6}63 
 C35m 
 
 LJKgjK 
 
 1 
 
 m 
 
 
 5 
 
 — o 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 
 r- 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 9 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 :\i 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 Mr, John Frances, of the 
 Athenaeum, on the Plan of 
 Sir -Rowland Hill
 
 THE LIBRARY 
 
 OF 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY 
 
 OF CALIFORNIA 
 LOS ANGELES
 
 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 Piowland 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 
 Athemmim, and friend of Sir PiOwland 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.
 
 ME. JOHN FRANCIS, 
 
 OF THE ATHENMUM, 
 
 ON 
 
 Cl;e Ulatt of Sir llntolaitb Mill 
 
 BY 
 
 PATRICK CHALMERS, 
 
 FELLOW OF THE ROYAL HISTORICAL SOCIETY. 
 
 SECOND EDITION. 
 
 LONDON : 
 EFFINGHAM WILSON & CO., ROYAL EXCHANGE, E.C. 
 
 1889.
 
 
 ME. JOHN FEANCIS, 
 
 of the '■^ Athenceum" 
 
 hi \\}t ^laiT 0f Sir ^Intokntr pril 
 
 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 AthencBum in 1831, ultimately rising to be chief of 
 that gi'eat 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 Eeform brought forward by the then 
 Mr. Eowland Hill. A work in two volumes, entitled 
 "John Francis, Publisher of the AthencBum: 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 jDublic 
 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. Eowland 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 hy Mr. Eo\y- 
 land Hill for carrying out the Penny Postage Scheme in 
 practice : — 
 
 "On the 6th May, 1837, the Athenceum gave a short 
 " notice of Kowland Hill's pamphlet ' Post Office Keform,' 
 *' 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 ajDpointed for the purpose of 
 ** examining the mode recommended by Eowland Hill for 
 " charging and collecting postage. The writer of the 
 " article says : — ' The facts made known by this Eeport 
 " 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 Is. l^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.' "
 
 Such is the record of Mr. Francis, the friend of Sir 
 Eowland 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 Eowland Hill and his 
 proposals. 
 
 From "THE ADHESIVE POSTAGE STAMP, 1886." 
 
 " The plan by which Mr. Eowland 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 Ofiice 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
 
 ' 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 wTiting paper at cost price, "while the 
 stationer requires a profit to j)ay 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
 
 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. 
 Eowland 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 jprepayment 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 Eipou 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.
 
 brought in, on the other part, as a distinct proposal, in no 
 way entering into the proposals of Mr. Hill." 
 
 Now, what does Sir Eowland 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 Jiow 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 '? 
 
 " Then what of the professed and reputed originator of 
 all this— enriched in life, canonised in death — what does 
 Sir Eowland 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, nor a word— all totally ignored. And 
 why ? Because to have hreatJied a whisper of these matters 
 o/]839 loould have been igiiominiously to extinguish his pre- 
 tensions to a prior proposal of an adhesive stamp, or of any-
 
 10 
 
 thing approaching to sucii 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- 
 sie-ned 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 StamjD was adopted by Treasury Minute of date 
 2Gtli 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. Eowland 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 " Encyclopaedia 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 Offi.ce, 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 ? — Ansiver: 
 " 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 ? 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 Eovvdand 
 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 Athenceum 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 ? " 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. HilVs 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. Eowland 
 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, lefore the development of the plans of Sir Boicland 
 " 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. Eowland Hill had 7iot 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. Eowland 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. Eowland 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 j^ost- 
 " age be collected by the sale of stamped covers." 
 
 Again, take the Press of the period — this is what the 
 Thnes 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 Stam^, 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 Dimclee 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 Eowland 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 " Encyclopaedia Britan-
 
 17 
 
 nica " and the " Dictionary of National Biographj^" and to 
 the equal satisfaction of numerous other authorities at 
 home and abroad who have read the evidence. Sir Eowland 
 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 Eowland 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 employe 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 Eosemount, 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 
 " Ma}'', 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 Piobert 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." ]\ruch 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. Piowland 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 b}^ 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 w^ere 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 iu the Art liibrary of the South Kensington Museun. 
 
