ROWLAND HILL, Esq., said,—Ladies and Gentlemen, the Committee for

promoting Mr. Wallace’s Testimonial having done me the honour to invite

me to take a part in this day’s proceedings, I felt bound, at whatever

inconvenience to myself, to attend and to repeat the testimony which I

have always gladly borne to the great and important aid afforded by your

late representative, my esteemed and venerable friend Mr. Wallace, in

the promotion of Penny Postage. (Applause.) With the view of enabling

you fairly to estimate the value of Mr. Wallace’s important services, it

will be necessary to take a brief review of his career as a Post Office

Reformer. I need not remind you that Mr. Wallace entered the House of

Commons as your representative in the year 1833. At this time the Post

Office was considered by the public nearly perfect. But although several

improvements had been effected under the administration of the Duke of

Richmond, probably no department of government had, during the previous

twenty years, improved so little, and yet no department had been so

free from attack and complaint. It is true that the Commissioners of

Revenue Inquiry had a short time before, with great ability, exposed

much mismanagement in the Post Office, and had recommended various

improvements (some of which were afterwards taken up by Mr. Wallace, and

some still later by myself), but these exposures and recommendations,

buried as they were in ponderous parliamentary reports, attracted little

attention from the public, who still continued to view the Post Office

as a vast and mysterious, but nearly perfect, machine. (Hear, hear.)

I can scarcely think, however, that it could have been so viewed by

the Government. They must, one would think, have been impressed with

the remarkable fact that, since the close of the war, notwithstanding

the great increase of population, and the still greater increase of

commercial activity, the revenue of the Post Office, whether gross or

net, had not increased at all. (Hear.) Such was the state of things

when Mr. Wallace, in the year 1833, first roused the attention of

Parliament and the public to the urgent necessity for reform in the

Post Office, which he attacked with that perseverance and energy which

distinguished all his proceedings; and, not satisfied with attacking

abuses, Mr. Wallace, even at this early period of his parliamentary

career, recommended an important improvement, which subsequently, as

part of the plan of Penny Postage, was carried into effect with great

advantage to the public. The improvement to which I allude was the

substitution of charge by weight for charge by enclosure. (Applause.)

In the year 1834 Mr. Wallace proposed in Parliament several other

important measures, among which were the following:—1st. The opening

to public competition of the contract for the construction of the mail

coaches. This measure, which was soon after adopted, effected a saving

of £17,218 a-year. 2nd. The consolidation of the London General and

District Post Offices. This measure subsequently formed part of the

plan of Penny Postage, and was partially carried into effect, with

most advantageous results, about three years ago. Much, however, still

remains to be accomplished. 3rd. The appointment of a Commission of

Inquiry into the management of the Post Office. This recommendation was

acted upon early in the next year (1835), and the Commission continued

its labours till 1838. In the interval the Commission issued no less

than ten reports, and it is fairly entitled to the credit of much of

the subsequent improvement in the Post Office. During the year 1835,

Mr. Wallace appears to have suspended his exertions in Parliament,

thinking probably that he should more effectually serve the cause to

which he had devoted himself by assisting in the investigations of

the Commission. Accordingly, I find him giving evidence before that

body, in the course of which he recommended the following improvements

among others:—1st. The establishment of day mails, which subsequently

formed part of my plan, and has been carried into effect with great

advantage to the public and to the revenue. 2nd. A reduction in the

rates of postage. 3rd. More frequent communication between places, Mr.

Wallace expressing an opinion, since confirmed by experience, that the

revenue, as well as the public, would be benefited thereby. In 1836 Mr.

Wallace resumed his labours in Parliament, recommending among other

measures:—1st. A reduction of the rates of postage, naming 8_d._ or 9_d._

as a maximum. 2nd. The registration of letters, since carried into effect

with advantage both to the public and to the revenue. (Applause.) 3rd.

That the postage charge should be regulated by the distance along the

shortest practicable road, instead of being determined, as it then was,

by the circuitous route through which the Post Office might, for its

own convenience, carry the letter. It is now difficult to believe that

only a few years since a system so monstrous as that which Mr. Wallace

successfully attacked should have been suffered to exist for a single

day—a system under which 6_d._ or 8_d._ was sometimes charged on letters

passing between places not more than as many miles asunder, merely

because the Post Office, for its own convenience, preferred to carry the

letters round about. (Hear.) I have now arrived at the period when my

intercourse with Mr. Wallace commenced; and in order that you may form a

just appreciation of the valuable aid afforded me by Mr. Wallace, it is

necessary to consider well his position and that of the Post Office at

this time. By four years of incessant attacks, Mr. Wallace had destroyed

the _prestige_ once enjoyed by the Post Office, and had thus exposed it

to the wholesome influence of public opinion; in addition to which he

had effected some important improvements. By these means he had made

the subject of the Post Office his own, and was by general consent the

Post Office Reformer of the day. It was therefore in his power greatly

to aid, or greatly to discourage, the exertions of others. (Cheers.) In

this year (1836), through the intervention of one of my brothers, then

Inspector of Prisons for Scotland, I applied to Mr. Wallace for the loan

of any books he might possess relating to the Post Office, and he very

kindly lent me various Parliamentary reports and returns. (Hear, hear.)

These documents afforded me essential aid in the work which I had long

meditated, but in which I then for the first time earnestly engaged. The

result was a thorough conviction in my own mind that the inland rate of

postage ought to be the same for all distances, and that provided the

postage of letters were prepaid, the rate might be reduced as low as

1_d._ throughout the United Kingdom. (Applause.) I did not, however, (and

I distinctly stated as much at the time), reckon on effecting so vast

a reduction without a considerable loss of net revenue, though I did

calculate on eventually obtaining as large a gross revenue as before.

But the greatest difficulty of my task had still to be overcome. That

difficulty consisted in the apparent hopelessness of convincing others

that results so startling, and _primâ facie_ so paradoxical, could

really be derived from a careful examination and accurate appreciation

of the facts of the case. Entertaining these apprehensions, and having

regard to Mr. Wallace’s position as the leading Post Office Reformer of

the day, I was exceedingly anxious as to the view which he might take

of my plan. I felt that its success or failure would greatly depend on

his verdict. Accordingly, at the beginning of 1837, I sent Mr. Wallace

a copy of my pamphlet (which, in the first instance, was printed for

private circulation), and waited in the greatest anxiety for his opinion.

It came couched in kind and encouraging language, conveying his hearty

concurrence in the main features of the plan, and I at once felt that

a most important advance had been made. It is impossible to speak too

strongly of my obligations to Mr. Wallace at this time. Many a man

circumstanced as he was would have treated me as an intruder—as one

coming to poach on his warren; but Mr. Wallace, so far from evincing

any jealousy, at once gave me all the advantage of his position, and

before the public had declared in favour of my plan, he had adopted it

with all his accustomed heartiness. (Applause.) Almost immediately on

the issue of my pamphlet, both Mr. Wallace and myself were examined

by the Post-Office Commissioners with reference to the application of

my plan to the London District post—a measure which the Commissioners

recommended, though unfortunately their recommendation was not adopted

by the Government. From this time the progress of public opinion in

favour of the plan of Penny Postage was so rapid, that before the end

of the year Mr. Wallace had succeeded in obtaining the appointment of a

committee of the House to investigate its merits. Of this committee Mr.

Wallace was the active and indefatigable chairman. It continued to sit

throughout the session of 1838, in the course of which it examined no

less than eighty-three witnesses; and the labour to the chairman, whose

duties were by no means confined to the sittings of the committee, was

most severe. The result of the investigation is well known, but it may

not be in the recollection of this meeting that the committee having

been nominated by Government, which was then unfavourable to Penny

Postage, contained several members who were, _ex officio_, opponents of

the measure, and that the resolution establishing the vital principle of

uniformity of rate was carried only by the casting vote of the chairman.

(Hear, hear, and applause.) Had Mr. Wallace given his casting vote on

the other side, or even withheld it, the adoption of Penny Postage would

probably have been delayed for years,—possibly the plan might have been

altogether abandoned. The Report of the committee, one of the ablest

documents ever laid before Parliament, gave an extraordinary impetus to

the demand for Penny Postage, and in the session of 1839 upwards of 2,000

petitions, with more than a quarter of a million of signatures (though a

large proportion of the petitions being from corporate bodies bore only

a single signature each), were presented to the House of Commons alone;

and before the end of the session, and within the short space of two

years and a-half from its announcement, Penny Postage became the law of

the land. (Applause.) During the greater part of this period (at least so

long as Parliament was sitting) I was in almost daily communication with

Mr. Wallace. The labour which we both had to go through was enormous; and

I never shall forget how much I felt cheered and encouraged to persevere,

by his own hearty, earnest, and confident manner of encountering the

difficulties and disappointments necessarily incidental to so vast an

undertaking. (Loud applause.) It would ill become me to speak of the

commercial and social advantages which have resulted from Penny Postage.

Under its operation, the number of chargeable letters has increased

from 76 millions to 337 millions per annum, and though the net revenue,

owing to the enormous cost of railway conveyance and other causes into

which I cannot with propriety enter, is much less than my estimate,

the gross revenue has realized that estimate, being now nearly, if not

quite, as great as before the reduction of the rates. But whatever may

have been the sacrifice of revenue, most people now readily admit the

benefit to the nation at large has been cheaply purchased. (Cheers.) The

advantages of cheap Postage however are by no means confined to this

country. Our example has been followed, more or less closely, by several

of the nations of Europe, and by the United States of America; and it is

most gratifying to know that cheap Postage is gradually extending over

the civilized world. The manner in which Mr. Wallace, the earliest Post

Office Reformer of the present generation, has laboured zealously and

successfully to bring about these happy results, has been shown by the

statement of facts with which I have felt it my duty to trouble this

meeting, and I earnestly hope that the people of this great country, who

so munificently rewarded my exertions, will recognise also the claims of

Mr. Wallace, and will step forward to cheer in the decline of life a man

so justly entitled to our respect and gratitude. Mr. Hill then sat down

amid hearty demonstrations of applause.

