. , ... 
 
 ...-,■■ 
 

 Iff. 
 OKI Lh 
 
 
 
EEMAEKS 
 
 SOME EVIDENCE RECENTLY COMMUNICATED 
 
 PHOTOGRAPHIC SOCIETY. 
 
 M. P. W. BOULTON. 
 
 LONDON : 
 PRINTED BY BRADBURY & EVANS, WHITEFRIARS. 
 
 1863. 
 
E E M A R K S. 
 
 Certain evidence has recently been published 
 concerning the supposed practice of photography at 
 Soho at an early date ; upon which, considering the 
 importance of the question at issue and the need of 
 strict accuracy in dealing with it, I think it right to 
 make some remarks. 
 
 I am by no means fully satisfied with the evidence 
 actually set forth, and consider that Mr. Smith in 
 publishing it has placed too implicit a reliance on 
 the authority of my local agent Edward Price. 
 And I have expressed my regret to Mr. Smith that 
 he did not communicate with me earlier on this 
 subject,"* and did not take more pains to test the 
 accuracy of Price's statements': as I should much 
 have wished that on so delicate a question no evi- 
 
 * I received no communication either from Mr.. Smith or 
 from Price on this subject until after the appearance of the 
 recent article in the " Saturday Review." 
 
dence should be presented to the public except such 
 as could be relied on. 
 
 I may state generally concerning Price that 
 though I have found in him an intelligent and useful 
 servant I have long been aware that accuracy is not 
 his forte, and that he is liable to great misappre- 
 hension. There is much in his present statements 
 which confirms my previous conviction to this effect. 
 But passing over various traits of this character, I 
 will confine myself to one or two points. 
 
 The time of clearing out the library is dated by 
 him too far back. This is stated to have taken place 
 twenty years ago ; whereas it was certainly not 
 earlier than 1847 (probably in 184S). 
 
 Miss Wilkinson is represented as giving away the 
 camera as " rubbish ; " from which the natural 
 inference is, that she was ignorant of the use of a 
 camera, and did not know one by sight ; whereas, 
 she frequently used the camera and well knew its 
 nature. I have been informed by a lady, a friend 
 of the family, that she remembers seeing Miss Wil- 
 kinson taking what she called " sun pictures " on 
 the lawn in front of Soho House, at a time, to the 
 best of her belief, twenty-eight years ago ; and Mr. 
 Smith has obtained evidence purporting to show 
 that Miss Wilkinson used the camera for photo- 
 graphic purposes at a still earlier period. 
 
 It is stated that the library in which the supposed 
 photographs were found remained unopened for fifty 
 years, and was then opened by Price himself. This 
 
representation of the case is by no means accurate. 
 The library in question was not hermetically sealed. 
 The room itself was in constant use and the books 
 freely accessible. The cupboards were rarely 
 opened, but were so occasionally ; and I do not 
 myself doubt that Miss Wilkinson had access to the 
 cupboard in which the camera, mentioned in the 
 evidence, was kept, and made use of that very 
 camera in her photographic experiments. 
 
 The antiquity therefore of the articles under 
 consideration must be substantiated on grounds 
 wholly independent of the statement which repre- 
 sents the library as unopened or undisturbed for 
 fifty years. 
 
 And I think that the antiquity of the paper 
 pictures readily admits of substantiation quite inde- 
 pendently of any such statement. It is confidently 
 affirmed by good judges that they differ from the 
 products of any known process ; there seems there- 
 fore no reasonable ground to doubt that these 
 peculiar pictures are specimens of the peculiar 
 process which was carried on at Soho in my grand- 
 father's time, and not at any subsequent period. 
 As exhibiting the early stage of this process they 
 are of great interest ; and I consider that my best 
 thanks are due to Mr. Smith for having brought 
 them to light, as also for the zeal and industry 
 evinced by him generally in connection with the 
 subject. 
 
 It appears, on good evidence, that the pictures 
 
made at Soho by the secret method practised there 
 were produced in some way by the agency of light ; 
 at the same time the circumstance that only pictures 
 and engravings appear to have been copied by this 
 method, and the large size of the pictures produced 
 by it,* render it difficult to believe that it consisted 
 in either copying or fixing the image formed by a 
 camera. 
 
 With respect to the metal plates, I do not think 
 their antiquity can be regarded as established till 
 further evidence corroborative of Mr. Price's state- 
 ments can be obtained. 
 
 The improbability of the alleged fact is however 
 not so great as might appear at first sight. Seeing 
 that the process of which the paper pictures are 
 specimens had been carefully suppressed as objec- 
 tionable, it can be understood that the photographs 
 on the metal plates might have been taken at Soho 
 at the date assigned, and yet that the method of 
 their production might not have been divulged or 
 pursued. 
 
 * I have some oil copies made by this process much larger 
 than those exhibited by Mi'. Smith. 
 
REMARKS 
 
 CONCERNING 
 
 CERTAIN PHOTOGRAPHS 
 
 SUPPOSED TO BE OP 
 
 EARLY DATE. 
 
 BY 
 
 M. P. W. BOULTON. 
 
 LONDON : 
 BEADBUEY & EVANS, 11, BOUVEEIE STEEET. 
 
 1864. 
 
REMARKS. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 I mention some particulars having reference to the 
 photographs found at Soho, which I have ascertained 
 since writing my former remarks. 
 
 I find that my contradiction of Price's statement 
 concerning the closure of the library was not suffi- 
 ciently strong. My sister, who latterly was much 
 more at Soho than I was, informs me that during a 
 considerable period of time the cupboards in the 
 library were frequently open, more often open than 
 shut. 
 
 I find also that the portion of the library in ques- 
 tion, called the back library, (the room in which 
 the camera, photographs, &c, were found,) was used 
 by Miss Wilkinson as her studio : and there can be 
 no doubt that she had access to the cupboards in it. 
 
 Concerning Price, I have found that he has been 
 guilty of great dishonesty, having fraudulently appro- 
 priated a large sum of money. In his letters to me 
 he has confessed that for many years he has abused 
 the confidence reposed in him ; and he represents 
 
himself as suffering extreme wretchedness on this 
 account. It is obvious that if I suppressed such cir- 
 cumstances, and allowed his testimony to enjoy the 
 credit due to that of an upright person, I should 
 myself be doing great wrong to the public, and to 
 those who are now considered the inventors of pho- 
 tography. 
 
 With reference to the subject of the camera, I find 
 that there were two cameras in the library at Soho : 
 a camera obscura, and a camera lucida. Both were 
 frequently used by Miss Wilkinson. She used the 
 camera obscura for photography properly so called 
 (i. e. for making pictures by means of a lens) : but 
 she used it far more frequently for making copies of 
 objects by drawing. She prized it much, as a very 
 good instrument. 
 
 This camera was an old camera, and I do not 
 doubt that it existed in the library in my grand- 
 father's time, and was used by him. 
 
 For taking the photogenic drawings of the ferns 
 Miss Wilkinson used another and modern instru- 
 ment : that which Mr. Stockdale says she called a 
 helioscope.* 
 
 Miss Wilkinson knew nothing of photography 
 before the publication of the discoveries of Daguerre 
 and Talbot : but soon after this she received instruc- 
 
 * Mr. Smith conjectures that Miss Wilkinson most probably 
 made her photographs by means of the camera lucida. Those 
 who understand the nature of the camera lucida can appreciate 
 the merit of this conjecture. 
 
tions in photography from two gentlemen resident in 
 the neighbourhood, Mr. Murdoch and Mr. Alston. 
 One or both of these gentlemen took photographs of 
 Soho house. It appears that they made Daguerreo- 
 types ; and very likely obtained their metal plates 
 from Soho ; whence Daguerre at an early period 
 obtained his plates. Of course, therefore, in the 
 absence of proof to the contrary, it is perfectly open 
 to suppose that the photographs on the metal plates 
 were made by one of these gentlemen, given by him 
 to Miss Wilkinson, and deposited by her in the 
 library.' 55 ' 
 
 It has been observed that I do not apparently dis- 
 pute the evidence of the old man Townsend. But 
 what is thus called his evidence rests solely on the 
 authority of Price : who is quite capable of attri- 
 buting to him statements which he never really made. 
 Some of the statements ascribed to Townsend are 
 known by me to be true, but these are not new : 
 others are new ; but the question is whether these 
 are true, or whether they are inventions of Price. 
 
 Just in the same way it is doubtful whether the 
 statements attributed to Miss Wilkinson were really 
 made by her. If she knew that the plates were of 
 the elate alleged, it is exceedingly improbable that 
 she would give them to Price, and very strange that 
 
 * It has been conjectured that the plates are by Niepce, but 
 it is strongly against this supposition that one of them was 
 certainly a representation of Soho house in its modern state, as 
 is shown by features not yet effaced. 
 
she never mentioned them to myself and other mem- 
 bers of the family. 
 
 Again, if photography were practised at Soho at 
 the time in question, it is difficult to conceive that 
 my father could have been ignorant of the fact. And 
 if he knew of it, it is very strange that when the 
 invention of photography was in everybody's mouth, 
 lie never mentioned the early practice of the art at 
 Soho. 
 
 If clear evidence were adduced in proof of the fact 
 alleged, all such difficulties would be of no account : 
 but until this is done they must be seriously 
 considered. They would present obstacles to the 
 reception of Price's story, even if he bore a good 
 character. Actually, however, he does not do so : 
 having exhibited a flagrant want of moral principle. 
 Under such circumstances his unsupported testimony 
 carries no weight : and it would be irrational to 
 accord credit to his statements except where they may 
 be corroborated by evidence of a trustworthy kind. 
 
 His story has received some confirmation from 
 the evidence of Dr. Lee. But this confirmation is 
 obviously inconclusive ; for while it may be admitted 
 that pictures of Soho house before and after its 
 alteration were taken by some peculiar process, it by 
 no means follows that the photographs obtained from 
 Price are the pictures so taken. 
 
 This point cannot be established unless some 
 knowledge be obtained of what Soho house was like 
 before the alteration. 
 
Having procured from Mr. Smith a drawing of 
 the photograph alleged to represent Soho house in 
 its former state, I sent it to Mr. Zaccheus Walker, a 
 gentleman residing near Soho, asking him both to 
 compare it with houses in the neighbourhood, and to 
 show it to any old persons who might be found 
 capable of recollecting the former appearance of 
 Soho house. 
 
 I am informed that at present no house has been 
 discovered which the drawing can be supposed to 
 represent. 
 
 Two old persons were found who professed to 
 recollect the former appearance of Soho house ; viz. 
 Mrs. Townsend, widow of the old man previously 
 mentioned, and Samuel Vale, an old Soho workman. 
 It is stated that Mrs. Townsend is eighty-five years 
 old, and came to work at Soho when seven years old. 
 Samuel Vale is said to be seventy-four years old. 
 
 From the testimony of these two persons it would 
 seem that the alteration of the house took place 
 either in 1794 or 1795. Mrs. Townsend at this 
 time would be fifteen or sixteen years old ; at which 
 age she might have had a good and lasting know- 
 ledge of the appearance of the house. 
 
 It is asserted that when the drawing was shown 
 to Mrs. Townsend, she declared it with much confi- 
 dence to represent Soho house as she first recollected 
 it. But on a subsequent examination she declared 
 that Soho house before the alteration was three 
 stories high, and that the windows on the ground 
 
floor were round windows coining out from the wall 
 (i.e., it may be presumed, bay windows). Such 
 features do not in the least tally with those displayed 
 in the photograph. 
 
 When the drawing was shown to Samuel Vale, he 
 too asserted that it represented Soho house as he 
 first remembered it ; while on a second examination 
 he too asserted that the house before its alteration 
 was three stories high. Mr. Walker states it as his 
 opinion that Samuel Vale has really no knowledge of 
 the former appearance of the house ; nor, looking at 
 lils age, can this be wondered at. 
 
 At present, therefore, so far as I have been able 
 to ascertain, the evidence needed to establish the 
 antiquity of the photographs on the metal plates is 
 at a most important point wanting. 
 
 I have urged Mr. Smith to send a drawing of the 
 photograph to , the gentlemen at Birmingham who 
 communicated with him, in the hope that they may 
 be able to find some other old persons capable of 
 giving evidence on the subject. 
 
 I shall be very glad if it can be shown on good 
 evidence that photography was successfully practised 
 at Soho in the last century ; but I am wholly un- 
 willing that a belief to that effect should be created 
 by statements contrary to fact. 
 
 The untrustworthy character of Price is powerless 
 to affect the case of the paper pictures, the interest 
 of these being manifest on grounds quite inde- 
 pendent of his testimony. There can, I think, be 
 
little doubt that these pictures are specimens of the 
 " polygraphic " process, well known to have been 
 carried on at Soho, with which Eginton was more 
 particularly concerned. Though this method of 
 making copies was probably widely different from 
 photography, it was evidently a process of a peculiar 
 and interesting kind. 
 
 Since the above was written, I have been requested 
 to give fuller particulars concerning the evidence of 
 Mrs. Townsend and S. Vale. I therefore proceed to 
 do this. 
 
 It w 7 as stated as the result of the first examination, 
 that Mrs. Townsend recognised the drawing imme- 
 diately and with confidence as representing Soho 
 house before its alteration. And it was said that 
 Samuel Vale pronounced a similar opinion on the 
 subject. 
 
 It appeared, however, that the questions had been 
 put to the witnesses by the widow of one of the old 
 Soho workmen. I requested therefore that a more 
 authoritative examination of the parties should be 
 made by one or two gentlemen (as Mr. Walker had 
 himself suggested). 
 
 In his reply Mr. Walker says : — 
 
 " According to your desire to have better evidence 
 from Mrs. Townsend, I engaged two professionals for 
 the purpose, viz., Mr. Berry, surgeon, and Mr. 
 Arnold, solicitor. Inclosed is the report from the 
 
10 
 
 latter, whereby you will perceive that all former 
 assertions as to the fact deposed are demolished. . . 
 . . . ' In my interview with Samuel Vale, and my 
 cross-examination, I have arrived at the conviction 
 that he knows nothing about what the Soho house 
 was prior to the alteration : he only recollects it as 
 a three-story house.' " 
 
 The following is Mr. Arnold's report of the inter- 
 view with Mrs. Townsend : — 
 
 " Mr. Berry and myself called to-day upon Mrs. 
 Townsend. . . . We found the old lady infirm, 
 but her memory pretty clear. She was born at 
 Castle Bromwich, in October, 1779 : consequently 
 she was eighty-five last year. She came to Bir- 
 mingham when she was very young, and went to 
 work at Soho when she was seven years old, and she 
 worked there until the money-making department 
 was given up. . . . She recollects Mr. Boulton 
 very well, and likewise the house at Soho, which 
 she says was altered about eight years after she 
 went to work there : this would make her fifteen 
 years of age, and bring the time down to about 
 1794, which would agree with Shaw's histoiy. I 
 questioned her respecting the alteration, and she 
 says that the house was not taken down, but added 
 to. Now comes the most curious part, which I think 
 at once sets at rest the idea that the drawing repre- 
 sented Mr. Boulton's house. She states that the 
 house was small and old-fashioned, with small 
 windows, three stories high, and the windows on the 
 
il 
 
 ground-floor were what she called round windows, 
 coming out from the wall (we should have called 
 them bay windows)." 
 
 I asked Mr. Walker to procure, if possible, some 
 explanation in reference to this evidence of Mrs. 
 Towmsend : how it was that, giving such an account 
 of the house, she yet professed to recognise in the 
 drawing a representation of it. 
 
 On this point Mr. Arnold writes as follows : — 
 
 " My opinion is, that if Mrs. Townsend ever said 
 that the drawing was Soho house, she must have 
 been made to say so by some one who told her it 
 was so, and asking her the question if she did not 
 think it like, such a statement and such a question 
 might lead an old woman to say it was something 
 like ; which would easily, by any one wishing to do 
 so, be turned into saying she knew it immediately. 
 I do not believe she ever saw the drawing sufficiently 
 to tell whether it was any house or Soho ; for when 
 I put the drawing before her, after trying three 
 pairs of spectacles she said she could see nothing but 
 some lines : she tried very hard to make something 
 out of it, but could not." 
 
 When the statements of Mrs. Townsend and the 
 untrustworthy character of Price are taken into 
 account, it is evident that the cardinal and essential 
 allegation, viz., that the photograph in question 
 represents old Soho house, whatever may be its 
 actual truth, is quite unproved. 
 
 Looking at the evidence as at present known to 
 
1 2 
 
 me, I see nothing calculated to raise any presump- 
 tion of moment in favour of the antiquity of the 
 photograph, except the opinion pronounced by some 
 persons (more particularly Mr. Robert Hunt,) that 
 the picture on it is formed on a surface of resin. 
 
 It seems to me exceedingly improbable that any 
 photograph made by Miss Wilkinson or her friends 
 would have been formed on such a surface. Nor do 
 I think that the existence of such a photograph in 
 the library could be probably accounted for by sup- 
 posing it to be a specimen sent over by Niepce. 
 Such a supposition seems to me highly improbable : 
 firstly, because the photograph in question appears 
 to have been fellow to the other plate, which cer- 
 tainly represented Soho house in its modern state ; 
 and secondly, because I feel a strong conviction that 
 if my father had obtained plates made by Niepce 
 and deposited them in the library, I and my sisters 
 would have been acquainted with the fact. 
 
 If, therefore, it can be satisfactorily proved that 
 the photograph is on a surface of resin, this would 
 seem to me much to corroborate any evidence which 
 may possibly be brought to light tending otherwise 
 to show its antiquity. 
 
NOTES TO CHAPTER I. 
 
 NOTE A. 
 
 I notice that in a recently published letter Mr. Smith states 
 concerning me, — " He evidently had much, rather the subject 
 had never been turned up to light." 
 
 This statement is diametrically opposite to sentiments which 
 Mr. Smith has in various ways expressed to me, as also to 
 language explicitly used on my side. In making it, therefore, 
 Mr. Smith equally impugns my sincerity and his own; — a 
 proceeding so impartial that I cannot care to complain of it. 
 
 Mr. Smith spoke to me in a similar vein of the late Mr. Watt, 
 representing him as very indifferent about matters which 
 concerned his father's inventions and reputation. And when I 
 assured him that such an opinion was singularly mistaken, he 
 appeared incredulous. 
 
 On the other hand, Mr. Smith formed a very favourable 
 opinion of Price's character; though his conduct, as set forth 
 by himself, was by no means that of a trustworthy servant. If 
 a servant of his own were to deal similarly with his property, 
 Mr. Smith's eyes would be opened on this point. 
 
 So, too, if I were to accept Mr. Smith's property from a 
 servant of his, believing the servant's statements, however 
 suspicious, and making no communication on the matter to 
 Mr. Smith himself, Mr. Smith would strongly disapprove of my 
 behaviour. 
 
 I consider that my thanks are due to Mr. Smith for having 
 found the articles, and for his zeal and industry. But, in 
 other respects, his course of proceeding seems to me somewhat 
 open to objection. 
 
 Mr. Smith observes that my statements were not new. No 
 such complaint can be made of his. He informed me that Miss 
 
14 
 
 Wilkinson's photographs, which he showed me, had been taken 
 in 1825 or earlier : and he repeated this assurance when 
 questioned by me on the point some days latei\ This piece of 
 information was certainly new ; had it been equally true, it 
 would have been valuable.* 
 
 Mr. Smith has been far more anxious to establish a hastily- 
 conceived theory than to find out what the truth of the case 
 really is. It having been my lot to be cognisant of facts not 
 suited to his wishes, he regards me with feelings of resentment, 
 and seeks to discredit me. I cannot regret, however, to find 
 myself referred by him to the class of "croakers ;" since I believe 
 that all persons who exercise the critical faculty in a rational 
 manner are liable to that compliment of his choice vocabulary. 
 
 NOTE B. 
 
 It may perhaps be worth while to notice a statement made 
 in the " Photographic Journal," representing that the office of 
 agent at Soho had been held by Price's family for two or three 
 generations. This statement is quite inaccurate. Neither Price's 
 father nor grandfather were agents at Soho ; nor did I ever hear 
 of their being employed there. Price's father was the parish clerk. 
 Price himself was employed in a portion of the works in a subor- 
 dinate capacity. He had little knowledge of the house while 
 the family lived in it. In stating that the libraiy had been 
 closed up for fifty years he may have imagined his statement 
 to be true : for very possibly he had never been in the room in 
 question until the time when he was employed to pack the 
 articles. 
 
 For the better understanding of the nature of Price's testi- 
 mony I mention the following particulars : — 
 
 In a letter to Mr. Smith Price, represents himself as having 
 sold a quantity of papers from the library at Soho to an 
 auctioneer of the name of Shread. I am informed by my agent 
 Mr. Thymie, that Mr. Shread being questioned on this point 
 
 * If Miss Wilkinson really did make photographs in 1825 by means of a 
 camera lucida, I should certainly approve the sentiment ascribed to Price, 
 that she was "a most extraordinary person." 
 
15 
 
 positively denies that he ever bought any papers from Price ; 
 and Price himself now declares that he never sold any papers 
 that came into his hands relating to Soho either to Mr. Shread 
 or to any one else. 
 
 Again, in his published letters Price represents that Mr. 
 Shread would not return the pictures in his possession without 
 payment ; and that by dint of bargaining he succeeded in 
 beating down his demands. Whereas Mr. Thynne informs me 
 that Mr. Shread denies having received any payment for these 
 pictures ; declaring that he returned them to Price as he had 
 received them from him, free of charge. 
 
 If this be so, Mr. Smith's money found its way into Price's 
 pocket. 
 
 Questioned about his intention to burn the papers, expressed 
 by him in one of his letters, Price replied that of course no 
 such intention had really been entertained by him, the papers 
 being guarded by him with the most jealous care ; that he 
 merely made the statement to rid himself of the importunities 
 of Mr. Smith, who gave him no rest on the subject. 
 
 I might exhibit many more specimens of Price's mode of 
 giving testimony, but think it needless to do so. Interrogations 
 recently addressed to him have proved wholly fruitless, it 
 being found impossible to place the slightest confidence in any 
 thing he says. 
 
 It is clear to me that Price, finding that he had fully gained 
 Mr. Smith's confidence, wished to quit my service, and obtain 
 a new situation through that gentleman's interest. For some 
 time my agent, Mr. Thynne, had been making great complaints 
 of Price, and recommended his dismissal ; Price therefore knew 
 that a catastrophe was approaching. He wished to be dis- 
 missed as a martyr, rather than as a rogue : and hoped to 
 get out of my service before his fraudulent practices were 
 detected. It was part of his scheme to represent me as highly 
 displeased by the knowledge of facts which he had imparted to 
 the public ; and to make it appear that my resentment on this 
 account was the cause of his dismissal. Accordingly, he took 
 care to conceal from me all knowledge of what he and Mr. Smith 
 were about. 
 
16 
 
 Like a former unjust steward, he may be commended as 
 having made interest to obtain protection with no little adroit- 
 ness ; but I regret that his faculties were not better employed. 
 
 I may add that he has absconded, and has hitherto succeeded 
 in eluding all detective efforts of the police. 
 
 I further learn from Mr. Thynne that Price declared to him 
 that his letters as published were very different from his letters 
 as written. In conversation with Mr. Smith I remarked to him 
 that the style of the letters was not like the ordinary style of 
 Price : and that I had not thought he was capable of writing 
 so well. Upon this Mr. Smith observed that he had himself 
 to a certain extent altered and improved Price's letters. 
 According to Mr. Thynne, Price declared to him that the 
 alteration made was very extensive: that a great deal of matter 
 was inserted in the letters as printed which was not his pro- 
 duction. 
 
 Possibly it was "a part of Mr. Smith's policy"* to father 
 some of his own speculations on Price. Perhaps the merit of 
 conceiving that the camera in the library at Soho was " the 
 first camera ever made," ought to be awarded to Mr. Smith. 
 At any rate he treats this idea with respect, and deems it 
 worthy of presentation to the public: thus enabling us to 
 perceive that his lights concerning the camera obscura and the 
 camera lucida are of nearly equal brilliance. 
 
 In conversation with me, Mr. Smith expressed his conviction 
 (which I was powerless to shake) that the image seen in a plane 
 mirror (as in a looking glass) might produce a photographic 
 image on the mirror, if its surface were sensitive : and that 'in 
 this way very large photographs might be obtained without the 
 use of a lens or camera. Such a speculation affords still 
 further proof of the state of Mr. Smith's optical knowledge. 
 
 * See p. 20. 
 
CHAPTER II. 
 
 Finding that I had objected to the statement in 
 his published letter, representing me as exceedingly 
 averse to investigation or discussion concerning the 
 photographs, Mr. Smith has made a communication 
 to me preferring against me many complaints. 
 
