The Washington times., 1901-11-10
FRANKING In ENGLAND.
Peculiarities of the System Which
Has Been Abolished.
British Members of Parliament Now
Compelled to Pay Postage on All
Mail Matter-Some Abuses which
Brought About the Laws Repeal.

Among the numerous privileges which
time has swept away. it might have been
considered that the right of members OF
Parliament to pass their letters free
through the post had disappeared past the
possibility of recall, and the proposal at
the close of last session to resuscitate the
right of "franking" must have come to
many people with shock of surprise. The
suggestion recalls to mind all the yaga-
ries of the franking system. which, ike
other anomalies of our English constitu-
tion. awake in our minds today a sort of
affectionate amusement, rather than any
fervor of indignation.
Up to the time of the abolition OF the
privilege 1t was part of the amiable du-
ties of a courteous member of Pariia-
ment to pass his friends letters as well
as his own through the post gratis When
he paid visits to the houses of his reia-
tives and acauaintances he left number
of franks behind to be used as required
His generosity cost him nothing, and the
prices charged for postage on cross routes
were so high that the saving 10 nus
friends pockets was considerable. Ordl-
nary franks were valid for one or TWO
ounces only, but certain more highly priv
iIeged ones carried no limitation as 10
weight, and the story is told Of piano
travelling free as a letter under Irahhihs
signature. But, of course, as RUE II
was chiefly the well-to-do classes VINO
could count members of Parliament
among their friends, and the postal tax
was rigidly eXactcd from those letter re-
ceivers who could least afford II. POOR
people who wanted news of their relatives
at less cost than the legitimate rates
sometimes resorted to forgiyable trlcKerS.
Rowland Hill. in his pamphlet urging the
necessity of postoffice reform. relates no"
Coleridge walking in the lake distrlcl'
came across a woman in the act Oh re-
freinp n letter from her son. on the
ground that she had no shining 10 pay
for II. Coleridge gave her the shilling, but
when the letter carrier had gone, the
woman told him that the letter was
r,ere signal to tell her that her son was
we'll: IT was never meant to be taken in.
and as n matter of fact consisted of moth
ing but a blank sheet addressed to her-
self.
moro elaborate code of signaling was
.,donted by Rowland Hill himself. In his
+inoa newspapers were allowed to go free
when bearing the name of any member
whether written by himself or not IL
had been intended that. as In the case OF
| letters. the names should be genuine sig
natures in the handwriting of the franKer'
| but by degrees-chiefy through the pres
sure exerted by enterprising booksellers
and paper distributors upon complaisaht
politicians-the names on the papers de-
| generated into a perfectly empty tortn'
| till some printers boldly discarded writ
| ing, and had the name of politlcal lead-
| er printed on their wrappers. Newspapers
TraA
with respect to them must be attributed
| to the heavy vested interests involved,
and is all the more remarkable when II
is remebered that in England to forge
the frank on letter was an offence pun
ished with much severity. The Hill fam
/ iIv took advantage of the economical
/ form of communication afforded, ana
/ when Rowland, i'll and out of spirits,
took Scotch tour to recruit bis health
he arranged TO send his family frequent
bulletins by means of papers. He took
with him a stock of old papers. and the
| family being strong Radicals. it was set
tied that Liberal name should stand Tor
a good and Conservative for bad re-
| port, gradations in health being Indicated
to a nicely by the shades of political
| opinion in the person whose name was
! selected for the frank. Sir Francis Bur-
J
sketch. was to imply vigorous health,
while probably Lord Eldon' would al
| most have brought one of my brothers
after me in anxiety and alarm"
| The practice of franking dates almost
from the formal institution of the post
office. The act to which the postoffice
| may be said to owe its existence dates
| back to 1851 during the time of the Com
| monwealth. In this year a bill was intro
| duced into Parliament to grant members
| the right of passing their letters free
through the post, but 1t was thrown out
by the Lords. On the Restoration new
| act. virtually a repetition of that of 1901,
| ensured the existence of the postotiice. and
I'm the same year members were granted
| the franking privilege by the Crown. No
recognition of the right by Parliament is
to be found until an act passed under
George III. just over hundred years
later, which was intended to limit the
number of franked letters. Up to this time
the profits of the postoffice belonged to
the Crown. and it was therefore within
the province of the Crown to remit the
cost Of postage to any favored class. But
at the time of the act of George III the
revenue accruing from the postoffice had
been surrendered to the public during the
civil list charged upon the Consolidated
Fund. The King WAS no longer compe-
tent to grant any dispensation from the
! ordinary postage tax, and the matter had
to be referred to Parliament. The new
| act made no change as to the weight OF
| letters allowed to pass, which had beer
fixed at two ounces; while the old rule
that members might frank letters during
| the Parliamentary session or for forty
days before or after was still maintained
The new restrictions were that the whole
address of every franlSed letter, and not
merely the name of the franking mem
Der, was now to be in his own handwrit-
ing, and that in the case of letters des'
patched to members. only those We're tc
be passed free which were directed to his
usual residence or to the place at which
he was actually staying. or to either OF
the houses of Parliament.
! The act was intended to check the cur
rent abuses, but far from limiting the
number of free letters, it seems to have
greatly stimulated the use of franks by
removing any existing scruples as to theiI
legality and giving them 4 recognized
| place on the statute book. careful eX-
animation of letters passing through the
| London Office showed that in the eight
years after the passing OF the act the an
nual number of franks had been nearly
doublod-in 1861 the number of franks be
| ing q, ,73i and in 1772 the number reaching
65 O53. The regulations as to the addresses
| at which members were entitled to receive
| free. correspondence led to constant and
bitter disputes. for the officials OF the
postofIice made a practice of charging a
! letter if they did not believe the member