  (Vol. vi., pp. 508. 585.) There is an anxiety to obtain further particulars on this interesting subject, and I have searched my Genealogical MSS. Collections for such; the result has extended farther than I could have wished, but, while I am able to furnish dates and authorities for hitherto naked statements, I have inserted two or three links of descent not before laid down. A member of the Somersetshire Wellesleighs is said to have accompanied Henry II. to Ireland. Walleran or Walter de Wellesley, living in Ireland in 1230 (Lynch, Feud. Dig.), witnessed a grant of certain townlands to the Priory of Christ Church about 1250 (Registry of Christ Church); while it is more effectively stated that he then "endowed the Priory of All Saints with 60 a. of land, within the manor of Cruagh, which then belonged, with other estates, to his family, and that he gave to the said priory free common of pasture, of wood and of turbary, over his whole mountain there." His namesake and son (according to Lynch, Feud. Dig.), "Walran de Wylesley," was in 1302 required, as one of the "Fideles" of Ireland, by three several letters, to do service in the meditated war in Scotland (Parl. Writs, vol. i. p. 363.), and in the following year he was slain (MS. Book of Obits, T.C.D.). The peerage books merge these two Wallerans in one. William de Wellesley, who appears to have been son to Walleran, was in 1309 appointed Constable of the Castle of Kildare (Rot. Pat. Canc. Hib.), which he maintained when besieged by the Bruces in their memorable invasion of Ireland, and their foray over that county. For these and other services to the state he received many lucrative and honourable grants from the crown, and was summoned to parliament in 1339. In 1347 he was slain at the siege of Calais. (Obits, T.C.D.) Sir John de Wellesly, Knight, son of William, having performed great actions against the O'Tooles and O'Byrnes of Wicklow, had grants of sundry wardships and other rewards from the year 1335. In 1343 he became one of the sureties for the appearance of the suspected Earl of Desmond, on whose flight Sir John's estates were seised to the crown and withheld for some years. (Lynch's Feud. Dig.) His successor was another John de Wellesley, omitted in the peerage books, but whose existence is shown by Close Roll 29 & 30 Edw. III., C. H. He died about the year 1355. William Wellesley, son of John, was summoned to great councils and parliaments of Ireland from 1372; he was also entrusted by the king with various important commissions and custodies of castles, lands, and wards (Patent Rolls C. H.). In 1386 he was Sheriff of Kildare, and Henry IV. renewed his commission in 1403. Richard, son and heir of William de Wellesley, as proved by Rot. Pat. 1 Henry IV., Canc. Hib., married Johanna, daughter and heiress of Sir Nicholas de Castlemartin, by whom the estates of Dangan, Mornington, &c. passed to the Wellesley family; he and his said wife had confirmation of their estates in 1422. (Rot. Pat. 1 Henry VI., C. H.) He had a previous grant from the treasury by order of the Privy Council, in consideration of his long services as sheriff of the county of Kildare, and yet more actively "in the wars of Munster, Meath, and Leinster, with men and horses, arms and money." (Rot. Claus. 17 Ric. II., C. H.) In 1431 he was specially commissioned to advise the crown on the state of Ireland, and was subsequently selected to take charge of the Castle of Athy, as "the fittest person to maintain that fortress and key of the country against the malice of the Irish enemy." (Rot. Pat. et Claus. 9 Henry VI., C. H.) In resisting that "malice" he fell soon after. The issue of Sir Richard de Wellesley by Johanna were William Wellesley, who married Katherine ——, and dying in 1441 was succeeded by his next brother, Christopher Wellesley, whose recorded fealty in the same year proves all the latter links; his succession to William as brother and heir, and the titles of Johanna as widow of his father Richard, and of Katherine as widow of William, to dower off said estates. (Rot. Claus. 