Chapter XI: Out of Office (1842-3)

All being thus decided, and my last duty performed, I saw no reason to delay any longer that relaxation of which I now stood much in need, and during the next month the entries in my Journal are comparatively few. While I was resting my friends were at work:—

“_November 9th, 1842._—Matthew informs me that Lord Brougham
had a long conversation with Sir James Graham, on the 7th
instant, on the subject of my treatment, in the course of
which he (Lord B.) told Sir James Graham that in his opinion
the Government was making a great practical mistake, and
intimated that I must of course defend myself, and that he,
from his long acquaintance with myself and opinion of the plan,
should feel bound to take up the cudgels on my behalf in the
House of Lords. That Sir James Graham appeared also to think
that a mistake had been made, and promised to speak to some
other members of the Cabinet on the subject. Lord Brougham
subsequently wrote to Sir James Graham a letter to be laid
before Peel.”

To give to the public such a knowledge of facts as would enable it to do justice either to my plan or myself, it was obviously important to publish that correspondence with the Treasury in which I had again and again urged improvement, and in which my application had been as often either neglected or evaded; in which, also, I had received notice of my dismissal, had deprecated this step, and had been informed of persistence in the intention, with such show of reason as had been vouchsafed me. Being aware, however, that such publication was likely to be the subject of attack, I was careful, before venturing on it, to ascertain my right to make it; and this I knew must depend upon precedent and require reference to authority:—

“_November 26th._—Matthew applied to Earl Spencer[335] for his
opinion.”

The following is his lordship’s letter:—

“Longford, November 25th, 1842.

“MY DEAR SIR,—As the correspondence you sent me looked rather
alarming as to bulk, I delayed reading it till I had the
opportunity of a journey. I took this opportunity yesterday.

“I can see no public grounds why your brother should not
publish it if he thinks fit. As a question of personal prudence
I think the thing more doubtful, but I think your letter
only goes to his _right_ to publish it. I have no business,
therefore, to say anything more than that I think he has a
right to publish it.

“You know, however, that I sometimes have done more than answer
a question put to me simply, and I will do so now by adding to
my answer that if I was in his place I would not publish it....

“Yours most truly,

“SPENCER.

“M. D. HILL, Esq.”

“_November 29th._—To-day the Merchants’ Committee [which had
applied for an interview early in August] has seen Sir Robert
Peel. They strongly urged the necessity for completing the
measure—their want of confidence in the Post Office—their
confidence in me, and the great satisfaction it would be to
the public to see me restored to office. Peel satisfied the
deputation that he was sincerely desirous of carrying out the
measure, and Goulburn, who was present, assured them that,
whatever might have been the feeling originally entertained
by the Post Office, all there were now earnest friends of
the measure! (It did not occur to the Committee to inquire
where, then, lay the danger of ‘collision.’) Peel invited the
Committee to send in a statement of those parts of the plan
which they still wished to see carried into effect; but he
stated that a return from the Post Office showed that, _with
the exception of about £100,000 per annum, the net revenue
was obtained from foreign and colonial letters_.[336] This
statement, which he made in an early stage of the conversation,
threw the Committee quite aback; for though I had prepared
them, as I thought, to distrust all information derived from
the Post Office, their want of familiarity with the subject,
and the confident manner with which the statement was made,
caused them to believe it.”

The Committee at my suggestion subsequently applied for a copy of this return, but it was prudently withheld; and, with equal prudence, no reason was assigned for the refusal. Of this return, however, more will appear by-and-by. Meantime, the question of publishing the correspondence remaining still undecided, I sought further advice. On December 4th I received the following letter from Mr. Baring:—

“Brighton, Dec. 3rd, 1842.

“DEAR SIR,—I hope to be at Lee on Tuesday, and shall be at your
service on Wednesday morning. But if you are not afraid of a
bad dinner, which you probably will get the first day of our
return, you had better come down on Tuesday, dine and sleep at
Lee, and we will talk over the matter on Wednesday.

“Yours very truly,

“F. T. BARING.”

