"_May 30th._--At five o'clock went to the House of Commons... owing partly to Lord Ashley having omitted the most objectionable part of his motion (the stoppage of the mails), and still more, I fear, to the cowardice of the members, ... the motion was carried, by ninety-three to sixty-eight." "_May 31st._--Called on the Postmaster-General [then recovering from a dangerous illness] to report last night's proceedings. The _Times_, which gives the best account of the debate, has also an excellent leader." In consequence of this resolution of the House, I was summoned by the Postmaster-General and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who wished to consult me as to the course to be taken. While thinking it better to give way in the main, they seemed inclined to take an exception in favour of "delivery at the window;" but against this exception I strongly protested, our experience in Scotland having shown that it would involve more labour, to say nothing of unseemly crowding, than delivery in the ordinary manner. "I suggested that, as the motion proposes the appointment of a Commission to inquire into the stoppage of the mails, the Commission should also inquire into the stoppage of the deliveries and collections. Nothing was decided, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has to consult Lord John Russell." "_June 6th._--While at the Treasury, ---- came in. On my laughing at him for his vote on the Sunday question, he admitted that he was ashamed of it, adding that he did not expect to be in a majority. I believe that many of the votes were given under similar expectations."[76] "_June 7th._--Mr. Forster [M.P. for Berwick] called to consult me as to his endeavouring to re-open the Sunday question. I advised him to do nothing without previously consulting the Chancellor of the Exchequer." "_June 8th._--Lord John Russell, in reply to Mr. Forster, stated that he would not support any motion for the reversal of the resolution of the House on the subject of Sunday duties." I scarcely need say that I heartily concurred in his lordship's decision. If the public really desired, at the sacrifice of its own convenience, to confer so great a boon on the Post Office as that implied by the terms of the resolution, it would have been very ungracious in Government to intercept the concession. If otherwise, it was but just that the responsibility of error should rest on the House of Commons, which had interfered in the matter. Accordingly, when, a few days later, Mr. Forster wrote to ask for assistance with reference to a bill which he proposed to introduce to legalize the conveyance of letters on Sunday by private hand--a measure, of the abstract justice of which no one can doubt--I thought it better to decline taking any part in opposition to the decision of the House. Mr. Forster persevered, but his motion was negatived without a division.