 He resents the publication of my first pamphlet, 
 on the ground that it has "brought his name 
 unpleasantly forward before the public and amongst 
 the disbelievers." 
 
 If Mr. Smith invites the public to believe erroneous 
 statements, he necessitates the alternative that either 
 the public should be deceived, or that some un- 
 pleasantness should be created to himself. If he 
 thinks that he has ground of offence against me 
 because I deemed the former of these contingencies 
 the greater evil, and would not, in order to do him 
 a pleasure, allow his errors to remain unexposed, he 
 carries unreason to a singular excess. 
 
 Mr. Smith further blames me for having made 
 mention of Price's fraudulent conduct. Pie assures 
 me that in the opinion of himself and his friends, 
 
18 
 
 " my discovery of Price's dishonesty in private mat- 
 ters " had nothing to do with " the inquiry into this 
 intricate but very interesting question," and ought 
 on no account to have been " imported into it." It 
 is, however, tolerably clear that the knowledge of 
 Price's moral character, so far from being irrelevant 
 to the inquiry, is of the highest importance for the 
 right appreciation of the value of his testimony ; and 
 when Mr. Smith enunciates a formal denial of this, 
 he renders it very difficult to conceive what his 
 faculty of judgment can be like. 
 
 But Mr. Smith intimates another ground of com- 
 plaint of the existence of which I had no suspicion. 
 He informs me that on the very first occasion on 
 which he saw me, (i. e., when I visited his Museum 
 some years ago,) I created a most unfavourable im- 
 pression on his mind by " the excessive repulsi ve- 
 il ess of my bearing." At that time the subject of 
 the photographs was not mooted, and no pos- 
 sible ground of disagreement existed between me 
 and Mr. Smith. The visit being quite in the ordi- 
 nary course, left no marked impression on my mind ; 
 certainly not the slightest trace of aversion or ill 
 feeling towards Mr. Smith. I was quite unconscious 
 of having produced upon him an effect the inverse of 
 love at first sight. 
 
 Price was far more fortunate than I was in the 
 power of pleasing Mr. Smith ; the polar influences 
 here brought into play were not repulsive but 
 attractive. Mr. Smith tells me that he conceived 
 
19 
 
 quite a liking for Price ; that his " quick perception 
 of character " led him to feel that he " was perfectly 
 safe in his hands ; " and that he " never for one 
 moment doubted anything which Price said or wrote " 
 to him. 
 
 Here then, on the one side, was Price, a dishonest 
 servant, scheming systematic frauds on my property ; 
 on the other Mr. Smith, entertaining (as he declares) 
 a strong dislike to me, and ready to believe every- 
 thing that Price told him. It is manifest that from 
 such a combination of elements a result of unmixed 
 truth could scarcely be expected to arise. 
 
 After my visit to the Kensington Museum I 
 never saw Mr. Smith again till he dined with me at 
 Thomas's Hotel in November last. On this occasion 
 I expressed to him my opinion that he would have 
 acted more judiciously had he communicated with 
 me before he published Price's evidence ; and that I 
 thought he had placed too implicit a reliance on 
 Price, w T hom I did not regard as greatly to be de- 
 pended on. But my sentiment on these points was 
 intimated very mildly, and nothing else took place 
 calculated to create the slightest unpleasantness. For 
 my own part I felt favourably inclined to Mr. Smith, 
 spoke of him favourably to others, and anticipated 
 pleasure from further social intercourse with hirn. 
 My ignorance of the contrary feelings existing in his 
 mind was the more excusable, seeing that shortly 
 afterwards I received a note from, him, in which he 
 told me that his removal into a new house was " the 
 
20 
 
 only cause, which I plead in all earnestness, for not 
 calling on you after the very agreeable evening which 
 I spent at Thomas's Hotel on Thursday last." 
 
 Mr. Smith now explains that it was " a part of his 
 policy " to use these and similar amicable expressions, 
 while his real sentiments were of an opposite kind. 
 He observes that owing to the unfavourable opinion 
 which he entertained concerning: me, his dealing's 
 with me could not be altogether " consistent." 
 
 Really I am forced to conclude that Mr. Smith 
 must be " a most extraordinary person." It would 
 seem that the ethical theory recently repudiated by 
 Dr. Newman may look for rehabilitation under his 
 patronage. 
 
 If the nature of Mr. Smith's feelings can in any 
 case be inferred from his expressions, I should gather 
 from his recent letter that his present feelings 
 towards me are of an inimical kind, since he makes 
 in it a vehement attack on my character and motives. 
 But perhaps his mimical utterances are of the same 
 nature as his amicable ones ; not the expression 
 of his genuine sentiments, but only " a part of his 
 policy." Perhaps he may think that the dread of 
 incurring attacks on my character may deter me in 
 future from questioning or contradicting any state- 
 ments which he may put forward. 
 
 If such be his idea, his " quick perception of 
 character " has greatly led him astray. Should he 
 again put forward any statements which I know to 
 be untrue, I shall contradict them as I did the 
 
21 
 
 former ones. By such a course I shall best consult 
 alike the interests of truth and the honour of Soho, 
 which certainly cannot be enhanced by any pro- 
 cedure of a hollow or unveracious character. More- 
 over, by cutting away all rubbishy materials I shall 
 stimulate the production of sounder evidence. 
 
 I am quite unable to reciprocate the feelings of 
 anger and aversion which Mr. Smith expresses against 
 myself. The circumstances of the case hardly render 
 this possible. For the object which he is striving 
 to compass is one eminently calculated to do me 
 pleasure ; and anger excited by zeal in the prosecu- 
 tion of such an object is by no means fitted to 
 excite a similar animus on my side. 
 
 Mr. Smith's object is to prove that photography 
 was successfully practised at Soho in the last century 
 (or early in the present one) ; and if he can prove 
 this, he will add considerable lustre to the name of 
 Soho. It is impossible for me not to feel thankful to 
 him for the eagerness and ardour which he displays 
 in such a task ; even when the impatience thereby 
 generated induces him to regard me with an un- 
 friendly eye. But though, his success would emi- 
 nently gratify me, I do not entertain very great hope 
 of his achieving it ; and because I do not share his 
 impetuosity of faith on this point, I appear in his eyes 
 morally censurable as a " croaker/' " lukewarm," &c. 
 
 Mr. Smith will abundantly establish his case if he 
 can succeed in proving that the polygraphic copies 
 (made at Soho as a branch of trade) were photo- 
 
22 
 
 graphs. I myself greatly doubt this part of his 
 theory. Although these copies were, it appears, 
 occasionally called " sun-pictures," yet I cannot per- 
 suade myself that the process by which they were 
 obtained resembled in its essential principle that of 
 photography. My belief is that it was in the main 
 mechanical ; and that the title of " mechanical paint- 
 ings," by which these copies were frequently desig- 
 nated, was no misnomer. I think that the reasons 
 urged on this point by Mr. Robert Hunt have great 
 weight ; and they seem to me confirmed by the 
 manner in which " plates,' 7 as also " prints " and 
 " impressions," are spoken of in the documents.* If 
 Mr. Smith can succeed in proving that the pictures 
 in question are veritable photographs, produced by 
 rays of light impinging on a sensitive surface, I shall 
 be at the same time much gratified and much sur- 
 prised. 
 
 Again, Mr. Smith will sufficiently establish his 
 case if he can succeed in proving the antiquity of the 
 photographs on the metal plates. I shall welcome 
 with the greatest pleasure the production of any 
 sound evidence tending to establish this ; but I can- 
 not shut my eyes to the fact that great improba- 
 bilities have to be overcome, and that the evidence at 
 present adduced is very feeble. 
 
 * It has been urged that the copies exhibited by Mr. Smith 
 should be compared with the original pictures. I think it 
 would also be well that a photograph should be taken of the 
 original picture, and compared with the polygraphic copy. 
 
Mr. Smith supposes that the Lunar Society (i. e., 
 the principal portion of its members) were acquainted 
 with the art of photography ; — that they not merely 
 produced photographic pictures, but had discovered 
 a method of fixing them. And he supposes that 
 a knowledge of the arcanum possessed by this 
 society percolated through Josiah Weclgewood to his 
 agent at Paris, and hence ultimately to Niepce and 
 Daguerre. Manifestly there is extreme improbability 
 in supposing that a knowledge of photography was 
 possessed by a number of scientific men, and yet 
 kept a profound secret, not even suspected till the 
 present day. If Mr. Smith could show on good 
 grounds that the Lunar Society knew how to obtain 
 'permanent photographs, he would deserve to be con- 
 gratulated as having made a very interesting dis- 
 covery ; but if he has nothing better to adduce in 
 support of his hypothesis than allegations of Price, I 
 cannot consider him to have accomplished anything 
 in proof of this part of his theory. To believe such 
 a statement on such an authority would demand a 
 complete abnegation of sound judgment, rendering 
 the mind a camera obscura, not a camera lucida. 
 
 I think it exceedingly unlikely that the Lunar 
 Society knew the secret of the polygraphic process 
 (as is represented in some of Price's letters). Most 
 probably this secret was known only to those 
 immediately concerned in the manufactures of 
 Soho, i.e., my grandfather, Eginton, and perhaps a 
 few others. 
 
:>[ 
 
 The statement ascribed (in Price's letters) to 
 Townsend, concerning the part played by Sir W. 
 Beechey, is, I doubt not, authentic. It has long been 
 known to me and others that the secret process of 
 copying pictures practised at Soho was said to have 
 been suppressed at the instigation of Sir W. Beechey, 
 who deemed it injurious to art. Townsend naturally 
 enough supposes that the injury dreaded was solely 
 pecuniary : whereas no doubt Sir W. Beechey would 
 explain somewhat differently the nature of his appre- 
 hension. It is also quite true that the Lunar Society 
 were in the habit of meeting at my grandfather's 
 house, though not I believe exclusively there. But the 
 other statements ascribed to Townsend concerning 
 the doings of the Lunar Society appear to me of a 
 very suspicious character. It is possible that they 
 may be genuine ; but it is quite possible that they 
 may be mere inventions of Price, which came into 
 his head subsequently to his conversations with Mr. 
 Smith : and I cannot regard them as of weight or 
 authority. 
 
 There is nothing unlikely in the supposition that 
 certain members of the Lunar Society may have 
 made some experiments of a photographic nature ; 
 indeed the letter of Watt to Wedgewood gives 
 reason to believe that such was the case. These 
 experiments would quite account for the origin of the 
 term " sun-pictures ; " and it can readily be con- 
 ceived that the title thus started might afterwards 
 become erroneously applied to the polygraphs 
 
25 
 
 copies. * As little or nothing was communicated to 
 the public concerning these experiments, it is natural 
 at first sight to infer that they were not deemed 
 very successful or important.")" Mr. Smith, on the 
 contrary, supposes that they were very successful ; 
 the photographs on the metal plates being regarded 
 by him as specimens of the results obtained ; and 
 the silence on the subject is attributed by him to 
 the solicitations of Sir W. Beechey and the Royal 
 Academy. Such a view would, apparently, require 
 us to hold that there had been two suppressions ; 
 one of the polygraphia process, about 1780; and 
 
 * I suggest this explanation as not improbable : though, as 
 very little is known concerning the nature of the polygraphia 
 process, it is of course possible that light may have played 
 some part in it sufficient to account for the title in question. 
 If sound evidence could be adduced in favour of the antiquity 
 of the metal plates, then I should certainly think that there 
 had been confusion between two distinct processes, owing to 
 which the title proper to the photographs had become mis- 
 takenly applied to the polygraphia mechanical paintings. 
 
 t The statement of results published by Wedgewood (a rela- 
 tive of Josiah) has been mentioned by Mr. Fox Talbot and 
 Mr. Robert Hunt. 
 
 This- Wedgewood could neither fix his photographs nor 
 produce any picture by means of the camera. According to 
 Mr. Smith's theory, his imperfect experiments were suggested 
 by hints which had escaped from his relation Josiah, whom he 
 conceives to have possessed the far more perfect knowledge of 
 photography which he supposes to have been enjoyed by the 
 Lunar Society. All the members of this society, we are asked 
 to believe, when Wedgewood published his memoir in 1802, 
 kept their own counsel, in obedience to the desire of Sir W. 
 Beechey and the Academy. 
 
26 
 
 another of the " sun-pictures," or photography, at a 
 later elate. It would be quite justifiable to believe 
 this on proper proof ; but manifestly such a sup- 
 position ought not to be entertained unless it has the 
 support of good evidence. 
 
 Since the above was printed, I find in a letter 
 from my grandfather to Mr. Watt, dated Soho, 
 August 20, 1789, the following passage : 
 
 " The foundations of the new drawing and with- 
 drawing rooms are begun to be laid this day, the 
 earth being dug out." 
 
 From this it would seem that there was an altera- 
 tion of the house previous to that recollected by S. 
 Vale, and earlier than the date given by Mrs. 
 Townsend. If the photograph represent the house 
 as it existed before this alteration, then it must have 
 been made before September, 1789, consequently 
 more than nine years previous to the letter of Watt 
 to Wedgewood, the date of which is January, 1799. 
 
 I mention another circumstance which has re- 
 cently come to my knowledge, and which tends in 
 favour of the antiquity of the metal plates. Miss 
 Stockdale states : " I had a recollection of having 
 seen in the late Miss Boulton's possession at Soho, in 
 
27 
 
 1818, a small water-colour drawing of what she 
 called the Old' House previous to being altered, and 
 when I was asked what it was like, I said, something 
 like the house at Holker."* The photograph alleged 
 to represent old Soho house was sent down from the 
 Museum by Mr. Smith for Miss Stockdale's inspection, 
 and she says : " Well, odd enough, the silver plate 
 sent down, though very much defaced in parts, what 
 remained clear and visible was almost a fac-simile of 
 Holker house. The drawing I have alluded to I 
 saw in Miss Boulton's room at Soho : it was a dis- 
 tant view, perhaps half way across the grounds in 
 front ; so that I had only a vague idea of the style 
 of house, though the representation on the silver 
 plate quite startled me in being so like what I had 
 compared it to." 
 
 This evidence seems quite to neutralise that of 
 Mrs. Townsend, apparently showing that Soho house 
 before the alteration was two stories high : and that 
 the front windows on the ground floor were not bay 
 windows, or " round windows coming out from the 
 wall." 
 
 There is at present one window of this description 
 at the side of the house : and possibly a remem- 
 brance of this may have occasioned Mrs. Townsend's 
 statement. It would seem, looking at Miss Stock- 
 dale's evidence, that Mrs. Townsend's memory must 
 be confused, and her account of little value. Pos- 
 
 * Near Carke, in Lancashire. 
 
28 
 
 sibly she only recollects a second alteration of the 
 house, which, according to S. Vale, took place when 
 he was four years old, i.e., about 1795 : and does 
 not recollect the former alteration in 1789, at which 
 time, according to the evidence, she would be ten 
 years old. 
 
 I have requested Miss Stockdale to send a photo- 
 graph of the house at Holker of which she speaks. 
 
 I further learn from Mr. Zaccheus Walker, that 
 when the drawing was shown to the grand-daughter 
 of Eginton, she declared it, quite confidently, to 
 represent Eginton's house as she first recollected it, 
 previous to an alteration remembered by her. I 
 find, however, that Mr. Walker does not himself 
 regard this statement as important, but treats it as 
 an illustration of the delusions to which persons 
 are subject, in trusting to recollection, or what they 
 fancy to be such, concerning long past time. At 
 present, as he informs me, the house in question does 
 not resemble the drawing. 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 
 Having made some examination of documents 
 relating to Soho, I give here extracts from them, 
 relating to the questions which have been raised. 
 
 I give the following letter on account of its refer- 
 ence to the Lunar Society; the date, September 1787, 
 is docketed upon it : — 
 
 " Mr. Johnson presents his comp s to Mr. Boulton, and 
 hopes to have the pleasure of his company to meet their 
 friends of the Lunar Society at the hotel in Birmingham, 
 on monday the first of October at two o'clock. 
 
 " Mr. Johnson will be happy to see any friends Mr. 
 
 Boulton will do him the favor to bring with him. 
 
 " Combe Abbey, 
 
 " Monday." 
 
 This letter seems to indicate that the hotel in 
 Birmingham was in 1787 a usual place of meeting 
 of the Lunar Society. I believe that at one time 
 they were in the habit of meeting at an inn or public- 
 house in Handsworth called " Crocketts." 
 
 I take it that the statement made in Price's letters, 
 representing Dr. Johnson as a member of the Lunar 
 Society and attendant of their meetings, has arisen 
 
to 
 
 from a confusion between him and the Mr. Johnson 
 who wrote the above letter. I do not believe that Dr. 
 Johnson of Lichfield attended the meetings of the 
 Lunar Society, nor that he was an habitual acquain- 
 tance of my grandfather. I believe that he only visited 
 Soho on one occasion, of which mention is made in 
 Boswell's Life. 
 
 It is stated in Price's letters (see Photographic 
 Journal) that in the old letter-books hundreds of 
 pages are torn out, besides numerous erasures, par- 
 ticularly of Eginton's name : all which, he observes, 
 is a mystery. The only erasures I have seen of 
 Eginton's name occur in the draft of my grand- 
 father's letter to Lord Dartmouth, on the subject of 
 the pension to him : in which there are other era- 
 sures. As this letter stood in the books, visible to 
 those who kept them, there is nothing unaccountable 
 or mysterious in this erasure. Eginton's name occurs 
 throughout the books in hundreds of places, and in 
 no other instance have I found it erased. As to the 
 alleged excision of letters, I have examined the Letter 
 Book which comprises the whole period during which 
 the polygraphic manufacture flourished, and it seems 
 to me that it has suffered no excisions, except the 
 recent ones made by Price, when he cut out the 
 letters which he sent to Mr. Smith. My impression 
 is that the books never contained any matter calcu- 
 lated to divulge the secret of the polygraphic pro- 
 cess : that the persons who kept them knew nothing 
 of that secret : and that no excision of matter was 
 
3.1 
 
 ever made from the books with the view of suppress- 
 ing or concealing it. 
 
 It has been suggested (see Photographic Journal) 
 that the mechanical process of copying pictures was 
 a development of that of copying letters for which 
 Watt took out a patent. And indeed it appears that 
 the two processes were nearly contemporaneous : 
 but it would seem that the process of copying pic- 
 tures was rather the earlier of the two. The first 
 appearance in the books which I have yet observed 
 of letters mechanically copied is in April, 1780; and 
 there is a letter of my grandfather to Mr. Watt, dated 
 May 14, 1780, describing the attempts to introduce 
 the letter-copying process to the public, from which 
 I give some extracts, as curious. 
 
 " On Tuesday morning last I waited upon some parti- 
 cular noblemen, according to promise, at their own houses, 
 with the press ; and at one o'clock I took possession of a 
 private room adjoining to the Court of Request, West- 
 minster Hall, where 1 was visited by several members of 
 both Houses, who in general were well pleased with the 
 invention, but all expressed their fears of forgery, which 
 occasioned and obliged me to exercise my lungs very much. 
 Many of the members tried to copy bank notes, but in 
 vain. I had a full audience till half-past eight o'clock. 
 . . . . I had quite a mob of members next day, and 
 some of them mobbed me for introducing such wicked arts ; 
 however, upon the whole, I had a greater majority than 
 Lord North hath had this year 
 
 "I went again to the House of Commons at half-past 
 two, which was time enough. I had a tolerable good house, 
 even a better one than the Speaker, who was often obliged 
 
 o 2 
 
32 
 
 to send his proper officer to fetch away from me the mem- 
 bers to vote, and sometimes to make up a House. As 
 soon as the House formed into a committee upon the malt- 
 tax, the Speaker left the chair and sent for me and the 
 machine, which was carried through the gallery in face of 
 the whole House, into the Speaker's chamber. I found 
 him full of fears about the dreadful consequences, which 
 I quieted before I left him, and he and his two friends 
 subscribed 
 
 " Mr. Banks came to see the machine on Thursday, 
 and thought it might be of service to show it to the Royal 
 
 Society After the business of the Society was 
 
 over, he announced Mr. Watt's invention, and my readi- 
 ness to show it, and it was accordingly brought in, and 
 afforded much satisfaction to a crowded audience. I did 
 not show the list of subscribers nor proposals, nor dishonour 
 philosophy by trade in that room 
 
 " I spent Friday evening with Smeaton and other engi- 
 neers at a coffee-house, where a gentleman (not knowing 
 me) exclaimed against the copying machine, and wished 
 the inventor was hanged, and the machines all burnt, 
 which brought on a laugh, as I was known to most pre- 
 sent. . . . 
 
 " The two draughts which were copied at Woodmason's 
 when Mr. Keir was in town, and were sent to two bankers 
 and were paid, have made much noise, and have been mis- 
 represented. I say to everybody that we come to teach 
 how to prevent forgery, and not to forge, and therefore I 
 had fifty notes, wrote to fifty bankers, and inclosed the 
 paper printed which Mr. Keir sent me, and thereby teach 
 them to prevent and detect forgeries. The only warm dis- 
 pute I have had was with a member of Parliament, who 
 misrepresented the two copies of drafts that were paid at 
 the bankers. Mr. Burke was present, and took part, and 
 spoke exceedingly handsome of my character and conduct 
 in this matter." 
 
33 
 
 Looking at the sensation and alarm thus created 
 by the letter-copying machine, which now seems so 
 simple and harmless, it is easy to understand that 
 great apprehension may have been excited in the 
 minds of Sir W. Beechey and his fellow artists by 
 a mechanical picture-copying process. 
 
 From the letter above quoted it is clear that the 
 letter-copying machine was in May, 1780, quite a 
 novelty : whereas, from a letter of my grandfather 
 dated June, 1779, which will be found subsequently 
 given in eHenso* it appears that the polygraphic 
 process of copying pictures was then, and had been 
 for some time previously, in active operation. And 
 there are letters in 1778 showing that it had then 
 commenced. 
 
 I can find nothing in any of the books which I 
 have inspected tending to confirm the statement,, 
 that Eginton came to Soho expressly for the purpose 
 of making the polygraphic pictures. Eginton appears 
 to have been employed at first in decorating japanned 
 ware, and modelling ornamental articles of various 
 kinds ; and he continued to be amply employed in 
 work of this description after the production of the 
 polygraphic paintings fell into abeyance. 
 
 Eginton appears to have had in some way the 
 management of the painting department, yet his 
 control of it was by no means absolute. He does 
 not take off the polygraphic " impressions " himself, 
 nor can he do so without leave from Hodges. On 
 * See p. 39. 
 
34 
 
 one occasion he asks Hodges to send him " impres- 
 sions ; " on another, he asks him to send a person 
 of the name of Maddocks to take off some.* 
 
 It seems that for some time previous to the end of 
 1780 Eginton was in partnership with Bonlton and 
 Fothergill ; but that at Christmas of that year this 
 partnership was dissolved, and that subsequently 
 Eginton carried on business, still at Soho, on his own 
 account. It appears that when this change occurred, 
 Eginton wished to purchase the " plates " and " im- 
 pressions " connected with the poly graphic manu- 
 facture : but that objection was entertained to this, 
 and the request not complied with. The following 
 letter refers to this point : 
 
 " Soho, 10 January, 1781. 
 
 "Mb. F. Eginton, 
 
 "Sir, — Inclosed is an Inventory of the Goods in your 
 possession, upon examination of which, if you should 
 think any articles that you wish to keep overcharged, 
 be pleased to point them out, and they shall be recon- 
 sidered. 
 
 " Respecting the Roling press, if you do not think well 
 of taking it at 8 Guineas, which is less than half its 
 cost, please to re-deliver it. We do not wish to encumber 
 you with anything that may not be agreeable, but desire 
 to have our affairs now finally settled. In regard to the 
 pictures, Trenmore, Stratonice, &c, we wish you to make 
 your charge for what you have done — that you have not 
 already been paid for. Concerning the sundry impressions, 
 we should have had no objection for you to have had Copies 
 or impressions from any of our pieces for your own plea- 
 
 * See the Letters of Eginton, p. i'2. 
 
35 
 
 sure, but when we reflect that we have had the mortification 
 to see some of our originals, which cost us so much money, 
 employed for the advantage of others and to the disadvan- 
 tage of ourselves, you may readily suppose that we wish to 
 have all the impressions deposited with the originals until 
 some future occasion shall present for the disposition of them 
 altogether. 
 
 " We are, sir, 
 
 " Your obed. servs. 
 
 "p. BOULTON & FOTHERGILL, 
 
 (Sd.) "John Hodges." 
 
 I do not find many notices of Eginton in my 
 grandfather's letters ; the following are the principal 
 which I have observed : 
 
 " The body is certainly handsome, & tis certainly 
 difficult to add handles that will not furnish food for the 
 envious critick ; however, I beg Mr. Egginton would do his 
 best in modelling handles & then I wish he would come 
 to London, for the Exhibitions are now open, & everything 
 else that is worth his seeing." 
 
