Nelson & His World

Discussion on the life and times of Admiral Lord Nelson
It is currently Fri Mar 29, 2024 12:08 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 22 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject: Personal Couriers
PostPosted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 12:08 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 6:30 pm
Posts: 284
Location: England
Indeed, the use of the Free Frank system, whereby the entitled sender needed to sign their name on the wrapper as guarantor, whilst qualifying for freepost, does seem to be a sort of signpost and a security risk.

Using a personal courier would be a much better option. But even so, around the period Tycho refers to: through the Admiralty and St, vincent, Tom Troubridge, Alexander Davison, Evan Nepean, Francis Oliver. I do wonder?


Last edited by Mira on Wed Apr 09, 2008 12:25 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 12:22 am 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 11:06 am
Posts: 2830
Location: mid-Wales
That St Vincent! 'Bound by his oath of chivalry'! Just listen to this entry in Bess Foster's diary - she is recording a conversation with St. V:

'Lord St Vincent, who loves Nelson as his son, yet said.......'His [Nelson's] head is turned by Lady Hamilton who sometimes writes him four letters a say. I conceal some of them when I can'.

Did this mean that the ordinary mail was intercepted or that couriers known to St V. [Tom Troubridge??] actually handed over letters to him before they were forwarded? (The broken seal?)

Either way, the whole thing is despicable. When you think how precious letters were, to intercept them, perhaps with the connivance of the courier, is the most breathtaking breach of trust. Isn't St V's behaviour the most appalling treachery to a brother officer?


Last edited by tycho on Wed Apr 09, 2008 7:52 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 12:38 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 6:30 pm
Posts: 284
Location: England
Absolutely. I'd be interested to know what was meant by the words 'sent through the Admiralty.'

What did 'through' actually mean, some kind of big postroom where everything was disseminated? What system did they have in place to distribute mail passing through their hands?

Did the Admiralty employ a system to ensure officers at sea and their families were able to correspond privately and in good faith?

Perhaps everything passing through was subject to suppression or censorship, or was St. Vincent's behaviour uncommon?

Lots of questions here, apologies for that, but so little seems to be available to shed light on what practices actually existed.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 8:03 am 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 11:06 am
Posts: 2830
Location: mid-Wales
Perhaps Margarette Lincoln's book, mentioned above, will shed more light. She did touch on the difficulty of transporting letters in her interview and said there would be more in the book.

I wonder if 'sent through the Admiralty' meant letters sent at a special rate?

The Royal Philatelic Society website has a comment on the 1795 Seamen and Soldiers Act that granted non-commissioned officers, seamen and soldiers the concession to send letters for one penny, the penny to be pre-paid. Letters TO these seamen were also only charged one penny, the penny to be paid on delivery of the letter. Many people misunderstood this latter part of the Act and most letters to soldiers and sailors were pre-paid contrary to the Act. This was clarified in the Act of 1806 which stated that all letters from and to seamen and soldiers had to be pre-paid.


It also occurs to me that if Nelson got wind of the fact that Tom Troubridge was handing over letters to St V. - and his letters to Emma often allude to the possibility of their mail being interfered with -
then this, and not solely his resentment at TT's promotion, might have contributed to the cooling of their friendship. Unsurprisingly.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Mail tampering
PostPosted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 9:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 6:30 pm
Posts: 284
Location: England
Margarette Lincoln's book, from this and other threads, sounds an excellent prospect.

I suspect Tycho is correct about Nelson suspecting Troubridge of fiddling with his mail.

Here's another snippet on the subject of mail tampering, concerning Sir William Hamilton from Joseph Farington's Diary, volume 4.

Entry for December 2nd 1800:

"The English notwithstanding are very ill used by the Neapolitan
government. Their letters are constantly opened and their newspapers
frequently stopped. Even Sir Wm. Hamilton has discovered that His
letters which have come by the Post have been opened. He proved it
by one from Lord Grenville, which having been opened, when they came
to seal it again, they inadvertently made use of a. forged seal of Sir William Hamiltons.
Davenport observed that in the despotic country of Russia no such conduct is observed,
on the contrary the letters to the English are first delivered as being supposed of most consequence."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 16, 2008 6:58 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 11:06 am
Posts: 2830
Location: mid-Wales
Mira:

more from Margarette Lincoln on the safety of the mail - she has much to say about methods of transport and the excellent reliability of the mail coaches but I thought this extract was particularly interesting - it was not only the Neapolitans who were interfering with the mail:

'The Post Office in London had sophisticated equipment for steaming open wafers and reproducing seals with bread impressions, and officials routinely opened mail in times of crisis although they were not supposed to do this without a warrant. When Nelson, having anchored at Spithead in August 1805, wrote to Emma Hamilton to say he was coming home, he asked her to imagine what was in his mind and what he wanted to say since he supposed his letter would be 'cut open, smoaked and perhaps read.'


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: How safe was the mail?
PostPosted: Mon Dec 05, 2011 3:24 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 11:06 am
Posts: 2830
Location: mid-Wales
I have just listened to the first of a series of 15 minute programmes on the history of the Post Office, revealing how it began in the 16th century purely to convey the King's business, hence its title today - The Royal Mail. It became an instrument of state control, intercepting letters to foil treasonous plots, before evolving into the network we know today. Unfortunately, the first item in the series, broadcast today on Radio 4 at 1.45 pm, is not available on iPlayer (unless Tony can find it!) but you can listen in to subsequent programmes every day this week. There might be some interesting information about interception in Nelson's day. Nelson certainly didn't trust the post not to intercept and open letters; hence his preference for entrusting intimate letters to the care of a friend for safe conduct.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b017vp92

_________________
Anna


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 22 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 115 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by p h p B B © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 p h p B B Group