Eighteenth-Century Authors and the Abuse
of the Franking System
by
James E. Tierney
Although it is well known that the English franking
privilege was much abused during the eighteenth
century, very little specific evidence has come
forward to show the extent to which literary figures
illegally used the free postage accorded government
officers and members of Parliament. Howard Robinson
has called our attention to the infringements on the
privilege by both Samuel Johnson and Horace Walpole,
pointing to the occasions when Johnson requested
Mrs. Thrale to have her husband frank their
correspondence and when Walpole franked letters for
his friends George Montagu and the Rev. William
Cole.[1] However, little else has
reached print.
The present essay, by drawing upon the correspondence of
the mid-eighteenth-century London bookseller Robert
Dodsley, will add a number of otherwise law-abiding
authors to the list of those who winked at the
prescriptions of the franking privilege by employing
franks for their private correspondence. On the
broader scale, it should also become clear that the
illegal employment of franks during the period had
come to be accepted, actually expected, even by
those to whom the privilege was specifically
granted in law. In fact, the
evidence will suggest that, during the 1740s and
1750s, the illegal use of franks had risen to such
proportions that it was threatening to become an
established English custom.
I
To begin, it would be helpful to recall briefly some of
the major developments in both the law and practice
of franking prior to, and concurrent with, the
period under consideration. Franking had originated
with Cromwell's government. In 1652, the Council of
State ordered that ". . . all public packets on
extraordinary dispatches, letters of members of
Parliament and Council of State, secretaries,
clerks, or officers employed in public service under
them, or their committees, or in any other service
of public concernment, shall be carried free. . .
."[2] Extended into the Restoration, the
privilege was noticeably abused, as reflected in a
Royal Warrant on 4 March 1693: ". . . the King has
suffered great prejudice in the Post Office Revenue
by the free carriage of letters and packets which
ought to have been paid for."[3] In response to the abuse, this
warrant restricted free carriage to the two
principal Secretaries of State, the Secretary of
Scotland, the Secretary in Holland, and the earl of
Portland; two days later members of Parliament were
accorded the privilege, but only during the session
and forty days before and after. In addition, to
forestall further abuse, members were required to
write their names and to give the impression of
their seals in a book provided for the purpose. A
few months later, the privilege was further extended
to the Treasury Lords, the Secretary of War, and the
Secretary of the Admiralty.
These prescriptions, however, proved ineffective in
constraining abuses, which continued to proliferate
into the eighteenth century. Typical abuses were of
several kinds: enclosure of private letters within
franked packets by authorized persons; forging of
members' names by constituents without complaint
from the former; letters sent from the country to be
re-addressed for delivery under members' signatures;
letters directed to be sent under a privileged
person's name to a City coffee house where it would
be picked up by the intended recipient; the
inclusion of private letters within newspaper
packets that had been franked by a privileged
person.
In 1715, complaints from the Postmasters-General prompted
the House of Commons to enact further stipulations:
franks on letters and packets were to be written in
the hand of the privileged person; a letter would
pass free only if a member was actually residing in
the place to which the letter was addressed; a
member was forbidden to frank a newspaper unless it
was entirely in print (no letter enclosed).[4]
The ongoing anxieties of Postmasters-General were
reflected in the reported losses to the King's
revenue as a result of franked material, both legal
and illegal. For instance, from Lady Day (25 March)
1716 to the same day of the following year, the
government audit office reported losses to revenue
of £18,471 as a result of franking by the
King's ministers and an additional £237 as the
loss from M.P.'s franking.[5]
Despite continuing government clarifications regarding
persons entitled to the franking privilege and
warnings to violators, the illegal use of franks
proceeded to escalate through the first three
decades of the eighteenth century. Finally, reported
annual losses to revenue of £36,864 during the
period 1730-1733 prompted the House of Commons to
undertake its own investigation of the problem in
1735. Various Post Office officials were summoned to
testify on the manner and extent of the misuse of
franks. Although Edward Cave, a supervisor of
franks, provided elaborate evidence of false
franking (notably, M.P.'s franking of letters not
concerned with their business and non-privileged
persons' use of blank franks supplied by members),
the House became irate when it learned of Cave's
methods of discovering and dealing with illegal
franks. He reported that when he knew a member was
not actually residing at the address on a letter, he
charged the letter with postage. More distressing to
the House, however, was Cave's method of detecting
fraudulent franks: examining all franked letters by
candlelight.[6]
Ironically, the principal effect of the investigation was
the enactment of restrictions on the Post Office
rather than measures directed at curing the franking
problem. The House passed a Resolution forbidding
the tactics employed by Cave, regarding them as
infringements on members' privacy and privilege.[7] When the Postmasters-General
complained to the Treasury (who set policy for the
Post Office) that they were now prevented from
protecting the King's revenue by this new
restriction, they were told to obey the House's
Resolution.[8]
Four years after George III had surrendered the Post
Office revenue in favor of a Civil List settlement
in 1760, Parliament passed an act, giving sanction
to this longstanding privilege and repeating the
principal points of the original royal proclamation.
