The Savannah morning news., 1901-10-28
THE ABUSE OF FRANKING.
Nagnries of the Long Abolished Sys-
tenn in England.
From the London Globe.

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 bad dis
appeared 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 a shock of surprise. The
suggestion recalls to mind all the vag-
aries of the franking system, which,
like other anomalies of our English
constitution, awake in our minds to-
day sort of affectionate amusement,
rather than any Iervor of Indignation.
Up to the time of the abolition of the
privilege it was part of the amiable
duties of a courteous member of Par
lament to pass his friends letters as
well as his own, through the post
gratis. When he paid visits to the
houses of his friends and acquaintan-
ces he left a number of franks behind
to be used as required. His generosity
cost him nothing, and the prices charg
ed for postage on cross routes were so
high that the saving to his friends
pockets was considerable. Ordinary
farnks were valid for one or two
ounces only, but certain more highly
to weight, and the story is told of
piano travelling free as a letter under
ranking signature. But, of course,
as a rule it was chiefly the well-to-do
classes who could count members of
Parliament among their friends. and
the postal tax was rigidly exacted
from those letter receivers who could
least afford it. Poor people who want
ed news of their relatives at less cost
- aaf Ia
resorted to forgivable trickery. Row
land Hill, in his pamphlet urging the
necessity of postofflce reform. relates
how Coleridge, walking in the lake dis
trict, came across a woman in the act
of refusing a letter from her son, on
the ground that she had no shilling to
pay for it. Coleridge gave her the shill-
ing, but when the letter carrier had
gone, the woman told him that the
letter was a mere signal to tell her
that her son was we'll; ii was never
meant to be taken in, and as a matter
of fact consisted of nothing but blank
sheet addressed to herself
A more elaborate code of signalling
was adopted by Rowland Hill himself.
In his time newspapers were allowed to
go free when bearing the name of any
member, whether written by himself
or not. 1t had been intended that, as
in the case of letters the name should
be genuine signatures in the hand
writing of the franker. but by de-
grees-chiehy through the pressure eX-
erted by enterprising booksellers and
paper distributors upon complaisant
politicians-the names on the papers
degenerated into perfectly empty
form, till some printers boldly discard
ed writing, and had the name of a po-
litical leader printed on their wrap
al oil
free. The laxity with respect to them
must be attributed to the heavy vested
interests involved, and is all the more
remarkable when it is remembered
that in England to forge the frank on
a letter was an oftense punished with
much severity. The Hill family took
advantage of the economical form OF
communication afforded, and when
Rowland, all and out of spirits, took
Scotch tour to recruit his 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, 1t
was settled that a Liberal name should
stand for good and a Conservative for
bad report. graduations in health
being indicated to a nicely by the
shades of political opinion in the per-
son whose names was selected for the
frank. Sir Francis Burdett," he
says in his photographed sketch
was to imply vigorous health, while
probably Lord Eldon' would almost
have brought one of my brothers after
me in anxiety and alarm"
The practice of franking dates al
most from the formal institution of
the postoffice. The act to which the
postoffice may be said to owe its ex-
istence dates back to 1867. during the
time of the commonwealth. In this
year a bill was introduced into Parlia-
ment to grant members the right Of
passing their letters free through the
post. but IT was thrown out by the
Lords. On the Restoration new act,
virtually a repetition of that of 1867,
insured the existence of the postoffice,
and in the same year members were
granted the Thanking privilege by the
crown. No recognition of the right
by Parliament is to be found until an
act passed under George III. just over
a hundred years later, which was in
tended 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 prov
ince 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 life of the sovereign in eX
change for civil list charged upon the
Consolidated Fund. The King was no
longer competent to grant any dis
pensation 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 al
lowed to pass, which had been fixed at
two ounces: while the old rule that
members might only frank letters dur
ing the parliamentary session or for
forty days before or after was still
maintained. The new restrictions were
that the whole address of every frank
ed letter. and not merely the name OF
the ranking member, was now to be
in his own handwriting, and that In
the case of letters dispatched to mem
bers, only those were to be passed free
which were directed to his usual resi-
dence 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
current abuses, but far from limiting
the number of free letters, il seems TO
have greatly stimulated the use of
franks, by removing any existing scru-
pies as to their legality and giving
them a recognized place on the statute
book. A careful examination OF let
tiers passing through the London Of
fee showed that in the eight years
after the passing of the act the an
nual number of franks had been near.
franks being 34734, and in 1872 the
number reaching 1858. The regula-
tons as to the addresses at which
members were entitled TO receive free