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.

“As I am writing to you I cannot help mentioning what was told me at Weymouth this year, which shows how, in trifles even, your scheme has been a benefit.

“I was at Weymouth when I was Chancellor of the Exchequer, and busy with you about the reduction [of postage], and used, with my children, to frequent a shell-shop and gossip with the shopkeeper—a man of some intelligence in his way. I was at Weymouth again this summer, and having gone to my shell friend, after a little talk, ‘Oh, Sir!’ he said, ‘I must tell you that the penny postage that you were busy about when you were here last has been a great benefit to me in my way, which you did not, I dare say, expect, and I am sure I did not. I now send my shells all over the country.’”

The following is a curious instance of a real advantage figuring as the reverse. While the year’s improvement did not equal my expectation, a return called for by Parliament was so given as to make it appear less than it really was, the progress in gross revenue being in effect understated by about £100,000. The following is the explanation of this anomaly:—By the system of prepayment the number of rejected letters had been so diminished that the deduction made on their account from the gross postage had been reduced by that sum, a fact suppressed in the return.[53] I pointed out the error to the Accountant-General, who at once admitted it, but explained that a corrective entry which he had made in the return had been removed thence by order.

“January 28th.—Went to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to endeavour to remove his objections to the book post. He is afraid apparently of the railway interest, and dislikes the notion of entering into competition with carriers. I reminded him that we did not propose to avail ourselves of our monopoly [I should have said ‘to extend our monopoly to the conveyance of books’], but merely to serve the public better than it is now served; that no other system than that of the Post Office would reach the rural districts; and pointed out the moral and political importance of enlightening those districts, &c., &c. We had a stout battle, but in the end he gave up, suggesting, however, for my consideration, the expediency, in the first instance at least, of restricting each packet to a single volume.”

This suggestion was adopted. The difficulties being thus removed, the book post was at length established, the necessary warrant appearing in the Gazette of February 11th. At first any writing whatsoever found in a posted book made it subject to letter charge, but this absolute restriction was soon found to be inconvenient, especially to collectors of old books. Professor De Morgan, I remember, found it a little hard that a bar to the use of the book post should arise from the mere fact that a useful volume contained some such inscription as the following:—

The rule was accordingly made less stringent; writing, however, being still restricted to a single page. In the course of years it became allowable to write anything whatever, save only a letter, and, with the same restriction, to send any matter, even if written throughout.

I am sorry to remark, however, that meantime advantage was taken of the new facility for frequent attempt at evasion of postage; letters, small articles of dress, &c., being slipped in between the leaves of the books, and, ungallant as the statement may appear, I am bound to mention that the chief offenders in this way were ladies. Sometimes the means resorted to evinced no small pains and ingenuity, exercised for the mere purpose of saving a few pence. Thus, in one instance which I remember, a hole had been excavated in the thickness of an old book—leaving not only the binding, but several leaves above and below, uninjured, and in this hole was concealed a watch. And here I may remark that, with every desire to give the public all possible facilities, we were often deterred from so doing by the tricks and evasions which too frequently followed any relaxation of our rules; evasions which, even when detected, and when clearly opposed to the spirit and intention of the regulation, were sometimes defended—and owing to the unwillingness of Government departments to risk defeat in a court of justice, successfully defended—on the ground that there was no infraction of the letter of the regulation. The conscientious part of the public—happily, so far as my experience shows, the great majority—is little aware how much it suffers from unscrupulous conduct such as this.

While thus carrying forward extensive and important improvements in the single department placed under my exclusive superintendence, and while instituting the book-post system, I found myself, by want of necessary power, debarred from those more general improvements which constituted important features in my plan as laid before Parliament. I had nevertheless abundance of less profitable, though not unprofitable, occupation in work mostly of a routine character. Here I had steadily to resist such tendency to unnecessary increase in expenditure as seemed likely, if unchecked, to render all my economical arrangements nugatory. I had, at the same time, to seek every opportunity of retrieving false steps made previously to my appointment;[54] some of which were still producing serious waste. Of course, many of the savings effected either way were, individually, of small amount, yet not only were they important in their total, but also the care thus exercised tended to introduce that spirit of economy without which no department can produce its best effects.

Sound economy, I need not say, requires that salaries should be regulated by fixed principles; and as early as January 31st of this year I had suggested to the Postmaster-General that it would be well for the Treasury to appoint commissioners who should establish scales of salaries equally applicable to all the revenue departments, so as at once to remove mutual jealousy and to prevent unreasonable claims in one department from arising out of unreasonable concession in another. Such a Commission was actually appointed about five years afterwards, and its proceedings will be mentioned in their proper place.

