By Author [ A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z |  Other Symbols ]
  By Title [ A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z |  Other Symbols ]
  By Language
all Classics books content using ISYS

Download this book: [ ASCII ]

Look for this book on Amazon

We have new books nearly every day.
If you would like a news letter once a week or once a month
fill out this form and we will give you a summary of the books for that week or month by email.

Title: The British Journal of Photography, No. 613, Vol. XIX, February 2, 1872
Author: Various
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.
Copyright Status: Not copyrighted in the United States. If you live elsewhere check the laws of your country before downloading this ebook. See comments about copyright issues at end of book.

*** Start of this Doctrine Publishing Corporation Digital Book "The British Journal of Photography, No. 613, Vol. XIX, February 2, 1872" ***

This book is indexed by ISYS Web Indexing system to allow the reader find any word or number within the document.

                              THE BRITISH
                        JOURNAL OF PHOTOGRAPHY.

                  No. 613. VOL. XIX.—FEBRUARY 2, 1872.



HERR Schultz-Sellack has recently called attention to a remarkable
agreement in certain properties between chemically-clean glass surfaces
and photographic films coated with tannin or albumen. The particular
property in which they appear to agree is this—that an albumenised or
tannined surface, when breathed upon, takes the moisture evenly and
loses it gradually by evaporation, just like a clean glass plate.

This wonderful discovery (!) is announced in _Poggendorf’s Annalen_, and
a notice of it appears in the last _Journal of the Chemical Society_. If
Herr Schultz-Sellack had endeavoured to make himself acquainted with the
literature of photography he would scarcely have taken the trouble to
publish the statement of a fact well known to all who have much
experience in dry-plate work. A film protected by albumen, tannin, or
any other substance capable of absorbing moisture, resembles a
perfectly-clean glass plate in the mode of condensation of moisture and
the manner in which an aqueous film disappears from the surface: but
this property of a somewhat hygroscopic surface is one which might be
easily anticipated and has long been observed.

“Whether this hygroscopic property is beneficial or otherwise we are
scarcely in a position to decide, as wide differences of opinion exist
amongst practical men on this subject—on the one hand, Mr. M. Carey Lea
considering nearly complete desiccation of a dry plate conducive to
greater sensitiveness, and on the other, a large number of operators
declaring that a preservative capable of keeping the plate in a
semi-moist condition is most advantageous. Our own experience is in
favour of Mr. Lea’s position; but it is by no means improbable that some
of the so-called preservatives act best when moist, and others when the
film is fully dried. We shall content ourselves with citing a single
case in point.”

When a film of iodide of silver is washed free from extraneous matter,
and then covered with a solution of ferrocyanide of potassium, a very
sensitive layer is obtained while the film is moist, but if dried fully
the action of light upon the surface is very slow. Suppose, however,
that we add to the ferrocyanide solution, previous to its application to
the iodide film, a quantity of honey, a little glycerine, or a very
minute amount of nitrate of magnesia, a comparatively sensitive film is
obtained, which, though apparently dry, is still not completely so.
Here, then, is a remarkable case, parallel with the analogous action of
nitrate of silver moist and dry upon sensitive layers.


                           A SHELLAC VARNISH.

IN our last volume there appeared two very interesting notes—one by Mr.
G. Watmough Webster, F.C.S., and the other by Mr. A. R. Brown—on the
preparation of a shellac varnish of a peculiar kind, and easily miscible
with water. Though we have been long familiar with the mode of preparing
such a varnish—thanks to the kindness of a friend—we have lately gone
over the whole matter, and have been so interested that we now venture
to recall the matter to the consideration of our readers—this week
mentioning the most convenient mode of preparing the so-called varnish,
and reserving to another time an account of several applications of it
which appear to possess some interest.

The most rapid mode of obtaining the shellac varnish conveniently is
certainly that of Mr. Webster. This gentleman dissolves the resin in
spirit. We may remark that strong spirit gives the most satisfactory
results. The solution when now treated with a very small amount of the
ordinary liquid ammonia becomes immediately miscible with water. Care
must be taken, however, only to add sufficient ammonia to accomplish the
desired end, and this can be easily accomplished by testing a little of
the mixture by addition of water after every fresh dose of alkali. In
this way any unnecessary deepening of the colour is avoided, and a
useful liquid obtained.

We now turn to the second plan—that mentioned by Mr. Brown. It has been
long well known that _fused_ shellac dissolves much more easily in
alcohol than the resin which has not been melted. Mr. Brown adopts the
same plan in obtaining solution in ammonia. The resin is melted under a
layer of water, and, when perfectly fused, strong liquor of ammonia is
slowly poured in, the whole being carefully mixed. Gradually the resin
is taken up by the liquid, and a good, brown mixture obtained. If too
much ammonia be used here the colour is greatly deepened, owing to the
action of the alkali on a peculiar impurity in the resin.

Both the above processes work well; but, when small quantities have to
be prepared, Mr. Webster’s plan yields the best product, as a solution
of shellac in spirit can be obtained having a comparatively slight
colour, whereas the direct use of ammonia deepens the tint. Whichever
plan be used a good result can be arrived at, and a liquid obtained
capable of numerous and most useful applications, whether as a species
of varnish, a cement, or material for, in a sense, waterproofing paper.

                  *       *       *       *       *

CHROMATE of potash is used in dyeing in conjunction with dextrine, &c.,
for discharging the colour from various fabrics; it seems, however, that
a difficulty has been noted in using such a mixture, for it is found
that certain of the goods become discoloured by the chromate, and that
this undesired colour is not easily removed. Will our readers be
“surprised to hear” that the cause of this circumstance appears to have
been only just found out, if we may judge from a quotation in the
_Journal of the Chemical Society_? It has been discovered that it is
exposure to light during treatment which prevents the removal of the
offending material. This circumstance indicates how little attention is
in general paid to the phenomena attending the chemical action of light;
and, notwithstanding the fact that the remarkable property possessed by
the chromates of rendering insoluble gelatine, &c., has been utilised to
an extraordinary extent in the various pigment printing processes,
operative chemists seem to have only now become alive to the fact, and
able to apply the obvious remedy in using yellow glass for the rooms in
which the treatment of goods with the chromated dextrine is carried on.



HAVING read with much interest the various remarks which have appeared
in your columns of late on the blistering of albumenised surfaces, I
will, with your approbation, state my conviction of the cause.

First, let us examine the blisters and get at a clear notion of their
physical aspect.

All who have spoken on the subject appear to agree that the more highly
a paper is albumenised the more do we suffer from the annoyance. Well,
such a strong film gives us the opportunity to detach some of those
large blisters which have been formed by the coalescence of a number of
small blisters.

Proceeding after the manner of a microscopist in his dissection of
animal structure, we depress the sheet or photograph to the bottom of a
dish with water, and there introduce a sharp-pointed knife, whereupon
air escapes. Here we simply note this fact, and continue the dissection.
Having detached a vesicular film, and caught it on a small plate of
glass with the innermost side upwards, it will be found in almost every
experiment to have the surface fibre of the paper attached, thus showing
that it does not part from the surface of the paper as a film pure and
simple. We therefore dismiss from our minds the idea that the outer
surface only had been rendered insoluble, while the inner portion had
been dissolved; were this the case the blister would be _filled with the
albumen solution_.

In accordance with the law discovered by Graham—that a colloid solution,
such as albumen, cannot pass through a colloidal septum—the blisters
cannot be the _result of expansion_. Further: where a colloid septum is
wetted on both sides, liquids of the nature of water can diffuse
through, and therefore the blisters would be filled with water or
solution of crystalloid salt, such as hyposulphite of soda.

Now we must search deeper and wider for the cause. If I am not mistaken,
the blisters show themselves in greater force, in this country, from the
middle of May to the end of July. During this period the natural waters
are of the most favourable temperature for the absorption of air or
gases on which the aquatic plants feed; gases coming in contact with or
passing through the cells of the living plant are decomposed, and the
residual gas discharged into the water. As the water becomes lowered in
temperature it is unable to hold these absorbed gases, the minimum
temperature being from 32° to 40° Fah.

It is from this cause, in my opinion, that ice floats on the surface. As
water becomes lower in temperature minute bubbles of air are seen to
grow, as it were, on submerged objects; eventually the buoyancy
overcomes the force of adhesion and gravity, whereupon the air-beads
rise and become entangled amongst the water crystals—ice—and thus render
the ice lighter, bulk for bulk, than the water from which it has been

Some of my readers will, most likely, say—“What has this to do with the
blistering of albumen surfaces?” Well, let us see how these ideas,
derived from anterior observations, assist us in the matter.

There are many substances beside the growing tissue and cells having the
property of condensing gases in their pores, and often entering into
combination with such avidity that sufficient heat is liberated to
render the substance incandescent. Such is the case when hydrogen gas is
impinged on platinum in a spongy form. Fresh-burned charcoal is another
substance having the property of condensing many times its own volume of
gas, and by mutual attraction to the occluded air the external air
sticks as a film on the substance with considerable force—wets the
surface, if I may use the simile. Most substances possessing extremely
minute pores or interstices have this property, in a more or less
degree, for different kinds of gases; therefore we may fairly class the
fine texture of photographic paper amongst such bodies.

Grant that there is an analogy between the above-mentioned cases, then
the cause and effect become intelligible. First we have a hard-sized
paper with gases or air condensed in the interstices, and with the
external air adhering to it; in this condition it is coated with an
amorphous film of albumen. All appears to go on favourably until the
fixing process; here the temperature is reduced by the addition of water
contained in the prints. Now the absorbed air which the water contains
finding a nucleus on its permeating the body of the paper grows
immediately (as I pointed out when directing your attention to the
phenomena proceeding from the freezing of the water) in the
surface-fibre, thus it is likely that the blisters are formed is all
cases where air is enclosed. Hyposulphite of soda when entering into
solution reduces the temperature considerably—the air being then held
with so little force readily unites with a nucleus.

To counteract this natural effect it is obvious that means should be
taken to prevent the lowering of the temperature on the addition of
water to the hypo, solution, or on the transference of prints from the
hypo, into water containing absorbed air.

If this be unmanageable, the easiest thing to do is to dip the prints
into methylated alcohol, after leaving the toning bath. This treatment
removes the sizing from the paper, and the prints appear translucent
while wet. They should now be _well washed_; any disengaged air will
then be able to escape through the porous body of the paper. It has been
recommended to employ a large charcoal filter to absorb the air or
gases, but, like all filters, it will require cleaning out, and the
charcoal needs re-burning.

A word on filters in conclusion. The public purchase filters, and
imagine that they are to have pure water, or clarified solution, for
evermore without trouble; let them be undeceived, because when charcoal
becomes saturated it must be re-burned to restore its purifying

                                                      F. W. HART, F.C.S.



IN last week’s issue your idea of combining silver with a new base in
the collodio-bromide is so good that I think it just as well to mention
that the very notion of acetate of silver has been carried out by me a
dozen years ago, although in another form. I made a collodion for
wet-plate work in which an iodide was used with about an equal part of
acetate of soda; the collodion was accelerated to such a degree that my
exposure was reduced to about a fourth of what I would have given
without the acetate. The plate developed beautifully and free from fog.
Here, again, comes in the law of compensation; my thoroughbred collodion
was, at the end of a dozen hours, as slow as a team of oxen, as vitality
seemed to expend itself in one _coup d’état_, and the second day it was
capital——for cleaning plates.

A bromo-iodised collodion could not be stimulated with any such
exertion. Since practising the collodio-bromide process I have often
promised myself an experiment in this direction; but, somehow or other,
partly from my failure when bromide was in the collodion, the trial has
ended in the intention only.

Mr. Henry Cooper’s success with lactate of ammonia has inspired me with
a strong hope that collodio-bromide is to be the perfection of
“everything to be desired” in dry-plate work.

I am glad to learn that Col. Wortley has found out the conditions of
making a bromised collodion which arrives at maturity without passing
through that infantile existence which I have always regarded as
unfavourable to the best results. When I made the statement in your
Journal, it was from the united experience of all my collodio-bromide
acquaintances, which, if pinned together, would, in respect of mere
lapse of time, extend over the greater part of a century.

Although bromised collodion will give good results when freshly made,
the development of the image is almost a matter of physical force—more
ammonia, more silver, and such like—in order that the excellent prints
expected from your exertions may be superb indeed, in consequence of the
labour bestowed on the negative.

I do not condemn Col. Wortley’s mode of working, for I have lately seen
some of his negatives possessing the very highest qualities attainable
by any process; but, in support of my own recommendation that the
collodion should be left to ripen as a means of lightening our labours
in the dark room, I may state that for over two years I never used
silver as an intensifier, alkaline development giving me always the
right density, and occasionally too much. With an “infant” collodion
silver is the only “soothing syrup” that affords nourishment to the
sickly image.

