. 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:--

The date usually assigned to the appearance of the perforated
stamps is January, 1858. The London Society gave simply "1857,"
which is apparently set down merely because they have just quoted
the announcement from the Postmaster General's Report for that
year. Evans and Moens, in their catalogues, both name the date as
November, 1858. Unfortunately, no more authoritative statement has
been found, except that in Messrs. Corwin and King's article they
say "Mr. Hooper positively states that it took place in January,
1858." Mr. John R. Hooper was at that time (1890) connected with
the Canadian Post Office Department at Ottawa and took pains to
look up much information for the above-mentioned gentlemen. His
reasons for the "positive statement" are not given, and inasmuch as
he is quoted elsewhere as saying that "the records of the Post
Office De