One past proceeding, strongly exemplifying the necessity for a regulating principle, is set forth in the following extract from my Journal. Rectification was an affair of great difficulty:—

“May 27th.—In preparing for my minute on the mail guards I have been obliged to read the papers on the subject for the last eleven years. They show that a scale of wages about two-thirds of that now in use was proposed by the officers of the department, and recommended by Colonel Maberly; also that much lower wages (21s. per week) had been paid for seven years to the guards on the Manchester and Liverpool Railway, and that they were satisfied therewith; that the Postmaster-General, in opposition to the advice of his officers, proposed to the Treasury a scale nearly the same, but slightly higher than that now established, and then appointed a large number of new guards; that, owing to a blunder of ——’s [instead of the change being limited to guards on railway, who got no fees from passengers], the option was offered to all the guards then in the service to be placed on this scale, as he admits, without authority from the Treasury; that the Irish guards [who all worked on mail-coaches], without exception, accepted the offer; thus adding at once more than £5,000 a year to the expenses; that an attempt was then made (in effect unsuccessfully) to withdraw the offer, and that in the course of a few years the expenses in mail guards were advanced from £10,513 in 1836, to £28,627 in 1841; that my minute on the subject, written at the Treasury in 1842, calling for explanations and suspending further advance meanwhile, was sent to the Postmaster-General in August of that year, and remained unanswered till September, 1845, and that in the meantime the Post Office was frequently pressing the Treasury to remove the suspension. . . . Towards the end of 1845 the Treasury took off the suspension, and the arrears (about £2,000) were paid. The Committee of Investigation, in 1843, called for a copy of my minute, and of the proceedings consequent thereon, but it was delayed under various pretexts, and was eventually withheld altogether.”

One means of economising the time of the letter-carriers, which I had contemplated from the first, was to induce the public to provide themselves with letter-boxes to the doors of their houses; and I now suggested to the Postmaster-General the expediency of addressing a circular on the subject, in his name, to the inhabitants of London. I proposed that it should give information as to the cost of change, and offer Post Office assistance in case of difficulty. At the time the Postmaster-General concurred in all this, but for some months nothing was done.

“March 29th.—The P.M.G. has sent me a private note stating his apprehension that the circular as to letter-boxes, &c., will be ridiculed, and proposing to leave out all information as to prices, &c. As he had previously sanctioned the circular, I suppose some one must have excited these apprehensions. To me it appears ridiculous to issue a circular without giving the information which every one naturally desires; but of course it must be altered.”

Letter-boxes, however, have become frequent, though far from being so general as both economy and public convenience require. Neither the Postmaster-General nor I imagined that the circular, limited as it was, could give offence to any one. Nevertheless, it produced some angry letters,—among others, one from the late Marquis of Londonderry, who indignantly demanded whether the Postmaster-General actually expected that he should cut a slit in his mahogany door!

The following minor improvement may perhaps be worth mentioning, as being, if not particularly beneficial to the department, at least very economical to that large portion of the public which is interested in railway extension. Railway notices were at that time served personally on landholders and occupiers by the solicitors of the companies, at the rate of one guinea for each notice. The Speaker of the House of Commons (now Lord Eversley) sent his private secretary, Mr. (now Sir Erskine) May,[55] to confer with me on the expediency of having the notices in question served by means of registered letters. To this there was a very serious obstacle in the fact of the delivery not extending to every house, so that I had to devise means by which this difficulty might be overcome. At the end of four months, however, and in fair time for the notices of the season, a plan which Mr. May and I jointly concocted having received the sanction of Government, the proposed regulations were issued; the effect being to reduce the expense of serving a notice from one guinea to sixpence. I had, in due time, the satisfaction to learn that the plan, as adopted, worked smoothly, though it certainly appeared that some solicitors were in no special haste to avail themselves of the new facility.

“February 20th, 1849.—Met at my brother Matthew’s house, Mr. Brooks, the Home Missionary at Birmingham, a very intelligent, active and benevolent man. He tells me that penny postage is producing excellent effects as regards the poor, inducing large numbers, even among the adults, to learn to write, and that their correspondence is increased, he thinks, a hundred-fold. He thinks requiring prepayment by stamps (the postmasters being obliged to sell even a single stamp) will not interfere with the correspondence of the poor, who are rather proud of sticking the Queen’s head on their letters.”

I must now speak of the progress made during the year in the extension of postal reform to foreign countries, as also changes in our relations therewith.

“February 10th, 1848.—The Postmaster-General explained to me the position of the postal treaty with the United States. Whatever may have been our conduct at first, I think we are right now, and the United States Government wrong. Bancroft, the United States minister, had consented to an arrangement of perfect reciprocity, viz., on each letter either way twopence to each government for inland rate, and tenpence to the Government owning the packet, when the United States Government refused its ratification; and yet, owing to the absurd secrecy observed on such occasions [by our official rule], the English, as well as the American papers, throw all the blame on our Government. Proposed to the Postmaster-General that I should see Thornley, Brown, and some other M.P.’s interested in the matter, who had applied to me on the subject, and let them know how matters stand—to which he assented, and I arranged to meet them to-morrow morning.”