After careful perusal and reperusal of the correspondence, Mr. Baring, in the course of several conversations, pronounced my line of conduct very judicious, and the conduct of Government very shabby. He said it was absurd to expect that the Post Office would satisfactorily carry into effect the remaining parts of my plan, and that consequently my dismissal was most unfair towards the measure. He added that, even without reference to my plan, my retention as a permanent officer would be useful as a check upon the proceedings of the Post Office; and that such retention would be in conformity with the system of Treasury management, which consists in having an officer to check each subordinate department. He assured me that it was never his intention that my services should cease as a matter of course at the expiration of the year mentioned in his last letter, the fair interpretation of which was that he considered it advantageous to continue my services indefinitely, but that as he was then leaving office, and as there were rumours of an intention on the part of the next Government to abandon my plan, he did not feel justified in giving me a claim for more than one year’s salary. These opinions he would be prepared to state in Parliament. He thought it probable that Lord Lowther’s jealousy was the cause of the mischief, and that that jealousy was excited by my opposition to his plan of registration, which, he remarked, if carried into effect would have created an uproar throughout the country. He was of opinion that I had a right to publish the correspondence, but feared that by so doing I should bar the door against other employment, to which he regarded me as having a claim, that otherwise would probably be recognised even by the Government then in power; so that he was rather averse to my taking any step before the meeting of Parliament. I replied that, although I, of course, should be glad to obtain other employment under Government, my chief anxiety was to satisfy the public that I had not misled them by holding out expectations which could not be realized, and that, although I would carefully consider his kind advice, my present inclination was to sacrifice all other considerations to the accomplishment of this object; on which he remarked that, if I were not satisfied with the discussion in Parliament, I could still publish the correspondence. He expressed an opinion that it would not be practicable to bring before Parliament copies of my Reports, or those of the Post Office, to the Treasury, inasmuch as such Reports being considered confidential, the rule is to refuse their production. This was a serious disappointment, as I had depended mainly on the publication of these Reports as a means of showing the manner in which my duties had been discharged, and the nature of the opposition of the Post Office.

“_Same day._—Matthew has seen Lord Spencer. His view coincides
almost exactly with Mr. Baring’s, differing only (if I have
understood Mr. B. rightly) in thinking that the late, as well
as the present, Government would disapprove of any appeal to
the public, except through Parliament.”

As Mr. Warburton concurred in disapproving immediate publication, I yielded to the advice of so many influential friends, though my own opinion was still strongly in favour of the prompter course. Meanwhile there came in from various members of Parliament and many other friends letters of sympathy and support; among others, the following kind and characteristic one from Mr. Cobden:—

“Newcastle-on-Tyne, 20th January, 1843.

“MY DEAR SIR,—The men of the League are your devoted servants
in every way that can be useful to you. Colonel Thompson,
Bright, and I, have _blessed you_ not a few times in the course
of our agitating tour.... I go back to Manchester to-morrow,
after a very gratifying tour in Scotland. ‘The heather’s on
fire.’

“Believe me,

“Yours very truly,

“R. COBDEN.

“R. HILL, Esq.”

This was followed, within a week, by a second letter, in which it will be seen that the warmth of his feelings led him into very strong expressions. These I do not suppress, as every one can make for them the allowance due to time, circumstance, and a generous nature:—

“Manchester, 26th January, 1843.