 The date of this letter is April 30, 1773. At that 
 time the polygraphic manufacture had not com- 
 menced, and probably the process was not then 
 invented. 
 
 Again, in a letter to Mrs. Watt, dated the 14th 
 October, 1780, my grandfather says : 
 
 " I am very sorry for Egginton. His misfortunes will 
 bear hard upon him, as he hath never been accustomed to 
 combat the evils of Life." 
 
36 
 
 And again, in a letter to Mr. Fothergill, dated 
 11th December, 1780, he says : 
 
 " I think we should avail ourselves of the notice you gave 
 Gee and Eginton last year, so far as to dissolve the part- 
 nership this Xmas, but we cannot think of taking out our 
 money, which would be their ruin." 
 
 In a letter dated the 23rd December, 1780, 
 addressed to "Baron de "Watteville, Capitaine de 
 Dragons a Berne in Suisserland," the following 
 catalogue of " mechanical paintings " is given : — 
 
37 
 
 ■8(0(0(0»00»<S!OOtBOOO<SOOOOtOOO»0 
 
 2-d 
 
 o 
 
 -fj " 
 
 H 02 
 cS ■'-] 
 
 ftrd 
 
 02 
 
 o a 
 
 U d 
 3 -t 3 
 
 O Ph 
 
 2-2 
 
 -^ g 
 
 m to 
 
 d 5 
 ^-£ 
 
 o o 
 
 a s 
 
 05 05 
 ■© '© 
 
 * 4 ' 
 
 O .^5 
 
 s d J • 
 
 ©^102 ■ 
 
 o . o . 
 
 JZCG* 4 - 1 
 
 S _, cS 
 
 02 -J 3 .d . 
 
 j>> pjTJ-w , 
 
 c£ 
 
 02 02 
 02 CO 05 
 
 d >> S 
 
 O 
 
 
 
 O 0) tj 
 
 S3£ 
 
 ° u 
 
 SB'S bD^ A JJ te 2f "f" "d 
 
 1 a < 
 d d +=> 
 
 c3 <3 
 
 "^.&<» 
 
 ft<^.3 
 ft 
 
 ^ to &d >, g 
 
 Nflg g^.g p) 
 
 £ d ©^^ 
 
 -2 a § a p ft&a * o A ^"g 
 
 & e 
 
 ' B £i '8 
 
 05 i^ P 1 * 05 -d 
 
 ft 
 
 _ei -r-t 
 
 "55 k*" 
 
 q-^P-l'© 
 
 O rd 
 
 O ■+= 
 
 to© 
 
 d t*_i 
 
 o 
 
 S 
 
 a 
 
 ^ " 05 
 
 05 
 
 H«1 
 
 «« d 6 6 d 5 g 5 o" 6 
 CO PhcoPS 
 
 c3 d ' 
 CO i 
 
 d 
 
 •mreragtve}! ■eoipguy 
 
 o d 
 
 (13 * cS © 
 H n m r ~ 
 
 p .«s d 
 
 ^j *w w to ,a 
 
 sS.Jh 
 
 w 
 
 w 
 
38 
 
 In another letter the following additional subjects 
 and prices are mentioned : 
 
 "The physician Erasistratus discovering the Love of 
 Antiochus for Stratonice, painted from a famous picture 
 by "West, in the possession of Lord Grosvenor, size 4 feet 
 6 inches by 3 feet 9 inches, price 21 guineas. The Forge, 
 painted from a famous picture by Wright of Derby, size 
 4 feet by 3 feet and a half, price 22 guineas." 
 
 It will be seen that the prices above given are 
 much higher than those specified in the list published 
 in the Photographic Journal, where the prices range 
 from 1/. hs. to Is. 6d. 
 
 The following are letters and extracts from the 
 books relating to the mechanical paintings : — 
 
 "Soho, June 6th, 1778. 
 "Samuel More, Esq., 
 " Secretary to the Arts and Sciences, 
 " Adclphi Buildings, London. 
 
 " The present is to inform you that our Mr. Eginton 
 has reconsidered the subject he had the pleasure of con- 
 versing with you upon, when in town, and have now the 
 satisfaction to inform you that a Picture in whole length 
 of Lord Romney, reduced to the size of 28 by 32 inches, 
 executed upon canvass, will be 5 guineas each piece, 
 provided fifty of them are ordered together, and if done 
 upon copper they will be the price of copper a piece more. 
 
 " We remain, &c, 
 
 " B. & F." 
 
 "Sept. 4, 1778. 
 " AIr. Barney, 
 
 " Wolverhampton. 
 
 " We should esteem it a particular favour if you could 
 
39 
 
 send one or both the paintings you have under hand for 
 us by Thursday next, as that is the day we send the order 
 away that we wished your pictures to accompany. We 
 request an answer by return of post, which will oblige 
 
 " B. & F. 
 (Signed) "1. Stuart." 
 
 " Dec. 31**, 1778. 
 "Mr. Jno. Eginton, 
 
 " Sir,— By coach last night we sent three boxes, and 
 accompanying this are two more, all which contain the 
 paintings specified in the invoice annexed ; the two pieces 
 marked * cost 6 guineas each, but we can do them equally 
 as well, if not better, for 21. 12s. 6cl. each ; these two, as 
 also the large painting, must not be sold, which latter you 
 see is charged 151. 15s., but we can execute it as well, and 
 in better drawing, for between 8 and 9 guineas, or there- 
 abouts." 
 
 "Soho, 12th June, 1779. 
 
 " Sir Watkins William Wynne, Bart., 
 
 " When I had the pleasure of seeing you at the Exhibi- 
 tion of painted glass, I acquainted you that I am engaged 
 in painting as a manufacture, and that by some peculiar 
 contrivances I am enabled to make better copies of good 
 originals than can be done otherwise, without much greater 
 expense ; or rather of multiplying those copies when once 
 obtained, and making an extensive sale of them in Foreign 
 countries. The high value of good originals puts them out 
 of my reach in any other manner than by applying to such 
 gentlemen as you, who are at once possessed of those paint-^ 
 ings and of the love of the fine arts. I have by this means 
 been enabled to take copies of' some few fine pictures. I 
 hope you will excuse the present freedom in requesting a 
 
40 
 
 similar indulgence from you. You'll please to observe 
 that, as the copies I take are upon a smaller scale than the 
 original, the value of the original is in no danger of being 
 diminished. The young painter who will deliver you this 
 is employed by us for copying pictures : if you will permit 
 him to copy either your Cecilia or your Orpheus, I shall 
 esteem the indulgence as a great favour, & you will by 
 that means have an opportunity of judging how we succeed 
 in this way, as I shall beg leave to present to you the 
 first picture we execute from yours, if I am so happy as to 
 obtain your permission. 
 
 (Signed) " M. B." 
 
 "Soho, 6th September, 1781. 
 
 "Mr. Barney, 
 
 " Sir, — Herewith I send a painting of Trenmore with 
 the original of the same ; also a painting of Time and 
 Cupid, with one of the same in dead color. That of Tren- 
 more as it has been in parts finished, 'tis thought you 
 will do it much sooner then if not touched from the dead 
 color, tho' the faces we perceive are at present very bad. 
 As we have one or two more pieces of Time and Cupid 
 here, 'tis agreed that the finished one now sent shall be part 
 of the order, but must request you will cover the bare places 
 on the canvas, and touch it in any other places you may 
 think proper, in order to make it match that which you are 
 to finish. We have now only one more Trenmore to send, 
 which is not ready, and as I cannot with certainty say what 
 day it will, must beg you'll not send the Telemachus till you 
 again hear from me. 
 
 " The net price that Messrs. B. & F. sell these pictures 
 for are as follows : 
 
 Trenmore . . , 51. 8s. Od. 
 Time and Cupid .500 
 
 " This for your government; but you'll please to remem- 
 
 V a piece. 
 
41 
 
 ber that besides your charge there is the expense of ren- 
 dering them in the dead colored state, which is now 
 considerable. I know Mr. Boulton does not wish to get 
 profit by these so muck as reputation ; hence, you will see 
 his desire of having them masterly done, tho' at the same 
 time a moderate profit to be gained as well. I am, for 
 Messrs. Boulton and Fothergill, 
 
 " Your obedient servant, 
 
 " John Hodges." 
 
 Extract of a letter from Barney to Hodges : — 
 
 " Your idea was perfectly right respecting Telemachus 
 had it been mechanised, but at present the outline & dead 
 colour take nearly half the time." 
 
 It is to be observed that in the above letter of 
 Hodges it is said that the expense of rendering the 
 copies in the dead-coloured state is now considerable. 
 From this it appears that the peculiar or mecha- 
 nical part of the process, — that performed before the 
 pictures were passed into the hands of Barney 
 or Wilson, — had been rendered more elaborate and 
 expensive than it was in the earlier period of the 
 manufacture. 
 
 From the brief statements which I remember to 
 have heard from my father concerning the polygra- 
 phic process, my impression of it was that it copied 
 colour mechanically : — not merely chiaroscuro. And 
 I agree with the opinion which has been expressed 
 by other persons, that in the coloured specimens in 
 the Museum there are indications that the colour was 
 laid on mechanically — not by hand or by brush. I 
 
42 
 
 think, therefore, that what in the above letters is 
 
 called the " dead-colour state," was probably not 
 
 mere chiaroscuro, but contained the first stage of 
 
 the colouring which Barney and Wilson afterwards 
 
 finished. It seems likely that the process of applying 
 
 the colour was in course of improvement when a stop 
 
 was put to the further progress of the manufacture. 
 
 Extract of a letter from Eginton to Hodges, dated 
 
 March, 1782:— 
 
 " I have heanvith sent the pictur of Penelopy upon glass 
 upon the terms I mentioned to you — pleas to inform Mr. B. 
 that when I have the original! pictur to coppy they will be 
 better." 
 
 Letter from Eginton to Hodges, dated Jan. 29, 
 
 1782:— 
 
 " Sir, — If it is convenient to Soho, Madoks will be hear 
 this afternoon to take off a few impressions for me, and as I 
 wish to go to London as early in the spring as possible with 
 some of the best picturs I can get, should be glad to know 
 if I could have the plates of Stratonice & Rynaldo. Thear 
 are two plates of the former, and three of the latter, one of 
 the three is a small one. 
 
 " I am, y r - ob*- h ble - serv*- 
 
 "F. Eginton." 
 
 Letter from Do. to Do., dated May 29, 1781 :— 
 
 " Mr Hodges. 
 
 " Sir, — In a paper containing instructions given to Z. 
 Walker by Mr. Boulton, 3rd of April, 1780, respecting me, 
 and of which Mr. James Pearson hath a coppy, is the follow g 
 instructions : 
 
 " ' Eginton may have impressions as fast as he chooses, 
 keeping an account against him, &c, &c, &c.' 
 
43 
 
 " And as I have this morning a chance of receiving a 
 considerable order for picturs, I should be glad to know if 
 it is agreeable to Messrs. B. and F. to let me have some, 
 and upon what terms." 
 
 Extract of a letter from Barney to Hodges, dated 
 May 17, 1781:— 
 
 " I shall certainly feel sensibly the having such a picture 
 as Stratonice returned upon my hands, but if Mr. Boulton 
 chooses to send me over the printed impression I will make 
 as good a picture of it as I possibly can in lieu of that now 
 at Soho." 
 
 It is to be noticed that in the above letters Barney 
 talks of " printed impressions;" while Eginton speaks 
 of " taking off impressions," and says that there are 
 three " plates " of different sizes for one picture. 
 
 The following letters throw a very clear light on 
 the general nature of the process, and some of them 
 mention its contemplated discontinuance. 
 
 " Soho, the \Zth March, 178]. 
 
 "Mr. John Garnett, 
 
 " Sir, — In reply to your favour to our Mr. Boulton, we 
 have to acquaint you that our mechanical method of taking 
 copies of pictures does not injure the original any more than 
 the engraving of a plate does the piece from whence it is 
 engraven; and further, that the expense of making the 
 necessary apparatus for the copying of two portraits would 
 be in the same proportion as the engraving of a copper 
 plate to take off two impressions only, hence you will readily 
 conceive how high two copies would come if we were to 
 execute them. Lastly, we have to inform you that we have 
 lately resolved to decline this branch of our manufactory, 
 
44 
 
 chiefly owing to our Mr. Boulton's time being principally 
 engaged in his steam-engine business ; so that we now only 
 take orders for such paintings as we have on hand. 
 
 " We are, respectfully, &c." 
 
 "Soho, 16tk July, 1731. 
 
 " Messrs. Clarke & Green, 
 
 "Gentlemen, — We duly received your Mr. Clarke's 
 esteemed favor of the 10th inst., handing an order for 
 sundry paintings, and in reply to your remarks concerning 
 them we have to say, 
 
 " That our mechanical method of doing them is such 
 that we cannot make 'em of different sizes without being 
 at a similar expense as the engraving of a plate to take off 
 only two impressions, hence you will readily judge how high 
 two copies will come ; yet for any that you may wish to 
 have to deviate from the sizes given we can have recourse 
 to the usual way of painting by the hand, but in which 
 case they will come considerably higher than if done 
 mechanically, for this our new invention gives us the means 
 of rendering good pictures at much cheaper rates than they 
 could be procured for of equal quality if done by other 
 artists " 
 
 " Soho, the 22mcZ May, 1781. 
 
 "Messrs. Clarke & Green, 
 
 " Gentlemen, — We had some thoughts of 
 
 declining this branch of our manufactory chiefly through 
 our Mr. Boulton having of late been very much engaged in 
 his steam-engine business, but finding that we have frequent 
 commissions from the pieces already sent off, and still 
 having the peculiar apparatus's and conveniences for the 
 execution of them, we are induced to accept of your order if 
 
45 
 
 agreeable, not doubting but we shall give you satisfaction 
 in the execution of the same 
 
 " Your most obedient servants, 
 
 "For BoiTLTON & FOTHERGIL, 
 
 (Signed) " John Hodges." 
 
 "Soho, 4th Sept. 1781. 
 " Isaac Hawkins Browne, Esq., 
 at Badger, W Hampton." 
 
 " "We received the favour of your letter, but could not 
 fully reply thereto until our Mr. Boulton's return from 
 London. We now have to acquaint you that from Mr. 
 Boulton's time being almost wholly engaged in his steam- 
 engine business he has of late been obliged to withdraw his 
 attention from our painting branch, and as it required much 
 of his personal attendance we have been obliged to decline 
 it in part, so that we now only take orders for such subjects 
 as we have apparatus's for. We have no mechanical sized 
 pictures large enough for your purposes, and you will please 
 to understand that the expense of the necessary preparations 
 to do one or two pieces only would be in the same propor- 
 tion as the engraving of a copper plate to take off only one 
 or two impressions, hence you will readily conceive it would 
 not answer to have any subjects done mechanically unless 
 many of a sort were ordered. 
 
 "We therefore beg to recommend to you the same 
 artist who furnish'd the chief of the paintings for Mrs. 
 Montague's ceilings, and who is Mr. Joseph Barney of 
 W' Hampton, which place although it might be supposed no 
 good painter resided in, yet we can assure you from exjoe- 
 rience that he is superior to any of his brother artists in or 
 about Birmingham. 
 
 " We should have been very happy had it been in our 
 
46 
 
 power to have exercised our abilities in embellishing in part 
 the house of a person so eminently distinguished in all 
 matters of taste. 
 
 ""We have the honor to subscribe ourselves most 
 respectfully, 
 
 "Sir, 
 
 " Your obed. hble. servants. 
 
 The above letters (as it seems to me) show quite 
 conclusively that the method by which the poly- 
 graphic paintings were obtained was radically diffe- 
 rent from that of photography. It is clear that the 
 original picture was not copied photographically, but 
 that a plate representing the picture was prepared 
 by an artist at considerable expense, and that the 
 cheapness of the method arose from the facility with 
 which copies from this plate could be multiplied by a 
 process which, as we have seen, is called " printing " 
 and " impression." 
 
 In various articles in journals it has been inferred 
 that the polygraphic copies must have been produced 
 by some photographic process, because they are 
 spoken of in the old documents as " sun-pictures : " 
 but I cannot find that such is the case. It appears 
 that these copies were spoken of as sun-pictures in 
 later times, but hitherto I have seen nothing showing 
 that they were called " sun-pictures " in contempo- 
 rary documents, or by the persons who were actually 
 concerned in their production. In contemporary 
 documents they appear to be uniformly spoken of as 
 mechanical ; and all the language employed is con- 
 
47 
 
 sistent with that title, nowhere indicating any pecu- 
 liar agency of light. 
 
 The principal materials supplied to Eginton were 
 gold, fine silver, paints of various sorts, borax, cement, 
 gum, oil, bees'- wax, resin, aquafortis, " glasses for 
 paintings," " copper-plates for printing." The gold 
 and silver were no doubt used for making frames 
 and other ornamental articles in the manufacture of 
 which Eginton was employed. 
 
 Some of the foregoing letters mention the con- 
 templated discontinuance of the polygraphic branch 
 of manufacture. The earliest letter which I find 
 noticing this is the following : — 
 
 " Soho, wear Birmingham, 3(M Jany. 1781. 
 
 " Richard Barwell, Esq r - 
 
 " Sir, — In reply to your favour of the 24th inst., we 
 have to acquaint you that as our Mr. Boulton's time is 
 almost wholly engrossed by his steam-engine business, he 
 has lately resolved to entirely drop the painting, as well as 
 every other branch of the manufactory that requires much 
 of his attention, therefore are obliged to decline accepting 
 of your kind order .... Had you wanted copies of the 
 pieces you were pleased to purchase of us some time ago, 
 we could with some degree of readiness have complied, 
 having plates to do them from. 
 
 " We are," &c. 
 
 It appears, therefore, that towards the close of 
 1780, a stop was put to all farther progress of the 
 polygraphic branch of manufacture ; that no new 
 plates were made, and no new subjects copied subse- 
 quent to this date ; but that copies from the plates 
 
48 
 
 already made still continued to be sold. A consider- 
 able number of these sales are made in 1781 : anions; 
 other purchasers this year may be noticed the Bishop 
 of Chester. In 1782 the number of sales is much 
 fewer ; in this year some mechanical paintings are 
 sent to Wedgewood, at Etruria, as a present. After 
 1782 the sales are very infrequent, yet they do not 
 absolutely cease. So late as 1786 I find a person of 
 the name of De Virley writing about a purchase of 
 paintings, which, from the mention made of "plates," 
 are evidently polygraphia 
 
 With reference to the alteration of the house, I 
 find letters and accounts which show that in 1796 
 a pretty extensive alteration of the house was in 
 progress. At that time the work of the masons was 
 finished, and the carpenters and joiners were busy ; 
 the alteration therefore probably commenced in the 
 previous year, 1795. 
 
 It appears therefore that S. Vale was correct in 
 asserting that an alteration of the house took place 
 when he was about four years old ; and no doubt he 
 was also correct in asserting that the house previous 
 to that alteration was three stories high. 
 
 The facts therefore concerning the alteration of 
 the house seem to be pretty clear, viz., that in 1789 
 an alteration of it was made by which it was raised 
 from two stories to three stories high ; and that in 
 
49 
 
 1795 a second alteration of it was made, by which 
 it was not raised in heighth, but extended laterally. 
 
 I have obtained from Miss Stockdale a drawing of 
 the camera which she used when at Soho in 1818, of 
 which I here give a copy. 
 
 Miss Stockdale sent a drawing of this camera to 
 Mr. Smith, along with Miss Wilkinson's photographs ; 
 and Mr. Smith (curator of a Museum of Patents,) 
 described this drawing in a letter to the editor of the 
 Photographic Journal as the sketch of a camera 
 lucida ! 
 
 Miss Stockdale states that according to her recol- 
 lection the box was about fifteen inches long, by 
 twelve wide. The drawing does not show the lens. 
 Miss Stockdale says that she has no recollection of 
 the lens ; the instrument having been set or arranged 
 for her either by Miss Wilkinson or by my father. 
 
50 
 
 No doubt the lens was fixed in a projecting nozzle. 
 The picture was formed on the bottom of the camera, 
 on which paper was laid, and this picture was seen 
 through the aperture, represented in the sketch, 
 through which also the hand was introduced for 
 making the copy. 
 
 I have also obtained from Miss Stockdale a photo- 
 graph of the house at Holker previously mentioned, 
 and I give an engraving of this photograph, and of 
 the photograph found in the library, in order that 
 the public may be enabled to test for themselves the 
 correctness of Miss Stockdale's statement, as to the 
 resemblance between the two. It will be seen that 
 the similarity between the two buildings represented 
 is considerable : the principal difference being that 
 in Holker House there is a larger space between the 
 windows and the roof, and that the roof is not hipped, 
 like that of the house represented in the photograph. 
 
 Miss Stockdale is a person of accuracy and intelli- 
 gence : and moreover it is to be recollected that she 
 declared the drawing of old Soho house to resemble 
 the house at Holker, before she had seen the photo- 
 graph found in the library, or any representation of 
 it. Her evidence, therefore, shows pretty conclu- 
 sively that the drawing of old Soho house seen by 
 her at Soho resembled the photograph found in the 
 library ; since both resemble the house at Holker. 
 
 Previous to Miss Stockdale's evidence there was not 
 the least improbability in supposing the photograph 
 to represent some house other than old Soho house. 
 
51 
 
 There was no improbability in supposing that Price, 
 having heard from Townsend that pictures had been 
 taken of Soho house before and after its alteration, 
 invented a story that the photographs in his posses- 
 sion were those pictures. Or supposing it were 
 believed that Price was truly delivering a statement 
 made to him by Townsend himself, still this evidence 
 standing alone would be wholly inconclusive. For 
 when the photographs came into Price's hands, 
 Townsend was considerably over eighty ; and, as the 
 example of his widow shows, at this age he might 
 neither have a distinct recollection of the former 
 house, nor a distinct vision of the faint features of the 
 photograph. The grand-daughter of Eginton, whose 
 age is stated to be about seventy, and who is there- 
 fore considerably younger than Townsend was at the 
 time in question, asserts very confidently that the 
 photograph represents Eginton's house, as she recol- 
 lects it, previous to an alteration : and yet her testi- 
 mony to this effect is not regarded as of much value, 
 even by Mr. Smith. If therefore the statement 
 under discussion had come direct from the mouth of 
 Townsend, (whereas actually it comes from that of 
 Price, a most untrustworthy witness,) still by itself it 
 would be wholly insufficient to establish the fact 
 alleged. 
 
 Dr. Lee's evidence did not supply the confirmation 
 needed ; since it conveyed no knowledge concerning 
 the former appearance of Soho house; and contained 
 nothing calculated to show that the photograph 
 
52 
 
 represented it. But Miss Stockdale's statement does 
 afford evidence bearing on this essential point ; since 
 it gives us information as to what old Soho house 
 was like, and shows that it resembled the photograph. 
 
 It is true that the house represented is of ordinary 
 type, devoid of distinctive features, nevertheless it is 
 to be recollected that a search made by many persons 
 in the neighbourhood of Birmingham failed to dis- 
 cover any house much resembling the photograph. 
 It is clear therefore that there is a good deal of 
 improbability in supposing the resemblance between 
 the photograph and old Soho house to be the effect 
 of mere chance. 
 
 I think, therefore, that Miss Stockdale's evidence 
 renders Mr. Smith's case, so far as the metal plates 
 are concerned, much more hopeful than it previously 
 was. Could it further be proved that the photo- 
 graphs are on a surface of resin, I should regard the 
 evidence in favour of their antiquity as of consider- 
 able account. 
 
 I find my grandfather saying in some of his letters 
 that he has taken up chemistry, and is much occupied 
 with it. He had a laboratory in the Mint buildings, 
 which was amply stocked with jars, bottles, and 
 chemical materials, of which I and my brothers in 
 former da} T s made use. If photography were really 
 practised at Soho, as supposed, it is most probable 
 that the chemical experiments connected with it 
 would be conducted in this laborator}^. 
 
 Of course, if photography were really practised at 
 
53 
 
 Soho at the date assigned, this would quite account 
 for the statements which Dr. Lee heard from his 
 mother, to the effect that an art was practised at 
 Soho for procuring representations of objects by 
 sunlight ; that the pictures so obtained were called 
 " sun-pictures," and that in taking them the camera 
 and silver plates were employed. But, in the case 
 supposed, I should consider the account in question 
 defective in identifying this photographic process 
 with that which produced the mechanical paintings, 
 sold at Soho as a branch of trade : it being, I think, 
 abundantly clear that this latter process was not 
 photographic. 
 
