Objections have been raised, both in and out of the press, to the effect that my claim comes "too late in the day." Such objection will, I believe, be found effectually met in my preface and former pamphlets, to the satisfaction of any impartial mind favouring me with a perusal.

With those who decline to read my statements, amongst whom may be named several writers of biography wrapt up in a blind worship of pre-conceived ideas, nothing, of course, can be done.

Others say, "Get an official recognition of your claim from the Post Office, then we will recognise you." This, again, is taking matters in the reverse order; if the Post Office is ever to recognise me, the pressure must come from outside, as the Post Office, under its late chief, Mr. Shaw Lefevre, simply declines to read or cause to be read for its information anything I may lay before it, as "not being deemed necessary." As I have nothing to ask from that quarter, having now gained a recognition promising to be sufficient for my purpose, I have no present intention of again troubling the Post Office on the subject. The feeling of esprit de corps, if nothing else, will probably render the Post Office the very last body to admit that any mistake by the late Sir Rowland Hill has been made.

But it may be said, "Did not the Post Office give Palmer, the organiser of the mail-coach system, in addition to his pay of £3,000 a year, £50,000?" And was not James Chalmers the successor in that line, sixty years ago, of Palmer? Yes—but then Mr. Palmer was a man of business, and had made his bargain with the Post Office before he took the mail-coach organisation in hand to be paid according to results; while, after all, the £50,000 was only a compromise, obtained, moreover, only after the repeated interference of Parliament. James Chalmers, recognised by the leading Scottish press of the period, and by his townsmen, never dreamt of asking a pecuniary reward. Again, was not the Post Office in 1852 most liberal with Archer, the inventor of the perforating machine—did they not give him £4,000 for the use of it? Yes—but then Mr. Archer had taken out a patent for his invention, and refused to sell the use of it for less, and it was not until after a fruitless negotiation of five years, ending in a Parliamentary Committee taking up the subject and insisting upon Mr. Archer being paid his moderate demand, that the Post Office and the Treasury gave in, and but for this Parliamentary pressure we might yet be cutting off our stamps with a pair of scissors to this day. In the same way, then, it has been asked, would not an infinitesimal royalty on the increasing millions of adhesive stamps have long ago placed that originator, him and his, amongst the wealthy of the land? Yes—but such was not the spirit in which James Chalmers trafficked and trifled with the public interests. What are his last words to Sir Rowland Hill on the subject? "The only satisfaction I have had in this, as well as in former suggestions, all original to me, is that these have been adopted, and have and are likely to prove beneficial to the public." This was the spirit in which the originator of the adhesive stamp ever tendered his services, public or private—the satisfaction of finding them useful and accepted. In the continued and ever-increasing utility of his stamp may be seen that silent yet irresistible tribute of the nation to its originator which James Chalmers would most have prized—only, let the hand which gave it be rightly known and recognised. For a time powerful influences to silence may prevail and popular delusion continue to hold its sway. But at some future day, if not now—in other lands if not in this—will the name of James Chalmers be yet recognised in connection with our constant friend and companion, the adhesive stamp, and the great boon of Penny Postage reform.