“MY DEAR SIR,—I have read over the correspondence, and, so
far as success in placing the Government in the wrong goes,
you will be pronounced triumphant by all who will read it.
But nothing is more true than the remark in your brother’s
excellent letter, that the force of public opinion cannot
be brought to bear upon the authorities to compel them to
work out details. So far as your object in that direction is
concerned, your correspondence will, I suspect, be nugatory. If
your object be to justify yourself in the eyes of the public,
_that_, I submit, is supererogatory. You cannot stand better
than you do with the impartial British public. You will get no
further facilities from Tory functionaries. They hate the whole
thing _with a diabolical hatred_. And well they may. It is a
terrible engine for upsetting monopoly and corruption: witness
our League operations, the _spawn of your penny postage_! Now,
let me deal frankly and concisely with you. I want to see
you remunerated for the work you have done. The labourer is
worthy of his hire. The country is in your debt. An organized
plan is alone necessary to insure you a national subscription
of a sum of money sufficient to reimburse you for time,
trouble, and annoyance incurred and expended in your great
social revolution.... A public subscription—a really national
one—would give you power and independence, and when the next
change of Government takes place you would be in the ascendant.
Until then I expect no hearty co-operation in carrying out
your details. We must be content, in the meantime, to prevent
the Tories from robbing us of any substantial part of the
principle, and I think we have bulldogs enough in the House
now to prevent that. I should like to have some talk with you
about this matter. Meantime, excuse my plainness, and don’t
suspect me of wishing to make you a _sordid_ patriot. You see
what an effect the £50,000 League Fund is producing: a similar
demonstration in favour of the author of Postage Reform, and
a seat in Parliament in prospective, would have a like effect
upon the enemy.

“Believe me,

“Yours truly,

“R. COBDEN.

“ROWLAND HILL, Esq.”

Very different, but no less characteristic of the writer, is the following letter, received some months later, from Thomas Hood:—

“17, Elm Tree Road, St. John’s Wood,
1st May.

“MY DEAR SIR,

* * * * *

“I have seen so many instances of folly and ingratitude similar
to those you have met with, that it would never surprise me
to hear of the railway people some day, finding their trains
running on so well, proposing to discharge the engines.

* * * * *

“I am, my dear Sir,

“Yours very truly,

“THOMAS HOOD.

“R. HILL, Esq.”

Meanwhile, I felt nowise daunted by late events, but rather filled with fresh zeal; for although I never willingly entered into a conflict, yet when one was forced upon me, or stood between me and what I deemed right, I was by no means backward at the work.

One of my earliest moves after leaving office was towards personal and domestic economy. While I was in receipt of a large salary, and had my attention fully occupied, and indeed my powers heavily taxed, I had allowed my expenditure to obtain dimensions unsuitable to my present condition. Of course I intended to seek new occupation, but this would require time; and, meanwhile, I felt that if I would act independently I must make myself independent of circumstances. I therefore entered at once upon a course of vigorous retrenchment, and partly by my efforts, but much more by the zealous and most efficient co-operation of my dear wife, our expenditure was soon brought within very narrow limits. Without any change of house or diminution in number of servants, our disbursements were soon reduced by one-half, and it was only in the first year after the change that my expenditure exceeded my income. I may add that it never had exceeded it before, and that it never exceeded it again.

As the parliamentary session approached, however, I had to turn my attention more and more to the work of preparation for the duty which I expected it to bring. I therefore put my papers in the most perfect order—a proceeding which has greatly facilitated the writing of this part of my narrative.

Sir Thomas Wilde having very kindly undertaken to lay my case before Parliament, I could not but feel some anxiety as to the view that might be taken of this course by Mr. Wallace, who had himself acted as leader in earlier days. I therefore wrote to him on the subject as delicately as I could, and a fortnight afterwards, when he came to town for the parliamentary session, I called upon him with some feeling of anxiety. I quote from my Journal:—

“He behaves nobly, as he always has done, fully acquiescing in
the arrangement with regard to Sir Thomas Wilde, and expressing
his own readiness to follow Sir Thomas’s lead.”

Meanwhile, however, my attention was called to considerations of a somewhat different character:—

“_February 8th._—Met Mr. Stephen, of the Colonial Office, in
Piccadilly, and at his request walked with him to the Colonial
Office. On the way he urged me to apply to the Government
for employment, saying that he felt sure my claim would be
acknowledged—intimating that I might expect such an appointment
as a Commissionership of Customs. I replied, that such a step
would be considered as a tacit engagement on my part not
to bring my case before the public; that other friends had
recommended a similar course, under the impression that the
complimentary expressions in the letters from the Treasury
were intended by Government to suggest it, but that, after
mature deliberation, I had decided not to do anything which
should prevent my making known to the public the true causes
of the small amount of revenue actually obtained, as compared
with my anticipations, and justifying my conduct throughout.
Mr. Stephen rejoined that he did not doubt I might stipulate
to do all this, providing that I refrained from attacking the
Government, and yet obtain lucrative and honourable employment.
To this I said I of course could not object, and he recommended
that two of the leading merchants or bankers in the city, of
opposite politics, should make the application on my behalf.
I promised to consider the suggestion, but requested that he
would, in the meantime, read the correspondence, a copy of
which I sent him the same afternoon.

