[100] “June 12th, 1852.—Some of the present Ministers are jobbing in a very unprincipled manner, in order to influence the coming elections, I have had to advise on a letter from Lord —— to the Postmaster-General, asking the latter to restore the second mail between —— and —— arranging the matter so as to enable him to announce the restoration when he next visits —— for his election. That is to say, the country is to spend £800 or £900 a-year to promote his private interests. As Lord Hardwicke has sent the letter (a private one) to me, I suppose he cannot be fully alive to the dishonesty of the proposal. I shall, of course, prevent the job, if possible.”—Sir R. Hill’s Journal.—Ed.
[101] The late Mr. Joseph Hodgson, sometime President of the Royal College of Surgeons; for nearly fifty years my medical adviser, and likewise my valued and intimate friend.
[102] “As this arrangement involves an immediate addition of £500 a-year to my salary, I may, perhaps, be allowed to remind your Lordship that emolument, simply as such, is not, and, indeed, never has been, my object; but I have had bitter experience of the truth of the remarks lately made in Parliament by Lord Palmerston to the effect that every man’s salary is really taken as the index of his position and authority.
“As, however, the necessity for such stamp of my official rank will be greatly diminished whenever I become sole Secretary, I shall then readily submit to a modification in the scale of remuneration attached to the office, should your Lordship and the Treasury see fit to make any such change.”—Mr. Rowland Hill to Lord Canning. August 16th, 1853.—Ed.
[103] The eloquent words of Milton might have come into the thoughts of some of them when he says: “nihil esse in societate hominum magis vel Deo gratum, vel rationi consentaneum, esse in civitate nihil æquius, nihil utilius, quam potiri rerum dignissimum.” “In the coalition of human Society,” to use Johnson’s rendering, “nothing is more pleasing to God, or more agreeable to reason, than that the highest mind should have the sovereign power.”—Ed.
[104] “I have in this chapter also struck out not a few passages describing matters that are not of permanent interest.”—Ed.
[105] “Fifth Report,” pp. 175-191.
[106] “Fifth Report,” p. 243.
[107] “Fifth Report,” p. 246.
[108] “Fifth Report,” p. 16.
[109] “July 26th, 1853.—Called at Euston Square and saw Huish and Bruyères on the subject of a swift mail to the North. My notion is to run a train with only one or two carriages in addition to those required for the mail, and to stop only once in about forty miles.”
“July 28th.—Called again at Euston Square, and . . . proposed forty miles an hour, including stoppages, thus reaching Edinburgh by 7 a.m.”—Sir R. Hill’s Journal.—Ed.
[110] “It was said to old Bentley, upon the attacks against him, ‘Why, they’ll write you down.’ ‘No, Sir,’ he replied; ‘depend upon it, no man was ever written down but by himself.’”—“Boswell’s Journal of a Tour to the Hebrides.” 4th Edition, p. 280.—Ed.
[112] The newspaper stamp duty was finally abolished in 1870.—Ed.
[113] About five weeks earlier I find the following entry in Sir R. Hill’s Journal:—“May 30th, 1853.—Again pressed on the Postmaster-General the unfairness of transferring to the Post Office (as I fear is intended) the existing contracts for the Packet Service. . . . I fear the injustice will be committed nevertheless, Sir James Graham, who generally contrives to have his own way, having made up his mind to the thing with a view, I suspect, to give an appearance of retrenchment in the Admiralty expenditure.”—Ed.
[114] “Report,” p. 4.
[115] Lord Hardwicke would seem to have had a strong dislike to the book-post, to judge from the following entry in Sir R. Hill’s Journal:—
“June 15th, 1853.—Breakfasted with Chevalier Bunsen. He promises to urge on his Government the adoption of the Book-post. He told a characteristic anecdote of Lord Hardwicke. At the time Lord H. was Postmaster-General, Chevalier Bunsen met him at the Queen’s Drawing Room, where, it seems, if people talk at all, it must be in a low tone of voice. Lord Hardwicke asked what Chevalier Bunsen thought of ‘Hill’s Book-post,’ expressing his own dislike of the measure. Chevalier Bunsen defended it, on which Lord H. became excited, and talked so loud that the Queen despatched an attendant to point out to him that, if he wanted to converse, there was an adjoining room convenient for the purpose.”—Ed.
[116] A subsequent concession reduced the minimum to £120.
