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 "Encyclopædia 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.