Replies.

PORTRAITS OF HOBBES AND LETTERS OF HOLLAR.

(Vol. viii., p. 221.)

Although I cannot answer the question of Sir Walter Trevelyan, the following notices respecting the portraits of the Philosopher of Malmesbury may not be unacceptable to him and to those who hold this distinguished man's memory in high respect.

That admirable gossip, John Aubrey, who lived in habits of intimacy with Hobbes, has left us such a lively picture of the man, his person, and his manners, as to leave nothing to desire. In reading it we cannot but regret that Aubrey had not been a cotemporary of our great poet, about whom he has been only able to furnish us with some hearsay anecdotes.

Aubrey tells us that—

"Sir Charles Scarborough, M.D., Physician to his Royal Highness the Duke of York, much loved the conversation of Hobbes, and hath a picture of him (drawne about 1655), under which is this distich:

"In their meeting (i. e. the Royal Society) at Gresham College is his picture drawne by the life, 1663, by a good hand, which they much esteeme, and several copies have been taken of it."

In a note Aubrey says:

"He did me the honour to sit for his picture to Jo. Baptist Caspars, an excellent painter, and 'tis a good piece. I presented it to the Society twelve years since."

In other places he tells us:

"Amongst other of his acquaintance I must not forget Mr. Samuel Cowper (Cooper), the prince of limners of this last age, who drew his picture as like as art could afford, and one of the best pieces that ever he did which his Majesty, at his returne, bought of him, and conserves as one of his greatest rarities in his closet at Whitehall."

In a note he adds:

"This picture I intend to be borrowed of his Majesty for Mr. Loggan to engrave an accurate piece by, which will sell well both at home and abroad."

Again he says:

"Mr. S. Cowper (at whose house Hobbes and Sir William Petty often met) drew his picture twice: the first the King has; the other is yet in the custody of his (Cooper's) widowe; but he (Cowper) gave it indeed to me (and I promised I would give it to the archives at Oxon), but I, like a fool, did not take possession of it, for something of the garment was not quite finished, and he died, I being then in the country."

This picture is, I believe, now in my possession. It is a small half-length oil painting, measuring about twelve inches by nine. Hobbes is represented at an open arch or window, with his book, the Leviathan, open before him; the dress is, as Aubrey states, unfinished, and beneath is the remarkable inscription,—

"AUT EGO INSANIO SOLUS: AUT EGO SOLUS NON INSANIO."

It represents the philosopher at an advanced age, and is conformable in every respect to the following description of his person:

"In his old age he was very bald, yet within dore he used to study and sit bareheaded, and said he never tooke cold in his head, but that the greatest trouble was to keepe off the flies from pitching on the baldness. His head was of a mallet forme, approved by the physiologers. His face not very great, ample forehead, yellowish-red whiskers, which naturally turned up; belowe he was shaved close, except a little tip under his lip; not but that nature would have afforded him a venerable beard, but being mostly of a cheerful and pleasant humour, he affected not at all austerity and gravity, and to look severe. He considered gravity and heavinesse of countenance not so good marks of assurance of God's favour, as a cheerful charitable, and upright behaviour, which are better signes of religions than the zealous maintaining of controverted doctrines. He had a good eie, and that of a hazel colour, which was full of life and spirit, even to his last; when he was in discourse, there shone (as it were) a bright live coale within it. He had two kinds of looks; when he laught, was witty, and in a merry humour, one could scarce see his eies; by and by, when he was serious and earnest, he opened his eies round his eie-lids: he had middling eies, not very big nor very little. He was six foote high and something better, and went indifferently erect, or rather, considering his great age, very erect."