[118] Since the above was written, the error, for such I unhesitatingly pronounce it, has been aggravated by admission into the subjects for competitive examination of some quite foreign to the business of the office—as Latin and Greek.
[119] Sir R. Hill’s foreboding has proved only too true. In our high telegraph rate we pay, and shall long pay, for the reckless extravagance with which the purchase of the telegraphs was made.—Ed.
[120] Vol. v., p. 1, March 20, 1852.
[121] See Vol. I., p. 417.—Ed.
[122] Macaulay’s “History of England,” Vol. v., p. 16 (edition in eight volumes.)—Ed.
[123] “Sixth Report,” p. 10.
[124] “Second Report,” p. 10.
[125] See Vol. II., p. 100.
[126] “Second Report,” p. 10.
[127] “Second Report,” pp. 9, 41.
[128] “Fifth Report,” p. 9.
[129] “Fourth Report,” p. 8.
[130] “Third Report,” p. 5; “Fourth Report,” p. 9; “Sixth Report,” p. 9.
[131] The following extract from the “Industrial History of Birmingham” supplies some evidence on this point:—
“The introduction of penny postage by Rowland Hill operated on this branch of trade materially [Birmingham manufactures in brass]. How it did so is strange but true. Immediately on its coming into effect came the demand for letter-weighing machines, which were made in immense quantities; and letter-box plates were introduced, made, and continue to be made, in very considerable numbers.”
[132] “Sixth Report,” p. 9.
[133] “Fourth Report,” p. 10.
[134] It appears that the district system is now (1869) introduced into Calcutta. See “Greater Britain,” by Sir C. Dilke, Vol. II., p. 263. (Second Edition).
[135] “Second Report,” p. 12.
[136] “Third Report,” p. 7.
[137] “Fifth Report,” p. 11.
[138] 1853, No. 747.
[139] “Seventh Annual Report of the Postmaster-General,” p. 7.
[140] “Seventh Annual Report of the Postmaster-General,” p. 18.
[141] “Fifth Report,” p. 12.
[142] Written before 1871.—Ed.
[143] “Fourth Annual Report,” p. 13. The bill in extenso, with explanatory remarks thereon, will be found at p. 46 of the same report.
[144] “Royal Commission on Railways. Report of the Commissioners, 1867.”
[145] In 1878-79 the amount was more than twenty-seven millions. This was, however, a decrease on the preceding year, when the amount had been more than twenty-nine millions.—“Twenty-fifth Report,” p. 45. The profits for 1878-79 were £39,000. In the preceding year, when a much larger business had been done, they were only £6,400.—“Twenty-fifth Report,” p. 21.—Ed.
[146] “Sixth Report,” p. 17
[147] Mr. Frederic Hill succeeded in the end in getting his plan adopted. It works very well, I am informed, and has reduced the cost of “the window duty” by about one-half.—Ed.
[148] “Sixth Report,” p. 27.
[149] “Sixth Report,” p. 30.
[150] Even with the great assistance of the railway to California, it is doubtful if the Western Route is the better for any colony except New Zealand. The advantage of a bi-monthly mail is of course a distinct question.
It is curious how inveterate is the mistake in question. Columbus expected to reach Cathay more quickly by sailing westward, but was stopped by the American continent. The projectors of the “Darien Scheme” hoped to enrich themselves by making their settlement a great entrepôt between Europe and the East Indies; and Macaulay, in his interesting narrative of the enterprise (“History of England,” Vol. v., p. 200), considers their mistake to consist mainly in the assumption that Spain would permit a settlement on its territory; but it seems not to have occurred to him that, in any event, the scheme was intrinsically hopeless, seeing that the old route by the Cape of Good Hope, besides avoiding the cost and delay of transhipment, surpasses the Darien route even in shortness. (October, 1872).
[151] “Fifth Report,” p. 17.
[152] “Sixth Report,” p. 22.
[153] “Fourth Report,” p. 20.
[154] “Fourth Report,” p. 22.
[155] “Parliamentary Return, 1868,” No. 215.
[156] “First Report,” p. 68.
[157] Ibid.
[158] “Fourth Report,” p. 44.
[159] “Parliamentary Return, 1868,” No. 215.
[160] “Sixth Report,” pp. 32, 33.
[161] “Third Report,” p. 28.
[162] “Second Report,” pp. 27-29; “Third Report,” pp. 24-29; “Fifth Report,” p. 23; “Sixth Report,” pp. 38, 39.