 Again, if the photographs were really made at 
 the time alleged, I should believe that the method 
 of their production was known only to a few persons, 
 not to the Lunar Society at large : since, if the bulk 
 of the Lunar Society had known how to produce 
 such photographs, I conceive that a knowledge of 
 the matter must have come to light long before 
 the present day. 
 
NOTES TO CHAPTER III. 
 
 NOTE C. 
 
 Mr. Smith having sent me Price's letters, I have looked over 
 them, and I find that Price's statement to Mr. Thynne, repre- 
 senting that matter had heen added to what he had written, 
 was unfounded. The extracts published by Mr. Smith are 
 faithfully reported. At the same time I find matter in the 
 letters which in my opinion ought to have prevented Mr. Smith 
 from confiding in Price so much as he did. Thus in one letter 
 Price writes to Mr. Smith concerning an anticipated visit of my 
 sister to his Museum, and instructs him what language he is 
 to hold if she " insists on gossiping " about the sun-pictures. 
 Among other things, if she makes enquiries concerning their 
 discovery, she is to be told that they were found by Mr. 
 Smith himself, when turning over an old folio. This account is 
 quite different from that in the published letters : and conse- 
 quently such an instruction ought to have enabled Mr. Smith 
 to perceive that Price's veracity was not of the highest order. 
 
 In the same letter Price enjoins on Mr. Smith not to let my 
 sister know that any letters or papers have been sent to him by 
 Price, lest her brother should be displeased. Here again an 
 opportunity of discernment was afforded to Mr. Smith. 
 
 In another letter Price tells Mr. Smith that he has made a 
 statement to me concerning the burning of the papers, quite 
 different from that which he had made to him, in the published 
 letters. He says to Mr. Smith : " I wrote to Mr. Boulton 
 yesterday, and explained as much and as well as I could . . . 
 I have told Mr. Boulton that although I threatened to destroy 
 the copies of letters which I saved, I did not mean to do so. I 
 merely threatened so as to prevent Mr. Smiles from bothering 
 
55 
 
 me before I had an opportunity of explaining these things to 
 him (Mr. B.) and ascertaining his wishes."* 
 
 When I saw Mr. Smith I mentioned to him that Price had 
 made a statement to me on this matter quite at variance with 
 that in his published letters ; at which Mr. Smith expressed 
 astonishment : but the letter he had himself received from 
 Price afforded all that was needful for his enlightenment on 
 this point. 
 
 I do not hold Mr. Smith blamable for having been deceived 
 in the first instance by Price : this might have happened to 
 any person, and was a mere error of judgment. But when he 
 grew angry with me for correcting Price's mistatements, and 
 for giving information as to the real nature of his character, 
 attributing what I did to improper motives, he then gave just 
 ground for complaint. I cannot wonder at his reluctance to 
 entertain a bad opinion of a witness on whom he had so much 
 relied • nor at his feeling anger when an unwelcome light was 
 offered to his eyes : but however natural such an effect might 
 be, it was not proper or reasonable : nor could I rightly 
 acquiesce in the misrepresentations to which it gave rise. 
 Recently however Mr. Smith has declared to me that he now 
 acknowledges that he had been misled by Price ; and that he 
 no longer adheres to the statements of which I complained. 
 Such being the case, I say no more on the subject, and gladly 
 find myself relieved from an adverse position, which under the 
 circumstances was quite unnatural ; seeing that Mr. Smith is 
 labouring for an object altogether conformable to my wishes. 
 
 * It need hardly be said that this statement representing Mr. Smiles 
 as "bothering" Price about the papers is altogether unfounded. Mr. 
 Smiles assures me that he has never had any communication with Price : 
 that he has never seen him and never written to him. 
 
5G 
 
 NOTE D. 
 
 The late Mr. Watt having been brought under notice, I add 
 a word concerning him. Mr. Smith, as above mentioned, spoke 
 of him as veiy indifferent concerning his father's inventions and 
 memory ; whereas, I had always thought that a warm concern for 
 his father's memory was a very prominent trait in the late Mr. 
 Watt's character. On my endeavouring to persuade Mr. Smith 
 that he was mistaken, he assured me that his information had 
 been communicated to him by persons who knew the late Mr. 
 Watt well from the commencement of the present century. 
 On mentioning the subject to persons who knew the late Mr. 
 Watt, I have found them to confirm my opinion in the most 
 decided manner ; and I have also met with the following 
 published testimony on the point, which I think it well to 
 quote. In Bourne's work on the Steam Engine, he says : — 
 " Of Watt's personal character we are unable from our own 
 knowledge to say anything, as he had passed from this sub- 
 lunary scene before our day ; but he appears to have won the 
 reverential affection of every one who approached him, and 
 eveiy engineer even now looks upon him as a father. A more 
 remarkable proof, however, of his goodness is to be found in the 
 undjdng affection of his son, to whom throughout a long life he 
 was the object of fervent adoration. Never before was there 
 such an example of filial love. The worship of his father's 
 memory, and the vindication of his father's fame, was the prin- 
 cipal aim and purpose of the son's being — an absorbing passion, 
 which none but a generous nature could feel." * I think, 
 therefore, there can be no doubt that the information received 
 by Mr. Smith on the point in question, whatever may have 
 been the pretensions of the persons who communicated it, was 
 altogether erroneous. 
 
 * Bourne's Treatise on the Steam Engine, p. 31. 
 
57 
 
 NOTE E. 
 
 In a recent article in the " Athenteum," the writer, speaking 
 of the photograph found in Soho library, says, " It is suggested 
 that it may he a picture of Holker House, near Carke, in Lanca- 
 shire, with which Eginton was at one time connected, and the 
 evidence of Miss Stockdale is brought forward in support of 
 this." 
 
 From this it appears that the writer has much misappre- 
 hended the statements made. Miss Stockdale's evidence has 
 nothing to do with Eginton' s house, nor had Eginton any 
 connection with Holker. The house at Holker is in Lancashire ; 
 Eginton's house, in or near Birmingham. 
 
 The statement concerning Eginton's house is made by a 
 grand-daughter of Eginton, to whom a drawing of the photograph 
 was shown, and who declared it to represent Eginton's house as 
 it formerly existed. Miss Stockdale's evidence does not concern 
 the house of Eginton, of which she has no knowledge ; but 
 concerns Soho house. She states that when she visited Soho in 
 1818, she saw there a water-colour drawing of Soho house, as it 
 existed previous to the alteration ; and, being asked what this 
 drawing was like, she says that it was like the house at Holker, 
 a house near which she lives. 
 
 Miss Stockdale's evidence, if correct, proves that old Soho 
 house did really resemble the photograph found in Soho library : 
 and is thus opposed to the evidence of Mrs. Townsend, which, 
 if correct, proved that old Soho house was quite unlike the 
 photograph. For my own part, I esteem Miss Stockdale's 
 evidence as far the more trustworthy of the two ; and taking it 
 into account, I feel little doubt that Mrs. Townsend' s memory 
 is impaired by age. 
 
 In the preceding remarks I have spoken of the letters quoted 
 as conclusively showing that the polygraphia process of making 
 copies was quite different from photography. This is somewhat 
 too strongly stated. The letters show conclusively that in the 
 method in question the original picture was not copied photo- 
 
58 
 
 graphically : but it is open to maintain that a copy of the 
 original picture was made on glass, or otherwise, and that the 
 copy so made was copied by means of rays of light transmitted 
 through it. The letters quoted do not absolutely disprove this : 
 at the same time it is manifest that their language lends no 
 countenance to such a supposition. 
 
59 
 
 NOTE F. 
 
 In order to test better the value of Mrs. Townsend's evidence, 
 I asked Mr. Arnold to make another examination of her. He 
 says, " I have been to see Mrs. Townsend, but I find she is per- 
 fectly imbecile. She is continually talking about her husband 
 not coming home from his work, and cannot think what makes 
 him so long mending the hedges in the Park. It was perfectly 
 useless putting any questions to her respecting the house. Miss 
 Dingley who resides with her says her mind is completely gone." 
 This being the case, it is not likely that her memory was sound 
 when she was previously examined : and her statements there- 
 fore concerning the appearance of the house cannot be regarded 
 as of account. 
 
 NOTE G. 
 
 The polygraphic process, having lately been represented as 
 a species of photography of a very wonderful kind, is now, I 
 observe, disparaged as quite insignificant, — copying nothing but 
 outline. This view of it seems to me quite incorrect. I do 
 not doubt that in the pictures in the Museum the chiaroscuro, 
 as well as the outline, was executed by this peculiar process. 
 And that the effect so produced is good is evident from the fact, 
 that many expert photographers regarded these pictures as 
 photographs. There is one picture of a reddish tint, in which 
 an engraving in the style of Bartolozzi is reproduced very 
 delicately. A process capable of producing such results 
 "mechanically," i.e., not by hand, and very cheaply, deserves 
 to be regarded as ingenious and interesting. - It may be con- 
 jectured that some " mechanical" means (i.e., jneans other than 
 execution by hand) were employed in producing the "plate" 
 from which the copies were multiplied. It is natural to sup- 
 pose that if this " plate " had been prepared solely by hand, it 
 would have been so prepared that the resulting impressions 
 
60 
 
 should not have been left-handed : whereas it appears that they 
 were so. 
 
 Mr. Smith expects to have access to the papers both of 
 Eginton and of Booth ; and if he can succeed, by means of 
 these, in ascertaining the nature of this peculiar process, the 
 result will repay his labours. 
 
 I find it represented by some persons that I have blamed 
 and thwarted Mr. Smith's zeal in the cause of scientific dis- 
 covery. To illustrate this point I mention the following 
 circumstance. Certain letters published by me were pro- 
 nounced in the Athenaeum to " completely settle the q\iestion 
 against photography." Now two of the most decisive of the 
 letters published by me, that to Messrs. Clarke & Green, 
 quoted in the Atlienceum, and that to Mr. Hawkins Browne, 
 were in Mr. Smith's hands. Both these letters state the im- 
 portant fact, that the size of the "mechanical" copies cannot 
 be altered without great expense ; that to make the necessary 
 preparations for one or two pieces only, would be as expensive 
 as to make a copper-plate for only one or two impressions. 
 This fact is entirely adverse to the theory propounded by Price, 
 and seconded by Mr. Smith, — that the pictures were produced 
 by fixing the image formed by a lens. 
 
 Now these letters were published by me, and were not pub- 
 lished by Mr. Smith, though he had them in his hands. Surely 
 under such circumstances, it is absurd to represent me as 
 obstructing Mr. Smith's zeal in the cause of discovery. 
 
 Mr. Smith exhibited great zeal for a theory, shutting his 
 eyes to those facts which did not suit it, and regarding with 
 anger persons who stated such facts. Zeal of this description 
 is by no means unnatural : but it does not deserve admiration ; 
 and to disapprove of it is not to disapprove zeal in the cause of 
 truth. On former occasions Mr. Smith has exhibited zeal in 
 combination with judgment and knowledge : viz., in his labours 
 in connection with screw-propulsion. Zeal so accompanied is 
 regarded by mo as admirable. 
 
61 
 
 NOTE H. 
 
 I find that some correspondence between me and Mr. Smith 
 has been published in the Photographic Journal. The Editor 
 states that he has been requested to publish it, but does not 
 say by whom. I think it therefore well to state that the 
 request was not made by me, as I should have thought the 
 letters in question uninteresting to the public. Up to the 
 present time (July 16) I had not been aware of the fact of 
 their publication. I notice that Mr. Smith omits one brief 
 letter of mine : also that he complains of misrepresentation, 
 but does not attempt to justify his complaint. 
 
 Mr. Smith, referring to Price's allegations concerning his 
 letters, urges that I myself had pronounced Price to be unde- 
 serving of credit. I did not myself regard the allegations in 
 question as worthy of confidence : but as Mr. Smith stoutly 
 upheld Price's credit, maintaining that this was not in the 
 least impaired by his dishonesty, I thought it well that he 
 should know what a witness of such high authority said about 
 him. 
 
 Mr. Smith's unfavourable impression concerning the inhabi- 
 tants of Birmingham may, it appears, be accounted for by 
 Price's influence over his mind, as I found that Price in his 
 letters to him spoke in a very disparaging manner of " the 
 Brums." But, looking at the information which Mr. Smith 
 obtained concerning the late Mr. Watt, I do not think that the 
 people of Birmingham need take much to heart any unfavour- 
 able information which Mr. Smith may have obtained concern- 
 ing them, either from Price, or from any other quarter. 
 
 In his letter of February 10, Mr. Smith speaks of a pamphlet 
 of mine, which he represents as much disapproved by the Pho- 
 tographic and other societies. This was my first pamphlet : 
 at that time I had published no other. In this I gave a 
 caution concerning Price's testimony, which was enjoying a 
 credit much higher than I thought it deserved. Since Mr. 
 Smith represents this pamphlet as so reprehensible, I have 
 appended it; that its nature may be judged of. 
 
62 
 
 In the same letter of February 10, Mr. Smith tells me that 
 my mention of Price's dishonesty had been much blamed. At 
 that time I had not published any notice of this ; but I had 
 mentioned it privately to Mr. Smith and one or two other 
 persons. Mr. Smith evidently desired that the public should 
 not be made acquainted with the fact, and wished to persuade 
 me that if I did inform them of it, I should incur general 
 reprobation. Not long after the date of the publication of this 
 correspondence, I saw Mr. Smith at his Museum : and he then 
 no longer upheld Price's credit, but admitted very frankly that 
 he had been completely " duped " by him. I liked much what 
 I saw of Mr. Smith on this occasion : and indeed I had always 
 liked what I had seen of him : but his writings seemed to 
 breathe a spirit quite opposite to that displayed in his personal 
 intercourse. His explanation of this discrepancy: viz., that he 
 put on an amicable semblance with the view of getting access 
 to my papers ; is one which for his own sake I find it impossible 
 to accept. I believe that he was misled by persons who hail 
 their own views in deceiving him : and that having taken a 
 wrong start, he got at last completely into the dark. 
 
 NOTE I. 
 
 A camera obscura which was formerly at Soho has recently 
 been discovered at Haseley Court, a house of mine in Oxford- 
 shire, whither it had been sent from Soho in 1848. On the 
 opposite page I give a sketch of it, with a statement of its 
 dimensions. It is made to fold up into the form of a book, 
 having for its title the words Camera Obsanri. Lying in a 
 cupboard with a number of old account books which were not 
 disturbed till quite recently, it had hitherto remained unnoticed. 
 It has two lenses, one for near, the other for distant objects. 
 The light reflected by the mirror shown in the sketch passes 
 vertically downwards through the lens, which is thus out of 
 
HEIGHT, 
 
 LENCTH OF CASE 
 BREADTH OF O0-, 
 D I A M . OF LENS, 
 
 31 IMS. 
 23 i •• 
 I 7 » 
 
 C 2 
 
63 
 
 sight hi the drawing. The picture is formed on a sheet of 
 paper at the bottom of the case. 
 
 This camera cannot be the one which passed from Price into 
 the possession of Mr. Powell. It appears therefore that there 
 must have been two camera obscuras in Soho Library. The 
 one recently found seems to have been the larger of the two. 
 
 So much having been said about the camera at Soho, I have 
 mentioned the above particulars, but the discovery is not of 
 importance in reference to the question under discussion, since 
 at the end of the last century the camera obscura was not 
 unfrequently used. 
 
 NOTE K. 
 
 In a letter dated Dec. 3, 1864, Mr. Stockdale informs me 
 that another camera obscura which was formerly at Soho has 
 been found in Moorlands, a house in Lancashire, having been 
 left there by Miss Wilkinson. This consists of an oblong- 
 rectangular box, seventeen inches long by eight inches wide. 
 The rays are reflected by a mirror, and the image formed on a 
 piece of ground glass. 
 
 Miss Stockdale affirms that this is not the camera which she 
 used when at Soho in 1818 : nor can it be the one which 
 passed into the possession of Mr. Powell. It ajopears there- 
 fore that there must have been three camera obscuras in Soho 
 Library. 
 
 NOTE L. 
 
 I notice here one other point mentioned in Mr. Smith's 
 letter. He states that the interview, in which, as he alleges, 
 I displayed repulsive manners, was about the moving of an 
 
64 
 
 engine to the Patent Museum. According to my recollection, 
 this matter, which was exceedingly simple, had been previously 
 settled by letter, and though the interview was occasioned by 
 that correspondence, its object was to see Mr. Smith and his 
 Museum. I am unable to recollect that anything of a remark- 
 able kind took place at the interview in question. 
 
 When I desired an examination to be made of 
 houses in the neighbourhood of Soho, I particularly 
 directed attention to Winson Green, the house in 
 which Mr. Alston resided when he gave instructions in 
 photography to Miss Wilkinson. It was pronounced 
 at that time that the photograph did not appear to 
 represent Winson Green. I found however that 
 some persons on seeing the representation of the 
 photograph, expressed themselves as much struck 
 with its resemblance to Winson Green, as they re- 
 collected it. I therefore directed another examina- 
 tion of that house to be made by a builder. At first 
 he stated that notwithstanding some striking points' 
 of resemblance, it did not appear to him likely that 
 the photograph had been taken from Winson Green. 
 Afterwards, however, on examining another front of 
 the house, and taking into account the reversal of 
 right and left, which had not at first occurred to 
 him, he changed his opinion, and declared that not 
 
& 
 
 
■f 
 
 !s 
 
 ^ 
 
^ 
 
 §* 
 
 I 
 
65 
 
 the slightest doubt existed in his mind that Winson 
 Green was the house from which the photograph 
 had been taken. 
 
 The accompanying plates will enable persons to 
 form their own opinions on the subject. Plate V. 
 represents a photograph recently taken from Winson 
 Green, and showing its present state.* Plate VI. 
 represents a drawing of Winson Green made in 1841, 
 furnished by a relative of Mr. Alston. Plate VII. 
 represents the photograph in the Museum (alleged 
 to represent Old Soho House), being more carefully 
 copied from the photograph than the one previously 
 given. 
 
 An inspection of these plates will probably be 
 deemed by most persons to set the matter at rest. 
 It will be seen that Winson Green as it now stands 
 closely resembles the photograph except in the 
 features of the ground floor, where instead of a 
 door by the side of two small windows it has three 
 windows opening to the ground. The drawing made 
 in 1841 is by no means accurate as to details : but 
 it shows that at that date Winson Green possessed 
 a door by the side of two small windows, like the 
 house represented in the photograph. Traces of the 
 alteration appear in the wall of the present house, 
 and the outline of the head of the doorway is still 
 discernible. 
 
 It may be noticed that the mass of shrubs shown 
 
 * In this plate right and left are reversed. 
 
66 
 
 in the drawing as concealing part of the greenhouse, 
 appears not to have really existed, but to have been 
 inserted in the drawing for the sake of effect. 
 
 The following special points of resemblance between 
 Winson Green and the photograph may be noticed. 
 The chimneys shown in the photograph precisely 
 resemble those now existing, the pots alone having 
 been altered. The cornice in the two cases precisely 
 corresponds, the sizes of the dentils and the spaces 
 between them being exactly alike. There is also a 
 peculiar object, which at first sight looks like a 
 chimney, but which is really the peak of a small 
 gable : this object, existing in the present house, 
 appears also in the photograph. 
 
 Such a similarity of features suffices to identify 
 the house represented by the photograph beyond 
 all reasonable doubt. 
 
 It is hence clear that Price must have had recourse 
 to his inventive faculty: and that he could not have 
 been informed by Miss Wilkinson that the photograph 
 was a sun-picture of Old Soho House. The photo- 
 graph was no doubt one of those made by Miss 
 Wilkinson or Mr. Alston about 1840, and was neg- 
 lected by Miss Wilkinson on account of its faded 
 condition. 
 
 Price seems also to have had recourse to his in- 
 vention in representing Dr. Small as one of the 
 party present at the taking of the picture of Soho 
 House. The date of Dr. Small's death was 1775, 
 much before the time in question/ 
 
67 
 
 ^he statement about Dr. Franklin may be of like 
 quality. 
 
 At the same time, looking at the evidence of Dr. 
 Lee and Miss Stockdale, it does not seem likely that 
 Price's story was wholly baseless. It may be con- 
 jectured that he proceeded on information supplied 
 to him by Townshend. It may be supposed that 
 Townshend, seeing the photograph in Price's pos- 
 session, believed himself to recognise in it the so- 
 called sun-picture of Soho House, taken about 1790, 
 at the taking of which he was probably present, and 
 told Price that it was that picture. Miss Stockdale's 
 evidence, which shows that Old Soho House was a 
 good deal like that part of Winson Green which is 
 shown in the photograph, serves to account for such 
 a mistake on Townshend's part. 
 
 Upon this supposition a conjecture might be 
 founded that the "sun -picture" of Soho House bore 
 some resemblance to a daguerreotype ; but under 
 the circumstances not much weight could be attached 
 to this conjecture. 
 
 I have found several persons besides Mr. Hodgson 
 who affirm that 'the paintings at Soho were spoken 
 of by my father as " sun-pictures," and I have ascer- 
 tained that this title was used many years before 
 photography was known to the public. It does not 
 however appear that my father ever expressed the 
 slightest belief or suspicion that these so-called " sun- 
 pictures" were photographs, or connected with pho- 
 tography. And the late Mr. Watt appears to have 
 
68 
 
 been equally ignorant of any practice of photography 
 at Soho. I am informed by persons who really did 
 know him, that he frequently spoke of photography 
 as a novelty which excited his especial wonder. Had 
 he entertained the slightest suspicion that his father 
 had made photographic experiments, he would cer- 
 tainly have pursued the trail to the utmost. 
 
 It has been suggested to me that the peculiar 
 copies in question were called " sun-pictures," merely 
 because their outline was copied in the camera ob- 
 scura, But (to say nothing of other objections) 
 looking at the large size of the plates employed in 
 making the " mechanical paintings," I do not think 
 it in the least likely that their outline was copied in 
 this manner. This mode therefore of accounting 
 for the origin of the title " sun-pictures " appears to 
 me unsatisfactory. 
 
 At the same time I do not at all believe that the 
 pictures in question were photographs. The language 
 of the documents concerning " plates," the mark of 
 the plate visible on the paper, and the appearance 
 of the coloured specimens, seem to me to indicate 
 almost conclusively that the copying of these pictures 
 was effected by a process of mechanical transfer, in 
 which pressure was applied to a plate. And if pho- 
 tography were not used in the multiplying part of 
 the process, it could hardly have been used in any 
 other. Further it may be noticed that the reddish 
 tint of one specimen is very unlike that of a photo- 
 graph. Moreover, the pictures show no signs of 
 
69 
 
 fading, and it seems very improbable that in the 
 infancy of photography a mode of fixing should have 
 been practised superior to any since invented. 
 
 It is to be observed that the date of Sir W. 
 Beechey's visit to Soho appears to have been about 
 1799. 1799 is also the date of the letter from Watt 
 to Wedgwood : speaking of experiments about the 
 silver pictures. On the other hand, the discontinu- 
 ance of the " mechanical paintings " seems to have 
 taken place about 1780. These dates do not tally 
 with the supposition that Sir W. Beechey caused the 
 suppression of the " mechanical paintings," but they 
 favour the hypothesis that subsequent to 1790 some 
 fresh experiments were made at Soho, and that these 
 may have been photographic. If this were the case, 
 the origin of the term "sun-pictures" would be ac- 
 counted for. These photographic experiments may 
 have been those which were shown to Sir W. Beechey, 
 and which excited his apprehension. 
 
 If there really were these two different processes, 
 both kept secret and suppressed, it is natural that 
 the vague accounts heard concerning the two would 
 become confounded. And it is moreover possible 
 that though the two processes may have been diffe- 
 rent, some sort of connection may have existed 
 between them. 
 
 All the documents which I could find were placed 
 by me some time ago in the hands of Mr. Smiles, 
 who having carefully examined them tells me that 
 he can find nothing in them throwing any further 
 
70 
 
 light on the subject. His view concerning the paper 
 pictures exhibited at the Museum coincides with 
 mine. He gives it as his opinion that they are prints 
 or impressions, produced by a mechanical process ; 
 an anticipation of printing in colours. 
 
 The evidence, therefore, seems to reduce itself 
 to the following heads. There is evidence that a 
 peculiar method of making copies of pictures was 
 practised at Soho ; that the pictures so produced 
 were called " sun-pictures " ; that this process ex- 
 cited the apprehension of Sir W. Beechey, and was 
 suppressed at his instigation. 
 
 Dr. Lee affirms, on the authority of his mother, 
 that in practising this process, the camera obscura 
 and silver plates were sometimes employed. 
 
 Watt, writing to Wedgwood in 1799, thanks him 
 for his instructions respecting " the silver pictures," 
 and says that he will make some experiments about 
 them. 
 