 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, 1838," 
 and which runs as follows : — 
 
 " Remarks on various modes iiroposed for frankinfj Utters, 
 " under Mr. Roivland HiWs jplan 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 bo 
 " 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-of&ces, 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 extcn- 
 *' 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 tveight 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 j)ut 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 Estate 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 Eowland 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 M'ho 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 occuj)ied 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 
 x\dhesive 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 employes 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 tlie 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 '? " 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, Avhich 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" ("Encyclopaedia 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 proj)osed 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 heen 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. Kowland 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. Eowland 
 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 Eeply 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. Kowland 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 Eowland 
 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 
 "Kowland Hill" delusion being at length dispelled, Mr. Pear-
 
 26 
 
 son Hill's motto is, "Anybody but Chalmers," " scores of 
 people." Fm'ther, though still of opinion that the adop- 
 tion of the adhesive stamp for the purpose of carrying out 
 the scheme was included in Mr. Eowland 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 Eowland 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 Piowland 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- 
 clopaedia Britannica " : — 
 
 " 50, Belsize Park, 
 " London, N.W., 
 
 " 15th March, 1883. 
 " Gentlemen, 
 
 " As you are now issuing a new edition of your 
 '' ' Enc^'clopajdia Britannica,' and as for years past a 
 " Mr. Patrick Chalmers has persistently been making false 
 " and groundless charges against my father, the late Sir 
 " Piowland Hill, I think it well to send you the enclosed
 
 27 
 
 " printed documents for your information, as it is by no 
 "means improbable that be may strive to get you to insert 
 " some untrue statement wben you deal with tlie question 
 " of the Post Office and Postal Eeform. 
 
 "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 Encyclopaedia (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 Piowland 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 dignit}^ 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 
 Pjress 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 Pioberts,' I have put James Chalmers 
 in his place. Goiog 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.' Pief erring to my being a Member of the 
 Eoyal 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." 
 
 I 
 
 I
 
 30 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 KECOGNITION OF JAMES CHALIMERS AT 
 HOME AND ABROAD. 
 
 In former publications I have already given copies of 
 numerous articles and notices in recognition of James Chalmers 
 as ha\ing 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 
 "Encyclopaedia Britannica,' and the "Dictionary of National 
 Biography." Special mention should also be made of the Glasgow 
 Post Office Magazine, " The Queen's Head," containing an able 
 article in recognition of Chalmers, nearly 5,000 copies of which 
 have been subscribed for by the cwplo)/es 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 the^e valuable recognitions, first noticing 
 those at home. 
 
 Former able supporters, such as the City Press, Whitehall 
 Revieic, Croychm Fu'vieiv, Metropolitan, Home and Colonial Mail, 
 Sunday Times, Bric-a-Brac, Manchester Guardian, Briyhouse 
 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, suppUed 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 unraentioned, 
 while every possible occasion is availed of to laud the services of 
 Sir Piowland Hill ? " The Whitehall Beview says : " As a matter 
 of common justice and right, it only now remains for those who 
 have so publicly recognised Sir Eowland 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 Pieform. No one 
 denies the great senices of Sir Eowlancl Hill, but in the indis- 
 criminate panegjaics customary amongst modern writers it is 
 ovei'looked 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 Kowland Hill ]\Iansion House Committee abandoned his 
 pretensions to originality, as admitted by the change of inscrip- 
 tion effected by them upon the City statue of Sir Kowland Hill, 
 and by the correspondence betwixt myself and the Lord ]\Iayor 
 (the Chan-man), 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 Eowland Hiil, simply claiming him as the man to whom 
 we are indebted for " havin;/ introduced " that scheme. 
 