Aubrey was one of the patrons of Hollar, of whom he has also given us some brief but interesting particulars. The two following letters, which were transcribed by Malone when he contemplated a publication of the Aubrey papers, deserve preservation; indeed, one of them relates immediately to the subject of this notice:

"Sir,

"I have now done the picture of Mr. Hobbes, and have showed it to some of his acquaintance, who say it to be very like; but Stent has deceived me, and maketh demurr to have it of me; as that at this present my labour seemeth to be lost, for it lyeth dead by me. However, I returne you many thankes for lending mee the Principall, and I have halve a dozen copies for you, and the painting I have delivered to your Messenger who brought it to mee before.

"The 1st of August, 1661."

"[For Mr. Aubrey.]

"Sir,

"I have beene told this morning that you are in Town, and that you desire to speak with mee, so I did presently repaire to your Lodging, but they told mee that you went out at 6 o'clock that morning, and it was past 7 then. If I could know certaine time when to finde you I would waite on you. My selve doe lodge without St. Clement's Inne back doore; as soon as you come up the steps and out of that doore is the first house and doore on the left hand, two paire of staires into a little passage right before you; but I am much abroad, and yet enough at home too.

"If you had occasion to aske for mee of the people of the house, then you must say the Frenchman Limmner, for they know not my name perfectly, for reasons sake, otherwise you may goe up directly."

This minute localising of one of the humble workshops of this admirable artist may not be unacceptable to Mr. Peter Cunningham for some future edition of his very interesting Handbook of London. It may not be amiss to add that Hollar died on the 25th of March 1677, in the seventieth year of his age and that he was buried in St. Margaret's churchyard, Westminster, near the north-west corner of the tower, but without stone to mark the spot.

S. W. Singer.

Mickleham.

PAROCHIAL LIBRARIES.

(Vol. viii., p. 62.)

In the vestry of the fine old priory church at Cartmel, in Lancashire, there is a good library, chiefly of divinity, consisting of about three hundred volumes, placed in a commodious room, and kept in nice order. This small but valuable collection was left to the parish by Thomas Preston, of Holker, Esq.

There is another in the vestry of the church at Castleton, in Derbyshire; or rather in a room built expressly to contain then, adjoining the vestry. They were left to the parish by the Rev. James Farrer, M.A., who had been vicar of Castleton for about forty-five years, and consist of about two thousand volumes in good condition, partly theological and partly miscellaneous, about equally divided, which are lent to the parishioners at the discretion of the vicar. Mr. Farrer left behind him a maiden sister, and a brother-in-law Mr. Hamilton, who resided in Bath; the former of whom erected the room containing the books, and a vestry at the same time and both considerably augmented the number of volumes, and made the library what it now is.

Under the chancel of the spacious and venerable parish church of Halifax, in Yorkshire, are some large rooms upon a level with the lower part of the churchyard, in one of which is contained a good library of books. Robert Clay, D.D., vicar of Halifax, who died April 9, 1628, was buried in this library, which he is said to have built.

In the Rectory House at Whitchurch, in Shropshire, built by Richard Newcome, D.D., rector of that place, and afterwards Bishop of St. Asaph, there is a valuable library left as an heirloom by the bequest of Jane, Countess Dowager of Bridgewater; who, in the year 1707, having purchased from his executors the library of the Reverend Clement Sankey, D.D., rector of Whitchurch, for 305l., left it for ever for the use of the rectors for the time being. The number of the volumes was 2250: amongst which are a fine copy of Walton's Polyglott Bible, some of the ancient Fathers, and other valuable theological works. This collection has been subsequently increased by a bequest from the late Rev. Francis Henry, Earl of Bridgewater (of eccentric memory), rector of Whitchurch, who by his will, dated in 1825, gave the whole of his own books in the Rectory House at Whitchurch, to be added to the others, and left also the sum of 150l. to the rector to be invested in his name, and the dividends thereof expended by him, together with the money arising from the sale of his lordship's wines and liquors in his cellars at Whitchurch, in the purchase of printed books for the use of the rectors of that parish for the time being.