                                                            J. W. GOUGH.



IN the multitude of counsellors there is said to be wisdom. This may be
true enough in the abstract, but in its special applications it may
sometimes lead to bewilderment, more particularly if the counsel of one
of the “multitude” be diametrically opposed to that of another

In looking over the pages of your useful Year-Book and ALMANAC I find
that Mr. Brooks has something to say in behalf of a process that has of
late received some rude words and rough treatment at the hands of the
Editors and others, the process to which I refer being the toning of
transparencies by means of mercury. As Mr. Brooks has issued a great
number of photo-crayons toned with this agent, it would appear that he
felt somewhat uneasy at the prospects of their fading; but he says—“I
now feel quite decided that, if the picture be protected by a good
varnish, fading will not ensue when a picture is thoroughly toned with

Let not Mr. Brooks nor any one else lay this flattering unction to his
soul. If varnish be the ægis which is trusted to ward off the
destructive effects of fading from the picture, I warn those interested
from putting any trust in it; for I have in my possession several of
such pictures varnished in the most faultless manner, with varnish of
unexceptionable quality, which have faded away into almost invisibility.
Now, as these transparencies have been prepared by myself as well as by
photographers of recognised high position, including the introducer of
the photo-crayon, I believe that I am warranted in assuming that every
requisite care has been taken both in the toning and the washing.

I am aware that it has been said that heat is an all-important element
in the destruction of a mercury-toned glass picture, and that from this
cause the lantern pictures are peculiarly liable to fade, whereas those
not subjected to heat will stand. I regret to be compelled to shatter
the prop that is raised from this basis to support the stability of the
photo-crayon; for in a series of two dozen mercury-toned lantern
pictures, purchased not much over two years ago, several which have
never been in the lantern or exposed to heat in any way have faded into

I think, therefore, from what I have said, the truth of which the
Editors will attest—seeing that I send them herewith several
specimens—there is only one lesson to be drawn, and it is this:—Above
all things, as you value your reputation, avoid the use of mercury for
toning either lantern transparencies or photo-crayon pictures _à la_

                                                            DON QUIXOTE.


                        NOTES ON PASSING EVENTS.

THE _Attractive Chemical Experiments for Youthful Readers_, by the
Editor of the ALMANAC, and which, I suppose, was “crowded out” of that
widely-circulated annual, forms a special kind of reading that will
prove attractive to old as well as youthful readers; for I believe I am
quite safe in affirming that chemical “tricks” are equally appreciated
by old and young. I recollect attending on one occasion an entertainment
of a very attractive nature, which may be described as follows:—The
lecturer, having placed on the table several glasses apparently quite
clean and empty, proceeded to fill them from an ordinary decanter full
of water; first, however, asking the audience to name the liquors they
preferred. Suffice it to say that by request the glasses were
respectively filled with what purported to be port, sherry, whisky, rum,
brandy, and so forth. When milk was asked for, the white fluid was
immediately produced; so with soda water, which fizzed and sparkled, and
with ginger beer, the froth of which stood stiff, without subsiding. One
gentleman, anathematising the temperance fluids, asked for a glass of
something hot and fiery; and, in response, a glass was filled and from
it issued flames of fire. As the clear glass decanter was filled with
water in the presence of the audience this trick was rendered more
surprising than if an opaque bottle had been employed, as is the custom
with the majority of “inexhaustible bottle” conjurers. As this is not
written for youthful readers, but for those who are everyday readers of
the Journal, I will pay a compliment to their chemical perspicuity and
assume that they know how these changes took place. However, if I hear
that I have assumed too much, I will next month give the explanation of
these small chemical marvels.

                  *       *       *       *       *

Who does not sympathise with a “Black-Country Foto.,” who appears to
think that there is no use in his sending portraits to the London
exhibition because he can’t afford to have his negatives worked upon to
the degree that seems requisite to permit of successful competition? If
the gossip that was indulged in by the visitors to the exhibition is to
be credited, the preparing of the portrait negatives of one amateur must
have been attended with no small cost; for it was asserted that he not
only had skilled professional aid, but that the negatives were handed
over to a retoucher to be dealt with regardless of expense. Where Dives
goes in for honours Lazarus has, under similar circumstances, but small
chances of success. When specimens from untouched negatives are
exhibited (not necessarily to the exclusion of prints after touching),
then will some grumbling cease.

                  *       *       *       *       *

The South London Photographic Society has at last quitted its old
quarters in the City of London College and has removed to a more central
situation. Between the convenience and elegance of Arundel Hall and the
City of London College there is no comparison; and the removal ought to
tell most beneficially upon the prospects of the society.

                  *       *       *       *       *

The communications already made to photographic societies this year
indicate activity. At the recent meeting of the London Photographic
Society Mr. Sawyer read a paper on _Photography in the Printing Press_,
in which he took occasion to discuss the novelty of Mr. Edwards’s
process, so far as its patentability was concerned. At the monthly
meeting of the South London Society there were two papers—one by Mr.
Dunmore, on _The Cause and Prevention of Blisters on Albumenised Paper_,
the other being by Mr. Croughton, _On Photographic_ versus _Literal
Truth_. In the former the cause of blistering was alleged to be the
imperfectly rendering soluble of the under surface of the albumen; in
the latter (the discussion on which is deferred till next meeting) the
essayist spoke of the exaggerations and distortions caused by using a
short-focus lens, and he condemned the pandering to human weakness
displayed by a large firm who owed its success to the amount of flattery
bestowed upon its customers by the inordinate use of retouching. At the
meeting of the Edinburgh Photographic Society a _resumé_ of the progress
of the past year was given by Dr. Nicol, who is of opinion that the
conversion of a distorting lens into a non-distorting one is an
improvement of doubtful value—an opinion in which the generality of
photographers will scarcely coincide. The Manchester Photographic
Society had a paper by Mr. Coote _On the Good Keeping Qualities of
Collodio-Albumen Plates between Exposure and Development_. It is an
unfortunate thing that many dry plates, after exposure, do not retain
the latent image; hence the necessity for developing as quickly as
possible after the camera has effected its portion of the work. As a
type of processes of this kind the tannin may be mentioned, whether this
substance be used as a preservative in the silver bath or the emulsion
methods. Mr. Coote developed successfully a collodio-albumen plate which
had been kept for more than two years after being exposed.


                        TRANSALPINE PHOTOGRAPHY.

I HAD been out of sorts all the spring; my business engagements had kept
me longer than usual in town, and prevented my getting a little
relaxation. It was not until the end of August I was able to put into
execution a long-contemplated visit to some relatives in Italy, and try
what change of air and a holiday would do for me.

So away we started—a party of four, my wife and two ladies under my
charge—and armed with Cook’s tickets we made our way _via_ Newhaven to
Paris, which we reached late at night. Next day, as our train for Italy
did not leave till the evening, we wandered about Paris, visiting the
sad scenes of Communistic destruction. Plenty of photographs in every
shop illustrative of the wretched devastation which was visible on all
sides. In a place like Paris there was of course all qualities, shapes,
and sizes; and, in addition to _souvenirs_ of the ruined public
buildings, there were to be bought a great variety purporting to be
faithful representations of the events of the siege, such as barricades,
executions, streets with dead bodies lying in them, and so forth. These,
it is needless to say, were fictitious, carefully-arranged tableaux, but
terribly natural, and greedily bought by tourists, the greater portion
of whom never for one moment questioned the reality of the

At night we started from the Lyons station for our long-through journey
over Mont Cenis, for the tunnel was not yet complete. By morning we were
travelling through the lovely scenery from Chambery to St. Michel, the
commencement of the Fell railway over the mountain. Here there is a
splendid field for the photographic artist, and, so far as I could
discover, hitherto unworked. As the railway wound its tortuous way
amidst the charming mountain scenery the landscape changed at every
turn—bridges, cottages, foliage of every variety, rivers, brooks, and
torrents coming into view every instant. Here a photographer might spend
weeks without exhausting the rich field for his camera.

At three o’clock St. Michel was reached, and after some inexplicable
delay—which, however, gave us the opportunity of making a comfortable
dinner—we changed from the ordinary line of railway to the special
narrow-gauge carriages on the Fell system for crossing the mountain. A
grand journey it is—zigzagging over the steep ascent, through scenery of
charming and varied character! This Fell system has been so often
described I shall forbear to say more about it, except that it
contrasted very favourably both in time and comfort with the old
diligence journey I had undergone some years before over the same route.

From our delay in starting we got to the other side of the mountain just
in time to miss the last train for Turin, which we had the satisfaction
to see leaving the station as we entered it. This involved our stopping
at Susa for the night; and, of all wretched, miserable places, commend
me to Susa. Nobody stops there who can get away. It was eleven at night,
and we had been travelling ever since 8.40 the previous evening. Telling
the porter to take us to the best hotel, away we trudged, only too glad
to take advantage of any resting-place for the night we could get—a
regular old-fashioned Italian hotel, the entry through the kitchen, and
the lower part of which, built round a courtyard, was devoted to the
horses, cows, and pigs—very picturesque, no doubt, but, as may be easily
imagined, anything but savoury in the way of scent.

The next morning we explored the town, which, though small, is the seat
of a bishopric. It contains plenty of quaint bits of buildings, which
would make good food for the camera, but not a photograph did I see for
sale. As soon as breakfast was over we set off for Milan, being anxious
to reach that city, as we expected some of our family to meet us there.
This involved our missing Turin, the scenery around which is well worth
the photographer’s attention, as I know of old, though the city itself
has no feature of interest to the artist. At Milan we met with plenty of
photographs of the Turin scenery, but, like the rest of the photographs
to be seen in the shops as _souvenirs_ of these places of a very
inferior character.

At Milan, though there are several good portraitists, the views of the
place and surroundings are of a very inferior quality. Shop after shop
we visited in the hope of getting a presentable view of the wondrous
cathedral, but not one could I succeed in obtaining which would be worth
having. In former days, no doubt, there was considerable difficulty in
managing to get to a sufficient distance for a good point of view, and
wide-angle lenses were not to be had. Now, however, that the Milan
Improvements Company have cleared a broad space in front, this
difficulty has been removed; but there seems no one who knows how to
take advantage of it. Swing backs appear to be unknown, and every view
is wretchedly distorted with converging perpendiculars—if such a phrase
be admissible—owing to the tilting of the camera.

After spending a few days at Milan we started to visit my eldest son,
resident in a small Lombard town off the main track of the railway,
where he, as a civil engineer, was superintending the construction of
some irrigation works. Here we stayed some days, seeing something of
genuine Italian peasant or farmer life, which the ordinary tourist sees
nothing of. A primitive life it is. The farmer or peasant grows his own
hemp or flax, and steeps it in one of the numerous streams that are led
through the place. It is then beaten or rubbed out with the hand, the
women specially joining in this labour, and afterwards spinning it with
the distaff. When spun it is woven in a primitive handloom into linen
for household use; or it is made into ropes by means equally primitive
in their arrangement. All these would form numerous interesting groups
and bits for the photographer, and tourists would gladly purchase if
they could get these _souvenirs_ of the peasant in his picturesque
costume engaged in these various occupations, standing at the door of
the tumble-down cottage, or driving his peculiar cart.

The country is one vast flat, and it is only the people and their
dwellings that afford any food for the photographer, but these are well
worth recording. To do this, however, the artist must leave the beaten
track, and he will need some enthusiasm for his work to make him put up
with the wretched accommodation he will meet with in his country tour.
We, indeed, were fortunate in not having to avail ourselves of this,
staying in very comfortable quarters with our relative. The heat was
excessive—so much so, that the navvies engaged on the canal construction
worked all but naked, wearing nothing but a shirt.

After a few days’ stay, much interested in all we saw, we rejoined the
railway and sped on our way to Arona, steamed along the shore of Lago
Maggiore to Pallanza, whence we travelled along the great Simplon route
to a village where another son resided, who is connected with the gold
mines of that district. Here we took up our abode, making excursions up
the Val Ansasca to the foot of Monte Rosa, and visiting the various
Italian lakes, passing from one place to another on their shores,
sometimes in rowing boats, sometimes in steamers, and sometimes by
carriage. In this way we passed through scenes of lake and mountain to
which no photographer that we could meet with had done justice. At every
place we stopped there were plenty of photographs offered to the
tourist, from the humble _carte-de-visite_ size to the more pretentious
12 by 10, but not one did I see that was worth having.

Landscape photography seems not to be understood by the Italians. They
seem to set the camera down anywhere, without any consideration for
picturesque effect—no judgment whatever exercised as to light and shade,
and the result is a hard black and white picture with a clean white
paper sky, wholly devoid of anything like artistic effect.

What would not a Wilson or an England effect here! I wish they who have
done so much for Scotland and Switzerland could be persuaded to cross
the Alps and give us the benefit of their labours in these charming
scenes. Surely it would answer their purpose to spend some months in
these parts. I can promise them, in addition to scenery of surpassing
beauty and variety, good hotels and not expensive, with the means of
locomotion easy and cheap. If the foregoing lines should induce them or
some other competent artists to pay a visit to these regions, I shall, I
hope, have done some service to photography and the diffusion of art.