I must observe that such hasty conclusions in the press, and consequently in the public, are not so infrequent as could be wished; the Post Office, and perhaps other departments of Government, being frequently blamed for defects and anomalies which they have no power to supply or remove. I must confess it has appeared to me that we Englishmen have a singular disposition, where the question lies between our neighbours and ourselves, to lay the blame, if possible, on ourselves.

“April 15th.—Mr. James Lee of New York came with an introduction from Mr. Rathbone of Liverpool. Mr. Lee is intimate with the President, and is anxious to assist in effecting amicable arrangements as to the postal communication between this country and the United States. He admits the abstract fairness of our proposals, but contends that we ought to modify them because, owing to the angry feeling on the part of the people in the United States, the Government there cannot concur therein. This struck me as a strange admission of weakness. I suggested an arrangement which, though equally favourable to us, would not encounter the prejudices of the American people; at the same time carefully guarding myself against its being supposed that I was empowered to negotiate. He caught eagerly at the suggestion: said that he should go immediately to the American minister to consult him thereon, and then see me again. Mr. Lee entirely confirms the statement of mine, on which much doubt has been thrown, namely, that the United States Post Office has no provision for the delivery of letters, and consequently that, notwithstanding their greater distances, they have no claim to a higher inland rate than ourselves.”

Meantime, progress was making in the United States towards such measures as, by bringing their home postal system into accordance with our own, would obviously facilitate international accommodation. An association was formed at New York apparently for procuring the adoption of my plan in all its points, and the President (Mr. Polk), in his message to Congress, recommended that the variable rate, established about three years before, should be reduced to a uniform rate of twopence-halfpenny; the same to be prepaid. This I could not but regard as a very complete acknowledgment of the fairness and convenience of uniformity, considering the vast extent of the United States, and that the measure followed a trial of two rates. An entry in my Journal records that the treaty between the two countries was settled. The terms, indeed, seemed to me unduly advantageous to America, but, under all the circumstances, I approved of the concession.

Good progress was making also in France; the Revolution, so disastrous in many respects, having at least removed from his office the chief opponent of postal reform, M. Dubost. On June 21st I learnt from M. Grasset, my former correspondent, that he had laid before a committee of the National Assembly, with my friend M. St. Priest as president, a proposal for a low uniform rate, payable by means of stamps. Unfortunately he did not propose to make any distinction of charge between letters prepaid and post-paid. On this modification which he had made in my plan my correspondent prided himself as the simplest system in the world. I could not but acknowledge, however, that, even in spite of his modification, the proposed change would be a vast improvement on the actual rates. The Report of the committee, drawn up by “Citizen St. Priest,” recommended a considerable reduction in the charge for postage.

“August 26th.—The Times of this morning states that the bill for the establishment of the twopenny rate passed the National Assembly on the 24th.”

By this Act money prepayment was forbidden, but as nothing was gained by prepayment in stamps, the inducement to use stamps seemed but weak, so that the economy involved therein was likely to be but small. Experience showed the error, and the post-paid rate was afterwards increased, I think, as with us, to a double amount. My friend M. Piron obligingly sent me a sheet of the new French postage stamps, the image on which was a female head, symbolical of the French Republic. The confusion of the revolutionary period seemed to be whimsically exemplified in the fact that, of the three hundred heads on the sheet, several were inverted. This packet I received just before the close of the year. A few days later I have the following entry:—

“January 13th, 1849.—M. Thayer, the present head of the Post Office in France, called, as he said, to see the father of their improved Post Office system; he is new to his duties, and therefore not very familiar with details, but he seems hopeful. He proposes to exchange papers connected with the departments. He walked with crutches, having been shot in the foot in attacking barricades in June.”

M. Thayer, I may remark, informed me that he was of English extraction, referring me, for confirmation of his statement, to Thayer Street, Manchester Square.

Belgium, too, was in movement; and in a minute prepared in reply to an application from the Government of that country, I was able to show how accurately the results of penny postage had agreed with my anticipations. Six months later, viz., in December, 1848, I received a copy of the Government Bill, which proposed to reduce the various postage rates to a uniform charge of twopence; retaining, however, the lower rate of one penny for local letters. It appeared that the whole number of letters was but nine millions, or about one-ninth part of that delivered in the London district, the population of which is about half of that of Belgium. The people of Brussels were pressing for a penny rate.

