Chapter III: Parliamentary Committee (2)

However the objection to the existence of such opportunities might be lessened in the particular case by the uses to which it was applied, there was clearly no ground for supposing that it was only for such laudable purposes that the privilege was employed; indeed, it was notorious that men of science were far from being the class principally indulged. Neither could it be the poor and humble to whom the favour was commonly extended, but, as alleged by one of the witnesses, it was “principally the rich and independent who endeavoured to obtain franks from those who are privileged to give them.” Dr. Lardner, too, said that “a man to obtain such advantages as he obtains must be a person known to or connected with the aristocratic classes of society.”[237]

Besides considering my plan, the committee had to deal with various other suggestions, the principal of these being “a graduated scale of reduced rates, commencing with twopence, and extending up to twelvepence, tantamount, as was stated, in England, to a reduction of threepence per letter, which was laid before the committee by Colonel Maberly.” The loss to the revenue from such reduction he estimated at from seven to eight hundred thousand pounds a year.[238] None of these plans, however, except one for charging the rates according to geographical distance, were approved of by any of the witnesses unconnected with the Post Office.

As regards the importance of those additional facilities in reference alike to the convenience of the public and the restoration of the revenue, upon which I had laid such stress, but which unfortunately were so tardily adopted, much confirmatory evidence came alike from the Post Office and from other quarters.

The postmaster of Manchester stated that “letters have, in numerous instances, been sent in coach parcels, not so much with a view to save postage as to facilitate transmission, and to insure early delivery. This happens,” he stated, “very much in those neighbourhoods in which there is not direct communication through the medium of the Post Office, especially in a populous and manufacturing district between twenty and thirty miles from Manchester.”[239] In confirmation of the latter remark, Mr. Cobden stated that in the village of Sabden, twenty-eight miles from Manchester, where his print-works were, although there was a population of twelve thousand souls, there was no Post Office, nor anything that served for one.

Such are a few of the multitudinous statements made to the committee, in reply to questions, nearly twelve thousand in number, addressed to the various witnesses. The recital throws at least some light upon the difficulties by which the way to postal reform was beset, showing how necessary it was then to strengthen points which now seem quite unassailable, to prove what now seems self-evident, to induce acceptance of what no one now would hear of abandoning.

If further illustration of such necessity be needed, it may be found in the following extracts from the evidence of Post Office officials:—

The Assistant Secretary:—

“Question 986. I think there are quite as many letters written
now as there would be even if the postage were reduced [to one
penny].”[240]

It having been stated that the time for posting letters at the London receiving offices had been extended from 5 to 6 p.m., Mr. Holgate, President of the Inland Office, is examined as follows:—

“Question 1,586. _Chairman._ Has any notice of that been
conveyed to the public?—I should be very sorry if any had.

“1,587. How long has that been [the practice]?—The last three
months.

“1,588. Why should you regret that being made public?—They
would reach us so much later, and throw so much upon the last
half-hour in the evening.

“1,589. That is the time when the office is most pressed by
business?—Yes.

“1,590. _Mr. Currie_ [a member of the committee]. In fact, the
office has given the public an accommodation which the office
is anxious that the public should not profit by?”[241]

* * * * *

“1,655. If Mr Hill’s plan were carried into effect, I do not
think that any tradesman could be got to receive letters
[_i.e._, to keep a receiving-house] under £100 year.”[242]

The Postmaster-General:—

“Question 2,821. He [Mr. Hill] anticipates only an increase
of five and a quarter-fold [to make up the gross revenue];
it will require twelve-fold on our calculation.... Therefore
it comes to that point, which is right and which is wrong: I
maintain that our calculations are more likely to be right than
his.”[243]

It may be remarked here that the gross revenue rather more than recovered itself in the year 1851, the increase of letters being then only four and three-quarters-fold.[244]

