At such a time as this every confirmation of my former calculations and predictions was highly acceptable, and particularly welcome was a return just then received, which showed that the number of letters had at length attained that five-fold increase on which I had originally counted, progress of late having been very rapid.

I soon had the satisfaction to find that I was treated with confidence, Lord Canning consulting me on various matters which his predecessor had withdrawn from my charge.

I saw also fresh evidence of confidence in me at the Treasury:—

Not malapropos to the present question, I discovered that a serious obstacle to improvement in our treaty with France had arisen from a concession heedlessly made to the French Post Office about two years before, increasing the undue advantages already spoken of. This concession had been made, not only without my knowledge, but, improbable as this may appear, without authority from the Treasury. Although, however, the direct loss produced by this blunder was at the rate of more than £3,000 a year, the old punctilious notions as to ostensible economy still stood in the way of the change by which alone real economy could be obtained, the Postmaster-General informing me that, though he was ready to listen to any suggestions for facilitating the desired change, he feared Mr. Gladstone would object to the expedient of a full retiring allowance to Colonel Maberly on the same grounds that Sir Charles Wood had done. On the 7th of June, however, he advised me to prepare a statement for his use at the Treasury; but upon my speaking of the Parliamentary influence which I could bring to bear upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he deprecated its present use, promising at the same time to inform the Chancellor as to the fact.

One important article in the statement called for related to economy. I had the pleasure to find, upon examination, that the amount of saving, either actually obtained or prospectively secured by my brother and myself, within the last sixteen months, was nearly £75,000 per annum, which, added to nearly £60,000 per annum previously economised since my return to office, gave a total annual saving of nearly £135,000, effected in the face of constant opposition, amidst divided authority, and with command of only a most inadequate force.

The following shows the substance of the letter, which, however, is given at full length in the Appendix (H).

I gave in the outset, Lord Canning being as yet new to the matter, a concise history of my proceedings from the time of my dismissal in 1842, mentioning my invitation to office in 1846, my stipulation as to assurance of sufficient authority, the promises given me on this point and the expectation of speedy promotion held out, my own reluctance to accede to office without a more material guaranty, and my concession to the opinion of my friends, in particular Mr. Warburton, Lord Overstone, Mr. Hawes, and Mr. Raikes Currie. After observing that even Lord Clanricarde’s kindness and confidence had failed to counteract the radical badness of the arrangement, I proceeded as follows:—

After speaking of the improvements effected by my brother and myself in the Money Order Department, and showing that this success established the probability of improvement under the same management in the Post Office generally, I mentioned that, owing to the rapid augmentation in the number of letters, no doubt was entertained in the department that in a short time a most expensive outlay, probably not less than half-a-million, would be required for a new post office, a necessity which I did not doubt might, under better arrangements, be averted for years, if not removed altogether. I grounded my expectation on the fact that under the management of my brother and myself a similar and yet more pressing necessity had been so averted in the Money Order Department. I likewise pointed out that, even supposing a new building to be afterwards necessary, it was important that its erection should be delayed until the carrying of the railway system into the heart of the Metropolis should have shown what site and what arrangements would best suit the altered state of things. I observed also, that from overtures made to the department by some of the projectors, I thought it highly probable that whatever changes in the Post Office might be rendered necessary or desirable by the new state of things, they would not have to be made altogether, perhaps not mainly, at the cost of Government.

After referring to the almost clamorous demand for further facilities in the transmission of letters, a demand which could not be effectually met without energetic and cordial co-operation in the higher departments of the Executive, and ready obedience and zealous activity in all the subordinates, I concluded as follows:—

              *               *               *               *               *               *

