In August 1638, Witherings was returning from a journey he had made
into the north, when he was laid-up ill at Ware. On the 8th of that
month, his servant Waad writes to Secretary Coke, that "yesterday I
found my master ill at Ware, intending this day to set forward to
Walthamstow." It immediately became rumoured in London that Witherings
was dead. "The wish" may, in some minds, "have been father to the
thought"; for Windebank had been looking into the possible removal of
Postmaster Witherings, and Burlamachi, merchant and financier, lost no
time in taking steps with a view to securing the office to himself. The
very next day after the rumour was set about, a letter was written by
Burlamachi to Sir John Coke, bespeaking the succession to the supposed
vacant place. "Since Witherings is dead," says Burlamachi, "I write to
offer my services to your honour; assuring you that you may dispose of
me; and I hope I shall be not less capable of advancing the interests
of His Majesty than Witherings has been." But Witherings, although
he had had a sharp attack of illness, was not dead. A week later, he
was no farther on his way towards London than Walthamstow, whence he
writes a doleful letter to Sir John Coke, dated the 14th August 1638.
The letter is as follows:--"It pleased the Lord, in this last northern
journey (wherein I was sent by Mr. Secretary Windebank), to inflict
upon me two great fevers, which have been so heavy, that indeed, had
not the Lord been more merciful, gracious, and favourable towards me, I
should no ways have been able to endure them for one hour of the time.
I am a weak and miserable man; yet no doubt of life nor fear of health,
if God (for my manifold sins) do not again lay His heavy hand upon me.
To-morrow (God willing) I shall be at London," etc.
The period at which we have now arrived, 1638-39, was one of widespread
distraction and trouble throughout the whole kingdom, the people being
divided into two very marked parties,--the Covenanters in Scotland and
Presbyterians in England being on the one side, and the King's Council,
with the bishops and the Church party, on the other. In circumstances
such as these, it must have been very difficult for a man at the
head of the Post Office to steer a middle course, as in all cases of
interception or delay of letters suspicion was likely to fall upon the
postmasters. Advice was given by one of the King's party, that "because
there be divers Scots Covenanters about Court, who give intelligence
(both by the ordinary and posters"--that is, by men riding post--"and
journiers into Scotland), a course should be taken that the letters may
be opened; and that the Governor of Berwick may give order for some
strict searching and examining the Scots travellers." And as a matter
of fact, the posts were waylaid and the letters carried to Secretary
Coke. In a letter written from Berwick to Secretary Windebank, on
the 26th September 1638, Sir James Douglas complains that "he who
carries the running-post letters betwixt Berwick and Edinburgh plays
the rogue with all the letters that come from Edinburgh to me, so I
have prohibited any to write to me that way." It is not clear whether
Witherings lent himself to this espionage of the letters, or whether he
tried to keep clear of it; but subsequent events might almost seem to
suggest that Witherings inclined to the Presbyterian or popular party,
and that he was distrusted by the Court. Reference has been made to
Burlamachi, who lately applied for the place of Chief Postmaster. This
man, as has already been mentioned, was a native of Sedan in France,
but naturalised in England. He was largely employed by the King and
Council in financial matters of State, and had a hand in negotiating
a loan of money upon the Crown jewels taken over to Holland early in
Charles' reign. These jewels remained in Holland until November 1636;
and while there, Burlamachi seems to have had power to pawn and repawn
them at pleasure, to the tune and measure of Court necessities. At one
time Burlamachi was a broken man; he was granted a protection from the
diligence of his creditors in 1633-34 and 35; yet he still enjoyed the
confidence of Charles. This is not, however, surprising; for, in a
petition from Burlamachi's daughters, at the time of the Restoration,
it is stated "that their father was ruined by his advances to the
king." Under these circumstances there would be a potent tie between
these men, for Burlamachi could only hope for the recovery of his
money through the good fortune and favour of the king. It is well that
all this should be borne in mind, for Burlamachi's name will come up
hereafter.
