CHAPTER IV.

PENNY POSTAGE BILL.

The first circumstance that I have to record in 1839 was the receipt of a letter from Sir William Brown,[252] written from Washington, and informing me of an interview which he had had with the Postmaster-General of the United States on the subject of my pamphlet. The Postmaster-General told him that it had afforded him a great deal of information, and further that it was the intention of the United States Government to remodel the Post Office laws in the next session of Congress, and that he thought five cents for all distances would be a postage sufficient to cover expenses. This rate was afterwards adopted, though subsequently the charge was yet further reduced. Sir William gave it as his own opinion that the action of the American Government would materially assist the movement at home. Three weeks later, however, he wrote expressing his opinion that my best course would be to write to the Hon. Mr. Kennedy, who was very desirous of moving in the matter, and to whom it was wished that I should send the reports, pamphlets, &c., bearing upon the subject. In writing to this gentleman, I expressed an opinion that on account of the great extent of territory and the sparseness of population in the United States, penny postage might not be so applicable to that country as to England; but added that, as the American people did not look to their Post Office for revenue, I thought the general rate, even if not reduced to a penny, might yet be a low one.

The Report so laboriously prepared by Mr. Warburton appeared, I believe, early in March.

Of this Report (the third of the Committee of 1838) I forbear to give even a summary; not only because this would involve the repetition of much that has been already said, but because I have no hope whatever of doing justice to so very able a document, the result of many months of hard labour, the very model of a Report, and which, as such, will even now amply repay the trouble of perusal. It is invaluable as an authoritative record of a state of things so absurdly strange as to be now almost incredible, but which was nevertheless justified and upheld at the time by many able and excellent men. Moreover, its elaborate calculations, which I was called upon to check, put some of the most important questions at issue in a clear, striking, and often even amusing light. On all important points it gave to my statements and conclusions the sanction of its powerful authority. Nevertheless, as the committee had determined on the recommendation of a twopenny rate, the Report had to be framed in, at least, formal accordance with this fact; though both Mr. Wallace, in whose name it went to the committee, and Mr. Warburton, by whom it was actually drawn, were strongly in favour of the penny rate. A careful perusal of the document, however, will show that, though the twopenny rate is formally recommended, the penny rate is the one really suggested for adoption. In this sense it was understood by the public, and to my knowledge it was wished that it should be so understood. It only remained to see what effect this masterly Report would have on the country, the Parliament, and the Government. As respects the first, enough has been mentioned to justify good expectation; the same might be said in a less degree of the second; but of the third, all indications were as yet adverse.

On the 12th of April appeared, in some of the London papers, a letter which I had felt called upon to write in reply to an article in the Supplement to McCulloch’s “Commercial Dictionary,” then lately published, extracts from which had appeared in some of the newspapers. Mr. McCulloch’s opposition came very unexpectedly, since he had previously been a decided supporter of the general plan; his name having appeared amongst the select signatures to the important London petition presented to Parliament in the year 1837, and already mentioned at page 289 of this history. He had likewise supported the cause in the _Courier_ newspaper, resented the delay in adopting my plan, had, in conversation with myself, strongly condemned the Ministers, and threatened to expose them in the “Edinburgh Review.” The only circumstance to which I could attribute his change of opinion was that he had recently been appointed head of the Stationery Department. We all know, and I myself have been charged with such experience, that questions often assume a new aspect when viewed from the windows of a Government office.

Meanwhile, meetings were taking place in various towns to petition in favour of penny postage, and strong articles on the same side appeared in many of the leading newspapers. Mr. Wallace, as chairman of the late committee, received so many letters on the subject of the movement, as to be under the necessity of publicly acknowledging them _en masse_, mentioning, by way of instance, that on the single day of writing he had received nine written communications in reference to various petitions, together with eight newspapers.

The Post Office, too, began to show signs of uneasiness, and made a few very cautious reductions; lowering, for instance, the postage between London and Keswick from thirteen pence to a shilling, and granting similar indulgence on London letters to twenty-one other places; the amount of reduction being in each instance the same, or, as the “Post Circular”[253] put it, not _to_ a penny, but _by_ a penny.

On March 23rd a somewhat remarkable scene occurred in the House of Commons; Mr. Scholefield having presented a petition from Birmingham, for which he was member, the Speaker desired all honourable members who had petitions to present on Penny Postage to bring them up; when instantly a great number of members on both sides of the House “advanced in a crowd to present them, amidst cheering on all sides.” The petitions on the subject in the course of six days amounted to two hundred and fifteen.

