THE LIFE
OF
SIR ROWLAND HILL
K.C.B., D.C.L., F.R.S., F.R.A.S., ETC.
AND THE
HISTORY OF PENNY POSTAGE.
BY
SIR ROWLAND HILL
AND
HIS NEPHEW
GEORGE BIRKBECK HILL, D.C.L.
AUTHOR OF
“DR. JOHNSON: HIS FRIENDS AND HIS CRITICS,” ETC.
IN TWO VOLUMES.
VOL. II.
LONDON:
THOS. DE LA RUE & CO.
110, BUNHILL ROW.
1880
(The right of Translation and Reproduction is reserved.)
PRINTED BY
THOMAS DE LA RUE AND CO., BUNHILL ROW,
LONDON.
CHAPTER XII.
[COMMITTEE OF ENQUIRY (1843).]
“State and Prospects of Penny Postage,” 1—Examined before the Committee, 2—The “Fallacious Return,” 4—Charge for the Packet Service, 5—Treaty with France, 6—Colonel Maberly’s Evidence, 7—Dockwra, Allen, and Palmer, 9—Australian Letters and India, 10—Committee’s Report, 12—Spain and Russia, 13—Letters from Sydney Smith and Miss Martineau, 14.
CHAPTER XIII.
[RAILWAY DIRECTION (1843-1846).]
Director and then Chairman of the Brighton Railway Company, 16—Examination of Railway Officers, 18—Enforcement of Penalties, 19—Three Codes of Signals. Safety of the Line, 20—Excursion and Express Trains, 21—Postal facilities for Brighton, 22—Value of Shares. Resignation of Chairmanship, 23—Offer from the South-Western Company, 24—Parliament and the Railways, 25.
CHAPTER XIV.
[NATIONAL TESTIMONIAL (1844-1846).]
United States, 27—Mazzini and Sir James Graham, 28—“A Penny Post,” by John Hill, 29—Subscriptions to the Testimonial, 29—Income Tax Commissioners, 30—Mr. Cobden and the Anti-Corn Law League, 31—Presentation of Testimonial, 32.
CHAPTER XV.
[APPOINTMENT TO POST OFFICE (1846).]
The New Ministry, 37—Lord Clanricarde Postmaster-General, 38—Mr. Warburton, 39—Appointment offered, 40—Mr. Hawes, 41—A Painful Dilemma, 42—Letter to Mr. Hawes. Appointment accepted, 43—Promise of Promotion, 46.
CHAPTER XVI.
[JOINT SECRETARYSHIP (1846-1848).]
The “Edinburgh Review” and Mr. Charles Dickens, 48—Restrictive Minute, 49—Cabals, 51—Snowed up, 52—The Post Office a vast Machine, 53—Liverpool Town Council, 54—Lord Clanricarde’s Boldness, 55—Bristol Post Office, 57—Lieutenant Waghorn, 59—A Bundle of old Clothes by Post, 61—Applications for Increase of Salary, 63—Statistics, 64—Book Post. Proposed System of Promotion, 65—Railway Legislation, 66—Money Order Department, 70—Offensive Minute. Mr. Cobden’s Advice, 73—Savings in Stationery, 76—Arrears of Money Orders, 77—Carelessness in Remittance, 78—Attempted Robbery, 79—Frauds, 80—Esquires in Low Life, 81—Joseph Ady, 82—Telegraph, 83—Chartists, 84.
General Progress. Letter to Mr. Baring, 85—Number of Letters from 1839 to 1847, 86—Book Post. Professor De Morgan, 87—Evasion of Postage, 88—Scale of Salaries. The Interpretation of a Fortnight’s Holiday, 89—Letter-boxes, 90—Railway Notices. Sir Erskine May, 91—United States, 92—France, Revolution of 1848, 93—Belgium, 94.
CHAPTER XVII.
[EFFORTS FOR IMPROVEMENT IN POSITION (1848-1849).]
Discordant action in the Post Office, 95—Claim for Promotion, 96—Lord John Russell on Penny Postage, 98—The Ministry in Danger, 99—Great Increase of Expenditure, 100—Formal Application for Promotion, 101—The Chancellor of the Exchequer’s unreasonable Demand, 103—Health again fails, 105.
CHAPTER XVIII.
Sunday Labour in Post Office, 107—Bath Post Office, 108—Closing of Money Order Offices, 109—Other Measures of Relief. “Forward Letters,” 110—Minute on Reduction of Sunday Labour, 111—Lord’s Day Society, 113—Treachery in the Camp, 115—Bishop of London, 116—City Meeting, 118—Publication of Minute, 121—No Compulsion. Extracts from Private Journal, 123—Hon. and Rev. Grantham Yorke. Insubordination, 128—Slanders of Lord’s Day Society, 129—The first Sunday on the new Plan, 131—Anonymous Letters, 134—Lord John Russell, 135—Further Slanders of the Lord’s Day Society, 136—Railway Sorting, 137—Suburban Sunday Delivery, 138—General Thompson and Dr. Vaughan, 139—Meetings of Surveyors, 140—Further Sunday relief, 141—Cabals, 143—Demand for total Abolition of Sunday Labour, 144—Mr. Wallace. Visit to Greenock, 148—Mr. Matthew Forster, 149—The Times, 151—Lord Ashley’s Motion, 155—No Sunday Deliveries, 158—Commission on Sunday Labour, 160.
CHAPTER XIX.
[PARTIAL IMPROVEMENT IN POSITION (1850-1851).]
The Word of a Minister, 163—Renewed Claim for Promotion, 164—Mr. Warburton, 165—Mr. Cobden, 166—Mr. Hume, 167—Sir C. Wood, 169—Application for an Assistant-Secretary, 170—Mr. Frederic Hill—his Services as an Inspector of Prisons, 171—Ministry in Danger, 173—Increase of Salary, 174—Death of Mr. T. W. Hill. Mr. Frederic Hill’s Appointment, 176—Staff of Clerks, 177.
[APPENDIX TO CHAPTER XIX (1849-1851).]
Money Order Department, 178—Clerks divided into Classes, 179—Clerks in Charge. Prepayment, 180—Mail Trains versus Mail Carts, 181—Rural Distribution, 182—Postal Treaties, 183—Salaries and Promotion, 184; Rectification of Accounts, 185—Mr. Cunard and the West Indian Mails, 186—United States. India, 187—France. Revenue, 188—Mail Robbery, 189—Improved Condition of Officials. Source of Dishonesty, 190—“Household Words” and “Quarterly Review,” 191.
CHAPTER XX.
[EFFORTS FOR FURTHER IMPROVEMENT IN POSITION (1851-1852).]
The Railway Department, 193—Letter from Mr. Cobden. Visit to the West Riding, 194—The two Secretaries, 195—Renewed Application for Promotion, 196—Mr. Cobden, Mr. Hume, and Sir C. Wood, 198—A Mysterious Allusion in Mr. Cobden’s Letter, 199—Resignation of the Liberal Ministry, 200—Lord Clanricarde’s Minute. Statement of Improvements, 201.
CHAPTER XXI.
Lord Hardwicke Postmaster-General, 203—Two Kings in Brentford, 205—Mr. Warburton, 206—Court Dress. The Latch-key, 207—Chevalier Bunsen, 208—Who is to be Subordinate? 209—Lord Hardwicke’s peculiar Spelling. An Election Job, 210—Resignation of Tory Ministry, 211—East Indian Post Office, 212.
CHAPTER XXII.
Lord Canning, Postmaster-General, 213—Treaty with France, 214—Large Savings, 215—Letter to Lord Canning, 215—Promotion or Resignation, 217—Lord Canning’s Answer, 218—Dangerous State of Health, 219—Commission for Revising Salaries, 221—Dinner at Lord Canning’s. Mr. Gladstone, 222—Mortality among Colonels, 223—Sole Secretary, 224.
CHAPTER XXIII.
[PROGRESS OF REFORM FROM THE MIDDLE OF 1851 TO THE END OF 1854.]
Railway Legislation, 227—Acceleration of Northern Mails, 231—Limited Mails, 232—A Transformation Scene, 233—Silence under Misrepresentation. Premiums for Punctuality, 235—Mail-bag Apparatus, 236—Rectification of Accounts, 237—Packet Service (Lord Canning’s Commission), 238—Colonial Postage, 241—The Times, 243—Foreign Book Post. Chevalier Bunsen and Lord Hardwicke, 244—Salaries and Promotion, 245—Report of Commissioners for Revising Salaries, 246—Patronage, 248—Competitive Examinations, 249—Telegraphs, 251—Postal Reform abroad, 252.
Money Orders. Article in “Household Words,” 253—Hong-Kong Post Office, 257—Prepayment. Early Deliveries, 258—Pillar Letter-boxes. Number of Letters, 259—Increased Honesty, 260—Titus Oates. Funeral of the Duke of Wellington, 261.
CHAPTER XXIV.
[SOLE SECRETARYSHIP—FIRST ANNUAL REPORT, 1854. PROGRESS OF]
[IMPROVEMENT (1855-1859).]
Lord Canning, 263—Arrangement of Secretarial Duties, 264—The Staff of Officers, 266—Annual Reports. Monthly Report of Improvements in hand, 267—Post Office versus Board of Works, 268—Free Delivery, 270—London District Offices, 271—Scotch and Irish Mails, 273—Need of Railway Legislation, 276—Sir G. C. Lewis, 277—Government Loans to Railway Companies, 278—Government Purchase of Railways. Royal Commission on Railways, 283—Arbitration, 284—True Interests of the Companies, 285—Money Orders. Contract Work, 286—Post Office versus Admiralty. Mr. Trollope, 288—Panama Route, 290—Indian Mutiny, 292—Acceleration of News, 294—Revenue and Expenditure, 295—Predictions Fulfilled, 297—Promotion by Merit. Sir W. Hayter, 298—Civil Service Examination, 300—Letter from Sir C. Trevelyan, 301—Health of Officers, 302—Life Insurance, 304—Mutual Guarantees, 307—Libraries, 308.
APPENDIX TO CHAPTER XXIV.
Soldiers’ Letters. Colonial and Foreign Posts, 310—Street Nomenclature and House Numbering, 311—Early History of the Post Office, 312—Improvement in Accounts. Number of Offices, 313—Number of Letters. Returned Letters, 314—Registration, 315—Soldiers’ Remittances. Extension of Money Order System to Colonies, 316—Transference of Management of Colonial Post Offices. Foreign Posts, 317—United States, 318—Mr. Pliny Miles, 319—Treaties made easily Terminable, 320.
CHAPTER XXV.
[DISCONTENTS IN THE OFFICE (1855-9).]
Demands for higher Wages, 321—“Civil Service Gazette,” 322—Letter-carriers—Eligibility of their Position, 324—Christmas-boxes, 325—Mutinous Meeting, 326—Threats of Assassination, 327—A familiar Acquaintance, 328.
