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."[4] "The Mercantile
Committee," he states, "was formed chiefly by the exertions of Mr.
George Moffat in the spring of 1838. Mr. Ashurst conducted the
Parliamentary Inquiry, and upon myself, as Secretary, devolved the
business of communicating with the public." This Committee formed the
source and focus of the agitation which brought about the ultimate
enactment of uniform Penny Postage. Money was freely subscribed,
meetings were held, public bodies in the provinces were urged to
petition, Members of Parliament and Ministers were waited upon, and a
special paper advocating the scheme, termed the "Post Circular," was
issued and circulated gratis. Of these 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 Committee had already got it, but it is only now that
the particulars of the plan have been brought to light--and in this
"Collection of Postage Papers," Sir Henry Cole has indeed left a
valuable legacy to me, and to all prepared to recognise the true
originator of the adhesive postage stamp. These papers include a printed
statement of Mr. Chalmers' plan, dated "4 Castle Street, Dundee, 8th
February, 1838." and which runs as follows:--
"_Remarks on various modes proposed for franking letters, under
Mr. Rowland Hill's Plan of Post Office Reform._
"In suggesting any method of improvement, it is only reasonable
to expect that what are supposed to be its advantages over any
existing system, or in opposition to others that have been or
may be proposed, will be explicitly stated.
"Therefore, if Mr. Hill's plan of a uniform rate of postage,
and that all postages are to be paid by those sending letters
_before_ they are deposited in the respective post offices,
become the law of the land, I conceive that the most simple and
economical mode of carrying out such an arrangement would be by
_slips_ (postage stamps) prepared somewhat similar to the
specimens herewith shown.
"With this view, and in the hope that Mr. Hill's plan may soon
be carried into operation, I would suggest that sheets of
stamped slips should be prepared at the Stamp Office (on a
paper made expressly for the purpose) with a device on each for
a die or cut resembling that on newspapers; that the _sheets_
so printed or stamped should then be rubbed over with a strong
solution of gum or other adhesive substance, and (when
thoroughly dry) issued by the Stamp Office to town and country
distributors, to stationers and others, for sale in sheets or
singly, under the same laws and restrictions now applicable to
those selling bill or receipt stamps, so as to prevent, as far
as practicable, any fraud on the revenue.
"Merchants and others whose correspondence is extensive, could
purchase these slips in quantities, cut them singly, and affix
one to a letter by means of wetting the back of the slip with a
sponge or brush, just with as much facility as applying a
wafer."--Adding that in some cases, such as for circulars, the
stamp might answer both for stamp and wafer; a suggestion which
those who may recollect the mode of folding universally
practised before the days of envelopes, will appreciate. Mr.
Chalmers goes on--"Others, requiring only one or two slips at a
time, could purchase them along with sheets of paper at
stationers' shops, the _weight_ only regulating the rate of
postage in all cases, so as a stamp may be affixed according so
the scale determined on.
"Again, to prevent the possibility of these being used a
_second time_, it should be made imperative on postmasters to
put the post office town stamp (as represented in one of the
specimens), across the slip or postage stamp."
Mr. Chalmers then goes on to point out the advantages to be derived from
this plan, and to state objections to Mr. Hill's plan of impressed
stamped covers or envelopes, or stamp impressed upon the sheet of letter
paper itself. At that period envelopes--being scarcely known, and never
used, as involving double postage--were a hand-made article, heavy and
expensive; objections which have disappeared with the abolition of the
Excise duty on paper, and the use of machinery. But how true were Mr.
Chalmers' objections _then_, may be gathered from the fact, as recorded
by Sir Rowland Hill in his "Life," that the large supply provided of the
first postage envelope, the Mulready, had actually _to be destroyed_ as
wholly unsuitable and unsaleable, while the supply of adhesive stamps
was with difficulty brought up to the demand. The force and value of Mr.
Chalmers' objections to the stamp impressed upon the sheet itself, are
best exemplified by the fact that, though ultimately sanctioned by the
Treasury at the instance of Mr. Hill, such plan never came into use.
People bought their own paper from the stationers, and not from the
Stamp Office, and applied the adhesive stamp as the weight required. Mr.
Chalmers concludes, "taking all these disadvantages into consideration,
the use of stamped slips is certainly the most preferable system; and,
should others who take an interest in the proposed reform view the
matter in the same light as I do, it remains for them to petition
Parliament to have such carried into operation."
This statement of Mr. Chalmers is printed on part of an elongated sheet
of paper. On the half not occupied by the type are several specimens of
a suggested stamp, about an inch square, and with the words printed,
"General Postage--not exceeding half-an-ounce--One Penny." And the
same--"Not exceeding one ounce--Twopence." (It is only of late years
that a penny has franked one ounce in weight.) A space divides each
stamp for cutting off singly,[5] and the back of the sheet is gummed
over. One of the specimens is stamped across with the post-mark,
"Dundee, 10th February, 1838," to exemplify what Mr. Chalmers states
should be done to prevent the stamp being used a second time.
