is no prohibition as to what description of packets persons should put into the Post Office; the only protection to the Post Office at present is the postage that would be charged on such packets.”[217]

My answer was easy: “The fact is, that ‘the only protection’ is no protection at all. The Post Office may charge, certainly, but it cannot oblige any one to pay; and the fact of there being a deduction in the Finance Accounts for 1837, amounting to £122,000, for refused, missent, and redirected letters, and so forth, shows that the Post Office is put to a considerable expense for which it obtains no remuneration whatever.”

Among the advantages claimed for the proposed use of stamps was the moral benefit of the arrangement; and this was strongly urged by Sir William Brown, who had seen the demoralising effect arising from intrusting young men with money to pay the postage, which, under the existing arrangement, his house was frequently obliged to do.[218] His view was supported by other witnesses.

It seems strange now that it should ever have been thought necessary to inquire gravely into the expediency of substituting a simple charge by weight for the complicated arrangement already mentioned. But the innovation was stoutly resisted, and had to be justified; evidence therefore was taken on the question. Lord Ashburton being called on for his opinion, thought that the mode in use was “a hard mode, an unjust mode, and vexatious in its execution.”[219]

On the other hand, though the Secretary admitted the frequent occurrence of mistakes, which indeed it must have been impracticable to avoid, viz., “that a great number of letters are charged as double and treble which are not so, and give rise to returns of postage,”[220] and though Sir Edward Lees thought “that charging by weight would, to a certain extent, prevent letters being stolen in their passage through the Post Office,”[221] yet most of the witnesses from the Post Office were unfavourable to taxing by weight. The Superintending President described an experiment made at the office, from which he concluded that a greater number of letters could be taxed in a given time on the plan then in use, than by charging them in proportion to the weight of each letter. The value of this test was pretty well shown by the fact that in this experiment the weighing was not by the proposed half-ounce, but by the _quarter_-ounce scale, and that nearly every letter was put into the scale unless its weight was palpable to the hand.[222]

The probable effect of the adoption of my plan on the expenditure of the Post Office department was a question likely to elicit opposite opinions. It was to be considered, for instance, whether the staff then employed in the London Inland Office, viz., four hundred and five persons,[223] would suffice for that increase of correspondence on which I counted; or whether, again, supposing the increase not to be attained, it would, through economy of arrangement, admit of serious reduction. On these questions[224] there was much difference of opinion, even within the office. Thus, while one high official stated that payment in advance, even though it occasioned no increase of letters, would not enable the Post Office to dispense with a single clerk or messenger,[225] another was of opinion that four times the number of letters might be undertaken by the present number of hands.[226]

Again, as to the sufficiency of the existing means of conveyance, the Superintendent of the Mail-coaches, after stating “that a mail-coach would carry of mail fifteen hundredweight, or one thousand six hundred and eighty pounds, represented that if the letters were increased to the extent assumed, the present mail-coaches would be unable to carry them;”[227] while Colonel Colby stated that the first circumstance which drew his attention to the cheapening of postage was that in travelling all over the kingdom, particularly towards the extremities, he had “observed that the mails and carriages which contained the letters formed a very stupendous machinery for the conveyance of a very small weight; that, in fact, if the correspondence had been doubled or trebled, or quadrupled, it could not have affected the expense of conveyance.”[228]

To determine the question the committee directed a return to be made of the weight of the mail actually carried by the several mail-coaches going out of London. The average was found to be only 463 pounds,[229] or little more than a quarter of the weight which, according to Post Office evidence, a mail-coach would carry; and as it appeared, by other evidence, that the chargeable letters must form less than one-tenth of the weight of the whole mail, it was calculated by the committee that, with every allowance for additional weight of bags, the average weight of the chargeable letters might be increased twenty-four fold before the limit of 1,680 pounds would be reached. It was further shown that the weight of all the chargeable letters contained in the thirty-two mails leaving London was but 1,456 pounds; that is, less than the weight which a single mail-coach could carry.[230]