When the question came before the Belgian Parliament, the Lower House, rejecting the rate proposed by Government, adopted our own rates; these, however, being rejected by the Upper House in favour of a twopenny rate, the king, upon learning that this modification was producing great and general dissatisfaction, proposed a compromise, which was accepted. By his a penny was fixed as the rate for moderate distances, the rate beyond being twopence. Stamps were to be used, and a penny to be added in all cases where the letter was not prepaid.

CHAPTER XVII.

In the narrative of the proceedings of the year 1848 I have reserved to the last some that were of great importance to myself, and I venture to think, through me, to the public service. The discordant action in the secretarial department, so often referred to in these pages, so difficult to prevent where there were two co-ordinate authorities dealing apart with the very same affairs, and unfortunately so needlessly aggravated in a variety of ways, continued throughout the year with but little abatement, and with no prospect of cure. Not only, as already shown, did it seriously impede, and in some important cases even stop, the progress of improvement, but it acted also so injuriously on my own health as at times to make me even doubt the possibility of my remaining at my post.

Before, however, the effect on my health became too manifest to allow of neglect, the two-fold evils of my position, the realisation of all the unpleasant anticipations with which I had entered on my office, had led me to seek the early fulfilment of those expectations held out to me in the beginning, without which I should not have entered on my arduous task. In reply to my inquiry as to the term necessary for demonstrating my power of dealing with details there had been loose mention of six months.[56] At the end of that period, viz., in May, 1847, having become firmly convinced that the existing evils admitted but of one cure, I had made my first move in that direction. I had told the Postmaster-General that, after six months’ trial, I was convinced that Colonel Maberly and I could never work cordially together. Some time afterwards, being called on to prepare scales for salaries, I again pressed my views. I told the Postmaster-General that, as the scales I had to propose would disappoint existing expectations and probably increase an insubordinate spirit already showing itself amongst the men, the work could not be safely attempted under divided responsibility, unless there were a harmony of action of which I saw not the least hope. I added that, much as I desired to take part in carrying out my plan, I was so deeply impressed with the dangers to which I had referred, that I thought it would be better to leave the executive entirely with Colonel Maberly than to continue on the present footing. The Postmaster-General, although apparently not viewing the matter in so serious a light as myself, seemed uneasy at my persistence, and said he must consult the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

About a month later, Mr. Thomas Young, the Receiver-General, having entered into conversation with me on the subject, and learnt my views and feelings thereon, counselled patience, but assured me that he knew the feeling at the Treasury, and that I might calculate on the desired change before the end of the next session. After the lapse of another month the Postmaster-General, in reply to inquiry, told me that he had spoken to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but without definite result. He added, however, that, as I had to see the Chancellor on other business, I had better discuss the matter with him myself, and go fully into the subject. I accordingly saw the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the earliest opportunity. After having discussed with him my more immediate business, which related to my undivided control of the Money Order Department, a point on which I was fortunate enough to obtain his concurrence, I deemed it inexpedient to enter on further measures, especially as he was much pressed for time. I told him, however, that I thought it right to say that the step about to be taken would necessarily lead to further measures; on which he said, “I have no objection to that.”

Meantime I had the satisfaction to remark various indications of that increased confidence in myself, on which, of course, the desired promotion must be based. Early in the year 1848, however, I saw reason to apprehend that, without prompt action on my part, I myself might be subject to ejection. The clerks in the money-order division of the Secretary’s department were alarmed by information that attempts were making to remove me, and all under me, to the Money Order Office over the way, a change which would have put my retention of office quite out of the question. The clerks, whose salary and position would have suffered by this removal, memorialized the Postmaster-General on the subject. Upon speaking to Lord Clanricarde, I learned that some such suggestion had been made, but presently abandoned. I took advantage of the alarm to obtain for those under me full security as to their position and salary.

Some months later, circumstances again led me to mention my claim. Increase of business in the London district requiring an increase of force, and this appearing to contradict the expectations I had held out, I was sent for to the Treasury, where I saw Mr. Parker:—

“May 12th.—I thought it necessary to speak plainly as to the causes of their not having been realised, and said that so long as they continued Colonel Maberly in office they must not expect any decided retrenchment, and that, had I supposed that he would have retained his position so long, I never would have undertaken my present duties. He seemed sorry to have provoked these statements, and remarked that great savings had been effected in the Money Order Office; to which I replied that it was because that department had been freed from Colonel Maberly’s influence.”

Some weeks later, I received for my plan the marked approbation of the highest authority in the Government:—

“June 21st.—Lord John Russell, last night, in the House of Commons, in enumerating the measures which had resulted from the Reform Bill, spoke as follows of penny postage (the extract is from the Times of to-day): . . . ‘Whilst these great changes have been made, other measures have been adopted, such as the reduction of the postage of letters to a penny (Hear! from Colonel Sibthorpe, in a tone which provoked considerable laughter). I was about to allude to the reduction of postage in a parenthesis with other measures, but I really think that, viewed as a great social change, nothing more beneficial has taken place in later times (Hear, hear). When you contemplate the enormous increase which has taken place in correspondence, you may estimate the number of persons who were deprived of the benefit of communicating with their friends, and of offering the interchange of domestic affections (Hear, hear). I really think that we cannot overestimate all the advantages which have resulted from that act (Cheers).’”

