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.

“March 28th, 1851.—I find on a comparison of accounts, that although the payments to railway companies for 1850 exceed £400,000, the payments for mail conveyance by ordinary roads were rather greater in 1850 than in 1838, when there was nothing paid to the railways; so that the whole expenditure in railways is an addition to the former cost of carrying the mails. This is the main cause of the net revenue falling below my estimate—indeed it accounts for nearly the whole deficiency. The explanation is not so much the increased weight and frequency of mails (for off the railway such increase is not great) as the increased celerity of all our movements, the greater expense of conveyance on the bye-roads caused by the railways having absorbed their traffic, and the greater number of branch night mails, owing to the great extension of the limits of the night-work caused by the use of railways.”

“January 2nd, 1849.—Last night a serious robbery, chiefly of registered letters, one of which contained, it is said, £4,000, took place between Bridgewater and Bristol, in the up mail.”

“January 3rd.—The thieves (two) are taken; one is a discharged railway guard. They had the impudence to rob the down mail also the same night, and the Post Office guard having heard of the previous robbery, kept a good look-out. The property stolen from the down mail, including a packet of diamonds, is recovered—not that stolen from the up mail. There is an interval of about two hours between the two mails at Bristol, which the thieves probably employed in secreting the property first stolen. The newspapers are full of the particulars.”

“February 2nd, 1849.—Went upstairs to Mr. Ramsey’s room to see the articles which have been stolen by the daughter of the Caermarthen postmaster. There is jewellery and haberdashery enough to stock a small shop, and £95 in money. The woman has kept the letters (200 or 300) from which the articles were taken, so that many can be restored. It seems that she has indulged her thieving propensities for seven years.”

It appeared afterwards that her object had been to amass such a dowry as would give her good matrimonial prospects.

“January 23rd, 1849.—Received an anonymous letter (postmarked Birmingham) containing 10s. in postage stamps ‘Towards penny-postage memorial from a man to (sic) poor at the time to subscribe.’”

“June 14th, 1849.—Last week’s returns show that 3,100,000 letters [an unprecedented number] passed through the London office (general and district) in that period. On asking Bokenham for an explanation, he states that Hatchard, the publisher in Piccadilly, and a city house connected with him in the publication of a valuable Bible, are sending out 300,000 prospectuses of their Bible; they are all in penny envelopes; the postage would exceed £1,200.”

I received the following striking indications as to the amount of relief afforded within the last eleven years to Post Office officials:—

“September 10th, 1849.—Having occasion to refer to some papers connected with the Liverpool office of the year 1838, I find it stated that, after a proposed increase of force, the clerks would be engaged from ten to twelve hours a day, besides occasional night-work; also that none of the letter-carriers would walk less than twenty miles a day, Sundays included. Such a state of things would now be viewed as monstrous.”

It has often been alleged that dishonesty in Post Office servants arises from insufficiency in their salaries. A better explanation would be found in the fact that under a system of patronage [94] men are too often admitted into the service without sufficient inquiry as to character, and are retained there after their conduct has furnished such ground for suspicion as would lead to their being discarded from any well-conducted private establishment. And here it should be pointed out that the evils inherent in the system are often greatly aggravated by injudicious interference from the public, who regard such dismissals as a punishment which ought not to be inflicted without formal proof of some positive offence.

“February 11th, 1850.—Some months ago I caused ——, an Inland Office clerk, employed at the Charing Cross office in money-order business as extra clerk, to be removed therefrom under circumstances which raised a strong suspicion against his honesty. As there was no absolute proof of fraud, the proceeding was viewed as a harsh one, and the man was still continued as an Inland Office clerk, and very imprudently employed in the registration duties. He has now been detected in stealing five or six remittances from the deputy post-masters, amounting in all to about £200.”

I had the misfortune in this period to lose one of my best officers; but happily my loss was his gain.

“December 31st, 1850.—To-morrow Godby succeeds to the vacant appointment of chief clerk in Colonel Maberly’s office. I shall be sorry to lose him from the Money Order Department, but it would have been the height of injustice to oppose his promotion.”

