However the objection to the existence of such opportunities might be lessened in the particular case by the uses to which it was applied, there was clearly no ground for supposing that it was only for such laudable purposes that the privilege was employed; indeed, it was notorious that men of science were far from being the class principally indulged. Neither could it be the poor and humble to whom the favour was commonly extended, but, as alleged by one of the witnesses, it was “principally the rich and independent who endeavoured to obtain franks from those who are privileged to give them.” Dr. Lardner, too, said that “a man to obtain such advantages as he obtains must be a person known to or connected with the aristocratic classes of society.”[237]

Besides considering my plan, the committee had to deal with various other suggestions, the principal of these being “a graduated scale of reduced rates, commencing with twopence, and extending up to twelvepence, tantamount, as was stated, in England, to a reduction of threepence per letter, which was laid before the committee by Colonel Maberly.” The loss to the revenue from such reduction he estimated at from seven to eight hundred thousand pounds a year.[238] None of these plans, however, except one for charging the rates according to geographical distance, were approved of by any of the witnesses unconnected with the Post Office.

As regards the importance of those additional facilities in reference alike to the convenience of the public and the restoration of the revenue, upon which I had laid such stress, but which unfortunately were so tardily adopted, much confirmatory evidence came alike from the Post Office and from other quarters.

The postmaster of Manchester stated that “letters have, in numerous instances, been sent in coach parcels, not so much with a view to save postage as to facilitate transmission, and to insure early delivery. This happens,” he stated, “very much in those neighbourhoods in which there is not direct communication through the medium of the Post Office, especially in a populous and manufacturing district between twenty and thirty miles from Manchester.”[239] In confirmation of the latter remark, Mr. Cobden stated that in the village of Sabden, twenty-eight miles from Manchester, where his print-works were, although there was a population of twelve thousand souls, there was no Post Office, nor anything that served for one.

Such are a few of the multitudinous statements made to the committee, in reply to questions, nearly twelve thousand in number, addressed to the various witnesses. The recital throws at least some light upon the difficulties by which the way to postal reform was beset, showing how necessary it was then to strengthen points which now seem quite unassailable, to prove what now seems self-evident, to induce acceptance of what no one now would hear of abandoning.

If further illustration of such necessity be needed, it may be found in the following extracts from the evidence of Post Office officials:—

The Assistant Secretary:—

It having been stated that the time for posting letters at the London receiving offices had been extended from 5 to 6 p.m., Mr. Holgate, President of the Inland Office, is examined as follows:—

The Postmaster-General:—

It may be remarked here that the gross revenue rather more than recovered itself in the year 1851, the increase of letters being then only four and three-quarters-fold.[244]

My own examination occupied a considerable portion of six several days, my task being not only to state and enforce my own views, but to reply to objections raised by such of the Post Office authorities as were against the proposed reform. This list comprised—with the exception of Mr. Peacock, the solicitor,—all the highest officials in the chief office; and however unfortunate their opposition, and however galling I felt it at the time, I must admit on retrospect that, passing over the question of means employed, their resistance to my bold innovation was very natural. Its adoption must have been dreaded by men of routine, as involving, or seeming to involve, a total derangement of proceeding—an overthrow of established order; while the immediate loss of revenue—inevitable from the manner in which alone the change could then be introduced (all gradual or limited reform having by that time been condemned by the public voice), a loss, moreover, greatly exaggerated in the minds of those who could not or did not see the means direct and indirect of its recuperation, must naturally have alarmed the appointed guardians of this branch of the national income. If, as the evidence proceeded, they began to question the wisdom of their original decision, they probably thought, at the same time, that the die was now cast, their course taken, and all that remained was to maintain their ground as best they could. The nature and extent of Post Office resistance, much as has appeared already, is most conspicuous in the following extracts—the last I shall make—from the Digest of Evidence, in which are summed up the opinions put forth by Colonel Maberly, the Secretary; opinions from which, so far as I am aware, he never receded:—

The divisions on the two most important of the resolutions submitted to the Committee, and, indeed, the ultimate result of their deliberations, show that the efforts that had been made had all been needed.