CHAPTER XXVI.
[MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS FROM 1855 TO 1859.]
Postal Guide and Postal Official Circular, 329—Date Stamps. Mr. Pearson Hill’s Stamping Machine, 330—Mr. C. W. Sikes and the Post Office Savings Banks, 331—Salaries, 333—Volunteer Corps, 334—Compulsory Prepayment, 335—Parcels Post. Tubular Conveyance, 336—Inventors, 339—Telegraph Tube Service, 340—Mr. R. Stephenson, 341—Postage on Newspapers, 342—The Times, 344—Mr. Gladstone, 345—Serious Illness, 346—Plan for distributing Newspapers, 347—Wreck of the “Violet” Mail-packet, 349—The Bey of Tunis. Number of Letters posted in Russia and Manchester. The last Attack on Penny Postage, 350—Government Franking, 351.
CHAPTER XXVII.
[POSTMASTERS-GENERAL (1855-1860).]
Lord Canning, 353—Indian Mutiny. “Edinburgh Review,” 354—Duke of Argyll, 355—Lord Colchester, 356—Lord Elgin, 357—Health failing, 358—Royal Society. K.C.B., 359—Vigorous and harmonious Action in the Office, 360—Dangerous Illness. Lord Stanley of Alderley, 361—Fourth Cabal. Mr. Gladstone’s Support, 362.
CHAPTER XXVIII.
Post Office Savings Banks—their Costliness, 364—Registration, 367—Pattern Post, 368—Packet Service. Transference from Admiralty. Mr. Frederic Hill’s Reforms, 369—Tenders. Surveys of Mail-packets, 370—Readjustment of Transmarine Rates, 371—Punctuality, 372—Large Expenditure prevented, 373—Reward for faithful Services, 374—Free-trade and subsidised Mail-packets, 375.
CHAPTER XXIX.
A Blow struck at Promotion by Merit. Appeal to the Treasury, 376—Interviews with Lord Palmerston, 377—Health broken down. Medical Certificate, 378—Mr. Gladstone’s Kindness. Letter of Resignation, 379—Results of Postal Reform, 380—Number of Letters. Revenue, 382—Letters from Lord Stanley of Alderley, 384—Lord Stanley’s Speech in the House of Lords, 386—Statue in Birmingham, 387—Mr. Joseph Parkes. “Sir F. Baring’s opinion of Rowland Hill,” 388—Pension to Lady Hill. Notice by Lord Palmerston, 390—Treasury Minute, 391—Authorship of Penny Postage, 393—Lady Hill’s Address to the Queen, 394—Grant from Parliament. Lord Palmerston’s Speech, 395—Speeches by Lords Brougham and Clanricarde, 398—Letter to Mr. Gladstone, 399—Mr. Gladstone’s Answer, 400—University of Oxford. Testimonials. Albert Gold Medal, 400—Happy among Reformers! Postal Reforms of the Future, 401—Packet Service. Every Department should be Self-supporting, 402—Contract Work. Female Labour. Parcels Post, 403—Postal Union. Office of Postmaster-General should be Permanent, 404—Patronage. Promotion by Merit. Post Office Monopoly, 405—The Path that lies before Reformers, 406.
BOOK III.
Squandering of Force, 411—Rowland Hill’s Character. His Pride in his Plan, 412—A rare Combination of Enthusiasm and Practical Power. Never Complained of the World. His perfect Integrity, 413—His high Standard of public Duty. His Generosity and Consideration for the feelings of others, 414—Asked too much of men in general, 415—A Member of the Political Economy Club, 416—His continued Interest in Postal Affairs. Garibaldi, 417—Effect of Education on the Postal Revenue. Spelling. His Grief at the Faults committed in the Post Office, 418—Mr. Gladstone’s Description of his Lot. State of his Health, 419—Royal Society Club, 420—An overwrought Brain. Metropolitan Asylums Board, 421—Regularity of his Household, 422—The Resources of his Old Age, 423—His Gratitude. Thoughtfulness for others, 424—Death in the Family Group, 425—Colonel Torrens. His Son’s Marriage, 426—Not Forgotten of Men. Statue in Kidderminster. Freedom of the City of London, 428—Death, 429,—Westminster Abbey, 430.
APPENDICES.
[A.—Letter to Postmaster-General Lord Clanricarde (January 3rd, 1849), p. 437.]
[B.—Letter to Postmaster-General Lord Clanricarde (August 13th, 1849), p. 443.]
[C.—Lord Clanricarde’s Reply (August 23rd, 1849), p. 445.]
[D.—Minute on the Sunday Duties of the Post Office (February 3rd, 1849), p. 446.]
[F.—Anonymous Letter from a Sub-Sorter (October 11th, 1849), p. 455.]
[G.—Letter to Mr. Warburton (November 16th, 1850), p. 457.]
[H.—Letter to Postmaster-General Lord Canning (June 18th, 1853), p. 460.]
[I.—Memorandum by Sir R. Hill on the Net Revenue of the Post Office (December 18th, 1862), p. 466.]
[J.—Conveyance of Mails by Railway—Memorandum thereon (January 6th, 1857), p. 474.]
[K.—Minute relative to Panama Route to Australia (September 27th, 1858), p. 478.]
[L.—Letter to Lord Canning Governor-General of India (October 24th, 1857), p. 482.]
[N.—Letter to the Lords of the Treasury—Superannuation Grant (March 17th, 1864), p. 492.]
BOOK II.
HISTORY
OF
PENNY POSTAGE.
(Continued.)
[CHAPTER XII.]
COMMITTEE OF ENQUIRY (1843).
As the Committee was not moved for until so late in the session, it could not have very long to sit; and, at the end of seven weeks, its inquiry was brought to a close by the approach of the prorogation. This abrupt ending was in two ways unfortunate. In the first place, it cut short the evidence I was giving in a reply to allegations from the Post Office; and, in the second place, it allowed no time for more than the briefest Report. To supply these deficiencies, and to present the whole in readable shape to the public, I drew up a careful statement of the principal facts given in evidence, with my own comments thereon, and published it under the title of “State and Prospects of Penny Postage”; [1] and from this I proceed to abstract or extract, as may appear most convenient. The pamphlet, I may add, contained, in an appendix, the whole of the correspondence asked for by Sir Thomas Wilde; including, therefore, the letters refused by the Treasury, but which I had afterwards laid before the Committee in the course of my evidence.
The witnesses before the Committee—first, myself, and afterwards the Secretary of the Post Office, the Postmaster-General, and three other functionaries of the department.
“The main part of my evidence consisted of written statements, prepared from day to day, and read before the Committee. The Committee proposed this unusual course, and though I saw that it would greatly increase the labour of preparation, yet, as it enabled me to adopt a better arrangement of matter than could have been secured in an examination altogether vivâ voce, I readily complied with their desire.” [2]
The labour, however, was enormous—especially in the collection, verification, and arrangement of a vast number of facts—and required for its efficiency all practicable assistance from my family. I believe nothing but such assistance, and the excitement of the contest, could have enabled me to support the toil. The amount of matter laid before the Committee may be judged of when I say that my examination-in-chief occupies a hundred and thirty-four pages in the folio Blue Book (equal to two volumes of an ordinary novel), and engaged the whole time of the Committee at six consecutive sittings. The heaviest part of the work was in the beginning, as then my time for preparation was briefest, while, as it fell out, the mass of matter was largest—ninety-five of the hundred and thirty-four pages being taken up with the proceedings of the first four days.
After having restated the principal features of my plan, enumerated the chief improvements already effected, and glanced at the chief causes then impairing or retarding the beneficial operation of these improvements, I repeated the statement of their results, as already mentioned in my petition, adding that the chargeable letters had increased to nearly threefold, while the increase in Post Office expenses, though still, in my opinion, excessive, was, when the accounts were cleared of certain extraneous charges, actually less for the three years subsequent to the reduction of the rate than for the three years previous thereto.[3]
I referred to a letter from Messrs. Pickford, by which it appeared that they estimated the increase in the number of their letters during the last four years, enclosures being counted in, as from 30,000 to about 720,000.[4]
I compared the results of penny postage, and of the other alterations consequent upon it (so far as they had then been carried into effect), with the recorded anticipations of the Post Office and of myself; referring particularly[5] to illicit conveyance, the safety of postage stamps, and the exchange of charge by number of enclosures for charge by weight; on all which points the expectations of the Post Office had proved erroneous. I also recalled Colonel Maberly’s opinion that in the first year the number of letters would not double, even if every one were allowed to frank; Mr. Louis’s estimate that the adoption of the penny rate would cause a loss of from sevenpence to eightpence per letter—that is, somewhat more than the gross revenue of the Post Office at the time; and Lord Lichfield’s statement in Parliament, that each letter costs the Post Office “within the smallest fraction of twopence-halfpenny”—a calculation making the expense double the produce of the penny rate.[6] On the other hand, I had no difficulty in showing that my calculations had been justified, and my expectations, with due allowance for time and circumstance, fairly fulfilled.
I afterwards laid before the Committee a general statement of measures of improvement not yet effected, but which I had recommended while at the Treasury, several of them essential parts of my original plan.[7] In addition to these, I mentioned various other measures, suggested by experience, which I had been quite unable to bring forward for want of opportunity. I may so far anticipate as to say that nearly all the measures then spoken of under both headings were, after my return to office, carried successively into effect, and that their combined operation is the main cause of the present large amount of public convenience and fiscal benefit derived from the Post Office. After such an enumeration of measures, it was almost superfluous to repeat that “the adoption of my plan was extremely incomplete, its financial operations most injuriously interfered with, and its public benefits lamentably cramped.”
I next proceeded to examine the parliamentary return already referred to, more than once, as the “Fallacious Return,” by which it was made to appear that the Post Office, instead of affording, as shown by the ordinary accounts, a net revenue of £600,000, caused a positive loss. It may well seem incredible that returns emanating from the same department should exhibit results so widely different, and the reader may naturally be curious as to the means by which the difference was produced. It was mainly this: At the time when penny postage was established, the packet service was, with little exception, charged to the Admiralty; whereas in this return the whole amount (£612,850) was charged against the Post Office.[8] The department on which the expense ought to fall, or the equitable division of the charge between the two, might be matter of question; but it is obvious that to make such a change without notification, and thereby exhibit, by a mere shuffling of items, results so impaired, was to lead the public into a very false inference as to the revenue arising from the Post Office under the new system as compared with the old. Indeed, the delusion so produced not only misled large numbers at the time, but, as already said, haunts some minds even to the present day.
