CHAPTER X.

NEW MASTERS. (1841-2.)

On the day when Mr. Goulburn entered on the duties of his office I wrote a note to him, enclosing Mr. Baring’s letter, and requesting an interview at his convenience. Meanwhile circumstances occurred to raise my hopes:—

“_September 6th._—Called on Mr. Stephen [the late Right Hon. Sir James Stephen, K.C.B.] at the Colonial Office on some postage business. He assures me that I shall find Mr. Goulburn very pleasant to transact business with—a man of high honour and of great skill in _details_. Mr. [now Sir John] Lefevre, whom I afterwards saw at the Board of Trade, gave a similar account of him.”

The first part of this favourable opinion was, in a measure, confirmed the same day:—

“This afternoon I had my first interview with Mr. Goulburn: he received me with great civility, and inquired as to the nature of my engagement, duties, &c. He appeared somewhat at a loss to know what I could have to do, and was not a little surprised when I told him that seventy-two cases had been referred to me in the month of August alone. He seemed to think that my plan was fully introduced, and did not, as it appeared to me, learn with much satisfaction that much remained to be done. We went through three or four papers that were pressing, and he readily acquiesced in all my recommendations. He is to consider whether the business hereafter shall be conducted with himself or with one of the secretaries. I inquired if he saw any objection to my communicating with Lord Lowther; he replied, that he thought the more I conferred with Lord Lowther the better.”

The next day’s record was also satisfactory:—

“_September 7th._—Had my first interview with Sir George Clerk, the new Secretary, and was received with great politeness.”

Presently, however, came passages of a somewhat different character:—

“_September 13th._—Called on Lord Lowther. Stated my own desire, and that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that I should communicate freely with him on postage matters. He did not appear to me to meet the advance cordially; but it is said that he is habitually cold, reserved, and cautious. He told me that, his patent not being made out, he was not yet authorised to act, and appeared to desire that I should understand that to be a reason for restricted communication at present. I found that he had read my paper ‘on the results of the plan,’ &c., and the attack upon it, but he expressed no opinion on either. Altogether, I do not consider the interview very satisfactory.”

In a few days practical results of the change began to appear. An application which I made to the Post Office for needful information was declined, on the alleged authority of the new Postmaster-General, unless made according to forms which would have made the actual slow progress intolerably slower; and, at the same time, papers arriving at the Treasury from the Post Office, which hitherto had been all handed over to me, were now almost entirely withheld. On the former point, however, matters were set right for the time by a second interview with Lord Lowther, who, I found, had acted in the belief that he was merely continuing the previous practice, and who appeared annoyed at having been misled. By his authority I wrote a letter to Colonel Maberly, referring alike to his lordship’s intentions, and to the Treasury Minute in which my right for immediate information was distinctly laid down. My letter, which I wished to soften as much as possible, contained the following passage:—

“Let me add, that though clearly entitled to act as I have done, I would at once have given up my claim and adopted the suggestion contained in your note, if I were not convinced that to resort to the formality of Treasury Minutes in the numerous instances in which inquiry is necessary would seriously retard the progress of business.”

The former order being thus re-established at the Post Office, there remained to seek a similar restoration at the Treasury. Here, however, Mr. (now Sir Charles) Trevelyan (Assistant Secretary to the Treasury) had kindly intervened on my behalf, strongly recommending that the opportunity of checking the Post Office expenditure should not be taken from me, and had procured from Sir George Clerk a promise to consult with Sir Robert Peel and Mr. Goulburn on the subject. As no further result was obtained, I wrote to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, suggesting that, in my present lack of employment, I should either proceed with measures for the further introduction of my plans, or that if this were at the time impracticable, I should be allowed an interval of entire repose after the heavy labours of the last two years. This letter produced an immediate effect, Mr. Trevelyan, Sir George Clerk, and even the Chancellor of the Exchequer all speaking to me on the subject in the course of the same day; explanations were given, arrangements made (a kind of compromise which I hoped would, in operation, gradually put all things right), and the desired holiday most readily granted. “Everything,” says my Journal, “was said in the most polite and, to all appearance, friendly manner, and altogether things have assumed a much more favourable aspect.”

My term of holiday was certainly very little interrupted with business, nor did I find more than three or four papers awaiting me on my return a month afterwards.

One intervening incident, however, I must not omit to mention. The original conception of a uniform penny rate has been more than once, of late years, attributed to Mr. Wallace. How far that generous-hearted man was from making such a claim himself may be gathered from the following passage in a speech delivered by him at Aberdeen, and reported in the _Aberdeen Herald_ of October 2nd:—

“And here let me say, once for all, that to Mr. Hill alone is the country indebted for that scheme; for he is the real inventor, and its only discoverer, while the honour conferred to-day upon me can only apply to working it out in Parliament.”

The benefit derived from my holiday was not checked by my first interview with the Chancellor of the Exchequer:—

“_November 5th._—Got through much business with the Chancellor of the Exchequer very satisfactorily.”

Nevertheless, the same interview ushered in what afterwards proved a very serious matter. It was indeed the beginning of the end; since the move then first announced at length led, as I was informed, and as I fully believe, to my being driven from office. Before treating of this, however, it will be convenient to deal with various other matters.

