;
:
r
2
%
:
C
º
:
sº
** *
- s?” *-s
:*#=º
ãº-
t º
sºvnº
- º
† º
HiſDIIITITITIIIlişº


(, 147
, C.44|
| ?, ?, a 4..… *…A. ºccº,
ºf ºf cºcº / ºn 2. cº º
}/// (ºn tºº. & 4.4. c/4” 42. // ſº.
\!. % aſ, ºn tºº. eſ º, ſº ºcc./...//z.
Cº., C#/. 22(, .ca/, /~/ 2.
3, 2% (/mº..., Mºza. 4, 2.2, 2-0
ºf a 24, 22. /~/…/ //ºz
a 2%, a 44.2, A*, *z, *, *, *-
- ea ºz. ºce cºº -*. /Pºſº.
4 & 9 a.… ſº, º/, / ſº
* //, /4, ºr cº- */ & 4 (A.,.…
2, 4% A4, c/ / /a, 4.24 4.2% / 7.



|
JAMES CHALMERS
THE INVENTOR OF THE “ADHESIVE STAMP."
TNTOT
SIR ROWLAND HILL,
WITH
LETTER To HM POSTMASTERGENERAL
AND
DECLARATION OF THE TREASURY.
BY
PATRIC K CHAL MERS,
FELLOW OF THE ROYAL HISTORICAL SOCIETY.
LONDON :
E F FIN G H A M W I L S ON, R O YA L E X C H A N G E.
1884.
PRICE SIXPENCE.

THE ADHESIVE STAMP.
UPoN the death of Sir Rowland Hill in August, 1879, a series of
letters, with comments thereon, appeared in the Dundee Press,
recalling the name and services of a townsman who, in his day, had
taken an active interest in Postal improvements, and had worked
in that field to some purpose. Mr. James Chalmers, bookseller,
Dundee, who died in 1853, had been an earnest Post-office reformer.
Through his efforts, and after a long correspondence with the Post-
office in London, he brought about such an acceleration of the Mail
as to lessen the time necessary for the reply to a letter from Dundee
to London, or betwixt the chief commercial towns of the north and
south, by two days—a day each way. Subsequently, but some time
prior to the year 1837, as these letters testify, and now proved
beyond question to have been in 1834, he conceived the idea of an
Adhesive Stamp for Post-office purposes ; and it was this invention,
made known to such Post-office reformers as Mr. Hume and Mr.
Wallace, with both of whom he was in communication, that formed
the origin of the adoption of the Adhesive Stamp in the reformed
Penny Postage system of 1840, the plan proposed by Mr. Rowland
Hill having been that of the Impressed Stamp.
.
These letters in the Dundee press from old townsmen and
friends of Mr. Chalmers, personally unknown to me as I was to
them (having left Dundee while a youth, about fifty years ago,
and passed much of the interval abroad), with the consequent
attention drawn to the subject, naturally called upon me to make an
endeavour to vindicate my father's claim to the merit of such an
important feature in the success of the Penny Postage Scheme as
was and is the Adhesive Stamp. It is to be observed that the



4.
evidence now adduced has only recently been brought to light, say
from two to three years after the decease of Sir Rowland Hill,
and consequently not in my power to have produced earlier.
*
The obituary notices of Sir Rowland Hill having either credited
him with the merit of this Adhesive Stamp, or failed to supply
information on this important feature in the success of the Penny
Postage scheme, immediate notice was forthcoming in quarters
where the history of this stamp is best known, asserting the claim
of Mr. Chalmers to this invention, ultimately adopted by Mr. Hill
when in office.
The first letter on this subject is as follows, written by
Mr. Prain, well known and respected in Forfarshire as a man of
great attainments, one of the oldest and ablest of teachers, first in
Broughty Ferry, near Dundee, and subsequently in Brechin, where
he now resides :-
To the Editor of the “Dundee Advertiser.”—SIR,--I have read with much
interest your article in this morning's Advertiser, on the late Sir Rowland Hill.
and while, with others, willing gratefully to accord to him the honour of having
introduced and perfected that postal reform, the benefits of which we are now
enjoying, yet I cannot ascribe to him the merit of being the first to suggest the
plan of uniform rates and adhesive stamps, as, to my certain knowledge, the late
Mr. James Chalmers, bookseller, Castle Street, before the year 1837, propounded
a plan almost identical with that which Mr. Hill in that year had the honour of
getting introduced with so much advantage to the correspondence and the finances
of the country.

I cannot help thinking that there must still be living in Dundee some who
are able to corroborate this statement; and, if so, I trust they will do so for the
honour of their town and thier late townsman.

I am, &c.,
A DUNDONIAN OF FIFTY YEARS AGO.
29th August, 1879.
This was immediately followed by one from Mr. Thoms, lately
deceased, too well known as an able public man, and this beyond
his own locality, to require any mention other than his name:–
5
THE PENNY POSTAGE.
To the Editor of the Dundee Advertiser.
SIR,-Your correspondent, “A Dundonian of Fifty Years Ago,” is quite right
in his recollection of the great services rendered to the cause of postal reform by
the late Mr. James Chalmers, bookseller, Dundee.

When Dean of Guild I had the honour of presiding at a public meeting held
in the Town Hall, on the 1st of January, 1846, when a silver claret jug and salver,
along with a purse of fifty sovereigns, were presented to Mr. Chalmers as a small
acknowledgment of his valuable services. In making that presentation I stated
that it was twenty-four years since Mr. Chalmers entered upon his work of Post-
office improvement. At first he applied himself to effecting a saving of two days
in the transmission of letters between Dundee and the great commercial towns of
England; and after a protracted correspondence he succeeded in convincing the
Government that this boon to a mercantile community could be procured without
any additional expense; and at length he had the satisfaction of seeing his object
accomplished. More recently, when the measure of a uniform postage was brought
before the country by Mr. Rowland Hill, Mr. Chalmers was again busy in his
endeavours to help forward a great national improvement, and had recommended
the adoption of the Adhesive Stamp as a means of franking letters, which has
since come into general use. I added that I had seen the correspondence, and was
strongly impressed with the conviction that Mr. Chalmers ought to have received a
share of the premium that was offered by the Government.
I am, &c.,
(Signed) WILLIAM THOMS.
DUNDEE, 29th August, 1879.
This opinion was shared by no less a judge of the circumstances
than Mr. Joseph Hume, than whom no man was more competent
to give one. He had been personally mixed up in postal improve-
ment for years, and knew all about Mr. Chalmers’ efforts in the
same field. Mr. Hume's place of residence, Montrose (to a good
family in which town Mr. Chalmers' wife belonged”) brought them
locally in contact; while Mr. Hume was moreover behind the
* Mrs Chalmers was a Miss Dickson—a name lately more than well known
through that of her nephew, Mr. Oscar Dickson, of Gothenburg, to whose enter-
prise and liberality the successful voyage of the steamer “Vega " with Professor
Nordensjold, of Arctic renown, is to be attributed.

6
scenes in all that occurred in the Committee Room of the House of
Commons. -
The next letter is as follows:–
SIR,-Responding to the call of your correspondent, “A Dundonian of Fifty
Years Ago,” I have much pleasure in saying that my very good and respected
friend, Mr. Chalmers, showed me his views in regard to postal reform, and also his
idea of an Adhesive Stamp, a number of years before Mr. Hill's was adopted. So
far as I remember, Mr. Chalmers sent his ideas to the press, which perhaps would
be found out by reference to your old files. I do not in the least wish to detract
from the honour due to Sir Rowland Hill, but think this much is due by me to the
memory of a very dear old friend.
I am, &c.,
A DUNDONIAN OF MORE THAN FIFTY YEARS AGO.
30th August.
This, from Mr. Ritchie, of Hawkhill Place and the Cowgate—
equally desirous with others to see the name of Mr. Chalmers more
widely recognised as the author of the Adhesive Stamp.
These letters elicited the following kindly paragraph from the
Editor, of date 3rd September, 1879:—
THE LATE MR. JAMES CHALMERS AND POSTAL REFORM.
The death of Sir Rowland Hill has naturally directed men’s minds to the very
great and beneficial changes which he and others laboured to introduce into the
postal system of Great Britain. Recent letters in our columns have adverted to
the very considerable share our townsman, the late highly-esteemed Mr. James
Chalmers, bookseller, had in bringing about these advantageous changes. As
early as 1882, Mr. Chalmers had begun to agitate for the acceleration of the mails,
and for many years he may have been said to have laboured day and night to obtain
this much-needed reform. His gift of rapid and correct calculation was constantly
employed to make evident the possibility of acceleration without additional expense.
Only after a voluminous and protracted correspondence with Government did he
succeed in convincing those in power that such changes were worthy of trial; and
he lived to see results far beyond his, or, indeed, any one's most sanguine expecta-
tions. Mr. Chalmers laboured not only for his day and generation, but for the
commercial benefit of his country in all time coming. He wished no return for his
labours—he expected none. However, when Government bestowed such a liberal
7
grant upon Mr. Hill, many of our influential townsmen felt that, in simple justice,
Mr. Chalmers should have participated to some extent in the grant. To show that
the town of Dundee recognised and appreciated the advantages it had derived
from Mr. Chalmers' untiring zeal in postal matters, the presentation referred to in
ex-Dean of Guild Thoms’ letter of Saturday was made to Mr. Chalmers on the
Ist of January, 1846. Mr. Chalmers has long since passed away, but there are
surviving members of his family and old friends who will remember with what
satisfaction he saw the successful issue of labours in which he had borne so
important a part, and with what pride and pleasure he received the handsome
acknowledgment of his fellow townsmen.

The following has been kindly communicated to me by Messrs.
Winter, Duncan & Co., Stationers, Dundee : —
DUNDEE, 8th }anuary, 1881.
DEAR SIR,
We received the twelve copies of your pamphlet on Post-office
Reform, and have distributed same amongst old friends. One we gave to a
Mr. James Craig, who on receiving it mentioned that he remembered well of
putting the forme in type for the Adhesive Stamp. This Mr. Craig was a printer
in the employment of your late father.
We are, &c.,
WINTER, DUNCAN & CO.
P. CHALMERs, Esq.
My relative, Mr. James Dickson, of Gothenburg, in a letter to
me, confirms the claim set forth in my pamphlet, and adds further
to what is said with reference to Mr. Hume:–
GoTHENBURG, 6th 3 anuary, 1881.
Not only have I a lively recollection of “the fact” of your worthy father
having, among other Post-office reforms, occupied himself with the Penny Postage
movement, while I further not only heard of his name being mentioned in
connection with the Adhesive Stamp, but I frequently, and particularly to Mr.
Willerding (late Consul General for Sweden and Norway in London), have spoken
of him as the originator of the “stamp.” -
If you bear in mind that I arrived in London in May, 1837, and lived there till
September, 1847, that would be just the period when this great question occupied
8
public attention—and I feel convinced that I heard the matter alluded to, and
your father's share in it stated and commented on at the dinner table of our uncle,
Mr. Peter Dickson, where, as you recollect, Mr. McCulloch, Mr. Joseph Hume,
Mr. Hastie, Member for Paisley, and others, all likely to discuss this question,
were not unfrequent guests.
- TESTIMONIAL TO MR. CHALMERS.
(From the Dundee Advertiser of the 2nd of January, 1846.)
A numerous and most respectable meeting of the subscribers to this
Testimonial, including most of the principal Merchants, Bankers, and Manufacturers
of the town, was held in the Town Hall yesterday, at one o'clock, afternoon. On
the motion of Provost Brown, Dean-of-Guild Thoms, who had acted as Convener
of the Committee, was called to the Chair.
The Chairman reported shortly the proceedings of the Committee, mentioning
that the subscriptions, so far as ascertained, amounted to near £100, and of this
sum about £31 had been expended in silver plate ; while it was proposed that the
balance should be handed over to Mr. Chalmers for his own disposal. The plate
was then placed upon the table before the Chairman, and consisted of a richly chased
silver jug and a handsome silver salver, both bearing the following inscription –
“Presented to JAMES CHALMERs, Esq., Dundee, as a Testimonial for his
exertions in procuring an acceleration of the Mail and promoting
other improvements in connection with the Post-office. 1st January,
1846.”
The Chairman again rose, and, addressing Mr. Chalmers, said that he had
great pleasure in presenting the present Testimonial, as an expression of public
approbation for the services rendered by Mr. Chalmers in reference to one of our
most important public establishments—the Post-office. It was now, he believed,
about 24 years since Mr. Chalmers had first entered upon his work of Post-office
improvement. He first applied himself to showing that a saving of two days could
be effected in the communication betwixt Dundee and the great commercial towns
of England; and, after a protracted correspondence, he succeeded in convincing
the Government that this boon to a mercantile community could be procured
without any additional expense and at length had the satisfaction of seeing his
object accomplished. When it is considered how important was a saving of time
to this extent to those engaged in extensive business, it is not to be wondered that
public opinion should at length have found expression in some lasting testimonial.
But more recently, when the measure of a uniform penny postage was brought
before the country by Mr. Rowland Hill, Mr. Chalmers was again busy in his
endeavours to help forward this great national improvement by his practical

suggestions, and had recommended the adoption of the adhesive slip as a means
of franking letters, which has since come into so general use. He (the Dean) had
had an opportunity of seeing the correspondence which had taken place at that
time, and he was strongly impressed with the feeling that Mr. Chalmers ought to
have received a share of the premium which was offered by the Government. Be
that as it may, Mr. Chalmers might congratulate himself that he had been instru-
mental in promoting a measure of so vast importance to the community. It was a
common remark, that those who work for the public worked for an ungrateful master.
It might be so; but there is an inward satisfaction experienced by those who do
what they can to benefit their fellow-men, which is itself a reward, and he believed
that Mr. Chalmers had enjoyed this reward without looking to any other. He
conceived that the present was only an act of justice—tardy, no doubt, but he
trusted it would still be acceptable—the more so when he saw around him such an
assemblage of the most respectable and influential of his fellow-citizens, who had
this day come forward to do him honour. It was gratifying when a testimonial
of this kind fell to be bestowed upon one who had long borne an unblemished
character as a private member of society, who had followed an honest and honour-
able calling, and who had filled many important public offices in the community.
He hoped Mr. Chalmers would not estimate the present Testimonial merely
according to its intrinsic value, but that he would preserve it as an heir-loom in his
family, and hand it down to those who should come after him, as a memorial that
he had not lived altogether in vain—that he had done the public some service, and
that the public had acknowledged it. In conclusion the Chairman hoped that
Mr. Chalmers might be long spared to enjoy every personal and domestic comfort,
and that after a “life of labour º’ he might enjoy “an age of ease.” The
Chairman then presented Mr. Chalmers with the silver jug and salver, along with
a purse of fifty sovereigns—the sum already collected.

Mr. Chalmers replied in suitable terms, thanking his various friends. The
correspondence which led to acceleration of the mail occupied five to six years.
It was not alone for Dundee he laboured, but for his countrymen in general. With
respect to his postage stamp invention, he understood there had been 2,000 candi-
dates for the premium of £200, and, as far as he had ever learned, no one got the
premium. There might have been others who had recommended something
similar to his own plan, while the fact that the plan of adhesive slips was adopted,
was alone to him a source of peculiar satisfaction. He accepted the Testimonial
with the greatest pleasure, and in handing it down to his posterity “it will pre-
“serve in their minds the evidence that I have done something to benefit the
“ community, and that I had taken part in the accomplishment of what was felt to
“be a public good.”
Provost Brown begged leave to express the delight he had experienced in
witnessing this day's proceedings. He had known Mr. Chalmers for nearly forty
:
---
-
-
:
-
-
-
-
-
10
years, and had always regarded him as a most useful and respectable member of
society. He thought Mr. Chalmers was well entitled to this Testimonial, and he
wished him every happiness and comfort.
Mr. Milne (banker) begged also to add his testimony to all which had been so
well said by the Chairman. He had known Mr. Chalmers long, and had respected
him highly. Mr. Chalmers must no doubt enjoy much satisfaction at seeing his
public services at length acknowledged by so respectable a meeting.
The silver jug having been copiously filled, the Dean proposed that they
should dedicate the first toast to the health of Her Majesty the Queen, and many
happy years to her, which was drunk with all honours. He then called for a
bumper to the health of Mr. Chalmers, wishing him long life, health and happiness.
Mr. Chalmers returned thanks, and various other toasts, including the health of
the Dean, Mrs. Chalmers and family, followed.
The same newspaper of the 4th of January devotes an article
to a notice of this meeting. “It certainly was one to which Mr.
“ Chalmers was well entitled.”
It is thus clearly recorded that the important town of Dundee
declared James Chalmers to have been the originator of the Adhe-
sive stamp, and acknowledged his services in thus promoting a
measure of vast national importance.
The evidence already given shows that Mr. Chalmers was
fully recognised in Dundee as having conceived and advocated the
principle of the Adhesive Stamp for postage purposes, and this before
the year 1837, when Mr. Rowland Hill introduced his reformed system.
With Mr. Chalmers' suggestions and speculations upon the general
subject of postal reform we have here nothing to do, beyond noting
that any suggestion such as that of an Adhesive Stamp would the
more readily find its way into Post-office reforming circles from such
a well known advocate—one whose practical success had left its
mark south as well as north of the Tweed.
But I now come to evidence of a more specific and perfectly
conclusive nature, which the publicity already given to this matter
has been the means of bringing forward, and this just lately. The
º
-
:

11
following letters from two more of those in the employment of
Mr. Chalmers, particularize the whole matter, and afford the most
undoubted evidence both with respect to the invention of the
Adhesive Stamp, and the date when such was got up on his premises
exactly upon the principles ultimately adopted and in use to this
day.
It should be mentioned that the People's journal is the weekly
issue of the Dundee Advertiser, extensively circulated and read
throughout the adjacent counties of Scotland. The Advertiser of
24th April courteously re-published the letter.

“ THE INVENTOR OF THE ADHESIVE STAMP.
“To the Editor of the People’s journal.
“SIR,
“I am an occasional reader of your esteemed People's
“journal. In that paper I saw that there was a monument to be
“ erected to Sir Rowland Hill for his great services to the nation in
“getting the reform of the Post Office carried out. Perhaps he
“ was to a considerable extent only in the management of the
“working of that reform—not in the invention of the improvements
“but in seeing only to their being carried out. Mr. James Chalmers,
“bookseller, Castle Street, Dundee, was the sole inventor of
“Adhesive Stamps. Without doubt, Mr. Chalmers was an advocate
“ of Post-office reform before Sir Rowland Hill came on the carpet
“ at all. When it was settled that the Penny Postage system was
“to be adopted, Mr. Chalmers set to work to draw out a plan of
“Adhesive Stamps, which he did, and showed it to a number of his
“ neighbour merchants about the High Street of Dundee for their
“approval, after which he sent Peter Crichton, the foreman of his
“ printing office, to set it up in type and print a few copies of it.
“After so doing he brought them up to the binding shop to get
“ them gummed. Previous to that I had been ordered to go to the
“ inkwork and bring some gum up and get it dissolved. James
“Paton then held the paper flat till I brought the gum brush over

&
&
it, after which I put them down in front of the fire to dry. After
they were dry, Thomas Fyfe the pressman, put the papers into
the press, among the smooth boards to smooth them. Since
then I have never heard any word about them, till I accidently
came across the subject in your excellent % ournal a few months
ago. The gentlemen to whom Mr. Chalmers showed his design
have now all gone to their rest. Their names were as follows:
Mr. Bisset, druggist, High Street; Mr. Russell, druggist, High
Street; Mr. James Watson, haberdasher, High Street; Mr. Bell,
tobacconist, High Street; Mr. Keiller, confectioner, head of
Seagate; Mr. John Sturrock, banker, Bank of Scotland; Mr. John
Todd, linen merchant, Castle Street. I thought some time ago
to have said something about it, but it had gone so long by that
I let it pass. Since I see it has come up again, I have taken
notice of it now. All who were in the binding shop at the time
were myself and James Paton, who died lately. I say upon soul
and conscience that Mr. James Chalmers was the sole inventor
of the Adhesive Stamps, and not Sir Rowland Hill. Patrick
Chalmers is perfectly correct to uphold his father's honour. He
is the youngest son of his father. The writer of these lines is
* William Whitelaw, bookbinder, who entered Mr. Chalmers’
service on 22nd November, 1825, as an apprentice boy, and
continued with him till 17th, July, 1839. I am now in the 71st
year of my age, with a hale body and a sound memory. If required,
my address is
“WILLIAM WHITELAW, Bookbinder,
“JAMES MACKAY, 66, Mitchell Street,
“ Glasgow.
“GLASGow, 6th April, 1882.”
“THE INVENTOR OF THE ADHESIVE STAMP.
“To the Editor of the Dundee Advertiser.
“SIR,
“With respect to the letter you inserted from me dated
the 6th April, on the above subject, I desire to add that I can
13
“ positively fix the date of the occurrence as stated by me to have
“ been in August, 1834.
“I am, &c.,

“ WILLIAM WHITELAW.
“GLASGow, 16th May, 1882.”
It will be seen that the writer of the above letters was fourteen
years in the employment of Mr. Chalmers; subsequently, he has
been thirty years in one service in Glasgow, where he now earns
his living as a bookbinder. The statements of such a man—if no
great scholar—carry conviction.
The next letter confirms the statement of William Whitelaw ;
and those which follow further fix the date by evidence of the
clearest nature, beyond dispute or doubt:—
“THE INVENTION OF ADHESIVE POSTAGE STAMPS.
“To the Editor of the Dundee Advertiser.
‘‘ SIR
* .. My attention has been called to a letter in the Adver-
“tiser on the above subject from Mr. Wm. Whitelaw, bookbinder,
“ Glasgow, and I can fully corroborate him on the main facts he
“states as to the printing in Mr. James Chalmers’ office of a
“ sample of Adhesive Postage Stamps. I was then, prior to
“ serving apprenticeship as an engineer, a boy in Mr. Chalmers’
“office—in fact, ‘ P.D.’ of the establishment—and I have a distinct
“ recollection of clipping the sample stamps apart aſter they had
“ been printed on slips containing about a dozen stamps, and the
“backs gummed over.
“I am, &c.,
“ D. MAXWELL.
“The WATERworks, HULL, 4th May, 1882.”
“THE INVENTION OF ADHESIVE POSTAGE STAMPS.
“To the Editor of the Dundee Advertiser.
“SIR,
“With reference to the letter from me which appeared in
14
“ your columns on the 8th current, on the subject of Mr. James
“Chalmer's invention of the Adhesive Stamp, I beg to state further
“ that the samples of same which I saw produced on his premises
“ was previous to the 1st November, 1834, as this is the date of my
“indenture of apprenticeship with Messrs. Umpheston & Kerr,
“ millwrights, &c. I cannot say with any certainty how long before
“ the said date the samples were printed, but I have an impression
“ that it was in the summer of the same year, namely 1834.
“I am, &c.,
“D. MAXWELL,
... “Engineer, Hull Corporation Waterworks.
“HULL, 15th May, 1882.”
Mr. Maxwell is now Superintendent Engineer of the Hull
Waterworks ; his two brothers in Dundee are or have been
members of the Town Council and magistrates of the borough.
The following important letter from Mr. Prain, of Brechin, in
addition to his previous contributions, has just reached me, con-
firming from his own experience the date of 1834, and which will
be read with interest, in Dundee especially :—
“BRECHIN, 9th October, 1883.
“ DEAR SIR,
“When I penned my anonymous note to the Dundee
“Advertiser in August, 1879, expressing the hope that there might
“ be still living some who could corroborate my statement that the
“late Mr. Chalmers was the inventor of the “Adliesive Stamp,' I
“hardly expected it would be followed by such an amount of
“ corroboration.
“With regard to the date of the invention, you appear to have
“ received ample proof, and I am able to add thereto. It was in the
“autumn of 1834 that I left Dundee to reside here, and the Stamp
“was in existence in Mr. Chalmers' premises before I left. -
“I may add that, when I wrote in 1879, I was not aware of
“ the existence of a son of Mr. C. My sole object in writing was

15
“ that Dundee might claim and receive the honour of being the
“ place of birth of the “Adhesive Stamp.”
“I am, &c.,
“ (Signed) DAVID PRAIN.
“ P. CHALMERs, Esq., Wimbledon. ”
The circumstances under which this Adhesive Stamp was
invented, to be used for postage purposes, must now be explained.
From the year 1832, and again more forcibly in 1834, the expe-
diency of entirely abolishing the newspaper stamp (then 4d.
on every paper!), and allowing newspapers to pass through the
Post-Office for one penny each, was advocated by the reformers
of the period with some effect, but without practical result.
Mr. Charles Knight, the eminent publisher, in a publication which
he edited, termed The Companion to the Newspaper, proposed in
the number for Ist June, 1834, that such postage should be collected
by selling stamped wrappers of Id., whereby to pre-pay the postage.
Here it was that Mr. Chalmers interposed with his invention—
proposing an Adhesive Stamp for this purpose in place of a stamp
impressed on the wrapper. I pointed to this proposal in my
pamphlet of two years ago as the first and a distinct occasion
which had admitted of the application of the Adhesive Stamp for
postage purposes, viz.: “a uniform charge of Id. on newspapers,
prepaid by stamp,” further pointing out “a very important source of
inspiration,” inasmuch that “Mr. Chalmers had acted as printer
“ and publisher of a local weekly newspaper, the Dundee Chronicle,
“for a short period during that interval, in which capacity the loss
“ and trouble occasioned by spoilt stamped fourpenny sheets in the
“course of printing and issue would have pressed powerfully upon
“ his invention for a remedy, and that this culminated in the pro-
“posal named is undoubted.” The evidence of Messrs. Whitelaw
and Maxwell, and more recently of Mr. Prain, now show that I had
rightly hit upon the occasion.*
* Besides the use here named for an Adhesive Stamp, the fact of “uniform
Penny postage * itself having been a proposal amongst postal reformers years
before Sir Rowland Hill took up the subject is now fully proved, and this on the
authority of the Treasury.


16
I will now here call a witness whose testimony will be found
conclusive, if any doubt remains as to whether James Chalmers or
Sir Rowland Hill was the originator of the Adhesive Stamp, for
the matter is left in no doubt by the statements and record of no less
a witness than Sir Rowland Hill himself. For what says Sir
Rowland Hill in his “Life” 2 Referring, Vol. I, page 218, to
Mr. Knight's suggestion of stamped covers for newspapers, in the
“Companion to the Newspaper” for June, 1834—the very occasion
and period of Mr. Chalmers’ Adhesive Stamp invention—this is how
Sir Rowland Hill concludes: “Of course, Adhesive Stamps were yet
wndreamt of ;” shewing, at the same time, that such was a distinct
occasion for their being applicable. But, if unknown to the then
Mr. Hill, they were immediately not alone “dreamt of,” but produced
by Mr. Chalmers, as already proved. With such evidence, such
admission as this, nothing further is required —here is Sir Rowland
Hill's own record, showing that at the period when Mr. Chalmers
produced his invention, he himself knew nothing of the Adhesive
Stamp.
And, if “invention ” it ever was on the part of Mr. Hill, why
does not Sir Rowland Hill go on to tell us, here or elsewhere, when
and under what circumstances he did “dream of it” 2. Simply, as I
submit, because where there is nothing to tell nothing can be told—
and that the Adhesive Stamp was at any period an invention on
the part of Sir Rowland Hill there is nothing whatever to show.
Thus, we have now abundant living evidence that Mr. Chalmers
had conceived and advocated this plan “before the year 1837—
“ years before it was adopted,” and lastly, evidence specifically to
ſix the date as having been in August, 1834.
Further confirmatory letters have since come forward, which I
have pleasure in adding:—
“THE INVENTION OF THE ADHESIVE STAMP.
“To the Editor of the Dundee Advertiser.
“SIR,
“I was greatly interested in reading in your impression of the 24th
17
instant Mr. Whitelaw’s clear but emphatic testimony to uphold the claim of the
late Mr. James Chalmers to be the inventor of the Adhesive Post Office Stamp.
It is not often that such carefully detailed evidence can be got, and at such a dis-
tance of time. If there are others who claim priority in this matter to Mr.
Chalmers, it is open to them to establish it by credible evidence equally distinct
that they were before Mr. Chalmers in suggesting the Adhesive Stamp. There are
still a few of our older citizens surviving, whose testimony might be of value as
corroborating Mr. Whitelaw's evidence, though that alone, in my opinion, would
be enough. Such gentlemen as Dr. Boyd Baxter, ex-Provost Rough, Mr. Alexander
Easson, and Mr. William Thoms, who not long since bore testimony to the
interest taken by the leading citizens of Dundee, and the compliment paid to Mr.
Chalmers for the part he took in promoting Post Office reform. It is to the honour
of Dundee that one of her citizens has such a well-sustained claim in this matter,
and that Dundee may not lose the honour, I humbly suggest that a small repre-
sentative Committee should be appointed—say the Secretary of the Chamber of
Commerce, the Provost, the Dean of Guild, to enquire whether any one else has
established by evidence as distinct as Mr. Whitelaw’s, that they were before the
late Mr. Chalmers in inventing the Adhesive Stamp. I am sure there are those
still alive here and elsewhere who could furnish information on the subject if the
Committee advertised for it. Dundee has had many distinguished citizens, and
will doubtless have many more ; but let us not fail to pay honour where it is due.
“I am, &c.,
“ P. WATSON.
“ToweR LEAZE, SNEYD PARK, BRISTOL.
“26th April, 1882.”
“THE INVENTION OF THE ADHESIVE STAMP.
“To the Editor of the Dundee Advertiser.
“SIR,
“Having observed Mr. Whitelaw's letter in your issue of
“the 24th ult, regarding the above, allow me to corroborate his
“statement in so far as I have heard my late father (whom he
“mentions in connection with it) relate the same over and over
“ again, and express his surprise that the Government did not at
“the time accept and appreciate an invention so designed to
“facilitate the working of one of their chief sources of revenue.
“I have only thought of writing this after reading a letter in your
“issue of Monday last from the pen of our townsman, Mr. P. Watson,
“who suggests that every information on the subject should be


18
“ gathered, so that the credit of so useful an invention may be
“ awarded to whom it is due.
“I am, &c.,
“JAMES PATON.
“62, CoMMERCIAL STREET, DUNDEE.
“ May 3, 1882.”
“ II, DERBY TERRACE,
“GLAsGow, 13th November, 1882.
“ DEAR SIR,
“Being desirous to add anything in my power to the evidence upon
the subject of your late father's invention of the “Adhesive Stamp,' letters with
reference to which have lately appeared in the Dundee press, I beg to say that I
was connected with the Post Office in Dundee, from 1835 to October, 1842—senior
clerk. The then postmaster, Mr. Robert Bell, had many and long conversations
with your father, Mr. James Chalmers, who took a very great interest in Post-
office reform, on Post-office matters. I am perfectly certain your father was the
inventor of the Adhesive Stamp ; such in fact was quite a matter of notoriety at
the time. Honour to whom honour is due.
“Yours truly,
“JAMES R. NICOLL.
“ PATRICK CHALMERs, Esq., -
‘‘ Wimbledon.”
I am further enabled to add valuable testimony from one of the
pioneers of Post Office reform, the co-temporary of Mr. Hume,
Mr. Wallace, Mr. Chalmers, and of others who worked in that field
prior to the period of Sir Rowland Hill. I refer to the Rev. Samuel
Roberts, M.A., of Conway, North Wales, yet carrying on his
ministry at the age of eighty-four.
“Fifty-two years ago, ten years before Rowland Hill,” the Rev.
Mr. Roberts “pleaded for a Uniform Inland Penny Postage,” and
for other Post Office improvements. “He repeatedly petitioned the
Government and memorialized the Post Office on the subject.”
“Soon afterwards,” says Mr. Roberts (in his printed statements now in circu-
lation):—“Sir Rowland Hill took up the Penny idea and extended its usefulness.
He worked perseveringly for reform, but it should be remembered it is not right
to honour him as the originator of the Penny system. The plan had been drawn
and he did the work.” -
19
“Sir Rowland Hill was nobly rewarded for his ability and perseverance in
carrying out a scheme, important portions of which had been suggested and
recommended by others. He deserved honour as an able copyist of other men's
plans; but it was not fair to honour and reward him as the inventor of the uniform
Penny Postage system. It really is no honour to his memory that he grasped to
himself all the rewards and honours of the postal reform of those days.”
Mr. Roberts’ labours and suggestions have induced some of our
public men to come forward to aid his declining years by pecuniary
support. The list of subscribers includes such well-known names
as those of Mr. Samuel Morley, Mr. Bright, Mr. Rathbone, the
Earl of Derby, Sir Edward Baines, the Duke of Westminster, Mr.
Herbert Gladstone, Lord Dalhousie, the Prime Minister (£50), from
Her Majesty's Royal Bounty Fund, &c.” Mr. Roberts goes on :-

“It was long supposed and was generally asserted that it (the Adhesive
Stamp) had been invented by Sir Rowland Hill, or one of his subordinates, and he
took the honour; but it is now known that it was a thoughtful, calculating,
unassuming patriotic reformer of Dundee, of the name of James Chalmers, that
invented the “Adhesive Stamp,' and it was very unjust in the authorities of the
Post Office to withhold from the real inventor and to grasp to themselves, the
reward and honour due to another for an invention that has proved so essential.
Patrick Chalmers, son of the said James Chalmers, of Dundee, has given us in his
pamphlets fresh and very interesting chapters in the history of the Post Office
reform of those days. The said James Chalmers, the inventor of the “Adhesive
Stamp,' though overlooked by Post Office Officials, was honoured by his neighbours
who were well acquainted with his suggestion : and he will be honoured by future
generations as the inventor of the “Adhesive Stamp.’”
The above, from one not only conversant with the circum-
stances, but who personally was one of the pioneers of Post Office
reform, still alive to relate and confirm all I have advanced, forms
testimony of the most agreeable and conclusive nature.
It will have been noticed that Mr. Chalmers displayed his plan
to his fellow-townsmen, including the Postmaster, only too anxious
that the same should be generally known. Amongst others, Mr.
Hume knew of it. With the firm of Mr. Knight, the proposer of
* See important reasons for these contributions now adduced under the
heading, “Who Invented Uniform Penny Postage 2"

20
the impressed stamped wrapper, and an ardent postal reformer,
Mr. Chalmers was in business communication, and Mr. Knight was
the publisher of Mr. Rowland Hill's pamphlet of 1837.
The steps by which this invention became incorporated in the
Penny Postage System are these :—It is proved, from a letter
written by Mr. Chalmers to Mr. Rowland Hill, of date 18th May,
1840, that he laid his plan before Mr. Wallace, the Chairman of the
Select Committee of 1837-8, upon the proposed Penny Postage
scheme, immediately upon its assembling. Mr. Wallace replies,
under date 9th December, 1837, that same will be duly submitted to
the Committee. In bringing forward the Penny Postage Bill on the
5th July, 1839, the Government are in a dilemma how to carry it out
in practice, Mr. Hill's plan of the Impressed Stamp not having
found favour, though a “power” was asked for to provide Impressed
Stamped covers. In this dilemma Mr. Wallace suggested favourably
the plan of the Adhesive Stamp, which had been laid before him.
Mr. Warburton proposed that plans should be invited from the
public. In the same dilemma of the Government in the Lords,
Lord Ashburton, like Mr. Wallace, favourably suggested the
Adhesive Stamp.
On the passing of the Bill, Mr. Hill was relegated to the
Treasury to put same into execution, and the first step on the part
of the Treasury was to advertise for plans by Treasury Minute, of
date 23rd August, 1839. Many plans were sent in. Mr. Chalmers
again sent in his plan of the Adhesive Stamp, on which principle 49
others were now sent in—that is, a year and a half after Mr. Chalmers
had first proposed the plan to Mr. Wallace, and five years after its
proved invention by him, and during which intervals such had
become well known and discussed in the Committee. The examina-
tion of the plans, many hundred in number, rested with Mr. Rowland
Hill. The result arrived at by him and the Treasury was the adop-
tion of the Adhesive Stamp, and Messrs. Bacon and Petch, the
engravers, were communicated with for the purpose of providing a
21
-
suitable die, and contracting for the supply of stamps. This they
did—an engraved design of Her Majesty's head, printed on sheets
of gummed paper, at 6d. per 1,000 stamps. A subsequent Blue
Book—of date 1852—gives Mr. Rowland Hill’s own evidence to
the above effect—“ When it had been decided,” he states, “that
“Such a stamp as that which is now issued should be adopted, we
“called in Messrs. Bacon and Petch to advise as to the means”—
and here, at length, we have the Adhesive Stamp adopted, exactly
on the principle described and proved to have been got up by Mr.
Chalmers in his premises in Dundee, in August, 1834.
A Treasury Minute was then issued, of date 26th December,
1839, providing for the issue of both stamps—an impressed stamp
on envelopes to be made of paper “peculiar in the water-mark or
some other feature * as a safeguard against forgery, under strict
excise supervision, by one maker—and Adhesive Stamps, which
latter took some time to prepare, not being issued until 6th May,
I840.
The Mulready envelope, issued on the Impressed Stamp
System, proved a failure—but the success of the Adhesive Stamp
Saved the scheme, and, after over forty years indispensable service
in the Penny Postage system of Sir Rowland Hill, again proves
wholly indispensable to the practicability of the Parcels Post of
Mr. Fawcett.
Mr. Chalmers sent in his claim for recognition at the proper
period, but ineffectually, and by a new generation the entire merit
of the matter has been erroneously attributed to Sir Rowland Hill.
Mr. Chalmers died at Dundee on the 26th of August, 1853, at
the age of seventy-one. His funeral was largely attended. I was
then still abroad, and for some time after. The following notices
respecting him appeared in the Dundee press of the period :—
THE LATE MR. CHALMERS.
(From the Dundee Courier, of September 3rd, 1853.)
In our obituary of this week will be found the name of an old and respectable


22
citizen, with which the public has long been familiar. Mr. James Chalmers, book-
seller, whose death took place on Friday last, during the more active portion of his
life occupied no inconsiderable space in our annals. At a time when burgh politics
ran high, Mr. Chalmers took a prominent part, first as a Deacon, and afterwards as
Convenor of the Nine Incorporated Trades. At a subsequent period he was
returned to the Town Council, and held the office of Treasurer for several years.
While zealous in expressing his own opinions, he was uniformly courteous and
candid towards those from whom he differed ; and hence little of the acerbity of
party spirit was ever charged against him. In our local charities, and in every
public-spirited and philanthropic movement, Mr. Chalmers was ever ready to lend
a helping hand. But his exertions were not confined to his own locality. At one
period he applied himself to what was then, and is still, an object of vast impor-
tance to a mercantile community—the acceleration of the mail; and mainly
through his efforts a gain of forty-eight hours was effected in the correspondence
betwixt Dundee and London. Mr. Chalmers' services at that time were publicly
acknowledged by some of the leading periodicals of the day. At a subsequent
period, when Rowland Hill's plan of Penny Postage came into operation, Mr.
Chalmers, who had upwards of twelve months previously recommended the use of
adhesive slips as a means of franking letters, competed for the premium offered by
the Government, and it was the opinion of many, including Mr. Joseph Hume,
that our townsman ought to have obtained the reward. Shortly after that time, a
public movement was made by some influential parties in Dundee to present Mr.
Chalmers with a public testimonial for his services in connection with the Post-
office, the result of which was that upwards of £100 was raised ; and on the New
Year's day of 1846 Mr. Chalmers was publicly presented with a testimonial, at
a numerous meeting of the subscribers in the Town Hall. This mark of public
approbation, as might have been supposed, was very gratifying to Mr. Chalmers,
and he ever afterwards referred to it with a feeling of honest pride. In his own
profession Mr. Chalmers held a highly honourable position, and in all his dealings
was characterised by sterling integrity. His shop has long been a favourite
resort of the better classes, both in town and country, and his cheerful and
obliging disposition was appreciated by all. In private life he was modest and
unassuming, while his conversation was pervaded by a playful humour, which
rendered him an agreeable companion. It is not surprising that the removal
of such a man should be felt in our community.


THE LATE MR. JAMES CHALMERS, BOOKSELLER.
(From the Dundee Advertiser of 2nd September, 1853.)
Yesterday the remains of this excellent citizen (who died at his residence at
Comley Bank this day week) were attended by a large number of his friends to the
place of interment in the old Burying Ground. It becomes a duty, although a
23
melancholy one, to pay a tribute of respect to the memory of one who, during a
long lifetime, took an active and disinterested part in the public business of the
town, but who so tempered his zeal in discussing local management, and amid the
strife of party factions, that seldom has the grave closed over an individual with
more general regret. Mr. Chalmers occupied the public offices of Deacon, and
then Convener of the Nine Incorporated Trades, also that of Town Treasurer;
and in all these places of trust he devoted himself with great energy to local
improvement and to the advancement of benevolent institutions. The deceased
was a great Post Office reformer, and had he been as fussy as some others who
now lay claims to great merit in connection with the introduction of Penny Postage
and other beneficial changes in that department, perhaps he, too, might have had
his name more closely associated with this important movement; but he was
satisfied with the consciousness of having done his duty, and with the approbation
of his fellow-citizens; and they, on New Year's Day, 1846, much to their credit,
presented him, in the Town Hall, with a public testimonial for his labours in this
matter, as shown in contending for, and ultimately obtaining, an acceleration of
the mail, and in throwing out valuable suggestions regarding the Penny Postage.
Mr. Chalmers was an excellent man of business, and in all his commercial trans-
actions well known for his integrity and upright character. In private he was a
kind husband and father, and a sincere friend. His gentle disposition was enli-
vened by a quiet, dry humour, which made his companionship desirable at all
times. His death, at a good old age, is yet felt as an event sufficient to excite
public regret for the departure of a worthy man and an enterprising citizen.
#. 3). #.


24
EARLY POSTAL SERVICES
OF
JAMES CHALMERS.
The benefits derived from the reformed Penny Postage system,
introduced and carried out by the late Sir Rowland Hill, are so
widely appreciated that the whole merit of the conception of that
system has been equally, but mistakenly, ascribed to him. Postal
reformers were numerous and active before his day, and amongst
these were the late Mr. James Chalmers, bookseller, Dundee, the
originator of the Adhesive Stamp.
A copy of the Edinburgh Magazine for August, 1825 (Archibald
Constable & Co., Edinburgh), has lately reached me, containing an
article in which the early postal services of Mr. Chalmers are men-
tioned. It is entitled, “Acceleration of the London and Aberdeen
Mail,” and thus commences:—
“Amongst the many improvements which have recently taken
“ place in our public establishments, none have contributed more
“to the advantage of the commercial world than those on the mail
“ coach system, and we believe that system to be almost complete
“on the great line of road from London to Inverness.” Details
and tables are given, now without interest, the result, however,


25
showing “a gain of two days in corresponding with London; one
“ from, and another to, the capital; and this, too, without materially
“ abridging the business hours at any place.” The article con-
cludes—“The public are not aware how much they are indebted for
“ these late arrangements of acceleration in the mail system (which
“may now almost be termed perfect, to the labours of Mr. James
“Chalmers, bookseller, in Dundee. The late John Palmer did,
“indeed, accomplish wonders in effecting all at once a maturity,
“but his services were remunerated, and deservedly so.” After his
“labours, Mr. Chalmers was left with fewer difficulties to encounter;
“yet it is but fair to mention, that, comparatively, he has been no
“less assiduous in the task of improvement which still remained to
“ be effected, and that with no other object in view than public
“ accommodation; that he has spared no labour of calculation, of
“ inquiry, of suggestion, of procuring and of communicating
“information, from and throughout the whole range of the mail
“system north of London ; and that his services, if not publicly
“ acknowledged, have been duly appreciated by those upon whom
“ devolved the charge of adopting them.”

This article is now brought forward with the purpose of show-
ing that any invention and proposal, such as that of the Adhesive
Stamp for postage purpose, by one of Mr. Chalmers’ position
amongst successful postal improvers, could not fail to have been
generally known in the circle interested in and promoting post office
reform, and which included such Scottish neighbours as Mr. Wallace
and Mr. Hume ; also Mr. Knight, the publisher of Mr. Rowland
Hill’s pamphlet of 1837, with whose firm Mr. Chalmers was in
communication in the way of business. Not the least able and
zealous advocate of such reform was the Rev. Samuel Roberts, of
Conway, still carrying on his ministry at the age of 84, to whose
merits the most weighty names have testified by their subscriptions,
and whose cordial testimony to the truth and force of the state-
ments brought forward by me is given in my pamphlets. Writing
* Mr. Palmer got a grant of £50,000.

26
further lately, Mr. Roberts says:–“ The claim of your late
“ patriotic father as the ‘Inventor of the Adhesive Stamp is now
“ unquestionable, and you deserve more than credit for doing
“justice to so important a branch of the history of postal reforms,
“ and I hope that you will at least be honoured for such important
“ services.”
The Mr. Palmer mentioned in the above article is brought pro-
minently into notice in the “Report of the Postmaster-General ”
issued in July last by Mr. Fawcett, as having been the first to
introduce the carrying of letters by mail coach, a proposal he was
officially appointed at a salary to carry out, and rewarded for, as
stated, by a grant of £50,000. In this article Mr. Chalmers is
spoken of as his successor in the way of completing and perfecting
the system, after a correspondence extending over five or six
years, and for which services he neither asked nor received any
remuneration from the Post-office.
Of the Rev. Samuel Roberts, an early promoter of postal
reform, already mentioned in my pamphlets, too little is generally
known. He proposed a uniform Inland Penny Postage several
years before the similar proposal of Sir Rowland Hill, but the time
was not yet ripe for such a reform. Having, moreover, only submitted
his views to the authorities, in place of publishing the same, no
action was taken. Sir Rowland Hill, coming years after abuses had
been exposed and reforms earnestly canvassed and called for, had
further the evidence and Reports of the “Commission of Post-office
“Inquiry " to guide him, a Commission which Mr. Roberts took an
early part in getting appointed. These reports, amongst other
matters, propose a low and uniform postage of one penny upon
circulars, including the further great principles of charge by weight
and pre-payment by stamp, hitherto erroneously understood by the
press and public to have been the conception of Sir Rowland Hill.
(See articles from the Times and Athenaeum, already quoted in my
pamphlets.) That such proposals had been previously laid down is
wholly ignored in the pamphlet of Sir Rowland Hill, who is thus
27
erroneously credited as having been the “sole and undisputed
inventor” of the reformed system.*
Mr. Roberts continues to receive substantial proofs of the
esteem he is held in to lighten his old age, as already mentioned.
Writing to me lately, Mr. Roberts further says:—
“Justice is tardy in honouring the memory of your patriotic
“father as the ‘Inventor of the Adhesive Stamp,' and in rewarding
“you for your public service in the matter, but you are fast gaining
& 4
ground. Justice is often tardy. Many, even in Wales, admit
that I had pleaded for our “ Penny Postage,’ and other postal
( *
“ conveniences, many years before Sir Rowland Hill came out to .
“ assist in the conflict, and yet they do not like to offer any new
compliments or rewards, as that would nullify what they had said
and done before. The correction of mistakes implies that mistakes
have been made.” .
& 4
&
(
-
* This Commission issued in all Ten Reports, in addition to Reports pre-
viously issued by the “Commission of Inland Revenue.” The Fifth Report, after
evidence taken during the year 1835, recommends, under date April, 1836, that the
postage upon prices current and similar mercantile publications, then subject to
the same high and variable rates as were letters and charged by sheet, be reduced
to a low and uniform rate, irrespective of distance, to be prepaid by stamp, and
charged by weight at a postage of Id. the half-oz. Here are precisely Mr.
Rowland Hill's proposals of 1837, with respect to letters—but by saying nothing
in either of his publications about this pre-existing proposal, the reformed system
has been taken as of his own conception. See the journals above mentioned, for
August and September, 1879, and the Press generally, including biographies,
Speeches, &c.



28
OPINIONS FROM THE PRESS,
Having already published most of these in detail, to save space
and repetition it will be sufficient here to give a list, or little more,
of the numerous Journals from which I have received support.
Those to which I am more particularly indebted are:—
In Scotland—
The Dundee Advertiser, a consistent support during a past
lengthened period, including powerful leading article and notices.
The Montrose Standard, several cordial and able articles of the
highest value, while the same is to be gratefully noticed of the
other Forfarshire papers,
The Brechin Advertiser, the Forfar Herald, the Arbroath Guide,
and the Montrose Review.
The North British Daily Mail, of Glasgow, in a late leading
article, headed “A Neglected Inventor,” after stating the case, goes
on to say : “It is not creditable to the generosity of the Government
of this country that an important invention of this kind, which has
conferred such a great boon upon the public, should have remained
so long unacknowledged and unrewarded.” This article has been
extensively reproduced.
29
The Glasgow News and the Christian Leader, of Glasgow,
cordial articles.
The Paisley Herald, the same on several occasions.
The Aberdeen Free Press, a warm and able support.

The Blairgowrie Advertiser has taken much interest and pains
to support me ; also the Perthshire Constitutional, the Fifeshire
journal, the North British Advertiser, to all of which my best
thanks are due.
In the Metropolis and neighbourhood, considering how short
a period has elapsed since the opinion has been almost unanimously
expressed that the reformed Penny Postage scheme was the “sole
and undisputed invention of Sir Rowland Hill,” to whom has also
been erroneously attributed the invention as well as the adoption
of the Adhesive Stamp, fair progress has already been made in
obtaining a discriminating view of the services of James Chalmers.
In the Illustrated London News, Mr. G. A. Sala writes: “It
Seems tolerably clear that Sir Rowland Hill was not the inventor, in
the strict sense of the term, either of the Penny Postage or of the
Adhesive Postage Stamp. . . . . Anent the invention of the
Adhesive Stamp, a pamphlet has recently been published, but I have
not yet had time to read it. . . . . Whoever discovered the
Adhesive Stamp, the discovery has socially revolutionised the
world.” According to this high authority, the Adhesive Stamp was
thus at least not the invention of Sir Rowland Hill.
The Whitehall Review has given me consistent and most
valuable support; also, the Metropolitan, the People, the Home and
Colonial Mail. The Machinery Market, of London and Darlington,
a practical monthly journal of high position, while retaining all its
former admiration for Sir Rowland Hill's services, decides, in a

30
long and able article, in favour of James Chalmers as respects the
Adhesive Stamp. The Inventors' Record, in an article on “Disputed
Inventions,” supports the same view. The pretensions brought for-
ward on the part of Sir Rowland Hill are declared to be wholly
groundless, and the invention accorded to James Chalmers. This,
coming from such a quarter, with the similar decision on the part
of the Machinery Market, forms what may almost be termed an
official recognition.
The Croydon Review, a monthly journal, in a series of able arti-
cles, has informed its readers unreservedly with respect to the unten-
able pretensions of Sir Rowland Hill, both as respects the scheme
and the stamp, cordially ascribing the latter to James Chalmers.
The Surrey Independent has ably supported me in several
leading articles. As far as conception went, “Sir Rowland Hill
displayed a remarkable facility for picking other people's brains.”
To the Surrey Comet and Wimbledon Courier my best thanks
are due for cordial notices and recognition ; as also to the West
Middlesex Advertiser, the South Hampstead Advertiser, the North
Middlesex Advertiser, the Christian Union, the Hornsey and Fins-
bury Park #ournal, the American Bookseller, the Acton and Chis-
wick Gazette, Figaro, Vanity Fair, the Kensington News, the
South London Observer, and others.
From the Provincial Press, much valuable support has been
given me :-
The Oldham Chronicle and Rastrick Gazette have written
often and ably on the subject, supported by such papers as the
Bradford Observer, the Western Daily Press, of Bristol, the Bristol
Gazette, the Norwich Argus, the Brighton Herald, the Brighton
Argus, the Dover and County Chronicle, the Colchester Chronicle,
the Stratford and South Essex Advertiser, the Essex Standard, the
Bradford Times, the Burnley Express, the Barnsley Times, the
31
Wigan Observer, the Stockport Advertiser, the Yorkshire Gazette,
the Westmoreland Gazette, the Wakefield and West Riding Herald,
the Frome Times, the Man of Ross, the Totness Times, the Banner
of Wales, the West Bromwich Free Press, the Swinton and Pendle-
bury Times, the Accrington Gazette, the Birkenhead News, the
Brighton Standard, the Hastings Observer, the Newcastle Courant,
the Preston Chronicle, the Monmouthshire Beacon, the Lydney
Observer, the West of England Observer, the Cardiff Free Press,
the Monmouthshire Chronicle, the Malvern News, and articles have
been sympathetically copied into the Brighton Guardian, the
Aberdeen journal, the Dundee Courier, the Edinburgh Courant,
the Liverpool Albion, the Building and Engineering Times of
London, &c.

RESOLUTION OF THE DUNDEE TOWN
COUNCIL.
At Dundee, on the 3rd of March last, the following Resolution
was adopted by the Town Council :- *-
“That, having had under consideration the Pamphlet lately
“ published on the subject of the Adhesive Stamp, the
“Council are of opinion that it has been conclusively
“shown that the late James Chalmers, bookseller,
“ Dundee, was the originator of this indispensable
“ feature in the success of the reformed Penny Postage
“scheme, and that such be entered upon the Minutes.”
32
POSTMASTER-GENERAL.
Secure in my evidence now brought forward and in the justice
of my claim, I have presented the following letter :-

“To THE RIGHT Hon. HENRY FAWCETT, M.P., H.M. Post-
MASTER-GENERAL.
“Sir,
“Herewith I beg to hand you copy of detailed evidence
“showing that my father, the late Mr. James Chalmers, bookseller,
“ Dundee, was the originator of the Adhesive Stamp.
“ I. I have proved by the testimony of many witnesses,
“in part yet living and ready to be examined if desired, including
“ three of my late father's workmen and the son of a fourth, the
“ production by Mr. Chalmers of the Adhesive Stamp for postage
“ purposes, printed on sheets of gummed paper, on the principle
“yet in use, in the month of August, 1834.
“2. Sir Rowland Hill, in his ‘Life, vol. 1, p. 218, referring
“ to the same period and occasion for the use of such a stamp, and
“where an Impressed Stamp was proposed, records as respects
“ himself, “Of course, Adhesive Stamps were yet undreamt of ;
“ nor is there anything to show that the Adhesive Stamp was at
“any period his invention.
“3. The plan of Mr. Rowland Hill for carrying out his pro-
“posed Penny Postage system was by the Impressed Stamp, either on
33
“ covers or on the sheet of paper itself, impressed on the part
“used for the address. In his speech introducing the Penny
“Postage Bill, on the 5th July, 1839, the Minister of the day states
“ the plan of Mr. Rowland Hill to be that such Impressed Stamp
“ was “absolutely to be used in all cases” (see ‘Hansard’)—a
“statement confirmed by the press of the period.
“4. At page 20 of the Evidence, I have collected the steps by
“ which the Adhesive Stamp became incorporated in the Penny
“Postage system. Mr. Chalmers laid his plan before Mr. Wallace
“ the Chairman of the Select Committee on the proposed Penny
“Postage, in December, 1837. In the dilemma of the Govern-
“ment, in July, 1839, how to carry out the scheme, Mr. Wallace
“favourably suggested an Adhesive Stamp ; in August plans were
“ asked for from the public ; and by Treasury Minute of 26th
“ December, 1839—that is over five years after its proved invention
“ by my father—the Adhesive Stamp was adopted in conjunction
“with Mr. Hill's plan of the Impressed Stamp.
“5. Nor was Mr. Chalmers an unknown postal improver long
“before the period of 1837, or even 1834. An article in the Edin-
“burgh Magazine of August, 1825, a copy of which has already
“ been laid before you, points him out as the successor of Mr.
“ Palmer in reorganising and perfecting the entire mail coach
“system betwixt London and Aberdeen, to material public advan-
“tage. He was the coadjutor of Mr. Wallace, of Mr. Hume, and
“ of other pioneers of Post-office reform.
“ 6. Of these pioneers, one is still living in the person of the
“Rev. Samuel Roberts, of Conway, well known to, and rewarded by,
“the Prime Minister and others, and whose cordial testimony in
“support of all I have advanced is included in my Evidence.
“7. Mr. Chalmers, it will be noticed, brought forward his claim
* at the proper period, but ineffectually ; while by a new generation

* - 34
“ the whole merit of this Adhesive Stamp, invention as well as mere
“adoption, has been erroneously attributed to Sir Rowland Hill. It
“will further be seen that the evidence now adduced by me has
“only recently come to light, and consequently that it could not
“ have been produced earlier.
“8. In spite of the impressions and powerful influences
“ against which I have had to contend, my late father's name as
“ the originator of the Adhesive Stamp is already widely recog-
“nised. The Town Council of Dundee have recognised his claim
“ by special resolution, while a list of EIGHTY Newspapers and
“Reviews as herewith, have from the first more or less supported
“me. In these articles, the indispensable, national, and world-wide
“ services of the Adhesive Stamp have been earnestly laid down,
“not alone in the reformed Postage system, but more lately in the
“Small Savings scheme and Parcels Post boon introduced by you.
“In the Inland Revenue service also, and as ‘even infringing on
“‘the domain of the Currency as a daily means of settling
“‘ thousands of small accounts.’
“ 9. To you, Sir, as Postmaster-General, so well acquainted
“with its value, only one desire can be uppermost—namely, that
“the man who originated the Adhesive Stamp, and initiated its
“ adoption at a critical period, should be known and recognised.
“I lay this evidence before you as a preliminary step, respectfully
“ asking for it the consideration which it deserves, in anticipation of
“ presenting a more formal claim at a future period.

“I have the honour to be, Sir,
“Your most obedient Servant,
“PATRICK CHALMERS, F.R.H.S.
“35, ALEXANDRA ROAD, WIMBLEDON,
“November 15th, 1883.”
35
The only reply to the above letter with which I have been
favoured is as follows:—
“GENERAL Post-OFFICE, LoNDoN,
“ 19th November, 1883.
“SIR,
“I am directed by the Postmaster-General to acknow-
“ledge receipt of your letter of the 15th inst.
“I am, Sir,
“Your obedient servant,
“ (Signed) G. HARDY.
“P. CHALMERs, Esq.”
Surely a case so fully proved and so strongly supported might
have met with a reply somewhat less laconic, not so severely
official. It is not even said that the claim will be “taken into
consideration." Is it that Parliamentary influence alone will bring
about even “consideration ” 2 If so, will no one aid me 2
This, then, is all my father gets for having, in addition to
his services to Penny Postage reform, rendered practicable the
favourite schemes of the present Postmaster-General. Where
would be the Parcels Post without this Adhesive Stamp Pº Yet
the originator of the stamp which makes all this practicable is
simply ignored.
Mr. Palmer was a man of business, and made his bargain with
the Post-office before giving it his services. He got, besides his
salary, £50,000, and even that sum was but a compromise.
*~
James Chalmers was no man of business—at least, not in the
same sense. If he could render a service, public or private, the
idea of “recompense,” in the usually accepted meaning, never
entered his mind. Yet so poor was he, so struggling, that the
* The number of parcels forwarded by Parcels Post during the late Christmas
week amounted to upwards of 850,000.


36
purse of £60 collected for him with no little difficulty by an influen-
tial townsman, an old and valued friend, would have been to him
most welcome from even a material point of view.
Yet this man gave his days and nights to the public service
without an idea of pecuniary reward. He was hailed by the press
of the period as “the successor of Palmer,” as the man who had
perfected and completed what Palmer had left imperfect and incom-
plete—as the man who had accelerated the correspondence of the
land “a day each way.” That was his reward. To be able to say,
in public hall assembled, “It was not alone for Dundee he laboured,
but for his countrymen in general,”—that was his reward. To see
his Adhesive Stamp employed in the public service—to see it
relieve and set agoing the clogged wheels of Penny Postage—to
galvanize into life, to nurse and cherish that scheme which was to
bring wealth to commerce and to the State, and joy into countless
homes, to receive the cheery recognition of his fellow-townsmen—
all that was his reward. There it was at last, sure and certain, in
the public service—it had been adopted—he knew it would do its
work. “The demand for these will in time become so vast,” were
his words over forty years ago, “that I am only puzzled to think
“where premises can be found to get them up.” The feeling that
his countrymen had got his invention—that was his reward.
And that these, his countrymen, should now know and recog-
nise the name of him who gave them this is the recompense now
asked for in return.
Is this simple tribute to his memory—this mere wreath upon
his grave—to be denied him

37
WHO INVENTED UNIFORM PENNY POSTAGE P
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , o, º ºs o ºr , s , , , …
I DECLARATION OF THE TREASURY.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-
It is now fairly well known and recognised that the late James
Chalmers, bookseller, Dundee, and not Sir Rowland Hill, was the
originator and proposer of the Adhesive Stamp for postage pur-
poses, printed on sheets of gummed paper on the principle yet in
use, the adoption of which at a critical period saved the Penny
Postage Scheme of 1837, and, which still remains indispensable to
the commercial and social wants of the nation, with ever-increasing
utility.
It is not so well known that the undersigned has stated in another
pamphlet, entitled “The Position of Sir Rowland Hill Made Plain"
(Effingham Wilson, Royal Exchange), that, from investigations
made by him at the British Museum Library, he discovered that
Sir Rowland Hill was not even the inventor or originator of any
one of the principles or figures of the Penny Postage scheme itself,
but that such were only an unacknowledged copy from a pre-
existing Blue Book of date 1835-36, the “Fifth Report of the
2 :
Commissioners of Post-office Inquiry,” to the provisions of which,
in his writings, Sir Rowland Hill has made no reference whatever.
This Blue Book recommended with respect to Prices Current
and similar mercantile publications (then subject to the same high
and variable rates as were letters, and charged by sheet) a low and
uniform rate of postage, irrespective of distance, to be prepaid by
impressed stamp, and to be charged by weight, at the rate of 1d.
the half-ounce.
Left in ignorance of all this, the ORIGINALITY of the identical
proposals with respect to letters in the Scheme of 1837 has been
taken as a matter of course, and upon the demise of Sir Rowland
Hill, the Times, the Athenaeum, and the press in general, declared


38
the principles of that Scheme to be “principles which he first laid
down,”—that he was “the sole and undisputed inventor of uniform
penny postage,”—that “prepayment and the use of stamps"
followed the conception of uniformity “from the workshop of an
inventive mind.” (See these journals, September, 1879.)
In support of the statements of the undersigned to the effect
that the Penny Postage scheme was only a copy, the following
fresh evidence is now offered :—
Extract from Treasury Minute, of date IIth March, 1864,
conferring upon Sir Rowland Hill, upon his retirement from active
service, his full salary of £2,000 a year : -
“My Lords, do not forget that it has been by the powerful
“ agency of the railway system that these results have been rendered
“ practicable. Neither do they enter into the question, as foreign
“ to the occasion, what honour may be due to those who, before the
“ development of the plans of Sir Rowland Hill, urged the adoption
“ of Uniform Penny Postage.”
Here then is a distinct OFFICIAL confirmation of what has been
advanced by the undersigned, that the Penny Postage Scheme of
1837, however energetically carried out by Sir Rowland Hill, along
with others, was in itself nothing more than a disguised réchauffée
from beginning to end of the proposals of other men. ſºlº
Uniform Penny Postage is thus officially declared to have been
“urged upon " the Government prior to the appearance upon the
scene of Sir Rowland Hill, and the public will, of course, ask to be
informed who it was that thus previously “urged its adoption.”
Was it the Rev. Samuel Roberts, M.A., of Conway, who claims to
have so urged this years before 1837 ? that “he repeatedly petitioned
the Government and memorialized the Post-office on the subject,”
arguing “ that it would pay well; ” that this was sent to “several
friends of progress,” and the idea well known “around the Post-
office and other high places.”

39
If not Mr. Roberts, why has he been lately presented from
Downing Street with £50 2 Why have several well known public
men been adding their subscriptions 2 If it was him, why is he to
be left, at the age of 84, to pass his declining years in penury and
neglect 2 -

If not Mr. Roberts, who was it 2 To whomsoever this merit
may be found owing, it is clearly established that we have all this
time been attributing undue credit to the wrong man, not alone as
regards the Adhesive Stamp, but more especially with regard to the
very origin and principles of the Scheme itself.
PATRICK CHALMERS,
F. R. Hist. Soc.
35, ALEXANDRA RoAD, WIMBLEDON,
§anuary, 1884.
As my opponents continue, against the clearest evidence,
still to deny me that measure of justice to which my late father's
memory is entitled, as having been “the Originator of the Adhesive
Stamp,” it will be seen no other course has been left to me than to
set before the public these disclosures with reference to one who,
notwithstanding this unfortunate failing of putting forward other
men's proposals as his own, was still a public benefactor.
At the same time, many may now be of opinion that, on the
one hand, the honours paid have been somewhat overdone, while,
on the other hand, the credit due to earlier postal reformers,
including the originator of the Adhesive Stamp, has been most
sorrily overlooked. Finally, has Sir Rowland Hill behaved openly
and candidly with that nation which has dealt so generously by
him, or has he not
P.C.
.
THE MEWF ANIME SIMP
DECISION OF THE
“ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA".
James Chalmers was the Inventor of the Adhesive Stamp—“Mr. Pearson H7//
has not weakened the Evidence” to that effect.
ALSO
papers on the pºmp postage #tform,
BEQUEATHED BY THE LATE
SIR H E N R Y O O L E .
JAMES CHALMERS FIRST PROPOSED THE ADOPTION OF THE ADHESIVE
PostAGE STAMP,
OF WHICH HE WAS THE INVENTOR.
BY
PATRICK CHALMERS,
Fellow of the Royal Historical Society.
SECOND EDITION.
º
LONDON:
EFFINGHAM WILSON, ROYAL EXCHANGE.
-
1886. *


IP TR, E H A C E .
WHEN a man of note dies, the journalist of the
day can only reproduce in an obituary notice the
accepted position of his life and works—it is no
part of that writer's duty to examine, so as fully
to certify, all the statements at hand, or to ran-
sack old volumes dealing with the times when
such reputation was established. That is the
duty and the task of the later historian, or of
Some one specially interested. Such has been
my duty, my task, as respects that public bene-
factor, the late Sir Rowland Hill, with the result
arrived at in this and former publications.
Upon the death of Sir Rowland Hill in August,
1879, a series of letters with comments thereon
appeared in the Dundee press, recalling the name
and services of a townsman who, in his day, had
taken an active interest in post-office improve-
ment, and had worked in that field to some pur-
pose. Mr. James Chalmers. bookseller, Dundee,
who died in 1853, had been an earnest postal
A 2
ſ


4 -
reformer. Through his efforts, and after a long
correspondence with the Post Office in London, he
brought about such an acceleration of the mail
as to lessen the time necessary for the reply to a
letter from Dundee to London, or betwixt the
chief commercial towns of the north and south,
by two days—a day each way. Subsequently he
conceived the idea of an adhesive stamp for
postage purposes ; and it was this invention,
made known to such post-office reformers as
Mr. Hume and Mr. Wallace—with both of whom,
as with others, he was in communication—that
formed the origin of the adoption of the adhesive
stamp in the reformed Penny Postage system of
1840, the plan proposed by Mr. Rowland Hill in
1837 having been that of the impressed stamp.
These letters in the Dundee press from old
townsmen and friends of Mr. Chalmers, person-
ally unknown to me as I was to them (I having
left. Dundee while a youth, over fifty years ago,
and passed much of the interval abroad), with
the consequent attention drawn to the subject,
naturally called upon me to make an endeavour to
windicate my father's claim to the merit of such
an important feature in the success of the Penny
f - -
Postage scheme as was, and is, the adhesive



5
stamp. These letters, moreover, acquainted me
with what I was previously unaware of that on
the 1st January, 1846, a public testimonial had
been presented in the Town Hall of Dundee to
Mr. Chalmers, in recognition of his postal Ser-
vices, and of his having been the originator of
the adhesive postage stamp; thus all the more
calling upon me to investigate a subject of which
hitherto I had only a dim and partial idea. This
investigation was further facilitated by my with-
drawal just before the same period of 1879 from
active business, thus enabling me to examine at
the library of the British Museum the papers,
documents, speeches, and motions in Parliament,
Reports of Parliamentary Committees, and all
Such evidence and information tending to throw
light upon, from the year 1832 onwards, the
history and events preceding the reformed system
of postage introduced to the public in the year
1837 by the then Mr. Rowland Hill.
My father long since dead (while I was abroad),
and his establishment long ago broken up, diffi-
culty was at first experienced in obtaining the
Specific evidence necessary to enable me to estab-
lish my claim on his behalf, but the attention
publicly drawn to the matter by former publica-


6
tions of my own, and of Mr. Pearson Hill to
which I was called upon to reply, brought forward
ever-increasing evidence of the most conclusive
nature, and to which I am now enabled to add
material and interesting confirmation from papers
left by the late Sir Henry Cole, whose connection
with the Penny Postage Reform of 1837–40 is
well known.


THE
PENNY POSTAGE SCHEME OF
SIR ROWLAND HILL NOT ORIGINAL.
MY business, of course, in the investigation just
named, was to ascertain what plan Sir Rowland
Hill had proposed in his pamphlet of 1837 for
the purpose of carrying out his Penny Postage
Scheme, and to trace therefrom the adoption on
his part of my father's plan of the adhesive stamp.
But a discovery of much more historical import-
ance before long presented itself, namely, that
neither the conception of uniform penny postage
itself, nor of any one of the valuable principles
and figures of the penny postage scheme, were
Original conceptions on the part of Sir Rowland
Hill.
The reformed system of postage was not the
Work of one year nor of one man. For some
years prior to 1837 the abuses and mismanage-
ment of the post office were a constant theme of
complaint, both in and out of Parliament—many
able and earnest men combined to bring about
Some reform demanded by men of business and
public opinion. Commissions of inquiry were

8
held, evidence and suggestions taken, reports
issued. Early in 1835 Mr. Wallace, M.P. for
Greenock, a prominent post-office reformer, Ob-
tained a Commission of Inquiry on the Subject,
which Commission issued in all ten Reports;
while, in addition to Parliamentary returns, a
commission, termed the Commission of Revenue
Inquiry, had sat for many years prior to the Com-
mission of merely Post Office Inquiry, and had
issued twenty-three Reports, in more than one of
which post-office affairs were dealt with.
In that large field of complaint, suggestion,
information, and proposal may be found the sub-
stance, origin, and foundation of the subsequent
writings and proposals of Sir Rowland Hill.
It will be remembered that the old system of
postage, prior to 1840, was that of a high and
variable charge according to distance, of, say,
twopence to one shilling and sixpence a letter,
charged by sheet ; and two sheets, however
light in weight, were charged double. The same
with circulars. But in these Reports, including
the evidence of the numerous witnesses, are to be
found embodied all the valuable principles and
figures of the reformed system. And that all
these Reports had come under Mr. Hill's review
is left in no doubt, having been sent to him by
Mr. Wallace, after Mr. Hill, freed from other
occupations, had, in 1835, joined the circle of
post-office reformers, when he “commenced that


9
“systematic study, analysis, and comparison
“which the difficulty of my self-imposed task
“rendered necessary.”—(“Life,” page 246.)
But to be looked upon as the inventor of that
scheme which he had introduced and (saved and
rendered practicable by the adhesive stamp) had
successfully carried out—to have this scheme
understood as having been the unaided conception
of his own mind—was with Sir Rowland Hill
simply a mania, and to that mania James
Chalmers, the originator in every sense of that
adhesive stamp, was Sacrificed.
The bearing of all this non-originality of con-
ception on the part of Sir Rowland Hill is obvious
when the question of the stamp is under con-
sideration. In propounding the scheme itself,
what were only acquired ideas were assumed, or
allowed to be assumed, as inventions or concep-
tions. As with the Scheme, so with the stamp—
the stamp also was an acquired idea, not Rowland
Hill's invention.
Having now, however, obtained from a quarter
of the highest standing, after an impartial inves-
tigation, a full acknowledgment of my father's
services, and this in addition to an already large
amount of recognition from the press in general,
further observations as to the non-originality of
the scheme may be here dispensed with, for the
present at least, and left to history. And if I
have been compelled to show that, so far from the

10
adhesive stamp having been the invention of Sir
Rowland Hill, originality of conception formed no
element whatever in any one of the proposals of
even the Penny Postage Scheme itself, such
course has been forced upon me by the unfortu-
nate proceedings of Mr. Pearson Hill in denying,
against the clearest evidence, my just claim in
the matter of the stamp, without a pretence of
proof that such was at any period an invention
on the part of Sir Rowland Hill.