 Another feature overlooked by many in noAV 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 Eowland 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. Triibner & Co., in a late 
 circular, state : " Sir Eowland Hill has got a statue for his 
 advocacy of cheap postage, although he had not the remotest 
 idea of how it could be successfulh/ 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 ease 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 
 
 slioukl know the name of its originator. This knowledge, 
 notwitlistanding the yet silence of many influential journals, is 
 being rapidly spread. Other great publishing circulars now to 
 be claimed in recognition are, the FuhJishefs Circular (Messrs. 
 Sampson, Low & Co.), the Bookseller, and the Stationery Trades 
 Journal ; with additional London papers, the Boy's Oivn Paper, 
 Home Work, Society Herald, Chit-Chat, the Star. The Leeds Times, 
 Salford Chronicle, Wedneshury Herald, Huddersfield Daily Examiner, 
 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 Beadiny 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 Eight Hon. Sir Thomas Clark, Bart., Lord 
 Provost of Edinburgh : — 
 
 " City Chambees, Edinburgh, 
 
 " February 23n^, 1888. 
 " Deae 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 CLAEK, 
 
 " 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 Eowland Hill, but thanks to the 
 untiring exertions of his son, Patrick Chalmers, of London,
 
 33 
 
 James Chalmers' claim to the honour has been inclispntal)ly 
 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 toAvnsman 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 Piowland 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 toAvn 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 Eeports, &c., of a low-priced 
 postal rate is due in a general sense to Kowland Hill." Mr, Vine 
 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 adlierents. 
 
 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 ? ' 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 Piowland 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 conjEined to the PhilateHc world. Historical Societies, 
 University and State Libraries, with members of the Press 
 having likewise admitted my claims. 
 
 THE UNITED STATES OF AMEPJCA. 
 
 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 
 The Pomeroy ,, ,, 
 
 The St. Louis ,, ,, 
 
 The Lansing ,, ,, 
 
 The Newton ,, ,, 
 
 The Jamestown ,, „ 
 
 The Charleston ,, ,, 
 
 The Black Hawk „ 
 The BeUe City „ 
 The Luther ,, ,, 
 
 The Chalmers ,, ,, 
 
 The Salem ,, ,, 
 
 The New Milford „ 
 The Detroit 
 
 The Minneapolis ,, ,, 
 
 The Eliode Island , , , , 
 
 The Denver Stamp Collector's 
 
 League ... 
 Clan Cameron, No. 7, O.S.C. 
 Grand Clan of PJiode Island, 
 
 O.S.C 
 
 Chicago, Illinois. 
 Toledo, Ohio. 
 St. Louis, Missouri. 
 Lansing, Michigan. 
 Newtonville, Massachusetts. 
 Jamestown, New York. 
 Charleston, South Carolina. 
 Eock Island, Illinois. 
 Kacine, Wisconsin. 
 Luther, Michigan. 
 Chicago, Illinois. 
 Salem, Massachusetts. 
 New Milford, Connecticut. 
 Detroit, Michigan. 
 Minneapolis, Minnesota. 
 Providence, Ehode Island. 
 
 Denver, Colorado. 
 Providence, Ehode Island. 
 
 Providence, Ehode 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
 
 86 
 
 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 suj^port 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, III., 
 
 " September Uth, 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, 111., 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 
 ' f mother — 
 
 " * 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, 
 
 " Yom*s very truly, 
 
 " S. B. BRADT, 
 
 " Secretary American Philatelic Astociation." 
 
 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. 
 ' Eowland 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 Eowland Hill, ' The Life of Sir Kowland 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 
 
 4220P"
 
 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 
 Keport, 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. Eowland 
 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. E. Hill did not get also his famous 
 suggestion of a bit of gummed paper from the same 
 source ? But Mr. Pearson Hill thinks the idea of sug- 
 gesting the use of stamps for letters in 1834 was imjjro- 
 bable or impracticable — let him say how it happened that 
 Whiting sugrjested it in 1830 ? But up to 1834 we have 
 not yet found any traces of the Adhesive Stamp.! Sir 
 Piowland 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, Eowland 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 Of&ce — 
 would not the same thing be as likely to happen if the 
 same ignorant person were going to send a newspaper ? 
 Trivial as the difi'erence between a detached un gummed 
 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 bis Adhesive 
 Stamp as is claimed, and the more so if he circulated a 
 printed plan with them in 183-1, 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 
 
 In this connection it should be borne in mind that Mr. Eowland Hill, in 
 the first edition of hi.s 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 ? (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 : — 
 
 " 320 s, 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 obstinacy. I speak entirely without preju- 
 dice, and hope your filial efforts will be ultimately crowned 
 with the fullest success. 
 