Thus, on a motion made on July 17th by Mr. Warburton to recommend the establishment of a uniform rate of inland postage between one post town and another, the Committee was equally divided; the “ayes” being Mr. Warburton, Lord Lowther, Mr. Raikes Currie, and Mr. Chalmers; the “noes,” the three members of Government, Mr. P. Thomson, Lord Seymour, and Mr. Parker, with Mr. Thornley, M.P. for Wolverhampton; so that the motion was affirmed only by the casting vote of the Chairman.[245]

Mr. Warburton further moving:—

the motion was rejected by six to three; the “ayes” being Mr. Warburton, Mr. Raikes Currie, and Mr. Morgan J. O’Connell; and the “noes” the same as before, with the addition of Lord Lowther and Mr. G. W. Wood; and upon Mr. Warburton, when thus far defeated, moving to recommend a uniform postage of three-halfpence, the motion was again lost by six to four, the only change being that Mr. Chalmers, who appears to have been absent during the second division, now again voted with the ayes.[246]

The second day, however, Mr. Warburton returned to the charge, moving to recommend a uniform rate of twopence the half-ounce, increasing at the rate of one penny for each additional half-ounce; a motion met, not by a direct negative, as before, but by an amendment tantamount to one. On this question, as also on that of uniformity, the committee was equally divided. Again, therefore, the motion was affirmed only by the casting vote of the Chairman.[247] The passing of the two resolutions, however—one to recommend a uniform rate of inland postage irrespective of distance, and the other to fix the single rate at twopence—was decisive as to the committee’s course, as will appear by the sequel. We must return for a time to the rejected amendment.

This had been moved by Mr. P. Thomson, and the substance of it was to abandon the recommendation of a uniform rate and to consider instead a Report proposed by Lord Seymour, the chief points of which were to recommend the maintenance of the charge by distance and the establishment of a rate varying from one penny, for distances under fifteen miles, to one shilling for distances above two hundred miles, or of some similar scale. This, it must be observed, would have been adopted as the recommendation of the committee but for the casting vote of the Chairman, Mr. Wallace. To what extent so untoward a circumstance would have retarded the cause of postal reform it would be difficult now even to conjecture; but it cannot be doubted that the success, which, even with the support of the committee, was so hardly achieved, would at least have undergone long and injurious delay.

To make this clear, it must be observed that by the adoption of Lord Seymour’s draft Report (a copy of which I have before me) not only the recommendations for uniformity and decided reduction of postage would have been set aside, but also those for increased facilities, for the general use of stamps, and for charge by weight instead of by the number of enclosures.

Lord Seymour’s Report, however, though so unsatisfactory in its recommendations, and, according to my view, very erroneous in its reasonings on many points (more especially in its main argumentation, viz., that against uniformity), yet contained passages of great use to me at the time, as confirming my statements, and more or less directly supporting my views; particularly as regards the evils which high rates of postage brought upon the poor, the vast extent of illicit conveyance, the evils of the frank system, and even many of the advantages of a uniform charge. Doubtless, had the recommendations contained in this Report been voluntarily adopted by the Post Office only two years before, almost every one of them would have been received as a grace; but it was now too late, their sum total being altogether too slight to make any approach towards satisfying the expectations which had subsequently arisen.

Before quite leaving Lord Seymour’s Report, I must, in candour, admit that on one point his prediction was truer than my own, though, as my own remained unpublished, I was not committed to it. The following is the passage:—

In my copy of this draft Report (given to me, I suppose, by Mr. Wallace) I find the following remark in my own handwriting:—

The implied inference, viz., that the cheaper operation of railways would lower the cost of conveying the mails seemed justified by the moderation of the charges for this service made up to that time by the railway companies. The event, however, has contradicted my contradiction, the railway charges for conveying the mails, unlike the rates for passengers and goods, being higher, weight for weight, than those on the old mail roads.[248]

The committee having thus decided the two great points of uniformity—rate and a twopenny charge for the single letter,—Mr. Wallace, with his usual kindness, immediately wrote to inform me of the result. He was the more careful to do this because, as he knew, it was not in full accordance with my wish, the rate recommended being higher than that which I regarded as desirable; and, what was worse, such as to make strict uniformity impracticable; since reservation would have to be made in favour of the local penny rates then in existence, which could not be raised without exciting overpowering dissatisfaction.

