Mr. Hill, in his able pamphlet, exhausted the subject. By a variety of arguments, he urged upon the nation a trial of his plans--begged for an unobstructed and cheap circulation of letters, expressing his most deliberate conviction,[87] that the Post-Office, "rendered feeble and inefficient by erroneous financial arrangements," was "capable of performing a distinguished part in the great work of national education," and of becoming a benefaction and blessing to mankind. He left the following proposals to the judgment of the nation:--(1) A large diminution in the rates of postage, say even to one penny per letter weighing not more than half an ounce. (2) Increased speed in the delivery of letters. (3) More frequent opportunities for the despatch of letters. And (4) Simplification in the operations of the Post-Office, with the object of economy in the management. The fundamental feature in the new scheme was, of course, the proposal that the rate of postage should be uniform, and charged according to weight. No wonder that the scheme, of which, in our own order, we have just attempted an outline, roused feelings of delight and approbation from the people at large, throughout the length and breadth of the land. Still less is it a matter of surprise that the Government and the Post-Office authorities, in charge of the revenue, should stand aghast at the prospect of being called upon to sanction what they considered so suicidal a policy. Lord Lichfield, the Postmaster-General at the time, speaking for the Post-Office authorities, as to its practicability, described the proposal in the House of Lords,[88] "of all the wild and visionary schemes which I have ever heard of, it is the most extravagant." On a subsequent occasion, his opinion having been subjected for six months to the mellowing influence of time, he is less confident, but says that, if the plan succeeds (in the anticipated increase of letters), "the walls of the Post-Office would burst--the whole area on which the building stands would not be large enough to receive the clerks and the letters."[89] On the one side, many well-known names[90] were ranked in opposition, who believed that the scheme, among other drawbacks, would not only absorb the existing revenue, but would have to be supported by a ruinous subsidy from the Exchequer. On the other side of the question, however, there were many intelligent writers and great statesmen ready to advocate the sacrifice of revenue altogether, if necessary, rather than not have the reform; while an immense number believed (and Mr. Hill himself shared in this belief) that the diminution would only be temporary, and should be regarded as an _outlay_ which, in the course of years, would yield enormous profits. "Suppose even an average yearly loss of a million for ten years," says a celebrated economist of the period; "it is but half what the country has paid for the abolition of slavery, without the possibility of any money return.