Here is a complete description of the principle of the adhesive stamp as
ultimately adopted by Mr. Hill at the Treasury by Minute of 26th
December, 1839, when he sent Mr. Cole to Messrs. Bacon & Petch, the
eminent engravers, to provide a die and contract for the supply of
stamps (see Mr. Bacon's evidence, page 52 of my former Pamphlet), a plan
in use to the present day.
This description, as now brought to light under the signature of Mr.
Chalmers himself, fully confirms the evidence with respect to the
invention in August, 1834, as given by his then _employes_ yet living,
W. Whitelaw and others. (See pages 34-39 of my former pamphlet.)
Here, then, was the plan of the future adhesive stamp, already laid
before Mr. Wallace and the House of Commons Committee, also sent to the
Secretary of the City of London Mercantile Committee, in printed form,
as to one of many, long before leave was asked, on 5th July, 1839, even
to introduce the Bill into Parliament. That Mr. Hill saw Mr. Cole's
copy, or had a special copy sent also to himself, is clear, because Mr.
Hill at once writes to Mr. Chalmers, under date 3rd March, 1838. What
Mr. Hill states in that letter we know not altogether, as Mr. Pearson
Hill has not thought proper to publish that letter, and my request to
him for a copy has not been complied with. (See page 64 of my former
pamphlet.) We know thus much, however, that Mr. Rowland Hill makes no
pretension _then_ to ever having suggested or approved of an adhesive
stamp, as already pointed out. Not until writing to Mr. Chalmers on the
18th January, 1840 (see page 62 of former pamphlet), before which
period, in obedience to the general demand, the adhesive stamp had at
length been adopted, did Mr. Hill, in reply to Mr. Chalmers' claim as
the originator, set up any counter-claim on his own part to any share in
the merit of the adhesive stamp. But, as with the scheme itself, so now
with the stamp which saved it, no second party was to be allowed to
divide with Mr. Hill the sole merit of this great reform. So the
far-fetched excuse, the mere afterthought, bred of the success which
had attended Mr. Chalmers' proposal to the Committee and to Mr. Cole, is
hit upon (page 54) to put Mr. Chalmers aside and to attach to himself
the whole merit of the adhesive stamp. Mr. Hill had said something about
a bit of gummed paper before the Commissioners of Post Office Inquiry in
February, 1837 (subsequent to publishing the first edition of his
pamphlet, in which nothing was said of an adhesive stamp), an idea Mr.
Hill had acquired in the interval, just as he had acquired all the
principles of the scheme itself, at second hand (page 60). On this
occasion Mr. Hill had supposed a difficulty which might occur to a
person who had to re-address a letter at a Post Office, but was unable
to write, and at the same time precluded from paying the penny in cash,
while the stamped wrapper would obliterate the address. In such an
exceptional case, and in order to secure "the universal adoption" of the
impressed stamp, a bit of paper just large enough to bear the stamp, and
covered at the back with a glutinous wash, might be wetted and applied.
Better, however, he goes on to say, allow the penny to be received in
cash, so that you have only the impressed stamp or the penny in payment,
and which penny was accepted up to the year 1855.[6] Up to the year
1855, consequently, no such exceptional case could have arisen, the
penny in cash being sufficient acceptance. This allusion to an adhesive
stamp is repeated by Mr. Hill in the second edition of his pamphlet.
Here then, in February, 1837, was a passing allusion made by Mr. Hill to
an adhesive stamp, showing that, subsequent to the issue of the first
edition of his pamphlet, he had acquired from some quarter the idea of
Mr. Chalmers' invention. February, 1837, was two years and a half after
the proved invention of the adhesive stamp by Mr. Chalmers, one of the
early postal reformers, one who "held correspondence with the postal
reformers of his day, both in and out of Parliament" ("Encyclopaedia
Britannica," see page 39 following), the correspondent, amongst others,
of Messrs. Knight & Co., who published for Mr. Hill. In a letter, then,
of 18th January, 1840, as we learn from Mr. Pearson Hill's account of
the matter, and from Mr. Chalmers' reply, Mr. Hill pointed out to Mr.
Chalmers that his claim could not be admitted, because he, Mr. Hill,
first proposed an adhesive stamp in February, 1837, the first official
proposal of his plan by Mr. Chalmers, his letter to Mr. Wallace and the
House of Commons Committee, having been only in December of the same
year. In answer to this extraordinary pretension on the part of Mr.
Hill, it is enough to point to Mr. Hill's letters to the
Postmaster-General, Lord Litchfield, in January, 1838, explaining and
enforcing his penny postage scheme then before the public--letters
published in the papers of the period, and in which not a word is said
of an adhesive stamp.[7] Or more than enough, to point to the speech of
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, already quoted (page 13), to prove
that, up to so late a date as the 5th July, 1839, Mr. Hill had _not_
proposed to adopt an adhesive stamp. The press, up to 30th August, 1839,
had heard of no such proposal on his part.[8]
This allusion to an adhesive stamp in February, 1837, was a mere passing
allusion as to what might be done in a supposed exceptional case which
could never have arisen so long as the penny in cash was accepted, and
was nothing more. For Mr. Hill to represent to Mr. Chalmers that he, Mr.
