human
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?
gpt
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.