However, it put some "teeth" into the new act by
including an elaborate set of regulations against
abuses, and, among them, one stipulating that anyone
found illegally avoiding postage would be guilty of
felony and liable to transportation for seven
years.[9] Initially, the act
significantly reduced the illegal use of franks,
but, shortly after, when the
privilege was extended to other persons, the
regulations were relaxed, and the old abuses
returned in legion.
II
It is from the nineteen-year period preceding
1764—a time of lax government
control—that the relevant Dodsley
correspondence presented below originates. Evidence
of specific franking abuses in this correspondence
derives from twenty-three separate letters written
by eleven different persons, including Dodsley
himself. An additional fourteen letters show the
bookseller actually franking his own letters. The
former originate from a variety of places, including
Aberdeen, Bath, Birmingham, Carlisle, Durham, and
Nottingham. Mostly regular correspondents, the
writers include the printer John Baskerville; John
"Estimate" Brown; John Gilbert Cooper, a prolific
miscellaneous writer; the poet John Dyer; David
Fordyce, professor of moral philosophy at Aberdeen;
Richard Graves, author of The
Spiritual Quixote; John Scott Hylton, a
numismatist from Hales-Owen; Robert Lowth, the
grammarian and future bishop of London; William
"Pliny" Melmoth; and the poet William Shenstone.
Not all of the instances are de
facto violations of the franking privilege,
but where they are not, it is clear that the
writers, short of counterfeiting a signature, would
not hesitate to so infringe. Generally the abuses
are of three types: the endorsement by M.P.s of
letters or packets that have nothing to do with
their own business but franked as a favor to a
friend; letters or packets sent to a local M.P.,
who, upon reception, franked his friend/neighbor's
mail; and, perhaps the most notorious of all, the
circulation and use of blank but franked sheets.
Five letters from Dodsley's correspondents solely
concerned with the writers' literary interests or
productions (and not at all with an M.P.'s business)
are either franked by an M.P. or request that favor
of Dodsley. Two of John Gilbert Cooper's letters,
written from Derby on 18 February 1747 and from
Leicester on 23 September 1749, are franked by
Borlace Warren, M.P. for Nottingham (1713-15,
1727-47), and by George Wrighte, M.P. for Leicester
(1727-66), respectively.[10] The first is
wholly concerned with essays that Cooper encloses
for Dodsley's fortnightly Museum:
or Literary and Historical Register
(1746-47); the second is taken up with directions
for indexing the author's soon-to-be-published Life of Socrates (1749).
Another letter on 16 January 1749 asks Dodsley to
send Thomas Seward's pamphlet The
Conformity between Popery and Paganism
illustrated in a frank, thereby calling upon
the bookseller to supply the free postage.[11] A similar favor is begged of
Dodsley by John Brown on 8 November 1746, only he
would like two
pamphlets—Nathaniel
Cotton's
Fireside and the
"Surprising History of a late long Administration"
by "Titus Livius, jr."—sent in a frank.
[12] (Franked pieces were not to exceed
two ounces.) Finally, David Fordyce's letter from
Aberdeen on 11 February 1748 has nothing to do with
the endorser, William Grant, M.P. for Elgin, but
inquires at length about Fordyce's manuscript for
The Elements of Moral
Philosophy, which he had recently submitted
to Dodsley.
[13]
The franking of Dodsley's own letters, upon receipt, was
assured in two further letters from Cooper. On 7
April 1746, he directs Dodsley to send every number
of the Museum to the Hon.
John Stanhope, Lord of the Admiralty, at Alderman
Frances's in Derby, "where I shall receive it
without any post charge."[14] On 9
December 1749, he enjoins Dodsley to send him "in
two Separate covers (for I'm afraid one will weigh
above two ounces) the last Monthly
Review [containing a review of Cooper's Life of Socrates], directed,
for Wrightson Mundy Esqr Membr of Parlt. at John
Gilbert Cooper's in Leicester, which expedient will
save me the expense of carriage, & you two
franks."[15]
If one can generalize from the bulk of evidence found in
the correspondence, the most common abuse of the
franking privilege consisted of the wholesale
endorsing of blank sheets by privileged persons for
the use of their friends. The earliest instance,
found in a Cooper letter on 15 November 1746, shows
the author promising Dodsley another two papers for
his Museum "as soon as I can
procure franks." Apparently he did more than keep
his word, for, in a letter of the following 11
February, he is reminding Dodsley that "about two
months ago I sent you some franks of Mr Warren's,"
thereby allowing the bookseller to respond to his
many queries free of charge.[16]
John Baskerville, the Birmingham printer, implicitly
reveals the extent and common acceptance of the
abuse in the conclusion of his letter to Dodsley on
19 October 1752.[17] There he suggests to
the bookseller, whose shop in Pall Mall was near to
the Houses of Parliament, that "As you are [in] the
Land of Franks: half a Doz. would do me a particular
pleasure, As a good Many things not worth a groat
might be communicated by Yr Most obedt hble Servt."
