FOOTNOTES:

[1] 9 April, 17 Elizabeth.—Further att the same Common Hall [of the town of Leicester] it was for dyuers cawses thought good and mete for the service of the Prince to have at the chargies of the Towne certen poste horses kepte, whearevppon theare was appoynted foure to be kepte, which, thees persouns vnderwritten have vndertaken to kepe, and to serve from tyme to tyme so oft as nede shalle requier, for and dureinge the space of one wholle yeare nexte after the date hereof, viz. Mr. Roberte Eyricke, one; Fraunces Norris, chamberlayn, twoe; Thomas Tyars, one. For the which theyre is allowed vnto them of the towne for euerie horse thurtie-three shillinges and foure pence, that is to say for foure horses vili. xiiis. iiiid. Provyded always that if theye the said Robert Eyricke, Frauncis Norrys, and Thomas Tyars doe not kepe good and able horses for that purpose and to be readie vppon one half howres warnynge to forfitt, lose, and paye for euerie tyme to the Chamber of the Towne of Leycester the somme of fyve shillinges. For the payement of the said xxli. nobles it is further agreed vppon, in the manner and forme followinge, That is to saye, the Mayor and euerie of his bretherene called the xxiiii. to paye iis. a pece, and euerie of the xlviii. xiid. a pece, and the Resydue that shalbe then lackinge to be levied of the commonaltie and inhabitantes of the said towne and the liberties thereof.—Appendix to the Eighth Report of the Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts, p. 425.

[2] The two posts were, at first, distinguished by different names. The travellers' post was called "The thorough poste," and the letter post was called "The Poste for the Pacquet."

[3] Austria, in the infancy of her post office, appears to have had much the same experience. "The postmasters," writes M. Læper, Director of Posts at Markirch, "were in no way protected from the most outrageous behaviour on the part of travellers, and were unable to prevent them from overloading the horses and vehicles with unreasonably heavy things, chests, boxes, and similar articles, by which the conveyance of the same was delayed. They could not hinder many travellers from riding heavily-laden horses at full speed over hill and dale without drawing rein, so that the animals were crippled, disabled, or even ridden to death, and in consequence the postmasters were frequently unable to carry out the service for want of horses. The worst treatment, however, which the postmasters experienced was at the hands of cavaliers and couriers, who often demanded more horses than they needed, took them by force, overloaded the coaches with two or three servants, and with an immoderate quantity of luggage, and paid an arbitrary sum, just whatever they pleased, often not half what was due."—L'Union Postale of October 1, 1885.

[4] An amusing illustration of the value which, at the end of the sixteenth century, was set upon cloth made in London is afforded by a letter from Frederick the Second of Denmark to Queen Elizabeth. This letter, dated the 14th of June 1585, is thus summarised in the 46th Annual Report of the Deputy-Keeper of the Public Records, Appendix ii., page 28: "Has for some years past had cloth prepared in London of different colours and after a particular pattern, for his use in hunting both in summer and winter. Hears now that certain German merchants, having found this out, have had similar cloth manufactured, which they sell everywhere, outside his Court and family, to many inquisitive and foolish imitators, at a very dear rate. It is no concern of his what anybody may wear, but still, as this cloth was made of a special kind and colour for himself, he takes it ill that it should be sold to others, and begs her therefore (on the application of his agent, Thomas Thenneker) strictly to prohibit the sale."

[5] The Proclamation enjoined that on letters "to Plymouth, Exeter, and with the two other places in that road," Witherings should "take the like port that now is paid, as near as possibly he can."

[6] Her Majesty's Mails, by William Lewins, p. 19.

[7] The term "postage," in the sense of a charge upon a letter, is comparatively modern. The Act of 1764 is the first so to use it. The term is indeed used in the Act of 1660, but there it signifies the hire of a horse for travelling. "Each horse's hire or postage."

[8] Lord Macaulay's words are:—"The revenue of this establishment was not derived solely from the charge for the transmission of letters. The Post Office alone was entitled to furnish post-horses; and, from the care with which this monopoly was guarded, we may infer that it was found profitable."

[9] Curiously enough, the Post Office Report for 1854 gives the year as 1683; but this is an error.

[10] Here also the Post Office Report for 1854 is in error. It says that at first there was no limit to the weight of a packet.

[11] The exact date of incorporation is uncertain. The decision in the Court of King's Bench was given in Michaelmas term 1682; but the first public advertisement of the penny post does not appear to have been issued by the Postmaster-General until the 11th of March 1684/5.

