The Restoration was now an accomplished fact, and the Post Office
passed into the hands of Col. Henry Bishop of Henfield, Sussex, to whom
was granted the farm of the office for a period of seven years, dating
from the 25th June 1660, at an annual rental of £21,500. Bishop was the
third son of Sir Thomas Bisshopp, Knight, of Henfield. The Bisshopps
were formerly a Yorkshire family, some of whom served under Lord
Wharton in his proceedings against the Scotch in a previous age. Henry
Bishop, the Postmaster-General, was married to Lady Elizabeth Plumley
or Plumleigh, a widow who, in religion, was a papist. Before proceeding
to deal with Bishop's work in the Post Office, we may here mention,
as a matter of interest personal to the individual, that in the
impropriator's chancel of the church of Henfield is a mural monument to
his memory, setting forth that he died in 1691, at the age of eighty.
It is not apparent upon what grounds Bishop obtained the farm, or
whether he had performed any services entitling him to such an
appointment. Under his indenture he was required to pay one quarter's
rent in advance, namely, £5375, to bear all the expense of transmitting
Government letters, and to carry, free, single letters from members
of Parliament. He was required "to give in a true catalogue of all
postmasters employed by him, and dismiss those excepted against by a
Secretary of State, to whom all alterations in postage, or erection
of post stages, were to be submitted." He was, however, to be granted
certain allowances in case of plague, civil war, etc., which might
affect the revenue of his farm.
In connection with Bishop's appointment, there is a curious
circumstance related in a State paper of September 1667. The document,
although written under the initials "A.B.," is evidently the production
of Clement Oxenbridge, who, it will be remembered, was one of the
"First Undertakers for the reduction of postage," and who was the means
of Prideaux's giving up the Post Office. Indeed the paper is indorsed
"Mr. Oxenbridge." It reads as follows:--
"Statement of A.B.: That he was in youth a servant of the Princess
Royal, and was also allied to a grandee under the late powers; that in
1652 he got Prideaux put out of the Post Office, by reducing the price
of letters from 6d. to 3d., and bringing in a threefold weekly postage;
that, to recompense him for £5036, 8s. spent therein, he was to have a
weekly payment from the post office; and he took the office in 1660
in Bishop's name, and settled a foreign correspondence, but, being
dissatisfied with Bishop, had the office transferred to his Cousin
O'Neale" (O'Neale was successor to Bishop) "on condition of continuing
him £800 a year therefrom, but this has not been done," etc.
Whether Oxenbridge was able to exercise the interest here pretended is
not clear. He was employed in the Post Office under Bishop for a time,
but, as will be seen hereafter, there is little doubt he was turned out
of it.
The return of the king from exile was signalised by a general scramble
for offices, the king and his ministers being inundated with petitions
for all kinds of places. While the king came in upon a promise of
general pardon, his return was followed by measures of great severity;
and it is perhaps not far from the truth to attribute much of what
took place to the clamour of the Royalists, whose claims to place could
not be satisfied without turning other men out. In order to clear
the way, it would obviously be necessary to proceed against the then
holders upon some plea or other. The petitions are founded on every
variety of alleged service or suffering, from the most trivial to the
most important. For example, one suitor begs for the place of Groom
of the Great Chamber to the King or the Dukes of York or Gloucester,
stating that he "had been clerk of the chapel to the late king, and
served His Majesty, when prince, as keeper of his balloons and paumes,
and of tennis shoes and ankle socks." An aged widow, named Elizabeth
Cary, begs a place as page for her son, on the ground that she had
suffered greatly for her loyalty. She had had her back broken at
Henley-on-Thames, and a gibbet was erected to take away her life. She
was imprisoned at Windsor Castle, Newgate, Bridewell, the Bishop of
London's house, and lastly in the Mews, at the time of the late king's
martyrdom, "for peculiar service in carrying his gracious proclamations
and declarations from Oxford to London, and only escaped with her
life by flying into her own country." Many petitions were received
for places in the Post Office. The plaint of one applicant is, that
"his father's property was destroyed by Lord Fairfax at the siege of
Leeds." In another case it is set forth that the petitioner "should
have succeeded his father, but was put by for taking arms for the late
king." A suppliant in the West says, that he "has been a constant
sufferer from the tyranny of His Majesty's enemies. Would not mention
his sufferings, in the joy of the Restoration, but for his wife and
children, those patient partakers of all his troubles. Was the first
man in Exeter to be taken up and imprisoned in all occasions during
the late rebellion," etc. A former postmaster of Lichfield says, that
"he suffered much loss by pulling down of his house and plunder of
his goods, and was displaced by the then Parliament." The prayer of
Thomas Challoner, postmaster of Stone, is based on the fact that he is
brother to Richard Challoner, martyred for his loyalty before the Royal
Exchange in 1643, and has often been plundered, etc. Thomas Taylor, of
Tadcaster, solicits the postmastership of that place: urging his claim
upon the fact that his ancestors had served since Queen Elizabeth's
time; that his father, Thomas Taylor, had been seized and executed by
Lord Fairfax for carrying an express to Prince Rupert, when York was
besieged, to hasten to its relief; and that his family had been kept
out of the place ever since. A former postmaster of Newcastle-on-Tyne,
Thomas Swan, claims restoration to the place of postmaster because
the "pretenders who oppose him have not the least interest"; that
his family had been loyal almost to their extirpation and banishment
from the town; and that £674, 13s. is still due to his late father as
postmaster, Burlamachi not having allowed him to pay himself out of
the letter office, etc. These are specimens of the memorials sent in
immediately after the Restoration, and which the new powers were called
upon to satisfy.