11
*
THE IMPRESSED STAMP.
THE plan by which Mr. Rowland Hill, in his
pamphlet of 1837, proposed to carry out in practice
his uniform penny postage scheme was, shortly
stated, first, simply to pay the penny or money
With the letters; but secondly, and more especially,
by stamped sheets of letter paper, and stamped
Wrappers or covers. “Let stamped covers and
“sheets of paper be supplied to the public, from
“ the Stamp Office or Post Office, or both, and at
“Such a price as to include the postage.” .
“ Economy and the public convenience would
“ require that sheets of letter paper of every
“ description should be stamped on the part used
“ for the address; that Wrappers, such as are
“ used for newspapers, as well as covers made of
“cheap paper, should also be stamped,” and kept
on Sale at the post offices. “Stationers would also
“ be induced to keep them.”
What Mr. Hill overlooked in this proposal, was
the broad fact that he sets up the Stamp Office or
Post Office to do the business in letter paper of the
stationers throughout the kingdom—some huge
Government establishment against which competi-
tion would be hopeless, as the Stamp Office was to

- 12
sell the writing paper at cost price, while the
stationer requires a profit to pay his rent and ex-
penses, and to live upon. The effect upon the
stationers, consequently would have been con-
fiscation—and against this plan the united body
of paper makers and stationers subsequently
protested.
The Select Committee of the House of Commons
of 1837-38, again, took exception to Mr. Hill's
plan mainly on account of its liability to forgery—
a stamp of the nature proposed would be exten-
sively forged. After evidence on the part of the
Stamp-Office authorities and paper makers had
been taken, it was decided to recommend—that
the paper for all stamped covers should be manu-
factured at the paper mills of a Mr. Dickenson, or
of another, solely, under strict excise Supervision.
This paper of Mr. Dickenson's was of a peculiar
make, having threads of cotton or silk so inter-
Woven in the paper that a post-office clerk could
readily know by the look or feel that a stamped
cover was genuine. The paper makers protested
and petitioned against this, objecting to one of
the body having all the work. Besides, the pro-
posal involved permanent excise Supervision over
the manufacture of paper. This proposal, however,
extended only to covers or envelopes; how forgery
was to be prevented in respect to the stamps upon
the sheets of letter paper the Committee do not
Say. The whole position, in fact, remained in a




13
state of chaos, only relieved by the ultimate
adoption of the adhesive stamp, which plan
Mr. Chalmers had laid before this Committee
through Mr. Wallace, the Chairman, and likewise
through Mr. Chalmers, M.P., a member of the
Committee, and which plan had been publicly
discussed, not without finding adherents, including
Mr. Cobden, one of the witnesses in favour of the
Scheme.
To the solution proposed by the Committee
that all stamped covers should be made of
Dickenson's peculiar paper the Government again
highly objected, further adding to the dilemma;
and when the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the
5th of July, 1839, introduced and carried a resolu-
tion sanctioning a Penny Postage Bill being
brought forward, he distinctly only “asked hon.
“ members to commit themselves to the question
“ of a uniform rate of postage of one penny at and
“under a weight hereafter to be fixed.” Every-
thing else was to be left open. “If it were to
“go forth to the public to-morrow morning that
“ the Government had proposed, and the House
“ had adopted, the plan of Mr. Rowland Hill, the
“necessary result would be to spread a conviction
“ abroad that, as a stamped cover was absolutely
“ to be used in all cases, which stamped covers
“were to be made by One single manufacturer,
“ alarm would be felt lest a monopoly would
“ thereby be created, to the serious detriment of
14
“other members of a most useful and important
“ trade. The sense of injustice excited by this
“would necessarily be extreme. I therefore do
“ not call upon the House either to affirm or to
“ negative any such proposition at the present.
“I ask you simply to affirm the adoption of a
“ uniform penny postage, and the taxation of that
“ postage by weight. Neither do I ask you to
“ pledge yourselves to the prepayment of letters,
“ for I am of opinion that, at all events, there
“should be an option of putting letters into the
“ post without a stamp.”
“If the resolution be affirmed, and the Bill has
“ to be proposed, it will hereafter require very
“great care and complicated arrangements to
“carry the plan into practical effect. It may
“involve considerable expense and considerable
“responsibility on the part of the Government;
“it may disturb existing trades, such as the paper
“ trade.” . . . “The new postage will be
“ distinctly and simply a penny postage by weight.”
- “I also require for the Treasury a power
“ of taking the postage by anticipation, and a
“ power of allowing such postage to be taken by
“ means of stamped covers, and I also require the
“ authority of rating the postage according to
“ weight.” "
In this dilemma, as to how to carry out the
scheme in practice, Mr. Wallace favourably Sug-
* See “Hansard,” Vol. 48.
i -

15
gested the adhesive stamp, the adoption of which
plan, he had no hesitation in Saying from the
evidence adduced, would secure the revenue from
loss by forgery. Mr. Warburton, also a member of
the 1837-38 Committee, “viewing with consider-
“ able alarm the doubt which had been expressed
“of adopting Mr. Hill's plan of prepayment and
“ collection by stamped covers,” recommended
that plans should be applied for from the public.
Again, in the House of Lords on the 5th of
August, Lord Melbourne, in introducing the Bill,
is as much embarrassed as was the Chancellor of
the Exchequer in the Commons. The opponents
of the Bill use, as one of their strongest argu-
ments, the impossibility of carrying out the
scheme in practice. The Earl of Ripon says:–
“Why were their lordships thus called upon at
“ this period of the session to pass a Bill, when
“ no mortal being at that moment had the re-
“motest conception of how it was to be carried
“ into execution ?” Here Lord Ashburton, like
Mr. Wallace in the Commons, favourably Sug-
gested the adhesive stamp, “which would answer
“every purpose, and remove the objection of the
“stationers and paper makers to the measure.”
Let it, then, be clearly noted that, up to the
period of the Bill in July and August, 1839, not
a word is said in any way connecting Mr. Hill's
name with other than the impressed stamp on the
sheet of letter paper, or, more especially, on the

16
stamped covers. That, and that alone, is taken on
the One part as his plan by all the speakers,
official or otherwise — for that alone does the
Chancellor of the Exchequer ask for “powers.”
The adhesive stamp is brought in, on the other
part, as a distinct proposal, in no way entering
into the proposals of Mr. Hill.
(The above is given in more detail in my
former pamphlet, entitled “Sir Rowland Hill
and James Chalmers, the Inventor of the Adhe-
sive Stamp,” 1883).
-
*




17
THE ADHESIVE STAMP.
IN my pamphlet entitled “Sir Rowland Hill and
“James Chalmers, the Inventor of the Adhesive
“Stamp,”I have already proved from overwhelming
evidence, both general and Specific, the invention
of the adhesive stamp for postage purposes by the
late James Chalmers, bookseller, Dundee, in the
month of August, 1834. In addition to friends
and fellow-townsmen, several of those in his
employment at that period have, unknown to me,
come forward from various quarters to describe
the process and to fix the date. The setting up
of the form with a number of stamps having a
printed device—the printing of the sheets—the
melting of the gum—the gumming the backs of
the sheets—the drying and the pressing—are all
described, and the date already named is conclu-
sively fixed.* That this was the first instance of
such invention is clear; earlier instances of an
* Since publishing my evidence specifically proving what is here stated,
I have been favoured with the following letter:—
“BRECHIN,
9th October, 1883
“DEAR SIR,
“When I penned my anonymous note to the Dundee Advertiser
“in August, 1879, expressing the hope that there might be still living
“some who could corroborate my statement that the late Mr. Chalmers
“was the inventor of the “Adhesive Stamp,' I hardly expected it would
“ be followed by such an amount of corroboration.
“With regard to the date of the invention, you appear to have received
“ample proof, and I am able to add thereto. It was in the autumn of
B
18
impressed stamp proposed for postage purposes are
on record, but not one of a proposed adhesive
stamp—while Sir Rowland Hill himself has left it
on record, in his “Life,” referring to the same
period and occasion when an impressed stamp
was proposed in 1834 for newspaper covers by
Mr. Knight, “ of course, adhesive stamps were
“yet undreamt of.” (See page 69 of my pamphlet
above named).
I have further shown that Mr. Chalmers was
one of the early postal reformers prior to the
period of Mr. Rowland Hill, that he had done
great service in the way of accelerating the mails
betwixt London and the north, and that he was
in communication with several of those early
reformers, such as Mr. Hume, Mr. Wallace, and
Mr. Knight—the publisher subsequently of Mr.
“1834 that I left Dundee to reside here, and the Stamp was in existence
“ in Mr. Chalmers’ premises before I left.
“I may add that when I wrote in 1879, I was not aware of the
“existence of a son of Mr. C. My sole object in writing was that Dundee
“might claim and receive the honour of being the place of birth of the
“‘Adhesive Stamp.”
“I am, &c.,
“P. CHAIMERs, Esq., “ (Signed) DAVID PRAIN.
** Wimbledon.”
A Portrait of Mr. Prain, by the talented Scottish artist, Mr. Irvine,
subscribed for by Mr. Prain's fellow-townsmen and former pupils, has just
been presented in his honour to the Mechanic's Institute of Brechin. The
proceedings upon this occasion, including the able speeches of Provost
Lamb and of Mr. Prain, will be found in the Brechin Advertiser of
16th June, 1885. On a former occasion Mr. Prain was presented with a
Service of Plate and Testimonial to the value of several hundred pounds,
subscribed for by former pupils at home and abroad. It is at the
testimony of such men as this, including the late Mr. William Thoms, of
Dundee, that my opponents sneer as being “the mere wandering fancies of
a few old men " The general testimony is that of an entire locality,
&
*
º




19
Rowland Hill's pamphlet of 1837—so that his
proposal of an adhesive stamp for postage pur-
poses, a matter of notoriety in his own locality,
would further have become well known in the
general circle of postal reformers, amongst whom,
and from whom, on joining Same in the year 1835,
Mr. Rowland Hill obtained the information which
enabled him to draw up and publish his Penny
Postage Scheme of 1837. (See page 5 of my
pamphlet named.)
One of those pioneers of postal reform, the
Rev. Samuel Roberts, M.A., of Conway, gives his
personal testimony of the adhesive stamp having
been originated by James Chalmers. (Page 42.)*
My pamphlet goes on to show (page 44) that on
the appointment of the House of Commons Com-
mittee of 1837–38 on the proposed uniform
Penny Postage Scheme, Mr. Chalmers sent in his
plan of an adhesive stamp to Mr. Wallace, the
Chairman, and to another Member of that
Committee. Mr. Wallace's reply, stating that he
will lay the plan before the Committee, is of date
9th December, 1837. In the dilemma in which
the Government found itself (upon introducing on
the 5th July, 1839, the Resolution preliminary to
the Bill) as to how to carry out the Penny Postage
Scheme in practice (page 21) Mr. Wallace favour-
* An interesting obituary of Mr. Roberts, lately deceased, will be found
in the “Times" of 30th September, 1885. Mr. Roberts is there recognised
as the pioneer of postal reform and originator of the proposal of a low and
uniform postage,
B 2

20
ably suggested the plan of the adhesive stamp.
The statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer
upon this occasion, with the interposition of
Mr. Wallace in the Commons, and of Lord Ash-
burton in the Lords, in favour of the adhesive
stamp have already been given, conclusively
showing that, up to this period, Mr. Hill had not
included the adhesive stamp in his proposals.
On the passing of the Bill in August, Mr. Hill
was relegated to the Treasury for the purpose of
carrying out the scheme. The first step taken
was to invite plans, by Treasury Circular of
23rd August, from the public ; some time was
taken up in receiving and considering these plans,
until, by Treasury Minute of December 26th, 1839,
the adhesive stamp was at length officially
adopted, in conjunction with Mr. Hill's stamped
covers, or stamp impressed upon the sheet of
letter paper itself. (See page 46.) But the
adhesive stamp, indeed, had been practically
adopted by Mr. Hill before the plans were received,
considered, and nothing better found, a concur-
rence of opinion having set in in favour of same.
It will be seen that Mr. Chalmers, in his published
statement of date February, 1838, now produced
from Sir Henry Cole's papers, called for petitions
towards the adoption of the adhesive stamp. In
August, 1839, both the Associated Body of Paper-
Makers and certain Merchants and Bankers of the
City of London pressed for the adoption of this
stamp ; Mr. Rowland Hill himself, in a paper

21
entitled “On the Collection of Postage by means
of Stamps,” circulated by him about the period of
the Bill being before Parliament, included the
adoption of the adhesive stamp, in conjunction
with his own impressed stamp. Mr. Cole also
drew up an able paper on the stamp question,
including the advocacy of the adhesive stamp.
So general, indeed, had then become opinion in
its favour, that of the plans sent in no less than
forty-nine others besides Mr. Chalmers, who
again sent in his plan, recommended the adoption
of the adhesive stamp, invented by Mr. Chalmers
in 1834, laid by him before the Committee of the
House of Commons in December, 1837, and fur-
ther, as we shall now See, sent in to Mr. Cole as
Secretary to the Mercantile Committee of the
City of London, in February, 1838, and acknow-
ledged by Mr. Rowland Hill in a letter to
Mr. Chalmers of date 3rd March, 1838. In this
letter Mr. Hill makes no pretension to the merit
or proposed adoption of the adhesive stamp on his
part, for, as will be seen, Mr. Chalmers sub-
Sequently returned to Mr. Hill a copy of this very
letter for the purpose of pointing out this fact to
Mr. Hill. It was not until the propriety, and
indeed necessity, of adopting Mr. Chalmers' plan
—not until its final official acceptance—that, in a
letter dated 18th January, 1840, Mr. Hill, then in
despotic power, putting Mr. Chalmers aside upon
the pretext afterwards mentioned, assumed the
whole merit to himself.
22
SIR HENRY COLE'S PAPERS
AND THE
ADHESIVE STAMP OF MR. CHALMERS.
-
IN his “Fifty Years of Public Life,” lately pub-
lished, Sir Henry Cole gives much information
with respect to the Penny Postage reform, a boon
with the obtaining and carrying out of which he
was intimately associated—first as Secretary to the
Mercantile Committee of the City of London, and
afterwards as coadjutor to Mr. Rowland Hill at the
Treasury. “A General Collection of Postage
“Papers,” having reference to this reform, eluci-
dating the efforts made by this Committee of
Tondon Merchants and Bankers during the year
1838–39, to obtain for the scheme the sanction of
the Legislature, has been bequeathed by Sir Henry
Cole, “to be given to the British Museum after
“my death.” ” “The Mercantile Committee,” he
states, “ was formed chiefly by the exertions of
“Mr. George Moffat in the spring of 1838.
“Mr. Ashurst conducted the Parliamentary In-
*These papers are in the Art Library of the South Kensington Museum.
s
-


23
“quiry, and upon myself, as Secretary, devolved
“ the business of communicating with the public.”
This Committee formed the source and focus of
the agitation which brought about the ultimate
enactment of uniform Penny Postage. Money
was freely subscribed, meetings were held, public
bodies in the provinces were urged to petition,
Members of Parliament and Ministers were waited
upon, and a special paper advocating the scheme,
termed the “Post Circular,” was issued and
circulated gratis. Of these proceedings Mr. Cole
was the guiding genius ; and, amongst other
successes, over two thousand petitions to Parlia-
ment were obtained—labours which were ultimately
crowned with success.
To Mr. Cole, then, it now turns out that
Mr. Chalmers, in February, 1838, sent a copy of
his plan of the adhesive stamp. Mr. Wallace and
the House of Commons Committee had already
got it, but it is only now that the particulars of the
plan have been brought to light—and in this
“Collection of Postage Papers,” Sir Henry Cole
has indeed left a valuable legacy to me, and to
all prepared to recognise the true originator of the
adhesive postage stamp. These papers include
a printed statement of Mr. Chalmers' plan, dated
“4 Castle Street, Dundee, 8th February, 1838,”
and which runs as follows:–
24
“Remarks on various modes proposed for franking
“letters, under Mr. Rowland Hill's Plan of Post
“Office Reform.
“In suggesting any method of improvement, it
“ is only reasonable to expect that what are Sup-
“ posed to be its advantages over any existing
“system, or in opposition to others that have been
“ or may be proposed, will be explicitly stated.
“Therefore, if Mr. Hill's plan of a uniform rate
“ of postage, and that all postages are to be paid
“ by those sending letters before they are deposited
“in the respective post offices, become the law of
“ the land, I conceive that the most simple and
“economical mode of carrying out such an ar-
“ rangement would be by slips (postage stamps)
prepared somewhat similar to the specimens
herewith shown.
“With this view, and in the hope that Mr.
“ Hill's plan may soon be carried into operation,
“I would suggest that sheets of stamped slips
“should be prepared at the Stamp Office (on a
“ paper made expressly for the purpose) with a
“ device on each for a die or cut resembling that
“ On newspapers; that the sheets so printed or
“stamped should then be rubbed over with a
“strong Solution of gum or other adhesive sub-
stance, and (when thoroughly dry) issued by
“ the Stamp Office to town and country dis-
“ tributors, to stationers and others, for sale in
“sheets or singly, under the same laws and re-
6
&
%
&
&
4.
6
&
&
-



25
“strictions now applicable to those selling bill or
“receipt stamps, so as to prevent, as far as prac-
“ticable, any fraud on the revenue.
“Merchants and others whose correspondence
“is extensive, could purchase these slips in quan-
“tities, cut them singly, and affix one to a letter
“ by means of wetting the back of the slip with a
“Sponge or brush, just with as much facility as
“applying a wafer.”—Adding that in some cases,
Such as for circulars, the stamp might answer
both for stamp and wafer ; a suggestion which
those who may recollect the mode of folding
universally practised before the days of envelopes,
will appreciate. Mr. Chalmers goes on—“Others,
“ requiring only one or two slips at a time, could
“ purchase them along with sheets of paper at
“stationers' shops, the weight only regulating the
“rate of postage in all cases, so as a stamp may
“ be affixed according so the Scale determined on.
“Again, to prevent the possibility of these
“being used a second time, it should be made
“imperative on postmasters to put the post office
“town stamp (as represented in One of the speci-
“mens), across the slip or postage stamp.”
Mr. Chalmers then goes on to point out the
advantages to be derived from this plan, and to
state objections to Mr. Hill's plan of impressed
stamped covers or envelopes, or stamp impressed
upon the sheet of letter paper itself. At that
period envelopes — being scarcely known, and

26
never used, as involving double postage—were a
hand-made article, heavy and expensive ; objec-
tions which have disappeared with the abolition
of the Excise duty on paper, and the use of
machinery. But how true were Mr. Chalmers'
objections then, may be gathered from the fact, as
recorded by Sir Rowland Hill in his “Life,” that
the large supply provided of the first postage
envelope, the Mulready, had actually to be destroyed
as wholly unsuitable and unsaleable, while the
supply of adhesive stamps was with difficulty
brought up to the demand. The force and value
of Mr. Chalmers' objections to the stamp im-
pressed upon the sheet itself, are best exemplified
by the fact that, though ultimately sanctioned by
the Treasury at the instance of Mr. Hill, such
plan never came into use. People bought their
own paper from the stationers, and not from the
Stamp Office, and applied the adhesive stamp as
the Weight required. Mr. Chalmers concludes,
“ taking all these disadvantages into considera-
“tion, the use of stamped slips is certainly the
“ most preferable system; and, should others
“who take an interest in the proposed reform
“view the matter in the same light as I do, it
“remains for them to petition Parliament to have
“Such carried into operation.”
This statement of Mr. Chalmers is printed on
part of an elongated sheet of paper. On the half
not occupied by the type are several specimens of
27
a Suggested Stamp, about an inch square, and with
the words printed, “General Postage—not ex-
“ ceeding half-an-ounce—One Penny.” And the
Same—“Not exceeding one ounce—Twopence.”
(It is only of late years that a penny has franked
One ounce in weight.) A space divides each
stamp for cutting off singly,” and the back of the
sheet is gummed over. One of the specimens
is stamped across with the post-mark, “Dundee,
“10th February, 1888,” to exemplify what
Mr. Chalmers states should be done to prevent
the stamp being used a second time.
Here is a complete description of the principle
of the adhesive stamp as ultimately adopted by
Mr. Hill at the Treasury by Minute of 26th De-
cember, 1839, when he sent Mr. Cole to Messrs.
Bacon & Petch, the eminent engravers, to pro-
vide a die and contract for the Supply of stamps
(see Mr. Bacon’s evidence, page 52 of my former
Pamphlet), a plan in use to the present day.
This description, as now brought to light under
the signature of Mr. Chalmers himself, fully con-
firms the evidence with respect to the invention
in August, 1834, as given by his then employés
yet living, W. Whitelaw and others. (See pages
34–39 of my former pamphlet.)
Here, then, was the plan of the future adhesive
* The perforated sheets were not introduced until the year 1852. This
improvement was the invention of a Mr. Archer, for which he got the
sum of £4,000.

28
stamp, already laid before Mr. Wallace and the
House of Commons Committee, also sent to the
Secretary of the City of London Mercantile Com-
mittee, in printed form, as to one of many, long
before leave was asked, on 5th July, 1839, even
to introduce the Bill into Parliament. That
Mr. Hill saw Mr. Cole's copy, or had a special
copy sent also to himself, is clear, because
Mr. Hill at once writes to Mr. Chalmers, under
date 3rd March, 1838. What Mr. Hill states in
that letter we know not altogether, as Mr. Pearson
Hill has not thought proper to publish that letter,
and my request to him for a copy has not been
complied with. (See page 64 of my former
pamphlet.) We know thus much, however, that
Mr. Rowland Hill makes no pretension then to
ever having Suggested or approved of an adhesive
stamp, as already pointed out. Not until writing
to Mr. Chalmers on the 18th January, 1840 (see
page 62 of former pamphlet), before which
period, in obedience to the general demand, the
adhesive stamp had at length been adopted, did.
Mr. Hill, in reply to Mr. Chalmers’ claim as the
originator, set up any counter-claim on his own
part to any share in the merit of the adhesive
stamp. But, as with the scheme itself, so now
with the stamp which saved it, no second party
was to be allowed to divide with Mr. Hill the sole
merit of this great reform. So the far-fetched
excuse, the mere afterthought, bred of the


29
ſ2.
success which had attended Mr. Chalmers' pro-
posal to the Committee and to Mr. Cole, is hit
upon (page 54) to put Mr. Chalmers aside and to
attach to himself the whole merit of the adhesive
stamp. Mr. Hill had said something about a bit
of gummed paper before the Commissioners of
Post Office Inquiry in February, 1837 (subse-
quent to publishing the first edition of his
pamphlet, in which nothing was said of an
adhesive stamp), an idea Mr. Hill had acquired
in the interval, just as he had acquired all the
principles of the scheme itself, at second hand.
(page 60). On this occasion Mr. Hill had sup-
posed a difficulty which might occur to a person
who had to re-address a letter at a Post Office,
but was unable to write, and at the same time
precluded from paying the penny in cash, while
the stamped wrapper would obliterate the address.
In such an exceptional case, and in order to secure
“the universal adoption " of the impressed stamp,
a bit of paper just large enough to bear the stamp,
and covered at the back with a glutinous wash,
might be wetted and applied. Better, however,
he goes on to say, allow the penny to be received
in cash, so that you have only the impressed
stamp or the penny in payment, and which penny
was accepted up to the year 1855.” Up to the
* In his “Life” lately published, written by himself, Sir Rowland Hill
omits the clause in his original evidence which restores the payment of the
penny in cash and does away with any necessity for an adhesive stamp,
even in the exceptional case he had supposed. Not only does Sir Rowland
30
year 1855, consequently, no such exceptional
case could have arisen, the penny in cash being
sufficient acceptance. This allusion to an adhesive
stamp is repeated by Mr. Hill in the Second
edition of his pamphlet. Here then, in February,
1837, was a passing allusion made by Mr. Hill to
an adhesive stamp, showing that, Subsequent to
the issue of the first edition of his pamphlet,
he had acquired from Some quarter the idea of
Mr. Chalmers' invention. February, 1837, was
two years and a half after the proved invention of
the adhesive stamp by Mr. Chalmers, one of the
early postal reformers, one who “held correspond-
“ence with the postal reformers of his day, both
“ in and out of Parliament'' (“Encyclopædia Bri-
tannica,” See page 39 following), the correspondent,
amongst others, of Messrs. Knight & Co., who
published for Mr. Hill. In a letter, then, of
18th January, 1840, as we learn from Mr. Pearson
Hill's account of the matter, and from Mr. Chal-
mers' reply, Mr. Hill pointed out to Mr. Chalmers
that his claim could not be admitted, because he,
Mr. Hill, first proposed an adhesive stamp in
February, 1837, the first official proposal of his
plan by Mr. Chalmers, his letter to Mr. Wallace
Hill omit this clause, but he even gives the reader to understand that to
the year 1837, the year of his pamphlet, is to be ascribed his adoption of
the adhesive stamp. How then, it will be asked, does Sir Rowland Hill
account for the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the 5th July,
1839, and the interposition of Mr. Wallace in favour of an adhesive stamp 2
This difficulty Sir Rowland Hill surmounts by simply taking no notice of
either, -



31
and the House of Commons Committee, having
been only in December of the same year. In
answer to this extraordinary pretension on the
part of Mr. Hill, it is enough to point to Mr. Hill's
letters to the Postmaster-General, Lord Litchfield,
in January, 1838, explaining and enforcing his
penny postage scheme then before the public—
letters published in the papers of the period, and
in which not a word is Said of an adhesive stamp."
Or more than enough, to point to the speech of
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, already quoted
(page 13), to prove that, up to so late a date as
the 5th July, 1839, Mr. Hill had not proposed to
adopt an adhesive stamp. The press, up to 30th
August, 1839, had heard of no such proposal on
his part.4
This allusion to an adhesive stamp in February,
1837, was a mere passing allusion as to what
* In his letter to Lord Litchfield of 9th January, 1838, Mr. Hill states
his plan to be :—“That the payment should always be in advance. And
“to rid this mode of payment of the trouble and risk which it would
“otherwise entail on the sending of letters, as well as for other important
“considerations, I propose that the postage be collected by the sale of
“stamped covers.”
+ The “Times” of this date has the following paragraph:—“The Penny
“Postage will commence, we learn, on the 1st January next. It is
“intended that stamped envelopes shall be sold at every Post Office, so
“ that stationers and other shopkeepers may, as well as the public, supply
“ themselves at a minute's notice.” Not a word as to an Adhesive Stamp
being known as in contemplation. It will be evident from these two
instances alone, independent of the proceedings in Parliament and of
Mr. Hill's letter to Mr. Chalmers of 3rd March, 1838, that the Adhesive
Stamp formed no part of the original proposals or intentions of Sir
Rowland Hill.


32
might be done in a supposed exceptional case
which could never have arisen so long as the
penny in cash was accepted, and was nothing
more. For Mr. Hill to represent to Mr. Chalmers
that he, Mr. Hill, had proposed to adopt the
adhesive stamp as a means of carrying out his
scheme in February, 1837, was to state what was
not the case ; consequently any admission so gained
from Mr. Chalmers was wholly invalid. An
extract from the reply of Mr. Chalmers, dated
18th May, 1840 (reproduced at page 62 of my
former pamphlet), has been circulated by Mr.
Pearson Hill, in whose hands alone is the entire
correspondence, with the object of showing that
Mr. Chalmers “honestly abandoned ” his claim.
But Mr. Chalmers honestly abandoned nothing;
while no impartial person will, upon considera-
tion, for a moment attach any importance to just
what “extract ’’ from his correspondence Mr.
Pearson Hill has thought proper to produce. I
again contend, as I have already maintained, that
this correspondence was public, not private, pro-
perty—that such should have remained at the
Treasury, Subject to the inspection of all con-
cerned, in place of having been appropriated by
Sir Rowland Hill as private, and thus So as to
admit of only such portion being ultimately made
known as may have suited himself. In this
extract of 18th May, 1840, Mr. Chalmers, after
stating he had delayed to reply until seeing the


33
stamps in operation, writes with surprise at what
Mr. Hill now states. Had he known or supposed
that any one else, especially Mr. Hill himself, had
proposed the adhesive stamp for the purpose of
carrying out the scheme, he would not have
troubled him at all. But having sent his plan to
Mr. Wallace, M.P., and got his acknowledgment
of 9th December, 1837, saying same would be laid
before the Committee ; also to Mr. Chalmers,
M.P., and got his reply of 7th October, 1839,
Saying such had been laid before the Committee;
also Mr. Hill's own letter of 3rd March, 1838, a
copy of which he encloses—from all these he was
led to believe he had been first in the field. Now,
not doubting Mr. Hill's assurance of 18th January,
1840, to the contrary (and in any case indisposed
to contest a decision against which there was
practically no appeal), he only regrets having
through his ignorance put others as well as him-
Self to any trouble in the matter; “while the
“only satisfaction I have had in this as well as in
“former suggestions—all original with me—is
“ that these have been adopted, and have been
“ and are likely to prove beneficial to the public.”
Such is the letter or extract which, placed in
the hands of every editor in London, has led to
my statements being here treated with compara-
tive neglect.” But let my statements equally
* See “The World,” “Daily Chronicle,” &c., also “Proceedings of
the Commissioners of Sewers” for July, 1881, as reported in the “City
Press.”
C

34
with those of Mr. Pearson Hill be read by any
impartial writer, as in the case of the “Encyclo-
“ paedia Britannica,” afterwards noticed, and the
result, it will be seen, is to lead to an entirely
different conclusion. “James Chalmers was the
“inventor of the adhesive postage stamp –-
“Mr. Pearson Hill has not weakened the evidence
“ to that effect.” Here was honesty certainly—
simplicity indeed—on the side of Mr. Chalmers;
but what about the representation on the part of
Mr. Hill ? Was it the case that he had proposed
the adoption of the adhesive stamp in February,
1837, as represented to Mr. Chalmers ? The
proofs to the contrary are conclusive. Mr. Hill
had made a passing allusion to an adhesive stamp
in February, 1837, but only a passing allusion.
Nothing can be more clear than that the adop-
tion of the adhesive stamp for the purpose of
carrying out his scheme formed no part of the
original proposals and intentions of Mr. Hill.
His representation to Mr. Chalmers was there-
fore exaggerated, delusive, and misleading.”
“Why did not you tell me anything of this
“ before ?' replies Mr. Chalmers in effect;-
“ there is a copy of your letter of 3rd March,
“ 1838, when I sent you my plan, in which letter
* The “Christian Leader” of Glasgow ably puts the matter thus:–
“Sir Rowland Hill seems to have been at pains to obscure the facts of the
“case for the purpose of claiming to himself the credit of an invention
º which really belonged to the Dundee bookseller.”
- *-
*
|





35
.
“ of yours no such pretensions were put forward.
“It is only now that Ilearn for the first time that
“ you had ever proposed or been in favour of an
“adhesive stamp. Further, how is it that neither
“ of these members of the Committee before whom
“I laid my plan had ever heard of any such prior
“ proposal on your part 2 However, I am now.
“only sorry at having troubled you—I have at
“ least the satisfaction of knowing that the public
“ have got my plan Somehow.”
“Why did you not tell me anything of this.
“ before?” Why indeed! Because Mr. Hill then had
not contemplated an adhesive stamp, as has been
abundantly proved. An impressed stamped cover
“was absolutely to be used in all cases,” says the
Chancellor of the Exchequer as late as in July,
1839—a “power” was asked for this, and for
this alone. (See ante, page 14.) But much had
happened in the interval betwixt Mr. Hill's two
letters to Mr. Chalmers. The stamp not accepted
by Mr. Hill in 1838 had become in 1840 the
favourite of all opinions concerned, the adopted
of the Treasury. It had saved his scheme.
Mr. Chalmers must now be put aside, a matter
which the entire contrast betwixt the dispositions
of the two men rendered only too easy, and so
this afterthought, this far-fetched pretext already
noticed, was hit upon for the purpose.
At the same time Mr. Chalmers appears to
have been too apathetic in the matter, indifferent
C 2
36
to personal considerations so long as the public
got his stamp from some quarter; but the absence
of any desire for personal advantage is a not un-
frequent characteristic in those who have done
some public service. -
But it is this neglect, or mere indifference, on
the part of my father, in not having made a better
stand in 1840 with respect to a matter the national
and universal value of which no one could then
appreciate or foresee, that all the more calls upon
me now, under a better acquaintance with the
facts and circumstances, to claim for his memory
that recognition to which he is clearly entitled, as
having been “The Originator and Inventor of the
“Adhesive Postage Stamp.”



37
º
THE ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA"
THE nineteenth volume of the above-named stan-
dard work, lately published, contains an article
headed “Postage Stamps,” in which my late
father is fully recognised as having been the
inventor of the adhesive postage stamp. It is
well known that the articles in this work are
drawn up by learned experts upon the respective
subjects dealt with, having access to and being
in the habit of consulting official and historical
documents, and edited under a strong sense of
responsibility to the high standing of the work
itself and to history; so that it is with unspeak-
able satisfaction that I now find myself enabled to
produce from such a quarter an emphatic recog-
nition of my father's services in connection with
the great boon of Penny Postage reform.
This article, so far as it deals with the origin of
the adhesive stamp, is as follows; but in con-
sidering same it should be borne in mind that the
article was drawn up before the discovery of
Mr. Chalmers' plan amongst the papers of the late
Sir Henry Cole, with the consequent proofs given
in the last chapter as to Mr. Chalmers having
taken the initiative in urging the adoption of this
stamp, not only to Members of the Select Com-
38
mittee of the House of Commons of 1837–38, but
to Mr. Rowland Hill himself, long before Mr. Hill,
in his paper of 1839 (see ante, page 21), gave in
his adhesion to that plan in conjunction with
his own :- -
“POSTAGE STAMPS.—For all practical pur-
“ poses the history of postage stamps begins in
“ the United Kingdom, and with the great reform
“ of its postal system in 1839–40.” After giving
instances in which the impressed stamp had been
in use, or had been suggested for postal pur-
poses in this country and elsewhere, the article
proceeds:—“Finally, and in its results most im-
“ portant of all, the ‘adhesive stamp was made,
“experimentally, in his printing-office at Dundee,
“ by Mr. James Chalmers, in August, 1834.”
“These experimental stamps were printed from
“ordinary type, and were made adhesive by a
“wash of gum. Their inventor had already
* “Patrick Chalmers, Sir Rowland Hill, and James Chalmers, Inventor
“of the Adhesive Stamp (London, 1882), passim.” See also the same
writer's pamphlet, entitled “The Position of Sir Rowland Hill made plain
(1882),” and his “The Adhesive Stamp; a Fresh Chapter in the History
of Post-Office Reform (1881). Compare Mr. Pearson Hill's tract,
“A Paper on Postage Stamps,” in reply to Mr. Chalmers, reprinted from
the “Philatelic Record,” of November, 1881.” Mr. Hill has therein shown
conclusively the priority of publication by Sir Rowland Hill. He has also
given proof of Mr. James Chalmers’ express acknowledgment of that
priority. But he has not weakened the evidence of the priority of invention
by Mr. Chalmers. - -
[This admission on the part of Mr. Chalmers, obtained through an
obscuring and consequent misapprehension of the facts, was, of course,
wholly invalid. Even if valid, it will be seen at page 44 that such priority.
of publication of an idea “suggested from without” was of no practical
consequence.—P.C.]
º
ſ

39
&
&
won local distinction in matters of postal
reform by his strenuous and successful efforts,
made as early as in the year 1822, for
the acceleration of the Scottish mails from
London. Those efforts resulted in a saving of
forty-eight hours on the double journey, and
were highly appreciated in Scotland. There is
“evidence that from 1822 onwards his attention
was much directed towards postal questions,
and that he held correspondence with the postal
reformers of his day both in and out of Parlia-
“ment. It is also plain that he was more intent
“upon aiding public improvements than upon
“ winning credit for them. He made adhesive
“stamps in 1834, and showed them to his neigh-
“bours, but took no step for publicly recommend-
“ing their adoption by the Post Office until long
“ after such a recommendation had been published
“—although very hesitatingly—by the author
“ of the now famous pamphlet entitled “Post
“Office Reform.” Mr. Hill brought the adhesive
stamp under the notice of the Commissioners
of Post Office Inquiry on the 13th February,
“ 1837. Mr. Chalmers made no public mention
“ of his stamp of 1834 until December, 1837.”
&
4.
&
%
&
g
&
4.
&
4.
%
4.
&
%
&
4.
4.
%
4.
º
4.
4.
* “Ninth Report of Commissioners of Post-Office Inquiry, 1837,” pp. 32,
33, reprinted in Sir R. Hill's “History of Penny Postage” (“Life,” &c.,
ii. 270).
+ [That Mr. Chalmers had not made an earlier offer of his stamp
officially is accounted for by the proposals of 1834 with respect to a
penny postage on newspapers, in place of an impressed stamp of fourpence
on the sheet, having come to nothing.—P.C.] -

40
&
.
&
{
& 4
& 4
& 6
& 4
& 4
& 4
& 4
& 4
& 4
“
“Only a fortnight before his examination by
the above-named Commissioners Mr. Hill, in
his letter to the late Lord Monteagle (then Mr.
Spring Rice, and Chancellor of the Exchequer),
seems to have had no thought of the adhesive
stamp. He recommends to the Treasury ‘that
“stamped covers and sheets of paper be supplied
‘to the public from the Stamp Office or Post
“Office . . . and sold at such a price as to
‘include the postage . . . . . Covers at
“various prices would be required for packets of
“various weights. Each should have the weight
‘it is entitled to carry legibly printed with the
“stamp . . . . Should experience warrant
‘the Government in making the use of stamped
1.
‘covers universal,” most important advantages
* Would be secured. The Post Office would be
‘relieved altogether from the collection of the
‘revenue.’ H -
“Then, upon suggestion, it would seem, of
some possible difficulty that might arise from
the occasional bringing to a post-office by per-
sons unable to write, of unstamped letters, he
added: ‘Perhaps this difficulty might be ob-
‘viated by using a bit of paper just large enough
‘to bear the stamp, and covered at the back
‘with a glutinous wash.’ It is a quite fair in-
ference that this alternative had been sug-
* I.e., by prohibiting the prepayment of letters in money.
t “Ninth Report,” as above.
º




41
“gested from without.” In reviewing the sub-
“ject, long afterwards, in his ‘History of
“‘ Penny Postage,' Sir R. Hill says: ‘The Post-
“‘Office opinions as to the use of stamps for . .
“‘ prepayment were on the whole favourable.’ f
“In a paper of 1839, entitled ‘ On the Collection
“‘ of Postage by means of Stamps,’ the author
“ continued to look upon ‘stamped covers or
“‘envelopes as the means which the public would
“‘most commonly employ ; still believing that
“‘the adhesive stamp would be reserved for
“‘ exceptional cases.’
“ Mulready's well-remembered allegorical cover
“ came into use on 1st May, 1840, together with
“ the first form of the stamped letter-paper, and
“ the adhesive labels. They all met at first, but
“ only for a few days, with a large sale. That of
“ the first day yielded £2,500. Soon afterwards
“ the public rejection of the ‘Mulready envelope,’
“writes Rowland Hill, “was so complete as to
“‘necessitate the destruction of nearly all the
“‘vast number prepared for issue.” Whilst, on
* Moreover, what Sir Rowland Hill does not tell in his “History,” is
that the compulsion to use a stamp in all cases was, in his original
evidence in this Ninth Report, at once withdrawn, the permission to pay
the penny in cash being restored, so that the person “unable to write ”
was at once relieved of all “difficulty,” and no bit of gummed paper
required even in the exceptional case supposed. (See my former pamphlet,
page 56.) Keeping this fact in view, there is thus only a passing “allu-
sion * here in February, 1837, to the adhesive stamp, and nothing more,
not even a partial proposal to use it. This clause restoring the permission
to pay the penny in place of using any stamp, is taken no notice of by Sir
Rowland Hill “in reviewing the subject long afterwards.”—P.C.]
t “History of Penny Postage,” as above. : Ibid.
42
“ the other hand, the presses of the Stamp Office
“were producing more than half a million of
“[adhesive] labels, by working both night and
“ day, they yet failed to meet the demand.” It
was only after many weeks, and after the intro-
duction of a series of mechanical improvements
“ and new processes, due to the skill and ingenuity
“in part of Mr. Edwin Hill of the Stamp Office,
“in part of Mr. Perkins, an engraver, that the
“ demand could be effectually answered.”
The above emphatic decision on the part of
eminent men whom I have never seen in favour
of James Chalmers as having been the inventor of
the adhesive postage stamp, will give much satis-
faction in those numerous quarters from which I
have already met with countenance and support.
After a full consideration of the respective state-
ments put forward by myself and by Mr. Pearson
Hill on the subject, James Chalmers at length
obtains a recognition of which he has, as a rule,
been only too long deprived. And that the same
man who invented this stamp also first proposed
its adoption has been already too clearly shown
to require repetition here. Surely Sir Rowland
Hill’s “paper of 1839,” mentioned in this article,
was a trifle behindhand, when I have just proved
from Sir Henry Cole's papers that Mr. Chalmers
had already laid his plan before Mr. Hill himself
in February, 1838. Did Mr. Hill tell us that in
%
&
%
&
&
* Hill, ct supra, p. 398.

43
his paper of 1839 2 No. Did he tell us that he
drew up this paper of 1839 under a pressing
demand for the adhesive stamp from all quarters?
No. Was it fair of Sir Rowland Hill to allow the
readers of his “History of Penny Postage,” or of his
paper of 1839, to conclude that this proposal on his
part of 1839 was put forward of his own initiation,
and this with Mr. Chalmers' plan and statement of
February, 1838, already in his possession ? A plan
which, in his reply to Mr. Chalmers of 3rd March
following, Mr. Hill had pooh-poohed Moreover,
in referring to this “paper of 1839 ° in his
“History of Penny Postage,” vol. 1, page 346,
Sir Rowland Hill takes special credit to himself
for having therein recommended that the adhesive
stamps “should be printed on sheets,” putting
Same forward as a further idea of his own, and
wholly ignoring the fact of such having been
a special feature, “for Sale in sheets or singly,”
in that plan of Mr. Chalmers which lay before him.
(See ante, page 24.) It is unfortunate that the
Writer of this article was not at the time of writing
in possession of the whole facts of the case, when
doubtless Mr. Hill’s “paper of 1839 '' would have
been characterised as it deserved. Sir Rowland
Hill's mode of obtaining credit for “inventions''
or proposals of other men will now be better
understood. -
If Mr. Hill alluded to this adhesive stamp (the
admitted invention of Mr. Chalmers in 1884) in


44
February, 1837, while Mr. Chalmers urged its
adoption officially only in December, this, it will be
seen, arose from Mr. Hill having been privileged
to give evidence on postal affairs before the Com-
missioners of Inquiry. The proposal of 1834 with
respect to newspapers came to nothing; conse-
quently there was no opening then for Mr. Chal-
mers to send in his invention officially. In Send-
ing in his plan to the Select Committee of the
House of Commons in December, 1837, Mr.
Chalmers was still a year and a half before the
Penny Postage Bill was even introduced into
Parliament. Mr. Hill did not adopt same until
he issued his “paper of 1839.” Mr. Hill's allu-
sion to this stamp in February, 1837, this “pub-
lishing ” of the idea “very hesitatingly,” had no
practical effect whatever on the cause in hand ;
such only shows that Mr. Hill had heard of the
invention of 1834, without seeing its value or pro-
posing to adopt it. Moreover, Mr. Chalmers was
publishing his own invention, while Mr. Hill was
only publishing an acquired idea, “ suggested
“ from without.” It is to the man who not only
invented the adhesive postage stamp, but who
further first urged the adoption of same in its
entirety for the purpose of carrying out the Penny
Postage Scheme, that the merit of this plan and
of its results are due and will be ascribed.
But if I was to stop here I should be fold now,
as I have been told before on obtaining important
-

45
recognitions, that the present decision in my
favour was again got upon mere ea-parte state-
ments — that had Mr. Pearson Hill only been
given the opportunity, a very different aspect
would have been put upon the matter. No choice,
consequently, is left me but to show that it is to
Mr. Pearson Hill himself I am indebted for the
introduction which has led to my success, and
without which introduction, now reproduced, I
should have remained in entire ignorance as to
any forthcoming article upon postal affairs, or
have been most courteously afforded an oppor-
tunity of stating my case:—
[Copy.
“ ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA.”
“50, BELSIZE PARK,
“LONDON, N.W.,
“15th March, 1883.
“GENTLEMEN, º
“As you are now issuing a new edition of
“ your ‘Encyclopædia Britannica,’ and as for
“years past a Mr. Patrick Chalmers has per-
“sistently been making false and groundless
“charges against my father, the late Sir Rowland
“ Hill, I think it well to send you the enclosed
“ printed documents for your information, as it is
“by no means improbable that he may strive to
“get you to insert some untrue statement when
“ you deal with the question of the Post Office
“ and Postal Reform.



46
“I need hardly say that I shall be happy at
“any time to submit to you the original documents
“ which are in my possession, which disprove the
“ claims put forward in behalf of Mr. James
“Chalmers of Dundee, if you would desire to see
“ them.
“Your statistical information about the Post
“Office, as given in my copy of the Encyclopædia
“ (the eighth edition) is of course now much
“ behindhand. I dare say you have already on
“your staff of contributors some gentleman well
“ able to supply you with fresh information; but
“should you be in want of any such help, I feel
“sure that my cousin, Mr. Lewin Hill, head of
“ the statistical branch of the Secretary's office,
“General Post Office, London, would gladly
“undertake the work if you desired it.

“I am, Gentlemen,
“Your obedient servant,
“ (Signed) PEARSON HILL.
“MEssRs. A. & C. BLACK,
“Edinburgh.”
It is thus manifest that, in having obtained this,
conclusive recognition, I have taken no undue
advantage of Mr. Pearson Hill, while it will also
be manifest that Mr. Pearson Hill's statements.
have found acceptance in other quarters only
because I have not been afforded an equally im-
47
partial hearing as in the present case. His
printed documents, his statements, with all the
advantage of being sole possessor of the cor-
respondence betwixt his late father and mine,
have been put forward, and yet the decision is
against him.
Again, as respects the penny postage scheme
itself, the proofs are conclusive that originality of
conception formed no element whatever in any one
of the proposals of Sir Rowland Hill, preceded
and heralded as the penny postage reform had
been by the labours of a whole band of pioneers.
Special reference may be made to the statements
of the Rev. Samuel Roberts, whose biography as
the pioneer of uniform penny postal reform is
given in the Times of 30th September last. The
“Rowland Hill Memorial Fund.” Committee have
themselves admitted, after what has been laid
before them, their sense of this non-originality
by the change made in the inscription upon the
City statue of Sir Rowland Hill, thereby con-
firming the accuracy of my statements. More-
over, a Treasury Minute of 11th March, 1864,
distinctly states that uniform penny postage had
been urged upon the Government prior to the
proposals of Sir Rowland Hill. Thus, indepen-
dent and conclusive testimony, as distinguished
from the mere family tradition with which many
writers have hitherto been content, leaves the
question of plagiarism beyond dispute. As with



48
the stamp, so with the scheme, the ideas were
acquired, not original. Here, then, is the justifica-
tion of my statements. So far from having been
“ persistently making false and groundless
“ charges,” I have been stating facts and eluci-
dating the truth, and the aspersions of Mr. Pear-
son Hill are thus scattered to the winds.
For Mr. Pearson Hill, however, every allowance
will be made, though his style of controversy will
not be admired. That gentleman forgets that my
motives and objects are just as legitimate as his
own, and should be met in a legitimate way. This
leads me to mention that some time ago Mr.
Samuel Morley, M.P. (at one period chairman of
the “Sir Rowland Hill Memorial Fund" Com-
mittee) was good enough to suggest that this
controversy should be decided by arbitration, and
to which I agreed in principle, Subject to due
preliminaries, but met with no response. At a
later period, in a letter already published, after
pointing to my own evidence, I invited Mr.
Morley's good offices, seeing that Mr. Pearson
Hill declined to reply to or even to open any letter
from me, to ascertain from Mr. Hill if he could
produce any evidence, or anything beyond mere
assumption, to the effect that the adhesive postage
stamp was at any period an invention on the part
of Sir Rowland Hill, but I was equally unsuccess-
ful in obtaining any reply, there being, in fact,
nothing beyond assumption in the matter. No-

49
where does Sir Rowland Hill directly profess that
this stamp was his invention.
My friends, both in and out of the press, who
have been puzzled at the silence of many of the
London papers on this subject, will now be in a
position to form some conclusion as to the cause
of this silence. What has been sent to the
Messrs. Black and to the Commissioners of City
Sewers, may have been sent to the London
papers; indeed, I have been given to understand
has been generally circulated in these quarters,
already compromised in their expressed opinions,
and so in no way disposed to entertain fresh
views.” My opponents, Some of them in high
position, others themselves connected with the
press, are desirous, and naturally so, that public
attention should not be drawn to my statements.
In this way, crushed beneath the weight of a
hitherto great name, statements have been dis-
regarded which, when read and investigated as in
the case of the “Encyclopædia Britannica,” have
been found substantiated.
* In lately replying to Mr. Pearson Hill in the columns of the Whitehall
Review, I have put this query, which has not been denied, “Will Mr.
Pearson Hill undertake to say that he has not made a communication,
written or verbal, similar to the above letter to Messrs. A. & C. Black to
every editor in London, if not throughout a wider sphere * *
t One mode of stifling the subject has been to circulate the impression
that I am a person under the hallucination that “his father invented the
Penny Postage scheme,” thus rendering my claim too ludicrous to obtain
attention. See, amongst others, the Times and Daily News of 13th July,
1881, - º
D

50
I ask my supporters and others, therefore, to
read and judge for themselves. Whether the
London papers, hitherto silent, seeing the im-
portant recognition my claim has now met with,
and the fresh and conclusive evidence now dis-
closed from the papers of Sir Henry Cole, will also
now read and admit some discussion of this matter
of public interest in their columns, remains to be
seen. In any case, an enduring record of my
father's share in the great postal reform of
1837–40 is secured. A work of the highest
standing, and a reference to which is the first act
of historical writers, has recorded James Chalmers
as having been the originator of that adhesive
postage stamp which saved the reformed scheme.
Moreover, in lands beyond the sea, an interest is
taken in this subject wholly unknown here ; in-
dividuals and learned societies collect for their
own information, and hand down for future
perusal, everything published on the great Penny
Postage reform, and in some of these quarters
amazement is expressed at the single-hero-worship
which prevails in this country with respect to a
subject which investigation shows to have been
the offspring of many minds, the result of the
labours of not a few zealous but unassuming men.
The services of Sir Rowland Hill, already cor-
dially recognised in my pamphlets, it would be
superfluous again to dwell upon here. And if,
while cordially pointing out these great Services,
*

51
•
it has also fallen to my lot to put a fresh and less
favourable aspect upon their nature and extent
than hitherto understood, to bring to light his
great failing of assuming or allowing to be assumed
as conceptions of his own what were only acquired
ideas, of omitting to notice what it was not con-
Venient to notice, let it be remembered that such
has been forced upon me as a necessity solely in
the pursuit of what is now declared to have been
a just claim. At one period, indeed, I had with-
drawn from the whole matter, until recalled to it
by Mr. Pearson Hill himself in a published state-
ment to which I was challenged to reply. My
replies, under ever - increasing and conclusive
evidence, have now been put forward. Should
the result not have proved such as the best friends
of Sir Rowland Hill could have desired, upon his
own son, and not upon me, rests the responsibility.
It is enough for me that my father's memory as
the originator and inventor of the adhesive
postage stamp has been successfully vindicated.


52
WALUE AND IMPORTANCE OF THE
ADHESIVE STAMP.
“Why should we be called upon to pass this
“ Penny Postage Bill,” said the opponents of that
measure in August, 1839, “when no mortal being
“ had at that moment the remotest conception of
“ how it was to be carried into execution ?” Mr.
Rowland Hill's plan of the impressed stamp had
not satisfied the Committee. This plan, as
amended by the Committee, had not satisfied
the Government. (See ante, page 13.) The
paper makers and stationers were in a state of
protest and alarm. “This part of the business
“ must stand over, “ said the Government of the
day, “How to carry out the scheme will require
“ much consideration.” It was here that James
Chalmers, through Mr. Wallace, Chairman of the
Committee, stepped in—the adhesive stamp saved
the scheme. That was the value and importance of
his invention and proposal. It satisfied the paper
trade; “Let the stationer, not “the Stamp Office,”
said Mr. Chalmers, “sell the paper, the Post Office
“ the stamp.” He saved the scheme of Mr. Hill
to the country by relieving and setting agoing the

53
clogged wheels of penny postage—he supplied the
engines to the much admired but immovable craft
and sent her speeding smoothly and swiftly upon
her beneficent mission.
No Wonder Sir Rowland Hill determined that
no name but his own should be heard of in connec-
tion with the adhesive stamp, for of what use is a
scheme, however desirable, if you cannot carry it
out in practice 2 This is what he admits on the
subject soon after the simultaneous introduction
of the Mulready envelope and the adhesive stamp—
“The public rejection of the former was so com-
“ plete as to necessitate the destruction of nearly
“all the vast number prepared for issue.” On
the other hand—“Though the presses of the
“Stamp Office were producing more than half a
“ million of adhesive stamps by working both
“ night and day, they yet failed to meet the
“ demand.” Up to this day, after over forty
years of public service, and notwithstanding the
improvements in the production of impressed and
embossed stamps, the adhesive stamp remains in-
dispensable to our postal, inland revenue,
telegraphic, and parcel-post Systems—“ Eighteen
“ hundred millions are issued yearly from the office
“ of the Controller of stamps. These range in Value
“ from a halfpenny to twenty pounds, covering
“ postage and inland revenue from a halfpenny to
, two shillings and sixpence; postage proper from
“five shillings to five pounds; inland revenue



54
“ proper (such as foreign bills, Sea policy stamps,
“ &c.) from one penny to ten pounds; and fees
“ (such as judicature, &c.), from one penny to twenty
“ pounds. The penny stamp takes the first place
“ amongst the numbers issued. Of these, as many
“ as thirteen hundred millions and a half were de-
“spatched from Somerset House in the course of
“ a recent twelvemonth.” “ Twenty-five millions of
parcels are now annually conveyed by Parcel Post,
a business only practicable through prepayment
by adhesive stamp. -
Thus, ever increasing in utility, thus indis-
pensable to the carrying out of all or any of

these great public services, the value of James
Chalmers' invention and proposal—the importance
of this “powerful mechanism of the stamp”— may
be best felt by the consideration that its suspen-
sion, even for a day, would paralyse the entire
commercial and social system of the nation, it
may be said “ of the world’’ for in all other
lands, one after another, has the adhesive stamp
become an institution for similar purposes as in
our own, and in corresponding numbers.
In this sense an eminent writer has lately
stated, “Whoever discovered the adhesive stamp,"
“ the discovery has socially revolutionised the
“world.” “Should my plan be adopted,” was
the prophetic saying of Mr. Chalmers when he sent
his plan to London and to Mr. Hill himself, long
* “Chambers’ Journal,” March, 1885.
55
r
before the Penny Postage Bill was even intro-
duced into Parliament, “should my adhesive
“stamp be adopted, the demand for these will in
“ time become so vast, that I am only puzzled to
“ think where premises can be found to get them
“ up.” Surely the man who rescued the Legis-
lature from such a complication as has been
described, surely the originator of this indispen-
sable and ubiquitous adhesive stamp has done
the State some service.




56
CON (; L US 1 () N.
Objections have been raised, both in and out of
the press, to the effect that my claim comes “too
“late in the day.” Such objection will, I
believe, be found effectually met in my preface
and former pamphlets, to the Satisfaction of any
impartial mind favouring me with a perusal.
With those who decline to read my statements,
amongst whom may be named several Writers of
biography wrapt up in a blind Worship of pre-con-
ceived ideas, nothing, of course, can be done.
Others say, “Get an official recognition of your
“ claim from the Post Office, then we will re-
“cognise you.” This, again, is taking matters
in the reverse order ; if the Post Office is ever to
recognise me, the pressure must come from out-
side, as the Post Office, under its late chief, Mr.
Shaw Lefevre, simply declines to read or cause to
be read for its imformation anything I may lay
before it, as “not being deemed necessary.” As
I have nothing to ask from that quarter, having
now gained a recognition promising to be
sufficient for my purpose, I have no present in-
tention of again troubling the Post Office on the
Subject. The feeling of esprit de corps, if nothing

57
º---
-
-
:
else, will probably render the Post Office the very
last body to admit that any mistake by the late
Sir Rowland Hill has been made.
But it may be said, “Did not the Post Office give
“Palmer, the organiser of the mail-coach system,
“in addition to his pay of £3,000 a year, £50,000?”
And was not James Chalmers the successor in
that line, sixty years ago, of Palmer ? Yes—
but then Mr. Palmer was a man of business, and
had made his bargain with the Post Office before
he took the mail-coach Organisation in hand
to be paid according to results; while,
after all, the £50,000 was only a compromise,
obtained, moreover, only after the repeated inter-
ference of Parliament. James Chalmers, recog-
nised by the leading Scottish press of the period,
and by his townsmen, never dreamt of asking
a pecuniary reward. Again, was not the Post
Office in 1852 most liberal with Archer, the in-
ventor of the perforating machine—did they not
give him £4,000 for the use of it 2 Yes—but then
Mr. Archer had taken out a patent for his inven-
tion, and refused to sell the use of it for less, and
it was not until after a fruitless negotiation of five
years, ending in a Parliamentary Committee taking
up the subject and insisting upon Mr. Archer
being paid his moderate demand, that the Post
Office and the Treasury gave in, and but for this
Parliamentary pressure we might yet be cutting
off our stamps with a pair of Scissors to this day.

58
In the same way, then, it has been asked, would
not an infinitesimal royalty on the increasing
millions of adhesive stamps have long ago placed
that originator, him and his, amongst the wealthy
of the land? Yes—but such was not the spirit
in which James Chalmers trafficked and trifled
with the public interests. What are his last words
to Sir Rowland Hill on the subject 2 “The only
“satisfaction I have had in this, as well as in
“former suggestions, all original to me, is that
“ these have been adopted, and have and are
“likely to prove beneficial to the public.” This
was the spirit in which the originator of the
adhesive stamp ever tendered his services, public
or private—the satisfaction of finding them useful
and accepted. In the continued and ever-increasing
utility of his stamp may be seen that silent yet
irresistible tribute of the nation to its originator
which James Chalmers would most have prized—
only, let the hand which gave it be rightly known
and recognised. For a time powerful influences
to silence may prevail and popular delusion
continue to hold its sway. But at Some future
day, if not now—in other lands if not in this—will
the name of James Chalmers be yet recognised in
connection with our constant friend and companion,
the adhesive stamp, and the great boon of Penny
Postage reform.
*


59
A P P E N D IX.
DUNDEE.
So satisfied were the Dundee merchants of a past age as to
the originality and value of Mr. Chalmers' invention and
happy suggestion that, on the 1st January, 1846, a public
Testimonial was presented to him in the Town Hall of
Dundee in recognition of Same and of other postal services.
This Testimonial consisted of a silver jug and salver and a
purse of 50 sovereigns. Just before this period, Mr. Rowland
Hill had been presented by the merchants of the City of
London with a cheque for over £13,000, in recognition of
what now turns out to have been merely a borrowed scheme,
and which scheme was only Saved from untimely collapse by
the adoption of Mr. Chalmers' plan of the adhesive stamp.
In the present generation, again, the Town Council of
Dundee have performed a graceful act to the memory of a
deserving townsman, by having passed at a meeting held on
the 3rd March, 1883, the following resolution —
“That, having had under consideration the Pamphlet
“ lately published on the subject of the Adhesive Stamp, the
“Council are of opinion that it has been conclusively shown
“ that the late James Chalmers, bookseller, Dundee, was the
“ originator of this indispensable feature in the success of
“ the reformed Penny Postage Scheme, and that such be
“entered upon the minutes.”
The above resolution of the Town Council is now, it will
be seen, fully confirmed by the able and learned writers of
the “Encyclopædia Britannica,” after an impartial investiga-
tion of the subject—a confirmation having all the greater
weight as reversing, upon evidence which could not be
resisted, previously recorded impressions.

60
Dundee is now a large and wealthy community, returning
two members to Parliament ; few centres of business have
benefited more conspicuously from the legislation of the past
forty years, including as the foundation of all mercantile
intercourse that great postal reform which James Chalmers
Saved from failure and made practicable. Two generations
have already recognised and given every credit to the services
of their townsman—what further notice Dundee may yet
take of this matter of national and historical interest
originated in the locality, the “value and importance ’’ of
which has elsewhere been inadequately described, remains to
be seen.
OPINIONS FROM THE PRESS.
HAVING already published most of these in detail, to Save
space and repetition it will be sufficient here to give a list or
little more, of the numerous Journals which have given me
more or less Support.
Those to which I am more particularly indebted are:—
In Scotland—
The “Dundee Advertiser,” a consistent Support during a
past lengthened period, including powerful leading articles
and notices.
The “Montrose Standard,” several cordial and able
articles of the highest value, while the same is to be gratefully
noticed of the other Forfarshire papers,
The “Brechin Advertiser,” the “Forfar Herald,” the
“Arbroath Guide,” the “ Montrose Review.”
The “North British Daily Mail,” of Glasgow, in a leading
article headed “A Neglected Inventor,” after stating the
case, goes on to say: “It is not creditable to the generosity of
“ the Government of this country that an important invention
*
*
61
“ of this kind, which has conferred such a great boon upon the
“ public, should have remained so long unacknowledged and
“unrewarded.” This article has been extensively reproduced.
The “ Glasgow News’ and the “Christian Leader,” of
Glasgow, cordial articles. -
The “Paisley Herald,” the same on several occasions.
The “Aberdeen Free Press,” a warm and able support.
The “Blairgowrie Advertiser" has taken much interest
and pains to support me; also the “Perthshire Constitutional,”
the “Fifeshire Journal,” the “North British Advertiser,” to
all of which my best thanks are due.
In the Metropolis and neighbourhood, considering how
short a period has elapsed since the opinion has been almost
unanimously expressed that the reformed Penny Postage
Scheme was the “sole and undisputed invention of Sir Rowland
“Hill,” to whom has also been erroneously attributed the
invention and proposal as well as the ultimate adoption of the
adhesive stamp, fair progress has already been made in
obtaining a recognition of Mr. Chalmers' services. That
greater progress has not been made may be attributed to the
powerful influences which have been at work to stifle the
whole subject, including an attempt on the part of
Mr. Pearson Hill to stop the publication of pamphlets.
In the “ Illustrated London News ' Mr. G. A. Sala
Writes: “It seems tolerably clear that Sir Rowland Hill was
“ not the inventor, in the strict sense of the term, either of
“ the Penny Postage or of the Adhesive Postage Stamp. .
“Anent the invention of the Adhesive Stamp, a pamphlet
“ has recently been published, but I have not yet had time
“ to read it. . . . Whoever discovered the Adhesive
“Stamp, the discovery has socially revolutionised the world.”
According to this high authority, the Adhesive Stamp was
thus at least not the invention of Sir Rowland Hill.
The “Whitehall Review' has given me consistent and
most valuable support; also the “Metropolitan,” the “People,”
the “Home and Colonial Mail.” The “Machinery Market,”
of London and Darlington, a practical monthly journal of
high position, while retaining all its former admiration for



62
Sir Rowland Hill's services, decides, in a long and able
article, in favour of James Chalmers as respects the stamp.
The “ Inventors' Record,” in an article on “Disputed Inven-
tions,” supports the same view. The pretensions brought
forward on the part of Sir Rowland Hill are declared to be
wholly groundless, and the invention accorded to James
Chalmers.
The “Croydon Review,” a monthly, in a series of able
articles, has informed its readers candidly with respect to the
untenable pretensions of Sir Rowland Hill, both as respects
the scheme and the stamp, cordially ascribing the latter to
James Chalmers.
The “Surrey Independent " has ably supported me in
Several leading articles. As far as conception went, “Sir
“Rowland Hill displayed a remarkable facility for picking
“other people's brains,”
To the “Surrey Comet ’’ and “Wimbledon Courier ‘’ my
best thanks are due for cordial notices and recognition ; as
also to the “West Middlesex Advertiser,” the “ South
“Hampstead Advertiser,” the “North Middlesex Advertiser,”
the “Christian Union,” the “Hornsey and Finsbury Park
“ Journal,” the “American Bookseller,” the “Acton and
“Chiswick Gazette,” “ Figaro,” “Vanity Fair,” the
“ Kensington News,” “Life,” and others.
From the Provincial Press, much valuable support has
been given me —
The “Oldham Chronicle '' and “ Rastrick Gazette ” have
written often and ably on the subject, Supported by such
papers as the “Bradford Observer,” the “Western Daily
“ Press,” of Bristol, the “ Bristol Gazette,” the “ Norwich
“Argus,” the “ Brighton Herald,” the “Brighton Argus,”
the “ Dover and County Chronicle,” the “Colchester
“Chronicle,” the “Stratford and South Essex Advertiser,”
the “Essex Standard,” the “ Bradford Times,” the “Burnley
“Express,” the “Barnsley Times,” the “Wigan Observer,”
the “Stockport Advertiser,” the “Yorkshire Gazette,” the
“Westmoreland Gazette,” the “Wakefield and West Riding
“. Herald,” the “Frome Times,” the “Man of Ross,” the
7 7
63
“Totnes Times,” the “Banner of Wales,” the “West
“Dromwich Free Press,” the “Swinton and Pendlebury
“Times,” the “Accrington Gazette,” the “Birkenhead
“News,” the “Brighton Standard,” the “Hastings Observer,”
the “Newcastle Courant,” the “Preston Chronicle,” the
“ Monmouthshire Beacon,” the “Lydney Observer,” the
“West of England Observer,” the “Cardiff Free Press,’ the
“Monmouthshire Chronicle,” the “Eskdale and Liddlesdale
“Advertiser,” the “Irvine Express,” the “Surrey Advertiser,”
the “Printers' Register,” the “Newcastle Examiner,” the
“Malvern News,” and others, with articles sympathetically
copied into the “Brighton Guardian,” the “Aberdeen
“Journal,” the “Dundee Courier,” The “Edinburgh
“Courant,” the “Liverpool Albion,” the “Building and
“ Engineering Times '' of London,” &c.
The late Sir Thomas Nelson, Solicitor to the Corporation
of the City of London, writes:— -
“HAMPTON WIck,
“6th February, 1883.
. . SIR,
“I have read the pamphlet you sent me. Your
“statements are very interesting. It is nothing uncommon
“ for the man to whom the idea first occurs to have it
“developed by others, who get the credit of it.
“Yours truly,
“(Signed) T. J. NELSON.
“PATRICK CHALMERs, Esq.
“Wimbledon.”
If plagiarism is not uncommon it is none the less unfair to
the original inventor, nor the less to be deprecated, more
especially where the result has been to obtain unmerited
“credit" heaped upon the wrong man at the expense of the
man to whom “the idea first occurred,” and who further, as
is now more fully proved since Sir Thomas Nelson wrote, also
first urged its “development" to the very man who
ultimately took all the “credit” to himself. To plagiarism
such as this a stronger term is applicable.

64
N
Sir Bartle Frere writes:–
“WRESSIL LODGE, WIMBLEDON,
21st April, 1883.
“SIR,
“I have received your letter of the 20th, and thank
“you for its enclosures on the subject of the invention of the
“adhesive postage stamp. -
“I have long believed that Mr. James Chalmers was the
“inventor of that important part of our present postal system,
“but I regret that I cannot suggest to you any means of
“giving further publicity to your father's claims to the merit
“ of that most useful invention.
“I remain, SIR,
“Yours truly,
“(Signed) H. B. E. FRERE.
“P. CHALMERs, Esq.”
Sir Bartle Frere introduced the adhesive postage stamp
into Scinde during his administration of that province, having
obtained his knowledge and belief as to James Chalmers
having been the originator of same from independent sources
thirty years before my own investigation of the subject.
In some quarters this matter is ignored on the ground
that the subject of this pamphlet is not of sufficient import-
ance or too late to call for notice. To such I reply—“Then
let the issue of the adhesive stamp (see page 52) be discon-
tinued.” Should it be found that such cannot be done without
serious detriment to the public service, then Surely to continue
to use a man's indispensable invention and proposal without
so much as a word of recognition, will, if adhered to, prove a
course of proceeding hard indeed to justify, as well as some-
thing wholly foreign to the antecedents of British journalism.
---
: : EEEINGHAM WILson, Printer, Royal Exchange, E.C.

CONCEALMENT UNVEILED,
THE
SIR ROWLAND HILL COMMITTEE,
A TALE OF THE MANSION HOUSE.
BY
PATRICK CHALMERS,
(Fellow of the Royal Historical Society.)
Author of
“THE ADHESIVE POSTAGE STAMP.”
LONDON :
EFFINGHAM WILSON, ROYAL EXCHANGE.
I886,


CONCEALMENT UNVEILED,
THE SIR ROWLAND HILL COMMITTEE,
A TALE OF THE MANSON HOUSE.
The short pamphlet herewith, under the above title, is put
forward for the purpose of shewing that so far from having been
the originator of the Adhesive Stamp, SIR Row1AND HILL was
not even the originator of the uniform Penny Postage Scheme
itself, as admitted by his own Mansion House Committee, but hitherto
- concealed from the public. However great the services of Sir
Rowland Hill, the Penny Postage Scheme, equally with the
plan which saved it and has carried it out in practice, was only
an unacknowledged copy or plagiarism from beginning to end
of the previous proposals of other men.
PATRICK CHALMERS,
F.R. Hist. Soc.
Wimbledon.
March, 1886,
THE ADHESIVE POSTAGE STAMP.
—::O::-
coPY.
“DUNDEE ADVERTISER " OFFICE,
DUNDEE, -
22nd Jany., 1886.
DEAR SIR, -
I heartily congratulate you on the success you have now
achieved in establishing on irrefragable authority the claim of
your father as the Inventor of the Postage Stamp. Sir HENRY
CoLE's papers bequeathed to the South Kensington Museum are
decisive.
If other Editors could be induced to look at the evidence
you have produced, as I have done, I believe they would not
hesitate to award justice to the memory of your father.
Should you ever visit Dundee, I trust you will not forget
to call on,
Yours faithfully,
º JOHN LENG.
PATRICK CHALMERs, Esq.,
Wimbledon.
::O::-
The above from the Editor of one of the most widely read
papers in Scotland, well known to the London press, will, I trust,
have some effect in inducing that Press and others to look into
my statements, and do justice to the memory of one who has done
service to the public.
Besides the award in my favor of the “Encyclopædia
Britannica,” a wide recognition of my father's title to the Adhesive
Postage Stamp has been obtained from the Scottish and Provincial
Press, and from literary men at home and abroad.
PATRICK CHALMERS,
F.R. Hist. Soc.
Wimbledon,
March, 1886.


CONCEALMENT UNWEILEI).
It will be recollected that a movement was set on foot some time
ago in the City of London, with the object of paying honour to the
memory of Sir Rowland Hill. A Memorial Fund Committee was
formed under the official patronage of the Lord Mayor, the meetings
were held at the Mansion House, successive Lord Mayors were
ea officio Chairmen of the Committee, Aldermen and members of
the Corporation took the lead, the Honorary Secretary subsequently
became an Alderman, and the entire prestige and machinery of the
Mansion House were made use of in obtaining subscriptions. All
this took place under the impression—founded upon the represen-
tations of Sir Rowland Hill himself, confirmed by innumerable
speeches and press articles—that the uniform penny postage scheme
was the invention of Sir Rowland Hill.
One or two extracts from the Press may be given for the
purpose of shewing the universal belief in the originality of
Sir Rowland Hill's proposals:–


( 4 )
The Times, in one of those articles claiming for the memory of
Sir Rowland Hill the highest posthumous honours of the State, thus
writes—the 28th August, 1879:—“It is true that Sir Rowland Hill
“ was aided in the development of his system by the growth of
“ railways and other means of cheap and rapid communication.
“It is true, perhaps, that his reforms were adopted at a moment
“ when the natural march of events must have wrought great
“changes in the postal system ; and it is even possible that sooner
“ or later the Post Office would have acknowledged for itself the
“truth and force of the principles on which his system was based.
“But the fact remains that he devised the penny postage unaided
“ before he had ever been inside a Post Office; that he carried it
“ against vehement opposition, both official and Parliamentary; that
“he triumphantly proved its success in spite of determined and
“ vexatious obstructions to his plans ; and that every civilised
“country has now more or less adopted the principles which he first
“ laid down.”
The Athenaeum, in its biographical notice on 6th September,
1879, is equally emphatic :-‘‘Now cheap newspapers and effective
“telegraphs are not the special glory of any one or two men, while
“ the present postage system is the sole and undisputed invention of
“Sir Rowland Hill.” After showing how the principle of
“uniformity “ had been arrived at in the usually accepted way, by
a calculation, the writer goes on—“Prepayment and the use of
“stamps naturally followed from the workshop of an inventive mind.
“Sir Rowland was a man of inventive mind, as was proved by his
“early scheme of education and by his late elaboration of Penny
“Postage. That he sometimes failed in his projects, that he was
“unsuccessful as Chairman of the Brighton Railway, that his
“printing press did not work, that his recent proposal of a heavy

( 5 )
“ tax on coal was a mistake, cannot be denied. But in our view
“ these failures do not deprive him of his claim to inventiveness, do
“not even reduce his claim, for as was said to us by one of the
“most distinguished Savants of the day, if a man has ten schemes
“ and succeeds in one, he is fortunate. Failures are inevitable
“incidents.”
In commemoration, then, of the genius of Sir Rowland Hill, a
statue was ordered, to be erected in the City, and for which the
Commissioners of City Sewers granted a site.
But here the writer of these pages stepped in ; not only
had Sir Rowland Hill unduly appropriated to himself the merit
of having invented the uniform penny postage scheme, but he
had further assumed to himself the merit of the adhesive postage
stamp which saved the scheme and has worked it out in practice,
such stamp having been the invention and proposal of this writer's
father. Having thus been led to study the whole subject, I laid
proof before the Mansion House Committee in a pamphlet entitled
“The Penny Postage Scheme, was it an Invention or a Copy 2 ”
that the said scheme was no invention whatever on the part of Sir
Rowland Hill, but was only an unacknowledged copy or plagiarism
from beginning to end of the previous proposals of other men,
as will be again shewn in a future and improved edition of that
pamphlet. £e ///* *%ue/a. */ /* /...
7tazºſ // 42004? "/42/
The only reply to so unwelcome a piece of intelligence with
which I was favoured was to the effect that the matter was
“too late in the day ” to be entertained. But notwithstanding this,
it will be found from their proceedings that this Committee have not
only entertained what I laid before them, but have acted upon the

information in a practically marked manner. What was to be done 2
Was the statue to be abandoned 2 It was not. But if the statue
could not be abandoned, the proposed inscription upon it could at
least be changed, without attracting public notice, in accordance
with the new light thrown upon the history of Sir Rowland Hill—
and this has been done.
It will be recollected that the first announcement in the
papers, on the part of the Sir Rowland Hill Memorial Committee,
as respects the inscription decided upon by them for the statue to
be erected in the City, was—

“ Rowlan D HILL–HE FOUNDED PENNY Post AGE.”
The next announcement we have of the proceedings of the
Committee is as follows, from the City Press, of date 18th March,
I882 :—
“ ROWLAND HILL MEMORIAL.
“On Thursday a meeting of the Rowland Hill Memorial
“Committee was held at the Mansion House, the Lord Mayor
“ presiding. A discussion arose as to the inscription upon Mr.
“Onslow Ford's statue to be erected at the Royal Exchange,
“ which had been determined at a previous meeting to run thus:–
“‘ Rowland Hill–He founded Penny Postage.’ Mr. Whitehead
“ now proposed that the last sentence should run, He gave us
“ Penny Postage.” Mr. Northover seconded. The Lord Mayor
“ thought that a mere mention of the name, birth, and death on
“the statue would be sufficient. Dr. Walter Lewis moved for,
“ and Mr. Causton, M.P., seconded, the following inscription:

“‘Sir Rowland Hill, K.C.B., born 1795, died 1879.’ Mr. Whitehead
“withdrew his motion, and the latter suggestion was unanimously
“adopted. Mr. C. Barry moved, and Mr. R. Price seconded, the
“following addition to the words: “By whose energy and
“‘perseverance the national Penny Postage was established.”
“Eventually this was carried by nine votes to six, the Lord
“Mayor voting in the minority.”—City Press, 18th March.
It will be seen that the above proceedings on the part of the
Committee, amounted to a complete admission of the discovery I
laid before them, viz., that the Penny Postage Scheme of 1837 was
not an invention, but only a copy. The change in the inscription
was important and significant—“He founded Penny Postage " was
unanimously abandoned. He “established ” it was substituted—
while a minority of six to nine were in favour of an inscription
merely nominal.
Finding that no corresponding notice, after some days had
elapsed, appeared in the daily papers for the information of the
public at large, I addressed the following letter to the Lord Mayor
as Chairman of the Committee :—
“WIMBLEDON, 25th March, 1882.
“ My LoRD,
“ Observing your Lordship's name in the list of the minority
“ of six to nine, in favour of a merely formal inscription, at the
“ meeting of the Sir Rowland Hill Memorial Committee upon the
“ 16th inst., I desire to draw your Lordship's attention to the fact
“ that no notice of any such meeting, resulting in an alteration of
“ the highest significance, has found its way to the daily press.
( 8 )
“Having been instrumental in showing the Committee that
“Sir Rowland Hill did not ‘found the Penny Postage as the
“Committee have, by this act, now confirmed, it is only right that
“I should further state to your Lordship that my statements, so far,
“ give but an inadequate idea of the very marked deception which
“ has been practised by Sir Rowland Hill upon the nation.
“The proceedings of Mr. Pearson Hill, as already intimated in
“my printed letter of the 13th inst., laid before your Lordship, leave
“ me no other course now than, in self-defence, to develope the
“whole case to the public, and sooner or later the public will be in
“ possession of all the facts.
“It is my duty to state this to your Lordship, in order that
“your Lordship may take into consideration whether the fact of
“ the change in the inscription—what the change is to be, if not
“ also your reasons for having so decided—should not at once be
“ frankly stated to the public.

“As matters stand, reflections may afterwards be made at the
“ want of information to which the public may have considered
“ themselves entitled in the usual course.
“I have the honour to be, &c.,
“ PATRICK CHALMERS.
“To THE RIGHT Honour ABLE THE LORD MAYOR,
(“SIR. J. WHIT TAKER ELLIS, BART.)
“ MANSION Hous E.”
( 9 )
To this letter, I was immediately favoured with the following
reply :—
“THE MANSION House,

“LONDON, 27th March, 1882.
“The Lord Mayor presents his compliments to Mr. Chalmers,
“ and begs to acknowledge the receipt of his letter of the 25th inst.,
“ which shall have due attention.”
And accordingly, in all or most of the daily papers of the 29th
March, there appeared the following announcement :—
“THE Rowland HILL MEMORIAL.-The bronze statue of
“Sir Rowland Hill by Mr. E. Onslow Ford, is likely to be ready
“ for erection in July next. The Mansion House Committee have
“ resolved that the pedestal shall bear the following inscription :-
“‘Sir Rowland Hill, K.C.B., born 1795; died 1879. By whose
“‘ energy and perseverance the national Penny Postage was
“‘ established.’”
It will be seen from the above correspondence and its result,
that a letter written by me as the person “instrumental in showing
“ the Committee that Sir Rowland Hill did not ‘found the Penny
“Postage,’” and so confirmed by them, addressed to the Chairman
of that Committee—telling him, moreover, that I had further
statements of interest to make, was, in the same spirit, courteously
acknowledged and acted upon in accordance.
To a letter which appeared in the Standard newspaper of
30th March, I replied on the Ist of April, as follows, in the full
( 10 )
conviction, as I was entitled to feel, that it was my own statements
which had influenced the Committee in the significant alteration
they had made in the inscription, and the consequent notices of the
same handed to the daily press, at my own instigation :-
4.
&
&
ç
&
“THE ROWLAND HILL MEMORIAL.
“To THE EDITOR of THE STANDARD."
“SIR,-As the person who has been instrumental in bringing
about the change of opinion upon the part of the Memorial
Committee, which has at length induced them to unanimously
abandon the inscription, “He founded Penny Postage,' permit
me to meet the challenge of your Correspondent, ‘ One of the
Public,’ whose letter I have just read, by saying that I adhere to

the statements already laid by me before that Committee. It is
now many months since I first acquainted the Committee that the
Penny Postage Scheme of 1837 was not the conception of
the late Sir Rowland Hill, but was a copy by him from a
neglected Blue Book, the “Fifth Report of the Commissioners of
“‘Post Office Inquiry.’
4.
4.
&
&
&
.
(
º
º
.
“By unanimously abandoning the inscription, He founded
Penny Postage,’ the Committee at length acknowledged the truth
of what I laid before them. But one thing the Committee have
neglected to do, and that is to make this truth known to the
public.
“It is only through my own efforts, in a letter respectfully
addressed by me to the Lord Mayor on the 25th ult, that the
scrap of information reported in the Standard, and other papers

( 11 )
“ of the 29th ult, has been allowed to reach the public. Let the
Committee make known the whole truth of this matter; let them
“say out frankly what the public have a right to know, and by so
“ doing relieve themselves of the responsibility of keeping back a
“weighty and important secret.
“I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
“PATRICK CHALMERS.
“WIMBLEDON, April 1.”
To the above letter a reply appeared in the Standard of the
following day from Mr. Whitehead, the honorary secretary, shortly
afterwards Mr. Alderman Whitehead, denying my instrumentality
in the change of inscription—equally denying that any inscription
whatever had been settled, though two had already been officially
announced, and it will be further observed that it was Mr. Whitehead
himself who moved the first amendment to the original inscription.
As so clear a victory on my part was not agreeable, a third
inscription was found, and at a Committee meeting on the 21st
April, at which the Lord Mayor was not present, the former
majority being on the other hand strengthened by several
prominent admirers of Sir Rowland Hill, Mr. Gilbey in the
chair, this third edition was settled as follows:– “Rowland Hill.
He founded uniform Penny Postage, 1840.”
The introduction of the date, the year “ 1840," concedes the
whole question of conception. But those only who are conversant
with the history of Sir Rowland Hill will understand this.
( 12 )
By the year 1840 (the then) Mr. Rowland Hill had become
located at the Treasury for the purpose of carrying out his scheme.
But the scheme itself was brought forward by him in 1837. By
thus avoiding all responsibility, consequently, for anything prior to
1840, the Committee admit that they cannot answer for the
originality of the 1837 scheme, just as I had pointed out. In this
way, the conception of 1837 is practically admitted to form no
y
part of the “foundation ” of “Uniform Penny Postage,” as far as
Rowland Hill is concerned ; it is from and after 1840, when the
executive part of the work began, that his claim to having
“founded uniform Penny Postage " was alone to be sustained.
A more complete admission of the truth of what I had laid
before the Committee could not be desired; yet how many, without
further explanation from the Committee, as well as on the part of
the press, will for one moment understand the full significance of
“ 1840 ° upon the statue of Sir Rowland Hill. Here was another
change of incription, still conceding the point of originality of

conception, yet doing so in such a manner as not to enlighten
--
the public or disturb the impressions of the general reader.
-
The Daily News, of 26th April, inserted the following letter
from me upon the subject:-
“THE Rowland HILL MEMORIAL-To the Editor of the Daily
News.— Sir, The latest edition of the inscription proposed by the
Committee, and just published in your columns (‘ Rowland Hill–
He Founded Uniform Penny Postage, 1840') will prove unintel-
ligible to your readers without some explanation. Before the year
1840, Mr. Rowland Hill had become located at the Treasury for the
purpose of carrying out his scheme, which everyone admits he
-

( 13 )
effectually did. But the scheme itself was brought forward by him
in 1837. By thus avoiding all responsibility, consequently, for
anything prior to 1840, the Committee practically admit that they
cannot answer for the originality of the 1837 scheme, just as I have
been pointing out. As the notice in your columns omits to explain
this for the information of the illustrious personages who are to be
invited to inaugurate the statue, as well as of your readers at large,
you will doubtless not object to admit these explanatory lines.—
Your obedient Servant, PATRICK CHALMERs, Wimbledon, 22nd

April.”
To the above, in this instance, no reply or denial was attempted
by Mr. Whitehead or by any one else, shewing that I had correctly
solved the meaning of the final inscription.
On the 17th June, 1882, then, the statue was unveiled by
H.R.H. the Prince of Wales, a ceremony attended by a large
gathering cf provincial Mayors and other notables. And now
another vital question arises. It has been shewn to begin with,
that the inscription upon the statue was of a nature unintelligible
to the public. While actually abandoning the point of originality
of conception, the inscription yet practically concealed that aban-
donment from the general reader. Was, then, His Royal Highness
undeceived now 2 Was he told of what had transpired 2 Was he
told that the penny postage scheme was no invention of the
man to whose memory, under that impression, he had come to pay
honour P Was he told of this “very marked deception,” stated
in my letter to the Lord Mayor and not denied—indeed most
practically admitted—that, in fact, he was unveiling the statue of
a plagiarist in place of the inventive genius of the Times, the
Athenaeum, and the papers ? Were the provincial Mayors and the
( 14 )
other notables told P Did Lord Mayor Ellis or Mr. Secretary
Whitehead acquaint them privately, or were each and all left under
their delusion ? The reply to these questions is of easy solution,
because the subscribers were never told, nor the public ; because the
hope was that there was to be no further trouble, no further
enquiries. All were left under their delusion ; and the public, still
unenlightened by this Committee, have ever since been pressed for
more money under the name and prestige of the supposed genius of
Sir Rowland Hill.
Later correspondence is subjoined.


CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE LORD MAYOR

The Rowland Hill Memorial Fund Committee having held a
meeting at the Mansion House, on the 12th November last, at
which further money was invited from the public on the prestige
of the name of Rowland Hill, the following correspondence
resulted :-
“To THE RIGHT HONOURABLE THE LORD MAYOR,
“ MANSION Hous E.
“My LoRD,
“From the proceedings at the meeting yesterday, in connection
“ with the above fund, at which your Lordship presided, it would
“appear that your Lordship is not aware, any more than the
“ public in general, that the Committee long ago abandoned the
“pretensions of Sir Rowland Hill to originality of conception as
“ regards his Penny Postage scheme of 1837, as evidenced by the
“ change made by them in the inscription upon the City statue of
“ Sir Rowland Hill.
(. 16 )
“The scheme, in fact, was an unacknowledged reproduction
“ of the proposals of previous postal reformers immediately pre-
“ ceding 1837, further evidence of which your Lordship will find in
“ the paper herewith, headed ‘The Times, The Encyclopædia
“ Britannica, and the Adhesive Stamp.”
“As to the adhesive postage stamp, the adoption of which by
“Sir Rowland Hill at a critical period saved the scheme, a second
“ enclosure will show your Lordship that the original of the plan,
“laid before Mr. Rowland Hill by my late father and as in use to
“ this day, may now be seen at the South Kensington Museum
“Library, bequeathed by the late Sir Henry Cole.
“ However great the services of Sir Rowland Hill, consequently,
‘ it was to other men he was indebted, from beginning to end, for
“ proposals the merit of which he has usurped.

“That every success may attend the Committee in their
“laudable and generous efforts on behalf of this Fund, all will
“heartily desire. But at the same time many, including, I trust,
“your Lordship, will join me in asking this Committee to be just
“ as well as generous—just to the memory of those previous postal
“ reformers from whose hands Rowland Hill received the materials
“ of this reformed scheme—just to the memory of James Chalmers,
“ of Dundee, who showed him how to carry out this scheme in
“ practice, who relieved the clogged wheels of Penny Postage
“ reform, supplied the motive power, and sent the good ship
“speeding smoothly and swiftly upon her beneficent mission—
“ and just to the public who, while being asked for money, are
“entitled to be made distinctly acquainted with the facts.
“Your Lordship and others may be of opinion that these are
“ not the days, with the enemy at the gate of your time-honoured

( 17 )
-
º
i
“ institution, that considerations such as I have ventured to place
“ before your Lordship can, with impunity, be disregarded. And
“ this, while these proceedings take place under all the prestige of
“ the Mansion House, in which Aldermen and Common Council-
“men bear a prominent part, and presided over from year to year,
“ex officio, by the head for the time being of the Corporation of the
“City of London.
“I have the honour to remain,
, “ My Lord,
“Your Lordship's most obedient Servant,
“ (Signed) PATRICK CHALMERS, F. R. Hist. Soc.
“35, Alexandra Road, wimbledon,
November 13th, 1885.”
“THE MANSION HousE, LoNDoN, E.C.,
“ November 14th, 1885.
“ DEAR SIR,
“In reply to your letter, I may say that I was quite aware,
“ from previous communications sent to me, that you disputed the
“ claim of the late Sir Rowland Hill to be the originator of the
Penny Postage scheme, but I considered such dispute a question
“ of the past, and quite foreign to the purposes and intentions of
“ the Benevolent Fund for Postal Employés, at which meeting I
“ presided the other day.
“Yours faithfully,
“ (Signed) JOHN STAPLES.
“ P. CHALMERS, Esq.,
“ Wimbledon.”
( 18 )
“WIMBLEDON,
“December 31st, 1885.
“My LoRD MAYOR,
“In the reply, signed but not written by your Lordship, with
“ which I have been honoured in answer to my letter of 13th
“ November, your Lordship, in the multiplicity of engagements,
“ has overlooked that such reply avoids any reference to the point
“ to which I respectfully called your Lordship's attention.
“Such avoidance only confirms what I have already indicated,
“ that there is something in this matter which it is desired should
“ remain undiscussed and undiscovered.

“The point so avoided, my Lord, is this. The Committee of
“ the “Rowland Hill Memorial Fund,' or some of them, not including
“ your Lordship, are perfectly aware and have practically admitted
“ some years ago, prior to the erection of the statue of Sir Rowland
“ Hill, the evidence and correspondence in proof of which admission
“I am prepared to publish, that the Penny Postage scheme of 1837,
“ or any part thereof, was not an original conception, was no
“invention whatever on the part of Sir Rowland Hill—an admission
“ the correctness of which is confirmed, if any such confirmation
“was needed, by the paper lately handed by me to your Lordship
“ and to this Committee, headed ‘The Times, the Encyclopædia
“ Britannica, and the Adhesive Stamp.”
& 4 Notwithstanding this discovery, the Memorial Fund Com-
“mittee continue to avail themselves of the prestige of your
“Lordship's name and official residence, while inviting subscriptions
“from the public by invoking the name of Rowland Hill, without
( 19 )
“ having acquainted the public with this fresh and admitted fact
“ that, after all, he was only a copyist.
“The public, at present under the belief as handed down by
“Sir Rowland Hill and universally hitherto so understood, that the
“ Uniform Penny Postage scheme was an invention the product of
“ the genius of Sir Rowland Hill, are, I repeat, entitled to be made
“ acquainted with this transformation of facts before being further
“ called upon, in the name of Rowland Hill, for subscriptions to any
“fund whatever. It must be a weak cause indeed that has to be
“supported through the agency of a popular delusion, a necessity
“ in no way called for in the case of the Post Office Benevolent

“ Fund.
“In the prosecution of my claim on behalf of my late father
“ as respects the adhesive stamp, it is incumbent upon me to use
“every endeavour that this fact, as respects the scheme itself
“ having been only an unacknowledged copy, should not be lost
“sight of. The same man who plagiarized the scheme, was just
“ the man to appropriate from a defenceless individual the merit of
“ the plan which saved that scheme, as now proved beyond dispute
“in my pamphlet about being published, entitled, ‘The Adhesive
“Postage Stamp.” º -
“My letter to your Lordship having proved ineffectual, the
“ present correspondence will, consequently, be circulated for the
“ consideration of the Corporation at large, in the hope that some
“ of that body, supported by the Press, while observing all the
“ forms and respect due to your Lordship, may deem it advisable to
“ proffer aid to your Lordship, whose time is so fully occupied, in
“ deciding whether the Mansion House is to continue the centre of
“ this delusive appeal to the public, or whether the Memorial Fund
( 20 )
“Committee is to be invited either to enlighten the public as
“ respects the facts, or failing this, to find other head-quarters.
“When, upon the IIth November, 1879, your Lordship’s
“ predecessor ‘most cordially accepted the request of this Com-
“mittee “to allow them to identify the movement with the Mansion
“ House of the City of London, his Lordship to be good enough to
“ accept the position of Chairman of the Committee, affording them,
“in addition, the usual advantages which every agency possessed
“ by its official connection with the Mayoralty,’ the understanding of
“course was that the public were to be openly and candidly dealt
“ with ; and it will, indeed, form a striking subject for historical
“ comment in this and other lands—where the whole matter is
“ being attentively watched—if your Lordship and other members
“ of the Corporation, and the Press, do not now insist upon that
“ understanding being adhered to.
“The motives of the Memorial Fund Committee, from their
“ point of view, I do not impugn ; but I claim from them that
“ publicity of facts, the withholding of which is to me and to my
“cause, oppression, and is to the public what I need not designate.
“Every one exercising the judicial functions of your Lordship
“ and of the Aldermen of the City of London, every candid and
“impartial man, must admit that it is only right and imperative
“ that all paying homage to Rowland Hill, now or hitherto, whether
“from purse or in person, should remain under no misapprehension,
“ under no delusion so fatal to his pretensions. Homage in means—
“ from the handsome contribution by the Corporation of one hundred
“guineas down to the humble penny dropped into the box outside
“ the Mansion House door—homage in person, from His Roya
“Highness who unveiled the City statue, the provincial mayors
--


( 21 )
t
“ and other notables who shared the Mansion House festivities on
“ that occasion, down to the passing citizen, all, as matters have
“ been allowed to stand, unwittingly admiring the genius erroneously
“believed, through the silence of this Committee, to have invented
“ the uniform Penny Postage scheme—a Committee which has
“ continued to ask, and now asks, without having rectified this
“admitted delusion, the money of the public on the strength and

“ prestige of the name of Rowland Hill.
“I have the honour to remain,
“My Lord Mayor,
“Your Lordship's most obedient Servant,
“ (Signed) PATRICK CHALMERS, F. R. Hist. Soc.
“To the RIGHT Hon. THE LORD MAYOR,
“ Mansion House.
“ Permit me to repeat, “that having left Dundee over fifty
“‘ years ago, and passed much of the interval abroad, it was only
“ through letters which appeared in the Dundee press upon the
“‘demise of Sir Rowland Hill, that my attention was drawn to this
‘‘ matter.’”
The above correspondence having been commented upon in
the columns of the Whitehall Review, I addressed the editor of
that journal as follows:–
THE SIR ROWLAND HILL FUND COMMITTEE.
“ SIR,-In order that your readers may the better understand
“ the paragraph in your last issue having reference to my late
“ correspondence with the Lord Mayor, permit me shortly to
“ recapitulate its substance.
( 22 )
&
&
{
&
&
&
&
{
&
&
{
4.
&
&
4.
&
&
4.
&
*
.
4.
º
*
.
“On November 12 his lordship presided at a meeting of the
above-named committee at the Mansion House, with the object
of collecting further money from the public on the strength and
prestige of the name of Rowland Hill, and this without this com-
mittee having at any time informed the public that they had long
ago abandoned the pretensions of Sir Rowland Hill to originality
of conception as respects that scheme which he brought forward
in 1837. Next day I addressed his lordship stating that the
committee knew this scheme to be a copy, not an invention, but
had omitted so to inform the public. The reply with which I was
honoured stated his lordship was quite aware that I disputed the
claim of Sir Rowland Hill to be the originator of the penny-
Postage scheme, but that he considered such dispute to be a

question of the past and foreign to the present objects.
“Now, here was a most disingenuous reply, as in a rejoinder
of some length I plainly set before his Lordship. The point of
my letter had been avoided, showing, as I said, that there was
something which it was desired should remain undiscovered. It
was not that I disputed the claim and pretensions of Sir Rowland
Hill, but that the Committee had admitted the same thing, as I
was prepared to prove, yet had kept back that important fact
from the public while still asking the public money in his name.
That they had allowed the Prince of Wales to unveil the City
statue, and the mayors and notables to join in that ceremony
under the same vital delusion as to Rowland Hill having been a
great inventor—a delusion under which the public, owing to their
silence, still laboured. That it was incumbent on me to keep
alive the facts, as the same man who had plagiarised the scheme
was just the man, as I assert, to rob my father of the merit of the
adhesive postage stamp which had saved the scheme.
( 23 )
“This indictment of no small weight the committee have so
“far made no attempt to meet. If they deny any such admission,
“my proofs are ready.
“‘A question of the past,’ indeed Let the Lord Mayor and
“ those who think so give up the use of the adhesive postage stamp
“ and try where they would be in the present—those eighteen
“ hundred millions now issued yearly, an invention and proposal
“still indispensable to our trade, commerce, and in all our social
“ relations. And is the man, James Chalmers of Dundee, who
“gave us this to be quietly snuffed out through the arts of a
“ plagiarist P NCt while his son can wield a pen and find a paper

“ to give publicity to his cause.
“Your obliged servant,
“ PATRICK CHALMERS, F.R.HIST.Soc.
“WIMBLEDON: January 8.
“ P.S.—Could not some of your readers draw the attention of
“His Royal Highness to this matter, and to the delusion under
“ which he was allowed to remain f Perhaps he could make this
“ committee speak out. The following is the latest published list of
“ this committee, now termed trustees, all of whom, however, may
“ not be cognisant of all the circumstances, nor of the extraordinary
“letter above referred to, as having come from, and signed by, the
“ Lord Mayor –Alderman Truscott; James Hughes, Esq., ; Rev.
“. R. J. Simpson; H. Rokeby Price, Esq.; Samuel Morley, Esq.;
“ R. Knight Causton, Esq.; D. R. Harvest, Esq.; with Alderman
“Whitehead and George A. Northover, Esq., as honorary secretaries
“The statue was erected and unveiled under the chairmanship of
* Lord Mayor Sir T. Whittaker Ellis, Bart., M.P.”

( 24 )
It would be curious to know if the party or parties who drew
up the evasive letter here referred to from the Lord Mayor, and
published at page 17, have had any hand in, or cognizance of, the
notifications sent round to the London papers, that I am a person
“ claiming the invention of the Penny Postage scheme for my late
father;” thus rendering my claim too ludicrous to obtain further
notice, and with the obvious motive of stifling the whole subject.
Having laid a copy of my correspondence with the Lord Mayor
before the Aldermen and Members of the Common Council, I
further handed a copy of my letter published in the Whitehall
Review, to Alderman Fowler, M.P., as follows:–
“WIMBLEDON,
“Śanuary 14th, 1886.
“ SIR,
“I beg to hand you copy of the Whitehall Review of this date,
“ containing a letter from me following up my indictment of the
“ Rowland Hill Memorial Fund Committee, as put forward in
“ correspondence with the Lord Mayor lately circulated.
“This letter now publishes the names of the Committee, and
“ has been sent to the Press, the Aldermen, and some other
“ members of the Corporation.
“Last year, when Lord Mayor, you honoured me with a
“ communication to the effect that, should the occasion arise, you
“would call for an explanation from this Committee of what is
“ charged upon them. This, as I have already pointed out, any
“Alderman or member of the Corporation is entitled to do.
( 25 )
“I trust, therefore, that the silence maintained by this Com-
“mittee as respects so serious an indictment, will not be endorsed
“ by you as Alderman and Member of Parliament for the City, any
“ more than such would have been permitted by you as Lord
“Mayor, but that you and your brother Aldermen will insist
“ upon my public charges being as publicly met.
“I remain, respectfully, Sir,

“Your obedient Servant,
“ PATRICK CHALMERS.
“SIR. R. N. FowleR, BART., M.P.,
“Alderman.”
Not having been favoured with any reply to the above,
hence the necessity, other means being exhausted, for
this pamphlet, which will be widely circulated at home and
abroad, in circles where the whole subject is being watched
with attention. Copies will be sent to the Members of this
Committee, some of whose names I have published ; it will be
interesting to see if they still take refuge in silence—and remarkable,
indeed, should such silence remain unchallenged by the press and
public, or by the Members of the Corporation at large. According
to the respective action of each and all, will other lands and history
pass judgment.
THE ADHESIVE POSTAGE STAMP.
It will be gathered from the foregoing, that my object in
publishing this “Tale of the Mansion House" is the legitimate
one of forwarding my claim on behalf of my late father as
having been the originator of the Adhesive Postage Stamp.
When it is known that Sir Rowland Hill was not even the
inventor of the Penny Postage scheme itself, his pretensions,
or the pretensions raised on his behalf as having been the
originator of the adhesive stamp will fall to the ground—the one
a mere copy equally with the other. To have the Penny Postage
scheme understood as having been the unaided conception of his
own mind was with Sir Rowland Hill simply a mania, and to that
mania James Chalmers, the originator in every sense of the
adhesive stamp which saved and rendered practicable that
borrowed scheme, was sacrificed. My pamphlet, just published,
entitled “The Adhesive Postage Stamp'' is already meeting with
influential recognition both here and in the provinces, as being
conclusive on behalf of my father's title to that invention, and I
take this opportunity of putting forward a summary of its

ContentS :—
“Said pamphlet contains the decision of the Encyclopaedia
Britannica in favour of James Chalmers, bookseller, Dundee, as
having been the inventor, in the month of August, 1834, of the
Adhesive Postage Stamp, such decision having been arrived at after
a lengthened investigation of the respective statements put forward
on the subject by myself and by Mr. Pearson Hill, who himself
initiated the enquiry.
In addition to this conclusive award, may now be read from
evidence which has since come to light from papers bequeathed to
the South Kensington Museum Library by the late Sir Henry Cole,
the original plan by James Chalmers of the Adhesive Postage Stamp,
to be printed from a die of various values for use according to weight
of letter, on sheets of paper specially prepared for the purpose and
afterwards gummed over with an adhesive substance, to be sold in
sheets, in lesser quantities, or singly, as required, at post offices,
or by stationers, all as subsequently adopted by Mr. Rowland Hill,

and in use to this day.
This plan in printed form, with copious remarks, was laid
before the then Mr. Cole as Secretary to the Mercantile Committee
of the City of London, and before Mr. Rowland Hill himself, by
Mr. Chalmers, under date Dundee, 8th February, 1838, a year and
a half before the Penny Postage Bill was introduced into Parliament.
The same plan had previously been laid by Mr. Chalmers
before the select Committee of the House of Commons appointed to
consider the proposed Penny Postage scheme of Mr. Rowland Hill.
The letter of acknowledgment of Mr. Wallace, the chairman, is of
date the 9th December, 1837.
The reply of Mr. Rowland Hill to Mr. Chalmers is of date
3rd March, 1838; and in this reply Mr. Hill makes no pretensions
to having himself proposed or being then in favour of an adhesive
stamp.
( 28 )
Mr. Chalmers' plan, however, found adherents in increasing
numbers, and ultimately, after plans had been invited from the public
and nothing better found, the adhesive stamp was officially adopted
by Treasury Minute of date 26th December, 1839, in conjunction
with Mr. Rowland Hill's plan of impressed stamped covers, or
stamp impressed upon the sheet of letter paper itself.
On sending in his claim as having been the originator of the
adhesive stamp, Mr. Chalmers was informed by Mr. Hill, then in
despotic power at the Treasury, in a letter of date 18th January,
1840, that his claim could not be admitted because he, Mr. Hill,
had himself anticipated Mr. Chalmers' proposal of December, 1837,
by some months—a representation based, as will be seen, upon
mere pretext and after-thought.
Not disposed, however, to doubt Mr. Hill's assurance, and
equally indisposed to contest a decision against which there was
practically no appeal, Mr. Chalmers contented himself with handing
Mr. Hill a copy of his (Mr. Hill's) former letter of 3rd March, 1838,
at the same time expressing his surprise at not having been then
informed of what he was now for the first time made acquainted
with, having been ignorant that Mr. Hill had at any time proposed

or been in favour of an adhesive stamp.
I am now enabled to show that such representation on the part
of Mr. Hill, was wholly at variance with his letters to Lord
Litchfield, Postmaster-General, of date January, 1838, as well as
wholly opposed to the official statements on the subject in Parlia-
ment, upon the introduction of the Penny Postage Bill in July,
1839, on which occasion the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated
Mr. Hill's plan to be that “an impressed stamped cover was
“ absolutely to be used on all occasions "-points upon which

( 29 )
Sir Rowland Hill, in his “Life,” lately published, takes not the
smallest notice, giving his readers, on the contrary, to understand
that to the year 1837, the date of his pamphlet, is to be ascribed
his adoption of the adhesive stamp.
Briefly, the adhesive stamp having found general support, and
proved indispensable to the carrying out of the scheme, Mr. Hill
“ seems to have been at pains to obscure the facts of the case, for
“ the purpose of claiming to himself the credit of an invention
“ which really belonged to the Dundee bookseller.”
I have explained in the preface that, having left Dundee over
fifty years ago, and passed much of the interval abroad, it was only
through letters which appeared in the Dundee press upon the
demise of Sir Rowland Hill, that my attention was drawn to a
matter as to which, up to then, I knew little or nothing.
It is now proved that not only was James Chalmers the
inventor of the adhesive postage stamp, but that he further took
the initiative in proposing its adoption for the purpose of carrying
out the Penny Postage scheme.
The ultimate adoption of the adhesive stamp in December,
1839, saved the Penny Postage scheme from untimely collapse.
After over forty years of public service, the number of adhesive
stamps of various values now issued for the carrying on of our
Postal, Inland Revenue, Telegraphic, and Parcel Post services,
amounts to eighteen hundred millions yearly. Twenty-five millions
of Parcels are now annually conveyed by Parcel Post—a fresh
business, only practicable through prepayment by adhesive stamp.
In all other lands, one after another, has the adhesive stamp
become an indispensable institution for similar purposes as in our
OWI).
( 30 )
And yet the merit of the invention and proposal of this
invaluable and indispensable public servant, has all this while
been attributed to the wrong man.”
Here, then, in addition to the verdict of able and learned men
whom I have never met, I now connect my father directly with the
City of London, through that Mercantile Committee which pushed
the Penny Postage scheme and Bill through Parliament. And
what would have become of the reformed scheme, without the plan
which carried it out in practice P Untimely collapse. Are the
successors, so to say, of the very men to whom my father sent his
plan, now to reject the originator—a plan still indispensable to
their daily business, and to the business of London and of the

nation ? \
Take Mr. Morley’s business, of Wood Street, for instance.
Feeling, no doubt, the importance of this adhesive stamp question,
Mr. Morley was good enough, some time ago, to propose that the
dispute as to the originator should be settled by arbitration, a
proposal which I accepted, but heard nothing more of the matter.
I have now gained a verdict in my favour from a quarter which will
command universal acceptance, reversing, moreover, as it does
upon evidence which could not be resisted, previously recorded
impressions. To this result I have more than once called Mr.
Morley's attention, in the hope of being favoured with his con-
gratulations; but he, like the rest of this Committee, is now silent—
he takes no notice—perhaps the result is not what he desired. And,
though yet ignored by this Committee, let me point out that, in
spite of themselves, not a man amongst them, nor any man of
business in the kingdom, but pays tribute to James Chalmers every
day by using his invention. They cannot help themselves even

( 31 )
after this lapse of time. They might as well at once close their
doors all along Wood Street and Cheapside, where most of this
Committee have their premises, and hand over their business to
others, as not to use this stamp. Notwithstanding, then, all this
evidence now produced, are they to reject my father's claim in
favour of that of an admitted plagiarist P
-
If so, there are other men in London, and in the country.
Surely all feeling of generosity, or of mere justice, cannot be so
wholly dead in the breasts of the mercantile classes, that no
man or body of men, such as the London Chamber and other
Chambers of Commerce—the representatives of trade—will so
much as give a thought or raise a word in behalf of the memory
of one who will yet rank in history as having done them and the
State “some service.” If silence in some influential quarters
is being maintained on the ground that the subject is
not of sufficient “national importance,” or “too late ’’ to call
for notice, then I reply—“Let the issue of the adhesive stamp
be discontinued.” Should it be found that such cannot be done
without serious detriment to trade and to the public service, then
surely to continue to use a man's invention and proposals without
so much as a word of recognition, will, if adhered to, prove a
course of proceeding hard indeed to justify, as well as something
wholly foreign to the antecedents of British journalism and of
‘the British public.
PATRICK CHALMERS,
F. R. Hist. Soc.
WIMBLEDON,
March, 1886.
-
GHAM wilson, Roy AL ExCHANGE.

WIMBLEDON,
December, 1886.
SIR,
I beg to hand you copy of a pamphlet just published
by me entitled “The Submission of the Sir Rowland Hill
Committee,” and which I shall feel obliged if you will be
good enough to place in your Library.
*
I annex a short account of its contents, and inciden–
tally will be found some notice of Libraries in the United
States of America, which may be of interest to your
readers.
I am, Sir, -
Yours respectfully, -
PATRICK CHALMERS,
F.R. Hist. Soc.
To the Librarian,
2%. 22.2.2%
2^*_2,…,
P.T.0
º
º
-
-:
-




This pamphlet is laid before you in continuation of
previous publications proving the late James Chalmers.
Bookseller, Dundee, to have been the originator of the
Adhesive Postage Stamp.
In confirmation thereof, it is now shewn by the
proceedings and practical assent of his own Mansion House
Committee, that Sir Rowland Hill, however great his
services, originally conceived or first proposed nothing
whatever in connection with that uniform Penny Postage
Scheme which has gone by his name.
Other main features of this pamphlet, besides a
4 number of articles from the home and foreign press,
consist in the decision of the “Encyclopædia Briſſannica ’’
in favor of James Chalmers—the particulars of his plan
now in the South Kensington Museum Library—the
declaration of the Treasury and official repudiation by H.M.
Post Office of the pretensions of the partisans of Sir
Rowland Hill—the substitution of the name of James
Chalmers in place of that of Rowland Hill by Philatelic
journals both in this country and in the United States as
the “patron saint’ of stamp collectors—and in a short
appendix giving the sources from which Sir Rowland Hill
derived his scheme of penny postage reform, popularly
supposed to have been his own invention.
P.C.
ººº º

4, 27; 77
---
SU B M I SS I O N
(I|| Sir #Mulum jill (ſummittet.
SECOND EDITION,
WITH
O PIN I O N S FIR, O M T H E PER. E. SS
(FOURTH SERIES)
ON
“THE ADHESIVE POSTAGE STAMP.”
BY
PATRICK CHALMERS,
Fellow of the Royal Historical Society.
LONDON : - --
EFFINGHAM WILSON, ROYAL EXCHANGE. /
1886,
Price Siapence.


>
PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION.
THE pamphlets lately published under the titles, “Concealment
7 2
Unveiled, a Tale of the Mansion House,” with “Sequel ” to Same,
or “Submission of the Sir Rowland Hill Committee,” were drawn
up not for the purpose of reflecting upon this Committee for having,
under circumstances of much embarrassment, concealed from the
subscribers to the Memorial Fund and from the public vital and
essential facts. The object of these publications was to show from
the proceedings and practical assent of this Committee that the
reformed penny postage system was no invention whatever on the
part of Sir Rowland Hill, but was, by their own assent, simply an
unacknowledged reproduction of the prior proposals of other men.
And such being the case, as with the Scheme so with the adhesive
postage stamp which Saved the Scheme and has carried it out in
practice. The stamp, too, was not an original idea, but equally the
prior proposal of another man, now clearly proved to have been the
invention and timely proposal of James Chalmers, bookseller, Dundee,
who laid this plan before the Mercantile Committee of the City of
London, and before Sir Rowland Hill himself a year and a half before
the Penny Postage Bill was introduced into Parliament, in a letter
now in the South Kensington Museum Library, bequeathed by the
late Sir Henry Cole, then Secretary to this City of London Mercantile
Committee, and which now historical document is here re-published.
A first edition of this “ Submission of the Sir Rowland Hill
Committee’’ having been exhausted without having reached the
provincial and Scottish press, a second edition is now published, to

A 2

4.
which is attached a number of additional articles from the press in
recognition of my late father as having been the originator of the
adhesive postage stamp. Friends and supporters at a distance from
each other, not in the habit of seeing their respective publications,
will thus have an opportunity of noting the mutual and widespread
recognition which the name of James Chalmers has now obtained in
respect of a boon the value and importance of which, with the
circumstances under which the same became adopted directly from
the hands of the inventor, will be found shortly stated in my letter
addressed to the Dundee Advertiser, at page 54.
In the additional recognitions now obtained amongst the London
press, I have reason to be especially gratified with the repeated articles
in Bric-a-Brac, edited by the well-known and popular Mr. Palmer of
the Strand, as representing the views of an important section of
Philatelists, that body of stamp collectors brought into existence by
the reformed postage system, to whom that system has been a study,
and the originator of the adhesive postage stamp their special deity.
The allegiance of Bric-a-Brac has been transferred to James Chalmers
as having been beyond dispute the originator of that stamp dealt with
in countless numbers throughout the world. Nor does Bric-a-Brac
stand alone amongst Philatelists in this transfer of allegiance. Per-
haps in no country do such stamp collectors exist in larger numbers
than in the United States, and there, too, the verdict upon the indis-
putable case I have been enabled to present is, “It will be well for
“stamp collectors to change their patron Saint, and to recognise as the
“real inventor, James Chalmers.” The Stamp Collector magazine of
Chicago joins that of St. Louis in this declaration. Further

important recognitions have been obtained in American literary and
historical quarters, where not only in the Bureau of Education at
Washington, but in every library of importance, the facts in recog-
nition of James Chalmers are being read and considered upon the
evidence.
º
r

5
Reverting to London articles, I would point to the circular of the
great publishing firm of Messrs. Trübner & Co., and which will carry
the facts to all quarters of the globe—to the support which has been
afforded me by that learned and popular writer, Mr. E. Walford—also
to the favour which has been accorded me in the City proper by those
journals specially recording the proceedings of the great City Cor-
poration and of the London Westries. Perhaps no more complete, if
indirect, recognition of the validity and unanswerable nature of my
statements could be desired than in the remarks of the Citizen,
specially representing, it will be seen, the Sir Rowland Hill
Committee itself.
Nor have I omitted to publish opinions unfavourable to my cause,
such as the article put forward in that important journal, the
Liverpool Daily Post, page 102, and to which I ask reference. Why
this matter has not been more generally noticed by the London
papers most usually read by the public is easily explained. Added
to the natural indisposition to admit a mistake, powerful influences
have been at work to stifle the fresh light I have brought to bear
upon the whole subject of penny postage reform. Some idea of the
vituperation to which I have been subjected will be found under the
article in the Encyclopædia Britannica—while amongst other misrepre-
sentations it has been freely circulated that I am a person under the
hallucination “that his father invented the penny postage scheme,”
thus rendering my claim too ludicrous to obtain attention. But
all this is only a tribute to the unanswerable nature of my case,
and sooner or later my father's name and Services, recorded by the
Encyclopædia Britannica, and already widely recognised elsewhere at
home and abroad, will equally obtain from the London press that
recognition which is ever generously accorded to those who have done
some public service. For what is the use of a scheme, however
desirable, if you cannot carry it out in practice? This it is which
James Chalmers at a critical moment effected in the case of the
reformed postage system, and however difficult it may be to dispel a
long cherished delusion, to disperse preconceived ideas, every fresh
effort on my part to vindicate my father's name and services continues
to be attended with ever happier results, such as cannot fail ultimately
to bring about a powerful reaction in favour of a neglected and
unassuming public benefactor.
1, MAYFIELD ROAD,
WIMBLEDON, November, 1886.
º
&
e


CONTENTS.
PART FIRST.
PAGE
The Penny Postage Scheme not original ... --- --- --- --- -- 10
Admission to that effect by the Sir Rowland Hill Committee, and consequent
change of Inscription on the City Statue ... --- --- - - - --- 11
Concealment from the Public - - --- - - - --- --- --- --- 12
Submission of the Committee -- -- --- --- --- --- --- 15
The Press of the City of London ... -- --- --- --- --- -- 21
PART SECOND,
Summary of the Pamphlet “The Adhesive Postage Stamp " ... --- --- 25
Resolution of the Dundee Town Council ... --- --- --- --- - - - 28
Summary of 86 Press Notices already published ... --- - - - --- --- 29
Mr. G. A. Sala --- --- --- --- --- - - - --- --- --- 30
Sir Thomas Nelson ... --- -- --- --- --- --- - - - --- 32
Sir Bartle Frere --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- 32
PART THIRD.
Opinions from the Press, Fourth Issue.
Decision of the Encyclopædia Britannica in favour of James Chalmers --- 34
Original plan of the Adhesive Postage Stamp sent to the Mercantile Com-
mittee of the City of London by James Chalmers ... --- --- --- 44
Iletter to the Dumdee Advertiser ... -- --- -- --- --- --- 54
Legacy to the Countrymen of James Chalmers ... --- --- --- --- 55
Further Articles from the Press ... --- --- --- -- page 56 to 85
PART FOURTH.
Success in the United States of America.
The Bureau of Education at Washington : The Libraries --- --- --- 89
The Philatelic Journal of America --- --- --- --- --- --- 90
Princeton College, New Jersey ... --- --- --- --- -- -- 92
Historical Society of Philadelphia. . . --- --- --- --- --- --- 93
The Daily Spy, Worcester, Massachusetts --- - - - --- --- ---- 93
The Stamp Collector, Chicago ----- --- --- ---- --- --- -- 94
Extension to the European Continent ... --- --- --- --- --- 94
PAGE
PART FIFTH.
Unpublished Articles from the Press prior to the publication
of the “Adhesive Postage Stamp.”
The Rev. Samuel Roberts, M.A. ... --- --- --- --- --- --- 95
Official Letter from H. M. Post Office repudiating the statements of my
opponents --- --- --- - - - --- --- . . . . . . . --- 98
The Liverpool Daily Post ... --- - - - --- -- --- --- -- 103
Further Articles from the Press ... --- --- --- ... page 104 to 109
APPENDIX.
Origin and Foundation of the Uniform Penny Postage System --- ... III
The famous calculation of ºth of a penny --- --- --- - - - ... 113
Nº.
2
4?


SUBMISSION OF THE
SIR ROWLAND HILL COMMITTEE.
IN further proof of my late father's title to having been the originator
of the adhesive postage stamp, the pamphlet “Concealment Unveiled,
&c.,” was published for the purpose of showing that Sir Rowland Hill,
so far from having been the originator of that stamp, was not even the
originator of any one of the principles of the Penny Postage scheme
itself, as admitted by his own Mansion House Committee but hitherto
concealed from the public. However great the services of Sir Rowland
Hill, originality of conception, by the admission of that Committee,
did not enter into his proposals, neither a low and uniform penny
postage, nor charge by weight, nor prepayment by stamp, were con-
ceptions of Sir Rowland Hill; the scheme equally with the plan
which saved it and has carried it out in practice, was only an
unacknowledged copy of the previous proposals of other men.
The reformed system of postage was not the work of one year nor
of one man. For some years prior to 1887 the abuses and mismanage-
ment of the Post Office were a constant theme of complaint both in
and out of Parliament ; many able and earnest men combined to
bring about some reform demanded by men of business and public
opinion. Commissions of inquiry were held, evidence and suggestions
taken, reports issued. Early in 1835 Mr. Wallace, M.P. for Greenock,
a prominent Post Office reformer, obtained a Commission of Inquiry
on the subject, which Commission issued in all ten reports; while,
in addition to Parliamentary returns, a Commission, termed the
Commission of Revenue Inquiry, had sat for many years prior to the
Commission of merely Post Office Inquiry, and had issued twenty-
three reports, in more than one of which Post Office affairs were dealt
with.


10
In that large field of complaint, suggestion, information, and
proposal may be found the substance, origin, and foundation of the
subsequent writings and proposals of Sir Rowland Hill, who, freed
from other occupations, joined the circle of postal reformers in 1835,
receiving and studying the various Blue-books named. His subsequent
Penny Postage Scheme of 1837 was more specifically taken from the
Fifth Report of the Commissioners of Post Office Inquiry, of date
April, 1836, a document which, shortly stated, recommends that the
postage upon prices current and similar mercantile publications, then
subject to the same high and variable rates as were letters and
charged by sheet, be reduced to a low and uniform rate of postage,
irrespective of distance, and be charged by weight at the rate of
1d. the half-ounce, to be prepaid by stamp impressed upon the sheet
of paper.

Here we have, in every feature, the Penny Postage Scheme brought
forward in 1837 by Sir Rowland Hill; moreover, the evidence that a
uniform Penny Postage on letters had been urged upon the Govern-
ment prior to the proposals of Sir Rowland Hill is distinct and
conclusive.
To the provisions of this Fifth Report, Sir Rowland Hill in none
of his writings makes any reference whatever, putting forward the
parallel Penny Postage Scheme as of his own conception, and as such
this scheme has thus erroneously been considered.”
Thus, “preceded and heralded by the labours of a whole band of
“ precursors,” + it is a mere delusion to suppose that either a uniform
Penny Postage on letters, or any one of the features of the reformed
system, was originally the conception or first the proposal of Sir
Rowland Hill.
Having laid proof to this effect before the Mansion House Com-
mittee prior to the erection of the City Statue of Sir Rowland Hill,
* See the obituary notices of Sir Rowland Hill in the Times, Athenaeum, and
press in general. Also, the “Life of Sir Rowland Hill,” written by himself, in
which, as in his pamphlet of 1837, the proposals of this Fifth Report are left wholly
unnoticed.
t Edward Edwards. See also Appendix.
11
>
the inscription thereon was changed in accordance. At a Meeting of
the Committee held on the 16th March, 1882, the inscription which
had been previously determined upon, “Rowland Hill—He founded
“Penny Postage,” was unanimously abandoned, and was changed into
“By whose energy and perseverance the national Penny Postage was
“established,” while a minority (including the Lord Mayor) of six to
nine were in favour of merely inscribing the name, with dates of birth
and death.
w
In a letter of date 25th March addressed to the Chairman by me
as the person “instrumental in showing the Committee that Sir
“Rowland Hill did not found the Penny Postage, as the Committee
“ have, by this act, now confirmed; ” adding, “that my statements,
“So far, give but an inadequate idea of the very marked deception
“ which has been practised by Sir Rowland Hill upon the nation,”
I respectfully invited his Lordship to make public the change of
inscription determined upon. To this letter I was immediately
favoured with the following reply:—
“THE MANSION Hous E,
“LONDON, 27th March, 1882.
“The Lord Mayor presents his compliments to Mr. Chalmers, and
“ begs to acknowledge the receipt of his letter of the 25th inst., which
“shall have due attention.”
And accordingly, in all or most of the daily papers of the 29th
March, the change of inscription was duly announced without giving
I'ê8,SOIlS.
It will be seen from this correspondence and its result that a letter
written by me as the person “instrumental in showing the Committee
“ that Sir Rowland Hill did not ‘found the Penny Postage,’” and so
confirmed by them, addressed to the Chairman of that Committee—
telling him, moreover, that I had further statements of interest to
make, was, in the same spirit, courteously acknowledged and acted
upon in accordance.


12
Subsequently, at a Meeting of the Committee at which the Lord
Mayor was not present, a third inscription was decided upon, equally
conceding the point of originality of conception, but doing so in such
a manner as not to disturb the preconceived impressions of the reader
or of the public as to the Penny Postage scheme having been the
product of the genius of Sir Rowland Hill.
The pamphlet “Concealment Unveiled ” gives a more detailed
account of what has been above briefly stated.
Copy of correspondence with the present Lord Mayor, ea;-officio
chairman of the Committee, is next given in that pamphlet, in which
correspondence I call his Lordship's attention that while continuing
to collect money from the public on the strength of the name of ROW-
land Hill, the Committee had left the public unenlightened as to
important and admitted facts. The reply with which I was honoured
was to the effect that the question I had raised as to the originality of
Sir Rowland Hill was a question of the past, while the meeting over
which his Lordship had just presided was for the object of benefiting
the Post Office Benevolent Fund. Exactly so; then why not say so 2
Why not style themselves the “Committee of the Post Office Benevo-
“ lent Fund 2’’ Why continue to flourish the name of Rowland Hill
in the foreground of their proceedings, whereby subscriptions are
attracted from the public on the strength and prestige of a name
popularly, but as the Committee now admits erroneously, supposed
to have been a great inventor 2 Is this dealing openly and candidly
with the public while still concealing vital and essential facts 2 It is
clear that from and after the period of these facts having become
known to this Committee, had the Committee acquainted the sub-
Scribers and the public with what had transpired, no further subscrip-
tions would have been obtained by them under the name of Rowland
Hill to any fund whatever. What would his Lordship and these
aldermen and magistrates say, and how would they deal with an
individual or a public company so obtaining money from the public 2
**
13
sº
And yet here we have this delusive proceeding going on year after
year under the very roof of the Mansion House itself
My rejoinder in addressing his Lordship proceeds to state —
“ However great the services of Sir Rowland Hill, consequently,
“it was to other men he was indebted, from beginning to end, for
“ proposals the merit of which he has usurped.
“That every success may attend the Committee in their laudable
and generous efforts on behalf of this (Post Office Benevolent) Fund,
all will heartily desire. But at the same time many, including, I
trust, your Lordship, will join me in asking this Committee to be
4.
4.
4.
4.
&
4.
4.
4.
just as well as generous—just to the memory of those previous postal
reformers from whose hands Rowland Hill received the materials
&
4.
4.
&
of this reformed scheme—just to the memory of James Chalmers,
of Dundee, who showed him how to carry out this scheme in
practice, who relieved the clogged wheels of Penny Postage reform,
4.
4.
&
º
&
{
supplied the motive power, and sent the good ship speeding smoothly
and swiftly upon her beneficent mission—and just to the public who,
while being asked for money, are entitled to be made distinctly
acquainted with the facts.
“The public, at present under the belief as handed down by Sir
Rowland Hill and universally hitherto so understood, that the
Uniform Penny Postage scheme was an invention the product of
the genius of Sir Rowland Hill, are, I repeat, entitled to be made
acquainted with this transformation of facts before being further
called upon, in the name of Rowland Hill, for subscriptions to any
“fund whatever. It must be a weak cause indeed that has to be
“ supported through the agency of a popular delusion, a necessity
“ in no way called for in the case of the Post Office Benevolent
“ Fund. -
“In the prosecution of my claim on behalf of my late father as
&
º
4.
4.
&
&
4.
4.
&
&
&
(
&
º
&
º
º
4.
&
respects the adhesive stamp, it is incumbent upon me to use every
endeavour that this fact, as respects the scheme itself having been
only an unacknowledged copy, should not be lost sight of. The
same man who plagiarised the scheme, was just the man to appro-
“priate from a defenceless individual the merit of the plan which
4.
(
{
º

14
º
saved that scheme, as now proved beyond dispute in my pamphlet
entitled ‘The Adhesive Postage Stamp.”
“The motives of the Memorial Fund Committee, from their point
of view, I do not impugn; but I claim from them that publicity of
facts, the withholding of which is to me and to my cause, oppression,
and is to the public what I need not designate.
“Every one exercising the judicial functions of your Lordship and
of the Aldermen of the City of London, every candid and impartial
man, must admit that it is only right and imperative that all paying
homage to Rowland Hill, now or hitherto, whether from purse or
in person, should remain under no misapprehension, under no
delusion so fatal to his pretensions. Homage in means—from the
handsome contribution by the Corporation of one hundred guineas
down to the humble penny dropped into the box outside the Mansion
House door—homage in person, from His Royal Highness who
unveiled the City statue, the provincial mayors and other notables
who shared the Mansion House festivities on that occasion, down
to the passing citizen, all, as matters have been allowed to stand,
unwittingly admiring the genius erroneously believed, through the
silence of this Committee, to have invented the uniform Penny
Postage scheme—a Committee which has continued to ask, and now
asks, without having rectified this admitted delusion, the money
of the public on the strength and prestige of the name of Rowland
“ Hill.”
4.
º
º
k
º
&
º
4.
4.
(
&
&
&
4.
&
4.
&
&
&
4.
&
&
{
&
«
4.
&
(
&
.
4.
&
&
&
.
&
k
A letter to one of the Members for the City follows, and other
means being exhausted, the facts admitted but hitherto concealed by
this Committee were published, copies being sent to the members
individually. The pamphlet concludes, “It will be interesting to see
“if they still take refuge in silence.”
º

SEQUEL.
SUBMISSION OF THE COMMITTEE.
To accentuate the matter and to leave the Committee no excuse
for maintaining silence if reply or objection to my statements could be
brought forward, I drew up and published the following letter:-
“WIMBLEDON, February 26th, 1886.
“ SIR,
“I beg leave to hand you for the information of the Members
“ of the Corporation of the City of London, copy of a publication just
“ issued by me, entitled ‘Concealment Unveiled : a Tale of the
“‘ Mansion House,” in which I state that the Sir Rowland Hill
“Memorial Fund Committee, to the obscuring of the truth and con-
“sequent detriment to general well-being, have concealed from the
“ public, from H.R.H. The Prince of Wales, and from others, vital and
“essential facts as there specified, while having erected a statue of
“ Sir Rowland Hill, and while collecting money from the public on
“ the strength and prestige of his name.
“I have given the names composing this Committee, including
“ certain Aldermen of the City of London, and legitimate reasons are
“given why it has been incumbent upon me to give publicity to the
“ proceedings now unveiled.
“I respectfully lay this statement before you—first, inasmuch as
“ the City Corporation was the largest contributor to this Memorial
“Fund under the vital delusion specified, since discovered and
“admitted by this Committee, but hitherto concealed from the
“subscribers; secondly, because it will be seen from the origin and
“ composition of the Committee as hitherto constituted and located,
“ that the Corporation has, officially, full power to call for an explana-

16
“tion from and otherwise to control the proceedings of the Committee
“ in question. -
“I am, respectfully, SIR,
“Your most obedient Servant,
“ PATRICK CHALMERS, F.R.HIST.Soc.
“To SIR JOHN B. MonCKTON,
“Town Clerk, Guildhall.”
The above letter was declined by certain of the newspapers not
conversant with the facts and proofs in justification as being libellous,
but same was published in the City Press, Citizen, Metropolitan,
Standard, Globe, World, Truth, Observer, Whitehall Review, Athenæum,
Academy, Dundee Courier, and Dundee Advertiser. The challenge Wa,S
clear and unmistakable ; the reply is silence, or submission. The
names of the Committee had been published by me (not now necessary
to repeat) in order that individually, or collectively, any Member
objecting might have the remedy in his power. But not a voice in
answer to my indictment has been raised, individually or collectively;
the policy has been one of silence. Resting on the indulgence of the
London press not, as a rule, yet prepared to correct the existing mis-
apprehension now fast becoming dissipated in other quarters at
home and abroad, no attempt has been made at any defence or
explanation such as might lead to publicity in the London papers.”
The motives of the Committee I have not impugned, indeed their
position has been and continues to be one of much embarrassment, but
* The powerful influences which have been at work to stifle this subject, and
even to prevent the publication of my pamphlets, will be understood by readers of
my pamphlet “The Adhesive Postage Stamp,” to which influences may be added
the natural indisposition to admit mistakes with reference to one who has done great
public service. On this point the “Machinery Market,” a high authority, remarks:
“The case is undoubtedly a hard one ; but, as was seen from our recent sketch of
the career of Sir Henry Bessemer, the late Mr. James Chalmers is not the only
inventor who has not reaped the reward of his ideas.” Notwithstanding all this, I
have already been ably supported by a large body of the London, provincial, and
Scottish press, by many of them repeatedly and emphatically, as particularised in
that pamphlet, additions to which articles continue to come to hand, including
important recognitions from the United States.


17
what I have alone to deal with is the fact, that by the admission of
his own Committee originality of conception formed no element what-
ever in the proposals of Sir Rowland Hill; that the existing belief as
to his inventiveness has been a delusion, that his plans and proposals
were acquired, not original in any one instance, an unacknowledged
reproduction of the prior proposals of other men.
To my letter to Sir John Monckton above given, I was favoured
with the following reply:—
(Copy.)
“GUILDHALL, March 1st, 1886.
“SIR,
“I beg to acknowledge receipt of your several communica-
“tions. I am not able to lay them before the Court of Common
“Council, because I have no authority to do so.
“The only mode in which you can address the Court is by petition
“ or memorial, of which I enclose a form in case you elect to do so.
“I am, Sir,
“Your obedient Servant,
“ (Signed) JOHN B. MONCKTON.
“To PATRICK CHALMERs, Esq.”
The above I acknowledged as under —
“WIMBLEDON, March 8th, 1886.
“SIR,
“I thank you for your favour of 1st instant on the subject
“ of my late communications. Having, however, already presented a
“Memorial on this matter to the Commissioners of City Sewers, I do
“ not feel called upon to present a second to the Court of Common
“ Council.
“In that memorial, of date July 12th, 1881, I stated that it would
“ be found upon investigation that Sir Rowland Hill, however great
“ his services, was no inventor as they and the public had been led to
“understand, but only a copyist of other men's proposals, unacknow-
“ledged ; further inviting the Commissioners to pause and to ascer-
B

18
“tain the facts while Sanctioning the extreme steps contemplated in
“ honour of the supposed genius of Sir Rowland Hill.
“Events have confirmed the accuracy of that Memorial—even the
“Mansion House Committee have admitted and conceded the same
“vital and essential point, but have so far withheld this discovery and
“admission from the subscribers and the public. (Members of the
“City Corporation may further be referred to the opinion to the
“ same effect of the late Sir Thomas Nelson, solicitor to the Cor-
“poration, as published by me by his express Sanction.)
“This concealment I have now unveiled. Copies of the state-
“ ment so doing and of my letter to you of 26th ulto., have been
“ sent to the Members of the Committee, and to the Aldermen,
“ individually, while that letter, moreover, has been freely published
“in the London papers. It is premature to conclude that so serious
“ an indictment is simply to be met on the part of the Committee
“ by a continued policy of silence—in this event such a result would
“ now be equivalent to fully assenting to what I have put forward
“ as being incontrovertible.
“I remain, respectfully, SIR,
“Your most obedient Servant,
“ (Signed) PATRICK CHALMERS.
“SIR JOHN B. MonCKTON,
“ Town Clerk, Guildhall.”
The result, then, is the assent and submission of the Sir Rowland
Hill Committee to my statements as being incontrovertible. Sir
Rowland Hill, by the admission of his own Committee, was no
inventor. Not content with the high position to which he was
entitled, to have the Penny Postage scheme understood as having been
the unaided conception of his own mind was, with him, simply a
mania, and to that mania James Chalmers, the inventor and proposer,
the originator in every sense of the adhesive postage stamp which
saved and rendered practicable that borrowed scheme, was sacrificed.
Thus ends my “Tale of the Mansion House,” before publishing
which I had addressed several Members of this Committee individually
2.

19
º
with reference to the conclusive evidence just transpired in further
proof of my late father's title to the merit of the adhesive postage
stamp, but without having been favoured with any reply. My Tale
and what it discloses with reference to proceedings in the City of
London every effort may continue to be made in that Metropolis still
to stifle, but in vain. This Tale, and what it leads to, will be known
and commented upon at home and abroad, and handed down to his-
tory, in vindication of the memory and public Services of James
Chalmers of Dundee.
If the objection should be taken that I am going too far in claiming
the “silence ’’ of the Sir Rowland Hill Committee to my indic' ment
as being “submission,” a little consideration will show that no sub-
mission, even in writing, could be more complete. What more
complete assent and submission to my statements could be given
than by having unanimously abandoned the inscription “He founded
“Penny Postage,” and changing same into “By whose energy and
“ perseverance the National Penny Postage was established 2 ” Again,
what more complete assent and Submission could be supposed or asked
for than for his Lordship, the Chairman of this Committee, to accept
my letter following upon that change of inscription, that letter in
which I pointed to “the very marked deception which has been
“ practised by Sir Rowland Hill upon the nation,” courteously
acknowledging same and acting upon its suggestions 2 Further, could
submission be more complete than to pass over in silence my unequi-
Vocal letter to Sir John Monckton, freely published and circulated 2
For example, if a man is assailed in any way, and in place of
Summoning the assailant he runs away and hides himself, is any
letter required from him to show that such is “submission ?” Not
only is such a course on his part distinctly submission, but the further
conclusion in such cases invariably is that there is something in the
case which the assailed party desires should remain withheld from
public discussion. So in this case betwixt myself and the Sir Rowland
Hill Committee, if this is not submission full and complete on their
part, why am I not called to account 2 The answer is clear, because
I have stated nothing which the facts and evidence do not justify, and
B 2

20
because any such attempt on their part would only result in drawing
that increased attention to the whole subject which I, at least, desire.
A copy of the foregoing first edition of the “Submission of the
“ Sir Rowland Hill Committee' has been sent to each Alderman and
Member of the Common Council of the Corporation of the City of
London, accompanied by a copy of the following further letter to
Sir John Monckton – -
“WIMBLEDON,
“July 26th, 1886.
“ SIR,
“In lately handing you copy of a publication entitled
“‘Concealment Unveiled : a Tale of the Mansion House,” I stated
“. . that the Sir Rowland Hill Memorial Fund Committee, to the
“‘ obscuring of the truth and consequent detriment to the general
“‘well-being, have concealed from the public, from H.R.H. the
“ . Prince of Wales, and from others, vital and essential facts as there
“ specified, while having erected a statue of Sir Rowland Hill, and
“ while collecting money from the public on the strength and
“‘prestige of his name.’
“I now beg to hand you copy of a ‘Sequel' to that publication,
“ being the submission or assent of said Committee to that statement
“ as being incontrovertible.
“You have been good enough to hand me a Form of Memorial to
“ the Corporation of the City of London, to be availed of should
“I desire to present a Memorial on this subject. Having, however,
“freely circulated the particulars, it is for those more immediately
“ connected with the Corporation to decide whether it is consistent
“with propriety and legality that the irregular proceedings now
“unveiled should remain unnoticed and be continued, in preference
“ to adopting the simple and obvious remedy suggested in the
“ Sequel' here with.
“I am, respectfully, SIR,
“Your most obedient Servant,
“ PATRICK CHALMERS.
“SIR JOHN B. MoRCRTON,
“ Town Clerk, Guildhall.”
*

THE
PRESS OF THE CITY OF LONDON.
While, as it were, in the City of London, commenting upon the
proceedings at the Mansion House and addressing letters to officials
and members of the great City Corporation, it would appear appro-
priate that I should here give, from amongst the “Opinions from the
Press" with which this publication will now mainly be occupied, the
opinions of the journals specially connected with the City, and which,
dispensing with politics, record the meetings and transactions of that
Corporation, the proceedings of some of whose most prominent
members I have ventured to call in question as having been “to me
“ and to my cause, oppression,” and, to the public, concealment of
the public were entitled to know.
The journals in chief so specially concerned with the Corporation
and the doings at the Mansion House are three, the City Press, the
Metropolitan, and the Citizen, and it goes without saying that journals
so concerned are, as they should be, especially cautious in the way of
Supporting any person or any cause frowned upon by the Mansion
House. Yet what is the result 2 I am enabled to point to all three,
more or less certainly, but still to all three as having given me most
valuable and distinct support throughout the long struggle in which I
have been engaged against my powerful opponents. No greater proof
of the justice of my cause could be asked for than to be able to point
to such a verdict from such a quarter.
The City Press
was the first paper in London to intimate the result of the decision of
the Encyclopædia Britannica in favour of my father, a decision which
many journals professing to instruct the public in literary or such

22.
matters have carefully abstained from noting. In the columns of the
City Press may be found such further notices as follow :-
“Mr. P. CHALMERs, F.R.Hist.S., has, in the Whitehall Review, a
“ long letter dealing with the invention of the adhesive postage stamp,
“ which he claims for his father, the late Mr. James Chalmers. He
“states that in the library of the South Kensington Museum may be
“found, under the signature of Mr. James Chalmers himself, dated
“ February, 1838, a year and a half before the Penny Postage Bill was
“brought forward, his father's plan of the adhesive postage stamp, as
“subsequently adopted by Sir Rowland Hill in December, 1839, and
“ in use to this day. Mr. Cole was then secretary to the Mercantile
“Committee of the City, and in that capacity, more than any other
“ man living or dead, contributed to the ultimate passing of this Bill.”
Again —
“CoNCEALMENT UNVEILED (Effingham Wilson).--An elaborate
“ treatise by Patrick Chalmers defending his father's right to be called
“ the originator of the penny adhesive stamp in preference to Sir
“ Rowland Hill. The author urges his points with commendable
“ vigour, his letters and arguments alike revealing the energy he
“ throws into his endeavours to obtain justice for his father.”
Again —
“Mr. P. CHALMERs, Wimbledon, writes in the Whitehall Review, on
“ the invention by Mr. J. Chalmers, his father, of the adhesive postage
“stamp. His plan, submitted to the Government of the day in 1837,
“ and again to the Mercantile Committee of the City of London in
“ 1838 (now in the South Kensington Museum Library), as in use to
“ this day, was brought forward by Mr. Wallace in the House of
“Commons and ultimately adopted. Indispensable then, indispen-
“Sable it has continued in countless numbers, not only in this country,
“ but spreading to every land.”
Coming now to the Metropolitan, few journals in London have
given me more consistent and emphatic support than this City paper.
Several articles from its columns have already appeared in former
“Opinions from the Press,” to which I am now enabled to add such
as the following:—
“THE ORIGIN of THE POSTAGE STAMP.-Mr. Patrick Chalmers,
“who has, after many years of uphill fighting, proved conclusively
“ that the indispensable postage stamp was the invention of his late
“father, Mr. James Chalmers, of Dundee, has procured further
*

23
“evidence in support of his contention. It appears that Sir Rowland
“ Hill is in no way to be considered the originator of a low uniform
“ rate of postage, but that the Rev. Samuel Roberts, of Conway, who
“has recently died, proposed such a plan, and urged it upon the
“ authorities ten years before Mr. Hill appeared upon the Scene. The
“late Mr. Roberts emphatically gives his testimony that ‘it was a
“‘ thoughtful, calculating, unassuming, patriotic postal reformer of
“‘ Dundee, of the name of James Chalmers,’ to whom We are
“indebted for the adhesive stamp, who, “already honoured by his
“‘ neighbours, will be honoured by future generations.’”
Again —
“THE SIR Rowl,AND HILL MEMORIAL FUND.—Mr. Patrick Chalmers
“is in no way relaxing his endeavours to set right a matter of historic
“fact. For so many years successive generations have been taught
“ that the penny postage system was the invention of the late Sir
“Rowland Hill that it is a difficult matter to convince people to the
“contrary, even in the face of indisputable evidence. Sir Rowland
“was undoubtedly the means of the system being brought into use
“ and developed; but it is idle to suppose no one had thought of the
“ plan before him. In like manner it has been maintained that he
“ was the inventor of the adhesive postage stamp—a point which has
“ been clearly settled in favour of Mr. Chalmers' father. Mr.
“Chalmers takes exception to the Committee of the Fund inviting
“Subscriptions for a memorial on the ground that the late Sir Rowland
“Hill invented the stamp or that such an article formed any part of
“ his scheme. Mr. Chalmers has printed some correspondence he has
“ had with the Memorial Fund Committee, and he considers the
“Corporation of the City, as subscribers to the Fund, as well as in its
“official capacity, is morally responsible for the proceedings of the
“Committee, and should interfere.*
Again –
“We have to acknowledge with satisfaction the Sequel to
“‘Concealment Unveiled : a Tale of the Mansion House,” Submis-
“‘sion of the Rowland Hill Committee,’ by Patrick Chalmers.”

But, of all three papers, perhaps may be found in the Citizen the
most distinct, if short and silent, testimony in favour of the well-
* [That is, interfere to prevent subscriptions being invited in the name of
Rowland Hill while allowing the public to remain under the admitted delusion that
Sir Rowland was in any way an inventor.—P.C.]

24
founded and unanswerable mature of the statements I have advanced.
To explain this it is necessary to mention (and under the circumstances
I trust to be held excused for so mentioning) that the proprietor or one
of the proprietors of the Citizen is or was the same gentleman who acted
as Honorary Secretary of the “Sir Rowland Hill Memorial Fund,”
and who has since become an Alderman of the City of London. Now,
under such circumstances, what the Citizen says or leaves unsaid is
important and significant. Here, then, is what the Citizen has said
(and since when, as far as I am aware, the Citizen, equally with the
Memorial Fund Committee, has observed complete silence), in noticing
a former pamphlet of mine, entitled “The Position of Sir Rowland
“Hill made Plain,” in which pamphlet the prior authorities from
which Sir Rowland Hill derived his proposals of 1837 were given, and
the hollow mature of his pretensions to originality examined and
exposed. The Citizen, in shortly noticing this pamphlet, admits that
“ my case is argued with a good deal of force.” Pointing, however,
to “Mr. Ford's fine statue of Sir Rowland Hill,” it is of opinion that
“ many people, having subscribed to the Memorial, will not trouble to
“ inquire further into the matter.”
Here, then, are the views and the policy of the Mansion House
Committee put plainly before us in no mistakable light. My
statements are not denounced, it is not denied that Sir Rowland
Hill was only, after all, the mere plagiarist I had so proved in the
pamphlet, but virtually the answer is, “It is too late to arrest this
“Memorial Fund movement; the money has been got, the fine
“‘statue’ is up and answering to the gaze of an admiring, if deluded,
“ public, and let us have done with the matter. Heaven knows, we
“ have had trouble enough already, trouble to get the money,
“ trouble to find an inscription, trouble with this “adhesive fellow at
“every step, unveiling this and exposing that, and defying us to
“ contradict him. Trouble us no more.”
And upon whom rests the blame of all this trouble and still more
trouble if not upon my opponent and his friends, who, so far from
accepting the decision of that learned tribunal to which he himself
appealed, continue, with the usual scorn of me, to reproduce in the
press views and opinions unsupported by a pretence of proof and
officially repudiated, as will be seen, by Her Majesty's Post Office.

*
*

PART SECOND.
-
*y-
-
*
THE ADHESIVE POSTAGE STAMP.
IN the pamphlet above named (Effingham Wilson, Royal Exchange)
it is easily and clearly proved, not only from the writings of Sir Row-
land Hill himself in 1837 and 1838, but further from the official
declarations in Parliament on the introduction of the Penny Postage
Bill in July, 1839, that the adoption of the adhesive stamp formed no
part of the original intentions or proposals of Sir Rowland Hill. The
Government being wholly at a loss how to carry out the scheme in
practice, it was then that Mr. Wallace proposed the plan of the
adhesive stamp which had been laid by James Chalmers before the
Committee of the House of Commons. That James Chalmers, book-
Seller, Dundee, was the originator of that indispensable feature in
the success of the reformed Penny Postage scheme is already largely
recognised both in this country and abroad, while the pamphlet above
named will be found conclusive on the subject, containing as it does—
The decision of the Encyclopædia Britannica in favour of James
Chalmers as having been the inventor, in the month of August, 1834,
of the Adhesive Postage Stamp, such decision having been arrived
at after a lengthened investigation of the respective statements put
forward on the subject by myself and by Mr. Pearson Hill, who
himself initiated the inquiry.
In addition to this conclusive award, may now be read in the
pamphlet from evidence which has since come to light from papers
bequeathed to the South Kensington Museum Library by the late
Sir Henry Cole, the original plan by James Chalmers of the Adhe-
sive Postage Stamp, to be printed from a die of various values for


26
use according to weight of letter, on sheets of paper specially pre-
pared for the purpose and afterwards gummed over with an adhesive
substance, to be sold in sheets, in lesser quantities, or singly, as
required, at post-offices, or by stationers, all as subsequently adopted
by Mr. Rowland Hill and in use to this day.
This plan in printed form, with copious remarks, was laid before
the then Mr. Cole as Secretary to the Mercantile Committee of the
City of London, and before Mr. Rowland Hill himself, by Mr.
Chalmers, under date Dundee, 8th February, 1838, a year and a half
before the Penny Postage Bill was introduced into Parliament.
The same plan had previously been laid by Mr. Chalmers before
the Select Committee of the House of Commons appointed to con-
sider the proposed Penny Postage scheme of Mr. Rowland Hill.
The letter of acknowledgment of Mr. Wallace, the chairman, is of
date the 9th December, 1837.
The reply of Mr. Rowland Hill to Mr. Chalmers is of date
3rd March, 1838; and in this reply Mr. Hill makes no pretensions
to having himself proposed or being then in favour of an adhesive
stamp.
Mr. Chalmers' plan, however, found adherents in increasing
numbers, and ultimately, after plans had, in August, 1839, been
invited from the public and nothing better found, the adhesive stamp
was officially adopted by Treasury Minute of date 26th December, 1889,
in conjunction with Mr. Rowland Hill's plan of impressed stamped
covers, or stamp impressed upon the sheet of letter paper itself.
On Sending in his claim as having been the originator of the
adhesive stamp, Mr. Chalmers was informed by Mr. Hill, then in
despotic power at the Treasury, in a letter of date 18th January,
1840, that his claim could not be admitted upon a mere pretext and
afterthought, bred of the success which had attended Mr. Chalmers'
proposal.
Putting Mr. Chalmers aside, consequently, by a representation
wholly at variance with the facts as proved in the pamphlet, as well
as being in direct contradiction of his previous letter to Mr. Chalmers
of 3rd March, 1888, Mr. Hill took to himself the merit of the stamp
just as he had previously assumed to himself the merit of the pro-
posals contained in the borrowed scheme.

*

*

27
I have explained in the preface to that pamphlet that, having left
Dundee over fifty years ago, and passed much of the interval abroad,
it was only through letters which appeared in the Dundee press upon
the demise of Sir Rowland Hill that my attention was drawn to a
matter as to which, up to then, I knew little or nothing, nor of the
local testimonial presented to my father in 1846, mentioned under the
head “Dundee.”
It is now proved that not only was James Chalmers the inventor
of the adhesive postage stamp, but that he further took the initiative
in proposing its adoption for the purpose of carrying out the
Penny Postage scheme.
The ultimate adoption of the adhesive stamp in December, 1839,
saved the Penny Postage scheme from untimely collapse. After
over forty years of public service the number of adhesive stamps of
Various values now issued for the carrying on of our Postal, Inland
Revenue, Telegraphic, and Parcel Post services, amounts to eighteen
hundred millions yearly. Twenty-five millions of parcels are now
annually conveyed by Parcel Post—a fresh business, only practicable
through prepayment by adhesive stamp. In all other lands, one
after another, has the adhesive stamp become an indispensable
institution for similar purposes as in our own.
Here, then, in addition to the verdict of able and learned men
whom I have never met, I now connect my father directly with the
City of London through that Mercantile Committee which pushed
the Penny Postage scheme and Bill through Parliament.
And yet the merit of the invention and proposal of this invalu-
able and indispensable public servant has all this while been
attributed by the London press in general to the wrong man.

DUNDEE.
So satisfied were the Dundee merchants of a past age as to the originality
and value of Mr. Chalmers’ invention and happy suggestion that, on
the 1st January, 1846, a public Testimonial was presented to him in
the Town Hall of Dundee in recognition of same and of other postal
services.” This Testimonial consisted of a silver jug and salver and a
purse of 50 sovereigns. Just before this period Mr. Rowland Hill
had been presented by the merchants of the City of London with a
cheque for over £13,000, in recognition of what now turns out to
have been merely a borrowed scheme, and which scheme was only
saved from untimely collapse by the adoption of Mr. Chalmers' plan
of the adhesive stamp.
In the present generation, again, the Town Council of Dundee
have performed a graceful act to the memory of a deserving townsman,
by having passed at a meeting held on the 3rd March, 1883, the
following resolution –
“That, having had under consideration the Pamphlet lately pub-
“ lished on the subject of the Adhesive Stamp, the Council are of
“ opinion that it has been conclusively shown that the late James
“Chalmers, bookseller, Dundee, was the originator of this indispensable
“ feature in the success of the reformed Penny Postage Scheme, and
“ that such be entered upon the minutes.”
The above resolution of the Town Council is now, it will be seen,
fully confirmed by the able and learned writers of the Encyclopædia
Britannica, after an impartial investigation of the subject—a confirma-
* “It was not alone for Dundee he laboured, but for his countrymen in general.
- - -- This Testimonial will preserve the evidence that I have done some-
thing to benefit the community, and that I had taken part in the accomplishment of
what was felt to be a public good.”—Reply of Mr. James Chalmers at the Town Hall,
Dundee, 1st January, 1846.
*

29
tion having all the greater weight as reversing, upon evidence which
could not be resisted, previously recorded impressions.
Dundee is now a large and wealthy community, returning two
Members to Parliament ; few centres of business have benefited more
conspicuously from the legislation of the past forty years, including as
the foundation of all mercantile intercourse that great postal reform
which James Chalmers saved from failure and made practicable. Two
generations have already recognised and given every credit to the
services of their townsman; what further notice Dundee may yet
take of this matter of national and historical interest originated in the
locality, the “value and importance " of which is elsewhere inade-
quately described in my letter to the Dundee Advertiser, remains to be
See Il.
SUMMARY OF PRESS NOTICES ALREADY
PUBLISHED.
HAVING already published most of these in detail, to save space and
repetition it will be sufficient here to give a list, or little more, of the
numerous journals which have given me more or less Support.
Those to which I am more particularly indebted are:—
In Scotland—
The Dundee Advertiser, a consistent support during a past leng-
thened period, including powerful leading articles and notices.
The Montrose Standard, several cordial and able articles of the
highest value, while the same is to be gratefully noticed of the other
Forfarshire papers—the Brechin Advertiser, the Forfar Herald, the
Arbroath Guide, the Montrose Review.
The North British Daily Mail, of Glasgow, in a leading article
headed “A Neglected Inventor,” after stating the case, goes on to
say: “It is not creditable to the generosity of the Government of
“ this country that an important invention of this kind, which has
“ conferred such a great boon upon the public, should have remained

30 - *
“so long unacknowledged and unrewarded.” This article has been
extensively reproduced.
The Glasgow News and the Christian Leader, of Glasgow, cordial
articles.
The Paisley Herald, the same on several occasions.
The Aberdeen Free Press, a warm and able support.
The Blairgowrie Advertiser has taken much interest and pains to
support me; also the Perthshire Constitutional, the Fifeshire Journal,
the North British Advertiser, to all of which my best thanks are due.
In the Metropolis and neighbourhood, considering how short a
period has elapsed since the opinion has been almost unanimously
expressed that the reformed Penny Postage scheme was the “sole and
“ undisputed invention of Sir Rowland Hill,” to whom has also been
erroneously attributed the invention and proposal as well as the ulti-
mate adoption of the adhesive stamp, fair progress has already been
made in obtaining a recognition of Mr. Chalmers' services. That
greater progress has not been made may be attributed to the powerful
influences which have been at work to stifle the whole subject, includ-
ing an attempt on the part of Mr. Pearson Hill to stop the publication
of my pamphlets.
In the Illustrated London News Mr. G. A. Sala writes: “It seems
“tolerably clear that Sir Rowland Hill was not the inventor, in the
“strict sense of the term, either of the Penny Postage or of the
“Adhesive Postage Stamp. . . . . Anent the invention of the
“Adhesive Stamp, a pamphlet has recently been published, but I
“ have not yet had time to read it. . . . Whoever discovered the
“Adhesive Stamp, the discovery has socially revolutionised the world.”
According to this high authority, the Adhesive Stamp was thus at
least not the invention of Sir Rowland Hill.
The Whitehall Review has given me consistent and most valuable
support ; also the Metropolitan, the People, the Home and Colonial
Mail. The Machinery Market, of London and Darlington, a practical
monthly journal of high position, while retaining all its former
admiration for Sir Rowland Hill's services, decides, in a long and able
article, in favour of James Chalmers as respects the stamp. The In-
ventors' Record, in an article on “Disputed Inventions,” supports the
same view. The pretensions brought forward on the part of Sir
-*
*

31
º
Rowland Hill are declared to be wholly groundless, and the invention
accorded to James Chalmers.
The Croydon Review, a monthly journal, in a series of able articles,
has informed its readers candidly with respect to the untenable preten-
sions of Sir Rowland Hill, both as respects the Scheme and the stamp,
cordially ascribing the latter to James Chalmers.
The Surrey Independent has ably supported me in several leading
articles. As far as conception went, “Sir Rowland Hill displayed a
“ remarkable facility for picking other people's brains.”
To the Surrey Comet and Wimbledon Courier my best thanks are
due for cordial notices and recognition ; as also to the West Middlesea:
Advertiser, the South Hampstead Advertiser, the North Middlesea:
Advertiser, the Christian Union, the Hornsey and Finsbury Park
Journal, the American Bookseller, the Acton and Chiswick Gazette,
Figaro, Vanity Fair, the Kensington News, Life, and others.
From the Provincial Press, much valuable support has been given
10:16 —
The Oldham Chronicle and Rastrick Gazette have written often and
ably on the subject, supported by Such papers as the Bradford Observer,
the Western Daily Press, of Bristol, the Bristol Gazette, the Norwich
Argus, the Brighton Herald, the Brighton Argus, the Dover and County
Chronicle, the Colchester Chronicle, the Stratford and South Essea; Advertiser,
the Essea Standard, the Bradford Times, the Burnley Eaſpress, the Barnsley
Times, the Wigan Observer, the Stockport Advertiser, the Yorkshire Gazette,
the Westmoreland Gazette, the Wakefield and West Riding Herald, the
Frome Times, the Man of Ross, the Totnes Times, the Banner of Wales,
the West Bromwich Free Press, the Swintom and Pendlebury Times, the
Accrington Gazette, the Birkenhead News, the Brighton Standard, the
Hastings Observer, the Newcastle Courant, the Preston Chronicle, the
Monmouthshire Beacon, the Lydney Observer, the West of England
Observer, the Cardiff Free Press, the Monmouthshire Chronicle, the
Eskdale and Liddlesdale Advertiser, the Irvine Fapress, the Surrey
Advertiser, the Printers' Register, the Newcastle Ea'aminer, the Malvern
News, and others, with articles sympathetically copied into the Brighton
Guardian, the Aberdeen Journal, the Dundee Courier, the Edinburgh
Courant, the Liverpool Albion, the Building and Engineering Times of
London, &c.


32
The late Sir Thomas Nelson, Solicitor to the Corporation of the
City of London, writes:—
“ HAMPTON WICK,
“6th February, 1883.
“SIR,
“I have read the pamphlet you sent me. Your statements
“ are very interesting. It is nothing uncommon for the man to whom
“ the idea first occurs to have it developed by others, who get the
‘‘ credit of it. -
“Yours truly,
“ (Signed) T. J. NELSON.
“ PATRICK CHALMERs, Esq.
“ Wimbledon,”
If plagiarism is not uncommon it is none the less unfair to the
original inventor, nor the less to be deprecated, more especially where
the result has been to obtain unmerited “credit” heaped upon the
wrong man at the expense of the man to whom “the idea first
occurred,” and who further, as is now more fully proved since Sir
Thomas Nelson wrote, also first urged its “development’’ to the very
man who ultimately took all the “credit ’’ to himself. To plagiarism
such as this a stronger term is applicable.
Sir Bartle Frere writes:–
“WRESSIL LODGE, WIMBLEDON,
“21st April, 1883.
“SIR,
“I have received your letter of the 20th, and thank you for
“its enclosures on the subject of the invention of the adhesive
“ postage stamp.
“I have long believed that Mr. James Chalmers was the inventor
“ of that important part of our present postal system, but I regret
“ that I cannot suggest to you any means of giving further publicity
“ to your father's claims to the merit of that most useful invention.
“I remain, SIR,
“Yours truly,
“ (Signed) H. B. E. FRERE.
“P. CHAIMERs, Esq.”