This year (1850) my only son was nominated by the Postmaster-General to a junior clerkship in the Secretary’s Department.

There appeared in the course of the next year (1851), two interesting articles on postal proceedings. The first a lively description from the pen of Mr. Charles Dickens, published in the first number of “Household Words”; the second a much longer and more elaborate treatise, though scarcely less amusing, from the pen of Sir Francis Head, published in the “Quarterly Review”; an ample amends for the attack in the same publication ten years before. With both gentlemen I had pleasing intercourse on the occasion, particularly so with the latter, who, requiring more extensive information, and taking great pains to get a correct notion of the leading principles of the whole system, necessarily passed more time in my company. His conversation I found as amusing as his writings.

I may add that his article deals ably with the question of Sunday labour, and very clearly sets forth the mechanism of the office. It will be found in No. 177 of the “Review,” or in Sir Francis Head’s “Descriptive Essays,” Vol. II., p. 286.

CHAPTER XX.

The extent to which railway affairs had come into my hands, combined with the necessity, under existing arrangements, for my acting through the medium of others not subordinate to me, and prone to interfere with my proceedings, led me to urge upon the Postmaster-General the importance of formally transferring the secretarial management of the railway department to myself. This was the more necessary, because the circular of December, 1847—never yet recalled or superseded—made it the duty of the surveyors and others to disregard any instructions I might give in railway matters; so that I had been reluctantly compelled to ask Mr. Tilley [the assistant-secretary] to sign letters for me. My Journal (June 26th, 1851) thus continues:—

“The Postmaster-General still hesitates—says he will consult the Chancellor of the Exchequer to-morrow, &c., and meanwhile advises me to sign instructions in disregard of the circular.”

This promise, though not forgotten, produced no effect for several months. Meanwhile my health again began to suffer. The assistance lately granted me, valuable as it was, not only fell far short of my requirements, but also came too late for full benefit. My friends were still moving in my behalf, as appears by the following letter from Mr. Cobden:—

“Midhurst, Sussex,
“14th September, 1851.

“My dear Sir,—Having learnt your address from your brother, I write merely to say that, although I did not forget to fulfil my promise, yet the conversation I had with the Chancellor (which I took care was a casual one) ended in leaving matters where they were. He spoke, as usual, in terms of high regard for yourself, and is, I believe, sincerely desirous of promoting the object I had in view in speaking to him. But the difficulty in the way of the arrangement is the same now as before. ‘M—— is not an old man; he cannot with decency be shelved; and at present there is nothing good enough in point of salary to which he could be transferred so as to create a vacancy in his post,’ &c. I confess I don’t see why this should not be treated as an exceptional case, and believe that a very good defence might be made of such an arrangement as was spoken of; but I gathered from the Chancellor that he was not disposed to take upon himself the responsibility of such a proceeding. And so the matter must remain for the present. We will talk the subject over again when we meet. . . .

“Hoping you are finding health in the sea-breezes,

“I remain,
“Very truly yours,
“R. Cobden.”

Soon afterwards, at the request of the Postmaster-General, I visited, in company with my son, the more important towns in the West Riding of Yorkshire, where I discussed with Mr. Godby, the surveyor, numerous demands for postal improvement lately received from that important district. At Leeds, Halifax, Bradford, and Huddersfield I received deputations. The result of my proceedings is thus recorded:—

“November 19th.—Succeeded in every instance in satisfying the parties that we were desirous of doing all that was practicable—that some of their demands were unreasonable, or of doubtful practicability, and others dependent on the expense as compared with the correspondence to be benefited. I was exceedingly well received, thanked for the trouble I had taken, and complimented on the benefits I had conferred on the nation. I am very well satisfied with the visit, though it will cause me some months of hard work.”

Meanwhile, a little incident occurred which may perhaps be worth mentioning. A gentleman who was writing an account of the Post Office having written to Colonel Maberly to inquire as to the difference between the duties of the “secretary to the Post Office and those of the secretary to the Postmaster-General”; and Colonel Maberly having politely referred the querist to me, I wrote a brief note, the substantial part of which ran as follows:—

“There is no essential difference between the two offices, and the term ‘secretary to the Postmaster-General’ is in strictness the official designation of both. The two secretaries are in the same relative position to the Postmaster-General, who assigns to them their respective duties.”