The same noble earl presented to the rector of Middle, in the county of Salop, a small collection of books towards founding a library there: and bequeathed by his will the sum of 800l., to be applied, under the direction of the rector of Middle for the time being, for augmenting this library. He also left a farther sum of 150l. to be invested in the name of the rector; and the dividends thereof expended by him in the purchase of books for the continual augmentation of the library, in the same manner as he had done at Whitchurch.

It is to this Earl of Bridgewater that we are indebted not only for those valuable works the Bridgewater Treatises, but also for large bequests of money and landed property to the trustees of the British Museum, for the purchase of manuscripts, in addition to those from his own collection, which he had already bequeathed to the same institution.

Thos. Corser.

Stand Rectory.

BATTLE OF VILLERS EN COUCHÉ.

(Vol. viii., pp. 8. 127.)

I am in a position to furnish a more complete account of this skirmish, and of the action of April 26, in which my grandfather, General Mansel, fell, from a copy of the Evening Mail of May 14, 1794, now in the possession of J. C. Mansel, Esq., of Cosgrove Hall, Northamptonshire. Your correspondent Mr. T. C. Smith appears to have been misinformed as to the immediate suppression of the Poetical Sketches by an officer of the Guards, as I have seen the third edition of that work, printed in 1796.

"Particulars of the Glorious Victory obtained by the English Cavalry over the French under the Command of General Chapuis, at Troisoille, on the 26th of April, 1794.

"On the 25th, according to orders received from the Committee of Public Safety, and subsequently from General Pichegru, General Chapuis, who commanded the Camp of Cæsar, marched from thence with his whole force, consisting of 25,000 infantry, 3000 cavalry, and seventy-five pieces of cannon. At Cambray he divided them into three columns; the one marched by Ligny, and attacked the redoubt at Troisoille, which was most gallantly defended by Col. Congreve against this column of 10,000 men. The second column was then united, consisting of 12,000 men, which marched on the high road as far as Beausois, and from that village turned off to join the first column; and the attack recommenced against Col. Congreve's redoubt, who kept the whole at bay. The enemy's flank was supported by the village of Caudry, to defend which they had six pieces of cannon, 2000 infantry, and 500 cavalry. During this period Gen. Otto conceived it practicable to fall on their flank with the cavalry; in consequence of which, Gen. Mansel, with about 1450 men—consisting of the Blues, 1st and 3rd Dragoon Guards, 5th Dragoon Guards, and 1st Dragoons, 15th and 16th Dragoons, with Gen. Dundas, and a division of Austrian cuirassiers, and another of Archduke Ferdinand's hussars under Prince Swartzenburg—after several manœuvres, came up with the enemy in the village of Caudry, through which they charged, putting the cavalry to flight, and putting a number of infantry to the sword, and taking the cannon. Gen. Chapuis, perceiving the attack on the village of Caudry, sent down the regiment of carabineers to support those troops; but the succour came too late, and this regiment was charged by the English light dragoons and the hussars, and immediately gave way with some little loss. The charge was then continued against a battery of eight pieces of cannon behind a small ravine, which was soon carried; and, with equal rapidity, the heavy cavalry rushed on to attack a battery of fourteen pieces of cannon, placed on an eminence behind a very steep ravine, into which many of the front ranks fell; and the cannon, being loaded with grape, did some execution: however, a considerable body, with Gen. Mansel at their head, passed the ravine, and charged the cannon with inconceivable intrepidity, and their efforts were crowned with the utmost success. This event decided the day, and the remaining time was passed in cutting down battalions, till every man and horse was obliged to give up the pursuit from fatigue. It was at the mouth of this battery that the brave and worthy Gen. Mansel was shot: one grape-shot entering his chin, fracturing the spine, and coming out between the shoulders; and the other breaking his arm to splinters; his horse was also killed under him, his Brigade-Major Payne's horse shot, and his son and aide-de-camp, Capt. Mansel, wounded and taken prisoner; and it is since known that he was taken into Arras. The French lost between 14,000 and 15,000 men killed; we took 580 prisoners. The loss in tumbrils and ammunition was immense, and in all fifty pieces of cannon, of which thirty-five fell to the English; twenty-seven to the heavy, and eight to the light cavalry. Thus ended a day which will redound with immortal honour to the bravery of the British cavalry, who, assisted by a small body of Austrians, the whole not amounting to 1500, gained so complete a victory over 22,000 men in sight of their corps de reserve, consisting of 6000 men and twenty pieces of cannon. Had the cavalry been more numerous, or the infantry able to come up, it is probable few of the French would have escaped. History does not furnish such an example of courage.