                                        P. LE NEVE FOSTER, M.A., Cantab.



WHO that has read the graphic account of the great diversity of shapes
and characteristics of ears given by Mr. O. G. Rejlander in THE BRITISH
JOURNAL PHOTOGRAPHIC ALMANAC will not feel an interest in this topic?
Who, once more, that has read the evidence in the Tichborne trial, given
in our number for December 22, by Colonel Stuart Wortley, Mr. Savage,
and Mr. J. T. Taylor, will not feel some interest in thumbs? On both of
these topics the Attorney-General enlarged at much length in his speech
on Tuesday last.

Respecting the former subject—that of the ears—the Attorney-General
said:—I come now to another member of the body upon which we have had a
good deal of evidence. If the evidence you have got before you be true,
the claimant and Roger Tichborne cannot be the same. That is my argument
upon the question as to his ears. We have got unusually full and
distinct proof about the ears, and I’ll demonstrate to you that they
cannot be the same on the ears alone. Now, the ears are not so
unimportant as some people may be inclined to make out, although, I dare
say, my learned friend will by-and-by treat the ears with summary
contempt. First of all, M’Cann distinctly recognises him by his ears
amongst other things. Then we find that Mr. Baigent in his affidavit
said something upon the same subject:—“I then left with Mr. Holmes, and
accompanied him to the Swan Hotel. On entering the large room facing the
street I saw the plaintiff, whom I recognised instantly as the eldest
son of the late Sir James Doughty Tichborne, whom I formerly so well
knew. His eyes, the upper part of his head, and his ears were
unmistakable, and his voice had quite an effect upon me, and was alone
quite enough to convince me.” At this time, when Mr. Baigent made his
affidavit, he knew nothing about the Chili photographs. He probably knew
nothing about either of them; certainly not of the one in the case
produced here. These Chili daguerreotypes were in due time proved in the
case to be good and true likenesses of the real Roger Tichborne, and we
have Roger Tichborne’s own letter upon the subject describing how they
were taken. He sent one, as you may remember, to Lady Doughty, and one
to Sir James and Lady Tichborne. Finding that they were authentic and
good likenesses, and knowing this at the time when he came to be
examined (he himself having said in his affidavit that he recognised the
plaintiff by his ears), and finding that the daguerreotypes would not
suit the ears theory, Mr. Baigent, in his cross-examination, turns round
upon the daguerreotypes and tries to discredit and throw dirt upon them,
knowing full well, if they were to be depended upon, the ears of Roger
Tichborne and this man could not be the ears of the same persons. He is
acute enough to see that, and so when he is examined he turns round upon
the daguerreotypes. He says it was a badly-formed ear; but Sir William
Fergusson, on the other hand, said it was a large ear, but remarkably
handsome. He was shown the photograph at this point, and asked whether
the ear as it there appeared represented the ear of Roger Tichborne, and
he said he thought not. The cross-examination goes on to say:—“The
position in the photograph is not such as to give a good idea of the
ear. Is this daguerreotype a fair representation of Roger Tichborne as
you last saw him?—It is a very poor representation of him. I don’t speak
of it as a work of art, Mr. Baigent, but does it faithfully represent
the features, to the best of your recollection?—I do not consider it a
faithful or good portrait. Does it faithfully represent the
features?—No, it does not give you a faithful representation of the man
as he was. I cannot say, but it is something like him, but it is a very
poor thing. Is there any mistaking it?—Oh, it is over-solarised, burnt
out, and everything else. Is it a picture you could look at without
knowing it was intended for Sir Roger Tichborne?—You must look at it two
or three times before you can make it out. Does it represent the ear?—It
does not convey an idea of the ear of Roger Tichborne.” At this time Mr.
Baigent knew perfectly well what we were going to say about the ears. At
this stage of his cross-examination there was an adjournment, and when
he comes back into the box he is questioned further about the other
daguerreotype, and he then said neither of the pictures gave a
representation of Roger Tichborne’s ears. He throws dirt, you see, on
the daguerreotypes, but he asserts they show the same sort of ear that
the claimant now has. But my learned friend called Colonel Stuart
Wortley. We are told he is a great authority in matters of photographs.
It is no part of my duty to dispute that. I am not aware of it; but I
have no doubt he knows more about photographs than Mr. Baigent. But
Colonel Wortley very likely did not know of this point about the ears.
The Lord Chief Justice, in the course of the cross-examination, said:—“I
should call your attention to this: that it has been suggested that the
lobe of the ear might have extended below the junction, and that a
different effect is produced by some defect of the light. Do you find
indications of that?” Colonel Wortley, in reply to this question, said
he did not think there was any such indication. We have, gentlemen, got
thus far. The ear is a very important question. We have got Mr. Baigent
first of all making importance of it in his affidavit, and we have got
other witnesses who do the same. We have got it that Mr. Baigent at that
time did not know of the existence of these Chili photographs, and that
when he did know about them he said two things—first, that they were
very bad, and not to be depended upon as likenesses; and next, that they
showed the dependent ear of the claimant. Colonel Stuart Wortley is
called on the same side as an authority, and he says they are to be
depended upon, and do not show that upon which Mr. Baigent insists. That
is so far as we have got in the great ear question, and by your leave we
will here break off for our usual adjournment. [The adjournment here
took place accordingly.] Let me say, gentlemen, I quite feel—and I am
afraid I may have shown that I feel—the tedium of this part of the case;
but if I am right it is the most important part of the case of all. This
ought to be conclusive, because you may argue about mind and memory, but
if the body be not the same there is practically an end of the case.
Pray don’t suppose I suggest that you are not the kindest of listeners.
I do nothing of the kind. I am only apologising for appearing to take up
time in apparently small matters, but if they are really made out to
your satisfaction they are of enormous importance in the consideration
of the case. If I show that the ears of the plaintiff cannot be those of
the real Roger; if I afterwards prove, as I hope to be able to do by
other features, an utter physical irreconcilability between the two
persons, you will find that there is an end of the claimant’s case.
Well, as I have pointed out, Mr. Baigent, for reasons that I then
explained, attempted to throw discredit on the daguerreotypes, though
Colonel Wortley has distinctly accredited them. When that failed the
next thing the plaintiff’s advisers tried to do was to show that his
ears had, in point of fact, altered. According to their present shape it
must be admitted that they are not like the ears of Roger in 1854. The
daguerreotypes prove this much, so they had to fall back on the theory
of the ears having altered. The persons examined to sustain this point
were Dr. Sutherland, Mr. Canton, and Sir William Fergusson. I shall
refer to Mr. Canton’s evidence first. He is asked whether he noticed the
ears at all, and he answered that he did. Both had this peculiarity—that
they were unusually large and the lobes were pendent. The rest of the
ears was well formed, and then—“Does any portion of the ear change with
age?—The skin covering the cartilage becomes more firmly adherent, and
the lobe of the ear in those who get lean in old age becomes less.
Supposing a person gradually increased in size, what would be the
result?—The lobe of the ear would be increased also if the increased
size of the ear was due to fat. Would the ear become more pendent?—As it
would become changed with fat the ear would increase in all directions
except above. A Juror: Does the ear lay in fat in common with other
parts of the body?—As fat increases in other parts of the body, so it
would be in the lobes of the ear. In this case I saw fat cheeks, and
expected to see fat lobes.” Mr. Canton does not say whether the lobes
would change in character, or whether they would become adherent or
non-adherent; but he says that on that part of the lobe which is not
cartilaginous fat would grow, as I suppose it would. I did not
cross-examine this witness, because he did not say anything it was
necessary to challenge, and because I had got all I wanted from Sir
William Fergusson. He, therefore, left the matter very much where one’s
sense would leave it, and does not come to the point at all.

The Judge—He says his attention was only called to the claimant’s ear
the day before.

The Attorney-General (assenting)—But Sir William Fergusson, examined and
cross-examined, goes much further in the matter:—“Is there anything you
recollect as a peculiarity?—Very recently, about the lobes of the ear.
What was that peculiarity?—The lobe was much larger than is the case
with most people. The Lord Chief Justice: In what way larger?—Witness:
It was broader and softer to the touch than is common. The
Attorney-General: Do they depend much or adhere?—They depend so much
that they strike one at once. When you say depend, what do you
mean?—They hang down. Below the junction with the side of the face, do
you mean?—Yes, they hang down. Are they free?—Yes, they are free. They
are big lobes, handsome, and very conspicuous. They are, however, big,
and many people would object to them on that account. Was there anything
to show whether they were in a natural or unnatural condition?—Decidedly
in a natural condition. Do you think any pulling would have produced the
condition in which you saw the lobes of the plaintiff’s ears?—No; I
think not.” Then in cross-examination by the jury, the witness was asked
whether he thought a great increase in the bulk of the body generally
would have affected the size of the ears, and what was Sir Wm.
Fergusson’s answer? He said, No; and that it was a rare thing for fat to
be deposited on the ear—in fact, never; but we sometimes saw tumours in
that locality, which he, however, explained were very different things
from fat—so distinct, in fact, that it was impossible to mistake the one
for the other. Sir William Fergusson, therefore, differs from Mr. Canton
about the matter of fat on the ears. Mr. Canton says that fat is
deposited on the ear where it is not cartilaginous and does not adhere
to the cheek or side of the face; but Sir William Fergusson says, “No,
it is a rare thing for fat to be deposited on the ear; in fact, never, I
may say.” In effect, Sir W. Fergusson says there is no appearance of any
trick or pulling the ears having been practised, and therefore the fair
conclusion is that what he saw in 1871 he would have seen on the same
ear in 1854, and there I must leave it. Dr. Sutherland is then called
and examined about the ears:—“Was your attention called to his
ears?—Yes. When?—On the 9th of November. Would you agree with Sir W.
Fergusson that the plaintiff’s ears are large, well-formed and unusually
pendent?—Yes. Are they what you would call decidedly and distinctly
detached ears?—Decidedly. Are there some ears which are perfectly
lobeless?—No doubt. And others in which the lobe is detached?—Yes. Do
you agree with Sir W. Fergusson that if a man has a lobeless ear it
never becomes pendent?—I should think it would not. And anatomically you
would say that if a man has the one kind of ear it never becomes the
other?—Decidedly.” You thus perceive that Dr. Sutherland carries the
matter a step further, and he says that there are for general purposes
two classes of ears. His opinion is, he says, and also his experience,
that an ear once attached never becomes detached and dependent. So far
the scientific evidence. There are two medical gentlemen on our side—Mr.
Seymour Haden, and Mr. Bernard Holt—who, as you will remember, saw the
plaintiff when the rest of us saw him, and they will tell you that Dr.
Sutherland is perfectly right in saying that a dependent ear never does
come out of an attached one, and that Sir William Fergusson is right in
saying that substantially the ear remains the same all through life.
Take the Chili daguerreotypes and compare them with the photographs of
the claimant. In the Chili daguerreotypes of the real Roger Tichborne,
which Col. Wortley says are for this purpose to be depended upon, you
will find that the ears are distinctly adhering, but in all the
photographs of the claimant where the ear is shown the ear is distinctly
not adhering to the face. Take the uncontradicted evidence that the one
class of ear never becomes the other class of ear, and draw for
yourselves the conclusion. The ears of the real Roger were of the one
kind, the ears of the claimant are of the other, and as it is not
contradicted or disputed that the ears never change, it is plain that
they are not the ears of the same man. Therefore, the two sets of ears
belong to two different persons, and that is my case. Therefore,
gentlemen, if you have no objection, I should like you to pause for a
moment, and look at the photographs—first, the Chili photograph of Roger
Tichborne, and then one of the photographs taken of the claimant since
his return from Australia.

The Foreman—If you wish it, Mr. Attorney-General, of course we will do
so with the greatest pleasure; but the point is so thoroughly before
every one of us that we really do not think it is necessary. If you
remember, the point was raised by us in the first instance, and it is
most clearly before us now.

