Mr. Hennessy asked why Sir Rowland Hill had not been created Postmaster-General; to which Lord Palmerston remarked that had he been appointed to that post he would have had to go out on a change of Government.
The motion was carried without a division.
A few days afterwards, Lord Granville brought the question before the House of Lords in a very kind and graceful speech.
“Lord Brougham said there was this peculiarity in Sir Rowland Hill—that whereas inventors in general were the most sanguine of men,[239] who saw no difficulties in the way, and who exaggerated the probable results of their novelty, he understated the value of his invention and over-estimated the difficulties and the expense of adopting it.
* * * * * *
“The Marquis of Clanricarde had the satisfaction of remembering that under him and through him, in some degree, Sir Rowland Hill had entered the Post Office; and bore testimony to the extraordinary zeal for the public service, the judgment, the discretion, the temper, and unvarying urbanity with which he met all the difficulties that he had to encounter. Of course those who had been accustomed to the old system viewed the innovation proposed with great alarm and suspicion. He attributed no blame to these officers, believing that the opinions given by them against the new system were founded upon very natural fears and bias. But penny postage, as his noble friend had said, was not the only improvement for which the nation had to thank Sir Rowland Hill. His belief was that, if it had not been for Sir Rowland Hill, the business in the Money Order Office would not have reached to one-sixteenth of its present proportions, and he doubted, indeed, whether that business would have been carried on any longer. No balance had been struck, and no one could tell what assets were in hand. He then asked Mr. Hill, who at that time had introduced some important improvements in the circulation of letters, to take this subject in hand. The result of that gentleman’s efforts was to establish, if not an exact balance, at least what practically amounted to it; the system was materially altered, and instead of eleven entries for every money order, the number was reduced to four or five; and since that time he had heard of no defalcation or fraud on the part of postmasters, such as had frequently occurred before that time. During the time that he had the honour to be connected with the Post Office he always found that Mr. Hill laboured zealously and efficiently, and always to his satisfaction. When objections to his plans were raised, Mr. Hill always received them in a fair and temperate manner, and never complained of being overruled when fair grounds for so doing had been shown. Upon the whole, this country had never rewarded by a grant of money any public servant who more richly deserved it. Mr. Hill’s name would live in every country, for every country had derived benefit from his labours.”[240]
I need not say that the parliamentary recognition of my services, so handsomely made, was and is regarded by myself and my family as the crowning honour of my life.
I wrote as follows to Mr. Gladstone:—
“Hampstead, 15th June, 1864.
“My dear Mr. Gladstone,—While I have written to Lord Palmerston and Lord Granville to thank them for the favour they have publicly shown me, I cannot but feel that my chief acknowledgments for the very handsome and gratifying manner in which my services have been recognised must be due to yourself, who, from first to last, have lent me your powerful aid in my efforts to perform the duties committed to me, and have given to all my suggestions and representations a kind, candid, and careful consideration.