About the time that the paper mentioned above was issued, opposition arose in so strange a quarter, that if the reader were invited to conjecture, he could scarcely go right save by considering how best he could go wrong. If it had been inquired what trade was most likely to benefit by the multiplication of letters, surely the one selected would have been the trade in paper. Nevertheless, a deputation of stationers went up to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, setting forth that they and their brethren would be put to great inconvenience by the adoption of Mr. Rowland Hill’s plan. Probably the motive to this whimsical proceeding was an apprehension that the issue by Government of stamped envelopes would deprive the petitioners of an expected trade; the fear of this making them blind to the far more than counterbalancing advantage to be derived from the multiplication of that which envelopes were intended to contain. However, I must not omit to mention that, some months afterwards, when I was in office, I had a very satisfactory interview with these same gentlemen at the Treasury. On July 5th, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in bringing forward his Budget, proposed the adoption of uniform penny postage. After having dwelt upon the fact that there had been of late a large increase of expenditure—due partly to improved administration in home affairs, partly to the establishment of ocean steamers for the conveyance of the mails, and the employment for the same purpose of railway trains instead of mail-coaches, partly to the increase of the National Debt by the borrowing of the twenty millions used in the redemption of negro slavery, partly, also, to an increase in the means of defence, and lastly, to the recent insurrection in Canada,—he observed that, as through these various circumstances there was little or no spare revenue, it would be necessary that the Government, in yielding to the general wish for the adoption of penny postage—a measure imperilling a revenue of a million and a half—must be assured of the concurrence of the House in the adoption of such means as might be necessary for making good any deficiency that might arise; he himself expecting that in the outset such deficiency would be very great. After having stated that on some points he differed from the conclusions of the committee, he proceeded to eulogise their labours in the following terms:— “I must admit that a committee which took more pains to inform itself, whose collection of evidence is more valuable, as giving the opinions of many of the most intelligent persons of all classes in the country, I never remember in my Parliamentary experience.”[264] In reference to the popular demand for the measure, he made the following remarkable declaration:—