Sir Rowland Hill

full movement, and in the midst of it the old king, William IV., died. His you

r this purpose to examine especially into the mode recommended for charging and collecting postage in a pamphlet published by Mr Rowland Hill.” Of this Committee, which did so much to help forward the postal reform, the doughty Member for Greenock was, of course, chosen

erefore no need to elaborate it here. The evidence told heavily against the existing postal system—whose anomalies, absurdities, and gross

ced to ensure its adoption. “He had yet to learn the vast amount of vis inertia existing in some Government Departments. The minds of those who sit in high places are sometimes w

ad ever heard or read of it was the most extraordinary”[91] —gave it as his opinion that if twelve times the number of letters were carried, the expenses of conveyance would become twelve times heavier—a strange argument for an educated man to use. He also declared that with incre

he predicted that the public would object to prepayment. He approved of a uniform rate, but apparently in theory only, as he added that he thought it quite impracticable. He doubted whether letter-smuggling—to which practice Mr Peacock, Solicitor to the Post Office, and other officials made allusion as an evil on a very large scale—would be much affected by the proposed reduct

akdown” was so frequently predicted, that it was hard to avoid the suspicion that the wish was father to the thought. The dread expressed of this increase of correspondence is,

jection was absurd. The coaches were by no means fully laden, many having very little to carry, and the chargeable letters, as we have seen, formed only a small portion of the entire mail. Twen

g

g all over the kingdom, when he had “observed that the mails and carriages which contained the letters formed a very stupendous machinery for the conveyance of

case of the coaches leaving London. The average was found to be only 463 lbs.—a little over a quarter o

enjoy the privilege possessed by those [Pg 124] better off than themselves, was shown during the examination of Mr Emery, Deputy-Lieutenant for Somerset, and a Commissioner of Taxes, when he told the C

compulsory. The public were also quick to appreciate the advantage of payment by stamps instead of money. Sir (then Mr) William Brown of Liverpool, said he had seen the demoralising effect arising f

d be very glad to find that, consistently with the general interests of the revenue, which the Government has to watch over, they c

was of much t

ast self-supporting, though he allowed that, for the sake of simplicity, extensions might be made where there was no immediate expectation of absolute profit. All beyond this he regarded as contrary to the true principles of free trade—of the “Liberation of Intercourse,” to use the later-day, and in this case m

er number could be taxed in a given time on the plan in use than by charging them in proportion to the weight of each letter. The test, however, was of little value because the weighing had not been ma

nfair in principle,” others thought well of it on the score that uniformi

Mr Peacock, the Solicitor—all the highest officials in the chief office; and, however unfortunate their opposition, and however galling I felt it at the time, I must admit on retrospect that, passing over the question of means employed, their resistance to my bold innovation was very natural. Its adoption must have been dreaded by men of routine, as involving, or seeming to involve, a total derangement of proceeding—an overthrow of establishe

g

e, serious maiming at their hands. “The divisions on the two most important of the divisions submitted to the Committee,” wrote Rowla

adopt a uniform rate of one penny per half-ounce without regard to distance,” the motion was rejected by six to three, the “aye” stalwarts being the mover, and Messrs Raikes Currie[103] and M. J. O'Connell. Then Mr Warburton, still manfully striving, moved to recommend a uniform rate of three halfpence: the motion being again lost. The following day Mr W

g

, or of some similar scale. Had the Seymour amendment been adopted, “not only the recommendations for uniformity and decided reduction of postage would have been set aside, but also those for increased facilities, for the general use of stamps, and for charge by weight instead of by the n

brought upon the poor, the vast extent of illicit conveyance, the evils of the frank system, and even many of the advantages of a uniform charge.” Had the recommendations in the Seymour Report been prepared “two years before, alm

strict uniformity impracticable, since reservation would have to be made in favour of the local penny

l incessant, and his zeal unflagging.” The Times spoke but the truth when in its issue of 31st May 1839, it said that the Post Office

me to destroying t

hority. Nevertheless, as the Committee had determined on the recommendation of a twopenny rate, the Report had to be framed in at least formal [Pg 130] accordance with this fact; though both Mr Wallace, in whose name it went to the Committee, and Mr Warburton, its author, were strongly in favour of t

o means ceased [Pg 131] to be heard. It is therefore not altogether surprising that even so clear-sighted a man as Sydney Smith—whose wisdom is too seldom remembered by those who think of him

est was that describing the barrier raised by heavy postal rates between severed relatives as “the infliction which makes the listening parent deaf and the full-hearted daughter dumb.” In a letter, written shortly before penny postage became a reality, to him whom in her Autobiography she calls “the most signal social benefactor of our time,” she

