PROMULGATION OF MY PLAN.
As yet I had proceeded almost alone; but when I had made a draft of my
intended pamphlet, our usual family council was convened, to hear it read
and consider its contents. I cannot now recall, even vaguely, the various
discussions that ensued, nor the suggestions and modifications to which
they gave rise; but the general result was a hearty approval of the plan,
and that ready co-operation in promoting it which never failed me in any
need, either before or after. Probably the wording of the draft underwent
various changes, but the general tenour remained unaltered; and when all
had been done that our united care could effect, the paper was printed
(though marked “Private and Confidential.”) With certain exceptions,
to be named hereafter, and with some additions to the Appendix, it
was substantially and almost literally the same as that subsequently
published under the title of “Post Office Reform, Second Edition.”[125]
When, however, I placed my paper in the hands of Government (which I did
early in January, 1837), it was in the earnest desire that no publication
might be necessary.[126] Hoping, with the sanguine expectation of
an inventor, that a right understanding of my plan must secure its
adoption, and relying with confidence on the clearness and force of my
exposition, I little knew as yet the endless complexities in the machine
of Government, the deep-rooted prejudice of routine, or the countless
interests ready to start up in alarm at the appearance of innovation.
The first result, however, of my sending in my treatise was encouraging,
as I received a summons to wait upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr.
Spring Rice. I must add that he received me courteously, that he listened
attentively to my representations, and seemed to imply a sort of general
approval of my plan, by suggesting some modification in detail, advising
the reconsideration of some of its parts, and recommending that in some
others the facts and arguments should be given more in detail; and, in
conclusion, by requesting me to send in a supplement to my paper.
In this document, which I sent in on the 28th of the same month
(January), I gave more in detail my reasons for expecting a great
increase in the number of letters. The ounce, which I had taken merely as
the lowest rate then recognised in the Post Office, having been objected
to as too large for the minimum weight and measure of increase (on the
ground that it would allow several letters to be sent under one cover,
to be afterwards distributed by private hand), I adopted the Chancellor
of the Exchequer’s suggestion for the substitution of the half-ounce.
Perhaps some future reformer may recommend the restoration of the
original standard.[127] On the other hand, the pound having been objected
to as too high a maximum, since its use might excite discontent among
coach proprietors and other carriers, who would probably regard it as an
interference with their trade, I proposed a reduction to four ounces. At
a later period, however, if I may so far anticipate events, when penny
postage came to be established, the pound limit was the one adopted,
and even this limitation was afterwards withdrawn, so as to leave no
restriction in weight save what would arise from augmented charge.
I had also to deal with the question of prepayment, on which difficulties
had been raised both in the office and by some persons without; the
former taking alarm lest its establishment, however attained, should
greatly diminish the amount of correspondence, and the latter objecting
that it would enable the clerks in the Post Office to become possessed
of information relative to parties corresponding which might be used
for the commercial injury of one or other, and also pointing out that
servants or others intrusted with money for the payment of postage might
be tempted to keep this for their own use, destroying the letters to
conceal their dishonesty. While giving various reasons, which I need
not repeat, for declining to share in the alarm of the Post Office,
I suggested, as a means of obviating the other difficulties, the use
of stamped covers, a device which, as I have already mentioned,[128]
had been originally recommended, not, indeed, for letters, but for
newspapers, by Mr. Charles Knight; and I take occasion to remark that the
mention of this expedient, as applied to letters, occurred for the first
time in this supplementary paper. I pointed out at the same time that, to
whatever extent the covers might be used, to that extent, or nearly so,
the revenue would be collected in large sums instead of small, a change
obviously tending to the simplification of accounts in the department
concerned.
I submitted at the same time that mode of gradual introduction of my plan
which appeared almost immediately afterwards in the second edition of my
pamphlet; and, as time would be required for the preliminary arrangements
necessarily extending over the whole country, I suggested its
experimental application, in the meantime, to the local correspondence of
the London District, containing, as I pointed out, one-twelfth part of
the whole population of the United Kingdom.
To return to my interview with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I must
admit that the hopes with which it began were considerably damped
before its close. I was at least made very distinctly aware that
Government had by no means made up its mind to the adoption of my plan.
This was very disappointing, for I could not but feel that unless the
plan were voluntarily taken up by Government, its introduction would
have to encounter serious obstacles, and would be attended with grave
disadvantages. If the public must be called on to enforce attention on
a reluctant Government, even supposing the call to be answered, the
plan would have to be adopted in such shape and in such manner as the
public voice might demand, little thanks meantime being given for the
concession; whereas if Government kept the matter entirely in its own
hands, it might proceed tentatively, and therefore safely; lowering
the rates with caution, and meanwhile removing anomalies, increasing
facilities, extending operations, and taking all other measures tending
to enlarge public convenience, to increase correspondence, and to sustain
the revenue; while every succeeding improvement would come with a grace,
and be received with gratitude. To this hour I regret that this course
was not taken; believing that by it much misunderstanding, nay, much
animosity, would have been prevented, much trouble saved, facilities
more promptly secured, and even the loss of revenue, which, in the year
following the adoption of my plan compelled a temporary augmentation of
other duties, altogether avoided.