"The whole army lamented the loss of the brave General, who thus gloriously terminated a long military career, during which he had been ever honoured, esteemed, and respected by all who knew him. It should be some consolation to those he has left behind him, that his reputation was as unsullied as his soul was honest; and that he died as he lived, an example of true courage, honour, and humility. On the 24th General Mansel narrowly escaped being surrounded at Villers de Couché by the enemy, owing to a mistake of General Otto's aide-de-camp, who was sent to bring up the heavy cavalry: in doing which he mistook the way, and led them to the front of the enemy's cannon, by which the 3rd Dragoon Guards suffered considerably."—Extract from the Evening Mail, May 14, 1794.

From the above extract, compared with the communication of Mr. Smith (Vol. viii., p. 127.), it appears that the 15th Light Dragoons were engaged in both actions, that of Villers en Couché on April 24, and that of Troisoille (or Cateau) on the 26th. In the statement communicated by Mr. Simpson (Ibid. p. 8.), there appears to be some confusion between the particulars of the two engagements.

H. L. Mansel, B.D.

St. John's College, Oxford

As the action at Villers en Couché has lately been brought before your readers, allow me to direct your correspondent to the Journals and Correspondence of Sir Harry Calvert, edited by Sir Harry Verney, and just published by Messrs. Hurst and Co.,—a book which contains a good deal of valuable information respecting a memorable campaign. Sir Harry Calvert, under the date of the 25th of April, 1794, thus describes the action at Villers en Couché:

"Since Tuesday, as I foresaw was likely, we have been a good deal on the qui vive. On Wednesday morning we had information that the enemy had moved in considerable force from the Camp de César, and early in the afternoon we learned that they had crossed the Selle at Saultzoir, and pushed patrols towards Quesnoy and Valenciennes. The Duke [of York] sent orders to General Otto, who had gone out to Cambray on a reconnoitring party with light dragoons and hussars, to get into the rear of the enemy, find out their strength, and endeavour to cut them off. The enemy retired to Villers en Couché that night, but occupied Saultzoir and Haussy. Otto, fielding their strength greater than he expected, about 14,000, early in the evening sent in for a brigade of heavy cavalry for his support, which marched first to Fontaine Antarque, and afterwards to St. Hilaire; and in the night he sent for a farther support of four battalions and some artillery. Unfortunately he confided this important mission to a hussar, who never delivered it, probably having lost his way, so that, in the morning, the general found himself under the necessity of attacking with very inferior numbers. However, by repeated charges of his light cavalry, he drove the enemy back into their camp, and took three pieces of cannon. He had, at one time, taken eight; but the enemy, bringing up repeated reinforcements of fresh troops, retook five.

"Our loss I cannot yet ascertain, but I fear the 15th Light Dragoons have suffered considerably. Two battalions of the enemy are entirely destroyed."

The especial bravery of the troops engaged on the 26th, which is another subject noticed by your correspondent Bibliothecar. Chetham. prompted the following entry on his journal by Sir Harry Calvert:

"April 26.—The enemy made a general attack on the camp of the allies. On their approaching the right of the camp, the Duke of York directed a column of heavy cavalry, consisting of the regiment of Zedwitsch Cuirassiers, the Blues, Royals, 1st, 3rd, and 5th Dragoon Guards, to turn the enemy, or endeavour to take them in flank, which service they performed in a style beyond all praise, charging repeatedly through the enemy's column, and taking twenty-six pieces of cannon. The light dragoons and hussars took nine pieces on the left of the Duke's camp."