The Attorney-General—Very well, gentlemen. That is so, and I am very
glad you see the point upon which I insist. There will therefore be no
need for me to spend any more time about it, for we have plenty to do
yet. So much, then, for the ears. The next point we come to is the hands
in general. I have little to say about them, but then we come to a most
important part of the question, one which my learned friend with great
solemnity said more than once he thought was of the greatest
importance—that is the question of the thumb. And I ask your attention
to the way in which this has arisen, and the charge made in connection
with it. It is the thumb of the left hand. You saw the plaintiff in the
box. You saw him for a terribly long time—for many days. Did you ever
see his left hand ungloved? Now, I ask you that question. Had he not
always got a glove on his left hand? Did you ever see his left thumb?
That the habit of the man was to sit with a glove on the left hand I am
quite certain, and I believe he always did it. The case went on
something like seventy days before we heard a word about the thumb, and
the first we heard about it was in the re-examination of Mr. Baigent. It
is remarkable the terms in which he introduced it, and the terms in
which the charge is made, and the persons against whom it was made.
“Attend to me carefully,” says Mr. Serjeant Ballantine; “were the
photographs shown taken from the daguerreotype?” “Yes, they were.” “Has
the daguerreotype been in any way altered since it was taken?” and he
answers, “Yes, certainly; it has been tampered with.” Then he is asked,
“You say it has been tampered with; what has been done with it?” and his
reply was, “The thumb and the greater part of the hand has been smudged
out.” Now that is the first time in the case that anything was said
about the thumb. The Lord Chief Justice then asked by whom the
photograph was produced, when Mr. Serjeant Ballantine said, “You may
take it that it has throughout been in the possession of the
defendants.” The Lord Chief Justice remarked, “I always thought it was
produced by the Court of Chancery.” The witness, however, said, “No, it
was produced by Mr. Bowker.” The Lord Chief Justice then asked whether
it was meant to be suggested that it had been altered since the
adjournment, and my learned friend assents to that. Then Mr. Baigent, in
answer to a question, says—“My belief is that it was not in the same
state as it is now some few days after the first trial commenced last
May”—so that there is no doubt that my learned friend and Mr. Baigent
both meant to impute that this daguerreotype had been tampered with by
the defendants since the trial began in May. Mr. Baigent further says—“I
don’t pledge my oath to that. That is my impression. I did not notice
it. I certainly should have noticed it I believe.” Then I say, “As I
understood it, it may be taken as a fact that it comes from Mr. Bowker’s
possession, and it should also be taken as a fact that from Mr. Bowker
it was handed in, and has been in the possession of the Court ever
since.” Then Mr. Serjeant Ballantine says—“_De die in diem_ it has been
in the possession of Mr. Bowker ever since.” Do not let us have any
mistake about it. I don’t think my learned friend can say that I have
not dealt fairly by him in calling your attention to this matter.
Baigent makes a charge against the attorney in the cause of having
tampered with this daguerreotype since the 6th of May. If English words
mean anything, they mean that my learned friend says—“There have been
suggestions against every human being in the case produced on the part
of the plaintiff.” I do not know what he means by that. “I shall not
shrink from any imputation.” Nobody has suggested it of my learned
friend. Certainly not. “If there is any ground for a charge I will not
hesitate to make it,” and then I say, with perhaps a superfluous
interposition, “Of that I am quite certain.” Now, what is our answer? In
the first place, that Mr. Bowker had himself multiplied copies from the
unaltered daguerreotype—that he had himself given the unaltered
daguerreotype[1] to Mr. Savage, at Winchester, who had multiplied
photographs from it by scores and fifties, and that in every one of the
positives from his negatives the thumb or hand remained exactly as it
was in the daguerreotype from which it was originally struck off long
before the beginning of the trial. Our first answer then was this:—“You
accuse Mr. Bowker of having tampered with an original, the original
state of which he had secured beyond all possibility of doubt by himself
multiplying copies of it. No man in his senses could have been such a
fool as to mutilate a thing the different state of which he had already
put beyond all doubt and question.” Our second answer was:—“That, from
the time of the trial, or, at all events, from the time of the
adjournment to the time it was said to be tampered with, Mr. Bowker had
no control over it. There were two boxes, of which Mr. Bowker had the
key of the small one, containing the daguerreotype, but that small box
was enclosed in a larger one, of which Mr. Dobinson had another and a
different key, and neither of these gentlemen could get at the
daguerreotype without the consent of the other. The large box was never
opened from the time it was locked up to the time it was produced here
again, and therefore it is practically impossible that Mr. Bowker could
have had anything to do with mutilating or interfering with it.” Our
answer, then, was complete and overwhelming—we did not know what was the
cause of the disappearance of the thumb. That it was not in the same
state in which it was when photographs were taken from it appeared by
the production of the daguerreotypes and photographs; but when the
change took place and how it took place we had not the least idea. We
made inquiries and nobody could tell us. “We were not in full force at
that time, because, as my learned friend Mr. Jeune had gone, on the part
of the plaintiff, to Australia, so Mr. Purcell had also gone, on the
part of the defendant, to Australia. About the time that the sittings
broke up, Mr. Purcell returned from Australia, and among the
consultations and discussions which ensued this matter of the
daguerreotype turned up. “Oh!” says Mr. Purcell, “I am the person that
did that, and they might have known it well.” What happened was this. He
went out to execute the Chili Commission, and as one of the things by
which to test the Chili witnesses, he took out this very daguerreotype
of the real Roger for the purpose of asking them if it was like the man
they recollected, and who had been writing to them, and they all of them
said they did not recognise it. As part of his luggage he put it in a
box that was too big for it. In fact it was not properly secured. It was
fixed at the back of the frame by little bits of metal, which were
attached to and formed part of the frame, and were bent down—little
projecting saw-teeth, which were bent down over the daguerreotype, and
held it tightly in the frame. This daguerreotype was placed in a little
box, not properly secured, and the little box was in a portion of the
luggage; and on the journey from England to Valparaiso, or from
Valparaiso to Melipilla, the daguerreotype got out of its case. It got
knocked about, and one or two of these little teeth becoming unfastened
the daguerreotype was unfastened.[2] When Mr. Purcell arrived at
Melipilla he took it out and found it in this state. He then at once
went to a photographer and had it refastened down. It was used in the
Chili Commission in its present state, and could not have been injured
in the Commission. Mr. Purcell will tell you how it took place, and this
daguerreotype has never been used for the purposes of photography since
its return from Chili. The piece of paper at the back, Mr. Purcell will
tell you, was pasted on by himself, and here are the signatures of the
Chili Commissioners on the paper as written at Chili, and since then the
daguerreotype could not possibly have been interfered with. Therefore
there can be no mystery about it, and yet in the face of what I
mentioned to you before, that Mr. Bowker had himself photographed the
uninjured daguerreotype by scores, and in the face of the other facts of
the case, my learned friend, Mr. Sergeant Ballantine, allowed his case
to come to an end with that offensive imputation against the advisers of
the defendants, and never explained or withdrew it. Well, is the thumb
in the photograph like the plaintiff’s thumb? Nobody ever said it was
from the beginning to the end of the case but Mr. Baigent.[3] This point
is due entirely to the ingenuity of that gentleman. His attention
appears to have been drawn to the condition of the daguerreotype early
in May. No one’s attention was drawn to the thumb till late in November,
and the first word that is said about it is said by Mr. Baigent in
re-examination. Now, you know that in May, just about the time that the
attention, as I have said, of Mr. Baigent appears, by his
examination-in-chief, to have been drawn to the photograph, I was asking
for the inspection of the plaintiff’s person for any marks on him upon
which it was intended hereafter to place reliance. My learned friend
objected, for the reasons you know, to that proposal. In his own
interests he refused to allow that examination to take place, and he
must not now complain at the remarks which all the circumstances give
rise to in my mind. I don’t for a moment say—and when I say a thing I
trust you have learned I mean it—I don’t for a moment say that my
learned friend had any reason to think there was any peculiarity about
the thumb when he refused inspection. But somebody knew, and that
somebody instructed my learned friend to refuse the examination. I point
out to you, once more, that no human being ever said a word about the
thumb till Mr. Baigent mentioned it. Neither Baigent, nor Hopkins, nor
the plaintiff himself in his letter to his mother in which he mentioned
the brown mark ever suggested the existence of a peculiarity in the
thumb. My learned friend hears of it for the first time only a few days
before the end of his case, on the 12th of December. That is a
remarkable thing. My learned friend more than once or twice says it is
highly important. Sir William Fergusson, when he first examined the
plaintiff, did not notice any peculiarity in the thumb, but on the day
he appeared in the box he said he made an examination of the thumb of
the left hand. He noticed there was a peculiarity in the thumb. It was
peculiarly pointed at the extremity. The fleshy part projected beyond
the nail more than usual, and more than on the other hand. The nail
seemed to be perfectly developed, and it struck him that the plaintiff
had been in the habit of biting his nails, which he afterwards learned
was the case. Being shown the photograph, he said it was an exact
representation of the claimant. Then in cross-examination he says—“I
don’t think such a thumb could be made by manipulation. I don’t think
any pressure would produce it. The nail is smaller on this thumb than on
the other. The whole thumb is smaller at the point. The condition, I
don’t think, would be formed or made more marked by biting the nails. I
never had my attention called to it until yesterday morning.”

Footnote 1:

  The Attorney-General is at fault here; for Mr. Savage, as reported in
  our issue of the 22nd December, page 603, distinctly said that his
  negative was made from a _print_ that had previously been made from
  the daguerreotype, and not from the daguerreotype itself.—EDS.

Footnote 2:

  Photographers will smile at the idea of the serrated edge of a brass
  mount which has been clamped over the _back_ of a plate getting inside
  of the picture, between the glass and the surface.—EDS.

Footnote 3:

  According to the report of the case that appeared in our pages the
  photographic witnesses examined in the case have also asserted

The Lord Chief Justice—I don’t understand that Sir W. Fergusson’s
evidence was so much directed to the flesh protruding beyond the nail as
to the peculiarity in the shape of the thumb. That was the peculiarity
which he meant could not be produced.

The Attorney-General—It comes to this: Sir William Fergusson does not
think that biting would do it, nor that it could be done artificially.
But the plaintiff had not been examined by our medical men then, and I
was not in a condition to cross-examine Sir W. Fergusson. Mr. Canton is
also examined, and states that his attention was called to the thumb for
the first time the day before. There was this peculiarity about it—that
the nail was attached to the part beneath to a less extent than it was
in the case of the nail on the other thumb. On being asked if such a
condition of the left thumb could have been produced by any known
process which a man could exercise on himself, Mr. Canton said that the
only thing he could conceive would be a person continually biting his
nails. It really comes to this, that if the man had let his nail alone,
the difference between the two nails would be greatly less. That is the
evidence of a witness for the plaintiff. He is of opinion that the nail
has been subjected to treatment for the purpose of producing a
difference, and that if it had not been there would have been much less
difference. Now, what does that show? That the nail has been
manipulated, prepared, gone through a process of concoction, and not a
word about it was mentioned to any human being, however closely
connected or intimate with the plaintiff, until the 13th December, when
the thumb had been put in a proper state for examination. When the
doctors examined the plaintiff in November, their attention was not
called to the thumb. I suppose it was not then in a state to be
examined; but in December they were suddenly called out of court, and in
some back room of this Sessions-house this thumb was shown to them. Then
this astounding charge was made of our having tampered with the
daguerreotype for the purpose of destroying evidence which we ourselves
had actually preserved. As far as I understand the evidence of the
medical men it will be this. They will express a clear and confident
opinion, from a scientific examination of the thumb, that it is a
non-natural thumb, by which I mean that it presents appearances which
show that it has not been allowed to take its natural course, but has
been manipulated and treated by the plaintiff or some one in his
interest—manufactured, concocted, and got up—for the purpose of this
examination, and now we can understand why the glove was always kept on
the left hand, and why not a single syllable was said about it until it
was ready for inspection. You can also understand why the secret was
only committed to Baigent. It was not even communicated to Miss Braine.
My learned friend, Mr. Serjeant Ballantine, said it was an important
matter, and indeed it is. Mr. Baigent himself did not venture to say a
word about the thumb until the pressure of cross-examination was
removed; he reserved it for his re-examination, when the mouth of my
learned friend, Mr. Hawkins, was closed. Yet they searched all over the
man—they drew attention to wretched little scratches on his ankles,
which you could hardly see, and to a little white mark on the middle of
his eyelid, which I confess I could not see—these they hunted out for
demonstration; but this patent thing, which he could not put his hand on
a piece of paper to steady it while he was writing, he could not wash
his hands or use a knife and fork at dinner without exhibiting—this most
staring and glaring peculiarity was never mentioned to any human being
until the 13th December. In any other but the Tichborne case what would
have been thought of this? Take a railway accident case. What would a
jury say if alleged injury were brought before them at the last hour
which neither the plaintiff nor his counsel had ever said a word about
before? I know what would have been said of myself and Mr. Hawkins if we
had been counsel for the plaintiff. But because this is the Tichborne
case it is allowed, and my learned friend, Mr. Serjeant Ballantine, with
an air of great solemnity, says—“This is a very important matter, and a
great deal more will be heard of it.” I understand my doctors will say
the nail does not adhere so closely to the under surface as the nail
does on the other hand—that it is perfectly easy to disconnect them—that
it may be done by perseverence, by introducing little pins and things of
that kind, and by gradually and steadily working them to disconnect the
under surface of the nail from the under surface of the flesh, and that
in this way you can arrest the “formative growth” of the nail, and they
will tell you that that has actually been done. You will look at the
photographs for yourselves, and I ask you to come to the conclusion that
there is no reasonable pretence for saying that Roger Tichborne had such
a thumb. There is no one to suggest that Roger Tichborne had a peculiar
thumb—no one till Mr. Baigent suggests it on his re-examination; and I
submit that the whole affair has been trumped up to produce an
impression when they found that the other marks failed them.