This, however, was not all; since the return also made a pretended division of the postage revenue under two heads, one consisting of the inland revenue, the other including the foreign and colonial revenue—a distinction which I showed to be made, not by actual examination of facts and just inference therefrom, but by mere estimate. I also showed that in this return the amount of foreign and colonial postage was greatly swollen at the expense of the inland revenue, the purpose obviously being to disparage the results of penny postage; and further that, despite the statements of Sir Robert Peel and Mr. Goulburn, the net revenue of the department was really £600,000 per annum,[9] a statement soon confirmed by the following admission of Colonel Maberly:—
“As I have stated over and over again, looking at it as regards the Post Office revenue now, as compared with what the Post Office revenue was before the penny post, the surplus of income over expenditure is somewhere about £600,000.” [10]
After disposing of the “fallacious return”—fallacious to the extent of £600,000 per annum—I proceeded to the proof of the different allegations of my petition.
I described a serious error lately made in a treaty with France—an error the more vexatious as being the result of needless meddling.
Extract from my evidence:—
“The next and last case under this head [Economy] is the new postal treaty with France, which, however excellent in its general objects and effects, is, in consequence of important errors in the details, operating very unfavourably on our portion of the revenue derived from the united postage, French and English, on letters between the two countries. Our scale of postage, as the Committee will bear in mind, ascends by half-ounces up to one ounce, and then by ounces. The French scale, on the other hand, ascends by quarter-ounces. Several important results flow from this distinction. As every letter, in regard to a portion of its postage, is under the quarter-ounce scale, the great majority of letters will be just within the quarter-ounce; such letters, therefore, though liable to a French rate of 20d. per ounce, and a British rate of only 10d. per ounce, would be charged 10d. each, viz., 5d. British and 5d. French—the whole being collected sometimes by the one Post Office, sometimes by the other. Under the old system each Government would retain its own 5d., and hand over the second 5d. to the other Government. The English Post Office, however, in order to relieve itself of the trouble of accounting for the letters numeratim, proposed a clause by which each Government would have accounted to the other for the whole mail at once, according to its weight in bulk. I pointed out to the Treasury how unfairly towards our own Government the proposed stipulation would operate, and the proposal of the Post Office was consequently rejected. It appears, however, by the treaty that it was subsequently revived, with a slight modification, which no doubt was thought would obviate the evil, but which only slightly mitigates it. Under the treaty, we are to pay in respect of a mail, the postage of which is collected in England, 20d. an ounce to the French for their share of the postage; whereas on a mail the postage of which is to be collected in France, we are only to receive 12d. per ounce. Applying this rule to the great majority, which, as before said, are just under the quarter ounce, the ultimate effect is, that of our 5d., when the postage is collected in France, the French hand over to us only 3d., retaining 2d. of our 5d., in addition to their own 5d.; whereas, when we collect the postage, we hand over to the French the whole of their 5d., retaining our own 5d. without any addition. Upon certain small classes of letters the arrangement would be in favour of the English, but to a very slight extent even upon such classes; and, on the general balance the disadvantage is to an annual amount probably of some thousands of pounds.” [11]
Upon the importance of additional facilities there was the less need that I should repeat in my pamphlet what I had advanced before the Committee, because of the ample recognition given to such importance, in general terms, by Colonel Maberly, in his evidence:—
“The Post Office has always held the opinion, and I believe they are right, that facilities judiciously applied will enormously increase the correspondence; and I have sometimes myself pushed this doctrine to a length that may be considered almost absurd, that facilities increase correspondence almost more than reduction of the rate.” [12]
On the question, however, of what had been done towards that increase of facilities recognised as so important, I dealt with one or two of the most prominent points. Thus, under the head, “Security of Correspondence,” I referred to my evidence on the subject of registration; feeling it the more necessary to enlarge upon this point because of the exaggerated views put forth in his evidence by Colonel Maberly as to the insecurity then existing—views expressed in such phrases as “The department has become thoroughly demoralized”; [13] there has been “enormous plunder and robbery”; [14] “the plunder is terrific”; [15] and, by way of climax, “a letter posted with money in it might as well be thrown down in the street as put into the Post Office.” [16]
After I had explained to the Committee the difficulties to be encountered in the travelling-office—where “how the duty is to be performed” the Postmaster-General had declared himself “altogether at a loss to imagine,” adding that “if the number of registered letters should increase largely this office must be abolished”—a return was ordered by the Committee, in which, when received, the danger to the public service certainly stood forth in a ludicrous light; since it appeared that the number of registered letters then to be dealt with in the travelling-office, during its whole journey from London to Preston, averaged only six each trip!
For the purpose of refuting my statement, that little or nothing had yet been done in the way of increased facilities to the public, an attempt was made to extort from me an admission that there had been a great number of additional deliveries within the previous twelve months in different parts of the kingdom. The mode taken was to inquire if I were aware of large augmentations in particular towns selected by the querist (Mr. Estcott), who said that he spoke from his own knowledge, and to lead the Committee to infer, from my inability to reply off-hand to such questions, that I must be ignorant on the general subject; the whole was made up of parts, and if I could not speak to these, how could I be informed as to that?[17] In the interval, however, between my two interrogations on this subject, I produced evidence flatly contradicting, so far as related to two out of the three towns named, the allegations so distinctly implied in the questions of the hon. member.[18]
Such are a few of the matters selected for my pamphlet, out of the many dealt with in my evidence relative to past proceedings.
The next point of consideration was the probability of the completion of my plan. I again quote from my pamphlet, premising that in the previous passage I had referred to the importance which I had always attached to the plan as a whole, and to the Duke of Wellington’s emphatic recognition of such importance:—
“As regards probabilities, it is a curious fact that, from the institution of the Post Office to the present time, no important improvement has had its origin in that establishment.[19] The town-posts originated with a Mr. Dockwra,[20] shortly before the Restoration; the cross-posts with Mr. Allen, about the middle of last century; and the substitution of mail-coaches for horse and foot posts was, as is well known, the work of Mr. Palmer some thirty years later. It is remarkable that the cases of Dockwra and Palmer bear a considerable resemblance to my own. The opposition to the introduction, and, what is more extraordinary, to the working-out and even the continuance of Palmer’s plan, is too well known to be dwelt on here; but both these remarkable men saw their plans adopted, were themselves engaged to work them out, and subsequently, on the complaint of the Post Office, were turned adrift by the Treasury.” [21]
I may remark here that though the three reformers—Dockwra, Palmer, and I—were all alike in the fact of dismissal, a subsequent distinction must be observed. Mr. Dockwra, I fear, never received any recompense for his valuable improvement; Mr. Palmer was allowed a pension of £3,000 per annum, an amount much below that promised him in the case of success—obtaining, however, after many years delay, a parliamentary grant of £50,000; I alone was so far favoured as to be recalled to aid in the completion of my plan.
In dealing with this question of probabilities, I was obliged to dwell strongly on the notorious hostility of the Post Office, as well as its incapacity for the task to be performed: to refer, for instance, to Colonel Maberly’s habitual prediction of failure,[22] and Lord Lowther’s declared inability to see anything in my plan save the introduction of a penny rate, and the establishment of a third delivery to Hampstead.[23] I had also to show, from the past inaction and indifference of the Treasury, the hopelessness of looking for efficient aid in that quarter.
Before concluding the account of my evidence, I extract a passage, which may perhaps afford some little amusement. The reader will recollect the circumstances already mentioned relative to a notice issued by the Post Office, recommending persons corresponding with the far East by the Overland Mail to appoint agents in India for the payment of the onward postage.[24] On this subject the following passages occurred before the Committee:—
“Chairman.—With regard to Indian letters, an objection was taken by the East India Company to forwarding letters from Bombay unless payment was made at Bombay?—I am aware of that.
“That was notified to the Post Office by the East India Company?—Unquestionably.
“The Post Office gave notice to the public of such detention on the part of the East India Company?—Yes.
“Did they do anything more than that?—Yes; they advised that every one wishing to write to places beyond Bombay should appoint an agent for the payment of the transit postage.
“The Post Office advised that?—Yes.
“Where does such advice appear?—In the notice given by the Post Office on the occasion.
* * * * * *
“Does that contain anything more than an announcement to the public that the East India Company had made such a regulation?—Yes; it contains a recommendation to the public to address their letters to the care of correspondents in India.
* * * * * *
“Mr. Tennent.—The tenor of your former answer would import that that was a suggestion emanating from the Post Office; are you aware that that was a recommendation made to the public by the Post Office in pursuance of direct instructions from the Directors of the East India Company?—I was not aware till this moment that the Directors of the East India Company had power to issue instructions to the Postmaster-General.
* * * * * *
“Are you aware of any instruction given by the East India Directors to the Post Office, that if parties wished their letters to be forwarded, they must find an agent there to do it?—I have, of course, no means of knowing the correspondence between the Post Office and the East India Company.
* * * * * *
But assuming that the facts are as I gather from the questions of the honourable gentleman, I do not see how those facts can place the Post Office under the necessity of calling upon the British public to do that which is quite impracticable.
* * * * * *
“Chairman.—What course has been taken?—The course which appears to have been taken is this, that the Post Office issued the notice I have read in the course of the last April, and that it was withdrawn almost immediately after, in consequence, as it appears to me, of the ridicule which the proceeding brought upon the Post Office.” [25]
The proceedings of the Committee, as I have already stated, were brought to a rather abrupt conclusion, so as to prevent, for the moment, an elaborate Report. Nevertheless the power to say enough to acquit both the Treasury and Post Office was obviously in the hands of the majority, had it felt warranted in such a course; or again, if the inquiry were judged incomplete, nothing could have been easier than to procure the reappointment of the Committee in the following session, and so to obtain abundant time for the formal acquittal of both departments, together with an equally complete condemnation of myself. Neither course, however, was taken. The Committee merely reported what it had done, regretted its inability, for want of time, to report its opinion, but gave the evidence and various correspondence, and entertained no doubt that both the Treasury and the Post Office would give my proposals the fullest consideration.[26] The reader must imagine for himself, if he can, the grounds on which the Committee had to rest when they expressed such confidence. All I need say here is, that I can point to but little in subsequent events to relieve his perplexity.
My pamphlet continued as follows:—
“In conclusion, I must repeat that if in this pamphlet I have limited my attention to portions only of the late evidence, the selection is made merely for brevity. It would be impossible, without extending these remarks to a most tedious length, even to touch upon all the points in debate. There is not a single one, however, I most emphatically declare, from the discussion of which I have the least disposition to shrink; nor, I maintain, a single material point on which my positions were shaken by the Post Office evidence—all apparent effect of the kind being referable to such misrepresentation, distortion, or suppression, however unwittingly employed, as has been exposed in these pages.