The whole correspondence relative to my position was submitted by Lord Canning to Mr. Gladstone, who, in turn, as I was informed, consulted the Premier, Lord Aberdeen. But I again encountered delay, though I was now assured that, in order to facilitate the desired change, Mr. Gladstone would arrest certain economical measures which had been decided on, and to which he attached great importance. The vacancy in prospect was that of the Chairmanship of the Audit Office (spoken of long ago by Lord Clanricarde), but no exact information existed as to the intentions of the incumbent, Sir William Herries. Lord Canning, however, undertook to inquire. He soon afterwards informed me that Sir William Herries had, some time before, proposed to retire if Government would give him a regiment; but, upon a cavalry regiment being offered, had preferred to wait for one of infantry. Upon my inquiring whether I might understand that Government would take the first opportunity of giving Colonel Maberly another appointment, Lord Canning, after reminding me of the sacrifice already made to that end, added that Mr. Gladstone had expressed an opinion to the effect, that if, by so doing, he should succeed in retaining my services, he should most effectually consult the interests of the Government and the expectations of the public. I could not but express my gratification at so high a compliment. I still, however, pressed for a definite answer to my question, and finally, the Postmaster-General promised again to consult the higher authorities, and to write me an answer to my letter. He added, that he should show the draft of his letter to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and probably to Lord Aberdeen.

I was much disappointed; for with every allowance for official caution, the letter promised but little, and seemed to imply that, even if a fit opportunity should occur, there was no intention of requiring Colonel Maberly to give up his present appointment. If any one regards my distrust as unwarrantable, I think he will find excuse in considering the numberless disappointments I had already sustained.

In this letter I repeated the request so often made at an earlier period, that until the only effectual change could be made I might at least have such support to my authority as would arise from my being placed on perfect equality in all respects with my colleague,[102] and further have definitely assigned to me such departments of the secretarial duty as his lordship might judge proper, together with a transfer to my authority of the corresponding portions of the secretarial staff. An alternative expedient which I suggested was that I should suspend my present duties, and employ the interval in personally inspecting the postal arrangements of foreign countries, and in negotiating, under his lordship’s instructions, such changes as might appear best calculated to facilitate our foreign postal communications.

Three days later I spoke again to the Postmaster-General, pointing out that, by the death of Sir F. Adam, there was a vacant colonelcy. He was aware of the fact, but thought he could not move in the matter. In this posture of affairs, having first arranged with Mr. Hodgson for a letter to the Postmaster-General, which the latter had expressed his willingness to receive, I left town for a holiday, and passed a month in Scotland.

The period of suspense which followed the above communication was agreeably broken by the visit of the Treasury Commission, which came to inquire into Post Office salaries, &c. The Commissioners were Lord Elcho, Sir Stafford Northcote, Sir Charles Trevelyan, and Mr. Hoffay. My Journal thus describes the mode of my examination:—

Of the results of the investigation I shall speak under the head “Salaries.”

The opening of the year 1854 still found me in the same position, though, certainly, with a better defined prospect than ever before. I had now, however, completed the seventh year of my service at the Post Office, and, perhaps, I may be excused if, in comparing fulfilment with expectations held out, I thought seven years a rather free interpretation of six months. Still, being convinced that the Postmaster-General was as earnest in my favour as even Lord Clanricarde had been, and also that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and even the Premier were sincerely desirous of speedily effecting the proposed change, I could afford to wait a little, though my health would not admit of a long delay. Fortunately, encouraging information soon came.

I remember that I returned home with the impression that I had been all the time upon my trial (in a most friendly spirit, however), first, before the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and afterwards, though the notion may seem ridiculous, before Lady Canning, my host having very perceptibly led me into conversation with this highly-accomplished lady, and she having, with no little tact and much kindness, drawn me out. I was so far satisfied, however, with the interview that, had I but been in even my former health, the remaining interval of expectation would have seemed short.

Matters, however, were now steadily advancing towards a conclusion:—

It must be admitted that waiting for dead men’s shoes has but little tendency to promote kindly sympathy, and I fear my family, in consulting the military obituary about this time were not so much impressed as could be wished with the loss sustained by the country in the death of its veterans. The desired information, however, did not come in the expected form.

A week later I was again taken by surprise, not unmingled with alarm:—

Notwithstanding the announcement that “the whole thing was settled,” it may well be supposed that, after receiving the last part of Lord Canning’s communication, I retained some little suppressed anxiety until the necessary forms should be completed; for this, however, ten days sufficed.

I also wrote letters of thanks to Mr. Gladstone and Lord Aberdeen.

