CHAPTER II

THE POSTAL ESTABLISHMENT A SOURCE OF REVENUE TO THE STATE

1633-1711

For some time there had been dissatisfaction with the services rendered by the inland posts. It was said that letters would arrive sooner from Spain and Italy than from remote parts of the kingdom of England.[60] The only alternative was to send them by express and this was not only expensive but was not looked upon with favour by the Postmaster-General. The five great roads from London to Edinburgh, Holyhead, Bristol, Plymouth, and Dover were in operation. From the Edinburgh Road there were branches to York and Carlisle, from the Dover Road to Margate, Gravesend, and Sandwich, and from the Plymouth Road to Falmouth, but the posts were slow and the rates for private letters uncertain.[61] In 1633, a project was advanced for the new arrangement of the Post Office. The plan was not entirely theoretical, for an attempt was made to show that it would prove a financial success. There were about 512 market towns in England. It was considered that each of these would send 50 letters a week to London and as many answers would be returned. At 4_d._ a day for each letter, this would amount to £426 a week. The charge for conveyance was estimated at £37 a week, leaving a weekly profit of £389, from which £1500 a year for the conveyance of state letters and despatches must be deducted. Letters on the northern road were to pay 2_d._ for a single and 4_d._ for a double letter, to Yorkshire and Northumberland 3_d._, and to Scotland 8_d._ a letter. The postmasters in the country were not to take any charge for a letter except one penny for carriage to the next market town.[62] It is probable that this project originated with Witherings. At any rate it resembles closely the plan which was introduced by him two years later. He had already reformed the foreign post by appointing "stafetti" from London to Dover and through France and they had proved so efficient as to disarm the opposition even of the London merchants. His name is without doubt the most distinguished in the annals of the British Post Office. Convinced that the carriage of private letters must be placed upon a secure footing, he laid the foundation for the system of postal rates and regulations, which continued to the time of national penny postage. He introduced the first legal provision for the carriage of private letters at fixed rates, greatly increased the speed of the posts, and above all made the Post Office a financial success. In order to do this he saw that the proceeds from private letters must go to the state and not to the deputy postmasters.

[60] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1580-1625, p. 360.

[61] _Ibid._, 1580-1625, p. 630.

[62] _Ibid._, 1625-26, p. 366. A single letter consisted of one sheet of paper, a double letter of two, and a triple letter of three sheets.

His plan was entitled "A proposition for settling of Stafetti or pacquet posts betwixt London and all parts of His Majesty's Dominions. The profits to go to pay the postmasters, who now are paid by His Majesty at a cost of £3400 per annum." A general office or counting house was to be established in London for the reception of all letters coming to or leaving the capital. Letters leaving London on each of the great roads were to be enclosed in a leather "portmantle" and left at the post-towns on the way. Letters for any of the towns off the great roads were to be placed in smaller leather bags to be carried in the large portmantle. These leather bags were to be left at the post-towns nearest the country towns to which they were directed. They were then to be carried to their destination by foot-posts to a distance of six or eight miles and for each letter these foot-posts were to charge 2d., the same price that was charged by the country carriers. At the same time that the foot-posts delivered their letters, they were to collect letters to be sent to London and carry them back to the post-town from which they had started and there meet the portmantle on its way back from Edinburgh or Bristol or wherever the terminus of the road might be. The speed of the posts was to be at least 120 miles in twenty-four hours and they were to travel day and night. He concludes his proposition by saying that no harm would result to Stanhope by his plan "for neither Lord Stanhope nor anie other, that ever enjoyed the Postmaster's place of England, had any benefit of the carrying and re-carrying of the subjects' letters."[63]

[63] _Rep. Com._, xiv, app., p. 55 (35). _Cal. S. P. D._, 1635, p. 166. Letters were to be carried to and from important places at some distance from the main roads by post-horses. See _Cal. S. P. D._, above.

The question now was, Who was to see that these reforms were carried out? Stanhope was not the man for so important and revolutionary an undertaking. Witherings alone, the author of the proposition, should carry it into effect. Sir John Coke made no mistake in constituting himself the friend of the postal reformer. Witherings was already Foreign Postmaster-General and in 1635 he was charged with the reformation of the inland office on the basis of his projected scheme. In 1637 the inland and foreign offices were again united when he was made Foreign and Inland Postmaster-General.[64] His experiment was tried on the Northern Road first and was exceedingly successful. Letters were sent to Edinburgh and answers returned in six days. On the Northern Road bye-posts were established to Lincoln, Hull and other places.[65] Orders were given to extend the same arrangement to the other great roads, and by 1636 his reform was in full and profitable operation.