The public do not realise how effective, as a trap, the Post Office
is, until they find themselves in the position of having written and
posted a letter which, upon cooler reflection, they would fain withhold
from the eyes of the person addressed. Cases of this kind occasionally
happen in our own day, when proof is given of the irrevocability of the
act of dropping a letter into the letter-box. Writers in such cases
can then do nothing,--they are left to settle the business with their
correspondents as best they may,--and no difficulty or trouble, as a
rule, results to the officers of the Post Office. In the earliest days
of the post the trap existed, as is shown by the following account of
an attempt to recover a letter, after it had been committed to the
care of Witherings' officers, in the year 1639. The incident shows that
in these days, as well as in ours, men could write letters in haste and
repent at leisure. The account comes to us in a declaration by Laurence
Kirkham, an assistant in one of the offices appointed in London for the
taking in letters for the post. It states that "upon Tuesday the 4th
June came William Davies to my master's shop, my mistress and I being
there present, to take in letters for Mr. Witherings, His Majesty's
Postmaster both for the Northern road and West, etc., for conveyance
of letters both by sea and land. Davies, coming as above, demanded a
letter again which he said was his own, and that he delivered it to me
that same day to go by post. I, not remembering any such thing, and
he being a stranger to me, I told him that it was more than I could
answer or dared do, to deliver any man's letter again, being once
in my hands, especially not knowing it to be his letter; but, for
quietness' sake, he being so outrageous for his letter, I told him that
if he would stay until the box were opened wherein his letter was, if
I found any such letter with such a superscription as he expressed his
to have, I would deliver it to him, provided that he carried it not
away nor break it open; but he might add something outside, or stick
a note in it, if I saw it were no hurt; or rather, if he would write
another letter after it, I would give him the portage of it. But this
would not satisfy him; he swore I should not keep his letter from
him, but he would have it; and thrust his hand into a heap of letters
which lay before him in the shop, he well knowing that his letter was
not there, and took what he could get of letters and packets, and put
in his pocket--some scattering in the street and some in the shop, a
multitude of people being gathered together. What he took and what
he lost is uncertain, as also what damage my master and others may
receive thereby, there being letters to the nobility and many others
to the army in the North, and divers to other countries. My mistress,
striving with him, was hurt, and her hand bruised; and I, holding him
in the street for the letters, he fell upon me, beat and pulled me by
the hair, kicked me, and tore my apparel, by which abuse I received
damage." This must have been a very pretty little scene, and it would
have been interesting to know how the law took notice of Mr. Davies'
obstreperous conduct.
The proceedings of these times have a smack of dramatic interest,
surrounded as they are by conditions which do not obtain in the present
day. In May 1639, a scene was enacted in the market-place of Ware, of
which a description is given in a letter from Edmund Rossingham, dated
the 8th of May. The reader can perhaps imagine the open space of this
town where the market is held, thronged with country folks with their
produce for sale, stalls of vendors, horses and carts of the farmers,
and idlers hanging about to see what might turn up to their advantage.
A clatter of horses' feet is heard, and into the market-place dash
three men on horseback, who draw rein at the post house of Ware. With
the preliminary statement that the king was at this time lying with his
army at Berwick, the letter must itself describe what took place. The
letter, which is addressed to Viscount Conway, proceeds: "Lord Carr
(Ker), the Earl of Roxburgh's son, riding post the other day into the
North, having letters from the queen, came to Ware, and the postmaster
went out to take up three horses for his use; but out of malice would
have taken a great carthorse which carried corn to the market, only the
owner, a poor countryman, would not part with it, saying his horse was
not to ride post. The postmaster and he being in strife together in
the market, three Deputy Lieutenants, Justices of the Peace, namely,
Sir Richard Lucy, Sir John Butler, and Sir John Watts, convening there
about county business, saw this contention out of a window of the inn,
and they relieved the countryman, bidding the postmaster seek out other
horses more fit for the service; whereupon the postmaster, in a great
chafe, goes back to Lord Ker and tells him the Deputy Lieutenants
had taken one of those horses he had taken up by his warrant. Lord
Ker frets at this, and learns of the postmaster where the Deputy
Lieutenants' horses stand, and commands three of these horses to be
saddled to ride post with. The Deputy Lieutenants have notice of this,
and will not let their horses be saddled, whereupon a great contention
ensued between the lord and these Deputy Lieutenants; so hot grew Lord
Ker, who had a case of pistols by his side, that he and his two men
challenged the three Justices into the field to end the difference.
Sir John Butler and Sir John Watts had good stomachs to go out with
them; but Sir Richard Lucy, a more temperate man, would rather use his
authority than his courage that way, as being much the more justifiable
course; and so sent out to provide post horses for them, which were
brought to the gate. Sir Richard then tells Lord Ker there are post
horses for him, and, if he will not take them, himself will make his
lordship fast and take from him the queen's letters, send them to His
Majesty, and do his errand, which would be little to his lordship's
advantage; whereupon the Lord Ker cools a little, and, grumbling at
being thus thwarted, takes the horses provided for him, and away he
posts."
The Justices were well aware of the advantage of being early in
the field with their account of this business; and accordingly
they forthwith wrote a statement of the whole matter to their
Lord-Lieutenant, Lord Salisbury, who was then with the king in the
North, and which "they sent post after the lord, to be at Court so soon
as he should be."
The better to keep up communications between the king, then in the
North, and the governing powers in Ireland, a packet was at this time
employed between Whitehaven and Dublin. The agreement with the master,
Nicholas Herbert, was that his barque should be provided "with one
sufficient master and other meet and able sailors" ... "to carry the
letters of His Majesty or the Council to the Lord Deputy at Dublin, and
shall receive £10 per lunar month."