[12] In the reigns of Charles II. and James II. the practice of billeting, illegal as it then was, was necessarily resorted to in order to provide quarters for the troops they maintained in time of peace; and even billeting in private houses was not unknown. An Act of 1689, the second Mutiny Act, as it is called, while forbidding billeting in private houses, authorised it at "inns, livery stables, ale houses, victualling houses, and all houses selling brandy, strong waters, cyder or metheglin, by retaile, to be dranke in their houses."

[13] In the agreement with Ralph Allen, dated thirty years later, bye-letters are defined to be "letters not going or coming from, to, or through London."

[14] Occasionally, even after William's accession, the postmasters-general addressed the King direct. The remonstrance against quartering soldiers upon postmasters was so addressed. This document is dated the 1st of February 1692/3.

[15] In the case of Grimsby it is the more surprising that this should have been so, because out of the only five towns in the kingdom which the Act of 1660 mentions by name Grimsby is one. According to this Act the post was to go there once a week.

[16] 1661. Feb. 3rd. Robert Reade to Charles Spellman. "Att the right honourable my Lord Townshend's in the Old Palace Yard, Westminster." The writer says that he has as yet received no command from Mr. Spellman or from Lord Townshend, "nor do I wonder at it, because the flying post lay drunke last Friday at Fakenham (being the day that he should have binn at Thetford to take those letters then there which he should bring hether on Saterday), and had not changed his quarter yesterday as I am informed by one of Scott's men who saw him pittyfully drunke. The cuntry complaines of him."—Historical Manuscripts Commission, Eleventh Report, Appendix, Part iv. p. 25.

[17] The Forty-Sixth Annual Report of the Deputy-Keeper of the Public Records, Appendix ii. p. 69.

[18] Clarendon's Life, vol. i. p. 135.

[19] Writing in 1709, Mr. Manley, the postmaster-general's deputy in Dublin, says, "There are not less than a thousand more houses now than there were at my first coming here [i.e. in 1703]. Besides, there are many new streets now laid out and buildings erecting every day."

[20] "To divers Masters of Shipps for 60447 letters by them brought from forreigne parts this year at one penny each according to the usage—£251:17:3."—Extract from writ of Privy Seal for passing the accounts of "our Right Trusty and Right well-beloved Couzen and Councellor Lawrence Earle of Rochester, Late our High Treasurer of England."

[21] "This is to give notice that Lancellot Plumer and William Barret are appointed by the Postmaster-General of England to receive all such letters and pacquets from masters of ships and vessels, mariners and passengers as shall be by them hereafter brought in any ships or vessels into the Port of London, to the end the same may be delivered with speed and safety according to their respective directions and the laws of this kingdom; and that all masters of ships or vessels and all mariners and passengers may the better take notice thereof, the Right Honourable the Lords of the Admiralty have directed that the boat employed in this service do carry colours, in which there is to be represented a man on horseback blowing a post horn."—London Gazette, No. 3247, from Monday 21st December to Thursday 24th December 1696.

[22] Equal, at the then rate of exchange, to £2437:10s.

[23] "It being a certain maxim," he wrote to the postmasters-general on the 15th of February 1707, "that as Trade is the producer of correspondence, so trade is governed and influenced by the certainty and quickness of correspondence."

[24] In 1706, Court or State letters, for at this time the terms were used indiscriminately, were defined to be letters directed to "the Queen, His Royal Highness the Prince, the Lord High Treasurer, and the two principal Secretarys of State and their clarks." Sometimes, but more rarely, they were called "Queen's letters."

[25] Here is one among many similar complaints addressed by the postmasters-general to the packet agent at Harwich: "We admire to find the two Bags with the States letters brought over by the Prince and Dispatch which arrived at Harwich June 21st at 7 in the morning should not be dispatcht till 10 the same day; as also at the comeing in of the Mayls, one of which being dispatcht at 12 arrived here at 11 at night, yet the other came not till 7 next morning."

[26] The following is a specimen of the protection order given:—

To all Commanders and Officers of our Shipps, Pressmasters and others whome it may concerne.


James R.

You are not to imprest into our service any of the six persons hereunder named belonging to the Jane of Dover, whereof Richard Moone is master, the said vessell being employed in our service as a pacquett boate at Dover. Given at our Court at Whitehall the 6th of October 1688.