The number of the “Post Circular” from which I have taken this account (No. 12) contains, also, one of those amusing devices with which my friend Mr. Henry Cole knew so well how to strike the public eye. Probably the reader will not be displeased at its reproduction. The Edinburgh mail coach, it will be seen, is depicted, with its guard, coachman, and two outside passengers; the letter bags—which, as all the world knows, or then knew, usually occupied the hind boot, so as to lie under the guard’s foot—are by an artistic liberty placed on the roof, the whole being arranged in divisions of franks, newspapers, Stamp-office parcels, and chargeable letters; the first three (which are free of postage) occupy the whole roof, the last lying in small space on the top of one of the bulky divisions, the proportions being those of the mail conveyed on March 2nd, 1838. The legend below sums up the tale.

The depth and extent of public feeling by this time aroused are shown by the following extract from the _Times_:—

“Such is the degree of conviction which is carried to all who have bestowed any thought upon it, that the only question is—and it is asked universally—will these ministers have the honesty and courage to try it? On a review of the public feeling which it has called forth, from men of all parties, sects, and conditions of life, it may well be termed the cause of the whole people of the United Kingdom, against the small coterie of place-holders in St. Martin’s-le-Grand and its dependencies.”[254]

That the _Times_ did not stand alone, is shown by a general list in the “Post Circular” of newspapers which took the same side. Though probably incomplete, it contains the names of twenty-five London papers (nine daily and sixteen weekly), and of eighty-seven provincial papers. It must be remembered, too, that the number of journals, especially of country journals, was then comparatively small.

While public feeling was thus manifesting itself at home, I received further evidence that attention was excited abroad, Mr. Hume sending me a pamphlet written by M. Piron, then second in authority in the Post Office of France, advocating reduction of postage, and speaking of my plan in very flattering terms. The rate recommended by M. Piron was twenty centimes the quarter-ounce, or, setting aside the difference of weight, nearly the same as that previously recommended here by the Parliamentary Committee. M. Piron, I may here remark, continued to press his views on the French Government (at one time, I was assured, to his own injury) till my plan, in a modified form, was adopted by the Revolutionary Government of 1848.

Now, however, came the crowning proof of the hold which the plan had taken of the public mind. On one of the first days in May, Lord Melbourne received a deputation on the subject, in which were comprised about one hundred and fifty members of Parliament, chiefly, if not exclusively, supporters of Government The principal speaker was Mr. Warburton, his most telling passage being as follows:—

“If he might be pardoned for making the observation upon such an occasion, he would say it would be a concession so wise, that it would be well calculated to make any Government justly popular, _and he would strongly urge it as a measure which a Liberal party had a just right to expect from a Liberal administration_.”

* * * * *

Mr. O’Connell, mounting on a chair in a distant part of the room, spoke as follows:—

“One word for Ireland, my Lord. My poor countrymen do not smuggle, for the high postage works a total prohibition to them. They are too poor to find out secondary conveyances, and if you shut the Post Office to them, which you do now, you shut out warm hearts and generous affections from home, kindred, and friends. Consider, my Lord, that a letter to Ireland and the answer back would cost thousands upon thousands of my poor and affectionate countrymen considerably more than a fifth of their week’s wages; and let any gentleman here ask himself what would be the influence upon his correspondence if, for every letter he wrote, he or his family had to pay one-fifth of a week’s income.”

Next came Mr. Hume; his voice, as that of the watchful guardian of the national finances, carrying unusual weight, since it was known to everybody that he would be the last man to recommend any improvident course.

Not the least remarkable speech, the concluding one, was that of Mr. Moffatt, who undertook, if Government shrank from the risk of the proposed reduction, to form a City company which should take the Post Office entirely off their hands, guaranteeing to the State the same amount of revenue as before.

Lord Melbourne’s reply, though reserved, was courteous and encouraging. He recognised the importance of the deputation, acknowledged the weight of the facts produced, and while he withheld all present announcement as to the course to be adopted by Government, promised that the whole matter should receive prompt and earnest attention.

“A strong feeling evidently pervaded the room in reference to Mr. Warburton’s allusion to the just expectation of this important measure being conceded by a Liberal Government. HE WAS THEN LOUDLY CHEERED.”[255]

So remarkable a deputation could not but produce a great effect. Mr. Warburton’s hint was, as I learnt, well understood, and I was afterwards assured that this proceeding was the very turning-point of the movement; the Government having thereon decided to adopt the measure. Certainly, but three weeks later, I received the following letter from Mr. Warburton:—

“May 22, 1839.

