It has sometimes been thought that Sir Rowland Hill's theory included the proposition that the increase of the number of letters varied in inverse proportion to the reduction of rate effected, that is to say, that if the rate were reduced by one-half, the number of letters posted would be doubled; if the rate were reduced by two-thirds, the number of letters posted would increase threefold.[79] This is not the case. His estimate was that with the reduction of postage in the United Kingdom to the uniform rate of one penny, i.e. an average reduction of seven-eighths (from about eightpence), an immediate fourfold increase in the number of letters might be anticipated. This estimate was framed with regard to the circumstances existing in the United Kingdom at the time, and there is no other rule applicable to the relation between reduction of postage and resultant increase of postal traffic than that it is relative to the particular circumstances of time and place. Especially, it may be said, where postage is already low, further reduction is hardly likely to result in largely increased traffic. In brief, Sir Rowland Hill calculated that by the adoption of his proposals for the modification of methods of working, the letter postage in the United Kingdom might be reduced to the uniform rate of one penny irrespective of distance, without causing loss to the net revenue of more than £300,000 a year. The pamphlet, _Post Office Reform: Its Importance and Practicability_, in which the plan was embodied, was first issued privately in January 1837 for circulation in political and official circles, to which Sir Rowland Hill had access, partly through the celebrity of his family on account of their school system, but chiefly through his brother Matthew Davenport Hill, then a member of Parliament. In February 1837 the author was invited to give evidence before the Commissioners for Post Office Inquiry.[80] The proposals were not, however, viewed favourably by the Government, and were resolutely opposed by the Postmaster-General and many of the high authorities of the Post Office.[81]