FOOTNOTES:[2]Havre-de-Grace.[3]Königsberg.
FOOTNOTES:
[2]Havre-de-Grace.
[2]Havre-de-Grace.
[3]Königsberg.
[3]Königsberg.
CHAPTER IX
TheRestoration was now an accomplished fact, and the Post Office passed into the hands of Col. Henry Bishop of Henfield, Sussex, to whom was granted the farm of the office for a period of seven years, dating from the 25th June 1660, at an annual rental of £21,500. Bishop was the third son of Sir Thomas Bisshopp, Knight, of Henfield. The Bisshopps were formerly a Yorkshire family, some of whom served under Lord Wharton in his proceedings against the Scotch in a previous age. Henry Bishop, the Postmaster-General, was married to Lady Elizabeth Plumley or Plumleigh, a widow who, in religion, was a papist. Before proceeding to deal with Bishop'swork in the Post Office, we may here mention, as a matter of interest personal to the individual, that in the impropriator's chancel of the church of Henfield is a mural monument to his memory, setting forth that he died in 1691, at the age of eighty.
It is not apparent upon what grounds Bishop obtained the farm, or whether he had performed any services entitling him to such an appointment. Under his indenture he was required to pay one quarter's rent in advance, namely, £5375, to bear all the expense of transmitting Government letters, and to carry, free, single letters from members of Parliament. He was required "to give in a true catalogue of all postmasters employed by him, and dismiss those excepted against by a Secretary of State, to whom all alterations in postage, or erection of post stages, were to be submitted." He was, however, to be granted certain allowancesin case of plague, civil war, etc., which might affect the revenue of his farm.
In connection with Bishop's appointment, there is a curious circumstance related in a State paper of September 1667. The document, although written under the initials "A.B.," is evidently the production of Clement Oxenbridge, who, it will be remembered, was one of the "First Undertakers for the reduction of postage," and who was the means of Prideaux's giving up the Post Office. Indeed the paper is indorsed "Mr. Oxenbridge." It reads as follows:—
"Statement of A.B.: That he was in youth a servant of the Princess Royal, and was also allied to a grandee under the late powers; that in 1652 he got Prideaux put out of the Post Office, by reducing the price of letters from 6d. to 3d., and bringing in a threefold weekly postage; that, to recompense him for £5036, 8s. spent therein, he was to have a weekly payment from thepost office; and he took the office in 1660 in Bishop's name, and settled a foreign correspondence, but, being dissatisfied with Bishop, had the office transferred to his Cousin O'Neale" (O'Neale was successor to Bishop) "on condition of continuing him £800 a year therefrom, but this has not been done," etc.
Whether Oxenbridge was able to exercise the interest here pretended is not clear. He was employed in the Post Office under Bishop for a time, but, as will be seen hereafter, there is little doubt he was turned out of it.
The return of the king from exile was signalised by a general scramble for offices, the king and his ministers being inundated with petitions for all kinds of places. While the king came in upon a promise of general pardon, his return was followed by measures of great severity; and it is perhaps not far from the truth toattribute much of what took place to the clamour of the Royalists, whose claims to place could not be satisfied without turning other men out. In order to clear the way, it would obviously be necessary to proceed against the then holders upon some plea or other. The petitions are founded on every variety of alleged service or suffering, from the most trivial to the most important. For example, one suitor begs for the place of Groom of the Great Chamber to the King or the Dukes of York or Gloucester, stating that he "had been clerk of the chapel to the late king, and served His Majesty, when prince, as keeper of his balloons and paumes, and of tennis shoes and ankle socks." An aged widow, named Elizabeth Cary, begs a place as page for her son, on the ground that she had suffered greatly for her loyalty. She had had her back broken at Henley-on-Thames, and a gibbet was erected to take away her life. She wasimprisoned at Windsor Castle, Newgate, Bridewell, the Bishop of London's house, and lastly in the Mews, at the time of the late king's martyrdom, "for peculiar service in carrying his gracious proclamations and declarations from Oxford to London, and only escaped with her life by flying into her own country." Many petitions were received for places in the Post Office. The plaint of one applicant is, that "his father's property was destroyed by Lord Fairfax at the siege of Leeds." In another case it is set forth that the petitioner "should have succeeded his father, but was put by for taking arms for the late king." A suppliant in the West says, that he "has been a constant sufferer from the tyranny of His Majesty's enemies. Would not mention his sufferings, in the joy of the Restoration, but for his wife and children, those patient partakers of all his troubles. Was the first man in Exeter to be taken up and imprisoned in all occasionsduring the late rebellion," etc. A former postmaster of Lichfield says, that "he suffered much loss by pulling down of his house and plunder of his goods, and was displaced by the then Parliament." The prayer of Thomas Challoner, postmaster of Stone, is based on the fact that he is brother to Richard Challoner, martyred for his loyalty before the Royal Exchange in 1643, and has often been plundered, etc. Thomas Taylor, of Tadcaster, solicits the postmastership of that place: urging his claim upon the fact that his ancestors had served since Queen Elizabeth's time; that his father, Thomas Taylor, had been seized and executed by Lord Fairfax for carrying an express to Prince Rupert, when York was besieged, to hasten to its relief; and that his family had been kept out of the place ever since. A former postmaster of Newcastle-on-Tyne, Thomas Swan, claims restoration to the place of postmaster because the "pretenderswho oppose him have not the least interest"; that his family had been loyal almost to their extirpation and banishment from the town; and that £674, 13s. is still due to his late father as postmaster, Burlamachi not having allowed him to pay himself out of the letter office, etc. These are specimens of the memorials sent in immediately after the Restoration, and which the new powers were called upon to satisfy.
