In reference to the popular demand for the measure, he made the following remarkable declaration:—

Judiciously thinking that it would be better for the House to leave the details of the measure in the hands of Government, he demanded for the Treasury the power at once of fixing the rates of postage, of ordering payment by weight, of making prepayment compulsory, and of establishing the use of stamps. He concluded by moving the following Resolution:—

Such opposition as was made was directed rather against the pledge required of the House than against the plan of penny postage, and on that point Sir Robert Peel and Mr. Goulbourn were supported by some members on the Liberal side of the House, including Mr. Hume, who regarded such pledge as superfluous, seeing that the House was at all times bound to maintain the national income. He also thought that the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s estimate of deficiency was excessive, he himself believing that though there might be a serious deficiency the first, and even the second, year, it was probable that, as by that time the plan would be in full operation, the future deficiency would not be greater than Mr. Hill had allowed for.

All, however, concurred in the opinion that if the experiment were to be made the penny rate was to be preferred to any other; and while Mr. Goulbourn said that he should have been much in favour of the measure were there but a surplus to justify the risk, Sir Robert Peel went so far as to say—

It was very noticeable at the time that, after citing the strongly condemnatory opinions of Colonel Maberly and Lord Lichfield, Sir Robert Peel remarked, “I do not say that these opinions convince me.”[268]

The Resolution was agreed to without division.

A week later, the Chancellor of the Exchequer having moved that the Report on the Postage Acts be received, Mr. Goulbourn, who might be regarded as the Chancellor of the Exchequer expectant, moved resolutions of which the object was to have the measure of penny postage postponed, on the ground, mainly, of the present deficiency in the revenue, the extensive powers proposed to be given to the Treasury, and the opposition of the paper-makers.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in reply, pointed out several recent instances of partial reduction in postage rates which had been followed, speedily, by an increase of revenue, taunted the opposition members with altered tactics since the last debate, and challenged them to a direct vote against penny postage.

Sir Robert Peel repeated the arguments of Mr. Goulbourn, and again urged objections to the pledge to make good any loss of revenue.

On the division, the “ayes” were 215, and the “noes” 113, giving a majority of 102 in favour of penny postage.[269]

Those who frequented the House of Commons thirty years ago will remember the two doorkeepers of the day—Mr. Pratt, a somewhat tall and grave personage, and Mr. Williams, a chubby red-faced man, who seemed as if he escaped bursting only by the relief he found in laughing at the exuberance of his own humour. Both these men were zealous friends of penny postage, and, in the warmth of their friendship, always went at least as far as duty permitted, in enabling me to attend the discussions on postal matters. On the night when the division took place their excitement was prodigious. During the debate I had sat under the gallery, but on the division had, of course, to withdraw. As I passed into the outer lobby, the inner being required in the division, and used, as it happened, to receive the supporters of the measure, my two friends warned me to keep near the door, that they might let me know how things went on. I took my station accordingly, and ever and anon was informed through the grating in the door, the flap being for the moment withdrawn, as to how matters were going on. Each report was better than the last, Williams’s eager face beaming at each momentary glimpse with increased gratification: “All right,” “Going on capitally,” “Sure of a majority,” were given out in succession, until the climax was reached by his whispering audibly, amidst laughter which he strove in vain to control, “Why, here’s old Sibby come out;” and certainly when I learnt that Colonel Sibthorpe, the Tory of Tories, was amongst the supporters of my plan, I could not but feel that the game was won.

The measure was now considered secure so far as related to the House of Commons, but people had not yet forgotten the warning given by the ejaculation so common seven or eight years before, “Thank God, there’s a House of Lords!” and anxiety began to arise as to the reception which the measure might experience in the Upper House. Promptly, therefore, the Mercantile Committee directed its attention that way, and appointed certain of its members as a deputation to wait upon a few of the more influential peers. In executing this mission, the deputation naturally sought an interview with the Duke of Wellington; their application, however, receiving the following characteristic reply:—

Being thus disappointed of an interview, the deputation requested me to undertake the duty of addressing the Duke by letter. I wrote as follows:—

To this letter I received no reply, nor was any expected; but the letter appears to have had its effect, for when the debate came on, the Duke, as will be seen hereafter, distinctly supported the measure.

