Читать книгу The Early History of the Post in Grant and Farm - James Wilson Hyde - Страница 3

CHAPTER I

In order to understand the circumstances under which the public postal service in England was first established, it is necessary to go back to an earlier period, and look at the patents granted to the Chief Postmasters, whose duties did not then go beyond the forwarding of despatches for the monarch or his government. A patent granted by Queen Elizabeth in 1590 to John Stanhope, as Master of the Posts, was surrendered to James I. in 1607, and (with the view, no doubt, of securing the succession to Stanhope's son) a new patent was granted to Stanhope, now Lord Stanhope of Harrington, and to Charles, his son and heir-apparent. The appointment was as "Master of the Messengers and Runners, commonly called the king's posts, as well within the kingdom as in parts beyond the seas, within the king's dominions." The nominal wages or fee attaching to this office amounted to £66, 13s. 4d. per annum, being the same as was granted to the Postmasters Sir William Paget and John Mason in the year 1545. But there were casualties attaching to the office, yielding a more certain income, which were doubtless the sums paid by the deputies for admittance to their employments. This will be referred to hereafter.

In studying the post-office history of this early period, the inquirer is apt to be misled by some of the terms used; for the words "post," "postmaster," "pacquett," and the like, were not always applied in the modern sense, the word "post" sometimes serving to designate common carriers, and "postmaster" being used indifferently to indicate the Master of the Posts and the postmasters on the roads. The word pacquett was also applied to common carriers. An instance of the last mentioned is given in M'Dowall's Chronicles of Lincluden. A letter was written from the abbey on the 24th August 1625, to the "richte noble and verrie guid Lord the Earl of Nithisdaill," in which the following words appear:—They "intreat the richt guid lord to help them suddenly—at once; and more especially that he would procure an order from the King's Treasurer to stay the legal proceedings directed against them, until His Majesty's pleasure in the matter shall have been made known. Because of the urgency of their case, the noble lord is requested to favour them with an answer by a bearer of his own in the event of the ordinary 'pakett' being unavailable." Now the word "pakett" here does not refer to the post, but to the packman—the carrier—with his pack of goods. In what follows we shall endeavour, as far as possible, to use terms that will prevent any confusion of the kind indicated.

The reign of Charles I. was one full of abuses. The king required money to maintain the excesses of his Court; his ministers were called upon to find the money; they themselves had to wring it out of the pockets of the people; and its passage through their hands produced such attenuation that but a small portion reached the royal coffers. Clarendon says that of £200,000 drawn from the subject in a year by various oppressions, scarcely £1500 came to the king's use or account. Monopolies in trade were granted for lump sums paid down, offices were bought and sold, no man seemed secure without support of a patron, and patronage was a marketable commodity.

It will be remembered that Lord Stanhope's patent covered not only the control of the inland posts, but the posts in foreign parts, within the kings dominions. Although Stanhope was not by patent specifically empowered to send or work posts in foreign parts, out of the kings dominions, it appears to have been his practice to do so, undertaking, as may be supposed, all the various duties of conveying the king's letters and packets to whatever parts they might be directed.

A somewhat similar condition of want of funds as that existing in the reign of Charles distinguished the reign of his father, James I.

Now it is quite probable that, for the sole purpose of raising money by the sale of a new office, advantage was taken by James of an opening in Stanhope's patent, to make a new appointment of Master of the Posts in Foreign Parts, out of the kings dominions. By the recital of a patent bearing date the 30th April of the seventeenth year of James I., we learn that the king "appointed that there should be an office or place called Postmaster of England for Foreign Parts, being out of the king's dominions; that the office should be a sole office by itself, and not member or part of any other office or place of Postmaster whatsoever; and that there should be one sufficient person or persons, to be by the king from time to time nominated and appointed, who should be called the Postmaster or Postmasters of England for Foreign Parts, etc.; and, for the considerations therein mentioned, the king appointed Mathew de Quester, and Mathew de Quester, his son, to the said office; to hold to them the said Mathew de Quester, the father, and Mathew de Quester, the son, as well by themselves, or either of them, as by their or either of their sufficient deputy or deputies, during the natural lives of Mathew de Quester, the father, and Mathew de Quester, the son, the said office of Postmaster of England for Foreign Parts, for their natural lives and the life of the survivor," etc.