The more, however, I felt gratified with this evidence of increased confidence on the part of the Government, the more anxious was I made by a communication received three days afterwards:—

“June 24th.—The Postmaster-General told me in confidence that Ministers had determined to resign if beaten on the Jamaica question, now pending—a result which he thought probable; his object in telling me this appeared to be to enable me, as far as possible, to prepare for the change. I repeated what I have before told him, that his own resignation would in all probability be followed by mine, for that, judging from former experience, I was sure that unless I was well backed by the Postmaster-General, —— would so conduct himself as to render my position unbearable. He replied that he had no doubt I should have much opposition to contend with, not only from ——, but from the heads of the other departments, who to a man were opposed to reduction. I reminded the Postmaster-General of his minute, prescribing a course of proceeding on my part much more restrictive than the actual practice of the office, and stated that, should he resign, —— would, I felt sure, endeavour to enforce the regulations to the letter. I also inquired if the Postmaster-General would have any objection to modify his minute in accordance with the practice of the office. To this I understood him to assent. He says there will be plenty of time, after the question of resignation is settled, to attend to such matters. Lord St. Germans, he thinks, would be his successor. He has noticed that Lord St. G. has rarely deviated from Maberly’s advice.”

“June 28th.—E. H., A. H., F. H., and I, met to consult on the steps to be taken in consequence of the Postmaster-General’s communication of the 24th, and decided what should be done. These family consultations are a great aid to me. Wrote a minute, modifying the one [alluded to above].”

“June 29th.—Called on the Postmaster-General at his house, and had a very satisfactory interview. He is fully satisfied as to my administrative powers, and offers to leave a memorandum for his successor (should the Ministry resign, of which there is now less probability), expressing his high opinion thereon. Fully admits that the prospect of promotion held out when I entered on office had reference to my succeeding Maberly. That all doubt of my ability to manage the department had long ceased, and that he had repeatedly expressed himself to other members of the Government quite ready to conduct the Post Office with my aid only; that he expected a vacancy in some other department would have been found for M. before this, but that his present post was so good a one that it was difficult to find another equally good, and that Parliament and the public would not justify their allowing so young a man as M. to retire upon a pension. I proposed, as an intermediate step, that I should be declared joint secretary with M.; but, as I could not accept any advance of salary so long as I was postponing the consideration of others’ salaries, my salary should continue at its present amount till the general adjustment should take place. . . . Finally, he promised to consider my proposal, and to consult the Chancellor of the Exchequer thereon.”

“June 30th.—The danger of resignation is past; the Ministers had a majority of 15 last night. Gave the Postmaster-General the minute (June 28th), but he defers decision thereon, there being now no haste.”

I did not altogether concur in the propriety of delay, feeling as I did that every day was bringing new evils. After narrating other proceedings at this interview, my Journal thus continues:—

“Called his [the Postmaster-General’s] attention to the great increase of expenditure, shown by an account just rendered for the last half of 1847. It is at the [annual] rate of nearly £100,000.”

In the following August the question was again forced upon me, by a demand of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the complete consolidation of the two corps of letter-carriers;[57] a measure involving also the establishment of hourly deliveries and district offices, all important features of my plan. Knowing that the required change, which, unless made with the greatest care, would inevitably excite great discontent among the clerks, sorters, letter-carriers, and others, could not be safely attempted under present arrangements, I again spoke to the Postmaster-General on the subject of my promotion, but obtained no satisfactory reply.

Checked and encumbered too as my progress had been, a review of it made about this time showed that, however imperfect in its great features, it was nevertheless, in the aggregate, greater than I myself had been conscious of. In fact, I found that most of the improvements included in the list of agenda, which I had laid before the Committee of 1843, were either completed or at least in progress. Still, as I felt it indispensable that my greater reforms also should go forward, I continued from time to time to urge that important change which the condition of my engagement gave me a right to demand; and as the year drew to its close without any step being taken in reference to my claims, I naturally became more impatient. Instead of the six months which had been spoken of as my probable time of probation, two whole years had now elapsed. I could not but regard this interpretation of the virtual promise as more than sufficiently loose.

