This is an interesting letter, and the address panel throws up some questions. There are no doubts about one of the postal markings, a two-line CAMAR-THEN , in the centre of the address, but upside-down.

There is a notation Free with a signature, which is difficult to read, but looked to be Geo. Bird. The manuscript mark looks like an upside down 6 to show the charge, which should not be applicable if it is a FREE letter.
On the other side of the address panel there is a really clear Bishop Mark bisected circle 14 over MR. This would have been applied in London, and showed that it would have taken 4 days to get there from Wales.

This is the transcription, as it was written. For some reason, in many of our old letters the ‘e’ is replaced with an apostrophe in words ending in ed. This seems odd, as it really does not save any time, or much ink, but was obviously accepted by the recipients of the letters. It is quite easy to read, unlike some of our other letters.

“Camarthen March Ye 10th 1760

Sir
I was a little surpriz ’d on the first perusal of your letter, when I read that the execution of the Deeds was not properly attested, But upon a close examination I found that the Receipts and not the Execution of the Deeds, were attested. However, this deficiency shall be made up, and the errors rectified, before they are sent again to London. When I discours’d with the Attorney concern’d here about the Indenture of the Fine, he desir’d to know, if by that is meant what is call’d a chirograph.

’The only difficulty now remaining is in relation to Mr Walter Rees’s Title Deeds. He is still desirous to keep the original Deeds and to send up a true copy of them properly attested, with a Bond of four hundred pounds for the producing the Original ones when requir’d. How practicable this is I am no judge, but must refer it to you.

I have taken the liberty of inclosing a frank to save the expence of postage when you will be pleas’d to write to,
Sir,
your most humble servant
John Rogers.

1) Why was the charge of 6d applied to the letter if it was marked Free?
2) who was Geo. Bird, and why was he entitled to the Free Frank anyway?

The answer to both these questions was a complete surprise. In July 2021, we were contacted by a visitor to our website who very kindly identified some of the signatures on our Free Front examples, which we had not been able to decipher. In the case of this one, he amended our entry with this comment

Certainly this is not George Bird because there was no-one by that name in parliament at that time. The illustration is unclear but it cannot be a Lord as it would not have ‘Geo’ in front. How about George Rice, MP Carmarthenshire 1754-1779? There appears to be a dot above the name waiting for an ’i’.

The manuscript scrawl is a ‘P’ which stands for ‘Privilege’ and indicates that the letter should pass free.

The next question concerned the letter contents

what is or was a chirograph?

Description

The intention of the chirograph was to produce two (or more) identical written copies of a legal agreement, that could be retained by each party to the transaction, and if necessary verified at a later date through comparison with one another. Whereas Charters were typically used for titles of property and did not give each party a copy, chirographs could be used for almost any legal agreement – for example, matters of state, land transfers, repayments of loans, marriage settlements, etc. The cut itself would generally be made with a wavy or serrated edge, running through the word chirographum, to allow the copies to be matched physically as a safeguard against forgery. The earliest surviving portion of a chirograph in England dates from the middle of the ninth century. The practice of separating the copies with an irregular cut also gave rise to the description of the documents as "indentures", since the edges would be said to be "indented". In the post-medieval period, as legal documents grew in length and complexity, it became impractical to fit two duplicate texts onto a single sheet of parchment. It therefore became more usual to make the two copies on two or more separate sheets, the top edges of which were still cut with a symbolic or matching wavy line.

This is fascinating, and reminds me of the system in use hundreds of years later, when it was customary to send half of a monetary note, with a specific cut on it, to the addressee, and then later to send the other half, which could be matched by the cut. This is the Post Office Notice which was published to explain the system to the public

---

My next queston was this

Who was John Rogers, and how could the Frank he enclosed be used from London?

I have been unable to find out who John Rogers was, but the frank would have been from George Rice, so perhaps he was the secretary or agent of this MP for Carmarthen.

I was very surprised to read that the writer mentioned the sum of four hundred pounds for a bond, as this seems an incredible amount for that time.

I have also been unable to trace who Robert Chester was, and what he did at the Chancery Office in 1760, perhaps he was a Secretary at that time. So this is another of our old letters, which although I have found much information about it, still has unanswered questions.