COMMITTEE OF ENQUIRY (1843).
As the Committee was not moved for until so late in the session, it
could not have very long to sit; and, at the end of seven weeks, its
inquiry was brought to a close by the approach of the prorogation.
This abrupt ending was in two ways unfortunate. In the first place, it
cut short the evidence I was giving in a reply to allegations from the
Post Office; and, in the second place, it allowed no time for more than
the briefest Report. To supply these deficiencies, and to present the
whole in readable shape to the public, I drew up a careful statement of
the principal facts given in evidence, with my own comments thereon,
and published it under the title of "State and Prospects of Penny
Postage;"[1] and from this I proceed to abstract or extract, as may
appear most convenient. The pamphlet, I may add, contained, in an
appendix, the whole of the correspondence asked for by Sir Thomas
Wilde; including, therefore, the letters refused by the Treasury, but
which I had afterwards laid before the Committee in the course of my
evidence.
The witnesses before the Committee--first, myself, and afterwards the
Secretary of the Post Office, the Postmaster-General, and three other
functionaries of the department.
"The main part of my evidence consisted of written statements,
prepared from day to day, and read before the Committee. The
Committee proposed this unusual course, and though I saw that
it would greatly increase the labour of preparation, yet, as it
enabled me to adopt a better arrangement of matter than could have
been secured in an examination altogether _vivâ voce_, I readily
complied with their desire."[2]
The labour, however, was enormous--especially in the collection,
verification, and arrangement of a vast number of facts--and required
for its efficiency all practicable assistance from my family. I believe
nothing but such assistance, and the excitement of the contest, could
have enabled me to support the toil. The amount of matter laid before
the Committee may be judged of when I say that my examination-in-chief
occupies a hundred and thirty-four pages in the folio Blue Book (equal
to two volumes of an ordinary novel), and engaged the whole time of the
Committee at six consecutive sittings. The heaviest part of the work
was in the beginning, as then my time for preparation was briefest,
while, as it fell out, the mass of matter was largest--ninety-five of
the hundred and thirty-four pages being taken up with the proceedings
of the first four days.
After having restated the principal features of my plan, enumerated
the chief improvements already effected, and glanced at the chief
causes then impairing or retarding the beneficial operation of these
improvements, I repeated the statement of their results, as already
mentioned in my petition, adding that the chargeable letters had
increased to nearly threefold, while the increase in Post Office
expenses, though still, in my opinion, excessive, was, when the
accounts were cleared of certain extraneous charges, actually less for
the three years subsequent to the reduction of the rate than for the
three years previous thereto.[3]
I referred to a letter from Messrs. Pickford, by which it appeared that
they estimated the increase in the number of their letters during the
last four years, enclosures being counted in, as from 30,000 to about
720,000.[4]
I compared the results of penny postage, and of the other alterations
consequent upon it (so far as they had then been carried into effect),
with the recorded anticipations of the Post Office and of myself;
referring particularly[5] to illicit conveyance, the safety of postage
stamps, and the exchange of charge by number of enclosures for charge
by weight; on all which points the expectations of the Post Office had
proved erroneous. I also recalled Colonel Maberly's opinion that in
the first year the number of letters would not double, even if every
one were allowed to frank; Mr. Louis's estimate that the adoption of
the penny rate would cause a loss of from sevenpence to eightpence
per letter--that is, somewhat more than the gross revenue of the Post
Office at the time; and Lord Lichfield's statement in Parliament,
that each letter costs the Post Office "within the smallest fraction
of twopence-halfpenny"--a calculation making the expense double the
produce of the penny rate.[6] On the other hand, I had no difficulty in
showing that my calculations had been justified, and my expectations,
with due allowance for time and circumstance, fairly fulfilled.
I afterwards laid before the Committee a general statement of measures
of improvement not yet effected, but which I had recommended while at
the Treasury, several of them essential parts of my original plan.[7]
In addition to these, I mentioned various other measures, suggested by
experience, which I had been quite unable to bring forward for want
of opportunity. I may so far anticipate as to say that nearly all the
measures then spoken of under both headings were, after my return to
office, carried successively into effect, and that their combined
operation is the main cause of the present large amount of public
convenience and fiscal benefit derived from the Post Office. After
such an enumeration of measures, it was almost superfluous to repeat
that "the adoption of my plan was extremely incomplete, its financial
operations most injuriously interfered with, and its public benefits
lamentably cramped."