Though the amount to be recommended as the uniform rate was of course a question for the consideration of the committee, yet, as my plan fixed it at one penny, most of the witnesses assumed this as the contemplated change, making it the basis of their estimates, and counting upon this low rate for turning into the regular channel of the post various communications then habitually made by other means—such, for instance, as small orders, letters of advice, remittances, policies of insurance, and letters enclosing patterns and samples, all of which were, for the most part, diverted into irregular channels by the excessive postage. Similar expectations were held out with respect to letters between country attorneys and their London agents, documents connected with magisterial and county jurisdiction, and with various local trusts and commissions for the management of sewers, harbours, and roads, and of schools and charities, together with notices of meetings and elections to be held by joint-stock and proprietary bodies.[231] The mere enumeration will surprise the reader of the present day, accustomed as he must be to send and receive all such communications by the post alone. Nor will it seem less strange to learn that at that time the post had little to do with the circulation of prices current, catalogues of sales, prospectuses, circulars, and other documents issued by public institutions for the promotion of religion, literature, science, public instruction, or philanthropic or charitable ends; all of which, so far as they could then be circulated at all, were obliged to find their way through channels more or less irregular.[232]

The committee, however, “also took evidence as to the increase that was to be expected in the posted correspondence of the country from the adoption of a uniform rate of twopence;” but on this basis they found that much greater diversity of opinion prevailed. Some important witnesses, however, with Lord Ashburton at their head, “were, for the sake of protecting the revenue, favourable to a plan founded on a twopenny rate.”[233]

While, however, Lord Ashburton thought the reduction to twopence, rather than to a penny, safer as regards the direct revenue of the Post Office, he was strong in his opinion that reduction of postage would act beneficially on the general revenue of the country, saying that there was “no item of revenue from the reduction of which he should anticipate more benefit than he would from the reduction of postage;” and adding that “if, under any plan of reduction, you did not find an improvement in the Post Office revenue, you would find considerable benefit in every other way.”[234]

Although it was obvious that the establishment of a low rate of postage would of itself have a strong tendency to the disuse of the franking privilege, the committee had to consider how far it might be desirable to retain that privilege at all. It was found that the yearly number of franked missives was about seven millions; that those franked by members of parliament, (somewhat less than five millions in number) might be counted nearly as double letters, the official franks (about two millions in number) as eight-fold letters, and the copies of the statutes, distributed by public authority (about seventy-seven thousand in number), thirteen-fold letters.[235]

In respect of the official franks, indeed, supposing their contents to be always in genuine relation to the public service, there was a mere formal difference between their passing through the Post Office free, and their being charged to the office of state from which they were posted; but such a supposition would have been very wide of the truth, for, as is justly remarked in the Report, “it is liable to the abuse, which no vigilance can effectually guard against, of being made the vehicle for private correspondence.” The Report continues:—

“Thus it appears from Dr. Lardner’s evidence, that while he resided in Dublin, the greater part, if not the whole, of his correspondence was allowed to pass under the franks of the then Postmaster-General for Ireland, and that the extensive correspondence in which he is now engaged, in relation to various publications, and to engineering, on which he is professionally consulted, is carried on principally by means of official franks. He states that, as these franks enable him to send any weight he pleases, he is in the habit, in order to save trouble to those from whom he obtains the franks, of enclosing under one cover a bundle of letters to the same neighbourhood.”[236]

However the objection to the existence of such opportunities might be lessened in the particular case by the uses to which it was applied, there was clearly no ground for supposing that it was only for such laudable purposes that the privilege was employed; indeed, it was notorious that men of science were far from being the class principally indulged. Neither could it be the poor and humble to whom the favour was commonly extended, but, as alleged by one of the witnesses, it was “principally the rich and independent who endeavoured to obtain franks from those who are privileged to give them.” Dr. Lardner, too, said that “a man to obtain such advantages as he obtains must be a person known to or connected with the aristocratic classes of society.”[237]

Besides considering my plan, the committee had to deal with various other suggestions, the principal of these being “a graduated scale of reduced rates, commencing with twopence, and extending up to twelvepence, tantamount, as was stated, in England, to a reduction of threepence per letter, which was laid before the committee by Colonel Maberly.” The loss to the revenue from such reduction he estimated at from seven to eight hundred thousand pounds a year.[238] None of these plans, however, except one for charging the rates according to geographical distance, were approved of by any of the witnesses unconnected with the Post Office.