On the setting up of the De Questers, Stanhope was naturally unwilling to surrender part of the service which he had hitherto undertaken, and a long contest took place between Stanhope and these men, resulting, as it would appear, in confirming the latter in their new office, and in the discomfiture of Stanhope.

Thus from the seventeenth year of the reign of James I. down to the period upon which we are about to enter, commencing in 1632, and for some years thereafter, there were in England two distinct Masters of the Posts—one for places within the kingdom itself and in foreign parts, within the king's dominions; the other for foreign parts, out of the king's dominions. Stanhope filled the one office, the De Questers the other.

It is interesting to know who the people were that are now passing in review before us at this distant date. A return made to the Council by the Lord Mayor in 1635, of strangers inhabiting London, tells us something of the de Questers. It is this:—"In ward of Billingsgate, St. Andrew's parish. Mathew de Quester, late Postmaster, born in Bruges, of 64 years' continuance in London; naturalised by Act of Parliament. All his family English born." He was probably one of the many foreign merchants who at that period were gathered together in the neighbourhood of Lower Thames Street.

By letters patent, dated 15th March 1632, the office of Master of the Posts for Foreign Parts, out of the king's dominions, was made to devolve upon William Frizell and Thomas Witherings. Mathew de Quester the younger had died, and the elder de Quester being stricken in age, "the king … declares his will and pleasure, that the office shall have perpetual continuance, and grants unto William Frizell and Thomas Witherings, gentlemen, the office of place of Postmaster of England for Foreign Parts, out of the king's dominions; to do all things to the said office belonging and appertaining; to hold, exercise, and enjoy the said office of Postmaster of England for Foreign Parts, out of the king's dominions, together with all powers, etc., by themselves or either of them, or their or either of their sufficient deputies, during their natural lives and the life of the survivor, from and after and so soon as the said office shall become void by the death, surrender, forfeiture, or other determination of the estate of Mathew de Quester, the father. The king prohibits all persons other than the said William Frizell and Thomas Witherings from intruding themselves in the said office after the determination of the estate of Mathew de Quester; and the Lord Chamberlain, the Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports, the Secretaries of State, etc., in their several jurisdictions and places, are not only to be aiding and assisting the said Frizell and Witherings, but to the utmost of their power to repress all intruders."

The patent, it will be observed, only vested the patentees in the office as from the death of de Quester; and de Quester the elder was still living. Accordingly, with a view to Frizell and Witherings being at once admitted to the active management of the place, a proclamation was issued, on the 19th July 1632, to the following effect:—

"The late king appointed Mathew de Quester, the father, and Mathew de Quester, the son, Postmaster for Foreign Parts for their lives. Mathew de Quester, the son, being dead, and the father aged and infirm, he (that is, de Quester) has appointed William Frizell and Thomas Witherings his deputies. The king approves this substitution, and charges all his subjects that none of them, other than the said Frizell and Witherings, presume to take up or transmit foreign packets or letters."

Thus Frizell and Witherings entered upon their office as Foreign Postmasters on the 19th of July 1632.

It must be understood that, though there was no authority for carrying letters of the public at this time by the inland posts, it was the practice of the foreign posts to carry the letters of merchants and others to and from the Continent—and the posts who actually conveyed the packets would seem to have been men engaged in mercantile traffic. The following letter, dated Westminster, 16th October 1632, from Humphrey Fulwood to Sir John Coke, Principal Secretary to His Majesty at Court, throws a good deal of light upon the subject:—

"Upon inquiry of Mr. Burlamachi, what should be the cause why letters have not of late come from Germany, the Hague, and Brussels, as usually, he entered into a large relation of the present disorder of the posts. He imputed the fault merely to the posts who have heretofore bought their places. They more minding their own peddling traffic than the service of the State or merchants, omitting many passages, sometimes staying for the vending of their own commodities, many times through neglect by lying in tippling-houses. The opinions of Mr. Burlamachi and Mr. Peter Rycaut favourable to Mr. Witherings and Frizell in their places of Postmasters. For reformation they both agree in one, and that with the proposition wherewith Mr. Witherings hath formerly acquainted your honour. The displacing of these posts, and laying of certain and sure stages whereby His Majesty will save, as Mr. Burlamachi will make appear, above £1000 or £1500 yearly, now expended for expresses," etc.