 To the above may be added, for what it is worth, 
 the inferences drawn concerning the probable testi- 
 mony of Townshend. Also the fact that three camera 
 obscuras existed at Soho : which indicates that the 
 camera obscura was much used there for some 
 purpose or another. 
 
 This seems to be the whole evidence at present 
 existing in favour of the view that photography was 
 practised at Soho. On the other side is the difficulty 
 arising from the long silence on the subject : particu- 
 larly the silence of my father and the late Mi-. Watt. 
 
71 
 
 On the whole it seems to me that the evidence is 
 fitted to stimulate conjecture, but, in its present state, 
 insufficient to afford certainty. 
 
 THE END. 
 
REMAKES 
 
 CONCERNING 
 
 CERTAIN PICTURES 
 
 SUPPOSED TO BE 
 
 PHOTOGRAPHS 
 
 OF 
 
 EAELT DATE. 
 
 BY 
 
 M. P. W. BOULTON. 
 
 LONDON: 
 BRADBUEY & EVANS, 11, BOUVERIE STREET. 
 
 1865. 
 
LONDON : 
 BRADBURY AND EVANS, PRINTERS, WHITEFRIARS. 
 
In" November, 1863, Mr. Smith, Curator of the 
 Museum of Patents at South Kensington, laid before 
 the Photographic Society evidence purporting to 
 show that photography had been practised at Soho 
 in the last century, and pictures were exhibited 
 supposed to be specimens of the photographs then 
 made. 
 
 These consisted of two classes, viz., several paper 
 pictures and two metal plates. The paper pictures 
 were generally admitted to be of the date assigned, 
 and to be specimens of a peculiar mode of making 
 copies practised at Soho about 1780. The metal 
 plates were generally admitted to be photographs ; 
 but the date of their production was questioned. 
 
 With reference to the peculiar pictures, frequently 
 called " mechanical paintings," and sometimes " poly- 
 graphic," produced at Soho about 1780,1 give the 
 following extracts from papers which I have ex- 
 amined. 
 
 The earliest letter which I have found referring to 
 the subject is the following : — 
 
 A 2 
 
"Sono, June 6th, 1778. 
 "Samuel More, Esq., 
 "Secretary to the Arts and Sciences, 
 " Adelphi Buildings, London. 
 
 "The present is to inform you that our Mr. Eginton haa 
 reconsidered the subject he had the pleasure of conversing with 
 you upon, when in town, and have now the satisfaction to inform 
 you that a Picture in whole length of Lord Romney, reduced to 
 the size of 28 by 32 inches, executed upon canvas, will be 
 5 guineas each piece, provided 50 of them are ordered together, 
 and if done upon copper they will be the price of copper a piece 
 more. 
 
 " We remain, &c, 
 
 « B. k F." 
 
 Before this letter there are others, mentioning 
 painting, but apparently of the ordinary kind, there 
 being no allusion in them (so far as I have observed) 
 to any peculiar or multiplying process. 
 
 There are a few other letters in the same year 
 (1778), which seem to have reference to the same 
 subject. 
 
 In 1779 there is the following letter, which un- 
 mistakeably refers to the process in question : — 
 
 "Soho, 12th June, 1779. 
 " Sir Watkins William Wynne, Bart., 
 
 " When I had the pleasure of seeing you at the Exhibition .of 
 painted glass, I acquainted you that I am engaged in painting 
 as a manufacture, and that by some peculiar contrivances I am 
 enabled to make better copies of good originals than can be 
 done otherwise, without much greater expense ; or rather of 
 multiplying those copies when once obtained, and making an 
 extensive sale of them in Foreign countries. The high value of 
 good originals puts them out of my reach in any other manner 
 than by applying to such gentlemen as you, who are at once 
 
possessed of those paintings and of the love of the fine arts. I 
 have by this means been enabled to take copies of some few- 
 fine pictures. I hope you will excuse the present freedom in 
 requesting a similar indulgence from you. You'll please to 
 observe that, as the copies I take are upon a smaller scale than 
 the original, the value of the original is in no danger of being 
 diminished. The young painter who will deliver you this is 
 employed by us for copying pictures : if you will permit him to 
 copy either your Cecilia or your Orpheus, I shall esteem the 
 indulgence as a great favour, & you will by that means have an 
 opportunity of judging how we succeed in this way, as I shall 
 beg leave to present to you the first picture we execute from 
 yours, if I am so happy as to obtain your permission. 
 
 {Signed) " M. B." 
 
 Another letter of my grandfather, dated Feb. 
 1781, alluding to the subject, is quoted in the Pho- 
 tographic Journal. In this it is said : 
 
 " We also copy all our engine-drawings upon thick paper, 
 in which case the drawing is reversed, and is so perfect as 
 not to be distinguished from y e original. We make some 
 rolls 2 feet long for the purpose of copying architecture and 
 other large drawings." 
 
 The following are further extracts from documents 
 referring to the same subject : — 
 
 "Soho, 6th September, 1781. 
 
 "Mr. Barney, 
 
 "Sir, — Herewith I send a painting of Trenmore with the 
 original of the same ; also a painting of Time and Cupid, with 
 one of the same in dead color. That of Trenmore, as it has 
 been in parts finished, 'tis thought you will do it much sooner 
 then if not touched from the dead color, tho' the faces we per- 
 ceive are at present very bad. As we have one or two more 
 pieces of Time and Cupid here, 'tis agreed that the finished one 
 
6 
 
 now sent shall be part of the order, but must request you will 
 cover the bare places on the canvas, and touch it in any other 
 places you may think proper, in order to make it match that 
 which you are to finish. We have now only one more Tren- 
 more to send, which is not ready, and as I cannot with cer- 
 tainty say what day it will, must beg you'll not send the 
 Telemachus till you again hear from me. 
 
 "The net price that Messrs. B. & F. sell these pictures for 
 are as follows : 
 
 Trenmore . . . . 51. 8s. Od. \ 
 
 Time and Cupid . . 5 ) a pie ° e ' 
 
 " This for your government ; but you'll please to remember 
 that besides yotu* charge there is the expense of rendering them 
 in the dead colored state, which is now considerable. I know 
 Mr. Boulton does not wish to get profit by these so much as 
 reputation ; hence, you will see his desire of having them mas- 
 terly done, tho' at the same time a moderate profit to be gained 
 as well. I am, for Messrs. Boulton and Fothergill, 
 
 " Your obedient servant, 
 
 "John Hodges." 
 
 Extract of a letter from Barney to Hodges : — 
 
 " Your idea was perfectly right respecting Telemachus had it 
 been mechanised, but at present the outline & dead colour take 
 nearly half the time." 
 
 Extract of a letter from Eginton to Hodges, dated 
 March, 1782 :— 
 
 " I have herewith sent the pictur of Penelopy upon glass 
 upon the terms I mentioned to you — pleas to inform Mr. B. 
 that when I have the originall pictur to coppy they will be 
 better." 
 
 Letter from Eginton to Hodges, dated Jan. 29, 
 
 1782 :— 
 
 " Sir, — If it is convenient to Soho, Madoks will be hear this 
 
afternoon to take off a few impressions for me, and as I wish to 
 go to London as early in the spring as possible with some of the 
 best picturs I can get, should be glad to know if I could have 
 the plates of Stratonice & Bynaldo. Thear are two plates of 
 the former, and three of the latter, one of the three is a small 
 one. 
 
 " I am, y r - ob*- h We - serv 1 -, 
 
 " F. Eginton." 
 
 Letter from Do. to Do., dated May 29, 1781 :— 
 
 " Mr. Hodges. 
 
 " Sir, — In a paper containing instructions given to Z. Walker 
 by Mr. Boulton, 3rd of April, 1780, respecting me, and of 
 which Mr. James Pearson hath a coppy, is the follows in- 
 structions : 
 
 " ' Eginton may have impressions as fast as he chooses, 
 keeping an account against him, <fec, &c, &c.' 
 
 " And as I have this morning a chance of receiving a con- 
 siderable order for picturs, I should be glad to know if it is 
 agreeable to Messrs. B. & F. to let me have some, and upon 
 what terms." 
 
 Letter from Hodges : — 
 
 "Soho, the lUh March, 1781. 
 "Mr. John Garnett, 
 
 " Sir, — In reply to your favour to our Mr. Boulton, we have 
 to acquaint you that our mechanical method of taking copies of 
 pictures does not injure the original any more than the engrav- 
 ing of a plate does the piece from whence it is engraven ; and 
 further, that the expense of making the necessary apparatus for 
 the copying of two portraits would be in the same proportion as 
 the engraving of a copper plate to take off two impressions only, 
 hence you will readily conceive how high two copies would come 
 if we were to execute them. Lastly, we have to inform you 
 that we have lately resolved to decline this branch of our manu- 
 factory, chiefly owing to our Mr. Boulton's time being prmci- 
 
8 
 
 pally engaged in his steam-engine business ; so that we now 
 only take orders for such paintings as we have on hand. 
 
 " We are, respectfully, &c." 
 
 From Do. : — 
 
 "Soho, mhJuly, 1781. 
 " Messrs. Clarke <k Green, 
 
 " Gentlemen, — We have duly received your Mr. Clarke's 
 esteemed favor of the 10th inst., handing an order for sundry 
 paintings, and in reply to your remarks concerning them we 
 have to say, 
 
 "That our mechanical method of doing them is such that 
 we cannot make 'em of different sizes without being at a similar 
 expense as the engraving of a plate to take off only two impres- 
 sions, hence you will readily judge how high two copies will 
 come ; yet for any that you may wish to have to deviate from 
 the sizes given we can have recourse to the usual way of paint- 
 ing by the hand, but in which case they will come considerably 
 higher than if done mechanically, for this our new invention 
 gives us the means of rendering good pictures at much cheaper 
 rates than they could be procured for of equal quality if done 
 by other artists " 
 
 From Do. : — 
 
 "Soho, 4th Sept., 1781. 
 "Isaac Hawkins Browne, Esq., 
 " at Badger, W Hampton." 
 
 " We received the favour of your letter, but could not fully 
 reply thereto until our Mr. Boulton's return from London. 
 We now have to acquaint you that from Mr. Boulton's time 
 being almost wholly engaged in his steam-engine business he 
 has of late been obliged to withdraw his attention from our 
 painting branch, and as it required much of his personal 
 attendance we have been obliged to decline it in part, so that 
 we now only take orders for such subjects as we have appa- 
 ratus's for. We have no mechanical sized pictures large enough 
 for your purposes, and you will please to understand that the 
 
expense of the necessary preparations to do one or two pieces 
 only would be in the same proportion as the engraving of 
 a copper plate to take off only one or two impressions, 
 hence you will readily conceive it would not answer to have 
 any subjects done mechanically unless many of a sort were 
 ordered. 
 
 "We thei'efore beg to recommend to you the same artist 
 who furnish'd the chief of the paintings for Mrs. Montague's 
 ceilings, and who is Mr. Joseph Barney of W Hampton, which 
 place although it might be supposed no good painter resided in, 
 yet we can assure you from experience that he is superior to 
 any of his brother artists in or about Birmingham. 
 
 " We should have been very happy had it been in our power 
 to have exercised our abilities in embellishing in part the 
 house of a person so eminently distinguished in all matters of 
 taste. 
 
 "We have the honour to subscribe ourselves most respect- 
 
 fully, 
 
 " Sir, 
 
 " Your obed. hble. servants." 
 
 The language of the above letters seems to indicate 
 that the process in question was mechanical ; that a 
 plate, representing the picture, was prepared in a 
 peculiar manner, and that copies were multiplied 
 from this plate by the application of pressure. 
 
 It has been pointed out that the appearance of the 
 pictures testifies to the same conclusion : that there 
 are evident marks of a plate on them, and that the 
 colour in the coloured specimens shews signs of 
 having been applied mechanically. This also agrees 
 with what I remember to have heard from my father 
 on the subject, viz., that the process in question 
 copied colour mechanically. 
 
10 
 
 On the whole, the evidence seems much adverse to 
 the supposition that the so-called mechanical paint- 
 ings were photographs. 
 
 There remains the case of the two metal plates. 
 The evidence concerning these rested principally on 
 the testimony of a servant of mine, named Price. 
 One of them was almost obliterated ; but faint traces 
 on it showed that it had formerly represented Soho 
 house in its present state. A portion of the other 
 was distinct ; and Price affirmed that this plate was 
 a sun-picture, representing Soho house as it existed 
 previous to an alteration in 1791 ; that he had 
 written this date on its frame by the direction of 
 Miss Wilkinson, an aunt of mine, who, according to 
 his account, had given him the plates in question. 
 And he declared that the plates had been exhumed 
 from the library at Soho, opened in his presence, 
 after having lain unopened and undisturbed for fifty 
 years. 
 
 This latter statement (on which, naturally, a good 
 deal of stress was laid) was purely fictitious, and I 
 lost no time in contradicting it. 
 
 The statement in question was recommended to 
 the belief of the Photographic Society, on the ground 
 that it was made by Mr. Price, who was a most 
 respectable man/" But very shortly after this cir- 
 cumstance I discovered that Mr. Price had been for 
 some time engaged in most dishonest practices, car- 
 
 * See Photographic Journal, Nov. 1863, p. 397. 
 
11 
 
 ried on under tlie cover of gross falsehoods. To 
 escape the punishment of his doings he absconded, 
 and is affirmed to have quitted the country.* 
 
 This Mr. Price further made various statements 
 concerning an alleged practice of photography by the 
 Lunar Society, in a dark tent, with pictures on the 
 table, which statements he professed to have received 
 from an old servant employed at Soho, of the name 
 of Townshend. 
 
 A further speculation was started that Miss Wil- 
 kinson (my aunt) had herself practised photography 
 in 1825, or earlier, and that she made her photo- 
 graphs by means of a camera lucida.\ But these 
 speculations were unfounded. There was nothing 
 remarkable about Miss Wilkinson's practice of pho- 
 tography, which took place subsequent to the pub- 
 lication of the discoveries of Daguerre and Talbot, 
 and was performed in accordance with the ordinary 
 methods. 
 
 About 1840, Miss Wilkinson received instructions 
 in photography from two gentlemen resident near 
 Soho, Mr. Murdock and Mr. Alston. These gentle- 
 men made daguerreotypes, and Miss Wilkinson also 
 made a few. It is known that Soho house was one 
 of the subjects of which photographs were taken in 
 these trials ; and it is further known that the room 
 in which the metal plates were found (represented 
 
 * Note A. 
 t See Photographic Journal. 
 
12 
 
 by Price as hermetically sealed for fifty years) was 
 used by Miss Wilkinson as her studio, and that she 
 had access to the cupboards in it. In the absence 
 therefore of proof to the contrary, it was perfectly 
 open to suppose that the metal plates found in 
 the library were some of the daguerreotypes made 
 by Miss Wilkinson, or by one of the gentlemen above 
 named. 
 
 With respect to the alleged alteration of Soho 
 house, there is no doubt that Soho house has under- 
 gone alterations. According to what I have heard, 
 this house was originally a small inn, standing on a 
 lonely heath, and was enlarged by successive addi- 
 tions. It is probable, therefore, that at one period 
 of its existence it was not more than two stories high, 
 and resembled so far the photograph alleged to re- 
 present it. 
 
 In letters and papers examined by me, I have dis- 
 covered mention of two enlargements of Soho house, 
 one in 1789, the other in 1795. 
 
 Price's story received an apparent confirmation 
 from Dr. Lee, a gentleman residing in Worcestershire, 
 who stated that he had heard from his mother that a 
 peculiar mode of making representations of objects 
 was practised at Soho ; that the representations so 
 made were called sun-pictures ; that in making them 
 the camera obscura and silver plates were sometimes 
 employed. That a picture of this kind was made of 
 Soho house, before an alteration ; and finally that the 
 process was suppressed, from fear of injury to artists. 
 
13 
 
 I have myself heard from my father that the 
 process of copying pictures practised at Soho was 
 suppressed at the instigation of Sir W. Beech ey, who 
 considered it injurious to art. 
 
 The date of Sir W. Beechey's visit to Soho seems 
 to have been about 1799. 
 
 I have also ascertained that several persons heard 
 the mechanical paintings which hung at Soho spoken 
 of by my father as sun-pictures. At the same 
 time my father never intimated any opinion that 
 these pictures were photographs, or similar to photo- 
 graphs. I feel convinced that neither my father nor 
 the late Mr. Watt entertained any belief, or any sus- 
 picion, that photography had been practised at an 
 early period at Soho. 
 
 A further piece of evidence is a letter from Watt 
 to Wedgwood, dated 1799, communicated by Mr. 
 Smith to the P/wtoj/rap/dc Journal, in which Watt 
 says that he will make some experiments about " the 
 silver pictures." 
 
 With the view of testing the truth of Price's story 
 about the metal plates, endeavours were made to 
 obtain the evidence of old persons, who recollected 
 the former appearance of Soho house. Only two 
 persons were found who professed to have a recol- 
 lection of this : but their evidence came to nothing. 
 One of them did not remember the first alteration 
 (in 1789), while the memory of the other was found 
 to be impaired by age. 
 
 A drawing of the photograph being shown to a 
 
14 
 
 grand-daughter of Eginton, she declared it to repre- 
 sent Eginton's house as she recollected it previous to 
 an alteration. 
 
 Miss Stockdale, a friend and relation of Miss Wil- 
 kinson, stated that when she was at Soho, in 1818, 
 she saw a water-colour drawing of Soho house pre- 
 vious to its alteration ; and that this resembled a 
 certain house at Holker, a place in Lancashire, near 
 which she lives. And a photograph of this house at 
 Holker showed that it much resembled the features 
 displayed on the photograph obtained from Price, 
 alleged to represent old Soho house. 
 
 In the meantime search was made among the 
 houses in the neighbourhood of Soho, to ascertain 
 if any resembled the photograph. I particularly 
 directed attention at the outset to Winson Green, the 
 house occupied by Mr. Alston when he practised 
 photography together with Miss Wilkinson : but at 
 first the examination of this house was without result. 
 Subsequently, however, a more careful examination 
 showed that Winson Green was the house from which 
 the photograph had been taken. 
 
 In the Plates subjoined, Plate I. represents the 
 photograph, the subject of discussion. Plate II. re- 
 presents Winson Green as it now is."" Plate III. re- 
 presents a drawing of Winson Green made in 1841. 
 A comparison of these will suffice to set the subject 
 at rest. 
 
 * In this Plate right and left are reversed. 
 

 hj 
 
— 1 
 
 i 
 
 == 
 
 h 
 
 ^ 
 

15 
 
 It is therefore sufficiently clear that the photo- 
 graphs found in Soho library are modern photo- 
 graphs, made either by Miss Wilkinson or Mr. Alston, 
 about 1840 ; and that Price in his statements on the 
 subject had recourse to fiction.* At the same time 
 it does not seem likely that Price's fiction was en- 
 tirely baseless. It seems probable that he received 
 his information from Townshend ; that Townshend 
 seeing the photograph in Price's possession, believed 
 it to be the so-called " sun-picture " of Soho house, 
 taken before its alteration, of which mention was 
 made to Dr. Lee by his mother, and at the taking of 
 which Townshend was probably present. Upon this 
 hint Price framed his story, making fictitious altera- 
 tions, as he thought best. Such a supposition ac- 
 counts for the partial confirmation which Price's 
 story received from the evidence of Dr. Lee and Miss 
 Stockdale ; which confirmation, as it seems to me, 
 can scarcely be accounted for by mere chance. 
 
 The following appear to be the results of the evi- 
 dence, so far as at present known. 
 
 The two photographs on the metal plates, ex- 
 hibited as ancient photographs, made in the last 
 century, are unquestionably modern photographs, 
 made about 1840. 
 
 The paper pictures exhibited are specimens of the 
 
 * Price perhaps thought that a few fictions for the sake of 
 promoting the honour of Soho were not blameable. And pro- 
 bably he had the faculty (not veiy unfrequent) of believing, to 
 a considerable extent, his own inventions. 
 
16 
 
 process practised under Eginton at Solio, about 1780; 
 but there are great difficulties in the way of sup- 
 posing that these pictures are photographs, and 
 much which tends to show that they were produced 
 mechanically. 
 
 There is some evidence tending to show that pho- 
 tographic experiments were made at Soho subsequent 
 to 1790, and that Wedgwood communicated in- 
 structions on the subject ; and it is possible that 
 these may have been the experiments which were 
 shown to Sir W. Beechey, apparently about 1799, 
 and were discontinued at his request. There is no 
 great difficulty in accepting this view, except that 
 caused by the long silence on the subject, especially 
 the silence of my father and the late Mr. Watt, who 
 certainly were ignorant of any practice of photo- 
 graphy at Soho.* 
 
 On the whole, the evidence, though fitted to 
 stimulate conjecture, seems insufficient to afford 
 certainty. 
 
 * Note B. 
 
17 
 
 NOTE A. 
 
 I incurred some blame for stating my opinion concerning 
 Price's testimony. One writer pronounced it very regrettable 
 that I should come forward to " discredit Mr. Price's facts ; " 
 another represented me as thwarting the enthusiasm which had 
 been displayed in the cause of " scientific discovery." To me it 
 appears that if so-called facts are devoid of truth, it is by no 
 means regrettable that they should be discredited ; and that an 
 endeavour to ascertain their real character does not evince hos" 
 tility to the cause of discovery. 
 
 Mr. Smith particularly complained of the course I took. 
 When I corrected Price's statement, which represented Soho 
 library as closed for fifty years, he blamed me for this, declaring 
 that my notice of the point was quite useless and uncalled for. 
 Yet it is manifest that the statement in question was one of 
 much importance : and that if, knowing its untruth, I had kept 
 this knowledge to myself, I should have acted culpably. 
 
 When I discovered Price's dishonesty, I gave private informa- 
 tion of this to Mr. Smith, and one or two other persons. Upon 
 this Mr. Smith again blamed me ; alleging that as Price's dis- 
 honesty was only in private matters, it did not affect the credit 
 of his testimony, and ought on no account to be mentioned. 
 And he declared that this was the general opinion of the Photo- 
 graphic Society • publishing this assertion in the Photographic 
 Journal. Such statements seemed to me repugnant to common 
 sense.* Mr. Smith further complained of me as repulsive in 
 
 * Mr. Smith himself did not long maintain this paradoxical statement. 
 Shortly afterwards, when I saw him, he quite ceased to maintain Price's 
 credit : complaining strongly that he had been deceived and "duped" by 
 him. On this, as on all other occasions, Mr. Smith, in his personal inter- 
 course, was perfectly pleasant and agreeable, and gave no evidence of the 
 irrational animus displayed in the productions of his pen. 
 
18 
 
 my manners, and as having done him injury by my statements 
 in the eyes of the public. And a Birmingham newspaper 
 having made some remark not to his taste, the people of Bir- 
 mingham incurred a share of his uncomplimentary utterances. 
 
 Mi\ Smith's zeal or enthusiasm has its laudable side ; but 
 when it leads him into absurdity, and induces him to attack 
 pei'sons whose evidence does not favour his theory, it exceeds 
 due bounds. " Forced marches, bullying, and worrying," may 
 be of service in pushing on to completion a new house,* but 
 they are out of place in the construction of a new theory. 
 
 However, though Mr. Smith's zeal and impatience of obstacles 
 may render him unfit for the careful weighing of evidence, it is 
 to be remembered that on other occasions he has displayed these 
 qualities to good purpose. With their aid he achieved the 
 successful introduction of the screw-propeller, in the face of 
 great external disadvantages. Moreover, his labours in this 
 task have not, it is stated, met with due reward. Whatever 
 may have been his fancied grievances against me, I should, in 
 common with others, feel much pleasure in seeing his valuable 
 services more adequately requited. 
 
 NOTE B. 
 
 Mr. Smith represented the late Mr. Watt as very indifferent 
 in matters concerning his father's reputation, and declared that 
 in expressing this opinion he relied on conversations which he 
 had had with persons who knew the late Mr. Watt well since 
 the commencement of the present century; and also on what he 
 had read concerning his character, t From my own intercourse 
 
 * "My dear Sir, — "We, by forced marches, bullying, worrying, &c, 
 &c, &c, managed to sleep in my new house, as above, the first time on 
 Saturday night." — Extract of letter from Mr. Smith to the Editor of 
 the Photographic Journal. 
 
 t See Photographic Journal. 
 
