 | |  |
III
Surely the most perplexing use of franks in the correspondence involves a series of fourteen letters Dodsley wrote to Shenstone and which he franked himself. On the cover of each of these letters appears, in the bookseller's hand, "R. Dodsley free." The letters come midway in Dodsley's lengthy correspondence with Shenstone, covering a period of almost two years; that is, from September 1753 through July 1755.[27]
By what authority Dodsley presumed to endorse these letters escapes detection. However, it is reasonable to assume that Dodsley's endorsements do not reflect an infringement on the franking privilege. First of all, such a blatant abuse of franks, because it would amount to arrogant defiance of the law, does not fit the character of the mild-mannered, law-abiding bookseller. Moreover, as evident throughout his correspondence, Dodsley was keen to protect his business reputation, which, at the time of these letters, was rising to its zenith. As London's premiere publisher of belles lettres, he certainly would not have jeopardized his business for the paltry pence to be saved in this brief series of letters. Clearly, an explanation must be found within the prescriptions of the law, or at least within accepted custom. Unfortunately, nothing we know of Dodsley affords a certain explanation. No record, for instance, shows Dodsley to have held any of the offices or to have served in a secretarial capacity to any of the offices accorded the franking privilege. We are left to speculate.
One possible explanation derives from a Dodsley business activity of the time, the publishing of periodicals. David Foxon has suggested that perhaps Dodsley had gained the privilege from the Post Office Clerks of the Road, who officially franked newspapers sent into the provinces. The Clerks, Foxon notes, employed numerous agents in London to collect, wrap, and frank these papers. Dodsley, as the publisher of the weekly periodical The World (January, 1753-December, 1756) and as a shareholder (at least since 1747) in the most influential newspaper currently being sent into the country, the London Evening Post, might have been so employed.[28] If Foxon is correct, perhaps Dodsley had loosely construed the privilege of franking as extending to his private letters—an understanding that might well fit the current liberal interpretation of the franking privilege. On the other hand, if such was the case, one might question why Dodsley suddenly discontinued the practice in mid-1755 when the forementioned publications continued to be issued. No new government investigation of franking abuses seems to have occurred in that year, nor were there any new restrictions on persons entitled to the privilege.
Dodsley does seem to have come to the government's attention in late 1754 or early 1755 when the London Evening Post carried a series of scurrilous attacks on the Rev. Richard Blacow and probably also when, in July 1755, the paper's printer, Richard Nutt, was imprisoned for printing a libel
Another possible explanation for Dodsley's franking activity arises from a practice that would become, in short time, a prescription of the law of franking; namely, that Dodsley had been appointed by a privileged person to endorse letters on the latter's behalf. One prescription of the Act of 1763 allowed ministers to appoint others to frank their letters, on the condition that the names of such proxies be registered with the Postmaster-General. Those sending letters were to sign their names on the outside and themselves write the address.[30] Although this extension of the privilege does not officially become law until eleven years after Dodsley's initial frank, it is quite possible that the practice had originated much earlier than the date of legal sanction, that the law merely codified what had been the accepted custom for some time. It is unlikely that such a prescription would have been enacted if there had not been some such pressure to legitimize it.
If such had been the case, Dodsley would certainly have been in line for such an appointment, for he had some close friends in the Ministry during these years, friends who would have been agreeable to such an arrangement. A likely benefactor in this case would have been his friend George Lord Lyttleton, significantly both a Lord of the Treasury and Shenstone's neighbor at Hagley. Moreover, as Lyttelton's bookseller, Dodsley had already put two of Lyttleton's works through several editions.[31] No doubt the author would have been sympathetic to Dodsley's postal expenses during years when he carried on an extensive correspondence with Shenstone regarding the preparation of Volume 4 of his Collection of Poems (1755). In fact, Lyttelton might have served as one of the bookseller's advisors on the publication. Also significant, as mentioned earlier, it was the Treasury that controlled the operation of the Post Office, appointing the Postmaster General, setting its rates, and generally determining its policy. Dodsley could not have wanted a friend in a more appropriate place.
Even these fortuitous links, however, and the potential extension of the franking privilege they suggest do not fully correspond with the peculiar circumstances of Dodsley's franking activity. During the period in question (September, 1753 to July, 1755), Dodsley's extant letters (38 pieces, in toto) show no other instances of franking than when writing to Shenstone.[32] Did
| | |