Letters of congratulation soon poured in from the many friends in and out of Parliament, at home and abroad, who had so long and so steadily supported the cause of postal reform, and so kindly interested themselves in my favour; amongst others, from Lord Brougham, Lord Truro, Sir Francis Baring, Mr. Warburton, Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Cobden, Mr. Hume, Mr. Moffatt, Mr. Raikes Currie, and M. Piron.[103]

Government went further even than I had ever asked for, advancing my salary at once to the maximum rate of £2,000 a year.

It will be observed that all those to whom I had on this occasion to render official thanks had been members of the Government by which twelve years before I had been dismissed from office. I could not but think that the kind and earnest manner in which these gentlemen now acted proceeded in some measure from a desire to compensate me for the injustice of their former leader; and this view made me even more grateful for their consideration.

CHAPTER XXIII.

PROGRESS OF REFORM FROM THE MIDDLE OF 1851
TO THE END OF 1854.

Having thus conducted the narrative to that point in my official career to which my hopes and expectations had so long been directed, I now pause again to speak of concurrent events, and particularly to mention the improvements effected during the three years of which I have been treating.[104] I shall, as before, deal separately with the several departments of Post Office administration. I must add that, for the sake of convenience, I have in several departments continued the narrative somewhat beyond the period of my appointment as sole secretary, viz., April, 1854, trenching even, in one or two cases, on the year 1855.

CONVEYANCE OF MAILS.

As the reader is aware, I had long regarded it as of primary importance to obtain a general Act regulating railway charges to the Post Office, an Act that should fix the charges for ordinary trains, and establish some principle applicable to other cases, and thus either supersede arbitration—generally a very unsatisfactory expedient—or confine it within definite bounds. There seemed at one time a prospect of some progress in this direction, a bill being introduced into Parliament by Government, under the administration of Lord John Russell, the object of which was to remove doubts as to our right to send a guard as a passenger by any ordinary train with the mails as his luggage, and also to authorize our sending bags as parcels on payment of the usual parcel rates. If this measure had been adopted, it would have enabled us to establish additional mails, especially between the larger towns, at hours when the correspondence, though important, is not sufficient to justify the high charges usually made by the railway companies. I did all in my power to support such a measure—of which, indeed, I was in great part the author—but nothing was effected. The bill was, first, so modified, through concessions to the railway companies, as to become worse than useless, and then, because yet further modification was resisted by the Government, was thrown out.

Eighteen months later, under the authority of Lord Hardwicke, I prepared clauses, intended to secure fair rates of charge, for insertion in all new railway bills. These his lordship determined to incorporate in a bill, with a view to their extension also to existing railways. I estimated that their adoption (and they were perfectly just) would reduce our annual expenditure in railway conveyance (then about £360,000) by at least £100,000. The overthrow of Lord Derby’s administration, which occurred a few days later, transferred the matter to other hands.

A committee being appointed on railway and canal bills in the session of 1853, with Mr. Cardwell as chairman, I gave evidence,[105] of which the following is a summary.

I showed that the existing relations between the Post Office and the railway companies were very unsatisfactory, tending greatly to restrict the use of the railways for the conveyance of mails, to the real injury of the companies, and still more to that of the public. I showed, also, that while the construction of railways had greatly reduced the cost of conveying passengers and goods, it had largely increased that of conveying the mails. Thus, since the opening of railways, although the total weight of mail had increased by only 140 per cent., the cost of its conveyance had increased by nearly 300 per cent., viz., from, £112,000 in 1836 to about £442,000 (of which about £362,000 was for railway conveyance) in 1852. I laid before the committee a bill[106] (approved first by Lord Hardwicke, and afterwards by Lord Canning) framed with a view of prescribing rates of charge for mails conveyed by ordinary trains (those run at hours determined by the companies), such rates being fully equal, all things considered, to those charged to the public for like services, and of laying down a principle of arbitration in respect of trains run at hours fixed by the Postmaster-General. I also laid before the committee a copy of my Report to the Postmaster-General of the 1st of January, 1847.[107]

The committee, in its Report, referred especially to my evidence, and, in the main, adopted my view, expressing an opinion “that the companies should afford to the Post Office, at the same charge as would be paid by private individuals for similar services, every assistance which might add to the convenience of the public. They think that no railway should have any claim to be considered as fulfilling its obligations to the district in which it is situate which fails to facilitate in this way the postal communications of that district.”[108]

Nothing, however, was accomplished; and repeated attempts, subsequently made, were equally unavailable. In truth, the railway influence is so strong in Parliament, and, on this point, so little guided by a knowledge of true railway interests, that the injurious law enacted thirty years ago, though avowedly a temporary measure, to last only until experience of the working of railways should have afforded the requisite data for laying down a scale of charges, continues in force to the present day.