The working staff of the Post Office in London at the period of the Restoration seems to have been a very mixed company. A number of them had been continued from the time of the Commonwealth; some had been brought in by Bishop; and the system of intercepting and opening letters, for the discovery of sedition, so largely practised during the Commonwealth, being still carried on, there was a great outcry against these officers who were not regarded as staunch Royalists. Bishop himself was distrusted.In December 1660, the postmaster of Newbury complains that many members of the Post Office are ill-affected, and "that Major Wildman, and Thompson and Oxenbridge, Anabaptists, put in and out whom they please." In the autumn of 1661, an account is given of the condition of the Post Office. Therein it is stated, that "it is managed by those who were active for Cromwell and the late Government: first, Major Wildman, a subtle leveller and anti-monarchy man; second, Oxenbridge, a confidant of Cromwell and betrayer of many of the King's party; third, Dorislaus, the son of the man who pleaded for the king's death at his trial; and, fourth, Vanderhuyden, agent of Nieuport, the Dutch Ambassador to Cromwell, now treating, underhand, to settle the postage by way of Amsterdam. The letter officers are chiefly disloyal: Col. Bishop himself and the office are under Major Wildman's control." The writerof this statement urges that the office should be put under fresh management. Shortly after this time, as would appear, there had been a clearing-out of several of the persons objected to; for in "a perfect list of all the officers, clerks, and others employed in and about the Post Office in London by Henry Bisshopp, Esq., His Majesty's farmer of the said office," the principal names mentioned above do not appear. The staff and constitution of the office, as exhibited by this paper, are as follows:—
This return is exceedingly interesting on several grounds. It shows that in the autumn of 1661 the total effective force of the Post Office in London numbered 47 persons; it contains the first recorded mention, probably, of a surveyor,—"agent to ryde ye severall rodes,"—a numerous class of officers nowadays, who perform the same duties as then, taking into account the changes in the methods and work of thePost Office; and it also contains the first record of a stamper of letters being employed.
As regards the stamping, this is also mentioned by Bishop, in an answer made to the Council of State respecting alleged abuses in the Post Office, under date 2nd August 1661, as follows:— ... "that he only employs old officers because new ones cannot serve for want of experience"; and he shows the precautions he has taken to rectify abuses, "by setting up printed rules, taking securities of the letter-carriers, stamping the letters," etc.
In complaints made of irregularities in the Post Office, very unflattering comments are made upon some of its officers. Thus: "Bishop's agent, Thompson, is a very juggler; they both"—that is, Bishop and Thompson—"will be complained of next Parliament." A clerk, Ibson, who had been dismissed, refers, in a vindication he attempted of himself, to the "dangerouscharacter of the disaffected and scurrilous men who witness against him"; and that, "having accused them to Secretary Nicholas and Col. Bishop, they procured his dismissal." James Hickes, a clerk in the Post Office, on the other hand, recriminates that, during the late troubles, Ibson was accustomed "to open and read the letters, and give news therefrom; that he was careless of the letters; and often wrong in his accounts"; and that on these grounds he was dismissed. In another information, Thomas Chapman is described as being a leveller; and Glover, a servant of Hugh Peters—both being accused of speaking disrespectfully of the king and Parliament. In a memorandum of Secretary Nicholas it is stated that "Glover of the Post Office was last Sunday at Mr. Jenkins' church, whispering amongst the people to take heed what they write, as their letters are often opened." The period was evidently one of very severeexamination, and the weeding out from the Post Office of unreliable servants.
Col. Henry Bishop did not escape in the general round of attack. A statement, dated 31st December 1661, is left on record to the following effect:—"That William Parker, who keeps the Nonsuch, formerly Commonwealth Club, in Bow Street, Covent Garden, was Wildman's man, the wife his servant, and the house furnished by him for meetings in Cromwell's time. That Col. Bishop often met Wildman there, and revealed the design of the late King's party, wherein Lord Mordaunt, Major Smith, and others were betrayed, and Dr. Hewitt lost his life; Major Smith declared on his deathbed that he never spoke the words by which he was betrayed to any but Bishop. Most of the post-office clerks used to meet and dine weekly at this house; and those now in hold, on suspicion of the plot, had meetings there. The night beforeWildman was committed, a clerk of the Post Office, and another, rode to the post house at Hounslow, stopped the two Western mails, carried the letters into a private room, and, after spending two hours with them, charged the boy who carried the mail forward not to speak of what they had done." In a petition of the discharged clerk Ibson, some time later, Ibson states that "he was bound in loyalty to disclose the horrid and dangerous practices of Henry Bishop, for which Bishop dismissed him in disgrace, and imprisoned him on several feigned actions." Bishop's farm of the Post Office must have given him much trouble and anxiety, arising partly from the nature of the staff employed by him, and partly from the conditions of unrest pervading society, these two things inspiring distrust and suspicion in the management of the office. When the time arrived for his forced retirement from the farm, he would doubtless beglad to get quit of it. This event occurred in 1663. The immediate cause is not made quite clear. No less an authority than Dan. O'Neale, who succeeded Bishop, states that "Col. Bishop was turned out for continuing disaffected persons in the management of the Post." But Bishop was about this time harassed with suits at law, and the king thought fit to step in and arrest the proceedings. The following document, addressed to "Our Attorney-General and all others," was issued with this intent from Whitehall on the 20th March 1663:—"Whereas we are informed that John Hill hath caused an information to be exhibited against Henry Bishop, Esq., for the exercising of the office of our Postmaster-General, and that other suits are intended to be brought against him by the said Hill, which will much tend to the disquieting of the said Henry Bishop and to our disservice; our Royal pleasure therefore is, that the said suit be no further prosecutedagainst him, and that our Attorney-General do enter anon vult ulterius prosequiupon it, and that no other suit be commenced or prosecuted against him for the same, and that our Counsel at law do appear in the behalf of our servant the said Henry Bishop." About the same time,—a few weeks later,—a formal pardon of all indebtedness to the Crown was granted to Bishop; the document setting forth that Bishop had surrendered his grant on the 6th April; and proceeding that "by reason of some supposed variance between the letters patent, indentures of covenants, and the said late Act for establishing a Post Office, Bishop may be liable to suits and questions concerning the execution of the said office or yearly rent due for same; the king therefore pardons and releases to Bishop all sums of money the Crown may now or hereafter claim of him," etc. Under a cloud of proceedings of this nature Bishop ceased to be Postmaster-General.The farm of the office was now transferred to Col. Dan. O'Neale for the remaining portion of the seven years' lease granted to Bishop. It would seem that a money consideration was made by O'Neale to Bishop for the transfer of the office; for in a statement of some proceedings (before the Council apparently), it is stated "that Colonel Bishop, before his last appearance at Council, would have taken £4000 for resignation of his grant, but has since advanced to £8000, which he says Mr. O'Neale has offered to him; O'Neale also offers to Secretary Bennet £2000, and £1000 a year during Bishop's lease; this can be no disservice to the Duke of York, who can expect no improvement till Bishop's lease terminates." Apparently O'Neale took up the grant under the whole conditions, privileges, and obligations applicable to Bishop's tenure.
