The nineteenth volume of the above-named standard work, lately
published, contains an article headed "Postage Stamps," in which my late
father is fully recognised as having been the inventor of the adhesive
postage stamp. It is well known that the articles in this work are drawn
up by learned experts upon the respective subjects dealt with, having
access to and being in the habit of consulting official and historical
documents, and edited under a strong sense of responsibility to the high
standing of the work itself and to history; so that it is with
unspeakable satisfaction that I now find myself enabled to produce from
such a quarter an emphatic recognition of my father's services in
connection with the great boon of Penny Postage reform.
This article, so far as it deals with the origin of the adhesive stamp,
is as follows; but in considering same it should be borne in mind that
the article was drawn up _before_ the discovery of Mr. Chalmers' plan
amongst the papers of the late Sir Henry Cole, with the consequent
proofs given in the last chapter as to Mr. Chalmers having taken the
initiative in urging the adoption of this stamp, not only to Members of
the Select Committee of the House of Commons of 1837-38, but to Mr.
Rowland Hill himself, long before Mr. Hill, in his paper of 1839 (see
_ante_, page 21), gave in his adhesion to that plan in conjunction with
his own:--
"POSTAGE STAMPS.--For all practical purposes the history of postage
stamps begins in the United Kingdom, and with the great reform of its
postal system in 1839-40." After giving instances in which the
_impressed_ stamp had been in use, or had been suggested for postal
purposes in this country and elsewhere, the article proceeds:--"Finally,
and in its results most important of all, the 'adhesive stamp' was made,
experimentally, in his printing-office at Dundee, by Mr. James Chalmers,
in August, 1834.[11] These experimental stamps were printed from
ordinary type, and were made adhesive by a wash of gum. Their inventor
had already won local distinction in matters of postal reform by his
strenuous and successful efforts, made as early as in the year 1822, for
the acceleration of the Scottish mails from London. Those efforts
resulted in a saving of forty-eight hours on the double journey, and
were highly appreciated in Scotland. There is evidence that from 1822
onwards his attention was much directed towards postal questions, and
that he held correspondence with the postal reformers of his day both in
and out of Parliament. It is also plain that he was more intent upon
aiding public improvements than upon winning credit for them. He made
adhesive stamps in 1834, and showed them to his neighbours, but took no
step for publicly recommending their adoption by the Post Office until
long after such a recommendation had been published--although very
hesitatingly--by the author of the now famous pamphlet entitled 'Post
Office Reform.'[12] Mr. Hill brought the adhesive stamp under the notice
of the Commissioners of Post Office Inquiry on the 13th February, 1837.
Mr. Chalmers made no _public_ mention of his stamp of 1834 until
December, 1837."[13]
"Only a fortnight before his examination by the above-named
Commissioners Mr. Hill, in his letter to the late Lord Monteagle (then
Mr. Spring Rice, and Chancellor of the Exchequer), seems to have had no
thought of the _adhesive_ stamp. He recommends to the Treasury 'that
stamped covers and sheets of paper be supplied to the public from the
Stamp Office or Post Office ... and sold at such a price as to include
the postage.... Covers at various prices would be required for packets
of various weights. Each should have the weight it is entitled to carry
legibly printed with the stamp.... Should experience warrant the
Government in making the use of stamped covers universal,[14] most
important advantages would be secured. The Post Office would be relieved
altogether from the collection of the revenue.'[15]
"Then, upon suggestion, it would seem, of some possible difficulty that
might arise from the occasional bringing to a post-office by persons
unable to write, of unstamped letters, he added: 'Perhaps this
difficulty might be obviated by using a bit of paper just large enough
to bear the stamp, and covered at the back with a glutinous wash.' It is
a quite fair inference that this alternative had been suggested from
without.[16] In reviewing the subject, long afterwards, in his 'History
of Penny Postage,' Sir R. Hill says: 'The Post-Office opinions as to the
use of stamps for ... prepayment were on the whole favourable.'[17] In a
paper of 1839, entitled 'On the Collection of Postage by means of
Stamps,' the author continued to look upon 'stamped covers or envelopes
as the means which the public would most commonly employ; still
believing that the adhesive stamp would be reserved for exceptional
cases.'[18]
"Mulready's well-remembered allegorical cover came into use on 1st May,
1840, together with the first form of the stamped letter-paper, and the
adhesive labels. They all met at first, but only for a few days, with a
large sale. That of the first day yielded L2,500. 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.[19] It was only after many weeks, and after the introduction of
a series of mechanical improvements and new processes, due to the skill
and ingenuity in part of Mr. Edwin Hill of the Stamp Office, in part of
Mr. Perkins, an engraver, that the demand could be effectually
answered."
The above emphatic decision on the part of eminent men whom I have never
seen in favour of James Chalmers as having been the inventor of the
adhesive postage stamp, will give much satisfaction in those numerous
quarters from which I have already met with countenance and support.
