Chapter 26

[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 chargedseven 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’sLife 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 Officereceivedfrom 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 fromEarl Russell’s“Recollections,” &c., p. 231.[257]Earl Russell states in his “Recollections,” &c., that “the Cabinet was unanimous” in this decision (videp. 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 peopledowrite, or get letters written,wherevera 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.

[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 chargedseven 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’sLife 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 Officereceivedfrom 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 fromEarl Russell’s“Recollections,” &c., p. 231.

[257]Earl Russell states in his “Recollections,” &c., that “the Cabinet was unanimous” in this decision (videp. 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 peopledowrite, or get letters written,wherevera 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.

Back to Index Next