As has already been remarked, there is reason to suppose that
Witherings had come to have leanings towards the Parliamentarians, a
posture which would alienate him from the Court party. At anyrate,
on the 29th July 1640, the office held by Witherings was sequestered
by the king's privy seal into the hands of Philip Burlamachi, "who
was directed by proclamation to execute the office." The proclamation
here referred to is probably that dated the 6th August 1640. The first
clause sets forth the reason for the proceeding as follows:--"Whereas
we have received information of divers abuses and misdemeanours
committed by Thomas Witherings in the execution as well of the office
of Postmaster of Foreign Parts as also of the Letter Office within
our own dominions, and thereupon have been pleased to sequester the
said office into the hands of P. Burlamachi of London, merchant, who
is to execute the same, under the care and oversight of our Principal
Secretary of State, till we shall signify our pleasure to the contrary;
and have accordingly declared the same under our royal hand and signet,
and commanded our said Secretary to see the sequestration put into
speedy execution, and to take such course that neither our service nor
the business of the merchants nor our other subjects might thereby
receive any prejudice or interruption." In pursuance of this ordinance
the business of the post was removed from Witherings' offices to other
premises.
When a man is down there are always a lot of unthinking or interested
persons ready to give the unfortunate individual another kick, and
the king's followers were not slow to avail themselves of the chance
presented by Witherings' sequestration. Sir Francis Windebank writes
from Paris in April 1641, whither he had found it convenient to remove,
as follows:--"I wrote lately to Mr. Treasurer (Vane) by Mr. Frizell,
who touched here in his passage out of Italy toward England. He was
Postmaster before Witherings, and drew him in to be his partner; but
Witherings, in token of his thankfulness, joined with Sir John Coke and
thrust the poor man utterly out. He is able, and not unwilling, if he
be dexterously managed, to discover much of Witherings' miscarriage
in that place, which I have desired Mr. Treasurer to make use of, and
you will do well to put him in remembrance of it from me." In another
letter about the same date Windebank complains of the miscarriage of
his letters, and remarks: "How they are come to miscarry now I do not
understand, presuming that Witherings, though he want no malice to
betray anything that may fall into his hands concerning me, yet dares
not intercept any packet addressed to Mr. Treasurer, as this was."
About the same time a letter from Robert Reade, residing at Paris,
makes mention of the failure of letters, and proceeds: "But the world
grows every day worse and worse, and is so full of deceit and malice
that I think there will be no living shortly for an honest man in it.
Perhaps Witherings has met with it again; if he have, my comfort is
that no better fortune will befall him in that than usually does to
harkeners, who never hear good of themselves; yet, methinks, since the
House of Parliament were more noble than to countenance him in his
last unworthiness of that kind, he should not have much courage to
do it again." In another letter the same writer says: "I think your
honour will have very uncertain dealing from Mr. Witherings, for in all
his affairs he appears so." There is a marked indefiniteness in the
references made by private persons who at this period were ready to
speak ill of Witherings--a want of specific charges against him. But in
a report appended to certain resolutions of the House of Lords, dated
8th September 1642, information is supplied showing how Witherings had
been badgered, and what the various complaints were. The allegations
set forth are: "Misdemeanours in opening letters, not giving advices
in due time, taking greater rates than usual, transporting prohibited
commodities, not suffering the passage boat to be searched, not able
to hold correspondence for want of language, breach of correspondence
for want of paying foreign posts." Happily for Witherings none of these
charges were found proved.
Witherings seems to have believed that Burlamachi had had a principal
hand in bringing about the sequestration of his office, for we
find him writing to Sir John Coke, on the 8th November 1640, as
follows:--"Burlamachi stands upon his justification, which is, that
these offices were forced upon him. My humble suit unto your honour
is, that you will be pleased to deliver to ----, your son, upon his
coming up, such letters as your honour received from him years past,
whereby he was a practiser from time to time to take from me my office,
contrary to his own declaration. Your honour may be pleased to certify
something therein to your son, who may declare it to the House of
Parliament." Burlamachi was not, however, Witherings' only enemy in
this matter; for, in a letter from Thomas Coke to Sir John Coke, of
12th May 1640, two months before the sequestration, it is stated that
"the two Secretaries do now, since the Parliament, prosecute him again
for the right of his place; but they cannot yet fasten anything upon
him, neither can Mr. Attorney find any imperfection in his patent;
so that he hath now great hopes again that the question will be to
save him a thousand pounds a year in his purse." At the time of the
sequestration Witherings was put in prison, but probably his detention
was of short duration. Witherings found himself hard pressed by
his enemies, and, feeling himself not very able perhaps to contend
against large odds, he assigned an interest in his office to the Earl
of Warwick. This is mentioned in a letter to Sir John Coke from his
son, the 15th of March 1641: "He hath now, without the advice of his
friends, put himself under the protection of the Earl of Warwick,
by passing some interest in his places to him. This the violent
prosecution of his adversaries hath driven him unto, out of fear to
be oppressed. I wish by this means he do not lose all in the end." In
April 1641, the Earl of Warwick was sworn a Privy Councillor, and thus,
in point of interest, Witherings had secured an important ally. While
his friends may have thought the step taken by Witherings of uncertain
advantage, Witherings no doubt considered that "half a loaf would be
better than no bread."
