OUT OF OFFICE (1842-3).
All being thus decided, and my last duty performed, I saw no reason to
delay any longer that relaxation of which I now stood much in need, and
during the next month the entries in my Journal are comparatively few.
While I was resting my friends were at work:—
“_November 9th, 1842._—Matthew informs me that Lord Brougham
had a long conversation with Sir James Graham, on the 7th
instant, on the subject of my treatment, in the course of
which he (Lord B.) told Sir James Graham that in his opinion
the Government was making a great practical mistake, and
intimated that I must of course defend myself, and that he,
from his long acquaintance with myself and opinion of the plan,
should feel bound to take up the cudgels on my behalf in the
House of Lords. That Sir James Graham appeared also to think
that a mistake had been made, and promised to speak to some
other members of the Cabinet on the subject. Lord Brougham
subsequently wrote to Sir James Graham a letter to be laid
before Peel.”
To give to the public such a knowledge of facts as would enable it to
do justice either to my plan or myself, it was obviously important to
publish that correspondence with the Treasury in which I had again and
again urged improvement, and in which my application had been as often
either neglected or evaded; in which, also, I had received notice of my
dismissal, had deprecated this step, and had been informed of persistence
in the intention, with such show of reason as had been vouchsafed me.
Being aware, however, that such publication was likely to be the subject
of attack, I was careful, before venturing on it, to ascertain my right
to make it; and this I knew must depend upon precedent and require
reference to authority:—
“_November 26th._—Matthew applied to Earl Spencer[335] for his
opinion.”
The following is his lordship’s letter:—
“Longford, November 25th, 1842.
“MY DEAR SIR,—As the correspondence you sent me looked rather
alarming as to bulk, I delayed reading it till I had the
opportunity of a journey. I took this opportunity yesterday.
“I can see no public grounds why your brother should not
publish it if he thinks fit. As a question of personal prudence
I think the thing more doubtful, but I think your letter
only goes to his _right_ to publish it. I have no business,
therefore, to say anything more than that I think he has a
right to publish it.
“You know, however, that I sometimes have done more than answer
a question put to me simply, and I will do so now by adding to
my answer that if I was in his place I would not publish it....
“Yours most truly,
“SPENCER.
“M. D. HILL, Esq.”
“_November 29th._—To-day the Merchants’ Committee [which had
applied for an interview early in August] has seen Sir Robert
Peel. They strongly urged the necessity for completing the
measure—their want of confidence in the Post Office—their
confidence in me, and the great satisfaction it would be to
the public to see me restored to office. Peel satisfied the
deputation that he was sincerely desirous of carrying out the
measure, and Goulburn, who was present, assured them that,
whatever might have been the feeling originally entertained
by the Post Office, all there were now earnest friends of
the measure! (It did not occur to the Committee to inquire
where, then, lay the danger of ‘collision.’) Peel invited the
Committee to send in a statement of those parts of the plan
which they still wished to see carried into effect; but he
stated that a return from the Post Office showed that, _with
the exception of about £100,000 per annum, the net revenue
was obtained from foreign and colonial letters_.[336] This
statement, which he made in an early stage of the conversation,
threw the Committee quite aback; for though I had prepared
them, as I thought, to distrust all information derived from
the Post Office, their want of familiarity with the subject,
and the confident manner with which the statement was made,
caused them to believe it.”
The Committee at my suggestion subsequently applied for a copy of this
return, but it was prudently withheld; and, with equal prudence, no
reason was assigned for the refusal. Of this return, however, more will
appear by-and-by. Meantime, the question of publishing the correspondence
remaining still undecided, I sought further advice. On December 4th I
received the following letter from Mr. Baring:—
“Brighton, Dec. 3rd, 1842.
“DEAR SIR,—I hope to be at Lee on Tuesday, and shall be at your
service on Wednesday morning. But if you are not afraid of a
bad dinner, which you probably will get the first day of our
return, you had better come down on Tuesday, dine and sleep at
Lee, and we will talk over the matter on Wednesday.
“Yours very truly,
“F. T. BARING.”
After careful perusal and reperusal of the correspondence, Mr. Baring,
in the course of several conversations, pronounced my line of conduct
very judicious, and the conduct of Government very shabby. He said it
was absurd to expect that the Post Office would satisfactorily carry
into effect the remaining parts of my plan, and that consequently my
dismissal was most unfair towards the measure. He added that, even
without reference to my plan, my retention as a permanent officer would
be useful as a check upon the proceedings of the Post Office; and that
such retention would be in conformity with the system of Treasury
management, which consists in having an officer to check each subordinate
department. He assured me that it was never his intention that my
services should cease as a matter of course at the expiration of the
year mentioned in his last letter, the fair interpretation of which was
that he considered it advantageous to continue my services indefinitely,
but that as he was then leaving office, and as there were rumours of
an intention on the part of the next Government to abandon my plan, he
did not feel justified in giving me a claim for more than one year’s
salary. These opinions he would be prepared to state in Parliament. He
thought it probable that Lord Lowther’s jealousy was the cause of the
mischief, and that that jealousy was excited by my opposition to his
plan of registration, which, he remarked, if carried into effect would
have created an uproar throughout the country. He was of opinion that I
had a right to publish the correspondence, but feared that by so doing
I should bar the door against other employment, to which he regarded me
as having a claim, that otherwise would probably be recognised even by
the Government then in power; so that he was rather averse to my taking
any step before the meeting of Parliament. I replied that, although I,
of course, should be glad to obtain other employment under Government,
my chief anxiety was to satisfy the public that I had not misled them by
holding out expectations which could not be realized, and that, although
I would carefully consider his kind advice, my present inclination was to
sacrifice all other considerations to the accomplishment of this object;
on which he remarked that, if I were not satisfied with the discussion
in Parliament, I could still publish the correspondence. He expressed
an opinion that it would not be practicable to bring before Parliament
copies of my Reports, or those of the Post Office, to the Treasury,
inasmuch as such Reports being considered confidential, the rule is to
refuse their production. This was a serious disappointment, as I had
depended mainly on the publication of these Reports as a means of showing
the manner in which my duties had been discharged, and the nature of the
opposition of the Post Office.
“_Same day._—Matthew has seen Lord Spencer. His view coincides
almost exactly with Mr. Baring’s, differing only (if I have
understood Mr. B. rightly) in thinking that the late, as well
as the present, Government would disapprove of any appeal to
the public, except through Parliament.”
As Mr. Warburton concurred in disapproving immediate publication, I
yielded to the advice of so many influential friends, though my own
opinion was still strongly in favour of the prompter course. Meanwhile
there came in from various members of Parliament and many other friends
letters of sympathy and support; among others, the following kind and
characteristic one from Mr. Cobden:—
“Newcastle-on-Tyne, 20th January, 1843.
“MY DEAR SIR,—The men of the League are your devoted servants
in every way that can be useful to you. Colonel Thompson,
Bright, and I, have _blessed you_ not a few times in the course
of our agitating tour.... I go back to Manchester to-morrow,
after a very gratifying tour in Scotland. ‘The heather’s on
fire.’
“Believe me,
“Yours very truly,
“R. COBDEN.
“R. HILL, Esq.”
This was followed, within a week, by a second letter, in which it
will be seen that the warmth of his feelings led him into very strong
expressions. These I do not suppress, as every one can make for them the
allowance due to time, circumstance, and a generous nature:—
“Manchester, 26th January, 1843.
“MY DEAR SIR,—I have read over the correspondence, and, so
far as success in placing the Government in the wrong goes,
you will be pronounced triumphant by all who will read it.
But nothing is more true than the remark in your brother’s
excellent letter, that the force of public opinion cannot
be brought to bear upon the authorities to compel them to
work out details. So far as your object in that direction is
concerned, your correspondence will, I suspect, be nugatory. If
your object be to justify yourself in the eyes of the public,
_that_, I submit, is supererogatory. You cannot stand better
than you do with the impartial British public. You will get no
further facilities from Tory functionaries. They hate the whole
thing _with a diabolical hatred_. And well they may. It is a
terrible engine for upsetting monopoly and corruption: witness
our League operations, the _spawn of your penny postage_! Now,
let me deal frankly and concisely with you. I want to see
you remunerated for the work you have done. The labourer is
worthy of his hire. The country is in your debt. An organized
plan is alone necessary to insure you a national subscription
of a sum of money sufficient to reimburse you for time,
trouble, and annoyance incurred and expended in your great
social revolution.... A public subscription—a really national
one—would give you power and independence, and when the next
change of Government takes place you would be in the ascendant.
Until then I expect no hearty co-operation in carrying out
your details. We must be content, in the meantime, to prevent
the Tories from robbing us of any substantial part of the
principle, and I think we have bulldogs enough in the House
now to prevent that. I should like to have some talk with you
about this matter. Meantime, excuse my plainness, and don’t
suspect me of wishing to make you a _sordid_ patriot. You see
what an effect the £50,000 League Fund is producing: a similar
demonstration in favour of the author of Postage Reform, and
a seat in Parliament in prospective, would have a like effect
upon the enemy.
“Believe me,
“Yours truly,
“R. COBDEN.
“ROWLAND HILL, Esq.”
Very different, but no less characteristic of the writer, is the
following letter, received some months later, from Thomas Hood:—
“17, Elm Tree Road, St. John’s Wood,
1st May.
“MY DEAR SIR,
* * * * *
“I have seen so many instances of folly and ingratitude similar
to those you have met with, that it would never surprise me
to hear of the railway people some day, finding their trains
running on so well, proposing to discharge the engines.
* * * * *
“I am, my dear Sir,
“Yours very truly,
“THOMAS HOOD.
“R. HILL, Esq.”
Meanwhile, I felt nowise daunted by late events, but rather filled with
fresh zeal; for although I never willingly entered into a conflict, yet
when one was forced upon me, or stood between me and what I deemed right,
I was by no means backward at the work.
