| { recently been placed under the | | { authority of the Irish Parliament; | |To and from Dublin { and the rates of postage, not only | | { within Ireland, but between Ireland | | { and Great Britain, were awaiting | | { revision. | | | | Within Scotland. | | | | || | | | | | (Measured from Edinburgh.) | | | | || | | | | |Not exceeding one post stage | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 || 2 | 4 | 6 | 8 | |Exceeding one post stage and | | | | || | | | | | not exceeding 50 miles | 2 | 4 | 6 | 8 || 3 | 6 | 9 | 12 | |Exceeding 50 miles and not | | | | || | | | | | exceeding 80 miles | 3 | 6 | 9 | 12 || 4 | 8 | 12 | 16 | |Exceeding 80 and not | | | | || | | | | | exceeding 150 miles | 4 | 8 | 12 | 16 || 5 | 10 | 15 | 20 | |Exceeding 150 miles | 4 | 8 | 12 | 16 || 6 | 12 | 18 | 24 | +-----------------------------+----+----+----+----++----+----+----+----+ The same Act which increased the rates of postage imposed, or sought to impose, additional restrictions upon franking. Some concessions indeed were made. Letters from members of Parliament, in order to secure exemption, need no longer be limited, in point of weight, to two ounces and, in point of time, to the session of Parliament and forty days before and after. As part of the superscription, however, were now to be given the full date of the letter, the day, the month, and the year, all in the member's handwriting; and the letter was to be posted on the date which the superscription bore. These restrictions, it was confidently expected, would correct the worst abuses and render the concessions harmless. But, curiously enough, like the restrictions of 1764, they had an exactly contrary effect to that which was intended. The members sent to their constituents and friends, for use as occasion should serve, franks that were post-dated. These the Post Office charged, as coming from places where the members were known not to be. The members remonstrated, demanding to be informed in what respects the conditions of the Act had not been satisfied. The dispute waxing warm, the matter was referred to Pitt; and Pitt, after testing the opinion of the House, decided that pending fresh legislation the charges should be abandoned. Practically, therefore, the abuses which the Act was designed to prevent were not only not prevented but were given wider scope.