“January 8th, 1842.—Cole leaves me to-day. The progress of the Penny Postage both before and after its adoption by Government, has been greatly promoted by his zeal and activity.”
Meantime, however, it had been ordered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that all papers relative to the Post Office, by whomsoever dealt with, should afterwards be shown to me, in order that I might be made fully aware of the course of proceeding.
Gradually I seemed to inspire some amount of confidence:—
“December 11th.—This week I have had several difficult cases not connected with penny postage, and I think I perceive, on the part of Sir George Clerk, a tendency to rely more on me than heretofore.”
Similar entries appear on December 18th and 24th; but within two months the favourable aspect changed:—
“February 12th, 1842.—I have had three or four cases referred to me this week, but by far the greater number, though certainly the least difficult, are decided in the Treasury. This circumstance, coupled with the total silence on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to my recent letters to him, shows, I fear, that no friendly feeling is entertained towards myself, and if so, towards my plan.”
This impression was gradually confirmed by subsequent events.
While support at the Treasury was thus feeble and vacillating, I could have very small hope of aid from the Post Office. It has indeed been seen that Lord Lowther had withdrawn all objection to my calling for returns as before; but these, though the information I was able to extract from them was of use, were in themselves a constant source of trouble from their inaccuracy:—
“March 8th, 1842.—Sent [to the Post Office] the financial returns recently made to the Treasury, for correction. Ledingham cannot convince —— that they are wrong (which they clearly are in principle), and they are come back uncorrected. It is strange that men whose sole duty it is to keep accounts should not only blunder, but be unable to see the error when pointed out.”
It was in this account, I believe, but certainly in one from the same functionary, that the balance carried forward at the close of a quarter changed its amount in the transit; and when I pointed out this fact as conclusive against the correctness of the account, it was urged that, without such modification, the next quarter’s account could not be made to balance! Errors, however, did not end here:—