One of my earliest moves after leaving office was towards personal and
domestic economy. While I was in receipt of a large salary, and had my
attention fully occupied, and indeed my powers heavily taxed, I had
allowed my expenditure to obtain dimensions unsuitable to my present
condition. Of course I intended to seek new occupation, but this would
require time; and, meanwhile, I felt that if I would act independently
I must make myself independent of circumstances. I therefore entered at
once upon a course of vigorous retrenchment, and partly by my efforts,
but much more by the zealous and most efficient co-operation of my
dear wife, our expenditure was soon brought within very narrow limits.
Without any change of house or diminution in number of servants, our
disbursements were soon reduced by one-half, and it was only in the first
year after the change that my expenditure exceeded my income. I may add
that it never had exceeded it before, and that it never exceeded it again.
As the parliamentary session approached, however, I had to turn my
attention more and more to the work of preparation for the duty which
I expected it to bring. I therefore put my papers in the most perfect
order—a proceeding which has greatly facilitated the writing of this part
of my narrative.
Sir Thomas Wilde having very kindly undertaken to lay my case before
Parliament, I could not but feel some anxiety as to the view that might
be taken of this course by Mr. Wallace, who had himself acted as leader
in earlier days. I therefore wrote to him on the subject as delicately
as I could, and a fortnight afterwards, when he came to town for the
parliamentary session, I called upon him with some feeling of anxiety. I
quote from my Journal:—
“He behaves nobly, as he always has done, fully acquiescing in
the arrangement with regard to Sir Thomas Wilde, and expressing
his own readiness to follow Sir Thomas’s lead.”
Meanwhile, however, my attention was called to considerations of a
somewhat different character:—
“_February 8th._—Met Mr. Stephen, of the Colonial Office, in
Piccadilly, and at his request walked with him to the Colonial
Office. On the way he urged me to apply to the Government
for employment, saying that he felt sure my claim would be
acknowledged—intimating that I might expect such an appointment
as a Commissionership of Customs. I replied, that such a step
would be considered as a tacit engagement on my part not
to bring my case before the public; that other friends had
recommended a similar course, under the impression that the
complimentary expressions in the letters from the Treasury
were intended by Government to suggest it, but that, after
mature deliberation, I had decided not to do anything which
should prevent my making known to the public the true causes
of the small amount of revenue actually obtained, as compared
with my anticipations, and justifying my conduct throughout.
Mr. Stephen rejoined that he did not doubt I might stipulate
to do all this, providing that I refrained from attacking the
Government, and yet obtain lucrative and honourable employment.
To this I said I of course could not object, and he recommended
that two of the leading merchants or bankers in the city, of
opposite politics, should make the application on my behalf.
I promised to consider the suggestion, but requested that he
would, in the meantime, read the correspondence, a copy of
which I sent him the same afternoon.
“_February 11th._—Prepared a memorandum ... called on Mr.
Stephen, read it to him, and left it with him; he expressing
a desire to reconsider the matter, with a view, perhaps, of
making such inquiries of Goulburn, with whom he is intimate,
as would enable him to judge of the probable success of such
an application as he had suggested. I desired that he would do
whatever he thought best, clearly understanding, however, that
I was no party to anything of the kind.
“_February 15th._—Mr. Stephen writes that he has ascertained
that nothing can be done unless I submit to be gagged, and not
very much even then; so the whole ends in smoke.
“_Same day._—Wrote to Mr. Stephen thanking him for his
kindness, which, from the very unreserved manner in which he
spoke of the Government, I feel very strongly; but of course
declining to apply to Government.”[337]
About three weeks later, Mr. Goulburn, in reply to an application made
by Mr. Hutt, on behalf of Sir Thomas Wilde, for the production of my
correspondence with the Treasury, refused to give more than a few
letters, withholding those of chief importance;[338] and though, on
being pressed, he somewhat enlarged the grant, it still remained very
imperfect. Unsatisfactory, however, as was this concession, motion was
made accordingly:—
“_March 29th._—My correspondence with the Treasury. The
printed copies were delivered this morning. By the omission
of all the letters urging progress in the plan, Goulburn’s
notice of dismissal is brought into juxtaposition with a
minute of December 24th, 1841 (of which I never heard till
now), confirming the extension of my engagement for one year
from September 14th, 1841, and made to appear as the natural
sequence of such minute, instead of being, as it was in fact,
the answer to my complaints of no progress, and of Post Office
interference to prevent my journey to Newcastle. The whole
thing is cunningly done, and it shows that the five weeks taken
to prepare the correspondence have not been lost. The case is
so much damaged, however, that I have determined to give the
papers a very limited circulation, and to press on Wilde to
consent to the publication of the whole. Sir Robert Peel, in
his letter[339] to me, admits that ‘important improvements’
still remain to be effected; but in the printed copy the word
‘important’ is dropped.”[340]
To my surprise, the strength of my case, grievously impaired as it was by
this maiming of the correspondence, was nevertheless recognised in one of
the journals regularly supporting the Government:—
“_March 30th._—The _Morning Herald_ gives the correspondence
with Sir Robert Peel, and has a leader, sneering, of course,
at penny postage, but expressing an opinion that I have been
unjustly treated, and ought to have a place or a pension.”
This is the last entry in my Journal for the present. On the one hand,
I became so engrossed in preparation for the coming conflict—a conflict
which seemed to me as one almost of life and death—that I had no time to
spare save for pressing demands; while, on the other hand, the motive to
record was greatly weakened since my exclusion from the Treasury. For
the history of the following three years and a-half, my dependence is on
documents, parliamentary or otherwise, produced during the period (all
of which I have carefully preserved), and on such recollections as are
suggested by their perusal.
On April 10th a petition for inquiring into the state of the Post
Office, prepared by myself and in my own name, was presented to the
House of Commons by Mr. Baring; and on the following night Mr. Hawes
gave notice that Sir Thomas Wilde would call the attention of the House
to the same soon after the Easter holidays—a notice, however, which from
various causes had to be repeated several times before being acted
upon. Of this petition, which appears at length in the Report of the
Committee,[341] I will merely mention here that, after reference to my
appointment and subsequent dismissal, after statements as to the very
incomplete introduction of my plan, evidence as to the hopelessness of
its completion being effected by the Post Office, and representations as
to the vast interests at stake, I concluded by expressing my desire “to
submit the truth of the foregoing allegations to the severest scrutiny,”
and by petitioning for the necessary inquiry.
This petition was presently backed by another from eight members[342]
of the Mercantile Committee, so often mentioned before, in which, after
briefly adverting to the beneficial effect of the improvement already
made, the petitioners, expressing an earnest desire for the completion of
the plan, prayed for inquiry with a view to that end.
I now felt that the time was come when my friends should be put in full
possession of the facts of the case; and, consequently, having printed
all of the correspondence which had been applied for in Parliament,
that withheld as well as that granted, I sent copies, marked “strictly
confidential,” to the members of the Mercantile Committee, and some
others of my friends, prefacing it with an introduction, in which I
justified the proceeding—first, by the declaration of the Chancellor
of the Exchequer, that his denial was made on the ground that the part
which had been withheld was unnecessary, no allegation being made as
to inconvenience to the public service, and, secondly, by the high
authority which I had for saying that I had a right, looking to the
nature of the correspondence itself, to official usage, and all other
circumstances, to place the whole before the public. This step, taken
on April 13th, was on the 19th condemned in the House of Commons by
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Goulburn, but defended by the
ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Baring.
It was not until May 1st that I obtained a copy of the return upon which
Sir Robert Peel, in the preceding November, based his injurious and
erroneous statement that the inland post yielded but £100,000 a-year to
the revenue. This return was now laid before Parliament on the motion
of Sir George Clerk. In consequence I addressed a letter to the daily
papers, in which I expressed myself as follows:—
“I have no hesitation in stating that the return, whether
considered in regard to its general results or to the division
of revenue under the two heads, is utterly fallacious.”
I concluded by promising to give in due time a full exposure of the
fallacy—a promise afterwards fulfilled.[343]
In the short period during which this return was under my consideration,
an incident occurred which must be mentioned, because, besides giving
additional evidence of Post Office incompetency, it excited some surprise
and not a little amusement. The Overland Route to India being now
established, a notice was issued by the Post Office, that persons wishing
to send letters by that route to Australia must address them to “an agent
in India,” who in turn must pay the postage onward, as otherwise the
letters would not be forwarded. To the unreasonableness of expecting
that every one writing by that route to Australia should have an agent
planted half-way, was added such vagueness of expression as would have
rendered the injunction very misleading; “India” being put for “Bombay,”
where alone, according to Post Office arrangement, the postage could be
paid. The absurdity of the proceeding was so manifest that within a week
from its appearance the notice was withdrawn.
In this short period, also, Mr. Ashurst, acting for the Mercantile
Committee, issued a circular to mayors of towns and other representative
persons, recommending that petitions should be sent up praying for the
complete execution of my plan; the recommendation being accompanied with
a statement showing, in the most pithy manner, the chief estimates as
to number of letters and average of postage under the old rates, made
severally by the Post Office authorities, the Parliamentary Committee,
and myself, previously to the adoption of the plan, and comparing them
with actual results.
About this time Mr. Baring had moved for a return, to show how far
the instructions, issued by the Treasury more than a year and a-half
ago,[344] for the extension of rural distribution, had been carried into
effect by the Post Office. Of course he had, ere this, learnt from me
that its operation had been suspended by the Treasury; but now, in the
return called for, this essential fact was suppressed, the whole answer
being as follows:—
“No definite arrangements have yet been made by the Post Office
in conformity with the Minutes of the Lords of the Treasury,
dated the 13th and 27th days of August, 1841, relating to the
Post Office distribution in the rural districts of the United
Kingdom.
“W. L. MABERLY.
“General Post Office, 8th April, 1843.”
The motion, so important to me, and, as I thought, and still think, to
the cause of postal reform, seemed in danger of lapsing to the end of
the session, not coming on until June 27th. The House was far from full,
but the number present was considerable. I obtained a seat for myself
and my brother Arthur under the gallery, sitting on the opposition side
of the House, that I might the more readily supply my friends with any
information that might be required during the progress of the debate.
Colonel Maberly, likewise under the gallery, was, I suppose for the
like reason, on the Government side of the House. The debate occupies
forty-seven pages in “Hansard;”[345] but keen as was the interest with
which my brother and I listened to every word, I shall not trouble the
reader of the present day with more than a brief abstract.