To return to the committee: only one further attempt was made to modify their resolution, viz., by a motion made at the next meeting by Lord Seymour, in the following words:—

After this day the members of Government ceased to attend, save only that Lord Seymour once reappeared during the consideration of the Report. Opposition being thus abandoned, proceedings went on rapidly, so that at the next meeting the whole of the remaining resolutions, more than twenty in number, were all carried; the Chairman being requested also to draw up a Report in conformity therewith.

As the proceedings of the committee approached their close, Mr. Wallace requested that I would undertake to prepare a draft Report for his consideration, previously to its being submitted to the Committee. From this I naturally shrank; but, upon further urgency, I so far consented as to select so much of the evidence as seemed most necessary for the purpose, cutting it out from the reports just as it stood, in question and answer, but classifying it under some twenty different heads. This, according to my recollection, I placed in Mr. Wallace’s hands, and upon it he wrote a Report. I must here mention, however, that though this Report became the basis of that finally issued, it was by no means the same document, having been re-arranged, in great measure re-written, and greatly added to, during the recess. Of this more hereafter.

Thus closed, for the present, the work of this memorable committee, on whose decision rested consequences, not only of the deepest interest to myself, but, as afterwards appeared, of importance to the whole civilized world. Seldom, I believe, has any committee worked harder. I must add that Mr. Wallace’s exertions were unsparing, his toil incessant, and his zeal in the cause unflagging. My own convictions in relation to the committee and its chairman were corroborated by the following strong passage in the Times:—

Perhaps, before proceeding to other matters, I may, without invidiousness, make one more remark in reference to the proceedings of this committee. It is not unknown that since the successful establishment of penny postage, there have appeared other claimants to its authorship. As regards Mr. Wallace, enough has been said to show that he was not of the number; though of late some persons, trusting perhaps to imperfect recollections, have advanced such claims in his name. As regards other claimants, it is most remarkable that throughout this period of contest—when no less than eighty-seven witnesses deposed in favour of the measure, and when all solid information and every weighty opinion were so valuable, when even the principle of uniformity of rate was considered of such doubtful expediency that it was carried only by the casting vote of the chairman, while the penny rate was actually rejected in favour of one of twopence,—they gave no evidence, remained unheard, and were, so far as has ever appeared, entirely silent. General Colby, indeed, on whose behalf some such claim has been advanced since his death, did give evidence, but without the least reference to further discoveries by himself beyond what has been already mentioned;[250] and I may add, that though he honoured me with his friendship to the time of his death, he never even alluded to the claim in question. Indeed, all the claims of which the public has lately heard are of very recent date, having arisen long since the success of penny postage became indisputable.

The Report adopted at the last meeting of the committee was placed in the hands of Mr. Warburton for revision; a work to which he forthwith applied himself with untiring zeal, referring occasionally to me for some detail of information, or for the verification of some calculation. I had therefore frequent occasion to call on him. I should not forget to add that in the successful introduction of postal reform his able, earnest, and continuous assistance played not merely an important, but an essential part.[251] In all my visits to his house I was received in the dining-room. I well remember the appearance of things—an appearance which never varied from first to last. What first struck me was that the room never could be used according to its name; the table, indeed, stood out in full length, sufficient for a respectable number of guests, but it was wholly occupied with piles of books, and those not of the most digestible kind, consisting almost entirely of such as in passing through the Post Office are marked Par. Pro., and are known to all the world as “blue books.” The sideboard was similarly heaped, save that a little room was left for astronomical instruments, Mr. Warburton being an able mathematician. The chairs, save one, bore each its parliamentary load, and similar lumber occupied the floor; passages only, and those narrow ones, being left between the paper walls. There were, however, one or two books of a lighter kind; but even these seemed insensible of change. On an early visit I laid hands on a number of the “Edinburgh Review,” containing one of Macaulay’s brilliant articles; and as the book always remained exactly where I laid it down, I found opportunity of reading, bit by bit, the whole essay. The one chair already mentioned, and a small table near it, were alone unencumbered with books, and alone free from the dust which, in every other part of the room, seemed to have on it the repose of years.

