The History of the British Post Office

by Joseph Clarence Hemmeon

CHAPTER V

THE TRAVELLERS' POST AND POST HORSES

The duty of providing horses for conveying letters and for the use of travellers on affairs of state was enforced from the beginning of the sixteenth century by orders and warrants issued by the Postmaster-General and the Privy Council to mayors, sheriffs, constables, and other officials.[327] Where ordinary posts were laid, the postmen themselves were supposed to have horses ready. Such at least was the understanding, not, however, invariably realized. In 1533 we find the Postmaster-General complaining that, except between London and Dover, there were never any horses provided over the whole kingdom.[328] A few years later when the London-Berwick posts became an established fact each postman had to provide one horse, always to be ready to carry either the mails or a chance traveller on affairs of state. In 1542, since, owing to trouble with Scotland, the number of letters and travellers between that country and London had become much more numerous, each postman was required to have in readiness three horses instead of one, and it was partly for this reason that their pay was increased at the same time.[329] The fee for the use of these horses was fixed at a penny a horse for every mile travelled. Generally this fee was named in the warrant empowering the traveller to take up horses.[330] When the sum was not definitely named, it was required that it should be reasonable.[331] It seems to have been the custom of the members of the Council to grant these warrants quite indiscriminately. To remedy this, it was provided in 1566 that in future no warrant should be granted to any person, who was not actually travelling upon state affairs.[332] Twelve years later we find the people of Grantham petitioning the Council against the taking-up of horses to ride post. They said that the practice had increased so much that it had become intolerable.[333] The demand for horses had become so great that 2d. a mile was asked for each horse and complaint was made that travellers and messengers refused to pay the increased charge.[334] It is improbable that the state was successful in preventing the use of the postmasters' horses by private individuals, and it is more improbable still that the postmasters themselves objected to hiring their horses to those who travelled on their own affairs. Warrants issued by the Council nearly always fixed the price which should be paid. Now such prices, like wages when fixed by employers, are likely to be lower than demand and supply warrant. On the other hand, as between the postmasters and the ordinary travellers, the question of charge was adjusted by agreement.

When the postmasters themselves were too poor to obtain horses at their own expense, they were sometimes aided by the town or county. In Norfolk, for instance, each one of three postmasters was provided with a certain sum out of the treasury of the city of Norwich to be lent without interest. They were also paid so much a year out of money levied on the people of Norwich, one half on the innkeepers and tipplers and one half on the other inhabitants. No man was to take up post horses in Norwich unless licensed by warrants from the Queen, the Council, the Duke of Norfolk, or the Mayor of Norwich. No one was to ride a horse farther than twelve or fourteen miles at a stretch, and he was to pay 2d. each mile and 6d. to his guide to lead back the horses. No horse was to carry any cloak bag over ten pounds in weight.[335]

If more horses were demanded from the postmaster than he himself had in his stable, he might seize them from his neighbours but the full amount paid was to go to the owners. The date of the commission empowering horses to be used, the name of the person using them, and the date when the horses were demanded were to be entered in a book, kept for the purpose.[336]

Complaints from the postmasters concerning the abuses of travellers were frequent. The London-Berwick posts in a petition to the Council stated that on account of the great number riding over that road many of their horses were injured or spoiled and were not paid for, while the constables, whose duty it was to see that horses were provided, were often ill-treated. Accordingly by a proclamation issued in 1578, it was provided that no commission to ride in post should be issued unless it was first moved at a council meeting or ordered by the Secretary for causes properly relating to Her Majesty's service.[337] This was followed in 1582 by a still more stringent proclamation, forbidding any person to use a commission more than once unless otherwise specified. The pay of 2d. a mile for each horse was to be in advance as was also the "guide's groat" and, if the payment was not so advanced, the postmaster might refuse to supply horses.[338] Occasionally we find people objecting to having their horses taken when the postmaster had not sufficient of his own. Complaints like these were generally followed by an order to the offending postmaster to provide himself with more horses.[339]

The travellers, however, were not the only people who were at fault. The owners of the horses were often offenders and can hardly be blamed for rendering as difficult as possible the enforcement of the obnoxious proclamations, which they were ordered to obey. If they had to supply horses, they must do so, but there was nothing to prevent them from offering clumsy plough horses or venerable specimens no longer capable of drawing a plough. The constables were more apt to sympathize with the owners, who were their neighbours, than with the travellers. Consequently it is not surprising that complaints were loud and deep over the pieces of horseflesh, whose angular outlines must have presented a sorry seat for the Queen's messengers.[340]

By a Privy Council proclamation issued in 1603, all posts receiving a daily fee were required to keep at least two horses apiece. So far as the letting of horses was concerned, they had up to this time been subject to competition from other people, who had horses to hire. They were now granted the prior right to provide horses for travellers and it was only in case of their supply being inadequate that horses might be procured elsewhere. The hire as usual was to be paid in advance and was fixed at 2½d. a mile, together with the guide's fee for those riding on commission and was to be settled by agreement for all others. No heavier burden than thirty pounds in excess of the rider's weight was to be carried by each horse.[341]

It is in connection with the monopolistic restriction of 1603 that Macaulay says that the state must have reaped a large reward from the prior right of the postmasters to hire horses to travellers.[342] Mr. Joyce has pointed out that the proceeds went to the postmasters and not to the state, but he has given no good reason for dissenting from Macaulay's opinion. Without doubt Joyce is correct, as is shown by a complaint from the postmasters on the Western Road that they had been injured by an interloper who supplied travellers with horses.[343] In 1779, the state made an attempt to obtain something from the postmasters by requiring them to take out a licence for the hiring of horses and to pay a percentage for their receipts to the government.[344] Indirectly, however, the state did reap some benefit from the revenue from post horses, for if the postmasters had received nothing from their horses or from the conveyance of private letters, it would have been necessary to pay their salaries much more promptly than was the custom. As early as the latter part of the sixteenth century, we find complaints from the London-Dover posts that they had received nothing on their salaries for a whole year.[345] This was nothing to later complaints and proves that an impecunious government was enabled to act the bad debtor by the fact that other forms of revenue were available for the postmasters.