19 Henry VI., C. H.) At and previous to this time, another line of this family, connected as cousins with the house of Dangan, flourished in the co. Kildare, where they were recognised as Palatine Barons of Norragh to the close of the seventeenth century. William Wellesley of Dangan was the son and heir of Christopher. An (unprinted) act of Edward IV. was passed in 1472 in favour of this William; and his two marriages are stated by Lynch (Feud. Dig.): the first was to Gerald had a special livery of his estate in 1539; Walter the second son became Bishop of Kildare in 1531, and died its diocesan in 1539 (see Ware's Bishops); and the daughter Alison intermarried with John Cusack of Cushington, co. Meath. (Burke's Landed Gentry, Supp. p. 88.) Gerald, according to all the peerage books, married Margaret, eldest daughter of Sir Thomas Fitzgerald, who was Lord Chancellor of Ireland in 1483, and had issue William, his eldest son, Lord of Dangan, who married Elizabeth Cusack, of Portrane, co. Dublin, and died previous to 1551 (as I believe is proveable by inquisitions of that year in the office of the Chief Remembrancer, Dublin), leaving Gerald, his eldest son and heir. An inquiry taken in 1579 as to the extent of the manor of Dangan, finds him then seised thereof (Inquis. in C. H. 23 Eliz.). Previous to this he appears a party in conveyances of record, as in 1564, &c. He had a son Edward (not mentioned in the peerage books), who joined in a family conveyance of 1599, and soon after died, leaving a son, Valerian Wellesley. Gerald himself died in 1603, leaving said Valerian, his grandson and heir, then aged ten (Inquis. 5 Jac. I. in Rolls Office), and married, adds the Inquisition; and Lynch, in his Feudal Dignities, gives interesting particulars of the betrothal of this boy, and his public repudiation of the intended match on his coming to age. This Valerian is traced through Irish records to the time of the Restoration; he married first, Maria Cusack (by whom he had William Wellesley, his eldest son), and, second, Anne Forth, otherwise Cusack, widow of Sir Ambrose Forth, as shown by an Inquisition of 1637, in the Rolls Office, Dublin. William Wellesley, son and heir of Valerian, married Margaret Kempe (Peerage Books), and by her had Gerald Wellesley, who on the Restoration petitioned to be restored to his estates, and a Decree of Innocence issued, which states the rights of himself, his father, and his grandfather in "Dingen." This Gerald married Elizabeth, eldest daughter of Sir Dudley Colley, and their first daughter was baptized in 1663 by the name of Margaret, some evidence, in the courtesy of christenings, of Gerald's mother being Margaret. (Registry of St. Werburgh's.) Gerald was a suitor in the Court of Claims in 1703: he left two sons; William the eldest died s. p., and was succeeded by Garrett, his next brother, who died also without issue in 1728, having bequeathed all the family estates to Richard Colley, second son of the aforesaid Sir Dudley Colley, and testator's uncle, enjoining upon said Richard and his heirs male to bear thenceforth, as they succeeded to the estates, the name and arms of Wellesley. This Richard Colley Wellesley married Elizabeth, daughter of John Sale, LL.D. and M.P., by whom he had issue Garrett Wellesley, born, as the Dublin and London Magazine for 1735 announces, "19th July," when "the Lady of Richard Colley Westley was delivered of a son and heir, to the great joy of that family." This son was father of the Marquis Wellesley and of the Duke of Wellington! 48. Summer Hill, Dublin. CONSECRATED RINGS FOR EPILEPSY.(Vol. vi., p. 603.) Sir W. C. T. has opened a very interesting field for inquiry regarding these blest rings. St. Edward, in his last illness (obiit January 5, 1066), gave a ring which he wore to the Abbot of Westminster. The origin of this ring is surrounded by much mystery. A pilgrim is said to have brought it to the king, and to have informed him that St. John the Evangelist had made known to the donor that the king's decease was at hand. "St. Edward's ring" was kept for some time at Westminster Abbey, as a relic of the saint, and was applied for the cure of the falling sickness or epilepsy, and for cramp. From this arose the custom of our English kings, who were believed to have inherited St. Edward's powers of cure, solemnly blessing every year rings for distribution. It is said, we know not on what authority, that the ring did not always remain at Westminster, but that in the chapel of Havering (so called from having the ring), in the parish of Hornchurch, near Rumford in Essex (once a hunting-seat of the kings), was kept, till the dissolution of religious houses, the identical ring given by the pilgrim to St. Edward. Weaver says he saw it represented in a window of Rumford Church. These rings seem to have been blessed for two different species of cure: first, against the falling sickness (comitialis morbus); and, secondly, against the cramp (contracta membra). For the cure of the king's evil the sovereign did not bless