Meanwhile, having but inferential knowledge as to the progress of the work, and thinking it very important that no time should be lost in publishing the Report, since I hoped it might be advantageously dealt with in the newspapers during the recess, I felt a certain degree of impatience at what I supposed must prove but laborious refinement. In this feeling Mr. Wallace more than fully shared. In the course of the autumn he wrote to me, in earnest protest against the delay, his expressions growing stronger as time advanced, until on December 1st he went so far as to predict that, if the Report were withheld during the vacation, penny postage would not be carried out during the next year. He even begged that his letters might be kept as vouchers of his anxiety on the subject. In the end, however, it became clear enough that no time had really been lost, the delay being more than atoned for by the excellence of the result.

Meanwhile, too, the press, not awaiting the appearance of the Report, began to urge action by reference to what was already known. The Times, in particular, repeatedly wrote in strong support of my plan.

As I have already mentioned the more important events occurring between the prorogation of Parliament in August and the end of the year 1838, it will be seen that, so far as postal affairs were concerned, this was to me a period of comparative rest, though even then scarcely a week, or perhaps even a day, passed without their making some call on my attention. Of course, too, my duties at the Australian Commission remained undiminished, or rather, indeed, increased with the increasing flow of emigration, and the difficulties already arising in the colony. However, I was again able to breathe, and to prepare for those new anxieties which I knew must be in the future. When would the Report appear? What effect would it produce on the country? Would there be such a movement as would sufficiently influence ministers and Parliament? To me, of course, these were questions of the deepest interest, and though, for the time, the main work was, as it were, taken off my hands, yet it was necessary to keep watch, to be ready for assistance when called for, to deal with almost innumerable communications, and to pay attention to the numerous suggestions that were made. So closed the year 1838.

---

CHAPTER IV.
PENNY POSTAGE BILL.

The first circumstance that I have to record in 1839 was the receipt of a letter from Sir William Brown,[252] written from Washington, and informing me of an interview which he had had with the Postmaster-General of the United States on the subject of my pamphlet. The Postmaster-General told him that it had afforded him a great deal of information, and further that it was the intention of the United States Government to remodel the Post Office laws in the next session of Congress, and that he thought five cents for all distances would be a postage sufficient to cover expenses. This rate was afterwards adopted, though subsequently the charge was yet further reduced. Sir William gave it as his own opinion that the action of the American Government would materially assist the movement at home. Three weeks later, however, he wrote expressing his opinion that my best course would be to write to the Hon. Mr. Kennedy, who was very desirous of moving in the matter, and to whom it was wished that I should send the reports, pamphlets, &c., bearing upon the subject. In writing to this gentleman, I expressed an opinion that on account of the great extent of territory and the sparseness of population in the United States, penny postage might not be so applicable to that country as to England; but added that, as the American people did not look to their Post Office for revenue, I thought the general rate, even if not reduced to a penny, might yet be a low one.

The Report so laboriously prepared by Mr. Warburton appeared, I believe, early in March.