The motion of which Sir Thomas Wilde had given notice was for a Select
Committee, “To inquire into the progress which had been made in carrying
into effect the recommendations of Mr. Rowland Hill for Post Office
improvement; and whether the further carrying into effect of such
recommendations or any of them will be beneficial to the country.”[346]
Sir Thomas Wilde, after adverting to the deliberate adoption of my plan
by Parliament, and this in a time of commercial depression, with the
knowledge that its adoption was expected to produce a small permanent and
a large immediate reduction of revenue, pointed out that my plan had
been presented as a whole, no part being recommended unless accompanied
with the remainder. After referring to the authoritative condemnation
of the old system, to my appointment, to the acknowledged value of my
services, to the opposition of the Post Office, to the hopelessness
of expecting the completion of my plan from that department, or even
from the Treasury, unless aided by one able and ready to deal with the
fallacies with which resistance was defended; after having pointed out
the unfairness of the experiment on which my plan had been judged, and,
in fine, given a history of the progress (and non-progress) of postal
reform during the time I was at the Treasury, and of my dismissal
therefrom, he concluded by moving the resolution of which he had given
notice.[347]
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, while repeating some of the allegations
made in his letter to me, endeavoured to inculpate the late Government,
and to throw upon them the responsibility of my dismissal, condemned
my divulging the correspondence as a breach of confidence, greatly
overstated the power committed to me during his tenure of office, spoke
of much having been accomplished since I left the Treasury, enumerating
for this purpose some measures adopted on my recommendation while I was
still there, and others hastily resolved on since the presentation of my
petition, no one of which, however, was yet carried into execution.
He attempted to defend the opposition to the reduction of the
registration-fee by greatly overstating the amount of money-order
business, extolled Lord Lowther, absurdly attributing to him the
origination of penny postage,[348] though he had voted against it
in committee;[349] asserted that the Post Office did not pay its own
expenses;[350] but ended by saying that he had no objection to a limited
inquiry, and by proposing, as an amendment to Sir Thomas Wilde’s motion,
the following:—
“That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the
measures adopted for the general introduction of the system
of penny postage, and for the facilitating the conveyance of
letters throughout the country.”[351]
Mr. F. Baring (late Chancellor of the Exchequer) saw no objection to the
amendment, and hoped that Sir Thomas Wilde would allow it to be carried
in lieu of his own motion. He touched upon the unfair use made of the
term “penny postage,” a term by no means including the whole plan, for
the purpose of limiting my engagement; and remarked that in renewing
this engagement for one year he had not meant to restrict it to that
period, but had merely refrained from acting discourteously towards his
successor, while “all along of opinion that the services of Mr. Hill
at the Treasury would be required for a much longer period than one
year.”[352] He continued as follows (and I hope that I may be pardoned
for making the quotation):—
“He also thought it was only common justice to say that, at the
period when it was determined to carry out this plan, he had
not the slightest personal knowledge of Mr. Rowland Hill....
He had expected that a person who had been long engaged in
the preparation of an extensive system of this kind would
not carry out the change with that coolness and judgment that
was requisite; and he had expected that he should have great
difficulties to contend with in inducing Mr. Hill to adopt
any alteration in his plan that might appear requisite. He
found quite the contrary of this, and that Mr. Hill, with the
greatest readiness, adopted any suggestions that were made to
him; so that instead of difficulties, he found every facility
in carrying the plan into effect. True, Mr. Hill gave his
reasons for the opinion that he had adopted, or for the course
that he recommended; but if any of his suggestions were not
adopted, he always found Mr. Hill most ready to give way to the
course which he suggested.”[353]
He admitted that—
“No absolute bargain had been broken with Mr. Rowland Hill,
still he could not help expressing his sincere regret that,
after three years’ exertions, which were characterized by the
utmost zeal and intelligence, he should be allowed to retire
from the public service in the way in which he had. He repeated
that, although no bargain had been broken, still, if zeal,
intelligence, and ability, and the rendering important public
services, entitled any one to claim consideration, Mr. Hill had
a most powerful case.”[354]
Towards the close of his speech he dealt as follows with Mr. Goulburn’s
statement as to the extent of the money-order operations:—
“The calculation which the right hon. gentleman had made, as to
the amount of money transmitted through the Money-Order Office,
was a most extraordinary one. The right hon. gentleman stated
the amount to be eight millions, whereas he should have said
four millions; the right hon. gentleman had made the slight
mistake of doubling the amount by calculating the money which
was paid in, and adding to it the same money when paid out.
According to the right hon. gentleman’s mode of calculating, to
arrive at the quantity of water which passes through a pipe,
you must add the water which enters at one end to the same
water when it passes out at the other end, and the quantity so
added together will give the result desired.”[355]
He rejoiced that a Committee was to be appointed, and he observed, in
conclusion:—
“That if ever there was a measure in reference to which the
people had a right to ascertain whether it was carried into
effect fully and fairly, it was this.”[356]
Sir Robert Peel—
“Had never felt a doubt as to the great social advantages
of lowering the duty on letters; the only doubt was as to
its financial effect: in all other respects the result of
any inquiry would show that, whatever might have been the
loss to the revenue, much advantage had been derived in what
concerned the encouragement of industry, and the promotion of
communication between the humbler classes of the community.”
After observing that “it was, therefore, no dissatisfaction with Mr.
Hill’s conduct, no indifference to his services, that led him and his
right hon. friend to take the course they had taken,”[357] he said, in
reference to my original appointment—
“It appeared to him that, had it been deemed necessary to
retain Mr. Hill’s services, and had it been conceived that the
Post Office authorities were hostile to the plan, prejudiced
against its principle and its details, and indisposed to lend
themselves with zeal and cordiality to carrying it out, the
plan should have been, not to retain Mr. Hill in control over
the Post Office (yet unconnected with it), but to have at once
made him Secretary of the Post Office. That department would
thus have been no longer in a position continually to obstruct,
as the complaint was, the due execution of the plan; but Mr.
Hill himself, the person so deeply anxious for the success of
the scheme, would have the immediate control of it.”[358]
He also spoke of Colonel Maberly in terms of general esteem, and denied
that he had failed in cordial co-operation with me, speaking likewise
in high terms of Lord Lowther, and maintaining (contrary to fact) that
he had voted in committee for all Mr. Warburton’s resolutions,[359] and
was a decided friend to Mr. Hill’s system.[360] He acquiesced in the
appointment of a Committee, and “would assure them (the House) that,
while he continued in office, he would lend all his weight, influence,
and authority to insure full justice to the new system.”[361]
Sir Thomas Wilde declared himself satisfied with the amendment, which was
agreed to without a division.[362]
The indirect effect of the modification demanded by Ministers in Sir
Thomas Wilde’s motion was to take the nomination of the Committee out
of the hands of the mover, and to give it to Government—the natural
consequence being that the majority was made to consist of Government
supporters. Of the thirteen gentlemen selected, six only were of the
Liberal party; amongst these, however, were some of my best friends. Of
course, in securing a majority, Government also obtained the appointment
of the Chairman, and the choice fell upon Sir George Clerk. Upon this
choice no further comment can be required than a simple statement of the
position. I had appealed against a decision of the Treasury, a Court
was constituted to try the case, and of this Court the Secretary of
the Treasury was President. Lord Brougham used to tell of an amusing
occurrence, I think at York, at the time when he was on the Northern
Circuit. When the list of the jury was calling over, preparatory to
trying a certain case, the judge, remarking identity of name between one
of the jurors and the plaintiff in the suit, and inquiring, “I suppose,
Mr. Thomson, you are no relation to the plaintiff in this cause?” was
answered, “Please you, my Lord, I _is_ the plaintiff.” The interloper
was of course discharged, and a severe rebuke was given to the officer
of the court by whom so improper a selection had been made. Looking at
my own case, however, the parallel would have been more complete had
he been retained, and made, at least, foreman of the jury. However, to
have obtained a Committee at all was a very great gain; for though the
bias to be naturally expected from its composition did not fail to show
itself in the course of the proceedings, still opportunity was thus given
for that full and plain statement of facts which, I felt sure, would
suffice to set me right with the public; and, in justice to the Committee
generally, I must say that my opportunity for making such statements was
fairly given. I had, indeed, some browbeating to endure (even beyond what
appears in the Report, as may be seen by the letter given below),[363]
but with this the Committee generally did not appear to sympathize;
indeed, I have reason to believe that it tended rather to injure than to
benefit the cause which it was meant to advance.
APPENDICES.
APPENDIX A.
[See p. 57.]
ROYAL ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY.
[_For my Biography, written, chiefly from my dictation, in
June, 1874._]
Although a member of the Astronomical Society for more than half a
century, and, with the exception of two out of about 430, the oldest now
living, I have never contributed to the Society’s transactions.
Yet from boyhood I have been very much attached to astronomical pursuits.
My father was well informed on the subject, and eventually, though
several years later than myself, became a member of the Society.[364] He
had long possessed a reflecting telescope, capable of showing Jupiter’s
Moons and Belts, and Saturn’s Rings, though not, according to my
recollection, any of the moons, even the rings appearing not severally
but as one. He had also a Hadley’s Quadrant, an artificial horizon, and a
tolerably good clock, and he regularly took in the “Nautical Almanac.”
By means of this simple apparatus, he not only regulated the clock, but
determined the latitude and even the longitude of our house, or rather of
the playground, at Hill Top.
In these occupations I was invariably his assistant; and it was in this
manner and with the aid of his lectures that I gradually acquired, even
while a boy, a taste for Astronomy, and, for my age, no inconsiderable
knowledge of the subject.
My father (like myself in youth and early manhood) was a great walker,
and we frequently journeyed together. When I was only nine years of age,
I walked with him, for the most part after dark, from Birmingham to
Stourbridge, a distance of twelve miles, with occasional lifts—no doubt
according to usage—on his back. I recollect that it was a brilliant
starlight night, and the names of the constellations and of the brighter
single stars, their apparent motions and the distinction between the
so-called fixed stars and planets, formed then, as on many other similar
occasions, never-failing subjects of interesting conversation, and to me
of instruction. On the way we passed by the side of a small pool, and,
the air being still, the surface of the water gave a perfect reflection
of the stars. I have a vivid recollection, after an interval of nearly
seventy years, of the fear with which I looked into what appeared to me
a vast abyss, and of my clinging to my father to protect me from falling
into it.
