The second reading took place on the 22nd July, after a debate in which Mr. Goulbourn, Sir Robert Inglis, and Sir Robert Peel attacked, and Mr. Francis Baring, Lord Seymour, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Wallace, and Mr. Warburton defended the bill. The attack was founded chiefly on the large powers granted to the Treasury, though Sir R. Peel, while admitting “that a great reduction of postage might be made, not only without injury, but with great advantage to the revenue,” thought, however, “that it would be better to make a partial reduction of the postage duties than to repeal them almost entirely, as is now proposed,” and considered “that the advantages to be derived from such a proposition are much over-rated.”[271] Sir Robert Inglis also objected to the abolition of the Parliamentary privilege of franking, stating incidentally that to some mercantile houses it was worth £300 a year; but his objection was over-ruled by Sir Robert Peel, who strongly urged the importance of abolishing the privilege in question, adding that, if each Government department were required to pay its own postage, much would be done towards checking abuse. He also advised that “Parliamentary Proceedings” should be subjected to a moderate postage charge; and it is scarcely necessary to add that Sir Robert Peel’s advice on this point was followed.[272] The bill was read without a division. On the following day the public anxiety relative to the House of Lords showed itself in a petition “signed by the Mayor and upwards of twelve thousand five hundred of the merchants of the city of London, which the Noble Lord who presented the petition understood had been signed in twelve hours,” praying that no temporary deficiency of revenue might delay the establishment of penny postage.[273] As this, though not by any means the last petition presented, is the last requiring notice, it may not be amiss to mention here that the number of petitions presented to Parliament in favour of penny postage during the single session of 1839 was upwards of two thousand, the number of appended signatures being about a quarter of a million; while as many of the petitions proceeded from Town Councils, Chambers of Commerce, and other such Corporations, a single signature in many instances represented a considerable number of persons. On July the 29th the bill was read a third time and passed, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announcing, in reply to Sir Robert Peel, that Government had not yet determined on the precise mode in which the measure should be introduced.[274]