Missent to Crewkerne in 1829, Chard Penny Post in 1828

The entire below from December 1829 was addressed to "Winsham, near Crewkern".  It went to Crewkerne and received a manuscript "Misdirected to" with a "CREWKERNE" mileage erased handstamp.  Winsham came under Chard rather than Crewkerne.

A little bit earlier, in June 1828, the entire below came from Thorncombe in Dorset to Chard in the Chard Penny Post.

India Letter: Calcutta - Portsmouth - Bath - London

The entire below went from India to London by way of Portsmouth and Bath.

The lower part of the address is crossed out but appears to have been addressed to try Bath first before going to London (one can just about make out "Bath, England" at the bottom).  It has a red framed "INDIA LETTER / PORTSMOUTH" - as an India letter it had a reduced ship letter charge of 4d for up to 3 oz.

The double framed "RETURN'D / FROM BATH" cachet is used two years later than previously known examples.

The entire has a number of postal markings, most of which are crossed out !  I believe the first marking was the "2/7" which would have been 4d India ship letter charge plus 2/3d for the triple letter rate for the approximately 95 miles from Portsmotuh to Bath.  I think this was then inspected and crossed out, being replaced by "3/4" with initials, which would have been 4d India ship letter charge plus 3/- for the 1oz inland letter rate from Portsmouth to Bath. 

I believe this was paid in Bath and it then got charged a further 3/- for the 1oz inland letter rate from Bath to London.  The "6/4" crossed out could have been a charge for the whole route Portsmouth - Bath - London which it seems was cancelled presumably because payment had been made in Bath. 

"P" for Privilege, 1726

The entire below from 1726 has, I think, a "P" for privilege postal marking.  Before 1764 letters which went through the General Post free did not receive a special handstamp but were often cancelled with a manuscript "P" (rather than the postage charge).  This "P" marking often does not look much like a 'P', as shown by illustrations in "Herewith My Frank" by JW Lovegrove.

The entire below is franked with "Frank   E Harley Audt".  Edward Harley had been an MP until 1722 (so would not get free postage in that regard), but was appointed joint Auditor of the Imprest for Life in 1702.  The Auditor of the Imprests was a profitable office of the Exchequer, responsible for auditing the accounts of officers of the English crown to whom money was issued for government expenditure.  There is no definitive list of which offices had free franking privilege in 1726, but a list from 1838 does include the Audit Office, which replaced the Auditors of the Imprest when they were abolished in 1785.

Dulverton Barred Numeral cancel, 1848

The Dulverton "803" horizontal oval cancel from 1848 illustrated below does not appear to match either of the two cancels recorded in Parmenter & Smith, having four bars below rather than three (to my mind this cancel looks more like an 1844-type cancel than the one illustrated in the reference book).

It also has a "BAMPTON-D" double-arc cancel which the British County Catalogue only has in use until 1846 while Hake in Postal Markings of Devon has it in use until 1847, so this extends the known usage of this handstamp.  The cover illustrates that Dulverton was under Bampton rather than Tiverton during this period.

"BRIDGE / WATER" from 1773

By 1773 Bridgwater was spelt with an "E" in the middle (cf. the previous post).  The entire below has a "BRIDGE / WATER" handstamp with 7mm high lettering, in use 1772-1781. 

A new "BRIDG / WATER" handstamp from 1744

The entire below, acquired at Stampex in the Autumn, has a new two-line "BRIDG / WATER" handstamp used on 19th June 1744.  The handstamp measures 22 x 9 mm with 3½ mm lettering, compared to the one previously in use (known in use 1721-1739) which measures 23 x 10 mm with 4mm lettering.

Extended date for SO 623 "MINEHEAD"

The SO 623 "MINEHEAD" handstamp (40x4 mm) was previously only known used in 1800.  The second entire on the sheet below extends the known usage to September 1805.

Bedminster

Bedminster is two miles south of Bristol, just the south side of the River Avon, so is in Somerset under my definition.  The Bristol Postal History Group's four volume book on the "Postal History of Bristol" currently identifies six single ring handstamps.  The sheet below has a further two different handstamps, a "BEDMINSTER BRISTOL" 23mm single ring used in February 1932, and a "BEDMINSTER . BRISTOL 3" 23mm single ring (without a dot before the "3") used in 1964.

Duke of Bridgewater

Not really to do with Somerset but here's a receipt from the Bridgewater Trust Collieries, issued to the Trustees of the late Duke of Bridgewater in 1898.

Extended date for SO 693 "SOMER / TON"

The Free Front below extends the known dates for the "SOMER / TON" handstamp (27x13 mm, SO 693) by two years to 1743-1784, the previously latest known date of usage being 1782.

Boxed Mileage Marks - "WIVELSCOMBE / 175" & "YEOVIL / 123"

The last two boxed mileage marks ...  note the spelling of "WIVELSCOMBE", no "I" in the middle (this is how it is pronounced).

“WIVELSCOMBE / 175” 1805-1829

“YEOVIL / 123” 1801-1811

Boxed Mileage Marks - "WELLINGTON / 168", "WELLS - S / 129" (& "WELLS N / 122")

WELLINGTON / 168” 1804-1829

“WELLS – S / 129” 1802-1808

Norfolk: “WELLS N / 122” 1804-1820

From Bill Barrell's website, a wrapper used in 1811.

The “other” Wells boxed mileage mark !