The withdrawal of routine papers from my charge having, of course, diminished my amount of work, it was notified to me that my establishment should be reduced, and it was suggested that Mr. Cole’s services might be dispensed with. While admitting this on the supposition that affairs remained on their present footing:—

“I expressed an opinion (November 10th) that it would be better to employ the whole strength of the establishment, and offered to go into the Post Office to organize the registration of letters and superintend the execution of the remaining parts of my plan, &c.; all of which he [Mr. Trevelyan] undertook to report to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but intimated that his instructions were to reduce the establishment, and talked of my doing with one clerk, to which I decidedly objected.

“_November 11th._—Mr. Trevelyan told me that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had decided with regard to Cole (he leaves on January 10th, at the end of his quarter); that he appeared well-inclined as to my going into the Post Office, and would write to the Postmaster-General on the subject.

“_January 8th, 1842._—Cole leaves me to-day. The progress of the Penny Postage both before and after its adoption by Government, has been greatly promoted by his zeal and activity.”

Meantime, however, it had been ordered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that all papers relative to the Post Office, by whomsoever dealt with, should afterwards be shown to me, in order that I might be made fully aware of the course of proceeding.

Gradually I seemed to inspire some amount of confidence:—

“_December 11th._—This week I have had several difficult cases not connected with penny postage, and I think I perceive, on the part of Sir George Clerk, a tendency to rely more on me than heretofore.”

Similar entries appear on December 18th and 24th; but within two months the favourable aspect changed:—

“_February 12th, 1842._—I have had three or four cases referred to me this week, but by far the greater number, though certainly the least difficult, are decided in the Treasury. This circumstance, coupled with the total silence on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to my recent letters to him, shows, I fear, that no friendly feeling is entertained towards myself, and if so, towards my plan.”

This impression was gradually confirmed by subsequent events.

While support at the Treasury was thus feeble and vacillating, I could have very small hope of aid from the Post Office. It has indeed been seen that Lord Lowther had withdrawn all objection to my calling for returns as before; but these, though the information I was able to extract from them was of use, were in themselves a constant source of trouble from their inaccuracy:—

“_March 8th, 1842._—Sent [to the Post Office] the financial returns recently made to the Treasury, for correction. Ledingham cannot convince —— that they are wrong (which they clearly are in principle), and they are come back uncorrected. It is strange that men whose sole duty it is to keep accounts should not only blunder, but be unable to see the error when pointed out.”

It was in this account, I believe, but certainly in one from the same functionary, that the balance carried forward at the close of a quarter changed its amount in the transit; and when I pointed out this fact as conclusive against the correctness of the account, it was urged that, without such modification, the next quarter’s account could not be made to balance! Errors, however, did not end here:—

“_May 20th, 1842._—Received the Parliamentary Returns from the Post Office. Very inaccurate. Sent Ledingham with them to the Post Office to get them corrected.”

In short, it is literally true that an accurate return or statement in detail of any kind from the Post Office was at this time a rare exception.

If I had found it hard to make head previously to the late change, I found progress now almost impracticable; and, though I persevered in unremitting effort, I had little, indeed, of that encouragement which is derived from the prospect of speedy success. For some time I had even considerable anxiety lest much that had been done should be undone; but these forebodings, at least, were not confirmed by the event:—

“_March 7th, 1842._—To-day’s _Morning Post_ has a leader on the subject of the financial measures to be brought forward by Sir Robert Peel on Friday, from which the following is an extract:—‘It is conjectured by some that Mr. Rowland Hill’s Penny Postage inroad upon a revenue which could ill afford such an experiment, is to be counteracted, not by the restoration of the old system, but by an increase to the uniform rate of postage. The objections to this are that it would not do much to supply the deficiency, and that it would be an interference with an experiment deliberately adopted by a former Parliament, and not yet acknowledged by advocates to have failed in a financial point of view.’”

It is to be feared that to this very day the “advocates” remain as obstinately unconvinced as ever:—

“_March 12th, 1842._—Penny Postage is safe. Sir Robert Peel, in announcing his financial measures last night, states that he does not intend to advance the rate, at least at present. He speaks highly of the social advantages of Penny Postage, and expresses an opinion that the measure has not yet had a full trial. But he states, erroneously, that the cost of the packet service defrayed by the Admiralty exceeds the Post Office net revenue.”

This was, I believe, the first appearance of a statement which, in one form or other, has ever since tended to perplex or mislead the public. More of this hereafter.

Of my efforts for improvement during this year of difficulties I propose to speak in less detail than heretofore, limiting attention to a few matters of chief importance. My labours were not altogether ineffectual, though for the most part, as I have already said, it was but seldom that I was able to accomplish anything of much importance. To some extent the rule already adopted with regard to new salaries and additional emoluments must, I think, have acted to check extravagance, even when control had passed from my own hands; and I may add that an occurrence about this time, due to past proceedings, showed in a striking manner the value of the rule:—

“_June 11th, 1842._—Week’s work chiefly a large number of salary cases, _i.e._, applications for advances, allowances, &c., which have been waiting ever since May, 1841, for returns ordered from the Post Office. Many prove on investigation to be utterly groundless: whether this explains the delay of twelve months in making the returns (some, indeed, are not even yet sent in) I cannot say.”