APPENDIX H.

[See p. 347.]

UNIFORM PENNY POSTAGE.

_Facts and Estimates as to the Increase of Letters._

The only point connected with uniform Penny Postage on which there

appears to be any material difference of opinion is as to whether or not

the revenue will suffer by the proposed reduction.

The plan will stimulate the increase of letters in two ways. First, by

the increased facilities of despatch of letters;—second, by the great

reduction of postage.

INCREASED FACILITIES.

Many facts were proved in evidence before the Postage Committee which

render it clear that even at the same or higher rates of postage,

increasing the opportunities of despatching letters, and the rapidity

with which they are transmitted and delivered, always increases the

number sent.

1. Palmer’s adoption of mail-coaches, though accompanied with repeated

_advances_ of postage, increased the number of letters three-fold in

twenty years. And

2. The new facilities of transmission afforded by the Manchester and

Liverpool railway, increased the number of letters between the termini

nearly fifty per cent. in six years; postage remaining the same.

3. Although not substantiated before the Postage Committee, it is

understood that the recent establishment of a morning mail from London to

Brighton has produced a similar effect.

4. It appears from the valuable work of M. Piron “_Sous Directeur des

Postes aux Lettres_,” that a reduction in the time of transmission from

Paris to Marseilles, from 118 to 68 hours, has doubled the number of

letters.

REDUCTION OF POSTAGE.

This is relied upon as by far the most efficient cause of increase in the

number of letters.

It has been found that the decrease of price in any article of general

demand, so far from lessening the amount of the public expenditure on

such article, has always increased it.

1. “The price of soap, for instance, has recently fallen by about

one-eighth; the consumption in the same time has increased by one-third.

Tea, again, the price of which, since the opening of the China trade,

has fallen by about one-sixth, has increased in consumption by almost

a half. The consumption of silk goods, which, subsequently to the year

1823, have fallen in price by about one-fifth, has more than doubled.

The consumption of coffee, the price of which, subsequently to 1823,

has fallen about one-fourth, has more than tripled. And the consumption

of cotton goods, the price of which, during the last twenty years, has

fallen by nearly one-half, has in the same time been fourfolded.”—_Post

Office Reform_, p. 70.

2. The sale of newspapers for the twelve months before the late reduction

in stamps was—

35,576,056,[379] at an average price, say of 7_d._, costing the public

£1,037,634.

For the twelve months subsequent to the reduction, it was—

53,496,207,[379] at an average price, say of 4¾_d._, costing the public

£1,058,779.

3. The annual number of advertisements before the late reduction in the

advertisement duty, was—

1,010,000[380] at an average price, say of 6_s._, costing the public

£303,000.

It is now—

1,670,000, at an average price, say of 4_s._, costing the public £334,000.

4. The number of persons paying for admission to the Tower was, in the

ten months prior to the late reduction—

9,508, at 3_s._, each (including the Warder’s fee), = £1,426.

In the ten months subsequent to the reduction it was—

37,431, at 1_s._ each, = £1,871.

The rule established by these facts, viz., that the demand for the

article increases in a greater proportion than the price decreases, so

that if one thousand are sold at 1_s._ many more than two thousand would

be sold at 6_d._, is, it is believed, without exception. Certainly the

article of postage does not furnish one.

“The reduction of the Irish postage rates which was made in 1827, was

immediately followed by a considerable increase in the Irish Post Office

revenue, though precisely to what extent it would be difficult to state,

owing to a transfer that was made at the same time of certain receipts

from the English to the Irish Post Office revenue. An alteration was

made in the year 1831, which was equivalent to a partial reduction, by

exempting the correspondence of a portion of the metropolis, which had

paid the General-post rate, from paying an additional Twopenny-post rate.

Consequent on this reduction, though at first attended with some loss,

the Post Office revenue was improved to the amount of £10,000 a year,

instead of there being a loss of £20,000 a year as had been expected by

the Post Office. A reduction made in 1835, on the rates of ship-letters,

has been followed by a considerable increase in that branch of the

revenue.”[381]—_Third Report of the Select Committee on Postage_, p. 29.

PRACTICAL EFFECT OF REDUCTION TO ONE PENNY.

The postage of letters between Edinburgh and the adjacent towns and

villages was, in 1837, reduced from 2_d._ to 1_d._ In rather more than a

year the letters had more than doubled, and were on the increase when the

last returns were made.[382]

Postage between Stroud and Nailsworth in Gloucestershire was recently

reduced from 4_d._ to 1_d._ The number of letters has already increased

about sixfold.

FUTURE GROSS REVENUE OF THE POST OFFICE.

There seems, then, no rational ground of fear that the gross revenue of

the Post Office will be diminished.

On the contrary, its increase might be safely predicted, even if no other

change was contemplated than the proposed reduction. But taking the

proposed additional facilities for the despatch of letters into account,

the increase of the gross revenue may, at no distant period, be fairly

expected to be considerable. Many persons, competent to form a sound

opinion, think such increase will be very large.

FUTURE EXPENSES OF THE POST OFFICE.

The proposed changes will operate partly to increase, and partly to

decrease, the cost of the Post Office.

The _increase_ will arise out of the additional number of letters passing

through the post.

The _decrease_, chiefly from the postage being paid in advance, by means

of stamps.

The _balance_ will probably be a comparatively slight augmentation of

expense, which, it is confidently expected, will be more than compensated

by the increase of the customs, excise, &c., produced by the stimulus to

commerce, consequent on the cheapness of postage.

_There is, then, no just reason for believing that the proposed reduction

in Postage will at all diminish the revenue of the country._

Below I have drawn out an estimate of the course which things may

probably take after the proposed change, on the supposition of the gross

revenue remaining the same as at present. I have perhaps undervalued

some sources of increase, and overestimated others. I do not place much

reliance on the details, but I have great confidence that the general

result will hereafter be found below the truth.

_Estimate of the Mode in which the required Increase of General

Post Letters may be presumed to take place._

_From the present Letter-writing Class_—

Present number of chargeable General Post Letters, call this 1

Contraband Letters, and evasions by writing in newspapers,

&c. (Estimated by many at double the Posted Letters,

but consider it equal only) 1

---

Total of Letters now written 2

Assume the rate of increase to be only 2 to 1 2

---

Estimated Return General Post Letters, from the present

Letter-writing class 4

Invoices—(Estimated by Mr. Cobden, and other mercantile

men, as equal to the present Post Letters—say half only) ½

Additional printed circulars, catalogues, small parcels, &c.,

say ¾

Letters from numerous classes, who may now be said not to

use the Post Office at all, say ¾

---

Required increase of General Post Letters to sustain the

gross revenue (Vide _Third Report_, p. 55.) 6

That is to say, an addition of five fold.

ROWLAND HILL.

Bayswater, July 1, 1839.

APPENDIX I.

[See p. 406.]

EXTRACT FROM FIRST REPORT OF COMMISSIONERS OF INLAND REVENUE, ON THE

INLAND REVENUE.

_Under the head_ “DISCOUNT AT THE OFFICES OF DISTRIBUTORS IN THE COUNTRY.”

“It is only just to our stamping department, and more especially to

Mr. Edwin Hill, under whose supervision it is placed, that we should

mention the constant improvements which are every day being introduced

in the machinery for impressing or manufacturing stamps, although it is

impossible to enumerate or explain them in detail.

“The most remarkable of Mr. Hill’s inventions was one which has now

become of comparatively minor importance, namely, the application of

steam power to newspaper stamping. By a very ingenious contrivance, the

unwieldy sheets of paper for newspapers, which used to be presented for

stamping in immense quantities at a time, were separated, turned over,

and stamped, with a dispatch and accuracy which had previously been

considered as unattainable; and the superior execution of the work,

instead of increasing the expense, was attended with a saving of at least

£2,000 a-year.”

EXTRACT FROM SECOND REPORT OF COMMISSIONERS OF INLAND REVENUE, ON THE

INLAND REVENUE.

(Dated 12th of May, 1858.)

_Under the head_ “STAMP DUTIES.”

“The efficiency of our stamping department continues to be maintained,

and to keep pace with the demands of the public, through the watchfulness

and inventive ingenuity of Mr. Edwin Hill. His most recent addition to

our machinery, a contrivance for fixing the blue paper and metal guard on

parchment, is a substitute for two operations in different departments,

and the labour of three men. This small improvement effects a saving of

£300 a-year.”

EXTRACT FROM THIRD REPORT OF COMMISSIONERS OF INLAND REVENUE, ON THE

INLAND REVENUE.

(Dated May, 1859.)

_Under the head_ “STAMPS.”

... “The pressure on our stamping department was at first very great,

and the administrative and mechanical resources of Mr. Edwin Hill were

taxed to the utmost to keep pace with the demands of the public. By the

invention of new and more rapidly performing machines, and the employment

of a large number of extra hands, he was able to dispose of the immense

stock of cheques thus suddenly poured in, without giving rise to any

complaint of delay or inconvenience.”

_Minute of the Board of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue on the

retirement of Mr. Edwin Hill._

[Dated the _6th May, 1872_.]

“The Board, in accepting this resignation, desire to place on record

their sense of the exemplary manner in which Mr. Hill has at all times

discharged his official duties, and their great regret at the termination

of a career which has been of so much advantage to the public service.

“Mr. Hill has proved himself to be a most valuable servant of the public,

not merely in the general conduct of the business confided to his

superintendence, but also, and more especially in the application of his

inventive mechanical skill to numerous contrivances which he has from

time to time introduced, by which the work of his department has been

greatly facilitated and improved.

“The saving of time, labour, and expense which has accrued to the public

benefit by means of these appliances, some of which are more particularly

referred to by Mr. Hill, can scarcely be overestimated: and there can be

no doubt that these important results have been attained at the cost of

much independent thought and labour on the part of Mr. Hill, whilst no

personal benefit has been derived from them by himself.

