The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Life of Sir Rowland Hill and the History of Penny Postage, by Sir Rowland Hill and George Birkbeck Hill.

[28] The following anecdote I find recorded by Sir R. Hill, “The Clayton tunnel, the longest one upon the London and Brighton Railway, bore for some time, though quite undeservedly, the reputation of being unsafe. One day when I was travelling through it, a man, addressing me said; ’sir this tunnel does a power of good.’‘How so?’I asked. ‘Why,’he replied, ‘there are more prayers said in this tunnel than in all the churches in Brighton put together.’”—Ed.

[29] An interesting account of this tract, by Mr. Henry B. Wheatley, will be found in “The Academy” of December 27th, 1879.—Ed.

[30] Application of the same rule to the letters of the year 1868 would raise the amount of relief to nearly £17,000,000. [In 1878 the amount would be nearly £23,000,000.—Ed.]

[31] “Hansard,” Vol. LXXXVIII., p. 957.

[32] “Hansard,” Vol. LXXXVIII., p. 959.

[33] Some months before his death Sir R. Hill sent to inform me of a circumstance that had been lately brought back to his memory, but which he had omitted, he said, to mention in the History of Penny Postage. At the time when it was proposed that he should return to the Post Office with a lower salary than Colonel Maberly’s, and therefore in an inferior position, he himself was unwilling to do so. He foresaw the troubles that would arise. On mentioning this to some of his friends, he found that they considered that he was bound to return to the Post Office work, having received, as it were, a retaining fee in the public subscription. If it had not been for this he should, he said, have refused the place.—Ed.

[34] “February 24th, 1847.—I felt tempted to obtain returns, with a view of settling some of the disputed points between the Post Office and myself—the one as to the division of French postage between the two Governments, for instance—but refrained, from a desire to avoid all causes of irritation. Armstrong tells me that, in a statement of French postage which I have attacked in my pamphlet as being too high by about £30,000, an error of £32,000 was actually discovered in the Accountant’s office.”—Sir R. Hill’s Journal.—Ed.

[35] “February 13th.—I met a Committee of the Town Council . . . encouraged them to communicate to me any carefully-considered improvements which might occur to them. The results of this meeting have satisfied me that it would be very useful to the Post Office to have similar means in every large town of learning the well-considered wishes of the inhabitants.”—Sir R. Hill’s Journal.—Ed.

[37] These vexations began to tell upon his health. Thus, in his Journal, I find the following entries:—May 8th, 1847. “I have more to do than I can accomplish satisfactorily; this produces headache and incapacity, which make the matter worse.” On September 28th of the same year, after describing some fresh vexations, he writes: “I have been reading my evidence given ten years ago before the Commissioners of Post Office Enquiry. . . . There is a heartiness and freshness in my replies which I fear I should not now evince.”—Ed.

[38] “The origin of this strange anomaly is this: Many years ago the newspaper fees were the perquisite of certain officers, and they therefore took newspapers in as late as possible.”—Sir R. Hill’s Journal.—Ed.

[39] The head of the Sorting Department.

[40] The Report (dated 1st January, 1847) was subsequently laid before a Parliamentary Committee, and is given in extenso in the Fifth Report of the Select Committee on Railway and Canal Bills, Appendix, p. 246. (Par. Pro. 1853, No. 736.)

[41] This was written before 1871.—Ed.

[42] Royal Commission on Railways, 1867.—Report from Sir Rowland Hill, K.C.B., F.R.S., one of the Commissioners.

[43] Sir Charles Wood (now Lord Halifax).—Ed.

[44] It was one of the senior clerks. “Armstrong has told him that, if any obstacles are thrown in the way of improvement, it is my fixed determination to apply to the Postmaster-General to dismiss the offender, and that the higher his rank in the office, the more readily I shall take the step. —— is greatly alarmed, and promises all sorts of things.”—Sir R. Hill’s Journal.—Ed.

