Although it was obvious that the establishment of a low rate of postage would of itself have a strong tendency to the disuse of the franking privilege, the committee had to consider how far it might be desirable to retain that privilege at all. It was found that the yearly number of franked missives was about seven millions; that those franked by members of parliament, (somewhat less than five millions in number) might be counted nearly as double letters, the official franks (about two millions in number) as eight-fold letters, and the copies of the statutes, distributed by public authority (about seventy-seven thousand in number), thirteen-fold letters.[235] In respect of the official franks, indeed, supposing their contents to be always in genuine relation to the public service, there was a mere formal difference between their passing through the Post Office free, and their being charged to the office of state from which they were posted; but such a supposition would have been very wide of the truth, for, as is justly remarked in the Report, “it is liable to the abuse, which no vigilance can effectually guard against, of being made the vehicle for private correspondence.” The Report continues:— “Thus it appears from Dr. Lardner’s evidence, that while he resided in Dublin, the greater part, if not the whole, of his correspondence was allowed to pass under the franks of the then Postmaster-General for Ireland, and that the extensive correspondence in which he is now engaged, in relation to various publications, and to engineering, on which he is professionally consulted, is carried on principally by means of official franks. He states that, as these franks enable him to send any weight he pleases, he is in the habit, in order to save trouble to those from whom he obtains the franks, of enclosing under one cover a bundle of letters to the same neighbourhood.”[236] However the objection to the existence of such opportunities might be lessened in the particular case by the uses to which it was applied, there was clearly no ground for supposing that it was only for such laudable purposes that the privilege was employed; indeed, it was notorious that men of science were far from being the class principally indulged. Neither could it be the poor and humble to whom the favour was commonly extended, but, as alleged by one of the witnesses, it was “principally the rich and independent who endeavoured to obtain franks from those who are privileged to give them.” Dr. Lardner, too, said that “a man to obtain such advantages as he obtains must be a person known to or connected with the aristocratic classes of society.”[237]