“Under these circumstances, what remains for me to do? So long as there is no opportunity of advancing the public benefit, and so long as the absence of all power relieves me in justice from all responsibility, it is my earnest wish to retire from labours so heavy as those in which I have now for many years been engaged;—to avoid conflicts which, though I have not shrunk from them when necessary, have always been repugnant to my feelings and remote from my habits of life;—and, if possible, to recruit that health which both these causes have seriously impaired.” [27]
The preparation of the pamphlet from which I have drawn the foregoing account could not, of course, begin until the appearance of the printed report of the Committee’s proceedings, which was not until more than three months after their close. The interim allowed me a period for needful rest, and was not quite without features of interest.
On September 7th I received a letter from the Spanish Minister in London, requesting information desired by his Government, with a view to the introduction of the postage-stamp into Spain. Such information I was, of course, most happy to supply; the more so as I felt that the very use of the stamp must involve a certain amount of uniformity, and, as a consequence, tend to low rates.
Not long afterwards, the papers announced that the Russian Government also had adopted the stamp, though for a reason which the Englishman even of that time would hardly have imagined for himself, and which certainly I had not set forth among expected advantages. The motive in each case was understood to be the desire of preventing fraud in the postmasters; and it is obvious that much peculation, practicable under the system of money payments, would be prevented by the use of stamps. It is remarkable, however, that the first countries to adopt the improvement—Spain and Russia—should be two so far from taking a general lead in European civilization and liberality.
On November 22nd the Committee’s Report was issued, and without loss of time I fell to such perusal and annotation of the whole evidence as were necessary preliminaries to the writing of my pamphlet. It was finished before the end of January, and copies were immediately sent to the leading journals, to every member of the Postage Committee, to Sir Robert Peel and Mr. Goulburn, to various other influential persons, and to a large number of friends and supporters.
Amongst various letters of acknowledgement I received the following:—
“From the Rev. Sydney Smith.
“Sir,—Many thanks for your book, which I will diligently read, as I know no one who has increased the public happiness and comfort more than yourself (I do not meddle with the question of revenue—that is a separate chapter); but it is impossible to speak too highly of the advantage and satisfaction your plan has afforded to the country at large; and though it may have diminished the revenue directly, I think it might easily be that facility of communication is a great source of wealth and revenue too.
“February 22nd, 1844.”
“From Miss Martineau. “February 26th, 1844.
“Dear Mr. Hill,—I write not to trouble you for an answer, about which I always feel most scrupulous, but to thank you for sending me your last statement. It is most painfully interesting; and it seems to be found so by others, for my copy has been passing from hand to hand, since the day after I had it. At first reading I was, I own, more discouraged than I ever felt before; but the more I consider, the more persuaded I am that all will yet end well. Of one thing I am now fully convinced—that there is no danger of any one supposing you responsible for ‘improvements’ superficially resembling yours, but expensive and ill-managed. From all I can learn everywhere, it does seem clear that a broad distinct line is drawn between your propositions and those of the reckless . . . or any one else. I am always at it with my acquaintance in Parliament; and what I see there is the ground of my hope that you will get justice at last. I find them all, at first, prone to the very natural error of supposing the Post Office gentry good authority on Post Office matters. When they take my reference to the Report, and find what a figure these same gentry cut there, a great point is gained, from which, surely, justice must, sooner or later, ensue.”
[CHAPTER XIII.]
RAILWAY DIRECTION. (1843 TO 1846.)
In the midst of these transactions I found it necessary, as I have already said, to think of means for the maintenance of my family. My choice, however, was limited, for, as I never abandoned the hope of returning to my occupation under Government, I had to avoid any engagement which would render this impracticable or even difficult. I wished, likewise, to find some post which should, if possible, have some direct relation to that service which was uppermost in my thoughts—should, even by its nature, tend to give me increased fitness for those more immediate and more detailed duties which I hoped to be one day called on to perform.
It happened that at this time the affairs of the Brighton Railway Company were in an unsatisfactory state, so much so that it was held desirable to unseat the actual directors and appoint others in their place. In this project I was invited to take part, and being put in nomination for the new board, became, by the success of the movement, one of the directors. The new Chairman was Mr. J. M. Parsons, and to him, more than to any other individual, are to be attributed the judicious and energetic measures taken, in the early stages, for the restoration of the Company’s affairs. He afterwards informed me that he viewed my appointment with considerable alarm, expecting that I should urge, if not a penny rate, at least some sweeping reduction of fares, to the ruin of the Company’s finances. It will suffice to say that we became sincere, accordant, and earnest coadjutors, and formed a friendship which continued warm and unbroken to the day of his death, some five-and-twenty years afterwards.
The rigorous examination immediately set on foot showed the existence of practices now too well known in railway management, whereby the appearance of prosperity is maintained amidst progress towards real insolvency. Dividends had been paid when there were in fact no profits to divide, and meantime the resources of the Company were being drained and narrowed, by waste, mismanagement, and inattention to public convenience. Distrust and dissatisfaction had gone so far that the value of the shares, originally £50, had fallen to £35. The directors soon saw that for the first half-year, at least, no dividend could justly be made; but, of course, they were not without anxiety as to the result of such an announcement on the price of shares. To our gratification, it was so well received by the public that the price almost immediately began to rise; and I may add that purchasers had no reason to regret their outlay.
After having continued some time in the direction, I had the satisfaction to find myself, on the motion of the late Mr. Pascoe Grenfell, M.P., unanimously appointed Chairman of the Company, and from this time I gave my undivided attention to its affairs. Fully convinced of its great capabilities, and having great reliance in my coadjutors, and (if the truth must be told) in myself, I had invested in its shares all my own property, and a considerable sum of money borrowed from the various members of my family and other friends, some of whom also became shareholders on their own account. In so doing, I did not look upon myself as rash, but as simply embarking the largest capital that I could command in a concern of whose soundness I was well assured, in which I was a leading partner, and from which, if expectations were not realized, I should have it in my power to withdraw with, at worst, but moderate loss.
While retrenching useless expenditure and providing for public convenience, the directors also turned much attention to the important point of security to the lives and limbs of passengers. On this point, as well as on some others, I had an opportunity for inspection, of which I made the most. I had removed to Brighton; in my trips to town, made three or four times each week, I regularly took my seat in a coupé facing backwards at the extreme end of the train. By this means I could, at pleasure, take notice of proceedings and appearances along the line, and in particular mark how far the signals required after the passing of a train were duly made. The solicitor to the Company, who also resided at Brighton, soon became my frequent companion, and now and then the third place was occupied by one or other of the directors. This gave convenience for the transaction of business by the way, and enabled me to enter the board-room thoroughly prepared for rapid and decisive action.
I believe it was upon the Brighton line that systematic examination of officers previously to their admission to new duties was first established, and I took every means to make it as complete as possible.
Generally speaking, I had the hearty co-operation of my brother directors, and doubtless many of the improvements effected during my connection with the Board originated with one or other of their number; but there was one important point on which it was with difficulty that I got my own way, and I advert to this particularly, because I am convinced by a variety of circumstances that laxity thereon is a frequent cause of accident, even to the present day. This was a strict enforcement of penalties—very moderate ones sufficed—on every discovered breach of rule. Of course there was ready concurrence in this whenever the omission resulted in positive accident, but there was no less disposition to condone at other times. “Why punish the poor man?—No harm has been done,” was a frequent remonstrance; and when I pointed out that the amount of blame was nowise affected by the result, my proposition, though admitted in theory, was deemed harsh in practice; so that, while no objection was raised to the soundness of the rule, almost every case seemed to be regarded as an exception. Fortunately, I had enough of support to maintain enforcement, and to this I attribute much of the benefit which followed.
Another useful practice was to diffuse throughout the Company’s force full information as to the cause of accidents, wherever they might occur. For this purpose, we arranged with the proprietors of one of the railway journals, that whenever accounts of accidents were given in the paper we should be supplied with three or four hundred slip-copies of the narrative, and these were distributed to every station-master, engine-driver, guard, and pointsman—in short, to all on whose conduct the safety of the passengers depended.
Again, by occasionally travelling on the engine I discovered defects in the arrangements which might otherwise have been concealed till some catastrophe brought them to light. For instance, the road between London and Brighton at that time belonged to three several companies, each with a different code of signals, or rather, each, with certain exceptions, interpreting the same signals differently. Consequently, the engine-driver, in reading the signal, had to consider on what part of the road the train was then running. The danger of such a state of things was so obvious that I had no great difficulty in establishing a uniform code. I may remark here, that I know of few things more interesting or exciting than to travel on an engine running at high speed, especially on a dark night.
The success of all these precautionary measures was highly satisfactory. It must, indeed, be admitted that in some respects safety was easier of attainment then than now, lines being more simple and the traffic much less. But, on the other hand, experience was then comparatively short, and much was unknown which is now familiar; neither was the electric telegraph yet in use. Be all this as it may, the fact is that during the three years and more that I sat at the Brighton board the Company was subjected to, I believe, but one external claim for compensation. This exceptional case was as follows. It is well known that when a train reaches a terminus it is the duty of a pointsman to direct it into some portion of the station then free to receive it. On one occasion the pointsman at Brighton so blundered that the arriving train struck against a line of carriages, fortunately empty ones, then occupying the rails on to which it ran. As the train was of course preparing to stop, and had brought down its speed almost to a minimum, the collision was slight; and though the alarm was considerable, and several of the passengers were a little shaken, only one sustained any injury. This was a young woman who wore one of the large combs common at the period, and whose scalp was slightly wounded by its teeth. Of course the compensation was trifling. The pointsman, being brought before the Board, at once acknowledged his error, and declared his inability to account for the momentary misapprehension which produced it, but pleaded in excuse that though he had held his present post for several years, and had had on the average to perform the duty in question nearly a hundred times per day, this was his first mistake in its execution. This statement, which, so far as it could be tested, was found to be literally true, appeared so satisfactory to the Board, that, in their judgment, looking at his conduct as a whole, the man deserved praise rather than blame; though, in deference to public opinion, he was for a time removed to an inferior post.
Two improvements adopted by the Board, chiefly, I believe, on my recommendation, are now recognised as established institutions; and by their extension to other lines, and by increase in the scope of their operation, have obtained an importance far beyond any expectation that I could then have formed. These are excursion-trains and express-trains. Our first excursion-train ran on Sundays only. After a time the train was run on Mondays also.