Almost as soon as I laid my plan before Government, I took into council
a few trusty friends, and thus had the benefit of various criticisms,
and of some suggestions. Of all those I consulted there was no one whose
reply I awaited with greater anxiety than that of Mr. Wallace, already
recognised as the leading Post Office reformer of the day. Would he not
treat me as an intruder on his domain, a poacher on his manor? Would he
not at best give me but a cold approval, keeping his heart all the while
for his own device? His prompt reply brought full relief. It was couched
in kind and encouraging language, and conveyed his hearty concurrence
in the main features of my plan. In recognising the generosity of his
conduct, I felt also that a great point was gained. Nor did the sequel
fail to confirm the first impression. Mr. Wallace gave me all the
advantage of his position, and laboured through three anxious years to
promote my views as earnestly as if they had been his own.
Within a few days from my sending in the supplementary paper to the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, I had occasion again to trouble him. Mr.
Labouchere having given notice of motion for a bill to amend the Post
Office Laws, it seemed important that my plan, unless the Government
itself were going to take it up, should be forthwith presented to the
public, with a view to its producing some effect on the contemplated
legislation; and it became necessary to inquire whether it would be
proper to publish the paper. I thought, moreover, that if the Government
seriously entertained my project, such intention would be given as a
reason for withholding leave of publication; and that thus I should
obtain some indication on the subject. I was informed that the Chancellor
of the Exchequer had no objection whatever to its publication; and so I
brought out my little work with all speed.
Meanwhile I had received many encouraging letters, some from private
friends, and others from persons to whom I was less known, or not known
at all. Amongst those which gave me the most satisfaction was one
from Colonel Colby, who, in expressing approval of my paper, gave me
also some account of exertions previously made by himself with a view
to the gradual reduction of postage rates for long distances. A second
letter was from Mr. Raikes Currie, who afterwards was a member of the
Parliamentary Committee appointed to consider my plan, and a third from
Professor Empson, of Haileybury College, who reported that he had heard
my plan spoken of in Edinburgh, at a dinner at the Lord Advocate’s, in
the most favourable terms; and who undertook to speak about it, within
a few hours, to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, “if he can listen to
anything and anybody except banks and bankers.” Now that penny postage
has long been an established fact, and that doubt of its practicability
has disappeared in the certainty of success, the circumstances just
mentioned may seem trivial; but in the midst of the anxiety that attended
its incipient course, every indication of advancing favour was eagerly
received and carefully recorded.
Meanwhile, however, a proceeding of yet greater importance had taken
place. Soon after the private circulation of my pamphlet, I received a
summons to give evidence before the Commission for Post Office Inquiry
already mentioned, which was now collecting matter for its ninth report,
(the subject being the London Twopenny Post, though the term comprehended
also the threepenny delivery). The Commissioners were the late Lord
Bessborough (then Lord Duncannon), Lord Taunton (then Mr. Labouchere),
and the Duke of Somerset (then Lord Seymour). I need not say that their
invitation was gladly accepted; my first examination took place on
February 13th, 1837; and in my evidence I pointed out the principal
defects, in the existing system of distribution within the London
district.
The first was that the deliveries were too few and too slow; and the
second, that all letters, whencesoever collected or whithersoever going,
had, with some trifling exceptions, to be sent primarily to the central
office in St. Martin’s-le-Grand. It will hardly be believed now that,
by the combined effect of these two mal-arrangements, the time required
for an interchange of letters within London itself was, on the average,
little less than fifteen hours; while between London and Tottenham, the
distance from the central office being under seven miles, and the road
supplied with coaches passing to and fro at all hours of the day, the
average was as high as nearly twenty-five hours.
In the way of remedies, I proposed, first, that the rate, supposing the
postage to be prepaid, should be reduced from twopence or threepence
to one penny; secondly, that the deliveries should be made hourly; the
necessary facilities to be afforded by the establishment of district
offices, and the combining in one body the two sets of letter carriers
then employed,—the one in delivering the local, or, as they were called,
the twopenny post letters, the others those arriving from without
the district, which were called general post letters. These several
improvements, I scarcely need say, have now been effected, though after
long delay, to be hereafter explained.
Considering the comparatively small amount of reduction to be made on
the district letters, leaving the postage, on the average, at nearly
one-half of its existing rate, I did not estimate the consequent increase
in number, even supposing all facilities to be afforded, at more than
three-fold. I may observe, in passing, that it is now (1867) more than
seven-fold.
For further facility I suggested that improvement in the nomenclature
of streets which is now in progress; and I may here mention that as the
suggestion was fruitless at the time, I took occasion at a later period,
when the bill to establish the Board of Works was in hand, to obtain the
insertion of the clause giving the requisite powers.