Colonel Maberly, though not quite agreeing in the terms of my note, did not object to its despatch, which was accordingly made; but the querist having objected to the brevity of my reply, I referred the matter to the Postmaster-General, who settled the point by pronouncing my note “a devilish good answer.”

I perceived about this time various indications of an improved feeling towards me in the office. My complete success in the trying struggle relative to Sunday observance, and in some other important matters to be spoken of hereafter, combined with the confidence now constantly reposed in me by the Postmaster-General, and at the Treasury, seemed to have convinced opponents that further contest was unprofitable, and that it would be better frankly to enjoy the comfort of harmonious action.

“December 26th.—The entries in my Journal have of late been comparatively few. This is not because there is less to be done, but partly because, since the appointment of Frederic, less has fallen to my share, and partly (indeed chiefly) because there is now much less opposition to my measures than heretofore. . . . The improvement in this respect is so great that, but for the apprehension that in the event of a new Postmaster-General being appointed the opposition would revive, I should scarcely desire a change in my position.”

Ground of anxiety, however, soon reappeared; strong representations being made to me as to bad appointments in the secretaries’ office, the advancement of unfit men, and grievous inconvenience thence arising; a pressing reason for change which had not occurred to me. Accordingly, about a fortnight later, I again spoke on the subject to the Postmaster-General,[95] who, admitting that the administration was in a very precarious state, promised to speak immediately to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which he accordingly did, but with little success, the old difficulties being still dwelt on, though the Postmaster-General now informed me that Colonel Maberly was willing to accept £1,500 a year as a retiring pension. I pointed out to him, moreover, that the restoration of the old gross revenue, which seemed now to be an established fact, was an epoch in the progress of my plan which afforded opportunity for decided action. In this view he concurred.

A few days later the Postmaster-General spoke a second time to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but again with little result, save that he induced him to consent to my applying for support to my friends in Parliament. With this view, I obtained several copies of the correspondence already mentioned, and appended a memorandum, in which I pointed out that another year had passed away, the fifth since those expectations had been held out to me which still remained to be fulfilled. I again referred to enforced delay in improvement; to insufficiency in the net revenue, owing to my inability, circumstanced as I was, to give full effect to the economical arrangements which I had always contemplated; to the comparative insignificance of the expense implied in granting to Colonel Maberly any retiring allowance that could be thought of, and to means by which even such small sacrifice could be directly compensated.

Lastly, referring to the actual position of Ministers, to the expectations held out to me, to the acknowledged fulfilment on my part of the only condition on which they were made to depend, and, above all, to the extent to which the public service was suffering, I pressed on Government to adopt at once the only means by which it could with certainty fulfil its engagement, viz., to allow Colonel Maberly to retire on a sufficient pension. While I admitted that such a step would be a departure from an excellent rule, I pointed out that mine was an exceptional case, and must have been so viewed by Government at the time when it raised the expectations in question.

“January 31st.—Called on Cobden. Read to him the memorandum, and left a copy of the correspondence for his perusal. He enters warmly into the business, will again speak to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, says he ought not to hesitate; advises that I should apply to those only who, like himself, are pledged to the success of penny postage, either as members of the Committees of 1838 and 1843, or as witnesses. I think he is right; at all events, this will be the safe side. Cobden, to my surprise, said that I ought not to give up any part of my salary—that £2000 a year was not too much, adding that I ought to be Postmaster-General, and would have been such in any less aristocratic country than ours. Wrote to Moffatt, who is at Ventnor, inclosing a copy, and gave a third to Thornley. Hume, Warburton, and Currie are out of town.”

A few days later, however, I saw nearly all these gentlemen, as also Mr. Milner Gibson. Mr. Hume spoke of difficulties, Mr. Thornley had already spoken to the Chancellor of the Exchequer without effect, Mr. Warburton, Mr. Brown, and Mr. Moffatt were as usual very much in earnest, all undertaking to see the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Warburton volunteering to go also to Lord John Russell whenever I might think this expedient.