“MY DEAR SIR,—I have just learnt from Mr. Bannerman, who has it from Lords Melbourne and Duncannon, that the penny postage is to be granted.

“I shall see Lord M. and Lord J. R. on Sunday.[256]

“Dear Sir,

“Yours truly,

“HENRY WARBURTON.”

“ROWLAND HILL, Esq.”

Three days later I again heard from Mr. Warburton, as follows:—

“May 25, 1839.

“MY DEAR SIR,—Mr. Parker, the Treasury Lord, last night, and Lord John Russell, this morning, confirmed to me the intentions of the Government to propose your plan; and I believe that they will announce publicly their intentions to that effect on Tuesday.

“I shall take an opportunity of expressing my opinion to Lord Melbourne that you ought to be employed to superintend the execution of the plan. If you have anything to say to me on the subject, call before half-past 10 o’clock to-morrow.

“Yours,

“HENRY WARBURTON.”

“ROWLAND HILL, Esq.”

The recommendation that I should be employed had in my view a double importance; agreeing not only with my own natural and ardent desire, but also with the inevitable conviction that if, by the alternative course, the management of my plan were committed to the hands of its avowed and persistent opponents—men who manifestly viewed it not only with dislike but with scorn, and whose predictions would be falsified if it attained success—it would have small chance of receiving that earnest and zealous attention, watchful care, and constant effort for effectual development combined with strict economy, on which I knew the desired result must depend. For convenience I mention here that after the passing of the Postage Bill, Mr. Wallace wrote to Lord Melbourne to the same effect. His letter is but a specimen of Mr. Wallace’s general course in my regard. He makes no reference to his own valuable labours, but only urges claims for me, based on the importance of my discovery.

To return to my narrative; a few days later, Mr. Warburton, having in the House asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether Government intended to proceed with a twopenny or penny rate, Lord John Russell replied that the intention of Government was to propose a resolution in favour of a uniform penny postage,[257] remarking, “the plan will be in conformity with that which has been proposed by the committee as likely to be the most beneficial one,” and adding that, though the scheme would necessarily involve many months of preparation, no time should be lost.[258] Having been apprised of Mr. Warburton’s intention, I was present when the announcement was made; and I leave the reader to imagine the deep gratification I felt.

Grave doubts yet remained as to whether my plan would be adopted in its entirety. My first anxiety was as to the introduction of stamps; their use, as already shown, being indispensable to that rapidity and economy of postal operation, without which the mere adoption of the penny rate would be extremely imperfect as a matter of public convenience, and perhaps seriously detrimental to the direct revenue. I consequently prepared a paper,[259] which was printed and circulated by the Mercantile Committee, “On the Collection of Postage by means of Stamps.” It describes in considerable detail the plan of which the first bare suggestion had been given, as already shown, early in 1837, and, except that there is no mention of the Queen’s Head—which was an after-thought—it describes with considerable accuracy the kinds of stamps now in use, and the modes of distributing them. The envelopes and adhesive stamps now so familiar to all, are described the one as “the little bags called envelopes,” and the other as “small stamped detached labels—say about an inch square—which, if prepared with a glutinous wash on the back, may be attached without a wafer.”[260] I must admit, however, that, as the paper shows, I still looked upon stamped covers or envelopes as the means which the public would most commonly employ; still believing that the adhesive stamp would be reserved for exceptional cases. Unfortunately, the recommendations contained in my paper were not acted upon until the Government had resorted to other supposed expedients, which turned out to be real impediments, and were not got rid of without much trouble.[261]

Meantime, on June 25th, Lord Radnor, in presenting forty petitions in favour of uniform penny postage, repeated Mr. Warburton’s question as to the intentions of Government, and received from Lord Melbourne the assurance that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would shortly bring the matter forward;[262] his words were as follows:—

“Undoubtedly it is the intention of the Government to carry into effect the plan referred to by my noble friend—considering how it has been recommended, the strong interest it has excited, and the benefits and advantages which unquestionably belong to it—with all practicable speed.”[263]

In my anxiety to obtain for the proposed measure a favourable reception in the House of Commons, I drew up with great care a short paper, entitled “Facts and Estimates as to the Increase of Letters,” which was printed by the Mercantile Committee, a copy being sent to every member of Parliament.

