28 Hincks on Secret Writing. 



could be done, I am sot so partial to my own method as to think 

 that this would not be preferable. Though I do not fear that 

 any specimens I should give would be correctly and fully read, 

 yet I shall abstain from making the trial at present, as I do not 

 feel myself called upon to offer any reivard for the discovery, 

 and without one, few would probably choose to make the at- 

 tempt. 



It will now be expected that I should say something of Mr. 

 Chenevix's ciphers 13 — 18. In these he has connected with the 

 use of permanent characters a contrivance hitherto, 1 agree with 

 him, never adopted. I own, however, I suspect the reason why 

 it was never adopted, to be, not that it w_as never thought of, 

 but that when thought of, it was always rejected. My objec- 

 tions to it are very great on many accounts, but as I do not 

 choose to describe the novel contrivance, I must decline stating 

 them to the public. The want of secrecy, which, when Mr. C. 

 reads the remainder of this paper he must be convinced it 

 possesses, is alone a sufficient objection to it. On this subject 

 it is very plain that he has greatly deceived himself. His 

 opinions that " the security is at least one hundred times as 

 o-reat with a double as with a single key," and that either of 

 them exceeds in power " the limit (m— 1)"," (he should have 

 said m"— 1), are both very erroneous, and show that he has 

 very little acquaintance with the principles of the art of deci- 

 phering. Incorrectly as the specimens 17 and 18 are printed, 

 especially the former, he will here see that they have not escaped 

 detection, any more than those where a known sentence, ciphered 

 by the same key, was given along with them. Perhaps Mr. C, 

 maybe surprised to learn that I deciphered No, 17 in consider- 

 ably less time than No. 18. The frequency of small and com- 

 mon words it would therefore seem is of more service to a deci- 

 pherer, and of course of more dis-service to the employers of 

 the method, than the trifling difference of one or two keys being 

 used in the different parts of the sentence. I am not very 

 sano-uine in my expectations of the reward offered for decipher- 

 ino- these specimens, and yet I think the following sentences 

 comply with all the conditions. I first give the explanation of 