Having, previously to my examination, in a letter to the Chancellor
of the Exchequer, made the first mention of stamps, I repeated the
suggestion here. I have already said whence the first notion was derived,
and how far it extended; but as there has been some little public
discussion on the matter, I extract from my evidence the passage relating
to it:—
“A few years ago, when the expediency of entirely abolishing
the newspaper stamp, and allowing newspapers to pass through
the Post Office for one penny each, was under consideration, it
was suggested by Mr. Charles Knight, the publisher, that the
postage on newspapers might be collected by selling stamped
wrappers at one penny each.[129] Availing myself of this
excellent suggestion, I propose the following arrangement:
“Let stamped covers and sheets of paper be supplied to the
public from the Stamp Office or Post Office, as may be most
convenient, and sold at such a price as to include the postage.
Letters and newspapers so stamped might be put into the [Post
Office] letter-box, as at present, instead of being delivered
to the receiver.
“Covers, at various prices, would be required for packets of
various weights; and each should have the weight it is entitled
to carry legibly printed with the stamp.
* * * * *
“Should experience warrant the Government in making the use of
stamped covers universal, most important advantages will be
secured—advantages, indeed, of such magnitude, that before any
exception whatever is admitted, the policy of such exception
should be very fully considered.
“1. The Post Office would be relieved altogether from the
collection of the revenue, and from all accounts relating to
that collection. Distribution would be its only function.
* * * * *
“The only objection which occurs to me to the universal
adoption of this plan is the following: Persons unaccustomed
to write letters would, perhaps, be at a loss how to proceed.
They might send or take their letters to the Post Office
without having had recourse to the stamp. It is true that,
on presentation of the letter, the receiver, instead of
accepting the money as postage, might take it as the price
of a cover or band, in which the bringer might immediately
enclose the letter, and then redirect it; but the bringer
would sometimes be unable to write. Perhaps this difficulty
might be obviated by using a bit of paper just large enough to
bear the stamp, and covered at the back with a glutinous wash,
which the bringer might, by applying a little moisture, attach
to the back of the letter, so as to avoid the necessity for
redirecting it.”[130]
It is curious to observe, by the last paragraph of the above, that
the adhesive stamp, now of universal and indeed almost exclusive use,
was originally devised as a mere expedient for exceptional cases; the
stamped cover, which it has displaced, being the means of payment which
was expected to become general. Although I hoped at this time, that in
order to relieve the Post Office of all account-keeping, and to prevent
all avoidable delay in delivery, prepayment would in the end be made
universal, yet, knowing how much better it is to induce than to compel, I
proposed that in the outset, at least, the alternative should be allowed;
the old rate of twopence or threepence remaining undiminished where
payment was deferred.[131]
My first examination being finished, I was informed that Mr. Robert
Smith, then head of the Twopenny Post Department, would be called on
for his evidence, and that afterwards I should have opportunity of
commenting thereon. Knowing that there would be much difference between
us, and fearing that reply and rejoinder, if made in the ordinary way,
might weary out the Commissioners before they could arrive at any sound
conclusion, I ventured to suggest that we should be examined together.
I was not aware of any precedent for this course, nor do I know that
it has ever been repeated. The plan, however, was adopted by the
Commissioners, and with good success. In this manner, statement promptly
met counter-statement, and argument counter-argument; so much so, indeed,
that the proceeding, as will be seen on reference to the evidence,[132]
eventually took the form rather of discussion between Mr. Smith and
me than of examination of either; much to the saving of time, and the
facilitation of conclusions.
Mr. Wallace also gave earnest evidence in support of my views, and the
result was that the Commissioners recommended as immediate measures, by
way of experiment, the optional use of stamped penny covers within the
London District, increase in the weight allowed in a single packet, and
an additional daily delivery; and on the presentation to the House of
Commons of an important petition, of which I shall speak hereafter, Lord
Duncannon announced that it was the intention of Government to carry so
much of the plan into effect.
While I could not but regard this concession as a great triumph, I
had nevertheless to guard against a serious danger, the reality of
which subsequent events did not fail to demonstrate. Lord Duncannon’s
intimation that the contemplated change would be considered as a trial
of the general plan, made it necessary to guard against inferences to be
drawn from a partial failure, which was but too probable; for where the
reduction in postage would be but small, frequent and rapid delivery was
my main dependence; and this, in the proposed measure, was to receive
scarcely any attention. Now should this be regarded as a trial of my
plan, and should its results, in consequence of its incompleteness, fall
short of what I held out as likely to follow its complete adoption, there
was little chance that either the Post Office, or the Government, or the
public, or even the Commissioners, would draw the necessary distinction
and attribute the partial failure to its true cause. I therefore felt
that I must put the matter in its true light, and that before the trial
should begin. I consequently wrote to the Secretary of the Commissioners
a letter, in which, while expressing my satisfaction at the intended
change, I very distinctly pointed out that it would afford no test of my
plan, as this could not be fairly tried unless adopted in its integrity
so as to comprehend division into districts with hourly deliveries.[133]
This last course, therefore, I again urged on the Commissioners; pointing
out that the amount of revenue at stake in so limited a change was but
small; that success here would warrant extension of the plan, while
failure would set the matter at rest.
