The Early History of the Post in Grant and Farm

by James Wilson Hyde

These various petitions set forth not only that the country postmasters were being badly treated in regard to their pay,—this pay being what may conveniently be described as their retaining-fee,—but that there was some stirring-up by Witherings of derelictions of duty on the part of the postmasters.

Allusion has already been made to the fact that matters could not go along smoothly with the whole system of posts, seeing that the control was in two sets of hands, and that the spheres of action were not properly divided. So a blow shortly fell upon Lord Stanhope. This must, apparently, have been unlooked for by Stanhope, for, shortly before his fall, a proclamation was issued by the king bearing Stanhope's signature. It had regard to the duties of the postmasters, and is supposed to have been issued early in the year 1637. Its chief provisions were: that (1) in all places where posts were laid for the packet, the postmasters were to have the benefit and pre-eminence of letting, furnishing, and appointing of horses to all riding in post; that (2) none were to be regarded as riding on public affairs unless with special commission signed by one of our Principal Secretaries of State, or six at least of the Privy Council, etc.; that the postmasters or owners of the horses were to be allowed to claim 2-1/2d. per mile (besides the guide's groats); but that private persons riding post were to pay such rate as might be agreed upon between the parties; that (3) no horse was to be ridden away until the fare was first paid, nor taken beyond the next stage without the owner's consent; baggage was not to exceed 30 lbs., and no horse was to be ridden above seven miles an hour in summer, or six in winter; and that (4) the constables and magistrates were to take up horses for the postmaster's service in the posts when the postmaster was himself short of horses. Not long after the issue of the proclamation above referred to, Lord Stanhope was driven from office. The immediate cause is not apparent; but the fact is dealt with in the following petition, dated March 1637:—

"Petition of Charles Lord Stanhope, late Postmaster of England and Wales, to the king:—

"There is due to the petitioner for his fee of 100 marks per annum (£66, 13s. 4d.), as Master and Comptroller of the Posts, being in arrear for 19 years and more. £1266, 13s. 4d., which petitioner, when he enjoyed the said place, was in some sort better able to forbear, and therefore did not importune for the same; but now, having resigned the said office, full sore against his will, but in obedience to His Majesty's pleasure, signified to him by the Commissioners for the Posts,—the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lord Keeper, the Lord Treasurer, Lord Cottington, and the Secretaries Coke and Windebank,—he has lost divers profits incident thereunto, which were a great help to his support (his other means left by his father being small as yet, and most of it in his mother's hands), whereby, since the loss of his office, he is disabled to maintain himself in the degree of an English baron. In consideration of his free yielding of his place, prays order for payment of the arrear, and some satisfaction for his office. A man of quality, and honourable knight, would willingly have given petitioner £5000 for his office."

Lord Stanhope states that he resigned his office "sore against his will," and "in obedience to His Majesty's pleasure"; but no hint is given of the immediate cause for this pressure being applied. An event happened in 1629, however, which may have had some bearing upon the present matter. On the 2nd of March in that year, the king desired, by means of the Speaker, Sir John Finch, to dissolve Parliament before the Commons could proceed with certain business which they had in hand. In order, however, to carry their protest, certain patriots in the House, Denzil Hollis among the rest, laid hands upon the Speaker and held him in the chair while the House voted its protest. In consequence of the violence thus shown to the Speaker, the chief actors in the scene were thrown a few days thereafter into the Tower. While these men lay in confinement, they were visited by certain of their friends. In a paper dated 1629, found among the Coke Manuscripts, and headed "The Lieutenant of the Tower's information of such as had visited the prisoners in the Tower, from their first imprisonment to the 19th March 1629," it is recorded that "the Lord Hollis (brother of Denzil) brought the Lord Stanhope, Postmaster, and other persons to visit Denzil Hollis." It is quite possible from this, and other circumstances which have not come down to us, that Stanhope may have been suspected of sympathy with the Parliamentary party, and that, on that account, he was no longer to be relied upon as a faithful adherent of the king. Although the removal of Stanhope was not effected till 1637, at which period the tension between the royalists and the popular party was becoming more severe, it is possible that the event of the Tower may have had its share in bringing about his loss of office.

In a petition of Lord Stanhope's in the year of the Restoration, 1660, on the subject of the loss of his office, some further information of the way in which he was "removed" is given by Stanhope. He says, that "when by the contrivance of one Witherings, and some great persons, he was summoned to bring his patent before the Council, and, after writing his name upon the back, to leave it there, words purporting to be a surrender of the patent were afterwards written above his name, and copied on to the enrolment; the late king offered him a new patent if he would agree that Sir Henry Vane, senior, should be joined with him; but this petitioner declined, being advised to appeal to the Parliament then about to meet," etc. If this be a correct statement of what happened, there is little doubt that Stanhope was deprived of his place by the operation of a gross job. In connection with his petition of 1660, Stanhope produced a copy of a letter from Mr. Prideaux, dated 5th September 1644 (of whom we shall hear later on as Attorney General to Cromwell, and more intimately connected with the posts), about erecting stages in all the roads for the service of the State; and this letter was held to show that Prideaux recognised Stanhope's right to the office. The committee who examined Stanhope's claims in 1660 were of opinion that "he should be put into a position to recover the profits of the office since the 25th April 1637"; but it does not appear that he succeeded eventually in his suit.

According to Rymer's Fœdera, the king granted to Thomas Witherings, by Letters Patent, on the 22nd day of June 1637, the office of Postmaster of Foreign Parts during life, which office, in 1632, had been granted in the joint names of William Frizell and Thomas Witherings. The details of this grant, if such were made, are not given; and it is a curious fact that, before and after Witherings' death, the grant put forward as the ground for Witherings' interest in the Foreign Post Office was not that mentioned by Rymer, but the joint grant made in favour of Frizell and Witherings of an earlier date.

In the same month (June 1637), a grant was made to Secretaries Coke and Windebank "of the office of Postmaster within His Majesty's dominions for their lives, if they so long continue Secretaries, with the like fee of £66, 13s. 4d. (per annum), to be paid quarterly out of the Exchequer, as was formerly granted to Lord Stanhope, who has surrendered that grant. His Majesty thereby annexes the office of Postmaster to the Principal Secretaries for the time being, and declares that the surviving Secretary is to surrender this grant to His Majesty, who thereupon will grant the said office to the Secretaries who for the time shall be, to hold the same while they continue Secretaries."

Following this change, we find, from a letter written by Sir John Coke to his son, dated the 5th August 1637, that the Secretaries had then appointed Witherings their deputy for executing this office. It states that: "Your letters come sometimes late. I hope that will, by Mr. Witherings' posts, be amended. For we, the Postmasters General, have made him our deputy, that he may the better accommodate his letter office." So now we have got to this stage, that Witherings, being Postmaster for Foreign Parts, was also appointed Deputy Postmaster General for the Inland Posts, and there was more likelihood of his plans being successfully carried out.