33
( *
* *
Sir Bartle Frere introduced the adhesive postage stamp into Scinde
during his administration of that province, having obtained his know-
ledge and belief as to James Chalmers having been the originator of
same from independent sources thirty years before my own investiga-
tion of the subject.
*
In Some quarters this matter is ignored on the ground that the
Subject of this pamphlet is not of sufficient importance or too late to
call for public notice. To such I reply—“Then let the issue of the
“adhesive stamp be discontinued.” Should it be found that such
cannot be done without serious detriment to the public service, then
Surely to continue to use a man's indispensable invention and proposal
without so much as a word of recognition, will, if adhered to, prove a
course of proceeding hard indeed to justify, as well as something wholly
foreign to the antecedents of British journalism.

34
PART THIRD).
OPINIONS FROM THE PRESS
(FOURTH SERIES).
IT is only fitting that this portion of my publication should open with
the article from
The “ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA,”
in the nineteenth volume of which standard work, lately published,
under the article headed “Postage Stamps,” my late father is fully
recognised as having been the inventor of the adhesive postage stamp.
It is well known that the articles in this work are drawn up by learned
experts upon the respective subjects dealt with, having access to and
being in the habit of consulting official and historical documents, and
edited under a strong sense of responsibility to the high standing of
the work itself and to history; so that it is with unspeakable satisfac-
tion that I have found myself enabled to produce from such a quarter
an emphatic recognition of my father's Services in connection with the
great boon of Penny Postage reform.
This article, so far as it deals with the origin of the adhesive
stamp, has already been reprinted in full in my pamphlet “The Adhe-
sive Postage Stamp" (a copy of which will be sent where desired);
and in considering same it should be borne in mind that the article
was drawn up before the discovery of Mr. Chalmers' plan amongst the
papers of the late Sir Henry Cole, with the consequent proofs given in
the next chapter as to Mr. Chalmers having taken the initiative in
urging the adoption of this stamp, not only to Members of the Select
Committee of the House of Commons of 1837–38, but to Mr. Rowland
Hill himself, long before Mr. Hill, in his paper of 1839, gave in his
adhesion to that plan in conjunction with his own plan of the im-
pressed stamp.

35
The Encyclopædia Britannica records:—“For all practical purposes
“ the history of postage stamps begins in the United Kingdom, and
“with the great reform of its postal system in 1839–40.” After
giving instances in which the impressed stamp had been in use, or had
been suggested for postal purposes in this country and elsewhere, the
article proceeds:—“Finally, and in its results most important of all,
“ the ‘adhesive stamp' was made, experimentally, in his printing-
“office at Dundee, by Mr. James Chalmers, in August, 1834. These
“experimental stamps were printed from ordinary type, and were
“made adhesive by a wash of gum. Their inventor had already won
“ local distinction in matters of postal reform by his strenuous and
“Successful efforts, made as early as in the year 1822, for the accele-
“ ration of the Scottish mails from London. Those efforts resulted in
“ a Saving of forty-eight hours on the double journey, and were highly
“appreciated in Scotland. There is evidence that from 1822 onwardsº
“ his attention was much directed towards postal questions, and that
“ he held correspondence with the postal reformers of his day, both in
“ and out of Parliament. It is also plain that he was more intent upon
“ aiding public improvements than upon winning credit for them.”
This invention, then, of James Chalmers, as has been proved upon
irresistible evidence, takes its date and origin in August, 1834, a period
in referring to which Sir Rowland Hill, in his “Life,” has left it on
record that as far as he knew or was concerned, “adhesive stamps
“were yet undreamt of.” How this invention came to be proposed by
its inventor for the purpose of carrying out the anticipated penny
postage scheme, and to be ultimately adopted for that purpose, have
already been described, and will be further particularised in the next
chapter. Here the point dealt with is, “Who was the inventor 2'-a
question answered emphatically by this learned and impartial tribunal,
in a decision opposed to its preconceived impressions, in favour of
James Chalmers, a well-known postal reformer, who “ held correspon-
“dence with the postal reformers of his day, both in and out of Parlia-
“ment,” years before Sir Rowland Hill brought forward the subject.
But if I was to stop here I should be told now, as I have been told
before on obtaining important recognitions, that the present decision
in my favour was again got upon mere ea-parte statements—that had
Mr. Pearson Hill only been given the opportunity, a very different aspect
would have been put upon the matter. No choice, consequently, is
º
C 2

36
left me but to show that it is to Mr. Pearson Hill himself I am in-
debted for the introduction which has led to my success, and without
which introduction, now reproduced, I should have remained in entire
ignorance as to any forthcoming article upon postal affairs, or have
been most courteously afforded an opportunity of stating my case:–
[Copy.] -
“ ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA.
“50, BELSIZE PARK,
“LONDON, N.W.,
“15th March, 1883.
“GENTLEMEN,
“As you are now issuing a new edition of your Encyclopædia
“ Britannica, and as for years past a Mr. Patrick Chalmers has per-
“sistently been making false and groundless charges against my
“father, the late Sir Rowland Hill, I think it well to send you the
“ enclosed printed documents for your information, as it is by no
“ means improbable that he may strive to get you to insert some un-
“true statement when you deal with the question of the Post Office
“ and Postal Reform.
“I need hardly say that I shall be happy at any time to submit to
“you the original documents which are in my possession, which dis-
“ prove the claims put forward in behalf of Mr. James Chalmers of
“Dundee, if you would desire to see them.
“Your statistical information about the Post Office, as given in
“my copy of the Encyclopædia (the eight edition) is of course now much
“ behindhand. I dare say you have already on your staff of contribu-
“ tors some gentleman well able to supply you with fresh information;
“but should you be in want of any such help, I feel sure that my
“ cousin, Mr. Lewin Hill, head of the statistical branch of the Secre-
“ tary's office, General Post Office, London, would gladly undertake
“ the work if you desired it.

“I am, Gentlemen,
“Your obedient servant,
“ (Signed) PEARSON HILL.
“Messrs. A. & C. BLACK,
“Edinburgh.”

37
-
,
It is thus manifest that, in having obtained this conclusive recog-
nition, I have taken no undue advantage of Mr. Pearson Hill, while it
will also be manifest that Mr. Pearson Hill's statements have found
acceptance in other quarters only because I have not been afforded an
equally impartial hearing as in the present case—a hearing which,
perhaps, Mr. Pearson Hill did not altogether anticipate. His printed
documents, his statements, with all the advantage of being sole
possessor of the correspondence betwixt his late father and mine, have
been put forward, and yet the decision is against him.
Again, as respects the penny postage scheme itself, the proofs are
conclusive that originality of conception formed no element whatever in
any one of the proposals of Sir Rowland Hill, “preceded and heralded
“ as the penny postage reform had been by the labours of a whole band
“ of precursors.” Special reference may be made to the statements of
the Rev. Samuel Roberts, whose biography as the pioneer of uniform
penny postal reform is given in the Times of 30th September, 1885, and
afterwards referred to, page 95. Moreover, in having stated that the
penny postage scheme was not an invention on the part of Sir Row-
land Hill, I have only stated what his own Committee have confirmed
as already distinctly shown ; and if anything more is wanted in proof
of that non-orginality, here is what the Treasury says on the sub-
ject :—
Extract from Treasury Minute, of date 11th March, 1864, confer-
ring upon Sir Rowland Hill, upon his retirement from active service,
his full salary of £2,000 a year:—
“My Lords do not forget that it has been by the powerful agency
“of the railway system that these results have been rendered practi.
“cable. Neither do they enter into the question, as foreign to the
“Occasion, what honour may be due to those who, before the development
“ of the plans of Sir Rowland Hill, urged the adoption of Uniform Penny
“Postage.”
Thus, independent and conclusive testimony, as distinguished from
the mere family tradition with which most writers have hitherto been
content, leaves the question of plagiarism beyond dispute. As respects
both the stamp and the scheme, the ideas were acquired, not original.

38
Here, then, is the justification of my statements. So far from having
been “persistently making false and groundless charges,” I have
been stating facts and elucidating the truth, and the aspersions of
Mr. Pearson Hill are thus scattered to the winds.

For Mr. Pearson Hill, however, every allowance will be made,
though his style of controversy will not be admired. That gentleman
forgets that my motives and objects are just as legitimate as his own,
and should be met in a legitimate way. This leads me to mention that
some time ago the late Mr. Samuel Morley (at one period chairman of
the “Sir Rowland Hill Memorial Fund’ Committee) was good enough
to suggest that this controversy should be decided by arbitration, and
to which I agreed in principle, subject to due preliminaries, but met
with no response. At a later period, in a letter already published,
after pointing to my own evidence, I invited Mr. Morley's good offices,
seeing that Mr. Pearson Hill declined to reply to or even to open any
letter from me, to ascertain from Mr. Hill if he could produce any
evidence, or anything beyond mere assumption, to the effect that the
adhesive postage stamp was at any period an invention on the part of
Sir Rowland Hill, but I was equally unsuccessful in obtaining any
reply, there being, in fact, nothing beyond assumption in the matter.
Nowhere does Sir Rowland Hill directly profess that the stamp was
his invention.
My friends, both in and out of the press, who have been puzzled at
the silence of many of the London papers on this subject, will now be
in a position to form some conclusion as to the cause of this silence.
What has been sent to the Messrs. Black and to the Commissioners of
City Sewers, may have been sent to the London papers; indeed,
I have been given to understand has been generally circulated in these
quarters, already compromised in their expressed opinions, and so in
no way disposed to entertain fresh views.” My opponents, some of
them in high position; others themselves connected with the press, are
desirous, and naturally so, that public attention should not be drawn
* In lately replying to Mr. Pearson Hill in the columns of the Whitehall Review,
I have put this query, which has not been denied, “Will Mr. Pearson Hill undertake
to say that he has not made a communication, written or verbal, similar to the above
letter to Messrs. A. & C. Black to every editor in London, if not throughout a wider
sphere?”
39
to my statements.” In this way, crushed beneath the weight of a
hitherto great name, statements have been disregarded which, when
read and investigated as in the case of the Encyclopædia Britannica,
have been found substantiated. -
I ask my supporters and others, therefore, to read and judge for
themselves. Whether the London papers, hitherto silent, seeing the
important recognitions both at home and abroad my claim has now
met with, and the fresh and conclusive evidence now disclosed from
the papers of Sir Henry Cole, will also now read and admit some
discussion of this matter of public interest in their columns, remains
to be seen. In any case, an enduring record of my father's share in
the great postal reform of 1837–40 is secured. A work of the highest
standing, and a reference to which is the first act of historical writers,
has recorded James Chalmers as having been the originator of that
adhesive postage stamp which saved the reformed scheme. Moreover,
in lands beyond the sea an interest is taken in this subject wholly
unknown here; individuals and learned societies collect for their own
information, and hand down for future perusal, everything published
on the great Penny Postage reform, and in some of these quarters
amazement is expressed at the single-hero-worship which prevails in
this country with respect to a subject which investigation shows to
have been the offspring of many minds, the result of the labours of
not a few zealous but unassuming men.
If I have been compelled to show that, so far from having been the
originator of the adhesive postage stamp, Sir Rowland Hill merely
acquired at second hand the proposals of the reformed scheme itself,
upon the contumacy of his own son, in resisting against this decision
and the clearest testimony my legitimate claim on behalf of my late
father, rests the responsibility; and having thus been again called
forward on the subject, there are still some further points having
reference to the origin of this reformed postal system to which the
attention of the future historian may well be directed.
* One mode of stifling the subject has been to circulate the impression that I am
a person under the hallucination that “his father invented the Penny Postage scheme,”
thus rendering my claim too ludicrous to obtain attention. See, amongst others, the
Times and Daily News of 13th July, 1881, and the City Press of only a few weeks ago.
Will Mr. Pearson Hill and his friends at the Mansion House undertake to say that
they have had no knowledge of or connection with this cunning misrepresentation ?


40
If it should be asked how came Sir Rowland Hill to acquire those
views and proposals of others, the materials of this reformed scheme,
it should be remembered, what no writer so far on the subject appears
to have noticed, that Sir Rowland Hill was not the first member of
his family taking an interest in postal reform. His elder brother,
Matthew Davenport Hill, the originator of the Penny Magazine,
Member of Parliament for Hull, and whose speeches in 1834 may yet
be read with profit, was a prominent member of the circle specially
occupied with postal reform and kindred subjects. At that period the
then Mr. Rowland Hill, having given up his original profession, was
in search of another career. Here, then, opened out to him no ordi-
mary facilities for acquiring the views current amongst those reformers
—of being made acquainted with the grievances and mismanagement
they complained of, and the remedies they proposed; of being intro-
duced as one of their circle, and so receiving from Mr. Wallace that
“additional half-hundredweight of raw material” he states in the
shape of “heavy blue-books,” with leisure to pursue, as, fortunately
for the benefit and welfare of the nation he did pursue, the fresh
career he had marked out for himself. Everything, however, lay to
his hand, though “he had never been inside a Post Office.” So far
from the uniform Penny Postage scheme having been the personally
inspired system we have been led to understand, it will be seen that
Mr. Hill had only to repeat what he had heard and found embodied in
print, and to reproduce these grievances and the proposed remedies at
second-hand. -
Again, we have been further told that it was solely through Mr.
Hill’s “energy and perseverance ’’ against vehement opposition that
the scheme was carried into law—again showing that a most important
factor in this process has been overlooked—the Mercantile Committee
of the City of London. Here was a body of eminent citizens, all of
whom felt the grievances of the old postal system only too keenly, and
Some of whom were the authors of the proposed remedies, banded
together to obtain this reform. A secretary was appointed, meetings
held, money freely subscribed, Parliamentary influence brought to
bear, and the country canvassed for petitions in support of their
endeavours. Mr. Hill gave all his time and aid in a matter to him of
the deepest concern, and on the success of which depended that pro-

41
vision for himself and others he records to have been then in need of.
But if to one man more than another is to be attributed the successful
passing of the measure into law, that merit appears to be distinctly
due to the tact, the industry, and marked ability of the Secretary to
this Mercantile Committee, Mr., afterwards Sir Henry Cole.
Indeed, some of Sir Rowland Hill's own proposals, coupled with
the remarks of some of his most ardent admirers, would seem to
throw doubts upon the question, “Was Mr. Hill a man of any such
“abilities, knowledge of business, or success in other matters, as in any
“way likely to have been capable of producing the reformed Postage
“System 2° What, for instance, could have been more crude than his
proposal that “sheets of letter paper of every description should be
“stamped on the part used for the address,” and sold at the Post Offices,
while “stationers would also be induced to keep them.” What
possible inducement could stationers have to keep stamped paper of
every or any description for sale on such terms ? But to obviate the
objection that such gave the Stamp Office, or Post Office, the mono-
poly of the sale of writing paper, the proposal was further made
that stationers might send in their own paper and have the same
stamped and returned to them for sale. Fancy the stationers through-
out the country sending in their paper to a central office to be stamped,
and then holding a stock of duty-paid paper to be sold, of course at a
profit, against the competition of the adjacent Post Office selling at
cost price * Mr. Hill had evidently never heard of such a thing as
“dead stock,” or doubted the possibility of selling at a profit what
one's neighbour was selling at cost. No man with the most elementary
notions of business, to which Mr. Hill had not been brought up, could
have gravely put forward any such proposals—proposals which only
excited the mingled ridicule and alarm of the trade, until relieved by
James Chalmers' counter proposal, “Let the stationers sell the paper,
“ the Post Office the stamp.”
* “I do not think it part of the legitimate revenue of our department to acquire
any profit by paper.” . . . “I do not think it is the duty of the Stamp Office
to have a profit on the paper sold.” Again, “We could, without any difficulty,
issue writing paper for the whole of the kingdom.”—Select Committee of the House
of Commons, 1837–38 : Replies of Mr. Wood, Chairman of the Board of Inland
Revenue—Questions 2131, 2121.


42
This, again, is what that most ardent admirer of Sir Rowland, the
Athenæum, records with respect to his abilities in general:—
“Now cheap newspapers and effective telegraphs are not the
“special glory of any one or two men, while the present postage system
“ is the sole and undisputed invention of Sir Rowland Hill.” After
showing how the principle of “uniformity" had been arrived at in
the usually accepted way, by a calculation,” the Writer goes on—
“Prepayment and the use of stamps naturally followed from the work-
“shop of an inventive mind. Sir Rowland was a man of inventive
“mind, as was proved by his early scheme of education and by his
“late elaboration of Penny Postage. That he sometimes failed in his
“ projects, that he was unsuccessful as Chairman of the Brighton
“ Railway, that his printing press did not work, that his recent pro-
“posal of a heavy tax on coal was a mistake, cannot be denied. But
“in our view these failures do not deprive him of his claim to inven-
“tiveness, do not even reduce his claim, for, as was said to us by one
“ of the most distinguished savants of the day, if a man has ten
“schemes and succeeds in one, he is fortunate. Failures are inevi-
“ table incidents.”
Here is a record, then, of failures all round, with the one bright
exception of having been the “sole and undisputed inventor of the
“ present postage system ; ” a brightness now replaced by the dark
shadow of having deliberately appropriated to himself the merit of the
prior proposals of other men, while to this capacity for failing would
appear to have been added, according to the Encyclopædia Britannica
“deficiencies in manner, and of tact in dealing with others ” during
his administration of the Post Office, probably accounting for the
chronic state of rebellion existing on the part of his employés. As to
the rights of these disputes, however, an outsider cannot well judge,
but any one may fairly ask why it should have required five years and
a Committee of the House of Commons to obtain for the public the
cheap and obvious improvement of having the sheets of stamps per-
forated in the manner now in use, and which, as far as Mr. Hill was
concerned, we might yet be cutting off with a knife or scissors to this
day. It is true Mr. Archer, the inventor and patentee, asked for a
money payment, and the Treasury had to be consulted on that point ;
* See Appendix. —The famous calculation.

43
but had Mr. Hill been in earnest the money could not well have been
refused. Mr. Hill, however, saw little in the proposal—though a pro-
fessed mechanist, “ had not seen the machine ''-but thought the
principle advisable, and had so reported, though “I do not speak
“strongly on the matter—my opinion is it would be useful and accept-
“ able to the public to a certain extent.” "
This, it will be said, may have been a solitary failure in the
administration of Sir Rowland Hill. Do We not all know what a
revenue the Post Office brought in under his administration, and what
better criterion could we have of the success of his management 2
Such is the general impression, again and again pointed to by those
who boast of “his great administrative capacity.” But what are the
facts 2 Whatever benefits the reformed postal system brought the
nation, and these have been great, such did not extend to the matter of
revenue until of late years. The net revenue derived from the Post
Office under the old system prior to 1840 was £1,634,000 a year,
which, multiplied by the twenty-three years up to the retirement of
Sir Rowland Hill at the end of the year 1863, would, if maintained,
have brought in the sum of £37,582,000. The actual sum obtained
was no more than £23,600,000, leaving a comparative deficit of close
on fourteen millions sterling. That for some years the revenue under
the penny system could not recover itself was only to be expected, but
not until 1863 did this recovery take place to £1,792,000, when Sir
Rowland Hill retired ; having had, however, only partial and divided
control up to 1854. Under the management of his successors, the
met revenue obtained in the year ending 1865, in only two years of
fresh management, amounted to £2,200,000, an improvement ever
increasing until in 1883–84 the Post Office revenue netted over three
millions Sterling.
* See Select Committee of the House of Commons on Archer's Patent, 1852.
Questions 981, 982. Mr. Archer got £4,000 for the use of his invention—a sum,
however, which he saved to the public many times over by having securely offered to
supply the postage stamps at the price of 5d. per 1,000, in place of the 6d, hitherto
paid. On this, a fresh contract was at once made with the existing contractor at the
reduced price, and for five years certain —thus at length effectually getting quit of

Mr. Archer altogether. With these contracts, however, the Post Office had nothing
to do, only the Stamp Office at Somerset House.
f See Return, dated 16th J uly, 1866, by order of the House of Commons, of gross
revenue, cost of management, and net revenue of the Post Office from 1838 to 1865,
inclusive.

44
()RIGINAL PLAN
OF
THE ADHESIVE POSTAGE STAMP.
SIR HENRY COLE'S PAPERS.
IN his “ Fifty Years of Public Life,” lately published, Sir Henry Cole
gives much information with respect to the Penny Postage reform, a
boon with the obtaining and carrying out of which he was intimately
associated—first as Secretary to the Mercantile Committee of the City
of London, and afterwards as coadjutor to Mr. Rowland Hill at the
Treasury. “A General Collection of Postage Papers,” having refer-
ence to this reform, elucidating the efforts made by this Committee of
London Merchants and Bankers during the year 1838–39, to obtain
for the scheme the sanction of the Legislature, has been bequeathed
by Sir Henry Cole, “to be given to the British Museum after my
death.” “ “The Mercantile Committee,” he states, “ was formed
“chiefly by the exertions of Mr. George Moffat in the spring of 1838.
“Mr. Ashurst conducted the Parliamentary Inquiry, and upon myself,
“ as Secretary, devolved the business of communicating with the
“ public.” This Committee formed the source and focus of the agitation
which brought about the ultimate enactment of uniform Penny Postage.
Money was freely subscribed, meetings were held, public bodies in the
provinces were urged to petition, Members of Parliament and Ministers
were waited upon, and a special paper advocating the scheme, termed
the “Post Circular,” was issued and circulated gratis. Of these pro-
* These Papers are in the Art Library of the South Kensington Museum.

45
º
ceedings Mr. Cole was the guiding genius; and, amongst other
successes, over two thousand petitions to Parliament were obtained—
labours which were ultimately crowned with success. (See ante,
page 40.) -
To Mr. Cole, then, it now turns out that Mr. Chalmers, in February,
1838, sent a copy of his plan of the adhesive stamp. Mr. Wallace
and the House of Commons Committee had already got it, but it is
only now that the particulars of the plan have been brought to light;
and in this “Collection of Postage Papers ” Sir Henry Cole has
indeed left a valuable legacy to me and to all prepared to recognise
the true originator of the adhesive postage stamp. These papers
include a printed statement of Mr. Chalmers' plan, dated “4 Castle
“Street, Dundee, 8th February, 1888,” and which runs as follows:–
“Remarks on various modes proposed for franking letters, under
“Mr. Rowland Hill's Plan of Post Office Reform.
“In suggesting any method of improvement, it is only reasonable
“to expect that what are supposed to be its advantages over any
“existing system, or in opposition to others that have been or may be
“proposed, will be explicitly stated.
“Therefore, if Mr. Hill's plan of a uniform rate of postage, and
“ that all postages are to be paid by those sending letters before they
“ are deposited in the respective post-offices, become the law of the
“land, I conceive that the most simple and economical mode of
“carrying out such an arrangement would be by slips (postage stamps)
“prepared somewhat similar to the specimens herewith shown.
“With this view, and in the hope that Mr. Hill's plan may soon
“ be carried into operation, I would suggest that sheets of stamped
“slips should be prepared at the Stamp Office (on a paper made
“expressly for the purpose) with a device on each for a die or cut
“resembling that on newspapers; that the sheets so printed or stamped
“should then be rubbed over with a strong solution of gum or other
“adhesive substance, and (when thoroughly dry) issued by the Stamp
“Office to town and country distributors, to stationers and others, for
“Sale in sheets or singly, under the same laws and restrictions now
“applicable to those selling bill or receipt stamps, so as to prevent, as
“far as practicable, any fraud on the revenue.
46
“Merchants and others whose correspondence is extensive, could
“ purchase these slips in quantities, cut them singly, and affix one to a
“letter by means of wetting the back of the slip with a sponge or
“brush, just with as much facility as applying a wafer,” adding that
the stamp might answer both for stamp and wafer, especially in the
case of circulars—a suggestion which those who may recollect the
mode of folding universally practised before the days of envelopes
will appreciate. Mr. Chalmers goes on—“Others, requiring only one
“ or two slips at a time, could purchase them along with sheets of
“ paper at stationers’ shops, the weight only regulating the rate of
“ postage in all cases, So as a stamp may be affixed according to the
“scale determined on.
“Again, to prevent the possibility of these being used a second
“ time, it should be made imperative on postmasters to put the post-
“office town stamp (as represented in one of the specimens) across
“ the slip or postage stamp.”
Mr. Chalmers then goes on to point out the advantages to be
derived from this plan, and to state objections to Mr. Hill's plan
of impressed stamped covers or envelopes, or stamp impressed
upon the sheet of letter paper itself. At that period envelopes—
being scarcely known, and never used, as involving double postage
—were a hand-made article, heavy and expensive–objections which
have disappeared with the abolition of the Excise duty on paper
and the use of machinery. But how true were Mr. Chalmers
objections then may be gathered from the fact, as recorded by Sir
Rowland Hill in his “Life,” that the large supply provided of the
first postage envelope, the “Mulready,” had actually to be destroyed as
wholly unsuitable and unsaleable, while the Supply of adhesive stamps
was with difficulty brought up to the demand.” The force and value
of Mr. Chalmers’ objections to the stamp impressed upon the sheet
itself are best exemplified by the fact that, though ultimately sanc-
tioned by the Treasury at the instance of Mr. Hill, such plan never
came into use. People bought their own paper from the stationers,
and not from the Stamp Office, and applied the adhesive stamp as the
weight required. (See ante, page 41.) Mr. Chalmers concludes,
“ taking all these disadvantages into consideration, the use of stamped
* See also Encyclopædia Britannica, article “Postage Stamps.”


47
“slips is certainly the most preferable system; and, should others who
“take an interest in the proposed reform view the matter in the same
“light as I do, it remains for them to petition Parliament to have such
“carried into operation.”
This statement of Mr. Chalmers is printed on part of an elongated
sheet of paper. On the half not occupied by the type are several
specimens of a suggested stamp, about an inch Square, and with the
words printed, “General Postage—not exceeding half-an-ounce—One
“Penny.” And the same—“Not exceeding one ounce–Twopence.”
(It is only of late years that a penny has franked one ounce in weight.)
A space divides each stamp for cutting off singly,” and the back of the
sheet is gummed over. One of the specimens is stamped across with
the post-mark, “Dundee, 10th February, 1838,” to exemplify what
Mr. Chalmers states should be done to prevent the stamp being used a
Second time.
Here is a complete description of the principle of the adhesive postage
stamp as ultimately adopted by Mr. Hill at the Treasury by Minute of
26th December, 1839, when he sent Mr. Cole to Messrs. Bacon and
Petch, the eminent engravers, to provide a die and contract for the
Supply of stamps, a plan in use to the present day.
This description, as now brought to light under the signature
of Mr. Chalmers himself, fully confirms the evidence with respect to
the invention in August, 1834, as given by his then employés yet
living, W. Whitelaw and others, as detailed in my former pamphlets.
Here, then, was the plan of the future adhesive stamp, already
laid before Mr. Wallace and the House of Commons Committee, also
sent to the Secretary of the City of London Mercantile Committee,
in printed form, as to one of many, long before leave was asked, on
5th July, 1839, even to introduce the Bill into Parliament. That
Mr. Hill saw Mr. Cole's copy, or had a special copy sent also to him.
self, is clear, because Mr. Hill at once writes to Mr. Chalmers under
date 3rd March, 1838. What Mr. Hill states in that letter we know
not altogether, as Mr. Pearson Hill has not thought proper to publish

* The perforated sheets were not introduced until the year 1852. This improve-
ment was the invention of a Mr. Archer, for which he got the sum of £4,000. (See
ante, page 43.)
f See Select Committee on Archer's Patent—Mr. Bacon's evidence, Question 1,692.
48
that letter, and my request to him for a copy has not been complied
with, as shown in a former pamphlet. We know thus much, however,
that Mr. Rowland Hill makes no pretension them to ever having sug-
gested or approved of an adhesive stamp, as already pointed out. Not
until writing to Mr. Chalmers on the 18th January, 1840, before
which period, in obedience to the general demand, the adhesive stamp
had at length been adopted, did Mr. Hill, in reply to Mr. Chalmers'
claim as the originator, set up any counter-claim on his own part to
any share in the merit of the adhesive stamp. But as with the scheme
itself, so now with the stamp which saved it, no second party was to be
allowed to divide with Mr. Hill the sole merit of this great reform.
So the far-fetched excuse, the mere afterthought, bred of the success
which had attended Mr. Chalmers’ proposal to the Committee and to
Mr. Cole, is hit upon to put Mr. Chalmers aside and to attach to him-
self the whole merit of the adhesive stamp. Mr. Hill had said some-
thing about a bit of gummed paper before the Commissioners of Post
Office Inquiry in February, 1887 (subsequent to publishing the first
edition of his pamphlet, in which nothing was said of an adhesive
stamp), an idea Mr. Hill had acquired in the interval, just as he had
acquired all the principles of the scheme itself, at second hand.
This was a mere passing allusion in February, 1837, as to what might
be done with an adhesive stamp (the proved invention of Mr. Chalmers
in August, 1834) in a supposed exceptional case, which could never
have arisen so long as the penny in cash was accepted in pre-payment
of a letter, and which mode of payment continued optional with the
public, in place of using a stamp of any sort, up to the year 1855. On
this mere allusion, however, Mr. Hill subsequently founded his claim
when events proved that Mr. Chalmers’ proposal could not be dis-
pensed with. February, 1837, was, it will be noticed, two years and
a half after the invention of the adhesive postage stamp by Mr.
Chalmers, one of the early postal reformers who “ held correspondence
“ with the postal reformers of the day both in and out of Parliament,”
the correspondent of, amongst others, Messrs. Knight & Co., who
published for Mr. Hill. Such allusion was, as the Encyclopædia
Britannica states, merely an idea “acquired from without,” and had
no practical effect whatever, only showing that Mr. Hill had heard of
this idea without seeing its value or proposing its adoption. The
*
|

49
Subject having already been fully dealt with in my pamphlet “The
“Adhesive Postage Stamp,” it will be enough here to repeat that
nothing can be more clear than that the adoption of the adhesive
stamp for the purpose of carrying out the penny postage scheme
formed no part of the intentions or proposals of Sir Rowland Hill.
His plan, as stated in his pamphlet of 1837, was to use impressed
stamped wrappers, or stamp impressed upon the sheet of letter paper.
In his letter of 9th January, 1838, to Lord Litchfield, Postmaster-
General, he repeats this: “I propose that the postage be collected by
“ the sale of stamped covers.” Again, when the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, on the 5th of July, 1839, introduced and carried a resolu-
tion Sanctioning a Penny Postage Bill being brought forward, he
distinctly only “asked Hon. Members to commit themselves to the
“ question of a uniform rate of postage of one penny at and under a
“weight hereafter to be fixed.” Everything else was to be left open.
“If it were to go forth to the public to-morrow morning that the
“Government had proposed, and the House had adopted, the plan of
“Mr. Rowland Hill, the necessary result would be to spread a convic-
“tion abroad that, as a stamped cover was absolutely to be used in all
“ cases, which stamped covers were to be made by one single manu-
“facturer, alarm would be felt lest a monopoly would thereby be
“ created, to the serious detriment of other members of a most useful
“ and important trade. The sense of injustice excited by this would
“ necessarily be extreme. I therefore do not call upon the House
“ either to affirm or to negative any such proposition at the present.
“I ask you simply to affirm the adoption of a uniform penny postage,
“ and the taxation of that postage by weight. Neither do I ask you
“ to pledge yourselves to the prepayment of letters, for I am of opinion
“ that, at all events, there should be an option of putting letters into
“ the post without a stamp.
“If the resolution be affirmed, and the Bill has to be proposed, it
“will hereafter require very great care and complicated arrangements
“ to carry the plan into practical effect. It may involve considerable
“expense and considerable responsibility on the part of the Govern-
“ment; it may disturb existing trades, such as the paper trade.
“. . . . The new postage will be distinctly and simply a penny
“ postage by weight. . . . I also require for the Treasury a power
D


50
“ of taking the postage by anticipation, and a power of allowing such
“ postage to be taken by means of stamped covers, and I also require
“ the authority of rating the postage according to weight.” “
In this dilemma, as to how to carry out the scheme in practice,
Mr. Wallace favourably suggested the adhesive stamp, the adoption of
which plan, he had no hesitation in saying, from the evidence adduced,
would secure the revenue from loss by forgery. Mr. Warburton, also
a member of the 1837–38 Committee, “viewing with considerable
“ alarm the doubt which had been expressed of adopting Mr. Hill's
“ plan of prepayment and collection by stamped covers,” recommended
that plans should be applied for from the public. -
Again, in the House of Lords on the 5th of August, Lord Mel-
bourne, in introducing the Bill, is as much embarrassed as was the
Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Commons. The opponents of the
Bill use, as one of their strongest arguments, the impossibility of
carrying out the scheme in practice. The Earl of Ripon says:—
“Why were their Lordships thus called upon at this period of the
“Session to pass a Bill when no mortal being at that moment had
“ the remotest conception of how it was to be carried into execution ?”
Here Lord Ashburton, like Mr. Wallace in the Commons, favourably
suggested the adhesive stamp, “which would answer every purpose,
“ and remove the objection of the stationers and papermakers to the
“ measure.”
Of all this, Sir Rowland Hill, in his “Life,” written by himself,
takes no notice whatever, giving his readers, on the contrary, to under-
stand that to the year 1837, the year of his pamphlet, is to be attri-
buted his adoption of the adhesive stamp. From this alone the reader
may understand the sort of man with whom the simple Dundee book-
seller had to deal.:
* See “Hansard,” Vol. 48.
t Nothing more clearly, if painfully, exemplifies what can only be called the
“mania’’ which possessed Sir Rowland Hill in desiring to be considered the inventor
of that uniform penny postage scheme which he had brought forward, and cf all its
adjuncts than the manner in which he labours to account for the various principles
and figures of same having been brought to his own mind, all of which having at
the same time been the prior proposals of other men which lay before him. (See
“The Position of Sir Rowland Hill made Plain”–Effingham Wilson, 1882.)
º
:

51
So much for Mr. Hill's plans. Follow now that of Mr. Chalmers.
Invented in 1834, proposed to Mr. Wallace, Chairman of the Select
Committee in December, 1837, to Mr. Cole, and to Mr. Hill himself in
February, 1838; brought forward by Mr. Wallace in July, 1839, when
the Government was in a dilemma what to do also by Lord Ashburton
in the House of Lords; and ultimately adopted by Treasury Minute
of 26th December, 1839. Can there be a doubt as to who was both
the inventor and the proposer of this adhesive postage stamp 2 How
comes it, then, that Mr. Hill has got the credit of same 2 Just
because, being in despotic power at the Treasury, he “took it,” saying
to Mr. Chalmers, “Oh, you see, you were too late; I proposed this plan
“myself in February, 1837.” A more monstrous piece of injustice never
was perpetrated.*
In now proceeding to give further articles from the press, I should
premise that, owing to considerations of space and to obviate un-
necessary repetitions, the mere recapitulations of the contents of my
pamphlets will in general be omitted, and the observations only given.
The Dundee Advertiser, January 19th, 1886.
“THE ADHESIVE POSTAGE STAMP. —Mr. Patrick Chalmers, whose
exertions to get the merit of his late father acknowledged as the in-
ventor of the adhesive stamp have been so painstaking and indefati-
gable, has just published another pamphlet on the subject. The perusal
of the evidence furnished therein must convince every ingenuous
mind that to the late Mr. James Chalmers, our townsman, the credit
of this invention solely belongs. The compilers of the Encyclopædia
Britannica are so satisfied of this that they have recorded it in their
article on the subject; and, after their patient and intelligent investi-
* In his “Life,” Vol. i., p. 346, Sir Rowland Hill takes special credit to himself
for having recommended that the adhesive stamps “should be printed on sheets,” a
special feature it will have been noticed of Mr. Chalmers’ plan, but only a minor
instance of the cool way in which Sir Rowland Hill appropriates to himself the pro-
posals of others.
D 2

gation, no reason for doubting it can exist. The article referred to, after
speaking of stamped wrappers having been suggested by various parties
for the purpose of franking letters, remarks :-
[Here the article proceeds to give the decision of the Encyclopædia
Britannica, as already reproduced by me, and goes on :-)
“In this pamphlet Mr. Patrick Chalmers publishes a circular by his
late father, a copy of which, along with a ‘general collection of postage
papers, was bequeathed to the British Museum by the late Sir Henry
Cole. The following extract from this document is highly interesting,
and is evidence conclusive in regard to the claim of the late Mr.
Chalmers. It is dated 8th February, 1838, from 4 Castle Street,
Dundee, and runs as follows:–
[Here follows the description of Mr. Chalmers' plan of the adhesive
postage stamp, already particularised:—
“Mr. Chalmers then goes on to point out the advantages to be
derived from this plan, and to state objections to Mr. Hill's plan of
impressed stamped covers or envelopes, or stamp impressed upon the
sheet of letter-paper itself, and concludes as follows:–
“‘Taking everything into consideration, the use of stamped slips is
certainly the most preferable system ; and should others who take an
interest in the proposed reform view the matter in the same light as I
do, it remains for them to petition Parliament to have such carried into
operation.’
“Here, then, is a complete description of the principles of the
adhesive stamp as ultimately adopted by Mr. Hill at the Treasury, by
minute of 26th December, 1839, when he sent Mr. Cole to Messrs.
Bacon & Petch, the eminent engravers, to provide a die and contract for
the supply of stamps. Precisely the plan in use to the present day.
This description now brought to light under the signature of Mr.
Chalmers himself fully confirms the evidence with respect to the inven-
tion in August 1834, as given by his then employés yet living. It also
renders not only justifiable, but laudable, the efforts of Mr. Patrick
Chalmers to get the merit of his late father recognised in opposition to
the powerful influences which have been exerted to award the honour in
a quarter where it is not due. Without the stamp the penny postage
plan would have proved almost a ‘dead letter.” At the time of the
agitation its opponents remarked, ‘Why should we be called upon to
-
53
pass this “Penny Postage Bill” when no mortal being has at this
moment the remotest conception of how it is to be carried into execution!'
This was said eighteen months after Mr. Chalmers had sent the circular
from which the above extract is made to Sir Rowland Hill and other
influential gentlemen, and yet not a word was said on the subject until
Sir Rowland brought it in as his own invention some months later. It
is not a grateful task to unveil the failings of men, especially after their
decease—who have been undoubtedly great and philanthropic ; but fiat
justitia, rvat coelum is a command which Mr. Chalmers rightly deems
imperative in relation to the memory of his late father, whose modesty
prevented him asserting himself during his lifetime. Nearly forty years
ago the present writer was informed by Mr. Chalmers in confidence that
he was the inventor of the adhesive stamp, although Sir Rowland Hill
took the credit of it. Knowing Mr. Chalmers to be the very soul of
honour, this was sufficient, but it is gratifying to find that his statement
is now confirmed by such abundant proof as Mr. Patrick Chalmers has
succeeded in collecting.”
“Dundee Advertiser OFFICE,
“DUNDEE, 22nd Jany., 1886.
“DEAR SIR,
“I heartily congratulate you on the success you have now
achieved in establishing on irrefragable authority the claim of your
father as the inventor of the postage stamp. Sir Henry Cole's papers
bequeathed to the South Kensington Museum are decisive.
“If other Editors could be induced to look at the evidence you have
produced, as I have done, I believe they would not hesitate to award
justice to the memory of your father. ---
“Should you ever visit Dundee, I trust you will not forget to callon,
“Yours faithfully,
“ JOHN TENG.
“PATRICK CHALMERs, Esq.,
“Wimbledon.”
The above from the Editor of one of the most widely read papers in
Scotland, well known to the London press, will, I trust, have some effect
in inducing that press and others to look into my statements, and do
justice to the memory of one who has done service to the public.


54
LEGACY TO THE COUNTRYMEN OF JAMES CHALMERs.
The following letter from me was published in the Dundee Advertiser
of 28th July, 1886 —
“THE ADHESIVE POSTAGE STAMP.
“To the Editor of the Dundee Advertiser.
“SIR, -
“In the able article which appeared in your issue of the 19th
January last, in recognition of my late father as having been the
originator of the Adhesive Postage Stamp, it was there stated that Sir
Rowland Hill simply ‘took the credit of what belonged to another.
“In confirmation of that statement I am now enabled to hand you
copy of a short publication, entitled ‘Submission of the Sir Rowland
Hill Committee,” in which it is shown from the proceedings and prac-
tical assent of his own Mansion House Committee that Sir Rowland
Hill, however great his services, originally conceived, or first proposed
nothing whatever in connection with that uniform penny postage scheme
which has gone by his name, while having assumed and ‘taken the
credit' of same. As with the scheme so with the stamp, in having
* taken the credit' of which Sir Rowland Hill only displayed the same
failing which had attended him from the first, in having put forward as
his own the prior proposals of other men.
“The value and importance of the Adhesive Postage Stamp cannot
be better described than by the term “indispensable' of the resolution
of the Town Council of Dundee three years ago. The circumstances,
however, under which this stamp was brought forward and became
adopted, are, in the present day, unknown or forgotten. The great
argument of the opponents of the uniform penny postage scheme was
the impossibility of carrying it out in practice. ‘Why should we be
called upon to pass this Bill,’ they said in 1839, “when no mortal being
had the remotest conception of how it was to be carried into execution!’
That part of the subject must stand over, said the Government of the
day. But the plan of James Chalmers, already sent to Mr. Wallace in
1837, and again to the Mercantile Committee of the City of London in
1838, and now in the South Kensington Museum Library as in use to
this day, was, in this dilemma, brought forward by Mr. Wallace in the
House of Commons, became ultimately adopted, and saved the scheme.
Indispensable then, indispensable it has continued in countless numbers,
not only in this country but spreading to every land. Withdraw or
suspend its use and you paralyse the correspondence and thereby the
trade and commerce not alone of this country, but of the world. What

55
potentate ever wielded such a power as this What man has conferred
so wide-spread a boon, free, spontaneous and unrewarded, while millions
have been yearly poured and continue to be ever increasingly poured
into the National Treasury by means of what an able writer has termed
the ‘powerful mechanism' of this indispensable and ubiquitous stamp'
“This matter of my father's title to the adhesive stamp was initiated
not by me, but by old and respected townsmen of Dundee conversant
with the facts— brought forward, moreover, not alone with the object of
vindicating the memory of their deceased friend, but further, as stated
by them in your columns, ‘that Dundee might claim and receive the
honour of being the birthplace of the Adhesive Stamp,' looked upon
universally as being a matter of national and historical importance, as
exemplified in the special investigation of the Encyclopædia Britannica.
That such was both invented and first proposed for adoption in the
reformed postal system by a townsman of Dundee has now been proved
beyond dispute, as already widely recognised at home and abroad.
“Favour me, therefore, by adding this further record in your columns
in the event of the present or some future generation of the now large
and important community of Dundee, following in the steps of their
predecessors and of the valued recognition of the Town Council of 1883,
becoming disposed to take an interest in the matter, and to claim for
their locality and for the memory of their townsman that heritage of
which both have been so unjustly dispossessed.
“I remain, Sir,
“Your obliged Servant,
“ PATRICK CHAILMERS.
“WIMBLEDON,
“July 26th, 1886,”
The attention of the Scottish press in general is specially invited to
the above letter as equally directed to the country at large—the LEGACY
now handed over, not to be allowed to pass into oblivion, to the towns-
men and countrymen of one who has done the State some service, by
the last surviving male descendant of James Chalmers, bearing his
name.*
* Copies of the First Edition of this pamphlet, to the number of 500, with an
equal number of the above letter to the Dundee Advertiser, have been circulated to
the address of the principal inhabitants of Dundee—including Bankers, Merchants,
Members of the Chamber of Commerce, the Clergy, Professors, Teachers of the
rising generation, and others,

56
The Dundee Courier, after stating the nature of the contents,
says:—
“The pamphlet is written by Mr. Patrick Chalmers, son of the
inventor, and he makes out an excellent case.” -
The Montrose Standard.
“To the careful reader of this pamphlet these three propositions
will appear indisputably proved —(1) That it was Mr. James Chalmers,
bookseller, Dundee, who invented the adhesive postage stamp ; (2) that
it was Mr. (afterwards Sir) Rowland Hill who proposed the impressed
stamp; (3) that whereas the adoption of Mr. Hill's method would have
tended to a speedy collapse, the adoption of Mr. Chalmers' adhesive
stamp developed the postal system, and has contributed to make it the
huge organisation that it is. This pamphlet is the loving work of
loving hands, being a son's heroic effort to rescue his father's name from
unmerited oblivion, and place it in its proper setting—James Chalmers,
father of the adhesive postage stamp.”
Again, upon “Concealment Unveiled : a Tale of the Mansion
House,” this staunch supporter writes, and I should be glad if some
papers who consider the matter “ of too old a date to notice,” would
consider its remarks:–
“In this pamphlet, Mr. Patrick Chalmers seeks to have justice done
to his father's memory as the ‘Father of the Adhesive Stamp,' now so
largely used in our postal system. The Sir Rowland Hill Committee
are sharply and rightly taken to task. James Chalmers, bookseller,
Dundee, was undoubtedly the inventor of the postage stamp. The
evidence for this is as irrefragable as it is abundant. And even at this
late hour, some method should be devised whereby public testimony
regarding this should be made, and the inventor's merits openly recog-
nised. As Mr. Chalmers so well remarks, “to continue to use a man's
invention and proposals without so much as a word of recognition will,
if adhered to, prove a course of proceeding hard to justify, as well as
something wholly foreign to the antecedents of British journalism and
of the British public.’”
The Brechin Advertiser, after stating the contents, writes:—
“This pamphlet, ‘The Adhesive Postage Stamp' is written by Mr.
Patrick Chalmers, son of the inventor, whose painstaking exertions to

57
get acknowledged what was due to the memory of his late father is
worthy of all praise. The pamphlet is one of deep interest to our
readers as containing a reference to the connection our townsman,
Mr. Prain, has with the matter, in a letter that has already appeared in
our columns, written in 1879, in which Mr. Prain expressed the hope
that there might be still living some who could corroborate his state-
ment that the late Mr. Chalmers was the inventor of the adhesive
stamp.”

The Forfar Herald.
“CONCEALMENT UNVEILED.—This is the title of the most recent
pamphlet by Mr. Patrick Chalmers on the subject of his father's claim
as the inventor of the Adhesive Postage Stamp. Mr. Chalmers has
already made his case so good that it is scarcely necessary that he
should continue his struggle. It seems to us that no amount of monu-
ments to the memory of Sir Rowland Hill or any one else will disprove
his case. The testimony of the Encyclopædia Britannica will overturn
or outlive any monument of stone, and convert it into something to
which we will not here give a name.”
The Scottish Border Record.
“The origination of penny postage, and the expedient of adhesive
stamps, without which the scheme would never have been realised, have
hitherto been assigned to Rowland Hill. Among the honours he re-
ceived for this work were a lucrative appointment to carry out the
scheme, a national testimonial for having done so, the chief-secretary-
ship to the Postmaster-General, knighthood with K.C.B., the first
Albert gold medal of the Society of Arts, in 1864, and a bronze monu-
ment in London to preserve his memory in future generations. After
all this universal recognition of inventive skill, and of work of incal-
culable public utility, it is humiliating, even painful, to be told that it
was earned by trading on the inventions of others of whom the public
have never heard; and yet, we fear, this will be the verdict of all who
read a pamphlet issued the other day by Effingham Wilson, Royal Ex-
change, London, entitled ‘Concealment unveiled, the Sir Rowland Hill
Committee : a Tale of the Mansion House,’ by Patrick Chalmers,
F.R.H.S., Wimbledon. The pamphlet is not in the best form for correct-
ing the popular fallacy, being chiefly a series of letters, but the gist of the
correspondence shows that there is apparently unimpeachable evidence
that James Chalmers, bookseller, Dundee, in 1834, three years before


58
Rowland Hill issued his first pamphlet on the subject, had originated
the idea of an adhesive postage stamp. The plan was to print from dies
stamps of various values, according to the weight of the letter, on sheets
of paper, afterwards to be gummed on the other side, and sold at the
post-office, or by stationers. This plan, it is further stated, is now to
be seen in South Kensington Museum among papers bequeathed by the
late Sir Henry Cole, to whom, in 1838, when secretary of the Mercan-
tile Committee of the City of London, it was submitted ; and it was
also laid before Rowland Hill, dated Dundee, 8th February, 1838, a
year and a half before the Penny Postage Bill was introduced to Parlia-
ment. The same plan had previously been laid by Mr. Chalmers before
the Select Committee of the House of Commons appointed in 1837 to
consider the penny postage scheme of Mr. Rowland Hill. On 3rd
March, 1838, Mr. Hill wrote to Mr. Chalmers regarding his plan, but
in that letter Mr. Hill says nothing about himself having invented the
adhesive stamp, nor does he express any favourable opinion of adhesive
stamps. As the public mind began to get hold of the idea of penny
postage the expedient of adhesive stamps grew in favour, and after,
says Mr. Patrick Chalmers,
“‘Plans had been invited from the public, and nothing better found,
the adhesive stamp was officially adopted by Treasury Minute of date
26th December, 1839, in conjunction with Mr. Rowland Hill's plan of
impressed stamp covers, or stamp impressed upon the sheet of letter
paper itself. On sending in his claim as having been the originator of
the adhesive stamp, Mr. Chalmers was informed by Mr. Hill, then in
despotic power at the Treasury, in a letter of date 18th January, 1840,
that his claim could not be admitted, because he, Mr. Hill, had himself
anticipated Mr. Chalmers' proposal of December, 1837, by some months
—a representation based, as will be seen, upon mere pretext and after-
thought.”
“So far this narrative hangs well together, and its import is con-
firmed by what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said when in 1839 he
introduced the Penny Postage Bill, viz., that Mr. Hill's plan was that
“an impressed stamped cover was absolutely to be used on all occasions.”
The case is only another added to the many proving that “where one man
sows another reaps.’ A modest man finds some new facts in science, or
some new idea, or scheme of social or political reform, and a clever
unscrupulous man, vain of distinction or greedy of gold, uses that as an
instrument for his personal aggrandisement. So has it been, so will it
be, and there is no use complaining about it ; only no one can be ex-


59
pected to revere the memory of such a plagiarist when he refuses to
recognise the claim of the real discoverer or inventor. Rowland Hill
did so when he wrote to Mr. Chalmers as stated above ; and in his
‘Life,’ says Mr. Patrick Chalmers, “he gives his readers to understand
that to the year 1837, the date of his first pamphlet, is to be ascribed
his adoption of the adhesive stamp.’ This Rowland must come down
from his pedestal among the gods, and take his place among those whose
feet are of clay—the silly throng of worldlings to whom distinction and
gold are more valuable than honesty, and who refuse to do to others as
they would others should do to them.”
The above vigorous leading article from the Scottish Border Record,
of Galashiels, I have pleasure in reproducing in full. A few more such
articles of plain speaking, and Scotland would take heart of grace and
stand up for her rights, unabashed by the crowing and overbearing pre-
tensions of deluded commentators in the South.
The following from the John O'Groat Journal, at the other extremity
of Scotland, is of the equally plain-spoken nature desirable in such a
case as I have exposed. The vigorous and learned writer will now see
that it is not necessary to go back to what was only a cheap local parcel
post of 200 years ago, when a penny was a comparatively large con-
sideration, to find the origin of our present postage system, but he is
quite right in his antiquarian research.
The John O'Groat Journal, Wick.
“‘CONCEALMENT UNVEILED. The Sir Rowland Hill Committee.
A Tale of the Mansion House. By Patrick Chalmers, F.R.H.S.’
“This is a pamphlet kicking against the paltry usurpations of a
little great man, who made the bulk of his honourable distinction out of
the brain fibre of a Dundee bookseller named Chalmers. The modus
operamdi of how those in official life appropriate the ideas and inventions
of those in humbler circumstances than themselves ; and how, when
they esteem the coast to be all clear, they bring them forward with all
the gusto of political freshness and native originality is nothing new,
The whole business of the Rowland Hill glorification was a miserable
filching of the credit due to another. One point in dispute was first in
relation to the starting of the penny post. Credit for this belongs
neither to Chalmers nor to Hill. It may be they further developed the
idea, but neither were by any means the organisers of it. If Mr. Patrick

60
Chalmers will kindly go to the British Museum, and ask for a sight of
the work ‘Notitia Anglia, dated 1700, he will there find a page very
instructive regarding postal history in general, and the penny post in
particular. He will find that in the year 1700 they had a cheaper
postal service in London than they have to-day. Then they would
carry one pound weight, either of literature or of merchandise, within a
radius of ten miles of London, for the sum of one penny | Here the
fight is apparently limited to the introduction of the adhesive stamp,
the claim of Hill regarding the penny post being rather barefaced, and
yet a monument has been erected to the memory of him on which the
truth dare not be inscribed. Judging from the correspondence in the
pamphlet before us of the immense utility of the adhesive postage,
receipt, and other stamps, certainly the claims of Chalmers deserve a
recognition as worthy as the public advantage derived. To those who
wish to understand this question, the facts contained in this pamphlet
must be held to be conclusive.”
The Christian Leader, of Glasgow.
This important weekly journal, circulating largely in Scotland
amongst the clergy, the advocates of social and spiritual progress, and
the quiet domestic life of the nation, has for years past afforded me
most valuable and powerful support. It is now my privilege to add
such notices as the following:—
“THE ADHESIVE POSTAGE STAMP.-Mr. Patrick Chalmers, of
Wimbledon, in a bulky pamphlet published this week, may be regarded
as having now at length completed the task, to which he piously
addressed himself some years ago, of vindicating for his father the dis-
tinction of having been the first to propose the adhesive postage stamp,
of which he was the inventor. His father was James Chalmers, book-
seller, Dundee, who died in 1853. The Encyclopædia Britannica, in its
new edition at present in course of publication, expresses the belief that
Mr. Pearson Hill, Sir Rowland's son, has not succeeded in weakening
the evidence in support of Mr. Chalmers' claim ; and additional most
conclusive proof has lately come to light among the papers bequeathed
by Sir Henry Cole to the library of the South Kensington Museum.
Rowland Hill must therefore henceforth be divested of one pretty con-
siderable item hitherto set down by the majority of people to his credit.
Apart altogether from Mr. Patrick Chalmers' primary purpose, his
pamphlet has a distinct historical value as bringing out the fact that the

61
reformed system of postage was not the work of one year nor yet of one
man. We fear it must be admitted that Sir Rowland Hill was not a
knight without reproach. That he sought to get the credit for himself
of other men's inventions is a point we regret to see made out only too
clearly. Some people, Mr. Patrick Chalmers tells us, have pooh-poohed
the subject as too small for notice; but his retort is a very apt one.
‘Then let the issue of the adhesive stamp be discontinued.’ The truth
is that but for the invention of that plan devised by James Chalmers, of
Dundee, which now looks so extremely simple, the penny postal system
could not possibly have been established. With Rowland Hill's expe-
dient of an impressed stamped cover it would have broken down
ignominiously. We heartily congratulate Mr. Patrick Chalmers on the
triumphant completion of his filial service. His father was a man more
intent upon aiding public improvements than upon winning either
pecuniary rewards or credit for them ; but it is a pleasant spectacle to
See the son successfully asserting his father's claim to an honour of
which self-seekers had sought to deprive him. We cannot refrain from
adding that Mr. Pearson Hill and the London press cut a figure in this
business that is the reverse of creditable to them.”
Again —
“There are still to the fore some personal friends of the late Mr.
James Chalmers, the worthy Dundee bookseller who invented the
adhesive postage stamp ; and these include Mr. W. Whitelaw, book-
binder, Parliamentary Road, Glasgow, who was an employé of Mr. Chal-
mers. We learn that our articles on the subject of Mr. Chalmers' title
to grateful remembrance have excited much interest among the veterans
who had the pleasure of knowing the modest inventor.”
Again –
“That is indeed a happy thought of a writer in the Leisure Hour,
who designates the adhesive postage stamp “the Chalmers.’ The uni-
versal adoption of this term would be a most appropriate memorial of
James Chalmers, the modest bookseller of Dundee, who invented the
ingenious expedient—a masterpiece of simplicity—without which the
penny postage system never could have been established. Eighteen
hundred millions of ‘Chalmers’ are now issued yearly from Somerset
House. Prof. Johnston of Princeton, who is engaged on an American
History to cover the period 1840–85, in a letter to Mr. Patrick Chalmers,
of Wimbledon, says: ‘It will be necessary for me to refer to the intro-
duction of the adhesive stamp into this country. From the evidence


62
submitted, as it stands, I do not see how I can give the credit of the
invention to any one but Mr. Chalmers, certainly not to Sir Rowland
Hill.’ An American iawyer who has the largest and finest collection of
postage stamps in the New World contributes an article to the February
number of the Philatelic Journal of America, in which he says Sir
Rowland Hill has heretofore been the patron Saint of the stamp collector,
but that henceforth the honour must be accorded to the real inventor of
the adhesive stamp, James Chalmers. Mr. Patrick Chalmers has well
performed a filial duty in the teeth of many obstacles, and deserves to
be heartily congratulated on the success which has crowned his pious
labours in vindicating his father's title to be ranked among the world's
benefactors.”
Again –
“ Bric-a-Brac, the organ of the philatelists, edited by Mr. J. W.
Palmer, the well-known stamp collector, referring to the suggestion
recently made in the Leisure Hour that the adhesive stamp should be
called ‘the Chalmers,’ considers the notion an excellent one, as it asso-
ciates with the stamp the name of the man who, it has been proved
beyond doubt, is entitled to be considered as the inventor. The matter
has been put beyond controversy, and Mr. Patrick Chalmers has, by his
labours in search of the truth, established his father's title to the grati-
tude of posterity.”
The Oban Telegraph.
“THE ADHESIVE POSTAGE STAMP.-In a further pamphlet Patrick
Chalmers conclusively proves his father's claim to the invention of this
adhesive stamp that saved the Penny Postage scheme from collapse.
Many besides James Chalmers are aware of Sir Rowland Hill's sensi-
tiveness to admit any one's name, or if possible any one's ideas, to divide
the honour he coveted as the creator of our postal system. Indeed, it
becomes a peculiarity of the official mind to consider itself the source of
knowledge, as the sovereign they serve is the source of honour !” .
Again :—
“CoNCEALMENT UNVEILED.—When Sir Rowland Hill went down
to his grave full of years and honour, it came to be discussed what his
claims were as inventor of the penny postage, and the adhesive stamp,
which alone made it practicable. The result apparently was adverse to
his claims to anything but the carrying out of the idea with considerable
administrative capacity, and the fact that his claim as originator of

º,
penny postage was plagiarised came to be pretty generally admitted. It
now seems that he equally stole the idea of the adhesive stamp from
James Chalmers, a Dundee bookseller, who laid his scheme in printed
form, with copious remarks, before the Mercantile Committee of the
City of London, and before Sir Rowland Hill himself, under date,
Dundee, 8th February, 1838, a year and a half before the Penny Postage
Bill was introduced into Parliament. Mr. Chalmers' son, after a leng-
thened absence abroad, now seeks to improve his father's claim as the
inventor of the stamp, and we are bound to acknowledge he proves his
case—and Sir Rowland's plagiarism—conclusively. ‘To have the Penny
Postage scheme understood as having been the unaided conception of his
own mind, was with Sir Rowland Hill simply a mania, and to that
mania James Chalmers, the originator in every sense of the adhesive
stamp, which saved and rendered practicable that borrowed scheme, was
sacrificed.’”
[The above is only one more expression of what was not only felt,
but pretty generally admitted before any pamphlet of mine ventured to
express a doubt with respect to the originality of Sir Rowland Hill. So
generally was it felt, that, notwithstanding his great and well-recognised
Services, too much was being made in the way of putting him forward
as the great genius of invention, that the first attempt to get up a
Memorial Fund at the Mansion House failed, only a hundred pounds
being subscribed, which the Lord Mayor proposed, in a letter to the
press, to return. Under a succeeding Lord Mayor, however, the
matter was again taken up with better preparation and increased
vigour, and by a free use of the Mansion House machinery, with
appeals to the provincial Mayors and to the Colonies, the necessary
sum for a substantial Memorial was at length obtained.] º
The Eskdale and Liddlesdale Advertiser.
“In consequence of the claims put forward on behalf of Sir
Rowland Hill for the honour of inventing the penny postal system,
researches have been made which show conclusively that Mr. James
Chalmers, bookseller, Dundee, who died in 1853, was the inventor of
the adhesive stamp, to which so much of the success of the system is
due, and which is now devoted to so many useful purposes. It seems
that Sir Rowland Hill was not even the originator of uniform penny
postage. These results are shown by Government authorities. To
Scotland, then, appertains in a large measure the honour which belongs

64
to those who rendered the penny postal system the success which it has
become.”
The Irvine Eayress.
“This is a clear and convincing exhibition of the injustice of the
claim made by Sir Rowland Hill, and more recently maintained by his
son, to be the inventor of the postage stamp. To be looked upon as the
inventor was with Sir R. Hill simply a mania, and to that mania,
James Chalmers the originator in every sense of the adhesive stamp
was sacrificed. The Encyclopædia Britanºvica, after a candid statement
and recourse to both parties, comes to the clear conclusion that
James Chalmers was the inventor, and that Mr. Pearson Hill has not
weakened the evidence to that effect. The Illustrated London Wews,
also supported by a host of other periodicals, affirms that Sir R. Hill
was not the inventor of that which has socially revolutionised the
world. The correspondence given in the pamphlet proving the claims
of Chalmers very satisfactorily establishes these claims.”
The Dundee Advertiser.
“‘THE ADHESIVE STAMP.-In an article descriptive of the Post
Office, just published in the Leisure Hour, the writer terms the adhesive
postage stamp “the Chalmers.” This is a good idea. Something is
wanted to perpetuate the memory of the much-neglected inventor of
this indispensable stamp. What better than to have such known
and designated as a “Chalmers " Eighteen hundred millions of
“Chalmers” are now issued yearly from Somerset House.—Whitehall
Review.’ [Our readers are doubtless aware * that the ‘Chalmers’ referred
to was our late worthy townsman, Mr. James Chalmers, bookseller,
whose claim as the inventor of the adhesive postage stamp has been
so fully established by his son, Mr. Patrick Chalmers, of London.]”
From the Whitehall Review.
“Mr. Patrick Chalmers is determined to demolish the claim of Sir
Rowland Hill as the originator of the Universal Penny Postage scheme.
We have repeatedly referred to the, what seems to us, wholly just
issues raised by Mr. Chalmers, and every step that he takes seems to be
a step forward. Like the apostolic hero of the American story, we
English people are rather fond of letting the dead past bury its dead,
* The italics are mine,—P.C. This seems very doubtful,

65
and have a decided preference for not ‘raking up old scandals.’ This
is decidedly the case with the Lord Mayor. We have just seen some
correspondence which has passed between his Lordship and Mr. Patrick
Chalmers, but into the merits or demerits of the claims set forth the
Lord Mayor has decided not to enter, because he considers the ‘dispute
a question of the past.’ This is infantine reasoning. The search after an
undeveloped truth is quite as much the necessary property of the
present and of the future as it was of the past. If some one were to
dispute the right Mr. Staples had to be Lord Mayor, would that worthy
gentleman be able to prove that his claim was valid enough, because, if
there were any flaw, it was “a matter of the past'? The past is not
so easily wiped out. We can readily score it out on paper with a pen,
but it has a nasty way of continuing to live. We have no hesitation
in saying that Mr. Patrick Chalmers will yet prove his case to the
satisfaction of the world.”

Again –
“Mr. Patrick Chalmers has just issued a short pamphlet, entitled
‘Concealment Unveiled : a Tale of the Mansion House, in which he
shows that the Sir Rowland Hill Committee are perfectly aware, and
have admitted, that Sir Rowland Hill was not the inventor of the
uniform penny postage scheme after all, such having been only an
unacknowledged copy of the previous proposals of others, but which
discovery they have hitherto concealed from the public, while having
erected a statue in his honour, and continuing to collect money on the
strength of his name. In proof of this knowledge and admission on
their part, Mr. Chalmers cites the change of inscription made by them
upon the City statue of Sir Rowland Hill conceding the point of
originality of conception, and quotes from correspondence, with their
chairman, of a remarkable nature. Mr. Chalmers has laid these
disclosures before the City Corporation in a letter to the Town Clerk, Sir
John Monckton, published in the newspapers, and in our advertisement
columns, to which we refer our readers. The time seems past when this
committee, with any regard to their own credit, can afford to be silent.
Mr. Chalmers states his object in this publication to be the prosecution
of his father's title to the adhesive postage stamp, arguing that Sir
Rowland Hill, so far from being entitled to that merit, was not even the
author of the penny postage scheme itself.”
In November last a lively discussion betwixt, Mr. Pearson Hill and
E

66
myself took place in the columns of the Whitehall Review, in summing
up which that journal remarks :-
“Referring to his recent letters on the subject of ‘Penny Postage
Reform,' Mr. Patrick Chalmers writes asking if we do not consider the
silence of Mr. Pearson Hill a strong proof that he (Mr. Chalmers) had
set forth claims that were unanswerable. We confess that, in this
controversy, we have all along considered that Mr. Chalmers had not
only a very strong position, but had succeeded in establishing that
position by very important and reliable evidence. To our mind the
action of the Sir Rowland Hill Memorial Committee forms the strongest
link of evidence. The original motto agreed to for the statue at the
Royal Exchange was—" He founded Penny Postage ; but this was
changed to ‘By whose energy and perseverance the national Penny
Postage was established.” Subsequently a third inscription was adopted,
equally but not so clearly conceding the point of invention. These
significant alterations, it must be admitted by all impartial persons, rob
the late Sir Rowland Hill of the title of originator. And to this,
viewing the general evidence adduced, may be tacked on the recognition
that the late Mr. James Chalmers, of Dundee, was the originator of the
adhesive postage stamp. It is just as well that matters of this kind
should be cleared up, and sifted to the bottom. Honour to whom
honour is due. The ‘industry and perseverance’ of the late organiser
of cheap postage is worthy of all recognition, but none the less should
James Chalmers be recognised, who originated the idea which the oppor-
tunity of office enabled another man to carry out.”
From Trübner's American, European, and Oriental Literary Record.
“THE PENNY PostAGE STAMP-What could have been more appro-
priate than that a bookseller, a distributor of knowledge, should have
invented the Penny Postage Stamp Mr. James Chalmers, of Dundee,
all honour to him as a benefactor of his race, was the originator of what
is now a prime necessity to the commercial world, and of which eighteen
hundred millions are now issued yearly. The full history of the Penny
Postage Stamp is to be found in “Concealment Unveiled' and “The
Adhesive Postage Stamp,' by Patrick Chalmers, F.R.H.S., the son of
the inventor. These brochures are published by Effingham Wilson, of
the Royal Exchange, and we heartily recommend them to the notice of
all who wish to study the history of the present postal system.”

67
From Bric-a-Brac, the Stamp Collector's Manual.
“THE TRUE STORY OF THE ADHESIVE POSTAGE STAMP. THE
CASE OF MIR. CHALMERS.–Mr. Patrick Chalmers has published some
“important additional evidence’ in behalf of his father's (James
Chalmers) claim to be considered the originator of the adhesive postage
stamp. That the invention belongs to Sir Rowland Hill has before now
been contested, and Mr. Patrick Chalmers has now fairly established
his case. Mr. Chalmers quotes from the papers bequeathed to the South
Kensington Museum by Sir Henry Cole, and we have “confirmation
strong as Holy Writ’ in the letters of Sir Henry Cole and of James
Chalmers himself, whose description of the stamp is now brought to
light under his own signature, that Chalmers is indisputably entitled to
the credit of the invention.
“‘In February, 1837, a passing allusion was made by Mr. Hill to
an adhesive stamp,' says Mr. Patrick Chalmers, “showing that he had
acquired from some quarter the idea of Mr. Chalmers' invention.”
February, 1837, was two years and a half after the proved invention of
the adhesive stamp by Mr. Chalmers, one of the early postal reformers,
the correspondent, amongst others, of Messrs. Knight and Co., who
published for Mr. Hill. In his letter of 18th January, 1840, Mr. Hill
appears to have pointed out to Mr. Chalmers that his claim could not be
admitted, because he, Mr. Hill, first proposed to adopt an adhesive stamp
in February, 1837, the first official proposal of his plan by Mr. Chalmers,
his letter to Mr. Wallace and the House of Commons Committee,
having been made only in December of the same year. In answer to
this extraordinary pretension on the part of Mr. Hill, it is enough to
point to the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, already quoted
to prove that, up to so late a date as the 5th July, 1839, Mr. Hill had
not proposed to adopt an adhesive stamp. The press, up to 30th
August, 1839, had heard of no such proposal on his part. This allusion
to an adhesive stamp in February, 1837, was a mere passing allusion
as to what might be done in a supposed exceptional case which could
never have arisen, and was nothing more. For Mr. Hill to repre-
sent to Mr. Chalmers that he, Mr. Hill, had proposed to adopt
the adhesive stamp in February, 1837, was to state what was not the
case ; consequently any admission so gained from Mr. Chalmers was
wholly invalid. The reply of Mr. Chalmers, date 18th May, 1840, has
been circulated by Mr. Pearson Hill, in whose hands alone is the entire
correspondence, apparently with the object of showing that Mr.
E 2
6S
Chalmers ‘honestly abandoned' his claim. But such was not the
case. Let the letters from Mr. Hill also be published, and the truth of
this will be manifest ; while no impartial person will, upon consideration,
for a moment attach any importance to just what “extract ' from this
correspondence Mr. Pearson Hill has thought proper to produce. The
letter which Mr. Chalmers got from Mr. Hill of 18th January, 1840,
was, it will be noticed, the first intimation he had received from Mr.
Hill that the latter had any pretension to the adhesive stamp, in proof
of which Mr. Chalmers, in his reply of 18th May, encloses to Mr. Hill a
copy of his former letter of 3rd March, 1838, ‘Why did you not tell
me all this then tº says Mr. Chalmers in effect. Why, indeed! Be-
cause Mr. Hill then had not contemplated an adhesive stamp. But
much had happened in the interval since 1838. The stamp not accepted
by Mr. Hill in 1838 had become in 1840 the petitioned for of the
paper trade, the favourite of all opinions concerned, the adopted of the
Treasury. Mr. Chalmers now must be put aside—a matter which the
entire contrast betwixt the dispositions of the two men rendered only
too easy. At the same time, Mr. Chalmers appears to have been too
apathetic in the matter, personally indifferent to official recognition so
long as the public got his stamp from some quarter; ‘but the absence of
any desire for personal notoriety, as Mr. Chalmers says truly, ‘is a not
unfrequent characteristic in those who have done some public service.’
The pamphlet concludes with the following passage : “But it is this
neglect, or mere indifference, on the part of my father, in not having
made a better stand in 1840 with respect to a matter the national and
universal value of which no one could then appreciate, or foresee, that
all the more calls upon me now, under a better acquaintance with the
circumstances, to claim for his memory that recognition to which he is
clearly entitled, as having been “The Originator of the Adhesive
Postage Stamp.” The matter is also treated at length in the new
edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica, which has an admirable article
on the Post Office, brought down to date, of which we shall have more
to say on another occasion. At present we are concerned only with Mr.
Chalmers as opposed to Sir Rowland Hill, and we have merely to repeat
what the Encyclopædia Britannica has to say upon this vexed question.
- - To James Chalmers conclusively we owe the origin of
the adhesive postage stamp, and his son, Mr. Patrick Chalmers, claims
no more for his father's memory than an honour to which the title can
no longer be disputed. It is impossible to refute the evidence now
before the public.”


69
Again :--
“I have received from Mr. Patrick Chalmers a long letter upon the
subject of Penny Postage reform, in which he brings forward fresh
evidence, if fresh evidence were wanting, in proof of his father's claims.
Mr. Roberts, who died recently, was himself a prominent postal
reformer, and upon the subject of this vexed question of the penny
postage stamp he gives his testimony emphatically in favour of James
Chalmers. “It was a thoughtful, calculating, unassuming, patriotic
postal reformer of Dundee,’ says Mr. Roberts, ‘of the name of James
Chalmers, to whom we are indebted for the adhesive stamp, who,
already honoured by his neighbours, will be honoured by future genera-
tions.” So be it.”
Again :—
“A pamphlet has been issued by Mr. Effingham Wilson, in which
the claims of James Chalmers to be considered the inventor of the
Adhesive Stamp are established upon unimpeachable authority. The
Encyclopædia Britannica has pronounced for Chalmers as against Row-
land Hill, and I think that view is now generally accepted. It ought
to be. Mr. Patrick Chalmers has vindicated the memory of his father.
The name of James Chalmers will go down to posterity as the inventor
of the adhesive stamp.”
Again :-
“I am very glad to see that the suggestion to call the adhesive
postage stamp after the name of the originator—Chalmers—has been so
well received everywhere in the press. It is high time justice was done
to the memory of Chalmers, and Mr. Patrick Chalmers, the son of the
inventor, deserves the highest credit for having established his father's
claim to the position usurped by Sir Rowland Hill. Let us render unto
Caesar the things which are Caesar's. Mr. Chalmers has finally settled
vexata quaestio : Who was the inventor of the adhesive stamp It was
undoubtedly Chalmers.”
Again :—
“Mr. Patrick Chalmers again. There is nothing like ‘pluck,' and
Mr. Chalmers, following the advice of old Abe, keeps “pegging away,
convinced that his ‘father's name and services, recorded in the
Encyclopædia Britannica, and already widely recognised elsewhere at
home and abroad, will equally obtain from the London press that recog-
nition which is ever generously accorded to those who have done some


70
public service.” Although, it should be added, it is sometimes only
tardily acknowledged. The case of Chalmers is a case in point. Still,
the claims of Chalmers to have invented the penny postage stamp are
being every day more generally recognised, and the evidence collected by
Mr. Patrick Chalmers, to those who will investigate it, must prove
convincing.”
Walford's Antiquarian.
“Mr. P. Chalmers, in his pamphlet on ‘The Adhesive Postage
Stamp,' recalls conveniently to the public memory a fact which the editor
of the Encyclopædia Britannica has placed upon record, namely, that his
own father, Mr. James Chalmers, of Dundee, suggested the adoption of
this improvement as far back as 1834, and again urged it on the atten-
tion of the Treasury when the Penny Post scheme appeared to be ripe
for execution, Mr. Chalmers has thoroughly succeeded in proving his
case. The first projector of the scheme in this century was the late
Rev. Samuel Roberts, a minister in North Wales; and it was carried out
in 1839–40 by the practical skill and industry of Sir Rowland Hill.”
Invention and Inventor's Mart.
“‘THE ADHESIVE POSTAGE STAMP.’ By Patrick Chalmers. London:
Effingham Wilson.’
“This little work has been published for the laudable purpose of in-
forming the public that a considerable portion of the credit gained in the
establishment of the Penny Postage system is due to the efforts and origin-
ality of the author's father, the late James Chalmers, of Dundee. That
the late Sir Rowland Hill deserved all the honour he gained we should
be the last to deny, but it is also clear that in elaborating his system he
largely availed himself of the suggestions of others. After the contest
was won and the efforts of less known men had been forgotten, it was
perhaps natural that the central figure of the movement, who carried the
system out to a successful issue, should think that he alone had done it.
The honours that were showered on him when alive, and the respect
shown to his memory, where doubtless directed to the representative of
the Penny Postage system. As the whole army is complimented by the
honours paid to the general, so those who contributed to the working
out of the greatest social revolution of modern times were honoured in
the same way, though not in the same degree, as the actual recipient.
It cannot be denied that of those who were powerful aids to the move-
ment no one is more worthy of being remembered than Mr. James

71
Chalmers. The author demonstrates clearly that the proposal and actual
use of the adhesive postage stamp was made by his father two years
before Sir Rowland Hill mentioned it. The Encyclopædia Britannica
asserts categorically, after examining the evidence on both sides, that
Mr. James Chalmers was the inventor of the adhesive postage stamp,
and that Mr. Pearson Hill has not weakened the evidence to that effect.
How the Penny Postage system could have been carried out but for the
invention and adoption of the adhesive stamp we are at a loss to see.
The original notion of using stamped envelopes and stamped paper turned
out a complete failure, immense quantities of the ‘Mulready” envelopes
having to be destroyed. The inventor foresaw the success which would
attend his efforts when he declared that the only difficulty would be to
make the stamps in sufficient quantities, which difficulty was actually
experienced for some time. In his reply to Sir R. Hill he shows also
that he was actuated by the true spirit of the philanthropic inventor
when he asserts that ‘the only satisfaction I have had in this, as well as
in former suggestions, is that these have been adopted and have been
and are likely to prove beneficial to the public.’”
(The recognition of this journal, the importance of which will be
understood from its title, is most gratifying. May I venture, however,
to remark that a general not only always takes pleasure in acknowledg-
ing the support and not unfrequently the advice received from his
coadjutors, but further takes care that they receive their due share of
credit and reward. In this case the “general ” not only ignored or
snubbed those who showed him how to conquer, but took all the credit
and rewards to himself.)
Again –“A correspondence has been forwarded to us, which has
recently passed between the Lord Mayor and Mr. Patrick Chalmers, as
to the respective claims of Sir Rowland Hill and Mr. James Chaliners,
of Dundee, to the conception of the penny postage. The Lord Mayor
replied to Mr. Patrick Chalmers that he was quite aware, from previous
communications, that he disputed the claim of the late Sir Rowland Hill
to be the originator of the penny postage scheme, but that he considered
such dispute a question of the past, and squite foreign to the purposes
and intentions of the Benevolent Fund for Postal Employés, at which
meeting he presided the other day. Mr. Chalmers has now addressed
another letter to his Lordship, under date of December 31st, in which he
sets forth very clearly the claims of Mr. James Chalmers as originator

72
of the penny postage scheme, and claims from the Memorial Fund Com-
mittee “that publicity of facts the withholding of which is to him and
his cause—oppression.’”
The Home and Colonial Mail.
“No son could more zealously defend his father's memory from
injustice, or insist upon honour being credited where it is due, than
Mr. Patrick Chalmers. The father of this gentleman, Mr. James
Chalmers, of Dundee, was the originator of the adhesive postage stamp,
an invention or idea which has been erroneously attributed to the late
Sir Rowland Hill. T)oubtless the matter would not have been set
right had not Mr. Patrick Chalmers returned to the charge again and
again. He may be now considered to have carried his point, for the
Encyclopædia Britannica acknowledges the late Mr. Chalmers as the
originator, and few who know anything of the facts would dispute it.
A pamphlet published by Messrs Effingham Wilson, & Co., and written
by Mr. P. Chalmers, deals thoroughly with the whole subject, and
shows that a modest man like James Chalmers may render useful
service to his country without finding that country very grateful.
Again :-
“Mr. Patrick Chalmers, the son of the originator of the adhesive
postage stamp, has published a pamphletentitled, ‘Concealment Unveiled,
which is a conclusive reply to those who have sought by concealment of
the facts to deprive the real inventor of the credit due to him.”
The Croydon Review.
“POSTAL REFORM.–We have received another pamphlet on the
question, ‘Who invented the Adhesive Stamp º' The subject has been
on several occasions referred to in these columns, and we are glad to
know that the author, Mr. Patrick Chalmers, of Wimbledon, is still
progressing very encouragingly with his claim. It may be said by many
that they do not interest themselves as to who was the originator of the
adhesive stamp, so long as they enjoy the invaluable benefits which that
invention has given them. We say this may be so owing to the want
of interest that is attached to the question itself. For our part we
most unhesitatingly state that Mr. Chalmers has, we consider, proved
to the complete satisfaction of the most prejudiced mind that his late
father, Mr. James Chalmers, of Dundee, originated the plan by which
our letters are now conveyed for the small cost of one penny, and by the
73
y-
means of which the recent Parcels Post has been enabled to commence
and carry on its operations.
“Whether some consider the matter one that is not deserving of their
attention we cannot tell, though we should regret to think that there
were to be found individuals who were willing to let history and their
own minds be in error over such an important matter. It may be true
that Sir Rowland Hill did much to give us the postage stamp, and that
Mr. Chalmers himself admits; but, at the same time, it should not
be forgotten he was well remunerated for his services; whereas he was
only carrying out the ideas of another man, who, though years have gone
by, has not yet been honoured with what is, after all, his right. We feel
sure that the last work issued on the subject must indeed bring the
question to an issue. In it are copies of letters from living gentlemen
that testify to the originality of the adhesive stamp being that of the
late Mr. Chalmers, and, moreover, the latest evidence that conclusively
proves the point in dispute is added. This is an extract from the
Treasury Minutes, dated March 11th, 1864, which, in referring to the
postal reforms, says: “Neither do they (the Lords of the Treasury)
enter into the question, as foreign to the occasion, what honour may be
due to those who, before the development of the plans of Sir Rowland
Hill, urged the adoption of uniform penny postage.” We consider this
ample proof of what Mr. Chalmers has so long striven to prove, and
that unless after all the voluminous and authentic evidence he has
adduced, his father, the late Mr. Chalmers, of Dundee, is credited with
an invention of such unspeakable value as the postage stamp, the
injustice must for ever remain a blot on a country like ours.” -
Again –
“It will be interesting to our readers to know that Mr. Patrick
Chalmers, of Wimbledon, whose father's claim to the invention of the
penny postage stamp we some months ago admitted, has now firmly
established his rights. We all know the value of the penny stamp, and
the late Mr. Chalmers' services to his country should now be nationally
acknowledged.
“It may be said that Mr. Chalmers' son's claim is very late in the
day. That is true, but circumstances existed which satisfactorily
account for the delay. In reply to the question, ‘Who invented the
penny postage stamp instead of children being taught to say Sir Rowland
Hill, they must now, to be correct, answer, Mr. James Chalmers, of
Dundee.”