“February 11th.—Brown reports that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is angry, complaining that he has had no less than four applications about me within the last two or three days, and that he can do no more. Received from Cobden the following letter:—

“‘103, Westbourne Terrace,
“‘10th February, 1852.

“‘My dear Sir,—Hume and I spoke to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There is a difficulty which he threw in our way (upon high authority) which you do not seem to have seen. Has Hume explained it to you? If not, give me a meeting for a minute either here or at the House. These matters are better talked about than written about.

“‘Yours truly,
“‘R. Cobden.

“‘R. Hill, Esq.’”

The next day, on seeing Mr. Cobden, I learnt that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had pronounced my suggestion impracticable. He alleged that two secretaries were necessary, and that consequently any retiring allowance to Colonel Maberly must be an additional charge on the revenue, an addition which Mr. Hume was not prepared to defend, though Mr. Cobden was. Mr. Hume subsequently confirmed this statement of his views, and while assuring me that the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke very highly of me, and promised promotion at the first opportunity, he himself was of opinion that nothing could be done at present, and so counselled patience. He forgot that such advice to a man tottering and almost sinking under his load is much more easily given than received.

The mysterious allusion in Mr. Cobden’s letter was never fully explained to me.

As the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the late conference, had assigned as a reason for Colonel Maberly’s retention that the foreign negotiations were under his charge, I no sooner arrived at the office than I called upon the head clerk of that department for a specific statement on the subject, when it appeared that of all the negotiations then in hand, eleven in number, every one, without exception, was under mine.

“February 13th.—Without committing Cobden, I put the question plainly to the Postmaster-General, as to whether he was still of opinion that, in the event of Colonel Maberly’s retirement, I should be able to manage the department without other aid than that of the two assistant-secretaries. He answered emphatically in the affirmative, and on my adding that there was an impression on the minds of some of my friends that the appointment of another secretary would be necessary, he authorised me to state the contrary in his name, and volunteered to speak to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the subject, under the impression that my friends must have been misled by some mistake on his part.”

After reporting all this to Mr. Cobden, I called, by his advice, on Mr. Moffatt, who was about to speak to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the subject. Of course I put him in possession of all the facts.

“February 15th.—Met Moffatt at the Reform Club. He says the Chancellor of the Exchequer refused to hear him—that he complains bitterly of my ‘unfairness’ in setting the Members upon him, and says that if my friends are not satisfied, they ought to meet and appoint a deputation, with which he will, once for all, go fully into the matter, but that he will not see any more individual Members. Moffatt thinks the result of his interview unfavourable, but I do not. I have all along desired to have a meeting of Members, but was afraid that it might look too much like direct agitation.”

“February 16th.—Saw Cobden, and reported proceedings. We are to do nothing for a few days, in order to allow time for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to cool.”

“February 17th.—Moffatt tells me that last night he had a conversation with the Postmaster-General, in which the latter stated that if Colonel Maberly retired the appointment of another secretary would be unnecessary.”

“February 18th.—The Postmaster-General told me of his conversation with Moffatt, adding that he has expressed a similar opinion to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.”

“February 19th.—Reported proceedings to Warburton; he will attend the meeting of Members.”

“February 21st.—Called on Cobden to advise that the meeting of Members should now be held, when I learned to my surprise (not having seen the morning papers) that Ministers resigned last night in consequence of a defeat on the Militia Bill. He considers the resignation real. I certainly have been very ill-used.”

“February 23rd.—The Postmaster-General confirms Cobden’s impressions. Lord Derby has undertaken to form an administration, and Lord Clanricarde retains office only till his successor is appointed.”

I fear the deep mortification I underwent at this sudden frustration of my hopes when I thought fulfilment so near at hand caused me to regard the important change which was taking place much more from a private than a public point of view. My excuse may perhaps be found in the recollection of the struggle that I had for so many years sustained, in the fact of my worn health of both body and mind, and in the non-fulfilment of the promise originally made me, a delay by which the term of six months had already been extended to five years, and, as now appeared, till those who had given the pledge had lost the power to redeem it. On those who were now to become my official superiors I could have but little claim, and my expectation from them was even less.