The working staff of the Post Office in London at the period of the
Restoration seems to have been a very mixed company. A number of them
had been continued from the time of the Commonwealth; some had been
brought in by Bishop; and the system of intercepting and opening
letters, for the discovery of sedition, so largely practised during the
Commonwealth, being still carried on, there was a great outcry against
these officers who were not regarded as staunch Royalists. Bishop
himself was distrusted. In December 1660, the postmaster of Newbury
complains that many members of the Post Office are ill-affected, and
"that Major Wildman, and Thompson and Oxenbridge, Anabaptists, put in
and out whom they please." In the autumn of 1661, an account is given
of the condition of the Post Office. Therein it is stated, that "it is
managed by those who were active for Cromwell and the late Government:
first, Major Wildman, a subtle leveller and anti-monarchy man; second,
Oxenbridge, a confidant of Cromwell and betrayer of many of the King's
party; third, Dorislaus, the son of the man who pleaded for the king's
death at his trial; and, fourth, Vanderhuyden, agent of Nieuport, the
Dutch Ambassador to Cromwell, now treating, underhand, to settle the
postage by way of Amsterdam. The letter officers are chiefly disloyal:
Col. Bishop himself and the office are under Major Wildman's control."
The writer of this statement urges that the office should be put under
fresh management. Shortly after this time, as would appear, there had
been a clearing-out of several of the persons objected to; for in "a
perfect list of all the officers, clerks, and others employed in and
about the Post Office in London by Henry Bisshopp, Esq., His Majesty's
farmer of the said office," the principal names mentioned above do not
appear. The staff and constitution of the office, as exhibited by this
paper, are as follows:--
IN THE INLAND OFFICE.
Job. Allibond } Clerks of the Northern Road.
Anselme Fowler }
James Hickes } Clerks of the Chester Road.
Matthew Hanscomb }
Thomas Chapman } Clerks of the Eastern Road.
Benjamin Lamb }
Thomas Aylward } Clerks of the Western Road.
Robert Aylward }
Andrew Leake } Receivers of letters at the windows
Samuell Allibond } of the office.
Cornelius Glover }
Thomas Bucknor General Accomptant.
Benjamin Andrews Clerk and Accomptant of the
moneys in the office.
John Rea, son of Mr. }
John Rea, between ye } Letter Marker or Stamper.
Temple Gates }
Mr Francis Thomson "Agent to ryde ye severall rodes
and find out abuses, and
take care of ye due carriage
of ye mayles and of all postmasters'
doeing their severall
and respective dutyes."
Of Porters or Letter Carriers, whose names need not be
given here, there were 28.
IN THE FOREIGN OFFICE.
Thomas Harper }
Jeremiah Copping } Clerks.
Richard Bostock }
John Mansfield Office-attendant.
This return is exceedingly interesting on several grounds. It shows
that in the autumn of 1661 the total effective force of the Post Office
in London numbered 47 persons; it contains the first recorded mention,
probably, of a surveyor,--"agent to ryde ye severall rodes,"--a
numerous class of officers nowadays, who perform the same duties as
then, taking into account the changes in the methods and work of the
Post Office; and it also contains the first record of a stamper of
letters being employed.
As regards the stamping, this is also mentioned by Bishop, in an
answer made to the Council of State respecting alleged abuses in the
Post Office, under date 2nd August 1661, as follows:-- ... "that he
only employs old officers because new ones cannot serve for want of
experience"; and he shows the precautions he has taken to rectify
abuses, "by setting up printed rules, taking securities of the
letter-carriers, stamping the letters," etc.
