“I find that the mass of them [the petitions] present the most extraordinary combination I ever saw of representations to one purpose from all classes, unswayed by any political motives whatever; from persons of all shades of opinion, political and religious; from clergymen of the Established Church, and from all classes of Protestant Dissenters; from the clergymen of Scotland, from the commercial and trading communities in all parts of the kingdom.”[265] Judiciously thinking that it would be better for the House to leave the details of the measure in the hands of Government, he demanded for the Treasury the power at once of fixing the rates of postage, of ordering payment by weight, of making prepayment compulsory, and of establishing the use of stamps. He concluded by moving the following Resolution:— “That it is expedient to reduce the postage on letters to one uniform rate of a penny postage, according to a certain amount of weight to be determined; that the Parliamentary privilege of franking should be abolished; and that official franking be strictly limited—the House pledging itself to make good any deficiency that may occur in the revenue from such reduction of the postage.”[266] Such opposition as was made was directed rather against the pledge required of the House than against the plan of penny postage, and on that point Sir Robert Peel and Mr. Goulbourn were supported by some members on the Liberal side of the House, including Mr. Hume, who regarded such pledge as superfluous, seeing that the House was at all times bound to maintain the national income. He also thought that the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s estimate of deficiency was excessive, he himself believing that though there might be a serious deficiency the first, and even the second, year, it was probable that, as by that time the plan would be in full operation, the future deficiency would not be greater than Mr. Hill had allowed for. All, however, concurred in the opinion that if the experiment were to be made the penny rate was to be preferred to any other; and while Mr. Goulbourn said that he should have been much in favour of the measure were there but a surplus to justify the risk, Sir Robert Peel went so far as to say— “That he should have thought it sufficient, if Government had maturely considered the details of this measure, had calculated the probable loss to the revenue, and had come forward to propose, in this acknowledged deficiency of the public revenue, some substitute to compensate the public. He should have thought that sufficient. So convinced was he of the moral and social advantages that would result from the removal of all restrictions on the free communication by letter, that he should have willingly consented to the proposition.”[267]