19 
 
 with the late Mr. Watt, I had always regarded him as holding 
 his father's memory in especial veneration, and taking deep 
 interest in all that concerned it. On mentioning the subject to 
 persons who knew him, I have found them to confirm my 
 opinion in the most decided manner. As to reading, I find a 
 notice of the late Mr. Watt in Poggendorf's " Annalen," in 
 which he is described as an ardent (eifriger) promoter of steam- 
 navigation. It is not likely that if this were the case, he would 
 be indifferent as to his father's inventions. More explicit testi- 
 mony is, however, not wanting. In Bourne's " Treatise on the 
 Steam-Engine," there is a passage which, after speaking in praise 
 of Watt (the elder), proceeds as follows : — " A more remarkable 
 proof, however, of his goodness is to be found in the undying 
 affection of his son, to whom throughout a long life he was the 
 object of fervent adoration. Never before was there such an 
 example of filial love. The worship of his father's memory and 
 the vindication of his father's fame was the principal aim and 
 purpose of the son's being — an absorbing passion, which none 
 but a generous nature could feel."* 
 
 The son thus spoken of is the identical son concerning whom 
 Mr. Smith, as he declares, read such a totally opposite account : 
 while no attempt has been made to quote the passages thus 
 asserted to have been read. 
 
 Under such circumstances it may be confidently pronounced 
 that the statement concerning the character of the late Mr. 
 Watt made by Mr. Smith, and published, in deference to his 
 request, in the Photographic Journal, was wholly erroneous : the 
 precise reverse of the actual fact. 
 
 * Bourne's Treatise on the Steam-Engine, p. 31. 
 
 u2 
 
ADDITIONAL EEMAEKS. 
 
 Mr. Smiles, in looking over the documents placed 
 in his hands, has found some further letters relating 
 to the "mechanical paintings," from which I give 
 extracts. 
 
 Extract from a letter of Eginton to my grand- 
 father, dated April 23, 1777 : — 
 
 " Mr. Chambers says he shall not have his plate ready for 
 a proof before Saterday. I have sent the oval Landskip which 
 you desired me to get done by Wilson. It is the best he could 
 do, but the drawing is Bad. I have also sent a waste im- 
 pression of the old man's head for Mr. Alcock. 
 
 "If you could learn what sement Mr. Hatchet sticks his 
 ornaments on with it would be usefull. Mr. Sam Wyatt has 
 been here, he thinks panels for doors and window shuters with 
 very narrow Mouldings and ornaments in Or Molu would be 
 a good subject for Soho painting." 
 
 From Do. to Do., dated April 27, 1777 :— 
 
 " The plate from Mr. Angelecos Penelopy is finish' d and 
 Jack is preparing som of them for Wilson. I hope to be able 
 to send you one iinpolish'd by the end of next week if no mis- 
 f or tun happen." 
 
22 
 
 From Do. to Do., dated London, May 18, 
 
 1777:— 
 
 "Sir W. Chambers was very much pleas'd with the panel. 
 I could not find Mr. Stuard at Greenwich. Mr. Miles was very 
 well pleas'd with the panel and beg'd it might be left with him 
 at Greenwich for two reasons — first, that he might be sure of 
 seeing Mr. Boulton, and second that he might contemplate 
 upon it at his leisure. I am now going with Mr. Whiterst to 
 Mr. Stuart, and if I find him shall tell him were the panel is, 
 & beg him to favour Mr. B. with his opinion. You must see 
 Sir Wm. Chambers. 
 
 " Be sure you do not forget Sir Joshua." 
 
 These letters are earlier than any previously 
 quoted : their date being 1777. No letters refer- 
 ring to the subject of mechanical painting have been 
 discovered of earlier date than this. 
 
 From a letter of Eginton, dated 1778 : — 
 
 " In like manner Mr. Goode is to conduct the painting busi- 
 ness, so that I am entirely divested of evry care respecting the 
 ceconomical or managing part of any thing, but am to spend my 
 time in such things as may from time to time be thought most 
 useful to the Soho in general, and not confine myself to any one 
 business in particular." 
 
 Extract from a letter of Mr. Fothergill, dated 
 Feb. 10, 1778, to my grandfather : — 
 
 " I cant tell joxi my mind about Wyatt & painting. I will 
 never lay any stumbling-blocks in the way of our painting 
 business. I submit it to your better judgment. I intended 
 to have promoted it, & at same time our finances ? but your 
 positive orders overcome mine. Suppose J. W. would order a 
 quantity of panels to be done weekly, <fe suppose Moscow, Peters- 
 
23 
 
 burg, Paris, London, &c, would take 6 Dozen of paintings 
 weekly, & suppose — " 
 
 Here the letter proceeds to make various supposi- 
 tions on other matters. 
 
 From a letter of Eginton to my grandfather, with 
 Memorandum, dated March 13, 1780 : — 
 
 " My reason for wishing you to see this before you go out 
 again is that I may be sure not to let my son take any steps 
 that may be disagreeable to you. What I at present think of 
 for him is to employ a part of his time in engraving & mechanical 
 painting, and to get made a very few gilt buckles . . ." 
 
 Extract from the Memorandum : — 
 
 " F. E. to prepare the outline for the painters, instruct the 
 chacers, die sinkers, &c, & to draw or assist in any way he can 
 for any business carried on at Soho. 
 
 " Not to employ F. E.'s son, but to let him employ himself 
 for any body els either in Mechanical painting or any other way 
 F. E. thinks best for him. 
 
 "F. E. to be allow'd to giv his son any advice or assistance he 
 thinks proper, providing he doth not neglect the business of 
 Mrs. B. & F. on that account. 
 
 "F. E. to permit his sone to make use of Mrs. B. & F.'s 
 Roleing press for any thing he may want it for. 
 
 "It was the opinion of Mr. F. & Mr. K. that F. E.'s son 
 might use any of the plates, providing he pay'd for every im- 
 pression he disposed of." 
 
 It seems probable from the above that Eginton's 
 son (who was subsequently, I believe, an able artist) 
 was instructed in the process of the " mechanical 
 painting," and was consequently one of the persons 
 acquainted with the secret. 
 
24 
 
 It is generally known that Eginton was an artist 
 of ability and repute : and it is evident that he 
 possessed very varied knowledge and versatile 
 talents. It is clear that he did not think slight- 
 ingly of the mechanical painting ; whence it may 
 be inferred that it was not devoid of merit and 
 ingenuity. 
 
 The general character of this process seems pretty 
 clear. It is tolerably obvious that an impression 
 was made from a plate, and it seems that this was 
 sometimes transferred to copper or other material. 
 This impression saved the time of the copyist, supply- 
 ing to him the outline, the light and shade, and pro- 
 bably some colour. From Barney's letter it appears, 
 that when he copied pictures which had been pre- 
 viously " mechanised," i. e., when he painted over 
 the impression, about half his time was saved.* 
 
 In the list of materials supplied to Eginton, aqua- 
 fortis and "copper-plates for printing" are men- 
 tioned. It naturally suggests itself that these 
 " copper-plates for printing " may have been the 
 plates employed in the mechanical painting, and 
 that the aquafortis was employed to engrave or 
 bite these plates. Opinions of persons well ac- 
 quainted with engraving tend to support such a 
 
 * It seems likely that the facsimiles of engine drawings men- 
 tioned in one letter were produced in a finished state by mecha- 
 nical means, and did not need to be subsequently worked on by 
 hand. Possibly the nature of these copies may have differed some- 
 what from that of the impressions exhibited in the Museum. 
 
25 
 
 view. Mr. Vincent Brooks, who made the litho- 
 graphs for this pamphlet, and who is practically 
 acquainted with various branches of engraving, on 
 examining the specimens exhibited in the Museum 
 pronounced them to be aquatints. Another gentle- 
 man, whom I believe to have great knowledge of 
 artistic processes, has independently expressed a 
 similar opinion. 
 
 I have felt somewhat puzzled by the very dif- 
 ferent opinions which have been pronounced by 
 experts in reference to these specimens. Some 
 assert decidedly that they do not resemble the 
 results of any known artistic process — while others, 
 as we have above seen, do not admit this. Some 
 assert that there is no trace in them of labour by 
 hand : while others pronounce a contrary opinion. 
 Some asserted that no photographer could for a 
 moment regard them as photographs ; while in 
 point of fact, many accomplished photographers did 
 regard them as such. These and other diversities 
 of opinion may be seen in the pages of the Photo- 
 graphic Journal* From such diversities of judg- 
 ment it might be inferred that the power of experts 
 to decide the nature of a specimen from its appear- 
 ance was very limited, and that their judgments 
 could not be trusted. Nevertheless, I am inclined 
 
 * Thus, as a further instance, the photograph on the metal 
 plate was considered by some judges to be on a surface of resin, 
 whence it was inferred that it had been sent over by Niepce ; 
 whereas it is evident that it is an ordinary daguerreotype. 
 
26 
 
 to regard more favourably than others the opinion 
 which I have above mentioned ; and am much 
 disposed to believe that the plates employed for 
 making the impressions in the Museum were copper- 
 plates, bitten by aquafortis. 
 
 The impressions may not, however, exactly re- 
 semble ordinary aquatints, as it is likely that there 
 were peculiarities of detail about the process, con- 
 nected with the peculiar purpose which it was 
 designed to serve. 
 
 I think it not unlikely that various kinds of 
 engraving were practised at Soho, and that plates 
 prepared in different manners were used to multiply 
 impressions for ornamental purposes. 
 
 With respect to the title " sun-pictures," neither 
 my sisters nor I ever heard this title made use of ; 
 but I have found persons who when at Soho about 
 1830 heard the pictures there spoken of as "sun- 
 pictures," and I believe that Mr. Hodgson heard the 
 title used at an earlier period. 
 
 With respect to the camera obscura, I do not 
 doubt that the cameras at Soho were used for 
 copying outlines by drawing, as they are evidently 
 made for such a purpose ; and I think it quite 
 possible that such a use of the camera may have had 
 something to do with the appellation " sun-pictures ;" 
 but I doubt whether it played much part in the 
 production of the mechanical paintings. Certainly 
 it cannot have constituted what was peculiar in that 
 process. 
 
27 
 
 In a work on physics by Imison, a method is 
 described of copying pictures, by making a copy of 
 the picture on glass, and causing rays of light trans- 
 mitted through this to act on nitrate of silver. I 
 have found some persons who have conjectured that 
 this method was employed at Soho. Such a 
 practice would account very intelligibly for the title 
 " sun-pictures." But the documents, though making 
 occasional mention of paintings on glass, contain 
 nothing which shows that such a mode of copying- 
 pictures was practised at Soho. 
 
 The letter from "Watt to "Wedgwood, thanking 
 him for his instructions about "the silver pictures," 
 seems to me the only piece of documentary evidence 
 yet discovered, which has a probable reference to 
 photography. I think it likely that this letter does 
 refer to experiments with nitrate of silver, i.e., to 
 really photographic experiments. But it is not 
 likely, considering the present state of the evidence, 
 that these experiments were prosecuted far ; and 
 wholly improbable that any method of fixing the 
 pictures produced was discovered. 
 
 The date of this letter might become of import- 
 ance, and it is well that it should be clearly settled. 
 I believe that it is 1799 : though in the "Photo- 
 graphic Journal" it is first given as 1790. Mr. 
 Smith wrote to me about this letter, mentioning its 
 date as 1790. I replied that I had seen the letter, 
 but that according to my recollection its date was 
 1799. In reply Mr. Smith told me that he found 
 
28 
 
 I was correct : that Mr. Wedgwood had called upon 
 him, and put him right on this very point. 
 
 With reference to the date of Sir W. Beechey 's 
 visit to Soho, I know well that he painted the 
 portrait of my grandfather at Soho, having heard 
 anecdotes on this point ; and there can be little 
 doubt that the date of this visit was very near 
 1799, in which year the portrait was exhibited. It 
 appears that he visited Soho on subsequent occa- 
 sions ; but I believe no notice has been found of 
 any visit of his at an earlier date. 
 
 Supposing that photography was a topic of dis- 
 cussion among the Lunar Society when Sir W. 
 Beechey was at Soho, there is little doubt that the 
 matter would be explained to him. He might be 
 of opinion that such a method, if perfected, would 
 be injurious to art. He might represent that this 
 process would be as bad as the former one of 
 mechanical painting, in stopping which he was 
 very probably instrumental ; and might dissuade the 
 Lunar Society from prosecuting their endeavours to 
 discover a mode of fixing the pictures. There may 
 have been some such foundation for the statements 
 ascribed by Price to Townshend, viz. : that when 
 Sir W. Beechey painted my grandfather's portrait at 
 Soho, a method of making sun-pictures was ex- 
 plained to him, and that he begged the Lunar 
 Society to let the matter drop. But without 
 further documentary evidence all this is merely 
 conjectural. 
 
29 
 
 Supposing that photographic experiments were 
 really made by the Lunar Society, it is clear that 
 the case is very different in its proportions from that 
 originally shadowed forth by Mr. Smith, which, if 
 correct, would have completely changed the history 
 of photography. At the same time early photo- 
 graphic experiments, even though incomplete, would 
 not be devoid of interest ; and it is very desirable 
 that if any further evidence exist relating to the 
 matter, it should be brought to light. 
 
 Mr. Vincent Brooks has produced an imitation of 
 the specimens exhibited in the Museum, by making 
 an aquatint impression on a piece of paper coated 
 with the material which he uses for transfers, of 
 which isinglass is a principal component. The result 
 shews that by this means specimens can be produced 
 a good deal resembling those in the Museum. 
 
 The impression first made on the gelatinous ma- 
 terial is reversed : when the transfer is made, and 
 the print is viewed through the transparent film, the 
 position is the same as in the original. 
 
 With reference to the title " sun-pictures " I am 
 informed by a lady that she recollects a work of 
 travels in South America, published before photo- 
 graphy was known to the public, the views in which 
 were taken by drawing in a camera obscura, and 
 
30 
 
 wore called in the work " sun-pictures/' This being 
 the case, there is not the slightest difficulty in sup- 
 posing that the pictures made at Soho in like manner 
 by means of the camera obscura, would be spoken of 
 as sun-pictures. I think it likely that the so-called 
 sun-picture of Soho House (the one which Townshend 
 perhaps identified with the photograph in Soho li- 
 brary) was a picture of this description. 
 
 According to the recollection of Miss Hodgson, Miss 
 Wilkinson took pictures which she called " sun-pic- 
 tures " on the lawn in front of Soho House about 
 1835. This recollection was very probably accurate, 
 the pictures in question not being photographs, but 
 merely pictures taken in the camera by drawing. 
 
 If photographs were exhibited and discoursed 
 about at meetings of the Lunar Society, as is by no 
 means unlikely, these also, there can be little doubt, 
 would be spoken of as " sun-pictures." In subse- 
 quent traditions these two different sorts of " sun- 
 pictures " would become confounded. 
 
 With reference to printing in colours, I find it 
 stated in some works that its invention took place in 
 1626, but printing in colours of a certain kind seems 
 to have been as old as printing in black. Towards 
 the close of last century numerous prints in colours 
 appear to have been executed. I have a coloured 
 print, in which I am assured by a person well ac- 
 quainted with the subject that the colours are printed, 
 the date of which is 1767. This date is earlier by 
 some years than the commencement of " mechanical 
 
31 
 
 painting" at Soho. This print represents a picture 
 of Diana and Calisto by Le Moine, and the name of 
 its engraver is William Walker. 
 
 If more could be known of the nature of the me- 
 chanical painting practised at Soho, it would pro- 
 bably be found to be of interest in reference to the 
 history of printing in colours, but at present it can- 
 not be determined with certainty in what respects 
 the method practised at Soho may have differed from 
 other modes of colour-painting practised about the 
 same time. 
 
 In Mr. Muirhead's "Life of Watt" I find the fol- 
 lowing passage relating to the copying machine: — 
 
 "In the establishment of Soho it has been the 
 practice, by the aid of this excellent invention of its 
 great founder, to retain copies of the drawings of all 
 the engines sent out from that manufactory." 
 
 I do not doubt therefore that the copies of draw- 
 ings of engines spoken of in one of the letters quoted 
 were made by the copying machine, and not by the 
 picture-copying process, or " mechanical painting." 
 
ADDITIONAL PARTICULARS. 
 
 Recently, in making search amongst articles which 
 came from Soho, I discovered some engraved copper 
 plates. One of these represents the King of Prussia, 
 and is pronounced by Mr. Vincent Brooks to be an 
 aquatint touched in a few places with the engraver. 
 The other represents a female figure, and is pro- 
 nounced by Mr. Vincent Brooks to be a mezzotint, 
 some parts here and there, such as outlines, being 
 etched. Accompanying this plate were two impres- 
 sions, one of the ordinary tint of mezzotints, the 
 other of a reddish tint. There are also two other 
 plates, engraved with the graver, containing classical 
 borders and figures in imitation of those met with 
 on Greek and Etruscan ware, or on Wedgwood's 
 imitations of this. 
 
 The dimensions of the plate representing the King 
 of Prussia are 1 7 inches by 1 3. The dimensions of 
 the same subject, as given in the catalogue, are 
 16 inches by 13. This slight difference may be due 
 to an allowance for framing : or it may be a mere 
 error. It can hardly be doubted that the plate 
 discovered is the one employed in making the 
 
33 
 
 " mechanical painting" of the King of Prussia men- 
 tioned in the catalogue. 
 
 The mezzotint print representing the female figure 
 has an oval form, the dimensions of the oval being 
 about 12 inches by 8. This size does not correspond 
 exactly with any of those mentioned in the catalogue. 
 
 Mr. Vincent Brooks has made impressions from 
 the aquatint plate on paper coated with the material 
 used for transfers, and the result much resembles 
 some of the specimens exhibited in the Museum. 
 
 The discovery of this plate very much confirms 
 the opinion expressed by those persons who regarded 
 the specimens in the Museum (or some of them) as 
 aquatints. This opinion was expressed very deci- 
 dedly by Mr. Vincent Brooks ; and afterwards inde- 
 pendently by Mr. Wallis, a gentleman connected with 
 the Kensington Museum. 
 
 The similarity of the soluble film on which the 
 impressions are made to that used for the purpose of 
 transfer was at once noticed by Mr. Vincent Brooks : 
 but he did not feel at all certain that the use of the 
 film was for the purpose of transfer. He thought 
 that it might have been for some other purpose. 
 And other persons have concurred in this opinion. 
 
 The documents shew that the process of transfer 
 was sometimes used ; but not that it was an essen- 
 tial part of the process. It may have been used only 
 at times, for special purposes. 
 
 There has been a great difference of opinion as to 
 
 C 2 
 
34 
 
 whether the specimens in the Museum were produced 
 entirely by mechanical means, or whether they have 
 been finished up by hand. Very good judges have 
 pronounced against the latter view. If the speci- 
 mens are transfers, not intended to be viewed in 
 their present state, but to be transferred, it is not 
 likely that any part of them has been executed by 
 hand : for it is not probable that work by hand 
 would be executed on a surface which after transfer 
 would be undermost. 
 
 While some experts have by microscopic inspection 
 of the specimens detected work by hand, others, by a 
 similar inspection, have detected a deposit of parti- 
 cles precipitated from vapour. Both these discoveries 
 may be of the same character. * 
 
 In the catalogue of the " mechanical paintings " 
 some mentioned are of large size ; thus the Rinaldo 
 and Armida is 50 inches by 40. Mr. Wallis in a 
 paper recently published by him, expresses an opinion 
 that the catalogue in this respect is incorrect : that 
 pictures of this large size were never really copied 
 mechanically. He considers this to be shewn by 
 the price of these large specimens.f 
 
 The smallest size mentioned in the catalogue is 10 
 
 * It was stated that a minute scientific examination of the metal 
 plates shewed them to have been executed on resin with essential 
 oil. This shews that results of the kind noticed must be received 
 with caution. 
 
 f See Art Journal, August, 1866. 
 
35 
 
 inches by 8, the price corresponding to this size being 
 £2 2s. The Rinaldo and Armida, and the Wise Men's 
 Offering are 50 inches by 40, and the prices of these 
 are £21 12s. and £15 15s. respectively. Here the ex- 
 cess of price is by no means equal to that of area. The 
 area is 25 times greater, while the price in one case is 
 about ten times and in the other between seven and 
 eight times greater. There is nothing therefore in the 
 price, when attention is really paid to it, which serves 
 to corroborate Mr. Wallis's conclusion. 
 
 It is not necessary, however, to dwell on reason- 
 ings, since there is clear evidence showing that Mr. 
 Wallis's opinion is incorrect. One of the specimens 
 which was exhibited in the Museum is the lower part 
 of the Rinaldo and Armida, containing principally the 
 legs of the figures. On comparing this with the same 
 parts in the picture, the size of which corresponds to 
 that stated in the catalogue,* I find the two to tally 
 precisely . It is thus quite manifest that the llinaldo 
 and Armida, of the full dimensions given in the cata- 
 logue, was really executed mechanically. Hence it ap- 
 pears that in the present case, where the authority of Mr. 
 Wallis is placed in opposition to that of the documents, 
 the documents are right, and Mr. Wallis is wrong. 
 
 It appears that these large pictures were executed 
 in several parts. Eginton in one letter says that 
 there were three plates for the Rinaldo and Armida : 
 
 * There is a difference of rather less than an inch either way, 
 owing probably to the framir.g. 
 
36 
 
 and in a subsequent letter he corrects himself and 
 says that there were four. 
 
 It is quite possible that the Rinaldo and Armida 
 was executed in duplicate of a smaller size. The 
 process was a good deal experimental, and it is very 
 likely that different sizes would be tried. The smaller 
 size was probably more saleable than the larger. 
 
 Since, as we have seen, the catalogue was perfectly 
 correct in reference to the Rinaldo and Armida, whose 
 size and price excited scepticism, we may assume 
 that the smaller paintings mentioned in it concerning 
 whose size and price no difficulty is felt, were really 
 executed mechanically. But there is one circum- 
 stance on which a person, sceptical as to the truth 
 of the catalogue, might perhaps be disposed to rely. 
 Barney in one letter uses language which shews that 
 he is painting a Telemachus, which is not " mecha- 
 nised/ 5 i. e., he is painting it entirely by hand.* It 
 may be argued that he would not have done this, 
 had the Telemachus been one of the subjects copied 
 mechanically, as represented by the catalogue. But 
 I believe this reasoning would be wholly incorrect. 
 I do not feel the slightest doubt that the Telemachus 
 was copied mechanically, as stated in the catalogue ; 
 nor is there any difficulty in explaining why, not- 
 withstanding this, Barney may have copied this 
 
 * He says, " Your idea was perfectly right respecting Telemachus 
 had it been mechanised, but at present the outline and dead colour 
 take nearly half the time." 
 
37 
 
 subject by hand. Messrs. Clarke and Green in one 
 of their letters desire to know whether they can be 
 supplied with copies of certain subjects, differing in 
 dimensions from those stated in the catalogue, some 
 of the sizes of these not being suited to their require- 
 ments. They are informed that their wishes can be 
 gratified, provided they are willing to pay a higher 
 price for the picture, as, if the size is different from 
 that specified, it must be made by hand, and such a 
 picture would be more costly than a "mechanical 
 painting." * It is probable that some purchasers 
 (perhaps Messrs. Clarke and Green) wished to have 
 some pictures of this kind, i.e., of dimensions differ- 
 ing from those specified in the catalogue. This would 
 quite account for the circumstance that Barney 
 painted a Telemachus entirely by hand, though that 
 subject was executed mechanically. 
 
 I apprehend that cases of this kind were rare. 
 This might be inferred as probable from the general 
 circumstances of the case. And moreover there is a 
 letter of Barney's written not long before the close of 
 the process, in which he expressly notices that he 
 had made a non-mechanised picture for Soho only on 
 one occasion, when three figures were painted by him 
 entirely by hand. 
 
 * It is evident that this statement was correct : the whole use of 
 the process depending on the fact that a "mechanical" painting 
 was less costly than one made by hand. Accordingly, to have sent a 
 Telemachus executed by hand as a mechanical painting, would have 
 been injurious to the interests of the seller. 
 
38 
 
 It has been sufrm'sed that Wedgwood was con- 
 cerned in the invention of the mechanical painting : 
 and processes of transfer employed in his manufac- 
 ture are supposed to have resembled and suggested 
 it. I think it by no means impossible that he was 
 acquainted with the nature of the process, and took 
 an interest in it : but the documents afford no proof 
 of this. And without positive evidence concerning 
 inventions, speculations about them are very preca- 
 rious. According to some statements, as Mr. Wallis 
 points out, the Lunar Society had a share in in- 
 venting the letter-copying process, but Mr. Smiles 
 does not seem to have found any confirmation of this, 
 and ascribes its invention, as is usually done, to Watt. 
 Mr. Smiles has also mentioned to me a curious 
 circumstance illustrating the doubtfulness of these 
 matters. One of the assistants at Soho, an able 
 mechanician, claimed to have invented a portion of 
 the coining machinery, and represented that his 
 services herein had not been duly recognised. A 
 committee was accordingly appointed to investigate 
 his claim, he being one of its members ; and this 
 committee came to the conclusion that the claim 
 was unfounded, the claimant himself concurring in 
 this verdict. 
 