As regards the importance of those additional facilities in reference alike to the convenience of the public and the restoration of the revenue, upon which I had laid such stress, but which unfortunately were so tardily adopted, much confirmatory evidence came alike from the Post Office and from other quarters.

The postmaster of Manchester stated that “letters have, in numerous instances, been sent in coach parcels, not so much with a view to save postage as to facilitate transmission, and to insure early delivery. This happens,” he stated, “very much in those neighbourhoods in which there is not direct communication through the medium of the Post Office, especially in a populous and manufacturing district between twenty and thirty miles from Manchester.”[239] In confirmation of the latter remark, Mr. Cobden stated that in the village of Sabden, twenty-eight miles from Manchester, where his print-works were, although there was a population of twelve thousand souls, there was no Post Office, nor anything that served for one.

Such are a few of the multitudinous statements made to the committee, in reply to questions, nearly twelve thousand in number, addressed to the various witnesses. The recital throws at least some light upon the difficulties by which the way to postal reform was beset, showing how necessary it was then to strengthen points which now seem quite unassailable, to prove what now seems self-evident, to induce acceptance of what no one now would hear of abandoning.

If further illustration of such necessity be needed, it may be found in the following extracts from the evidence of Post Office officials:—

The Assistant Secretary:—

“Question 986. I think there are quite as many letters written now as there would be even if the postage were reduced [to one penny].”[240]

It having been stated that the time for posting letters at the London receiving offices had been extended from 5 to 6 p.m., Mr. Holgate, President of the Inland Office, is examined as follows:—

“Question 1,586. _Chairman._ Has any notice of that been conveyed to the public?—I should be very sorry if any had.

“1,587. How long has that been [the practice]?—The last three months.

“1,588. Why should you regret that being made public?—They would reach us so much later, and throw so much upon the last half-hour in the evening.

“1,589. That is the time when the office is most pressed by business?—Yes.

“1,590. _Mr. Currie_ [a member of the committee]. In fact, the office has given the public an accommodation which the office is anxious that the public should not profit by?”[241]

* * * * *

“1,655. If Mr Hill’s plan were carried into effect, I do not think that any tradesman could be got to receive letters [_i.e._, to keep a receiving-house] under £100 year.”[242]

The Postmaster-General:—

“Question 2,821. He [Mr. Hill] anticipates only an increase of five and a quarter-fold [to make up the gross revenue]; it will require twelve-fold on our calculation.... Therefore it comes to that point, which is right and which is wrong: I maintain that our calculations are more likely to be right than his.”[243]

It may be remarked here that the gross revenue rather more than recovered itself in the year 1851, the increase of letters being then only four and three-quarters-fold.[244]

My own examination occupied a considerable portion of six several days, my task being not only to state and enforce my own views, but to reply to objections raised by such of the Post Office authorities as were against the proposed reform. This list comprised—with the exception of Mr. Peacock, the solicitor,—all the highest officials in the chief office; and however unfortunate their opposition, and however galling I felt it at the time, I must admit on retrospect that, passing over the question of means employed, their resistance to my bold innovation was very natural. Its adoption must have been dreaded by men of routine, as involving, or seeming to involve, a total derangement of proceeding—an overthrow of established order; while the immediate loss of revenue—inevitable from the manner in which alone the change could then be introduced (all gradual or limited reform having by that time been condemned by the public voice), a loss, moreover, greatly exaggerated in the minds of those who could not or did not see the means direct and indirect of its recuperation, must naturally have alarmed the appointed guardians of this branch of the national income. If, as the evidence proceeded, they began to question the wisdom of their original decision, they probably thought, at the same time, that the die was now cast, their course taken, and all that remained was to maintain their ground as best they could. The nature and extent of Post Office resistance, much as has appeared already, is most conspicuous in the following extracts—the last I shall make—from the Digest of Evidence, in which are summed up the opinions put forth by Colonel Maberly, the Secretary; opinions from which, so far as I am aware, he never receded:—