“Their Lordships have been pleased, under the powers conferred upon them

by the Superannuation Act, to mark, on certain occasions, their sense of

eminent and exceptional service by the award of a special allowance. The

Board are impressed with a conviction that few more fitting cases could

be found for the exercise of this power than that which is now presented

to their Lordships, and which the Board desire to support with their

strongest recommendation.”

APPENDIX J.

[See p. 437.]

LETTER TO THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, SUGGESTING TRANSFERENCE OF

COLONEL MABERLY TO ANOTHER POST.

Downing Street, June 23, 1841.

DEAR SIR,—I have to apologize for troubling you at such a time

with considerations which may appear personal. Nothing but the

conviction that they are not really so, and further, that they

do not admit of delay, can justify the present application.

It has occurred to me as possible that the official changes now

in progress may afford an opportunity of placing me (without

injury to any one) in a position more favourable to the success

of the measure in which I am engaged.

I think you will agree that to complete the introduction of

my plan requires a careful consideration of numerous measures

of detail, and a close and constant watchfulness over their

working. Also, that its financial success depends on a rigid

and searching economy in every branch of management.

I am sure you will do me the justice to admit that I have

patiently and anxiously sought to accomplish these objects

under the existing arrangements, and yet a review of the last

twelve months (that is to say, of the period since we entered

on the details of the measure) shows, I fear, that little of

this kind has been effected.

If progress is thus slow while I enjoy your powerful support

(and for the kindness and constancy with which it has been

afforded I shall always feel most grateful), what will be

the result if, unfortunately, that support should be even

temporarily withdrawn?

Will you therefore excuse the liberty I take in respectfully

suggesting for your consideration whether it is not highly

important to the success of the measure that I should

henceforward take a position in the Post Office, and whether

the official changes now in progress may not afford opportunity

for creating the necessary vacancy without any injury to

Colonel Maberly? Such a change could not, I presume, be

otherwise than agreeable to him; it would relieve him from the

unpleasant task of working out a measure which he dislikes, and

which he has repeatedly affirmed cannot succeed; a measure,

therefore, whose success cannot add to his reputation, and

whose failure is not unlikely to be attributed, however

undeservedly, to his mode of conducting it.

At the same time the proposed change would put an end

to a divided, unacknowledged, and therefore ineffectual

responsibility, without, I should hope, depriving me of the

great advantage I have hitherto enjoyed of submitting every

important question to your judgment.

Permit me to add that, as I have no desire to advance my own

emoluments, the suggested change would effect a saving to the

revenue of Colonel Maberly’s present salary and allowances.

May I be allowed to hope that, whatever may be your decision

on the arrangement I have ventured to suggest, you will excuse

the liberty I have taken, and attribute my conduct to the

motive by which alone I am influenced, viz., an earnest and

anxious desire to establish speedily and beyond all question

the success of a measure on which not only my whole reputation

is at stake, but which, in case of failure, or even of partial

success, is sure to be used as a ground of attack against the

Government by which it has been adopted.

Let me beg that you will not take the trouble to answer this

letter till you return to town. In bringing the matter under

your notice before the completion of the official arrangements

referred to above, the immediate object which I have in view is

accomplished.

I have, &c.,

ROWLAND HILL.

FOOTNOTES

[1] See p. 235.

[2] See pp. 234, 292.

[3] “Life of John Sterling,” p. 198. Edition of 1857.

[4] See “Miscellanies,” by J. A. Symonds, M.D. Edited by his son.

[5] Butler was a Worcestershire man.

[6] In looking over some old records at the General Post-office I noticed

that the first Kidderminster postmaster, who was appointed about the

beginning of last century, was named Hill. Likely enough he was an

ancestor of Sir Rowland Hill.

[7] An instance of the manufacture of a new kind of faggot-vote.

[8] In this, as in other cases, I quote from the fragments of an

autobiography which Mr. T. W. Hill left behind him at his death. As he

did not begin to write it until he had by some years passed fourscore, it

is scarcely surprising that he never finished it.

[9] He was also related through her to Dr. J. A. Symonds, the late

eminent physician of Clifton, and his son, Mr. J. A. Symonds, the

accomplished essayist, to the Rev. Morell Mackenzie, who showed such

noble fortitude at the shipwreck of the _Pegasus_, and to the admirable

comedian, the late Mr. Compton.

[10] Vol. I., p. 9.

[11] “Essays of a Birmingham Manufacturer.” By William Lucas Sargant.

Vol. II., p. 186.

[12] The definition is as follows:—“A straight line is a line in which,

if any two points be taken, the part intercepted shall be less than any

other line in which those points can be found.”

[13] “The strength of prejudice at the time is well exemplified by the

following epigram, written in all earnestness and sincerity, by one of my

father’s intimate friends:—

“‘And what did Watt accomplish for mankind?—

What was the produce of his powerful mind?

He found machinery a deadly curse;

And what did Watt? He left it ten times worse!’”

[14] See page 69.

[15] Prefatory Memoir.

[16] Prefatory Memoir.

[17] _The following table may be of some service to the reader._

THOMAS WRIGHT HILL, Born, April 24, 1763. Died, June 13, 1851.

SARAH LEA ” August 23, 1765. ” April 9, 1842.

Married, July 29, 1791.

_Their Children._

MATTHEW DAVENPORT, Born, August 6, 1792. Died, June 7, 1872.

EDWIN ” November 25, 1793. ” November 6, 1876.

ROWLAND ” December 3, 1795. ” August 27, 1879.

ARTHUR ” August 27, 1798.

CAROLINE ” August 18, 1800. ” September 16, 1877.

FREDERIC ” June 29, 1803.

WILLIAM HOWARD ” July 26, 1805. ” November 30, 1830.

SARAH ” July 9, 1807. ” June 12, 1840.

[18] For the sketch of this house, as it was at the time of Sir Rowland

Hill’s birth, I am indebted to the kindness of William Bucknall, Esq., of

Franche Court, Kidderminster.

[19] “Henry Crabb Robinson’s Diary.” Vol. I., p. 80.

[20] The Peace of Amiens was not signed till March 27, 1802. But the

general rejoicings were on the conclusion of the Preliminary Articles on

October 1, 1801.

[21] The battle was fought on the twenty-first.

[22] Prefatory Memoir.

[23] Prefatory Memoir,

[24] I remember how, at the age of eight, I was myself set for a short

time to teach some still smaller children to read. The book we used was

Mrs. Barbauld’s “Early Lessons.” We came to the word mezereon. I was

ashamed to own that I did not know how it was pronounced. With great

gravity I informed my class that this was a word that no one knew how to

read. So far as I can remember there was no doubting Thomas present.

[25] For many years he was engaged to give private lessons in mathematics

to some of the boys in the Grammar School. Among his pupils were Dr.

Kennedy, the Regius Professor of Greek in the University of Cambridge,

and Dr. Guest, the Master of Caius College, Cambridge.

[26] “I shall never forget the joy I felt on taking the first spark from

the prime conductor.”—Rowland Hill’s Journal.

[27] Prefatory Memoir.

[28] See Appendix A.

[29] See Appendix A.

[30] Prefatory Memoir.

[31] “At the first meeting in April, and also in October, a Committee

shall be elected, which shall consist of at least one-fifth of the

members of the Society. The mode of election shall be as follows:—A

ticket shall be delivered to each member present, with his own name at

the head of it, immediately under which he shall write the name of the

member whom he may wish to represent him in the Committee. The votes thus

given, shall be delivered to the president, who, after having assorted

them, shall report to the meeting the number of votes given for each

nominee. Every one who has five votes shall be declared a member of the

Committee; if there are more than five votes given to any one person, the

surplus votes (to be selected by lot) shall be returned to the electors

whose name they bear, for the purpose of their making other nominations,

and this process shall be repeated till no surplus votes remain, when all

the inefficient votes shall be returned to the respective electors, and

the same routine shall be gone through a second time, and also a third

time if necessary; when if a number is elected, equal in all to one-half

of the number of which the Committee should consist, they shall be a

Committee; and if at the close of the meeting the number is not filled

up, by unanimous votes of five for each member of the Committee, given

by those persons whose votes were returned to them at the end of the

third election, then this Committee shall have the power, and shall be

required, to choose persons to fill up their number; and the constituents

of each member so elected shall, if necessary, be determined by lot.

The President, Secretary, and Treasurer, all for the time being, shall

be members of the Committee, _ex-officio_, whether elected or not. In

the intervals between the general elections, it shall be competent to

any four members of the society, by a joint nomination, in a book to

be opened for the purpose, to appoint a representative in the ensuing

Committee; such appointment being made shall not be withdrawn, nor

shall the appointers give any vote in the choice of a Committee-man, as

such, until after the next election. A register shall be kept by the

Secretary of the constituents of every member of the Committee; and the

constituents of any member, except those appointed by the Committee,

(upon whose dismissal that body may exercise a negative,) shall have the

power of withdrawing their representative, by a vote of their majority,

of which vote notice in writing shall be given (subscribed by the persons

composing such majority) both to the member so dismissed, and to the

Chairman of the Committee; and in the case of a vacancy occasioned by

a dismissal as above, or by any other cause, the constituents of the

member whose place becomes vacant, may elect another in his stead, by a

unanimous vote, but not otherwise; if such election be not made within a

fortnight after the vacancy has occurred, the appointment shall devolve

upon the Committee.”

[32] I give this Preface in Appendix B.

[33] A young man to whom he was strongly attached. He also had been bent

on doing something for the world—something which should make his name

live. He was studying engineering, and it was his great hope that he

should live to make a canal through the Isthmus of Panama. Unhappily he

died at an early age.

[34] Published in London by Sir Richard Phillips.

[35] Prefatory Memoir.

[36] Prefatory Memoir.

[37] “Of course I do not mean by these quotations to set up for my father

or myself any claim to invention, seeing that we merely formed crude

ideas which were never elaborated or even published.”—Prefatory Memoir.

[38] Prefatory Memoir.

[39] Sir Rowland Hill, to a considerable extent at all events,

recovered the process. It is described in Appendix C. He adds: “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.”