Boxed Mileage Marks - "TAUNTON / 161"

“TAUNTON / 161” 1802-1814

The Taunton Fifth Clause Post (later the Penny Post) did not commence until 1808 so it is likely that this letter from Crowcombe was brought into Taunton by private messenger or by a passing carrier.

Boxed Mileage Marks - "SHEPTON-MALLET / 135" & "SOMERTON / 135"

A couple more ...

“SHEPTON-MALLET / 135” 1801-1810

“SOMERTON / 135” 1804-1811

Boxed Mileage Marks - "MINEHEAD / 185"

“MINEHEAD / 185” 1801-1807

The overall postal charge of 1/7^d does not tie up with the published rates/distances. 10^d is the rate to London, 1/2^d is the overall rate onwards to Edinburgh (for 600-700 miles). The published mileage from Edinbugh to Kirkwall is 325¾ miles, so at an additional 1^d for each 100 miles, that should only be an additional 4^d (or 1/6^d in total), not the 1/7^d charged. Was this just an error by the postal clerk or was there an additional charge, 1^d for the ferry to Kirkwall perhaps ?

Boxed Mileage Marks - "MILVERTON / 169" & "MILVERTON / 172"

“MILVERTON / 169” 1801

Discovered at the Spring Stampex 1990 and described in an article in the October 1990 S&DPHG Journal (Vol.3-2), the handstamp was illustrated but unfortunately not the complete cover.

The handstamp was used in 1801. As described in an article in the September 1994 S&DPHG Journal (Vol.3-10), at that time Milverton did not have an official office and mail from Wiveliscombe and Milverton would be brought into Wellington by one messenger. The Milverton mileage mark was to indicate to the Wellington postmaster how to apportion the fees between Milverton and Wiveliscombe (so there may be a missing “WIVELISCOMBE / 169” to find). The '169' mileage in the Milverton handstamp would be the mileage for Wellington, though when the Wellington mileage mark was issued it was for '168' miles.

“MILVERTON / 172” 1805-1833

This second handstamp dates from after an official Receiving House was set up in Milverton, and the mileage from Wellington was 'calculated into the entire distance each letter will be conveyed' [Freeling Reports 25 July 1804].

Boxed Mileage Marks - "ILMINSTER / 143" & "LANGPORT / 140"

Two more of the boxed mileage marks.

“ILMINSTER / 143” 1801-1821

“LANGPORT / 140” 1805-1846

Boxed Mileage Marks - "DULVERTON / 187" & "ILCHESTER / 130"

“DULVERTON / 187” 1801-1816

This entire was sent free to the Honourable Hugh Clifford, eldest son of Charles Clifford, 6^th baron Clifford of Chudleigh, by Sir Thomas Dyke Acland, MP for Devon, who has franked it.

Unfortunately I do not have a copy of either Frome mileage mark.

“ILCHESTER / 130” 1803-1807

This entire is from the year before the earliest example previously known.

Boxed Mileage Marks - "BRUTON / 142"

“BRUTON / 142” 1802-1809

Bruton and Castle Cary were Post Towns until the introduction of the Fifth Clause Posts from Shaftesbury (later from Wincanton) and Shepton Mallet in 1823.

Unfortunately I do not have an example of the “CASTLE-CAREY / 145” mark.

Boxed Mileage Marks - "BATH / 109" & "BRIDGEWATER / 150"

In 1784 the Post Office introduced handstamps with the mileage to London on them, to aid post office clerks in determining the postal charges. These handstamps had a limited life as the mileage to London changed as the postal routes altered and after about five years the Post Office stopped issuing them.
By the end of the 18^th century the Postmaster General had instructed John Cary, a map-maker, to prepare a survey of all the principal roads in the country under the supervision of the Superintendent of Mail Coaches. This was used in the issue of the second series of boxed mileage stamps from 1801.

Cat No	Type	Handstamp	Comments	Size (mm)	Colour	Dates	Rarity
SO 17	29	AXBRIDGE / 141		36x10	Black	1804	C
80	29	BATH / 109		19x10	Black	1801-04	E
224	29	BRIDGEWATER / 150		52x12	Black	1802-11	D
299	29	BRUTON / 142		25x10	Black	1802-09	D
320	29	CASTLE-CAREY / 145		52x11	Black	1804-22	E
444	29	DULVERTON / 187		36x10	Black	1801-16	C
488	29	FROOM / 115		22x10	Black	1802-07	D
490	29	FROOME / 115		25x11	Black	1803-04	D
537	29	ILCHESTER / 130		35x11	Black	1804-07	D
553	29	ILMINSTER / 143		35x11	Black	1801-21	D
591	29	LANGPORT / 140		34x11	Black	1805-46	C
603	29	MILVERTON / 169		35x11	Black	1801	H
604	29	MILVERTON / 172		39x11	Black	1805-33	C
624	29	MINEHEAD / 185		35x11	Black	1801-07	D
674	29	SHEPTON-MALLET / 135		55x11	Black	1801-10	D
703	29	SOMERTON / 135		35x11	Black	1804-11	D
783	29	TAUNTON / 161		35x11	Black	1802-14	D
860	29	WELLINGTON / 168		43x11	Black	1804-29	C-D
917	29	WELLS-S / 129		28x11	Black	1802-08	D
1019	29	WIVELSCOMBE / 175		56x12	Black	1805-29	C-D
1060	29	YEOVIL / 125		27x11	Black	1801-11	C

Unfortunately I do not (yet) have an example of the “AXBRIDGE / 141” mark.

“BATH / 109” 1801-1804

“BRIDGEWATER / 150” 1802-1811