A copy of this document is given in the Appendix (G). The prediction therein set forth was much longer in fulfilment than I anticipated—the gross revenue not having been made up till 1851, the twelfth year of penny postage. Probably, like most projectors, I was over-sanguine. Probably also I was unduly influenced by the evidence proceeding from the public in support of my recommendations. But the reader will find from the following narrative that after the adoption of my plan by the Legislature many circumstances occurred, which could not possibly have been foreseen, tending to delay the apparent success of my scheme of Postal Reform. Among these are the following:—

1st. Delay in the adoption of stamps, and the still greater delay in effectually supplying the public therewith.

2nd. While my plan applied to inland postage only, large reductions were also made in foreign and colonial postage, which, however right in themselves, of course had their effect in delaying the time when the amount of the gross revenue should have recovered itself.

3rd. The additional facilities to be afforded the public—more especially by a great extension of rural distribution—though a most important part of my plan, were, to say the least, for a long time delayed. This I conceive to have been a main cause of delay in the recovery of the gross revenue.

4th. Above all, the execution of my plan was, during the early years of penny postage, entrusted almost entirely to men whose official reputation was pledged, not to its success, but to its failure. Even after I entered the Post Office, near the close of the seventh year of penny postage, obstacles were so continually thrown in my way that for many years I could do comparatively little to promote the measure; and it was not till the fifteenth year, namely, when I became Secretary to the Post Office, that I could exercise any direct influence therein.

About the time that the paper mentioned above was issued, opposition arose in so strange a quarter, that if the reader were invited to conjecture, he could scarcely go right save by considering how best he could go wrong. If it had been inquired what trade was most likely to benefit by the multiplication of letters, surely the one selected would have been the trade in paper. Nevertheless, a deputation of stationers went up to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, setting forth that they and their brethren would be put to great inconvenience by the adoption of Mr. Rowland Hill’s plan. Probably the motive to this whimsical proceeding was an apprehension that the issue by Government of stamped envelopes would deprive the petitioners of an expected trade; the fear of this making them blind to the far more than counterbalancing advantage to be derived from the multiplication of that which envelopes were intended to contain. However, I must not omit to mention that, some months afterwards, when I was in office, I had a very satisfactory interview with these same gentlemen at the Treasury.

On July 5th, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in bringing forward his Budget, proposed the adoption of uniform penny postage. After having dwelt upon the fact that there had been of late a large increase of expenditure—due partly to improved administration in home affairs, partly to the establishment of ocean steamers for the conveyance of the mails, and the employment for the same purpose of railway trains instead of mail-coaches, partly to the increase of the National Debt by the borrowing of the twenty millions used in the redemption of negro slavery, partly, also, to an increase in the means of defence, and lastly, to the recent insurrection in Canada,—he observed that, as through these various circumstances there was little or no spare revenue, it would be necessary that the Government, in yielding to the general wish for the adoption of penny postage—a measure imperilling a revenue of a million and a half—must be assured of the concurrence of the House in the adoption of such means as might be necessary for making good any deficiency that might arise; he himself expecting that in the outset such deficiency would be very great. After having stated that on some points he differed from the conclusions of the committee, he proceeded to eulogise their labours in the following terms:—

“I must admit that a committee which took more pains to inform itself, whose collection of evidence is more valuable, as giving the opinions of many of the most intelligent persons of all classes in the country, I never remember in my Parliamentary experience.”[264]

In reference to the popular demand for the measure, he made the following remarkable declaration:—

“I find that the mass of them [the petitions] present the most extraordinary combination I ever saw of representations to one purpose from all classes, unswayed by any political motives whatever; from persons of all shades of opinion, political and religious; from clergymen of the Established Church, and from all classes of Protestant Dissenters; from the clergymen of Scotland, from the commercial and trading communities in all parts of the kingdom.”[265]

Judiciously thinking that it would be better for the House to leave the details of the measure in the hands of Government, he demanded for the Treasury the power at once of fixing the rates of postage, of ordering payment by weight, of making prepayment compulsory, and of establishing the use of stamps. He concluded by moving the following Resolution:—

“That it is expedient to reduce the postage on letters to one uniform rate of a penny postage, according to a certain amount of weight to be determined; that the Parliamentary privilege of franking should be abolished; and that official franking be strictly limited—the House pledging itself to make good any deficiency that may occur in the revenue from such reduction of the postage.”[266]

Such opposition as was made was directed rather against the pledge required of the House than against the plan of penny postage, and on that point Sir Robert Peel and Mr. Goulbourn were supported by some members on the Liberal side of the House, including Mr. Hume, who regarded such pledge as superfluous, seeing that the House was at all times bound to maintain the national income. He also thought that the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s estimate of deficiency was excessive, he himself believing that though there might be a serious deficiency the first, and even the second, year, it was probable that, as by that time the plan would be in full operation, the future deficiency would not be greater than Mr. Hill had allowed for.