By His Majesty's Command.

Pepys.

1. Anth. Deleau.
2. Jasper Moore.
3. David Williams.
4. Pet. Foster.
5. Dennis Matthew.
6. Wm. Ambross.

[27] Equal to £562:10s.

[28] This captain had long been noted for his truculent conduct. Here is a letter which the postmasters-general had written to him two or three years before:—

General Post Office, May 13, 1704.

Captain Chenal—We received the mail from Portugal brought over by you in the Mansbridge packet boat which arriv'd here on Wednesday last. We yesterday received your letter and journal of the said voyage, with the certificate from the sailors who remained in the service the last voyage. We are concern'd to find such differences among persons imploy'd under us, but do think the best way to compose them is to advise every one to mind their proper business and duty. We do think you may keep all your officers and sailors to strict duty without so rugged a treatment as is complain'd of. As we are desirous of good discipline, so are we of good agreement, to which we would have our agent and yourself to contribute your endeavours.

We herewith send you a specimen of a method to keep an abstract of your journal by which you would save yourself and us much trouble by observing.—We are, your loving friends,

R. Cotton.
T. Frankland.

[29] The packet agent at Falmouth.

[30] The provision is as follows: "And for the better management of the Post Office, be it enacted that the postmaster-general shall observe such orders and instructions concerning the settlement of Posts and stages upon the several roads, Cross roads, and Byeways within the United Kingdom and other Her Majesty's Dominions, as Her Majesty shall from time to time give in that behalf."—1 Vic. cap. xxxiii. sec. 8.

[31] The victory at Oudenarde. Who Mr. Bowen was we are not informed.

[32] Mr. (afterwards Sir John) Evelyn had recently succeeded Sir Robert Cotton as postmaster-general.

[33] This is an allusion to the period antecedent to 1657.

[34] These runners or post-boys carried the mail through the whole journey, resting by the way. It was not, according to common repute, until about the year 1750 that the mail began to be carried from stage to stage by different post-boys.

[35] In London the practice continued until the end of 1846; and in Dublin, which was the last town in the United Kingdom to give it up, until September 1859.

[36] Even the notice to the public announcing the change was as unapologetic as it well could be:—"These are to give notice that by the Act of Parliament for establishing a General Post Office all letters and packets directed to and sent from places distant ten miles or above from the said office in London, which before the second of this instant June were received and delivered by the officers of the penny post, are now subjected to the same rates of postage as general post letters; and that for the accommodation of the inhabitants of such places their letters will be conveyed with the same regularity and dispatch as formerly, being first taxed with the rates and stamped with the mark of the General Post Office; and that all parcels will likewise be taxed at the rate of 2s. per ounce, as the said Act directs."

[37] Chamberlayne's State of England, 1710.

[38] The following letter affords an instance of the exertion of authority referred to in the text:—

To the Deputys between London and Tinmouth.

General Post Office,
April 6, 1708.

Gentlemen—The bearer hereof, Mr. John Farra, being directed by order of the Lord High Treasurer to proceed to Tinmouth on the publick affairs of the Government, I am ordered by the postmasters-general to require you to furnish the said gentleman with a single horse [i.e. a horse without a guide] if required through your several stages, he being well acquainted with the roads and coming recommended by such authority, which by their order is signified by, Gentlemen, your most humble servant,

B. Waterhouse,
Secretary.

[39] In documents intended for the public eye it was the practice of the postmasters-general—and it was by them that these warrants were prepared—to speak of an existing abuse as an abuse that was past. This was, of course, to avoid giving offence.

[40] "And whereas divers deputy postmasters do collect great quantities of post letters called by or way letters and, by clandestine and private agreements amongst themselves, do convey the same post in their respective mails, or by bags, according to their several directions, without accounting for the same or endorsing the same on their bills, to the great detriment of Her Majesty's revenues."—9 Anne, cap. x. sec. 18.

[41] The leases of seven out of the nine branches were cancelled in 1716; and those of the other two the postmasters-general expressed their intention of cancelling with as little delay as possible. And yet as regards one of the number, viz. the Chichester branch, there is reason to doubt whether it did not survive until the year 1769.

[42] Here are two letters they wrote:—

To Mr. Culvert.

Nov. 1, 1714.

