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.

On the same day, I wrote a minute pointing out the means for reducing the number of bags, as already spoken of. On learning from Mr. Tilley that some reports on this subject were lying in the office, I sent for them, and found that they were in reply to a minute of the Postmaster-General, written nearly two months before on information given by me. These reports represented my plan as quite practicable, and as saving “nearly half the labour of making-up and despatching the bags”; but orders had been given that no change should be made; and the reports had not even been submitted to the Postmaster-General. Of course I went forward with the improvement, which was carried into effect about six weeks later.

Meantime, there had appeared, from very different quarters, and on very different grounds, two able defences of our late proceedings: one from the late General Peyronnet Thompson, in the form of a series of letters to the Sun newspaper, and the other from the Rev. Dr. Vaughan, Head Master of Harrow School. General Thompson, for the most part, subordinated the question of the day to one of a more general character, viz., the obligation on Christians to observe the Mosaic law; but Dr. Vaughan perceived that, as the former question did not involve the latter, it was better to discuss it separately. His paper is remarkably forcible and terse. Such support from so high a quarter at so critical a time was invaluable. I quote his concluding passage:—

“Let these evils [those of Sunday labour] be met on their proper ground, and at the proper time. Let the good sense and the religious feeling of the country be appealed to when the danger really threatens. At present it is as remote as ever. It will not be brought one step nearer by this measure. But it may be increased by a premature and unreasonable outcry, to be succeeded, as usual, by a very natural recoil.”

To accelerate the process of Sunday relief, I thought it would be well to assemble all the surveyors for England and Wales, and to discuss with them, viva voce, questions usually dealt with by tedious correspondence. The meeting took place in December. The business occupied several successive days, and the results were highly satisfactory, the more so as all their recommendations were made unanimously. In short, the opportunity thus afforded for receiving information, obtaining opinions, and explaining my own views and intentions, proved so beneficial to the service, that in important cases I resorted again and again to similar meetings. I always found the intercourse both profitable and pleasant. It increased the interest of the surveyors in the work of improvement, and, by the collision of many opinions,[69] broke down prejudices and overthrew obstacles. I may say, once for all, as regards the effect on myself, that, though these discussions led to no change in principles, they often modified actual measures. I cannot conclude this brief account of the meeting without mentioning a singular fact which I learnt in the course of it—a fact from which much more might be inferred. Amongst the circuitous courses long maintained for carrying mails forward on the Sunday, without using the forbidden route through London, it appeared that letters posted at Kingston-on-Thames on the Saturday night for Barnet were conveyed by way of Exeter; thus travelling more than four hundred miles instead of five-and-twenty!

Meanwhile, I thought that the time had arrived for effecting an additional Sunday relief which I had contemplated from the first. Under the old arrangement there had always been performed on the Sunday certain work which properly belonged to the Monday; the reason for this proceeding being that the amount of duty accumulated on the Monday by the Sunday suspension of business was, without such relief, more than could be dealt with. The relief, however, that arose from the Sunday transit of letters had made it beyond question practicable for Monday to execute all its own work. That it should be made to do it I had advised in the very outset, feeling confident that it could do it; but I had been met not only with the usual declaration that the thing was impracticable, but with objections so plausible that, for once, I abated self-confidence, and supposed that the practical officers must be right. To my great surprise, on now moving in the matter, I found that, to a considerable extent, the impracticable change had already been effected, though, unluckily, no corresponding reduction had been made in the Sunday force. Such a reduction I began, therefore, to urge; and before the close of the year Mr. Bokenham had reluctantly consented to reduce his Sunday force by eleven men. He gave, at the same time, promise of further reduction on the following Sunday, if practicable; a question soon settled, for the Postmaster-General sanctioned, on the second day of the next year (January 2, 1850), minutes reducing the Sunday force in the London Office from twenty-six men, the number ordinarily employed for many years, to three; ten or eleven, however, being employed either before five o’clock in the morning or after eight o’clock at night in the mail carriages.

When, earlier in these proceedings, I wrote to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, telling him that I thought an additional expenditure of £500 a-year would enable me to adopt measures indicated in my minute of the previous February for bringing the Sunday force within its original limits, his answer was that, if necessary, I might take £1500.

“December 28th.—Another minute has been sanctioned, subject to the approval of the Treasury, which will abolish certain day-mails, cross-posts, and double despatches, now rendered useless by the discontinuance of the second delivery on the Sunday at provincial offices. In addition to this the receipt of inland letters will be confined to the stamped and unpaid, and, as a general result, the offices throughout England and Wales will close from 10 a.m. for the rest of the day, instead of opening again at 5 p.m. as they now do. . . . By these means additional rest, averaging from three to five hours, will be given at the provincial post offices.”

My recommendation for transferring the Sunday morning delivery in the suburbs of London to Saturday night was also carried into effect this day, and I may add that that which was thus found practicable on Saturday night was at length acknowledged to be so on all other nights; and thus was established that late suburban delivery which is still maintained, much to the convenience of the public.