Mr. Burlamachi, whose Christian name was Philip, and Peter Rycaut were merchants in London, and would no doubt be well informed as to the way in which the mail service was conducted. In the Lord Mayor's return of foreigners residing in London in 1635, Burlamachi is described as follows:—"In the ward of Langbourne, in St. Gabriel, Fenchurch. Mr. Philip Burlamachi, merchant, naturalised by Act of Parliament. He was born in Sedan in France, and has been in England this thirty years and more. He hath certain rooms at Mr. Gould's house in Fenchurch Street, for his necessary occasions of writing there some two or three days in the week; but his dwelling-house, with his wife and children and family, is at Putney." Burlamachi, besides being a merchant, was a great financier, and, as will be seen hereafter, he had intimate relations in money matters with the Court.

Not very long after the date of the letter above quoted, namely, on the 28th January 1633, the following orders for the Foreign Postmasters and packet posts were drawn up by Secretary Coke:—

"In consequence of complaints, both of Ministers of State and merchants, it is thought fit to send no more letters by carriers who come and go at pleasure, but, in conformity with other nations, to erect 'staffetti' or packet posts at fit stages, to run day and night without ceasing, and to be governed by the orders in this paper. Among these it is provided that the Foreign Postmasters shall take the oaths of supremacy and allegiance, shall have an office in London, and shall give notice at what time the public are to bring their letters. A register is to be kept of the writers or bringers of all letters, and of the parties to whom they are sent. The letters are to be put into a packet or budget, which is to be locked up and sealed with the Postmasters' known seal, and to be sent off so that it may reach Dover while there is sufficient daylight for passage over sea the same day. Various other minute regulations are laid down, both for the carriage of the packet to Dover, the sending of the passage-barks to Calais, and the transmission from stage to stage. The course to be adopted with letters received from beyond seas is laid down with equal minuteness. Letters for the Government and foreign ministers residing here were to be immediately delivered to them, after which a roll or table of all other letters was to be set up in the office for every man to view and demand his letters."

In pursuance of the scheme here sketched out, Witherings appears to have been sent to the Continent shortly thereafter; for on the 8th April 1633, he writes from Calais (to Sir John Coke probably) describing the steps then taken in the business:—

"Right honourable and my good patron, I found here the Countess Taxis' secretary with the postmaster of Ghent, they having settled stages betwixt Antwerp and Calais for the speedy conveyance of letters; they have placed a postmaster at Dunkirk, having dismissed all their couriers, and seven days hence they intend to begin by the way of 'staphetto' (estafette) from Antwerp to London; their request is we shall do the like, which accordingly I have ordered my man to do, having taken order at Dover for the passage. The governor of this place promiseth me all favour.

"The boatmen of this place who take their turns for Dover I find unwilling to be obliged to depart upon the coming of the portmantell. But upon the advice of Mr. Skinner and other merchants of our nation in this place, I have found out a very sufficient man, who will oblige himself, with security, that for forty shillings he will wait upon the coming of the packet, upon sight whereof he will depart, engaging himself to carry nothing but the said packet. Asks directions, and will stay till the first packet shall come by 'staphetto' from Antwerp."

This then was the commencement of the forwarding of the continental mails by fixed and regular stages, instead of by carriers proceeding through the whole way, and engaged in other kinds of business.

Witherings had not long entered upon his office, jointly with Frizell, when troubles began. In the year 1633, a curious complication came to light, in which not only Witherings and Frizell, but two or three other persons were involved, and which resulted in the temporary suspension of the Foreign Postmasters from their functions. The matter is referred to in a memorandum from the king to Secretary Windebank, dated August 1633. It runs thus: "The king having granted the place of Foreign Postmaster to his servant William Frizell, he has given the king to understand that, whilst he was beyond seas, Thomas Witherings endeavoured to defraud him of that place, the examination whereof the king has referred to Secretary Windebank. The king understands, moreover, that the place has been mortgaged for money, both by Frizell and Witherings, which he condemns in them both; and has therefore thought good, for the present, that the place shall be sequestered into the hands of Mathew de Quester, the king's ancient servant in that place. Windebank is therefore to send for John Hatt, an attorney, in whom the legal interest of that place, for the present, is vested, and to will him to make an assignment thereof to de Quester."

