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]