queen, unwilling to augment the charge of the office to what it was in Hamilton’s time, was then at above £200 sterling charges yearly, to support it between New Hampshire and Pennsylvania, and if the several offices had half salary allowed them, it would cost her majesty £100 sterling more. Accordingly he thought it but just that public letters for the time past should be paid for, the postmaster recompensed for sending the governor’s letters to Roxbury, and some provision made for conveying them in the future. Otherwise, he would be obliged to represent the case to the postmaster-general of Great Britain, which he had foreborne to do, hoping that the general court would prevent it. The council took no cognizance of the petition, as we learn from its renewal in 1711.[49] [49] _Mass. Historical Collections_, 3d Series, Vol. VII., p. 80. The action of New Hampshire relative to a post, occurred at about the same time as that of Massachusetts. John Usher,[50] writing to the New Hampshire council, from Boston, March 25, 1693, said that the postmaster-general in Boston was desirous of knowing what salary would be allowed or how much a letter for a post from Piscataqua to Boston, adding that it might be an advantage to gain news from England and the West Indies, and that they would like a post weekly or once in two weeks. The council (March 27, 1693) was of the opinion[51] that a post was necessary, and that there should be an allowance per letter, according to other places in like circumstances, proportionate to the distance from Boston, “Every one to pay for his own Lett{r}.” A record[52] in the “Journal of the Council and Assembly” of July 29, 1693, says: “Maj. Vaughan and Mr. Waldron were appointed to prepare and drawe up a Bill for settling a Post Office in this Province,” and on the fourth of August the council concurred with the bill which had been passed by the lower house. [50] _N. H. Provincial Papers_, Vol. II., p. 100. [51] _N. H. Provincial Papers_, Vol. II., p. 101. [52] _N. H. Provincial Papers_, Vol. III., p. 11.