rings, but continued to touch the patient. Good Friday was the day appointed for the blessing of the rings. They were often called "medijcinable rings," and were made both of gold and silver; and as we learn from the household books of Henry IV. and Edward IV., the metal they were composed of was what formed the king's offering to the cross on Good Friday. The following entry occurs in the accounts of the 7th and 8th years of Henry IV. (1406): "In oblacionibus Domini Regis factis adorando Crucem in capella infra manerium suum de Eltham, die Parascevis, in precio trium nobilium auri et v solidorum sterlyng, xxv s. "In denariis solutis pro eisdem oblacionibus reassumptis, pro annulis medicinalibus inde faciendis, xxv s." The prayers used at the ceremony of blessing the rings on Good Friday are published in Waldron's Literary Museum. Cardinal Wiseman has in his possession a MS. containing both the ceremony for the blessing the cramp rings, and the ceremony for the touching for the king's evil. At the commencement of the MS. are emblazoned the arms of Philip and Mary: the first ceremony is headed, "Certain prayers to be used by the quenes heignes in the consecration of the crampe rynges." Accompanying it is an illumination representing the queen kneeling, with a dish, containing the rings to be blessed, on each side of her. The second ceremony is entitled, "The ceremonye for ye heling of them that be diseased with the kynges evill;" and has its illumination of Mary kneeling and placing her hands upon the neck of the diseased person, who is presented to her by the clerk; while the chaplain, in alb and stole, kneels on the other side. The MS. was exhibited at a meeting of the ArchÆological Institute on 6th June, 1851. Hearne, in one of his manuscript diaries in the Bodleian, lv. 190., mentions having seen certain prayers to be used by Queen Mary at the blessing of cramp rings. May not this be the identical MS. alluded to? But, to come to W. C. T.'s immediate question, "When did the use of these blest rings by our sovereigns cease?" The use never ceased till the change of religion. In addition to the evidence already given of the custom in the fifteenth century, may be added several testimonies of its continuance all through the sixteenth century. Lord Berners, when ambassador to the Emperor Charles V., writing "to my Lord Cardinal's grace" from Saragossa, June 31, 1518, says, "If your grace remember me with some crampe ryngs, ye shall doo a thing muche looked for; and I trust to bestowe thaym well with goddes grace." (Harl. MS. 295. f. 119. See also Polydore Virgil, Hist. i. 8.; and Harpsfield.) Andrew Boorde, in his Introduction to Knowledge, mentions the blessing of these rings: "The kynges of England doth halow every yere crampe rynges, ye which rynges worne on one's finger doth helpe them whych hath the crampe:" and again, in his Breviary of Health, 1557, f. 166., mentions as a remedy against the cramp, "The kynge's majestie hath a great helpe in this matter, in halowing crampe ringes, and so given without money or petition." A curious remnant or corruption of the use of cramp rings is given by Mr. G. Rokewode, who says that in Suffolk "the use of cramp rings, as a preservative against fits, is not entirely abandoned. Instances occur where nine young men of a parish each subscribe a crooked sixpence, to be moulded into a ring, for a young woman afflicted with this malady." (History, &c., 1838, Introd. p. xxvi.) TURNER'S VIEW OF LAMBETH PALACE.(Vol. vii., p. 15.) L. E. X. inquires respecting the first work exhibited by the late J. M. W. Turner, R.A. The statement of the newspaper referred to was correct. The first work exhibited by Turner was a water-colour drawing of Lambeth Palace, and afterwards presented by him to a gentleman of this city, long since deceased. It is now in the possession of that gentleman's daughter, an elderly lady, who attaches no little importance to it. The fact is, that Mr. Turner, when young, was a frequent visitor at her father's house, and on such terms that her father lent Mr. Turner a horse to go on a sketching tour through South Wales. This lady has also three or four other drawings made at that time by Turner,—one a view of Stoke Bishop, near Bristol, then the seat of Sir Henry Lippincott, Bart., which he made as a companion to the Lambeth Palace; another is a small portrait of Turner by himself, of course when a youth. As the early indications of so great an artist, these drawings are very curious and interesting; but no person that knows anything of the