Of course, my chief aim at this time, supposing the penny rate to be secure, was to introduce measures for increased facility, on which depended, in great degree, the multiplication of letters, and for improved economy to render such increase adequately beneficial to the revenue.

It will be remembered[314] that one of the last acts of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer was to sanction a plan for extending rural distribution. The necessity for such a measure is shown in the following summary, which I subsequently gave in evidence, the items of which, though literally correct, will scarcely be credited in the present day:—

“The establishment of rural Post Offices does not appear to have been regulated by any well-defined principle. In some districts, owing apparently to the greater activity of the surveyors, they are exceedingly numerous; in others, of superior relative importance, they are comparatively infrequent. Some places, of 200 or 300 inhabitants, have them; others, with 2,000 or 3,000, are without.

“Of the 2,100 registrars’ districts, comprised in England and Wales, about 400, containing a million and a-half of inhabitants, have no Post Offices whatever. The average extent of these 400 districts is nearly twenty square miles each; the average population, about 4,000. The average population of the chief place of the district, about 1,400; and the average distance of such chief place from the nearest Post Office, between four and five miles.

“Again, while we have seen that those districts which are altogether without Post Offices contain, in the aggregate, a million and a-half of inhabitants, it can scarcely be doubted that even those districts which are removed from this class by having a Post Office in some one or other of their towns or villages contain, in their remaining places, a much larger population destitute of such convenience. The amount of population thus seriously inconvenienced the Post Office has declared itself unable to estimate; but it is probable that in England and Wales alone it is not less than four millions. The great extent of the deficiency is shown by the fact that, while these two divisions of the empire contain about 11,000 parishes, their total number of Post Offices of all descriptions is only about 2,000.

“In some places _quasi_ Post Offices have been established by carriers and others, whose charges add to the cost of a letter in some instances as much as 6_d._ A penny for every mile from the Post Office is a customary demand.”

By the plan sanctioned by Mr. Baring, an office was to be established forthwith in every registrar’s district where as yet none existed; my intention being to propose such further extension from time to time, as experience might justify. In my triumph at carrying this measure through the Treasury before the change of Ministers, I forgot to make due allowance for the Post Office’s power of passive resistance; and was, therefore, unprepared for a discovery which I accidentally made four months later, viz., that Mr. Baring’s minute on rural distribution had been suspended by Mr. Goulburn. Of the reason for this suspension I could never, so long as I remained in office, get any information; but more will appear on the subject hereafter.

I have spoken of the great and increasing expense of railway conveyance. Convinced that there was room for economy, I had directed a portion of my attention to this department.

“_September 10th, 1841._—Completed a long minute on the subject of a proposed day mail to Newcastle-on-Tyne, in the course of which I have endeavoured to establish some principles with reference to day mails, and to point out modes by which the cost of railway conveyance in this and other similar cases might be greatly reduced. Sent draft to Lieutenant Harness for his perusal.”

I cannot mention the name of Lieutenant (now Colonel) Harness without adding that I always found in him a very zealous and efficient co-operator. I owe much to the information and assistance which he yielded me from time to time.

The plan I proposed, which was upon the whole more convenient for the public than the existing arrangement, involved a saving of about £5,000 a year, and it was with much satisfaction that five months later I learnt that it had received the approbation of the Postmaster-General. How I was unexpectedly prevented from myself carrying this important project into effect will be shown a few pages later.

A curious incident occurred which, however small in itself, showed how far the Office was competent to deal correctly with questions of economy. On the Glasgow and Ayr Railway the practice had been to place the bags under the care of the railway guard; a service for which the company received £40 a year. A Report came to the Treasury from the Postmaster-General, showing that he had superseded this service by the appointment of a mail guard, and taking credit to himself for economy so effected by the discontinuance of such payment; the self-gratulation being made in the apparent forgetfulness that the mail guard’s salary would be somewhere about double the sum saved.

One form of extravagant expenditure on railway conveyance was in occupation of superfluous space:—

“_August 2nd, 1842._—In one instance, to which I have called attention, namely, the day mail between York and Normanton, the maximum weight of the bags being only two quarters twenty-four pounds, two compartments of a second-class carriage are occupied by the Post Office, that is to say, sixteen passengers are displaced to make room for what is about equivalent to the luggage of one. Recommended a thorough investigation of the subject.”

In consequence of this discovery, the Post Office was directed to report upon the state of all the railway lines in respect of space occupied. The Report, however, had not been received when my services came to an end.

Another form of waste arose from inaccuracy as to the length of railway used by the Post Office on particular lines, the award, according to a common practice, fixing not a gross sum, but a mileage rate; thus, after much dunning for information, I found the Post Office so overpaying one company by as much as, £400 a year, though the true distance was stated both in its official notices to the Company and in its own time bills. What was more remarkable was that the Post Office, after I had pointed out the error, persisted in maintaining that the amount was correct.