 " Very respectfully yours, 
 
 " HENEY 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 Societe 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 teatimony of George Hood and Mr. Wears.
 
 42 
 
 of the Society. The official journal of the Society, 
 Ij' Union dcs T'nnhropJnles, having a circulation of 5,000 
 copies monthly, editor M. Nales, 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 Timhrologie, official journal of the 
 Societe Fran^-aise de Timbrologie, published at Douai by 
 Ed. Fremy Fils, has issued a series of articles in recogni- 
 tion of James Chalmers. 
 
 VIENNA. 
 
 Here I have been specially fortunate in having been 
 favoured with the support of the keen Philatelist and able 
 writer, Lieut. -Col. Charles Von Giindel, 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. Von 
 Giindel has likewise contributed many articles in favour of 
 James Chalmers to the German Philatelic journals, giving 
 an account of the Penny Postal Eeform and the services of 
 Chalmers in having initiated the stamp which saved it. 
 Von Giindel has further contributed to the Wiener Brief- 
 marhen 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. 
 
 The Welt Post, conducted by Herr Sigmund Friedl, 
 proprietor of the extensive International Stamp Museum, 
 Unter-Dobling, Vienna, has afforded me warm support, and
 
 43 
 
 has published a biographical sketch of James Chalmers, 
 with portrait. 
 
 The Neues Wiener Taghlatt, in lately noticing the 
 remarkable museum of Herr Friedl at Unter-Dobling, 
 remarks : — 
 
 " Portraits, pamphlets, and similar matter, remind us 
 " that the Postage Stamp introduced in 1839 by Piowland 
 " 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 Dobling 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 Briefmarken- 
 Borse, and der Vereins der Briefmarken 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 Vcrkehrs 
 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 Eowland 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 Kowland 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 adojjted " 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 aiipeared in the original German in the Londoner 
 Zeitunj, circulating amongst the German community in 
 this countr}^ 
 
 LEIPZIG. 
 
 In this Philatelic stronghold my success has been 
 very marked. In the first place, the Ilhistrirtes 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 
 "'^Titten 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 Kowland 
 Hill. 
 
 Very important too is the accession of the learned 
 Dr. Moschkau, the friend and correspondent of Sir Eowland 
 Hill, to the ninks of those who recognise James Chalmers, 
 as may be read in the following extract from his journal, 
 the lUustrlrte Briefmarken 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 '? ' 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 E. 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 Giindel, descriptive of the Penny Postage 
 Eeform 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 fiir Briefmarken, Herr Albert Schindler, Secretary, 
 has formally recognised James Chalmers ; the Illustrirte 
 Frankfurter Briefmarken Zeitung Universum, editor H. J. 
 Dauth, has published throughout eight numbers a long 
 article having reference to the services of Chalmers. 
 
 DRESDEN. 
 
 The Deutsche Briefmarken 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 Pkilatelisten 
 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 Pldlatelischer Borscn-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 fur 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 Ci^, 
 I am under great obligations. 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 It is thus seen that, where attention has been given to 
 this matter of national 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. 
 
 PATEICK CHALMERS, F.U.Hlst.Soc, 
 
 Honorary Member of the Societe Internationale de Timhrologie, Paris, 
 and of Ten American Philatelic Societies. 
 
 Wimbledon, 
 
 Jamiary, 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, 1804). It was for his services, not 
 as having been an inventor, that the recompense was 
 given. 
 
 With respect to the Dundee Town Council Eesolution 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, Koyal Excbango, E.G.
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY 
 
 Los Angeles 
 This book is DUE on the last date stamped below. 
 
 MAR 4 1963 
 
 ^' is*- 
 
 fiBrDQMJJQ} 
 
 •APR 
 
 6197? 
 
 197a 
 
 Form L9-25m-8, '46(9852)444 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 
 AT
 
 UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
 
 AA 001 154 219 
 
 I 
 
 le * 
 
 PLEA^ DO NOT REMOVE 
 THIS BOOK CARDS 
 
 T^^LIBRARYQ^ 
 
 U— I 
 
 !_3 
 
 
 University Reseorch Library 
 
 I 1 
 
 »— • 
 
 2