The earliest express-train, intended to accommodate residents in Brighton whose occupation was in London, started from the first at its present hour, though of necessity it occupied more time in the trip; as no engine of the day was able to run fifty miles without stopping to take in water, while no means had yet been devised for supplying it to an engine in motion. The train, however, travelled at the rate of thirty-four miles per hour, including a halt at Redhill, no small achievement at that time. Every one must have remarked how soon the gratification of one desire gives birth to another—how soon we complain of imperfection in what would have been regarded but a few years earlier as unattainable perfection. I happened one day to travel in an ordinary carriage, and, not being known to its other occupants, heard some free remarks on the management of the line, to which I listened for my own edification. Somewhat to my disappointment, I found the late acceleration complained of as insufficient, one of the passengers exclaiming, “This is a slow-coach!—a very slow coach!” Imprudently I asked, “Are you aware, Sir, that the whole distance from London to Brighton is accomplished in an hour and a-half?” “Oh!” was the glib reply, “if they can do it in an hour and a-half, they can just as well do it in an hour!” [28]
By one expedient I sought to combine advantage to my present service with benefit to my former one. Perceiving that residence at Brighton, and therefore custom to the railway, would be increased by every addition to postal facilities between that town and the metropolis, I induced the directors to make an offer to the Post Office for the conveyance of a mail by every train without any additional expense to that department. The result of this offer, which was kept for some time under consideration at the Post Office, will presently appear.
In the course of 1845 the price of the £50 shares had risen, I think, to £75, or more than twice their market value at the time when the new directors were appointed—a price, however, which I knew to be in excess of their real value, and which was due in part to the general inflation at the time, for this, it may be remembered, was the year of the well-known “railway mania.” I may observe here that, pecuniarily speaking, I had been a gainer by my expulsion from the Treasury; the rise in the value of my railway property, resulting in great measure from my own efforts and those of my brother directors, having been so great as to render my previous salary comparatively insignificant; indeed, in one year, while chairman, my total gain was as high as £6,000. Why, then, did I resign so advantageous a position, especially as I could not but foresee a danger, a fear afterwards too well confirmed, that, in the absence of my own direct supervision and control, these great profits might be exchanged for yet greater losses? The answer is to be found in the political circumstances of the day. By this time Sir Robert Peel’s Government was beginning to totter, and the Liberals to have strong hopes of a speedy return to power. Believing that their return would be followed by my own recall, and feeling that my late efforts had drawn considerably on my strength both of body and mind, I resolved to obtain a long holiday—an indulgence impracticable while I retained the chairmanship. I gave notice accordingly, as appears by the following extract from the Railway Chronicle, which will, perhaps, be the more interesting as it announces the result of the offer to the Post Office already mentioned, and indicates probable consequences:—
“The Post Office has accepted the liberal offer of the Brighton Company to carry a bag of letters by every train gratis. As the South-Eastern, following the Brighton’s good example, made a similar proffer, we presume that has been treated in like manner. We congratulate the Post Office on its wisdom, and we are apt to think that a large share of public thanks for the arrangement is due to the new Postmaster-General, the Earl of St. Germans. Coupled with this intelligence, so honourable to the Brighton Company, we regret to hear that the chief instigator of the proposition, the chairman, Mr. Rowland Hill, has intimated to the Board his intention to resign his post for the sake of his health, which has been much affected by his laborious attention to business.
“Mr. Hill’s retirement will be felt by the Company and the public. Since he became chairman, the Brighton Railway has increased more than 50 per cent. in value, and the public accommodation on the line in all respects—cheapness, speed, punctuality, and a kind solicitude for the comfort of all passengers, from highest to lowest—may justly be said to have been raised quite to an equality with that of the best-managed line in the kingdom.”
Some months after the appearance of the paragraph quoted above, I received an application which gave me much pleasure from the South-Western Railway Company. I must premise that my intercourse with this corporation had been hitherto mainly of a hostile character, its contests with the Brighton Company having been both numerous and fierce. I was now informed, however, that this Company intended to appoint a manager at a high salary, then a rather novel measure, and I was requested to recommend a fit person for the duties. Upon my inquiring as to the precise amount of salary to be given, and the specific qualifications required, I was told that the former would be about £1,500 per annum, and for the latter, said the respondent, “Let them be as much like your own as possible.” The meaning of this could not be misunderstood, but, of course, under the circumstances, could not be acted upon. Other eligible offers were made to me, but, with the Post Office in view, I could accept none.
I had now passed nearly four years in the position of railway director, and though it was grief and bitterness to me to be so long kept aloof from my true work, yet, considering the close connection between railway companies and the Post Office, and the consequent importance of the knowledge I had been enabled to gain, I could not regard the time as ill-spent.
Before leaving the subject of railways, however, I must mention one occurrence, typical, I believe, of many others, the whole forming one of the great causes of that unfortunate depreciation in railway property of which the world is now but too well aware. At the time of my joining the company the town of Hastings enjoyed no railway communication with any other place. Two projects were started for connecting it with London—one by the Brighton Company, and the other by the South-Eastern. In the parliamentary contest that ensued, the Brighton Company dwelt much on the importance of a coast-line, so useful in defence against invasion, of which at that time there was no small apprehension. Of the military advantage of such a line, strong evidence was given, I think, by the Duke of Wellington. The South-Eastern Company, on the other hand, whose projected line was in effect of the same length, based its claim mainly on the fact that by taking the inland route it would open up a new tract of country of great agricultural importance. The Committee, naturally desirous of obtaining both advantages, suggested for the consideration of the Brighton Company whether it would not be worth while to construct its coast-line, even though the inland line should also be made. As, however, the Brighton directors distinctly rejected this proposal, on the ground that the traffic would not suffice for two lines, the Committee decided in favour of the coast-line; and the Brighton Company, regarding a decision made under circumstances so peculiar as a sufficient security against competition, put the works immediately in hand. In the next session, however, the South-Eastern Company returned to the charge with a slight modification of its route, made, apparently, to save appearances; but again, the modified project being referred to the Board of Trade, according to a rule recently laid down by the House of Commons, and being condemned by that authority, on the ground that the line was in effect the same with that lately rejected by Parliament, was abandoned by the Company. In the following session, however—as Parliament meantime had shown little disposition to treat the recommendations of the Board of Trade with respect—the project was again renewed. When the Brighton directors attempted opposition, they were coolly informed by the chairman of the parliamentary committee that, owing to a change in the Standing Orders of the House, they had no locus standi. In short, the South-Eastern Company gained its point. Railway companies have been denounced as ruining each other by competition; if so, where does a large portion of the blame lie?
[CHAPTER XIV.]
NATIONAL TESTIMONIAL (1844-1846).
Of one motive to retirement from more active railway duties I have not yet spoken: it was supplied by the generosity of the public, as will appear hereafter. I first return to transactions connected with the Post Office, from which attention has been withdrawn by the above narrative. Of such limited progress, however, as was made towards the adoption of my plans, I shall speak more conveniently when the period of my exclusion approaches its close.
I had the high gratification to learn that the leading feature of my plan had been introduced to some extent into the United States, and that the President had announced to Congress his desire to reduce the postage throughout the Union; a measure carried into effect in the spring of 1845, when the postage was fixed at five cents (twopence-halfpenny) for distances within three hundred miles, and ten cents between places more remote. At home, however, the Liberal party wisely judged that the time for further parliamentary action on the subject of postal reform was not yet come, though occasional motions on postal affairs showed that the question did not altogether sleep.
Meantime, an occurrence took place which brought postal affairs, on a point of much importance, repeatedly before Parliament and the country. This was the opening of letters to and from Signor Mazzini and other Italian exiles, by authority of the Secretary of State for Home Affairs, from whose name such practices were for a time termed “Grahamizing,” though, in truth, Sir James Graham was by no means their originator. The unhappy consequences, however, in this particular instance, raised so strong a feeling of indignation against the individual minister, as in great measure to withdraw public attention from the precedent pleaded in his defence. There were two debates on the subject in each House in June, 1844, and these were followed by many further discussions, ending in each House by the grant of a committee of inquiry, each of which made its Report in the following August. In that of the Lords alone there is reference, and that I think somewhat obscure, to what, as I afterwards learned, was a regular practice at the Post Office, though for it the Post Office authorities were nowise responsible. Incredible as it may appear to my readers, it is nevertheless true that so late as 1844 a system, dating from some far distant time, was in full operation, under which clerks from the Foreign Office used to attend on the arrival of mails from abroad, to open the letters addressed to certain ministers resident in England, and make from them such extracts as they deemed useful for the service of Government. Happily, the feeling manifested on this occasion led to the entire abandonment of this most questionable expedient; though it must be recorded that a motion made by Mr. Duncombe, on April 9th, 1845, to forbid the further opening of letters under any circumstances, was lost, the House apparently holding that there were circumstances which might render such an expedient just and necessary. I may remark, however, that in the ten years during which I had opportunity for direct knowledge on the subject, it was never resorted to except in a very few cases relating, so far as I can recollect, exclusively to burglars, and others of that stamp.
I cannot close this portion of my narrative without mentioning one small but curious incident. In May, 1845, I received a letter from my friend Dr. Henderson, informing me that there was a tract in the British Museum, dated as far back as 1659, and entitled “A Penny Post,” the author of which bore my own surname. On application to my friend Dr. Gray, I received, through his kindness, a manuscript copy of the same, which is still in my possession. The title is as follows:—“A Penny Post, or a Vindication of the Liberty and Birthright of every Englishman in Carrying Merchants’ and other Men’s Letters, against any Restraint of Farmers of such Employments. By John Hill, 1659.” [29]
I now come to a proceeding of no small importance to myself, whether regarded as an attestation of my services, or as an augmentation of my means. In March, 1844, the Mercantile Committee, so frequently mentioned in this narrative, issued an advertisement inviting subscriptions to a testimonial in my favour. Generally speaking, I was most properly left uninformed as to details; but in December of the same year I received a letter from Mr. Estlin, an eminent surgeon of Bristol, giving an account of proceedings in that important city anterior to any movement in London; and, in point of fact, I believe it was in Bristol, and from Mr. Estlin, that the testimonial had its origin. I may add that, so far as I am aware, the first London paper in which the measure was advocated was one in which I believe Mr. Estlin may have had some influence. It was a paper of limited circulation, called The Inquirer, and I was informed that the article in question was from the pen of the editor, the Rev. William Hincks. Neither of these gentlemen now survives; but, feeling how much I owe to both, I cannot omit this small tribute to their memory.
In the early part of 1845, after having been requested to take in advance the contributions of three of the larger towns, I received from Sir George Larpent a formal copy of the resolutions of the Mercantile Committee, together with a cheque for £10,000, the final presentation being deferred until the accounts should be entirely made up.
Of course the main proceeding made its way into the newspapers, and thus became known to the public in general, and to the Commissioners of the Income Tax in particular—the consequence being an application from the Commissioners for Brighton, demanding income-tax upon the chief amount. Finding that representations to them produced no effect, I overleaped the next stage, and went at once to Mr. Trevelyan at the Treasury, who, like the Duke of Wellington on a well known occasion, exclaimed, “This is too bad!” adding, “It will never do first to deprive you of your salary, and then to tax the public subscription made in lieu of it. Leave this to me.” I willingly agreed, and a few days later received a letter from the Income Tax Commissioners, enclosing an instruction from the chief office for the withdrawal of the demand.