My serious attention was also drawn to the Money-Order Department, in relation to which I drew a long minute, suggesting means for simplifying the accounts, and thus effecting a great saving in the cost of management. Sir George Clerk appeared to be much struck with the facts of the case; but, considering it too important for his decision, said he would consult the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It so happened that the necessity for decided measures was demonstrated by the discovery of an alarming fraud at a provincial office. The postmaster had absconded owing the revenue more than £2,200, of which only £1,000 was covered by sureties. It was fortunate that his flight had not been taken a year earlier, when his debt was much larger, varying from £3,000 to £5,000. Even as it was, but for energetic measures taken by the Post Office, the loss would have been greater. I pointed out to Sir George Clerk that about £250,000 appeared to be in the hands of the several postmasters, and that other losses must be expected. He concurred in this view, and said that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would speak to the Postmaster-General on the subject. Nevertheless my minute[315] was set aside, a mere temporary arrangement being substituted.

It may be convenient to remark here that the money-order accounts with the several postmasters, which were then made up and transmitted to the Central Office for audit but once a quarter, are now made up and audited every day; and that no such fraud, at least to any serious amount, has occurred since 1847, in which year I subjected the Money-Order Office to a thorough revision.

In reference to the serious case reported above, I have great pleasure in mentioning that the son of the defaulter, moved only by filial obligation, eventually made good the whole loss.

I return now to the notification made to me by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on November 5th, 1841,[316] a notification already spoken of as fraught with serious consequences. He informed me that the Postmaster-General had proposed to establish a compulsory registration of money letters, with a shilling fee to be charged to the receiver, when not paid by the sender. I pointed out the impracticability of the plan, and showed how the same end might be obtained by unobjectionable means. It was arranged that I should see the Postmaster-General, and prepare a Report on the subject. Had my own plan of registration been adopted, the complaints on which the Postmaster-General’s recommendation was based could scarcely have arisen:—

“_November 8th, 1841._—Saw Lord Lowther. He defends the Post Office plan so earnestly that I suspect it must be his own. At length, however, he partially admitted its defects, and listened rather impatiently to mine [my plan, not my defects, which would perhaps have had patient hearing]. Having an engagement, he requested me to come again to-morrow. One thing surprised me much—he could not see that an increase of lost letters, if only proportionate to the increase of letters transmitted, argued no increase of risk.”

To illustrate this further, I will mention here that, whereas the number of money letters passing through the office had increased (according to Colonel Maberly) by ten-fold, the number of missing money letters (as shown by a Parliamentary Return obtained a few months later) was no more than five and a-half-fold; so that the risk in transmission, the only thing really in question, had very sensibly diminished. This improvement was the more remarkable, both because previously to the establishment of Penny Postage the number of such losses was in rapid increase, and because, as already mentioned, the Post Office subsequently discontinued a practice of gratuitously registering all letters supposed to contain articles of value.

When I again called on Lord Lowther as requested, I found him still decidedly averse to lowering the registration fee, though otherwise half inclined to adopt my plan. As he desired further information, I undertook to send him my former Reports on the subject, as also the draft Report then in preparation, which I accordingly did. The draft, however, was returned without acquiescence, and his lordship’s note seemed to me to be written in no friendly spirit. In consequence, I consulted with my brothers and other friends.

“_November 23rd, 1841._—They all agree with me as to the necessity of adopting decisive measures with a view of ascertaining whether or not the further improvements which form important parts of my plan are to be carried out fairly and speedily, and if not, that a regard to my own reputation will require me to resign. Also that the present is a case in which I should make a stand, without, however, pushing matters to an extreme all at once.”

I accordingly sent in my Report,[317] next day, to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, together with a letter,[318] in which I offered my services, under the approval of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Postmaster-General, to carry the proposed measures into effect, undertaking the whole responsibility, and guaranteeing that there should be neither a stoppage of the mails nor any additional expense beyond the amount of the additional fees.

“_November 24th, 1841._—Wrote also to the Postmaster-General, expressing regret that I had not had the good fortune to satisfy him as to the practicability of the measures which I had recommended, and a hope that a proposal (viz., the above) with which I had accompanied the Report would remove his objections.

“_November 25th, 1841._—The Chancellor of the Exchequer has read my Report, but apparently with little attention, for he is by no means master of the subject; he seems to consider the plan objectionable, but gives reasons for objecting to it which ought to recommend it. Among others, that almost everybody would take receipts, that is to say, that the gross revenue would be increased nearly fifty per cent! He appears to think, with the Post Office people, that the main object in view is to keep down the quantity of business. My offer to undertake the registration had evidently been overlooked. I called special attention to it, however, and the whole matter is to be referred _privately_ to the Postmaster-General. I begged that it might be referred officially, in order that the objections, if any, might be recorded, but this was over-ruled, at least for the present.”

The Post Office bugbear of an overwhelming number of registered letters, which was to produce prodigious trouble and disorder at the “forward offices,” I exposed in a supplementary Report.[319]

As gradually appeared, however, instead of pushing forward an important improvement, I was only strengthening Post Office hostility. My reports, together with one subsequently received from the Postmaster-General, were placed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the hands of Mr. Trevelyan; who sent for me on December 29th, 1841, to talk over the matter. Unluckily, however, he had not read my reports, being deterred by their unavoidable length, but called on me to give him their pith. To make this summary more conclusive, I proposed, first, to examine the report sent in by the Postmaster-General; and at length, though Mr. Trevelyan doubted Mr. Goulburn’s approbation, I prevailed upon him, by the mere plea of justice, to allow me to read it. I found, however, that while it did not establish a single ground of objection to my plan, it was written in a most hostile spirit, treating my offer to undertake the necessary organization with scorn; and absurdly representing it as one which would supersede the authority of the Postmaster-General. It was intimated, nevertheless, that the plan itself would be carried into execution if required, though it would lead to all sorts of evils; a prediction which I knew it would be very easy for the Post Office to fulfil. Mr. Trevelyan, after considering all that I laid before him, told me that he agreed entirely with me, and had advised Mr. Goulburn accordingly.