After careful consultation with my brothers, I resolved on making a formal application upon the subject. In my letter, which is given in the Appendix (A), after referring to past difficulties and previous applications, as also to the distinct expectation which had induced me to accept my present post, after appealing to his lordship as “to my having made every possible effort to surmount and avoid the obstacles incident to my present position,” I submitted a list of the chief improvements (all of them, however, of a comparatively minor character) which, under his lordship’s authority, I had been able to effect in the postal service. I then described the improvements effected in the Money Order Department, expressing my confident expectation that in the course of the year it would become self-supporting,[58] and that by additional measures, then in progress, it would in time be made to afford a satisfactory profit. I adduced the facility with which the necessary changes, many of them difficult and complicated, had been effected in this department since it came under my immediate and exclusive direction, as affording fair presumption that with similar means at my command a like success might be obtained elsewhere. I remarked that my appointment to this department had been avowedly to ascertain my competency for practical management, and submitted that by the results such competency was proved.

After adverting to some of the most important and pressing improvements remaining to be made, to the opposition which these had always encountered, to the cautious and tentative process by which alone they could be effected, to the impracticability of carrying on this without “immediate confidential and uninterrupted intercourse with those most conversant with details, or on whom the duty of immediate execution would devolve,” or without “the exercise of an influence and authority limited only by due subordination to” his “lordship,” I again urged the fulfilment of the expectation held out to me. I strengthened my claim by reference to symptoms of dissatisfaction in the public with the slowness of progress, natural enough in its ignorance of the difficulties under which I laboured, but through which I was exposed to attacks which I might not repel, and suffered in my reputation while quite unconscious of blame.

“Dublin, January 6th, 1849.

“My dear Sir,—The subject of your letter of the 3rd is a matter for more than mere departmental consideration, and all I can do upon it is to communicate it to the authorities at the Treasury. I shall do so without delay.

“Most truly yours,
“Clanricarde.”

Three days later I learnt from the Postmaster-General that it had been forwarded to the Premier, Lord John Russell; and about a month afterwards I heard in like manner that it was then in the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Instead, however, of a reply, positive or negative, to my application, I received from the Postmaster-General’s private secretary a letter addressed to his lordship from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, demanding the consolidation of the two corps of letter-carriers, referring to a promise of such improvement alleged to have been made two years before, and speaking of its non-fulfilment as discreditable to the department. I need not say that in such promise I at least had had no share; but as the obstacles to this very measure had been set forth in my recent letter, I was obliged to conclude that this letter, though forwarded as already mentioned to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, remained unread by him.

A few days afterwards, however, the Postmaster-General told me that he and Lord John Russell had talked over my letter, but the reported result was only the old conclusion, viz., delay till a suitable vacancy should be found elsewhere for Colonel Maberly. I suggested two several expedients which were not adopted. In short, nothing whatever was done, and though no attempt was made, either then or at any other time, to show any flaw in my claims, I found nothing but delay. I certainly had as yet no suspicion of the extent to which this delay would be carried.

Ten days later the Chancellor of the Exchequer again, in a private note to the Postmaster-General, returned to the charge, protesting that no jarring between Colonel Maberly and me could justify the delay, but still showing no sign of having read my letter. It was easy to suppose the Chancellor of the Exchequer unable to discover of himself the mode in which jarring between Colonel Maberly and me rendered it impracticable to effect what he desired, and to understand how press of business and variety of occupation might have prevented his noticing or remembering my explanation on the subject. Unfortunately his want of information, however accounted for, could not remove obstructions nor avert dangers; and thus, while he applied his spur, I could not induce him to remove the curb. My only resource was again to seek a hearing; and accordingly I wrote to my immediate official superior what was nevertheless intended rather for the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself.

After mentioning that I had in vain sought by reconsideration to find means of accomplishing in my present position even part of what was desired, I suggested that, to remove all obstacles to my promotion, Colonel Maberly should be allowed to retire on full salary, I undertaking all his work in addition to my own, without any present increase of emolument; Colonel Maberly to be of course ready to fill any satisfactory vacancy in another department whenever it occurred. Thus, with full allowance for such augmentation to my salary as might then take place, there would still be a large saving to the revenue. The reply to this letter, though expressed with Lord Clanricarde’s usual kindness, was a request for its withdrawal; a request with which, after a week’s consideration and consultation with friends, I thought it best to comply. I notified, however, that I still urged my claim as stated in my previous letter.

“May 7th.—The Postmaster-General expresses doubt as to the result of this debate [the Navigation Laws], on which the existence of the Ministry depends. He says, however, that in the event of their resignation, there will be ample time to consider any arrangements similar to those discussed at the time of the last ministerial crisis for making my position in the office more satisfactory.”

