Miscellanies. 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, 

 nor to keep it a secret till he could sell it to advantage, his claim to origi- 

 nality is equal lo M. Daguerre's, and can only be rivalled by that of Mr. 

 Wedgewood, 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. 

 Bauer 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 tlie Royal Society. This document was, 

 however, returned, it being contrary to the rules of the Association to 

 receive 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 copfes^'from nature; the best of the 

 former is in the possession of M. Cussel, and is considered nearly equal 

 to those of M. Daguerre, with suitable ,tillowance for twelve years' expo- 

 sure; the specimen taken from nature, is however, by no means so suc- 

 cessful, 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- 

 sion 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 possessed 

 copies of engravings produced solely by the action of light, which were 

 capable of being multiplied in the same manner as an ordinary copper- 

 plate ; if this be the case, the greatest secret still remains unknown, even 

 to M. Daguerre himself. It is much to be regretted that M. Niepce did 

 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 