 Gold and silver are mentioned in the list of the 
 articles supplied to Eginton : and Mr. Wallis explains 
 this on the supposition that these materials were 
 used by Eginton for glass-painting : pointing out 
 
39 
 
 that chloride of gold is used for making purple ; and 
 that silver and gold enter into the formation of other 
 tints. Some small quantities of gold and silver may 
 have been used at Soho for the manufacture of 
 colours : but the quantities of these articles supplied 
 to Eginton are so large as to preclude the suppo- 
 sition that they were wholly or principally employed 
 for this purpose. The gold and silver are supplied 
 to him on account of a company called " The Silver 
 Company," with which he was connected : and this 
 company carried on various works in metal, among 
 which were manufactures of gilt, silver, and plated 
 articles. No doubt the principal portion of the 
 gold and silver were used for manufactures of this 
 kind. 
 
 I do not think it likely that there was any consi- 
 derable manufacture of colours at Soho : as a large 
 quantity of colours are purchased ready made and 
 supplied to Eginton ; but it is by no means unlikely 
 that a few colours of a peculiar kind may have been 
 prepared there under his direction. 
 
 The supposition that the camera obscura was 
 employed in the production of the mechanical paint- 
 ings has been noticed by many persons : being 
 indeed at once suggested by the title " sun-pictures." 
 Mr. Wallis makes some remarks in reference to this. 
 He observes that nobody seems to have suggested 
 the kind of camera obscura employed. This I appre- 
 hend arose from the circumstance that no difficulty 
 
40 
 
 ■was felt on this point. Anybody who has seen a 
 camera obscura, as frequently exhibited at watering- 
 places, can readily understand how a picture might 
 be placed outside the tent, so that its image might be 
 formed on the table inside. 
 
 Mr. Wallis also remarks, that all persons " seem 
 to have overlooked the fact that the powerful and 
 complete instrument now in use for photographic- 
 purposes had no existence prior to the advent of pho- 
 tography." Here, however, he is mistaken. Many 
 remarks have been made shewing that this fact was 
 not ignored or forgotten. At a meeting of the 
 Photographic Society, Mr. Malone said, " There were 
 many other difficulties to be got over in supposing 
 the use of a lens sufficiently perfect for the work, as 
 every one familiar with the early difficulties as to 
 coincidence of visual and chemical foci, &c, must 
 remember, and also the labours of the late Andrew 
 Ross in nerfectino: the instrument/'* And in a 
 paper read at Manchester, Mr. Sidebotham, reasoning 
 against the supposition that the pictures were made 
 by the camera, remarks, " besides the great size and 
 the perfect definition would be beyond the power of 
 any instruments that could then be made." 
 
 As I have previously remarked, it seems to me 
 very doubtful whether the camera was much em- 
 ployed in making the mechanical paintings, though 
 
 * Photographic Journal, November, 1863, p. 397. 
 
41 
 
 certainly it was employed at Soho for the purpose of 
 making some drawings, which drawings appear to 
 to have been called sun-pictures. Had the camera 
 been habitually employed in making the mechanical 
 paintings, it is natural to suppose that there would 
 have been some allusion to it in the letters : but 
 actually no allusion of the kind has been found. 
 
 Mr. Wallis further remarks that the camera 
 lucida was "suggested as the instrument used for 
 producing the pictures, and that, strange to say, in 
 connection with the dark tent." And he goes on to 
 observe that the camera lucida was not invented at 
 the time in question. I do not remember the sug- 
 gestion mentioned by Mr. Wallis. Mr. Smith started 
 some speculations concerning the use of the camera 
 lucida ; but these had reference to Miss Wilkinson's 
 photographs, made long subsequent to the mechani- 
 cal paintings. Writing about these he said, " The 
 photographic ferns taken by Miss Wilkinson are 
 undoubted photographs." And a few lines after he 
 went on to say : " It is fair to presume that a camera 
 • lucida would have served Miss Wilkinson's purpose 
 for the ferns with such prepared paper." * So that 
 his idea appeared to be that in photography, if the 
 paper were not very sensitive, a camera obscura was 
 needed, but if the paper were highly sensitive, a 
 camera lucida would do. 
 
 * Photographic Journal, January, 1S64. 
 
42 
 
 Mr. Wallis notices the subject of the metal plates, 
 stating that they were without doubt made by Mr. 
 Alston and given by him to Miss Wilkinson, " the 
 latter having deposited the silver plates in the library 
 at Soho, as shown by Mr. F. P. Smith's correspondent 
 Price" This latter statement is by no means accu- 
 rate. Price did not at all shew that Miss Wilkinson 
 had deposited the plates in the library. According 
 to his story the plates were made about 17.90, were 
 deposited in the library long before Miss Wilkinson 
 set foot in Soho, and lay there undisturbed for 50 
 years. 
 
 Mr. Wallis's language runs as follows : w The 
 latter (i. e. Miss Wilkinson) having deposited the 
 silvered plates in the library at Soho, as shown by 
 Mr. F. P. Smith's correspondent Price, since the 
 latter states that Miss Wilkinson gave them to him 
 on the occasion of clearing out the library, or at 
 least some portions of its contents.""* The connection 
 between premise and inference in this statement, 
 signified by the word " since," is extremely defective. 
 Price's assertion that Miss Wilkinson gave him the 
 plates, does not in the least shew that she deposited 
 them in the library. Mr. Smith and many other 
 persons believed (following herein Price's statement) 
 that Miss Wilkinson had given the plates to Price, 
 and yet that they were deposited in the library about 
 
 * Art Journal, August, 1866. 
 
43 
 
 1790. Price stated that the camera obscura was 
 given to him by Miss Wilkinson ; but this does not 
 shew that that camera was deposited in the library 
 by her. It is quite certain that it was not. 
 
 From Mr. Wallis's notice of the subject, it might 
 be inferred that the discovery of the true history of 
 the plates confirmed in the main Price's statements, 
 and shewed him to be a trustworthy witness, whereas 
 in fact it shewed that he had been bent on making; 
 out an interesting story, and very indifferent as to 
 truth. 
 
 It has been stated that nothing was said in the 
 remarks written by me concerning the purpose and 
 mode of production of the " mechanical paintings." 
 But this statement is incorrect. I pronounced quite 
 distinctly my opinion that impressions (probably 
 coloured) were produced mechanically from a plate, 
 and that these were intended to be worked on and 
 finished by an artist (Barney or Wilson). This view 
 of the case seemed to me almost proved by the 
 documents ; but some persons did not agree with 
 this opinion. One gentleman who read a paper on 
 the subject to the Manchester Philosophical Society, 
 concluded from various reasons set forth by him 
 that no system of engraving or colour-printing could 
 have been used in making the pictures. 
 
 In some later remarks, having heard the opinion 
 expressed by Mr. Vincent Brooks and Mr. Wallis, 
 that aquatint was the process employed, I noticed 
 
44 
 
 this opinion, observing that it seemed to me pro- 
 bable. 
 
 In a letter written to me some time ago, Mr. 
 Wallis expressed an opinion that though photography 
 did not originate at Soho, it might perhaps be found 
 that printing in colours had done so. But this 
 opinion, as he himself shews in his paper,* is cer- 
 tainly untenable. 
 
 Conjectures have been made as to the causes which 
 led to the discontinuance of the process, and the 
 dissolution of the partnership with Eginton. The fol- 
 lowing explanation in reference to this is propounded 
 by Mr. Wallis. According to him it was impossible to 
 unite the oil paint with the gelatinous or albuminous 
 film, on which the printed impression was made. 
 Hence, after a short time the colour of the pictures 
 cracked and peeled off. He considers that a picture 
 painted on a polygraphic transfer would have begun 
 to perish in this way in a few months, in the atmos- 
 phere of an ordinary room. Owing to this rapid 
 decay of the pictures, Boulton, as he supposes, 
 became alarmed for his credit and reputation, and 
 determined to discontinue the process, while Eginton 
 was not willing to adopt the same course. This 
 difference would naturally lead to a dissolution of 
 the partnership. The advice of Sir W. Beechey, 
 who had a very practical knowledge of colours, is 
 
 * See Art Journal, September, 1866. 
 
45 
 
 supposed to have contributed in opening Boulton's 
 eyes to the real character of the process, though it 
 failed to produce a similar effect on the more pre- 
 judiced mind of Eginton. 
 
 It is a great objection to this account of the 
 case that according to the documents Boulton and 
 Fothergill made mechanical paintings in 1781, after 
 the dissolution of the partnership with Eginton. Mr. 
 Wallis, in order to get over this difficulty, denies 
 these statements, asserting that after the dissolution 
 of the partnership Boulton and Fothergill, though 
 they furnished impressions to Eginton, made no 
 mechanical paintings themselves. But this statement 
 is disproved by the documents. In the Soho books 
 there are a great number of records of sales of 
 mechanical paintings made in 1781 on account of 
 Boulton and Fothergill. And the letter from Hodges 
 to Barney, dated September 1781, which has been 
 previously quoted, shews clearly that at that date 
 they made such paintings. This letter distinctly 
 refers to paintings executed on account of Boulton 
 and Fothergill, since Hodges mentions the price 
 which Messrs. B. and F. charge for them. And the 
 mention of the " dead color " and " the bare places 
 on the canvas," refers unmistakeably to polygraphic 
 impressions. So does the remark, "you'll please to 
 remember that besides your charge there is the 
 expense of rendering them in the dead-colored state, 
 which is now considerable." These expressions shew 
 
46 
 
 evidently that Hodges was sending polygraphic or 
 mechanical impressions to Barney. 
 
 We saw above that where Mr. Wallis's statements 
 came into conflict with those of the documents, in 
 reference to the Binaldo and Armida, theirs were 
 right and his wrong : and we see that in the present 
 instance the case is similar. Nor can we be sur- 
 prised to find that statements made by persons 
 contemporary with the facts, and fully cognizant of 
 them, are much superior in value to those made by a 
 person in the present day, who has no knowledge of 
 the facts at all. 
 
 The fact, made quite clear by the documents, that 
 Boulton and Fothergill continued to make mechanical 
 paintings in 1781, disposes of Mr. Wallis's theory, 
 that Boulton in 1780 determined to abandon the 
 process, because the pictures made by it were perish- 
 able, and regarded by him as discreditable to Soho. 
 And in reference to this theory, several other points 
 may be noticed. Eginton, applying to Hodges for 
 leave to take impressions, does so specially on the 
 ground that he wishes to take to London the " best 
 picturs " he can get. It cannot be believed that he 
 would have written in this way if he knew that his 
 partnership had lately been dissolved, because the 
 pictures were considered to be of a kind discreditable 
 to Soho. Moreover, if the case had been as supposed, 
 Eginton's application to Hodges would have been 
 fruitless ; for if Boulton regarded the pictures as 
 
47 
 
 discreditable to Soho, and gave up making them on 
 this account, he certainly would not have allowed 
 Eginton, who still carried on his business at Soho, to 
 go on making them. Whereas actually he made no 
 objection to this, saying that Eginton might have 
 impressions as fast as he wished. 
 
 Again, it is to be observed that the character and 
 position of Eginton preclude the supposition that he 
 wanted to go on selling pictures which experience 
 had proved to be perishable and worthless. 
 
 Thus Mr. Wallis's theory runs against objections 
 at every turn. 
 
 The speculation in question is founded on the 
 supposition that oil paint would not unite with the 
 film of matter used for the purpose of transfer. In 
 reference to this it may be observed in the first 
 place that it is by no means certain that transfer 
 was always used in the mechanical painting. But 
 supposing that it were so, and supposing further that 
 oil paint could not be united with the film of matter 
 employed for the transfer, still I apprehend that no 
 defect of the nature imagined would be caused to 
 the pictures : because I conceive that after the 
 transfer was made the soluble film which had served 
 for the purpose of the transfer would be removed. 
 This is what takes place in ordinary cases of transfer, 
 as in transfers made to stone, to ware, and other 
 materials. Indeed if this were not done, the process 
 of transfer would in most cases be of no use. Per- 
 
48 
 
 haps there might be some difficulty attending this 
 part of the operation, though persons with good 
 technical knowledge have assured me that in their 
 opinion there would not be any : but suppose there 
 were some difficulties of detail, it may be presumed 
 that means were found of overcoming these.* 
 
 Some of the pictures which I have, and which I 
 think may probably be specimens of the " mecha- 
 nical " process, are a good deal cracked in parts, but 
 otherwise well preserved. They are in much better 
 preservation than the picture of my grandfather 
 by Sir W. Beechey, which is in a bad state ; and I 
 have heard my father say that the defective con- 
 dition of this picture arose from the fact that Sir W. 
 Beechey mixed a great deal of wax with the colours 
 employed in painting it. 
 
 Another speculation on the subject was as follows. 
 The process of mechanical painting was of an un- 
 profitable nature. Boulton being a quick-sighted 
 man of business speedily discerned this, and at once 
 determined to abandon it ; while Eginton was not 
 willing to consent to this course ; and hence the 
 dissolution of partnership. 
 
 It appears that the whole " painting business " 
 
 • It may be that the operation in some cases was not performed 
 quite successfully, so that in removing the gelatinous film portions 
 of colour came away with it, and thus the canvas in places would be 
 left bare. Hodges in a letter to Barney, referring to a mecha- 
 nical painting, speaks of "the bare places on the canvas:" it may 
 be that this defect was caused in the manner above suggested. 
 
49 
 
 carried on by Eginton was unprofitable : but it 
 further appears that this was caused by mismanage- 
 ment. Barney in one letter says that the painting 
 business is mismanaged. And from Mr. Smiles's 
 work it appears that many branches of business at 
 Soho were mismanaged at the time in question. It 
 appears that Boulton's time having become greatly 
 occupied with the steam-engine business, he could 
 not give his attention as he had formerly done to the 
 financial and economical concerns of Soho, and as 
 a natural result of this several branches of business 
 became mismanaged. 
 
 Boulton seems to have been slow in giving up the 
 painting business, notwithstanding its unprofitable 
 character. He appears to have taken a good deal of 
 interest in it. Barney in one letter speaks of it as 
 carried on more from the interest taken in it than 
 for profit. On the other hand Fothergill appears 
 never to have liked this business, and frequently to 
 have counselled its abandonment. Finally his view 
 on this point became so decided, that he gave notice 
 to Gee and Eginton to dissolve the partnership with- 
 out communication with Boulton. In the course of 
 the ensuing year Boulton came to agree with his 
 opinion, but even at the last moment his mind was 
 not fully made up. On the 11th of December he 
 says, " I think we should avail ourselves of the notice 
 you gave Gee and Eginton last year, so far as to 
 dissolve the partnership this Christmas." If he had 
 
50 
 
 had time at his disposal, he would probably have 
 turned his attention to the business, in order to set 
 right its management. Or if he could have put it 
 under an efficient head on whom he could rely, 
 he would probably have been glad to take this 
 course. 
 
 From letters between Boulton and Eginton it 
 seems that Boulton's ultimate determination to dis- 
 solve the partnership was principally caused by 
 certain matters of business. These are alluded to in 
 the letters but not explained : and to attempt to 
 conjecture what they were in the absence of evidence 
 would be futile. This much however can be gathered 
 from the letters ; — that while Boulton had a personal 
 liking for Eginton, and valued his abilities as an 
 artist, he was not satisfied with his qualities as a man 
 of business. Under such circumstances, as he was 
 not able to devote his own time to putting right his 
 affairs, he thought it best that money should be lent 
 to Gee and Eginton, and that they should carry on 
 business on their own account. And Eginton, though 
 very averse at first to the dissolution of the partner- 
 ship, seems ultimately to have been well satisfied 
 with the arrangement made. 
 
 It is noticeable that in the various letters relating; 
 to the dissolution of the partnership there is no 
 allusion to the subject of the mechanical painting. 
 This was but one branch of the business carried on 
 by Eginton ; for some time after the dissolution of 
 
51 
 
 the partnership he seems to have had nothing to do 
 with it. 
 
 Mr. Wallis gives reasons intended to explain why 
 Boulton wished the subject of the mechanical paint- 
 ing to be totally forgotten, not only for his own but 
 also for Eginton's sake. I apprehend that here he is 
 mistaken as to his facts. Boulton, as it seems to me, 
 wished to keep secret the method of making the 
 pictures, but did not wish to have it forgotten that 
 the process had been carried on at Soho. Subse- 
 quently to the time at which he is supposed to have 
 felt this desire, he made and sold mechanical paint- 
 ings, distinctly stating that he did so. He also freely 
 allowed Eginton to make mechanical paintings. He 
 gave specimens of the process to Wedgwood, to be 
 kept as a memorial of it ; and he kept specimens 
 himself at Soho, which were shewn to visitors.*"' 
 
 The reasons given by Mr. Wallis to explain why 
 Boulton wished the matter buried in oblivion may be 
 noticed. He points out that in our own day an Act 
 of Parliament has been passed to prevent the copy- 
 ing of pictures without the artists' consent. There 
 is however nothing to shew that West or Angelica 
 
 * I mentioned the Offering of the Wise Men as one of the me- 
 chanical paintings formerly at Soho. This is the subject specified in 
 the catalogue, as the dimensions shew, but it is by Zukey, not by 
 West. Some of the other pictures mentioned by me, were perhaps 
 not really connected with this process. I heard the subject men- 
 tioned only a few times, and very briefly : so my impressions may 
 easily haye been mistaken in some respects. 
 
52 
 
 Kaufmann objected to the copying of their pictures 
 at Soho. The supposition that they did so rests 
 only on a statement made by Price, which has re- 
 ceived no confirmation, and was probably the offspring 
 of his own invention. It is observable that Boulton 
 and Eginton continued to make copies from West 
 and Angelica Kaufmann after the time when the 
 objections of the artists are supposed to have been 
 expressed. 
 
 Further, Mr. Wallis represents that Beechey would 
 soon convince Boulton that West and Angelica 
 Kaufmann were artists of a very inferior kind, and 
 that no benefit to the public nor credit to himself 
 could accrue from making copies of their productions. 
 While Eginton, being less perceptive, remained un- 
 convinced, and paid no heed to these remonstrances 
 of Beechey.* 
 
 It is exceedingly doubtful whether Sir W. Beechey 
 entertained these views concerning West and An- 
 gelica Kaufmann. If he looked down on them as 
 artists greatly inferior to himself, he held an opinion 
 which has not been ratified by posterity. None of 
 these painters are first-rate : yet engravings of their 
 
 * Mr. Wallis does not tell us what was said or thought by Barney. 
 He speaks with great respect of his talents. How was it that he was 
 so blind to the defects of the process, supposed to have been so great 
 and glaring ? "Was he convinced by Beechey that it was a mark of 
 bad taste to multiply copies from West and Xaufmann ? If Barney's 
 pictures had been copied instead of theirs, would Beechey's objec- 
 tions have been diminished ? 
 
53 
 
 works circulate at the present day : and this circula- 
 tion is not thought to do much harm to the taste of 
 the people. Bartolozzi, an engraver of no mean 
 talent, engraved a great many of Angelica Kauf- 
 mann's works ; and these engravings are still in 
 request. G-oethe, whose mental powers and aesthetic 
 abilities were of a very high order, did not think so 
 unfavourably as Mr. Wallis of Angelica Kaufmann's 
 merits. He frequently speaks of her with much 
 praise. In one passage he says, " Angelica is now 
 painting a picture which is turning out very success- 
 ful."* In another passage he says, " She is not so 
 happy as she deserves to be, considering her really 
 great talent/'f Further on he speaks of her as 
 having a talent incredibly great for a woman, " ein 
 unglaubliches und als Weib wirklich ungeheures 
 Talent." At the same time he was perfectly aware 
 that she had many defects. He knew well that her 
 drawing was not of a powerful kind : though perhaps 
 in drawing the human figure she has not been sur- 
 passed by many women.J He was capable of seeing 
 
 * Angelica malt jetzt ein Bild das sehr glucklich. wird. Goethe's 
 "Werke. Zweiter Aufenthalt in Rom. Correspondenz. 
 
 t Sie ist nicht glucklich wie sie es zu seyn verdiente, bei dem 
 wirklich grossen Talent, und bei dem Yermogen das sich taglich 
 mehrt. 
 
 % Mr. Wallis says that Angelica Kaufmann mistook the big for 
 the grand. I doubt whether she was especially fond of painting big 
 subjects : many of her paintings I believe are of somewhat small 
 size. Nor should I say that grandeur was the quality at which she 
 particularly aimed. 
 
54 
 
 these deficiencies much more than most critics are ; 
 but this did not prevent him from seeing merits in 
 her works. He says : " One ought to see and prize 
 what she performs, not what she leaves undone. How 
 many artists are there whose works will pass muster 
 if we are to insist on defects % " * 
 
 If Boulton did harm to the popular taste and 
 incurred discredit by multiplying the designs of 
 Angelica Kaufmann, he shared the blame of such 
 conduct with Goethe, at whose request she designed 
 a frontispiece for an edition of Egmont. Concerning 
 this Goethe sa} T s, " Angelica has designed a frontis- 
 piece for Egmont, and Lips engraved it ; one which 
 at any rate would not have been designed or engraved 
 in Germany."! Here as before, he shews that he 
 perceives defects ; neither the design nor the engrav- 
 ing fully satisfy him ; yet he asserts that both are 
 superior to anything that could then be produced in 
 his own country. 
 
 Under these circumstances I do not think it in 
 the least likely that Boulton felt any compunction or 
 any alarm for his credit, because, not being able 
 as he himself says, to procure copies of first-rate 
 
 * Man muss sehen und schiitzen was sie macht, nicht was sie 
 zurucklasst. Wie yieler Kunstler Arbeiten halten Stich, wenn 
 man rechnen will was fehlt ? 
 
 t Angelica hat ein Titelkupfer zum Egmont gezeichnet, Lips 
 gestochen, das wenigstens in Deutschland nicht gezeichnet, nicht 
 gestochen worden ware. 
 
55 
 
 works, he copied works of Angelica Kaufmann. 
 That no such sentiments were produced in his mind 
 on the occasion supposed, either by Sir W. Beechey 
 or by others, is made tolerably clear by the fact that 
 after the date in question he continued to make 
 copies from West and Angelica Kaufmann, and gave 
 facilities to Eginton for doing the same.* 
 
 This part of Mr. Wallis's speculations seems to 
 me imaginary : the reasons which he gives seem to 
 be devoid of value, and the fact which he labours to 
 explain devoid of existence. 
 
 In examining once more Mr. Wallis's paper, I 
 notice that he lays stress on the nature of the 
 colouring matter as the cause of the alleged perish- 
 able nature of the mechanical paintings : supposing 
 the printed colour to have been mixed with gum, 
 
 * It is very doubtful whether Sir W. Beechey really interfered in 
 the matter at all. Mr. Smiles tells me that in the papers inspected 
 by him he has found no mention of Sir W. Beechey previous to 1799: 
 after which there are several letters of his. It is quite possible that 
 something said or done by Sir W. Beechey about 1799 may have 
 been confounded with something done by other parties on a previous 
 occasion. 
 
 There is no difficulty in understanding that objections might have 
 been entertained against the mechanical painting, as against other 
 processes in which a mechanical or non-manual process is substituted 
 up to a certain point for the intelligent labour of an artist : such as 
 "Watt's sculpture- copying process, carving by machinery, making 
 miniatures on a photographic basis, &c. 
 
 E 
 
56 
 
 honey, and essential oil. But it appears, on his own 
 admission, that his view on this point is " surmise : '* 
 and since, as we have seen, the documents quite 
 fail to support the superstructure which he has raised 
 on this surmise, the probable inference is that in 
 some important respect it is mistaken. 
 
 It is to be remembered that as the result of " a 
 minute scientific examination " of the metal plates, 
 by experts of first-rate ability, it was pronounced 
 that they were photographs executed by means of 
 the action of light on " resin with essential oil, thus 
 differing entirely from the mercurial process of 
 Daguerre ;" while the real history of the plates makes 
 it clear almost beyond doubt that they were Daguer- 
 reotypes of the ordinary kind. Again, it was pro- 
 nounced as the result of a careful microscopic inspec- 
 tion of the pictures in the Museum, that they were 
 formed by particles deposited from the state of 
 vapour. If again we refer to the Photographic 
 Journal, we shall find it recorded that persons, 
 asserted to be judges of the largest experience and 
 highest capability, after a careful inspection of the 
 paper pictures, pronounced with full confidence that 
 such pictures could not be produced by impressions 
 from steel, copper, stone, or other substances. We 
 may infer from this that experts really possessing 
 great technical knowledge may nevertheless make 
 great mistakes : and accordingly, though we may 
 consider Mr. Wallis to be a person of great ability, 
 
57 
 
 we may nevertheless, without presumption, regard 
 his opinions as questionable. Indeed we have seen 
 that in several cases he has certainly fallen into 
 error. 
 