So ended the year 1849, amidst clouds which, though still dark enough to remind me of the storm that had been raging for the last three months, and to warn me that more disturbance might yet come, were at least beginning to break.[70]

I have already referred to hostility in the office as the chief source of the great trouble which had befallen the department in general, and me in particular. If there had not been a mutinous spirit amongst the men, attacks from without, however annoying, could not have produced that grievous anxiety which arose from the knowledge of treason within. This, I may remark, was the third distinct cabal formed with a view to drive me from office. Like the two former ones, and one more yet to be mentioned, it was so timed as to take advantage of a temporary weakness in my position; a weakness caused on this occasion by my having ventured, in quest of a great good, to encounter popular feeling.

I cannot conclude this portion of my narrative without remarking how near the great measure of Sunday relief was to being defeated by public clamour that arose out of the hasty acceptance of mendacious statements from insubordinate officers. At the City meeting in the previous October it had been maintained that the temporary addition of twenty-five men would not only be made permanent, but would soon be swollen to six hundred. Within four months of this prediction, not only had the whole addition been dispensed with, but also the original force of twenty-six men had been reduced to fourteen. Of these, moreover, four only worked during the day, while of the remainder, who were employed in the several travelling offices, five ceased work at about five o’clock on Sunday morning, and the remaining five did not begin work until about eight o’clock on Sunday night. The main results are summed up in a Report which I made to the Postmaster-General on the 28th of January, 1850, and which was afterwards printed by order of the House of Commons.[71] Of this a notice from an impartial quarter will appear later in this narrative.

In the mean time, Dr. Vaughan, of Harrow, had published a second letter in defence of our proceedings. It was written in reply to a violent and unscrupulous attack by a brother clergyman and schoolmaster. This able paper sums up as follows:—

“I have now discharged, however imperfectly, the task imposed upon me by circumstances which I must still deplore. Earnestly, most earnestly, do I desire the thankful and reverent observance of the Lord’s Day, with which I believe our national as well as individual welfare to be closely, inseparably linked. Deeply do I lament the condition of those weary and comfortless labourers who are cut off from the inestimable blessings to be derived from its holy rest. It is because I believe that many of the provincial officers of our national Post Office are involved in this calamity, and that the present measure contemplates, and in part effects, their emancipation, that I have condemned the blind hostility with which it has been assailed, and laboured to expose the misrepresentations by which that hostility has been fostered.”[72]

The complainants had now so far extended their demands as in effect to abandon their former ground, the cry now being for the total abolition of Sunday postal work of all kinds.[73] The Postmaster-General having called upon the Secretaries to report on this demand, I presented my report on the 5th of January, and it was printed, with other documents, by order of the House of Commons.[74] The following is a summary of its contents:—

I first recognise the great relief that would be given to the department by such total suspension, and then proceed to show why I had not ventured to recommend it. I drew a distinction between collection and delivery on the one hand, and conveyance on the other, pointing out that the former could be suspended in any particular place without materially affecting the convenience of any other place, while the latter could not be so suspended even on a portion of a single line of mail without affecting the convenience of every place which that line served, whether directly or indirectly; so that while the former suspension might be adopted in detail, according to the wish of each particular place, supposing this to be really ascertained, the latter would require a much more general concurrence. I advised that wherever Sunday delivery by letter-carriers was abolished, the abolition should extend also to delivery at the window, and I suggested that, where delivery was retained, individuals might be allowed to protect themselves against it by giving in a written notice to that effect at the post office.

In respect of conveyance, I thought it possible that if the demand became sufficiently general, it might in time become practicable to suspend those branch posts that served many places, and that with the concurrence of the public this might be gradually done to a very great extent; but I saw no hope of such a state of things as would justify the interruption of the mails on the trunk lines, which were indispensable alike to the purposes of Government and the convenience of the public. On this latter point I showed in considerable detail what an enormous amount of derangement such suspension would produce. I showed that to suspend all operations of the Post Office for the twenty-four hours of Sunday must necessarily involve the interruption of the mails for more than twenty-four hours, and that this would make it impossible for them to start at midnight on Sunday from the point at which they stopped at midnight on Saturday. The derangement that would result would produce inconvenience at place after place throughout each line, for it would not only alter the hours of delivery, but also disturb arrangements with the branch mails, cross mails, and rural posts, throughout the greater part of the kingdom, the whole evil being doubled by its necessarily applying to mails in both directions. I showed further, that as the stoppage of the mails would not imply the stoppage of the mail trains, since passengers would never consent to such an interruption, there would be no cessation of traffic, while the relief even to the servants of the Post Office would be but nominal, since it would be found indispensable to an efficient responsibility that the bags when at rest, just as when in motion, should remain under the custody of the guards, who would thus have to continue on duty throughout the day of rest.

With regard to the amount of public inconvenience which would arise from the interruption, I showed that, supposing but one letter in a thousand to contain tidings of pressing importance, there would be, at the then existing rate of correspondence, nearly a thousand cases per week in which delay would painfully interfere with the feelings of relatives and friends, or lead to serious trouble or loss; and that the necessity so produced would inevitably lead to a revival of contraband conveyance, detrimental alike to Sunday observance and the interests of the office.