[64] _Rep. Com._, xiv, p. 5; app., p. 57 (36); _Cal. S. P. D._, 1635-36, p. 32.

[65] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1635, p. 299.

Witherings still continued to sell the positions of the postmasters, if we are to trust the complaints of non-successful applicants. One man said that he offered £100 for a position but Witherings sold it to another for £40.[66] The Postmaster at Ferrybridge asserted that he had paid Stanhope £200 and Witherings £35 and yet now fears that he will be ousted. Complaints of a reduction in wages were also made, and this was a serious matter, since the postmasters no longer obtained anything from private letters.[67] The old complaint, however, of failure to pay wages at all is not heard under Witherings' administration. He was punctual in his payments and held his employees to equally rigid account. Their arrears were not excused.[68] An absentee postmaster, who hired deputies to perform his duties, was dismissed.[69] His ambition to establish a self-supporting postal system demanded rigid economy and strict administration, and with the then prevailing laxity of administrative methods, this was no mean achievement. From one occasional practice of the Post Office, that of tampering with private letters, he cannot perhaps wholly be absolved. It is hinted that he may have been guilty of opening letters, but the suggestion follows that this may have happened before they reached England, for the letters so opened were from abroad.[70]

[66] _Ibid._, 1637, p. 527; _ibid._, 1636-37, p. 524.

[67] _Ibid._, 1638-39, p. 119.

[68] _Ibid._, 1637-38, pp. 52, 53, 394.

[69] _Cal. S.P.D._, 1637-38, p. 238.

[70] _Ibid._, 1640-41, p. 340. As early as 1639 persons were not allowed to have letters back when once posted. (_Ibid._, 1639, p. 279.)

In June of 1637, Coke and Windebank, the two Secretaries of State, were appointed Postmasters-General for their lives. The surviving one was to surrender his office to the King, who would then grant it to the Secretaries for the time being.[71] It does not appear that Witherings was altogether dismissed from the service, for his name continued to appear in connection with postal affairs.[72] Windebank later urged as reasons for the withdrawal of Witherings' patent, that he was not a sworn officer, that there was a suspicion that his patent had been obtained surreptitiously, and that the continental postmasters disdained to correspond with a man of his low birth. He concludes by saying that something may be given him, but that he is said to be worth £800 a year in land and to have enriched himself from his position.[73] At the time of his removal, in June, 1637, the London merchants petitioned for his continuance in office, as he had always given them satisfaction. When they heard who had been appointed in his stead, like loyal and fearful subjects, they hastened to add that they thought someone else was trying for the position but they had no doubt that it would be managed best by the Secretaries.[74] If they thought so they were mistaken, for the commander of the English army against Scotland found that his letters were opened,[75] the Lord High Admiral complained that his were delayed,[76] and Windebank promised an unknown correspondent that the delay in his letters should be seen to at once and Witherings was the agent chosen for the investigation.[77] This, however, was not the worst, for only a month after Witherings had been degraded, orders were issued to the postmasters that no packets or letters were to be sent by post but such as should be directed "For His Majesty's Special Affairs" and were subscribed by certain officials connected with the Government.[78] It is fair to add that this check on private correspondence may have been a protective measure induced by the unsettled state of the kingdom.

[71] _Ibid._, 1637, p. 255.

[72] _Ibid._, 1639, p. 279; _Rep. Com._, xiv, app., p. 58 (37).

[73] _Cal. S.P.D._, 1637-38, p. 51.

[74] _Ibid._, 1637-38, p. 52.

[75] _Ibid._, 1639, p. 295.

[76] _Ibid._, 1639-40, p. 116.

[77] Hist. MSS. Com., _Rep._ 12, app., pt. 2, p. 236.

[78] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1637, p. 338.

