The Early History of the Post in Grant and Farm. James Wilson Hyde

      CHAPTER I

      In order to understand the circumstances under which the public postal service in England was first established, it is necessary to go back to an earlier period, and look at the patents granted to the Chief Postmasters, whose duties did not then go beyond the forwarding of despatches for the monarch or his government. A patent granted by Queen Elizabeth in 1590 to John Stanhope, as Master of the Posts, was surrendered to James I. in 1607, and (with the view, no doubt, of securing the succession to Stanhope's son) a new patent was granted to Stanhope, now Lord Stanhope of Harrington, and to Charles, his son and heir-apparent. The appointment was as "Master of the Messengers and Runners, commonly called the king's posts, as well within the kingdom as in parts beyond the seas, within the king's dominions." The nominal wages or fee attaching to this office amounted to £66, 13s. 4d. per annum, being the same as was granted to the Postmasters Sir William Paget and John Mason in the year 1545. But there were casualties attaching to the office, yielding a more certain income, which were doubtless the sums paid by the deputies for admittance to their employments. This will be referred to hereafter.

      In studying the post-office history of this early period, the inquirer is apt to be misled by some of the terms used; for the words "post," "postmaster," "pacquett," and the like, were not always applied in the modern sense, the word "post" sometimes serving to designate common carriers, and "postmaster" being used indifferently to indicate the Master of the Posts and the postmasters on the roads. The word pacquett was also applied to common carriers. An instance of the last mentioned is given in M'Dowall's Chronicles of Lincluden. A letter was written from the abbey on the 24th August 1625, to the "richte noble and verrie guid Lord the Earl of Nithisdaill," in which the following words appear:—They "intreat the richt guid lord to help them suddenly—at once; and more especially that he would procure an order from the King's Treasurer to stay the legal proceedings directed against them, until His Majesty's pleasure in the matter shall have been made known. Because of the urgency of their case, the noble lord is requested to favour them with an answer by a bearer of his own in the event of the ordinary 'pakett' being unavailable." Now the word "pakett" here does not refer to the post, but to the packman—the carrier—with his pack of goods. In what follows we shall endeavour, as far as possible, to use terms that will prevent any confusion of the kind indicated.

      The reign of Charles I. was one full of abuses. The king required money to maintain the excesses of his Court; his ministers were called upon to find the money; they themselves had to wring it out of the pockets of the people; and its passage through their hands produced such attenuation that but a small portion reached the royal coffers. Clarendon says that of £200,000 drawn from the subject in a year by various oppressions, scarcely £1500 came to the king's use or account. Monopolies in trade were granted for lump sums paid down, offices were bought and sold, no man seemed secure without support of a patron, and patronage was a marketable commodity.

      It will be remembered that Lord Stanhope's patent covered not only the control of the inland posts, but the posts in foreign parts, within the kings dominions. Although Stanhope was not by patent specifically empowered to send or work posts in foreign parts, out of the kings dominions, it appears to have been his practice to do so, undertaking, as may be supposed, all the various duties of conveying the king's letters and packets to whatever parts they might be directed.

      A somewhat similar condition of want of funds as that existing in the reign of Charles distinguished the reign of his father, James I.

      Now it is quite probable that, for the sole purpose of raising money by the sale of a new office, advantage was taken by James of an opening in Stanhope's patent, to make a new appointment of Master of the Posts in Foreign Parts, out of the kings dominions. By the recital of a patent bearing date the 30th April of the seventeenth year of James I., we learn that the king "appointed that there should be an office or place called Postmaster of England for Foreign Parts, being out of the king's dominions; that the office should be a sole office by itself, and not member or part of any other office or place of Postmaster whatsoever; and that there should be one sufficient person or persons, to be by the king from time to time nominated and appointed, who should be called the Postmaster or Postmasters of England for Foreign Parts, etc.; and, for the considerations therein mentioned, the king appointed Mathew de Quester, and Mathew de Quester, his son, to the said office; to hold to them the said Mathew de Quester, the father, and Mathew de Quester, the son, as well by themselves, or either of them, as by their or either of their sufficient deputy or deputies, during the natural lives of Mathew de Quester, the father, and Mathew de Quester, the son, the said office of Postmaster of England for Foreign Parts, for their natural lives and the life of the survivor," etc.

      On the setting up of the De Questers, Stanhope was naturally unwilling to surrender part of the service which he had hitherto undertaken, and a long contest took place between Stanhope and these men, resulting, as it would appear, in confirming the latter in their new office, and in the discomfiture of Stanhope.

      Thus from the seventeenth year of the reign of James I. down to the period upon which we are about to enter, commencing in 1632, and for some years thereafter, there were in England two distinct Masters of the Posts—one for places within the kingdom itself and in foreign parts, within the king's dominions; the other for foreign parts, out of the king's dominions. Stanhope filled the one office, the De Questers the other.

      It is interesting to know who the people were that are now passing in review before us at this distant date. A return made to the Council by the Lord Mayor in 1635, of strangers inhabiting London, tells us something of the de Questers. It is this:—"In ward of Billingsgate, St. Andrew's parish. Mathew de Quester, late Postmaster, born in Bruges, of 64 years' continuance in London; naturalised by Act of Parliament. All his family English born." He was probably one of the many foreign merchants who at that period were gathered together in the neighbourhood of Lower Thames Street.

      By letters patent, dated 15th March 1632, the office of Master of the Posts for Foreign Parts, out of the king's dominions, was made to devolve upon William Frizell and Thomas Witherings. Mathew de Quester the younger had died, and the elder de Quester being stricken in age, "the king … declares his will and pleasure, that the office shall have perpetual continuance, and grants unto William Frizell and Thomas Witherings, gentlemen, the office of place of Postmaster of England for Foreign Parts, out of the king's dominions; to do all things to the said office belonging and appertaining; to hold, exercise, and enjoy the said office of Postmaster of England for Foreign Parts, out of the king's dominions, together with all powers, etc., by themselves or either of them, or their or either of their sufficient deputies, during their natural lives and the life of the survivor, from and after and so soon as the said office shall become void by the death, surrender, forfeiture, or other determination of the estate of Mathew de Quester, the father. The king prohibits all persons other than the said William Frizell and Thomas Witherings from intruding themselves in the said office after the determination of the estate of Mathew de Quester; and the Lord Chamberlain, the Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports, the Secretaries of State, etc., in their several jurisdictions and places, are not only to