O'Neale, an Irish gentleman, was the king's Harbinger and Groom of the BedChamber. During the rebellion in Ireland, wherein Owen Roe O'Neale was concerned, before the downfall of Charles I., the Marquess of Ormonde engaged Daniel O'Neale, a relative of Owen's (said to be a nephew), in an endeavour to win the latter over to Charles' interest. In this, however, he was unsuccessful. Later, during the Commonwealth, he was declared a delinquent, impeached, and thrown into the Tower; but from this durance he managed to effect his escape. Clarendon says of him that "he made his escape in a dexterous way, clad in a lady's dress." When the Duke of Ormonde crossed over to England from the Continent, in disguise, with the view of ascertaining the hopes then existing for a return of the royal house, he was accompanied by Dan. O'Neale, at the hazard of his life. He also took part in an attempt upon Scotland, for the Royal cause, in 1650, but was apprehended and banished by theCouncil, being then put under a written obligation "by which he consented to be put to death, if he were ever after found in the Kingdom." O'Neale is known as the builder of Belsize, at Hampstead, which he is said to have erected at vast expense. He would appear to have been a special favourite of CharlesII., for he enjoyed several grants or monopolies besides that of the Post Office.
O'Neale's grant, dating from the 25th March 1663, was for a period of four and a quarter years, at a rental of £21,500, but, like several of the other grantees, he did not complete his term, his death taking place about October 1664. Pepys, in recording this event, adds the remark, "I believe to the content of all the Protestant pretenders in Ireland." O'Neale left, as his widow, Katherine Countess-Dowager of Chesterfield, who was his executrix. The countess was allowed to have the benefit of the remainder of the term; and Henry LordArlington and John Lord Berkeley were empowered, by warrant, to make contracts with Foreign States on behalf of the Post Office, and to act for "the better carrying out of that office."
The interception and inspection of letters in the Post for Government purposes, so largely carried on under the farmers immediately preceding, had the inevitable result of engendering discontent and suspicion, and of driving the public to make use of other means for the conveyance of their correspondence. Recoiling upon the farmers would necessarily be the loss of revenue. No sooner had O'Neale entered upon his trust than steps were taken to put down or curtail the irregularities both inside and outside the Post Office. On the 25th May 1663, a proclamation was issued forbidding all persons except Dan. O'Neale or his deputies to carry or deliver letters for hire, and ordering searches to be made for the discovery ofunlicensed letter-carriers. As evidence of compliance with the royal views, all postmasters were required to produce, within six months, a certificate of their conformity to the Church of England, on pain of dismissal; and a very important clause in the proclamation provided that no letters should be opened by any but the persons to whom they were addressed, "without immediate warrant from a Secretary of State." About the same date Secretary Bennet issued a warrant "to all Mayors and other officers, and particularly to Richard Carter and eight others, specially appointed for twelve months, to search for and apprehend all persons carrying letters for hire without licence from the Postmaster-General, and to bring them before one of the Secretaries, delivering their letters into the Post Office." The searchers were what, in a later period of post-office history, were officially called "apprehenders of letter-carriers."
These restrictive measures had not been a month in operation when O'Neale found it necessary to make a representation with respect to them. He complained that the means at the disposal of Bishop for dealing with offences against the Post Office were quicker in operation than those prescribed to himself; and he expressed himself to the effect that he would rather quit the office than go to law against every offender. O'Neale further says that the Lord Chancellor had declared the opinion that the Secretaries, being superintendents over the Post Office, should take notice of offences. It is quite evident that O'Neale did not find the Post Office a bed of roses.
O'Neale also discovered, soon after entering the Post Office, that while his grant purported to cover all the king's dominions, the postmaster at Edinburgh, Robert Mein, was independent of him, Mein having had a gift of that office made by His Majesty atStirling, and confirmed since the Restoration. For the loss of revenue in this quarter, O'Neale claimed a deduction from his rent of £2000 a year.
It may be well here to mention that, shortly after O'Neale's grant of the Post Office, an Act was passed—15 Chas.II.c. 14 (1663)—settling the profits of the business upon James Duke of York and his heirs male. That is to say, the rentals were the claim or right of the Duke of York; but they were subject to payments to be made, under Privy Seal, in favour of the king, to an amount not exceeding £5382, 10s. per annum. By a later Act—22 & 23 Chas.II.c. 27—this reservation in favour of the king was made perpetual.