[45] “Maberly has contrived to make it appear very much his own act, talks of his laying down rules for my guidance, interdicts me from punishing or even reprimanding anyone without the previous sanction of the Postmaster-General, and in various ways contrives to make the very act of extending my power the means of tying my hands.”—Sir R. Hill’s Journal.—Ed.

[46] The following is an instance of one of these circulars:—

“The Heads of Departments and Officers of the Secretary’s Office are requested, before acting on any papers forwarded by Mr. Hill to the Postmaster-General, to satisfy themselves that the minutes upon such papers have been entered in the books of the Secretary’s Office, which can be easily ascertained by an observation of the number of the minutes endorsed in red ink on the back of the paper by the Minute Clerk. Charles Johnson, Chief Clerk, Oct. 26th, 1847.”—Sir R. Hill’s Journal.—Ed.

[47] Under the same date I find the following entry in Sir R. Hill’s Journal:—“I am obliged to consult Dr. Southwood Smith as to the state of my health, having for the last three weeks suffered from sleepless nights, and almost constant headache. Dr. Smith enquires whether I had not suffered from anxiety, or excessive labour, and I explained to him my real position.”—Ed.

[48] “In perfecting my printing machine we spent about £2000, and hitherto the saving now effected is the only advantageous result. Without the knowledge thus obtained I could not have overcome the difficulties as to printing.”—Sir R. Hill’s Journal.—Ed.

[49] At the present rate of consumption (1869) the saving must amount to about £6000 a year.

[50] “May 15th, 1849.—The Treasury concurs in the arrangement for bringing the Electrical Telegraph to the Post Office. Under this arrangement, which was settled by Mr. J. L. Ricardo and myself, with the concurrence of the Postmaster-General, part of a spare passage will be given up to the Company at the Post Office, in return for which we are to have a right to transmit and receive messages at a low rate (one shilling for not more than ten words), the Company bearing all expenses. I am inclined to hope that the plan will prove mutually advantageous.”—Sir R. Hill’s Journal.—Ed.

[51] The estimate for 1839 is founded on the ascertained number of letters for one week in the month of November, and strictly speaking it is for the year ending December 5th, at which time 4d. was made the maximum rate. The estimate for each subsequent year is founded on the ascertained number of letters for one week in each calendar month (vide Return to the House of Commons, No. 586, 1847).

[52] This is exclusive of about 6½ millions of franks.

[53] To make this clear, it may be necessary to mention that the gross postage includes all postage charged; and that, to arrive at the real postal revenue, there has, of course, to be deducted from this total so much as, owing to rejection of unpaid letters by addressees, or other similar causes, is never received.

[54] “June 8th, 1848.—I frequently detect some strange misuse of terms which has become habitual in the office—e.g., many clerks have applied for, and received, a fortnight’s holiday; but I accidentally discovered the other day that one to whom I had granted the indulgence stayed away fourteen working days, and, on inquiry, I found that such was the interpretation invariably put on the term. In my own department I, of course, have put an end to this.”—Sir R. Hill’s Journal.—Ed.

[55] “Mr. May is one of the few men I ever met with who, being improvers themselves, desire the help of other improvers.”—Sir R. Hill’s Journal. July 8th, 1848.—Ed.

[56] See pp. 41 and 46.

[57] See Vol. 1., pp. 269 and 373.

[58] This anticipation was realised. See Return to House of Commons, No. 645 1850.

[59] Lord Clanricarde said, in his reply, “I could not send forward to the Treasury your letter of the 3rd of January without previously communicating with Colonel Maberly.” On this Sir R. Hill thus remarks in his Journal:—“In saying that he could not forward, &c., he strangely forgets himself. He did send it forward as soon as he received it. Perhaps he means that he cannot send it forward officially or a second time; but this is unnecessary. I don’t like the look of things at all. If I consent to these indefinite delays, the result will be that there will be a change of Ministry, and I shall be defrauded of my promised promotion.”—Ed.