It still remained to do what was possible for diminishing the evil of the change, and, as my readers will readily believe, I had full reliance on the friendliness of Lord Clanricarde. I therefore drew up a minute proposing that the restrictive regulations laid down on my entering office should be rescinded, and that the practice which had superseded them should be formally approved. To this minute I obtained Lord Clanricarde’s sanction. Colonel Maberly, as his lordship soon afterwards informed me, sent in a counter-minute, but without effect. Lord Clanricarde’s reply to this was admirable. While, of course, leaving matters with his successor, he gave it as his own opinion that a practice which has gradually grown up is more likely to work well than any rule that can be prescribed.

“February 27th.—At Lord Clanricarde’s request I have prepared a statement of the principal improvements which I and Frederic have effected, and of those in hand, as also a statement of the savings which we have effected. The improvements now in hand are no less than thirty in number, even counting each class, as for instance the eleven foreign negotiations, as one; the savings, omitting sums under £20, and disregarding the numerous applications for increased salaries, &c., which have been prevented, amount to nearly £60,000 a year.”

CHAPTER XXI.

“February 28th, 1852.—Read Lord Derby’s speech last night in the House of Lords. He talks of giving much attention to social improvements. I wish I could see reason to hope that he would go earnestly to work at the Post Office. He might, if he would, obtain a reputation for his administration in that department at least.”

“March 2nd.—Lord Hardwicke, the new Postmaster-General (whose patent, however, is not yet completed), came to the office with Lord Clanricarde. It was understood that they would go through the office together; but I afterwards found that Lord Hardwicke preferred waiting till his patent was made out, so none of us saw him. Lord Clanricarde tells me that, on his explaining to Lord Hardwicke my position in the office, and the opposition between Maberly and myself, Lord Hardwicke said the opposition was a good thing, as it would secure his hearing both sides of the question.”

“March 8th.—Lord Hardwicke entered on his duties to-day. Maberly was with him the greater part of the time he spent at the office. Before leaving, he sent a message to say that he would ‘have the pleasure of making my acquaintance’ early next morning.”

“March 9th.—Lord Hardwicke received me in a very friendly manner, spoke in high terms of penny postage, said that he understood that all the improvements were introduced by myself, and expressed his intention to extend improvement still further, especially mentioning the complete abolition of money prepayment. He told me that Maberly had spoken to him on the importance of a division of our duties, but Lord Hardwicke said he should take no steps in the matter until he was more familiar with the subject, and that in the mean time he wished everything to proceed as before; adding that it would be very gratifying to him if he could be the means of establishing cordiality between Maberly and myself.”

“March 10th.—Tilley came from Maberly with overtures of peace and amity. He says that Maberly is quite unhappy in consequence of the recent measures, and requested him (Tilley) to ask me if I had any objection to propose a division of duties. I replied that I should willingly consider the subject, and discuss it with Tilley or with Colonel Maberly himself, if the latter preferred my so doing, and expressed a general desire to meet his wishes as far as possible.”

Shortly afterwards I transacted business for the first time, save on a trifling matter, with my new official superior, who had informed me that he should attend the office daily and work hard. My first experience was, as will be seen, of a mixed character. It must be borne in mind that Lord Hardwicke had been accustomed to the strict discipline of a man-of-war:—

“March 13th.—Laid several important minutes before the Postmaster-General. He expressed his concurrence in all, and earnest approval of some; but, instead of signing them and returning them to me, as Lord Clanricarde would have done, he said he should keep them, and send them, when signed, with other papers, to Colonel Maberly, in order that they might be properly entered; and on my explaining that I always sent the minutes to be entered, after which they went to Colonel Maberly, the Postmaster-General intimated, in rather a peremptory manner, that he must do his own business in his own way.”

“March 18th.—Gave Lord Hardwicke a statement of my duties and responsibilities, he having called upon the chief officers to do the like.”