74
Literary Opinion and Book Trade Review.
“THE ADHESIVE POSTAGE STAMP.-Who invented the familiar
postage stamp 1 Ninety-nine people out of a hundred would undoubtedly
ascribe the introduction of the useful fragment of gummed paper to
Sir Rowland Hill, But it appears, from a pamphlet just published by
Mr. Patrick Chalmers, that the original inventor was James Chalmers,
a Dundee bookseller. In this pamphlet one may now read (from
evidence which has since come to light from papers bequeathed to the
South Kensington Museum library by the late Sir Henry Cole) about
the original plan of an adhesive postage stamp, to be printed from a die
of various value for use according to weight of letter, on sheets of paper
specially prepared for the purpose and afterwards gummed over with
an adhesive substance, to be sold in sheets or singly, at the post-office
or by stationers, all as subsequently adopted by Mr. Rowland Hill,
and in use at the present moment. It appears that this plan was
suggested by Mr. Chalmers to Mr. Rowland Hill eighteen months before
the Penny Postage Bill was introduced into Parliament, just forty-eight
years ago. Indeed, the reply of Mr. Rowland Hill to Mr. Chalmers is
of date March 3rd, 1838, and in this reply Mr. Hill makes no preten-
sions to having himself proposed or being then in favour of an adhesive
stamp.”
“Mr. Chalmers' plan, however, found adherents, and was officially
adopted in 1839; but on sending in his claim as having been the origi-
nator of the adhesive stamp, he was informed by Mr. Hill that his
claim could not be admitted. But the death of Sir Rowland Hill
in 1879 recalled to mind the name and postal services of Mr. James
Chalmers, the Scottish bookseller. Various letters claiming for him the
invention of the adhesive stamp appeared in the daily papers of that
city and elsewhere; and there seems to have been at once a very
strenuous effort made by persons of influence to suppress the facts, as
they now appeared to have been suppressed at the time, by the then
Mr. Rowland Hill. The battle has been hotly waged of late between
Mr. Pearson Hill and Mr. Patrick Chalmers, and now no less an
authority than the Encyclopaedia Britannica has decided in favour of
Mr. James Chalmers as the inventor of the adhesive stamp.
“‘Mulready's' well-remembered allegorical cover came into use on
May Day, 1840, together with the first form of the stamped letter
paper, and the adhesive labels. Although the ‘Mulready envelope sold
rapidly for the first few days, the public turned against them, and soon

75
afterwards the vast stock, prepared at great expense, had to be des-
troyed. But the demand for new adhesive labels was so great that the
presses of the Stamp Office had to be kept at work day and night in order
to keep pace with the great demand—of course to the great disgust of
the Stamp Office staff.
“Mr. Patrick Chalmers, in his pamphlet, brings overwhelming
evidence to prove that his father, the Dundee bookseller, was the
inventor of the stamp (which, it has been suggested, might well be
known as ‘the Chalmers’), but the Post Office officials are in no hurry to
debate the matter with him. This is just what might be expected from
an institution which has had the misfortune of being too much
flattered. Official reports and newspaper scribblers glow on the subject
of the mighty work annually done by the Post Office ; it is equally well
known that some of its rules and restrictions remind one more of the
dealings of the huckster than of a great department. Its work is cer-
tainly large, and so is its staff.
“Also, it is now proved that not only was James Chalmers the
inventor of the adhesive postage stamp, but that he further took the
initiative in proposing its adoption for the purpose of carrying out the
penny postage scheme. The ultimate adoption of the adhesive stamp in
December, 1839, saved the penny postage scheme from untimely
collapse. After over forty years of public service, the number of adhesive
stamps of various values now issued for the carrying on of our postal,
inland revenue, telegraphic, and parcel post services, amounts to eighteen
hundred millions yearly. Twenty-five millions of parcels are now
annually conveyed by parcels post—a fresh business only practicable
through prepayment by postage stamps. And yet the merit of the
invention and proposal of this invaluable and indispensable public
servant has all this while been attributed to the wrong man—to Rowland
Hill instead of to James Chalmers ’’
The Wational Reformer.
“Mr. Patrick Chalmers, Fellow of the Royal Historical Society,
issues a pamphlet, showing that his father, Mr. James Chalmers, was
the inventor of the adhesive postage stamp, utilised by Sir Rowland
Hill, Mr. P. Chalmers desires that his dead father should have this
merit recognised, and quotes ample favourable testimony.”
Again –
“P. CHALMERS.–It is fairly clear that your father, Mr. James

76
Chalmers, of Dundee, invented the adhesive postage stamp prior to Sir
Rowland Hill's proposal, and it is possible that Mr. Rowland Hill bor-
rowed your father's idea; but we hardly think that anything we could
say would induce the City Corporation to admit this.”
(I have a better opinion of the Corporation. Only let the press
clearly acquaint this body with the facts, and the Corporation will
probably invite this Rowland Hill Committee to change its title into
what the Lord Mayor says it should now be, “The Post Office Benevo-
lent Fund’ Committee, or to find other quarters than the Mansion
House wherein to carry on their proceedings.)
The Court and Society Review.
“I am glad for some reasons that Mr. Patrick Chalmers has again
returned to the charge against Sir Rowland Hill of appropriating the
merit of another man's invention. He has just issued a pamphlet
called ‘Concealment Unveiled.” Of course Mr. Chalmers may be wrong
in his contentions, but he deserves honour for his persistent attempts to
obtain for his late father the recognition to which he clearly believes he
is entitled. The question has never really been fully discussed.”
Again:- -
“‘Sequel to “Concealment Unveiled: a Tale of the Mansion House;’
or, the Submission of the Sir Rowland Hill Committee,” may be
accepted as the closing episode of Mr. Patrick Chalmers’ protracted and
vigorous championship of the claims of his father, the late James
Chalmers, of Dundee, to all the credit and honours as the inventor of
Penny Postage, which are accorded by popular usage to Sir Rowland
Hill. We have watched from first to last this strange epic unfold its
length, and trust that its conclusion is as satisfactory to Mr. Patrick
Chalmers as the persistent ardour with which he has maintained the
fight, ‘one against all the others,’ is creditable to his filial fidelity.”
Figaro.
“Mr. Patrick Chalmers keeps pegging away. In a pamphlet just
issued called “Concealment Unveiled,’ he once more returns to the
charge against Sir Rowland Hill of appropriating the merit of another
man's invention. Mr. Chalmers may be wrong in his contentions, but
he deserves honour for his persistent attempts to obtain for his late
father the recognition to which he evidently believes he is entitled.

77
Has the question he raises ever been fairly and fully discussed ? The
Lord Mayor seems to think so, but there is room for doubt on the
subject.”
The Surrey Independent, Wimbledon.
“THE ORIGINATOR OF THE ADHESIVE STAMP.-Mr. P. Chalmers
draws our attention to Vol. XIX. of the Encyclopædia Britannica, just
issued, in which, under the head of ‘Postage Stamps,’ his father, the
late Mr. James Chalmers, bookseller, Dundee, is fully recognised as the
originator of the adhesive postage stamp, after a long and impartial
investigation of the respective statements on the subject by himself
(Mr. P. Chalmers) and Mr. Pearson Hill. The last number of the
Whitehall Review contains an important letter on this subject from
|Mr. Chalmers, in which he explains that, having left Dundee over fifty
years ago and passed much of the interval abroad, it was only through
letters which appeared in the Dundee press upon the demise of Sir
Rowland Hill that his attention was called to his late father's claim.
The decision of such an authority as the Encyclopædia Britannica must
be considered conclusive, and we congratulate Mr. Chalmers on the
result,”
The Wimbledon Cowrier.
“From lip to lip, from house to house, and from nation to nation,
has passed the name of Sir Rowland Hill as one of the greatest bene-
factors of his race—as the man who conceived and invented the adhesive
postage stamp. What the penny adhesive stamp has done for the world
it were impossible adequately to narrate, for the blessings which have
continually followed its public use from its conceivement to the present
day are as multitudinous as the Sands of the sea. What, then, more
natural than that we, as a nation, should wish to immortalise one who
has proved himself so noble a benefactor. When Sir Rowland Hill was
gathered to his fathers the least we could do to perpetuate his memory
was to raise a monument to his fame; and this we did. But, alas ! the
cement which fixed our hero's image in its place had scarcely dried ere
a voice cried out that the world Was Worshipping a false god; that Sir
Rowland was none other than a base usurper. Startled for a moment,
the world listened—and then it laughed; for was not the name of Sir
Rowland Hill as familiar to our lips, and as honoured in our hearts, as
the outline of the penny stamp is familiar to our eyes, and its manifold
blessings present in our mind' Surely the man was mad who would
78
dispute the right of our hero to the laurels which were willingly and
unanimously bestowed upon him—surely the man was mad!
“That voice belonged to one Mr. Patrick Chalmers, and this ridicule
of his assertion only stirred him to renewed energy in the cause of
justice to his father's name, for it was none other than his own father,
the late Mr. James Chalmers, of Dundee, whom he brought forward as
the hero whose honoured position Sir Rowland Hill had usurped.
Feeling convinced that he should succeed in bringing the world to a
knowledge of the truth, with most praiseworthy effort and unflinching
perseverance, this gentleman struggled on, and, almost single-handed, he
has at length been successful in bringing to light one of the most daring
appropriations on record. So undeniable is the evidence which he has
succeeded in collecting to support his claim, that even the Sir Rowland
Hill Committee has submitted to the truth of his assertions; and it is
now within a measurable distance that the claim will be duly and
publicly recognised. Sir Rowland Hill undoubtedly did much to earn
the lasting remembrance of his countrymen, but this one selfish act of
appropriating entirely to himself an honour in which he was only by
right the second participator, condemns him as most unworthy of the
position so surreptitiously acquired.
“It is nothing but right to assert that Mr. Patrick Chalmers
deserves some noble recognition from his country as compensation for
the great injustice which he has so gallantly succeeded, almost single-
handed, in bringing to light. It will be at once acknowledged that his
task must have been a most arduous one, and were it not for the un-
deniable testimony he has succeeded in collecting, the task would have
been an impossible one.”
The Surrey Advertiser and County Times.
“Such a high authority as the Encyclopædia Britannica having
recognised the claim of Mr. Chalmers, it is to be hoped that some official
acknowledgment may follow.”
Again :-
“Mr. Patrick Chalmers has published some more correspondence
relative to the ‘Postal Reform and Adhesive Stamp' question. Mr.
Chalmers is quite within his right in keeping the matter steadily before
the public, and in supplying them with information in support of his
contention that his father is entitled to the honour of having invented
the adhesive stamp, and done much to bring about universal penny

79
postage, while ‘ the great services of Sir Rowland Hill have been cordially
recognised.’”
The South London Observer,
“PENNY PostAGE STAMPs.---The origin of penny stamps has been
claimed on behalf of the late Mr. James Chalmers by his son, Mr.
Patrick Chalmers, who has worked with zeal and energy in his
endeavour to establish this claim, and has laid the facts of his father's
title to be the originator in such a clear manner that those interested in
the question would do well to read his pamphlet, which contains volu-
minous opinions from the press.”
The Sunday Times.
“Nearly half a century since Mr. James Chalmers, of Dundee, in-
vented the application of the adhesive stamp for postal purposes. The
postal authorities have turned this to account, but nothing has been
done in the way of acknowledgment of Mr. Chalmers' services. His
son, Mr. Pat. Chalmers, is naturally desirous that his late father's ser-
vices should be properly recognised in the matter. The Chalmers
family have, up to the present time, but little reason to feel grateful to
an appreciative country.”
The Sheffield Daily Telegraph.
“It is not easy for us to get up any enthusiasm on the subject of ocean
penny postage. We fear we are not sufficiently grateful to Mr. James
Chalmers and Mr. Rowland Hill for the penny post. No busy public
man can be grateful for a contrivance which enables legions of unknown
persons—uncovenanted, unintroduced—to obtrude through the letter-
box upon his privacy, and to tax his good nature by occupying daily a
large slice of his working time. The mendicants are handed forward
in processional order by Her Majesty's letter-carriers; the egotists and
frivolers trespass in crowds. There are days when there is a snowstorm
of letters—a bewildering storm which buffets the active worker, and
blocks progress. We confess that we sympathise with Mr. Wortley's
views of ocean penny postage. The cheap post, as it now is, is to thou-
sands an infliction, a persecution, a pursuing worry. It is one of the
trials which Job had not to endure.”
[Here the share of James Chalmers in the work of the reformed
postal system is fully recognised by this well-known and influential


80
paper, which is all I have to do with. At the same time it may be
remarked that the writer fails to discriminate betwixt the use and the
abuse of a boon, and with his complaints where same is abused many
will sympathise. Will any one, however, seriously propose to go back
to the old figures, at the same time abolishing prepayment and the use
of stamps? No, we must give and take here ; while we readily accept
the benefits we must at same time submit to some of the inconveniences.
More especially should the press accept this view, as, with cheap
postage, the press obtained the accompanying abolition of the fourpenny
stamp on each paper and the duty of 1s. 6d. on each advertisement.
But for this, the Sheffield Daily Telegraph, now a power in the land,
might never have been heard of Shall we also re-impose these duties?
And how long would even the S.D.T. Survive the ordeal ||
The Irish Education Journal, Belfast, reproduces the notice from
the circular of Messrs. Trübner & Co.
The Brighouse and Rastrick Gazette.
“‘THE ADHESIVE POSTAGE STAMP (Patrick Chalmers).'—The last
contribution to this important subject which has reached us is an admirable
and valuable synopsis, giving the decision of the Encyclopaedia Britannica
and extracts from papers bequeathed by Sir Henry Cole. Of these two
the former gives more delight to the indefatigable author and compiler;-
the latter, we should think, will be the more lastingly interesting to the
public. Personally we had expressed a hope that somewhere and soon,
one of the veritable adhesive sample stamps invented and printed by
the late James Chalmers, of Dundee, might be unearthed in some old
book. Now, something infinitely better than that has been made
public. On page 24 of this pamphlet are copied “Remarks on various
modes proposed for franking letters,’ written by James Chalmers, and
sent to Henry Cole early in 1838, and the paper on which the remarks
are printed has on the margin ‘several specimens of a suggested stamp,
about an inch square ; ' in general particulars covering all that the
adhesive postage stamp was afterwards found to require. The way in
which these remarks are written conveys the impression that the scheme
had been so far and so long matured in the brain which invented it,
that its novelty had ceased to cause any excitement about it, and almost
every detail had been foreseen, except one—the immense extent of
machinery for production. On that point he said, “Should my adhesive

SI
stamp be adopted, the demand for these will in times becomes so vast,
that I am only puzzled to think where premises can be found to get
them up.’ It is a fact that in a very short time the authorities were
puzzled and hampered to overtake the demand for the adhesive stamp,
while the demand for the ‘Mulready” envelope so suddenly collapsed that
Rowland Hill averred “nearly all the vast number prepared for issue’
had to be destroyed. There is another remarkable production printed
in this valuable pamphlet: it commences on page 45, and is the copy of
a letter to Messrs. A. & C. Black, by Pearson Hill, referring to ‘a
Mr. Patrick Chalmers’ “persistently making false and groundless
charges’ against the late (Sir) Rowland Hill. Now the writer of that
letter must have been at some time in a desperately bad way to conceive
such a document, and in a desperate mood also to send it to any
publisher. It may be referred to, however, to show in what a very
different spirit he and Patrick Chalmers have conducted their affairs in
examining and making public what they knew or wished to be known.
On the last page of the pamphlet is a letter from (Sir) H. B. E. Frere,
from which is educed the fact that he was convinced that James
Chalmers was the inventor of the adhesive stamp “that important part
of our present postal system.’ To this Patrick Chalmers appends the
note that Bartle Frere had “obtained his knowledge and belief’ ‘on
this matter’ from independent sources thirty years before ‘the son of
the inventor began his investigation of the subject.’ There are many
other remarkable passages in the book well worth public preservation ;
one may especially be quoted, that of the public minded, assiduous
printer, and well-esteemed neighbour, James Chalmers, closing his
correspondence with Rowland Hill—‘I have at least the satisfaction of
knowing that the public have got my plan somehow.' The public,
satisfied with the plan, has long been misled as to whose the plan was :
now, there can be no further doubt that one man was honoured (and
something more) for what he never did, while he, the man who ‘saved
penny postage from destruction' in its earliest struggles had to be
pushed aside, and, as far as officialism could go, was blotted out of
existence. Facts have a faculty of coming to the front, and the foremost
fact in the history of penny postage is that it was largely due to James
Chalmers, of Dundee, that it became possible.”
[The above trenchant article from a plain-speaking and independent
Yorkshire journal states nothing but facts only too fully proved, and
might be read with advantage in those inner sanctuaries of the London
F

r:
press to which Mr. Pearson Hill and his friends have full access, while
any published or private communication from me is simply thrown into
the waste-paper basket. It will now be seen, however, that, though
still “boycotted * in Fleet Street and Printing House Square, my
father's name and services have already become too widely recognised
both in this country and across the Atlantic to fail of being historically
remembered, showing “there is such a thing as outflanking a position
impervious to direct assault or argument.”
Accrington Gazette.
“THE ADHESIVE POSTAGE STAMP-This is a small pamphlet deal-
ing with the question of who was the originator of the adhesive postage
stamp. The author sets forth in a straightforward way the claims of
his father, James Chalmers, a Dundee bookseller, as being the first to
propose this now indispensable postage stamp. The publication also
contains some interesting papers on the penny postage reform, and seems
conclusively to establish his father's name as the inventor of the adhesive
stamp.”
The Western Daily Press (Bristol).
“A pamphlet just published on the adhesive postage stamps, the
issue of which now amounts to eighteen hundred millions yearly, con-
tains the decision of the Encyclopædia Britannica in favour of James
Chalmers, bookseller, Dundee, as having been the inventor of this
indispensable public servant, not Sir Rowland Hill. The original of
the plan, as ultimately adopted by Mr. Hill in December, 1839, and in
use to this day, may be seen in the art gallery of the South Kensington
Museum amongst the papers bequeathed by the late Sir Henry Cole,
Mr. Cole was then (February, 1838) secretary to the Mercantile Com-
mittee of the City of London. The plan was laid before Mr. Rowland
Hill, who adopted it.”
The Rotherham Advertiser.
“THE ADHESIVE POSTAGE STAMP.-We have received from Mr.
Patrick Chalmers, F.R.H.S., two more pamphlets in support of his
contention that his late father, Mr. James Chalmers, who was a Dundee
bookseller, was the first to propose the adoption of the adhesive postage
stamp, and that the honour has been wrongly attributed to the late Sir
Rowland Hill. Mr. Chalmers gives the greater part of the article on

S3
postage stamps in the new edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica, and,
considering the high standing of that work, the following extract seems
to be conclusive proof that Mr. Chalmers has established the claim
which he makes on behalf of his father. .”
Taunton Courier. w
“CONCEALMENT UNVEILED.—Mr. P. Chalmers in this pamphlet gives
a number of letters which has passed between himself and the “Sir
Rowland Hill Committee º’ of the Mansion House with reference to the
memorial erected by the committee to the founder of our present postal
system ; he also gives a summary of his researches with regard to the
adhesive postage stamp. He claims to have proved that Sir Rowland
Hill was a plagiarist, having adopted the uniform penny postage system
from a Parliamentary Committee's report in 1835, and the adhesive
stamp from a proposal of the writer's father, Mr. Chalmers, of Dundee.
It is certainly time justice was done in the matter.”
The West of England Observer.
“PENNY PostAGE REFORM-We are pleased to find that the claims
of Mr. Patrick Chalmers (on behalf of his father) are being widely
recognised. Sir Rowland Hill did not invent the penny postage stamp,
but appears to have adopted it on the suggestion of Mr. Chalmers, sen.,
without acknowledging in the public way he should have done, the real
authorship of the valuable idea. Mr. P. Chalmers, in a recent letter to
the Whitehall Review, drew attention to the fruitless efforts of Mr.
Pearson Hill to bolster up his (Mr. Hill's) father's claims, and asked
‘what was the result of his abuse of me laid before the Commissioners
of City Sewers and the Memorial Fund Committee º’ Nothing less than,
that the proposed inscription upon the City statue of Sir Rowland Hill
was changed in the sense of totally abandoning and throwing overboard
the pretensions of Sir Rowland Hill to originality of conception. For
Mr. Pearson Hill himself every allowance will be made, though his
style of controversy will not be admired. That gentleman forgets that
my motives and objects are just as legitimate as are his own, and should
be met in a legitimate way. When Mr. Samuel Morley proposed
“arbitration,’ to which I agreed in principle, how came it that nothing
more was heard of the proposal / Having established my own claim, I
undertake to show at any time, from official sources, that the adoption
of the adhesive stamp did not enter into the original proposals or inten-
F 2

S4
tions of Sir Rowland Hill. But this whole matter is now simplified by
a proof just transpired of the highest interest and importance. In the
library of the South Kensington Museum, bequeathed by the late Sir
Henry Cole, may now be found, under the signature of Mr. James Chal-
mers himself, in printed form, of date February 8, 1838, a year and a half
before the Penny Postage Bill was brought forward, my father's plan of the
adhesive postage stamp, as subsequently adopted by the then Mr. Row-
land Hill in December 1839, and in use to this day. Mr. Cole was then
secretary to the Mercantile Committee of the City of London, and in that
capacity, more than any other man living or dead, contributed to the
ultimate passing of the Penny Postage Bill. Mr. Rowland Hill saw this
plan or got a copy, and in his reply to Mr. Chalmers of March 3, Mr. Hill
makes no pretensions to already having proposed or being then in favour
of an adhesive stamp. Not until the same had become officially adopted
in December, 1839, through a pressing and general demand, did
Mr. Hill, then in despotic power at the Treasury, in a letter of date
January 18th, 1840, obscuring the facts and putting Mr. Chalmers'
claim aside, assume to himself, upon a mere pretext and afterthought,
the entire merit of this invention and happy proposal.’ Mr. Chalmers
has now issued a pamphlet, entitled : ‘Concealment Unveiled. The Sir
Rowland Hill Committee. A Tale of the Mansion House.’ In this
pamphlet Mr. Chalmers arrays a mass of evidence and correspondence
in favour of his claims. A perusal of the same clearly proves to the
unprejudiced reader that so far from having been the originator of the
adhesive stamp Sir Rowland Hill was not even the originator of the
uniform penny postage scheme itself, as admitted by his own Mansion
House Committee, but hitherto concealed from the public. However
great the services of Sir Rowland Hill, the penny postage scheme
equally with the plan which saved it and has carried it out in practice,
was only an unacknowledged copy or plagiarism from beginning to end
of previous proposals of other men. The pamphlet is published by
Effingham Wilson, Royal Exchange. Attention is also directed to the
copy of a letter from Mr. Chalmers to Sir J. B. Monckton, which is in
our advertising columns. Besides the award in his favour of the
Encyclopædia Britannica, a wide recognition of Mr. Chalmers' father's
title to the adhesive postage stamp has been obtained from the Scottish
and provincial press, and from literary men at home and abroad.
“We have frequently advocated Mr. Chalmers' claims, and are
pleased that a general recognition of his father's services to his country
may now be looked for.”

85
i
The Whitehall Review.
“Mr. Patrick Chalmers is still at work. As he has satisfied a large
portion of the press, including the conductors of the Encyclopædia
Britannica, after a special investigation, that his, Mr. Patrick Chalmers'
father, invented and proposed the adhesive stamp, which alone made the
penny postage scheme practicable, he is anxious that the world at large
should become aware of his father's services. As we have more than
once pointed out, Mr. Chalmers has conclusively and satisfactorily
proved his case. Oddly enough, a portion of the press have set their
faces against acknowledging this, and of recognising the truth of
Mr. Chalmers' assertions. The next step is to convince and convert
this obstinate portion of the press. Towards this end there will appear,
in November, something further from the undismayed and unvanquished
Mr. Patrick Chalmers. There is such a thing as outflanking a position
impervious to direct assault or argument.”


PART FOURTH.
SUCCESS
IN THE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
My attention was first directed towards propagating the knowledge
of my father's name and services in the United States through having
been favoured with the following letters, amongst others, from that
quarter —
“STATE LIBRARY OF MASSACHUSETTS,
“STATE Hous E, BosTON,
“ October 11th, 1884.
“ DEAR SIR,
“I should be glad to obtain for preservation in the State
“Library of Massachusetts a copy of your monograph upon ‘James
“‘Chalmers, the Inventor of the Adhesive Stamp,' to which I have seen
“favourable reference. Will you have the kindness to inform me how
“ and where it can be obtained, and greatly oblige,
“Yours, &c.,
“ (Signed) C. B. TILLINGHUST,
“Acting Librarian.”
I was afterwards further honoured by the receipt of the following
letter from a gentleman well known in this country and by philatelists
throughout the world, Mr. John K. Tiffany, of St. Louis –
“ST. LOUIs, June 1st, 1885.
“ DEAR SIR,
“Excuse the liberty I take in addressing you ; my excuse
“ is only that there is hardly any one in America that takes the interest

87
i
“ that I have in the several pamphlets which you have published con-
“cerning the inventor of the adhesive stamp. I have been in my time
“one of the most enthusiastic stamp collectors, and had one of the
“most complete collections in existence some five years ago; but I
“ have taken more pride in being a collector of stamp literature, by
“which I mean anything published in any form relating to postage or
“revenue stamps and their history, or to the Post Office and its history-
“whether in the form of magazines or newspaper articles, special books,
“histories, &c. In 1874 I issued privately a book called the ‘Phila-
“‘telic Library,’ a copy of which is in the British Museum library,
“which gave the titles and references to all such works as were then
“known to me. I have continued such work in manuscript, and have
“ready for publication a second volume, about twice the size of the
‘‘ first.
“Some time ago a friend sent me your pamphlet, ‘The Adhesive
“Stamp’ (1881?). The other day some one sent me another pamphlet,
“‘Opinions from the Press, Fresh Series,’ 1883.
“My present object in writing you is to know what you have pub-
“lished on this interesting topic, and whether they can be obtained, and
“ where, as I would like to add them to my library, which contains
“ about 700 bound volumes relating to stamps alone, their history or
“ collection. Some of these are collections of from five to ten pam-
“ phlets each. I have also some 1,200 extracts from newspapers, &c.,
“in scrap-books, relating to the same subject, and, in addition, many
“works relating to the Post Office and its history, making altogether
“quite a large special collection of such works, larger, I believe, than
“any private individual can show. I therefore would like to add
“such important additions as your pamphlets would be without fail.
“I hope my object thus fully stated will be a sufficient excuse for
“my having addressed myself to you.
“Very respectfully,
“Signed) JOHN K. TIFFANY.”
From both of these valued correspondents I have subsequently been
favoured with advice and assistance in the way of spreading the know-
ledge of my father's share in carrying out penny postage reform, and of
having been the inventor of that stamp, the particular fancy and pur-

88
suit of philatelists, an invention hitherto ascribed by them to the wrong
man. The librarian subsequently writes:—
“ November 7th, 1884.
“I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your very kind
“favour of October 25th, and beg that you will accept my grateful
“ thanks for kindly sending the State Library of Massachusetts copies
“ of the pamphlets named, which are of interest and historic value.”
Again:—
“October 31st, 1885.
“I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your very
“kind favour of October 19th and 20th, and beg that you will accept my
“ thanks for sending the State Library of Massachusetts a copy of your
“letter to the Whitehall Review. (See page 96.) Such communications
“ as this are invaluable as establishing the truth or falsity of history,
“ and it would be well to place them in all the larger Libraries, where
“ they would be easily accessible to all. I shall be very grateful to
“receive the further publication to which you refer.”
Again :—
“Movember 23rd, 1885,
“Our Free Libraries are of great number. In the State of
“Massachusetts alone there are over 200. There is a State Library
“ at the capital of every State, and a Public Library in every large
“city throughout the country. If you were to address ‘Free Public
“‘ Library’ in each of the cities you desire to send to, your pamphlets
“would reach the proper destination.”
Again :—
“February 19th, 1886.
“I have the honour and pleasure to acknowledge the receipt
“ of your very kind favour of January 28th, and beg that you will
“ accept my hearty thanks for the copies of your very interesting and
“valuable monograph upon ‘The Adhesive Postage Stamp.’ The second
“ copy you send me I shall take pleasure in placing in one of our large
“Libraries, where it will serve a good purpose.”
Mr. Tiffany likewise gives me many valuable hints on libraries and
newspapers, with a most remarkable list of publications, magazines, and

S9
i
press articles, to be found in our British Museum Library and else-
where on the subject of penny postage reform, before and since its
introduction.
In order to obtain more specific information on the subject of
Libraries to which it might appear desirable to submit my publications,
received as they had been with such favour by minds exercising a judg-
ment freed from the intense prejudice obtaining in this country, I
applied to the appointed agent in London of the Bureau of Education
at Washington, asking to be favoured with a list of Libraries in the
United States. In course of mail I was honoured, March, 1886, with
a communication from the Secretary of the Education Bureau at Wash-
ington, handing me a bulky volume of 1,100 pages, being “Special
“Report on the Public Libraries in the United States of America:
“ their History, Condition, and Management,” a few statistics from
which may be found interesting and perhaps somewhat startling to our
complacency here as to possessing equal or greater privileges,
It appears from this report that in 1876 there were in the United
States 3,650 what may be termed “Public Libraries,” that is, either
Free Libraries or Subscription Libraries readily accessible to all, or
Libraries of Colleges, Historical Societies (25), Regimental Libraries,
&c. “Parish and Sunday School Libraries have not been included ;
“indeed, no systematic effort was made to gather the statistics of such
“libraries, which are almost as numerous as the churches in the
“ country.” Of the 3,650 libraries, 600 were “Free Libraries.” The
* These figures would have excited the envy and admiration of my lamented
friend and staunch supporter, the late Mr. Peter Begg of Tundee, to whose
exertions, extending over some years, was mainly due the Free Libraries' Bill for
Scotland, with the establishment of a Free Library in Dundee, for all of which
Mr. Begg got neither thanks nor emolument. In the course of these endeavours -
Mr. Begg might have pointed to the fact that no city in the United States of a popu-
lation approaching that of Dundee had, in 1876, fewer than 28 Public or 5 Free
Libraries; Washington, of about the same population as Dundee, having 52, with 11
Free Libraries.
Having addressed the Council of Education at Whitehall and the Scotch Educa-
tion Department with a view to obtaining some information with respect to Libraries
in this country similar to what is maintained at Washington, I am informed that
these departments “have no dealings with the subject of my inquiry.” By a Parlia-
mentary Return kindly sent me, it appears that there are in England about 90 Free
Libraries; in Wales, 5 ; in Scotland, 9; in Ireland, 4.
90
State of New York claimed 615 libraries; Massachusetts, 460; Pennsyl-
vania, 366; Ohio, 222, &c. Of the principal cities,
New York possessed 120 Libraries, of which 26 were Free Libraries.
Brooklyn 33 20 2 3 2 3 4 53
Philadelphia , , 101 , , 2 3 23 3 x
Boston 2 3 70 3 × 5 * 10 3.5
Washington , , 52 2 3 • 3 11. > y
St. Louis 5 * 32 22 • 3 4 2 3
Cincinnati 55 30 2 3 5 x 8 5 *
Baltimore 2 3 38 2 3 2 3 6 > *
Chicago 2 3 24 2 3 5 * 4 55
San Francisco , , 27 > y > * 5 > *
Buffalo 3 * 28 3.5 3.2 5 5 *
Worcester, Mass. , , 20 2 3 22 5 5 *
Cambridge possesses 18 , , 5 * 3 * *
Albany 5.3 22 , 3 × 3 2 3
New Orleans , 15 55 5 * 3 5 *
and so on throughout the country to the number stated of 3,650.
The volume contains plates of some of the chief libraries, fine
buildings—that of the “Ridgway Library” at Philadelphia showing a
front similar in size and appearance to the front view of our British
Museum. -
In handing me this volume and subsequent supplementary papers
the circular note requests that any personal publication of the recipient
may be sent to the Bureau at Washington, and which of course has been
attended to, and receipt courteously acknowledged.
Having thus obtained a complete list of the Libraries a copy of my
pamphlet, “The Adhesive Postage Stamp,” conclusively proving my
father's title as having been the originator of Same, has been sent to a
number of the principal Institutions ; also to most of the Historical
Societies, of which there are 78 in the United States, and to individuals,
the receipt of same being, as a rule, courteously acknowledged.
In the Philatelic Journal of America for February last is an article
from the pen of Mr. Tiffany (and who has more lately been elected
President of the “American Philatelic Association,” a national organi-
sation of the stamp collectors of America) reprinted by the St. Louis
Republican of 20th February, and thus introduced :—
“MR. ‘JAMES CHALMERS' THE REAL INVENTOR OF THE POSTAGE STAMP.
“The February number of the Philatelic Journal of America, pub-


91
i
lished in St. Louis, has just been issued, and comes bound in a new and
very appropriate cover. This is the largest magazine devoted to the
interests of the stamp collector published in the country, and is largely
circulated abroad. The present number contains a well-written article
on the real inventor of the adhesive stamp, the author being a well-
known attorney, who has the largest and finest collection of postage
stamps in the country. The following is the contribution —
“‘THE ADHESIVE STAMP.-Sir Rowland Hill has heretofore been
the patron Saint of the stamp collector. Knighted for his services in
postal matters, he has heretofore been credited with being not only the
inventor, proposer, and promulgator of that system of uniform postage
which, since its adoption in England in 1840, has gradually extended
over nearly the entire globe, to the incalculable benefit of mankind, but
also with being the inventor of the impressed envelope, cover, and
adhesive stamp.
“‘The death of Sir Rowland Hill in 1879 recalled to mind the name
and postal services of Mr. James Chalmers, bookseller, of Dundee.
Various letters claiming for him the invention of the adhesive stamp
appeared in the daily papers of that city and elsewhere. There seems
to have been at once a very strenuous effort made by persons of influence
to suppress the facts, as they now appear to have been suppressed at the
time, by the then Mr. Rowland Hill. The battle has been hotly waged
of late between Mr. Pearson Hill and Mr. Patrick Chalmers, until now
no less authority than the Encyclopædia Britannica has decided in
favour of Mr. James Chalmers as the inventor of the adhesive stamp.
“‘That the impressed or stamped cover or wrapper was not an abso-
lute novelty in 1837 is well known to stamp collectors. It appears that
Mr. Wallace, himself an earnest postal reformer and Member of Parlia-
ment for Greenock, sent to Mr. Rowland Hill the reports of various
“committees of inquiry” appointed and acting by authority of Parlia-
ment when Mr. Hill “commenced,” to use his own words, “that
systematic study, analysis, and comparison which the difficulties of my
self-imposed task rendered necessary.” It now transpires that these
reports contained a very large suggestion of uniform cheap postage by
weight, prepayment, stamped covers, and all that was suggested in Mr.
Hill's famous plan and pamphlet of 1837.
“‘It also appears that in August, 1834, Mr. James Chalmers had
made in his printing office at Dundee, experimental adhesive stamps,
printed in sheets, gummed and ready to be cut off and used separately
as occasion required ; that he had communicated his plan pretty gene-
rally, at the time and subsequently, to the many parties with whom he
was associated in advancing postal reforms, and seems to have promul-
gated his views in a printed circular fully explaining the plan, which,
except for the perforation (a convenience invented by Mr. Archer, and
only introduced in 1852), was identical with that adopted and now in use.
This was accompanied by samples of the proposed stamps.”
[Particulars are then given at some length of the sending the plan to
London, of the dilemma of the Government, the interposition of Mr.
Wallace, and of Lord Ashburton, and the ultimate adoption of the
adhesive stamp in December, 1839.]
“‘Mr. James Chalmers, on again writing to Mr. Hill about his
invention, is coolly informed (January, 1840) that he (Hill) had himself
proposed the adhesive stamp in 1837 before Mr. Chalmers. Mr.
Chalmers in reply expressed his surprise, enclosed Mr. Hill's letter of
1838, and contenting himself with ‘the only satisfaction I have had in
this, as well as former suggestions, all original with me, is, that these
have been adopted, and have, and are likely to prove beneficial to the
public,’ awaited that tardy justice which after nearly half a century now
begins to acknowledge his claim in the Encyclopædia Britannica.
“‘It will be well perhaps for the stamp collectors to change their
patron saint, and with this great English authority, accord the invention
of their hobby to its real inventor, James Chalmers.--T.’”
No more important recognition than the above, whether we look at
the high authority from which it emanates or the nature and extent of
its circulation, could be desired.
Other recognitions of the highest importance follow :-
“PRINCETON COLLEGE, NEw JERSEy,
“My DEAR SIR, “February 15th, 1886.
“I am indebted to you for a copy of your pamphlet on ‘The
“‘Adhesive Postage Stamp.” I am engaged on an American History
“to cover the period 1840–85, in which it will be necessary for me to
“refer to the introduction of the adhesive stamp into this country.
“. From the evidence submitted, as it stands, I do not see how I can
“ give the credit of the invention to any one but Mr. Chalmers, cer-
“tainly not to Sir Rowland Hill.
“Sincerely yours,
“(Signed). ALEXANDER JOHNSTON,
- “Professor of Jurisprudence and Political Economy.
“Mr. P. CHALMERs, Wimbledon.”


93
i
“THE NUMISMATIC AND ANTIQUARIAN SocIETY of PHILADELPHIA,
“ February 10th, 1886.
“SIR,
“I beg to render to you my sincere thanks for your pre-
“Sentation of the claim of James Chalmers as the Inventor of the
“Adhesive Stamp. You seem to have enlisted the adherence of many
“of those best qualified to judge of the subject, and it is to be hoped
“ that justice, even if tardy, may be done in the matter. It is a filial
“ duty which you have well performed.
“Very respectfully yours,
“ (Signed) HENRY PHILLIPS, JR., A.M.,
“(Author of numerous Historical and Practical
“Works on Currency, dºc.)
“ P. CHALMERs, ESQ.,
“Wimbledon, England.”
From the Philadelphia Record, April 11th, 1886.
“NUMISMATIC AND ANTIQUARIAN SOCIETY.—A stated meeting of the
society was held on the evening of April 1st at its hall, Eighteeenth and
Chestnut Streets, President Brinton in the chair. After the reading of
a paper on the ‘Religious Ceremonials of the Chinese,’ and other
business, Mr. Phillips called the attention of the Society to the con-
troversy in regard to the invention of adhesive postage stamps, in
which, after a review of the evidence, it had been proved that James
Chalmers, a bookseller of Dundee, and not Sir Rowland Hill, was the
first inventor of this important factor in our civilisation.”
From the Worcester Daily Spy, April 1st, 1886.
“Rowland Hill enjoyed and deserved the great honour of having
introduced cheap postage in Great Britain, whence it has spread to the
rest of the civilised world. That honour is unquestionably his, and few
men have conferred greater benefits upon mankind. He claimed also
the credit of the invention of adhesive postage stamps, without which
penny postage would have been impracticable. But within a few years
this latter claim has been contested by Mr. Patrick Chalmers, who
asserts and seems to prove that his father, James Chalmers, a bookseller
of Dundee, first conceived the idea of the adhesive stamp so early as
1834; that he submitted his plan in print to the Select Committee of the
House of Commons appointed to consider the penny postage scheme of

94
Rowland Hill in 1837, and to Rowland Hill himself early in 1838,
receiving from Mr. Hill an acknowledgment of its receipt, in which no
allusion was made to any claim of Mr. Hill that he had proposed or
was then in favour of an adhesive stamp. The stamp was adopted as a
part of the penny postage system in 1839, in conjunction with Mr.
Hill's plan of stamped sheets and envelopes, which proved not acceptable
to the public. Mr. Chalmers, in 1840, sent in his claim to recognition
as the inventor of this device, and Rowland Hill then answered that
this claim could not be admitted, because he had himself anticipated
Mr. Chalmers by some months. Mr. Chalmers did not then press his
claim, but his son, with laudable zeal for his father's reputation, has
collected evidence, which seems quite conclusive, that Mr. James
Chalmers did invent the adhesive stamp, and successfully urged its
introduction upon the Post Office authorities simultaneously with the
adoption of penny postage.”
“From the Editor of the Stamp Collector, Magazine,
“CHICAGo, August 23rd, 1886.
“ DEAR SIR,
“It is our desire to publish, at as early a day as possible,
“an authentic portrait of the inventor of the adhesive stamp, Mr.
“James Chalmers; and we take the liberty of addressing you in order
“ to obtain, if possible, a photograph or other portrait suitable for
“reproducing.
“Although America claims to have some four hundred thousand
“stamp collectors, we doubt if ten per cent. of them have any idea that
“Sir Rowland Hill has ever been removed from the high place he
“ occupied so long in the world of stamps, and we think a good portrait
“ accompanied with a brief biographical sketch, would do much good.
“. . . . Any of your pamphlets you may choose to send us will
“ receive careful notice in our columns.”
It will thus be seen that the knowledge of James Chalmers' name
and services has taken firm root in the United States, a knowledge which
will grow and spread, to be, moreover, stimulated in due time by the
present publication. This process is now being extended to the Euro-
pean continent, with every expectation of similar success.

95
%.
PART FIFTH.
UNPUBLISHED ARTICLES FROM THE PRESS
PRIOR TO THE PUBLICATION OF
“THE ADHESIVE POSTAGE STAMP.”
THE REv. SAMUEL ROBERTS, M.A.
The obituary notice of the above-named postal and social reformer,
well known to many of our leading public men, appears in the Times
newspaper of 30th September, 1885. This article states —
“A few days ago there passed away a man whose name deserves
“remembrance in this column—the Rev. Samuel Roberts, of Conway,
“one of the earliest, if not the very earliest, advocates of postal reform.
“He was born in March, 1800, at Llanbrynmair, Montgomeryshire,
“where his father held the charge of the Congregational Church, and
“ had therefore completed his 85th year.” Omitting other proposals not
connected with my subject, Mr. Roberts “addressed letters to the
“General Post Office in 1829, and again in 1836, pleading for one low
“ and uniform rate of postage, both inland and foreign. He also advo-
“cated a cheap parcel post.” . . . Concluding: “About three years
“ago Mr. Roberts received a grant of £50 from the Royal Bounty
“Fund on the recommendation of Mr. Gladstone, in recognition of his
“services as a pioneer in the cause of social progress, and especially of
“ postal reform.”
The statements of Mr. Roberts himself are recapitulated in the
following letter from me, headed “Penny Postage Reform,” which
appeared in the Whitehall Review of October 8th, 1885 —

96
To the Editor.
“SIR,
“Distinguished among your contemporaries for the liberal
“manner in which you have already opened the columns of the Whitehall
“Review to the admission of the fresh light now shed upon the above-
“named important subject, it is especially fitting that in the same columns
“should now first appear some account of the remarkable progress lately
“ met with in confirmation of what you have already permitted me to
“advance.
“First, then, as respects the originator of the proposal of a low and
“uniform penny postage, I have already maintained that such was not
“an original conception on the part of Sir Rowland Hill as so handed
“ down by him and hitherto understood, but that such was only a
“borrowed proposal, published and worked out by him. I have further
“ pointed to the Rev. Samuel Roberts, of Conway, as having been the
“man who first proposed this radical change in our postal system some
“ years before 1837. And what do we now find? Mr. Roberts died the
“other day, in his eighty-sixth year, and there now appears in the
“ columns of the Times of the 30th ult, an obituary notice of this postal
“reformer, confirming what I have stated, and to which I beg reference.
“ Permit me now to supplement this obituary notice of the Times by
“some extracts from the statements of Mr. Roberts himself, taken from
“ that manifesto of his in which he thanks over two hundred kind
“ contributories, from the Royal Bounty Fund downwards, in aid of his
“ declining years, and which list includes such names as those of Mr.
“ Gladstone, Mr. H. J. Gladstone, Lord Derby, Mr. Samuel Morley,
“Mr. Bright, Mr. Tathbone, Lord Dalhousie, the Duke of Westminster,
“Sir Thomas Brassey, Sir Edward Baines, Mr. J. Carvell Williams,
“several bishops and Members of Parliament, &c. Mr. Roberts
“states: ‘The aged writer has pleaded and petitioned for our useful
“‘penny postage and other postal reductions and conveniences more than
“‘ten years before the patriotic Sir Rowland Hill came out to assist
“‘in the difficult conflict. He repeatedly petitioned and memorialised
“‘the Post Office on the subject —further corresponding thereon with
“leading men of the day. Mr. Roberts goes on to notice the appoint-
“ment in the year 1835 of the ‘Commission of Post Office Inquiry,’
“ with the proposal put forward in the Fifth Report as respects a low and

Q
7
“uniform postage on circulars, then subject to the same high and
“variable rates as were letters, and charged by sheet, recommended by
“ that report to be charged by weight, and prepaid by impressed
“stamp, at the uniform rate of a penny the half-ounce, irrespective of
“ distance—a proposal left wholly unnoticed in any of the writings of
“Sir Rowland Hill, though there is the clearest evidence of this report
“ having come under his cognisance. To the proposal of a uniform
“penny postage on letters, as already urged by Mr. Roberts, and which
“idea, as he further states, “ was well known around the Post Office
“‘and other high places,’ add the principles set forth and recommended
“in this Fifth Report, and we have, it will be seen, the exact scheme
“ of Sir Rowland Hill from beginning to end, but put forward by him,
“in the main, as of his own conception, and hitherto errroneously
“supposed to have been original. [See obituary articles in the Times,
“Athenaeum, and press in general.] This Report was of date April,
“ 1836. Mr. Roberts goes on : “Soon afterwards Sir Rowland Hill
“‘took up the penny idea, and extended its usefulness. He worked
“... perseveringly for reform ; but it should be remembered that it is not
“‘right to honour him as the originator of the penny system. The plan
“‘had been drawn, and he did the work.’ Again: “Sir Rowland Hill
“‘ was nobly rewarded for his ability and perseverance in carrying out a
“‘scheme, important portions of which had been suggested and recom-
“‘mended by others. He deserved honour as an able copyist of other
“‘men's plans; but it was not fair to honour and reward him as the
“‘inventor of the uniform penny postage system. It is really no honour
“‘to his memory that he grasped to himself all the rewards and honours
“‘ of the postal reforms of these days.” -
“Such is the manifesto of this remarkable man, now truly recorded
“ in the Times as having been the pioneer of postal reform—a field in
“in which he met with many coadjutors prior to the advent upon the
“ scene of Sir Rowland Hill.
“Next, with respect to the adhesive postage stamp, claimed by me
“ as having been the invention and proposal of my late father, James
“Chalmers, bookseller, Tundee, I am now enabled to point to Vol. 19
“ of the Encyclopædia Britannica, lately published, where, under the
“article ‘ Postage Stamps, my father is fully recognised as having been
“the inventor of this stamp in the month of August, 1834, a decision
G.

98
“ arrived at after a lengthened investigation of the respective statements
“put forward on the subject by myself and by Mr. Pearson Hill (who
“ himself initiated the inquiry). And this, notwithstanding that I
“ have been at a manifest disadvantage through the entire correspon-
“dence betwixt my late father and Sir Rowland Hill being solely in
“ the possession of Mr. Pearson Hill, with a copy of which he has not
“consented to furnish me, such correspondence being, I maintain,
“public, as being official, not private, property.
“You are aware that the articles in this standard work are drawn
“ up by learned experts upon the respective subjects dealt with, and
“ edited under a strong sense of responsibility to the high standing of
“ the work itself and to history. The decision arrived at, consequently,
“will now be accepted in all impartial quarters as conclusive. The steps
“ by which this invention of Mr. James Chalmers became ultimately
“incorporated, through his initiation, in the reformed penny postage
“system have been already recorded in your columns.
“Mr. Roberts emphatically gives his testimony that ‘it was a
“‘ thoughtful, calculating, unassuming, patriotic postal reformer of
“‘Dundee, of the name of James Chalmers, to whom we are indebted
“ for the adhesive stamp, who, “already honoured by his neighbours, will
“‘ be honoured by future generations.' .
“Having left Dundee over fifty years ago, and passed much of the
“interval abroad, it was only through letters which appeared in the
“Dundee press upon the demise of Sir Rowland Hill that my attention
“ was drawn to this matter.
“I remain, Sir,
“Your obedient Servant,
- “ PATRICK CHALMERS.
“WIMBLEDON, October 3rd, 1885.”
Official repudiation by H. M. Post Office of the statements of my
opponents.
Three or four years ago, a weekly journal, termed The Postal,
Telegraphic, and Telephonic Gazette was started in London, of a high-
class description—well-printed, and giving most valuable information
upon all subjects connected with the three services named under its
99
title. The appointments, promotions, and changes amongst the Post
Office staff in London and the country were duly noted, altogether
giving the journal the aspect of official inspiration and sanction in
respect of its statements. In the question betwixt myself and Mr.
Pearson Hill, however, this otherwise excellent paper took up a decided
position in opposing my claim on behalf of my late father, and in advo-
cating the views of my opponent, on behalf of Sir Rowland Hill. No
opportunity was lost in carrying out this course, and, amongst other
modes of supporting Sir Rowland Hill, his pamphlet of 1837 was
printed in the columns of the Gazette in consecutive issues, by way of
refreshing the mind of the public with respect to his proposals, but
omitting to give the authorities from which, or from whom, these pro-
posals were taken.
After one especially violent article, denouncing me and my preten-
sions, stated to have been drawn up by a writer specially acquainted
with his subject, and “high up in the service of the Post Office”
(possibly the gentleman referred to in Mr. Pearson Hill's letter to
Messrs. A. & C. Black, see ante, page 36), I at length addressed the
Secretary of the Post Office, officially, respectfully asking if this Gazette
was an official paper, and further, did its sentiments on the subject so
disputed in its columns, represent the opinions of H. M. Post Office.
To this I was at once favoured with the following reply:-
“GENERAL Post OFFICE,
“24th March, 1884.
“SIR,
“In reply to your letter of the 22nd instant, I beg leave
“ to say that the Postal and Telegraphic Gazette is not an official
“journal, and that the opinions therein expressed must not be regarded
“ as the official expressions of opinion of H.M.'s Post Office.
“I am, SIR,
“Your obedient servant,
(Signed) S. A. BLACKWOOD,
“Secretary.
“ P. CHALMERs, Esq.”
The above most satisfactory reply aud emphatic repudiation of my
adversary's views, after having intimated my intention to Mr. Black-

- G 2

100
wood, I at once circulated to the London papers and other quarters,
with the following remarks:–
“Any further articles, consequently, which may yet appear in the
“Postal and Telegraphic Gazette on the subject in question, may now be
“left unnoticed. The efforts of Mr. Pearson Hill to retain for his father,
“ the late Sir Rowland Hill, the reputation of having been the actual
“inventor of that uniform Penny Postage Scheme which he introduced
“ and did so much to promote, are deserving of every respect, but with
“ the official declaration of the Treasury now before us, that uniform
“ Penny Postage had been previously urged upon the Government by
“others, with, moreover, the abandonment of the question of originality
“ of conception by the Memorial Fund Committee themselves, continued
“discussion on the point becomes a mere waste of words.-P.C.”
Not long after this the Postal and Telegraphic Gazette withdrew
not only from the controversy, but from publication, and has been for
some time extinct.
Returning to this official repudiation by Her Majesty's Post Office
of the statements of my opponents, my friends and supporters may be
inclined to claim such as an official recognition of my claim on behalf
of my father. If one side is wrong, they will say, the other side must
be right. But I should be sorry to attach such significance to the
generous letter of Mr. Blackwood, or to claim him as having committed
himself to that official recognition perhaps yet to be unmistakably
granted. Besides, as to that, the chief of the Post Office, there to-
day and gone to-morrow, has to be consulted, and in any such claim
as mine a Postmaster-General only scents some design upon his
purse, and consequently something to be at once put down ; or, as
Mr. Shaw Lefevre put the matter when I suggested an inquiry, “no
“inquiry was deemed necessary.” Of course not, public officials never do
deem an inquiry upon any matter whatever “ necessary,” nor will any-
thing less than a Parliamentary Committee ever succeed in extracting
from them an inquiry or any admission whatever, a process now about
to take place with respect to our spending departments, not a moment
too soon. But as I have nothing to ask from the Post Office, that insti-
tution may be left, officially, to arrive at the right conclusion at its
leisure, though perhaps, with more than one of the heads of depart-

101
ments whom I could name, opinion is already very much as my friends
would desire.
“No inquiry deemed necessary,” indeed Let but James Chalmers
arise from his lonely grave in the “Auld Howff” of Dundee, with the
power as with the undoubted right to forbid the further use of his
happy proposal and widespread boon until his name was recognised,
and not only the Post Office but every Chamber of Commerce through-
out the land would be, metaphorically, down on their knees before his
shade, offering untold sums for his sanction to the continued use of his
unrequited gift, and not only so of this land but of every nation to
which his gift has spread. What potentate, I repeat, ever wielded such
a power as this? And because this boon, once freely bestowed, becomes
irrevocable, is it to be said that the donor's name is to remain unknown
and unheard of while the gift is ascribed to a mere usurper ? If so, let
it not be supposed that such indifference can be exercised with impunity ;
that a state of society so callous to the claims of right and justice, as is
still the case with the more influential journals in London and the
London public, can exist without drawing upon itself some retribution.
What will other lands and history say in such a case ?
The Whitehall Review.
“If perseverance should command success, Mr. Patrick Chalmers
ought to succeed in publicly establishing the claims he has made, on
behalf of his late father, for a share in the honours accorded to the
originators of cheap postage. Mr. Chalmers probes every enemy that
rises up against him. The Postal and Telegraphic Gazette recently
denounced his assertions and claims, and Mr. Chalmers immediately
snubs it by publishing a letter which he has received from the Secretary
of the General Post Office, and which says: ‘Postal and Telegraphic
Gazette is not an official journal, and the opinions therein expressed
must not be regarded as the official expressions of opinion of H.M.'s
Post Office.’ Mr. Chalmers is
“As dreadful as the Manichean god,
“Adored through fear, strong only to destroy.”
Jºgland.
“Mr. Patrick Chalmers has written a pamphlet with the view of
substantiating his father's claim to have been the first to introduce the
adhesive stamp into practical use. He appears, however, to have

102
derived no advantage from it, and, considering the immense benefit it is
to the public in connection with the postal systems, many of the readers
of his publication will think he is entitled to some recognition at the
hands of the Government.”
The Croydon Review.
“We print elsewhere a letter from Mr. Patrick Chalmers, of
Wimbledon, on the ‘ Postal Reform, written in reply to a communica-
tion that appeared in our last issue. We do not think we can say more
than has already been said on the subject, and we are perfectly satisfied
that Mr. Chalmers has right on his side.”
From the Liverpool Daily Post, January 11th, 1884.
“A Mr. Patrick Chalmers, F.R.S., seems to have devoted his life
and energy and money to the destruction of Sir Rowland Hill's post-
humous honours, having shown to his own Satisfaction, and, as he
thinks, also to the satisfaction of a large body of the press and the
public, that his late father, and not Sir Rowland Hill, was the
‘Originator of the Adhesive Stamp.’ He attempts to show, upon the
authority of the Tords of the Treasury, that Sir Rowland Hill was not
even the originator of the penny postage scheme itself, nor, indeed, of
any one of the principles or figures of the great epistolary revolution.
It must be confessed that Mr. Chalmers' evidence seems to prove his
case. He charges that the penny postage scheme of Sir Rowland Hill
was only an unacknowledged copy of a pre-existing Blue Book, of date
1835–36, the “Fifth Report of the Commissioners of Post Office
Inquiry, to the provisions of which, in his writings, he has made no
reference whatever. This is supported by an extract from a Treasury
Minute, of date 11th March, 1864, conferring upon Sir Rowland Hill,
upon his retirement from active service, his full salary of £2,000
a year — My Lords do not forget that it has been by the powerful
agency of the railway system that these results have been rendered prac-
ticable. Neither do they enter into the question, as foreign to the
occasion, what honour may be due to those who, before the development
of the plans of Sir Rowland Hill, urged the adoption of Uniform Penny
Postage.’ Mr. Chalmers implies that the original author of the scheme
is the Rev. Samuel Roberts, M.A., of Conway, who claims that before
the year 1837 he repeatedly petitioned Government and the Post Office
on the matter. Mr. Roberts is still living, in his eighty-fourth year,
and has recently received a Government grant, which, Mr. Chalmers

103
urges, is an admission of his claim. Whether it be true of not that all
this time we have been glorifying the wrong man, not alone as respects
the adhesive stamp, but more especially with regard to the very origin
and principles of the postage scheme itself, will probably continue to be
a matter of dispute. Few great inventions have been the work of a
single mind. There has been much, and not always good-natured, dis-
cussion as to the invention of the locomotive steam-engine. Into these
matters the general public do not enter. The railway passenger is quite
Satisfied that the means of speedy transit exist, and people enjoy the
postal system as a matter of course. They are quite willing to give
honour to whom honour is due, but they cannot attempt to measure out
the claims of rivals who may each have contributed something to a great
institution. It is not a pleasant thing, this higgling for fame. The best
men are satisfied to have done good work, and the breath of fame to them
is as valueless to them as factory smoke. A few great names endure for
all time, but in the majority of cases the greatness of fame is like the
roar of city life, which soon dies away in the silence of distance.”
“PENNY POSTAGE REFORM.
“To the Editor of the Liverpool Daily Post.
“SIR,--I ask permission to say, with reference to your article of
“yesterday on the above subject, that the great services of Sir Rowland
“Hill have been fully admitted on my part ; it is the monopoly which
“ he has claimed of conception as well as of performance that I have
“ventured to object to, an objection now confirmed on the authority of
“ the Treasury.
“If this reform, as you admit, has in reality been built up on the
“ proposals of other men, why should the entire merit be concentrated in
“one | If it has been commendable to honour this one, and this in a
“large degree for what he has not done, why is it to be deprecated that
“others should ask recognition for what they have done? If I have at
“ length been enabled specifically to prove my late father's claim to the
“adhesive stamp, why should it be a matter of reproach against me for
“ having brought forward this claim! Would not a lasting reproach
“ have stood against me had I acted otherwise
“Trusting to your impartiality to favour me by inserting these
“ lines, Yours, &c.,
“ PATRICK CHALMERS,
“Wimbledon, Jan. 12.”

104
[With these remarks, which the editor was good enough to publish,
I leave the reader to judge betwixt me and the Liverpool Daily Post.
The writer of the article may now see, if so disposed, that I (not yet
F.R.S.) have spent a little more energy and a little more money in this
matter, and to no small purpose——long may it be before Scotland's sons
become deterred either by indifference or by sneers from doing their
duty. Why should it be considered reprehensible in me to have desired
the due, if tardy, recognition of my father's name and services while at
the same time Sir Rowland Hill is commended for angling for both fame
and fortune, having his hook baited with the brains of other men Let
us trust that this able and well-known writer, now the representative in
Parliament for a Scottish constituency, will yet stand up for Scotland's
cause in place of further bolstering up the shabby usurper of Scotland's
rights.]
The Manchester Eacaminer.
“Mr. Patrick Chalmers, who for years past has contested the claims
of the late Sir Rowland Hill to be the originator of the penny postage
scheme, has recently written to the Postmaster-General calling his
attention to a Treasury minute dated the 11th of March, 1864, con-
ferring upon Sir Rowland, on his retirement from active service, a
pension of £2,000 a year. In this minute the Lords of the Treasury
say they “do not forget that it has been by the powerful agency of the
railway system that the results attained have been rendered practicable,
neither do they enter into the question, as foreign to the occasion, what
honour may be due to those who before the development of the plans
of Sir Rowland Hill urged the adoption of uniform penny postage.
Mr. Chalmers advances this as a distinct official confirmation of his
contention that the penny postage scheme of 1837, however energetically
carried out by Sir Rowland Hill, along with others, was in itself nothing
more than a réchauffe from beginning to end of the proposals of other
12
In 1611.
[It would be much more satisfactory if papers of the high standing
of the Manchester Eaſaminer would state, not what I state or claim, but
would be good enough to read my statements, and to say, “Was the
“Penny Postage Scheme an invention or a copy l’ And “Was Sir
“Rowland Hill or James Chalmers the inventor and proposer of the
“Adhesive Postage Stamp 7" And “Has Sir Rowland Hill dealt

105
“openly and candidly with that nation which has dealt so generously by
“ him, or has he not ſ” And cannot those other influential papers, the
Manchester Courier and Manchester Guardian, find something to say on
this subject 7
The Birmingham Daily Mail.
“SIR ROWLAND HILL AND THE PENNY PostAGE SCHEME. —The
London correspondent of the Manchester Examiner writes:—‘Mr. Patrick
Chalmers, who for years past has contested the claims of the late Sir
Rowland Hill to be the originator of the penny postage scheme, has
recently written to the Postmaster-General calling his attention to a
Treasury minute dated the 11th of March, 1864, conferring upon Sir
Rowland on his retirement from active service a pension of £2,000 a
year. In this minute the Lords of the Treasury say they “do not forget
that it has been by the powerful agency of the railway system that the
results attained have been rendered practicable, neither do they enter
into the question, as foreign to the occasion, what honour may be due to
those who before the development of the plans of Sir Rowland Hill
urged the adoption of uniform penny postage.” Mr. Chalmers advances
this as a distinct official confirmation of his contention that the penny
postage scheme of 1837, however energetically carried out by Sir
Rowland Hill, along with others, was in itself nothing more than a
ºréchauffe from beginning to end of the proposals of other men.” Amongst
those who claim to have originated the idea years before 1837 is the
Rev. Samuel Roberts, of Conway, who says he repeatedly petitioned the
Government and memorialised the Post Office on the subject. Mr.
Roberts, who has now reached the advanced age of 84, has, it is under-
stood, lately been presented by the Treasury with the sum of £50, to
which several private subscriptions have been added. If his claim to be
the originator of the scheme is well founded—and that is a question
which probably could be settled by documents in the archives of the
Post Office—it must be admitted that his reward has been indeed
scanty. Mr. Chalmers, as is well known, claims that the originator of
the adhesive stamp was his father, Mr. James Chalmers, and he proposes
to print further evidence to show that Sir Rowland Hill was not the
inventor of any one of the principles of the penny postage scheme.”
[Here I respectfully put the same questions as to the Manchester
Eacaminer. Surely this is a matter of sufficient national importance
for journals of such influence and high standing to have an opinion
upon Pl

106
The Middlesbrough News,
“Mr. Chalmers, of Wimbledon, has issued another pamphlet full of
fresh evidence as to the originator of the adhesive postage stamp—
evidence which seems to point without much doubt that his father,
the late Mr. Chalmers, of Dundee, was the inventor of the system now
in use of adhesive stamps for payment of carriage by post. -
Those who take an interest in this matter, and who wish to see the curt
treatment meted out to those who desire to have a wrong righted, should
procure this pamphlet from Mr. Patrick Chalmers, the youngest son of
the late James Chalmers, of Dundee. It is becoming daily more and
more acknowledged that Sir Rowland Hill allowed himself to receive
praise for an invention that belonged to another. It seems now clear
to us that the son's voice will have to be heard in high quarters, and the
honour that is due to his late father must ultimately receive some recog-
nition from the Government of the country that first adopted the
system which has revolutionised the world.”
The Wewcastle Ea:aminer. (Leading Article.)
“THE INVENTOR OF THE ADHESIVE STAMP. —After the death of
Sir Rowland Hill, the penny post and the advantages it had conferred
on the public were widely commented on, and a number of letters
appeared in the Dundee Advertiser drawing attention to the important
postal reforms of Mr. James Chalmers, a prominent bookseller in that
town, who died in 1853 at an advanced age. So far back as 1823
Mr. Chalmers had succeeded, after a lengthy correspondence with the
General Post Office officials, in accelerating the mails between London
and the North of Scotland by two days —a day each way / In the
year 1834 Mr. Chalmers conceived the idea of an adhesive stamp for
post-office purposes, and he made it known to Mr. Joseph Hume, M.P.,
and Mr. Wallace, and other post-office reformers, with the result that it
was adopted, along with the penny postage system proposed by Sir
(then Mr.) Rowland Hill.
“ Oddly enough, the writer of this was acquainted with Mr. Chal-
mers and with several gentlemen now living, who had seen the specimens
of Mr. Chalmers' stamps, and listened to his description of their advan-
tages if adopted. In addition to this evidence of contemporary friends,
the printer who set up the forme for the stamp, and the bookbinder
who put on the gum, are still alive, and have given their testimony in
favour of Mr. Chalmers having been the inventor of the adhesive stamp.
When Rowland Hill was rewarded for his services in connection with

107
the penny postage, the leading men in Dundee, finding that Mr. Chal-
mers' claims to public reward for his share in the success which attended
this reform had been unrequited, entertained him to a public banquet,
and presented him with a silver claret jug and salver and a purse of
sixty sovereigns, for the services he had rendered in the way of postal
reform. Mr. Patrick Chalmers, the son of the inventor of the adhe-
sive stamp, has just published, through Mr. Effingham Wilson,
of London, a most interesting pamphlet setting out the claims of his
late father and the evidences in support of these, and we can heartily
say of it that it is a contribution of the greatest value to the
history of postal reform. He also proves incontestably that the
System of penny postage was advocated by the Rev. Samuel Roberts,
a Welsh clergyman, before even Rowland Hill had submitted his
scheme to the postal authorities, and this gentleman is still alive at
the age of 84. Some time ago the Government granted him £50—a
fact which may be taken as evidence that his claims to have been the
suggestor of the penny postage are trustworthy. We trust that Mr.
Chalmers may yet receive a substantial recognition of his father's
services from the Government.”
The Frome Times.
“ Under the title of ‘The Letter and Parcel Post, and the Adhesive
Stamp,' Mr. Patrick Chalmers has a very interesting story to tell. Sir
Rowland Hill was the great factor in organising the penny postal
system, and in the strain of hero worship which has become so common
at the present day, his admirers are not content with giving him his just
due, but laud him as though he were the creator of the entire postal
system. Among the aids which Sir Rowland Hill undoubtedly had
from others was the use of the adhesive stamp, and on this point Mr.
Chalmers proves that his father, Mr. James Chalmers, a bookseller of
Dundee, was the inventor, and had the stamp prepared at a time when
Sir Rowland Hill himself said that he had not dreamt of adhesive stamps.
The analogy seems to be found in the introduction of the present parcel
post. Mr. Fawcett has merely adapted in the Post Office a well-estab-
lished industry.”
The Surrey Independent.
“Looking over again the ‘Opinions from the Press, upon which
we remarked last week, while the indispensable value of the adhesive
stamp to our postage system, and now to Mr. Fawcett's small savings'

108
system and Parcel Post, is prominently advanced, and one writer further
points out that ‘it has even infringed on the domain of the currency,
for by means of the adhesive stamp thousands of small accounts are
daily paid, its value to the Inland Revenue department has so far been
wholly overlooked. From the last report issued we find, under the head of
stamps, that receipt, draft, and other penny Inland Revenue stamps,
produced last year a revenue of no less than £915,045. Again, stamps
on Bills of Exchange produced a revenue of £758,000, also largely made
up from the adhesive stamps affixed on arrival to Bills drawn from
abroad, which as every merchant knows, are not valid or negotiable until
an adhesive stamp, according to the amount of the bill, be first affixed.”
The Surrey Advertiser.
“Mr. Patrick Chalmers has published some more correspondence
relative to the ‘Postal Reform and Adhesive Stamp' question. Mr.
Chalmers is quite within his right in keeping the matter steadily before
the public, and in supplying them with information in support of his
contention that his father is entitled to the honour of having invented
the adhesive stamp, and done much to bring about universal penny
postage, while ‘the great services of Sir Rowland Hill have been cor-
dially recognised.’”
The Irvine Eapress.
“This pamphlet gives, we think, conclusive proof that the claim to
the merit of the real inventor was officially ignored. This contention of
the pamphlet has been warmly recognised by the Town Council of
Dundee, and it seems clear that up to this time we have given undue
credit to the wrong man.” -
The Haddingtonshire Advertiser.
“The evidence seems certainly to be in favour of Mr. James
Chalmers, Dundee, but though the Scotch press has been almost unani-
mous in proclaiming this, the authorities in London have persisted in
ignoring almost everything that has been said.”
[I now beg to refer this writer to the letter from Mr. Blackwood,
“ignoring everything that has been said " by my opponents, and to
“The Submission of the Sir Rowland Hill Committee.” Is he yet
satisfied, like the “almost unanimous” voice of the Scotch press ||
109
The Perthshire Constitutional.
“Mr. Patrick Chalmers, son of the late James Chalmers, bookseller,
Dundee, has done a great deal to knock the reputation of Sir Rowland
Hill, as ‘the originator of the adhesive stamp, into “a cocked hat,’
but he is not yet finished with the subject. On the contrary, he has
made a decided advance in an unlooked for direction. He has already
clearly shown, to the satisfaction of all who care to look into the matter,
that his late father, and not Sir Rowland Hill, was the originator of the
adhesive stamp. He is now able to show, upon no less authority than
the Lords of the Treasury, that Sir Rowland Hill was not even the
originator of the Penny Postage scheme itself. . . . A more dis-
tinct confirmation of what has all along been advanced by Mr. Chalmers
could scarcely be desired ; and in the face of it, the Government should
not delay any longer in recognising Mr. Chalmers' claim ; and doing
justice to the memory of his father.”
The City Press
“Mr. P. Chalmers, F.R.H.S., who claims to have proved that his
father, Mr. James Chalmers, was the originator of the adhesive stamp
as used for postage purposes, is further endeavouring to prove that Sir
Rowland Hill was not even the inventor or originator of any one of
the principles or figures of the penny postage scheme itself.”
[If the Editor of the City Press will now be good enough to read
this pamphlet, he will see that I have made good both propositions.]
I invite special reference to the Appendix.



110
APPENDIX.
ORIGIN AND FOUNDATION OF THE UNIFORM
PENNY POSTAGE SYSTEM.
No greater delusion has ever obtained a footing in this country than
that the reformed uniform penny postage system was an invention, the
product of the genius of Sir Rowland Hill—yet has not the Athenaeum
told us that this reform “was his sole and undisputed invention, from
“ the workshop of an inventive mind”—and has not the Times equally
said, upon the decease of Sir Rowland Hill, that “he devised the penny
“ postage unaided before he had ever been inside a Post Office”—and
did not the press in general re-echo these sentiments, and, with these
journals, call for the highest honours of the State to be bestowed upon
the deceased genius and benefactor—one still a benefactor, but certainly
no inventor, as can be shortly proved
From a study of the Blue-books issued prior to 1837, it will be
found that the Penny Postage scheme of 1837 was, in its entirety, only
an unacknowledged copy, identical with a pre-existing proposal of the
Commissioners of Post Office Inquiry as contained in their Fifth Report
of 1835–36. The origin, again, of the proposals of this Fifth Report
came from the Continent. Memorials having been sent in complaining
of the high rates of postage, the same as upon letters, to which mercan-
tile prices current were subjected, these Commissioners, in the year
1835, held an inquiry upon the subject, in the course of which much
valuable evidence was obtained from eminent City merchants, such as
Mr. Joshua Bates and others, including members of foreign houses doing
business with the Continent. From the evidence and subsequent report

111
it appeared that while the rates of postage in general were lower on the
Continent than in this country, mercantile circulars enclosed in a
wrapper open at the ends were transmitted by post “in France and
“generally on the Continent" at a uniform rate, irrespective of distance,
of the equivalent of a penny, paid on delivery. While such a docu-
ment could be sent to or from Berlin to Hamburg, or to and from
Marseilles, Bordeaux, or Paris, for a penny, the postage on reaching this
country was 2s. 4d.-being 1s. 2d. as a letter, and a further 1s. 2d. for
the wrapper, making same a double letter. Of this the foreign houses
trading with the Continent complained grievously. To the Commis-
sioners these comparative charges appeared a startling discrepancy,
while it is scarcely less startling to find that the germ of our uniform
Penny Postage system really came from abroad. In the interests of
trade and commerce such an example was irresistible, and, still improving
upon the Continental system, the Commissioners, under date, April, 1836,
report and recommend, shortly stated, a low and uniform rate of postage
on prices current and similar mercantile publications, then subject to the
same high and variable rates as were letters, to be prepaid by stamp im-
pressed upon the sheet of paper, and charged by weight ° in place of
by sheet, at the rate of one penny the half-ounce. This Report I have
already twice published in full.
Insert “ letters,” and we have Mr. Hill's scheme from beginning to
end. No reference whatever having been made to the proposals of this
Fifth Report by Sir Rowland Hill in any of his writings, the result has
been that he has thus obtained the credit of having invented this
valuable system.
In his pamphlet of 1837 Mr. Hill points out the great benefit
to be derived by trade and commerce as respects the cheap trans-
mission of prices current, and the large number of such that would
certainly be transmitted, should his plan be adopted ; but that the very
same plan had already been put forward in this document which lay
before him he does not tell us. And that such Report lay before him is
clear. Reference may be here made to the facilities Mr. Hill possessed
in the way of obtaining the views and proposals of the postal reformers,
with the Blue-books of that period from them, already given at page 40.
* Mr. Wallace had, in 1835, pleaded in the House of Commons for letters to be
charged by weight in place of by sheet.


