FORE:The year 1839 will be always memorable for the establishment of the system of a uniform penny postage, one of those great reforms distinguishing the age in which we live, which are fraught with vast social changes, and are destined to fructify throughout all time with social benefits to the human race. To one mind pre-eminently the British Empire is indebted for the penny postage. We are now so familiar with its advantages, and its reasonableness seems so obvious, that it is not easy to comprehend the difficulties with which Sir Rowland Hill had to contend in convincing the authorities and the public of the wisdom and feasibility of his plan. Mr. Rowland Hill had written a pamphlet on Post Office Reform in 1837. It took for its starting-point the fact that whereas the postal revenue showed for the past twenty years a positive though slight diminution, it ought to have shown an increase of 507,700 a year, in order to have simply kept pace with the growth of population, and an increase of nearly four times that amount in order to have kept pace with the growth of the analogous though far less exorbitant duties imposed on stage coaches. The population in 1815 was 19,552,000; in 1835 it had increased to 25,605,000. The net revenue arising from the Post Office in 1815 was 1,557,291; in 1835 it had decreased to 1,540,300. At this period the rate of postage actually imposed (beyond the limits of the London District Office) varied from fourpence to one and eightpence for a single letter, which was interpreted to mean a single piece of paper, not exceeding an ounce in weight. A second piece of paper or any other enclosure, however small, constituted a double letter. A single sheet of paper, if it at all exceeded an ounce in weight, was charged with fourfold postage. The average charge on inland general post letters was nearly ninepence for each letter. In London the letter-boxes were only open from eight in the morning to seven p.m., and a letter written after that hour on Friday did not reach Uxbridge earlier than Tuesday morning.The division on the second reading took place on the 6th of July, when the numbers werefor the Bill, 367; against it, 231; majority, 136. This result was a sufficient vindication of the appeal made to the country. The nation had now spoken constitutionally as to the evils of the old system of representation and unmistakably expressed its determination to have it reformed. The measure might be delayed in the Commons by vexatious opposition; but if it were to be defeated it must be by the House of Lords, and it required some boldness in the majority of that assembly to take upon itself to hinder the other branch of the legislature from effecting its own reform. The Bill now went into committee, when the case of each borough which it was proposed to disfranchise came under separate consideration. In Schedule A were placed, alphabetically, all the boroughs which had less than 2,000 of population, and these were to be disfranchised. When Appleby, the first on the list, came under consideration, there was a keen contest as to the actual numbers then in the town, and the question turned upon the census by which the committee were to be guided. By the census of 1821 the place would be disfranchised, but the inhabitants affirmed that by the census of 1831, then in progress, they were shown to have more than the requisite number; and Sir Robert Peel contended strenuously that they should wait for the more correct information. Mr. Wynn having moved a general resolution that the consideration of the schedules should be postponed till the result of the census was published, Sir Robert Peel said, with great show of reason, "After having obtained so large a majority as 136 on the principle of the Bill, Government would have acted wisely, even for the interests of the measure itself, to have postponed going into details till they were in possession of better documents on which to proceed. They know what is coming; they are aware of the event which is casting its shadow beforenamely, that the boroughs will be overtaken[338] by the population returns of 1831. In another fortnight these returns would be laid before the House; and though his Majesty's Ministers now proceed expressly on the doctrine of a population of 2,000 and 4,000, they are guilty of the inconceivable absurdity of proceeding on the returns of 1821, when they can so soon be in possession of the census of 1831." The House, however, determined, by a majority of 118, to proceed upon the old census. A series of tiresome debates upon the details of each particular borough proceeded from day to day, and lasted for two months, the Ministry invariably carrying their points by triumphant majorities. The tone of the discussion was acrimonious, as might naturally be expected from the weighty personal interests involved. Sir Edward Sugden solemnly declared that he considered the tone and manner, as well as the argument, of the Attorney-General as indicating that they were to be dragooned into the measure. In the opinion of Sir Charles Wetherell all this was "too capricious, too trifling, too tyrannical, and too insulting to the British public, to carry with it the acquiescence either of the majority within or the majority without the House." The ill-temper and factious obstruction of the Opposition greatly damaged the Tory party out of doors and exasperated the people against them.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit. Nesciunt, eligendi ipsa repellendus aspernatur corrupti ex soluta vel ad quibusdam.