Sir—As the three inclosed letters are directed to you in several places we have reason to think that some persons have presumed to take the liberty of your name. This practice is so great an abuse upon this office, and so very prejudicial to His Majesty's revenue, that we must desire you'll be pleased to send such letters inclosed that don't belong to you to the office to be charged; and we are very well assured you'll discourage the like practice for the future.

—We are, sir, your most humble servants,

T. Frankland.
J. Evelyn.

To Sir Richard Grosvenor, Bart.

April 29, 1715.

Sir—Having observed a letter directed to the Rev. Mr. Harwood at Billingsgate that arrived here yesterday in an Irish mail frank't with your name in Ireland, and knowing that you are in England, we have reason to think that somebody in that kingdom has taken the liberty of signing your name to the prejudice of His Majesty's revenue, which is a practice that we are convinced you will discourage, and it is in order thereunto that you have this trouble from your most humble servants,

Cornwallis.
James Craggs.

[43] A strongly-worded petition on the subject was presented to Parliament only a year or two after the Restoration. This petition, after calling the charge an "abuse and extortion," goes on to say that "it cannot be imagined the Parliament should either so far forget themselves, or the countrey for which they served, or the necessary and convenient correspondence, as well as the trade of His Majesties dominions, as to put them upon worse and harder tearms than foreigners, or foreign trade, to the prejudice of the kingdom...."

[44] Historical Manuscripts Commission, Appendix to Eleventh Report, Part iv. pp. 233, 234.

[45] British Curiosities in Art and Nature, likewise an Account of the Posts, Markets, and Fair-Towns, 1728.

[46] The book was afterwards published—The Gentleman's Pocket-Farrier, by Doctor Henry Bracken of Lancaster, 1735.

[47] Lord Sandwich was postmaster-general in 1768.

[48] This, although unknown probably to the postmasters until now, was no new discovery. As far back as 1674 John Ogilby had called attention to the erroneous reckonings in vogue. Ogilby had been commissioned by Charles the Second to survey and measure the principal roads of England, and having performed his task he published the result of his labours in a large folio volume. In the preface to an abridgment of this work, published in 1711, he thus wrote: "The distances are all along reckoned in measur'd miles and furlongs, beginning from the Standard in Cornhil, so that the reader must not be surprized when he finds the number of miles set down here exceed the common computation. For example, from London to York are computed but 150 miles, whereas by measure the distance is 192 miles. And computation being very uncertain, it must be granted that no exactness could be observed but [by] adhering constantly to the standard-mile of 1760 yards, which contains eight furlongs."

[49] This explains why in the Road Books of the time the distance between two places is stated differently in two parallel columns under the initials C and M, the one being the computed and the other the measured distance.

[50] 26 Geo. II. cap. xiii. sec. 7.

[51] The box into which the letters fell was at this time an open one, i.e. without a cover and movable. It was not until 1792 that the letter-box was closed, fixed, and locked.

[52] Among these robberies there was, so far as we are aware, only one which possessed any feature of interest; and in this case the interest was of a psychological nature. Gardner, a postman, was stopped by three highwaymen on Winchmore Hill, and, on his refusing to give up his letters, they murdered him. Atrocities of this kind had been frequent, and executions had failed to check them. But the resources of civilisation were not exhausted. Lord Lovell—or the Earl of Leicester, as he had now become—waited upon the King and procured His Majesty's assent that, after execution, the highwaymen's bodies should be hung in chains. To be hanged was one thing; after hanging, to have one's body suspended in chains was another. This was an indignity to which no respectable criminal should be called upon to submit. Such would seem to be the idea conveyed in the following letter which Leicester received:—

To the Right Hon. the Earl of Leicester, at Holkham, Norfolk.

Thursday, Oct. 1753.

My Lord—I find that it was by your orders that Mr. Stockdale was hung in chains. Now, if you don't order him to be taken down, I will set fire to your house and blow your brains out the first opportunity.

Stockdale was clerk to a proctor in Doctors Commons.

[53] Elsewhere we have expressed a desire to avoid, as far as possible, the use of technical terms, and the propriety of this course will probably not be disputed when we state that the charge against Bell was that having "crowned the advanced letters" he failed to account for the proceeds. An "advanced" letter was one on which the postage had been advanced, a letter which, having been undercharged in the country, was surcharged in London. To "crown" a letter was to impress it with the stamp of the Crown, denoting that the surcharge had been made. Virtually, therefore, the charge against Bell was that he had embezzled the surcharges.