In conclusion, I pointed out that by the measures then in progress, combined with others carried into effect during the previous year, improvements were now in such a state of advancement that in a few days the Sunday duty throughout England and Wales would be reduced to probably little more than half its original amount; while this great benefit would be obtained in such a manner as not only not to impair, but greatly to promote, the public convenience.

“January 21st.—The Postmaster-General is highly pleased at my Report on the proposed total abolition of Sunday duties, which is to be sent to Lord John Russell for use in debate. I have advised that its statements, which necessarily run into considerable detail, should be checked by the practical men.”

Shortly after this time symptoms of a better understanding on the part of the public began to appear, more defenders arising in various quarters, and even those who made extreme demands taking a more moderate tone. But whatever assurance I might now have as to improved feeling in the public, an ordeal which I was about to go through still seemed formidable. I had had the pain to learn that Mr. Wallace, who had done so much for the public and for myself, had fallen into pecuniary difficulties, so that his friends in Scotland were raising a subscription for his benefit. A public meeting had been resolved upon, and I was earnestly requested to attend, which I promised to do, though with considerable misgiving as to the sort of reception I was likely to meet with. My doubts were nowise removed by a letter received from my uncle, Provost Lea, of Haddington, who, having been apprised of my expected visit by the Scotch newspapers, wrote in the most earnest terms to deprecate the attempt, warning me that the feeling against me northward of the Tweed was so strong that he feared I should be literally torn to pieces by the mob. Though I made great allowance for the apprehensions of an affectionate relative and kind-hearted old man, I certainly thought it very likely that hisses and groans might be more abundant than applause. Be this as it might, the journey, being a matter of duty, had to be taken, and on March 6th I went to Glasgow.

On the following morning, before proceeding to Greenock, I paid a visit to the large ship-yard of Messrs. Napier, employing several hundred men. When I was about to leave, the foreman of a gang of workmen busily employed in constructing a large iron vessel came forward and demanded in a loud voice, “Three cheers for Rowland Hill”; a call responded to by what seemed to my gratified ears a unanimous shout. Thus encouraged, I went to Greenock. The meeting was held in a large church, the chairman occupying the pulpit; a usual arrangement, as I was assured, in Scotland. On rising to speak I was received, so said the newspapers, “with enthusiastic applause”; the same being repeated when I sat down.[75] Of what I said I will merely remark that justice, gratitude, and sympathy for my suffering friend, combined to draw from me my best efforts. On the following day, after inspecting the post office both at Greenock and Glasgow, I set out on my return, very agreeably disappointed in the expectations with which I had gone forth. I must not close this account without mentioning that the result of the subscription was the purchase of an annuity of £500 for Mr. Wallace’s life.

On the 19th of the month the question of the total abolition of Sunday duty was shortly discussed in the House of Lords; Lords Malmesbury, Clanricarde, and Brougham speaking against the measure, while the Bishop of Oxford and Lord Harrowby spoke cautiously in its favour. On the same day my friend Mr. Matthew Forster, at my request, moved in the Commons for the several reports on the question of Sunday duty. To this motion the Government at once acceded. I cannot mention Mr. Forster without adding that the friendliness which he had shown me from my first acquaintance with him continued with steady increase to the end of his life; that, in short, I stand indebted to him and to his family for much kindness and much valuable aid.

Two days later, the Postmaster-General having offered to a deputation from Edinburgh a Parliamentary Committee on the subject, this proposal (at the recommendation of the Secretary to the Lord’s Day Society) was declined; a conclusive proof of conscious weakness.

“April 10th.—This morning’s Herald contains an account of a meeting at Exeter Hall to petition for total abolition. Few men of weight appear to have been present, and the whole proceedings were in a subdued tone. One of the speakers, in describing what I have done, spoke of it as a step in the right direction. Their resolutions, of course, contain various misrepresentations.”

It was evident that the agitation was rapidly subsiding, and two days later I was able to administer an additional sedative; my report of January 28th, showing the progress made in Sunday relief, being at length printed, I sent out five hundred copies in various directions, feeling sure that the statements therein contained, however unavailing to such as resolutely kept their eyes shut, would have no small effect upon the more candid.

“April 20th.—The returns are producing their effect. I have received numerous letters congratulating me on the result.”

