Miscdllantea 173 
sible for a traveller to burden himself with a number of metallic plates, 
which in the latter process are indispensable. 
An advantage of equal importance exists in the rapidity with which 
Mr. Talbot’s pictures are executed; for which half a second is con- 
sidered sufficient; a circumstance that gives him a better chance of 
success in delineating animals or foliage; and although our countryman 
has not thought it necessary to adorn his invention with his own name, 
hor to keep it a secret till he could sell it to advantage, his claim to origi- 
nality is equal to M. Daguerre’s, and can only be rivalled by that of Mr. 
W gewood, the real discoverer and originator of the art. 
Since the publication of the above discoveries, numerous candidates 
have appeared in the field, all claiming the palm of originality, while 
Philosophers of every grade and county have eagerly pursued the investi- 
gation of the subject. The first we shall notice is M. Niepce, who claims 
priority even over M. Daguerre; and the account he publishes, if correct, 
will undoubtedly determine the question in his favor. A letter from M. 
er is the principal evidence for M. Niepce, who it appears mentioned 
his discovery to this gentleman in the year 1827, while on a visit at Kew, 
and by the advice of his friend he drew up a memoir on the subject, and 
Caused it to be forwarded to the Royal Society. This document was, 
however, returned, it being contrary to the rules of the Association to 
Teceive accounts of scientific discoveries unless they detailed the process 
employed. M. Neipce shortly afterwards returned to France, having pre- 
Sented to his friend several specimens of the newly discovered art, which 
are still in the possession of M. Bauer. The pictures taken, are of two 
kinds, copies from engravings, and copies from nature; the best of the 
former is in the possession of M. Cussel, and is considered nearly equal 
0 those of M. Daguerre, with suitable allowance for twelve years’ expo- 
Sure; the specimen taken from nature, is however, by no means so suc- 
‘essful, and is considered inferior to the earliest attempts of his country- 
man. There can be little doubt that the principle of both processes is 
Precisely the same, though greatly improved by diligent experiments, the 
material employed in each being a metallic plate, apparently covered with 
transparent varnish; but whether intended to receive or to fix the impres- 
S1on is not at present made public. We now come to a statement of M. 
Bauer, Which, if not founded on error, will raise the invention of Niepce 
far above those of both his rivals; he distinctly asserts that he 
ies of engravings produced solely by the action of light, which were 
®apable of being multiplied in the same manner as an ordinary copper- 
Plate ; if this be the case, the greatest secret still remains unknown, even 
=. Daguerre hi e* ted that M. Niepce did 
imself. It is much to be regret ep 
Not at once publish his extraordinary discovery, with a full detail of the 
Process employed, as he would then have retained the indisputable right 
to the merit of the invention, but having preserved the secret so long, and 