In complaints made of irregularities in the Post Office, very
unflattering comments are made upon some of its officers. Thus:
"Bishop's agent, Thompson, is a very juggler; they both"--that is,
Bishop and Thompson--"will be complained of next Parliament." A clerk,
Ibson, who had been dismissed, refers, in a vindication he attempted of
himself, to the "dangerous character of the disaffected and scurrilous
men who witness against him"; and that, "having accused them to
Secretary Nicholas and Col. Bishop, they procured his dismissal." James
Hickes, a clerk in the Post Office, on the other hand, recriminates
that, during the late troubles, Ibson was accustomed "to open and read
the letters, and give news therefrom; that he was careless of the
letters; and often wrong in his accounts"; and that on these grounds
he was dismissed. In another information, Thomas Chapman is described
as being a leveller; and Glover, a servant of Hugh Peters--both being
accused of speaking disrespectfully of the king and Parliament. In
a memorandum of Secretary Nicholas it is stated that "Glover of the
Post Office was last Sunday at Mr. Jenkins' church, whispering amongst
the people to take heed what they write, as their letters are often
opened." The period was evidently one of very severe examination, and
the weeding out from the Post Office of unreliable servants.
Col. Henry Bishop did not escape in the general round of attack. A
statement, dated 31st December 1661, is left on record to the following
effect:--"That William Parker, who keeps the Nonsuch, formerly
Commonwealth Club, in Bow Street, Covent Garden, was Wildman's man,
the wife his servant, and the house furnished by him for meetings
in Cromwell's time. That Col. Bishop often met Wildman there, and
revealed the design of the late King's party, wherein Lord Mordaunt,
Major Smith, and others were betrayed, and Dr. Hewitt lost his life;
Major Smith declared on his deathbed that he never spoke the words
by which he was betrayed to any but Bishop. Most of the post-office
clerks used to meet and dine weekly at this house; and those now in
hold, on suspicion of the plot, had meetings there. The night before
Wildman was committed, a clerk of the Post Office, and another,
rode to the post house at Hounslow, stopped the two Western mails,
carried the letters into a private room, and, after spending two
hours with them, charged the boy who carried the mail forward not to
speak of what they had done." In a petition of the discharged clerk
Ibson, some time later, Ibson states that "he was bound in loyalty
to disclose the horrid and dangerous practices of Henry Bishop, for
which Bishop dismissed him in disgrace, and imprisoned him on several
feigned actions." Bishop's farm of the Post Office must have given
him much trouble and anxiety, arising partly from the nature of the
staff employed by him, and partly from the conditions of unrest
pervading society, these two things inspiring distrust and suspicion
in the management of the office. When the time arrived for his forced
retirement from the farm, he would doubtless be glad to get quit of
it. This event occurred in 1663. The immediate cause is not made quite
clear. No less an authority than Dan. O'Neale, who succeeded Bishop,
states that "Col. Bishop was turned out for continuing disaffected
persons in the management of the Post." But Bishop was about this
time harassed with suits at law, and the king thought fit to step in
and arrest the proceedings. The following document, addressed to "Our
Attorney-General and all others," was issued with this intent from
Whitehall on the 20th March 1663:--"Whereas we are informed that John
Hill hath caused an information to be exhibited against Henry Bishop,
Esq., for the exercising of the office of our Postmaster-General,
and that other suits are intended to be brought against him by the
said Hill, which will much tend to the disquieting of the said Henry
Bishop and to our disservice; our Royal pleasure therefore is, that
the said suit be no further prosecuted against him, and that our
Attorney-General do enter a _non vult ulterius prosequi_ upon it, and
that no other suit be commenced or prosecuted against him for the same,
and that our Counsel at law do appear in the behalf of our servant the
said Henry Bishop." About the same time,--a few weeks later,--a formal
pardon of all indebtedness to the Crown was granted to Bishop; the
document setting forth that Bishop had surrendered his grant on the 6th
April; and proceeding that "by reason of some supposed variance between
the letters patent, indentures of covenants, and the said late Act for
establishing a Post Office, Bishop may be liable to suits and questions
concerning the execution of the said office or yearly rent due for
same; the king therefore pardons and releases to Bishop all sums of
money the Crown may now or hereafter claim of him," etc. Under a cloud
of proceedings of this nature Bishop ceased to be Postmaster-General.
The farm of the office was now transferred to Col. Dan. O'Neale for the
remaining portion of the seven years' lease granted to Bishop. It would
seem that a money consideration was made by O'Neale to Bishop for the
transfer of the office; for in a statement of some proceedings (before
the Council apparently), it is stated "that Colonel Bishop, before his
last appearance at Council, would have taken £4000 for resignation of
his grant, but has since advanced to £8000, which he says Mr. O'Neale
has offered to him; O'Neale also offers to Secretary Bennet £2000,
and £1000 a year during Bishop's lease; this can be no disservice to
the Duke of York, who can expect no improvement till Bishop's lease
terminates." Apparently O'Neale took up the grant under the whole
conditions, privileges, and obligations applicable to Bishop's tenure.