With the importance of the relief to be derived from the long-sought change in my position I was again impressed by failure of health. Towards the end of May I became so unwell as to be very unfit for work, and was obliged to remain almost entirely at home. Some weeks later I again fell ill, and was for a week absent from the office, getting with difficulty through some little work at home. Early in August, however, the parliamentary session having closed, I was able to take more rest, and though repeatedly interrupted by recalls either to the Post Office or the Treasury, I was nominally at holiday for a whole month, and really passed nearly a fortnight at Ramsgate. Before leaving town, however, I again wrote to the Postmaster-General. (See Appendix B.) In his reply (Appendix C), Lord Clanricarde repeated his former objections to moving in the matter, and said he saw no reason to believe that the Treasury would take at that moment any steps to place me in the position I desired to hold.[59]

“September 12th.—The Postmaster-General came to the office for the first time since our recent correspondence. His manner was most hearty and friendly, so much so as to render it almost impossible to discuss any question otherwise than in the most amicable manner. His stay was so short that I could barely get through the most pressing business; it is understood, however, that we are to talk over the correspondence when he comes next.”

On further consideration, I determined to take no further action at present; and, indeed, my attention was soon afterwards engrossed in other matters.

CHAPTER XVIII.

I now come to one of the most painful passages of my whole life. Perhaps, even had I been in possession of every external advantage, the trouble and anxiety now approaching would have been very considerable, but certainly by my anomalous position they were so aggravated as to become almost more than I could bear. The call constantly made upon me to check unreasonable demands for augmented force or increased salary had necessarily raised against me a hostile feeling, which was but too ready to break out when occasion offered. To explain how such a contingency occurred, I must go somewhat backward in my narrative.

At the time of my appointment to the Post Office, Sunday was very far from bringing to the department the amount of rest at present enjoyed there. Even at the chief office, which was usually spoken of as completely exempt from Sunday duty, more than twenty persons were regularly employed during several hours of the day, partly in sorting out the letters for Government and foreign ambassadors resident in London, letters technically called “States,”—which had to be delivered the same day—and partly in doing other work which, under the existing arrangements, could not safely be deferred until the Monday morning. Elsewhere offices were, as a rule, open during most of the day, not only for general purposes, but even for the transaction of money-order business. Applications, indeed, began to be made by particular towns for the suspension of this latter duty at their respective offices; but, owing to the various difficulties and objections by which the change was beset, and in particular the apprehended risk of opposition from without, no progress was made until towards the end of 1847. In that year, in consequence of a memorial presented from Bath by Lord Ashley (now Earl of Shaftesbury), then one of the members for that city, the Postmaster-General directed inquiry to be made whether, by extending the hours on Saturday night, money-order transactions on the Sunday might not be discontinued without injury to the working classes. A report on this subject from the surveyor of the district having come into my hands, I drew up a minute (January 27th, 1848), in which I advised that for the present, at least, the Bath office should be closed for money-order business on the Sunday, and I suggested that in the event of its success a similar arrangement might be extended to other towns. The Postmaster-General having adopted this recommendation, the Bath office was closed on the Sunday for money-order business, though it still remained open for ordinary purposes nine hours on that day, as before. Even thus limited, however, the alteration excited a in the minds of those who regarded it as the forerunner of other restrictions, and within a month a memorial against further change was presented by Viscount Duncan, the other member for the city, signed by the mayor and nearly five thousand other persons, “Clergymen, officers of the navy and army, gentlemen, members of the various professions and trades, and others.” It thus appeared that, important as it was to afford Sunday relief, any movement for the purpose, if not cautiously made, might excite opposition, perhaps too strong to be overcome. The difficulty, too, was increased by unreasonableness and even absurdity in some of the demands put forth; as, for instance, one for the complete stoppage on their route of the mail-trains and all other vehicles in the mail-service, from midnight on Saturday till midnight on Sunday.

As, however, the Sunday suspension of money-order business at Bath appeared on trial to produce no public inconvenience, I recommended its extension, first to Leeds, and afterwards to Birmingham, these towns having likewise presented memorials on the subject. In both cases my recommendation was adopted by the Postmaster-General. I now began to take measures to extend this Sunday closing of the money-order offices to the whole kingdom. By the beginning of 1849 it was extended to England and Wales, and thus, in one day, four hundred and fifty offices were relieved from money-order duty, many of which had been previously open for that purpose during the whole Sunday, just as on ordinary days. Three months later, the experiment still proving successful, the measure was extended to Ireland and Scotland, relieving two hundred and thirty-four additional offices, and making the Sunday suspension of money-order business complete.

Meantime, also, I was taking steps for bringing all other Sunday work in the provincial offices within narrower limits. In October, 1848, I submitted a minute suggesting that inquiry should be made as to Sunday proceedings at the offices in Scotland (where restriction had always been carried further than in England), and how far such arrangements were found satisfactory to the public and the department. The information thence derived led me to hope that the English offices might be closed at least during the hours of divine service, and the Sunday deliveries limited in all cases to one. I consequently suggested that the opinion of the surveyors should be ascertained on these points, and at the same time I recommended that the offices should, in the first instance, be closed from ten to five (except for the receipt and despatch of any mails in the interval).

