“My first reform,” he one day told me, “was about the school-bell. I was then not more than twelve. It rang very irregularly. I looked into the matter and discovered the cause. It was owing to the following rule of my father’s. There was a monitor whose duty it was to ring the bell, and a penalty was fixed for any delay. But any one who happened to be in the school-room at the time was bound to ring the bell, and was fined for omission. This was one of my first attempts at legislation. I with difficulty persuaded my father to reverse his rule—to fine any one who did ring the bell, except the monitor. That change was eminently successful.” In the hours of meals there had also been great irregularity. The bell was never rung till everything was ready. He proposed that henceforth the bell should be rung at fixed times, it being taken for granted that everything was ready. “My mother said it was impossible to have the dinner at the exact time, as a large leg of mutton required more time to roast than a smaller one. I said no doubt it must have more time, but the cook must begin earlier. She gave in on my earnestly desiring it.” In his Journal for the year 1817 he records: “If the monitor neglect to ring the bell at the proper time, he incurs heavy penalties, which I take care to collect rigorously, convinced that in the end it is the most merciful mode of proceeding.” As he grew older he was more inclined in every case to fix lighter penalties; but whether he was dealing with his pupils, with the servants of the London and Brighton Railway, or the servants of the Post Office, he always rigorously enforced whatever penalty had been justly incurred.