Of this Report (the third of the Committee of 1838) I forbear to give even a summary; not only because this would involve the repetition of much that has been already said, but because I have no hope whatever of doing justice to so very able a document, the result of many months of hard labour, the very model of a Report, and which, as such, will even now amply repay the trouble of perusal. It is invaluable as an authoritative record of a state of things so absurdly strange as to be now almost incredible, but which was nevertheless justified and upheld at the time by many able and excellent men. Moreover, its elaborate calculations, which I was called upon to check, put some of the most important questions at issue in a clear, striking, and often even amusing light. On all important points it gave to my statements and conclusions the sanction of its powerful authority. Nevertheless, as the committee had determined on the recommendation of a twopenny rate, the Report had to be framed in, at least, formal accordance with this fact; though both Mr. Wallace, in whose name it went to the committee, and Mr. Warburton, by whom it was actually drawn, were strongly in favour of the penny rate. A careful perusal of the document, however, will show that, though the twopenny rate is formally recommended, the penny rate is the one really suggested for adoption. In this sense it was understood by the public, and to my knowledge it was wished that it should be so understood. It only remained to see what effect this masterly Report would have on the country, the Parliament, and the Government. As respects the first, enough has been mentioned to justify good expectation; the same might be said in a less degree of the second; but of the third, all indications were as yet adverse.

On the 12th of April appeared, in some of the London papers, a letter which I had felt called upon to write in reply to an article in the Supplement to McCulloch’s “Commercial Dictionary,” then lately published, extracts from which had appeared in some of the newspapers. Mr. McCulloch’s opposition came very unexpectedly, since he had previously been a decided supporter of the general plan; his name having appeared amongst the select signatures to the important London petition presented to Parliament in the year 1837, and already mentioned at page 289 of this history. He had likewise supported the cause in the Courier newspaper, resented the delay in adopting my plan, had, in conversation with myself, strongly condemned the Ministers, and threatened to expose them in the “Edinburgh Review.” The only circumstance to which I could attribute his change of opinion was that he had recently been appointed head of the Stationery Department. We all know, and I myself have been charged with such experience, that questions often assume a new aspect when viewed from the windows of a Government office.

Meanwhile, meetings were taking place in various towns to petition in favour of penny postage, and strong articles on the same side appeared in many of the leading newspapers. Mr. Wallace, as chairman of the late committee, received so many letters on the subject of the movement, as to be under the necessity of publicly acknowledging them en masse, mentioning, by way of instance, that on the single day of writing he had received nine written communications in reference to various petitions, together with eight newspapers.

The Post Office, too, began to show signs of uneasiness, and made a few very cautious reductions; lowering, for instance, the postage between London and Keswick from thirteen pence to a shilling, and granting similar indulgence on London letters to twenty-one other places; the amount of reduction being in each instance the same, or, as the “Post Circular”[253] put it, not to a penny, but by a penny.

On March 23rd a somewhat remarkable scene occurred in the House of Commons; Mr. Scholefield having presented a petition from Birmingham, for which he was member, the Speaker desired all honourable members who had petitions to present on Penny Postage to bring them up; when instantly a great number of members on both sides of the House “advanced in a crowd to present them, amidst cheering on all sides.” The petitions on the subject in the course of six days amounted to two hundred and fifteen.

The number of the “Post Circular” from which I have taken this account (No. 12) contains, also, one of those amusing devices with which my friend Mr. Henry Cole knew so well how to strike the public eye. Probably the reader will not be displeased at its reproduction. The Edinburgh mail coach, it will be seen, is depicted, with its guard, coachman, and two outside passengers; the letter bags—which, as all the world knows, or then knew, usually occupied the hind boot, so as to lie under the guard’s foot—are by an artistic liberty placed on the roof, the whole being arranged in divisions of franks, newspapers, Stamp-office parcels, and chargeable letters; the first three (which are free of postage) occupy the whole roof, the last lying in small space on the top of one of the bulky divisions, the proportions being those of the mail conveyed on March 2nd, 1838. The legend below sums up the tale.

The depth and extent of public feeling by this time aroused are shown by the following extract from the Times:—

That the Times did not stand alone, is shown by a general list in the “Post Circular” of newspapers which took the same side. Though probably incomplete, it contains the names of twenty-five London papers (nine daily and sixteen weekly), and of eighty-seven provincial papers. It must be remembered, too, that the number of journals, especially of country journals, was then comparatively small.

