PENNY POSTAGE BILL.
The first circumstance that I have to record in 1839 was the receipt
of a letter from Sir William Brown,[252] written from Washington,
and informing me of an interview which he had had with the
Postmaster-General of the United States on the subject of my pamphlet.
The Postmaster-General told him that it had afforded him a great deal
of information, and further that it was the intention of the United
States Government to remodel the Post Office laws in the next session of
Congress, and that he thought five cents for all distances would be a
postage sufficient to cover expenses. This rate was afterwards adopted,
though subsequently the charge was yet further reduced. Sir William gave
it as his own opinion that the action of the American Government would
materially assist the movement at home. Three weeks later, however, he
wrote expressing his opinion that my best course would be to write to
the Hon. Mr. Kennedy, who was very desirous of moving in the matter,
and to whom it was wished that I should send the reports, pamphlets,
&c., bearing upon the subject. In writing to this gentleman, I expressed
an opinion that on account of the great extent of territory and the
sparseness of population in the United States, penny postage might not
be so applicable to that country as to England; but added that, as the
American people did not look to their Post Office for revenue, I thought
the general rate, even if not reduced to a penny, might yet be a low one.
The Report so laboriously prepared by Mr. Warburton appeared, I believe,
early in March.
Of this Report (the third of the Committee of 1838) I forbear to give
even a summary; not only because this would involve the repetition of
much that has been already said, but because I have no hope whatever
of doing justice to so very able a document, the result of many months
of hard labour, the very model of a Report, and which, as such, will
even now amply repay the trouble of perusal. It is invaluable as an
authoritative record of a state of things so absurdly strange as to be
now almost incredible, but which was nevertheless justified and upheld
at the time by many able and excellent men. Moreover, its elaborate
calculations, which I was called upon to check, put some of the most
important questions at issue in a clear, striking, and often even amusing
light. On all important points it gave to my statements and conclusions
the sanction of its powerful authority. Nevertheless, as the committee
had determined on the recommendation of a twopenny rate, the Report had
to be framed in, at least, formal accordance with this fact; though both
Mr. Wallace, in whose name it went to the committee, and Mr. Warburton,
by whom it was actually drawn, were strongly in favour of the penny rate.
A careful perusal of the document, however, will show that, though the
twopenny rate is formally recommended, the penny rate is the one really
suggested for adoption. In this sense it was understood by the public,
and to my knowledge it was wished that it should be so understood. It
only remained to see what effect this masterly Report would have on the
country, the Parliament, and the Government. As respects the first,
enough has been mentioned to justify good expectation; the same might be
said in a less degree of the second; but of the third, all indications
were as yet adverse.
On the 12th of April appeared, in some of the London papers, a letter
which I had felt called upon to write in reply to an article in the
Supplement to McCulloch’s “Commercial Dictionary,” then lately published,
extracts from which had appeared in some of the newspapers. Mr.
McCulloch’s opposition came very unexpectedly, since he had previously
been a decided supporter of the general plan; his name having appeared
amongst the select signatures to the important London petition presented
to Parliament in the year 1837, and already mentioned at page 289 of this
history. He had likewise supported the cause in the _Courier_ newspaper,
resented the delay in adopting my plan, had, in conversation with myself,
strongly condemned the Ministers, and threatened to expose them in the
“Edinburgh Review.” The only circumstance to which I could attribute his
change of opinion was that he had recently been appointed head of the
Stationery Department. We all know, and I myself have been charged with
such experience, that questions often assume a new aspect when viewed
from the windows of a Government office.
Meanwhile, meetings were taking place in various towns to petition in
favour of penny postage, and strong articles on the same side appeared
in many of the leading newspapers. Mr. Wallace, as chairman of the late
committee, received so many letters on the subject of the movement, as
to be under the necessity of publicly acknowledging them _en masse_,
mentioning, by way of instance, that on the single day of writing he had
received nine written communications in reference to various petitions,
together with eight newspapers.
The Post Office, too, began to show signs of uneasiness, and made a few
very cautious reductions; lowering, for instance, the postage between
London and Keswick from thirteen pence to a shilling, and granting
similar indulgence on London letters to twenty-one other places; the
amount of reduction being in each instance the same, or, as the “Post
Circular”[253] put it, not _to_ a penny, but _by_ a penny.
On March 23rd a somewhat remarkable scene occurred in the House of
Commons; Mr. Scholefield having presented a petition from Birmingham, for
which he was member, the Speaker desired all honourable members who had
petitions to present on Penny Postage to bring them up; when instantly a
great number of members on both sides of the House “advanced in a crowd
to present them, amidst cheering on all sides.” The petitions on the
subject in the course of six days amounted to two hundred and fifteen.