[54] Of Allen's personal appearance the only account, so far as we are aware, is to be found in the correspondence of Samuel Derrick, Master of the Ceremonies at Bath. Derrick writes, under date May 10, 1763: "I have had an opportunity of visiting Mr. Allen in the train of the French Ambassador. He is a very grave, well-looking old man, plain in his dress, resembling that of a Quaker, and courteous in his behaviour. I suppose he cannot be much under seventy."—Vol. ii. p. 94.

[55] 1: The Present State of Great Britain and Ireland, published in 1742, states that at that time compensation was still given for losses sustained in the penny post. The words are: "If a parcel happen to miscarry, the value thereof is to be made good by the office, provided the things were securely inclosed and fast sealed up under the impression of some remarkable seal." This is an error; and that an error should be made on the point serves to confirm the view that little was known of the Post Office and its doings even 150 years ago. That compensation was not at that time given for losses is beyond all question. It happens that in that very year, 1742, a Mr. Vavasour appealed to Whitehall to grant him compensation for the loss of bank notes to the amount of £20 which had been stolen from a letter in its transit through the post; and the postmasters-general, after stating that no precedent existed for granting compensation, implored the Treasury not to create one. "All persons," they write under date the 4th of August 1742, "that for their own convenience send notes or bills of value by the post inclosed in letters do so at their own risque without any foundation that we know of for recovery of this office in case they should be stolen or lost by robbery or other accidents. And this we take to be not only reasonable but just in all construction of law." Again, in 1778 an action for compensation was brought against the Post Office, and Lord Mansfield, after delivering the unanimous opinion of the Court of King's Bench that the postmasters-general were not responsible for losses sustained in their department, proceeded to observe that no similar action had been brought since the year 1699. Giles Jacob, in his Law Dictionary, published in the last century, gives this account of the matter: "It was determined so long ago as 13 Will. III., in the case of Lane v. Cotton, by three judges of the Court of King's Bench, though contrary to Lord Chief Justice Holt's opinion, that no action could be maintained against the postmasters-general for the loss of bills or articles sent in letters by the post."

[56] The reason for the provision was thus given in the preamble: "Whereas many heavy and bulky packets and parcels are now sent and conveyed by such carriage which by their bulk and weight greatly retard the speedy delivery thereof...."—5 Geo. III. cap. xxv. sec. 14.

[57] For what constituency Richard Hiver sat we have been unable to discover. His name does not appear in the return of members of Parliament presented to the House of Commons in 1878.

[58] "Whereas the several streets, lanes, squares, yards, courts, alleys, passages and places within the city of London and the liberties thereof are in general ill-paved and cleansed and not duly enlightened, and are also greatly obstructed by posts and annoyed by signs, spouts, and gutters projecting into and over the same, whereby and by sundry other encroachments and annoyances they are rendered incommodious and in some parts dangerous not only to the inhabitants but to all others passing through the same or resorting thereto...."

[59] Thus, Mrs. Thrale to Doctor Johnson. Writing from Bath on the 4th of July 1784, she says: "I write by the coach the more speedily and effectually to prevent your coming hither."—Hayward's Autobiography of Mrs. Piozzi, vol. i. p. 241.

[60] Thus, the Act 20 Geo. III. cap. li. sec. 2—an Act passed four years before the mails were carried by coach:—

"That every person who shall keep any four-wheeled chaise or other machine commonly called a diligence or post-coach, or by what name soever such carriages now are or hereafter shall be called or known...."

That the term post-coach, as distinguished from mail-coach, was in vogue as late as 1827 appears from evidence taken in that year before the Commissioners of Revenue Inquiry—"(Q.) Are you acquainted with the post-coaches? (A.) Not any very great deal. (Q.) Comparing them with mail-coaches, which do you think are the best formed? (A.) Decidedly the mail-coaches, I think."—Appendix to Eighteenth Report, p. 443.

[61] A foreign registered letter outwards would be a letter registered as far as Dover or Harwich or Falmouth for transmission abroad, and possibly on board ship. A foreign registered letter inwards would not be the exact converse, for there would be no registration from the port of arrival to London. The fee of 5s. covered the registration of a letter only from London to its destination.

[62] i.e. boats. At Liverpool packets, in the sense of boats commissioned by Government to carry letters, did not at this time exist.

[63] The King's physician.

