124 
POPULAR SCIENCE REVIEW. 
character,” he states that “ Mr. Mungo Ponton published his discovery in 
1838,” whereas Mr. Talbot’s process was not published until 1852. By way 
of conclusive evidence, our opponent then shows— cm bono ? — merely that 
many eminent photographic writers and experimentalists have directly and 
indirectly credited Mr. Ponton with this discovery, a fact which we have no 
intention of disputing. 
Letters pro et con have also appeared in the photographic journals, and one 
in Le Moniteur de la Photographic is amusing from the extreme oddness 
of its misstatements. The editor of The British Journal of Photography, 
referring to our assertion,” says, “ Talbot was the discoverer of the property 
referred to and not Ponton, and adds, significantly, “ there is no fear of 
Talbot’s reputation being at all affected by any kind of detraction, whether 
accidental or intentional.” A correspondent writing in the same journal 
under the signature “ A member of the Photographic Society,” says, “ I have, 
in common with other photographers, always hitherto understood that we are 
indebted to Mr. Pox Talbot for the discovery, that if gelatine be mixed with 
an alkaline bichromate, and exposed to light, it is rendered insoluble.” 
Another correspondent says, “ Prom the time when the London Photographic 
Society opposed the renewal of Mr. Talbot’s patent in 1854, that gentleman’s 
position has been with consistent ingratitude ignored in its journal. But I 
was nevertheless astonished at the degree of virulent feeling displayed against 
a writer in the Popular Science Review, merely because that writer stated 
what is undoubtedly true,” &c. ; and concludes by asking, as well he might, 
“ why was so much angry feeling displayed ? ” 
The simple facts stand thus. Mr. Ponton discovered the photographic 
properties of the salt in question, and Mr. Talbot first discovered the property 
of insolubility it conferred on gelatine when used as above described. Mr. 
Ponton’s discovery was first published, not in 1838, as the editor of the 
Photographic News states, but in the May of the year following. It was 
communicated in a paper, entitled a “Notice of a cheap and simple method 
of preparing paper for photographic drawings, in which the use of any salt of 
silver is dispensed with,” which was read on the 29th of the month, before 
the Boyal Scottish Society of Arts, and published in the journal of that in- 
stitution, where, of course, it may still be read. In no part of Mr. Ponton’s 
paper is there the slightest allusion to the use of any gelatinous substance ; 
he confines himself simply to demonstrating the photographic applicability of 
the bichromate when washed over a sheet of paper and exposed to light. 
In thus gathering facts and dates for our reply to the editor of The 
Journal of the Photographic Society , we have been subjected to some in- 
convenience and trouble, which we were scarcely justified in submitting to 
in controversion of statements so offensively advanced. To dispute as, Plato 
says, “ friends dispute,” namely, “ for their better instruction,” is wholesome 
and desirable ; but, as the same great philosopher says, those who “ quarrel to 
destroy each other ” are enemies , and for their discordant strife we do not 
think the pages of a scientific journal, whether photographic or otherwise, are 
the proper place. Courteous opposition, however vigorous or trenchant, we 
shall respectfully and courteously resist. 
But for the future we shall not feel called upon to notice ex cathedra state- 
ments associated with coarse personalities and vindictive abuse. 