                         Meetings of Societies.



    Date of Meeting. |Name of Society.|       Place of Meeting.
        Feb. 7th     |  Edinburgh       |  Hall, 5, St. Andrew-square.
        Feb  8th     |  South London  |  Arundel Hall, Arundel-street.
        Feb 8th      |  Manchester      |  Memorial Hall, Albert-square.


The second popular meeting of the season was held in Queen-street Hall
on the evening of Wednesday, the 24th ult. Every available place in the
hall was filled.

The exhibition consisted of a very fine series of views in Ireland,
kindly lent by Messrs. Pumphrey Brothers, of Birmingham, and of a number
of copies of Erskine Nicol’s pictures of Irish character, prepared from
negatives kindly lent for the purpose by Mr. Tunny. The pictures were
arranged in the form of a tour, beginning in the north at the Giant’s
Causeway, working south to Dublin, and including the Lakes of Killarney
and some of the finest scenery in the country.

The descriptive lecture was undertaken by Mr. J. Richard Marquis,
R.H.A.; but being evidently new to the business, and unaccustomed to
speak in the dark, the lecturer failed to come up to the expectations of
the audience. We hope, however, to hear Mr. Marquis again, as he has in
him the elements from which good lecturers are formed; and from his
ability as an artist, and his thorough acquaintance with what
constitutes a good picture, we are certain that with a little practice
he will make a capital guide in such exhibitions.

The exhibition was thoroughly successful, and at its close hearty votes
of thanks were awarded to Messrs. Pumphrey Brothers, Mr. Tunny, and the

We may mention in connection with this that last evening (Thursday) the
same pictures were exhibited as one of the series of popular lectures
given under the auspices of the Northern District Lecture Association.
On this occasion the lecture was delivered by Dr. John Nicol, who stated
at the beginning that he was in a position to do what rarely could
practically be done by a lecturer—that is, praise his own lecture. He
(Dr. Nicol), however, went on to say:—“The lecture is not mine, but has
been kindly sent along with the pictures by Messrs. Pumphrey; and it is
so much better than anything that I could produce, I shall give it just
as it is, except, perhaps, the introduction here and there of a story or
anecdote, by way of a ‘mouth-opener,’ as our transatlantic friends would
say.” Both lecture and exhibition were very successful, and elicited
almost continuous applause.

At the close Dr. Nicol exhibited the recently-patented “wheel of life,”
as manufactured by Messrs. Pumphrey, and described in THE BRITISH
JOURNAL OF PHOTOGRAPHY a few weeks since. He explained the principle of
its construction, and gave much credit to the inventor, who, he said,
had succeeded in doing admirably what he (Dr. Nicol) and many others had
vainly tried to do for years.

At the termination of the exhibition, votes of thanks were awarded to
Dr. Nicol, to Messrs. Pumphrey for the pictures, and to Messrs. Yerbury
and Lothian for the admirable way in which they had managed the lantern.




In one of my recent letters to this Journal I was deploring the want of
some grand hypothesis which would embrace in one general law all the
mechanical phenomena of nature—universal gravitation, cohesion, chemical
affinity, electricity, magnetism, light, heat, &c.—and lo! just such a
hypothesis has turned up and been explained to me by its author—a man
whom I am compelled to regard, without any exaggeration, as one of the
great geniuses of the present day. I allude to M. L’Abbé Leray, author
of a work to which I referred in a recent letter, entitled _Constitution
de la Matière et ses Mouvements_.

I will endeavour to give an outline—but it can only be an outline—of
this startling hypothesis, which makes universal gravitation an effect
of the motions of ether, and dispels the idea hitherto entertained that
it is an attractive force inherent in particles of matter, by which they
are enabled to exert a pull upon other particles at a distance from them
in space.

Sir Isaac Newton, the immortal discoverer of the law of universal
gravitation (which asserts that every particle of matter in the universe
attracts every other particle with a force which varies directly as the
mass and inversely as the square of the distance), himself believed that
this law would be found, at some future time, to result from the motions
of a subtle fluid which occupied space, the atoms of which, by impinging
against ponderable matter, produce the observed effect of weight or
gravitation. He could not conceive of ponderable matter possessing any
_inherent_ property by which it was enabled to act upon other ponderable
matter _at a distance_. He could not really believe in an inherent
central force of attraction residing in a material atom, by which it
could draw towards itself another such atom situated at a distance, or
that it could affect other matter in any way than by the impact of
intervening atoms; and he predicted that some day the _cause_ of
universal gravitation would be discovered. That day seems now to have
arrived, and the discovery to have been actually made.

I had read M. Leray’s extraordinary work with a great deal of interest,
but there were still some unexplained points in his hypothesis which
remained to be cleared up and some difficulties to be discussed. As he
resides at an ecclesiastical institution within an easy walk of Redon, I
visited him a few days ago, by appointment, for the express purpose of
having a long talk over his hypothesis; and a very pleasant afternoon I
had with him, leaving more deeply impressed than ever with a sense of
his great abilities and originality. In fact, I seem to have made the
acquaintance of a second Sir Isaac or Laplace.

The following is an outline of his theory; but of course no
demonstration of any part of it can be made within the limits of this

Space is filled with a subtle ether, consisting of atoms in motion.
These atoms are elastic—a property which they possess in virtue of being
able to change their form, though not their volume, during impact and to
recover it again. Their form is spherical, they are all equal, and their
diameter is very small compared with that of the atoms of ponderable
matter, and also with their general distance apart. This ether is,
therefore, an exceedingly rare medium. When the atoms impinge against
each other they rebound like billiard balls, and in all their motions
they obey the common mechanical laws of inertia and impact, and no other
laws whatever. They cannot act upon each other at a distance, and
therefore no attractive or repulsive force exists between them.

If only one of these atoms were to exist in space it would move in a
straight line with uniform velocity until it reached the limit of space;
that is to say, the boundary by which creation is limited—the boundary
which separates entity from nonentity. Here, being elastic, it would be
reflected, and would then follow another rectilinear course until it
again encountered in another point the boundary of space, where it would
be again reflected; and so on for ever!

If we imagine space filled with an enormous number of such atoms it will
follow that _at every point in space there will be small parallel
currents of them moving in all directions_. Their distance apart being
great in proportion to their size, two contrary currents will not
annihilate each other, but by far the greater number of atoms in one
current will pass those in the other current without impact. Those atoms
which do impinge against opposite atoms, at various angles of incidence,
will rebound and join other currents which are moving in their new

The state of things above described constitutes what is called “mobile
equilibrium;” for what one current loses by meeting another in an
opposite direction will be imparted to surrounding currents, and these,
in their turn, will give back equal to what they have acquired, so that
compensation will be made, and thus the laws of conservation of force,
and of _vis viva_, will be satisfied.

The velocity with which the atoms move is enormous, and millions of
times greater than the velocity of light.

The reader will observe that there is a vast difference between the
mobile equilibrium of this ether and the equilibrium of air or gas
confined in a closed vessel. The reason why particles of a gas appear to
repel each other is because the ethereal undulations of heat are
vibrating between them. By reducing the temperature and increasing the
pressure gases may be liquified or solidified, in which states no
repulsion exists between their particles.

All ponderable matter is porous; its ultimate atoms are spheres much
larger than the atoms of ether, and much farther apart; the currents of
ether can, therefore, pass through a ponderable body in all directions.

When a current of ether passes through a ponderable body some of the
atoms of ether strike the atoms of the body and rebound; the current,
after passing through the body, will, therefore, be weakened, according
to the number of its atoms which have rebounded in altered
directions—that is to say, according to the number of atoms of the body
which have been struck by atoms of ether. The greater the mass of a body
the greater will be the weakening of the currents of ether which have
passed through it. A current of ether weakened by passing through a body
will gradually regain its original strength by passing through space,
since it will be continually reinforced by other atoms moving in the
same direction as itself.

A single ponderable atom in the midst of currents of ether will be in
equilibrium under their action, because it will be struck equally in all

But the atoms of a ponderable body will be put into vibratory motion by
the passage through it of currents of ether; these internal motions may
enable us to account for light, heat, magnetism, &c.

When two ponderable bodies exist in space, and currents of ether pass
through them, the two bodies will be impelled towards each other,
because the currents of ether that are between them and tend to keep
them apart are weakened by having passed through the bodies, and are,
therefore, weaker than the currents which impel them towards each other.
This explains what has been called the “attractive force of gravity.”

It will be observed that since currents of ether pass through the bodies
in all directions, the weakened currents between the bodies will be
included within a sort of conical space. The law of attraction according
to the inverse square of the distance is thus accounted for.

Since the weight of a body is the same, no matter how it is turned
about, it follows that the ultimate atoms of all ponderable matter must
be spherical. It follows also from the hypothesis that all the spherical
atoms of ponderable matter are equal, and that there is, chemically
speaking, but one simple substance—the apparent variety depending upon
the mode of aggregation of the atoms into molecules.

Crystals are formed by arranging these spheres in the same way as you
may arrange marbles or pile up cannon balls.

There is nothing in the hypothesis to interfere with the undulating
theory of light, or with any theory that reposes strictly upon observed
facts; but this we may discuss on a future occasion.

I need hardly say that it is in consequence of their great velocity that
the atoms of ether acquire sufficient momentum to communicate sensible
motion to ponderable matter.

Ponderable matter may possibly be composed of the aggregation of
ethereal atoms; but M. Leray thinks not. He can see no good reason why
it should be so.

Cohesion and chemical affinity may be explained on this hypothesis. Its
leading feature is that it explains how such natural phenomena as do not
involve vital or mental action may be explained on the simplest
mechanical principles, and without involving that “bugaboo,” _action at
a distance_. Of course, Dr. Frankland’s ideas of “bonds,” “active and
latent atomicities,” &c., are inadmissible on this hypothesis.

The demonstrations are rigorously given, and the work involves a good
deal of high mathematics. It is utterly impossible to do justice to the
theory in the above brief sketch of it. The theorems of Euclid, if thus
stated, would many of them appear improbable and absurd. The work itself
can be procured from M. Gauthier Villars, 55, Quai des Grands Augustins,
Paris, price three francs. It is copiously illustrated with woodcuts. A
new edition has just appeared.

Some idea of the distance between the atoms of ponderable matter, when
in the form of gas, may be gathered from a remark of Dr. Mann’s in his
_Guide to a Knowledge of Life_, at page 13, where he says:—

    “It can be shown to be highly probable that the ultimate atoms
    of gases are at least one hundred times their own diameter
    asunder even when those gases are held in confined vessels.”

The earth and the moon are, therefore, about three times as near
together, in proportion to the diameter of the earth, as two atoms of a
gas are, if the above remark be true.

In Sir Isaac Newton’s corpuscular theory of light the atoms emitted from
the sun were supposed to follow one another at a distance of about a
thousand miles apart! Under such circumstances the impact of two atoms
of intersecting rays of light would be a comparatively rare event.

M. Leray asserts that the law of gravitation is only an approximation to
the truth, and that it is modified by the volumes of bodies. The proof
of this he expects will be found some day in the motions of comets,
which rapidly change their volume.

Elective affinity he supposes to depend upon the different forms of
crystals, two crystals which present plane faces towards each other
being more easily pushed together by the atoms of ether than two
crystals in which a solid angle or an edge of one is presented to a
plane face of the other.

The sun, planets, fixed stars, nebulæ, &c., are, of course, perpetually
riddled through and through, in all directions, by currents of ether.
That is why the heavenly bodies gravitate towards each other, as
explained in a preceding paragraph.

With respect to reflection at the boundary of space, it is an idea which
grows upon you the more you think of it. Enormous as creation is it is
impossible to conceive of its having _no_ limit. What, then, is beyond
that limit?—Nothing. Not even space in which matter can exist; no
_place_ even for matter. On reaching the boundary which separates an
entity (for space is an entity) from a nonentity matter must be
reflected, if elastic; or it must roll for ever against the boundary of
space, if inelastic. This conclusion seems to me inevitable; there is no
escape from it.

In the new edition of M. Leray’s book he modifies the theory which I
have endeavoured briefly to explain in the foregoing paragraphs by
supposing that, instead of one ether, there are two in a state of
mixture, the second being a grosser fluid, and its atoms larger than
those of the other. It is these larger atoms of the grosser fluid which,
by their transversal vibrations, produce the phenomena of light, heat,
&c. These larger atoms do not suffer the same swift motion of
translation through space as the smaller atoms of the subtler fluid.
They have no greater motion of translation than ponderable atoms have.

It may be asked—What is the difference between ponderable and
imponderable matter, and why are the atoms of ether imponderable? To
this query a satisfactory answer is given; but I must refer the reader
to the book for it. Were I to enter upon any demonstrations an entire
number of this Journal would not contain half that could be said.