Meantime, I had received some information from a private source:—

“_January 18th, 1842._—Mr. —— reports that Lord L. is very apprehensive of attacks in Parliament for the no-progress hitherto made, and uneasy as to the working of his registration scheme. That in this state of mind he is inclined to rely more and more on Maberly, a tendency which he, ——, thinks has been promoted by the officials having persuaded him that the activity of the Merchants’ Committee, and the pressure from the public generally, is attributed to myself. —— says Lord L. works very hard, getting up frequently at six in the morning, but that his attention is given to small matters, and that he constantly changes his objects. This account agrees so well with the spirit manifested in Lord L.’s Report on registration that I cannot doubt its accuracy. Unfortunately Lord L. is both cold and suspicious, otherwise I would go to him and trust to the effect of a plain, open and straightforward statement of the whole case. With such a man as Mr. Baring such would be the true policy; with Lord Lowther it would be useless, perhaps mischievous.

“_January 27th, 1842._—Having prepared another letter to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I sent it in this morning.[320] In this letter I take no notice of the Postmaster-General’s Report, but renew my offer to undertake the registration, and, in so doing, state distinctly that I am ready to submit to the ‘_immediate_’ authority of the Postmaster-General, so that there is no longer any pretence for misunderstanding my intentions. I also enumerate several important and urgent measures of Post Office improvement which have occupied my attention while the question of registration has been pending, and propose to submit the details for consideration if the decision should be still further delayed. I think this letter will make it very difficult for them to prevent the progress of the measure if they are so disposed.”

My reason for entering into this detail on the subject of registration was that, as already implied, it was my proceedings on this subject which caused me the loss of my post. I had, it appeared, crossed with my advice a strong wish of the Postmaster-General’s. This, as I was afterwards told, was never forgiven, but became, more than any other single circumstance, the ground of the demand which he is said to have made soon afterwards for my dismissal. I have only to add that, even when my opposition was set aside, the course recommended by the Post Office was not taken; the warner was dismissed, but the warning was remembered; and though Lord Lowther remained Postmaster-General as much as three years after my removal, his plan of high-feed compulsory registration was never carried into effect.

I should have felt my own post less assailable had the Post Office revenue been more rapid in its recovery. I have already referred to such depression as was caused by increased Post Office expenditure, and by those circumstances which at the time depressed the revenue in every department; and it must be added that appearances were made worse by the manner in which the accounts of the Post Office were kept, the effect at this time being to reduce an actual increase for the quarter, amounting to between £30,000 and £40,000, to an apparent decrease. Later, however, the improvement began to be manifest:—

“_April 6th, 1842._—The [Post Office] revenue accounts show an increase of £90,000 on the year.... The Post Office revenue is the only department ... which does not show a deficiency on the quarter, a phenomenon which puzzles the Tory papers amazingly.”

It had already been shown in the statement made by Sir Robert Peel on March 12th, 1842, that a strong disposition existed somewhere to make the loss resulting from the adoption of penny postage appear as large as possible, nor could I doubt as to the quarter in which this disposition existed. Indeed, subsequent events made everything clear. The inference which it was intended that the public should draw from the statement that the cost of the packet service exceeded the whole Post Office revenue long served to mislead that large portion of the public which, for want of time or ability to examine, takes plausible appearances for facts. The fallacy, nevertheless, was fully exposed within two months of its first appearance. Lord Monteagle, on June 21st, 1842, in a debate on the Income Tax,[321] said:—

“When his noble friend (Lord Fitzgerald) adverted to the revenue formerly derived from the Post Office, and stated that the whole of the revenue had disappeared, his noble friend was labouring under a very great mistake. The expense of the packet service, which was said to swallow up the whole of the revenue now derived from the Post Office, had no more to do with the penny postage than the expense of the war in Afghanistan or China. It was as distinct from the Post Office as the expense of the army or navy.”

At a subsequent period, as will appear in its proper place, I was called upon to expose the fallacy more in detail; but everybody knows that an error once adopted is slow of eradication. This particular one, gross as it really is, is not only still to be met with here and there among the public, but has actually been thrice put forth, since my final withdrawal from office, in the Annual Report of the Postmaster-General;[322] so that even now it is far from superfluous to point out, that in comparing the fiscal results of the new system with those of the old, the cost of the packet service should be excluded from the one as it was from the other. Nor is it less necessary to urge that, whenever it is deemed advisable to maintain a line of conveyance for political purposes, or for any other purposes not really postal, the expense, barring a due charge for such postal service as may incidentally be performed, should be charged, not to the Post Office, but to its appropriate department; confusion of accounts being always detrimental to economy and obstructive to reform.