[40] “Essays by a Birmingham Manufacturer,” Vol. II., p. 188.

[41] This expression is not strictly correct, as it was impossible to

maintain absolutely the same level throughout without using stools of

an unmanageable height. What was done was to keep the rods in a right

line until a new gradient was designedly taken; the angle of rise or

fall being in each instance carefully measured, and the whole afterwards

reduced by computation to the exact horizontal distance. It may be added,

that in order to make due allowance for the elongation or contraction

of the rods by change of temperature, thermometers were attached to the

apparatus, and the rise and fall of the mercury duly recorded.

[42] “These manuscripts were unfortunately destroyed two years afterwards

in a fire which will be mentioned hereafter, and with them perished not

only my water alarum, but also my planispheres, and various other results

of past labour.”

[43] Colonel Mudge’s “Report of the Trigonometrical Society of England

and Wales.” Vol. III., p. 156.

[44] Alphabetical Index to the third volume of the “Report.”

[45] Prefatory Memoir.

[46] “Southey’s Life and Correspondence,” Vol. I., p. 39.

[47] “Plans for the Government and Liberal Instruction of Boys in

Large Numbers. Drawn from Experience.” London: Printed for G. & W. B.

Whittaker, Ave-Maria Lane, 1822. A second edition was published in 1825.

[48] He was speaking of the system as it was in his time. His only son,

and all his grandsons, have been pupils of the school.

[49] “When Dr. Johnson read his own satire, in which the life of a

scholar is painted with the various obstructions thrown in his way to

fortune and to fame, he burst into a passion of tears.”—“Anecdotes of

Samuel Johnson.” By Madame Piozzi, p. 50.

[50] This Society, which was thus founded more than sixty years ago,

has existed ever since. Many hundreds of pounds have been raised by

successive generations of the pupils of Hill Top, Hazelwood, and Bruce

Castle. Why should not every school in the country have its Benevolent

Society?

[51] This officer, I believe, kept the punches with which the number

that each boy bore in the school was stamped on certain articles of his

clothing.

[52] See page 112.

[53] “By this institution, successive committees of boys (generally,

indeed, presided over by a master, but still free in action) must

have disposed of little less, perhaps more, than four thousand

pounds.”—Prefatory Memoir.

[54] “Essays by a Birmingham Manufacturer,” Vol. II., p. 187.

[55] Emilius. Book II.

[56] Prefatory Memoir.

[57] Prefatory Memoir.

[58] “The ammunition with which these poor fellows were to overturn the

government was kept in an old stocking.”

[59] The passage quoted begins, “Deep-toned the organ breathes,” and

ends, ‘He smiles on death.’

[60] It was part of Uriconium.

[61] It was at a time of grievous distress and loud discontent that the

suspension of this Act was carried. In few places was there greater

suffering than in Birmingham. Rowland Hill, before he set out for London,

had passed near the Birmingham Workhouse while a crowd was gathered round

the doors waiting for their weekly dole. One of them called out to him,

“Look there, Sir; there’s a sight, while they’re a-passing their Horpus

Corpus Acts. Damn their Horpus Corpus Acts, say I.”

[62] There existed at this time in Birmingham, as Sir R. Hill

subsequently recorded, “a very exclusive society for procuring private

concerts. It was supposed that the society’s strict rule would be waived

in favour of so distinguished a visitor as Mr. Campbell; but upon

application being made for his admission to one of these performances,

answer was returned that no exception had been made even in the case of

an officer who had bled for his country, and whose claims were of course

very superior to any that could be advanced by Mr. Campbell.”

[63] See page 87.

[64] Joseph Hodgson, Esq., F.R.S., late President of the College of

Surgeons.

[65] M.P. for Midhurst.

[66] “The Recorder of Birmingham.” A Memoir of Matthew Davenport Hill. By

his daughters. Page 76.

[67] “History of my Religious Opinions.” Page 290.

[68] See page 47.

[69] See Mr. Trevelyan’s “Life and Letters of Lord Macaulay.” Second

edition. Vol. II., p. 463.

[70] “By a mistake of the Secretary, my name was omitted in the first

list of the Committee.”

[71] Writing to his wife from Hazelwood on January 12th, 1830, he says:

“I am engaged in my experiments with pendulums, which at present promise

very well. Father is much interested in the matter. I tell you this,

my dear, because I know you take a lively interest in everything I

undertake.”

[72] Published by Simpkin and Marshall.

[73] The _Arthur Hill Lifeboat_, stationed at Fowey, is a memorial of the

affection of many generations of scholars for their old master.—ED.

[74] This was written in the year 1869. Eight years later—seventy-four

years after the opening of Hill Top, and fifty years after the opening

of Bruce Castle—the school passed out of the hands of any member of Sir

Rowland Hill’s family. In justice to the present head-master, it should

be stated that in the fifty-eight years that have elapsed since the

publication of “Public Education,” great changes have been made in the

system of government of the school.

[75] The reader will find the scheme described in Appendix E.

[76] The late Sir John Shaw-Lefevre, K.C.B.

[77] Assistant Secretary to the Poor Law Commissioners.

[78] The Society was later on joined by Dr. Arnott, Dr. Lyon Playfair,

Mr. Edwin Chadwick, Mr. Henry Cole, Mr. Arthur Symonds, Mr. Dilke, and

Mr. Frederic Hill.

[79] See Southey’s “Life and Correspondence.” Vol. I., p. 216.

[80] We may compare with this what Gibbon says of his own training.

“Whatsoever have been the fruits of my education, they must be ascribed

to the fortunate banishment which placed me at Lausanne.”—ED.

[81] Sir R. Hill, in after years, saw a good deal of Lord Brougham. He

thus writes of him:—“Judging by what I observed, I should say that,

wide as was the range of his knowledge—far wider, indeed, than I could

measure,—it was deficient in accuracy, and therefore in profundity.

This, indeed, must be evident to all who regard the undulatory theory

of light as now fully established.... Other instances of inaccuracy,

doubtless of a minor, but yet of a serious character, I found in his

essay on Hydrostatics, written for the Useful Knowledge Society, and,

as it happened, referred to me by the Committee for report thereon.

On the other hand, I found much more of kindliness in him than the

world generally gave him credit for, and in particular I remember with

gratitude the important help which he freely and promptly rendered to

myself.”—ED.

[82] Writing to Mr. M. D. Hill on September 5, 1834, he says:—“However

absurd it may appear, I do really believe that Mr. Spring Rice [at that

time Secretary to the Colonies] has jumbled up together in his mind the

statements as to the sterility of some parts of the Continent with the

ample evidence of the fertility of other parts, and has got a notion that

the evidence is contradictory.”—ED.

[83] See “First Annual Report of the Colonisation Commissioners for South

Australia,” pp. 7 and 13, and “Fourth Report,” p. 3.

[84] “Third and Fourth Reports of the South Australian Commissioners.”

[85] “Third Report,” p. 18.

[86] See page 69.

[87] The office was No. 6, next door to the house in which Garrick had

died; and this, on an alarm of fire, I once entered at the request of the

occupant. I need not say with what interest.

[88] It was in the same year that he received this refusal that he and

Mr. Lefevre formed the small society which has been described on page

209. He has recorded that the society discussed “the possibility of

feeding the machine mechanically with a continuous supply of _sheets_....

I scarcely need add that we found the problem insoluble.”—ED.

[89] The offer was made by Mr. Wm. Clowes, Sen. I should have had to

contribute, I think, about £5,000 of capital, and my share of the profits

was estimated at £2,500 a-year.

[90] See Appendix E for letters by Mr. John Forster, late Member for

Berwick, and Sir Rowland Hill, on the subject of the printing machine.

[91] The employment of existing stage-coaches instead of slow and

irregular horse and foot posts, a change made in the year 1784.

[92] In Sir R. Hill’s Pamphlet on “Post Office Reform,” (Third Edition,

p. 86), is the following passage:—

“Coleridge tells a story which shows how much the Post Office is open

to fraud in consequence of the option which now exists. The story is as

follows. ‘One day, when I had not a shilling which I could spare, I was

passing by a cottage not far from Keswick, where a letter-carrier was

demanding a shilling for a letter, which the woman of the house appeared

unwilling to pay, and at last declined to take. I paid the postage, and

when the man was out of sight, she told me that the letter was from her

son, who took that means of letting her know that he was well; the letter

was _not to be paid for_. It was then opened and found to be blank!”

(“Letters, Conversations, and Recollections of S. T. Coleridge,” Vol.

II., p. 114).

In Miss Martineau’s “History of England During the Thirty Years’ Peace,”

which was published thirteen years after “Post Office Reform,” this story

appears in the following shape:—

“Mr. Rowland Hill, when a young man, was walking through the Lake

District, when he one day saw the postman deliver a letter to a woman

at a cottage door. The woman turned it over and examined it, and then

returned it, saying that she could not pay the postage, which was a

shilling. Hearing that the letter was from her brother, Mr. Hill paid the

postage, in spite of the manifest unwillingness of the woman. As soon as

the postman was out of sight, she showed Mr. Hill how his money had been

wasted, as far as she was concerned. The sheet was blank. There was an

agreement between her brother and herself, that as long as all went well

with him, he should send a blank sheet in this way once a quarter, and

she thus had tidings of him without expense of postage. Most people would

have remembered this incident as a curious story to tell; but Mr. Hill’s

was a mind which wakened up at once to a sense of the significance of the

fact. There must be something wrong in a system which drove a brother

and sister to cheating, in order to gratify their desire to hear of one

another’s welfare, &c.” Vol. II., p. 425.

A few years ago Sir R. Hill drew my attention to the blunder into which

Miss Martineau had fallen. The following is my note of what he said:—“He

remarked on her carelessness, and the trouble it had cost him. He had

sent her, on her application, his pamphlet. She read it carelessly. The

story Miss Martineau tells is, in the pamphlet, told of Coleridge. He

(Sir R. Hill) had been attacked in some of the papers for taking credit

to himself for charity. Cornewall Lewis asked him one day whether he had

seen an attack on him in ‘Notes and Queries.’ On his answering ‘No,’

he showed it him, and undertook to answer it himself. The story was so

believed and amplified, that a friend of his, when travelling in the Lake

District, was shown the very room in an inn where Rowland Hill had first

thought of penny postage.”