I had the satisfaction to learn that this letter produced its intended
effect. After reconsidering the question, the Commissioners, guardedly,
but yet distinctly, spoke in favour of complete adoption within
the London District;[134] a course, I may observe, which, besides
its immediate benefit, would have subjected my plan to a tolerably
fair experiment. It is curious to remark that the point on which the
Commissioners spoke with most hesitation is one which never presented any
real difficulty, viz., the practicability of general prepayment.
It now only remained to see whether the Government would act on the
recommendation of its own Commission, which certainly seemed the more
probable as all the Commissioners were likewise members of Government.
This fair prospect, however, ended in disappointment; nothing whatever
was done. My only consolation for the moment was that my plan had escaped
an unfair trial.
The rejection of this very moderate and limited improvement made it clear
that the only course left was to bring the public voice to bear forcibly
on the question. I was, as already implied, very reluctant to take any
step to promote such a result; and I had even, in the first edition of
my pamphlet, held forth an earnest warning on the subject. I give the
passage. Unfortunately for the Government, as well as for myself, it
proved prophetic to the letter:—
“Judging from the rapid growth of public opinion which we have
recently witnessed with regard to other institutions, we may
expect that in a few years, or even months, if ‘the still small
voice’ which, at present, gives scarcely audible expression to
half-formed desires, be neglected, it will swell into a loud,
distinct, and irresistible demand; and then a reform, which
would now be received with gratitude, as one of the greatest
boons ever conferred on a people by its Government, would
perhaps be taken without thanks, and even with expressions of
disappointment, because less extensive than unreasonable people
might have expected.”[135]
But could the public voice be drawn forth? Doubtless the proposed
reduction of postage would be acceptable enough; but would the measure be
regarded as practicable, as capable of adoption without such loss to the
revenue as would necessitate the imposition of yet heavier burdens? Could
the public be got to take the plan into its serious consideration? Was
not a proposal so paradoxical likely to be classed with numberless wild
schemes, which had enjoyed a momentary attention only to be thrown aside
with scorn? Was not a conclusion, which had startled myself, even when
I had arrived at it by laborious investigation, likely to be ridiculed
as absurd by those to whom it was presented in the abrupt manner in
which it would inevitably reach most minds? That a large portion of the
public would thus deal with it was beyond all doubt; and would there be
a yet larger or more influential body to take the opposite course? Even
supposing this to be so, would the majority be sufficiently large and
influential to carry Parliament with it, to constrain Government, and
to overbear the Post Office; which, so far as indications went, seemed
likely to put forth all its powers of obstruction?
These questions it was not easy to answer; but repeated success in
innovation had inspired confidence. Bold as the attempt appeared, and
doubtful as the issue must be, it was advised by my father and brothers,
whom I as usual consulted, that trial should be made. Knowing that I
should derive from them whatever aid it was in their power to afford, I
proceeded to the work, having, however, as yet no more time to employ in
it than remained after the full discharge of the duties attaching to my
post as Secretary to the South Australian Commission.
As mentioned before, I had already published the pamphlet previously
circulated as private and confidential, and it is to this publication
that I have already made repeated reference, under the title, “Post
Office Reform, Second Edition.”
The appearance of the pamphlet speedily brought in letters from various
quarters, amongst others an amusing one from Leigh Hunt, in which he
declared that the reasoning of my pamphlet “carries us all along with it
as smoothly as wheel on railroad,” and another from a gentleman known
to me in relation to Australian affairs, who advised that my pamphlet
should be republished in as cheap a form as possible, offering himself to
bear half the expense; an offer afterwards repeated by Mr. Cobden. Why
these offers were not accepted I cannot now recollect. The same gentleman
also informed me of a remarkable instance of exorbitant postage which
had come to his knowledge. The captain of a ship arriving at Deal had
posted for London a packet weighing thirty-two ounces, which came to
the person to whom it was addressed charged with a postage not of five
shillings and sixpence, according to the rate proposed by me, but of
upwards of six pounds, “being,” as my informant observed, “four times as
much as the charge for an inside place by the mail.” So that, had the
captain, instead of posting the letter, sent a special messenger with it
up to London, allowing him to travel inside both ways, and paying him
handsomely for his time, as well as indemnifying him for his travelling
expenses, the result would have been a considerable saving.[136]
The following yet stronger case was afterwards thus mentioned in a letter
from Sir John Burgoyne to my friend Mr. Moffatt, who obligingly placed
the letter in my hands. The name of this gallant veteran I cannot pass
over without gratefully mentioning that he was one of those who zealously
co-operated in the movement. Even at his present advanced age his
interest in postal success remains warm and active.
