“December 17th, 1847.—Called on Mr. Cobden; described my position at the Post Office, and asked his advice as to the course I should adopt; more especially seeking his opinion as to whether I should be justified in public opinion in resigning my appointment, if circumstances should induce me so to act. He thinks that, except on some great and simple question, I should not be justified in resigning, as, though harassed by the obstacles thrown in my way by Maberly, I have nevertheless been able to introduce important improvements; his advice, therefore, is patience. He recommends that I should see other M.P.’s, and represent to them Maberly’s conduct, with a view of forming a party in the House; . . . but I replied that I considered such a course would be justly viewed as a breach of confidence, though I felt at liberty to consult my personal friends, among whom I counted himself. He proffered assistance in any way, and promised to take an opportunity of speaking to the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the necessity of extending my powers.”
The same day, having learnt that a circular to postmasters and others, to give effect to the new money-order arrangements, was in the printer’s hands, I sent my private secretary to apply for a suspension of proceedings until the Postmaster-General’s further pleasure should be known. This brought the Postmaster-General’s private secretary with a copy of the circular, in which, as I expected, I found an unnecessary and offensive restriction.[46] All the officers to whom it was addressed were informed that, while they were to obey me in matters connected with the Money Order Department, they were not to obey me on any other subject. My subordinates were thus called on to watch my proceedings, while a disposition on my part was implied to do that which, from the first, I had most scrupulously avoided. I also learnt that copies had already been sent to Dublin and Edinburgh. I insisted on their recall. Mr. Cornwall, after conferring with Colonel Maberly, promised the withdrawal of the objectionable clause, hoping that I would then raise no further obstacle to the issue of the circular. I was obliged, however, still to object to this, as the circular would give effect to the minute against which I had protested, and thus pledge me to duties without awarding me the necessary power.
The result of Mr. Cornwall’s application was communicated to me in a private letter from the Postmaster-General, by which I learnt that, though he intended to draw a fresh minute in place of Colonel Maberly’s, he had found nothing to object to in the circular, and consequently had directed its issue without further delay. He added that his own view was confirmed by that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, of whose opinion he sent me a memorandum. By this, however, I perceived that the nature of my objection had been misunderstood, probably by both.
My Journal proceeds as follows:—
“On inquiry I found that the circular about to be despatched retained the objectionable clause. It was not, I think, asking too much to be heard before any irretrievable step was taken.”
However, the Postmaster-General’s intention was soon fulfilled; and the new minute (written in his own hand) differed in no material point from the draft which I had prepared. I had also some little satisfaction in finding that, though the circular had now been issued, yet, in the new minute, all authority for the offensive part of it had been removed. Anxiety as to my true position relative to the Money Order Department being now sufficiently relieved I advanced in good spirits, and at once entered on my new duties.
“December 23rd.—The newspapers are reporting the new arrangement, each after its own fashion. The Times and Chronicle have useful notices on the subject; the Morning Post tells the world that I have been promoted to the superintendence of the Money Order Office, but carefully quotes the circular to show that my authority is confined thereto.”
Unfortunately, in coming for the first time close to any department one always has to learn abuses:—
“January 8th, 1848.[47]—It is distressing to find that forgeries and other frauds connected with money orders are frequent. . . . I have already had to deal with six or eight cases of this kind.”
The subjoined is a striking instance of the economy that may be produced in large operations by even a small change. I found that although the old money-order forms were supplied at a very low rate (about ten for a penny), yet, by reducing the size, I could save about £700 per annum; and this notwithstanding an improvement in the form, which the Comptroller of the Stationery Office alleged would involve an additional expense of nearly £1500 a-year. To remove this objection, however, I had to resort to a mechanical device derived from former experience in constructing my printing machine.[48] This saving was soon afterwards followed by a larger one, consequent on reduction in the size of the “letter of advice” and the abolition of what were called duplicate advices. Both these economical measures had the collateral advantage of diminishing labour in the chief office, while the total annual saving in stationery alone, even on the consumption at that time, was thus raised to about £2500.[49]