The Reports of the surveyors concurred in strongly recommending the adoption of the proposed improvements; not, however, without showing some apprehensions of inconvenience, and consequent complaints, from the proposed restriction to one delivery; for the cases in which there were more deliveries than one on the Sunday proved then much more common than I had supposed. Still, I was of opinion that, with whatever inconvenience the improvements might be attended, they would be accepted by the public if accompanied by another measure conferring an equivalent advantage. Such a measure was at that time under consideration, and had long been regarded as a desideratum, viz., the transmission of the “forward letters”[60] through London on the Sunday, with a view to their delivery on the Monday morning; a measure which I felt confident might be effected, not only without any addition to Sunday labour, but, even when taken in all its bearings, with a great reduction of Sunday labour. Nay, more, I saw reason to believe that, even in the London office, on which alone the labour of such transmission would fall, the improvement might, in the end, be made to yield similar relief. This expectation was fully confirmed by experience.

Accordingly I took an early opportunity of consulting the Postmaster-General on the subject. I found that he concurred in my views, but wished to consult Lord John Russell before anything was done. This was on January 9th, 1849, and six days later he informed me that Lord John Russell had no objection to consider the question, and wished to see the proposed plan. I prepared a careful statement on the subject, which was sent in without delay. A few days later, Lord John Russell having approved of the plan for transmitting the forward letters through London on the Sunday, I got my brother Arthur’s help, and threw my memorandum into the form of a minute; and as it fully explains the grounds on which I proceeded in this matter, I insert it at length in Appendix D, giving here the following summary.

After referring to the suspension of money-order business on Sunday, I reported that investigations made showed that a further very important relief as related to Sunday work might be effected in all the provincial offices, but that the consideration of this question was closely connected with the Sunday transmission of letters through London, a measure which had been urged by various authorities, and which was the more important, because the number of letters to which it related had advanced within the last thirteen years by ten-fold.

I next pointed out that the evil of detention had been found so serious that in several cases the rule had been evaded, either by making use of other existing channels, or by the actual establishment of Sunday cross-posts, an expedient which, besides its other evils, obviously involved additional Sunday work.

After pointing out that the present Sunday duties at the chief office ordinarily occupied twenty-six persons for six hours, even a greater force being sometimes required, I proposed, with a view of diminishing the amount of Sunday work in the department as a whole—provincial as well as metropolitan—that the existing mail trains should bring up on the Sunday, in addition to the present bags, the forward stamped letters, and the forward stamped letters alone, so that there might be neither any possibility of a Sunday delivery of letters to the London public nor any unnecessary addition to the Sunday accounts.

In order that the men employed might be able to attend divine service, I proposed that the whole interval from 10 A.M. till 5 P.M. should be left perfectly free, and that the same arrangement should be extended, as far as possible, to the duties already existing.

After glancing at the obvious fact that for any temporary increase in force required at the chief office, there would be at least a large and permanent set-off elsewhere, I pointed out that the existing arrangements led to a great amount of Sunday despatch and delivery in the provinces, and consequently of Sunday letter-writing and letter-reading there; so that, taking the whole country through, Sunday work would be undoubtedly lessened. I further stated that there were means by which, after the contemplated change, it would be possible to reduce the Sunday labour even at the chief office considerably below its actual amount.

I next stated the large reduction in Sunday labour which in a recent minute I had proposed at the provincial offices of England and Wales, and again advised its adoption, and its extension in some of its features to Ireland and Scotland. I added that its effect would be to “release a very large number of persons now engaged even during the hours of divine service,” and thus to “afford to many hundreds, perhaps even to some thousands, needful rest, and the opportunity of attending the services of the day.”

This minute was referred by the Postmaster-General to Colonel Maberly, who, as I had the satisfaction of learning two days later, promptly declared his intention to report in favour of the measure, saying that it ought to have been adopted long ago. This he accordingly did, and I have the pleasure to say that, amidst the troubles which subsequently arose from the measure, Colonel Maberly stood by his first decision.

About three weeks later the “Lord’s Day Society” applied to me to receive a deputation, with a view to the total cessation of Post Office business on the Sunday, stating that they were referred to me by the Postmaster-General. As Lord Clanricarde was then out of town, I wrote to him for instructions, feeling, meantime, no small perplexity, because I well knew that, on the one hand, resistance to the expected demand would expose me to attack, and that, on the other, concession would soon produce such an uproar throughout the country as must seriously annoy the Government, and, moreover, raise obstacles to those practical measures of Sunday relief which were already in progress.

However, the Postmaster-General having expressed a wish that I should receive the deputation, I called at the Treasury to urge immediate sanction to my last measures on the subject, but found the Chancellor of the Exchequer too much occupied to attend to the business.