I have proved in an independent manner, and different from that of Père
Leray, that two equal, penetrable spheres of ponderable matter, existing
in space at a distance apart which is large in proportion to their
diameters, will be impelled towards each other by the impact of ethereal
matters, according to a law which is approximately that of the inverse
square of the distance. When the spheres are brought to within a much
shorter distance of each other the law ceases to be approximately true.
The law of gravitation may, therefore, be only approximately true for
particles of matter at a great distance apart in proportion to their
diameters. The only observations which appear to confirm the law are
those which have been made upon the heavenly bodies; and here we have a
case of a distance apart many times the diameters of the bodies, even
between satellites and their primaries.

But before any one can seriously accept this new hypothesis a vast deal
more thought and study must be bestowed upon it than I have yet had time
to give it.

I will send the demonstration referred to for insertion in a future
number of this Journal if our Editors think fit. The subject is not
foreign to photography, but intimately connected with it as a science.

According to the new hypothesis, new definitions must be given of MASS
and DENSITY. According to M. Leray, “the mass of an atom is equal to its
volume, and the mass of a body is equal to the sum of the volumes of its

    “If we call M the mass of a body, and V its apparent volume, the
    fraction M/V is the absolute density of the body. The absolute
    density is, therefore, unity for an atom, and varies from 0 to 1
    for all bodies.”

    If two bodies have the same apparent volume, their densities are
    proportional to their masses.

I have been looking through a capital French work on Chemistry,
published in 1870, by M. Alfred Riche, lecturer at the Polytechnic
School at Paris. He uses the old notation and table of equivalents; but
strongly advises a change to the new, which he explains very nicely, and
pretty much as our lecturer has done. Whenever the atomic weight of an
element is given according to the new table its symbol has a bar drawn
across it. Something of this sort should always be observed, in order to
avoid confusion between the old and new formulæ.

                  *       *       *       *       *

I have just received a letter from Mr. J. R. Johnson, containing a most
beautiful carbon print. He asks me what I think of it. My reply is
simply this—that it is the most wonderfully fine print I have ever seen
upon paper.

                                                     THOMAS SUTTON, B.A.

_Redon, January 26, 1872._


The most interesting event, in a photographic point of view, which I
have to report is the departure of the scientific expedition to observe
the total eclipse of the sun on the 12th of this month. The place
selected for the observations is Cape Sidmouth, some three hundred miles
south of Cape York, in Northern Australia.

The expedition has been organised by the Royal Society of Victoria, and
the expense is met by private subscriptions, largely aided by grants
from the several Colonial Governments. The Queensland Government steamer
was also placed at the disposal of the party free of charge.

The various instruments necessary for the observations were sent from
England by the Royal Society; but, owing to my absence from Sydney at
the time the expedition sailed, I am unable to give any details of the
arrangements for taking photographs of the eclipse. I hope, however,
soon to be able to give a full description of the results.

The party consists of more than thirty gentlemen, the different branches
of science being well represented; for botanists and geologists are
taking advantage of the trip to make investigations in their own
departments. For the astronomical observations Victoria sends her
Government Astronomer, Mr. Ellery, at the head of a large staff of
observers, and a photographer, Mr. Walters; while New South Wales sends
Mr. Russell, the present, and the Rev. W. Scott, the late, Government
Astronomer, and Mr. Merlin, of the “American and Australasian
Photographic Company.” From this double staff we may expect a large
number of photographs and other valuable results.

The steamer left Sydney on the 27th of November, and will return by
Christmas, before which time no news will reach us of the doings of the
party. We shall, therefore, look forward to their return with much

                  *       *       *       *       *

Professional photographers here do not now devote their attention so
exclusively to portraiture as formerly. The “American and Australasian
Photographic Company” has announced its intention of photographing every
house in the Australasian colonies! I suppose it finds it a profitable
speculation, as it has already photographed a considerable number of
towns, house by house. The day for each place is previously advertised,
so that the inhabitants may put themselves and their dwellings in
holiday attire. The photographs are to some extent used as

                  *       *       *       *       *

I lately came across a photographer in the far interior, some 500 or 600
miles from Sydney. He had already travelled a still greater distance
from Adelaide, in South Australia, from whence he had started on his
tour. He was plying his vocation at the various sheep and cattle
stations, and was apparently well patronised. I saw several of his
groups of aboriginals, which were very good. The black fellows were
highly delighted with their portraits, and were very anxious that copies
should be sent to their friends in other districts.

_Sydney, December 1, 1871._ E. B. DOCKER, M.A.

P.S.—The unfortunate wreck of the mail steamer has deprived us of the
journals for this month.—E. B. D.

                             CARBOLIC ACID.
                           _To the_ EDITORS.

GENTLEMEN,—My attention has been called to an article in your issue of
the 19th January, under the head “Correspondence,” by Mr. Thomas Sutton,
containing several statements with reference to carbolic acid which it
would be wrong to allow to remain uncontradicted.

First: he says carbolic acid is by no means a good antiseptic, and is
very poisonous, and then refers to persons being lately poisoned by its
_fumes_ at Wolverhampton.

As to its poisonous nature: It is, of course, a poison if taken
internally in quantity, but is not a virulent one taken in any
reasonable or probable quantity. It is, perhaps, not out of place to say
that if it should be taken internally in a concentrated form, by
misadventure, large doses of castor and sweet oil immediately
administered will materially counteract the poisonous effect of the
acid. The fumes of the acid are perfectly harmless and may be breathed
with impunity.

Mr. Sutton is labouring under a false impression with regard to the case
to which he alludes at Wolverhampton, of which the following is the
correct account:—Two dogs (not human beings) were _supposed_ to have
died from inhaling the fumes of carbolic acid emanating from a
disinfecting powder sprinkled over the floor of a workshop in
Wolverhampton, and, the following is an extract from the report of the
chemist who examined one of the dogs:—“The disinfecting powder was not a
carbolic acid powder, but an imitation; for it contained nothing but
lime impregnated with tar, and was entirely innocent of any harm to the
animals. Strychnine, however, was discovered in considerable quantity in
most parts of the viscera and in the blood. I calculated that at least
one grain and a-quarter of this poisonous alkaloid had been administered
to the animal by some evil-disposed person or persons unknown.” Thus
much for the poisoning of human beings lately at Wolverhampton by the
fumes of carbolic acid.[4]

Footnote 4:

  The cattle show at the Agricultural Hall, Islington, has for the two
  last years been successfully disinfected and kept sweet with carbolic

  Had Mr. Sutton ever seen carbolic acid fumigation, or read about
  carbolic acid, he would not have made an assertion so utterly
  groundless. The writer has himself many times been for two or three
  days together in a room containing a large excess of carbolic acid
  fumes without experiencing any injurious effects.

  With regard to the action of carbolic acid on the teeth, if Mr. Sutton
  will refer to an article in the _British Journal of Dental Science_
  for March, 1871, he will find “it is a powerful antiseptic, and
  invaluable for the arrest of any decay or decomposition of the teeth.”

  Mr. Sutton has quoted from a long letter of Dr. Dougall’s to the
  _Lancet_, and I cannot do better than refer him to Dr. Sansom’s able
  reply to it in the _Lancet_ of January 13th. Dr. Sansom says that the
  white-cloud appearance in albuminous solutions to which carbolic acid
  has been added is often really no albuminous precipitate at all, but
  is caused by refractile globules of carbolic acid in a fine state of
  sub-division; also, that it has been shown that albuminous solutions
  are antisepted when carbolic acid exists in them in too feeble a
  proportion to cause any precipitate whatever. If carbolic acid acted
  as an antiseptic by coagulating albumen, agents which had a greater
  coagulating power would, _a fortiori_, be more powerful antiseptics,
  which has abundantly been proved not to be the case, and therefore the
  antiseptic properties of carbolic acid do not result solely from its
  power of coagulating albumen.

  With respect to the assertion that the amount of carbolic acid vapour
  which could be tolerated in the air of a hospital ward would be
  entirely inadequate to act as a disinfectant, Dr. Sansom says his
  experiments have shown him that _carbolised atmospheres_ are efficient
  in preventing putrefaction and the growth of mouldiness, and more so
  than atmospheres impregnated with chloride of lime or sulphurous acid.

  Dr. Sansom objects to the experiments recorded by Dr. Dougall, since
  tar oil (a crude product weak in carbolic acid, and possessing little
  or no volatile disinfectant constituent), and McDougall’s powder (a
  mixture of sulphites of lime and magnesia with tar oil) were used.

  As to carbolic acid not being a good antiseptic, the following
  reports, I think, fully prove the contrary:—

  The late Dr. W. Allen Miller, F.R.S., preserved urine and fresh blood
  for three months by the simple addition of five per cent. of Calvert’s
  carbolic disinfecting powder—a product containing fifteen per cent. of
  carbolic acid in a free state.

  Mr. Wm. Crookes, F.R.S., says that he took some albumen from fresh
  eggs and mixed it with an equal bulk of water. By itself it became bad
  after nine days, and at the end of three weeks it smelt very strongly.
  He added to four bottles of the fluid respectively 1, 2½, 5, and 10
  per cent. of carbolic acid powder (equivalent to 3/20, ⅜, ¾, and 1½
  per cent. of free carbolic acid). All kept good at ordinary
  temperatures for forty days. Blood with 1/15 per cent. of carbolic
  acid remained good for a month. Solutions of size, glue, and gum mixed
  with 1/15 per cent. of carbolic acid have remained for two months
  without becoming sour. Fresh yeast was washed with water containing
  one-tenth per cent. Its power of inducing fermentation was entirely

  Dr. F. Crace Calvert, F.R.S., in his paper on comparative
  disinfectants, gives the following results with antiseptics upon
  solutions of albumen:—

            Antiseptic      Percentage Time in which
            employed.           of       acquired an
                            antiseptic   offensive odour.
                              used.      Temperature 70° to
                                         80° F.

            Chloride of         5      16 days.

            Tar oil             2      11 days.

            Carbolic acid       2      remained sound six

            None                —      5 days.

  The writer preserved meat for ninety days, during a hot summer, by
  placing twelve ounces of fresh meat in a bottle containing one pound
  of water and five grains of carbolic acid. The mouth of the bottle was
  left open, and no offensive smell was emitted till the ninety-third
  day. The meat was, of course, unfit for food, and was merely
  experimented with to test the antiseptic power of carbolic acid.

The following is an extract from a report in _Compte Rendus de
l’Académie des Sciences_ of March 6th, 1871, by Messrs. Nelaton,
Langier, and Payen, on experiments made at the Paris Morgue by M.

    “During the heat of summer, when putrefying corpses in the
    Morgue continually emit a quantity of noxious gases that cannot
    be removed by ventilation or destroyed by chlorine or bleaching
    powder, we decided to prevent their production by trying to
    destroy the vitality of the germs of putrefaction, and thus
    prevent decomposition itself. We effected this by dissolving one
    litre of carbolic acid in 1,900 litres of water and irrigating
    the bodies with the solution thus made. Putrefaction was
    completely stopped, and disinfection was even obtained after
    reducing the quantity of acid by one-half. M. Devergie points
    out that water containing one four-thousandth part of carbolic
    acid proved sufficient during the intense heat of last summer to
    disinfect the deadhouse, without the aid of any shaft, when six
    or seven dead bodies were lying there. * * * * * * * * * * *
    Carbolic acid seems well adapted for the disinfection of rooms
    which have been occupied by persons suffering from infectious
    diseases; therefore, we recommend its use, after being dissolved
    in thirty times its weight of water, by sprinkling it on the
    floors, pavements, and staircases during the stay of patients in
    rooms and for a few days after their departure.”

According to Dr. Sansom carbolic acid is readily taken up by air, so
that 159.44 cubic inches of air, at 60° Fah., contain one grain of
carbolic acid. Air thus _carbolised_ (currents excluded) entirely annuls
putrefaction and fungoid manifestation on the surface of putrescible
fluids, and such carbolised air is more permanently efficacious than air
charged with the fumes of chloride of lime or sulphurous acid, and it
may be breathed with impunity by mammifers.

These few observations will, I think, satisfy your readers that Mr.
Sutton’s remarks are erroneous and without foundation. I shall be glad
to learn that photographers have tried carbolic acid in the preservative
solution for dry plates, and would recommend them to make a solution of
carbolic acid, one part to one thousand parts of water, and then add
their albumen to this solution to the strength they require it. Above
all things it is essential that the carbolic acid be of good quality for
photographic purposes; and I would recommend them to use an acid such as
Calvert’s No. 1 (gilt label) carbolic acid.—I am, yours, &c.,

                                                REGINALD LE NEVE FOSTER.

_Bradford, near Manchester, January 27, 1872._

                         THE TEST FOR ALBUMEN.
                           _To the_ EDITORS.

