But, whatever might be the amount of inconvenience that in the first appointment arose from neglect of such criteria, the system of promotion by merit, being regulated entirely by reference to official services, was found to work exceedingly well. From the different departments of the metropolitan offices, and from the provincial surveyors, the reports of its operation were almost uniformly satisfactory. Officers were found to take more personal interest in their duties, to do more work without augmentation of force, to make up in some degree by additional zeal for the increased yearly holiday that was granted them, and to discharge their duties with more cheerfulness and spirit, knowing that good service would bring eventual reward.[162] In short, almost without exception, good conduct was reported on all sides.

From Sir Charles Trevelyan, one of the Commissioners whose recommendation had led the Treasury to adopt this beneficial change of system, I received the following letter. The italics are the writer’s:—

“Treasury, 26th March, 1856.

“My dear Mr. Hill,—The good fruits of improvement described in the Second Annual Report of the Postmaster-General, and especially in the section headed ‘staff of Officers,’ are a rich reward to my brother Commissioners and myself for any assistance we may have given in producing them; and it is especially gratifying to know that the anticipated result of giving to this large body of public officers a higher interest in their profession, and an increased self-respect, and of bringing them more fully under the influence of the wholesome stimulants to human action, has been attained. We did what we could; but much the largest share belongs to Lord Canning and yourself, and Mr. Tilley[163] and your brother, and other distinguished officers of the department, who not only cordially co-operated with the Commissioners of Inquiry in framing the plan, but, what is far more difficult and important, carried it into actual effect with characteristic firmness and prudence.

“Sincerely yours,
“C. E. Trevelyan.

“Rowland Hill, Esq.,
“&c., &c., &c.”

My own strong feeling of the value of the improvement I find thus expressed a year and a half later:—

Extract from a letter to the Duke of Argyll, dated October 2nd,
1857:—

“While referring to Treasury authority in justification of the course adopted, I think it right to add that my own opinion is entirely in accordance with that authority; nay, that I am convinced that some of the more difficult improvements recently effected—that, for instance, which has already had so beneficial an effect on the London early delivery—could not have been accomplished under the old system of promotion.”