I next proceeded to examine the parliamentary return already referred
to, more than once, as the "Fallacious Return," by which it was made
to appear that the Post Office, instead of affording, as shown by
the ordinary accounts, a net revenue of £600,000, caused a positive
loss. It may well seem incredible that returns emanating from the
same department should exhibit results so widely different, and the
reader may naturally be curious as to the means by which the difference
was produced. It was mainly this: At the time when penny postage was
established, the packet service was, with little exception, charged to
the Admiralty; whereas in this return the whole amount (£612,850) was
charged against the Post Office.[8] The department on which the expense
ought to fall, or the equitable division of the charge between the two,
might be matter of question; but it is obvious that to make such a
change without notification, and thereby exhibit, by a mere shuffling
of items, results so impaired, was to lead the public into a very false
inference as to the revenue arising from the Post Office under the new
system as compared with the old. Indeed, the delusion so produced not
only misled large numbers at the time, but, as already said, haunts
some minds even to the present day.
This, however, was not all; since the return also made a pretended
division of the postage revenue under two heads, one consisting of the
inland revenue, the other including the foreign and colonial revenue--a
distinction which I showed to be made, not by actual examination of
facts and just inference therefrom, but by mere estimate. I also
showed that in this return the amount of foreign and colonial postage
was greatly swollen at the expense of the inland revenue, the purpose
obviously being to disparage the results of penny postage; and further
that, despite the statements of Sir Robert Peel and Mr. Goulburn,
the net revenue of the department was really £600,000 per annum,[9]
a statement soon confirmed by the following admission of Colonel
Maberly:--
"As I have stated over and over again, looking at it as regards
the Post Office revenue now, as compared with what the Post Office
revenue was before the penny post, the surplus of income over
expenditure is somewhere about £600,000."[10]
After disposing of the "fallacious return"--fallacious to the extent
of £600,000 per annum--I proceeded to the proof of the different
allegations of my petition.
I described a serious error lately made in a treaty with France--an
error the more vexatious as being the result of needless meddling.
Extract from my evidence:--
"The next and last case under this head [Economy] is the new
postal treaty with France, which, however excellent in its general
objects and effects, is, in consequence of important errors in
the details, operating very unfavourably on our portion of the
revenue derived from the united postage, French and English, on
letters between the two countries. Our scale of postage, as the
Committee will bear in mind, ascends by half-ounces up to one
ounce, and then by ounces. The French scale, on the other hand,
ascends by quarter-ounces. Several important results flow from
this distinction. As every letter, in regard to a portion of its
postage, is under the quarter-ounce scale, the great majority
of letters will be just within the quarter-ounce; such letters,
therefore, though liable to a French rate of 20_d._ per ounce,
and a British rate of only 10_d._ per ounce, would be charged
10_d._ each, viz., 5_d._ British and 5_d._ French--the whole being
collected sometimes by the one Post Office, sometimes by the other.