In 1640 both the inland and foreign offices were sequestered into the hands of Philip Burlamachi, a wealthy London merchant who had lent money to the king. No reasons were given except that information had been received "of divers abuses and misdemeanours committed by Thomas Witherings."[79] Stanhope, who had resigned his patent in 1637, now came forward claiming that his resignation had been unfairly obtained by the Council, and at the same time he presented his bill for £1266, the arrears in his salary for nineteen years.[80] In reply to his demand it was said that shortly before he resigned he had assigned his rights in the Post Office to the Porters, father and son. The Attorney-General gave his opinion that whatever rights Stanhope and the Porters had, they certainly had no claim to the proceeds from the carriage of private letters.[81] Stanhope had offered to enter an appearance in a suit brought against him by the Porters but now he refused to do so.[82] Windebank was also looking out for money due to him while Coke and he were Postmasters-General.[83] The state had indeed entered upon troublous times and it was every man for himself before it was too late.

[79] _Rep. Com._, 1844, xiv, app., p. 59 (39).

[80] _Ibid._, 1844, xiv, app., p. 22 (19); _Cal. S. P. D._, 1636-37, p. 534; _ibid._, 1637-38, p. 51.

[81] _Ibid._, 1636-37, p. 530.

[82] Hist. MSS. Com., _Rep._ 7, p. 154.

[83] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1640-41, p. 315.

As long as Witherings had enjoyed the King's favour, the House of Commons had looked upon him with suspicion. They had ordered in 1640 "that a Sub-Committee of the Committee of Grievances should be made a House Committee to consider abuses in the inland posts, to take into consideration the rates for letters and packets together with the abuses of Witherings and the rest of the postmasters."[84] As soon as Witherings was finally dismissed, the Commons took him up and resolutions were passed that the sequestration was illegal and ought to be repealed, that the proclamation for ousting him from his position ought not to be put into execution, and that he ought to be restored to his old position and be paid the mean profits which had been received since his nominal dismissal.[85] Protected by the authority of the House of Commons, Witherings continued to act as Postmaster-General.[86] Windebank, in Paris, was trying to collect evidence against him through Frizell, who, he said, had been forced out of his position by Witherings and Coke.[87] Coke himself was in disgrace and could do nothing. Parliament was now supreme. Witherings was ordered to send to a Committee of the Lords, acting with Sir Henry Vane, all letters coming into or going out of the kingdom for examination and search. Frequent orders to the same effect followed during the turbulent summer and autumn of 1641.[88] Among other letters opened were those of the Venetian Ambassador in England. He was so indignant that a Committee of the Lords was sent to him to ask his pardon.[89] The two Houses of Parliament united in condemning the sequestration to Burlamachi, but Witherings, who had become tired of the strife, assigned his position to the Earl of Warwick.[90] The Earl was supported by both Houses, but the Lower House played a double part, for, while openly supporting Warwick, they now secretly favoured Burlamachi, who had found an influential friend in Edmund Prideaux, former chairman of the committee appointed to investigate the condition of the posts and later Attorney-General under the Commonwealth.[91] Prideaux was a strong Parliamentarian, but was distrusted even by his own friends. But for the time being, as the representative of the Commons, he was supported by them. The messenger of the Upper House made oath that he had delivered the Commons' resolution to Burlamachi, commanding him to hand over the Inland Letter Office to Warwick, but James Hicks had presented an order at the place appointed by Warwick for receiving letters, to deliver all letters to Prideaux. Burlamachi on being summoned before the Lords for contempt said that Prideaux had hired his house and now had charge of the mails. The fight went merrily on. Two servants of Warwick seized the Holyhead letters from Hicks, but were in turn stopped by five troopers, agents of Prideaux, who took the letters from them by order of the House of Commons. Prideaux also seized the Chester and Plymouth letters, one of his servants calling out "that an order of the House of Commons ought to be obeyed before an order of the House of Lords."[92] Hicks, who had been arrested by order of the Lords, was liberated by the Commons as a servant of a member of Parliament.[93] As between Lords and Commons, there could be no doubt as to which side would carry the day, and by the end of 1642 the Lower House was triumphant all along the line. Understanding that discretion was the better part of valour, the Lords freed Burlamachi and dropped the contest. Warwick now petitioned the Lords again, setting forth that he was the legal successor and assignee of Witherings. Stanhope put in a counter-petition to the effect that Witherings never had any right to the position which Warwick now claimed. The House of Lords felt its own weakness too much to interfere directly, but ordered the whole matter to trial.[94] Besides Stanhope and Warwick, the following put in claims before the Council of State: Henry Robinson, through the Porters, to whom Stanhope had assigned; Sir David Watkins in trust for Thomas Witherings, Jr., for the foreign office; Moore and Jessop through Watkins and Walter Warde. Billingsley also, the old Postmaster of the Merchant Adventurers, made a claim for the foreign office.[95]

[84] _Jo. H. C._, 1640-42, p. 81.

