[54] Of Allen's personal appearance the only account, so far as we are aware, is to be found in the correspondence of Samuel Derrick, Master of the Ceremonies at Bath. Derrick writes, under date May 10, 1763: "I have had an opportunity of visiting Mr. Allen in the train of the French Ambassador. He is a very grave, well-looking old man, plain in his dress, resembling that of a Quaker, and courteous in his behaviour. I suppose he cannot be much under seventy."—Vol. ii. p. 94.
[55] 1: The Present State of Great Britain and Ireland, published in 1742, states that at that time compensation was still given for losses sustained in the penny post. The words are: "If a parcel happen to miscarry, the value thereof is to be made good by the office, provided the things were securely inclosed and fast sealed up under the impression of some remarkable seal." This is an error; and that an error should be made on the point serves to confirm the view that little was known of the Post Office and its doings even 150 years ago. That compensation was not at that time given for losses is beyond all question. It happens that in that very year, 1742, a Mr. Vavasour appealed to Whitehall to grant him compensation for the loss of bank notes to the amount of £20 which had been stolen from a letter in its transit through the post; and the postmasters-general, after stating that no precedent existed for granting compensation, implored the Treasury not to create one. "All persons," they write under date the 4th of August 1742, "that for their own convenience send notes or bills of value by the post inclosed in letters do so at their own risque without any foundation that we know of for recovery of this office in case they should be stolen or lost by robbery or other accidents. And this we take to be not only reasonable but just in all construction of law." Again, in 1778 an action for compensation was brought against the Post Office, and Lord Mansfield, after delivering the unanimous opinion of the Court of King's Bench that the postmasters-general were not responsible for losses sustained in their department, proceeded to observe that no similar action had been brought since the year 1699. Giles Jacob, in his Law Dictionary, published in the last century, gives this account of the matter: "It was determined so long ago as 13 Will. III., in the case of Lane v. Cotton, by three judges of the Court of King's Bench, though contrary to Lord Chief Justice Holt's opinion, that no action could be maintained against the postmasters-general for the loss of bills or articles sent in letters by the post."
[56] The reason for the provision was thus given in the preamble: "Whereas many heavy and bulky packets and parcels are now sent and conveyed by such carriage which by their bulk and weight greatly retard the speedy delivery thereof...."—5 Geo. III. cap. xxv. sec. 14.
[57] For what constituency Richard Hiver sat we have been unable to discover. His name does not appear in the return of members of Parliament presented to the House of Commons in 1878.
[58] "Whereas the several streets, lanes, squares, yards, courts, alleys, passages and places within the city of London and the liberties thereof are in general ill-paved and cleansed and not duly enlightened, and are also greatly obstructed by posts and annoyed by signs, spouts, and gutters projecting into and over the same, whereby and by sundry other encroachments and annoyances they are rendered incommodious and in some parts dangerous not only to the inhabitants but to all others passing through the same or resorting thereto...."
[59] Thus, Mrs. Thrale to Doctor Johnson. Writing from Bath on the 4th of July 1784, she says: "I write by the coach the more speedily and effectually to prevent your coming hither."—Hayward's Autobiography of Mrs. Piozzi, vol. i. p. 241.
[60] Thus, the Act 20 Geo. III. cap. li. sec. 2—an Act passed four years before the mails were carried by coach:—
"That every person who shall keep any four-wheeled chaise or other machine commonly called a diligence or post-coach, or by what name soever such carriages now are or hereafter shall be called or known...."
That the term post-coach, as distinguished from mail-coach, was in vogue as late as 1827 appears from evidence taken in that year before the Commissioners of Revenue Inquiry—"(Q.) Are you acquainted with the post-coaches? (A.) Not any very great deal. (Q.) Comparing them with mail-coaches, which do you think are the best formed? (A.) Decidedly the mail-coaches, I think."—Appendix to Eighteenth Report, p. 443.
[61] A foreign registered letter outwards would be a letter registered as far as Dover or Harwich or Falmouth for transmission abroad, and possibly on board ship. A foreign registered letter inwards would not be the exact converse, for there would be no registration from the port of arrival to London. The fee of 5s. covered the registration of a letter only from London to its destination.