A similar impression of Bath's seasonal "resources"
is conveyed by Richard Graves when writing on 30
September 1756.[18] Graves hopes "to get
some Franks when our Season comes in." From another
quarter, John Scott Hylton of Hales-Owen, near
Birmingham, complains in a letter of 6 December 1757
that "Lord Dudley's death [5th Baron Dudley] has put
an
end to all Franks with me."
[19] Four months later, providing
Dodsley with a lengthy account of his ailing
neighbor William Shenstone, Hylton resorts to a
frank "found . . . in Mr: Shenstone's pocket Book,
which I stole for you," adding: "I wish I could
procure some and then I should write with greater
Satisfaction to you, than to make you pay postage
for my incorrect scrawl."
[20] The
availability of franks seems so common that, when
temporarily unavailable, Dodsley's correspondents
thought twice about writing.
Obviously Shenstone himself made regular use of franks to
cover his personal letters, and from whatever source
he could procure them. Dodsley's response to the
poet in a letter of 19 September 1758 implicitly
acknowledges the free flow of franks that did not
even require the user to procure them directly from
a friend, or even be acquainted with his benefactor:
"As to Franks, you could not have ask'd at a worse
time, as I have no body in Town to apply to: however
I have enclos'd three, & will send You more as
soon as I have an opportunity of getting any."[21] Shenstone had revealed a reliance
upon franks for his personal correspondence even
earlier. On 21 December of the previous year, when
sending Dodsley corrections for poems to be included
in Volumes 5 and 6 of a Collection
of Poems by Several Hands, Shenstone says he
believes he will write again tomorrow, for which he
has "reserv'd my only
Frank."[22] Still another request
for a supply of franks comes from William Melmoth on
3 July 1760.[23] Although missing,
Dodsley's response was probably little different
from that to Shenstone, for Parliament, of course,
did not sit during the summer months.
Another seven allusions in the correspondence implicitly
acknowledge the casual circulation of franked sheets
among non-privileged persons, but, for the most
part, they consist of simple apologies to Dodsley
for momentarily lacking franks to cover letters,
thereby requiring the bookseller to pay the post.
Three such letters come from Richard Graves, on 10
October 1757, 21 May 1763, and 6 January 1764.[24] John Dyer the poet is responsible
for another letter on 12 May 1757; John Scott
Hylton, for one on 9 February 1758; and Robert
Lowth, for one on 9 June 1758.[25] Finally, another such apology
appears in Dodsley's own letter on 9 December 1758,
a brief piece hastily dashed off to Shenstone amidst
the excitement surrounding the performance of
Dodsley's tragedy Cleone at
Drury Lane.[26]
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
on the
government. Sensitive to the government's concern
regarding the
Post's
activities, Dodsley, when queried about his role in
the Blacow affair by a friend in government,
responded by offering to sell his share in the
newspaper.
[29] That the government's
displeasure might have played a role in Dodsley's
failure to frank after July 1755 is a possibility,
of course, but it does not explain the grounds on
which he took up the practice, to begin with.
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
Dodsley enjoy
a general franking privilege or had his free
postage, by some special arrangement, been limited
to the letters sent to Shenstone. Especially
curious, one letter to Shenstone in the midst of
this series—that on 24 January 1755—had
been franked not by Dodsley but by John Harris, M.P.
for Devon.
[33] Again, the question
looms: why did Dodsley discontinue the practice in
mid-1755? From this point, the number of his letters
to Shenstone increases, and Lyttelton continued as a
lord of the Treasury. In effect, this series of
frankings by Dodsley defies certain explanation; it
has no known precedent.
IV
Important for the history of franking during the
eighteenth century is the single impression emerging
from the foregoing evidence; namely, that notable,
law-abiding citizens, despite the illegality, could
openly and regularly use franks for private purposes
and be supported in the practice by those who were
officially accorded the privilege. Such common and
casual usage suggests that the practice was
universally accepted, even expected. In several
instances, it appears that franks were passed about
openly, much like modern grocer coupons. Certainly
the writers of these letters do not seem to imagine
themselves guilty of anything untoward, for none of
their allusions to the acquisition or use of franks
hints of conscious covert or fraudulent behavior.
The origin of the franks was readily acknowledged,
the letters were posted in the usual manner, and
those to Dodsley sent directly to his shop, not to
some intermediate place to cover the trail.
Significantly, all of the correspondents were
respectable and respected gentlemen: four of them
were clergymen, one a professor, and one a future
bishop of London. Dodsley himself enjoyed an
enviable reputation as a major London
bookseller.
By extension, it seems reasonable to assume that the
liberal use of franks by this coterie of literary
personalities was reflected in the practice of
society as a whole. Surely other booksellers and
their authors indulged in the practice. In fact, one
cannot imagine Dodsley's having skirted the law
unless he had felt supported by the custom of common
usage. Likewise there is no reason to limit the
observation to relations between booksellers and
their authors. Surely the world of politics, for
instance, with its vested interest in outlying
constituencies, swelled the ranks of likely users.
The full story, however, remains to be told. Study
of other collections of extant holograph letters
from the period would doubtless afford additional
evidence. The interpretation of the evidence,
however, will probably depend on conquering the
uncatalogued resources of the British Post Office
archives.
Notes