Chapter IX

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.