[64] The Post Office accounts for the year 1749 were not passed until 1784; and then only through the exertions of Lord Mountstuart, who had succeeded Mr. Aislabie as one of the auditors of His Majesty's imprests.

[65] A letter to a member of Parliament on mail-coaches, by Thomas Pennant, Esq., 1792.

[66] At this time the number of newspapers passing through the London office averaged 80,000 a week, of which 78,000 were from London to the country and 2000 from the country to London. Mixed, that is wet and dry together, they were computed to weigh sixteen to the pound.

[67] How Carteret managed to retain his appointment for more than eighteen years is not the least perplexing of Post Office problems. Meanwhile the joint postmaster-generalship had undergone the following changes:—

Lord Le Despencer}From Jan. 16, 1771,
Right Hon. Henry F. Thynne (afterwards Carteret)}to Dec. 11, 1781.
Right Hon. Henry F. Carteret (sometime Thynne){From Dec. 11, 1781,
{to Jan. 24, 1782.
Right Hon. Henry F. Carteret}From Jan. 24, 1782,
Viscount Barrington}to April 25, 1782.
Right Hon. Henry F. Carteret}From April 25, 1782,
Earl of Tankerville}to May 1, 1783.
Right Hon. Henry F. Carteret}From May 1, 1783,
Lord Foley}to Jan. 7, 1784.
Right Hon. Henry F. Carteret, created Lord}
Carteret Jan. 29, 1784}From Jan. 7, 1784,
Earl of Tankerville (a second time)}to Sept. 19, 1786.
Lord Carteret}From Sept. 19, 1786,
Earl of Clarendon}to Dec. 10, 1786.
Lord Carteret{From Dec. 10, 1786,
{to July 6, 1787.
Lord Carteret}From July 6, 1787,
Lord Walsingham}to Sept. 19, 1789.

[68] Sir Rowland Hill, in his Autobiography (vol. ii. p. 28), does not hesitate to write as follows: "Incredible as it may appear to my readers, it is nevertheless true that so late as 1844 a system, dating from some far distant time, was in full operation, under which clerks from the foreign office used to attend on the arrival of mails from abroad, to open the letters addressed to certain ministers resident in England, and make from them such extracts as they deemed useful for the service of Government."

[69] Even in such a detail as the manner of dismissal, Pitt shewed his usual consideration for Palmer. By the minister's direction Palmer was not to be dismissed in so many words. The postmasters-general were simply to make out another nominal list of the establishment, and from this list Palmer's name was to be excluded.

[70] Later on, Mr. Pickwick would seem to have extended his operations. "(Q.) Are you in the habit of working coaches to any great distance from London? (A.) I work them half-way to Bristol. With Mr. Pickwick of Bath I work to Newbury."—Evidence of Mr. William Home, taken on the 2nd of March 1819 before the Select Committee on the Highways of the Kingdom.

[71] The packet agency had been removed from Harwich to Yarmouth during the war. Yarmouth, by road, is 124 miles from London.

[72] Mrs. Davy was born in 1760.

[73] As late as 1854 Bournemouth received its letters from Poole by donkey and cart.

[74] This was a commission of three halfpence on every dozen newspapers, besides one newspaper in every quire.

[75] From this time the expression "banker's frank" passed into a by-word, and was used to denote any frank, whether given by a banker or not, which was in excess of the prescribed number.

[76] This is Godolphin's letter:—

Treasury Chambers, June 8, 1703.

Gentlemen—My Lord Treasurer hath commanded me to signify to you his Lordship's direction that whenever your Sollicitor shall pay any fees to any Serjeant or Councellor at law, or give any sum or sums of money for coppys to any Clerk or Clerks or Officers in any Court or Courts of Record at Westminster, he shall take a ticket subscribed with the hand and name of the same Serjeant or Councellor or from the Clerk or Officer testifying how much he hath received for his fee or hath been paid by him for coppys, and at what time and how often, according to the statute in the third year of the reign of King James the First, made and provided in that behalf, and His Lordship directs you to take care that what money shall be hereafter expended for law charges relating to the Revenue under your management, the same be so expressed in the Bill of Incidents, that it may appear to His Lordship that the above-mentioned directions have been duly comply'd with.—I am, gentlemen, your most humble servant,

William Lowndes.

Sir Robert Cotton, Knight, and
Sir Thomas Frankland, Bart.

[77] 42 George III. cap. lxxxi. (June 20, 1802).