The remarkable comet of 1811—remarkable from the length of time it
continued in sight—interested me greatly. I was then fifteen years of
age. I examined it frequently with our telescope, got much information
from my father and from such books as were accessible to me; and before
the comet had disappeared was, I believe, tolerably familiar with what
was then known of cometary astronomy.
As already stated in the “Prefatory Memoir,” the teaching of a subject
was with me concurrent, or nearly so, with the learning. I soon began to
lecture on Astronomy, first to the boys of our school, and afterwards to
a literary and scientific association of which I was a member.
With a view to these lectures, availing myself of the “Transactions
of the Royal Society” (taken in by one of the Birmingham libraries to
which we subscribed), I read, I believe without exception, all the
contributions of Sir William Herschel, then incomparably the first of
living English astronomers. My reverence for the man led me to contrive,
on the occasion of my second visit to London (1815), to go round by
Slough, in order that I might obtain a glimpse—as the coach passed—of
his great telescope, which I knew could be seen over the tops of the
neighbouring buildings.
In the “Prefatory Memoir” I have already spoken of my teaching
navigation, of the planispheres which I constructed for my father’s
lectures upon electricity, of my trigonometrical survey, of my visit
to Captain Kater and the Greenwich Observatory, and of my Vernier
pendulums—all more or less intimately connected with my pursuit of
Astronomy. Nor must I omit mention of a popular explanation of the
transit of Mercury in May, 1832, which I wrote for the “Penny Magazine.”
(See Vol. I., p. 82.)
I may also mention, as a fact worth recording, that in 1817 (I believe)
the celebrated mathematician, M. Biot, passed through Birmingham on his
return from the Shetland Isles, where he had been engaged in measuring
an arc of the meridian.[365] My father was invited to dine with him, I
think at the house of Mr. Tertius Galton; and afterwards both he and I,
among others, were invited to meet him at the rooms of the Philosophical
Institution. Very few obeyed this second summons, perhaps because the day
fixed upon was Sunday. He showed us in action a small instrument for the
polarization of light—a subject of which my father and I, and I think the
others, were up to that time profoundly ignorant. The only individual
with whom M. Biot appeared to be previously acquainted was an emigré, Dr.
De Lys, a leading physician of Birmingham, whose father, the Marquis De
Lys, had been guillotined during the Reign of Terror. In the evening we
met again at a coach office in the Market Place, to bid farewell to M.
Biot on his departure for London, when he caused some tittering, and put
poor Dr. De Lys to the blush by publicly kissing him, in French fashion,
on both cheeks.
To return to the Astronomical Society. My attendance at its meetings, so
long as I continued to live near Birmingham, was necessarily rare. On
my removal to the neighbourhood of London it became more frequent, but
even then my time was so fully occupied with more pressing duties that
my attendance remained very irregular, and it totally ceased several
years ago. I have, however, invariably read the “Monthly Notices” of the
Society’s proceedings, and have thus benefited more, perhaps, than by
mere attendance.
Still, as already stated, I have never contributed to the Society’s
transactions, the truth being that up to the time of my becoming disabled
for steady application to any difficult subject, my mind was so entirely
engrossed with my official duties, that the little leisure I could obtain
was necessarily devoted to recruiting my health.
Nevertheless, as already shown,[366] I have attempted something to
promote my favourite science. The following is an instance of the kind:—
VARIABLE STARS.
On the 16th January, 1865, I addressed the following letter to my late
excellent friend, Admiral Smyth:—
“MY DEAR ADMIRAL,—I have just completed the perusal of your
very interesting volume on ‘The Colours of Double Stars,’
kindly presented to me by Dr. Lee in your name and his; and I
thank you for the gratification it has afforded me.
“What you say on the subject of variable stars has called to
my recollection an idea which first occurred to me shortly
after the discovery of the periodicity of the increase and
decrease in the number and frequency of solar spots. I am
aware that such increase and decrease is not continuous, and
that the variation is not such as materially to affect the
Sun’s brightness. Still, in point of fact, is not our own Sun
a variable star—however slightly—with a period, tolerably well
defined, of about eleven years? And may not the more marked
character of other variable stars be owing to similar causes to
those which produce the spots in our sun, acting with greater
regularity and intensity?
“If you think it deserving attention, pray favour me with your
opinion of my theory. Possibly it may have been suggested
previously, but if so, I am not aware of the fact.
“I remain, my dear Admiral, yours faithfully,
“ROWLAND HILL.
“Admiral Smyth, F.R.S., &c., &c., &c.”
Shortly afterwards I received a very friendly letter from Mrs. Smyth, the
tenor of which will be sufficiently understood from what follows:—
“Hampstead, 20th January, 1865.
“DEAR MRS. SMYTH,—Many thanks for your letter. Pray don’t let
the Admiral withdraw himself from his present work. My theory
can wait, or I may find an opportunity of consulting some other
authority.
“Our kindest regards.
“Very truly yours,
“ROWLAND HILL.”
I accordingly, on the 14th February following, addressed a letter—similar
to the one to Admiral Smyth—to my friend, Mr. Warren De La Rue, then
President—as Admiral Smyth had once been—of the Astronomical Society;
but although Mr. De La Rue took much trouble to ascertain whether my
theory had, as he thought, been suggested before, it was not till long
afterwards that he was able to give any definite information on the
subject.
In a letter of July 9th, 1866, Mr. De La Rue drew my attention to a
paper by Mr. Balfour Stewart in the Transactions of the Royal Society of
Edinburgh, which, in the opinion of Mr. De La Rue, “gives a very explicit
enunciation” of the theory.
On referring to the paper in question (Vol. XXIII, part iii.), I found
that it was read on the 18th April, 1864, and the following is an extract
from a memorandum which I made on the subject:—“Indirectly, by showing
a probable connexion between the maxima and minima of Sun-spots and the
rotation of Jupiter about the Sun, and by suggesting that the periodic
variations of the stars is caused by the rotation of large planets
about them, Mr. Balfour Stewart has, I think, forestalled me.” Perhaps,
however, I may be justified in doubting whether the enunciation here
given is very explicit.
Before proceeding, it is necessary to digress for a moment. When a boy
I was fond of reading books of elementary science. I occasionally met
with statements which puzzled me—which appeared to me to be wrong—but
assuming, as children do, the infallibility of the author—or perhaps I
should say of a printed book—I naturally came to the conclusion that my
own understanding was in fault, and became greatly disheartened. After
awhile—I forget on what occasion—I applied for solution of the puzzle to
my father, who, possessing a large amount of general information, was
well qualified to advise. To my great delight, he assured me that I was
right and the author wrong. My unqualified faith in printed statements
was now, of course, at an end; and a habit was gradually formed of
mentally criticising almost everything I read—a habit which, however
useful in early life, is, as I have found in old age, a cause of much
waste of thinking power when the amount is so reduced as to render
economy of essential importance.
Still, through the greater part of my life this habit of reading
critically, combined as it was with the power of rapid calculation, has
been of great use to me, especially in my contests with the Post Office,
and, after I had joined the Department, in the revision of the thousands
of Reports, Returns, and Minutes prepared by other officers.
In general literature, if the author attempt to deal with science, the
chance of a blunder appears to be great. Even Lord Macaulay could not
always do so with safety, as appears from the following passage:—“In
America the Spanish territories [in 1698] spread from the equator
northward and southward _through all the signs of the Zodiac_ far into
the temperate zone.”[367] What can be the meaning of the words which I
have marked for Italics?
Mrs. Oliphant, too, whose admirable stories I never miss reading, says,
in one of her latest, “there was a new moon making her way _upwards_ in
the pale sky.”[368]
There is no writer to whom I feel more grateful than to Miss Edgeworth.
When a boy I read her delightful stories with the greatest possible
interest, and I feel sure that they had considerable influence in the
formation of my character. Unfortunately, however, they are frequently
disfigured by scientific errors. Thus, in her admirable story of “The
Good Aunt,” the following passage occurs: “My dearest Aunt,” cried he
[Charles], stopping her hand, as she was giving her diamond ear-rings to
Mr. Carat—“stay, my dearest aunt, one instant, till I have seen whether
this is a good day for selling diamonds.”
“O, my dear young gentleman, no day in the Jewish calendar more proper
for de purchase,” said the Jew.
“For the purchase! yes,” said Charles, “but for the sale?”
“My love,” said his aunt, “surely you are not so foolish as to think
there are lucky and unlucky days.”
“No, I don’t mean anything about lucky and unlucky days,” said Charles,
running up to consult the barometer; “but what I mean is not foolish
indeed; in some book I’ve read that the dealers in diamonds buy them
when the air is light, and sell them when it is heavy, if they can,
because their scales are so nice that they vary with the change in the
atmosphere.”
Now, as the metallic weights are of greater specific gravity than the
diamonds, the interests of the dealers—so far as they are affected by
change of atmosphere—must be to buy when the air is _heavy_ and sell
when it is _light_. An increase of density in the air would, of course,
reduce the gravity of both diamonds and weights, but not equally: the
diamonds, being the more bulky, would lose gravity more than the weights,
and consequently would weigh less. If it were possible that the air
should increase in density till it became as heavy, bulk for bulk, as the
diamonds, they would float therein, or, in other words, weigh nothing at
all.
I well remember when, as a boy, I first read this admirable story, how
much I was puzzled by the mistake in question.
An error, occasionally met with in novels, is as follows. A wonderful
marksman has to exhibit his powers, which he does thus:—He throws into
the air two birds—or perhaps inanimate objects—as two apples; then,
_waiting till both are in a line with himself_, sends his arrow or bullet
through both. A slight consideration will show that, in a vast majority
of cases, no amount of waiting would suffice.
Another prevailing error is, that a person simply standing by the side of
a pool can see his own reflection from the surface—Narcissus must have
found some support which enabled him to lean over the fountain.
But it is in books especially intended to teach elementary science that
such errors are most to be regretted.