All, however, concurred in the opinion that if the experiment were to be made the penny rate was to be preferred to any other; and while Mr. Goulbourn said that he should have been much in favour of the measure were there but a surplus to justify the risk, Sir Robert Peel went so far as to say—

“That he should have thought it sufficient, if Government had maturely considered the details of this measure, had calculated the probable loss to the revenue, and had come forward to propose, in this acknowledged deficiency of the public revenue, some substitute to compensate the public. He should have thought that sufficient. So convinced was he of the moral and social advantages that would result from the removal of all restrictions on the free communication by letter, that he should have willingly consented to the proposition.”[267]

It was very noticeable at the time that, after citing the strongly condemnatory opinions of Colonel Maberly and Lord Lichfield, Sir Robert Peel remarked, “I do not say that these opinions convince me.”[268]

The Resolution was agreed to without division.

A week later, the Chancellor of the Exchequer having moved that the Report on the Postage Acts be received, Mr. Goulbourn, who might be regarded as the Chancellor of the Exchequer expectant, moved resolutions of which the object was to have the measure of penny postage postponed, on the ground, mainly, of the present deficiency in the revenue, the extensive powers proposed to be given to the Treasury, and the opposition of the paper-makers.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in reply, pointed out several recent instances of partial reduction in postage rates which had been followed, speedily, by an increase of revenue, taunted the opposition members with altered tactics since the last debate, and challenged them to a direct vote against penny postage.

Sir Robert Peel repeated the arguments of Mr. Goulbourn, and again urged objections to the pledge to make good any loss of revenue.

On the division, the “ayes” were 215, and the “noes” 113, giving a majority of 102 in favour of penny postage.[269]

Those who frequented the House of Commons thirty years ago will remember the two doorkeepers of the day—Mr. Pratt, a somewhat tall and grave personage, and Mr. Williams, a chubby red-faced man, who seemed as if he escaped bursting only by the relief he found in laughing at the exuberance of his own humour. Both these men were zealous friends of penny postage, and, in the warmth of their friendship, always went at least as far as duty permitted, in enabling me to attend the discussions on postal matters. On the night when the division took place their excitement was prodigious. During the debate I had sat under the gallery, but on the division had, of course, to withdraw. As I passed into the outer lobby, the inner being required in the division, and used, as it happened, to receive the supporters of the measure, my two friends warned me to keep near the door, that they might let me know how things went on. I took my station accordingly, and ever and anon was informed through the grating in the door, the flap being for the moment withdrawn, as to how matters were going on. Each report was better than the last, Williams’s eager face beaming at each momentary glimpse with increased gratification: “All right,” “Going on capitally,” “Sure of a majority,” were given out in succession, until the climax was reached by his whispering audibly, amidst laughter which he strove in vain to control, “Why, here’s old Sibby come out;” and certainly when I learnt that Colonel Sibthorpe, the Tory of Tories, was amongst the supporters of my plan, I could not but feel that the game was won.

The measure was now considered secure so far as related to the House of Commons, but people had not yet forgotten the warning given by the ejaculation so common seven or eight years before, “Thank God, there’s a House of Lords!” and anxiety began to arise as to the reception which the measure might experience in the Upper House. Promptly, therefore, the Mercantile Committee directed its attention that way, and appointed certain of its members as a deputation to wait upon a few of the more influential peers. In executing this mission, the deputation naturally sought an interview with the Duke of Wellington; their application, however, receiving the following characteristic reply:—

“London, July 16, 1839.

“The Duke of Wellington presents his compliments to Mr. Moffatt.

“The Duke does not fill any political office. He is not in the habit of discussing public affairs in private, and he declines to receive the visits of deputations or individuals for the purpose of such discussions.

“If, as a Member of Parliament, any gentleman or committee should wish to give the Duke information, or the benefit of their opinion, he is always ready to receive the same in writing, but he declines to waste their time and his own by asking any gentleman to come to this distant part of the town to discuss a question upon which he would decline to deliver his opinion, excepting in his place in Parliament.

