[32] “Hansard,” Vol. LXXXVIII., p. 959.
[33] Some months before his death Sir R. Hill sent to inform me of a circumstance that had been lately brought back to his memory, but which he had omitted, he said, to mention in the History of Penny Postage. At the time when it was proposed that he should return to the Post Office with a lower salary than Colonel Maberly’s, and therefore in an inferior position, he himself was unwilling to do so. He foresaw the troubles that would arise. On mentioning this to some of his friends, he found that they considered that he was bound to return to the Post Office work, having received, as it were, a retaining fee in the public subscription. If it had not been for this he should, he said, have refused the place.—Ed.
[34] “February 24th, 1847.—I felt tempted to obtain returns, with a view of settling some of the disputed points between the Post Office and myself—the one as to the division of French postage between the two Governments, for instance—but refrained, from a desire to avoid all causes of irritation. Armstrong tells me that, in a statement of French postage which I have attacked in my pamphlet as being too high by about £30,000, an error of £32,000 was actually discovered in the Accountant’s office.”—Sir R. Hill’s Journal.—Ed.
[35] “February 13th.—I met a Committee of the Town Council . . . encouraged them to communicate to me any carefully-considered improvements which might occur to them. The results of this meeting have satisfied me that it would be very useful to the Post Office to have similar means in every large town of learning the well-considered wishes of the inhabitants.”—Sir R. Hill’s Journal.—Ed.
[37] These vexations began to tell upon his health. Thus, in his Journal, I find the following entries:—May 8th, 1847. “I have more to do than I can accomplish satisfactorily; this produces headache and incapacity, which make the matter worse.” On September 28th of the same year, after describing some fresh vexations, he writes: “I have been reading my evidence given ten years ago before the Commissioners of Post Office Enquiry. . . . There is a heartiness and freshness in my replies which I fear I should not now evince.”—Ed.
[38] “The origin of this strange anomaly is this: Many years ago the newspaper fees were the perquisite of certain officers, and they therefore took newspapers in as late as possible.”—Sir R. Hill’s Journal.—Ed.
[39] The head of the Sorting Department.
[40] The Report (dated 1st January, 1847) was subsequently laid before a Parliamentary Committee, and is given in extenso in the Fifth Report of the Select Committee on Railway and Canal Bills, Appendix, p. 246. (Par. Pro. 1853, No. 736.)
[41] This was written before 1871.—Ed.