Meanwhile, willing to try what could be done with the existing laws, I devised a new application of them. Being pressed to supply Ayr and the neighbouring towns with a more direct communication than they then enjoyed, and finding that the railway company to be dealt with, though having suitable trains actually running, refused to carry the mails, except at prices far beyond what the correspondence would justify, I devised a new kind of notice, which the solicitor to the Post Office regarded as strictly legal, requiring the company to carry the mails by the existing trains, but leaving them at liberty to alter or withdraw these trains altogether on giving us fifteen days’ notice. Under such a notice our arbitrator was of opinion that the remuneration awarded would be, as it ought to be, very low. This plan succeeding, I obtained its extension to some other lines, but at length met with resistance from one of the companies. On reference to the law officers of the Crown, our claim was pronounced untenable, they holding that by the law as it stood, the Postmaster-General was bound (whether he desired it or not) to fix the hours for the mail-trains without reference to the arrangements of the companies. The Post Office is thus kept in a position quite unintelligible to the public, who cannot understand why existing trains, obviously capable of employment for postal service, are not used wherever convenience requires; the real obstacle being that the amount of correspondence in question, though sufficient to justify the expense of conveyance at a moderate rate—a rate, however, fully remunerative to the company—is often quite insufficient to meet the heavy cost of a regular mail train.

Amidst these efforts to procure that cheapness of conveyance which would justify greater frequency of despatch, it was clearly of importance to obtain for the conveyance of the mails the greatest practicable speed, though the public can be little aware how many difficulties, direct and incidental, attend acceleration. In the year 1851 we called upon the North Western Company to accelerate its mail trains, but met with resistance. In a conference with Captain Huish, the manager of the line, while explicitly insisting on our right to require the change, I expressed a wish to meet the convenience of the company as far as possible, and proposed a modification, which I hoped would remove objections. After a week’s consideration, the company persisted in its refusal, disputing our right to require them to carry mails at a speed exceeding twenty-seven miles an hour, including stoppages. This view unfortunately was supported by our solicitor. Meanwhile, however, at the desire of the Postmaster-General, I made a compromise with the company until the opinion of the Crown officers should be obtained. By this, when given, our right was sustained. Even the amount of acceleration thus procured proved highly valuable, was very popular in the City, and produced some strong expressions of thanks; but before the end of the year I procured sanction for the gradual introduction of a measure to run the mails, at least on the long lines of road, at express speed.

The work of acceleration was quickened by a manœuvre of the Great Northern Railway Company, which, in July of that year (1851), spontaneously began to run a train at night-mail time, and at such speed as to outstrip the mail train on the North Western line. Believing that the object was to force upon us, through the public voice, the use of this train, of course at a large expense, I applied to the North Western Company for such acceleration on their line as would obviate the demand. It was at this time that I first suggested what are now called limited mails, though the expedient was not adopted till some years afterwards.[109]

The plan of limited mails, when brought into operation, raised the speed along the North Western route to forty miles an hour, including stoppages, a rate the very notion of which would have been regarded thirty years before as a madman’s dream.