112
Again, in his “Life,” Vol. I., page 258, Sir Rowland Hill distinctly
alludes to this Commission of Inquiry, which sat from 1835 to 1838,
“during which it issued no less than ten Reports, its efforts fairly
“entitling it to the credit of much of the subsequent improvement.”
“Fairly entitled,” indeed But that in one of these ten Reports was
embodied and recommended the very principles and figures of his scheme
is left unsaid. Indeed, so far from telling us this, Sir Rowland Hill
tells us how the more important of these principles and figures arose in
his own mind, the original kept out of sight and his own calculations
and conclusions substituted. The Treasury Minute of 11th March,
1864, confirming what that pioneer of postal reform, the Rev. Samuel
Roberts, states as to uniform penny postage on letters having been
“well known around the Post Office and other high places,” Sir Row-
land declares to be all nonsense—no one had ever proposed such a thing;
he knew better; but in vain endeavoured to get the Treasury to
retract. What was all this but a mania, bred of an overweening assur-
ance and a grasping ambition, subsequently extending itself to the
appropriation of James Chalmers' invention and proposal, the adhesive
postage stamp. -
From “circulars” to “letters” was an evident step, and that such
had been urged upon the Government prior to the proposals of Mr.
Hill has been conclusively shown.
To the objection “What will become of the revenue !” it was
replied that, by the Act of Charles II, establishing the Post Office,
“Public convenience, and not revenue,” was the object aimed at and
declared ; and such earnest postal reformers as Lord Lowther, Lord
Ashburton, Lord Sandon, and Mr. Jones Lloyd (Lord Overstone)
upheld this view of the matter, subsequently adhered to by Mr.
Rowland Hill. (See his evidence before the Select Committee on
Postage of the year 1843, Question No. 74.)
Such, then, is a brief, yet clear account of the origin of the reformed
postal system, erroneously ascribed to the genius of Sir Rowland Hill,
| 22
“devised by him unaided before he had ever been inside a Post Office
º
:

113
:
THE
FAMOUS CALCULATION OF #th OF A PENNY.
THIS remarkable production from the ºpen of Sir Rowland Hill,
which led him to discover the great principle of “uniformity,” about
which so many have heard and written, but so few have seen or looked
into, is very imposing to look at but after all very simple. After six
pages of figures and tables, subtracting this and adding that, Mr. Hill
ends where he might as well have begun (except for the purpose of
throwing dust in the eyes of the awe-struck and bewildered reader) by
giving a short, separate, memorandum of six lines. This shows that
the cost of conveyance of the mail bags from London to Edinburgh
amounted to no more than £5, including guards' wages for six days—the
weight of the mails being, net, 6 cwt., and a letter weighing only 4 oz.:
the cost of conveyance of a letter for a distance of 400 miles was thus
only ºth of a penny. This marvellous result of all his calculations
led to the principle of “uniformity’ arising to his mind—if the cost of
conveyance for 400 miles is so infinitesimal, that cost should be uniform
irrespective of distance, an idea never before heard of What the cost
of conveyance might be betwixt other places where letters were few and
charges heavy, Mr. Hill does not say, nor why the weight of a letter
averaging 3 oz. should be taken at only 4 oz. As well might the man
who now travels from Charing Cross to beyond the Bank, over two
miles, for ld, quote that sum as the average cost of travelling in less
frequented and more remote districts. The mail-coach got its living by
carrying passengers, besides being exempted from tolls in England if
carrying the mails, so took the mail bags for this small charge, if such
the charge was.
But once leave the mail-coach route, when your letters, dwindled to
a bag or a handful, had to be conveyed where there were no passengers,
H

114
and conveyance had to be paid for in full, and where were you ! No
infinitesimal sum per letter then, but something very substantial,
especially at the period in question. In this way the cost of conveyance
of a letter not many miles out of Edinburgh, or but a short distance
from any station on the mail-coach route, might clearly be very
Imaterial.
Mr. Hill is not insensible to this view of the matter, and soon
begins to inquire what is to be done when the cost of conveyance from
London is more than a penny per letter. More than a penny And if
in many cases more than a penny, in how many more cases would that
cost be three farthings, or a halfpenny, or a farthing ' Yet we have
just had all these pages of figures to prove that the cost of conveyance
was quite infinitesimal, only ºth of a penny for 400 miles, and thus
was the great principle of “uniformity" discovered ; though, on second
thoughts, Mr. Hill admits there was no infinitesimal sum nor uniformity
in the cost of conveyance whatever !
Could anything be more absurd—unless it be what Mr. Hill pro-
poses should be done where the cost of conveyance to any locality was
more than a penny a letter. In such cases there was to be a “Secondary
Distribution.” The localities so situated were to have the privilege,
after having taken out a licence “through the Guardians of the Poor,”
of fetching and carrying their own bags to and from the nearest mail-
coach centre, charging the cost on the rates or on the letter, or in other
words setting up a post-office for themselves. In all this Mr. Hill
saw little difficulty, though after paying their proportionate cost of the
packet service,” secondary distribution would have included all or
most of Ireland and the Channel Islands, with half, or more than half
in those days, of the area of the kingdom. Such is the remarkable pic-
ture presented to our minds, by which we are asked to believe Mr.
Hill discovered “uniformity” all by himself. To most people the only
uniformity apparent in contemplating same will be a picture of uniform
confusion, jobbery, and peculation. In 1837, however, any such
criticisms were overwhelmed by the offer of a penny postage, come at it
how you may.
* This service was then carried on at the public expense, the cost of the packet
boats being £273,000, and carried on at an annual net loss of £40,000. See Sixth
Report of Commissioners.
115
Having thus by this calculation arrived at the principle of
“uniformity,” how came Mr. Hill to fix the measure of taxation at a
penny the oz., neither more nor less? What led him to do so he tells
us in his “Life.” Surely, it will be said, such must form a prominent
feature in this work ; there must be pages telling us what brought his
mind, from a high and variable rate, to think of and to decide upon
this magic penny. If not with this, with what else of equal interest can
these two ponderous volumes be filled ! All that we are told, however, is
shortly this, that the penny was fixed upon by him because it was “the
“minimum then in use.” Unfortunately for this explanation, there
was no such minimum then in use upon letters. There was a penny
postage upon newspapers by the local post, but there appears no
intelligible reason why, because local post newspapers were charged each
one penny postage, the rate for letters should have been fixed upon by
Mr. Hill at a penny the oz., irrespective of distance. We know now
that a uniform penny postage was a current idea amongst the postal
reformers of the period, and that such had been “urged upon the
Government;” only Sir Rowland Hill denies this, ignores altogether
this Fifth Report, in which charge by weight, prepayment, and the
use of stamps had already been recommended, and assumes the
entire conception as his own—“his plan.” Could the force of mania
further go
Just as in the case of some public blunder or mismanagement, some
individual partly though not very especially to blame, is turned into a
scapegoat, no explanations availing him, so with a great public improve-
ment ; some one prominently concerned is fixed upon to glorify, all he
has done or professed to have done, or even more, is unreservedly placed
to his credit, and some perhaps very ordinary, if not also very designing,
individual transformed into a god.
EFFINGHAM WILSON, PRINTER, ROYAL EXCHANGE, E.C.

THE 7 227º
3merican philattlit 3380tiation
AND THE
ADHESIVE POSTAGE STAMP.
, º, ... BY
PATRICK CHALMERS,
Fellow of the Royal Historical Society.
LONDON sº
EFFINGHAM WILSON & Co., ROYAL




1887.
THE AMERICAN PHILATELIC ASSOCIATION
AND
THE ADHESIVE POSTAGE STAMP.
WHILE there exists in this country only one Philatelic Society, in the
United States of America such societies are many in number, estab-
lished in most of the more important cities. Stamp-collecting forms
| a large branch of business—the dealers may be reckoned by hundreds,
With a corresponding constituency of many thousands. Magazines
devoted solely to stamps, their origin and progress in all countries,
and giving notices of the proceedings of the various societies, are
current throughout the Union. Nor is stamp-collecting the mere
hobby or idle fancy yet so generally looked upon in this country. As
eloquently set forth in the able address of the President of the
“American Philatelic Association ” about to be noticed, “ Collectors
“ have discovered that these little bits of paper have an interest much
“greater than that of oddity of design or shape, attractiveness of
“workmanship or colour; that to thoroughly understand them much
“ must be learned of art, of the artistic talent, and of the mechanical
“ processes and skill that are required to adapt them to their use, and
y “ are spent in their manufacture; that much of geography must be
“learned, and of postal law and regulation. The public is beginning
“to learn, as one after another is induced to examine the pages of
“ the intelligently filled albums that may now be found in every city
“ and in many a quiet village, that these tiny gems are really the
“ monuments and records of much of the world's history, if not
“ always of its political, at least of its commercial history, which is
“ often the most important. For here is written much of how
“‘ empires have grown and tottered to decay. In the Sombre colours


4
“ of the first block, the V.R., the Mulready envelope, through the
“ succeeding issues to the Jubilee series that this year have been
“added to our albums, are recorded forty-seven years of the reign of
“England's Queen. In the stamps of France, the Republic, the
“Presidency, the Empire, the German war, the siege of Paris, the
“ balloon and pigeon posts, the loss of Alsace, the Republic again, are
“all recorded. The Unification of Italy, the loss of the temporal
“ power of the Popes, the amalgamation of Germany, the changes in
“Turkey and its subordinate States, the spread of the English
“Supremacy in India, the gradual march of our civilisation in China
“ and Japan, a United Canada, the civilising of South America, the
“civil war and some of its greatest tragedies in the United States,
“ are all there recorded, and from finding it at first attractive, the
“ public is finding it instructive. Even in some of the public Schools,
“stamp-collecting has been introduced as an assistant instructor.
“The public press has come to speak always with more respect, Some-
“ times with eulogy even, of a pursuit which is now found to occupy
“ the leisure of potentates and statesmen, judges, counsellors and
“ attorneys, physicians and clergy, the princes and magnates of the
“ commercial world, the officers of the army and navy, as well as
“ thousands of the workers in less conspicuous positions, not merely
“ as a pastime and a fashionable frivolity, but as an interesting study.”
Again, “the growth and spread of the desire for this knowledge
“ has been fostered largely by the journals devoted to stamp collecting,
“but perhaps still more by the formation of associations and Societies
“ of stamp collectors, primarily in most cases for mutual assistance in
“ enriching their collections, but always incidentally, often principally,
“ with the object of learning something concerning their mutual
“ pursuit.”
That these Societies, or such members of same as may so desire,
should come together in one great and central body for the purpose
of still further developing this pursuit, of spreading information and
generally popularising the study of Philatelism, is the object of the
American Philatelic Association, established last year in New York at
a meeting of Philatelists from all parts of the Union. The wide basis
upon which this Association has been framed may be gathered from
the following list of office-bearers:–

5
President ... ... ... JoHN K. TIFFANY, St. Louis, Missouri.
Vice-President ... ... R. R. BoGERT ... New York City.
Secretary ... ... ... S. B. BRADT ... Grand Crossing, Illinois.
Treasurer ... ... ... L. W. DURBIN ... Philadelphia, Pa.
International Secretary JAS. RECHERT ... Hoboken, New Jersey.
Eachange Superintendent HENRY CLOTZ ... New York City
Counterfeit Detector ... E. A. HoLTON ... Boston, Massachusetts.
Purchasing Agent ... T. F. CUNo ... Brooklyn, New York.
Librariam ... ... ... E. D. KLINE ... Toledo, Ohio.
Board of Trustees ... E. B. STERLING, Trenton, New Jersey.
- W. v. D. WETTERN, JR. Baltimore, Maryland.
J. C. FELDWISCH ... ... Denver, Colorado.

If the collections of adhesive postage stamps possessed by one or
two millionaires in Paris may exceed in money value any yet existing
elsewhere, as regards the history of the subject from the days of penny
postage reform, the period of their first issue, nothing elsewhere can
exceed or even approach the extent of records and information existing
in the libraries of American Philatelists. That of President Tiffany,
for instance, contains 700 bound volumes relating to stamps alone,
their history and collection. Some of these volumes consist of from
five to ten pamphlets each. He has also some 1,200 extracts from
newspapers, &c., in scrap-books, relating to the subject; and, in
addition, many works relating to the Post Office and its history—a
collection altogether larger than any other library, public or private,
can show on this subject. In 1874 he issued a book called “The
Philatelic Library,” a copy of which is in the British Museum Library,
and has just issued a work of much value, in 280 pages, “The History
of the Postage Stamps of the United States.”
As to have been expected therefore, the controversy which has
been going on for some time past as to whether Rowland Hill or
James Chalmers was the originator of the adhesive postage stamp has
excited no small stir and interest among the Philatelists of America,
where over 500 copies of my publications have been read and passed
round. The belief of a generation there, as here, that such was the
invention of Sir Rowland Hill, has been rudely shaken, if not yet

6
wholly overturned, by my claim on behalf of my late father, and this
though my opponents there, as here, have been both busy and
powerful—every available statement on either side has been eagerly
read, with a result to me and my cause of the most gratifying nature.
In addition to many press articles, the favourable verdict of Historical
and other institutions, thirteen Philatelic Societies have spontaneously
passed special resolutions in recognition of James Chalmers, eight of
which Societies, in recognition of my efforts and of the fresh light
I have thrown upon the whole subject, have further been pleased
to elect me an honorary member of their body.
“But what will the Association say at their forthcoming meeting
“ at Chicago 2 ” has been the critical question of late. “Will they vote
“ for Hill or Chalmers, or will they take action at all in the matter 2 ”
This point of the highest interest and importance has now been
set at rest, and I have the satisfaction to subjoin the decision of this
body in the following full and unqualified recognition of James
Chalmers, commencing with the official letter from the Secretary :—
“SECRETARY'S OFFICE,
“GRAND CROSSING, IL.L.,
“ September 12th, 1887.
“Mr. PAT. CHALMERs, LONDON.
“ DEAR SIR,
“It is my pleasant task to inform you that at the second
“Annual Convention of the American Philatelic Association, held in
“Chicago, Ill., on August 8th, 9th, and 10th, the following resolutions
“were adopted:—
“‘ Resolved: That this Association, upon proof submitted by living
“‘ witnesses, does endorse the claims made by Mr. Patrick Chalmers
‘‘ on behalf of his father, the late James Chalmers, as inventor of
“‘ the Adhesive Stamp ; and be it further—
“‘ Resolved: That the congratulations of this Association be
‘‘ extended to Mr. Patrick Chalmers for the success his untiring
‘‘ efforts have attained in establishing beyond doubt an important
‘ ‘ historical fact ; and be it still further—
4.
4.
.
&
7
“‘ Resolved: That the Secretary be instructed to forward a copy
“‘ of these resolutions to Mr. Patrick Chalmers, and have the same
“‘ published in the official journal.”
“With deep personal regard, I beg to remain,
“Yours very truly,
“ S. B. BRADT,
“Secretary American Philatelic Association.”
At this Convention “187 members of the Association were repre-
“Sented in person or by proxy.” The vote was unanimous, less one
dissentient—a proxy. Mr. Bradt in a further letter kindly says:—
“Accept my profound congratulations on the ever-increasing strength
“you are adding to your cause, and my best wishes for the speedy
“ arrival of the time when its justice shall be universally conceded.”
The above letter I have acknowledged as follows:—
“WIMBLEDON,
“24th September, 1887.
‘‘ DEAR SIR,
“I have the honour to acknowledge receipt of your
“ communication of 12th inst., handing me copy of the Resolutions
“arrived at by the American Philatelic Association at the Convention
“just held at Chicago, in recognition of my father, the late James
“Chalmers, Dundee, as having been the inventor of the adhesive
“ postage stamp. In a further Resolution your Association is good
“ enough to congratulate me upon the success I have met with in
“establishing beyond doubt this important historical fact.
“Simply to offer in return, as I now do, my heartfelt thanks to the
“ members of your Association but faintly expresses the gratitude
“I feel in having been favoured with this most courteous and valuable
“recognition. To the gratification of finding a numerous body of
“gentlemen specially acquainted with the subject officially recognising
“my claim is to be added the important effect which their support
“will have in enabling me to obtain attention in quarters hitherto
“impervious to the facts. Long-cherished delusions proverbially die
“hard; but where my weak voice has yet failed to penetrate, the


8
“ verdict of the American Philatelic Association will carry conviction
“ to every impartial mind.
“Trusting your Association may long continue to prosper in ever-
“increasing numbers and efficiency,
“I remain, dear Sir,
“Yours faithfully,
“ PATRICK CHALMERS.
“Mr. S. B. BRADT,
“Secretary,
“The American Philatelic Association.”
Turning now to the masterly address of President Tiffany on the
occasion, filling a space of seven pages in the Western Philatelist
magazine, the official journal of the Association, I extract the remarks
having reference to James Chalmers:—“Three years of discussion,
“ public and private, ensued before the statesmen of the day even
“ dared to try this new scheme; and when at last the Lords and the
“Commons had heard all the testimony of all classes of the kingdom,
“ and it seemed it might be a good thing if it could be done, it was
“ about to fail for want of a practical method of collecting the money
“ in advance without too great inconvenience to the public. Rowland
“ Hill, to whom hardly too great a meed of praise can be given as
“one of those who have succeeded in putting into execution their
“ plans for the amelioration of the human race, does not seem to have
“ at first suggested a very practical method of collecting the postage.
“Think for a moment of the scenes that would be witnessed at the
“ post-offices of any of our large cities if every letter had to be carried
“ to the window, weighed, and paid for in money; and his stamped
“sheets and covers, or envelopes, were hardly better or more conve-
“ nient. At this juncture parties to whom the invention of James
“Chalmers, of Dundee, had been communicated, brought it forward
“in Parliament again, and Uniform Penny Postage was made simple
“ and practical by the Adhesive Postage Stamp. Thirty-two pages of
“ printing started the reform. About one-half a square inch of paper
“ printed on one side and gummed on the other made it practicable
“ and perpetuated it. It is all so familiar now, so easy, so trivial,
“ that we hardly pause to think of it. Few persons imagine any other
9
:
“state of affairs as possible ; few ever give to Hill or Chalmers a
“ thought, much less the meed of thanks which is their due. We
“ may not pause here to-day to consider how great the change this
“suggestion has wrought ; how it has modified the ways of doing
“business; how it has increased the possibilities of intercourse be-
“tween severed friends, facilitated the circulation of ideas and views,
“ and made the whole world kin. But its growth was slow. Esta-
“blished in England in 1840, it was only after five years of agitation,
“ discussion, and investigation, that uniform postage was adopted in
“ the United States, and then only partially. It was two years more
“ before the Adhesive Postage Stamp was authorised by law, for the
“first stamp sold by the Postmaster-General of the United States was
“sold on the 5th of August, 1847, just forty years ago last Friday:
“ and it was seven years more before compulsory pre-payment was
“enacted. Other countries had adopted postage stamps before the
“ United States. Gradually they have been introduced in all civilised
“ countries, and many half-civilised and even barbaric nations, as
“We call them, are now enjoying the benefits of the invention of
“Chalmers and the persevering energy of Hill.”
Again :—“Before the American Philatelic Association shall have
“ attained its full growth and vigour, we may see the day when it
“will cost no more to send a letter from Chicago to the ends of the
“earth than it does to send it from New York to Brooklyn, for the
“principle of uniform postage is applicable to the case, and to-day a
“letter travels with greater security from London to the remotest
“ corner of India, from Chicago to Japan for less postage than it was
“ carried for before the adoption of the plans of Hill, and the
“invention of Chalmers from one part of England to another, or
“from Washington to New York. And these little bits of coloured
“ paper, which are used and thrown away by the thousands every day
“in the four corners of the earth, are the potent agents which have
“ made all this possible.”
Here, then, may now be read from the proceedings of this
Association, and from the calm and judicial words of its President, in


10
what light are regarded in quarters specially qualified to pronounce,
the name and services of James Chalmers. Not only was he the inven-
tor of the adhesive postage stamp, but he further took the initiative in
proposing its adoption for the purpose of carrying out in practice the
proposed penny postage reform. “Parties” to whom he had
“communicated ” and enforced this plan brought it forward in
Parliament when all was confusion and chaos—through his timely
counsel the scheme was saved and has been carried out, “These little
“bits of coloured paper " are the “potent agents '' whereby all the
advantages of this reformed postal system, commercial and social,
have been preserved to the nation and to the world. Withdraw his
stamp, and everything reverts to the state of confusion and chaos from
which he delivered us. Add to all this that it is through what
another able writer, the contributor to the “Encyclopædia Britannica,”
has termed “the powerful mechanism of the stamp,” that millions
have been poured and continue yearly to be poured into the public
Treasury, then surely it is not too much to Say that here is a man,
himself unrewarded, who has “dome the State some service.”
That the world has for a generation been led into a delusion on
the whole subject—that the penny postage Scheme itself was, after all,
in no one of its principles an original conception on the part of
Rowland Hill, is passed over in this address of the President, with the
quiet remark, “Its idea was not absolutely novel, perhaps, for others
before had suggested pretty much the same thing.” That Philatelists
have all this while been misled into worshipping as their “patron
“saint ’’ the wrong man, draws forth from him no word of censure or
complaint—all that is laid aside—his are not the words of a partisan,
but of one who has desired to temper justice with mercy. The verdict
of the man who under such circumstances has still nothing but
commendation to pass upon the services of Rowland Hill, will thus all
the more conclusively recommend itself to those who now read his
emphatic vindication of the services of James Chalmers.
The proceedings of this Convention, including the address, in
substance or in full, of the President, will find publication in every
Philatelic journal, not alone in the United States, but also of this
11
º
country and on the Continent, in many of which a biographical
notice, accompanied by likeness of James Chalmers, or articles on the
Subject, have already appeared, including Paris, Vienna, Munich, and
Constantinople for the Levant. The meeting next year takes place at
Boston.
Looking at the proceedings of this Association, coupled with the
decisions in my favour of the leading biographical works of the day,
with other recognitions of importance, no impartial writer can now
for a moment doubt on which side the facts of this matter stand.
Indeed, I have shown from the columns of the Times itself that
Rowland Hill was neither the first amongst postal reformers to suggest
a low and uniform rate of postage irrespective of distance, and also,
from the same columns, that he was not the first to propose the
adoption of the adhesive stamp for the purpose of carrying out the
Scheme, further so conclusively proved by official statements in
Parliament—statements which in his “History of Penny Postage,”
Sir Rowland Hill has kept wholly out of sight, just as in his
pamphlet of 1837 he omitted to notice the sources from which he
derived the proposals there put forward.”
Not content with the high position to which he was entitled, to
have that Penny Postage scheme understood as having been one of
his own conception, the product of his own genius, was with Sir Row-
land Hill what can only be described as a mania—no second party
Was to be allowed to share with him any portion of the credit attach-
ing to this great and beneficial reform{–and to that mania James
Chalmers was sacrificed.
* These sources have been pointed out in my late pamphlets, “The Adhesive
“Postage Stamp,” and “Submission of the Sir Rowland Hill Committee,” the
contents of which latter pamphlet are annexed. To such as may still wish to know
why my efforts to vindicate my late father's services have only appeared of late years,
I beg reference to these and other publications for explanation.
t In the Jubilee panegyrics with which the London press has lately teemed,
while exulting in the success of this reform, it has been wholly overlooked that, up
to the end of the administration of Sir Rowland Hill at the Post Office, the loss
of revenue amounted to fourteen millions sterling. See “Submission of the Sir
“Rowland Hill Committee,” page 47.


12
While, therefore, and as all will agree in doing, cordially bearing
in mind the great services of Sir Rowland Hill, let us at the same
time (as expressed in my representation to the Lord Mayor, the Chairman
of the Sir Rowland Hill Memorial Fund) “be just as well as generous,
“just to the memory of those postal reformers immediately preceding
“ him, and from whose hands Rowland Hill received the materials of
“ this reformed scheme—just to the memory of James Chalmers who
“saved this scheme from failure by showing how alone such could be
“carried out in practice—and just to the public, who, while being asked
“for money, are entitled to be made distinctly acquainted with the
“facts,” facts of which, as shown in my publication termed “Con-
“ cealment Unveiled, a Tale of the Mansion House,” the members of
this Committee themselves, or some of them, are perfectly aware, but
have concealed from the public.
My kind friends and supporters in this country, both in and out of
the press, will now notice with feelings of gratification the success I
have met with in other lands in establishing the cause for which we
have laboured—a cause which may now be looked upon as secure.

13
AFFENDIX.
THE ADHESIVE POSTAGE STAMP.
In the pamphlet above named, it is easily and clearly proved, not only
from the writings of Sir Rowland Hill himself in 1837 and 1838, but further
from the official declarations in Parliament on the introduction of the Penny
Postage Bill in July, 1839, that the adoption of the adhesive stamp formed no
part of the original intentions or proposals of Sir Rowland Hill. The
Government being wholly at a loss how to carry out the scheme in practice, it
was then that Mr. Wallace proposed the plan of the adhesive stamp which
had been laid by James Chalmers before the Committee of the House of
Commons. That James Chalmers, bookseller, Dundee, was the originator of
that indispensable feature in the success of the reformed Penny Postage
scheme is already largely recognised both in this country and abroad, while
the pamphlet above named will be found conclusive on the subject, containing,
as it does—
The decision of the Encyclopædia Britannica in favour of James Chalmers
as having been the inventor, in the month of August, 1834, of the Adhesive
Postage Stamp, such decision having been arrived at after a lengthened
investigation of the respective statements put forward on the subject by myself
and by Mr. Pearson Hill, who himself initiated the inquiry.
A second investigation on the part of the Dictionary of National Bio-
graphy now under publication confirms this decision. James Chalmers was
the inventor of the adhesive stamp for postage purposes in the month of
August, 1834.
In addition to these conclusive awards, may now be read in the pamphlet
from evidence which has since come to light from papers bequeathed to the
South Kensington Museum Library by the late Sir Henry Cole, the original
plan by James Chalmers of the Adhesive Postage Stamp, to be printed from a
die of various values for use according to weight of letter, on sheets of paper
specially prepared for the purpose and afterwards gummed over with an adhe-
sive substance, to be sold in sheets, in lesser quantities, or singly, as required,
at post-offices, or by stationers, all as subsequently adopted by Mr. Rowland
Hill and in use to this day. -
This plan in printed form, with copious remarks, was laid before the then
Mr. Cole as Secretary to the Mercantile Committee of the City of London, and
before Mr. Rowland Hill himself, by Mr. Chalmers, under date Dundee,
8th February, 1838, a year and a half before the Penny Postage Bill was
introduced into Parliament.
The same plan had previously been laid by Mr. Chalmers before the
Select Committee of the House of Commons appointed to consider the pro-
posed Penny Postage scheme of Mr. Rowland Hill. The letter of acknow-
ledgment of Mr. Wallace, the chairman, is of date the 9th December, 1837.
14
The reply of Mr. Rowland Hill to Mr. Chalmers is of date 3rd March,
1838; and in this reply Mr. Hill makes no pretensions to having himself
proposed or being then in favour of an adhesive stamp.
Mr. Chalmers' plan, however, found adherents in increasing numbers, and
ultimately, after plans had, in August, 1839, been invited from the public and
nothing better found, the adhesive stamp was officially adopted by Treasury
Minute of date 26th December, 1839, in conjunction with Mr. Rowland Hill's
plan of impressed stamp covers, or stamp impressed upon the sheet of letter
paper itself.
On sending in his claim as having been the originator of the adhesive
stamp, Mr. Chalmers was informed by Mr. Hill, then in despotic power at the
Treasury, in a letter of date 18th January, 1840, that his claim could not be
admitted upon a mere pretext and afterthought, bred of the success which had
attended Mr. Chalmers' proposal.
Putting Mr. Chalmers aside, consequently, by a representation wholly at
variance with the facts as proved in the pamphlet, as well as being in direct
contradiction of his previous letter to Mr. Chalmers of 3rd March, 1838,
Mr. Hill took to himself the merit of the stamp just as he had previously
assumed to himself the merit of the proposals contained in the borrowed
scheme.
I have explained in the preface that, having left Dundee over fifty years
ago, and passed much of the interval abroad, it was only through letters which
appeared in the Dundee press upon the demise of Sir Rowland Hill that my
attention was drawn to a matter as to which, up to then, I knew little or
nothing.
It is now proved that not only was James Chalmers the inventor of the
adhesive postage stamp, but that he further took the initiative in proposing its
adoption for the purpose of carrying out the Penny Postage scheme.
The ultimate adoption of the adhesive stamp in December, 1839, saved
the Penny Postage scheme from untimely collapse. After over forty years of
public service the number of adhesive stamps of various values now issued
for the carrying on of our Postal, Inland Revenue, Telegraphic, and Parceſ
Post services, amounts to two thousand millions yearly—four tons weight
a day, in this country alone. Thirty-three millions of parcels are now
annually conveyed by Parcel Post—a fresh business, only practicable through
prepayment by adhesive stamp. In all other lands, one after another, has the
adhesive stamp become an indispensable institution for similar purposes as in
Olli OWI). -
Here, then, in addition to the verdict of able and learned men whom I
have never met, I now connect my father directly with the City of London
through that Mercantile Committee which pushed the Penny Postage scheme
and Bill through Parliament.
And yet the merit of the invention and proposal of this invaluable and
indispensable public servant has all this while been attributed by the London
press in general to the wrong man.
P. C.
1, MAYFIELD ROAD,
WIMBLEDON, Oct, 1887.
-


15
SUBMISSION
OF
THE SIR ROWLAND HILL COMMITTEE.
CONTENTS.
PART FIRST.
PAGE
The Penny Postage Scheme of Sir Rowland Hill not original ... --- --- 14
Admission to that effect by the Sir Rowland Hill Committee, and consequent
change of Inscription on the City Statue ... --- --- --- -- 15
Concealment from the Public --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 16
Submission of the Committee --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 19
The Press of the City of London ... --- --- --- --- --- --- 25
PART SECOND.
Summary of the Pamphlet “The Adhesive Postage Stamp " ... --- --- 29
Resolution of the Dundee Town Council ... --- --- --- --- --- 32
Summary of 86 Press Notices already published ... ---- --- --- --- 33
Mr. G. A. Sala --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 34
Sir Thomas Nelson ... --- --- --- ----- --- --- --- --- 36
Sir Bartle Frere --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 36
PART THIRD.
Opinions from the Press, Fourth Series.
Decision of the Encyclopædia Britannica in favour of James Chalmers --- 38
Original Plan of the Adhesive Postage Stamp sent to the Mercantile Com-
mittee of the City of London by James Chalmers ... --- --- --- 48
The Rev. Samuel Roberts, M.A. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 55
Official Letter from H.M. Post Office repudiating the statements of my
opponents --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 59
Legacy to the Countrymen of James Chalmers ... --- --- ----- --- 62
Summary of 66 additional Press Notices ... --- --- -- --- --- 64
The Liverpool Daily Post ... --- ---- --- --- . . . .-- --- 67
PART FOURTH.
-º
Success in the United States of America.
The Bureau of Education at Washington : The Libraries
The Philatelic Journal of America...
Princeton College, New Jersey
Historical Society of Philadelphia ...
The Daily Spy, Worcester, Massachusetts
The Stamp Collector, Chicago
The New York Leader ---
Additional Important Letters --- ---
Mr. Fraser, Editor of the American Philatelist
Resolution of the Chicago Philatelic Society
APPENDIX.
Origin and Foundation of the Uniform Penny Postage System ---
The famous calculation of ºth of a penny
*
*...* A copy of the Pamphlet will be cheerfully sent you
if desired.
EFFINGHAM WILson & Co., Printers, Royal Exchange, EC,
PAGE
70
81



THE
JT
ADHESIVE POSTAGE STAMP
IN
AMERICA, FRANCE, AND GERMANY.
RECOGNITION OF JAMES CHALMERS.
SECOND EDITION,
WITH
LETTER TO THE RIGHT HON. THE LORD MAYOR.
BY
PATRICK CHALMERS,
Fellow of the Royal Historical Society.
LONDON :
EFFINGHAM WILSON & CO., ROYAL EXCHANGE.
-

1888,

WIMBLEDON,
ſ
January, 1888.
SIR,
In previous publications successfully vindicating the
title of my father, the late JAMES CHALMERs, bookseller,
Dundee, to have been the originator of the Adhesive Postage
Stamp, the merit of which has been erroneously attributed to
the late Sir Row1AND HILL, I have accompanied my proofs
with numerous articles from the Press in recognition of that
title, including decisions in my favour on the part of the
leading biographical works of the day, after special investiga-
tions initiated by Mr. PEARSON HILL.
I have now the satisfaction of laying before you, in the
present Pamphlet, some account of the wide recognition
my father's name and services have further met with in
America and on the Continent, more especially inviting your
attention to the proceedings of the American Philatelic
Association, or Convention of Philatelists from all parts of
the United States, just held at Chicago.
Asking the favour of your perusal and support,
I remain, SIR,
Yours respectfully,
PATRICK CHALMERS,
Hon. Member of the Société Internationale de Timbrologie
Paris ; and of Ten American Philatelic Societies.
[over.
2
I take this opportunity to call your attention to the
Magazine just issued from the Glasgow Post Office, entitled
“The Queen's Head,” compiled solely by writers holding
official positions in that important establishment, second to
none out of London. This Magazine contains an article
“The Queen's Head,” emphatically recognising JAMES
CHALMERs as the man to whom the nation is indebted for
that boom which saved the Penny Postage scheme, and on
which revolve the postal systems, with the Social and
commercial intercourse, of the world. This article will be
read throughout the entire postal and telegraphic service of
the country, and, coming from such a quarter, affords a
recognition of the highest value and significance.
P. C.
* Aird and Coghill, Glasgow ; J. Menzies, Edinburgh.








PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION.
WHEN, on the 5th of July, 1839, the Penny Postage Bill was intro-
duced into Parliament, it was acknowledged on all sides that the
difficulty lay in the point how to carry out the scheme in practice. A
practicable mode of prepayment of letters was desired, but none had
been found in the proposals of Mr. Rowland Hill. He had proposed
two modes: first, simply to pay the penny or money with the letters;
Secondly and more especially, by having a stamp impressed upon the
sheet of letter paper, or upon wrappers or covers wherein to fold the
letter. This plan was objected to for various reasons by the Select
Committee of the House of Commons, by the paper-makers, and by
the Government. Chaos and confusion reigned as to how the project
was to be set in motion.
In this dilemma Mr. Wallace, the Chairman of the Select Com-
mittee, proposed a plan which had been suggested to him, namely,
the use of an adhesive stamp, “which would answer every purpose,
and remove the objection of the stationers and paper-makers to the
measure.” This plan had been laid before the Select Committee by
James Chalmers, bookseller, Dundee—the letter of acknowledgment
of Mr. Wallace is of date 9th December, 1837. Mr. Chalmers' plan
fortunately survives, and is given in the Appendix to this pamphlet,
as likewise laid before the Mercantile Committee of the City of London
and before Mr. Rowland Hill himself in February, 1838, a year and a
half before the Bill was brought forward—a plan now in the South
Kensington Museum Library, bequeathed by the late Sir Henry Cole.
This plan of an adhesive postage stamp was the invention of
Mr. Chalmers himself, a well-known postal reformer, in the month of
August, 1834 (up to which period Sir Rowland Hill has left it on
record, “Of course, adhesive stamps were yet undreamt of ’’) as con-
clusively proved to the satisfaction, after special investigation, of the
leading biographical works of the day, the “Encyclopædia Britannica ’’
and the “Dictionary of National Biography,” and to the equal Satis-
faction of numerous other authorities at home and abroad who have
read the evidence,
The Bill passed into law on the 17th August, 1839, whereupon
Mr. Hill was appointed to a position in the Treasury for the purpose

4
of Superintending its carrying out. The first step taken was to
advertise for plans from the public, and nothing better having been
found, the adhesive stamp was adopted by Treasury Minute of date
December 26th, 1839, in conjunction with Mr. Hill's plan of stamped
covers, or stamp impressed upon the sheet of letter paper itself.
On sending in his claim as originator of the plan adopted, the
adhesive stamp, Mr. Chalmers met with a refusal on the part of
Mr. Hill, then in despotic power at the Treasury, on the ground that he,
Mr. Hill, had himself proposed the same plan in February, 1837, and
consequently prior to Mr. Chalmers having sent his plan to London in
December of the same year—a mere pretext and afterthought, bred of
the success which had attended Mr. Chalmers' proposal, as will be seen.
Mr. Hill, in giving certain evidence before the Commissioners of
Post Office Inquiry in February, 1837, had made an allusion to what
might be done in a supposed exceptional case by using an adhesive
stamp if the penny in cash was not to be accepted, at same time
saying, “let the penny in cash be accepted where necessary " so that
every stamp used might be “universally the impressed stamp.” This
allusion showed nothing more than that Mr. Hill had heard of this
invention of 1834, but without seeing its value, or proposing its
adoption. Moreover, Mr. Hill had already written to Mr. Chalmers
on the 3rd March, 1838, to the effect of not being in favour of an
adhesive stamp. To turn round now and usurp the merit of Mr.
Chalmers’ invention and proposal on the strength of this passing
allusion named, was a stretch of power over the helpless provincial
bookseller which may be left to others fitly to characterise.
These matters are dealt with more in detail in previous publications.
Fortunately, nothing can be more easily or clearly proved than
that the adoption of the adhesive stamp for the purpose of carrying
out the penny postage scheme formed no part of the original proposals
or intention of Sir Rowland Hill. Besides the letter above named to
Mr. Chalmers, we have the official proceedings in Parliament, on the
introduction of the Bill, as detailed in pages 23 to 26 of this pam-
phlet, but left wholly unnoticed by Sir Rowland Hill in his “History of
Penny Postage.” I specially invite perusal of these pages.
Again, it is enough to point to Mr. Hill's letters to the Post-
master-General, Lord Litchfield, in January, 1838, explaining and
enforcing his penny postage scheme then before the public, in which

5
not a Word is said of an adhesive stamp. In these Mr. Hill states his
plan to be —“That the payment should always be in advance. And
“to rid this mode of payment of the trouble and risk which it would
“otherwise entail on the sending of letters, as well as for other
“important considerations, I propose that the postage be collected by
“the Sale of stamped covers.”
Again, take the press of the period—this is what the Times
produces under date 30th August, 1839, a fortnight after the passing
“of the Bill:—“The Penny Postage will commence, we learn, on
“the 1st January next. It is intended that stamped envelopes shall
“ be sold at every Post Office, so that stationers and other shopkeepers
“may, as well as the public, supply themselves at a minute's notice.”
Not a word as to an adhesive stamp being any part of Mr. Hill's plan or
broposal, or provided for in the Bill.
And yet in his “History of Penny Postage,” and notwithstanding
all these proofs to the contrary, Sir Rowland Hill, keeping all these
proofs to the contrary wholly out of view, actually gives his readers
to understand that the adoption of the adhesive stamp formed part
and parcel of his original proposals
Take a further and most conclusive proof which has just been
brought to my notice by a valued German correspondent. The
name of the “Penny Cyclopædia’’ of that period is yet cherished as
the pioneer of all such standard works; its publisher was Mr. Charles
Knight, postal reformer, and publisher to Mr. Rowland Hill; on its
committee of management are the names of “M. D. Hill, Esq., Q.C.,
“Rowland Hill, Esq., F.R.A.S.” And this is what the Penny
Cyclopædia tells us under the article “Post Office,” vol. 17, 1840.
“He,” (Mr. Rowland Hill) “proposed that the rate of postage should
“ be uniform, to be charged according to weight, and that the payment
“should be made in advance. The means of doing so by stamps were
“ not suggested in the first edition of the pamphlet, and Mr. Hill
“states that this idea did not originate with him.” -
With all these proofs to the contrary before us, not even Mr. Pearson
Hill himself can longer assert, or expect any unprejudiced man to
believe, that the adhesive postage stamp was the invention of his
father, or formed any part whatever of the original proposals or
intention of Sir Rowland Hill.




The official recognitions from Societies abroad in favour of James
Chalmers continue to multiply, those from the United States now
amounting to fifteen, with continued applications both from that
quarter and from the Continent for my publications on the subject.
The Frankfort Philatelic Society of about 200 members has passed an
official recognition, and the Swedish Philatelists in Stockholm express
concurrence with their friends in Paris. -
In addition to the many important Philatelic Journals at home, in
America, and on the Continent, which have already published the
portrait of James Chalmers as having been the originator of the
adhesive postage stamp, the same has just appeared in the following:—
The “Illustrite Briefimarken Journal,” Leipzig.
“L’Union des Timbrophiles,” Paris.
“The Western Philatelist,” Chicago.
The “Tidning for Frimarksamlare,” Stockholm.
Consequent upon the proceedings at a meeting of what is still
termed “The Rowland Hill Memorial and Benevolent Fund,” lately
held at the Mansion House, I have respectfully addressed the follow-
ing letter to the Lord Mayor —
“@be £otolamb jill tiemorial and #entboſent fumb.
“Why Subscriptions to the Fund do not come in.
** To THE RIGHT HONOURABLE
“POLYDORE DE KEYSER,
“Lord Mayor, Mansion House.
“My LORD,
“At the late Meeting of the Trustees and supporters of the above-named Fund,
‘‘ held at the Mansion House, and at which your Lordship presided, one or more of
“ the speakers complained of the paucity of subscriptions—neither the commercial
“ community subscribed as they ought to do, nor did the employés of the Post Office
“come forward any better, the laxity being more especially marked on the part of
“ the post-offices in Scotland.
“ Permit me to draw your Lordship's attention for a moment to what may be
“ looked upon as laying at the foundation of this laxity and indifference towards a
“Fund, of itself, as now constituted, well deserving of support.
“It is now no secret that the late Sir Rowland Hill, however great his services,
“invented nothing whatever, but took all his proposals from prior sources. The
“adhesive postage stamp more especially, the active symbol to men of the present
“ day of the reformed postal system, is well known to many, if not to the Meeting
“over which your Lordship presided, to have been the invention and proposal of
“ another man. The leading biographical works of the present day, the Encyclopædia
“ Britannica and the Dictionary of National Biography, have decided, after a special
“investigation initiated by Mr. Pearson Hill himself, that this adhesive stamp was
“the invention of James Chalmers, bookseller, Dundee, in the month of August,
7

“ 1834, a well-known postal reformer long before Sir Rowland Hill entered the field
‘‘ already laid out by others. An influential section of the London Press, including
“such papers as the Metropolitan and the City Press, has well circulated this
“information amongst the very establishments complained of at the Meeting as
“giving no support, and to whose members, it appears, a further special appeal is
“about to be made. City houses are thus becoming acquainted with the facts, and
“when appealed to in the name of Rowland Hill simply withhold their money.
“The same with the Post Office servants—they also begin to know the facts.
“More especially do those in Scotland now know that Rowland Hill has usurped a
“merit belonging to one of their own countrymen, and they are repelled, not
“induced, as your Committee or Trustees vainly suppose, by the very mention of
‘‘ his name.
“In proof of this, I refer your Lordship to a Magazine, entitled ‘The Queen's
“‘Head,” which has just emanated from the Glasgow Post Office, the articles in
“ which publication are solely contributed by writers holding official positions in that
“establishment. The principal article in that Magazine exposes Sir Rowland Hill's
“ usurpation of the merit of having invented the adhesive postage stamp, the
“invention and proposal of their countryman already named, upon whose brains, and
“taking advantage of his own official position, Sir Rowland Hill has flourished.
“Over 2,000 copies of this Magazine have already been ordered by the various Post
“Offices in chief throughout the country, and the facts are known and discussed
“ throughout the entire Post Office and Telegraphic services.
“Can it, therefore, be a matter of surprise that subscriptions to a Rowland Hill
“Memorial Fund do not come in, either from City establishments or from the
‘‘ employés of the Post Office?
“The remedy, however, is clear and simple.
“In a correspondence with your Lordship's predecessor, Alderman Sir John
“Staples,” I have already shown that the Committee, or some of them, of the Sir
“Rowland Hill Memorial Fund have admitted in a most practical manner their
“sense of the non-originality of Sir Rowland Hill while continuing to ask the
“ public for money under his name and prestige, as the inventor of the penny postage
“scheme. The reply with which I was honoured by Lord Mayor Staples was to the
“effect that the money now being asked for was, not for Sir Rowland Hill, but ‘for
“‘the Post Office Benevolent Fund.” Exactly so ; then why not say 80 * Why not
‘‘ style themselves the Committee or Trustees of the Post Office Benevolent Fund?
“Why continue to flourish the name of Rowland Hill in the foreground of their
“proceedings, with the hope of attracting subscriptions on the strength and prestige
“of a name hitherto popularly, but as that Committee has practically admitted,
‘‘ erroneously supposed to have been a great inventor Is this dealing openly
“ and candidly with the public while still concealing vital and essential facts? It is
“clear that from and after the period of these facts having become known to this
“Committee, had the Committee acquainted the subscribers and the public with
“what had transpired, further subscriptions to any fund whatever under the name of
“Rowland Hill would have been withheld. What would your Lordship and these
“Aldermen and Magistrates say, and how would they deal with an individual or
“public company so obtaining money from the public And yet here we have this
“ delusive proceeding going on year after year under the very roof of the Mansion
‘‘ House itself
“* See ‘Concealment Unveiled—A Tale of the Mansion House.” (Effingham Wilson, Royal
Exchange.

8
“Here, then, my Lord, is your remedy— clear in equity as in policy. Omit the
“name of Rowland Hill, which is now found not to answer—be open and candid
“with the public and with the Post Office employés—style yourselves what you are,
“ the Committee or Trustees of “The Post Office Benevolent Fund,” and the money
‘‘ will come in. “I have the honour to be,
“My LORD MAYOR,
“Your Lordship's most obedient Servant,
& 4 To ºt
“WIMBLEDON, November 28th, 1887. PATRICK CHALMERS.
“ P.S.–I may further mention that the name and services of James Chalmers
“ as the man to whom we owe this adhesive postage stamp, which at a critical
“ moment saved the Penny Postage scheme, and has carried out same in practice,
‘‘ are already widely recognised abroad as well as at home. Not only at the late
“Convention, at Chicago, of Philatelists from all parts of the United States have
“special resolutions been brought forward and passed to that effect, but on
‘‘the Continent, in Paris, in Munich, in Frankfort, in Vienna, in Berlin, in
“Constantinople and the Levant, influential sections of the Philatelic world, with
“ their publications, have already recognised James Chalmers, as particularised in a
“fresh pamphlet now being published by me, entitled, ‘The Adhesive Postage
“‘Stamp in America, France, and Germany. Recognition of James Chalmers.’”
Commenting on the above, the City Press Writes:
“The indefatigable Mr. Chalmers, in his laudable endeavours to secure the
“public recognition of his late father's services in connection with the Adhesive
“Postage Stamp, has addressed a letter to the Right Honourable the Lord Mayor,
“in which he gives reasons ‘why subscriptions to the fund do not come in.' It has
“ been admitted that the money asked for is not for a Sir Rowland Hill memorial,
“but for the Post Office Benevolent Fund, and that being so, Mr. Chalmers asks,
“why not say so Why should not the Committee style themselves simply the
“Committee or Trustees of the Post Office Benevolent Fund, and so gain the support
“ of those who at present hold themselves aloof from the movement.”
In the Press Directory the City Press is well stated to be “the local
paper for the City of London, and devotes itself exclusively to local
affairs. . . . Is the adopted medium for all official announcements
concerning the Metropolis.”
The Metropolitan, a City paper of a similar nature, writes to the
same effect, also the Sunday Times, Bric-à-Bric, Whitehall Review,
Dundee Advertiser, and other papers.
Of the Glasgow Post Office Magazine, “The Queen's Head,”
exposing the plagiarisms of Sir Rowland Hill and vindicating the
services of James Chalmers as originator of the Adhesive Postage
Stamp, over 4,000 copies are now being eagerly read throughout the
Post Office service. Yet a few gentlemen at the Mansion House,
mostly ignorant of what has transpired, and quite indisposed to read
anything on the subject, continue vainly endeavouring to collect
money in the name of Rowland Hill.
1, MAYFIELD ROAD,
WIMBLEDON, January, 1888.
THE AMERICAN PHILATELIC ASSOCIATION
AND
THE AI)HESIVE POSTAGE STAMP.
WHILE there exists in this country only one Philatelic Society, in the
United States of America such societies are many in number, estab-
lished in most of the more important cities. Stamp-collecting forms
a large branch of business—the dealers may be reckoned by hundreds,
with a corresponding constituency of many thousands. Magazines
devoted solely to stamps, their origin and progress in all countries,
and giving notices of the proceedings of the various societies, are
current throughout the Union. Nor is stamp-collecting the mere
hobby or idle fancy yet so generally looked upon in this country. As
eloquently set forth in the able address of the President of the
“American Philatelic Association '' about to be noticed, “ Collectors
“ have discovered that these little bits of paper have an interest much
“greater than that of oddity of design or shape, attractiveness of
“workmanship or colour; that to thoroughly understand them much
“ must be learned of art, of the artistic talent, and of the mechanical
“ processes and skill that are required to adapt them to their use, and
“ are spent in their manufacture ; that much of geography must be
“learned, and of postal law and regulation. The public is beginning
“to learn, as one after another is induced to examine the pages of
“ the intelligently filled albums that may now be found in every city
“ and in many a quiet village, that these tiny gems are really the
“ monuments and records of much of the world's history, if not
“always of its political, at least of its commercial history, which is
“often the most important. For here is written much of how
“‘ empires have grown and tottered to decay." In the Sombre colours

1 ()
“ of the first block, the V.R., the Mulready envelope, through the
“Succeeding issues to the Jubilee series that this year have been
“added to our albums, are recorded forty-seven years of the reign of
“ England's Queen. In the stamps of France, the Republic, the
“Presidency, the Empire, the German War, the siege of Paris, the
“ balloon and pigeon posts, the loss of Alsace, the Republic again, are
“ all recorded. The Unification of Italy, the loss of the temporal
“ power of the Popes, the amalgamation of Germany, the changes in
“Turkey and its subordinate States, the spread of the English
“Supremacy in India, the gradual march of our civilisation in China
- “ and Japan, a United Canada, the civilising of South America, the
“ civil War and some of its greatest tragedies in the United States,
- “ are all there recorded, and from finding it at first attractive, the
“ public is finding it instructive. Even in some of the public schools,
“stamp-collecting has been introduced as an assistant instructor.
“The public press has come to speak always with more respect, some-
“ times with eulogy even, of a pursuit which is now found to occupy
“ the leisure of potentates and statesmen, judges, counsellors and
“attorneys, physicians and clergy, the princes and magnates of the
“ commercial world, the officers of the army and navy, as well as
“ thousands of the workers in less conspicuous positions, not merely
“ as a pastime and a fashionable frivolity, but as an interesting study.”
Again, “the growth and spread of the desire for this knowledge
“ has been fostered largely by the journals devoted to stamp collecting,
“ but perhaps still more by the formation of associations and societies
“ of stamp collectors, primarily in most cases for mutual assistance in
“ enriching their collections, but always incidentally, often principally,
“ with the object of learning something concerning their mutual
“ pursuit.” - -
That these Societies, or such members of Same as may so desire,
should come together in one great and central body for the purpose
of still further developing this pursuit, of spreading information and
generally popularising the study of Philatelism, is the object of the
American Philatelic Association, established last year in New York at
a meeting of Philatelists from all parts of the Union. The wide basis
upon which this Association has been framed may be gathered from
the following list of office-bearers:-- - -


11
h
r
President ... ... ... JoHN K. TIFFANY, St. Louis, Missouri.
Vice-President ... ... R. R. BoGERT ... New York City.
Secretary ... ... ... S. B. BRADT ... Grand Crossing, Illinois.
Treasurer ... ... ... L. W. DURBIN ... Philadelphia, Pa.
International Secretary JAs. RECHERT ... Hoboken, New Jersey.
Jºrchange Superintendent HENRY CLOTZ ... New York City
Counterfeit Detector ... E. A. HoDTON ... Boston, Massachusetts.
Purchasing Agent ... T. F. CUNo ... Brooklyn, New York.
Librarian ... ... ... E. D. KLINE ... Toledo, Ohio.
Board of Trustees ... E. B. STERLING, Trenton, New Jersey.
W. v. D. WETTERN, JR., Baltimore, Maryland.
J. C. FELDWISCH, Denver, Colorado.
If the collections of adhesive postage stamps possessed by one or
two millionaires in Paris may exceed in money value any yet existing
elsewhere, as regards the history of the subject from the days of penny
postage reform, the period of their first issue, nothing elsewhere can
exceed or even approach the extent of records and information existing
in the libraries of American Philatelists. That of President Tiffany,
for instance, contains 700 bound volumes relating to stamps alone,
their history and collection. Some of these volumes consist of from
five to ten pamphlets each. He has also some 1,200 extracts from
newspapers, &c., in scrap-books, relating to the subject; and, in
addition, many works relating to the Post Office and its history—a
collection altogether larger than any other library, public or private,
can show on this subject. In 1874 he issued a book called “The
Philatelic Library,” a copy of which is in the British Museum Library,
and has just issued a work of much value, in 280 pages, “The History
of the Postage Stamps of the United States.”
As to have been expected therefore, the controversy which has
been going on for some time past as to whether Rowland Hill or
James Chalmers was the originator of the adhesive postage stamp has
excited no small stir and interest among the Philatelists of America,
where many hundred copies of my publications have been read and
circulated. The belief of a generation there, as here, that such was the




12
invention of Sir Rowland Hill, has been rudely shaken, if not yet
wholly overturned, by my claim on behalf of my late father, and this
though my opponents there, as here, have been both busy and
powerful—every available statement on either side has been eagerly
read, with a result to me and my cause of the most gratifying nature.
In addition to many press articles, the favourable verdict of Historical
- and other institutions, thirteen Philatelic Societies have spontaneously
passed special resolutions in recognition of James Chalmers, eight of
which Societies, in recognition of my efforts and of the fresh light
I have thrown upon the whole subject, have further been pleased
to elect me an honorary member of their body.
“But what will the Association say at their forthcoming meeting
“ at Chicago 2 " has been the critical question of late. “Will they vote
“for Hill or Chalmers, or will they take action at all in the matter ?”
This point of the highest interest and importance has now been
Set at rest, and I have the satisfaction to subjoin the decision of this
body in the following full and unqualified recognition of James
Chalmers, commencing with the official letter from the Secretary :—
“SECRETARY'S OFFICE,
“GRAND CROSSING, IL.L.,
“ September 12th, 1887.
“Mr. PAT. CHALMERs, LONDON.
“ DEAR SIR,
“It is my pleasant task to inform you that at the second
“Annual Convention of the American Philatelic Association, held in
“Chicago, Ill., on August 8th, 9th, and 10th, the following resolutions
“were adopted:—
“‘ Resolved: That this Association, upon proof submitted by living
“‘ witnesses, does endorse the claims made by Mr. Patrick Chalmers
“‘ on behalf of his father, the late James Chalmers, as inventor of
“‘ the Adhesive Stamp ; and be it further—
“. . Resolved: That the congratulations of this Association be
“‘ extended to Mr. Patrick Chalmers for the success his untiring
“‘ efforts have attained in establishing beyond doubt an important
“‘ historical fact ; and be it still further—

13

“‘ Resolved. That the Secretary be instructed to forward a copy
“‘ of these resolutions to Mr. Patrick Chalmers, and have the same
“‘published in the official journal.”
“With deep personal regard, I beg to remain,
“Yours very truly,
“ S. B. BRADT,
“Secretary American Philatelic Association.”
At this Convention “187 members of the Association were repre-
“Sented in person or by proxy.” The vote was unanimous, less one
dissentient—a proxy. Mr. Bradt in a further letter kindly says:–
“Accept my profound congratulations on the ever-increasing strength
“you are adding to your cause, and my best wishes for the speedy
“ arrival of the time when its justice shall be universally conceded.”
The above letter I have acknowledged as follows:–

“WIMBLEDON,
“24th September, 1887.
“ DEAR SIR,
“I have the honour to acknowledge receipt of your
“ communication of 12th inst., handing me copy of the Resolutions
“ arrived at by the American Philatelic Association at the Convention
“just held at Chicago, in recognition of my father, the late James
“Chalmers, Dundee, as having been the inventor of the adhesive
“ postage stamp. In a further Resolution your Association is good
“ enough to congratulate me upon the success I have met with in
“establishing beyond doubt this important historical fact.
“Simply to offer in return, as I now do, my heartfelt thanks to the
“ members of your Association but faintly expresses the gratitude
“I feel in having been favoured with this most courteous and valuable
“ recognition. To the gratification of finding a numerous body of
“gentlemen specially acquainted with the subject officially recognising
“my claim is to be added the important effect which their support
“will have in enabling me to obtain attention in quarters hitherto
“impervious to the facts. Long-cherished delusions proverbially die
“hard; but where my weak voice has yet failed to penetrate, the

14
“verdict of the American Philatelic Association will carry conviction
“to every impartial mind.
“Trusting your Association may long continue to prosper in ever-
“increasing numbers and efficiency,
“I remain, dear Sir,
“Yours faithfully,
“ PATRICK CHAILMERS.
“Mr. S. B. DRADT
“Secretary,
“The American Philatelic Association,”
Turning now to the masterly address of President Tiffany on the
occasion, filling a space of Seven pages in the Western Philatelist
magazine, the official journal of the Association, I extract the remarks
having reference to James Chalmers:—“Three years of discussion,
“ public and private, ensued before the statesmen of the day even
“ dared to try this new scheme; and when at last the Lords and the
* Commons had heard all the testimony of all classes of the kingdom,
“ and it seemed it might be a good thing if it could be dome, it was
“ about to fail for want of a practical method of collecting the money
“ in advance without too great inconvenience to the public. Rowland
“ Hill, to whom hardly too great a meed of praise can be given as
“ one of those who have succeeded in putting into execution their
“ plans for the amelioration of the human race, does not seem to have
“ at first suggested a very practical method of collecting the postage.
“ Think for a moment of the scenes that would be witnessed at the
“ post-offices of any of our large cities if every letter had to be carried
“ to the window, weighed, and paid for in money; and his stamped
“sheets and covers, or envelopes, were hardly better or more conve-
“ nient. At this juncture parties to whom the invention of James
“Chalmers, of Dundee, had been communicated, brought it forward
“ in Parliament again, and Uniform Penny Postage was made simple
“ and practical by the Adhesive Postage Stamp. Thirty-two pages of
“ printing started the reform. About one-half a square inch of paper
“ printed on one side and gummed on the other made it practicable
“ and perpetuated it. It is all so familiar now, so easy, so trivial,
“ that we hardly pause to think of it. Few persons imagine any other
15
State of affairs as possible ; few ever give to Hill or Chalmers a
thought, much less the meed of thanks which is their due. We
may not pause here to-day to consider how great the change this
Suggestion has wrought ; how it has modified the Ways of doing
business; how it has increased the possibilities of intercourse be-
tween severed friends, facilitated the circulation of ideas and views,
and made the whole world kin. But its growth was slow. Esta-
blished in England in 1840, it was only after five years of agitation,
discussion, and investigation, that uniform postage was adopted in
the United States, and then only partially. It was two years more
before the Adhesive Postage Stamp was authorised by law, for the
first stamp sold by the Postmaster-General of the United States was
sold on the 5th of August, 1847, just forty years ago last Friday :
and it was seven years more before compulsory pre-payment was
enacted. Other countries had adopted postage stamps before the
United States. Gradually they have been introduced in all civilised
countries, and many half-civilised and even barbaric nations, as
we call them, are now enjoying the benefits of the invention of
Chalmers and the persevering energy of Hill.” -
Again :—“Before the American Philatelic Association shall have
attained its full growth and vigour, we may see the day when it
will cost no more to send a letter from Chicago to the ends of the
earth than it does to send it from New York to Brooklyn, for the
principle of uniform postage is applicable to the case, and to-day a
letter travels with greater security from London to the remotest
corner of India, from Chicago to Japan for less postage than it was
carried for before the adoption of the plans of Hill, and the
“invention of Chalmers from one part of England to another, or
from Washington to New York. And these little bits of coloured
paper, which are used and thrown away by the thousands every day
in the four corners of the earth, are the potent agents which have
“ made all this possible.”
{
&
º
%
{
4.
(
{
&
(
(
&
(
4.
(
&
(
*
(
{
{
4.
&
&
{
º
{
º
{
ſ
(
&
4.
&
(
t
&
(
4.
Here, then, may now be read from the proceedings of this
Association, and from the calm and judicial words of its President, in


16
what light are regarded in quarters specially qualified to pronounce,
the name and services of James Chalmers. Not only was he the inven-
tor of the adhesive postage stamp, but he further took the initiative in
proposing its adoption for the purpose of carrying out in practice the
proposed penny postage reform. “Parties” to whom he had
“ communicated ” and enforced this plan brought it forward in
Parliament when all was confusion and chaos—through his timely
counsel the scheme was saved and has been carried out. “These little
“bits of coloured paper " are the “potent agents” whereby all the
advantages of this reformed postal system, commercial and social,
have been preserved to the nation and to the world. Withdraw his
stamp, and everything reverts to the state of confusion and chaos from
which he delivered us. Add to all this that it is through what
another able writer, the contributor to the “Encyclopædia Britannica,”
has termed “the powerful mechanism of the stamp,” that millions
have been poured and continue yearly to be poured into the public
Treasury, then surely it is not too much to say that here is a man,
himself unrewarded, who has “dome the State some service.”
That the world has for a generation been led into a delusion on
the whole subject—that the penny postage Scheme itself was, after all,
in no one of its principles an original conception on the part of
Rowland Hill, is passed over in this address of the President, with the
quiet remark, “Its idea was not absolutely novel, perhaps, for others
before had suggested pretty much the same thing.” That Philatelists
have all this while been misled into worshipping as their “patron
“Saint’’ the wrong man, draws forth from him no word of censure or
complaint—all that is laid aside—his are not the words of a partisan,
but of one who has desired to temper justice with mercy. The verdict
of the man who under such circumstances has still nothing but
commendation to pass upon the services of Rowland Hill, will thus all
the more conclusively recommend itself to those who now read his
emphatic vindication of the services of James Chalmers,
The proceedings of this Convention, including the address, in
substance or in full, of the President, will find publication in every
Philatelic journal, not alone in the United States, but also of this

17
country and on the Continent, in many of which a biographical
notice, accompanied by likeness of James Chalmers, or articles on the
subject, have already appeared. The meeting next year takes place at
Boston.
Looking at the proceedings of this Association, coupled with the
decisions in my favour of the leading biographical works of the day,
with other recognitions of importance, no impartial writer can now
for a moment doubt on which side the facts of this matter stand
Indeed, I have shown from the columns of the Times itself that
Rowland Hill was neither the first amongst postal reformers to suggest
a low and uniform rate of postage irrespective of distance, and also,
from the same columns, that he was not the first to propose the
adoption of the adhesive stamp for the purpose of carrying out the
Scheme, further so conclusively proved by official statements in
Parliament—statements which in his “History of Penny Postage,”
Sir Rowland Hill has kept wholly out of sight, just as in his
pamphlet of 1837 he omitted to notice the sources from which he
derived the proposals there put forward.*
Not content with the high position to which he was entitled, to
have that Penny Postage scheme understood as having been one of
his own conception, the product of his own genius, was with Sir Row-
land Hill what can only be described as a mania—no second party
Was to be allowed to share with him any portion of the credit attach-
ing to this great and beneficial reformſ—and to that mania James
Chalmers was sacrificed.
* These sources have been pointed out in my late pamphlets, “The Adhesive
“Postage Stamp,” and “Submission of the Sir Rowland Hill Committee.” To
such as may still wish to know why my efforts to vindicate my late father's services
have only appeared of late years I beg reference to these and other publications for
explanation. - -
t In the Jubilee panegyrics with which the London press has lately teemed,
while exulting in the success of this reform, it has been wholly overlooked that, up
to the end of the administration of Sir Rowland Hill at the Post Office, the loss
of revenue amounted to fourteen millions sterling. See “Submission of the Sir
“Rowland Hill Committee,” page 47.
18
While, therefore, and as all will agree in doing, cordially bearing
in mind the great services of Sir Rowland Hill, let us at the same
time (as expressed in my representation to the Lord Mayor, the Chairman
of the Sir Rowland Hill Memorial Fund) “be just as well as generous,
“just to the memory of those postal reformers immediately preceding
“ him, and from whose hands Rowland Hill received the materials of
“ this reformed scheme—just to the memory of James Chalmers who
“saved this scheme from failure by showing how alone such could be
“carried out in practice—and just to the public, who, while being asked
“for money, are entitled to be made distinctly acquainted with the
“facts,” facts of which, as shown in my publication termed “Con-
“ cealment Unveiled, a Tale of the Mansion House,” the members of
this Committee themselves, or some of them, are perfectly aware, but
have concealed from the public.




| 9
SU C C E S S
*N
FRANCE AND GERMANY.
HAVING achieved the marked successes just noticed in America, my
attentiºn has been turned to the Philatelic world on the Continent,
Where stamp collecting forms a still more extensive pursuit. The
difference of language, however, has been against my obtaining
readers in any large numbers so far, but the news is spreading, and
applications reach me daily for particulars; meantime I am able to
claim many converts, and those of most influential standing.
In Paris, the “Société Internationale de Timbrologie ’’ has
warmly supported me by passing special resolutions in favour of
James Chalmers, and by Subsequently being good enough to elect me
an honorary member of the Society.” In its official journal L'Union
tles Timbrophiles, a series of articles and biographical notice have ap-
peared, detailing the circumstances, and cordially recognising the
services of James Chalmers. A special “Paquet James Chalmers ”
of stamps, containing his likeness, is on Sale by M. Simeou, one of
the largest dealers in Paris.
Turning to other quarters—in Vienna, the Welt-Post, organ of the
International Philatelic Museum, conducted by Herr Sigmund Friedl,
of philatelic repute, has published memoirs and articles in recognition
of James Chalmers, with a well-executed likeness. In Munich, Herr
Anton Bachl, Secretary of the Bayererischer Philatelic Society, has
produced an article in the official journal of the Society in recognition
of James Chalmers as the originator of the Adhesive Postage Stamp,
relating the circumstances, and concluding—“Finally, after half a
“century, it may be granted to his son, Patrick Chalmers, to gain
* This Society has branches in Moscow, Odessa, and Stockholm.
20
“ back the merit which has been unfairly taken away from his
“ father.” In Berlin, the Der Sammler publishes a biographical notice
of James Chalmers, with portrait. In Constantinople, the Timbre
Levantin, circulating throughout the Levant, publishes a long article
from the pen of M. Hissard, giving an account of James Chalmers'
invention and services. This article has been reproduced in four
parts in the columns of L'Union des Timbrophiles of Paris.
But the most important as being perhaps the most widely-spread
notice of the subject has appeared in the Illustrite Briefinarken Journal
of Leipzig, from the pen of Lieut.-Col. Charles von Gündel. In
articles extending through two issues of this publication, the official
organ of twenty-six philatelic Societies, this writer gives a detailed
account of the whole subject, vindicating the memory and services of
James Chalmers. This journal is published every fortnight, having a
circulation of 12,000 copies. As a rule, philatelic journals appear only
once a month.
Thus, then, abroad as at home, justice to the memory of him who
by his happy invention and timely counsel saved and has carried out
in practice the reformed postal system of 1837–40, is at length
being accomplished, notwithstanding the powerful influences against
which I have had to combat. My kind friends and supporters here,
both in and out of the press, will now notice with feelings of gratifi-
cation the success I have met with in other lands in establishing the
cause for which we have laboured—a cause the success of which may
be looked upon as assured. -
WIMBLEDON,
November, 1887.
- -



THE
PHILATELIC SOCIETY OF LONDON
AND THE
ADHESIVE POSTAGE STAMP.
S E Q U E L.

PHILATELISTs at home and abroad will recollect a correspondence
which took place betwixt myself and the Philatelic Society of London,
of which Society Mr. Pearson Hill is himself a member, in May last
and generally circulated, and which correspondence terminated by my
putting the following questions, under date 24th May:-
“I further take this opportunity to inquire if you can inform me,
“what after many years of investigation and correspondence I am yet
“ignorant of, and what appears to be a secret confined to your
“Society, at what period did the late Sir Rowland Hill invent the
“Adhesive Postage Stamp, and what proofs can be produced he ever
“ did so 2 And further, at what period did Sir Rowland Hill propose
“ to adopt the adhesive stamp for the purpose of carrying out in
“ practice the reformed postage system of 1840?
“I am, &c.,
“ (Signed) PATRICK CHALMERS.
“ E. D. BACON, Esq.,
“Secretary,
“The Philatelic Society of London.”
In the same letter I also asked if more than eight out of the
100 widely scattered members of the Society had read my case?
I should have said “ more than six 2"

2
2
To which the reply was:–
“41, SEETHING LANE, E.C.,
“ May 27th, 1887.
“ SIR,
“I have received your letter of the 24th inst., which
“shall be laid before the Philatelic Society at our next Meeting,
“fixed for October 21st next.
“Yours truly,
“ (Signed) E. D. BACON.
“ P. CHALMERs, Esq.”
Meantime the President of the Society has admitted that the
Adhesive Postage Stamp was not the invention of Sir Rowland Hill.
There remained, however, the second question, When did Sir
Rowland Hill propose to adopt this stamp for the purpose of carrying
out in practice his penny postage scheme -
October having at length arrived, the following is the answer —
“THE PHILATELIC SoCIETY, LONDON,
“41, SEETHING LANE, E.C.,
“ ()ctober 25th, 1887.
“ SIR,
- “Your letter of May 24th was read at the meeting of
“ the Society last Friday evening.
“I was instructed to write and inform you that the Society has
“nothing to add to its remarks, embodied in my letter to you of
“ May 23rd last.
“Yours truly,
“ (Signed) E. D. BACON.
- “Secretary.
“ PATRICK CHALMERs, Esq.”
This Society, or what may be termed a section of same, including
the immediate friends of Mr. Pearson Hill, it is thus seen, declines to
give a reply to the second plain question—it does not recognise James
Chalmers, but as respects Sir Rowland Hill it prefers to say nothing. Any

23

reply consistent with the official facts of the case would have been
Inecessarily fatal to the pretensions of Sir Rowland Hill and to those of
Mr. Pearson Hill as to this stamp having formed part and parcel of
the original proposals of Sir Rowland Hill in 1837. Of the several
proofs given in my pamphlets that such stamp formed no part of the
orginal proposals or intention of Sir Rowland Hill, I will only here
recapitulate the official statements in Parliament on the introduction
of the Penny Postage Bill, taken from Hansard, vol. 48, and which
will be found conclusive on the point.
When the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the 5th of July, 1839,
introduced and carried a resolution sanctioning a Penny Postage Bill
being brought forward, he distinctly only “asked Hon. Members to
“ commit themselves to the question of a uniform rate of postage of
“one penny at and under a weight hereafter to be fixed. Every-
thing else was to be left open. If it were to go forth to the public
to-morrow morning that the Government had proposed, and the
House had adopted, the plan of Mr. Rowland Hill, the necessary
result would be to spread a conviction abroad that, as a stamped cover


{
º
º
º
*
.
&
was absolutely to be used in all cases, which stamped covers were to
*
º
be made by one single manufacturer, alarm would be felt lest a
monopoly would thereby be created, to the serious detriment of other
members of a most useful and important trade. The sense of
injustice excited by this would necessarily be extreme. I therefore
do not call upon the House either to affirm or to negative any such
proposition at the present. I ask you simply to affirm the adoption
“ of a uniform penny postage, and the taxation of that postage by
Weight. Neither do I ask you to pledge yourselves to the pre-
payment of letters, for I am of opinion that, at all events, there
should be an option of putting letters into the post without a
stamp.
“If the resolution be affirmed, and the Bill has to be proposed, it
will hereafter require very great care and complicated arrangements
to carry the plan into practical effect. It may involve considerable
expense and considerable responsibility on the part of the Gövern-
“ment; it may disturb existing trades, such as the paper trade.
“. . . . The new postage will be distinctly and simply a penny.
“ postage by weight. . . . I also require for the Treasury a power
*
*
&
.
.
.
&
*
&
º
&
*
4.
.
&
t

24
“ of taking the postage by anticipation, and a power of allowing such
“ postage to be taken by means of stamped covers, and I also require
“ the authority of rating the postage according to weight.”
In this dilemma, as to how to carry out the Scheme in practice,
Mr. Wallace favourably suggested the adhesive stamp, the adoption of
which plan, he had no hesitation in saying, from the evidence adduced,
would secure the revenue from loss by forgery. Mr. Warburton, also
a member of the 1837–38 Committee, “viewing with considerable
“ alarm the doubt which had been expressed of adopting Mr. Hill's
“ plan of prepayment and collection by stamped covers,” recommended
that plans should be applied for from the public.
Again, in the House of Lords on the 5th of August, Lord Mel-
bourne, in introducing the Bill, is as much embarrassed as was the
Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Commons. The opponents of the
Bill use, as one of their strongest arguments, the impossibility of
carrying out the scheme in practice. The Earl of Ripon says:—
“Why were their Lordships thus called upon at this period of the
“ session to pass a Bill when no mortal being at that moment had
“ the remotest conception of how it was to be carried into execution ?”
Here Lord Ashburton, like Mr. Wallace in the Commons, favourably
suggested the adhesive stamp, “which would answer every purpose,
“ and remove the objection of the stationers and papermakers to the
“ measure.” - -
The Bill having passed, and Mr. Hill relegated to the Treasury to
carry out the reformed scheme, after plans had been called for from
the public and nothing better found, the adhesive stamp was at length
officially adopted by Mr. Hill in conjunction with his own plan of
impressed stamped covers, or stamp impressed upon the sheet of
writing paper itself. Then Mr. Hill pretends that the adhesive stamp
had been proposed or contemplated by him ever since February, 1837–
a mere pretext and afterthought, bred of the success which had at-
tended James Chalmers' happy invention and proposal. In a letter of
date 18th January, 1840, Mr. Hill accordingly writes to Mr. Chalmers
to that effect—sends Chalmers about his business, and usurps the merit
properly belonging to the Dundee bookseller. “Why did you not tell
me this before ?” says in effect James Chalmers in his reply. “ There
“ is a copy of your letter of 3rd March, 1838, in which no such preten-
25
*
“sion is brought forward—it is only now that I learn for the first time
“ that you had proposed or were at all in favour of an adhesive stamp.”
But the simple man, only too pleased to find his plan adopted, carried
the matter no further ; and even if so disposed, was indeed helpless in
the hands of Rowland Hill, then in despotic power.
Let me, in conclusion, ask the reader's attention for a moment
to that scene in the House of Commons on the 5th July, 1889, and
on the subsequent occasion in the House of Lords. Here was a Bill
on which the nation had set its heart—the prospect of a uniform
penny postage had been brought within measurable distance of
completion, but yet wanted the motive power. Ministers and
Members of the Legislature alike were at fault as to how to carry it
out in practice, and the voice of the Opposition rose aloud in jeering
tones, “Why should we be called upon to pass this Bill when no
“ mortal being had the remotest conception of how it was to be
“ carried into execution?” Has not the man who solved that problem,
who made that prospect a reality, yet himself unrewarded, neglected,
and unknown, has not that man deserved well of his country 2
Then what of the professed and reputed originator of all this—
enriched in life, canonised in death—what does Sir Rowland Hill tellus
of these memorable scenes, the struggle and crisis of the fight? What
says he of them in that “History of Penny Postage” written by himself
for the information of his countrymen and posterity ? Of the dilemma
of the Government, the sneers of the Opposition, or the interposition
of Mr. Wallace and Lord Ashburton, he tells us not a line, not a word—
all totally ignored. And why 2 Because to have breathed a whisper of
these matters of 1839 would have been ignominiously to eatinguish his
pretensions to a prior proposal of an adhesive stamp, or of anything
approaching to such a proposal. Long years were allowed to elapse
before a “ History" such as this was palmed upon the public—
the facts would be forgotten—no man would arise to question the
statements or pretensions of one who had clenched that public So
thoroughly in his grasp. And this is the return, coupled with other
delusive omissions pointed out in my pamphlet, the ungenerous and
uncandid return of Rowland Hill to that nation which has dealt so
generously by him. That he may be looked upon as an originator
where he was only an adapter or copyist at the dictation of others,


26
reference to matters of the most vital interest in the history of this
reform is wholly omitted. Statements in Parliament of the first
importance, and essential to the right understanding of this history
the facts of which he has professed to set forth, are left wholly
unnoticed. And for what purpose 2 To add to his own brow un-
merited laurels, stripped from a helpless and deserving man; and
leaving that man, upon whose brains he had flourished, despoiled of
reward and, as far as the spoiler cared, consigned to oblivion.
Understanding that certain documents, consisting of old news-
papers containing letters from himself and friends in disparagement
of me, and of partial extracts of letters written by my late father
to his, have been handed about privately both at home and abroad by
Mr. Pearson Hill, I feel called upon to state that these papers have
already been discussed in the Press to the utter discomforture of and
retirement of Mr. Pearson Hill, having also been laid by him before
the compilers of the “Encyclopædia Britannica,” whose decision he
invoked, and dismissed by them as irrelevant and unfounded.