state of water-colour painting at that period, and previous to the era when Turner, Girtin, and others began to shine out in that new and glorious style, that has since brought water-colour works to their present style of splendour, excellence, and value, will expect anything approaching the perfection of latter days. 28. Trinity Street, Bristol. Whether or not the work deemed by L. E. X. to be the first exhibited by Turner may have been in water-colours, or be still in existence, I leave to other replicants, availing myself of the occasion to ask him or you, whether in 1787 two works of W. Turner, at Mr. G. Turner's, Walthamstow, "No. 471. Dover Castle," "No. 601. Wanstead House," were not, in fact, his first tilt in that arena of which he was the champion at the hour of his ETYMOLOGICAL TRACES OF THE SOCIAL POSITION OF OUR ANCESTORS.(Vol. vii., p. 13.) I was preparing to answer your correspondent E. S. Taylor by a reference to the conversation between Gurth and Wamba, Ivanhoe, chap. i., when a friend promised to supply me with some additional and fuller information. I copy from a MS. note that he has placed in my hands:
Temple. If your correspondent E. S. Taylor will refer to the romance of Ivanhoe, he will find in the first chapter a dialogue between Wamba the son of Witless, and Gurth the son of Beowulph, wherein the subject is fully discussed as to the change of names consequent on the transmutation of live stock, under the charge of Saxon herdsmen, into materials for satisfying the heroic appetites of their Norman rulers. It would be interesting to know the source from whence Sir Walter Scott derived his ideas on this subject: whether from some previous writer, or "some odd corner of the brain." Paisley. See Trench On Study of Words (3rd edit.), p. 65. Mr. Taylor will find in Pegge's Anonymiana, Cent. i. 38., and Cent. vii. 95., allusion to what he inquires after. GOLDSMITHS' YEAR-MARKS.(Vol. vi., p. 604.) In answer to Mr. Livett's Query, as to the marks or letters employed by the Goldsmiths' Company to denote the year in which the plate was "hall-marked," I subjoin a list of such as I am acquainted with, and which might with a little trouble be traced to an earlier period: I have also added a few notes relating to the subject generally, which may interest many of your readers. In the year 1596, the Roman capital A was used; in 1597, B; and so on alphabetically for twenty years, which would bring us to the letter U, denoting the year 1615: the alphabet finishing every twenty years with the letter U or V. The next year, 1616, commences with the Old English letter Old English A, and is continued for another twenty years in the Old English capitals. In 1636 is introduced another alphabet, called Court alphabet.
The letter for the present year, 1853, being Old English S. In this list it will appear difficult, at first sight, in looking at a piece of plate to ascertain its age, to determine whether it was manufactured between the years 1636 and 1655, or between 1696 and 1715, the Court hand being used in both these cycles: but (as will presently be mentioned) instead of the lion passant and leopard's head in the former, we shall find the lion's head erased, and Britannia, denoting the alteration of the standard during the latter period. The standard of gold, when first introduced into the coinage, was of 24 carats fine; that is, pure gold. Subsequently, it was 23½ and half alloy; this, after an occasional debasement by Henry VIII., was fixed at 22 carats fine and 2 carats alloy by Charles I.; and still continues so, being The standard of silver has always (with the exception of about twenty years) been 11 oz. 2 dwts., and 18 dwts. alloy, in the pound: this was termed sterling, but very much debased from the latter end of Henry VIII. to the beginning of Elizabeth's reign. In the reign of William III., 1697, an act was passed to alter the standard of silver to 11 oz. 10 dwts., and 10 dwts. alloy: and instead of the usual marks of the lion and leopard's head, the stamps of this better quality of silver were the figure of a lion's head erased, and the figure of Britannia: and the variable letter denoting the date as before. This act continued in operation for twenty-two years, being repealed in 1719, when the standard was again restored. A duty of sixpence per ounce was imposed upon plate in 1719, which was taken off again in 1757; in lieu of which, a licence or duty of forty shillings was paid by every vendor of gold or silver. In 1784, a duty of sixpence per ounce was again imposed, and