While public feeling was thus manifesting itself at home, I received further evidence that attention was excited abroad, Mr. Hume sending me a pamphlet written by M. Piron, then second in authority in the Post Office of France, advocating reduction of postage, and speaking of my plan in very flattering terms. The rate recommended by M. Piron was twenty centimes the quarter-ounce, or, setting aside the difference of weight, nearly the same as that previously recommended here by the Parliamentary Committee. M. Piron, I may here remark, continued to press his views on the French Government (at one time, I was assured, to his own injury) till my plan, in a modified form, was adopted by the Revolutionary Government of 1848.

Now, however, came the crowning proof of the hold which the plan had taken of the public mind. On one of the first days in May, Lord Melbourne received a deputation on the subject, in which were comprised about one hundred and fifty members of Parliament, chiefly, if not exclusively, supporters of Government The principal speaker was Mr. Warburton, his most telling passage being as follows:—

* * * * *

Mr. O’Connell, mounting on a chair in a distant part of the room, spoke as follows:—

Next came Mr. Hume; his voice, as that of the watchful guardian of the national finances, carrying unusual weight, since it was known to everybody that he would be the last man to recommend any improvident course.

Not the least remarkable speech, the concluding one, was that of Mr. Moffatt, who undertook, if Government shrank from the risk of the proposed reduction, to form a City company which should take the Post Office entirely off their hands, guaranteeing to the State the same amount of revenue as before.

Lord Melbourne’s reply, though reserved, was courteous and encouraging. He recognised the importance of the deputation, acknowledged the weight of the facts produced, and while he withheld all present announcement as to the course to be adopted by Government, promised that the whole matter should receive prompt and earnest attention.

So remarkable a deputation could not but produce a great effect. Mr. Warburton’s hint was, as I learnt, well understood, and I was afterwards assured that this proceeding was the very turning-point of the movement; the Government having thereon decided to adopt the measure. Certainly, but three weeks later, I received the following letter from Mr. Warburton:—

Three days later I again heard from Mr. Warburton, as follows:—

The recommendation that I should be employed had in my view a double importance; agreeing not only with my own natural and ardent desire, but also with the inevitable conviction that if, by the alternative course, the management of my plan were committed to the hands of its avowed and persistent opponents—men who manifestly viewed it not only with dislike but with scorn, and whose predictions would be falsified if it attained success—it would have small chance of receiving that earnest and zealous attention, watchful care, and constant effort for effectual development combined with strict economy, on which I knew the desired result must depend. For convenience I mention here that after the passing of the Postage Bill, Mr. Wallace wrote to Lord Melbourne to the same effect. His letter is but a specimen of Mr. Wallace’s general course in my regard. He makes no reference to his own valuable labours, but only urges claims for me, based on the importance of my discovery.

To return to my narrative; a few days later, Mr. Warburton, having in the House asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether Government intended to proceed with a twopenny or penny rate, Lord John Russell replied that the intention of Government was to propose a resolution in favour of a uniform penny postage,[257] remarking, “the plan will be in conformity with that which has been proposed by the committee as likely to be the most beneficial one,” and adding that, though the scheme would necessarily involve many months of preparation, no time should be lost.[258] Having been apprised of Mr. Warburton’s intention, I was present when the announcement was made; and I leave the reader to imagine the deep gratification I felt.

Grave doubts yet remained as to whether my plan would be adopted in its entirety. My first anxiety was as to the introduction of stamps; their use, as already shown, being indispensable to that rapidity and economy of postal operation, without which the mere adoption of the penny rate would be extremely imperfect as a matter of public convenience, and perhaps seriously detrimental to the direct revenue. I consequently prepared a paper,[259] which was printed and circulated by the Mercantile Committee, “On the Collection of Postage by means of Stamps.” It describes in considerable detail the plan of which the first bare suggestion had been given, as already shown, early in 1837, and, except that there is no mention of the Queen’s Head—which was an after-thought—it describes with considerable accuracy the kinds of stamps now in use, and the modes of distributing them. The envelopes and adhesive stamps now so familiar to all, are described the one as “the little bags called envelopes,” and the other as “small stamped detached labels—say about an inch square—which, if prepared with a glutinous wash on the back, may be attached without a wafer.”[260] I must admit, however, that, as the paper shows, I still looked upon stamped covers or envelopes as the means which the public would most commonly employ; still believing that the adhesive stamp would be reserved for exceptional cases. Unfortunately, the recommendations contained in my paper were not acted upon until the Government had resorted to other supposed expedients, which turned out to be real impediments, and were not got rid of without much trouble.[261]