I am informed that two old ladies who lived in No. 1, Orme Square,

Bayswater, used to show to their friends the room in which Rowland Hill

devised Penny Postage, though he only took that house in 1839, a few

months before the Penny Postage Act was passed.—ED.

[93] In “Post Office Reform” this anecdote is given as of a friend, but

in truth I was my own hero. It must not be supposed that in franking

these newspapers I was usurping a privilege. In those days newspapers,

unless franked, at least in appearance, were charged as letters. But any

one was at liberty to use the name of any Peer or Member of the House

of Commons without his consent. The publishers of newspapers had a name

printed on the wrapper.

[94] A short time since Sir William Armstrong told me that a pound of

coal contained a greater latent power than a pound of gunpowder.

[95] See page 23.

[96] “Early in the ‘thirties’ there had been some reduction in certain

departments of taxation. It occurred to me that probably some ease might

be given to the people by lowering the postal rate, and I discussed the

subject with members of my family. My brother Matthew, who was expecting

Mr. Parker, (M.P. for Sheffield, one of the Lords of the Treasury), to

dine at his house, invited me to meet him. Leading the conversation to

the reduction of taxation, he said my attention had been turned to the

subject, and I explained to Mr. Parker the method of relief that had

occurred to me. Afterwards, at my brother’s suggestion, I wrote down my

views, the whole not exceeding three or four pages of foolscap. Although

occupied with other affairs, the reduction in the postal rate was not

then dismissed from my thoughts. The interest it had excited induced me

to read Reports, &c., on postal administration, and it was in the perusal

of their contents that the question arose in my mind, whether the cost

of a letter was affected by the distance it had to be conveyed.”—Note of

a conversation with Sir R. Hill two or three years before his death, by

Miss F. Davenport-Hill.—ED.

[97] “Post Office Reform; its Importance and Practicability.” By Rowland

Hill. Published by Charles Knight and Co., London. 1837.

[98] “Post Office Reform,” second edition, p. 2.

[99] “Post Office Reform,” second edition, p. 3.

[100] p. 4.

[101] Ibid.

[102] “Post Office Reform,” second edition, p. 5.

[103] pp. 5, 6.

[104] “Post Office Reform,” second edition, p. 9.

[105] “Eighteenth Report of the Commissioners of Revenue Enquiry,” p. 4.

[106] I applied for permission to see the working of the London office,

but was met by a polite refusal.

[107] “Post Office Reform,” second edition, p. 10.

[108] “Post Office Reform,” second edition, p. 16.

[109] Ibid.

[110] When at length I obtained precise information, I found that in

taking care not to make my estimate too low I had made it considerably

too high; and I think the history of this rectification too curious

and characteristic to be omitted. Two years later, the Parliamentary

Committee appointed to consider my plan ordered, at my suggestion, a

return on the subject; when, to my surprise and amusement, the report of

the Post Office gave as the cost of this mail the exact sum estimated

by me, viz., £5. Struck with the coincidence, the more so as I had

intentionally allowed for possible omission, I suggested the call for

a return in detail; and, this being given, brought down the cost to £4

8s. 7¾d. In the return, however, I discovered an error, viz., that the

charge for guards’ wages was that for the double journey instead of the

single; and when this point was adjusted, in a third return, the cost

sank to £3 19s. 7¾d. When explanation of the anomaly was asked for, it

was acknowledged by the Post Office authorities that my estimate had been

adopted wholesale.—_Appendix to Second Report of Select Committee on

Postage_, 1838, pp. 257-259.

[111] “Post Office Reform,” second edition, p. 18.

[112] “Post Office Reform,” second edition, p. 12.

[113] Returns, 1830, Nos. 293 and 478.

[114] “Post Office Reform,” second edition, p. 55.

[115] By statistics published in the Journal of the Society of Arts

(Oct. 28th, 1870), it appears that the plan of secondary distribution,

(though perhaps not under that name) actually exists in North Germany,

concurrently with complete distribution from house to house; and,

doubtless, the one arrangement has facilitated and justified the other.

[116] “Post Office Reform,” second edition, pp. 34 and 83.

[117] Parl. Return, 1834, No. 19.

[118] “Post Office Reform,” second edition, p. 83.

[119] “Post Office Reform,” second edition, p. 83.

[120] p. 85.

[121] “Post Office Reform,” second edition, pp. 86, 87.

[122] “Post Office Reform,” second edition, pp. 94-96.

[123] “Post Office Reform,” second edition, pp. 66, 67.

[124] “Post Office Reform,” p. 67.

[125] From this pamphlet many extracts are given in the course of this

chapter. I have not thought it necessary to follow Sir R. Hill in giving,

in each case, the reference.—ED.

[126] The following extract from a letter by the Right Hon. C. P.

Villiers, M.P., to Mr. Frederic Hill, most fittingly comes in here. It

was written, indeed, a few days after Sir Rowland Hill’s death, but the

writer was carried back in his thoughts to the earliest days of the great

struggle for postal reform, in which he himself had played no mean part:—

... “His time, probably from fulness of years, had arrived for leaving

us. Still those who appreciated his rare qualities, and the great service

he had rendered the country, liked to think that he was yet amongst them,

and could observe, with justifiable pride, the continued and increasing

success of his great and beneficial scheme.... I remember well, indeed,

the frequent communications I had with your brother when he was first

bringing his plan before the public, and also (to his honour) the great

disinterestedness that he showed when he requested me to submit the

scheme then in MS. to the Government, offering to allow them to have

the entire credit of its introduction, if they chose to undertake it,

stipulating only that, if they should refuse, he should then refer it

to the Press, and make it known to, and understood by, the country. The

apprehensions that were then expressed at head-quarters (when I executed

his commission) are still fresh in my recollection, and most certainly

was he left free to do what he liked about a measure that, in their view,

would require such a sacrifice of revenue, and the success of which was

so extremely problematical. I always considered it fortunate (with regard

to its success) that the measure was thus left to the unbiassed judgment

of the public, and to the energetic support which such men as Grote,

Warburton, and Hume, and the really intelligent reformers, then in the

House, gave to your brother.”—ED.

[127] Within the last few months (November, 1869) I have privately

recommended to Government the contingent adoption of this measure, as

well as of others for giving increased facilities and greater speed of

conveyance.

[128] See p. 218.

[129] Neither Mr. Knight nor I was then aware of an earlier though long

abandoned use of stamped covers in France. See p. 377.

[130] “Ninth Report of Commissioners for Post Office Enquiry,” pp. 32,

33. Same substantially, “Post Office Reform,” second edition, pp. 41-45.

[131] “Ninth Report of Commissioners for Post Office Enquiry,” pp. 38, 40.

[132] “Ninth Report of Commissioners for Post Office Enquiry,” p. 34.

[133] “Ninth Report of Commissioners for Post Office Enquiry,” p. 87.

[134] “Ninth Report,” pp. 8, 9.

[135] “Post Office Reform,” first edition, p. 53; second edition, p. 65.

[136] “A curious incident happened to-day while Mr. Thrale and I sat with

Dr. Johnson. Francis announced that a large packet was brought to him

from the post office, said to have come from Lisbon, and it was charged

_seven pounds ten shillings_. He would not receive it, supposing it to

be some trick, nor did he even look at it. But upon inquiry afterwards

he found that it was a real packet for him, from that very friend in the

East Indies of whom he had been speaking; and the ship which carried it

having come to Portugal, this packet, with others, had been put into the

post office at Lisbon.”—BOSWELL’S _Life of Dr. Johnson_ (8vo edition), p.

501.—ED.

[137] “Hansard,” Vol. XXXVIII., p. 1464.

[138] pp. 1462-1464.

[139] Post Office advertisement, _Morning Chronicle_, August 22, 1837.

[140] The Bill for effecting this was drawn by my friend Mr. Arthur

Symonds.

[141] “Eighteenth Report of the Commissioners of Revenue Enquiry,” p. 66.

“Post Office Reform,” second edition, p. 69.

[142] “Post Office Reform,” third edition, p. 49.

[143] “Ninth Report of Commissioners of Post Office Enquiry,” p. 22.

[144] “Third Report of the Select Committee on Postage,” p. 2.

[145] Ibid.

[146] That their opposition was altogether official is shown by the fact

that when the Government subsequently adopted my plan, they all three

became its advocates.

[147] “Hansard,” third series, Vol. XXXIX. pp. 1115, 1116.

[148] The word “penny,” though found in “Hansard,” is, as shown by what

follows, erroneously inserted.

[149] “Hansard,” third series, Vol. _XXXIX._ pp. 1201-1210.

[150] “Hansard,” Vol. XXXIX. p. 1207.

[151] “Mirror of Parliament,” Vol. XXXVIII. p. 833.

[152] Now (Sept., 1875) Sir Henry Cole, K.C.B.

[153] “Third Report of the Select Committee on Postage,” p. 3.

[154] See page 251.

[155] See my letter to the Chairman of the Committee. “First Report,” p.

424.

[156] “Third Report from the Select Committee of Postage (1838),” p. 6.

[157] “Third Report,” p. 43.

[158] “Post Office Reform,” second edition, p. 78.

[159] “Third Report,” p. 339.

[160] Speech of Lord Lichfield in House of Lords, November 30th, 1837.

[161] “Third Report,” p. 7.

[162] “Third Report,” p. 8.

[163] “Third Report,” p. 7.

[164] “Third Report,” p. 8.

[165] “Third Report,” p. 9.

[166] Ibid.

[167] “Third Report,” p. 12.

[168] Ibid.

[169] Ibid.

[170] “Third Report,” p. 13.

[171] Ibid.

[172] Ibid.

[173] Ibid.

[174] Ibid.

[175] Ibid.

[176] Ibid.

[177] “Third Report,” p. 14.

