[338] _A. P. C._, 1577-78, p. 219. [339] _Ibid._, 1588-89, p. 206. The travellers, however, were not the only people who were at fault. The owners of the horses were often offenders and can hardly be blamed for rendering as difficult as possible the enforcement of the obnoxious proclamations, which they were ordered to obey. If they had to supply horses, they must do so, but there was nothing to prevent them from offering clumsy plough horses or venerable specimens no longer capable of drawing a plough. The constables were more apt to sympathize with the owners, who were their neighbours, than with the travellers. Consequently it is not surprising that complaints were loud and deep over the pieces of horseflesh, whose angular outlines must have presented a sorry seat for the Queen's messengers.[340] [340] _Ibid._, 1577-78, p. 62; 1580-81, p. 203. By a Privy Council proclamation issued in 1603, all posts receiving a daily fee were required to keep at least two horses apiece. So far as the letting of horses was concerned, they had up to this time been subject to competition from other people, who had horses to hire. They were now granted the prior right to provide horses for travellers and it was only in case of their supply being inadequate that horses might be procured elsewhere. The hire as usual was to be paid in advance and was fixed at 2-1/2_d._ a mile, together with the guide's fee for those riding on commission and was to be settled by agreement for all others. No heavier burden than thirty pounds in excess of the rider's weight was to be carried by each horse.[341] [341] _Rep. Com._, 1844, xiv, app., pp. 38, 39, 40 (18).