CHAPTER X
Acuriousconnection between the Post Office and Music is referred to as existing at this period. To Pepys we are indebted for a knowledge of the fact. In hisDiary, under date Wednesday, the 5th October 1664, he has the following note:—"To the musique-meeting at the Post Office, where I was once before. And thither anon come all the Gresham College, and a great deal of noble company; and the new instrument was brought called the Arched-Viall, where being tuned with lute-strings, and played on with kees like an organ, a piece of parchment is always kept moving; and the strings, which by the kees are pressed down upon it, are grated in imitation of a bow, by the parchment; and so it is intended to resemble several vyalls played on with one bow, but so basely and so harshly, that it will never do. But after three hours' stay it could not be fixed in tune; and so they were fain to go to some other musique of instruments." It might be supposed that the Post Office would be the last place on earth to which "a great deal of noble company" would resort for musical entertainment. But, fortunately, Evelyn in hisDiarythrows some light on the subject by referring to the same meeting in the following terms:—"To our Society.—There was brought a new invented instrument of musiq, being a harpsichord with gut strings, sounding like a concert of viols with an organ, made vocal by a wheele, and a zone of parchment that rubb'd horizontally against the strings." "Our Society" referred to by Evelyn, and Pepys' allusion to Gresham College, as also the fact that the Minutes of the Royal Society record ameeting on this day, leave little room for doubt that the gathering at the Post Office was a meeting of the Royal Society. Evelyn was one of the original Council when the Society, a couple of years before, obtained its charter, and Pepys became a Fellow some four months after this meeting at the Post Office. But the question arises—Why was the meeting held at the Post Office? The usual meeting-place of the Royal Society was Gresham College. It is necessary to understand that the Post Office, at the period with which we are dealing, was located in the Black Swan, Bishopsgate Street, at a trifling distance, probably, from Gresham College. It was no doubt one of the old city inns, built with an interior courtyard, and possessing a number of rooms more or less adapted for public meetings. Within the inn lived certain of the principal officers of the Post Office. It may be that some of these officers were interested in theRoyal Society, and, as a matter of favour, afforded accommodation at the Post Office for exceptional meetings. At anyrate, an original member of the society, Andrew Ellis, became Deputy Postmaster-General in 1667, and Joseph Williamson, secretary to Lord Arlington (who, by the way, practised music as an amateur), was also a member, the last mentioned (Arlington) becoming Postmaster-General in the same year. Or it may be that, as the members of the Royal Society moved in the best circles, they were granted accommodation for special meetings by the Farmer of the Posts, Col. Dan. O'Neale, who would doubtless be on intimate terms with many of the members. Another supposition is, however, open to us. It may be that the Post Office occupied only a part of the Black Swan premises, that the business of an inn was still carried on within the building, and that the meetings referred to by Pepys were held in a room rented forthe purpose. However this may be, the entertaining diarist has left it on record that he went "to the musique-meeting at the Post Office."
About the time of O'Neale's death, or a little later, occurred the Great Plague of London, 1664-65. The officers of the Post Office did not escape the fatalities of that terrible scourge. The senior clerk of the establishment, James Hickes, with whom the reader must now be familiar, describes, in a petition written shortly thereafter, how the Plague affected the Post Office. He says "that dureing the late dreadfull sickness, when many of the members of the office desert the same, and that betweene 20 and 30 of the members dyed thereof, your petitioner, considering rather the dispatch of your Majesty's service then the preservation of himselfe and family, did hazard them all, and continued all that woefull tyme in the said office to give dispatch and convayanceto your Majesty's letters and pacquetts, and to preserve your revenue ariseing from the same." Now, as in August 1661 the number of officers attached to the London Post Office was only 47, it would appear by Hickes' statement that from one-half to two-thirds of the staff were carried off by the Plague. In a letter written to Jos. Williamson (who, like a great many other principal officers of the Government, had fled from the scourge), dated the 14th August 1665, Hickes gives some further particulars of how things proceeded at that time. He tells Williamson that the postmaster of Huntingdon has been directed to forward his letters, "airing them over vinegar before he sends them." Then he adds, that the chief office is "so fumed, morning and night, that they can hardly see each other; but had the contagion been catching by letters, they had been dead long ago. Hopes to be preserved in their important public work from the stroke of thedestroying angel." Williamson had asked Hickes to give £5 on his behalf to the poor of St. Martins-in-the-Fields; but the latter answered that he did not know where to get it at this time, "where all doubt ever seeing each other again." Hickes adds, that the sickness is increasing, and that their gains at the Post Office are so small that "they will not at the year's end clear £10 of their salaries." The whole business of the City of London seems to have become paralysed. On the 3rd August an ambassador in London wrote to his Government that "there was no manner of trade left, nor conversation, either at Court or on the Exchange." On the 17th of the same month one Richard Fuller wrote that not one merchant in a hundred was left in the City; that every day seemed like Sunday; and that though he had a great deal of money owing to him, he could not get in a penny, nor could he sell any goods.
The concluding portion of Hickes' petition,above referred to, may merit perusal. In justification of his prayer, he says: "Soe that your petitioner, being now arrived to neere 60 years of age, hath acquired for all the service of his life nothing but weaknesses and severe distempers, which his dayly attendance and assiduitie hath contracted. May it therefore please your most sacred Majesty, in consideration of your petitioner's service and sufferings, his age and weakness, haveing gained noe estate, but a bare subsistance by his hard services, that your Majesty wilbe gratiously pleased to give him such a Compensation as may suport and preserve your petitioner and his wife, now in their old age."
Hickes did not, however, immediately retire from the Post Office: he remained in its service some time longer. In another petition at the time of the Restoration, he makes mention of some of his official antecedents. He says that "he sent the first letter from Nantwich to London by postin 1637, a road now bringing in £4000 a year." He settled the Bristol and York posts, and conveyed letters to the late king at Edgehill and Oxford. He refers to his committal to prison, previously mentioned in these pages, in 1643; and gives us the further information that his aged father was one of the 5000 Royalists who are said to have been slain on the field of Edgehill. Hickes, after his imprisonment, was employed in the king's service; but somehow he got back into the London Post Office, under the Commonwealth, about the year 1651. In yet a further petition, Hickes, again claiming credit for keeping the Post Office open during the Plague, begs that he may have an order to the Commissioners of Prizes, to deliver to him some brown and white sugar granted to him by His Majesty from the shipEspéranceof Nantes, condemned as a prize at Plymouth.
Shortly after the Plague, the Great Fireof London broke out. It commenced on the 1st September 1666, and on the 3rd September it reached the Chief Post Office, in Bishopsgate Street. In these early times, as has already been mentioned, some of the officers lived on the premises—the higher officials, at anyrate. Sir Philip Frowde was then one of the Controllers, and James Hickes was senior clerk. On the 3rd September the latter writes to Williamson as follows, dating his letter from the post house at the Golden Lion, Red Cross Street (this inn was probably a branch post office at the time):—"Sir Philip and his lady fled from the office at midnight for saftey; stayed himself till 1A.M., till his wife and children's patience could stay no longer, fearing lest they should be quite stopped up; the passage was so tedious, they had much ado to get where they are. The Chester and Irish Mails have come in; sends him (Williamson) his letters; knows not how todispose of the business. Is sending his wife and children to Barnet."