[60] “Forward letters” are letters coming from one post town to a second, for despatch to a third.

[61] The Secretary to the Treasury. “Mr. Hayter and I think very much alike on Post Office matters, and we consequently get on swimmingly.”—Sir R. Hill’s Journal, Sept. 6, 1849.—Ed.

[62] The following extracts from Sir R. Hill’s Journal show how much the question had occupied his attention:—

“November 26th, 1847.—I advised the Postmaster-General steadily to oppose a delivery of letters in London on the Sunday, being convinced that the large majority is opposed thereto.”

“May 23rd, 1848.—Suggested to the Postmaster-General the expediency of putting a stop to the agitation about the ‘Lord’s Day’by forthwith doing all that is desirable, viz., closing the Offices throughout the country for Money Order business, and for the receipt of money-paid letters, and at the same time arranging for the transit of the ‘forward letters’through London on Sunday morning, adding that in my opinion the latter measure would tend on the whole to the observance of the Sabbath, as many letters would then be written and posted on the Saturday which are now written and posted on Sunday.”

“Oct. 19th.—On my recommendation the Postmaster-General has decided, subject to the sanction of the Treasury, to put an end to the transaction of Money Order business on the Sunday throughout England and Wales.”

“Nov. 23rd.—The Treasury has sanctioned the discontinuance of Money Order business on the Sunday, and I propose to commence with the new year.”

“Dec. 7th.—The Postmaster-General has sanctioned a minute of mine proposing that the opinion of the Surveyors shall be taken as to the discontinuance of ordinary Post Office business from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. on the Sunday, with the exception of the despatch and delivery of mails.”

“Jan. 23rd, 1849.—I think I have fully established the position that to transmit the ‘forward letters’through London on the Sunday will not only be a great convenience to the public, but will actually diminish Sunday work on the part of the public and on that of the department.”

“Feb. 15th.—The Treasury assents to the proposed discontinuance of Money Order business on the Sunday in Ireland and Scotland, which was submitted for their sanction a short time since.”—Ed.

[63] “Oct. 26th.—Roebuck has written to the Postmaster-General accusing the postmaster at —— of agitating against the measure, and enclosing a hand-bill signed by the postmaster which fully establishes the charge.”—Sir R. Hill’s Journal.—Ed.

[64] “The custom of two religious societies for which he printed.”—Sir R. Hill’s Journal.—Ed.

[65] “November 5th.—Told the Postmaster-General of anonymous letters which I had received, charging —— and —— with encouraging the opposition in the office. He says he has received a letter, not anonymous, making similar charges.”—Sir R. Hill’s Journal.—Ed.

[67]

“It is a notable fact that, while so much has been said by the London merchants and bankers against a delivery in London where their places of business are, of course, closed, not a word has been said against a delivery in the suburbs where they live.”—Sir R. Hill’s Journal.—Ed.

[68] See “Report of Select Committee on Postage, 1843,” p. 35.

[69] One or two anecdotes are still preserved in the Post Office of these meetings with the Surveyors. On one occasion Sir Rowland Hill had noticed a certain disposition to insubordination on the part of some of these gentlemen. “He rebuked them by reminding them that, according to the conventional conclusion of his letter, he was their obedient servant, ‘whereas—I am nothing of the sort.’” On another occasion, when talking of a certain able official who was rather a bore, he said, “he is an excellent officer—at Edinburgh.”—Ed.

[70] On January 10th of the next year there is the following entry in Sir R. Hill’s Journal:—

“This being the tenth anniversary of the adoption of Penny Postage, we had a family party to celebrate the event. My poor sister, however, was too much affected by the consideration that it would be the last meeting of the kind before her departure with her family for South Australia; and I fear the same consideration affected the spirits of all.”—Ed.

[71] Parliamentary Return, 1850, No. 185.

[72] Second Letter on the late Post Office Agitation, by Charles John Vaughan, D.D., p. 32.