It would be ungrateful to omit mention here of some indications of public satisfaction besides those of a pecuniary nature. Thus, I received the following interesting letter from Mr. Cobden:—
“My dear Sir, “Manchester, 30th May, 1846.
* * * * * *
“The League will be virtually dissolved by the passing of Peel’s measure. I shall feel like an emancipated negro—having fulfilled my seven years’ apprenticeship to an agitation which has known no respite. I feel that you have done not a little to strike the fetters from my limbs, for without the penny postage we might have had more years of agitation and anxiety.
“Believe me, faithfully yours,
“Richard Cobden.
“Rowland Hill, Esq.”
Probably Mr. Cobden, in this letter, referred merely to the great facility given by cheap postage for the transmission and circulation of those papers which played so material a part in the Anti-Corn Law agitation; but it seems not unlikely that other assistance may have been afforded to his great improvement by the success, so far as then ascertained, of my measure, as a bold reduction of taxation—a change much more sudden and decided than had ever before taken place in our fiscal system. I believe I am safe in assuming that this success has acted as an encouragement to the many adventurous changes in taxation which have followed one another in rapid succession even to the present time.
Among the many minor evidences to the benefit derived from cheap postage, the following little circumstance was not the least pleasing. The late Mr. Tremenheere told me that a servant-boy in his father’s house in London, learning that his mother in Somersetshire was dangerously ill, wrote home for a daily bulletin, which he duly received until the danger was over, eagerly rushing every morning to the door at the first sound of the postman’s knock. Such an occurrence would seem trivial now; it was felt then as a striking novelty.
The formal presentation of the Testimonial took place at Blackwall on June the 17th, 1846, a public dinner being given on the occasion. Of my own family there were present my father (then in his eighty-fourth year), all my brothers, my brother-in-law, and my only son. The chair was taken by Mr. Warburton. A report was read by the secretary of the Testimonial Committee, from which it appeared that the net amount of the subscription was upwards of £13,000. The committee expressed its opinion that the amount would have been larger had not individual subscriptions been limited at the outset to £10 10s. The report also, contrasting the testimony from the Treasury to the value of my services with the fact of my dismissal, urged my recall. The chairman took occasion in the speech, in which he proposed my health, to point out that among the subscribers to the Testimonial Fund was to be reckoned the First Lord of the Treasury, Sir Robert Peel.
In my reply, after expressing my thanks, and speaking of the public services of those who had assisted in the great work of postal reform, I proceeded to a short review of the principal results of penny postage up to that time. I showed that, even with the very limited adoption of my plan, considerable progress had been made towards the recovery of the revenue and that large multiplication of letters on which I had counted; the number of letters delivered within twelve miles of St Martin’s-le-Grand being already equal to that delivered under the old system throughout the whole United Kingdom. I next touched upon those yet more important benefits which could not be exhibited in a statistical form; and upon this point I was happily able to quote from a recent speech of Mr. Goulburn, made on the bringing-in of his Budget, the passage being as follows:—
“It would be a fallacy to suppose that the country is only relieved by a remission of taxation to the amount of the loss experienced by the Exchequer. Nothing can be more erroneous. When you reduce a tax you should calculate the amount of relief afforded upon the increased consumption of that article; you cannot take as a measure of the relief of the pressure upon the people the amount which you collect less in the revenue.”
Now, by applying this rule to the determination of the amount of relief afforded by the reduction of the postage rates, even taking such reduction at only fivepence per letter, it would appear that the total benefit amounted to the enormous sum of £6,000,000 per annum.[30]
Having thus dealt with the past and present, I proceeded to speak of the future; and here I turned again to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as a judge certainly free from all suspicion of undue leaning towards penny postage, for an opinion as to the results to be expected from those improvements for which I had so strenuously contended. In the same speech he anticipated “that the revenue of the Post Office, as additional facilities are given, will continue to present a large annual increase”; and further on he estimated the net postal revenue for the current year at £850,000. I was able, even then, truly to add—and I may observe in passing, that this remark has since that time been frequently repeated by others—that there was no branch of the revenue the increase of which was so steady and rapid as the revenue of the Post Office. I pointed out that, as education became more and more extended, a large increase of correspondence, and consequently of revenue, might be confidently expected; the more so because, great as the actual amount appeared when viewed in the aggregate, the average yielded by its division amongst the whole population was but one letter per month for each person; while if the time should ever come when the average postage of the country would equal that given by the domestic correspondence of my own family, including children and servants, the annual gross revenue of the Post Office would amount to more than £40,000,000—or twentyfold its actual sum.
But if the present imperfect arrangements afforded such results as those which had actually been realized, what would be the effect of adopting the whole plan? Little had been done towards this during the last three years, but the Post Office had reluctantly made at least one valuable move. It had established new deliveries in London to the extent, if not of six, as recommended by myself, yet to that of three. The effect was immediately to advance the annual rate of increase in the number of district letters by 50 per cent. This improvement had not been followed by that earlier delivery of the general post letters which I had offered to effect without any material addition to expense, but such an acceleration the Post Office had declared impossible.
In the department of economy, however, much remained to be effected, and that not by a reduction of salaries, nor by increasing the labours of the men, but by simplifying the mechanism of the Post Office. I added that, seeing how much room there was for further improvement, and yet how near the results actually obtained approached to those anticipated from the complete development of the plan, I thought we were fully justified in assuming that, but for the unfortunate interruption in the progress of the measure which took place on the retirement of the Liberal Government, there would ere this have been no exception whatever to the realization of our anticipations.
I then referred to the good effects of penny postage on the action of other countries; its adoption by the British Parliament having already led to reductions in Russia, Prussia, Austria, Spain, and the United States of America.
I continued as follows:—
“Before I conclude, I must request your kind indulgence while I lay before you a brief statement of the manner in which the establishment of penny postage has affected myself. It is notorious that a reformer must not expect a life of ease and comfort. Judging from my own experience, he must make up his mind to labour hard, to encounter much disappointment, and to have his motives and conduct misunderstood and misrepresented. Still, when I compare my own with the course of earlier reformers, I cannot but feel that, independent even of the munificent reward which your kindness has bestowed upon me, I have in many respects been most fortunate. Sir Samuel Romilly tried year after year in vain to effect so obvious an improvement as the abolition of capital punishment for privately stealing in a shop to the extent of five shillings. This attempt met with but little support from the people, while it was opposed by the Government of the day, by Lord Chancellor Eldon, and by Chief Justice Ellenborough. I, on the contrary, have seen my plan, however imperfectly, brought into practice; and none but those who have laboured long and anxiously to effect an important improvement can form any conception of the gratification which such a result brings with it. There was, however, one period of my course to which I cannot even now revert without pain. I allude to that period when, with my health impaired by six years of incessant labour and anxiety, I was dismissed from the Treasury, and left to seek afresh the means of supporting my family. I have on a former occasion expressed my thanks to Sir Robert Peel for the kind manner in which he has more than once been pleased to speak of my labours. I now thank him for the honour he has done me in contributing to the Testimonial; but had he yielded to my entreaties to be allowed, at any pecuniary sacrifice to myself, to work out my own plan—to prove that I had not misled the public as to its results, nor even adopted those sanguine views which in a projector might perhaps be forgiven, however erroneous;—had he done this, my gratitude would have been unbounded. But severe as was the disappointment which I felt, and still feel, at being unjustly deprived of all participation in the execution and completion of my own plan—in seeing it left in the hands of gentlemen who feel no interest in its success, and who, I must say, have evinced no peculiar aptitude either for comprehending its principles, or for devising and executing the necessary details—even at that moment of severe disappointment, I can truly say that I felt no regret at having embarked in the great work of Post Office improvement.”
I concluded thus:—
“I trust that you, as well as the thousands of my friends and benefactors who are not now present, will not judge of the strength of my feelings by the feebleness of their expression, but that you and all will believe that I, and every member of my family, feel truly grateful for the princely gift, and for the high honour which have been conferred upon us.”
[CHAPTER XV.]
APPOINTMENT TO POST OFFICE (1846).
Although I was confident that the return of the Liberals to power was but a question of time, it followed so rapidly upon the events already mentioned as almost to take me, and I suppose many others, by surprise. After holding office somewhat less than five years, Sir Robert Peel found himself without adequate support in the House which had raised him to power, and on the 29th of the month in which I received my testimonial he resigned.
Although I became aware, by repeated conversations which I had had with my friend Mr. Hawes, who was a member of the new Government, that he confidently reckoned upon my recall, yet, knowing that he could have no direct power in the matter, I was desirous of further evidence as to the intentions of the new administration. Mr. Warburton, who was always believed to have great influence with Liberals in power as well as out of power, undertook to communicate with the Government. On July 30th he wrote word that he had had an interview with the new Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Charles Wood, now Lord Halifax), and would be glad to see me on the morrow. Of his oral communication I have retained no record, but according to my recollection the Chancellor had spoken of difficulties—had thought that the best post for me would be, not at the Treasury as before, but at the Post Office, into which, however, he did not yet see how my introduction could be managed without disturbance to the department. In short, the matter was a problem, and time would be required for its solution. I resolved, therefore, to make good use of the interim, and entering on the longest holiday I had ever known, went abroad for that change of scene and thought which alone could fit me for the arduous duties in which I expected soon to be engaged.
Meantime, some events of interest passed at home. On August 22nd Mr. Duncombe, in the House of Commons, again complained of the management of the Post Office. In the course of the debate Mr. Parker (Secretary to the Treasury) stated that the new Postmaster-General (Lord Clanricarde) had found “the whole establishment in a most unsatisfactory condition.” [31] Mr. Hume, in terms highly complimentary to me, urged my recall. The Premier (Lord John Russell) admitted “that he was by no means satisfied with the state of the Post Office, nor did he think the plans of reform instituted by Mr. Hill had been sufficiently carried out;[32] and Mr. Warburton, referring to Lord John Russell’s admission, strongly urged my reappointment to office.
My first intimation of this debate was received in a letter from Mr. Warburton, of which the following is the closing passage:—
“I think it manifest from this statement of Lord John Russell that a reform in the Post Office is meditated in good earnest. . . .”