[78] This experience is not to be compared with that of Inspector Dicker, who in 1839 wrote to the Secretary of the Post Office as follows:—

"Honoured Sir ... On arriving at Caxton, in the course of conversation with the landlord of the Crown Public-House respecting the loss of the above-mentioned bag, he informed me he had found a mail bag secreted under an oak floor between the joists that supported the floor in one of the upper rooms of his house, and that the letters it contained were of very ancient date, as far back as the year 1702. I requested to be allowed to see them, and, on his producing them, discovered it to be a London bag labelled Tuxford. I desired to be allowed to take two of the letters with me and a bit of the bag, which I gave to Mr. Peacock the solicitor. The only intelligence I could gain as to the probable cause of the bag being found there was that a post-rider was robbed and murdered about the date of the above-mentioned letters." The two letters are still with the official papers. One of them is undecipherable. The other is nearly as legible as on the day it was written. In it the writer announces to his uncle the death of his mother from "the Small Pox and purples," and states that this disease is devastating the town of Kirtlington.

[79] Weekly Political Register, Nos. 25 and 26, 21st and 28th Dec. 1805.

[80] What we have here called "franked" newspapers went free in both directions; but of course it was only newspapers outwards that bore a signature on the superscription. On those inwards a signature was immaterial, as they would in any case go, without being charged, direct from the port of arrival to Lombard Street. Abroad, special arrangements for their transit and delivery were made from London. Thus, the London Office by means of its private agency could get an English newspaper delivered in Paris for 2d. By post, the charge between Calais and Paris would have been from 3s. to 4s.

[81] One of the first, if not the very first, against whom proceedings were taken under this provision of the statute was Robert Wetherall, master of the ship Albinia, from Gravesend to the Cape of Good Hope. Wetherall had at the last moment refused to take the mails on board, consisting of 173 letters. On the advice of the law officers the Post Office contemplated proceeding against him by indictment; but the Government decided to proceed by information, with a view apparently to give to the case greater importance and notoriety.

[82] Clancarty was afterwards appointed joint postmaster-general of England. This appointment he held from 30th September 1814 to 6th April 1816, but he never took it up. Between the dates mentioned he was employed on missions abroad.

[83] At one time the express newspapers went all the way from London to Dublin post free; but this, at the date of the advertisement, had been stopped, and as far as Holyhead their carriage was now being provided for under an arrangement with the London agents. From Holyhead to Dublin, however, they still went in the mail free of postage, and on arrival in Dublin such of them as were destined for the country were franked by the clerks of the roads.

[84] In 1823 the Irish mail-coaches travelled daily a distance of 1450 miles at a cost to the Post Office of more than £30,000 a year, while in England the cost over the same number of miles would have been only £7500. From this, however, it is not to be understood that in one country the cost was four times as heavy as in the other, because the Irish mile was longer than the English one by about two furlongs, and in England the contractors did not, as they did in Ireland, provide the coaches.

[85] The exact number of passengers in the year 1814 was 14,577, made up as follows: Cabin passengers, 12,142; passengers' servants, 1136; hold passengers, 1299.

[86] The following are copies of the advertisements referred to:—

"The Howth Royal Mail-Coach sets out every evening at seven o'clock from the Cork Coach Office, 12 Dawson Street, where passengers and luggage will be booked, and arrives at Howth at a quarter after eight, when the packet will immediately sail (independently of the tide) with the Irish mails and passengers for Holyhead. From the admirable construction of these vessels for fast sailing and excellent accommodation the passage from the pier at Howth to Holyhead will on the average be performed in one-third less time than by the Pigeon House. Besides, as no more than eight or ten passengers will be admitted into any one of these packets, the public, on the score of expedition and comfort, will soon experience the advantage of going to Holyhead by Howth.

"Passengers by the mail-coach have a preference as to berths in the packets.

"July 21, 1813."

"Howth Royal Mail-Coach, well guarded, sets out from the Cork Coach Office, No. 12 Dawson Street, at seven o'clock every evening with mails and passengers to His Majesty's express packets at Howth, from whence one of these excellent vessels sails at half after eight o'clock every night for Holyhead.

"July 31, 1813."

[87] By the Post Office packets the number of passengers between Holyhead and Dublin during the years 1818-[20] was as follows:—

Year.Number of
Passengers.
181813,128
181912,956
18207,468

Private steam packets began to ply in July 1819.

[88] i.e. Kinniogga, the old name for Cernioge.