“Office of Public Works, Dublin,
“May 8, 1839.
* * * * *
“A packet of official papers was to be transmitted by one of
our officers from a country town: it seems that _parcels_ for
the mail were in that town received in the same shop as the
letters; and, either by mistake of the messenger or of the
postmaster, this packet, which was meant to be a _parcel_, was
forwarded as a _letter_. The charge was £11; that is, for a
packet that I could readily carry off in my pocket; an amount
for which I could have taken the _whole mail_; places for four
insides, and three out, with their portmanteaus, carpet-bags,
&c., &c., &c.”
The following incident I found not less amusing than encouraging:—
Mr. Francis Place, the author of “Principles of Population,” but better
known as a leading man on the Liberal side at Westminster elections,
having received a copy of my pamphlet, remarked to an inquiring friend
that he had not thought it worth perusal, having supposed that it was
only some nonsensical scheme for carrying letters all over England for a
penny, and being wearied out with wild-goose proposals for all sorts of
impracticable measures. Having, however, promised to look at the thing
some fine day, he at length, as he afterwards avowed, began the perusal
in the confident expectation that he should soon find out “the hitch!”
and although as he went on he step by step admitted the soundness of the
reasoning, he was still sure that he should find “the hitch” somewhere.
In this quest he read on to the end of the book, finishing with the
exclamation,—I quote his own words—“I’ll be damned if there is a hitch!”
And here I may mention one member of my family, now no more, who, though
unknown save in his own neighbourhood, where, however, he was highly
respected, used his industry and his local influence, both great, from
first to last, in aid of the cause, viz., my brother-in-law, Mr. Francis
Clark, one of the magistrates of Birmingham, but afterwards resident at
Adelaide, South Australia.
Some of the journals now began to notice my pamphlet, and within the year
the support of the press was almost universal. Amongst all, however, the
most earnest was the _Spectator_, then conducted by my friend, the late
Mr. Rintoul, which maintained throughout his editorship, with unflagging
earnestness, the able advocacy then begun.
A little later, but still within two months from the appearance of the
pamphlet, Mr. Gibbon Wakefield informed me that he and Mr. Rintoul
had had a conference with Daniel O’Connell, who not only promised his
powerful aid, but even volunteered to move for a committee on the plan.
I suppose, however, he must have given way to Mr. Wallace, who, about
a week later, viz., on May 9th, made a motion for that purpose, which,
nevertheless, he withdrew at the request of Lord John Russell and the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, who informed the House that the plan was
under the consideration of Government. On May 30th Lord Ashburton
presented a petition to the House of Lords in its favour—a petition
remarkable for the high character or position of those who signed it.
On the same evening an identical petition was presented to the House of
Commons by Mr. Grote.
All this was very satisfactory; but about a fortnight later, viz., on
June 15th, the plan and its supporters had to endure strictures the
reverse of complimentary. The Earl of Lichfield, then Postmaster-General,
in moving the second reading of a bill relative to Post Office
affairs, asserted, in opposition to Lord Ashburton, that the revenue
of the department had considerably increased, that it was produced by
170,000,000 of letters annually circulated in England, and that if the
reduction in duty for which some individuals called were acceded to, it
would require the enormous number of 416,000,000 annually to produce the
same amount of revenue.[137] “With respect to the plan set forth by Mr.
Hill,” he said, “of all the wild and visionary schemes which he had ever
heard or read of, it was the most extraordinary.”[138]
Save the completion of the “Ninth Report of the Commissioners for Post
Office Enquiry,” already so often referred to, and the passing of
the Act moved by Lord Lichfield, of the value of which I shall speak
presently, little of importance occurred during the next two months.
Meanwhile I procured an introduction to his lordship, from his brother,
the late General Anson, then visiting at the house of my father-in-law,
Mr. Pearson; and, being admitted to an interview, obtained, through his
means, a certain amount of information from the Post Office, which,
though not all that I sought, was yet of considerable use.
On October 19th the matter was brought before the Court of Common Council
of the City of London, by the late Mr. Pritchard, then High Bailiff
of Southwark, who invited me to attend below the bar, that I might be
at hand for reference. While there, Mr. Pritchard having mentioned on
my authority, that the conveyance of a mail from London to Edinburgh
cost no more than five pounds, a member of the Common Council, perhaps
confounding mail with mail-coach, came to me, inquiring whether I had
really made such an assertion; and, upon my answering in the affirmative,
walked away, with every expression of scorn for a statement so obviously
absurd. I need not remind the reader that the amount was afterwards
proved by Post Office returns to be less than four pounds. Fortunately
the court did not agree with the critic; resolutions being passed in
favour of the plan, and a petition for its adoption ordered to be
presented to both Houses of Parliament. Towns’ meetings also began to
be held in other places, and similar petitions ordered. These events,
combined with others previously mentioned, had given me a confidence
which, self-reliant as I was prone to be, my own unaided convictions
could not have supplied.