The number of the “Post Circular” from which I have taken this account
(No. 12) contains, also, one of those amusing devices with which my
friend Mr. Henry Cole knew so well how to strike the public eye. Probably
the reader will not be displeased at its reproduction. The Edinburgh mail
coach, it will be seen, is depicted, with its guard, coachman, and two
outside passengers; the letter bags—which, as all the world knows, or
then knew, usually occupied the hind boot, so as to lie under the guard’s
foot—are by an artistic liberty placed on the roof, the whole being
arranged in divisions of franks, newspapers, Stamp-office parcels, and
chargeable letters; the first three (which are free of postage) occupy
the whole roof, the last lying in small space on the top of one of the
bulky divisions, the proportions being those of the mail conveyed on
March 2nd, 1838. The legend below sums up the tale.
[Illustration: GREAT WEIGHT AND NO PRICE! LITTLE WEIGHT AND ALL PRICE!!]
The depth and extent of public feeling by this time aroused are shown by
the following extract from the _Times_:—
“Such is the degree of conviction which is carried to all who
have bestowed any thought upon it, that the only question
is—and it is asked universally—will these ministers have the
honesty and courage to try it? On a review of the public
feeling which it has called forth, from men of all parties,
sects, and conditions of life, it may well be termed the cause
of the whole people of the United Kingdom, against the small
coterie of place-holders in St. Martin’s-le-Grand and its
dependencies.”[254]
That the _Times_ did not stand alone, is shown by a general list in the
“Post Circular” of newspapers which took the same side. Though probably
incomplete, it contains the names of twenty-five London papers (nine
daily and sixteen weekly), and of eighty-seven provincial papers. It must
be remembered, too, that the number of journals, especially of country
journals, was then comparatively small.
While public feeling was thus manifesting itself at home, I received
further evidence that attention was excited abroad, Mr. Hume sending me a
pamphlet written by M. Piron, then second in authority in the Post Office
of France, advocating reduction of postage, and speaking of my plan
in very flattering terms. The rate recommended by M. Piron was twenty
centimes the quarter-ounce, or, setting aside the difference of weight,
nearly the same as that previously recommended here by the Parliamentary
Committee. M. Piron, I may here remark, continued to press his views on
the French Government (at one time, I was assured, to his own injury)
till my plan, in a modified form, was adopted by the Revolutionary
Government of 1848.
Now, however, came the crowning proof of the hold which the plan had
taken of the public mind. On one of the first days in May, Lord Melbourne
received a deputation on the subject, in which were comprised about one
hundred and fifty members of Parliament, chiefly, if not exclusively,
supporters of Government The principal speaker was Mr. Warburton, his
most telling passage being as follows:—
“If he might be pardoned for making the observation upon such
an occasion, he would say it would be a concession so wise,
that it would be well calculated to make any Government justly
popular, _and he would strongly urge it as a measure which
a Liberal party had a just right to expect from a Liberal
administration_.”
* * * * *
Mr. O’Connell, mounting on a chair in a distant part of the room, spoke
as follows:—
“One word for Ireland, my Lord. My poor countrymen do not
smuggle, for the high postage works a total prohibition to
them. They are too poor to find out secondary conveyances, and
if you shut the Post Office to them, which you do now, you shut
out warm hearts and generous affections from home, kindred, and
friends. Consider, my Lord, that a letter to Ireland and the
answer back would cost thousands upon thousands of my poor and
affectionate countrymen considerably more than a fifth of their
week’s wages; and let any gentleman here ask himself what would
be the influence upon his correspondence if, for every letter
he wrote, he or his family had to pay one-fifth of a week’s
income.”
Next came Mr. Hume; his voice, as that of the watchful guardian of
the national finances, carrying unusual weight, since it was known to
everybody that he would be the last man to recommend any improvident
course.
Not the least remarkable speech, the concluding one, was that of Mr.
Moffatt, who undertook, if Government shrank from the risk of the
proposed reduction, to form a City company which should take the Post
Office entirely off their hands, guaranteeing to the State the same
amount of revenue as before.
Lord Melbourne’s reply, though reserved, was courteous and encouraging.
He recognised the importance of the deputation, acknowledged the weight
of the facts produced, and while he withheld all present announcement as
to the course to be adopted by Government, promised that the whole matter
should receive prompt and earnest attention.
“A strong feeling evidently pervaded the room in reference
to Mr. Warburton’s allusion to the just expectation of this
important measure being conceded by a Liberal Government. HE
WAS THEN LOUDLY CHEERED.”[255]
So remarkable a deputation could not but produce a great effect. Mr.