Meanwhile the bill for establishing penny postage was brought in by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lord John Russell, and Mr. F. Baring; and passed the first reading without discussion.[270]

The second reading took place on the 22nd July, after a debate in which Mr. Goulbourn, Sir Robert Inglis, and Sir Robert Peel attacked, and Mr. Francis Baring, Lord Seymour, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Wallace, and Mr. Warburton defended the bill. The attack was founded chiefly on the large powers granted to the Treasury, though Sir R. Peel, while admitting “that a great reduction of postage might be made, not only without injury, but with great advantage to the revenue,” thought, however, “that it would be better to make a partial reduction of the postage duties than to repeal them almost entirely, as is now proposed,” and considered “that the advantages to be derived from such a proposition are much over-rated.”[271] Sir Robert Inglis also objected to the abolition of the Parliamentary privilege of franking, stating incidentally that to some mercantile houses it was worth £300 a year; but his objection was over-ruled by Sir Robert Peel, who strongly urged the importance of abolishing the privilege in question, adding that, if each Government department were required to pay its own postage, much would be done towards checking abuse. He also advised that “Parliamentary Proceedings” should be subjected to a moderate postage charge; and it is scarcely necessary to add that Sir Robert Peel’s advice on this point was followed.[272] The bill was read without a division.

On the following day the public anxiety relative to the House of Lords showed itself in a petition “signed by the Mayor and upwards of twelve thousand five hundred of the merchants of the city of London, which the Noble Lord who presented the petition understood had been signed in twelve hours,” praying that no temporary deficiency of revenue might delay the establishment of penny postage.[273] As this, though not by any means the last petition presented, is the last requiring notice, it may not be amiss to mention here that the number of petitions presented to Parliament in favour of penny postage during the single session of 1839 was upwards of two thousand, the number of appended signatures being about a quarter of a million; while as many of the petitions proceeded from Town Councils, Chambers of Commerce, and other such Corporations, a single signature in many instances represented a considerable number of persons.

On July the 29th the bill was read a third time and passed, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announcing, in reply to Sir Robert Peel, that Government had not yet determined on the precise mode in which the measure should be introduced.[274]

Before following the bill to the Upper House I will mention a circumstance which, however trifling in itself, may derive some interest from its connection with a body so much the “observed of all observers” as the House of Commons. One night, when a discussion on Post Office affairs was to come on, I was sitting under the gallery, when one of the members suggested to me that I should go upstairs and get some refreshment; a hint of which, after some hesitation as to the propriety of intruding, I gladly availed myself. Following the directions I received, I went to the “Kitchen,” where the cooks were hard at work. Upon my request for tea a wooden tea-tray was handed to me. As I half suspected that I was thus made to wait upon myself because I was looked upon as an intruder, I watched the motions of such as came by unquestionable right. Scarcely had I taken my seat when I saw Joseph Hume doing as I had done; others followed in like manner, and I soon became aware that this was the common practice. Whether any change has been made I know not, but I was glad to remark that the members of an assembly accounted one of the most fastidious in the world were not ashamed to wait upon themselves.

A few days later I received a letter from Lord Duncannon, informing me that Lord Melbourne wished to see me at one o’clock on the following Sunday. On calling, I found only Lord Duncannon in the drawing-room, who informed me that the Premier was not yet up, though, as he had been assured by the servants, he might soon be expected. I must mention, by the way, that Lord Duncannon, who always, I believe, save in his official capacity, had been friendly to my plan, had now taken it up with a certain degree of warmth, having in his place in Parliament declared himself persuaded, “that, with great exertion on the part of those who are to carry the bill into execution, there will ultimately not be any loss,” and added, “that he never recollected so strong a wish having been expressed to both Houses of Parliament on any measure as had been expressed on the subject of postage.”[275]

After a little time Lord Melbourne made his appearance, in his dressing-gown. My reception was most kindly, and we presently went to work. In the course of conversation I had occasion to speak of Mr. Warburton, when Lord Melbourne interrupted me with, “Warburton! Warburton! He’s one of your moral-force men, isn’t he?” I replied that I certainly believed Mr. Warburton’s hopes of improvement did rest more on moral than on physical force. “Well,” he rejoined, “I can understand your physical-force men, but as to your moral-force men, I’ll be damned if I know what they mean.” Not hitting upon any apposite reply, I remained silent, and a second time we returned to the subject of the interview, until at length, seeming to have become possessed of his subject, he began to pace the room, as if arranging his speech; often moving his lips, though uttering no audible sound. In this process, however, he was interrupted by the entrance of a servant, who made an announcement which did not reach my ear. The answer was, “Show him into the other room,” and, after a short time, Lord Melbourne, apologising for leaving us, withdrew. A minute afterwards, the hum of conversation sounded through the folding-doors, and, by-and-by, one of the voices gradually rose in distinctness and earnestness, taking at length an angry tone, in which I presently heard my own name pronounced. As the voice seemed to me that of a stranger, I must have turned an inquiring eye towards Lord Duncannon, who informed me that it was that of Lord Lichfield. After a while, warmth seemed to abate, the tone became moderate, and at length the farewell was given, Lord Melbourne, re-entering by the folding-doors, with the remark, “Lichfield has been here; I can’t think why a man can’t talk of penny postage without going into a passion.”