Meantime, although my plan was for a time set aside, the various efforts
made in relation to the general subject were not altogether without
effect; for, in the course of this year, day mails were established
on one or two of the principal roads, though with some troublesome
restrictions; amongst them, one which now seems incredible, viz., against
their use for the despatch of the morning newspapers. Some further
reductions were made in foreign postage, though certainly with due
caution, as will now be readily acknowledged by any one who learns that
by an announcement gravely made, the public were informed that henceforth
postage on letters to the Mediterranean would be at the rate of “only ten
_shillings_ per ounce.”[139]
The legislative change already referred to as introduced by Lord
Lichfield was an important improvement, bringing all the Acts (one
hundred and forty-one in number) relative to the Post Office into
a single law, possessing the triple advantage of compactness,
brevity, and perfect intelligibility.[140] Another Act authorised the
Postmaster-General, with the consent of the Lords of the Treasury,
to make reductions in postage, both partially and generally; a trust
which afterwards proved of no small convenience. Lastly, Government had
announced as probable that the postage between towns not more than seven
miles apart would be reduced from fourpence to twopence; a change soon
afterwards effected.
All these improvements, while more or less beneficial in themselves,
had the collateral advantage of paving the way for future changes;
and certainly enough remained to be done, as would appear in the most
striking manner, were the old state of things to be restored but for a
single day, and the public compelled but for once to endure practices
which were then regarded as things of course. Many of these have been
already adverted to; perhaps one or two more may with propriety be
mentioned here.
As the day mails were so few, most of the letters arriving in London
by the morning mails on their way to other towns had to lie all day at
the General Post Office; so that places corresponding through London,
even if very near to one another, were, in postal distance, kept as far
asunder as London and Durham; and when a blank post-day intervened,
the delay was even more remarkable. Thus, a letter written at Uxbridge
after the close of the Post Office on Friday night was not delivered at
Gravesend, a distance of less than forty miles, until Tuesday morning.
If two letters were put in the proper district receiving-houses in London
between five and six o’clock in the evening, one addressed to Highgate,
the other to Wolverhampton (which lies one hundred and twenty miles
further on the same road), the Highgate letter was delivered last.
The postage of a letter from Wolverhampton to Brierley Hill, conveyed by
a cross-post passing through Dudley, was only one penny; whereas if the
letter stopped short at Dudley, thus saving some miles in conveyance, the
charge rose to fourpence.
The absurd rule of charging by the number of enclosures, instead of by
weight, often caused great irritation, especially when any one of the
enclosures was very diminutive. Thus, in an instance reported to me at
the time, a certain letter from London to Wolverhampton, which now would
be conveyed for one penny, came charged with a postage of two shillings
and sixpence, viz., tenpence for the letter, tenpence for a returned bill
of exchange enclosed therein, and tenpence for a small scrap of paper
attached to this latter at the notary’s office.
On the poorer classes the inconveniences fell with special weight, for
as letters almost always arrived unpaid, while the postage was often too
heavy to be met at the moment, letters were sometimes withheld for days,
or even weeks, until the means of discharge could be raised.
The necessity for ascertaining the number of enclosures compelled the
examination of every doubtful letter, by the light of a lamp or candle
placed behind it; and this inspection, leading to the discovery of
bank-notes, &c., which otherwise might have escaped remark, exposed
the clerks to needless temptation, led to many acts of dishonesty, and
brought much loss to correspondents.
In addition to the dishonesty thus directly injurious to individuals,
there were other frauds which materially affected the revenue. Such was
the complication of accounts, that the deputy postmasters could not be
held to effectual responsibility as respects the amounts due from them
to the General Office; and as many instances of deficit came at times to
light, sometimes following each other week after week in the same office,
there can be no doubt that the total annual loss must have reached a
serious amount.[141]
A third edition of my pamphlet being called for within the year, I took
advantage of this, both to notify new facts, and to indicate any further
development of my own views.
The net revenue of the Post Office for the year 1836 (unknown at the
time of my previous publication) showed some increase, and was expected
moreover to be in turn surpassed by that for 1837. This progress was
encouraging; for as the recent changes in the Post Office arrangements,
though not of a decided character, consisted chiefly in reduced charges
and increased facilities, the results were, _pro tanto_, confirmatory of
the soundness of the principles which I had advocated. The augmentation
in net revenue, moreover, was the more striking because, by the
reduction of the stamp duty on newspapers, these had so increased in
number, that their conveyance and distribution, all of course gratuitous,
now comprised several additional millions; and because, at the same time,
commercial depression had reduced the revenue in every other department.