Naturally, I received, during this difficult period, but limited support from without. The public, satisfied with having obtained the adoption of the penny rate, the reform in which it was most interested, bestirred itself little in advocacy of those further improvements in which its interest was less direct and far less obvious; many persons, indeed, regarding penny postage pure and simple as the be-all and end-all of the matter. Of course, I could no longer communicate with the public, my mouth being officially sealed; and I may observe here, that it were well for the public to understand how completely this is the case with all subordinate officers. Whatever may be their views on the proceedings of their department, whatever schemes they may form or adopt for improvement, or, on the other hand, whatever injustice may be done to them by their official superiors, or whatever charges may be made against them in Parliament, by the public press, or otherwise—comment, or even statement of facts, is forbidden by official rule; a rule, which being unknown to the public, often leads to erroneous inference, and encourages attacks which otherwise would be regarded as cowardly.

From one more quarter, however, assistance was given at this time. The Merchants’ Committee sent in a memorial to the Treasury, signed by every one of its members, Whig or Tory, urging the complete execution of my plan, and followed up this step with a deputation to the Postmaster-General, which ended in their receiving an assurance that Lord Lowther was desirous of carrying out my measures fully and fairly “equally so with his predecessor.” Of the value of the assurance the reader may easily judge by the parallel.

The following was not a little encouraging:—

“_January 26th, 1842._—Received a letter from Mr. George Stokes, Hon. Secretary of the Parker Society (a Society of more than 4,000 members, the object of which is to reprint the works of the early Reformers), stating that the very existence of the Society is owing to penny postage.”

I must now trace the chain of circumstances which more immediately preceded my dismissal, though the connection will in the outset be scarcely more visible to the reader than it was, at the time, to myself. I have already spoken of the letter which I had addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the day when he succeeded Mr. Baring in office. I have also spoken of my attempts relative to registration, and the offer of my services, subject to the Chancellor’s approval, and that of the Postmaster-General, for the organization, and, “till fully established,” the execution of the measures proposed.

The letter in which this offer was made, and which is dated November 24th, 1841, having received no reply, was followed, on December 2nd, by a short note, covering a further report on the same subject.[323]

On January 27th, 1842, no reply having yet been received to either of these letters, I again wrote to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, urging that, if registration could not be dealt with, I might be allowed to proceed with some other part of my plan, giving at the same time a list of measures out of which one or more might be selected.[324]

This letter also obtaining no reply, I wrote again on March 7th, mentioning other parts of my plan which might be introduced pending the question of registration, adverting to fresh evidence of their feasibility and advantage, and again requesting that I might be allowed to proceed in their introduction under the authority of the Postmaster-General.

I added the actual results thus far obtained, viz., that the chargeable letters annually delivered in the United Kingdom had already increased from 75 millions to 208 millions, the increase in the London district post letters being from about 13 to 23 millions; that the illicit conveyance of letters was in effect suppressed; that the gross revenue was about two-thirds of the largest amount ever obtained, and nearly, if not fully, as great as that under the fourpenny rate; that the net revenue amounted to about £565,000, showing an increase, notwithstanding many counteracting causes, of £100,000 upon that for the first year of penny postage; and lastly, that the inland, or penny post letters, were decidedly the most profitable, if not the only profitable, part of the Post Office business.[325]

The letter concluded as follows:—

“Looking to the progress now making, under the unfavourable circumstances to which I have adverted, I see no reason to doubt that, if the measure were fully and zealously carried into effect, a very few years, with a revived trade, would suffice to realize the expectations which I held out. I also firmly believe that those circumstances which have tended in no inconsiderable degree to diminish the utility of the measure ... may be avoided; and that without any increase of expense, but simply by improved arrangements.

* * * * *

“Let me hope, Sir, that I may not be considered as unreasonably urgent in thus addressing you. Let me beg of you to consider with indulgence the peculiarity of my position: that I have been appointed, in the words of the Treasury minute, to ‘assist in carrying into effect the penny postage;’ that, although I have no direct influence over the arrangements, they are generally supposed by the public to be under my control; that, my name being identified with the plan, I am, to a great degree, regarded as responsible for its success. On these grounds I confidently, but respectfully, appeal to your kindness and justice to afford me the means of satisfying public expectation by gradually carrying the plan into execution in its fulness and integrity.”

To this letter I received, a fortnight afterwards, a brief reply, if that can be called reply in which no real answer is given, and no definite question even touched upon.[326]

I subsequently wrote two other letters[327] (one on March 23rd, and the other on May 31st) of the same general tenour, but with every modification which I could think of as likely to lead to the desired result.[328] To neither of these did I ever receive any reply, so that the short and evasive answer just mentioned was the only notice ever taken of the various attempts indicated in the foregoing letters to obtain attention to the several improvements which I sought to introduce. I have only to add that all the measures then so slighted are now in operation, tending alike to public convenience and to the increase of the revenue.

Meantime, other circumstances were occurring which before long brought matters to a crisis.