Sir Harry Verney has printed in an Appendix his father's well-considered plans for the defence of the country against the invasion anticipated in 1796.

J. B.

ATTAINMENT OF MAJORITY.

(Vol. viii., pp. 198. 250. 296.)

The misunderstanding which has arisen between Professor De Morgan and A. E. B. has proceeded, it appears, from the misapplication of the statement of the latter's authority (Arthur Hopton) to the question at issue. Where Hopton says that our lawyers count their day from sunrise to sunset, he, I am of opinion, merely refers to certain instances, such as distress for rent:

"A man cannot distrain for rent or rent-charge in the night (which, according to the author of The Mirror, is after sunset and before sunrising)."—Impey on Distress and Replevin, p. 49.

In common law, the day is now supposed among lawyers to be from six in the morning to seven at night for service of notices; in Chancery till eight at night. And a service after such times at night would be counted as good only for the next day. In the case of Liffin v. Pitcher, 1 Dowl. N. S. 767., Justice Coleridge said, "I am in the habit of giving twenty-four hours to plead when I give one day." Thus it will be perceived that a lawyer's day is of different lengths.

With regard to the time at which a person arrives at majority, we have good authority in support of Professor De Morgan's statement:

"So that full age in male or female is twenty-one years, which age is completed on the day preceding the anniversary of a person's birth, who till that time is an infant, and so styled in law."—Blackstone's Commentaries, vol. i. p. 463.

There is no doubt also that the law rejects fractions of a day where it is possible:

"It is clear that the law rejecteth all fractions of days for the uncertainty, and commonly allows him that hath part of the day in law to have the whole day, unless where it, by fraction or relation, may be a prejudice to a third person."—Sir O. Bridgm. l.

And in respect to the present case it is quite clear. In the case of Reg. v. The Parish of St. Mary, Warwick, reported in the Jurist (vol. xvii. p. 551.), Lord Campbell said:

"In some cases the Court does not regard the fraction of a day. Where the question is on what day a person came of age, the fraction of the day on which he was born and on which he came of age is not considered."

And farther on he says:

"It is a general maxim that the law does not regard the fraction of a day."

Russell Gole.

I only treat misquotation as an offence in the old sense of the word; and courteously, but most positively, I deny the right of any one who quotes to omit, or to alter emphasis, without stating what he has done. That A. E. B. did misunderstand me, I was justified in inferring from his implication (p. 198. col. 2) that I made the day begin "a minute after midnight."

Arthur Hopton, whom A. E. B. quotes against me (but the quotation is from chapter xiv., not xiii.), is wrong in his law. The lawyers, from Coke down to our own time, give both days, the natural and artificial, as legal days. See Coke Littleton (Index, Day), the current commentators on Blackstone, and the usual law dictionaries.

Nevertheless, this discussion will serve the purpose. No one denies that the day of majority now begins at midnight: no one pretends to prove, by evidence of decisions, or opinion of writers on law, that it began otherwise in 1600. How then did Ben Jonson make it begin, as clearly A. E. B. shows he does, at six o'clock (meaning probably a certain sunrise)? Hopton throws out the natural day altogether in a work on chronology, and lays down the artificial day as the only one known to lawyers: it is not wonderful that Jonson should have fallen into the same mistake.

A. De Morgan.

SIMILARITY OF IDEA IN ST. LUKE AND JUVENAL.

(Vol. viii., p. 195.)

I send, as a pendant to Mr. Weir's lines from Juvenal, the following extract from Cicero:

"Sed in eâ es urbe, in quâ hæc, vel plura, et ornatiora, parietes ipsi loqui posse videantur."—Cic. Epist., 1. vi. 3.: Torquato, Pearce's 12mo. edition.