Warburton’s hint was, as I learnt, well understood, and I was afterwards
assured that this proceeding was the very turning-point of the movement;
the Government having thereon decided to adopt the measure. Certainly,
but three weeks later, I received the following letter from Mr.
Warburton:—
“May 22, 1839.
“MY DEAR SIR,—I have just learnt from Mr. Bannerman, who has it
from Lords Melbourne and Duncannon, that the penny postage is
to be granted.
“I shall see Lord M. and Lord J. R. on Sunday.[256]
“Dear Sir,
“Yours truly,
“HENRY WARBURTON.”
“ROWLAND HILL, Esq.”
Three days later I again heard from Mr. Warburton, as follows:—
“May 25, 1839.
“MY DEAR SIR,—Mr. Parker, the Treasury Lord, last night, and
Lord John Russell, this morning, confirmed to me the intentions
of the Government to propose your plan; and I believe that
they will announce publicly their intentions to that effect on
Tuesday.
“I shall take an opportunity of expressing my opinion to Lord
Melbourne that you ought to be employed to superintend the
execution of the plan. If you have anything to say to me on the
subject, call before half-past 10 o’clock to-morrow.
“Yours,
“HENRY WARBURTON.”
“ROWLAND HILL, Esq.”
The recommendation that I should be employed had in my view a double
importance; agreeing not only with my own natural and ardent desire, but
also with the inevitable conviction that if, by the alternative course,
the management of my plan were committed to the hands of its avowed and
persistent opponents—men who manifestly viewed it not only with dislike
but with scorn, and whose predictions would be falsified if it attained
success—it would have small chance of receiving that earnest and zealous
attention, watchful care, and constant effort for effectual development
combined with strict economy, on which I knew the desired result must
depend. For convenience I mention here that after the passing of the
Postage Bill, Mr. Wallace wrote to Lord Melbourne to the same effect. His
letter is but a specimen of Mr. Wallace’s general course in my regard. He
makes no reference to his own valuable labours, but only urges claims for
me, based on the importance of my discovery.
To return to my narrative; a few days later, Mr. Warburton, having in
the House asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether
Government intended to proceed with a twopenny or penny rate, Lord
John Russell replied that the intention of Government was to propose a
resolution in favour of a uniform penny postage,[257] remarking, “the
plan will be in conformity with that which has been proposed by the
committee as likely to be the most beneficial one,” and adding that,
though the scheme would necessarily involve many months of preparation,
no time should be lost.[258] Having been apprised of Mr. Warburton’s
intention, I was present when the announcement was made; and I leave the
reader to imagine the deep gratification I felt.
Grave doubts yet remained as to whether my plan would be adopted in
its entirety. My first anxiety was as to the introduction of stamps;
their use, as already shown, being indispensable to that rapidity
and economy of postal operation, without which the mere adoption of
the penny rate would be extremely imperfect as a matter of public
convenience, and perhaps seriously detrimental to the direct revenue.
I consequently prepared a paper,[259] which was printed and circulated
by the Mercantile Committee, “On the Collection of Postage by means
of Stamps.” It describes in considerable detail the plan of which the
first bare suggestion had been given, as already shown, early in 1837,
and, except that there is no mention of the Queen’s Head—which was an
after-thought—it describes with considerable accuracy the kinds of
stamps now in use, and the modes of distributing them. The envelopes and
adhesive stamps now so familiar to all, are described the one as “the
little bags called envelopes,” and the other as “small stamped detached
labels—say about an inch square—which, if prepared with a glutinous
wash on the back, may be attached without a wafer.”[260] I must admit,
however, that, as the paper shows, I still looked upon stamped covers
or envelopes as the means which the public would most commonly employ;
still believing that the adhesive stamp would be reserved for exceptional
cases. Unfortunately, the recommendations contained in my paper were
not acted upon until the Government had resorted to other supposed
expedients, which turned out to be real impediments, and were not got rid
of without much trouble.[261]
Meantime, on June 25th, Lord Radnor, in presenting forty petitions in
favour of uniform penny postage, repeated Mr. Warburton’s question as
to the intentions of Government, and received from Lord Melbourne the
assurance that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would shortly bring the
matter forward;[262] his words were as follows:—
“Undoubtedly it is the intention of the Government to carry
into effect the plan referred to by my noble friend—considering
how it has been recommended, the strong interest it has
excited, and the benefits and advantages which unquestionably
belong to it—with all practicable speed.”[263]
In my anxiety to obtain for the proposed measure a favourable reception
in the House of Commons, I drew up with great care a short paper,
entitled “Facts and Estimates as to the Increase of Letters,” which was
printed by the Mercantile Committee, a copy being sent to every member of
Parliament.