This last fact could not but be viewed by some as a formidable obstacle
to the plan; and though I did not see it in that light, believing that
a reduction of postage would give a stimulus to commerce, which would
greatly benefit all the other sources of revenue, I suggested that
the difficulty could be met by such gradual adoption of the plan as
might suit the caution or timidity of the controlling authorities. My
recommendations appear in the following extract:—
“It cannot be doubted that a reduction in postage to a certain
extent would benefit the Post Office revenue, and an opinion
to this effect is very general in the Post Office itself. Let,
then, a general system of reductions be put into immediate
operation, and extended as rapidly as the state of the revenue
will permit; and concurrently with this, let the means here
pointed out for simplifying the mechanism of the Post Office
be adopted as far as practicable, in order that the consequent
increase in the amount of business may not require an increased
establishment.”
To give effect to these recommendations, I proposed that, as a first
step, the postage between post towns should be immediately reduced by
one half; that the charge should depend no longer on the number of
enclosures, but on weight; that stamps should serve at first for a very
limited range, say for fifteen miles; so that the numerous mistakes
expected to occur in their use (of which there was much groundless
apprehension) might admit of speedy and easy correction; and, though at
that time very desirous of seeing prepayment made universal, because
of the complete simplicity which it would introduce into the Post
Office accounts, I recommended that an option should be given, by which
prepayment should always be lower by one penny than post-payment. Of
course in recommending these expedients I did not swerve from my original
design; my expressed desire being that these first measures should be
gradually extended, as experience warranted, until the whole plan was in
operation.[142]
Much anxiety had been expressed, which under present circumstances seems
ludicrous enough, as to the means by which the increased number of
letters, on which I relied for sustaining the revenue, could be conveyed
from town to town. A five-fold increase, it was maintained, would require
a five-fold number of mail-coaches; and I was charged with having
omitted this material fact in my calculations. Reply was easy, because,
first, the existing mail-coaches were by no means fully laden, many of
them indeed having very little to carry; and secondly, the chargeable
letters formed but an inconsiderable part of the mail; the bulk of which
consisted partly of newspapers, and partly of letters and packages sent
under franks, insomuch that, startling as this may seem, the chargeable
letters then divided among the four-and-twenty mail-coaches which left
London every night might, without displacing a single passenger, and
without exceeding or even equalling the ordinary load, have been all
forwarded by a single coach. In short, instead of being justly exposed
to the charge of omission, I had made in my calculations, through excess
of caution, more than due allowance for the increased expense, and that
by the large amount of £100,000. Fortunately I was able truly to add
“that though my plan, with its estimates, had then been before the public
for several months, and though both had been submitted not only to the
general inquirer, but to the scrutinising examination of those who had
most opportunity for acquiring knowledge on the subject, no statement
had appeared which invalidated any one of the calculations.” Caution
in statement, I may observe, had been strengthened in me by almost all
the various trainings through which I had passed. As an instructor,
a surveyor, a machinist, an inventor, a responsible secretary to an
important enterprise, I had had constant need for its exercise; the more
so, perhaps, as I was keenly sensible to the ridicule that follows error,
especially in innovators.
To return to my immediate subject. By this time, the result of a
reduction of postage made six years before in a large portion of the
London district, by the extension of the twopenny range, had been shown
to be favourable; a return on the subject having been called for by the
Commissioners of Post Office Enquiry. It had been calculated by the Post
Office authorities that this reduction would reduce the gross revenue
to the extent of £20,000 per annum; whereas at the end of six years
the revenue, instead of being a loser, was by £10,000 a gainer.[143]
Considerable reductions, also, had recently taken place in the postage
of foreign letters; reductions already followed by a great increase in
receipts. Neither had any instance occurred, within my knowledge, in
which reduction of postage had, after a fair trial, been attended with
loss to the revenue.
On the 23rd of November, Parliament having meantime reassembled, Mr.
Wallace renewed his motion for a committee on my plan, and though but
ten months had elapsed since my first publication, such was already the
progress of public opinion that the committee was not only granted, but,
as would appear from the silence of “Hansard,” without even a debate.
The nomination of its members, which took place four days later, gave
the following list:—Mr. Wallace, Mr. Poulett Thomson, Viscount Lowther,
Lord Seymour, Mr. Warburton, Sir Thomas Fremantle, Mr. Raikes Currie, Mr.
Morgan John O’Connell, Mr. Thornely, Mr. Chalmers, Mr. Pease, Mr. Mahony,
Mr. Parker (Sheffield), Mr. George William Wood, Mr. Villiers.[144]
The reference or instruction to the committee was as follows:—
“To inquire into the present rates and mode of charging
postage, with a view to such a reduction thereof as may be
made without injury to the revenue; and for this purpose to
examine especially into the mode recommended for charging and
collecting postage in a pamphlet published by Mr. Rowland
Hill.”[145]
Three members of this committee, viz., Lord Seymour, Mr. Parker, and
Mr. Poulett Thomson (afterwards Lord Sydenham)—were also members of
Government, and, as I soon found, sat as opponents to the plan.[146] I
need not say, however, that the appointment of the committee, whatever
adverse elements it might contain, filled me with high expectations; so
well assured was I by this time of the soundness of my views, and so
confident that they would derive abundant support from the examination
to be made, whatever might be the ultimate decision of the committee.