A few years since I purchased for some of my grandchildren the eighth
edition of “The Seasons,” by Mrs. Marcet. It is an admirable work,
highly interesting and useful; but before placing it in the hands of my
grandchildren, I thought it necessary to read it myself—a very pleasing
task, by-the-by—and to correct any errors I might find. As examples, I
may mention that in Volume I. snow is described as frozen rain; that
in Volume IV. _both_ stones in a flour-mill are said to revolve; and
that the description in the same volume of a marine steam engine is very
incorrect.
Again, few books are better calculated to interest boys than Dr. Parris’s
“Philosophy in Sport,” but when, in the year 1829, I bought a copy for
the School-Library at Bruce Castle, I found it necessary, before placing
it there, to make numerous corrections to which I drew the attention
of the author, who, in a letter dated March 18th, 1829, still in my
possession, thanks me for my communication, and admits some of the
errors, though not all.
As a specimen of the admitted errors, I give the following:—“Mr. Seymour
now informed his young pupils that he had an experiment to exhibit,
which would further illustrate, in a very pleasing manner, the truth of
the doctrine of _vis inertiæ_. He accordingly inverted a wine-glass,
and placed a shilling on its foot; and having pushed it suddenly along
the table, _the coin flew off towards the operator, or in a direction
opposite to that in which the glass was moving_.”[369]
My correction is as follows: “The coin would fall nearly in a
perpendicular direction, but inclined a little _towards_ the direction in
which the glass was moving, owing to the friction between the glass and
coin.”
As a specimen of the non-admitted errors, I give the following: “He
had ignorantly fired a quantity of oxygen and hydrogen gases in a tin
vessel; the consequence of the combustion was the immediate formation of
a _vacuum_; and what happened? Why, the pressure of the external air,
not being any longer balanced by elastic matter in the interior of the
apparatus, crushed it with violence, as any other enormous weight might
have done; and so ended the accident, which report magnified into a most
awful catastrophe.”[370]
My correction is as follows: “The first effect of the combustion was to
_expand_ the air in the vessel, and this _expansion_ it was that caused
the accident.”
On which the author, after quoting my correction, replies, “Now you will
allow me to say that here you have fallen into an error; I am perfectly
correct in saying that the accident arose from the external pressure
of the atmosphere; for remember that the vessel contained a mixture of
oxygen and hydrogen gases, which, by combustion, immediately combined
and formed water, leaving an almost perfect vacuum in the interior.”
If any one entertain a doubt as to which of us is correct, I would
suggest his filling a small bladder with the proper mixture of oxygen and
hydrogen, and exploding it by electrical means; as I did nearly sixty
years ago. The bladder will be destroyed; but, according to Dr. Parris’s
view, it should simply collapse.
But even men of unquestionable scientific knowledge are not always
correct. The late Professor Phillips, in his able and interesting
Address as President of the British Association in 1865, after noticing
Foucault’s recent admeasurement of the velocity of light, proceeded as
follows:—“By this experiment the velocity of light appears to be less,
sensibly less, than was previously admitted; and this conclusion is of
the highest interest. For, as by assuming too long a radius for the orbit
of Jupiter, the calculated rate of light-movement was too great; so now,
by employing the more exact rate and the same measures of time, we can
correct the estimated distance of Jupiter and all the other planets from
the Sun.”[371]
Professor Phillips’s great forte was geology, not astronomy. To any one
familiar with the means by which Römer determined the velocity of light,
it is unnecessary to point out that, although his observations were
made on the satellites of Jupiter, the radius of Jupiter’s orbit has
nothing to do with the problem. The only material facts are, first, the
_difference_ between the maximum and minimum distance of Jupiter from the
earth,—that is to say (disregarding eccentricity) the diameter of the
earth’s orbit; and, secondly, the effect which this varying distance has
on the times at which the eclipses apparently take place. This effect
Römer found to extend to about 16 minutes—and he thence concluded that
light occupied 16 minutes in travelling across the earth’s orbit.
With the view of rendering the above intelligible to those not familiar
with the subject, I offer the following illustration:—Suppose it to be
known that about a certain hour a gun will be fired at a remote spot,
the direction of which, but not the distance, is known, and that two
persons (A. and B.) arrange to avail themselves of the opportunity for
ascertaining, approximately, the velocity of sound; then, each being
furnished with a good watch marking seconds, A. places himself at a
certain spot, and B. at a known distance—say a mile—from A., and in a
direction opposite to that of the gun, so that B.’s distance from the gun
shall be a mile greater than A.’s—the actual distance in either case is
unimportant.
Each now records the exact moment at which he hears the report; and if
the gun be fired repeatedly, several such records are made, in order to
give a more accurate result.
A. and B. then meet and compare notes. They, of course, find that A.’s
time is in each instance earlier than B.’s. The average of the several
differences would be about 4¾ seconds—showing that sound travels a mile
in that time.[372]
The mode of procedure here described is, of course, not that actually
adopted for determining the velocity of sound, but it is a practicable
mode, and is selected because it is analogous to that adopted by Römer
for determining the velocity of light.
A copy of Professor Phillips’s Address was sent to me immediately after
its delivery, and, on my detecting the error, I endeavoured to induce a
friend of his, deservedly eminent as a practical astronomer, to draw the
Professor’s attention thereto, with a view to its correction before the
publication of the permanent report of the Society’s proceedings; but,
unfortunately, the attempt did not succeed.
In another similar case, however, as appears by the following
correspondence between the Astronomer Royal and myself, I was more
successful:—
“Hampstead, N.W.
“1868—June 17.[373]
“MY DEAR SIR,—Pray accept my thanks for the copy of your
Report. It came while I was at Brighton; but, since my return
home, I have read it with great interest. I felt it a great
privation not to be able to attend the Visitation.
“Will you allow me to request your attention to what appear
to me to be serious errors in the recent annual Address of
the President of the Astronomical Society? They will be found
in the last paragraph of page 119 of the ‘Monthly Notices’
for February. To save you trouble, I have extracted the part
in question, and have underlined the words which I think
erroneous. ‘At the present time the Earth is about three
millions of miles nearer to the Sun in our northerly winter
than in our summer; our coldest month is about 60° Fh. colder
than our hottest, and our winter lasts for about eight days
_longer_ than our summer. M. Leverrier has calculated that
200,000 years ago the Earth approached the Sun by upwards of
ten millions of miles nearer in winter than in summer: the
winters were then nearly a month _longer_ than the summers, and
in the latitude of London there was a difference of about 112°
Fh. between the hottest and the coldest periods of the year.’
“If you find that I am right, perhaps you will have the
kindness to draw Mr. Pritchard’s attention to the errors, with
a view to their correction before the Address is printed in
the ‘Transactions.’ I would write to Mr. Pritchard myself, but
that, as I could not speak with authority, I might give offence.
“I have watched the subsequent monthly numbers in the
expectation of finding a correction, but none has appeared.
“Faithfully yours,
“ROWLAND HILL.
“The Astronomer Royal, &c., &c., &c.”
The Astronomer Royal promptly replied as follows:—
“Royal Observatory, Greenwich, London, S.E.
“1868—June 18.
“MY DEAR SIR,—I will duly bring before Mr. Pritchard the
substance of your note of yesterday.
“The two clauses which you have cited are, on the face of them,
erroneous; and in the first the fault clearly is in the word
_longer_. In the second, the fault may be in the word _nearer_.
For, during the period through which the great eccentricity
prevails, the semi-revolution in the precession of the
equinoxes may have reversed the seasons.
“It would seem that Mr. Pritchard has had in view the table in
‘Lyell’s Principles of Geology,’ Vol. I., p. 293. In the notes
continued on p. 294, the references are to the case of winter
in aphelion.
“The subject is a thorny one, but well worth your attention.
“I am, my dear Sir, yours very truly,
“G. B. AIRY
“Sir Rowland Hill, K.C.B., &c., &c., &c.”
I am not aware how the passage in question stands in the Society’s
Transactions.[374]
The following narrative seems to show that in a progressive science like
Astronomy even the highest authority is not infallible.
Some sixty years ago, my attention having been accidentally drawn to a
tide-mill for grinding corn, I began to consider what was the source of
the power employed, and came to the conclusion that it was the momentum
of the earth’s revolution on its axis. The next question I asked myself
was—could such power be diverted, in however slight a degree, without
drawing, as it were, on the stock? Further consideration showed me that
the draught required for grinding the corn was trifling in comparison
with that employed in grinding the pebbles on every seashore upon the
earth’s surface; and, consequently, that the drain on the earth’s
momentum might suffice in the course of ages to effect an appreciable
retardation in the earth’s diurnal revolution.
I now, as usual in case of difficulty, applied to my father. He could
detect no fault in my reasoning, but informed me that Laplace had
demonstrated in his great work (“_La Mécanique Céleste_”) that the time
occupied in the earth’s diurnal revolution is absolutely invariable. Of
course both my father and I accepted the authority as unquestionable; but
I never could fully satisfy my mind on the subject, and for the greater
part of my life it was a standing puzzle.
It may be stated briefly that Laplace’s demonstration appears to
have rested mainly on the fact that his Lunar Tables, if employed in
calculating backwards certain eclipses of the Sun which happened about
2,000 years ago, give results agreeing so nearly with the ancient records
as altogether to exclude the possibility of any appreciable increase in
the length of the sidereal day during that long period.
But in the year 1866 Professor Adams (really the first discoverer of
the planet Neptune) received the Gold Medal of the Astronomical Society
for, among other recent claims, the discovery of an error in the data
on which Laplace constructed his Lunar Tables which vitiates the above
demonstration.