“_February 11th._—Prepared a memorandum ... called on Mr.
Stephen, read it to him, and left it with him; he expressing
a desire to reconsider the matter, with a view, perhaps, of
making such inquiries of Goulburn, with whom he is intimate,
as would enable him to judge of the probable success of such
an application as he had suggested. I desired that he would do
whatever he thought best, clearly understanding, however, that
I was no party to anything of the kind.

“_February 15th._—Mr. Stephen writes that he has ascertained
that nothing can be done unless I submit to be gagged, and not
very much even then; so the whole ends in smoke.

“_Same day._—Wrote to Mr. Stephen thanking him for his
kindness, which, from the very unreserved manner in which he
spoke of the Government, I feel very strongly; but of course
declining to apply to Government.”[337]

About three weeks later, Mr. Goulburn, in reply to an application made by Mr. Hutt, on behalf of Sir Thomas Wilde, for the production of my correspondence with the Treasury, refused to give more than a few letters, withholding those of chief importance;[338] and though, on being pressed, he somewhat enlarged the grant, it still remained very imperfect. Unsatisfactory, however, as was this concession, motion was made accordingly:—

“_March 29th._—My correspondence with the Treasury. The
printed copies were delivered this morning. By the omission
of all the letters urging progress in the plan, Goulburn’s
notice of dismissal is brought into juxtaposition with a
minute of December 24th, 1841 (of which I never heard till
now), confirming the extension of my engagement for one year
from September 14th, 1841, and made to appear as the natural
sequence of such minute, instead of being, as it was in fact,
the answer to my complaints of no progress, and of Post Office
interference to prevent my journey to Newcastle. The whole
thing is cunningly done, and it shows that the five weeks taken
to prepare the correspondence have not been lost. The case is
so much damaged, however, that I have determined to give the
papers a very limited circulation, and to press on Wilde to
consent to the publication of the whole. Sir Robert Peel, in
his letter[339] to me, admits that ‘important improvements’
still remain to be effected; but in the printed copy the word
‘important’ is dropped.”[340]

To my surprise, the strength of my case, grievously impaired as it was by this maiming of the correspondence, was nevertheless recognised in one of the journals regularly supporting the Government:—

“_March 30th._—The _Morning Herald_ gives the correspondence
with Sir Robert Peel, and has a leader, sneering, of course,
at penny postage, but expressing an opinion that I have been
unjustly treated, and ought to have a place or a pension.”

This is the last entry in my Journal for the present. On the one hand, I became so engrossed in preparation for the coming conflict—a conflict which seemed to me as one almost of life and death—that I had no time to spare save for pressing demands; while, on the other hand, the motive to record was greatly weakened since my exclusion from the Treasury. For the history of the following three years and a-half, my dependence is on documents, parliamentary or otherwise, produced during the period (all of which I have carefully preserved), and on such recollections as are suggested by their perusal.

On April 10th a petition for inquiring into the state of the Post Office, prepared by myself and in my own name, was presented to the House of Commons by Mr. Baring; and on the following night Mr. Hawes gave notice that Sir Thomas Wilde would call the attention of the House to the same soon after the Easter holidays—a notice, however, which from various causes had to be repeated several times before being acted upon. Of this petition, which appears at length in the Report of the Committee,[341] I will merely mention here that, after reference to my appointment and subsequent dismissal, after statements as to the very incomplete introduction of my plan, evidence as to the hopelessness of its completion being effected by the Post Office, and representations as to the vast interests at stake, I concluded by expressing my desire “to submit the truth of the foregoing allegations to the severest scrutiny,” and by petitioning for the necessary inquiry.