[178] “Third Report,” p. 15.

[179] “Third Report,” p. 17.

[180] “Third Report,” p. 18.

[181] “Third Report,” p. 19.

[182] Ibid.

[183] “Third Report,” p. 20.

[184] “Third Report,” p. 21.

[185] Ibid.

[186] “Third Report,” p. 21.

[187] “Third Report,” p. 22.

[188] “Third Report,” p. 22.

[189] Ibid.

[190] Ibid.

[191] “Third Report,” p. 23.

[192] “Third Report,” p. 24.

[193] Ibid.

[194] “Third Report,” p. 25.

[195] Ibid.

[196] “Third Report,” p. 25.

[197] “Third Report,” p. 26.

[198] Ibid.

[199] Ibid.

[200] “Third Report,” p. 27.

[201] “Third Report,” p. 27.

[202] “Third Report,” p. 28.

[203] “Post Office Reform,” second edition, p. 55.

[204] Ibid.

[205] “Third Report,” p. 29.

[206] “Third Report,” p. 33.

[207] “Third Report,” p. 34.

[208] Ibid.

[209] “Third Report,” p. 34.

[210] Ibid.

[211] Ibid.

[212] Ibid.

[213] “Third Report,” p. 41.

[214] “Second Report,” question 11,110.

[215] “Second Report,” question 11,111.

[216] “Second Report,” question 11,112

[217] Ibid.

[218] “Third Report,” p. 42.

[219] “Third Report,” p. 43.

[220] Ibid.

[221] “Third Report,” p. 44.

[222] “First Report,” questions 1,369, 1,372.

[223] “Third Report,” p. 45.

[224] “Third Report,” p. 45.

[225] “Third Report,” p. 46.

[226] “Third Report,” p. 47.

[227] “Third Report,” p. 48.

[228] Ibid.

[229] “Third Report,” p. 49.

[230] “Third Report,” p. 50.

[231] “Third Report,” p. 52.

[232] “Third Report,” p. 53.

[233] “Third Report,” p. 54.

[234] “Third Report,” p. 56.

[235] “Third Report,” p. 60.

[236] Ibid.

[237] “Third Report.” p. 61.

[238] “Third Report,” p. 63.

[239] “Third Report,” p. 65.

[240] “First Report,” p. 79.

[241] “First Report,” p. 106.

[242] “First Report,” p. 109.

[243] “First Report,” p. 189.

[244] “First Annual Report of the Postmaster-General,” pp. 65, 68.

[245] “Third Report,” p. iv.

[246] Ibid.

[247] “Third Report,” p. iv.

[248] This is strikingly shown by the following extract from the First

Annual Report of the Postmaster-General, published in 1854. “In 1844 the

Post Office _received_ from the coach contractors about £200 a year for

the privilege of carrying the mail twice a day between Lancaster and

Carlisle; whereas, at the present time, the same service performed by the

railway costs the Post Office about £12,000 a year.”—ED.

[249] _Times_, May 31, 1839.

[250] See p. 268.

[251] In grateful recollection of Mr. Warburton’s friendship and

assistance in the cause of Penny Postage, I am glad to say that my son

has christened one of his children Henry Warburton (1877).

[252] The eminent Liverpool merchant.—ED.

[253] A periodical of which Mr. Henry Cole (now Sir Henry Cole, K.C.B.)

was the editor. It was brought out in support of the cause of Penny

Postage.—ED.

[254] _Times_, March 16, 1839.

[255] _Morning Chronicle_, May 3, 1839.

[256] “In 1839, I think it was, he [Mr. Warburton] urged upon me the

adoption by the Government of the plan of penny postage which had been

made known to the public by Mr. Rowland Hill. I said I thought the plan

very ingenious, and likely to confer great benefits upon the public,

but that it would make a temporary deficit in the revenue, which would

probably require to be filled up by new taxation. Mr. Warburton said that

a new tax was a great evil, and he hoped it would be avoided. No further

conversation passed at that time. Unfortunately the Government adopted

both parts of Mr. Warburton’s advice. The Cabinet was unanimous in favour

of the ingenious and popular plan of a penny postage; but they ought

to have enacted at the same time such measures as would have secured a

revenue sufficient to defray the national expenditure. Failing to do

this, there was for three years together a deficit, which exposed the

Government to the powerful reproaches and unanswerable objections of Sir

Robert Peel. Public opinion echoed those reproaches and those objections,

and produced such a degree of discontent as was in itself a sufficient

ground for a change of Administration.”—Extract from EARL RUSSELL’S

“Recollections,” &c., p. 231.

[257] Earl Russell states in his “Recollections,” &c., that “the Cabinet

was unanimous” in this decision (_vide_ p. 231).

[258] This passage is entirely omitted in “Hansard,” but is recorded

partly in the “Post Circular,” No. 14, p. 59; and partly in the “Mirror

of Parliament,” Vol. XXXVIII., p. 2578.

[259] The paper in question will be found among those “issued by the

Mercantile Committee on Postage.” It is No. 65.

[260] In speaking of labels I recommend that they “should be printed on

sheets, each containing twenty rows of twelve in a row; a row would then

be sold for a shilling, and a whole sheet for £1.”

[261] The offer of prizes for suggestions noticed hereafter. See page 381.

[262] “Mirror of Parliament,” Vol. XXXVIII., p. 3298.

[263] Ibid.

[264] “Hansard,” third series, Vol. XLVIII., p. 1360.

[265] pp. 1361.

[266] “Hansard,” third series, Vol. XLVIII., p. 1365.

[267] “Hansard,” third series, Vol. XLVIII., p. 1387.

[268] “Mirror of Parliament,” Vol. XXXVIII., p. 3695.

[269] “Hansard,” Vol. XLIX., pp. 277-307.

[270] “Hansard,” Vol. XLIX., p. 494.

[271] “Mirror of Parliament,” Vol. XXXVIII., p. 4171.

[272] “Hansard,” Vol. XLIX., pp. 623-641.

[273] “Hansard,” Vol. XLIX., p. 687.

[274] “Hansard,” Vol. XLIX., p. 936.

[275] “Mirror of Parliament,” Vol. XXXVIII., p. 4206.

[276] “Hansard,” Vol. XLIX., pp. 1207-1239.

[277] “Mr. Rowland Hill was then pondering his scheme, and ascertaining

the facts which he was to present with so remarkable an accuracy.

His manner in those days—his slowness and hesitating speech—were not

recommendatory of his doctrine to those who would not trouble themselves

to discern its excellence and urgent need. If he had been prepossessing

in manner, and fluent and lively in speech, it might have saved him half

his difficulties, and the nation some delay; but he was so accurate,

so earnest, so irrefragable in his facts, so wise and benevolent in

his intentions, and so well-timed with his scheme, that success was,

in my opinion, certain from the beginning; and so I used to tell some

conceited and shallow members and adherents of the Whig Government,

whose flippancy, haughtiness, and ignorance about a matter of such

transcendent importance tried my temper exceedingly. Rowland Hill might

and did bear it; but I own I could not always. Even Sydney Smith was so

unlike himself on this occasion, as to talk and write of ‘this nonsense

of a penny postage.’.... Lord Monteagle, with entire complacency, used to

smile it down at evening parties, and lift his eyebrows at the credulity

of the world which could suppose that a scheme so wild could ever be

tried.... The alteration in Rowland Hill himself, since he won his tardy

victory, is an interesting spectacle to those who knew him twenty years

ago. He always was full of domestic tenderness and social amiability;

and these qualities now shine out, and his whole mind and manners are

quickened by the removal of the cold obstruction he encountered at the

beginning of his career. Grateful as I feel to him as the most signal

social benefactor of our time, it has been a great pleasure to me to see

the happy influence of success on the man himself. I really should like

to ask the surviving Whig leaders all round what they think now of ‘the

nonsense of the penny postage.’”—“Harriet Martineau’s Autobiography,”

Vol. I., p. 410.—ED.

[278] Mr. Gardiner was Secretary to the Commissioners of Post Office

Enquiry; Mr. Ledingham was his clerk.

[279] “Report on the French Post Office,” p. 2.

[280] “Report on the French Post Office,” p. 5.

[281] “Report on the French Post Office,” p. 6.

[282] Ibid.

[283] “Report on the French Post Office,” p. 11.

[284] “Quarterly Review,” No. 128, p. 555.

[285] “Quarterly Review,” No. 128, p. 524.

[286] “Quarterly Review,” p. 531.

[287] “Quarterly Review,” p. 551.

[288] On this day, so long as his health lasted, the great postal

reformer loved to gather his friends around him.—ED.

[289] This system was very unwisely abolished some years ago.—ED.

[290] “We are all putting up our letter-boxes on our hall doors with

great glee, anticipating the hearing from brothers and sisters,—a line or

two almost every day. The slips in the doors are to save the postmen’s

time—the great point being how many letters may be delivered within

a given time, the postage being paid in the price of the envelopes,

or paper. So all who wish well to the plan are having slips in their

doors. It is proved that poor people _do_ write, or get letters written,

_wherever_ a franking privilege exists. When January comes round, do give

your sympathy to all the poor pastors’, and tradesmen’s and artizans’

families, who can at last write to one another as if they were all

M.P.’s. The stimulus to trade, too, will be prodigious. Rowland Hill is

very quiet in the midst of his triumph, but he must be very happy. He has

never been known to lose his temper, or be in any way at fault, since he

first revealed his scheme.”—Extract of a letter from Harriet Martineau.

“Harriet Martineau’s Autobiography,” Vol. III., p. 250.—ED.

[291] I have been told that Mr. Lines, the Birmingham drawing-master,

proud of his old pupil of some thirty years ago, was bent on being the

first man in his town to send a letter by the penny post. The old man

waited accordingly outside the Birmingham Post Office on the night of the

ninth. On the first stroke of twelve he knocked at the window, and handed

in a letter, saying “A penny, I believe, is the charge?” “Yes,” said the

clerk, in an angry voice, and banged the window down.—ED.

[292] See page 225.