[85] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1640-41, p. 453; _Jo. H. C._, ii, p. 500; _Rep. Com._, 1844, xiv, app., p. 60 (40).

[86] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1640-41, p. 557.

[87] _Ibid._, 1640-41, p. 536.

[88] _Rep. Com._, 1844, xiv, app., p. 101 (74).

[89] _Ibid._, 1844, xiv, app., p. 101 (74).

[90] _Jo. H. C._, 1640-42, p. 722; _Jo. H. L._, 1642-43, p. 343.

[91] _Jo. H. C._, 1640-42, p. 500.

[92] _Rep. Com._, 1844, xiv, app., p. 10 (40); _Jo. H. C._, 1642-43, pp. 387, 388, 469, 470, 471, 473-74, 508, 512; _ibid._, 1640-42, p. 899.

[93] _Ibid._, 1640-42, p. 899.

[94] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1645-47, p. 461; _Rep. Com._, 1844, xiv, app., p. 68 (43); _Jo. H. L._, 1645-46, pp. 579, 588, 637.

[95] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1652-53, pp. 159, 367; _ibid._, 1653-54, pp. 21, 22, 297; _Rep. Com._, 1844, xiv, app., p. 69 (44); _Jo. H. C._, 1651-59, p. 192.

The confusion in postal administration which naturally resulted from the struggle among the rival claimants was increased by the Civil War. In 1643 the Royal Court was moved to Oxford. The Secretaries of State

## acting as Postmasters-General sent James Hicks, the quondam servant of

Prideaux, to collect arrears from the postmasters due to the Letter Office. In addition to collecting the money due, he was to require all postmasters on the road to Coventry to convey to and from the Court all letters and packets on His Majesty's service, to establish new stages, to forward the names of those willing to supply horses and guides, and to report those postmasters who were disobedient or disloyal.[96] During the most desperate period of the royal cause Hicks acted as special messenger for the King, and apparently had some exciting experiences in carrying the letters of his royal master. He lived to enjoy his reward when the second Charles had come to his own. Parliament, in the meantime, was establishing its control over the posts and reorganizing the service. In the early period of Parliamentary government, postal affairs were as a rule looked after by what was known as the "Committee of Both Kingdoms," and the orders which it issued were necessarily based upon political conditions. Later the Postmaster-General acted under the Council of State or under Cromwell himself. In 1644 the House of Commons issued an order that protection should be granted to the postmasters between London and Hull, to their servants, horses and goods.[97] The fact that it was necessary to re-settle posts on the old established London-Berwick road shows how demoralized conditions had been during the conflict.[98] Many of the loyal postmasters were dismissed. Their lukewarm conduct in supplying the messengers of the Commonwealth with horses produced a reprimand from the Committee and a sharp warning from Prideaux.[99] Posts were settled from London to Lyme Regis for better communication with the southwestern counties. In 1644 Edmund Prideaux was formally appointed Postmaster-General.[100] He was allowed to use as his office part of the building occupied by the Committee of Accounts, formerly the house of a London alderman.[101] As long as the war continued it was necessary that a close watch should be kept over letters passing by post. Many of the new postmasters were military men and in addition others were appointed in each town under the heading of "persons to give intelligence."[102] With the return of normal conditions after 1649 Prideaux was ordered by the Council of State to make arrangements for establishing posts all over England as in the peaceful days before the war.[103] His report of the same year to the Council of State indicates the successful fulfilment of his instructions. He said that he had established a weekly conveyance of letters to all parts of the Commonwealth and that with the receipts from private letters he had paid all the postmasters except those on the Dover road.[104]

[96] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1641-43, p. 501; _ibid._, 1644, pp. 6, 29.

[97] _Jo. H. C._, 1642-44, p. 426.

