The Report so laboriously prepared by Mr. Warburton appeared, I believe, early in March. Of this Report (the third of the Committee of 1838) I forbear to give even a summary; not only because this would involve the repetition of much that has been already said, but because I have no hope whatever of doing justice to so very able a document, the result of many months of hard labour, the very model of a Report, and which, as such, will even now amply repay the trouble of perusal. It is invaluable as an authoritative record of a state of things so absurdly strange as to be now almost incredible, but which was nevertheless justified and upheld at the time by many able and excellent men. Moreover, its elaborate calculations, which I was called upon to check, put some of the most important questions at issue in a clear, striking, and often even amusing light. On all important points it gave to my statements and conclusions the sanction of its powerful authority. Nevertheless, as the committee had determined on the recommendation of a twopenny rate, the Report had to be framed in, at least, formal accordance with this fact; though both Mr. Wallace, in whose name it went to the committee, and Mr. Warburton, by whom it was actually drawn, were strongly in favour of the penny rate. A careful perusal of the document, however, will show that, though the twopenny rate is formally recommended, the penny rate is the one really suggested for adoption. In this sense it was understood by the public, and to my knowledge it was wished that it should be so understood. It only remained to see what effect this masterly Report would have on the country, the Parliament, and the Government. As respects the first, enough has been mentioned to justify good expectation; the same might be said in a less degree of the second; but of the third, all indications were as yet adverse. On the 12th of April appeared, in some of the London papers, a letter which I had felt called upon to write in reply to an article in the Supplement to McCulloch’s “Commercial Dictionary,” then lately published, extracts from which had appeared in some of the newspapers. Mr. McCulloch’s opposition came very unexpectedly, since he had previously been a decided supporter of the general plan; his name having appeared amongst the select signatures to the important London petition presented to Parliament in the year 1837, and already mentioned at page 289 of this history. He had likewise supported the cause in the _Courier_ newspaper, resented the delay in adopting my plan, had, in conversation with myself, strongly condemned the Ministers, and threatened to expose them in the “Edinburgh Review.” The only circumstance to which I could attribute his change of opinion was that he had recently been appointed head of the Stationery Department. We all know, and I myself have been charged with such experience, that questions often assume a new aspect when viewed from the windows of a Government office.