The minute examination which is, doubtless, indispensable on board a man-of-war, was less profitable in the Post Office:—

“March 20th.— We are suffering much inconvenience from the manner in which Lord Hardwicke delays his decision on the minutes: those left with him on the 13th instant are not yet returned. He appears to be making the mistake of attempting too much. He is calling for all sorts of returns, some on unimportant matters, e.g., the number of fires lighted daily in the office, and seems unwilling to rely sufficiently on the recommendations of his advisers.”

“March 23rd.—In discussing the proposed reduction in the Colonial postage, the Postmaster-General was very complimentary as to the accuracy of my financial predictions as regards former measures.”

“March 26th.—The Postmaster-General, instead of simply approving our minutes, is apt to add instructions which render the whole impracticable. I find, however, a readiness on his part to alter his minutes on their impracticability being pointed out.”

Meantime, old sources of trouble beginning to reopen,[96] a conversation ensued between Lord Hardwicke and myself relative to the division of duties. He again expressed a desire to place matters on a more satisfactory footing, but appeared to have a notion that Colonel Maberly’s authority must be in some degree superior to mine. “There cannot,” said he, “be two kings in Brentford”; and on my pointing out that in the Treasury and other departments there were two secretaries of equal authority, he replied, “If you are to be joint secretaries, I’ll make you shake hands and sit in the same room.” How far harmony would have been improved by compulsory association I am not able to determine, as the experiment was never tried. The conversation continued as follows:—

“He again spoke in strong terms of the value of my services, and proceeded in so open and unreserved a manner that I thought it best to tell him of the conditions under which I accepted office, and of the manner in which the late Government had from time to time postponed the fulfilment of its engagements. My statement produced an evident effect on Lord Hardwicke. He said he was very glad I had communicated these facts to him; that he should consider what I had said confidential, though he should probably speak to Lord Derby on the subject.”

I had the more hope of his intercession in my favour because I found that he was intimate with Mr. Warburton, of whom he spoke in the highest possible terms. The hope, however, was soon crushed:—

“April 13th.—Warburton came into my room before seeing the Postmaster-General [the appointment had been made by me with his lordship’s sanction], but, as he thought it better not to come up again, I arranged to call upon him in the evening, when I found that, although the Postmaster-General had spoken well of me, Warburton has no hope whatever of his adopting any more decided course than a division of duties between Maberly and myself; so that chance is gone.”

“May 3rd.—The Postmaster-General has sent me a minute referring to my statement of the work in hand, and requesting that I will not enter on any new subject without his previous direction. As he was then at the office, I immediately applied to him for an explanation, when I found that he had sent a similar minute to Maberly, and that his object was to secure that he should at all times know what was going on. He says (all in good temper) that hitherto I have really been Postmaster-General, but that he intends to be Postmaster-General himself; adding, however, that he has no intention of obstructing improvement. His notion was that it would be practicable for me to apply for the authority in question, even before entering on the preliminary investigation of the subject, but I satisfied him that this was impossible; and the understanding now is that I am to make the requisite application as early as possible. . . . In the course of an interview a good deal of plain speaking occurred in a half-joking manner. Among other things, I told him that, if he obstructed improvements, I should leave him.”

If I had had any misgiving as to the manner in which my plain speaking had been received, it could scarcely have outlived the following:—

“May 4th.—The Postmaster-General has sent Maberly and myself the following, which came written on a large sheet of paper like a minute:—

“‘To Celebrate the Queen’s Birthday.

“‘The Master-General of the Post Office requests the honour of Colonel Maberly’s and Mr. Rowland Hill’s company at dinner on the 13th of May, at a quarter before eight o’clock.

“‘Full dress.’”[97]

It was curious that this act of politeness should be followed immediately by an act of discipline:—

“The same hour which brought this good-natured invitation brought also a demand for my latch-key of the private door of the General Post Office. The Postmaster-General has given up his own latch-key, and has required every one else to do the same. I am not sure that this is not a necessary precaution.”

Be this as it may, the safeguard was not long maintained, the latch-keys being quietly redistributed in the interregnum that followed Lord Hardwicke’s retirement, and never afterwards reclaimed.