“Moreover the Duke, although not in political office, has much public business to occupy his time, and on Thursday in particular, the day named by Mr. Moffatt, he will be occupied by attendance upon the Naval and Military Commission during the whole of the forenoon, until the meeting of the House of Parliament of which he is a member.”

Being thus disappointed of an interview, the deputation requested me to undertake the duty of addressing the Duke by letter. I wrote as follows:—

“Bayswater, July 22, 1839.

“MY LORD DUKE,—At the request of the Mercantile Committee on Postage, I have the honour to submit for your Grace’s consideration a few facts in support of the Bill for the establishment of a uniform penny postage, which it is expected will shortly be brought into the House of Lords.

“The evidence which has been given before the Select Committee on Postage proves that the Post Office revenue has scarcely increased at all for the last twenty-four years.

“That the present high rates lead all classes, except those allowed to frank, to evade postage to an enormous extent.

“That they cause a vast amount of correspondence, mercantile as well as domestic, to be actually suppressed, thus crippling trade and preventing friendly intercourse.

“That if postage were reduced to one penny the revenue would be more likely to gain than to suffer.

“That the _present_ average cost to the Post Office of distributing letters is ¾_d._ each, and that this cost would be greatly reduced under the proposed arrangements.

“That the cost to the Post Office is frequently greater for short distances of six or eight miles than for long distances of two or three hundred miles; thus showing the unfairness of the present varying charges.

“And that the partial reductions in postage rates hitherto made have, after a short time, invariably benefited the revenue.

“I have taken the liberty of enclosing a short abstract of the Report of the Select Committee on Postage, which has been drawn up by the Mercantile Committee, as well as some ‘Facts and Estimates as to the Increase of Letters,’ prepared by myself, to which I respectfully solicit your Grace’s attention.

“The boldness, yet safety of the proposed change, its simplicity, and its tendency to extend commerce, science, and education, will, I confidently hope, recommend it to your Grace’s favourable consideration.

“I have, &c.,

“ROWLAND HILL.

“To His Grace the DUKE OF WELLINGTON, &c., &c., &c.”

To this letter I received no reply, nor was any expected; but the letter appears to have had its effect, for when the debate came on, the Duke, as will be seen hereafter, distinctly supported the measure.

Meanwhile the bill for establishing penny postage was brought in by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lord John Russell, and Mr. F. Baring; and passed the first reading without discussion.[270]

The second reading took place on the 22nd July, after a debate in which Mr. Goulbourn, Sir Robert Inglis, and Sir Robert Peel attacked, and Mr. Francis Baring, Lord Seymour, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Wallace, and Mr. Warburton defended the bill. The attack was founded chiefly on the large powers granted to the Treasury, though Sir R. Peel, while admitting “that a great reduction of postage might be made, not only without injury, but with great advantage to the revenue,” thought, however, “that it would be better to make a partial reduction of the postage duties than to repeal them almost entirely, as is now proposed,” and considered “that the advantages to be derived from such a proposition are much over-rated.”[271] Sir Robert Inglis also objected to the abolition of the Parliamentary privilege of franking, stating incidentally that to some mercantile houses it was worth £300 a year; but his objection was over-ruled by Sir Robert Peel, who strongly urged the importance of abolishing the privilege in question, adding that, if each Government department were required to pay its own postage, much would be done towards checking abuse. He also advised that “Parliamentary Proceedings” should be subjected to a moderate postage charge; and it is scarcely necessary to add that Sir Robert Peel’s advice on this point was followed.[272] The bill was read without a division.

On the following day the public anxiety relative to the House of Lords showed itself in a petition “signed by the Mayor and upwards of twelve thousand five hundred of the merchants of the city of London, which the Noble Lord who presented the petition understood had been signed in twelve hours,” praying that no temporary deficiency of revenue might delay the establishment of penny postage.[273] As this, though not by any means the last petition presented, is the last requiring notice, it may not be amiss to mention here that the number of petitions presented to Parliament in favour of penny postage during the single session of 1839 was upwards of two thousand, the number of appended signatures being about a quarter of a million; while as many of the petitions proceeded from Town Councils, Chambers of Commerce, and other such Corporations, a single signature in many instances represented a considerable number of persons.