[98] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1644, p. 400.

[99] _Ibid._, 1644-45, p. 503; _ibid._, 1644, pp. 25, 144, 447.

[100] _Jo. H. C._, 1642-44, p. 477; _Rep. Com._, 1844, xiv, app., p. 67 (41).

[101] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1644, p. 477.

[102] _Ibid._, 1644-45, p. 170.

[103] _Ibid._, 1649-50, pp. 13, 147.

[104] _Jo. H. C._, 1648-51, p. 385.

For the safety of the Commonwealth it was often found necessary to search the letters. Sometimes the posts were stopped and all the letters examined. When this was done, it was by order of the Council of State, which appointed certain officials to go through the correspondence.[105] Sir Kenelm Digby, writing to Lord Conway from Calais, asks him to direct his letters to that place, where they would find him, "if no curious overseer of the packets at the post break them open for the superscription's sake."[106] The Commonwealth did openly and is consequently blamed for what had been done more or less secretly by the Royal Government.

[105] _Ibid._, 1648-51, p. 126; _Cal. S. P. D._, 1649-50, pp. 56, 533, 535, 541; 1650, pp. 7, 223; 1651-52, p. 216.

[106] _Ibid._, 1649-50, p. 381.

In 1651 the first proposal for farming the Post Office was submitted to the Council of State. The Council reported the question to Parliament but there is no evidence as to their attitude on the question at that time.[107] The next year Parliament ordered that the question of management, whether by contract or otherwise, should be re-committed to the Council,[108] and in 1653 it was decided that it would be better to let the posts out to farm. Prideaux had been quietly dropped by the Council after making, as it was reported, a large fortune. When we remember that under his management there was an annual deficit of £600 besides the expenses of the Dover road and that in 1653 there was a net revenue of £10,000, it seems probable that there is some truth in the report. The conditions upon which the Post Office was farmed, were as follows:--

The farmers must be men of stability and good credit and must be selected from those contracting. Official letters and letters from and to members of Parliament must be carried free. All postage rates must be fixed by the Council and not changed without its consent. Finally all postmasters should be approved by the Council and Lord Protector.[109]

[107] _Ibid._, 1651-52.

[108] _Ibid._, 1651-59, p. 192.

[109] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1652-53, p. 449. The following is a list of the contractors, with the yearly amounts offered by each:

Ben Andrews for Inland Office £3600 Ben Andrews for Foreign Office 3500 Henry Robinson for both offices 8041 Ben Andrews for both offices 9100 John Goldsmith for both offices 8500 Ralph Kendall for both offices 10103 John Manley, with good security 8259 Rich. Hicks 9120 Rich. Hill 8160

--_Cal. S. P. D._, 1652-53, p. 450.

The policy of the Commonwealth in letting the posts out to farm had much in its favour. The evil usually resulting from farming is the temptation and the opportunity it offers for extortion from the people. But in the case of the posts no oppression was possible, for the farmer was limited in his charge to the rate fixed by the Government. More than this, private control over the post office business afforded what was most needed at the time, greater economy and stricter supervision over the deputy postmasters. It was upon the deputy postmasters alone that the farming system might exercise undue pressure, but from them there was no complaint of the withholding or reduction of wages until after Cromwell's death.[110]

[110] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1658-59, p. 371.

John Manley was appointed "Farmer of the Posts" for two years at a yearly rent of £10,000. There were at least four higher tenders than his, and Manley contracted only for £8259. It was hinted that Manley and the Council had come to a private agreement concerning the rent to be paid.[111] In his orders to the postmasters, Manley requested them to take particular care of government packets and to see that no one was allowed to ride in post unless by special warrant. All letters should be counted by them and the number certified in London. They were to keep a sharp eye upon people, especially travellers, and report any discontent or disaffection.[112] In 1654 Manley's title of Postmaster-General was confirmed by act of Parliament, the first act dealing directly with postal affairs.[113] He was unsuccessful in having his franchise extended beyond the original two years, and by order of the Council of State the management of the Posts was entrusted to Mr. Thurloe, Secretary of State, for £10,000 a year, the same amount which Manley had paid.[114]

[111] _Ibid._, 1653-54, pp. 27, 328.

[112] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1653-54, p. 328.

[113] Scobell's _Collect._, p. 358.