I also began to conjecture as to the probability of formal retractation by those, so many in number, who had assailed and misrepresented our measures in tirades, whether from the press, pulpit, at public meetings, or otherwise. My recorded summary is “I don’t expect it.” Up to that time, so far as I am aware, there had been but two retractations. Lord Ashley, in a private letter to the Postmaster-General, had declared that the country was under the greatest obligations to him for the Sunday relief already afforded. Of the journals that had attacked me one had frankly acknowledged its error. Though, doubtless, many instances of such reparation may have occurred unknown to me, it is remarkable that neither record nor memory supplies me with a third instance either then or afterwards. The one paper thus honourably distinguished is the Leeds Mercury, which had been throughout a staunch supporter of postal reform, but had too hastily yielded credence to bold and plausible allegations. The Times, which, though it was sometimes mistaken in matters of detail, had, on the whole, given highly valuable support during the late trial, published on April 25th the following admirable exposition and defence of the whole proceeding:—

“Historians and essayists delight in flattering the self-opinion of their contemporaries by extraordinary anecdotes of popular delusion in less enlightened times. A kind of indefinite satisfaction appears to be derived from contrasting the inferiority of previous generations. The confidence with which for many years together 5,000,000 English Protestants believed themselves in bodily peril from 100,000 Catholics is a favourite instance of the kind. The ‘loss of our eleven days’ is another; when, upon a simple correction of the calendar, grave divines actually lectured from the pulpit on the blasphemous wickedness of interfering with the course of time, and denounced the profanity which brought every sinner in the kingdom nearly a fortnight closer to his end. Mr. Macaulay, too, informs us that the post when first established was the object of violent invective, as a manifest contrivance of the Pope to enslave the souls of Englishmen; and most books of history or anecdote will supply stories equally notable. But we really very much doubt whether any tale of ancient times can match the exhibition of credulity which occurred in our own country, and under our own eyes, within these last twelve months.

“We need not enter upon any narrative. Every reader’s recollection will carry him back to last Christmas, when, from one end of the kingdom to the other, there was a loud and steady outcry against a projected ‘desecration of the Sabbath.’ Mr. Rowland Hill was introducing ‘sunday labour’ into this decorous and religious country. He had succeeded in inserting ‘the small end of the wedge.’ He had asked for twenty-five additional clerks on Sunday, and a few months would see this pressed labour indefinitely multiplied, and all ideas of Sabbath observance contemptuously forsworn. Such was the belief even amongst intelligent people. Meetings were held in all great towns to record a protest against the iniquity; and, when the resistance proved unsuccessful, it was plainly asserted that the national character was for ever gone. As for the promoter of the measure, he was a forsaken reprobate, who looked only to the acceleration of day-mails, without the smallest heed to the fourth commandment. We have before us at this moment a sheet of letter-paper, headed by an engraving of ‘Rowland Hill’s new Chapel, St. Martin’s-le-Grand, under which title is depicted the General Post Office on a Sunday morning, with all the symbols of unholy industry and bustle. However, the measure in question was carried out, and we will now—from the official returns on the subject—inform the reader in plain unadorned language how it originated, what it contemplated, and what it has actually brought to pass.

“More than two years ago the attention of the Post Office authorities was directed towards the means of abridging Sunday labour in the various offices, and inquiries were instituted with this object. While they were in progress, Mr. Hill succeeded to the secretaryship of a certain department, which brought the subject under his immediate care, and he promoted with all his efforts the advancement of the great end in view. Opinions were not altogether concurrent on the matter, but a step was at length taken, and on Sunday, the 6th of February, 1848, the post office at Bath was closed for money-order business on that day. The experiment succeeded, and on the 13th of August in the same year the regulation was extended to Leeds, and, six weeks later to Birmingham—still without inconvenience or complaint. Fortified by these results, the authorities conceived themselves competent to push still further their great object of abridging Sunday labour, and the arrangements above mentioned were, at the commencement of last year, extended to all offices in England and Wales, so that four hundred and fifty offices were relieved of a material portion of their Sunday duties in a single day. Three months more saw the same indulgence conceded to Ireland and Scotland, by which two hundred and thirty-four additional offices experienced the same relief.

“Pending these trials and successes, Mr. Rowland Hill conceived a plan for abridging Sunday labour still more considerably, and, indeed, to a great extent, abolishing it altogether. The duties hitherto suspended had been those of the Money Order Department alone; but a scheme was now entertained of greatly limiting Sunday deliveries, and of absolutely closing the offices between the hours of ten and five; or, in other words, from the commencement of the morning service in churches till the close of the afternoon. With this proposed limitation of deliveries was combined a regulation, long known to be desirable, for the transmission of a certain class of letters through London on a Sunday, which would, it was thought, by giving very considerable accommodation at a small cost of labour, tend to reconcile the public to the cessation of those Sunday deliveries which were now to be stopped. It was this proposal which caused the outcry. Mr. Hill asked but for the temporary service of twenty-five clerks as a present means of relieving twenty times that number; and he showed his reasons for anticipating that no measure could ultimately be more effective in abridging Sunday labour altogether than that now proposed. All this was in vain. He was, as our readers know, decried, denounced, and stigmatized as a Sabbath-breaker and apostate; although his very proposition was actually one of a well-considered series for diminishing Sunday labour throughout the kingdom.