O'Neale, an Irish gentleman, was the king's Harbinger and Groom of
the Bed Chamber. During the rebellion in Ireland, wherein Owen Roe
O'Neale was concerned, before the downfall of Charles I., the Marquess
of Ormonde engaged Daniel O'Neale, a relative of Owen's (said to be a
nephew), in an endeavour to win the latter over to Charles' interest.
In this, however, he was unsuccessful. Later, during the Commonwealth,
he was declared a delinquent, impeached, and thrown into the Tower;
but from this durance he managed to effect his escape. Clarendon says
of him that "he made his escape in a dexterous way, clad in a lady's
dress." When the Duke of Ormonde crossed over to England from the
Continent, in disguise, with the view of ascertaining the hopes then
existing for a return of the royal house, he was accompanied by Dan.
O'Neale, at the hazard of his life. He also took part in an attempt
upon Scotland, for the Royal cause, in 1650, but was apprehended and
banished by the Council, being then put under a written obligation "by
which he consented to be put to death, if he were ever after found in
the Kingdom." O'Neale is known as the builder of Belsize, at Hampstead,
which he is said to have erected at vast expense. He would appear to
have been a special favourite of Charles II., for he enjoyed several
grants or monopolies besides that of the Post Office.
O'Neale's grant, dating from the 25th March 1663, was for a period of
four and a quarter years, at a rental of £21,500, but, like several
of the other grantees, he did not complete his term, his death taking
place about October 1664. Pepys, in recording this event, adds the
remark, "I believe to the content of all the Protestant pretenders in
Ireland." O'Neale left, as his widow, Katherine Countess-Dowager of
Chesterfield, who was his executrix. The countess was allowed to have
the benefit of the remainder of the term; and Henry Lord Arlington and
John Lord Berkeley were empowered, by warrant, to make contracts with
Foreign States on behalf of the Post Office, and to act for "the better
carrying out of that office."
The interception and inspection of letters in the Post for Government
purposes, so largely carried on under the farmers immediately
preceding, had the inevitable result of engendering discontent and
suspicion, and of driving the public to make use of other means for
the conveyance of their correspondence. Recoiling upon the farmers
would necessarily be the loss of revenue. No sooner had O'Neale
entered upon his trust than steps were taken to put down or curtail
the irregularities both inside and outside the Post Office. On the
25th May 1663, a proclamation was issued forbidding all persons except
Dan. O'Neale or his deputies to carry or deliver letters for hire,
and ordering searches to be made for the discovery of unlicensed
letter-carriers. As evidence of compliance with the royal views, all
postmasters were required to produce, within six months, a certificate
of their conformity to the Church of England, on pain of dismissal;
and a very important clause in the proclamation provided that no
letters should be opened by any but the persons to whom they were
addressed, "without immediate warrant from a Secretary of State." About
the same date Secretary Bennet issued a warrant "to all Mayors and
other officers, and particularly to Richard Carter and eight others,
specially appointed for twelve months, to search for and apprehend
all persons carrying letters for hire without licence from the
Postmaster-General, and to bring them before one of the Secretaries,
delivering their letters into the Post Office." The searchers were
what, in a later period of post-office history, were officially called
"apprehenders of letter-carriers."
These restrictive measures had not been a month in operation when
O'Neale found it necessary to make a representation with respect to
them. He complained that the means at the disposal of Bishop for
dealing with offences against the Post Office were quicker in operation
than those prescribed to himself; and he expressed himself to the
effect that he would rather quit the office than go to law against
every offender. O'Neale further says that the Lord Chancellor had
declared the opinion that the Secretaries, being superintendents over
the Post Office, should take notice of offences. It is quite evident
that O'Neale did not find the Post Office a bed of roses.
O'Neale also discovered, soon after entering the Post Office, that
while his grant purported to cover all the king's dominions, the
postmaster at Edinburgh, Robert Mein, was independent of him, Mein
having had a gift of that office made by His Majesty at Stirling,
and confirmed since the Restoration. For the loss of revenue in this
quarter, O'Neale claimed a deduction from his rent of £2000 a year.
It may be well here to mention that, shortly after O'Neale's grant of
the Post Office, an Act was passed--15 Chas. II. c. 14 (1663)--settling
the profits of the business upon James Duke of York and his heirs male.
That is to say, the rentals were the claim or right of the Duke of
York; but they were subject to payments to be made, under Privy Seal,
in favour of the king, to an amount not exceeding £5382, 10s. per
annum. By a later Act--22 & 23 Chas. II. c. 27--this reservation in
favour of the king was made perpetual.