human
his claim. But Mr. Chalmers honestly abandoned nothing; while no impartial person will, upon consideration, for a moment attach any importance to just what
gpt
from his correspondence Mr. Pearson Hill has thought proper to produce. I again contend, as I have already maintained, that this correspondence was public, not private, property--that such should have remained at the Treasury, subject to the inspection of all concerned, in place of having been appropriated by Sir Rowland Hill as private, and thus so as to admit of only such portion being ultimately made known as may have suited himself. In this extract of 18th May, 1840, Mr. Chalmers, after stating he had delayed to reply until seeing the stamps in operation, writes with surprise at what Mr. Hill now states. Had he known or supposed that any one else, especially Mr. Hill himself, had proposed the adhesive stamp for the purpose of carrying out the scheme, he would not have troubled him at all. But having sent his plan to Mr. Wallace, M.P., and got his acknowledgment of 9th December, 1837, saying same would be laid before the Committee; also to Mr. Chalmers, M.P., and got his reply of 7th October, 1839, saying such had been laid before the Committee; also Mr. Hill's own letter of 3rd March, 1838, a copy of which he encloses--from _all_ these he was led to believe he had been first in the field. _Now_, not doubting Mr. Hill's assurance of 18th January, 1840, to the contrary (and in any case indisposed to contest a decision against which there was practically no appeal), he only regrets having through his ignorance put others as well as himself to any trouble in the matter;
human
Encyclopædia Britannica, afterwards noticed, and the result, it will be seen, is to lead to an entirely different conclusion.
gpt
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]
human
Why did not you tell me anything of this before? replies Mr. Chalmers in effect;--
gpt
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
human
says the Chancellor of the Exchequer as late as in July, 1839--a