On November 2nd, five days after my return from abroad, I received a letter from Mr. Warburton, of which the following is the substance. He had just seen Lord Clanricarde (at his request), who said that, knowing Mr. Warburton’s interest in me and in Post Office matters, he wished to have some conversation with him before negotiating directly with me. There were difficulties in the way of giving me any high existing office in the Post Office, and objections thereto. The office of secretary, for instance, was so loaded with detail, that if given to me, whose office should be to advise, suggest, and consider of improvements, my utility would be destroyed. On the other hand, there were objections to an office of the nature held before, on account of antagonism with the Post Office. His lordship thought the fittest appointment would be one constituting me the adviser of the Postmaster-General. He thought that such an office, which every day’s experience convinced him was necessary, might be constituted by himself at once. Mr. Warburton informed his lordship that, from some conversation he had had with me, he knew that I would not accept any office from the Government which might be regarded as a mode of putting me on the shelf; but that if an office of permanence and dignity, connecting me with the Post Office—not placing me under the secretary—and giving me sufficient weight to carry out my plans of improvement, were offered, it would be accepted; that the office suggested by his lordship wanted permanence. I might be dismissed, as before, by some cabal of the officers of the department. They would bide their time until a Postmaster-General should be appointed who would cashier me. If the office were ephemeral, I could be of no utility; resistance to my proposed measures would be protracted until they could be defeated by a change of dynasty. He added that, on his (Mr. W.’s) suggestion, Lord Clanricarde would have an interview with me on the subject. Mr. Warburton obtained Lord Clanricarde’s permission to repeat to me what had passed.
Having procured an appointment with Lord Clanricarde, I called upon him two days later; but of my conversation with him on this occasion, and at a second interview, I have no further record than the following:—“Saw Lord Clanricarde twice during the negotiation; much pleased with his straightforward, business-like manner.” I remember, however, that I suggested for his lordship’s consideration the revival of the title assigned to Palmer, viz., Surveyor-General of the Post Office, and that in consequence of his inquiry as to the circumstances of Palmer’s appointment, I undertook to send him a report on the subject.
On the following day, I received a letter from his lordship, in which, after expressing a wish to hear my more considered opinion of the proposal which he had intimated to me, he continued as follows:—
“I assure you that I am convinced such an appointment as that I wish you to hold—we will not quarrel about a name for it—would afford the best possible opportunity (under all existing circumstances) for carrying out steadily, safely, and constantly, every possible improvement in the Post Office, in conformity with your plan and general views.”
Objection having arisen to the revival of Palmer’s official title, and my position being, as I well knew, matter of grave importance to my efficiency in office, I wrote to Mr. Warburton on the 17th, but was prevented by his illness at the time from receiving that immediate assistance which in health he was always so ready, I might say so eager, to give.
Meantime, the negotiation was carried on by Mr. Hawes, who was at once a member of the Government, and exceedingly zealous for my interests; but in the course of it a vexatious mistake occurred, which was by no means without injurious effect. Knowing how difficult it would be for me, after all that had passed, to co-operate either harmoniously or successfully with Colonel Maberly, I urged the importance of the step actually taken eight years later, viz., of removing him to some other office. To this it was replied that there was no post available for the purpose, save at lower salary than he was then receiving; and as the loss involved was said to be £300 a-year, I expressed my perfect willingness to sacrifice that sum for the purpose of indemnification. My salary at the Treasury, it may be remembered, was £1,500 a-year (the same as that of the Secretary to the Post Office); and I now said that I was ready to accept £1,200, provided only that my position were such as would enable me to carry out promptly and efficiently the remaining parts of my plan. Unluckily for me, it came to pass that, while my offer as to salary was caught at, the accompanying stipulation was somehow set aside; the definite proposal being that I should take office as Secretary to the Postmaster-General with a salary of £1,200 a-year; thus placing me in a lower position than that which I had previously occupied at the Treasury. When I pointed out this to Mr. Hawes, he expressed his regret at the perverse form the thing had taken, but saying that the error could not now be retrieved, gave it as his earnest advice that I should accept the proposal as it stood. Upon my objecting to this, he urged that the arrangement was but temporary; for that as soon as I should have demonstrated my fitness for the entire control of the department, I should doubtless be placed at the head. As I still resisted, his urgency increased. He warned me that, if I now declined, my plans might remain for ever incomplete, for that no second opportunity was likely to be offered; and he concluded with the words, “Let me implore you to accept it.” To such an exhortation from a kind and valued friend I could not return an abrupt answer, and though grievously disconcerted at what had occurred, I promised to consider the matter.
Here, then, I found myself in a painful dilemma. On the one side I was called on to accept a lower position than before, and thus to maintain from inferior ground a contest which had almost worn me out when the ground was equal; to consent to carry out my plans, if at all, through wearisome controversy, over factitious obstacles, and by reluctant hands; perhaps to break down in the trial, and thus leave my work still undone. On the other hand, could I let slip this, my sole chance, as it appeared, of at least attempting to complete the great task on which I had entered? Could I disappoint the friends who had striven so earnestly on my behalf, and for the promotion of my great object? Could I forget the noble subscription raised for me by the public, and seem to show, by my acts, that I preferred emolument to achievement, or doggedly stood out for unimportant distinctions of title or position?[33] The question was a very difficult one, and though, after much consideration, I felt inclined to give way, I resolved first to consult all such of my brothers as were within reach. The result in each case was curiously identical, though for some reason, now forgotten, I had to consult them severally. Each began with an indignant ejaculation at the terms as they stood, and a declaration that they could not be accepted; but each, after hearing the matter to the end, came to the conclusion that, unworthy as was the treatment to which I was subjected, it would not do to forego what might prove to be my only opportunity of completing my great work. Since my own conviction accorded with theirs, I wrote to Mr. Hawes in acceptance of the offer. As the letter fully sets forth my reasons for this step, I give it in extenso:—
“Brighton, November 23rd, 1846.
“My dear Hawes,—You will be glad to learn that I have decided to accept the offer of Government of a permanent appointment as secretary to the Postmaster-General, at a salary of £1,200 a-year.
“The opinion so strongly expressed by Mr. Warburton and yourself as to the necessity for so doing, backed as it now is by that of Mr. Samuel Jones Loyd, has overborne my own objections, though I cannot say that it has removed them, as I still feel great apprehension that, notwithstanding the promises of support which I have received from the Postmaster-General and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I shall have to encounter that opposition which has hitherto been so successful in retarding the progress of penny postage, and on some occasions in resisting the most positive orders of the Treasury.
“You are aware that, with a view to neutralize, or at least diminish, this formidable opposition, I was willing to sacrifice a large proportion of my own salary, in order to enable the Government to offer Colonel Maberly his full salary as a retiring allowance. It is not for me to discuss the reasons which have led to Colonel Maberly’s retention in office, but it obviously is my duty carefully to consider how far such retention ought to influence my own conduct.
“This difficult question has occupied my mind for several days, and the result, I am sorry to say, is a confirmation of the opinion which I expressed to you and Mr. Warburton when the offer was first communicated to me, namely, that, under the circumstances of the case, to accept office would expose the improvements which remain to be effected to a serious risk of failure, and thus perhaps bring discredit on the general plan as well as on myself; and consequently that I should best consult the public interest and my own by respectfully declining the offer of Government. I need not tell you that I am most anxious for an opportunity of completing my plan, and that throughout these negotiations I have proposed no conditions, except that I should have the authority requisite to secure the success of the measure. Much will undoubtedly be done by making my office permanent, and by placing me in immediate communication with the Postmaster-General, as well as the Treasury; but I fear this is not enough. I think Colonel Maberly should have been induced to resign. I see almost insuperable difficulty in attempting to collect information and to issue instructions otherwise than through the general secretary’s office, and yet, judging from past experience, it appears hopeless to look for his voluntary co-operation, while his position makes him too strong to be effectually coerced. But assuming that Colonel Maberly must remain in office, then I think that my appointment should have been one of at least equal rank with his. This point, as will be seen by the published correspondence, was fully considered when I went into the Treasury, and the reasons which then existed, the strength of which was in effect admitted by Mr. Baring, apply with at least equal force now.
“These are my own views on the subject, and I think it best to state them without reserve; but seeing that Mr. Warburton, Mr. Loyd, and yourself entertain a different opinion, that you all express a strong conviction to the effect that if this opportunity of completing my plan be lost no other will be afforded me, that public opinion would not support me in declining the offer, and that I may look forward to a probable reorganization of the Post Office, and, if I show that I possess the requisite administrative powers, to promotion, at no distant period, to a position of higher authority—I am naturally led to distrust my own opinions, and to adopt the safer guidance of my kind and able advisers.
“After an interval of four years, during which my attention has necessarily been devoted to other matters, I am therefore about to enter on my arduous task. I shall look forward with as much hope and as little apprehension as I can; but if improvement in the mechanism and in the revenue of the Post Office should be less rapid than I had anticipated under the impression that opposing influences would be removed, I cannot doubt that Government and the country will do me the justice to bear in mind the peculiar difficulties of my position, and to recollect that, whatever circumstances limit my power, they to the same extent limit my responsibility also.
“Though the fact does not at all touch the public ground to which, in considering this question, I have endeavoured to confine my attention, I may be excused for mentioning that my acceptance of the appointment, accompanied as it must be by the abandonment of my present occupation, will be attended with an increase of labour and a sacrifice of income.
“I am sure you will excuse my troubling you with this letter. My object is, first, to give you the earliest intimation of my decision, and, second, to place on record the circumstances of the case while they are fresh in our memories. To any other member of the Government than yourself I could not speak in so unreserved a manner.
“I remain, &c., &c.,
“Rowland Hill.
“P.S.— . . . November 24th.—I have kept back my letter in order that I may show it to Mr. Warburton, who authorizes me to say that he approves it.”
Two days afterwards I received a letter from the Postmaster-General, requesting that I would call upon him on the following Saturday. Having meantime inquired of Mr. Warburton whether there were any further information which he thought it important for me to receive before this interview, I had a letter from him, in which he mentioned that he had told Lord Clanricarde of my acceptance of the offer made by Government, accompanying his announcement with the remark that those whom I had consulted had been in doubt as to the advice they should give, fearing that Colonel Maberly would be able to thwart me in my exertions. Mr. Warburton’s letter then proceeded as follows:—
“That the objections had been overcome by the promises of support which had been given both by his lordship and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and by the assurance of the latter that, if you proved yourself an able administrator, you were to look forward to promotion.”
A few days later, having in the meantime called on the Postmaster-General, I received my formal appointment. As I had again cast in my lot with the Post Office, I withdrew, of course, from my previous employments, resigning all my directorships, already three in number.
I was now in my fifty-second year, and in the tenth from that in which I first took Post Office reform seriously into my thoughts. I need not say that the interval had been a period of very hard work, that a decade in my life was in every sense gone; in short, that I was already somewhat old for the heavy work of reform that still lay before me.
[CHAPTER XVI.]
JOINT SECRETARYSHIP. (1846-1848.)
The scene of my labours was henceforth to be in that institution which had so long been the centre of my thoughts; and though the post assigned me would, as I knew, give me but limited power for attaining the ends I had in view, I still hoped by patience and perseverance to make fair progress. I now resumed the Journal which for four years had been suspended:—
“December 5th, 1846.—Called on the Postmaster-General at his house. . . . Drove with him to the Post Office in his cab.”