The great extent of the acceleration in the northern mails eventually obtained may be exemplified as follows. When I first took the matter in hand, though there was railway conveyance over the whole distance, a letter leaving London by the night mail for Edinburgh or Glasgow could not receive an answer until the afternoon of the next day but one. The answer to a Monday night’s letter, for instance, did not arrive until the afternoon of Wednesday; since the Monday night-mail did not reach its destination until after the departure of the return mail appointed to reach London on Wednesday morning; whereas now (1870)—the Monday night-mail from London reaching Edinburgh or Glasgow on Tuesday morning, and the return mail not starting until Tuesday evening—not only is the answer to a Monday night’s letter received on Wednesday morning, but also there is allowed for writing it an interval of not less than ten or eleven hours; in effect, a whole day. This result is easily stated, but were I to attempt to detail the preliminary arrangements essential to the series of changes by which it was effected, or the various devices by which difficulties had to be surmounted, I should weary out the reader and even tire myself. Let it suffice to give some notion of the multiplicity of arrangements affected, and the almost theatrical suddenness of the transition. The day before each successive change everything remained exactly in statu quo. Every branch mail along the whole line had to bring up its mail at the established time. Every office, sub-office, receiving-house, and pillar-box, had to yield up its letters in accordance with this arrangement, closing therefore to the public, at such an hour as best suited such requirement. Every rural messenger, on foot or on horseback, had to arrive in accordance with the time for such closing; and, in this case, thousands of receiving places and thousands of messengers were concerned. All this being the proceeding of one day, on the next everything was different, the hour everywhere altered, so much so that, at some of the places remote from the starting point the alteration involved even substitution of day for night or night for day. Of course every person concerned had to be apprised of the change, and prepared for it. A single surveyor might have to issue instructions to a thousand offices, and these to as many messengers, since ignorance or neglect in any member of the force would inevitably have produced confusion fruitful of annoyance and complaint in the places served. It must be added that the highly complicated provision thus made for the mails in one direction had all to be repeated for those in the opposite direction.

I need not say that innovation is often pointed to as the source of evils with which it has no real connection. Thus, great irregularity having occurred in the mails to the north of Scotland, through long detention at Forfar—purposely made by the railway company in consequence of the Post Office disputing their right to claim extra payment for forwarding the mails (when late) by the train which actually carried on their passengers—there was great dissatisfaction and anger at Aberdeen and elsewhere; the blame being unjustly laid on the Post Office, and, through mere coincidence of time, charged upon the recent acceleration of the mails.

Of course the higher the speed the greater, other things equal, is the danger of irregularity; and complaint on this head arose in no measured tone. As our representations to the companies were met by allegations of unpunctuality on our part, I proposed a covenant by which they and the Post Office should be mutually subjected to fine whenever any irregularity occurred, but the offer found little acceptance. Finding this to be the case, and that the continued irregularity of the northern mails still provoked severe attacks on the Post Office, I sought defence by publishing a circular which I had addressed to the railway companies concerned. This step, however, produced a number of letters in reply, some of them equally skilful and unscrupulous. Effectual rejoinder would have made an intolerable demand on my time and strength, so that I began to repent having resorted to publicity at all. Objectionable as it is to allow to misrepresentation the advantage of inferences to be drawn from silence, it may be questioned if it be not better to leave rectification to the hand of time than to involve oneself and one’s department in distracting controversy.[110] Indeed, one of our Post Office officials goes so far as to declare that if he found himself charged in a newspaper with parricide, he would hold his tongue lest the accusation should be repeated next day with the aggravation of matricide.

While, however, submitting to misconception, I sought means to obtain substantial ends; and for this purpose, in preparing a scheme of mutual fines, I added premiums for punctuality, hoping thereby both to obtain the consent of the companies to the plan as a whole, and to supply a new motive to exertion and care. I also planned the conveyance of the mails on one of the principal lines by special trains absolutely limited to mail service, which I hoped to accomplish at a moderate expense by inducing the companies to join in an arrangement under which, the bare additional cost in each instance being ascertained by a neutral authority (some eminent engineer), we should be bound to pay a certain fixed multiple of that amount. Captain Galton, of the Board of Trade, and Sir William Cubitt the eminent engineer, entirely approved of both these plans, the latter estimating the cost in question at from one shilling to one shilling and threepence per mile, and advising that we should offer to pay two-and-a-half times that amount. Under this rule, it may be observed, the Post Office would have to pay less for the whole train than it now frequently pays for only a small part of one.

The proposal of mutual fines for unpunctuality, notwithstanding its sweetener of rewards for punctuality, found but little favour with the companies, and the same remark applies to the plan of charge by fixed scale; but the proposed special mail service was ultimately adopted.