Under the old system each Government would retain its own 5_d._,
and hand over the second 5_d._ to the other Government. The English
Post Office, however, in order to relieve itself of the trouble of
accounting for the letters _numeratim_, proposed a clause by which
each Government would have accounted to the other for the whole
mail at once, according to its weight in bulk. I pointed out to
the Treasury how unfairly towards our own Government the proposed
stipulation would operate, and the proposal of the Post Office
was consequently rejected. It appears, however, by the treaty
that it was subsequently revived, with a slight modification,
which no doubt was thought would obviate the evil, but which only
slightly mitigates it. Under the treaty, we are to pay in respect
of a mail, the postage of which is collected in England, 20_d._
an ounce to the French for their share of the postage; whereas
on a mail the postage of which is to be collected in France, we
are only to receive 12_d._ per ounce. Applying this rule to the
great majority, which, as before said, are just under the quarter
ounce, the ultimate effect is, that of our 5_d._, when the postage
is collected in France, the French hand over to us only 3_d._,
retaining 2_d._ of our 5_d._, in addition to their own 5_d._;
whereas, when we collect the postage, we hand over to the French
the whole of their 5_d._, retaining our own 5_d._ without any
addition. Upon certain small classes of letters the arrangement
would be in favour of the English, but to a very slight extent even
upon such classes; and, on the general balance the disadvantage is
to an annual amount probably of some thousands of pounds."[11]
Upon the importance of additional facilities there was the less need
that I should repeat in my pamphlet what I had advanced before the
Committee, because of the ample recognition given to such importance,
in general terms, by Colonel Maberly, in his evidence:--
"The Post Office has always held the opinion, and I believe they
are right, that facilities judiciously applied will enormously
increase the correspondence; and I have sometimes myself pushed
this doctrine to a length that may be considered almost absurd,
that facilities increase correspondence almost more than reduction
of the rate."[12]
On the question, however, of what had been done towards that increase
of facilities recognised as so important, I dealt with one or two
of the most prominent points. Thus, under the head, "Security
of Correspondence," I referred to my evidence on the subject of
registration; feeling it the more necessary to enlarge upon this point
because of the exaggerated views put forth in his evidence by Colonel
Maberly as to the insecurity then existing--views expressed in such
phrases as "The department has become thoroughly demoralized;"[13]
there has been "enormous plunder and robbery;"[14] "the plunder is
terrific;"[15] and, by way of climax, "a letter posted with money in
it might as well be thrown down in the street as put into the Post
Office."[16]
After I had explained to the Committee the difficulties to be
encountered in the travelling-office--where "how the duty is to be
performed" the Postmaster-General had declared himself "altogether at
a loss to imagine," adding that "if the number of registered letters
should increase largely this office must be abolished"--a return was
ordered by the Committee, in which, when received, the danger to the
public service certainly stood forth in a ludicrous light; since it
appeared that the number of registered letters then to be dealt with in
the travelling-office, during its whole journey from London to Preston,
averaged only six each trip!
For the purpose of refuting my statement, that little or nothing had
yet been done in the way of increased facilities to the public, an
attempt was made to extort from me an admission that there had been a
great number of additional deliveries within the previous twelve months
in different parts of the kingdom. The mode taken was to inquire if I
were aware of large augmentations in particular towns selected by the
querist (Mr. Estcott), who said that he spoke from his own knowledge,
and to lead the Committee to infer, from my inability to reply off-hand
to such questions, that I must be ignorant on the general subject; the
whole was made up of parts, and if I could not speak to these, how
could I be informed as to that?[17] In the interval, however, between
my two interrogations on this subject, I produced evidence flatly
contradicting, so far as related to two out of the three towns named,
the allegations so distinctly implied in the questions of the hon.
member.[18]
Such are a few of the matters selected for my pamphlet, out of the many
dealt with in my evidence relative to past proceedings.
The next point of consideration was the probability of the completion
of my plan. I again quote from my pamphlet, premising that in the
previous passage I had referred to the importance which I had always
attached to the plan as a whole, and to the Duke of Wellington's
emphatic recognition of such importance:--
"As regards probabilities, it is a curious fact that, from the
institution of the Post Office to the present time, no important
improvement has had its origin in that establishment.[19] The
town-posts originated with a Mr. Dockwra,[20] shortly before the
Restoration; the cross-posts with Mr. Allen, about the middle of
last century; and the substitution of mail-coaches for horse and
foot posts was, as is well known, the work of Mr. Palmer some
thirty years later. It is remarkable that the cases of Dockwra and
Palmer bear a considerable resemblance to my own. The opposition
to the introduction, and, what is more extraordinary, to the
working-out and even the continuance of Palmer's plan, is too
well known to be dwelt on here; but both these remarkable men saw
their plans adopted, were themselves engaged to work them out, and
subsequently, on the complaint of the Post Office, were turned
adrift by the Treasury."[21]
I may remark here that though the three reformers--Dockwra, Palmer, and
I--were all alike in the fact of dismissal, a subsequent distinction
must be observed. Mr. Dockwra, I fear, never received any recompense
for his valuable improvement; Mr. Palmer was allowed a pension of
£3,000 per annum, an amount much below that promised him in the case of
success--obtaining, however, after many years delay, a parliamentary
grant of £50,000; I alone was so far favoured as to be recalled to aid
in the completion of my plan.