The proposed establishment of a day mail to Newcastle, in accordance with my recommendation, having rendered it desirable that I should visit that town, and Mr. Hodgson Hinde, the Member for Newcastle, having urged that my journey should be made without delay, I applied to Sir George Clerk, and obtained his ready acquiescence. Wishing at the same time to visit some of the country offices, and scrupulously desiring to avoid any approach to breach of rule, I wrote to Colonel Maberly for authority so to do, but this request being referred by him to the Postmaster-General, and representations being made by the latter to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the end was that the sanction to my journey was altogether withdrawn, the management of the matter being handed over to the Post Office; with what prospect of good result I leave the reader to judge. This, however, was not all; for soon afterwards, viz., on July 12th, I received a letter from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, not in reply to any of mine, but announcing that from the ensuing 14th of September (when my third year at the Treasury would end) my “further assistance” would be “dispensed with;” the notification, however, concluding with the following acknowledgment:—

“In making this communication I gladly avail myself of the opportunity of expressing my sense of the satisfactory manner in which, during my tenure of office, you have discharged the several duties which have been from time to time committed to you.”[329]

Being very unwell at the time when this letter reached me, and of course far from benefited by its perusal, I was constrained to apply to Sir George Clerk for a short leave of absence—a request readily granted. After a little repose I prepared an answer to Mr. Goulburn’s letter, which, after much reconsideration and consultation with my brothers, I sent in on July 29th. Its general purpose was to urge that the late decision might be reconsidered; but, to ease matters, I offered, as I had done on a previous occasion, to work for a time without salary.[330] Meanwhile, however, additional discouragement had occurred from the fact that, in reply to an objection raised against my salary by Colonel Sibthorpe, the intended discontinuance of my services had been announced by Sir George Clerk in the House of Commons.

On August 1st I received a note from Mr. Moffatt, of which the following is an extract:—

“‘I perused with great concern the flagrant announcement made in the House on Friday evening touching the rejection of your future services.

“‘Memory supplies me with no parallel to this treatment; it embodies an act of public dishonesty, which, if permitted, would be alike discreditable to the Government which proposed, and to the assembly which should sanction, such an arrangement.’

“_August 9th._—Matthew has taken up the matter earnestly; he has seen Brougham, Wilde, Villiers, and Aglionby, who express great anger and surprise now they understand what is intended. It seems they had assumed that I was to be employed in some other department; this, they say, is the general impression, which accounts for the apathy on the subject hitherto. Some course or other will, I expect, be decided on to-morrow. Of course I take no part in the matter myself.”

After much consultation, however, it was deemed expedient to defer all action until the next session of Parliament; and, though the announcement of this decision was little to my satisfaction, I kept my thoughts to myself.

About a week afterwards I received a letter from the Chancellor of the Exchequer in reply to my letter of July 29th, which, however, though it spoke in somewhat elaborate approbation of my services, repeated his decision as to their discontinuance.[331]

“_August 20th._—I want to make the remnant of time as effective as possible, and with this view generally get to work soon after six in the morning.”

“_September 10th._—Received an unexpected summons from the Chancellor of the Exchequer.... He was very cordial and friendly, and began to express his regret at the necessity under which he felt himself as to the termination of my engagement, &c. I told him that I did not intend to avail myself of the interview to reopen the question, and merely wished to thank him for his intention of recording in a Treasury Minute approval of my services.... He intimated the probability of his applying to me hereafter for special assistance in Post Office affairs, if I had no objection; thanked me earnestly for what I had done, and shook hands with apparent warmth. His manner now and heretofore, and the tenour of his letters, go far to confirm the impression that he feels that he is acting unjustly, and under compulsion, I believe, of the Postmaster-General, who is said to command five or six votes in the House of Commons.”

“_September 14th._—My engagement terminates to-day.... The revenue payments for the quarter up to the 10th instant amount to £112,000; or £33,000 more than at the corresponding date of last year.

“_September 17th._—On a review of this Journal I find that the savings which I have effected or proposed since the present Government came in (September 3rd, 1841) amount at a low estimate to £80,000 per annum, of which £51,000 is the amount since I received notice of the termination of my engagement. And these savings are in no instance obtained by a sacrifice of convenience on the part of the public, but in many [instances] are the result of measures tending greatly to increase such convenience.

“_September 22nd._—Lord Brougham, who has seen a copy of the correspondence between Mr. Goulburn and myself, pronounces my case to be ‘irresistible.’ He has kindly volunteered to write to Lord Ashburton, who is daily expected to return from America, to get him to see Sir Robert Peel on the subject.... Sir Thomas Wilde, who had previously seen the same correspondence, also expresses a strong opinion as to the strength of my case, and has very kindly volunteered to undertake it in Parliament. A strong case in such hands will indeed, I trust, prove irresistible.

“_September 23rd._—Many of the Liberal papers are attacking the Government on account of my dismissal.

“_September 26th._—Yesterday and to-day prepared, with Matthew’s assistance, a letter to Sir Robert Peel, stating shortly the leading facts of my case, tendering proofs of each part, and earnestly begging an audience.

“_September 28th._—Sent in my letter to Sir Robert Peel (dated yesterday).[332] Sent also a copy, with a short note dated to-day, to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

“Received from the Treasury a letter (27th inst.) passing my accounts and containing the following paragraph:—‘I am also commanded by their Lordships to take this opportunity of stating that they consider it due to you, on the termination of your engagement with the Government, to express to you the approbation with which they have regarded your zealous exertions in the execution of the duties which have been entrusted to you, and how materially the efficiency of the Post Office arrangements has been promoted by the care and intelligence evinced by you in the consideration of the various important questions which have been referred to you.’