My own examination occupied a considerable portion of six several days, my task being not only to state and enforce my own views, but to reply to objections raised by such of the Post Office authorities as were against the proposed reform. This list comprised—with the exception of 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 established order; while the immediate loss of revenue—inevitable from the manner in which alone the change could then be introduced (all gradual or limited reform having by that time been condemned by the public voice), a loss, moreover, greatly exaggerated in the minds of those who could not or did not see the means direct and indirect of its recuperation, must naturally have alarmed the appointed guardians of this branch of the national income. If, as the evidence proceeded, they began to question the wisdom of their original decision, they probably thought, at the same time, that the die was now cast, their course taken, and all that remained was to maintain their ground as best they could. The nature and extent of Post Office resistance, much as has appeared already, is most conspicuous in the following extracts—the last I shall make—from the Digest of Evidence, in which are summed up the opinions put forth by Colonel Maberly, the Secretary; opinions from which, so far as I am aware, he never receded:—

“He considers the whole scheme of Mr. Hill as utterly
fallacious; he thought so from the first moment he read the
pamphlet of Mr. Hill; and his opinion of the plan was formed
long before the evidence was given before the committee.
The plan appears to him a most preposterous one, utterly
unsupported by facts, and resting entirely on assumption.
Every experiment in the way of reduction which has been made
by the Post Office has shown its fallacy; for every reduction
whatever leads to a loss of revenue, in the first instance: if
the reduction be small, the revenue recovers itself; but if the
rates were to be reduced to a penny, revenue would not recover
itself for forty or fifty years.”

The divisions on the two most important of the resolutions submitted to the Committee, and, indeed, the ultimate result of their deliberations, show that the efforts that had been made had all been needed.

Thus, on a motion made on July 17th by Mr. Warburton to recommend the establishment of a uniform rate of inland postage between one post town and another, the Committee was equally divided; the “ayes” being Mr. Warburton, Lord Lowther, Mr. Raikes Currie, and Mr. Chalmers; the “noes,” the three members of Government, Mr. P. Thomson, Lord Seymour, and Mr. Parker, with Mr. Thornley, M.P. for Wolverhampton; so that the motion was affirmed only by the casting vote of the Chairman.[245]

Mr. Warburton further moving:—

“That it is the opinion of this committee, that upon any
large reduction being made in the rates of inland postage, it
would be expedient to adopt an uniform rate of one penny per
half-ounce, without regard to distance,”—

the motion was rejected by six to three; the “ayes” being Mr. Warburton, Mr. Raikes Currie, and Mr. Morgan J. O’Connell; and the “noes” the same as before, with the addition of Lord Lowther and Mr. G. W. Wood; and upon Mr. Warburton, when thus far defeated, moving to recommend a uniform postage of three-halfpence, the motion was again lost by six to four, the only change being that Mr. Chalmers, who appears to have been absent during the second division, now again voted with the ayes.[246]

The second day, however, Mr. Warburton returned to the charge, moving to recommend a uniform rate of twopence the half-ounce, increasing at the rate of one penny for each additional half-ounce; a motion met, not by a direct negative, as before, but by an amendment tantamount to one. On this question, as also on that of uniformity, the committee was equally divided. Again, therefore, the motion was affirmed only by the casting vote of the Chairman.[247] The passing of the two resolutions, however—one to recommend a uniform rate of inland postage irrespective of distance, and the other to fix the single rate at twopence—was decisive as to the committee’s course, as will appear by the sequel. We must return for a time to the rejected amendment.

This had been moved by Mr. P. Thomson, and the substance of it was to abandon the recommendation of a uniform rate and to consider instead a Report proposed by Lord Seymour, the chief points of which were to recommend the maintenance of the charge by distance and the establishment of a rate varying from one penny, for distances under fifteen miles, to one shilling for distances above two hundred miles, or of some similar scale. _This, it must be observed, would have been adopted as the recommendation of the committee but for the casting vote of the Chairman, Mr. Wallace._ To what extent so untoward a circumstance would have retarded the cause of postal reform it would be difficult now even to conjecture; but it cannot be doubted that the success, which, even with the support of the committee, was so hardly achieved, would at least have undergone long and injurious delay.

To make this clear, it must be observed that by the adoption of Lord Seymour’s draft Report (a copy of which I have before me) 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 number of enclosures.