“He considers the whole scheme of Mr. Hill as utterly fallacious; he thought so from the first moment he read the pamphlet of Mr. Hill; and his opinion of the plan was formed long before the evidence was given before the committee. The plan appears to him a most preposterous one, utterly unsupported by facts, and resting entirely on assumption. Every experiment in the way of reduction which has been made by the Post Office has shown its fallacy; for every reduction whatever leads to a loss of revenue, in the first instance: if the reduction be small, the revenue recovers itself; but if the rates were to be reduced to a penny, revenue would not recover itself for forty or fifty years.”

The divisions on the two most important of the resolutions submitted to the Committee, and, indeed, the ultimate result of their deliberations, show that the efforts that had been made had all been needed.

Thus, on a motion made on July 17th by Mr. Warburton to recommend the establishment of a uniform rate of inland postage between one post town and another, the Committee was equally divided; the “ayes” being Mr. Warburton, Lord Lowther, Mr. Raikes Currie, and Mr. Chalmers; the “noes,” the three members of Government, Mr. P. Thomson, Lord Seymour, and Mr. Parker, with Mr. Thornley, M.P. for Wolverhampton; so that the motion was affirmed only by the casting vote of the Chairman.[245]

Mr. Warburton further moving:—

“That it is the opinion of this committee, that upon any large reduction being made in the rates of inland postage, it would be expedient to adopt an uniform rate of one penny per half-ounce, without regard to distance,”—

the motion was rejected by six to three; the “ayes” being Mr. Warburton, Mr. Raikes Currie, and Mr. Morgan J. O’Connell; and the “noes” the same as before, with the addition of Lord Lowther and Mr. G. W. Wood; and upon Mr. Warburton, when thus far defeated, moving to recommend a uniform postage of three-halfpence, the motion was again lost by six to four, the only change being that Mr. Chalmers, who appears to have been absent during the second division, now again voted with the ayes.[246]

The second day, however, Mr. Warburton returned to the charge, moving to recommend a uniform rate of twopence the half-ounce, increasing at the rate of one penny for each additional half-ounce; a motion met, not by a direct negative, as before, but by an amendment tantamount to one. On this question, as also on that of uniformity, the committee was equally divided. Again, therefore, the motion was affirmed only by the casting vote of the Chairman.[247] The passing of the two resolutions, however—one to recommend a uniform rate of inland postage irrespective of distance, and the other to fix the single rate at twopence—was decisive as to the committee’s course, as will appear by the sequel. We must return for a time to the rejected amendment.

This had been moved by Mr. P. Thomson, and the substance of it was to abandon the recommendation of a uniform rate and to consider instead a Report proposed by Lord Seymour, the chief points of which were to recommend the maintenance of the charge by distance and the establishment of a rate varying from one penny, for distances under fifteen miles, to one shilling for distances above two hundred miles, or of some similar scale. _This, it must be observed, would have been adopted as the recommendation of the committee but for the casting vote of the Chairman, Mr. Wallace._ To what extent so untoward a circumstance would have retarded the cause of postal reform it would be difficult now even to conjecture; but it cannot be doubted that the success, which, even with the support of the committee, was so hardly achieved, would at least have undergone long and injurious delay.

To make this clear, it must be observed that by the adoption of Lord Seymour’s draft Report (a copy of which I have before me) not only the recommendations for uniformity and decided reduction of postage would have been set aside, but also those for increased facilities, for the general use of stamps, and for charge by weight instead of by the number of enclosures.

