In commenting on the above it will save undue confusion if we state that the copy of the perforated 6d on laid paper to which Mr. King refers was proved to be a forgery as shown by the following extract from the _American Journal of Philately_ for 1891:-- There is no longer any mystery in regard to the origin of that _great rarity!_ the perforated 6 pence on laid paper, these stamps having been perforated for four or five years in the shop of Messrs. Benjamin, Sarpy & Co., Cullum street, London, who openly boast of having manufactured and sold those in the collection of the late Hon. T. K. Tapling and other prominent collectors. With regard to the varieties perforated 13 and 14--while these are undoubtedly rare, all the evidence strongly points to the fact that they are unofficial varieties, a statement, we believe, which has never been seriously combated by students of the early Canadian stamps. Thus, most of the "contrary" evidence adduced by Mr. King carries no weight with it at all. The most interesting point he raises is the fact that, though the 7-1/2d and 10d denominations were current at the same time as the 1/2d, 3d and 6d, these values were not perforated. So far as the 10d is concerned this seems all the more strange when it is considered that one supply of this value was certainly printed after September, 1857, the date of the Report mentioning the adoption of perforation. Mr. Howes has made diligent search through official records and carefully scanned itemised reports of more or less petty expenditures, and he was unable to find any reference whatsoever to a disbursement such as would have been necessary had the Government purchased a perforating machine or had the stamps perforated by some private concern. It is, therefore, unquestionable that the natural course--i. e., that the manufacturers should perforate the stamps--was the one followed. The real root cause of all the problems surrounding these perforated stamps seems to lie in the general acceptance of the assumption that they were issued in 1857 or early in 1858--an assumption that appears to be entirely devoid of the support of tangible facts when the matter is scrutinised thoroughly. Mr. Howes has delved into the subject with his usual thoroughness and his deductions are so well founded that we imagine no unbiased student will venture to do other than agree that his findings are fully borne out by the history of the stamps so far as we know it. We, therefore, make no apology for reproducing his arguments in full:--