Meantime, on June 25th, Lord Radnor, in presenting forty petitions in favour of uniform penny postage, repeated Mr. Warburton’s question as to the intentions of Government, and received from Lord Melbourne the assurance that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would shortly bring the matter forward;[262] his words were as follows:—

In my anxiety to obtain for the proposed measure a favourable reception in the House of Commons, I drew up with great care a short paper, entitled “Facts and Estimates as to the Increase of Letters,” which was printed by the Mercantile Committee, a copy being sent to every member of Parliament.

A copy of this document is given in the Appendix (G). The prediction therein set forth was much longer in fulfilment than I anticipated—the gross revenue not having been made up till 1851, the twelfth year of penny postage. Probably, like most projectors, I was over-sanguine. Probably also I was unduly influenced by the evidence proceeding from the public in support of my recommendations. But the reader will find from the following narrative that after the adoption of my plan by the Legislature many circumstances occurred, which could not possibly have been foreseen, tending to delay the apparent success of my scheme of Postal Reform. Among these are the following:—

1st. Delay in the adoption of stamps, and the still greater delay in effectually supplying the public therewith.

2nd. While my plan applied to inland postage only, large reductions were also made in foreign and colonial postage, which, however right in themselves, of course had their effect in delaying the time when the amount of the gross revenue should have recovered itself.

3rd. The additional facilities to be afforded the public—more especially by a great extension of rural distribution—though a most important part of my plan, were, to say the least, for a long time delayed. This I conceive to have been a main cause of delay in the recovery of the gross revenue.

4th. Above all, the execution of my plan was, during the early years of penny postage, entrusted almost entirely to men whose official reputation was pledged, not to its success, but to its failure. Even after I entered the Post Office, near the close of the seventh year of penny postage, obstacles were so continually thrown in my way that for many years I could do comparatively little to promote the measure; and it was not till the fifteenth year, namely, when I became Secretary to the Post Office, that I could exercise any direct influence therein.

About the time that the paper mentioned above was issued, opposition arose in so strange a quarter, that if the reader were invited to conjecture, he could scarcely go right save by considering how best he could go wrong. If it had been inquired what trade was most likely to benefit by the multiplication of letters, surely the one selected would have been the trade in paper. Nevertheless, a deputation of stationers went up to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, setting forth that they and their brethren would be put to great inconvenience by the adoption of Mr. Rowland Hill’s plan. Probably the motive to this whimsical proceeding was an apprehension that the issue by Government of stamped envelopes would deprive the petitioners of an expected trade; the fear of this making them blind to the far more than counterbalancing advantage to be derived from the multiplication of that which envelopes were intended to contain. However, I must not omit to mention that, some months afterwards, when I was in office, I had a very satisfactory interview with these same gentlemen at the Treasury.

On July 5th, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in bringing forward his Budget, proposed the adoption of uniform penny postage. After having dwelt upon the fact that there had been of late a large increase of expenditure—due partly to improved administration in home affairs, partly to the establishment of ocean steamers for the conveyance of the mails, and the employment for the same purpose of railway trains instead of mail-coaches, partly to the increase of the National Debt by the borrowing of the twenty millions used in the redemption of negro slavery, partly, also, to an increase in the means of defence, and lastly, to the recent insurrection in Canada,—he observed that, as through these various circumstances there was little or no spare revenue, it would be necessary that the Government, in yielding to the general wish for the adoption of penny postage—a measure imperilling a revenue of a million and a half—must be assured of the concurrence of the House in the adoption of such means as might be necessary for making good any deficiency that might arise; he himself expecting that in the outset such deficiency would be very great. After having stated that on some points he differed from the conclusions of the committee, he proceeded to eulogise their labours in the following terms:—