Lord Seymour’s Report, however, though so unsatisfactory in its recommendations, and, according to my view, very erroneous in its reasonings on many points (more especially in its main argumentation, viz., that against uniformity), yet contained passages of great use to me at the time, as confirming my statements, and more or less directly supporting my views; particularly as regards the evils which high rates of postage brought upon the poor, the vast extent of illicit conveyance, the evils of the frank system, and even many of the advantages of a uniform charge. Doubtless, had the recommendations contained in this Report been voluntarily adopted by the Post Office only two years before, almost every one of them would have been received as a grace; but it was now too late, their sum total being altogether too slight to make any approach towards satisfying the expectations which had subsequently arisen.

Before quite leaving Lord Seymour’s Report, I must, in candour, admit that on one point his prediction was truer than my own, though, as my own remained unpublished, I was not committed to it. The following is the passage:—

“It appears that the great change which must result from the substitution of railways for mails [mail-coaches] will have the effect of increasing considerably the cost of conveying the correspondence of the country.”

In my copy of this draft Report (given to me, I suppose, by Mr. Wallace) I find the following remark in my own handwriting:—

“No such thing. One railway stands in place of several common roads.”

The implied inference, viz., that the cheaper operation of railways would lower the cost of conveying the mails seemed justified by the moderation of the charges for this service made up to that time by the railway companies. The event, however, has contradicted my contradiction, the railway charges for conveying the mails, unlike the rates for passengers and goods, being higher, weight for weight, than those on the old mail roads.[248]

The committee having thus decided the two great points of uniformity—rate and a twopenny charge for the single letter,—Mr. Wallace, with his usual kindness, immediately wrote to inform me of the result. He was the more careful to do this because, as he knew, it was not in full accordance with my wish, the rate recommended being higher than that which I regarded as desirable; and, what was worse, such as to make strict uniformity impracticable; since reservation would have to be made in favour of the local penny rates then in existence, which could not be raised without exciting overpowering dissatisfaction.

To return to the committee: only one further attempt was made to modify their resolution, viz., by a motion made at the next meeting by Lord Seymour, in the following words:—

“That it is the opinion of this committee that an increase of general post letters under an uniform rate of twopence, to the extent which will be required to sustain the gross revenue of the Post Office, will occasion a considerable addition to the cost of the establishment.”

After this day the members of Government ceased to attend, save only that Lord Seymour once reappeared during the consideration of the Report. Opposition being thus abandoned, proceedings went on rapidly, so that at the next meeting the whole of the remaining resolutions, more than twenty in number, were all carried; the Chairman being requested also to draw up a Report in conformity therewith.

As the proceedings of the committee approached their close, Mr. Wallace requested that I would undertake to prepare a draft Report for his consideration, previously to its being submitted to the Committee. From this I naturally shrank; but, upon further urgency, I so far consented as to select so much of the evidence as seemed most necessary for the purpose, cutting it out from the reports just as it stood, in question and answer, but classifying it under some twenty different heads. This, according to my recollection, I placed in Mr. Wallace’s hands, and upon it he wrote a Report. I must here mention, however, that though this Report became the basis of that finally issued, it was by no means the same document, having been re-arranged, in great measure re-written, and greatly added to, during the recess. Of this more hereafter.

Thus closed, for the present, the work of this memorable committee, on whose decision rested consequences, not only of the deepest interest to myself, but, as afterwards appeared, of importance to the whole civilized world. Seldom, I believe, has any committee worked harder. I must add that Mr. Wallace’s exertions were unsparing, his toil incessant, and his zeal in the cause unflagging. My own convictions in relation to the committee and its chairman were corroborated by the following strong passage in the _Times_:—

“Altogether we regard the Post Office Enquiry as one conducted with more honesty and more industry than any ever brought before a committee of the House of Commons.”[249]