the licence still continued: which in 1797 was increased to one shilling, and in 1815 to eighteenpence—at which it still remains. The payment of this duty is indicated by the stamp of the sovereign's head. All gold plate, with the exception of watch-cases, pays a duty of seventeen shillings per ounce; and silver plate one shilling and sixpence; watch-cases, chains, and a few other articles being exempted. The letters used as dates in the foregoing list (it must be remembered) are only those of the Goldsmiths' Hall in London, as denoted by the leopard's head crowned. Other Halls, at York, Newcastle, Lincoln, Norwich, Bristol, Salisbury, and Coventry, had also marks of their own to show the year; and have stamped gold and silver since the year 1423, perhaps earlier. Edinburgh, Glasgow, and Dublin have had the same privilege from a very early period: and, more recently, Chester, Birmingham, and Sheffield. Thus it will be seen that four marks or punches are used on gold and silver plate, independent of the makers' initials or symbol, viz.: The Standard Mark.—For gold of the old standard of 22 carats, and silver of 11 oz. 2 dwts.: A lion passant for England. A thistle for Edinburgh. A lion rampant for Glasgow. A harp crowned for Ireland. For gold of 18 carats: A crown, and the figures 18. For silver of 11 oz. 10 dwts.: A lion's head erased, and Britannia. The Hall Mark.— A leopard's head crowned for London. A castle for Edinburgh. Hibernia for Dublin. Five lions and a cross for York. A castle for Exeter. Three wheatsheaves and a dagger for Chester. Three castles for Newcastle. An anchor for Birmingham. A crown for Sheffield. A tree and fish for Glasgow. The Duty Mark.—The head of the sovereign, to indicate that the duty has been paid: this mark is not placed on watch-cases, &c. The Date Mark, or variable letter, denoting the year as fixed by each Hall. Old Bond Street. The table inquired for by Mr. Livett, with a most interesting historical paper on the subject, was published in the last ArchÆological Journal, October, 1852. EDITIONS OF THE PRAYER-BOOK PRIOR TO 1662.(Vol. vi., pp. 435. 564.; Vol. vii., p. 18.) Since the publication of the professedly imperfect list of various editions of the Prayer-Book, at page 564. of your last volume, which list was compiled chiefly from liturgical works in my own possession, I have had occasion to consult the Catalogue of the British Museum, from which I have gleaned materials for a more full and correct enumeration. All the editions in the following list are in the library of the British Museum; and in order to increase its value and utility, I have appended to each article the press-mark by which it is now designated. In some of these press-marks a numeral is subscript, thus:
In order to save space I have represented this in the following list thus, (C. 25. h. 7) 1., putting the subscript numeral outside the parenthesis. 1552. (?) 4to. B. L. N. Hyll for A. Veale. (3406. c.) 1573. (?) fol. R. Jugge. (C. 24. m. 5.) 1. 1580. (?) 8vo. Portion of Prayer-Book. (3406. a.) 1584. 4to. Portion of Prayer-Book. (1274. b. 9.) 1595. fol. Deputies of Ch. Barker. (C. 25. m. 5.) 2. 1596. 4to. (C. 25 h. 7.) 1. 1598. fol. (C. 25. 1. 10.) 1. 1603. (?) 4to. Imperfect. (1275. b. 11.) 1. 1611. 4to. (1276. e 4.) 1. 1612. 8vo. (3406. a.) 1613. 4to. (3406. c.) 1614. 4to. Portion of Prayer-Book. (3406. c.) 1. 1615. Fol. (3406. e.) 1. 1600. 4to. (1276. e. 8.) 1. 1616. Fol. (1276. k. 3.) 1. 1600. Fol. (1276. k. 4.) 1. 1618. 4to. Portion of Prayer-Book. (3407. c.) 1619. Fol. (3406. e.) 1. 1628. 8vo. (3050. a.) 1. 1629. 4to. (1276. f. 3.) 1. 1630-29. Fol. (3406. e.) 1. 1631. 4to. (1276. f. 1.) 1. 1633. 12mo. (3405. a.) 1. 1600. 8vo. (1276. b. 14.) 1. 1633-34. Fol. (3406. f.) (With the "Form of Healing," two leaves.) 1634. 8vo. (3406. b.) 1. 1636. 4to. (1276. f. 4.) 2. 1639. 8vo. (3050. b.) 1. 1600. 8vo. (1274. a. 14.) 1. 1642. (?) 8vo. (1276. c. 2.) 3. 1642. 12mo. (3405. a.) 1660. 12mo. (3406. b.) 1. In Latin we have an early copy in addition to those already noted, viz.: 1560. Reg. Wolfe. 4to. (3406. c.) Of which the British Museum possesses two copies of the same press-mark, one of which is enriched with MS. notes and sixteen cancelled leaves. Besides the above we have also 1589. 8vo. London. In French. 1599. 