On July the 29th the bill was read a third time and passed, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announcing, in reply to Sir Robert Peel, that Government had not yet determined on the precise mode in which the measure should be introduced.[274]

Before following the bill to the Upper House I will mention a circumstance which, however trifling in itself, may derive some interest from its connection with a body so much the “observed of all observers” as the House of Commons. One night, when a discussion on Post Office affairs was to come on, I was sitting under the gallery, when one of the members suggested to me that I should go upstairs and get some refreshment; a hint of which, after some hesitation as to the propriety of intruding, I gladly availed myself. Following the directions I received, I went to the “Kitchen,” where the cooks were hard at work. Upon my request for tea a wooden tea-tray was handed to me. As I half suspected that I was thus made to wait upon myself because I was looked upon as an intruder, I watched the motions of such as came by unquestionable right. Scarcely had I taken my seat when I saw Joseph Hume doing as I had done; others followed in like manner, and I soon became aware that this was the common practice. Whether any change has been made I know not, but I was glad to remark that the members of an assembly accounted one of the most fastidious in the world were not ashamed to wait upon themselves.

A few days later I received a letter from Lord Duncannon, informing me that Lord Melbourne wished to see me at one o’clock on the following Sunday. On calling, I found only Lord Duncannon in the drawing-room, who informed me that the Premier was not yet up, though, as he had been assured by the servants, he might soon be expected. I must mention, by the way, that Lord Duncannon, who always, I believe, save in his official capacity, had been friendly to my plan, had now taken it up with a certain degree of warmth, having in his place in Parliament declared himself persuaded, “that, with great exertion on the part of those who are to carry the bill into execution, there will ultimately not be any loss,” and added, “that he never recollected so strong a wish having been expressed to both Houses of Parliament on any measure as had been expressed on the subject of postage.”[275]

After a little time Lord Melbourne made his appearance, in his dressing-gown. My reception was most kindly, and we presently went to work. In the course of conversation I had occasion to speak of Mr. Warburton, when Lord Melbourne interrupted me with, “Warburton! Warburton! He’s one of your moral-force men, isn’t he?” I replied that I certainly believed Mr. Warburton’s hopes of improvement did rest more on moral than on physical force. “Well,” he rejoined, “I can understand your physical-force men, but as to your moral-force men, I’ll be damned if I know what they mean.” Not hitting upon any apposite reply, I remained silent, and a second time we returned to the subject of the interview, until at length, seeming to have become possessed of his subject, he began to pace the room, as if arranging his speech; often moving his lips, though uttering no audible sound. In this process, however, he was interrupted by the entrance of a servant, who made an announcement which did not reach my ear. The answer was, “Show him into the other room,” and, after a short time, Lord Melbourne, apologising for leaving us, withdrew. A minute afterwards, the hum of conversation sounded through the folding-doors, and, by-and-by, one of the voices gradually rose in distinctness and earnestness, taking at length an angry tone, in which I presently heard my own name pronounced. As the voice seemed to me that of a stranger, I must have turned an inquiring eye towards Lord Duncannon, who informed me that it was that of Lord Lichfield. After a while, warmth seemed to abate, the tone became moderate, and at length the farewell was given, Lord Melbourne, re-entering by the folding-doors, with the remark, “Lichfield has been here; I can’t think why a man can’t talk of penny postage without going into a passion.”

Next day, August 5th, Lord Melbourne proposed, in a long speech, the second reading of the Postage Bill. He fully admitted that the income of the country fell short of the expenditure—allowed that there was great uncertainty as to the fiscal results of penny postage; but intimated that a surplus or deficiency of three or four hundred thousand pounds in an income of forty-eight millions was a matter of comparatively little moment, and justified the course Government had taken mainly on the ground of “the very general feeling and general concurrence of all parties in favour of the plan.”

The Duke of Wellington, after stating various objections to the measure, especially on the score of depression in the finances, yet recognising the evils of high postage rates, and expressing an opinion “that that which was called Mr. Rowland Hill’s plan was, if it was adopted exactly as proposed, of all plans that most likely to be successful,” concluded with saying, “I shall, although with great reluctance, vote for the bill, and I earnestly recommend you to do likewise.”

The Earl of Lichfield was anxious to remove the impression that he was opposed to the measure, and “to show that, with perfect consistency with all that he had said or done, he could give a vote for the proposal of his noble friend at the head of the Government.” He supported the plan, however, “on entirely different grounds from those on which Mr. Hill proposed it,” viz., in relation to the universal demand for the measure, and on the understanding that it was not expected “that by the measure either the revenue would be a gainer or that under it the revenue would be equal to that now derived from the Post Office department.”[276]

The bill was read a second time, without a division.