ºppertoix.
-
O ERIG-IN A L E LAN
THE ADHESIVE POSTAGE STAMP.
SIR HENRY COLE'S PAPERS.
IN his “Fifty Years of Public Life,” lately published, Sir Henry Cole
gives much information with respect to the Penny Postage reform, a
boon with the obtaining and carrying out of which he was intimately
associated—first as Secretary to the Mercantile Committee of the City
of London, and afterwards as coadjutor to Mr. Rowland Hill at the
Treasury. “A General Collection of Postage Papers,” having refer-
ence to this reform, elucidating the efforts made by this Committee of
London Merchants and Bankers during the year 1838–39, to obtain
for the scheme the sanction of the Legislature, has been bequeathed
by Sir Henry Cole, “to be given to the British Museum after my
death.” “The Mercantile Committee,” he states, “was formed
“ chiefly by the exertions of Mr. George Moffat in the spring of 1838.
“Mr. Ashurst conducted the Parliamentary Inquiry, and upon myself,
“ as Secretary, devolved the business of communicating with the
“ public.” This Committee formed the source and focus of the agitation
Which brought about the ultimate enactment of uniform Penny Postage.
Money was freely subscribed, meetings were held, public bodies in the
brovinces were urged to petition, Members of Parliament and Ministers
Were waited upon, and a special paper advocating the scheme, termed
the “Post Circular,” was issued and circulated gratis. Of these pro-
ceedings Mr. Cole was the guiding genius and, amongst other successes,
* These Papers are in the Art Library of the South Kensington Museum.

28

over two thousand petitions to Parliament were obtained—labours
which were ultimately crowned with success.
To Mr. Cole, then, it now turns out that Mr. Chalmers, in February,
1838, sent a copy of his plan of the adhesive stamp. Mr. Wallace
and the House of Commons Committee had already got it, but it is
only now that the particulars of the plan have been brought to light :
and in this “Collection of Postage Papers ” Sir Henry Cole has
indeed left a valuable legacy to me and to all prepared to recognise
the true originator of the adhesive postage stamp. These papers
include a printed statement of Mr. Chalmers' plan, dated “4 Castle
“ Street, Dundee, 8th February, 1888,” and which runs as follows:–
“. Remarks on various modes proposed for franking letters under
“Mr. Rowland Hill's Plan of Post Office Reform.
“In suggesting any method of improvement, it is only reasonable
“ to expect that what are supposed to be its advantages over any
“existing system, or in opposition to others that have been or may be
“ proposed, will be explicitly stated.
“Therefore, if Mr. Hill's plan of a uniform rate of postage, and
“ that all postages are to be paid by those Sending letters before they
“ are deposited in the respective post-offices, become the law of the
“land, I conceive that the most simple and economical mode of
“ carrying out such an arrangement would be by slips (postage stamps)
“ prepared somewhat similar to the specimens here with shown.
“With this view, and in the hope that Mr. Hill's plan may soon
“ be carried into operation, I would suggest that sheets of stamped
“slips should be prepared at the Stamp Office (on a paper made
“expressly for the purpose) with a device on each for a die or cut
“resembling that on newspapers; that the sheets so printed or stamped
“should then be rubbed over with a strong solution of gum or other
“adhesive substance, and (when thoroughly dry) issued by the Stamp
“Office to town and country distributors, to stationers and others, for
“ sale in sheets or singly, under the same laws and restrictions now
“applicable to those selling bill or receipt stamps, so as to prevent, as
“far as practicable, any fraud on the revenue.
“Merchants and others whose correspondence is extensive could
“ purchase these slips in quantities, cut them singly, and affix one to a


29

“letter by means of wetting the back of the slip with a sponge or
“brush, just with as much facility as applying a wafer,” adding that
the stamp might answer both for stamp and wafer, especially in the
case of circulars—a suggestion which those who may recollect the
mode of folding universally practised before the days of envelopes
will appreciate. Mr. Chalmers goes on—“ Others, requiring only one
“or two slips at a time, could purchase them along with sheets of
“ paper at stationers’ shops, the weight only regulating the rate of
“ postage in all cases, so as a stamp may be affixed according to the
“scale determined on.
“Again, to prevent the possibility of these being used a second
“ time, it should be made imperative on postmasters to put the post-
“office town stamp (as represented in one of the specimens) across
“ the slip or postage stamp.”
Mr. Chalmers then goes on to point out the advantages to be
derived from this plan, and to state objections to Mr. Hill's plan
of impressed stamped covers or envelopes, or stamp impressed
upon the sheet of letter paper itself. At that period envelopes—
being Scarcely known, and never used, as involving double postage
—were a hand-made article, heavy and expensive–objections which
have disappeared with the abolition of the Excise duty on paper
and the use of machinery. But how true were Mr. Chalmers'
objections then may be gathered from the fact, as recorded by Sir
Rowland Hill in his “Life,” that the large supply provided of the
first postage envelope, the “Mulready,” had actually to be destroyed as
wholly unsuitable and unsaleable, while the supply of adhesive stamps
was with difficulty brought up to the demand.* The force and value
of Mr. Chalmers’ objections to the stamp impressed upon the sheet
itself are best exemplified by the fact that, though ultimately sanc-
tioned by the Treasury at the instance of Mr. Hill, such plan never
came into use. People bought their own paper from the stationers,
and not from the Stamp Office, and applied the adhesive stamp as the
weight required. Mr. Chalmers concludes—“Taking all these disad-
“vantages into consideration, the use of stamped slips is certainly the
“ most preferable system; and, should others who take an interest in

-
* See also Encyclopædia Britannica, article “Postage Stamps.”

30
“ the proposed reform view the matter in the same light as I do, it
“ remains for them to petition Parliament to have such carried into
“operation.”
This statement of Mr. Chalmers is printed on part of an elongated
sheet of paper. On the half not occupied by the type are several
Specimens of a suggested stamp, about an inch Square, and with the
words printed, “General Postage—not exceeding half-an-ounce—One
“Penny.” And the same—“Not exceeding one ounce—Twopence.”
(It is only of late years that a penny has franked one ounce in weight.)
A space divides each stamp for cutting off singly,” and the back of the
sheet is gummed over. One of the specimens is stamped across with
the post-mark, “Dundee, 10th February, 1888,” to exemplify what
Mr. Chalmers states should be done to prevent the stamp being used a
second time.
Here is a complete description of the principle of the adhesive postage
stamp as ultimately adopted by Mr. Hill at the Treasury by Minute of
26th December, 1839, when he sent Mr. Cole to Messrs. Bacon and
Petch, the eminent engravers, to provide a die and contract for the
supply of stamps, a plan in use to the present day.
This description, as now brought to light under the signature
of Mr. Chalmers himself, fully confirms the evidence with respect to
the invention in August, 1834, as given by his then employés yet
living, W. Whitelaw and others, as detailed in my former pamphlets.
Here, then, was the plan of the future adhesive stamp, already
laid before Mr. Wallace and the House of Commons Committee, also
sent to the Secretary of the City of London Mercantile Committee,
in printed form, as to one of many, long before leave was asked, on
5th July, 1839, even to introduce the Bill into Parliament. That
Mr. Hill saw Mr. Cole's copy, or had a special copy sent also to him-
self, is clear, because Mr. Hill at once writes to Mr. Chalmers under
date 3rd March, 1838. What Mr. Hill states in that letter we know
not altogether, as Mr. Pearson Hill has not thought proper to publish
that letter, and my request to him for a copy has not been complied
with, as shown in a former pamphlet. We know thus much, however,
* The perforated sheets were not introduced until the year 1852. This improve.
ment was the invention of a Mr. Archer, for which he got the sum of £4,000.
† See Select Committee on Archer's Patent—Mr. Bacon's evidence-Question 1,692.

31
that Mr. Rowland Hill makes no pretension then to ever having sug-
gested or approved of an adhesive stamp, as already pointed out. Not
until writing to Mr. Chalmers on the 18th January, 1840, before
which period, in obedience to the general demand, the adhesive stamp
had at length been adopted, did Mr. Hill, in reply to Mr. Chalmers'
claim as the originator, set up any counter-claim on his own part to
any share in the merit of the adhesive stamp. But as with the scheme
itself, so now with the stamp which saved it, no second party was to be
allowed to divide with Mr. Hill the sole merit of this great reform.
So the far-fetched excuse, the mere afterthought, bred of the success
which had attended Mr. Chalmers' proposal to the Committee and to
Mr. Cole, is hit upon to put Mr. Chalmers aside and to attach to him-
self the whole merit of the adhesive stamp. Mr. Hill had said some-
thing about a bit of gummed paper before the Commissioners of Post
Office Inquiry in February, 1837 (Subsequent to publishing the first
edition of his pamphlet, in which nothing was said of an adhesive
stamp), an idea. Mr. Hill had acquired in the interval, just as he had
acquired all the principles in the Scheme itself, at second hand.
This was a mere passing allusion in February, 1837, as to what might
be done with an adhesive stamp (the proved invention of Mr. Chalmers
in August, 1834) in a supposed exceptional case, which could never
have arisen so long as the penny in cash was accepted in prepayment
of a letter, and which mode of payment continued optional with the
public, in place of using a stamp of any sort, up to the year 1855. On
this mere allusion, however, Mr. Hill subsequently founded his claim
when events proved that Mr. Chalmers’ proposal could not be dis-
pensed with. February, 1887, was, it will be noticed, two years and
a half after the invention of the adhesive postage stamp by Mr.
Chalmers, one of the early postal reformers who “ held correspondence
“with the postal reformers of the day both in and out of Parliament,”
the correspondent of, amongst others, Messrs. Knight & Co., who
published for Mr. Hill. Such allusion was, as the Encyclopædia
Britannica further states, merely an idea “acquired from without,” and
had no practical effect whatever, only showing that Mr. Hill had heard
of this idea without seeing its value or proposing its adoption. It is to
James Chalmers we owe both the invention and the proposal of the
adhesive postage stamp.
A REPL) to Mr. PEARSON Hill
Fºllow of the Royal Historical Society. .
- - - - - -
by
LONDON -
wilson & Co., Roy AL Exon ANGE. E.C.


























Cht Abbtsibe postage stamp.
LETTER
TO THE
DUN DEE BURNS CLUB.
A REPLY to Mr. PEARSON HILL.
BY
PATRICK CHAL MERS,
Fellow of the Royal Historical Society.
LONDON :
EFFINGHAM WILSON & Co., ROYAL EXCHANGE, E.C.
º


1888.

WIMBLEDON,
June, 1888.
SIR,
Mr. Pearson Hill having at length published a
pamphlet putting before you his “case ’’ as to Sir Rowland
Hill having been the proposer of the Adhesive Postage
Stamp in February, 1837, I beg to hand you copy of a
“Reply " to this pretension.
By a reference to the proceedings in Parliament on the
introduction of the Penny Postage Bill on the 5th July,
1839, wholly left out of view by Mr. Pearson Hill, and
given by me at page 17, you will perceive that up to that
period Sir Rowland Hill had not proposed the adoption of
the Adhesive Stamp for the purpose of carrying out the
scheme.
Other proofs to the same effect are given. On the
other hand it is proved and admitted by Mr. Pearson Hill
that James Chalmers had officially proposed the adoption
of the Adhesive Stamp (his invention of 1834) to the
Select Committee of the House of Commons in Decem-
ber, 1837.
I further beg to refer you to the extensive recognitions
now obtained at home and abroad as to James Chalmers
having been the originator of this plan which, at a critical
moment, saved and has carried out in practice the reformed
postal system, and to invite your co-operation in bringing
forward his name and services.
Yours respectfully,
PATRICK CHALMERS.
To the Editor /-
/*
_f

Üht 3bbtsibe postage stamp.
To the President and Members of the
DUNDEE BURNS CLUB.
GENTLEMEN,
As you are doubtless aware, Mr. Pearson Hill has
lately published and circulated in Dundee a pamphlet
entitled “The Origin of Postage Stamps—The Chalmers
Craze Investigated,” affording me at length the long-desired
opportunity of meeting him face to face in the controversy
which has arisen betwixt us on the question as to whether
his father or mine was the originator of the Adhesive
Postage Stamp, the adoption of which at a critical moment
by Sir Rowland Hill saved the Penny Postage Scheme of
1837–40 from failure, and formed the means by which the
reformed postal system has been carried out in practice at
home and abroad, to the incalculable benefit of the revenues
and commerce of the nation and of the world at large.
I rejoice that Mr. Pearson Hill has at length found it
advisable to emerge from his retirement and to publish his
view of the matter, and more especially so for two reasons
—one being that he can no longer set up the plea that his
case has not been heard; the other, that his case now
having been put forward, it is found there is nothing in it,
as letters already reaching me from various quarters testify,
and much of this in terms by no means complimentary to
Mr. Pearson Hill.
I may add a third reason for rejoicing at this publica-
tion, and it is this: that many hitherto silent members of
A 2
4
the Press can now have no possible excuse for their silence,
Mr. Pearson Hill himself having at length come forward
and challenged the opinions of the Press and the public
upon this matter—one, I maintain, of public interest as well
as of justice to the memory of a deserving man, and of the
result I entertain no doubt.
Why I should specially address this letter to the
Dundee Burns Club you will at once have surmised. In a
generous desire to commemorate the name and services of
James Chalmers, your late townsman, and equally in a
spirit of loyalty to your locality and to Scotland at large,
you have initiated a proposal that a marble bust of James
Chalmers should be subscribed for and placed in the Art
Gallery of Dundee ; and it is therefore most fitting that
my remarks should be primarily addressed to those already
in possession of my gratitude.
With these prefatory lines, then, and casting aside as
unworthy of notice the personalities in which Mr. Pearson
Hill has been pleased to indulge, I proceed at once to his
“ORIGIN OF POSTAGE STAMPs.”
In treating of the origin of prepayment of letters by
means of postage stamps, Mr. Pearson Hill tells us, what
most philatelists know to be nothing new, that proposals to
that effect have been brought forward in former periods,
and attempts made to put same into practice, going back,
as he does, to Paris in 1653, and more recently to Sardinia–
then on to Mr. Knight's proposal of an impressed stamped
Wrapper for newspapers in 1834. Here, then, is one
popular delusion effectually dispelled, Sir Rowland Hill
having hitherto obtained credit, amongst other misappre-
hensions in the highest literary quarters for having been the
first to propose prepayment of letters by means of a stamp.


5
The Athenæum, for instance, in its obituary notice of Sir Row-
land Hill, after declaring that the “present postage system
was his sole and undisputed invention” (about which here-
after), goes on to state that “prepayment and the use of
stamps naturally followed from the workshop of an inven-
tive mind.” The Times equally tells us, on the same
occasion, that “he devised the Penny Postage unaided,
though he had never been inside a post-office,” the principles
of which scheme were “principles which he first laid
down”; and the Press in general, with certain biographers,
took up the same cry. Yet here we have it, what Mr.
Pearson Hill or any one who had studied the history of
the matter could have told these busy and over-worked
writers, that the proposal of the principle of prepayment of
letters by means of a stamp, one of the most valuable
principles in Rowland Hill's scheme, was a matter of
notoriety, well known to the initiated as of old standing.
Why then has Mr. Pearson Hill allowed this delusion so
long to exist without any attempt at contradiction ?
I have dwelt on this point in the hope that these same
writers, seeing how entirely they have been at fault with
respect to a principle so important, may perhaps further
think it just possible they have been equally at fault in
attributing the merit of the Adhesive Postage Stamp to
the wrong man, and so be disposed at length to do justice
to the memory of the real originator.
To Mr. Pearson Hill, then, our thanks are specially due
for having cleared up the facts with respect to the origin
of prepayment of letters by means of a stamp, hitherto
wrongly attributed to the genius of his father, and it only
remains to be noted that the stamp referred to in his
investigations is, as he tells us, and as every investigator
knows, the impressed stamp, not the Adhesive Stamp.

6
But there is one remarkable omission in Mr. Pearson
Hill's history of the origin of prepayment by means of
stamps—he tells us nothing of the proposal to the same
effect by the Commissioners of Post Office Inquiry in their
Fifth Report, of date April, 1836, about which period
Mr. Rowland Hill, having abandoned his original profes-
Sion, had begun to look into the subject then so widely and
keenly attracting public interest—that of postal reform—
and to find out what had been going on. In this to him
there would be little difficulty, one of the prominent
members of the circle of postal reformers of the period
being his elder brother, Matthew Davenport Hill, M.P. for
Hull; while it is told us by Sir Rowland Hill, in his
“History of Penny Postage" that he received from Mr.
Wallace “a half-hundredweight of heavy Blue Books,” in
addition to those “into which he had already dipped ‘’—and
ever grateful must the nation be to him for having done so.
This Fifth Report deals with the subject of Prices Current,
and recommends that the rate of postage upon Prices
Current and similar mercantile publications, then subject
to the same high and variable rates as were letters, and
charged by sheet, be reduced to and transmitted by post at
a low and uniform rate of postage, irrespective of distance,
to be charged by weight and prepaid by impressed stamp,
at the rate of a penny the half-ounce.
Here, then, is another instance of a proposal of pre-
payment by stamp prior to 1837, to which, however,
Mr. Pearson Hill makes no allusion, any more than does
his father either in his pamphlet of 1837 or “History of
Penny Postage.” Probably Sir Rowland Hill thought that
had he said anything about these proposals, identical as
they are with his own, he might not have been mistaken as
having been that genius of invention which the aforesaid
writers and biographers have taken him to be. Nor has
Mr. Pearson Hill in his history of stamps thought proper

7
to allude to the stamp here proposed and frequently men-
tioned in these publications of mine which he has done me
the honour to peruse.
-
| THE ADHESIVE POSTAGE STAMP.
This mode of prepayment of postage I have clearly
proved to have been the invention of James Chalmers in
the year 1834. To the general evidence of an entire
community as respects the invention I have been enabled
to add the specific evidence of individuals that his adhesive
stamps were displayed in Dundee “ years before 1837,”
and the still more specific evidence of his workmen and
others that Same were got up in his premises in August,
1834. To all impartial minds the evidence so brought
forward has been found not only satisfactory but conclu-
sive ; the “Encyclopædia Britannica ’ decided at the
instance of Mr. Pearson Hill himself that “James Chal-
mers was the inventor of the adhesive postage stamp in
August, 1834,” and that “Mr. Pearson Hill had not
weakened the evidence” to that effect. The “Dictionary of
National Biography” confirms this, and the date. If
Mr. Pearson Hill was not prepared to abide by the decision
of the learned conductors of the first-named standard work,
why did he challenge such decision, or why did he not
state beforehand that he would only accept one of his own
way of thinking 2 In place of that he criticises this
learned body for not having accepted his offer to appoint
his own cousin as arbitrator and historian | Undismayed,
however, Mr. Pearson Hill now endeavours to “pick holes’
in the evidence of one of the witnesses, W. Whitelaw, as to
the year of the invention, but takes care not to notice that
W. Whitelaw's testimony as to date is more than confirmed
by others. Mr. D. Maxwell, a fellow employé with White-

8
law, and lately Manager at the Hull Town Waterworks,
testifies to having seen and clipped the stamps “previous
to 1st November, 1834,” such being the date of his
apprenticeship to a firm of engineers. Mr. Prain, of
Brechin, writes, as also Mr. Pearson Hill has read: “With
“regard to the date of invention you appear to have
“received ample proof, and I am able to add thereto. It
“ was in the autumn of 1834 that I left Dundee to reside
“here, and the stamp was in existence in Mr. Chalmers'
“ premises before I left.” George Hood, a fellow-apprentice
with Mr. D. Maxwell, now writes confirming from his own
knowledge Mr. Maxwell's evidence as to date. Much
corroborative evidence is presented, but Mr. Pearson Hill
simply sneers at the whole as being worthless or impossible
recollections “of old people of Dundee,” somewhere else
expressed as “men in their dotage "—memory having
nothing to do with it but specific events in their career
whereby to fix the date; while each and all are still at work
in various callings; this evidence, moreover, having been
given five to six years ago. Such is a specimen of the
mode in which Mr. Pearson Hill deals with my statements
all through his pamphlet, nothing but cavil, with the
evidence which proves the fallacy of his strictures kept out
of view, and capable, if gone through item by item, of being
equally exposed as such.
Again, Mr. Pearson Hill tells us that he has a letter
from Mr. Chalmers to Mr. Rowland Hill, of date 1st Octo-
ber, 1839, in which the former gives the period of his
having invented the stamp, or of first having published his
invention, as having been about two years previous to that
date of 1st October, 1839, or December, 1837, and he would
have us to understand that Chalmers never said anything
about his invention until he sent his official proposals to
London | Why, my evidence proves that the display of
the stamps was “a matter of notoriety” in Dundee “ years
9
before 1837.” Mr. Chalmers, in fact, displayed his plan
to every one who would listen to him on the subject.
Though one of the early postal reformers, and one who,
writes the “Encyclopædia Britannica,” “ held corre-
spondence with the postal reformers of the day both in and
out of Parliament’’—though in regular business corre-
spondence with Messrs. Knight & Co., who published
Mr. Hill's pamphlet of 1837—we are asked to believe that
his idea as to an adhesive stamp never reached London
circles prior to December, 1837, three years and a half
after the proved period of invention 1 Mr. Pearson Hill
has a wonderful faculty of telling us what Mr. Chalmers
states in his letters, but somehow does not produce them.
Had he here given us any other year or month than
December, 1837, such as June, 1835, or May, 1836, there
might have remained a discrepancy requiring to be cleared
up ; but giving us December, 1837, clearly shows that
what Mr. Chalmers referred to was the period of his
official proposal to Mr. Wallace, Chairman of the Select
Committee. Then, look at the theory of Mr. Pearson Hill
on the subject ' that the Adhesive Postage Stamp was not
and could not have been invented before the publication of
Mr. Rowland Hill's pamphlet of 1837, when the stamp
would simultaneously “occur to scores of people,” Such
stamp being, after all, in his opinion, a “very minor detail,”
scarcely worth mentioning or at least disputing about !
One reads this profound theory and opinion with a feeling
akin to pity.
But Mr. Pearson Hill, not content with casting doubts
on evidence which to every impartial mind is conclusive, is
further pleased to state that “prior to Sir Rowland Hill's
proposals in 1837 prepayment of postage would have been
impossible, and any suggestion for stamps useless.” On


10
the contrary, the possibility of prepayment of postage in
1834, and one use at least for which an adhesive stamp was
peculiarly adapted if not indeed primarily designed by the
inventor Chalmers, is shown by what Mr. Pearson Hill
himself tells us with respect to the proposal in 1834 to
abolish the fourpenny stamp on newspapers and to pass
same by post at a penny. This, as he further tells us,
Mr. Knight proposed should be done by means of an
impressed stamped wrapper. Yet when another man con-
ceives the plan of prepaying Same by affixing an adhesive
stamp, Mr. Pearson Hill declares the idea preposterous,
impossible, useless It is really taxing the patience of
readers to have to expose such absurdities—why, we have
both stamps now, and the number of newspapers posted
on Mr. Knight's plan is perfectly infinitesimal compared
with the number posted on the plan of James Chalmers.
What says Sir Rowland Hill himself in alluding to this
very matter of 1834 2 Just this :—“Of course adhesive
stamps were yet undreamt of,” showing that had such a
stamp been then thought of or available, such would have
been peculiarly applicable, and to this opinion, if to nothing
else, Mr. Pearson Hill should have been the first to bow.
But if not yet satisfied and still adhering to the asser-
tion that nothing less than the proposal of a uniform
postage on letters could have led to the conception of an
Adhesive Postage Stamp, I can accommodate Mr. Pearson
Hill here, too, by showing that such proposal had been put
forward years prior to 1837, if allowed for a moment to
digress from the immediate subject in hand. No greater
delusion ever existed than that Sir Rowland Hill, whatever
is said about him by his modern enthusiastic admirers,
was the first to propose a uniform penny postage, or that
he had ever been officially recognised as the originator of

11
that proposal. So far from this, he has been officially told
quite the contrary, as may be read in the following ex-
tract from Treasury Minute, of date 11th March, 1864,
conferring upon Sir Rowland Hill, upon his retirement
from active service, his full salary of £2,000 a year:—
“My Lords do not forget that it has been by the
“ powerful agency of the railway system that these results
“ have been rendered practicable. Neither do they enter
“ into the question, as foreign to the occasion, what honour
“may be due to those who, before the development of the
“ plans of Sir Rowland Hill, urged the adoption of Uniform
“ Penny Postage.”
Here, then, is a distinct official declaration that uniform
penny postage had been proposed prior to 1837. Who
these parties were that had so “urged the adoption of
uniform penny postage” prior to Sir Rowland Hill I am
not called upon to prove, but I have pointed to one man at
least who had so urged this, the Rev. Samuel Roberts, of
Conway, whose obituary notice in the Times newspaper of
30th September, 1885, records him as having been “one
of the earliest, if not the very earliest, advocates of postal
reform,” and as having pleaded for a low and uniform rate
of postage in 1829 and again in 1836. Supplementing
this statement in the Times by the circular of Mr. Roberts
himself, in which he thanks over two hundred kind con-
tributories, from the Royal Bounty Fund downwards and
including the names of the leading men of the day, in aid
of his declining years, Mr. Roberts goes on to state that
the proposal of a uniform penny postage on letters “was
well known around the Post Office and other high places.
Sir Rowland Hill took up the penny idea and
extended its usefulness, . . . but it should be remem-
bered that it is not right to honour him as the originator
of the penny system. . . . He deserved honour as an
12
able copyist of other men's plans, but it was not fair to
honour and reward him as the inventor of the uniform
penny postage system. It is really no honour to his
memory that. he grasped to himself all the rewards and
honours of the postal reform of these days.”
The name and services of old Samuel Roberts will
survive the strictures of Mr. Pearson Hill; while whatever
party or parties may be here referred to by the Treasury,
there remains the official fact that the proposal of Sir
Rowland Hill as to a uniform penny postage was not
originally of his conception. If to this we add the pro.
posals and principles contained in the Fifth Report of the
Commissioners of Post Office Inquiry given at page 6.
ante, and which lay before Rowland Hill when he drew up
his pamphlet of 1837, we have the entire penny postage
scheme from beginning to end.* For having brought this
forward every gratitude is due to Sir Rowland Hill,
and will be rendered ; but if a place in Westminster
Abbey and statues in the City and elsewhere are to be
accorded to every man who can get credit for having
been the genius of invention by simply putting two and two
together and saying nothing about his authorities, sites for
either will soon become scarce. Even then what is the
use of a scheme if you cannot carry it out in practice,
in his proposals as to which Sir Rowland Hill completely
failed, but from the consequent effects of which failure the
scheme was saved by the invention and timely proposal of
James Chalmers.t
* For a more detailed account of the origin and sources from which Sir
Rowland Hill obtained his scheme, see Appendix to “Submission of the
Sir Rowland Hill Committee.”
+ The Wednesbury Herald, a Staffordshire paper, now writes:—“ Had
Sir Rowland Hill been content with what was his due, and given to others the
same, his name would have gone down to posterity as a public benefactor.
Now, however, in having grasped at too much he is likely to lose all. In
pointing to these ‘Monumental Mockeries’ set up throughout the land men


13
PROPOSAL.
Having now referred to and sustained against the stric-
tures of Mr. Pearson Hill my proofs that James Chalmers
invented in the year 1834 the Adhesive Postage Stamp,
his plan of which in detail is given in a future page, and
further shown that such a stamp was not only possible
but desirable for practical use at that period, I now
come to the point “whether did James Chalmers or Sir
Rowland Hill first propose the adoption of same for the
purpose of carrying out in practice the Penny Postage
Scheme brought forward by Mr. Rowland Hill in 1837?”
While denying the invention of the stamp by Chalmers,
Mr. Pearson Hill does not claim that invention specially
for his father—the stamp occurred to “scores of people,”
but not one of these scores of people can Mr. Pearson
Hill name, and should any such come forward I am
ready for him. Knowing as he must know that the
public in general attach great importance to the adhesive
stamp, and know and honour the name of Rowland Hill
chiefly as the man who, through the invention of this
stamp, enables them to carry on their business, why, it
may be asked, has Mr. Pearson Hill so long allowed the
press and the public to believe that Sir Rowland Hill was
specially the inventor ? Why so contentious at all about a
matter of “very minor detail,” consequently of little con-
sequence to the carrying out of the reformed postal system,
will now say, ‘There stands Rowland Hill, who rose to fame and fortune upon
the brains of other men.” These remarks are elicited through a paper which
had been read before the “Young Men's Society” of Wednesbury, entitled
“A Monumental Mockery,” referring to the statue near them at Kiddermin-
ster, and exposing the non-originality and plagiarisms of Sir Rowland Hill
both as respects the Penny Postage scheme and the Adhesive Postage Stamp,
to the satisfaction and assent of the Chairman and the hearers.
14
not worth contending about 2 If of such insignificance,
how comes it that there is consumed in the Post Office and
its branches quite four tons a day of this adhesive stamp 2
Try to do without this “very minor detail,” and the
officials would tell him they must then simply shut up
shop ; and what then becomes of the commerce and
revenue of the country 2 However, no one will grudge
Mr. Pearson Hill his characteristic opinion, and had he
stuck to it, had he carried out his opinion by his action,
my task might here have stopped, and the patience of the
reader no longer taxed. But somehow or other Mr. Pear-
son Hill does, after all, attach immense importance to this
stamp, and to having it understood that such was origi-
nated by Sir Rowland Hill—that it was part and parcel of
his original proposals in 1837 for the purpose of carrying
out the scheme, thus rendering it incumbent upon me to
show that no such proposal was put forward in 1837, that
no such intention existed, and that the Adhesive Postage
Stamp was not adopted by Mr. Rowland Hill up to the
period of the Penny Postage Bill in July, 1839; it being
on the other hand proved and admitted by Mr. Pearson
Hill that James Chalmers had urged the adoption in
December, 1837. And to my proofs to this effect I now
respectfully ask the reader's attention.
The plan of prepayment of postage proposed by Mr.
Rowland Hill in his pamphlet of 1837 was to pay the money
with the letter or letters, or to prepay Same by an im-
pressed stamped cover or wrapper, or stamp impressed
upon the sheet of letter paper itself. When under exami-
nation before the Commissioners of Post Office Inquiry on
the 13th February, about a month or six weeks after the
publication of his pamphlet, a difficulty arose or presented
itself to Mr. Hill's mind as to what was to be done in an


15
exceptional case, where a person who could not write took
an unstamped letter and a penny to a post-office, a stamp
being compulsory, no money accepted. The penny would
pay for a cover or band, but the cover would obliterate the
address, and the person could not write. In such a case,
and in such a case only, says Mr. Hill—“ Perhaps this
“ difficulty may be obviated by using a bit of paper just
“large enough to bear the stamp, and covered at the back
“by a glutinous wash, which the bringer might, by apply-
“ing a little moisture, attach to the back of the letter, so
“ as to avoid the necessity of redirecting it.” Then he
goes on to withdraw the compulsion to use a stamp—
“Better at first, at least, accept the penny in cash for
“ penny letters, so that every stamp used would be univer-
“sally the impressed stamp.” And this penny in cash for
penny letters was accepted up to the year 1855.
This, then, is what Mr. Pearson Hill claims as having
been a proposal to adopt the adhesive stamp for the pur-
pose of carrying out the penny postage scheme ! For a
moment it appears on the scene in the case of a person
who cannot write, and in 8wch a case only ; the next
moment the compulsion to use a stamp is withdrawn, the
acceptance of the penny in cash is restored, the adhesive
stamp is wiped out and obliterated, and the stamp to be used
is to be “universally ” the impressed stamp. Was there
ever a more hollow and unfounded pretension than this set
up by my opponent 2 Mr. Rowland Hill's momentary
reference to the bit of paper covered with a glutinous wash
only showed that he had become cognisant of the invention
of James Chalmers, of “an idea,” says the arbitrator,
“obtained from without,” but without seeing its value, and
so proposing to make use of it for the purposes of carrying
out his scheme. That Mr. Hill should have got hold of
this idea, and yet not proposed to make use of it to carry
out his scheme, adds doubly to his failure.
-
16
I need say no more to prove to any impartial mind the
hollowness of Mr. Pearson Hill's case ; but to prevent, if
possible, any further controversy on the subject, I will trace
the matter up to the period of the adoption of the Adhesive
Stamp by Mr. Rowland Hill by Treasury Minute of date
26th December, 1839. In describing his plan to Lord
Litchfield, Postmaster-General, Mr. Rowland Hill states
the following to be his proposed mode of prepayment,
January, 1838:—“That the payment should always be in
“ advance. And to rid this mode of payment of the
“ trouble and risk which it would otherwise entail on the
“Sending of letters, as well as for other important consider-
“ations, I propose that the postage be collected by the sale
“ of stamped covers.” Not a Word as to an adhesive stamp.
Again, in writing to James Chalmers on the 3rd March,
1838, we find from the letter of Mr. Chalmers of 18th May,
1840, afterwards given, that Mr. Hill then said nothing as
to his having already proposed or being in favour of an
adhesive stamp.
I now come to the introduction of the Penny Postage
Bill into Parliament, the proceedings on which occasion,
Hansard, Vol. 48, are left wholly unnoticed in the publica-
tion just issued by Mr. Pearson Hill, and which will be
found conclusive against his pretensions.
When, on the 5th July, 1839, the penny postage pro-
posal was introduced into Parliament, it was acknowledged
on all sides that the difficulty lay in the point, how to
carry out the scheme in practice. A practicable mode of
prepayment was desired, but none had been found in the
proposals of Mr. Rowland Hill. His plan of the impressed
stamp upon the sheet of letter paper or upon stamped
wrappers or covers wherein to fold the letter had been
objected to for various reasons by the Select Committee of
the House of Commons, by the papermakers, and now by
the Government; the particulars of and reasons for which

17
objections are detailed by me in former publications. Chaos
and confusion reigned as to how the project was to be set
in motion.
In introducing the resolution the Chancellor of the
Exchequer distinctly only “asked Hon. Members to commit
‘‘themselves to the question of a uniform rate of postage of
“one penny at and under a weight hereafter to be fixed.”
Everything else was to be left open. “If it were to go
“forth to the public to-morrow morning that the Govern-
“ment had proposed, and the House had adopted, the plan
“ of Mr. Rowland Hill, the necessary result would be to
“spread a conviction abroad that, as a stamped cover was
“absolutely to be used in all cases, which stamped covers
“were to be made by one single manufacturer, alarm would
“be felt lest a monopoly would thereby be created, to the
“serious detriment of other members of a most useful and
“important trade. The sense of injustice excited by this
“would necessarily be extreme. I therefore do not call
“upon the House either to affirm or to negative any such
“ proposition at the present. I ask you simply to affirm
“ the adoption of a uniform penny postage, and the taxa-
“tion of that postage by weight. Neither do I ask you to
“ pledge yourselves to the prepayment of letters, for I am
“of opinion that, at all events, there should be an option
“of putting letters into the post without a stamp.”
“If the resolution be affirmed, and the Bill has to be pro-
“posed, it will hereafter require very great care and com-
“plicated arrangements to carry the plan into practical
“effect. It may involve considerable expense and consider-
“able responsibility on the part of the Government; it
“may disturb existing trades, such as the paper trade.
“. . . The new postage will be distinctly and simply
“a penny postage by weight. . . . I also require for
“the Treasury a power of taking the postage by anticipa-
“tion, and a power of allowing such postage to be taken by
B


18
“means of stamped covers, and I also require the authority
“of rating the postage according to weight.”
In this dilemma—as to how to carry out the scheme in
practice—Mr. Wallace favourably suggested the adhesive
stamp, the adoption of which plan, he had no hesitation in
saying, from the evidence adduced, would secure the
revenue from loss by forgery. Mr Warburton, also a
member of the 1837–38 Committee, “viewing with consi-
“derable alarm the doubt which had been expressed of
“adopting Mr. Hill's plan of prepayment and collection by
“stamped covers,” recommended that plans should be
applied for from the public. -
Again, in the House of Lords on the 5th of August,
Lord Melbourne, in introducing the Bill, is as much embar-
rassed as was the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the
Commons. The opponents of the Bill use, as one of their
strongest arguments, the impossibility of carrying out the
scheme in practice. The Earl of Ripon says: “Why
“were their Lordships thus called upon at this period of
“the session to pass a Bill when no mortal being at that
“moment had the remotest conception of how it was to be
“carried into execution ?” Here Lord Ashburton, like
Mr. Wallace in the Commons, favourably suggested the
adhesive stamp, “which would answer every purpose, and
“remove the objection of the stationers and papermakers to
“ the measure.” -
Here, then, is conclusive proof against the pretension
of Mr. Pearson Hill as to his father's prior proposal in
February, 1837—proof insurmountable, and so left by him
wholly unnoticed. -
Let me, here, ask the reader's attention for a moment
to that scene in the House of Commons on the 5th July,
1839, and on the subsequent occasion in the House of
Lords. Here was a Bill on which the nation had set its
heart—the prospect of a uniform penny postage had been

19
brought within measurable distance of completion, but yet
Wanted the motive power. Ministers and Members of the
Legislature alike were at fault as to how to carry it out in
practice, and the voice of the Opposition rose loud in jeer-
ing tones, “Why should we be called upon to pass this
“Bill when no mortal being had the remotest conception
“ of how it was to be carried into execution ?” Has not
the man who solved that problem, who made that prospect
a reality—yet himself unrewarded, neglected, and unknown
—has not that man deserved well of his country 2
Then what of the professed and reputed originator of
all this—enriched in life, canonised in death—what does
Sir Rowland Hill tell us of those memorable scenes, the
struggle and crisis of the fight? What says he of them in
that “History of Penny Postage,” written by himself, for
the information of his countrymen and posterity ? Of the
dilemma of the Government, the sneers of the Opposition,
or the interposition of Mr. Wallace and Lord Ashburton,
he tells us not a line, not a word—all totally ignored.
And why? Because to have breathed a whisper of these
matters of 1839 would have been ignominiously to eactinguish
his pretensions to a PRIOR proposal of an adhesive stamp, or
of anything approaching to such a proposal. Long years
were allowed to elapse before a “History" such as this
was palmed upon the public—the facts would be forgotten
—no man would arise to question the statements or pre-
tensions of one who had clenched that public so thoroughly
in his grasp. And this is the return, coupled with other
delusive omissions pointed out in my pamphlets, the un-
generous and uncandid return of Rowland Hill to that
nation which has dealt so generously by him. That he
may be looked upon as an originator where he was only
an adapter or copyist at the dictation of others, reference
to matters of the most vital interest in the history of this
reform is wholly omitted. Statements in Parliament of
B 2

20
the first importance, and essential to the right understand-
ing of this history, the facts of which he has professed to
set forth, are left wholly unnoticed. And for what pur-
pose? To add to his own brow unmerited laurels, stripped
from a helpless and deserving man ; and leaving that
man, upon whose brains he had flourished, despoiled of
reward and, as far as the spoiler cared, consigned to
oblivion.
The Bill passed into law on the 17th August, 1889,
whereupon Mr. Hill was appointed to a position in the
Treasury for the purpose of superintending its carrying
out. The first step taken was to advertise for plans from
the public, and nothing better having been found, the
adhesive stamp was adopted by Treasury Minute of date
December 26th, 1839, in conjunction with Mr. Hill's plan
of stamped covers, or stamp impressed upon the sheet of
letter paper itself.
Go on, now, to the press of the period—this is what the
Times produces under date 30th August, 1839, a fortnight
after the passing of the Bill: “ The Penny Postage will
“ commence, we learn, on the 1st January next. It is
“intended that stamped envelopes shall be sold at every
“ post-office, so that stationers and other shopkeepers may,
“ as well as the public, supply themselves at a minute's
“ notice.” Not a word as to an adhesive stamp being any
part of Mr. Hill's plan or proposal, or provided for in
the Bill.
I submit that I have now proved beyond dispute that
the adoption of the adhesive stamp for the purpose of
carrying out the penny postage Scheme formed no part
of the proposals or intention of Sir Rowland Hill, and that
any man who can still maintain the contrary is beyond
the reach of proof or argument.

21
I now come to the proposal on the part of James
Chalmers. This, it will be seen from the letter published
by Mr. Pearson Hill, and given below, Mr. Chalmers sent
officially to Mr. Wallace, Chairman of the Select Com-
mittee, in December, 1837, and to another member of that
Committee ; and it is admitted by Mr. Pearson Hill that
Such proposal was then made, and acknowledged by
Mr. Wallace on the 9th December, the Select Committee hav-
ing first met in November, 1837. But essentially more than
this I am now enabled to publish the plan of Mr. Chalmers
in detail as sent to the Mercantile Committee of the City
of London, and now in the South Kensington Museum
Library. But before coming to this publication, I desire
to deal with
THE SO-CALLED WITHDRAWAL OF JAMES
CHALMERS.
In estimating the validity of any withdrawal or modi-
fication of a claim put forward before another person or
tribunal, it will be universally conceded that the value of
any such withdrawal depends solely on the value of the
representation made to the claimant in answer to his
claim. If the facts have been obscured to him, if he has
been told what is not the case, then it is clear that his
withdrawal has been obtained by misrepresentation, and
is consequently wholly invalid.
Applying this to the case before us, Mr. Pearson Hill
publishes an “extract " from a letter of Mr. Chalmers to
Mr. Rowland Hill, of date 18th May, 1840, purporting to
show that the former withdrew his claim ; and which letter
I now produce here, having already published same from
Mr. Pearson Hill's paper to the London Philatelic Society
of November, 1881, in my own pamphlet of 1883, and
again in substance in 1886, so that same has been before

22
my readers for over five years, and has formed no obstacle
to the wide recognition I have obtained at home and
abroad. It would have been well could we have had also
before us the letters of Mr. Hill to Mr. Chalmers of 3rd
March, 1838, and 18th January, 1840; but Mr. Pearson
Hill, not feeling so disposed, has refrained from publishing
these letters, and has not consented to furnish me with
copies, on the ground of my being wholly unworthy of any
Such consideration on his part, though personally quite
unconscious of the iniquities laid to my charge. My
offences, whatever they may have been, have not,
however, prevented Mr. Pearson Hill from publishing
the letter which purports to tell in his own favour;
and any one who supposes he would not equally have
given us the other letters if of similar tendency
must be simple indeed. The reader will thus form
his own opinion as to why this correspondence has
not been produced in its entirety, and no one of impartial
or judicial mind will, upon consideration, attach any
importance to the mere “extract’ with which we have
been favoured, and this, too, in the face of the evidence I
have brought forward. Fancy a suitor coming into Court
and producing what purports to be a “withdrawal" by his
opponent, the value of which wholly depends upon the
representation which had been made to him by the other
side, and asking a verdict on the strength of a mere frag-
ment of the correspondence Asked for the other letters,
for the representation made, the suitor answers, “Oh no !
I mean to keep that to myself”—would he not be laughed
at and sent out of Court, and why not equally so here ?
My contention, moreover, is that this correspondence of
1840, written by and addressed to Mr. Rowland Hill when
in an official capacity at the Treasury, was official, and
consequently ought not to have been removed from the
Treasury, ought now to have been in the Treasury records,

23
in which quarter I some time ago applied for same. By
What right and with what object did Mr. Rowland Hill,
then in despotic power at the Treasury, remove this corre-
spondence 2 But more than this—it will be seen from the
very letter published by Mr. Pearson Hill, on a closer con-
sideration of same, that the letter proves wholly conclusive
against his own case ! First, let me give the letter or
“extract” as published by him :—
“DUNDEE, 18th May, 1840.
“ROWLAND HILL, Esq.
“ SIR,
“I received your favour of 18th January last
“relative to my claim for the ‘Postage Adhesive Stamp,'
“for which I thank you, as it certainly would have been
“far from satisfactory to me to have received only the
“Treasury Circular refusing my claim without any expla-
“ nation.
“My reason for not replying sooner proceeded from a
“ wish to see the stamps in operation, which, although not
“general, they now are. I therefore conceive it only an
“ act of justice to myself to state to you what induced me
“ to become a competitor; for in that capacity I never
“would have appeared if I had known that any one,
“ particularly you, had suggested anything like the same
“scheme. But having given publicity to my plan nearly
“two years before the Treasury Minute of August last
“appeared, inviting competition, and having in my posses-
“sion Mr. Wallace, M.P.'s letter of 9th December, 1837,
“acknowledging receipt of my plan, wherein he says:
“‘These and several others I have received will be duly
“‘submitted to the Committee on Postage ; " also your
“letter of 3rd March, 1838, a copy of which I prefix; and
“one from Mr. Chalmers, M.P., October 7th, 1839, in

24
“ which he says several plans have been submitted to the
“House of Commons Committee, ‘including yours; '—
“from all these I was naturally induced to believe that I
“was first in the field, and consequently became a com-
“ petitor. Your letter, however, of 18th January undeceived
“me on that point, although I cannot help saying that my
“scheme has a rather closer alliance to the one adopted
“ than can be inferred from the copy of your evidence sent
‘‘ to me.
“I have, however, only to regret that, through my
“ignorance, I was led to put others and myself to trouble
“ in the matter, besides some unavoidable expense, while
“ the only satisfaction I have had in this, as well as in
“former suggestions (all original to me) is that these have
“ been adopted, and have and are likely to prove beneficial
“to the public.”
Here Mr. Chalmers claimed having been “first in the
field"—also re-asserting the originality of his invention.
Mr. Pearson Hill claims that his father was “first in the
field,” in February, 1837, as against Chalmers in December,
1837. If such was the case, how is it that neither of these
members of the Select Committee knew anything to that effect 2
Why do they not reply to Chalmers—“Oh you are too
late, we have already got that from Mr. Hill.” They do
not so reply, because they had not got it from Mr. Hill !
In December, 1837, the Chairman of this very Committee,
and at a much later date Mr. Chalmers, of Auldbar, Mem-
ber for the Montrose Burghs, knew nothing of any such
prior proposal on the part of Mr. Hill, though Mr. Pearson
Hill's case is that such proposal dated from February,
1837 According to these Members of the Select Com-
mittee Chalmers was “first in the field,” and who ought
to have known or could have known better? So, on this
very letter itself, Mr. Pearson Hill's case is wholly over-
turned.

25
Then what did Mr. Rowland Hill represent to Mr.
Chalmers in that letter of “18th January last,” which
Mr. Pearson Hill keeps to himself 2 Can there be a doubt
that he told Chalmers just what we are told now, that he,
Mr. Hill, had himself proposed this stamp in February,
1837? The worth and value of which representation the
reader can now gauge. He told Chalmers that he, Hill,
was “first in the field,” which he was not, as proved by me
over and over again—proved by this very letter now before
us—he obscured the facts—Chalmers was misled, and con-
sequently this so-called withdrawal is wholly invalid.
Look further, at Mr. Chalmers here returning Mr. Hill
“copy prefixed " of a former letter he had received from
Mr. Hill of 3rd March, 1838. This, it will be seen, was
the period of Mr. Chalmers having sent his plan, now
extant, to the Mercantile Committee of the City of London
on 8th February, 1838. Mr. Hill acknowledges same on
the 3rd March, and what does he say? This we cannot
altogether tell, because Mr. Pearson Hill objects to fur-
nishing a copy to so naughty a person as myself But
does Mr. Rowland Hill in that letter tell Chalmers then
that he was “first in the field 2* That he had already
proposed an adhesive stamp 2 If such was the case, we
should, I fancy, have had the letter without difficulty from
Mr. Pearson Hill, published without asking; while by
Chalmers now returning Mr. Hill “copy prefixed” of that
letter we know that Mr. Hill had then made no such pre-
tensions. “Why did you not tell me anything of this
before ?” is what Mr. Chalmers here says in effect. “There
“ is a copy of your letter of 3rd March, 1838, when I sent
“ up my plan, in which letter of yours no such pretensions
“were put forward. It is only now, for the first time, I
“learn that you had ever proposed or been in favour of an
“adhesive stamp. Further, how is it that neither of these
“ members of the Committee before whom I laid my plan

26
“ knew anything of any such prior proposal on your part 2
“However, I have no choice but to submit, and am only
“Sorry at having troubled you. I have at least the
“Satisfaction of knowing that the public have got my
“ plan somehow.”
“Why did you not tell me anything of this before?”
Why indeed Because Mr. Hill in March, 1838, had not
contemplated an adhesive stamp for his scheme, as has
been abundantly proved. But much had happened in the
interval betwixt Mr. Hill's two letters to Mr. Chalmers.
The stamp not accepted by Mr. Hill in 1838 had become in
1840 the favourite of all opinions concerned, the adopted
of the Treasury. It had saved the scheme. Mr. Chalmers
must now be put aside, a matter which the entire contrast
betwixt the dispositions of the two men rendered only too
easy; and so this afterthought, bred of the success which
had attended Chalmers' proposal, this far-fetched pretext
of his having proposed the plan of an adhesive stamp in
February, 1839, was hit upon for the purpose.
ORIGINAL PLAN
OF THE
ADHESIVE POSTAGE STAMP.
SIR HENRY COLE's PAPERs.
IN his “ Fifty years of Public Life,” lately published,
Sir Henry Cole gives much imformation with respect to the
Penny Postage reform, a boon with the obtaining and car-
rying out of which he was intimately associated—first as
Secretary to the Mercantile Committee of the City of Lon-
don, and afterwards as coadjutor to Mr. Rowland Hill at
27
the Treasury. “A General Collection of Postage Papers,”
having reference to this reform, elucidating the efforts
made by this Committee of London Merchants and Bankers
during the year 1838–39, to obtain for the scheme the
Sanction of the Legislature, has been bequeathed by Sir
Henry Cole, “to be given to the British Museum after my
death.” ” “The Mercantile Committee,” he states, “was
“formed chiefly by the exertions of Mr. George Moffat in
“the Spring of 1838. Mr. Ashurst conducted the Parlia-
“mentary Inquiry, and upon myself, as Secretary, devolved
“the business of communicating with the public.” This
Committee formed the source and focus of the agitation
which brought about the ultimate enactment of uniform
Penny Postage. Money was freely subscribed, meetings
were held, public bodies in the provinces were urged to
petition, Members of Parliament and Ministers were waited
upon, and a special paper advocating the scheme, termed
the “Post Circular,” was issued and circulated gratis. Of
these proceedings Mr. Cole was the guiding genius, and,
amongst other successes, over two thousand petitions to
Parliament were obtained—labours which were ultimately
Crowned with success.
To Mr. Cole, then, it now turns out that Mr. Chalmers,
in February, 1838, sent a copy of his plan of the adhesive
stamp. Mr. Wallace and the House of Commons Com-
mittee had already got it, but it is only now that the par-
ticulars of the plan have been brought to light; and in this
“Collection of Postage Papers ” Sir Henry Cole has indeed
left a valuable legacy to me and to all prepared to recognise
the true originator of the adhesive postage stamp. These
papers include a printed statement of Mr. Chalmers' plan,
dated “4 Castle Street, Dundee, 8th February, 1888,” and
which runs as follows:—
* These Papers are in the Art Library of the South Kensington Museum. -


28
“Remarks on various modes proposed for franking letters
“under Mr. Rowland Hill's Plan of Post Office Reform.
“In suggesting any method of improvement, it is Gnly
“reasonable to expect that what are supposed to be its
“advantages over any existing system or in opposition to
“others that have been or may be proposed, will be
“explicitly stated.
“Therefore, if Mr. Hill's plan of a uniform rate of
“postage, and that all postages are to be paid by those
“sending letters before they are deposited in the respective
“post-offices, become the law of the land, I conceive that
“the most simple and economical mode of carrying out
“such an arrangement would be by slips (postage stamps)
“prepared somewhat similar to the specimens herewith
“shown.
“With this view, and in the hope that Mr. Hill's plan
“may soon be carried into operation, I would suggest that
“sheets of stamped slips should be prepared at the Stamp
“Office (on a paper made expressly for the purpose) with a
“device on each for a die or cut resembling that on news-
“ papers; that the sheets so printed or stamped should then
“ be rubbed over with a strong Solution of gum or other
“adhesive substance, and (when thoroughly dry) issued by
“the Stamp Office to town and country distributors, to
“stationers and others, for sale in sheets or singly, under
“ the same laws and restrictions now applicable to those
“selling bill or receipt stamps, so as to prevent, as far as
“practicable, any fraud on the revenue.
“Merchants and others whose correspondence is exten-
“sive could purchase these slips in quantities, cut them
“singly and affix one to a letter by means of wetting the
“back of the slip with a sponge or brush, just with as
“much facility as applying a wafer,” adding that the stamp
29
might answer both for stamp and wafer, especially in the
case of circulars—a suggestion which those who may recol- .
lect the mode of folding universally practised before the
days of envelopes will appreciate. Mr. Chalmers goes on—
“Others, requiring only one or two slips at a time, could
“purchase them along with sheets of paper at stationers'
“shops, the weight only regulating the rate of postage in
“all cases, so as a stamp may be affixed according to the
“scale determined on.
“Again, to prevent the possibility of these being used a
“second time, it should be made imperative on postmasters
“to put the post-office town stamp (as represented in one
“of the specimens) across the slip or postage stamp.”
Mr. Chalmers then goes on to point out the advantages
to be derived from this plan, and to state objections to Mr.
Hill's plan of impressed stamped covers or envelopes, or
stamp impressed upon the sheet of letter paper itself. At
that period envelopes—being Scarcely known, and never
used, as involving double postage—were a hand-made
article, heavy and expensive–objections which have dis-
appeared with the abolition of the excise duty on paper and
the use of machinery. But how true were Mr. Chalmers’
objections then may be gathered from the fact, as recorded
by Sir Rowland Hill in his “Life,” that the large supply
provided of the first postage envelope, the “Mulready,”
had actually to be destroyed as wholly unsuitable and un-
saleable, while the supply of adhesive stamps was with
difficulty brought up to the demand.* The force and value
of Mr. Chalmers’ objections to the stamp impressed upon
the sheet itself are best exemplified by the fact that, though
ultimately sanctioned by the Treasury at the instance of
Mr. Hill, such plan never came into use. People bought
their own paper from the stationers, and not from the
Stamp Office, and applied the adhesive stamp as the weight
* See also Encyclopædia Britannica, article “Postage Stamps.”


30
required. Mr. Chalmers concludes—“Taking all these
“disadvantages into consideration, the use of stamped slips
“is certainly the most preferable system; and, should
“others who take an interest in the proposed reform view
“ the matter in the same light as I do, it remains for them
“ to petition Parliament to have such carried into
“operation.”
This statement of Mr. Chalmers is printed on part of
an elongated sheet of paper. On the half not occupied by
the type are several specimens of a suggested stamp, about an
inch square, and with the words printed, “General Postage
—not exceeding half-an-ounce — One Penny.” And the
same — “ Not exceeding one ounce – Twopence.” (It is
only of late years that a penny has franked one ounce in
weight.) A space divides each stamp for cutting off
singly,” and the back of the sheet is gummed over. One of
the specimens is stamped across with the quasi post-mark,
“Dundee, 10th February, 1888,” to exemplify what Mr.
Chalmers states should be done to prevent the stamp being
used a second time.
Here is a complete description of the principle of the
adhesive postage stamp as ultimately adopted by Mr. Hill
at the Treasury by Minute of 26th December, 1839, when
he sent Mr. Cole to Messrs. Bacon and Petch, the eminent
engravers, to provide a die and contract for the supply of
stamps,t a plan in use to the present day.
This description, as now brought to light under the
signature of Mr. Chalmers himself, fully confirms the
evidence with respect to the invention in August, 1834, as
given by his then employés yet living, W. Whitelaw and
others, as detailed in my former pamphlets.
* The perforated sheets were not introduced until the year 1852. This
improvement was the invention of a Mr. Archer, for which he got the sum of
£4,000.
† See Select Committee on Archer's Patent—Mr. Bacon's evidence, Question
1,692.

31
Here, then, was the plan of the future adhesive stamp,
already laid before Mr. Wallace and the House of Commons
Committee, also sent to the Secretary of the City of London
Mercantile Committee, in printed form, as to one of many,
long before leave was asked, on "5th July, 1839, even to
introduce the Bill into Parliament. That Mr. Hill saw
Mr. Cole's copy, or had a special copy sent also to himself,
is clear, because Mr. Hill at once writes to Mr. Chalmers
under date 3rd March, 1838. What Mr. Hill states in that
letter we know not altogether, as Mr. Pearson Hill has not
thought proper to publish that letter, and my request to
him for a copy has not been complied with, as shown in a
former pamphlet. We know thus much, however, that Mr.
Rowland Hill makes no pretension then to ever having sug-
gested or approved of an adhesive stamp, as already pointed
out. Not until writing to Mr. Chalmers on the 18th
January, 1840, before which period, in obedience to the
general demand, the adhesive stamp had at length been
adopted, did Mr. Hill, in reply to Mr. Chalmers' claim as
the originator, set up any counter-claim on his own part to
any share in the merit of the adhesive stamp. But as with
the scheme itself, so now with the stamp which saved it,
no second party was to be allowed to divide with Mr. Hill
the sole merit of this great reform. So the far-fetched
excuse, the mere afterthought, bred of the success which
had attended Mr. Chalmers’ proposal to the Committee and
to Mr. Cole, is hit upon to put Mr. Chalmers aside and to
attach to himself the whole merit of the adhesive stamp.
Mr. Hill had said something about a bit of gummed paper
before the Commissioners of Post Office Inquiry in
February, 1837 (subsequent to publishing the first edition
of his pamphlet, in which nothing was said of an adhesive
stamp), an idea Mr. Hill had acquired in the interval, just
as he had acquired all the principles in the scheme itself,
at second hand. This was a mere passing allusion in

32
February, 1837, as to what might be done with an adhesive
stamp (the proved invention of Mr. Chalmers in August,
1884) in a Supposed exceptional case, described by me at
page 15 ante, and which could never have arisen so long as
the penny in cash was accepted in prepayment of a letter, and
which mode of payment continued optional with the public,
in place of using a stamp of any sort, up to the year 1855.
On this mere allusion, however, Mr. Hill subsequently
founded his claim when events proved that Mr. Chalmers'
proposal could not be dispensed with. February, 1837,
was, it will be noticed, two years and a half after the inven-
tion of the adhesive postage stamp by Mr. Chalmers, one
of the early postal reformers who “ held correspondence
“with the postal reformers of the day both in and out
of Parliament,” the correspondent of, amongst others,
Messrs. Knight & Co., who published for Mr. Hill. Such
allusion was, as the Encyclopædia Britannica further states,
merely an idea. “acquired from without,” and had no prac-
tical effect whatever, only showing that Mr. Hill had heard
of this idea without seeing its value or proposing its adop-
tion for the purpose of carrying out the scheme. It is to
James Chalmers we owe both the INVENTION and the PRO-
PoSAL of the Adhesive Postage Stamp.
THE GLASGOW POST OFFICE MAGAZINE.
An able and lucid article, entitled “ The Queen's Head,”
cordially recognising James Chalmers as the author of
the invaluable adhesive postage stamp, and drawn up by
an official in the Glasgow Post Office, a total Stranger to
me as I am to him, lately appeared in the Glasgow Post
Office Magazine equally named “The Queen's Head,” a work
upon which the compilers have been complimented by the
heads of the London Post Office, and of which nearly



33
5,000 copies have been purchased by the various post-
office employés throughout the kingdom. This article has
been favourably noticed by some of the Press, and cor-
dially reviewed or copied in its entirety and commented
upon by American and German Philatelic journals. Mr.
Pearson Hill, however, is pleased to sneer at this article
as being only the opinion of “some clerks in the Glasgow
Post Office, ’’ though a more remarkable proof of the
progress my cause is making even in the postal and tele-
graphic services could not have been desired.
LETTER FROM SIR STEVENSON A. BLACKWOOD.
Here Mr. Pearson Hill complains that in publishing a
letter addressed to me by Sir Stevenson A. Blackwood,
Secretary to H.M. Post Office, I had misrepresented the
nature of that letter. Some years ago a weekly paper
bearing the title of “The Postal and Telegraphic Gazette,”
took a prominent part in denouncing me and my cause ;
and after an unusually strong denunciation of my preten-
Sions, said to have been contributed by a writer “high up
in the service of the Post Office,” I addressed the Secretary
to H.M. Post Office requesting to be informed if “The
Postal and Telegraphic Gazette,” was an official paper,
and if the opinions therein expressed were to be under-
stood as the opinions of H.M. Post Office. To this
request I was immediately favoured with the following
reply:—
“ GENERAL Post OFFICE,
“24th March, 1884.
“SIR,
“In reply to your letter of 22nd instant, I beg
“leave to say that ‘The Postal and Telegraphic Gazette’ is
C

34
“ not an official journal, and that the opinions therein ex-
“ pressed must not be regarded as the official expressions
“ of opinion of H.M.'s Post Office. .
“I am, &c.,
“ (Signed) S. A. BLACKWOOD,
“Secretary.
“ P. CHALMERs, Esq.”
I submit that a more distinct repudiation of the Postal
and Telegraphic Gazette and of its opinions could not have
been desired; moreover, in publishing this letter, I dis-
tinctly added, “My friends and supporters may be inclined
“ to claim such as an official recognition of my claim on
“ behalf of my father. If one side is wrong, they will say,
“ the other side must be right. But I should be sorry to
“ attach such significance to the generous letter of Sir
“Stevenson Blackwood or to claim him as having committed
“ himself to that official recognition perhaps yet to be
“unmistakably granted.” What Mr. Pearson Hill has here
to complain about so as again to have troubled Sir Steven-
son Blackwood in the matter I fail to see ; only that
Mr. Pearson Hill finds something to complain about in all
I say or do, or do not say or do.
I trust that Sir Stevenson Blackwood and the Post-
master-General will do me the favour to read these pages,
when they will see that any impression they may have
been under as to Sir Rowland Hill having been the first to
propose the adoption of the Adhesive Stamp for the
purpose of carrying out the scheme he had brought forward
(but not invented) is a mistake, as proved by the proceed-
ings in Parliament and other proofs I have given. While
on the other hand it is proved and admitted that James
Chalmers officially urged this plan a year and a half prior
to the introduction of the Bill.
35
LETTER OF MER. ALDERMAN WHITE HEAD.
In his letter to Mr. Pearson Hill of 29th October, 1887,
Mr. Alderman Whitehead, though not now going beyond
the expressions “founder” and “originator,” does not yet
at the same time clearly admit that the uniform penny
postage scheme was not actually the invention of Sir
Rowland Hill, as so handed down by Sir Rowland Hill
himself, and so believed to have been by the subscribers to
the Memorial Fund of which Mr. Whitehead was Secretary.
And though making light of the changes of inscription
effected by himself and the Committee upon the statue of
Sir Rowland Hill prior to its erection, others take and will
continue to take a very different view of the significance of
these changes. This is too large a matter to go fully into
here, in an already too extended publication; but I am
prepared to show by the proceedings of Mr. Whitehead
and his Committee, by the changes of the inscriptions
decided upon, and by my correspondence with the Lord
Mayor, the Chairman of the Committee, that the point of
“originality of conception” on the part of Sir Rowland Hill
was abandoned by the Committee—an abandonment which
has never been announced, while subscriptions continue
year after year to be asked for in the name and prestige of
Sir Rowland Hill, popularly understood as a great inventor.
Mr. Whitehead may lightly dismiss these changes of in-
scription, but what do others say to the following proceed-
ings, subsequent to my having informed this Committee
that the Penny Postage scheme was a mere copy from
beginning to end from a pre-existing document to which
Sir Rowland Hill in his writings had wholly avoided any
reference 2



36
FROM THE “CITY PRESS,” MARCH 18TH, 1882.
“Rowl,AND HILL MEMORIAL.
“On Thursday a meeting of the Rowland Hill Memorial
“Committee was held at the Mansion House, the Lord
“Mayor presiding. A discussion arose as to the inscrip-
“tion upon Mr. Onslow Ford's statue to be erected at the
“Royal Exchange, which had been determined at a previous
“ meeting to run thus: Rowland Hill—" He founded Penny
“‘Postage.’ Mr. Whitehead now proposed that the last
“sentence should run, “He gave us Penny Postage.’
“Mr. Northover seconded. The Lord Mayor thought that
“ a mere mention of the name, birth, and death on the
“ statue would be sufficient. Dr. Walter Lewis moved for,
“ and Mr. Causton, M.P., seconded, the following inscription:
“‘Sir Rowland Hill, K.C.B., born 1795, died 1879.’ Mr.
“Whitehead withdrew his motion, and the latter suggestion
“ was unanimously adopted. Mr. C. Barry moved, and
“Mr. R. Price seconded, the following addition to the
“ words: “By whose energy and perseverance the national
“‘Penny Postage was established.” Eventually this was
“ carried by nine votes to six, the Lord Mayor voting in
“ the minority.”
Now these proceedings, I submit, develop an alteration
in the views of the Committee of the highest significance,
whether brought about by me as denied by Mr. Whitehead,
or by the investigations of himself and others. From having
“founded " penny postage they come down to admitting
he only “established ” it by his “energy and persever-
ance.” Anything like “originality of conception ” is
wholly discarded, and only by a narrow majority does
anything beyond the mere name, with date of birth and
death, appear. No announcement of this significant
37
change of inscription having been put forward in the daily
papers, I pointed out this omission to the Lord Mayor,
the Chairman, in a letter of 25th March from myself as
the person “who had been instrumental in showing the
Committee that that Sir Rowland Hill did not found the
penny postage; ” also referring to the “very marked decep-
tion which had been practised upon the nation by Sir Row-
land Hill, all of which must sooner or later come out,” and
recommending that this change of inscription should be at
once announced—a letter courteously acknowledged and at
once acted upon, the new inscription appearing in most
of the morning papers next day.
Again, another change. At a subsequent meeting, at
which the Lord Mayor was not present, while the meeting
was reinforced by the presence of some prominent admirers
of Sir Rowland Hill, we have a third and last inscrip-
tion decided upon, and which is now upon the statue—
“Rowland Hill. He founded Uniform Penny Postage,
1840.” The insertion here of the date “ 1840 ° equally
conceded the point of “originality of conception,” but
this in such a manner as does not enlighten the public
or disturb the impressions of the general reader. By
the year 1840 Mr. Rowland Hill had become located
at the Treasury for the purpose of carrying out the
scheme. But the scheme itself was brought forward by
him in 1837. By thus avoiding all responsibility for or
recognition of anything prior to 1840, the Committee
abandoned the point of the 1837 proposal having been an
original conception—such formed no part of the “founda-
tion of uniform Penny Postage" by Rowland Hill, this
inscription tells us—it is from and after 1840, when the
executive part of the work began, that his claim to having
founded uniform Penny Postage can alone be sustained.
All this I pointed out in a letter published by the Daily
News on 23rd April, 1882, to which Mr. Whitehead, though

C 2
38
he had just previously been denouncing me in the Press,
attempted no reply.
The above is a condensed account of what has already
appeared in my pamphlet “Concealment Unveiled : a Tale
of the Mansion House.” -
Look now, for it is most important, at what Mr. Alder-
man Whitehead in this letter, published by Mr. Pearson
Hill, tells us is the third and last inscription as now on
the statue of Sir Rowland Hill ! He tells us it is “ Founder
of Uniform Penny Postage,” which it is not. Mr. White-
head has omitted what embodies the whole question at
issue—the date and figures “ 1840.” This date, the
symbol of abandonment of invention, the pivot on which
turns our differences, Mr. Whitehead has left out of view.
Will, then, Mr. Alderman Whitehead be good enough
to explain why he has omitted to give this important
date “1840 ° in his present version of the inscription, and
which I pointed out in my above-named letter published
by the Daily News, conceded the whole question as to
originality of conception on the part of Sir Rowland Hill—
a letter to which he made no attempt to reply, and which
date he now leaves out of sight 2
In a letter which I had the honour to receive from the
late Sir John Staples when Lord Mayor, his Lordship is of
opinion that this dispute as to the originality of Sir Row-
land Hill is a “question of the past,” and points out
that the subscriptions now asked for by this Committee
are not for Sir Rowland Hill, but for the Post Office Bene-
volent Fund. Exactly so ! Then why not say so 2 Why
not style themselves what they are, the Committee or
Trustees of the Post Office Benevolent Fund 2 Why con-
tinue to flourish the name of Rowland Hill in the fore-
ground of their proceedings, whereby subscriptions are
attracted from the public on the strength and prestige of
a name popularly supposed to be a great inventor, but


39
which name I maintain, as proved by the changes in the
inscription on the monument and by the correspondence
betwixt myself and the Chairman of that Committee in
1882, the Committee have admitted to have been not an
inventor 2 Is this dealing openly and candidly with the
public 2 What would these Aldermen and Magistrates say,
and how would they deal with an individual or a public
company so inviting and obtaining money from the public 2
And yet here we have this delusive proceeding going on
year after year under the very roof of the Mansion House
itself |
However desirous the Committee may be that the question
as to the originality of Sir Rowland Hill may be considered
“a question of the past,” to me and my cause this question
is one of very present importance ; and it is for that reason,
and not from any desire to embarrass Mr. Whitehead and
his colleagues in the delicate and painful circumstances in
which they have been placed by the discovery that, after
all, the uniform Penny Postage scheme was in no part
originally the conception of Sir Rowland Hill, whatever his
services otherwise. The same Rowland Hill who plagia-
rised the scheme, usurped from my father the merit of the
plan which saved it, and to this day preserves to us the
beneficent reformed postal System. To me, consequently,
this question is important as showing the system pursued
by Sir Rowland Hill of assuming to himself merit not
his due.
I now respectfully ask Mr. Whitehead, about to be
Lord Mayor, to read the copy of this publication which
will be sent him, and by so doing become satisfied that it
is to James Chalmers we owe the plan which at a critical
moment saved and has carried out uniform penny postage.
Let me further trust that Mr. Whitehead will take an
opportunity to admit this, and by so doing establish in the
place of any further controversy “peace with honour.”
40
CONCLUSION.
And now, Gentlemen of the Dundee Burns Club, I
bring my unexpectedly lengthened statement to a close,
having, I trust, noticed every necessary point of the case.
Mr. Pearson Hill publishes several letters from himself
and immediate friends to newspapers, some going back
to 1883, giving his own and their opinions, which no one
expects or even desires to control; but which opinions, not
being evidence in the case, can have no influence with you, or
call for any remarks from me. In the absence of a “case ’’
we all know the not uncommon alternative, “abuse the
other side,” and this may appear to you the course I have
been honoured with here. Every one who has followed
my publications knows how gradually the facts and
evidence have come to hand or within my own knowledge,
yet I am taken to task as having kept back statements, for
not having early published my case full blown. Again,
I am somehow held responsible for Press statements with
which I had nothing to do, or, I may say, not even seen. In
this way are Mr. Pearson Hill's strictures, complaints, and
cavillings mustered. So far does he forget himself as to
imply that I have claimed for my father not only the
adhesive stamp, but further the merit of Archer's patent
perforation, and the very Penny Postage Scheme itself
That, throwing over “poor Mr. Samuel Roberts,” I have
put James Chalmers in his place. Going on with such
choice remarks as that “Probably before the Jubilee of
“ Penny Postage arrives some old people in Dundee or
“Bedlam will be discovered who can testify that Mr. James
“Chalmers also designed the General Post Office in
“ St. Martin's-le-Grand, and that the Postal Telegraphs,
“Telephones, and the Parcel Post were all invented by
“Mr. James Chalmers in 1834, and communicated by him


41
“ to his wondering friends and neighbours.” Referring to
my being a Member of the Royal Historical Society leads
to the remark, “A man may as well be called a goose
“ because he subscribes to a Goose Club,”—concluding,
“Surely if the Commissioners in Lunacy are in want of a
“ promising case they might find one at Wimbledon
“admirably adapted to their hands.”
I refrain from adding by any words of mine to the painful
effect which such remarks will produce upon any man of
intelligence or sense of propriety.
Believe me,
GENTLEMEN,
Yours very faithfully,
PATRICK CHALMERS.
WIMBLEDON,
June, 1888.
42
RECOGNITIONS.
Publications which have recognised JAMES CHALMERS as the
Originator of the Adhesive Postage Stamp —
The “Encyclopædia Britannica” and the “Dictionary
of National Biography,” after special investigation, and the
date of invention fixed as having been in the month of
August, 1834, up to which period Sir Rowland Hill, in his
“Life,” has left it on record that “Adhesive Stamps had
not been dreamt of.”
LONDON PAPERs.
City PRESS.
METROPOLITAN.
INVENTION AND INVENTOR's
MART.
HoME AND Colon[AL MAIL.
MoRNING POST.
BRITISH MAIL.
CourT AND SOCIETY REVIEW.
VANITY FAIR.
FIGARO.
PEOPLE.
CHRISTIAN UNION.
ENGLAND.
BRIC-A-BRAC [with Biography
and Likeness].
PHILATELIC CRITIC.
PHILATELIC ADVERTISER,
FAIRPLAY.
CIVIL SERVICE TIMES.
WHITEHALL REVIEW.
THE BOOKSELLER.
TRübNER & Co.'s CIRCULAR.
SAMPSON LOW & Co.'s CIR-
CULAR,
LEISURE HOUR.
LITERARY OPINION.
HoME WORK.
SUNDAY TIMES.
NATIONAL REFORMER.
MACHINERY MARKET,
WALFORD's ANTIQUARIAN.
CROYDON REVIEW.
SURREY INDEPENDENT.
And several other subwrban
papers.
PROVINCIAL.
The recognitions in the provinces may be described as
fairly numerous, including such papers as the “Western
Daily Press” of Bristol, the “Sheffield Daily Telegraph,”
the “Manchester Guardian,” the “Leeds Times,” the
“ Bradford Observer,” the “Oldham Chronicle,” &c., with
the Philatelic papers, the “Stamp Collector's Journal”

43
of Bury St. Edmund's, and the “Midland Philatelic " of
Nottingham.
SCOTLAND.
Recognitions in Scotland may be termed as very
universal, including every paper in Forfarshire, with
influential supporters in Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen,
&c. The powerful article in the Glasgow Post Office
magazine “The Queen's Head" has the impress of a
semi-official recognition.
OTHER Count RIEs.
In America, twenty Philatelic Societies have officially
recognised James Chalmers, including the American Phila-
telic Association itself, or general Society of American
Philatelists at their late convention at Chicago, in which
important city a “Chalmers Society” has been formed.
Other valuable recognitions have been sent me from His-
torical Societies, State Libraries, Scottish Clubs, and
newspapers in America. Several Philatelic Journals have
published a biographical notice, with likeness.
On the Continent—in Paris, Munich, Leipzic, Berlin,
Frankfort, Vienna, Stockholm, Constantinople for the
Levant—Societies and Journals, representing a most
numerous body of Philatelists, now, as in the United
States, recognise Chalmers as their “patron saint”; and
in several of the journals the likeness has appeared, in-
cluding the “Illustrites Brief marken Journal” of Leipzic,
the organ of twenty-six Philatelic Societies, with a
bi-monthly circulation of 15,000.
PATRICK CHALMERS,
Hon. Member of the Société Internationale
de Timbrologie, Paris, and of twelve
American Philatelic Societies.



44
From the “DUNDEE ADVERTISER" of June 14th, 1888.
The late Mr. JAMES CHAIMERS
A monument has this week been erected in the Howff
over the grave of Mr. James Chalmers by his son,
Mr. Patrick Chalmers, Wimbledon. The following in-
scription in raised granite letters has been put on the
monument :—
TO
T H E M E M o R Y
OF
J AM E S C H A LM E R S,
BookSELLER, DUNDEE.
Born 1782. Died 1853.
Originator of the Adhesive Postage Stamp,
which saved the Penny Postage Scheme of 1840 from
collapse,
rendering it an unqualified success, and which has since
been adopted throughout the postal systems
of the world.
This Memorial is Erected by his Son,
PATRICK CHALMERs, Wimbledon, -
1888. N .
This old cemetery is now laid out as a place of public
resort, and this Memorial, consisting of a granite Head-
stone, has been erected by and with the official sanction
and assent of the Town Council of Dundee.—P. C.


MR. JoHN FRANCIS,
of THE THEN Luiſ,
ON
|| tº plm ºf sºlin ºil
- -
PATRICK CHALMERS,
FELLow OF THE Roy AL HistoriCAL society.
--
second EDITION.
-->
wiison & Co., ROYAL EXCHANGE. E.C. |
--

















WIMBLEDON,
January, 1889.
SIR,
The Pamphlet herewith contains a fresh and most
valuable contribution in proof of my contention that the
Adhesive Postage Stamp, which saved and has carried out
in practice the Reformed Postal System of 1840, formed
no part of the proposals or intentions of Sir Rowl,AND HILL,
the merit of which has been usurped by him from JAMES
CHALMERs, of Dundee.
I now ask you to read the record left on this subject by
no less a man than the late Mr. JoHN FRANCIS, of the
Athenaeum, and friend of Sir ROWLAND HILL.
The Appendix gives a condensed account of the wide
recognition now obtained in favour of JAMES CHALMERs,
not only in this country, but throughout the United States
of America and in the chief cities of the Continent.
Yours respectfully,
PATRICK CHALMERs.
MR. JOHN FRANCIS,
OF THE ATHENAEUM,
ON
Čht plan of Sir #0tulani jill.
BY
PATRICK CHALMERS, -
FELLOW OF THE ROYAL EIISTORICAL SOCIETY.
SECOND EDITION.
LONDON :
EFFINGHAM WILSON & CO., ROYAL EXCHANGE, E.C.
1889.