In dealing with this question of probabilities, I was obliged to dwell
strongly on the notorious hostility of the Post Office, as well as
its incapacity for the task to be performed: to refer, for instance,
to Colonel Maberly's habitual prediction of failure,[22] and Lord
Lowther's declared inability to see anything in my plan save the
introduction of a penny rate, and the establishment of a third delivery
to Hampstead.[23] I had also to show, from the past inaction and
indifference of the Treasury, the hopelessness of looking for efficient
aid in that quarter.
Before concluding the account of my evidence, I extract a passage,
which may perhaps afford some little amusement. The reader will
recollect the circumstances already mentioned relative to a notice
issued by the Post Office, recommending persons corresponding with
the far East by the Overland Mail to appoint agents in India for the
payment of the onward postage.[24] On this subject the following
passages occurred before the Committee:--
"_Chairman._--With regard to Indian letters, an objection was taken
by the East India Company to forwarding letters from Bombay unless
payment was made at Bombay?--I am aware of that.
"That was notified to the Post Office by the East India
Company?--Unquestionably.
"The Post Office gave notice to the public of such detention on the
part of the East India Company?--Yes.
"Did they do anything more than that?--Yes; they advised that every
one wishing to write to places beyond Bombay should appoint an
agent for the payment of the transit postage.
"The Post Office advised that?--Yes.
"Where does such advice appear?--In the notice given by the Post
Office on the occasion.
* * * * *
"Does that contain anything more than an announcement to the public
that the East India Company had made such a regulation?--Yes; it
contains a recommendation to the public to address their letters to
the care of correspondents in India.
* * * * *
"_Mr. Tennent._--The tenor of your former answer would import that
that was a suggestion emanating from the Post Office; are you aware
that that was a recommendation made to the public by the Post
Office in pursuance of direct instructions from the Directors of
the East India Company?--I was not aware till this moment that the
Directors of the East India Company had power to issue instructions
to the Postmaster-General.
* * * * *
"Are you aware of any instruction given by the East India Directors
to the Post Office, that if parties wished their letters to be
forwarded, they must find an agent there to do it?--I have, of
course, no means of knowing the correspondence between the Post
Office and the East India Company.
* * * * *
"But assuming that the facts are as I gather from the questions of
the honourable gentleman, I do not see how those facts can place
the Post Office under the necessity of calling upon the British
public to do that which is quite impracticable.
* * * * *
"_Chairman._--What course has been taken?--The course which appears
to have been taken is this, that the Post Office issued the notice
I have read in the course of the last April, and that it was
withdrawn almost immediately after, in consequence, as it appears
to me, of the ridicule which the proceeding brought upon the Post
Office."[25]
The proceedings of the Committee, as I have already stated, were
brought to a rather abrupt conclusion, so as to prevent, for the
moment, an elaborate Report. Nevertheless the power to say enough to
acquit both the Treasury and Post Office was obviously in the hands of
the majority, had it felt warranted in such a course; or again, if the
inquiry were judged incomplete, nothing could have been easier than to
procure the reappointment of the Committee in the following session,
and so to obtain abundant time for the formal acquittal of both
departments, together with an equally complete condemnation of myself.
Neither course, however, was taken. The Committee merely reported what
it had done, regretted its inability, for want of time, to report
its opinion, but gave the evidence and various correspondence, and
entertained no doubt that both the Treasury and the Post Office would
give my proposals the fullest consideration.[26] The reader must
imagine for himself, if he can, the grounds on which the Committee had
to rest when they expressed such confidence. All I need say here is,
that I can point to but little in subsequent events to relieve his
perplexity.