[73] Feb. 21st, 1850.—“Professor Henslow has sent me an amusing reply to a letter from the Lord’s Day Society, requesting him to procure from his parish a petition in favour of total abolition. Mr. Henslow tells them, ‘Under the old dispensation I would willingly have joined you in such a petition, but as a Christian, I feel I ought not.’”—Sir R. Hill’s Journal.—Ed.

[74] Par. Pro. 1850, No. 185, p. 46.

[75] For this speech, which, in justice to Mr. Wallace, I give at length, see Vol. I., Appendix G.

[76] Such inconsistency was not confined to Members of Parliament; the incumbent of a certain parish in which Sunday delivery had been suspended in consequence of a memorial, to which his own signature was attached, no sooner felt the inconvenience of the change than he wrote an indignant protest against it; naïvely declaring that he had never thought the petition would be granted.

[77] “June 14th, 1850.—The Postmaster-General tells me in confidence that the Queen was very much inclined to refuse compliance with the address.”—Sir R. Hill’s Journal.—Ed.

[78] “July 9th.—At the House of Commons. . . . In the course of the evening ——, M.P. for ——, evinced a desire to renew acquaintance with me. For a time I avoided him, but when this was no longer possible, I told him very plainly my opinion as to the ‘Lord’s Day Society.’ (He was one of the deputation which came to me last year.) He replied that he had always done me justice, and referred to what Lord Ashley had said in the House of Commons. On which I rejoined that neither Lord Ashley nor any one else had spoken out in a straight-forward, manly way. He left me, apparently much nettled.”—Sir R. Hill’s Journal.—Ed.

[79] “Hansard,” Vol. CXII. pp. 1214, 1215.

[80] “Report of the Commissioners appointed to investigate the question of Sunday labour at the Post Office.” 1850.

[81] “Sept. 2nd.—Monday.—Yesterday the Sunday arrangements were restored to exactly the same state as before Lord Ashley’s motion.”—Sir R. Hill’s Journal.—Ed.

[82] “July 4th, 1850.—At the Postmaster-General’s . . . I spoke of the absolute necessity of a change . . . that my duties were too miscellaneous and too difficult for my present staff to afford me efficient aid, and that notwithstanding I paid £150 a year out of my own pocket [his salary was but £1,200 a year] for assistance out of the office, I had still more to do than my health would bear.”

“July 17th.—Called on Mr. Hodgson to consult him on the state of my health, which makes me very uneasy. Hodgson strongly recommends rest—a week immediately, and two months as early as it can be got. A tendency of blood to the head, occasioned by severe mental exertion and anxiety, is my complaint. I have no hope of getting so much rest, but I must do the best I can.”—Sir R. Hill’s Journal.—Ed.

[83] “December 20th.— . . . Cobden advises that to prevent jealousy on Hume’s part he should at once be appealed to; the fact of his, Cobden’s, having been consulted first being concealed.”—Sir R. Hill’s Journal.—Ed.

[84] The Postmaster-General expressed great surprise—a surprise that almost amounted to incredulity—on being informed that Mr. Frederic Hill was willing to exchange the office which he already held for the post of Assistant-Secretary. The Inspectorship of Prisons he looked upon as the better appointment, as undoubtedly it was.—Ed.

[85] “March 7th.—I spoke to the Postmaster-General on the subject, telling him ‘it was exceedingly unjust of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to press me in this way, knowing as he does that I dare not attempt the amalgamation until he keeps his promise by giving me Maberly’s place.’ In this the Postmaster-General acquiesced.”—Sir R. Hill’s Journal.—Ed.

[86] “June 20th.—Attended my dear father’s funeral.”—Sir R. Hill’s Journal.—Ed.

[87] I have thought it advisable to omit the description of some of these proceedings, which, though important in themselves, yet would have but little interest for the general reader.—Ed.

[88] “Hansard,” Vol. CXIV., p. 273.

