The system of ascertaining forged franks and of discovering enclosures was as follows: a Supervisor of the Franks charged all letters, franked by a member's name, coming from any place, when he knew that the member was not there. Very often by holding them in front of a candle, he could see enclosures inside directed to other people. If he was in doubt he generally charged the letter, for if it should pay, all well and good, and if he had made a mistake, the amount was refunded to the member. The Supervisor had noticed that the number of franked letters had increased with every session of Parliament, and some of the ex-members also attempted to frank letters. The evidence of the Supervisor, especially his description of the manner in which he attempted to discover enclosures, was exceedingly distasteful to the House. The members themselves were to blame for many of the abuses attendant upon the system, and yet they contended that they were the unwilling victims of others. A resolution was adopted that it was an infringement upon the privileges of the knights, citizens, and burgesses chosen to represent the people of Great Britain in Parliament, for any postmaster, his deputies or agents to open or look into any letter addressed to or signed by a member of Parliament, unless empowered so to do by a warrant issued by one of the Secretaries of State. In addition no postmaster or his deputies should delay or detain any letter directed to or by any member unless there should be good reason to suppose that the frank was a counterfeit.[639] [639] _Jo. H. C._, 1732-37, p. 476. The restrictions adopted to curtail the abuse of the franking privilege had but little effect. A regular business sprang up for selling counterfeit franks. The House of Lords ordered one person accused of selling them to come before the bar of the House for examination, but he failed to present himself.[640] Another confessed before the Upper House that he had counterfeited one of the Lords' names on certain covers of letters showed to him and had then sold them. He expressed sorrow for the offence, which necessity had driven him to commit. He was sent to Newgate.[641] The abuses of the franking system were so patent[642] that Allen was told that he might withdraw from his contract to farm the bye and cross post letters on three months' notice being given.[643] [640] _Jo. H. L._, 1736-41, p. 259. [641] _Ibid._, p. 529. [642] One man in five months counterfeited 14,400 franks of members of Parliament. Counterfeits of names of 27 members were shown. A regular trade in buying and selling them had sprung up (_Jo. H. C._, 1761-64, p. 998). Several Lords certified that their names had been counterfeited. Lord Dacre's name had been counterfeited 504 times (_Jo. H. L._, 1760-64, p. 534). [643] _Cal. T. B. & P._, 1739-41, p. 450.