Hill, had proposed to adopt the adhesive stamp as a means of carrying
out his scheme in February, 1837, was to state what was _not the case_;
consequently any admission so gained from Mr. Chalmers was wholly
invalid. An extract from the reply of Mr. Chalmers, dated 18th May, 1840
(reproduced at page 62 of my former pamphlet), has been circulated by
Mr. Pearson Hill, in whose hands alone is the entire correspondence,
with the object of showing that Mr. Chalmers "honestly abandoned" his
claim. But Mr. Chalmers honestly abandoned nothing; while no impartial
person will, upon consideration, for a moment attach any importance to
just what "extract" from his correspondence Mr. Pearson Hill has thought
proper to produce. I again contend, as I have already maintained, that
this correspondence was public, not private, property--that such should
have remained at the Treasury, subject to the inspection of all
concerned, in place of having been appropriated by Sir Rowland Hill as
private, and thus so as to admit of only such portion being ultimately
made known as may have suited himself. In this extract of 18th May,
1840, Mr. Chalmers, after stating he had delayed to reply until seeing
the stamps in operation, writes with surprise at what Mr. Hill now
states. Had he known or supposed that any one else, especially Mr. Hill
himself, had proposed the adhesive stamp for the purpose of carrying out
the scheme, he would not have troubled him at all. But having sent his
plan to Mr. Wallace, M.P., and got his acknowledgment of 9th December,
1837, saying same would be laid before the Committee; also to Mr.
Chalmers, M.P., and got his reply of 7th October, 1839, saying such had
been laid before the Committee; also Mr. Hill's own letter of 3rd March,
1838, a copy of which he encloses--from _all_ these he was led to
believe he had been first in the field. _Now_, not doubting Mr. Hill's
assurance of 18th January, 1840, to the contrary (and in any case
indisposed to contest a decision against which there was practically no
appeal), he only regrets having through his ignorance put others as well
as himself to any trouble in the matter; "while the only satisfaction I
have had in this as well as in former suggestions--all original with
me--is that these have been adopted, and have been and are likely to
prove beneficial to the public."
Such is the letter or extract which, placed in the hands of every editor
in London, has led to my statements being here treated with comparative
neglect.[9] But let my statements equally with those of Mr. Pearson
Hill be read by any impartial writer, as in the case of the
"Encyclopaedia Britannica," afterwards noticed, and the result, it will
be seen, is to lead to an entirely different conclusion. "James Chalmers
was the inventor of the adhesive postage stamp--Mr. Pearson Hill has not
weakened the evidence to that effect." Here was honesty
certainly--simplicity indeed--on the side of Mr. Chalmers; but what
about the representation on the part of Mr. Hill? Was it the case that
he had proposed the adoption of the adhesive stamp in February, 1837, as
represented to Mr. Chalmers? The proofs to the contrary are conclusive.
Mr. Hill had made a passing allusion to an adhesive stamp in February,
1837, but _only_ a passing allusion. Nothing can be more clear than that
the adoption of the adhesive stamp for the purpose of carrying out his
scheme formed no part of the original proposals and intentions of Mr.
Hill. His representation to Mr. Chalmers was therefore exaggerated,
delusive, and misleading.[10] "Why did not you tell me anything of this
before?" replies Mr. Chalmers in effect;--"_there_ is a copy of your
letter of 3rd March, 1838, when I sent you my plan, in which letter of
yours no such pretensions were put forward. It is only now that I learn
for the first time that you had ever proposed or been in favour of an
adhesive stamp. Further, how is it that neither of these members of the
Committee before whom I laid my plan had ever heard of any such prior
proposal on your part? However, I am now only sorry at having troubled
you--I have at least the satisfaction of knowing that the public have
got my plan somehow."
"Why did you not tell me anything of this before?" Why indeed! Because
Mr. Hill _then_ had not contemplated an adhesive stamp, as has been
abundantly proved. An impressed stamped cover "was absolutely to be used
in all cases," says the Chancellor of the Exchequer as late as in July,
1839--a "power" was asked for this, and for this alone. (See _ante_,
page 14.) But much had happened in the interval betwixt Mr. Hill's two
letters to Mr. Chalmers. The stamp not accepted by Mr. Hill in 1838 had
become in 1840 the favourite of all opinions concerned, the adopted of
the Treasury. It had saved his scheme. Mr. Chalmers must now be put
aside, a matter which the entire contrast betwixt the dispositions of
the two men rendered only too easy, and so this afterthought, this
far-fetched pretext already noticed, was hit upon for the purpose.
At the same time Mr. Chalmers appears to have been too apathetic in the
matter, indifferent to personal considerations so long as the public
got his stamp from some quarter; but the absence of any desire for
personal advantage is a not unfrequent characteristic in those who have
done some public service.
But it is this neglect, or mere indifference, on the part of my father,
in not having made a better stand in 1840 with respect to a matter the
national and universal value of which no one could then appreciate or
foresee, that all the more calls upon me now, under a better
acquaintance with the facts and circumstances, to claim for his memory
that recognition to which he is clearly entitled, as having been "The
Originator and Inventor of the Adhesive Postage Stamp."