GENTLEMEN,—It is over two years since I devised the carbolic mixture for
detecting traces of albumen. At the time I did not think it of
sufficient photographic interest to occupy your space in detailing
experiments on the subject; but, as you do not remember the author’s
name, I beg to remind you that I am the author. It was published, I
believe, as a note by a friend of mine—an eminent chemist and
toxicologist—in a medical work.

On one occasion we were talking over the means of detecting albumen, and
having experimented with phenol or “carbolic acid” for about eight
years, many times in connection with albumen, I knew its properties
well, and, on my attention being directed to a test for albumen, I
commenced experiments with a mixture of phenol and acetic acid, then
with the addition of alcohol, and finally with phenol and alcohol, equal
parts by weight. My friend and self then went through a comparative set
of experiments side by side—my friend taking his old nitric acid test
and I my new phenol mixture—the result being that my test indicated
albumen both in plain water and urine, diluted one in ten after the
nitric acid failed to indicate any further.—I am, yours, &c.,

                                                             F. W. HART.

_8, Kingsland Green, January 29, 1872._

                           _To the_ EDITORS.

GENTLEMEN,—The continued complaints which one heard from people after
the close of our photographic exhibition, that they had not seen it, did
not know when it opened or when it had closed, and the strong interest
they felt in it, induce me to believe that a comprehensive exhibition of
photography in all its shapes—the new processes, the landscape and
humanity of different countries, &c., &c.—might be made of very great
interest, and to pay its way as well.

In the spring, and even now, London is filled with collections of
paintings, which make photographs look tame. In the International
Exhibition they are equally put out; and if they are to be seen and
judged properly they must be in an exhibition by themselves. No
intelligent collector hangs works in colour with photographs or
engravings; and exhibition goers, passing from a gallery of pictures,
will not stop to look at photographs. If, therefore, we could, under the
direction of the photographic societies, make in October a collection of
cosmopolitan photography, and connect with it a display and comparison
of lenses of all makers, we should enable the art to claim its just

Colonel Stuart Wortley’s suggestion as to contributions of negatives
would give a photographic exhibition, if adopted, a special technical
interest; and we might in this include examples of negatives by the dry

The question of retouching might be decided without difference of
opinion by having two classes of works—one touched on the negative, and
the other in which no touching other than stopping out pinholes should
be permitted. If awards are made—and in this I recall Colonel Wortley’s
mention of the medal of the Photographic Society—no award should be made
for a touched negative unless a print from it before touching should be
submitted _to the judges_ at the same time, but not necessarily for

It is clear that when we talk of excellence in photography we mean
something other than what a draughtsman may do in the way of
supplementing photography. Works which do not enter for an award may
omit mention of the distinction I have indicated.

I believe that such an exhibition would excite a very general interest,
and do more to improve the knowledge of photographers on practical
details than years of casual acquaintance of what other men do.

I am, to a certain extent, an outsider, and cannot do more than suggest;
but I hope that some of the influential masters of the camera will take
up the question.—I am, yours, &c.,

                                                         W. J. STILLMAN.

_100, Clarendon-road, Notting-hill, January 29, 1872._

                           _To the_ EDITORS.

GENTLEMEN,—Last night, as “I lay a-thinking,” the subject of obtaining
photographic colour suddenly occurred to me, and the question arose as
to whether the differences in the colours of the light reflected from
the surfaces of different-coloured flowers (as red, blue, and yellow)
was due to differences in the constitution of their juices, or of the
solid matter of which they are formed. If on examination it proved to be
of the juices, a second question arose as to whether it would not be
possible to take advantage of this in the preparation of plates, as
suggested by me in an article which you inserted in THE BRITISH JOURNAL
OF PHOTOGRAPHY for October 27, 1865 (No. 286, vol. xii.). Then,
supposing that by this or any other means the three monochromic plates
were obtainable, would coloured glasses placed in front of the lens help
to stop off the colours not to be represented on the plate? Thus, with a
plate sensitive to blue only, the interposition of a blue glass would
prevent the transmission of the yellow and red rays, a red glass those
of the blue and yellow rays, and a yellow glass that of the blue and red
rays to the plates sensitive to the blue, red, and yellow rays

I have evidence that so early as 1842 the late Sir John Herschel
obtained variously-coloured photographs on paper, as he gave me several,
and I have still one a good blue, one a fair red, and two purple. The
letter accompanying them describes the two latter as produced by the use
of the juice of the red poppy; but many of them have faded away
entirely. My impression is that others of them were from vegetable
juices, but I am not sure that this was the case. There can be no doubt,
however, that his published papers will give an account of the numerous
experiments he made on this subject.

These suggestions may, or may not, be of value in forwarding the
realisation of the great _desideratum_ of photographic colour; but I
cannot be far wrong in mentioning them as they occur to me, especially
as my former communication, in 1865, was thought to be worth
consideration by experimentalists.

That the great end will be attained before a very long period has
elapsed, and the prediction of M. Niepce be verified, that “one day a
photographic picture will be produced such as one sees in a
looking-glass,” is the hope and wish of—Yours, &c.,

                                                           HENRY COLLEN.

_Milford, Godalming, January 29, 1872._

                           _To the_ EDITORS.

GENTLEMEN,—The notice which the direction of the International
Exhibition has sent to your Journal is sufficiently unsatisfactory to be
discussed a little before the photographic profession commits itself to
the mercies of that institution for another such display as we had last

It seems to some of us that the least the management could do, if the
leading photographers are expected to contribute, would be to put some
one on the photographic committee whom they are accustomed to regard as
identified in a high degree with the interests of the art, or whose
interest in it they feel assured of. We should have imagined that one of
the presidents of the photographic societies, or at least one of those
eminent amateurs who have really contributed to the advancement of
photographic science, and shown a disinterested devotion to it in its
present condition, would have had the selection, or, at least, a voice
in the selection, of the pictures to be exhibited.

As it is, we have Dr. Diamond, who was, in years gone by, interested in
photography, and who is understood to be in the present combination a
passive member; Mr. Thompson, of whom most of us know nothing; and Col.
Stuart Wortley, whom some of the profession do not accept as an
authority, and in whose position, as having a commercial interest in
photography in no way identified with that of the profession at large,
they find excellent reasons why he should not be put forward as the
judge and spokesman of it. If a professional photographer is to be
assigned this position, Col. Wortley’s place is not sufficiently high to
justify his selection. If an outsider must be selected, he is
disqualified, as being commercially interested on the one hand and a
disputed authority on the other, or one at least to whom few good
professionals will defer.—I am, yours, &c.,


_London, January, 29, 1872._

[Endorsing all that is said about the two jurors first mentioned, we ask
our correspondent if he can, after due consideration, indicate any
photographer, professional or amateur, in whom a greater degree of
confidence would be placed than in Col. Wortley?—EDS.]

                           _To the_ EDITORS.

GENTLEMEN,—Perhaps the following may explain the defect “J. H. M.”
speaks of:—During the hot weather last summer, while photographing an
engine in the open air, every plate showed comblike marks at one side of
the plate. After two days’ trial, and filtering the bath, changing the
collodion, &c., it struck me that the cause might be the partial drying
of the film. A piece of wet blotting-paper at the back of each plate at
once remedied the defect, and all came right. I now always place wet
paper at the back under similar circumstances.—I am, yours, &c.,

                                                           GEO. SPENCER.

_77, Cannon-street, E.C., January 26, 1872._

                            AMMONIA FUMING.
                           _To the_ EDITORS.

GENTLEMEN,—In your useful little ALMANAC for the present year there is
an article by Mr. A. L. Henderson, enthusiastically written, in favour
of fuming.

Now, in accordance with his recommendation, I have tried the said
fuming; but my first essay has certainly not impressed me very strongly
as regards its favourable results—whether from my own defective
manipulation or not I cannot say.

I found that the paper—especially some of Marion’s thick Saxe—assumed a
most disagreeable yellow colour after fuming, and it maintained that
colour through all subsequent operations—as a matter of course, spoiling
the prints. Another sample of (Rive) paper procured from another dealer
was not quite so faulty in this respect; still, in neither case was the
brilliancy of the prints enhanced—rather deteriorated, I
thought—although Mr. Henderson maintains so stoutly the advantages of
fuming in this respect. Again: instead of the toning being quicker and
more regular in action, as Mr. Henderson states, I found it much the

I think that I must be wrong somewhere in my working, and I wish to ask
your opinion or Mr. Henderson’s on the best mode of proceeding—assuming
it to be really worth while to adopt fuming. I used an oblong box about
two feet in length by one foot in breadth, placing at the bottom a
narrow-necked bottle containing about two ounces of liquor ammonia,
fuming two quarter-sheets of paper for about ten minutes, with the
result above stated.

Have I omitted any necessary addition? or have I proceeded wrongly?—I
am, yours, &c.,

                                                         AMMONIA FUMING.

_Leeds, January 29, 1872._

                             A CORRECTION.
                           _To the_ EDITORS.

GENTLEMEN,—In my communication to the Journal last week, at page 37,
under heading _Using the Substratum_, there is an omission which would
prevent the successful coating of the plates.

The strength of the albumen there given is that of the stock solution,
to use which _add two ounces of distilled water to every half-drachm
required_, half-a-drachm thus diluted being amply sufficient to coat
fifty plates.—I am, yours, &c.,

                                                       ALECK. A. INGLIS.

_Edinburgh, January 30, 1872._



TRADE IN OBSCENE PHOTOGRAPHS.—A man named Benjamin Smith, _alias_ Martin
Stanley, living at Oil Mill Folds, or Alma-place, Westgate, Rotherham,
was charged at Rotherham, on Thursday, the 25th ult., with publishing
and selling photographs of a kind to debase and scandalise human nature.
The West Riding constabulary received information from various sources
that photographs of a most disgusting character were being circulated
throughout the United Kingdom, and even in other countries, by a man
living at Rotherham, who had inserted an advertisement in several London
and provincial papers, in the name of Smith and Stanley, stating that he
was prepared on receipt of postage stamps to forward portraits of French
girls of a highly novel and exciting nature. A trap to catch the
prisoner was accordingly laid by the Rotherham police, an inspector
sending to him letters signed with an assumed name, and purporting to
come from a place some distance from Rotherham. Stamps were enclosed,
and in return a number of photographs of a most filthy and disgusting
nature were obtained. At length some postage stamps, bearing a private
mark, were sent in a letter to the prisoner, and the inspector of police
watched the postman deliver it. He then entered the house, and found his
own letter containing the marked stamps, together with a number of other
letters, in possession of the prisoner. On the house being searched
another beastly photograph was found, whereupon the prisoner told the
officer that he would find no more there, as he kept them at a house he
mentioned at Sheffield. This house was accordingly searched by two
officers of the Sheffield police force, and there they found a number of
most filthy photographs, together with printed lists describing what the
prisoner had for sale. The prisoner was apprehended on the 14th of
January, and since that time nearly a hundred letters from all parts of
England, Scotland, and Ireland have arrived at the Rotherham post office
directed to him. The police obtained the permission of Her Majesty’s
Secretary of State and of the Postmaster-General to receive and open
these letters, and they found, on doing so, that great numbers of
postage stamps were enclosed, and some filthy photographs and books. The
prisoner was committed for trial, and on application being made the
magistrates intimated that they should require the prisoner to be bound
in the sum of £200, and two sureties of £100 each to be found.

CAMPHOR IN THE PRINTING BATH.—Mr. John R. Clemons gives in _Mosaics_
some of his experience with camphor in the printing press. He
says:—After the positive printing bath has been used some time it
becomes more or less charged with albumen. If, when the solution is
poured from the dish into the filter, frothy bubbles appear on the
surface, it is in the condition named, and is unfit for use in
sensitising albumen paper. The reason is obvious. When an albumen sheet
is floated upon a silver solution thus charged with albumen, a secondary
film of albumen, or albumenate of silver, is imparted to it, which
deprives it of its lustre, and it is impossible to secure a good tone
upon it. The difference will be readily seen by floating one-half of a
sheet of paper on the used solution, and the other half on a fresh
solution, and comparing the results. The effect of silvering on such a
solution is similar to that of using doubly-albumenised paper. In both
cases the silver will penetrate both films, even if silvered on the
back, and very good prints apparently may be made on paper so treated;
but when you proceed to tone them, you will find that the double film of
albumen resists the action of the gold, and renders it impossible to get
rich tones. I have already recommended the addition of alcohol to a bath
thus charged with albumen, and then burning it out, in order to cleanse
the bath, but since have sought for a less expensive method, and have
found camphor to be just what is needed. Besides being less expensive,
it is also more expeditious; for in five minutes an eighty-ounce bath
can be cleansed of all impurities by its use, as directed below. Make a
saturated solution of camphor, viz.:—

                         Camphor    1 ounce.
                         Alcohol    6 ounces.