The necessity for my appearing at Lord Hardwicke’s party in court dress led to a discovery, which, though somewhat annoying at the time, I can afford to laugh at now. Calling for correspondence which had taken place three or four years before with the Lord Chamberlain, and which, as I understood, for I had never seen the papers, regulated my official costume, I found that, while Colonel Maberly was placed in the third, I had been assigned to the fifth or lowest class, the Secretaries for Ireland and Scotland, my acknowledged inferiors in position, being placed in the fourth. I had no difficulty in deciding on the authorship of this arrangement, nor in conjecturing why, contrary to rule, the papers had been withheld. On my calling the Postmaster-General’s attention to the matter, he took it up warmly, expressing an opinion that I should be placed in the same class with Colonel Maberly, and directing me to prepare a minute accordingly, though, as formalities had to be gone through, the change could not be made in time for the dinner.[98] I suppose, however, Lord Hardwicke must have forgotten the matter. My own attention was soon absorbed in things of more importance; and nothing was done until the matter was set right of itself on my promotion to the sole secretaryship. I could not but admire at the dinner the discreet arrangement made by our host to prevent jealousy between Colonel Maberly and me, the former being placed at one end of the table, the latter at the other, while his lordship sat precisely in the middle.

To return to ordinary matters. Certainly my Post Office experience had never yet long run smooth, and the ripple soon came:—

“June 10th.—In a minute of Saturday last, on the Prussian treaty, which, I hope, is now finally settled, I mentioned, as I had done in former minutes, that I had seen Chevalier Bunsen on a point of difference. In confirming the minute, the Postmaster-General made an exception as regards my seeing Chevalier Bunsen, adding a direction that, in future, when any foreign minister came to the Post Office, he, the Postmaster-General, should be informed, with a view, as afterwards explained, of seeing the minister himself. Even if necessary—which it was not—neither the time, just as I had satisfactorily concluded a very difficult treaty, nor the manner, was well chosen. To-day, on inquiring how the Postmaster-General wished me to proceed when he was absent from the office, viz., whether I should delay the business or transact it myself, and report proceedings on his arrival, he expressed a desire that I should, in his absence, inform the ‘Chief Secretary,’ meaning Colonel Maberly, of the minister’s visit, so as to give him the option of the interview; an instruction which was particularly absurd, seeing that the very negotiation in question had been transferred to me [from Colonel Maberly]. . . . To this I replied that I should, of course, follow the Postmaster-General’s instructions as regards communicating with himself, but that I must decline informing Colonel Maberly, as my doing so would be equivalent to an acknowledgment of subordination to the latter. On this the Postmaster-General declared an intention of writing a minute, making my position really subordinate to Colonel Maberly’s, again using his favourite expression, ‘there cannot be two kings in Brentford’—that there must be a first authority, a second, and a third; that to have two equal authorities was contrary to his views of discipline, &c., &c. I acquiesced in the general proposition, but reminded him of Lord Clanricarde’s opinion, that it was desirable Colonel Maberly should be induced to retire; adding that, during the last few years Lord Clanricarde was in office, I was in effect the Chief Secretary; and suggesting that, if Colonel Maberly were retained, and it was necessary to place one above the other, the proper course would be to ascertain which of us was best qualified for the superior appointment, and to act accordingly. I said also that there would be no great difficulty in deciding the question of superiority, for that he would find, on referring to the minutes, that Lord Clanricarde was in the habit of requiring my opinion in nearly all Colonel Maberly’s difficult cases; and when, as frequently happened, we advised differently, in nine instances out of ten my advice was adopted, and Colonel Maberly’s rejected. As all this seemed to produce little effect, I proposed to defer the question for the present, and proceeded with the other business.”

Among the minutes which I submitted to him was one which, after reading it, he pronounced a “most masterly statement,” declaring his intention to act in accordance with its recommendation, and praising the minute on various grounds. My Journal thus continues:—

“On finding that he was so much delighted with it, I reverted to our conversation as to my position. . . . This appeared to take him aback, and he replied, ‘Well, well, I must write my minute;[99] but I don’t think I shall make you subordinate to Colonel Maberly, though I must have a difference. I don’t think you’ll object to what I intend; and, if you should, I sha’n’t be at all offended by your appealing to the First Lord of the Treasury.’”