The details of this important discovery—and the co-operation therein of
M. Delaunay—were fully and ably stated by Mr. Warren De La Rue, then
President of the Society, on the presentation of the Medal.[375] And the
position of the question two years later is concisely stated as follows
by the Rev. Charles Pritchard, in an Addendum to his address as President
in 1868:—“_At present_, then, the case stands thus,—the Lunar Tables,
if calculated on the principles of gravitation alone, as expounded by
Messrs. Adams and Delaunay, and as confirmed by other mathematicians,
will not exactly represent the moon’s true place at intervals separated
by 2,000 years, provided the length of the day is assumed to be uniform
and unaltered during the whole of the intervening period. There are
grounds, however, for at least suspecting that, owing to the effects
of tidal action, the diurnal rotation is, and has been, in a state of
extremely minute retardation; but the mathematical difficulties of the
case, owing greatly to the interposition of terrestrial continents,
are so great that no definite quantitative results have hitherto been
attainable. The solution of the difficulty is one of those questions
which are reserved for the Astronomy of the future.”[376]
I need not say that this confirmation of the truth of my early conjecture
proved highly gratifying. I have only to add that the increase during
the last 2,000 years in the length of the sidereal day is generally
estimated at about the eightieth part of a second; but the estimate has,
I apprehend, no better foundation than this—namely, that since the recent
correction in the Lunar Tables an assumed increase to the extent in
question has become necessary in order to make the backward calculation
of the ancient eclipses agree with the records as to time.
I have found it very difficult at my age (little less than fourscore),
and with my mental powers seriously impaired, to deal, however
imperfectly, with a subject so abstruse as that now under consideration;
and I think it by no means improbable that there may be some error in my
statement of facts or in my argument thereon.
All that I can say is that I have done my best to render intelligible to
ordinary readers an important advance in modern Astronomy—interesting in
itself, irrespective of its remote and accidental connection with my own
biography.
The following very gratifying letter from the Astronomer Royal may
perhaps be appropriately given here. It is in reply to my congratulations
when, in recognition of his great public services, he was made a K.C.B.:—
“Flamsteed House, Greenwich Park, London, S.E.
“1872—June 22.
“MY DEAR SIR,—I could scarcely have had a more gratifying
letter in reference to the public compliment just paid to me
from any one than that from yourself. I can truly say that it
has been my secret pride to do what can be done by a person
in my position for public service; and whose recognition of
this can be more grateful than that of one who—by efforts in a
similar strain, but on an infinitely larger scale—has almost
changed the face of the civilized world?
“My wife (I am hesitating between two titles, not knowing
which is at the present moment correct, but being quite sure
of that which I have written) begs me to convey to you her
acknowledgment of your kind message.
“I am, my dear Sir, very truly yours,
“G. B. AIRY.”
APPENDIX B.
[See p. 71.]
“PREFACE TO THE LAWS OF THE SOCIETY FOR LITERARY AND SCIENTIFIC
IMPROVEMENT.
“In presenting to the public ‘The Laws and Regulations of the Society
for Literary and Scientific Improvement,’ its members feel it their duty
briefly to state the motives which influenced them in the formation of
such an establishment, and to explain their reasons for occasionally
deviating in the construction of their Laws from the systems which are
generally adopted for the governance of similar bodies.
“The experience of almost every one who has passed the time usually
devoted to education, but who still feels desirous of improvement, must
have convinced him of the difficulty of regularly devoting his leisure
hours to the object he has in view, from the want of constantly acting
motives, and the absence of regulations which can enforce the observance
of stated times. However strong the resolutions he has made, and whatever
may be his conviction of the necessity of adhering to them, trivial
engagements which might easily be avoided, will furnish him, from time to
time, with excuses to himself for his neglect of study: thus may he spend
year after year, constantly wishing for improvement, but as constantly
neglecting the means of it, and old age may come upon him before he has
accomplished the object of his desires; then will he look back with
regret on the many opportunities he has lost, and acknowledge in despair
that the time is gone by.
“Under these impressions, a few individuals who are desirous of extending
their literary and scientific knowledge, have endeavoured to establish a
society for that purpose; convinced that by so doing they have provided
most powerful motives for mental improvement.
“It has been thought highly desirable, that every member of the society
should be, as nearly as possible, upon an equality, that all may feel
alike interested in the success of the whole. In order to accomplish this
important object, every regular auditor is expected, according to the
rules of the society, to deliver a lecture in his turn. Thus, instead of
the society being divided into two parties, one consisting of lecturers,
the other of critics, every member feels himself called upon to listen to
the others with candour and attention, as he is aware that the time will
come when he shall require the same consideration from them. It will be
observed also, on a perusal of the laws, that each lecture is followed
by a discussion. Thus care is insured on the part of the lecturer that
he shall not attempt a subject which he has not well studied; and an
opportunity is given to every member to obtain an explanation of anything
advanced, which he may not have understood, or to express his opinions on
the questions that may arise, and, by these means, correct or confirm his
own ideas. But the principal advantage of a discussion is, that it calls
forth the individual exertion of every member, by inviting each to take a
part in the general instruction, and thus affording constant inducements
to private reading and study.
“In a town so populous as Birmingham, and which for superiority in art is
dependent on the discoveries of science, it cannot be doubted that many
individuals may be found who are desirous of intellectual advancement.
For such persons ‘The Society for Literary and Scientific Improvement’
was established; and they are respectfully and earnestly invited to lend
their assistance towards the promotion of its objects. The society cannot
promise that they shall meet with any considerable talent or learning
among its members; but in mixing with their equals, with young men of
similar tastes and similar pursuits, they may hope to find in a generous
emulation most powerful motives for application and perseverance.
“The details of management of a society like this, may, on a superficial
view, appear of little importance; those, however, who have had
opportunities of closer examination, will, it is presumed, agree with
the members of this Institution, in considering an attention to such
particulars as necessary, not only to the well-being, but to the
permanent existence of an association, for whatever purpose it may be
formed.
“With views like these, the ‘Society for Literary and Scientific
Improvement’ have been anxious to establish a mode of electing the
Committee, that should secure (as nearly as possible), an accurate
representation of the whole body; not only because it appeared reasonable
that the members would feel interested in the welfare of the Institution,
in proportion as the arrangements and regulations met their own views and
wishes, but because experience proves that, owing to imperfect methods of
choosing those who are to direct the affairs of a society, the whole sway
sometimes gets into the hands of a small party, and is exercised, perhaps
unconsciously, in a way that renders many persons indifferent, and
alienates others, until all becomes listlessness, decay, and dissolution.
“Men of worth and talent, of every denomination in religion and
politics, will be welcome members of the society; and to prevent any
unpleasant collision of opinions, it has been thought advisable to
exclude altogether the discussion of subjects which have reference to
peculiarities in religious belief, or to the political speculations of
the day; the important questions which respect the wealth of nations,
however, as they have no connexion with passing politics, are considered
as among the proper objects for the society’s attention.
“Such gentlemen as may feel desirous of improving their minds by engaging
in establishments of a nature similar to this, but who, on account of
their residing at a distance from any large town, have not hitherto
had the opportunity, will, it is hoped, be induced by the regulations
respecting corresponding members, to join the society; and they may
depend upon meeting with every attention, whenever the Committee shall be
favoured with their communications.”
APPENDIX C.
[See p. 93.]
CUBE ROOTS.
The mode of extracting the roots of _exact cubes_ which I taught the
boys, and which was probably that adopted by Zerah Colbourn, will be
best shown by an example. Suppose the question to be, What is the cube
root of 596,947,688? This looks like a formidable array of figures, and
a schoolboy, resorting to the usual mode of extracting the root, would
fill his slate with figures, and perhaps occupy an hour in the process.
Zerah Colbourn or my class would have solved the question in a minute,
and without making any figures at all. My class would have proceeded as
follows: They would first fix in their memories the number of millions
(596) and the last figure of the cube (8), disregarding all other
figures. Then, knowing the cubes of all numbers from 1 to 12 inclusive,
they would at once see that the first or left-hand figure of the root
must be 8; and deducting the cube of 8 (512) from 596, they would obtain
a remainder of 84. This they would compare with the difference between
the cube of 8 (512) and the cube of 9 (729), that is to say, with 217;
and seeing that it was nearly four-tenths of such difference, they would
conclude that the second figure of the root was 4. The third or last
figure of the root would require no calculation, the terminal figure of
an _exact_ cube always indicating the terminal figure of its root—thus
8 gives 2. The cube root, therefore, is 842. In this process there is
some risk of error as regards the second figure of the root, especially
when the third figure is large; but with practice an expert calculator
is able to pay due regard to that and certain other qualifications which
I could not explain without making this note unduly long. As already
stated, Zerah Colbourn did occasionally blunder in the second figure; and
this circumstance assisted me in discovering the above process, which I
have little doubt is the one he followed. If, instead of an exact cube,
another number of nine figures be taken, the determination of the third
figure of the root, instead of being the easiest, becomes by far the most
difficult part of the calculation.
[This part of the explanation was written by Sir Rowland Hill, as a note
to the Prefatory Memoir, before the year 1871. What follows was added in
1875.]
Rule for extracting the roots of imperfect cubes divisible into three
periods:—
1. Find first and second figures as described above.
2. Deduct cube of first figure from the first period (of the number whose
root is to be extracted), modified, if necessary, as hereafter described.
3. Then multiply the number (expressed by both figures) by each figure in
succession, and by 3.
4. Deduct the product (or the significant figures thereof—see example),
from the remainder obtained as above. (See 2).
5. Divide the remainder _now_ obtained by the square of the number
expressed by both figures (see 3), multiplied by 3—dropping insignificant
figures (see example),—and the quotient will be the last figure (or 3rd
figure) of the root.
I can confidently affirm from experience that there is nothing in the
above calculations too difficult for those who, possessing a natural
aptitude, are thoroughly well practised in mental arithmetic. I doubt,
however, whether the mode just described be exactly that which we
followed; our actual mode, looking at the results as described above
(which is in exact accordance with my Journal), must, I think, have been
more facile; but as it is fully fifty years since I gave any thought to
the subject, and as, in the eightieth year of my age, I find my brain
unequal to further investigation, I must be contented with the result at
which I have arrived.
It must be remarked, however, that cases will arise when some
modification of the process will be necessary. As, for instance, when
the first period of the cube is comparatively light, it may be necessary
to include therein one or more figures of the second period treated as
decimals; indeed, if the first period consist of a single figure, it
will be better to incorporate it with the second period, and treat both
together as one period,[377] relative magnitude in the first period
dealt with being important as a means of securing accuracy in the last
figure of the root. But expert calculators soon learn to adopt necessary
modifications, and by the “give-and-take” process to bring out the
correct result. Indeed, I find it recorded in my Journal that “small
errors will sometimes arise which, under unfavourable circumstances,
will occasionally amount to a unit.” These observations it must be
understood to apply only to the extraction of the roots of imperfect
cubes, which Zerah Colbourn invariably refused to attempt. When the cube
is perfect, the last figure of the root, as shown in the text, requires
no calculation at all.