MR. JOHN FRANCIS,

of the “Athenaeum,”
On the plan of Sir Bololamb jill.
FEW readers will require to be told that the late Mr. John
Francis, whose testimony I am now about to bring forward
in Support of my case on the Subject of the Adhesive
Postage Stamp, was a leading man in the literary circles
of London. Born in 1811, he became engaged on the staff
of the Athenaeum in 1831, ultimately rising to be chief of
that great literary journal until the period of his death in
1882. In all the reforms of that period tending to remove
the shackles from the Press and to advance the cause of
education and learning, Mr. Francis took a prominent part,
more especially in advocating such measures as the aboli-
tion of the “Taxes on Knowledge,” and in promoting the
Penny Postage Reform brought forward by the then
Mr. Rowland Hill. A work in two volumes, entitled
“John Francis, Publisher of the Athenaeum : a Literary
Chronicle of Half a Century,” compiled by his son,
Mr. John C. Francis, has lately been published, in which
the names of most of the prominent writers and public
men during the period throughout which his own labours
extended are brought forward, with some account of their
proposals and the benefits resulting from their efforts.
The warm interest which Mr. Francis took in the pro-
posed Penny Postage Scheme of 1837 brought him into
close relationship with Mr. Rowland Hill, an intimacy or
indeed friendship which continued throughout their respec-
tive lives. What Mr. Francis has to say on this subject is
A 2

4
consequently of much importance to all readers of this
Chalmers-Hill controversy. Here, then, is the testimony
of Mr. Francis as respects the plan proposed by Mr. Row-
land Hill for carrying out the Penny Postage Scheme in
practice :- -
“On the 6th May, 1837, the Athenaeum gave a short
“ notice of Rowland Hill's pamphlet ‘Post Office Reform,'
“ and expressed its conviction that his statements and
“reasoning were worthy of the most serious consideration,
“ though hesitating to acquiesce entirely in his conclu-
“sions. On the 21st and 28th April, 1838, it returns to
“ the question in two leading articles upon the ‘Minutes of
“ Evidence taken before the Select Committee on Postage,’
“ the Committee having been appointed for the purpose of
“examining the mode recommended by Rowland Hill for
“charging and collecting postage. The writer of the
“article says:– The facts made known by this Report
“excite in us some astonishment. . . . 1,000 letters
“can be conveyed to Edinburgh or Dundee for one
“ shilling, and within forty-eight hours, and the postage
“charge for delivery is 1s. 1%d. ' Mr. Hill proposed the
“ issue of penny stamped covers for letters. Having seen
“ that the Chairman of Stamps and Taxes mentions a
“‘peculiar paper with lines of thread or silk stretched
“ through its substance, which is the best preventative of
“forgery he has seen,” and therefore likely to prevent
“ these stamped covers from being forged, we have
“requested Mr. Dickenson, the inventor, to manufacture
“for our next number so much of this threaded paper as
“shall be sufficient for our whole impression, which will
“ be printed upon it so as to make our subscribers
“ acquainted with the nature of the proposed method.”
“The issue of April 28th (1838) had these blue threads
“ inserted in the Substance of the paper, and the article
“states—‘We shall be surprised if so simple a means of
“ protecting the revenue and preventing crime is not
“adopted.’”
5
Such is the record of Mr. Francis, the friend of Sir
Rowland Hill. The scheme of 1837 is first commented on
in May of that year. Attention is continued and directed to
all that took place up to the proceedings of the House of
Commons Select Committee in the following year, and then
in April, 1838, we have two articles on the subject. On
the 21st April Mr. Francis' great journal “returns to the
question,” telling us that “Mr. Hill proposed the issue of
penny stamped covers for letters,” mentions the way in
Which it was proposed to get over the difficulty of forgery
by the use of Dickenson’s “peculiar paper,” and in its next
issue of the 28th April actually prints that issue upon this
Same “peculiar paper,” in order to show the public the
manner in which Mr. Hill's scheme was to be carried out
in practice. Not a word or a whisper does Mr. Francis
utter as to an Adhesive Stamp having either been pro-
posed or being for one moment contemplated, altogether
exactly confirming my own account of the matter, and
which account I desire here to repeat so that the same
may be compared with this record left us by this learned
and intimate acquaintance of Sir Rowland Hill and his
proposals.

FROM “THE ADHESIVE POSTAGE STAMP, 1886.”
“The plan by which Mr. Rowland Hill, in his pamphlet
of 1837, proposed to carry out in practice his uniform penny
postage scheme was, shortly stated, first, simply to pay the
penny or money with the letters; but secondly, and more
especially, by stamped sheets of letter paper, and stamped
wrappers or covers. ‘Let stamped covers and sheets of
‘paper be supplied to the public, from the Stamp Office or
“Post Office, or both, and at such a price as to include the
‘postage.' . . . “Economy and the public convenience
“would require that sheets of letter paper of every descrip-
‘tion should be stamped on the part used for the address;
‘that wrappers, such as are used for newspapers, as well as
*6

6
‘covers made of cheap paper, should also be stamped,” and
kept on sale at the post-offices. ‘Stationers would also be
‘induced to keep them.’
“What Mr. Hill overlooked in this proposal, was the
broad fact that he sets up the Stamp Office or Post Office to
do the business in letter paper of the stationers through-
out the kingdom—some huge Government establishment
against which competition would be hopeless, as the Stamp
Office was to sell the writing paper at cost price, while the
stationer requires a profit to pay his rent and expenses, and
to live upon. The effect upon the stationers, consequently,
would have been confiscation—and against this plan the
united body of paper makers and stationers subsequently
protested.
“The Select Committee of the House of Commons of
1837-38, again, took exception to Mr. Hill's plan mainly on
account of its liability to forgery—a stamp of the nature
proposed would be extensively forged. After evidence on
the part of the Stamp Office authorities and papermakers
had been taken, it was decided to recommend that the
paper for all stamped covers should be manufactured at
the paper-mills of a Mr. Dickenson, or of another, solely,
under strict excise supervision. This paper of Mr. Dicken-
son’s was of a peculiar make, having threads of cotton or
silk so interwoven in the paper that a post-office clerk could
readily know by the look or feel that a stamped cover was
genuine. The papermakers protested and petitioned
against this, objecting to one of the body having all the
work. Besides, the proposal involved permanent excise
supervision over the manufacture of paper. This proposal,
however, extended only to covers or envelopes; how forgery
was to be prevented in respect to the stamps upon the
sheets of letter paper the Committee do not say. The
whole position, in fact, remained in a state of chaos, only
relieved by the ultimate adoption of the adhesive stamp,
which plan Mr. Chalmers had laid before this Committee
through Mr. Wallace, the Chairman, and likewise through
Mr. Chalmers, M.P., a member of the Committee, and

7
Which plan had been publicly discussed, not without find-
ing adherents, including Mr. Cobden, one of the witnesses
in favour of the scheme.
“To the Solution proposed by the Committee that all
stamped covers should be made of Dickenson's peculiar
paper the Government again highly objected, further adding
to the dilemma; and when the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
on the 5th of July, 1839, introduced and carried a resolu-
tion Sanctioning a Penny Postage Bill being brought for-
Ward, he distinctly only ‘asked Hon. Members to commit
“ themselves to the question of a uniform rate of postage of
‘One penny at and under a weight hereafter to be fixed.’
Everything else was to be left open. “If it were to go forth
‘to the public to-morrow morning that the Government had
‘proposed, and the House had adopted, the plan of Mr.
“Rowland Hill, the necessary result would be to spread
‘ a conviction abroad that, as a stamped cover was
‘absolutely to be used in all cases, which stamped covers
‘were to be made by one single manufacturer, alarm would
‘ be felt lest a monopoly would thereby be created, to the
‘ serious detriment of other members of a most useful and
“important trade. The Sense of injustice excited by this
“would necessarily be extreme. I therefore do not call
‘ upon the House either to affirm or to negative any such
‘proposition at the present. I ask you simply to affirm
‘the adoption of a uniform penny postage, and the taxation
‘ of that postage by weight. Neither do I ask you to pledge
‘yourselves to the prepayment of letters, for I am of
‘opinion that, at all events, there should be an option of
‘putting letters into the post without a stamp.
“‘If the resolution be affirmed, and the Bill has to be
‘proposed, it will hereafter require very great care and
‘ complicated arrangements to carry the plan into practical
‘ effect. It may involve considerable expense and con-
‘siderable responsibility on the part of the Government;
“it may disturb existing trades, such as the paper trade.”
‘. . . ‘The new postage will be distinctly and simply
“a penny postage by weight.' . . . ‘ I also require for

8
‘the Treasury a power of taking the postage by anticipation,
‘ and a power of allowing such postage to be taken by
‘means of stamped covers, and I also require the authority
‘ of rating the postage according to weight.’” +
“In this dilemma, as to how to carry out the Scheme in
practice, Mr. Wallace favourably suggested the Adhesive
Stamp, the adoption of which plan, he had no hesitation in
saying from the evidence adduced, would secure the revenue
from loss by forgery. Mr. Warburton, also a member of
the 1837–38 Committee, “viewing with considerable alarm
“ the doubt which had been expressed of adopting Mr. Hill's
“ plan of prepayment and collection by stamped covers,’
recommended that plans should be applied for from the
public.
“Again, in the House of Lords on the 5th of August,
Lord Melbourne, in introducing the Bill, is as much em-
barrassed as was the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the
Commons. The opponents of the Bill use, as one of their
strongest arguments, the impossibility of carrying out the
scheme in practice. The Earl of Ripon says:—‘Why
‘ were their Lordships thus called upon at this period of
‘the session to pass a Bill, when no mortal being at that
‘moment had the remotest conception of how it was to be
‘ carried into execution ?? Here Lord Ashburton, like Mr.
Wallace in the Commons, favourably suggested the Ad-
hesive Stamp, which would answer every purpose, and
‘ remove the objection of the stationers and papermakers
‘to the measure.”
“Let it, then, be clearly noted that, up to the period of
the Bill in July and August, 1839, not a word is said in
any way connecting Mr. Hill's name with other than the
impressed stamp on the sheet of letter paper, or, more es-
pecially, on the stamped covers. That, and that alone, is
taken on the one part as his plan by all the speakers,
official or otherwise—for that alone does the Chancellor of
the Exchequer ask for ‘powers.’ The Adhesive Stamp is
See Hansard,” Vol. 48.
9
brought in, on the other part, as a distinct proposal, in no
way entering into the proposals of Mr. Hill.”
Now, what does Sir Rowland Hill tell us of all this in
his “History of Penny Postage " ? Not a word giving
his readers, on the contrary, to understand that the
adoption of the Adhesive Stamp was included in his pro-
posals of 1837. I give another extract from one of my
pamphlets commenting on this as under :-

“Let me here ask the reader's attention for a moment to
that scene in the House of Commons on the 5th July, 1839,
and on a subsequent occasion in the House of Lords.
Here was a Bill on which the nation had set its heart—the
prospect of a uniform penny postage had been brought
within measurable distance of completion, but yet wanted
the motive power. Ministers and Members of the Legisla-
ture alike were at fault as to how to carry it out in prac-
tice, and the voice of the Opposition rose aloud in jeering
tones, ‘Why should we be called upon to pass this Bill
‘when no mortal being had the remotest conception of
“how it was to be carried into execution ?’ Has not the
man who solved that problem, who made that prospect a
reality, yet himself unrewarded, neglected, and unknown,
has not that man deserved well of his country 2
“Then what of the professed and reputed originator of
all this—enriched in life, canonised in death—what does
Sir Rowland Hill tell us of these memorable scenes, the
struggle and crisis of the fight 2 What says he of them in
that ‘History of Penny Postage' written by himself for
the information of his countrymen and posterity ? Of the
dilemma of the Government, the Sneers of the Opposition,
or the interposition of Mr. Wallace and Lord Ashburton,
he tells us not a line, nor a word—all totally ignored. And
why 2 Because to have breathed a whisper of these matters
of 1839 would have been ignominiously to eactinguish his pre-
tensions to a prior proposal of an adhesive stamp, or of any-

10
thing approaching to such a proposal. Long years were
allowed to elapse before a ‘History’ such as this was
placed before the public—the facts would be forgotten—no
man would arise to question the statements or pretensions
of one who had clenched that public so thoroughly in his
grasp. That he may be looked upon as an originator
where he was only an adapter or copyist at the dictation
of others, reference to matters of the most vital interest in
the history of this reform is wholly omitted. Statements
in Parliament of the first importance, and essential to the
right understanding of this history the facts of which he
has professed to set forth, are left wholly unnoticed. And
for what purpose ? To add to his own brow unmerited
laurels, stripped from a helpless and deserving man ; and
leaving that man, upon whose brains he had flourished,
despoiled of reward, and, as far as the spoiler cared, con-
signed to oblivion.”
The Bill passed into law on the 17th August, 1839,
whereupon Mr. Hill was appointed to a position in the
Treasury for the purpose of Superintending its carrying
out. The first step taken was to advertise for plans from
the public, and nothing better having been found, the
Adhesive Stamp was adopted by Treasury Minute of date
26th December, 1839, in conjunction with Mr. Hill's plan
of stamped covers, or stamp impressed upon the sheet of
letter paper itself.
This Treasury Minute, drawn up under the supervision
of Mr. Rowland Hill himself, at length provides for both
stamps, impressed and adhesive, “the paper to be peculiar
in its water-mark or Some other feature,” or, as recited in
the Act of Parliament, “which paper shall have such dis-
tinguishing words, letters, figures, marks, lines, threads, or
other devices marked into or visible in the substance of
same, as the said Commissioners of Excise shall from time
to time order and direct.”
It is now necessary to note the reception the respective
11
stamps met with from the public as described in the pages
of the “Encyclopædia Britannica ’’ and by Sir Rowland
Hill himself:-
“Mulready's well-remembered allegorical cover came
“ into use on the 1st May, 1840, together with the first
“form of the stamped letter-paper and the adhesive labels.
“They all met at first, but only for a few days, with a
“large sale. That of the first day yielded £2,500. Soon
“ afterwards, the public rejection of the ‘Mulready
“envelope,” writes Rowland Hill, was so complete as to
“ necessitate the destruction of nearly all the vast number
“ prepared for issue.” Whilst, on the other hand, the
“ presses of the Stamp Office were producing more than
“ half a million of adhesive labels by working both night
“ and day, they yet failed to meet the demand.”
The Adhesive Stamp thus saved the penny postage
scheme from failure, and it will now be interesting to note
how completely, at a subsequent period, Mr. Rowland Hill
recognises this fact, while wholly unable to recollect anything
whatever about the “peculiar paper with lines of thread or
silk stretched through its substance ’’ recorded in the pages
of Mr. Francis.
In March, 1852, Mr. Hill was examined before the
Select Committee of the House of Commons on “Archer's
Patent.” For five years previously a Mr. Archer had
pressed upon the Post Office, Stamp Office, and the
Treasury, a plan for perforating the sheets of postage
stamps in the manner We are now familiar with, the
practice, up till then, having been to use Scissors or a knife
wherewith to separate the stamps. In vain, however, did
Mr. Archer all this while press on the authorities this great
improvement. Mr. Hill did not see much in it, though
considering it “advisable,” and the Treasury grudged
Mr. Archer's terms. At length some Members of Parlia-
ment took up the proposal, and Mr. Muntz obtained a
Select Committee to investigate the matter, resulting in a
unanimous approval, and Mr. Archer got £4,000 for his
invention.

12
Under examination before this Committee on the
different systems of stamps, Mr. Hill first gives the
members to understand that he was the original inventor
or proposer of the Adhesive Postage Stamp :—
“Question 962: I believe you are the original inventor,
“ or the proposer, of the Penny Postage Stamp 2—Answer:
“Yes.” A statement, however, rather too much for the
Committee, some of whom had been present in the House
of Commons on that eventful night, already described, when
all was dismay as to how the Penny Postage Bill was to be
carried out. Had they not been officially told that
Mr. Hill's plan was “that an impressed stamped cover
was absolutely to be used in all cases?” Did they not
recollect that it was through the interposition of Mr. Wal-
lace the Adhesive Stamp was then proposed and ultimately
arrived at 2 Mr. Hill, then, is subsequently asked:—
“Question 991 : The Committee of 1837-8, for inquiring
“ into the postage, do not appear to have entered to any
“extent into the difficulty of forgery with those different
“ systems ?—Answer: I think not ; they took the opinion
“ of the Stamp Office, which was to the effect that practical
“security against forgery could be obtained.
“Question 992: Their principal hope as a preventive
“of forgery was in adopting a distinctive sort of paper for
“envelopes, was it not ?—Answer: I cannot recollect.” . . .
Such, then, was the Mr. Hill with whom the simple-
minded provincial bookseller had to deal when laying his
claim to the merit of the Adhesive Postage Stamp, that
stamp which had saved the scheme while the covers had to
be destroyed as useless. Mr. Hill unhesitatingly assures
this Committee against all evidence and the knowledge of
some of them that he was the originator of the former, but
about the covers of the proposed “peculiar paper " he
“cannot recollect.” Some of the Committee could recollect
all about this peculiar paper, Mr. Hill could not recollect—
the covers had proved a failure, the Adhesive Stamp had
saved the scheme—that was the plan to stick to, of the
other the less said the better. His friend, Mr. Francis,

13
however, well recollected and records the facts—not a word
from him about an Adhesive Stamp, the merit of which
Mr. Francis would have been the first to claim for Rowland
Hill had there been the smallest foundation for so doing—
the impressed stamped cover was the plan of Mr. Hill, he
tells us, the covers to be made of this “peculiar paper” on
the recommendation of the authorities, and he had an issue
of the Athenaeum printed on that very paper to emphasise
the fact and explain it to the public. A copy of this issue
may now be seen, as I have just seen it, in the library of
the British Museum, having these blue threads run through
the paper. Was not Mr. Hill one of the very first to whom
a copy of that issue was sent or shown 2 “There, Mr. Hill,
you See, is your plan on the sort of paper your covers are to
be made of ’’—yet now, the covers having been a failure,
Mr. Hill “cannot recollect.” Look also at the terms of
the Treasury Minute of 26th December, 1839, already
named—Mr. Hill's own Minute—requiring the very safe-
guard of a paper to be peculiar in its texture, anything as
to which Mr. Hill cannot now remember, though he has no
difficulty in assuring the Committee that he was the origi-
nator of the Successful stamp, an assurance which a perusal
of the proceedings in Parliament on the introduction of the
Penny Postage Bill proves to be contrary to the fact and
scatters to the winds.
But no second party was to be allowed by Mr. Rowland
Hill to share with him the merit of this great reform,
and just as he has succeeded in obtaining the credit of
having invented the penny postage scheme itself—a scheme
which investigation now shows to have been from beginning
to end only a compilation of the prior proposals of others *

* Extract from Treasury Minute, of date 11th March, 1864, conferring
upon Sir Rowland Hill, upon his retirement from active service, his full salary
of £2,000 a year.
“My Lords do not forget that it has been by the powerful agency of the
“railway system that these results have been rendered practicable. Neither
“do they enter into the question, as foreign to the occasion, what honour
“may be due to those who, before the development of the plans of Sir Rowland
“ Hill, urged the adoption of Uniform Penny Postage.”
14
—so has he usurped from James Chalmers the merit of
the Adhesive Postage Stamp which saved it and has
carried it out in practice.
To the above official and conclusive evidence that up to
the introduction of the Penny Postage Bill in July, 1839,
Mr. Rowland Hill had not proposed the adoption of the
Adhesive Stamp, may be added further evidence to the same
effect:—
First, when writing to James Chalmers under date 3rd
March, 1838, acknowledging the plan of the Adhesive Stamp
from Mr. Chalmers, Mr. Rowland Hill makes no pretension
to having already proposed or being then in favour of an
Adhesive Stamp. This is known from Mr. Chalmers
having subsequently sent Mr. Hill a copy of that letter
for the purpose of pointing out that fact to Mr. Hill. This
correspondence, however, Mr. Rowland Hill removed from
the Treasury, and same is now in the possession of Mr.
Pearson Hill, who has not consented to produce that letter
of 3rd March, 1838, publishing only such portion of the
correspondence as appears to tell in his own favour.
Again, it is enough to point to Mr. Hill's letters to the
Postmaster-General, Lord Litchfield, in January, 1838,
explaining and enforcing his penny postage scheme then
before the public, in which not a word is said of an adhesive
stamp. In these Mr. Hill states his plan to be :—“That
“the payment should always be in advance. And to rid this
“ mode of payment of the trouble and risk which it would
“ otherwise entail on the sending of letters, as well as for
“other important considerations, I propose that the post-
“age be collected by the sale of stamped covers.”
Again, take the Press of the period—this is what the
Times produces under date 30th August, 1839, a fortnight
after the passing of the Bill:—“The Penny Postage will
“ commence, we learn, on the 1st January next. It is
“intended that stamped envelopes shall be sold at every
“ post-office, so that stationers and other shopkeepers may,
--

15
“ as well as the public, supply themselves at a minute's
“ notice.” Not a word as to an adhesive stamp being any
part of Mr. Hill's plan or proposal, or provided for in the
|Bill.
And yet in his “History of Penny Postage,” and
notwithstanding all these proofs to the contrary, Sir
Rowland Hill, keeping all these proofs to the contrary
wholly out of view, actually gives his readers to understand
that the adoption of the Adhesive Stamp formed part and
parcel of his original proposals of 1837

JAMES CHALMERS.
It has long been known in Forfarshire and adjacent
counties that the inventor and proposer of the Adhesive
Postage Stamp, the man who supplied what may be termed
the engines to the otherwise immovable craft of Penny
Postage Reform, was James Chalmers, bookseller, Dundee.
When—about 1845—the merchants of the City of London
handed their cheque of £13,000 to Mr. Rowland Hill in
acknowledgment of his services, the citizens of Dundee,
then a town not a quarter of its present size or population,
not to be behindhand in asserting the share of their towns-
man in the work, got up also their subscription, and, as of
late years I have learned, on the 1st January, 1846, in the
Town Hall of Dundee, and in the presence of the Provost,
bankers, and leading citizens, James Chalmers was pre-
sented with a Testimonial in recognition of his having been
the originator of the Adhesive Postage Stamp, and for
other postal services. And when, upon the decease of Sir
Rowland Hill in August, 1879, the London papers pro-
ceeded to attribute to him the entire merit of the reformed
postal system, immediate protest was entered by means of
letters and articles in the Dundee Press, recalling and
re-asserting the services of James Chalmers.
This stage of the matter drew my attention to the
subject of which up till then I knew little or nothing,
16
having left Dundee at an early age, about the year 1834,
and passed much of the interval abroad. Any charge
therefore as to my having unduly delayed bringing forward
my claim on behalf of my father is a mistake. Equally is
it a mistake to call same a new claim—it is, on the con-
trary, an acknowledged claim of long standing, if generally
unknown at this day to a new generation. To further
prove this—when thirty years ago Sir Bartle Frere intro-
duced the Adhesive Stamp into Scinde, he knew perfectly
well that James Chalmers was the inventor; his letter to
which effect I have published. Again, an able writer in
that popular magazine, the Leisure Hour, before ever
having heard of me or my publications, in an article
describing “A Day at the Post Office,” and what had there
been shown him, designates the Adhesive Stamp the
“Chalmers Stamp ’’; he had “always understood Chalmers
to have been the originator.” Take another instance : In
a congratulatory letter acknowledging my pamphlets
Mr. W. A. Warner, Secretary to the National Philatelical
Society of New York, writes, under date May 3rd, 1887: “I
see that your father was the inventor of the Adhesive
Stamp, and not Sir Rowland Hill, which fact I have always
upheld for the last sixteen years. . . . I firmly believe
that James Chalmers was the inventor of this means of
applying the stamp, and deserves to be honoured by all
Philatelists throughout the world.” These instances show
how widespread beyond his own locality the belief in
Chalmers has been prior to my coming forward for the
purpose of extending that belief.
To be told, therefore, that this is a new claim I am
setting up, that I am too late in doing So, and that the
present generation will consequently have none of it, is
unfounded and unfair.
This plan of an adhesive postage stamp was invented
by Mr. Chalmers, a well-known postal reformer, in the
month of August, 1834, as conclusively proved to the
satisfaction, after special investigation, of the leading
biographical works of the day, the “Encyclopædia Britan-

17
nica ’’ and the “Dictionary of National Biography,” and to
the equal satisfaction of numerous other authorities at
home and abroad who have read the evidence. Sir Rowland
Hill, in his “History of Penny Postage,” has left it on
record that up to this period an adhesive postage stamp
was “undreamt of.”
This evidence has been published by me in a pamphlet
of date 1884, entitled “James Chalmers the Inventor of
the Adhesive Stamp, not Sir Rowland Hill.” There is
not only the testimony of an entire community who pub-
licly presented the Testimonial already named, but the
specific testimony of individuals now or lately living as to
the date when Chalmers got up his sheets of adhesive
stamps on his premises. To repeat all this testimony
would be to republish a pamphlet, copy of which is at the
service of any reader, who will find that the witnesses
include gentlemen of position in the town, with three of the
workmen in the employment of Mr. Chalmers in 1834, and
the son of a fourth. W. Whitelaw describes the whole
process—the setting up of the forme with a number of
stamps having a printed device—the printing of the sheets
—the melting of the gum—the gumming the backs of the
sheets—the drying and the pressing—are all described,
and the date already named conclusively proved. Nor is
the date in any way a matter of mere recollection, but
proved by specific events in the career of the individuals;
as, for instance, by Mr. Prain, for many years the well-
known and respected teacher of Brechin, and now Manager
of the local Savings Bank, who left Dundee in the autumn
of 1834, and testifies to having been shown the adhesive
stamp in existence in Mr. Chalmers' premises before he left.
Mr. D. Maxwell, Manager of the Hull Town Waterworks,
formerly an employé of Mr. Chalmers, handled the adhe-
sive stamp sheets in the premises and took part in clipping
same previous to the 1st November, 1834, the date of his
indenture as apprentice to another business, that of an
engineer. Further specific testimony has just appeared in
the columns of the Dundee Press. Mr. George Hood, then
B

18
at the same engineering business, testifies to having known
and been told of this by his then fellow apprentice,
D. Maxwell, confirming the date. Mr. John D. Wears,
father of the well-known Philatelist, Mr. T. Martin Wears,
of Rosemount, Dundee, writes to the Press referring to the
above testimony and adding: “To all this I should like
“to add my own testimony. Having settled in Dundee in
“May, 1835, I distinctly remember being shown within a
“year of that date the stamped slips by James Chalmers
“ himself, who explained to me the use he intended they
“should be put to. I cannot fix the exact date, but I know
“it was before Robert Nicoll, the poet, left Dundee in the
“Summer of 1836, as I was frequenting his circulating
“library at the time. James Chalmers has all along been
“regarded by old residents in Dundee as the inventor of
“ the adhesive stamp.” Much confirmatory evidence in a
general way is added in my pamphlet of 1884, and such
might have been indefinitely multiplied.
Immediately on the assembling of the Select Committee
of the House of Commons in November, 1837, appointed
to consider the proposed Penny Postage Scheme of
Mr. Rowland Hill, Mr. Chalmers sent in his plan of
prepayment by adhesive postage stamp to two members of
the Committee, Mr. Wallace the Chairman, and Mr.
Chalmers, M.P. for the Montrose, Burghs. The date of
Mr. Wallace's letter acknowledging receipt of this com-
munication from Mr. Chalmers is the 9th December, 1837;
this we know from the portion of the correspondence
published by Mr. Pearson Hill and is admitted by him.
Mr. Chalmers also sent his plan to Mr. Cole, secretary
to the Mercantile Committee of the City of London, who
has bequeathed same to the South Kensington Museum
Library, thus enabling me to publish his plan in detail, as
under :—


19
SIR HENRY COLE'S PAPERS AND THE ADHESIVE
STAMP OF MR. CHALMERS.
In his “Fifty Years of Public Life,” lately published,
Sir Henry Cole gives much information with respect to
the Penny Postage reform, a boon with the obtaining and
carrying out of which he was intimately associated—first
as Secretary to the Mercantile Committee of the City of
London, and afterwards as coadjutor to Mr. Rowland Hill
at the Treasury. “A General Collection of Postage
“Papers,” having reference to this reform, elucidating the
efforts made by this Committee of London Merchants and
Bankers during the year 1838–39, to obtain for the scheme
the Sanction of the Legislature, has been bequeathed by
Sir Henry Cole, “to be given to the British Museum after
“my death.”* “ The Mercantile Committee,” he states,
“was formed chiefly by the exertions of Mr. George Moffat
“in the spring of 1838. Mr. Ashurst conducted the Parlia-
“mentary Inquiry, and upon myself, as Secretary, devolved
“ the business of communicating with the public.” This
Committee formed the source and focus of the agitation
which brought about the ultimate enactment of uniform
Penny Postage. Money was freely subscribed, meetings
were held, public bodies in the Provinces were urged to
petition, Members of Parliament and Ministers were waited
upon, and a special paper advocating the Scheme, termed
the “Post Circular,” was issued and circulated gratis. Of
these proceedings Mr. Cole was the guiding genius ; and,
amongst other successes, over two thousand petitions to
Parliament were obtained—labours which were ultimately
crowned with success.
To Mr. Cole, then, it now turns out that Mr. Chalmers,
in February, 1838, sent a copy of his plan of the adhesive
stamp. Mr. Wallace and the House of Commons Com-
mittee had already got it, but it is only now that the
particulars of the plan have been brought to light—and in

* These papers are in the Art Library of the South Kensington Museum.
B 2
20
this “Collection of Postage Papers,” Sir Henry Cole has
indeed left a valuable legacy to me, and to all prepared to
recognise the true originator of the adhesive postage stamp.
These papers include a printed statement of Mr. Chalmers'
plan, dated “4 Castle Street, Dundee, 8th Feburary, 1888,”
and which runs as follows:—
“. Remarks on various modes proposed for franking letters,
“ under Mr. Rowland Hill's plan of Post Office Reform.
“In suggesting any method of improvement, it is only
“reasonable to expect that what are supposed to be its ad-
“vantages over any existing system, or in opposition to
“others that have been or may be proposed, will be
“explicitly stated.
“Therefore, if Mr. Hill's plan of a uniform rate of
“ postage, and that all postages are to be paid by those
“sending letters before they are deposited in the respective
“ post-offices, become the law of the land, I conceive that
“ the most simple and economical mode of carrying out
“ such an arrangement would be by slips (postage stamps)
“prepared somewhat similar to the specimens herewith
“shown.
“With this view, and in the hope that Mr. Hill's plan
“may soon be carried into operation, I would suggest
“ that sheets of stamped slips should be prepared at the
“Stamp Office (on a paper made expressly for the purpose) .
“with a device on each for a die or cut resembling that on
“ newspapers; that the sheets so printed or stamped
“should then be rubbed over with a strong solution of gum
“ or other adhesive substance, and (when thoroughly dry)
“issued by the Stamp Office to town and country distribu-
“tors, to stationers and others, for sale in sheets or singly,
“ under the same laws and restrictions now applicable to
“ those selling bill or receipt stamps, so as to prevent, as
“far as practical, any fraud on the revenue.
“Merchants and others whose correspondence is exten-
“sive could purchase these slips in quantities, cut them

21
“singly, and affix one to a letter by means of wetting the
“back of the slip with a sponge or brush, just with as
“much facility as applying a wafer.”—Adding that the
stamp might answer both for stamp and wafer, especially in
the case of circulars—a suggestion which those who may
recollect the mode of folding universally practised before the
days of envelopes, will appreciate. Mr. Chalmers goes on
—“Others, requiring only one or two slips at a time, could
“purchase them along with sheets of paper at stationers'
“shops, the weight only regulating the rate of postage in
“all cases, so as a stamp may be affixed according to the
“scale determined on.
“Again, to prevent the possibility of these being used a
“second time, it should be made imperative on postmasters
“to put the post-office town stamp (as represented in one
“of the specimens) across the slip or postage stamp.”
Mr. Chalmers then goes on to point out the advantages
to be derived from this plan, and to state objections to
Mr. Hill's plan of impressed stamped covers or envelopes,
or stamp impressed upon the sheet of letter paper itself.
At that period envelopes—being scarcely known, and never
used, as involving double postage—were a hand-made
article, heavy and expensive; objections which have disap.
peared with the abolition of the Excise duty on paper, and
the use of machinery. But how true were Mr. Chalmers’
objections then, may be gathered from the fact, as recorded
by Sir Rowland Hill in his “Life,” that the large supply
provided of the first postage envelope, the “Mulready,” had
actually to be destroyed as wholly unsuitable and unsale-
able, while the supply of adhesive stamps was with difficulty
brought up to the demand. The force and value of Mr.
Chalmers’ objections to the stamp impressed upon the
sheet itself, are best exemplified by the fact that, though
ultimately sanctioned by the Treasury at the instance of
Mr. Hill, such plan never came into use. People bought
their own paper from the stationers, and not from the
Stamp Office, and applied the adhesive stamp as the weight
required. Mr. Chalmers concludes, “taking all these dis-

22
“advantages into consideration, the use of stamped slips
“is certainly the most preferable system ; and, should
“others who take an interest in the proposed reform view
“ the matter in the same light as I do, it remains for them
“to petition Parliament to have such carried into opera-
“tion.”
This statement of Mr. Chalmers is printed on part of
an elongated sheet of paper. On the half not occupied by
the type are several specimens of a suggested stamp, about
an inch square, and with the words printed, “General
Postage—not exceeding half-an-ounce—One Penny.” And
the same—“Not exceeding one ounce—Twopence.” (It is
only of late years that a penny has franked one ounce in
weight.) A space divides each stamp for cutting off
singly,” and the back of the sheet is gummed over. One
of the specimens is stamped across with the post-mark,
“Dundee, 10th February, 1838,” to exemplify what
Mr. Chalmers states should be done to prevent the stamp
being used a second time.
Here is a complete description of the principle of the
Adhesive Stamp as ultimately adopted by Mr. Hill at the
Treasury by Minute of 26th December, 1839, when he sent
Mr. Cole to Messrs. Bacon & Petch, the eminent engravers,
to provide a die and contract for the supply of stamps (see
Mr. Bacon's evidence, as already published by me), a plan
in use to the present day.
This description, as now brought to light under the
signature of Mr. Chalmers himself, fully confirms the
evidence with respect to the invention in August, 1834, as
given by his then employés yet living, W. Whitelaw and
others just mentioned.
It will now be asked, “Seeing how easily and conclusively
it has been proved that the adoption of the Adhesive Stamp
* The perforated sheets were not introduced until the year 1852. This
improvement was the invention of a Mr. Archer, for which he got the sum of
£4,000, as already mentioned.


23
for the purpose of carrying out his scheme in practice
formed no part of the original proposals or intention of
Mr. Hill, how comes it that James Chalmers did not receive
the official credit for his invention and timely proposal to
which he was entitled 2* The explanation or excuse which
Mr. Hill, in reply to Mr. Chalmers' claim, set up for
attributing, after all, the entire merit to himself is this:—
When under examination before the Commissioners of Post
Office Inquiry, on the 13th February, 1837, a difficulty arose
as to what was to be done in the case of a person unable to
Write taking an unstamped letter and a penny to a post
office, a stamped cover being compulsory, no money accepted
in prepayment. The penny would buy one of Mr. Hill's
stamped wrappers or covers, but the cover would obliterate
the address, and the person could not write. In such a
case, and in such a case only, says Mr. Hill, “perhaps
this difficulty may be obviated by using a bit of paper just
large enough to bear the stamp and covered at the back by
a glutinuous wash, which the bringer might by applying a
little moisture attach to the back of the letter, so as to
avoid the necessity of redirecting it.” Going on at once,
however, to withdraw the compulsion to use a stamp at
all: “Better, at first at least, accept the penny in cash
for penny letters, so that every stamp used might be
universally the impressed stamp.” The “person who could
not write ” had thus only to pay the penny, no “bit of
gummed paper” being required. And this penny in cash
was accepted up to the year 1855.
Here, then, was a momentary allusion to a bit of gummed
paper, showing that Mr. Hill had heard of Chalmers' in-
vention of 1834, but without seeing its value or proposing
its adoption for the purpose of carrying out the scheme.
February, 1837, was two years and a half after the proved
invention of the Adhesive Stamp by Mr. Chalmers, one of
the early postal reformers, “who held correspondence with
the postal reformers of his day, both in and out of Par-
liament” (“Encyclopædia Britannica”)—the correspondent,
amongst others, of Messrs. Knight & Co., who published

24
for Mr. Hill. However, in a letter of 18th January, 1840,
Mr. Hill informs Mr. Chalmers that his claim cannot be
admitted because he, Mr. Hill, had himself anticipated
Mr. Chalmers’ proposal of December, 1837, by having him-
Self proposed the adoption of the Adhesive Stamp in
February of the same year ! A mere pretence and after-
thought bred of the success which had attended the pro-
posal of Chalmers. Mr. Hill, as has been proved, had
utterly failed to see the value of the Adhesive Stamp in
place of having proposed to adopt it up to the very period
of the introduction of the Penny Postage Bill in July,
1839, a year and a half after the official proposal to
that effect by James Chalmers. In reply, Mr. Chalmers
pointed this out to Mr. Hill, handing him a copy of
his, Mr. Hill's, letter to him of 3rd March, 1838. “Why
“ did you not tell me anything of this before ? There is
“ a copy of your letter of 3rd March, 1838, when I sent
“you my plan, in which no such pretension is put
“ forward. It is only now that I learn for the first time
“ that you had ever proposed or been in favour of an
“adhesive stamp.”
But much had happened in the interval betwixt
Mr. Hill's two letters to Mr. Chalmers. The stamp not
accepted by Mr. Hill in 1838, had become in 1840 the
favourite of all opinions concerned, the adopted of the
Treasury. It had saved the scheme. Mr. Chalmers must
now be put aside, and so this afterthought, this far-fetched
pretext, was hit upon for the purpose ; and Mr. Hill being
in despotic power, Chalmers had to give way, though in
any case not the man to raise further discussion on the
matter, it being, to him, sufficient satisfaction that the
public had got his plan.
MR. PEARSON HILL.
Mr. Pearson Hill has at length made an attempt by
the publication of a pamphlet, entitled “The Chalmers
Craze Investigated,” to make a stand against the success

25
which has attended my efforts to vindicate the title of my
late father to having been the originator of the Adhesive
Postage Stamp. This pamphlet is chiefly remarkable for
personalities, and for omitting to give just what is wanted
to elucidate this controversy—namely, the letters of
Mr. Rowland Hill to Mr. Chalmers of dates 3rd March,
1838, and 18th January, 1840; and this notwithstanding
requests for their production. We are favoured with an
“Extract ’’ from a letter of Mr. Chalmers to Mr. Rowland
Hill of date 18th May, 1840, purporting to show that
Chalmers “honestly abandoned ” his claim, but the facts
having been obscured and misrepresented to him, Chalmers
honestly abandoned nothing (see page 40), while I have had
no difficulty in showing in my “Letter to the Dundee Burns
Club: a Reply to Mr. Pearson Hill,” pages 21–26, that this
very “Extract ’’ itself proves that Chalmers was “first in
the field’” in having proposed the adoption of the Adhesive
Stamp. That Mr. Pearson Hill should still have withheld
this long asked for correspondence in its entirety is simply
an affront to the understanding of all who have followed
this controversy, and virtually an abandonment of his case.
No amount of Sophistries or pages of vituperation of me
will blind any impartial mind to that fact, Nor is any
explanation given as to by what right and with what object
Mr. Rowland Hill removed this official correspondence of
1840 from the Treasury.
Mr. Pearson Hill's pamphlet is further remarkable for
now making no pretension as to the adhesive stamp having
been primarily or specially the invention of Sir Rowland
Hill; though why he has allowed it to be believed until now
that such stamp was the Special invention of his father,
Mr. Pearson Hill does not Say. He thinks this stamp
must have occurred to “scores of people,” and so it did
in October, 1839, to just 49 people when the Treasury
advertised for plans, James Chalmers having already
brought it forward in December, 1837, and its merits having
been publicly discussed all through the interval. The
“Rowland Hill” delusion being at length dispelled, Mr. Pear-

.

26
Son Hill's motto is, “Anybody but Chalmers,” “scores of
people.” Further, though still of opinion that the adop-
tion of the adhesive stamp for the purpose of carrying out
the scheme was included in Mr. Rowland Hill's proposals
of 1837, Mr. Pearson Hill does not attempt to explain why
neither Parliament, nor the Government, nor the Press,
nor, as we now find, Mr. John Francis, the intimate friend
of Sir Rowland Hill, knew anything to that effect up to
the introduction of the Penny Postage Bill in July, 1839,
any allusion whatever to the proceedings on which occasion
Mr. Pearson Hill, equally with Sir Rowland Hill, suppresses
as being fatal to his pretension.
Having regard to the objection displayed by Mr. Pear-
Son Hill to producing more than the mere “Extract ’’ from
the correspondence which purported to tell in his own
favour, to the unfounded imputations against me and the
personalities he has indulged in, and to his whole mode of
conducting this controversy, I now desire to state, on
the part of myself and friends, that we shall now be satisfied
with nothing short of the production and perusal of the
originals of this correspondence, and that we shall feel
justified in declining to recognise as sufficient or to take
cognizance of any further extract or copy Mr. Pearson Hill
may publish or put forward in any quarter.
In justification of this, it may be instructive if I repro-
duce some specimens from Mr. Pearson Hill's pen. Here,
for instance, is his letter to the publishers of the “Ency-
clopædia Britannica”:—
“50, BELSIZE PARK,
“LONDON, N.W.,
“15th March, 1883.
“GENTLEMEN,
“As you are now issuing a new edition of your
“‘Encyclopædia Britannica,’ and as for years past a
“Mr. Patrick Chalmers has persistently been making false
“ and groundless charges against my father, the late Sir
“Rowland Hill, I think it well to send you the enclosed
º-
27
“printed documents for your information, as it is by no
“means improbable that he may strive to get you to insert
“Some untrue statement when you deal with the question
‘‘ of the Post Office and Postal Reform.
“I need hardly say that I shall be happy at any time
“to submit to you the original documents which are in my
“ possession, which disprove the claims put forward in
“behalf of Mr. James Chalmers of Dundee, if you would
“ desire to see them.
“Your statistical information about the Post Office, as
“given in my copy of the Encyclopædia (the eighth edition),
“ is of course now much behindhand. I dare say you have
“already on your staff of contributors some gentlemen well
“able to supply you with fresh information; but should
“you be in want of any such help, I feel sure that my
“cousin, Mr. Lewin Hill, head of the statistical branch of
“the Secretary's office, General Post Office, London, would
“gladly undertake the work if you desired it.
“I am, Gentlemen,
“Your obedient servant,
“(Signed) PEARSON HILL.
“Messrs. A. & C. BLACK,
“Edinburgh.”
Having been courteously afforded the opportunity of
stating my own case as against that of Mr. Pearson Hill
and all his “documents,” the result was the decision in
my favour—that “James Chalmers was the inventor of the
Adhesive Postage Stamp in the month of August, 1834 °;
and that Sir Rowland Hill's allusion in February, 1837, to
the use such a stamp might be put to in the exceptional
case already mentioned was to an idea “suggested from
without.” In place of retiring with dignity, if with regret,
Mr. Pearson Hill has gone on to find fault with the con-
ductors of this standard work, to challenge a decision
initiated by himself, and to sneer at my witnesses as only


28
men in their dotage. He further gives his sanction to the
persistent way in which I have been misrepresented in the
Press as “claiming the Penny Postage Scheme for my
father,” thus rendering my claim too ridiculous to obtain
attention. A cause that has to be supported by such
means must be weak indeed. The following from my late
pamphlet, “A Reply to Mr. Pearson Hill,” further illus-
trates his mode of conducting this controversy:—
“In the absence of a ‘case we all know the not
uncommon alternative, ‘abuse the other side,’ and this
may appear to you the course I have been honoured with
here. Every one who has followed my publications knows
how gradually the facts and evidence have come to hand,
or within my own knowledge, yet I am taken to task as
having kept back statements, for not having early pub-
lished my case full blown. Again, I am somehow held
responsible for Press statements, with which I had nothing
to do, or, I may say, not even seen. In this way are
Mr. Pearson Hill's strictures, complaints, and cavillings
mustered. So far does he forget himself as to imply that I
have claimed for my father not only the Adhesive Stamp,
but further, the merit of Archer's patent perforation, and
the very Penny Postage Scheme itself That throwing
over ‘poor Mr. Samuel Roberts,” I have put James Chalmers
in his place. Going on with such choice remarks as that
‘ Probably before the jubilee of Penny Postage arrives some
‘old people in Dundee or Bedlam will be discovered who
‘ can testify that Mr. James Chalmers also designed the
* General Post Office in St. Martin's-le-Grand, and that the
* Postal Telegraphs, Telephones, and the Parcel Post were
‘ all invented by Mr. James Chalmers in 1834, and
* communicated by him to his wondering friends and
‘ neighbours.” Referring to my being a Member of the
Royal Historical Society leads to the remark, ‘A man may
‘ as well be called a goose because he subscribes to a Goose
* Club,” — concluding, ‘Surely if the Commissioners in
29
“Lunacy are in want of a promising case they might find
‘ one at Wimbledon admirably adapted to their hands.’
“I refrain from adding by any words of mine to the
painful effect which such remarks will produce upon any
man of intelligence or sense of propriety.”

30
A P P E N D IX.
-
RECOGNITION OF JAMES CHAILMERS AT
HOME AND ABROAD.
In former publications I have already given copies of
numerous articles and notices in recognition of James Chalmers
as having been the originator of the Adhesive Postage Stamp,
including thirty of the London Press, with a fairly numerous
body of the Provincial and Scottish papers, headed by the
“Encyclopædia Britannica,” and the “Dictionary of National
Biography.” Special mention should also be made of the Glasgow
Post Office Magazine, “The Queen's Head,” containing am able
article in recognition of Chalmers, nearly 5,000 copies of which
have been subscribed for by the employés of the various post-
offices in the United Kingdom. This article has been favourably
received, including reviews by Philatelic journals on the Conti-
nent and in the United States.
To now print in full the additional articles which have more
lately been published, and continue to come forward, would
extend this publication to quite a further 200 pages. For the
present, consequently, I must content myself with a mere sum-
mary or indication of these valuable recognitions, first noticing
those at home.
Former able supporters, such as the City Press, Whitehall
Review, Croydon Review, Metropolitan, Home and Colonial Mail,
Sunday Times, Bric-a-Brac, Manchester Guardian, Brighouse
Gazette, and others, lose no opportunity of returning warmly to
the subject. The City Press writes: “Is the man who at a
critical moment, and unrewarded, supplied the motive power to
the Penny Postage Scheme, a power to this day indispensable to
the commerce and revenues of the world, to be left unmentioned,
while every possible occasion is availed of to laud the services of
Sir Rowland Hill ?” The Whitehall Review says: “As a matter
of common justice and right, it only now remains for those who
have so publicly recognised Sir Rowland Hill to now as publicly
recognise and acknowledge James Chalmers.”
Well may these writers ask for discrimination in the Press

31
when treating of the subject of Penny Postage Reform. No one
denies the great services of Sir Rowland Hill, but in the indis-
criminate panegyrics customary amongst modern writers it is
overlooked that “ originality of conception " formed no part of
his merits or proposals, the official Treasury declaration to which
effect I have already given (see ante, page 13), while the
Sir Rowland Hill Mansion House Committee abandoned his
pretensions to Originality, as admitted by the change of inscrip-
tion effected by them upon the City statue of Sir Rowland Hill,
and by the correspondence betwixt myself and the Lord Mayor
(the Chairman), which has been published.” Further than this,
the late Mr. Fawcett, H.M. Postmaster-General, in his remarks
upon the occasion of unveiling this City statue, made no claim
whatever to the effect that the uniform Penny Postage Scheme
was in any particular an invention or conception on the part
of Sir Rowland Hiil, simply claiming him as the man to whom
we are indebted for “having introduced ” that scheme.
Another feature overlooked by many in now pointing to the
large revenue derived from the Post Office is that of the heavy
loss entailed by the introduction of penny postage during the
first twenty-three years of the change. The old system previous
to 1840 produced a net revenue of £1,634,000, and not until
the retirement of Sir Rowland Hill in 1864 did the revenue
recover itself to an equal amount, the comparative loss in the
interval having amounted to £14,000,000 sterling.
The great publishing firm of Messrs. Trübner & Co., in a late
circular, state: “Sir Rowland Hill has got a statue for his
advocacy of cheap postage, although he had not the remotest
idea of how it could be successfully carried out ; but the intel-
ligent Dundee bookseller, James Chalmers, who, by inventing
the Adhesive Postage Stamp, rendered cheap postage possible,
has had no such recognition;” going on to urge that Some public
memorial should be equally raised to the memory of Chalmers.
Such memorials, however, are rather for men who have once
for all made their mark and done with ; in the case of Chalmers,
his work remains with us in our daily social and commercial
avocations, and what is here wanted is that those thus paying
daily tribute to his memory, by using his indispensable stamp,
* See “Concealment Unveiled : a Tale of the Mansion House.”--
Effingham, Wilson, & Co., Royal Exchange.

32
should know the name of its originator. This knowledge,
notwithstanding the yet silence of many influential journals, is
being rapidly spread. Other great publishing circulars now to
be claimed in recognition are, the Publisher's Circular (Messrs.
Sampson, Low & Co.), the Bookseller, and the Stationery Trades
Journal; with additional London papers, the Boy's Own Paper,
Home Work, Society Herald, Chit-Chat, the Star. The Leeds Times,
Salford Chronicle, Wednesbury Herald, Huddersfield Daily Ea'aminer,
Belfast Morning News, Greenock Herald, may be added to former
adherents. I am indebted to Mr. F. Graham Aylward, of
Hereford, for valuable letters published by the Hereford Times,
the Reading Mercury, and other papers. The British Economist,
or Scottish Bankers’ Magazine, of Edinburgh, has favoured me
with the desired recognition; and I have received the following
letter from the Right Hon. Sir Thomas Clark, Bart., Lord
Provost of Edinburgh :—
“CITY CHAMBERs, EDINBURGH,
“ February 23rd, 1888.
“ DEAR SIR,
“I have received the papers you have sent me regarding
your father's claim to be the originator of the Adhesive Stamp.
“The evidence is very conclusive, and as one who used long
ago to have constant relations with your father, I rejoice at your
success in establishing his claim.
“I am,
“Very truly yours,
“ (Signed) THOMAS CLARK,
“Lord Provost of Edinburgh.”
In Arbroath, the birthplace of James Chalmers, a volume of
much interest and erudition, entitled “Arbroath, Past and
Present,” compiled by Mr. McBain, banker, Arbroath, has lately
been published. In this work a biographical notice of James
Chalmers is given, from which I extract the following:—
“To James Chalmers, a native of Arbroath, is due the dis-
tinguished honour of being the inventor of the Adhesive Postage
Stamp, which was not only the means of Saving the Penny
Postage Scheme of this country, but of conferring a lasting
benefit on the commerce of the world. . . . This honour for
a time was claimed for Sir Rowland Hill, but thanks to the
untiring exertions of his son, Patrick Chalmers, of London,

33
James Chalmers' claim to the honour has been indisputably
established, and is now universally admitted. The benefits
which have accrued from this invention are incalculable, and
to-day every civilised nation is still reaping the fruit of the
inventive genius of this distinguished Arbroathian.”
In Dundee, in a late publication entitled “The Roll of
Eminent Burgesses of Dundee, 1513 to 1886.” “published by
order of the Provost, Magistrates, and Town Council,” edited by
a distinguished writer there, Mr. A. H. Millar, and entailing
much labour and research, a lengthened article is given detailing
the career of James Chalmers, in the course of which his ser-
vices are brought forward in terms similar to the Arbroath
article. The resolution of the Dundee Town Council, of date
3rd March, 1883, formally recording their townsman to have
been the originator of the Adhesive Stamp, “that indispensable
feature in the success of the reformed Penny Postage Scheme,”
is here again brought forward, and the work is in the hands of
many Scottish noblemen, wealthy merchants, and the public.
Something more than newspaper recognitions may now be
recorded. In Wednesbury, Staffordshire, not far from Kidder-
minster where a statue of Sir Rowland Hill has been erected, a
paper was lately read by a literary gentleman, Mr. J. E. Ryder, at a
meeting of the Springhead Mutual Improvement Society, entitled
“A Monumental Mockery,” alluding to the adjacent statue at
Kidderminster. In this paper Mr. Ryder points out that Sir
Rowland Hill invented nothing whatever, giving the prior Sources
from which he obtained the Penny Postage Scheme, and further
recognising James Chalmers as the man to whom we owe the
Adhesive Stamp which saved and has carried out that scheme. “A
discussion followed, and the evidence and arguments adduced in
the paper were found to have resulted in convincing those
present of the justice of the claims set forth. Votes of thanks
to the essayist and chairman terminated the meeting.”
Again, in the important town of Sheffield, Mr. G. R. Vine, a
local savant and philatelist, has read a paper entitled “The Postage
Stamp; or, the History of a Fascination,” before the “Sheffield
Literary and Philosophical Society,” in which the services of
James Chalmers are set forth, and “the honour, no mean one,’
C



34
of having been the originator of the Adhesive Postage Stamp
unhesitatingly ascribed to him. “The working out of a plan,
based upon previous Parliamentary Reports, &c., of a low-priced
postal rate is due in a general sense to Rowland Hill.” Mr. Wine
Writes me: “When I delivered this paper there were present
Some old Sheffield Post Office reformers, notably the Brittains
(one the late Mayor of Sheffield), Alderman Hobson, and others;
but in the discussion which followed the delivery none of those
present cared to dispute your claim.” The well-known and
influential paper, the Sheffield Daily Telegraph, has, some time
ago, appeared in the list of my adherents.
I have already mentioned that four out of the five philatelic
papers published in this country have recognised Chalmers. A
new paper just come out in Liverpool, entitled The Stamp
Collector's Gazette, contains the following : “How about the
‘Chalmers-Hill controversy 2 I have had correspondence with
both, and have read pamphlets on both sides, and I am of opinion
that Mr. Chalmers has the best of it. When abuse steps in,
and a man questions the sanity and honour of his adversary,
I think one may safely give the other side the benefit of the
doubt, if any. But there is no doubt in this case that Mr. P.
Chalmers has made his case clear.”

Coming now to the recognitions of James Chalmers
abroad, it is mainly to the pursuit of Philatelism or
postage stamp collecting that I am indebted for the
warm interest which has been taken in the fresh light
I have thrown upon the origin of the Adhesive Stamp.
In the United States of America, and on the Continent of
Europe, stamp collecting forms a large branch of business;
this study is pursued to an extent quite unknown here,
and Philatelic Societies flourish in abundance. Hitherto
the name of Sir Rowland Hill alone has been recognised
as the inventor of the Adhesive Postage Stamp, or of the
penny postage scheme itself; but from the evidence now
adduced by me, these impressions have been widely admitted
as having been a mistake, and the origin of the stamp
35
transferred to James Chalmers. Nor has this transfer
been confined to the Philatelic world. Historical Societies,
University and State Libraries, with members of the Press
having likewise admitted my claims.
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
To the 13 Philatelic Societies in the United States
already mentioned, I am now enabled to add several others
which have formally recognised James Chalmers as the
inventor of the stamp, the various designs of which in all
countries of the world it is the special object of the
Philatelist to collect, and the list is now as under:—

The Chicago Philatelic Society ... Chicago, Illinois.
The Pomeroy 2 3 22 ... Toledo, Ohio.
The St. Louis * 7 5 * ... St. Louis, Missouri.
The Lansing º, 5 y ... Lansing, Michigan.
The Newton 2 3 2 y ... Newtonville, Massachusetts.
The Jamestown ,, 22 ... Jamestown, New York.
The Charleston , 2 3 ... Charleston, South Carolina.
The Black Hawk ,, 3 * ... Rock Island, Illinois.
The Belle City ,, 3 y ... Racine, Wisconsin.
The Luther 5 y ,, ... Luther, Michigan.
The Chalmers , 5 y ... Chicago, Illinois.
The Salem 3 y 3.3 ... Salem, Massachusetts.
The New Milford , 3.7 ... New Milford, Connecticut.
The Detroit 72 ,, ... Detroit, Michigan.
The Minneapolis , , 5 y ... Minneapolis, Minnesota.
The Rhode Island, 2-y ... Providence, Rhode Island.
The Denver Stamp Collector's
League ... --- • - ... Denver, Colorado.
Clan Cameron, No. 7, O S.C. ... Providence, Rhode Island.
Grand Clan of Rhode Island,
O.S.C. ... --- --- ... Providence, Rhode Island.
Ten of the above Societies have been good enough to
elect me an honorary member, and several of the Philatelic
journals have published a biographical sketch of James
Chalmers, with portrait.
C 2
36
But the Philatelists of the United States, in addition to
their local societies have formed themselves into one grand
united body, termed the American Philatelic Association.
This Association meets once a year, attracting members
and delegates from all parts of the Union to enjoy a fort-
night's discussion in support of their favourite pursuit.
At the meeting held in Chicago, in August, 1887, the
following resolutions were passed, with one dissentient :—
“SECRETARY's OFFICE,
“GRAND CROSSING, ILL.,
“September 12th, 1887.
“Mr. PAT. CHALMERs, LoNDON.
“ DEAR SIR,
“It is my pleasant task to inform you that at
“ the second Annual Convention of the American Philatelic
“Association, held in Chicago, Ill., on August 8th, 9th,
“ and 10th, the following resolutions were adopted :—
“‘ Resolved : That this Association, upon proof sub-
“‘mitted by living witnesses, does endorse the claims
“‘ made by Mr. Patrick Chalmers on behalf of his father,
“‘ the late James Chalmers, as inventor of the Adhesive
“‘ Stamp; and be it further—
“‘ Resolved : That the congratulations of this Associa-
‘‘ ‘tion be extended to Mr. Patrick Chalmers for the success
“‘ his untiring efforts have attained in establishing beyond
“‘doubt an important historical fact ; and be it still
“‘ further—
“‘ Resolved : That the Secretary be instructed to for-
“‘ward a copy of these resolutions to Mr. Patrick Chalmers,
“‘ and have the same published in the official journal.’
“With deep personal regard, I beg to remain,
“Yours very truly,
“S. B. BRADT,
“Secretary American Philatelic Association.”
To which Mr. Bradt added in a further kindly letter:—

37
“Accept my profound congratulations on the ever-
increasing strength you are adding to your cause, and my
best wishes for the speedy arrival of the time when its
justice shall be universally conceded.”
The meeting of this Association for 1888 took place at
Boston, about which period, under date August 23rd, I
was favoured with a letter of great ability on the whole
Subject from an esteemed correspondent, with permission to
to quote same. This letter, of twelve pages, deals with two
points; first, with that of the Penny Postage Scheme itself,
and next as regards the Stamp, with which latter question
my present pages are concerned ; and it is with pleasure
that I now quote the following:—
“I have now in my possession all the reports that bear
“on this subject—5th, 9th, 1, 2 & 3 (of 1837–38) 1844,
“1858, &c., &c. I have seen and had copies made of Mr.
“Rowland Hill's paper, ‘On the collection of postage by
“ means of stamps,’ the Post Circular containing your
“father's proposals, and side by side with them a letter
“ from Sir Rowland Hill, “The Life of Sir Rowland Hill,’
“ numerous other books on stamps, Stamp Acts, &c. I
“ have examined all that Hansard gives about stamps of
“ all kinds for a good many years, and things that have
“ not been alluded to in this discussion. I have quite a
“ pile of the original Acts of Parliament that bear on this
“subject, and all this has taken up much time. So far
“ the investigation has not changed my mind, and justifies,
“in my opinion, the position I have already assumed.”
The writer then begins by dealing with the point as to the
origin of the penny postage Scheme and prior Sources avail-
able to Mr. Hill for drawing up same; and, continuing, “This
brings me down to the second point—the use of stamps for
collecting postage,” touches upon the first traces of stamps,
detached or impressed, in early times and occasionally, in
England and elsewhere from 1653 to 1818, bringing the

38
subject down to our modern practice and the question at
issue:—
“When the agitation for a reduction of the taxes on
“knowledge began, Mr. Charles Whiting in 1830 (2nd
“Report, Select Committee of 1838–9, 11,253) proposed
“ to separate the postal tax from the Excise tax, and to
“ use covers or envelopes for such newspapers as passed
“ the post, and suggested extending the use of such covers
“ to letters in case the plan worked. There seems to have
“ been no doubt about this. In 1834 Mr. Charles Knight
“ (companion to newspaper) again suggested the use of
“stamped covers for newspapers. Mr. J. Chalmers at that
“ time suggested, according to the recollection of certain
“old citizens “ of Dundee, and actually had made
“Adhesive Stamps (for the same purpose perhaps), and
“advocated their use upon letters. Now, Mr. Rowland
“Hill admits that he got his idea of stamps for postage
“from Mr. Knight. If the fact be admitted that
“Mr. Chalmers did so propose and make adhesive stamps,
“ can it be possible that, widely known as it was repre-
“sented to be, Mr. R. Hill did not get also his famous
“ suggestion of a bit of gummed paper from the same
“source 2 But Mr. Pearson Hill thinks the idea of sug-
“gesting the use of stamps for letters in 1834 was impro-
“bable or impracticable—let him say how it happened that
“Whiting suggested it in 1830? But up to 1834 we have
“not yet found any traces of the Adhesive Stamp. Sir
“Rowland Hill says “they were not thought of.” But
“Mr. Pearson Hill thinks ungummed medicine stamps
“were the same as adhesive—let father and son settle it
“ between themselves. Mr. Pearson Hill says the idea of
“an adhesive stamp was certain to have occurred to
“ scores of persons the moment the adoption of a uniform
“ rate of postage, coupled with prepayment, rendered the

* Here I may be permitted to add, not only of citizens but of men then in
his employment who took part in getting up the gummed sheets of stamps.
* I beg that this conclusive declaration may be noted.
39
“general use of stamps for postal purposes practicable —
“will he explain why the idea of an adhesive stamp for
“revenue purposes did not occur to scores of people when
“ the use of stamps for revenue purposes was not only
“ practicable by imposition not only in England for many
“ purposes which used detached stamps, but also in other
“ countries? Or why it should more easily suggest itself for
“ postal purposes when it was to be applied to letters than
“When it was to be applied to newspaper wrappers? Ac-
“cording to Mr. Rowland Hill's first notion, it was to
“ meet the contingency of a letter written and directed
“ being brought by an ignorant person to the Post Office—
“Would not the same thing be as likely to happen if the
“Same ignorant person were going to send a newspaper ?
“Trivial as the difference between a detached ungummed
“stamp and an adhesive stamp may seem now to Mr.
“Pearson Hill, others can readily see what would have
“ been the fate of the thousands necessary for use if every
“ person had had to resort to wafers, gum, or paste, in
“ order to use them. The U.S. Patent Office, in 1861,
“ thought the difference between a gummed wrapper and an
“ungummed one sufficient to entitle the former to a
“ patent.
“It remains to be considered what does Mr. Pearson
“ Hill's claim of priority of publication amount to. I
“ am not sufficiently acquainted with English patent
“decisions to know what would be the decision in Eng-
“ land, but I think the rule would require before the
“ cases of the French and Italian systems could affect
“ the question that they must have been published
“in a book actually or probably brought to England;
“ and in the case that James Chalmers were shown to
“ have actually made and distributed his Adhesive
“Stamp as is claimed, and the more so if he circulated a
“printed plan with them in 1834, the mere publication of
“Hill's idea in a pamphlet would not give him a priority
“ over the man who had made and exhibited his invention
“which the pamphlet man would be supposed to know of.


40
“The rule has been stated by Mr. Hill as it applies to
“ discoveries, not as I conceive it as applied to inventions.
“It is a universal rule of law, I conceive, that before
“you can invoke the testimony of part of a correspondence
“ you must put in the whole, and you may further put in
“evidence any attendant circumstances which may serve
to explain it. Until Mr. Pearson Hill consents to pro-
duce the whole correspondence, he must not rely on the
part he has chosen to quote. In fact, as it stands, it
does not appear to me necessarily an acknowledgment
that Hill was entitled to the claim. Had Chalmers
wanted to have said, ‘Notwithstanding all you have said,
I am still the inventor, but you are in power and I must
yield any way; and, as the public has got what I pro-
posed to give them, I suppose I must be content,” he
could hardly have chosen better language to express the
idea politely. Consequently it appears to me that the
whole decision of this case depends on the credit to be
given or refused to the Dundee witnesses—that Mr. Pear-
Son Hill has set up as barriers mere technicalities, which
must go down before any fair investigator, in fact have
no existence at all. . . . The Adhesive Stamp is as
different from impressed stamps and detached stamps as
covers are. Knight was the publisher of Hill's pamphlets,
all editions, and one can hardly doubt that he knew of
Chalmers' plan if it really was in existence before Hill’s.”
So that, after all, your father's case stands, as we said it
did, on the evidence of the witnesses; and while I did not
draft or even suggest the resolutions, I suggested striking
out Some things to leave it where it is a year ago, and I
4.
& 4
&
º
&
&&&«*
&º&&&%

&
&
&
&
&
g
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
4.
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
* In this connection it should be borne in mind that Mr. Rowland Hill, in
the first edition of his pamphlet, said nothing about the bit of gummed
paper—this allusion was only brought forward in the second edition—did
Mr. Hill invent the idea in the interval or was he put up to it 2 (See ante,
page 27.) An idea, moreover, of which he made no use until eighteen months
after Chalmers had officially proposed his plan. Thus, supposing for a moment
that Hill did invent this idea, and even Mr. Pearson Hill does not specially
claim this, it is still to Chalmers we are indebted for its application. But that
Chalmers was equally the inventor is proved by irrefragable evidence.
41
-
“stand by it now, and have ever since, and have no inten-
“tion of departing from it until something is brought
“ forward that shakes that testimony.” There is a flaw
“ in the evidence of one witness, but that does not shake
“ the rest.”
My Philadelphia friends will read the following with
interest :—
“320s, 11TH STREET, PHILADELPHIA,
“18th October, 1888.
“DEAR SIR,
“Your kind favour duly to hand. I cannot
understand the blindness of your adversaries for res judi-
cata est, and any further opposition can be only from
stupidity and obstimacy. I speak entirely without preju-
dice, and hope your filial efforts will be ultimately crowned
with the fullest success.
“Very respectfully yours,
“HENRY PHILLIPS, JUN.
“Mr. PATRICK CHALMERs,
“Wimbledon.”
Dr. Phillips is author of numerous historical and prac-
tical works on Currency, &c., and has followed this contro-
versy for years.
Many letters to similar effect continue to reach me;
but I now leave the United States and proceed to
PARIS.
Here the Société Internationale de Timbrologie, with
branches at Moscow, Odessa, and Stockholm, has passed
formal recognition in favour of James Chalmers as having
been the originator of the Adhesive Postage Stamp, and
has further been pleased to elect me an honorary member
* I may here point rather to the additional and confirmatory evidence in
the testimony of George Hood and Mr. Wears.



42
of the Society. The official journal of the Society,
L’Union des Timbrophiles, having a circulation of 5,000
copies monthly, editor M. Nalés, has given a biographical
sketch and portrait of James Chalmers, and has continued
to publish matters of interest and progress on the subject
as they arise.
The Echo de la Timbrologie, official journal of the
Société Française de Timbrologie, published at Douai by
Ed. Fremy Fils, has issued a series of articles in recogni-
tion of James Chalmers.
WIENNA.

Here I have been specially fortunate in having been
favoured with the support of the keen Philatelist and able
Writer, Lieut.-Col. Charles Won Gündel, from whose pen has
issued a translation, published in the Postwertzeichen
of Munich, of Mr. Macintyre's article in the Glasgow
Magazine; likewise a sharp criticism in the Philatelis-
chen Borsen-Courier, of an article which lately appeared
in the Liverpool Daily Post, in which article that eminent
paper, while giving up Rowland Hill, could not recognise
Chalmers who had never asserted himself or been before
heard of. (This, it will be seen, is a mistake.) Col. Won
Gündel has likewise contributed many articles in favour of
James Chalmers to the German Philatelic journals, giving
an account of the Penny Postal Reform and the services of
Chalmers in having initiated the stamp which saved it.
Won Gündel has further contributed to the Wiener Brief.
marken Zeitung an able criticism of the late pamphlet of
Mr. Pearson Hill, in which article the fallacies contained
in that pamphlet are exposed, and the allegations dealt
with seriatim, and effectually answered. -
The same Vienna journal, editor H. Koch, has pub-
lished articles in recognition of Chalmers. º
The Welt Post, conducted by Herr Sigmund Friedl,
proprietor of the extensive International Stamp Museum,
Unter-Döbling, Vienna, has afforded me warm support, and

43
has published a biographical sketch of James Chalmers,
with portrait.
The Neues Wiener Tagblatt, in lately noticing the
remarkable museum of Herr Friedl at Unter-Döbling,
remarks:—
“Portraits, pamphlets, and similar matter, remind us
“ that the Postage Stamp introduced in 1839 by Rowland
“Hill, of the English Post Office, is not considered as his
“creation, but as that of James Chalmers, a printer, of
“ Dundee. We see the first English stamp—a most won-
“ derful sight ! We need not be surprised did the Imperial
“ German Postal Museum possess one, since there the
“ Museum is maintained by the State, but the institution
“ in Döbling owes its establishment to the exertions of a
“private individual.”
BERLIN.
Here James Chalmers has been formally recognised by
the Berlin Philatelic Club, and an article in two numbers,
descriptive of his services, has appeared in the Mitthei-
lungen des Berliner Phil. Club, the journal of the Society.
In Der Sammler, “organ der Berliner Briefnmarken-
Borse, and der Wereins der Briefnmarken Sammler Zu
Berlin,” published and edited by Dr. Brendicke, has
appeared an excellent likeness and biographical notice of
James Chalmers.
It is further with no small Satisfaction that I present
the following translation from the Deutsche Verkehrs
Zeitung, or German Traffic Journal, “organ of the
General Post Office and Telegraphic Affairs, and their
officials,” of Berlin, August 31st, 1888:—
“ Until a short time ago Sir Rowland Hill, the late
British Post Office Secretary, known through his reforms
in Postal matters, has been looked upon as the inventor of
the Adhesive Postage Stamp. However, lately, only through
careful investigations, it has been ascertained that this
service is due to the bookseller, James Chalmers, of Dundee,
who died in 1853.

44
“Chalmers' carefully worked-out ideas and plans were
laid before the British Treasury, and his system of the
Adhesive Postage Stamp was adopted by Treasury Minute
of the 26th December, 1839. At that time Rowland Hill
was an official of the British Treasury.
“On the 6th May, 1840, namely forty-eight years ago,
the first issue of Adhesive Postage Stamps appeared in
England.”
The article goes on to notice the periods at which
other nations adopted “ the indispensable invention of
Chalmers, until such had been adopted by all the countries
of the globe as time passed on.”
The above article has been reproduced by such leading
German papers as the Frankfort Gazette, and others.
Same has appeared in the original German in the Londoner
Zeitung, circulating amongst the German community in
this country.
LEIPZIG.

In this Philatelic stronghold my success has been
very marked. In the first place, the Illustrirtes Brief-
marken Journal, the organ of thirty-three Philatelic
Societies, published by Gebruders Senf, and having a
bi-monthly circulation of 12,000 copies, has recognised and
written about the services of James Chalmers in four
articles continued in nine numbers of the issue. On the
frontispiece of this important journal appears the head of
James Chalmers in conjunction with that of Sir Rowland
Hill.
Very important too is the accession of the learned
Dr. Moschkau, the friend and correspondent of Sir Rowland
Hill, to the ranks of those who recognise James Chalmers,
as may be read in the following extract from his journal,
the Illustrirte Briefnarken Zeitung of August 15th,
1888:-
“To a correspondent who asks ‘Which view does the
editor of this paper take concerning the affair Hill-Chal-
45
mers So frequently referred to lately 2' the learned Dr.
Moschkau replies:—
- “‘How could we do otherwise than believe that Chal-
mers is in the right ! We have had personally some cor-
respondence with Sir R. Hill a short time before his death,
and we propose to refer to same some time later on in this
paper.’”
Subsequently, several articles, in six numbers, from the
pen of Col. Von Gündel, descriptive of the Penny Postage
Reform and the Services of James Chalmers have, with the
Sanction and assent of Dr. Moschkau, appeared in his
journal, the organ of several Societies. I regret that space
compels me for the present to withhold translations of
these able contributions.
FRANKFORT.
Here the large and important Philatelic Society, the
Verein für Briefnmarken, Herr Albert Schindler, Secretary,
has formally recognised James Chalmers; the Illustrirte
Frankfürter Brief marken Zeitung Universum, editor H. J.
Dauth, has published throughout eight numbers a long
article having reference to the services of Chalmers.

DRESIDEN.

The Deutsche Brief marken Zeitung, edited by Herr
E. W. Grossman, Secretary to the Dresden Philatelic
Verein (not the Internationaler Society) has published two
articles in recognition of Chalmers.
MUNICH.
In the Mittheilungen des Bayarischen Philatelisten
Vereins, the official journal of the large Bavarian Philatelic
Society, Herr Anton Bachl, the Secretary, has produced
two articles on the fresh light I have thrown as to the
origin of the adhesive stamp. Other articles in recognition
of Chalmers have appeared in Das Postwerthzeichen, editor
Th. HaSS.
46
MARISCH-AUSTRIA.
The Philatelischer Borsen-Courier, editor Herr C. C.
Sauer, has published three articles in support of my cause,
including the criticism already mentioned under the head-
ing of “Vienna" upon the article in the Liverpool Daily
Post.
CZERNOWITZ-AUSTRIA.
The Czernowitz Philatelic Society Orient has formally
recognised James Chalmers. To Herr Mittelmann, of this
Society, my special thanks are due for much appreciated
correspondence and warm support.
STOCKHOLM.
In the Tedning für Frimerkamlare, the editor, M. R. J.
Bruzelins, has published an account of the services of
James Chalmers as originator of the adhesive stamp, with
portrait.
CONSTANTINOPLE.
An excellent Philatelic journal published here in the
French language, Le Timbre Levantin, editor-in-chief
M. Hissard, has a wide circulation throughout the Levant
and elsewhere. In this able paper lengthened articles have
appeared in vindication of the services of James Chalmers;
and to its editor and conductors, M. M. I. Tchakidji et Cie,
I am under great obligations.
CONCLUSION.
It is thus seen that, where attention has been given to
this matter of mational and historical interest, an impartial
perusal of my publications has resulted in something like a
unanimous verdict that James Chalmers was the originator
of the Adhesive Postage stamp, a verdict which his country-
men will receive and respond to with something more than


47
Satisfaction. That my list of Continental recognitions does
not include the entire Philatelic body is much owing, as I
am informed by some of the heads of these Societies, to the
difference of language preventing their members at large
from grasping the facts of the case so as to overcome long-
cherished delusions. The same may be said with respect
to many editors, literary men, and others here, too pre-
judiced even to read what has been published, with many
important cases of which nature I am well acquainted.
PATRICK CHALMERS, F.R. Hist.Soc.,
Honorary Member of the Société Internationale de Timbrologie, Paris,
and of Ten American Philatelic Societies.
WIMBLEDON,
January, 1889.
POSTSCRIPT.
Having just been informed that statements have been
circulated in the United States, said to have emanated
from Mr. Pearson Hill, that the Treasury Minute Extract
of date 11th March, 1864, given at page 13 herewith, was
subsequently withdrawn by the Treasury; and further, that
the Resolution of the Town Council of Dundee, of date
3rd March, 1883, in favour of James Chalmers, was subse-
quently withdrawn by that Town Council–matters which
I am charged with having Suppressed in my publications—
I beg to make known that such statements are wholly
without foundation and contrary to the facts.
That the words in the Treasury Minute, printed in
italics at page 13, were at any time withdrawn is a mere
assertion, no proof of which has been or can be produced.
On the contrary, when, in the following June, the proposal
to grant the sum of £20,000 to Sir Rowland Hill for his
services was brought forward in Parliament, the very occa-
sion to make the correction and the amende if due, neither

48
Lord Palmerston in the Commons nor Lord Granville in
the Lords for one moment admitted any mistake whatever
in the terms of that Treasury Minute. So far from doing
so, Lord Granville indorses the terms of that Minute
(see . Hansard, June, 1864). It was for his services, not
as having been an inventor, that the recompense was
given. - -
With respect to the Dundee Town Council Resolution of
3rd March, 1883, the official notification of which from
the Town Clerk is now before me, so far from such having
at any time been withdrawn as stated, the same was
actually repeated and confirmed upon the occasion of my
having applied to erect a memorial to James Chalmers,
recording him as “having been the originator of the Adhe-
sive Postage Stamp,” the official notification of which per-
mission from the Town Clerk, of date 11th April, 1888, is
also now before me.
It is consequently not true that I have suppressed any-
thing with reference to these or any other matters; and I
can only caution the Philatelic world and my readers
against entertaining statements of this nature, and there
may be others such which I have not seen, put forward for
the mere purpose of endeavouring to discredit me by oppo-
nents who have no case of their own.
P. C.
WIMBLEDON,
February, 1889.
EFFINGHAM WILson & Co., Printers, Royal Exchange, E.C.
377-7
THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
GRADUATE LIBRARY
DATE DUE

NOV 11.9%
==
*
Nôºb.tººl; *** - " " .. • “ , “J->.
**** *r- *** ***.*, . . . . . . . ..., , ,
- * . . . . . . "w .
sºvº, a ... *. **.*.*.*.*.....~...~. ... * * * **
MAK ſel.
-
-
–
=
§
tºº
mmºn
i
i
ſ
DO NOT REMOVE
OR
MUTILATE CARD