THE ADHESIVE POSTAGE STAMP V. IN AMERICA, FRANCE, AND GERMANY. . '? RECOGNITION OF JAMES CHAEMERS. 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, 3^3 £>-55 3 *& Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2017 with funding from University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Alternates https://archive.org/details/adhesivepostagesOOchal % PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. o o , K>- r When, on the 5tli of July, 1889, 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 9tli December, 1887. 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 “ Encyclopaedia 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 17tli August, 1839, whereupon Mr. Hill was appointed to a position in the Treasury for the purpose 'p “i. r\ 'Vj \ <0 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, 1887, 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 Eowland 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 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 ! 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 Cyclopsedia ” 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 Cyclopaedia 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. 6 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 Briefmarken Journal,” Leipzig. “ L’Union des Timbropliiles,” 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 :— " &bi llohilantr ||ill Jjjtemorial anb Scncbotcnt Jnmb. “ Why Subscriptions to the Fund do not come in. “ To the Eight Honourable “ POLYDOEE DE KEYSEE, “ 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 employes 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 Eowland 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 ‘ 1 over which your Lordship presided, to have been the invention and proposal of “ another man. The leading biographical works of the present day, the Encyclopcedia “ 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, “ 1834, a well-known postal reformer long before Sir Rowland Hill entered the field ‘ 4 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 Offiee 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 ‘ ‘ employes 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 4 ‘ ‘ the Post Office Benevolent Fund. ’ Exactly so ; then why not say so ? 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 44 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 4 4 clear that from and after the period of these facts having become known to this 44 Committee, had the Committee acquainted the subscribers and the public with 4 4 what had transpired, further subscriptions to any fund whatever under the name of 4 4 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 4 4 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 1 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 employes— style yourselves what you are, “ the Committee or Trustees of “The Post Office Benevolent Fund,” and the money ‘ ‘ wiU oome in ' “I have the honour to he, “ My Lord Mayor, “ Your Lordship’s most obedient Servant, “ Wimbledon, November 28 th, 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-a-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 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 “ 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 10 “ of the first block, the V.B., 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 Pliilatelism, 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 :— Wimbledon, January , 1888. Sir, In previous publications successfully vindicating tlie 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 Rowland 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 Societe Internationale de Timbroloyie Paris ; and of Ten A merican 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 boon 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. 11 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. Eivchanye Superintendent Henry Clotz ... New York City Counterfeit Detector ... E. A. Holton ... 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, lias 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 ether 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 ? ” 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, III., “ 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 8tli, 9tli, and lOtli, 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 “ 1 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 tlie 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, “ 24 tli September, 1887. “ Dear Sir, “ I have the honour to acknowledge receipt of your “ communication of 12tli 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 tlie American Philatelic Association will carry conviction “ to every impartial mind. “ Trusting yonr 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 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 Uhited 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 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 “ Encyclopaedia 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 “ done 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 tlie 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 liis 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.” 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. tin 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- “ eealment 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. 19 SUCCESS IN 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 “ Societe 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/ 1 ' In its official journal L’Union des 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 Veit-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 cles Timbrophiles of Paris. But the most important as being perhaps the most widely-spread notice of the subject has appeared in the Illustrite Briefm arisen Journal of Leipzig, from the pen of Lieut.-Col. Charles von Giindel. 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. 21 > THE PHILATELIC SOCIETY OE LONDON AND THE ADHESIVE POSTAGE STAMP. SEQUEL. 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 24tli 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? 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?” 22 To wliicli the reply was :— “41, Seething Lane, E.C., “ May 27 th, 1887. “ Sir, “ I have received your letter of the 24tli 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 1 October having at length arrived, the following is the answer :— “ The Philatelic Society, London, “ 41, Seething Lane, E.C., “ October 25 th, 1887. “ Sir, “ Your letter of May 24tli 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 necessarily 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 5tli 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 “ 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 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 Govern - “ ment; it may disturb existing trades, such as the paper trade. “ i . . The new postage will be distinctly and simply a penny “ postage by weight. ... I also require for the Treasury a power 24 1 ‘ 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 hoiv 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 1887-88 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 5tli 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 tlic 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 18tli January, 1840, Mr. Hill accordingly writes to Mr. Chalmers to that effect—sends Chalmers about his business, and usurps the merit 4 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 1 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 ? 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? 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 1889 would have been ignominiously to extinguish 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— f 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 4 the facts of which he has professed to set forth, are left wholly unnoticed. And for what purpose ? 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 “Encyclopaedia Britannica,” whose decision he invoked, and dismissed by them as irrelevant and unfounded. 27 ORIGINAL PLAN OF THE ADHESIVE POSTAGE STAMP. SIR HENRY COLE’S PAPERS. In liis “ 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. Asliurst 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¬ 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 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. “ 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 Encyclopedia 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 lialf-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 26tli December, 1839, when he sent Mr. Cole to Messrs. Bacon and Petcli, 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 employes 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. tSee 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 18tli 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, 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 Encyclopaedia Britannica further states, merely an idea “ acquired from without,” and ’I 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.