“Now, let the results be marked, for certainly never was popular delusion more conspicuously displayed. To begin with the particular incident complained of:—Mr. Hill had always stated that the necessity for the extra labour would be brief, whereas his assailants declared that the expedient would inevitably tend to nationalize Sabbath-breaking and demoralize the whole State. On Sunday, the 28th of October, the additional force of twenty-five men was first employed; on the 6th of January following it was reduced to thirteen; on the 13th of the same month to three; and on the very next Sunday it was dispensed with altogether, having effected its objects within the space of three months. So much for the ‘evil’ done. Now let us see what good was brought by it.

“By the device and execution of these measures five hundred and seventy-six provincial post offices have experienced a total positive relief of about seven and a quarter hours each Sunday, and upwards of four thousand dependent offices have received a similar relief of about seven hours. Estimated in relation to individuals, the effect of the measures has been to give to five thousand eight hundred and twenty-nine persons an average Sunday relief of five and three-quarter hours each; that is to say, nearly six thousand people have been relieved from nearly six hours work every Sunday by the operation of a scheme which was denounced as a deliberate encouragement to Sabbath-breaking and profanity. Nor have the results ended here, for, as if to complete the exposure, the new arrangements have actually led to a discontinuance even of that existing labour which they were described as augmenting in perpetuity. The Sunday force regularly employed in the Post Office before the famous provisions of Mr. Rowland Hill’s scheme amounted to twenty-seven men. On the first day of operations under the new system this, to the scandal and horror of the public, was increased to fifty-two. To be sure some four thousand or five thousand were relieved in other quarters by the same regulation; but this little compensation was altogether overlooked in the great iniquity. But what followed? Not only was this additional force dispensed with in toto before three months had passed, but its labours had even contributed to lighten the lot of those who still remained. So well did the new arrangements act, that the work of the original force began gradually and steadily to diminish, and we are now officially told that ‘the whole Sunday force ordinarily employed in the London office will be reduced to five or six men, which, even with the addition of the ten clerks employed in the mail trains (and their duties will intrench but little on the observances of the Sunday), will make a total force of little more than half that employed before the 28th of October last.’ So that the very expedient which, notwithstanding its beneficial effects elsewhere, was obstinately condemned on the simple ground of its augmenting Sunday labour in a particular office, has actually resulted, not only in completely effecting all its proposed ends, but in diminishing by nearly one-half the identical labour which it appeared for a moment to augment.

“We think the reader will admit that, upon the whole, the outcry by which such a measure as this was represented as a profane and godless scheme for abolishing the observance of the Sabbath, has no equal in history for prodigious and incredible absurdity. Even vaccination, we believe, was never described as a device for actually perpetuating small-pox, whereas the most judicious and effective step in a series of measures expressly designed to abridge Sunday labour has been thus, in the middle of the nineteenth century, represented, taken, and accepted as a deliberate stratagem for destroying the holiness of the Sabbath-day. That the spirit which facilitated the delusion was, in itself, honourable to the country, we freely admit, but that the common sense of Englishmen should be so strangely misled is a fact not very creditable to the national intelligence, or satisfactory to the national pride.”

“April 30th.—Last night Mr. Hayter, in reply to a question from Mr. Fagan as to when the Sunday arrangements would be extended to Ireland, spoke of them as having given universal satisfaction; an expression which appears to have been well received in the House.”

“May 9th.—The Lord’s Day Society has issued a manifesto in reply to our reports and minutes. It is more offensive and unprincipled than even their former publications.”

Meantime, as it was necessary, according to long-established practice, to allow some latitude in respect of the force to be summoned on the arrival of an extraordinary mail, I experienced no little difficulty in keeping this liberty within reasonable limits. Thus, though I found that one man was sufficient for dealing with four thousand ship letters, five men had been called in (on Sunday May 12th) to deal with seventeen hundred. I was consequently obliged to require from Mr. Bokenham a report advising a definite rule for preventing such excess; and this being obtained, matters thenceforth went on more smoothly. In short, the measures for Sunday relief being in the course of this month extended to Scotland and Ireland, I regarded the arrangement as complete.

This agreeable impression, however, was soon afterwards disturbed by Lord Ashley’s giving notice of a motion for an address to Her Majesty, praying for measures to be taken to stop the collection and delivery of letters and the transmission of mails on the “Lord’s Day”; in other words, for the total abolition of Sunday duty.

“May 23rd.—The Lord’s Day Society has issued a circular, urging members to support Lord Ashley’s motion. It stands for the 30th instant. It professes to give a history of the demand for total abolition, and of the relief afforded, and, of course, misrepresents facts.”

I could not but think that the Society, in its zeal for enforcing upon others a strict observance of the fourth commandment, too often deferred to a more convenient season its own observance of the ninth. Being called upon by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to supply such information as would be needful for meeting Lord Ashley’s motion, I drew up a memorandum, which, after mentioning further measures increasing the number of persons relieved to about eight thousand, concludes as follows:—

“In reference to the question of total abolition of Sunday duty it should be remarked—

“First, that its advocates wholly overlook the interests of the poor. To be obliged to resort, as has been proposed in case of need, to the electric telegraph, or to a shilling postage, would be a severe tax upon the poor man; and,

“Secondly, that the Government, having a monopoly of the delivery of letters, cannot refuse to deliver them except in places where the demand is practically unanimous. Numerous small places (about four hundred probably) have preferred such a request, and it has been complied with. Several, however, finding the non-delivery inconvenient, have requested that the delivery may be resumed; and it has been resumed accordingly.”