My pamphlet continued as follows:--
"In conclusion, I must repeat that if in this pamphlet I have
limited my attention to portions only of the late evidence, the
selection is made merely for brevity. It would be impossible,
without extending these remarks to a most tedious length, even to
touch upon all the points in debate. There is not a single one,
however, I most emphatically declare, from the discussion of which
I have the least disposition to shrink; nor, I maintain, _a single
material point on which my positions were shaken by the Post Office
evidence_--all apparent effect of the kind being referable to such
misrepresentation, distortion, or suppression, however unwittingly
employed, as has been exposed in these pages.
"Under these circumstances, what remains for me to do? So long
as there is no opportunity of advancing the public benefit, and
so long as the absence of all power relieves me in justice from
all responsibility, it is my earnest wish to retire from labours
so heavy as those in which I have now for many years been
engaged;--to avoid conflicts which, though I have not shrunk from
them when necessary, have always been repugnant to my feelings and
remote from my habits of life;--and, if possible, to recruit that
health which both these causes have seriously impaired."[27]
The preparation of the pamphlet from which I have drawn the foregoing
account could not, of course, begin until the appearance of the printed
report of the Committee's proceedings, which was not until more than
three months after their close. The interim allowed me a period for
needful rest, and was not quite without features of interest.
On September 7th I received a letter from the Spanish Minister in
London, requesting information desired by his Government, with a view
to the introduction of the postage-stamp into Spain. Such information
I was, of course, most happy to supply; the more so as I felt that the
very use of the stamp must involve a certain amount of uniformity, and,
as a consequence, tend to low rates.
Not long afterwards, the papers announced that the Russian Government
also had adopted the stamp, though for a reason which the Englishman
even of that time would hardly have imagined for himself, and which
certainly I had not set forth among expected advantages. The motive
in each case was understood to be the desire of preventing fraud in
the postmasters; and it is obvious that much peculation, practicable
under the system of money payments, would be prevented by the use of
stamps. It is remarkable, however, that the first countries to adopt
the improvement--Spain and Russia--should be two so far from taking a
general lead in European civilization and liberality.
On November 22nd the Committee's Report was issued, and without loss
of time I fell to such perusal and annotation of the whole evidence
as were necessary preliminaries to the writing of my pamphlet. It was
finished before the end of January, and copies were immediately sent to
the leading journals, to every member of the Postage Committee, to Sir
Robert Peel and Mr. Goulburn, to various other influential persons, and
to a large number of friends and supporters.
Amongst various letters of acknowledgement I received the following:--
"From the Rev. Sydney Smith.
"SIR,--Many thanks for your book, which I will diligently read,
as I know no one who has increased the public happiness and
comfort more than yourself (I do not meddle with the question of
revenue--that is a separate chapter); but it is impossible to
speak too highly of the advantage and satisfaction your plan has
afforded to the country at large; and though it may have diminished
the revenue directly, I think it might easily be that facility of
communication is a great source of wealth and revenue too.
"February 22nd, 1844."
"From Miss Martineau. "February 26th, 1844.
"DEAR MR. HILL,--I write not to trouble you for an answer, about
which I always feel most scrupulous, but to thank you for sending
me your last statement. It is most painfully interesting; and it
seems to be found so by others, for my copy has been passing from
hand to hand, since the day after I had it. At first reading I was,
I own, more discouraged than I ever felt before; but the more I
consider, the more persuaded I am that all will yet end well. Of
one thing I am now fully convinced--that there is _no_ danger of
any one supposing you responsible for 'improvements' superficially
resembling yours, but expensive and ill-managed. From all I can
learn everywhere, it does seem clear that a broad distinct line
is drawn between your propositions and those of the reckless ...
or any one else. I am always _at it_ with my acquaintance in
Parliament; and what I see there is the ground of my hope that you
will get justice at last. I find them all, at first, prone to
the very natural error of supposing the Post Office gentry good
authority on Post Office matters. When they take my reference to
the Report, and find what a figure these same gentry cut there, a
great point is gained, from which, surely, justice must, sooner or
later, ensue."