[293] Subsequently the salary was raised.

[294] I have received from an esteemed correspondent the following

cutting from the City article of one of the London Daily Papers:—

“MONEY MARKET AND CITY INTELLIGENCE.

“Friday Evening.

“Considerable diversion was created in the City to-day by

the appearance of the new penny-post devices for envelopes,

half-sheet letters, and bits of ‘sticking plaster,’ about an

inch square, for dabbing on to letters. The surface of the

latter is filled up with a bust of Her Majesty, or what is

guessed to be intended for such, but which is much too vulgar

of expression so to be mistaken by any of the loyal subjects

who have had the good fortune to see the graceful original

herself. But for this unlucky perversion of the royal features,

the penny-post ‘sticking-plaster’ might appropriately have

come into fashion and superseded the court sticking-plaster,

so common for the concealment of trifling cutaneous cracks

on the face of beauty. Thus women and men, too, might have

carried sovereigns on their countenances as well as in their

hearts and purses, and many a decayed beauty might have

refreshed her faded charms with the renovating representation

of royal youth and loveliness. It is shrewdly suspected that

this untoward disfiguration of the royal person has been the

studied work of ministerial malevolence and jealousy, desirous

of rendering their royal benefactress, if possible, as odious

as themselves. The envelopes and half-sheets have an engraved

surface, extremely fantastic, and not less grotesque. In the

centre, at the top, sits Britannia, throwing out her arms, as

if in a tempest of fury, at four winged urchins, intended to

represent post-boys, letter-carriers, or Mercuries, but who,

instead of making use of their wings and flying, appear in the

act of striking out or swimming, which would have been natural

enough if they had been furnished with fins instead of wings.

On the right of Britannia there are a brace of elephants, all

backed and ready to start, when some Hindoo, Chinese, Arabic,

or Turkish merchants, standing quietly by, have closed their

bargains and correspondence. The elephants are symbolic of the

lightness and rapidity with which Mr. Rowland Hill’s penny

post is to be carried on, and perhaps, also, of the power

requisite for transporting the £1,500 a-year to his quarters,

which is all he obtains for strutting about the Post Office,

with his hands in his pockets, and nothing to do like a fish

out of water. On the left of Britannia, who looks herself very

much like a termagant, there is an agglomeration of native

Indians, Missionaries, Yankees, and casks of tobacco, with

a sprinkling of foliage, and the rotten stem of a tree, not

forgetting a little terrier dog inquisitively gliding between

the legs of the mysterious conclave to see the row. Below, on

the left, a couple of heads of the damsel tribe are curiously

peering over a valentine just received (scene, Valentine’s

Day), whilst a little girl is pressing the elders for a sight

of Cupid, and the heart transfixed with a score of arrows. On

the right again stands a dutiful boy, reading to his anxious

mamma an account of her husband’s hapless shipwreck, who, with

hands clasped, is blessing Rowland Hill for the cheap rate at

which she gets the disastrous intelligence. At the bottom of

all there is the word ‘Postage,’ done in small upon a large

pattern of filagree work. With very great propriety the name

of the artist is conspicuously placed in one corner, so that

the public and posterity may know who is the worthy Oliver of

the genius of a Rowland on this triumphant occasion. As may

well be imagined, it is no common man, for the mighty effort

has taxed the powers of the Royal Academy itself, if the

engraved announcement of W. Mulready, R.A., in the corner may

be credited. Considering the infinite drollery of the whole,

the curious assortment of figures and faces, the harmonious

_mélange_ of elephants, mandarin’s tails, Yankee beavers, naked

Indians, squatted with their hind-quarters in front, Cherokee

chiefs, with feathered tufts, shaking missionaries by the

hand; casks of Virginia threatening the heads of young ladies

devouring their love letters, and the old woman in the corner,

with hands uplifted, blessing Lord Lichfield and his Rowland

for the saving grace of 11_d._ out of the shilling, and valuing

her absent husband’s calamity or death as nothing in comparison

with such an economy—altogether, it may be said, this is a

wondrous combination of pictorial genius, after which Phiz

and Cruikshank must hide their diminished heads, for they can

hardly be deemed worthy now of the inferior grade of associates

and aspirants for academic honours. Withal the citizens are

rude enough to believe that these graphic embellishments will

not go down at the price of 1_s._ 3_d._ the dozen for the

envelopes, and half or quarter sheets, for the size is somewhat

of the mongrel sort, and of 1_s._ 1_d._ per dozen for the

bits of ‘sticking plaster,’ with a head upon it which looks

something like that of a girl, but nothing of a Queen. As a

very tolerable profit may be made out of the odd pence thus

charged over the stamp, the penny-postman calculates, no doubt,

to make up the deficit in the Post Office revenue by the sale

of these gimcrack pictures for babes and sucklings.”—ED.

[295] In Sir R. Hill’s Journal is the following entry;—“I fear we shall

be obliged to substitute some other stamp for that designed by Mulready,

which is abused and ridiculed on all sides. In departing so widely from

the established ‘lion and unicorn’ nonsense, I fear that we have run

counter to settled opinions and prejudices somewhat rashly. I now think

it would have been wiser to have followed established custom in all the

details of the measure where practicable.”—May 12th, 1840.—ED.

[296] “First Report of the Postmaster-General,” pp. 65-68.

[297] The late Professor R. Phillips, F.R.S.

[298] Now Sir Charles Pressly, K.C.B. He was then Secretary, and

afterwards Chairman, of the Board of Stamps and Taxes.

[299] The extracts which I have given in Appendix I from the Annual

Reports of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, show how well my brother

discharged the duties of his office.

[300] See p. 346.

[301] Up to December 31st, 1879, have been printed more than twenty

thousand millions of penny stamps. By the kindness of the Board of

Inland Revenue, I am able to print the following statement, which I have

received from the Secretary to the Board, Mr. Frederick B. Garnett—ED.:—

_Issues of Postage Labels from the 27th April, 1840, to 31st December,

1879._

1,600,276,320 Labels at ½d.

20,699,858,040 ” 1d.

42,638,160 ” 1½d.

338,540,280 ” 2d.

105,829,824 ” 2½d.

158,526,040 ” 3d.

153,815,820 ” 4d.

158,721,280 ” 6d.

4,608,720 ” 8d.

7,635,080 ” 9d.

5,963,476 ” 10d.

126,968,940 ” 1s.

6,475,820 ” 2s.

5,174,262 ” 5s.

6,014 ” 10s.

6,014 ” £1.

[302] Among other matters, attempts were made at reduction of rates in

reference to correspondence with France; though, for a time, without

success. “A letter has been received from Thiers—he appears willing

to meet our views, but does not accept the invitation to negotiate

the matter in London. Wishes to settle it with Lord Granville, our

ambassador, who, not understanding the matter, very properly objects to

undertaking the negotiation. Mr. Baring says he has observed that, if any

course is pressed on the French Government, they immediately suspect some

sinister motive, and that the only way to bring them to is to turn our

backs upon them.... We made them a very good offer which they ought to

have accepted.”—Sir R. Hill’s Journal, June 24th, 1840.—ED.

[303] “First Report of the Postmaster-General,” p. 66.

[304] “First Report of the Postmaster-General,” p. 68.

[305] See “Post Office Reform,” second edition, p. 14.

[306] Finance Account for 1840.

[307] “Fifteenth Report of the Postmaster-General,” p. 15.

[308] “Report of the Select Committee on Postage, 1843,” p. 92.

[309] About seventeen years later Sir R. Hill, writing to his wife,

says:—“T—— has just received a letter from Lord Canning, containing a

very friendly message to myself—part of which informs me that ‘a pillar

letter-box has just been set up in the bazaar of Allahabad,’ the place at

which Lord Canning now is.”—ED.

[310] The hydrographer to the Navy.

[311] The first Reform Act.

[312] See page 451.

[313] “_April 4th, 1854._—The Postmaster-General showed me a letter from

the Chancellor of the Exchequer, marked ‘secret,’ stating that additional

taxes will be required on account of the war, and asking his opinion

as to the probable effect on the Post Office revenue of increasing the

inland rate to twopence.... I am to prepare an estimate, but to consider

the whole matter as most strictly secret. I expressed great regret, in

which Lord Canning concurs, that such a project should be entertained,

adding, perhaps a little hastily, that ‘I could not assist in giving

effect to the measure.’ It is very disappointing that this new difficulty

should arise just as I am about to overcome all the old ones.”—Sir R.

Hill’s Journal.—ED.

[314] See page 433.

[315] “Appendix to the Report of the Committee on Postage (1843),” p. 56.

[316] See page 446.

[317] “Report of the Committee on Postage (1843),” Appendix, p. 7.

[318] “Report of the Committee on Postage (1843),” Appendix, p. 11.

[319] “Report of the Committee on Postage (1843),” Appendix, p. 11.

[320] “Report of the Committee on Postage (1843),” p. 28.

[321] “Hansard,” Vol. LXIV., p. 321.

[322] “Tenth Report of the Postmaster-General,” pp. 37, 38; “Eleventh

Report of the Postmaster-General,” pp. 16, 17; “Twelfth Report of the

Postmaster-General,” pp. 34, 35.

[323] “Report of the Committee on Postage (1843),” Appendix, p. 11.

[324] “Report of the Committee on Postage (1843),” p. 28.

[325] “Report of the Committee on Postage (1843),” p. 29.

[326] Between the dates of these letters, occur the following entries in

Sir R. Hill’s Journal:—

“April 9th.—Left the office early and went to Tottenham, in consequence

of the approaching dissolution of my dear mother—she died very soon after

I reached the house. Thank God without pain.

“April 15th.—Did not go to the office. Attended my dear mother’s

funeral.”—ED.

[327] “Report of the Committee on Postage (1843),” p. 30.

[328] “Report of the Committee on Postage (1843),” p. 31.

[329] Mr. Goulburn’s letter was as follows:—

Downing Street, July 11th, 1842.