Next day, August 5th, Lord Melbourne proposed, in a long speech, the second reading of the Postage Bill. He fully admitted that the income of the country fell short of the expenditure—allowed that there was great uncertainty as to the fiscal results of penny postage; but intimated that a surplus or deficiency of three or four hundred thousand pounds in an income of forty-eight millions was a matter of comparatively little moment, and justified the course Government had taken mainly on the ground of “the very general feeling and general concurrence of all parties in favour of the plan.”

The Duke of Wellington, after stating various objections to the measure, especially on the score of depression in the finances, yet recognising the evils of high postage rates, and expressing an opinion “that that which was called Mr. Rowland Hill’s plan was, if it was adopted exactly as proposed, of all plans that most likely to be successful,” concluded with saying, “I shall, although with great reluctance, vote for the bill, and I earnestly recommend you to do likewise.”

The Earl of Lichfield was anxious to remove the impression that he was opposed to the measure, and “to show that, with perfect consistency with all that he had said or done, he could give a vote for the proposal of his noble friend at the head of the Government.” He supported the plan, however, “on entirely different grounds from those on which Mr. Hill proposed it,” viz., in relation to the universal demand for the measure, and on the understanding that it was not expected “that by the measure either the revenue would be a gainer or that under it the revenue would be equal to that now derived from the Post Office department.”[276]

The bill was read a second time, without a division.

In accordance with Lord Melbourne’s request I was present during the discussion; as it proceeded there was much anxiety as to the result, but, above all, speculation was busy as to the course that would be taken by the Duke of Wellington. I remember, however, that in the outset I myself felt rather confident on this latter point, having received assurance, as I think, from Lord Duncannon; but when in the course of the discussion the Duke dwelt on the low state of the national finances, and the danger of reducing a duty under such circumstances, I began to fear that I had been misinformed. I suppose this feeling must have been expressed by my looks, for Lord Duncannon, leaving his seat, kindly came to where I sat, on the steps of the throne, and whispered, “Don’t be alarmed, he’s not going to oppose us.” Thus reassured I listened calmly, and, as the Duke proceeded, perceived distinctly that my fears were groundless.

The third reading took place four days later without even a debate. The bill received the Royal assent on the 17th. I must not omit to mention that on the Royal assent being given, Mr. Wallace, with his usual kindness, wrote to my wife, to congratulate her on the success of her husband’s efforts, a success to which her unremitting exertions had greatly contributed.

Thus, in little more than three years from the time when I entered seriously upon my investigations, and in little more than two years and a-half from my first application to Government, this measure, so bold in its innovation and paradoxical in its policy as to be met in the outset with the ridicule and scorn of those to whom the public naturally looked as best qualified by position to judge of its value, had become law.[277]

And now again came a period of comparative rest, though my thoughts frequently reverted to the recommendations kindly made by Mr. Warburton and Mr. Wallace, with no small anxiety about my future relations to the reform now resolved upon. Friends on all hands assured me that, as Government had taken my plan, it must also take me; but to my mind the consequence did not appear certain; and even supposing it sure that Government would take me, it yet remained to be inquired what the Government would do with me. Many were the suggestions that were made. The following may be taken as a specimen. One of my brothers meeting Lord King, the following conversation took place. “Well, what are Government going to do with your brother Rowland?” “Nay, my Lord, I do not know that they are going to do anything with him.” “Oh, they must give him something, no doubt of that; the only question is what. Now this is what they clearly ought to do. They should tell Colonel Maberly that he has fought his battle well, stood to his guns to the last, but has been defeated; and that being the case, must, of course, withdraw and make way for his successful rival.”

While I thus kept an eye on everything that might give indication as to my future, I received the following letter from Lord Ashburton, who had been the first amongst men high in influence and position to take an active part in the promotion of my plan. It will be remarked that his Lordship, owing doubtless to his long experience in financial affairs, was more correct than I in his estimate of immediate results; but it must be remembered that penny postage was left for years without those supports which formed an essential part of my plan, and which had been so pointedly urged by the Duke of Wellington as necessary to its results:—

About a fortnight later, I was summoned to take my part in a very gratifying proceeding at Wolverhampton, where a subscription had been raised to present me with a handsome silver candelabrum, which bore the following inscription:—

---

CHAPTER V.
APPOINTMENT IN TREASURY. (1839.)