“_October 12th._—Dined with Mr. Moffatt at the Reform Club. Showed him the recent correspondence with Goulburn and Peel, and discussed with him confidentially future proceedings. He is very much in earnest, and desirous of assisting, through the Committee, as much as possible.”

Three days later I received the following letter from Sir Robert Peel:—

“Drayton Manor, October 13th, 1842.

“SIR,—I beg leave to acknowledge the receipt of your letter dated the 27th of September. It reached me the day after I had left London.

“Had I received it previously to my departure, I should have acceded to your request for a personal interview, though I consider the subject of your letter fitter for written than for verbal communication.

“Since I received it I have referred to the letter which you addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the 29th of July last, and to the Minutes of the Board of Treasury respecting your appointment, and have given to the subject generally the best consideration in my power. It had indeed been brought under my notice by Mr. Goulburn, at the time that his letters of the 11th of July and of the 11th of August were addressed to you.

“I am bound to state to you that I entirely concur in the opinion expressed by Mr. Goulburn in that of the 11th of August, that the continued employment of an independent officer, for the purposes for which it is urged by you, would necessarily lead either to the entire supercession of those who are by their offices responsible for the management of the Post Office department, or to a conflict of authority, highly prejudicial to the public service.

“I entertain a due sense of the motives by which your conduct in respect to Post Office arrangements has been actuated, and of the zeal and fidelity with which you have discharged the duties committed to you; I cannot doubt that there are still important[333] improvements in those arrangements to be effected, but I must presume that they can be effected through the intervention of the regularly-constituted and the responsible authority, namely, the Postmaster-General, acting under the superintendence and control of the Board of Treasury.

“I have, &c.,

“ROBERT PEEL.

“Rowland Hill, Esq.”

My dismissal, therefore, was now complete and absolute. My right to complete my own plan was denied, all opportunity for so doing withheld, and the measure was to be handed over to men who had opposed it stage by stage, whose reputation was pledged to its failure, and who had unquestionably been caballing to obtain my expulsion from office. Of the feeling under which Mr. Goulburn acted in this matter I have already given my opinion; indeed, I had now become fully aware that the responsibility of the act did not rest on him. As regards Sir Robert Peel, with whom the decision of course lay, to suppose that the reasons which he gave were those which constituted his real ground of action, or that he could have considered his letter as any valid answer to mine, would be an imputation on his understanding which I shall not venture to make. By whatever necessity he may have been constrained, I cannot but think that as he wrote he must have felt some little of that painful feeling which unquestionably pressed hard upon him in more than one important passage of his political career.

The following reply closes the correspondence:—[334]

“Bayswater, October 18th, 1842.

“SIR,—I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 13th instant, confirming the decision of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

“In closing this painful correspondence with the Treasury, permit me, Sir, to make one observation with the hope of removing from your mind the impression that I sought to be reinstated in an office which must impede the public service by introducing a conflict of powers in the administration of the Post Office. I would beg respectfully to recall to your recollection that the Post Office is not only under the general control of the Treasury, but acts with regard to matters of importance under its immediate and specific directions; and that my suggestions, being addressed to the superior authority, could not create any collision between the Post Office and myself. When they were rejected by the Treasury, I always submitted, as it was my duty to do, with implicit deference. When, on the other hand, they were adopted, they became, of course, the orders of the Board, to which the authorities of the Post Office were equally bound to defer. This arrangement, which is, I submit, in exact conformity with the long-established practice defining the subordinate functions of the Post Office, was the one directed by the terms of my appointment; and as long as such an arrangement is faithfully observed or duly enforced, it would appear that no danger can exist of the evil arising to which reference is made.

“But even if these objections were valid against the particular office in question, you will, I am sure, do me the justice to remember that, in my letter to yourself, as well as in those to Mr. Goulburn which form part of this correspondence, I have expressed my readiness to accept any situation in which my services could be effective to the establishment of my plan.

“In conclusion, I beg leave to express my thanks for the kind regard to my feelings which dictated those expressions of approbation with which you, in common with Mr. Goulburn, have been pleased to acknowledge my humble services. They afford me, I respectfully assure you, no slight consolation under the sense of injustice which at this moment weighs upon my mind. You are not unacquainted, Sir, with the long and severe labour which I had to undergo before my plan was adopted by the country and sanctioned by Parliament. When I was called upon to assist in carrying the measure into execution, the Government stipulated that I should apply my whole time to this duty, exclusive of all other occupations. It is quite true that the part of the agreement relating to salary was made certain for a limited period only; but as the purpose of my engagement was the performance of a specific task, I little thought that limitation open to a construction which precludes me from fulfilling my undertaking, more especially when the question was relieved from all embarrassment on the score of salary. If I could have imagined that I should be dismissed before my plan was fully developed in action, whatever time might be found to be really necessary for that object, I should have been little justified in entering upon the task. The ultimate advantage which was to accrue to me was not of a pecuniary nature. It was believed, and rightly believed, that I aspired to the reputation which might fairly be expected to attend the conduct of so great a measure to its completion, and that with such a result of my exertions I should be well satisfied. Deprived of that conduct, I am deprived of the means of earning my only reward.

“I have, &c.,

“ROWLAND HILL.

“Rt. Hon. Sir ROBERT PEEL, Bart., &c., &c., &c.”