Three days later the Duke of Richmond, who had formerly filled the
office of Postmaster-General, in presenting a petition from Elgin, took
occasion to recommend at least a considerable reduction of postage
rates. Lord Lichfield, in reply, declared that “were the plan [of penny
postage] adopted, instead of a million and a half of money being added
to the revenue, after the expenditure of the establishment was provided
for, he was quite certain that such a loss would be sustained as would
compel them to have recourse to Parliament for money to maintain the
establishment.”
On the same day (December 15th, 1837), Mr. Hawes having asked in the
House of Commons whether Government had decided to give effect to the
recommendation of the Commissioners with regard to stamped covers, the
Chancellor of the Exchequer replied that it was intended to introduce
them in the twopenny post department. In thus first mentioning the
name of Mr. (afterwards Sir Benjamin) Hawes, I feel bound to add that
the interest which he showed thus early in my plan became warmer and
warmer as time advanced, and never ceased till his death. The same may
be said of Lord Brougham, of Mr. Hume, and yet more emphatically of Mr.
Warburton. The real purport of the announcement now made, though it does
not clearly appear so in the words quoted, was that the stamped cover
should be used within the range of the twopenny and threepenny post, but
without any reduction of postage there, so that it would be merely a mode
of payment in advance (such payment not being then customary), without
any motive to its use. Sir Robert Peel pertinently asked whether the
two plans of reducing the postage and using stamped covers could not be
combined; but the Chancellor of the Exchequer replied that “they would
try the latter experiment first on the twopenny post. If it succeeded
they would try it on an extended scale; at the same time he was bound to
say that while he did not wish to speak disparagingly of an attempt he
was himself about to try, he must add he was not very sanguine as to the
result.”[147]
Three days later Lord Brougham, in presenting the petition from the Lord
Mayor and Common Council of the City of London, after having given some
account of Palmer’s great improvement, and spoken of the opposition which
it encountered, of the gloomy predictions made as to its inevitable
consequences, and of the grand results obtained by its adoption,
proceeded to comment on the intention of Government to deviate so widely
from the recommendation of the Commissioners of Post Office Enquiry
as to adopt a plan “totally different in its nature, and which might
fail over and over again without the possibility of even a Post Office
speculator pretending that it was a failure of Mr. Hill’s plan, because
it was to be confined to the twopenny post.” Lord Duncannon replied that,
“after mature consideration, it was found to be inexpedient to try the
experiment of Mr. Hill’s plan to the full extent that had been proposed.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer did not intend to carry the suggestions
of the Commissioners into effect in the way proposed, but he determined
on the issue of penny[148] stamp covers for the short distances, and to
reduce the fourpenny post to twopence. He admitted that this could not
be considered as a trial of Mr. Hill’s plan, but he thought it the safer
course in the first instance.”[149]
The Postmaster-General, after having stated the annual number of
chargeable letters passing through the Post Office (previously given
by himself as 170,000,000) to be only 42,000,000, charged me with
having entirely omitted to provide for the greater bulk of additional
letters required by my plan, and alleged that “if the postage charge
were generally reduced to a penny per letter, it would require twelve
times the present circulation of letters to produce the revenue now
derived from the Post Office charges.”[150] He added, “The mails will
have to carry twelve times as much in weight, and therefore the charge
for transmission, instead of £100,000 as now, must be twelve times that
amount.”[151]
The day after this announcement—alarmed at the notion of an experiment
whose inevitable failure was sure, in spite of Lord Duncannon’s
disclaimer, to be viewed as, so far, a failure of my plan—I wrote to the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, asking whether, before the change was made,
I might be afforded an opportunity of stating my views on the subject;
at the same time I expressed a hope that as I had in the first instance
submitted my plan to Government, had taken pains to secure accuracy in
all my statements, and had, while attacking a system, carefully avoided
all personalities, I might be considered as entitled to some attention,
and even indulgence. The Chancellor politely replied that he should have
much pleasure in seeing me, but was unable at present to fix a day for
doing so; I cannot find, however, either in my memory or in my memoranda,
that this day ever came.
So closed the year 1837, one of the busiest and most important in my
life; comprising my first application to Government, the publication and
republication and second republication of my pamphlet, my examination
before the Commissioners of Post Office Enquiry, my hope founded on
their recommendation, its disappointment, my appeal to the public, the
appointment of a parliamentary committee, and the earnest and various
support which had been accorded.
Considering that less than eighteen months had elapsed from my first
earnest attention to the subject, and that I had not only worked with
all the difficulties and disadvantages of an _outsider_, but with the
duties of my post as South Australian Secretary pressing heavily upon
me, I had every reason to be satisfied with my progress, though I will
not undertake to say that I thought so at the time. However, I had full
encouragement to proceed, the more so as I could not then foresee that
two more years of incessant toil would precede the adoption of my plan—a
toil which would have been beyond my strength but for the constant
assistance received from the various members of my family.