At such a time as this every confirmation of my former calculations and predictions was highly acceptable, and particularly welcome was a return just then received, which showed that the number of letters had at length attained that five-fold increase on which I had originally counted, progress of late having been very rapid.
I soon had the satisfaction to find that I was treated with confidence, Lord Canning consulting me on various matters which his predecessor had withdrawn from my charge.
“March 12th.—The Postmaster-General voluntarily entered on the subject of my position. He intends to speak to Lord Clanricarde, and probably to Sir Charles Wood, on the matter.”
I saw also fresh evidence of confidence in me at the Treasury:—
“April 8th.—Mr. John Wood, by direction of the Chancellor of the Exchequer [Mr. Gladstone], consulted me confidentially on some points of the intended Budget. . . . I inquired if I was at liberty to name the subject to the Postmaster-General, but was told, to my surprise, that I was not at liberty to do so.”
Not malapropos to the present question, I discovered that a serious obstacle to improvement in our treaty with France had arisen from a concession heedlessly made to the French Post Office about two years before, increasing the undue advantages already spoken of. This concession had been made, not only without my knowledge, but, improbable as this may appear, without authority from the Treasury. Although, however, the direct loss produced by this blunder was at the rate of more than £3,000 a year, the old punctilious notions as to ostensible economy still stood in the way of the change by which alone real economy could be obtained, the Postmaster-General informing me that, though he was ready to listen to any suggestions for facilitating the desired change, he feared Mr. Gladstone would object to the expedient of a full retiring allowance to Colonel Maberly on the same grounds that Sir Charles Wood had done. On the 7th of June, however, he advised me to prepare a statement for his use at the Treasury; but upon my speaking of the Parliamentary influence which I could bring to bear upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he deprecated its present use, promising at the same time to inform the Chancellor as to the fact.
One important article in the statement called for related to economy. I had the pleasure to find, upon examination, that the amount of saving, either actually obtained or prospectively secured by my brother and myself, within the last sixteen months, was nearly £75,000 per annum, which, added to nearly £60,000 per annum previously economised since my return to office, gave a total annual saving of nearly £135,000, effected in the face of constant opposition, amidst divided authority, and with command of only a most inadequate force.
“June 18th.—Sent in my letter to the Postmaster-General. . . . After very carefully considering the question, . . . I have intimated as plainly as I could, without a risk of offence, my intention not to remain at the Post Office if present arrangements are continued.”
The following shows the substance of the letter, which, however, is given at full length in the [Appendix (H)].