[draft]
Nov 16 / 51
[bracketed together;]
Knight
Bolton
Carpmael
Bolton.
I hve t reqst yr imte attentn to ye follg. Henn writes me word yt ye Exve Comtee have signed a contract with a person Mr Bingham to make 1810 000 or more copies in France, thus defrauding my licensees to that amt - Mr B. is still in Londn but leaves for France on Wedny - I propose to call on you about noon tomorrow (Monday) - Previous to that time I shd be glad if you could call on Messrs Knight of Foster Lane & see one of the brothers, so as to make sure that they have nothing to do with it. For if the contract were virtually made with them, it they being my licensees I should only say that it was a very irregular thing in them to employ Mr Bingham (who has no license) [illegible deletion] this was & is not in their without previous notice to me and mor transactn on their part and contrary to the terms & to the spirit of their license But I apprehend that they have nothing to do wh ye matter, and this is what I wish to ascertain -
That being ascertained, I should propose to apply to the Court of Chancery for an exparte injunctn to restrain Mr B. from infringg my patt in any way.+ The urgency as to time prevents ^our giving notice of the intentn to apply for ye injunctn wch is usual, but not necessary.
It only produces causes more expense to the party obtaining the injunction in case the same is afterwds dissolved -
You will of course lay th
I think you had better see the Counsel Mr E. F. Smith - The present point is so simple a one that it does not involve any knowledge of the processes of photy of wch perhaps Mr Smith has no knowledge - You may state to him that Mr Bingham has many several times applied to me for a License, thus recognizing the patent right, but I have been unable to arrange wth him. I had a letter from Mr Cole of ye Exve Comtee the day prevs containing not even alludg to this proceedg - Really this is too much duplicy, taken in conjn with the evasive letter in reply to written to you.
I shall likewise propose to you to call on Mr Cole (in your company) in order to see if he admits or denies having signed this contract -
Please to send a retainer to Grove.
+and specially from doing so in the way abovementd (surreptitiously introdcg the copies fm France.)
[expanded version:]
November 16 1851
[bracketed together:]
Knight
Bolton
Carpmael
Bolton.
I have to request your immediate attention to the following. Henneman <1> writes me word that the Executive Committee <2> have signed a contract with a person Mr Bingham <3> to make 1810,000 or more copies in France, thus defrauding my licensees to that amount. - Mr Bingham is still in London but leaves for France on Wednesday - I propose to call on you about noon tomorrow (Monday) - Previous to that time I should be glad if you could call on Messrs Knight <4> of Foster Lane & see one of the brothers, so as to make sure that they have nothing to do with it. For if the contract were virtually made with them, it they being my licensees I should only say that it was a very irregular thing in them to employ Mr Bingham (who has no license) [illegible deletion] this was & is not in their without previous notice to me and was transaction on their part and contrary to the terms and to the spirit of their license. But I apprehend that they have nothing to do with the matter, and this is what I wish to ascertain -
That being ascertained, I should propose to apply to the Court of Chancery <5> for an exparte <6> injunction to restrain Mr Bingham from infringing my patent in any way and specially from doing so in the way abovementioned (surreptitiously introducing the copies from France.) The urgency as to time prevents our giving notice of the intention to apply for the injunction which is usual, but not necessary.
It only produces causes more expense to the party obtaining the injunction in case the same is afterwards dissolved -
You will of course lay the
I think you had better see the Counsel Mr E. F. Smith - The present point is so simple a one that it does not involve any knowledge of the processes of photography of which perhaps Mr Smith has no knowledge - You may state to him that Mr Bingham has many several times applied to me for a License, thus recognizing the patent right, but I have been unable to arrange with him. I had a letter from Mr Cole <7> of the Executive Committee the day previous containing not even alluding to this proceeding - Really this is too much duplicity, taken in conjunction with the evasive letter in reply to written to you.
I shall likewise propose to you to call on Mr Cole (in your company) in order to see if he admits or denies having signed this contract -
Please to send a retainer to Grove. <8>
Notes:
1. Nicolaas Henneman (1813-1898), Dutch, active in England; WHFT's valet, then assistant; photographer.
2. Of the International Exhibition of 1851.
3. Robert Jefferson Bingham (1825-1870), English born author and photographer, mostly active in France, who was the premier reproduction photographer of his day. Bingham had hoped to obtain a licence from WHFT to use his patented processes. [See Doc. No: 06275. the dispute was over the publication of the Exhibition of the Works of Industry of All Nations, 1851: Reports by the Juries. Four volumes, illustrated by original photographic prints from negatives by Hugh Owen and Claude Marie Ferrier. In the copies given to WHFT, a dedicatory sheet was inserted (most likely printed up by him): 'This Work, on the Results of the Great Exhibition of 1851, Illustrated with Photographic Plates, being One of Fifteen Copies Given by the Royal Commissioners to H.F. Talbot, Esq. of Lacock Abbey, as The Inventor of this Branch of the Photographic Art, was by him presented to _____'. This publication caused WHFT considerable consternation at the time, for he felt that the Commissioners had stealthily and unfairly taken the job of printing the plates away from Nicolaas Henneman. For a summary of this complex situation, see Nancy B Keeler, 'Illustrating the "Reports by the Juries" of the Great Exhibition of 1851; Talbot, Henneman, and Their Failed Commission,' History of Photography, v. 6 no. 3, July 1982, pp. 257-272.
4. George Knight, photographic supplier, London and his sons Richard and George of 41-42 Foster Lane, London.
5. One of the Divisions of the High Court of Justice. Patents came under its jurisdiction.
6. Applied for on behalf of one party to a dispute.
7. Sir Henry Cole (1808-1882), civil servant, artist & Director of the South Kensington Museum.
8. Sir William Robert Grove (1811-1896), scientist.