The introduction of the apparatus for exchanging bags without the stoppage of the train naturally excited considerable attention. Probably, however, many of my readers know little of the process beyond its result. That which takes place is as follows: The bags to be forwarded, being suspended from a projecting arm at the station, are so knocked off by a projection from the train as to fall into a net which is attached to the mail carriage, and is for the moment stretched out to receive them, while, at the same time, the bags to be left behind, being hung out from the mail carriage, are in like manner so struck off as to be caught in a net fixed at the station; the whole of this complex movement being so instantaneous that the uninformed eye cannot follow it.

Interest and amusement, however, were not unmingled with feelings of a very different kind. It scarcely need be said that the operation in question requires very careful management both in the train and at the station. Even with such management an element of danger remains, increasing in proportion to the speed of the train and weight of the bags. In fact, as the use of the bag-apparatus extended, some slight accidents occurred. In my anxiety I induced the Postmaster-General to call for a report from Sir William Cubitt on the subject; and this being delayed through Sir William’s indisposition, I took upon myself, (the Postmaster-General just then being absent), to issue instructions restricting, and in some cases suspending, their use. This difficulty, I may however state, was ultimately overcome by an improvement, devised by my son, in the bag-exchanging apparatus. I may be allowed to add that Sir William Cubitt, who had himself failed to devise means for surmounting the difficulty, candidly and kindly expressed a very high opinion of my son’s expedient.

RECTIFICATION OF ACCOUNTS.

The reader will remember[111] how long and how ineffectually I once strove to obtain the rectification of accounts relative to the true amount of the postal revenue. In 1852, however, I succeeded in demonstrating to Lord Hardwicke that if the Post Office were charged, on the one hand, with a fair share of the packet service, and received credit, on the other hand, for the stamp duty on newspapers,[112] the net revenue would be found, not, as was then maintained by some persons, nothing at all, but, as set forth in the ordinary accounts of the department, more than a million per annum. A year later Lord Canning, then Postmaster-General, giving me the draft Report of the Packet Commission which he had prepared as chairman, with a request that I would look it over, I found that he had adopted my views, though he expressed doubts as to the agreement of his colleagues.[113] I may mention here that ten years later I prepared an elaborate memorandum as to the means of ascertaining the true net revenue of the Post Office. This paper, in which the incidence of the packet service expense, as well as other questions relative to the subject, is duly treated of, will be found in the Appendix (I).

PACKET SERVICE.

Lord Canning’s Commission.

Of the able Report of the Commission, already mentioned, commonly called Lord Canning’s Commission, the following are some of the leading points. It will be observed that the question relative to the just incidence of the charge for mail-packets is not directly dealt with, though there is enough to show that the feeling of the Commission accorded with my view.

The Commission, which included not only Lord Canning, but Sir Stafford Northcote, gave, in their Report, a brief history of the introduction of contract mail-packets, explained under what special circumstances heavy subsidies for these packets appeared necessary, and expressed it as their opinion that when use can be made (as is now the case in every instance) of steamers which carry passengers and freight, large subsidies are no longer required. They added that after a new route has been opened for the extension of commerce, and sufficient time allowed for the experiment, the further continuance of the service, unless required for political services of adequate importance, should be made to depend on its tendency to become self-supporting. The Commission also advised the omission in future contracts of many conditions which tend to increase the cost; and recommended that the contract should be reduced to a simple undertaking (with penalties for failure) to convey the mails at fixed periods and with a certain degree of speed. This recommendation was afterwards to a great extent carried into effect; as was also, though not in the same degree, another recommendation, viz., to make the payment, when practicable, consist of a portion of the sea-postage.

The Commission further advised that, except on the establishment of a new route, no contracts should be entered into to run for a long period. On this head, as on that of dispensing with conditions regarding the construction, size, and steam-power of the ships to be employed, and other matters, the course thenceforth generally taken by the Post Office, on my brother’s advice, was so to frame the forms of tender as to ascertain the exact amount of expense involved in the several requirements. This specification naturally led to the abandonment of any whose cost exceeded their value, and thus, in effect, produced a large economy.

The following passage shows the opinion of the Commissioners as to the extent to which Government should undertake and maintain transmarine postal communication. The recommendations are still very worthy of attention:—