The minute, accordingly, appeared in a very mitigated form, so that the main objection left in it was to the persistent designation of Colonel Maberly as Chief Secretary, a title unknown in the office, authorized by no warrant or other document, and sure to lead to further trouble.

For the present, however, I determined to let matters rest, as I came to the conclusion that further attempts would be useless, and very probably injurious.

I need not say that I scanned the political horizon [100] at this time with great interest:—

“July 26th.—Circumstanced as I am, I have, of course, anxiously watched the elections, now nearly completed. I fear the result is such as to enable Ministers to retain their places for some time.”

The restrictions laid upon me by the Postmaster-General greatly lessened my work, and gave me a relief with which I might have been well pleased, could I have been satisfied as to consequences. The new distribution of duties, however, was ill-judged; and, though partly corrected on my representation, remained seriously obstructive to improvement.

“November 23rd.—The Postmaster-General has decided to defer for the present the whole question of Colonial postage. He talked openly to me of a doubt of the Ministry continuing in office.”

“December 15th.—The Postmaster-General tells me that it is very probable that the Ministry will be thrown out by the division on the Budget, and spoke of the views of the Government in so unreserved a manner, that I thought it right to remind him that my political views and connections were those of the opposite party. He said he knew that very well, but still went on to speak of the views, expectations and intentions of the Cabinet.”

“December 17th.—The division last night was against the Ministers. Brotherton, who has just called at the office, tells me that they will certainly resign to-day.”

“December 20th.—The Postmaster-General has appointed a hot Orange partizan of the present Government (not previously in the service) to succeed Creagh (recently dead) as President of the Dublin Money Order Office. I know, from what he has told me, that he has done this unwillingly, being, I suspect, pressed thereto by the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland. Cornwall and I had recommended the next in seniority, who happens to be a good man. Notwithstanding this, and one or two other cases, Lord Hardwicke has, on the whole, used his patronage well.”

I must, in fairness, add that the gentleman whose appointment seemed at the time so objectionable proved a very good officer.

At this time of doubt as to who might be my new official superior, and what the position I might hold with him, I perused with great satisfaction an important document just issued:—

“December 28th.—The Report on the East Indian Post Office contains, among other matters, the following testimony in favour of uniformity of rate. It is curious to contrast the evidence of the officials there and here on the question, especially when the greater distances and inferior means of conveyance in our Indian Empire are considered.

“‘34. Uniformity of postage, without reference to distance, is recommended by its simplicity, by its fairness, and by the facilities it gives for the introduction of other improvements into the department. Combined with a low rate of charge, it forms the conspicuous and chief benefit, which the monopoly of the carriage of letters enables the Government to confer upon the whole body of its subjects, by almost annihilating distance, and placing it within the power of every individual to communicate freely with all parts of the empire. It makes the Post Office what, under any other system, it can never be—the unrestricted means of diffusing knowledge, extending commerce, and promoting in every way the social and intellectual improvement of the people. It is no longer an experiment, having been introduced with eminent success into the United Kingdom, as well as into the United States of America, France, Spain, and Russia. It is advocated by every officer of experience connected with the department in India, and by every individual who has been consulted in the course of this inquiry, and it has already been recommended by three out of the four subordinate Governments.’”

I may add that the recommendation of the Commission was soon afterwards carried into effect; so that, with the exception of some outlying portions, a low uniform rate of postage was established over the length and breadth of our vast Indian Empire.

CHAPTER XXII.

The doubt as to the new Postmaster-General was soon satisfactorily cleared by the appointment of Lord Canning. Though it was not until a fortnight later that I had an opportunity of forming a direct opinion of our new chief, I had heard enough to make me very hopeful as to my future relations with him. Meantime, I had the satisfaction to find that I had lost no ground at the Treasury, Mr. Wilson, the new secretary, having written to ask for my advice and opinion on the several cases awaiting decision.