Before leaving town for Wolverhampton, as I was in constant hope of a communication from Government, I had given strict injunction at the South Australian Office that if any such communication arrived it should be forwarded without delay. Now it so happened that a certain gentleman, well known to us at the time in connection with Australian affairs, had bestowed on our proceedings more attention than was either profitable or convenient, and had begun to be regarded much in the light in which, doubtless, I myself was then viewed at the Post Office; in short, he had been unanimously voted an intolerable bore. When, therefore, a packet arrived at the office with what appeared to be his name written in the left-hand corner of the direction, it was naturally treated as a missive which might very conveniently await my return; and it was not until a messenger came from the Treasury to inquire why no notice had been taken of a letter from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the clerk on duty became aware of the mistake. Hastening to correct the blunder, well aware of the Post Office delay, and impressed with the novel speed of railway conveyance, he instantly made up the despatch in a brown paper parcel, which he sent, with all speed, to the station, but which, by the tardiness of its conveyance, practically demonstrated that even postal dilatoriness might be outdone.

The packet came into my hands just before the ceremony of presentation began, and, being eagerly opened, was found to contain a summons to Downing Street; a fact contributing, as may be supposed, not a little to the pleasure of the day.

On presenting myself at the Treasury I was very courteously received by the new Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. (afterwards Sir) Francis Baring (Mr. Spring Rice having been just raised to the peerage). Before speaking of what occurred, I wish to premise that I afterwards found in Mr. Baring a steady friend and zealous supporter, his kind interest in my plan and myself never failing until death.

This first interview, however, was on one important point very unsatisfactory. To make this clear, it must be recollected that I then held a permanent office, involving heavy duties and implying great trust and responsibility, and that though my salary was as yet only £500 a-year (all salaries in this new department being then low), yet as I had been fortunate enough to give full satisfaction, I had every prospect of increase, and a fair chance of promotion. When, therefore, it was proposed that I should abandon this position to accept an engagement for two years only, without any increase of salary, I must confess I could scarcely avoid regarding the offer as an affront. I was yet more struck with the disadvantage to which the degradation (for such it was) which I was to suffer would place me in respect of ability to carry out my plans; nor did I try to conceal my feelings. However I brought the conference to a close by informing Mr. Baring that I must consult my friends upon his offer; and that, as my eldest brother was then at Leicester, I thought it would be three days before I could give my answer.

Accordingly, on the following day, I went to Leicester, arriving late in the evening. I found my brother stretched on a sofa; he had had a hard day’s work, and seemed quite exhausted; so that although I was aware he must know that important business alone could have brought me so far, I naturally proposed to defer everything to the next day. Of this, however, he would not hear; saying that he had another day’s hard work before him, so that no time must be lost. To do the best under the circumstances, I began my story in as passionless a manner as I could command; and for a short time he listened quietly enough, seeming too much oppressed by fatigue to be capable of strong interest. When, however, I came to the offer of £500, a sudden change occurred. He seemed not merely to start but to bound from the sofa, his face flushing, and his frame quivering with indignation. When he became somewhat more composed, and the whole matter had been duly discussed, he suggested that he should write a letter for me to hand to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I eagerly accepted his offer, but he consented—the hour being by this time over late—to defer the execution of his task until morning.

At an early hour, we were at work, I writing from his dictation. When the letter was completed, I returned to town by the first conveyance, reaching home in the middle of the night. The following is my brother’s letter. I need not apologize for its insertion in full:—

This letter I forwarded the next day, enclosing it in a short one from myself to the same effect; in which also I proposed to wait upon Mr. Baring at four o’clock, to give him any further explanation.

I was received in a manner not merely courteous but most friendly; no time was lost in debate, and I was requested to call again the following day at one o’clock, to see the draft of a letter which Mr. Baring undertook to prepare meanwhile. Of this letter, which, upon my expressing satisfaction with it, Mr. Baring immediately signed and handed to me, the following is a copy:—

Of course I inwardly objected to that clause in the letter which limited my absolute engagement to two years, but I reckoned upon making myself within that period so useful as to secure a permanent appointment. Mr. Baring having referred to the arrangement which placed me, not at the Post Office, but at the Treasury, I replied that of course he might put me then where he liked, but that I should end by being Secretary to the Post Office—a prediction in the end fulfilled, though certainly by no means so speedily as I expected.