_Example._
What is the cube root of 596,947,687?
[NOTE.—This is the number treated above, except that in the
unit’s place 7 is substituted for 8, in order to render the
number an imperfect cube; so slight a change, however—though
rendering it necessary to _calculate_ the last figure of the
root,—will still leave the root as before.]
Following the rule, we find the first and second figures of the
root in the manner described above. They are 8 and 4.
We next calculate the third or last figure of the root.
As the first figure of the second period of the cube is so
large, it will be unsafe to disregard it. Call the first
period, therefore, 596·9; all other figures may be neglected.
596·9 mill.
(2) 8³ = 512 ”
-----
84·9 ”
(3) deduct 84 x 8 x 4 x 3 = (roughly) 80·6 ”
-----
(5) divide by 84² x 3 = (88 x 80 x 3)[378] = 2·1 4·3
-----
2
Quotient—2, which is the third or last figure of the root.
[NOTE.—I have not encumbered the above figures with the ciphers
which should accompany them, as, to the expert calculator, this
will be needless.]
The root, therefore, is 842.
It is stated in the text that my pupils could extract the cube roots
of numbers ranging as high as 2,000,000,000. In the ordinary mode this
number would be divided, as above, into four periods; but my pupils
treated the 2,000 as one period, the approximate root of which is of
course 12, the cube of 12 being 1,728.
APPENDIX D.
[See p. 202.]
VERNIER PENDULUM.
Bruce Castle, Tottenham,
June 7th, 1832.
_To the Council of the Royal Astronomical Society._
GENTLEMEN,—In troubling you with the following sketch of an improvement
in astronomical clocks, I have a two-fold object. First, to obtain the
loan of the necessary instruments, should you consider the plan worth
prosecuting; and, secondly, to avail myself of the suggestions of such
members of the Society as are more experienced than myself in the minute
details of practical astronomy. The objects of the proposed improvement
are: To supply an apparatus capable of measuring time to a small fraction
of a second, and to make the determination of the exact time a matter
of calm and deliberate inquiry, and thus to avoid the errors which must
frequently arise from the hurry attending the present method.
In order to accomplish these objects, I propose to make use of the
principle of the Vernier, by suspending in front of the clock an
additional pendulum somewhat shorter than that of the clock, and so
placed that the coincidence of the two when vertical may be determined by
means similar to those used by Captain Kater; this additional or Vernier
pendulum to be put in motion at the instant of observation by means of
a trigger under the command of the observer at the telescope, and its
vibrations reckoned till a coincidence takes place between it and the
clock pendulum. This pendulum may have a maintaining power and an index
to save the trouble of counting. When at rest, the Vernier pendulum must
of course be raised to the extent of its oscillation.
The results of experiments commenced with very imperfect instruments
about two years and a-half ago, and continued at intervals to the present
time, appear to be as follows:—
When a Vernier pendulum, vibrating once in ·9 second, or 10 times in 9
seconds, is employed, its coincidences with the seconds pendulum of the
clock may be determined to a single vibration with the greatest ease by
the unassisted eye, and thus, of course, tenths of a second are readily
estimated.
When a Vernier pendulum vibrating once in ·99 second, or 100 times in 99
seconds, is employed, its coincidences with the seconds pendulum of the
clock may also be determined to a single vibration, but not without the
aid of a telescope. By these means hundredths of a second are measured
without much difficulty.
In order to avoid the inconvenience of having to suspend sometimes one
pendulum and sometimes the other, and also to escape the loss of time
which, if the hundredths pendulum were constantly used, would arise when
the observer wished to estimate tenths of a second only, I propose to
adopt the following arrangement:—To employ a single Vernier pendulum of
such a length as to vibrate once in 8·99 second, or a thousand times in
899 seconds. This pendulum differs so slightly from the tenths pendulum
(making ten vibrations in 8·99 seconds, instead of 9 seconds), that
for estimating tenths of a second it is practically the same, while
it affords the means of measuring hundredths of a second also. Its
operation will be best understood by an example:—Suppose the interval to
be measured by means of the Vernier to be ·24 second. At the second and
third vibrations of the Vernier pendulum after its release there would be
approximate coincidences between it and the clock pendulum, showing the
fraction of time to be between two-tenths and three-tenths of a second.
The coincidence at the second vibration would, however, be somewhat
nearer than that at the third. At the twelfth vibration there would be
another approximate coincidence somewhat closer than the first. At the
twenty-second vibration there would be a yet closer coincidence. At the
thirty-second one closer still, and at the forty-second vibration the
coincidence would be the most accurate of the series. Thus it appears
that the tenths of a second may be known by counting single vibrations
of the Vernier pendulum till a coincidence of some kind occurs, and that
the hundredths of a second may be determined by counting the decades of
vibrations, or all the coincidences after the first, until the most exact
coincidence arises.
By the use of the Vernier pendulum, when connected with an index, all
chance of error in reading the clock will, it is conceived, be avoided.
Having touched the trigger at the moment of observation, the observer
has, as it were, registered the time, and he may examine the clock at his
leisure, for it is manifest that a comparison of the index of the Vernier
pendulum with that of the clock will at any time determine the moment
of observation. It will also be seen that, should the observer omit to
notice the first coincidence of the pendulums, no inconvenience except
delay will arise, because the same coincidences will occur in a regular
series as long as the pendulums continue in motion.
There are a few provisions necessary for extreme accuracy which, in this
hasty sketch, it would be out of place to notice. I will just mention,
however, that the apparatus contains within itself the means of measuring
what may be called _the mean error of the observer_, or the average
interval which, as regards the particular individual, elapses between the
instant of observation and the release of the Vernier pendulum.
To subject the plan which I have here attempted hastily to describe to a
rigid trial will require instruments of much greater accuracy than those
which I can command, and if the Society possess a good clock not now in
use, I shall feel extremely obliged if I can obtain the loan of it. An
additional pendulum the requisite length, is not, I presume, to be found
among the Society’s instruments.
I have the honour to be, Gentlemen,
Your obedient servant,
ROWLAND HILL.
APPENDIX E.
[See p. 205.]
COACH COMPANY.
Two (or more) principal offices to be established in convenient places
for business—say, _one near the Bank, and one near the Regent Circus,
Piccadilly_; these offices to communicate with each other by means of
omnibuses.
_Coaches and omnibuses to radiate from these offices to all parts of the
environs of London._
A country office to be established at the extremity of each route.
The town to be divided into small districts, and the country into
larger, each with a house for the receipt and distribution of _parcels_.
(Shopkeepers who have goods to distribute in the neighbourhood may
undertake this). These stations to be, as far as practicable, on the
routes of the coaches.
The principal and the country offices to be receiving and distributing
houses, each for its own district.
Each coach in coming from the country to collect parcels from the
stations on its route, bringing them to its principal office. On going
out, to carry parcels for distribution from the principal office to the
same stations. Thus every parcel will pass through one or other of the
principal offices. (Exceptions can be made, if desirable, with respect
to parcels which would otherwise pass twice over the ground, viz., those
received at stations between the principal office and the place of their
destination; but the first arrangement would be by far the most simple).
Stations not on a coach route must transfer parcels to the nearest
stations which are on a route, and receive parcels from the same. [Qy. A
small extra charge].
Places to be booked at any station for any coach; a memorandum being
transmitted to the principal office concerned, with the parcels.
In some cases the passengers themselves may be so transmitted.
The omnibuses passing between the principal offices to carry passengers
and parcels from each for the other. Thus every coach will practically
start from both principal offices.
Coaches to depart from each principal office all at the same time. Say,
for all principal places, once every hour, from —— in the morning till ——
at night.
Coaches to arrive at each principal office all at the same time, say a
few minutes before the time of departure, the interval being sufficient
to transfer passengers and parcels.
The periods of departure and arrival at one office to differ by
half-an-hour from the corresponding periods at the other, so as to allow
just time enough (calculated at half-an-hour), for a transfer by the
omnibuses from one office to the other. Thus the coaches from one office
will start at the beginning and from the other in the middle of each hour.
Horses to be kept and changed at the country offices, or at stations
about the middle of each route. The latter arrangement will make the
stage shorter, and will bring the horse stations more immediately under
central revision. It will also require a less number of horse stations,
as in many cases one station will serve for two or more roads branching
out from each other. (At least one pair of horses must be kept at the
extreme station).
Supernumerary coaches and horses to be kept at the central offices for
use on any road on which there may be a temporary demand.
Each coachman to pay a certain rent, and with certain deductions to
receive the payments for passengers and parcels, but to have no control
as to the sum to be charged, the hour of starting, &c.
The masters of the stations to be remunerated by a certain sum (to be
paid by the coachman) for each passenger booked, and for each parcel
received or distributed.
Contracts to be made in all possible cases. Thus the coachmaker may
supply coaches at —— each per annum, or at —— per mile travelled.
The keepers of the horse stations may contract each for the supply of
horses required at his station at —— per mile.
In disposing of the shares, a preference to be given to those who would
make frequent use of the coaches, especially to those who travel to
London daily, as their influence would materially promote the interests
of the concern.
A personal right to go to or from town daily, by the same coach, to be
sold for a period, say a week, at a considerably reduced rate, or a month
at a still lower rate.
Proprietors to be entitled to similar privileges at five per cent. less
than others.
Transferable tickets, giving the holder a right to travel by any coach in
either direction on a particular road, to be sold (say twenty at a time)
at a slightly reduced rate.
All the carriages to be painted alike, and so as readily to distinguish
them from those not belonging to the Company.
An establishment on an extensive scale, such as is described in the
foregoing sketch, would possess many decided advantages over the little
independent establishments now existing. It would be more economically
managed; the necessary publicity would be more easily given to its
arrangements; the responsibility of the servants would be more efficient;
and the extent and permanence of the undertaking would justify the most
watchful attention to exact punctuality, to a proper speed, to the safety
and comfort of the passengers, and, in short, to all circumstances
conducive to a high reputation with the public.
