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.