[163] O! si sic omnia.—Ed.
[164] “Fifth Report,” p. 35.
[165] “Fourth Report,” p. 77.
[166] “Fourth Report,” p. 32.
[167] “Fourth Report,” p. 77.
[168] “Before 1871 the money accruing from unclaimed money orders had, for many years, been used in aiding officers of the department to insure their lives; but in that year the Lords of the Treasury gave directions for the discontinuance of the practice (except in regard to then existing recipients of the aid), and for the payment of this money into the Exchequer. In obedience to this order, the accumulated capital, together with the interest thereon (amounting to £20,707), was paid into the Exchequer. The actual amount of unclaimed money orders for 1871 was £3,390.”—“Twenty-fifth Report,” p. 65.—Ed.
[169] “Fourth Report,” p. 33.
[170] “Sixth Report,” p. 43.
[171] “Sixth Report,” p. 42.
[172] “Fifth Report,” p. 25.
[173] “Sixth Report,” p. 43.
[174] “Sixth Annual Report,” p. 43.
[175] “First Report of the Postmaster-General,” p. 7.
[176] See p. 92.—Ed.
[177] “April 7, 1849.—Accounts of debts due by late Postmasters not yet discharged by the sureties (some many years old) show that, while the amount of revenue collected in Great Britain is about ten times as great as that collected in Ireland, the debts in Ireland more than double those in Great Britain.”—Sir R. Hill’s Journal.—Ed.
[178] “First Annual Report,” p. 71.
[179] “Sixth Annual Report of the Postmaster-General,” p. 7.
[180] The number of such receptacles in 1878-79 was more than 25,000, of which nearly 12,000 were pillar-boxes.—“Twenty-fifth Report,” p. 7.—Ed.
[181] “Sixth Report,” p. 9.
[182] “Sixth Report,” p. 7.
[183] “First Report,” p. 22.
[184] “Sixth Report,” p. 14.
[185] For the numbers in 1878-79, see p. 382.—Ed.
[186] “Second Report,” p. 18.
[187] “Sixth Report,” p. 15.
[188] “Fourth Report,” p. 17.
[189] “Sixth Report,” p. 15.
[190] “Sixth Report,” p. 15.
[191] “Macaulay wrote to me at Harrow pretty constantly, sealing his letters with an amorphous mass of red wax, which, in defiance of post-office regulations, not unfrequently concealed a piece of gold.”—“The Life and Letters of Lord Macaulay.” Second edition. Vol. II., p. 426.—Ed.
[192] “Third Report,” p. 30.
[193] “Third Report,” p. 12.
[194] “Sixth Report,” p. 17.
[195] “Sixth Report,” p. 18.
[196] “Third Report,” p. 15.
[197] “Third Report,” p. 17.
[198] “Fifth Report,” p. 19.
[199] “Third Report,” p. 18.
[200] “Sixth Report,” p. 20.
[201] Since the above was written, a passage, though an erroneous one, in an interesting and popular work, has reminded me of another American labourer in the field of postal improvement. One of Miss Mitford’s letters would seem to show that as early as 1832, or four years before my pamphlet was written, she went to hear Mr. Elihu Burritt lecture on ocean penny postage. A letter lately received from Mr. Burritt informs me that he never visited England before 1846, and never worked in the cause of postal reform but in sequence to myself. Explanation of the error may easily be found by reference to the difficulty which must have been encountered in piecing together, with even plausible correctness, the scraps of paper on which Miss Mitford’s letters were habitually written.
[202] One curious question bearing on the letter-carriers’ position, and which occupied some little attention at this time, I must here mention, as it is connected with a popular misconception, sometimes fruitful in trouble, viz., whether public gratuities, such as Christmas-boxes, should be taken into account in estimating a letter-carrier’s emoluments or not. These Christmas-boxes, I may observe, average about £13 per letter-carrier, and amount in some cases, I am told, to as much as £50 or £60. At first sight it appears most ungenerous to include them, and yet a short statement will show that to some extent this is unavoidable. A letter-carrier, say, has attained the highest position open to him as such, and is offered admission to the class of sorters, where the minimum pay equals his present maximum, while the maximum is more than double what he is receiving. This offer he declines, because by accepting it he would cease to have direct intercourse with the public, and so lose all opportunity for gratuity. This, of course, he has a perfect right to do; but when he continues, while rejecting the higher rate, to point to the lower as ground of complaint, either the answer must explain the anomaly by referring to the addition to his salary thus made every Christmas, or a complaint really unfounded remains plausible, and obtains inconsiderate support.