It is not very clear whether the Post Office in Bishopsgate Street was entirely destroyed,—it was certainly destroyed in part. At any rate, on the 24th August 1667, nearly a year after the fire, an official notice was issued that the Kentish office had been removed "from the Round House to the Grand Office in Bishopsgate Street, for the better dispatch of business." Whether this Grand Office was in the old Black Swan or in other premises we are unable to say. These records make it tolerably clear that the Chief Post Office was still placed in Bishopsgate Street for some time subsequent to the fire.
The early locations of the Post Office in London seem to have been as follows:—
1635.—In Sherborne Lane, King William Street.1642.—Inland Letter Office (under the Earl of Warwick) in Bartholomew Lane, at the back of the old Exchange.Removed afterwards to Cloak Lane, Dowgate.Removed later to the Black Swan, Bishopsgate Street, where it was at the time of the Great Fire.Was again in Bishopsgate Street after the Great Fire.Later it was removed to the Black Pillars in Bridges Street, Covent Garden.
1635.—In Sherborne Lane, King William Street.
1642.—Inland Letter Office (under the Earl of Warwick) in Bartholomew Lane, at the back of the old Exchange.
Removed afterwards to Cloak Lane, Dowgate.
Removed later to the Black Swan, Bishopsgate Street, where it was at the time of the Great Fire.
Was again in Bishopsgate Street after the Great Fire.
Later it was removed to the Black Pillars in Bridges Street, Covent Garden.
In the new regulations laid down for working the posts in 1637, it was ordered that each mail should be accompanied by a label, or what would now be called a time-bill or way-bill, and that upon this label the arrivals at the several stages should be noted, instead of upon the letters or packets as had previously been done. The labels used in 1666, specimens of which exist in the Public Record Office, are curious documents. They are like a double sheet of foolscap, but longer and narrower, and are furnished with a printed heading as follows:—
arms
FOR THE SPECIAL SERVICE AND AFFAIRS OF HIS MAJESTY.
Haste, haste.Poste-Haste.Whereasthe Management of the Poste Stage of Letters of England, Scotland, and Ireland, is committed to my care and conduct; These are therefore in His Majesties name to require you, in your respective stages, to use all diligence and expedition in the safe and speedy conveyance of this Mail and Letters from London to ____ , and from thence to return; And hereof you are not to fail, as you will answer the contrary at your perils. Given under my hand this ____ past ____ in the morning.To the Several Postmasterson ____ Road.
Haste, haste.Poste-Haste.
Whereasthe Management of the Poste Stage of Letters of England, Scotland, and Ireland, is committed to my care and conduct; These are therefore in His Majesties name to require you, in your respective stages, to use all diligence and expedition in the safe and speedy conveyance of this Mail and Letters from London to ____ , and from thence to return; And hereof you are not to fail, as you will answer the contrary at your perils. Given under my hand this ____ past ____ in the morning.
To the Several Postmasterson ____ Road.
The bills were signed in writing by Philip Frowde, the then working head of the Post Office.
The stages, and the official distances between the stages, at this time from London to Berwick, were as follows:—
The number of despatches weekly to the principal continental cities, and the timesallowed for transit to or from London, were these:—
About this time Joseph Williamson became editor of theLondon Gazette; and for his purpose, as well as for the use of the Government, all manner of news was collected through the Post Office. Williamson had a rival in the news business in one Muddiman, who had previously had charge of Williamson's correspondence. Hickesexerted himself to the utmost in opposing Muddiman, writing to his correspondents "to assure them that Muddiman, being dismissed by Williamson from the management of his correspondence, for turning it to his own advantage, could not communicate much news, and that his letters were no longer to be franked." The zeal of Hickes carried him so far as to violate Muddiman's letters; and as listeners often hear unpleasant things of themselves, so Hickes had a like experience in looking into the rival's letters. A copy of one of Muddiman's letters to his correspondents, left in Hickes' own handwriting, runs as follows:—
"James Hickes, a little fellow of the Post Office, having written about him, he informs them that, on a misunderstanding with Williamson about theGazette, he has quitted that office, turned his correspondents to Secretary Morice, and will write fullyand constantly as before. Has discovered Hickes in some practices, and has not therefore given him his letters to sign, nor a copy of them to write after." The following are specimens of the news sent up from the country to Hickes:—
7th March 1665—from Richd. Foster, Newcastle. "In the impress of seamen, the Mayor, Sir Ralph Delaval, and others agreed to make volunteers of Capt. John Wetwyng's pressmasters, who, knowing the haunts of most of the seamen of the town, managed so well that almost as great a number of volunteers and pressed men will be returned as will be had out of Scotland; as none can escape the pressmasters, many come in as volunteers because they will not be pressed; there are hundreds of stout young keel and barge men who could do good service, and hundreds would go volunteers, if they may be employed."
19th March 1665—from Luke Whittington, Hull. "Col. Morley, the present governor of Hull, sent out several files of Musketeers to Serjeant Bullock's house, two miles off, where a conventicle of 100 to 300 fanatics was held; only 20 were seized, as their scouts were out, and they fled."
10th June 1665—from Edward Suckley, Landguard Fort. "On the 9th, the Duke of York with all his fleet came to Sole Bay, where they are at anchor, with 15 Dutch ships taken and 2000 prisoners; 35 sail are sunk or taken; Opdam, Trump, and Eversen, and other commanders, killed. On our side Lords Fitzherbert and Falmouth, and two other Lords, are killed."
20th October 1666—from Fras. Newby, Harwich. "A mighty eagle lighted yesterday on the ropehouse on the Green; her wings seven feet long, and one claw 9 inches long; she is thought to have come from some far country, and to have been extremely weary, for she budged not at thefirst shot made at her, and was killed by the second. Has sent him a dried salmon," etc.
At this period (1666), the riding work seems to have been very slow indeed. On the 18th May of this year, Hickes gives a return which shows the following results:—
The speed at which the mails should have been carried between Lady Day and Michaelmas was seven miles an hour, so they were travelling at little more than half their speed.