“DEAR SIR,—By the letter which my predecessor, Mr. Baring,

addressed to you previous to his retirement from office, he

intimated to you his intention of continuing your employment

by the Government, which was originally limited to two years,

for another year, ending the 14th September next. I had much

pleasure in recommending to the Treasury to give effect in

this respect to Mr. Baring’s intentions; but feeling that the

time is arrived at which your further assistance may safely be

dispensed with, I take the opportunity of apprising you that I

do not consider it advisable to make any further extension of

the period of your engagement beyond the date assigned to it by

the Lords of the Treasury.

“In making this communication, I gladly avail myself of the

opportunity of expressing my sense of the satisfactory manner

in which, during my tenure of office, you have discharged the

several duties which have been from time to time committed to

you.

“I have the honour to be, dear Sir,

“Yours ever most faithfully,

“HENRY GOULBURN.”—ED.

[330] Parliamentary Return, 1843, No. 119, p. 5.

[331] Parliamentary Return, 1843, No. 119, p. 8.

[332] Parliamentary Return, 1843, No. 119, p. 10.

[333] The word “important” occurs in the original MS. letter, though, no

doubt by accidental misprint, it is omitted in the official copy.

[334] Parliamentary Return, 1843, No. 119, p. 11.

[335] Better known as Viscount Althorp.—[ED.]

[336] See page 485.

[337] In a note on this passage, written in the year 1874, Sir R. Hill

thus speaks of Sir James Stephen:—

“It had long been the practice with the _Liberal_ party to speak of

Mr. Stephen, or, as some of them called him, King Stephen, in very

disparaging terms, representing him as the chief obstacle to colonial

reform; and I must confess that it was under this prejudice that I

began my intercourse with him. Soon, however, I saw reason to doubt the

soundness of such views—certainly they received no confirmation whatever

in his treatment of South Australia. He invariably received me and my

suggestions—some of which departed widely from ordinary routine—in a

friendly spirit, and the result of several years of intimate official

communication with him, was that I formed a very high estimate of his

character.”—ED.

[338] The following entry is in Sir R. Hill’s Journal, under the date of

March 11th, of this year:—

“Goulburn refuses to give any letters, except those on List No. 97, which

excludes all those urging progress in the adoption of my plan, and the

final letter to Peel. He considers these ‘unnecessary.’ The shabbiness of

this conduct is only equalled by its folly. I shall, of course, publish

the whole correspondence, distinguishing the letters which are given from

those which are withheld.”

[339] See p. 470.

[340] _Vide_ Return, 1843, No. 119.

[341] “Report of the Committee on Postage (1843),” p. 54.

[342] Their names are as follows:—George Moffatt, William Ellis, James

Pattison, L. P. Wilson, John Dillon, John Travers, J. H. Gledstanes, W.

A. Wilkinson, all from the first warm supporters of my plan.

[343] “Report of the Committee on Postage” (1843), p. 43.

[344] See _ante_, pp. 433 and 450.

[345] “Hansard,” Vol. LXX., pp. 399-445.

[346] “Hansard,” Vol. LXX., p. 420.

[347] “Hansard,” Vol. LXX., pp. 399, 400.

[348] See p. 327.

[349] The sole ground of this statement was that Lord Lowther had

recommended a penny rate for Prices Current.

[350] This assertion was obviously made in reliance on the “Fallacious

Return.” So gross an error in a finance minister showed an ignorance

hardly credible.

[351] “Hansard,” Vol. LXX., pp. 420-434.

[352] “Hansard,” Vol. LXX., p. 435.

[353] “Hansard,” Vol. LXX., p. 435.

[354] “Hansard,” Vol. LXX., pp. 435, 436.

[355] “Hansard,” Vol. LXX., p. 437.

[356] “Hansard,” Vol. LXX., p. 438.

[357] “Hansard,” Vol. LXX., p. 439.

[358] “Hansard,” Vol. LXX., pp. 439, 440.

[359] Lord Lowther voted for a uniform rate, but against any reduction

below twopence.

[360] “Hansard,” Vol. LXX., pp. 440, 441.

[361] “Hansard,” Vol. LXX., p. 442.

[362] “Hansard,” Vol. LXX., p. 445.

[363] I give the following draft, which did not, however, take full shape

as a letter, as a record of my feelings during the Parliamentary Inquiry

of 1843, and of the facts which produced them:—

“Orme Square, Bayswater,

“August 12th, 1843.

“SIR,—The scenes of yesterday, and your part in them, will form

my justification for the unusual course which I am taking.

“The open display of your hostility would not alone have moved

me to it; but, unhappily, that hostility has taken a form

which, if persisted in, will most effectually suppress the

greater part of my evidence in reply. You will be aware that

I refer not merely to the perpetual interruptions which I

receive, but the contradiction of my testimony, of which those

interruptions so frequently consisted.

“Sir, I must use the freedom of reminding you of the positions

in which we respectively stand. I have appealed to Parliament

against the Treasury Board of which you are an active member.

This appeal is now trying before a Committee of which you are

chairman. You are, therefore, already a party and a judge. If

you desire to add to these characters that of witness, I have

no power to object; and, if I had the power, I should be far

from wishing to exercise it.

“When you present yourself as a witness your statements will

be sifted by cross-examination, and I should evince a distrust

of my own evidence if I could wish to throw any obstacle in

the way of such a proceeding. But I must object—most earnestly

object—to your giving evidence while in the act of examining

me. Such a course is monstrous in itself, and can only lead to

a repetition of personal altercation, to which, although it

has been forced upon me, I cannot revert without a deep sense

of humiliation. Such courses are foreign to my habits and most

repugnant to my feelings.

“Be pleased, Sir, to recollect that the result of this

investigation is of vital importance to the public and to

myself, and that I am contending single-handed against the

whole force of Government. If you have the slightest confidence

in the justice of your cause, you will not deny me the full

benefit of the very brief period which is allotted to me for

my evidence in reply to the numberless misstatements (as I

maintain them to be) which I anxiously desire to answer. Depend

upon it, I have every motive to be as short as I can be with

justice to myself. The treatment which I have received will

make the termination of this inquiry a most welcome relief.

“If, however, it should still be your pleasure to subject me to

the annoyances which I have endured, I must beg leave to state

that, after much thought, I have come to this resolution: I

will answer any question, however insulting, and will reply to

any statement, whatever imputation it may convey, provided the

question and statement, together with its answer, are permitted

to make part of the evidence on the short-hand writer’s notes.

Let the House of Commons see the _animus_ which prompts the

treatment of which I complain, and I shall not despair of

redress sooner or later; but I shall steadfastly decline

answering whenever the short-hand writer is ordered to desist

from recording. I know of no right which any member has to

subject me to an examination which is to be kept back from the

House. I regret I did not act on this principle from the first.

Probably the knowledge that an offensive examination would be

recorded would have been quite sufficient to prevent its being

made.

“R. H.

“Sir George Clerk, Bart., M.P., &c., &c., &c.”

[364] The following extract from a letter from my father, dated

“Hazelwood, Birmingham, October 2nd, 1832,” shows at once his interest in

Astronomy, and his practical knowledge of the subject:—

“MY DEAR SON,—You, like myself, will probably be asked

questions about the comet now talked of as visible. I have

just found an account of its movements in the Supplement of

the “Nautical Almanac” for this year, page 43rd. I find on

calculation that it will be to-night on one side, and to-morrow

night on the other side, of a star marked on my globe θ

Geminorum. I do not find the star in any of my catalogues—no

doubt it is in Wilkinson’s, if I could find time to consult it

at the New Library. Its right ascension is at present about 6

hours 39 minutes. Its declination about 30° N. It will be found

betwixt the Twins and Capella, much nearer to the Twins. The

comet is moving forward at about 7 minutes of right ascension

per day, and approaching the ecliptic and the equator 27´

of declination daily. These movements will shortly bring it

betwixt the Twins, namely, about the 10th October, at about ¼

of the space from Castor and ¾ from Pollux. I cannot advise

dependence on these calculations as exact. I have corrected

them by allowing for the errors of prediction as found by some

observations quoted from the _Atlas_ newspaper of 30th instant,

and have done my best. The course points towards Regulus, which

will be found within about 1½° on the 1st November, the comet

on the south.

“By these indications, and the help of your telescope, I hope

you may find it out.

* * * * *

“P.S.—Will you oblige me by procuring me the means of studying

the course of the present comet. I find it called Biela’s

comet in the _Atlas_—the comet of 6·7 years in the ‘Nautical

Almanac.’ I mean of knowing what is known by others of its

history.”

[365] I am informed by Sir G. B. Airy, the Astronomer-Royal, that “M.

Biot’s expedition was not to measure an arc of meridian, but to ascertain

the force of gravity by vibrations of a pendulum, a matter connected

physically with the other.”—ED.

[366] This refers to the Vernier pendulum, spoken of at length in the

“Prefatory Memoir.”

[367] “History of England.” Vol. V., p. 96.

[368] “Whiteladies.” Vol. II., p. 37.

[369] Vol. I., p. 133. First Edition.

[370] Vol. II. p. 41. First Edition.

[371] Report of the thirty-fifth meeting of the British Association, p.

52.

[372] Sir John Herschel, by very careful experiments, found that, when

the temperature of the air is 62° of Fahrenheit, the rate of progress is

1125 per second. This is a mile in 4·7 seconds.

[373] The usual mode of dating astronomical papers. See the Astronomer

Royal’s reply.

[374] June, 1874.

[375] “Monthly Notices,” Vol. XXVI., p. 157.

[376] “Monthly Notices,” Vol. XXVIII., p. 124.

[377] This might involve the necessity of calculating or remembering the

cubes of all numbers up to 21 inclusive; but such necessity would have

presented no difficulty to practised calculators like Zerah Colbourn or

my class.

[378] This equality is not exact, but the difference is immaterial.

[379] No. 307, Session 1838.

[380] No. 184, Session 1839.

[381] The increase has been from £84,000 to £116,000 per annum.—(Vide

_First Report on Postage_, p. 472).

[382] _Third Report, Abstract_, p. 24.