_Economy._—This would manifestly result from the great division of
labour, and the wholesale demand for every article of expenditure. Also
from the power of transferring coaches from any road on which there was
less to one on which there was more travelling than usual.
The system of contracts and sub-contracts could not be introduced with
advantage into a small concern.
_Publicity._—The readiness with which the arrangements could be described
would tend greatly to their publicity. Thus, it would be easily said and
easily remembered, that from a certain office coaches depart every hour,
and from a certain other office at the half-hour, to all the principal
places within the limits of the threepenny post. This statement, with a
list of the places, fares, &c., would be placarded at every station, and
on every coach and omnibus.
_Responsibility._—An active and intelligent superintendent, well
acquainted with the means of holding others to responsibility, should
devote his whole time to the undertaking, visiting the various stations
periodically to see that all arrangements are observed, to settle the
accounts, &c.
He should require accurate reports to be made, showing at all times the
actual state of affairs, and the improvement or deterioration in each
department The most exact rules should be laid down and enforced for the
conduct of each class of servants. These rules should be placarded in the
coaches, at the stations, &c.
Enquiries as to the conduct of all concerned should be made frequently of
the proprietors who use the coaches daily, and every possible attention
paid to the well-founded complaints of passengers generally. A till might
be placed in each carriage, with an inscription requesting passengers
having cause to complain to put a statement of such complaint, with _name
and address_, into the till, which should be opened at the central office
at least once in each day.
_Punctuality and Speed._—The proper time of starting and that of passing
each station should be inscribed conspicuously on each coach, as well as
at each station. The actual time kept should be recorded at each extreme
station and at the horse station, and fines levied on the coachman for
deviation beyond certain limits. The allowance of time for the journey
should be such as to require the coachman to drive steadily but rapidly,
with no stoppage beyond a very short one (say a minute) at each station,
and a little more for taking up and putting down passengers on the road.
The coach should never wait nor turn out of the direct road between the
extreme stations. To save time, the passengers, in the omnibuses at
least, should be requested to pay as they go on. At the inferior stations
a signal might be established to show whether the coach need stop or not.
_Safety of Passengers._—Coaches of the safest construction, steady
horses, and temperate coachmen, only should be employed; and whenever
an accident occurs from whatever cause, a heavy fine should be levied
on the coachman, allowing him the right to recover the whole or part of
the penalty of the coach-contractor or horse-contractor, according to
circumstances. No galloping should be allowed.
The coach-contractor should be required to station a man at each central
office to examine each coach every time it comes in.
_Comfort of Passengers._—Some protection from wet and cold to be provided
for the outside passengers. Means of ascending and descending to be
improved. A convenient room at each station for those waiting. The
stations should _not_ be taverns; but coffee and some other refreshments
may be provided—there being no obligation, however, to call for anything.
The room should contain a map of London, directory, &c.
The arrangements of the Company would be capable of gradual and
almost indefinite extension. Thus they might take in towns more and
more distant, or they might comprehend hackney-coaches, cabriolets,
and omnibuses to all parts of London. The machinery required for the
distribution of parcels might be applied to that of the periodic
publications; and a contract might be entered into, advantageous to the
public as well as to the Company, for the collection, carriage, and
distribution of the twopenny and threepenny post letters.
This distribution might easily take place _each hour_, the letters being
carried by the coaches. No guards would be required, as the bags might be
put into a boot, of which keys should be kept at the post-offices only.
APPENDIX F.
[See p. 230.]
[The following letter to _The Scotsman_ was written by Mr. John Forster,
late Member for Berwick. In a marginal note Sir R. Hill has written, “I
vouch for its accuracy.”]
“SIR ROWLAND HILL AND THE PRINTING PRESS.
“London, February 12, 1872.
“SIR,—In your interesting article on the ‘Walter Press’ it was
stated that the idea of a Rotatory Machine printing newspapers
on a continuous sheet of paper was not novel; that Sir Rowland
Hill had worked at it many years before, as had other persons
in America. As to most of your readers this mention of a
benefactor of theirs in another way as a mechanical inventor
was no doubt something new and curious, it may be interesting
to them to learn what Sir Rowland Hill’s share of merit in
this matter was. I send with this a copy of the specification
of his patent for letter-press printing machines, taken out in
1835 (No. 6762, printed by the Patent Office in 1857), and an
account of it given in the ‘Repertory of Patent Inventions,’
No. 35. By these it will be seen that the most important
achievements of modern printing were effected by Sir Rowland
Hill thirty-seven years ago. His machine was to print either
with stereotype-plates or movable type (the difficulty of
fastening the last securely to cylinders revolving at great
speed was met by special contrivances); was itself to keep the
printing surfaces inked; to print a continuous roll of paper,
of any length, and both sides, while passing once through the
apparatus; to cut up the roll into sheets; and means were
contrived of performing those operations on two rolls at once,
so that at one revolution of the printing cylinders two copies
could be struck off. Such a machine was actually constructed
(at an expense of about £2,000), and was frequently shown at
work at No. 44, Chancery Lane, as many persons must remember.
Though driven by hand, it could produce at the rate of seven or
eight thousand impressions in an hour. One great difficulty of
most printing machines is that of securing perfect _register_
(the exact coincidence of the printing on opposite sides of the
paper). This was anticipated and met by the patent. The one
thing the inventor failed to do was to overcome the resistance
the collectors of the stamp duty presented to this printing on
a continuous roll, and to the affixing of the stamps to the
newspapers at the proper intervals during their passage through
the machine. Many years afterwards they allowed this to be done
by machinery contrived by Mr. Edwin Hill (who had assisted his
brother in the preparation of the printing machine), which was
affixed to the presses of the _Times_ and other papers, and
which itself registered, for the security of the revenue, the
number of impressions made. In 1835, the task of satisfying
the Treasury that this could be done with safety to it was too
formidable to be overcome,—at least it was not overcome. Sir
Rowland Hill’s attention was soon afterwards absorbed by his
plans of postal reform; and no one can regret this, seeing
what work he did in the Post Office, which probably no one
but himself could have done so well; while if the fourteen
years of his patent passed unprofitably to the inventor, other
hands have carried to extraordinary perfection the scheme of
a printing machine. Of course the Americans and the ‘Walter
Press’ have greatly advanced on ‘Hill’s Machine’ of 1835;
especially by the preparation of stereotype plates for this
particular service. In his specification, Sir Rowland Hill made
due mention of his predecessors, recording that an imitation of
the process of printing calico by cylinders revolving rapidly
was proposed for letter-press printing as early as 1790, by
Mr. William Nicholson, and that this was applied to stereotype
plates bent to a cylindrical surface by Mr. Edward Cowper in
1816. But the first practical scheme of newspaper printing on
a continuous roll of paper by revolving cylinders was produced
and set to work by Rowland Hill in 1835.
“I am, &c.,
“J. F.
“The Editor, _The Scotsman_.”
[Two years later Sir Rowland Hill wrote the following letter to the
_Journal of the Society of Arts_:]—
“TYPE-PRINTING MACHINERY
“SIR,—In the interesting paper ‘On Type-printing Machinery,’ by
the Rev. Arthur Rigg, which appeared in your _Journal_ of the
13th inst., there are certain errors affecting myself which I
request permission to correct.
“It is stated that rotating cylinders and continuous rolls
of paper were principles first introduced into type-printing
machinery by Mr. Nicholson in 1790, and further on it is
asserted, in reference no doubt to the printing machine which I
invented in 1835, that I ‘revived a proposal of Nicholson’s.’
“Now, so far from Mr. Nicholson proposing to print from types
on continuous rolls of paper, a reference to the specification
of his invention (A.D. 1790, No. 1,748) will show that,
excluding his proposals for calico and wall-paper printing,
which have nothing to do with type-printing machinery, he
invariably speaks of printing on sheets of paper; indeed, the
means of producing continuous rolls of paper were not invented
till several years later. Again, it will be seen that the means
he proposes for attaching the types to his cylinder, the real
difficulty to be overcome, are clearly insufficient for the
purpose; indeed, as stated in the specification of my patent
(A.D. 1835, No. 6,762), which was drawn by the late Mr. Farey—a
man thoroughly conversant with the subject—‘on account of
deficiencies and imperfections in the machinery described in
that specification [Mr. Nicholson’s] the same has never been
practised or brought into use.’
“Towards the close of his paper, Mr. Rigg seems to imply that
hitherto all schemes for fixing moveable types on a cylinder
have failed. I can only say that in my machine this difficulty
was entirely overcome. Indeed, in a letter which appeared in
the _Mechanics’ Magazine_ of November 12th, 1836 (when the
subject was before the public), I was enabled to state that
‘in the opinion of many eminent printers who have seen my
machine the end in view has been fully accomplished, for while
any portion of type may be detached from the cylinder with a
facility even greater than that with which a similar change
can be made in an ordinary form, each letter can be so firmly
locked in its place that there is no danger whatever of its
being loosened by centrifugal force or by any other cause.’
“While upon this subject, I may as well add that a comparison
of my specification with that of the ‘Walter Press’ (A.D. 1866,
No. 3,222) will show that, except as regards the apparatus for
cutting and distributing the printed sheets, and excepting
further that the ‘Walter Press’ is only adapted for printing
from stereotype plates, while mine would not only print from
stereotype plates, but, what was far more difficult, from
moveable types also, the two machines are almost identical. I
gladly admit, however, that the enormous difficulty of bringing
a complex machine into practical use—a difficulty familiar to
every inventor—has been most successfully overcome by Messrs.
Calverley and MacDonald, the patentees of the ‘Walter Press.’
“I am, &c.,
“ROWLAND HILL.
“Hampstead, February 26, 1874.”
APPENDIX G.
[See p. 260.]
EXTRACT FROM THE “GREENOCK ADVERTISER,” OF FRIDAY, MARCH 8th, 1850.
_Testimonial to_ ROBERT WALLACE, Esq., _late M.P. for
Greenock_. _The Pioneer of Postage Reform._