Yet severe measures were taken by the post-office authorities against the postmasters. By a petition of John Paine, postmaster of Saxmundham, it is set forth that he was taken into custody "for not having seven horses ready as soon as Sir PhilipHoward expected, though they were ready within half an hour." The postmaster of Witham, Essex, was also summoned before Lord Arlington for neglect, and imprisoned. So great had been the effect of the pressing of men for the fleet at this period that, on the 2nd July 1666, Sir Philip Frowde writes to Williamson, that "most of the post-boys on the Kentish Road are pressed, so that unless some course be taken, expresses or envoys cannot come or go."
CHAPTER XI
Onthe expiry of O'Neale's grant, the office of Postmaster-General was conferred upon Henry Lord Arlington, the grant in his case being for a period of ten years, dating from Midsummer 1667. During the Commonwealth, Arlington, as Sir Henry Bennet, had been a faithful adherent of the king while in exile on the Continent, and for a time was his representative at the Court of Madrid. As a statesman, after the Restoration, he was held in high esteem by Charles, and is well known as a member of the Cabal. He was a busy man in the affairs of his country, and, consequently, was unable to fulfil, in person, his duties at the Post Office. And so we find that he discharged these dutiesby deputies, the two men intrusted in the first instance with the work being his brother, Sir John Bennet, and one Andrew Ellis. Ellis died in 1672, and in his place was appointed his cousin, Colonel Roger Whitley, who continued to hold the office of Deputy Postmaster-General till the close of Lord Arlington's first term in 1677. The precise conditions of Arlington's grant, as regards rent, are not known. The patent roll sets forth that the sum of £5382, 10s. was to be reserved to the order of the king as in previous grants, but that the remaining rent payable by Arlington was to be determined by a tripartite indenture, of the same date as the patent, to be executed between James Duke of York of the first part, Henry Lord Arlington and Lord Berkeley of Stratton of the second part, and Mary Dowager-Viscountess Falmouth of the third part. The terms of this indenture have not apparently come down to us. The thirdparty to the indenture was the widow of Viscount Falmouth, who fell in the battle with the Dutch off Lowestoft, on the 3rd June 1665, and the arrangement here made was probably with the view of securing her some allowance. Haydn, however, places Lord Arlington's rent, in 1674, at £43,000, but we are unable to say from what source these figures are taken. Lord Arlington's advent to the Post Office in 1667 was marked by measures that were held to be very oppressive by the staff of that office. This is abundantly clear from letters written at the period by James Hickes, the senior clerk. He writes to Williamson, secretary to Lord Arlington, with whom he had intimate relations in connection with theGazettebusiness, as follows:—"Many postmasters are in London, or coming up, in order to their future settlements: understands his lordship's pleasure to be that they must pay a fine; and has given reasons therefor tothose who applied to him for advice, so as to prevent hard thoughts of his lordship, and prepare them for quiet submission." The fine here mentioned is a payment that was demanded for renewal of employment, something after the plan previously in vogue whereby the deputy postmasters obtained their places by purchase. To obtain places by purchase was the common practice during the reigns of JamesI.and CharlesI.Again Hickes writes about himself, that he "expects little compassion, notwithstanding all his services and diligence, if Williamson do not stand firm to him." Then, upon some interference by Sir John Bennet with the clerks sending letters or news books post-free, Hickes says that "he would rather withdraw and live on salt and water," and that he refused to pay for his own letters or news books. He "told Sir John that the governors had rather blamed the clerks for not corresponding more with the postmasters to keep things right, asby so doing a correspondence had been settled with all parts of the kingdom. Told him there was not a man in the office who did not deserve continuance and encouragement instead of reduction of salary, and that such severity would ruin the office." Sir John, "said he could have 40 officers who wanted employment. Told him that blades with swords at their sides, and velvet jackets, would not do the business, as some had proved very rogues and cheats, and were rooted out.... Sir John said that as his lordship had to pay a greater rent than before, other things must be improved." He again writes, that "Sir John Bennett tries to reduce the postmasters to 20s. a mile, which lowers them from £40 to £20 a year; and that he makes and unmakes contracts, so that they fear they may be removed at pleasure. The two porters are reduced from 10s. to 6s. a week, and are no longer to have 6d. for each express sent to Whitehall; the30 letter carriers are reduced from 8s. to 6s.... Will do his best, though told he is designed for ruin when he has served their turn," etc. In a further letter Hickes writes, that he "will wait upon Williamson and his lordship shortly, and if no more kindness is shown him for services done, shall take his leave, and rest upon God. Is hardly dealt with, as whatever care and pains he takes, it contribrites not a candle, nor a cup of beer as formerly granted; and the taking away of these poor petty things is the present reward for the most considerable and advantageous service done. Writes all this to him, as being the only person to whom he can unbosom himself." We will add but one more extract, from a later letter written in Hickes' despair. He intimates a desire to wait upon Williamson, but he pleads that "his service is so severe that he has not two hours' rest between the post going out and coming in, and seldom has half an hour'ssleep, by which means he is becoming decrepid and dropsical." Then he adds, that "he will wait with patience; and if he die without consideration, it will be a comfort to know that he has discharged his duty faithfully in all hazards and hardships."
Incidentally, Hickes mentions in one of these plaintive letters that his salary as senior clerk was £100 a year. He also indicates that Sir John Bennet[4]was no favourite with the staff; for he says of him, that when he comes into the office "it is with such deportment and carriage that no king can exceed."
These letters afford a fair idea of the measures which were being applied to the service under Lord Arlington's Postmaster-Generalship.
The paucity of information left to us of the internal working of the Post Office in itsearlier years, is doubtless due to the fact that the books in use under the various Farmers of the Post were removed at the termination of each farm, being the property of the farmer, and in most cases these books have disappeared with time. Fortunately, however,[5]one set of books remains, that referring to the period from 1672 to 1677, when, under Lord Arlington, Colonel Roger Whitley was Deputy Postmaster-General. These books contain the correspondence with the deputy postmasters throughout, the country, and afford much interesting information as to the state of the posts in that limited term.
