340 PHOTOGRAPHY. 
trol of its practical originator. As early as 1802, Sir Humphry Davy 
and Mr. Wedgwood hit upon a process by which they were able to ren- 
der paper so sensitive of light that they could produce upon it negative 
images of objects brought directly in contact with it. They even directed 
attention to the probable results to be obtained through this sensitive 
paper and the co-operation of a camera obscura. The pictures, however, 
produced by Sir Humphry and his coadjutor were transient, and they 
expressly avowed their ignorance of any means by which the semblances 
could be rendered permanent. From 1802 till 1834 Sir Humphry's ex- 
periments remained, at least as far as the public knew, without being in 
any way developed or improved upon. In the latter year however, Mr. 
Fox Talbot, by independent investigation and perfectly original experi- 
ments, went far beyond the distinguished philosopher, He achieved, like 
Sir Humphry, pictures, but he also contrived to render them perma- 
nent. Mr. Talbot's next step was to discover a process by which he ob- 
tained " positives ' ; from his " negatives," On the 8th of February, 
1841, William Henry Fox Talbot, of Lacock Abbey in the County of 
Wilts, Esquire, obtained letters patent for his famous calotype process. 
A gentleman of position and wealth, Mr. Talbot made no ungenerous 
use of his patent. Reserving to himself, as he was well entitled to do, 
the commercial advantages that might accrue to the parent of so remark- 
able an invention, he gracefully waived his patent rights in favour of 
amateur photographers, permiting them without let or hindrance to de- 
rive all possible enjoyment from the practice of his discovery, so long as 
they did not employ it for pecuniary gain. At this date it would he 
nothing short of repulsive injustice to detract from Mr. Talbot's services. 
He was indeed the father of the photographic profession, as well as the 
inventor of the photographic art. From his own funds, as well as by 
his influence with men of science, he created a new field of industry. At 
a considerable expense he erected worshops and employed assistants. 
Before, however, he could reap a reward from his outlay, or even reim- 
burse to himself the large sums absorbed by his operations, the invention 
of the collodion process by Mr. Archer in 1850, gave the death blow to his 
undertakings. In the memorable trial of Talbot v. Laroche in the Com- 
mon Pleas, December, 1854, it was attempted to establish that the un- 
licensed practitioners of the collodion process were guilty of infringing 
Mr. Talbot's rights. The jury, however, declined to adopt that* view of 
the case ; and passing over the Hev. Mr. Beade's discoveries prior to 
1841, they gave Mr. Talbot the merit of being, within the meaning of 
the patent laws, the first and true inventor of the calotype process ; but 
at the same time they found that in producing pictures by the collodion 
process M. Laroche had in no way been guilty of violating Mr. Talbot's 
patent. The decision was most important to photographers. It was 
given just as the term of Mr. Talbot's patent was at the point of expira- 
tion, and was the cause why that gentleman failed to obtain a renewal 
of his rights. From that time photography has been free from the fet- 
