So much for the Ceylon stamps, which we have discussed _in extenso_; but we have only to substitute in every case a reference to the first Canadian issues, particularly the 10d. which we started out with, to make the discussion apply with equal force in this case as in the other. The question is the same--the variations occur in the same way, the method of engraving and reproduction is the same, and the varieties in the paper are very similar. Major Evans, in a reply to Mr. Thornhill's paper,[45] states that he tried some experiments in wetting a thin, tough note paper, and found an expansion of three per cent., while by stretching it he increased the expansion to eight per cent, without difficulty! Yet the greatest variation in Mr. Thornhill's table was only four per cent. Major Evans then tried some of the 1863 Newfoundland stamps, which he judged were on paper of almost the same nature as that of the unwatermarked Ceylons of the same year, and they gave precisely similar results. [45] =Philatelic Record=, XI: 158. Mr. Frank C. Young, who was in the printing business, also tells of similar experiments which he carried still further.[46] Having provided some twenty-five sheets of paper of different qualities and thicknesses, each was cut into sixteen pieces. Selecting a common half tone cut which measured exactly 100 × 69 mm. and dampening the sheets of paper to different degrees of wetness I proceeded to impress the cut on each sheet, using a common roller proof press. After the printed sheets had been allowed to dry it became a matter of a good millimeter gauge and careful measurements of the printed impressions, not the paper. ... Hardly two sheets of the whole lot were identical in size, nor was I able to formulate any table as to how much or how little or which way of the paper shrinkage would occur. The only general rule which seemed to come out clearly was that thin paper would invariably shrink more than thick. In many of the sheets the difference was barely noticeable, while, on the other hand, such measurements as 96 × 68, 97 × 68-1/2, 99 × 67-1/2, 98 × 68 mm. were fairly common, and one sheet, after several very careful measurements, was undeniably 95-1/2 × 69 mm., thus showing a shrinkage of 4-1/2 per cent, one way and none at all the other. This was very thin laid linen paper. Contrary to all expectations, more than one impression measured more than either the cut or those printed on dry paper, one on thin wove paper being fully 101 mm. long. [46] =Canada Stamp Sheet=, IV: 173.