“March 15th, 1850.—At the Postmaster-General’s house. He is about to visit Paris, and intends to treat for a reduction in the international rate. He is anxious at the same time to correct the blunder in the treaty exposed by me in 1843, under which we lose many thousands a year in accounting with France for our share of the postage collected there. After a careful consideration of the subject, we are both obliged to admit that, if the French Government should insist upon continuing this part of the treaty, as they doubtless will, there is now no escape.”
The Postmaster-General had been led to suppose that the original error was committed at the Treasury; but I was able to satisfy him that, so far from that being the case, the Treasury had on my report, carefully warned the Post Office on the very point. As the matter stands at the present time (1868), the annual loss in our transactions with the French Post Office, by irretrievable errors, is probably not less than £10,000.
SALARIES AND PROMOTIONS.
On the subject of salaries I found a strange, not to say absurd, discrepancy between form and practice. The clerks were, indeed, very properly arranged in classes, the salaries varying according to position, and promotion taking place as vacancies occurred, on formal attestation of a candidate’s fitness for the duties of the higher class; but all this classification, whatever merit it apparently had, was rendered worthless by the simple fact that difficulty of duties did not correspond with rank of class. Thus the Government was really paying £300 or £400 a year to clerks whose work was nowise superior in quality or quantity to that performed by others whose annual salary was but £70.[90] All this I pointed out to Mr. Hayter.[91] He admitted that the odium of rectification, so far as Government usage would allow rectification to be made, should not rest upon me alone, and promised to use his influence to get a Commission appointed for the revision of salaries generally. The Chancellor of the Exchequer hesitated to adopt the suggestion; but, as applications were coming in for particular augmentations which could not be satisfactorily dealt with until some general principle was adopted and reduced to a rule, I obtained authority to press the matter on the Treasury. Although, however, this was done, and although after the lapse of a year the Postmaster-General himself wrote a minute on the subject, yet a second year passed before this important step was taken.
RECTIFICATION OF ACCOUNTS.
As already shown, I had striven to present to the public mind a true statement as to the fiscal results of my reforms, or, to speak yet more comprehensively, as to the real earnings of the Post Office. This struggle was forced upon me by constant attempts to lead the public mind into error on this important point. That which I have repeatedly spoken of as the fallacious return[92] was, in one form or other, ever and anon revived, nor is misconception altogether removed even at the present moment. Of other corrections, also, I have already spoken, and I purpose now to continue the narrative.
“January 30th, 1849.—Showed the Postmaster-General a requisition which I have prepared for a return to Parliament, showing the real earnings of the Post Office by including in the revenue the net proceeds of the newspaper stamps, and in the expenditure so much of the packet service as is fairly chargeable against the Post Office. He has no objection to its being moved for. My object is to neutralize, if I can, the mischief which Lord Seymour and others have done by getting returns charging the whole packet-service against the Post Office.”
Notice of motion having been accordingly given by my friend Mr. Thornley, M.P. for Wolverhampton, the Treasury, as usual, referred to the Post Office, to learn whether there were any objection to granting the return. The consequence being that Mr. Tilley came to me, by Colonel Maberly’s desire, to show me a note written in reply, in which, to my amusement, I found the opinion given that the return should be withheld, “in fairness to Mr. Hill.” Of course I explained the whole matter to Mr. Tilley, and, the supposed obstacle being removed, the return was ordered without opposition, and the duty of preparing it was committed by the Postmaster-General to me.
Of the unfairness of charging the whole cost of the packet-service to the Post Office, I had striking evidence shortly afterwards.
“March 3rd, 1849.—The newspapers having stated that Government had contracted with the West India Steam-packet Company for carrying the mails to the Brazils, I asked the Postmaster-General if he had been consulted in the matter, and found that he had not; and further, that there had been no communication with the Office on the subject.”