Colonel Roger Whitley, as appears by theHistorical Manuscripts Commission Reports, was either the individual of that name who, when Governor of Aberystwith Castle, had to surrender to the Parliamentary troops, or a son of that person. He was, at anyrate, anattendant upon King CharlesII.during his exile, and, in the semblance of a Court then maintained, he held the position of a member of the Privy Chamber. A letter is extant in which the king begs from Whitley the loan of £100. At the Restoration, Whitley received the appointment of Harbinger to the King, and now the appointment of Deputy Postmaster-General. It is not improbable that he was a Cheshire man, from the facts that his daughter was married to Sir John Mainwaring of Peover, in that county, and that Colonel Whitley himself, or his son, was Mayor of Chester in 1693. During the time of Whitley's Deputy Postmaster-Generalship, he represented Flint in the House of Commons. Andrew Marvell says of him that by the farm of the Post Office "he got a vast estate."
In some loose sheets prefaced to the first volume of Whitley's office letter-books, referring apparently to the year 1667, isa schedule showing a rearrangement of the salaries of the deputy postmasters in the country, when Lord Arlington assumed the farm of the Post Office. The fragment of the document on the opposite page shows how the matter was arranged.
For the renewal of their deputations under the new Postmaster-General, the postmasters were mulcted in a fine or payment equal to one year's salary as adjudged to be proper to the several offices, the rate allowed being about 30s. per mile per annum. Now, as the mails, as a rule, at this time travelled three times a week, the rate per single-journey mile carrying the mail works out at about twopence and one-third of a penny.
It is worthy of note, that on the admission of the deputy postmasters to office they were required to pay, in addition to the fine above referred to, fees for their deeds of deputation amounting to £3, 10s. These fees went to the clerks at head-quarters, among whom they were divided, as a payment, apparently, for the drafting and preparing the necessary papers. This must have been a heavy tax upon the postmasters, the sum mentioned being equivalent in value to at least £14 of our present money.
The letters of Roger Whitley on subjects relating to the appointment of deputies, to the riding work, the packet services, and to his dealings with the public, are interesting in many ways. They are somewhat curious in language and style, and show a quaint relationship existing between himself and his subordinates. To the country postmasters, Whitley ordinarily subscribed himself, "your very loving friend," "your assured loving friend," and the like. The salaries of the postmasters were usually arranged after negotiation by letter, and, in many cases, by a subsequent visit from a friend on behalf of the postmasters. Whitley rather discouraged visits from the deputies themselves on the subject of salaries, and the object of the friend's visit is not very clear.
While Lord Arlington had reduced the scale of pay in 1667 to something like 30s. a mile per annum, the scale was further reduced under Whitley to about 20s. a mile. The postmasters were not entirely remunerated by salary. They enjoyed privileges not allowed to other innkeepers, which brought them profits and immunities. They had the old monopoly of providing horses for persons riding post, at the fixed rate of 3d. per mile, with 4d. per stage for the guide. They were exempt from serving in the militia and in certain other public capacities, and they frequently had relief from the quartering upon them of soldiers. This exemption did not, however, apply to the regiments of Guards. In some cases, also, they were favoured with a couple ofGazettesweekly, out of which they probably made somethingby attracting thereby customers to their inns, or by circulating them in their towns and districts. From these various sources did the postmasters receive a return for their services to the posts. Beyond this, however, the riding work brought travellers to their houses; and if the wages paid by the Deputy Postmaster-General were not high, the deputy postmasters probably "took it out" of the public. At anyrate, Colonel Whitley had himself some experience of high charges, as appears by a remonstrance made by him to one of his postmasters, as follows:—"I much admire to have a bill of charges sent after me (for I use not to leave any place till these be defrayed), especially since my son paid all that could be demanded, which was judged by all that had skill in these affairs to be extreme (or rather unreasonably) dear. Mr. Davies, I made use of your house outof civility and kindness to you, but did not expect your exactions. I could have had better entertainment, on better terms, elsewhere. Consider well of it; and as I have always been civil and just to you, so let me receive the like from you."
The postmasters were very dilatory in sending up their moneys to the head office, and admonitory letters were daily sent out urging upon them greater punctuality. These varied in terms from a gentle reminder to the veriest threat. The following is a fair specimen of the latter:—"By yours of the 8th you promise to pay the money due for last quarter when you receive this quarter's accounts. I am resolved no man shall be employed by me (in this office) that does not clear every quarter immediately after it is due. Wherefore, I once more require you to send up your money upon the receipt of this letter, or I will endeavour to get it some otherway, and find a more punctual man for the employment.—Your loving friend."
Whitley was greatly troubled, or had every reason to be troubled, by the very frequent delays of the mails. It would be tedious to cite case after case, and more interest will be found to lie in the terms of Whitley's letters, two of which run as follows:—
"To Mr. Sadler, Postmaster of Marlborough.
"I can no longer endure your shameful neglect of the mails. I have grievous complaints from Bristol of the prejudice they receive thereby; and find that it is 7, 8, 9, or 10 hours commonly betwixt you and Chippenham, which is but 15 miles, and ought to be performed in 3 hours. This is a most abominable shame and scandal to the office; and I tell you, Mr Sadler, in few words (for I will not any more trouble myself to write you on the subject), that if this be not speedily amended, butthe like abuse be committed again, you may expect a messenger for you to answer it before those that will be impartial judges and just rewarders of such shameful neglects. Be advised to look better about your business, or you will suffer for it."
"To Mr Ballard, Monmouth.
"I am tormented with complaints from the gentlemen of Glamorgan and Monmouthshires, of the neglect and slow coming of the mails to these parts. I observe the labels, after they have passed Gloucester, commonly omitted to be dated, that it may not so easily be discovered where the fault lies. I have writ so often on this subject that I am weary of it; and admire you should be so little concerned, when it is evident you are so far from performing your duty as you ought, and are obliged to do. I acknowledge to have much respect for you, but cannot suffer thepublic to be wronged by anyone I employ. I pray let this neglect be amended, or it will make a breach; consider well of it."
The threat held out in the former of these two letters of a messenger being sent for the postmaster was really a serious affair, for it meant the taking the postmaster into custody, and his being probably involved in expenses to the extent of £20 before he could obtain release.