4to. London. Deputies of Ch. Barker. In Welsh. Allow me to take this opportunity of thanking Archdeacon Cotton for his very valuable communication. I trust that he and others of your many learned readers will lend a helping hand to the correction of this list, and its ultimate completion; the notice of the editions of 1551 and 1617 (Vol. vii., p. 18.) is as interesting as it is important. It will be perceived that editions of the Prayer-Book referred to in former lists are not enumerated in the present one. PHOTOGRAPHIC NOTES AND QUERIES.Originator of the Collodion Process.—All those who take any interest in photography must agree with your correspondent G. C. that M. Le Gray is a talented man, and has done much for photography. G. C. has given a very good translation of M. Le Gray's last published work, p. 89., which work I have: but I must take leave to observe, that it is no contradiction whatever to my statement. The translations to which M. Le Gray alludes, of 1850, appeared in Willat's publication, from which I gave him the credit of having first suggested the use of collodion in photography. The subject is there dismissed in three or four lines. M. Le Gray gave no directions whatever for its application to glass in his work published in July 1851, wherein he alludes to it only as an "encallage" for paper, classing it with amidou, the resins, &c., which he recommends in a similar manner. I had, four months previous to this, published the process in detail in the Chemist. I never asserted that he had not tried experiments with collodion in 1849; but he did not give the public the advantage of following him: and I again repeat that the first time M. Le Gray published the collodion process was in September, 1852,—a year and a half after my publication, and when it had become much used. It is obvious that if M. Le Gray had been in possession of any detailed process with collodion on glass in 1850, he would not have omitted to publish it in his work dated July, 1851. 105. Great Russell Street, Bloomsbury. G. C., claiming for Le Gray the merit of the first use of collodion upon glass, states that a pamphlet upon the subject was published in 1850, and which was translated into English at the same time. Will he oblige me by stating who published this pamphlet, or where it may be obtained? I have heard this statement before, and have used every endeavour to obtain a sight of the publication, but without success. Were the facts as stated by your correspondent, it would deprive Mr. Archer undoubtedly of the merit which he claims; but from all I have been able to learn, Le Gray mentioned collodion as a mere agent for obtaining a smooth surface to paper, or other substance, having no idea of making it the sole sensitive substance to be employed. I have been informed that in Vienna, early in 1850, collodion was tried upon glass by being first immersed in a bath of iodide of potassium; and it was afterwards placed in a second bath of nitrate of silver. These experiments had very limited success, and were never published, and certainly were unknown to Mr. Archer. Mr. Weld Taylor's Process.—In your 167th Number (Vol. vii., p. 48.) is a communication from Weld Taylor on photographic manipulation, which, in its present form, is perfectly unintelligible. At p. 48. he says: "Twenty grains of nitrate of silver in half an ounce of water is to have half an ounce of solution of iodide of potassium of fifty grains to the ounce added." Now this is unnecessarily mystifying. Why not say: "Take equal quantities of a forty-grain solution of nitrate of silver, and of a fifty-grain solution of iodide of potassium;" though, in fact, an equal strength would do as well, and be quite as, if not more, economical. In the next place, he directs that cyanide of potassium should be added drop by drop, &c. It What follows is so exceedingly droll, that I can do nothing more than guess at the meaning. How one solution is to be floated on another, and then, after a bath of nitrate of silver, is to be ready for the camera, surpasses my comprehension. Also, further on, he alludes to iodizing with the ammonio-nitrate (I presume of silver). What does he mean? Dr. Diamond's Services to Photography.—Sir, We, the undersigned amateurs of Photography in the city of Norwich, shall be obliged if you will (privately, or otherwise, at your own discretion) convey to Dr. Diamond our grateful thanks for the frankness and liberality with which he has published the valuable results of his experiments in the pages of "N. & Q." We have profited largely by Dr. Diamond's instructions, and beg to express our conviction that he is entitled to the gratitude of every lover of the Art. We are, Sir, Your obedient servants, T. Lawson Sisson, Clk., (Edingthorpe Rectory). Thos. D. Eaton. John Crosse Koope. James Howes. T.G. Bayfield. G. Brownfield. Henry Pulley. W. Bransby Francis. J. Blowers (Cossey). Benj. Russell. [Agreeing, as we do most entirely, with the Photographers of Norwich in their estimate of the skill and perseverance exhibited by Dr. Diamond in simplifying the collodion and paper processes, and of his liberality in making known the results of his experiments, we have great pleasure in giving publicity to this recognition of the services rendered by Dr. Diamond to this important Art.] Simplification of the Wax-paper Process.