A copy of this document is given in the Appendix (G). The prediction
therein set forth was much longer in fulfilment than I anticipated—the
gross revenue not having been made up till 1851, the twelfth year of
penny postage. Probably, like most projectors, I was over-sanguine.
Probably also I was unduly influenced by the evidence proceeding from
the public in support of my recommendations. But the reader will find
from the following narrative that after the adoption of my plan by the
Legislature many circumstances occurred, which could not possibly have
been foreseen, tending to delay the apparent success of my scheme of
Postal Reform. Among these are the following:—
1st. Delay in the adoption of stamps, and the still greater delay in
effectually supplying the public therewith.
2nd. While my plan applied to inland postage only, large reductions
were also made in foreign and colonial postage, which, however right in
themselves, of course had their effect in delaying the time when the
amount of the gross revenue should have recovered itself.
3rd. The additional facilities to be afforded the public—more especially
by a great extension of rural distribution—though a most important part
of my plan, were, to say the least, for a long time delayed. This I
conceive to have been a main cause of delay in the recovery of the gross
revenue.
4th. Above all, the execution of my plan was, during the early years of
penny postage, entrusted almost entirely to men whose official reputation
was pledged, not to its success, but to its failure. Even after I
entered the Post Office, near the close of the seventh year of penny
postage, obstacles were so continually thrown in my way that for many
years I could do comparatively little to promote the measure; and it was
not till the fifteenth year, namely, when I became Secretary to the Post
Office, that I could exercise any direct influence therein.
About the time that the paper mentioned above was issued, opposition
arose in so strange a quarter, that if the reader were invited to
conjecture, he could scarcely go right save by considering how best he
could go wrong. If it had been inquired what trade was most likely to
benefit by the multiplication of letters, surely the one selected would
have been the trade in paper. Nevertheless, a deputation of stationers
went up to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, setting forth that they and
their brethren would be put to great inconvenience by the adoption of Mr.
Rowland Hill’s plan. Probably the motive to this whimsical proceeding was
an apprehension that the issue by Government of stamped envelopes would
deprive the petitioners of an expected trade; the fear of this making
them blind to the far more than counterbalancing advantage to be derived
from the multiplication of that which envelopes were intended to contain.
However, I must not omit to mention that, some months afterwards, when
I was in office, I had a very satisfactory interview with these same
gentlemen at the Treasury.
On July 5th, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in bringing forward his
Budget, proposed the adoption of uniform penny postage. After having
dwelt upon the fact that there had been of late a large increase of
expenditure—due partly to improved administration in home affairs,
partly to the establishment of ocean steamers for the conveyance of the
mails, and the employment for the same purpose of railway trains instead
of mail-coaches, partly to the increase of the National Debt by the
borrowing of the twenty millions used in the redemption of negro slavery,
partly, also, to an increase in the means of defence, and lastly, to the
recent insurrection in Canada,—he observed that, as through these various
circumstances there was little or no spare revenue, it would be necessary
that the Government, in yielding to the general wish for the adoption
of penny postage—a measure imperilling a revenue of a million and a
half—must be assured of the concurrence of the House in the adoption of
such means as might be necessary for making good any deficiency that
might arise; he himself expecting that in the outset such deficiency
would be very great. After having stated that on some points he differed
from the conclusions of the committee, he proceeded to eulogise their
labours in the following terms:—
“I must admit that a committee which took more pains to inform
itself, whose collection of evidence is more valuable, as
giving the opinions of many of the most intelligent persons
of all classes in the country, I never remember in my
Parliamentary experience.”[264]
In reference to the popular demand for the measure, he made the following
remarkable declaration:—
“I find that the mass of them [the petitions] present the most
extraordinary combination I ever saw of representations to one
purpose from all classes, unswayed by any political motives
whatever; from persons of all shades of opinion, political and
religious; from clergymen of the Established Church, and from
all classes of Protestant Dissenters; from the clergymen of
Scotland, from the commercial and trading communities in all
parts of the kingdom.”[265]
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:—
“That it is expedient to reduce the postage on letters to one
uniform rate of a penny postage, according to a certain amount
of weight to be determined; that the Parliamentary privilege
of franking should be abolished; and that official franking be
strictly limited—the House pledging itself to make good any
deficiency that may occur in the revenue from such reduction of
the postage.”[266]
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—
“That he should have thought it sufficient, if Government had
maturely considered the details of this measure, had calculated
the probable loss to the revenue, and had come forward to
propose, in this acknowledged deficiency of the public revenue,
some substitute to compensate the public. He should have
thought that sufficient. So convinced was he of the moral and
social advantages that would result from the removal of all
restrictions on the free communication by letter, that he
should have willingly consented to the proposition.”[267]
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:—
“London, July 16, 1839.