This petition was presently backed by another from eight members[342] of the Mercantile Committee, so often mentioned before, in which, after briefly adverting to the beneficial effect of the improvement already made, the petitioners, expressing an earnest desire for the completion of the plan, prayed for inquiry with a view to that end.

I now felt that the time was come when my friends should be put in full possession of the facts of the case; and, consequently, having printed all of the correspondence which had been applied for in Parliament, that withheld as well as that granted, I sent copies, marked “strictly confidential,” to the members of the Mercantile Committee, and some others of my friends, prefacing it with an introduction, in which I justified the proceeding—first, by the declaration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that his denial was made on the ground that the part which had been withheld was unnecessary, no allegation being made as to inconvenience to the public service, and, secondly, by the high authority which I had for saying that I had a right, looking to the nature of the correspondence itself, to official usage, and all other circumstances, to place the whole before the public. This step, taken on April 13th, was on the 19th condemned in the House of Commons by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Goulburn, but defended by the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Baring.

It was not until May 1st that I obtained a copy of the return upon which Sir Robert Peel, in the preceding November, based his injurious and erroneous statement that the inland post yielded but £100,000 a-year to the revenue. This return was now laid before Parliament on the motion of Sir George Clerk. In consequence I addressed a letter to the daily papers, in which I expressed myself as follows:—

“I have no hesitation in stating that the return, whether
considered in regard to its general results or to the division
of revenue under the two heads, is utterly fallacious.”

I concluded by promising to give in due time a full exposure of the fallacy—a promise afterwards fulfilled.[343]

In the short period during which this return was under my consideration, an incident occurred which must be mentioned, because, besides giving additional evidence of Post Office incompetency, it excited some surprise and not a little amusement. The Overland Route to India being now established, a notice was issued by the Post Office, that persons wishing to send letters by that route to Australia must address them to “an agent in India,” who in turn must pay the postage onward, as otherwise the letters would not be forwarded. To the unreasonableness of expecting that every one writing by that route to Australia should have an agent planted half-way, was added such vagueness of expression as would have rendered the injunction very misleading; “India” being put for “Bombay,” where alone, according to Post Office arrangement, the postage could be paid. The absurdity of the proceeding was so manifest that within a week from its appearance the notice was withdrawn.

In this short period, also, Mr. Ashurst, acting for the Mercantile Committee, issued a circular to mayors of towns and other representative persons, recommending that petitions should be sent up praying for the complete execution of my plan; the recommendation being accompanied with a statement showing, in the most pithy manner, the chief estimates as to number of letters and average of postage under the old rates, made severally by the Post Office authorities, the Parliamentary Committee, and myself, previously to the adoption of the plan, and comparing them with actual results.

About this time Mr. Baring had moved for a return, to show how far the instructions, issued by the Treasury more than a year and a-half ago,[344] for the extension of rural distribution, had been carried into effect by the Post Office. Of course he had, ere this, learnt from me that its operation had been suspended by the Treasury; but now, in the return called for, this essential fact was suppressed, the whole answer being as follows:—

“No definite arrangements have yet been made by the Post Office
in conformity with the Minutes of the Lords of the Treasury,
dated the 13th and 27th days of August, 1841, relating to the
Post Office distribution in the rural districts of the United
Kingdom.

“W. L. MABERLY.

“General Post Office, 8th April, 1843.”

The motion, so important to me, and, as I thought, and still think, to the cause of postal reform, seemed in danger of lapsing to the end of the session, not coming on until June 27th. The House was far from full, but the number present was considerable. I obtained a seat for myself and my brother Arthur under the gallery, sitting on the opposition side of the House, that I might the more readily supply my friends with any information that might be required during the progress of the debate. Colonel Maberly, likewise under the gallery, was, I suppose for the like reason, on the Government side of the House. The debate occupies forty-seven pages in “Hansard;”[345] but keen as was the interest with which my brother and I listened to every word, I shall not trouble the reader of the present day with more than a brief abstract.