To cleanse a bath which is considerably fouled by the albumen, add two
and a-half ounces of this camphor solution. A greasy appearance will be
presented on the surface of the bath. Shake well, when the greasiness
will disappear. Then filter, never using the same filter twice. If,
after filtration, the solution turns dark, add a couple of drops of
permanganate of potash, and it will immediately clear. This turning dark
is owing to long usage of the silver solution. It is a fact that the
bath is daily impregnated more or less with the albumen, therefore a
slight addition of camphor daily is recommended. This will avoid the
addition of the permanganate, which rather decreases the sensitiveness.
As a quick and ready corrective agent, camphor will be found of great
advantage. It will impart a camphory smell to the solution, but in no
way deteriorates the quality of the prints.

TO COPY OIL PORTRAITS.—Mr. B. Frank Saylor, in _Photographic Mosaics_,
says on this subject:—As I have never seen anything from which I have
derived any material aid in the copying of oil portraits, and especially
old ones, I propose simply to give our _modus operandi_, feeling
confident that those who do not proceed in like manner may successfully
copy oil paintings, and especially old portraits. We first, with a clean
sponge and water, partially wash the old portrait, and then pour perhaps
an ounce of glycerine on it, and with the same sponge brush the
glycerine crosswise over the entire picture until it presents a uniform
surface; or, should a greasy appearance be presented, something like a
negative plate when partially coated, rub gently with the palm of the
hand crosswise, and it is ready for copying. We copy under the skylight,
about where we should place the sitter for the same lighted picture,
directing the camera to about the centre of the picture, and as nearly
level as may be. On our camera we use a quarter-size tube inverted—that
is, turn it end for end—with a diaphragm of about six-eighths of an inch
aperture, placing the picture square to the front of the camera. After
making the necessary adjustments as to size, &c., we coat the plate with
the same collodion which we use for our regular portrait negatives, and
when it is properly coated expose fully—that is, neither over- nor
under-expose. The success, however, depends on the manipulation _during
the exposure_. We take a piece of backboard, say six inches wide and
about three feet long, and with it shade all the top of the portrait
above the head, standing by the side of the portrait and holding the
backboard in the hand, moving it up and down as though it were hinged on
the top of the portrait, but not allowing its shadow to come down over
the forehead or face, except those parts should be improved thereby. We
produce the same effect on the sides of the portrait by occasionally
moving our body at the same time over portions of the background, taking
care not to remain perfectly still or too long in the same place, nor
yet to allow any shadow from our person or anything else to cover any
portion of the figure. Thus, with a little care and attention, a very
satisfactory background is obtained, even admitting of desirable
variation, thereby avoiding the necessity of a double-printed background
and the like, and producing from a single negative and printing
duplicates to equal, if not to surpass, the original, and every print
alike. Lastly: we develope with the usual iron developer, using six
ounces of iron to sixty-four of water; this, however, we again dilute
with water, adding alcohol, more or less acetic acid, according to the
detail and density we wish to obtain.


       _Now Ready, Crown 8vo., Price 1s.; Free by Post, 1s. 2d._

COMPANION FOR 1872. Edited by J. T. TAYLOR.—The volume embraces every
subject that can be of any use to the Amateur and Professional
Photographer. The Editor has been assisted by numerous _collaborateurs_,
embracing nearly all the leading writers connected with the Art-Science
of Photography. Some idea may be formed of the large body of interesting
and important information brought together within the compass of this
Volume from the fact that upwards of Sixty practical workers in
Photography have contributed original articles to this issue of THE

London: HENRY GREENWOOD, publisher, 2, York-street, Covent-garden, W.C.

                            EXCHANGE COLUMN.

No charge is made for inserting these announcements; but in no case do
we insert any article merely _offered for sale_, that being done at the
small cost of one shilling in our advertising pages. This column is
devoted to exchanges only. It is imperative that the name of the person
proposing the exchange be given (although not necessarily for
publication, if a _nom de plume_ be thought desirable), otherwise the
notice will not appear.

I will exchange a Marion’s embossing press for cameo _cartes_, cost £4
  10s., for anything useful in photography. Offers invited.—Address, T.
  KAY, Lark Hill House, Bolton.

A very superior 36-inch photographer’s bicycle will be exchanged for a
  fine collection of lantern slides, revolving stereoscope, or other
  photographic materials. Offers solicited. Photograph and particulars
  on application.—Address, H. ROGERSON, 10, Springcliff, Bradford.

I wish to exchange an exterior background, by Bull, cabinet size, for
  another, or anything useful for the studio; it was new last June, and
  cost 37s. 6d. Offers also wanted for a single half-plate view lens, by
  Home and Thornthwaite. Photographs exchanged.—Address, Photographic
  Institute, Portmadoc.

                       ANSWERS TO CORRESPONDENTS.


   ☞ _Correspondents should never write on both sides of the paper._


JAMES TULLEY.—Received. In our next.

GEO. DANIEL.—Professor Wheatstone was the inventor of the reflecting
  stereoscope. An account of his invention was published in 1838 in the
  _Philosophical Transactions_.

H. W.—The _carte_ enclosed is a very pretty one, both in respect of the
  subject and the treatment. Had the oval been omitted and the dome
  alone used the effect would have been better.

PHOTO.—Let the south side of the studio be glazed—not with clear but
  with ground glass. Should this not be procurable in your town, use
  plain glass, and dab it over with putty.

CRAWDON.—India-rubber finger-stalls will prove an effectual means of
  keeping fingers clean. We do not use them ourselves; but we know
  several gentlemen who do. They cost about threepence each.

EAST ANGLICAN.—There is no remedy for the spots in the paper except more
  care in the selection. The spots are owing to minute particles of
  metal introduced into the paper when in a state of pulp.

T. M. (Newcastle-on-Tyne).—So far as we know, the only house in the
  photographic trade from which you can obtain what is wanted is that of
  Mr. F. W. Hart, 8, Kingsland-green. The other matter shall receive

W. W.—1. A vessel made of gutta-percha will both destroy and eventually
  be destroyed by a solution of nitrate of silver.—2. Slate does not
  appear to affect a nitrate bath.—3. Bees’ wax is not decomposed by
  this solution.

PIETRO CONSTANTINO REMONDINI (Genoa).—Enclosure received with thanks.
  The ALMANAC was posted on the 22nd January.

G. W. H.—It is quite impossible from such slender data us that supplied
  by you to obtain the information desired, but from the nature of the
  subject we are strongly of opinion that it would be dangerous for you
  to follow out your proposed intention.

INQUISITIVE READER.—You are mistaken in your supposition concerning the
  author of the article. He is not an amateur, but a professional of
  high standing, who, for certain reasons, prefers the adoption of a
  _nom de plume_ to giving his own name.

INQUIRER.—We could not in this column give you a proper idea of
  polarised light. The “three words” into which you would like the
  information compressed would have to be extended to many more before
  we gave you or our readers a clear idea of the nature and properties
  of polarised light.

PHOTOLITHO.—We are aware that Mr. Woodbury has so altered his process as
  to get rid of the necessity for using a preliminary coating of
  collodion. He now prints on the bare gelatine, and after exposure
  mounts the film, sensitive side downwards, on a plate of glass coated
  with gelatine and chrome alum.

PORTRAITS BY THE MAGNESIUM LIGHT.—Mr. W. G. Lewis has sent us some
  _carte_ portraits taken at night by the magnesium light, which show
  that in his hands this neglected branch of photography is very
  successfully managed. The faces are full of delicate half-tone. The
  time of exposure was three times that required in ordinary daylight.

GEORGE THOMPSON.—1. Although we do not esteem the maker of your lens as
  one of the best, he has, for all that, a fair reputation in his own
  country; and we know that he has made some good lenses. We have not,
  however, heard of him for several years past.—2. Dr. Monckhoven is a
  dealer in apparatus—not a manufacturer of lenses.

F. C. S.—Ideas often run in parallel grooves. For several weeks past we
  have been using our note-book very freely in the collection of
  materials for such a series of articles as that suggested by you. Some
  of the information required to render the series of the greatest
  possible value is only procurable with much difficulty and at no
  little expense; still, such progress in the compilation has been made
  as will warrant the indulgence of a hope that we may be able to
  introduce the subject at no distant date.

ERRATUM.—In Mr. Coote’s article in our last number, page 38, second
  column, eleventh line from top, for “you are apt to hurry and _free_
  the development,” _read_ “FORCE the development.” Mr. Coote also
  informs us that in the middle paragraph of the first column in the
  same page, a sentence there in which he gave his reason for
  discontinuing the use of the salt bath for washing the plates will
  read better and more correctly as follows:—“Firstly: I found the extra
  salt bath and long washing required after it to considerably lengthen
  an already sufficiently tedious method of preparation.”

SUBSCRIBER.—Excuse plain speaking, but your pictures are by no means
  good—in fact, they are _very_ bad. We are at a loss as to what to
  attribute their special qualities—whether to want of care or want of
  knowledge and experience. Carelessness, to all appearance, has had
  much to do with the matter; for the plate has been badly coated and is
  torn, and the developer has not flowed smoothly over the surface.
  After you have acquired some more experience and dexterity in
  manipulation write again, enclosing a specimen. You need not entertain
  any fear of your name and address being divulged.

W. K.—No more easy and expeditious method of collecting oxygen in a bag
  can be adopted than that which has so often been described in our
  Almanacs and Journals, viz., connecting the bag with the washing
  bottle by means of an india-rubber tube, the bottle being in turn
  connected with the retort in which the oxygen is generated. The method
  of making oxygen from chlorate of potash and black oxide of manganese
  is the simplest, cheapest, and best to adopt when only a small
  quantity is required. By a small quantity we here mean such a quantity
  as will be required by a professional enlarger of photographs in full

SAM WELLER says—“1. Can you inform me what the method is for enlarging
  designs for calico or zinc plates to be engraved for the purpose of
  tracing from by pentagraph?—2. Also as to the manner of building a
  suitable glass house, and kind of light—north or south?—3. Also, if a
  cheap condenser for the solar camera may be made by cementing a clock
  glass to a plate of sheet glass and filling it with water?”——We
  reply:—1. A design can be placed upon a zinc plate by the combination
  of enlarging and photolithography, or by transferring a carbon
  enlargement.—2. A north light is better than a south; for the rest, it
  will be necessary to consult an architect.—3. This query is answered
  with some degree of minuteness in the first paragraph of page 30 of
  our ALMANAC for the present year.

OLD HARRY asks—“What is a pistolgram?” We are to some extent ashamed of
  the definition we are about to give, but we can offer no other. It is
  a small picture taken by a _pistolgraph_, and this, in turn, is a
  small camera introduced by Mr. Thomas Skaife, by which photographs
  might be taken with a very rapid exposure. We strongly suspect that
  “Old Harry” knows more of the subject than he wishes us to believe,
  otherwise why put the question concerning the greater angularity of
  aperture that is possible to be obtained with a short than with a
  long-focus lens? and to which we reply that, without at present
  speculating on the cause, the effect is just as he states it to be.
  The same principle applies to the object-glasses of microscopes, and
  it is an important element in the recognition of object-glasses of the
  highest quality.





        A SHELLAC VARNISH                                     47


        COLLODIO-BROMIDE. By J. W. GOUGH                      48

          DON QUIXOTE



        THE EARS AND THUMBS OF CONTENTION                     50

        MEETINGS OF SOCIETIES                                 53

        CORRESPONDENCE                                        53

        ANSWERS TO CORRESPONDENTS, &c.                        58


 ● Transcriber’s Notes:
    ○ Missing or obscured punctuation was silently corrected.
    ○ Typographical errors were silently corrected.
    ○ Inconsistent spelling and hyphenation were made consistent only
      when a predominant form was found in this book.
    ○ Text that was in italics is enclosed by underscores (_italics_).

*** End of this Doctrine Publishing Corporation Digital Book "The British Journal of Photography, No. 613, Vol. XIX, February 2, 1872" ***

Doctrine Publishing Corporation provides digitized public domain materials.
Public domain books belong to the public and we are merely their custodians.
This effort is time consuming and expensive, so in order to keep providing
this resource, we have taken steps to prevent abuse by commercial parties,
including placing technical restrictions on automated querying.

We also ask that you:

+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Doctrine Publishing
Corporation's ISYS search for use by individuals, and we request that you
use these files for personal, non-commercial purposes.

+ Refrain from automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort
to Doctrine Publishing's system: If you are conducting research on machine
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a
large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the use of
public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help.

+ Keep it legal -  Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for
ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just because
we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States,
that the work is also in the public domain for users in other countries.
Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we
can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of any specific book is
allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Doctrine Publishing
ISYS search  means it can be used in any manner anywhere in the world.
Copyright infringement liability can be quite severe.

About ISYS® Search Software
Established in 1988, ISYS Search Software is a global supplier of enterprise
search solutions for business and government.  The company's award-winning
software suite offers a broad range of search, navigation and discovery
solutions for desktop search, intranet search, SharePoint search and embedded
search applications.  ISYS has been deployed by thousands of organizations
operating in a variety of industries, including government, legal, law
enforcement, financial services, healthcare and recruitment.