chieftain, went into the “Ayes” lobby, together with other members from the Green Isle. The proposed reform naturally and strongly appealed to the sympathies of the inhabitants of the poorer of the two islands. In May 1839, on the [Pg 133] occasion of a public deputation to the Prime Minister, Lord Melbourne, to urge adoption of the reform, O'Connell spoke in moving terms of its necessity. One passage of his speech recalls the remark made, many years after, by Gladstone when, at the final interview between himself and a late

ated any course likely to be improvident. Yet, undismayed by possible loss of revenue, he gave the postal reform his heartiest support;[112] while Mr Moffatt, bolder still, volunteered, sho

pect from a Liberal Administration. The deputation, a very important one, numbering, among others, 150 Members of Parliament, was unmistakably in earnest

ow settled on which public announcement of that fact would be made. A few [Pg 135] days later still, Mr Warburton rose in the House to ask the Home Secretary, Lord John Russell,

s present when this announcement was made

l necessity to the success of the plan—its author, about this time and at the request of the Mercantile Committee, dr

arburton's question; and Lord Melbourne replied that the Chanc

” which was also printed by the Mercantile Committee, and a copy sent to every member of Parliame

Spring Rice, brought in his Budget, the adoptio

ed its author to keep within hail; and at intervals one or other of them gave a hurried whisper through the grating in the door. “All right!” “Going on capitally!” “Sure of a majority!” came in succession; and when the anxious listener was laughingly informed t

f Wellington for one.[115] [Pg 137] Mr Moffatt thereupon put himself into communication with the old soldier, and received from him a characteristic and crushing reply. “F. M. the Duke [Pg 138] of Wellington presents his compliments

the Duke, setting forth briefly “a few facts in support of the Bill,” et

Sir Robert Peel attacked the measure; and Mr Baring, Lord Seymour, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr Wallace,

asion, and was probably the happiest and proudest m

ith Lord Melbourne at the latter's house the following Sunday. Lord Duncannon was presen

his master. “Show him into the other room,” said Lord Melbourne; and presently passed through the folding doors into the adjoining apartment. A hum of conversation at once began, one of the voices rising at last to angry tones, and the postal reformer's name being once audibly pronounced by th

ter, in a long speech, moved the second readin

easure, but did not conceal his distru

peech allusion has a

g

the state of our national finances and of the danger likely to [Pg 141]accrue to them through the lowering of any duty, that the anxious listener—who, by Lord Melbourne's wish, was in the House—seated on the steps of the throne, feared

ion, the plan most likely to remedy these was that known as Mr Rowland Hill's. “Therefore,” he concluded, “I

nce Mr Wallace wrote to congratulate Mrs Hill on the success of her husband's e

PEARSON,

ver to forget the debt. She was, moreover, a pattern scribe, sitting, hour after hour, untiring, unshirking, giving her opinion when asked for it, and in a handwriting both legible and beautifully formed, covering page after page with the sentences he dictated. More than one pamphlet, his journal, and letters innumerable were thus written by her; and she also helped in the arduous preparation for his examination before the Commissioners of Post Office Inquiry in 1837, the select Committee on Postage of 1838, a

Moreover, it gave an immense impetus to their crusade, since it enabled the League's literature to be disseminated with an ease and to an extent which, under the old system, would have been impossible. Thus one reform helps

dvised its republication in a cheaper form, offering to defray half the cost.[122] Of the plan, when it had been some time established, he

be virtually dissolved by the passing of Peel's measure. I shall feel like an emancipated negro—having fulfilled my seven years' apprenticeship to an agitation which has known n

g

ublic having to pay dearly for the privilege of using the Department for conveyance of their correspondence. But with the advent of the new system, the Post Office straightway became the paid servant—and a far more

ervatives led by Peel and by some of the Liberals. On the second reading of the Bill, the Government escaped defeat by the narrow majority of five, and at once resigned. Peel was sent for by the Queen, but, owing to the famous “Bedchamber Difficulty,” failed to form a Ministry. Lord Melbourne returned to office, and the Radical

give Rowland Hill a position in which he would be enabled to work out his plan. Of Mr Wallace's letter my father said that it was but a specimen of that tried frien

Obviously, his proper place, and that to which the public expected him to be raised, was the Post Office; but the hostile element there was probably too formidable to be withstood. The new Chancellor of the Exc

tance of an untried scheme in whose soundness they have little or no faith. That the policy the postal officials pursued was a mistaken one time has abundantly proved; but if their opposition argued lack of understanding, they merely acted as the generality of men similarly situated would have done. Even Rowland Hill, who, as an outsider, battered so long at the official gates, was wont to confess, when, later, he found shelter within the citadel they defended, that he wa

g

details, by their action tacitly confessing, even when they made no verbal acknowledgment, that their earlier attitude had been a mistake. Now tha

nfortunately had very mischievous effects. On this subject somethin