As we passed through Newgate Street, there was a little incident of some amusement. The way being blocked, there arose some of the abusive language usually heard on such occasions against those who, being immediately ahead, seem to stop the way; and the Postmaster-General and his new secretary came in for their full share. Upon looking back we found that the abuse came from the driver of a mail-cart, who was thus unconsciously railing at his official superiors. Lord Clanricarde burst into a hearty laugh; showing, what I have often remarked, that men under heavy official pressure seem more than commonly pleased with a little fun.
“On reaching the Post Office, Mr. Cornwall (the Postmaster-General’s private secretary), who had preceded us, told me that Colonel Maberly wished to see me. We went together to M.’s room. M. and I shook hands, &c. All three then proceeded to make the circuit of the Post Office, and I was introduced to all the heads of departments. . . . To commence duty on Wednesday, the 9th.”
This was at least a satisfactory beginning, but what was to follow? While I resolved that nothing should be wanting on my part to maintain harmony, I could not but form, from the past, unsatisfactory expectations as to the future. How far these misgivings were justified will appear presently; and yet I should willingly suppress much of the evidence on this point but for fear of misleading future reformers. It is important that any one meditating such a course as mine should know what that course really was; so that before entering on his work he may count the cost. How soon difficulties are forgotten by mere bystanders was curiously shown in my case by an article some few years later in the “Edinburgh Review,” on Mr. Charles Dickens’s story of “Little Dorrit.” Few periodicals rendered me more important service than this—in none did it seem less probable that the nature and extent of my struggles would be underrated; and yet my course was cited as one notoriously demonstrating the injustice of those attacks on official jealousy which have rendered “Circumlocution Office” a familiar term. Mr. Dickens’s amusing reply will be found in “Household Words,” Vol. XVI, p. 97, and it may be added that it contains a short, but true and lively, sketch of my early struggles. Prior, therefore, to describing the improvements which I was gradually able to introduce, I shall endeavour to give a specimen of the circumstances which, for years after my restoration to office, made progress so tardy:—
“December 9th.—Commenced duties at the Post Office.
“The Postmaster-General has referred to me by minutes the Railway Report, and several applications for increase of force or of salary, but there is some demur in supplying the necessary papers, and the assistant-secretary (Campbell) showed me a minute (referred to in a note which I received this morning from the Postmaster-General, who is not at the office to-day), prescribing the course of proceeding in my department. It appears to be unnecessarily restrictive; must see the Postmaster-General on the subject.”
To show how much this minute was likely to hamper me, it is only necessary to state that it forbade me to demand any papers whatever, or to send for any officer, without first enumerating my wants in a minute, which was to receive the sanction of the Postmaster-General, and then be sent to Colonel Maberly for him to give it effect. As it was impracticable for me, when entering on any investigation, to foresee what papers or what officers I should require to consult, or even to know what papers were in existence, it is obvious that by such a rule my proceedings would be so clogged as to render satisfactory progress impracticable:—
“December 10th.— ... seem to think that the minute may be converted into a means of annoyance. Johnson, the chief clerk, has refused to show Armstrong [my private secretary] the form of the letter register without a written order to that effect; but the Postmaster-General learnt the fact, and set the matter right even before I could see him. On my calling his attention to the minute, he explained it to be much less restrictive than I had supposed, and at once wrote a second minute explanatory of the first.”
With regard to the supposed necessity for restriction, I soon learnt that not only the assistant-secretary, but also several of the clerks in the secretary’s office, could obtain necessary papers without the least difficulty. I must add that, while at the Treasury, I had similar freedom in relation to the papers there, and even to the officers of the Post Office, and I can truly aver that, so far from abusing the opportunities thus given, I had been careful to avoid everything that could in the least degree infringe the discipline of either department. Subsequent discoveries, however, led me to understand what strong reasons there must have been for obtaining from the Postmaster-General an order rendering access to papers as limited as possible. For, while I really shunned all knowledge on the subject, I could not avoid receiving from casual observation ample confirmation of the suspicions that I entertained three years before as to the extent to which the Parliamentary Committee of 1843 was misled.[34]
Restriction became the more galling because, in the very nature of things, the pressure of work was more than enough.
“December 15th.—Learnt from Stow that a copy of the minutes as to the course of proceeding in my department (December 9th and 10th) has been sent to the head of each department in the office. This needless publicity is not, I fear, without an object. The minutes desire that a copy may be supplied to me, without naming any other party.”
The reader, who has observed how speedily the withdrawal of my friends from power in 1841 was followed by intrigues to thwart my progress, undermine my credit, and remove me from my post, will be little surprised at the manifestations recorded above. At the time of the first cabal, I was in the weakness of isolation; this, the second, was formed when I was in the weakness of a novel position; and it will be found hereafter that other such seasons were chosen as times for similar proceedings. I felt too truly that a struggle was to come, and I could not yet foretell how far I should be supported in it by the Postmaster-General.
I had scarcely got my department into somewhat smoother working, when I was called upon to deal with applicants of two separate kinds: first, deputations from letter-carriers and stampers, suggesting improvements and applying for increase of wages; all of whom, for the sake of discipline, I declined receiving without the express sanction of the Postmaster-General; and, secondly, from persons claiming compensation for inventions or devices already included more or less explicitly in my published plan. The most remarkable amongst these claimants was a lady, who informed me by letter that the plan of penny postage originated with her, and begged that I would be so obliging as to aid her in obtaining due compensation from Government!
Meantime I went to work with a view to the extension of those facilities on which I had laid so much stress:—
“January 30th, 1847.—This week engaged chiefly in completing the instructions to the surveyors, by means of which I hope to effect important improvements simultaneously in all the large towns in the kingdom.”
These instructions, when completed, were sanctioned by the Postmaster-General, who, however, thought it necessary that they should be issued under the signature of Colonel Maberly. With the Postmaster-General’s consent, the document subsequently appeared in the newspapers. Of the Reports called for by this circular, about one-half were received within six months, and these gave information as to the state of things in about one hundred and twenty of the largest provincial towns. They showed all sorts of anomalies, though not quite so much room for improvement as I had expected. I was convinced, however, that the very issue of the circular had caused considerable improvements to be at once made. My progress, nevertheless, continued to be clogged with difficulties:—
“February 3rd.—The present arrangements do not work well in some important particulars. I have no ready means of learning what is being done in Maberly’s department, in consequence of which we sometimes play at cross purposes, and there is much delay. . . . At the risk of being considered ‘impracticable,’ I must try to put things on a different footing.”
“February 6th.—I feel very uneasy at the slow progress made, but, circumstanced as I am, it is impossible to go faster.”
My moral difficulties found a physical parallel:—
“February 8th.—Returning to Brighton [where I still continued to live] by the 5 p.m. express train, was stopped by a sudden snow-storm. With two engines we were three and a-half hours in advancing three miles from Three Bridges. We came to a dead stand near to the Balcombe Tunnel; remained there till 1 a.m., unable to proceed or return, when, an engine having arrived, and all the passengers having been crammed into three carriages, we returned to Three Bridges, leaving the remainder of the train in the snow. Sat up all night at ‘The Fox.’ Next morning, the line being open to London soon after ten, I returned to town. The other passengers, I found, on my return to Brighton at night, did not complete their journey till 4 p.m. (having been twenty-three hours on the way).”
A few days later, being invited by the Guardian Society at Liverpool to a public dinner, I took opportunity, in my speech of thanks, to explain to a certain extent the duties and powers of the Post Office, misapprehension as to which led then, and doubtless leads still, to unprofitable correspondence, withdrawing attention from practical improvements to futile discussion. I found it particularly necessary to show why suggestions, however valuable, cannot be suddenly adopted, since, in so vast and complex a machine as the Post Office, which must not for one hour be arrested in its motion, it is indispensable to make such preliminary examination and complete arrangement as will yield full security that the change will throw nothing out of gear, but work smoothly from the first. I showed that, while some of the improvements called for by my Liverpool friends seemed feasible, others could not be made.
Thus, it had been demanded that letters should no longer be carried past the office from which they were to be distributed to some office further on, whence they would have to return, but that the distributing office should receive them at once. This demand, not then new, nor yet worn out, I had to meet by showing that the letters for one office were at such times mixed up with those for other offices, and therefore could not be dropped in passing, while the delay in sorting could not be absolutely prevented unless every post town in the United Kingdom made up a bag for every other post town, which, as there were then about one thousand post towns in all, would involve the daily despatch, transmission, and opening of a million of bags in each direction, an immense majority of which would contain no letters whatever. At the same time I assured my auditors that I should do my best to render the Post Office as useful as possible, and that I would carefully inquire into all the defects in its management which they had brought to my notice.[35] To this task I addressed myself on the morrow.
Even here, however, I found old impediments to the progress of improvement; for when I proposed to Mr. Banning, the postmaster of Liverpool, to keep open the Money Order Office to a later hour without waiting for instructions from London, my advice was met by the presentation, though with many apologies, of the Postmaster-General’s restrictive minute, the issue of which had been previously condemned, but unfortunately not revoked. One consequence was that I refrained, for the time, from attempting improvements at Manchester, lest I should encounter another copy of the minute there. On my return I pressed on the Postmaster-General the importance of reconsidering the arrangements affecting my position before his leaving town, which he promised to do, perhaps the more readily because he was much pleased with what I had effected at Liverpool. The consideration, however, produced no immediate result.
“September 28th.—Banning, who called upon me to-day, reports that the restriction of the Liverpool receiving-houses to stamped and unpaid letters, accompanied as it is by an extension of time for posting, is working very satisfactorily; so are the other improvements which, not requiring Treasury sanction, have been carried out; but I find that though the Treasury sanction [to certain further improvements] has been received a month, no steps whatever have as yet been taken thereon. The reply to the weekly inquiry made as to matters in arrears has been, that the papers were with Colonel Maberly, and beyond this nothing could be learnt till to-day, when, getting impatient at the delay, I set Armstrong to learn the cause, when it appeared that the papers were not with Colonel Maberly at all, but in the first clerk’s room, where they had been ‘mislaid’ as usual.”
This transaction, though apparently but of local importance, I have narrated at some length, because it shows how the progress of improvement was clogged, and how much my time was occupied in watching lest that which I had carefully planned should be marred in working. Other difficulties will appear as I proceed with my narrative:—
“February 17th.—Requested that he [the Postmaster-General] would reconsider a minute directing that letters addressed to me by the subordinates shall pass not only through the heads of the departments, as I had proposed, but through Maberly’s office.”
“February 24th.—Finished a minute calling for copies of many of the periodic returns made to Maberly, to which I have added several original ones, with a view of obtaining tolerable statistics. At present they are lamentably deficient.”
“February 27th.—The Postmaster-General is so much engaged in his duties as Cabinet Minister that he rarely comes to the office at present, and I am obliged to defer many points on which it is necessary to consult him. I am much dissatisfied with the little progress made.”