It might be supposed that the farming of the posts was a most unbusinesslike way of carrying on the work of the public conveyance of letters. But there is another side to the question; and arguments are not wanting that, for the development of the service, the farming was, in some respects at anyrate, a very satisfactory arrangement. The work was committed to the hands and control of a single individual, who was unfettered by Treasury or other restrictions, and who was bound to find a sum sufficientfor the payment of his rent. He was further under the influence of a personal interest in the way of securing a profit to himself, and as a consequence, while his tenure lasted, he put forth his utmost endeavour to make his office useful to the public, and to extend its scope. Further, upon each increase of rent came a new incentive to fresh exertions in the way indicated, and the growth of the Post Office was steady and rapid.
Whitley was a man of a very conciliatory nature: his letters attest it. He was always anxious to please the public. In disputes over irregularities, and matters relating to alleged overcharges, he was most indulgent. In a letter of apology to Dr. Bathurst, President of Trinity College, Oxford, he writes:—"I will not permit him (the postmaster) to dispute, but submit my interest to your pleasure, being assuredly safe therein. I have ordered him to wait on you, and not only to do you right in thismatter, but conform with your demands in all things; and I humbly beseech you to have that goodness and charity for me as to believe me of another composition than to be guilty of such low unworthy practices, but own me as one that is ambitious of the honour of being esteemed, your," etc. To the postmaster of York he writes in a strain advising like conciliatory dealings with the public. "I cannot imagine," says he, "why you should not think yourself sufficiently empowered by my last and former letters to do right to the merchants in all their just demands; nay further, to gratify them sometimes in little disputes (though they be in the mistake) rather than exasperate and disoblige gentlemen that support the office by their correspondence. If you reflect on my last letter, you will find that I refer it to you and them to do with me (almost) what you please.... I hope when you acquaint these gentlemenwith what I write, it will give them satisfaction, especially seeing I make them chancellors in their own case." In a like matter of dispute at Norwich, Whitley writes to the postmaster:—"I know their own ingenuity will prompt them to consider the usefulness of this office to their commerce, and how we work and travail night and day for them.... I never found, in all my experience, that I lost anything by submitting to the justice and civility of conscientious men." A similar strain of patient forbearance towards the public runs through the whole of Whitley's correspondence.
Whitley was at all times alive to the interests of the office and himself, by giving additional facilities for the sending of letters. Writing to the postmaster of Oxford, he says:—"In my opinion, the College butlers may be useful to you in receiving and dispersing letters, etc., and I wish you would be in a good correspondence with them; andlet your letter-carriers call there for letters, to be sent to London, immediately before the post goes away, as well as to bring letters to them when the post comes in." It was seen that a field for extended business presented itself at Tunbridge Wells. Accordingly Whitley seizes the opportunity and makes the necessary arrangements, giving the postmaster advice and instructions as follows:—"I have ordered the mails to go from hence sooner than ordinary, that the letters may be at Tunbridge early in the morning; wherefore fail not to be there ready to receive them, and then make all possible haste with them to the Wells, that the gentry may have them before they go to their lodgings." This arrangement would doubtless appeal to the love of gossip in the frequenters of the Wells, who would naturally have some rivalry to receive the most recentitems, and to discuss them while they lingered over the morning cup. The post-master was further ordered to call every post-day "on Mr. Miles, confectioner on the Walk, who will deliver you what letters he receives for London or elsewhere." During the season the posts ran daily between London and Tunbridge.
The by-letters occasioned uneasiness to Whitley, because he was entirely in the hands of the postmasters for the accounting of them. He thus defines them:—"By by-letters I mean all letters of your stage and branch sent by your agents or boys, to any place but London or beyond it." The revenue from this class of letters was a matter of arrangement between the Deputy Postmaster-General and the country postmasters, the former finding it a convenient plan to farm this correspondence to the postmasters. Whitley distrusted the returns of by-letters made by his agents, as the following letters to Postmasters show:—"I wonder at your great mistake in your by-letters; theaccount you give me amounts to much more by the year, and yet I have good reason to believe (I speak it without any disrespect or reflection on you) that I have not account of the fourth part of your stage. Your servants may be negligent, and boys abuse you; however, I am at the loss; but resolve, where I find any injustice of that kind hereafter, to sue the bond, and doubt not but some postmasters will be so kind and honest as to give me true information." Again, "I find a great decay in our by-letters of late. I hope you are a person of more integrity than to design (by this means) to beat down the price. Do not do it; I have other measures to go by; you will but wrong yourself as well as me. You do not offer the third part of the value. However, to avoid suspicion, the trouble of accounts, and possibly suits at law, I will let you have it for thirty pounds the year (Hull gives fifty), and take the benefit of by-letters into thebargain. You know I could have other chapmen." Colonel Whitley may have had painful experience of law suits, for he expresses himself to one of his postmasters in the following strain:—"Being forced by Mr. Vaughan's ill-payment to have recourse to the law to get my money, I cannot meet with a sincere attorney, but they juggle and will not serve the writ, pretending they cannot; wherefore, relying much on your kindness and ingenuity, and having no other way to get my right, I send the enclosed writs to you." He gives directions as to the serving of them, and adds, that "it will be an extraordinary kindness to me."
On the 5th July 1673, Whitley wrote his views on the subject of conformity to the postmaster of Belford (Mr. Carr) in the following safe terms. In some respects the letter is amusing. It runs:—"I think it not only convenient but necessary for everypostmaster to conform to the late law about the sacrament and oaths; not that it will anyway concern me or this office, only in the safety and wellbeing of those that relate to it. I pray consult the law itself, being too nice a point for me to give my opinion of, and the judges themselves are shy in the matter; but on the one hand you are sure not to err, therefore that is the safest way." The postmaster of Ware having, by a like omission, got himself into trouble, is thus written to:—"I am sorry to hear that information is given into the Exchequer of your neglect in not taking the oath of allegiance and supremacy and the test lately ordained by Parliament.[6]I fear this may be troublesome to you, it being unsafe for anyone to bear an office that will not conform to the laws established."