“The Duke of Wellington presents his compliments to Mr. Moffatt.
“The Duke does not fill any political office. He is not in the
habit of discussing public affairs in private, and he declines
to receive the visits of deputations or individuals for the
purpose of such discussions.
“If, as a Member of Parliament, any gentleman or committee
should wish to give the Duke information, or the benefit of
their opinion, he is always ready to receive the same in
writing, but he declines to waste their time and his own by
asking any gentleman to come to this distant part of the town
to discuss a question upon which he would decline to deliver
his opinion, excepting in his place in Parliament.
“Moreover the Duke, although not in political office, has
much public business to occupy his time, and on Thursday in
particular, the day named by Mr. Moffatt, he will be occupied
by attendance upon the Naval and Military Commission during
the whole of the forenoon, until the meeting of the House of
Parliament of which he is a member.”
Being thus disappointed of an interview, the deputation requested me to
undertake the duty of addressing the Duke by letter. I wrote as follows:—
“Bayswater, July 22, 1839.
“MY LORD DUKE,—At the request of the Mercantile Committee
on Postage, I have the honour to submit for your Grace’s
consideration a few facts in support of the Bill for the
establishment of a uniform penny postage, which it is expected
will shortly be brought into the House of Lords.
“The evidence which has been given before the Select Committee
on Postage proves that the Post Office revenue has scarcely
increased at all for the last twenty-four years.
“That the present high rates lead all classes, except those
allowed to frank, to evade postage to an enormous extent.
“That they cause a vast amount of correspondence, mercantile
as well as domestic, to be actually suppressed, thus crippling
trade and preventing friendly intercourse.
“That if postage were reduced to one penny the revenue would be
more likely to gain than to suffer.
“That the _present_ average cost to the Post Office of
distributing letters is ¾_d._ each, and that this cost would be
greatly reduced under the proposed arrangements.
“That the cost to the Post Office is frequently greater for
short distances of six or eight miles than for long distances
of two or three hundred miles; thus showing the unfairness of
the present varying charges.
“And that the partial reductions in postage rates hitherto made
have, after a short time, invariably benefited the revenue.
“I have taken the liberty of enclosing a short abstract of the
Report of the Select Committee on Postage, which has been drawn
up by the Mercantile Committee, as well as some ‘Facts and
Estimates as to the Increase of Letters,’ prepared by myself,
to which I respectfully solicit your Grace’s attention.
“The boldness, yet safety of the proposed change, its
simplicity, and its tendency to extend commerce, science, and
education, will, I confidently hope, recommend it to your
Grace’s favourable consideration.
“I have, &c.,
“ROWLAND HILL.
“To His Grace the DUKE OF WELLINGTON, &c., &c., &c.”
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:—
“The Grange, Alresford, August 20, 1839.
“DEAR SIR,—I most unfeignedly congratulate you that your great
measure is so far safely landed. You do too much honour to
the part I have humbly taken in this matter. I have certainly
been unfeignedly anxious that this important experiment should
be tried, and tried fairly; but the merit is undividedly
yours, and the success due to the unexampled perseverance
and intelligence you have applied to opening and instructing
the public mind. What Parliament can do is done, and it only
remains to be hoped that success will not be hazarded by
imperfect execution. What measures the Post Office will adopt
I cannot know, but I think they will make a great mistake if
they do not contrive to secure your assistance.
“If it should really turn out that your anticipations as to
maintaining the revenue are realised, your triumph will be
great indeed: one half of it will be more than I expect; but
on this point there must, after all, be much speculative
uncertainty, and my only regret was that our finances were not
in a better state to make useful experiments. I shall watch the
result with great interest, and beg you will believe me,
“Dear Sir,
“Yours very truly,
“ASHBURTON.
“ROWLAND HILL, Esq.
“I hope the principle of prepayment will be stoutly maintained.
Any relaxation must be very temporary and with a large
additional charge. Without this the scheme will not work.
The plan of postage-stamps seems to my mind the best. The
post-officers should sell them, and as everybody must put his
letter into some office, he may there also buy his stamp.”
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:—
“To ROWLAND HILL, Esq., presented by the inhabitants of
Wolverhampton, in testimony of their high sense of his public
services, as the Founder and able Advocate of the Plan of
Universal Penny Postage, A.D. 1839.”