James
May 24/60
I beg to ackge the rect of yr lr of the yesty – I will begin by advertg You say, that it wd be of use t you if I can show how maps of the size y mentn can be accurly & economly engravd by the phc prss – If I rightly understd yr meang y. wd engrave on 1 sheet, 16 sheets each of th size of 9 x 4 inches. This wd make 1 sheet of the size of 36 x 16 inches I have not yet attemptd so large an engravg but I do not see any particr difficty in the way – Supposg tht I had at my disposal the resources of a large Govt establt (as you wd have) then I think that the engraving wd be effected in a satisfy manner.
As to accuracy you can judge fm the small specimen maps I sent you whthr th process is accurate.
You will make allowce of course for the clumsy my own very imperfect manipulatn, & view the process as it wd be if carried out carefully by persons artists of talent employed by Governt
As to economy th process may be Sd litlly to cost nothing, except the expence of the copper or steel plate employd –
I presume that casual blemishes cd be removed without difficly by a skilful engraver – he wd b I think that 99-100ths of th Map wd be without blemish, & of course the process can be further improvd. As my patt to wch I alluded in my last lr None of the facts you mentn are at all new to us We went thro’ th whole of them in /56 whn they were produced before a judge at Chambers – I do not claim the to be the inventor first who used Bich P. in photgry – such a claim wd be invalid, it was known for sevl yrs before /52 & no one cd turn it to a useful process, in fact it was nearly forgotten; – my claim is for the emplymt of in photy of a mixture of bich ph with gum or its equivalents gelatin &c – as clearly stated in my specfn – let any one omit the latter substces & I have nothing to object agst him? – It is like The introductn of the gum renders a new class of useful processes possible, wch is a good test of a real practical inventn
The last invter of Many of the most import pats on record are simply for the combinn of 2 inventns both of wch are perfectly well known but had not bn combind before. For such a patt to be valid it is held, that the result of product or manufacture must be finally new wch wd not result fm either process separatly
Such a patt is valid, even when the result of the process or manufre is the same as before ( except anything tho’ perhaps better & cheaper)
But, wth respt t wht y say abt Mr Carpmael (<illegible>) I cannot help thinkg tht some great mistake must hve occurrd to For tht gentn is a <illegible> fnd of mine, I have consulted him repeatedly abt this vy matter & I can assure y. tht his opinn is the <<illegible>> of what you will attribute mention to him If you doubt it – are you willing to leave the questn to Mr W. Cs arbitratn? (As I believe)
before him – If you doubt it but that he wd be of this a vy diffnt opinn to what y. think remark If you doubt it
As I believe the Ordnce accts are public, wd it be an indiscreet questn if I were to ask what is the expence to Govt of simply engraving the Ordce map of 36 x 16 inches – I wish to know see whr it wd be worth while to incur any addl expence in perfecting my phc pss for that purpose & <once?> of course by employing talented assistants to do superintd it
better & cheaper] & à futiori it is valid when the resulting process is somethg new (as for instce on a steel Engraving, instd of a paper-phtogrph)
I am a good deal surprised at wht y. say abt Mr Wm Carpmael – But I cannot half thinkg tht some gt mistake must h. occurred – I have a high respect for Mr Carpmael, & – I do not think that such can wd be his opinn if wh if all the facts are were placed before
May 24, 1860
I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the yesterday – I will begin by adverting You say, that it would be of use to you if I can show how maps of the size you mention can be accurately and economically engraved by the photoglyphic process – If I rightly understand your meaning you would engrave on one sheet, sixteen sheets each of the size of nine by four inches. This would make one sheet of the size of thirty-six by sixteen inches I have not yet attempted so large an engraving but I do not see any particular difficulty in the way – Supposing that I had at my disposal the resources of a large Government establishment (as you would have) then I think that the engraving would be effected in a satisfactory manner.
As to accuracy you can judge from the small specimen maps I sent you whether the process is accurate. You will make allowance of course for the clumsy my own very imperfect manipulation, and view the process as it would be if carried out carefully by <persons> <artists> of talent employed by Government. As to economy the process may be said literally to cost nothing, except the expence of the copper or steel plate employed –
I presume that casual blemishes could be removed without difficulty by a skilful engraver – he would be I think that ninety-nine one-hundredths of the Map would be without blemish, and of course the process can be further improved. As to my patent to which I alluded in my last letter, none of the facts you mention are at all new to us, we went through the whole of them in 1856 when they were produced before a judge at Chambers – I do not claim the to be the inventor first who used Bichromate of Potash in photography – such a claim would be invalid, it was known for several years before 1852, and no one could turn it to a useful process, in fact it was nearly forgotten; – my claim is for the employment of in photography of a mixture of bichromate of potash with gum or its equivalents gelatin etc. – as clearly stated in my specification – let any one omit the latter substances and I have nothing to object against him? – It is like The introduction of the gum renders a new class of useful processes possible, which is a good test of a real practical invention.
The last inventor of Many of the most important patents on record are simply for the combination of two inventions both of which are perfectly well known but had not been combined before. For such a patent to be valid it is held, that the result of product or manufacture must be finally new which would not result from either process separately. Such a patent is valid, even when the result of the process or manufacture is the same as before ( except anything though perhaps better – and cheaper) and à futiori it is valid when the resulting process is something new (as for instance on a steel Engraving, instead of a paper-photograph)
I am a good deal surprised at what you say about Mr William Carpmael <1> – But I cannot help thinking that some great mistake must have occurred – I have a high respect for Mr Carpmael, and – I do not think that such can would be his opinion if which if all the facts are were placed before him – If you doubt it but that he would be of the a very different opinion to what you think.
But, with respect to what you say about Mr Carpmael who I cannot help thinking that some great mistake must have occurred to For that gentleman is a <illegible deletion> friend of mine, I have consulted him repeatedly about this very matter and I can assure you that his opinion? is the reverse of what you attribute mention to him If you doubt it – are you willing to leave the question to Mr William Carpmael’s arbitration? If you doubt it As I believe the Ordnance accounts are public, would it be an indiscreet question if I were to ask what is the expence to Government of simply engraving the Ordnance map of thirty-six by sixteen inches – I wish to know see whether it would be worth while to incur any additional expence in perfecting my photographic process for that purpose and once of course by employing talented assistants to do superintend it.
Notes:
1. William Carpmael (1804–1867), patent agent & engineer, London.