While the above was in preparation I received a letter from Lord Ashley, urging me to hold out expectations that Government would make further reductions in the Sunday duty, admitting that we “had already done a great deal,” and, oddly enough, inferring therefrom that we could do much more. Not agreeing in this conclusion, I was obliged to decline giving the pledge required.

On the following day, viz., that fixed for the motion, I had my first interview with the Premier, waiting upon him by his desire. After a time the Chancellor of the Exchequer came in; both agreed that the motion must be resisted, but I left them in fear that they were not sufficiently prepared for the encounter; I was desired to be under the gallery of the House of Commons. The following entry in my Journal records what occurred:—

“May 30th.—At five o’clock went to the House of Commons ... owing partly to Lord Ashley having omitted the most objectionable part of his motion (the stoppage of the mails), and still more, I fear, to the cowardice of the members, ... the motion was carried, by ninety-three to sixty-eight.”

“May 31st.—Called on the Postmaster-General [then recovering from a dangerous illness] to report last night’s proceedings. The Times, which gives the best account of the debate, has also an excellent leader.”

In consequence of this resolution of the House, I was summoned by the Postmaster-General and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who wished to consult me as to the course to be taken. While thinking it better to give way in the main, they seemed inclined to take an exception in favour of “delivery at the window”; but against this exception I strongly protested, our experience in Scotland having shown that it would involve more labour, to say nothing of unseemly crowding, than delivery in the ordinary manner. “I suggested that, as the motion proposes the appointment of a Commission to inquire into the stoppage of the mails, the Commission should also inquire into the stoppage of the deliveries and collections. Nothing was decided, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has to consult Lord John Russell.”

“June 6th.—While at the Treasury, —— came in. On my laughing at him for his vote on the Sunday question, he admitted that he was ashamed of it, adding that he did not expect to be in a majority. I believe that many of the votes were given under similar expectations.”[76]

“June 7th.—Mr. Forster [M.P. for Berwick] called to consult me as to his endeavouring to re-open the Sunday question. I advised him to do nothing without previously consulting the Chancellor of the Exchequer.”

“June 8th.—Lord John Russell, in reply to Mr. Forster, stated that he would not support any motion for the reversal of the resolution of the House on the subject of Sunday duties.”

I scarcely need say that I heartily concurred in his lordship’s decision. If the public really desired, at the sacrifice of its own convenience, to confer so great a boon on the Post Office as that implied by the terms of the resolution, it would have been very ungracious in Government to intercept the concession. If otherwise, it was but just that the responsibility of error should rest on the House of Commons, which had interfered in the matter. Accordingly, when, a few days later, Mr. Forster wrote to ask for assistance with reference to a bill which he proposed to introduce to legalize the conveyance of letters on Sunday by private hand—a measure, of the abstract justice of which no one can doubt—I thought it better to decline taking any part in opposition to the decision of the House. Mr. Forster persevered, but his motion was negatived without a division.

As Her Majesty,[77] following of course the advice of her Ministers, formally announced to the House that its wishes would be complied with, notice was forthwith issued from the Chief Office, totally forbidding delivery, and notifying that, though letters might be deposited in the receiving boxes as usual, they would remain “unsorted and untouched until the Monday.” It was added, that postmasters contravening these orders would be “most severely punished.”

It is remarkable that whereas the late hubbub had been all raised against the Sunday transmission of letters through London, Lord Ashley’s motion contained no reference whatever to this innovation; and though in the public notice just mentioned it was distinctly announced that such transmission would be continued, the announcement produced no revival of the outcry, and the innovation gradually came to be regarded as part of the natural course of proceeding.

It did not fare so well with the innovation adopted at the request of the House of Commons:—

“June 21st.—Last night there was a further discussion in the House of Commons as to the Sunday duties, on an attempt by Mr. Locke to get a window delivery. It is evident that the reaction has commenced.”

“June 22nd.—Last night Lord Brougham raised the question as to the legality of stopping the Post Office business on the Sunday; and many of the daily and weekly papers of this morning are loud in their condemnation of the measure.”

Public inconvenience was, of course, to be estimated in some degree by the effect of the change on the amount of correspondence; the change, it should be observed, first took effect on Sunday, June 23rd:—

“June 25th.—[Tuesday.]—The stoppage of business on the Sunday reduced yesterday morning’s arrival in London by about 80,000 letters, increasing the mid-day arrival by about 18,000, and this morning’s by about 16,000—causing, therefore, a diminution of about 47,000 letters in London alone.”