After a full consideration of the respective statements put forward by
myself and by Mr. Pearson Hill on the subject, James Chalmers at length
obtains a recognition of which he has, as a rule, been only too long
deprived. And that the same man who invented this stamp also first
proposed its adoption has been already too clearly shown to require
repetition here. Surely Sir Rowland Hill's "paper of 1839," mentioned in
this article, was a trifle behindhand, when I have just proved from Sir
Henry Cole's papers that Mr. Chalmers had already laid his plan before
Mr. Hill himself in February, 1838. Did Mr. Hill tell us _that_ in his
paper of 1839? No. Did he tell us that he drew up this paper of 1839
under a pressing demand for the adhesive stamp from all quarters? No.
_Was it fair of Sir Rowland Hill to allow the readers of his "History of
Penny Postage," or of his paper of 1839, to conclude that this proposal
on his part of 1839 was put forward of his own initiation, and this with
Mr. Chalmers' plan and statement of February, 1838, already in his
possession?_ A plan which, in his reply to Mr. Chalmers of 3rd March
following, Mr. Hill had pooh-poohed! Moreover, in referring to this
"paper of 1839" in his "History of Penny Postage," vol. 1, page 346, Sir
Rowland Hill takes special credit to himself for having therein
recommended that the adhesive stamps "should be printed on sheets,"
putting same forward as a further idea of his own, and wholly ignoring
the fact of such having been a special feature, "for sale in sheets or
singly," in that plan of Mr. Chalmers _which lay before him_. (See
_ante_, page 24.) It is unfortunate that the writer of this article was
not at the time of writing in possession of the whole facts of the case,
when doubtless Mr. Hill's "paper of 1839" would have been characterised
as it deserved. Sir Rowland Hill's mode of obtaining credit for
"inventions" or proposals of other men will now be better understood.
If Mr. Hill alluded to this adhesive stamp (the admitted invention of
Mr. Chalmers in 1834) in February, 1837, while Mr. Chalmers urged its
adoption officially only in December, this, it will be seen, arose from
Mr. Hill having been privileged to give evidence on postal affairs
before the Commissioners of Inquiry. The proposal of 1834 with respect
to newspapers came to nothing; consequently there was no opening _then_
for Mr. Chalmers to send in his invention _officially_. In sending in
his plan to the Select Committee of the House of Commons in December,
1837, Mr. Chalmers was still a year and a half before the Penny Postage
Bill was even introduced into Parliament. Mr. Hill did not adopt same
until he issued his "paper of 1839." Mr. Hill's allusion to this stamp
in February, 1837, this "publishing" of the idea "very hesitatingly,"
had no practical effect whatever on the cause in hand; such only shows
that Mr. Hill had heard of the invention of 1834, without seeing its
value or proposing to adopt it. Moreover, Mr. Chalmers was publishing
his own invention, while Mr. Hill was only publishing an acquired idea,
"suggested from without." It is to the man who not only invented the
adhesive postage stamp, but who further first urged the adoption of same
in its entirety for the purpose of carrying out the Penny Postage
scheme, that the merit of this plan and of its results are due and will
be ascribed.
But if I was to stop here I should be told now, as I have been told
before on obtaining important recognitions, that the present decision
in my favour was again got upon mere _ex-parte_ statements--that had Mr.
Pearson Hill only been given the opportunity, a very different aspect
would have been put upon the matter. No choice, consequently, is left me
but to show that it is to Mr. Pearson Hill himself I am indebted for the
introduction which has led to my success, and without which
introduction, now reproduced, I should have remained in entire ignorance
as to any forthcoming article upon postal affairs, or have been most
courteously afforded an opportunity of stating my case:--
[_Copy._]
"ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA."
"50, BELSIZE PARK,
LONDON, N.W.,
_15th March, 1883_.
"GENTLEMEN,
"As you are now issuing a new edition of your 'Encyclopaedia
Britannica,' and as for years past a Mr. Patrick Chalmers has
persistently been making false and groundless charges against
my father, the late Sir Rowland Hill, I think it well to send
you the enclosed printed documents for your information, as it
is by no means improbable that he may strive to get you to
insert some untrue statement when you deal with the question of
the Post Office and Postal Reform.
"I need hardly say that I shall be happy at any time to submit
to you the original documents which are in my possession, which
disprove the claims put forward in behalf of Mr. James Chalmers
of Dundee, if you would desire to see them.
"Your statistical information about the Post Office, as given
in my copy of the Encyclopaedia (the eighth edition) is of
course now much behindhand. I dare say you have already on your
staff of contributors some gentleman well able to supply you
with fresh information; but should you be in want of any such
help, I feel sure that my cousin, Mr. Lewin Hill, head of the
statistical branch of the Secretary's office, General Post
Office, London, would gladly undertake the work if you desired
it.
"I am, Gentlemen,
"Your obedient servant,
"(Signed) PEARSON HILL.
"MESSRS. A. & C. BLACK,
Edinburgh."
It is thus manifest that, in having obtained this conclusive
recognition, I have taken no undue advantage of Mr. Pearson Hill, while
it will also be manifest that Mr. Pearson Hill's statements have found
acceptance in other quarters only because I have not been afforded an
equally impartial hearing as in the present case. His printed
documents, his statements, with all the advantage of being sole
possessor of the correspondence betwixt his late father and mine, have
been put forward, and yet the decision is against him.