Most, if not all, of the readers of "N. & Q." are I believe, pleased by having their attention drawn to parallel passages in which a similarity of idea or thought is found. Let us adopt for conciseness the term "parallel passages" (frequently used in "N. & Q."), as embracing every kind of similarity. Contributions of such passages to "N. & Q." would form a very interesting collection. I should be particularly pleased by a full collection of parallel passages from the Scriptures and ancient and modern literature, and especially Shakspeare. (See Mr. Buckton's "Shakspearian Parallels," antè, p. 240.)

To prevent sending passages that have been inserted in "N. & Q.," every note should refer to the note immediately preceding. I send the following parallel passages with some hesitation, because I have not my volumes of "N. & Q." at hand, to ascertain whether they have already appeared, and because they are probably familiar to your readers. I do not, however, send them as novelties, but as a contribution to the collection which I wish to see made:

"Ἀπὸ δὲ τοῦ μὴ ἔχοντος καὶ ὃ ἔχει ἀρθήσεται ἀπ' αὐτοῦ."—Matt. xxv. 29., Luke xix. 26.

The rich man says:

"Ψυχὴ, ἔχεις πολλὰ ἀγαθὰ κείμενα εἰς ἔτη πολλά· ἀναπαύου, φάγε, πίε, εὐφραίνου."—Luke xii. 19.

"Lo, this is the man that took not God for his strength but trusted unto the multitude of his riches."—Ps. lii. 8.

"For he hath said in his heart, Tush, I shall never be cast down there shall no harm happen unto me."—Ps. x. 6., &c. (See Obadiah v. 3.: "Who shall bring me down to the ground?")

So Niobe boasts:

"Τί δὲ βλέπεις τὸ κάρφος τὸ ἐν τῷ ὀφθαλμῷ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ σοῦ, τὴν δὲ ἐν τῷ σῷ ὀφθαλμῳ δοκὸν οὐ κατανοεῖς."—Matt. vii. 3.

"Ἡ νὺξ προέκοψεν, ἡ δὲ ἡμέρα ἤγγικεν."—Rom. xiii. 12.

"Ἀλλ' ἴομεν· μάλα γὰρ νὺξ ἄνεται, ἐγγύθι δ' ἠώς."—Hom. Iliad, x. 251.

F. W. J.

Brighton.

PHOTOGRAPHIC CORRESPONDENCE.

Mr. Sisson's developing Fluid.—Since I sent you the new formula for Mr. Sisson's positive developer, which you published in Vol. viii., p. 301., Mr. Sisson has written to me to say that if, instead of the acetic acid, you add two drachms of formic acid, the new agent proposed by Mr. Lyte, you certainly obtain the sweetest-toned positives he has ever seen. The pictures, he says, come out very quickly with it indeed; and with a small lens in a sitting-room he can in about ten seconds obtain the most wonderful detail. Every wrinkle in the face, and ladies' lace ribbons or cap-strings, he says, come out beautifully.

The formula then, as improved by Mr. Sisson, is—

Perhaps you will give your readers the benefit of it in your next Number. Having tried it myself, I think they will be delighted with the beautiful white silvery tone, without any metallic reflection, produced in pictures developed with it.

J. Leachman.

20. Compton Terrace, Islington.

Dr. Diamond's Process for Albumenized Paper.—Photographers are under many obligations to Dr. Diamond, particularly for the valuable information communicated through "N. & Q.," and his obligingness in answering inquiries. I make no doubt he will readily reply to the following questions, suggested by his late letter on the process for printing on albumenized paper.

Will the solution of forty grains of common salt and forty grains of mur. amm., without the albumen, be found to answer for ordinary positive paper (say Canson's, Turner's, or Whatman's)? and, in that case, may it be applied with a brush?

Will the forty-grain solution of nit. sil. (without amm.) answer for paper so prepared? and may this also be applied with a brush?

Should the positives be printed out very strongly? and how long should they remain in the saturated bath of hypo.?

Is not the use of sel d'or subject to the objection that the pictures with which it is used are liable to fade in time?