Mr. Locke’s motion, which came on on July 9th,[78] was set aside in favour of an amendment moved by Lord John Russell, and carried by a large majority, praying Her Majesty to cause an inquiry to be made whether the amount of Sunday labour in the Post Office might not be reduced without completely putting an end to the collection and delivery of letters, &c., on Sundays.[79]

The Commission appointed to give effect to this amendment consisted of the Postmaster-General, Mr. Labouchere (afterwards Lord Taunton), and Mr. (afterwards Sir) Cornewall Lewis. Their recommendation, promptly arrived at, but expressed after much deliberation, was, in fact, though not in form, that the office should revert to the arrangements which existed previously to the resolution of the House, carried on the motion of Lord Ashley.[80] I endeavoured, though in vain, to obtain a more distinct avowal as to the real purport of the advice, feeling convinced that the juster and bolder course was also the more politic. This opinion was soon confirmed by the manner in which the Report was received by the public press, all the daily papers agreeing in its true interpretation, and the Morning Herald attacking the Commissioners for the indirectness of their proceeding. A fortnight later, however, viz., on September 1st, the recommendation was carried into effect,[81] and though a modification as regards the rural messengers, which had been recommended by the Commission, was, on the advice of the surveyors, adopted by the Postmaster-General, even this change excited so much public dissatisfaction as to produce its partial abandonment.

Thus the whole question of Sunday duties was finally settled, after having kept the department, and particularly myself, in grievous trouble and anxiety for more than sixteen months. During the whole of this period the improvements in the general management of the department—which it was my duty and earnest desire to introduce—were to a great extent necessarily delayed. Moreover, a spirit of insubordination was excited, which, being unfortunately backed both in and out of Parliament, gave much trouble later on.

CHAPTER XIX.

If I had been painfully sensible of the evils attending my anomalous position even before the commencement of the Sunday observance agitation, the suffering I had gone through during its progress, and my fear of its recurrence in some other form, impelled me, as soon as I began to breathe a little freely, to new efforts for relief. Before the end of 1849 I had again addressed the Postmaster-General, briefly referring to past correspondence, and showing how my fears had been confirmed by recent events; how I had been singled out for attack, even in respect of measures which I had earnestly and successfully opposed; and how entirely it was out of my power, in the present state of the office, to render those extended services which were expected of me at the time of my appointment. Past experience, however, gave me but very moderate hope of success; and this was fortunate, for, three months after the delivery of my letter, I learnt, upon inquiry, that all was in statu quo—nothing to be done till some vacancy should occur.

Here then was more disappointment; a continuance of my troubles; the maintenance of a position subjecting me to constant demands, but denying me the promised means of satisfying them. Much as I owed to certain members of the existing administration, and particularly to my immediate official superior, I have never been able to account satisfactorily for the constant adjournment of my claims. I had returned to office, at much personal sacrifice, under a virtual promise, contingent only on my demonstrating certain powers: and yet, though neither promise nor demonstration was ever denied or even questioned, fulfilment was withheld; a second contingency being introduced, of which I had never dreamed, and which I should have regarded as an insuperable objection to re-entering the service.

Owing partly to this rebuff, and partly to the demands on my attention arising out of Lord Ashley’s motion for the total abolition of Sunday work, I took no further active measure towards the improvement of my position for several months. Perhaps I might have been willing to wait yet longer, but for two causes; first, that my health, owing to recent labour, anxiety, and mortification, was now suffering more grievously than ever before; and, second, that services continued to be demanded of me which, on my actual footing, I was quite unable to perform. The failure of my health constrained me during this year, in spite of every effort, and though I was paying no inconsiderable sum yearly out of my own pocket for extraneous help,[82] to take frequent rest sometimes for a day or two, sometimes for a week, and once for more than a month. My complaint was a tendency of blood to the head. It has always been my opinion that at this time were sown the seeds of the disorder which, subsequently aggravated by other painful circumstances, later on compelled me finally to withdraw from duty at a period when otherwise there would have remained to me, to the best of my belief, several years of useful service. Indeed I should have been forced to retire much earlier had it not been for the subsequent appointment of my brother Frederic as assistant-secretary.

Being, however, again pressed repeatedly to undertake duties beyond my power, I at length resolved to make another effort to obtain what I knew to be the only change that could give me a fair chance of retaining my health, and at the same time of successfully performing the important duties for which I was responsible, or even of completing the reforms which I had held up to public expectation fourteen years before. Again, therefore, I sought the aid of my ever-zealous friend, Mr. Warburton; zealous, indeed, he must have been, or long ere this he would have been tired of my claims, and even of the public interest on which they were based.

In a letter which I wrote to him (Appendix G), I pointed out that four years had elapsed since the promise of speedy promotion was made, and two years since I first claimed its performance; and that though no objection was raised to the justice of my claim, no steps had been taken towards its practical acknowledgment. I showed the utter insufficiency of my present staff for the enormous amount of work now devolving upon me, and the impracticability of giving me an adequate force without either making me Chief Secretary or incurring an unwarrantable expense of several thousands a year. I referred to the injury done to my health by excessive labour, and the impossibility, under present circumstances, of my obtaining due rest. I referred to improvements effected, particularly the reform of the Money Order Department, to savings actually made, and to others in prospect. Lastly, I begged that if Government were still of opinion that it could not immediately fulfil its promise, a period might now be fixed beyond which the complete performance of the promise should not be delayed, and that arrangements should be at once made for the nearest approximation to such performance that might be deemed practicable.