Perhaps, before proceeding to other matters, I may, without invidiousness, make one more remark in reference to the proceedings of this committee. It is not unknown that since the successful establishment of penny postage, there have appeared other claimants to its authorship. As regards Mr. Wallace, enough has been said to show that he was not of the number; though of late some persons, trusting perhaps to imperfect recollections, have advanced such claims in his name. As regards other claimants, it is most remarkable that throughout this period of contest—when no less than eighty-seven witnesses deposed in favour of the measure, and when all solid information and every weighty opinion were so valuable, when even the principle of uniformity of rate was considered of such doubtful expediency that it was carried only by the casting vote of the chairman, while the penny rate was actually rejected in favour of one of twopence,—they gave no evidence, remained unheard, and were, so far as has ever appeared, entirely silent. General Colby, indeed, on whose behalf some such claim has been advanced since his death, did give evidence, but without the least reference to further discoveries by himself beyond what has been already mentioned;[250] and I may add, that though he honoured me with his friendship to the time of his death, he never even alluded to the claim in question. Indeed, all the claims of which the public has lately heard are of very recent date, having arisen long since the success of penny postage became indisputable.

The Report adopted at the last meeting of the committee was placed in the hands of Mr. Warburton for revision; a work to which he forthwith applied himself with untiring zeal, referring occasionally to me for some detail of information, or for the verification of some calculation. I had therefore frequent occasion to call on him. I should not forget to add that in the successful introduction of postal reform his able, earnest, and continuous assistance played not merely an important, but an essential part.[251] In all my visits to his house I was received in the dining-room. I well remember the appearance of things—an appearance which never varied from first to last. What first struck me was that the room never could be used according to its name; the table, indeed, stood out in full length, sufficient for a respectable number of guests, but it was wholly occupied with piles of books, and those not of the most digestible kind, consisting almost entirely of such as in passing through the Post Office are marked Par. Pro., and are known to all the world as “blue books.” The sideboard was similarly heaped, save that a little room was left for astronomical instruments, Mr. Warburton being an able mathematician. The chairs, save one, bore each its parliamentary load, and similar lumber occupied the floor; passages only, and those narrow ones, being left between the paper walls. There were, however, one or two books of a lighter kind; but even these seemed insensible of change. On an early visit I laid hands on a number of the “Edinburgh Review,” containing one of Macaulay’s brilliant articles; and as the book always remained exactly where I laid it down, I found opportunity of reading, bit by bit, the whole essay. The one chair already mentioned, and a small table near it, were alone unencumbered with books, and alone free from the dust which, in every other part of the room, seemed to have on it the repose of years.

Meanwhile, having but inferential knowledge as to the progress of the work, and thinking it very important that no time should be lost in publishing the Report, since I hoped it might be advantageously dealt with in the newspapers during the recess, I felt a certain degree of impatience at what I supposed must prove but laborious refinement. In this feeling Mr. Wallace more than fully shared. In the course of the autumn he wrote to me, in earnest protest against the delay, his expressions growing stronger as time advanced, until on December 1st he went so far as to predict that, if the Report were withheld during the vacation, penny postage would not be carried out during the next year. He even begged that his letters might be kept as vouchers of his anxiety on the subject. In the end, however, it became clear enough that no time had really been lost, the delay being more than atoned for by the excellence of the result.

Meanwhile, too, the press, not awaiting the appearance of the Report, began to urge action by reference to what was already known. The _Times_, in particular, repeatedly wrote in strong support of my plan.

As I have already mentioned the more important events occurring between the prorogation of Parliament in August and the end of the year 1838, it will be seen that, so far as postal affairs were concerned, this was to me a period of comparative rest, though even then scarcely a week, or perhaps even a day, passed without their making some call on my attention. Of course, too, my duties at the Australian Commission remained undiminished, or rather, indeed, increased with the increasing flow of emigration, and the difficulties already arising in the colony. However, I was again able to breathe, and to prepare for those new anxieties which I knew must be in the future. When would the Report appear? What effect would it produce on the country? Would there be such a movement as would sufficiently influence ministers and Parliament? To me, of course, these were questions of the deepest interest, and though, for the time, the main work was, as it were, taken off my hands, yet it was necessary to keep watch, to be ready for assistance when called for, to deal with almost innumerable communications, and to pay attention to the numerous suggestions that were made. So closed the year 1838.