It is a troublesome business to unravel all the records of the
proceedings in the Parliament and Council of this affair of the
possession of the posts. There were two offices held by Witherings,
as the reader will remember,--the Postmastership of the Foreign Posts
(held by patent) and the Postmastership (by delegation from the
Principal Secretaries of State) of the Inland Posts. In the records
we have of Witherings' present troubles, these two offices are not
always clearly defined, and it is somewhat difficult to understand the
references. But this much is quite clear, that, on the 10th February
1640, a committee of the House of Commons was appointed "to consider
of the complaints of the Inland Posts, foreign courriers and carriers,
and foot posts, and the several abuses of Mr. Witherings and the
rest of the postmasters." The proceedings of this inquiry dragged on
for a period of over two years. At length, on the 28th March 1642,
the House of Commons gave a deliverance, by resolution, in favour of
Witherings, respecting the Foreign Posts as follows, namely, "that this
sequestration of the office of Foreign Postmaster from the possession
of Witherings is a grievance and illegal, and ought to be taken off
and repealed" ... "that the proclamation for the putting Mr. Witherings
out of possession of the exercise of his place of Postmaster for
Foreign Parts is a grievance and illegal, and ought not to be put in
execution" ... "resolved that Mr. Witherings ought to be restored unto
the possession of his place as Postmaster for Foreign Parts, and to the
mean profits received since he was out of possession, deducting the
reasonable and usual charges of execution" ... "that for the legality
of his patent, it shall be referred to a trial at law." Then, on the
16th August 1642, the following resolutions were passed by the House
of Commons respecting the Inland Posts:--"That the sequestration of
the Inland Letter Office to Philip Burlamachi is illegal and void, and
ought to be taken off" ... "that Philip Burlamachi and his deputies
shall forthwith bring in an account of the profits of the office
received by him or his deputies since his illegal sequestration to
the Committee for the Accounts where Mr. Trenchard has the chair" ...
"that the proclamation in pursuance of the sequestration is illegal
and void." It will be observed that nothing is said in these latter
resolutions indicating that Witherings should again take charge of
the Inland Posts, by delegation or otherwise. But a deliverance was
also given at this time on the subject of Witherings' interference
with the public carriers in conveying letters for the public, which
events occurred in 1637-38, and have already been mentioned. The House
resolved "that the taking of the several letters in this case from
the several carriers, and the several restraints and imprisonment of
Grover, Chapman, Cotton, and Mackerill, is against the law and liberty
and freedom of the subject" ... "that these several persons ought to
have reparations and damages from Sir John Coke and Sir F. Windebank,
then Secretaries of State, and Mr. Witherings respectively" ... "that
Sir J. Coke, Sir F. Windebank, and Mr. Witherings are delinquents."
Now, although Witherings' office had been in sequestration from 1640
till 1642, it would almost seem that he was not entirely suspended from
all share in the management of the place during that period, for in
writings of 1641 reference is made to services performed by Witherings
in the transmission of foreign correspondence. In a letter, dated from
Edinburgh 2nd November 1641, from Secretary Vane to Edward Nicholas,
the latter is requested to instruct Mr. Witherings as to the forwarding
of two packets, "much concerning His Majesty's service," one of which
was for Hamburgh; and this Witherings was to forward by an express,
which by his office he was bound to provide for and pay. In a letter
from Witherings, dated at Walthamstow 7th November 1641, to Edward
Nicholas, respecting these instructions, Witherings writes: "I have
sent the one express for Hamburgh with my own packet-boat, which not
only carries the king's colours, but is of defence and well known on
the seas. Be confident there shall be no neglect, neither of the one
nor the other in me."
During the proceedings against Witherings, he was unquestionably
handled in a very rough manner; for a warrant was issued in 1641 (as
is supposed) by the Secretary of State to a messenger of the Chamber
in the following terms:--"These are by His Majesty's command, to
require and authorise you to repair to the office and house of Thomas
Witherings, Postmaster for Foreign Service, and there to search for and
take into custody all papers, pamphlets, and letters."
On the 5th October 1642, Robert Earl of Warwick petitioned that,
in virtue of the assignment of the Inland Letter Office to him by
Witherings, and in view of the fact that Burlamachi had failed to
obey the ordinance delivered by Parliament, by continuing to hold and
administer that office, Burlamachi should be ejected from the place and
punished for his disobedience.