Although the question of this sequestration was not finally disposed of till the year 1634, the period during which Witherings was removed from the active management and possession of the place was from the 4th September to the 28th December 1633. The details of the arrangement of this business are not easily understood, but it would seem that the first step was to get rid of the attorney; and with this in view the Earl of Arundel (the Earl Marshal) advanced about £1000 to pay off Hatt, the earl retaining possession of Witherings' patent. Another claim was put forward by one Robert Kirkham for £200, due 25th May 1633, for a reversion of the Postmaster's office surrendered to Witherings and Frizell. This indebtedness was not denied by Witherings; but how there came to be a reversion in favour of Kirkham does not appear.

Prior to the difficulties in connection with the suspension of Witherings and Frizell from office, these two men were not getting along smoothly. On 5th June 1633, Witherings writes to (Secretary Coke probably) … "I hear Mr. Frizell declares that the Lord Marshal will, by His Majesty's means, compel me to deliver the place back again, and pretends he will have a bout with me for my own moiety. I beseech you move His Majesty as occasion shall offer, for I am confident the king will be much moved for (in favour of) Mr. Frizell." On 19th June of the same year, Witherings writes to Humphrey Fulwood: "Mr. Frizell is at the Court, pretending that Witherings owes him a great sum, and intending to move His Majesty for a proclamation for possession of the whole place (of Deputy Foreign Postmaster), offering security to be accountable if it be recovered from him again. Witherings owes him nothing. He has sent the affidavit of Frizell's own servant to Secretary Coke. Prays Fulwood to speak to Mr. Secretary that Witherings suffer not in his absence." On the 3rd July, Witherings again writes to Fulwood: "To answer all Frizell's allegations would be troublesome. Upon their meeting, Frizell spoke of paying Witherings back his money; but he is not able. Assures Fulwood that he can clear himself—with the help of his noble friends he doubts nothing. Desires Fulwood to sift him (Frizell presumably), for the knowledge of his intents doth much advance Witherings." Then on the same day, as it happens, the Earl of Arundel, who was at Stirling with the king, writes to Secretary Windebank: "Mr. Frizell's business is referred to Windebank to examine and report to the king. Needs not entreat him to do Frizell favour, since his case is so well understood, and the foulness of Witherings' abuse, which the writer is confident Windebank will represent as it deserves."

Sir John Coke seems to have been the patron and protector of Witherings, who, in a letter to Coke about this time, concludes his communication with the words: "I rest, though never rest, to pray for your honour as my only patron." In a letter sent by Coke to Windebank on the 25th May 1633, Witherings is introduced to the latter thus: "The bearer is the Postmaster who went over to Antwerp and Calais and settled the business of the foreign letters. He has settled with Frizell's assignee, so as the charge of the office is again reduced to one hand. Frizell never did any service in the place, but the king never till now heard of Witherings' name. How he satisfied the merchants, their testimony witnesses; how he acquitted himself at the Council Board, their Order declares. He complains that he is now called again upon some reference which His Majesty remembers not. Secretary Coke must avow that hitherto he has carried himself honestly and with general approbation." The settling with Frizell's assignee may possibly refer to the paying-off of Attorney Hatt by means of money found by the Earl Marshal already referred to.

The criticisms made upon Witherings at this time are somewhat conflicting, and on that account it is not by any means easy to determine what sort of a man he was. On the 31st May 1633, Secretary Windebank writes: "Mr. Witherings the Postmaster's industry and dexterity for that place appeared at the Council-table by many testimonies, in the midst of much powerful opposition. Mr. Witherings misbehaved himself toward my Lord Marshal and his son, the Lord Maltravers, and how he will be able to give them satisfaction I know not." On 9th June, Lord Goring, Master of the Horse to the Queen, writes: "I must highly commend the extraordinary care of the posts; and especially Mr. Witherings, the Master, of whose care Her Majesty hath taken most especial notice, for he is indeed the most diligent in his services that ever I saw."