 At present it would seem that the nature of the 
 colouring matter employed in the coloured specimens 
 exhibited is not known. Very different opinions 
 have been expressed concerning it, and none appear 
 to have been made good. But even if this point were 
 determined, we should not thereby learn the nature 
 of the colouring matter ordinarily employed in the 
 mechanical painting ; since it is quite possible that 
 the coloured specimens exhibited are the result of 
 experiments which failed to give satisfaction. The 
 method employed in making them may have been 
 tried and discarded. Or this method may have 
 been emplo} r ed only for special purposes, not for the 
 paintings finished in oil colours. 
 
 It is not likely that the process of the mechanical 
 painting was altogether devoid of difficulty, indeed 
 Boulton speaks of it as having taken up a great deal 
 of his time. A good many experiments may have 
 been made, in order to obtain a method of printing 
 colours that should satisfy the peculiar requirements 
 of the case. Boul ton's knowledge of chemistry and 
 Eginton's knowledge of colours might both be of 
 service in these experiments. Mr. Wallis indeed 
 tells us that Eginton knew little of colours except of 
 those used in enamel and glass-painting : but this 
 
 E 2 
 
58 
 
 opinion, like so many of Mr. Wallis's, may be regarded 
 as questionable. Difficulty may have been found in 
 producing a coloured impression to which oil paint 
 could be caused to adhere durably ; but I should 
 conceive that this difficulty was by no means in- 
 superable ; and looking at the evidence, I should 
 infer that it was overcome. Of one point we may 
 be very sure ; that the durability of the pictures was 
 a matter well considered at Soho, not neglected or 
 left to chance. 
 
 With reference to the execution of the Telemachus 
 by hand, I pointed out previously that this would 
 not warrant the inference that the catalogue was 
 unveracious, in mentioning the Telemachus among 
 the subjects copied mechanically. On looking again 
 at the documents, I see there is plain proof that my 
 remarks on this point were correct. A letter from 
 Eginton to Hodges quoted in the Photographic 
 Journal (Nov. 16, 1863), begins as follows — "Sir — 
 The plates which I have an imediat ocation for are 
 Time and Cupid, and allso Telemacus." This letter 
 makes it quite clear that there was a plate of the 
 Telemachus : and thus the catalogue is shewn to be 
 quite correct in this case, as in that of the Rinaldo 
 and Armicla. Hence also it is plain that if the 
 Telemachus had been ordered of the size mentioned 
 in the catalogue, there would not have been any 
 difficulty in executing it mechanically. 
 
 I notice that the letter from Messrs. Clarke and 
 
59 
 
 Green asking if the sizes of the pictures can be varied, 
 is written in July, 1781 ; and the Telemachus is 
 being executed' by hand in the next month, August. 
 Hence it seems probable that Messrs. Clarke and 
 Green desired to have two copies of the Telemachus 
 of a size differing from that mentioned in the 
 catalogue, and that in order to comply with this 
 request it was necessary to make the copies ordered 
 by hand, the size, of the mechanical paintings (as 
 they were informed,) not being variable at pleasure. 
 
 In conformity with his theory about the perishable 
 nature of the mechanical paintings, Mr. Wallis notices 
 various letters written in 1781, in January, March, 
 and May of that year ; and asserts that they con- 
 cealed the abandonment of the process, and the 
 rapidly perishable nature of the pictures, out of 
 kindness to Eginton, who, if the real facts had been 
 made known, would thereby have been ruined. I 
 have already noticed one letter, which even if it 
 stood alone would be quite fatal to this theory; viz. 
 a letter written in September from Hodges to 
 Barney, shewing unmistakeably that at that time 
 Boulton and Fothergill were using the mechanical 
 process. And on looking at the documents, I see 
 that there are many other letters similarly adverse 
 to Mr. Wallis's theory. Thus both the letters which 
 make mention of the Telemachus, mention other 
 pictures which are to be delivered to Barney in the 
 dead-coloured state; i.e., mechanical impressions of 
 
60 
 
 these are being sent to him. In a letter from 
 Eginton to Hodges dated July 1781, Eginton says, 
 " The print of that subject (i.e., ' the Stratonice) 
 which you brought is ready for transferring/' In 
 a letter from Hodges to Eginton dated October 
 1781, Hodges says, "Inclosed are two impressions, 
 Penelope and Calypso, which you are requested to 
 transfer on the two copper plates herewith." I notice 
 also that according to the Photographic Journal, 
 Boulton obtains twenty-four mechanical paintings 
 from Eginton in 1791 ; this date being twice given. 
 
 It is quite clear that Boulton and Fothergill 
 habitually made mechanical paintings after the 
 dissolution of the partnership with Eginton: and 
 thus the theory which represents them as totally 
 abandoning the process in 1780, and concealing their 
 motives and their alarm in the letters written in 
 1781, falls to the ground. 
 
 It is somewhat tedious to notice speculations 
 which display so little sagacity in dealing with 
 evidence ; yet at the same time it is proper to point 
 out their groundlessness. 
 
 Mr. Wallis pays compliments both to Boulton and 
 Eginton. If his theory concerning the perishable 
 nature of the mechanical paintings is correct, then, 
 he tells us, Boulton's course in abandoning the manu- 
 facture must be regarded as highly honourable to 
 him. Concerning Eginton, he tells us, on the autho- 
 rity of Mr. Jewitt, that he was a person of great 
 
61 
 
 ingenuity, and great artistic ability. And we are 
 told that one of his surviving descendants inherits 
 "the exquisite taste, the ability and artistic excel- 
 lence of the family." So far Mr. "Wallis carries out 
 successfully his desire to do honour to Eginton ; 
 representing him as a person of eminent artistic 
 ability, and exquisite taste. But if we turn from 
 Mr. Wallis's compliments to his theory, we find the 
 picture greatly changed ; its brilliant colours collapse 
 more suddenly and ruinously than those of a 
 mechanical painting under the "washing up" of a 
 kitchenmaid. His theory represents Eginton as 
 carrying on a process of a most clumsy and im- 
 perfect kind, the defects of which must have been 
 obvious to any person who had even a moderate 
 knowledge of the qualities of colours. In con- 
 sequence of this ignorance he produced tea-trays, 
 which were destroyed by the first washing-up of 
 the kitchenmaid, and pictures which after a very 
 short time fell into ruinous decay, causing thereby 
 serious damage to the credit and reputation of Soho. 
 This account of the case does not tend to confirm 
 the complimentary statement, that Eginton was a 
 person of great artistic knowledge and ability. 
 
 Further we are told that the process carried on 
 by Eginton was so palpably injurious to the best 
 interests of art, that no artist or intelligent lover of 
 art could have failed to see this. We are told that 
 Eginton spread copies of bad works, in which the 
 
62 
 
 artists mistook the big for the grand: whence we 
 are led to infer that Eo-inton himself could not make 
 this distinction.* Also we are informed that the 
 pictures made by him were "meretricious." And 
 we learn further that though Boulton was easily 
 brought by Beechey to see these gross defects of the 
 process, Eginton could not by any persuasion be 
 brought to see them; but persistently went on in 
 his meretricious courses, injuring the best interests 
 of art, so that Boulton for Eginton's sake (to say 
 nothing of his own) wished to have the matter 
 buried in complete oblivion. If all this is true, 
 instead of regarding Eginton as a person of exquisite 
 taste, we should be forced to look upon him as a 
 person of remarkable tastelessness and obtusity. 
 
 Perhaps we might be told that Eginton thoroughly 
 knew the tastelessness and injurious character of the 
 process, and carried it on merely for the sake of 
 money. In this case, w 7 e might still believe that 
 Eginton was a person of exquisite artistic taste, but 
 we should gain this result at serious expense to his 
 moral character. What opinion could we form of 
 this if we had to believe that knowing a process to 
 
 * Indeed, we are led to infer that Eginton was more blind on tins 
 point even than Angelica Kaufmann. For noticing some alterations 
 made in one of her designs — the Flora bedecking Pan — Mr. Wallis 
 says that he " cannot call them improvements." Though the design 
 of Angelica Kaufmann was so poor and censurable, Eginton, it would 
 seem, in attempting to improve it, made it even worse than before. 
 
63 
 
 be meretricious, discreditable, and injurious to the 
 best interests of art, he nevertheless persistently 
 carried it on for the sake of lucre ? 
 
 It is clear that Mr. Wallis has somehow or other 
 gone seriously astray : — that he must have made 
 some notable mistake either in his compliments or in 
 his theory.* 
 
 Mr. Wallis, having paid his compliments to 
 Boulton and Eginton, pays some to his colleague, 
 Mr. Smith, and finally to me, praising me as having 
 shewn that the reputation of Soho, and the eminent 
 persons connected with it, is not a matter of indiffer- 
 ence to me. When therefore Mr. Wallis, desiring 
 to do honour to Eginton, proceeds to execute his 
 task in the manner above noticed, he ought not to 
 blame me if I scrutinise his theory, and point out, 
 (as I think I have sufficiently done) the insecurity of 
 its foundations. 
 
 In reference to the durability of the mechanical 
 paintings it deserves notice that Mr. Carpenter, the 
 gentleman who recently had charge of the prints in 
 the British Museum, remembered pictures which he 
 believed to be of the kind in question as very com- 
 
 * Eginton seems fated to be the recipient of infelicitous compli- 
 ments. In a notice of him given in the Photographic Journal, as an 
 extract from "Wagler's Kiinstler Lexicon, it is said of him, " He com- 
 bined accurate drawing with an excellent management of colours, 
 which, though of extraordinary brilliancy, are frequently inhar- 
 
64 
 
 mon, and as known by the name of polygraphic 
 pictures.* It is not stated to what date this recol- 
 lection refers : but if we suppose Mr. Carpenter to 
 have seen these polygraphic pictures as late as 1830, 
 there seems nothing unlikely in the supposition. 
 The durability of the pictures seen by him must at 
 any rate have been far greater than that assigned to 
 the mechanical paintings by Mr. Wallis's theory, 
 which represents them as falling to ruin after a very 
 few years. And evidently the pictures remembered 
 by Mr. Carpenter were not mere unfinished bases for 
 further work, but were intended to be regarded as 
 finished works, and were kept as such. It is also to 
 be noticed that a gentleman who read a paper on 
 the subject at Manchester, states that he saw several 
 pictures, believed by him to be of the kind in ques- 
 tion, in some country town in 1853. 
 
 Mr. Wallis is animated with a laudable desire to 
 make everything perfectly clear, and accordingly he 
 (as previously noticed) explains why the letters 
 written in 1781 suppressed the real facts, as he sup- 
 poses them to have done. He explains that the 
 disclosure of these facts would have practically 
 ruined Eginton, as it would have prevented him 
 from carrying on the manufacture of the mechanical 
 paintings. To save him from this ruin Bo.ulton and 
 Fothergill carefully refrained from giving any hint 
 
 * See Photographic Journal, Jan. 1864. 
 
65 
 
 about the rapid decay of the pictures, which had 
 excited such alarm in their minds. But how, if Mr. 
 Wallis's views are correct, was it possible for Eginton 
 to be saved from ruin by carrying on the process in 
 question, seeing that, according to him, it was non- 
 lucrative, and that its products rapidly decayed, so 
 as seriously to damage the reputation of the person 
 who made them 1 Eginton might have incurred 
 ruin by persisting in" carrying on such a manufacture, 
 but could not possibly have done so by leaving it off. 
 To suppose that the parties concerned looked on such 
 a manufacture as an ark of safety to -Eginton, is to 
 suppose that Boulton, Fothergill, and Eginton were 
 all totally devoid of common sense. And the case 
 becomes still more palpably absurd when it is re- 
 membered that according to Mr. Wallis, Boulton 
 clearly perceived the detrimental character of the 
 process, and was most anxious, for prudential reasons, 
 to be thoroughly rid of it. 
 
 Perhaps Mr. Wallis, pursuing and developing his 
 compliments, might explain to us that Eginton was 
 extremely foolish, — quite destitute of common sense, 
 — and that accordingly he expected to reap great 
 benefit from the process, though obviously it was 
 calculated to cause him serious injury. But even if 
 we consented to ascribe extreme folly and blindness 
 to Eginton, we should not gain the desired result ; 
 for assuredly Boulton and Fothergill, who had lent 
 him money, would not have allowed him to cut his 
 
66 
 
 own throat, even if, (which cannot for a moment be 
 believed) he himself had been ready and eager to 
 do so.* 
 
 Here again it is very tedious work to follow Mr. 
 "Wallis : for the examination of speculations so clumsy 
 and suicidal is a task devoid of interest. His ima- 
 ginations cannot sustain any comparison with those 
 produced by the fertile genius of Price. These had 
 an airy and poetical character, which imparted to them 
 a good deal of interest : though they could not boast 
 much of wahrheit, they displayed a good deal of 
 dichtung ; but the products of Mr. Wallis's imagina- 
 tive faculty are very heavy, possessing the merit 
 neither of dichtung nor of wahrheit. f 
 
 * From the letter written by Eginton to Hodges on May 29 1781, 
 it seems pretty clear that from the dissolution of the partnership up 
 to that date, Eginton had had nothing to do with the mechanical 
 painting : a fact very incompatible with the supposition that he 
 depended on it for his livelihood. And the tone in which he enquires 
 whether he may be allowed to have impressions, and on what terms, 
 is certainly not that of a man who thought that ruin impended over 
 him if the permission applied for were withheld. 
 
 t Price was led by his more fervid g"enius to confound dichtung 
 with wahrheit, representing his ideal creations as actual facts; 
 whereas Mr. Wallis is not similarly misled, but propounds his ideas 
 as inferences and hypotheses. It is to be noticed however that he 
 evidently places a very full belief in his theories, even where their 
 errors lie on the surface. And it is observable that his colleague Mr. 
 Smith (also of the Kensington Museum) felt a most intense belief in 
 the ideal views which he had embraced : in consequence of which my 
 attempts to suggest caution to his mind were resented by him in a 
 very violent manner. 
 
67 
 
 Mr. Wallis expresses a good deal of dissatisfaction 
 with the speculations of his predecessors ; com- 
 plaining that though they occasionally made some 
 clever guesses, they did not fit their dicta into the 
 right place ; while he, as he tells us, intends to bring 
 everything "into a focus as a system." He particu- 
 larly notices the opinions previously delivered con- 
 cerning the method by which the paper pictures 
 were produced. He observes that some persons 
 suggested aquatint engraving as the process employed 
 for this : but then he says, this opinion was not 
 enounced in a satisfactory manner, because the pecu- 
 liarly fine grain of the specimens was not accounted 
 for, and still remained as a source of perplexity. 
 Let us therefore examine the explanation which he 
 gives us on this point, and which is to render it 
 perfectly clear. 
 
 In one passage he says, " It was suggested by some 
 persons that the process by which the paper-pictures 
 were produced was aquatint : but others equally 
 capable of judging denied this, because they did not 
 recognise in the specimens the usual amount of 
 hand-work with which ordinary works in aquatint 
 were generally supplemented : thus ignoring the fine 
 tint produced by the aquatint process 'pure and 
 simple.'"* And again, in another passage he tells 
 us that "the works under consideration," (i.e. the 
 
 • Art Journal. August. 
 
68 
 
 paper-pictures,) "have all the imperceptible grada- 
 tions and also the peculiar fine granular effect of early 
 aquatint impressions."* Thus here the fine grain 
 of the specimens is referred to the purity of the 
 aquatint, and the absence of work by hand. We 
 are told that persons who had only seen aquatints 
 finished by hand were puzzled by the fineness of the 
 grain, not knowing the fineness of grain [produced 
 by aquatint "pure and simple." But in another 
 passage we are told that Mr. Wallis felt puzzled by 
 the peculiar fineness of the grain, until he detected 
 work by hand in the specimens. He says, " I con- 
 fess, as already stated, that it was this extreme 
 fineness of grain in the tints which puzzled me at 
 my first examination ; but when on a more recent 
 and deliberate inspection the hand-work in certain 
 parts was detected, and I considered, &c, my doubts 
 fled."f 
 
 So that one passage invites us to believe that the 
 peculiar fineness of the grain is an indication of the 
 purity of the aquatint, and consequently a natural 
 source of puzzle to persons who had never seen 
 aquatints " pure and simple," while the other passage 
 represents this fineness of the grain as due (in part) 
 to work by hand, — as a cause of perplexity which 
 was removed (or greatly diminished) when work by 
 hand was detected. 
 
 * Art Journal. August, 
 t Ibid. 
 
69 
 
 Thus even on this very simple point, concerning 
 which we should naturally have expected Mr. Wallis, 
 (who like Mr. Smith, holds office in the Kensington 
 Museum,) to be perfectly well-informed, we find that 
 he does not afford us trustworthy guidance.* Instead 
 of bringing scattered lights into a focus, he causes 
 the rays which he emits to interfere, so as to produce 
 darkness. 
 
 If we look at the opinions expressed by Mr. 
 Davenport in the Photographic Journal, we shall 
 find that he notices the fineness of grain in the 
 specimens as remarkable ; but is not shaken on this 
 account in his opinion that the pictures are aquatints. 
 The statement ascribed to him runs, "The grain here 
 obtained was certainly an unusually fine one, but 
 still he thought it probably a very fine aquatint."f 
 Again if we look at a letter in the Photographic 
 Journal, signed with the initials H. G. H. we find 
 its writer also noticing the fineness of the grain, and 
 also expressing an opinion that it might be produced 
 by aquatint. He says, " With reference to the next 
 point, the method by which the minutely granulated 
 surface was obtained, I believe that any skilful aqua- 
 
 * We should also have expected an authority of the Kensington 
 Museum to have furnished to us a juster and more discriminating 
 criticism of Angelica Kaufmann than that which characterises her as 
 "mistaking the big for the grand." It might be said with much 
 more justice that the deliverer of this dictum has himself mistaken 
 the magisterial for the sesthetical. 
 
 t Photographic Journal. Jan. 15. 1864. 
 
70 
 
 tint engraver could reproduce a similar surface at 
 any moment, if it were desired, by simply laying 
 the ground of his plate by means of a delicate 
 solution of any of the gums or resins used by aqua- 
 tint engravers." 
 
 Mr. Aitken, a gentleman who has written a work 
 on the brass manufactures of Birmingham, tells me 
 that having examined the paper pictures he came to 
 the conclusion that they were aquatints, and intended 
 to be used as transfers. And I notice that Mr. Smith 
 in his statement speaks of Eginton as transferring 
 the pictures, as does also Price in one of his letters. 
 Price also calls the pictures transfers, saying, " I now 
 send you the other transfers on paper which I bought 
 of Mr. Shread, the auctioneer." 
 
 The gentleman who wrote the letter above quoted, 
 (published in the Photographic Journal,) considers 
 that the paper pictures exhibited are not specimens 
 of the process which was used, when it was intended 
 to make oil paintings on canvas ; that in such a case 
 oil-colours would be employed. If this view is cor- 
 rect, the difficulty supposed in Mr. Wallis's theory, 
 and alleged to have caused the rapid decay of the 
 pictures, would have had no existence. 
 
 Mr. Vincent Brooks, who carefully examined one 
 of the paper pictures, pronounced it to be a " pure 
 aquatint." Thus his opinion runs counter to the 
 second of the views propounded by Mr. Wallis, viz., 
 
 * Photographic Journal. Jan. 15. 1864. 
 
71 
 
 that the fineness of the grain is caused by manual 
 work ; while on the other hand it confirms the first 
 of the views expressed by him : viz., that the fine 
 grain is that of pure aquatint. Indeed the duplicate 
 opinion proffered by Mr. Wallis has this notable 
 advantage ; that if one of its members is discredited, 
 the other is naturally confirmed. 
 
 In some of his remarks Mr. Wallis himself confirms 
 the former of the two opinions broached by him; 
 i. e., the one confirmed by Mr. Vincent Brooks. 
 For he asserts decidedly that the paper pictures were 
 not intended to be viewed as they are : that they 
 are certainly transfers, intended to be transferred, 
 and subsequently worked on and finished. Now, as 
 I have previously remarked, it is exceedingly un- 
 likely that work by hand would be executed on a 
 surface which was to be transferred, and would in 
 virtue of that operation be placed undermost. Thus 
 the former of the two opinions presented to us by 
 Mr. Wallis, being confirmed both by Mr. Brooks and 
 by Mr. Wall is himself, seems to have a decided 
 advantage over its opposing fellow. 
 
 Mr. Wallis (as previously noticed,) refused to 
 believe that pictures of the large size mentioned in 
 the catalogue had really been executed mechanically, 
 grounding this scepticism on the prices mentioned. 
 In reference to the subject of price it may be re- 
 marked that the Rinaldo and Armida and the 
 Offering of the Wise Men, though both equal in 
 area (viz., 50 inches by 40) differ a good deal in 
 
72 
 
 price : the prices being £21 12s. and £15 155. 
 respectively. Here it is to be observed that the 
 picture -whose price is highest, and consequently 
 most fitted to excite scepticism, is the one which is 
 clearly proved to have been executed mechanically, 
 viz., the Pinaldo and Armida. 
 
 The mechanical impression of the lower part of 
 this subject was in the Museum, and was, it can 
 hardly be doubted, seen by Mr. Wallis. Though he 
 might not recognise the subject, yet, if he had con- 
 sidered the size necessary in order to complete the 
 figures on the scale of the legs, he would have per- 
 ceived that the complete picture must have had a 
 size similar to that of the larger pictures mentioned 
 in the catalogue. But his reasoning powers were so 
 fully occupied in drawing the various inferences 
 above examined, (with such results as we have seen,) 
 that he did not exercise them on this simple matter, 
 lying before his eyes. 
 
 With reference to the mezzotint plate of the 
 female figure which I discovered in company with 
 that of the King of Prussia, I find that its subject is 
 entitled " Patience," this name being written on its 
 cover. And in a list given in the Photographic 
 Journal of "16 Oval Pictures in form of Medallion," 
 mention is made of " One Patience from Angelica 
 Kauffman." There can therefore be little doubt 
 that the plate in question was, like that of the 
 King of Prussia, one of those employed in making 
 the mechanical paintings. It appears therefore that 
 
73 
 
 mezzotint and aquatint engraving were both made 
 use of in this process. 
 
 I may make here some remarks concerning the 
 plate which represents the photograph of Winson 
 Green. Some differences exist between this and 
 the plate representing the photograph in the 
 Museum, which do not exist in the photographs 
 themselves. For instance, if the peculiar object on 
 the roof (the peak of the gable) is examined, it will 
 be seen that it is not quite alike in the two plates : 
 and this difference might seem one of importance, 
 inasmuch as this feature is peculiar, and of much 
 importance for the purpose of identification. But 
 this difference does not exist in the photographs; it 
 is due only to error on the part of the designer. 
 Not being aware of the importance of this feature, 
 he did not draw it quite accurately, and subsequent 
 attempts to correct the original error, when this was 
 pointed out, were not entirely successful. In reality, 
 the resemblance of this peculiar feature in the two 
 photographs is perfect, as is also that of other 
 features, such as the dentils of the cornice, &c. 
 Persons who see the two photographs togethep 
 pronounce without hesitation that they must have 
 been taken from the same house. 
 
 Mr. Wallis puts forward some conjectures con- 
 cerning the method employed in making the copies 
 of the drawings of engines, mentioned in some of 
 the documents, suggesting that this may possibly 
 have been a system of " counter-proof," used exten- 
 
74 
 
 sively by Gilray and Rowlandson. I think it 
 probable that this method is used by the Soho firm 
 at the present day, and that its nature may there- 
 fore be ascertained beyond all doubt. Mr. Muirhead 
 in his Life of Watt asserts that at the time when 
 he was writing, it was regularly used at Soho, and 
 had constantly been so. I believe that the method 
 employed is very similar to that used in making 
 copies of letters, there being naturally this difference, 
 that in the case of the letters the impression is made 
 on transparent paper, so that the letters may be 
 read without reversal of right and left, while the 
 impressions of the engine-drawings are made on 
 opaque paper, and consequently are seen reversed as 
 to right and left. 
 
 One difference between this process and that of 
 the mechanical painting is obvious : viz., that in the 
 former process the impression is taken from the 
 letter or drawing, and consequently the method 
 cannot be used for making many copies ; while in 
 the polygraphic process, where the coloured impres- 
 sions were probably taken from a plate, the method 
 was fitted to produce a great number of copies ; and 
 it was not worth while to prepare the plate or appa- 
 ratus unless a large number of copies were wanted. 
 
 THE END. 
 
 BBADBURT, EVAN3, AND CO., PRINTERS, WHITEFRIABS. 
 
GETTY CENTER LIBRARY 
 
 3 3125 00886 1391