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 2_d._ 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.
[327] Hist. MSS. Com. _Rep._, 14, app., pt. 8, p. 35; _P. & O. P. C._,
vii, p. 350.
[328] _Rep. Com._, 1844, xiv, app., p. 32 (7).
[329] _L. & P. Hen. VIII_, xvii (1542), p. 484.
[330] _A. P. C._, 1542-47, pp. 164, 333, 465, 469, 527; 1547-50, p. 505.
[331] _Ibid._, 1550-52, p. 452; 1542-47, p. 384.
[332] _Ibid._, 1558-70, p. 326.
[333] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1547-80, p. 612.
[334] _Ibid._, 1547-80, p. 362.
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
2_d._ each mile and 6_d._ to his guide to lead back the horses. No horse
was to carry any cloak bag over ten pounds in weight.[335]
[335] F. Blomefield, _Norfolk_, 1806, iii, p. 294.
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]
[336] _A. P. C._, 1571-75, p. 181.
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 2_d._ 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]
[337] _A. P. C._, 1577-78, p. 219. A particularly violent man roused the
ire of the Mayor of Guildford, who wrote to Walsingham asking for
damages to a gelding killed by a Mr. Wynckfeld, riding post from
Guildford to Kingston. The gelding stumbled and fell on the road and
Wynckfeld thrust his dagger into him, beat the guide and threatened to
kill the constables on his return (_Cal. S. P. D._, ii, p. 529).
[338] _A. P. C._, 1577-78, p. 219.
[339] _Ibid._, 1588-89, p. 206.
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]
[340] _Ibid._, 1577-78, p. 62; 1580-81, p. 203.
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 2-1/2_d._ 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]
[341] _Rep. Com._, 1844, xiv, app., pp. 38, 39, 40 (18).
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.
[342] Macaulay, _Hist. of England_, 1849, i, p. 387.
[343] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1629-31, p. 193.
[344] 19 Geo. III, c. 51.
[345] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1581-90, p. 131.
In 1609 the rate for each horse was raised from 2-1/2_d._ to 3_d._ a
mile, and an attempt was made to enforce the postmasters' monopoly more
strictly.[346] No horse was to be ridden beyond the initial stage unless
with the consent of the postmaster concerned. The postmasters complained
that they were held responsible for supplying horses, and yet, when it
was necessary to obtain them from the surrounding country, they were
resisted by the owners or were supplied with inefficient animals.[347]
The complaints of the public were more to the purpose. According to them
there were some who were being called upon constantly for horses while
others escaped all demands. The postmasters often accepted bribes from
owners of horses on condition that they should not be troubled.[348] At
times the horses, after being seized, were not used but were kept in the
stables of the postmasters, and their owners charged the expense of
maintaining them.
[346] _Rep. Com._, 1844, xiv, app., p. 42 (20).
[347] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1619-23, p. 517.
[348] _Ibid._, 1619-23, p. 86; 1635, p. 18; 1631-33, p. 257.
At the establishment of Witherings' plan in 1635, the postmasters on all
the roads in England were required to have as many horses ready as were
necessary for the carriage of letters and the accommodation of
travellers. The rate for each horse was lowered from 3_d._ to 2-1/2_d._
or 5_d._ for two horses and a guide.[349] Before 1635, the post enjoyed
no priority over the traveller in being provided with horses, and if all
the horses happened to be in use when the mail arrived, it had to wait.
Now it was provided that on the day when the mail was expected, enough
horses should be kept in the stable to ensure its prompt
transmission.[350] In 1637, after Witherings' dismissal, the fee for the
hire of a horse was raised again to 3_d._ at which rate it continued
until 1657, when it was lowered to 2-1/2_d._ by the Commonwealth
Government. So much trouble had been caused by the seizure of horses
from owners unwilling to part with them that it was provided by the act
of 1657 that no one might take or seize horses for service without the
consent of the owner, but no one save the Postmaster-General and his
deputies might hire horses to persons riding in post with or without
commission.[351] At the Restoration in 1660, the old rate of 3_d._ a
mile for each horse was re-imposed together with a 4_d._ fee to the
guide for each stage. If the postmaster was unable to furnish horses
within half an hour, they might be obtained elsewhere, but always with
the consent of the owner.[352]
[349] _Ibid._, 1635, p. 299.
[350] _Rep. Com._, 1844, xiv, app., p. 57 (36); _Cal. S. P. D._, 1637,
p. 338.
[351] Scobell, _Collect._, 1656, c. 30.
[352] 12 Ch. II, c. 35.