[89] “June 13th, 1849.—The Postmaster-General has approved a proposal of mine to carry the night-mail between Oxford and the main line of the Great Western Railway by cart instead of by the branch railway. As the journey both ways is in the middle of the night nothing whatever is gained to Oxford by the [present] arrangement.”—Sir R. Hill’s Journal.—Ed.

[90] A striking instance of this mal-arrangement was reported to me long afterwards. A very meritorious officer appointed by Colonel Maberly, and said to be the first ever admitted into the permanent staff save through political influence, had, during several years, while rated at a salary never exceeding £120, to superintend men whose salaries ranged up to £400.

[91] “Aug. 7th, 1849.—Summoned to the Treasury. . . . Explained to Mr. Hayter the abuses as to promotion, viz., that there is no correspondence between the rank of a clerk and his duties—that two clerks may be engaged in the same duties, the one a secretary at £300 a year, the other a junior at £70 a year. Of these facts Hayter was not aware, and thinks the practice is familiar to the Post Office.”—Sir R. Hill’s Journal.—Ed.

[92] See Vol. I., pp. 461, 475, and 485; and Vol. II., p. 4.

[93] In effect California was the only State not reached at the lower rate.

[94] “April 27th, 1842.—The proceedings in an election committee to try the validity of the last return for Lichfield have brought to light a gross abuse of Post Office patronage in that city. One of the many clerks who have been appointed to secure votes is now in Newgate on a charge of Post Office robbery. These, and similar proceedings, account for the eagerness of the late Postmaster-General to create places, and for much of the inefficiency and dishonesty among the clerks.”—Sir R. Hill’s Journal.—Ed.

[95] “January 8th, 1852.—I told him plainly that the Government has not kept faith with me—that if they meant, as now stated, that I should succeed Maberly merely in the event of a vacancy arising in the ordinary manner, they ought clearly to have stated as much, and not held out expectations of a different kind.”—Sir R. Hill’s Journal.—Ed.

[96] “April 3rd, 1852.—In a minute of Maberly’s on the custody of the Post Office the following sentence occurs:—‘That every officer (including the house-keeper, &c.) within the building, except the Postmaster-General, the Secretary, Assistant-Secretary, and Chief Clerk, shall be considered as under the directions of the clerk-in-waiting for the time being, whilst the Chief Clerk is not on duty in the Office, and they shall take their instructions from that officer alone, in case of any emergency or accident.’

“The effect of this would, of course, be to place myself and Frederic under the direction of the ‘clerk-in-waiting;’ and the Postmaster-General having passed it unnoticed, I have for some time been uneasy on the subject; but on my pointing out the actual position of things to the Postmaster-General, he at once altered Maberly’s minute, by adding an s in each case to the word ’secretary’ (in accordance with his peculiar orthography).”—Sir R. Hill’s Journal.—Ed.

[97] “‘Full dress’ means, I find, that I am to play the fool in a Court dress with a cocked hat and sword.”—Sir R. Hill’s Journal.—Ed.

[98] “I am to prepare a minute on the subject; but as no change can be made without the consent of the Queen, there is no chance of setting the matter right before the dinner. It is altogether a foolish business, but it would be unwise to let matters continue as they are.”—Sir R. Hill’s Journal.—Ed.

[99] More than two years later I find the following entry in Sir R. Hill’s Journal:—

“December 16th, 1854.—Lord Hardwicke, having taken exception to a statement by the Post Office Commission to the effect that it had been found impossible to define the separate duties of Colonel Maberly and myself, moved for a Return of a Minute in which he, according to his own account, had accomplished such definition. I felt tempted to give the Minute literatim as well as verbatim, but, recollecting that Lord Hardwicke was really a good-natured man, refrained. The strength of the temptation will be seen by the accompanying copy of the Return, altered so as to show his Lordship’s peculiar orthography.” [Among other peculiarities his Lordship spelt Secretaries—Secritarys.]—Ed.