—At a late meeting of the Chemical Discussion Society, Mr. J. How read the following paper on this subject:— "The easiest way of waxing the paper is to take an iron (those termed 'box-irons' are the cleanest and best for the purpose) moderately hot, in the one hand, and to pass it over the paper from side to side, following closely after it with a piece of white wax, held in the other hand, until the whole surface has been covered. By thus heating the paper, it readily imbibes the wax, and becomes rapidly saturated with it. The first sheet being finished, I place two more sheets of plain paper upon it, and repeat the operation upon the top one (the intermediate piece serving to absorb any excess of wax that may remain), and so on, sheet after sheet, until the number required is waxed. "The sheets, which now form a compact mass, are separated by passing the iron, moderately heated, over them; then placed between folds of bibulous paper, and submitted to a further application of heat by the means just described, so as to remove all the superfluous wax from the surface, and render them perfectly transparent—most essential points to be attended to in order to obtain fine negative proofs. "I will now endeavour to describe the method of preparing the iodizing solution. "Instead of being at the trouble of boiling rice, preparing isinglass, adding sugar of milk and the whites of eggs, &c., I simply take some milk quite fresh, say that milked the same day, and add to it, drop by drop, glacial acetic acid, in about the proportion of one, or one and a half drachm, fluid measure, to the quart, which will separate the caseine, keeping the mixture well stirred with a glass rod all the time; I then boil it in a porcelain vessel to throw down the remaining caseine not previously coagulated, and also to drive off as much as possible of the superfluous acid it may contain. Of course any other acid would precipitate the caseine; still I give the preference to the acetic from the fact that it does not affect the after-process of rendering the paper sensitive, that acid entering into the composition of the sensitive solution. "After boiling for five or ten minutes, the liquid should be allowed to cool, and then be strained through a hair sieve or a piece of muslin, to collect the caseine: when quite cold, the chemicals are to be added. "The proportions I have found to yield the best results are those recommended by Vicomte Veguz, which I have somewhat modified, both as regard quantities and the number of chemicals employed. They are as follow:
"The above are dissolved in thirty-five ounces of the strained liquid, and, after filtration through white bibulous paper, the resulting fluid should be perfectly clear and of a bright lemon colour. "The iodized solution is now ready for use, and may be preserved, in well-stopped bottles, for any length of time. "The waxed paper is laid in the solution, in a flat porcelain or gutta percha tray, in the manner described by M. Le Gray and others, and allowed to remain there for from half an hour to an hour, according to the thickness of the paper. It is then taken out and hung up to dry, when it should be of a light brown colour. All these operations may be carried on in a light room, taking care only that, during the latter part of the process, "The 'iodized paper,' which will keep for almost any length of time, should be placed in a portfolio, great care being taken to lay it perfectly flat, otherwise the wax is liable to crack, and thus spoil the beauty of the negative. The papers manufactured by Canson FrÈres and Lacroix are far preferable, for this process, to any of the English kinds, being much thinner and of a very even texture. "To render the paper sensitive, use the following solution:
"This solution is applied in the way described by Le Gray, the marked side of the paper being towards the exciting fluid. The paper is washed in distilled water and dried, as nearly as possible, between folds of bibulous paper. It should be kept, till required for the camera, in a portfolio, between sheets of stout blotting-paper, carefully protected from the slightest ray of light, and from the action of atmospheric air. If prepared with any degree of nicety, it will remain sensitive for two or three weeks: indeed I have seen some very beautiful results on paper which had been kept for a period of six weeks. At this time of year, an exposure in the camera of from ten to twenty minutes is requisite. "The picture may be developed with gallic acid, immediately after its removal from the camera; or, if more convenient, that part of the process may be delayed for several days. Whilst at this section of my paper, I may, perhaps, be allowed to describe a method of preparing the solution of gallic acid, whereby it may be kept, in a good state of preservation, for several months. I have kept it myself for four months, and have found it, after the lapse of that period, infinitely superior to the newly-made solution. This process has, I am informed, been alluded to in photographic circles; but not having seen it in print, and presuming the fact to be one of great practical importance, I trust I shall be excused for introducing it here, should it not possess that degree of novelty I attribute to it. "What is generally termed a saturated solution of gallic acid is, I am led to believe, nothing of the kind. In all the works on photography, the directions given run generally as follow:—'Put an excess of gallic acid into distilled water, shake the mixture for about five minutes, allow it to deposit, and then pour off the supernatant fluid, which is found to be a saturated solution of the acid.' "Now I have found by constant experiment, that by keeping an excess of acid in water for several days, the strength of the solution is greatly increased, and its action as a developing agent materially improved. The method I have adopted is to put half an ounce of crystallized gallic acid into a stoppered quart bottle, and then so to fill it up with water as that, when the stopper is inserted, a little of the water is displaced, and, consequently, every particle of air excluded. "The solution thus prepared will keep for several months. When a portion of it is required, the bottle should be refilled with fresh distilled water, the same care being taken to exclude every portion of atmospheric air,—to the presence of which I am led to believe, is due the decomposition of the ordinary solution of gallic acid. "It will be needless to detain you further in explaining the after-processes, &c. to be found in any of the recent works on the Waxed-paper Process, the translation of the last edition of Le Gray being the one to which I give the preference." THE BURIAL SERVICE SAID BY HEART.(Vol. vii., p. 13.) Southey has confounded two stories in conjecturing that the anecdote mentioned by Bp. Sprat related to Bull. It was the baptismal and not the funeral service that Bull repeated from memory. I quote from his Life by Robert Nelson:
Some few dates will prove that Bull could not have been the person alluded to. Bp. Sprat's Discourse to the Clergy of his Diocese was delivered in the Year 1695. And he speaks of the minister of the London parish as one who "was afterwards an eminent Bishop of our Church." We must therefore suppose him to have been dead at the time of Bp. Sprat's visitation. Now, in the first place (as J. K. remarks), "Bull never held a London cure." And, in the second place, he was not consecrated Bishop until the 29th of April, 1705 (ten years after Bp. Sprat's visitation), and did not die until Feb. 1709-10. (Life, pp. 410—474.) Southey's conjecture is therefore fatally wrong. And now as regards Bp. Hacket. The omission of the anecdote from the Life prefixed to his Sermons must, I think, do away with his claims also, though he was restored to his parish of St. Andrew's, Holborn, and was not consecrated Bishop of Lichfield until December, 1661. Unfortunately, I have not always followed Captain Cuttle's advice, or I should now be able to contribute some more decisive information. I have my own suspicions on the matter, but am afraid to guess in print. Warmington. The prelate to whom your correspondent alludes was Dr. John Hacket, Rector of St. Andrews, Holborn, cons. to the see of Lichfield and Coventry on December 22, 1661. The anecdote was first related by Granger. (Chalmers's Biog. Dict., vol. xvii. p. 7.) Bishop Bull, while rector of St. George's near Bristol, said the Baptismal Office by heart on one occasion. (Nelson's Life, i. § ix. p. 34.; Works, Oxford, 1827.) |
|