Again, as respects the penny postage scheme itself, the proofs are
conclusive that _originality of conception_ formed no element whatever
in any one of the proposals of Sir Rowland Hill, preceded and heralded
as the penny postage reform had been by the labours of a whole band of
pioneers. Special reference may be made to the statements of the Rev.
Samuel Roberts, whose biography as the pioneer of uniform penny postal
reform is given in the _Times_ of 30th September last. The "Rowland Hill
Memorial Fund" Committee have themselves admitted, after what has been
laid before them, their sense of this non-originality by the change made
in the inscription upon the City statue of Sir Rowland Hill, thereby
confirming the accuracy of my statements. Moreover, a Treasury Minute of
11th March, 1864, distinctly states that uniform penny postage had been
urged upon the Government prior to the proposals of Sir Rowland Hill.
Thus, independent and conclusive testimony, as distinguished from the
mere family tradition with which many writers have hitherto been
content, leaves the question of plagiarism beyond dispute. As with the
stamp, so with the scheme, the ideas were _acquired, not original_.
Here, then, is the justification of my statements. So far from having
been "persistently making false and groundless charges," I have been
stating facts and elucidating the truth, and the aspersions of Mr.
Pearson Hill are thus scattered to the winds.
For Mr. Pearson Hill, however, every allowance will be made, though his
style of controversy will not be admired. That gentleman forgets that my
motives and objects are just as legitimate as his own, and should be met
in a legitimate way. This leads me to mention that some time ago Mr.
Samuel Morley, M.P. (at one period chairman of the "Sir Rowland Hill
Memorial Fund" Committee) was good enough to suggest that this
controversy should be decided by arbitration, and to which I agreed in
principle, subject to due preliminaries, but met with no response. At a
later period, in a letter already published, after pointing to my own
evidence, I invited Mr. Morley's good offices, seeing that Mr. Pearson
Hill declined to reply to or even to open any letter from me, to
ascertain from Mr. Hill if he could produce any evidence, or anything
beyond mere assumption, to the effect that the adhesive postage stamp
was at any period an invention on the part of Sir Rowland Hill, but I
was equally unsuccessful in obtaining any reply, there being, in fact,
nothing beyond assumption in the matter. Nowhere does Sir Rowland Hill
directly profess that this stamp was his invention.
My friends, both in and out of the press, who have been puzzled at the
silence of many of the London papers on this subject, will now be in a
position to form some conclusion as to the cause of this silence. What
has been sent to the Messrs. Black and to the Commissioners of City
Sewers, may have been sent to the London papers; indeed, I have been
given to understand has been generally circulated in these quarters,
already compromised in their expressed opinions, and so in no way
disposed to entertain fresh views.[20] My opponents, some of them in
high position, others themselves connected with the press, are desirous,
and naturally so, that public attention should not be drawn to my
statements.[21] In this way, crushed beneath the weight of a hitherto
great name, statements have been disregarded which, when read and
investigated as in the case of the "Encyclopaedia Britannica," have been
found substantiated.
I ask my supporters and others, therefore, to read and judge for
themselves. Whether the London papers, hitherto silent, seeing the
important recognition my claim has now met with, and the fresh and
conclusive evidence now disclosed from the papers of Sir Henry Cole,
will also now read and admit some discussion of this matter of public
interest in their columns, remains to be seen. In any case, an enduring
record of my father's share in the great postal reform of 1837-40 is
secured. A work of the highest standing, and a reference to which is the
first act of historical writers, has recorded James Chalmers as having
been the originator of that adhesive postage stamp which saved the
reformed scheme. Moreover, in lands beyond the sea, an interest is taken
in this subject wholly unknown here; individuals and learned societies
collect for their own information, and hand down for future perusal,
everything published on the great Penny Postage reform, and in some of
these quarters amazement is expressed at the single-hero-worship which
prevails in this country with respect to a subject which investigation
shows to have been the offspring of many minds, the result of the
labours of not a few zealous but unassuming men.
The services of Sir Rowland Hill, already cordially recognised in my
pamphlets, it would be superfluous again to dwell upon here. And if,
while cordially pointing out these great services, it has also fallen
to my lot to put a fresh and less favourable aspect upon their nature
and extent than hitherto understood, to bring to light his great failing
of assuming or allowing to be assumed as conceptions of his own what
were only acquired ideas, of omitting to notice what it was not
convenient to notice, let it be remembered that such has been forced
upon me as a necessity solely in the pursuit of what is now declared to
have been a just claim. At one period, indeed, I had withdrawn from the
whole matter, until recalled to it by Mr. Pearson Hill himself in a
published statement to which I was challenged to reply. My replies,
under ever-increasing and conclusive evidence, have now been put
forward. Should the result not have proved such as the best friends of
Sir Rowland Hill could have desired, upon his own son, and not upon me,
rests the responsibility. It is enough for me that my father's memory as
the originator and inventor of the adhesive postage stamp has been
successfully vindicated.