Dr. Diamond says that pictures produced by the use of amm. nit. of silver are not to be depended on for permanency. If this be so, it is very important it should be known, as the use of amm. nit. is at present generally recommended and adopted.

C. E. F.

Mr. Lyte's New Process.—Although I presume it is none of your affair what is said or done in "another place," will you kindly ask Mr. Lyte for me, if he will be so good as to explain the discrepancy which appears between his "new processes," as given in the Journal of the Photographic Society of Sept. 21, and "N. & Q." of Sept. 10? In the former he says, for sensitizing, take (amongst other things) iodide of ammonia 60 grains: in "N. & Q.," on the contrary, what would seem to be the same receipt, or intended as the same, gives the quantity of this salt one fourth less, 45 grains—a vast difference. Again, in the developing solution the quantity of formic acid is double in your paper what it is in the journal.

I should not have trespassed on your space, but would have written to Mr. Lyte directly, except from the fear that some other unfortunate practitioner may have stumbled over the same impediment as I have done, and may not have had courage to make the inquiry.

S. B.

[Having forwarded this communication to Mr. Lyte, we have received from that gentleman the following explanations of his process, &c.]

The process which was published in the Photographic Journal was, I am sorry to say, not quite correct in its proportions, on account of a mistake in inclosing the wrong letter to the Editor; but the mistake will, I trust, be rectified by another communication which I have now sent.

The whole of the formulæ, however, as given in "N. & Q.," are quite correct.

Let me now, however, trespass on your pages by a few more answers to several other Querists, and which at the same time may be acceptable to some of your readers.

1. The developing agents which are made with iron are very applicable as baths to immerse the plate in; and the formic acid, from its powerful deoxidizing property, renders the iron salt more stable during long use and exposure to the air.

2. In coating paper with albumen, if the upper edge of the paper be sufficiently turned back, and the paper be forced down sufficiently on to the surface of the albumen, no bubbles will form; and the operator will not be troubled with the streaks so often complained of.

3. No time can possibly be fixed for the exposure of the positive to the action of the hypo.; and to produce the best effects, the positive must be continually watched, both while printing and while in the hypo.

4. No hot iron should be applied to the positive after being printed, but the picture should be allowed to dry spontaneously.

5. The developing agent with the pyrogallic and formic acids will keep good a very long time, longer, I think, than that in which acetic acid is used, but cannot be used as a dipping bath.

6. I find the formic acid which I obtain from different chemists rather variable in its strength. What I use is rather below the average strength, so that in general about six drachms of the commercial acid will suffice where I use one ounce; but the excess seems to produce no bad result.

7. A great advantage of the pyrogallic developer which I recommend, is that of its being able to be diluted to almost any extent, with no other result than simply making the development slower. Another point is also worthy of notice, viz. a method by which even a very weak positive on glass may be converted into a very strong negative.

I take a saturated solution of bichloride of mercury in hydrochloric acid, and add of this one to six parts of water. This I pour over the collodion plate, and watch it till the whitening process is quite complete. Having well washed the surface with water, I pour over it a solution of iodide of potassium, very weak, not more than two or three grains to the ounce of water. The effect of this is to turn the white parts to a brilliant yellow, quite impervious to actinic rays. This process is only applicable to weak negative or instantaneous pictures, as, if used on a picture of much intensity, the opacity produced is too great. By using, however, instead of the iodide of potassium, a weak solution of ammonia, as recommended by Mr. Hunt, a less degree of intensity may be produced again a less intensity by hyposulphate of soda and a less degree again, but still a slight darkening, by pouring on the bichloride and pouring it off at once before the whitening commences. I thus can tell the exact degree of negative effect in any picture of whatever intensity. The terchloride of gold is most uncertain in its results, at any rate I find it so.

I must again beg you to excuse the great length of my communication, and hope it will be of service to my fellow photographers.

F. Maxwell Lyte.

Florian, Torquay.