Edmund's Tainted Deeds

While only Members of Parliament had the privilege of franking letters, its abuse was frequent because post was expensive. Upon searching through primary documents from Austen’s era (and before and after), several documents that outlined Parliamentary privileges and also complaints about the abuses thereof surfaced. People would forge the signatures of Members of Parliament with, or without, their knowledge. In the former, even if the MP gave them permission to do so, it was still blatant forgery as in the latter case.

In “A Letter from a Freeholder in the Country to a Member of Parliament Concerning Franking of Letters” from 1738, the author (signed "Frank Yeoman) claims that about 1/5 or 1/7 of all inland letters are franked “one way or other” which he concludes proves the abuse of franking and that some made a profit from it.

With this in mind, my interpretation of the scene in Chapter 2 where Edmund offers Sir Thomas’s franking privilege to Fanny has altered slightly. Fanny responds to Edmund’s supposedly kind suggestion with a “frightened look” and “thought it a bold measure”, for what I now understand to be with good reason because Edmund was breaking the law—his kind gesture is tainted with the abuse of his father’s Parliamentary privilege (MP 47). Previously, I attributed Fanny’s reaction to her overly appreciative, sensitive manner. Despite Fanny’s initial negative reaction however, she so fully trusts Edmund that she offered “no further resistance” to his suggestion and gratefully accepts his help with her letter writing. Additionally, Edmund sent half a guinea under the letter’s seal to Edmund, thus doubling the cost of post were it not franked. In this scene, we are inclined, just as Fanny is to be grateful to Edmund for reaching out to Fanny.

But this theme of Edmund’s heroic kindness to Fanny tainted by a “bending of the rules” appears elsewhere in the novel. Edmund forgets that it was time for Fanny to ride while accompanying Miss Crawford hers. Fanny herself, for all her gratefulness, even acknowledges this fact, “…if she were forgotten, the poor mare should be remembered. (MP 94)” While Miss Crawford was apologetic, Edmund “added in his conviction that she [Fanny] could be in no hurry. (MP 95)” Similarly, Edmund acts against his initial better judgment when he finally concedes to take part in “Lover’s Vows.” Fanny is “more sorry to see [Edmund] drawn in to do what [he] had resolved against, and what [he knew] to think disagreeable to [her] uncle. (MP 174)” In both cases, Edmund rationalizes his decisions while Fanny still idolizes him. Like Fanny, we are tempted to accept Edmund’s rationalization and remain fond of him and his care for her.

From here, I hope to find more instances of Edmund’s “bending of rules” and perhaps explore Johnson’s references to Edmund’s “double-talk” or his opinions disguised as unselfish advice to Fanny.