Lord Seymour’s Report, however, though so unsatisfactory in its recommendations, and, according to my view, very erroneous in its reasonings on many points (more especially in its main argumentation, viz., that against uniformity), yet contained passages of great use to me at the time, as confirming my statements, and more or less directly supporting my views; particularly as regards the evils which high rates of postage 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. Doubtless, had the recommendations contained in this Report been voluntarily adopted by the Post Office only two years before, almost every one of them would have been received as a grace; but it was now too late, their sum total being altogether too slight to make any approach towards satisfying the expectations which had subsequently arisen.

Before quite leaving Lord Seymour’s Report, I must, in candour, admit that on one point his prediction was truer than my own, though, as my own remained unpublished, I was not committed to it. The following is the passage:—

“It appears that the great change which must result from the
substitution of railways for mails [mail-coaches] will have the
effect of increasing considerably the cost of conveying the
correspondence of the country.”

In my copy of this draft Report (given to me, I suppose, by Mr. Wallace) I find the following remark in my own handwriting:—

“No such thing. One railway stands in place of several common
roads.”

The implied inference, viz., that the cheaper operation of railways would lower the cost of conveying the mails seemed justified by the moderation of the charges for this service made up to that time by the railway companies. The event, however, has contradicted my contradiction, the railway charges for conveying the mails, unlike the rates for passengers and goods, being higher, weight for weight, than those on the old mail roads.[248]

The committee having thus decided the two great points of uniformity—rate and a twopenny charge for the single letter,—Mr. Wallace, with his usual kindness, immediately wrote to inform me of the result. He was the more careful to do this because, as he knew, it was not in full accordance with my wish, the rate recommended being higher than that which I regarded as desirable; and, what was worse, such as to make strict uniformity impracticable; since reservation would have to be made in favour of the local penny rates then in existence, which could not be raised without exciting overpowering dissatisfaction.

To return to the committee: only one further attempt was made to modify their resolution, viz., by a motion made at the next meeting by Lord Seymour, in the following words:—

“That it is the opinion of this committee that an increase of
general post letters under an uniform rate of twopence, to the
extent which will be required to sustain the gross revenue of
the Post Office, will occasion a considerable addition to the
cost of the establishment.”

After this day the members of Government ceased to attend, save only that Lord Seymour once reappeared during the consideration of the Report. Opposition being thus abandoned, proceedings went on rapidly, so that at the next meeting the whole of the remaining resolutions, more than twenty in number, were all carried; the Chairman being requested also to draw up a Report in conformity therewith.

As the proceedings of the committee approached their close, Mr. Wallace requested that I would undertake to prepare a draft Report for his consideration, previously to its being submitted to the Committee. From this I naturally shrank; but, upon further urgency, I so far consented as to select so much of the evidence as seemed most necessary for the purpose, cutting it out from the reports just as it stood, in question and answer, but classifying it under some twenty different heads. This, according to my recollection, I placed in Mr. Wallace’s hands, and upon it he wrote a Report. I must here mention, however, that though this Report became the basis of that finally issued, it was by no means the same document, having been re-arranged, in great measure re-written, and greatly added to, during the recess. Of this more hereafter.

Thus closed, for the present, the work of this memorable committee, on whose decision rested consequences, not only of the deepest interest to myself, but, as afterwards appeared, of importance to the whole civilized world. Seldom, I believe, has any committee worked harder. I must add that Mr. Wallace’s exertions were unsparing, his toil incessant, and his zeal in the cause unflagging. My own convictions in relation to the committee and its chairman were corroborated by the following strong passage in the _Times_:—

“Altogether we regard the Post Office Enquiry as one conducted
with more honesty and more industry than any ever brought
before a committee of the House of Commons.”[249]