In accordance with Lord Melbourne’s request I was present during the discussion; as it proceeded there was much anxiety as to the result, but, above all, speculation was busy as to the course that would be taken by the Duke of Wellington. I remember, however, that in the outset I myself felt rather confident on this latter point, having received assurance, as I think, from Lord Duncannon; but when in the course of the discussion the Duke dwelt on the low state of the national finances, and the danger of reducing a duty under such circumstances, I began to fear that I had been misinformed. I suppose this feeling must have been expressed by my looks, for Lord Duncannon, leaving his seat, kindly came to where I sat, on the steps of the throne, and whispered, “Don’t be alarmed, he’s not going to oppose us.” Thus reassured I listened calmly, and, as the Duke proceeded, perceived distinctly that my fears were groundless.

The third reading took place four days later without even a debate. The bill received the Royal assent on the 17th. I must not omit to mention that on the Royal assent being given, Mr. Wallace, with his usual kindness, wrote to my wife, to congratulate her on the success of her husband’s efforts, a success to which her unremitting exertions had greatly contributed.

Thus, in little more than three years from the time when I entered seriously upon my investigations, and in little more than two years and a-half from my first application to Government, this measure, so bold in its innovation and paradoxical in its policy as to be met in the outset with the ridicule and scorn of those to whom the public naturally looked as best qualified by position to judge of its value, had become law.[277]

And now again came a period of comparative rest, though my thoughts frequently reverted to the recommendations kindly made by Mr. Warburton and Mr. Wallace, with no small anxiety about my future relations to the reform now resolved upon. Friends on all hands assured me that, as Government had taken my plan, it must also take me; but to my mind the consequence did not appear certain; and even supposing it sure that Government would take me, it yet remained to be inquired what the Government would do with me. Many were the suggestions that were made. The following may be taken as a specimen. One of my brothers meeting Lord King, the following conversation took place. “Well, what are Government going to do with your brother Rowland?” “Nay, my Lord, I do not know that they are going to do anything with him.” “Oh, they must give him something, no doubt of that; the only question is what. Now this is what they clearly ought to do. They should tell Colonel Maberly that he has fought his battle well, stood to his guns to the last, but has been defeated; and that being the case, must, of course, withdraw and make way for his successful rival.”

While I thus kept an eye on everything that might give indication as to my future, I received the following letter from Lord Ashburton, who had been the first amongst men high in influence and position to take an active part in the promotion of my plan. It will be remarked that his Lordship, owing doubtless to his long experience in financial affairs, was more correct than I in his estimate of immediate results; but it must be remembered that penny postage was left for years without those supports which formed an essential part of my plan, and which had been so pointedly urged by the Duke of Wellington as necessary to its results:—

“The Grange, Alresford, August 20, 1839.

“DEAR SIR,—I most unfeignedly congratulate you that your great measure is so far safely landed. You do too much honour to the part I have humbly taken in this matter. I have certainly been unfeignedly anxious that this important experiment should be tried, and tried fairly; but the merit is undividedly yours, and the success due to the unexampled perseverance and intelligence you have applied to opening and instructing the public mind. What Parliament can do is done, and it only remains to be hoped that success will not be hazarded by imperfect execution. What measures the Post Office will adopt I cannot know, but I think they will make a great mistake if they do not contrive to secure your assistance.

“If it should really turn out that your anticipations as to maintaining the revenue are realised, your triumph will be great indeed: one half of it will be more than I expect; but on this point there must, after all, be much speculative uncertainty, and my only regret was that our finances were not in a better state to make useful experiments. I shall watch the result with great interest, and beg you will believe me,

“Dear Sir,

“Yours very truly,

“ASHBURTON.

“ROWLAND HILL, Esq.

“I hope the principle of prepayment will be stoutly maintained. Any relaxation must be very temporary and with a large additional charge. Without this the scheme will not work. The plan of postage-stamps seems to my mind the best. The post-officers should sell them, and as everybody must put his letter into some office, he may there also buy his stamp.”

About a fortnight later, I was summoned to take my part in a very gratifying proceeding at Wolverhampton, where a subscription had been raised to present me with a handsome silver candelabrum, which bore the following inscription:—

“To ROWLAND HILL, Esq., presented by the inhabitants of Wolverhampton, in testimony of their high sense of his public services, as the Founder and able Advocate of the Plan of Universal Penny Postage, A.D. 1839.”