[203] “Fifth Report,” p. 40. In the admonitory address from which the above quotation is made, and which was afterwards published in the Annual Report, the position of a letter-carrier is distinctly set forth.
[204] Among some “miscellaneous anecdotes” recorded by Sir R. Hill I find the following: “I used at one time to walk to Camden Town, take an omnibus as far as the corner of Gray’s Inn Lane and Holborn, and thence walk to St. Martin’s Le Grand. One day, while sitting in the omnibus, I overheard one gentleman say to another, ‘I understand that Mr. Rowland Hill often travels in these omnibuses.’ ‘Oh, yes,’ replied the other, who chanced to sit nearly opposite me, ‘I very often meet him—I know him quite well.’ Of course I held my peace, not deeming it necessary to disconcert my familiar acquaintance.”—Ed.
[205] “Sixth Report,” p. 9.
[206] Mr. Gladstone wrote to Mr. Sikes the following letter:—
“14, Downing Street, Whitehall, 30th November, 1859.
“Dear Sir,—I have read with much interest your tract on Post Office Savings’ Banks, and have discussed the subject with Sir A. Spearman, who has also had some communication with the Post Office authorities.
“The difficulties are very serious, chiefly in connection with the question of interest and the mode of account for it. “At the same time there is so much of promise in the plan on the face of it, that we are unwilling to let it drop without a most careful examination.
“If you are likely to be in London, or were disposed to come hither, personal communication on details might be of advantage. Sir A. Spearman would be most ready to see you for the purpose of entering into them fully, and I should be very desirous myself to give any aid in my power at the proper time.
“I remain, Dear Sir, yours very faithfully,
“W. E. Gladstone.
“C. W. Sikes, Esq.” —Ed.
[207] “Report of Select Committee on Postage (1843),” p. 41.
[208] For further information on this subject, see Appendix M.—“Pneumatic tubes for the conveyance of telegrams are in use,” I am informed, “between the Central Telegraph Office in St. Martin’s-le-Grand and many branch offices, the longest line of tube being that to the House of Parliament—upwards of two miles. They are also in use in Manchester, Liverpool, Glasgow, Birmingham, Newcastle, and Dublin. In Berlin a costly tube service has been established for the distribution of letters to the various parts of that city.”—Ed.
[209] More detailed information on this subject will be found in Appendix I.
[210] “Hansard,” Vol. CLVIII., p. 1205.
[211] “Third Annual Report,” p. 33.
[212] “Fourth Annual Report,” p. 17.
[213] “Hansard,” Vol. CLXVI., pp. 188, 189.
[214] Some of the old abuses of the franking system have reappeared. Private letters are often sent under the Government frank; especially is this the case with private letters for the colonies.—Ed.
[215] It is important to observe that the amount actually paid by Government for its postage before the abolition of franking was less, in proportion to the amount of its correspondence, than that paid after the abolition.
[216] The following note on Lord Canning was added by Sir Rowland Hill in June, 1876:—“In an able article in the last ‘Edinburgh Review,’ on Lord Mayo’s Indian administration, the writer thus speaks of Lord Canning:—‘And then we come to Earl Canning, who, almost without exception among English statesmen, presents the grandest picture of unswerving firmness, courage and magnanimity in the midst of the most appalling dangers; who, without losing hope and strong resolve, saw the fabric of an empire fading away from his vision like an iceberg in the Gulf Stream; who at the same time had to confront a native rebellion, the panic fear and disaffection of his countrymen, and the opinion at home which was the reverberation of the latter. He met the rebellion, and he put it down. He met the panic fear, and he triumphed over it. When blood and punishment and cruelty were preached, he stepped forward as a grand and magnanimous ruler, as the representative of British humanity and civilization, and with mild but absolute accent proclaimed, “This shall not be,” and it was not. The greatness of the man who could so speak and so act, at such a time as the crisis of the mutiny and rebellion in India in 1857, is not to be measured by the ordinary deeds of war and peace, however grand in execution the former, however wise and beneficent the latter may be.’ That such a man, after acquiring a thorough knowledge of myself, should have selected me for the difficult and responsible post of Secretary to the Post Office, and have continued throughout my attached friend, is to me a source of the highest gratification.”—Ed.