The motion of which Sir Thomas Wilde had given notice was for a Select Committee, “To inquire into the progress which had been made in carrying into effect the recommendations of Mr. Rowland Hill for Post Office improvement; and whether the further carrying into effect of such recommendations or any of them will be beneficial to the country.”[346]

Sir Thomas Wilde, after adverting to the deliberate adoption of my plan by Parliament, and this in a time of commercial depression, with the knowledge that its adoption was expected to produce a small permanent and a large immediate reduction of revenue, pointed out that my plan had been presented as a whole, no part being recommended unless accompanied with the remainder. After referring to the authoritative condemnation of the old system, to my appointment, to the acknowledged value of my services, to the opposition of the Post Office, to the hopelessness of expecting the completion of my plan from that department, or even from the Treasury, unless aided by one able and ready to deal with the fallacies with which resistance was defended; after having pointed out the unfairness of the experiment on which my plan had been judged, and, in fine, given a history of the progress (and non-progress) of postal reform during the time I was at the Treasury, and of my dismissal therefrom, he concluded by moving the resolution of which he had given notice.[347]

The Chancellor of the Exchequer, while repeating some of the allegations made in his letter to me, endeavoured to inculpate the late Government, and to throw upon them the responsibility of my dismissal, condemned my divulging the correspondence as a breach of confidence, greatly overstated the power committed to me during his tenure of office, spoke of much having been accomplished since I left the Treasury, enumerating for this purpose some measures adopted on my recommendation while I was still there, and others hastily resolved on since the presentation of my petition, no one of which, however, was yet carried into execution.

He attempted to defend the opposition to the reduction of the registration-fee by greatly overstating the amount of money-order business, extolled Lord Lowther, absurdly attributing to him the origination of penny postage,[348] though he had voted against it in committee;[349] asserted that the Post Office did not pay its own expenses;[350] but ended by saying that he had no objection to a limited inquiry, and by proposing, as an amendment to Sir Thomas Wilde’s motion, the following:—

“That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the
measures adopted for the general introduction of the system
of penny postage, and for the facilitating the conveyance of
letters throughout the country.”[351]

Mr. F. Baring (late Chancellor of the Exchequer) saw no objection to the amendment, and hoped that Sir Thomas Wilde would allow it to be carried in lieu of his own motion. He touched upon the unfair use made of the term “penny postage,” a term by no means including the whole plan, for the purpose of limiting my engagement; and remarked that in renewing this engagement for one year he had not meant to restrict it to that period, but had merely refrained from acting discourteously towards his successor, while “all along of opinion that the services of Mr. Hill at the Treasury would be required for a much longer period than one year.”[352] He continued as follows (and I hope that I may be pardoned for making the quotation):—

“He also thought it was only common justice to say that, at the
period when it was determined to carry out this plan, he had
not the slightest personal knowledge of Mr. Rowland Hill....
He had expected that a person who had been long engaged in
the preparation of an extensive system of this kind would
not carry out the change with that coolness and judgment that
was requisite; and he had expected that he should have great
difficulties to contend with in inducing Mr. Hill to adopt
any alteration in his plan that might appear requisite. He
found quite the contrary of this, and that Mr. Hill, with the
greatest readiness, adopted any suggestions that were made to
him; so that instead of difficulties, he found every facility
in carrying the plan into effect. True, Mr. Hill gave his
reasons for the opinion that he had adopted, or for the course
that he recommended; but if any of his suggestions were not
adopted, he always found Mr. Hill most ready to give way to the
course which he suggested.”[353]

He admitted that—

“No absolute bargain had been broken with Mr. Rowland Hill,
still he could not help expressing his sincere regret that,
after three years’ exertions, which were characterized by the
utmost zeal and intelligence, he should be allowed to retire
from the public service in the way in which he had. He repeated
that, although no bargain had been broken, still, if zeal,
intelligence, and ability, and the rendering important public
services, entitled any one to claim consideration, Mr. Hill had
a most powerful case.”[354]

Towards the close of his speech he dealt as follows with Mr. Goulburn’s statement as to the extent of the money-order operations:—