[114] _Rep. Com._, 1844, xiv, app., p. 71 (48); _Cal. S. P. D._, 1655, p. 138.

Shortly after Thurloe had been appointed Postmaster-General, general orders were issued by Cromwell to all the postmasters. He forbade them to send by express any letters or packets except those sent by certain officials on affairs of state, all others to await the regular time for the departure of the mails. The old regulations for providing mail-bags, registration of the time of reception, and the like were repeated. The number of mails to and from London was increased from one to three a week each way, and to ensure higher speed, each postmaster was to provide a horse ready saddled and was not to detain the mail longer than half an hour under any consideration. He was ordered to deliver all letters in the country at or near his stage and was to collect the postage marked on the letter unless it was postpaid. The money so collected was to be returned to London every three months.[115]

[115] _Ibid._, 1655, pp. 285 f.

In 1657 the first act of Parliament was passed which fixed rates for the conveyance of letters and established the system for the British Islands. The preamble stated: "That whereas it hath been found by experience that the writing and settling of one General Post Office ... is the best means not only to maintain certain intercourse of trade and commerce betwixt all the said places to the great benefit of the people of these nations, but also to convey the public despatches and to discover and prevent many dangerous and wicked designs, which have been and are daily continued against the peace and welfare of this Commonwealth," it is enacted that there shall be one General Post Office called the Post Office of England, and one Postmaster-General nominated and appointed by the Protector for life or for a term of years not exceeding eleven.[116] In accordance with the terms of this act, Thurloe was appointed by Cromwell and continued to act as Postmaster-General until the downfall of the Commonwealth.[117]

[116] Scobell, _Collect._, pp. 511-13 (1656, c. 30).

[117] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1657-58, p. 81. In January of 1660 the Council took the Post Office under its own control for a short time. _Jo. H. C._, 1651-59, p. 81; _Cal. S. P. D._, 1659-60, p. 303.

After the Restoration most of the old claimants to the Post Office came to the front again. Stanhope besieged King and Parliament for restoration to his old place. He seems to have received some compensation, which he deserved for his pertinacity if for nothing else. The Porters were up in arms at once, for he had promised them to come to no agreement until they were satisfied.[118] The two daughters of Burlamachi pleaded for some mark of favour, on the ground that their father had ruined himself for the late King. Frizell was still very much alive, and a nephew of Witherings carried on the family feud.[119] In the meantime James Hicks was employed by the Secretary of State to ascertain how many of the old deputy postmasters were still eligible for positions. He reported that many of them were dead and that many of those who were applying for positions had been enemies of the King. For the time being it was decided that the present officials should remain in office until a settlement should be made.[120]

[118] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1660-61, p. 178; Hist. MSS. Com., _Rep._ 7, p. 109.

[119] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1660-61, pp. 93-100, 301.

[120] _Ibid._, 1660-61, pp. 37, 82.

Henry Bishop was appointed by royal patent Postmaster-General of England for seven years at a rent of £21,500 a year. The King agreed to persuade Parliament to pass an act[121] settling the rates and terms under which Bishop was to exercise his duties. For the time being he was to charge the same rates as those in the "pretended Act of 1657," to defray all postal expenses and to carry free all public letters and letters of members of Parliament during the present session. He agreed also to allow the Secretaries to examine letters and not to change old routes or set up new without their consent. He was to dismiss all officials whom they should object to on reasonable grounds. If his income should be lessened by war or plague or if this grant should prove ineffectual, the Secretaries agreed to allow such abatement in his farm as should seem reasonable to them.[122] Bishop's régime does not seem to have been popular with the postmasters, for a petition in behalf of 300 of them, representing themselves to be "all the postmasters in England, Scotland, and Ireland," was presented to Parliament in protest against the Postmaster-General's actions. They describe how Cromwell had let the Post Office out to farm. They credit him with respecting their rights and paying their wages. Lately, however, Bishop had been appointed farmer, and unless they submitted to his orders, they were dismissed at once. He had decreased their wages by more than one half, made them pay for their places again, and demanded bonds from them that they should not disclose any of these things.[123]

[121] The act of 1660 (12 Ch. II, c. 35) passed in pursuance of this agreement added nothing of importance to the act of 1657, except on the question of rates. See below,