Perhaps, before proceeding to other matters, I may, without invidiousness, make one more remark in reference to the proceedings of this committee. It is not unknown that since the successful establishment of penny postage, there have appeared other claimants to its authorship. As regards Mr. Wallace, enough has been said to show that he was not of the number; though of late some persons, trusting perhaps to imperfect recollections, have advanced such claims in his name. As regards other claimants, it is most remarkable that throughout this period of contest—when no less than eighty-seven witnesses deposed in favour of the measure, and when all solid information and every weighty opinion were so valuable, when even the principle of uniformity of rate was considered of such doubtful expediency that it was carried only by the casting vote of the chairman, while the penny rate was actually rejected in favour of one of twopence,—they gave no evidence, remained unheard, and were, so far as has ever appeared, entirely silent. General Colby, indeed, on whose behalf some such claim has been advanced since his death, did give evidence, but without the least reference to further discoveries by himself beyond what has been already mentioned;[250] and I may add, that though he honoured me with his friendship to the time of his death, he never even alluded to the claim in question. Indeed, all the claims of which the public has lately heard are of very recent date, having arisen long since the success of penny postage became indisputable.

The Report adopted at the last meeting of the committee was placed in the hands of Mr. Warburton for revision; a work to which he forthwith applied himself with untiring zeal, referring occasionally to me for some detail of information, or for the verification of some calculation. I had therefore frequent occasion to call on him. I should not forget to add that in the successful introduction of postal reform his able, earnest, and continuous assistance played not merely an important, but an essential part.[251] In all my visits to his house I was received in the dining-room. I well remember the appearance of things—an appearance which never varied from first to last. What first struck me was that the room never could be used according to its name; the table, indeed, stood out in full length, sufficient for a respectable number of guests, but it was wholly occupied with piles of books, and those not of the most digestible kind, consisting almost entirely of such as in passing through the Post Office are marked Par. Pro., and are known to all the world as “blue books.” The sideboard was similarly heaped, save that a little room was left for astronomical instruments, Mr. Warburton being an able mathematician. The chairs, save one, bore each its parliamentary load, and similar lumber occupied the floor; passages only, and those narrow ones, being left between the paper walls. There were, however, one or two books of a lighter kind; but even these seemed insensible of change. On an early visit I laid hands on a number of the “Edinburgh Review,” containing one of Macaulay’s brilliant articles; and as the book always remained exactly where I laid it down, I found opportunity of reading, bit by bit, the whole essay. The one chair already mentioned, and a small table near it, were alone unencumbered with books, and alone free from the dust which, in every other part of the room, seemed to have on it the repose of years.

Meanwhile, having but inferential knowledge as to the progress of the work, and thinking it very important that no time should be lost in publishing the Report, since I hoped it might be advantageously dealt with in the newspapers during the recess, I felt a certain degree of impatience at what I supposed must prove but laborious refinement. In this feeling Mr. Wallace more than fully shared. In the course of the autumn he wrote to me, in earnest protest against the delay, his expressions growing stronger as time advanced, until on December 1st he went so far as to predict that, if the Report were withheld during the vacation, penny postage would not be carried out during the next year. He even begged that his letters might be kept as vouchers of his anxiety on the subject. In the end, however, it became clear enough that no time had really been lost, the delay being more than atoned for by the excellence of the result.

Meanwhile, too, the press, not awaiting the appearance of the Report, began to urge action by reference to what was already known. The _Times_, in particular, repeatedly wrote in strong support of my plan.

As I have already mentioned the more important events occurring between the prorogation of Parliament in August and the end of the year 1838, it will be seen that, so far as postal affairs were concerned, this was to me a period of comparative rest, though even then scarcely a week, or perhaps even a day, passed without their making some call on my attention. Of course, too, my duties at the Australian Commission remained undiminished, or rather, indeed, increased with the increasing flow of emigration, and the difficulties already arising in the colony. However, I was again able to breathe, and to prepare for those new anxieties which I knew must be in the future. When would the Report appear? What effect would it produce on the country? Would there be such a movement as would sufficiently influence ministers and Parliament? To me, of course, these were questions of the deepest interest, and though, for the time, the main work was, as it were, taken off my hands, yet it was necessary to keep watch, to be ready for assistance when called for, to deal with almost innumerable communications, and to pay attention to the numerous suggestions that were made. So closed the year 1838.