“The calculation which the right hon. gentleman had made, as to
the amount of money transmitted through the Money-Order Office,
was a most extraordinary one. The right hon. gentleman stated
the amount to be eight millions, whereas he should have said
four millions; the right hon. gentleman had made the slight
mistake of doubling the amount by calculating the money which
was paid in, and adding to it the same money when paid out.
According to the right hon. gentleman’s mode of calculating, to
arrive at the quantity of water which passes through a pipe,
you must add the water which enters at one end to the same
water when it passes out at the other end, and the quantity so
added together will give the result desired.”[355]

He rejoiced that a Committee was to be appointed, and he observed, in conclusion:—

“That if ever there was a measure in reference to which the
people had a right to ascertain whether it was carried into
effect fully and fairly, it was this.”[356]

Sir Robert Peel—

“Had never felt a doubt as to the great social advantages
of lowering the duty on letters; the only doubt was as to
its financial effect: in all other respects the result of
any inquiry would show that, whatever might have been the
loss to the revenue, much advantage had been derived in what
concerned the encouragement of industry, and the promotion of
communication between the humbler classes of the community.”

After observing that “it was, therefore, no dissatisfaction with Mr. Hill’s conduct, no indifference to his services, that led him and his right hon. friend to take the course they had taken,”[357] he said, in reference to my original appointment—

“It appeared to him that, had it been deemed necessary to
retain Mr. Hill’s services, and had it been conceived that the
Post Office authorities were hostile to the plan, prejudiced
against its principle and its details, and indisposed to lend
themselves with zeal and cordiality to carrying it out, the
plan should have been, not to retain Mr. Hill in control over
the Post Office (yet unconnected with it), but to have at once
made him Secretary of the Post Office. That department would
thus have been no longer in a position continually to obstruct,
as the complaint was, the due execution of the plan; but Mr.
Hill himself, the person so deeply anxious for the success of
the scheme, would have the immediate control of it.”[358]

He also spoke of Colonel Maberly in terms of general esteem, and denied that he had failed in cordial co-operation with me, speaking likewise in high terms of Lord Lowther, and maintaining (contrary to fact) that he had voted in committee for all Mr. Warburton’s resolutions,[359] and was a decided friend to Mr. Hill’s system.[360] He acquiesced in the appointment of a Committee, and “would assure them (the House) that, while he continued in office, he would lend all his weight, influence, and authority to insure full justice to the new system.”[361]

Sir Thomas Wilde declared himself satisfied with the amendment, which was agreed to without a division.[362]

The indirect effect of the modification demanded by Ministers in Sir Thomas Wilde’s motion was to take the nomination of the Committee out of the hands of the mover, and to give it to Government—the natural consequence being that the majority was made to consist of Government supporters. Of the thirteen gentlemen selected, six only were of the Liberal party; amongst these, however, were some of my best friends. Of course, in securing a majority, Government also obtained the appointment of the Chairman, and the choice fell upon Sir George Clerk. Upon this choice no further comment can be required than a simple statement of the position. I had appealed against a decision of the Treasury, a Court was constituted to try the case, and of this Court the Secretary of the Treasury was President. Lord Brougham used to tell of an amusing occurrence, I think at York, at the time when he was on the Northern Circuit. When the list of the jury was calling over, preparatory to trying a certain case, the judge, remarking identity of name between one of the jurors and the plaintiff in the suit, and inquiring, “I suppose, Mr. Thomson, you are no relation to the plaintiff in this cause?” was answered, “Please you, my Lord, I _is_ the plaintiff.” The interloper was of course discharged, and a severe rebuke was given to the officer of the court by whom so improper a selection had been made. Looking at my own case, however, the parallel would have been more complete had he been retained, and made, at least, foreman of the jury. However, to have obtained a Committee at all was a very great gain; for though the bias to be naturally expected from its composition did not fail to show itself in the course of the proceedings, still opportunity was thus given for that full and plain statement of facts which, I felt sure, would suffice to set me right with the public; and, in justice to the Committee generally, I must say that my opportunity for making such statements was fairly given. I had, indeed, some browbeating to endure (even beyond what appears in the Report, as may be seen by the letter given below),[363] but with this the Committee generally did not appear to sympathize; indeed, I have reason to believe that it tended rather to injure than to benefit the cause which it was meant to advance.

APPENDICES.