Mr. Warburton, with his usual kind alacrity, promised to see the Chancellor of the Exchequer without delay, and to let me know the result. This interview was unsatisfactory; for though the Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted my claim, spoke highly of me, and said I was in reality the Chief Secretary, he promised no more than that I should succeed to the post if there occurred a vacancy at once suitable and acceptable to Colonel Maberly; though, upon Mr. Warburton’s pressing further, he expressed readiness to give me more assistance, or to exercise his patronage in favour of any member of my family, and promised to see me on the subject generally. Upon my showing the Postmaster-General a copy of my letter to Mr. Warburton, and reporting all that had passed, he admitted that Government was afraid of being attacked by the economists for extravagance, if they allowed Colonel Maberly to retire on full salary. Nevertheless, he cordially approved of what had been done, and volunteered to speak to the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, and to back all that Mr. Warburton had urged. Two days later he reported progress, informing me that the Chancellor of the Exchequer wished to see him and me together, but adding that he had objected to this for himself, partly because he was going immediately to Ireland. He advised, however, against any attempt to establish a coequal secretariat, but said there would be no difficulty about raising my salary, and spoke of my having six month’s holiday before taking Colonel Maberly’s place, and of appointing a second assistant-secretary to relieve me of routine duty. In short, he showed clearly that he was desirous of the change.

I accordingly wrote next day to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, inquiring when I should wait upon him, and enclosing a copy of the whole correspondence on the subject of my position, commencing with my letter to Mr. Hawes of November 3rd, 1846, and ending with that to Mr. Warburton of November 15th, 1850. I then called on Mr. Warburton to report progress. He was in high spirits, and now thought we should succeed.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer replied that, as he was going into the country, he must postpone seeing me till after his return; but that he would take the correspondence with him and read it meantime. On the same day (December 19th) I received a letter from my brother Frederic, who had gone at my request to Manchester to see Mr. Cobden relative to any opposition that might be looked for from the economists. He informed me that he had been received in the most friendly manner, that Mr. Cobden, on his return to town, would talk over the matter with Mr. Hume, Mr. Villiers, and others, with a view to their acting together, and that meantime he authorized him (my brother) to say that he would back me in everything that I might think necessary for carrying out my plans, including the retirement of Colonel Maberly on full pay. On my brother’s return, I learnt that, though Mr. Cobden engaged to defend Government in the House if attacked for allowing Colonel Maberly to retire on full salary, he objected to give in writing a guarantee to be shown to the Postmaster-General, unless Mr. Hume would move in the same direction. At all events he advised that Mr. Hume should at once be applied to,[83] and thought Mr. Warburton the best man to make this application. Mr. Warburton preferred to do this by letter, and in the end decided on merely suggesting to Mr. Hume that he should see me on the subject.

When I saw Mr. Hume, he expressed concurrence with Mr. Cobden, and undertook to write to him on the subject, but wished to consult other members before signing any paper to be used by Government. He was exceedingly earnest in the matter, and reminded me of a speech he made in 1846, urging on the Whig Government, just then come into power, the necessity for placing me in the Post Office.

Meanwhile I prepared for use in my expected interview with the Chancellor of the Exchequer a statement of improvements effected in the previous two years; a step the more needful, as it might well have been supposed, seeing how much my attention was occupied during the main part of this time with the agitation respecting Sunday observance and with attempts to rectify my own position, that the course of improvement had been entirely suspended. Serious as was the check from these causes, and particularly from the former, which had involved me in a sort of life and death struggle, there was quite enough to show that time had not been allowed to pass unprofitably; and I may add that, even when my personal attention was most largely withdrawn, inquiries and preparations which I had set on foot were constantly paving the way for the improvements then in hand. On the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s return to town after the absence of nearly a month, I again applied for an interview, but again met with postponement; and it was not until a fortnight later that the desired opportunity was obtained. I looked upon these delays as very unpromising.

Meantime efforts were renewed in another quarter; the Postmaster-General himself speaking to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who explained the delay which had occurred, and promised to see me in a day or two. Lord Clanricarde informed me that a vacancy was expected in the chairmanship of the Audit Office, to which it was intended that Colonel Maberly should be appointed. This would have been most satisfactory could I have relied on prompt action; but as I was not to allow my knowledge of such expectation to appear even in my conference with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and as meantime objections on unsatisfactory grounds were raised against my being at once placed on full equality with Colonel Maberly, I could feel no confidence in the result.

After sleeping on the matter I decided that the Chancellor of the Exchequer must be pressed. A case had just occurred in which importunity had induced him to yield to claims which I regarded as at best but illfounded, and I thought that the same expedient might work as well where the claim was undeniable. I accordingly wrote as follows:—