The sole right to supply horses was continued to the Postmasters-General
and their deputies by the famous act of 1711. The rate per horse and the
guide's fee remained at the figure imposed by the act of 1660. If the
postmaster did not supply the horses demanded within half an hour, he
was liable to a fine of £5 and the horses might be obtained from any one
who would consent to hire them. The maximum burden for one horse over
and above the rider's weight was eighty pounds.[353]
[353] 9 Anne, c. 11.
The postmasters enjoyed the monopoly of letting horses to travellers
until the middle of the eighteenth century. But the industrial growth of
England and the improvement in the roads had produced such an increase
in the number of travellers that the postmasters were unable to supply
the demand. The use of carriages had become more common, enabling people
to travel who could not proceed on horseback, and this had still further
increased the demand for horses. It was plain that something must be
done and some more extensive source of supply drawn upon than that
furnished under the old system. The postmen had heard some of the
rumours in the air that a change was about to be made, and they
forwarded a petition to the House of Commons, protesting against the
contemplated change as an infringement upon their old monopoly. They
said "that if the amendment should pass into a law as it is now drawn,
it would not only tend to the great damage and loss of the petitioners,
but also the prejudice of His Majesty's revenue."[354] The amendment did
pass, however, declaring that in future any one might furnish chaises
and calashes with horses and that people letting chaises might supply
horses for them at the same time.[355]
[354] _Jo. H. C._, 1745-50, p. 830.
[355] 22 Geo. II, c. 25.
In 1779, when the Treasury was sadly in need of money, an act was
passed, requiring all persons letting horses to take out licences. In
addition, duties were levied on all horses and carriages hired for the
purpose of travelling post.[356] In the following year this act was
superseded by a stricter and more comprehensive one. It was provided by
the new act that every person letting horses to travel should pay five
shillings a year for a licence. In addition one penny a mile should be
paid for every horse, or, if the distance was not known, 1_s._ 6_d._ a
day, such duties to be paid by the person hiring the horses to the
postmaster or other person who provided them, to be by him handed over
to the Treasury. At the time of payment the postmaster was to give the
traveller a ticket, which must be shown to the toll keepers on the road.
If he had no ticket to show, the toll keeper was ordered not to allow
him to pass.[357] Five years later the duty to be collected was raised
to 1-1/2_d._ a mile for each horse or 1_s._ 9_d._ a day.[358] In 1787,
permission was given to let these duties out to farm, because so many
difficulties had been experienced in their collection.[359] The whole
theory of these duties was illogical, for it was to every one's interest
to evade them, and direct supervision was impossible. In 1808 another
act for farming the post-horse duties was passed, modifying somewhat the
provisions of the previous act. The tax was to extend to horses used in
travelling, when hired by the mile or stage and when hired for a period
of time less than twenty-eight days for drawing carriages used in
travelling post. Persons licenced to let horses were required to have
their names and places of abode painted on their post carriages if they
provided these also. The carriages must have numbers painted on them so
as to distinguish them easily.[360] In 1823 all previous acts relating
to licences and fees for keeping horses for hire were repealed, and a
complete system of rates was substituted. Every postmaster or other
person keeping horses to hire for riding by post must pay an annual
licence of five shillings and additional duties calculated according to
distance or time. The Treasury was given authority to let these duties
to farm.[361]
[356] 19 Geo. III, c. 51.
[357] 20 Geo. III, c. 51.
[358] 25 Geo. III, c. 51.
[359] 27 Geo. III, c. 26.
[360] 48 Geo. III, c. 98.
[361] 4 Geo. IV, c. 62:--
For every horse let to hire by the mile at the ordinary rate, 1-1/2_d._
For no greater distance than eight miles, one fifth part of the sum
charged or 1_s._ 9_d._
For no greater distance than eight miles and when the horse or horses
shall not bring back any person nor deviate from the regular road,
1_s._
For every horse let for a period less than twenty-eight successive days
and not let according to the terms given above, one fifth part of the
sum charged or 2s. 6d. for each day not exceeding three days and 1_s._
9_d._ for each day exceeding three days but not exceeding thirteen days
and 1_s._ 3_d._ for each day exceeding thirteen but not exceeding
twenty-eight days.
For every horse let for twenty-eight successive days or for a longer
period, one fifth of the sum charged or 2_s._ 6_d._ for each day not
exceeding three and 1_s._ 9_d._ for each day exceeding three days but
not exceeding thirteen days and 1_s._ 3_d._ for each day exceeding
thirteen and less than twenty-one days.