[89] "God knows whether we are to remain postmen or not, or whether all the lights which philosophy is now throwing upon coach-making are not to be left by us as an official legacy to some more pliant successors."—Chesterfield to Walsingham, 22nd April 1792.

[90] The postage between Liverpool and Dublin by way of Holyhead was 13d., as thus made up:—

Inland postage to Holyhead9d.
For the Conway Bridge1d.
For the Menai Bridge1d.
Sea postage2d.
—
13d.
—

[91] The official intimation was received at the Post Office on the 28th of May. On the same day Lord Salisbury wrote to the receiver-general as follows:—

General Post Office, May 28, 1822.

Sir—I have received instructions from the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury to acquaint you that on the 5th of July next you are to retain in your hands the salary of £2500 hitherto paid to me as joint postmaster-general.—I am, etc.,

Salisbury.

R. Willimott, Esq., Receiver-General.

[92] The sums abated were afterwards returned. It was not until 1834 that abatements towards superannuation were imposed by statute.

[93] 42 George III. cap. lxiii. sec. 10.

[94] This is the circular which was issued to postmasters on the occasion of a dissolution:—

"The Parliament is dissolved. The franks of this evening are necessarily charged with postage, and you will immediately charge all letters and packets excepting the letters franked by such public officers as are by law at all times exempted from postage. Full instructions will be sent to-morrow."

[95] Since 1814 receipts had been given for registered letters. In that year Mr. H. M. Raikes, of 4 Portman Square, represented that he frequently sent valuable parcels of diamonds between this country and Holland, and that these parcels he insured, but that, to be certain of recovering his insurance should any casualty happen, "the London merchant ought to have some proof in his possession of his having delivered such a packet into the charge of the Post Office." If, he added, the clerks would give a receipt, the merchant would gladly give them for their trouble an additional guinea. The suggestion to charge a second guinea was not adopted; but from that time a receipt had been given for a registered letter in the following form:—

Foreign Post Office.

London 181

It is hereby certified that .................... has registered at this office a
sealed packet said to contain .................... addressed to ....................
which will be forwarded to .................... by the mail of this evening;
but for its safe conveyance this office is not responsible.

(Signature) ....................

[96] 7 and 8 George IV. cap. xxi.

[97] At the outset in 1792 the limit had indeed been fixed at £5:5s.; but even in the first year this limit was largely exceeded. During the three months ending the 10th of October 1800, 697 money orders were issued, viz. 220 in London and 477 in the country, representing an aggregate amount of £8863, or at the rate of more than £12 apiece.

[98] Among the records of the Post Office is still preserved a money order drawn by one postmaster upon another at the beginning of the century. A facsimile of it is given in the Appendix. [see facsimile]

[99] Five within a single year. The Duke of Richmond ceased to be postmaster-general in July 1834; and he was followed by Lord Conyngham, Lord Maryborough, Lord Conyngham a second time, and Lord Lichfield, the last of whom was appointed in May 1835.

[100] The Right Hon. Thomas Spring Rice.

[101] The concentration of the offices of Lord Treasurer and Postmaster-General in one person served to facilitate the transaction of Post Office business in a manner which those who have had experience of the present system will not be slow to understand. Take, for instance, the question of increasing a Post Office servant's salary. At the present time the Postmaster-General may be thoroughly convinced himself that an increase is called for, but—what is a very different matter—he has also to convince the Treasury. In 1686 the Postmaster-General's own conviction was enough. The following will serve as an illustration. Thomas Cale, Postmaster of Bristol, applies for an increase of salary, and Frowde, the Governor, satisfies Rochester that an increase will be proper. Forthwith issues a document, of which the operative part is as follows:—"You are therefore of opinion that the said salary (£50) is very small considering the expense the petitioner is att, and his extraordinary trouble, Bristoll being a greate Citty, but you say that you doe not think all the things he setts downe in the aforesaid accompt ought to be allowed him, the example being of very ill consequence, for (as you informe me) you doe not allow either candles, packthread, wax, ink, penns or paper to any of the Postmasters, nor office-rent, nor returnes of mony, you are therefore of opinion that tenn pounds per annum to his former salary of £50 will be a reasonable allowance, and the petitioner will be therewith satisfied, these are therefore to pray and require you" to raise his salary from £50 to £60 accordingly.

Rochester.

Whitehall Treasury Chambers, Dec. 13, 1686.