The letter was soon followed by a Treasury Minute, making the formal appointment. On carefully reconsidering both, I thought that my powers were neither so considerable nor so clearly set forth as could be desired; nevertheless two days later, viz., on Monday, September 16th, 1839, I entered on the duties of my new office, rejoicing in the belief that I was at length in a position to effect the great reform I had originated, feeling, also, at the moment, well rewarded for all past labours and anxieties, and, though not blind to future difficulties, yet too well pleased with my success thus far to allow any painful anticipations much place in my thoughts.

From what has already been stated, the reader must be aware that, however deep the gratification with which, at the end of three years’ unceasing effort, I at length found myself in a recognised position, in direct communication with persons of high authority, and intrusted with powers which, however weak and limited in the outset, seemed, if discreetly used, not unlikely in due time to acquire strength and durability, I was far from supposing that the attainment of my post was the attainment of my object. The obstacles, numerous and formidable, which had been indicated in my brother’s letter, had all, I felt, a real existence; while others were sure to appear, of which, as yet, I knew little or nothing. Still I felt no way daunted, but relying at once on the efficiency of my plan, and on the promised support of Government, I felt confident of succeeding in the end.

On the very day that I took my place in Downing Street I accompanied the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the Post Office, in order to inspect the practical working of the department, which, as already mentioned, I had never had an opportunity of witnessing. My first impressions contradicted in some measure my expectations; the whole process of dealing with the letters I found more rapid than I had supposed. Here, however, was a fallacy very naturally produced, and which has doubtless imposed upon many an unpractised visitor. The presence of strangers naturally puts every man on his mettle; and efforts are made which could not be long sustained. Again, the head of a department, zealous for its reputation, directs observation, unconsciously perhaps, to his best men; while the unwary spectator, generalizing on both points, attributes to every pair of hands and to the whole period of manipulation a speed which rightly pertains only to a few individuals, and even in their case to a very brief time. Another source of misconception I found to lurk in the many errors made in the haste of action; whereby a large number of letters came back to the hands which had passed them, and being viewed by the observer as new letters failed, of course, to produce any abatement in his estimate of speed.

I found the “taxation of letters” more rapid, and the sorting slower, than I had reckoned upon; but soon perceived that the sorting was greatly impeded by want of room, which was indeed bitterly complained of by those concerned. This lack of space was the more remarkable, since the building, which had been erected at enormous expense, was as yet only ten years old, and had witnessed but little increase of business within its walls.

The rooms indeed were lofty, even to the full height of the edifice, but yet ill ventilated; reminding one of what has been said by I forget whom, that, if the crowd be but dense enough, a man may be stifled even where his ceiling is the sky. A thermometer in the room marked 72°, but I was informed it sometimes rose to 90°; so that between heat and impurity of the air the men’s working powers must have been seriously impaired; to say nothing of more lasting injury to their health. Some of the officers in attendance suggested the construction of galleries, which, without lessening the general height of the room, might afford more space; but knowing that mere height, as indeed shown by the actual state of things, is but a secondary consideration, and observing that there was considerable space between the ceiling and the roof, I recommended that the room should be divided into two floors, the ceiling being raised, and that for the removal of bags, recourse should be had to lifts, such as I had seen in use in the cotton mills at Belper and elsewhere. Both these suggestions were in the end adopted.

As this inspection had the disadvantage of being foreknown, I determined that my next should be made without notice; and accordingly somewhat surprised my friends at the Office by appearing amongst them soon after six the next morning. I did not perceive, however, any noticeable difference in the state of things, save that, the work being less, and the hands therefore fewer, there was a corresponding decrease of bustle and closeness.

I suggested to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that, as room at the Post Office was already deficient, and was likely to be more so when the lower rate was adopted, no time should be lost in establishing the district offices and uniting the two corps of letter-carriers, as I had recommended. By his request I drew up a paper giving my views in detail. To dispose of this matter for the present, I must say that I did not then succeed in convincing him of the soundness of my views, and that, in fact, they were not acted upon until fifteen years later.

I may mention here, that my Journal, after a long suspension, was now resumed; and it is by reference to this that I am able to give details which have long ago passed from my memory. I find that my practice was still to rise at six, and to proceed straightway to work at my official duties; indeed, when I was at the Treasury, my attention was so much diverted to questions of detail on postal matters of all kinds that, had I confined my work to office hours, though I made these unusually long, the progress of reform, slow as it actually was, would have been reduced to a veritable snail’s pace. My long hours, however, soon obliged me to apply for additional assistance.

From this Journal I proceed to give one or two extracts:—