[122] _Rep. Com._, 1844, xiv, app., pp. 75, 76 (52, 53). [123] Hist. MSS. Com., _Rep._, 7, p. 140. In 1633, Bishop resigned his grant to Daniel O'Neale for £8000. O'Neale offered £2000 and, in addition, promised £1000 a year, during the lease, to Bennet, Secretary of State, if he would have the assignment confirmed. He explained that this would not injure the Duke of York's interest, who could expect no increase until the expiration of the original contract, which still had four years and a quarter to run.[124] This refers to an act of Parliament which had just been passed, settling the £21,500 post revenue upon the Duke of York and his male heirs,[125] with the exception of some £5000 which had been assigned by the King to his mistresses and favourites. O'Neale having died before his lease expired, his wife, the Countess of Chesterfield, performed his duties until 1667.[126] [124] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1663-64, p. 122; _Rep. Com._, 1844, xiv, app., pp. 86, 91 (60, 64). [125] _Ibid._, 1844, xiv, app., p. 91 (64). Confirmed in 1685 (Hist. MSS. Com., _Rep._, 11, app., 2, p. 315; 1 Jas. ii, c. 12). [126] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1664-65, p. 376; 1666-67, p. 567. According to the grant made to O'Neale in 1663 no postmaster nor any other person except the one to whom it was directed or returned was to open any letter unless ordered so to do by an express warrant from one of the Secretaries of State. If any letter was overcharged, the excess was to be returned to the person to whom it was directed. Nothing was said about letters which were lost or stolen in the post. A certain John Pawlett complained that of sixteen letters which he had posted not one was ever delivered in London although the postage was prepaid.[127] Letters not prepaid were stamped with the postage due in the London Office when they were sent from London. Letters sent to London were charged by the receiving postmaster in the country and the charge verified at the London Office. An account was kept there of the amounts due and the postmasters were debited with them, less the sum for letters not delivered, which had also to be returned for verification.[128] All this meant losses to the postal revenue, but compulsory prepayment would have been impracticable at the time. The postmasters had nothing to gain by retaining letters not prepaid, but by neglecting to forward prepaid letters, they could keep the whole of the postage, for stamps were unknown. An incentive to the delivery of letters was provided by the penny payment which it was customary to give the postmasters for each letter delivered, over and above the regular postage. The postmasters were required to remit the postage collected to London every month and give bonds for the performance of their duties.[129] [127] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1664-65, p. 457. Although letters might be prepaid, it was not compulsory that they should be, and the vast majority were not. [128] Joyce, p. 46. [129] _Cal. S. P. D._, 1667, p. 80.